Journal of Research in Personality 93 (2021) 104130

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Research in Personality

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp

Conceptual ambiguities and measurement issues in sensory

processing sensitivity
Susan Hellwig a, *, Marcus Roth b
a
Department of Psychology, University of Wuppertal, Germany
b
Department of Psychology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The aim of the article is (1) to critically discuss Sensory Processing Sensitivity (SPS) in light of personality
Sensory processing sensitivity theories and (2) to examine the validity of the only available measure of SPS, the Highly Sensitive Person Scale
Highly sensitive person (HSPS). Study 1 (N = 289) examines the relations of the HSPS with facets of the Big Five. In Study 2 (N = 226),
Personality traits
the HSPS’ relation to emotion recognition ability is estimated after controlling for the Big Five. In contrast to
Emotion recognition ability
previous studies, these relationships are estimated at the level of latent variables. Our data suggest that SPS
highly overlaps with established personality traits, and its relation with emotion recognition ability can be fully
explained by Neuroticism and Openness to Experience.

1. Conceptual ambiguities and measurement issues in sensory
processing sensitivity
SPS was introduced in a Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
article by Aron and Aron (1997) as a new construct which is related to
but also distinguishable from the personality trait of Introversion. In
recent years, SPS has attracted increasing attention in the scientific
literature (see Aron et al., 2012; Lionetti et al., 2018) but has also
become a popular concept outside of the scientific literature under the
term “high sensitivity” (e.g., Aron, 1996; Falkenstein, 2019). Today,
there are a vast number of popular scientific publications on SPS,
including self-help manuals and guidebooks for parents or teachers of
highly sensitive children (e.g., Aron, 2002; 2020; Rosenshein, 2013).
The high popularity could be due to the positive reinterpretation of
certain personality traits that are often perceived as rather socially un­
desirable, as we will discuss later. In the scientific literature, SPS has
been suggested to play an important role in empathy (Acevedo et al.,
2014) and creativity (Bridges & Schendan, 2019) or as a predictor of
subjective well-being (Sobocko & Zelenski, 2015) or work-related stress
(Evers et al., 2008). Recently, the HSPS (Aron & Aron, 1997), a self-
report measure for SPS, has been adapted into several languages (e.g.,
Grimen & Diseth, 2016; Konrad & Herzberg, 2019; Montoya-Pérez et al.,
2019; Şengül-İnal & Sümer, 2020; Slagt et al., 2018; Ueno et al., 2019).
From the perspective of personality research, SPS is a highly appealing
construct because it is proposed to partially underly established
personality traits (Aron & Aron, 1997), whose underlying processes are
still not well understood (e.g., DeYoung & Gray, 2009).
A major problem with SPS lies in the vagueness of its definition.
Currently, SPS is described with heterogeneous concepts like respon­
siveness to the environment (Lionetti et al., 2018) or increased
emotional reactivity (Greven et al., 2019), which make it difficult to
grasp how SPS differs from already established personality traits –
especially from Neuroticism and Introversion (as described below). In
addition, conceptualizations of SPS are somewhat contradictory: There
are conflicting statements as to whether SPS falls within the relatively
distinct domains of ability constructs (Greven et al., 2019; Lionetti et al.,
2018) or personality constructs (in the sense of behavioral styles) (Aron
& Aron, 1997; Greven et al., 2019). In this paper, we will argue that due
to the rather vague definitions and contradictory descriptions of SPS as a
personality trait and an ability construct, current statements about SPS
are hardly falsifiable. Furthermore, the only current measure of SPS in
adults – the HSPS (Aron & Aron, 1997) – shows high content overlap
with established measures of the Big Five personality domains. Thus, we
will argue that the current measurement approach appears inappro­
priate (a) to assess a new personality construct that is distinguishable
from established personality factors and (b) to measure an ability
construct.
Therefore, the aim of our article is twofold: Firstly, we critically
discuss serious issues concerning the concept and measurement of SPS.
Particularly, we address the question of whether SPS can be

* Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, University of Wuppertal, Gaußstraße 20, 42119 Wuppertal, Germany.
E-mail address: hellwig@uni-wuppertal.de (S. Hellwig).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2021.104130
Received 26 February 2021; Received in revised form 1 July 2021; Accepted 5 July 2021
Available online 12 July 2021
0092-6566/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
S. Hellwig and M. Roth
differentiated from established personality factors within the Big Five
framework. Secondly, we evaluate validity evidence for interpretation
of test scores on the only available measure of SPS, the HSPS. Consid­
ering the high conceptual overlap between SPS and factors of the Big
Five domain (particularly Neuroticism, Introversion, and Openness to
Experience), we question whether the HSPS measures an ability to
process environmental stimuli or a personality trait that is distinct from
the Big Five. In Study 1, we focus on the relations between the HSPS and
the Big Five personality traits on the latent variable level in terms of
discriminant validity evidence. In Study 2, we test the claim that SPS as
assessed by the HSPS represents an ability construct related to a more
accurate processing of external stimuli.
1.1. The concept of sensory processing sensitivity
SPS was conceptualized by Aron and Aron (1997) as a “fundamental
individual difference” (p. 347) that affects the way “sensory information
is transmitted to or processed in the brain” (Aron & Aron, 1997, p. 347).
Aron and Aron (1997) suggested that this trait underlies dispositional
differences in the way persons typically react to novel stimuli: with
either exploration or quiet vigilance. SPS is considered fundamental in
two ways: it is proposed (1) to underly global personality traits (like
Introversion) and (2) to be present not only in humans but also in other
animal species (Aron & Aron, 1997; Aron et al., 2012; Greven et al.,
2019). A more recent conceptualization integrates SPS into a broader
theory of environmental sensitivity (Greven et al., 2019; Pluess, 2015).
Environmental sensitivity represents the “ability to register, process, and
respond to external” stimuli (Pluess, 2015, p. 138). In this framework,
SPS is specified as a “temperament trait characterized by greater depth
of information processing, increased emotional reactivity and empathy,
greater awareness of environmental subtleties, and ease of over­
stimulation” (Greven et al., 2019, p. 288). By using the term “greater
depth of information processing”, Aron et al. (2012) refer to Craik and
Lockard (1972) classical model of levels of processing in memory
research. In this model, stimuli are processed at different levels of
analysis, ranging from rather shallow sensory analyses to deeper se­
mantic analyses (Lockhart & Craik, 1990). Analogously, persons with
high levels of SPS are expected to process environmental stimuli more
deeply by comparing them with past experiences of comparable stimuli
(Aron et al., 2012).
1.2. Conceptual issues with sensory processing sensitivity
There are some serious issues with the SPS concept. The term SPS is
still rather loosely and somewhat inconsistently defined. For example,
the statement that SPS concerns how “sensory information is trans­
mitted to or processed in the brain” (Aron & Aron, 1997, p. 347) is quite
vague. Since many psychological constructs are related to the processing
of sensory stimuli to various degrees (e.g., diverse forms of cognitive
abilities, like visual and auditive intelligence, McGrew, 2009; person­
ality traits, DeYoung & Gray, 2009), how SPS uniquely influences the
processing of sensory stimuli is an open question. As discussed in the
previous section, several heterogenous concepts (i.e. depth of process­
ing, emotional reactivity, empathy) have been used to further charac­
terize SPS (Greven et al., 2019). Lacking a more precise definition of
SPS, it remains unclear why these concepts are assumed to be connected
to each other and how SPS differs from them in a unique way. A mere
description through related concepts (like emotional reactivity or
empathy) does not seem a sufficient substitute for a clearer definition of
SPS.
In addition, given the rather vague definition of SPS, it is still an open
question which of the heterogenous concepts used to describe SPS are
viewed as definitional elements of the construct and which are potential
outcomes (e.g. empathy, emotional reactivity, or depth of processing).
To give an example, on the one hand, depth of processing in the sense of
Craik and Lockard’s model from memory research has been suggested as
2
Journal of Research in Personality 93 (2021) 104130
a central element of SPS (see Aron et al., 2012, p. 262). On the other
hand, Aron et al. (2012 , p. 263) refer to the finding that individual
differences in shyness can be observed not only in humans but also in
nonhuman animals like the pumpkinseed sunfish. This finding is pro­
vided as preliminary evidence for SPS as a meta-personality trait that
exists in different species (Aron et al., 2012). If deeper processing on a
semantic level is indeed a defining characteristic of SPS, it seems ques­
tionable whether the observation of behavioral differences in shyness in
fish (for which few cognitive processes are known) can simultaneously
be viewed as evidence for SPS as a fundamental personality trait. If,
instead, SPS is proposed as a fundamental trait across different species,
inhibited behavior (or shyness) appears to be the defining characteristic
of SPS, whereas depth of processing appears to be a potential outcome in
humans (or species with comparable cognitive processes).
Another ambiguity relates to the question of whether SPS represents
a continuous trait dimension or a category (see Greven et al., 2019). In
most conceptualizations of SPS, the construct is described as a contin­
uous dimension from low to high sensory sensitivity (e.g., Aron & Aron,
1997; Aron et al., 2012; Lionetti et al., 2018). Nevertheless, SPS is also
often described as a categorical trait differentiating highly sensitive
persons from non-highly sensitive persons (Aron et al., 2012; Aron,
1996). In some cases, a categorical description of SPS might be used for
simplicity’s sake, especially when the concept is presented to a broader
audience in the popular scientific literature (see Aron, 1996). For
example, Aron et al. (2012) argue that SPS is probably a continuous trait
but more easily described in a categorical sense as responding either
more or less to the environment. However, some statements made about
SPS even contradict the assumption of a continuous trait: For example, it
is often stated that about 15–20% of the population can be considered
high on SPS (e.g. Greven et al., 2019; Konrad & Herzberg, 2019), that
SPS can be found in roughly 20% of humans (Acevedo et al., 2014), or
that about 30% of the population score high on SPS (Lionetti et al.,
2019). Assuming a continuous trait dimension, those estimates would be
meaningless or at least arbitrary as the cut-off separating highly sensi­
tive persons from other individuals could be set at any point. Thus, es­
timates that a certain percentage of individuals have high levels of SPS
imply a categorical trait. Indeed, Aron and Aron (1997) based their
initial estimate of about 20% highly sensitive persons from a series of
studies on infants’ temperament (for an overview see Kagan, 1994) in
which infants were categorized as either behaviorally inhibited or un­
inhibited. Thus, the estimate is based on a categorically defined trait
from the domain of infant temperament. It is questionable whether these
findings can be transferred to the new concept of SPS. And if so, how
does SPS differ from the behavior inhibition trait proposed by Kagan (e.
g. 1994)?
Moreover, some assertions about SPS seem too far-reaching given the
actual findings. For example, Lionetti et al. (2018) provided evidence for
three classes of individuals using latent class analysis to explain response
patterns to the HSPS. It should be noted that these three classes differed
not only with respect to their mean HSPS scores but also in their scores
on the personality traits Neuroticism and Extraversion. These three
classes have then been interpreted using the rather unconventional
metaphor of flowers (see Greven et al., 2019; Lionetti et al., 2018):
“dandelions” (i.e. low sensitivity), “tulips” (medium sensitivity), and
“orchids” (i.e. high sensitivity). The flower metaphor is used to express
differences between these groups in their resilience versus vulnerability
to negative environments: the dandelion group is considered the least
vulnerable and the orchid group the most vulnerable (Ellis & Boyce,
2008; Lionetti et al., 2018). Since Vulnerability is one facet of Neuroti­
cism (e.g., Costa et al., 1991), this interpretation is in line with the
finding that higher levels of Neuroticism can be found in the group of
orchids. At the same time, it is claimed that the highly sensitive group
does “exceptionally well in ideal conditions” (Lionetti et al., 2018, p. 2)
which cannot be directly inferred from the given findings. Thus, it is not
clear in what way the high sensitivity group is exceptional besides their
relative high scores on Neuroticism.
S. Hellwig and M. Roth
The rather vague definitions of SPS create potential issues for the
measurement of SPS and the concept’s theoretical integrations into a
nomological network (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). In particular, it re­
mains unclear whether SPS is viewed as a concept from the relatively
distinct domains of personality traits versus abilities. In the following
section, we discuss these problems in more detail.
1.3. Measurement of SPS
Aron and Aron (1997) developed the HSPS to provide a first measure
of SPS. To the best of our knowledge, the HSPS is currently the only
measurement instrument for assessing SPS in adults. The HSPS is a 27-
item self-report instrument that includes statements about typical re­
actions to specific environmental stimuli (e.g. “Do you become un­
pleasantly aroused when a lot is going on around you?”) as well as more
general personality-related descriptions (e.g. “Are you conscientious?”)
(Aron & Aron, 1997, p. 352). The HSPS items were developed on the
basis of qualitative interviews. An inductive approach was used with the
aim of comprehensively identifying characteristics of individuals with
high levels of SPS (Aron & Aron, 1997). Participants who described
themselves as “highly sensitive” were invited to these interviews,
defined more narrowly by the authors as “either highly introverted […]
or easily overwhelmed by situations” (Aron & Aron, 1997, p. 359).
1.4. Issues concerning the measurement of SPS
The HSPS items appear to be very similar (and partly identical) to
items from standard measures of the Big Five personality traits (see e.g.,
Goldberg et al., 2006). The similarity is particularly apparent for the
factors Neuroticism (e.g. “Do you startle easily?”), Introversion (e.g.
“Does your nervous system sometimes feel so frazzled that you just have
to get off by yourself?”), Openness to Experience (e.g. “Are you deeply
moved by arts or music?”), and Conscientiousness (“Are you conscien­
tious?”). The high content overlap with established personality factors is
not surprising, considering that the definition of SPS used in the item
generation process included terms like “introverted” or “easily over­
whelmed” (i.e. Neuroticism). Furthermore, given this rather broad
definition of SPS, participants may also have reported characteristics
that are unrelated to the construct but typical for this specific group of
interviewees. To give an example, the fact that Aron and Aron (1997)
conducted interviews with participants recruited from a local arts as­
sociation may have resulted in the inclusion of some items from the
Openness to Experience factor, since this trait is positively associated
with creativity (McCrae, 1987) and higher levels are typical among
artists (Feist, 1998).
Given the similarity of the HSPS to different personality factors, we
doubt that the HSPS measures (a) a single construct that (b) underlies
but is separable from established personality factors of the Big Five
domain, and (c) that this measure appropriately assesses the ability to
process sensory stimuli. In the following sections, we discuss these three
problems in more detail.
1.5. Dimensionality of the HSPS
While Aron and Aron (1997) initially intended to design a one-
dimensional measure of SPS, subsequent studies of the HSPS tend to
indicate a multi-dimensional structure. Smolewska et al. (2006) were
the first to raise doubts about the one-dimensionality of the HSPS. From
their point of view, both the rather low factor loadings of some items
reported by Aron and Aron (1997) as well as the item content contradict
the assumption of a single SPS factor. In their own study, which applied
first a principal component analysis to explore the structure of the HSPS
in one part of the sample (n = 380) and a subsequent confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) to confirm this structure in the other part of the sample (n
= 442), Smolewska et al. (2006) found evidence for three separate
factors, which they labelled: Ease of Excitation (EOE: feelings of
3
Journal of Research in Personality 93 (2021) 104130
demands; e.g., “Do you get rattled when you have a lot to do in a short
amount of time?”), Aesthetic Sensitivity (AES: awareness of aesthetics;
e.g., “Do you have a rich, complex inner life?”), and Low Sensory
Threshold (LST: unpleasant sensory arousal; e.g., “Are you bothered by
intense stimuli, like loud noises or chaotic scenes?”). Model comparisons
revealed that the three-factor model fit significantly better than the one-
factor model. Booth et al. (2015), Sobocko and Zelenski (2015), and
Grimen and Diseth (2016) also proposed three-factor solutions similar to
the one by Smolewska et al. (2006) based on inductive approaches like
exploratory factor analysis or principal component analysis.
Nevertheless, the three-factor model is not undisputed: Evans and
Rothbart (2008) suggested a two-factor model based on the fact that
EOE and LST were highly intercorrelated (0.73) in the study by Smo­
lewska et al. (2006). Evans and Rothbart (2008) conceptually integrated
SPS into the model of adult temperament presented by Derryberry and
Rothbart (1988). They noticed similarities between items of the HSPS
(mainly EOE and LST) and “Negative Affect” factor in the adult
temperament model (Derryberry & Rothbart, 1988). The remaining
items of the HSPS (mainly AES) appeared to be similar to the factor
“Orienting Sensitivity”, which was found more recently by Evans and
Rothbart (2007). Based on an exploratory factor analysis with a sample
of N = 297 undergraduates, Evans and Rothbart (2008; see also Rinn
et al., 2018) found evidence for two factors. The two-factor solution and
a three-factor model similar to the one by Smolewska et al. (2006) were
both superior to the one-factor model. However, differences between the
two- and three-factor model were not tested, as these two models were
not nested due to slightly different subsets of items included (Evans &
Rothbart, 2008). Evans and Rothbart (2008) emphasized that their
“reason for preferring the two-factor solution is primary conceptual,
rather than statistical” (p. 115).
In contrast, Liss et al. (2008) compared a three-factor model of the
HSPS with a two-factor model (in which the EOE and LST items are
collapsed into one factor). Although both models had adequate fit, the
three-factor solution fit significantly better. Furthermore, some studies
found different relations between the three factors and external vari­
ables, such as the Big Five personality traits (Smolewska et al., 2006),
Anxiety or depressive symptoms (Liss et al., 2008). EOE and LST exhibit
more similar patterns of relations to external variables compared to AES
(Liss et al., 2008).
Aron et al. (2012) also reported finding a three-factor solution
comparable to the one by Smolewska et al. (2006). However, the authors
questioned the interpretability of previous findings on factor structure
(Aron et al., 2012). In particular, they disputed the appropriateness of
the factor analytic methods used given the potential non-normality of
the data.
Strong evidence for a three-dimensional structure was provided by
Konrad and Herzberg (2019) who took the problem of non-normality of
the data into account. The authors compared the one-, two-, and three-
factor solutions in a sample of 3,588 individuals for a German adaption
of the HSPS. The two- and three-factor structures were derived from one
half of the sample and tested in the other half using a robust estimator.
The results clearly supported a three-factor structure. We therefore use
this three-factor structure of the HSPS in all further analyses.
1.6. Relations between SPS and established personality factors
Since Aron and Aron (1997) introduced the concept of SPS, one of
the main objectives has been to distinguish SPS from established per­
sonality traits, particularly Extraversion and Neuroticism. With respect
to Extraversion, the authors referred to different personality models,
including the arousal theory of Extraversion-Introversion by Eysenck
(1967), the Behavioral Inhibition and Activation System by Gray (1981)
as well as conceptual work on Shyness (e.g., Asendorpf, 1989). Despite a
comprehensive discussion of these theories (Aron & Aron, 1997), inte­
gration of the new concept into a nomological network of current per­
sonality theories remains difficult. On the one hand, Aron and Aron
S. Hellwig and M. Roth
(1997) argue that previous personality models reflect a common
fundamental trait, namely SPS. In this vein, SPS appears to be an
alternative explanation to previous theories. On the other hand, the
authors argue that SPS partly underlies Introversion. In particular, they
propose that two types of Introversion are distinguishable: introverted
behavior caused by high sensitivity and introverted behavior caused by
avoidant attachment styles. This theoretical assumption is weakened by
the statement there are individuals who are “sensitive, but also sociable”
(p. 349) and that “many introverts are not highly sensitive” (Aron &
Aron, 1997, p. 362). Thus, Introversion is proposed to be sometimes
caused by SPS, yet SPS can also be high in individuals who are extra­
verted. Given this hardly falsifiable theoretical statement, it seems
nearly impossible to deduce predictions about the relationship between
SPS and the personality trait Extraversion.
A similar problem exists with the respect to the personality trait
Neuroticism (or Emotional Instability). Although Aron and Aron (1997)
observed high correlations between SPS and Neuroticism in their data (r
= 0.65), they argue that SPS is related but not identical to Neuroticism,
since the correlations were not close to 1. Again, they make a hardly
falsifiable statement about the relations between SPS and the person­
ality trait Neuroticism: In particular, they argue that SPS can manifest
itself in high negative emotionality (i.e. Neuroticism) in “some sensitive
individuals” (Aron & Aron, 1997, p. 350), but can also result in positive
emotionality.
Another problem relates to the observability of SPS in overt
behavior. Aron et al. (2012) claimed that the Big Five Model of per­
sonality (e.g. Goldberg, 1990) relies on overtly observable behavior
while neglecting inner states. The same observable behavior might be
caused by different underlying processes or inner states. At the same
time – as already mentioned – the assessment of SPS highly overlaps
with typical measures of the Big Five domains. It is questionable
whether a trait’s underlying process can be assessed with items bearing
an obvious resemblance to items used to assess the trait itself.
Overall, SPS has been discussed mainly in light of biological models
of Extraversion and Neuroticism (see Aron & Aron, 1997; Aron et al.,
2012). Although there is currently substantial consensus regarding the
Big Five personality model (e.g. Goldberg, 1990) or the Five Factor
Model of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992) as a useful taxonomy of
personality traits (e.g. John et al., 2008), the conceptual similarity of
SPS with factors in this model has been rarely discussed (for exceptions
see, Greven et al., 2019; Smolewska et al., 2006). The Big Five taxonomy
assumes a hierarchical structure of personality traits. Each of the five
personality dimensions (i.e. the general factor level) encompasses
several subordinate factors (or facets) that reflect more narrowly
described personality traits (e.g. Anxiety, Depression, Assertiveness).
Thus, when introducing a new candidate personality trait, it appears
important to discuss the new trait in the context of such comprehensive
models of personality. For example, besides Neuroticism and Extraver­
sion, the factor Openness to Experience has been related to sensory
processes. For example, McCrae (1993) argues that the term “intellect”
is too narrow for Openness to Experience as the factor also encompasses
traits that “emphasize an interest in sensory rather than intellectual
experience” (p. 84).
The relationship between SPS and the Big Five personality traits has
been examined in a few studies. Recently, Lionetti et al. (2019) pre­
sented results from a meta-analysis of studies assessing the associations
between the three SPS factors and the Big Five personality traits. Eight
articles (ten samples) were included in their meta-analysis, of which
only four articles examined all of the Big Five dimensions. EOE and LST
were found to be positively related to Neuroticism (EOE: r = 0.44, LST: r
= 0.27) but unrelated to the other factors (in each case: r ≤ 0.07). AES
was positively related to Openness to Experience (r = 0.36) and
Neuroticism (r = 0.17) and unrelated to Extraversion, Agreeableness,
and Conscientiousness (in each case: r ≤ 0.08). Based on their meta-
analytic results, Lionetti et al. (2019) concluded that SPS is separable
from the Big Five personality traits. However, alongside the fact that
4
Journal of Research in Personality 93 (2021) 104130
only six to eight studies provided effect sizes for the relations of interest,
there are two potential limitations: first, the effect sizes summarized in
these studies might be attenuated by measurement error, and second,
the relations with the three SPS factors might differ on the facet level.
1.7. Relations between SPS and ability constructs
Although SPS was introduced by Aron and Aron (1997) as a
temperament or personality trait, it has also been related to the domain
of ability constructs (Greven et al., 2019; Lionetti et al., 2018). Per­
sonality traits and abilities can be viewed as relatively distinct domains:
cognitive abilities are nearly uncorrelated with the Big Five personality
traits, with the exception of a moderate positive relation for the factor
Openness to Experience (see Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997). While
personality traits are considered to affect a person’s behavioral styles or
typical behavior, abilities determine a person’s maximum performance
(for the distinction between typical and maximum performance see e.g.
Cronbach, 1990). Some concepts that have been used to further char­
acterize SPS – like better detection of subtle visual changes (Jagiellowicz
et al., 2011) or higher empathy (Greven et al., 2019) – suggest that SPS is
either regarded as an ability construct or is at least expected to be
positively associated with certain abilities. Specifically, abilities that can
be expected to have positive relationships with SPS according to the
latter’s definition include (visual) working memory capacity (with
respect to the detection of visual changes, e.g., Johnson et al., 2009) and
emotion recognition ability (with respect to empathy, Schlegel et al.,
2019). In their initial attempt to provide a nomological network for SPS,
Aron and Aron (1997) themselves suggested that SPS should be related
to “other variables and measures logically involving sensitivity” (p.
350). Aron (1996) clarified which variables and measures in particular
are meant by this suggestion when she stated that highly sensitive in­
dividuals should perform better on “tasks requiring vigilance, accuracy,
speed, and the detection of minor differences” (p. 10). At the same time,
she restrictively notes that highly sensitive persons often cannot
demonstrate their performance when evaluated by others or when timed
(Aron, 1996). This restriction makes predictions about the relation be­
tween SPS and ability measures difficult because it remains ambiguous
whether SPS is viewed as an ability that enhances test performance
regarding processing of sensory information or rather as a personality
trait (obviously similar to test anxiety) that might impede performance
on ability measures. Lionetti et al. (2018) make a more unambiguous
statement by explicitly defining SPS as an ability to perceive and process
environmental stimuli. They also propose that individual differences in
reactivity to environmental stimuli are a function of this underlying
ability. If SPS is indeed considered to represent an ability construct, the
current measurement approach appears questionable: On the one hand,
the appropriateness of HSPS items can be doubted due to their content
overlap with established personality factors; on the other hand, the
suitability of self-reports for assessing abilities is generally questionable
because self-reports and objective measures of abilities are only
moderately correlated (Freund & Kasten, 2012).
Overall, there are only few studies on the relation between SPS as
assessed by the HSPS and ability constructs. Gerstenberg (2012) re­
ported a positive relation between the HSPS factor LST and accuracy in a
visual attention task after statistically controlling for the Big Five per­
sonality factors (no relations were found for EOE and AES). Jagiellowicz
et al. (2011) reported that the HSPS is associated with higher activation
in brain regions involved in processing visual stimuli during a visual
change detection task but unrelated to a measure of accuracy of change
detection. It should be noted that this study was based on a small sample
(N = 12). In a fMRI study, Acevedo et al. (2014) reported associations
between an 11-item version of the HSPS and higher activation in brain
regions related to empathy. Participants were shown pictures of either
their partner or a stranger expressing certain emotions through their
face. Based on this finding, Acevedo et al. (2014) concluded that greater
awareness of others’ emotions is a central aspect of SPS. This conclusion
S. Hellwig and M. Roth
appears problematic, since inter-individual differences in emotional
awareness were actually controlled for by the study design. Specifically,
for each facial expression, the emotion word as well as the context of the
emotion (i.e. the cause of the emotion) were presented to the partici­
pants as well. Thus, activation might indeed reflect participants’
emotional reactions to the emotions of another person, as it was also
assumed by Acevedo et al. (2014), but is unlikely to reflect interindi­
vidual differences in awareness of these emotion, since the tasks did not
require participants to identify or understand others’ emotions (e.g.
Mayer et al., 2016; Hellwig et al., 2020).
1.8. Overview of the studies
The aim of the present paper is to test two central assumptions that
have been made about SPS: Firstly, is SPS really a new personality trait
that can be distinguished from established personality factors? Sec­
ondly, is SPS an ability to process sensory information? Since currently
only one measurement approach of SPS in adults is available, our in­
vestigations and conclusions about the construct are based on and
limited to validity evidence for test score interpretations of this measure.
Based on our conceptual criticisms of SPS and the criticisms of the HSPS,
we doubt that a new personality or ability construct is assessed.
Two independent studies were conducted: In Study 1, we estimated
the relationships between the HSPS and the Big Five personality traits at
the latent variable level (i.e., discriminant validity evidence). In Study 2,
we focus on the claim that SPS can be viewed as an ability to process
sensory stimuli. In particular, we tested, whether the HSPS is related to
emotion recognition ability (e.g. Schlegel et al., 2014) after controlling
for the Big Five personality traits (i.e., incremental validity evidence).
2. Study 1
2.1. Rationale
The first study aims to test the claim that SPS assessed by the HSPS is
separable from established personality factors. Current evidence for the
independence of the SPS factors from the Big Five personality traits is
based on correlations between manifest variables (see Lionetti et al.,
2019). Given that the employed measures have imperfect reliability, the
correlations between manifest variables obtained are prone to under­
estimate the true overlap between these constructs. Thus, in contrast to
previous studies, we estimated the linear relations between the SPS
factors and the Big Five personality traits on the latent variable level.
Due to their conceptual similarities, previous studies have mainly
focused on distinguishing the SPS from Extraversion and Neuroticism
(Aron & Aron, 1997; Lionetti et al., 2019). The studies summarized in
the meta-analysis by Lionetti et al. (2019) considered the SPS’ relations
to the Big Five domain on the most global level, but not at the level of the
more narrow, subordinate facets. However, it can be expected that
different facets of Neuroticism and Extraversion are differentially
related to SPS factors. For example, the SPS concept appears to be more
similar to the Neuroticism facet of Vulnerability (in line with the met­
aphor of vulnerable flowers) than to the facet of depression. Identifying
potential differences in the SPS factors’ relations to facets of Extraver­
sion and Neuroticism is especially important because these factors are
sometimes assessed using only a handful of items (e.g., two items were
used to statistically control for Introversion by Aron et al., 2005). Thus,
we additionally report HSPS’ factor correlations with Neuroticism and
Extraversion on the facet level.
2.2. Method
2.2.1. Participants
A total of 289 individuals (208 female) participated in the first study.
The participants’ ages ranged from 15 to 75 years (M = 27.1, SD = 10.4).
The sample mainly consisted of university students (n = 204) who took
5
Journal of Research in Personality 93 (2021) 104130
part in the study for course credit, and of otherwise recruited adults
(recruited from the social network of a student involved in the data
collection process) (n = 85) who were asked to volunteer for this study.
Most individuals (n = 261) considered German to be their native lan­
guage, and all other individuals had spoken German for at least 12 years.
2.2.2. Power analyses
We tried to achieve a sample size that seemed sufficient for the
following analyses. Without knowing the results, we stopped data
collection when the sample size reached the approximate goal of at least
200 individuals, but tried to test as many individuals as possible. (Post
hoc) power analyses were conducted to evaluate the appropriateness of
the samples size in each model. Power was estimated with regard to the
standard χ2-test of absolute fit given an effect of RMSEA = 0.10, α = 0.05
(H0: RMSEA = 0) (see Preacher & Coffman, 2006). In all models, the
achieved power was close to 1. Effect sizes of particular interest in Study
1 are the factor correlations among the three factors of SPS (as
convergent validity evidence for the test score interpretations of the
HSPS) and the correlations with Neuroticism and Extraversion (as
discriminant validity evidence). Power analyses for the factor correla­
tions were conducted with Monte Carlo simulation in pwrSEM (Wang &
Rhemtulla, 2021). Assuming that the standardized loadings are all 0.60,
factor correlations of 0.30 can be detected for the target relationships
with a power of 1 – β = 0.90 to 0.94. Overall, the power analyses suggest
that the sample sizes in Study 1 are adequate.
2.2.3. Instruments
SPS. The German version of the HSPS was used to assess SPS (see
Konrad & Herzberg, 2019). Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from “strong disagreement” (1) to “strong agreement” (5). An­
alyses were based on the three-factor structure suggested by Konrad and
Herzberg (2019): EOE was assessed with 10 items, AES with 5 items, and
LST with 11 items.
Big Five. The Big Five personality factors Neuroticism and Extra­
version were assessed on the facet level with the NEO-PI-R (Ostendorf &
Angleitner, 2004). In the NEO-PI-R, each factor encompasses 6 subor­
dinate facets, and each of which is operationalized with 8 items. In this
model, Neuroticism encompasses the facets Anxiety, Self-Consciousness,
Depression, Impulsivity, Angry-Hostility, and Vulnerability. Facets of
Extraversion are Activity, Assertiveness, Excitement-Seeking, Gregari­
ousness, Warmth, and Positive Emotions.
The factors Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscien­
tiousness were assessed with the NEO-FFI (Borkenau & Ostendorf,
2008). In the NEO-FFI each factor is measured with 12 items. Items were
rated on a 5-point Likert scale from “strong disagreement” (1) to “strong
agreement” (5).
2.2.4. Procedure
Individuals were asked to participate in a study about personality
traits. The questionnaires were administered under the supervision of a
test administrator in a laboratory context at the university or in a quiet
room in the participant’s home. After obtaining informed consent from
each participant, demographic information was assessed. Afterwards,
the HSPS and the Big-Five items were presented in alternating order. All
measures were administered as paper-and-pencil questionnaires. Ethical
approval was gained from the Ethics Committee at the University of
Duisburg-Essen.
2.2.5. Statistical analyses
CFA were conducted to estimate the latent variable correlations
between the three SPS factors (i.e. EOE, AES, and LST) and the Big Five
personality traits. Due to the overall high number of factors and esti­
mates, latent variable correlations were specified in three different
models: In the first model, we estimated the latent variable correlations
between the three SPS factors and the Big Five personality factors. In the
second model, the correlations between the three SPS factors and the six
S. Hellwig and M. Roth Journal of Research in Personality 93 (2021) 104130

Neuroticism factors were estimated. In the third model, the latent var­
iable correlations between the SPS dimensions and the Extraversion
facets were estimated.
In order to reduce the otherwise high number of estimated param­
eters, we created item parcels by averaging subsets of items. We then
used these parcel scores as factor indicators in the models. A potential
disadvantage of parceling is that the results could depend on the
assignment of items to parcels. We therefore followed the approach by
Sterba and Rights (2016; 2017) and report pooled parameter estimates
and fit indices across 1,000 random item-to-parcel allocations.
2.3. Results
For re-analyses we present zero-order correlations for all measures in
Study 1 in the online supplement. The raw data cannot be made freely
available online because participants have consented to the publication
of aggregated data only.
2.3.1. Descriptive statistics and reliability estimates
In Table 1 descriptive statistics and reliability estimates of test scores
for all instruments are presented. The Cronbach’s alphas for the three
SPS scales were slightly lower than the ones reported in the study by
Konrad and Herzberg (2019).
2.3.2. Factor correlations between SPS and the Big Five personality traits
The items for EOE, LST and the Big Five factors were randomly
assigned to three parcels per factor, while AES was indicated by 5 items.
The maximum likelihood method with the Satorra-Bentler χ2 test sta­
tistic (MLM) was used as a robust estimator for non-normality (Muthén
& Muthén, 2010). Table 2 presents the latent variable correlations be­
tween the SPS scales and the Big Five personality traits. Overall, the
model fit the data well (scaled fit indices: χ2 = 580.59, df = 271, p < .01;
CFI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.06 [0.06, 0.07]).
The results regarding convergent validity evidence for test score
interpretations of the three SPS factors are mixed: The LST factor was
significantly positively correlated with the other two SPS factors.
However, the latent variable correlations between EOE and AES were
near zero. Since EOE and AES are considered indicators of a common
construct (namely SPS), correlations close to zero are not expected and
indicate low convergent validity evidence.
Furthermore, the three SPS factors were highly correlated with the
Big Five personality factors. In particular, a highly positive latent factor
correlation (0.91) was found between EOE and Neuroticism. Addition­
ally, EOE was negatively correlated with Extraversion. LST has a similar
pattern of factor correlations with the Big Five to EOE, but the effect
sizes are somewhat smaller. The latent variable correlation between AES
and the Big Five factor Openness to Experience is near 1, and the 95%
confidence interval includes the value 1.
2.3.3. Factor correlations of SPS with neuroticism and extraversion on the
facet level
In Table 3, latent variable correlations between SPS and the facets of
Neuroticism (Model 1) and Extraversion (Model 2) are presented. Again,
the items for each factor (with the exception of AES) were randomly
assigned to three parcels and all analyses were repeated 1,000 times. Note
that all factor intercorrelations were freely estimated in both models, but
only the relationships of interest are presented. Both models fit the data
well (scaled fit indices: Model 1: χ2 = 665.89, df = 341, p < .01; CFI =
0.91; RMSEA = 0.06 [0.05, 0.06]; Model 2: χ2 = 664.74, df = 341, p <
.01; CFI = 0.88; RMSEA = 0.06 [0.05, 0.06]. The results indicate that the
strength of relations varies not only by SPS factor but also across different
subordinate factors of Neuroticism and Extraversion. In the first model,
the SPS factor EOE is highly correlated with the Neuroticism facets
Anxiety, Self-Consciousness, and Vulnerability. The factors EOE and Self-
Consciousness are correlated near 1 (95% confidence interval includes the
value 1), suggesting that EOE is inseparable from this Neuroticism facet.
With regard to facets of Extraversion (Model 2), the factor correlations of
EOE range from highly negative (Assertiveness) to moderately negative
(Warmth). In both models, LST exhibits a similar pattern of relations as
EOE, but the strengths of relations are somewhat smaller.
2.4. Discussion
Overall, the results indicate two problems with the assessment of SPS
using the HSPS: Firstly, the zero factor correlations between AES and EOE
indicate weak convergent validity evidence. Secondly, discriminant validity
evidence with respect to two of the Big Five personality traits is weak: (1)
EOE is highly positively correlated with the personality factor Neuroticism
and inseparable from the Neuroticism facet Self-Consciousness. (2) AES is
correlated near 1 with the Big Five factor Openness to Experience, indi­
cating a single common factor. LST is also highly positively correlated with
Neuroticism and moderately negatively correlated with Extraversion, but

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and reliability estimates in Study 1.
Measures Items M SD Skew Kurtosis α [95% CI]
HSPS 26 2.90 0.52 0.23 0.28 0.87 [0.85, 0.89]
EOE 10 3.07 0.63 − 0.09 − 0.24 0.79 [0.75, 0.83]
AES 5 3.65 0.62 − 0.12 − 0.32 0.62 [0.56, 0.69]
LST 11 2.40 0.74 0.34 − 0.13 0.88 [0.86, 0.90]
N 48 2.89 0.55 0.28 − 0.21 0.94 [0.93, 0.95]
E 48 3.33 0.44 − 0.46 0.60 0.90 [0.88, 0.91]
O 12 3.45 0.59 0.06 − 0.48 0.76 [0.72, 0.80]
C 12 3.69 0.62 − 0.25 − 0.20 0.85 [0.83, 0.88]
A 12 3.68 0.48 − 0.52 0.36 0.72 [0.67, 0.77]
N: Anxiety 8 3.11 0.76 0.12 − 0.62 0.82 [0.79, 0.85]
N: Self-Consciousness 8 3.02 0.65 0.26 − 0.09 0.73 [0.69, 0.78]
N: Depression 8 2.72 0.86 0.59 − 0.18 0.88 [0.86, 0.90]
N: Impulsivity 8 3.19 0.59 0.01 − 0.19 0.65 [0.59, 0.71]
N: Angry-Hostility 8 2.73 0.64 0.14 − 0.29 0.75 [0.71, 0.79]
N: Vulnerability 8 2.59 0.68 0.40 0.09 0.83 [0.80, 0.86]
E: Activity 8 3.12 0.46 0.16 0.09 0.53 [0.45, 0.61]
E: Assertiveness 8 3.05 0.72 − 0.20 − 0.29 0.84 [0.81, 0.87]
E: Excitement-Seeking 8 3.08 0.66 − 0.27 − 0.26 0.63 [0.57, 0.69]
E: Gregariousness 8 3.29 0.70 − 0.55 0.21 0.78 [0.75, 0.82]
E: Warmth 8 3.79 0.53 − 0.72 1.47 0.72 [0.68, 0.77]
E: Positive Emotions 8 3.66 0.70 − 0.78 0.88 0.82 [0.79, 0.86]

Note. N = 289; HSPS = Highly Sensitive Person Scale; EOE = Ease of Excitation; AES = Aesthetic Sensitivity; LST = Low Sensory Threshold; N = Neuroticism; E =
Extraversion; O = Openness to Experience; C = Conscientiousness; A = Agreeableness.

6
S. Hellwig and M. Roth Journal of Research in Personality 93 (2021) 104130

Table 2
Factor correlations between the HSPS and the Big Five.
EOE AES LST N E O A

AES 0.03 [− 0.13, 0.20]

LST 0.67 [0.57, 0.76]
N 0.91 [0.86, 0.96]
E − 0.55 [− 0.67, − 0.43]
O 0.03 [− 0.13, 0.19]
A − 0.08 [− 0.28, 0.12]
C − 0.32 [− 0.45, − 0.19]
0.24 [0.08, 0.39]
0.00 [− 0.16, 0.15] 0.50 [0.39, 0.62]
0.18 [0.03, 0.33] − 0.38 [− 0.51, − 0.25] − 0.51 [− 0.63, − 0.38]
0.90 [0.78, 1.00] 0.12 [− 0.03, 0.27] 0.05 [− 0.10, 0.19] 0.02 [− 0.12, 0.17]
0.17 [− 0.01, 0.36] − 0.14 [− 0.29, 0.01] − 0.31 [− 0.47, − 0.15] 0.38 [0.22, 0.54] 0.05 [− 0.10, 0.21]
0.04 [− 0.12, 0.21] − 0.10 [− 0.24, 0.04] − 0.35 [− 0.48, − 0.22] 0.15 [− 0.01, 0.30] − 0.11 [− 0.27, 0.04] 0.16 [0.00, 0.32]

Note. N = 289. Estimator is MLM. Summarized results over 1,000 random item-parcel allocations (Sterba & Rights, 2016; 2017). EOE = Ease of Excitation; AES =
Aesthetic Sensitivity; LST = Low Sensory Threshold; N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; O = Openness to Experience; C = Conscientiousness; A = Agreeableness.

Table 3
Factor correlations of the HSPS with facets of N and E.
Models Factor Correlations

EOE AES LST

Model 1
N: Anxiety 0.92 [0.85, 0.99] 0.03 [− 0.15, 0.20] 0.49 [0.37, 0.62]
N: Self-Consciousness 0.94 [0.87, 1.00] − 0.14 [− 0.33, 0.04] 0.49 [0.37, 0.62]
N: Depression 0.81 [0.74, 0.88] − 0.09 [− 0.26, 0.08] 0.47 [0.35, 0.59]
N: Impulsivity 0.37 [0.19, 0.55] 0.22 [− 0.01, 0.46] 0.16 [− 0.02, 0.33]
N: Angry-Hostility 0.72 [0.60 0.85] 0.00 [− 0.18, 0.18] 0.45 [0.31, 0.58]
N: Vulnerability 0.89 [0.83, 0.95] − 0.13 [− 0.30, 0.04] 0.47 [0.35, 0.59]

Model 2
E: Activity − 0.47 [− 0.76, − 0.19] 0.24 [− 0.02, 0.51] − 0.21 [− 0.45, 0.03]
E: Assertiveness − 0.63 [− 0.74, − 0.52] 0.20 [0.03, 0.37] − 0.32 [− 0.45, − 0.18]
E: Excitement-Seeking − 0.39 [− 0.55, − 0.24] 0.13 [− 0.07, 0.32] − 0.37 [− 0.52, − 0.21]
E: Gregariousness − 0.48 [− 0.61, − 0.34] 0.02 [− 0.16, 0.19] − 0.40 [− 0.53, − 0.26]
E: Warmth − 0.27 [− 0.42, − 0.11] 0.24 [0.07, 0.42] − 0.20 [− 0.35, − 0.04]
E: Positive Emotions − 0.36 [− 0.51, − 0.21] 0.37 [0.21, 0.54] − 0.24 [− 0.38, − 0.09]

Note. N = 289. In both models, all correlations between factors are freely estimated. MLM is the estimator in both models. Pooled results of 1,000 item-parcel allo­
cations are reported. EOE = Ease of Excitation; AES = Aesthetic Sensitivity; LST = Low Sensory Threshold; N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion.

overall the effect sizes are somewhat lower for this SPS factor. Given these
results, LST appears to be the only SPS factor which is potentially separable
from established personality traits from the Big Five framework although it
strongly overlaps with them.
3. Study 2
3.1. Rationale
The second study aims to test the claim that SPS is an ability
construct regarding the perception and processing of environmental
stimuli (see Lionetti et al., 2018). If SPS is indeed an ability construct
that is characterized by higher empathy (Greven et al., 2019), it is
reasonable to infer a positive relationship between SPS and emotion
recognition ability (e.g., Bänziger, 2016). Emotion recognition ability is
defined as the ability to accurately identify emotional expressions via
different sensual modalities (Bänziger et al., 2009; Bänziger, 2016) and
represents a component of the broader concepts of interpersonal sensi­
tivity (Bernieri, 2001) and emotional intelligence (Mayer et al., 2016).
Emotion recognition ability exhibits a pattern of relationships to the
Big Five personality traits (Schlegel et al., 2019) that is common for
different forms of cognitive abilities (e.g. Ackerman & Heggestad,
1997): It is largely unrelated to the Big Five personality traits with the
exception of a moderate positive relation with Openness to Experience
(Schlegel et al., 2019). Thus, to provide evidence for SPS as a new ability
construct, the HSPS should be positively related to emotion recognition
ability when statistically controlling for the Big Five personality traits (i.
e. incremental validity evidence for test score interpretations of the
HSPS). In line with previous research (e.g. Schlegel et al., 2019), we
expected emotion recognition ability to be positively related to the Big
Five factor Openness to Experience in our study. We also expected AES
to be related to emotion recognition ability, but this relationship should
be completely explained by Openness to Experience (as indicated by the
near 1 correlation in Study 1). We did not expect EOE and LST to be
correlated with emotion recognition ability due to their strong overlap
with Neuroticism and Extraversion, Big Five personality traits that are
relatively independent of emotion recognition ability (e.g. Schlegel
et al., 2019).
Thus, in the second study, we estimated the latent variable correla­
tions between the three SPS factors, the Big Five personality factors, and
emotion recognition ability. Since individuals with high levels of SPS are
expected to be sensitive to diverse sensory stimuli (e.g. Aron & Aron,
1997), we used a measure of emotion recognition ability in which
emotions are expressed through different sensory modalities (Schlegel
et al., 2014). With regard to incremental validity evidence for the HSPS,
we also examined the factor correlations between the SPS factors and
emotion recognition ability after statistically controlling for the Big Five
personality traits.
3.2. Method
3.2.1. Participants
A total of 226 individuals (151 female) participated in this study. The
participants’ ages ranged from 15 to 56 years with an average age of
21.1 years (SD = 5.9 years). The sample consisted mainly of students
from the University of Duisburg-Essen (n = 142) who participated either
for course credit or for a payment of 10 Euros. Other participants (n = 70
academic high school students, n = 14 individuals recruited from the
social network of a student involved in the data collection process) were
asked to volunteer for a study about personality and emotion perception.
A total of 190 individuals regarded German as their native language. All
participants had spoken German for at least 5 years.
3.2.2. Power analyses
As in Study 1, we attempted to achieve a sufficient sample size for the
following analyses. We ended data collection when the sample size

7
S. Hellwig and M. Roth Journal of Research in Personality 93 (2021) 104130

reached the approximate target of about 200 individuals without
knowledge of the results. (Post hoc) power analyses were conducted
with respect to the standard χ2-test of absolute fit given an effect of
RMSEA = 0.10 and α = 0.05 (H0: RMSEA = 0) (see Preacher & Coffman,
2006). The achieved power was close to 1 in all models. The model
parameters of most interest were the latent variable correlations be­
tween the SPS factors and emotion recognition ability. Given that the
standardized loadings are all 0.60, factor correlations of 0.30 can be
detected with a power ranging from 0.83 to 0.88. In sum, the sample
sizes appear to be adequate for the following analyses.
3.2.3. Instruments
SPS. The HSPS (Konrad & Herzberg, 2019) as described in Study 1
was used to assess SPS. All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from “strong disagreement” (1) to “strong agreement” (5).
Big Five. The Big Five personality factors were assessed with the
NEO-FFI (Borkenau & Ostendorf, 2008). The items were rated on the
same 5-point Likert scale as the HSPS.
Emotion Recognition Ability. Emotion recognition ability was
assessed by the Geneva Emotion Recognition Test (GERT; Schlegel et al.,
2014). The GERT is a computer-based performance test that encompasses
83 items. Each item consists of a short audio-video clip of an actor who
expresses a particular emotion while uttering a pseudolinguistic sentence
(i.e. fictitious language that imitates real languages). Emotions are shown
simultaneously in the actor’s voice, face, and body posture. After each
video, 14 emotion words are presented to the participant. The participant
is required to select the correct emotion, i.e. the one presented in the video
(correct response = 1, incorrect response = 0). The GERT items are timed.
3.3.2. Factor correlations between the HSPS, the Big Five personality Traits,
and emotion recognition ability
The items for EOE, LST, the Big Five, and emotion recognition ability
were randomly assigned to three parcel scores per factor. For AES, the 5
items were used as indicators. Again, all analyses were repeated 1,000
times and pooled parameter estimates and fit indices are reported using
the approach suggested by Sterba and Rights (2016; 2017). MLM was
used as a robust estimator.
In Table 5 the latent variable correlations between the three SPS
factors, the Big Five personality factors, and emotion recognition ability
are shown. Overall, the model fit the data well (scaled fit indices: χ2 =
562.86, df = 341, p < .01; CFI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.05 [0.05, 0.06]). The
correlations between the three SPS factors are comparable to the results
presented in Study 1. AES and EOE were again unrelated to each other,
which is not expected for subordinate factors of a common construct.
The latent variable correlations between the SPS factors and the Big Five
personality traits were also comparable to Study 1. EOE was highly
correlated with Neuroticism and AES was moderately correlated with
Openness to Experience. The 95% confidence interval for the latter
factor correlation includes 1. LST was again moderately positively
associated with Neuroticism and moderately negatively associated with
Extraversion.
As expected, moderate positive relationships were found between
AES, Openness to Experience and emotion recognition ability. The latent
variable correlation between LST and emotion recognition ability was
close to zero. The positive relationship between EOE and emotion
recognition ability was not expected. We also did not expect a correla­
tion of Neuroticism with emotion recognition ability.

3.2.4. Procedure
All measures were administered on computers in a laboratory
context at the university or at school under the supervision of at least
one test administrator. Informed consent was obtained from each
participant individually. First a demographic questionnaire and the
personality items were presented. The HSPS items and the Big Five items
were then presented in alternating order. Afterwards, the GERT was
administered. Due to the GERT’s visual-auditory test material, head­
phones were used in this part of the study.
3.3. Results
Zero-order correlations for all measures in Study 2 and scatter plots
for the relationships of interest are presented in the online supplement.
3.3.1. Descriptive statistics and reliability estimates
Descriptive statistics and reliability estimates of the test scores are
presented in Table 4. Cronbach’s alpha estimates for the three SPS scales
are comparable to the ones obtained in Study 1.
3.3.3. Partial factor correlations between SPS and emotion recognition
ability
The partial factor correlations (see e.g. Preacher, 2006) between (1)
EOE and emotion recognition ability while controlling for the Big Five
personality factor Neuroticism and (2) AES and emotion recognition
ability while controlling for Openness to Experience were estimated in
two models. The items for the two latent variables in each model (i.e.
EOE and emotion recognition ability/AES and emotion recognition
ability) were randomly allocated to three parcels per factor and pooled
results from 1,000 runs are reported. MLM was used as an estimator in
both models. The structural parts of the models with point estimates and
95% confidence intervals are presented in Fig. 1.
The two models fit the data well (Model 1: scaled χ2 = 15.66, df = 12,
p = .35; CFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.03 [0.01, 0.08]; Model 2: scaled χ2 =
44.21, df = 25, p = .35; CFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.06 [0.03, 0.09]. As can
be seen in Fig. 1 (Model 1), the correlation between EOE and emotion
recognition ability is close to zero when controlling for the personality
factor Neuroticism. In Model 2, the factor correlation between AES and
emotion recognition ability is close to zero after statistically controlling
for Openness to Experience.

Table 4 3.4. Discussion

Descriptive statistics and reliability estimates in Study 2.
Measures Items M SD Skew Kurtosis α [95% CI] The results of the second study confirm our expectations that any
HSPS 26 2.98 0.48 0.12 0.81 0.85 [0.82, 0.88] potential relation between the SPS factors and emotion recognition
EOE 10 3.19 0.61 − 0.13 0.20 0.76 [0.71, 0.81] ability can be fully explained by the Big Five personality traits. As ex­
AES 5 3.67 0.62 − 0.41 0.02 0.63 [0.55, 0.70] pected, AES was positively correlated with emotion recognition ability.
LST 11 2.47 0.69 0.36 0.25 0.88 [0.85, 0.90]
N 12 3.01 0.72 0.11 − 0.60 0.87 [0.84, 0.89]
After controlling for the established personality factor Openness to
E 12 3.35 0.55 − 0.17 − 0.30 0.76 [0.72, 0.81] Experience this correlation was close to zero. Thus, the results of Study 2
O 12 3.63 0.55 − 0.34 − 0.22 0.74 [0.70, 0.79] confirm that AES is inseparable from this Big Five factor. Furthermore,
C 12 3.55 0.66 − 0.36 − 0.42 0.87 [0.85, 0.90] the unexpected correlation between EOE and emotion recognition
A 12 3.66 0.52 0.48 0.05 0.76 [0.71, 0.80]
−
ability became close to zero after controlling for the Big Five personality
ERA 83 0.67 0.10 − 0.90 1.75 0.78 [0.74, 0.82]
factor Neuroticism. The results thus once again affirm the first study’s
Note. N = 226; HSPS = Highly Sensitive Person Scale; EOE = Ease of Excitation; conclusions that the HSPS factors EOE and AES are inseparable from
AES = Aesthetic Sensitivity; LST = Low Sensory Threshold; N = Neuroticism; E Neuroticism and Openness to Experience, respectively.
= Extraversion; O = Openness to Experience; C = Conscientiousness; A = The only factor that might represent a new personality factor (or
Agreeableness; ERA = Emotion Recognition Ability.
maybe a facet of Neuroticism) is LST. However, LST was shown to be

8
S. Hellwig and M. Roth Journal of Research in Personality 93 (2021) 104130

Table 5
Factor correlations between the HSPS, the Big Five, and emotion recognition ability.
EOE AES LST N E O A C

AES 0.01 [− 0.17, 0.19]

LST 0.49 [0.34, 0.64] 0.25 [0.09, 0.41]
N 0.85 [0.76, 0.94] 0.05 [− 0.11, 0.39 [0.27, 0.52]
0.21]
E − 0.58 [− 0.72, 0.10 [− 0.09, − 0.30 [− 0.48, − 0.55 [− 0.68,
− 0.43] 0.29] − 0.13] − 0.42]
O − 0.08 [− 0.25, 0.93 [0.79, 1.00] 0.16 [0.00, 0.32] 0.03 [− 0.13, 0.19] − 0.03 [− 0.22,
0.08] 0.15]
A − 0.04 [− 0.21, − 0.01 [− 0.19, − 0.12 [− 0.30, − 0.17 [− 0.34, 0.29 [0.10, 0.47] − 0.09 [− 0.27,
0.14] 0.17] 0.05] 0.00] 0.09]
C − 0.36 [− 0.50, 0.10 [− 0.07, − 0.07 [− 0.22, − 0.31 [− 0.45, 0.18 [0.01, 0.36] − 0.02 [− 0.19, 0.11 [− 0.06,
− 0.22] 0.27] 0.08] − 0.17] 0.15] 0.27]
ERA 0.18 [0.03, 0.33] 0.24 [0.08, 0.39] 0.12 [− 0.04, 0.28] 0.20 [0.06, 0.33] − 0.09 [− 0.25, 0.35 [0.20, 0.51] 0.22 [0.05, 0.03 [− 0.13,
0.06] 0.40] 0.19]

Note. N = 226. Estimator is MLM. Summarized results of 1,000 item-parcel allocations (Sterba & Rights, 2016; 2017). EOE = Ease of Excitation; AES = Aesthetic
Sensitivity; LST = Low Sensory Threshold; N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; O = Openness to Experience; C = Conscientiousness; A = Agreeableness; ERA = Emotion
Recognition Ability.

Fig. 1. Partial Factor Correlations. Note.

Model 1: Structural model for the partial
factor correlation between Ease of Excitation
(EOE) and Emotion Recognition Ability
(ERA) after controlling for the personality
factor Neuroticism (N). Model 2: Structural
model for the partial factor correlation be­
tween Aesthetic Sensitivity (AES) and
Emotion Recognition Ability (ERA) after
controlling for the personality factor Open­
ness to Experience (O). The 95% confidence
intervals for standardized regression weights
and the partial factor correlations are listed
in brackets.

unrelated to emotion recognition ability. Thus, our study found no ev­
idence that SPS can be viewed as an ability to process stimuli. A limi­
tation is that only one certain ability construct (emotion recognition
ability) was considered in this study. Nevertheless, our results and the
existing body of research on the personality traits Extraversion and
Neuroticism’s associations with task performance (e.g. Matthews, 2009)
suggest that the Big Five personality traits are essential control variables
when considering the relations between SPS and ability constructs in
future studies.
4. General discussion
The aim of the present paper was to critically discuss the conceptu­
alization and measurement of SPS as both a new personality construct
and as an ability to process sensory stimuli. In two studies, we examined
the HSPS’s relations with the Big Five personality traits and with an
ability construct involving the processing of sensory stimuli. Our results
indicate that SPS assessed by the HSPS strongly overlaps with the Big
Five personality factors, especially with Neuroticism, Openness to
Experience, and Introversion. In both studies, the HSPS shows weak
convergent validity evidence since the subfactors AES and EOE were
uncorrelated. Considering the confidence intervals for the factor
correlations, our results further suggest that AES is identical to the Big
Five factor Openness to Experience and EOE completely overlaps with
the Neuroticism facet Self-Consciousness. LST is the only component of
SPS that is not correlated close to 1 with a Big-Five factor, but LST also
highly overlaps with Neuroticism and Introversion. Thus, the results of
our studies do not support the notion that SPS is largely independent of
the Big Five personality traits (see Lionetti et al., 2019). In contrast to
previous studies, we examined the relations of the SPS factors to the Big
Five on the latent variable level. Thus, the correlations reported in our
study are not affected by imperfect reliability of the measurement in­
struments. In addition, our first study suggests that the relationship
between SPS and Neuroticism varies by facet, which was not considered
in most studies (for a rare exception, see Bröhl et al., 2020).
Furthermore, our results indicate that SPS assessed by the HSPS is
unrelated to emotion recognition ability. For an ability construct pre­
sumed to be related to the processing of sensory stimuli, a positive
relationship to other stimuli processing abilities (such as emotion
recognition ability) would be an important piece of evidence (see Aron
& Aron, 1997). The LST factor (the only factor that does not appear to be
fully explained by established personality traits) was unrelated to
emotion recognition ability. Instead, the results of our two studies
indicate that LST could be a facet of Neuroticism or a blend of high

9
S. Hellwig and M. Roth
Neuroticism and low Extraversion. This viewpoint is further supported
when considering the content of LST items. LST items often include two
different aspects: arousal by perceived sensory stimuli (which might
relate to Extraversion) and the cognitive appraisal of being over­
whelmed (a characteristic of Neuroticism). From this perspective, the
term “sensory threshold” is somewhat misleading, because the items
also address at the individual’s emotional reaction to sensory stimuli.
However, without a broader assessment of Neuroticism, this remains
rather speculative. Overall, our results suggest that SPS as measured by
HSPS is neither a new personality construct nor an ability construct
involving the processing of sensory stimuli.
4.1. Social desirability of personality traits and the flower metaphor
Why is SPS gaining more and more attention especially but not
exclusively in popular scientific literature? Our results suggest that SPS
can be explained by already established traits (namely Neuroticism,
Introversion, and Openness to Experience) that receive far less attention
outside of science. One reason for this might lie in its positive reinter­
pretation of certain personality traits that are often viewed as socially
undesirable. The low social desirability of Neuroticism and Introversion
becomes obvious when individuals are asked to report their personality
traits under “faking good” instructions (see e.g. Furnham, 1997). In
contrast to traits like “neurotic” or “introverted”, the term “highly sen­
sitive” appears to be positively connotated. In addition, the term implies
an advantage in the form of better sensory abilities. This positive view
appears to be reinforced by the flower metaphor. Although the distinc­
tion between dandelions and orchids was introduced as a way express­
ing interindividual differences in vulnerability, the metaphor has also
been used to refer to the beauty of these plants (see Ellis & Boyce, 2008,
p. 184). Usually, orchids are viewed as precious and rare, while dan­
delions are viewed as less desirable. Indeed, the metaphor is understood
by some to mean that the group of dandelions is “average or ordinary in
outcomes” (e.g. Boyce, 2019, xi). In our view, the flower metaphor is not
helpful for solving the problem of negative evaluations and low accep­
tance of certain personality profiles. Instead, the flower metaphor is
more likely to shift the problem of low desirability from one end of the
trait continuum to the other (with Emotional Stability and Extraversion
becoming less desirable).
4.2. Limitations and future directions
The results of our study are limited to the HSPS since this is currently
the only available measure of SPS in adults. Thus, our conclusions about
the existence of SPS inevitably depend on the psychometric quality of
this measurement instrument. Thus, the results need to be replicated not
only in other samples but also with future instruments claiming to
measure SPS. Furthermore, the results of Study 2 are restricted to a
certain kind of environmental stimuli, namely affective stimuli.
Furthermore, we believe that investigating processes that might
underlie personality traits is indeed an important endeavor. In our view,
Aron and Aron (1997) provided some interesting ideas, but the empir­
ical basis for SPS is currently weak. This is likely due to the rather vague
definitions of SPS and the fact that the measurement instrument strongly
overlaps with previous measures of personality traits. The establishment
and measurement of SPS as a new personality factor would greatly
benefit from a more precise definition of the construct. A clear
conceptualization of SPS is also essential for selecting an adequate
measurement approach – depending on whether SPS is viewed as an
ability construct (Lionetti et al., 2019) which requires performance
measures, or as a typical behavioral style (e.g. Aron & Aron, 1997),
which could be assessed by self-reports. At least for the moment, it re­
mains unclear whether it is even possible to separate SPS theoretically
10
Journal of Research in Personality 93 (2021) 104130
and empirically from established personality theories.
5. Author Note
We would like to thank Ralf Schulze for the adapted version of the parcel
allocation program. We also thank Maike Pisters and Philipp Engelberg
for helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Additional Disclosures
The reported studies are not pre-registered.
The manuscript was written by the first author and reviewed and
supplemented by the second. The study design was developed by the
first author. Both authors made substantial contributions to data
collection. The analyses were done by the first author.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jrp.2021.104130.
References
Acevedo, B. P., Aron, E. N., Aron, A., Sangster, M.-D., Collins, N., & Brown, L. L. (2014).
The highly sensitive brain: An fMRI study of sensory processing sensitivity and
response to others’ emotions. Brain and Behavior, 4(4), 580–594. https://doi.org/
10.1002/brb3.2014.4.issue-410.1002/brb3.242
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests:
Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121(2), 219–245. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.2.219
Aron, E. N. (1996). The highly sensitive person. New York, NY: Harmony.
Aron, E. N. (2002). The highly sensitive child: Helping our children thrive when the world
overwhelms them. London, UK: Thorsons.
Aron, E. (2020). The highly sensitive parent: Be brilliant in your role, even when the world
overwhelms you. London, UK: Thorsons.
Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (1997). Sensory processing sensitivity and its relation to
introversion and emotionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2),
345–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.345
Aron, E. N., Aron, A., & Davies, K. M. (2005). Adult shyness: The interaction of
temperamental sensitivity and an adverse childhood environment. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(2), 181–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0146167204271419
Aron, E. N., Aron, A., & Jagiellowicz, J. (2012). Sensory processing sensitivity: A review
in the light of the evolution of biological responsivity. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 16(3), 262–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311434213
Asendorpf, J. B. (1989). Shyness as a final common pathway for two different kinds of
inhibition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 481–492. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.481
Bänziger, T. (2016). Accuracy of judging emotions. In J. A. Hall, M. Schmid Mast, &
T. V. West (Eds.), The social psychology of perceiving others accurately (pp. 23–51).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bänziger, T., Grandjean, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2009). Emotion recognition from
expressions in face, voice, and body: The Multimodal Emotion Recognition Test
(MERT). Emotion, 9(5), 691–704. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017088
Bernieri, F. J. (2001). Toward a taxonomy of interpersonal sensitivity. In J. A. Hall, &
F. J. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement (pp. 3–20).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Booth, C., Standage, H., & Fox, E. (2015). Sensory-processing sensitivity moderates the
association between childhood experiences and adult life satisfaction. Personality and
Individual Differences, 87, 24–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.020
S. Hellwig and M. Roth
Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (2008). NEO-Fünf-Faktoren-Inventar nach Costa und McCrae.
Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Boyce, W. T. (2019). The orchid and the dandelion: Why some people struggle and how all
can thrive. London, UK: Bluebird.
Bridges, D., & Schendan, H. E. (2019). The sensitive, open creator. Personality and
Individual Differences, 142, 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.016
Bröhl, A. S., Van Leeuwen, K., Pluess, M., De Fruyt, F., Bastin, M., Weyn, S., Goossens, L.,
& Bijttebier, P. (2020). First look at the five-factor model personality facet
associations with sensory processing sensitivity. Current Psychology, 1–12. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00998-5
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice:
The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5–13. https://doi.
org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5
Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and
conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and
Individual Differences, 12(9), 887–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)
90177-D
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockard, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory
research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper Collins
Publishers.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests.
Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
Derryberry, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1988). Arousal, affect, and attention as components of
temperament. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(6), 958–966. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.6.958
DeYoung, C. G., & Gray, J. R. (2009). Personality neuroscience: Explaining individual
differences in affect, behaviour and cognition. In P. J. Corr, & G. Matthews (Eds.),
The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (pp. 323–346). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, B. J., & Boyce, W. T. (2008). Biological sensitivity to context. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 17(3), 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8721.2008.00571.x
Evans, D. E., & Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Developing a model for adult temperament.
Journal of Research in Personality, 41(4), 868–888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrp.2006.11.002
Evans, D. E., & Rothbart, M. K. (2008). Temperamental sensitivity: Two constructs or
one? Personality and Individual Differences, 44(1), 108–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.paid.2007.07.016
Evers, A., Rasche, J., & Schabracq, M. J. (2008). High sensory-processing sensitivity at
work. International Journal of Stress Management, 15(2), 189–198. https://doi.org/
10.1037/1072-5245.15.2.189
Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Charles C.
Thomas.
Falkenstein, T. (2019). The highly sensitive man: Finding strength in sensitivity. London, UK:
Thorsons.
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290–309. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327957pspr0204_5
Freund, P. A., & Kasten, N. (2012). How smart do you think you are? A meta-analysis on
the validity of self-estimates of cognitive ability. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2),
296–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026556
Furnham, A. F. (1997). Knowing and faking one’s five-factor personality score. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 69(1), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327752jpa6901_14
Gerstenberg, F. X. R. (2012). Sensory-processing sensitivity predicts performance on a
visual search task followed by an increase in perceived stress. Personality and
Individual Differences, 53(4), 496–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.019
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The big-five factor
structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., &
Gough, H. G. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of
public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84–96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007
Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck’s theory of personality. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.),
A model of personality (pp. 246–276). Berlin: Springer.
Greven, C. U., Lionetti, F., Booth, C., Aron, E. N., Fox, E., Schendan, H. E., Pluess, M.,
Bruining, H., Acevedo, B., Bijttebier, P., & Homberg, J. (2019). Sensory processing
sensitivity in the context of environmental sensitivity: A critical review and
development of research agenda. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 98,
287–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.01.009
Grimen, H. L., & Diseth, A. (2016). Sensory processing sensitivity: Factors of the Highly
Sensitive Person Scale and their relationships to personality and subjective health
complaints. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 123(3), 637–653. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0031512516666114
Hellwig, S., Roberts, R. D., & Schulze, R. (2020). A new approach to assessing emotional
understanding. Psychological Assessment, 32(7), 649–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/
pas0000822
Jagiellowicz, J., Xu, X., Aron, A., Aron, E., Cao, G., Feng, T., & Weng, X. (2011). The trait
of sensory processing sensitivity and neural responses to changes in visual scenes.
11
Journal of Research in Personality 93 (2021) 104130
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6(1), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/
scan/nsq001
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big
five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John,
R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd
ed., pp. 114–158). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
Johnson, J. S., Spencer, J. P., Luck, S. J., & Schöner, G. (2009). A dynamic neural field
model of visual working memory and change detection. Psychological Science, 20(5),
568–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02329.x
Kagan, J. (1994). Galen’s prophecy: Temperament in human nature. New York: Basic Books.
Konrad, S., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2019). Psychometric properties and validation of a German
High Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS-G). European Journal of Psychological Assessment,
35(3), 364–378. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000411
Lionetti, F., Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Burns, G. L., Jagiellowicz, J., & Pluess, M. (2018).
Dandelions, tulips and orchids: Evidence for the existence of low-sensitive, medium-
sensitive and high-sensitive individuals. Translational Psychiatry, 8, 1–11. https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41398-017-0090-6
Lionetti, F., Pastore, M., Moscardino, U., Nocentini, A., Pluess, K., & Pluess, M. (2019).
Sensory processing sensitivity and its association with personality traits and affect: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 138–152. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jrp.2019.05.013
Liss, M., Mailloux, J., & Erchull, M. J. (2008). The relationships between sensory
processing sensitivity, alexithymia, autism, depression, and anxiety. Personality and
Individual Differences, 45(3), 255–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.04.009
Lockhart, R. S., & Craik, F. I. M. (1990). Levels of processing: A retrospective
commentary on a framework for memory research. Canadian Journal of Psychology/
Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 44(1), 87–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0084237
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2016). The ability model of emotional
intelligence: Principles and updates. Emotion Review, 8(4), 290–300. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1754073916639667
Matthews, G. (2009). Personality and performance: Cognitive processes and models. In
P. J. Corr, & G. Matthews (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology
(pp. 400–426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1258–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.52.6.1258
McCrae, R. R. (1993). Openness to experience as a basic dimension of personality.
Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 13(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.2190/H8H6-
QYKR-KEU8-GAQ0
McGrew, K. S. (2009). CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on
the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence, 37(1),
1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.08.004
Montoya-Pérez, K. S., Ortega, J. I. M., Montes-Delgado, R., Padrós-Blázquez, F., de la
Roca Chiapas, J. M., & Montoya-Pérez, R. (2019). Psychometric properties of the
Highly Sensitive Person Scale in Mexican population. Psychology Research and
Behavior Management, 12, 1081–1086. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S224808
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Author.
Ostendorf, F., & Angleitner, A. (2004). Neo-Persönlichkeitsinventar nach Costa und McCrae.
Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Pluess, M. (2015). Individual differences in environmental sensitivity. Child Development
Perspectives, 9(3), 138–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.2015.9.issue-310.1111/
cdep.12120
Preacher, K. J. (2006). Testing complex correlational hypotheses with structural
equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(4), 520–543. https://doi.org/
10.1207/s15328007sem1304_2
Wang, Y. A., & Rhemtulla, M. (2021). Power analysis for parameter estimation in
structural equation modeling: A discussion and tutorial. Power analysis for parameter
estimation in structural equation modeling: A discussion and tutorial Methods and
Practices in Psychological Science, 4(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2515245920918253
Preacher, K. J., & Coffman, D. L. (2006). Computing power and minimum sample size for
RMSEA [Computer software]. http://www.quantpsy.org/rmsea/rmsea.htm.
Rinn, A. N., Mullet, D. R., Jett, N., & Nyikos, T. (2018). Sensory processing sensitivity
among high-ability individuals: A psychometric evaluation of the Highly Sensitive
Person Scale. Roeper Review, 40(3), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02783193.2018.1466840
Rosenshein, J. B. (2013). Parenting the highly sensitive child: A guide for parents & caregivers
of ADHD, Indigo and Highly Sensitive Children. Bloomington, IN: Balboa Press.
Schlegel, K., Fontaine, J. R. J., & Scherer, K. R. (2019). The nomological network of
emotion recognition ability. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35(3),
352–363. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000396
Schlegel, K., Grandjean, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2014). Introducing the Geneva Emotion
Recognition Test: An example of Rasch-based test development. Psychological
Assessment, 26(2), 666–672. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035246
Şengül-İnal, G., & Sümer, N. (2020). Exploring the multidimensional structure of sensory
processing sensitivity in Turkish samples. Current Psychology, 39(1), 194–206.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9751-0
Slagt, M., Dubas, J. S., van Aken, M. A. G., Ellis, B. J., & Deković, M. (2018). Sensory
processing sensitivity as a marker of differential susceptibility to parenting.
Developmental Psychology, 54(3), 543–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000431
S. Hellwig and M. Roth
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(6), 1269–1279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.09.022
Sobocko, K., & Zelenski, J. M. (2015). Trait sensory-processing sensitivity and subjective
well-being: Distinctive associations for different aspects of sensitivity. Personality and
Individual Differences, 83, 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.045
Sterba, S. K., & Rights, J. D. (2016). Accounting for parcel-allocation variability in
practice: Combining sources of uncertainty and choosing the number of allocations.
12
Journal of Research in Personality 93 (2021) 104130
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51(2–3), 296–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00273171.2016.1144502
Sterba, S. K., & Rights, J. D. (2017). Effects of parceling on model selection: Parcel-
allocation variability in model ranking. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 47–68. https://
doi.org/10.1037/met0000067
Ueno, Y., Takahashi, A., & Oshio, A. (2019). Relationship between sensory-processing
sensitivity and age in a large cross-sectional Japanese sample. Heliyon, 5(10), 1–4.
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02508.