By Dr. Hami Lawton
Neurobiological traits and biological sensitivities to context.
In 2005, University of Arizona developmental psychologist Bruce Ellis and the University of British Columbia developmental pediatrician W. Thomas Boyce, in their essay “Biological Sensitivity to Context,” hypothesised that there exists both “dandelion” children and “orchid” children. The biological sensitivity to context model (Boyce and Ellis 2005; Ellis et al. 2005, 2006) is rooted in developmental research on health and adversity. Boyce and colleagues (1995) found that children high in cardiovascular and immune reactivity have worse health outcomes in stressful environments but better outcomes in positive and supportive environments. Boyce and Ellis (2005) reframed these findings in an evolutionary framework and developed the biological sensitivity to context model. According to this model, differential susceptibility to the environment is primarily mediated by individual differences in neurobiological traits. From an evolutionary standpoint, the biological sensitivity to context model links individual differences in susceptibility to the coexistence of generalist phenotypes (low biological sensitivity to context; metaphorically referred to as dandelions) and specialist phenotypes (high biological sensitivity to context; metaphorically referred to as orchids).1
Figure 1. Interior-Self Interaction Model
David Dobb’s in his 2009 article, The Science of Success, published in The Atlantic, further theorised on Ellis and Boyce’s biological sensitivity to context model, reframing the model through “the orchid hypothesis.” “These dandelion children—equivalent to our “normal” or “healthy” children, with “resilient” genes—do pretty well almost anywhere, whether raised in the equivalent of a sidewalk crack or a well-tended garden. Ellis and Boyce offer that there are also “orchid” children, who will wilt if ignored or maltreated but bloom spectacularly with greenhouse care.”2
Dobb further outlines that it is our genetic sensitivities in relationship to environment and experience that can cause dysfunction, but also the possibility of enhanced function. “Recently, however, an alternate hypothesis has emerged from this one and is turning it inside out. This new model suggests that it’s a mistake to understand these “risk” genes only as liabilities. Yes, this new thinking goes, these bad genes can create dysfunction in unfavorable contexts—but they can also enhance function in favorable contexts. The genetic sensitivities to negative experience that the vulnerability hypothesis has identified, it follows, are just the downside of a bigger phenomenon: a heightened genetic sensitivity to all experience.”3
Our psychic and behavioural problems are not products based on nature or nurture but of complex “gene-environment interactions.” Dysfunction can be created in unfavourable contexts, but there is also the possibility for enhanced function in the right settings and within specific environments (the term environment encompassing — at a minimum — the physical, social, emotional and family (parenting) environmental dimensions). Through the scientific research of Ellis and Boyce, and more recently as discussed by Dobb, we can acknowledge the importance of better understanding our biological sensitivities to environments acknowledging that certain genes interact with particular environments in different ways.
Figure 2. Genetic-environment interplay model
In a recent article published in 2023 by Moreno, Rodrigues and Farzan, the authors discuss individual environmental susceptibility in light of Boyce and Ellis’ dandelion and orchid theory. “Orchid individuals are more sensitive to the environment: they flourish under favourable environmental conditions but are more affected by adverse environmental conditions. Conversely, dandelion individuals are less sensitive to their environment: they do not flourish to the same degree as orchids in optimal conditions but are more resilient to poor environmental conditions.”4
Of interest to our current research — situated within the field of Interior Architecture (which encompasses a critical understanding of the physical dimensions of the environment, social-spatial relationships (person-environment interactions) and the critical analysis of spatial attributes, qualities and conditions as they relate to particular interior typologies) — is the interplay between people who fall within the “orchid” profile (those with the orchid-gene allele) and the physical environments they experience and occupy on an everyday basis. Our decision to focus our research on this particular genetic profile is based on our synthesis of Ellis and Boyce’s model which speculates that in the right kind of environments those with the orchid profile have the potential to thrive. Significantly, it is important to note that these types of people are not only highly sensitive to different contexts, are more aware of their surroundings and are more deeply impacted by their environments, but, when in the right kinds of environments the following outcomes may be met; stress levels can be lowered, a greater sense of wellbeing may be achieved, an increased sense of stability and safety may be reached, the capacity to succeed increases and an ability to thrive may be accomplished.
The genetic-environment model in the field of Interior Architecture.
As human beings we interact and relate to the environments we encounter and the very nature of these environments deeply affect us physically, psychologically and physiologically. Ellis and Boyce’s theory suggests that it is our genetic sensitivities and vulnerabilities that deeply influences our ability to cope, connect, benefit, survive or thrive in particular environments. Depending on our genes, we can react more deeply, be more sensitive, simply survive or truly thrive in the environments we experience and dwell within.
According to research, dandelion individuals (“dandelion profiles”), are more psychologically resilient, seem completely unfazed by their surroundings and show a remarkable capacity for thriving in almost every environmental condition they encounter. In contrast, orchid individuals (“orchid profiles”), are heavily affected by their environments, are sensitive to their surroundings (they notice their environments and feel emotions more intensely), and have higher reactivity levels in their nervous system that can make them quickly overwhelmed, but also able to benefit from a nurturing environment more than other children.5 Focusing on the physical and spatial dimension of the environment, we have started to critically explore the person-environment (interior-self) relationship within the following common interior typologies, focusing on the inter-relationships of orchid individuals in particular spatial contexts.
Figure 03. Critical analysis of orchid profiles in relation to spatial environments.
Our current and ongoing research within these different spatial typologies is revealing that orchid individuals, when they experience environmental typologies with the following attributes, may benefit from the following outcomes;
Figure 4. Genetics (orchid) - Environmental patterns - Positive outcomes
Like flowers, some humans are more impacted by their environment.
There is scientific rationale to why certain people excel in environments that suit them, highlighting the possibilities for positive effects under particular physical environmental conditions including low-sensory (limited external stressors), routine-supportive, predictable, nurturing, positive, protective, stable, grounded, safe and supportive environments. Whilst the orchid profile (defined by high sensitivity to context, high reactive nervous system, high awareness of surroundings and potential to be more deeply impacted by particular environments), means that whilst these people are more susceptible to their surroundings, there is also the potential for them — in the right kinds of environments — to have better health outcomes and the ability to thrive.
This approach to understanding genetic-environment relationships within the field of interior architecture is significant. We can argue — from a scientific perspective — that like flowers, some humans are more impacted than others by their environment. This raises new approaches and new ways of thinking about the practice of interior architecture. How can we design the right kinds of environments for people with particular genes (critically, those with the orchid-gene allele), as it is these kinds of people that are more sensitive to — and more deeply impacted by — their environments? As interior architects we play a critical role in the shaping of physical and spatial environments. What we design, how we design and who we design for, should not be based on styles, trends or aesthetics, but rather a critical understanding of our human biological sensitivities to particular contexts and our differential susceptibility to the physical environments around us.
We can look at interior design and genetics as different approaches to understanding human experience in our everyday spaces and places. We can critically explore the interplay between genetics and environments and examine how this interplay can deeply impact human wellbeing. Why do some people experience spatial environments as overwhelming and stressful, when others are completely unfazed? Why do some people cope better in particular spatial environments, and others don’t? What is it about certain environments that influences if someone will be deeply impacted or thrive beautifully in them? At the center of the discipline and practice of interior architecture is a deep understanding of the person-environment relationship. We must therefore understand what makes us different as humans and what particular environments human beings merely survive in, or truly thrive within.
Citations:
1. Ellis BJ, Del Giudice M. Developmental Adaptation to Stress: An Evolutionary Perspective. Annu Rev Psychol. 2019 Jan 4;70:111-139. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011732. Epub 2018 Aug 20. PMID: 30125133.
2. Dobbs D. The Science of Success. The Atlantic. 2009, December.
3. Dobbs D. The Science of Success. The Atlantic. 2009, December.
4. Moreno S, Rodrigues E, Farzan F. The theory of orchid and dandelion offers a new subtyping framework for cognitive aging. Aging (Albany NY). 2023 Jul 28;15(14):6627-6628. doi: 10.18632/aging.204955. Epub 2023 Jul 28. PMID: 37517086; PMCID: PMC10415542. 5. Cain, Susan. 2012. Quiet. New York, NY: Random House.