Content uploaded by Friederike Gerstenberg
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Friederike Gerstenberg on Mar 25, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy
Sensory-processing sensitivity predicts performance on a visual search task
followed by an increase in perceived stress
Friederike X.R. Gerstenberg
⇑
Department of Psychology, Technische Universität München, Lothstr. 17, 80335 Munich, Germany
article info
Article history:
Received 14 August 2011
Received in revised form 20 March 2012
Accepted 11 April 2012
Available online 10 May 2012
Keywords:
Sensory-processing sensitivity
Visual detection
Stress
abstract
Since the publication of Sensory-processing sensitivity and its relation to introversion and emotionality by
Aron and Aron (1997), several studies have investigated the measurement quality of the Highly Sensitive
Person Scale (HSPS), which is meant to measure sensory-processing sensitivity (SPS) and its relation to
other self-report scales such as the behavioral inhibition and behavioral activation system scales, the
Big Five scales, and various other health-related self-report scales. However, only a few reported studies
have ever assessed the relation between the HSPS and a behavioral test. The present study (N= 89 psy-
chology students) further fills this gap by investigating how SPS influences individual performance on a
visual detection task. In addition, self-reported stress was assessed before and after the visual detection
task. Results showed that SPS was positively related to performance on a visual detection task. Neverthe-
less, the better performance was accompanied by higher reported stress after taking the test.
Ó2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Aron and Aron (1997) proposed that individuals differ, on bio-
logical and psychological grounds, in how they neurologically
transmit and process sensory information. In their theoretical
framework, Aron and Aron state that individuals who possess high-
er sensory-processing sensitivity (SPS) are supposed to perceive
stimuli of lower intensity more easily than nonhighly sensitive
individuals. By contrast, when confronted with stimuli of higher
intensity, highly sensitive individuals are more easily over-
whelmed and distressed in response. Regarding the relation to
other personality constructs, Aron and Aron were able to show that
SPS is partially independent of social introversion and
emotionality.
These suggestions come from solid theoretical frameworks con-
sisting of Eysenck’s (1981, 1991) theory of introversion as well as
Gray’s (1981) theory on the behavioral activation system (BAS)
and the behavioral inhibition system (BIS). In general, these theo-
retical frameworks assume that individuals adapt differently to
changes in the environment. Whereas some individuals approach
and explore new stimuli (in Eysenck’s terminology: extraverts; in
Gray’s terminology: BAS), others are more keen to practice cau-
tious attentiveness, which results in avoidance (in Eysenck’s termi-
nology: introverts; in Gray’s terminology: BIS). Aron and Aron
(1997) postulate that SPS is a personality trait that has its
foundation in the neuropsychological substrate of the BIS and is
closely related to introversion.
To assess SPS, Aron and Aron (1997) developed the Highly Sen-
sitive Person Scale (HSPS). The HSPS measures sensitivity to a vari-
ety of stimuli, such as pain, hunger, and violent movies. It also
includes items that ask whether the individual feels overwhelmed
by intense sensory input. Other items tap a more artistic or emo-
tional sensitivity, such as whether the individual is deeply moved
by music or art and whether the individual has a complex and rich
inner life. Regarding the relations between the HSPS and introver-
sion and neuroticism, Aron and Aron showed that the first one is a
construct that can be separated from the latter two. Further studies
provided evidence that the HSPS was related to mental health
(Ahadi & Basharpoor, 2010), reports of stress and physical symp-
toms (Benham, 2006), avoidant and borderline personality disor-
ders (Meyer, Ajchenbrenner, & Bowles, 2005), parental bonding,
anxiety, depression (Liss, Timmel, Baxley, & Killingsworth, 2005),
social phobia (Hofmann & Bitran, 2007; Neal, Edelmann, &
Glachan, 2002), and work-related variables (Evers, Rasche, &
Schabracq, 2008). Most of these studies showed that higher SPS
was related to higher stress since most of them involved a relation-
ship between the HSPS and some sort of stress or anxiety related
symptom.
Whereas Aron and Aron (1997) claim that the HSPS is unidi-
mensional, Smolewska, McCabe, and Woody (2006) found three
distinguishable dimensions, which they labeled ease of excitation
(EOE; e.g., ‘‘Do you find it unpleasant to have a lot going on at
once?’’), aesthetic sensitivity (AES; e.g., ‘‘Are you deeply moved by
the arts or music?’’), and low sensory threshold (LST; e.g., ‘‘Are
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.019
⇑
Tel.: +49 8928924204.
E-mail address: dislich@me.com
Personality and Individual Differences 53 (2012) 496–500
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Author's personal copy
you bothered by intense stimuli like loud noises or chaotic
scenes?’’). Regarding the dimensions’ relations to other personality
constructs, Smolewska and colleagues were able to show a more
differentiated picture than was first provided by Aron and Aron.
In line with the original assumption, self-reported activity regard-
ing the BIS was related to the HSPS, especially to the EOE subfacet,
whereas in the Big Five domain, AES was strongly related to
openness to experience, and LST and EOE were strongly related
to neuroticism. In the clinical domain, Liss, Mailloux, and Erchull
(2008) found that of the HSP subscales EOE and LST were related
to symptoms of autism, alexithymia, anxiety, and depression,
whereas AES was related to attention to details and anxiety, but
not to depression.
Although the research conducted and published so far provides
important insights into the construct and its measurement, one
major shortcoming of the majority of studies is that they used only
self-report measures. So far, only two studies in the neuropsycho-
logical area have been conducted using behavioral responses as the
dependent variable. The first one by Aron et al. (2010) investigated
whether SPS moderates context-dependent versus context-inde-
pendent judgments of simple visual stimuli with regard to their
cultural background. Therefore, participants underwent functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while performing simple visu-
ospatial tasks emphasizing judgments that were either context
independent or context dependent. Results showed that individu-
als with high SPS showed minimal cultural differences, whereas
individuals with low SPS showed strong cultural differences, thus
supporting the moderating role of SPS. However, the results of this
first study were based on a very small sample size of 10 persons
per group and used very simple visual stimuli. The main question
that arises from this study is whether there were no cultural differ-
ences for high SPS individuals because they were better or more
careful at the task. Unfortunately, this question cannot be an-
swered by the reported study. The second study by Jagiellowicz
et al. (2011) investigated whether SPS was associated with neural
responses to subtle changes in visual scenes. Sixteen participants
were tested on a change-detection task while undergoing fMRI. Re-
sults showed that SPS was related to neural differences involved in
high-order visual processing when detecting minor (vs. major)
changes in the stimuli even after controlling for introversion and
neuroticism, and longer reaction times.
The results of both studies showed that SPS was (a) positively
related to context-independent processing of visual stimuli and
better or more careful information processing (Aron et al., 2010),
and (b) significantly related to a better detection of subtle changes
(Jagiellowicz et al., 2011). Although these studies provide interest-
ing insights into the biological foundations of SPS and its relation
to two different visual tasks, both studies have a few shortcomings.
First, the sample sizes of the two studies are rather small. Second,
only the HSPS and not the subscales were considered in the analy-
ses. Thus, a major goal of the present study was to (a) investigate
potential differences in SPS with regard to the HSPS subscales,
(b) further investigate whether individuals high in SPS process
information more carefully and correctly, (c) use a larger sample
size, and (d) use another behavioral task that allows for the differ-
entiation between reaction times and error rates. Based on the re-
search reported above and previous research in the domain of
introversion that showed that introverts were more sensitive to
low auditory frequencies (e.g., Stelmack & Campbell, 1974), pain
(Schalling, 1971), and electrocutaneous (Edman, Schalling, & Riss-
ler, 1979), olfactory (Herbener, Kagan, & Cohen, 1989), and visual
thresholds (Siddle, Morrish, White, & Mangan, 1969), we decided
to rely also on a visual detection task. Our task was a little bit more
complex than the task used by Aron et al. (2010) but probably sim-
pler than the task used by Jagiellowicz et al. (2011) because far
more visual stimuli were used and a target had to be detected that
was present in some trials but not in every trial (see also Dukewich
& Klein, 2009). This feature allowed us to test whether individuals
with high SPS were able to detect the target more quickly but were
also able to more quickly detect that the target was absent.
As there is no previous research regarding the relation between
the HSPS subscales, we had no specific assumption concerning the
relation between the subscales and performance on the visual
detection task. Based on the study by Jagiellowicz et al. (2011)
we hypothesized that SPS would be related to longer reaction
times on the visual detection task independent of the target pres-
ent or absent condition (Hypothesis 1), and fewer error rates
(Hypothesis 2).
As highly sensitive individuals are thought to be more easily
overwhelmed by higher level stimuli, we proposed that although
the visual detection task uses only lower level stimuli, the sheer
number of trials would lead to more perceived stress for highly
sensitive than for nonsensitive individuals (Hypothesis 3). Thus, in
line with the assumptions made by Aron and Aron (1997), it was
assumed that, for a visual detection task, highly sensitive persons
would process stimuli more slowly and more accurately than
low-sensitivity persons, and would experience the task as more
stressful than individuals with lower SPS. This idea is also
supported by clinical studies that show that SPS is significantly
positively related to reports of stress and physical symptoms
(e.g., Benham, 2006).
As the relation between SPS and personality traits in general
(e.g., the Big Five) is still rather unclear, we decided to add a Big
Five inventory as a control variable. We hypothesized that SPS
would have incremental validity above and beyond the rather gen-
eral personality constructs of the Big Five (Hypothesis 4).
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedure
A sample of 89 psychology students (56.2% female;
M
age
= 22.33, SD = 2.71) was recruited at a German University. All
students reported normal or corrected-to-normal vision. Students
received course credit in exchange for their participation. Upon ar-
rival at the laboratory, participants were informed that the study
was designed to investigate how personality is related to concen-
tration, an important skill for success in their studies. Subse-
quently, they completed questionnaires assessing SPS, the Big
Five, and their state of stress-related distress, followed by the
visual detection task. Finally, they completed the stress question-
naire a second time. After the test session, participants were fully
debriefed and thanked.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Highly Sensitive Person Scale
The HSP Scale (Aron & Aron, 1997) consists of 27 items that are
rated from 1 (strongly disagree)to7(strongly agree). The items refer
to three subscales: (a) EOE (e.g., ‘‘Do changes in your life shake you
up?’’), (b) AES (e.g., ‘‘Do you notice and enjoy delicate or fine
scents, tastes, sounds, works of art?’’), and (c) LST (e.g., ‘‘Are you
easily overwhelmed by things like bright lights, strong smells,
coarse fabric, or sirens close by?’’).
2.2.2. NEO Personality Inventory-revised
A German version of the NEO PI-r (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Ger-
man version, Ostendorf & Angleitner, 2004) was used to assess
neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experiences, agreeableness,
and conscientiousness. The 240 items were rated on 5-point Likert
scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)to5(strongly agree).
F.X.R. Gerstenberg/ Personality and Individual Differences 53 (2012) 496–500 497
Author's personal copy
2.2.3. Self-reported stress
Stress-related state distress was measured by one subscale of
the Perceived Stress Questionnaire (Levenstein, Prantera, Varvo,
& Scribano, 1993) using the German version by Fliege, Rose, Arck,
Levenstein, and Klapp (2001). The scale tension (5 items) subsumes
feelings of exhaustion and the absence of somatic relaxation. Par-
ticipants were asked to specify their experienced state of tension
on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all)to4(highly).
2.2.4. Visual detection task
The visual detection task was assessed in analogy to a task used
by Dukewich and Klein (2009). One block of 120 trials was used to
assess visual detection ability. Participants were instructed to press
‘‘a’’ if the target was present, and to press ‘‘l’’ when the target was
absent. Stimuli were black Ls and Ts on a white background, ran-
domly arranged on an imaginary 4 5 grid. The target was a T in
one of two orientations (90°and 270°from upright), and the dis-
tractors were Ls in four orientations (0°,90°, 180°, or 270°from up-
right). The stimuli were constructed by using vertical and
horizontal lines that were 2.5°of visual angle long, and 0.15°of
visual angle thick. On each trial, the set size varied randomly be-
tween 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 distractors. Half of the trials contained
a target (e.g., a ‘‘T’’), whereas the other half contained no target
(e.g., an ‘‘L’’). In addition to the required responses, participants
were told to respond as quickly and accurately as possible. The
120 test trials were preceded by 12 practice trials. Each trial began
with a premask that was presented for 600 ms and was followed
by the presentation of the search array that terminated with a re-
sponse or remained on the screen for a maximum of 5000 ms. After
the presentation of the search stimuli, a postmask was presented
for 600 ms. The intertrial interval was 550 ms. During that time,
the screen was blank. For each trial, reaction times and error rates
were assessed.
2.3. Statistical analyses
The first and second hypotheses, which proposed a relation be-
tween SPS and performance on the visual detection task, were
tested by bivariate correlations between the HSPS subscales,
reaction times, and error rates. To test the third hypothesis, which
proposed that SPS would be related to higher perceived stress after
taking the visual detection task, a hierarchical regression analysis
was conducted with the difference score between perceived ten-
sion at Time 2 minus perceived tension at Time 1. The fourth
hypothesis, which proposed that the HSPS subscales would predict
performance on the visual detection task as well as changes in
perceived tension above and beyond the Big Five, was investigated
by two hierarchical regression analyses in which the HSP subscales
were used as predictors and reaction times, and error rates were
used as dependent variables. The Big Five subscales were added
in Step 1 of each hierarchical regression, and the HSP Scale sub-
scales were added in Step 2.
3. Results
Before any analyses were computed, trials from the visual
detection task with reaction times that were less than 250 ms or
greater than 2500 ms were excluded (<1% of the trials). Table 1
summarizes the descriptive statistics, internal consistencies (Cron-
bach’s alpha), and intercorrelations of all variables. The three sub-
scales of the HSPS were positively intercorrelated (see Table 1).
Similar to the results obtained by Smolewska et al. (2006), the
three subscales of the HSPS were differentially related to the sub-
facets of neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experiences
(see Table 1). Not supporting Hypothesis 1, the three subscales of
the HSP Scale as well as neuroticism were significantly related to
faster reaction times, whereas extraversion was significantly re-
lated to slower reaction times. Hypothesis 2 was supported as error
rates were significantly negatively related to the EOE and the LST
subscale indicating fewer error rates.
Subsequently, hierarchical regression analyses with the Big Five
subscales in Step 1 and the three subscales of the HSP Scale in Step
2 were conducted for each of the criterion variables (reaction
times, error rates, and changes in tension). Table 1 presents mean
reaction times and mean error rates (in %) for the visual detection
task collapsed for the presence and in the absence of the target—as
these were not significantly different—and the difference scores for
perceived stress. From the HSPS, only the subscale LST predicted
reaction times and error rates (Hypotheses 1 and 2) and changes
in tension (Hypothesis 3). The subscale LST showed a significant
negative relation to the reaction times and error rates on the visual
detection task and a significant positive relation to an increase in
tension after the visual detection task (See Table 2). Thus, con-
tradicting Hypothesis 1, individuals high on the LST subscale per-
formed faster on the visual detection task, but showed fewer
error rates which supports Hypothesis 2. Furthermore, they were
more stressed than individuals low on LST, which can be inter-
preted as support for Hypothesis 3. None of the subscales of the
NEO PI-r were able to predict performance on the visual detection
task or changes in perceived stress after the test, supporting
Hypothesis 4. Even if the subscales of each of the Big Five
Table 1
Cronbach’s alphas, descriptive statistics, and correlations.
Possible range
a
MSDHSP EOE HSP AES HSP LST NEO N NEO E NEO O NEO A NEO C RT
Sum
ER
Sum
T
T1
T
T2
HSP EOE 1–7 .81 4.23 0.80 – .45
**
.72
**
.58
**
.21
*
.16 .04 .04 .59
**
.30
**
.03 .06
HSP AES 1–7 .84 4.38 0.89 – .45
**
.38
**
.33
**
.38
**
.02 .08 .39
**
.07 .02 .02
HSP LST 1–7 .83 3.77 0.95 – .43
**
.20 .18 .09 .07 .65
**
.42
**
.02 .13
NEO N 1–5 .92 2.97 0.46 – .27
**
.26
*
.07 .44
**
.21
*
.16 .02 .04
NEO E 1–5 .89 3.39 0.40 – .20 .25
*
.25
*
.23
*
.08 .10 .10
NEO O 1–5 .87 3.53 0.36 .13 .05 .13 .03 .05 .06
NEO A 1–5 .90 3.36 0.39 – .11 .16 .03 .03 .04
NEO C 1–5 .91 3.25 0.42 – .08 .13 .14 .22
*
RT
Sum
250–2500 .81 890.92 160.74 – .23
*
.07 .15
ER
Sum
0–100% .63 5.87 1.82 – .08 .17
T
T1
1–4 .81 2.18 0.60 – .90
**
T
T2
1–4 .82 2.25 0.60 –
Note:
a
= Internal consistencies (Cronbach’s
a
); M= Mean; SD = Standard deviation; HSP EOE = Ease of excitation; HSP AES = Aesthetic sensitivity; HSP LST = Low sensory
threshold; NEO N = Neuroticism; NEO E = Extraversion; NEO O = Openness to Experience; NEO A = Agreeableness; NEO C = Conscientiousness; RT
Sum
= Mean RTs target-
absent and present; ER
Sum
= error rates (in%) target-absent and present; T
T2T1
= Difference score of perceived tension Time 2 minus perceived tension Time 1.
*
p< .05.
**
p< .01.
498 F.X.R. Gerstenberg / Personality and Individual Differences 53 (2012) 496–500
Author's personal copy
personality factors were taken into account, none of these pre-
dicted the outcome on the visual detection task or the change in
perceived stress.
4. Discussion
In line with the assumptions made by Aron and Aron (1997),
SPS predicted performance on a visual detection task (reaction
times and error rates) and increased perceived stress, supporting
Hypotheses 2 and 3. However, only the LST subscale led to these
results. Furthermore, the results were independent of broader per-
sonality constructs such as the Big Five (Hypothesis 4). Regarding
performance on the visual detection tasks, these results are also
in accordance with the studies by Jagiellowicz et al. (2011) and
Aron et al. (2010). Jagiellowicz et al. found a relation between
SPS and high-order visual processing on a change detection task.
In contrast to the results by Jagiellowicz et al. (2011);(Hypothesis
1), we found that SPS was related to shorter reaction times in the
target-present as well as in the target-absent condition. Jag-
iellowicz and colleagues found that the higher an individual was
on SPS, the longer the time the participants spent before respond-
ing to minor changes (relative to time spent on major changes).
This difference might be explained by the different tasks used.
Their task was to compare two pictures with major or minor
changes in it, whereas we used one picture in which a target was
present or absent. It is possible that our task was cognitively
simpler for participants to complete than the task used in the Jag-
iellowicz et al. study. That might account for the reaction time dif-
ference. People with LST may be able to detect subtle but simple
difference more quickly (target present or absent) but may also
be more careful about responding to more complex differences
(minor changes in a picture) because of increased BIS activation
and a desire to stop and think before acting on things that they
may be unsure of. It seems likely that different tasks will lead to
different outcomes, but for further research, it would be interesting
to know on which occasions SPS might lead to slower and on which
occasions SPS might lead to faster reaction times and whether dif-
ferences between HSPS subscales might predict different behavior.
Aron et al. (2010) were able to show that high SPS was associ-
ated with not being influenced by absolute versus relative instruc-
tions, leading them to conclude that such a lack of influence can be
interpreted as a tendency to process all stimuli components to an
equivalent extent regardless of condition. As we did not use differ-
ent conditions, we cannot make any statements concerning the dif-
ference between these. Nonetheless, what we know from our study
is in line with the results of Aron et al. (2010): Individuals scoring
high on the LST subscale were able to detect visual stimuli more
quickly and with fewer errors than individuals low on LST. Here,
again, a differentiation between the different subscales would have
been interesting, and further research should investigate which
part of SPS is related to the results obtained by Aron et al. (2010).
As for our third hypothesis that individuals high in SPS will per-
ceive more stress after taking the test than individuals low in SPS,
our results support this hypothesis and are in line with past
research by Benham (2006). As in his study, SPS was positively re-
lated to perceived stress. However, Benham’s (2006) study was
based on correlations between self-reports of the HSP Scale and
perceived stress. Thus, our study provides further evidence that
SPS and perceived stress share common variance and are related
to a visual detection task. However, to test in which way SPS is re-
lated to perceived stress, a classical experimental design would be
necessary. Future research could, for example, vary the intensity of
the stimuli used in our visual detection task in a low-intensity and
a high-intensity condition and then compare how perceived stress
differs on the basis of SPS between the two conditions. Neverthe-
less, the relationship between the HSPS and perceived stress is also
consistent with many articles that have found relationships
between the HSP Scale and anxiety, avoidant personality disorders,
and social phobia (e.g., Hofmann & Bitran, 2007; Meyer et al., 2005;
Neal et al., 2002).
One other interesting aspect of the correlations between the
EOE and the NEO PI-r can be seen in the higher correlation that
EOE has with neuroticism compared to its lower correlation with
extraversion. This pattern can be interpreted in line with the con-
cept of the ‘‘neurotic introvert’’, which has its roots in Eysenck’s
descriptive theory of personality based on two orthogonal person-
ality dimensions: introversion and neuroticism. The personality
types that can be derived from this theory are (a) the neurotic
introvert, (b) the neurotic extravert, (c) the stable introvert, and
(d) the stable extravert. Thus, further research is needed to deter-
mine the degree to which an overlap between SPS and the concept
of the neurotic introvert exists.
Concerning the validity of the three different subscales that
were proposed, it is necessary to investigate under which circum-
stances the subscales EOE and AES predict behavior. Therefore,
studies in the domain of arts and music might be advisable for
the AES subscale. Based on the results by Smolewska et al.
(2006), the EOE subscale might be best validated by paradigms that
were used to validate the BIS, for example, by looking at anxious,
fearful, and neurotic behaviors.
To address one limitation of the present study, we propose rep-
licating the results with another sample. As we relied on an under-
graduate sample, there might have been a restriction of range that
occurred for the cognitive task. However, even with this possible
restriction of range, the results support our assumption about the
relation between SPS and performance on a visual search task
and thus speak for its potential replicability. Furthermore, concern-
ing the results that indicated that performance on the visual detec-
tion task was fully independent of the Big Five, one might also
argue that using groups that were balanced across personality
dimensions would have been a stricter test than just controlling
for the Big Five variables in hierarchical regression.
Finally, the results reported from our study as well as from
other studies show that SPS predicts performance on behavioral
tasks above and beyond other constructs such as the Big Five. So
far, SPS seems to have positive consequences with regard to better
and faster processing of visual information. However, several stud-
ies have shown that SPS is also related to higher perceived stress
Table 2
Hierarchical regression analyses predicting mean RTs in Detection Absent (DA) and
Present (DP), Error rates for Absent (erra) and Present (errp), and Change in Tension
(T
T2T1
).
RT
Sum
ER
Sum
T
T2T1
D
R
2
= .30; p= .00
D
R
2
= .11; p= .00
D
R
2
= .14; p= .00
tbtbtb
Step 1
NEO N 1.32 0.14 0.26 0.03 0.68 0.11
NEO E 0.79 0.07 0.20 0.02 0.21 0.03
NEO O 0.22 0.01 0.22 0.03 0.19 0.02
NEO A 0.80 0.08 0.22 0.03 0.12 0.01
NEO C 0.27 0.02 0.89 0.11 0.59 0.08
Step 2
HSP EOE 1.58 0.17 0.93 0.12 0.52 0.06
HSP AES 1.63 0.14 0.56 0.06 1.17 0.16
HSP LST 3.37 0.41
**
2.88 0.41
**
2.57 .40
**
Note: RT
Sum
= Mean RTs detection absent and present; ER
Sum
= error rates (in%)
detection absent and present; T
T2T1
= Difference score of perceived tension Time 2
minus perceived stress Time 1; NEO N = Neuroticism; NEO E = Extraversion; NEO
O = Openness to Experience; NEO A = Agreeableness; NEO C = Conscientiousness;
HSP sum = Highly Sensitive Person Scale sum score.
**
p< .01.
F.X.R. Gerstenberg / Personality and Individual Differences 53 (2012) 496–500 499
Author's personal copy
and as a personality trait might be seen as a double-edged sword.
Thus, for the clinical as well as for the organizational and work psy-
chology domains (e.g., Evers et al., 2008), it would be good to have
a closer look at the positive and negative consequences of this trait
and to try to find out how to strengthen the positive consequences
and to intervene when the negative consequences occur.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Christine Altstötter-Gleich, Johanna Prets-
ch, Roland Imhoff, and Jane Zagorski for valuable comments on an
earlier version of this article.
References
Ahadi, B., & Basharpoor, S. (2010). Relationship between sensory processing
sensitivity, personality dimensions and mental health. Journal of Applied
Sciences, 10, 570–574.
Aron, A., Ketay, S., Hedden, R., Aron, E. N., Markus, H. R., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2010).
Temperament trait of sensory processing sensitivity moderates cultural
differences in neural response. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5,
219–226.
Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (1997). Sensory-processing sensitivity and its relation to
introversion and emotionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,
345–368.
Benham, G. (2006). The highly sensitive person: Stress and physical symptom
reports. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1433–1440.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-r) and
NEO Five Factor Inventory. Professional manual. Odessa: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Dukewich, K. R., & Klein, R. M. (2009). Finding the target in search tasks using
detection, localization, and identification responses. Canadian Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 63, 1–7.
Edman, G., Schalling, D., & Rissler, A. (1979). Interaction effects of extraversion and
neuroticism on detection thresholds. Biological Psychology, 9, 41–47.
Evers, A., Rasche, J., & Schabracq, M. J. (2008). High sensory-processing sensitivity at
work. International Journal of Stress Management, 15, 189–198.
Eysenck, H. J. (1981). A model for personality. New York: Springer.
Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Biological dimensions of personality. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.),
Handbook of personality (pp. 244–276). New York: Guilford Press.
Fliege, H., Rose, M., Arck, P., Levenstein, S., & Klapp, B. F. (2001). Validierung des
‘Perceived Stress Questionnaire’ (PSQ) an einer deutschen Stichprobe.
Diagnostica, 47, 142–152.
Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck’s theory of personality. In: H. J. Eysenck (Ed.),
A model for personality (pp. 246–276).
Herbener, E. S., Kagan, J., & Cohen, M. (1989). Shyness and olfactory threshold.
Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 1159–1163.
Hofmann, S. G., & Bitran, S. (2007). Sensory-processing sensitivity in social anxiety
disorder: Relationship to harm avoidance and diagnostic subtypes. Journal of
Anxiety Disorders, 21, 944–954.
Jagiellowicz, J., Xu, X., Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Cao, G., Feng, T., et al. (2011). The trait of
sensory processing sensitivity and neural responses to changes in visual scenes.
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6, 38–47.
Levenstein, S., Prantera, C., Varvo, V., & Scribano, M. L. (1993). Development of the
Perceived Stress Questionnaire: A new tool for psychosomatic research. Journal
of Psychosomatic Research, 37, 19–32.
Liss, M., Mailloux, J., & Erchull, M. J. (2008). The relationships between sensory
processing sensitivity, alexithymia, autism, depression, and anxiety. Personality
and Individual Differences, 45, 255–259.
Liss, M., Timmel, L., Baxley, K., & Killingsworth, P. (2005). Sensory processing
sensitivity and its relation to parental bonding, anxiety, and depression.
Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1429–1439.
Meyer, B., Ajchenbrenner, M., & Bowles, D. P. (2005). Sensory sensitivity,
attachment experiences, and rejection responses among adults with
borderline and avoidant features. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19, 641–658.
Neal, J. A., Edelmann, R. J., & Glachan, M. (2002). Behavioural inhibition and
symptoms of anxiety and depression: Is there a specific relationship with social
phobia? The British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 361–374.
Ostendorf, F., & Angleitner, A. (2004). NEO PI-r. NEO Persönlichkeitsinventar–
revidierte Form. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Schalling, D. (1971). Tolerance for experimentally induced pain as related to
personality. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 12, 271–281.
Siddle, D. A. T., Morrish, R. B., White, K. D., & Mangan, G. L. (1969). Relation of visual
sensitivity to extraversion. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 3,
264–267.
Smolewska, K. A., McCabe, S. B., & Woody, E. Z. (2006). A psychometric evaluation of
the highly sensitive person scale: The components of sensory-processing
sensitivity and their relation to the BIS/BAS and ‘‘Big Five’’. Personality and
Individual Differences, 40, 1269–1279.
Stelmack, R. M., & Campbell, K. B. (1974). Extraversion and auditory sensitivity to
high and low frequency. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 38, 875–879.
500 F.X.R. Gerstenberg / Personality and Individual Differences 53 (2012) 496–500
