In my articles and guides on this site, I often describe correlations between specific developmental stages and corresponding trauma responses. This is a novel approach (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:

Allostatic Load and Developmental Stress Physiology provide the neurobiological foundation for understanding how stress response systems develop during sensitive periods and organize into persistent patterns. Allostasis—the process of achieving stability through change—describes how the body adapts to repeated stressors (McEwen & Wingfield, 2003). When developing stress systems encounter chronic adversity during critical periods, they calibrate to high-threat environments, creating lasting patterns of defensive responding that persist long after the original threat has passed.

The developmental timing of stress system maturation is crucial. The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis undergoes rapid development during the prenatal period and first years of life, with critical organizational effects occurring during specific windows (Gunnar & Quevedo, 2007). Similarly, sympathetic nervous system reactivity shows distinct developmental trajectories, with different patterns of stress responsiveness emerging at different ages (El-Sheikh et al., 2009). These physiological systems don’t simply turn on at birth; they gradually come online, each during its own sensitive period, and adversity during these windows creates stage-specific vulnerabilities.

Research on early life stress demonstrates that the timing of adversity matters profoundly. Stress experienced during infancy produces different neurobiological and behavioral outcomes than stress experienced during toddlerhood or preschool years (Lupien et al., 2009). This developmental specificity reflects the fact that different neural and physiological systems are undergoing rapid growth and organization at different times. When these systems encounter threat during their sensitive periods, they organize defensively—creating patterns that were adaptive in that moment but may become constraints later in life.

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 and the capacities available to the developing child.

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. A trauma response, in this view, isn’t a pathology but rather an adaptive solution that made sense given the child’s developmental capacities and the nature of the threat encountered.

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 (Guedeney et al., 2022). This withdrawal represents a form of psychological flight—departing from overwhelming stimulation or threatening presence when physical escape is impossible.

The neurobiological foundation for this pattern emerges during fetal development and the early postnatal period. During the last trimester and first months of life, critical neural systems responsible for social engagement undergo rapid development (Schore, 2001). The right hemisphere, which specializes in processing emotional information and regulating stress responses, shows particularly intense growth during this period. When these developing systems encounter threat—through prenatal maternal stress, postpartum depression, or early relational trauma—the infant’s stress physiology calibrates to an environment where presence invites danger.

Studies of prenatal stress effects demonstrate this calibration process clearly. Infants exposed to maternal depression during pregnancy show altered cortisol reactivity from birth, with patterns suggesting a stress system already organized around threat expectation (Field et al., 2004). Research using EEG has found that such infants display greater relative right frontal activation—a pattern associated with withdrawal motivation—and these patterns predict social withdrawal behavior in toddlerhood (Field et al., 2010). The developing brain, encountering adversity during this critical window, organizes around departure and disengagement as primary strategies for managing unbearable arousal.

The infant withdrawal literature provides compelling evidence for this alignment. 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 (Guedeney 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 overwhelming states through departure from engagement. The pattern is not simply shyness or temperament; it predicts insecure attachment, developmental delays, and later emotional disorders.

Critically, this flight response during the Existence stage is not yet coordinated physical escape—that capacity arrives later—but rather represents departure through dissociation, withdrawal, and psychological elsewhere. The stress system learns, before language and explicit memory, that belonging is dangerous and departure offers relief. This early learning creates a template: when overwhelmed, leave—if not physically, then psychologically. The pattern, once established, shows remarkable persistence, manifesting across development as social withdrawal, dissociative tendencies, and what I have described elsewhere as “elsewhere” addictions—the compulsive seeking of psychological departure through substances, screens, or other means of leaving the present moment.

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 attachment and physiological regulation 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 followed infants assessed as insecurely attached at 14 months and found they showed significantly more bodily freezing (reduced body sway) in response to threat cues as adolescents. This remarkable finding suggests that early attachment experiences—which occur squarely within the Need Fulfillment stage—organize lasting patterns of defensive immobilization.

The neurophysiology of the freeze response during this period involves a distinctive pattern of parasympathetic activation combined with high sympathetic arousal. Research on dissociation in infancy has found that when caregiving is consistently unresponsive, infants show decreased behavioral activity coupled with maintained physiological arousal—they appear still externally while remaining intensely activated internally (Schore, 2001). This pattern reflects a nervous system caught between the impulse to seek care (mobilization) and the learned futility of that seeking (immobilization).

The developmental timing is crucial. During the first 18 months, the HPA axis is undergoing critical organizational development, with patterns of cortisol reactivity becoming increasingly stable (Gunnar & Quevedo, 2007). Infants who experience consistent caregiver unavailability during this window show altered HPA axis functioning, often with either blunted cortisol responses (indicating shutdown) or exaggerated responses (indicating hyperreactivity). The freeze response isn’t simply behavioral; it reflects a fundamental reorganization of stress physiology around conservation and waiting.

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. The infant learns that energy expenditure in pursuit of need satisfaction is futile, and the body organizes around metabolic conservation—a pattern that may persist as chronic fatigue, depression, and what I have called “inward” addictions that numb and subdue rather than energize.

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 control 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 operates through threat communication: overprotection conveys constant danger 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 sustained hypervigilance, social anxiety, and chronic scanning behavior in later childhood.

The neurobiological foundation for this pattern involves the developing capacity for threat detection and environmental monitoring. During the toddler years, brain regions involved in threat assessment—particularly the amygdala and its connections to attention systems—undergo rapid development (Tottenham, 2014). When these systems mature in environments requiring constant vigilance, they calibrate to high sensitivity. The child’s nervous system learns that safety is provisional, that threat can emerge at any moment, that relaxation invites danger.

This creates a distinctive physiological signature: sustained sympathetic activation without resolution. Research on behavioral inhibition in toddlers—a temperamental pattern closely related to hypervigilance—shows that inhibited children display elevated cortisol reactivity and sustained physiological arousal in novel situations (Kagan, 1994). When this pattern develops not from temperament but from environmental unpredictability during the Autonomy stage, it reflects the nervous system’s adaptation to chaos. 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.

Studies of parenting style confirm this developmental pathway. Research found that controlling parenting specifically during the toddler period predicts child anxiety symptoms, with the effect mediated by the child’s developing belief that the world is dangerous (Bögels & Phares, 2008). The orient response, in this view, represents the child’s embodied conclusion: “I must watch constantly because threat could come from anywhere at any time.” This pattern, once established, manifests across development as generalized anxiety, difficulty settling, compulsive productivity, and what I have described as “onward” addictions—the driven, restless pursuit of the next thing, the next achievement, the next distraction from the unbearable vulnerability of simply being still.

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 neurobiological 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. The development of executive functions during the Will and Power stage enables not just aggression but planned, purposeful assertion of will (Carlson, 2005). When this developmental window encounters environments that systematically violate boundaries or crush emerging autonomy, the child learns that their “no” will be ignored unless defended with force, that power will be stolen unless fiercely protected.

Research on chronic childhood aggression reveals 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. Studies examining family environments found that children who remain chronically aggressive past age 4 typically experienced coercive parenting patterns during the Will stage—interactions characterized by escalating conflicts, harsh punishment, and power struggles (Calkins et al., 1999).

The stress physiology during chronic fight activation shows a distinctive pattern: elevated sympathetic arousal coupled with lower parasympathetic tone, creating a state of sustained mobilization without adequate braking (El-Sheikh et al., 2009). Children locked in fight patterns often display lower resting heart rate variability—a marker of reduced regulatory capacity—and show rapid escalation to anger with difficulty returning to baseline. The nervous system has organized around a world requiring constant readiness to defend, to push back, to fight for every inch of autonomy.

When this pattern becomes established during the Will and Power stage, it manifests across development as oppositional behavior, difficulty with authority, chronic anger, and what I have described as “backward” addictions—the compulsive need to resist, to push against, to maintain power through opposition and control. The fight response, like all trauma responses, represents an adaptation that made sense in its developmental moment but creates suffering when it persists beyond its usefulness.

Developmental Neurobiology and Stress System Maturation

Understanding how stress response systems develop across the early years provides crucial context for these stage-specific alignments. The HPA axis, sympathetic nervous system, and parasympathetic regulatory capacities each follow distinct developmental trajectories, coming online during specific sensitive periods (Gunnar & Quevedo, 2007; Schore, 2001).

During the prenatal period and first months of life, the developing fetus and infant show limited HPA axis reactivity, with maternal physiology providing much of the stress regulation (O’Connor et al., 2013). This period corresponds to the Existence/Belonging stage, when withdrawal represents the primary available defensive strategy. As the infant moves into the Need Fulfillment stage, the HPA axis begins to show more independent reactivity, but remains highly dependent on caregiver coregulation. Chronic caregiver unavailability during this window leaves the infant without adequate external regulation and without fully developed internal regulation—creating the conditions for freeze responses.

The sympathetic nervous system shows increasing reactivity across the first two years, with toddlers displaying stronger and more sustained sympathetic activation than infants (El-Sheikh et al., 2009). This developmental change corresponds to the emergence of the Autonomy stage, when the child has sufficient physiological capacity to maintain hypervigilant scanning. By the Will and Power stage, prefrontal development allows for coordinated aggressive responses, with the child able to organize sympathetic arousal into purposeful fighting.

Critically, these developing stress systems are experience-dependent—they organize in response to the environments they encounter (Lupien et al., 2009). A child whose Need stage occurs in a consistently responsive environment develops stress physiology calibrated to safety, with moderate reactivity and good recovery. A child whose Need stage occurs in chaotic neglect develops stress physiology calibrated to threat, with either blunted responses (shutdown/freeze) or exaggerated responses (hyperreactivity). The nervous system isn’t broken; it’s adapted—but adapted to circumstances that no longer exist.

Research on allostatic load demonstrates that cumulative stress during early development creates lasting physiological dysregulation (McEwen & Wingfield, 2003). Children who experience chronic adversity during sensitive periods show altered cortisol patterns, heightened inflammatory markers, and dysregulated autonomic functioning that persists into adolescence and adulthood. These aren’t simply correlations; they represent the biological embedding of early experience, the ways that developmental adversity literally gets under the skin and shapes the body’s ongoing responses to challenge.

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 (Shonkoff et al., 2012). 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.

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 here. The nervous system organizes in anticipation of certain environmental features during sensitive periods (Greenough et al., 1987). 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.

This creates what developmental psychopathologists call “cascading effects”: early adaptations constrain later development (Masten & Cicchetti, 2010). A child who develops withdrawal during the Existence stage may later struggle to express needs during the Need stage. A child who develops freezing during the Need stage may be too shutdown to explore during the Autonomy stage. Each stage builds on previous stages, and disruption early in the sequence affects all subsequent development.

Yet resilience research also shows that these cascades can be interrupted (Rutter, 2012). The nervous system retains plasticity; new experiences can create new patterns. A child who developed freeze responses during the Need stage can, with adequate support and safety, develop new capacities for active engagement. The patterns are persistent but not permanent, strong but not immutable. Understanding their developmental origins helps us recognize both their logic and their limitations.

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. Real human development is messier than any model can capture.

Second, trauma responses are not deterministic outcomes of developmental disruption. Individual differences in temperament, genetic vulnerability, attachment security, and access to supportive relationships significantly moderate the relationship between early adversity and defensive patterning. Many children experience stage-appropriate challenges without developing chronic trauma responses. Conversely, some children show remarkable vulnerability to even relatively mild disruptions. The pathways from adversity to adaptation are multiple and complex.

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. The alignment I propose here represents a synthesis of existing research rather than a tested hypothesis.

Fourth, this framework focuses primarily on relational trauma—disruptions in the caregiving relationship during sensitive developmental periods. Other forms of trauma (medical trauma, disaster, community violence) may create different patterns that don’t align as neatly with developmental stages. The model’s applicability may be strongest for understanding how early relational adversity organizes into persistent defensive patterns.

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
  • Studies examining whether adults with different trauma response patterns show differential treatment responses based on the developmental origins of their patterns

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. Flight responses rooted in Existence disruption often require work on fundamental safety and the right to exist—helping the person discover that presence doesn’t invite annihilation. Freeze responses from the Need stage typically require gradual relearning that reaching out can bring response, that the world might meet needs. Orient responses from Autonomy disruption benefit from interventions that help the nervous system discover that some contexts are genuinely safe, that constant vigilance isn’t necessary. Fight responses from Will and Power struggles often respond to approaches that honor the person’s need for autonomy while helping them discover that boundaries can be maintained without constant fighting.

Understanding these developmental pathways also helps us recognize why certain interventions work for some presentations but not others. Someone with deep Existence-stage disruption may find exposure-based treatments overwhelming because their nervous system learned that presence itself is dangerous. Someone with Need-stage freeze patterns may struggle with interventions requiring active engagement before they’ve developed the capacity to reach out. The developmental lens helps us match interventions to the specific adaptive challenges the person faces.

This approach also suggests the importance of relational repair as a therapeutic mechanism. If trauma responses organized in the context of disrupted attachment relationships during sensitive developmental periods, then healing may require new relational experiences that provide what was missing. For Existence-stage disruption, this might mean therapist presence that conveys “you have a right to be here.” For Need-stage disruption, it might mean consistent responsiveness that teaches “your needs matter.” For Autonomy-stage patterns, it might mean support for exploration without control. For Will-stage patterns, it might mean respect for the person’s “no” without power struggles.

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.

This framework draws support from multiple converging lines of research: allostatic load theory’s description of how stress systems calibrate to early environments, 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. While requiring further direct empirical testing, the alignment provides a developmental lens for understanding not simply that early experiences matter, but how and when specific experiences shape particular patterns of defensive responding.

Understanding trauma responses as developmental adaptations—solutions that made sense given the child’s capacities and the challenges encountered during sensitive periods—helps us see them not as pathologies to be eliminated but as patterns to be understood, respected, and gradually revised. The infant who learned to depart when presence felt dangerous, the toddler who learned to freeze when needs went unmet, the exploring child who learned to scan constantly for threat, the preschooler who learned to fight for every inch of autonomy—each adapted brilliantly to impossible circumstances. Our task is not to judge these adaptations but to help create conditions where new patterns can emerge, where the nervous system can discover that the old solutions are no longer necessary.

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., 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.

Carlson, S. M. (2005). Developmentally sensitive measures of executive function in preschool children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28(2), 595-616.

El-Sheikh, M., Erath, S. A., Buckhalt, J. A., Granger, D. A., & Mize, J. (2008). Cortisol and children’s adjustment: The moderating role of sympathetic nervous system activity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(4), 601-611.

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.

Greenough, W. T., Black, J. E., & Wallace, C. S. (1987). Experience and brain development. Child Development, 58(3), 539-559.

Guedeney, A., Forhan, A., Larroque, B., de Agostini, M., Pingault, J. B., Heude, B., & EDEN Mother-Child Cohort Study Group. (2022). Infant social withdrawal behavior: A key for adaptation in the face of relational adversity. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 809309.

Gunnar, M., & Quevedo, K. (2007). The neurobiology of stress and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 145-173.

Kagan, J. (1994). Galen’s prophecy: Temperament in human nature. Basic Books.

Lupien, S. J., McEwen, B. S., Gunnar, M. R., & Heim, C. (2009). Effects of stress throughout the lifespan on the brain, behaviour and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), 434-445.

Masten, A. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2010). Developmental cascades. Development and Psychopathology, 22(3), 491-495.

McEwen, B. S., & Wingfield, J. C. (2003). The concept of allostasis in biology and biomedicine. Hormones and Behavior, 43(1), 2-15.

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.

O’Connor, T. G., Bergman, K., Sarkar, P., & Glover, V. (2013). Prenatal cortisol exposure predicts infant cortisol response to acute stress. Developmental Psychobiology, 55(2), 145-155.

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.

Rutter, M. (2012). Resilience as a dynamic concept. Development and Psychopathology, 24(2), 335-344.

Schore, A. N. (2001). Effects of a secure attachment relationship on right brain development, affect regulation, and infant mental health. Infant Mental Health Journal, 22(1‐2), 7-66.

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.

Tottenham, N. (2014). The importance of early experiences for neuro-affective development. Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences, 16, 109-129.

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.

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.