Emotion regulation goals and strategies among individuals with varying levels of sensory processing sensitivity: a latent profile analysis

Sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) is a personality construct describing heightened sensitivity to environmental stimuli across four facets: deep information processing, enhanced emotional reactivity/empathy, increased sensory sensitivity, and ease of overstimulation. While SPS is not a disorder, higher SPS is consistently associated with greater negative affect (anxiety, depression, stress), and in some contexts with positive affect, suggesting vulnerability to psychological distress when maladaptive cognitive responses occur. Emotion regulation (ER)—efforts to manage the type, timing, experience, and expression of emotions—has been central in explaining how SPS relates to distress. Two frameworks guide this work: (1) the multidimensional model (DERS) posits competencies in emotional awareness/clarity, acceptance, impulse control, goal-directed behavior during distress, and access to strategies; deficits act as transdiagnostic risks. (2) The process model views ER as stages of identification, selection, implementation, and monitoring, highlighting strategy choice and use, especially cognitive reappraisal (antecedent-focused) versus expressive suppression (response-focused). Prior findings show individuals high in SPS are more aware yet have ER difficulties (nonacceptance, goal engagement, impulse control, limited strategies), with some deficits mediating SPS–negative affect links. SPS also relates to alexithymia facets (identifying/describing feelings), implying lower emotional clarity. Strategy-focused studies suggest high SPS is linked to rumination and suppression and greater depression/anxiety/stress. A key gap is the motivational mechanisms of ER in SPS—namely, emotion goals (desired emotional states) that initiate and shape ER processes. Tamir’s taxonomy distinguishes hedonic (pro-hedonic vs contra-hedonic) and instrumental goals (performance, pro-social, impression management). These goals predict strategy preferences (contra-hedonic and impression management associate with suppression/rumination; pro-hedonic with reappraisal). The present study sought to identify SPS–ER competency profiles via latent profile analysis (LPA) and examine how ER goals and strategies differ by profile, focusing on highly sensitive individuals with lower ER proficiency. Based on prior latent class work, we hypothesized at least three profiles (low, moderate, high SPS) with distinct ER habits.

Meta-analytic and empirical evidence indicates SPS correlates positively with negative affect across age groups and with positive affect in children. Using the DERS framework, higher SPS is associated with more ER difficulties (nonacceptance, difficulties in goal-directed behavior, impulse control, limited strategies), while emotional clarity shows mixed findings but overlaps with alexithymia (difficulty identifying/describing emotions) suggesting reduced clarity in high SPS. Attachment style does not fully account for SPS–ER difficulty associations; even securely attached highly sensitive individuals report more ER challenges. Strategy-focused research finds SPS predicts increased rumination over time (especially with permissive parenting) and greater use of suppression and dysfunctional attitudes, aligning with response-focused ER. Emotion goals literature links personality traits to ER goals and strategies: Neuroticism and low Extraversion predict contra-hedonic and impression management goals, which in turn relate to suppression and rumination; Extraversion/openness relate to pro-hedonic and performance goals and reappraisal use. These strands suggest that SPS—a trait associated with Neuroticism and lower Extraversion—may shape ER goal preferences and consequent strategy patterns, but this mechanism has been underexplored.

Design: Cross-sectional online survey with latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify SPS–ER competency profiles and examine distal outcomes (ER goals, strategies) and covariates (demographics). Participants: N=813 Chinese university students (208 males; 605 females); age 17–33 years (M=21.53, SD=2.48). Majority undergraduates (71.34%). Recruitment was voluntary via social media adverts; informed consent obtained; data collected on Wen Juan Xing. Measures: - Demographics: gender, age, education level, only-child status. - Sensory Processing Sensitivity (SPS): Chinese Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS; 27 items; 7-point Likert 1–7) with six factors: emotional reactivity (α=0.78), low sensory threshold (α=0.62), ease of excitation (α=0.76), aesthetic sensitivity (α=0.65), punishment sensitivity (α=0.45), depth of processing (α=0.62). Total HSPS α=0.86. - Emotion Regulation Competency: DERS-16 (5-point Likert 1–5), five subscales: lack of emotional clarity (α=0.73), difficulties in goal-directed behavior (α=0.86), impulse control difficulties (α=0.83), limited access to strategies (α=0.84), nonacceptance of emotional responses (α=0.73). Total α=0.92. - Emotion Regulation Goals: Emotion Regulation Goals Scale (ERGS; 18 items initially; 7-point Likert 1–7) assessing pro-hedonic, contra-hedonic, performance, pro-social, impression management goals. After translation/adaptation and CFA/IRT, one performance item (“To avoid being distracted by how you are feeling”) was removed due to low loading/discrimination. Revised fit: χ2/df=4.66; CFI=0.93; TLI=0.91; GFI=0.93; SRMR=0.06; RMSEA=0.07. Subscale α: pro-hedonic=0.75; contra-hedonic=0.71; performance=0.79; pro-social=0.80; impression management=0.81; total α=0.84. - Emotion Regulation Strategies: Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; 10 items; 7-point Likert) for cognitive reappraisal (α=0.80) and expressive suppression (α=0.74). Rumination: 4-item subscale from Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (5-point Likert; α=0.73). Data analysis: - Software: R (4.2.2) and Mplus (8.3). - LPA models fit sequentially (1–5 profiles). Fit indices: AIC, BIC, SA-BIC (lower=better); entropy (0–1; >0.80 acceptable). Likelihood tests: Lo–Mendell–Rubin (LMR) and bootstrapped LRT (BLRT). The optimal model chosen based on fit indices and significant LMR/BLRT. - Covariates: gender (0=female, 1=male), age (1=17–20; 2=21–25; 3=>25), only-child status (0=only child, 1=non-only child) using three-step R3STEP to account for classification error. - Distal outcomes: ER goals and strategies evaluated across profiles using BCH method. Ethics: Approved by the Ethics Committee of the Second Hospital of Shanxi Medical University; written informed consent obtained.

Descriptive correlations: SPS positively correlated with all DERS subscales and most ER goals except pro-hedonic. Rumination showed strongest positive correlation with SPS. Pro-hedonic goals correlated positively with reappraisal and negatively with suppression and DERS subscales; contra-hedonic goals correlated positively with suppression, rumination, and DERS subscales; negatively with reappraisal. Latent profiles: The 3-profile solution was optimal (entropy=0.82; LMR p=0.026; BLRT p<0.001). Profiles and proportions: (1) Low SPS – High ER Competency (41%); (2) Moderate SPS – ER Competency (41%); (3) High SPS – Low ER Competency (18%). The High SPS – Low ER Competency group had higher SPS and greater deficits across ER competencies; emotional clarity was relatively strongest but still lower than other groups; goal-directed behavior was the least developed competency across all profiles. Covariates: Compared to Low SPS – High ER Competency, males were less likely to be in Moderate SPS – ER Competency (OR=0.62, p=0.003) and High SPS – Low ER Competency (OR=0.48, p<0.001). Younger age was associated with higher odds of High SPS – Low ER Competency vs Low SPS – High ER Competency (OR=0.61, p<0.001). Only-child status was not a significant differentiator. Distal outcomes (means [SE] and pairwise significance): - ER goals: Pro-hedonic favored by Low SPS – High ER (P1=5.27[0.07]) over Moderate (P2=4.72[0.07], p<0.001) and High SPS – Low ER (P3=4.73[0.13], p<0.001; P2 vs P3 ns). Contra-hedonic increased across profiles (P1=2.47[0.06] < P2=3.09[0.08], p<0.001; < P3=3.47[0.13], p<0.001; P2 vs P3 p<0.05). Impression management higher in P2 (4.88[0.07]) and P3 (5.19[0.12]) than P1 (4.48[0.07]) (both p<0.001); P2 vs P3 p<0.05. Pro-social higher in P3 (4.67[0.11]) vs P1 (4.30[0.07], p<0.05); P1 vs P2 ns; P2 vs P3 ns. Performance slightly higher in P1 (5.41[0.06]) vs P2 (5.21[0.07], p<0.05); P1 vs P3 ns; P2 vs P3 ns. - ER strategies: Reappraisal highest in P1 (5.37[0.05]) vs P2 (5.13[0.06], p<0.01) and P3 (4.86[0.11], p<0.001); P2 vs P3 p<0.05. Suppression higher in P2 (4.19[0.07]) and P3 (4.15[0.13]) than P1 (3.68[0.08]) (P1 vs P2 p<0.001; P1 vs P3 p<0.01; P2 vs P3 ns). Rumination increases across profiles (P1=3.02[0.04] < P2=3.61[0.04], p<0.001 < P3=4.11[0.06], p<0.001; P2 vs P3 p<0.001). Overall pattern: High SPS combined with lower ER competency is associated with greater pursuit of contra-hedonic and impression management goals and reliance on response-focused strategies (rumination/suppression), whereas low SPS with higher ER competency aligns with pro-hedonic goals and use of cognitive reappraisal.

The study addressed the gap in understanding how SPS as a personality trait shapes ER mechanisms by integrating multidimensional (competency) and process (goals/strategies) models through LPA. Identifying three SPS–ER competency profiles showed that high SPS coupled with low ER competency is linked to specific ER goals (contra-hedonic and impression management) and response-focused strategies (rumination/suppression), clarifying pathways through which sensitive individuals may experience greater distress. Findings align with personality-linked emotion goals, given SPS’s association with higher Neuroticism and lower Extraversion, which predispose toward contra-hedonic and impression management goals and away from exclusive pro-hedonic pursuit. The observed strategy patterns (reappraisal in low SPS–high ER, rumination/suppression in high SPS–low ER, balanced use in moderate profile) support the theoretical link between goals and spontaneous strategies. Demographic effects suggest females and younger students are more represented in higher sensitivity/lower ER profiles, pointing to developmental and gender-related considerations. These results underscore the importance of tailoring interventions for highly sensitive individuals by targeting both ER competencies and motivations (emotion goals) that drive strategy selection.

This study delineates three distinct SPS–ER competency profiles among Chinese college students and demonstrates that higher SPS coupled with lower ER proficiency is associated with greater pursuit of contra-hedonic and impression management goals and reliance on response-focused strategies, whereas lower SPS with higher ER competence aligns with pro-hedonic goals and cognitive reappraisal. The integration of ER competencies with goals/strategies offers a mechanistic account of how SPS relates to emotional distress and suggests intervention targets: strengthen ER competencies (clarity, acceptance, impulse control, goal-directed behavior, strategy repertoire) and recalibrate emotion goals toward adaptive aims to promote antecedent-focused strategies like reappraisal. Future research should examine developmental trajectories across the lifespan, expand the range of ER strategies (especially antecedent-focused), and employ intensive longitudinal or experimental methods to capture dynamic ER processes and causal relations.

- Sample composition: Predominantly female college students, limiting generalizability and potentially differing from community adult populations. - Strategy scope: Focused on three ER strategies (reappraisal, suppression, rumination), with two response-focused; broader antecedent-focused strategies were not assessed. - Design and measurement: Cross-sectional self-report data may not capture dynamic emotion processes; prospective, daily diary, or experimental designs are recommended for stronger inference.