Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2023 Mar 15:1–13. Online ahead of print. doi: 10.1007/s42844-023-00093-1

Relations Between Stress-Adapted Communication Skills and Toxic Social Networks Among Young Adults with Childhood Adversity

Samantha M Brown 1,✉, Meara H Faw 2, Rachel G Lucas-Thompson 3, Jessica Pettigrew 4, Kelley Quirk 3
PMCID: PMC10015516  PMID: 37361563

Abstract

Adverse childhood experiences are associated with deleterious outcomes across the lifespan. However, some individuals who grow up in adverse environments may develop stress-adapted skills or resilience factors that enable them to function in their current lived environments. This study explored whether communication is a stress-adapted skill among young adults with co-occurring forms of childhood adversity and the extent to which these communication skills are implicated in toxic social networks. This cross-sectional study included 384 young adults, ages 18–35 years, who completed an online survey. Mixture modeling was used to conduct latent class models estimating subgroups of young adults with co-occurring forms of early adversity; then, regression models estimated the association between communication skills and toxic social networks among subgroups. Four latent classes were identified: (1) high childhood adversity; (2) high to moderate household dysfunction and emotional abuse; (3) high emotional abuse and moderate physical abuse and emotional neglect; and (4) low or no childhood adversity. Results from regression models indicate that participants classified in the high emotional abuse and moderate physical abuse and emotional neglect class had more adaptive communication skills with friends than their counterparts in the low or no childhood adversity class, and participants in the high childhood adversity or low or no childhood adversity classes with higher communication skills were less likely to report toxic social networks. Findings suggest that stress-adapted communication skills may be one resilience factor that supports adaptation among young adults with early adversity exposures.

Keywords: Adverse childhood experiences, Communication skills, Resilience, Toxic social networks

Introduction

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are a widespread public health issue. Between 2015 and 2017, an estimated 61% of adult respondents reported having experienced at least one ACE, and 24% reported experiencing three or more ACEs (Merrick et al., 2019). Since Felitti and colleagues’ seminal study in 1998, ACEs have been well established in the literature as a significant antecedent to lifelong health and wellness concerns (Dube et al., 2003; Felitti et al., 1998). Although extant research on ACEs demonstrates a robust foundation for understanding their relationship to health disparities across the lifespan, their relationship to factors that may facilitate resilience or adaptation to environments characterized by different forms of adversity is unclear.

A dose–response relationship exists between cumulative ACEs and poor health outcomes, such that the risk of poor outcomes increases as the number of ACEs increases (Anda et al., 2006; Thompson et al., 2020). However, emerging research also suggests that specific ACEs co-occur or cluster together to differentially impact health and well-being (Brown et al., 2019, 2021; Lanier et al., 2018). For example, using latent class analyses (LCA), Brown and colleagues (2021) found that subgroups of children and adolescents are exposed to distinct forms of co-occurring child maltreatment and intimate partner violence, and specific combinations of adversities are subsequently related to externalizing behavior problems. Similarly, Lanier and colleagues (2018) found that children who experienced a combination of parental mental illness and poverty were more likely to have specialized healthcare problems. In adults, co-occurring childhood adversities are also associated with a myriad of mental health problems, highlighting their significant impact at all life-course stages (Kessler et al., 2010). These findings demonstrate that relying exclusively on a cumulative ACE score may be a missed opportunity to understand the unique outcomes implicated in early adversity exposure. Examining specific combinations of adversities may provide a more nuanced understanding of the consequences of ACEs as they may carry differential risks for health and well-being.

The impact of early adversities on health and wellness persists in emerging adulthood (Corso et al., 2008; Mosley-Johnson et al., 2019). Evidence suggests that exposure to ACEs and other stressful or traumatic experiences in childhood lead to poorer quality of life in several domains in adulthood, including lower life satisfaction and psychological and social well-being (Corso et al., 2008; Mosley-Johnson et al., 2019). Regarding social relationships, specifically, some individuals exposed to early adversities report negative relationships with peers, siblings, and parents (Drożak et al., 2021). Although social relationships are commonly identified as a protective factor in the context of early adversity, adversity-exposed individuals are at an increased risk of involvement with “toxic” social networks (Williams et al., 2021). Toxic social networks are defined as a social group that may create problems for an individual and tend to diminish an individual’s physical and emotional resources (e.g., family and friends who criticize or try to get an individual in trouble with others; Newsom et al., 2005; Slack & Berger, 2018). For example, women with a history of adversity report a lack of self-trust, making relationship socialization difficult and increasing their likelihood of forming toxic intimate relationships (Williams et al., 2021). Moreover, individuals with more ACEs are likely to experience more interpersonal difficulties and selection into negative peer groups (Poole et al., 2018; Trinidad, 2021). Similarly, youth exposed to sexual abuse who report feeling less supported by caregivers are more likely to view friends as support resources, yet this is associated with increased adjustment difficulties (Feiring et al., 1998). Consequently, even when toxic relationships are identified, it can be difficult for individuals to remove themselves from these relationships due, in part, to feelings of guilt and shame (Williams et al., 2021).

Given the robust link between childhood adversities and poor outcomes, there is a need to move beyond deficit-only perspectives and shift the focus to skills or resilience factors that may develop in response to adversity exposures (Ellis et al., 2017, 2022). For some individuals, exposure to adverse experiences in childhood may lead to adaptation and transformation to better cope with their later environments (Fields et al., 2021; Wilson et al., 2021). Indeed, this strengths-based approach has important implications for how those with a history of adversity are supported and may provide critical targets for intervention to promote health and wellness in adversity-exposed populations. One possible resilience factor that may develop within the context of adversity is effective communication skills. According to the communication theory of resilience (Buzzanell, 2010, 2019), resilience, or the “process through which people reintegrate and actively construct their new normal through language, interaction, networks, and attention to their identities and identifications” (Buzzanell, 2019, p. 68), may be activated when adverse events create disruption in an individual’s life (Wilson et al., 2021). For example, individuals who identify as marginalized members of their family use several communication-based resilience factors to repair family relations and/or create a sense of normalcy, including seeking support from communication networks and creating and negotiating boundaries, among others (Dorrance Hall, 2018). In addition, individuals from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds show greater compassion and attentiveness to others and can adapt more quickly to changing social relationships (Brienza & Grossmann, 2017). Moreover, some adults with traumatic histories show adaptive cognitive control in unpredictable situations (Steudte-Schmiedgen et al., 2014).

Research on the association between childhood adversity and communication skills is mixed, and an advanced understanding of the extent to which stress-adapted skills may persist through early adulthood is warranted. Researchers have found a link between ACEs and engagement in unhealthy communication patterns (Dugal et al., 2020). For example, the communication pattern of negative urgency, or an inclination to respond hastily to others with negative affect, is evident among individuals with high ACEs and is also correlated with an increased frequency of violence in social relationships (Cyders & Smith, 2008; Dugal et al., 2020). In contrast, research has also suggested that communication skills may act as a protective factor, with better outcomes observed in individuals with a history of adversity and more advanced communication skills. Specifically, effective social communication is observed as an individual trait linked to resilience in educational attainment and emotional health in a cohort of young adults with childhood adversity (Khambati et al., 2018). In the context of social relationships, stress-adapted communication skills might also include disclosing information about a stressor and the negative emotions associated with the experienced stressor (Pagani et al., 2019). Accordingly, effective communication skills may support individuals to cope with the stressors associated with adverse environments by developing better problem-solving strategies and forming trusting social relationships (Khambati et al., 2018; Lansford et al., 2006).

Limited information exists regarding communication skills that may enable one to function in later adverse environments. Aloia and Solomon (2015) found that individuals who experienced high levels of verbally aggressive family conflict during childhood experienced attenuated stress responses when exposed to verbally aggressive conflict in adulthood. They argued that this desensitization in the face of aggressive conflict demonstrated adaptation among these individuals: “In other words, surviving the threats of verbally aggressive communication in childhood may render adults more capable of weathering intense conflicts in adulthood” (Aloia & Solomon, 2015, p. 382). These findings are contradicted by research demonstrating that individuals who grow up in high-conflict households experience greater allostatic load or compromised physiological systems in response to stress (Davies et al., 2007; Rogosch et al., 2011). Thus, a more advanced understanding of the extent to which childhood adversity may result in communication skills that promote the successful navigation of interpersonal relationships later in life is warranted.

While most research shows the negative consequences of ACEs, additional research indicates that some individuals who experience ACEs are more empathetic as adults, with a significant and positive correlation between the severity of the trauma they experienced and several aspects of empathy (Greenberg et al., 2018). Given the evidence that empathy is positively associated with developing strong interpersonal relationships (itself a protective factor in life; Boele et al., 2019) and with experiencing enhanced subjective well-being (Shanafelt et al., 2005; Wei et al., 2011), it is likely that this empathy represents an aspect of post-traumatic growth. Empathy is tied to essential communication skills and processes, like successfully connecting to social supports (High & Dillard, 2012) and engaging in prosocial helping behaviors (Lebowitz & Dovidio, 2015), suggesting that some individuals who experience ACEs might develop enhanced communication skills through their experiences of increased empathy for others as well as their need to navigate challenging situations or obtain significant resources for survival.

Current Study

The current study aimed to build on the emerging literature by identifying stress-adapted communication skills that may enable young adults with a history of adversity to function in their current lived environments. In this exploratory study, we extend the research on ACEs by investigating subgroups of individuals who experienced co-occurring forms of childhood adversities through LCA methods and their relationship to communication skills and toxic social networks in early adulthood. We hypothesized that childhood adversity relates to the development of effective communication skills, characterized by collaboration, perspective-taking, and solution-focused efforts, and that communication would serve as a stress-adapted skill by decreasing the likelihood of having toxic social networks among some subgroups of young adults. However, given the limited and mixed findings available on the associations among childhood adversities, communication skills, and social relationships, we made no specific hypotheses about the nature of differences in communication skills and social networks according to specific co-occurring early-life adversities.

Method

Procedure

Young adults attending a land-grant university in the rocky mountain region of the USA were recruited to participate in a cross-sectional study examining the associations among relationship partners, communication, and risk and protective factors. Young adults were informed about the study through departmental research opportunities and were provided an online survey link administered via Qualtrics. The survey was available during the Spring 2020 semester, which coincided with the early onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and took approximately 45 min to complete. Of the 580 participants who began the survey, 196 were not included in the final analyses due to incomplete survey responses (i.e., less than 70% of the survey) and/or to incorrectly completing study validation questions to ensure they were not completing questions randomly. The Colorado State University Institutional Review Board approved the study, and informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Participants

In the current study, participants included 384 young adults between the ages of 18 and 35 years (M = 19.99, SD = 2.01) and were predominantly female (72.7%; n = 279), followed by male (25.8%; n = 99) and non-binary or other gender identity (1.5%; n = 6). The sample identified as White non-Latinx (73.0%; n = 280), Latinx (15.9%; n = 61), Asian/Asian American (4.2%; n = 16), Black/African American (3.7%; n = 14), American Indian/Alaska Native (1.6%; n = 6), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (0.8%; n = 3), and other race/ethnicity (0.8%; n = 3).

Measures

Adverse Childhood Experiences

Ten dichotomous indicators of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) were used to match those most commonly identified in the seminal ACEs study conducted by Felitti and colleagues (1998). Participants were asked to indicate whether or not (1 = yes, 0 = no) they experienced any of the following adverse events while they were growing up during the first 18 years of life: (1) emotional abuse: threatened, insulted, or humiliated by a caregiver, (2) physical abuse: pushed, grabbed, slapped, or injured by a caregiver, (3) sexual abuse: touched, fondled, or forced to have intercourse by an adult, (4) emotional neglect: did not receive affection, love, or support from a caregiver, (5) physical neglect: did not have food, clean clothes, protection, or needs met by caregiver, (6) caregiver separation: caregivers were separated or divorced, (7) caregiver treated violently: caregiver was pushed, grabbed, slapped, injured, or threatened, (8) household substance use: lived with someone who was a problem drinker or used drugs, (9) household mental illness: lived with someone who was depressed, mentally ill, or suicidal, and (10) household incarceration: lived with someone who went to jail or prison. Prior research using the ACEs questionnaire to capture retrospective self-reports of adversity indicates good to excellent reliability and suggests that ACEs are not related to the health status of participants at the time of self-report (Pinto et al., 2014; Zanotti et al., 2018). In this sample, ACEs ranged from 0 to 10 (M = 1.80, SD = 2.05).

Communication Skills

Communication skills, characterized by collaboration, perspective-taking, and solution-focused efforts particularly during difficult conversations, were assessed separately with caregivers and friends as possible resilience factors using a shortened version of the communication skills test (Saiz & Jenkins, 1995). Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed (5 = strongly agree) or disagreed (1 = strongly disagree) with 11 statements about their relationship with an identified caregiver and friend. Example items include: “We have arguments that erupt over minor events,” “Before trying to solve a problem, we try to talk through the issues that are involved so that we really understand each other,” and “When discussing issues, I allow my caregiver/friend to finish before I respond.” Five items were reverse coded prior to summing all items, and mean scores were used in final analyses, with higher scores indicating more adaptive communication skills in each relationship. In this sample, caregiver (α = 0.77) and friend (α = 0.76) scales demonstrated acceptable reliability. Scores for the caregiver scale ranged from 1.18 to 5.00 (M = 3.29, SD = 0.67) and for the friend scale ranged from 1.82 to 5.00 (M = 3.83, SD = 0.58).

Toxic Social Networks

The toxicity of social networks was measured by the six-item Toxic Social Network scale (Slack & Berger, 2018). Participants were asked to indicate whether they agreed (5 = strongly agree) or disagreed (1 = strongly disagree) with statements about all people in their lives. Example items include: “There are people in your life who try to get you in trouble with others,” “There are people in your life who act in a threatening way toward you,” and “Your family and friends often criticize you or put you down.” Items were summed with higher scores indicating more toxic social networks. The toxic social network scale demonstrated good reliability (α = 0.80). Scores ranged from 1 to 5 (M = 2.13, SD = 0.85).

Covariates

The frequencies in which participants communicated with their caregiver or friend were also assessed using a single item. Specifically, participants were asked to indicate how often they talk to their caregiver or friend on a Likert-type scale, with higher scores indicating more frequent communication (1 = once a year or less, 2 = a few times a year, 3 = once a month, 4 = a few times a month, 5 = once a week, 6 = a few times a week, 7 = once a day, 8 = more than once a day). In this sample, the frequency of communication with caregivers ranged from 1 to 8 (M = 6.82, SD = 1.62) and with friends ranged from 2 to 8 (M = 6.59, SD = 1.44). Because group sizes for certain sample characteristics were relatively small, we combined groups to create a dichotomous gender variable (1 = female and non-binary/other gender identity; 0 = male) and a dichotomous race and ethnicity variable (1 = Latinx, Asian/Asian American, Black/African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and other race/ethnicity or “minoritized race/ethnicity”; 0 = White).

Analytic Approach

Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, frequencies, and percentages, were conducted on sample characteristics and study variables. Latent class analyses were performed using Mplus (version 8.1) (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017). All models were fit using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors, which uses all available cases, including cases with missing data. The 10 ACE variables were included in the model to classify subgroups of young adults who experienced early adversity. Several fit indices were examined to determine the best-fitted model specifying two to five classes: (1) entropy values approaching 1 and larger than 0.80 (Celeux & Soromenho, 1996); (2) average class probabilities larger than 0.80 (Geiser, 2012); (3) smaller Akaike information criterion (AIC) values for the k class model relative to the k-1 class model (Akaike, 1987); (4) smaller sample-size adjusted Bayesian information criterion (BIC) values for the k class model relative to the k-1 class model (Sclove, 1987); (5) significance values for the k class model compared to those of the k-1 class model for the Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test (LMR) (Lo et al., 2001); (6) classes contain at least 5% of the total sample; and (7) classes were theoretically meaningful and interpretable.

After fitting latent class analysis models, we used the Bolck-Croon-Hagenaars (BCH) method (Bolck et al., 2004; Vermunt, 2010) to (1) determine if communication skills with friends or caregivers differed according to class membership and (2) examine the relationship between communication skills and toxic social networks across latent classes. The BCH method belongs to a group of mixture modeling analytic techniques, broadly referred to as the three-step approach, in which latent classes are used as analysis variables. The three-step approach fits a latent class model in the first step (i.e., the models described above). In the second step, respondents are assigned to a latent class. In the third step, latent class membership is used in an analytic model, in which class membership is adjusted for classification error. These models allow latent class membership to be used in models while incorporating class membership uncertainty instead of treating class membership as an observed characteristic. The BCH method is a known-group analysis in which groups are measurement error-weighted latent classes. In our application, regression models were fit separately in each latent class. First, communication skills with caregivers or friends were regressed on the frequency of communication and participant’s age, gender, race, and ethnicity to determine if there were differences in communication skills according to class membership. Then, in each class, toxic social networks were regressed on communication skills with caregivers or friends and the frequency of communication and participant’s age, gender, race, and ethnicity to examine the relationship between communication skills and toxic social networks across latent classes. We also used model constraints to evaluate whether toxic social networks differed across classes by comparing the model-estimated intercepts, which represent mean toxic social networks adjusted for communication skills and the frequency of communication and participant’s age, gender, race, and ethnicity. Because we tested separate models for communication with friends and parents, p values were adjusted using a false discovery rate methodology (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995); all primary findings remained significant after this adjustment.

Results

Sample Characteristics

Sample characteristics according to class membership are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Sample characteristics according to class membership

Characteristic Class 1 n = 25 Class 2 n = 47 Class 3 n = 62 Class 4 n = 250
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
Race/Ethnicity
  American Indian/Alaska Native 1 (4.2) 1 (2.1) 1 (1.6) 3 (1.2)
  Asian/Asian American 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 4 (6.5) 12 (4.8)
  Black/African American 1 (4.2) 1 (2.1) 3 (4.8) 9 (3.6)
  Latinx 5 (20.7) 11 (23.4) 9 (14.5) 36 (14.4)
  Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 1 (4.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 2 (.8)
  White 16 (66.7) 34 (72.4) 45 (72.6) 185 (74.0)
  Other race/ethnicity 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 3 (1.2)
Gender
  Female 19 (76.0) 35 (74.5) 39 (62.9) 186 (74.4)
  Male 5 (20.0) 11 (23.4) 20 (32.3) 63 (25.2)
  Non-binary/other gender identity 1 (4.0) 1 (2.1) 3 (4.8) 1 (.4)
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Age 19.75 (2.52) 19.85 (1.32) 20.31 (2.56) 19.97 (1.91)
Open in a new tab

Class 1, high childhood adversity; class 2, high to moderate household dysfunction and emotional abuse; class 3, high emotional abuse and moderate physical abuse and emotional neglect; class 4, low or no childhood adversity

Latent Class Analyses

The four-class solution was identified as the best-fitting model based on several fit indices and selection criteria (see Table 2). The four classes identified included: (1) high childhood adversity; (2) high to moderate household dysfunction and emotional abuse; (3) high emotional abuse and moderate physical abuse and emotional neglect; and (4) low or no childhood adversity. Figure 1 shows the proportions of participants classified into each class. Specifically, 7% (n = 25) of participants were classified into the high childhood adversity class and were characterized by experiencing high proportions of co-occurring adversities in childhood. For example, most participants in this class reported experiencing emotional abuse (1.00), physical abuse (0.79), parental separation or divorce (0.95), and living with a household member with substance use (0.94) and mental illness (0.88). Twelve percent (n = 47) of participants were classified into the high to moderate household dysfunction and emotional abuse class. Participants in this class were characterized by high proportions of living with a household member with substance use (0.88) and mental illness (0.69) and moderate proportions of experiencing emotional abuse (0.49) and parental separation and divorce (0.58). Sixteen percent (n = 62) of participants were classified into the high emotional abuse and moderate physical abuse and emotional neglect class. All participants in this class reported experiencing emotional abuse (1.00), followed by moderate proportions of physical abuse (0.43) and emotional neglect (0.51). Finally, the majority of participants (65%, n = 250) were classified into the low or no childhood adversity class in which participants reported experiencing no or low proportions of co-occurring adversities in childhood.

Table 2.

Fit indices for latent class models

Classes
2 3 4 5
Model fit indices
Log-likelihood  − 1483.90  − 1438.17  − 1413.27  − 1400.98
Entropy .84 .86 .87 .87
Average class probabilities .86–.98 .79–.98 .81–.97 .75-.98
AIC 3009.80 2940.33 2912.55 2909.97
Adjusted BIC 3026.13 3066.76 2945.99 2951.97
LMR p-value  < .001  < .001  < .05  = .34
Class size 303 (.79), 81 (.21) 62 (.16), 53 (.14), 269 (.70) 25 (.07), 47 (.12), 62 (.16), 250 (.65) 22 (.06), 17 (.04), 43 (.11), 44 (.11), 258 (.67)
Open in a new tab

AIC, Akaike information criterion; Adjusted BIC, sample-size adjusted Bayesian information criterion; LMR, Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Proportion of participants with adverse childhood experiences for the four-class solution. Class 1, high childhood adversity; class 2, high to moderate household dysfunction and emotional abuse; class 3, high emotional abuse and moderate physical abuse and emotional neglect; class 4, low or no childhood adversity

Regression Models

Controlling for frequency of communication and participant’s age, gender, race, and ethnicity, there were no significant differences in communication skills with caregivers by class membership. However, regression models of the association between class membership and communication skills with friends, controlling for sample characteristics, indicate that participants classified in the high emotional abuse and moderate physical abuse and emotional neglect class had more adaptive communication skills with friends than their counterparts in the low or no childhood adversity class (b = 1.76, SE = 0.79, p < 0.05).

Table 3 shows the estimates for the regression models of the associations among class membership, communication skills with caregivers, and toxic social networks, controlling for sample characteristics. Communication skills with caregivers were a significant negative correlate of toxic social networks for participants classified into the high childhood adversity or low or no childhood adversity classes. Specifically, participants with more adaptive communication skills in these classes were less likely to report toxic social networks. There were no differences in toxicity of social networks by class membership accounting for sample characteristics and communication skills with caregivers.

Table 3.

Regression models of the association between latent class membership, communication skills with caregivers, and toxic social networks

b SE z-score
High childhood adversity (class 1)
  Intercept 3.02 1.96 1.54
  Age 0.03 0.07 0.47
  Minoritized race/ethnicity (White non-Latinx) 0.49 0.35 1.40
  Female and non-binary/other gender identity (male) 0.42 0.59 0.70
  Frequency of communication with caregiver 0.05 0.06 0.79
  Communication skills with caregiver  − 0.48* 0.21  − 2.24
  R2 0.39** 0.14 2.73
High to moderate household dysfunction and emotional abuse (class 2)
  Intercept 8.05 6.56 1.23
  Age  − 0.18 0.31  − 0.59
  Minoritized race/ethnicity (White non-Latinx)  − 0.18 0.34  − 0.52
  Female and non-binary/other gender identity (male) 0.28 0.54 0.52
  Frequency of communication with caregiver  − 0.05 0.12  − 0.41
  Communication skills with caregiver  − 0.63 0.54  − 1.17
  R2 0.34 0.41 0.82
High emotional abuse and moderate physical abuse and emotional neglect (class 3)
  Intercept 2.44* 1.17 2.09
  Age  − 0.01 0.03  − 0.36
  Minoritized race/ethnicity (White non-Latinx)  − 0.16 0.30  − 0.53
  Female and non-binary/other gender identity (male) 0.73* 0.33 2.18
  Frequency of communication with caregiver  − 0.08 0.08  − 1.03
  Communication skills with caregiver 0.22 0.23 0.98
  R2 0.22 0.13 1.73
Low or no childhood adversity (class 4)
  Intercept 3.83*** 0.72 5.33
  Age  − 0.04 0.03  − 1.27
  Minoritized race/ethnicity (White non-Latinx) 0.16 0.10 1.67
  Female and non-binary/other gender identity (male) 0.09 0.11 0.90
  Frequency of communication with caregiver  − 0.03 0.04  − 0.73
  Communication skills with caregiver  − 0.34*** 0.08  − 4.29
  R2 0.12** 0.04 3.21
Model constraint
  Class 1 vs. class 2  − 5.03 6.98  − 0.72
  Class 1 vs. class 3 0.58 2.31 0.25
  Class 1 vs. class 4  − 0.81 2.08  − 0.39
  Class 2 vs. class 3 5.61 6.78 0.83
  Class 2 vs. class 4 4.22 6.62 0.64
  Class 3 vs. class 4  − 1.39 1.48  − 0.94
Open in a new tab

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 4 shows the estimates for the regression models of the associations among class membership, communication skills with friends, and toxic social networks, controlling for sample characteristics. Communication skills with friends were also a significant negative correlate of toxic social networks for participants classified into the high childhood adversity or low or no childhood adversity classes. Specifically, participants with more adaptive communication skills in these classes were less likely to report toxic social networks. There were no differences in toxicity of social networks by class membership accounting for sample characteristics and communication skills with friends.

Table 4.

Regression models of the association between latent class membership, communication skills with friends, and toxic social networks

b SE z − score
High childhood adversity (class 1)
  Intercept 3.03 2.01 1.51
  Age  − 0.02 0.08  − 0.31
  Minoritized race/ethnicity (White non-Latinx) 0.91** 0.32 2.86
  Female and non-binary/other gender identity (male) 0.76 0.68 1.11
  Frequency of communication with friend 0.19 0.12 1.49
  Communication skills with friend  − 0.46** 0.14  − 3.22
  R2 0.53** 0.14 3.80
High to moderate household dysfunction and emotional abuse (class 2)
  Intercept 17.75 18.32 0.97
  Age  − 0.61 0.87  − 0.71
  Minoritized race/ethnicity (White non- Latinx) 0.25 0.61 0.40
  Female and non-binary/other gender identity (male) 0.48 0.71 0.67
  Frequency of communication with friend 0.05 0.21 0.23
  Communication skills with friend  − 1.07 0.68  − 1.58
  R2 0.57 0.26 2.23*
High emotional abuse and moderate physical abuse and emotional neglect (class 3)
  Intercept 4.99** 1.90 2.63
  Age  − 0.02 0.04  − 0.50
  Minoritized race/ethnicity (White non-Latinx)  − 0.24 0.30  − 0.77
  Female and non-binary/other gender identity (male) 0.65* 0.28 2.33
  Frequency of communication with friend  − 0.04 0.07  − 0.58
  Communication skills with friend  − 0.48 0.29  − 1.64
  R2 0.24* 0.11 2.21
Low or no childhood adversity (class 4)
  Intercept 3.16*** 0.67 4.70
  Age  − 0.04 0.03  − 1.29
  Minoritized race/ethnicity (White non-Latinx) 0.18 0.10 1.79
  Female and non-binary/other gender identity (male) 0.20 0.12 1.71
  Frequency of communication with friend 0.00 0.03 0.00
  Communication skills with friend  − 0.21* 0.08  − 2.53
  R2 0.06* 0.03 1.97
Model constraint
  Class 1 vs. class 2  − 14.72 18.49  − 0.80
  Class 1 vs. class 3  − 1.96 2.80  − 0.70
  Class 1 vs. class 4  − 0.12 2.12  − 0.06
  Class 2 vs. class 3 12.77 18.80 0.68
  Class 2 vs. class 4 14.60 18.34 0.43
  Class 3 vs. class 4 1.83 2.08 0.88
Open in a new tab

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Discussion

The present study examined the extent to which different forms of childhood adversity co-occur and their relationship to the development of effective communication skills and toxic social networks. Consistent with prior research (Brown et al., 2019, 2021; Kessler et al., 2010; Lanier et al., 2018), we found that many participants in this sample experienced co-occurring forms of early adversity. We also found that young adults with certain co-occurring forms of early adversity indicated adaptive communication skills with friends relative to young adults with low or no childhood adversity, and young adults in the high childhood adversity or low or no childhood adversity classes with higher communication skills were less likely to report toxic social networks.

Although most of the sample experienced low or no childhood adversity, emotional abuse was particularly salient across subgroups of young adults with adversity. Given that emotional abuse is generally an inconspicuous form of child maltreatment, it is frequently underreported in national statistics (Shin et al., 2015). However, research suggests that emotional abuse may range from 12 to 48% (Hamarman et al., 2002, Spertus et al., 2003; Trickett et al., 2009) and is associated with poor mental health and relational problems in adulthood (Teicher et al., 2006). Despite the stability of emotional abuse across classes, differences in class structure emerged for those with experienced adversity, such that young adults were characterized by multiple co-occurring childhood adversities (class 1), household dysfunction (class 2), or childhood maltreatment (class 3). This corroborates prior research demonstrating that conventional ACEs tend to load on two factors: household dysfunction and child maltreatment, and a subgroup of individuals are likely to experience more severe poly-victimization or adversities across both domains (Finkelhor et al., 2007; Mersky et al., 2017).

Importantly, our findings highlight the potentially protective role of communication skills with friends and caregivers in relation to toxic social networks among a sample with a history of adversity. The communication skills captured in this study (namely, collaboration, problem-solving, and perspective-taking) are generally associated with positive outcomes (Gross & Guerrero, 2000), and we found that young adults with histories of childhood maltreatment had more adaptive communication skills with friends than their counterparts with low or no childhood adversity. Within friendships, research suggests that individuals are attracted to friends who share a similar level of communication skills (Burleson & Samter, 1996). Specifically, adaptive communication skills in friendships are associated with greater relationship satisfaction (Arroyo & Segrin, 2011) and enhanced coping in the face of stressors (Miller & Coll, 2007). As such, young adults may cultivate adaptive communication skills like collaboration and problem-solving to gain access to important social resources necessary for successfully managing challenges, like social support (MacGeorge et al., 2011). That more adaptive communication skills with friends was associated with fewer toxic social networks for young adults with high adversity highlights one possible resilience factor that may have long-term effects on the health and well-being of individuals with prior adversity exposures.

Evidence suggests that, in some circumstances, adult children who engage in adaptive communication during the conflict with their caregivers are less likely to trigger aggressive or unhealthy communication patterns from their caregivers (La Valley & Guerrero, 2012). Research also shows that, when individuals engage in more aggressive, negative communication behaviors, it is likely to initiate a similar response from other interactants (Moed et al., 2015), which may explain null findings in communication skills with caregivers by class membership. However, these insights, combined with findings suggesting that mothers are less likely to report feelings of connection and higher levels of frustration with adolescent children who use more competitive communication behaviors (Cicognani & Zani, 2010), indicate that it is possible that some individuals who experience childhood adversity may develop communication skills that are harmful in later relationships while others learn to communicate in more healthful ways to facilitate their safety and survival within the family. Indeed, this may corroborate our finding that young adults with high adversity and more adaptive communication skills with caregivers had fewer toxic social networks, similar to those with low or no childhood adversity. It may be surprising that adaptive communication skills were associated with fewer toxic social networks among young adults with both high and low or no childhood adversity. However, research denotes that certain individual, family, and community factors are highly influential in shaping resilience among adversity-exposed populations, and transitions across developmental periods may play a major role in how an individual will function or adapt over time (Klika & Herrenkohl, 2013). Therefore, there may be unique resilience factors like stress-adapted communication skills that unfold and are sustained among individuals who grow up in high-adversity environments that warrant further exploration.

Contrary to our hypothesis, we did not find differences in toxic social networks according to class membership. Prior research indicates that childhood adversity may be associated with higher negative aspects of close relationships (Ford et al., 2011). However, our sample of young adults who experienced adversity did not differ in their social relationships from their counterparts with low or no childhood adversity. This finding may reflect the smaller proportion of young adults classified by high adversity relative to those with low or no adversity as well as the homogenous sample—that is, young adults attending a public university—in which they may be separated from individuals who may have previously created problems for them. During the transition to university, young adults navigate different roles and responsibilities and develop new relationships (Taylor et al., 2013), which may, in turn, lead to more prosocial influences even in the face of experienced adversity. Although speculative, this may also be due in part to reporting of these relationships during the early onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, researchers have found that university students’ social networks had become scarcer and that COVID-19 was associated with isolation in social networks, especially among female-identifying students (Elmer et al., 2020). Therefore, it is possible that during the time of reporting most of the sample was isolated from others more generally than prior to the pandemic.

Limitations

This study is not without limitations. The convenience sample was recruited from a single public university, in which most participants identified as White non-Latinx and female, which limits the generalizability of our findings as well as our ability to explore associations among different sociodemographic groups. As evident by the average number of ACEs experienced by participants in this study, this particular university student sample may be more insulated from high adversity exposures. It is also possible that university students may have higher educational attainment than individuals with different educational experiences, which may in turn facilitate more adaptive communication in general, as well as other resilience factors not captured in this study that may influence findings. In addition, data on early adversities were collected by a self-report measure, which was originally developed for patients receiving health care services from Kaiser Permanente, asking participants to retrospectively report on their childhood experiences. This method of data collection may be limited to measurement error as well as recall and social desirability biases, whereby participants may not reflect those in the seminal ACEs study (Felitti et al, 1998) and have difficulties remembering their early life experiences or be reluctant to report adverse childhood experiences. We also assessed communication skills using a brief measure that broadly examined communication patterns consisting of collaboration, perspective-taking, and solution-focused efforts. Therefore, we were unable to determine how different forms of childhood adversity relate to more specific communication skills in young adulthood and which of these skills are most leveraged in current environments, such as those characterized by toxic social networks. Future research would benefit from recruiting a more heterogeneous sample to assess how the associations among childhood adversity, communication, and social relationships differ according to cultural context; examining the type, frequency, and timing of family- and contextually-based (e.g., minority stress) childhood adversities as well as additional resilience factors via multiple reporters; administering self-report measures that generate a broader conceptualization of ACEs (e.g., Adverse Childhood Experiences International Questionnaire; World Health Organization, 2018) and observational methodologies; and implementing longitudinal study designs to capture unique communication skills that may be promoted during and following exposure to childhood adversities and determine the extent to which changes in communication skills is protective for adversity-exposed populations.

Conclusions and Implications

In summary, young adults with co-occurring forms of childhood adversity showed stress-adaptive communication skills and were less likely to report toxic social networks when they showed adaptive communication skills with friends and caregivers, a finding that was similar to young adults with low or no childhood adversity. Our findings suggest that communication patterns, consisting of collaboration, perspective-taking, and solution-focused efforts, may be maintained in individuals from high-adversity backgrounds to provide them with the necessary resources to adapt to their current environments while also allowing them to construct more positive social relationships with individuals who have similar, positive communication skills. Interventions that explicitly target communication may be a promising approach that elucidates a critical resilience factor to facilitate effective coping responses and the formation of healthy relationships for individuals responding to high-adversity contexts.

Funding

This work was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K01HD098331, awarded to S. M. Brown).

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

  1. Akaike H. Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika. 1987;52:317–332. doi: 10.1007/BF02294359. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aloia LS, Solomon DH. Conflict intensity, family history, and physiological stress reactions to conflict within romantic relationships. Human Communication Research. 2015;41(3):367–389. doi: 10.1111/hcre.12049. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Anda RF, Felitti VJ, Bremner JD, Walker JD, Whitfield C, Perry BD, Giles WH. The enduring effects of abuse and related adverse experiences in childhood: A convergence of evidence from neurobiology and epidemiology. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience. 2006;256(3):174–186. doi: 10.1007/s00406-005-0624-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Arroyo A, Segrin S. The relationship between self- and other-perceptions of communication competence and friendship quality. Communication Studies. 2011;62(5):547–562. doi: 10.1080/10510974.2011.580037. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series. 1995;57:289–300. [Google Scholar]
  6. Boele S, Van der Graaff J, de Wied M, Van der Valk IE, Crocetti E, Branje S. Linking parent–child and peer relationship quality to empathy in adolescence: A multilevel meta-analysis. Journal of Youth Adolescence. 2019;48:1033–1055. doi: 10.1007/s10964-019-00993-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bolck A, Croon M, Hagenaars J. Estimating latent structure models with categorical variables: One-step versus three-step estimators. Political Analysis. 2004;12:3–27. doi: 10.1093/pan/mph001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Brienza, J. P., & Grossmann, I. (2017). Social class and wise reasoning about interpersonal conflicts across regions, persons and situations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 284, 20171870. 10.1098/rspb.2017.1870 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  9. Brown SM, Rhoades GK, Marti CN, Lewis T. The co-occurrence of child maltreatment and intimate partner violence in families: Effects on children’s externalizing behavior problems. Child Maltreatment. 2021;26(4):363–375. doi: 10.1177/1077559520985934. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown SM, Rienks S, McCrae JS, Watamura SE. The co-occurrence of adverse childhood experiences among children investigated for child maltreatment: A latent class analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2019;87:18–27. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.11.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Burleson BR, Samter W. Similarity in communication skills of young adults: Foundations of attraction, friendship, and relationship satisfaction. Communication Reports. 1996;9:127–138. doi: 10.1080/08934219609367645. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Buzzanell PM. Resilience: Talking, resisting, and imagining new normalcies into being. Journal of Communication. 2010;60(1):1–14. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Buzzanell, P. M. (2019). Communication theory of resilience in everyday talk, interactions and network structures. In S. R. Wilson and S. W. Smith (Eds.), Reflections on interpersonal communication research (pp.65–88). San Diego, CA: Cognella.
  14. Celeux G, Soromenho G. An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model. Journal of Classification. 1996;13:195–212. doi: 10.1007/BF01246098. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cicognani E, Zani B. Conflict styles and outcomes in families with adolescent children. Social Development. 2010;19(2):427–436. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00545.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Corso PS, Edwards VJ, Fang X. Mercy JA (2008) Health-related quality of life among adults who experienced maltreatment during childhood. American Journal of Public Health. 1971;98(6):1094–1100. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.119826. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Cyders MA, Smith GT. Emotion-based dispositions to rash action: Positive and negative urgency. Psychological Bulletin. 2008;134(6):807–828. doi: 10.1037/a0013341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Davies PT, Sturge-Apple ML, Cicchetti D, Cummings EM. The role of child adrenocortical functioning in pathways between interparental conflict and child maladjustment. Developmental Psychology. 2007;43(4):918–930. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.918. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Dorrance Hall E. The communicative process of resilience for marginalized family members. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2018;35(3):307–328. doi: 10.1177/0265407516683838. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Drożak, P., Duda, P., Augustowska, K., Drożak, M., Bryliński, Ł., Bura, A., & Rudnicka-Drożak, E. (2021). Adverse childhood experiences and worsened social relationships in adult life among Polish medical and dental students. Journal of Education, Health and Sport, 11(8), 119-133. 10.12775/JEHS.2021.11.08.013
  21. Dube SR, Felitti VJ, Dong M, Giles WH, Anda RF. The impact of adverse childhood experiences on health problems: Evidence from four birth cohorts dating back to 1900. Preventive Medicine. 2003;37(3):268–277. doi: 10.1016/S0091-7435(03)00123-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Dugal C, Bélanger C, Brassard A, Godbout N. A dyadic analysis of the associations between cumulative childhood trauma and psychological intimate partner violence: The mediating roles of negative urgency and communication patterns. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 2020;46(2):337–351. doi: 10.1111/jmft.12414. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Elmer T, Mepham K, Stadtfeld C. Students under lockdown: Comparisons of students’ social networks and mental health before and during the COVID-19 crisis in Switzerland. PLOS One. 2020;15(7):e0236337. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236337. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Ellis, B. J., Abrams, L. S., Masten, A. S., Sternberg, R. J., Tottenham, N., & Frankenhuis, W. E. (2022). Hidden talents in harsh environments. Development and Psychopathology, 34(1), 95–113. 10.1017/S0954579420000887 [DOI] [PubMed]
  25. Ellis, B. J., Bianchi, J., Griskevicius, V., & Frankenhuis, W. E. (2017). Beyond risk and protective factors: An adaptation-based approach to resilience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(4). 10.1177/1745691617693054 [DOI] [PubMed]
  26. Feiring C, Taska LS, Lewis M. Social support and children’s and adolescents’ adaptation to sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 1998;13(2):240–260. doi: 10.1177/088626098013002005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, Williamson DF, Spitz AM, Edwards V, Marks JS. 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. 1998;14(4):245–258. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Fields, A., Bloom, P. A., VanTieghem, M., Harmon, C., Choy, T., Camacho, N. L., . . . Tottenham, N. (2021). Adaptation in the face of adversity: Decrements and enhancements in children’s cognitive control behavior following early caregiving instability. Developmental Science, 24(6), e13133-n/a. 10.1111/desc.13133 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  29. Finkelhor D, Ormrod RK, Turner HA. Poly-victimization: A neglected component in child victimization. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2007;31:7–26. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.06.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Ford E, Clark C, Stansfeld S. The influence of childhood adversity on social relations and mental health at mid-life. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2011;133:320–327. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2011.03.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Geiser C. Data analysis with Mplus. Guilford Press; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  32. Greenberg DM, Baron-Cohen S, Rosenberg N, Fonagy P, Rentfrow PJ. Elevated empathy in adults following childhood trauma. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(10):e0203886–e0203886. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203886. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Gross MA, Guerrero LK. Appropriateness and effectiveness of organizational conflict styles: An application of the competence model to Rahim’s conflict inventory. International Journal of Conflict. 2000;11(3):200–226. doi: 10.1108/eb022840. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Hamarman S, Pole KH, Czaja SJ. Emotional abuse in children: Variations in legal definitions and rates across the United States. Child Maltreatment. 2002;7(4):303–311. doi: 10.1177/107755902237261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. High AC, Dillard JP. A review and meta-analysis of person-centered messages and social support outcomes. Communication Studies. 2012;63:99–118. doi: 10.1080/10510974.2011.598208. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kessler, R. C., McLaughlin, K. A., Green, J. G., Gruber, M. J., Sampson, N. A., Zaslavsky, A. M., Williams, D. R. (2010). Childhood adversities and adult psychopathology in the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. British Journal of Psychiatry, 197(5), 378-385. 10.1192/bjp.bp.110.080499 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  37. Khambati N, Mahedy L, Heron J, Emond A. Educational and emotional health outcomes in adolescence following maltreatment in early childhood: A population-based study of protective factors. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2018;81:343–353. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.05.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Klika JB, Herrenkohl TI. A review of developmental research on resilience in maltreated children. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse. 2013;14(3):222–234. doi: 10.1177/1524838013487808. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. La Valley AG, Guerrero LK. Perceptions of conflict behavior and relational satisfaction in adult parent-child relationships: A dyadic analysis from an attachment perspective. Communication Research. 2012;39(1):48–78. doi: 10.1177/0093650210391655. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Lanier P, Maguire-Jack K, Lombardi B, Frey J, Rose RA. Adverse childhood experiences and child health outcomes: Comparing cumulative risk and latent class approaches. Maternal and Child Health Journal. 2018;22(3):288–297. doi: 10.1007/s10995-017-2365-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Lansford JE, Malone PS, Stevens KI, Dodge KA, Bates JE, Pettit GS. Developmental trajectories of externalizing and internalizing behaviors: Factors underlying resilience in physically abused children. Development and Psychopathology. 2006;18(1):35–55. doi: 10.1017/S0954579406060032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Lebowitz MS, Dovidio JF. Implications of emotion regulation strategies for empathic concern, social attitudes, and helping behavior. Emotion. 2015;15:187–194. doi: 10.1037/a0038820. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Lo Y, Mendell N, Rubin D. Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrika. 2001;88:767–778. doi: 10.1093/biomet/88.3.767. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. MacGeorge EL, Feng B, Burleson BR. Supportive communication. In: Knapp ML, Daly JA, editors. The Sage handbook of interpersonal communication. Sage; 2011. pp. 317–354. [Google Scholar]
  45. Merrick, M. T., Ford, D. C., Ports, K. A., Guinn, A. S., Chen, J., Klevens, J., . . . Mercy, J. A. (2019). Vital signs: Estimated proportion of adult health problems attributable to adverse childhood experiences and implications for prevention — 25 states, 2015–2017. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 68(44), 999-1005. 10.15585/mmwr.mm6844e1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  46. Mersky JP, Janczewski CE, Topitzes J. Rethinking the measurement of adversity. Child Maltreatment. 2017;22(1):58–68. doi: 10.1177/1077559516679513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Miller SR, Coll E. From social withdrawal to social confidence: Evidence for possible pathways. Current Psychology. 2007;26:86–101. doi: 10.1007/s12144-007-9006-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Moed A, Gershoff ET, Eisenberg N, Hofer C, Losoya S, Spinrad TL, Liew J. Parent–adolescent conflict as sequences of reciprocal negative emotion: Links with conflict resolution and adolescents’ behavior problems. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2015;44:1607–1622. doi: 10.1007/s10964-014-0209-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Mosley-Johnson E, Garacci E, Wagner N, Mendez C, Williams JS, Egede LE. Assessing the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and life satisfaction, psychological well-being, and social well-being: United States longitudinal cohort 1995–2014. Quality of Life Research. 2019;28(4):907–914. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-2054-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide. Eight Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén, & Muthén.
  51. Newsom JT, Rook KS, Nishishiba M, Sorkin DH, Mahan TL. Understanding the relative importance of positive and negative social exchanges: Examining specific domains and appraisals. The Journals of Gerontology: Series b, Psychological Sciences. 2005;60(6):304–312. doi: 10.1093/geronb/60.6.P304. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Pagani AF, Donato S, Parise M, Bertoni A, Iafrate R, Schoebi D. Explicit stress communication facilitates perceived responsiveness in dyadic coping. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019;10(401):1–9. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00401. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Pinto R, Correia L, Maia A. Assessing the reliability of retrospective reports of adverse childhood experiences among adolescents with documented childhood maltreatment. Journal of Family Violence. 2014;29:431–438. doi: 10.1007/s10896-014-9602-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Poole JC, Dobson KS, Pusch D. Do adverse childhood experiences predict adult interpersonal difficulties? The role of emotion dysregulation. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2018;80:123–133. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.03.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Rogosch FA, Dackis MN, Cicchetti D. Child maltreatment and allostatic load: Consequences for physical and mental health in children from low-income families. Developmental Psychopathology. 2011;23(4):1107–1124. doi: 10.1017/S0954579411000587. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Saiz, C. C., & Jenkins, N. (1995). The communication skills test. University of Denver.
  57. Sclove L. Application of model-selection criteria to some problems in multivariate analysis. Psychometrika. 1987;52:333–343. doi: 10.1007/BF02294360. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Shanafelt TD, West C, Zhao X, Novotny P, Kolars J, Habermann T, Sloan J. Relationship between increased personal well-being and enhanced empathy among internal medicine residents. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2005;20:559–564. doi: 10.1007/s11606-005-0102-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Shin SH, Lee S, Jeon S, Wills TA. Childhood emotional abuse, negative emotion-driven impulsivity, and alcohol use in young adulthood. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2015;50:94–103. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.02.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Slack KS, Berger LM. Preliminary measure of toxic social networks among families reported to child protective services [Unpublished measure] University of Wisconsin-Madison; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  61. Spertus IL, Yehuda R, Wong CM, Halligan S, Seremetis SV. Childhood emotional abuse and neglect as predictors of psychological and physical symptoms in women presenting to a primary care practice. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2003;27(11):1247–1258. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.05.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Steudte-Schmiedgen S, Stalder T, Kirschbaum C, Weber F, Hoyer J, Plessow F. Trauma exposure is associated with increased context-dependent adjustments of cognitive control in patients with posttraumatic stress disorder and healthy controls. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience. 2014;14(4):1310–1319. doi: 10.3758/s13415-014-0299-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Taylor ZE, Doane LD, Isenberg N. Transitioning from high school to college: Relations of social support ego-resiliency, and maladjustment during emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood. 2013;2(2):105–115. doi: 10.1177/2167696813506885. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Teicher, M. H., Samson, J. A., Polcari, A., & McGreenery, C. E. (2006). Sticks, stones, and hurtful words: Relative effects of various forms of childhood maltreatment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 993–1000. [DOI] [PubMed]
  65. Thompson LA, Filipp SL, Mack JA, Mercado RE, Barnes A, Bright M, Gurka MJ. Specific adverse childhood experiences and their association with other adverse childhood experiences, asthma and emotional, developmental and behavioral problems in childhood. Pediatric Research. 2020;88(1):100–109. doi: 10.1038/s41390-020-0784-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Trickett PK, Mennen FE, Kim K, Sang J. Emotional abuse in a sample of multiply maltreated, urban young adolescents: Issues of definition and identification. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2009;33(1):27–35. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.12.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Trinidad JE. Social consequences and contexts of adverse childhood experiences. Social Science & Medicine. 2021;277:113897. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113897. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Vermunt JK. Latent class modeling with covariates: Two improved three-step approaches. Political Analysis. 2010;18:450–469. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpq025. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Wei M, Liao KY-H, Ku T-Y, Shaffer PA. Attachment, self-compassion, empathy, and subjective well-being among college students and community adults. Journal of Personality. 2011;79(1):191–221. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00677.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Williams A, Becnel J, Giano Z, Weber K, Wyandt-Hiebert M. Resilience in women: Disrupting cascades of adversity with trauma-informed practice. In: Stout M, Harrist A, editors. Building community and family resilience: Research, policy, and programs. Springer; 2021. pp. 69–92. [Google Scholar]
  71. Wilson SR, Kuang K, Hintz EA, Buzzanell PM. Developing and validating the communication resilience processes scale. Journal of Communication. 2021;71:478–513. doi: 10.1093/joc/jqab013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. World Health Organization. (2018). Adverse childhood experiences international questionnaire. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/adverse-childhood-experiences-international-questionnaire-(ace-iq)
  73. Zanotti DC, Kaier E, Vanasse R, Davis JL, Strunk KC, Cromer LD. An examination of the test-retest reliability of the ACE-SQ in a sample of college athletes. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. 2018;10(5):559–562. doi: 10.1037/tra0000299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Articles from Adversity and Resilience Science are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES