2023 Annual Impact Report FINAL - Flipbook - Page 29
For example, the impact of significant early adversity in a child’s life is
now central to conversations about child development—but that wasn’t
always the case. For decades, the common assumption that “what
doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” made it hard to translate people’s
concern for children into support for policies that prevent or mitigate
harm. Other assumptions, like the idea that babies cry in an effort to
“manipulate” adults, are now recognized as genuine bids for attention to
meet a need. These shifts in public understanding have led to significant
policy and practice changes that promote childhood wellbeing, such as
more research, funding, and programs to promote infant attachment.
Framing research has also played a role in shaping other major changes
in the field. Twenty years ago, we were first asked to co-construct and
test framing strategies that emphasized the prevention of maltreatment
—not just responding after the fact. As a way to talk about prevention,
we recommended moving toward a developmental story grounded in
science, not sympathy.
Throughout our research, we’ve been part of developing several
evidence-based metaphors that are now deeply embedded in scientific
and public discourse about early childhood development. For example,
the idea that adverse childhood experiences can “get under the skin,” or
physically affect children, helps communicators convey a sense of
urgency around preventing abuse and neglect. Other metaphors, like
“buffering” children from adverse experiences, have also permeated
discourse about early childhood development. Perhaps one of the most
popular metaphors is the notion of “toxic stress,” or the idea that certain
forms of severe, chronic, and unbuffered adversity can create
physiological responses that derail development.
29
