European Review of Applied Psychology 72 (2022) 100781

Available online at

ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com

Original article

Validation and study of psychometric properties of a French version of

the Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS-FR)
Validation et étude des propriétés psychométriques d’une version française de
l’échelle d’Hypersensibilité (HSPS-FR)
J. Bordarie ∗ , C. Aguerre , L. Bolteau
Qualipsy, EE 1901, University of Tours, UFR Arts et Sciences Humaines, 3, rue des Tanneurs, BP 4103, 37041 Tours cedex 1, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Introduction. – The Highly Sensitive Person Scale based on the sensory-processing sensitivity is a self-
Received 27 October 2020 assessment questionnaire consisting of 27 items. The scale is designed in order to identify individuals
Received in revised form 23 February 2022 with high sensitivity.
Accepted 29 April 2022
Objective. – The objective was to develop a French version of the scale. We tested its internal consistency
and test-retest reliability on a French population sample. Another aim of this study was also to ques-
Keywords: tion the multidimensionality of the scale, for which several different models are suggested within the
Highly sensitive person scale
literature.
Sensory-processing sensitivity
Highly-sensitive
Method. – After translation and back-translation, a validation study was conducted on 814 adults. They
French adaptation were invited to complete an online questionnaire during the lockdown implemented due to COVID 19,
Psychometric properties between March 31st and May 11th (2020).
Results. – The internal reliability of the French version of HSPS was very good, with a Cronbach’s alpha
of .90, as was that of the factors. Correlations between factors were significant (p < .001). The intra-
class correlation (ICC) for test-retest was .889 (0.874–0.903; 95% confidence interval). Factor analyses
suggested a 4-factors structure, mixing the models found in the literature.
Conclusions. – This study focused on a French adaptation of the HSPS scale. The results showed good
psychometric qualities and stayed true to the original HSPS scale. The scale could be useful both to
practitioners in their clinical practice and to researchers in fundamental research.
© 2022 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

r é s u m é

Mots clés : L’échelle de mesure d’hypersensibilité, basée sur la sensibilité du traitement sensoriel, est un question-
Échelle de sensibilité de la personne naire d’autoévaluation composé de 27 éléments. L’échelle est conçue pour identifier les personnes très
Sensibilité du traitement sensoriel sensibles. L’objectif était de développer une version française de l’échelle. Nous avons testé sa cohérence
Hypersensibilite interne et sa fiabilité test-retest auprès d’une population française. Cette étude avoir également pour
Adaptation française
objectif de questionner la multi-dimensionnalité de l’échelle, pour laquelle la littérature propose des
Propriétés psychométriques
modèles très différents. Après traduction et rétro-traduction, une étude de validation a été menée auprès
de 814 adultes. Ils ont été invités à répondre à un questionnaire en ligne pendant le confinement mis en
place en France dans le cadre de la COVID-19 entre le 31 mars et le 11 mai (2020). La fiabilité interne
de la version française du HSPS était très bonne, avec un alpha de Cronbach de .90, ainsi que celle des
facteurs. Les corrélations entre les facteurs étaient significatives (p < .001). L’ICC pour le test-retest était
de .889 (0.874–0.903 ; intervalle de confiance de 95 %). Les analyses factorielles ont suggéré une struc-
ture à 4 facteurs, mixant les modèles trouvés dans la littérature. Cette étude a porté sur une adaptation
française de l’échelle HSPS. Les résultats ont montré de bonnes qualités psychométriques et sont restés
fidèles à l’échelle originale. L’échelle pourrait être utile à la fois aux praticiens dans leur pratique clinique
et aux chercheurs en recherche fondamentale.
© 2022 Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Bordarie), [email protected] (C. Aguerre).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2022.100781
1162-9088/© 2022 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
J. Bordarie, C. Aguerre and L. Bolteau European Review of Applied Psychology 72 (2022) 100781

1. Introduction stimuli, sensory-processing sensitivity is above all a factor that

influences the emotional and behavioural reactions of the individu-
Faced with changing environmental conditions, living beings are als concerned (Gere et al., 2009). This factor is then linked to other
able to adapt thanks to biological, physical or psychological char- personality factors, positively correlated with neuroticism, intro-
acteristics (Belsky & Pluess, 2009). Amongst these characteristics, version, openness, shyness and emotionality (Aron et al., 2005),
Aron and Aron (1997) proposed the study of the sensory-processing and negatively correlated with extraversion (Ahadi & Basharpoor,
sensitivity, which would allow individuals to adapt more easily 2010; Lionetti et al., 2018; Grimen & Diseth, 2016; Pluess et al.,
to altering environmental conditions. A highly sensitive person 2018; Smolewska et al., 2006; Sobocko & Zelenski, 2015).
is characterised as having higher sensory-processing levels than Aron and Aron (1997) developed the Highly Sensitive Person
others and demonstrates stronger responses to environmental Scale. It consists of 27 items, measuring the cognitive and emo-
stimuli. Conversely, hyposensitivity is depicted by an insufficient tional responses of individuals to various environmental stimuli.
or non-existent response to any type of stimuli (Baranek, 2002; Responses are assessed on a 7-point Likert scale. It has been trans-
Baranek et al., 2006). The concept of sensory-processing sensitivity lated into several languages, e.g., Chinese (Chen et al., 2011), Dutch
is thought to be a component of a broader model of environmen- (Evers et al., 2008), German (Konrad & Herzberg, 2017), Italian
tal sensitivity (Pluess, 2015), including the concepts of “differential (Rubaltelli et al., 2018), Japanese (Ueno et al., 2019), Norwegian
sensitivity” (Belsky & Pluess, 2009) and “biological context sensitiv- (Grimen & Diseth, 2016), and Persian (Ahadi & Basharpoor, 2010).
ity” (Boyce & Ellis, 2005). Differential sensitivity specifically refers To date, it has not been validated in French. The literature review
to developmental strategies at a phenotypic and genetic level that by Smith et al. (2019), which summarised 29 articles studying HSPS
increase the ability of a species to be able to diversify and adapt. from 1997 to 2017, noted the psychometric qualities of this ques-
Biological sensitivity to context refers to physiological responses to tionnaire (internal consistency, convergent correlations with other
environmental stimuli at a neurobiological level. similar constructs and structural validity). The internal consis-
More precisely, high sensitivity of sensory-processing is defined tency estimated with the reported Cronbach’s alphas demonstrated
as an innate component of temperament and is thought to affect ranges from .85 to .90 (Branjerdporn et al., 2019; Meyer et al., 2005;
between 15% and 25% of the population (Aron & Aron, 1997), or even Meyer & Carver, 2000; Neal et al., 2002; Smolewska et al., 2006).
according to Lionetti et al. (2018), more than 30% It corresponds to Concurrent and structural validities of the scores are found across
deeper cognitive processing of stimuli, greater excitement of the samples. However, Smith et al. (2019) add that there have been no
autonomic system, thus leading to a reduced tolerance of sensory test-retest studies of HSPS.
input and a predisposition to stress, greater emotional responsive- Initially, Aron and Aron (1997) devised sensory-processing sen-
ness and increased sensitivity to the subtleties of the environment sitivity as a unidimensional concept, composed of sensitivities that
(Aron & Aron, 1997). This conceptualization of sensory-processing may appear heterogeneous yet correlated (sensitivity to strong
sensitivity as a temperamental trait is further explored by stud- sensory stimuli, to hunger, to caffeine, to pain, and to people’s
ies linking high sensitivity with neurobiological predispositions moods). However, studies based on factor analysis propose two-
(Chen et al., 2011; Licht et al., 2011) and functional magnetic res- factor (Cheek et al., 2009; Evans & Rothbart, 2008), three-factor
onance imaging (fMRI) (Acevedo et al., 2014, 2017; Jagiellowicz (Evers et al., 2008; Liss et al., 2008; Smolewska et al., 2006), four-
et al., 2011). The fMRI confirms that sensory-processing sensitivity factor (Meyer et al., 2005), and even six-factor (Blach and Egger,
appears to be moderated by genetic and neural factors. Depending 2014) models. For Evans and Rothbart (2008), there is a “negative
on each case, the elements mainly concerned are, depending on the affectivity” factor (referring mainly to the discomfort of sensory
case, those involved in processes related to consciousness, memory, stimulation) and an “orientation sensitivity” factor (referring to the
empathy, processing of social interactions, emotional reactivity, external or internal source of sensory stimulation). The three-factor
and self-regulation (Acevedo et al., 2014, 2017). For instance, these model (Smolewska et al., 2006) suggests differentiating between
two studies show that neural responses are more evident for highly “low sensory threshold” (LST), which refers to sensitivity to subtle
sensitive individuals in the hippocampus/entorhinal area whereby external stimuli; “ease of excitement” (EOE), denoting the con-
stimuli are linked to emotional memory; in the hypothalamus in cept of being easily overwhelmed by internal or external stimuli;
which physiological homeostasis and energy balance are stimu- and “aesthetic sensitivity” (AES), referring to openness and plea-
lated; also, in situations of threat or fear, when the amygdala is sure associated with aesthetic experiences and positive stimuli. The
prominently activated. four-factor model (Meyer et al., 2005) distinguishes between “gen-
While specific neurobiological factors are involved in the phys- eral sensitivity/over-stimulation”, “undesirable reactions to strong
iological and behavioural responses of highly sensitive individuals, sensations” (or the feeling of being overwhelmed by stimuli), “fine
other factors such as the early environment would also seem psychological discrimination” (related to the appreciation of the
to play a role (Aron & Aron, 1997). For example, a positive arts, sensory pleasures and a rich and complex inner life) and finally
early environment (e.g., good parenting practices or interven- “controlled harm avoidance” (when the highly sensitive individual
tion programmes) means people with high sensitivity display organises his or her life in order to avoid situations they deem to
greater social-emotional well-being (Nocentini et al., 2018; Pluess be unpleasant experiences).
& Boniwell, 2015; Slagt et al., 2018). On the contrary, an emotionally
fragile early parenting environment (e.g., alcoholism or psycholog- 1.1. Aims
ical disorders in one of the parents, abusive behaviours, or poor
parental care) leads highly sensitive individuals to express lower This study focused on the validation of the French version of the
life satisfaction (Booth et al., 2015). HSPS, which is widely used and validated in several languages, as
High sensory-processing sensitivity is linked to the central mentioned above. A validated version in French was missing, both
nervous system and cognitive processing of physical, social and from a scientific point of view to extend research on the causes
emotional stimuli. It can now be explained from an epigenetic and consequences of highly sensitive profiles, and from a clinical
point of view. In other words, the subject would have a genetic point of view for psychologists who would like to use this tool in
inheritance, which presents an innate temperament of sensory- their consultations to better understand the behaviour of some of
processing sensitivity, the expression of which would be influenced their patients. The objectives were (1) to ensure the psychometric
by the environment and the need to adapt to it. Whether it is per- validity and the multidimensional structure of the question-
ceived as a factor of vulnerability or as a factor of adaptation to these naire amongst European French speakers within a longitudinal

2
J. Bordarie, C. Aguerre and L. Bolteau European Review of Applied Psychology 72 (2022) 100781

perspective using a test-rest protocol, (2) to put forward a confir- three weeks apart, in order to conduct a test-retest analysis. Par-
matory analysis of this structure, and (3) to focus on a non-clinical ticipants were asked to give an email address so that they could
population in order to provide results for a generic population, be contacted for the second phase, and were linked to a four-digit
since not all people with highly sensitive sensory-processing code once the first data collection was complete. Only one of the
present psychological issues. researchers had access to the file containing this information. All
information that could have been used to identify individuals was
2. Method deleted as soon as the second data collection was initiated, such
as the email addresses. Thereafter, all of the data was treated with
2.1. Translation and back translation of the HSPS complete anonymity and confidentiality.

The translation of the HSPS from English to French was first done 2.4. Population
by two psychology researchers. A third psychology researcher then
conducted a counter-translation into English. Three issues were The sample consisted of 484 participants who completed the
identified, related to the use of synonyms for “comfortable”, “over- questionnaire twice. The study initially involved 814 adults who
whelming” and “compete”. An exploratory study was conducted completed the entire questionnaire in the first phase, and of these
with this version of the questionnaire (Bolteau, 2020). None of the 814 participants, 493 completed the survey twice (60.6% of the
participants queried the meaning of any of the questions. entire sample). We had to delete 9 questionnaires that could not be
included in the analyses. The sample was divided into two groups.
2.2. Instruments and variables The first group (GR1) consisted of 484 participants who responded
to both phases of the study. Confirmatory analyses were performed
The questionnaire consisted of 27 items related to the French on the second group, consisting of 321 participants (GR2) who
version of the HSPS survey. The translated version of the ques- responded to the first phase of the study only. The characteristics
tionnaire is presented in Appendix 1. Several questions dealt with for the whole sample (n = 805) and the two sub-samples (first phase
sociodemographic characteristics such as gender, age, education, only [n = 321] and both phases [n = 484]) are provided in Table 1.
employment status and lockdown level. The overall sample was 80% female and 20% male. The average
age was 28.6 years (SD = 12) and ranged from 18 to 76 years. In
2.3. Procedure terms of education and qualifications, 27.8% had a baccalaureate,
15.4% had a two-year post-baccalaureate’s degree (baccalaureate
Participants were enlisted online between March 31st 2020 and +2), 24.4% had a bachelor degree (baccalaureate +3), 10.4% had
May 11th 2020. We worked with a convenience sample, obtained a four-year bachelor’s degree (baccalaureate +4), and 22% had a
without any particular method. Age was the only inclusion crite- master’s degree at least (baccalaureate +5 and above). With regard
rion; they had to be at least 18 years old. The questionnaire was to professional status: 47.6% were students, 10.2% were student-
hosted on Googleform without the need to log in to a specific employees, 3% were craftsmen or company managers, 14% were
account. Before completing the questionnaire, participants were managers or working in an intellectual profession, 5.3% were in
informed of the objectives of the study and were explicitly asked an intermediate profession, 12.9% were employees or workers,
to give their consent to continue the study, with the answers being 2.1% were retired, and 4.8% were unemployed. In France, at that
confidential. They were asked to complete the questionnaire twice, time, the country was under lockdown because of COVID-19. It had

Table 1
Sociodemographic characteristics.

GR1 GR2 Total

Phases 1 & 2 Phase 1 only

n % n % n %

Number 484 60.6 321 39.4 805 100

Women 378 78.1 267 83.2 645 80.1
Men 106 21.9 54 16.8 160 19.9
Baccalaureate 114 23.6 110 34.3 224 27.8
Baccalaureate +2 81 16.7 43 13.4 124 15.4
Baccalaureate +3 107 22.1 89 27.7 196 24.4
Baccalaureate +4 53 11.0 31 9.7 84 10.4
Baccalaureate +5 and more 129 26.7 48 15 177 22.0
Students 224 46.3 159 49.5 383 47.6
Student employees 45 9.3 37 11.5 82 10.2
Craftsmen and company director 15 3.1 9 2.8 24 3.0
Intellectual and superior professions 84 17.4 29 9 113 14.0
Intermediaries’ professions 24 5.0 19 5.9 43 5.3
Employees and workers 58 12.0 46 14.3 104 12.9
Retired 10 2.1 7 2.2 17 2.1
Unemployed 24 5.0 15 4.7 39 4.8
Go to workplace during lockdown 39 8.1 27 8.4 66 8.2
Telework during lockdown 150 31.0 76 23.7 226 28.1
Partial unemployment during lockdown 37 7.6 29 9.0 66 8.2
Work disruption (for instance sick leave) 20 4.1 12 3.7 32 4.0
Cessation of activities during lockdown 15 3.1 9 2.8 24 3.0
Without professional activity 223 46.1 168 52.3 391 48.6
Mean age (years old) 29.0 28.2 28.6
SD 11.7 12.2 12.0
Min (years old) 18 18 18
Max (years old) 76 72 76

3
J. Bordarie, C. Aguerre and L. Bolteau European Review of Applied Psychology 72 (2022) 100781

Table 2
Results of PCA after Oblimin rotation (n = 484).

Components French validation Components from

Smolewska et al. (2006)

EOE AES LST CHA EOE AES LST

14 Do you get rattled when you have a lot to do in a short amount of time? .70 .68
26 When you must compete or be observed while performing a task, do you become .64 .58
so nervous or shaky that you do much worse than you would otherwise?
4 Do you tend to be more sensitive to pain? .62 .36
16 Are you annoyed when people try to get you to do too many things at once? .59 .62
3 Do other people’s moods affect you? .58 .36
21 Do changes in your life shake you up? .55 .65
20 Does being very hungry create a strong reaction in you, disrupting your .43 .56
concentration or mood?
11 Does your nervous system sometimes feel so frazzled that you have to get off by .40 .33 –
yourself?
27 When you were a child, did your parents or teachers seem to see you as sensitive .38 .47
or shy?
1 Are you easily overwhelmed by strong sensory input? .37 .33 .30 –
13 Do you startle easily? .34 .42
22 Do you notice and enjoy delicate or fine scents, tastes, sounds, works of art? .61 .68
10 Are you deeply moved by the arts or music? .60 .69
8 Do you have a rich, complex inner life? .57 .76
2 Do you seem to be aware of subtleties in your environment? .52 .65
15 When people are uncomfortable in a physical environment do you tend to know .50 .53
what needs to be done to make it more comfortable (like changing the lighting or
the seating)?
25 Are you bothered by intense stimuli, like loud noises or chaotic scenes? .80 .74
9 Are you made uncomfortable by loud noises? .78 .70
7 Are you easily overwhelmed by things like bright lights, strong smells, coarse .70 .70
fabrics, or sirens close by?
19 Do you become unpleasantly aroused when a lot is going on around you? .69 .53
18 Do you make a point to avoid violent movies and TV shows? .47 .57
6 Are you particularly sensitive to the effects of caffeine? .42 .70
5 Do you find yourself needing to withdraw during busy days, into bed or into a .47 .39
darkened room or any place where you can have some privacy and relief from
stimulation?
23 Do you find it unpleasant to have a lot going on at once? .54 .68
12 Are you conscientious? .69 .53
17 Do you try hard to avoid making mistakes or forgetting things? .59 .36
24 Do you make it a high priority to arrange your life to avoid upsetting or .51 .36
overwhelming situations?
Coefficient alpha .82 .66 .83 .53 .81 .72 .78
Coefficient alpha in Meyer et al. (2005) .82 .73 .88 .56

been adapted according to professional activities: 8.2% continued to A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to test the rel-
work, 28.1% were teleworking, 8.2% were on short-time working, evance of our model on the second group. The confidence level of
4% were on sick leave, 3% had stopped their professional activity the data analysis was 95%.
without being paid, and 48.6% were not concerned (they had no
professional activity before the lockdown).
3. Results
2.5. Analysis
3.1. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the scale
All data analyses were performed using SPSS version 26. In
Cronbach’s alpha for the French version of the HSPS was .88
order to validate a questionnaire, we usually use several indicators
for the entire sample (n = 805), and more specifically .89 for the
(Vallerand, 1989), such as test-retest reliability, content validity,
sample that responded to both phases of the study (GR1) (n = 484),
internal consistency, and concurrent validity. In this study, to val-
and .88 for the sample that only responded to the first phase of
idate the French version of the HSPS-27, we focused on test-retest
the study (GR2) (n = 321). These alphas confirmed the high internal
reliability by comparing two measures (T1 and T2 with a three-
consistency (Nunnally, 1978). For the test-retest (GR1), the intra-
week delay), content validity with the analysis of the concept
class correlation coefficient was .889 (0.874–0.903; 95% confidence
dimensions, and internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha. The
interval) confirming the test-retest reliability of the instrument.
internal consistency, convergent correlations with other similar
constructs, and structural validity of several studies on the HSPS
have already been highlighted (see Smith et al., 2019). However, 3.2. Principal component analysis (PCA)
the authors add that they did not find any test-retest studies of the
HSPS; a gap that we aim to fill with this study. An exploratory factor analysis was performed on GR1 with SPSS
In order to highlight the existence of one or more different fac- version 26. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling quality
tors, as documented in the literature, we performed a principal (KMO score = .893) indicated that the items were sufficiently
component analysis (PCA) with Oblimin rotation. Items with corre- correlated to perform a factor analysis on the recovered data (Hair,
lations above .30 were selected. The validity of the different factors Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2014). Bartlett’s test of sphericity was
was assessed by calculating Cronbach’s alpha and correlation coef- highly significant [␹2 (351) = 4199.62, p < .001], also justifying the
ficients (Spearman’s rho) between the respective HSPS subscales. PCA as the variables were dependent on each other. PCA with

4
J. Bordarie, C. Aguerre and L. Bolteau European Review of Applied Psychology 72 (2022) 100781

Table 3 a characteristic. Lionetti et al. (2018) estimated that about 31% of

Spearman’s Rho – Correlations of factors to each other and to the total scale.
the population could indeed be highly sensitive. Thus, a validated
EOE AES LST CHA HSPS version in the French language was missing, both scientifically to
EOE 1 extend research on the study of causes and consequences related to
AES .317** 1 highly sensitive profiles, and clinically for psychologists who may
LST .653** .403** 1 wish to use this tool during their consultations to better under-
CHA .409** .313** .353** 1 stand the habits of some of their patients. Our study confirmed the
HSPS .874** .569** .887** .528** 1
reliability of the construct in French through a test-retest that was
EOE: ease of excitement; AES: aesthetic sensitivity; LST: low sensory threshold; lacking in the literature (Smith et al., 2019) and a high Cronbach’s
CHA: controlled harm avoidance; HSPS: Highly Sensitive Person Scale.
**
alpha.
Significant at .01.
Our results did not support the unidimensional construct
described initially by Aron and Aron (1997) and they confirmed
Table 4 the recent literature arguing multidimensional model (e.g., Ershova
Fit indices.
et al., 2018; Evans & Rothbart, 2008; Grimen & Diseth, 2016; Konrad
Fit index Value Acceptance area Acceptability & Herzberg, 2017; Lionetti et al., 2018; Smolewska et al., 2006). Our
CMIN/df (related ␹2 ) 2.942 < 5.0 + results confirmed a 4-factor model close to the model of Meyer et al.
GFI .804 > 0.9 − (2005). Based on the collapse plot of the eigenvalues of the differ-
RFI .647 > 0.9 − ent components of the PCA with oblimin rotation we performed,
NFI .680 > 0.9 −
the most consistent model distinguished four dimensions. The four
IFI .763 > 0.9 −
TLI .735 > 0.9 −
referred namely to: (1) ease of excitation (over-stimulation) (EOE),
CFI .760 > 0.9 − (2) low sensory threshold (LST), (3) aesthetics sensitivity (AES) and
RMSEA .078 < .08 + (4) controlled harm avoidance (CHA). The items were distributed
CMIN: Chi2 associated statistics; CFI: comparative fit index; RMSEA: root mean in the first three categories in much the same way as in the model
square error of approximation. of Smolewska with the exception of 5 items. In our study, three of
these items (items 12, 17 and 24) are included in the CHA category,
which are absent in the model of Smolewska et al. (2006), but sug-
Oblimin rotation and the most consistent Kaiser normalisation
gested in the model of Meyer et al. (2005). Two other items (item
confirmed the existence of four factors (Table 2).
5 and item 23) are located in the LST category whilst the model of
Cronbach’s alpha for each factor also confirmed high internal
Smolewska et al. (2006) located them in other categories. Indeed, in
consistency for factor 1 “EOE” (11 items, alpha = .82) and fac-
their model, item 5 “Do you find yourself needing to withdraw during
tor 2 “LST” (8 items, alpha = .83), acceptable internal consistency
busy days, into bed or into a darkened room or any place where you can
for factor 3 “AES” (5 items, alpha = .66), and moderate internal
have some privacy and relief from stimulation?” appears in the AES
consistency for factor 4 “controlled harm avoidance” (CHA) (3
category. This is quite strange considering that this item does not
items, alpha = .53). CHA refers to the tendency for highly sensi-
refer to anything related to aesthetics aspects. Our finding seems to
tive people to organise their life to avoid situations experienced
be more appropriate to this item, considering that it clearly refers
as unpleasant. The four factors explained 45.33% of the variance
to reactions experienced when feeling overwhelmed by too much
(eigenvalues of the first four items: EOE = 7.32, AES = 2.21, LST = 1.53
stimuli – such as withdrawing on particularly busy days. In the
and CHA = 1.21). The four components were highly correlated with
model of Smolewska et al. (2006), the item 23 is located in the EOE
each other (Table 3). Spearman’s correlation coefficients between
category whereas we located it in the LST category.
the scores of the four factor and the total HSPS score were high at
The Cronbach’s alpha of each of our factors is very close to
.874 (EOE), .887 (LST), .569 (AES), and .528 (CTL) (< .001).
those that are described in the literature, either, for instance, by
Smolewska et al. (2006) for the three factors (in their study respec-
3.3. Confirmatory factor analysis tively: EOE = .81, LST = .78, AES = .72), or by Meyer et al. (2005) for
the four factors (in their study respectively: EOE = .82, LST = .88,
A confirmatory factor analysis was performed with AMOS to test AES = .73 and CHA = .56), as well as for the correlations between
the fit of our model on the second group (GR2, n = 321) (Fig. 1). Com- the scales (rs = .23–.51, ps < .01).
monly used fit indices in the literature include the Chi2 associated Our results were concordant with the literature in regard to
statistics (CMIN), the comparative fit index (CFI) and the root mean item 1 “Are you easily overwhelmed by strong sensory input?”
square error of approximation (RMSEA). They “usually provide suf- and item 11 “Does your nervous system sometimes feel so fraz-
ficient unique information to evaluate a model” (Hair, Black, Babin, zled that you have to get off by yourself?” Both items had been
& Anderson, 2014, p. 583). The fit indices confirmed a fairly good eliminated in the Smolewska model because both were loaded on
acceptability of our model (Table 4). The CMIN (2.942) was accept- two components. These items were also eliminated in Grimen and
able, as was the RMSEA (.078), but the CFI (.760) was relatively Diseth (2016). We also found that they were loaded on several
moderate. In addition, the GFI (.804) was close to the threshold of factors (Table 2): item 11 was loaded at more than .30 on the
0.90. However, the authors had already pointed out the difficulty of factors EOE and LST; item 1 was loaded at more than .30 on the
taking any value as absolute when interpreting these indices (Hair, factors EOE, LST and AES. In our study, we decided to keep them
Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2014). in the Table we have presented in order to reveal the complex
relationship between the factors EOE and LST, already underlined
4. Discussion by Evans and Rothbart (2008). These authors have already dis-
cussed the relevance of distinguishing both factors regarding the
Our study focused on the validation of the French version of the high correlations between them. We could also make a similar
HSPS scale, which is widely used and validated in several languages. argument based on the results we obtained for items 1, 11 and
Aron (2010) pointed out that this tool is particularly interesting 23 in particular, which are included in the EOE category in the
in clinical practice since she estimated that 50% of patients who Smolewska’s model and in the LST category in our results.
attended consultations would be highly sensitive. She also consid- This study enables us to consider strategies in therapeutic
ered that 15% to 25% of the population could be affected by such management if the factors AES and CHA correspond to a certain

5
J. Bordarie, C. Aguerre and L. Bolteau European Review of Applied Psychology 72 (2022) 100781

Fig. 1. Confirmatory factor analysis (n = 321).

apparent clinical reality. More interestingly however, they could potential negative impact they could provoke, thus leading some
refer to a specific conception of the sensory-processing sensitivity. highly sensitive people to seek a way to avoid them.
The first hypothesis and the main part of the literature focusing However, our results must be taken with caution. First of all,
on the sensory-processing sensitivity seem to suggest that greater the translation was not undertaken by a native English speaker.
sensory sensitivity is linked to a tendency to experience over- The three words (“comfortable”, “overwhelming” and “compete”)
arousal and negative emotionality (Aron & Aron, 1997). However, have been subject to discussion amongst the three researchers. The
high scores on the AES factor should rather be considered as a conclusion of this discussion could prove to be an issue if the final
positive emotionality. The opposition between negative affect and translation is not revealed to be accurate. During the exploratory
orienting sensitivity had already been discussed by Evans and study (Bolteau, 2020), participants did not ask for any clarification
Rothbart (2008). Sensitivity orientated to aesthetics refers to the when they answered the questionnaire. Secondly, the population
openness and pleasure associated with aesthetic experiences and upon which our results were based was drawn from a convenience
positive stimuli. Moreover, by distinguishing the controlled harm sample that is in no way representative of the overall French pop-
avoidance already described by Meyer et al. (2005), our results ulation. For example, the over-representation of women, as well
revealed the coping strategies that highly sensitive people can try as that of young people in the sample, probably constitutes biases
to implement in order to avoid negative stimuli. These strategies in the analyses that emerge, although these analyses do remain
do not remove the over-stimulation, but provide awareness of the fairly close to the results previously found in the literature. Finally,

6
J. Bordarie, C. Aguerre and L. Bolteau European Review of Applied Psychology 72 (2022) 100781

the fact that the study took place during lockdown may also have Disclosure of interest
had an impact on the sensory-processing sensitivity scores. In fact,
although defined more as a temperamental trait (Aron & Aron, The authors declare that they have no competing interest.
1997), sensory-processing sensitivity appears to be a component
of the relationship that individuals have with the environment
(Pluess, 2015). It therefore appears to be directly linked to envi- Appendix A. Supplementary data
ronmental stimuli and to the context, in the sense of both the
health crisis due to COVID-19 and the lockdown, during which Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the participants were asked to respond to the questionnaire, which the online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2022.100781.
could have had an impact. On the one hand, environmental stimuli
may have been reduced by the lockdown. On the other hand, the
cognitive dimension specific to the processing of relatively anxiety- References
provoking information about the health situation, may have played
Acevedo, B. P., Aron, E. N., Aron, A., Sangster, M. D., Collins, N., & Brown, L. L.
a role in the expression of this sensitivity. (2014). The highly sensitive brain: An fMRI study of sensory processing sen-
sitivity and response to others’ emotions. Brain and Behavior, 4(4), 580–594.
https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.242
Acevedo, B. P., Jagiellowicz, J., Aron, E., Marhenke, R., & Aron, A. (2017). Sen-
5. Conclusion and perspectives
sory processing sensitivity and childhood quality’s effects on neural
responses to emotional stimuli. Clinical Neuropsychiatry: Journal of Treat-
This validation of a French version of the HSPS is promising. ment Evaluation, 14(6), 359–373 (https://www.clinicalneuropsychiatry.org/
download/sensory-processing-sensitivity-and-childhood-qualitys-effects-on-
The French version has good internal reliability and a robust factor
neural-responses-to-emotional-stimuli/)
structure similar to models already presented in the literature. Our Ahadi, B., & Basharpoor, S. (2010). Relationship between sensory processing sen-
results highlight the existence of a category related to the seeking sitivity, personality dimensions and mental health. Journal of Applied Sciences,
of controlled harm avoidance when faced with negative environ- 10(7), 570–574. https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2010.570.574
Aron, E. N. (2010). Highly sensitive patients: Who they are, who they aren’t, and
mental stimuli. This result invites us to consider the possibility why it matters. In E. N. Aron (Ed.), Psychotherapy and the highly sensitive person.
of a double conception of high sensory-processing sensitivity. In Improving outcomes for that minority of people who are the majority of clients (pp.
the literature, it is generally presented as a factor of vulnerability 1–21). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1997). Self-expansion motivation and including other in the
considering its negative impact on anxiety and depression scores, self. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and
for example (Bakker & Moulding, 2012; Brindle et al., 2015; Liss interventions (pp. 251–270). John Wiley & Sons.
et al., 2005, 2008; Meredith et al., 2016). However, our results Aron, E. N., Aron, A., & Davies, K. M. (2005). Adult shyness: The interaction
of temperamental sensitivity and an adverse childhood environ-
also show the possibility that some highly sensitive people are ment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(2), 181–197.
trying to manage their sensitivity by looking for some coping strate- https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271419
gies, like the controlled harm avoidance. Moreover, some authors Bakker, K., & Moulding, R. (2012). Sensory-processing sensitivity, dispositional
mindfulness and negative psychological symptoms. Personality and Individual
underlined the adaptation function of a high sensory-processing
Differences, 53(3), 341–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.006
sensitivity by revealing its benefits (Bridges & Schendan, 2019; Baranek, G. T. (2002). Efficacy of sensory and motor interventions for children
Liss et al., 2008; Sobocko & Zelenski, 2015). To further explore with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32(5), 397–422.
https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1020541906063
the notion of emotional regulation would be interesting in order
Baranek, G. T., David, F. J., Poe, M. D., Stone, W. L., & Watson, L. R.
to understand the strategies that highly-sensitive people adopt in (2006). Sensory Experiences Questionnaire: Discriminating sensory fea-
order to cope with negative stimuli which comes from the environ- tures in young children with autism, developmental delays, and typical
ment. development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(6), 591–601.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01546.x
This study thus completes a whole series of studies that have Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond diathesis stress: Differential sus-
already made it possible to propose versions of the HSPS in other ceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 885.
languages, demonstrating the transcultural value of the tool, and https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017376
Blach, C., & Egger, J. W. (2014). Highly sensitive persons – An empirical investigation
of the theoretical construct of the sensory-processing sensitivity, to a complex phenomenon. Psychological Medicine, 25, 4–16.
with acceptable psychometric properties. As it stands, this French Bolteau, L. (2020). Impact de l’hypersensibilité et de l’alexithymie sur les troubles
version of the HSPS demonstrates its psychometric qualities and anxiodépressifs, en particulier sur les troubles anxieux relatifs à la santé [Impact
of hypersensitivity and alexithymia on anxiety-depressive disorders, in par-
its relevance both for researchers who would like to explore the ticular on health anxiety disorders] (mémoire de recherche de Master 1 de
links between the sensory-processing sensitivity and other psy- psychopathologie clinique, sous la direction de C. Aguerre et J. Bordarie). France:
chological variables in greater detail, and for practitioners who Université de Tours.
Booth, C., Standage, H., & Fox, E. (2015). Sensory-processing sensitiv-
would like to gain better knowledge and understanding of the
ity moderates the association between childhood experiences and
specificities of some of their patients. Thus, in clinical contexts, adult life satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 24–29.
this version offers an assessment tool that can help practitioners https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.020
Boyce, W. T., & Ellis, B. J. (2005). Biological sensitivity to context: I. An
adapt their counselling according to the characteristics of their
evolutionary–developmental theory of the origins and functions of
patients. Conceptually dealing with a temperament trait, hyper- stress reactivity. Development and Psychopathology, 17(2), 271–301.
sensitive individuals who seek to better manage the environmental https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579405050145
stimuli they experience as negative, could then use, for example, Branjerdporn, G., Meredith, P., Strong, J., & Green, M. (2019). Sensory sensitivity
and its relationship with adult attachment and parenting styles. PloS One, 14(1)
functional emotional regulation strategies. In particular, patients https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209555
can learn to do this in cognitive-behavioural therapies or by using Bridges, D., & Schendan, H. E. (2019). Sensitive individuals are more
exercises or meditation methods. creative. Personality and Individual Differences, 142, 186–195.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.015
It is of interest to us to pursue investigations by question- Brindle, K., Moulding, R., Bakker, K., & Nedeljkovic, M. (2015). Is the relation-
ing the role of the four factors we found, to understand whether ship between sensory-processing sensitivity and negative affect mediated
the way high sensitivity is experienced (strength or vulnerabil- by emotional regulation? Australian Journal of Psychology, 67(4), 214–221.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12084
ity) could be linked to gender or age, for example, or to any other Cheek, J. M., Bourgeois, M. L., Theran, S. A., Grimes, J. O., & Norem, J. K. (2009). Inter-
sociodemographic characteristic. In other words, are there other preting the factors of the Highly Sensitive Person scale. In Poster session presented
sociodemographic specificities that could allow us to understand at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Tampa,
FL.
whether high sensitivity is experienced as a vulnerability factor, or
Chen, C., Chen, C., Moyzis, R., Stern, H., He, Q., Li, H., et al. (2011). Contribu-
as a tool for dealing with certain environmental threats? tions of dopamine-related genes and environmental factors to highly sensitive

7
J. Bordarie, C. Aguerre and L. Bolteau European Review of Applied Psychology 72 (2022) 100781

personality: a multi-step neuronal system-level approach. PloS One, 6(7) Meyer, B., Ajchenbrenner, M., & Bowles, D. P. (2005). Sensory sensitivity,
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021636 attachment experiences, and rejection responses among adults with border-
Ershova, R. V., Yarmotz, E. V., Koryagina, T. M., Semeniak, I. V., Shlyakhta, D. A., & line and avoidant features. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19(6), 641–658.
Tarnow, E. (2018). A psychometric evaluation of the highly sensitive person https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2005.19.6.641
scale: The components of sensory-processing sensitivity. Electronic Journal of Neal, J. A., Edelmann, R. J., & Glachan, M. (2002). Behavioural inhibition
General Medicine, 15(6), em96. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejgm/100634 and symptoms of anxiety and depression: Is there a specific relationship
Evans, D. E., & Rothbart, M. K. (2008). Temperamental sensitivity: Two with social phobia? British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41(4), 361–374.
constructs or one? Personality and Individual Differences, 44(1), 108–118. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466502760387489
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.07.016 Nocentini, A., Menesini, E., & Pluess, M. (2018). The personality trait of
Evers, A., Rasche, J., & Schabracq, M. J. (2008). High sensory-processing sensi- environmental sensitivity predicts children’s positive response to school-
tivity at work. International Journal of Stress Management, 15(2), 189–198. based antibullying intervention. Clinical Psychological Science, 6(6), 848–859.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.15.2.189 https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702618782194
Gere, D. R., Capps, S. C., Mitchell, D. W., & Grubbs, E. (2009). Sensory sensitivities Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw Hill.
of gifted children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63(3), 288–295. Pluess, M. (2015). Individual differences in environmental sensitivity. Child Devel-
https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.63.3.288 opment Perspectives, 9(3), 138–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12120
Grimen, H. L., & Diseth, Å. (2016). Sensory processing sensitivity: Factors of Pluess, M., & Boniwell, I. (2015). Sensory-processing sensitivity predicts treat-
the highly sensitive person scale and their relationships to personality and ment response to a school-based depression prevention program: Evidence
subjective health complaints. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 123(3), 637–653. of vantage sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 40–45.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2165222816660077 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.011
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis: Pluess, M., Assary, E., Lionetti, F., Lester, K. J., Krapohl, E., Aron, E. N., et al. (2018). Envi-
Global Edition (7th ed.). Pearson Education Limited. ronmental sensitivity in children: Development of the Highly Sensitive Child
Jagiellowicz, J., Xu, X., Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Cao, G., Feng, T., et al. (2011). Scale and identification of sensitivity groups. Developmental Psychology, 54(1),
The trait of sensory processing sensitivity and neural responses to changes 51. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000406
in visual scenes. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6(1), 38–47. Rubaltelli, E., Scrimin, S., Moscardino, U., Priolo, G., & Buodo, G. (2018). Media
https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq001 exposure to terrorism and people’s risk perception: The role of environmental
Konrad, S., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2017). Psychometric properties and validation of a sensitivity and psychophysiological response to stress. British Journal of Psychol-
German high sensitive person scale (HSPS-G). European Journal of Psychological ogy, 109(4), 656–673. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12292
Assessment, 35(3), 364–378. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000411 Slagt, M., Dubas, J. S., van Aken, M. A., Ellis, B. J., & Deković, M. (2018). Sensory
Licht, C. L., Mortensen, E. L., & Knudsen, G. M. (2011). Association between sensory processing sensitivity as a marker of differential susceptibility to parenting.
processing sensitivity and the 5-HTTLPR Short/Short genotype. Biological Psychi- Developmental Psychology, 54(3), 543–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000431
atry, 69, 152S–153S (Supplement for Society of Biological Psychiatry Convention Smith, H. L., Sriken, J., & Erford, B. T. (2019). Clinical and research utility of the Highly
and Annual Meeting, abstract, 510). Sensitive Person Scale. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 41(3), 221–241.
Lionetti, F., Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Burns, G. L., Jagiellowicz, J., & Pluess, M. (2018). https://doi.org/10.17744/mehc.41.3.03
Dandelions, tulips and orchids: Evidence for the existence of low-sensitive, Smolewska, K. A., McCabe, S. B., & Woody, E. Z. (2006). A psychometric evaluation of
medium-sensitive and high-sensitive individuals. Translational Psychiatry, 8(1), the Highly Sensitive Person Scale: The components of sensory-processing sensi-
1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-017-0090-6 tivity and their relation to the BIS/BAS and “Big Five”. Personality and Individual
Liss, M., Mailloux, J., & Erchull, M. J. (2008). The relationships between Differences, 40(6), 1269–1279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.09.022
sensory processing sensitivity, alexithymia, autism, depression, Sobocko, K., & Zelenski, J. M. (2015). Trait sensory-processing sensitiv-
and anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(3), 255–259. ity and subjective well-being: Distinctive associations for different
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.04.009 aspects of sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 44–49.
Liss, M., Timmel, L., Baxley, K., & Killingsworth, P. (2005). Sensory pro- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.045
cessing sensitivity and its relation to parental bonding, anxiety, and Ueno, Y., Takahashi, A., & Oshio, A. (2019). Relationship between sensory-processing
depression. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(8), 1429–1439. sensitivity and age in a large cross-sectional Japanese sample. Heliyon, 5(10),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.05.007 e02508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02508
Meredith, P. J., Bailey, K. J., Strong, J., & Rappel, G. (2016). Adult attachment, sen- Vallerand, R. J. (1989). Vers une méthodologie de validation transculturelle
sory processing, and distress in healthy adults. American Journal of Occupational de questionnaires psychologiques: Implications pour la recherche en
Therapy, 70(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2016.017376 langue française. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 30(4), 662.
Meyer, B., & Carver, C. S. (2000). Negative childhood accounts, sensi- https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079856 [Toward a methodology for the transcultural
tivity, and pessimism: A study of avoidant personality disorder fea- validation of psychological questionnaires: Implications for research in the
tures in college students. Journal of Personality Disorders, 14(3), 233–248. French language]
https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2000.14.3.233