Descriptive information on the subsamples being exposed or unexposed to childhood adversity

Operationalization of childhood adversity in different theoretical approaches and challenges of their statistical translation

Illustration of CS discrimination in SCRs during acquisition training (A-B) and generalization phase (C-D) for individuals unexposed (gray) and exposed (pink) to childhood adversity. Barplots (A and C) with error bars represent means and standard errors of the means (SEMs). Distributions of the data are illustrated in the raincloud plots (B and D). Points next to the densities represent CS discrimination of each participant averaged across phases. Boxes of boxplots represent the interquartile range (IQR) crossed by the median as a bold line, ends of whiskers represent the minimum/maximum value in the data within the range of 25th/75th percentiles ±1.5 IQR. For trial-by-trial SCRs across all phases, see Supplementary Figure 4. log = log-transformed, rc = range-corrected.

Illustration of SCRs during acquisition training (A-B) and the generalization phase (C-D) for individuals unexposed (gray) and exposed (pink) to childhood adversity separated by stimulus types (CS+ dark shades, CS-: light shades). Barplots (A and C) with error bars represent means and SEMs. Distributions of the data are illustrated in the raincloud plots (B and D). Points next to the densities represent SCRs of each participant as a function of stimulus type averaged across phases. Boxes of boxplots represent the IQR crossed by the median as a bold line, ends of whiskers represent the minimum/maximum value in the data within the range of 25th/75th percentiles ±1.5 IQR. CS = conditioned stimulus, log = log-transformed, rc = range-corrected.

Results of t-tests comparing CS discrimination, the linear deviation score (i.e., strength of generalization), and general reactivity between exposed and unexposed participants

Illustration of SCRs to the different stimulus types during the generalization phase (i.e., generalization gradients) for individuals unexposed (gray) and exposed (pink) to childhood adversity. Ribbons represent SEMs. CS = conditioned stimulus, GS = generalization stimuli with gradual perceptual similarity to the CS+ and CS-, respectively. log = log-transformed, rc = range-corrected. * p < .05.

Illustration of general reactivity in SCRs across all experimental phases for individuals unexposed (gray) and exposed (pink) to childhood adversity. Barplots (A) with error bars represent means and SEMs. Distributions of the data are illustrated in the raincloud plots (B). Points next to the densities represent the general reactivity of each participant averaged across all phases. Boxes of boxplots represent the interquartile range IQR crossed by the median as a bold line, ends of whiskers represent the minimum/maximum value in the data within the range of 25th/75th percentiles ±1.5 IQR.

Means and standard errors of the mean of CS discrimination in SCRs during acquisition training (A) and the generalization phase (B), Linear deviation score (LDS) (C), and general reactivity in SCRs (D) for the four CTQ severity groups respectively. The dashed line indicates the moderate CTQ cut-off frequently used in the literature and hence also employed in our main analyses: On a descriptive level, CS discrimination in SCRs during acquisition training and generalization test as well as the strength of generalization (i.e., LDS) and the general reactivity are lower in all groups exposed to childhood adversity at an at least moderate level as compared to those with no or low exposure - which corresponds to the main analyses (see above). log = log-transformed, rc = range-corrected.

Scatterplots with marginal densities illustrating the associations between the number of CTQ subscales exceeding a moderate or higher cut-off (Häuser et al., 2011) and CS discrimination in SCRs (A) as well as SCRs to the CS+ (B) and CS- (C) during acquisition training. log = log-transformed, rc = range-corrected.

Scatterplots with marginal densities illustrating the associations between CTQ composite scores of abuse (left panel) and neglect (right panel) and CS discrimination in SCRs (A and B) as well as SCRs to the CS+ (C and D) and CS- (E and F) during acquisition training. Note that the different ranges of CTQ composite scores result from summing up two and three subscales for the neglect and abuse composite scores, respectively (see also Table 2 for more details). log = log-transformed, rc = range-corrected, R squ. = R squared.