In a groundbreaking correction to their original study, researchers Buchtova, Malinakova, Benitan, and colleagues have provided new insights into sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) and its intricate ties to key emotional and psychological dimensions such as guilt, shame, self-esteem, and neuroticism. Published in the renowned journal BMC Psychology, this pivotal work re-examines the complex psychological construct of SPS, offering a more nuanced understanding of how heightened sensitivity influences personality traits and emotional regulation. The correction, appearing in the 2025 volume, rescues the interpretation of prior findings and opens fresh avenues for the study of human emotional processing.
Sensory processing sensitivity is a personality trait characterized by deeper cognitive processing of sensory input, heightened emotional reactivity, and increased empathic capacity. Individuals displaying SPS often experience sensory stimuli more intensely, which can translate into both enhanced positive experiences and increased vulnerability to negative psychosocial effects. This duality forms the core of why SPS remains a subject of fascination and inquiry within psychology and neuroscience. The correction issued by Buchtova et al. preserves the richness of this subject while reformulating the nuanced relationships between sensitivity and fundamental human affective responses like guilt and shame.
Guilt and shame, though closely related, constitute distinct emotional processes with critical implications for mental health. Guilt typically arises from the perception that one’s actions have breached moral or social norms, leading to reparative behavior and constructive self-reflection. Shame, in contrast, is a more pervasive feeling of personal inadequacy or failure that impacts an individual’s self-concept on a deeper level. SPS amplifies the experience of these emotions and, as the correction elucidates, interacts with self-esteem and neuroticism to shape psychological resilience or vulnerability.
Self-esteem, defined as one’s subjective evaluation of self-worth, is profoundly influenced by the degree to which sensory stimuli and emotional experiences are processed. Individuals with high sensory processing sensitivity may exhibit lower self-esteem when exposed to adverse stimuli or critical social feedback, as the amplified internalization of such events fuels negative self-evaluation. The corrected findings emphasize that the relationship between SPS and self-esteem is not linear but moderated by neuroticism—the propensity towards emotional instability and anxiety.
Neuroticism, a core personality dimension in the Five Factor Model, significantly predicts emotional responsiveness and susceptibility to mental health disorders. The corrected analysis by Buchtova and colleagues highlights that high neuroticism intensifies the association between sensory sensitivity and negative affective states. Essentially, individuals who are both highly sensitive and neurotic may find themselves trapped in cycles of heightened emotional distress, including excessive guilt and shame, which can undermine self-esteem and overall psychological well-being.
This refined understanding has considerable implications for therapeutic practices and interventions. Knowing that sensory processing sensitivity can exacerbate emotional difficulties in conjunction with neuroticism offers mental health practitioners a roadmap for targeted treatments. Cognitive-behavioral strategies might be tailored to help patients reframe maladaptive guilt and shame, while also building resilience and stabilizing self-esteem in those predisposed to heightened sensory and emotional experiences.
Moreover, the correction underscores the necessity of distinguishing among vulnerability factors within heterogeneous populations. Not all highly sensitive individuals will suffer equally from guilt or shame, signaling that psychological interventions must be personalized. The ability to parse the interplay of SPS with neuroticism and self-esteem may usher in improved diagnostic criteria and more effective, nuanced mental health care protocols.
The neural correlates of sensory processing sensitivity also merit deeper exploration, especially in light of this correction. Prior neuroimaging studies have linked SPS to increased activation in brain regions involved with emotional processing, such as the amygdala and insula. The emotional consequences reported in the current study—specifically heightened guilt and shame—are consistent with this neural circuitry, which orchestrates affective empathy and self-conscious emotions. Future work may seek to delineate how these brain networks function in high-SPS individuals with varying neuroticism levels.
Furthermore, the correction has sparked renewed discussion on the evolutionary advantages—if any—associated with sensory processing sensitivity. High sensitivity may have conferred an adaptive edge by enhancing environmental awareness and social attunement in ancestral contexts. However, when magnified by modern stressors and paired with vulnerable personality traits like neuroticism, SPS might predispose individuals to maladaptive emotional states such as chronic guilt and shame. This dual-edge hypothesis offers fertile ground for evolutionary psychology and psychiatry research.
The study’s scope also extends into developmental psychology, as early-life experiences shape both SPS and associated emotional traits. Adverse childhood environments can sensitize individuals further, exacerbating guilt, shame, and self-esteem disturbances, especially in those with neurotic temperaments. The corrected analysis advocates for longitudinal studies to parse causal pathways and to identify critical windows for intervention.
Importantly, the interdisciplinary nature of this research—bridging psychology, neurobiology, and psychiatry—advances a holistic model of personality and affective processing. The correction ensures the scientific credibility and robustness of this integrative framework, allowing it to serve as a touchstone for future empirical inquiries and clinical applications alike.
Buchtova and colleagues’ correction also highlights the significance of methodological rigor and transparency in psychological research. The refinement in their data and analytical approach enhances reproducibility, rectifying earlier ambiguities that could have hindered progress in understanding SPS and its emotional ramifications. This commitment to scientific integrity sets a laudable precedent in the study of personality traits affecting mental health.
In conclusion, the revised findings in “Sensory processing sensitivity and its associations with guilt, shame, self-esteem, and neuroticism” present a compelling narrative of how the sensitivity to sensory input is intricately woven into the fabric of our emotional lives. The intersection with self-evaluation constructs and neurotic tendencies elevates the clinical and theoretical importance of SPS beyond its traditional considerations. As mental health paradigms evolve, such precise delineations of the interplay between sensitivity and personality underscore the need for personalized approaches in psychological theories and therapeutic interventions.
As this correction propels the field forward, the potential for viral dissemination lies in its deep relevance to modern societal challenges—where heightened sensitivity may either empower individuals through empathy or burden them with intensified negative affect. Such duality resonates profoundly with the contemporary quest for understanding human complexity, fostering awareness, empathy, and scientifically grounded hope.
Subject of Research: Sensory Processing Sensitivity and its Associations with Guilt, Shame, Self-Esteem, and Neuroticism
Article Title: Correction: Sensory processing sensitivity and its associations with guilt, shame, self-esteem, and neuroticism
Article References:
Buchtova, M., Malinakova, K., Benitan, M.C. et al. Correction: Sensory processing sensitivity and its associations with guilt, shame, self-esteem, and neuroticism. BMC Psychol 13, 1344 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-03701-0
Image Credits: AI Generated
