Are lower-income households more or less likely to connect with neighbors?

 

Are lower-income households more or less likely to connect with neighbors?

The honest research answer is: it depends what you mean by “connect,” and what kind of neighborhood you’re comparing. 

Studies consistently show that income shapes the type of connection people have, how far their networks reach, and how much trust and “shared expectations” exist on a block.

Here’s what the evidence suggests.

What large surveys suggest in the U.S.

When researchers ask broad questions like “Do you know your neighbors?” or “Do you trust your neighbors?”, higher-income Americans tend to report higher connection and trust.

A 2025 Pew Research Center survey found that some groups are more likely to know and trust most of their neighbors, including upper-income Americans. Pew also reports that more affluent and more educated respondents are more likely to say they do helpful, relationship-building things for neighbors.

So, on standard survey measures of knowing/trusting/helping, upper-income groups often score higher.

At the same time, a common finding in community and mobility research is that lower-income residents’ social ties are often more locally bounded—more connected to the immediate neighborhood—because they have fewer “escape valves” (multiple cars, flexible work schedules, expensive memberships, far-flung travel, etc.).

The Urban Institute summarizes research this way: low-income people’s social ties tend to be more confined to the communities where they live, making them more dependent on neighborhood networks for information and mutual support. A past study from Mizzou found something similar.

And major work on social capital and mobility (Chetty and colleagues) finds that low-SES people’s social communities are shaped more by where they live, while higher-SES people form a larger share of friendships through places like college—meaning income differences affect where friendships are formed and how diverse they are.

Translation: lower-income networks can be more neighborhood-centered, but that does not automatically mean people feel safer, more trusting, or more socially included.

A key distinction: bonding vs. bridging

Researchers often separate social connection into two types:

• Bonding social capital: close ties with people like you (family, longtime neighbors, people with shared experiences).

• Bridging social capital: ties that connect you to different groups and opportunities (across class lines, institutions, occupations).

Multiple reviews note that lower-income communities can have strong bonding ties but weaker bridging ties—especially across economic lines.

That matters because bridging ties (“economic connectedness”) are strongly associated with upward mobility in large-scale studies.

Why some lower-income neighborhoods report less trust or weaker “neighborhood cohesion.”

Even when mutual aid exists, several neighborhood conditions can suppress connection, especially trust among neighbors who aren’t already in your circle:

• Residential instability (people moving frequently).

• Perceived or real safety concerns.

• Chronic stressors tied to poverty, vacancy, and disorder.

Classic research on “collective efficacy” (shared trust + shared willingness to look out for one another) finds that concentrated disadvantage and residential instability are linked to worse outcomes, and that collective efficacy is a key pathway that helps explain neighborhood differences.

You see similar patterns in other national contexts too. For example, Statistics Canada reported that long-term residents in lower-income neighborhoods described less social contact, less trust, and weaker inclusion than those in higher-income neighborhoods.

Do lower- and higher-income neighborhoods perceive neighboring differently?

Often, yes. Lower-income contexts may view neighboring more as practical mutual support (rides, childcare swaps, borrowing tools/ingredients), survival and resilience (“we get through this together”), and localized networks (more reliance on nearby people and places).

Higher-income contexts may experience neighboring more as friendliness + civility + property-minded concern (“keeping things nice/safe”), relationship through institutions (schools, churches, clubs) rather than the street itself, and higher reported trust/neighbor familiarity on surveys.

But there’s an important caution: higher-income areas can also have a privacy norm (“we don’t want to bother people”), which can reduce depth even when people report “knowing” neighbors.

So… more or less likely?

If you mean “Do people report knowing/trusting neighbors?” Research commonly finds higher-income respondents report more.

If you mean “Are people’s relationships more neighborhood-centered and practically supportive?”
Lower-income residents may have more locally rooted networks and a greater need for mutual aid, but those connections can be uneven—strong inside trusted circles, weaker beyond them—especially where instability and safety concerns are high.

The takeaway: income influences the shape of neighboring more than the presence of neighboring. Stability, safety, tenure (how long people have lived there), and shared spaces can matter just as much as income.

In Summary

You could summarize it like this: Lower-income neighborhoods are often more dependent on local networks, but instability and stress can make trust harder to sustain. Higher-income neighborhoods tend to report more neighbor trust and familiarity, yet privacy norms can keep relationships shallow. The big difference isn’t whether neighboring happens—it’s how it happens, and who gets included.

WRITTEN BY

David L. Burton

Take the Engaged Neighbor pledge and become part of a movement! The pledge outlines five categories and 20 principles to guide you toward becoming an engaged neighbor. Sign the pledge at https://nomoregoodneighbors.com. Individuals who take the pledge do get special invitations to future events online and in person. Contact the blog author, David L. Burton via email at dburton541@yahoo.com.