Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Apr 22.
Published before final editing as: Youth Soc. 2026 Jan 9:10.1177/0044118x251406595. doi: 10.1177/0044118x251406595

Settings matter: Examining the association between social class discrimination in and out-of-school, tobacco use, and nicotine vaping among adolescents

Zena R Mello 1, Christine R Starr 2, Vani Kakar 1, Adam Suri 1, Manuel Abundis-Morales 1, Busra Dogru 1
PMCID: PMC13099162  NIHMSID: NIHMS2165714  PMID: 42022576

Abstract

Despite widespread research on tobacco use and social class, there have been limited studies examining how social class discrimination relates to tobacco use. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a cross-sectional study with 956 adolescents. Participants were disadvantaged in social class. Tobacco use included lifetime and past month use of combustible tobacco and nicotine vaping. Social class discrimination included multiple sources, such as teachers, classmates, teenagers, friends, and community members. Latent profile analyses revealed four subgroups of adolescents with experiences of social class discrimination: Frequent, Infrequent, Out-of-School, and In-School. Adolescents in the Frequent and Out-of-School subgroups used the most tobacco products, whereas adolescents in the In-School and Infrequent subgroups used the least tobacco products. Race/ethnicity and gender were associated with subgroup membership. Findings highlight the need for social class discrimination interventions.

Keywords: social class discrimination, adolescents, social class, tobacco, vaping

A third of high school students have used a tobacco product in their lifetime (Gentzke et al., 2020). Nicotine vaping is the most commonly used tobacco product among adolescents (Gentzke et al., 2020; Jamal et al., 2024; Miech et al., 2019). Further, tobacco use is strongly associated with social class (Green et al., 2016; Hanson & Chen, 2007; Simons et al., 2017). Almost twice as many adolescents who were disadvantaged in social class smoked cigarettes or vaped compared to their counterparts (Johnston, 2020). For adolescents, social class refers to their family’s income, education, and occupation (Diemer et al., 2013; Mistry et al., 2021). Notably, the vast majority of adults who use tobacco begin using tobacco in adolescence (Chen & Jacobson, 2012; Evans-Polce et al., 2024). Given that there are nearly 11 million children in the United States who live in poverty (Center for American Progress, 2021), there is a pressing need to identify new ways to understand how social class is associated with tobacco use.

Emerging evidence indicates that social class discrimination is an important, yet understudied factor related to tobacco use among adolescents (Mello et al., 2025a; Sartor et al., 2021). Social class discrimination refers to the negative experiences that adolescents face because they are disadvantaged in social class (Langhout et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2004; Mello, 2024). Indeed, studies have shown that social class discrimination is associated with both tobacco use and nicotine vaping (Mello et al., 2025a; Sartor et al., 2021). Scholars have theorized that sources of discrimination for adolescents may include adolescents’ friends, classmates, and school personnel (Fuller-Rowell et al., 2023; Langhout et al., 2007; Mello, 2024; Thomas & Azmitia, 2014). However, research has not yet examined whether different sources of social class discrimination are associated with adolescent tobacco use. Such information is useful for informing the development of interventions that are tailored to specific groups of adolescents. The current study addresses this gap.

Social Class Among Adolescents

Adolescent social class stems from the family and is multidimensional, encompassing both objective and subjective components (Currie et al., 1997; Diemer et al., 2013; Duncan & Magnuson, 2003; Goodman et al., 2001). Objective dimensions include parental education, occupation, and family income (Currie et al., 1997; Diemer et al., 2013; Duncan & Magnuson, 2003). Subjective measures include adolescents’ perception of their family’s social standing (Goodman et al., 2001). Consistent with leading scholars in the field (Diemer et al., 2013; Mistry et al., 2021), we use the term social class because it is broader than socioeconomic status and captures both objective and subjective dimensions, whereas socioeconomic status typically refers only to objective factors (Diemer et al., 2013; Mistry et al., 2021).

Understanding adolescents who are disadvantaged in social class is crucial, as a significant number of children experience poverty (Center for American Progress, 2021). In 2022, an estimated 1.43 billion children globally lived in poverty, with approximately 333 million surviving on less than 2.15 USD per day (Salmeron-Gomez et al., 2023). In California, where this study was conducted, 18.6% of individuals under the age of 18 are living in poverty (California Budget & Policy Center (2024). We defined disadvantaged social class using both objective (parental education) and subjective (self-identified social class) dimensions. Our approach is consistent with best practices (Crosnoe et al., 2021; Diemer et al., 2013; Mistry et al., 2021). Specifically, adolescents were considered disadvantaged in social class if their parents had not earned a college degree and/or identified as poor, working class, or lower middle class.

Social Class Discrimination

Theoretical perspectives

Social class discrimination refers to the bias or prejudicial treatment individuals experience because of their social class (Langhout et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2004; Mello, 2024). According to The Social Class Worldview Model (Liu, 2011), individuals develop an awareness of their position within the societal and economic hierarchy, which influences how they perceive and interact with others. Adolescents who are disadvantaged in social class experience more social class discrimination than their counterparts (Bucchianeri et al., 2013; Fuller-Rowell et al., 2012; Simons et al., 2013). Understanding how discrimination affects health is aligned with the Social Determinants of Health framework (Braveman et al., 2011). This framework highlights the link between social class disadvantage and health disparities. In this article, we are addressing the potential for social class discrimination to be associated with behaviors that negatively affect the health of individuals who are disadvantaged.

We draw from Mello’s (2024) conceptual model of social class discrimination because it was developed for adolescents in particular. In this model, social class discrimination is operationalized as the interpersonal discrimination experienced by adolescents who are disadvantaged in social class. Multiple sources of social class discrimination are theorized including peers, teachers, teenagers, and adults in the community. The model also conceptualizes how experiencing social class discrimination may increase an adolescent’s susceptibility to engaging in risky health behaviors, such as tobacco use. The developmental period of adolescence is hypothesized to be salient for this form of discrimination, given the prominence of social class comparisons during this time (Brown & Bigler, 2005; Mello, 2024).

Quantitative and qualitative studies with adolescents

Research on social class discrimination began with studies that included adults (Cavalhieri & Wilcox, 2022; Langhout et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2004; Lott, 2002; Thomas & Azmitia, 2014). Since then, an emerging body of research has shown the prevalence of social class discrimination among adolescents. In a study by Bucchianeri et al. (2013) 16% of the adolescents (Mage = 14.4, SDage = 2.0) experienced social class discrimination. Meanwhile, a study by Fuller-Rowell et al. (2023) indicated that almost 50% of the adolescents (Mage = 17.3, SDage = 0.8) reported at least one instance of social class discrimination, although the specific sources were not addressed. A similar amount was shown in another study: Mello et al. (2025b) reported that almost 50% of adolescents (aged 13–18) experienced social class discrimination from their teachers and 25% from their classmates. Other research has found that adolescents (Mage = 15.5, SDage = 0.9) more often attributed experiences of social exclusion to social class discrimination than children (Mage = 9.8, SDage = 0.7; Gonul et al., 2023).

Qualitative studies on social class discrimination contextualizes our understanding of social class discrimination. Research has focused on the classroom experiences of adolescents (aged 13–18) who were disadvantaged in social class (Brantlinger, 1992; Brantlinger, 1993). In these studies, adolescents described how they received excessive disciplinary action from teachers because of their social class, which contributed toward feelings of humiliation and rejection. Similarly, a recent qualitative study with adolescents aged 14 to 18 found that experiences of social class discrimination were multifaceted and included sources, such as teachers, peers, and classmates (Mello et al., 2025c). One adolescent remarked: “A teacher said, ‘You can’t afford college …you should just get your GED [high school diploma] and get out” (p. 16). Adolescents also reported experiencing social class discrimination outside of school, as an adolescent talked about his friend’s experience who wanted to enter a carnival: “But they wouldn’t let him in, well, ‥they let him in, but they [said] ‘Do you have enough money for this?’ Because they looked at his clothes, and they were all raggedy and a little dirty” (p. 45).

Tobacco Use

Tobacco remains the deadliest consumer product in history (American Lung Association & Public Health Law Center, 2021) causing over eight million deaths annually worldwide (World Health Organization, 2023). According to the World Health Organization, tobacco use remains a significant global public health issue among adolescents, with approximately 37 million individuals aged 13 to 15 engaging in tobacco consumption (World Health Organization, 2024). In the United States, approximately 1.58 million adolescents use tobacco products (Jamal et al., 2024), with nicotine vaping being the most common among adolescents (Gentzke et al., 2020; Jamal et al., 2024; Miech et al., 2019). In California, where the current study was conducted, more than 6% of high school students use tobacco products (California Department of Public Health, 2025), and 31,600 minors try cigarettes for the first time every year (Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, 2025). Tobacco products include a broad range of items, such as combustible cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos, e-cigarettes, pipe tobacco, hookah, snus pouches, and dissolvable tobacco (Stanton et al., 2020). In comparison, nicotine vaping products are discreet, battery-operated devices that produce an inhalable aerosol and often resemble everyday objects, such as pens or USB sticks (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2020).

Social Class Discrimination and Tobacco Use

Research has consistently shown that being disadvantaged in social class is positively associated with tobacco use (Green et al., 2016; Johnston, 2020; Simons et al., 2017). A literature review determined that there was a positive association between disadvantaged social class and increased tobacco use during adolescence (Hanson & Chen, 2007). High school students disadvantaged in social class face an increased risk of tobacco use (Bello et al., 2019; Green et al., 2016; Lemstra et al., 2008; Simon et al., 2017). The association between social class and tobacco use continues into adulthood, with disadvantaged adults being up to three times more likely to use tobacco than their counterparts (Wheaton et al., 2021). These trends highlight the prevalence of tobacco use among adolescents, particularly those from disadvantaged social class backgrounds, underscoring the need for research in this area.

A few studies have shown that social class discrimination is positively associated with tobacco use among adolescents (Mello et al., 2025a; Sartor et al., 2021). Sartor et al. (2021) surveyed adolescents (aged 13, 15, 17, or 19) and their mothers about social class discrimination, including experiences of mistreatment, feelings of inferiority, and exclusion from activities because of their social class. The study reported that adolescents whose mothers experienced social class discrimination were more likely to smoke than their counterparts. However, a direct association between social class discrimination and adolescent tobacco use was not observed. More recently, Mello et al. (2025a) surveyed 1,678 adolescents (aged 13–18) about their experiences with social class discrimination and its association with lifetime and past month tobacco use, nicotine vaping, and dual use. Their findings indicated that for lifetime use, adolescents who experienced more social class discrimination also exhibited a greater relative risk of engaging in combustible tobacco use than their counterparts. For tobacco use in the past month, social class discrimination was also positively associated with the dual use of combustible tobacco and nicotine vaping when compared to no use.

Scholars have highlighted how discrimination may stem from multiple sources and how these experiences might be associated with tobacco use (Benner & Graham, 2013; Mello, 2024). A recent study indicated that social class discrimination from teachers, classmates, teenagers, friends, and community members was positively associated with lifetime and past month tobacco use and nicotine vaping among adolescents (aged 13–18; Mello et al., 2025b). However, sources of discrimination have also been shown to combine in meaningful ways within subgroups of adolescents. For example, Smith and Fincham (2016) used Latent Profile Analysis to identify subgroups of African American adolescents (Mage = 14.2, SDage = 0.5) with unique experiences of racial discrimination. They identified three subgroups: adolescents who experienced racial discrimination from both teachers and peers, those who only experienced it from peers, and those who did not experience racial discrimination. Although race/ethnicity and social class are distinct, they share some qualities as oppressed identities. Thus, it is possible that subgroups of adolescents exist with unique combinations of social class discrimination sources, and that these subgroups may be associated with tobacco use. Identifying subgroups of adolescents would be useful for tailoring tobacco use prevention programs (Lanza & Rhoades, 2013).

Intersectionality

Intersectional perspectives emphasize the importance of attending to the experiences of individuals who belong to multiple marginalized groups (Cole, 2009; Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016). In the United States, racial/ethnic minority groups comprise a disproportionate amount of those who are disadvantaged in social class (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024). Research has shown that race/ethnicity and gender interact in their associations with tobacco use (Mello et al., 2025a; Sartor et al., 2021). One study found that the experiences of social discrimination by adolescents’ mothers were more likely to predict tobacco initiation for European American adolescents compared to African American adolescents in a study that included adolescents aged 13, 15, 17, or 19; Sartor et al., 2021). Another study of adolescents revealed that the association between social class discrimination and lifetime combustible tobacco use was stronger for European Americans compared to Asian Americans, Latine, and Pacific Islanders among adolescents aged 13–18 (Mello et al., 2025a). Relevantly, researchers have indicated that adolescents can distinguish discrimination based on social class, race/ethnicity (Bucchianeri et al., 2013), and gender (Ayres & Leaper, 2013). Given these perspectives and empirical research, it is crucial to consider how social class discrimination is experienced differently for some adolescents based on their marginalized identities.

The Present Study

To contribute research toward our understanding of the associations between social class discrimination and tobacco use, we addressed the following research questions. First, what social class discrimination subgroups exist among adolescents? Based on past research (Smith & Fincham, 2016) and person-oriented approaches (Bergman & Trost, 2006; Magnusson & Bergman, 1990), we hypothesized that three distinct subgroups of adolescents would be revealed: (a) adolescents who rarely experienced social class discrimination, (b) adolescents who experienced social class discrimination from teachers and classmates, and (c) adolescents who experienced social class discrimination from community members, friends, and other teenagers. Second, if these subgroups were identified, how are they associated with tobacco use and nicotine vaping? Given past research showing positive associations between social class discrimination and tobacco use using variable approaches (Mello et al., 2025a; Sartor et al., 2021), we hypothesized that adolescents who experienced social class discrimination from multiple sources would show stronger associations with tobacco use compared to those in other subgroups. Third, in an effort to contribute toward intersectional perspectives (Cole, 2009; Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016), how do social class discrimination subgroups differ by gender, race/ethnicity, and social class? Given the scant amount of research on social class discrimination, subgroups, and intersectional perspectives, we did not propose any formal hypotheses for this research question.

Method

Participants

Participants were 956 high school students, drawn from a larger sample of 1,558 adolescents attending two public high schools in California (61% of the original sample). We defined adolescents as those who were aged 13 to 18. Eighteen adolescents were excluded due to missing data from all five social class discrimination indicators. Eligibility criteria for inclusion in the current study were: (a) neither parent had graduated with a 4-year college degree (89%) or (b) adolescents identified as poor, working class, or lower middle class (61%). Half the sample (50%) met both the criteria, reporting that they identified as poor, working class, or lower middle class and that neither parent had attended a 4-year college. Most participants reported that neither parent had received a 4-year college degree (89%), with about a third of the sample reporting that their father (42%) or mother (38%) had not graduated from high school. The remainder reported that their father (38%) or mother (42%) had graduated from high school. A smaller percentage reported that their father (12%) or mother (12%) had earned an associate’s degree, and few indicated that their father (7%) or mother (8%) held a bachelor’s degree or higher. Regarding self-reported social class, a majority of the sample identified as lower middle class (32%), while a third identified as middle class (30%), about a quarter identified as working class (24%), and a small percentage identified as poor (4%). Finally, 8% of the sample identified as upper middle class or higher.

Adolescents on average were 16 years-old (SD = 1.22) and were relatively evenly distributed across grades (18% in Grade 9, 24% in Grade 10, 33% in Grade 11, 25% in Grade 12). About three quarters (73%) of adolescents attended School A, while the remaining (27%) attended School B. In terms of gender identity, a majority of the sample (55%) identified as boys, 3% of whom were trans boys. Additionally, 44% of the sample identified as girls, 3% of whom were trans girls. Another 2% of the sample identified as non-binary. Racial/ethnic distribution was as follows: a majority of the sample identified as Latine (63%), followed by Asian American (13%), African American/Black (9%), European American/White (6%), or Multiethnic/racial (5%). Regarding tobacco use, 22% of the sample reported lifetime use of combustible tobacco, and 8% reported use in the past month. Additionally, 21% reported lifetime use of nicotine vaping products, and 9% reported past month use.

Procedure

The study received approval from the Institutional Review Board at the university affiliated with the first author (IRB # 2023–734). Procedures for recruitment included trained researchers delivering speeches in classrooms and distributing study packets. Each packet contained an adolescent assent form, parental consent form, and the study survey. Materials were available in English and Spanish. Anonymity was ensured by providing separate envelopes for the surveys and forms. Students completed surveys on their own time, and 68% of the distributed packets were returned. Participants received USD 20 in compensation for their participation. The data were collected from two public high schools in California in 2024. High School 1 included 1,500 students (50% girls; 7% African Americans/Black, 8% Asian American, 2% European American/White, and 83% Latino/a). High School 2 included 1,200 students (50% girls; 5% African Americans/Black, 31% Asian American, 37% European American/White, 17% Latino/a, & 10% mixed). Approximately 77% of students at High School 1 were eligible for free lunch. At High School 2, 20% of students were eligible for free lunch. Further, analyses of missing data showed that less than 4% of responses were incomplete, with 96.31% of items fully completed. Additionally, 67.04% of students provided complete data for all survey items. Missing data were handled using Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) estimation.

Measures

Social class discrimination

To measure social class discrimination, we used a 20-item scale that included five subscales (Mello et al., 2025b): Teacher (“A teacher did not believe that I could go to college” α = .82), classmate (“A classmate has made fun of me because I wear the same clothes” α = .90), teenager (“A teenager has teased me for not having enough money to eat out” α = .88), friend (“A friend has made a negative comment about the condition of my house” α = .89), and community member (“A store clerk has made a negative comment because my family uses an EBT card” α = .89). The prompt was “How often have you experienced each of the following because of the money, schooling, or jobs your parents have?” Response options include 1 (never), 2 (rarely), 3 (sometimes), and 4 (often). The scale was developed with interviews, exploratory factor analyses, confirmatory factor analyses, and item response theory and has yielded reliable and valid scores in studies with adolescents (Mello et al., 2025b).

Social class

Social class was measured with scales that addressed its objective and subjective qualities. This approach follows best practices in studies about social class that include adolescents (Currie et al., 1997; Diemer et al., 2013; Duncan & Magnuson, 2003; Goodman et al., 2001). As indicated above, we selected a sample that was disadvantaged in social class. For objective social class, we used maternal and paternal education: 1 (no high school diploma/GED), 2 (high school diploma/GED), 3 (Associate’s AA/AS). A parental education variable was created by averaging responses for maternal and paternal education. For subjective social class, we used an item that addressed self-identified social class. The item included the following responses: 1 (poor), 2 (working class), and 3 (lower middle class).

Tobacco use

Tobacco use was assessed with items that addressed combustible tobacco and nicotine vaping for the lifetime and past month. For combustible tobacco, lifetime use included: “Have you ever tried smoking cigarettes, even just a few puffs?” and “Have you ever tried smoking cigars, cigarillos, blunts, or little cigars, even just a few puffs?” Past month use included: “During the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke cigarettes?” and “During the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke cigars, cigarillos, blunts, or little cigars?” For nicotine vaping, lifetime use included: “Have you ever used an e-cigarette or vape device-such as an e-pen, vape pen, cigalike, e-hookah, personal vaporizer, or mod-to get nicotine?” Past month use included: “During the past 30 days, how many days did you use an e-cigarette or vape device to get nicotine?” Response options for the past 30 days items were recoded to yes/no.

Analytic Plan

We conducted a manual three-step latent profile analysis (LPA) using Mplus Version 8.3 (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014; Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017). LPA identifies latent profiles (subgroups) based on patterns of response across a set of indicators (i.e., sources of social class discrimination). To determine the optimal number of profiles, multiple fit indices were considered (Nylund-Gibson & Choi, 2018), including the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), and the Log Likelihood. Lower values indicated a better fitting profile. In addition to entropy, the adjusted-Lo–Mendell–Rubin (LMR), and the Bootstrapped Likelihood Ratio Test (BLRT) tests were used to determine the best profile (Jung & Wickrama, 2008; Nylund-Gibson et al., 2019; Nylund-Gibson & Choi, 2018). The adjusted-LMR and BLRT tests are used to compare neighboring profiles, whereby the last significant profile is considered the best fitting model. These tests are more conservative than the AIC and BIC (Nylund-Gibson et al., 2019). First, we estimated one to eight latent profile solutions. Once we selected the optimal number of profiles, we doubled the number of random starts to ensure that the log likelihood was replicated. We found that it did replicate.

Next, to keep the original profile estimates while adding in covariates, the class probabilities for the most likely latent profile membership were used to manually assign participants to latent profiles in a new model (Nylund-Gibson et al., 2019). Then, we used multinomial logistic regressions to examine whether covariates significantly predicted latent profile membership. We rotated the comparison group in these models to compare all profiles. Finally, we used the class probabilities described above to examine how the profile membership was related to adolescents’ tobacco use and nicotine vaping. Based on which covariates were significant as well as based on their theoretical relevance, we controlled for age, school, gender, and race/ethnicity.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

We calculated descriptive statistics for social class discrimination, including the percentage who had this experience at least once and the average for each source. Teachers were the most frequent source with more than half of the adolescents indicating that they experienced social class discrimination from their teachers at least once (62%, M = 1.66, SD = .72). The remaining sources were reported by a third of the adolescents and included friends (33%, M = 1.35, SD = .62), classmates (35%, M = 1.39, SD = .66), teenagers (33%, M = 1.34, SD = .61), and community members (33%, M = 1.31, SD = .72). We also examined gender differences in social class discrimination. There were no gender differences in the social class discrimination adolescents experienced by their teachers (values not shown). However, adolescent boys reported more experiences with social class discrimination by classmates (41%, M = 1.47, SD = .71), teenagers (39%, M = 1.43, SD = .67), friends (41%, M = 1.45, SD = .69), and community members (27%, M = 1.39, SD = .66) than adolescent girls who reported social class discrimination from classmates (27%, M = 1.27, SD = .54; t[940 =4.78, p < .001]), teenagers (25%, M = 1.23, SD = .50; t[935 =5.09, p <.001]), friends (24%, M = 1.22, SD = .49; t[931 =5.72, p <.001]), and community members (23%, M = 1.21, SD = .49; t[931 =4.55, p < .001]).

Social Class Discrimination Profiles

Enumeration Summary

Model fit indices favored a four-profile solution. As depicted in Table 1, the BIC and AIC values decreased until the four-profile model, and then slightly increased, before plateauing. Furthermore, the adjusted-LMR and BLRT were both significant with the four profiles and were no longer significant in following profiles, indicating that the four-profile solution was optimal. A replication LPA using half of the sample yielded identical profile enumerations, and the log likelihood was replicated at increased random starts.

Table 1.

Fit indices for latent profile (subgroup) solutions

# BIC AIC SABIC Entropy LL CAIC AWE BLRT LMR N
1. 9216.625 9167.998 9184.87 -- −4573.999 9226.63 9315.25 -- -- 956
2. 6051.251 5973.446 6000.43 .98 −2970.723 6067.25 6209.05 101.811*** 3130.524*** 186
3. 5540.708 5433.728 5470.84 .96 −2694.864 5562.71 5757.69 7480.571 538.638 120
4. 5230.325 5094.167 5141.40 .97 −2519.084 5258.33 5506.48 −7297.788* 343.225 * 83
5. 4608.577 4384.890 4418.24 .97 −2146.445 4560.22 4861.56 490.652 208.963 18
6. 4781.438 4586.928 4654.40 .97 −2253.464 4821.44 5175.95 560.400 251.030 32
7. 4608.577 4384.890 4462.48 .97 −2146.445 4654.58 5062.26 490.652 208.963 18
8. 4485.275 4232.411 4320.13 .97 −2064.206 4537.28 4998.14 140.295 160.579 4
Open in a new tab

Note. Bayes factor never exceeded 0 for any profile.

BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion. AIC = Akaike Information Criterion. SABIC = Sample-Size-Adjusted BIC. LL = Log likelihood. CAIC = Consistent Akaike Information Criterion. AWE = Approximate Weight of Evidence. BLRT = Bootstrapped Likelihood Ratio Test. LMR = Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test. n = Smallest profile n.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p <.001

Profiles of Social Class Discrimination

We identified four distinct profiles of adolescents’ experiences with social class discrimination. Figure 1 depicts how each profile differed by standardized social class discrimination indicators (i.e., sources of social class discrimination). Unstandardized indicators are available upon request to the authors. Table 2 provides the means and standard deviations for each indicator. Based on these results, we labeled the four profiles as follows: (a) Frequent, (b) Infrequent, (c) In-School, and (d) Out-of-School.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Standardized profiles (subgroups) of social class discrimination indicators (sources)

Table 2.

Social class discrimination subgroups, tobacco use, and nicotine vaping among adolescents.

Subgroup Lifetime combustible tobacco use1 Past month combustible tobacco use2 Lifetime nicotine vape use3 Past month nicotine vape use4
Name N (%) Teachers Classmates Teenagers Friends
Frequent 87 (11%) 2.66 2.84 2.69 2.57 45% 20% 35% 28%
Infrequent 690 (72%) 1.41 1.04 1.06 1.07 19% 5% 16% 8%
In-School 83 (12%) 2.18 2.24 1.51 1.34 22% 15% 20% 19%
Out-of-School 96 (10%) 2.06 1.79 1.99 2.22 50% 26% 48% 33%
Open in a new tab

Note. Percentages for subgroup refer to the sample. Percentages for combustible tobacco use and nicotine vape use indicate probability of tobacco or nicotine vape use. Controlling for age, school, gender, and being Latine.

1

Out-of-School and Frequent compared to Infrequent: p < .001. Out-of-School compared to School: p = .001. Frequent compared to School: p = .004.

2

Out-of-School and Frequent compared to Infrequent: p < .001. In-School compared to Infrequent: p = .004.

3

Out-of-School and Frequent compared to Infrequent: p < .001. Out-of-School compared to School: p = .001. Frequent compared to In-School: p = .031.

4

Out-of-School and Frequent compared to Infrequent: p < .001. School compared to Infrequent: p = .018.

Adolescents in the Frequent subgroup included 11% of the sample and were those who expressed experiencing social class discrimination “sometimes” from all sources (teachers, classmates, teenagers, friends, and community members). Their scores were 1.5 to 2.25 standard deviations above the mean across all five social class discrimination indicators.

Adolescents in the Infrequent subgroup included 72% of the sample and comprised the majority of the sample. On average, they reported never experiencing social class discrimination from classmates, teenagers, friends, and community members, and between “never” and “rarely” from teachers. Adolescents in this profile scored about half a standard deviation below the mean for all social class discrimination indicators.

Adolescents in the In-School subgroup included 12% of the sample and represented the second largest profile. On average, they reported that they “rarely” or “sometimes” experienced social class discrimination from teachers and classmates, with scores 0.75–1.25 standard deviations above the mean for both indicators. However, their experiences of social class discrimination from teenagers, friends, and community members were lower, between “never” and “rarely.” Thus, members of this profile were primarily experiencing social class discrimination within the school setting.

Finally, adolescents in the Out-of-School subgroup included 10% of the sample and were those who experienced social class discrimination primarily from friends and community members (between “rarely” and “sometimes”). They also expressed experiencing more social class discrimination from other teenagers than the Infrequent or In-School subgroups. Social class discrimination from teenagers, friends, and community members was between 1 and 1.5 standard deviations above the mean. Thus, members of this profile were mainly experiencing social class discrimination out of school.

Profile Membership and Tobacco Use

We examined whether the four profiles differed in terms of four different tobacco outcomes: lifetime combustible tobacco use, past month combustible tobacco use, lifetime nicotine vaping use, and past month nicotine vaping use. We controlled for age, school, gender, and race/ethnicity. Adolescents in the Infrequent subgroup reported the lowest rates of tobacco and nicotine products, including lifetime combustible tobacco use, past month combustible tobacco use, lifetime nicotine vape use, and past month nicotine vape use compared to the other three subgroups. In contrast, adolescents in the Frequent and Out-of-School subgroups had the highest rates of lifetime combustible tobacco use, past month combustible tobacco use, lifetime nicotine vape use, and past month nicotine vape use compared to the Infrequent and In-School subgroups (see Table 2).

Covariates Predicting Profile Membership

To examine which covariates predicted membership in the social class discrimination subgroups, we used multinomial logistic regressions, rotating the reference group to allow for all comparisons. In Table 3 we provide the odds ratio for each covariate: parent education, self-reported social class, age, gender, race/ethnicity, and school. Being African American/Black increased the odds of being in the Frequent Subgroup compared to the Infrequent subgroup profile. Additionally, identifying as a girl increased the odds of being in the In-School or Infrequent subgroup compared to the Frequent or Out-of-School subgroups.

Table 3.

Covariates predicting social class discrimination subgroups

Infrequent In-School Out-of-School Frequent
OR OR OR OR
Parental education -- 0.97 1.09 1.01
Self-identified Social class -- 1.18 0.96 1.16
Age -- 1.07 0.99 1.14
Girl -- 0.84 0.48* 0.31***
Asian American -- 1.10 0.68 0.89
African American/Black -- 1.50 2.11 3.85*
Latine -- 0.67 0.49 0.67
European American/White -- 1.31 0.97 1.85
School -- 0.63 1.04 0.86
Parental education 1.03 -- 1.12 1.04
Self-identified Social Class 0.85 -- 0.82 0.99
Age 0.94 -- 0.93 1.07
Girl 1.20 -- 0.58 0.37**
Asian American 0.91 -- 0.62 0.81
African American/Black 0.67 -- 1.41 2.57
Latine 1.50 -- 0.74 1.01
European American/White 0.76 -- 0.74 1.41
School 1.59 -- 1.66 1.37
Parental education 0.91 0.89 -- 0.92
Self-identified Social Class 1.04 1.22 -- 1.21
Age 1.01 1.08 -- 1.15
Girl 2.07** 1.73 -- 0.64
Asian American 1.46 1.61 -- 1.31
African America/Black 0.47 0.71 -- 1.83
Latine 2.02 1.35 -- 1.36
European American/White 1.03 1.35 -- 1.90
School 0.96 0.60 -- 0.83
Parental education 0.99 0.96 1.08 --
Self-identified class 0.86 1.01 0.83 --
Age 0.88 0.94 0.87 --
Girl 3.21*** 2.69 1.56** --
Asian American 1.12 1.24 0.77 --
African America/Black 0.26* 0.39 0.55 --
Latine 1.49 0.99 0.73 --
European American/White 0.54 0.71 0.53 --
School 1.16 0.73 1.21 --
Open in a new tab

Note. OR = Odds ratio. Multi-ethnic was the reference group for race/ethnicity.

Discussion

Adolescent tobacco use remains a critical public health issue because it predicts adult use and has serious health consequences (Evans-Polce et al., 2024; Gentzke et al., 2020; Jamal et al., 2024; Miech et al., 2019). Social class is also strongly associated with adolescent tobacco use (Green et al., 2016; Simon et al., 2017). Adolescents disadvantaged in social class use tobacco nearly twice as often as their more advantaged counterparts (Johnston, 2020). An emerging body of literature has shown that tobacco use is linked to experiences that adolescents have with discrimination based on social class (Mello et al., 2025a; Sartor et al., 2021). Although studies have described how there are multiple sources of social class discrimination for adolescents, including teachers, classmates, and community members (Fuller-Rowell et al., 2023; Mello, 2024), research has not yet identified how such sources combine within subgroups of adolescents. Understanding these patterns can be useful for developing effective prevention programs (Lanza & Rhoades, 2013). We addressed this gap in knowledge by conducting a study about tobacco use and sources of social class discrimination among adolescents.

We have extended extant research on social class discrimination and tobacco use (Mello et al., 2025a; Sartor et al., 2021). We demonstrated that the source of discrimination was associated with the association between tobacco use and social class discrimination. Results indicated that adolescents who experienced discrimination frequently from all measured sources, including classmates, teenagers, friends, teachers, and adults in the community used the most tobacco products compared to their counterparts. Further, analyses also indicated that adolescents who experienced discrimination Out-of-School from friends and community members (e.g., store clerks) used more tobacco products than adolescents who experienced social class discrimination primarily within school from classmates and teachers. These findings direct attention to the importance of considering the context in which adolescents experience social class discrimination and how it may be differentially associated with adolescent health behaviors, such as tobacco use.

We contributed to the literature because we showed how sources of social class discrimination were experienced by subgroups of adolescents. Using Latent Profile Analysis (Bergman & Trost, 2006; Magnusson & Bergman, 1990), we identified distinct subgroups of adolescents who had particular experiences with social class discrimination. We revealed that there were four subgroups: Frequent, Infrequent, Out-of-School, and In-School. Notably, adolescents in the Out-of-School subgroup had recurrent experiences with social class discrimination by friends, teenagers, and community members, whereas the In-School group included classmates and teachers. Among the subgroups, the majority of adolescents were members of the Infrequent social class discrimination group indicating that a numeric minority experienced social class discrimination. This proportion is consistent with some prior research (Bucchianeri et al., 2013), although other studies have indicated that half of the adolescent samples have experiences with social class discrimination (Mello et al., 2025b; Fuller-Rowell et al., 2023).

Our findings indicated that adolescents experienced social class discrimination from multiple sources. This differs from a prior study about racial discrimination that identified three subgroups that included peers and teachers, just peers, and no discrimination (Smith & Fincham, 2016). This difference may be due to ways that race/ethnicity and social class differ as a form of discrimination. Although racial/ethnic minority groups and disadvantaged social classes share qualities because they are both targeted by systems of oppression, social class is unique because it is context specific. An adolescent may identify as being disadvantaged in social class in their school, but not their community. As a result, adolescents may experience social class discrimination differently across settings. Indeed, we found separate profiles for in and out of school suggesting that adolescents’ experiences with social class discrimination varied across those settings. Overall, our research illustrates the value of including multiple sources across several settings when addressing adolescents’ experiences with social class discrimination.

Theoretically, findings supported perspectives that underscored how social class discrimination is important for adolescents (Fuller-Rowell et al., 2023; Mello, 2024). These frameworks aligned with the social determinants of health models that articulated how experiences in the environment contribute to physical and psychological well-being (Braveman et al., 2011). Our study also contributed to an emerging body of empirical research that has shown how social class discrimination is associated with important behaviors related to health, such as tobacco use (Fuller-Rowell et al., 2012; Mello et al., 2025a; Sartor et al., 2021). In doing so, we extended prior research that has been conducted with adults (Cavalhieri & Wilcox, 2022; Langhout et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2004; Lott, 2002; Thomas & Azmitia, 2014) to include adolescents. Adolescence is a critical period to examine how social class discrimination is associated with tobacco use, as it is this age that most adult tobacco users began using (Evans-Polce et al., 2024).

Using an intersectional perspective (Cole, 2009; Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016), we revealed that social class discrimination subgroups differed across demographic groups. Adolescents who identified as African American/Black had an increased odd of being in the Frequent subgroup of social class discrimination that was associated with the most tobacco use compared to other subgroups. These results were consistent with intersectional perspectives that has highlighted multiple marginalized identities (Cole, 2009; Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016). However, this finding is contrasted with prior research that has shown that European American adolescents experienced more social class discrimination than other racial/ethnic groups (Bucchianeri et al., 2013; Mello et al., 2025a). Further, girls were more likely to be in the In-School or Infrequent subgroup than boys who were most likely to be in the Out-of-School or Frequent subgroups, which were associated with the most tobacco use. This finding diverged from a prior study that did not observe gender differences in the associations with tobacco use and social class discrimination (Mello et al., 2025a). Discrepancies in findings related to race/ethnicity and gender may be due to methodological differences: we examined subgroups of adolescents based on patterns across multiple sources of social class discrimination, whereas prior studies examined experiences from a single source. Another explanation for the gender differences we observed may have to do with the amount of time that adolescent girls and boys typically spend outside the home and in neighborhoods. Studies have shown that adolescent boys spend more time in the neighborhood than adolescent girls (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Mello & Swanson, 2007). Thus, adolescent girls and boys may have different experiences with social class discrimination because of where they spend their time. Overall, our study has shown how examining multiple sources in subgroups yields nuanced information that is useful for the development of targeted interventions for specific populations.

Implications

The findings from the current study support programs aimed at reducing tobacco use and other risky behaviors by addressing the consequences of economic inequity for individuals who are disadvantaged in social class (Graham, 2012). Our results about social class discrimination underscored efforts that target economic disadvantage. We built on a substantial body of research that has demonstrated how tobacco use is positively associated with social class among adolescents (Green et al., 2016; Johnston, 2020; Simons et al., 2017). Our results suggested that prevention programs that target multiple sources of social class discrimination will be more effective than those focused on a single source, and that for tobacco use specifically, targeting out-of-school discrimination might be especially successful. Additionally, our findings indicated that interventions should be developed to help adolescents navigate experiencing social class discrimination across various contexts, such as in the community. To our knowledge, there are no programs that address social class discrimination. Given the stigma associated with being disadvantaged in social class, it will be important for programs to incorporate a non-stigmatizing approach. Some possibilities include building empathy and emphasizing resilience for those who are disadvantaged in social class.

Limitations and Future Directions

The current study made several contributions to the literature despite some limitations. The primary shortcoming is that the data were cross-sectional. Longitudinal research designs are needed to determine causality and to reveal directionality. It is important to determine if social class discrimination precedes tobacco use among adolescents and the size of such effects. Longitudinal studies may also reveal the specific ages that are most vulnerable to experiencing social class discrimination and, in turn, their links to tobacco use. Another limitation concerns generalizability. Given the relative and contextual qualities of social class (Liu et al., 2004; Mello, 2024), it would be important for future research to be conducted in diverse geographic and sociocultural contexts, such as rural areas and other regions of the U.S.

We offer potential directions for future research that will be fruitful for preventing adolescent tobacco use. One area involves examining how social class discrimination is associated with the co-use of tobacco and other substances, such as alcohol and cannabis. Researchers have already reported a positive association between social class discrimination and cannabis use disorder among adolescents (Ahuja et al., 2022). Extending this line of inquiry to examine co-use between tobacco and other substances, such as cannabis or alcohol, could inform more comprehensive prevention efforts.

Conclusion

We conducted a cross-sectional study with 956 high school students in California. Participants were disadvantaged in social class. Tobacco use was measured with lifetime and past month use of combustible tobacco and nicotine vaping products. Social class discrimination was measured across multiple sources, such as teachers, classmates, teenagers, friends, and community members. Latent profile analyses revealed four subgroups: Infrequent, Out-of-School, In-School, and Frequent social class discrimination experiences. Adolescents in the Frequent and Out-of-School subgroups used the most tobacco products, whereas adolescents among the In-School and Infrequent subgroups used the least tobacco products. These findings contribute to growing research that recognizes social class discrimination as an important social determinant of adolescent health.

Funding Information:

This material is based upon work supported by the National Institute of Health Grant 1R16DA061947-01A1. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. This work was partially supported by The Regents of the University of California, Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program [Grants, T32IP4744]. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s).

Biographies

Zena R. Mello, Ph.D. is a Professor of Psychology at San Francisco State University and a first-generation college student. Dr. Mello’s research examines the psychological factors that facilitate the health and well-being of adolescents who are marginalized because of their gender, race/ethnicity, skin color, or social class.

Christy Starr is an Assistant Professor in the Educational Psychology department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Starr’s research examines how to increase equity in STEM by leveraging strengths (such as family support) while decreasing barriers (such as stereotypes). Starr received her PhD from the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Vani Kakar, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of the Pacific. Her research examines the influence of sociocultural factors on body image and disordered eating, with particular attention to youth of color in low and middle-income countries. Her broader scholarship addresses risks to adolescent well-being.

Adam Suri is a multiracial graduate who recently earned his Master’s degree in Social, Personality, and Affective Science from San Francisco State University. His thesis examined colorism among Asian Americans and its association with mental health, aiming to spread awareness about this topic within the Asian American community.

Manuel Abundis-Morales is a doctoral student in the developmental psychology program at the University of California, Santa Cruz. His research interests include understanding youth engagement on social media toward promoting social change and improving institutional support for first-generation college students during their transition from community college to university.

Busra Dogru recently completed her master’s degree in Social, Personality, and Affective Science at San Francisco State University. Her thesis examined the association between social class discrimination and adolescent mental health, including depressive symptoms and self-esteem. She contributed to research highlighting social disparities and youth experiences of discrimination and well-being.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interest: We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethical Considerations

We have adhered to APA ethical standards in conducting this research. The institutional review board of the affiliated university approved the procedures for this study (2022-187).

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all participants and relevant authorities, including schools and parents.

Data availability statement:

Due to confidentiality agreements with the participants, the data used in this study are unavailable for public access.

References

  1. Ahuja M, Haeny AM, Sartor CE, & Bucholz KK (2022). Perceived racial and social class discrimination and cannabis involvement among Black youth and young adults. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 232, 109304. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2022.109304 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. American Lung Association & Public Health Law Center. (2021). Endgame Policy Platform - Version 1, in Law and Policy Partnership to End the Commercial Tobacco Epidemic. M. H. S. o. Law. www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco
  3. Asparouhov T, & Muthén B (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling, 21(3), 329–341. 10.1080/10705511.2014.915181 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ayres MM, & Leaper C (2013). Adolescent girls’ experiences of discrimination: An examination of coping strategies, social support, and self-esteem. Journal of Adolescent Research, 28(4), 479–508. 10.1177/0743558412457817 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bello MS, Khoddam R, Stone MD, Cho J, Yoon Y, Lee JO, & Leventhal AM (2019). Poly-product drug use disparities in adolescents of lower socioeconomic status: Emerging trends in nicotine products, marijuana products, and prescription drugs. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 115, 103–110. 10.1016/j.brat.2018.11.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Benner AD, & Graham S (2013). The antecedents and consequences of racial/ethnic discrimination during adolescence: Does the source of discrimination matter? Developmental Psychology, 49(8), 1602–1613. 10.1037/a0030557 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bergman LR, & Trost K (2006). The person-oriented versus the variable-oriented approach: Are they complementary, opposites, or exploring different worlds? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52(3), 601–632. 10.1353/mpq.2006.0023 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Brantlinger E (1992). Unmentionable futures: Post school planning for low-income teenagers. The School Counselor, 39(3), 281–291. [Google Scholar]
  9. Brantlinger E (1993). Adolescents’ interpretation of social class influences on schooling. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 28(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.org/stable/23870440 [Google Scholar]
  10. Braveman P, Egerter S, & Williams DR (2011). The Social Determinants of Health: Coming of Age. Annual Review of Public Health, 32(Volume 32, 2011), 381–398. 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-101218 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Brown CS, & Bigler RS (2005). Children’s perceptions of discrimination: A developmental model. Child Development, 76(3), 533–553. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00862.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bucchianeri MM, Eisenberg ME, & Neumark-Sztainer D (2013). Weightism, racism, classism, and sexism: Shared forms of harassment in adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(1), 47–53. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.01.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. California Budget & Policy Center (2024). California’s Persistent Poverty Crisis: Rates Remain Alarmingly High.
  14. California Department of Public Health (2025). California Tobacco Prevention Program. California Tobacco Facts and Figures 2025. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health; August. [Google Scholar]
  15. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. (2025). The Toll of Tobacco in California. https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/problem/toll-us/california.
  16. Cavalhieri KE, & Wilcox MM (2022). The compounded effects of classism and racism on mental health outcomes for African Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 69(1), 111–120. 10.1037/cou0000561 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Center for American Progress. (2021). The basic facts about children in poverty. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/basic-facts-children-poverty/
  18. Chen P, & Jacobson KC (2012). Developmental trajectories of substance use from early adolescence to young adulthood: Gender and racial/ethnic differences. Journal Adolescent Health, 50(2), 154–163. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.05.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Cole ER (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64(3), 170–180. 10.1037/a0014564 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Crosnoe RL, Johnston CA, & Cavanagh SE (2021). Maternal education and early childhood education across affluent English-speaking countries. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 45(3), 226–237. 10.1177/0165025421995915 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Currie CE, Elton RA, Todd J, & Platt S (1997). Indicators of socioeconomic status for adolescents: The WHO health behaviour In-School-aged children survey. Health Education Research, 12(3), 385–397. 10.1093/her/12.3.385 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Diemer MA, Mistry RS, Wadsworth ME, López I, & Reimers F (2013). Best practices in conceptualizing and measuring social class in psychological research. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 77–113. 10.1111/asap.12001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Duncan GJ, & Magnuson KA (2003). Off with Hollingshead: Socioeconomic resources, parenting, and child development. In Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development. (pp. 83–106). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  24. Else-Quest NM, & Hyde JS (2016). Intersectionality in quantitative psychological research: II Methods and techniques. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(3), 319–336. 10.1177/0361684316647953 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Evans-Polce RJ, Chen B, McCabe SE, & West BT (2024). Longitudinal associations of e-cigarette use with cigarette, marijuana, and other drug use initiation among US adolescents and young adults: Findings from the population assessment of tobacco and health study (Waves 1–6). Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 263. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2024.111402 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Fuller-Rowell TE, Evans GW, & Ong AD (2012). Poverty and health: The mediating role of perceived discrimination. Psychological Science, 23(7), 734–739. 10.1177/0956797612439720 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Fuller-Rowell TE, Saini EK, & El-Sheikh M (2023). Social class discrimination during adolescence as a mediator of socioeconomic disparities in actigraphy-assessed and self-reported sleep. Sleep Medicine, 108, 61–70. 10.1016/j.sleep.2023.05.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Gentzke AS, Wang TW, Jamal A, Park-Lee E, Ren C, Cullen KA, & Neff L (2020). Tobacco Product Use Among Middle and High School Students - United States, 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report., 69(50), 1881–1888. 10.15585/mmwr.mm6950a1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Gonul B, Sahin-Acar B, & Killen M (2023). Adolescents view social exclusion based on social class as more wrong than do children. Developmental Psychology(59), 1703–1715. 10.1037/dev0001564 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Goodman E, Adler NE, Kawachi I, Frazier AL, Huang B, & Colditz GA (2001). Adolescents’ perceptions of social status: Development and evaluation of a new indicator. Pediatrics, 108(2), 1–8. 10.1542/peds.108.2.e31 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Graham H (2012). Smoking, Stigma and Social Class. Journal of Social Policy, 41(1), 83–99. 10.1017/S004727941100033X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Green MJ, Leyland AH, Sweeting H, & Benzeval M (2016). Socioeconomic position and early adolescent smoking development: Evidence from the British Youth Panel Survey (1994–2008). Tobacco Control, 25(2), 203–210. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051630 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Hanson MD, & Chen E (2007). Socioeconomic status and health behaviors in adolescence: A review of the literature. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 30(3), 263–285. 10.1007/s10865-007-9098-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Jamal A, Park-Lee E, Birdsey J, West A, Cornelius M, Cooper MR, Cowan H, Wang J, Sawdey MD, Cullen KA, & Navon L (2024). Tobacco Product Use Among Middle and High School Students - National Youth Tobacco Survey, United States, 2024. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 73(41), 917–924. 10.15585/mmwr.mm7341a2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Johnston LD, Miech RA, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, Schulenberg JE, & Patrick ME (2020). Demographic subgroup trends among adolescents in the use of various licit and illicit drugs, 1975–2019. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/162581/mtf-occ94.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  36. Jung T, & Wickrama KAS (2008). An introduction to latent class growth analysis and growth mixture modeling. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 302–317. 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00054.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Langhout RD, Drake P, & Rosselli F (2009). Classism in the university setting: Examining student antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 2(3), 166–181. 10.1037/a0016209 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Langhout RD, Rosselli F, & Feinstein J (2007). Assessing classism in academic settings. Review of Higher Education: Journal of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, 30(2), 145–184. 10.1353/rhe.2006.0073 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Lanza ST, & Rhoades BL (2013). Latent class analysis: An alternative perspective on subgroup analysis in prevention and treatment. Prevention Science, 14(2), 157–168. 10.1007/s11121-011-0201-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Lemstra M, Bennett NR, Neudorf C, Kunst A, Nannapaneni U, Warren LM, Kershaw T, & Scott CR (2008). A meta-analysis of marijuana and alcohol use by socioeconomic status in adolescents aged 10–15 years. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 99(3), 172–177. 10.1007/bf03405467 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Leventhal T, & Brooks-Gunn J (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 309–337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Liu W (2011). Social Class and Classism in the Helping Professions: Research, Theory, and Practice. SAGE Publications, Inc. 10.4135/9781452230504 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Liu WM, Soleck G, Hopps J, Dunston K, & Pickett T Jr. (2004). A new framework to understand social class in counseling: The Social Class Worldview Model and modern classism theory. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32(2), 95–122. 10.1002/j.2161-1912.2004.tb00364.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Lott B (2002). Cognitive and behavioral distancing from the poor. American Psychologist, 57(2), 100–110. 10.1037//0003-066X.57.2.100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Magnusson D, & Bergman LR (1990). A pattern approach to the study of pathways from childhood to adulthood. In Robins LN & Rutter M (Eds.), Straight and devious pathways from childhood to adulthood. (pp. 101–115). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  46. Mello ZR (2024). Don’t skip class: A new conceptual model for examining classism among adolescents and families. Journal of Family Theory, 1–17. 10.1111/jftr.12589 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Mello ZR, Kakar V, & Jaramillo J (2025a). Examining How Social Class Discrimination is Associated with Combustible Tobacco Use, Nicotine Vaping, and Dual Use Among Adolescents in California. Social Science & Medicine. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117941 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Mello ZR, Kakar V, Abundis-Morales M, Dogru B, Suri A, & Hennigan SM (2025b). Surrounded by Classism: How Multiple Sources of Social Class Discrimination are Associated with Tobacco Use Among Adolescents. Manuscript under review for publication. [Google Scholar]
  49. Mello ZR, Kakar V, Suri A, Abundis-Morales M, & Dogru B (2025c). “They will look at the shoes and make fun of them”: A qualitative investigation about social class discrimination among adolescents. Manuscript invited for resubmission. [Google Scholar]
  50. Mello ZR, & Swanson DP (2007). Gender differences in African American adolescents’ personal, educational, and occupational expectations and perceptions of neighborhood quality. Journal of Black Psychology, 33, 150–168. 10.1177/0095798407299514 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Miech RA, Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, & Patrick ME (2019). Adolescent vaping and nicotine use in 2017–2018 — U.S. national estimates. New England Journal of Medicine, 380(2), 192–193. 10.1056/NEJMc1814130 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Mistry RS, Elenbaas L, Griffin KW, Nenadal L, & Yassine A (2021). Advancing developmental intergroup perspectives on social class. Child Development Perspectives, 15, 213–219. 10.1111/cdep.12431 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Muthén LK, & Muthén BO (1998–2017). Mplus User’s Guide. In (Eighth Edition ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. https://www.statmodel.com/HTML_UG/introV8.htm [Google Scholar]
  54. National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2020). Vaping Devices (Electronic Cigarettes) DrugFacts. https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugfacts/vaping-devices-electronic-cigarettes
  55. Nylund-Gibson K, & Choi AY (2018). Ten frequently asked questions about latent class analysis. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 4(4), 440–461. 10.1037/tps0000176 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Nylund-Gibson K, P. GR, & and Masyn KE (2019). Prediction from Latent Classes: A Demonstration of Different Approaches to Include Distal Outcomes in Mixture Models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26(6), 967–985. 10.1080/10705511.2019.1590146 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Salmeron-Gomez D, Engilbertsdottir S, Leiva JAC, Newhouse D, & Stewart D (2023). Global trends in child monetary poverty according to international poverty lines (Policy Research Working Paper, Issue.
  58. Sartor CE, Haeny AM, Manik A, & Bucholz KK (2021). Social class discrimination as a predictor of first cigarette use and transition to nicotine use disorder in Black and White youth. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 56, 981–992. 10.1007/s00127-020-01984-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Simon P, Camenga DR, Kong G, Connell CM, Morean ME, Cavallo DA, & Krishnan-Sarin S (2017). Youth E-cigarette, Blunt, and Other Tobacco Use Profiles: Does SES Matter? Tobacco Regulatory Science, 3(1), 115–127. 10.18001/trs.3.1.12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Simons AM, Groffen G, & Bosma H (2013). Income-related health inequalities: does perceived discrimination matter? International Journal of Public Health, 58, 513–520. DOI 10.1007/s00038-012-0429-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Simons AM, Koster A, Groffen DAI, & Bosma H (2017). Perceived classism and its relation with socioeconomic status, health, health behaviours and perceived inferiority: the Dutch Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences (LISS) panel. International Journal of Public Health, 62, 433–440. 10.1007/s00038-016-0880-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Smith SM, & Fincham FD (2016). Racial discrimination experiences among black youth: A person-centered approach. Journal of Black Psychology, 42(4), 300–319. 10.1177/0095798415573315 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Stanton CA, Sharma E, Seaman EL, Kasza KA, Edwards KC, Halenar MJ, Taylor KA, Day H, Anic G, Hull LC, Bansal-Travers M, Limpert J, Gardner LD, Hammad HT, Borek N, Kimmel HL, Compton WM, & Hyland A (2020). Initiation of any tobacco and five tobacco products across 3 years among youth, young adults and adults in the USA: Findings from the PATH Study Waves 1–3 (2013–2016). Tobacco Control: An International Journal, 29(Suppl 3), s178–s190. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2019-055573 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Thomas V, & Azmitia M (2014). Does class matter? The centrality and meaning of social class identity in emerging adulthood. Identity, 14(3), 195–213. 10.1080/15283488.2014.921171 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. U.S. Census Bureau. (2024). Median Income of Non-Hispanic White Households Increased While Asian, Black and Hispanic Median Household Income Did Not Change. www.census.gov/library/stories/2024/09/household-income-race-hispanic.html
  66. Wheaton L, Giannarelli L, & Dehry I (2021). 2021 Poverty Projections: Assessing the Impact of Benefits and Stimulus Measures. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/2021-poverty-projections-assessing-impact-benefits-and-stimulus-measures
  67. World Health Organization. (2023). Fact Sheet on Tobacco. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco
  68. World Health Organization. (2024). Hooking the next generation: how the tobacco industry captures young customers. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/376853/9789240094642-eng.pdf?sequence=1

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Due to confidentiality agreements with the participants, the data used in this study are unavailable for public access.

RESOURCES