The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

EditorialsFull Access

Maternal Perinatal Stress Associated With Offspring Negative Emotionality, But the Underlying Mechanisms Remain Elusive

Anxiety and depression—the internalizing disorders—typically emerge in the first three decades of life (1, 2). They are among the most prevalent and burdensome mental illnesses, affecting ∼580 million individuals worldwide (3, 4). In the United States, nearly one in three individuals will experience an anxiety disorder in their lifetime (5), and one in five will experience a depressive disorder (6). Direct spending on anxiety and depression treatment exceeds $100 billion annually (7). Existing treatments are far from curative for many, fueling the search for new etiological insights and new targets for intervention (814).

The roots of internalizing illness extend into the earliest chapters of human development, when the brain and behavior are likely most plastic. There is ample evidence that caregiver behavior in the first half decade of life can have a profound and enduring impact on both neurobiological and psychological development and, ultimately, on lifelong health and well-being (1517). The consistent provision of supportive, sensitive, and engaged care is essential for healthy emotional development and provides a buffer against the potentially toxic effects of childhood challenges, setbacks, and adversities (15, 18). Not surprisingly, clinicians and researchers have shown a long-standing interest in understanding the role of parents and other caregivers in the development, treatment, and prevention of internalizing disorders (16). Recent work highlights the potentially important role of perinatal caregiver stress in promoting child psychopathology, but the exact nature of this association remains unclear (15, 19).

From this perspective, the new report from Marr and colleagues in this issue of the Journal is a welcome addition to the literature (20). Leveraging a composite index of maternal stress that was repeatedly assessed across pregnancy and the early postnatal period in a small but demographically diverse sample of American mothers (N=115), the authors used an innovative machine-learning approach and identified—in a completely data-driven way—six distinct patterns of perinatal maternal stress (21). Two of the patterns predominantly reflected overall differences in stress severity, effectively clustering the mothers into groups with comparatively high or low levels of stress. The other four patterns reflected differences in the temporal dynamics of perinatal stress. Here, the mothers were split into groups characterized by distinct stress trajectories, including a middle-pregnancy peak (trajectory 2), a late-pregnancy peak (trajectory 1), a middle- and late-pregnancy trough (trajectory 3), and an inverted-U-shaped pattern (trajectory 4). Follow-up analyses demonstrated that the four stress-trajectory groups were demographically indistinguishable, suggesting that this novel classification might provide a useful additional source of information about children’s early-life experience. But are the trajectories a reproducible feature of maternal experience or simply an idiosyncratic feature of the data at hand? A key strength of Marr and colleagues’ study was the use of a second, much larger sample of Finnish mothers (N=2,156) to address this key question. Of the four stress trajectories identified in the U.S. sample, trajectories 1, 2, and 3 were replicated in the Finnish sample.

To clarify the consequences of mothers’ perinatal stress on their infant’s emotional development, Marr and colleagues modeled prospective associations between the replicable stress patterns and longitudinal measures of infant negative emotionality that were acquired over the first 2 years of life (22). Negative emotionality is a particularly interesting phenotype because children who are prone to feelings of fear, irritability, and sadness are more likely to develop internalizing disorders and other forms of psychopathology as they age (16, 2325). Latent growth curve analyses indicated that the average level of infant negative emotionality showed a developmentally appropriate increase across the first year of life, before declining in the second (26). Among the stress patterns examined, trajectory 3 (a trough in maternal stress during middle and late pregnancy) was uniquely associated with longitudinal changes in negative emotionality of the offspring. Follow-up analyses demonstrated that the infants of mothers in the trajectory 3 group showed significantly lower levels of negative emotionality than those in the other groups by the end of their first year. Consistent with the American results, the offspring of mothers in Finland with the same longitudinal pattern of stress (trajectory 3) showed consistently dampened levels of negative emotionality across their first 2 years, with the differences reaching significance at ages 6, 12, and 24 months. In short, American and Finnish mothers reporting a trough in stress during the middle and late stages of pregnancy gave birth to children with lower levels of dispositional fear, shyness, anger, and sadness as infants and toddlers, and this prospective association could not be explained by demographic confounders, the average severity of maternal stress experienced during pregnancy, or the intensity of maternal stress during the postpartum follow-up period. These observations—which capitalize on over 2,000 families, drawn from two continents and intensively studied for nearly 3 years—motivate the hypothesis that diminished levels of maternal stress in the later stages of pregnancy foster the development of children who are less likely to develop emotional disorders later in life. These findings reinforce the idea that “timing matters” when it comes to early-life stress and are well aligned with recent commentaries emphasizing the importance of parsing heterogeneity in both the nature and the developmental timing of stress for understanding psychopathology (15, 2730).

At first blush, Marr and colleagues’ findings seem to reinforce calls for an increased investment in interventions aimed at strengthening early-life caregiving and maternal well-being (15), but they also raise questions about whom to target. On the one hand, across the six perinatal stress patterns identified by Marr’s team, only trajectory 3—experienced by less than a quarter of the American mothers (22.6%)—was consistently associated with variation in offspring temperament, after controlling for ongoing levels of postpartum maternal stress. On the other hand, in analyses that did not control for postpartum maternal stress, the overall severity of perinatal stress was associated with significantly elevated infant negative emotionality. Taken together, these findings suggest that mothers who report chronically high levels of stress, either before or after giving birth, have children who are at greater risk for developing emotional disorders. The latter results are consistent with a wealth of other work and motivate the development and refinement of targeted, universal, and public-policy interventions (15, 19). Of course, as in nearly all prospective, longitudinal research studies, Marr and colleagues’ observations do not permit causal inferences. In addition to their immense practical value, well-designed intervention studies would afford a crucial opportunity to test whether reducing mothers’ perinatal stress is associated with positive consequences for infant temperament and, ultimately, mental health.

Marr and colleagues’ results raise a host of challenging questions for future research. Are the observed changes in early-life temperament associated with meaningful differences in the children’s emotional health in adolescence and emerging adulthood? Are the offspring of mothers who experience the middle- and late-pregnancy trough in stress, for instance, less likely to develop internalizing disorders? How exactly might subtle nuances in the dynamics of perinatal stress shape children’s early-life emotional development? Are similar associations evident for fathers? To what extent are these prospective phenotypic associations a consequence of genetic confounding (3133)? What exactly is meant by “stress” in this context? After all, the composite index of perinatal stress used in the American sample reflected a mixture of mood and anxiety symptoms; neuroticism; perceptions of uncertainty, uncontrollability, and overloading; difficulties coping with or regulating distress; and exposure to strains, hassles, and negative life events. Unpacking this conceptual complexity and demonstrating incremental validity over straightforward measures of maternal temperament and internalizing symptoms are important avenues for future research (34).

From a neurobiological angle, we might wonder how maternal stress “gets under the skin” to shape the development of the neural circuitry underlying negative emotionality in the offspring. Marr and colleagues provide a preliminary answer to this question. Leveraging fMRI data collected from a subset of the American infants at 1 month of age, they investigated potential differences in the intrinsic functional connectivity of the amygdala. The amygdala is particularly relevant because it is implicated in the development of anxiety and depression (3537), is thought to mediate the impact of early-life adversities on negative emotionality (38), and shows a protracted course of postnatal development (39, 40). Among other findings, Marr and colleagues’ results suggest that the infants of mothers experiencing a trough in stress during middle and late pregnancy (trajectory 3) showed stronger functional connectivity between the amygdala and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, a region thought to play a mechanistically important role in processing safety cues; biasing the amygdala; and regulating fear, anxiety, and other negative emotions (41). This prospective association between maternal stress and infant brain function remained significant while controlling for the overall severity of perinatal stress, the other three maternal stress trajectories, and nuisance variance in gestational age at birth and infant age at the time of scanning. Collecting usable fMRI data from children is notoriously difficult, and the authors are to be commended for what was, in all likelihood, a Herculean scientific exercise (42). Nevertheless, it is clear that these findings—which capitalize on just 5.5 minutes of imaging data acquired from 60 infants who were further categorized, on the basis of their mothers’ perinatal stress patterns, into six subgroups (N=9–32) (M. Marr, personal communication, July 16, 2023)—represent a provisional hypothesis that will need to be rigorously replicated in larger and more nationally representative samples (43, 44). Addressing this challenge is likely to be facilitated by pooling data via new or existing biobanks (e.g., Healthy Brain and Child Development Study [HBCD]) or research consortia (e.g., Enhancing Neuroimaging Genetics Through Meta-Analysis [ENIGMA]). It is also worth remembering that the amygdala is a heterogeneous collection of nuclei linked by a network of microcircuits (45). Understanding the relevance of the amygdala to early-life stress and psychiatric risk requires that future studies more fully embrace this neuroanatomical complexity. Adopting more precise definitions of stress (4648) and developing integrative cross-species models will also be crucial for understanding the molecular and cellular mechanisms that link variation in maternal experience to childhood mental health and disease (4952).

Internalizing symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment seeking are surging among youths and young adults (5356), drawing the attention of clinicians, scientists, insurers, and policymakers—from the Surgeon General to the President of the United States (5759). Although the underlying mechanisms remain elusive, Marr and colleagues’ study underscores the importance of developing a more complete understanding of the role that perinatal stress plays in the development of internalizing illness. Addressing this challenge will require a greater emphasis on mechanistically informative studies—including intervention, quasi-experimental, and genetic approaches—and the investment of resources commensurate with the established importance of children’s early emotional development for their lifelong health and well-being (1517, 33, 60).

Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and Cognitive Science Program, and Maryland Neuroimaging Center, University of Maryland, College Park (Shackman); Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. (Gee).
Send correspondence to Dr. Shackman () and Dr. Gee ().

Supported in part by NIH grants AA030042, MH131264, MH121409, DA041174, and MH115113; National Science Foundation grants 2145372 and 2145372; and University of Maryland, College Park.

The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.

The authors acknowledge assistance and critical feedback from K. DeYoung, E. Fried, L. Friedman, H. Goldsmith, G. Hancock, N. Kalin, M. Marr, and J. Smith.


1. Lee FS, Heimer H, Giedd JN, et al.: Adolescent mental health: opportunity and obligation. Science 2014; 346:547–549Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

2. Solmi M, Radua J, Olivola M, et al.: Age at onset of mental disorders worldwide: large-scale meta-analysis of 192 epidemiological studies. Mol Psychiatry 2022; 27:281–295Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

3. Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019 Mental Disorders Collaborators: Global, regional, and national burden of 12 mental disorders in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Psychiatry 2022; 9:137–150Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

4. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation: Global Burden of Disease Compare: Global Causes of Years Lived with Disability, 2019. Seattle, University of Washington, 2023. Google Scholar

5. National Comorbidity Study–Replication: Lifetime Prevalence of DSM-IV/WMH-CIDI Disorders by Sex and Cohort. 2007. Google Scholar

6. Hasin DS, Sarvet AL, Meyers JL, et al.: Epidemiology of adult DSM-5 major depressive disorder and its specifiers in the United States. JAMA Psychiatry 2018; 75:336–346Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

7. Dieleman JL, Cao J, Chapin A, et al.: US health care spending by payer and health condition, 1996-2016. JAMA 2020; 323:863–884Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

8. Craske MG, Stein MB, Eley TC, et al.: Anxiety disorders. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2017; 3:17024Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

9. Otte C, Gold SM, Penninx BW, et al.: Major depressive disorder. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2016; 2:16065Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

10. Garakani A, Murrough JW, Freire RC, et al.: Pharmacotherapy of anxiety disorders: current and emerging treatment options. Front Psychiatry 2020; 11:595584Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

11. Sartori SB, Singewald N: Novel pharmacological targets in drug development for the treatment of anxiety and anxiety-related disorders. Pharmacol Ther 2019; 204:107402Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

12. James AC, Reardon T, Soler A, et al.: Cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 11:CD013162MedlineGoogle Scholar

13. Ginsburg GS, Becker-Haimes EM, Keeton C, et al.: Results from the Child/Adolescent Anxiety Multimodal Extended Long-Term Study (CAMELS): primary anxiety outcomes. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2018; 57:471–480Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

14. Singewald N, Sartori SB, Reif A, et al.: Alleviating anxiety and taming trauma: novel pharmacotherapeutics for anxiety disorders and posttraumatic stress disorder. Neuropharmacology 2023; 226:109418Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

15. Luby JL, Rogers C, McLaughlin KA: Environmental conditions to promote healthy childhood brain/behavioral development: informing early preventive interventions for delivery in routine care. Biol Psychiatry Glob Open Sci 2022; 2:233–241Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

16. Rapee RM, Creswell C, Kendall PC, et al.: Anxiety disorders in children and adolescents: a summary and overview of the literature. Behav Res Ther 2023; 168:104376 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

17. Gee DG, Cohodes EM: Caregiving influences on development: a sensitive period for biological embedding of predictability and safety cues. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2021; 30:376–383Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

18. Kahhalé I, Barry KR, Hanson JL: Positive parenting moderates associations between childhood stress and corticolimbic structure. PNAS Nexus 2023; 2:pgad145Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

19. Van den Bergh BRH, van den Heuvel MI, Lahti M, et al.: Prenatal developmental origins of behavior and mental health: the influence of maternal stress in pregnancy. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2020; 117:26–64Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

20. Marr MC, Graham AM, Feczko E, et al.: Maternal perinatal stress trajectories and negative affect and amygdala development in offspring. Am J Psychiatry 2023; 180:766–777 AbstractGoogle Scholar

21. Feczko E, Miranda-Dominguez O, Marr M, et al.: The heterogeneity problem: approaches to identify psychiatric subtypes. Trends Cogn Sci 2019; 23:584–601Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

22. Shiner RL: What are the dimensions and bases for lasting individual differences in emotion? in The Nature of Emotion, 2nd ed. Edited by Fox AS, Lapate RC, Shackman AJ, et al.. New York, Oxford University Press, 2018, pp 61–64 Google Scholar

23. Klein DN, Dougherty LR, Kessel EM, et al.: A transdiagnostic perspective on youth irritability. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2021; 30:437–443Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

24. Tan E, Zeytinoglu S, Morales S, et al.: Social versus non-social behavioral inhibition: differential prediction from early childhood of long-term psychosocial outcomes. Dev Sci (Online ahead of print, June 22, 2023)Google Scholar

25. Fox AS, Kalin NH: A translational neuroscience approach to understanding the development of social anxiety disorder and its pathophysiology. Am J Psychiatry 2014; 171:1162–1173LinkGoogle Scholar

26. Beesdo K, Knappe S, Pine DS: Anxiety and anxiety disorders in children and adolescents: developmental issues and implications for DSM-V. Psychiatr Clin North Am 2009; 32:483–524 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

27. Gee DG: Early adversity and development: parsing heterogeneity and identifying pathways of risk and resilience. Am J Psychiatry 2021; 178:998–1013LinkGoogle Scholar

28. Cohodes EM, Kitt ER, Baskin-Sommers A, et al.: Influences of early-life stress on frontolimbic circuitry: harnessing a dimensional approach to elucidate the effects of heterogeneity in stress exposure. Dev Psychobiol 2021; 63:153–172Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

29. McLaughlin KA, Sheridan MA, Humphreys KL, et al.: The value of dimensional models of early experience: thinking clearly about concepts and categories. Perspect Psychol Sci 2021; 16:1463–1472Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

30. Smith KE, Pollak SD: Rethinking concepts and categories for understanding the neurodevelopmental effects of childhood adversity. Perspect Psychol Sci 2021; 16:67–93Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

31. Scarr S, McCartney K: How people make their own environments: a theory of genotype greater than environment effects. Child Dev 1983; 54:424–435MedlineGoogle Scholar

32. Hart SA, Little C, van Bergen E: Nurture might be nature: cautionary tales and proposed solutions. NPJ Sci Learn 2021; 6:2Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

33. Rice F: The intergenerational transmission of anxiety disorders and major depression. Am J Psychiatry 2022; 179:596–598LinkGoogle Scholar

34. Shackman AJ, Fox AS: Getting serious about variation: lessons for clinical neuroscience (a commentary on “The myth of optimality in clinical neuroscience”). Trends Cogn Sci 2018; 22:368–369Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

35. Grogans SE, Fox AS, Shackman AJ: The amygdala and depression: a sober reconsideration. Am J Psychiatry 2022; 179:454–457LinkGoogle Scholar

36. Hur J, Stockbridge MD, Fox AS, et al.: Dispositional negativity, cognition, and anxiety disorders: an integrative translational neuroscience framework. Prog Brain Res 2019; 247:375–436Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

37. Shackman AJ, Fox AS: Two decades of anxiety neuroimaging research: new insights and a look to the future. Am J Psychiatry 2021; 178:106–109LinkGoogle Scholar

38. Fox AS, Oler JA, Shackman AJ, et al.: Intergenerational neural mediators of early-life anxious temperament. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2015; 112:9118–9122Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

39. Avino TA, Barger N, Vargas MV, et al.: Neuron numbers increase in the human amygdala from birth to adulthood, but not in autism. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2018; 115:3710–3715Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

40. Chareyron LJ, Banta Lavenex P, Amaral DG, et al.: Life and death of immature neurons in the juvenile and adult primate amygdala. Int J Mol Sci 2021; 22:6691Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

41. Tashjian SM, Zbozinek TD, Mobbs D: A decision architecture for safety computations. Trends Cogn Sci 2021; 25:342–354Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

42. Pfeifer JH, Allen NB, Byrne ML, et al.: Modeling developmental change: contemporary approaches to key methodological challenges in developmental neuroimaging. Dev Cogn Neurosci 2018; 33:1–4Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

43. Marek S, Tervo-Clemmens B, Calabro FJ, et al.: Reproducible brain-wide association studies require thousands of individuals. Nature 2022; 603:654–660Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

44. LeWinn KZ, Sheridan MA, Keyes KM, et al.: Sample composition alters associations between age and brain structure. Nat Commun 2017; 8:874Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

45. Fox AS, Oler JA, Tromp DPM, et al.: Extending the amygdala in theories of threat processing. Trends Neurosci 2015; 38:319–329Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

46. Kagan J: Why stress remains an ambiguous concept: reply to McEwen and McEwen (2016) and Cohen et al (2016). Perspect Psychol Sci 2016; 11:464–465Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

47. Kagan J: An overly permissive extension. Perspect Psychol Sci 2016; 11:442–450Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

48. Fox AS, Lapate RC, Davidson RJ, et al.: The nature of emotion: a research agenda for the 21st century; in The Nature of Emotion Fundamental Questions, 2nd ed. Edited by Fox AS, Lapate RC, Shackman AJ, et al.. New York, Oxford University Press, 2018, pp 403–417 Google Scholar

49. Fox AS, Shackman AJ: The central extended amygdala in fear and anxiety: closing the gap between mechanistic and neuroimaging research. Neurosci Lett 2019; 693:58–67Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

50. Meyer HC, Odriozola P, Cohodes EM, et al.: Ventral hippocampus interacts with prelimbic cortex during inhibition of threat response via learned safety in both mice and humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2019; 116:26970–26979Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

51. Callaghan B, Meyer H, Opendak M, et al.: Using a developmental ecology framework to align fear neurobiology across species. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2019; 15:345–369Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

52. Meyer HC, Fields A, Vannucci A, et al.: The added value of crosstalk between developmental circuit neuroscience and clinical practice to inform the treatment of adolescent anxiety. Biol Psychiatry Glob Open Sci 2022; 3:169–178Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

53. Brody DJ, Gu Q: Antidepressant use among adults: United States, 2015–2018. National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief 2020; 377:1–8 Google Scholar

54. Binkley C, Fenn L: Colleges Struggle with Soaring Student Demand for Counseling. Associated Press, November 19, 2019. Google Scholar

55. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: Results from the 2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States:. Rockville, Md, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, 2019 Google Scholar

56. Underwood JM, Brener N, Thornton J, et al.: Overview and methods for the youth risk behavior surveillance system: United States, 2019. MMWR Suppl 2020; 69:1–10Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

57. Office of the President of the United States: President Biden to Announce Strategy to Address Our National Mental Health Crisis, as Part of Unity Agenda in His First State of the Union. Washington, DC, White House, 2022. Google Scholar

58. US Surgeon General: Protecting Youth Mental Health: The US Surgeon General’s Advisory. Washington, DC, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2021. Google Scholar

59. BlueCross BlueShield: New Research Underscores Mental Health Challenges Facing American Youth. Chicago, BlueCross BlueShield, 2023. Google Scholar

60. Ridley M, Rao G, Schilbach F, et al.: Poverty, depression, and anxiety: causal evidence and mechanisms. Science 2020; 370:eaay0214Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar