According to the theory of Environmental Sensitivity, individuals differ in the way they respond to environmental stimuli, due to differences in the depth of information processing (Pluess et al., 2015). The trait of sensitivity is normally distributed in the population (Pluess et al., 2020), and it is possible to identify three groups, according to different levels of environmental sensitivity (low, 30%, medium, 40% and high sensitivity, 30%) (Lionetti et al., 2018). Highly sensitive people have a deeper experience of the environment, are more affected by their experiences and are more susceptible to environmental influences, whether negative or positive (Belsky & Pluess, 2009; Pluess et al., 2020). Even at school, highly sensitive children differ in the extent to which the school environment impacts on their quality of life, well-being and learning outcomes and, according to the Vantage Sensitivity model (Pluess & Belsky, 2013), highly sensitive people show a greater response to positive experiences, including those occurring within the school environment (Pluess & Boniwell, 2015). The present study aims at investigating whether a teacher-training intervention for enhancing the quality of classroom interactions in the domains of emotional support, classroom organization and instructional support (Pianta et al., 2008) might be more effective for highly sensitive children’s wellbeing than for low sensitive children. Based on the vantage sensitivity model, the hypothesis is that highly sensitive children, would show a significantly higher increase in well-being scores after the intervention, compared to low sensitive children. The outcomes of interest are: identity safety, emotional support, optimism and self-esteem. The role of teachers’ sensitivity, self-efficacy, job and life satisfaction are also investigated.

Participants are 251 children (51.4 % girls) from 15 second-grade classes in the Italian-speaking region of Switzerland, and 15 teachers of the same classes. Ten classes are assigned to the experimental group (n=174 pupils) and five to the control group (n=77 pupils). Only the classes in the experimental group are subjected to the intervention. Children’s data are collected using a self-report questionnaire that is administered with the guidance of the researcher at two time-points (November 2022 and May 2023). Teachers are also asked to complete a self-report questionnaire twice. The children’s questionnaire includes the following measures: the Highly sensitive Child scale (Pluess et al., 2018, Italian validation by Nocentini et al. 2018); the Lack of identity safety scale (Haidari & Karakus, 2019, adapted and translated into Italian by the authors); the optimism and self-concept sub-scales of the Middle Years Development instrument questionnaire (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2013; Italian validation by Castelli et al., 2017). The teachers’ questionnaire includes the Italian versions of the teacher self-efficacy scale (Moè et al., 2010), the Highly Sensitive Person Scale (Brief Version, HSP-12) (Pluess et al., 2020), the job satisfaction scale (Moè et al., 2010) and the life satisfaction scale (Diener et al., 1985; Italian validation by di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2012). Multivariate analyses are used to investigate how the children’s variables are related; in particular, how environmental sensitivity is related to well-being. Furthermore, using comparative analyses, differences between the pupils’ outcomes between the experimental and control group and highly and low sensitive children are explored.

We expect to observe a significant increase in the well-being of pupils in the experimental group in the data collected after the intervention compared with the data collected before the intervention. In addition, based on the Vantage sensitivity model, we expect the highly sensitive children to show a significantly higher increase in their well-being than low sensitive children in the experimental group.

Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond Diathesis Stress : Differential Susceptibility to Environmental Influences. 135(6), 885–908. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017376 Castelli, L., Marcionetti, J., Crescentini, A., & Sciaroni, L. (2017). Monitoring Preadolescents’ Well-being: Italian Validation of the Middle Years Development Instrument. Child Indicators Research, 11, 609–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-017-9459-6 di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2012). The Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS): Un contributo alla validazione italiana con lavoratori adulti. Counseling: Giornale Italiano di Ricerca e Applicazioni, 5(2), 207–215. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 Haidari, S. M., & Karakus, F. (2019). Safe learning environment perception scale (SLEPS): A validity and reliability study. International journal of assessment tools in Education, 6(3), 444-460. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.550393 Moè, A., Pazzaglia, F., & Friso, G. (2010). MESI. Motivazioni, Emozioni, Strategie e Insegnamento. Questionari metacognitivi per insegnanti. Erickson. Nocentini, A., Menesini, E., & Pluess, M. (2018). The personality trait of environmental sensitivity predicts children’s positive response to school-based antibullying intervention. Clinical Psychological Science, 6(6), 848–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702618782194 Pianta, R. C., LaParo, K., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS). Brookes. Pluess, M., Lionetti, F., Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (2020, August 19). People Differ in their Sensitivity to the Environment: An Integrated Theory and Empirical Evidence. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/w53yc Pluess, M. (2015). Individual Differences in Environmental Sensitivity. Child Development Perspectives, 9(3), 138–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12120 Pluess, M., Assary, E., Lionetti, F., Lester, K. J., Krapohl, E., Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (2018, Jan). Environmental sensitivity in children: Development of the Highly Sensitive Child Scale and identification of sensitivity groups. Developmental Psychology, 54(1), 51-70. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000406 Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Guhn, M., Gadermann, A. M., Hymel, S., Sweiss, L., & Hertzman, C. (2013). Development and validation of the Middle Years Development Instrument (MDI): Assessing children’s well-being and assets across multiple contexts. Social Indicators Research, 114(2), 345–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0149-y