No, one study doesn’t upend the last few decades of understanding of emotional attachment.
The study simply says that ability to connect w friends is more predictive than observations they made of apparent attachment of parents.
This happens much later so of course it’s more predictive of the actual end effects - that’s when attachment styles actually show up for the first time. Kids grow up to be very adaptive toward their parents but when they get to the rest of society that’s when the failures of connection and the failed bids for attention show up.
A very resilient kid will do fine with friends even with a very bad attachment environment. A very sensitive kid or one with developmental problems will struggle in social environments.
The study itself doesn't say anything of the sort that the article title and this thread title do.
I gaurantee you that if you polled any number of therapists what people's hangups are about it would be more likely to be the parents. Everyone I know is an inheritor of some significant amount of their family's generational trauma.
> ability to connect w friends is more predictive than observations they made of apparent attachment of parents
So for comparing studies all measuring this^, yes that’s true. But there could be a flaw in the methodology here, where their observations of parents and interpretation thereof may not be predictive even while the totality of parent behavior is.
I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist. My observation is the more difficult cases of attachment in important adult relationships esp. partner/spouse is far more impacted by parents and their relationship than friends.
This doesn't gain say that in the ages of 15 to say 35 peer interactions are not there or impactful to the worse or better but extremes in the nuclear family are not to be underestimated.
It could be said that for any of us to think we could understand - with such a relatively short and still arguably shoddy understanding of the mind - or especially could say… is possibly insane.
Not sure what you're after in that comment. The entire description of mind is maybe not shoddy but definitely high level functional meaning it always comes with a Chinese menu of if/and/but on a scale of emphasis in linear combination with other facets.
Attachment modalities as far as I can see describes some human dynamics.
> But early friendship bonds played an even bigger part than maternal relationships in the ways people navigated adult friendships and romantic partnerships, accounting for 4 percent of the variance in adults’ romantic partner- and best friend-specific attachment anxiety, and 10 to 11 percent in their partner- and best friend-specific avoidance.
Just slightly less modest that analogous parental predictors, according to their claims.
I have a (now adult) child who was diagnosed with Reactive Attachment Disorder. She changed friends every 6 months, burning bridges behind her. She also cultivated the least-healthy friendships possible in whatever environment she found herself in.
It kind of makes sense. We don't go out into the world thinking "ok, time to meet more my moms!". We can't treat anyone else like our mom, and vice versa. The mother-child relationship is probably the most important and influential for most people, but it's a complete anomaly. Friends are not an anomaly, their pretty typical, and since Mom and Dad are not friends, a young child has learned very little firsthand about friendship until it happens. Then they have some experiences with those friends and those experiences become better predictors of future attachment style than the dynamic with the mother. This makes sense because in the realm of friends, these are their formative experiences. Mom may have had an impact (and does according to the study), but the bigger influence on how you deal with future friends is in how you experienced your formative friends.
My first reaction was to refute this, but I think I've convinced myself this may be correct, assuming attachment styles are the right frame.
I've been painted with the Avoidant brush, and logically it makes sense, broken home, removed from mother, moved regularly changing schools once a year for 5 years.
However, my siblings are the opposite. We come from the same house, they didn't change schools as often as I did, which made me wonder how we could be so different.
But when looked through the lens of friendships forming the attachment style, it makes more sense. I changed schools more often than my siblings, and therefore had more friendship changes, and less ability for attachment.
Also, beware of taking generalities (such as the claims of this study) and applying that directly that to your specific life, or anyone else's.
I mean, I like your comment and am glad you got thinking about this, but it's just a line of reasoning that I see a lot and I wish I saw less, so that's why I bring it up (:
"True for most people" does not imply "true for me" or "true for that person over there".
And the reverse is not valid either, of course - "true for me" does not imply "true for most people."
There's always some tension between people's individual anecdotes and experiences (which are fascinating, and I like), and the claims of broader studies like this one.
Sometimes I try to remind myself of this with the "on average, people have 2.3 children" factoid. Obviously, nobody actually has 2.3 children; the general truth does not necessarily apply to specific individuals; potentially not even a single one.
Yeah I'm the same, I think I went to nine schools by the time I went to college in the fall of 2019, most of the school changes happening in elementary school. It really does effect your ability to make friends
I've found that I don't have trouble making friends, but I've put myself in situations where friendships come and go.
I went from moving around a bunch, and making new friends at each place, to living in Whistler, BC, where you've got an annual turnover of new people, then I settled down in Bondi Beach, Australia, which doesn't have the turnover of Whistler, but not far off.
The family is a system, with different roles played by each participant. For instance, in toxic families, there is often one scapegoat, with an anxious attachment style, that affords the avoidant types in the family to participate in delusions.
What are the dynamics like of everyone in your family?
I wanted to say the same: parents don't treat all children the same. For example, I have the feeling that the first child is the "practice" child. The parents learn from the mistakes made with them and don't repeat them with the children that follow. I don't know if there's any research to back this up and yes, I am a first born.
I've observed the same - unfortunately, first time parents are forced to try out all kinds of parenting experiments on their first-born, before they figure out how to be "good" parents. And subsequent kids, especially if they have them after some gap, get the benefit of this experience. Add to the woes of the first-born, they not only have to deal with normal sibling jealousy (of having to share their parents affection), but also resolve the emotional issue of why their younger siblings have an "easier" time (i.e. why their parents treat them "differently").
I think sequel kids, more than anything, benefit from having a trailblazer to refer to. It's no doubt true that parents get better at the job, but kids learn from demonstration. Older sibling is hypersensitive and has a hard time keeping friends around -> I better learn to swallow my pride. That kind of thing.
Remember how the modern "nucular" household is largely based on a modernization of the Roman patriarchal property distribution model, where the oldest male was ascribed the identities of all members of his household, and vice versa?
That must've been extremely efficient for legal and accounting purposes, once. But, well, the only theory of mind anyone could develop in such circumstances involves grinding minds into fine paste. (There's a reason the Stoics are "seeing" an AI-driven resurgence, even though what'd be most appropriate for their target audience is probably again Skinner.)
Remember how a great deal of how we live our "personal" lives was invented in a slaveholding state which mandated belief in gods and demons. And the rest in another.
We are taught to consider all of this legacy cultural structure in terms of "haha how quaintly did people live 1000-2000-3000 years ago, were they stupid". Yet most of it lives on in some marginally altered form due to sheer global force of habit.
Take Western human naming schemes for example: does your government permit you to change your name? do you inherit one or both granddads' names? do you get a patronym? extra personal names? are you also the security force for a place, like a Freiherr de So-and-So? and at what exact number of levels of recursive self-reflection does the word "person" stop meaning the role played, and starts meaning the human playing it?
(When you're done with "identity", continue with "time-keeping" and begin to understand another psychological phenomenon causing much suffering - people's generalized inability to discern cause and effect.)
The name - the sound through which individuals are conditioned to respond to the concepts of selfhood and identity (Foobert Barber Baznix! you come here right this instant! it is not me but you who is sleepy and hungry!) - is one of many such extremely arbitrary implementation details.
Out of those emerges the thing sold to us by our caregivers and educators as "normal life" before we are able to know any better. That's the main way "primary socialization" has ever worked: a non-consensual intergenerational transmission of habits that have as much to do with self-soothing in the face of mortality as with practical concerns; in the end they just ascribe "imaginariness" to your memories of your mind being wiped, and the "you" is ready to go.
Now, in the context of all those vague and admittedly entirely hypothetical "implementation details", proceed to imagine the troop of clothed primates not as a flat list of incidental blood relations, but as a dynamic system, a living group of conscious things; if you're feeling particularly scifi - a sort of distributed organism. What would be the purpose of the scapegoat organ in that organism? Do individual primates have an equivalent organ in their bodies? (Probably not the one you're thinking of but also a valid guess)
There is no purpose of the scapegoat organ. This is one of the biggest fallacies people have with regards to natural selection and economics.
Standard neoclassical economics theory tells people that they have perfect foresight and know the configuration/structure of all future possibilities. In other words, there are no unknown unknowns. You know everything you don't know yet.
People have the same belief with regards to natural selection being efficient. It just seemingly chooses the most efficient organisms.
In reality there is a developmental process with no guarantee of optimality or progress toward optimality. It is possible to get stuck in local maxima and it takes activation energy to get out of it.
The scapegoat organ exists because the perceived marginal cost of fixing and investigating an incident or problem is considered more expensive than deflecting blame.
The Iranians destroyed their water supply with scapegoats so trying to find a purpose in the scapegoat organ seems pretty insane. It's more like a weakness that leadership does not have a complete picture of the problems that its people are facing. You could argue that scapegoating is an expression of a lack of power. You have just enough power to blame others, but not enough to solve the problem.
Attachment Styles is a very low dimensional way of observing something that has very high dimensionally.
When people use this type of dimensionality reduction you get problematic outcomes.
This type of phenomena will always keep happening. The world is complex and perceptually high dimensional. We try to understand it(the world) using low dimensional concepts and when those low dimensional concepts have low validity issues arise.
> But early friendship bonds played an even bigger part than maternal relationships in the ways people navigated adult friendships and romantic partnerships, accounting for 4 percent of the variance in adults’ romantic partner- and best friend-specific attachment anxiety, and 10 to 11 percent in their partner- and best friend-specific avoidance.
Are those numbers r-squared figures? Seems like there's a lot more variance to be explained?
1. Maybe the measurements are just very noisy. In which case they may also have other biases.
2. Maybe there are systematic causes which the study didn't capture. If so, controlling for them might change the results.
Sigh. When I see a study headline like this I feel confident about two things. First, the study will have a weak design with no serious attention paid to causality, genetic confounding etc... second, the response to it will be full of people going "yes, that fits my N=1 anecdote" or "no that doesn't fit my N=1 anecdote", in other words, critiquing the weak methodology with an even weaker methodology (handwaving appeals to personal experience).
One reason social science is hard is there isn't much market for the truth. People just want a nice story to tell themselves.
I've observed children who have had tremendous close friends in childhood but were unable to recreate that in adulthood. Sometimes it's easier to make friends when you're 5.
Adults actually have to work at making new friends and few get any tips on how to go about doing so. I honestly didn't really get any until my late 30s or 40s - and that was mostly because I moved to Norway and for some folks, loneliness and lacking connections is a real issue.
Children have school. School gives you a shared experience to talk about and time to talk to others, both through actual coursework and play. Children are handed the tools to possibly make friends and they aren't even old enough to have decades of baggage and anxiety yet.
As an adult, you have to create those conditions. For many, work serves this role. Hobbies and regular activities (bowling, for example) help. Depending on the person, it can be online (Met my spouse this way - a silly online game back in the later text-based, formulaic MMORPG era). And you are a lot busier as an adult with more responsibilities filling your time. Of course it is harder as an adult.
I got a lot of flak for going to a high school play in my late twenties. I had played D&D with the kid and his mom every week for years. He was great to hang out with when he was 14.
The whole country is engrossed in a decade+ long "pedo panic" to the point where you can't support a friend's kid by attending a school play, take them for ice cream, or (sometimes) even take your own child to the park without getting the side-eye from nosey nobodies.
Kids in that age range are uncomplicated. The only thing they really desire is that you play with them. They just don’t consider anything beyond that.
But it seems hard for many adults to play with children, so it becomes this anomalous thing, even though I’m fairly certain it’s just something we’ve convinced ourselves adults “don’t do”.
Same, so what should one do if AI ruins it? It hasn't yet. It's not good enough, but with the amount of money pouring in I think it could be cracked within 5 years. I hope not.. Coding with AI ruins the enjoyment. And willfully falling behind others using tools to be better than anyone without it isn't good either. I enjoy computers because my skill level is high enough that I can make money on my own and do what I want by using my skills to beat competitors. My research and experiments are meaningful because it is not all so trivial and instantly replicable yet.
I think it’s a bit more general than that because I didn’t have any “childhood friends”, just bullies who were never punished.
What I did have was a great number of excellent adults in my life. In many ways, they were more my peers than anyone my own age.
Their example and support made my parents instruction significantly more effective despite the serious challenges with my mental health that they didn’t know how to handle.
> 705 participants and their families over 3 decades, from the time participants were infants until they were approximately 30 years old (Mage = 28.6, SD = 1.2; 78.7% White, non-Hispanic, 53.6% female, 46.4% male).
It looks like an a fairly culturally homogeneous pannel, it would be interesting to also have a breakdown on religion (especially due to the communal effects) and income.
The income data:
------------------------------
Student status
Part-time 34 (4.9%)
Full-time 61 (8.7%)
Employment
Part-time, for pay 85 (12.1%)
Full-time, for pay 516 (73.7%)
Individual income
<US $10,000 78 (11.1%)
US $10,000–$29,999 167 (23.9%)
US $30,000–$49,999 179 (25.6%)
US $50,000–$99,999 213 (30.4%)
US $100,000+ 63 (9.0%)
Household income
<US $20,000 75 (10.8%)
US $20,000–$49,999 163 (23.5%)
US $50,000–$99,999 248 (35.7%)
US $100,000–$149,999 126 (18.1%)
US $150,000+ 83 (11.9%)
They didn’t find any effect of fathers on attachment style and I’m confused…I’ve heard countless stories about how it’s hard for people to connect as adults because of how their dad was toward them.
We've known roughly this since The Nurture Assumption (1998). Where parents do have an impact is in being able to choose the social circles their children are immersed in.
The discussion of toddlers more or less code switching is quite interesting.
Once they have a sense of self, even little kids will be very careful about revealing their home life to their school friends, and the same about school to their parents.
Haha I can see myself in that. I was terrified of my mom knowing what my school social life was like as I felt terribly embarrassed that some kids made fun of me and things like that.
There's a whole book on this called "Hold On To Your Kids." It feels a little hand-wavy, categorically dismissing all social media as evil, but the core message feels right: don't stop being a parent.
In case this can be helpful to somebody else, I spent my ~twenties ignorant of what attachment styles were, while definitely exhibiting some very, very obvious attachment patterns. And I made a lot of mistakes, and made a lot of people close to me sad.
Reading the "Attached" book was a huge wake-up call. According to the questionnaire, for what it's worth, I was exhibiting ~100% avoidant behavior.
This led to therapy, and to a lot of atonement, and growth.
I just came here to say - if you have a minute, give it a read. And for fun, try the questionnaire:
I believe this is called the post-treatment bias. If the causal arrow goes (mother-baby) -> (child-friends) -> (adult-attachment) and you include the middle one, you have already controlled for the first, and the effect disappears. Learning about the first tells you very little more once you have learnt the second.
In statistics we call it "conditional independence", attachment style is independent from maternal relationship if we know childhood friendship outcomes.
In general your kids' friends are much more important to them in the long run than you are. You are always there, but their friends represent the society they will be sinking or swimming in. They turn away from you and your tastes and opinions for a reason: their survival depends on understanding the tastes and opinions of their peers. You will stick with them (usually). Their peers are free to abandon them. Peer relationships are fragile but important. Parent-child relationships, however important, are much more durable, so they require less attention from the child.
To elaborate a bit: your parenting is much more likely to affect how your kids parent their kids. And, for better or for worse, mostly what they'll be doing is avoiding the mistakes you made. Your mom was distant and judgmental? You'll be super attentive and supportive, assuming your kids need what you wanted. And quite likely you'll overshoot the mark and set up a pitfall your kids will avoid when it's their turn. And they will then overshoot the mark. The cycle of parenting. Hakuna Matata.
Is this anecdata/personal folklore/"common sense" or is this based on science? It sounds like the former, tbh. Things tend to be more complex than this.
I suspect it's the former, but it doesn't seem outrageous (like all "common sense"). I think the hard part is to replicate the parts one's parents did right. Like IT, when someone gets things right, they're invisible. When they get things wrong, it seems like the only thing they ever did. This is part of why I want my children's grandparents involved as much as possible in their life. I need to \alpha \times \grandparents + (1 - \alpha) \times \parents my kids.
The study simply says that ability to connect w friends is more predictive than observations they made of apparent attachment of parents.
This happens much later so of course it’s more predictive of the actual end effects - that’s when attachment styles actually show up for the first time. Kids grow up to be very adaptive toward their parents but when they get to the rest of society that’s when the failures of connection and the failed bids for attention show up.
A very resilient kid will do fine with friends even with a very bad attachment environment. A very sensitive kid or one with developmental problems will struggle in social environments.
I gaurantee you that if you polled any number of therapists what people's hangups are about it would be more likely to be the parents. Everyone I know is an inheritor of some significant amount of their family's generational trauma.
So for comparing studies all measuring this^, yes that’s true. But there could be a flaw in the methodology here, where their observations of parents and interpretation thereof may not be predictive even while the totality of parent behavior is.
This doesn't gain say that in the ages of 15 to say 35 peer interactions are not there or impactful to the worse or better but extremes in the nuclear family are not to be underestimated.
Attachment modalities as far as I can see describes some human dynamics.
> But early friendship bonds played an even bigger part than maternal relationships in the ways people navigated adult friendships and romantic partnerships, accounting for 4 percent of the variance in adults’ romantic partner- and best friend-specific attachment anxiety, and 10 to 11 percent in their partner- and best friend-specific avoidance.
Just slightly less modest that analogous parental predictors, according to their claims.
I have a (now adult) child who was diagnosed with Reactive Attachment Disorder. She changed friends every 6 months, burning bridges behind her. She also cultivated the least-healthy friendships possible in whatever environment she found herself in.
I've been painted with the Avoidant brush, and logically it makes sense, broken home, removed from mother, moved regularly changing schools once a year for 5 years.
However, my siblings are the opposite. We come from the same house, they didn't change schools as often as I did, which made me wonder how we could be so different.
But when looked through the lens of friendships forming the attachment style, it makes more sense. I changed schools more often than my siblings, and therefore had more friendship changes, and less ability for attachment.
I mean, I like your comment and am glad you got thinking about this, but it's just a line of reasoning that I see a lot and I wish I saw less, so that's why I bring it up (:
"True for most people" does not imply "true for me" or "true for that person over there".
And the reverse is not valid either, of course - "true for me" does not imply "true for most people."
There's always some tension between people's individual anecdotes and experiences (which are fascinating, and I like), and the claims of broader studies like this one.
Sometimes I try to remind myself of this with the "on average, people have 2.3 children" factoid. Obviously, nobody actually has 2.3 children; the general truth does not necessarily apply to specific individuals; potentially not even a single one.
I went from moving around a bunch, and making new friends at each place, to living in Whistler, BC, where you've got an annual turnover of new people, then I settled down in Bondi Beach, Australia, which doesn't have the turnover of Whistler, but not far off.
What are the dynamics like of everyone in your family?
That must've been extremely efficient for legal and accounting purposes, once. But, well, the only theory of mind anyone could develop in such circumstances involves grinding minds into fine paste. (There's a reason the Stoics are "seeing" an AI-driven resurgence, even though what'd be most appropriate for their target audience is probably again Skinner.)
Remember how a great deal of how we live our "personal" lives was invented in a slaveholding state which mandated belief in gods and demons. And the rest in another.
We are taught to consider all of this legacy cultural structure in terms of "haha how quaintly did people live 1000-2000-3000 years ago, were they stupid". Yet most of it lives on in some marginally altered form due to sheer global force of habit.
Take Western human naming schemes for example: does your government permit you to change your name? do you inherit one or both granddads' names? do you get a patronym? extra personal names? are you also the security force for a place, like a Freiherr de So-and-So? and at what exact number of levels of recursive self-reflection does the word "person" stop meaning the role played, and starts meaning the human playing it?
(When you're done with "identity", continue with "time-keeping" and begin to understand another psychological phenomenon causing much suffering - people's generalized inability to discern cause and effect.)
The name - the sound through which individuals are conditioned to respond to the concepts of selfhood and identity (Foobert Barber Baznix! you come here right this instant! it is not me but you who is sleepy and hungry!) - is one of many such extremely arbitrary implementation details.
Out of those emerges the thing sold to us by our caregivers and educators as "normal life" before we are able to know any better. That's the main way "primary socialization" has ever worked: a non-consensual intergenerational transmission of habits that have as much to do with self-soothing in the face of mortality as with practical concerns; in the end they just ascribe "imaginariness" to your memories of your mind being wiped, and the "you" is ready to go.
Now, in the context of all those vague and admittedly entirely hypothetical "implementation details", proceed to imagine the troop of clothed primates not as a flat list of incidental blood relations, but as a dynamic system, a living group of conscious things; if you're feeling particularly scifi - a sort of distributed organism. What would be the purpose of the scapegoat organ in that organism? Do individual primates have an equivalent organ in their bodies? (Probably not the one you're thinking of but also a valid guess)
Standard neoclassical economics theory tells people that they have perfect foresight and know the configuration/structure of all future possibilities. In other words, there are no unknown unknowns. You know everything you don't know yet.
People have the same belief with regards to natural selection being efficient. It just seemingly chooses the most efficient organisms.
In reality there is a developmental process with no guarantee of optimality or progress toward optimality. It is possible to get stuck in local maxima and it takes activation energy to get out of it.
The scapegoat organ exists because the perceived marginal cost of fixing and investigating an incident or problem is considered more expensive than deflecting blame.
The Iranians destroyed their water supply with scapegoats so trying to find a purpose in the scapegoat organ seems pretty insane. It's more like a weakness that leadership does not have a complete picture of the problems that its people are facing. You could argue that scapegoating is an expression of a lack of power. You have just enough power to blame others, but not enough to solve the problem.
When people use this type of dimensionality reduction you get problematic outcomes.
This type of phenomena will always keep happening. The world is complex and perceptually high dimensional. We try to understand it(the world) using low dimensional concepts and when those low dimensional concepts have low validity issues arise.
Are those numbers r-squared figures? Seems like there's a lot more variance to be explained?
1. Maybe the measurements are just very noisy. In which case they may also have other biases. 2. Maybe there are systematic causes which the study didn't capture. If so, controlling for them might change the results.
Sigh. When I see a study headline like this I feel confident about two things. First, the study will have a weak design with no serious attention paid to causality, genetic confounding etc... second, the response to it will be full of people going "yes, that fits my N=1 anecdote" or "no that doesn't fit my N=1 anecdote", in other words, critiquing the weak methodology with an even weaker methodology (handwaving appeals to personal experience).
One reason social science is hard is there isn't much market for the truth. People just want a nice story to tell themselves.
Children have school. School gives you a shared experience to talk about and time to talk to others, both through actual coursework and play. Children are handed the tools to possibly make friends and they aren't even old enough to have decades of baggage and anxiety yet.
As an adult, you have to create those conditions. For many, work serves this role. Hobbies and regular activities (bowling, for example) help. Depending on the person, it can be online (Met my spouse this way - a silly online game back in the later text-based, formulaic MMORPG era). And you are a lot busier as an adult with more responsibilities filling your time. Of course it is harder as an adult.
I got a lot of flak for going to a high school play in my late twenties. I had played D&D with the kid and his mom every week for years. He was great to hang out with when he was 14.
But it seems hard for many adults to play with children, so it becomes this anomalous thing, even though I’m fairly certain it’s just something we’ve convinced ourselves adults “don’t do”.
Tag is still fun, whether you are 7 or 37.
Q: How do you make friends in Boston? A: Same way everyone else does. In kindergarten.
What I did have was a great number of excellent adults in my life. In many ways, they were more my peers than anyone my own age.
Their example and support made my parents instruction significantly more effective despite the serious challenges with my mental health that they didn’t know how to handle.
> 705 participants and their families over 3 decades, from the time participants were infants until they were approximately 30 years old (Mage = 28.6, SD = 1.2; 78.7% White, non-Hispanic, 53.6% female, 46.4% male).
It looks like an a fairly culturally homogeneous pannel, it would be interesting to also have a breakdown on religion (especially due to the communal effects) and income.
The income data: ------------------------------ Student status Part-time 34 (4.9%) Full-time 61 (8.7%) Employment Part-time, for pay 85 (12.1%) Full-time, for pay 516 (73.7%) Individual income <US $10,000 78 (11.1%) US $10,000–$29,999 167 (23.9%) US $30,000–$49,999 179 (25.6%) US $50,000–$99,999 213 (30.4%) US $100,000+ 63 (9.0%) Household income <US $20,000 75 (10.8%) US $20,000–$49,999 163 (23.5%) US $50,000–$99,999 248 (35.7%) US $100,000–$149,999 126 (18.1%) US $150,000+ 83 (11.9%)
Once they have a sense of self, even little kids will be very careful about revealing their home life to their school friends, and the same about school to their parents.
PDF: https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2026-79270-001.pdf
Reading the "Attached" book was a huge wake-up call. According to the questionnaire, for what it's worth, I was exhibiting ~100% avoidant behavior.
This led to therapy, and to a lot of atonement, and growth.
I just came here to say - if you have a minute, give it a read. And for fun, try the questionnaire:
https://archive.org/details/AttachementTheory/page/n37/mode/...
Best of luck
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-childhood-rel...
And the paper:
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2026-79270-001
There's so many variable, I think we can only say they could be different, who knows if t will be for better or worse, or neither.