Exploring the Multidimensional Structure of Sensory Processing Sensitivity in Turkish Samples
We compared alternative models to explore the multidimensionality of the Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS; Aron and Aron 1997) on two Turkish samples. Using exploratory factor analysis, first study (N = 412) yielded four factors representing diverse domains of sensory processing sensitivity (SPS). Using both traditional confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), a second study (N = 341) confirmed the multidimensionality of the HSPS, and demonstrated that the four-factor ESEM solution (sensitivity to external stimuli, aesthetic sensitivity, harm avoidance, and sensitivity to overstimulation) was superior to the previously reported alternative models. Four factors were also systematically associated with the external validators including big five personality traits. Findings suggested that a multifaceted approach to SPS representing domain-specific sensitivities is needed.
KeywordsSensory-processing sensitivity Highly sensitive person scale Exploratory structural equation modeling Confirmatory factor analysis
This study was not funded by any institution.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the studies.
- Aron, E. (2010). Psychotherapy and the highly sensitive person: Improving outcomes for that minority of people who are the majority of clients. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
- Cheek, J. M. (1989). Conquering shyness: The battle anyone can win. New York: Dell.Google Scholar
- Child, D. (2006). The essentials of factor analysis (3rd ed.). New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
- Evans, D. E., & Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Development of a model for adult temperament. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 868–888.Google Scholar
- Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Biological dimensions of personality. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality (pp. 244–276). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Gomez, R., Cooper, A., McOrmond, R., & Tatlow, S. (2004). Gray’s reinforcement sensitivity theory: Comparing the separable and joint subsystems hypotheses in the predictions of pleasant and unpleasant emotional information processing. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 289–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gray, J. A. (1987). The psychology of fear and stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Kagan, J. (1994). Galen’s prophecy: Temperament in human nature. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Licht, C., Mortensen, E. L., & Knudsen, G. M. (2011). Association between sensory processing sensitivity and the serotonin transporter polymorphism 5-HTTLPR short/short genotype. Biological Psychiatry, 69, 152S–153S (supplement for Society of Biological Psychiatry Convention and Annual Meeting, abstract, 510).Google Scholar
- Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998-2010). Mplus User’s Guide. Sixth Edition. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
- Şişman, S. (2012). Turkish adaptation of behavioral inhibition system / behavioral activation system scales (BIS/BAS scales): Validity and reliability studies. Studies in Psychology, 32, 1–22.Google Scholar
- Sümer, N. & Sümer, H. C. (2005). Big five personality inventory. Unpublished questionnaire. Middle East Technical University, Ankara.Google Scholar
- Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon Press.Google Scholar