The paper primarily focuses on research conducted on industrialized populations, without adequate consideration of diverse cultural contexts or potential gene-environment interactions. This limits the generalizability of the findings and may overlook culturally specific adaptations to adversity.
Lack of genetic information
Most of the reviewed research isn't genetically informed, meaning that observed effects attributed to early adversity might be due to gene-environment correlations rather than environmental causation. This confounds the interpretation of causality.
Oversimplification of susceptibility
The paper acknowledges individual differences in susceptibility to environmental influences, but doesn't fully explore this aspect. This means the effects of early adversity might not be uniform across all individuals, a nuance not fully integrated into the model.
Narrow focus on parental transitions
The model focuses heavily on parental transitions as a key cue for unpredictability, but doesn't thoroughly consider the impact of other forms of unpredictability in children's lives, potentially overlooking other important factors.
Incomplete understanding of deprivation mechanisms
The cellular mechanisms underlying the effects of deprivation on brain development are identified as unknown, limiting the model's explanatory power in this domain.