McLaughlin Sheridan Humphreys Besky Ellis 2021

You might also like

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 10

992346

research-article2021
PPSXXX10.1177/1745691621992346McLaughlin et al.Dimensional Models of Early Experience

ASSOCIATION FOR
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE

Perspectives on Psychological Science

The Value of Dimensional Models of Early 2021, Vol. 16(6) 1463­–1472


© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
Experience: Thinking Clearly About sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1745691621992346
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691621992346

Concepts and Categories www.psychologicalscience.org/PPS

Katie A. McLaughlin1, Margaret A. Sheridan2,


Kathryn L. Humphreys3, Jay Belsky4 , and Bruce J. Ellis5
1
Department of Psychology, Harvard University; 2Department of Psychology and Neuroscience,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; 3Department of Psychology and Human Development,
Vanderbilt University; 4Department of Human Ecology, University of California at Davis; and
5
Departments of Psychology and Anthropology, University of Utah

Abstract
We review the three prevailing approaches—specificity, cumulative risk, and dimensional models—to conceptualizing
the developmental consequences of early-life adversity and address fundamental problems with the characterization
of these frameworks in a recent Perspectives on Psychological Science piece by Smith and Pollak. We respond to
concerns raised by Smith and Pollak about dimensional models of early experience and highlight the value of these
models for studying the developmental consequences of early-life adversity. Basic dimensions of adversity proposed
in existing models include threat/harshness, deprivation, and unpredictability. These models identify core dimensions
of early experience that cut across the categorical exposures that have been the focus of specificity and cumulative
risk approaches (e.g., abuse, institutional rearing, chronic poverty); delineate aspects of early experience that are
likely to influence brain and behavioral development; afford hypotheses about adaptive and maladaptive responses
to different dimensions of adversity; and articulate specific mechanisms through which these dimensions exert their
influences, conceptualizing experience-driven plasticity within an evolutionary-developmental framework. In doing
so, dimensional models advance specific falsifiable hypotheses, grounded in neurodevelopmental and evolutionary
principles, that are supported by accumulating evidence and provide fertile ground for empirical studies on early-life
adversity.

Keywords
adversity, early-life stress, threat, deprivation, harshness, unpredictability, experience-driven plasticity

The focus of Smith and Pollak’s (2021) recent article on abuse) but may not have the same experience (e.g.,
early-life adversity showcases many ideas for character- harsh punishment). In this case, parental substance
izing the early environment, a vibrant arena of inquiry abuse is an exposure that increases the likelihood that
among developmental scholars. Smith and Pollak make a child will be harshly punished, whereas harsh punish-
a number of useful points in their review of early-life ment is a feature or ingredient of the exposure that the
adversity models. We appreciate the attention they pay child actually experiences. It is experiences such as
to the importance of identifying biologically plausible harsh punishment that are particularly influential in
mechanisms through which early experience shapes explaining why children exposed to parental substance
development. Especially important is the need to dis- abuse are at elevated risk for developing psychopathol-
tinguish exposures and experiences. To our way of ogy. Such experiences, therefore, provide more precise
thinking, exposures capture the probability that some-
thing will occur rather than being a direct measurement Corresponding Author:
of what a child actually experiences. Two children may Katie McLaughlin, Department of Psychology, Harvard University
be exposed to the same thing (e.g., parental substance Email: kmclaughlin@fas.harvard.edu
1464 McLaughlin et al.

targets for effective intervention, at least at the indi- anxiety through similar mechanisms involving altered
vidual level. threat-related processing).
The distinction between exposure and experience Appreciation of the co-occurrence of different
and the importance of identifying neurodevelopmental adversities led to a transition from specificity models
mechanisms are profoundly resonant for those of us to the cumulative-risk approach (Fig. 1). Cumulative
who have developed dimensional models of early-life risk counts the number of adversity exposures and
adversity, and we applaud the continued focus on them. experiences to create a risk score without regard to
However, for much of the review, Smith and Pollak the type, chronicity, or severity of the experience. A
posit that there is little utility in recently proposed child who experienced physical abuse, domestic vio-
dimensional approaches to understanding the impact lence, and community violence would have a risk
of adversity on neurobiology. We disagree with many score of 3; a child who experienced emotional neglect,
of the arguments advanced in their article and respond physical neglect, and maternal depression would also
to these arguments here. First, we clarify distinctions have a risk score of 3. Cumulative-risk assumes that
between dimensional models and other conceptualiza- discrete forms of adversity have additive effects on
tions of early-life adversity; then, we address four spe- developmental outcomes, and that no single form of
cific criticisms that Smith and Pollak raise regarding adversity is more essential or important than another
dimensional models. (Evans et  al., 2013). Although the cumulative-risk
approach has proved productive in illustrating the
Dimensional Models of Environmental breadth of health outcomes associated with multiple
adversities, it lacks clear specification about the under-
Experience Are Not Specificity Models lying mechanisms through which these disparate
Smith and Pollak frame their argument as “Conceptual experiences might influence diverse features of devel-
Problems With Specificity Models” (p. 71). In doing so, opment. Cumulative-risk approaches have focused
they recast dimensional models of early experience as largely on disruptions in stress response systems and
“specificity models,” something we regard as a funda- allostatic load as potential explanatory pathways
mental conceptual misunderstanding. Their article pres- (Evans & Kim, 2007). In other words, although the
ents a set of ideas that do not accurately reflect cumulative-risk model has proven informative when
dimensional models. To address this misunderstanding, it comes to prediction, it has proven rather lacking
we first review critical differences between dimensional when it comes to identifying mechanistic processes
models and the “specificity models” Smith and Pollak that could inform intervention.
describe. Dimensional models (see Fig. 1) were advanced explic-
Historically, research on early-life adversity has taken itly as alternatives to both specificity and cumulative-
either a specificity or cumulative-risk approach (see risk approaches (Ellis et al., 2009; Humphreys & Zeanah,
Fig. 1). Specificity models and the research they stimu- 2015; McLaughlin et al., 2014; Sheridan & McLaughlin,
lated focus on effects of individual adversities, such as 2014). These models are based on the notion that it is
physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, parental death, possible to identify core underlying dimensions of
parental divorce, and chronic poverty. As we have dis- environmental experience that occur across numerous
cussed elsewhere (McLaughlin, 2020; McLaughlin et al., types of adversity that share common features. Rather
2014) and as raised by Smith and Pollak, specificity than placing children into categories of exposure, such
models suffer from several fairly significant limitations. as parental substance abuse or physical abuse, dimen-
First, they fail to account for adversity co-occurrence—a sional models focus on aspects of experience that can
point we return to later. Because children often experi- be measured along a continuum. In addition, dimen-
ence multiple forms of adversity, studies that measure sional models are concerned with linking variation in
only a single adversity are unable to determine whether early experiences to specific mechanistic processes,
an association between a particular exposure (e.g., advancing hypotheses about the affective, cognitive,
parental substance abuse) and developmental outcome and neurobiological mechanisms that are most likely
(e.g., depression) is truly a consequence of the focal influenced by particular dimensions of early experi-
adversity or of other potentially co-occurring experi- ence. Finally, dimensional models focus on the func-
ences (e.g., physical abuse). Second, specificity models tional significance of different aspects of experience
assume that the mechanisms linking different adversi- in adaptively guiding behavior.
ties with developmental outcomes are distinct (Fig. 1). Dimensional models specify several core features of
This fails to appreciate that some mechanisms may be early experience that are likely to shape development.
similar for different types of adversity that share com- One such model rooted in understanding of experience-
mon features (e.g., physical abuse and witnessing driven plasticity distinguishes experiences that involve
domestic violence may increase the likelihood of threat, which encompasses harm or threat of harm to
Dimensional Models of Early Experience 1465

Specificity Cumulative Risk Dimensional Approach


Physical
Mechanism Outcome Adversity Mechanism Outcome
Abuse Deprivation

Community
Absent Severe
Violence

Institutional
Rearing
Outcome

Physical Threat/Harshness
Neglect

Absent Severe
Sexual
Abuse

Domestic
Violence Outcome

Unpredictability
Parental
Separation
Absent Severe
Emotional
Neglect

Outcome

Global and Unique Mechanisms


Numerous Global Mechanism: Cognitive Systems
Distinct Stress Response Systems Emotion Processing
Mechanisms
Faster Life-History Strategies

Fig. 1.  Approaches for conceptualizing childhood adversity. Three distinct approaches have been used for assessing exposure to adversity
in childhood and studying the mechanisms through which these experiences influence developmental outcomes. Adversity experiences
are depicted in colored circles, developmental mechanisms (i.e., cognitive, emotional, social, and neurobiological processes influenced by
adversity) are depicted with a gear symbol, and triangles symbolize change. Outcomes (e.g., depression, anxiety, poor school performance)
are depicted in black circles, although we acknowledge that the associations between different forms of adversity and specific outcomes may
vary. The specificity approach involves measuring adversity experiences individually (i.e., one at a time) and assumes that developmental
mechanisms influenced by different forms of adversity are largely distinct. The cumulative-risk approach involves counting the number of
discrete adversity exposures and experiences, assuming that the effects of distinct adversities on developmental outcomes are equal and
additive. Mechanisms through which these adversities influence development are often not specified and implicitly assumed to be general
(i.e., shared across adversity types). Dimensional models were developed to address the limitations of the specificity and cumulative-risk
approaches. These models identify core dimensions of experience that occur in multiple types of adversity that can be assessed continu-
ously as a function of the severity or chronicity of adversity experiences. Dimensional models specify the developmental mechanisms most
likely to be influenced by these aspects of experience, including some that are shared across multiple dimensions (e.g., changes in the
functioning of stress response systems) and others that are unique to certain dimensions. Experiences of deprivation are posited to relate
most strongly to changes in cognitive development, whereas experiences of threat/harshness are most strongly related to changes in emo-
tion processing and faster life-history strategies, including earlier pubertal maturation and risky sexual behavior. Unpredictability is related
to cognitive schemas that prioritize short-term over long-term rewards, executive function components involved in monitoring changing
environments (e.g., attention shifting), and faster life-history strategies.

the child, from those reflecting deprivation, which McLaughlin, 2014). These dimensions cut across numer-
involves an absence of expected inputs from the envi- ous exposures and experiences that involve the core
ronment during development, such as cognitive and feature of threat or deprivation to varying degrees. For
social stimulation (McLaughlin et al., 2014; Sheridan & example, threat of harm to the child occurs in physical,
1466 McLaughlin et al.

sexual, and emotional abuse; witnessing domestic vio- are fuzzy categories” (p. 71). After recasting dimen-
lence; and exposure to other forms of violence. The sional models as specificity models, they contend that
degree of threat involved in chronic physical abuse is dimensional approaches advocate for placing children
(typically) higher than that involved in occasional expo- into “separate groups who have had [purportedly] dif-
sure to community violence, but both experiences share ferent experiences” (p. 71). This framing fundamentally
a core feature of threat of harm to the child. This model misrepresents the purpose of dimensional approaches,
makes predictions about domains of affective, cogni- which seek to move beyond placement of children into
tive, and neural development that are both similarly single exposure categories as in specificity models and
and differentially influenced by experiences of threat lumping all exposures together as in cumulative-risk.
and deprivation. Instead, dimensional models seek to identify the shared
A second dimensional model, guided by evolutionary mechanisms through which diverse early experiences
life-history theory, differentiates experiences that influence different aspects of development (e.g., see
involve harshness, which encompasses extrinsic sources Fig. 1 in McLaughlin & Sheridan, 2016). Smith and
of morbidity and mortality, from those reflecting unpre- Pollak’s (2021) claim that threat and deprivation reflect
dictability, which involves stochastic variation in harsh- “fuzzy categories” fundamentally misrepresents what
ness (Ellis et al., 2009). Extrinsic refers to environmentally dimensional models seek to accomplish (irrespective
mediated causes of morbidity and mortality that cannot of whether they succeed or not).
generally be attenuated or prevented by the individual Admittedly, numerous challenges exist in defining
(e.g., family or community violence). A core assumption and operationalizing core underlying dimensions of
of evolutionary life-history models is that development early experience. This is particularly true for depriva-
is structured by resource-allocation trade-offs—such as tion and unpredictability. Exposure to the dimension
when increased inflammatory host response to fight of threat/harshness has been operationalized as the
infection trades off against lower ovarian function in number of different types of violence a child has
women or reduced musculoskeletal function in men— encountered or the overall frequency of violence expo-
and that such trade-offs coordinate morphology, physi- sure. Deprivation has been studied primarily as a lack
ology, and behavior in ways that promote reproductive of learning opportunities and stimulation, but it may
fitness (or once did) under different environmental be useful to consider separate dimensions of cognitive,
conditions recurrently experienced over evolutionary material, and emotional deprivation, each of which may
history. These coordinated patterns (instantiated in such have unique developmental consequences and mediat-
characteristics as timing of reproduction, levels of risky ing processes (Dennison et al., 2019; King et al., 2019).
and aggressive behaviors, and parenting quality) are Measuring unpredictability presents numerous concep-
referred to as life-history strategies. Harshness and tual and methodological hurdles (Young et al., 2020),
unpredictability constitute distinct contextual dimen- such as defining statistical properties of unpredictability
sions that regulate variation in development of life his- in relation to social and non-social environmental fac-
tory strategies across and within species. tors. New measurement tools informed by dimensional
Each of these models focuses on identifying underly- models are sorely needed. Existing assessments were
ing features of environmental experience that are shared developed to assess the presence of discrete exposures
across many adversity exposures and can be measured (e.g., parental substance abuse, neglect) rather than
along a continuum ranging from absent to severe. The dimensions of experience. Moreover, tools that measure
conceptualization and empirical study of early experience children’s experience in their natural environments
using these dimensional models is just beginning (for an (e.g., devices that measure the child’s language environ-
integrative review, see B. J. Ellis et al., in press), and ment [LENA] and caregiver–child proximity [TotTags])
developers of dimensional approaches have frequently will be particularly important for capturing variation in
noted that initially proposed dimensions are only starting experiences of deprivation and unpredictability, which
points for characterizing the early environment. are difficult to assess using only self- or caregiver-
reports (King et al., 2020).
A Response to Smith and Pollak’s Four Contrary to Smith and Pollak’s argument that dimen-
sional models seek to place children into “separate cat-
Problems With Dimensional Models egories” on the basis of different experiences, a central
Problem 1: Dimensional models do tenet of these models is that it is essential to measure
not advocate placing children into and model multiple dimensions of experience simultane-
ously (Belsky et al., 2012; McLaughlin, 2020; McLaughlin
discrete categories of exposure & Sheridan, 2016). Nevertheless, they are correct in
The first problem Smith and Pollak raise about dimen- pointing out that in initial studies, threat, deprivation,
sional models is that “subtypes of adverse experiences harshness, and unpredictability have sometimes been
Dimensional Models of Early Experience 1467

measured using dichotomous indicators of relevant multicollinearity in statistical analysis. They present
experiences (e.g., abuse reflecting the presence of a few examples of adversity studies documenting
threat, neglect reflecting the presence of deprivation). co-occurrence rates in the moderate range. More
This practice reflects the difficulty of applying recently comprehensive approaches to examining adversity co-
developed dimensional models to existing data collected occurrence—including prevalence rates in population-
using case-control designs aimed at identifying children based studies and meta-analyses—detect associations
with and without particular types of experiences. In in the small-to-moderate range (Matsumoto et al., 2020;
such designs, children typically fall into two groups— McLaughlin et al., 2012). There is debate about the spe-
those exposed to a relatively extreme form of adversity cific thresholds used to determine multicollinearity, but
(e.g., abuse) and those who never encountered adver- the cutoff most often used for correlations among pre-
sity, posing problems for modeling these experiences dictors that is likely to result in problematic variance
continuously. Shifting to a dimensional approach inflation is strikingly large (.80) and substantially larger
requires sampling strategies that capture not only chil- than the observed associations among even the most
dren with the most severe experiences but also those strongly co-occurring adversities. Moreover, a growing
in the mild-to-moderate range. As research on these number of statistical approaches beyond multiple regres-
topics has progressed, experiences of threat, depriva- sion have been implemented to account for adversity
tion, and unpredictability have been increasingly mea- co-occurrence when evaluating the associations of mul-
sured continuously, consistent with dimensional models tiple adversity types with developmental outcomes.
(Goetschius et al., 2020; Hein et al., 2020; Lambert et al., These include latent-class analysis (Ballard et al., 2015),
2017; Machlin et al., 2019; Miller et al., 2018, 2020). network models (Goetschius et al., 2020; Sheridan et al.,
In sum, dimensional models seek to identify and 2020), and bifactor models that characterize the unique
measure core features of environmental experience as and shared variance in early experiences of adversity
dimensions that vary along a continuum of severity and (Briggs-Gowan et al., 2019).
occur to varying degrees in diverse forms of adversity In sum, the overlap between multiple adversities is
(see Fig. S1 in the Supplemental Material available not sufficiently high that it creates problems for disen-
online). This affords the possibility of evaluating tangling whether particular aspects of experience have
whether, how, and why these underlying aspects of differential associations with developmental outcomes,
experience shape developmental processes. and there are numerous strategies for handling this co-
occurrence. The fact that adversities co-occur is not a
reasonable justification for assuming that all adversities
Problem 2: Co-occurrence of adversities are created equal.
does not mean that it is impossible to
examine differential effects Problem 3: Consistent differences
A second claim of Smith and Pollak is that the co- in the downstream consequences
occurrence of adversity poses a fundamental problem of different dimensions of early
for dimensional models. However, dimensional models
are predicated on the understanding that adversities
experience have been observed
co-occur (Belsky et  al., 2012; McLaughlin, 2020; The third critique advanced by Smith and Pollak is that
McLaughlin et  al., 2014). Without addressing this co- “It is not clear from extant data that there are consistent
occurrence by assessing multiple dimensions of experi- and replicable effects associated with different types of
ence, it would be easy to misattribute variance early childhood adversities” (p. 74). We contend that
associated with a particular adversity to another co- their effort to substantiate this claim empirically is lack-
occurring one. For this reason, dimensional models ing, although we acknowledge that much of the rele-
stipulate measuring multiple dimensions of adversity vant research is relatively recent. Indeed, a number of
simultaneously and only then examining their associa- recent empirical studies designed specifically to evalu-
tions (distinctly and jointly) with developmental out- ate propositions of dimensional models yield evidence
comes. Any study examining a single form of adversity consistent with these ideas. This includes work sup-
alone with no consideration of other aspects of adver- porting the predicted distinctions between threat and
sity would not be considered to be taking a dimensional deprivation in their associations with a range of devel-
approach and would be instead applying a specificity opmental outcomes, such as amygdala reactivity to
approach. threat, aversive learning, cognitive control, and even
One fundamental—and widely appreciated— pubertal timing (Goetschius et  al., 2020; Hein et  al.,
concern about co-occurrence discussed by Smith 2020; Lambert et al., 2017; Machlin et al., 2019; Miller
and Pollak is that it can introduce problems of et al., 2018, 2020; Peckins et al., 2020; Rosen et al., 2019;
1468 McLaughlin et al.

Sheridan et  al., 2017, 2020; Sumner et  al., 2019; Sun recurring hyperarousal and hypoarousal of stress
et  al., 2020; Wolf & Suntheimer, 2019). Perhaps the response systems, which regulate behavior in distinc-
strongest evidence comes from systematic reviews and tive way (Del Giudice et  al., 2011). Because of well-
meta-analyses that document clearly divergent associa- established deleterious effects of glucocorticoids on
tions of threat and deprivation with neural structure hippocampal neurons, any form of adversity that recur-
and function (McLaughlin et al., 2019) and measures of rently up-regulates the HPA axis is likely to affect hip-
biological aging, including pubertal timing and cellular pocampal structure and function. Indeed, this is borne
aging (Colich et al., 2020). out in a recent systematic review of the literature
Accumulating evidence also supports predicted (McLaughlin et al., 2019). To emphasize, dimensional
distinctions between dimensions of harshness and models do not stipulate that threat and deprivation
unpredictability. For example, unique associations of exert unique effects on stress-response systems—or on
environ­ m ental harshness and unpredictability with all developmental mechanisms. Instead, they argue that
numerous life-history traits have been observed, includ- some developmental pathways, but not others, are
ing mating and relationship outcomes, parenting, risk- uniquely influenced by particular dimensions of early
taking, effortful control, and temporal discounting experience.
(Belsky et al., 2012; Griskevicius et al., 2013; Simpson
et al., 2012; Sturge-Apple et al., 2017; Szepsenwol et al.,
2015, 2017, 2019). Moreover, multiple studies indicate Problem 4: Stress-response systems are
that young adults growing up in more unpredictable not the only biological mechanism
environments display enhanced abilities for flexibly through which the environment
switching between tasks or mental sets and for tracking
novel environmental information, particularly when in
influences development
a mindset of stress/uncertainty (Mittal et  al., 2015; Smith and Pollak’s final critique of dimensional models
Young et al., 2018). These results underscore the theo- is that different types of adverse early environments are
retical claim that developmental exposure to harsh and not biologically meaningful. In making this claim, they
unpredictable environments not only induces trade-offs argue that (a) categories of exposure such as abuse and
with costs to mental and physical health but also neglect are unlikely to map onto biology, (b) stress
enhances skills for solving problems that are ecologi- response systems are not responsive to particular types
cally relevant in such environments (Ellis et al., 2017, of experiences, and (c) children’s interpretation of
2020). The fact that no such effects emerged among events may be more important in shaping neurobiology
individuals who grew up in harsher environments than the actual experiences.
underscores, again, specificity in developmental con- First, dimensional models focus not on categories of
sequences of different dimensions of adversity. exposure but rather on core features of the environ-
Smith and Pollak additionally contend that evidence ment that occur to varying degrees in a range of dif-
for any developmental effects shared across adversity ferent exposures and experiences. These models
experiences somehow invalidates dimensional models. assume that these features of the environment will be
One principle central to dimensional models is that dif- associated with some pathways that are shared (i.e.,
ferent dimensions of experience will influence children disruptions in stress response systems) and some that
in ways that are at least partially distinct (see McLaughlin, are unique to particular types of experiences. For exam-
2020; McLaughlin et al., 2014). Thus, dimensional frame- ple, the idea that the brain responds in specific and
works do not make the same claims as specificity models unique ways to the presence of threat is uncontrover-
(i.e., that different exposures are associated with effects sial. The ability to identify threats in the environment
that are completely different). Treating them as if they do and mobilize defensive responses to them is essential
is equivalent to debating a straw man. for survival. Decades of animal and human neurosci-
To make their case, Smith and Pollak highlight stud- ence research supports the presence of neural circuits,
ies that show similar associations of threat and depriva- conserved across species, that respond to environ-
tion with stress response system functioning—specifically, mental threats and orchestrate defensive responses
the autonomic nervous system and hypothalamic- (LeDoux, 2003, 2012; Phelps & LeDoux, 2005). A sys-
pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, as well as hippocampal tematic review demonstrates that early-life experiences
structure. These arguments are puzzling, as advocates of threat are consistently associated with changes in
of dimensional models have long made clear that altera- the structure and function of these networks (e.g.,
tions in these stress-response systems are at least one reduced amygdala volume, elevated amygdala responses
common pathway influenced by many forms of adver- to threat cues; McLaughlin et al., 2019). These findings
sity (McLaughlin, 2020; McLaughlin & Sheridan, 2016; are consistent with substantial evidence that children
McLaughlin et al., 2014). Such alterations include both who have encountered threatening early environments
Dimensional Models of Early Experience 1469

exhibit heightened perceptual sensitivity to anger, human studies (e.g., language exposure shapes later
increased accuracy in identifying angry (but not other) phonemic perception; Kuhl et  al., 2003). Beyond
facial expressions, and attentional biases to threat decades of work in animal models, evidence from
cues—all results that have not been observed in children human cognitive neuroscience demonstrates that spe-
who experience deprivation (Pollak et al., 2005, 2009; cific types of environmental experiences have specific
Pollak & Sinha, 2002; Pollak & Tolley-Schell, 2003). effects on neural circuits. For example, children’s lin-
Central to dimensional models is the claim that the guistic experiences (measured observationally in their
magnitude of these effects should scale with the intensity natural environments) are related to the structure and
and duration of exposure to threat, and existing evidence function of circuits specialized for language processing
is consistent with that idea (Ganzel et al., 2013; Machlin (e.g., activity in Broca’s area during a language process-
et al., 2019; Marusak et al., 2015; McLaughlin et al., 2015). ing task, white-matter integrity of the arcuate fasciculus;
It is noteworthy that systematic reviews provide no evi- Romeo, Leonard, et  al., 2018; Romeo, Segaran, et  al.,
dence that an absence of cognitive and linguistic stimula- 2018). This simple example demonstrates clearly the
tion, for example, influences these same threat-related idea of experience-dependent plasticity in the brain that
neural systems (McLaughlin et al., 2019). is specific to neural circuits that process particular types
Second, Smith and Pollak present a remarkably nar- of information. This is difficult to reconcile with Smith
row view of biological mechanisms through which envi- and Pollak’s argument that “the nature or type of adverse
ronmental experiences influence development. They experiences is not directly tied to a specific neurobio-
argue that “stress-response systems are not sensitive to logical response or outcome” (p. 76). Although such
specific types of experience,” and we have already made specificity is unimpeachable in the domains of basic
clear that dimensional models do not presume other- sensory and motor processing and language, much
wise, although patterns of hyper- versus hypoarousal do remains to be understood in the domain of higher-order
have coherent developmental antecedents (Del Giudice cognition (Rosen et al., 2019; Sheridan & McLaughlin,
et al., 2011). Further, one might assume, on the basis of 2016). Identifying which inputs are of primary impor-
their arguments, that stress response systems are the only tance for shaping association cortex—at which devel-
route by which adverse environmental experience influ- opmental periods—is a task that requires time and
ences the brain. This is deeply inconsistent with existing careful scientific inquiry. The importance of a robust
evidence on experience-driven plasticity mechanisms and well-characterized scientific theory is that empirical
that influence neurodevelopment independent of the studies can evaluate and refine initial predictions. Dis-
stress response system. missing the idea that experience-driven learning and
Experience-driven plasticity involves several well- plasticity is a mechanism through which adversity influ-
established biological mechanisms through which ences neural development and focusing entirely on the
environmental experiences exert relatively specific stress response system will not advance these important
influences on learning and neurodevelopment, includ- scientific goals.
ing experience-expectant and experience-dependent Finally, Smith and Pollak argue that the way children
learning. These concepts are reviewed in depth interpret their experiences may be more important than
elsewhere (Gabard-Durnam & McLaughlin, 2020; the objective experience in shaping neurobiology. This
McLaughlin & Gabard-Durnam, in press; Nelson & idea is interesting and worthy of empirical investigation,
Gabard-Durnam, 2020). Experience-driven plasticity although existing data that speak directly to this issue
mechanisms produce substantial changes in behavior are sparse and suggest that correlations between apprais-
and neural circuits through myelination and synaptic als and physiology are small in magnitude (Denson
pruning that eliminates inefficient and unnecessary et  al., 2009; Mauss et  al., 2005). In our view, the way
connections in response to particular types of envi- children construe their experiences may be important in
ronmental inputs, some occurring during specific win- shaping some developmental mechanisms, though cer-
dows of heightened neuroplasticity known as sensitive tainly not all. The experience-driven plasticity mecha-
periods (Fu & Zuo, 2011; Takesian & Hensch, 2013). nisms thought to underlie many developmental
Exposure to the specific environmental experiences consequences of deprivation have little to do with chil-
is required to initiate the plasticity underlying experience- dren’s interpretation of their experiences. An absence of
expectant and experience-dependent learning, and the expected inputs from the environment, such as a lack
timing, quality, and intensity of those experiences deter- of exposure to linguistic input early in life, does not need
mines the amount of learning and plasticity that occur to be interpreted by children as stressful to have lasting
(Kolb & Gibb, 2014; Werker & Hensch, 2015). This has effects on neural architecture, learning, and cognitive
been amply demonstrated in animal models (e.g., an abilities any more than an absence of visual input has
absence of light input to the retina shifts organization to be appreciated by children to affect vision. In sum,
of primary visual cortex; Hubel & Wiesel, 1970) and extensive evidence supports the notion that specific
1470 McLaughlin et al.

types of environmental experiences are associated with References


changes in particular brain circuits and that the neuro- Ballard, E. D., Van Eck, K., Musci, R. J., Hart, S. R., Storr, C. L.,
developmental consequences of early-life adversity are Breslau, N., & Wilcox, H. C. (2015). Latent classes of
not restricted to stress response systems. childhood trauma exposure predict the development of
behavioral health outcomes in adolescence and young
Conclusion adulthood. Psychological Medicine, 45, 3305–3316.
Belsky, J., Schlomer, G. L., & Ellis, B. J. (2012). Beyond
It is difficult to understand and measure something as cumulative risk: Distinguishing harshness and unpredict-
complex and multifactorial as environmental experi- ability as determinants of parenting and early life history
ence. Despite this complexity, we posit not only that it strategy. Developmental Psychology, 48, 662–673.
is possible to identify core dimensions of experience Briggs-Gowan, M. J., Estabrook, R., Henry, D., Grasso, D. G.,
and map their associations with developmental out- Burns, J., McCarthy, K. J., Pollak, S. J., & Wakschlag, L. S.
comes but also that the field has already made important (2019). Parsing dimensions of family violence exposure
in early childhood: Shared and specific contributions to
headway toward this goal. Because Smith and Pollak in
emergent psychopathology and impairment. Child Abuse
their recent review mischaracterize dimensional models and Neglect, 87, 100–111.
and evidence related to them, we sought the opportu- Colich, N. L., Rosen, M. L., Williams, E. S., & McLaughlin, K. A.
nity to “correct the record.” We hope that this exchange (2020). Accelerated biological aging following childhood
has highlighted conceptual and empirical issues that experiences of threat and deprivation: A meta-analysis.
scholars of early-life adversity should be considering. Psychological Bulletin, 146, 721–764.
In that sense, Smith and Pollak’s critique has afforded Del Giudice, M., Ellis, B. J., & Shirtcliff, E. A. (2011). The
the field a service by stimulating important debate. Adaptive Calibration Model of stress responsivity.
Dimensional models identify underlying aspects of Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 1562–1592.
early experience that are likely to influence brain and Dennison, M. J., Rosen, M. L., Sheridan, M. A., Sambrook,
behavioral development, differentiate adaptive and K. A., Jenness, J. L., & McLaughlin, K. A. (2019). Differential
associations of distinct forms of childhood adversity with
maladaptive responses to adverse childhood experi-
neurobehavioral measures of reward processing: A devel-
ences, delineate specific—and sometimes unique— opmental pathway to depression. Child Development, 90,
mechanisms through which these experiences exert e96–e113. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13011
these influences, and provide falsifiable hypotheses Denson, T. F., Spanovic, M., & Miller, N. (2009). Cognitive
that can be tested in empirical studies. Dimensional appraisals and emotions predict cortisol and immune
models are evolving frameworks. As the predictions of responses: A meta-analysis of acute laboratory social
these models continue to be evaluated, these models stressors and emotion inductions. Psychological Bulletin,
will be refined and updated on the basis of new 135, 823–853.
evidence. Ellis, B. J., Abrams, L. S., Masten, A., Sternberg, R. J.,
Tottenham, N., & Frankenhuis, W. E. (2020). Hidden talents
Transparency in harsh environments. Development and Psychopatho­
logy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/
Action Editor: Laura A. King
S0954579420000887
Editor: Laura A. King
Ellis, B. J., Bianchi, J., Griskevicius, V., & Frankenhuis,
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
W. E. (2017). Beyond risk and protective factors: An
The author(s) declared that there were no conflicts of
adaptation-based approach to resilience. Perspectives
interest with respect to the authorship or the publication
on Psychological Science, 12, 561–587. https://doi
of this article.
.org/10.1177/1745691617693054
Funding
Ellis, B. J., Figueredo, A. J., Brumbach, B. H., & Schlomer,
This work was supported by National Institute of Mental
G. L. (2009). Fundamental dimensions of environmental
Health Grants R01-MH103291, R01-MH104682, and
risk: The impact of harsh versus unpredictable environ-
R37-MH119194.
ments on the evolution and development of life history
strategies. Human Nature, 20, 204–268.
ORCID iD Ellis, B. J., Sheridan, M. A., Belsky, J., & McLaughlin, K. A. (in
Jay Belsky https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2191-2503 press). Why and how does early adversity influence devel-
opment: Toward an integrated understanding of dimensions
Acknowledgments of environmental risk. Development and Psychopathology.
We thank Beyond Bounds Creative and Nessa Bryce for their Evans, G. W., & Kim, P. (2007). Childhood poverty and
assistance with the design of the figures in this article. health: Cumulative risk exposure and stress dysregu-
lation. Psychological Science, 18, 953–957. https://doi
.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02008.x
Supplemental Material Evans, G. W., Li, D., & Whipple, S. S. (2013). Cumulative
Additional supporting information can be found at http:// risk and child development. Psychological Bulletin, 139,
journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/1745691621992346 1342–1396.
Dimensional Models of Early Experience 1471

Fu, M., & Zuo, Y. (2011). Experience-dependent structural LeDoux, J. E. (2012). Rethinking the emotional brain.
plasticity in the cortex. Trends in Neurosciences, 34, Neuron, 73(4), 653–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron
177–187. .2012.02.004
Gabard-Durnam, L., & McLaughlin, K. A. (2020). Sensitive Machlin, L., Miller, A. B., Snyder, J., McLaughlin, K. A.,
periods in human development: Charting a course for & Sheridan, M. A. (2019). Differential associations of
the future. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 36, ­deprivation and threat with cognitive control and fear
120–128. conditioning in early childhood. Frontiers in Behavioral
Ganzel, B. L., Kim, P., Gilmore, H., Tottenham, N., & Neuroscience, 13, Article 80. https://doi.org/10.3389/
Temple, E. (2013). Stress and the healthy adolescent fnbeh.2019.00080
brain: Evidence for the neural embedding of life events. Marusak, H. A., Furman, D. J., Kuruvadi, N., Shattuck, D. W.,
Development and Psychopathology, 25(4 Pt 1), 879–889. Joshi, S. H., Joshi, A. A., Etkin, A., & Thomason, M. E.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579413000242 (2015). Amygdala responses to salient social cues vary with
Goetschius, L. G., Hein, T. C., McLanahan, S. S., Brooks- oxytocin receptor genotype in youth. Neuropsychologia,
Gunn, J., McLoyd, V. C., Dotterer, H. D., Lopez-Duran, N. L, 79, 1–9.
Mitchell, C., Hyde, L. W., Monk, C. S., & Beltz, A. M. Matsumoto, M., Piersiak, H., Letterie, M., & Humphreys,
(2020). Association of childhood violence exposure with K. L. (2020). Population-based estimates of associa-
adolescent neural network density. JAMA Network Open, tions between child maltreatment type: A meta-analysis.
3, Article e2017850. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanet PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/cv5qw
workopen.2020.17850 Mauss, I. B., Levenson, R. W., McCarter, L., Wilhelm, F. H., &
Griskevicius, V., Ackerman, J. M., Cantú, S. M., Delton, A. W., Gross, J. J. (2005). The tie that binds? Coherence among
Robertson, T. E., Simpson, J. A., Thompson, M. E., & emotion experience, behavior, and physiology. Emotion,
Tybur, J. M. (2013). When the economy falters, do people 5, 175–190.
spend or save? Responses to resource scarcity depend on McLaughlin, K. A. (2020). Early life stress and psychopathol-
childhood environments. Psychological Science, 24(2), ogy. In K. L. Harkness & E. P. Hayden (Eds.), The Oxford
197–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612451471 handbook of stress and mental health (pp. 45-74). Oxford
Hein, T. C., Goetschius, L., McLoyd, V. C., Brooks-Gunn, J., University Press.
McLanahan, S., Mitchell, C., Lopez-Duran, N., Hyde, L., McLaughlin, K. A., & Gabard-Durnam, L. (in press). Experience-
& Monk, C. S. (2020). Childhood violence exposure and driven plasticity and the emergence of psychopathol-
social deprivation are linked to adolescent threat and ogy: A mechanistic framework integrating development
reward neural function. Social Cognitive and Affective and the environment into the Research Domain Criteria
Neuroscience, 15(11), 1252–1259. https://doi.org/10.1093/ (RDoC) model. Journal of Abnormal Psychology.
scan/nsaa144 McLaughlin, K. A., Weissman, D. G., & Bitran, D. (2019).
Hubel, D. H., & Wiesel, T. N. (1970). The period of suscepti- Childhood adversity and neural development: A system-
bility to the physiological effects of unilateral eye closure atic review. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology,
in kittens. The Journal of Physiology, 206, 419–436. 1, 277–312.
Humphreys, K. L., & Zeanah, C. H. (2015). Deviations from McLaughlin, K. A., Green, J. G., Gruber, M. J., Sampson, N. A.,
the expectable environment in early childhood and Zaslavsky, A., & Kessler, R. C. (2012). Childhood adversi-
emerging psychopathology. Neuropsychopharmacology, ties and first onset of psychiatric disorders in a national
40, 154–170. sample of adolescents. Archives of General Psychiatry,
King, L. S., Humphreys, K. L., & Gotlib, I. H. (2019). The 69, 1151–1160.
neglect–enrichment continuum: Characterizing variation McLaughlin, K. A., Peverill, M., Gold, A. L., Alves, S., & Sheridan,
in early caregiving environments. Developmental Review, M. A. (2015). Child maltreatment and neural systems under-
51, 109–122. lying emotion regulation. Journal of the American Academy
King, L. S., Querdasi, F. R., Humphreys, K. L., & Gotlib, of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 54, 753–762.
I. (2020). Dimensions of the language environment in McLaughlin, K. A., & Sheridan, M. A. (2016). Beyond cumula-
infancy and symptoms of psychopathology in toddlerhood. tive risk: A dimensional approach to childhood adversity.
OSF. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/caqez Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 239–245.
Kolb, B., & Gibb, R. (2014). Searching for principles of brain https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416655883
plasticity and behavior. Cortex: A Journal Devoted to the McLaughlin, K. A., Sheridan, M. A., & Lambert, H. K. (2014).
Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 58, 251–260. Childhood adversity and neural development: Deprivation
Kuhl, P. K., Tsao, F. M., & Liu, H. M. (2003). Foreign-language and threat as distinct dimensions of early experience.
experience in infancy: Effects of short-term exposure and Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 47, 578–591.
social interaction on phonetic learning. Proceedings of Miller, A. B., Machlin, L., McLaughlin, K. A., & Sheridan,
the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 100, 9096–9101. M. A. (2020). Deprivation and psychopathology in the
Lambert, H. K., King, K. M., Monahan, K. C., & McLaughlin, K. A. Fragile Families Study: A 15-year longitudinal investiga-
(2017). Differential associations of threat and deprivation tion. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 62(4),
with emotion regulation and cognitive control in adoles- 382–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13260
cence. Development and Psychopathology, 29, 929–940. Miller, A. B., Sheridan, M. A., Hanson, J. L., McLaughlin, K. A.,
LeDoux, J. E. (2003). The emotional brain, fear, and the amyg- Bates, J. E., Lansford, J. E., Petit, G. S., & Dodge, K. A.
dala. Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology, 23, 727–737. (2018). Dimensions of deprivation and threat, psycho-
1472 McLaughlin et al.

pathology, and potential mediators: A multi-year longi- Sheridan, M. A., Peverill, M., & McLaughlin, K. A. (2017).
tudinal analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 127, Dimensions of childhood adversity have distinct associa-
160–170. tions with neural systems underlying executive function-
Mittal, C., Griskevicius, V., Simpson, J. A., Sung, S., & Young, ing. Development and Psychopathology, 29, 1777–1794.
E. S. (2015). Cognitive adaptations to stressful envi- Sheridan, M. A., Shi, F., Miller, A. B., Salhi, C., & McLaughlin,
ronments: When childhood adversity enhances adult K. A. (2020). Network structure reveals clusters of
executive function. Journal of Personality and Social ­associations between childhood adversities and devel-
Psychology, 109, 604–621. opment outcomes. Developmental Science, 23, Article
Nelson, C. A., & Gabard-Durnam, L. (2020). Early adversity e12934. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12934
and critical periods: Neurodevelopmental consequences Simpson, J. A., Griskevicius, V., Kuo, S. I. -C., Sung, S., &
of violating the expectable environment. Trends in Collins, W. A. (2012). Evolution, stress, and sensitive
Neuroscience, 43, 133–143. periods: The influence of unpredictability in early versus
Peckins, M. K., Roberts, A. G., Hein, T. C., Hyde, L. W., Mitchell, late childhood on sex and risky behavior. Developmental
C., Brooks-Gunn, J., McLanahan, S. S., Monk, C. S., & Psychology, 48, 674–686.
Lopez-Duran, N. L. (2020). Violence exposure and social Smith, K. E., & Pollak, S. D. (2021). Rethinking concepts
deprivation is associated with cortisol reactivity in urban and categories for understanding the neurodevelop-
adolescents. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 111, Article mental effects of childhood adversity. Perspectives on
104426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2019.104426 Psychological Science, 16, 1, 67–93. https://doi.org/
Phelps, E. A., & LeDoux, J. E. (2005). Contributions of the 10.1177/1745691620920725
amygdala to emotion processing: From animal models to Sturge-Apple, M. L., Davies, P. T., Cicchetti, D., Hentges, R. F.,
human behavior. Neuron, 48, 175–187. & Coe, J. L. (2017). Family instability and children’s effort-
Pollak, S. D., Messner, M., Kistler, D. J., & Cohn, J. F. (2009). ful control in the context of poverty: Sometimes a bird
Development of perceptual expertise in emotion recogni- in the hand is worth two in the bush. Development and
tion. Cognition, 110, 242–247. Psychopathology, 29, 685–696.
Pollak, S. D., & Sinha, P. (2002). Effects of early experience Sumner, J. A., Colich, N. L., Uddin, M., Armstrong, D., & McLaughlin,
on children’s recognition of facial displays of emotion. K. A. (2019). Early experiences of threat, but not deprivation,
Development and Psychopathology, 38, 784–791. are associated with accelerated biological aging in children
Pollak, S. D., & Tolley-Schell, S. A. (2003). Selective attention and adolescents. Biological Psychiatry, 85, 268–278.
to facial emotion in physically abused children. Journal Sun, Y., Fang, J., Wan, Y., Su, P., & Tao, F. (2020). Association
of Abnormal Psychology, 112(3), 323–338. of early-life adversity with measures of accelerated bio-
Pollak, S. D., Vardi, S., Putzer Bechner, A. M., & Curtin, J. J. logical aging among children in China. JAMA Network
(2005). Physically abused children’s regulation of attention Open, 3, Article e2013588. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama
in response to hostility. Child Development, 76, 968–977. networkopen.2020.13588
Romeo, R. R., Leonard, J. A., Robinson, S. T., West, M. R., Szepsenwol, O., Griskevicius, V., Simpson, J. A., Young, E. S.,
Mackey, A. P., Rowe, M. L., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2018). Fleck, C., & Jones, R. E. (2017). The effect of predictable
Beyond the 30-million-word gap: Children’s conversa- early childhood environments on sociosexuality in early
tional exposure is associated with language-related brain adulthood. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 11, 131–145.
function. Psychological Science, 29, 700–710. https://doi Szepsenwol, O., Simpson, J. A., Griskevicius, V., & Raby, K. L.
.org/10.1177/0956797617742725 (2015). The effect of unpredictable early childhood
Romeo, R. R., Segaran, J., Leonard, J. A., Robinson, S., environments on parenting in adulthood. Journal of
West, M. R., Mackey, A. P., Yendiki, A., Rowe, M. L., & Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 1045–1067.
Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2018). Language exposure relates to Szepsenwol, O., Zamir, O., & Simpson, J. A. (2019). The effect of
structural neural connectivity in childhood. The Journal early-life harshness and unpredictability on intimate partner
of Neuroscience, 38, 7870–7877. violence in adulthood: A life history perspective. Journal of
Rosen, M. L., Amso, D., & McLaughlin, K. M. (2019). The role Social and Personal Relationships, 36, 1542–1556.
of the visual association cortex in scaffolding prefrontal Takesian, A. E., & Hensch, T. (2013). Balancing plasticity/
cortex development: A novel mechanism linking socio- stability across brain development. Progress in Brain
economic status and executive function. Developmental Research, 207, 3–34.
Cognitive Neuroscience, 39, Article 100699. https://doi Werker, J. F., & Hensch, T. K. (2015). Critical periods in
.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2019.100699 speech perception: New directions. Annual Review of
Rosen, M. L., Meltzoff, A., Sheridan, M. A., & McLaughlin, Psychology, 66, 173–196.
K. A. (2019). Distinct aspects of the early environment Wolf, S., & Suntheimer, N. M. (2019). A dimensional risk
contribute to associative memory, cued attention, and approach to assessing early adversity in a national sample.
memory-guided attention: Implications for academic Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 62, 270–281.
achievement. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 40, Young, E. S., Frankenhuis, W. E., & Ellis, B. J. (2020). Theory
Article 100731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2019.100731 and measurement of environmental unpredictability.
Sheridan, M. A., & McLaughlin, K. A. (2014). Dimensions of Evolution and Human Behavior, 41, 550-556.
early experience and neural development: Deprivation Young, E. S., Griskevicius, V., Simpson, J. A., Waters, T. E.,
and threat. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 580–585. & Mittal, C. (2018). Can an unpredictable childhood envi-
Sheridan, M. A., & McLaughlin, K. A. (2016). Neurobiological ronment enhance working memory? Testing the sensitized-
models of the impact of adversity on education. Current specialization hypothesis. Journal of Personality and
Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 10, 108–113. Social Psychology, 114, 891–908.

You might also like