Differential susceptibility hypothesis

According to the differential susceptibility hypothesis by Belsky[1] individuals vary in the degree they are affected by experiences or qualities of the environment they are exposed to. Some individuals are more susceptible to such influences than others––not only to negative but also to positive ones.

Differential susceptibility versus diathesis-stress

The idea that individuals vary in their responsivity to qualities of the environment is generally framed in diathesis-stress[2] or dual-risk terms.[3] That is, some individuals, due to their biological, temperamental and/or behavioral characteristics (i.e., “diathesis” or “risk 1”), are more vulnerable to the adverse effects of negative experiences (i.e., “stress” or “risk 2”), whereas others are relatively resilient with respect to them (see Figure 1, an adaptation of Bakermans-Kranenburg and van IJzendoorn’s (2007) Figure 1).

Figure 1. Graphical display of the diathesis-stress/dual-risk model. The X-axis indicates quality of the environment/experiences from negative to positive. The Y-axis indicates the developmental outcome from negative to positive. The lines depict two categorical groups that differ in their responsiveness to a negative environment: the “vulnerable” group shows a negative outcome when exposed to a negative environment, while the “resilient” group is not affected by it. No differences between the two groups emerge in a positive environment.


A fundamentally different, even if not competing view, of the very same phenomenon is central to Belsky’s[4] differential susceptibility hypothesis and Boyce and Ellis’ (2005) related notion of biological sensitivity to context: Individuals do not simply vary in the degree to which they are vulnerable to the negative effects of adverse experience but, more generally, in their developmental plasticity. More “plastic” or malleable individuals are more susceptible than others to environmental influences in a for-better-and-for-worse manner,[5] that is, to both the adverse developmental sequelae associated with negative environments and the positive developmental consequences of supportive ones. Less susceptible individuals, in contrast, are less affected by rearing conditions, be they presumptively supportive or undermining of well being (see Figure 2, an adaptation of Bakermans-Kranenburg and van IJzendoorn’s (2007) Figure 1).

Figure 2. Graphical display of the differential susceptibility model. The X-axis indicates quality of the environment/experiences from negative to positive. The Y-axis indicates the developmental outcome from negative to positive. 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 of the differential susceptibility hypothesis

Because the future is and always has been inherently uncertain, ancestral parents, just like parents today, could not have known (consciously or unconsciously) what 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,[6] natural selection would have shaped parents to bear children varying in plasticity.[7] This way, if an effect of parenting had proven counterproductive in fitnessterms, those children not affected by parenting would not have incurred the cost of developing in ways that ultimately proved “misguided”. Importantly, in light of inclusive-fitness considerations, these less malleable children’s “resistance” to parental influence would not only have benefited themselves directly, but even their more malleable sibs—indirectly, given that sibs, 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 sibs who did not benefit from the parenting they received, again for inclusive-fitness reasons.

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,[8] 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 convincingly establishing evidence of differential susceptibility to environmental influences and distinguishing differential susceptibility from other interaction effects including diathesis-stress/dual-risk.

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:[9]

  1. Genetic Factors
    E.g., Bakermans-Kranenburg and van IJzendoorn (2006) were the first to test the differential susceptibility hypothesis as a function of genes 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.
  2. Endophenotypic Factors
     E.g., Obradovic, Bush, Stamperdahl, Adler and Boyce’s (2010) 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).
  3. Phenotypic Factors
    E.g., 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).

A list of currently proposed susceptibility factors—which all emerged repeatedly in empirical studies—is provided in Table 1.

Table 1.List of Proposed Susceptibility Factors and Empirical Evidence.


See also

Look up nurture in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

References

  1. ↑ Belsky 1997b; 1997a; 2005; Belsky & Pluess, 2009
  2. ↑ Monroe & Simons, 1991; Zuckerman, 1999
  3. ↑ Sameroff, 1983
  4. ↑ Belsky 1997b; 1997a; 2005
  5. ↑ Belsky, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn, 2007
  6. ↑ Philipi & Seger, 1989
  7. ↑ Belsky, 1997a, 2005
  8. ↑ Sameroff, 1983
  9. ↑ see Belsky & Pluess, 2009