How Income Inequality Shapes Children’s Brains

Imagine two children born in the same year, into families with similar incomes, but living in US states where income is distributed very differently. One grows up where income is fairly evenly distributed; the other where a small portion of people hold most of the wealth. According to a new analysis of brain scans from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study, this broader social environment — measured with each state’s Gini coefficient — is linked to notable differences in brain structure and connectivity in children aged 9–10, which may help explain later mental health problems. This study moves beyond the well known idea that poverty is harmful. It shows that state level income inequality has unique associations with children’s neurodevelopment, even after accounting for a family's own income. The effects are subtle but consistent, suggesting that social policy shapes not only economic outcomes but biology.

How the Study Was Conducted

Researchers analysed ABCD data (release 5.1) from 10071 children for brain structure and 8412 for functional connectivity, across 21 sites in 17 US states. They examined whether state level income inequality in 2017 predicted whole-brain and regional cortical thickness, surface area, and volume, as well as resting-state connectivity within and between 12 major brain networks. Models included demographic variables, scanner details, household income-to-needs ratio, parental education and mental health, and state factors such as incarceration rates.

"Chronic stress affects neural development by reducing dendritic complexity, altering synaptic pruning, and shifting network connectivity patterns"

Where inequality-related brain metrics appeared, the researchers used structural equation models to test whether these measures mediated links between inequality and later youth reported mental health at 6 and 18 month follow ups.

What the Researchers Found

1. Higher state-level income inequality was associated with a smaller, thinner cortex. Higher Gini scores were linked to lower total cortical volume, lower average cortical thickness, and lower total cortical surface area. These factors have a small effect on an individual, but can affect their concentration or their ability to manage emotions.

2. The effect was widespread across the cortex. Reductions appeared across frontal, temporal, parietal, and occipital regions. A few areas showed the opposite pattern, but the dominant trend was reduced cortical structure in more unequal states. Again, the differences are small on an individual level, but they can influence how smoothly a child moves through daily tasks and social interactions.

3. Inequality was associated with altered functional connectivity: 46 within- or between-network connections differed in children from more unequal states. Affected networks included higher-order cognitive networks (default mode network (DMN); dorsal attention network (DAN); frontoparietal network; cingulo-opercular network; ventral attention network) and sensory/motor networks (visual, auditory, and sensorimotor). A consistent finding was a weaker balance between the DMN and DAN, which may make it harder for children to switch between inward focus and task-oriented attention.

   
   

What Might Be Driving These Brain Changes

The study did not measure stress biology or subjective social comparison, but the authors situate their findings within extensive research linking chronic psychosocial stress to neurodevelopmental changes. Inequality increases social comparison and status anxiety, reducing social cohesion and raising population-level stress. Experiments show that both short-term and persistent exposure to inequality relate to elevated stress markers and inflammation.

Chronic stress affects neural development by reducing dendritic complexity, altering synaptic pruning, and shifting network connectivity patterns. These effects are consistent with the study’s findings. While causal pathways need direct testing, stress remains a plausible explanation.

The Link to Mental Health

The researchers also tested whether these brain differences helped to explain why children growing up in more unequal states tend to have more mental health problems. Using structural equation modelling, they found a clear pattern at the 18-month follow-up: children in states with higher income inequality had higher overall mental health problem scores, even after accounting for many individual and family factors.

"At the 18-month follow-up, children in states with higher income inequality had higher overall mental health problem scores"

Some brain measures - lower total cortical surface area, lower cortical volume, and a weaker DMN–DAN balance - partly mediated this link. These brain features predicted small but significant increases in mental health difficulties, even after adjusting for baseline symptoms.

Policy Implications

The findings suggest that income inequality should be viewed as a public health and neurodevelopmental issue. Reducing absolute poverty is essential, but policies that address distributional inequality may also support healthier brain development. Potential interventions include progressive taxation, stronger social safety nets, universal healthcare, investments that strengthen social capital and community cohesion, and school programmes aimed at emotional regulation and social connectedness.

Limitations

The authors highlighted several limitations:

1. The findings are correlational rather than causal. Even with strong control, they cannot say for certain that inequality causes the brain difference, they can only acknowledge the correlation.

2. The study only measured income inequality, not other forms of inequality. The Gini coefficient fails to capture other structural inequalities that often accompany income inequality, such as neighbourhood conditions, food access, discrimination, etc. This means the study may not be capturing the full picture of the child’s environment.

3. The research did not include biological stress markers or measures of perceived status. Without data on cortisol, inflammation, or the children’s own experiences of social comparison, the proposed stress pathway remains a well-supported theory, not something directly tested in this dataset.

4. The geographic coverage of the ABCD study is limited. Several of the most economically disadvantaged states were not included, and many states were represented by only one study site. This reduces how broadly the results can be generalised.

   
   

Nonetheless, this remains one of the more comprehensive studies to date of how societal inequality may impact the developing brain.

The Bottom Line

Where a child grows up, and how unequal that environment is, can subtly shape their brain development. These differences, in turn, may increase vulnerability to later mental health challenges. While family income matters, the broader level of inequality in the community appears to have its own biological impact. Supporting children’s wellbeing therefore requires not only individual support, but wider efforts to create more equal, socially connected environments that nurture healthy development.

---

This article was written by Freya Wardell and edited by Julia Dabrowska, with graphics produced by Saba Keshan. If you enjoyed this article, be the first to be notified about new posts by signing up to become a WiNUK member (top right of this page)! Interested in writing for WiNUK yourself? Contact us through the blog page and the editors will be in touch.