Positive Childhood Experiences: Protective Relationships, Resilience, and Lifelong Health
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 22, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Positive childhood experiences (PCEs) are supportive, safe, stable, nurturing, and socially meaningful experiences that can occur in families, schools, peer groups, neighborhoods, and communities. Research increasingly links them with better mental health, stronger relational functioning, healthier development, and some favorable physical-health and behavioral outcomes across the life course. At the same time, the science is younger and less standardized than the adverse childhood experiences (ACE) literature: researchers use several PCE frameworks and questionnaires, study designs are heterogeneous, and many findings are associations rather than demonstrations of causality. Recent systematic reviews therefore support taking PCEs seriously while resisting the idea that a single checklist can measure how “protected” or “resilient” a person is (Han et al., 2023; Kallapiran et al., 2025; Raghunathan et al., 2024).
The central finding is more nuanced than the popular idea that positive experiences simply cancel negative ones. PCEs and childhood adversity can coexist. In a systematic review of 58 studies, positive experiences and adversity were only modestly inversely related, and most studies found a direct, promotive association between PCEs and favorable adult outcomes rather than a consistent statistical interaction in which PCEs erased or neutralized the effects of adversity (Han et al., 2023). A child can experience adversity and also have loving adults, supportive friends, meaningful traditions, a sense of belonging, or safe places. Those positive experiences matter, but they do not make the adversity unreal.
What Are Positive Childhood Experiences?
Positive childhood experiences are experiences during childhood or adolescence that provide or reflect relational support, felt safety, belonging, stability, opportunities for participation, and environments that support development. Different research traditions use overlapping terms such as positive childhood experiences, benevolent childhood experiences, protective and compensatory experiences, and positive relational or community experiences. These labels are related, but they are not perfectly interchangeable because the instruments behind them include different items and theoretical assumptions (Raghunathan et al., 2024).
The construct is broader than “having a happy childhood.” A childhood can contain love and conflict, security and instability, belonging and exclusion, or different experiences in different settings. Research measures usually ask about specific relational and environmental experiences rather than asking a person to give childhood one global emotional rating.
PCEs are also not identical to protective factors. A protective factor is a broader epidemiological or developmental concept: it is a characteristic, resource, relationship, or condition associated with lower risk or with better outcomes in the presence of risk. A PCE is an experienced aspect of childhood. Supportive caregiving can function as both a positive experience and a protective factor, while some protective factors—such as access to material resources, public services, or particular community conditions—may not be represented as an item on a PCE questionnaire.
PCEs are not the same thing as resilience. Resilience describes patterns or processes of adaptation under conditions of significant adversity or risk. It depends on interactions among individual capacities, relationships, institutions, resources, timing, and context. A high PCE count is therefore neither a diagnosis of resilience nor proof that a person will remain well under all later stress.
For a dedicated evidence review of adaptation after early adversity, protective factors, and why outcomes differ, see Resilience After Childhood Adversity: What Helps and Why Outcomes Differ.
PCEs are also distinct from the absence of trauma. A person can have few experiences captured by a PCE measure without having experienced a potentially traumatic event, and a person can have many PCEs while also having experienced serious adversity. Positive and adverse dimensions of childhood should be assessed as related but partly independent features of a developmental history.
The Seven PCEs: What the Widely Used Questionnaire Actually Measures
One widely cited PCE measure comes from a 2019 JAMA Pediatrics study using the 2015 Wisconsin Behavioral Risk Factor Survey. The study analyzed 6,188 adults and operationalized seven retrospectively reported experiences. Higher PCE levels were associated with lower odds of adult depression or poor mental health and higher odds of receiving needed social and emotional support, including after adjustment for ACE exposure and demographic variables (Bethell et al., 2019).
Feeling able to talk with family about feelings.
Feeling that family stood by you during difficult times.
Enjoying participation in community traditions.
Feeling a sense of belonging in high school.
Feeling supported by friends.
Having at least two non-parent adults who took a genuine interest in you.
Feeling safe and protected by an adult in the home.
These seven experiences are often reproduced online as “the seven PCEs,” but that phrasing can imply more scientific uniformity than actually exists. They are the seven items in an influential questionnaire, not a universal list of every beneficial childhood experience. Other validated or research-oriented instruments use different content, different numbers of items, and different developmental or ecological assumptions.
The original 2019 study was cross-sectional and retrospective. Adults reported childhood experiences and current outcomes at the same survey period. Statistical adjustment strengthens interpretation of the associations, but it cannot establish that a given number of PCEs caused an individual adult outcome. The questionnaire is a population-research measure; it is not a diagnostic test, a clinical prognosis tool, or a scale of how “healthy” someone’s childhood was (Bethell et al., 2019).
Other PCE Frameworks and Why the Lists Differ
The seven-item questionnaire is only one way to operationalize positive childhood experiences. The Benevolent Childhood Experiences (BCEs) Scale was developed as a 10-item retrospective measure intended to capture favorable experiences and resources across diverse backgrounds. Its initial pilot study examined psychometric properties in 101 pregnant women with histories of childhood adversity, and later work replicated aspects of its validity in another high-adversity population (Narayan et al., 2018; Merrick et al., 2019).
Another influential approach is the Health Outcomes from Positive Experiences (HOPE) framework. It organizes positive developmental experiences into broad domains: nurturing and supportive relationships; safe, stable, protective, and equitable environments; constructive social engagement and connectedness; and opportunities to develop social and emotional competencies (Sege & Harper Browne, 2017). This framework is useful for thinking beyond a narrow household checklist because childhood unfolds across families, schools, neighborhoods, peer networks, and community institutions.
Measurement remains a major scientific issue. A 2024 scoping review of 66 articles found substantial heterogeneity: the BCE scale was the most frequently used established measure, but many studies relied on ad hoc measures, and cumulative scoring was common. The authors concluded that more consistent operationalization is needed to improve comparison and interpretation across studies (Raghunathan et al., 2024). A 2026 Annual Review likewise emphasized continuing lack of consensus in the operationalization and measurement of both adverse and positive childhood experiences (Trejos & Kirby, 2026).
That measurement diversity is one reason the phrase “PCE score” needs context. A score is meaningful only in relation to the instrument, population, response options, and research question that produced it. A score from one PCE measure should not be treated as interchangeable with a score from another.
Positive Childhood Experiences and ACEs Are Related, but They Are Not Opposites
The strongest current synthesis rejects a simple seesaw model in which every positive experience subtracts one unit of harm from every adverse experience. In the 2023 systematic review by Han and colleagues, PCEs and childhood adversity were only modestly inversely associated. Many people reported both. Across studies, higher PCEs were more consistently associated with more favorable outcomes independent of adversity than they were shown to statistically buffer or moderate adversity-outcome associations (Han et al., 2023).
This distinction matters. A promotive association means that more PCEs are associated with a better outcome across levels of adversity. A protective or buffering effect is more specific: it means the relationship between adversity and an outcome changes depending on the level of the protective factor. A study can find a strong promotive association without finding a significant interaction.
Some studies do report moderation for particular outcomes and populations. For example, a large study of 8,864 eleventh-grade students in British Columbia during the COVID-19 pandemic found that more PCEs were associated with better mental health and well-being among adolescents with and without ACEs, and PCEs statistically moderated the association between ACEs and depressive symptoms (Samji et al., 2025). That result supports a protective pattern in that sample and for that outcome; it does not establish a universal buffering law.
For the same reason, subtracting a PCE count from an ACE count has no established clinical meaning. The two measures describe different domains. Neither score is a diagnosis, and their arithmetic difference is not an evidence-based estimate of risk, recovery, trauma severity, or future health.
What Does the Evidence Show?
Adult Mental Health and Relational Health
Evidence is most developed for adult mental health and psychosocial outcomes. The 2019 Wisconsin study found graded associations between the seven-item PCE measure and adult depression or poor mental health as well as adult-reported social and emotional support (Bethell et al., 2019). A systematic review of 58 studies subsequently concluded that PCEs were associated with more favorable mental health, psychosocial functioning, physical health and health behaviors, and psychosocial stress outcomes, with promotive associations appearing more consistently than adversity-by-PCE interactions (Han et al., 2023).
A later systematic review of 87 studies similarly found a broad pattern linking PCEs with favorable adult outcomes, while also documenting heterogeneity in measures, populations, and designs (Cunha et al., 2025). This growing convergence across reviews supports the scientific relevance of PCEs, but it does not make every observed association causal.
A nationally representative U.S. study using the Panel Study of Income Dynamics also found that a composite PCE score was associated with more favorable adult health outcomes after adjustment for ACEs (Huang et al., 2023). Because this analysis used retrospective reports of childhood conditions, it strengthens generalizability more than it establishes developmental causation.
Children and Adolescents
A systematic review focused specifically on children and adolescents included 30 studies. Higher PCE levels were generally associated with more favorable mental health, psychosocial, and academic outcomes; evidence for physical-health outcomes was more limited, and behavioral findings were mixed. Most included studies were recent, many were conducted in the United States, and most were nonrandomized, which limits causal conclusions (Sousa et al., 2026).
This literature is important because it shifts the evidence base away from relying only on adults’ retrospective memories. Even so, youth studies vary in who reports the experience, when it is measured, which domains are included, and how outcomes are defined. A supportive school climate, for example, may be both an individual experience and a property of an institution, depending on how a study measures it.
Longitudinal Evidence
Longitudinal evidence is especially valuable because the exposure is measured before at least some later outcomes. A 2025 systematic review identified eight publications from five longitudinal studies involving 16,451 participants. Across these studies, cumulative PCEs were associated with lower rates of outcomes including depression, substance use, delinquent behavior, risky sexual behavior, persistent insomnia, and lower inflammatory markers. The authors also identified possible moderating effects in some analyses (Kallapiran et al., 2025).
The longitudinal review strengthens temporal evidence, but it also shows how limited the field remains: eight publications derived from only five longitudinal studies cannot settle which experiences matter most, for whom, at what developmental periods, or through which pathways. Longitudinal association is stronger evidence than a same-time correlation, but it is not automatically an established causal relationship.
Physical Health and Biological Measures
PCE research increasingly includes physical-health outcomes and biological measures, but this part of the literature is less mature than the mental-health literature. Reviews have reported associations with sleep, self-rated health, some health behaviors, and selected inflammatory measures (Han et al., 2023; Kallapiran et al., 2025). These findings should be understood at the group level. They do not show that a particular childhood relationship biologically prevented or caused a specific disease in one adult.
The plausible pathways are multilevel: supportive relationships may affect stress appraisal and coping; safe environments can reduce exposure to ongoing threats; schools and communities can provide social, educational, and material resources; and belonging can influence behavior and help-seeking. These mechanisms can interact over time. Current evidence does not justify reducing PCEs to one hormone, one neural circuit, or a claim that positive experiences permanently “rewire” the brain.
Promotive Effects, Protective Effects, and Causality
PCE research often uses the words promotive, protective, compensatory, and buffering. They describe different statistical or theoretical ideas, and treating them as synonyms can exaggerate what a study has demonstrated.
A promotive factor is associated with a more favorable outcome across levels of risk. It can matter even when adversity is low.
A protective or buffering factor changes the association between risk and an outcome. In statistical studies, this is commonly tested as an interaction.
A mediator is part of a proposed pathway through which an exposure relates to an outcome. Demonstrating mediation statistically does not by itself establish a causal mechanism.
A moderator changes the strength or direction of an association. A moderator is not necessarily a cause.
Causal inference requires stronger assumptions and designs than observing an association, even when the association is graded or persists after covariate adjustment.
Across the adult literature, systematic review evidence currently favors a broad promotive interpretation more consistently than a universal buffering interpretation (Han et al., 2023). This does not make protective effects unimportant; it means that the claim should be specific to the population, outcome, measure, and design in which moderation was actually observed.
How Positive Childhood Experiences May Matter
The evidence supports several plausible developmental pathways, but no single mechanism explains all associations. PCEs tend to cluster within relational and social ecologies, so a child who experiences one form of support may also gain access to other resources.
Reliable, responsive relationships can provide co-regulation, practical help, models for communication, and people to turn to during stress. Peer support and school belonging can expand social identity and reduce isolation. Participation in community traditions can provide continuity, shared meaning, and connections to adults outside the immediate household. Safe environments reduce the burden of navigating danger while allowing attention and energy to be invested in learning, play, exploration, and relationships.
These pathways can accumulate. A caring teacher may connect a child to an extracurricular activity; that activity may create friendships and mentoring; those relationships may increase belonging and access to information or opportunities. A PCE item can therefore act as a marker of a wider relational or institutional context rather than as an isolated psychological ingredient.
This is also why causal claims are difficult. Family resources, neighborhood conditions, socioeconomic circumstances, health, temperament, cultural context, discrimination, school quality, and many other variables can influence both the likelihood of reporting PCEs and later outcomes. Good research adjusts for important confounders and uses longitudinal designs where possible, but residual confounding and measurement error remain relevant.
Positive Childhood Experiences, Resilience, and Recovery
Resilience is often invoked in discussions of PCEs, but it is best understood as a dynamic pattern of adaptation rather than a fixed trait or moral achievement. People adapt within systems of relationships, opportunities, material conditions, health, culture, institutions, and time. Two people with similar childhood histories can have different outcomes because their later environments and resources differ.
PCEs can be resources within resilience processes. Systematic reviews show that they are associated with more favorable outcomes in the context of adversity, yet the evidence does not support using PCE counts as a definitive measure of who is or is not resilient (Han et al., 2023; Kallapiran et al., 2025). A person who struggles after adversity has not “failed” at resilience, and a person who functions well does not prove that the adversity was harmless.
Recovery and adult well-being also remain open to later influences. Adult relationships, treatment when clinically indicated, education, work conditions, community connection, housing, economic resources, physical health, and new experiences can all shape trajectories after childhood. A childhood PCE questionnaire does not measure the full developmental system.
Structural and Community Conditions Are Part of the Picture
PCEs are sometimes presented as a parenting checklist, but population data show that opportunities for positive experiences are also shaped by social and community conditions. A 2024 CDC analysis of Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data from four U.S. states described variation in reported PCEs across demographic and socioeconomic groups and emphasized safe, stable, nurturing relationships and environments as a public-health concern (CDC, 2024).
This matters because belonging at school, access to trusted adults, neighborhood safety, participation in community traditions, and stable supportive relationships are not produced by individual willpower alone. They depend partly on institutions, community resources, family time and stability, discrimination or inclusion, transportation, housing, school climate, and opportunities for sustained participation.
A strengths-based approach therefore has two levels. Families and individual adults can cultivate supportive relationships, while schools, health systems, community organizations, and public institutions can change whether supportive environments are consistently available. Treating PCEs only as private family behavior misses that ecological dimension.
What PCE Research Cannot Tell You About One Person
PCE research is useful for identifying population patterns. It becomes misleading when group-level associations are translated into an individual destiny.
A PCE score does not diagnose mental health, trauma, attachment, resilience, or any clinical disorder.
A low PCE score does not prove that someone had a traumatic childhood.
A high PCE score does not prove that childhood adversity had no effect.
No evidence-based formula allows a PCE count to be subtracted from an ACE count to produce a net childhood-risk score.
A statistical dose-response pattern does not provide a precise prognosis for an individual.
Retrospective reports can be influenced by memory, interpretation, current circumstances, and the wording of questions.
Cumulative scores give equal numerical weight to items that may differ greatly in meaning, timing, duration, and context.
Measures developed in one population may not capture culturally important positive experiences in another population.
Observational associations can persist after adjustment and still reflect residual confounding, selection, measurement limitations, or multiple interacting pathways.
These limitations are not reasons to dismiss PCE science. They are reasons to interpret it at the level the evidence supports. Recent reviews explicitly identify heterogeneity and measurement standardization as major priorities for the field (Raghunathan et al., 2024; Trejos & Kirby, 2026).
Can Adults Create More Positive Childhood Experiences for Children?
Many experiences represented in PCE frameworks are actionable, although they are not fully under one adult’s control. The practical goal is not to manufacture a perfect childhood or maximize a score. It is to increase the frequency, reliability, and accessibility of supportive relationships and environments.
The HOPE framework offers one useful organizing model: nurturing and supportive relationships; safe, stable, protective, and equitable environments; constructive social engagement and connectedness; and opportunities for social and emotional development (Sege & Harper Browne, 2017). These domains can be translated into ordinary practices without treating them as a clinical prescription.
Make room for conversations about feelings without requiring children to disclose on demand.
Respond predictably enough that children know which adults can be approached during difficult moments.
Support friendships and peer belonging while recognizing that peer relationships naturally change.
Help children develop sustained relationships with trustworthy adults outside the immediate household, such as relatives, teachers, coaches, mentors, or community members.
Create recurring family or community traditions that provide connection and continuity.
Work with schools and organizations to strengthen belonging, safety, participation, and inclusion.
Give children developmentally appropriate opportunities to contribute, make choices, learn skills, and experience that their presence matters.
Address practical barriers—transportation, scheduling, housing instability, access to activities, caregiver stress—when those barriers limit children’s opportunities for supportive experiences.
These practices do not guarantee a particular adult outcome. They increase access to experiences that developmental and population research consistently treats as meaningful resources. The same principle also avoids blaming parents for every later difficulty: children develop within families and within larger social systems.
What If Your Childhood Had Few Positive Experiences?
A retrospective PCE questionnaire describes selected parts of childhood; it does not issue a verdict on a life. Few endorsed PCE items may identify areas where support, belonging, safety, or trusted relationships were limited, but the score does not diagnose damage and does not determine what happens next.
Development continues after childhood. Later supportive relationships, stable environments, education, community participation, meaningful roles, financial and housing security, medical care, and psychotherapy when indicated can influence well-being. The PCE literature itself is about probabilities and group patterns, not an irreversible developmental sentence.
If childhood memories are connected with current depression, anxiety, post-traumatic symptoms, relationship difficulties, or other persistent distress, assessment should focus on the current symptoms and functioning rather than assuming that a PCE or ACE score identifies the diagnosis or cause. Evidence-based treatment is selected for the clinical problem that is actually present.
PCE Tests, Scores, and Self-Reflection
Online searches often use phrases such as “PCE test” or “positive childhood experiences score.” The research instruments behind these phrases are questionnaires, not diagnostic tests. They can be useful for research, population surveillance, structured discussion, or personal reflection, depending on the instrument and setting. They do not establish whether someone is mentally healthy, traumatized, securely attached, resilient, or destined to develop a disorder.
If you complete a seven-item PCE questionnaire, the total is simply a count or summary produced by that questionnaire. It should be interpreted alongside the exact wording, response options, study population, and purpose for which the measure was designed. There is no universal clinical cutoff at which a childhood becomes “positive,” and no score can summarize every important protective or adverse experience.
Measurement researchers have repeatedly emphasized this point. Current studies use the seven-item PCE questionnaire, the 10-item BCE scale, HOPE-derived measures, and numerous ad hoc instruments; this heterogeneity limits direct comparison across studies (Raghunathan et al., 2024).
Intergenerational Evidence: Do Parents’ PCEs Affect Their Children?
This is an emerging area rather than an established causal pathway. A 2026 scoping review included 43 studies examining parents’ positive or benevolent childhood experiences. Parents’ PCEs were associated with better parent mental health and more positive parenting beliefs and attitudes, but findings for parenting behaviors and family and child health outcomes were mixed (Hoppe et al., 2026).
These findings support studying intergenerational pathways while resisting deterministic claims. A parent’s childhood history can be one influence among many on current family life. Present relationships, co-parenting, economic circumstances, treatment, social support, culture, child characteristics, and community conditions can all change the developmental context.
Frequently Asked Questions
What counts as a positive childhood experience?
Research commonly includes supportive family relationships, trusted adults, peer support, school belonging, community participation, felt safety, and stable nurturing environments. The exact items vary across instruments, so there is no single universally accepted list.
What are the seven positive childhood experiences?
In the widely cited Bethell seven-item measure, the experiences involve talking with family about feelings, family support during difficult times, community traditions, high-school belonging, friend support, at least two interested non-parent adults, and feeling safe and protected by an adult at home. These are seven research items, not a complete definition of every possible PCE.
Are PCEs simply the opposite of ACEs?
No. They are partly independent dimensions. People can report both substantial adversity and substantial positive experience. Systematic review evidence shows only modest inverse association between PCEs and adversity, which is why one should not be treated as the mathematical opposite of the other.
Can positive childhood experiences cancel out ACEs?
“Cancel out” is too strong. Higher PCEs are consistently associated with more favorable outcomes, including among people with adversity, and some studies find buffering interactions for particular outcomes. Across the literature, direct promotive associations are more consistent than universal moderation. PCEs do not make adverse experiences cease to have happened.
Do more PCEs guarantee resilience?
No. Resilience is a dynamic developmental process or outcome shaped by many factors. PCEs can be important resources within that process, but a questionnaire count cannot certify resilience or predict how a particular person will respond to future stress.
Is a PCE score a clinical test?
No. PCE questionnaires are primarily research and population-health measures. They are not diagnostic assessments, and there is no universal clinical cutoff that determines trauma status, mental health, or future disease.
Can someone have many PCEs and still develop depression, anxiety, or PTSD?
Yes. PCEs are associated with probabilities at the group level, not immunity from mental disorders. Depression, anxiety disorders, PTSD, and other conditions have multiple interacting risk and protective factors, and diagnosis depends on current clinical criteria rather than a childhood-experience score.
Can someone have few PCEs and still be healthy as an adult?
Yes. Low endorsement on a PCE measure is not destiny. Adult outcomes are influenced by later relationships, resources, health, opportunities, treatment, social conditions, and many other factors not captured by childhood questionnaires.
Are PCEs the same as protective factors?
They overlap, but the concepts differ. PCEs are experienced features of childhood. Protective factors are broader conditions or characteristics associated with better outcomes, especially under risk. A relationship can be both; a structural resource may be protective without appearing as a PCE questionnaire item.
Does research prove that PCEs cause better lifelong health?
The evidence supports robust associations and an emerging longitudinal literature, but causal certainty varies by outcome and design. Retrospective and cross-sectional studies cannot establish causality; longitudinal studies improve temporal inference but can still be affected by confounding and measurement limitations.
The Bottom Line
Positive childhood experiences are a scientifically meaningful part of developmental history. Across systematic reviews, higher PCEs are associated with better mental health, psychosocial functioning, and several other favorable outcomes in children, adolescents, and adults (Cunha et al., 2025; Han et al., 2023; Sousa et al., 2026). Longitudinal evidence is growing and points in the same general direction, while remaining comparatively limited (Kallapiran et al., 2025).
The most defensible interpretation is neither “childhood determines everything” nor “positive experiences erase adversity.” PCEs are one important layer of a developmental system. Supportive relationships, belonging, safety, community connection, and opportunities to develop matter. Their effects unfold alongside adversity, later experiences, structural conditions, individual differences, and changing resources across the life course.
That is why PCE science is most useful when it expands the question from “What went wrong?” to “What relationships and environments help development go well?”—without turning either adversity or positivity into a score that claims to predict an individual life.
Related Articles
References
Bethell, C., Jones, J., Gombojav, N., Linkenbach, J., & Sege, R. (2019). Positive childhood experiences and adult mental and relational health in a statewide sample: Associations across adverse childhood experiences levels. JAMA Pediatrics, 173(11), e193007. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3007
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024). Prevalence of positive childhood experiences among adults — Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, four states, 2015–2021. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 73. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/wr/mm7317a3.htm
Cunha, O., Sousa, M., Pereira, B., Pinheiro, M., Machado, A. B., Caridade, S., & Almeida, T. C. (2025). Positive childhood experiences and adult outcomes: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 26(5), 991–1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380241299434
Han, D., Dieujuste, N., Doom, J. R., & Narayan, A. J. (2023). A systematic review of positive childhood experiences and adult outcomes: Promotive and protective processes for resilience in the context of childhood adversity. Child Abuse & Neglect, 144, 106346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106346
Hoppe, E., Kassa, G., Yu, Z., et al. (2026). Parents’ positive childhood experiences: A scoping review. Adversity and Resilience Science, 7, Article 34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42844-026-00219-1
Huang, C. X., Halfon, N., Sastry, N., Chung, P. J., & Schickedanz, A. (2023). Positive childhood experiences and adult health outcomes. Pediatrics, 152(1), e2022060951. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2022-060951
Kallapiran, K., Suetani, S., Cobham, V., Eapen, V., & Scott, J. (2025). Impact of positive childhood experiences (PCEs): A systematic review of longitudinal studies. Child Psychiatry & Human Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-024-01807-x
Merrick, J. S., Narayan, A. J., DePasquale, C. E., & Masten, A. S. (2019). Benevolent childhood experiences (BCEs) in homeless parents: A validation and replication study. Journal of Family Psychology, 33(4), 493–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000521
Narayan, A. J., Rivera, L. M., Bernstein, R. E., Harris, W. W., & Lieberman, A. F. (2018). Positive childhood experiences predict less psychopathology and stress in pregnant women with childhood adversity: A pilot study of the Benevolent Childhood Experiences (BCEs) scale. Child Abuse & Neglect, 78, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.09.022
Raghunathan, R. S., Sosnowski, D. W., Musci, R. J., & Johnson, S. B. (2024). A scoping review of positive childhood experiences: Measurement and evidence. Adversity and Resilience Science, 5(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42844-023-00125-w
Samji, H., Long, D., Herring, J., Correia, R., & Maloney, J. (2025). Positive childhood experiences serve as protective factors for mental health in pandemic-era youth with adverse childhood experiences. Child Abuse & Neglect, 168(Pt 1), 106640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2024.106640
Sege, R. D., & Harper Browne, C. (2017). Responding to ACEs with HOPE: Health Outcomes from Positive Experiences. Academic Pediatrics, 17(7S), S79–S85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2017.03.007
Sousa, M., Machado, A. B., Pinheiro, M., Pereira, B., Caridade, S., Almeida, T. C., Cruz, A. R., & Cunha, O. (2026). The impact of positive childhood experiences: A systematic review focused on children and adolescents. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 27(3), 527–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380251320978
Trejos, R. F., & Kirby, R. S. (2026). Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs): What have we learned and what’s next? Annual Review of Public Health, 47, 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-071723-011207