In the current thinking, all psychopathology emerges as the result of the interaction between diathesis and stress. The diathesis is arguably in part genetic, in part childhood experiences (such as trauma), and in part current life stressors. In the debate of ‘nature vs nurture’, diathesis stress answers resolutely - ‘both’. Trauma and stressor-related disorders viewed through the lens of this model is therefore due to the intersection of a person’s biology, in part to psychology, and in part social factors. If this is so, then recovery must also take all 3 into account.

The limitations of the diathesis stress model is that where it identifies a group of inidividuals who are sensitive to negative experiences and negative environments, it says nothing about how these same individuals might do in response to positive experiences and in positive environments. The differential susceptibility model as suggested by Jay Belsky says that the very same genetic variants that cause a vulnerability to negative also creates a susceptibility to the positive. That exposure to positive experiences and positive environments allows genetically vulnerable individuals to transcend mere resilience and achieve subjective states of affect that are in a practical sense, akin to self-actualisation.

In this presentation, this author will describe trauma and addiction recovery in terms of diathesis stress, and differential susceptibility, and present his perspective of why it must be built along differential susceptibility lines.
He will finally give a short overview of how his organisation is currently doing this.

Three Key Learnings:
1. Definition of diathesis stress model and differential susceptibility model
2. How these 2 relate to trauma and addiction
3. What a differentially susceptibility model recovery looks like