Sensory processing sensitivity associations with mental and somatic health in positive and negative environments: evidence for differential susceptibility

Abstract

Environmental factors may play a role in how the personality trait sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) relates to different health-related outcomes. To better understand vulnerability and resilience in different environments, we investigated associations of SPS with stress-related and neurodevelopmental disorder traits, well-being, and somatic health in a population-based sample of 252 adults. We then tested SPS interactions with lifetime or current measures of positive or negative environments. Overall, higher SPS related to more burnout, anxiety, depression, stress, health complaints and nonprescription medication use, but not to neurodevelopmental disorder traits. Associations with burnout, anxiety, and health complaints remained after controlling for neuroticism. In unfavorable environments, higher SPS related to worse health while, in favorable environments, it related to better health, supporting the theory of SPS as a factor for differential susceptibility to environments. Our work demonstrates that SPS may be a risk factor for stress-related and somatic symptoms, independent of neuroticism.

Sensory processing sensitivity is associated with neural synchrony and functional connectivity during threatening movies

“…Importantly, we linked the negative dimension of SPS to brain responses to threat, indicating that individuals with higher negative dimension SPS may process such stimuli differently, potentially involving altered cognitive resource allocation, particularly within the CEN. While we expected neural alterations in both SPS dimensions, we only observed associations with the negative dimension, supporting existing literature that distinguishes between the two dimensions (Damatac et al, 2023; De Gucht et al, 2022; De Gucht & Woestenburg, 2024) and emphasizing the need to separate them when studying environmental responses. In our study, neural response to threat-related stimuli was mainly linked to the negative aspects of SPS (subscales emotional and physiological reactivity and sensory discomfort ), reflecting distinct processes underlying positive and negative high sensitivity.…”

“…However, this short form was still under development at the time the Healthy Brain Study began, so only 24 of the 26 items were included. The 24-item version has been shown to have good psychometric properties and validated in an independent sample which overlaps with ours here (Damatac et al, 2023).…”

“…SPS is a fundamental, evolutionarily conserved trait (Pluess, 2015) and individual differences stem from a combination of genetic and environmental factors (Aron et al, 2012; Belsky & Pluess, 2009; Greven et al, 2019; Homberg et al, 2016). Also known as “high sensitivity,” higher SPS has been associated with a plethora of observed health-related outcomes: more internalizing problems, burnout, anxiety, and depression symptoms; more displeasure with work and need for recovery; less subjective happiness, life satisfaction, stress-management, and emotion regulation; more ill-health symptoms and nonprescription medication use; and more susceptibility to distractions, moderating memory retention (Andresen et al, 2018; Bakker & Moulding, 2012; Benham, 2006; Booth et al, 2015; Brindle et al, 2015; Damatac et al, 2023; De Gucht et al, 2022; Evers et al, 2008; Iimura & Takasugi, 2022; Jonsson et al, 2014; Liss et al, 2005, 2008; Marhenke et al, 2023; Meredith et al, 2016; Neal et al, 2002; Sobocko & Zelenski, 2015; Yano & Oishi, 2018). Therefore, characterizing the underlying neural mechanisms of SPS can be informative for improving symptom prevention and health promotion in relation to environmental sensitivity.…”

“…The environment exerts greater influence on highly sensitive people, wherein higher SPS has been associated with greater susceptibility to both negative, trait-inducing environments (e.g., threatening life events, stress, or overwhelming sensory input), as well as positive, health-promoting environments (e.g., daily uplifts and social support) (Aron & Aron, 1997; Damatac et al, 2023; Liss et al, 2005; Slagt et al, 2018). One study showed that high SPS participants were more emotionally reactive to positive mood induction than participants with low SPS, while another demonstrated that high SPS participants who were psychophysiologically stressed were more emotionally reactive to threatening terrorism-related pictures than their low SPS counterparts (Lionetti et al, 2018; Rubaltelli et al, 2018).…”