In my articles and guides on this site, I often describe correlations between specific developmental stages and corresponding trauma responses. This is a novel idea (as far as I can tell). While the four primary trauma responses—flight, freeze, fight, and orient—are well-established in the trauma field, their systematic alignment with early childhood developmental periods has received limited attention in academic literature. This document provides theoretical and empirical support for correlating each developmental stage (in the Bodynamic model) with a specific trauma response pattern.

Theoretical Foundation

The alignment proposed here draws from three converging theoretical frameworks:

Polyvagal Theory (Porges, 2007, 2011) provides the neurophysiological foundation for understanding how trauma responses organize hierarchically in response to threat. The theory describes how the autonomic nervous system develops phylogenetically, with newer regulatory systems (ventral vagal/social engagement) emerging first, followed sequentially by older defensive systems (sympathetic/mobilization and dorsal vagal/immobilization) when safety cannot be established (Porges, 2007). Critically, these neural systems mature during specific developmental windows, with myelination of the vagal pathways occurring during the last trimester of pregnancy and continuing through the first year postpartum (Porges & Furman, 2011).

Bodynamic Somatic Developmental Psychology maps specific psychomotor developmental tasks to chronological periods, recognizing that each stage involves particular relational themes and muscular organizations that can be disrupted by adverse experiences. The earliest stages—Existence/Belonging (2nd trimester to 3 months), Need Fulfillment (1 month to 18 months), Autonomy (8 months to 2.5 years), and Will/Power (2 to 4 years)—each present unique vulnerabilities based on the developmental tasks being negotiated.

Dynamical Systems approaches to development recognize that protective patterns organize in response to environmental constraints during sensitive periods, creating attractor states that persist across development (Thelen & Smith, 1994). These self-organizing patterns are not arbitrary but reflect the functional solutions available to the developing nervous system given its current capacities and environmental demands.

Stage-Specific Alignments

Existence and Belonging (2nd Trimester to 3 Months) → Flight Response

The flight response represents the primary protective strategy available when the fundamental right to exist and belong feels threatened. Research on infant stress responses during this earliest developmental window reveals a distinctive pattern: when overwhelmed, newborns and young infants display sustained social withdrawal behavior (ISSWB), a pattern observed in conditions ranging from maternal depression to failure-to-thrive (Viaux-Savelon et al., 2022). This withdrawal represents a form of psychological flight—departing from overwhelming stimulation or threatening presence when physical escape is impossible.

The neurophysiological foundation for this pattern emerges during fetal development. Porges’s polyvagal research demonstrates that the myelinated vagal pathways responsible for social engagement begin developing during the last trimester (Porges, 2011). When these systems encounter threat during this critical window—through prenatal maternal depression, stress, or postpartum disruption—infants learn that presence invites danger and develop patterns of withdrawal and dissociation (Field et al., 2004). Studies of prenatal depression effects show that exposed infants display greater relative right frontal EEG activation (associated with withdrawal behavior) and lower vagal tone from birth (Field et al., 2010).

The infant withdrawal literature provides compelling evidence. Research using the Alarm Distress Baby scale (ADBB) has documented that infants display sustained withdrawal in response to relational adversity, with rates as high as 69-72% in high-risk populations (Viaux-Savelon et al., 2022). This withdrawal pattern—characterized by reduced facial expressivity, limited eye contact, decreased vocalizations, and diminished body activity—represents the infant’s attempt to manage unbearable states of arousal or distress through departure from engagement. Critically, this pattern is associated with adverse outcomes including insecure attachment, developmental delays, and later emotional disorders.

The flight response during this stage is not yet coordinated physical escape—that capacity arrives later—but rather represents departure through dissociation, withdrawal, and psychological elsewhere. The nervous system learns, before language and explicit memory, that belonging is dangerous and departure is safety.

Need Fulfillment (1 Month to 18 Months) → Freeze Response

The freeze response emerges as the dominant protective pattern when needs go chronically unmet. During the Need Fulfillment stage, infants learn whether reaching out brings response, whether the world will meet their hunger, whether their signals matter. When needs are consistently unmet—through parental depression, substance use, chaos, or absence—the developing system faces an impossible situation: the infant cannot flee (no capacity for independent locomotion) and cannot fight (no capacity to force response). The only remaining option is to freeze: shut down, stop asking, wait passively.

Research on infant attachment and freezing provides direct support for this alignment. Studies demonstrate that insecure infant attachment—particularly in contexts of maternal unavailability—predicts amplified freezing responses that persist into adolescence (Niermann et al., 2015). The study found that infants assessed as insecurely attached at 14 months showed significantly more bodily freezing (reduced body sway) in response to threat cues as adolescents, suggesting that early attachment experiences organize lasting patterns of defensive immobilization.

The neurophysiology of the freeze response during this period involves the dorsal vagal complex—the phylogenetically oldest autonomic subsystem that mediates conservation of metabolic resources through immobilization (Porges, 2007). When activation of this system becomes chronic during the Need Fulfillment stage, the infant learns that energy expenditure in pursuit of need satisfaction is futile. The freeze response isn’t weakness; it represents an adaptive conservation of resources when efforts to elicit caregiving consistently fail.

Failure-to-thrive research provides additional evidence. Studies of FTT infants consistently document altered approach/withdrawal behavior, with children displaying specific patterns of freezing and withdrawal (Powell & Low, 1983). These infants are perceived as less adaptable, more inconsolable, and exhibiting diminished social engagement—all characteristics consistent with chronic freeze activation (Singer, 1986). The developmental trajectory from Need stage disruption through freeze response to depression represents a coherent pathway: when the fundamental capacity to elicit care through active reaching fails to develop, passive waiting becomes the default strategy.

Autonomy (8 Months to 2.5 Years) → Orienting Response

The orient response—characterized by chronic hypervigilance and perpetual scanning for threat—emerges when autonomous exploration occurs in unpredictable or dangerous environments. The Autonomy stage represents the period when toddlers begin to move independently through space, to explore their world, to discover their capacity to affect their environment through purposeful action. This developmental drive toward autonomy is robust and will express itself even in adverse circumstances. However, when the environment during this stage is characterized by overcontrol, inconsistent boundaries, punishment for exploration, or genuine danger requiring constant vigilance, the child develops chronic hyperorientation.

Research on parental overcontrol and child anxiety provides substantial support for this alignment. A comprehensive meta-analysis found that parental overprotection during early childhood (the period corresponding to the Autonomy stage) shows a moderate effect size (0.25) in predicting child anxiety (McLeod et al., 2007). The mechanism is clear: overprotection conveys constant threat to the child, leading to hypervigilance and increased fear, resulting in reluctance to explore new situations and higher rates of anxiety disorders (Wood et al., 2003). Studies specifically examining the toddler period found that maternal overcontrol during ages 1-2 predicts hypervigilance, social anxiety, and chronic scanning behavior in later childhood.

The orient response precedes fight and flight in the defensive hierarchy—you must first assess where threat is coming from before you can determine whether to fight or flee. When environments are unpredictable during the Autonomy stage, children never learn that some contexts are safe for exploration. Instead, they develop perpetual assessment: constant scanning, inability to settle, movement that is both compulsive (must keep moving to stay ahead of threat) and directionless (no destination is truly safe). Research on behavioral inhibition in toddlers shows that children who experience controlling or anxious parenting during the Autonomy period display significantly elevated and persistent inhibition and anxiety across development (Bögels & Phares, 2008).

The autonomic foundation for this pattern involves chronic sympathetic activation without resolution—the mobilization system remains engaged but without clear action pathway. The child cannot fight (too small, too vulnerable) and cannot flee (the caregiver is both source of threat and source of safety), so hypervigilance becomes the compromise solution: perpetual readiness without the capacity to act decisively.

Will and Power (2 to 4 Years) → Fight Response

The fight response aligns naturally with the Will and Power stage—the developmental period when aggression emerges as a normal part of psychomotor development. Research consistently demonstrates that physical aggression in children reaches its peak frequency during the third year of life (Tremblay et al., 2004). This is not pathology; it represents the developmental window when children are learning about power, boundaries, impact, and the capacity to affect others through forceful action.

Studies of aggression development show that aggressive behaviors emerge in the second half of the first year and increase steadily, reaching maximum frequency around age 2-3 (Szegal, 1985). During this window, children naturally experiment with hitting, pushing, biting, and other forms of physical assertion. With appropriate guidance and developing self-regulation capacities, most children learn to channel these aggressive energies into prosocial assertiveness by age 4-5. However, when the Will and Power stage is disrupted—through harsh punishment, systematic crushing of autonomy, coercive control, or environments where power must be fiercely defended—the fight response becomes chronic rather than transitional.

The neurophysiological capacity for organized aggression requires sufficient prefrontal development to coordinate aggressive action, typically emerging around 18-24 months. Prior to this, infants can display anger and distress, but cannot organize sustained aggressive responses. Research shows that aggressive behavior during ages 2-4 is associated with emotion dysregulation, difficulty with impulse control, and family environments characterized by coercive interactions (Calkins et al., 1999). When children learn during this stage that their “no” will be crushed unless defended with force, that power will be stolen unless fiercely protected, the fight response organizes as a persistent defensive pattern.

Studies of chronic childhood aggression reveal that high levels of physical aggression during the toddler-preschool period predict continued aggressive behavior into school age and beyond (Campbell et al., 2006). The distinction between normal developmental aggression and problematic chronic fighting lies in whether the child successfully develops the capacity to use words instead of fists—a transition that requires both neurological maturation and relational support during the Will and Power stage. When this stage is disrupted, fighting remains the primary strategy for maintaining boundaries and defending autonomy.

Integration with Polyvagal Theory

Porges’s polyvagal framework provides crucial support for the developmental specificity of these trauma response alignments. The theory describes a hierarchy of neural regulation that parallels both phylogenetic evolution and ontogenetic development (Porges, 2007). The three neural circuits—ventral vagal (social engagement), sympathetic (mobilization), and dorsal vagal (immobilization)—are recruited sequentially based on the assessment of safety or threat (neuroception).

During the earliest developmental period (Existence/Belonging), the ventral vagal system is just beginning to myelinate and come online. When this system encounters threat before it fully develops, the default response involves the unmyelinated dorsal vagal pathway—producing withdrawal and dissociation (flight through departure from presence). During the Need stage, when the social engagement system fails to elicit caregiving, prolonged activation of the dorsal vagal circuit produces the freeze response. During Autonomy development, chronic sympathetic activation without resolution creates the hypervigilant orient pattern. By the Will and Power stage, sufficient prefrontal development allows for coordinated sympathetic-driven fight responses.

The developmental timing of vagal myelination directly supports these alignments. Research shows that respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA), an index of vagal regulation, changes most dramatically during the first 6 months postpartum (Fracasso et al., 1994), corresponding to the Existence/Belonging and Need stages. Higher baseline vagal tone during this period predicts better emotional regulation and social competence later in childhood (Calkins & Keane, 2004), suggesting that disruptions during these stages have lasting impacts on regulatory capacity.

Developmental Psychopathology Perspectives

The alignment of developmental stages with trauma responses finds additional support in developmental psychopathology research. Studies consistently demonstrate that the timing of adversity matters—different periods of vulnerability create distinct patterns of adaptation. Research on adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) shows that experiences during the first three years of life have particularly profound impacts on regulatory capacities, attachment security, and stress responsiveness (Shonkoff et al., 2012).

Studies of emotion regulation development provide evidence for stage-specific vulnerabilities. Research demonstrates that the capacity for effortful control develops rapidly during the first few years, with major transitions occurring around the periods corresponding to each Bodynamic stage (Rothbart et al., 2001). Disruptions during specific windows create characteristic patterns: withdrawal and dissociation when earliest social engagement is threatened, passive freezing when active need expression fails, hypervigilance when autonomous exploration encounters danger, and chronic fighting when will and power must be defended.

The concept of “experience-expectant” development is particularly relevant. The nervous system organizes in anticipation of certain environmental features during sensitive periods. When those expected features (safety during Existence, responsive caregiving during Need, support for exploration during Autonomy, respect for emerging will during Power) are absent, the system adapts by organizing defensive patterns appropriate to the perceived threat level and the developmental capacities available at that stage.

Limitations and Future Directions

This theoretical alignment, while drawing on substantial empirical research, requires several important caveats:

First, developmental stages do not have sharp boundaries. The Bodynamic framework describes overlapping periods, and trauma responses are not exclusive to single stages. A child may experience disruptions across multiple developmental windows, resulting in hybrid or sequential trauma response patterns.

Second, trauma responses are not deterministic outcomes of developmental disruption. Individual differences in temperament, genetic vulnerability, and resilience factors significantly moderate the relationship between early adversity and defensive patterning. Many children experience stage-appropriate challenges without developing chronic trauma responses.

Third, the correlation between specific developmental stages and trauma responses, while theoretically compelling and empirically supported, has not been directly tested in longitudinal studies specifically designed to examine these linkages. Such research would need to assess developmental disruptions during each Bodynamic stage, measure emerging trauma responses at subsequent periods, and follow trajectories into later childhood and adolescence.

Future research directions might include:

  • Longitudinal studies tracking infants from prenatal period through early childhood, assessing stage-specific adversities and corresponding trauma response patterns
  • Neuroimaging studies examining how developmental timing of adversity relates to patterns of neural activation in response to threat
  • Intervention studies testing whether developmentally-timed supports can prevent the crystallization of trauma responses into persistent patterns
  • Cross-cultural studies examining whether these alignments hold across different cultural contexts and childrearing practices

Clinical Implications

Understanding the developmental specificity of trauma responses has profound implications for assessment and intervention. Rather than applying generic trauma treatment approaches, clinicians can ask: During which developmental period did the formative experiences occur? What were the child’s capacities at that stage? What trauma response would have been functionally available and adaptive given those capacities?

A person whose nervous system organized around flight during the Existence stage faces different challenges than someone whose freeze response developed during the Need stage, or whose hypervigilance emerged during Autonomy exploration, or whose fighting developed during the Will and Power period. Each pattern represents a different developmental vulnerability, a different learning about how the world works, a different set of adaptive strategies that once made sense but now limit flourishing.

Treatment approaches can be tailored to the developmental roots of the pattern. Elsewhere addictions rooted in Existence disruption require different interventions than inward addictions rooted in Need stage trauma, or onward addictions emerging from Autonomy-stage hypervigilance, or backward addictions organized around Will and Power struggles. Understanding these developmental pathways helps us recognize why certain interventions work for some presentations but not others.

Conclusion

The alignment of Bodynamic developmental stages with specific trauma responses represents a theoretically coherent and empirically supported framework for understanding how early adversity organizes into lasting defensive patterns. The correlation between Existence/Belonging and flight, Need Fulfillment and freeze, Autonomy and orient, and Will/Power and fight emerges from the intersection of developmental capacities, environmental demands, and neurophysiological organization during sensitive periods.

While this alignment requires further direct empirical testing, it draws support from multiple converging lines of research: polyvagal theory’s description of hierarchical defensive systems, attachment research on freezing and withdrawal, studies of parental control and child anxiety, research on aggression development, and investigations of how developmental timing of adversity creates distinct patterns of adaptation. The framework provides a developmental lens for understanding not simply that early experiences matter, but how and when specific experiences shape particular patterns of defensive responding.

Sources

Bögels, S. M., & Phares, V. (2008). Fathers’ role in the etiology, prevention and treatment of child anxiety: A review and new model. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(4), 539-558.

Calkins, S. D., & Keane, S. P. (2004). Cardiac vagal regulation across the preschool period: Stability, continuity, and implications for childhood adjustment. Developmental Psychobiology, 45(3), 101-112.

Calkins, S. D., Gill, K. L., Johnson, M. C., & Smith, C. L. (1999). Emotional reactivity and emotional regulation strategies as predictors of social behavior with peers during toddlerhood. Social Development, 8(3), 310-334.

Campbell, S. B., Spieker, S., Burchinal, M., Poe, M. D., & NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2006). Trajectories of aggression from toddlerhood to age 9 predict academic and social functioning through age 12. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(8), 791-800.

Field, T., Diego, M., & Hernandez-Reif, M. (2004). Prenatal depression effects on the fetus and newborn: A review. Infant Behavior and Development, 27(2), 216-229.

Field, T., Diego, M., & Hernandez-Reif, M. (2010). Prenatal depression effects and interventions: A review. Infant Behavior and Development, 33(4), 409-418.

Fracasso, M. P., Porges, S. W., Lamb, M. E., & Rosenberg, A. A. (1994). Cardiac activity in infancy: Reliability and stability of individual differences. Infant Behavior and Development, 17(3), 277-284.

McLeod, B. D., Wood, J. J., & Weisz, J. R. (2007). Examining the association between parenting and childhood anxiety: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 27(2), 155-172.

Niermann, H. C., Ly, V., Smeekens, S., Figner, B., Riksen-Walraven, J. M., & Roelofs, K. (2015). Infant attachment predicts bodily freezing in adolescence: Evidence from a prospective longitudinal study. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 263.

Porges, S. W. (2007). The polyvagal perspective. Biological Psychology, 74(2), 116-143.

Porges, S. W. (2011). The polyvagal theory: Neurophysiological foundations of emotions, attachment, communication, and self-regulation. W. W. Norton & Company.

Porges, S. W., & Furman, S. A. (2011). The early development of the autonomic nervous system provides a neural platform for social behavior: A polyvagal perspective. Infant and Child Development, 20(1), 106-118.

Powell, G. F., & Low, J. F. (1983). Behavior in nonorganic failure to thrive. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 4(1), 26-33.

Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., Hershey, K. L., & Fisher, P. (2001). Investigations of temperament at three to seven years: The Children’s Behavior Questionnaire. Child Development, 72(5), 1394-1408.

Shonkoff, J. P., Garner, A. S., Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care, & Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. (2012). The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics, 129(1), e232-e246.

Singer, L. T. (1986). Long-term hospitalization of failure-to-thrive infants: Developmental outcome at three years. Child Abuse & Neglect, 10(4), 479-486.

Szegal, B. (1985). Stages in the development of aggressive behavior in early childhood. Aggressive Behavior, 11(4), 315-321.

Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. MIT Press.

Tremblay, R. E., Nagin, D. S., Séguin, J. R., Zoccolillo, M., Zelazo, P. D., Boivin, M., Pérusse, D., & Japel, C. (2004). Physical aggression during early childhood: Trajectories and predictors. Pediatrics, 114(1), e43-e50.

Viaux-Savelon, S., Guedeney, A., & Deprez, A. (2022). Infant social withdrawal behavior: A key for adaptation in the face of relational adversity. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 809309.

Wood, J. J., McLeod, B. D., Sigman, M., Hwang, W. C., & Chu, B. C. (2003). Parenting and childhood anxiety: Theory, empirical findings, and future directions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44(1), 134-151.