Content uploaded by Michael Pluess
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michael Pluess on Oct 11, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Individual Differences in Environmental Sensitivity
Michael Pluess
Queen Mary University of London
ABSTRACT—A fundamental trait found in most organisms is
the ability to register, process, and respond to external
factors. Although such environmental sensitivity is critical
for adapting successfully to contextual conditions, individ-
uals tend to differ in their sensitivity to the environment,
with some more sensitive than others. Such differences in
environmental sensitivity can be seen across many species,
including humans. Although the notion of variability in
environmental sensitivity is reflected indirectly in many
traditional concepts of human psychology, several new
frameworks address individual differences in environmen-
tal sensitivity more directly and from a perspective of
developmental and evolutionary theory. In this article, I
integrate these perspectives into a broad meta-framework
before proposing ideas for research on individual differ-
ences in environmental sensitivity. I also emphasize that
inter-individual variability in environmental sensitivity be
considered in both theoretical and applied work.
KEYWORDS—environmental sensitivity; developmental plas-
ticity; diathesis-stress; vulnerability; resilience; differential
susceptibility; vantage sensitivity
Human development is fundamentally contextual. Without the
specific and active support of a nurturing environment, no child
would thrive or even survive. Given this dependence on external
environmental resources, it is not surprising that humans regis-
ter, process, and respond to many different aspects of their
social and physical environment. However, individuals differ
substantially in such sensitivity and responsivity, with some
being more and others less responsive to the same environmen-
tal conditions.
In this article, I look at individual differences in environmen-
tal sensitivity, drawing from several theoretical perspectives and
emerging empirical evidence. Rather than discussing in detail
conceptual differences between the various frameworks, I pres-
ent an integrated view across concepts and perspectives.
Finally, I propose research on individual differences in environ-
mental sensitivity and suggest that we consider inter-individual
variability in environmental sensitivity in both theoretical and
applied work.
VARIABILITY IN ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY
Individual differences in the behavioral response to environmen-
tal factors can be seen across many species from pumpkinseed
fish, zebra finches, mice, and nonhuman primates to humans (for
review, see 1). The pattern that seems to emerge consistently is
that some of the members of each of these species tend to be
bold, aggressive, and impulsive when approaching new or
threatening situations, whereas others appear to avoid such situ-
ations, behaving less aggressively and more cautiously and fear-
fully. These two prototypical behavioral types have been
described as hawks and doves, reflecting two different behavioral
strategies—proactive versus reactive coping (2)—that evolved
over time, each characterized by specific advantages and disad-
vantages for health and reproductive fitness (3). Similar behav-
ioral differences have been described in humans in many
psychological frameworks, including extra- and introversion,
behavioral activation and inhibition, high and low reactive tem-
perament, physiological stress reactivity, sensory sensitivity,
resilience and vulnerability, reaction norms, and developmental
plasticity (4–6). Although these established psychological con-
cepts differ from one another, they all seem to describe how
people vary in their response to contextual factors, with some
more affected than others, manifested in qualitatively different
psychological or behavioral response patterns. The notion that
individuals differ in how they perceive and process environmental
Michael Pluess, Queen Mary University of London.
I express my gratitude to Judy Stamps, Elaine Aron, Bruce Ellis,
and Jay Belsky for their comments and discussion of an earlier ver-
sion of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Michael Pluess, Department of Biological and Experimental Psy-
chology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary
University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, United
Kingdom; e-mail: m.pluess@qmul.ac.uk.
©2015 The Authors
Child Development Perspectives ©2015 The Society for Research in Child Development
DOI: 10.1111/cdep.12120
Volume 0, Number 0, 2015, Pages 1–6
CHILD DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES
features, with some being generally more and some generally
less sensitive, may represent the underlying common denomina-
tor linking these diverse concepts (4). This interpretation sug-
gests that environmental sensitivity—and the variability thereof
—is an important higher-order personality dimension whose dif-
ferent aspects are reflected, captured, and described in many
existing psychological concepts.
At least two important distinctions are worth considering when
discussing matters related to environmental sensitivity from such
a broad perspective. First, we should differentiate sensitivity
from responsivity.Whereassensitivity refers to aspects of percep-
tion and internal processing of external influences (i.e., the
input), responsivity refers to the resulting behavioral conse-
quences (i.e., the output). Although differences in environmental
sensitivity are largely responsible for the manifestation of differ-
ences in responsivity (7), sensitivity does not equate with re-
sponsivity. Given that behavioral responses are generally
influenced by many factors, depending on the specific circum-
stances, heightened sensitivity may not always be associated
with the same behavioral response. For example, while a highly
sensitive child may behave in a more introverted and shy man-
ner in a novel and unfamiliar social environment, the same child
may behave like less sensitive children in a well-known and
familiar setting.
Second, environmental sensitivity features at least two differ-
ent perspectives, the first describing developmental processes
(i.e., change over time in response to past experience) and the
second, immediate reactivity (i.e., response to current experi-
ence). The developmental perspective refers to developmental or
phenotypic plasticity, the ability of an organism to adapt its phe-
notype over time to the conditions of the particular environment.
For example, children characterized with a more reactive tem-
perament in infancy develop into children with consistently
more or less aggression, depending on whether their early care
environment was less or more supportive (8–10). Developmental
plasticity is conceptually restricted to early developmental peri-
ods during which the direction of development is most likely to
be environmentally programmed, with additional adaptation in
response to environmental changes less likely (though not
impossible) in later periods. In contrast, the perspective of
immediate reactivity refers to environmental sensitivity as a rel-
atively stable trait, and implies continuity of environmental sen-
sitivity across life and across different contexts. For example, in
a study in which young adults rated perceived stress during
examination and nonexamination days, those with the short ver-
sion of the serotonin transporter gene (5-HTTLPR), a gene vari-
ant consistently associated with heightened developmental
plasticity (11), reported both higher and lower stress, respec-
tively, than those carrying other versions of the same gene (12),
suggesting that the gene version associated with developmental
plasticity in early childhood may also predict immediate
reactivity in early adulthood. However, we need more research
on the potential overlap between developmental plasticity and
immediate reactivity to clarify the relationship between these
different aspects of environmental sensitivity (for a detailed
review and discussion of the various forms of behavioral
plasticity, see 13).
The notion of individual differences in environmental sensi-
tivity as implied in traditional psychological concepts has typi-
cally been framed within a diathesis-stress model, with
sensitivity seen primarily as vulnerability for developing prob-
lematic outcomes when faced with adversity (14, 15). As a
consequence, most research on environmental sensitivity is
biased toward psychopathology, often failing to consider the
possibility that environmental sensitivity may extend to positive
environments and adaptive outcomes (16). However, over the
last two decades, several frameworks emerged that describe
environmental sensitivity in a less biased manner—drawing on
evolutionary and developmental theory rather than a perspec-
tive of psychopathology.
CONCEPTS FOR INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN
ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY
Since the late 1990s, researchershaveproposedatleastthree
theoretical frameworks related to variability in environmental
sensitivity. The first is sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) by
Aron (5, 17). SPS is based on a personality perspective, suggest-
ing that about 20% of people have a high-sensitive personality
trait defined by greater awareness of sensory stimulation, behav-
ioral inhibition, deeper cognitive processing of environmental
stimuli, and higher emotional and physiological reactivity (4).
Differences in SPS are evolutionarily adaptive, influenced by
genes, and associated with a more sensitive central nervous sys-
tem. Researchers also propose that SPS is a stable personality
trait that emerges in infancy and is shaped further by the envi-
ronmental conditions children experience while growing up (18).
The second concept is Belsky’s differential susceptibility the-
ory (DST; 19–24). According to DST, individuals differ in their
environmental sensitivity, with some being generally more and
some generally less susceptible to both negative and positive
environmental influences. DST posits that such fundamental dif-
ferences in susceptibility represent two alternative developmen-
tal strategies that have been maintained by natural selection as a
form of bet-hedging, given that the future is inherently unpredict-
able: The plastic strategy is characterized by adaptation to the
environment (i.e., high susceptibility), whereas the fixed strategy
reflects relative inertia in response to environmental factors (i.e.,
low susceptibility). Originally, DST adopted the view that differ-
ences in susceptibility are genetically determined and manifested
in the sensitivity of the central nervous system. More recently,
researchers suggest that high susceptibility may also develop in
response to prenatal and early postnatal factors (25, 26).
Finally, Boyce and Ellis (6) concluded in their biological
sensitivity to context (BSC) theory that individuals differ in
bio-behavioral reactivity to the environment, inspired by the sur-
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 0, Number 0, 2015, Pages 1–6
2Michael Pluess
prising observation that both negative and positive aspects of
the environment affected children who were physiologically
highly reactive (27). In contrast to SPS and DST, BSC empha-
sizes the role of environmental influences in shaping differences
in environmental sensitivity over time (i.e., conditional adapta-
tion), with individuals exposed to especially adverse or support-
ive environments developing higher physiological reactivity and
consequently, higher sensitivity to both cost-inflicting and bene-
fit-conferring features of the environment than those growing up
in more moderate environments. Given that both BSC and DST
are rooted in evolutionary theory and describe similar develop-
mental dynamics, researchers have tried to integrate these two
frameworks (24).
Although each of these three concepts provides unique and
important theoretical insights into environmental sensitivity, per-
haps the most significant contribution shared across all three
frameworks is the notion that sensitive individuals differ not only
in their response to environmental adversity but also in response
to positive, supportive aspects of the environment. This positive
end of environmental sensitivity is summarized in the vantage
sensitivity (VS) framework (16). According to VS, people differ in
their response to positive influences as a function of inherent
characteristics, with some more sensitive and some more resistant
to the beneficial effects of positive experiences and exposures.
AN INTEGRATED MODEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL
SENSITIVITY
Although diathesis-stress, SPS, DST, BSC, and VS provide
unique perspectives on variability in environmental sensitivity,
integrating the different concepts into a single overarching
meta-framework of environmental sensitivity may prove valuable
for both research and practical application (e.g., 24). In this
section, I propose such an integrated perspective regarding the
determinants of environmental sensitivity, the hypothesized
existence of different sensitivity types, the basic mechanism of
sensitivity, and evolutionary considerations pertaining to differ-
ences in environmental sensitivity.
Determinants of Environmental Sensitivity
To what degree are individual differences in environmental sen-
sitivity determined by genetic factors versus shaped by environ-
mental influences? Many gene–environment interaction studies
suggest that differences in environmental sensitivity are associ-
ated with genetic differences between individuals (22, 23, 28).
However, the observation that physiological and psychological
characteristics reflecting environmental sensitivity are also
shaped by the developmental context (6, 25) suggests that both
genetic and environmental forces contribute to individual differ-
ences in environmental sensitivity (for a general discussion of
the role of genes and environment in development, see 29). In
more detail, whether, to what degree, and in what way a genetic
potential for high sensitivity is actualized may depend on the
environmental conditions an individual experiences, particularly
in early development. For example, the quality of the prenatal
environment predicts increased environmental sensitivity, but
only in children who carry sensitivity genes (25, 30). Similar
findings related to genetic moderation emerged in relation to the
effects of the postnatal environment on environmental sensitivity
(31). Such interplay between genetic and environmental factors
most likely involves the regulation of gene expression through
environmentally induced epigenetic changes (32, 33).
Sensitivity Types
Are there distinct types of environmental sensitivity (e.g., general
susceptibility, vulnerability, and VS), or are all these manifesta-
tions of the same basic propensity for environmental sensitivity?
The observation that increased vulnerability is often associated
with the same individual characteristics (e.g., gene variants,
infant temperament, and cortisol stress reactivity) that predict
sensitivity to positive features of the environment suggests that
both diathesis-stress and VS reflect the same general propensity
for environmental sensitivity (16, 22; see Figure 1). However,
given the significant role of environmental factors in the develop-
ment of environmental sensitivity, individuals with a genetic pre-
disposition for environmental sensitivity may get sensitized to
specific aspects of environmental quality. That is, an initial neu-
tral genetically based propensity for sensitivity may develop into
abiased sensitivity toward contextual adversity (i.e., vulnerabil-
ity) or contextual support (i.e., VS) depending on the specific
environmental conditions encountered in early development (see
Figure 2). Some studies suggest that early adversity increases
sensitivity toward adversity in those carrying sensitivity genes.
For example, adolescents carrying the 5-HTTLPR short allele
were more likely to respond with emotional problems to recent
stressful life events than others, but only if they had a history of
Figure 1. Illustration of three patterns of environmental sensitivity. Diath-
esis-stress describes individual differences in response to exclusively negative
influences, whereas vantage sensitivity (VS) refers to variability regarding
positive influences only. Differential susceptibility represents the combina-
tion of diathesis-stress and VS as a function of the same sensitivity factor.
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 0, Number 0, 2015, Pages 1–6
Environmental Sensitivity 3
early institutional care (34). In the absence of early adversity, 5-
HTTLPR did not moderate the effects of stressful life events.
Similarly, men homozygous for the 5-HTTLPR short allele
showed elevated cortisol reactivity in a psychosocial stress con-
dition, but only if they also reported many stressful life events
(35). However, researchers have not yet tested whether growing
up in very supportive conditions also leads to the development of
pronounced VS in those carrying sensitivity genes.
The notion of sensitivity types is not unrelated to predictions
made by the adaptive calibration model (36), according to which
differences in the quality of the developmental context shape an
individual’s pattern of stress responsivity: A safe environment
produces heightened general sensitivity (i.e., DST), moderate
stress leads to a more buffered general sensitivity (i.e., moderate
susceptibility), a dangerous environment results in a high sensi-
tive vigilant pattern (i.e., vulnerability), and traumatic stress in a
general lack of responsivity.
Mechanism of Environmental Sensitivity
Empirical studies of environmental sensitivity include those that
focus on genetic, psychological, or physiological sensitivity fac-
tors (22), which seems to suggest that environmental sensitivity
may be driven by many mechanisms. However, these different
sensitivity factors most likely reflect different levels of analysis
across various biological mechanisms that jointly influence neu-
robiological susceptibility as the underlying central mechanism
of environmental sensitivity (16, 17, 20, 24, 37). In other words,
heightened environmental sensitivity most likely reflects specific
features of the central nervous system (e.g., amygdala and
hippocampus structure and function), which cause environmen-
tal influences to register more easily and more deeply. Accord-
ing to this neurosensitivity hypothesis, sensitivity of the central
nervoussystemisdeterminedby both direct and interactive
effects of genetic and environmental factors (16, 37). The result-
ing heightened central nervous sensitivity is then reflected in
physiological (e.g., high stress reactivity) and psychological/
behavioral outcomes (e.g., negative emotionality) elicited in
response to environmental factors (see Figure 3).
Evolutionary Considerations
Do differences in environmental sensitivity reflect conditional
adaptation or a bet-hedging strategy? Observations across many
species suggest that high and low sensitivity types reflect differ-
ent developmental strategies, each with specific advantages and
disadvantages (1, 4). Given that differences in environmental
sensitivity are neither exclusively based on genes nor exclu-
sively the result of conditional adaptation processes, environ-
mental sensitivity most likely reflects the combination of bet-
hedging and conditional adaptation rather than one or the other:
Environmental sensitivity facilitates conditional adaptation to
the environment, but an individual’s degree of adaptation
depends on the presence of genetic factors that have been main-
tained by natural selection. Consistent with this view, most gene
Figure 2. Graphical illustration of the development of sensitivity types.Intheabsenceofsensitivitygenes,environmental sensitivity will be low regardless
of environmental quality. If sensitivity genes are present, the quality of the early environment shapes the sensitivity type: In response to a neutralenviron-
ment, sensitivity will reflect heightened susceptibility to both negative and positive influences. However, a predominately adverse environment increases sen-
sitivity toward threats, whereas a predominately supportive environment increases vantage sensitivity.
Figure 3. Illustration of the neurosensitivity hypothesis. Direct and inter-
active effects between sensitivity genes and environmental factors shape the
sensitivity of the central nervous system. Heightened central nervous system
sensitivity is then manifested in psychological/behavioral and physiological
responsivity.
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 0, Number 0, 2015, Pages 1–6
4Michael Pluess
variants associated with environmental sensitivity are common
in the population and have been positively selected for (for
DRD4, see 38). However, empirical and computer simulation
studies suggest that high sensitivity is most advantageous if
characterizing only a minority of the population, usually between
20 and 30% (1). In summary, differences in environmental sen-
sitivity are beneficial from an evolutionary perspective—as long
as high sensitivity is only found in a minority—and reflect vari-
ability in the propensity for conditional adaptation to the envi-
ronment (6, 24, 36, 39).
LOOKING AHEAD
Much empirical evidence across many disciplines supports dif-
ferent components of the proposed integrated framework of envi-
ronmental sensitivity (4, 40). Nevertheless, researchers should
focus on the following questions to understand variability in
environmental sensitivity more deeply.
First, investigators should focus on the hypothesized general
neurocognitive mechanism underlying individual differences in
environmental sensitivity (i.e., neurosensitivity). A promising
approach is combining structural and functional brain imaging
data with genetic, epigenetic, and behavioral measures (e.g., 41).
Second, it remains to be determined whether an individual’s
environmental sensitivity varies across different domains of
functioning (e.g., cognitive, emotional, social) or whether differ-
ences in sensitivity affect all domains equally (13).
Third, researchers should illuminate developmental aspects of
environmental sensitivity to understand more thoroughly how
genetic and environmental factors interact in developing envi-
ronmental sensitivity. Specifically, they should investigate to
what extent environmentally programmed sensitivity remains
malleable across life.
Fourth, researchers should test empirically the proposition
that environmental factors shape an initially neutral propensity
for sensitivity into specific and distinct sensitivity types (i.e.,
general sensitivity, vulnerability, VS). And they should investi-
gate whether the different types of environmental sensitivity fit
more effectively with a categorical or dimensional model.
Fifth, investigators should develop precise and reliable psy-
chological and biological measures of environmental sensitivity.
Although some self-report measures predict environmental sen-
sitivity (e.g., sensory-processing sensitivity; 17, 42), we need
more specific measures.
IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION
The notion that people vary in the extent to which they are
affected by exogenous factors has important implications for
both theoretical and applied work in any discipline that deals
with human functioning. Most psychological research tests
hypotheses by comparing average effects across the sample,
ignoring that effects may vary between people as a function of
their specific degree of environmental sensitivity. Hence, such
studies may underestimate effects for highly sensitive individu-
als and overestimate effects for less sensitive ones, particularly
in intervention studies. To get more adequate and precise esti-
mates for the effects of environmental influences, including psy-
chological intervention, studies should consider the
heterogeneity of people’s environmental sensitivity. Similarly,
inter-individual variability in environmental sensitivity suggests
that just as some people will be affected more negatively by
adverse experiences, some people will benefit more from posi-
tive, supportive ones. Such heterogeneity requires a more per-
sonalized approach in applied work, whether the focus is
preventing or treating problematic outcomes or promoting com-
petence and well-being. In short, considering individual differ-
ences in environmental sensitivity is fundamentally important
for both theoretical and applied psychology.
REFERENCES
1. Wolf, M., van Doorn, G. S., & Weissing, F. J. (2008). Evolutionary
emergence of responsive and unresponsive personalities. Proceed-
ings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America,105, 15825–15830. doi:10.1073/pnas.0805473105
2. Koolhaas, J., Korte, S., De Boer, S., Van Der Vegt, B., Van Reenen,
C., Hopster, H., ... Blokhuis, H. (1999). Coping styles in animals:
Current status in behavior and stress-physiology. Neuroscience and
Biobehavioral Reviews,23,925–935.
3. Korte, S. M., Koolhaas, J. M., Wingfield, J. C., & McEwen, B. S.
(2005). The Darwinian concept of stress: Benefits of allostasis and
costs of allostatic load and the trade-offs in health and disease. Neu-
roscience and Biobehavioral Reviews,29,3–38. doi:10.1016/j.neu
biorev.2004.08.009
4. Aron, E. N., Aron, A., & Jagiellowicz, J. (2012). Sensory processing
sensitivity: A review in the light of the evolution of biological re-
sponsivity. Personality and Social Psychology Review,16,262–282.
doi:10.1177/1088868311434213
5.Aron,E.N.(1996).The highly sensitive person: How to thrive when
the world overwhelms you (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Broadway
Books.
6. Boyce, W. T., & Ellis, B. J. (2005). Biological sensitivity to context:
I. An evolutionary-developmental theory of the origins and functions
of stress reactivity. Development and Psychopathology,17,271–301.
7. Sih, A., & Bell, A. M. (2008). Insights for behavioral ecology from
behavioral syndromes. Advances in the Study of Behavior,38,227–
281. doi:10.1016/S0065-3454(08)00005-3
8. Pluess, M., & Belsky, J. (2010). Differential susceptibility to parent-
ing and quality child care. Developmental Psychology,46, 379–390.
doi:10.1037/a0015203
9. Pluess, M., & Belsky, J. (2009). Differential susceptibility to rearing
experience: The case of childcare. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines,50, 396–404. doi:10.1111/j.1469-
7610.2008.01992.x
10. Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2012). Differential susceptibility to long-
term effects of quality of child care on externalizing behavior in
adolescence? International Journal of Behavioral Development,36,
2–10. doi:10.1177/0165025411406855
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 0, Number 0, 2015, Pages 1–6
Environmental Sensitivity 5
11. van IJzendoorn, M. H., Belsky, J., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J.
(2012). Serotonin transporter genotype 5HTTLPR as a marker of dif-
ferential susceptibility? A meta-analysis of child and adolescent
gene-by-environment studies. Translational Psychiatry,2, e147.
doi:10.1038/tp.2012.73
12. Verschoor, E., & Markus, C. R. (2011). Affective and neuroendo-
crine stress reactivity to an academic examination: Influence of the
5-HTTLPR genotype and trait neuroticism. Biological Psychology,
87,439–449. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.06.001
13. Stamps, J. A. (2015). Individual differences in behavioral plasticities.
Unpublished manuscript.
14. Monroe, S. M., & Simons, A. D. (1991). Diathesis-stress theories in
the context of life stress research: Implications for the depressive
disorders. Psychological Bulletin,110,406–425.
15. Zuckerman, M. (1999). Vulnerability to psychopathology: A biosocial
model. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
16. Pluess, M., & Belsky, J. (2013). Vantage sensitivity: Individual dif-
ferences in response to positive experiences. Psychological Bulletin,
139,901–916. doi:10.1037/a0030196
17. Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (1997). Sensory-processing sensitivity and
its relation to introversion and emotionality. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,73,345–368.
18. Aron, E. N., Aron, A., & Davies, K. M. (2005). Adult shyness: The
interaction of temperamental sensitivity and an adverse childhood
environment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,31,181–
197. doi:10.1177/0146167204271419
19. Belsky, J. (1997). Variation in susceptibility to rearing influences:
An evolutionary argument. Psychological Inquiry,8,182–186.
20. Belsky, J. (2005). Differential susceptibility to rearing influences:
An evolutionary hypothesis and some evidence. In B. Ellis & D.
Bjorklund (Eds.), Origins of the social mind: Evolutionary psychol-
ogy and child development (pp. 139–163). New York, NY: Guilford.
21. Belsky, J., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H.
(2007). For better and for worse: Differential susceptibility to envi-
ronmental influences. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
16,300–304. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00525.x
22. Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond diathesis-stress: Differential
susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin,
135,885–908. doi:10.1037/a0017376
23. Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2013). Beyond risk, resilience, and dysre-
gulation: Phenotypic plasticity and human development. Develop-
ment and Psychopathology,25,1243–1261. doi:10.1017/S09
5457941300059X
24. Ellis, B. J., Boyce, W. T., Belsky, J., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., &
van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2011). Differential susceptibility to the envi-
ronment: An evolutionary–neurodevelopmental theory. Development
and Psychopathology,23,7–28. doi:10.1017/s0954579410000611
25. Pluess, M., & Belsky, J. (2011). Prenatal programming of postnatal
plasticity? Development and Psychopathology,23,29–38. doi:10.
1017/S0954579410000623
26. Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). The nature (and nurture?) of plas-
ticity in early human development. Perspectives on Psychological
Science,4,345–351.
27. Boyce, W. T., Chesney, M., Alkon, A., Tschann, J. M., Adams, S.,
Chesterman, B., ... Wara, D. (1995). Psychobiologic reactivity to
stress and childhood respiratory illnesses: Results of two prospective
studies. Psychosomatic Medicine,57,411–422.
28. Belsky, J., Jonassaint, C., Pluess,M.,Stanton,M.,Brummett,B.,&
Williams, R. (2009). Vulnerability genes or plasticity genes? Molec-
ular Psychiatry,14,746–754. doi:10.1038/mp.2009.44
29. Pluess, M., & Meaney, M. J. (in press). Genes, environment, and
psychological well-being. In M. Pluess (Ed.), Genetics of psychologi-
cal well-being. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30. Pluess, M., Velders, F. P., Belsky, J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Baker-
mans-Kranenburg, M. J., Jaddoe, V. W., ... Tiemeier, H. (2011).
Serotonin transporter polymorphism moderates effects of prenatal
maternal anxiety on infant negative emotionality. Biological Psychi-
atry,69,520–525. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.10.006
31. Forssman, L., Peltola, M. J., Yrttiaho, S., Puura, K., Mononen,
N., Lehtim€aki, T., & Lepp€anen, J. M. (2013). Regulatory vari-
ant of the TPH2 gene and early life stress are associated with
heightened attention to social signals of fear in infants. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,55,793–801. doi:10.1111/
jcpp.12181
32. Meaney, M. J. (2010). Epigenetics and the biological definition of
gene x environment interactions. Child Development,81,41–79.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01381.x
33. Szyf, M., & Pluess, M. (in press). Epigenetics and well-being: Opti-
mal adaptation to the environment. In M. Pluess (Ed.), Genetics of
psychological well-being. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
34.Kumsta,R.,Stevens,S.,Brookes,K.,Schlotz,W.,Castle,J.,
Beckett, C., ... Sonuga-Barke, E. (2010). 5HTT genotype moderates
the influence of early institutional deprivation on emotional prob-
lems in adolescence: Evidence from the English and Romanian
Adoptee (ERA) study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
and Allied Disciplines,34,1562–1592. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.
2010.02249.x
35. Alexander, N., Kuepper, Y., Schmitz, A., Osinsky, R., Kozyra, E., &
Hennig, J. (2009). Gene-environment interactions predict cortisol
responses after acute stress: Implications for the etiology of depres-
sion. Psychoneuroendocrinology,34, 1294. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.
2009.03.017
36. Del Giudice, M., Ellis, B. J., & Shirtcliff, E. A. (2011). The adap-
tive calibration model of stress responsivity. Neuroscience and
Biobehavioral Reviews,35, 1562–1592. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.
2010.11.007
37. Pluess, M., Stevens, S., & Belsky, J. (2013). Differential susceptibil-
ity: Developmental and evolutionary mechanisms of gene-environ-
ment interactions. In M. Legerstee, D. W. Haley, & M. H. Bornstein
(Eds.), The infant mind: Origins of the social brain (pp. 77–96). New
York, NY: Guilford.
38. Ding, Y., Chi, H., Grady, D. L., Morishima, A., Kidd, J., Kidd,
K. K., ... Moyzis, R. K. (2002). Evidence of positive selection
acting at the human dopamine DF gene locus. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of Amer-
ica,99,309–314.
39. Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (in press). Differential susceptibility to
environmental influences. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), Developmental psy-
chopathology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
40. Homberg, J. R., & Lesch, K. P. (2011). Looking on the bright side
of serotonin transporter gene variation. Biological Psychiatry,69,
513–519. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.09.024
41. Hyde, L. W., Gorka, A., Manuck, S. B., & Hariri, A. R. (2011). Per-
ceived social support moderates the link between threat-related
amygdala reactivity and trait anxiety. Neuropsychologia,49,651–
656. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.08.025
42. Pluess, M., & Boniwell, I. (2015). Sensory-processing sensitivity
predicts treatment response to a school-based depression prevention
program: Evidence of vantage sensitivity. Personality and Individual
Differences,82(0), 40–45. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.011
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 0, Number 0, 2015, Pages 1–6
6Michael Pluess