Personality Profile of the Self-Identified Highly Sensitive Person
A Lay Theory Approach
Abstract
Abstract. The current paper presents a detailed examination of a lay theory perspective on the Sensory-Processing-Sensitivity (SPS) personality profile within the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality. The lay SPS personality profile was assessed by asking self-identified highly sensitive people to rate themselves on a Five-Factor Model questionnaire (NEO-PI-3). We applied the NEO-PI-3 norms (domains and facets) and examined the inter-rater agreement of the facets. The sample consisted of 560 (female: 86.43%, Mage = 37.36 years, SDage = 6.64 years, 18.17–47.42 years) self-identified highly sensitive adults. Six facets, in particular, stood out with good and very good inter-rater agreement: participants fell within the highest 23% of the population on facets Fantasy, Aesthetics, Feelings (Openness to Experience); Anxiety, Depression (Neuroticism); and the lowest 23% of the population on the facet Gregariousness (Extraversion).
References
2012). Categorical data analysis (3rd ed.). Wiley.
(1999). Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
(1997). Sensory-processing sensitivity and its relation to introversion and emotionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 345–368. https://doi.org/10.10370022-3514.73.2.345
(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
(2005). Biological sensitivity to context: An evolutionary-developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity. Development and Psychopathology, 17(2), 271–301. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579405050145
(2020). First look at the five-factor model personality facet associations with sensory processing sensitivity. Current Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00998-5
(1992). The five-factor model of personality and its relevance to personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6(4), 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.1992.6.4.343
(2007). Development of a model for adult temperament. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 868–888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.11.002
(1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 378–382. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031619
(2003). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (3rd ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471445428
(1995). The scientific credibility of folk psychology. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203763452
(1988). Lay theories: Everyday understandings of problems in the social sciences. Pergamon Press.
(1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.48.12.1303
(2019). Sensory processing sensitivity in the context of environmental sensitivity: A critical review and development of research agenda. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 98, 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.01.009
(2014). NEO-PI-3 persoonlijkheidsvragenlijst
([NEO-PI-3 Personality Questionnaire] . Hogrefe.2001). The contribution of the lay theories approach to the study of groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(2), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0502_1
(2010). The trait of sensory processing sensitivity and neural responses to changes in visual scenes. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6(1), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq001
(2006). White Americans’ genetic lay theories of race differences and sexual orientation: Their relationship with prejudice toward Blacks, and gay men and lesbians. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430206059863
(1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
(2006). Lay theories and intergroup relations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430206059855
(2020). Serotonin transporter gene (SLC6A4) variation and sensory processing sensitivity – Comparison with other anxiety-related temperamental dimensions. Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine, 8(8), Article e1352. https://doi.org/10.1002/mgg3.1352
(2001). Elements of a lay theory of groups: Types of groups, relational styles, and the perception of group entitativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0502_4
(2018). Dandelions, tulips and orchids: Evidence for the existence of low-sensitive, medium-sensitive and high-sensitive individuals. Translational Psychiatry, 8(24). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-017-0090-6
(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
(2001). Using the five-factor model to represent the DSM-IV personality disorders: An expert consensus approach. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110(3), 401–412. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843x.110.3.401
(1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81
(2005). The NEO-PI-3: A more readable revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84(3), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8403_05
(2001). Personality disorders as extreme variants of common personality dimensions: Can the five-factor model adequately represent psychopathy? Journal of Personality, 69(2), 253–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00144
(2014). A comparison of the criterion validity of popular measures of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder via the use of expert ratings. Psychological Assessment, 26(3), 958–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036613
(2005). Violations of implicit theories and the sense of prediction and control: Implications for motivated person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.245
(2013, April 19). Sensory-processing sensitivity: A potential mechanism of differential susceptibility. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD), Seattle, WA.
(2015). Individual differences in environmental sensitivity. Child Development Perspectives, 9(3), 138–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12120
(2018). Environmental sensitivity in children: Development of the Highly Sensitive Child Scale and identification of sensitivity groups. Developmental Psychology, 54(1), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000406
(2020). People differ in their sensitivity to the environment: An integrated theory, measurement and empirical evidence. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/w53yc
(2015, September 4). Package “ICC.Sample.Size”. https://cran.uni-muenster.de/web/packages/ICC.Sample.Size/ICC.Sample.Size.pdf
(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
(2010). Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary, 8th edition: Paperback. Oxford University Press.
(2017). Development of a Five-Factor Model charisma compound and its relations to career outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 99, 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.12.005
(2021). Psychometric properties of the Highly Sensitive Child Scale across developmental stage, gender, and country. Current Psychology, 40(7), 3309–3325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00254-5
(2012). Sample size formulas for estimating intraclass correlation coefficients with precision and assurance. Statistics in Medicine, 31(29), 3972–3981. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5466
(