Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are significant risk factors affecting neurobiological, emotional, and behavioural development across the lifespan. While extensively studied, the interplay between ACEs and individual characteristics such as temperament remains underexplored. This scoping review systematically mapped evidence on the relationship between ACEs, temperament dimensions, and developmental outcomes. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost. Studies published between 1998 and 2025 in English, Portuguese, or Spanish, including those involving children and adolescents up to 18 years old, were eligible. From 1,505 records, 19 studies met the inclusion criteria, totalling 22.375 participants, mostly from the United States and using longitudinal designs. Findings indicate that temperamental traits, particularly inhibitory control, emotional reactivity, and negative affectivity, are implicated in the association between ACEs and outcomes such as externalizing behaviours, anxiety, executive functioning deficits, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms, and personality disorder features, with existing studies examining these traits as potential mediators or moderators. Most studies applied diathesis-stress models, with limited use of differential susceptibility theory (DST), which considers “for-better-and-for-worse” effects depending on environmental quality. This gap limits understanding of developmental plasticity and individual differences in susceptibility. Future research should adopt longitudinal, culturally diverse, DST-aligned designs, examining temperament as both vulnerability and plasticity markers to enhance understanding and guide interventions for children exposed to early adversity.

Keywords

adverse childhood experiences temperament differential susceptibility

Introduction

Childhood and adolescence are widely recognized as critical developmental periods in which early experiences exert a lasting influence on psychological and relational functioning. Increasing evidence suggests that development is shaped by a continuum of environmental experiences, encompassing both adverse and positive exposures. Research on positive childhood experiences indicates that supportive and nurturing early environments are associated with better mental health, lower levels of anxiety and depression, and greater psychological resilience, even among individuals exposed to adversity (Bethell et al., 2019; Kocatürk & Çiçek, 2023; Şanli et al., 2024). These findings highlight the foundational role of early-life contexts in shaping developmental trajectories. Within this broader framework, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) have been identified as particularly potent risk factors due to their cumulative and often chronic nature, and have therefore been the primary focus of research examining pathways to maladaptive developmental outcomes.

ACEs affect a substantial proportion of the population worldwide. Global estimates suggest that more than half of adults have experienced at least one ACE during childhood (World Health Organization, 2020), while data from the United States indicate that up to 61% of adults report exposure to at least one ACE (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016). Recognized as a major public health concern, ACEs are strongly associated with a wide range of negative developmental, psychological, and health outcomes across the lifespan. ACEs refer to a broad range of stressful, potentially harmful, and traumatic experiences during childhood, often within the family setting, such as parental separation or divorce, domestic violence, and various forms of abuse or neglect—emotional, physical, or sexual (Dong et al., 2004; Felitti et al., 1998). However, recent research has broadened this definition, acknowledging that adversity can also stem from outside the home. Experiences such as community violence, bullying, racial or ethnic discrimination, persistent poverty, housing insecurity, and forced migration or refugee status are now recognized as equally impactful forms of childhood adversity (Folayan et al., 2023; Lee et al., 2017). This expanded perspective highlights the complex and multidimensional nature of ACEs, recognizing that adverse experiences embedded in diverse social and structural contexts can have a profound impact on developmental trajectories. Although not all adverse experiences are necessarily traumatic, many ACEs do involve exposure to events that may be experienced as traumatic, depending on their severity, duration, the child’s developmental stage, and the presence of protective relationships. Thus, trauma refers to the psychological and emotional response to events that pose actual or perceived threats to a child’s physical or emotional safety, such as abuse, serious harm, or exposure to violence, and typically elicits intense reactions of fear, helplessness, or horror (Carlson & Dalenberg, 2000; Dalenberg et al., 2017).

When ACEs occur in early developmental periods, they may disrupt core processes involved in emotional regulation, interpersonal trust, and cognitive functioning, potentially compromising a child’s capacity to navigate future challenges and relationships (Sciaraffa et al., 2018; Sege & Harper Browne, 2017). On a neurobiological level, the ACEs have been shown to affect brain areas responsible for emotional regulation, stress response, and decision-making, including the amygdala, hippocampus, and prefrontal cortex (Herzog & Schmahl, 2018; Weems et al., 2021). According to the neurobiological model, prolonged exposure to high-stress environments can lead to a heightened activation of the amygdala, which controls the fight-or-flight response, while simultaneously reducing the regulatory control of the prefrontal cortex (Ryznar et al., 2025). This imbalance can result in increased emotional reactivity, difficulties with impulse control, and a tendency to perceive social interactions as threatening, often affecting different areas of one’s temperament (Dollar et al., 2023; Sanson et al., 2004). At a mechanistic level, early adversity has been shown to impact multiple neural and physiological systems that support emotional regulation and temperament. Specifically, exposure to stress in early life is associated with alterations in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, leading to dysregulated stress responses that may persist across development (Gunnar & Quevedo, 2007; McLaughlin et al., 2014). Concurrently, children exposed to adversity often exhibit heightened amygdala reactivity to emotional stimuli, reflecting increased sensitivity to threat (Tottenham, 2009). These changes are frequently accompanied by delayed maturation and altered connectivity of prefrontal regulatory networks, which are critical for top-down control of emotion (Gee et al., 2013). Together, these neurobiological adaptations contribute to stable patterns of emotional reactivity and self-regulation, shaping temperament traits that can influence behaviour and risk for psychopathology throughout life.

The cumulative ACE theory highlights that ACEs are not isolated but build up over time, intensifying their impact on development and health outcomes (Hakamata et al., 2022). Research demonstrates that the accumulation of ACEs increases the risk of poor mental health, physical health challenges, and social difficulties, creating a “dose–response” relationship between the number of ACEs and the severity of outcomes (Tan & Mao, 2023). This compounding effect emphasizes the importance of addressing multiple adversities rather than focusing solely on individual events (Hakamata et al., 2022).

These ACEs can lead to different negative outcomes throughout an individual’s life, affecting mental health and relationships that may persist into adulthood (Daines et al., 2021). For example, children who undergo stressful or traumatic experiences may grow up struggling to trust others and showing higher levels of impulsivity. (Shain et al., 2022). From the cumulative ACEs perspective, these challenges also interact with neurobiological changes, creating a feedback loop where early difficulties compound vulnerabilities, increasing susceptibility to psychopathological symptoms like anxiety, depression, or aggression in adulthood (Hawes & Allen, 2023; Kobrinsky & Siedlecki, 2023). Recognizing the impact of early adversity and the neurobiological changes it may bring is essential, not only to understand these individuals’ difficulties but also to inform interventions for people who undergo these experiences (Ellis et al., 2022). Early adversity can lead to neurobiological alterations that, when combined with an individual’s inherent biological susceptibility, increase the risk for negative developmental outcomes (Ellis et al., 2022; Hakamata et al., 2022). Temperament may serve as a behavioural indicator of this susceptibility, with certain profiles being more prone to manifestations such as heightened anxiety, aggression, or emotional dysregulation (Blader et al., 2025; Carmassi et al., 2022).

Temperament

Previous studies have tested the link between ACE and outcomes using linear dose-response models (Anda et al., 2020; Briggs et al., 2021). However, recent evidence has suggested that the effects of cumulative adversity on the developing child may not be linear (Tan & Mao, 2023; Wilson-Genderson et al., 2022), considering certain classes of ACE may interact synergistically with the environment to significantly increase the overall risk beyond the simple accumulation of ACE (Briggs et al., 2021; Lanier et al., 2018). Differential susceptibility theory (DST; Belsky, 1997; Belsky & Pluess, 2009) proposes that individuals differ in their biologically based sensitivity to environmental influences. Unlike diathesis stress models, which emphasize vulnerability only under adverse conditions, DST argues that the same traits that increase risk in negative environments can also enhance developmental benefits in supportive contexts, a “for-better-and-for-worse” pattern.

Empirical work supports DST across temperament, genetic, and physiological domains. Highly reactive or low effortful control children exhibit more behavioural problems under harsh parenting but also show greater social, emotional, and cognitive gains when exposed to warm and structured caregiving (Kiff et al., 2011; Pluess & Belsky, 2013; Slagt et al., 2017). Genetic sensitivity markers (e.g., DRD4-7R, 5-HTTLPR) and neurobiological indicators such as heightened cortisol or autonomic reactivity (Boyce & Ellis, 2005) show similar patterns, predicting both heightened vulnerability and enhanced responsivity to supportive environments. For instance, studies have shown that children carrying the DRD4-7R allele are more susceptible to both negative and positive parenting practices (Bakermans-Kranenburg & Van Ijzendoorn, 2011), and that autonomic reactivity moderates children’s behavioural adaptation in both supportive and adverse contexts (Obradović et al., 2010).

Despite this evidence, most ACE, temperament studies continue to adopt diathesis stress frameworks, focusing solely on adverse environments.

Temperament is a key factor in studying environmental sensitivity (Pluess et al., 2023). Temperament refers to biologically based individual differences in emotionality, activity levels, and sociability, characteristics that emerge early in life and exhibit moderate stability over time. Genetic influences shape these temperamental characteristics and form the foundation for later personality development (Rothbart et al., 2011).

From a developmental psychopathology perspective, developmental outcomes are understood to emerge from dynamic and transactional interactions between individual characteristics and environmental contexts across time (Hawes & Allen, 2023). This framework emphasizes that risk and adaptation are not solely determined by exposure to adverse experiences, but rather by how such experiences interact with biologically and psychologically based individual differences throughout development. Accordingly, the impact of early adversity is shaped by timing, chronicity, and the presence of moderating individual factors, which together influence developmental trajectories across childhood and adolescence.

Within this framework, temperament can be conceptualized as a biologically based, individual-level marker of vulnerability and/or plasticity that shapes children’s sensitivity to environmental influences (Hartman & Belsky, 2016). From a differential susceptibility perspective, temperamental traits associated with heightened reactivity or reduced self-regulation may amplify risk in adverse contexts while also conferring increased responsiveness to supportive or enriched environments (Belsky & Pluess, 2009). Accordingly, ACEs are conceptualized as salient environmental stressors, whereas temperament represents a core individual characteristic that may influence both the magnitude and direction of developmental outcomes, either by intensifying maladaptive pathways or by modifying individual responses to adversity (Ellis et al., 2022).

Similarly, C. Robert Cloninger proposed a psychobiological model of temperament, identifying central dimensions such as novelty seeking, harm avoidance, reward dependence, and persistence. Cloninger’s model emphasizes the genetic and neurobiological bases of these characteristics, suggesting that temperament is strongly linked to the structure and function of the nervous system, thus reflecting the complex interaction between biological and behavioural aspects (Cloninger, 2008; Cloninger et al., 1993). Other authors have also contributed to the definition of temperament. Derryberry and Rothbart broadened the understanding of temperament by specifying the concepts of reactivity and self-regulation as central elements in its formation (Lamb & Brown, 2013). For Buss and Plomin (1984), temperament is something determined in the first years of life, with a strong hereditary nature, suggesting that temperamental bases can be traced from the earliest stages of development (Plomin & Dunn, 2013). Currently, the most widely accepted definition of temperament is that it is about individual differences that emerge early in life and tend to remain relatively constant throughout life, with evidence suggesting a persistence of certain temperamental characteristics (Wilson & Olino, 2021). These temperamental characteristics play a fundamental role in shaping personality, influencing both adaptive and maladaptive behaviours throughout the life cycle (Pekdoğan & Kanak, 2022). These perspectives illustrate the multifaceted nature of temperament, which encompasses the biological, psychological, and behavioural dimensions.

As previously discussed, theories such as differential susceptibility and biological sensitivity to context suggest that temperament influences individuals’ sensitivity to environmental influences, shaping their responses to both adversity and supportive conditions. Empirical research on ACEs further reinforces this perspective, showing that early adversity interacts with temperament to influence developmental and psychological outcomes, either intensifying risks or fostering resilience.

Despite this strong theoretical and empirical foundation, there is currently no scoping review that systematically maps the relationship between temperament, adversity, and outcomes. Given the importance of understanding these interactions, a comprehensive synthesis of existing research is necessary to clarify the nature, direction, and mechanisms underlying the relationship between ACE and temperament across developmental stages. This scoping review aims to map and synthesize the existing scientific evidence on the relationship between ACEs and temperament, and its associations with developmental outcomes.

Methods

This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (Tricco et al., 2018). The final search was completed on January 31, 2025. The review was not prospectively registered, as its primary aim was to provide an exploratory mapping of an emerging and heterogeneous body of literature, consistent with the methodological objectives of scoping reviews.

Search Strategy

A scoping review was conducted to map evidence on the relationship between ACEs and/or traumatic events, temperament dimensions, and associated outcomes. Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost-hosted databases, complemented by manual screening of reference lists to minimize publication bias. Search terms were constructed using Boolean operators (“AND,” “OR”) and limited to studies in English, Portuguese, or Spanish. The complete list of terms is available in Appendix A.

Study Selection

Inclusion criteria comprised studies that: (a) assessed ACEs and/or trauma; (b) involved participants <18 years or provided separate analyses for this group; (c) examined temperament dimensions; (d) were peer-reviewed; and (e) published between 1998 (the seminal ACE study; Felitti et al., 1998) and 2025. For studies with pregnant women, only those linking maternal adversity to postnatal child temperament were included. Additionally, to ensure methodological rigor and comparability across studies, we included only studies that employed psychometrically validated or widely used assessment instruments developed to measure for at least one of the following domains: ACE exposure, temperament, or developmental/mental health outcomes. Examples of accepted validated measures included the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ), the ACEs Questionnaire, the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), validated temperament scales (e.g., the EAS, IBQ-R, CBQ), and other instruments with established psychometric support.

Studies in which temperament-like constructs were derived from administrative or risk/needs assessment tools (e.g., probation or recidivism risk instruments) rather than from validated temperament or personality measures were excluded, even when such constructs were labelled as “effortful control” or “negative emotionality.” Studies that assessed ACEs or temperament using non-validated, ad hoc items or unclear measurement procedures were also excluded. Moreover, studies were eligible if the operationalization of ACEs was clearly defined (e.g., maltreatment, household dysfunction, community violence), regardless of whether cumulative indices or single-domain measures were used, provided that measurement quality met minimum methodological standards. Eligible study designs included longitudinal, cross-sectional, and prospective cohort studies.

Exclusion criteria covered studies not addressing the research variables, lacking empirical data, or published in other languages. Studies using inadequate designs were excluded, such as case reports or studies providing insufficient methodological detail (e.g., unclear measurement procedures, undefined operationalization of ACEs or temperament, or analytic strategies that did not allow examination of associations between adversity, temperament, and outcomes). Duplicates were removed.

Screening of titles and abstracts, followed by full-text screening, was conducted according to Cochrane Collaboration recommendations (Cumpston et al., 2022) using Rayyan (Ouzzani et al., 2016). Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts; discrepancies were resolved by discussion. Interrater agreement coefficients (e.g., Cohen’s κ) were not calculated as disagreements between reviewers were resolved through discussion until consensus was reached.

Data Collection Process

Data were extracted through a standardized form. A total of 1,505 records were identified; after duplicate removal, 253 underwent screening. Of these, 234 full texts were excluded for reasons including: no assessment of ACE–temperament relationship (n = 112), non-empirical publications (n = 34), contextual/theoretical only (n = 19), inadequate populations (n = 10), irrelevant or unreported outcomes (n = 24), inadequate designs (n = 14), insufficient relational assessment (n = 8), language restrictions (n = 8), and duplicate entry (n = 1; Figure 1). To ensure consistency and accuracy, the data extraction form was pilot-tested prior to use.

Figure 1.

Flowchart of the screening process (following PRISMA).

Results

Study Characteristics

The extracted data included study characteristics (e.g., author, year, location, sample size), population details (e.g., age, gender), methods used to assess adversity/trauma and temperament, and key findings or outcomes (as listed in Table 1).

Table 1.

Characteristics of Included Studies.

Studies	Domains/dimensions assessed in the studies		Measures	Country/city	Study design	Sample population (n)	Age (M ± SD) Min–Max /Gender	Results
Studies	Temperament	Adversities/trauma	Measures	Country/city	Study design	Sample population (n)	Age (M ± SD) Min–Max /Gender	Results
1. Ackerman et al. (1999)	Activity level Rhythmicity Adaptability Approach/withdrawal Emotional intensity Quality of mood Sensory sensitivity Distractibility Persistence	Family instability and disadvantaged families	- The measure of family instability in preschool (constructed from caregiver reports on life events); - BSQ; - CBCL	Northern Delaware, USA	Longitudinal study	169 children	M = 60 months SD = 48 ± 67	The association between family instability and internalizing behaviours varies depending on the temperamental adaptability (moderator) of the child (β = .27, .93, and 1.58).
2.Bogat et al. (2006)	Rhythmicity adaptability Approach-withdrawal Intensity Negative mood	Infants experiencing severe IPV	- TTS. - ITSQ	Michigan, USA	Longitudinal study	48 children	Infants: 12–36 months of age	In this study, difficult temperament did not directly influence the effects of ACEs (IPV) (moderator) on childhood trauma symptoms but was considered a potential risk factor.
3. Coe et al. (2020)	Inhibitory control	Child maltreatment Lifetime stress	- System for Coding Subtype and Severity of Maltreatment in Child Protective Records; - Toddler Behavior Assessment Questionnaire - Child Behavior Checklist - PACT Full Assessment	USA	Longitudinal study	274 children	3–5 years 143 female 131 male	The study suggests that inhibitory control acts as a mediator of the relationship between life stress and psychological symptoms (internalizing and externalizing problems) in boys, but not in girls, indicating a gender difference in the underlying psychological mechanism.
4. Comas et al. (2014)	Negative affectivity	Physical abuse	- The MCS - EATQ-R	USA	Cross-sectional study	N = 42 youth’s inpatient psychiatric LOS	Youth ranged in age from 7 to 16 (M = 13.96, SD = 2.45) 28 (67 %) of the youth were male 14 (33%) were female	Low negative affectivity temperament moderated the relationship between physical abuse and length of psychiatric hospitalization, with a lower impact of abuse in this temperament group.
5. Davies et al. (2012)	Temperamental activity, approach, inhibition,	Maternal antisocial behaviour	- Clinical diagnostic interviews to assess maternal psychopathology - The physical assault subscale of the revised CTS2 - CPS Undercontrolled temperament	Metropolitan area in the Northeast, USA	Longitudinal Study	201 2-year-old children and their mothers	26 months (SD ¼ 1.69) girls (n = 92) boys (n = 109)	Maternal antisocial personality was associated with higher levels of uncontrolled child temperament (b = 0.18, p < .05). However, as uncontrolled temperament (mediator) was not significantly associated with child disruptive problems, the results did not support an indirect pathway in which maternal antisocial personality would affect child disruptive behaviours through temperament.
6. Davis et al. (2024)	Emotional reactivity	Threat (maltreatment and violence exposure) Deprivation (neglect, lack of cognitive stimulation)	- Conflict Tactics Scale- Parent Child - Early Childhood Behavior Questionnaire - Childhood Behavior Questionnaire - Day–Night Stroop Dimensional Change Card	Germany	Cross-sectional study	917 children	M = 3.84 years 451 female 466 male	Childhood inhibited temperament indirectly predicted a reduction in externalizing problems at the age of four, mediated by behavioural flexibility at the age of three. This pathway was influenced by polymorphisms in the dopamine and serotonin transporter genes, suggesting an interaction between temperamental and biological factors in child development.
7. Delisi et al. (2018)	Effortful control Negative emotionality	Violence exposure	- YPI - CTQ	USA	Longitudinal study	252 adolescents	14–18 years 152 male 100 female	Higher levels of negative temperament (risk factor)—marked by low effortful control and high negative emotionality—were linearly associated with increased self-reported delinquency and violence, with youth scoring highest on these temperamental traits showing the greatest involvement in such behaviours.
8. Giancola (2000)	Rhythmicity Behavioural regulation Positive affectivity	Violence exposure Substance exposure	- Revised DOTS-R - CBCL - K-SADS-E	USA	Correlational Study	351 children	10-12 years 100% male	Rhythmicity showed distinct interaction patterns with temperament traits: it moderated the relationship between Behavioural Regulation and Positive Affectivity and mother-reported aggression, interacted with Behavioural Regulation in predicting delinquency, and with Positive Affectivity to ODD symptoms.
9.Golm and Brandt (2024)	Negative emotionality	Childhood maltreatment	- Temperament Survey - Conflict Tactics Scale - Attention Problems subscale of the Child Behavior Checklist	Germany	Longitudinal Study	4,898 children	12 months-9 years	The primary finding of the study is that higher negative emotionality at 12 months indirectly predicted increased ADHD symptoms at age 9, with this relationship mediated by greater exposure to maltreatment at age 5.
10. Hallquist et al. (2015)	Negative emotionality	Poor parenting (Harsh punishment)	- Conflict Tactics Scale: Parent-Child version - Temperament Survey Social Skills Rating Scale - International Personality Disorder Examination Screen	Pittsburgh, USA	Longitudinal study	4,678 children	Wave1: 5–8 years Wave 2: 14–17 years	The reciprocal effects between harsh punishment and poor self-control from ages 5–14 partially mediated their impact on BPD symptoms at age 14.
11. Jovev et al. (2013)	Effortful control Affiliation	Childhood neglect Childhood abuse	- EATQ-R - CIC-SR - CTQ	Australia	Longitudinal study	245 children	11–13 years 121 male 124 female	Childhood neglect was associated with increases in ASPD symptoms, particularly among children with low EC (Beta = −4.95, p < .001). Childhood abuse predicted increases in BPD symptoms among those with low AFL (Beta = −2.61, p = .01), highlighting how distinct temperamental vulnerabilities moderate the impact of early maltreatment on adolescent psychopathology.
12. Lambert et al. (2021)	BIS fear	Community violence exposure	- Children’s Report of Exposure to Violence - Baltimore How I Feel-Adolescent Version, Youth Report - Aggressive/disruptive behaviour Teacher Report of Classroom Behaviour Behavioural - Inhibition and Activation System scales	USA	Longitudinal study	464 children	1, 6 and 9 grade 217 (46.7%) female 247 male	Youth with high CV and internalizing symptoms showed the highest BIS sensitivity (p < .001). Fear was greatest in the low CV, low internalizing group (p < .05–.01). Boys and those with a history of violence exposure were more likely to be in the high CV, high aggression class.
13. Lee (2014)	Anger/frustration and emotion regulation	Harsh parenting	KYPS, Likert scale	South Korea	Longitudinal study	2844 early adolescents	N/A	Anger/frustration was positively related to the intercept for aggression (β = .491, p < .001). Even though emotion regulation was not related to the intercept for aggression, it negatively predicted the growth rate of aggression (β = −.101, p < .001). Anger/frustration was also found to predict the growth of aggression (β = −.095, p < .001), which means that early adolescents who had low anger/frustration levels at the beginning of the study showed rapid increases in aggressive behaviour over time. Harsh parenting, on the other hand, was not associated with either the starting point or the development of aggression.
14. Levy et al. (2019)	Emotionality reactivity	War exposed	- Interactive behaviour system (CIB) - CIB adolescent version - Structured interview generating ICD-10	USA	Longitudinal study	232 children	M_years = 2.82 ± 0.93 M_years = 9.14 ± 1.30 M_years = 11.81 ± 1.24	War-exposed children showed lower mother–child synchrony (d = 0.50) and a significantly higher prevalence of anxiety disorders (50%) compared to controls (11.9%; V = 0.41), despite no differences in temperamental reactivity (moderator).
15. Mylant et al. (2002)	Negative temperament (emotional reactivity)	COA (children of alcoholics)	- Wyoming Youth 2000 Survey (which consisted of 135 items. The survey includes demographics and items addressing psychosocial and family situations, high-risk attitudes, and behaviours)	Wyoming, USA	Cross-sectional study	N = 1,632 adolescents	Boys age 13–17 years	Adolescents COAs reported significantly higher levels of negative temperament, including excitement when engaging in risky activities (t(1569) = 3.96, p < .001), physical risk-taking (t(550) = 5.07, p < .001), feelings of depression and hopelessness (t(1573) = 8.57, p < .001), suicidal thoughts (t(487) = 7.25, p < .001), and suicide attempts in the past year (t(463) = 5.04, p < .001), compared to non-COAs.
16. Narmandakh et al. (2021)	Shyness Fearfulness Frustration Effortful control	Paternal and maternal anxiety and depression death of a family member or other beloved one, parental divorce, or a long absence from home (> 3 months)	- World Health Organization CIDI - Family History Interview EATQ-R	Germany	Longitudinal study	n = 2,230 children	Mean age 11.09 years, SD 0.55 1,137 (51%) female) 1,093 (49%) male	Female gender (OR = 2.38, p < .01), parental depression and anxiety (OR = 1.34, p = .04), temperamental frustration (OR = 1.31, p = .02), and low effortful control (OR = 0.76, p = .01) were significant independent predictors of anxiety disorder onset in adolescents, even after excluding those with anxiety at baseline.
17. Paula et al. (2018)	Self-directedness (low resourcefulness, low purposefulness, low enlightened second nature	Psychiatric disorders in the children and adolescents, early childhood vulnerabilities, current familial adversities and current community adversities	- Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children/Present and Lifetime Version (K-SADS-PL - Self-directedness a character dimension - SRQ-20 - TQ	Caeté, Goianira, Itaitinga, and Rio Preto da Eva, Brazil	Cross-sectional study	n = 1,623 children/adolescents Any psychiatric disorder 9.7 (2.2) 0.2 No psychiatric disorder 9.5 (1.9)	From 6 to 16 years of age 855 (52.7%) were boys 768 (47,3%) girls	The 1-year prevalence of any psychiatric disorder was 13.1% (95% CI [11.4, 14.7]), with anxiety (7.2%) and disruptive disorders (5.8%) being the most common. Negative temperament-related traits—such as low resourcefulness, purposefulness, and enlightened second nature—were associated with higher rates of psychiatric disorders, along with lower IQ, disability, and familial adversities (e.g., caretaker anxiety/depression, child abuse, and marital violence). Community adversity, including living in underdeveloped regions, also contributed to increased prevalence.
18. Raver et al. (2013)	Negative emotional reactivity: sociability, positive affect, attention, activity level, reactivity, and irritability	Chronic poverty	- EF - Income-to-need ratio - Economic Strain Questionnaire - Irritability subscale of the IBR	North Carolina and Pennsylvania, USA	Longitudinal study	1,259 children	Child ages of approximately 7, 15, 24, 36, and 48 months	Reactivity moderated the association between chronic financial strain and EF at 48 months (B = −.02, β = −.06, p < .05). A crossover interaction suggested differential susceptibility: children with high reactivity showed better EF under low financial strain but poorer EF under high strain. In contrast, financial strain did not significantly impact EF outcomes in children with low reactivity.
19. Zhao et al. (2022)	Activity Inhibitory control	Socioeconomic adversity Cocaine exposure Maternal harshness CECV	- Brief Symptom Inventory - Parent-Child Early Relational Assessment - Structured caregiver interview - Children’s Behavior Questionnaire - Survey of Children’s Exposure to Community Violence	USA	Longitudinal study	216 children and parents	4–8 weeks with follow-up assessments every 6 months through kindergarten age 51% 110 girls 49% 106 boys	Socioeconomic adversity and postnatal cocaine exposure were not associated with trajectories of CECV, nor did they interact with child temperament. However, high activity levels at 60 months were positively associated with the high CECV exposure trajectory, whereas inhibitory control was negatively associated. Additionally, harsh maternal parenting predicted higher CECV exposure only among children with elevated activity levels, indicating a moderating role of temperament.

Note. ACE = Adverse Childhood Experience; ADHD = attention deficit/ hyperactivity disorder; AFL = affiliative temperament; ASPD = antisocial personality disorder; BIS = Behavioural inhibition System; BPD = borderline personality disorder; BSQ = Behavioral Style Questionnaire; CBCL = Child Behaviour Checklist; CECV = Community Exposure to Community Violence; CIC-SR = Children in the Community Self Report Scale; CIDI = Composite International Diagnostic Interview; CPS = Conflict and Problem-Solving Scales; CTQ = Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; CV = community violence; DOTS-R = Dimensions of Temperament Survey; EATQ-R = Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire-Revised; EC = effortful control; EF = Executive function; IBR = Infant Behaviour Record; IPV = Intimate Partner Violence; ITSQ = Infant Traumatic Stress Questionnaire; K-SADS-E = Kiddie—Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia—Expanded; LOS = length of stay; MCS = Maltreatment Classification System; PACT = Parent–Child Conflict Tactics Scale; ODD = oppositional defiant disorder; SRQ-20 = Self-Report Questionnaire; TQ = Ten-Question Screen; TTS = Toddler Temperament Scale; YPI = Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory.

Study Design

Following the typology proposed by Montero and León (2007), most studies used longitudinal designs (n = 14), while five employed cross-sectional designs.

Measures

The included studies employed a wide range of validated instruments to assess child temperament, exposure to adversity or trauma, family context, and related outcomes.

Adversity and Trauma

Adversity was assessed using standardized self-report and caregiver-report tools, including the CTQ, Children’s Report of Exposure to Violence, Infant Traumatic Stress Questionnaire, and the Survey of Children’s Exposure to Community Violence. Maltreatment and family violence were measured through instruments such as the Conflict Tactics Scale (including parent–child versions), the Maltreatment Classification System, and coding systems based on child protection records. Broader family context was evaluated using caregiver-reported life events, the Economic Strain Questionnaire, Income-to-Need Ratio, the Wyoming Youth 2000 Survey, and the Family History Interview. Maternal psychopathology was assessed with structured diagnostic interviews and screening instruments (e.g., Brief Symptom Inventory, SRQ-20, Composite International Diagnostic Interview [CIDI], IPDE).

Temperament

Temperament was measured with validated parent- and self-report questionnaires, including the Behavioral Style Questionnaire, Toddler Temperament Scale, Early Childhood Behavior Questionnaire, Childhood Behavior Questionnaire, Revised Dimensions of Temperament Survey, Emotionality, Activity, and Sociability Survey, and the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire-Revised. Complementary tools assessed behavioural and emotional regulation, such as the CBCL, Teacher Report of Classroom Behavior, Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory, and executive function tasks (e.g., Day–Night Stroop, Dimensional Change Card Sort, LAB-TAB).

Child Outcomes

Outcomes were primarily assessed using the CBCL, complemented by performance-based executive function tasks and structured diagnostic interviews (e.g., Developmental and Well-being Assessment, Composite International Diagnostic Interview). Parent- and teacher-report measures increased ecological validity. These instruments enabled a comprehensive assessment of behavioural, emotional, cognitive, and clinical dimensions.

Setting

The 19 studies were published between 1998 and 2025, predominantly in the United States (n = 13, 68.4%), with additional studies from Germany (n = 3, 15.7%), and one each from Australia, South Korea, and Brazil (n = 1, 5.3% each).

Participants

A total of 22,375 participants were included across the studies in this scoping review. Of these, 3,156 (14.1%) were girls (reported in 10 studies) and 5,291 (23.6%) were boys (reported in 11 studies). In seven studies, participant sex was not specified, accounting for 13,928 individuals (62.3%). Most studies (n = 12; 63.2%) included only children, while three studies (15.8%) focused exclusively on adolescents. In addition, two studies (10.5%) included both children and adolescents, and two studies (10.5%) included parents–child. The age of participants at the time of assessment ranged from 7 months to 18 years.

Interaction Between ACEs and Temperament: Empirical Findings and Associated Outcomes

This scoping review identified 43 empirical studies examining the relationship between ACEs and temperament. Although 43 empirical studies were initially identified that examined the relationship between adversity/trauma and temperament dimensions, only 19 studies that also examined related outcomes were included in the final selection for this scoping review.

Across the included studies, a range of developmental and psychopathological outcomes were identified in relation to, and in some cases appearing to result from, the interaction between ACEs and temperament. Externalizing problems (n = 5) were the most frequently reported, including aggressive behaviours (Ackerman et al., 1999; Coe et al., 2020; Davis et al., 2024), oppositional defiant symptoms (Giancola, 2000), conduct or disruptive behaviour problems (Davies et al., 2012). Internalizing problems (n = 1) were also noted, with a study reporting an association with Anxiety (Levy et al., 2019).

Personality disorders were explored in three studies (n = 3), with findings indicating elevated symptoms and traits associated with borderline personality disorder (BPD) (Hallquist et al., 2015; Jovev et al., 2013) and antisocial personality disorder (Jovev et al., 2013) in individuals with specific temperamental vulnerabilities. Additional outcomes included attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (n = 1; Golm & Brandt, 2024), executive functioning (EF) deficits (n = 1; Raver et al., 2013), length of psychiatric hospitalization (n = 1; Comas et al., 2014), and trauma-related symptoms (n = 1; Bogat et al., 2006). One study (Zhao et al., 2022) specifically addressed exposure to community violence, highlighting its association with community-level adversity and temperament. This study was included in the review because the authors conceptualized exposure to community violence not merely as a risk factor, but as an outcome in itself, reflecting the child’s psychological or behavioural response to adverse environmental conditions. Across all studies included in this review, the interaction between specific temperamental traits and ACEs has been shown to significantly influence developmental trajectories, either by amplifying vulnerability or by mitigating the psychological and behavioural impacts of adversity. This dynamic interplay constitutes the central focus of the present analysis and is addressed through the following review question:

How have studies examined the role of temperament and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) in predicting developmental and mental health outcomes in children and adolescents, particularly in terms of interaction and indirect effects:

Descriptive or Unspecified Effects (n = 6): This category includes studies in which no formal tests of mediation, moderation, or interaction between ACEs and temperament were conducted, or in which the analytic roles of these variables were unclear and primarily descriptive or correlational. In these studies, both ACEs and temperamental traits were considered predictors in additive models, but without examining potential interactive or indirect effects (DeLisi et al., 2018; Lambert et al., 2021; Lee, 2014; Mylant et al., 2002; Narmandakh et al., 2021; Paula et al., 2018).

Temperament as a Mediator or Moderator (n = 13): This group encompasses studies that explicitly tested temperament as either a mediator, explaining the pathway from ACEs to outcomes, or as a moderator, modifying the strength or direction of the relationship between adversity and developmental/mental health outcomes. Findings across these studies illustrate a variety of roles for temperamental dimensions: Self-regulation domain: Inhibitory control was the most frequently studied dimension. Two studies identified it as a mediator (Coe et al., 2020; Davis et al., 2024), while two others identified it as a moderator (Jovev et al., 2013; Zhao et al., 2022), underscoring its central role in shaping developmental trajectories in the context of early adversity.

Reactivity and affective traits: Three studies examined reactivity (Levy et al., 2019; Raver et al., 2013) as a moderator, specifically, one study analysed negative affectivity as a moderator (Comas et al., 2014), while another identified negative emotionality as a mediator (Golm & Brandt, 2024); Other temperament dimensions: Adaptability (Ackerman et al., 1999) and Rhythmicity (Giancola, 2000) were each examined in one study as moderators. One study (Davies et al., 2012) conceptualized temperament as a global construct and tested its moderating effect on the relationship between ACEs and outcomes. Finally, one study (Hallquist et al., 2015) identified partial mediation by poor self-control in the relationship between harsh parenting and BPD symptoms. We identify a study (Bogat et al., 2006) that uniquely examined ACEs as a moderator, specifically evaluating how severe exposure to intimate partner violence in infancy moderated the effects of temperament on childhood PTSD symptoms.

Taken together, the reviewed studies demonstrate a range of methodological approaches to examining the interplay between temperament and ACEs in predicting developmental and mental health outcomes. While some studies remain descriptive or correlational, a growing number have employed more sophisticated models to test indirect and interactive effects, particularly highlighting the roles of self-regulation, reactivity, and affective traits. Inhibitory control emerged as a frequently studied temperamental dimension, highlighting its relevance in both mediating and moderating developmental pathways. Notably, one study uniquely examined ACEs as a moderator, specifically assessing how severe exposure to intimate partner violence in infancy moderated the effects of temperament on childhood trauma symptoms. These findings emphasize the role of temperament not only as an individual trait but also as an interactive mechanism through which early adversity influences developmental outcomes.

Discussion

This scoping review underscores the multifaceted and context-sensitive role of temperament in shaping developmental and mental health outcomes among children and adolescents exposed to ACEs. From a total of 43 initially identified studies, 19 met the inclusion criteria of also examining developmental or psychopathological outcomes, thereby enabling a focused analysis of temperament as a mediating or moderating factor in the ACEs-outcomes pathway.

The majority of studies were conducted in the United States (n = 13), with additional contributions from Germany, Australia, South Korea, and Brazil, reflecting a somewhat limited yet diverse international perspective. Over two-thirds of studies were conducted in the United States, potentially limiting cross-cultural generalizability. For instance, the association between high reactivity and externalizing problems may differ in collectivistic cultures where emotional expression is regulated differently (Chen et al., 2015).

Across these 19 studies, 22.375 participants were included, ranging in age from 7 months to 18 years. However, considerable heterogeneity in sample reporting, particularly regarding sex and age, was noted, with seven studies not reporting participants’ sex (62.3%) and a predominance of child rather than adolescent samples. For example, 14.1% of participants lacked sex/gender data, and only 23.6% were males in the studies that differentiated gender. This limited evidence obscures potential sex differences in susceptibility, critical given evidence that boys show stronger ACE effects on externalizing behaviours (Davis et al., 2024), while girls may have increased internalize outcomes (Levy et al., 2019). The predominance of child samples (13 of 19 studies), with limited adolescent representation (three studies), reveals key age-related patterns: Studies like Raver et al. (2013) on EF deficits examined preschoolers (3–5 years), aligning with DST emphasis on sensitive periods for self-regulation development (Belsky & Pluess, 2009). However, the lack of adolescent data (e.g., puberty’s role in moderating temperament-ACEs links) represents a critical gap. Bogat et al. (2006) showed IPV exposure amplifies temperamental irritability, supporting DST’s premise that susceptibility emerges early (Pluess, 2015). However, since the study did not test whether these same irritable infants would benefit most from enriched caregiving, its findings provide only partial support for DST. While early temperamental traits like irritability mark vulnerability in adversity (Belsky & Pluess, 2009), their role as plasticity markers hinges on future research that manipulates environmental quality, including the presence of enriched or supportive contexts.

Of the 19 studies, 13 adopted analytical models testing temperament as a mediator or moderator between ACEs and developmental outcomes. This growing body of literature has moved beyond descriptive correlations, aligning with theoretical frameworks that recognize the transactional and dynamic nature of child development, consistent with the conceptual framework of DST (Belsky & Pluess, 2009). In the mediation models, Inhibitory control, a core self-regulatory function, emerged as a prominent mediator. For example, Golm and Brandt (2024) found that low effortful control accounted for 28% of the variance in the relationship between neglect and ADHD symptoms (β = 0.32, p < .01), suggesting a neurocognitive mechanism through which early adversity is translated into behavioural dysfunction. Other studies similarly implicated negative emotionality and poor self-control as mediators (Coe et al., 2020; Davis et al., 2024; Hallquist et al., 2015). However, despite theoretical predictions from DST, none of the studies tested whether these same vulnerable traits confer enhanced benefits in enriched or therapeutic environments.

Concerning moderation models, eight studies examined temperament as a moderator, highlighting its conditional influence on the impact of ACEs. Traits such as high emotional reactivity (Zhao et al., 2022), low adaptability (Ackerman et al., 1999), and negative affectivity (Comas et al., 2014) intensified associations between environmental stressors and maladaptive outcomes. These patterns suggest that temperament can amplify or attenuate the effects of adversity, depending on context, a principle core to DST.

Importantly, some findings align partially with DST’s premise of heightened sensitivity to environmental inputs. For instance, Zhao et al. (2022) found that high activity levels at 60 months were positively associated with a high exposure trajectory to community violence, while inhibitory control was negatively associated. Moreover, harsh maternal parenting predicted higher exposure to community violence only among children with elevated activity levels, suggesting a moderating role of temperament. However, no studies directly demonstrated classic “for-better-and-for-worse” effects, in which the same temperament traits confer both increased vulnerability in adverse contexts and enhanced adaptation in supportive ones. As such, much of the current evidence continues to reflect a diathesis-stress orientation, rather than true differential susceptibility (Stoltz et al., 2017).

Moreover, a striking limitation in the broader literature is the limited attention given to temperament as a moderating or mediating factor in the relationship between ACEs and developmental outcomes. Despite the vast number of studies investigating how ACEs influence development, only 13 explicitly tested models in which individual differences in temperament shaped these associations. This reveals a conceptual gap: much of the literature fails to account for individual differences in susceptibility, thereby overlooking central principles of DST.

Additionally, only one study tested ACEs as a moderator, a particularly surprising finding, given that from a conceptual standpoint, it is more coherent to treat temperament as the individual-level variable and ACEs as the contextual factor that moderates or mediates its effect. Beyond the limited number of studies that tested such interactions, only one adopted an analytical approach that explicitly aligned with the theoretical logic of DST. This underscores not only a methodological gap but a broader disconnect between empirical research and the theoretical models that emphasize the dynamic interplay between individual traits and environmental contexts.

Regarding the results of interest and their relationship with the temperament-ACEs interaction: The explored outcomes spanned a range of psychological and behavioural domains, with externalizing problems most frequently reported (n = 5), including aggression, conduct problems, and oppositional defiant symptoms. Internalizing outcomes were less commonly studied, though anxiety (Levy et al., 2019) and trauma-related symptoms (Bogat et al., 2006) were observed. Additionally, the interaction between temperament and ACEs was implicated in symptoms of personality disorders, particularly borderline and antisocial personality characteristics (Hallquist et al., 2015; Jovev et al., 2013), as well as ADHD, executive function deficits, and psychiatric hospitalization duration. The reviewed studies demonstrated distinct temperament-based pathways to externalizing behaviours, with important implications for DST. However, the absence of "for better" tests in these studies represents a significant limitation, we cannot determine whether these same reactive children might have shown superior outcomes in particularly supportive environments, as predicted by DST’s plasticity hypothesis (Belsky & Pluess, 2009).

Zhao et al. (2022) is notable for conceptualizing exposure to community violence not just as a risk factor but as an outcome reflecting children’s psychological and behavioural responses to adversity. This view expands traditional adversity models by showing exposure as a developmental outcome influenced by both context and temperament (Armstrong-Carter & Telzer, 2022; Jean-Thorn et al., 2023).

Their findings align with the ecological-transactional model (Cicchetti & Lynch, 1993), demonstrating how temperament traits like activity level and inhibitory control moderate the effects of harsh maternal parenting on violence exposure trajectories (Belsky & Pluess, 2009). Framing exposure as an outcome highlights children’s active role in shaping adversity experiences, consistent with DST (Belsky, 1997).

This dynamic perspective suggests interventions should address both environmental risks and individual resilience (Masten, 2021). Overall, Zhao et al. (2022) advance a nuanced understanding of adversity as an intertwined process of exposure and response, warranting further research on these bidirectional dynamics.

An alternative pathway emerged through mediation analyses, where low inhibitory control explained 25% to 30% of the association between ACEs and aggressive behaviours across multiple studies (Coe et al., 2020). This neurocognitive mechanism suggests that interventions targeting effortful control might mitigate externalizing outcomes for children exposed to adversity. From a DST perspective, these findings raise important questions about whether inhibitory control functions as a general vulnerability factor or a true plasticity marker that would also enhance responsiveness to positive environmental influences (Obradović, 2016).

The most compelling evidence for biological susceptibility emerged from studies of personality disorder risk, particularly Hallquist et al. (2015) longitudinal examination of BPD pathways. Their finding that poor self-control mediated 28% of the association between harsh parenting and later BPD symptoms, with additional moderation by 5-HTTLPR genotype, provides strong support for DST’s emphasis on gene-environment-temperament interplay. The German sample’s demonstration that serotonin-related genetic variants moderated environmental sensitivity replicates core DST findings reported by Davis et al. (2024) while extending them to personality pathology outcomes. Notably, this study’s design captured both the “for worse” (vulnerability to harsh parenting) and “for better” (responsivity to supportive environments) aspects of susceptibility, offering a more complete test of DST than most other reviewed studies. These outcome-specific pathways collectively suggest that temperament traits may operate differently across psychopathology domains, with reactivity showing particularly strong links to externalizing behaviours, negative affectivity to internalizing problems, and effortful control deficits to personality pathology. This pattern underscores the importance of moving beyond generic “difficult temperament” constructs to examine how specific temperamental dimensions interact with particular types of environmental experiences to shape divergent developmental outcomes (Hinshaw & Lee, 2003; McCauley et al., 2001).

The single identified study examining internalizing outcomes (Levy et al., 2019) found that negative affectivity significantly predicted anxiety symptoms, specifically in high-ACEs contexts (β = .39). While this conditional effect aligns with DST’s environmental sensitivity framework, the exclusive focus on adverse environments leaves open critical questions about the potential “bright side” of this temperamental trait. The study’s cross-sectional design and failure to examine positive environmental moderators (e.g., parental warmth, social support) represent missed opportunities to fully test DST predictions. Future research should investigate whether children high in negative affectivity might demonstrate particularly strong benefits from supportive interventions, as suggested by recent DST-informed work on anxiety prevention suggested by recent DST-informed work on anxiety prevention (Pluess et al., 2018).

Conclusion and Future Directions

This scoping review aimed to identify studies that highlight the significant role of temperament as both a mediator and moderator in the relationship between ACEs and developmental outcomes. Overall, the existing literature provides important insights into specific mechanisms linking ACEs, temperament, and early developmental outcomes. However, key limitations constrain current understanding, particularly regarding the developmental timing and duration of ACE exposure assessed in the included studies. Because most samples consisted of children and relied on a single or limited number of assessments of adversity, the available evidence primarily reflects proximal outcomes of early ACEs rather than the cumulative burden of adversity accrued by age 18. As a result, these studies do not encompass later-emerging adversities (e.g., peer victimization, dating violence, community-level risks) or developmental periods in which new ACEs and mental health problems are especially likely to occur.

Although many of the included studies adopted longitudinal designs with respect to developmental and mental health outcomes, ACE exposure was most often assessed at a single time point, either early in development or retrospectively. Consequently, even within longitudinal frameworks, adversity was typically operationalized as a static or proximal exposure, limiting the ability to model the accumulation, timing, and evolution of ACEs across childhood and adolescence. These child-based designs are therefore well suited to identifying early associations and temporal ordering, but are less capable of capturing cumulative exposure, developmental change, and long-term trajectories of psychopathology and adaptation. This limits current knowledge about ACE–temperament interplay to early and middle childhood and may lead to underestimation of both total ACE load and long-term developmental trajectories of psychopathology and adaptation.

To address these gaps, future research should prioritize longitudinal designs with repeated assessments of ACEs, temperament, and outcomes across multiple developmental periods, ideally from early childhood through adolescence and, where possible, into adulthood. Such designs would allow researchers to examine how cumulative and time-varying ACE exposure interacts with relatively stable temperamental traits, to test whether certain developmental windows (e.g., puberty) represent sensitive periods for ACE–temperament effects, and to identify how early vulnerabilities or plasticity markers unfold into later functioning. Multi-wave, prospective cohorts with diverse samples are therefore essential to refine inferences drawn from the predominantly child-based literature with limited repeated assessment of ACE exposure reviewed here.

A further limitation concerns the way adversity was operationalized across the included studies. Although the ACE framework is conceptually cumulative (Anda et al., 2020), most studies examined only a single ACE type or a narrow subset of exposures. While single-exposure approaches offer valuable insights into specific mechanisms, they do not reflect the broader accumulation of risk that defines ACEs and may underestimate the overall adversity burden (Briggs et al., 2021). Consequently, associations between temperament and adversity should be interpreted cautiously, as effects may differ when multiple ACEs co-occur. Evidence from cumulative-risk research shows that combined adversities often exert stronger and qualitatively distinct influences on developmental outcomes compared to isolated exposure types (Lanier et al., 2018). To advance the field, future studies should employ comprehensive cumulative ACE measures that capture the number and co-occurrence of adversity types, ideally within longitudinal, multi-informant designs capable of modelling diverse adversity patterns over time.

Selection bias emerged from the exclusion of studies examining only direct ACE–temperament links, potentially overlooking whether temperament reflects an outcome of adversity or a pre-existing vulnerability. Additionally, possible publication bias and the predominance of Western-based samples limit the generalizability and developmental insight of findings. Longitudinal studies spanning adolescence remain scarce, and resilience-promoting traits such as sociability or adaptability are underexplored.

While evidence supports temperament’s role in shaping susceptibility to adversity, the existing literature rarely tests the full theoretical implications of this susceptibility. In particular, no study examined whether the same temperamental traits that confer vulnerability in adverse contexts also predict enhanced outcomes in supportive or enriched environments, a central tenet of DST.

Consistent with this gap, out of a vast number of studies on ACEs, only 13 explicitly tested models in which temperament moderated or mediated developmental outcomes. Even more concerning, only one study tested ACEs as a moderator, despite ACEs conceptually representing the environmental context and temperament of the individual-level trait. This pattern highlights a misalignment between commonly used analytic models and foundational developmental theories. Moreover, only one study explicitly applied a DST framework, and none systematically examined “for-better-and-for-worse” effects, limiting progress in both theory testing and application.

Taken together, these limitations do not undermine the contribution of the existing literature but instead delineate clear priorities for future research. Future studies should explicitly test “for-better-and-for-worse” interactions using DST-aligned statistical models that incorporate both adverse and supportive environments. Greater attention to age- and sex-specific pathways, particularly during adolescence, is warranted. Studies must also disaggregate temperament into its core dimensions to map their specific links to distinct psychopathological outcomes. Additionally, biologically informed, longitudinal designs integrating genetic, temperamental, and environmental variables are essential to advancing a mechanistic understanding of developmental plasticity and individual differences in susceptibility. Crucially, the limited use of interactional models to date and their inconsistent conceptual alignment with DST have constrained progress in both theory and application. Clinical implications, such as interventions targeting inhibitory control or emotional regulation, remain speculative without direct experimental validation, reinforcing the need for translational designs that bridge basic research and intervention science.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-tva-10.1177_15248380261429500 – Supplemental material for Temperament and Adversity in Childhood and Adolescence: A Scoping Review of Influences on Developmental Outcomes

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-tva-10.1177_15248380261429500 for Temperament and Adversity in Childhood and Adolescence: A Scoping Review of Influences on Developmental Outcomes by Laura Silva, Maria Vieira de Castro, Beatriz Alves, Tânia Gonçalves, Ângela Maia and Ricardo J. Pinto in Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Laura Silva

Maria Vieira de Castro

Tânia Gonçalves

Ricardo J. Pinto

Author Contributions

L.S. and M.V.C. contributed to the conception and design of the work. L.S. and M.V.C. contributed to the design of the search strategy. B.A. and T.G. contributed to the acquisition of data. B.A. and T.G. contributed to the extraction and analysis of data. L.S., M.V.C., A.M., and R.P. contributed to the contextualization and interpretation of data. A.M. and R.P. contributed to drafting and revision. All authors have approved the final version.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was funded by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT), under HEI-Lab R&D Unit (UIDB/05380/2020, ).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

Pre-Registration Statement

This study was not preregistered.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Laura Silva, PhD in Education. Research fellow at HeiLab—Human Environment Interaction Lab. Develops research in developmental, clinical, and educational psychology, with emphasis on childhood adversity, trauma, and psychosocial determinants of development. Author of peer-reviewed publications and presenter at national and international conferences, with experience in clinical practice and psychosocial intervention in educational and community settings.

Maria Vieira de Castro, PhD student in Clinical Psychology at Lusófona University and Clinical psychologist. Researcher at HEI Lab—Human Environment Interaction Lab, her work focuses on post-traumatic stress disorder, childhood adversity, and virtual reality–based interventions. She publishes internationally and is a member of the Portuguese Psychologists’ Association.

Beatriz Alves, MSc in Clinical and Health Psychology. Psychologist in training with experience in school and clinical settings, working with children and adolescents on emotional regulation, self-esteem, relational skills, and family engagement. Research focuses on childhood adversity, temperament, and development. Interests include preventive interventions, parent training, and educational program development.

Tânia Gonçalves, PhD student in Psychology (Victims, Offenders, and Justice System), School of Psychology-University of Minho(UM). Research fellow, Adverse and Traumatic Experiences Team (CIPsi-UM) and member of the Crime and Violence Research Center (ISPUP-University of Porto). Author of (inter)national publications on trauma, life trajectories, and violent offending. Clinical psychologist (APsi-UM).

Ângela Maia, PhD in Clinical Psychology and Habilitation in Applied Psychology. Coordinator of the Trauma Psychotherapy Group. Coordinates research projects in the area of trauma and violence, being author of several publications. Member of the Military Stress Center of the Ministry of Defense, has coordinated projects with funding from other Government Departments.

Ricardo J. Pinto, PhD in Health Psychology and assistant professor at Lusófona University and researcher at HEI-Lab—Human Environment Interaction Lab. His research focuses on trauma, childhood adversity, resilience, and virtual reality interventions. He publishes internationally, coordinates research projects, and supervises undergraduate and postgraduate students.

References

Ackerman

B. P.

Kogos

Youngstrom

Schoff

Izard

(1999). Family instability and the problem behaviors of children from economically disadvantaged families. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.1.258

Anda

R. F.

Porter

L. E.

Brown

D. W.

(2020). Inside the adverse childhood experience score: Strengths, limitations, and misapplications. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 59(2), 293–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2020.01.009

Armstrong-Carter

Telzer

E. H.

(2022). Biological sensitivity to environmental context fluctuates dynamically within individuals from day to day. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14481-7

Bakermans-Kranenburg

M. J.

Van Ijzendoorn

M. H.

(2011). Differential susceptibility to rearing environment depending on dopamine-related genes: New evidence and a meta-analysis. Development and Psychopathology, 23(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579410000635

Belsky

(1997). Variation in susceptibility to environmental influence: An evolutionary argument. Psychological Inquiry, 8(3), 182–186. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0803_3

Belsky

Pluess

(2009). Beyond diathesis stress: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 885–908. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017376

Bethell

Jones

Gombojav

Linkenbach

Sege

(2019). Positive childhood experiences and adult mental and relational health in a statewide sample: Associations across adverse childhood experiences levels. JAMA Pediatrics, 173(11), e193007–e193007. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3007

Blader

J. C.

Garrett

A. S.

Pliszka

S. R.

(2025). Annual research review: What processes are dysregulated among emotionally dysregulated youth?—A systematic review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 66(4), 516–546. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.14126

Bogat

G. A.

DeJonghe

Levendosky

A. A.

Davidson

W. S.

Von Eye

(2006). Trauma symptoms among infants exposed to intimate partner violence. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30(2), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.09.002

10.

Boyce

W. T.

Ellis

B. J.

(2005). Biological sensitivity to context: I. An evolutionary-developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity. Development and Psychopathology, 17(2), 271–301. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579405050145

11.

Briggs

E. C.

Amaya-Jackson

Putnam

K. T.

Putnam

F. W.

(2021). All adverse childhood experiences are not equal: The contribution of synergy to adverse childhood experience scores. American Psychologist, 76(2), 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000768

12.

Buss

A.H.

Plomin

(1984). Temperament (PLE: Emotion): Early developing personality traits (1st ed.). Psychology Press.

13.

Carlson

E. B.

Dalenberg

C. J.

(2000). A conceptual framework for the impact of traumatic experiences. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 1(1), 4–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838000001001002

14.

Carmassi

Conti

Gravina

Nardi

Dell’Osso

(2022). Emotional dysregulation as trans-nosographic psychopathological dimension in adulthood: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 900277. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.900277

15.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/aces/

16.

Chen

S. H.

Zhou

Main

Lee

E. H.

(2015). Chinese American immigrant parents’ emotional expression in the family: Relations with parents’ cultural orientations and children’s emotion-related regulation. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(4), 619–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000013

17.

Cicchetti

Lynch

(1993). Toward an ecological/transactional model of community violence and child maltreatment: Consequences for children’s development. Psychiatry (New York), 56(1), 96–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1993.11024624

18.

Cloninger

C. R.

(2008). The psychobiological theory of temperament and character: Comment on Farmer and Goldberg (2008). Psychological Assessment, 20(3), 292–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012933

19.

Cloninger

C. R.

Svrakic

D. M.

Przybeck

T. R.

(1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50(12), 975–990. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1993.01820240059008

20.

Coe

J. L.

Micalizzi

Josefson

Parade

S. H.

Seifer

Tyrka

A. R.

(2020). Sex differences in associations between early adversity, child temperament, and behavior problems. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 44(6), 490–504. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025420912012

21.

Comas

Valentino

Bridgett

D. J.

Hayden

L. C.

(2014). The direct and interactive effects of physical abuse severity and negative affectivity on length of psychiatric hospitalization: Evidence of differential reactivity to adverse environments in psychiatrically high-risk youth. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 45, 220–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-013-0394-6

22.

Cumpston

M. S.

McKenzie

J. E.

Welch

V. A.

Brennan

S. E.

(2022). Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Journal of Public Health, 44(4), e588–e592. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdac036

23.

Daines

C. L.

Hansen

Novilla

M. L. B.

Crandall

A. A.

(2021). Effects of positive and negative childhood experiences on adult family health. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10732-w

24.

Dalenberg

C. J.

Straus

Carlson

E. B.

(2017). Defining trauma. In Gold

S. N.

(Ed.), APA handbook of trauma psychology: Foundations in knowledge (Vol. 1, pp. 15–33). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000019-002

25.

Davies

P. T.

Sturge-Apple

M. L.

Cicchetti

Manning

L. G.

Vonhold

S. E.

(2012). Pathways and processes of risk in associations among maternal antisocial personality symptoms, interparental aggression, and preschooler’s psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 24(3), 807–832. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579412000387

26.

Davis

M. M.

Navarro

Carpenter

K. L. H.

Copeland

W. E.

Small

Egger

H. L.

Sheridan

M. A.

(2024). Early life adversity and psychopathology in preschoolers: Mechanisms and moderators. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 33(6), 1945–1954. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-023-02295-5

27.

DeLisi

Fox

B. H.

Fully

Vaughn

M. G.

(2018). The effects of temperament, psychopathy, and childhood trauma among delinquent youth: A test of DeLisi and Vaughn’s temperament-based theory of crime. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 57, 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.01.006

28.

Dollar

J. M.

Perry

N. B.

Calkins

S. D.

Shanahan

Keane

S. P.

Shriver

Wideman

(2023). Longitudinal associations between specific types of emotional reactivity and psychological, physical health, and school adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 35(2), 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001619

29.

Dong

Anda

R. F.

Felitti

V. J.

Dube

S. R.

Williamson

D. F.

Thompson

T. J.

Loo

C. M.

Giles

W. H.

(2004). The interrelatedness of multiple forms of childhood abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(7), 771–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.01.008

30.

Ellis

B. J.

Sheridan

M. A.

Belsky

McLaughlin

K. A.

(2022). Why and how does early adversity influence development? Toward an integrated model of dimensions of environmental experience. Development and Psychopathology, 34(2), 447–471. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001838

31.

Felitti

V. J.

Anda

R. F.

Nordenberg

Williamson

D. F.

Spitz

A. M.

Edwards

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

32.

Folayan

M. O.

Schroth

R. J.

Ayouni

Nguweneza

Arheiam

Al-Batayneh

O. B.

Virtanen

J. I.

Gaffar

Duangthip

Sun

I. G.

Mohebbi

Feldens

C. A.

Tantawi

M. El

. (2023). A scoping review linking early childhood caries to violence, neglect, internally displaced, migrant and refugee status. BMC Oral Health, 23(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03459-0

33.

Gee

D. G.

Gabard-Durnam

L. J.

Flannery

Goff

Humphreys

K. L.

Telzer

E. H.

Hare

T. A.

Bookheimer

S. Y.

Tottenham

(2013). Early developmental emergence of human amygdala-prefrontal connectivity after maternal deprivation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(39), 15638–15643. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1307893110

34.

Giancola

P. R.

(2000). Temperament and antisocial behavior in preadolescent boys with or without a family history of a substance use disorder. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 14(1), 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.14.1.56

35.

Golm

Brandt

(2024). The longitudinal association between infant negative emotionality, childhood maltreatment, and ADHD symptoms: A secondary analysis of data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Development and Psychopathology, 36(3), 1231–1238. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579423000457

36.

Gunnar

Quevedo

(2007). The neurobiology of stress and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 145–173. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085605

37.

Hakamata

Suzuki

Kobashikawa

Hori

(2022). Neurobiology of early life adversity: A systematic review of meta-analyses towards an integrative account of its neurobiological trajectories to mental disorders. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 65, 100994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yfrne.2022.100994

38.

Hallquist

M. N.

Hipwell

A. E.

Stepp

S. D.

(2015). Poor self-control and harsh punishment in childhood prospectively predict borderline personality symptoms in adolescent girls. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124(3), 549–564. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000058

39.

Hartman

Belsky

(2016). An evolutionary perspective on family studies: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Family Process, 55(4), 700–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12161

40.

Hawes

D. J.

Allen

J. L.

(2023). A developmental psychopathology perspective on adverse childhood experiences (ACEs): Introduction to the special issue. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 51(12), 1715–1723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-023-01100-w

41.

Herzog

J. I.

Schmahl

(2018). Adverse childhood experiences and the consequences on neurobiological, psychosocial, and somatic conditions across the lifespan. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 9(SEP), 357654. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00420

42.

Hinshaw

S. P.

Lee

S. S.

(2003). Conduct and oppositional defiant disorders. In Mash

E. J.

Barkley

R. A.

(Eds.), Annual review of psychology (2nd ed., pp. 144–198). The Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.001331

43.

Jean-Thorn

Tremblay-Perreault

Dubé

Hébert

(2023). A systematic review of community-level protective factors in children exposed to maltreatment. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 24(4), 2827–2842. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380221117234

44.

Jovev

Mckenzie

Whittle

Simmons

J. G.

Allen

N. B.

Chanen

A. M.

(2013). Temperament and maltreatment in the emergence of borderline and antisocial personality pathology during early adolescence. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 22(3), 220. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3749896/

45.

Kiff

C. J.

Lengua

L. J.

Zalewski

(2011). Nature and nurturing: Parenting in the context of child temperament. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 14(3), 251–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-011-0093-4

46.

Kobrinsky

Siedlecki

K. L.

(2023). Mediators of the Relationship Between Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and Symptoms of Anxiety, Depression, and Suicidality among Adults. Journal of Child and Adolescent Trauma, 16(2), 233-246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-022-00510-0

47.

Kocatürk

Çiçek

. (2023). Relationship between positive childhood experiences and psychological resilience in university students: The mediating role of self-esteem. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 33(1), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2021.16

48.

Lamb

M. E.

Brown

A. L.

(2013). Development of individual differences in temperament (pp. 37–86). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203728185-2

49.

Lambert

S. F.

Tache

R. M.

Liu

S. R.

Nylund-Gibson

Ialongo

N. S.

(2021). Individual differences in patterns of community violence exposure and internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(19–20), 9484–9506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519867148

50.

Lanier

Maguire-Jack

Lombardi

Frey

Rose

R. A.

(2018). Adverse childhood experiences and child health outcomes: Comparing cumulative risk and latent class approaches. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 22(3), 288–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-017-2365-1

51.

Lee

(2014). Temperament, parenting, and South Korean early adolescents’ physical aggression: A five-wave longitudinal analysis. Health Education Journal, 73(3), 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0017896912471052

52.

Lee

Larkin

Esaki

(2017). Exposure to community violence as a new adverse childhood experience category: Promising results and future considerations. Families in Society, 98(1), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.2017.10

53.

Levy

Goldstein

Feldman

(2019). The neural development of empathy is sensitive to caregiving and early trauma. Nature Communications, 10(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09927-y

54.

Masten

A. S.

(2021). Resilience of children in disasters: A multisystem perspective. International Journal of Psychology, 56(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12737

55.

McCauley

Karen

Kendall

(2001). The depressed child and adolescent (pp. 46–72). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511543821.004

56.

McLaughlin

K. A.

Sheridan

M. A.

Lambert

H. K.

(2014). Childhood adversity and neural development: Deprivation and threat as distinct dimensions of early experience. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 47, 578–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.10.012

57.

Montero

León

O. G.

(2007). A guide for naming research studies in Psychology. International Journal of Clinical and Health psychology, 7(3), 847–862.

58.

Mylant

Ide

Cuevas

Meehan

(2002). Adolescent children of alcoholics: Vulnerable or Resilient? Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 8(2), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpn.2002.125037

59.

Narmandakh

Roest

A. M.

de Jonge

Oldehinkel

A. J.

(2021). Psychosocial and biological risk factors of anxiety disorders in adolescents: A TRAILS report. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30(12), 1969–1982. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-020-01669-3

60.

Obradović

(2016). Physiological responsivity and executive functioning: Implications for adaptation and resilience in early childhood. Child Development Perspectives, 10(1), 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12164

61.

Obradović

Bush

N. R.

Stamperdahl

Adler

N. E.

Boyce

W. T.

(2010). Biological sensitivity to context: The interactive effects of stress reactivity and family adversity on socioemotional behavior and school readiness. Child Development, 81(1), 270–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01394.x

62.

Ouzzani

Hammady

Fedorowicz

Elmagarmid

(2016). Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4

63.

Paula

C. S.

Mari

J. J.

Bordin

I. A. S.

Miguel

E. C.

Fortes

Barroso

Rohde

L. A.

Coutinho

E. S. F.

(2018). Early vulnerabilities for psychiatric disorders in elementary schoolchildren from four Brazilian regions. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 53(5), 477–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-018-1503-4

64.

Pekdoğan

Kanak

(2022). Child temperament as a predictor of parents’ potential for emotional abuse. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 210(5), 330–334. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000001449

65.

Plomin

Dunn

(2013). The EAS approach to temperament (pp. 67–79). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203781807-6

66.

Pluess

(2015). Individual differences in environmental sensitivity. Child Development Perspectives, 9(3), 138–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12120

67.

Pluess

Assary

Lionetti

Lester

K. J.

Krapohl

Aron

E. N.

Aron

(2018). Environmental sensitivity in children: Development of the highly sensitive child scale and identification of sensitivity groups. Developmental Psychology, 54(1), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000406

68.

Pluess

Belsky

(2013). Vantage sensitivity: Individual differences in response to positive experiences. Psychological Bulletin, 139(4), 901–916. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030196

69.

Pluess

Lionetti

Aron

E. N.

Aron

(2023). People differ in their sensitivity to the environment: An integrated theory, measurement and empirical evidence. Journal of Research in Personality, 104, 104377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2023.104377

70.

Raver

C. C.

Blair

Willoughby

(2013). Poverty as a predictor of 4-year-olds’ executive function: New perspectives on models of differential susceptibility. Developmental Psychology, 49(2), 292–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028343

71.

Rothbart

M. K.

Sheese

B. E.

Rueda

M. R.

Posner

M. I.

(2011). Developing mechanisms of self-regulation in early life. Emotion Review, 3(2), 207–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073910387943

72.

Ryznar

R. J.

Clodfelder

Edwards

(2025). Biological and psychological interactions of the stress response: How to build resilient trauma teams. In Marshall Gillman

Widder

(Eds.), Trauma team dynamics (pp. 71–87). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-86312-7_12

73.

Şanli

M. E.

Cicek

Yıldırım

Çeri

(2024). Positive childhood experiences as predictors of anxiety and depression in a large sample from Turkey. Acta Psychologica, 243, 104170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104170

74.

Sanson

Hemphill

S. A.

Smart

(2004). Connections between temperament and social development: A review. Social Development, 13(1), 142–170. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-9507.2004.00261.x

75.

Sciaraffa

M. A.

Zeanah

P. D.

Zeanah

C. H.

(2018). Understanding and promoting resilience in the context of adverse childhood experiences. Early Childhood Education Journal, 46(3), 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-017-0869-3

76.

Sege

R. D.

Harper Browne

(2017). Responding to ACEs with HOPE: Health outcomes from positive experiences. Academic Pediatrics, 17(7), S79–S85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2017.03.007

77.

Shain

L. M.

Nguyen

Meadows

A. L.

(2022). Relationships among adverse childhood experiences, delay discounting, impulsivity, and diabetes self-management. Health Psychology, 41(8), 566–571. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0001209

78.

Slagt

Dubas

J. S.

van Aken

M. A. G.

Ellis

B. J.

Deković

(2017). Children’s differential susceptibility to parenting: An experimental test of “for better and for worse.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 154, 78–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.10.004

79.

Stoltz

Beijers

Smeekens

Deković

(2017). Diathesis stress or differential susceptibility? Testing longitudinal associations between parenting, temperament, and children’s problem behavior. Social Development, 26(4), 783–796. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12237

80.

Tan

Mao

(2023). Type and dose-response effect of adverse childhood experiences in predicting depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 139, 106091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106091

81.

Tottenham

(2009). A review of adversity, the amygdala and the hippocampus: A consideration of developmental timing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 3, 1019. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.09.068.2009

82.

Tricco

A. C.

Lillie

Zarin

O’Brien

K. K.

Colquhoun

Levac

Moher

Peters

M. D. J.

Horsley

Weeks

Hempel

Akl

E. A.

Chang

McGowan

Stewart

Hartling

Aldcroft

Wilson

M. G.

Garritty

, … & Straus

S. E.

(2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

83.

Weems

C. F.

Russell

J. D.

Herringa

R. J.

Carrion

V. G.

(2021). Translating the neuroscience of adverse childhood experiences to inform policy and foster population-level resilience. American Psychologist, 76(2), 188–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000780

84.

Wilson

Olino

T. M.

(2021). A developmental perspective on personality and psychopathology across the life span. Journal of Personality, 89(5), 915–932. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12623

85.

Wilson-Genderson

Heid

A. R.

Cartwright

Pruchno

(2022). Adverse childhood experiences, adult trauma, and depressive symptom trajectories. Aging & Mental Health, 26(11), 2170–2178. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2021.1978926

86.

World Health Organization. (2020). World health statistics 2020: Monitoring health for the SDGs, sustainable development goals. World Health Organization.

87.

Zhao

Ettekal

Nickerson

A. B.

Schuetze

Shisler

Godleski

Ostrov

Eiden

R. D.

(2022). Child community violence exposure in an at-risk sample: Developmental trajectories, caregiving risks, and the role of child temperament. Psychology of Violence, 12(6), 382–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000416

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB