Abstract
Socioeconomic status (SES) is a time-varying multidimensional construct with ill-defined dimension-specific and age-specific effects on brain and behavior. We investigated these effects in 4,228 young adults. From 16 socioeconomic indicators, assessed for early (0–10 years) and late (>10 years) stages, we constructed family, provincial, family adverse and neighborhood adverse socioeconomic dimensions. Generally, family SES was associated with brain structure and connectivity along with cognitive function, whereas family adverse and neighborhood adverse SES were associated with personality and emotion. Most associations were observed for both early and late-stage SES; however, adjusting for the effect of early stage SES revealed late-stage-specific SES effects. Changes in SES were associated with personality and cognitive function. Cerebellar and medial frontal volumes and functional connectivity within the left frontoparietal network mediated the associations between family SES and memory and openness. These results inform both more precise interventions for reducing the consequences of adverse SES and experimental designs for excluding confounding socioeconomic effects on human health.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$32.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $21.58 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout






Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data supporting the findings of this study are divided into two groups: published data and restricted data. The voxel-wise neuroimaging statistical maps are available through figshare (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.27282723)75. The individual-level data that support the findings of this study are not openly available because access to these data must be approved by the Human Genetic Resource Administration, Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China. Individual-level data from samples are stored and kept in a server physically located in mainland China, which are available from the corresponding authors upon request and with permission from the Human Genetic Resource Administration, Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China.
Change history
16 April 2025
In the version of the article initially published, the second affiliation of Shijun Qiu was incorrect and has now been amended to affiliation 40 (the State Key Laboratory of Traditional Chinese Medicine Syndrome, Guangzhou, China) in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.
References
Clark, A. M., DesMeules, M., Luo, W., Duncan, A. S. & Wielgosz, A. Socioeconomic status and cardiovascular disease: risks and implications for care. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 6, 712–722 (2009).
Brancati, F. L., Whelton, P. K., Kuller, L. H. & Klag, M. J. Diabetes mellitus, race, and socioeconomic status a population-based study. Ann. Epidemiol. 6, 67–73 (1996).
Ward, E. et al. Cancer disparities by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. CA Cancer J. Clin. 54, 78–93 (2004).
Cox, A. M., McKevitt, C., Rudd, A. G. & Wolfe, C. D. Socioeconomic status and stroke. Lancet Neurol. 5, 181–188 (2006).
Hillert, J. Socioeconomic status and multiple sclerosis outcome. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 16, 191–192 (2020).
Fotenos, A. F., Mintun, M. A., Snyder, A. Z., Morris, J. C. & Buckner, R. L. Brain volume decline in aging: evidence for a relation between socioeconomic status, preclinical Alzheimer disease, and reserve. Arch. Neurol. 65, 113–120 (2008).
Muntaner, C., Eaton, W. W., Miech, R. & O’Campo, P. Socioeconomic position and major mental disorders. Epidemiol. Rev. 26, 53–62 (2004).
Jonassaint, C. R., Siegler, I. C., Barefoot, J. C., Edwards, C. L. & Williams, R. B. Low life course socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with negative NEO PI-R personality patterns. Int. J. Behav. Med. 18, 13–21 (2011).
Tomasi, D. & Volkow, N. D. Associations of family income with cognition and brain structure in USA children: prevention implications. Mol. Psychiatry 26, 6619–6629 (2021).
Ozernov-Palchik, O. et al. The relationship between socioeconomic status and white matter microstructure in pre-reading children: a longitudinal investigation. Hum. Brain Mapp. 40, 741–754 (2019).
Barch, D. et al. Effect of hippocampal and amygdala connectivity on the relationship between preschool poverty and school-age depression. Am. J. Psychiatry 173, 625–634 (2016).
Carneiro, P., García, I. L., Salvanes, K. G. & Tominey, E. Intergenerational mobility and the timing of parental income. J. Political Econ. 129, 757–788 (2021).
Belley, P. & Lochner, L. The changing role of family income and ability in determining educational achievement. J. Hum. Cap. 1, 37–89 (2007).
Cunha, F., Heckman, J. J., Lochner, L. & Masterov, D. V. Interpreting the evidence on life cycle skill formation. in Handbook of the Economics of Education (eds Hanushek, E. & Welch, F.) 697–812 (Elsevier, 2006).
Snow, P. J. The structural and functional organization of cognition. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 10, 501 (2016).
Yang, J. et al. Regional gray matter volume mediates the relationship between family socioeconomic status and depression-related trait in a young healthy sample. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 16, 51–62 (2016).
Xu, Q. et al. CHIMGEN: a Chinese imaging genetics cohort to enhance cross-ethnic and cross-geographic brain research. Mol. Psychiatry 25, 517–529 (2020).
Wilson, A. et al. Potential for bias when estimating critical windows for air pollution in children’s health. Am. J. Epidemiol. 186, 1281–1289 (2017).
Farah, M. J. The neuroscience of socioeconomic status: correlates, causes, and consequences. Neuron 96, 56–71 (2017).
Geronimus, A. T. & Bound, J. Use of census-based aggregate variables to proxy for socioeconomic group: evidence from national samples. Am. J. Epidemiol. 148, 475–486 (1998).
Mayer, S. E. & Leone, M. P. What Money Can’t Buy: Family Income and Children’s Life Chances (Harvard University Press, 1997).
Conger, R. Families in Troubled Times: Adapting to Change in Rural America (Routledge, 2020).
Reiss, F. et al. Socioeconomic status, stressful life situations and mental health problems in children and adolescents: results of the German BELLA cohort-study. PLoS ONE 14, e0213700 (2019).
Lysaker, P. H., Wilt, M. A., Plascak-Hallberg, C. D., Brenner, C. A. & Clements, C. A. Personality dimensions in schizophrenia: associations with symptoms and coping. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 191, 80–86 (2003).
Widiger, T. A. & Oltmanns, J. R. Neuroticism is a fundamental domain of personality with enormous public health implications. World Psychiatry 16, 144–145 (2017).
Cavanagh, J. et al. Socioeconomic status and the cerebellar grey matter volume. Data from a well-characterised population sample. Cerebellum 12, 882–891 (2013).
Rakesh, D., Zalesky, A. & Whittle, S. Similar but distinct—effects of different socioeconomic indicators on resting state functional connectivity: findings from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study®. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 51, 101005 (2021).
Luo, Y. & Waite, L. J. The impact of childhood and adult SES on physical, mental, and cognitive well-being in later life. J. Gerontol. B 60, S93–S101 (2005).
Camelo, L. V. et al. Life course socioeconomic position and C-reactive protein: mediating role of health-risk behaviors and metabolic alterations. The Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil). PLoS ONE 9, e108426 (2014).
Lynch, J. W. et al. Childhood and adult socioeconomic status as predictors of mortality in Finland. Lancet 343, 524–527 (1994).
Marmot, M., Shipley, M., Brunner, E. & Hemingway, H. Relative contribution of early life and adult socioeconomic factors to adult morbidity in the Whitehall II study. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 55, 301–307 (2001).
Weiss, A. et al. The personality domains and styles of the five-factor model are related to incident depression in Medicare recipients aged 65 to 100. Am. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 17, 591–601 (2009).
Danhauer, S. C. et al. Positive and negative affect, depression, and cognitive processes in the Cognition in the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (Co-STAR) trial. Neuropsychol. Dev. Cogn. B 20, 532–552 (2013).
Swann, A. C., Steinberg, J. L., Lijffijt, M. & Moeller, F. G. Impulsivity: differential relationship to depression and mania in bipolar disorder. J. Affect. Disord. 106, 241–248 (2008).
Birn, R. M. et al. The effect of scan length on the reliability of resting-state fMRI connectivity estimates. NeuroImage 83, 550–558 (2013).
Judd, N. et al. Cognitive and brain development is independently influenced by socioeconomic status and polygenic scores for educational attainment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 12411–12418 (2020).
Braveman, P. A. et al. Socioeconomic status in health research: one size does not fit all. JAMA 294, 2879–2888 (2005).
OECD. PISA 2006 Technical Report (OECD Publishing, 2009).
Lago, S. et al. Socioeconomic status, health inequalities and non-communicable diseases: a systematic review. Z. Gesundh. Wiss. 26, 1–14 (2018).
Chavehpour, Y., Rashidian, A., Woldemichael, A. & Takian, A. Inequality in geographical distribution of hospitals and hospital beds in densely populated metropolitan cities of Iran. BMC Health Serv. Res. 19, 614 (2019).
Aikens, N. L. & Barbarin, O. Socioeconomic differences in reading trajectories: the contribution of family, neighborhood, and school contexts. J. Educ. Psychol. 100, 235–251 (2008).
Griliches, Z. Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. J. Econ. Lit. 28, 1661–1707 (1990).
Watkins, M. W. Exploratory factor analysis: a guide to best practice. J. Black Psychol. 44, 219–246 (2018).
Fabrigar, L. R. & Wegener, D. T. Exploratory Factor Analysis (Oxford University Press, 2011).
Kaiser, H. F. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39, 31–36 (1974).
Bartlett, M. A further note on the multiplying factors for various X2 approximations in factor analysis. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B 16, 296–298 (1954).
Courtney, M. & Gordon, R. Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: using the SPSS R-menu v2 0 to make more judicious estimations. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 18, 8 (2013).
Brown, T. A. & Moore, M. T. Confirmatory factor analysis. in Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling (ed. Hoyle, R. H.) 361–379 (The Guilford Press, 2012).
Chen, F. F. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Modeling 14, 464–504 (2007).
Costa, P. & McCrae, R. NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) (Psychological Assessment Resources, 1989).
Cloninger, C. R., Przybeck, T. R. & Svrakic, D. M. The tridimensional personality questionnaire: US normative data. Psychol. Rep. 69, 1047–1057 (1991).
Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S. & Barratt, E. S. Factor structure of the Barratt impulsiveness scale. J. Clin. Psychol. 51, 768–774 (1995).
Owen, A. M., McMillan, K. M., Laird, A. R. & Bullmore, E. N-back working memory paradigm: a meta-analysis of normative functional neuroimaging studies. Hum. Brain Mapp. 25, 46–59 (2005).
Delis, D. C., Freeland, J., Kramer, J. H. & Kaplan, E. Integrating clinical assessment with cognitive neuroscience: construct validation of the California Verbal Learning Test. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 56, 123–130 (1988).
Loring, D. W., Martin, R. C., Meador, K. J. & Lee, G. P. Psychometric construction of the Rey–Osterrieth complex figure: methodological considerations and interrater reliability. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 5, 1–14 (1990).
Kaufman, J. N., Ross, T. J., Stein, E. A. & Garavan, H. Cingulate hypoactivity in cocaine users during a GO–NOGO task as revealed by event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging. J. Neurosci. 23, 7839–7843 (2003).
Güth, W., Schmittberger, R. & Schwarze, B. An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 3, 367–388 (1982).
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A. & Brown, G. K. Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II (Psychological Corporation, 1996).
Spielberger, C. D. Manual for the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory STAI (form Y) (‘self-evaluation questionnaire’) (Consulting Psychologists Press, 1983).
Watson, D., Clark, L. A. & Tellegen, A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54, 1063–1070 (1988).
Davis, M. H. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. J. Soc. Behav. Pers. 10, 85 (1980).
Rajapakse, J. C., Giedd, J. N. & Rapoport, J. L. Statistical approach to segmentation of single-channel cerebral MR images. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 16, 176–186 (1997).
Ashburner, J. A fast diffeomorphic image registration algorithm. NeuroImage 38, 95–113 (2007).
Pruim, R. H. R. et al. ICA-AROMA: a robust ICA-based strategy for removing motion artifacts from fMRI data. NeuroImage 112, 267–277 (2015).
Parkes, L., Fulcher, B., Yucel, M. & Fornito, A. An evaluation of the efficacy, reliability, and sensitivity of motion correction strategies for resting-state functional MRI. NeuroImage 171, 415–436 (2018).
Alfaro-Almagro, F. et al. Image processing and quality control for the first 10,000 brain imaging datasets from UK Biobank. NeuroImage 166, 400–424 (2018).
Beckmann, C. F. & Smith, S. M. Probabilistic independent component analysis for functional magnetic resonance imaging. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 23, 137–152 (2004).
Purcell, S. et al. PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 81, 559–575 (2007).
Fu, J. et al. Cross-ancestry genome-wide association studies of brain imaging phenotypes. Nat. Genetics 56, 1110–1120 (2024).
Reineberg, A. E., Andrews-Hanna, J. R., Depue, B. E., Friedman, N. P. & Banich, M. T. Resting-state networks predict individual differences in common and specific aspects of executive function. NeuroImage 104, 69–78 (2015).
Miller, K. L. et al. Multimodal population brain imaging in the UK Biobank prospective epidemiological study. Nat. Neurosci. 19, 1523–1536 (2016).
Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Academic Press, 2013).
Selya, A. S., Rose, J. S., Dierker, L. C., Hedeker, D. & Mermelstein, R. J. A practical guide to calculating Cohen’s f2, a measure of local effect size, from PROC MIXED. Front. Psychol. 3, 111 (2012).
Tingley, D., Yamamoto, T., Hirose, K., Keele, L. & Imai, K. mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. J. Stat. Softw. 59, 1–38 (2014).
Xu, Q. Voxel-wise maps of Figure 3 and Extended data figure 2–3. figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.27282723.v3 (2024).
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos. 82430063 and 82030053 to C.Y., 82330058 and T2341014 to S.Q., 82001796 to Q.X., 82371924 to J.Xu), Tianjin Applied Basic Research Multi-fund Project (grant no. 21JCQNJC01010 to Q.X.), New Star of Excellence Project of Tianjin Medical University General Hospital (grant no. 209060403205 to Q.X.), Tianjin Key Medical Discipline (Specialty) Construction Project (grant no. TJYXZDXK-001A to C.Y.) and National Key Project of 'Inter-governmental International Scientific and Technological Innovation Cooperation' to J. Xu (grant no. 2023YFE0199700), the Tianjin Young Talents in Science and Technology for J. Xu (grant no. QN20230336), the Non-profit Central Research Institute Fund of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences to J. Xu (grant no. 2024-JKCS-18), the Tianjin Science and Technology Commission Major Special Project in Public Health Science and Technology to J. Xu (grant no. 24ZXGQSY00050) and the Tianjin Medical University 'Clinical Talent Training 123 Climbing Plan' to J. Xu.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Contributions
C. Y. and Q.X. designed the study. Q.X., S.L., Y.J. and C. Y. wrote the paper, and all authors critically reviewed the paper. Q.X., S.L., Y.J., W.Q., F.L., M. L., J.F., J.Xu, K.X., S.Q. and C. Y. were the principal investigators. J.C., L.J.Z., B.Z., W.Z., Z.G., G.C., Q.Z., W. Liao, Y.Y., H.Z., B.G., X.X., T.H., Z. Yao, P.Z., W. Li, D.S., C. W., J.-H.G., Z.Y., F.C., J. L., J. Z., D.W., W.S., Y.M., J. Xian, M.W., Z. Ye, X. Zhang, X.-N.Z., K.X., S.Q. and C.Y. acquired the data. K.X., S.Q. and C.Y. supervised this work. Q.X., S.L. and Y.J. analyzed the data.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Neuroscience thanks Flávio Cunha, Hesheng Liu, and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 Early and late four-factor SES models with 14 indicators.
a-b, Heat maps show Spearman correlations among the 14 early (b) and late (c) SES indicators in the total sample (n = 4,228). c-d, Plots show factor loadings of early (c) and late (d) SES indicators for the four SES dimensions and correlations between SES dimensional scores in the total sample. Abbreviations: GDP, gross domestic product; SES, socioeconomic status.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Dimension-specific associations between family SES and GMV.
The brain regions whose GMV values are significantly correlated with the average, early, or late family SES scores in the total sample (Pc < 0.013, FWE corrected). Labeled brain regions indicate stable associations. Color bars indicate T-value for the association statistics. The warm colors indicate positive correlations and the cold colors indicate negative correlations. The statistical maps of significant brain clusters are generated with software MRIcroGL (https://github.com/rordenlab/MRIcroGL). Abbreviations: GMV, gray matter volume; IFG, inferior frontal gyrus; ITG, inferior temporal gyrus; MPFC, medial prefrontal cortex; MTG, medial temporal gyrus; SES, socioeconomic status.
Extended Data Fig. 3 Dimension-specific associations between family SES and FA.
The brain regions whose FA values are significantly correlated with the average, early, or late family SES scores in the total sample (Pc < 0.013, TFCE-FWE corrected). Labeled brain regions indicate stable associations. Color bars indicate TFCE-corrected 1−Pc value for the association statistics. The warm colors indicate positive correlations and the cold colors indicate negative correlations. Green color represents the average white matter skeleton. The statistical maps of significant brain tract are generated with software MRIcroGL (https://github.com/rordenlab/MRIcroGL). Abbreviations: CSTs, corticospinal tracts; FA, fractional anisotropy; ILF, inferior longitudinal fasciculus; MTWM, medial temporal white matter; SES, socioeconomic status; TFCE, threshold-free cluster enhancement.
Extended Data Fig. 4 Group-level spatial maps of meaningful resting-state networks (RSNs).
From the 25 independent components, we identify 14 meaningful RSNs, including the salience (SN), auditory (AN), subcortical (SBN), cerebellar (CN), anterior (aDMN) and posterior (pDMN) default-mode, left (lFPN) and right (rFPN) frontoparietal, dorsal (DAN) and ventral (VAN) attention, superior (sSMN) and inferior (iSMN) sensorimotor, and anterior (aVN) and posterior (pVN) visual networks. The spatial maps of these RSNs are extracted with a z-threshold > 5. The spatial maps of 14 meaningful RSNs are generated with software MRIcroGL (https://github.com/rordenlab/MRIcroGL).
Extended Data Fig. 5 Associations of early and late SES with behavioral traits.
Early and late SES dimensions are constructed based on 14 SES indicators. Volcano plots show behavioral traits significantly associated with early or late family (a), family adverse (b), or neighborhood adverse (c) SES scores in the total sample. The vertical line indicates coefficient = 0, the blue horizontal line indicates P = 0.05, and the red horizontal line indicates P = 3.9×10−4 (Two-sided t-test with Bonferroni correction for 32 behavioral traits across four SES dimensions). Based on the Bonferroni corrected threshold, red-filled circles represent behavioral traits with stable associations, blue-filled circles represent those with unstable associations, and gray-filled circles represent those without significant associations. Abbreviations: BDI, Beck depression inventory; BIS-C, cognitive impulsivity of Barratt impulsivity scale; BIS-M, motor impulsivity of Barratt impulsivity scale; BIS-NP, non-planning impulsivity of Barratt impulsivity scale; CVLT-IFR, the number of correct words in the five trials for the word list A in California verbal learning test second edition; IRI-EC, empathy concern of interpersonal reactivity index; IRI-PD, personal distress of interpersonal reactivity index; IRI-PT, perspective taking of interpersonal reactivity index; N-back-CR, the correct rate of the 3-back task in the N-back task; NEO-A, agreeableness of NEO Five-Factor Inventory; NEO-C, conscientiousness of NEO Five-Factor Inventory; NEO-E, extroversion of NEO Five-Factor Inventory; NEO-N, neuroticism of NEO Five-Factor Inventory; NEO-O, openness to experience of NEO Five-Factor Inventory; PANAS-N, negative affect of positive and negative affect schedule; PANAS-P, positive affect of positive and negative affect schedule; T-AI, trait anxiety of state-trait anxiety inventory; TPQ-HA, harm avoidance of tridimensional personality questionnaires; TPQ-NS, novelty-seeking of tridimensional personality questionnaires.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Table
Supplementary Tables 1–42.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Xu, Q., Lui, S., Ji, Y. et al. Distinct effects of early-stage and late-stage socioeconomic factors on brain and behavioral traits. Nat Neurosci 28, 676–687 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-025-01882-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-025-01882-w
This article is cited by
-
Social Determinants of Health, the developing brain, and risk and resilience for psychopathology
Neuropsychopharmacology (2025)
-
The Impact of Neighborhood and Family Socioeconomic Status on Adolescents’ Internalizing Symptoms: The Mediating Role of Pubertal Development Trajectory
Journal of Youth and Adolescence (2025)