Background: Socioeconomic status (SES) is widely associated with improved health, behavioral, and educational outcomes. However, emerging research suggests that these benefits are not uniformly experienced across populations or contexts. The theory of Marginalization-related Diminished Returns (MDRs) has primarily focused on racial and ethnic disparities, showing that individuals from racially marginalized groups often experience weaker protective effects of SES. There is a lack of evidence on geography—particularly rural residence—as a moderator of SES effects. Objective: This review explores how place, especially rural contexts in the U.S., shapes the extent to which SES translates into improved outcomes. We extend the MDRs framework to include place-based and geography-based marginalization, arguing that even among non-Hispanic White populations, rural residence can lead to diminished returns on education, income, and other forms of capital. Content: Drawing on theoretical models such as Fundamental Cause Theory and Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, and synthesizing empirical findings from studies of academic achievement, substance use, and educational aspirations, this review highlights how structural disadvantages in rural areas weaken the effectiveness of individual and family-level resources. Conclusion: Rural health and educational disparities are not solely due to a lack of resources but may also reflect systemic conditions that erode the value of existing resources. Policy interventions must be place-aware and address the contextual constraints that limit opportunity. Future research should more explicitly test how geography moderates the effects of SES across a range of outcomes and populations.

Background: Nicotine pouches, gummies, and candies have emerged as popular alternatives to traditional tobacco products among U.S. adolescents. While parental educational attainment is generally associated with youth substance use, marginalization-related diminished returns (MDRs) suggest that this effect may be weaker in marginalized populations, including non-Latino White communities. In particular, place-based marginalization—such as neighborhood economic disadvantage and school-level poverty—may attenuate the benefits of parental education. This study examines MDRs in the relationship between parental educational attainment and nicotine pouch/gummy/candy use among non-Latino White 12th graders in the 2024 Monitoring the Future (MTF) study. Methods: This study analyzed nationally representative data from the 2024 MTF study, focusing on non-Latino White 12th graders who reported parental education levels and adolescents’ use of nicotine pouch/gummy/candy. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to estimate the effects of parental education on adolescents’ use of nicotine pouches, gummies, and candies, while adjusting for demographic covariates. Place-based marginalization was operationalized using rural vs urban /suburban residence. Interaction terms tested whether the effect of parental education varied based on place of residence. Results: Higher parental educational attainment was associated with lower use of nicotine pouches, gummies, and candies. However, this effect was significantly weaker in rural areas. Conclusion: Public health interventions should account for place-based disparities rather than assuming a uniform effect of SES factors. This study highlights the need for policy responses that address structural inequities beyond individual family SES.

Background Adolescent substance use is often influenced by socioeconomic and geographical factors. While higher parental education is typically associated with lower substance use, these protective effects may be weaker for marginalized groups facing structural disadvantages that limit the utility and returns of their economic and social resources. Rural areas, characterized by fewer employment opportunities and limited recreational activities, may contribute to marginalization-related diminished returns (MDRs) of parental education on adolescent substance use, including inhalant use. Objectives This study applies the MDRs framework to examine whether the protective effect of higher parental education on current inhalant use (past 30 days) among 12th-grade American adolescents varies by geographic location. Specifically, we assess whether youth from highly educated families in rural areas are at a disproportionate risk of inhalant use compared to their urban and suburban peers. Methods Using data from the 2024 Monitoring the Future (MTF) study, a nationally representative survey of 12th-grade adolescents in the U.S., we tested main effects and statistical interactions between parental education and residence (rural vs. urban/suburban) in predicting the odds of inhalant use over the past 30 days. Logistic regression models, both with and without interaction terms, were applied to evaluate whether the protective effects of parental education varied by residence location, controlling for relevant demographic and socioeconomic factors. Results Findings indicate a significant interaction between parental education and rural residence. While higher parental education was associated with lower odds of inhalant use in urban and suburban areas, this protective effect was substantially weaker in rural settings. Adolescents from highly educated families in rural areas exhibited a higher-than-expected risk of inhalant use, suggesting that geographic marginalization attenuates the benefits of parental socioeconomic resources. Conclusions These results highlight the role of place-based marginalization in shaping adolescent substance use disparities, demonstrating that MDRs extend beyond race and ethnicity to location-based disadvantages. Rural youths from highly educated families may face unique structural and social challenges that counteract the protective effects of parental education. Public health efforts should consider place-based interventions that address the economic, recreational, and social limitations of rural environments to reduce substance use risk among high-SES adolescents residing in rural areas.

Background: Most neuroscience research has predominantly focused on White, middle-class populations, leading to gaps in understanding how socioeconomic status (SES) influences brain development and health behaviors in racially diverse groups. Tobacco use, a major public health concern, is influenced by both family and neighborhood SES, with early initiation during adolescence predicting long-term health outcomes. The Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study provides a unique opportunity to examine racial disparities in the pathways from SES to brain development and behavior, especially through the lens of Marginalization-Related Diminished Returns (MDRs), where the effects of SES are attenuated for minority groups. Objective: This study investigates racial variation in the associations between SES, cerebral cortical volume, and tobacco use initiation, comparing Black and White youth over 4-6 years of follow-up. Methods: Data from the ABCD study were analyzed to assess pathways from family income to adolescents’ cortical volume via the needs-to-income ratio, and from cortical volume to tobacco use initiation. Structural equation modeling was used to evaluate these pathways, stratified by race, with a focus on comparing Black and White participants. Covariates included family and neighborhood SES, demographic factors, and baseline behavioral measures. Results: We found that the positive association between income (via the needs-to-income ratio) and total cortical volume was significantly weaker for Black youth compared to White youth. Additionally, the link between larger total cortical volume and reduced risk of tobacco initiation was also weaker in Black adolescents. These findings were consistent over 4-6 years of follow-up, suggesting that Black youth experience diminished returns from higher SES in terms of brain development and behavioral outcomes. Conclusions: Our findings highlight significant racial disparities in the pathways from SES to brain development and tobacco use initiation, supporting the Marginalization-Related Diminished Returns (MDRs) framework. While higher SES is associated with larger cortical volumes and lower tobacco use risk in White youth, these associations are attenuated in Black adolescents.

Recent US studies such as Baby’s First Years have again demonstrated that unconditional cash transfers and guaranteed income do not lead to significant improvements in the health, economic status, and well-being of individuals living in poverty. In this perspective article we review the emerging literature on this topic and offer explanations for the observed outcomes. We then apply the theory and empirical evidence on marginalization-related diminished returns (MDRs) also called minorities diminished returns (MDRs) to elucidate the weak or null effects of cash transfers in the lives of marginalized populations. According to the MDR theory, marginalization not only reduces access to resources but also reduces their utility. Individuals who experience long-term poverty and marginalization exhibit smaller than expected benefits from new resources, such as cash, in adulthood. This is due to the deeply entrenched structural barriers and systemic discrimination that persist throughout their lives. The existing literature suggests that socioeconomic changes in adulthood have limited impact on the health and well-being of populations that have been raised in poverty. This is because the advantages of increased socioeconomic status (SES) are often undermined by ongoing marginalization and limited access to supportive resources and opportunities. As a result, simply providing cash transfers is insufficient to create substantial and lasting improvements in the lives of those living in poverty. To address these challenges, we recommend a multifaceted approach that includes childhood poverty prevention, interventions aimed at reducing marginalization, and comprehensive multi-sector strategies. By focusing on early intervention and addressing the root causes of poverty and marginalization, we can create more effective and sustainable solutions to improve health and well-being among disadvantaged populations. This holistic approach recognizes the complexity of poverty and the necessity of addressing both immediate needs and long-term structural barriers to achieve meaningful change.