People from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may be more tuned in to others during social encounters, even with strangers from different economic classes. According to a new study published in Psychological Science, individuals with lower socioeconomic status showed greater physiological attunement to their interaction partners than wealthier individuals did—regardless of the partner’s status. This greater sensitivity was also linked to more visible signs of comfort in those interacting with lower-income individuals. However, despite these dynamics, participants still reported liking people from similar class backgrounds more than those from different ones.
Socioeconomic status refers to a person’s social and economic standing in society. It typically includes a combination of income, education, occupation, and subjective assessments of status within one’s community or the broader society. People from higher socioeconomic backgrounds tend to have more access to resources and often face fewer threats to their social identity or opportunities. In contrast, lower-status individuals may experience more social obstacles, which can lead them to become more sensitive to their surroundings and others’ behavior.
While prior research has explored how class shapes values, perceptions, and behavior, there has been little investigation into what actually happens during interactions between people from different economic backgrounds. The research team wanted to understand whether class shapes how socially attuned people are to one another, especially when they are meeting for the first time. They also wanted to test whether people from different backgrounds behave differently or are perceived differently in conversation, and whether people show more affinity for others who share their socioeconomic background.
“Around the world, growing social class divisions are raising real concerns about social cohesion,” said study author Jacinth J. X. Tan, an assistant professor of psychology at the Singapore Management University, School of Social Sciences and head of the SMU Social Health Lab.
“One common solution proposed by researchers and policymakers is to encourage more social mixing–or interaction between people from different social backgrounds. The hope is that greater mixing can build understanding and bridge divide. In fact, we are seeing greater calls for and efforts toward increasing diversity in higher education settings, workplaces and in communities, to foster greater mixing.”
“However, psychological research over the years has shown that contact between different groups is a double-edged sword: it can bring people together, but it can also highlight differences and create discomfort,” Tan explained. “In fact, recent studies have found that people often engage in fewer cross-class interactions than we might expect (Carey et al., 2022). When they do, they tend to feel less connected (Côté et al., 2017), and those who see themselves as lower in social class are especially hesitant to interact across class lines (Wu et al., 2025).
“That led us to wonder how people might respond if we created a more relaxed, even enjoyable, one-on-one interaction, where people are subtly aware of each other’s social class? Would this foster a more positive experience that may override the natural preference for interacting with people from a similar background?”
To examine these questions, the researchers recruited 264 adults from the San Francisco Bay Area and paired them into 130 same- or different-class dyads—each consisting of two strangers matched by age, gender, and race. Socioeconomic status was determined using a multidimensional index that combined income, education, subjective status, and parents’ education. Participants were then grouped into pairs that were either similar in status or distinctly different (with more than 1.5 standard deviations separating them).
Each pair went through a series of structured tasks in a laboratory setting. These included casual conversations, a cooperative word game, and a public-speaking task judged by a neutral observer. Throughout the interaction, participants’ cardiovascular responses were monitored to assess changes in sympathetic nervous system activity—a signal of emotional and physiological arousal. Specifically, researchers measured “pre-ejection period,” a time-based indicator of heart activity that reflects how strongly the heart is contracting under stress.
Physiological attunement was calculated by looking at how closely one participant’s physiological responses tracked with their partner’s responses over time. Behavioral cues, such as speaking clearly or fidgeting, were also recorded and analyzed by trained coders. After each task, participants completed surveys rating how much they liked their partner and how similar they felt to them.
The most consistent finding across physiological, behavioral, and self-report measures was that people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds were more responsive to their partners. Their physiological responses were more closely linked to those of their partner, suggesting they were paying more attention to how their partner was feeling or reacting. This was true regardless of whether they were paired with someone of similar or different status.
Interestingly, participants in general appeared more relaxed and at ease when paired with a lower-income partner. This was evident in clearer speech and less fidgeting—nonverbal signs of comfort that were observed more often in interactions with low-status individuals.
However, this did not translate into greater social liking. When asked how much they enjoyed the interaction or how similar they felt to their partner, participants consistently rated those from similar class backgrounds more favorably. This preference for similarity, known as homophily, appeared to override the positive experience of being paired with a socially attuned and comforting partner.
“Our main findings revealed an interesting disconnect between automatic (physiologic and behavioral) versus more conscious (self-report) measures,” Tan told PsyPost. “Most of the interactions appeared positive—our video coding of interactions did not detect differences in positivity between cross-class or same-class interactions.
“However, we observed some asymmetries in interpersonal physiologic and behavioural responses based on participants’ social class backgrounds: Lower social class participants were more attentive/attuned to their interaction partners–based on our physiological linkage measure–regardless of the social class of interaction partners. This aligns with the broader research finding that lower social class individuals are generally more vigilant in navigating their social world.
“Participants regardless of social class also appeared more comfortable–based on our coding of nonverbal behaviors–when interacting with partners from lower social class backgrounds,” Tan continued. “Interestingly, at the end of the interaction, participants still reported liking partners in same-class interactions more than in cross-class interactions.”
“These distinct patterns tell us that the underlying nature of interactions is not completely obvious. While interactions appeared generally positive, lower social class individuals (compared to higher social class individuals) were more psychologically invested in the interaction by being more attentive, and this may have helped others feel more comfortable around them. However, these interpersonal processes did not override same-class preferences.”
“It’s likely that a one-time positive interaction is insufficient to increase cross-class liking, so it would be interesting to see if repeated interactions would override same-class preferences over time. It’s also possible that engaging in a novel cross-class interaction is quite effortful–especially for individuals from lower social class backgrounds–and this can undermine the quality and experience of cross-class interactions.”
In terms of conversational dynamics, the researchers expected that individuals from wealthier backgrounds might take more control of the conversation. But the study did not find evidence for this. People from different classes were equally likely to dominate or follow in conversation. The researchers suggest this may have been influenced by the structured nature of the interactions, which gave both participants equal chances to speak.
“As a passive observer blind to the social class of participants (I sat through almost all the dyadic interactions to supervise the study–hidden, of course), it was not always obvious whether participants were similar or different in social class,” Tan said, “even though we paired them to be, until their conversation touched on things like where they went to school, what they did for a living, favourite vacation spot, the best gift they’ve given or received. We did observe, based on our manipulation checks, that participants quite accurately judged the social class of their interaction partners. So it seems that while social class cues are not always visible, they are still detectable through things we talk about.”
The study offers important insights into how class influences the way people connect with each other during first-time meetings. But it also has limitations. Most notably, the sample was drawn entirely from the San Francisco Bay Area, a region with its own unique cultural and economic landscape. This may limit how broadly the findings apply to other populations. The racial composition of the sample also skewed toward majority groups, which made it difficult to study how race and class might interact during these encounters.
Another limitation is that the interactions were relatively brief and followed a structured format. While this approach ensured consistency across participants, it may not fully capture the subtleties of real-world conversations that unfold over longer periods or in less formal settings.
“The major caveat/limitation is with the racial representation of our sample, as well as our inability to examine the role of other possible intersecting identities such as gender and race,” Tan noted. “Our study focused on isolating the role of social class by matching participant dyads on age, gender, and race.”
Future research may explore whether repeated interactions, rather than one-time encounters, can shift these patterns. It would also be helpful to examine whether similar results emerge in other regions or among more racially and culturally diverse populations. Understanding how to promote comfort and connection across class lines may play an important role in building more inclusive workplaces, schools, and communities.
“The long-term goal is definitely to examine these patterns in different social settings (e.g., in schools, workplaces), in a different cultural context (e.g., non-Western), so see if the patterns hold or if patterns may vary,” Tan explained. “I am also interested in studying ways to improve the quality of cross-class interactions by reducing the observed social class asymmetries in attention and feelings of comfort during such interactions.”
“For instance, could such asymmetries be reduced in a setting completely free of social class cues or information? Could we reduce asymmetries by encouraging empathic curiosity prior to a cross-class interaction, such as by having people prepare questions that reflect interest in learning about the person and encourage sharing.”
The study, “Socioeconomic Status Shapes Dyadic Interactions: Examining Behavioral and Physiologic Responses,” was authored by Jacinth J. X. Tan, Tessa V. West, and Wendy Berry Mendes.
