On March 18, 2026, the JCU Department of Psychological and Social Sciences hosted Professor Seth Pollak (University of Wisconsin-Madison) as part of its lecture series.
Professor Pollak’s lecture challenged one of the most established ideas in psychology: how we understand the impact of difficult childhood experiences. For decades, researchers have known that early adversity, such as abuse, neglect, or poverty, is linked to a wide range of negative outcomes later in life. A widely used framework known as Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) measures this by counting the number of negative events a child has experienced. The more adversity, the higher the risk for problems ranging from mental health difficulties to physical illness. This approach has been incredibly influential in demonstrating that early life experiences matter. However, as Professor Pollak explained, it also has important limitations.
Re-thinking How We Define Adversity
One key issue with the ACEs approach is that it treats very different experiences as if they were the same. Events such as physical abuse, emotional neglect, poverty, or parental mental illness are often grouped together into a single score. While this makes it easier to detect broad patterns, it does not explain why or how these experiences affect development.
To address this limitation, some researchers have tried to “split” adversity into categories such as threat (e.g., violence or hostility) and deprivation (e.g., lack of care or stimulation). While this approach offers a more refined distinction, it still struggles to capture the complexity of childhood. A child who is physically abused, for example, is not only experiencing a threat; they are also lacking safety, stability, and care. As Professor Pollak put it, trying to separate these experiences is like pulling apart a grey sweater to find individual black and white threads: the reality does not divide so neatly.
From What Happens to How It Is Experienced
Professor Pollak proposed a shift in perspective: from focusing solely on what happens to children, to understanding how children experience what happens to them. He explained that two individuals can experience the same event yet respond in completely different ways. Biological stress responses, decision-making patterns, and emotional outcomes are not determined solely by events, but by how those events are perceived and processed. This insight challenges the core assumption in traditional research that objective experiences drive development. Instead, Professor Pollak emphasized that subjective meaning is key.
For example, Professor Pollak presented a study that explored cognitive flexibility, or the ability to adapt when circumstances change. Children who perceived their home environments as supportive were better able to adjust their behavior when rules changed. In contrast, children who experienced early stress struggled to update their strategies, even when it was clear that their current approach was no longer effective.
How Environments Influence Future Decision-Making Processes
Professor Pollak also highlighted the importance of predictability in children’s environments. Children who experienced their home lives as unpredictable were less likely to explore new options and more likely to stick with familiar choices, even when better alternatives were available. This tendency reflects a bias toward certainty and stability.
While this might appear to be a disadvantage, the lecture offered a more nuanced interpretation. In uncertain or unstable environments, exploring can be risky. Trying something new may lead to harm, loss, or failure. Under these conditions, sticking with what is known may actually be a rational and adaptive strategy. From this perspective, children are not “damaged” by adversity. They are adapting to it. Their cognitive and emotional systems calibrate to the environments they experience. These conditions may play a central role in shaping how children learn, make decisions, and respond to stress.
Professor Pollak concluded by suggesting that psychology has, in some ways, been "looking under the streetlight," focusing on what is easy to measure, rather than what may be most important. The shift in perspective supported by Professor Pollock also has important implications for intervention. If children's perceptions of safety, predictability, and support are key drivers of development, then these may be powerful targets for change. Interventions could focus not only on reducing adverse experiences, but also on enhancing children’s sense of security and control.
