Elaine N. Aron's Blog

Part I. Research: Why a New Measure of High Sensitivity, or What Was So (Annoyingly) Wrong with the Old One?

For this blog, instead of a straightforward summary of what I see as the best of the latest research, I am going to explain more about the old and new measures of high sensitivity, AKA Sensory Processing Sensitivity (SPS), because most of the latest research is still based on the old measure, which is, well, inherently flawed in certain ways, although not fatally so. Indeed, the two scales give similar results, overall. Which is great. But the flaws have become a serious problem.

If you are really interested in the research on SPS, it is very important that you read this rather long blog post carefully.

I began explaining to you the new measure back in December here, when it first appeared on my website and Michael Pluess’s site here, I told a bit about how we created it, carefully, and that it is shorter, eighteen items, and has six factors, with a nice balance of positive and negative factors and items. The six factors, with three questions (“items”) in each, are Sensitivity to Details, Depth of Processing, Social Sensitivity, Sensitivity to Positive Experiences, Emotional Reactivity, and Overstimulation. Nice, yes?

But, Yes, a Scale of 1 to 7 is Inconvenient When Taking it on Paper—Why Was That Done?

Actually, the old HSP Scale also used a 1 to 7 scale for research, but it being much longer, on our website and on paper for clinical use, it seemed okay to just use true/false or yes/no.

But there is no shorter version of this scale, so each item must be rated on a scale of 1 to 7, as I will explain. This is no problem if you take it on one of the websites. But if you are an individual or a mental health professional wanting to give or take this test on paper, it means you have to add up 18 different numbers. Why was it done this way?

I need to start with the fact that this measure (like most valid psychological measures) was created for research purposes, not for diagnosing or categorizing an individual. (I always think deciding on an individual’s sensitivity should involve more than a self-report questionnaire anyway.) The research function of the measure is much enhanced by using a scale of 1 to 7, called a Likert Scale. You can see why. Each answer is more precise than just a yes or no. That allowed us to use only 18 questions to cover all 6 factors, 3 questions for each–short enough for a researcher to include it in a study and have other measures in the study too. (And if a clinician gives the measure by reading out the questions from each factor and getting an answer that falls between “never” and “extremely,” that gives a more precise picture of the individual.)

Okay, What Is a Factor?

It is very important as you read this post that you understand what a factor is within a measure. A factor is uncovered statistically within the full list of items in a measure by looking for items that group together—that is, if those filling out the measure said yes or answered with a high number to one item and then on another they were very likely to say yes or give a high number, and then on another, but answered lower on others, those on which people gave similar answers are seen as a subgroup of items within the measure that can be grouped together as a factor. Then each factor is given a name. Think “aspect” or “major characteristic.”

Factors can be deliberately created when making a measure, as we did for our new measure. That is, a researcher can create items that, if you answered high on one, you were likely to answer high on other, similar items.

If I were creating a measure to help a city person know if an animal in a pasture is a horse, cow, goat, lama, or whatever, I might ask Qs about the height, the number of legs, the length of the hair, the type of tail or hooves, and also questions about behavior—does it often run, climb, approach people, make noises, does it seem like it can be ridden. So there would be sets of items that would create an appearance factor and another set of items would create a behavior factor. Back to the factors in measuring high sensitivity in a moment.

Did We Really Need a New Measure?

People tell me that when they take the new measure they come out about the same as when they take the old one. That’s really excellent news, actually. We hoped the new measure would work the same, so that past research studies that used the old measure were not invalidated. But there are two problems with the old measure—one is what the measure says about the trait, and the other is its factors.

In a way a measure is like an inventory, or even an advertisement for the thing being measured. Reading the items, you come to understand the thing it is measuring. Back to my measure of what-animal-is-it, my items so far are very factual, but I might include questions that ask about the animal’s beauty–how much people think this animal is nice to watch; how much are its ears small and delicate or large and floppy; how soft is its fur, how much it feels good looking into its eyes. Now the measure is looking for something more positive.

The old HSP Scale, created back in the 1990s, after interviewing 39 people, describes a trait that has many problems associated with it—for example, needing or preferring to avoid noise, violent TV, chaos, making mistakes, hunger, caffeine, or being under pressure to do a lot. The items are also mostly negatively worded. I suppose the people I interviewed talked mostly about the problems with being highly sensitive, not the more subtle positive side, such as being more prone than others to notice beauty, feel empathy, or think deeply. And I did not know enough to focus on that side of the trait.

So, it gave an accurate yet one-sided “advertisement” for high sensitivity.

As for the other problem, the HSP Scale factors, in those days you aimed for a measure that produced one factor—that measured all aspects, showing that if a person answered yes to one, they were likely to answer yes to all the others. The astounding thing to us was that the HSP Scale statistically was one factor. This was true in spite of the items being so varied–for example, being bothered by pain, easily startled, conscientious, and having a rich inner life. It being one factor suggested that all of these different behaviors were caused by one underlying trait, sensitivity. It was beautiful, really. One factor.

However, times change in the statistical world, and you now can take a measure like the HSP Scale, with its many varied items, and “force” it to show its underlying factors, even if they are also highly related to each other. In 2004 Smolewska, McCage, and Woody published an important paper on the components of the HSP Scale, naming three factors: Aesthetic Sensitivity (AES), Low Sensory Threshold (LST), and Ease of Excitation (EOE).

What Is the Problem with Having Three Sub-Factors?

People began to make extensive use of these three aspects in their research. It seemed as if no one but me had noticed that the factors consisted of one list of positive items, 7 out of the 25 items on the research version of the HSP Scale, and two longer lists of negatively worded items that are honestly difficult to tell apart. Here are the positive ones, all 7, one of the three factors:

Do you have a rich, complex inner life? Do you seem to be aware of subtleties in your environment?Are you deeply moved by the arts or music? Are you conscientious? When people are uncomfortable in a physical environment do you tend to know what needs to be done to make it more comfortable (like changing the lighting or the seating)? Do you notice and enjoy delicate or fine scents, tastes, sounds, works of art? Do you find yourself needing to withdraw during busy days, into bed or into a darkened room or any place?

Even the last item, that could be negative, is positively worded. The name the factor was given, “Aesthetic Sensitivity,” was clearly a stretch. Conscientiousness?

Now compare these 7 items to some of the items in the two other factors, which are negatively worded or about negative experiences:

Some items from the “Ease of Excitation” factor:

Do you tend to be more sensitive to pain? Do you startle easily? Do you get rattled when you have a lot to do in a short amount of time? Are you annoyed when people try to get you to do too many things at once?Do you try hard to avoid making mistakes or forgetting things?

Some items from the “Low Sensory Threshold” factor:

Are you easily overwhelmed by things like bright lights, strong smells, coarse fabrics, or sirens close by?Are you made uncomfortable by loud noises? Do you make a point to avoid violent movies and TV shows? Do you become unpleasantly aroused when a lot is going on around you?Are you bothered by intense stimuli, like loud noises or chaotic scenes?

Again, these two factors are actually hard to tell apart from their contents. They are simply about the negative side of being highly sensitive.

What Kinds of Problems Are Created by the Old Measure and its Three Sub-factors?

A key issue is what is measured by negatively worded items in general, compared to positively worded items. Given the original one-factor solution, I think it is safe to say that most HSPs experience all three factors—the positive and the negative side of being an HSP. Yet the impression has developed that the three factors represent different types of HSPs, and the ones answering high on Aesthetic Sensitivity (AES) are healthier in some way. But some people, some HSPs even, may answer more negatively worded items than another person for several reasons not directly about related to the items.

An HSP may want to be very honest and accurate, and not shirk the negative. Indeed, a problem with questionnaires is that people often answer with a positive bias, putting a “rosy glow” on their answers. HSPs probably do the opposite.They may have a personality that tends to see things more negatively, for whatever reason. Perhaps they had a difficult childhood.Perhaps they were in a bad mood the day they took the test.Perhaps they are going through a difficult period in their lives.Maybe they are not even HSPs, but have problems going on that could cause them to answer some of these items like an HSP.

Another key problem is the issue of what correlates with these subfactors. Most research with measures looks for a statistical correlation between the score on the measure and something else. Score on a measure of impulsiveness and number of driving tickets. Score on a measure of athletic interest and number of hours spent each week playing a sport. A correlation means that when one thing is found, the other is often found. They are associated. That is all. But there is an important rule about correlation that even good researchers forget: Correlation does not mean causation. Impulsiveness does not necessarily cause driving in an manner that gets you driving tickets. If animals with longer legs run more, it can seem that long legs cause more running. (Or, less logical in this case, that running lengthens your legs.) But goats like to run and have relatively short legs. Lamas have long legs and do not seem to be big runners. Often a third thing is the cause—breeding within a species to make for faster animals. Fast horses are useful so they have been bred for speed. Fast goats or cows? Not so much!

There is a tendency to think, for example, that if a person scores high on the HSP Scale and is often depressed, that being an HSP causes depression. But in fact we know that differential susceptibility is at work here. HSPs with good-enough childhoods are not prone to depression. The third thing is the quality of their childhood. But it turns out that the negatively worded factors of the old HSP Scale correlate more with depression, so it is often implied that people who score high on these factors are the ones who are more depressed. There is not enough consideration of the five other reasons or “causes” I gave above about why people might score high on these factors.

You can see why creating our own six factors, with a balance of positive and negative factors and items, was necessary. It not only avoids anyone else finding other, less accurate factors, but solves the “advertisement” problem by giving a complete picture of SPS, as we understand it so far, both positive and negative.

Some Recent Studies Emphasizing the Three Sub-factors

I do not wish to be negative about these studies. They are just recent examples. There are probably 50 more like them. I just want you to get a sense of the problem. I wish we had gotten the new measure out years ago, but a good measure takes time. Meanwhile…

Golonka, K., & Gulla, B. (2021). Individual differences and susceptibility to burnout syndrome: Sensory processing sensitivity and its relation to exhaustion and disengagement. Frontiers in psychology , 12 , 751350.

This study of burnout surveyed 516 adult employees, 236 were women and the average age was 29. The sample consisted of employees in IT (26%) and financial businesses, with 10% of the participants in managerial positions. Most worked full time and had completed higher education.

Higher scores on the measure of SPS correlated with burnout symptoms, except that higher scores on the AES factor (which they renamed “sensing the subtle”) showed the opposite effect. They said AES may be a protective factor against burnout. The question is, what is the causation here, when someone answers higher on AES, with all of its positive items, and also answers that they are not experiencing much burnout. Does having this wonderful protective factor keep you from developing burn out? Or does not having burn out make you answer more positively? Or is a third thing operating. For example, if you understand you are highly sensitive, perhaps you view the trait more positively and also are able to take better care of yourself and avoid jobs or work situation that lead to burnout.

Iimura, S. (2021). Highly sensitive adolescents: The relationship between weekly life events and weekly socioemotional well‐being. British Journal of Psychology , 112 (4), 1103-1129.

This study looked at how 114 Japanese adolescents in Tokyo rated, over four weeks, two of their weekly life events and their well-being that week. The relation of well-being and sensitivity varied from week to week, sometimes making it look like sensitivity led to lower well-being, and on other weeks like the sensitive adolescents gained more than others from positive experiences, an example of “vantage sensitivity.”

The main part of the study did not look at the factors, which was good in a way. But in a footnote the author made the extraordinary observation that when the results were reanalyzed using only the AES subscale, the findings for all weeks supported a strong vantage sensitivity model. Students scoring high on the AES factor were gaining more than students without the trait from their positive experiences. The question of causation jumps out. Were students scoring high on AES, the positively worded questions, more prone to seeing everything more positively? Or were their experiences of the weekly events actually more positive, causing them to answer more items on the AES factor? Or could there be another possibility? Maybe these sensitive adolescents were experiencing an especially supportive school or home life, so that they could find something good in most of their experiences and also answer more positively-worded items.

Maracineanu, I. G., & Truta, C. (2025). The Relationship between Well-Being and Hypersensitivity among Young Adults. Bulletin of the Transylvania University of Braşov. Series VII: Social Sciences• Law , 43-52.

These authors looked at the well-being of young adults with “hypersensitivity,” and found that for the most part their well-being was lower. However, this was in fact true only for those high on the two negative factors. The authors concluded that “People who have difficulty tolerating strong sensory stimuli are more prone to stress and discomfort, which can limit positive experiences.”

The message is that difficulty with intense stimuli means missing out on positive experiences. But these “people who have difficulty tolerating strong sensory input” are all HSPs, not a separate kind of HSP. They are probably having at least adequate positive experiences, this being a part of the trait. Yes, being high on the two negative factors was associated with lower well-being, whereas Aesthetic Sensitivity correlated with all of the positive measures in the study: Wellbeing, Positive emotions, Engagement, Good relationships, Finding Meaning in life, Accomplishment, and Happiness. But of course Aesthetic Sensitivity was also correlated with the overall measure and the two negative factors, Ease of Excitation and Low Sensory Threshold. That is, as I said before, these are not different groups of people. Most HSP have all three factors operating and experience some well-being and some negative times–to different degrees, maybe, but we do not have to look for a special subset of HSPs who are miserable due to overstimulation so their positive experiences are limited. Other issues, third causes, will be limiting their positive experiences, not their difficulty tolerating noise!

Christou, A. I., Fanti, K., Mavrommatis, I., & Soursou, G. (2025). Parent–Child Eye Gaze Congruency to Emotional Expressions Mediated by Child Aesthetic Sensitivity. Children .

You can see here the issue with the three factors in the very title of the study. Children high on Aesthetic Sensitivity behaved differently from other HSCs, but the reasons were barely explored, and certainly not the issue of positive versus negative items. They were simply the children, some special type of HSC according to the researchers, whom they chose to focus on.

A Few More Points About Measuring SPS

As we expected, while we slowly worked on the new measure and told the world that the old one had some limitations, others made new measures. A pretty good one is by De Gucht, V., Woestenburg, D. H., & Wilderjans, T. F. (2022). The different faces of (high) sensitivity, toward a more comprehensive measurement instrument. Development and validation of the sensory processing sensitivity questionnaire (SPSQ). Journal of Personality Assessment, 104(6), 784-799.

This measure aimed to capture more of the positive side of the trait. But it is very long–43 items And contains no items on depth of processing (what I consider the foundation of the trait). These are its six factors: Sensory Sensitivity to Subtle Internal and External Stimuli, Emotional and Physiological Reactivity, Sensory Discomfort, Sensory Comfort, Social-Affective Sensitivity, and Aesthetic Sensitivity.

Another measure, originally in German, was created by Danièle Anne Gubler, Tobias Janelt, Marcus Roth, Katja Schlegel, Jasmin Guggisberg & Stefan Johannes Troche: (2025) The DOES Scale: Measuring Sensory Processing Sensitivity as a Trait Constellation, Journal of Personality Assessment.

This measure has 20 items divided into the four DOES factors we always talk about. (Depth of processing, easily Overstimulated, strong Emotions/Empathy, and Sensitive to Subtle.) Thus, this measure leaves out what the new HSP-R includes, empathy as something separate from emotion and also positive sensory experiences.

I know there are quite a few other measures that people have made up, compensating for the fact that the old scale had a copyright that did not allow it to be used for anything but clinical or research purposes. These made-up measures are questionable, of course, not having been validated in research studies. But hopefully these will fade away. The new measure can be used on anyone’s website if they ask permission from Michael Pluess and print the references at the bottom of the pdf. The pdf is there on my website and on Michael’s, with what must be cited at the bottom.

So that’s the measuring-SPS saga, Remember, a questionnaire is not the trait. Just a bunch of questions!

Part II: HSPs and the Origin of Religion

Because this first half of my post was SO long, I will keep this “spiritual” half brief. I thought you would find it interesting that there is a theory that HSPs played a major role in the origin of religion and spirituality. Two experts on the origin of religion, Margaret Rappaport and Christopher Corbally, cite the research on the trait of high sensitivity as support for their theory that the evolution of this trait in humans was a building block in the evolution of religion. In their article “Evolution of Religious Capacity in Genus Homo,” published in 2018 in Zygon (a peer-reviewed journal of science and religion), they suggest that religious feeling evolved out of compassion, and compassion must have three steps: A certain perception of a situation, sensitivity to its meaning, and then decision making, deciding to act. Think of our six factors—empathy and depth of processing surely lead to compassion. The authors also reason that high sensitivity must have been, and still is, more often present in those who fill religious functions.

This is all theory, not data, but the reasoning from the evidence satisfied the peer reviewers of the journal. And it makes sense. Another way to frame their ideas is that sensitivity to one’s world inevitably produces the “differential susceptibility” we are always talking about. HSPs are differentially susceptible to the entire world–more deeply affected by both the good events and people and the sad, ignorant, or simply difficult things. It seems that HSPs in particular may have always tended to see better when people were struggling and try to help, to celebrate the good in music and ritual, and to try to figure out where evil comes from. We wondered why some people cheat, lie, or even murder, what human actions might affect disasters such as droughts or earthquakes, and of course what happens after death.

Probably we HSPs have always craved to talk about all this, to explore it, while the majority of people gave it less thought. Until, according to these scholars, the rains failed, some tyrant tried to take over, or death came unexpectedly. Then the majority would want to know what the more thoughtful and kind minority, those HSPs, had to say about it. What did they think caused evil? What did they do to avoid bad things happening to them or to manage how they felt afterwards? Their answers may have been part of the rise of religion.

I’m not sure you need to read their article (actually, it is in three parts). If you do bring it up using Google Scholar, you can use Control F to search for the word sensitivity. It will give you a quick sense of how they think about it. This is the full reference:

Rappaport, M. B., & Corbally, C. (2018). EVOLUTION OF RELIGIOUS CAPACITY IN THE GENUS HOMO: TRAIT COMPLEXITY IN ACTION THROUGH COMPASSION: with Margaret Boone Rappaport and Christopher Corbally,“Evolution of Religious Capacity in the Genus Homo: Origins and Building Blocks”; Margaret Boone Rappaport and Christopher Corbally,“Evolution of Religious Capacity in the Genus Homo: Cognitive Time Sequence”; and Margaret Boone Rappaport and Christopher Corbally,“Evolution of Religious Capacity in the Genus Homo: Trait Complexity in Action through …. Zygon®, 53(1), 198-239.

View more on Elaine N. Aron's website »

1 like · Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on August 03, 2025 08:13

Most Recent Research & Belief Versus Actual Experience

As usual, Part I of this blog post summarizes the latest interesting research. There are only two studies this time, but the first is an especially good one. The second just adds emphasis. Part II is about something more “spiritual,” related to my current interest and upcoming book, Spirituality Through a Highly Sensitive Lens.

Part I: Summary of Latest Interesting Research

HS Parents, “for Better and for Worse”

Lionetti, F., Spinelli, M., Bosmans, G., D’Urso, G., Fasolo, M., & Pluess, M. (2025). Is environmental sensitivity relevant to understand parenting? Observational studies with mothers of young children. Journal of Family Psychology,

When studies use self-report measures of parenting, HS parents often come out looking less competent, but these researchers wondered if the deeper processing of HS parents causes them to describe their own parenting as worse than observers might. To avoid that problem, two studies in Italy observed mothers with infants rather than asking them to describe in a questionnaire how they parent. In the first study, HS mothers were a bit more intrusive when their infants were 3 months old and less intrusive than other parents at 9 months. That was the only difference observed. In the second study, HS mothers with a history of “Adverse Childhood Experiences” (ACEs) were found to be less attuned to their 3-month-old infants and more stressed. But in the same study HS mothers had more adaptive parental responses than others if they had higher physiological self-regulation, something on which HSPs can vary. In this study they looked at “respiratory sinus arrhythmia,” a good thing to have, in that it is a measure of the coordination of your heart and breathing, and similar to vagal tone, measured in this study, which I have also discussed: Moscardino, U., Scrimin, S., Lionetti, F., & Pluess, M. (2021). Environmental sensitivity and cardiac vagal tone as moderators of the relationship between family support and well-being in low SES children: An exploratory study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, [link]

That is, high sensitivity was not directly related to worse parenting, but rather it made mothers more receptive to environmental (ACEs) and inner physiological factors, for better and for worse.

Bottom Line: Understanding HS parents is complicated because they may differ from other parents in systematic ways when they are asked to fill out a questionnaire about how they parent. Additionally, differential susceptibility enters in—with poor childhoods they may parent worse than others. But certain physiological factors looked at in this study, among many other things, may make them better than others at parenting.

HSPs Flourish When Connected To Nature

Carroll, S., O’Brien, A., Lionetti, F., O’Reilly, A., & Setti, A. (2025). Flourishing as a highly sensitive person: a mixed method study on the role of nature connectedness and chaotic home environment. Frontiers in Psychology , 16 , 1480669.

Here is yet another study of how HSPs do better if connected to nature, this time with 856 participants over 40, surveyed for their level of SPS (high means being an HSP), “flourishing,” current chaos in the home, and nature connectedness. Flourishing was positively associated with nature connectedness and age and negatively with higher SPS. But if you were over 50, nature connectedness increased the chances of flourishing if you were an HSPs, while it did not affect how chaos affected HSPs. When 12 participants were interviewed, they reported significant benefits from nature. The authors conclude that, “overall, the results showed that connecting with nature significantly contributes to flourishing in highly sensitive individuals, particularly in middle to older age.”

Bottom Line: Again and again we see, get out in nature if you want to flourish! The older you get, the more true it is.

Part II: Belief Versus Actual Experience:

What It Takes

In these blog posts on the transcendent, I would like to provide you with something factual and something practical. I will start with facts. According to the Pew Research Center, as of 2024, 86% of adults living in the U.S. believe people have a soul or spirit in addition to their physical body, 83% believe in God or a universal spirit, and 79% believe there is something spiritual beyond the natural world, even if we can’t see it. This is all less true for atheists or agnostics, of course, but still, even many of them agree with these statements. And all of this is about the same globally. Further, I suspect HSPs are at the high end, above 86%. You do not need much from me on these topics.

Belief in the West, Actual Experience Coming from the East

Still, all of that is about belief. What about experience? Western spiritual teaching tends to be more about ideas and words in the form of sermons, books, and prayers, and then you believe in those ideas. Eastern teachings focus much more on the experience of the transcendent—experiences of pure being, the Absolute, God (in Vedanta, not Buddhism). Their sermons, books, and prayers mostly aim to foster that experience. The experience itself is sought and repeatedly experienced until it becomes permanent, sometimes described as nirvana or liberation.

You, however, may have already had some powerful experiences. Roughly half of those polled in the U.S. say they have had a “mystical” experience, and a few have said it has transformed their lives permanently, in which case researchers called it a “spiritually transformative experience.” So it seems to be human nature. And again, these experiences may be even more common among HSPs.

However, in the West, slipping from ordinary life into a permanently transformed state is very rare. Eastern teachings, in contrast, emphasize that almost anyone can do it, through slow, consistent brain changes, using meditation and related practices, such as yoga.

About 17 to 20% of people in the U.S. do yoga or meditate. I suspect that the percentage would be higher among HSPs. I certainly have encouraged HSPs to try meditation, to help them regulate their emotions, recover from or prevent overstimulation, and generally stay calm. Those who meditate and do yoga say it improves their well-being in a variety of ways, but I doubt many are thinking about its original purpose, awakening or enlightenment. (Yoga in the sense of bodily poses was meant to enhance meditation.) That may be one reason why, although I cannot find any data on how many people meditate consistently, every day, my impression is that most do not. Or they begin and then after a few months quit entirely. So perhaps this is something I can help with.

The Reason You Need Consistent Practice

Before considering the reasons people stop, perhaps it would help to see why one might regret it later. There is a huge body of research on the benefits of meditation, from making you more effective in your work to slowing down the aging process–but all these benefits require consistent practice, and they accumulate over years. This is due to neuroplasticity, that whatever we do consistently changes the brain in that direction. Our mind gets used to the state created by meditation and begins to learn how to stay in it when we are not meditating. It cannot learn that, however, unless we consistently go there. As Transcendental Meditation teachers like to say, you dip the cloth in the dye (the inner experience), then fade it in the sun, until eventually it no longer fades.

With that in mind, I think the flaws in the logic of the reasons for stopping meditation become clearer.

The Reasons People Say They Stop

First, “It took too much time.” Really, “too much”? Everything valuable takes some time. It is a question of priorities. If you have children, you make time for them. If you want a garden, you take time to tend to it. (One term Buddha used for meditation was “cultivation,” in that it takes time to cultivate a mind.) If you want major permanent improvement in your brain, you take time for it. And often one finds one’s life becomes more efficient, so that you may have less time for work, yet accomplish more when you are doing it. Less time for “fun things,” but find them more fun.

As an example of just one study of the effects of meditation on the brain, Luders, Cherbuin, and Kurth in 2015 published research in Frontiers in Psychology finding that while the human brain begins deteriorating after the first two decades of life, in their study of 100 long-term meditators (age 24-77 years), using various types of meditation, the decline (looking at grey matter in this case) was much more limited than in a matched control group. Isn’t it worth it, long-term, to have your brain intact?

Second, “I wasn’t good at it.” This response always makes me sad. Since meditation came to the West, a great deal has been learned about how to teach it. Basically, everyone can learn to meditate. It is not difficult. Indeed, it should feel effortless. But teachers do vary in how well they teach. If you do not find your meditation easy, find a new method or a new teacher.

A common problem is that being used to working hard to make progress, meditators often work at meditating well too. Often new meditators will hear about others’ experiences and start comparing themselves. Teachers sometimes encourage this, but if you know you are meditating correctly, try to avoid comparing yourself. Your brain is unique with unique needs.

Or new meditators will have a very deep, fulfilling experience and then try to make that happen again. But every meditation is different. And when they fail to recreate that special moment, they start straining and then they have a “bad” meditation. A few of those and they feel they are not good at meditating. Certain advanced Buddhist practices do require some effort, but not strain. When you start thinking you are bad at meditating, revisit your teacher to be reminded about how to meditate and how well you are doing.

Third, “I didn’t get much from it.” Here the problem is having the wrong expectations. Again, meditation works gradually on the whole brain, and the real purpose is a total transformation, sometimes called enlightenment. Specific problems such as insomnia or anxiety may not be immediately fixed. You have to give it time, preferably at least a year. And the changes you notice may not be the ones you expected, but just as good, such as improvements in relationships because you are a kinder, calmer person after your daily meditation.

All of this is not meant as a sermon or lecture. Please understand that. I want you to decide for yourself about meditation and everything else “spiritual.” I simply want you to be well informed when you decide. (That is the sole purpose of my book coming out in the spring, Spirituality Through a Highly Sensitive Lens.)

View more on Elaine N. Aron's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on May 20, 2025 09:07

Part I: The Latest Research & Part II: The Container and the Contained

This is the third time I have tried this—beginning with a report of some of the latest research, and then in the second part exploring something “Spiritual.” Here are the five studies I selected for Part I. There were others—more and more research is being published on HSPs. But I thought readers would gain the most from these.

CLARIFYING SPS, AUTISM, AND ADHD–AND MUCH MORE

Damatac, C. G., ter Avest, M. J., Wilderjans, T. F., De Gucht, V., Woestenburg, D. H., Landeweerd, L., … & Greven, C. U. (2025). Exploring sensory processing sensitivity: Relationships with mental and somatic health, interactions with positive and negative environments, and evidence for differential susceptibility. Current Research in Behavioral Sciences , 8 , 100165.

We are often asked about the relationship between Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) and SPS as well as its relation to Attention Deficit Disorder (ADHD). This complicated, ambitious study looked at both these issues as well as differential susceptibility to mental and physical health and life satisfaction. In case you get mired down in the details, here is what you probably most want to know: This study did not find that overall the measures they used for autism, ADHD, and SPS were all measuring something similar. However, factors within the measures overlap. That is, there is an overlap in some areas but not all. That is, some of the same people answer yes to items on two or three of the measures.

The participants were 252 adults from the Netherlands’ Healthy Brain Study, which includes 1000 persons selected to be a good representation of the larger population, except all are aged 30–39 years (in the midst of life, past thresholds like marriage, first child, and first job). They filled out several measures, but most important for us, they took De Gucht’s measure of SPS, involving six factors. These are similar to the HSP-R’s six factors, except the De Gucht measure (the Sensory Processing Questionnaire or SPSQ) does not include depth of processing. To make sense of the rest of the study, you need to know what these six are: Sensory Sensitivity to Subtle Internal and External Stimuli, Emotional and Physiological Reactivity, Sensory Discomfort, Sensory Comfort/Pleasure, Social-Affective Sensitivity, and Esthetic Sensitivity. (Clearly this is very similar to the revised HSP Scale, the HSP-R.)

Importantly, there was no statistically significant association between De Gucht’s overall measure of SPS and the six-item ADHD measure or the longer measure of ASD. That is, this study does not support the idea that SPS is simply either ASD or ADHD. There were however associations between SPS, ASD, and ADHD on some SPS factors: “Sensory sensitivities” and “emotional and physiological reactivity” from the new measure and “ease of overstimulation” from the old HSP Scale are features that high SPS, ASD, and ADHD have in common. That is, these specific traits or experiences are common for all three to some degree, which is why they can seem to be the same trait if one only looks at being easily overstimulated.

As for ASD in particular, among the subscales of the ASD measure (which were attention to detail, childhood behavior onset, limited imagination, limited social skills, and rigidity), “limited imagination” was especially not associated with SPS and among the SPS factors, “sensory comfort” and “social affective sensitivity” were not associated with ADS. That is, these are ways SPS is not like ASD. Regarding ADHD, only the “inattention” aspect of that measure had small associations with subscales of SPS, mainly, again, “higher emotional and physiological reactivity.”

The study also tried to look at both positive and negative environments, in childhood and in the present, in order to continue to understand differential susceptibility, the tendency for HSPs to be more affected than others by both good and bad environments. As expected, HSPs with positive histories and present situations reported more life satisfaction than those without the trait, while those with negative histories and present situations were more likely to have autistic traits (that is, they answered yes to more items on the ASD measure).

An odd result was that HSPs who had more of what were called “uplifting” events during a given week were more likely to exhibit autistic traits! But most of these uplifting events were very stimulating: Relating well with your spouse or lover; relating well with friends; completing a task; eating out; visiting, phoning, or writing someone; or spending time with family. These all could be a source of overstimulation and increase emotional and physiological reactivity, an SPSQ subscale correlated with autistic traits. My guess is that by the time an HSP has been “uplifted” by some of these, they will want to withdraw, as measured by items on the autism scale such as “not liking parties” or “not liking having your daily routine disturbed.” I think the point is that it can be difficult to find the right measures of positive outcomes for HSPs—what is “uplifting” for others may not be for us.

The authors also looked at health, and found that higher SPS related to more burnout, anxiety, depression, stress, health complaints, and nonprescription medication use, even after controlling for neuroticism. However, other studies I have cited [link to that blog https://hsperson.com/are-highly-sensi... ]indicate that stress may be the main underlying cause of health complaints in HSPs, but this study did not separate out stress.

This is a complicated study, and I am sure I have not done it justice. But it is a fine example of what is to come in research with SPS—for example, more teasing out of the differences among ASD, ADHD, and SPS, and more detailed studies of differential susceptibility.

Bottom Line: Again, this study did not find that overall measures of autism, attention deficit disorder, and SPS were correlated. That is, SPS did not appear to be the same as either trait. However, factors within the measures did correlate with SPS. That is, there is an overlap in some areas but not all. And if an HSP had a negative history, or too many “uplifting” experiences in a week, they scored higher on some aspects of the measure of ASD. (And remember, it is possible to be an HSP AND in addition to having ASD or ADHD.) But they are not one, single trait or condition.

HIGHLY SENSITIVE ADOLESCENTS FEEL MORE PHYSICAL PAIN THAN OTHERS

Hochreuter, J., Wehrli, S., Locher, C., Lionetti, F., Kossowsky, J., Pluess, M., & Koechlin, H. (2025). Painfully Sensitive: How Sensory Processing Sensitivity Affects Healthy Adolescents’ Perception of Pain. Journal of Pain Research , 719-733.

A hundred healthy adolescents, aged 16 to 19, completed questionnaires and participated in an experimental heat pain paradigm. As a direct measure of pain, participants were asked to raise the intensity of the heat on their hand until it became “painful,” and then to stop. How high that level was and how long it took to reach that level was the direct measure of pain. This was done three times, and after each time all participants were asked to report how painful the whole thing had been, from zero to ten. Highly sensitive adolescents were more sensitive to pain than others as measured during the procedure itself, However, they did not report experiencing more pain than others.

In another part of the experiment, all participants were shown photos intended to make them happy, sad, or neutral, to see if this affected their experience of the pain, but these had little impact on any participants (the authors realized the photos they used were so dated—puppies, birthday cakes, snakes, auto accidents—that they were not likely to affect any modern adolescent!). Finally, the authors used questionnaires to look at the quality of parenting these teenagers were receiving, their social support, and their emotional regulation. None of this had very much effect on any participants’ experience of pain, even HSCs. That is, regardless of other factors, HSCs simply physically felt more pain.

Bottom Line: I repeat, HSPs, at least in adolescence, seem to be more sensitive physically to pain, even if they do not report it. (This makes me think of the many HSPs who have told me that they know they are more sensitive to pain than others are, but are not very inclined to admit to it—that is, complain about it. How many times have we been told “Don’t be so sensitive? It’s nothing. It’s all in your head!”)

HARDLY “BREAKING NEWS”: GOING TO THE DENTIST IS MORE STRESSFUL FOR HSPS

Golonka, K., Gulla, B., Kościelniak, D., Darczuk, D., Cienkosz-Stepanczak, B., Bystrowska, B., … & Krzyściak, W. (2025). Sensory processing sensitivity in adult dental patients and its relation to perceived stress, cortisol, and serotonin secretion. Scientific Reports , 15 (1), 1-14.

This study looked at 157 adult dental patients on the day of a routine dental visit. Patients took the HSP Scale, a measure of feeling stressed, and one of positive and negative emotions, plus various biochemical tests. The higher the patient’s score on the HSP Scale, the more they reported feeling stressed and having negative emotions, plus they had higher levels of cortisol (a sign of stress) accumulated over the last few months as measured by hair samples. The authors saw various reasons why this would be so and suggested some effort could be made to help HSPs during dental appointments.

Okay, I will make this personal. Thank goodness and amen. For me, going to the dentist has always involved stress, how much depends on what is being done and the kindness of the dentist. To keep the stress from ruining my life for weeks in advance of the appointment, I learned not to think about it until the day I was going. And I have always taken crazy care of my teeth to avoid anything difficult. But just getting my teeth cleaned is painful. (It is not painful for my non-HSP husband, who falls asleep during teeth cleaning). The last time I had my teeth cleaned I took two acetaminophens beforehand and it actually helped. I’m not saying you should. It was probably just a placebo effect. But the big point is, if going to the dentist bothers you, it’s probably your sensitivity—to pain, to anxiety about the condition of your teeth, to fear of criticism for not taking proper care of your teeth, and all the rest. Once again, high sensitivity explains us to ourselves.

Bottom Line: Especially given that HSPs are usually physically more sensitive to pain (see above), it might not be surprising that going to the dentist makes them nervous.

HSPS MAY BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE A BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE THAN OTHERS WHEN DEALING WITH CHRONIC ILLNESS

Bakhshayesh Eghbali, B., Hosseini-Nejad, M., Saadat, S., Babaee, M., Eyvani, K., Kohandel, K., & Shabani Chobe, M. (2025). The Role of Sensory Processing Sensitivity and Self-management on Quality of Life in Multiple Sclerosis. Caspian Journal of Neurological Sciences , 11 (1), 67-76.

This study provides a sense of how being highly sensitive can actually help a person living with a serious illness. Multiple sclerosis (MS) symptoms lead to all sorts of impairments that predict limitations, unemployment, and withdrawal from social and leisure activities. This study used questionnaires to measure SPS, health related quality of life, and “self-management.” These were given to 320 “relapsing-remitting” MS patients registered in the nationwide MS registry of Iran.

I found self-management an interesting concept. It refers to how much a person actively copes with a chronic illness through, for example, adherence to treatment and medication, participation in medical decisions, self-care, maintaining social relationships, and keeping one’s emotional balance. That is, it is learning and using the skills necessary for an active life and a satisfactory mental state while living with a chronic disease. The measure tapped five areas of self-management, including communication with health care providers, treatment adherence, knowledge of MS, and overall health maintenance behavior.

The findings showed that the quality of life in people with MS was higher if they were highly sensitive and if they scored high on self-management. They did not report the correlation between the two, but I would guess it is high. They studied SPS because they thought people who are more aware of sensations in their bodies might manage their illness better, and if being overstimulated bothers them, that they might be better at reducing it and thus improving their well-being. But we know HSPs would also process everything about the illness more deeply, which would certainly lead to better self-management. I hope someone repeats this research looking at other long-term illnesses, to see if being an HSP improves outcome.

Bottom Line: This opens a new avenue of research, into whether and how HSPs might be better patients, by paying more attention to their bodies, to professional advice, to details about any illness they are dealing with, and to their own individual needs.

ONCE AGAIN—HSPS BENEFIT MORE THAN OTHERS FROM BEING CONNECTED WITH NATURE

Wigley, I. C. M., Nazzari, S., Pastore, M., Provenzi, L., & Barello, S. (2025). The contribution of environmental sensitivity and connectedness to nature to mental health: Does nature view count?. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 102 , 102541.

This is yet one more study about HSPs benefiting from being in nature—in this case, living with a view of nature (trees, a garden, or a park)). In a sample of 807 Italian citizens, it was found that those high on the measure of SPS were more at risk of reporting symptoms of stress, anxiety, and depression, but feeling connected with nature reduced this risk for them in particular. Being connected with nature was of course associated with exposure to nature, so this study tested whether, particularly for HSPs, having a view of nature would have this same positive effect on connectedness with nature and on mental health, and it did. That is, routine, daily visual exposure to nature appeared to enhance the feeling of connection to nature, particularly among HSPs, thereby mitigating the risk of psychological distress.

Bottom Line: Most HSPs know this very well, but the research continues to show it: Feeling connected to nature really helps us, and we learn from this study that just being able to see it in our daily lives can do that. So try to make it a priority to live or work, preferably both, where you have a view of nature. And while they did not study it, having plants in your house or pets, even goldfish, may help too!

Part II

The Container and the Contained

Have you ever thought (at any age) that you are getting older but something in you is not? That you are really the same person you have always been?

Have you ever felt like you were witnessing yourself in a situation? That you were not the “doer”?

Who is that person that does not change, and the one that can witness without participating? This is a huge subject, but let’s take on a piece of it.

In the second half of recent newsletter blogs I have been addressing “spiritual” topics, I guess in the classical sense of spiritual as opposed to material, since I began by writing about the possibility of experiencing two aspects to life, the relative and the absolute or transcendent. In the second blog, I simplified matters by talking about expansion and contraction. Even forgetting about anything absolute, we all know that there are expanded and contracted mental states. There is nothing wrong with contracted states. We contract or constrict our awareness when we focus. If you want to speak more philosophically (HSPs usually like to), ultimately, everything in the relative, material world is contracted in the sense it is one aspect of the whole. Being expanded is when we relax those constrictions and see the bigger picture or enjoy some rest.

In this blog post I want to talk about these two aspects of life in a different way, the container and what it contains.

The Contained? What’s That?

As always, I hope to be both factual and practical. By the “container” I mean our body, but we can extend that to everything else in the relative that “belongs to us”–our name, history, education, career, family. All that is ours. But the body is so central, because it at least seems that without a body, especially without a brain, everything else goes. We may forget, ignore, or deny our physical vulnerability until we get seriously sick or are caused to notice that we are aging. (I secretly think there’s something mean about those birthday cards that make jokes of our adding another year.)

I am sure all of you view death and what does or does not remain after death in very different ways. Some of you are already yawning–you totally believe in an afterlife. Maybe reincarnation. But others of you are already annoyed, that I would even bring it up. When we die, everything goes. How is it factual or practical even to discuss it?

The Factual

True, it seems that just as most people only know about the relative and not the absolute field of life, most people only know about the relative container, the body, and completely identify with that. Yet the fact is that a vast number of people think they have a soul or spirit that lives on after death. Some people feel they have experienced it during a near-death experience. The research on these experiences is quite solid and substantial (e.g., the work of Bruce Greyson). Many say they have experienced visitations by a loved one who had died and was able to come back to speak to them or show them some sign of their presence. Further, every single religion (even Judaism) has some idea of the soul or spirit living on, reincarnating into a new body or eternally living in a place where the soul goes after death.

Those are the facts of countless human experiences, and it can be hard to believe that so many are simply wrong–except you and me. I’m saying “you and me” because I’ve never been sure what I believe about all of this. (A friend who is certain about reincarnation teased me that it was my karma to be born with the burden of not believing I would be reincarnated.) One practical part of the container plus contained perspective is that it really does change how you live your life if you are certain that death does not end it.

But forgetting about the question of whether something survives death, some people I really respect have no doubt that the body is the container of something more. Indeed it seems to me that all spiritual teachers and writers have discussed it. For example, I like Thomas Merton on the subject of the “individual,” which our culture relentlessly encourages us to develop, to “self-actualize,” and the “person” God means for us to be, which we can only know when we let go of the outer trappings of ourselves and our lives and seek to do God’s will and to know God’s love.

Then there is Ram Dass, that jolly, charming author of Be Here Now, who had a stroke in his sixties and then wrote Still Here to explore for us the issue of aging and death, using his personal experience.

The Practical

While I am not sure about life after death, like Ram Dass I know about life now. After fifty years of consistent meditation practice and eighty years of living in my body, I have the clear experience of my body being the container of something else, a witness to it all, or the Soul as Ram Dass calls it. This is not a belief, but an experience, and it is extremely practical. The experience can be overwhelmed for a time by something like being in chronic pain, a new scary diagnosis of something, or losing another activity that I once enjoyed. But that “this-is-it” feeling does not last. Without much of an effort, the transcendent–the Soul, the Great Whatever–prevails. I just feel this equanimity return. It is something big, boundless. And I can tell that it is due to my not identifying with my body or its changes very much. I am something else. Again, it is not a belief or attitude. I experienced that. And it certainly makes aging and illness less difficult, so far.

Here’s another practical story: I turned to Ram Dass after reading the transcript of an interview with Riyas Motan on “Buddha at the Gas Pump” (one of my favorite podcasts). Riyas was born in Kenya, of Indian ancestry, and while working as a psychotherapist, privately pursued a spiritual path until he had a permanent “awakening.” This eventually led to his being given “dharma transmission” by one of his spiritual teachers, Adyashanti. This meant he was considered evolved enough to teach others, so in a way it was the pinnacle of his life. But four months later, this very health-conscious, spiritual man learned he had fourth stage, probably terminal lung cancer, and was plunged into the treatment for that.

Adjusting to this extreme change in his life demanded that he use his spiritual life as never before to come to a place of not just acceptance, but growth. After much inner work he says he is actually grateful for the cancer, saying that it “happened not to him, but for him.”

That line really caught my attention. He was quoting Ram Dass, who felt the same about his stroke, which left this dynamic man in a wheelchair and able to speak only very slowly. How does one get to that place of feeling this is the best thing that could have happened to me? Not easily, when you live in a culture that focuses entirely on the body and its health, as if that is all you are. But Ram Dass has a lot to say about undoing that perspective in his Still Here. And it comes down to finding a way to get to know the difference between the container and what it contains. Of course the container, the body, is important. The contained must have a container. But how many of us really know the contained? Really can identify with it?

How to get there is another subject, so complex that it led me to spend five years researching and writing a book about it, Spirituality Through a Highly Sensitive Lens. It will be published next spring, but in the meantime I hope these blogs will give you some ideas. It is always, in the end, a very personal journey to reach a place like that of Thomas Merton, Riyas Motan, or Ram Das. But I wanted to make it clear that it can be done. By anyone.

View more on Elaine N. Aron's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 31, 2025 16:47

Part I of this Blog: The Latest Research

This is the third time I have tried this—beginning with a report of some of the latest research, and then in the second part exploring something “Spiritual.” Here are the five studies I selected for Part I. There were others—more and more research is being published on HSPs. But I thought readers would gain the most from these.

CLARIFYING SPS, AUTISM, AND ADHD–AND MUCH MORE

Damatac, C. G., ter Avest, M. J., Wilderjans, T. F., De Gucht, V., Woestenburg, D. H., Landeweerd, L., … & Greven, C. U. (2025). Exploring sensory processing sensitivity: Relationships with mental and somatic health, interactions with positive and negative environments, and evidence for differential susceptibility. Current Research in Behavioral Sciences , 8 , 100165.

We are often asked about the relationship between Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) and SPS as well as its relation to Attention Deficit Disorder (ADHD). This complicated, ambitious study looked at both these issues as well as differential susceptibility to mental and physical health and life satisfaction. In case you get mired down in the details, here is what you probably most want to know: This study did not find that overall the measures they used for autism, ADHD, and SPS were measuring something similar. However, factors within the measures overlap. That is, there is an overlap in some areas but not all. Some of the same people answer yes to items on two or three of the measures.