ArticlePDF Available

Individual Differences in Environmental Sensitivity

April 2015
Child Development Perspectives 9(3)

Authors:

University of Surrey

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, individuals 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 environmental 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 differences in environmental sensitivity. I also emphasize that inter-individual variability in environmental sensitivity be considered in both theoretical and applied work.

Content uploaded by Michael Pluess

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.

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

The Highly Sensitive Child Scale (12-Item Short Form): Turkish Validity and Reliability Study

Article

Nov 2024

How do fathers’ educational level contribute to children’s school problems? Overparenting and children’s gender and surgency in a moderated mediation model

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2024

This study aims to investigate (a) the mediating role of overparenting between father’s educational level and children’s school problems, and (b) the joint moderating role of children’s gender and surgency in the indirect relationship between father’s educational level and school problems. Participants were 203 school children, 96 boys (47.3%) and 107 girls (52.7%), aged 7–8 years (M = 92.42 months, SD = 3.52). Fathers reported their educational level, age and employment status and their children’s gender and number of siblings, as well as their overparenting behaviors by Anticipatory Problem Solving (APS) scale. Teachers informed children’s school problems by the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC T-2). Parents together informed their children’s surgency levels by a subscale of Children’s Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ). Results showed that, in girls, the father’s educational level was negatively related to the child’s school problems via overparenting behaviors, controlling the number of siblings and father’s age and employment status. However, among boys, fathers’ overparenting protect their shy sons from the risk of a low educational level for school problems. These findings highlight the relevance of considering the gender and surgency to a better understanding of the effects of contextual factors on children’s outcomes.

Considering heterogeneity within negative emotionality can inform the distinction between diathesis-stress and differential susceptibility: Children's early anger and fear as moderators of effects of parental socialization on antisocial conduct

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2024
DEV PSYCHOPATHOL

The importance of interactions between child temperament and parenting has been accepted ever since Thomas and Chess (1977) proposed their “goodness-of-fit” construct, but over the last three decades, pertinent research has grown exponentially. Researchers examining child characteristics that can moderate the effects of socialization have tested increasingly complex, nuanced, and sophisticated models, largely inspired by the highly influential frameworks of child plasticity or differential susceptibility (Belsky & Pluess, 2009). Yet, multiple questions remain unsettled. We addressed four such questions as applied to predicting children’s observed disregard for rules at age 4.5 in a study of 200 community families from the US Midwest. (a) We examined children’s observed negative emotionality at 16 months, most commonly seen as a plasticity “trait,” but separating anger and fear proneness, which may differently moderate effects of socialization. (b) We examined two separate aspects of observed parental socialization at age 3, mutually responsive orientation and power assertion. (c) We distinguished analytically diathesis-stress from differential susceptibility. (d) We examined all effects in mother– and father–child relationships. We supported both diathesis-stress and differential susceptibility, depending on the facet of negative emotionality, the aspect of socialization considered, and parental gender, highlighting the nuanced nature of the processes involved.

Moderators of the Association Between Parental Divorce/Separation and Adolescent Externalizing Behaviors and Substance Use: A Systematic Review

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2024

While parental divorce/separation is a risk factor for adolescent externalizing behaviors—including substance use—properly understanding the effects of divorce/separation requires considering the biopsychosocial factors that contribute to heterogenous adolescent developmental processes. To better understand for which adolescents’ parental divorce/separation predicts externalizing behaviors, the present review aimed to examine the moderators of this association. 34 cross-sectional (20) and longitudinal (14) studies were identified through a systematic search in PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Narrative synthesis was used to interpret the results across the individual, family, and broader contextual levels. The strongest evidence suggests that divorce/separation occurring earlier in an adolescent’s lifetime is more strongly related to externalizing behaviors and that positive family relationships could be protective after divorce/separation. Further evidence suggests that it is important to consider broader contextual factors (e.g., country-level diversity of family structures, availability of psychosocial school programs, cultural background) when examining the impact of divorce/separation on adolescents. Conclusions are limited by each moderator having been examined in few studies and a lack of recent literature, with a majority of studies being over 20 years old, despite evidence suggesting that family transitions remain relevant to adolescent development.

The role of individual differences in environmental sensitivity in teachers' stress and burnout at work

Article

Oct 2024
STRESS HEALTH

School teachers are among workers most exposed to stress and burnout—a relevant occupational phenomenon leading to psychological and economic costs. The Environmental Sensitivity individual trait—as captured by the psychological marker of sensory processing sensitivity (SPS)—has been found to have a relevant role in stress and emotional exhaustion at work. Yet, little is still known about heightened SPS in the educational field and on underlying mechanisms occurring in the relationship between SPS, stress and burnout. The current work aimed to explore the association between SPS and burnout among teachers as well as the moderating role of perceived stress and school climate in this association. One hundred and ninety eight teachers (44.3 years; SD = 9.7, 94% F) reported on their levels of SPS, occupational burnout, perceived stress and school climate quality. In line with a vulnerability effect, we found heightened SPS largely associated with burnout. This was particularly evident in a context of high‐perceived stress, suggesting that teachers high on SPS may experience more challenges in the face of elevated stress with the need of more support. When exposed to positive and supportive school climate, highly sensitive teachers showed a decrease in burnout, suggesting high SPS as a valuable strength for benefiting from positive experiences. Findings have the potential to inform the customisation of support programs, assisting both schools and work agencies in increasing their awareness of the role of individual differences in responding to both work‐demand‐related stress and to positive work environments.

Bambini altamente sensibili a scuola (Sviluppo e valutazione dell’impatto di pratiche d’aula nel primo ciclo di scuola elementare)

Book

Full-text available

Oct 2024

Il progetto di ricerca-formazione BASS – Bambini altamente sensibili a scuola si ha permesso di sviluppare e valutare l’efficacia di specifiche pratiche pedagogico-didattiche per supportare lo sviluppo, l’adattamento e l’apprendimento dei bambini altamente sensibili nei primi anni di scuola elementare.

In their narratives: academic socialization in the experience of sensory processing sensitivity among university students

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2024

Introduction While much of the worldwide contemporary research on sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) and environmental sensitivity (ES) has relied on the participation of university students, there remains a significant gap in understanding the academic social experiences of those scoring high in SPS (i.e., highly sensitive individuals). Methods To address this gap, this exploratory study aimed to investigate in detail students’ academic socialization through their narratives. We conducted nine interviews with Italian university students who self-identified as highly sensitive. Results Through thematic reflexive analysis, we identified and analyzed 6 themes (with subthemes and versions of subthemes) concerning their self-definitions, their university experience (in classroom, before, during, and after exams), and socialization with peers and teachers. Discussion After 20 years of research on SPS, this study integrates the relevant literature into the field of social psychology and academic socialization, emphasizing the importance of understanding SPS within real-life educational contexts and considering highly sensitive students’ perspectives on their resources and challenges in attending university. By contributing to the emerging qualitative literature on SPS and ES, this study provides practical implications for educators and policymakers seeking to foster inclusive learning environments for all students.

Indicators of improved emotion behaviour in 6 to 14 year-old children following a 4-week placebo controlled prebiotic supplement intervention at home with a parent.

Preprint

Full-text available

Oct 2024

In this double-blind placebo-controlled randomised intervention we investigated the potential benefits of a prebiotic supplement on children's well-being in a home setting. The primary aim was to determine if this supplement could effectively reduce anxiety, improve mood, and enhance cognitive function, similar to findings in young adults. Fifty-three healthy children, aged 6 to 14, participated in an 8-week trial. The trial consisted of three testing time points; day zero marked the baseline measurement (T1) followed by a 28-day supplement intervention period during which they consumed 5.5 grams of galactooligosaccharides (GOS) daily under parental guidance. Endline measures (T2) were conducted on the last day of supplement consumption, with a final follow-up testing session (T3) on day 56. Primary outcomes were trait anxiety using a questionnaire and emotional behavior in a dot-probe task on responses to positive and negative images. Secondary outcomes encompassed depression levels, cognitive function tests, and dietary intake recorded in a 4-day food diary. Additionally, we explored whether parents' emotional behavior had an impact on children's responses. While our statistical analysis did not reveal significant effects of GOS, there were noteworthy trends. Trait anxiety levels decreased over time in both groups, with a more pronounced decrease in the GOS group. The GOS group exhibited reduced negative emotional responses compared to the placebo group, and post-trial depression levels decreased in the GOS group over time. Although parental emotional responses correlated with various emotional outcomes in children, they did not influence the intervention effects. In conclusion, these findings suggest positive trends in line with our hypotheses however further investigation with greater statistical power would be beneficial.

The interplay among environmental sensitivity, job stressors, and leadership styles on employee well-being

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2024

Investigating the role of individual differences in Environmental Sensitivity for well-being and stress at work is an emerging area of research with significant potential for practical implications in organizational management and human resources. Recent studies have begun to explore how individuals with high sensory-processing sensitivity (SPS) may be more vulnerable to work-related stress than their less sensitive peers, but may also derive greater benefits from positive job resources when available. The present study aims to investigate the role of leadership style in the complex interplay between individual differences in sensitivity, stress at work, and general well-being. A questionnaire was administered through Qualtrics to a total of 317 workers from two medium–large–sized Italian companies, across two waves between May and July 2022. Findings provided support for a three-way interaction effect, with job stressors exerting an adverse effect on participants’ well-being, mitigated by democratic and let-it-be leadership styles at the team level, particularly among highly sensitive individuals. Thus, our findings suggest a vantage sensitivity effect and underscore the importance of cultivating positive work climates to enhance workers’ ability to cope with stressors and improve their global well-being, with particular relevance for highly sensitive individuals.

Parents differ in their sensitivity to the environment: An investigation of the relationship between socioeconomic status, social support, and child maltreatment risks

Article

Nov 2024

Genes, environment, and psychological well-being

Chapter

Full-text available

Jun 2015

Epigenetics and well-being: optimal adaptation to the environment

Chapter

Full-text available

Jun 2015

Differential susceptibility: Developmental and evolutionary mechanisms of gene-environment interactions

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2013

Differential Susceptibility to Environmental Influences

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2015

Jay Belsky

Evidence that adverse rearing environments exert negative effects particularly on children and adults presumed “vulnerable” for temperamental or genetic reasons may actually reflect something else: heightened susceptibility to the negative effects of risky environments and to the beneficial effects of supportive environments. Building on Belsky’s (1997, 2005; Belsky & Pluess, 2009) evolutionary-inspired differential susceptibility hypothesis stipulating that some individuals, including children, are more affected—both for better and for worse—by their environmental exposures and developmental experiences, recent research consistent with this claim is reviewed. It reveals that in many cases, including both observational field studies and experimental intervention ones, putatively vulnerable children and adults are especially susceptible to both positive and negative environmental effects. In addition to reviewing relevant evidence, unknowns in the differential-susceptibility equation are highlighted.

Individual Differences in Behavioural Plasticities

Article

Full-text available

May 2016
BIOL REV

Judy Stamps

Interest in individual differences in animal behavioural plasticities has surged in recent years, but research in this area has been hampered by semantic confusion as different investigators use the same terms (e.g. plasticity, flexibility, responsiveness) to refer to different phenomena. The first goal of this review is to suggest a framework for categorizing the many different types of behavioural plasticities, describe examples of each, and indicate why using reversibility as a criterion for categorizing behavioural plasticities is problematic. This framework is then used to address a number of timely questions about individual differences in behavioural plasticities. One set of questions concerns the experimental designs that can be used to study individual differences in various types of behavioural plasticities. Although within-individual designs are the default option for empirical studies of many types of behavioural plasticities, in some situations (e.g. when experience at an early age affects the behaviour expressed at subsequent ages), 'replicate individual' designs can provide useful insights into individual differences in behavioural plasticities. To date, researchers using within-individual and replicate individual designs have documented individual differences in all of the major categories of behavioural plasticities described herein. Another important question is whether and how different types of behavioural plasticities are related to one another. Currently there is empirical evidence that many behavioural plasticities [e.g. contextual plasticity, learning rates, IIV (intra-individual variability), endogenous plasticities, ontogenetic plasticities) can themselves vary as a function of experiences earlier in life, that is, many types of behavioural plasticity are themselves developmentally plastic. These findings support the assumption that differences among individuals in prior experiences may contribute to individual differences in behavioural plasticities observed at a given age. Several authors have predicted correlations across individuals between different types of behavioural plasticities, i.e. that some individuals will be generally more plastic than others. However, empirical support for most of these predictions, including indirect evidence from studies of relationships between personality traits and plasticities, is currently sparse and equivocal. The final section of this review suggests how an appreciation of the similarities and differences between different types of behavioural plasticities may help theoreticians formulate testable models to explain the evolution of individual differences in behavioural plasticities and the evolutionary and ecological consequences of individual differences in behavioural plasticities. © 2015 Cambridge Philosophical Society.

Sensory-Processing Sensitivity predicts treatment response to a school-based depression prevention program: Evidence of Vantage Sensitivity

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2015
PERS INDIV DIFFER

Treatment effects of preventative mental health interventions for adolescents tend to be relatively small. One reason for the small effects may be individual differences in the response to psychological treatment as a function of inherent characteristics, a notion proposed in the concept of Vantage Sensitivity. The current study investigated whether the personality trait Sensory-Processing Sensitivity moderated the efficacy of a new school-based intervention aimed at the prevention of depression.

The Adaptive Calibration Model of stress responsivity

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2011

This paper presents the Adaptive Calibration Model (ACM), an evolutionary-developmental theory of individual differences in the functioning of the stress response system. The stress response system has three main biological functions: (1) to coordinate the organism's allostatic response to physical and psychosocial challenges; (2) to encode and filter information about the organism's social and physical environment, mediating the organism's openness to environmental inputs; and (3) to regulate the organism's physiology and behavior in a broad range of fitness-relevant areas including defensive behaviors, competitive risk-taking, learning, attachment, affiliation and reproductive functioning. The information encoded by the system during development feeds back on the long-term calibration of the system itself, resulting in adaptive patterns of responsivity and individual differences in behavior. Drawing on evolutionary life history theory, we build a model of the development of stress responsivity across life stages, describe four prototypical responsivity patterns, and discuss the emergence and meaning of sex differences. The ACM extends the theory of biological sensitivity to context (BSC) and provides an integrative framework for future research in the field.

Beyond risk, resilience, and dysregulation: Phenotypic plasticity and human development

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2013
DEV PSYCHOPATHOL

We provide a theoretical and empirical basis for the claim that individual differences exist in developmental plasticity and that phenotypic plasticity should be a subject of study in its own right. To advance this argument, we begin by highlighting challenges that evolutionary thinking poses for a science of development and psychopathology, including for the diathesis-stress framework that has (fruitfully) guided so much empirical inquiry on developmental risk, resilience, and dysregulation. With this foundation laid, we raise a series of issues that the differential-susceptibility hypothesis calls attention to, while highlighting findings that have emerged over just the past several years and are pertinent to some of the questions posed. Even though it is clear that this new perspective on Person × Environment interaction is stimulating research and influencing how hypotheses are framed and data interpreted, a great many topics remain that need empirical attention. Our intention is to encourage students of development and psychopathology to treat phenotypic plasticity as an individual-difference construct while exploring unknowns in the differential-susceptibility equation.

Differential Susceptibility to Environmental Influences

Chapter

Feb 2016

The notion that developmental experiences and environmental exposures shape individual development is central to most theorizing about human development and implies that humans are generally characterized by developmental plasticity. Evolutionary-biological reasoning suggests that such plasticity in development carries substantial costs and in some cases increases the risk for maladaptive developmental outcomes. Consequently, application of evolutionary thinking to the phenomenon of developmental plasticity leads to the conclusion that individuals should vary in their degree of plasticity to balance associated risks and benefits. This notion has been conceptualized in the framework of differential susceptibility, which posits that some people are generally more susceptible to environmental influences than others. After presenting a detailed evolutionary rational for differential susceptibility, the latest empirical evidence for the hypothesized variability in developmental plasticity is reviewed before discussing new research questions stimulated by the application of differential susceptibility reasoning to human development. Keywords: developmental plasticity; differential susceptibility; diathesis–stress; vantage sensitivity; evolutionary psychology; vulnerability; GxE interaction

For better and for worse: Differential susceptibiilty to environmental influences

Article

Dec 2007

Evidence that adverse rearing environments exert negative effects particularly on children presumed "vulnerable" for temperamental or genetic reasons may actually reflect something else: heightened susceptibility to the negative effects of risky environments and to the beneficial effects of supportive environments. Building on Belsky's (1997, 2005) evolutionary-inspired proposition that some children are more affected-both for better and for worse-by their rearing experiences than are others, we consider recent work on child vulnerability, including that involving measured genes, along with evidence showing that putatively vulnerable children are especially susceptible to both positive and negative rearing effects. We also consider methodological issues and unanswered questions in the differential-susceptibility equation.

Individual Differences in Environmental Sensitivity

Abstract

Recommended publications

From Legacy to Leverage

Applying Evolutionary Theory to Individual Differences: Insights from Moral Psychology

Risk, vulnerability, and resilience: An overview.

Vulnerability and Resilience in Childhood Trauma and PTSD