Individual differences in environmental sensitivity part 1 Flashcards
environmental sensitivity enables the individual to?
perceive, process, evaluate and respond to social and physical elements of the environment
differences in environmental sensitivity have been studied by observing responses in new or threatening situations
two types of behavioral responses can be observed
some individuals are bold, aggressive and impulsive
other individuals are cautious and fearful
Indivudial differences in envorimental sensitivity across species
These individual differences have been described across spiecies, Fish, rats, Monkeys, primates, birds etc
How have individual differences in envoirmental sensitivity been described in humans
Tempremnetal differences
Kagan 1994
Inhibited vs uninhibited children
Inhibited children
React to unfamilar people and stuations with
Distress
Avoidance
Restraint
Takes longer time to relax in new situations
Has more fears and phobias
Is timid and cautious
Uninhibited children
Reacts to unfamilar people and stuations
Spontaneity
Joy
Takes shorter times to relax in new situations
Fewer fears and phobias
not restrainedi n new situations
for a long time, research on environmental sensitivity has focused on sensitivity to environmental adversity
diathesis-stress framework
diathesis-stress framework
Model assumes that vulnerable individuals are disproportionately, if not exclusively, likely to succumb to the negative effects of contextual stressors, whereas resilient individuals keep functioning adaptively in the face of adversity
→ research biased toward environmental risk and psychopathology
diathesis-stress models do not predict individual differences in
response to positive environmental influences
Diathesis-stress model idea challenged
those vulnerable to adversity might also be more sensitive to positive experiences and environments
those resilient in the face of adversity might also be less sensitive to positive experiences and environments
vironments
Differential Susceptibility model (Belsky & Pluess, 2009)
biological/genetic differences in sensitivity →higher or lower plasticity and adaptation to the environment
Flowers
predicts individual differences in response to both negative and positive environmental influences
Is a integration of the vatage sensitivite and diathesis stress models
vantage sensitivity
refers to the general proclivity of an individual to benefit from positive, well-being- and competence-promoting features of the environment
vantage resistance refers to the failure to benefit from positive influences
Biological Sensitivity to Context (Boyce & Ellis, 2005)
A heightened sensitivity:
Individual differences in physiological reactivity (e.g., heart rate, cortisol)
Environment that shapes someone’s sensitivity
Sensory processing sensitivity (Aron & Aron, 1997)
Highly Sensitive Personality: phenotypic manifestation of Environmental sensitivity
Personality or temperament trait
HSP more sensitive to all internal and external stimul
Most: self-report questionnaires: HSP scale (12 or 27 items)
Behavioral task: Visual detection task (Gerstenberg., 2012) (n = 89)
Stimuli: black Ls and Ts (target) on a white background
“Respond as quickly and accurate as possible”
+ measure of self-reported stress
HSP: higher accuracy, lower reaction times, and more reported stress
Visual change blindness task (Jagiellowicz et al., 2011) (n = 16)
Subtle changes in visual scenes (black and white photographs) while in MRI
→ greater activation in brain regions involved in higher-order visual processing
→ higher accuracy and longer reaction times
resting-state EEG study (Dimulescu et al., 2020) (n = 60)
Higher relative power in delta band and a lower relative power in the alpha band for HSP
→ more flexibility in switching between endogenous and exogenous environment?
Absolute power: Higher activity in all bands in HSP compared to LSP
→ continuously scanning of the environment?
Theoretical review article: (Greven et al., 2019; Homberg and Jagiellowicz, 2021)
Automatic exogenous attention for environmental stimuli and increased activation to unexpected stimuli
Flexible attentional set-shifting between endogenous and exogenous environment
Less neural gating due to less top-down control?
Summary of all SPS studies
individual differences in environmental sensitivity moderate the associations between environmental factors and developmental outcomes
Baisc design of enviormental sensitivity sutdy has three variables
Enviormental factor
Developmental factor
Individual characteristics
Core mechanism of individual differences in environmental sensitivity
idea that the mechanism of environmental sensitivity is situated at the neurobiological level
biological sensitivity is shaped by genetic factors
Early environments
For a long time the enviormental orginis have been sought in early childhood trauma
gene x environment interactions
environmental sensitivity is assumed to be a function of genetic factors and characteristics of the (early) environment as well as of their interaction
epigenetic mechanisms
epigenetic mechanisms potentially mediate the association between characteristics of the early environment and later susceptibility
recent evidence suggests that not only early childhood experiences predict DNA methylation, but also experiences in later developmental stages
Markers of individual differences in environmental sensitivity: Different levels
Phenothypic level
Endophenotype
Genetic level
Phenotypic manifestation
children with a difficult temperament are more vulnerable to negative parenting but also profit more from positive parenting
differences found for internalizing as well as externalizing problems and for social as well as cognitive competence
sensory processing sensitivity is put forward as probably the best phenotypic marker of environmental sensitivity
sensory processing sensitivity construct
an individual difference characteristic in which those who are high
are particularly sensitive to subtle stimuli
are easily overstimulated
are prone to ‘pause to check’ in a novel situation
prefer to reflect and revise their cognitive maps after an experience.”
Aron and Aron assume that SPS
is an aspect of personality
is relatively stable
is categorical
characterizes about 20% of the population
has a genetic basis
to assess SPS, the High Sensitive Person scale has been developed
6 quantitative studies to establish the psychometric quality of the questionnaire
27 items
all items load on a single dimension
sufficient internal consistency
total score is associated with other personality measures as expected
SPS: Recent studies report a bifactor structure with one general and three specific dimensions
Ease of excitation
Low sensory threshold
Aesthetic sensitivity
HSP
HSC21: Improving the measurement of environmental sensitivity
26 newly developed items
Multidimension Item Response Theory (MIRT)
Exploratory Structual Equation Modeling
21 best performing items retained
More informative
Better discrimination between individuals
Broader aspects
Validated child and parent report version
Is being translated into multiple languages
evidence for a slightly different factor structure, namely in the case of the new HSC questionnaire
Ease of excitation +Low sensory threshold
Aesthetic sensitivity
HSP
The existence of different sensitivity groups: 3 Groups
Low: Dandelion
Medium: Tulip
High: orchid
SPS strenghtens associations between
childhood maltreatment and child abuse potential
childhood experiences and adult life satisfaction
adverse childhood environment and adult shyness
lack of parental care in childhood and adult depressive symptoms
changes over time in (positive or negative) parenting and externalizing behavior problems in preschool children
some of these studies show a pattern of findings consistent with differential susceptibility, whereas the results of other studies are more in line with diathesis-stress
SPS predicts
the extent to which depressive symptoms decrease after a preventive intervention
decreases in victimization (boys+girls) and internalizing symptoms (only boys) after the intervention occur only/most strongly in high SPS individuals
meta-analysis of 8 papers in which the association of SPS with the five-factor model of personality is examined
strong and consistent association with neuroticism
weaker association with openness
no association with extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness
limited number of studies
some samples are small and not representative (students)
different assessment tools for five-factor model
no single study focuses at the facet level of personality
Relevant facests SPS
at domain level: neuroticism and openness and, to a lesser extent, extraversion
at facet level: most but not all facets of neuroticism and openness, some facets of extraversion
Selected facets
Neuroticism:
Anxiety
Angry hostility
Self-Conciousness
Vunerability
Extaversion:
Gregariousness: enjoying crowds and big social gatherings
Excitement-seeking
Openness:
Aesthetics
Feelings
possible outcome of such work
= NEO-PI-3 ‘sensitivity index’
