Environmental sensitivity

[1] According to the long-standing Diathesis-stress model, people differ in their response to adverse experiences and environments, with some individuals more negatively affected by environmental stressors than others.

In other words, the model suggests that individuals carrying certain vulnerability factors are at greater risk of developing problems when exposed to adverse environments.

The vantage sensitivity framework was developed in 2013 by Michael Pluess and Jay Belsky to describe individual differences in response to positive experiences and environments.

Grounded in evolutionary theory, Belsky and colleagues sought to understand why and how children differ so fundamentally in their developmental response to external influences, with some being more and others less susceptible.

Sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) theory by Elaine N. Aron and Arthur Aron proposes that sensitivity is a stable human trait characterized by greater awareness of sensory stimulation, behavioural inhibition, deeper cognitive processing of environmental stimuli, and higher emotional and physiological reactivity.

In other words, more sensitive individuals are characterised by heightened perception as well as deeper processing of external information due to neurobiological differences in the central nervous system, which are influenced by genetic as well as environmental factors.

A growing number of studies provide empirical evidence to support individual differences in sensitivity at the genetic level.

For example, research has shown that children with a higher physiological response to stress (indicated by the hormone cortisol) are more strongly affected by their family's financial situation.

Similarly, adolescents with high cortisol levels have been found to report more stress when experiencing school-related challenges but also the lowest stress in less demanding situations, whereas adolescents with lower cortisol levels were generally less affected by either low or high school-related challenges [15] The majority of evidence for individual differences in sensitivity due to psychological markers of sensitivity is based on studies that investigate the interplay between infant temperament and parenting during childhood.

According to a large meta-analysis which summarises the findings from 84 individual studies, children that are characterised by a more sensitive temperament were more strongly affected by the parenting they receive.

[1] These characteristics of the brain are then responsible for the typical experiences and behaviours associated with high sensitivity, such as experiencing emotions more strongly, responding more strongly to stressful situations or change, having a higher physiological reactivity, processing experiences in depth by thinking a lot about them, appreciating beauty, and picking up on subtle details.

In the last few decades, researchers have identified a wide range of individual characteristics that reflect or are associated with sensitivity to environmental influences.

Items are designed to capture different facets of sensitivity, such as the tendency to become mentally overwhelmed by both internal and external stimuli, greater appreciation of beauty, and overstimulation when experiencing intense sensory inputs.

In contrast, the remaining 80%, thought to be less sensitive, were compared to the "Dandelion", a plant that is robust and grows under many different conditions, to reflect this group's tendency to be less affected by the quality of the environment.

[8][20] More recently, this two-group hypothesis has been challenged by several studies reporting that sensitivity is more likely a common trait that is best considered a spectrum from low to high.

[17][18][21] According to this research, the 40% that fall into the middle of the sensitivity continuum are referred to as "Tulips", a plant that is more delicate than the "Dandelion" but less fragile then the "Orchid".

Figure 1. Illustration of the different models describing individual differences in Environmental Sensitivity: Diathesis-Stress (1.1) describes variability in response to adverse exposures, and Vantage Sensitivity (1.2) variability in response to supportive exposures, whereas the remaining three models Differential Susceptibility (1.3), Biological Sensitivity to Context (1.4), and Sensory Processing Sensitivity (1.5) describe individual differences in response to both negative and positive experiences. Consequently, Models 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 reflect the combination of Models 1.1 and 1.2.
Figure 2. Illustration of the neurosensitivity hypothesis. Direct and interactive effects between sensitivity genes and environmental factors shape the sensitivity of the central nervous system. Heightened central nervous system sensitivity is then manifested in psychological/behavioral and physiological responsivity.