Early adverse experiences are well understood to affect development and well-being, placing individuals at risk for negative physical and mental health outcomes. A growing literature documents the effects of adversity on developing neurobiological systems. Fewer studies have examined stress neurobiology to understand how to mitigate the effects of early adversity. This review summarizes the research on three neurobiological systems relevant to interventions for populations experiencing high levels of early adversity: the hypothalamic-adrenal-pituitary axis, the prefrontal cortex regions involved in executive functioning, and the system involved in threat detection and response, particularly the amygdala. Also discussed is the emerging field of epigenetics and related interventions to mitigate early adversity. Further emphasized is the need for intervention research to integrate knowledge about the neurobiological effects of prenatal stressors (e.g., drug use, alcohol exposure) and early adversity. The review concludes with a discussion of the implications of this research topic for clinical psychology practice and public policy.

Although much empirical work has focused on the adverse impact of specific types of childhood victimization (e.g., sexual, physical, or emotional abuse), researchers and clinicians increasingly are recognizing the prevalence of polyvictimization, or exposure to multiple types of victimization. Polyvictimization during formative developmental periods may have detrimental and potentially lifelong biopsychosocial impacts over and above the effects of exposure to specific types of adversity. In this guest editorial, we summarize the key questions and findings for six empirical studies on polyvictimization included in this Special Issue of the Journal of Trauma & Dissociation. These empirical studies further our understanding of the nature, consequences, and assessment of polyvictimization. We conclude with recommendations for continued scientific research and clinical inquiry on polyvictimization.

The present studies examined the common, but untested, theoretical assumption that those in the United States prefer negative past experiences, such as trauma, to be redeemed, to be resolved in some positive or growth-promoting fashion. Narratives of six types of traumatic events were rated by U.S adults (n = 1872) across six samples and two studies. Confirming pre-registered hypotheses, there was a reliable preference for stories that were redeemed compared to stories that ended negatively, as well as for the narrators of redemptive stories, who were judged as likable and to have desirable personality traits. There was no support for the hypothesis that redemptive stories would be viewed as more common than non-redemptive stories, or that the relation between story type and preference would be mediated by Belief in a Just World. Implications include the compulsory nature of storying trauma and potential risks of these cultural expectations.

Research in both community and clinical settings has found that exposure to cumulative interpersonal trauma predicts substance use problems. Less is known about betrayal as a dimension of trauma exposure that predicts substance use, and about the behavioral and psychological pathways that explain the relation between trauma and substance use. In a sample of 362 young adults, this study evaluated three intervening pathways between betrayal trauma exposure prior to age 18 years and problematic substance use: (a) substance use to cope with negative affect, (b) difficulty discerning and/or heeding risk, and (c) self‐destructiveness. In addition, exposure to trauma low in betrayal (e.g., earthquake) was included in the model. Bootstrap tests of indirect effects revealed that betrayal trauma prior to age 18 years was associated with problematic substance use via posttraumatic stress and two intervening pathways: difficulty discerning/heeding risk (β = .07, p < .001), and self‐destructiveness (β = .12, p < .001). Exposure to lower betrayal trauma was not associated with posttraumatic stress or problematic substance use. Results contribute to a trauma‐informed understanding of substance use that persists despite potentially harmful consequences.

Although survivors of sexual violence have shared their stories with the public on social media and mass media platforms in growing numbers, less is known about how general audiences perceive such trauma stories. These perceptions can have profound consequences for survivor mental health. In the present experimental, vignette-based studies, we anticipated that cultural stigma surrounding sexual violence and cultural preference for positive (redemptive) endings to adversity in the United States (U.S.) would shape perceptions. Four samples of U.S. adults (N = 1872) rated first-person narratives of 6 more stigmatizing (i.e., sexual violence) or less stigmatizing (e.g., natural disaster) traumatic events. Confirming pre-registered hypotheses, sexual violence trauma (versus other types of trauma) stories were perceived as more difficult to tell, and their storytellers less likeable, even when they had redemptive endings. Disconfirming other pre-registered hypotheses, redemptive (versus negative) story endings did not boost the perceived likelihood or obligation to share a sexual violence trauma story. Rather, redemptive (versus negative) story endings only boosted the perceived likelihood, obligation, and ease of telling other, less stigmatizing types of trauma stories. Findings suggest that sexual violence survivors do not benefit, to the same degree as other survivors, from telling their stories with the culturally valued narrative template of redemption. Clinical and societal implications of the less receptive climate for sexual violence stories are discussed.