Cited by 136Child Abuse and TraumaChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentChild Welfare and Adoption

Early adversity and learning: implications for typical and atypical behavioral development

Open access
Hanson, Jamie L., van den Bos, Wouter, Roeber, Barbara J., Rudolph, Karen D., Davidson, Richard J., Pollak, Seth D.·2017·Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Children who experience early adversity often develop emotion regulatory problems, but little is known about the mechanisms that mediate this relation. We tested whether general associative learning processes contribute to associations between adversity, in the form of child maltreatment, and negative behavioral outcomes. METHODS: Eighty-one participants between 12 and 17 years of age were recruited for this study and completed a probabilistic learning Task. Forty-one of these participants had been exposed to physical abuse, a form of early adversity. Forty additional participants without any known history of maltreatment served as a comparison group. All participants (and their parents) also completed portions of the Youth Life Stress Interview to understand adolescent's behavior. We calculated measures of associative learning, and also constructed mathematical models of learning. RESULTS: We found that adolescents exposed to high levels of adversity early in their lives had lower levels of associative learning than comparison adolescents. In addition, we found that impaired associative learning partially explained the higher levels of behavioral problems among youth who suffered early adversity. Using mathematical models, we also found that two components of learning were specifically affected in children exposed to adversity: choice variability and biases in their beliefs about the likelihood of rewards in the environment. CONCLUSIONS: Participants who had been exposed to early adversity were less able than their peers to correctly learn which stimuli were likely to result in reward, even after repeated feedback. These individuals also used information about known rewards in their environments less often. In addition, individuals exposed to adversity made decisions early in the learning process as if rewards were less consistent and occurred more at random. These data suggest one mechanism through which early life experience shapes behavioral development.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jcpp.12694

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • On a probabilistic reward task, reduced reinforcement learning appears in women with childhood sexual abuse and MDD, physically abused adolescents, and young adults with many early-life adversities.

    “For example, women with a history of both childhood sexual abuse and MDD (Pechtel and Pizzagalli, 2013), adolescents exposed to physical abuse (Hanson et al., 2017), and young adults who had high levels of various adversities in early life (Birn et al., 2017) demonstrate decreased reinforcement learning.”

    From The effects of early life stress on reward processing (2018) · cites this paper as Hanson et al., 2017

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Lyons-Ruth K Block D 1996 The disturbed caregiving system: Relations among childhood trauma, maternal caregiving, and infant affect and attachment Infant Mental Health Journal 17 257 275

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hanson, J. L., van den Bos, W., Roeber, B. J., Rudolph, K. D., Davidson, R. J., & Pollak, S. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Center for Adaptive Rationality Max Planck Institute for Human Development Berlin Germany
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Pollak, Seth D.
Venue
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-02-03
Volume
58
Issue
7
Pages
770-778
ISSN
  • 0021-9630 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7610
OpenAlex
W2584999836
Cited by
136
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5
FWCI
14.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH61285, MH68858, P50‐MH84051, MH43454)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA028087)
  • Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P30‐HD03352)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Child Welfare and Adoption
Keywords
childhood adversity, child abuse, physical abuse, associative learning, probabilistic learning, behavioral problems, emotion regulation, adolescents, reward learning, belief bias, choice variability, mathematical model of learning, life events, behavioral development
MeSH terms
Problem Behavior, Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Association Learning, Child, Child Abuse, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Theoretical, Probability Learning, Reward

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review