Abstract
Childhood maltreatment (CM) is associated with increased limbic activity, while social support is linked to decreased limbic activity towards negative stimuli. Our study aimed to explore the interaction of perceived social support with CM, and their combined impact on limbic activity in negative emotion processing. A total of 130 healthy individuals (HC) underwent a negative emotional face processing paradigm. They were divided into two groups based on the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire: n = 65 HC without CM matched with n = 65 HC with CM. In a region-of-interest approach of the bilateral amygdala-hippocampus-complex (AHC), regression analyses investigating the association of CM and perceived social support with limbic activity and a social support x CM ANCOVA were conducted. CM was associated with increased AHC activity, while perceived social support tended to be associated with decreased AHC activity during negative emotion processing. The ANCOVA showed a significant interaction in bilateral AHC activity (pFWE ≤ 0.024) driven by a negative association between perceived social support and bilateral AHC activity in HC without CM. No significant association was observed in HC with CM. Exploratory analyses using continuous CM scores support this finding. Our results suggest that CM moderates the link between perceived social support and limbic activity, with a protective effect of perceived social support only in HC without CM. The lack of this effect in HC with CM suggests that CM may alter the buffering effect of perceived social support on limbic functioning, highlighting the potential need for preventive interventions targeting social perception of HC with CM.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Perceived social support is a key protective factor, enhancing physical and psychological health, mitigating disease progression, and reducing mortality [1]. It is associated with lower allostatic load [2] and diminished stress responses [3]. The perception of having a supportive social network seems to buffer physiological stress responses to critical life events [4, 5], potentially increasing resilience against mental health issues, particularly following childhood maltreatment (CM) [6]. Conversely, social conflict can impair wellbeing, especially in those with insufficient social support [7]. Neuroimaging studies have highlighted the relevance of the limbic system in the processing of perceived social support: Gray matter volumes of the posterior cingulate cortex [8] and amygdala [9] are positively associated with perceived social support. Brain functional studies in healthy adults have linked social support to decreased resting-state amygdala [10] and decreased insula activity, leading to fewer negative emotions during social exclusion [11].
CM, in contrast to social support, is a strong risk factor for various mental disorders, including major depressive disorder (MDD) [12,13,–14] and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) [15,16,–17]. Research has shown opposite effects of social support and CM on mental health, potentially mediated through similar neural mechanisms. Healthy adolescents and adults with CM show reduced hippocampal volume [18,19,20,21,–22] and increased limbic activity towards negative stimuli [19, 21, 23]. Notably, these neural changes linked to CM are already detectable in childhood [21, 24], emphasizing the importance of early years as a critical period for limbic development [25]. Further, there is evidence of distinct long-term neural consequences for different CM subtypes [26], though McCrory et al. [27] highlight the need for more research to differentiate between threat and deprivation types due to their co-occurrence. The observed neural patterns in individuals with CM mirror those found in patients with MDD and PTSD [28,29,30,31,32,–33], suggesting that reduced limbic volume and limbic hyperresponsiveness may underpin the link between CM and the development of mental disorders [34, 35].
Despite the recognized influence of CM and perceived social support on mental health, there has been limited neuroimaging research exploring their combined effects on neural mechanisms. Previous studies demonstrated that regardless of the extent of experienced adversity, social support could mitigate the negative consequences of CM on limbic activity [36, 37] and developmental outcomes [38] across various life stages, including childhood [36], young adulthood [38] and later life [37]. Conversely, Luby et al. [39] suggest a buffering effect of social support on limbic structures irrespective of adverse life events only in pre-school children, but not in school-aged children. This suggests that early childhood is a pivotal period not only for the adverse effects of CM, which can result in lasting neural alterations in limbic structures into adulthood [21], but also for the buffering effects of social support and the potential for positive limbic development through caregiving [40, 41]. Beyond this critical period, limbic development may undergo irreversible changes due to CM, making later support less effective [39, 42]. Accordingly, evidence suggests that individuals with CM may exhibit diminished capacities for forming social connections, potentially leading to a persistent decrease in social support throughout later life [43,44,45,–46]. This reduction in social ties could be attributed to the decreased benefits they perceive or receive from such relationships [47]. Hence, examining healthy adults with CM is crucial for understanding the enduring and possibly irreversible effects of CM, as well as the influence of current perceptions of social support on limbic structures, with reduced influence from ongoing brain development in critical developmental phases. Notably, on a structural level, Förster et al. [48] already showed that perceived social support had a protective effect on hippocampal volume in non-maltreated healthy adults only. Conversely, two recent studies revealed an inverse link between perceived social support and adverse experiences regarding structural brain connectivity [49] and white matter integrity [50] in adults, with the positive impacts of perceived social support manifesting independently of stressful life events [50].
Considering heterogeneous results across imaging modalities, it remains unclear whether buffering effects of social support on neural correlates of emotion processing are also present in healthy adults with CM. We assume that with transitioning from adolescence to adulthood, the source of social support shifts away from parents and caregivers towards a broader social network [51]. In the current study, we aimed to examine the relationship between perceived social support, CM, and limbic activity to negative facial stimuli in healthy adults. This approach allowed us to investigate the long-term consequences of CM on critical brain regions, without the potential confounding effects of mental health conditions and current clinical interventions, and with reduced influence from critical developmental changes typical in younger populations. Given the relevance of the hippocampus and amygdala for emotion processing [52] and their overlapping roles as neural correlates for CM and social support [39], we placed emphasis on these regions. Based on previous studies, we hypothesized a positive association of CM and a negative association of perceived social support with limbic activity during negative emotion processing. Furthermore, we expected CM to modulate the association between perceived social support and limbic activity.
Materials and methods
Participants and study design
All data of the present study are part of the Münster Neuroimaging Cohort (MNC) and represent original work. The study initially comprised 212 healthy individuals (HC) between 18 and 65 years of age, who were recruited through public notices and newspaper announcements from August 2013 to November 2019. All participants with complete data sets of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) as well as all relevant questionnaires (see below) were included. Exclusion criteria were any lifetime mental disorder according to the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID-I) [53], any neurological abnormalities, a history of traumatic head injury, chronic medical diseases, organic mental disorders, dementia, intake of psychotropic medication or MRI contraindications. All participants completed fMRI, SCID-I [53], the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ; [54]) and the Social Support Questionnaire (German version: Fragebogen sozialer Unterstützung, FSOZU-K-22; [55]). The CTQ is widely used to assess various forms of childhood trauma. The FSOZU-K-22 is used to evaluate an individual’s self-reported perceived social support (For psychometric information on the questionnaires, see Supplementary 1).
The sample (n = 212) was split into two groups based on cut-offs for CM established by Walker et al. [56]: HC with a score greater than or equal to the cut-off for CM on at least one subscale of the CTQ [54] were included in a group referred to as HC with CM (CM group, n = 65). HC scoring below the cut-offs on all CTQ subscales [54] were regarded as HC with no CM (nCM group, n = 147). There was a significant difference (T(106.335)=−2.476, p = 0.015, d = −0.393) in depressive symptom scores [57] between the nCM (M = 2.78, SD = 3.201) and CM group (M = 4.11, SD = 3.78). To rule out effects of subclinical depressive symptoms, the two groups were then matched in a 1:1 ratio based on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-I; [57, 58]; Supplementary 1) using the software MatchIt [59]. The final study sample consisted of n = 65 HC in the CM group and n = 65 HC in the nCM group. After matching, the groups showed no significant difference in BDI scores (Table 1). The research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration as revised in 1989 and approved by the ethics committee of the Medical Faculty of University of Muenster (2007-307-f-S). All participants provided written informed consent before study participation and received a financial reimbursement. For details on sample characteristics, see Table 1.
Functional MRI paradigm, data acquisition and preprocessing
Details on data acquisition, preprocessing methods and the fMRI paradigm can be found in Supplementary 2. Briefly, T2* functional data were acquired by a 3 Tesla scanner (Gyroscan Intera 3 T, Philips Medical Systems, Best, NL) and preprocessed using statistical parametric mapping software (SPM8, Wellcome Department of Cognitive Neurology, London, UK; http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm). For the fMRI paradigm, a frequently applied [19, 20, 60] negative emotion processing task was employed, consisting of four blocks of a face-processing task with photographs of negative emotional faces (expressing fear or anger) and five blocks of a sensorimotor control task (geometric figures shaped as circles or ellipses).
Statistical analyses
Clinical data was analyzed using SPSS Statistics (version 25.0; IBM Corporation). The Pearson correlation coefficient between CM and perceived social support was calculated for the final study sample (N = 130) to ascertain an opposing link between the two variables.
FMRI data analyses were performed by means of statistical parametric mapping software (SPM12, v7771, Wellcome Department of Cognitive Neurology, London, UK; http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm). For all analyses in SPM, a region of interest (ROI) approach for the bilateral amygdala-hippocampus-complex (AHC) was conducted. One single ROI mask was created by means of the Wake Forest University PickAtlas [61] according to the AAL-atlas [62] definitions and included the mask of the bilateral amygdala and bilateral hippocampus. Additionally, age and sex were included as covariates of no interest. Significance thresholds for multiple testing were obtained at cluster-level by threshold-free cluster enhancement (TFCE) using the TFCE toolbox (version 232; Structural Brain Mapping Group, Jena, Germany; http://dbm.neuro.uni-jena.de/tfce). Results were considered significant if they exceeded a conservative FWE-corrected threshold of p < 0.05 obtained by 5000 permutations per test. The minimum cluster size was set at k ≥ 10 voxels.
In order to dimensionally investigate associations of perceived social support and CM on limbic activity and to verify previous findings, we first performed two separate regression analyses for the total score of the FSOZU-K-22 [55] and the total score of the CTQ [54] using the final study sample of 130 HC. Second, we conducted a social support (FSOZU-K-22 sum score) x group (CM vs. nCM group) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to investigate the interaction of perceived social support and CM on limbic activity. Main effects of group and social support as well as social support x group interaction effects on limbic activity were analyzed, followed by post-hoc tests. For exploratory reasons, we additionally performed the social support x group ANCOVA on whole-brain level using the same model. Here, a minimum cluster size of k ≥ 100 voxels was set.
Results
Association of childhood maltreatment with perceived social support
Perceived social support (FSOZU-K-22 sum score) and CM (CTQ sum score) showed a significant negative correlation (r = −0.293, p < 0.001) indicating that increased experience of CM was associated with lower perceived social support.
Associations of childhood maltreatment and perceived social support with limbic activity
Higher CTQ scores were associated with higher limbic activity in bilateral clusters of the AHC during negative emotion processing (Left: x = −30, y = −28, z = −14, TFCE(126) = 473.87, T = 4.66, k = 903, pFWE = 0.006, r = 0.239; Right: x = 38, y = −28, z = −8, TFCE(126) = 414.95, T = 4.66, k = 757, pFWE = 0.009, r = 0.216). Higher perceived social support tended to be associated with lower left AHC activity (Left: x = −22, y = −12, z = −18, TFCE(126) = 133.63, T = 3.59, pFWE = 0.050, r = −0.136).
Interaction of social support with limbic activity in maltreated vs. non-maltreated healthy individuals
The ANCOVA revealed a significant social support x group interaction on bilateral AHC activity (Left: x = −26, y = −36, z = −2, TFCE(1,124) = 4033.90, F = 8.97, k = 217, pFWE = 0.024, ηp²=0.089 ; Left: x = −28, y = −8, z = −24, TFCE(1,124) = 3066.00, F = 12.33, k = 62, pFWE = 0.019, ηp²=0.070; Right: x = 16, y = −36, z = 8, TFCE(1,124) = 23703.43, F = 23.84, k = 646, pFWE = 0.005, ηp²=0.070; Fig. 1). This resulted from a significant negative association between perceived social support and bilateral limbic activity in the nCM group (Left: x = −28, y = −8, z = −24, TFCE(124) = 231.28, T = 4.05, k = 504, pFWE = 0.021, r = −0.429; Right: x = 14, y = −38, z = 8, TFCE(124) = 325.67, T = 4.27, k = 591, pFWE = 0.010, r = −0.411), with no significant association of perceived social support with limbic activity in the CM group (pFWE = 0.420). There was also a significant main effect of perceived social support in the left AHC (x = −22, y = −12, z = −18, TFCE(1,124) = 4517.64, F = 13.15, k = 107, pFWE = 0.029) but no significant main effect of group (pFWE > 0.99).
a Coronal view (Left and right: y = −36) of the significant social support x group interaction of the ANCOVA in the amygdala-hippocampus-complex (Left: x = −26, y = −36, z = −2, TFCE(1,124) = 4033.90, F = 8.97, k = 217, pFWE = 0.024, ηp²=0.089 ; Right: x = 16, y = −36, z = 8, TFCE(1,124) = 23703.43, F = 23.84, k = 646, pFWE = 0.005, ηp²=0.070). Color scale: TFCE value. Separate scales for each hemisphere for detailed resolution of the activity clusters. b Scatterplot depicts the association between activity within the right amygdala-hippocampus-complex derived from the social support x group interaction (x = 16, y = −36, z = 8, TFCE(1,124) = 23703.43, F = 23.84, k = 646, pFWE = 0.005, ηp²=0.070) and perceived social support scores in healthy individuals without childhood maltreatment compared to healthy individuals with childhood maltreatment. c Coronal and sagittal view (x = −28, y = −8) of the significant negative association of perceived social support with functional activity within the amygdala-hippocampus-complex in the group without childhood maltreatment (Left: x = −28, y = −8, z = −24, TFCE(124) = 231.28, T = 4.05, k = 504, pFWE = 0.021, r = −0.429; Right: x = 14, y = −38, z = 8, TFCE(124) = 325.67, T = 4.27, k = 591, pFWE = 0.010, r = −0.411). Color scale: TFCE value.
On whole-brain level, a significant social support x group interaction was found (all pFWE ≤ 0.046, Supplementary 3, Table S1) in clusters comprising the hippocampus, parahippocampal gyrus, temporal gyri and amygdala. This resulted from a negative association between perceived social support and functional activity in the nCM group (all pFWE ≤ 0.048), while there was no significant association of perceived social support with functional activity in the CM group (pFWE = 0.464). There was no significant main effect of group (pFWE > 0.99) or perceived social support (pFWE ≥ 0.056) on whole-brain level.
Robustness checks
Regression analyses incorporating either perceived social support or CM as covariates (Supplementary 4) and analyses in the unmatched sample of 147 HC without CM versus 65 HC with CM (Supplementary 5) confirmed the positive association of CTQ scores with AHC activity and a social support x group interaction on AHC activity. CM was dichotomized [56] to facilitate interpretability, enable intervention application, and allow comparison with a prior study [48]. However, given concerns about dichotomizing continuous variables [63] and female-based cut-offs [56], the main analysis using the continuous measure of CM was repeated. Results indicated that CM significantly moderated the link between perceived social support and limbic activity, corroborating previous findings (Supplementary 6, Fig. S1). Additional analyses with abuse versus neglect subtypes (Supplementary 6, Fig. S2) revealed that the moderation was only significant for childhood abuse, not neglect. Given the impact of perceived stress on the limbic system [64, 65], the influence of perceived stress indicating current stressful life events was also analyzed, with previous results remaining significant (Supplementry 7, Table S2, Fig. S3).
Discussion
This study investigated the differential association of perceived social support with limbic activity in maltreated versus non-maltreated healthy adults during negative emotion processing. In HC without CM, increased perceived social support correlated with decreased limbic activity during processing of negative emotional faces, a link not observed in those with CM, even when controlling for perceived stress. Further analyses using continuous CM scores support these findings. Additionally, we confirmed that CM is positively associated with limbic activity to negative stimuli, independent of perceived social support, perceived stress and in the unmatched sample (n = 212), showing the robustness of our results.
Interaction of social support with limbic activity in maltreated vs. non-maltreated healthy individuals
Previous studies highlight the pervasive psychological and physiological consequences of CM [16, 19, 43, 66,67,68], underscoring the major role of social support in mitigating stress and its adverse effects [6]. Our study focuses on the functional correlates of such interplay during negative emotion processing, revealing a significant influence on amygdala and hippocampus activity. We find that increased perceived social support correlates with decreased limbic activity during negative emotion processing in the nCM group, a link absent in the CM group. Further, continuous analyses also indicate that the extent of CM moderates the effect of perceived social support on limbic activity showing a negative trend in HC with low to moderate CM and, conversely, a positive trend in HC with high CM. With less CM, perceived social support serves as a protective buffer on limbic activity. Correspondingly, two studies have shown that the buffering effect of social support on mental health outcomes is more pronounced at lower levels of CM [69, 70]. Our finding seems to be driven by childhood abuse, as opposed to neglect. That is, higher abuse experiences seem to diminish the protective effect of perceived social support on limbic activity in healthy adults. This differential impact of abuse versus neglect aligns with the dimensional model of adversity and psychopathology, which suggests that abuse primarily disrupts emotion processing [71]. Conversely, another study observed that the detrimental impact of adversity on depressive symptoms decreased with more social support particularly in an abuse subgroup [72]. Our findings appear robust to the effects of current perceived stress, even though prior evidence suggests that stress is associated with heightened limbic activity during emotional face processing [73]. Additionally, our whole-brain analyses confirm a significant negative correlation in the nCM group, showing similar regions as the ROI analysis. Summarizing, in contrast to previous studies [10, 11], our results suggest that buffering effects of perceived social support on limbic activity are primarily effective in healthy adults with no or low to moderate CM, particularly abuse experiences, therewith extending previous studies [74,75,76,–77].
The lack of a significant association between perceived social support and limbic activity in the CM group could be due to the profound impact of CM during a critical developmental period in childhood, leading to lasting neurobiological changes [78] like increased limbic activity. This could render perceived social support less effective as a buffer in adulthood. CM may alter social perception and information processing, potentially fostering threat sensitivity in social contexts, impaired social skills and confidence in receiving support [46, 79]. Accordingly, Maier et al. [80] observed that physical touch in individuals with CM elicited stress and increased limbic responses. While healthy adult individuals with CM may positively rate their social support upon conscious reflection, this support might act more as a stressor than a benefit due to an early negative bias towards emotion processing [48, 81]. In line, Hogan et al. [82] found that not all social support interventions are universally beneficial, with mismatches to individual needs potentially being detrimental. Our observed positive trend between perceived social support and limbic activity in HC with high CM levels, upon continuous analysis of CM, may also tentatively point to a detrimental effect of perceived social support. Additionally, our findings revealed lower levels of perceived social support in the CM group compared to the nCM group, also hinting at an altered perception of support. These findings, however, based on predominantly older adults without significant psychopathology, suggest a more resilient group and limit applicability to other groups. Despite being considered resilient, these adults seem to exhibit varied effects of perceived social support on limbic activity depending on levels of CM. Notably, however, research on resilience indicates that enhanced resilience can decrease the likelihood of adverse outcomes from CM [6, 35] and is associated with reduced limbic activity in response to negative stimuli following CM in adolescents as well as in adults [83, 84].
Wymbs et al. [36] found that social support moderated limbic activity during fearful face processing in children (7–16 years), regardless of child adversity, contrasting with our results of no such effect in healthy adults with CM. Besides the emotional identification task used by Wymbs et al. [36], which may explain the discrepancies in results, differences in the perceptions of social support during and after CM and its interaction with limbic activity could also play a role. Their study, assessing social support and CM using interviews and multiple data sources, evaluated social support closely following potential CM experiences indicating that social support may offer a protective effect during critical early periods. Accordingly, two recent studies have shown that in adolescents [39] and adults [48], a protective effect of support on hippocampal volume is apparent only in individuals without CM, supporting our findings. In contrast, in preschool children, a buffering effect was noted regardless of adverse life events [39]. Notably, our study is limited to examining the link between current perceived social support and limbic activity in dependence of earlier CM, without addressing perceptions of social support during CM itself. Interestingly, a previous study [85] suggests an association of childhood abuse with reduced perceived childhood social support, which appears to align with lower adult perceptions of social support. This tentatively supports a potential link between early and later perceptions of social support and their relation to CM.
The analysis showed no significant difference in limbic activity during negative emotion processing between groups. The categorization of participants into two groups based on a binary split of CM experiences led to heterogeneity within each group.
Associations of childhood maltreatment and perceived social support with limbic activity
Using regression analyses to comprehensively explore the link between CM, perceived social support and limbic activity during negative emotion processing, we found that higher CM levels were associated with heightened limbic activity, even after accounting for perceived social support and perceived stress. This supports our first hypothesis and existing research [81, 86] showing enhanced limbic activity to negative emotions in healthy and clinical groups with CM. Such functional alterations are thought to be adaptive responses to stressful environments, enhancing sensitivity to negative cues [87, 88]. This heightened limbic activity in individuals with CM could potentially mediate the development of psychopathology [19, 21].
Perceived social support showed a trend towards reducing limbic activity during negative emotion processing, but this association became insignificant after adjusting for CM, likely due to a significant negative correlation between perceived social support and CM. While there is preliminary evidence suggesting social support can dampen limbic activity and enhance emotion regulation [10, 11], our methodology—lacking differentiation in social support types [11] and not examining spontaneous brain activity [10] or functional connectivity between limbic and frontal regions [8, 10]—may limit our findings. These findings imply that the neural impact of social support might be more complex than what was captured by our examination of limbic activity alone. Moreover, our results underline the moderating effect of CM on how perceived social support influences limbic activity, pointing to a multifaceted interaction between these factors.
Strengths and limitations
Our study is the first to investigate the moderating effect of CM on the link between perceived social support and limbic activity during emotion processing in healthy adults, aged 18 to 65 years, without psychopathological conditions. This enabled the investigation of long-term effects of CM on the link between perceived social support and limbic activity in healthy adulthood. To avoid the confounding influences of mental health conditions, such as social withdrawal, symptom severity and interventions, we deliberately selected a healthy sample, despite acknowledging that including depressed individuals might have offered greater variance. This choice did not enable drawing conclusions about whether the identified mechanisms are similarly present in younger or psychiatric samples, affecting the generalizability of our findings to these groups. Our participants may represent a particularly resilient subgroup, having maintained their mental health despite past CM [35, 84]. Although our sample covered a wide age range that skewed towards older adulthood, and might therefore demonstrate greater psychological resilience compared to younger adults [89, 90], we still controlled for age in our analyses. Future studies should build upon our findings and explore the impact of perceived social support and CM on limbic responsivity in those with mental disorders and across different age groups in a comparative approach. While the questionnaires employed were reliable and validated, they assessed social support as perceived in adulthood, possibly not reflecting the perceived support experienced during CM. Future studies should also differentiate between perceived and actual social support changes by collecting data on received support. Moreover, we used the FSOZU-K-22 in its shortened form, which precluded a detailed analysis of specific subscales like emotional support, potentially relevant for emotion processing [11]. The CTQ, given its nature as a retrospective self-report questionnaire, is susceptible to negative recall biases. This may have affected the accuracy and objectivity of the reported experiences of CM, potentially skewing the interpretation of its effects on subsequent mental health outcomes. Nonetheless, empirical findings from a longitudinal study [91] highlight the CTQ’s temporal stability across various mood states, underscoring its effectiveness in reliably capturing CM reports over time. To enhance the precision of CM assessment, future research should, however, also consider more detailed measures of CM, including the frequency, timing, and subtypes of maltreatment experiences. Additionally, the binary categorization of participants based on CTQ scores led to information loss and group heterogeneity. Moreover, the cut-offs used [56], derived from an exclusively female sample, might not be appropriately tailored for our mixed-gender sample. This could lead to biased results, particularly given well-documented sex differences in reporting CM [92]. Nevertheless, additional analyses treating CTQ and FSOZU-K-22 scores as dimensional provided comparable results, supporting the robustness of our conclusions. Finally, given the cross-sectional design of our study, we cannot establish causal relationships from our data.
Conclusion and implications
Extending previous studies, our findings highlight how CM influences the relationship between perceived social support and limbic activity during negative emotion processing in healthy adults, even after accounting for depressive symptoms and perceived stress. While perceived social support may mitigate limbic activity in healthy adults without (or low to moderate levels of) CM, this protective effect is less evident in those with (high levels of) CM. In this context, abuse experiences appear to be particularly relevant. Notably, healthy adults with CM generally perceive less social support, together pointing to the need for interventions to improve social support perception [48, 93], coping strategies, and self-esteem [94] in those affected by CM. Such interventions could reshape early social experiences and perceptions, potentially reducing psychopathological risk.
Data availability
The data of this study are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
References
Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB. Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS Med. 2010;7:1–20.
Seeman TE, Singer BH, Ryff CD, Love GD. Social relationships, gender, and allostatic load across two age cohorts. Psychosom Med. 2002;64:395–406.
Ozbay F, Johnson DC, Dimoulas E, Morgan CA III, Charney D, Southwick S. Social support and resilience to stress: from neurobiology to clinical practice. Psychiatry. 2007;4:35–40.
Cohen S, Wills TA. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol Bull. 1985;98:310–57.
Eisenberger NI. An empirical review of the neural underpinnings of receiving and giving social support: implications for health. Psychosom Med. 2013;75:545–56.
Meng X, Fleury MJ, Xiang YT, Li M, D’Arcy C. Resilience and protective factors among people with a history of child maltreatment: a systematic review. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2018;53:453–75.
Abbey A, Abramis DJ, Caplan RD. Effects of different sources of social support and social conflict on emotional well-being. Basic Appl Soc Psychol. 1985;6:111–29.
Che X, Wei D, Li W, Li H, Qiao L, Qiu J, et al. The correlation between gray matter volume and perceived social support: a voxel-based morphometry study. Soc Neurosci. 2014;9:152–9.
Sato W, Kochiyama T, Kubota Y, Uono S, Sawada R, Yoshimura S, et al. The association between perceived social support and amygdala structure. Neuropsychologia. 2016;85:237–44.
Sato W, Kochiyama T, Uono S, Sawada R, Yoshikawa S. Amygdala activity related to perceived social support. Sci Rep. 2020;10:2951.
Morese R, Lamm C, Bosco FM, Valentini MC, Silani G. Social support modulates the neural correlates underlying social exclusion. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2019;14:633–43.
Humphreys KL, LeMoult J, Wear JG, Piersiak HA, Lee A, Gotlib IH. Child maltreatment and depression: a meta-analysis of studies using the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. Child Abuse Negl. 2020;102:104361.
Nelson J, Klumparendt A, Doebler P, Ehring T. Childhood maltreatment and characteristics of adult depression: meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 2017;210:96–104.
Souama C, Lamers F, Milaneschi Y, Vinkers CH, Defina S, Garvert L, et al. Depression, cardiometabolic disease, and their co-occurrence after childhood maltreatment: an individual participant data meta-analysis including over 200,000 participants. BMC Med. 2023;21:93.
Gilbert R, Widom CS, Browne K, Fergusson D, Webb E, Janson S. Burden and consequences of child maltreatment in high-income countries. The Lancet. 2009;373:68–81.
Lippard ETC, Nemeroff CB. The devastating clinical consequences of child abuse and neglect: increased disease vulnerability and poor treatment response in mood disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2020;177:20–36.
Wang Y, Chung MC, Wang N, Yu X, Kenardy J. Social support and posttraumatic stress disorder: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Clin Psychol Rev. 2021;85:101998.
Calem M, Bromis K, McGuire P, Morgan C, Kempton MJ. Meta-analysis of associations between childhood adversity and hippocampus and amygdala volume in non-clinical and general population samples. NeuroImage Clin. 2017;14:471–9.
Dannlowski U, Stuhrmann A, Beutelmann V, Zwanzger P, Lenzen T, Grotegerd D, et al. Limbic scars: long-term consequences of childhood maltreatment revealed by functional and structural magnetic resonance imaging. Biol Psychiatry. 2012;71:286–93.
Redlich R, Opel N, Bürger C, Dohm K, Grotegerd D, Förster K, et al. The limbic system in youth depression: brain structural and functional alterations in adolescent in-patients with severe depression. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2018;43:546–54.
Teicher MH, Samson JA, Anderson CM, Ohashi K. The effects of childhood maltreatment on brain structure, function and connectivity. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2016;17:652–66.
Vythilingam M, Heim C, Newport J, Miller AH, Anderson E, Richard B, et al. Childhood trauma associated with smaller hippocampal volume in women with major depression. Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159:2072–80.
Grant MM, Cannistraci C, Hollon SD, Gore J, Shelton R. Childhood trauma history differentiates amygdala response to sad faces within MDD. J Psychiatr Res. 2011;45:886–95.
McCrory E, De Brito SA, Viding E. The impact of childhood maltreatment: a review of neurobiological and genetic factors. Front Psychiatry. 2011;2:48.
Teicher MH, Andersen SL, Polcari A, Anderson CM, Navalta CP, Kim DM. The neurobiological consequences of early stress and childhood maltreatment. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2003;27:33–44.
Cassiers LLM, Sabbe BGC, Schmaal L, Veltman DJ, Penninx BWJH, Van Den Eede F. Structural and functional brain abnormalities associated with exposure to different childhood trauma subtypes: a systematic review of neuroimaging findings. Front Psychiatry. 2018;9:329.
McCrory EJ, Gerin MI, Viding E. Annual research review: childhood maltreatment, latent vulnerability and the shift to preventative psychiatry – the contribution of functional brain imaging. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2017;58:338–57.
Cole J, Costafreda SG, McGuffin P, Fu CHY. Hippocampal atrophy in first episode depression: a meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging studies. J Affect Disord. 2011;134:483–7.
Kasai K, Yamasue H, Gilbertson MW, Shenton ME, Rauch SL, Pitman RK. Evidence for acquired pregenual anterior cingulate gray matter loss from a twin study of combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder. Biol Psychiatry. 2008;63:550–6.
Opel N, Redlich R, Zwanzger P, Grotegerd D, Arolt V, Heindel W, et al. Hippocampal atrophy in major depression: a function of childhood maltreatment rather than diagnosis. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2014;39:2723–31.
Schmaal L, Veltman DJ, Van Erp TGM, Sämann PG, Frodl T, Jahanshad N, et al. Subcortical brain alterations in major depressive disorder: findings from the ENIGMA Major Depressive Disorder working group. Mol Psychiatry. 2016;21:806–12.
Stuhrmann A, Suslow T, Dannlowski U. Facial emotion processing in major depression: a systematic review of neuroimaging findings. Biol Mood Anxiety Disord. 2011;1:1–10.
Reisch AA, Bessette KL, Jenkins LM, Skerrett KA, Gabriel LB, Kling LR, et al. Human emotion processing accuracy, negative biases, and fMRI activation are associated with childhood trauma. Front Psychiatry. 2023;14:1181785.
Teicher MH, Samson JA. Childhood maltreatment and psychopathology: a case for ecophenotypic variants as clinically and neurobiologically distinct subtypes. Am J Psychiatry. 2013;170:1114–33.
Ashy M, Yu B, Gutowski E, Samkavitz A, Malley-Morrison K. Childhood maltreatment, limbic dysfunction, resilience, and psychiatric symptoms. J Interpers Violence. 2020;35:426–52.
Wymbs NF, Orr C, Albaugh MD, Althoff RR, O’Loughlin K, Holbrook H, et al. Social supports moderate the effects of child adversity on neural correlates of threat processing. Child Abuse Negl. 2020;102:104413.
Leicht-Deobald U, Bruch H, Bönke Luisa, Stevense A, Fan Y, Bajbouj Malek, et al. Work-related social support modulates effects of early life stress on limbic reactivity during stress. Brain Imaging Behav. 2018;12:1405–18.
Pepin EN, Banyard VL. Social support: a mediator between child maltreatment and developmental outcomes. J Youth Adolesc. 2006;35:612–25.
Luby JL, Tillman R, Barch DM. Association of timing of adverse childhood experiences and caregiver support with regionally specific brain development in adolescents. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2:e1911426.
Lee A, Poh JS, Wen DJ, Tan HM, Chong Y-S, Tan KH, et al. Maternal care in infancy and the course of limbic development. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2019;40:100714.
Luby JL, Belden A, Harms MP, Tillman R, Barch DM. Preschool is a sensitive period for the influence of maternal support on the trajectory of hippocampal development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113:5742–7.
Mackes NK, Golm D, Sarkar S, Kumsta R, Rutter M, Fairchild G, et al. Early childhood deprivation is associated with alterations in adult brain structure despite subsequent environmental enrichment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020;117:641–9.
Beutel ME, Tibubos AN, Klein EM, Schmutzer G, Reiner I, Kocalevent RY-D, et al. Childhood adversities and distress - The role of resilience in a representative sample. PLOS One. 2017;12:e0173826.
Germine L, Dunn EC, Mclaughlin KA, Smoller JW. Childhood adversity is associated with adult theory of mind and social affiliation, but not face processing. PLOS One. 2015;10:e0129612.
Repetti RL, Taylor SE, Seeman TE. Risky families: Family social environments and the mental and physical health of offspring. Psychol Bull. 2002;128:330–66.
Savla JT, Roberto KA, Jaramillo-Sierra AL, Gambrel LE, Karimi H, Butner LM. Childhood abuse affects emotional closeness with family in mid- and later life. Child Abuse Negl. 2013;37:388–99.
Miller GE, Chen E, Fok AK, Walker H, Lim A, Nicholls EF, et al. Low early-life social class leaves a biological residue manifested by decreased glucocorticoid and increased proinflammatory signaling. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009;106:14716–21.
Förster K, Danzer L, Redlich R, Opel N, Grotegerd D, Leehr EJ, et al. Social support and hippocampal volume are negatively associated in adults with previous experience of childhood maltreatment. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2021;46:E328–E336.
Winter A, Gruber M, Thiel K, Flinkenflügel K, Meinert S, Goltermann J, et al. Shared and distinct structural brain networks related to childhood maltreatment and social support: connectome-based predictive modeling. Mol Psychiatry. 2023;28:4613–21.
Flinkenflügel K, Meinert S, Thiel K, Winter A, Goltermann J, Strathausen L, et al. Negative stressful life events and social support are associated with white matter integrity in depressed patients and healthy control participants: a diffusion tensor imaging study. Biol Psychiatry. 2023;94:650–60.
Kugbey N, Osei-Boadi S, Atefoe EA. The influence of social support on the levels of depression, anxiety and stress among students in Ghana. J Educ Pract. 2015;6:135–40.
Phillips ML, Drevets WC, Rauch SL, Lane R. Neurobiology of emotion perception I: the neural basis of normal emotion perception. Biol Psychiatry. 2003;54:504–14.
Wittchen H, Wunderlich U, Gruschwitz S, Zaudig M Skid I Strukturiertes Klinisches Interview für DSM-IV. Achse I: psychische Störungen. Interviewheft und Beurteilungsheft. Eine deutschsprachige, erweiterte Bearb. d. amerikanischen Originalversion des SKID I. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 1997.
Wingenfeld K, Spitzer C, Mensebach C, Grabe HJ, Hill A, Gast U, et al. The German version of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ): Preliminary psychometric. properties. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 2010;60:442–50.
Frydrich T, Sommer G, Brähler E Fydrich T, Sommer G, Brähler E. Fragebogen zur Sozialen Unterstützung: F-SozU; Manual. Hogrefe. 2007.
Walker EA, Gelfand A, Katon WJ, Koss MP, Korff MV, Bernstein D, et al. Adult health status of women with histories of childhood abuse and neglect. Am J Med. 1999;107:332–9.
Beck AT, Steer RA, Brown GK. Beck Depression Inventory. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; 1987.
Hautzinger M. Das Beck-Depressioninventar (BDI) in der Klinik [The German version of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) in clinical use]. Nervenarzt. 1991;62:689–96.
Ho DE, Imai K, King G, Stuart EA. Matchit: nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. JSS J Stat Softw. 2011;42:1–28.
Enneking V, Klug M, Borgers T, Dohm K, Grotegerd D, Frankenberger LM, et al. Changes in brain function during negative emotion processing in the long-term course of depression. B J Psych. 2022;221:476–84.
Maldjian JA, Laurienti PJ, Kraft RA, Burdette JH. An automated method for neuroanatomic and cytoarchitectonic atlas-based interrogation of fMRI data sets. NeuroImage. 2003;19:1233–9.
Tzourio-Mazoyer N, Landeau B, Papathanassiou D, Crivello F, Etard O, Delcroix N, et al. Automated anatomical labeling of activations in SPM using a macroscopic anatomical parcellation of the MNI MRI single-subject brain. NeuroImage. 2002;15:273–89.
MacCallum RC, Zhang S, Preacher KJ, Rucker DD. On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychol Methods. 2002;7:19–40.
Wu J, Tong H, Liu Z, Tao J, Chen L, Chan CCH, et al. Neurobiological effects of perceived stress are different between adolescents and middle-aged adults. Brain Imaging Behav. 2021;15:846–54.
Caetano I, Ferreira S, Coelho A, Amorim L, Castanho TC, Portugal-Nunes C, et al. Perceived stress modulates the activity between the amygdala and the cortex. Mol Psychiatry. 2022;27:4939–47.
Gianaros PJ, Sheu LK, Matthews KA, Jennings RR, Manuck SB, Hariri AR. Individual differences in stressor-evoked blood pressure reactivity vary with activation, volume, and functional connectivity of the amygdala. J Neurosci. 2008;28:990–9.
Nanni V, Uher R, Danese A. Childhood maltreatment predicts unfavorable course of illness and treatment outcome in depression: a meta-analysis. Am J Psychiatry. 2012;169:141–51.
Tawakol A, Ishai A, Takx RA, Figueroa AL, Ali A, Kaiser Y, et al. Relation between resting amygdalar activity and cardiovascular events: a longitudinal and cohort study. The Lancet. 2017;389:834–45.
Scarpa A, Haden SC, Hurley J. Community violence victimization and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder: the moderating effects of coping and social support. J Interpers Violence. 2006;21:446–69.
Salazar AM, Keller TE, Courtney ME. Understanding social support’s role in the relationship between maltreatment and depression in youth with foster care experience. Child Maltreat. 2011;16:102–13.
Sheridan MA, Shi F, Miller AB, Salhi C, McLaughlin KA. Network structure reveals clusters of associations between childhood adversities and development outcomes. Dev Sci. 2020;23:e12934.
Cheong EV, Sinnott C, Dahly D, Kearney PM. Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and later-life depression: perceived social support as a potential protective factor. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e013228.
Harrewijn A, Vidal-Ribas P, Clore-Gronenborn K, Jackson SM, Pisano S, Pine DS, et al. Associations between brain activity and endogenous and exogenous cortisol – A systematic review. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2020;120:104775.
Herrenkohl TI, Jung H, Klika JB, Mason WA, Brown EC, Leeb RT, et al. Mediating and moderating effects of social support in the study of child abuse and adult physical and mental health. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2016;86:573–83.
Li M, O’Donnell KJ, Caron J, Meaney MJ, Kobor M, D’Arcy C, et al. To what extent do social support and coping strategies mediate the relation between childhood maltreatment and major depressive disorder: A longitudinal community-based cohort. Dev Psychopathol. 2024;36:50–61.
Gewirtz-Meydan A. The relationship between child sexual abuse, self-concept and psychopathology: the moderating role of social support and perceived parental quality. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2020;113:104938.
Koçtürk N, Demirtas-Zorbaz S, Bilge Tarım MS. The mediating role of resilience and social support on the relationship between childhood neglect and adult well-being. Violence Vict. 2021;36:292–305.
Nemeroff CB. Paradise lost: the neurobiological and clinical consequences of child abuse and neglect. Neuron. 2016;89:892–909.
McCrory E, Foulkes L, Viding E. Social thinning and stress generation after childhood maltreatment: a neurocognitive social transactional model of psychiatric vulnerability. Lancet Psychiatry. 2022;9:828–37.
Maier A, Gieling C, Heinen-Ludwig L, Stefan V, Schultz J, Güntürkün O, et al. Association of childhood maltreatment with interpersonal distance and social touch preferences in adulthood. Am J Psychiatry. 2020;177:37–46.
Dannlowski U, Kugel H, Huber F, Stuhrmann A, Redlich R, Grotegerd D, et al. Childhood maltreatment is associated with an automatic negative emotion processing bias in the amygdala. Hum Brain Mapp. 2013;34:2899–909.
Hogan BE, Linden W, Najarian B. Social support interventions do they work? Clin Psychol Rev. 2002;22:381–440.
Eaton S, Cornwell H, Hamilton-Giachritsis C, Fairchild G. Resilience and young people’s brain structure, function and connectivity: A systematic review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2022;132:936–56.
Moreno-López L, Ioannidis K, Askelund AD, Smith AJ, Schueler K, van Harmelen A-L. The resilient emotional brain: a scoping review of the medial prefrontal cortex and limbic structure and function in resilient adults with a history of childhood maltreatment. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging. 2020;5:392–402.
Crouch JL, Milner JS, Thomsen C. Childhood physical abuse, early social support, and risk for maltreatment: current social support as a mediator of risk for child physical abuse. Child Abuse Negl. 2001;25:93–107.
Teicher MH, Samson JA. Annual research review: enduring neurobiological effects of childhood abuse and neglect. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2016;57:241–66.
Masten CL, Guyer AE, Hodgdon HB, McClure EB, Charney DS, Ernst M, et al. Recognition of facial emotions among maltreated children with high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder. Child Abuse Negl. 2008;32:139–53.
Pollak SD, Sinha P. Effects of early experience on children’s recognition of facial displays of emotion. Dev Psychol. 2002;38:784–91.
Erskine JAK, Kvavilashvili L, Conway MA, Myers L. The effects of age on psychopathology, well-being and repressive coping. Aging Ment Health. 2007;11:394–404.
Carstensen LL, Turan B, Scheibe S, Ram N, Ersner-Hershfield H, Samanez-Larkin GR, et al. Emotional experience improves with age: evidence based on over 10 years of experience sampling. Psychol Aging. 2011;26:21.
Goltermann J, Meinert S, Hülsmann C, Dohm K, Grotegerd D, Redlich R, et al. Temporal stability and state-dependence of retrospective self-reports of childhood maltreatment in healthy and depressed adults. Psychol Assess. 2023;35:12–22.
Moody G, Cannings-John R, Hood K, Kemp A, Robling M. Establishing the international prevalence of self-reported child maltreatment: a systematic review by maltreatment type and gender. BMC Public Health. 2018;18:1164.
Horan JM, Widom CS. From childhood maltreatment to allostatic load in adulthood: the role of social support. Child Maltreat. 2015;20:229–39.
Wang S, Xu H, Zhang S, Yang R, Li D, Sun Y, et al. Linking childhood maltreatment and psychological symptoms: the role of social support, coping styles, and self-esteem in adolescents. J Interpers Violence. 2022;37:NP620–NP650.
Funding
The study was supported by grants of the German Research Foundation (DFG grant RE4458/1-1 to R.R., grants FOR2107 DA1151/5-1 and DA1151/5-2 to U.D.) and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF grant 01EE2305C to R.R.). These affiliations are of no relevance to the work described in the manuscript. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
TB: Drafting the work, Conception and design of the work, Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data, Critical revision of the paper for important intellectual content. AR: Drafting the work, Conception and design of the work, Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data, Critical revision of the paper for important intellectual content. VE: Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data, Critical revision of the paper for important intellectual content. MK: Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data, Critical revision of the paper for important intellectual content. AW: Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data, Critical revision of the paper for important intellectual content. MG: Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data, Critical revision of the paper for important intellectual content. AK: Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data, Critical revision of the paper for important intellectual content. KD: Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data, Critical revision of the paper for important intellectual content. EJL: Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data, Critical revision of the paper for important intellectual content. DG: Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data, Critical revision of the paper for important intellectual content. KF: Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data, Critical revision of the paper for important intellectual content. JG: Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data, Critical revision of the paper for important intellectual content. JB: Critical revision of the paper for important intellectual content. UD: Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data, Critical revision of the paper for important intellectual content. RR: Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data, Critical revision of the paper for important intellectual content. All authors have read and finally approved the submitted version of the paper, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Borgers, T., Rinck, A., Enneking, V. et al. Interaction of perceived social support and childhood maltreatment on limbic responsivity towards negative emotional stimuli in healthy individuals. Neuropsychopharmacol. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-024-01910-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-024-01910-6