Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
Published in: Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 6/2018

Open Access 01-06-2018 | Invited Reviews

Vantage sensitivity: a framework for individual differences in response to psychological intervention

Authors: Bernadette de Villiers, Francesca Lionetti, Michael Pluess

Published in: Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology | Issue 6/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

People differ significantly in their response to psychological intervention, with some benefitting more from treatment than others. According to the recently proposed theoretical framework of vantage sensitivity, some of this variability may be due to individual differences in environmental sensitivity, the inherent ability to register, and process external stimuli. In this paper, we apply the vantage sensitivity framework to the field of psychiatry and clinical psychology, proposing that some people are more responsive to the positive effects of psychological intervention due to heightened sensitivity.

Methods

After presenting theoretical frameworks related to environmental sensitivity, we review a selection of recent studies reporting individual differences in the positive response to psychological intervention.

Results

A growing number of studies report that some people benefit more from psychological intervention than others as a function of genetic, physiological, and psychological characteristics. These studies support the vantage sensitivity proposition that treatment response is influenced by factors associated with heightened sensitivity to environmental influences. More recently, studies have also shown that sensitivity can be measured with a short questionnaire which appears to predict the response to psychological intervention.

Conclusions

Vantage sensitivity is a framework with significant relevance for our understanding of widely observed heterogeneity in treatment response. It suggests that variability in response to treatment is partly influenced by people’s differing capacity for environmental sensitivity, which can be measured with a short questionnaire. Application of the vantage sensitivity framework to psychiatry and clinical psychology may improve our knowledge regarding when, how, and for whom interventions work.
Literature
1.
American Psychological A (2013) Recognition of psychotherapy effectiveness. Psychotherapy (Chicago Ill) 50(1):102CrossRef
2.
Carr A (2009) The effectiveness of family therapy and systemic interventions for child-focused problems. J Family Ther 31(1):3–45CrossRef
3.
Cuijpers P et al (2014) Psychological treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: a meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev 34(2):130–140CrossRefPubMed
4.
Cuijpers P et al (2008) Psychotherapy for depression in adults: a meta-analysis of comparative outcome studies. J Consult Clin Psychol 76(6):909–922CrossRefPubMed
5.
Mayo-Wilson E et al (2014) Psychological and pharmacological interventions for social anxiety disorder in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry 1(5):368–376CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (2010) Depression: the treatment and management of depression in adults (updated edition). British Psychological Society, Leicester
7.
Chorpita BF et al (2011) Evidence-based treatments for children and adolescents: an updated review of indicators of efficacy and effectiveness. Clin Psychol Sci Pract 18(2):154–172CrossRef
8.
Glass G, Smith M, Miller T (1980) The benefits of psychotherapy. John Hopkins Un, Baltimore
9.
Wampold BE, Imel ZE (2015) The great psychotherapy debate: the evidence for what makes psychotherapy work. Routledge, New York, NYCrossRef
10.
Grant PM et al (2012) Randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy of cognitive therapy for low-functioning patients with schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry 69(2):121–127CrossRefPubMed
11.
Fisher PL, Wells A (2005) How effective are cognitive and behavioral treatments for obsessive–compulsive disorder? A clinical significance analysis. Behav Res Ther 43(12):1543–1558CrossRefPubMed
12.
Hansen NB, Lambert MJ, Forman EM (2002) The psychotherapy dose-response effect and its implications for treatment delivery services. Clin Psycho Sci Pract 9(3):329–343CrossRef
13.
Jacobson NS, Follette WC, Revenstorf D (1984) Psychotherapy outcome research: methods for reporting variability and evaluating clinical significance. Behav Ther 15(4):336–352CrossRef
14.
Lambert MJ, Hansen NB, Bauer S (2008) Assessing the clinical significance of outcome results. In: Nezu AM, Nezu CM (eds) Evidence-based outcome research: a practical guide to conducting randomized controlled trials for psychosocial interventions. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 359–378
15.
Loerinc AG et al (2015) Response rates for CBT for anxiety disorders: need for standardized criteria. Clin Psycho Rev 42:72–82CrossRef
16.
Öst L-G et al (2015) Cognitive behavioral treatments of obsessive–compulsive disorder. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published 1993–2014. Clin Psychol Rev 40:156–169CrossRefPubMed
17.
Fox S, Herman M, Beck AT (1984) Severity of psychiatric symptoms as a predictor of benefits from psychotherapy: the veterans administration-Penn study. Am J Psychiatry 141(10):1172–1177CrossRefPubMed
18.
Kraemer HC et al (2002) Mediators and moderators of treatment effects in randomized clinical trials. Arch Gen Psychiatry 59(10):877–883CrossRefPubMed
19.
Lambert MJ, Barley DE (2001) Research summary on the therapeutic relationship and psychotherapy outcome. Psychother Theory Res Pract Train 38(4):357CrossRef
20.
Sotsky SM et al (1991) Patient predictors of response to psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy: findings in the NIMH treatment of depression collaborative research program. Am J Psychiatry 148(8):997–1008CrossRefPubMed
21.
Monroe SM, Simons AD (1991) Diathesis–stress theories in the context of life stress research: implications for the depressive disorders. Psychol Bull 110(3):406CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zuckerman M (1999) Diathesis-stress models. In: Zuckerman M (ed) Vulnerability to psychopathology: a biosocial model. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 3–23CrossRef
23.
24.
Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van Ijzendoorn MH (2011) Differential susceptibility to rearing environment depending on dopamine-related genes: new evidence and a meta-analysis. Dev Psychopathol 23(1):39–52CrossRefPubMed
25.
Belsky J, Pluess M (2009) Beyond diathesis stress: differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychol Bull 135(6):885–908CrossRefPubMed
26.
Belsky J (2005) Differential susceptibility to rearing influences: an evolutionary hypothesis and some evidence. In: Ellis B, Bjorklund D (eds) Origins of the social mind: evolutionary psychology and child development. Guilford, New York, pp 139–163
27.
Belsky JAY, Hsieh K-H, Crnic K (1998) Mothering, fathering, and infant negativity as antecedents of boys’ externalizing problems and inhibition at age 3 years: differential susceptibility to rearing experience? Dev Psychopathol 10(2):301–319CrossRefPubMed
28.
Kim S, Kochanska G (2012) Child temperament moderates effects of parent–child mutuality on self-regulation: a relationship-based path for emotionally negative infants. Child Dev 83(4):1275–1289CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Pluess M, Belsky J (2009) Differential susceptibility to rearing experience: the case of childcare. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 50(4):396–404CrossRefPubMed
30.
Ellis BJ et al (2011) Differential susceptibility to the environment: an evolutionary–neurodevelopmental theory. Dev Psychopathol 23(1):7–28CrossRefPubMed
31.
Pluess M (2017) Vantage sensitivity: environmental sensitivity to positive experiences as a function of genetic differences. J Pers 85(1):38–50CrossRefPubMed
32.
Uher R (2009) The role of genetic variation in the causation of mental illness: an evolution-informed framework. Mol Psychiatry 14(12):1072–1082CrossRefPubMed
33.
34.
Belsky J, Pluess M (2013) Beyond risk, resilience, and dysregulation: phenotypic plasticity and human development. Dev Psychopathol 25(4 Pt 2):1243–1261CrossRefPubMed
35.
Boyce WT et al (1995) Psychobiologic reactivity to stress and childhood respiratory illnesses: results of two prospective studies. Psychosom Med 57(5):411–422CrossRefPubMed
36.
Boyce WT, Ellis BJ (2005) Biological sensitivity to context: I. An evolutionary–developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity. Dev Psychopathol 17(2):271–301CrossRefPubMed
37.
Aron EN, Aron A (1997) Sensory-processing sensitivity and its relation to introversion and emotionality. J Personal Soc Psychol 73(2):345CrossRef
38.
Ellis BJ, Boyce WT (2008) Biological sensitivity to context. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 17(3):183–187CrossRef
39.
Ellis BJ, Essex MJ, Boyce WT (2005) Biological sensitivity to context: II. Empirical explorations of an evolutionary–developmental theory. Dev Psychopathol 17(2):303–328CrossRefPubMed
40.
Aron EN, Aron A, Jagiellowicz J (2012) Sensory processing sensitivity: a review in the light of the evolution of biological responsivity. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 16(3):262–282CrossRef
41.
Pluess M (2015) Individual differences in environmental sensitivity. Child Dev Perspect 9(3):138–143CrossRef
42.
Roisman GI et al (2012) Distinguishing differential susceptibility from diathesis–stress: recommendations for evaluating interaction effects. Dev Psychopathol 24(2):389–409CrossRefPubMed
43.
Pluess M, Belsky J (2013) Vantage sensitivity: Individual differences in response to positive experiences. Psychol Bull 139(4):901CrossRefPubMed
44.
Pluess M, Belsky J (2015) Vantage sensitivity: genetic susceptibility to effects of positive experiences. In: Pluess M (ed) Genetics of psychological well-being. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 193–210CrossRef
45.
Belsky J (2013) Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Int J Child Care Educ Policy 7(2):15–31CrossRef
46.
Drury SS et al (2012) Genetic sensitivity to the caregiving context: the influence of 5httlpr and BDNF val66met on indiscriminate social behavior. Physiol Behav 106(5):728–735CrossRefPubMed
47.
Obradovic J et al (2010) Biological sensitivity to context: the interactive effects of stress reactivity and family adversity on socio-emotional behavior and school readiness. Child Dev 81(1):270–289CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
48.
Ramchandani PG, van IJzendoorn MH, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ (2010) Differential susceptibility to fathers’ care and involvement: the moderating effect of infant reactivity. Family Sci 1(2):93–101CrossRef
49.
Kohen R et al (2011) Response to psychosocial treatment in poststroke depression is associated with serotonin transporter polymorphisms. Stroke 42:2068–2070CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Eley TC et al (2012) Therapygenetics: the 5HTTLPR and response to psychological therapy. Mol Psychiatry 17:236–237CrossRefPubMed
51.
van IJzendoorn MH, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ (2015) Genetic differential susceptibility on trial: meta-analytic support from randomized controlled experiments. Dev Psychopathol 27(1):151–162CrossRefPubMed
52.
Lesch KP et al (1996) Association of anxiety-related traits with a polymorphism in the serotonin transporter gene regulatory region. Science 274(5292):1527–1531CrossRefPubMed
53.
Morgan B et al (2017) Serotonin transporter gene (SLC6A4) polymorphism and susceptibility to a home-visiting maternal-infant attachment intervention delivered by community health workers in South Africa: reanalysis of a randomized controlled trial. Plos Med 14(2):e1002237CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
54.
Albert D et al (2015) Can genetics predict response to complex behavioral interventions? Evidence from a genetic analysis of the fast track randomized control trial. J Policy Anal Manag 34(3):497–518CrossRef
55.
Keers R et al (2016) A genome-wide test of the differential susceptibility hypothesis reveals a genetic predictor of differential response to psychological treatments for child anxiety disorders. Psychother Psychosom 85(3):146–158CrossRefPubMed
56.
Pluess M, Belsky J (2013) Vantage sensitivity: Individual differences in response to positive experiences. Psychol Bull 139(4):901–916CrossRefPubMed
57.
Chhangur RR et al (2017) Genetic moderation of intervention efficacy: dopaminergic genes, the Incredible Years, and externalizing behavior in children. Child Dev 88(3):796–811CrossRefPubMed
58.
Duncan LE, Keller MC (2011) A critical review of the first 10 years of candidate gene-by-environment interaction research in psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry 168(10):1041–1049CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
59.
Sijtsema JJ et al (2013) Family cohesion, prosocial behavior, and aggressive/delinquent behavior in adolescence: moderating effects of biological sensitivity to context. The TRAILS study. Dev Psychopathol 25:699–712CrossRefPubMed
60.
Somers JA, Ibrahim MH, Luecken LJ (2017) Biological sensitivity to the effects of childhood family adversity on psychological well-being in young adulthood. Child Maltreat 22(3):236–244CrossRefPubMed
61.
Meuret AE et al (2015) High cortisol awakening response and cortisol levels moderate exposure-based psychotherapy success. Psychoneuroendocrinolgy 51:331–340CrossRef
62.
Rapcencu AE et al (2017) Pre-treatment cortisol awakening response predicts symptom reduction in posttraumatic stress disorder after treatment. Psychoneuroendocrinology 82:1–8CrossRefPubMed
63.
Fischer S, Cleare AJ (2017) Cortisol as a predictor of psychological therapy response in anxiety disorders—systematic review and meta-analysis. J Anxiety Disord 47:60–68CrossRefPubMed
64.
Doehrmann O et al (2013) Predicting treatment response in social anxiety disorder from functional magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA 70:87–97
65.
Klumpp H et al (2014) Neural response during attentional control and emotion processing predicts improvement after cognitive behavioral therapy in generalized social anxiety disorder. Psychol Med 44:3109–3121CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
66.
Haukulinen C et al (2015) Personality and depressive symptoms: individual participant meta-analysis of 10 cohort studies. Depress Anxiety 32:461–470CrossRef
67.
Cassidy J et al (2011) Enhancing infant attachment security: an examination of treatment efficacy and differential susceptibility. Dev Psychopathol 23(1):131–148CrossRefPubMed
68.
Stoltz S et al (2013) Child personality as moderator of outcome in a school-based intervention for preventing externalising behaviour. Eur J Pers 27(3):271–279CrossRef
69.
70.
Lionetti F et al (in press) Dandelions, tulips and orchids: evidence for the existence of low-sensitive, medium-sensitive and high-sensitive individuals. Transl Psychiatry
71.
Asscher J et al (2016) Do personality traits affect responsiveness of juvenile delinquents to treatment? J Res Pers 63:44–50CrossRef
72.
Tanofsky-Kraff M et al (2017) Excess weight gain prevention in adolescents: three-year outcome following a randomized controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol 85(3):218–227CrossRefPubMed
73.
Belsky J, Pluess M (2016) Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. In: Cicchetti D (ed) Developmental psychopathology. Wiley, New York, p 59
74.
Moore SR, Depue RA (2016) Neurobehavioral foundation of environmental reactivity. Psychol Bull 142(2):107–164CrossRefPubMed
75.
Pluess M, Stevens S, Belsky J (2013) Differential susceptibility: developmental and evolutionary mechanisms of gene-environment interactions. In: Legerstee M, Haley DW, Bornstein MH (eds) The infant mind: origins of the social brain. Guilford, New York, pp 77–96
76.
Aron EN, Aron A (1997) Sensory-processing sensitivity and its relation to introversion and emotionality. J Pers Soc Psychol 73(2):345–368CrossRefPubMed
77.
Pluess M, Boniwell I (2015) Sensory-Processing Sensitivity predicts treatment response to a school-based depression prevention program: evidence of vantage sensitivity. Personal Individ Differ 82(0):40–45CrossRef
78.
Pluess M et al (2017) Preliminary evaluation of a school-based resilience-promoting intervention in a high-risk population: application of an exploratory two-cohort treatment/control design. PLoS One 12(5):e0177191CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
79.
Nocentini A, Menesini E, Pluess M (in revision) The personality trait of environmental sensitivity predicts children’s positive response to school-based anti-bullying intervention. Clin Psychol Sci
80.
Pluess M (2017) Vantage sensitivity: environmental sensitivity to positive experiences as a function of genetic differences. J Personal 85(1):38–50CrossRef
81.
Abrahams E, Silver M (2009) The case for personalized medicine. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks
82.
Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van IJzendoorn MH (2015) The hidden efficacy of interventions: Gene × environment experiments from a differential susceptibility perspective. Annu Rev Psychol 66:381–409CrossRefPubMed
83.
Kok BE, Fredrickson BL (2010) Upward spirals of the heart: autonomic flexibility, as indexed by vagal tone, reciprocally and prospectively predicts positive emotions and social connectedness. Biol Psychol 85(3):432–436CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Vantage sensitivity: a framework for individual differences in response to psychological intervention
Authors
Bernadette de Villiers
Francesca Lionetti
Michael Pluess
Publication date
01-06-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology / Issue 6/2018
Print ISSN: 0933-7954
Electronic ISSN: 1433-9285
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-017-1471-0

Other articles of this Issue 6/2018

Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 6/2018 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Association between obesity and depressive symptoms in Mexican population

Original Paper

The utility of outpatient commitment: acute medical care access and protecting health

Original Paper

Prevalence and predictors of no lifetime utilization of mental health treatment among people with mental disorders in France: findings from the ‘Mental Health in General Population’ (MHGP) survey

Original Paper

Utilization of psychiatric care and antidepressants among people with different severity of depression: a population-based cohort study in Stockholm, Sweden

Original Paper

A typology of satisfaction with mental health services based on Andersen’s behavioral model

Original Paper

Cross-sectional networks of depressive symptoms before and after antidepressant medication treatment