4.1 Article

Socioeconomic Status, Subjective Social Status, and Perceived Stress: Associations with Stress Physiology and Executive Functioning

Journal

BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE
Volume 41, Issue 3, Pages 145-154

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/08964289.2015.1024604

Keywords

executive function; cortisol; socioeconomic status; subjective social status; perceived stress

Funding

  1. Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education [R305B080019]
  2. Neuroepidemiology Training Program at Columbia University [NIH/NINDS T32-NS07153]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Several studies have investigated associations between socioeconomic status (SES) and indicators of children's physiological and cognitive self-regulation. Although objective measures of family SES may be good proxies for families' experiences of disadvantage, less is known about subjective aspects of families' experiences. We hypothesize that subjective social status (SSS) and perceived stress may be important independent predictors of children's stress physiology and executive functioning (EF). Eighty-two children from diverse SES backgrounds were administered EF measures and provided saliva samples for cortisol assay. Caregivers reported on objective SES, SSS, and perceived stress. Results suggest that SES and SSS are both independently and positively related to EF. In models predicting stress physiology, higher perceived stress was associated with lower baseline cortisol. Moreover, SES and age interacted to predict cortisol levels such that among younger children, lower SES was associated with higher cortisol, whereas among older children, lower SES was associated with lower cortisol. Results highlight the importance of considering both objective and subjective indicators of families' SES and stressful experiences in relation to multiple aspects of children's self-regulation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available