ReachRxResearch
Home
Research
Sign Up
  1. Home
  2. Research Hub
  3. Dimensions of Early-Life Adversity and A…

Dimensions of Early-Life Adversity and Attention Biases in Childhood and Adolescence: A Systematic Review

Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review·August 20
Psychology, ClinicalLimited evidenceAnxietyChild MaltreatmentEarly-Life AdversitySystematic ReviewPediatric

Summary

View source

What was studied

This systematic review examined how two dimensions of early-life adversity (ELA) — threat and deprivation — relate to attention biases toward emotional stimuli in children and adolescents (ages 0–18), across nine different attention task types, drawing on 46 studies identified from six databases (search through June 17, 2025).

Key findings

Evidence was heterogeneous across 46 included articles. Significant associations between ELA dimensions and attention biases were conditional on participant age, stimulus presentation time, and emotion type. Only partial support was found for the dimensional model (threat vs. deprivation predicting distinct attention bias patterns), with reliable patterns hampered by inconsistent study designs and sampling.

Study limitations

- High heterogeneity across studies in design and sampling limits firm conclusions. - Most included studies likely conflated threat and deprivation exposures rather than isolating them, making dimensional comparisons difficult. - The review is restricted to English-language, peer-reviewed publications, which may introduce publication and language bias.

Clinical implications

Clinicians working with adversity-exposed youth should not assume a uniform attention bias profile — the type of adversity, child's age, and specific emotional stimuli all appear to shape attention responses. Standardized, developmentally sensitive assessment of attention biases may be needed before targeting them in intervention.

Caveats

  • Level of evidence set to 2 (systematic review without meta-analysis); some may rate this lower given the high heterogeneity and absence of pooled effect estimates.
  • The sample size tag reflects the number of included articles (n=46), not individual participants — total participant N is not reported in the abstract.
  • The study does not include a meta-analysis; effect size pooling was not performed, limiting quantitative conclusions.

Related Questions

Explore related topics

How does childhood threat exposure versus deprivation differently affect attention bias to emotional faces?What attention bias tasks are most reliable for measuring effects of early adversity in children?Does early-life adversity intervention reduce threat-related attention bias in adolescents?

Publication Details

Year
2026
Journal
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
Sample Size
n=46
Source
View article
Keep scrolling
More content below.
Up Next