Diana-Irina Iordache, MSc
MSc Forensic Psychology Graduate, Goldsmiths, University of London
Introduction: Understanding Childhood Adversity and Rule-Breaking Behaviour
Why do some individuals engage in rule-breaking behaviour, and how might childhood experiences help us understand the psychological processes involved? This article explores the relationship between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), negative life events in adulthood, paranoid thinking, and rule-breaking behaviour. Drawing on my MSc research in forensic psychology, I examine whether early adversity and later stressful experiences are associated with different forms of rule-breaking and suspicious or persecutory thinking in adults.
The article first considers how childhood adversity may shape responses to perceived interpersonal threat, including mistrust and hostile interpretations of ambiguous social situations. It then presents the findings of my research, before discussing their implications for trauma-informed practice, rehabilitation, and early intervention.
The central argument is that childhood adversity may be relevant to understanding some forms of rule-breaking behaviour, but it should not be treated as a straightforward explanation for offending or as evidence that an individual will become violent. By examining the findings alongside existing psychological research, this article argues that effective criminal justice responses should balance accountability with a more nuanced understanding of developmental vulnerability, later life experiences, and opportunities for change.
How Adversity Can Shape Responses to Threat
Children adapt to the environments in which they develop. In an unpredictable or frightening environment, monitoring other people closely and responding quickly to possible danger may be protective. A problem can emerge when strategies that were useful in an unsafe context remain highly active in later situations.
Cognitive models of persecutory thinking propose that beliefs about the self and others, emotional distress, attention to threat, and interpretations of ambiguous events can contribute to suspicious or persecutory ideas (Freeman et al., 2002; Garety et al., 2001). Childhood trauma has also been associated with cognitive schemas relevant to psychosis risk (Appiah-Kusi et al., 2017). None of this establishes a simple trauma-to-paranoia pathway. It instead suggests that early adversity may be one vulnerability among many (Felitti et al., 1998).
Similar processes may matter for behaviour. If an ambiguous social interaction is interpreted as deliberately hostile, a defensive or aggressive response can become more likely. Social-information-processing research has long identified hostile attribution as relevant to reactive aggression (Dodge & Coie, 1987). Trauma-related hypervigilance, emotional arousal, and mistrust may therefore be important elements of formulation for some individuals, while being neither necessary nor sufficient explanations of offending.
Methodology
The study used a quantitative, cross-sectional, correlational design to examine associations between adverse childhood experiences, negative life events in adulthood, paranoid thinking, and rule-breaking behaviour. Data were collected through an online self-report survey, with adults aged 18 and over recruited through social media using convenience sampling. Participants completed questionnaires assessing adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), negative life events, paranoid thinking, and antisocial or rule-breaking behaviour.
Before analysis, the responses were screened for missing data and potential outliers. Responses with insufficient data for the analyses were excluded, leaving a final sample of 138 participants (M age = 31.50 years, SD = 11.82). The data were analysed using Jamovi. Correlational analyses and multiple regression models were used to examine associations between the study variables and their statistical contribution to different dimensions of rule-breaking behaviour. As the study was cross-sectional and relied on self-reported data, the findings cannot establish causal relationships.
Several methodological limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings. The study relied on self-reported data and convenience sampling, and the sample consisted predominantly of Romanian participants, with some participants from the UK. Potential confounding variables were not fully controlled. In addition, the cross-sectional design limits conclusions about temporal relationships between childhood adversity, negative life events in adulthood, paranoid thinking, and rule-breaking behaviour.
What My Research Found
The findings revealed associations between childhood adversity, negative life events in adulthood, and several dimensions of rule-breaking behaviour. The relationships with paranoid thinking, however, were more limited, suggesting that these psychological outcomes should not be treated as part of a single, predictable pathway.
ACEs were positively associated with negative life events in adulthood (ρ = .32). They were also associated with group-related rule-breaking (ρ = .30), violence (ρ = .19), sanctions (ρ = .29), low-prevalence rule-breaking (ρ = .40), and high-prevalence rule-breaking (ρ = .28). Negative life events in adulthood were likewise associated with multiple rule-breaking dimensions, including violence (ρ = .36) and high-prevalence rule-breaking (ρ = .35).
The regression analyses provided a more differentiated picture. ACEs were particularly relevant to low-prevalence rule-breaking, while negative life events were a significant predictor of violence. Both childhood adversity and later negative experiences contributed to the prediction of some other rule-breaking dimensions.
The findings on paranoid thinking help clarify the limits of a simple explanation linking adversity to later behaviour. Although adverse childhood experiences were positively associated with persecutory thinking (ρ = .20), negative life events in adulthood were not significantly associated with either ideas of reference or persecution. Furthermore, the overall regression models predicting paranoid-thinking dimensions were not statistically significant, although adverse childhood experiences independently predicted persecution at the significance threshold used in the study. These findings suggest that the relationships observed for rule-breaking behaviour did not extend in the same way to paranoid thinking. Different outcomes may involve different mechanisms, and associations observed across a sample cannot determine why a particular individual behaved in a particular way.
Vulnerability Is Not Inevitability
A trauma-informed criminal justice approach must avoid replacing one stereotype with another. It would be harmful to move from seeing offending simply as “bad behaviour” to assuming that people with trauma histories are inherently risky. Trauma exposure is common, while serious offending is comparatively uncommon (Hughes et al., 2017). Resilience, relationships, opportunities, social support, and individual coping resources can substantially alter developmental trajectories (Bonanno, 2004).
The same caution applies to paranoid or suspicious thinking. Experiencing such thoughts does not make someone inherently violent. Although research has examined associations between paranoid ideation and violence at population level, these relationships are complex and cannot be used as individual predictions (Coid et al., 2016). Stigma can itself become a barrier to help-seeking and effective intervention.
A more defensible model is probabilistic. Adversity may increase vulnerability to certain emotional, cognitive, or behavioural responses. Later stress can intensify some vulnerabilities. Social circumstances can either buffer or amplify them. Protective relationships and effective intervention can redirect trajectories. Risk is therefore dynamic rather than an identity.
What Trauma-Informed Criminal Justice Can Look Like
Trauma-informed practice is sometimes misunderstood as being permissive (HM Inspectorate of Probation & McCartan, 2020). In reality, psychologically informed accountability can be more demanding than punishment alone because it asks both what happened and what must change. In rehabilitation, this may mean addressing offence-supportive beliefs and behavioural risk while also recognising emotional dysregulation, shame, mistrust, or trauma-related coping strategies that could interfere with treatment.
Trauma-oriented approaches to offender recovery have argued for integrating developmental and trauma histories into rehabilitation rather than treating offending as disconnected from a person’s wider psychological functioning (Gueta et al., 2022). This does not mean that trauma treatment should replace established risk assessment or offence-focused work. The two perspectives can be complementary.
For example, a person who reacts aggressively to perceived disrespect may need clear work around responsibility, consequences, and alternative behaviour. A trauma-informed formulation might additionally examine why particular cues are experienced as threatening, how quickly arousal escalates, what beliefs become activated, and which strategies could interrupt the sequence before behaviour occurs.
In custodial and community settings, predictability can also matter. Clear boundaries, consistent communication, and transparent decision-making may reduce unnecessary uncertainty for people whose histories have involved instability or interpersonal threat. Again, this is not about removing limits. Predictable limits can themselves contribute to psychological safety.
The Case for Earlier Intervention
Perhaps the strongest implication of trauma-informed thinking lies before a person reaches the criminal justice system. If adversity can contribute to vulnerability through emotional regulation, threat perception, coping, or interpersonal functioning, these mechanisms provide possible targets for earlier intervention.
Schools, mental health services, family support, and youth services may encounter distress long before it is described as offending. Behaviour that appears oppositional or disruptive may sometimes function as avoidance, self-protection, an attempt to regain control, or a response to perceived threat. Professionals still need boundaries and safeguarding procedures, but curiosity about function can sit alongside them.
Interventions addressing childhood traumatic stress, family relationships, and coping may help strengthen protective processes (Flynn et al., 2015). Early support cannot prevent every later difficulty, and trauma-informed practice should never promise that it can. Its value lies in expanding the number of opportunities at which a harmful developmental trajectory might be interrupted.
A More Complete Account of Responsibility
Criminal justice inevitably deals with responsibility. Trauma psychology deals, in part, with vulnerability. These concepts do not need to compete. A psychologically informed system can recognise that a person is responsible for harmful behaviour while also asking which developmental and contextual factors are relevant to reducing the likelihood that the behaviour happens again.
My findings support caution rather than a simple causal story. Childhood adversity and adult negative life experiences were associated with several forms of rule-breaking, but the relationships with paranoid thinking were different and weaker. Still, the broader question remains important. If criminal justice responds only to the final behaviour, it may miss mechanisms that matter for prevention and rehabilitation. If it focuses only on trauma, it may neglect agency, accountability, and criminogenic needs. Trauma-informed thinking is most useful between these extremes: not as an excuse, diagnosis, or prediction, but as one component of a fuller understanding of risk, vulnerability, and change.
References
Appiah-Kusi, E., Fisher, H. L., Petros, N., Wilson, R., Mondelli, V., Garety, P., McGuire, P., & Bhattacharyya, S. (2017). Do cognitive schema mediate the association between childhood trauma and being at ultra-high risk for psychosis? Journal of Psychiatric Research, 88, 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2017.01.003
Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.20
Coid, J. W., Ullrich, S., Bebbington, P., Fazel, S., & Keers, R. (2016). Paranoid ideation and violence: Meta-analysis of individual subject data of 7 population surveys. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 42(4), 907–915. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbw006
Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social-information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1146–1158. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1146
Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., Koss, M. P., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8
Flynn, A. B., Fothergill, K. E., Wilcox, H. C., Coleclough, E., Horwitz, R., Ruble, A., Burkey, M. D., & Wissow, L. S. (2015). Primary care interventions to prevent or treat traumatic stress in childhood: A systematic review. Academic Pediatrics, 15(5), 480–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2015.06.012
Freeman, D., Garety, P. A., Kuipers, E., Fowler, D., & Bebbington, P. E. (2002). A cognitive model of persecutory delusions. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41(4), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466502760387461
Garety, P. A., Kuipers, E., Fowler, D., Freeman, D., & Bebbington, P. E. (2001). A cognitive model of the positive symptoms of psychosis. Psychological Medicine, 31(2), 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291701003312
Gueta, K., Chen, G., & Ronel, N. (2022). Trauma-oriented recovery framework with offenders: A necessary missing link in offenders’ rehabilitation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 63, 101678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2021.101678
HM Inspectorate of Probation, & McCartan, K. F. (2020). Academic Insights 2020/05: Trauma-informed practice. https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2020/07/Academic-Insights-McCartan.pdf
Hughes, K., Bellis, M. A., Hardcastle, K. A., Sethi, D., Butchart, A., Mikton, C., Jones, L., & Dunne, M. P. (2017). The effect of multiple adverse childhood experiences on health: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Public Health, 2(8), e356–e366. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(17)30118-4
