No file available
To read the file of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
People Differ in their Sensitivity to the Environment: An Integrated Theory and Empirical Evidence
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.
Abstract
People differ in their sensitivity to similar experiences with some being generally more and some less sensitive. Several theories have been developed over the years to describe such differences in Environmental Sensitivity and a growing number of studies provide empirical evidence that some people are indeed more affected than others by environmental influences. Sensitivity has been associated with temperament traits in children as well as a number of biological factors. In this paper, we provide new experimental evidence that self-reported sensitivity predicts differences in the response to negative as well as positive experiences, after introducing a short sensitivity questionnaire for adults, building on the original Highly Sensitive Person scale (Aron & Aron, 1997), and investigating its psychometric properties as well as associations with the Big Five personality traits. Results across the five individual studies (total N = 1,140) suggest that individual differences in sensitivity to the environment can be assessed with the newly developed measure (HSP-12), validated by two experimental studies according to which the scale predicts heightened reactivity to both negative and positive experiences. Furthermore, sensitivity reflects a continuous spectrum from low to high along which people fall into three distinct sensitivity groups (low, medium, and high). Finally, sensitivity was found to fit a specific personality profile characterised by both high Neuroticism and high Openness to Experiences. We conclude that adults differ substantially in their sensitivity to environmental influences and that such differences can be measured reliably with a short and easily applicable sensitivity questionnaire.
... Finally, SPS (Aron & Aron, 1997;Aron et al., 2012) posits that individual differences in ES are due to heightened sensory sensitivity and deeper processing of sensory inputs at the level of the central nervous system (for a review see Acevedo, 2020). The trait perspective of SPS suggests that it is possible to measure an individual's sensitivity to environmental influences behaviourally, adopting observational measures (Davies et al., 2021;Lionetti, Aron, et al., 2019), self-report questionnaires for adults and children (Aron & Aron, 1997;Pluess et al., 2018Pluess et al., , 2020, and parent-report for preschoolers (Slagt et al., 2018). Though each of these theories provides a unique contribution to the study of the interaction between the environment and the individual, all three agree that sensitive individuals differ not only in their response to environmental adversities but also in response to nurturing and positive environments. ...
... The first psychological measure specifically developed to assess environmental sensitivity as reflected in the SPS trait is the Highly Sensitive Person (HSP) scale for adults (Aron & Aron, 1997), whose development was informed by a series of qualitative interviews with individuals that self-identified as "highly sensitive" (Aron & Aron, 1997). Further testing resulted in the 27-item self-report scale, systematically validated over several studies (for a review see Greven et al., 2019), and then adapted to the more recent 12-item version (HSP-12; Pluess et al., 2020). ...
... Results from the multigroup CFAs suggested that the HSC-PR fits a bi-factor structure, consisting both of three independent factors that capture different aspects of sensitivitysensitivity to sensory stimuli (LST), sensitivity to overstimulation (EOE), and sensitivity to the aesthetic quality of the environment (AES)and a general sensitivity factor across all items. The bi-factor structure is consistent with recent empirical evidence both from child and adult samples Pluess et al., 2020), and provides statistical justification for the use of the mean score across all items as a measure of general environmental sensitivity. Important to note, however, we identified potential issues in relation to item 7 in preschoolers. ...
Children differ in their environmental sensitivity (ES), which can be measured observationally or by self-report questionnaire. A parent-report scale represents an important tool for investigating ES in younger children but has to be psychometrically robust and valid. In the current multistudy, we validated the parent-report version of the Highly Sensitive Child (HSC-PR) scale in Italian children, evaluating its factorial structure (Study 1, N = 1,857, 6.2 years, age range: 2.6–14 years) through a multigroup Confirmatory Factory Analysis in preschoolers ( n = 1,066, 4.2 years) and school-age children ( n = 791, 8.8 years). We then investigated the HSC-PR relationship with established temperament traits (Study 2, N = 327, 4.3 years), before exploring whether the scale moderates the effects of parenting stress on children’s emotion regulation (Study 3, N = 112, 6.5 years). We found support for a bi-factor structure in both groups, though in preschoolers minor adaptations were suggested for one item. Importantly, the HSC-PR did not fully overlap with common temperament traits and moderated the effects of parenting stress on children emotion regulation. To conclude, the HSC-PR performs well and appears to capture ES in children.
... Aron and Aron (1997) also developed the first phenotypic measure of HSP, the Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS), a 27-item selfreport questionnaire. A shortened 12-item scale was subsequently developed by Pluess et al. (2020), and this is the one used in this study. The HSPS measures an individual's score along the sensitivity spectrum on a 7-point Lickert Scale (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely) and includes questions pertaining to social and aesthetic sensitivity, sensitivity to multiple cognitive and social demands, and sensitivity to the physical environment (Aron & Aron, 1997;Pluess et al., 2020). ...
... A shortened 12-item scale was subsequently developed by Pluess et al. (2020), and this is the one used in this study. The HSPS measures an individual's score along the sensitivity spectrum on a 7-point Lickert Scale (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely) and includes questions pertaining to social and aesthetic sensitivity, sensitivity to multiple cognitive and social demands, and sensitivity to the physical environment (Aron & Aron, 1997;Pluess et al., 2020). For example: Do you seem to be aware of subtleties in your environment? ...
... APPENDIX A: The short-form Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS-12, Pluess et al., 2020) ...
Approximately 30% of the population has a highly vigilant nervous system that responds and reacts to positive and negative environmental stimuli in a heightened manner. The personality/ temperament trait associated with this environmental sensitivity is Sensory Processing Sensitivity (SPS), which is measured by the Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS) (Aron & Aron, 1997). The hallmarks of SPS are deep cognitive processing, emotional reactivity, heightened awareness of environmental subtleties, and a propensity to feel overwhelmed if over-stimulated. This qualitative study investigated the lived experience of 13 highly sensitive (as measured by the HSPS) postsecondary learners. Results found that there were a number of benefits associated with high levels of sensitivity for postsecondary learners. It also found that the participants were negatively impacted by aspects of the physical learning environments, including light, visual and noise distraction, and the presence of indoor environmental pollutants, including scented cleaning and personal products. Recommendations for supporting highly sensitive students to thrive in physical learning environments include providing widespread education regarding the trait, institutional consideration of illumination levels, reduction of visual and noise distraction, and considering on-campus scent-free policies. Further support could include providing low-sensory spaces and establishing support groups for highly sensitive learners.
... Environmental sensitivity Environmental sensitivity was assessed with the Italian short version of Highly Sensitive Person Scale (Pluess et al., 2020), consisting of 12 items each rated from 0 to 7 (''0'' = ''Not at All; ''7'' = ''Extremely''). The items measure Sensory Processing Sensitivity (SPS), which represents physiological reactivity to stimuli in the environment (e.g., ''Are you easily overwhelmed by things like bright lights, strong smells, coarse fabrics, or sirens close by?''; ''Do you get rattled when you have a lot to do in a short amount of time?''). ...
... The items measure Sensory Processing Sensitivity (SPS), which represents physiological reactivity to stimuli in the environment (e.g., ''Are you easily overwhelmed by things like bright lights, strong smells, coarse fabrics, or sirens close by?''; ''Do you get rattled when you have a lot to do in a short amount of time?''). Consistent with previous studies on the psychometric properties of the scale with young adults (HSPS) (e.g., Pluess et al., 2020), internal consistency in the current sample had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.72 and the bifactorial structure of the tested model showed good fit indexes [χ2 (43) (Hanson & Kim, 2007). Originally, the module version for adolescents and young adults includes 51 items designed to measure six internal and 11 external assets of resilience. ...
... For emotional neglect, we considered three levels of severity based on cut off scores proposed in the CTQ manual of Bernstein and Fink (1998): none or minimal (0) [emotional neglect > = 5 & emotional neglect < = 9] in which there are those who have not experienced childhood emotional neglect or who have experienced it at a minimal level; low (1) [emotional neglect > = 10 & emotional neglect < = 14] in which there are those who have experienced childhood emotional neglect at a low level, meaning that they were victims of neglectful parenting behaviours more consistently than in group 0; moderate/severe (2) [emotional neglect > = 15] in which there are those who have experienced childhood emotional neglect at a moderate and severe level, meaning that they were victims of multiple and severe neglectful parenting behaviours than in group 1. For environmental sensitivity, we followed the most recent literature defining people to fall into three sensitivity groups along a sensitivity continuum Pluess et al., 2020) and we considered a three-class solution differentiating low (0) [< 30th percentile], medium (1) [30th percentile > = and < 70th percentile] and high (2) [> 70th percentile] sensitive groups. For resilient contexts, we considered three groups differentiating low [< 70th percentile], high [> 70th percentile] and medium [30th > = and < 70th percentile] to define an enriched, medium and low resilient context. ...
Empirical evidence regarding the impact of childhood emotional neglect on later adjustment is mixed, with some studies reporting neglect to predict low psychological well-being, while others reporting a well-adjusted development despite childhood experiences of emotional neglect. This heterogeneity is understood within a resilient framework where individual and contextual factors act as moderators. This is the first study investigating the moderating role of environmental sensitivity and contextual resilience on the association between childhood emotional neglect and psychological well-being.737 students from the University of Florence with an age ranging from 18 to 30 years (M = 19.81; SD = 1.91; 87% female) took part in the research. To investigate the effects of childhood emotional neglect on relational well-being, and the moderating role of environmental sensitivity and contextual resilience on the impact of emotional neglect, a series of generalized linear models, including only main effects and then adding interaction terms, were run and compared. Results provided support for a three-way interaction model, with environmental sensitivity and contextual resilience moderating the impact of childhood emotional neglect on relational well-being in young adulthood (B = .37, SE = .11, p < .001). Among those who experienced severe levels of childhood emotional neglect, young adults high in environmental sensitivity were more susceptible to the positive impact of supportive contexts, presenting higher levels of well-being compared to those low in environmental sensitivity. This study suggests that promoting supportive contexts in adulthood might reduce the impact of severe childhood emotional neglect, particularly in individuals with an increased environmental sensitivity.
... Phenotypically, both environmental sensitivity and anxiety sensitivity have been associated with stronger responses to major life events (Iimura, 2021;McLaughlin & Hatzenbuehler, 2009;Zavos, Wong, et al., 2012). High environmental sensitivity has been associated with both increases in mood and wellbeing following positive life events (Iimura, 2021) and decreases in wellbeing following exposure to stressful environments (Pluess et al., 2020). Notably, high environmental sensitivity was not associated with wellbeing at baseline, indicating that it does not reflect a generally lower emotional state, but rather increased sensitivity to the context of the environment (Pluess et al., 2020). ...
... High environmental sensitivity has been associated with both increases in mood and wellbeing following positive life events (Iimura, 2021) and decreases in wellbeing following exposure to stressful environments (Pluess et al., 2020). Notably, high environmental sensitivity was not associated with wellbeing at baseline, indicating that it does not reflect a generally lower emotional state, but rather increased sensitivity to the context of the environment (Pluess et al., 2020). Anxiety sensitivity has been shown to mediate the association between stressful life events and later anxiety symptoms in adolescence (McLaughlin & Hatzenbuehler, 2009), and between parent psychopathology and later anxiety in children (Drake & Kearney, 2008). ...
... The finding that environmental sensitivity was significantly genetically correlated with both positive and negative appraisals may suggest that higher genetic loading for this form of sensitivity is associated with greater appraisal of both adverse events as negative, and pleasant events as positive, which may attenuate the effects of such events on outcomes for these individuals. This explanation is in line with previous research that found more sensitive individuals are affected more negatively by adverse contexts but also more positively in response to positive exposures, compared to those who are generally less sensitive to both (Pluess et al., 2020). On the other hand, the underlying genetic liability of anxiety sensitivity is more relevant to the appraisal of events as negative and the tendency to perceive anxiety responses to these events as being . ...
Background
Despite being considered a measure of environmental risk, reported life events are partly heritable. One mechanism that may contribute to their heritability is genetic influences on sensitivity. These sensitivity biases can relate to how individuals process the contextual aspects of their environment (environmental sensitivity) or how they interpret their own physical and emotional responses (anxiety sensitivity). The aim of this study was to explore the genetic and environmental overlap between self-reported life events and measures of sensitivity.
Methods
At age 17, individuals (N = 2,939) from the Twins Early Development Study (TEDS) completed measures of environmental sensitivity (Highly Sensitive Child Scale) and anxiety sensitivity (Children’s Anxiety Sensitivity Index), as well as reporting on their experience of 20 recent life events. Using multivariate Cholesky decomposition models, we investigated the shared genetic and environmental influences on the associations between these measures of sensitivity and the number of reported life events, as well as both negative and positive ratings of life events.
Results
The majority of the associations between anxiety sensitivity, environmental sensitivity and reported life events were explained by shared genetic influences (59%-75%), with the remainder explained by non-shared environmental influences (25%-41%). Environmental sensitivity showed comparable genetic correlations with both negative and positive ratings of life events (r A = .21 and .15), anxiety sensitivity only showed a significant genetic correlation with negative ratings of life events (r A = .33). Approximately 10% of the genetic influences on reported life events were accounted for by genetic influences shared with anxiety sensitivity and environmental sensitivity.
Conclusions
A proportion of the heritable component of reported life events is captured by measures of sensitivity. Differences in how individuals process the contextual aspects of the environment or interpret their own physical and emotional response to environmental stimuli may be one mechanism through which genetic liability influences the subjective experience of life events.
... Finally, SPS (Aron & Aron, 1997;Aron et al., 2012) posits that individual differences in ES are due to heightened sensory sensitivity and deeper processing of sensory inputs at the level of the central nervous system (for a review see Acevedo, 2020). The trait perspective of SPS suggests that it is possible to measure an individual's sensitivity to environmental influences behaviourally, adopting observational measures (Davies et al., 2021;Lionetti, Aron, et al., 2019), self-report questionnaires for adults and children (Aron & Aron, 1997;Pluess et al., 2018Pluess et al., , 2020, and parent-report for preschoolers (Slagt et al., 2018). Though each of these theories provides a unique contribution to the study of the interaction between the environment and the individual, all three agree that sensitive individuals differ not only in their response to environmental adversities but also in response to nurturing and positive environments. ...
... The first psychological measure specifically developed to assess environmental sensitivity as reflected in the SPS trait is the Highly Sensitive Person (HSP) scale for adults (Aron & Aron, 1997), whose development was informed by a series of qualitative interviews with individuals that self-identified as "highly sensitive" (Aron & Aron, 1997). Further testing resulted in the 27-item self-report scale, systematically validated over several studies (for a review see Greven et al., 2019), and then adapted to the more recent 12-item version (HSP-12; Pluess et al., 2020). ...
... Results from the multigroup CFAs suggested that the HSC-PR fits a bi-factor structure, consisting both of three independent factors that capture different aspects of sensitivitysensitivity to sensory stimuli (LST), sensitivity to overstimulation (EOE), and sensitivity to the aesthetic quality of the environment (AES)and a general sensitivity factor across all items. The bi-factor structure is consistent with recent empirical evidence both from child and adult samples Pluess et al., 2020), and provides statistical justification for the use of the mean score across all items as a measure of general environmental sensitivity. Important to note, however, we identified potential issues in relation to item 7 in preschoolers. ...
Children differ in their Environmental Sensitivity (ES), which can be measured observationally or by self-report questionnaire. A parent-report scale represents an important tool for investigating ES in younger children but has to be psychometrically robust and valid. In the current multi-study, we validated the parent-report version of the Highly Sensitive Child (HSC-PR) scale in Italian children, evaluating its factorial structure (Study 1, N = 1857, 6.2 years, age range: 2.6 - 14 years), and exploring differences between preschoolers (n = 1066, 4.2 years) and school-age groups (n = 791, 8.8 years). We then investigated the HSC-PR relationship with established temperament traits (Study 2, N = 329, 4.3 years), before exploring whether the scale moderates the effects of parenting stress on children’s emotion regulation (Study 3, N = 112, 6.5 years). A bi-factor structure was supported in the school-age group. In the preschoolers sample, support was found for a three-factor as the bi-factor did not converge given estimation problems for one item. Furthermore, the HSC-PR does not fully overlap with common temperament traits and moderates the effects of parenting stress on emotion regulation. Finally, the HSC-PR performs well and appears to capture ES in children. Minor adaptations are suggested for preschoolers.
... Sensory Processing Sensitivity, which is Environmental Sensitivity as a personality trait, can be measured with the HSP scale in adults (Aron & Aron, 1997;Pluess et al., 2020), the Highly Sensitive Child (HSC) scale in children , and the HSC-Rating System (HSC-RS) by observer rating in children . The English version of the HSP scale (Aron & Aron, 1997) consists of 27 items developed based on interviews with adults, and the HSC scale consists of 12 items and was developed based on the HSP scale. ...
... Both HSP/HSC scales include three subscales: Ease of Excitation (EOE: i.e., being easily overwhelmed by internal or external stimuli), Low Sensory Threshold (LST: i.e., sensitivity to subtle external stimuli), and Esthetic Sensitivity (AES: i.e., susceptible to esthetic stimuli such as music or art). 1 EOE and LST subscales are composed of items that represent sensitivity to negative stimuli, and AES subscale is composed of items that reflect sensitivity to positive stimuli. Recent studies have reported that the HSP scale supports a bifactor structure (i.e., three subscales plus a General Sensitivity factor that explains all items) Pluess et al., 2020). It has been translated into several languages, including Italian (Nocentini et al., 2018), Dutch (Weyn, Van Leeuwen, Pluess, Lionetti, Greven et al., 2021), and Japanese (Kibe & Hirano, 2019;Takahashi, 2016), and has been reported to have good psychometric properties for measuring individual differences in Environmental Sensitivity. ...
... The HSP scale, which can easily measure Environmental Sensitivity by self-report, is expected to accelerate the accumulation of knowledge in this area. However, Pluess et al. (2020), who developed a new short version of the HSP scale, pointed out that while the sensitivity scale performs well in children, its ability to measure sensitivity in adults requires further improvement. This is not a problem limited to the English version of the sensitivity measure; the Japanese version of the HSP scale (HSP-J19), which consists of 19 items, has a similar issue. ...
Environmental Sensitivity, which explains individual differences in the tendency to respond more to both positive and negative environmental influences, can be measured by the self-reported Highly Sensitive Person scale. This paper introduced psychometric properties of a brief Japanese version of a 10-item measure of sensitivity (HSP-J10) developed by four studies involving 2,388 adults. The results showed that (1) the newly created HSP-J10 supported the bifactor structure (i.e., Ease of Excitation, Low Sensory Threshold, Esthetic Sensitivity, plus General Sensitivity factor), (2) the HSP-J10 correlated with but discriminated against other personality traits and affects, (3) it had high temporal stability, and (4) participants who scored higher on the HSP-J10 showed significant increases in positive emotion from before watching a video with positive content to after, while those who scored low showed no significant change in positive emotion. It demonstrated the new scale's good psychometric properties in that it moderated outcomes as theoretically expected when the environment was experimentally manipulated. The four studies suggested that the newly created HSP-J10 might adequately measure individual differences in adults' Environmental Sensitivity.
... Person Scale (HSPS-12, Pluess et al., 2020). ...
... The way in which an individual processes incoming information and reacts to their environment at any given time is a complex process and some people are more sensitive than others (Aron & Aron, 1997;Lionetti et al., 2018;Pluess et al., 2020;Weyn et al., 2021). ...
... The measure of sensitivity in the adult human population is the Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS) (Aron & Aron, 1997). The original HSPS is a 27-item self-report test that measures the degree to which an individual is aware of, evaluates, and reacts to internal, external, environmental and emotional stimuli (Aron & Aron, 1997;Greven et al., 2019;Pluess et al., 2020). Aron developed the scale as a unidimensional construct, designed to be independent of emotionality, introversion and gender bias (Aron & Aron, 1997 The HSPS was developed as a result of complex interviews carried out by Elaine Aron with university students who self-identified as sensitive. ...
People vary in the way in which they perceive, process and react to environmental
factors, and some are more or less sensitive than others. There is a dearth of research
investigating the possible impact that environmental sensitivity has in the postsecondary
education context. To address this gap in literature, the following research question was
posed: What impact does environmental sensitivity have on student learning in tertiary
education? To answer this question a two-stage mixed methods research project was
undertaken. The first stage involved two studies which used snowball recruitment via social
media, and subject inclusion criteria were current or previous postsecondary education
experience. Participants completed on-line surveys. Study One is the design, development
and validation of a self-report instrument measuring postsecondary students’ perceptions of
their learning success, and participants completed the Perceived Success in Study Survey
(PSISS) and associated demographic questions. Two phases were undertaken to check for
reliability of results, n=225 and n=237. Reliability statistics found a high level of internal
consistency, and principal component analysis identified five factors: Intellectual
Stimulation, Generic Skills, Work-life Balance; Commitment to Learning and Learning
Community. The PSISS was found to be a comprehensive measure of overall success for
postsecondary learners.
The participants in Study Two (n=365) completed the PSISS and the 12-item Highly
Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS-12, Pluess et al., 2020) and related demographic questions.
Independent T-tests, ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc calculations identified that high sensitivity
is positively associated with success-promoting attitudes and strategies as identified on three
of the five PSISS factors. It also found positive associations between total scores on the
PSISS and the sensitivity subscales of Aesthetic Sensitivity and Ease of Excitation
(Smolewska et al., 2006). This study included a response field to register interest in
participation in further research. Those who responded, and who rated as highly sensitive on
the HSPS-12, were invited to take part in a semi-structured interview, leading into the second
stage of the project. Thirteen Zoom interviews were conducted with participants from a broad
range of geographic locations and levels and fields of study in order to exemplify and
elaborate on the quantitative findings. Reflexive inductive thematic analysis was employed to
analyse the data, and sixteen codes and three themes were identified. Responses were written
vi
into a semantic narrative, accompanied by pertinent participant quotations, providing a rich
and detailed description of participant experience.
The results of this study confirmed that there are educational advantages contingent
with high sensitivity, including the use of a broad array of metacognitive study and self-care
strategies, and the prioritisation of wellbeing and work-life balance. Conversely, it also found
that numerous simultaneous study demands can lead to feelings of overwhelm, however, the
participants employed a comprehensive array of metacognitive coping strategies to manage
these. Low sensory thresholds associated with high sensitivity can present challenges for
highly sensitive students who can be negatively impacted by aspects of the physical learning
environments including light, noise, indoor environmental pollutants. Additionally,
participants highlighted the need for postsecondary institutions to provide education about
environmental sensitivity, to allow flexibility in teaching delivery, to explore options to
support students who may struggle with group-work and presentations, and to provide
assessment accommodations.
Overall, the project has identified a number of positive and negative associations
between levels of learner sensitivity and student success and suggests that education about
environmental sensitivity for students and teaching staff would be helpful for increasing
awareness about the benefits and challenges of environmental sensitivity. Institutional
commitment to providing optimal physical learning and social environments may enhance the
learning experience for all students. Finally, recommendations for policy, practice and
institutions highlight elements that will be of benefit to all students, most especially those
who sit at the high end of the sensitivity spectrum.
... Thus, it may be useful to classify participants into groups based on certain criteria and to plan and implement intervention programs considering the characteristics of each group (Kase et al., 2017(Kase et al., ). 2015; that is, those with high sensitivity are more susceptible to both positive and negative environments in a for-better-and-for-worse manner than others (e.g., Belsky et al., 2007;Iimura, 2021;Lionetti et al., 2018;Pluess et al., 2020, August 19). A twin study involving 2,868 adolescents in the UK revealed that genetic factors could explain about 50% of the variance in Environmental Sensitivity and the only 22-35% variance of Big Five personality traits, indicating the high heritability of Environmental Sensitivity (Assary et al., 2020). ...
... Traditionally, sensitivity was assessed using genetic (e.g., dopamine receptor D2), physiological (e.g., cortisol reactivity), or psychological (e.g., negative emotionality) markers (Belsky & Pluess, 2009). More recently, studies have demonstrated that Sensory Processing Sensitivity (SPS: Aron & Aron, 1997), a temperament trait, is a potential marker of Environmental Sensitivity (e.g., Greven et al., 2019;Iimura & Kibe, 2020;Pluess et al., 2020, August 19;Slagt et al., 2018). High-SPS individuals are characterized by stronger emotional reactivity, deeper processing of information, greater awareness of subtle stimuli, and being easily overstimulated (Aron et al., 2012;Homberg et al., 2016). ...
... Additionally, studies determined the preliminary cut-off scores to differentiate each group with good sensitivity and specificity (e.g., Lionetti et al., 2018;Pluess et al., 2018). Despite the risk that individuals might sometimes be miscategorized, the cut-off scores may provide useful information for smoothly classifying students in applied settings such as in clinics and education (Pluess et al., 2020, August 19;Yano et al., 2021a). Specifically, classifying participants into three sensitivity groups based on the cut-off scores helps psychologists construct intervention programs according to the characteristics of each group. ...
People differ in their sensitivity to internal and external stimuli, falling into one of three sensitivity groups (low, medium, and high). Studies have pointed out that individual differences in sensitivity should be considered in psychological intervention settings. This study aimed to explore effective coping strategies in the three sensitivity groups. In total, 692 Japanese university students (389 females; Mage = 20.6 ± 1.4 years) responded to an open-ended question about the coping strategies they employ, and to two self-report measures assessing their level of sensitivity and mental health. A series of co-occurrence network analyses with two grouping variables (i.e., better or poorer mental health) suggested that effective coping strategies differed among the three sensitivity groups.
... Using measures that capture the thoughts and behaviours of sensitive individuals, genetic influences were found to account for 47% of the variance in environmental sensitivity in adolescents (Assary, Zavos, Krapohl, Keers, & Pluess, 2021). In support of the differential susceptibility model, high environmental sensitivity has been associated with both increases in mood and wellbeing following positive life events (Iimura, 2021) and decreases following stressful exposures (Pluess, Lionetti, Aron, & Aron, 2020). ...
... The finding that environmental sensitivity was significantly genetically correlated with both positive and negative appraisals may suggest that higher genetic loading for this form of sensitivity is associated with greater appraisal of both adverse events as negative, and pleasant events as positive, which may attenuate the effects of such events on outcomes for these individuals. This is in line with evidence that more sensitive individuals are affected more negatively by adverse contexts but also more positively in response to positive exposures (Pluess et al., 2020). On the other hand, the underlying genetic liability of anxiety sensitivity is more relevant to the appraisal of events as negative and the tendency to perceive anxiety responses to these events as being harmful. ...
Background
Despite being considered a measure of environmental risk, reported life events are partly heritable. One mechanism that may contribute to this heritability is genetic influences on sensitivity, relating to how individuals process and interpret internal and external signals. The aim of this study was to explore the genetic and environmental overlap between self‐reported life events and measures of sensitivity.
Methods
At age 17, 2,939 individuals from the Twins Early Development Study (TEDS) completed measures of anxiety sensitivity (Children's Anxiety Sensitivity Index), environmental sensitivity (Highly Sensitive Child Scale) and reported their experience of 20 recent life events. Using multivariate Cholesky decomposition models, we investigated the shared genetic and environmental influences on the associations between these measures of sensitivity and the number of reported life events, as well as both negative and positive ratings of life events.
Results
The majority of the associations between anxiety sensitivity, environmental sensitivity and reported life events were explained by shared genetic influences (60%–75%), with the remainder explained by nonshared environmental influences (25%–40%). Environmental sensitivity showed comparable genetic correlations with both negative and positive ratings of life events (rA = .21 and .15), anxiety sensitivity only showed a significant genetic correlation with negative ratings of life events (rA = .33). Approximately 10% of the genetic influences on reported life events were accounted for by influences shared with anxiety sensitivity and environmental sensitivity.
Conclusion
Differences in how individuals process the contextual aspects of the environment or interpret their own physical and emotional response to environmental stimuli may be one mechanism through which genetic liability influences the subjective experience of life events.
... The personality trait of Environmental Sensitivity was assessed via the Highly Sensitive Person Scale-Brief Version [26]. The questionnaire comprises 12 items (e.g., ''Do changes in your life shake you up?") rated on a seven-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (completely), with higher scores indicating higher levels of sensitivity. ...
... The questionnaire comprises 12 items (e.g., ''Do changes in your life shake you up?") rated on a seven-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (completely), with higher scores indicating higher levels of sensitivity. Empirical evidence supports the reliability and validity of this measure [26], also in the Italian context [27]. In the current study, Cronbach's alpha was 0.84. ...
Background
Previous research has shown that young adults are more hesitant/resistant to COVID-19 vaccine uptake than older age groups, although the factors underlying this tendency are still under debate. The current study aimed to identify the sociodemographic and psychological correlates of vaccine hesitancy and resistance among young adults (18-40 years) during the nationwide COVID-19 vaccination campaign in Italy, the first country after China being hit by the pandemic and which suffered a large number of fatalities.
Methods
This is a cross-sectional, web-based study conducted in Italy using an ISO-certified international survey company (respondi.com). Data were collected on 1200 participants in June 2021.
Results
Vaccine hesitancy/resistance was found for 25% of the sample. In multinomial logistic regression (N = 1159), being aged 30-40 years, residing in northern Italy, having lower educational and income level, being unemployed, and not knowing any friends/relatives diagnosed with COVID-19 were associated with higher odds of hesitancy or resistance. In multivariate analysis of variance (N = 1177), both vaccine hesitant and resistant young adults perceived significantly less social support from friends and family than vaccine accepting ones. Resistant individuals reported significantly higher levels of conspiracy theories and negative attitudes toward vaccines than their accepting and hesitant counterparts. Moreover, resistant individuals reported significantly lower levels of attachment to country and perceptions of a just government compared to accepting ones, with hesitant young adults scoring in between.
Conclusions
Our findings support the idea that young adults with a hesitant (vs. resistant) attitude show a more nuanced and less extreme psychological profile. Public health messaging should capitalize on social media to provide accessible, transparent, and age-appropriate information concerning COVID-19 vaccine safety. Moreover, policy efforts improving the availability of social support systems are warranted to strengthen connectedness and foster trust in institutions amongst this particular segment of the population.
... SPS has been related to the FFM of personality mainly on a domain level (see the meta-analysis by Lionetti et al., 2019), but more recently also on facet level (Bröhl et al., 2020;Pluess et al., 2020), indicating some facets are more important than others in characterizing the personality profile of SPS. However, a limitation of the studies is that the HSP scale was used for assessing SPS, and thus, results are naturally restricted to items of that scale. ...
... The study included the HSP scale to give an indication of whether self-identified HSPs score high on SPS according to the scale. The 12-item version (Pluess, 2013;Pluess et al., 2020) of the HSP scale (sample α = .77) (Aron & Aron, 1997) assesses SPS using the total scale as well as three subscales. ...
The current paper presents a detailed examination of a lay theory perspective on the Sensory-Processing-Sensitivity (SPS) personality profile within the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality. The lay SPS personality profile was assessed by asking self-identified highly sensitive people to rate themselves on a Five-Factor Model questionnaire (NEO-PI-3). We applied the NEO-PI-3 norms (domains and facets) and examined the inter-rater agreement of the facets. The sample consisted of 560 (female: 86.43%, M age = 37.36 years, SD age = 6.64 years, 18.17–47.42 years) self-identified highly sensitive adults. Six facets, in particular, stood out with good and very good inter-rater agreement: participants fell within the highest 23% of the population on facets Fantasy, Aesthetics, Feelings (Openness to Experience); Anxiety, Depression (Neuroticism); and the lowest 23% of the population on the facet Gregariousness (Extraversion).
... Traditionally, sensitivity was assessed using genetic (e.g., dopamine receptor D2), physiological (e.g., cortisol reactivity), or psychological (e.g., negative emotionality) markers (Belsky & Pluess, 2009). More recently, studies have demonstrated that Sensory Processing Sensitivity (SPS: Aron & Aron, 1997), a temperament trait, is a potential marker of Environmental Sensitivity (e.g., Greven et al., 2019;Iimura & Kibe, 2020;Pluess, Lionetti, Aron, & Aron, 2020, August 19;Slagt, Dubas, van Aken, Ellis, & Deković, 2018). High-SPS individuals are characterized by stronger emotional reactivity, deeper processing of 5 information, greater awareness of subtle stimuli, and being easily overstimulated (Aron, Aron, & Jagiellowicz, 2012;Homberg, Schubert, Asan, & Aron, 2016). ...
... These studies determined the preliminary cut-off scores to differentiate each group with good sensitivity and specificity May, Norris, Richter, & Pitman, 2020;Pluess et al., 2018;Tillman, Bertrams, El Matany, & Lionetti, 2020;Yano & Oishi, 2021). Despite the risk that 6 individuals might sometimes be miscategorized, the cut-off scores may provide useful information for smoothly classifying students in applied settings such as in clinics and education (Pluess et al., 2020, August 19;Yano et al., 2020a). Specifically, classifying participants into three sensitivity groups based on the cut-off scores helps psychologists construct school-based intervention programs according to the characteristics of each group. ...
People differ in their sensitivity to internal and external stimuli, falling into one of three sensitivity groups (low, medium, and high). Studies have pointed out that individual differences in sensitivity should be considered in psychological intervention settings. This study aimed to explore effective coping strategies in the three sensitivity groups. In total, 692 Japanese university students (389 females; Mage = 20.6 ± 1.4 years) responded to an open-ended question about the coping strategies they employ, and to two self-report measures assessing their level of sensitivity and mental health. A series of co-occurrence network analyses with two grouping variables (i.e., better or poorer mental health) suggested that effective coping strategies differed among the three sensitivity groups.
... Sensory-processing sensitivity is a temperamental or personality trait of Environmental Sensitivity and characterized by deeper processing of sensory information, a stronger emotional reaction, greater awareness of environmental stimulation, and ease of overstimulation and can also be observed in several non-human species (Aron et al., 2012). Self-report measures like the Highly Sensitive Person Scale for adult (HSPS) and Highly Sensitive Child Scale (HSCS) have been translated into multiple languages and are widely used to measure SPS (Aron & Aron, 1997;Pluess et al., 2018;Pluess, Lionetti, Aron, & Aron, 2020). Several studies using a factor analytic approach have demonstrated that the HSPS/HSCS consists of three factors (i.e., ease of excitation, low sensory threshold, and aesthetic sensitivity): The ease of excitation (EOE) subscale refers to being easily overwhelmed by internal and external stimuli (e.g., getting nervous when someone is observing you or uncomfortable when you have a lot to do); the low sensory threshold (LST) subscale represents a low threshold to unpleasant sensory arousal by sensory stimuli (e.g., being made uncomfortable by loud noises); the Aesthetic Sensitivity (AES) subscale is characterized by a high degree of artistic and aesthetic awareness (e.g., being deeply moved by good music and good food). ...
... More recently, frameworks including the differential sensitivity theory, biological sensitivity to context theory, vantage sensitivity theory, and SPS discussed above have been integrated by leading researchers in this research area within the overarching umbrella framework of Environmental Sensitivity (Greven et al., 2019;Pluess, 2015;Pluess et al., 2020). The central notion of Environmental Sensitivity is that 'individuals differ in how they perceive and process environmental features, with some being generally more and some generally less sensitive' (Pluess, 2015, pp. ...
Recent research into Person × Environment interaction has supported the view that sensitivity to environmental influences is a susceptibility factor rather than a vulnerability factor. Given this perspective, this study examined the role of the adolescent's sensory-processing sensitivity in the context of weekly life events and weekly socioemotional well-being. In the study, 114 adolescents repeatedly self-reported their sensitivity, recent life events, and recent socioemotional well-being in four surveys at one-week intervals. The results suggested the shape of Sensitivity × Life Events interaction significantly varied from week to week, which is consistent with the vantage sensitivity and diathesis-stress framework. In specific weeks, adolescents with high sensitivity are more likely to benefit from positive events than those with low sensitivity. These sensitive adolescents can be described as developmentally susceptibility rather than vulnerability.
... The instrument was created by selecting items from the original Highly Sensitive Person (HSP) scale, a 27-item scale (Aron & Aron, 1997). The items included in the HSP-12 are those that loaded strongly on the bifactor structure found in previous studies (i.e, Pluess, et al., 2020). Each of the 12 items comprising the instrument is rated on a 7-point Likert scale. ...
The cross sectional study investigates differences in perceived digital skills and positive orientation towards the use of learning technologies in two generations (Millennials and Centennials), explores generational differences in terms of cognitive component of hedonic well-being, career adaptability, self-compassion, perceived social support, and sensory processing sensitivity.
This study improves our understanding of the relative effectiveness of different factors in predicting intentions to use technology enhanced tools and approaches in learning, and consolidates evidence on the characteristics, preferences and needs of Gen Y and Gen Z learners and how these needs can be supported, thereby dispelling myths about digital natives. It explores for the first time the correlation of digital security and digital empathy with sensory processing sensitivity and its dimensions and the results have important implications for the study of the temperamental trait and individual differences.
How to cite: Fabiani, M., & Pastore, P. (2023). Designing Microlearning Programmes for Centennials Taste. Quaderni Di comunità. Persone, Educazione E Welfare Nella Società 5.0, (2), 153–199. https://doi.org/10.61007/QdC.2023.2.133
Key words: microlearning; generation z; digital empathy; digital safety; digital skills; sensory processing sensitivity
... Her therapist described her as a 'highly sensitive person' (Aron 2003) and this led her to develop the questionnaire on which our study is based. Although Aron's work originated in the early 1990s, subsequent research has validated her original hypothesis identifying sensitivity as a measurable psychological trait (recent studies include Smith, Sriken and Erford 2019;Pluess, Lionetti, Aron and Aron 2020). ...
Are mediators born or made? Is there such a thing as a ‘natural mediator’? Bowling and Hoffman’s influential (2003) collection, ‘Bringing Peace into the Room,’ considers: ‘How the personal qualities of the mediator impact the process of conflict resolution.’ These questions are troubling for practitioners and educators. Does training matter, or are such qualities, or traits, innate? ‘Trait’ can be defined as ‘A distinguishing quality or characteristic, typically belonging to a person’ (Lexico 2020). Are some individuals drawn to conflict resolution work because they already possess these qualities? Or because they seek them? This article contributes to the debate by reporting on a study into the prevalence of a particular trait, sensory processing sensitivity, in a sample of 181 English-speaking mediators. The study found that these mediators were significantly more likely to possess the trait than the average population. The implications for practice and training are discussed.
... 2.2.8. The Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSP-12, Pluess et al. 2020) The HSP-12 scale is a 12-item short version of the original 27-item scale (Aron and Aron 1997) that examines environmental sensitivity. Respondents are asked to rate on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 = Not at all to 7 = Extremely, the extent to each item which applies to them. ...
The goal of the present study was to investigate the associations between high intelligence, emotional intelligence (EI), and emotional hypersensitivity in a sample of 304 Mensa members. In addition, we aimed to shed light on how highly intelligent individuals process emotional information. In a previous study, we found that individuals with high EI in the general population are characterized by an attentional bias toward emotional information. We tested whether this effect holds for highly intelligent individuals by drawing on the same procedure : participants (N = 124 Mensa members) had to report a letter appearing behind a picture of a face with emotional or a neutral facial expression, and their reaction time to provide an answer was recorded. Comparing the results from the general population to those of Mensa members, we found that Mensa members did not show the attentional bias toward emotional information found in the general population. Mensa members were equally fast to evaluate letters replacing emotional and neutral expressions, and this result was not influenced by EI level. Possible explanations include the role of inhibitory processes (a factor related to intelligence), which might have contributed to treating emotional information as purely cognitive.
... Previous studies that used large samples of children and adolescents often measured Environmental Sensitivity, which was observed as temperament or personality traits . While difficult temperament and negative emotionality have traditionally been considered as temperamental susceptibility factors, several recent studies have focused on sensory processing sensitivity, which represents the temperament/personality aspect of Environmental Sensitivity Pluess et al., 2020;Weyn et al., 2021). Sensory processing sensitivity is defined as "a fundamental trait found on a spectrum and is defined as the degree to which an individual may register, process, and respond to external factors" and "characterized by greater depth of processing, cognizance of subtleties in the environment, being easily overstimulated, having stronger emotional responses (both positive and negative), and empathy to others' affective cues (Acevedo et al., 2018, pp. ...
Based on the Differential Susceptibility Theory, we examined whether the relationship between pubertal maturation and depressive symptoms can be moderated by individual differences in environmental sensitivity. The current article used the three‐wave data collected from Japanese adolescents aged from 12 to 15 years (girls = 111, boys = 98). Consequently, a significant Sensitivity × Pubertal Development interaction was observed in 12‐ to 13‐year‐old boys, but not girls. Sensitive boys who experienced accelerated physical maturation reported decreased depressive symptoms, while those who experienced less maturation had increased depressive symptoms. The shape of the interaction supported both the Differential Susceptibility Theory and the Diathesis–Stress Model. Our findings suggest that sensitivity during early puberty among boys could be reconsidered as susceptibility rather than vulnerability.
... Importantly, although the current investigation relied on measures of genetic sensitivity, it may not be necessary to collect DNA samples from participants in order to assess such sensitivity. It may be more practical to use validated sensitivity questionnaires (Aron & Aron, 1997;Pluess et al., 2018Pluess et al., , 2020 which can be quickly and easily completed and capture heritable differences (Assary et al., 2020), even if they have not yet been administered in relationship programs. These sensitivity measures predict treatment response in previous studies of school-based resilience (Pluess & Boniwell, 2015) and antibullying programs (Nocentini et al., 2018), with more sensitive individuals benefitting most from these interventions. ...
Objective:
Relationship education programs have proven effective in promoting relationship quality and preventing divorce among married couples. However, according to theories of Environmental Sensitivity, people differ for genetic reasons in their sensitivity to environmental influences with some more affected by both negative and positive experiences, including psychological interventions.
Method:
Here we test in two studies whether the positive effects of the established Prevention and Relationship Education Program (PREP) are moderated by two different polygenic scores (PGS) for environmental sensitivity, one based on nine established candidate genes and one based on several thousand variants across the genome, derived from recent genome-wide association study (GWAS) results. Analyses were conducted in a randomized controlled study on PREP (N = 242) and then repeated in an independent replication trial (N = 183).
Results:
Several significant PREP-X-PGS interactions indicated moderation of long-term treatment effects across the two studies, most of them involving the genome-wide score. Generally, higher genome-wide genetic sensitivity was associated with stronger intervention effects on almost all measures of relationship quality across the follow-up period.
Conclusions:
Findings provide further evidence that people differ substantially in their response to the positive effects of psychological intervention as a function of individual differences in genetic sensitivity, with more sensitive participants potentially benefitting more from relationship education. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
... At the moment, the scale is being reviewed by the authors [12], and also a shortened 12-item version is in preparation. As a part of a further development, the HSPS was also adapted as a 12-item version for children [23]; however, there are questions regarding the comparability of both instruments [13]. ...
Sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) is a common human neurobiological trait that is related to many areas of human life. This trait has recently received increased public interest. However , solid scientific research on SPS is lagging behind. Progress in this area is also hindered by a lack of comprehensive research tools suitable for a rapid assessment of SPS. Thus, the aim of this study was to offer a newly developed tool, the Sensory Processing Sensitivity Questionnaire (SPSQ), and to assess its psychometric properties and associations with emotional and relational variables measured during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We found the tool to have good psy-chometric characteristics: high temporal stability (r = 0.95) and excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.92; McDonald's ω = 0.92). The fit of the SPSQ bi-factor model was satisfactory: χ 2 (88.0) = 506.141; p < 0.001; CFI = 0.993; TLI = 0.990; RMSEA = 0.070; SRMR = 0.039. Testing of config-ural, metric, scalar and strict invariance suggested that the SPSQ assesses SPS equivalently between males and females. The scale's validity was supported via a strong association with an existing SPS measure. Further, we observed higher total SPSQ scores among women, students and religious respondents , and we found that more sensitive respondents reported higher feelings of anxiety and more deterioration in relationships during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, this study also identifies people with this trait as being potentially more vulnerable during periods of an increased presence of global stressors.
... Lionetti et al. (2018) found that approximately 30% of the general population had low sensitivity, 40% had moderate sensitivity, and 30% had high sensitivity. Another research (Pluess et al., 2020) reports that sensory sensitivity reflects a spectrum consisting of three groups as low, moderate, and high in the general population. A study on Western society, which was conducted with adults in Germany, introduces three different sensitivity groups such as high, moderate, and low (Tillmann et al., 2021). ...
Researches reveal that approximately one-third of the general population has high sensory processing sensitivity and the highly sensitive individuals are more prone to have psychological problems. This study aimed to examine the relationships among sensory sensitivity, emotion regulation skills, dysfunctional attitudes, depression, anxiety, and stress. The study group consisted of 355 undergraduate students (239 females [67.3%], 116 males [32.7%]) aged between 17 and 32 (Mean = 20.8, SD = 1.90). Using the mixture structural equation modeling, at the first step, the direct and indirect relationships between the variables were analyzed through structural equation modeling. In the second step, using latent class analysis it was aimed to determine individual differences based on the relationships between the variables determined by the structural equation model. There was a positive relationship between depression, anxiety, stress and sensory sensitivity. Besides, emotion regulation skills and dysfunctional attitudes had a mediating effect in this relationship. Latent class analysis extracted two latent classes. The first group (30.1%) has higher levels of depression, anxiety, stress sensory sensitivity and negative attitudes, and they used suppression more but cognitive reappraisal less. The second group (69.1%) has lower levels of depression, anxiety, stress, sensory sensitivity and negative attitudes, and they used cognitive reappraisal more but suppression less. Individuals with psychological problems such as depression, anxiety, and stress might show different characteristics in terms of sensory processing sensitivity and that it might be useful to consider this differentiation in mental health interventions.
... Therefore, future research should involve samples from young to old adults. Second, the categorization of individuals into sensitivity groups based on the cut-off scores may be useful in the context of psychological interventions Yano et al., 2020a), whereas the validity of cut-off scores should carefully be investigated further (Pluess, Lionetti, Aron, & Aron, 2020). However, the characteristics of each sensitivity group have not been fully revealed. ...
Sensory Processing Sensitivity (SPS) is a basic trait to describe individual differences in sensitivity and reactivity to environmental stimuli. Studies in Western countries have suggested that people fall into the three sensitivity groups, namely high-, medium-, and low-SPS groups and explored their characteristics. This study investigated whether the results found in Western studies can be replicated in Japanese samples. Two samples of Japanese university students, namely Sample A (n = 1257) and Sample B (n = 720), participated in a questionnaire-based survey. In both samples their SPS levels were assessed using the Japanese version of Highly Sensitive Person Scale. Additionally, only in Sample B their temperament and affect were assessed using the Japanese version of the Behavioral Inhibition System/Behavioral Activation System (BIS/BAS) scale and the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. A series of latent class analysis indicated that the three-class model fitted best with the data. Each group could be interpreted as a high-, medium-, and low-SPS group, respectively. Furthermore, the characteristics of each group were explored considering the levels of BIS/BAS and positive and negative affect. Analyses of variance suggested that each sensitivity group in the Japanese samples had similar characteristics as those in Western samples. Although several issues should be addressed, most of the findings from Western studies could be replicated.
РЕЗЮМЕ: Вступ. Однією із найактуальніших загроз людству є глобальна зміна клімату на планеті. Універсальним індикатором пристосувальної здатності організму людини до цієї зміни є функціональний стан серцево-судинної системи. Тому важливо оцінювати стан системи кровообігу для встановлення механізмів, що забезпечують високу терморезистентність. Мета – встановити особливості центральної та периферійної гемодинаміки в осіб з різною теплочутливістю. Матеріал і методи. Оцінку центрального та периферійного кровообігу в попередньо встановлених групах осіб із вищою та нижчою теплочутливістю проводили за допомогою комп’ютерного комплексу «Реоком» («НТЦ ХАИ-Медика», Харків, Україна) до та після короткочасного теплового впливу. Результати. У групі осіб із нижчою теплочутливістю у вихідному стані у 20 % обстежуваних встановлено гіпокінетичний тип кровообігу, у 77 % – еукінетичний тип, і лише у 3 % – гіперкінетичний. Серед обстежуваних із вищою теплочутливістю більшість осіб була із гіперкінетичним типом кровообігу (52 %), а у решти встановлено еукінетичний тип (48 %). Короткочасний тепловий вплив у групі осіб із вищою теплочутливістю обумовлював тенденцію до збільшення хвилинного об’єму крові та величини серцевого викиду на фоні зниження периферійного опору. У групі осіб із нижчою теплочутливістю після короткочасного впливу тепла встановлено наступне: усі показники центральної гемодинаміки незначно знизилися, а загальний периферичний опір суттєво не змінився. В обстежуваних із вищою чутливістю до теплового фактора зміни периферійної гемодинаміки у вихідному стані характеризуються збільшенням артеріального кровонаповнення досліджуваних ділянок і нижчим тонусом судин, порівняно з особами із нижчою чутливістю до теплового фактора. Після короткочасного теплового впливу в них установлено менший тонус і вищу еластичність судин середнього і дрібного калібрів, а також посилене артеріальне кровонаповнення верхніх кінцівок. У групі осіб із нижчою теплочутливістю достовірної різниці між показниками периферійної гемодинаміки після короткочасного теплового впливу, порівняно із вихідними даними, не встановлено. Висновки. Виявлені особливості центральної та периферійної гемодинаміки в осіб із вищою та нижчою теплочутливістю свідчать про те, що серцево-судинна система осіб із нижчою чутливістю до теплового фактора характеризується високою стійкістю та економністю функціонування, не зважаючи на підвищення середньорічної температури навколишнього середовища. А в осіб із вищою теплочутливістю, в результаті високої енергозатратності і напруженості роботи системи кровообігу, швидше настане зрив адаптаційних процесів в умовах глобального потепління.
Il coinvolgimento efficace del pubblico in una performance musicale o d’opera coinvolge elementi sociali, cognitivi e affettivi. Si vuole studiare l'influenza delle competenze musicali e la sensibilità estetica degli osservatori sulle loro risposte emotive e cognitive a esecuzioni non familiari di brani sinfonici e di opere dal vivo in performance live brain-computer, ovvero opere performative interattive che combinano
rappresentazioni/esecuzioni dal vivo e mediatizzate, in particolare le mappe di calore derivanti dall’attività dell’eye tracking. La performance sarà realizzata come una combinazione completa di metodologie e soluzioni scientifiche e creative basate sulla pratica, affrontando le sfide della progettazione e dell'implementazione di mappe di calore multi-cervello in performance d’opera e concertistica mixed-media con la partecipazione del pubblico. Saranno usati eye tracking e la risposta galvanica della pelle (GSR) per misurare l'attenzione, l'emozione e la memoria. Il gradimento e la familiarità saranno valutati dopo ogni brano/performance. Saranno valutate le differenze in relazione alla competenza, alla sensibilità estetica e alla sensibilità dell’elaborazione
sensoriale.
Keywords:
audience engagement; audience development; neuroscience; sensory processing sensitivity; classical music
Sensory processing sensitivity is an individual difference that captures the extent to which people show heightened emotional reactivity to, and increased cognitive processing of, their environment. Although central to its definition, there has been no research examining whether highly sensitive individuals display stronger reactivity to naturally occurring negative and positive events in everyday life. We addressed this gap by carrying out a 21-day online diary study with 239 participants, varying in sensory processing sensitivity, who reported their daily life-satisfaction, affective experiences, and self-esteem along with appraisals of the most negative and positive events of the day. Multilevel analyses demonstrated that individuals higher in sensory processing sensitivity showed greater reactivity to more subjectively intense negative events, but no difference in their reactivity to positive events. These findings provide initial insights into how sensory processing sensitivity manifests in daily emotional reactivity with greater reactivity to negative events in our study.
Binlerce yıldır filozoflar hayatın anlamını idrak etmede, cesareti anlamanın önemine dikkat çekmişlerdir. Bu çabanın modern bir uzantısı olarak, günümüz bazı sosyal bilim araştırmacıları da, cesareti anlama gayretine girmişleridir. Son yıllarda yapılan bazı çalışmaların, özellikle cesaretin öncüllerine odaklanarak, adeta bu eski erdemi yeniden keşfetmeye başladığı görülmektedir. İlişkisel Teori’den hareketle yapılan çalışmada, cesaretin önemli öncüllerinden birini keşfetmeyi hedeflenerek kişilerarası güç boyutları ile cesaret arasındaki ilişki incelenmiştir. Araştırmanın bulguları, kişilerarası gücün, cesaret için güçlü bir öncül olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu kapsamda, kişilerarası güç boyutlarının
cesaret üzerindeki etkisi açısından; sosyal zeka, bağlanmışlık ve şükran boyutları cesareti olumlu yönde etkilemektedir. Çalışmada elde edilen sonuçlar bağlamında teoriye ve uygulayıcılara katkısı tartılışmış, araştırmanın sınırlılıkları ve gelecekteki araştırmalara yönelik önerilere yer verilmiştir.
We investigated whether environmental sensitivity, as measured by the Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS), predicts constructs related to interpersonal sensitivity above and beyond Big Five traits. In Study 1 (N = 1475), we first examined the HSPS factor structure and found a two-factor solution to be most optimal. We then found that the two HSPS factors were significantly associated with constructs related to three domains of interpersonal sensitivity such as empathy (positive interpersonal sensitivity), social anxiety (negative interpersonal sensitivity), and theory of mind (social cognitive ability), and explained unique variance above and beyond neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and openness. In Study 2 (N = 1380), we replicated most of these findings after statistically controlling for all Big Five personality traits.
Based on the Differential Susceptibility Theory, we examined whether the relationship between pubertal maturation and depressive symptoms can be moderated by individual differences in environmental sensitivity. The current article used the three-wave data collected from Japanese adolescents aged from 12 to 15 years (n = 209). Consequently, a significant Sensitivity x Pubertal Development interaction was observed in 12- to 13-year-old boys, but not girls. Sensitive boys who experienced accelerated physical maturation reported decreased depressive symptoms, while those who experienced less maturation had increased depressive symptoms. The shape of the interaction supported both the Differential Susceptibility Theory and the Diathesis-Stress Model. Our findings suggest that sensitivity during early puberty among boys could be reconsidered as susceptibility rather than vulnerability.
Sensitivity arising from enhanced processing of external and internal stimuli or sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) is known to be present in a sizable portion of the population. Yet a clear localization of SPS and its subdomains with respect to other relevant traits is currently lacking. Here, we used a data-driven approach including hierarchical clustering, t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t-SNE) and graph learning to portrait SPS as measured by Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS) in relation to the Big-Five Inventory (neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) as well as to shyness, alexithymia, autism quotient, anxiety, and depression (11 total traits) using data from more than 800 participants. Analysis revealed SPS subdomains to be divided between two trait clusters with questions related to aesthetic sensitivity (AES) falling within a cluster of mainly positive traits and neighbored by openness while questions addressing ease of excitation (EOE) and low sensory threshold (LST) to be mostly contained within a cluster of negative traits and neighbored by neuroticism. A similar spread across clusters was seen for questions addressing autism consistent with it being a spectrum disorder, in contrast, alexithymia subdomains were closely fit within the negative cluster. Together, our results support the view of SPS as a distinct yet non-unitary trait and provide insights for further refinements of the current SPS concept and scales.
According to several developmental theories some children are more sensitive to the quality of their environment than others, but most supporting empirical evidence is based on relatively distal markers of hypothesized sensitivity. This study provides evidence for the validity of behaviorally observed Environmental Sensitivity as a moderator of parenting effects on children's early development in a sample of 292 children (Mage = 3.74; SD = 0.26) and their mothers. Sensitivity was coded using a newly developed observational measure for the specific and objective assessment of Environmental Sensitivity, the Highly Sensitive Child-Rating System (HSC-RS). HSC-RS factorial structure, associations with temperament traits, and interactions with parenting quality in the prediction of socioemotional child outcomes are reported. Findings supported a 1-factor solution. Observed sensitivity was relatively distinct from observed temperament and interacted with both low and high parenting quality in the development of behavior problems and social competence at ages 3 and 6. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Sensory Processing Sensitivity (SPS) is a common, heritable and evolutionarily conserved trait describing inter-individual differences in sensitivity to both negative and positive environments. Despite societal interest in SPS, scientific knowledge is lagging behind. Here, we critically discuss how SPS relates to other theories, how to measure SPS, whether SPS is a continuous vs categorical trait, its relation to other temperament and personality traits, the underlying aetiology and neurobiological mechanisms, and relations to both typical and atypical development, including mental and sensory disorders. Drawing on the diverse expertise of the authors, we set an agenda for future research to stimulate the field. We conclude that SPS increases risk for stress-related problems in response to negative environments, but also provides greater benefit from positive and supportive experiences. The field requires more reliable and objective assessment of SPS, and deeper understanding of its mechanisms to differentiate it from other traits. Future research needs to target prevention of adverse effects associated with SPS, and exploitation of its positive potential to improve well-being and mental health.
According to empirical studies and recent theories, people differ substantially in their reactivity or sensitivity to
environmental influences with some being generally more affected than others. More sensitive individuals have been described as orchids and less-sensitive ones as dandelions. Applying a data-driven approach, we explored the existence of sensitivity groups in a sample of 906 adults who completed the highly sensitive person (HSP) scale. According to factor analyses, the HSP scale reflects a bifactor model with a general sensitivity factor. In contrast to prevailing theories, latent class analyses consistently suggested the existence of three rather than two groups. While we were able to identify a highly sensitive (orchids, 31%) and a low-sensitive group (dandelions, 29%), we also detected a third group (40%) characterised by medium sensitivity, which we refer to as tulips in keeping with the flower metaphor. Preliminary cut-off scores for all three groups are provided. In order to characterise the different sensitivity groups, we investigated group differences regarding the Big Five personality traits, as well as experimentally assessed emotional reactivity in an additional independent sample. According to these follow-up analyses, the three groups differed in neuroticism, extraversion and emotional reactivity to positive mood induction with orchids scoring significantly higher in neuroticism and emotional reactivity and lower in extraversion than the other two groups (dandelions also differed significantly from tulips). Findings suggest that environmental sensitivity is a continuous and normally distributed trait but that people fall into three distinct sensitive groups along a sensitivity continuum.
In this longitudinal multiinformant study negative emotionality and sensory processing sensitivity were compared as susceptibility markers among kindergartners. Participating children (N = 264, 52.9% boys) were Dutch kindergartners (Mage = 4.77, SD = 0.60), followed across three waves, spaced seven months apart. Results show that associations between parenting and child behavior did not depend on children’s negative emotionality. Sensory processing sensitivity, however, interacted with both (changes in) negative and (changes in) positive parenting in predicting externalizing, but not prosocial, behavior. Depending on the interaction, vantage sensitivity and differential susceptibility models were supported. The findings suggest that sensory processing sensitivity may be a more proximal correlate of individual differences in susceptibility, compared with negative emotionality.
A large number of studies document that children differ in the degree they are shaped by their developmental context with some being more sensitive to environmental influences than others. Multiple theories suggest that Environmental Sensitivity is a common trait predicting the response to negative as well as positive exposures. However, most research to date has relied on more or less proximal markers of Environmental Sensitivity. In this paper we introduce a new questionnaire-the Highly Sensitive Child (HSC) scale-as a promising self-report measure of Environmental Sensitivity. After describing the development of the short 12-item HSC scale for children and adolescents, we report on the psychometric properties of the scale, including confirmatory factor analysis and test-retest reliability. After considering bivariate and multivariate associations with well-established temperament and personality traits, we apply Latent Class Analysis to test for the existence of hypothesized sensitivity groups. Analyses are conducted across 5 studies featuring 4 different U.K.-based samples ranging in age from 8-19 years and with a total sample size of N = 3,581. Results suggest the 12-item HSC scale is a psychometrically robust measure that performs well in both children and adolescents. Besides being relatively independent from other common traits, the Latent Class Analysis suggests that there are 3 distinct groups with different levels of Environmental Sensitivity-low (approx. 25-35%), medium (approx. 41-47%), and high (20-35%). Finally, we provide exploratory cut-off scores for the categorization of children into these different groups which may be useful for both researchers and practitioners. (PsycINFO Database Record
Several models of individual differences in environmental sensitivity postulate increased sensitivity of some individuals to either stressful (diathesis-stress), supportive (vantage sensitivity), or both environments (differential susceptibility). In this meta-analysis we examine whether children vary in sensitivity to parenting depending on their temperament, and if so, which model can best be used to describe this sensitivity pattern. We tested whether associations between negative parenting and negative or positive child adjustment as well as between positive parenting and positive or negative child adjustment would be stronger among children higher on putative sensitivity markers (difficult temperament, negative emotionality, surgency, and effortful control). Longitudinal studies with children up to 18 years ( = 105 samples from 84 studies, mean = 6,153) that reported on a parenting-by-temperament interaction predicting child adjustment were included. We found 235 independent effect sizes for associations between parenting and child adjustment. Results showed that children with a more difficult temperament (compared with those with a more easy temperament) were more vulnerable to negative parenting, but also profited more from positive parenting, supporting the differential susceptibility model. Differences in susceptibility were expressed in externalizing and internalizing problems and in social and cognitive competence. Support for differential susceptibility for negative emotionality was, however, only present when this trait was assessed during infancy. Surgency and effortful control did not consistently moderate associations between parenting and child adjustment, providing little support for differential susceptibility, diathesis-stress, or vantage sensitivity models. Finally, parenting-by-temperament interactions were more pronounced when parenting was assessed using observations compared to questionnaires. (PsycINFO Database Record
Background:
The differential susceptibly hypothesis suggests that certain genetic variants moderate the effects of both negative and positive environments on mental health and may therefore be important predictors of response to psychological treatments. Nevertheless, the identification of such variants has so far been limited to preselected candidate genes. In this study we extended the differential susceptibility hypothesis from a candidate gene to a genome-wide approach to test whether a polygenic score of environmental sensitivity predicted response to cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) in children with anxiety disorders.
Methods:
We identified variants associated with environmental sensitivity using a novel method in which within-pair variability in emotional problems in 1,026 monozygotic twin pairs was examined as a function of the pairs' genotype. We created a polygenic score of environmental sensitivity based on the whole-genome findings and tested the score as a moderator of parenting on emotional problems in 1,406 children and response to individual, group and brief parent-led CBT in 973 children with anxiety disorders.
Results:
The polygenic score significantly moderated the effects of parenting on emotional problems and the effects of treatment. Individuals with a high score responded significantly better to individual CBT than group CBT or brief parent-led CBT (remission rates: 70.9, 55.5 and 41.6%, respectively).
Conclusions:
Pending successful replication, our results should be considered exploratory. Nevertheless, if replicated, they suggest that individuals with the greatest environmental sensitivity may be more likely to develop emotional problems in adverse environments but also benefit more from the most intensive types of treatment.
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.
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.
Discriminant validity assessment has become a generally accepted prerequisite for analyzing relationships between latent variables. For variance-based structural equa-tion modeling, such as partial least squares, the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the examination of cross-loadings are the dominant approaches for evaluating discriminant validity. By means of a simulation study, we show that these ap-proaches do not reliably detect the lack of discriminant valid-ity in common research situations. We therefore propose an alternative approach, based on the multitrait-multimethod ma-trix, to assess discriminant validity: the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations. We demonstrate its superior performance by means of a Monte Carlo simulation study, in which we compare the new approach to the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the assessment of (partial) cross-loadings. Finally, we provide guidelines on how to handle discriminant validity issues in variance-based structural equation modeling.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a vast field and widely used by many applied researchers in the social and behavioral sciences. Over the years, many software pack-ages for structural equation modeling have been developed, both free and commercial. However, perhaps the best state-of-the-art software packages in this field are still closed-source and/or commercial. The R package lavaan has been developed to provide applied researchers, teachers, and statisticians, a free, fully open-source, but commercial-quality package for latent variable modeling. This paper explains the aims behind the develop-ment of the package, gives an overview of its most important features, and provides some examples to illustrate how lavaan works in practice.
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.
For structural equation models, a huge variety of fit indices has been developed. These indices, however, can point to conflicting conclusions about the extent to which a model actually matches the observed data. The present article provides some guide-lines that should help applied researchers to evaluate the adequacy of a given struc-tural equation model. First, as goodness-of-fit measures depend on the method used for parameter estimation, maximum likelihood (ML) and weighted least squares (WLS) methods are introduced in the context of structural equation modeling. Then, the most common goodness-of-fit indices are discussed and some recommendations for practitioners given. Finally, we generated an artificial data set according to a "true" model and analyzed two misspecified and two correctly specified models as examples of poor model fit, adequate fit, and good fit. In structural equation modeling (SEM), a model is said to fit the observed data to the extent that the model-implied covariance matrix is equivalent to the empirical co-variance matrix. Once a model has been specified and the empirical covariance matrix is given, a method has to be selected for parameter estimation. Different estimation meth-ods have different distributional assumptions and have different discrepancy functions to be minimized. When the estimation procedure has converged to a reasonable
The investigation and identification of factors shaping children's development have long been central to the field of developmental psychology; and parenting has long been considered one of the most important sources of influence. A vast body of empirical evidence highlights the contribution of parenting to a wide range of cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioral developmental outcomes. Long appreciated, too, is that parenting effects are often moderated by characteristics of the child, most notably, perhaps, early temperament. Indeed, most such work has been guided by conceptions of vulnerability stemming from negative or difficult temperament that interacts with insensitive, harsh or otherwise unsupportive parenting to undermine child well-being. Belsky's differential-susceptibility framework challenges such diathesis-stress thinking, highlighting the fact that the very individuals who seem most susceptible to environmental adversity, including negatively emotional infants, may also benefit the most from developmentally supportive rearing. Evidence consistent with this view – that some children are more affected than others, for better and for worse, depending on the rearing environment – is reviewed, including new research on gene-X-environment interaction. Finally, unknowns of the differential-susceptibility hypothesis are considered.
The detection of outliers and influential observations is routine practice in linear regression. Despite ongoing extensions and development of case diagnostics in structural equation models (SEM), their application has received limited attention and understanding in practice. The use of case diagnostics informs analysts of the uncertainty of model estimates under different subsets of the data and highlights unusual and important characteristics of certain cases. We present several measures of case influence applicable in SEM and illustrate their implementation, presentation, and interpretation with two empirical examples: (a) a common factor model on verbal and visual ability (Holzinger & Swineford, 193919.
Holzinger , K. and Swineford , F. 1939 . A study in factor analysis: The stability of a bi-factor solution. Chicago, IL : University of Chicago. . View all references) and (b) a general structural equation model assessing the effect of industrialization on democracy in a mediating model using country-level data (Bollen, 19896.
Bollen , K. A. 1989 . Structural equation models with latent variables New York, NY : Wiley. . View all references; Bollen & Arminger, 19917.
Bollen , K. A. and Arminger , G. 1991 . Observational residuals in factor analysis and structural equation models . Sociological Methodology , 21 : 235 – 262 . [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [CSA]View all references). Throughout these examples, three issues are emphasized. First, cases may impact different aspects of results as identified by different measures of influence. Second, the important distinction between outliers and influential cases is highlighted. Third, the concept of good and bad cases is introduced—these are influential cases that improve/worsen overall model fit based on their presence in the sample. We conclude with a discussion on the utility of detecting influential cases in SEM and present recommendations for the use of measures of case influence.
The notion that some people are more vulnerable to adversity as a function of inherent risk characteristics is widely embraced in most fields of psychology. This is reflected in the popularity of the diathesis-stress framework, which has received a vast amount of empirical support over the years. Much less effort has been directed toward the investigation of endogenous factors associated with variability in response to positive influences. One reason for the failure to investigate individual differences in response to positive experiences as a function of endogenous factors may be the absence of adequate theoretical frameworks. According to the differential-susceptibility hypothesis, individuals generally vary in their developmental plasticity regardless of whether they are exposed to negative or positive influences-a notion derived from evolutionary reasoning. On the basis of this now well-supported proposition, we advance herein the new concept of vantage sensitivity, reflecting variation in response to exclusively positive experiences as a function of individual endogenous characteristics. After distinguishing vantage sensitivity from theoretically related concepts of differential-susceptibility and resilience, we review some recent empirical evidence for vantage sensitivity featuring behavioral, physiological, and genetic factors as moderators of a wide range of positive experiences ranging from family environment and psychotherapy to educational intervention. Thereafter, we discuss genetic and environmental factors contributing to individual differences in vantage sensitivity, potential mechanisms underlying vantage sensitivity, and practical implications. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).
We present results of a meta-analysis of gene-by-environment (G × E) studies involving the serotonin transporter genotype 5HTTLPR to evaluate empirical support for two competing conceptual frameworks in developmental psychopathology: diathesis-stress and differential susceptibility. From a diathesis-stress perspective, the cumulative negative effects of the short allele (ss and sl genotypes) and adverse environments on development have been stressed. From a differential-susceptibility perspective, carriers of the s allele are predicted to be more open to adverse as well as positive environments, for better and for worse. Studies with children and adolescents up to 18 years of age (N=9361) were included. We found 41 effect sizes (N=5863) for the association between negative environments and developmental outcomes with or without significant moderation by 5HTTLPR genotype and 36 effect sizes (N=3498) for the potentially 5HTTLPR-moderated association between positive environments and developmental outcomes. Five moderators were examined: age, ethnicity, genotyping (biallelic or triallelic) and methods used to assess environment and outcome. In the total set of studies, including studies with mixed ethnicities, we found that ss/sl carriers were significantly more vulnerable to negative environments than ll carriers, thus supporting the diathesis-stress model. In the Caucasian samples, however, ss/sl carriers also profited significantly more from positive environmental input than ll carriers. Associations between (positive or negative) environment and (positive or negative) developmental outcome were absent for ll carriers. The meta-analytic findings support the hypothesis that in Caucasian samples 5HTTLPR is a genetic marker of differential susceptibility. G × E interactions might be critically dependent on ethnicity.
Mixture modeling is a widely applied data analysis technique used to identify unobserved heterogeneity in a population. Despite mixture models' usefulness in practice, one unresolved issue in the application of mixture models is that there is not one commonly accepted statistical indicator for deciding on the number of classes in a study population. This article presents the results of a simulation study that examines the performance of likelihood-based tests and the traditionally used Information Criterion (ICs) used for determining the number of classes in mixture modeling. We look at the performance of these tests and indexes for 3 types of mixture models: latent class analysis (LCA), a factor mixture model (FMA), and a growth mixture models (GMM). We evaluate the ability of the tests and indexes to correctly identify the number of classes at three different sample sizes (n D 200, 500, 1,000). Whereas the Bayesian Information Criterion performed the best of the ICs, the bootstrap likelihood ratio test proved to be a very consistent indicator of classes across all of the models considered.
This article reviews the literature on sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) in light of growing evidence from evolutionary biology that many personality differences in nonhuman species involve being more or less responsive, reactive, flexible, or sensitive to the environment. After briefly defining SPS, it first discusses how biologists studying animal personality have conceptualized this general environmental sensitivity. Second, it reviews relevant previous human personality/temperament work, focusing on crossover interactions (where a trait generates positive or negative outcomes depending on the environment), and traits relevant to specific hypothesized aspects of SPS: inhibition of behavior, sensitivity to stimuli, depth of processing, and emotional/physiological reactivity. Third, it reviews support for the overall SPS model, focusing on development of the Highly Sensitive Person (HSP) Scale as a measure of SPS then on neuroimaging and genetic studies using the scale, all of which bears on the extent to which SPS in humans corresponds to biological responsivity.
In the current paper we present new empirical data and meta-analytic evidence for the role of dopamine-related genes as a susceptibility factor interacting with the rearing environment for better and for worse, that is, increasing children's susceptibility to both the adverse effects of unsupportive environments and the beneficial effects of supportive rearing. In Study 1 we examined the readiness of 91 7-year-old children to donate their money to a charity (UNICEF). We tested whether the association between attachment and donating behavior was moderated by the presence of the dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) 7-repeat allele. The attachment story completion task was used to assess attachment as an index of the quality of the rearing environment. Children with secure attachment representations donated more but only if they had the DRD4 7-repeat allele. In Study 2 we present the results of a meta-analysis of gene-environment studies on children up to 10 years of age involving dopamine-related genes (dopamine receptor D2, DRD4, dopamine transporter). The cumulative negative effects of these "risk genes" and adverse rearing environments have been stressed, but potentially cumulative positive effects of these same genes interacting with positive rearing environments remained largely unnoticed. We examined the associations between negative and positive rearing environments and developmental outcomes as moderated by dopamine-related gene polymorphisms. Children with the less efficient dopamine-related genes did worse in negative environments than the comparisons without the "genetic risk," but they also profited most from positive environments. Findings are discussed in light of evolutionary theory, and illustrated with some practical implications of differential susceptibility.
Two extant evolutionary models, biological sensitivity to context theory (BSCT) and differential susceptibility theory (DST), converge on the hypothesis that some individuals are more susceptible than others to both negative (risk-promoting) and positive (development-enhancing) environmental conditions. These models contrast with the currently dominant perspective on personal vulnerability and environmental risk: diathesis stress/dual risk. We review challenges to this perspective based on emerging theory and data from the evolutionary, developmental, and health sciences. These challenges signify the need for a paradigm shift in conceptualizing Person x Environment interactions in development. In this context we advance an evolutionary--neurodevelopmental theory, based on DST and BSCT, of the role of neurobiological susceptibility to the environment in regulating environmental effects on adaptation, development, and health. We then outline current thinking about neurogenomic and endophenotypic mechanisms that may underpin neurobiological susceptibility, summarize extant empirical research on differential susceptibility, and evaluate the evolutionary bases and implications of BSCT and DST. Finally, we discuss applied issues including methodological and statistical considerations in conducting differential susceptibility research; issues of ecological, cultural, and racial--ethnic variation in neurobiological susceptibility; and implications of differential susceptibility for designing social programs. We conclude that the differential susceptibility paradigm has far-reaching implications for understanding whether and how much child and adult development responds, for better and for worse, to the gamut of species-typical environmental conditions.
Evolutionary-biological reasoning suggests that individuals should be differentially susceptible to environmental influences, with some people being not just more vulnerable than others to the negative effects of adversity, as the prevailing diathesis-stress view of psychopathology (and of many environmental influences) maintains, but also disproportionately susceptible to the beneficial effects of supportive and enriching experiences (or just the absence of adversity). Evidence consistent with the proposition that individuals differ in plasticity is reviewed. The authors document multiple instances in which (a) phenotypic temperamental characteristics, (b) endophenotypic attributes, and (c) specific genes function less like "vulnerability factors" and more like "plasticity factors," thereby rendering some individuals more malleable or susceptible than others to both negative and positive environmental influences. Discussion focuses upon limits of the evidence, statistical criteria for distinguishing differential susceptibility from diathesis stress, potential mechanisms of influence, and unknowns in the differential-susceptibility equation.
Although exposure to adversity places children at high risk for developmental problems, there is considerable variation in the adaptation of children exposed to both low and high levels of adversity. In recent years, researchers have made significant progress in understanding how social environments shape children's development. Studies indicate that not all children are equally susceptible to environmental effects. In this article, we review the studies that examine individuals' sensitivity to both positive and negative contextual influences at three levels of analysis: behavioral, physiological, and genetic. Furthermore, we examine how these different types of sensitivities may be related and whether early exposure to adversity plays an important role in shaping development of individual reactivity to contexts. We also suggest important directions for future studies of individual differences in susceptibility to environmental effects.
The classic diathesis-stress framework, which views some individuals as particularly vulnerable to adversity, informs virtually all psychiatric research on behavior-gene-environment (G x E) interaction. An alternative framework of 'differential susceptibility' is proposed, one which regards those most susceptible to adversity because of their genetic make up as simultaneously most likely to benefit from supportive or enriching experiences-or even just the absence of adversity. Recent G x E findings consistent with this perspective and involving monoamine oxidase-A, 5-HTTLPR (5-hydroxytryptamine-linked polymorphic region polymorphism) and dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) are reviewed for illustrative purposes. Results considered suggest that putative 'vulnerability genes' or 'risk alleles' might, at times, be more appropriately conceptualized as 'plasticity genes', because they seem to make individuals more susceptible to environmental influences-for better and for worse.
Advances in the conceptualization and measurement of life stress in the past 2 decades raise several questions concerning traditional diathesis-stress theories of psychopathology. First, comprehensive measures of life stress force investigators to become more precise about the particular stressful circumstances hypothesized to interact with diatheses. Second, the influence of the diathesis on a person's life is typically ignored, which results in several types of possible bias in the assessment of life stress. Finally, information is available on diatheses and stress for specific disorders to provide a foundation for more empirically based hypotheses about diathesis-stress interactions. This possibility is outlined for depression. Such an approach provides the basis for developing broader, yet more specific, frameworks for investigating diathesis-stress theories of psychopathology in general and of depression in particular.
Over a series of 7 studies that used diverse samples and measures, this research identified a unidimensional core variable of high sensory-processing sensitivity and demonstrated its partial independence from social introversion and emotionality, variables with which it had been confused or subsumed in most previous theorizing by personality researchers. Additional findings were that there appear to be 2 distinct clusters of highly sensitive individuals (a smaller group with an unhappy childhood and related variables, and a larger group similar to nonhighly sensitive individuals except for their sensitivity) and that sensitivity moderates, at least for men; the relation of parental environment to reporting having had an unhappy childhood. This research also demonstrated adequate reliability and content, convergent, and discriminant validity for a 27-item Highly Sensitive Person Scale.
This paper introduces and applies an operationalization of mental health as a syndrome of symptoms of positive feelings and positive functioning in life. Dimensions and scales of subjective well-being are reviewed and conceived of as mental health symptoms. A diagnosis of the presence of mental health, described as flourishing, and the absence of mental health, characterized as languishing, is applied to data from the 1995 Midlife in the United States study of adults between the ages of 25 and 74 (n = 3,032). Findings revealed that 17.2 percent fit the criteria for flourishing, 56.6 percent were moderately mentally healthy, 12.1 percent of adults fit the criteria for languishing, and 14.1 percent fit the criteria for DSM-III-R major depressive episode (12-month), of which 9.4 percent were not languishing and 4.7 percent were also languishing. The risk of a major depressive episode was two times more likely among languishing than moderately mentally healthy adults, and nearly six times greater among languishing than flourishing adults. Multivariate analyses revealed that languishing and depression were associated with significant psychosocial impairment in terms of perceived emotional health, limitations of activities of daily living, and workdays lost or cutback. Flourishing and moderate mental health were associated with superior profiles of psychosocial functioning. The descriptive epidemiology revealed that males, older adults, more educated individuals, and married adults were more likely to be mentally healthy. Implications for the conception of mental health and the treatment and prevention of mental illness are discussed.
The Akaike information criterion (AIC; Akaike, 1973) is a popular method for comparing the adequacy of multiple, possibly nonnested models. Current practice in cognitive psychology is to accept a single model on the basis of only the "raw" AIC values, making it difficult to unambiguously interpret the observed AIC differences in terms of a continuous measure such as probability. Here we demonstrate that AIC values can be easily transformed to so-called Akaike weights (e.g., Akaike, 1978, 1979; Bozdogan, 1987; Burnham & Anderson, 2002), which can be directly interpreted as conditional probabilities for each model. We show by example how these Akaike weights can greatly facilitate the interpretation of the results of AIC model comparison procedures.
Analysis of continuous variables sometimes proceeds by selecting individuals on the basis of extreme scores of a sample distribution and submitting only those extreme scores to further analysis. This sampling method is known as the extreme groups approach (EGA). EGA is often used to achieve greater statistical power in subsequent hypothesis tests. However, there are several largely unrecognized costs associated with EGA that must be considered. The authors illustrate the effects EGA can have on power, standardized effect size, reliability, model specification, and the interpretability of results. Finally, the authors discuss alternative procedures, as well as possible legitimate uses of EGA. The authors urge researchers, editors, reviewers, and consumers to carefully assess the extent to which EGA is an appropriate tool in their own research and in that of others.
Biological reactivity to psychological stressors comprises a complex, integrated, and highly conserved repertoire of central neural and peripheral neuroendocrine responses designed to prepare the organism for challenge or threat. Developmental experience plays a role, along with heritable, polygenic variation, in calibrating the response dynamics of these systems, with early adversity biasing their combined effects toward a profile of heightened or prolonged reactivity. Conventional views of such high reactivity suggest that it is an atavistic and pathogenic legacy of an evolutionary past in which threats to survival were more prevalent and severe. Recent evidence, however, indicates that (a) stress reactivity is not a unitary process, but rather incorporates counterregulatory circuits serving to modify or temper physiological arousal, and (b) the effects of high reactivity phenotypes on psychiatric and biomedical outcomes are bivalent, rather than univalent, in character, exerting both risk-augmenting and risk-protective effects in a context-dependent manner. These observations suggest that heightened stress reactivity may reflect, not simply exaggerated arousal under challenge, but rather an increased biological sensitivity to context, with potential for negative health effects under conditions of adversity and positive effects under conditions of support and protection. From an evolutionary perspective, the developmental plasticity of the stress response systems, along with their structured, context-dependent effects, suggests that these systems may constitute conditional adaptations: evolved psychobiological mechanisms that monitor specific features of childhood environments as a basis for calibrating the development of stress response systems to adaptively match those environments. Taken together, these theoretical perspectives generate a novel hypothesis: that there is a curvilinear, U-shaped relation between early exposures to adversity and the development of stress-reactive profiles, with high reactivity phenotypes disproportionately emerging within both highly stressful and highly protected early social environments.
In two Bayesian meta-analyses, we investigated associations between Sensory Processing Sensitivity (SPS) and the Big Five personality traits (MA1) as well as both Positive and Negative Affect (MA2). Moderators were age and the three SPS subscales. In MA1 (8 papers, 6790 subjects), SPS in children correlated with Neuroticism (r = 0.42) but did not with Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness or Conscientiousness. In adults, SPS correlated with Openness (r = 0.14) and Neuroticism (r = 0.40) but did not with Extraversion, Agreeableness or Conscientiousness. In MA2 (19 papers, 5326 subjects), SPS in children correlated with Negative (r = 0.29) and Positive Affect (r = 0.21), but only with Negative Affect (r = 0.34) in adults. Developmental and measurement aspects are discussed.
Meta-analyses on the effectiveness of antibullying interventions show that average effects tend to be significant but small. Informed by the vantage sensitivity framework, the current study aimed to test in a large randomized controlled trial whether individual differences in environmental sensitivity predict treatment response to an antibullying intervention. A total of 2,042 pupils (Grades 4 and 6) were randomly assigned to a treatment or control condition. Significant intervention effects on victimization and internalizing symptoms were moderated by both environmental sensitivity and gender: Boys who scored high on sensitivity benefited significantly more than did less sensitive boys from the effects of the intervention regarding reduced victimization and internalizing symptoms. The findings are consistent with the notion of vantage sensitivity, suggesting that some individuals are disproportionately likely to respond to treatment and others are more resistant as a function of individual differences in environmental sensitivity.
While environmental adversity has been shown to increase risk for psychopathology, individuals differ in their sensitivity to these effects. Both genes and childhood experiences are thought to influence sensitivity to the environment, and these factors may operate synergistically such that the effects of childhood experiences on later sensitivity are greater in individuals who are more genetically sensitive. In line with this hypothesis, several recent studies have reported a significant three-way interaction (Gene × Environment × Environment) between two candidate genes and childhood and adult environment on adult psychopathology. We aimed to replicate and extend these findings in a large, prospective multiwave longitudinal study using a polygenic score of environmental sensitivity and objectively measured childhood and adult material environmental quality. We found evidence for both Environment × Environment and Gene × Environment × Environment effects on psychological distress. Children with a poor-quality material environment were more sensitive to the negative effects of a poor environment as adults, reporting significantly higher psychological distress scores. These effects were further moderated by a polygenic score of environmental sensitivity. Genetically sensitive children were more vulnerable to adversity as adults, if they had experienced a poor childhood environment but were significantly less vulnerable if their childhood environment was positive. These findings are in line with the differential susceptibility hypothesis and suggest that a life course approach is necessary to elucidate the role of Gene × Environment in the development of mental illnesses.
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
The territory that psychologists explore is still largely uncharted; so to find Eysenck’s model for personality in the middle of this terra incognita is rather like stumbling across St. Pancras Station in the heart of the African jungle. Faced with this apparition, one’s first question is, not “does it work?”, but “what’s it for?” This, indeed, is the right question to ask. Eysenck’s model bestrides the field of personality like a colossus. There have been other attempts to describe personality, notably Cattell’s and Guilford’s, and other attempts to explain it, above all, Pavlov’s and Teplov’s: but no one has tried to achieve both these aims on the same scale as Eysenck. In consequence, it is extremely difficult to see the Eysenckian edifice in perspective: there are too few other buildings with which to compare it, only the surrounding trackless jungle. It is by asking “what’s it for?” that we can best provide this perspective. In answer to this question, Fig. 8.1 dis plays what I take to be the general structure of Eysenck’s theory of extra version-introversion (E-I) and neuroticism (N).
The IPIP-NEO (Goldberg, 1999) is a 300-item inventory that measures constructs similar to those in the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Despite evidence for its reliability and validity, the IPIP-NEO is even longer than the original 240-item NEO PI-R. This article details the development of a 120-item version of the IPIP-NEO from an Internet sample (N=21,588) and the subsequent testing of its psychometric properties in Goldberg’s (2008) Eugene-Springfield community sample (N=481), two additional large Internet samples (Ns =307,313 and 619,150) and a local sample (N=160). Results indicate that the psychometric properties of the 120-item IPIP-NEO compare favorably to the properties of the longer form.
The relationships between stress and psychological distress were investigated among a cohort of trainee secondary school teachers in England. Specifically, the study examined the structure of a Teacher Stress Scale and its relationship to mental health as measured by the 12‐item General Health Questionnaire. Three factors were identified: behaviour management, workload, and lack of support. Differences were identified between men and women in respect of stressors and psychological distress. Stress attributed to pupils’ disruptive behaviour and stress attributed to perceived occupational stress were found to be significant predictors of psychological distress. The findings are discussed in relation to the degree to which trainees are prepared for the challenges they are likely to experience as teachers.
the epidemiology of childhood injuries / the nonrandom distribution of injury incidence / psychobiologic reactivity and injuries / behavioral-developmental approaches to injury prevention (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
A model of the neuropsychology of anxiety is proposed. The model is based in the first instance upon an analysis of the behavioural effects of the antianxiety drugs (benzodiazepines, barbiturates, and alcohol) in animals. From such psychopharmacologi-cal experiments the concept of a “behavioural inhibition system” (BIS) has been developed. This system responds to novel stimuli or to those associated with punishment or nonreward by inhibiting ongoing behaviour and increasing arousal and attention to the environment. It is activity in the BIS that constitutes anxiety and that is reduced by antianxiety drugs. The effects of the antianxiety drugs in the brain also suggest hypotheses concerning the neural substrate of anxiety. Although the benzodiazepines and barbiturates facilitate the effects of γ-aminobutyrate, this is insufficient to explain their highly specific behavioural effects. Because of similarities between the behavioural effects of certain lesions and those of the antianxiety drugs, it is proposed that these drugs reduce anxiety by impairing the functioning of a widespread neural system including the septo-hippocampal system (SHS), the Papez circuit, the prefrontal cortex, and ascending monoaminergic and cholinergic pathways which innervate these forebrain structures. Analysis of the functions of this system (based on anatomical, physiological, and behavioural data) suggests that it acts as a comparator: it compares predicted to actual sensory events and activates the outputs of the BIS when there is a mismatch or when the predicted event is aversive. Suggestions are made as to the functions of particular pathways within this overall brain system. The resulting theory is applied to the symptoms and treatment of anxiety in man, its relations to depression, and the personality of individuals who are susceptible to anxiety or depression.
Aron and Aron (1997) developed the Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS) to measure individual differences in sensory-processing sensitivity (SPS). The purpose of the present study was to examine further the psychometric properties of the HSPS, and its association with the behavioural inhibition system (BIS) and behavioural activation system (BAS) (Carver & White, 1994), and the “Big Five” (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Results demonstrate that the HSPS is a valid and reliable measure of the construct of SPS. However, in contrast to Aron and Aron’s finding that the scale is unidimensional, the current results support a three-component structure consisting of Aesthetic Sensitivity (AES), Low Sensory Threshold (LST), and Ease of Excitation (EOE). BIS activity was especially associated with the component of EOE. In addition, the components had different patterns of association with the “Big Five”. More specifically, AES showed the strongest relation with Openness to Experience, while LST and EOE were found to be most closely associated with Neuroticism.
Longitudinal study of 2 cohorts of children selected in the second or third year of life to be extremely cautious and shy (inhibited) or fearless and outgoing (uninhibited) to unfamiliar events revealed preservation of these 2 behavioral qualities through the sixth year of life. Additionally, more of the inhibited children showed signs of activation in 1 or more of the physiological circuits that usually respond to novelty and challenge, namely, the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, the reticular activating system, and the sympathetic arm of the autonomic nervous system. It is suggested that the threshold of responsivity in limbic and hypothalamic structures to unfamiliarity and challenge is tonically lower for inhibited than for uninhibited children.
The behavioral reactions to unfamiliar events are basic phenomena in all vertebrates. Four-month-old infants who show a low threshold to become distressed and motorically aroused to unfamiliar stimuli are more likely than others to become fearful and subdued during early childhood, whereas infants who show a high arousal threshold are more likely to become bold and sociable. After presenting some developmental correlates and trajectories of these 2 temperamental biases, I consider their implications for psychopathology and the relation between propositions containing psychological and biological concepts.
The lme4 package. R package version
- D Bates
- D Sarkar
- M D Bates
- L Matrix
Bates, D., Sarkar, D., Bates, M. D., & Matrix, L. (2007). The lme4 package. R package
version, 2(1), 74.
For better and for worse: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences
- J Belsky
- M J Bakermans-Kranenburg
- M H Van Ijzendoorn
Belsky, J., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2007). For better and for
worse: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 16(6), 300-304. doi:DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00525.x
Beyond Adversity, Vulnerability and Resilience: Individual Differences in Developmental Plasticity
- J Belsky
- M Pluess
Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2011). Beyond Adversity, Vulnerability and Resilience: Individual
Differences in Developmental Plasticity. In D. Cicchetti & G. I. Roisman (Eds.),
Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology, Vol.36: The Origins and Organization of
Adaptation and Maladaptation (pp. 379-422). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
A Critical Review of the First 10 Years of Candidate Gene-by-Environment Interaction Research in Psychiatry
- L E Duncan
- M C Keller
Duncan, L. E., & Keller, M. C. (2011). A Critical Review of the First 10 Years of Candidate
Gene-by-Environment Interaction Research in Psychiatry. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 168(10), 1041-1049. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.11020191
SENSITIVITY TO ENVIRONMENT 35
Mplus User's Guide. Seventh Edition
- L K Muthén
- B O Muthén
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2015). Mplus User's Guide. Seventh Edition. Los
Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
SEM: Case influence in structural equation models
- M Pastore
- G Altoe
Pastore, M., & Altoe, G. (2015). influence. SEM: Case influence in structural equation
models. R package version 1.5.