How Trust Forms Across Neurologies

There is something that every human being needs before they need anything else, and it is not language, not competence, not even love as a feeling. What every human being needs first is something more structural than any of those things. They need the experience of a world that responds. A world that notices them, meets them, and proves itself reliable enough that they can begin to relax into it rather than brace against it.

Erik Erikson called the achievement of that experience trust, and he placed it at the very beginning of his map of psychosocial development for a reason (Erikson, 1963, 1980). Trust is not simply the first item on a list. It is the developmental ground on which everything else is built (Bowlby, 1982; Erikson, 1963). Autonomy, initiative, identity, intimacy: none of them can be constructed on a foundation that was never laid (Erikson, 1963, 1980; Kegan, 1982). The person who arrives at adolescence without a stable experience of relational trust is not simply behind. They are building on uncertain ground, and they will feel that uncertainty at every subsequent stage of the journey (Erikson, 1963, 1980).

What Erikson did not map, and what the developmental psychology of his era could not yet map, is what trust formation looks like when the infant doing the forming has an autistic nervous system. That gap is what this series is about.

The Engine Beneath the Bond

Before we can understand how trust forms differently across neurologies, we need to understand how it forms at all. And the answer, at its most essential, is feedback.

Trust does not develop because a caregiver loves a child. Love is necessary but not sufficient. Trust develops because the child's bids for connection, their cries, their gazes, their reaches, their sounds, receive responses that are consistent, timely, and readable (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bowlby, 1982; Tronick et al., 1978). The child acts on the world and the world acts back, and over time that back-and-forth accumulates into something the child can count on (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bretherton, 1992; Tronick et al., 1978). The world, in the form of the people nearest to them, proves itself responsive, and that proof, repeated across thousands of small interactions, is what trust is made of (Bowlby, 1982; Erikson, 1963).

This is the developmental engine that MacMillan's Spiral and Staircase Model™ places at the center of all growth: the feedback loop between person and environment. It is the same engine that drives every stage of Erikson's map (Erikson, 1963, 1980; Kegan, 1982). And it is precisely here, in the feedback loop, in the mechanism by which infant bids are sent, received, interpreted, and answered, that autistic and non-autistic developmental pathways first begin to diverge (Macari et al., 2021; Thorup et al., 2018; Warlaumont et al., 2014).

How Non-Autistics Receive the World

For non-autistic infants, the feedback loop between self and caregiver runs through channels that are immediately, neurologically available. Facial expression, gaze, vocalization, the subtle music of a caregiver's body as it leans in or pulls back, brightens or stills: these are not things the non-autistic infant has to learn to read (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bretherton, 1992; Tronick et al., 1978). They arrive. They land in the body as felt data, processed largely below the level of conscious awareness. From the earliest weeks of life, the non-autistic nervous system is tuned to the frequency of social feedback, and that tuning is what allows the non-autistic developmental pathway to begin feeding itself almost immediately (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bowlby, 1982; Tronick et al., 1978).

A non-autistic caregiver and a non-autistic infant, in this sense, are already speaking a shared language. The infant cries and the caregiver's face shifts into concern. The infant stills and the caregiver's body relaxes. The infant smiles and the caregiver smiles back. Each of these exchanges travels through the same neurological channels in both directions, and the fluency of that shared channel means that bids and responses find each other with relatively little friction (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bretherton, 1992; Tronick et al., 1978). Not without difficulty, since caregiving is always demanding and always imperfect, but with a structural compatibility that supports the building of trust even when individual moments of attunement fail.

This is the non-autistic developmental pathway in its earliest form: the continuous, looping, self-correcting exchange between infant and environment that begins building the experience of a responsive world before the child has words for any of it (Bowlby, 1982; Erikson, 1963; Tronick et al., 1978).

How Autistics Receive the World

Autistic infants are in the same relational field, wanting the same connection and needing the same responsive world. The destination, Erikson's trust, is identical (Capps et al., 1994; Dissanayake & Crossley, 1996; Sigman & Mundy, 1989; Sigman & Ungerer, 1984).

But the channels through which feedback arrives and is processed are different. The autistic nervous system is not tuned to the same frequency of continuous, embodied social feedback that the non-autistic developmental pathway runs on (Macari et al., 2021; Thorup et al., 2018; Warlaumont et al., 2014). This is not a failure. It is a different neurological architecture, one that brings its own genuine capacities and attends to the world in its own way, but it means that the feedback loop operates differently from the very beginning, and that the autistic developmental pathway needs different conditions to build trust (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Cossette-Côté et al., 2022; Milton, 2012; Teague et al., 2017).

An autistic infant may not orient to a caregiver's face with the same immediacy or in the same way (Macari et al., 2021; Thorup et al., 2018). Their signals of distress, comfort-seeking, or connection may be expressed through channels a non-autistic caregiver does not immediately recognize: through body posture, through particular sounds, through the quality of their stillness, through responses to sensory input rather than social cues (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Milton, 2012; Teague et al., 2017). The bid is there and the need for connection is there, but the form the bid takes may not match what the caregiver's nervous system is primed to receive.

And here is where the developmental stakes become significant. The feedback loop does not run only from caregiver to infant; it runs in both directions (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Tronick et al., 1978; Warlaumont et al., 2014). When an autistic infant's bids go unrecognized, not because the caregiver doesn't care but because the signal is arriving on a frequency the caregiver isn't yet tuned to, the response doesn't come, or it comes in a form the infant cannot easily receive (Cossette-Côté et al., 2022; Milton, 2012; Teague et al., 2017). And the engine of trust, which depends on that back-and-forth to run, does not get the fuel it needs.

Misattunement Without Failure

This is perhaps the most important thing to understand about the early attachment landscape for autistic infants, and the literature is clear on it: misattunement in early autistic development is not the same thing as inadequate love or inadequate caregiving in the ordinary sense (Cossette-Côté et al., 2022; Rutgers et al., 2004; Teague et al., 2017). Autistic children are capable of forming secure attachments (Capps et al., 1994; Dissanayake & Crossley, 1996; Rutgers et al., 2004; Sigman & Mundy, 1989; Sigman & Ungerer, 1984). Research confirms that roughly half of autistic children assessed in attachment studies are classified as securely attached, and that the quality of the attachment relationship is strongly shaped by caregiver sensitivity and availability (Cossette-Côté et al., 2022; Rutgers et al., 2004).

But sensitivity, in this context, has to mean something specific. It has to mean accurate reading of this child's signals, not generic warmth, not more eye contact or more verbal engagement or more of the social reciprocity that non-autistic attachment frameworks were built around (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Cossette-Côté et al., 2022; Milton, 2012). Genuine sensitivity for an autistic infant may mean recognizing that shutdown is distress rather than defiance, that comfort might be accepted through parallel presence rather than physical closeness, that a particular sound or movement is a bid for connection even though it looks nothing like the bids a non-autistic child would make (Cossette-Côté et al., 2022; Teague et al., 2017).

When caregivers develop that accuracy, when they learn to translate autistic signals rather than wait for non-autistic ones, secure attachment becomes possible and the autistic developmental pathway can rise (Cossette-Côté et al., 2022; Rutgers et al., 2004; Teague et al., 2017). But that translation requires something the non-autistic pathway does not: intentionality. The non-autistic developmental pathway is fed more or less continuously by the ambient social environment. The autistic developmental pathway needs the environment to bring something more deliberate, more explicit, and more carefully calibrated to what this particular nervous system can actually receive (Cossette-Côté et al., 2022; Milton, 2012; Warlaumont et al., 2014).

Two Nervous Systems, One Relational World

Understanding why the pathways diverge here requires looking at the foundational differences in how autistic and non-autistic people perceive and navigate the social world (Milton, 2012; Warlaumont et al., 2014).

Non-autistic people navigate the social world through what MacMillan has termed body empathy: an immediate, embodied, largely automatic reception of social information from the faces and bodies of others. Body empathy is grounded in high levels of embodied simulation and interoceptive sensitivity and awareness, meaning that the non-autistic nervous system is not simply observing others from the outside but is registering their states from the inside, feeling something of what others feel in real time, and doing so largely without conscious effort (Craig, 2009; Gallese, 2007). This capacity is present from infancy. It is what allows the non-autistic infant to participate in the rapid back-and-forth of social exchange almost from birth, and it is what allows the non-autistic caregiver to read the infant's states with relative fluency (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bowlby, 1982; Tronick et al., 1978). Because both infant and caregiver share this same neurological architecture, social information moves between them quickly and with relatively little friction, often below the level of conscious awareness.

Autistic people navigate the social world differently. Without the immediacy of body empathy, autistic infants and children build their understanding of the social world more slowly, more sequentially, and more deliberately, observing and pattern-recognizing and constructing understanding over time rather than receiving it in real time (Macari et al., 2021; Milton, 2012; Thorup et al., 2018; Warlaumont et al., 2014). This is not a lesser way of knowing the social world. It is a different way, one that brings real depth and precision but that requires more time and more explicit information to work well (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Milton, 2012).

The implication for trust formation is direct. The non-autistic infant's experience of a responsive world is built incrementally through hundreds of small, rapid, embodied exchanges that feel almost seamless (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bowlby, 1982; Tronick et al., 1978). The autistic infant's experience of a responsive world needs to be built more deliberately, through interactions that are clearer, more consistent, and calibrated to the channels through which this particular nervous system receives information (Cossette-Côté et al., 2022; Milton, 2012; Teague et al., 2017). When those conditions are present, trust can form. When they are absent, the horizontal surface of the autistic developmental pathway can extend, not because the autistic infant has stopped reaching for connection, but because the fuel the pathway runs on has not been adequately supplied.

The Same Destination, From the Beginning

What the research and the framework together make clear is that autistic children are not unattached, not incapable of trust, not relationally absent (Capps et al., 1994; Dissanayake & Crossley, 1996; Rutgers et al., 2004; Sigman & Mundy, 1989; Sigman & Ungerer, 1984; Teague et al., 2017). The earliest clinical assumptions that autism precluded attachment were wrong, and the research has corrected them (Rutgers et al., 2004; Teague et al., 2017). Autistic infants form bonds, autistic children seek security, and autistic people need and are capable of the foundational experience of a responsive world that Erikson's first stage describes (Capps et al., 1994; Cossette-Côté et al., 2022; Erikson, 1963; Haltigan et al., 2011; Rutgers et al., 2004).

What is different is not the destination. It is the pathway, and what the pathway requires.

Non-autistic development builds trust through continuous embodied feedback that arrives through social channels both infant and caregiver share fluently (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bowlby, 1982; Tronick et al., 1978). Autistic development builds trust through a different rhythm, more sequential, more dependent on the quality and intentionality of the environment, and more reliant on a caregiver who has learned to read signals that may not look like the signals attachment theory was originally built around (Cossette-Côté et al., 2022; Milton, 2012; Teague et al., 2017; Warlaumont et al., 2014).

Both pathways are building toward the same thing, both trying to answer the same infant question: Is this world safe enough to trust? What changes everything, for the autistic developmental pathway especially, is whether the world answers well. That is the question Post 2 takes up: what secure and insecure attachment actually look like across neurologies, and why the same underlying need can produce such different visible patterns.

The next post in this series takes up exactly that translation problem: how the working model each person builds from their attachment experiences travels with them into adult relationships, and what it takes to begin revising it toward security.


This is Series II — Attachment Across Neurologies: How Trust, Security, and Relationship Maps Form Differently

This was post 1.

1. The First Thing We Need: How Trust Forms Across Neurologies
2. The Shape of Security: What Attachment Looks Like Across Neurologies
3. The Map We Carry: How Attachment Experience Becomes the Working Model
4. When Two Maps Meet: Attachment in Neurodiverse Relationships



References

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. N. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bottema-Beutel, K., Kapp, S. K., Lester, J. N., Sasson, N. J., & Hand, B. N. (2021). Avoiding ableist language: Suggestions for autism researchers. Autism in Adulthood, 3(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2020.0014

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). Basic Books. Original work published 1969.

Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 759–775. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.759

Capps, L., Sigman, M., & Mundy, P. (1994). Attachment security in children with autism. Development and Psychopathology, 6(2), 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400004569

Cossette-Côté, F., Bussières, E.-L., & Dubois-Comtois, K. (2022). The association between maternal sensitivity/availability and attachment in children with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Current Psychology, 41(11), 8236–8248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02227-z

Dissanayake, C., & Crossley, S. A. (1996). Proximity and sociable behaviours in autism: Evidence for attachment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37(2), 149–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1996.tb01386.x

Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). W. W. Norton.

Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. W. W. Norton.

Haltigan, J. D., Ekas, N. V., Seifer, R., & Messinger, D. S. (2011). Brief report: Attachment security in infants at-risk for autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41(7), 962–967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-010-1107-7

Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Harvard University Press.

Macari, S., Milgramm, A., Reed, J., Shic, F., Powell, K. K., Macris, D., & Chawarska, K. (2021). Context-specific dyadic attention vulnerabilities during the first year in infants later developing autism spectrum disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 60(1), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.12.012

Milton, D. E. M. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: The “double empathy problem.” Disability & Society, 27(6), 883–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.710008

Rutgers, A. H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & van Berckelaer-Onnes, I. A. (2004). Autism and attachment: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(6), 1123–1134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.t01-1-00305.x

Sigman, M., & Mundy, P. (1989). Social attachments in autistic children. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 28(1), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-198901000-00014

Sigman, M., & Ungerer, J. A. (1984). Attachment behaviors in autistic children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 14(3), 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02409576

Teague, S. J., Gray, K. M., Tonge, B. J., & Newman, L. K. (2017). Attachment in children with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 35, 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2016.12.002

Thorup, E., Nyström, P., Gredebäck, G., Bölte, S., Falck-Ytter, T., & the EASE Team. (2018). Reduced alternating gaze during social interaction in infancy is associated with elevated symptoms of autism in toddlerhood. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 46, 1547–1561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-017-0388-0

Tronick, E. Z., Als, H., Adamson, L., Wise, S., & Brazelton, T. B. (1978). The infant’s response to entrapment between contradictory messages in face-to-face interaction. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 17(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-7138(09)62273-1

Warlaumont, A. S., Richards, J. A., Gilkerson, J., & Oller, D. K. (2014). A social feedback loop for speech development and its reduction in autism. Psychological Science, 25(7), 1314–1324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614531023