A new study published in the journal Development and Psychopathology provides evidence that different types of adversity in childhood may shape a young person’s mental and behavioral development in distinct ways. By following children over several years, the research indicates that experiences within and outside of the home do not have uniform effects, and the influence of these experiences tends to shift as children grow into adolescence.
The researchers aimed to address two major questions. First, they wanted to understand whether all forms of childhood adversity affect psychosocial outcomes in the same way, or whether certain types—such as family conflict or bullying—might have different impacts. Second, they sought to examine whether these effects change during development and whether there is a two-way relationship, in which adversity and psychosocial problems reinforce each other over time.
“Adversities and stresses in childhood are a huge problem and have been established as linked to a vast array of outcomes from mental and physical health to criminal perpetration,” said study author George Hales, an early-career fellow at the University of Leicester. “However, so little research has been able to establish the reverse relationship—whether mental health and criminal perpetration leave young people vulnerable to adversities. We set out to investigate both whether childhood adversities lead to worse mental health, well-being, and delinquency, and whether mental health, well-being, and delinquency in adolescence lead to increased childhood adversities.”
The researchers used data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study, a large, nationally representative dataset. They followed 646 participants across three key periods: late childhood (ages 10–11), early adolescence (12–13), and mid-adolescence (14–15). At each stage, children reported on various forms of adversity and their own psychosocial functioning. The researchers divided adversity into two broad categories.
Household adversity included sibling conflict, arguments with parents, financial strain, and maternal psychological distress. Non-household adversity included bullying and perceptions of neighborhood safety. Psychosocial outcomes were measured using standardized assessments of internalizing problems (such as anxiety and depression), externalizing problems (such as aggression), self-reported delinquency, and life satisfaction.
The researchers used a statistical technique called cross-lagged panel modeling, which is suited to uncovering bidirectional relationships over time. This allowed them to estimate whether adversity predicted changes in psychosocial functioning, whether psychosocial difficulties predicted changes in adversity, or whether both directions occurred simultaneously.
One of the most consistent findings was that cumulative adversity, regardless of type, predicted worse psychosocial outcomes across the board. Children who experienced higher levels of adversity at age 10 were more likely to show behavioral problems, lower life satisfaction, and more delinquent behavior at ages 12 and 14.
These associations remained even after accounting for earlier levels of these same outcomes, suggesting a genuine influence of adversity over time. The only exception was internalizing problems such as anxiety and sadness, which were predicted by adversity experienced during early adolescence but not by adversity in childhood.
The study also provided insights into how household and non-household adversities differ in their effects. Household adversities appeared to have a more consistent and long-lasting impact. These experiences were linked to greater externalizing problems and lower life satisfaction throughout adolescence.
In contrast, non-household adversities, such as bullying and unsafe neighborhoods, tended to predict psychosocial difficulties only during adolescence. This suggests that external stressors may become more salient as children move toward independence and spend more time outside the home.
Delinquent behavior was influenced by both types of adversity. Children who experienced either household or non-household adversity in childhood were more likely to engage in delinquent acts during adolescence. The link between household adversity and delinquency was slightly stronger, suggesting that difficulties at home may create an environment where behavioral problems are more likely to emerge.
Another key finding was the presence of bidirectional relationships. In some cases, psychological or behavioral difficulties predicted future adversity. For example, children with externalizing problems in early adolescence tended to experience more household adversity by mid-adolescence. Similarly, children with internalizing problems were more likely to encounter non-household adversities, such as bullying, at later stages. These patterns suggest that adversity and psychosocial problems can form a cycle that reinforces itself over time.
“We found that childhood adversities led to worse internalizing problems (e.g., anxiety, depression), externalizing problems (e.g., hyperactivity, poor conduct), life satisfaction, and delinquency (e.g., law-breaking behavior),” Hales told PsyPost. “So broadly, adversities worsened mental health and well-being, and increased law-breaking behaviors. However, externalizing problems also increased the risk of childhood adversities. Specifically, these externalizing problems were more impactful on adversities outside of the household earlier in adolescence, and within the household in middle-adolescence.”
“This is a pretty surprising finding, as we conventionally only see mental health issues as an outcome of adversities rather than the other way around. It really shows how as these problems develop over time, they can leak into creating more problems in different aspects of the young person’s life (e.g., home, school, neighborhood). It really emphasizes the need to take a holistic approach to addressing adversities and the development of mental health problems and delinquency.”
The researchers interpret these findings as evidence that adversity is not just a static risk factor but part of a dynamic process that interacts with children’s own behavior and emotional well-being. In some cases, the effects of adversity may take time to emerge, while in others, children’s difficulties may shape the environments they live in. For instance, a child who struggles with aggression or impulsivity might provoke more conflict at home, or a child who appears withdrawn or anxious may be more vulnerable to peer victimization.
“These are potentially really meaningful effects, and demonstrate that in addition to addressing potential mental health issues by reducing exposure to adversities, we can also help to reduce exposure to future adversities by addressing these ‘externalizing’ problems in middle childhood and early adolescence,” Hales explained.
While the study offers a nuanced view of how adversity affects development, it also has some limitations. The data only began at age 10, so the researchers could not examine how earlier childhood experiences might contribute to these patterns. The study also focused on a relatively narrow set of adversities and did not include protective factors such as strong friendships or supportive teachers. As the researchers note, positive influences can play an important role in helping children cope with adversity, and these factors were not included in the present analysis.
Looking ahead, the authors plan to explore how individual characteristics might interact with adversity to shape outcomes. The researchers emphasize the need for studies that integrate biological, psychological, and environmental data to provide a fuller picture of development.
“I am really interested in how these complex interactions may play out, and how children’s predispositions, experiences of, or responses to stress and adversity could lead to this array of outcomes,” Hales said. “For instance, how socioeconomic status, social mobility, epigenetics, and how young people’s thinking patterns might change as a result of these adversities. This study was part of my PhD, so only a ‘formative’ step into this important field of research.”
The study, “Bidirectional relationships between childhood adversities and psychosocial outcomes: A cross-lagged panel study from childhood to adolescence,” was authored by George K. Hales, Agata Debowska, Richard Rowe, Daniel Boduszek, and Liat Levita.
