When I was a boy I spent summers on the Sunshine Coast, north of Vancouver, at my grandmother’s summer place. I slept downstairs, at ground level, in a room that faced east with a window overlooking the beach. Sometimes I’d be awakened in the early morning by the rising sun extending a long fiery finger across the water. I’d climb out of bed, open the patio door and amble down to the beach, where logs that had drifted in perhaps a century ago offered a warm and quiet place to sit.

I’d think about my father coming here when he was a boy, watching gulls glide on the morning breeze, waiting for the first ferry to swing around the point into view. Sometimes there’d be a boat out early, a trawler heading for the gap into the Strait. Its bow would part the silken waters as though the first story of the world were unfolding. The sun would sparkle on the wake, and in those unfolding moments my sense of my father’s boyhood would merge with my own. I would almost lose track of my distinctiveness, sliding into place like a pearl on its string, threaded into a long strand of moments, each one the first.

I did not know then what I understand now: that those mornings were shaping me. Not metaphorically—literally. The warmth of the driftwood, the rhythm of the waves, the safety of my grandmother’s presence in the house behind me—these were not merely pleasant experiences. They were building something in my developing nervous system, laying down neural pathways that would influence how I responded to stress, to relationship, to the world, for the rest of my life.

I know this because the research now confirms what the body always knew. And I know it because I also carry the other strand—the one threaded with my mother’s addiction, her mental illness, the night she tried to leave this world. Both strands are mine. Both shaped who I became.

The Strand We Inherit

When I work with professionals in healthcare, education, and social services—people who encounter individuals struggling with addiction, mental illness, and trauma—I often meet resistance to the developmental perspective. In some ways, the resistance makes sense: accepting that early experiences shape vulnerability to addiction and mental health challenges later in life can feel like accepting blame, fatalism, or an excuse for poor choices. It can feel like we’re saying childhood determines everything and nothing can be changed.

But that’s not what the developmental perspective says. It says something both more nuanced and more hopeful: early experiences create vulnerabilities and dispositions that shape how we respond to life’s challenges, not destinies that cannot be altered. Like pearls threaded onto a strand during childhood, each experience adds to what we carry—its weight, its color, its shape. But the strand continues. New pearls are always being added. The question is not whether the early ones can be removed—they cannot—but whether new experiences can change the weight and meaning of the whole.

This isn’t speculation. It’s what decades of research have consistently demonstrated.

The Evidence

In the 1990s, two researchers—Vincent Felitti and Robert Anda—asked what seemed like a simple question: Do adverse experiences in childhood create vulnerabilities that persist across the entire lifespan? They surveyed over 17,000 adults about ten categories of childhood adversity occurring before age 18: physical, emotional, and sexual abuse; physical and emotional neglect; witnessing domestic violence; household substance abuse; household mental illness; parental separation or divorce; and having an incarcerated household member.

They affirmed what most clinicians already know: childhood experiences don’t just affect people during childhood—they create biological and psychological vulnerabilities that persist across the lifespan, dramatically increasing the risk of addiction, mental illness, chronic disease, and early death. The relationship followed what researchers call a “dose-response” pattern—like dark pearls accumulating on a strand, each one adding weight to what must be carried:

  • One adverse childhood experience doubled the risk of alcoholism
  • Two ACEs quadrupled the risk
  • Four or more ACEs meant a person was seven times more likely to struggle with alcoholism and ten times more likely to inject drugs

This pattern extended to nearly every major health outcome. Adults with four or more ACEs showed twelve times higher prevalence of suicide attempts, seven times higher likelihood of alcoholism, and dramatically increased risk of heart disease, cancer, chronic lung disease, and liver disease compared to those with no ACEs.

The pattern was unambiguous: the more adverse experiences in childhood, the higher the risk of physical and mental health problems in adolescence and adulthood. Not because these experiences caused illness directly through simple cause and effect, but because they shaped the developing nervous system in ways that made the individual more vulnerable.

The Evidence Keeps Accumulating

In the more than 25 years since the original ACE study, the findings have been confirmed across hundreds of studies in diverse populations and multiple countries.

A 2024 study tracking health outcomes over 20 years found that children exposed to ACEs showed significantly higher rates of traumatic injuries, mental health disorders, and physical health problems throughout childhood and adolescence. A 2024 meta-analysis examining data from 33 U.S. states found clear dose-response relationships between ACE exposure and 17 different chronic health conditions in adulthood, with effects particularly pronounced for individuals from historically marginalized communities.

Perhaps most compelling is research from 2024 using twin study designs to control for shared genetic and environmental factors. Even after accounting for familial confounding, associations between ACEs and adult psychiatric disorders remained strong, particularly after sexual abuse or multiple ACEs. This suggests the impact of early adversity isn’t simply about genetic predisposition or family environment—there’s something specific about the experience itself that shapes vulnerability.

The relationship between childhood adversity and adult health outcomes is among the most consistent findings in medical and psychological research. This is established science. The childhood developmental environment shapes vulnerability to mental illness and addiction. Each early experience adds to the strand we carry.

How Early Experience Gets Under the Skin

Understanding the neurobiology helps move the conversation beyond blame to mechanism. Early experiences literally shape the developing brain—not through choice or willpower, but through the fundamental plasticity of the nervous system during critical developmental windows.

The Stress Response System Forms Early

During the first years of life, the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis—the body’s primary stress response system—is being calibrated. This is the system that determines how we respond to threat, how quickly we return to calm, how much stress we can tolerate before becoming overwhelmed.

When a child experiences chronic stress without adequate co-regulation from caregivers, this system develops altered sensitivity. It becomes either hyper-reactive—responding to minor stressors as major threats—or hypo-reactive, becoming blunted after chronic activation. These alterations don’t simply disappear when the adverse circumstances end. They represent a recalibration of the stress response system that can persist across the lifespan, creating vulnerability to depression, anxiety, PTSD, and addiction.

I think of this when I remember those mornings on the beach. My grandmother’s presence in the house behind me was not merely comforting. It was calibrating my stress response system, teaching my nervous system that the world could be safe, that distress would be met with care. This is what caregiving does during those early years—it doesn’t just provide safety in the moment. It builds the capacity to feel safe in the future.

Emotional Regulation Depends on Co-Regulation

Infants don’t regulate their own emotions—they depend entirely on caregivers to help them move from distress to calm. Through thousands of repetitions of this cycle—distress, caregiver response, soothing, return to calm—the infant’s nervous system learns how to regulate. This process, called co-regulation, literally shapes neural pathways involved in emotional regulation.

When co-regulation is inconsistent or unavailable, the capacity for self-regulation doesn’t develop properly. The neural circuits that should be strengthened through repeated experiences of distress being soothed remain underdeveloped. This isn’t about willpower or motivation—it’s about neural architecture that was built, or not built, during critical periods of development.

Research on attachment and early brain development shows that caregiver responsiveness during infancy shapes gray matter volume in brain regions involved in social cognition, emotional processing, and executive function. Children with more secure attachments to caregivers in infancy show larger volumes in areas critical for social understanding and emotional regulation in late childhood.

The strand is being threaded in those earliest years. Each experience of being met, or not met, adds to what the developing nervous system comes to expect from the world.

Brain Structure and Function Change

Extensive research demonstrates that early adversity literally alters brain structure and function. Childhood maltreatment is associated with reduced volume in the hippocampus—involved in memory and emotional regulation—altered amygdala activity, and changes in prefrontal cortex development.

These aren’t subtle changes—they’re measurable structural and functional alterations visible on brain imaging. The brain develops a bias toward threat detection in individuals with ACE histories, particularly during processing of negative emotional stimuli. The timing of adversity matters. Sensitive periods during development—particularly the first three years and adolescence—show disproportionate responsiveness to environmental input. Adversity during these windows has particularly profound and lasting effects on the neural systems involved in emotional regulation, threat detection, and reward processing—exactly the systems implicated in vulnerability to addiction and mental illness.

Attachment Patterns Become Neural Templates

The patterns of relationship with primary caregivers become encoded in neural pathways that serve as templates for all future relationships. Secure attachment creates neural patterns organized around the expectation that reaching out brings response and that others can be relied upon for comfort and support. Insecure attachment creates different patterns—either hyperactivation, a kind of anxious preoccupation with relationships and fear of abandonment, or deactivation, a learned dismissal of relationship needs as a defense against disappointment—that shape how individuals approach relationships across the lifespan.

These early relationship patterns don’t just influence behavior—they shape the developing brain’s architecture through experience-dependent processes. The infant brain develops within an interpersonal context, with structural and functional networks shaped by the quality of early caregiver-infant interactions.

When I remember those mornings on the Sunshine Coast, I understand now that my grandmother was not just providing a pleasant vacation. She was offering a different kind of pearl for my strand—one that would sit alongside the darker pearls of my mother’s struggles, offering counterweight, offering a different template for what relationship could be.

Vulnerability, Not Destiny

Here’s what to understand: the developmental perspective describes vulnerabilities and dispositions, not deterministic causes or fixed destinies. Early experiences create patterns of nervous system organization that make certain outcomes more likely when faced with particular stressors or challenges. But many people who experience significant childhood adversity do not develop addiction or mental illness. Many find healing through subsequent relationships, through therapy, through circumstances that support nervous system reorganization.

The strand we carry from childhood is not the whole strand. It continues to be threaded throughout life. The question is not whether the early pearls can be removed—they cannot—but whether what comes after can change the weight and meaning of the whole.

I carry my mother’s addiction, her mental illness, the night she tried to leave. I carry these as pearls on a strand I did not choose. But I also carry those mornings on the beach, my grandmother’s steady presence, the particular quality of light on the water when the sun first cleared the mountains. The strand is long. No single pearl determines its meaning.

Understanding the developmental perspective explains why certain vulnerabilities exist, why some people struggle more than others with addiction or mental illness despite apparently similar life circumstances, why approaches that work for one person might fail for another. It allows us to design interventions that address the underlying patterns rather than just managing surface symptoms.

Critical Windows

One of the most important insights from developmental neuroscience is the concept of sensitive periods—windows of time when particular brain systems are especially plastic and responsive to environmental input. During these periods, the brain is organizing itself based on the environment it encounters. Experiences during sensitive periods have disproportionate impact on neural development compared to similar experiences occurring outside these windows.

The first three years of life represent a critical period for the development of stress response systems, emotional regulation capacities, and attachment patterns. Adversity during this period has particularly profound effects. Similarly, adolescence represents a sensitive period for the development of executive functions, social cognition, and the consolidation of identity.

This doesn’t mean experiences outside these windows don’t matter—they do. But it helps explain why early adversity has such lasting impact and why interventions targeting these early patterns can be so powerful. We’re not just addressing current symptoms; we’re working with foundational patterns laid down during periods of maximal neural plasticity.

The pearls added during sensitive periods sit closer to the center of the strand. They influence the weight and direction of everything that follows.

The Intergenerational Strand

Another piece: many of the patterns that create vulnerability in children are themselves transmitted across generations. Parents who experienced adversity in their own childhoods often carry unresolved trauma, attachment difficulties, and nervous system dysregulation that affect their capacity to provide attuned, responsive caregiving—not because they’re bad parents, but because they’re parenting from their own unhealed wounds.

This intergenerational transmission happens through multiple pathways: epigenetic changes—heritable alterations in gene expression that occur without changes to the DNA sequence itself, allowing a parent’s stress to influence a child’s biology—modeling of emotion regulation strategies, quality of attachment relationships, and the cumulative impact of poverty, discrimination, and social marginalization that concentrate across generations.

When I think of my mother, I think of her strand—the pearls she carried from her own childhood, the patterns she inherited that she could not interrupt. Her addiction, her mental illness, her attempt to leave—these were not failures of character. They were expressions of a nervous system organized around adversity she could not escape. Understanding this doesn’t excuse harm done, but it provides context. It helps me see that I carry not just my own developmental history but potentially the unresolved patterns of previous generations.

This perspective should evoke compassion rather than blame. The parent who was unable to provide consistent co-regulation because of their own depression, the caregiver who modeled avoidance because that’s how they learned to cope, the family system organized around managing one member’s addiction—these patterns make sense when we understand them developmentally. And recognizing them allows us to interrupt intergenerational transmission by addressing the underlying patterns rather than just responding to surface behaviors.

What This Means for Supporting Recovery

Understanding the developmental foundations of addiction and mental illness changes how we support people struggling with these challenges.

First, we recognize that healing takes time. We’re not just addressing current symptoms—we’re working with patterns established during critical periods of development. The nervous system reorganization required for sustainable recovery from addiction typically takes 3-5 years, not weeks or months—though individual trajectories vary based on the nature of the adversity, the presence of co-occurring conditions, and the supports available. This isn’t failure; it’s realistic expectation based on developmental neuroscience.

Because the wounds were relational—failures of co-regulation, attachment disruptions, absence of attunement—the healing often needs relational elements. This means therapy that emphasizes the therapeutic relationship, peer support that provides genuine connection, family work that repairs attachment patterns, community that offers belonging.

There is no single path. For some, medication is essential—psychiatric medications that stabilize mood or anxiety, or medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder, which remains the gold standard of care. For others, structured programs like 12-step fellowships or SMART Recovery provide the accountability and community that support lasting change. Cognitive-behavioral approaches help many people identify and interrupt destructive patterns. Body-based therapies and somatic approaches address what words cannot reach. The developmental perspective doesn’t privilege one modality over another—it asks which combination of approaches, offered in what sequence, might address this particular person’s particular patterns.

We must avoid approaches that replicate developmental trauma. Confrontational interventions, coercive treatment, punitive responses, or approaches that shame people for their struggles can replicate the early experiences that created vulnerability in the first place. Effective treatment requires safety, attunement, and respect for autonomy.

The developmental perspective resists reducing addiction to a simple “disease” or “choice” model. It acknowledges the intricate interplay of genetic predisposition, developmental experience, current circumstances, social context, and individual agency. This complexity is not a problem—it’s reality, and our approaches must honor that reality.

The Paradox of Hope

Here’s the paradox: the developmental perspective feels more painful than simpler explanations, but it offers more hope.

Consider the alternative—if addiction were simply about willpower or choice, then wanting to stop should be enough. But we know it’s not. People desperately want to stop, try with everything they have, and still struggle. The “just try harder” narrative sets people up for repeated experiences of failure that deepen shame and hopelessness.

The developmental perspective explains why trying harder isn’t enough, why the pattern is so difficult to interrupt, why the person feels compelled toward behaviors they consciously don’t want. And in explaining the “why,” it points toward what might actually help: not more willpower, but nervous system reorganization; not more guilt, but repair of underlying attachment patterns; not more punishment, but experiences of safety and attunement that allow different neural patterns to develop.

Research on neuroplasticity—the brain’s capacity to change throughout life—demonstrates that the patterns formed in childhood can be modified through new experiences, through therapy, through relationships that provide what was missing early on. The brain remains plastic across the lifespan. Recovery is possible precisely because we’re not trapped by our developmental history—we’re influenced by it, shaped by it, sometimes constrained by it, but not imprisoned by it.

The strand continues. New pearls are always being added.

Holding Complexity

The developmental perspective asks us to hold multiple truths simultaneously:

  • Early childhood experiences shape vulnerability to addiction and mental illness
  • Most parents do the best they can with the resources and awareness available to them
  • Your best might not have been enough for what your child’s particular nervous system needed
  • Not being enough doesn’t mean you failed as a parent or person
  • Understanding what created vulnerability helps guide effective intervention now
  • The person struggling with addiction is not weak, undisciplined, or making poor choices—they’re responding from a nervous system organized by early experiences

Can you hold all of these truths at once? It requires a kind of mature complexity—moving beyond simple narratives of blame or excuses into a territory of compassionate understanding that makes room for everyone’s humanity.

And for those who were the children in these stories—for those whose strands were threaded with adversity they did not choose—there is something else to hold: the grief. The loss of a childhood that should have been different. The parent you needed but didn’t get. The version of yourself you might have been. This grief is real, and it deserves acknowledgment. So does the anger. Understanding your parent’s wounds does not require forgiving them, at least not on any timeline but your own. Compassion and rage can coexist. You can understand developmentally why your parent could not provide what you needed and still be angry that you were the one who paid the cost. Both truths. Both valid. Both part of what must be held.

I have had to learn to hold my mother this way—to understand that her addiction and mental illness were expressions of her own strand, her own developmental history, her own wounds that preceded my birth. To hold her with compassion while also acknowledging that her struggles shaped my nervous system in ways I did not choose and could not prevent. To recognize that I am both wounded by her and indebted to those who offered different pearls—my grandmother chief among them. Some days the compassion comes easily. Other days, the anger. Both are true.

The Mystery That Remains

The developmental perspective explains much, but not everything. It describes patterns and vulnerabilities but cannot predict individual outcomes with certainty. It offers frameworks and models that are useful for organization and illustration but cannot reduce the irreducible complexity of any single human life.

This is as it should be. We are not machines whose behavior can be perfectly predicted from initial conditions. We are living systems, always in process, always capable of surprising ourselves and others.

The developmental perspective, properly understood, should deepen our humility rather than our certainty. It should help us recognize that we’re working with profound patterns laid down during the most vulnerable periods of development, patterns that have biological, psychological, relational, and cultural dimensions we cannot fully disentangle. This recognition should inform our work with tremendous respect—respect for the complexity of what we’re engaging with, respect for the courage required to reorganize patterns established before conscious memory, respect for the mystery that remains even after all our explaining.

Return to the Shore

I am older now than my grandmother was when I spent those summers at her place on the Sunshine Coast. The summer house is gone—sold long ago to strangers who knew nothing of what those mornings meant. But I carry it with me still. Not as memory only, but as neural architecture, as the particular way my nervous system learned that the world could hold safety alongside danger, presence alongside absence, love alongside loss.

When I sit with someone struggling with addiction, with mental illness, with the weight of a strand threaded heavily with adversity, I think of those mornings. I think of how my grandmother’s steady presence—just being there, just being available, just offering the rhythm of ordinary care—was building something in me that would counterbalance what was harder to carry.

This is what the developmental perspective teaches us: that we are shaped by what happens early, but we are not finished. That the strand continues to be threaded. That every moment of attuned presence, every experience of safety, every encounter with someone who sees us clearly and does not turn away—these become new pearls on the strand, changing its weight, changing its meaning.

The first ferry is swinging around the point. The sun is on the water. And somewhere, in the long strand of moments that connects my father’s boyhood to my own to my children and theirs, something is still being threaded—each pearl sliding into place, each one carrying the light.

Sources

Bernard, K., Frost, A., Bennett, C. B., & Lindhiem, O. (2023). Maltreatment and diurnal cortisol regulation: A meta-analysis. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 147, 105994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2022.105994

Callaghan, B. L., & Tottenham, N. (2016). The stress acceleration hypothesis: Effects of early-life adversity on emotion circuits and behavior. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 7, 76-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.11.018

Coan, J. A.(2008). Toward a neuroscience of attachment. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 241-265). Guilford Press.

Daníelsdóttir, H. B., Aspelund, T., Shen, Q., Halldorsdottir, T., Jakobsdóttir, J., Song, H., Lu, D., Kuja-Halkola, R., Larsson, H., Fall, K., Magnusson, P. K. E., Fang, F., Bergstedt, J., & Valdimarsdóttir, U. A.(2024). Adverse childhood experiences and adult mental health outcomes. JAMA Psychiatry, 81(6), 586-594. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.0039

Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., Koss, M. P., & Marks, J. S.(1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8

Jemiyo, C., McGregor, B. A., Rehana, H., & Hur, J. (2025). Adverse childhood experiences and chronic health outcomes: Evidence from 33 US states in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2019-2023. BMC Public Health, 25, 1650. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-22785-2

Knudsen, E. I.(2004). Sensitive periods in the development of the brain and behavior. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(8), 1412-1425. https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929042304796

Kolb, B., & Gibb, R. (2011). Brain plasticity and behaviour in the developing brain. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 20(4), 265-276.

Kuhlman, K. R., Geiss, E. G., Vargas, I., & Lopez-Duran, N. L.(2020). HPA-axis activation as a key moderator of childhood trauma exposure and adolescent mental health. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 48, 857-869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-020-00639-4

Martins, B., Taveira-Gomes, T., Gomes, J. C., Vidal-Alves, M. J., & Magalhães, T. (2025). Adverse childhood experiences and health outcomes: A 20-year real-world study. Frontiers in Medicine, 11, 1429137. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1429137

McCrory, E. J., Gerin, M. I., & Viding, E. (2024). The neurobiological effects of childhood maltreatment on brain structure, function, and attachment. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 274, 1871-1898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-024-01779-y

McLaughlin, K. A., Weissman, D., & Bitrán, D. (2019). Childhood adversity and neural development: A systematic review. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 1, 277-312. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-121318-084950

Mothersill, O., & Donohoe, G. (2016). Neural effects of social environmental stress: An activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine, 46(12), 2015-2023. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291716000477

Moutsiana, C., Fearon, P., Murray, L., Cooper, P., Goodyer, I., Johnstone, T., & Halligan, S. (2015). Making an effort to feel positive: Insecure attachment in infancy predicts the neural underpinnings of emotion regulation in adulthood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56(9), 999-1008. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12198

Narayan, A. J., Lieberman, A. F., & Masten, A. S.(2021). Intergenerational transmission and prevention of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). Clinical Psychology Review, 85, 101997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.101997

Reid, B. M., Coe, C. L., Doyle, C. M., Sheerar, D., Slukvina, A., Donzella, B., & Gunnar, M. R.(2022). Childhood trauma, the HPA axis and psychiatric illnesses: A targeted literature synthesis. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 748372. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.748372

Rifkin-Graboi, A., Kong, L., Sim, L. W., Sanmugam, S., Broekman, B. F. P., Chen, H., Wong, E., Kwek, K., Saw, S. M., Chong, Y. S., Gluckman, P. D., Fortier, M. V., Meaney, M. J., & Qiu, A. (2017). Maternal sensitivity, infant limbic structure volume and functional connectivity: A preliminary study. Translational Psychiatry, 5, e668. https://doi.org/10.1038/tp.2015.133

Senaratne, D. N. S., Thakkar, B., Smith, B. H., Hales, T. G., Marryat, L., & Colvin, L. A.(2024). The impact of adverse childhood experiences on multimorbidity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medicine, 22, 315. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03505-w

Swedo, E. A., Pampati, S., Anderson, K. N., Yard, E., Sauber-Schatz, E., Jones, C. M., Hamiduzzaman, N., Rolle, I. V., Bhuyan, S. S., Clayton, H. B., Hertz, M., Verlenden, J., Zwald, M. L., Njai, R., Krause, K. H., Li, J., & Jeffers, A. (2024). Adverse childhood experiences and health conditions and risk behaviors among high school students—Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States, 2023. MMWR Supplements, 73(Suppl-4), 39-49. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.su7304a5

Teicher, M. H., Gordon, J. B., & Nemeroff, C. B.(2022). Recognizing the importance of childhood maltreatment as a critical factor in psychiatric diagnoses, treatment, research, prevention, and education. Molecular Psychiatry, 27(3), 1331-1338. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-021-01367-9

Teicher, M. H., & Samson, J. A.(2016). Annual research review: Enduring neurobiological effects of childhood abuse and neglect. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(3), 241-266. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12507

Thompson, R. A.(2008). Early attachment and later development: Familiar questions, new answers. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 348-365). Guilford Press.

Vrticka, P., & Vuilleumier, P. (2012). Neuroscience of human social interactions and adult attachment style. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 212. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00212