bs_bs_banner

Australian Journal of Psychology 2015

doi: 10.1111/ajpy.12084

Is the relationship between sensory-processing sensitivity and

negative affect mediated by emotional regulation?

Kimberley Brindle,1 Richard Moulding,1,2 Kaitlyn Bakker,1 and Maja Nedeljkovic1

1
Faculty of Life and Social Science, Swinburne University of Technology, and 2Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing
Research, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Abstract

Sensory-processing sensitivity (SPS) refers to a trait-like difference in the extent to which individuals strongly and deeply process a
variety of stimuli in the environment. While being highly sensitive has been linked to increased experiences of distress, the reasons
for this are not well known. One potential mediator of this effect is emotional regulation—the set of processes influencing which
emotions we have, when we have them, and how we experience and express them. In this study, n = 157 participants (n = 118
females) completed online questionnaires assessing negative affect, SPS, along with two multidimensional emotional regulation
measures. The results indicated that an individual’s lack of access to emotional regulation strategies, greater awareness of emotion,
and their lack of acceptance towards feeling distressed, acted as partial mediators between SPS and symptoms of depression.
Combinations of these variables also partially mediated the relationship between SPS and symptoms of anxiety and stress. It is
suggested that repeatedly experiencing aversive sensory states among those with increased SPS impacts on their general awareness
and acceptance of internal states and the confidence that one can regulate them. This in turn leads to the experience of negative
affective states. Limitations of the present study and implications for therapeutic interventions are discussed.

Key words: anxiety, depression, emotional regulation, sensory-processing sensitivity, stress

INTRODUCTION levels of stimulation, such as a loud noise, bright lighting,

Sensory-processing sensitivity (SPS) is a relatively new con-
struct proposed by Aron and Aron (1997) to describe an
individual trait that focuses on how people process sensory
input from their external environment (i.e., tastes, sounds,
and visual stimuli) and their internal processes (i.e., emo-
tions; Jagiellowicz et al., 2010). Individuals with SPS
process both internal and external stimuli more deeply than
do people who are not highly sensitive (Ahadi & Basharpoor,
2010; Jagiellowicz et al., 2010). These differing sensitivity
levels in combination with other factors can have substantial
effects on the personality, mood, and overall lifestyle of an
individual (Aron & Aron, 1997; Croy, Springborn, Lötsch,
Johnston, & Hummel, 2011). For example, people with high
levels of SPS are generally more observant of subtle features
of their environment and as a result can be bothered by high
Correspondence: Richard Moulding, BSc(Hons), MPsych, PhD,
Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing Research, Deakin Univer-
sity, Melbourne Burwood Campus, 221 Burwood Highway,
Burwood, Vic. 3125, Australia. Email: richard.moulding@deakin
.edu.au
Received 28 May 2014. Accepted for publication 10 November
2014.
© 2015 The Australian Psychological Society
etc. (Aron, 2004; Aron & Aron, 1997). Consequently, indi-
viduals with high levels of SPS are more prone to sensory
overload and often organise their lives around minimising
sensory stimulation (Benham, 2006; Dunn, 2001; Evers,
Rasche, & Schabracq, 2008). In contrast, people with low
levels of SPS may organise their lives around high levels of
social stimulation and excitement seeking activities (Dunn,
2001).
SPS AND NEGATIVE AFFECT
Research suggests that individuals who are sensitive to
sensory stimuli are more likely to experience negative psy-
chological symptoms such as depression, trait and state
anxiety, and stress (Aron & Aron, 1997; Bakker & Moulding,
2012; Liss, Timmel, Baxley, & Killingsworth, 2005). Liss
et al. suggested that highly sensitive people are not neces-
sarily predisposed to negative affect; however, in the context
of a difficult home environment, they are more likely to
experience negative psychological symptoms compared with
individuals with normative sensory processing. Jung (1913;
as cited in Aron, 2004) suggested that in children under
similar amounts of stress, it was those who were more sen-
sitive to sensory stimuli that were more likely to be shy,
2 K. Brindle et al.
anxious, and depressed. In a study examining components
of SPS, Liss, Mailloux, and Erchull (2008) identified that two
potential subfacets of SPS (ease of excitation, becoming
mentally overwhelmed by internal and external demands)
and low sensory threshold (becoming unpleasantly aroused
by external stimuli) appeared to represent the negative
aspects of SPS, as both were positively related to anxiety and
depression. The third facet, aesthetic awareness and appre-
ciation, does not appear to relate to negative mood (Liss
et al., 2008). Research suggests that links between SPS and
greater perceived stress, as well as more frequent symptoms
of physical illness, ranging from bodily aches and pains to
faintness and nausea (Benham, 2006). SPS may also be a
useful construct in explaining why individuals from certain
populations have elevated anxiety. For example, it has been
reported that children with autism spectrum disorders have
an increased sensory sensitivity, coupled with the tendency
to avoid physical sensation, which may aid in explaining
their high levels of anxiety (Joosten & Bundy, 2010). Finally,
SPS or components of it have been related to neurotic per-
sonality traits (Ahadi & Basharpoor, 2010; Smolewska,
McCabe, & Woody, 2006).
Although the general consensus in the literature is that
there is a relationship between SPS and negative psycho-
logical symptoms, it is important to note that these symp-
toms are not a direct product of processing sensitivities
(Ahadi & Basharpoor, 2010; Hofmann & Bitran, 2007; Liss
et al., 2005). Several studies have identified that SPS works
in conjunction with other factors to increase or decrease
negative psychological symptoms (Bakker & Moulding,
2012; Liss et al., 2005, 2008). One important factor that
could mediate the relationship between SPS and negative
psychological symptoms is emotional regulation—if an
individual with SPS becomes overwhelmed by stimuli, this
could impact their likelihood or ability to use emotional
regulation strategies. This could result in an overall
increase of negative psychological symptoms as the indi-
vidual is unable to regulate their emotions to meet situ-
ational demands. Indeed, there is now a well-established
link between difficulties with emotional regulation and
psychological distress (Gross & Munoz, 1995). However, to
date the relationships among SPS, emotional regulation,
and psychological distress have not been empirically exam-
ined within the same study.
EMOTIONAL REGULATION AND DISTRESS
Emotions are conceptualised as being a series of physiologi-
cal, behavioural, and experiential responses that occur as a
result of an individual’s evaluation of a situation (Mesquita
& Frijda, 1992). Emotions are controlled via a process
known as ‘emotional regulation’, which are the processes by
which we consciously or unconsciously influence what
emotions we have, when we have them, and how we expe-
rience and express them (Gross, 1998). The way in which an
individual uses emotional regulation can have a substantial
impact on their daily functioning, even though the construct
itself is neither inherently adaptive nor maladaptive (Gross,
1998). While a number of emotional regulation theories
have been suggested, two integrative frameworks that take
in constructs across the field are that of Gratz and Roemer
(2004) and Simons and Gaher (2005).
Gratz and Roemer (2004) developed their approach
through integrating concepts from the literature in combi-
nation with an empirical factor analysis of a subsequent
measure. They proposed that adaptive emotional regula-
tion is made up of six integrated processes, with failure to
utilise one or more of these processes resulting in emo-
tional dysfunction. These comprise (1) inattention to, and
lack of awareness of, emotional responses; (2) lack of
clarity of emotional responses; (3) a tendency to have
negative secondary emotional responses to one’s negative
emotions, or non-accepting reactions to one’s distress; (4)
limited access to effective emotion regulation strategies—
reflecting the belief that there is little that can be done to
regulate emotions effectively once an individual is upset;
(5) difficulties in remaining in control of impulses when
experiencing negative emotions; and (6) difficulties in
engaging in goal-directed behaviours (e.g., concentrating
and accomplishing tasks) when experiencing negative
emotions. Research has supported the relationship between
these factors and psychopathological symptoms, such as
self-harm behaviours (Gratz & Roemer, 2004), symptoms
of PTSD (Tull, Barrett, McMillan, & Roemer, 2007), gener-
alised anxiety disorder symptoms (Salters-Pedneault,
Roemer, Tull, Rucker, & Mennin, 2006), and borderline
personality disorder (Gratz, Rosenthal, Tull, Lejuez, &
Gunderson, 2006).
In a partially overlapping model of emotional regulation,
Simons and Gaher (2005) highlighted several integrated
processes centred around distress tolerance. In this
conceptualisation, distress tolerance is considered a higher-
order construct that consists of one’s evaluations and expec-
tations of experiencing negative emotional states with
respect to (1) tolerability and aversiveness of negative states;
(2) appraisal and acceptability of negative emotions (similar
to that noted above by Gratz & Roemer, 2004); (3) absorp-
tion or attention placed on negative emotions; and (4) regu-
lation of emotions, which specifically concerns the
consequent strength of the individual’s action tendencies to
either avoid or immediately attenuate the experience. In
Leyro, Zvolensky, and Bernstein’s (2010) review, difficulties
with distress tolerance have been identified as relating to
problems such as symptoms of bulimia, substance use, and
negative affectivity.
© 2015 The Australian Psychological Society
 Sensory processing and emotional regulation 3

THIS STUDY Materials

The Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS; Aron & Aron,

Evidently, an individual’s use of adaptive emotional regu-
1997) is a 27-item self-report measure of SPS. Items are
lation can positively impact their affect, as well as their
scored on a 7-point Likert scale, with overall scores ranging
personal well-being (Gross & Munoz, 1995). There is
from 27 to 189 where higher scores indicate greater sensi-
strong evidence that emotional regulation, when used in a
tivity. The scale has good content validity, reliability, conver-
maladaptive or inflexible manner, may contribute to nega-
gent validity, and discriminant validity (Aron & Aron, 1997;
tive emotions for the individual (Barlow, 1991). While it
Smolewska et al., 2006).
has not been investigated to date, emotional regulation
The Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales (DASS-21;
may play an important role in the experience of negative
Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) is a measure of depression,
psychological symptoms that are linked to SPS. If an indi-
anxiety, and stress, with seven items per subscale, which
vidual becomes emotionally overwhelmed due to their
assesses the negative emotional symptoms experienced by
SPS, they may be unable to tolerate feeling distressed,
the participant over the previous week. Items are scored on
become absorbed by the negative emotional experience, as
a 4-point Likert scale, with possible scores ranging between
well as be unable to use adaptive emotional regulation
0 and 42 for each individual scale. The present study utilised
strategies. If SPS interferes with an individual’s use of
the 21-item version of the DASS, which has comparable
adaptive emotional regulation as described above, then this
psychometric properties to the full version (Antony, Bieling,
could potentially increase their depression, anxiety, and
Cox, Enns, & Swinson, 1998).
stress symptoms (Simons & Gaher, 2005). Gaining a better
The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz
understanding of the relationship among SPS, emotional
& Roemer, 2004) is a 36-item self-report measure that
regulation, and distress would be of a considerable clinical
assesses whether an individual has difficulties understand-
utility in terms of increasing the clinician’s awareness of,
ing, modulating, and accepting their emotions, as well as the
attention to, possible emotional regulation difficulties in
participant’s ability to behave in a goal-directed manner
individuals with SPS, and thus providing more targeted
when emotionally distressed. Individual items are scored on
and effective interventions.
a 5-point Likert scale, with possible scores ranging from 36 to
As such, the present study aimed to investigate the rela-
180 for the total scale, where higher scores indicate greater
tionships among SPS, emotional regulation, and symptoms
difficulties in emotional regulation. The DERS total score and
of distress (i.e., depression, anxiety, and stress) using a
its subscales have high internal consistency, convergent
cross-sectional questionnaire design. It was anticipated that
validity, test–retest reliability, as well as satisfactory construct
high levels of SPS would relate to greater levels of distress
and predictive validity (Bardeen et al., 2012; Gratz &
and that this relationship will be mediated by emotional
Roemer, 2004).
regulation. Given the multidimensional nature of emo-
The Distress Tolerance Scale (DTS; Simons & Gaher, 2005)
tional regulation, we also aimed to investigate which of the
is a 15-item self-report measure that assesses an individual’s
subfacets were most important in linking together these
tolerance to psychological distress, using a 5-point Likert
constructs.
scale, with item scores as the means of the scales, so poten-
tial range from 1 to 5. There are four subscales, including
tolerance of negative emotions, appraisal of negative emo-
METHOD tional experiences, absorption in the emotional experiences,
and perceptions of ability to regulate emotions. The DTS has
Participants good psychometric properties including high internal con-
sistency and good convergence with similar self-report
Participants were a sample of convenience recruited through
measures of affect regulation and distress (Bernstein,
the community (n = 88), through links such as the Highly
Zvolensky, Vujanovic, & Moos, 2009). This scale has also
Sensitive Person Network email bulletin and social network-
demonstrated good 6-month test–retest reliability (Simons &
ing sites (in order to expand the range of scores on the
Gaher, 2005).
measure), and for course credit in first year psychology
(n = 69). These comprised 118 female and 39 male partici-
Procedure
pants with ages between 18 and 60 years (M = 24.02, stand-
ard deviation (SD) = 8.40). The large majority of participants A link to the online surveys was made available to under-
(90%) reported being of Australian or New Zealand origin, graduate psychology students for course credit, and the link
and over half (54%) reported being single, with remaining was also advertised through the email bulletin of the Highly
33% in a committed relationship and 13% married or in a Sensitive Person Network (an online support forum for indi-
de-facto relationship. viduals interested in SPS) and other online sites.
© 2015 The Australian Psychological Society
4 K. Brindle et al.

RESULTS bootstrapping procedure is that no assumptions are made

about the shape of the sampling distribution of the indirect
Preliminary analysis effect or its constituent paths, which are often non-normal,
leading to under-powering of alternative methods such as
Preliminary analyses indicated a small number of multivari-
the Sobel test (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Three mediation
ate outliers identified using Cook’s distance and
models were examined, looking at the two models of emo-
Mahalanobis distance (p < .001). These were recoded to be
tional regulation separately, and then combined, with
one from the farthest value to reduce their influence
respect to the three mood scales. In the first, analysis HSPS
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Each measure had acceptable to
and DASS were included as the independent and dependent
excellent internal consistency (see Table 1). The HSPS had
variables respectively, and the DERS subscales were entered
a range of 65–174, representing average item scores of
as the mediator variables (Table 2). Initially, it was found
2.4–6.4 on a 7-point scale (where 1 = ‘not at all’ and
that when the DERS subscales were included together in the
7 = ‘extremely’), indicating a suitable range for analysis. The
analysis as mediators, only the DERS strategies and aware-
HSPS significantly correlated with higher levels of all nega-
ness subscales acted as mediators between SPS and symp-
tive mood symptoms, with effect sizes in the medium-to-
toms of depression. The direct relationship between the
strong range. The HSPS also was significantly related to
DASS-21 depression subscale and the HSPS remained sig-
poorer emotional regulation, as assessed by the DTS
nificant (unstandardised B = .0164, t = 2.71, p < .05), indi-
subscales, and by the DERS subscales (with the exception of
cating that the relationship between the HSPS and the
the DERS clarity subscale). Note that the relationship with
DASS-21 depression subscale was only partially mediated.
the DERS awareness was in the negative direction—
For anxiety, there was a similar pattern with the DERS
indicating greater awareness of emotions for those high in
strategies and awareness subscales having a significant effect
SPS.
and there remaining a significant direct relationship
(B = .0239, t = 4.44, p < .001). However, no mediation
Mediation analyses
effects were found between the stress subscale and the HSPS
Following recommendations regarding the interpretation of (B = .1873, t = 5.36, p < .001).
indirect effects (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & The second mediation focused on the model of emotional
Sheets, 2002), a bootstrapping procedure (1,000 samples of regulation created by Simons and Gaher (2005) with
N = 157) was used for examination of the statistical signifi- HSPS and DASS as independent and dependent variables
cance of all indirect (mediated) paths, using the SPSS script
PROCESS (Hayes, 2012). An important advantage of the Table 2 Relationship among the HSPS, DERS, and the DASS-21
subscales
Table 1 Correlations between the HSPS and the DASS and the Lower Upper
measures DERS subscale B Boot SE limit CI limit CI
DASS Predicting depression
Non-accept .0028 .0028 −.0027 .0084
HSPS Depression Anxiety Stress
Goals .0022 .0024 −.0018 .0080
HSPS (.92) – – – Impulse .0013 .0034 −.0047 .0088
DASS Awareness −.0068* .0026 −.0129 −.0026
Depression .31** (.92) – – Strategies .0069* .0037 .0008 .0158
Anxiety .46** .70** (.85) – Clarity .0002 .0007 −.0005 .0028
Stress .55** .64** .75** (.89) Predicting anxiety
DERS Non-accept .0021 .0024 −.0024 .0072
Non Acceptance .36** .52** .53** .50** Goals .0019 .0021 −.0019 .0066
Goals .33** .42** .46** .38** Impulse .0021 .0028 −.0032 .0079
Impulse-control .40** .48** .52** .52** Awareness −.0045* .0023 −.0098 −.0006
Awareness −.39** .20* .06 −.08 Strategies .0067* .0033 .0017 .0146
Strategies .34** .55** .58** .43** Clarity .0000 .0006 −.0019 .0009
Clarity .05 .38** .31** .30** Predicting stress
DTS Non-accept .0299 .0169 −.0001 .0671
Tolerance −.33** −.40** −.49** .39** Goals .0015 .0143 −.0274 .0300
Absorption −.27** −.42** −.43** .33** Impulse .0405 .0226 −.0019 .0939
Appraisal −.37** −.55** −.53** .51** Awareness .0003 .0124 −.0233 .0268
Regulation −.27** −.21** −.32** .34** Strategies −.0109 .0179 −.0466 .0238
Note. Diagonal is Cronbach’s alpha. DASS-21 = Depression, Anxiety,
Clarity .0029 .0057 −.0049 .0199
and Stress Scales; DERS = Difficulties in Emotional Regulation; Note. CI = confidence interval; DERS = Difficulties in Emotional Regu-
DTS = Distress Tolerance Scale; HSPS = Highly Sensitive Person Scale. lation Scale; Non-accept = non-acceptance subscale.
*p < .05, **p < .01. *p < .05 (bootstrapped).

© 2015 The Australian Psychological Society

 Sensory processing and emotional regulation 5

Table 3 Relationship among the HSPS, DTS, and the DASS-21 Table 4 DTS appraisal subscale and the DERS strategies subscale as
depression subscale mediators between the HSPS and the DASS-21 depression subscale
Lower Upper Lower Upper
DTS subscale B Boot SE limit CI limit CI Scale B Boot SE limit CI limit CI
Predicting depression Predicting depression
Tolerance −.0008 .0029 −.0063 .0053 DTS appraisal .0064* .0030 .0014 .0130
Absorption .0021 .0025 −.0020 .0080 DERS awareness −.0064* .0023 −.0118 −.0026
Appraisal .0144* .0040 .0079 .0240 DERS strategies .0079* .0029 .0032 .0151
Regulation −.0026 .0018 −.0071 .0002 Predicting anxiety
Predicting anxiety DTS appraisal .0037 .0025 −.0005 .0096
Tolerance .0037 .0027 −.0007 .0101 DERS awareness −.0039* .0020 −.0086 −.0007
Absorption .0006 .0020 −.0030 .0054 DERS strategies .0084* .0028 .0038 .0150
Appraisal .0074* .0033 .0017 .0147 Predicting stress
Regulation −.0002 .0015 −.0031 .0029 DTS appraisal .0487* .0198 .0171 .0945
Predicting stress DERS awareness −.0064 .0119 −.0311 .0167
Tolerance −.0005 .0182 −.0393 .0335 DERS strategies .0127 .0147 −.0125 .0467
Absorption −.0125 .0127 −.0440 .0081 Note. N = 157. CI = confidence interval; DERS = Difficulties in Emo-
Appraisal .0657* .0226 .0284 .1183 tional Regulation Scale; DTS = Distress Tolerance Scale.
Regulation .0094 .0112 −.0073 .0387 *p < .05.
Note. N = 157. CI = confidence interval; DTS = Distress Tolerance Scale;
SE = standard error.
*p < .05 (bootstrapped). tive mood through interfering with emotional regulation
strategies. Consistent with previous findings, there was a
positive relationship between SPS and negative psychologi-
respectively, and the DTS Appraisal subscale as the mediator
cal symptoms. This relationship was partially mediated by
(Table 3). For all three DASS-21 subscales, the DTS appraisal
constructs from two influential models of emotional regula-
subscale was a statistical mediator. The relationship between
tion. Specifically, appraisals about one’s ability to tolerate
DASS-21 depression and the HSPS narrowly missed signifi-
distress, emphasised in Simons and Gaher (2005) and meas-
cance (B = .0099, t = 1.82, p = .070), but there remained
ured by the DTS, as well as awareness of emotion and
relationships between DASS-21 anxiety and the HSPS
strategies for regulating emotions, subscales of the DERS
(B = .0207, t = 4.24, p < .001), and DASS-21 stress and the
(Gratz & Roemer, 2004). In particular, limited acceptance of
HSPS (B = .1894, t = 6.22, p < .001), indicating partial
negative emotions was a consistent mediator between SPS
mediation.
and negative affect. Higher emotional awareness was impor-
From the two separate bootstrap mediation analyses con-
tant for both depression and anxiety, while limited access to
ducted, it became clear that the DERS strategies and aware-
emotional regulation strategies acted as a partial mediator
ness subscales and the DTS appraisal subscale played
for depression.
significant mediator roles between the HSPS and almost all
The results from the analysis indicate that the link
the affect-related subscales. Therefore, a further bootstrap
between SPS and both depression and anxiety is partially
mediation analysis was conducted in order to examine
through an individual’s emotional regulation strategies as
whether these subscales together acted as independent
measured by the DERS strategies subscale. The items on the
mediators between the HSPS and negative psychological
DERS strategies subscale assess an individual’s access to
symptoms (i.e., DASS scores). As shown in Table 4, DTS
emotional regulation strategies. People with limited access to
appraisals was a significant mediator for all three affect
emotional regulation strategies hold the belief that if they get
scales; while awareness was significant for depression and
distressed, they will remain upset for a long period of time,
anxiety, and strategies only for depression. The relationship
and there is nothing they can do to make themselves feel
was partially mediated in all instances—depression (direct
better (Gratz & Roemer, 2004). At the same time, individuals
B = .0150, t = 2.55, p = .0117), anxiety (B = .0240, t = 4.52,
high in SPS report being more aware of these emotional
p < .001), and stress (B = .1965, t = 5.61, p < .001).
states, as indicated by the relevance of the items on the
awareness subscale. Thus, the findings of this study suggest
that one avenue for the relationship found between process-
DISCUSSION ing sensitivity and depression is through the tendency of
individuals with SPS to be exposed to negative, aversive
The present study examined the relationship among SPS, internal states. Through repeated exposure, this may limit
emotional regulation, and symptoms of distress. It was sug- their access to emotional regulation strategies by reducing
gested that as SPS could interfere with the ability to tolerate their confidence that they can successfully overcome nega-
both internal and external stimuli, then it may lead to nega- tive states, while increasing awareness and the perceived
© 2015 The Australian Psychological Society
6 K. Brindle et al.
importance of these states. In turn, this maladaptive effect on
the individual’s use of emotional regulation strategies would
increase the general likelihood of the individual to experi-
ence symptoms of negative affect, specifically depression
(Esbjørn, Bender, Reinholdt-Dunne, Munck, & Ollendick,
2012).
Furthermore, the findings also support a mediational role
for the individual’s appraisals regarding being distressed,
both in terms of lowered mood and increased general stress.
The DTS appraisal subscale items assess an individual’s
acceptance of their distressed feelings, any shame experi-
enced as a result of feeling distressed, as well as how they
perceive their coping abilities in comparison with others
(Simons & Gaher, 2005). This suggests a further avenue
between processing sensitivity and symptoms of distress is
that the negative, aversive internal states experienced by
highly sensitive persons may limit their belief that they can
tolerate or cope with negative affective states. If an indi-
vidual is unable to accept their feelings of distress, this could
in turn exacerbate their symptoms of depression and stress
(Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999; Simons & Gaher, 2005).
The present study speculates that SPS interferes with
adaptive emotional regulation strategies, resulting in an
increase of negative psychological symptoms, with emo-
tional regulation strategies important with respect to both
depressive and anxiety symptoms. Therefore, emotional
regulation focused therapeutic techniques could have some
benefit for highly sensitive individuals who are experiencing
anxiety or depression symptoms (Trosper, Buzzella, Bennett,
& Ehrenreich, 2009). In particular, interventions could focus
on increasing an individual’s self-efficacy regarding dealing
with emotions (Bandura, 1997). In addition, the importance
of the acceptance of negative affective states also points
towards therapeutic strategies such as mindfulness and
acceptance-based strategies (Bakker & Moulding, 2012;
Hayes et al., 1999).
Limitations and future directions
The current findings need to be considered with respect to
the limitations of the current study. Specifically, the
current study employed a cross-sectional study. Future
studies should address these constructs using experimental
methods and laboratory-based methods; for example, par-
ticipants low and high in SPS could be assessed as to their
acceptance and regulation strategies with emotions induced
in the laboratory, such as while watching emotive film clips
(Cougle, Timpano, Sarawgi, Smith, & Fitch, 2013).
Although a cross-sectional methodology provides impor-
tant information about relationships between constructs
and theory, a cause and effect relationship cannot
be directly established through this type of design. For
example, it is possible that rather than emotional
regulation generally influencing how the person deals with
their sensitivity, that part of the highly sensitive person
construct may itself entail emotional regulation constructs;
this is particularly likely to be so for the construct of emo-
tional awareness. Nonetheless, whether part of or subse-
quent to SPS, the relationships in this article suggest that
attention to such aspect as strategies and awareness could
be an avenue to assist the person who identifies as sensi-
tive in their general emotional state. Furthermore, the
current sample was relatively small, predominantly Aus-
tralian, and the majority of participants were single and
completing first year psychology studies at university.
Whether the findings of the present study can generalise to
the general population or more specific populations is of
interest (e.g., clinical populations with depressive or autism
spectrum disorders) needs to be confirmed in future
research. Further, while some significant associations were
noted between SPS and emotional regulation constructs, it
is unclear whether the lack of significant associations with
some of the other aspects of emotional regulation (e.g.,
non-acceptance) is due to lack of association or insufficient
power to detect such results. Future investigation within
larger and more representative sample may provide more
conclusive results.
In conclusion, the present study aimed to examine emo-
tional regulation as a potential mediator between SPS and
negative psychological symptoms (i.e., depression, anxiety,
and stress). It suggests that an avenue that is important for
negative mood states is through the potential influence of
SPS on emotional regulation strategies, with the relationship
being particularly important with respect to depression,
where SPS is related to greater awareness of their emotions
(‘I feel this way . . .’), a non-acceptance of these negative
emotions (i.e., ‘. . . but I shouldn’t feel like this’), and a lack
of efficacy regarding their ability to stop such feelings (i.e.,
‘. . . and there is nothing I can do about it’). It is suggested
that experiencing sensitivity to both internal and external
stimuli leads to a level of learnt helplessness regarding
repeatedly and unavoidably experiencing negative internal
states, which could potentially impact more widely on the
person’s use of emotional regulation strategies. Future lon-
gitudinal or experimental studies may be able to provide
further evidence into this link.
REFERENCES
Ahadi, B., & Basharpoor, S. (2010). Relationship between sensory
processing sensitivity, personality dimensions and mental health.
Journal of Applied Sciences, 10, 570–574. Retrieved from http://
dx.doi.org/10.3923/jas.2010.570.574
Antony, M. M., Bieling, P. J., Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Swinson, R.
P. (1998). Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item
versions of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales in clinical groups
© 2015 The Australian Psychological Society

and a community sample. Psychological Assessment, 10, 176–181.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.10.2.176
Aron, E. N. (2004). Revisiting Jung’s concept of innate sensitiveness.
The Journal of Analytical Psychology, 49, 337–367. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-5922.2004.00465
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. Retrieved from http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.345
Bakker, K., & Moulding, R. (2012). Sensory-processing sensitivity,
dispositional mindfulness and negative psychological symptoms.
Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 341–346. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.006
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H.
Freeman.
Bardeen, J., Fergus, T., & Orcutt, H. (2012). An examination
of the latent structure of the difficulties in emotion regulation
scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioural Assessment, 34,
382–392. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10862-012-
9280
Barlow, D. H. (1991). Disorders of emotion. Psychological Inquiry,
2, 58–71. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965
pli0201_15
Benham, G. (2006). The highly sensitive person: Stress and physical
symptom reports. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1433–
1440. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.11
.021
Bernstein, A., Zvolensky, M., Vujanovic, A., & Moos, R. (2009).
Integrating anxiety sensitivity, distress tolerance, and discomfort
intolerance: A hierarchical model of affect sensitivity and toler-
ance. Behavioural Therapy, 40, 291–301. Retrieved from http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2008.08.001
Cougle, J. R., Timpano, K. R., Sarawgi, S., Smith, C. M., & Fitch, K.
E. (2013). A multi-modal investigation of the roles of distress
tolerance and emotional reactivity in obsessive-compulsive
symptoms. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 26, 478–492. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2012.697156
Croy, I., Springborn, M., Lötsch, J., Johnston, A., & Hummel, T.
(2011). Agreeable smellers and sensitive neurotics. Correlations
among personality traits and sensory thresholds. Personality Traits
and Sensory Thresholds, 6, 1–9. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0018701
Dunn, W. (2001). The sensations of everyday life: Empirical, theo-
retical, and pragmatic considerations. The Journal of Occupational
Therapy, 55, 608–620. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/
ajot.2014.013656
Esbjørn, B. H., Bender, P. K., Reinholdt-Dunne, M. L., Munck, L. A.,
& Ollendick, T. H. (2012). The development of anxiety disorders:
Considering the contributions of attachment and emotion regu-
lation. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 15, 129–143.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10567-011-0105-4
Evers, A., Rasche, J., & Schabracq, M. (2008). High sensory-
processing sensitivity at work. International Journal of Stress Man-
agement, 15, 189–198. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
1072-5245.15.2.189
Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of
emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor
structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion
regulation scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assess-
ment, 26, 41–54. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10862-008-9102-4
Gratz, K. L., Rosenthal, M. Z., Tull, M. T., Lejuez, C. W., &
Gunderson, J. G. (2006). An experimental investigation of
emotion dysregulation in borderline personality disorder. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 850–855. Retrieved from http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.115.4.850
© 2015 The Australian Psychological Society
Sensory processing and emotional regulation 7
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An
integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2, 271–299.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271
Gross, J. J., & Munoz, R. F. (1995). Emotion regulation and mental
health. Clinical Psychological Science and Practice, 2, 151–164.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.1995
.tb00036.x
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed
variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling
[White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/
process2012.pdf
Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and
commitment therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. New
York: Guilford.
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.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.12
.003
Jagiellowicz, J., Xu, X., Aron, A., Aron, E., Cao, G., Feng, T., &
Weng, X. (2010). The trait of sensory processing sensitivity and
neural responses to changes in visual scenes. SCAN, 6, 38–47.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq001
Joosten, A. V., & Bundy, A. C. (2010). Sensory processing and
stereotypical and repetitive behaviour in children with autism
and intellectual disability. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal,
57, 366–372. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-
1630.2009.00835
Leyro, T. M., Zvolensky, M. J., & Bernstein, A. (2010). Distress
tolerance and psychopathological symptoms and disorders: A
review of the empirical literature among adults. Psychological Bul-
letin, 136, 576–600. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0019712
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. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid
.2005.05.007
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. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008
.04.009
Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the depression
anxiety stress scales (2nd ed.). Sydney, NSW: Psychology Founda-
tion of Australia.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., &
Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and
other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83
Mesquita, B., & Frijda, N. H. (1992). Cultural variations in emotions:
A review. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 179–204. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.179
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPS and SAS procedures for
estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior
Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717–731.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553
Salters-Pedneault, K., Roemer, L., Tull, M. T., Rucker, L., & Mennin,
D. S. (2006). Evidence of broad deficits in emotion regulation
associated with chronic worry and generalized anxiety disorder.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 30, 469–480. Retrieved from http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10608-006-9055-4
Simons, J., & Gaher, R. (2005). The Distress Tolerance Scale: Devel-
opment and validation of a self-report measure. Motivation and
Emotion, 29, 83–102. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11031-005-7955-3
8 K. Brindle et al.
Smolewska, K., McCabe, S., & Woody, E. (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. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005
.09.022
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics
(5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Trosper, S., Buzzella, B., Bennett, S., & Ehrenreich, J. (2009).
Emotion regulation in youth with emotional disorders: Implica-
tions for a unified treatment approach. Clinical Child and Family
Psychology Review, 12, 234–254. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10567-009-0043-6
Tull, M. T., Barrett, H. M., McMillan, E. S., & Roemer, L. (2007). A
preliminary investigation of the relationship between emotion
regulation difficulties and posttraumatic stress symptoms.
Behavior Therapy, 38, 303–313. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.beth.2006.10.001
© 2015 The Australian Psychological Society