Differential susceptibility

Last updated

The differential susceptibility theory proposed by Jay Belsky [1] is another interpretation of psychological findings that are usually discussed according to the diathesis-stress model. Both models suggest that people's development and emotional affect are differentially affected by experiences or qualities of the environment. Where the Diathesis-stress model suggests a group that is sensitive to negative environments only, the differential susceptibility hypothesis suggests a group that is sensitive to both negative and positive environments. A third model, the vantage-sensitivity model, [2] suggests a group that is sensitive to positive environments only. All three models may be considered complementary, and have been combined into a general environmental sensitivity framework. [3]

Contents

Differential Susceptibility versus Diathesis-Stress

The idea that individuals vary in their sensitivity to their environment was historically framed in diathesis-stress [4] or dual-risk terms. [5] These theories suggested that some "vulnerable" individuals, due to their biological, temperamental and/or physiological characteristics (i.e., "diathesis" or "risk 1"), are more vulnerable to the adverse effects of negative experiences (i.e., "stress" or "risk 2"), while other "resilient" individuals are not affected by these negative experiences (see Figure 1). [6] The differential susceptibility hypothesis [7] and the related notion of biological sensitivity to context [8] suggested that individuals thought to be "vulnerable" are not only sensitive to negative environments, but also to positive environments (see Figure 2). Thus, according to the differential susceptibility hypothesis, some individuals are "susceptible" or "plastic", in that they are more influenced than others by environmental influences in a "for better and for worse" manner. [9]

Diathesisstressdualriskmodel.JPG
Figure 1. The diathesis-stress/dual-risk model. Developmental outcome as it relates to environmental quality. A "vulnerable" group experiences negative outcome when exposed to a negative environment, although this group is identical to the other, "resilient" group in a positive environment.
Differentialsusceptibilitymodel.svg
Figure 2. The differential susceptibility model. The lines depict two categorical groups that differ in their responsiveness to the environment: the "plastic" group is disproportionately more affected by both negative and positive environments compared to the "fixed" group.

Theoretical background

Belsky suggests that evolution might select for some children who are more plastic, and others who are more fixed in the face of, for example, parenting styles.

Belsky offers that ancestral parents, just like parents today, could not have known (consciously or unconsciously) which childrearing practices would prove most successful in promoting the reproductive fitness of offspring—and thus their own inclusive fitness. As a result, and as a fitness optimizing strategy involving bet hedging, [10] natural selection might have shaped parents to bear children varying in plasticity. [11] This way, if an effect of parenting had proven counterproductive in fitness terms, those children not affected by parenting would not have incurred the cost of developing in ways that ultimately proved "misguided".

Importantly, natural selection might favour genetic lines with both plastic and fixed developmental and affective patterns. In other words, there is value to having both kinds at once. In light of inclusive-fitness considerations, children who were less malleable (and more fixed) would have "resistance" to parental influence. This could be adaptable some times, and maladaptive other times. Their fixedness would not only have benefited themselves directly, but even their more malleable siblings indirectly. This is because siblings, like parents and children, have 50% of their genes in common. By the same token, had parenting influenced children in ways that enhanced fitness, then not only would more plastic offspring have benefited directly by following parental leads, but so, too, would their parents and even their less malleable siblings who did not benefit from the parenting they received, again for inclusive-fitness reasons. The overall effect may be to temper some of the variability in parenting. That is, to make more conservative bets.

This line of evolutionary argument leads to the prediction that children should vary in their susceptibility to parental rearing and perhaps to environmental influences more generally. As it turns out, a long line of developmental inquiry, informed by a "transactional" perspective, [12] has more or less been based on this unstated assumption.

Criteria for the testing of differential susceptibility

Belsky, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & Van IJzendoorn, (2007) delineated a series of empirical requirements—or steps—for evidencing the differential susceptibility hypothesis. Particularly they identify tests that distinguish differential susceptibility from other interaction effects including diathesis-stress/dual-risk.

While diathesis-stress/dual-risk arises when the most vulnerable are disproportionately affected in an adverse manner by a negative environment but do not also benefit disproportionately from positive environmental conditions, differential susceptibility is characterized by a cross-over interaction: the susceptible individuals are disproportionately affected by both negative and positive experiences. A further criterion that needs to be fulfilled to distinguish differential susceptibility from diathesis-stress/dual-risk is the independence of the outcome measure from the susceptibility factor: if the susceptibility factor and the outcome are related, diathesis-stress/dual-risk is suggested rather than differential susceptibility. Further, environment and susceptibility factor must also be unrelated to exclude the alternative explanation that susceptibility merely represents a function of the environment. The specificity of the differential-susceptibility effect is demonstrated if the model is not replicated when other susceptibility factors (i.e., moderators) and outcomes are used. Finally, the slope for the susceptible subgroup should be significantly different from zero and at the same time significantly steeper than the slope for the non- (or less-) susceptible subgroup.

Susceptibility markers and empirical evidence

Characteristics of individuals that have been shown to moderate environmental effects in a manner consistent with the differential susceptibility hypothesis can be subdivided into three categories: [13] Genetic factors, endophenotypic factors, phenotypic factors.

Bakermans-Kranenburg and Van IJzendoorn (2006) were the first to test the differential susceptibility hypothesis as a function of Genetic Factors regarding the moderating effect of the dopamine receptor D4 7-repeat polymorphism (DRD4-7R) on the association between maternal sensitivity and externalizing behavior problems in 47 families. Children with the DRD4-7R allele and insensitive mothers displayed significantly more externalizing behaviors than children with the same allele but with sensitive mothers. Children with the DRD4-7R allele and sensitive mothers had the least externalizing behaviors of all whereas maternal sensitivity had no effect on children without the DRD4-7R allele.

Endophenotypic Factors have been examined by Obradovic, Bush, Stamperdahl, Adler and Boyce's (2010). They investigated associations between childhood adversity and child adjustment in 338 5-year-olds. Children with high cortisol reactivity were rated by teachers as least prosocial when living under adverse conditions, but most prosocial when living under more benign conditions (and in comparison to children scoring low on cortisol reactivity).

Regarding characteristics of the category of Phenotypic Factors , Pluess and Belsky (2009) reported that the effect of child care quality on teacher-rated socioemotional adjustment varied as a function of infant temperament in the case of 761 4.5-year-olds participating in the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2005). Children with difficult temperaments as infants manifest the most and least behavior problems depending on whether they experienced, respectively, poor or good quality care (and in comparison to children with easier temperaments).

Table 1. List of Proposed Susceptibility Factors that emerge across studies, according to Belsky and colleagues. Susceptibilityfactors Table1.JPG
Table 1. List of Proposed Susceptibility Factors that emerge across studies, according to Belsky and colleagues.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Causes of mental disorders</span> Etiology of psychopathology

A mental disorder is an impairment of the mind disrupting normal thinking, feeling, mood, behavior, or social interactions, and accompanied by significant distress or dysfunction. The causes of mental disorders are very complex and vary depending on the particular disorder and the individual. Although the causes of most mental disorders are not fully understood, researchers have identified a variety of biological, psychological, and environmental factors that can contribute to the development or progression of mental disorders. Most mental disorders result in a combination of several different factors rather than just a single factor.

In psychology, temperament broadly refers to consistent individual differences in behavior that are biologically based and are relatively independent of learning, system of values and attitudes.

Attachment disorder is a broad term intended to describe disorders of mood, behavior, and social relationships arising from unavailability of normal socializing care and attention from primary care giving figures in early childhood. Such a failure would result from unusual early experiences of neglect, abuse, abrupt separation from caregivers between three months and three years of age, frequent change or excessive numbers of caregivers, or lack of caregiver responsiveness to child communicative efforts resulting in a lack of basic trust. A problematic history of social relationships occurring after about age three may be distressing to a child, but does not result in attachment disorder.

Reactive attachment disorder (RAD) is described in clinical literature as a severe and relatively uncommon disorder that can affect children, although these issues do occasionally persist into adulthood. RAD is characterized by markedly disturbed and developmentally inappropriate ways of relating socially in most contexts. It can take the form of a persistent failure to initiate or respond to most social interactions in a developmentally appropriate way—known as the "inhibited form". In the DSM-5, the "disinhibited form" is considered a separate diagnosis named "disinhibited attachment disorder".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sensory processing sensitivity</span> Personality trait of highly sensitive people

Sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) is a temperamental or personality trait involving "an increased sensitivity of the central nervous system and a deeper cognitive processing of physical, social and emotional stimuli". The trait is characterized by "a tendency to 'pause to check' in novel situations, greater sensitivity to subtle stimuli, and the engagement of deeper cognitive processing strategies for employing coping actions, all of which is driven by heightened emotional reactivity, both positive and negative".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Attachment theory</span> Psychological ethological theory about human relationships

Attachment theory is a psychological, evolutionary and ethological theory concerning relationships between humans. The most important tenet is that young children need to develop a relationship with at least one primary caregiver for normal social and emotional development. The theory was formulated by psychiatrist and psychoanalyst John Bowlby.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diathesis–stress model</span> Psychological theory

The diathesis-stress model, also known as the vulnerability–stress model, is a psychological theory that attempts to explain a disorder, or its trajectory, as the result of an interaction between a predispositional vulnerability, the diathesis, and stress caused by life experiences. The term diathesis derives from the Greek term (διάθεσις) for a predisposition or sensibility. A diathesis can take the form of genetic, psychological, biological, or situational factors. A large range of differences exists among individuals' vulnerabilities to the development of a disorder.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gene–environment interaction</span> Response to the same environmental variation differently by different genotypes

Gene–environment interaction is when two different genotypes respond to environmental variation in different ways. A norm of reaction is a graph that shows the relationship between genes and environmental factors when phenotypic differences are continuous. They can help illustrate GxE interactions. When the norm of reaction is not parallel, as shown in the figure below, there is a gene by environment interaction. This indicates that each genotype responds to environmental variation in a different way. Environmental variation can be physical, chemical, biological, behavior patterns or life events.

Psychological resilience is the ability to cope mentally and emotionally with a crisis, or to return to pre-crisis status quickly.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Evolutionary developmental psychology</span> Psychology field concerned with Darwinian evolution

Evolutionary developmental psychology (EDP) is a research paradigm that applies the basic principles of evolution by natural selection, to understand the development of human behavior and cognition. It involves the study of both the genetic and environmental mechanisms that underlie the development of social and cognitive competencies, as well as the epigenetic processes that adapt these competencies to local conditions.

Attachment-based therapy applies to interventions or approaches based on attachment theory, originated by John Bowlby. These range from individual therapeutic approaches to public health programs to interventions specifically designed for foster carers. Although attachment theory has become a major scientific theory of socioemotional development with one of the broadest, deepest research lines in modern psychology, attachment theory has, until recently, been less clinically applied than theories with far less empirical support. This may be partly due to lack of attention paid to clinical application by Bowlby himself and partly due to broader meanings of the word 'attachment' used amongst practitioners. It may also be partly due to the mistaken association of attachment theory with the pseudo-scientific interventions misleadingly known as attachment therapy. The approaches set out below are examples of recent clinical applications of attachment theory by mainstream attachment theorists and clinicians and are aimed at infants or children who have developed or are at risk of developing less desirable, insecure attachment styles or an attachment disorder.

Mary Main was an American psychologist notable for her work in the field of attachment. A Professor at the University of California Berkeley, Main is particularly known for her introduction of the 'disorganized' infant attachment classification and for development of the Adult Attachment Interview and coding system for assessing states of mind regarding attachment. This work has been described as 'revolutionary' and Main has been described as having 'unprecedented resonance and influence' in the field of psychology.

Studies have found that the father is a child's preferred attachment figure in approximately 5–20% of cases. Fathers and mothers may react differently to the same behaviour in an infant, and the infant may react to the parents' behaviour differently depending on which parent performs it.

Video interaction guidance (VIG) is a video feedback intervention through which a “guider” helps a client to enhance communication within relationships. The client is guided to analyse and reflect on video clips of their own interactions. Applications include a caregiver and infant, and other education and care home interactions. VIG is used in more than 15 countries and by at least 4000 practitioners. Video Interaction Guidance has been used where concerns have been expressed over possible parental neglect in cases where the focus child is aged 2–12, and where the child is not the subject of a child protection plan.

Marian Bakermans-Kranenburg is a Dutch psychologist focused attachment and emotion regulation in parents and their children, with special emphasis on the neurobiological processes involved in parenting and development. She is currently a Full Professor at Ispa-Instituto Universitário (Portugal), a visiting Scholar & Research Associate in the Center for Attachment Research at The New School for Social Research, and a visiting Consultant at the National Institute of Education of the Nanyang Technological University (Singapore).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marinus van IJzendoorn</span>

Marinus H. "Rien" van IJzendoorn is professor of human development and one of the co-leaders of Generation R at the Erasmus University Rotterdam. His work has focussed on the social, psychological, and neurobiological determinants of parenting and child development, with special emphasis on attachment, emotion regulation, differential susceptibility hypothesis, and child maltreatment.

In the context of the nature-nurture debate, interactionism is the view that all human behavioral traits develop from the interaction of both "nature" and "nurture", that is, from both genetic and environmental factors. This view further holds that genetic and environmental influences on organismal development are so closely interdependent that they are inseparable from one another. Historically, it has often been confused with the statistical concept of gene-environment interaction. Historically, interactionism has presented a limited view of the manner in which behavioral traits develop, and has simply demonstrated that "nature" and "nurture" are both necessary. Among the first biologists to propose an interactionist theory of development was Daniel Lehrman. Since then, numerous interactionist perspectives have been proposed, and the contradictions between many of these perspectives has led to much controversy in evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics. Proponents of various forms of interactionist perspectives include Philip Kitcher, who refers to his view as "causal democracy", and Susan Oyama, who describes her perspective as "constructive interactionism". Critics of interactionism include major figures in behavioral genetics such as Arthur Jensen, Robert Plomin, and philosopher Neven Sesardic.

Environmental sensitivity describes the ability of an individual to perceive and process information about their environment. It is a basic trait found in many organisms that enables an individual to adapt to different environmental conditions. Levels of Environmental Sensitivity often vary considerably from individual to individual, with some being more and others less sensitive to the same conditions. Such differences have been observed across many species such as pumpkinseed fish, zebra finches, mice, non-human primates and humans, indicating that there is a biological basis to differences in sensitivity.

Vantage sensitivity is a psychological concept related to environmental sensitivity, initially developed by Michael Pluess and Jay Belsky. It describes individual differences in response to positive experiences and supportive environmental influences. According to vantage sensitivity, people differ considerably in their sensitivity to positive aspects of the environment, with some people benefitting particularly strongly from positive experiences such as parental care, supportive relationships, and psychological interventions, whereas others tend to respond less or not at all.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert Keers</span> British psychologist and geneticist (1984–2020)

Robert Keers was a British psychologist conducting innovative research on individual differences in mental health problems with a specific focus on psychiatric genetics.

References

  1. Belsky, Jay (1997-07-01). "Variation in Susceptibility to Environmental Influence: An Evolutionary Argument". Psychological Inquiry. 8 (3): 182–186. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0803_3. ISSN   1047-840X.
  2. Pluess, Michael; Belsky, Jay (2013). "Vantage sensitivity: Individual differences in response to positive experiences". Psychological Bulletin. 139 (4): 901–916. doi:10.1037/a0030196. ISSN   1939-1455. PMID   23025924.
  3. Pluess, Michael (2015). "Individual Differences in Environmental Sensitivity". Child Development Perspectives. 9 (3): 138–143. doi:10.1111/cdep.12120.
  4. Monroe & Simons, 1991; Zuckerman, 1999
  5. Sameroff, 1983
  6. Bakermans-Kranenburg, Marian J.; van IJzendoorn, Marinus H. (2007). "Research Review: Genetic vulnerability or differential susceptibility in child development: the case of attachment". Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 48 (12): 1160–1173. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01801.x. PMID   18093021.
  7. Belsky, Jay; Pluess, Michael (2009). "Beyond diathesis stress: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences". Psychological Bulletin. 135 (6): 885–908. doi:10.1037/a0017376. ISSN   1939-1455. PMID   19883141.
  8. Boyce, W. Thomas; Ellis, Bruce J. (2005). "Biological sensitivity to context: I. An evolutionary–developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity". Development and Psychopathology. 17 (2): 271–301. doi:10.1017/S0954579405050145. ISSN   1469-2198. PMID   16761546. S2CID   15413527.
  9. Belsky, Jay; Bakermans-Kranenburg, Marian J.; van IJzendoorn, Marinus H. (2007). "For Better and For Worse: Differential Susceptibility to Environmental Influences". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 16 (6): 300–304. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00525.x. ISSN   0963-7214. S2CID   7782544.
  10. Philipi & Seger, 1989
  11. Belsky, 1997a, 2005
  12. Sameroff, 1983
  13. see Belsky & Pluess, 2009

Sources