Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 569

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Vantage sensitivity: Individual differences in response to positive experiences.

Pluess, Michael, Belsky, Jay·2013·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

The notion that some people are more vulnerable to adversity as a function of inherent risk characteristics is widely embraced in most fields of psychology. This is reflected in the popularity of the diathesis-stress framework, which has received a vast amount of empirical support over the years. Much less effort has been directed toward the investigation of endogenous factors associated with variability in response to positive influences. One reason for the failure to investigate individual differences in response to positive experiences as a function of endogenous factors may be the absence of adequate theoretical frameworks. According to the differential-susceptibility hypothesis, individuals generally vary in their developmental plasticity regardless of whether they are exposed to negative or positive influences--a notion derived from evolutionary reasoning. On the basis of this now well-supported proposition, we advance herein the new concept of vantage sensitivity, reflecting variation in response to exclusively positive experiences as a function of individual endogenous characteristics. After distinguishing vantage sensitivity from theoretically related concepts of differential-susceptibility and resilience, we review some recent empirical evidence for vantage sensitivity featuring behavioral, physiological, and genetic factors as moderators of a wide range of positive experiences ranging from family environment and psychotherapy to educational intervention. Thereafter, we discuss genetic and environmental factors contributing to individual differences in vantage sensitivity, potential mechanisms underlying vantage sensitivity, and practical implications.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0030196

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Cited by

See all 569

Metadata

Authors
Pluess, M., & Belsky, J.
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
2013-07
Volume
139
Issue
4
Pages
901-916
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2143228162
Cited by
569
References
33
FWCI
32.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Vantage sensitivity: Individual differences in response to positive experiences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0030196
The paper
Pluess, M., & Belsky, J. (2013). Vantage sensitivity: Individual differences in response to positive experiences. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030196

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.