Chapter 4 136 Rioux et al., 2016; Slagt et al., 2016). One explanation for these inconsistent findings is that all distinct theorized subgroups of adverse sensitive, vantage sensitive, and differentially susceptible adolescents coexist in the population. Indeed, Pluess (2015) theorizes that individuals vary in their sensitivity to adverse and/or supportive influences, which can again manifest in some individuals being highly responsive to either unsupportive or supportive influences, or to both influences. Our study is the first, to our knowledge, to assess whether different responsivity-to-parenting patterns coexist. In support of this hypothesis, around one third of the 256 adolescents in the sample showed one of the theorized responsivity patterns. Specifically, 5% appeared adverse sensitive, 3% vantage sensitive, and 26% differentially susceptible. Although these proportions varied across sensitivity analyses, overall the findings suggest that the three different environmental sensitivity models may coexist. Yet, more adolescents seemed responsive to both adverse and supportive parenting than to only one of the two. Hence, as suggested earlier by scholars, determinants of heightened environmental sensitivity (e.g., temperamental traits or genetic variants) might indeed mostly result in responsivity to both positive and negative parenting influences (Boyce & Ellis, 2005; Pluess, 2015). Moreover, in all three environmental sensitivity models, responsive adolescents (either adverse, vantage or differentially susceptible) are theoretically compared against a subgroup of non-responding unsusceptible adolescents (Belsky et al., 2007; Belsky & Pluess, 2009; Slagt et al., 2016). However, unexpectantly, no adolescent in the sample appeared unsusceptible (i.e., not responding to perceived changes in parenting). Instead, 28% appeared not responsive because they did not perceive changes in parenting (for an example see participant B in Figure 5) and scored lowest on trait environmental sensitivity (i.e., sensory processes sensitivity). These findings highlight the differentiation between sensitivity and responsivity, and indeed suggest that low sensory processing sensitivity could lead to low responsivity to the environment because of an inability to perceive subtle changes (Pluess, 2015). To further understand our findings, it is helpful to link them to so-called proposed “weak” and “strong” versions of environmental sensitivity models (Belsky et al., 2013; Jolicoeur-Martineau et al., 2019). Weak versions assume continuous differences between individuals in responsiveness, with some being more responsive than others. Strong versions, in contrast, describe a clear dichotomy with individuals either being responsive or not at all. In line with weak versions: perceived changes in parenting predicted changes in psychological functioning in all adolescents, although some appeared more strongly
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw