Unfortunately, there has been a lot of misinformation passed around regarding how likely a person who was abused is to become an abuser and abuse their own (or other people’s) children. This post is my attempt to clear things up. In this post, we’ll take a look at how the effects of abuse and other traumatic experiences are passed down across generations, we’ll look at exactly what the evidence shows regarding how likely adults who were abused are to become abusers, and we’ll explore the two key differences that exist between people who perpetuate the cycle of abuse and those who break it.

Abuse runs in my family. How are the effects of abuse passed down from previous generations to me?

If abuse has been perpetuated in your family, I want to take a moment to congratulate you. The fact that you’re even reading this post tells me that you are likely a person who is seeking to understand their past experiences and to be proactive about their future, and for that, I commend you. I can already tell that you have the qualities of a cycle-breaker.

Now, because abuse has been perpetuated in your family, there are a few things you need to know. The first thing is that, while the research is still relatively new, it does suggest that the epigenetic effects of trauma can be passed down from generation to generation. Does this necessarily mean that if we’ve experienced traumatic events like abuse, it’s inevitable that we also repeat these habits with our children? No, it doesn’t. The reason behind this lies in the difference between genetically and epigenetically transferred risk. If you’re not familiar with these concepts, I break it all down in my post on ancestral or intergenerational trauma. For the full explanation, you’ll want to check that out.

Essentially, traumatic events like abuse are marked by epigenetic changes (and not changes to our actual genes). While we can’t currently change our genes, epigenetics can change depending on our internal (mindset, hormones, nutritional status, etc.) and external (physical environment, social support, etc.) environments. Because we can all control multiple (if not all) aspects of our environments, we don’t have to be defined by the choices of our ancestors.

How reliable is the available data about the abused becoming abusers?

In 2019, a scientific review of the then available research reported that anywhere from 7% to 88% of people who were abused went on to abuse their own children. That very wide (and utterly useless) range exists because the methods that many of the researchers used to gather their data weren’t as reliable as they could’ve been. Instead of looking at Child Protective Services’ involvement or another more reliable metric, the majority of these researchers used subjective means of gathering data. This means they simply asked participants whether they were abused or not and, as you can imagine, this leaves great room for recall bias (e.g. people’s memories may be skewed) and other forms of human error.

To further highlight the problems with the available data, one researcher who conducted another review found that all but one of studies he examined that tried to answer the question of whether or not abused individuals become abusers were of questionable quality.

To summarize, the quality of the majority of research in this area is dishearteningly low, and this contributes in a major way to the lack of consistency that we see across studies.

As an abuse survivor, am I going to abuse my own children?

That being said, several researchers have concluded that there’s absolutely no reason for people to accept the false claim that abused people are doomed to abuse their own children. These researchers have made it clear that this idea is a myth at best (and dramatically damaging at worst). Regarding the myth that the majority of people who are abused grow up to become abusers, researchers have agreed that “its unqualified acceptance is unfounded.”

In fact, more reliable studies have concluded that the majority of individuals who endured abuse do not go on to mistreat their own children. In all actuality, many people who’ve suffered abuse avoid having children altogether because of their own fears of becoming parents like their own parents. Others become so determined to protect their children from what they experiences that they become overly protective. And still others go out of their way to avoid repeating their parents’ mistakes and they become model parents.

The anatomy of a cycle breaker

Researchers in England set out to better understand what made the difference between individuals who were abused and went on to perpetuate the cycle of abuse and those who broke the cycle.

They separated the study participants into four groups:

1. Group 1: parents who were abused and also abused their children. They called this group Maintainers.
2. Group 2: parents who were abused but did not abuse their children. These were the Cycle Breakers.
3. Group 3: parents who were not abused but who abused their children. This group was called the Initiators.
4. Group 4: parents who were not abused and did not abuse their children. This was the control group (Controls).

What qualities do abused children who become abusive parents have?

The results of this study were fascinating. These researchers found that individuals who were abused were more likely to abuse their own children when there were other risk factors for abuse at play in the home. These factors included those that are also recognized as adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), such as the parent being depressed or having another mental health concern, there being substance abuse in the home, and violence between caregivers.

Abuse survivors were also more likely to perpetuate the cycle if they were young parents (under age 21) and if they struggled with feelings of isolation or a lack of support and if they had poor parenting skills.

We can think of these risk factors as part of the environment that sets the stage for abuse and other ACEs and therefore for the epigenetic changes that come along with them.

What qualities do abused people who break the cycle of abuse have? How is this different from those who perpetuate the cycle?

Now here’s what I believe is the most interesting part of this study: When they compared the Maintainers with the Cycle Breakers, researchers found that these groups had very similar risk factors—both had a high prevalence of other ACEs in the home, both had higher prevalence of young parents, and both had poor parenting skills.

But what appeared to make the difference was the fact that the Cycle Breakers had stronger social support and they were also more likely to be financially solvent.

Maintainers had more feelings of isolation. They felt their lack of perceived support more keenly, and they were less likely to be financially solvent. The Maintainers in this study tended to isolate themselves and their families, which led to them not having access to the social and financial support that they needed.

Researchers further described social integration and support as well as financial solvency as key protective factors against breaking the cycle of abuse. These protective factors played a significant role in whether or not the cycle of abuse was perpetuated.

Summary

In closing, I want to reiterate the fact that although the physiological effects of our parents’ and grandparents’ traumatic experiences can be passed down to us, these changes are passed down epigenetically. This means that we do not have to be defined by their choices or subject to their experiences. By being proactive about maintaining optimal internal and external environments, we can carve out our own futures.

I also want to reiterate that higher-quality research demonstrates that the majority of individuals who are abused as children do not grow up to abuse their own or other children. By comparing and contrasting those who maintain the cycle of abuse and those who break it, researchers have found that while the risk factors among these groups are similar, Cycle Breakers have two factors that set them apart from the Maintainers. These two factors—sufficient social support and financial solvency—have a protective effect against the perpetuation of the cycle of abuse.

That being said, if you are a person who has experienced abuse of any kind, I highly recommend the following things:

1. Take control of your environment so that you can address the epigenetic changes that have taken place in your body as a result of your difficult past. To learn more about this, click here.
2. Connect and reconnect with like-minded others to ramp up your social support and increase your likelihood of becoming or remaining a Cycle Breaker.
3. Take a financial literacy course, further your education, or do whatever you need to do to be able to pay off your existing debts and remain financially independent in the future.

There’s been a lot of talk lately about “ancestral trauma,” which is the notion that the effects of traumatic events are passed down from generation to generation. It’s the idea that you can be negatively affected by the choices and experiences of your parents, grandparents, and even your great grandparents and further back. While this may sound like it makes sense on the surface, there are a few problems with the way this narrative is presented. In this post, I’ll explain why the ancestral trauma narrative may be causing more harm than good, what the science really shows regarding the intergenerational transmission of trauma, and what this means for you if you or your ancestors are survivors of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs).

How do traumatic experiences affect health and life?

We know from the Adverse Childhood Experiences study (also known as the ACE study), which was conducted by Kaiser Permanente and the CDC, that traumatic events during childhood, including household dysfunction (parental divorce or separation, incarceration, substance abuse, mental illness in the home, or domestic violence), abuse (physical, sexual, or emotional), and neglect (physical or emotional) can have negative effects on health. In this study, they gave everyone a score based on how many categories of these stressful events they had experienced before age 18, and they found out that those with higher ACE scores had greater risk for chronic disease. If you don’t know your ACE score, you can take the ACE questionnaire here.

The ACE study and studies based on it revealed that when we experience traumatic events in childhood, these experiences actually lead to changes within our brains and bodies that increase our risk for various chronic conditions, including mental health concerns, autoimmune diseases, hormonal disorders, and metabolic syndrome-related concerns (e.g. diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, etc.). These traumatic events can also affect our personalities, our relationships, and our underlying thoughts and beliefs about ourselves, the people we interact closely with, and the world in general.

Is “ancestral trauma” really a thing?

Ancestral trauma or the intergenerational transmission of trauma—which again is this notion that the health effects and other effects of traumatic experiences are passed on from generation to generation—is absolutely valid, but there is a major problem with the way this concept is explained, and this is what makes the idea so harmful.

Here’s what I mean: I was spending some time recently in a Facebook group when I came across a heated debate. In this post, hundreds of people were going back and forth arguing about the validity of the original poster’s claim. Essentially, the original poster had recently learned about ancestral trauma and, as you can imagine, she felt incredibly validated by this concept.

In case you haven’t yet had the chance to experience it, you should know that coming to the realization that you’re not fully at fault for many of the things that have happened in your childhood and the effects these things have had on your life (especially in a society that emphasizes personal responsibility so heavily) can be incredibly freeing. I know from personal experience that coming to this realization can help people to be more patient with themselves and to extend more grace to themselves. And this is exactly where the original poster was. She had heard about the concept, and she took to social media to share what she had learned.

Unfortunately, however, the people in the Facebook group didn’t take too kindly to what she was sharing, and I’ll tell you exactly why. Her post went something like this: “…Ancestral trauma explains so much about who we are. Our ancestors’ traumatic experiences are passed down through our DNA, and this shapes our personalities, our relationships, and our risk for disease.”

Now, why would such a docile post stir up so much commotion? It’s because of those three letters: DNA. The original poster’s interpretation of the ancestral trauma narrative was controversial because she was claiming that these effects are passed down genetically. People didn’t like that because many of them had put forth concerted efforts to escape the effects of their own ancestral trauma. Even though their parents were alcoholics, they had never abused any harmful substances, so they couldn’t get behind the idea that these effects were permanently etched in their DNA. This idea was incredibly disempowering, and they couldn’t support an idea that made them a permanent victim to anyone else’s experiences.

Why is the ancestral trauma narrative harmful?

The narrative that the effects of trauma is passed down genetically—through our DNA—from generation to generation is harmful and damaging because it takes control out of the hands of the individual and puts it in fate, luck, or chance. I side with the people on this one, and fortunately, so does the actual science. Science does NOT support the idea that the effects of trauma are passed down genetically.

Are the effects of trauma passed down genetically or epigenetically? And why does it matter?

As I’ve stated, science does NOT support the idea that the effects of trauma are passed down genetically; it does, however, support the idea that the effects of trauma are passed down EPIgenetically.

What’s the difference? For something to be passed down genetically, it would need to be written in the actual DNA. If you remember high school biology, this would mean it’s written in those base pairs, adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine. You can think of our genetics as a wooden table. No amount of effort will change the table from wood to stone. No matter how hard we try, we can’t change the makeup of our genes. It’ll always be the same.

If something is passed down epigenetically, however, it isn’t written in the base pair themselves, Instead, it would actually be documented via methylation and other less permanent etchings on our genes. The term epi- means upon. You can think of epigenetics as an overlay, or a decorative piece. If we’re going back to the table analogy, I’d even say think of it as a tablecloth that we lay upon the table. It’s an integral piece of our dinner setup, but with some effort, we can always switch the tablecloth out for another one.

And that’s exactly it. Research on the children of Holocaust survivors has shown that the effects of our ancestors’ traumatic experiences are etched in our epigenome, but because epigenetics are actually a combination of genetics and environment, by changing our internal (e.g. by changing our diets and thought patterns, through nutritional supplementation, etc.) and external environments (e.g. by having ample social support, engaging in physical activity, etc.), research demonstrates that we can actually change our epigenetics and “undo” or counteract the negative physical and mental health effects that our ancestors’ (and even our own) traumatic experiences have had on our lives.

In closing

And this is why we need to be careful about the way we talk about the intergenerational transmission of trauma. Instead of being a disempowering message, it’s actually a hope-filled, empowering message, if it’s told in the right way.

The effects of your ancestors’ traumatic experiences are passed down to you epigenetically, but the fact remains that you have the power to choose whether you’ll succumb to those predispositions. Yes, their experiences may have conferred an increased risk for mental health concerns, autoimmune disease, hormonal disorders, and even metabolic syndrome upon you, but that doesn’t in any way mean that you HAVE to experience these diagnoses or, if you’ve already been diagnosed, it doesn’t mean that these diagnoses have to limit your life.

If you want to take the first step toward decreasing your risk for or addressing these ACE-related chronic concerns and join a community of women like us who are committed to living their healthiest and most fulfilling lives now, in spite of our past experiences, click here to learn more about my ACE Defying Wellness Program.