Dataset Information

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

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.

SUBMITTER: de Villiers B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5959990 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Little is known about the psychological risks of dispatched citizen responders who have participated in resuscitation attempts. Methods and Results A cross-sectional survey study was performed with 102 citizen responders who participated in a resuscitation attempt from July 23, 2018, to August 22, 2018, in the Capital Region of Denmark. Psychological distress, defined as symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, was assessed 3 weeks after the resuscitation attempt and measured with the Impact of Event Scale-Revised. Perceived stress was measured with the Perceived Stress Scale. Individual differences were assessed as the personality traits of agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness to experience with the Big Five Inventory, general self-efficacy, and coping mechanisms (Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced Inventory). Associations between continuous variables were examined with the Pearson correlation. The associations between psychological distress levels and contextual factors and individual differences were analyzed in multivariable linear regression models to determine factors independently associated with psychological distress levels. The mean overall posttraumatic stress disorder score was 0.65 of 12; the mean perceived stress score was 7.61 of 40. The most common coping mechanisms were acceptance and emotional support. Low perceived stress was significantly associated with high general self-efficacy, and high perceived stress was significantly associated with high scores on neuroticism and openness to experience. Non-healthcare professionals were less likely to report symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder. Conclusions Citizen responders who participated in resuscitation reported low levels of psychological distress. Individual differences were significantly associated with levels of psychological distress and should be considered when engaging citizen responders in resuscitation.

Project description:The derivation of scalar implicatures for the quantifier some has been widely studied to investigate the computation of pragmatically enriched meanings. For example, the sentence "I found some books" carries the semantic interpretation that at least one book was found, but its interpretation is often enriched to include the implicature that not all the books were found. The implicature is argued to be more likely to arise when it is relevant for addressing a question under discussion (QUD) in the context, e.g., when "I found some books" is uttered in response to "Did you find all the books?" as opposed to "Did you find any books?". However, most experimental studies have not examined the influence of context on some, instead testing some sentences in isolation. Moreover, no study to our knowledge has examined individual differences in the ability to utilize context in interpreting some, whereas individual variation in deriving implicatures for some sentences in isolation is widely attested, with alternative proposals attributing this variation to individual differences in cognitive resources (e.g., working memory) or personality-based pragmatic abilities (e.g., as assessed by the Autism-Spectrum Quotient). The current study examined how context influences the interpretation of some in a story-sentence matching task, where participants rated some statements ("I cut some steaks") uttered by one character, in response to another character's question (QUD) that established the implicature as relevant ("Did you cut all the steaks?") or irrelevant ("Did you cut any steaks?"). We also examined to what extent individuals' sensitivity to QUD is modulated by individual differences via a battery of measures assessing cognitive resources, personality-based pragmatic abilities, and language abilities (which have been argued to modulate comprehension in other domains). Our results demonstrate that QUD affects the interpretation of some, and reveal that individual differences in sensitivity to QUD are modulated by both cognitive resources and personality-based pragmatic abilities. While previous studies have argued alternatively for cognitive resources or personality-based pragmatic abilities as important for deriving implicatures for some in isolation, we argue that arriving at a context-sensitive interpretation for some depends on both cognitive and personality-based properties of the individual.