Highly sensitive people don’t actually have sharper senses, study finds

People who describe themselves as highly sensitive do not appear to have objectively sharper hearing, vision, smell, or other senses, according to new research published in the Journal of Research in Personality. Instead, the study suggests that sensory processing sensitivity reflects how people experience and interpret sensory information rather than possessing unusually sensitive sensory organs.

Sensory Processing Sensitivity (SPS) is a personality trait that has received growing attention over the past two decades. People with high SPS often report noticing subtle details, becoming overwhelmed by busy environments, and reacting strongly to emotional or sensory experiences. These characteristics have led many to assume that highly sensitive people genuinely detect weaker sights, sounds, or smells than others. Yet, surprisingly few studies have tested this idea using objective laboratory measures.

To address this gap in the literature, a research team led by Danièle A. Gubler from the University of Bern in Switzerland recruited 150 women. The participants were about 23 years of age on average. The researchers focused exclusively on female participants to mitigate potential gender-related error influences on the assessments.

Participants completed two widely used questionnaires measuring sensory processing sensitivity, along with personality measures assessing extraversion and neuroticism. They then underwent an extensive series of laboratory tests measuring both detection and pain thresholds across multiple sensory systems, including hearing, vision, temperature, smell, and balance. Detection thresholds measure the minimum intensity required for a person to notice a stimulus, while pain thresholds measure the point at which a stimulus becomes uncomfortable or painful. Participants also rated how sensitive they believed they were in each of these sensory domains.

The results challenged one of the central assumptions of sensory processing sensitivity. Across the various laboratory tests, people who scored highly on SPS questionnaires did not consistently detect weaker sensory signals or experience lower objective pain thresholds than those with lower SPS scores. The researchers also found little evidence that sensory ability across different senses reflected one general underlying trait.

Instead, the strongest pattern emerged from participants’ own perceptions. Individuals with higher SPS scores consistently described themselves as being more sensitive, particularly when rating their responses to pain.

However, an important part of this finding changed once the researchers considered other personality traits. After accounting for neuroticism—the tendency to experience negative emotions such as worry, anxiety, and emotional instability—and extraversion, many of the links between SPS and subjective sensitivity became substantially weaker. This suggests that some of the self-reported “sensitivity” captured by existing SPS questionnaires may actually reflect broader emotional tendencies, particularly neuroticism, rather than a unique form of heightened sensory ability.

The authors summarized their central finding clearly: “The present findings suggest that SPS is not characterized by enhanced sensory acuity, but rather by the subjective experience and evaluation of sensory input.”

Notably, the study has some limitations. Only women participated, most of whom were young adults, so the findings may not apply to men or older populations. The laboratory tests focused on basic sensory thresholds and may not capture the complex situations encountered in everyday life. Finally, because the research measured participants only once, it cannot determine whether sensory processing sensitivity changes over time.

The study, “Sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) is not a sensory ability: Examining the relationship of SPS with objectively and subjectively measured sensory sensitivity,” was authored by Danièle A. Gubler, Matthias Ertl, Tobias Janelt, Marcus Roth, and Stefan J. Troche.