Sensory Processing Sensitivity in the context of Environmental Sensitivity: A critical review and development of research agenda

Greven, Corina U.; Lionetti, Francesca; Booth, Charlotte; Aron, Elaine N.; Fox, Elaine; Schendan, Haline E.; Pluess, Michael; Bruining, Hilgo; Acevedo, Bianca P.; Bijttebier, Patricia; Homberg, Judith R.

doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.01.009

Cited by 305 publications

(375 citation statements)

References 146 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

346

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A growing number of studies across multiple fields in psychology provide empirical evidence for individual differences in environmental sensitivity (e.g., Greven et al, 2019;Obradovic & Boyce, 2009;Pluess & Belsky, 2010;Slagt et al, 2016). For example, the study of temperament-parenting interactions has a long history in developmental psychology and findings generally suggest that the effects of parenting behaviours on child development vary as a function of infant temperament.…”

Section: Empirical Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

People Differ in their Sensitivity to the Environment: An Integrated Theory and Empirical Evidence

Pluess¹,

Lionetti²,

En³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People differ in their sensitivity to similar experiences with some being generally more and some less sensitive. Several theories have been developed over the years to describe such differences in Environmental Sensitivity and a growing number of studies provide empirical evidence that some people are indeed more affected than others by environmental influences. Sensitivity has been associated with temperament traits in children as well as a number of biological factors. In this paper, we provide new experimental evidence that self-reported sensitivity predicts differences in the response to negative as well as positive experiences, after introducing a short sensitivity questionnaire for adults, building on the original Highly Sensitive Person scale (Aron & Aron, 1997), and investigating its psychometric properties as well as associations with the Big Five personality traits. Results across the five individual studies (total N = 1,140) suggest that individual differences in sensitivity to the environment can be assessed with the newly developed measure (HSP-12), validated by two experimental studies according to which the scale predicts heightened reactivity to both negative and positive experiences. Furthermore, sensitivity reflects a continuous spectrum from low to high along which people fall into three distinct sensitivity groups (low, medium, and high). Finally, sensitivity was found to fit a specific personality profile characterised by both high Neuroticism and high Openness to Experiences. We conclude that adults differ substantially in their sensitivity to environmental influences and that such differences can be measured reliably with a short and easily applicable sensitivity questionnaire.

show abstract

Section: Empirical Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

People Differ in their Sensitivity to the Environment: An Integrated Theory and Empirical Evidence

Pluess¹,

Lionetti²,

En³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In general, high SPS individuals are exceptionally sensitive to and affected by their environment; this results in negative outcomes in response to adverse conditions, but beneficial outcomes in response to benign or positive conditions. There are thus many advantages of high SPS, such as the ability to thrive in positive environments (Aron, 2010), and exhibiting greater awareness of the social and physical environment (Greven et al, 2019). In humans and some other species, this behavioural and physiological trait results in different adaptive strategies for individuals regarding response to risk and danger, these intra-species strategies being caution and hesitation versus approach and engagement for high and low SPS individuals, respectively (Aron & Aron, 1997).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the theory of Differential Susceptibility to nightmares: The interaction of Sensory Processing Sensitivity with the relationship of low mental wellbeing to nightmare frequency and nightmare distress

Carr

Matthews

Williams

et al. 2020

Journal of Sleep Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The trait of sensory-processing sensitivity has been studied in a range of contexts; at a neural level, highly sensitive individuals show increased responsiveness to both negative and positive images (Acevedo et al, 2017), to visual scenes (Jagiellowicz et al, 2011), and to social stimuli (Aron and Aron, 1997). Sensory-processing sensitivity functions within a differentially susceptible manner: highly sensitive individuals are more likely to experience distress and psychopathology in response to stressors, yet also process positive experiences more deeply, which can be associated with adaptive outcomes (Greven et al, 2019). Applied to the study of nightmares, a differential susceptibility framework would predict that nightmare-prone individuals are highly sensitive, and that while they experience greater sensitivity to negative contexts and increased nightmare distress, they also experience greater sensitivity to positive contexts and increased positive imagery.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frontal Brain Activity and Subjective Arousal During Emotional Picture Viewing in Nightmare Sufferers

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nightmares are intensely negative dreams that awaken the dreamer. Frequent nightmares are thought to reflect an executive deficit in regulating arousal. Within a diathesis-stress framework, this arousal is specific to negative contexts, though a differential susceptibility framework predicts elevated arousal in response to both negative and positive contexts. The current study tested these predictions by assessing subjective arousal and changes in frontal oxyhemoglobin (oxyHB) concentrations during negative and positive picture-viewing in nightmare sufferers (NM) and control subjects (CTL). 27 NM and 27 CTL subjects aged 18-35 rated subjective arousal on a 1-9 scale following sequences of negative, neutral and positive images; changes in oxyHB were measured by Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS) using a 2 × 4 template on the frontal pole. Participants also completed the Highly Sensitive Person Scale, a trait marker for differential susceptibility; and completed a dream diary reporting negative and positive dream emotionality. The NM group had higher trait sensitivity, yet higher ratings of negative but not positive emotion in diary dreams. NM compared to CTL subjects reported higher subjective arousal in response to picture-viewing regardless of valence. Dysphoric dream distress, measured prospectively, was negatively associated with frontal activation when viewing negative pictures. Results suggest NM sufferers are highly sensitive to images regardless of valence according to subjective measures, and that there is a neural basis to level of trait and prospective nightmare distress. Future longitudinal or intervention studies should further explore positive emotion sensitivity and imagery in NM sufferers.

show abstract

Sensory Processing Sensitivity in the context of Environmental Sensitivity: A critical review and development of research agenda

Cited by 305 publications

References 146 publications

People Differ in their Sensitivity to the Environment: An Integrated Theory and Empirical Evidence

People Differ in their Sensitivity to the Environment: An Integrated Theory and Empirical Evidence

Testing the theory of Differential Susceptibility to nightmares: The interaction of Sensory Processing Sensitivity with the relationship of low mental wellbeing to nightmare frequency and nightmare distress

Frontal Brain Activity and Subjective Arousal During Emotional Picture Viewing in Nightmare Sufferers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About