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

Sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) is a biologically rooted personality trait describing heightened sensitivity to environmental stimuli, encompassing deeper information processing, increased emotional reactivity and empathy, heightened sensory sensitivity, and ease of overstimulation. Prior work links higher SPS to elevated negative affect (anxiety, depression, stress), with ER difficulties mediating such associations. ER is conceptualized via multidimensional competencies (awareness/clarity, acceptance, impulse control, goal-directed behavior, strategy access) and process stages (identification, selection, implementation, monitoring). Sensitive individuals show ER challenges and tend to rely on response-focused strategies (suppression, rumination). Yet, the motivational mechanisms (emotion regulation goals) that initiate and guide ER among people with varying SPS levels remain underexplored. This study investigates how SPS profiles combined with ER competencies relate to ER goals (pro-hedonic, contra-hedonic, performance, pro-social, impression management) and strategy use (reappraisal, suppression, rumination) in Chinese college students using latent profile analysis.

Empirical studies using DERS show that higher SPS associates with greater ER difficulties (nonacceptance, goal-directed behavior problems, impulse control issues, limited strategy access), while emotional clarity findings are mixed, with overlaps between SPS and alexithymia suggesting reduced clarity in highly sensitive individuals. Longitudinal and cross-sectional research indicates that higher SPS predicts greater rumination and suppression and higher depression, anxiety, and stress, particularly under permissive parenting. ER goals theory distinguishes hedonic (pro-hedonic, contra-hedonic) and instrumental goals (performance, pro-social, impression management), with personality traits shaping goal preferences and strategy use: neuroticism aligns with contra-hedonic and impression management goals and greater suppression/rumination; extraversion aligns with pro-hedonic goals and reappraisal. SPS correlates positively with neuroticism and introversion, suggesting sensitive individuals may favor contra-hedonic and impression management goals and response-focused strategies. Gaps remain on how SPS, ER competencies, and ER goals/strategies cohere within individuals; latent profile approaches consistently reveal low-, medium-, and high-sensitivity subgroups, motivating a combined SPS–ER competency profiling approach.

Design: Cross-sectional online survey with latent profile analysis (LPA). Participants: 813 Chinese university students (208 males; 605 females), ages 17–33 (M=21.53, SD=2.48); 71.34% undergraduates. Recruitment and procedure: Voluntary participation via social media advertisements; informed consent obtained; privacy assured; data collected via Wen Juan Xing. Measures: (1) Sensory Processing Sensitivity: Chinese Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS; 27 items, 7-point scale) across 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 α=0.86. (2) ER Competency: DERS-16 (5 subscales; 5-point scale): lack of clarity (α=0.73), difficulties engaging in goal-directed behavior (α=0.86), impulse control difficulties (α=0.83), limited access to strategies (α=0.84), nonacceptance of responses (α=0.73); total α=0.92. (3) ER Goals: Emotion Regulation Goals Scale (ERGS; originally 18 items; 7-point scale) assessing pro-hedonic, contra-hedonic, performance, pro-social, impression management. After double translation and confirmation analyses, one performance item (“To avoid being distracted by how you are feeling”) was removed due to low loading and discrimination; revised model fit: χ²/df=4.66, CFI=0.93, TLI=0.91, GFI=0.93, SRMR=0.06, RMSEA=0.07; subscale αs: pro-hedonic=0.75, contra-hedonic=0.71, performance=0.79, pro-social=0.80, impression management=0.81; total α=0.84. (4) ER Strategies: Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; 10 items, 7-point scale): reappraisal (α=0.80), suppression (α=0.74); Rumination: CERQ rumination subscale (4 items, 5-point scale; α=0.73). Data analysis: Initial processing in R 4.2.2; LPA in Mplus 8.3. Models with 1–5 profiles evaluated via AIC, BIC, SABIC (lower is better), entropy (≥0.80 acceptable), Lo–Mendell–Rubin (LMR) and bootstrapped likelihood ratio test (BLRT) (significant p indicates better k-profile vs k−1). Demographic covariates (gender, age, only-child status) were examined via R3STEP to account for classification errors. Distal outcomes (ER goals and strategies) were compared across profiles using BCH.

Descriptives and correlations: SPS positively correlated with all DERS subscales and most ER goals except pro-hedonic; among strategies, rumination showed the 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, and negatively with reappraisal. Latent profiles: The 3-profile model was optimal (Entropy=0.82; LMR p=0.026; BLRT p<0.001), with decreasing AIC/BIC/SABIC across models; class proportions: 0.41/0.41/0.18. Profiles: (1) Low SPS – High ER Competency (41%): low SPS; fewer ER deficits. (2) Moderate SPS – ER Competency (41%): medium SPS and ER competency. (3) High SPS – Low ER Competency (18%): high SPS; greater ER deficits. Covariates (R3STEP): 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 participants were more likely to be in High SPS – Low ER Competency (OR=0.61 vs Low SPS – High ER, p<0.001; OR=0.67 vs Moderate SPS – ER Competency, p=0.012). Only-child status was not significant. Distal outcomes (BCH; Table 4 means): ER goals—Pro-hedonic: P1=5.27, P2=4.72, P3=4.73 (P1>P2***; P1>P3***; P2 vs P3 ns). Contra-hedonic: P1=2.47, P2=3.09, P3=3.47 (P1<P2***; P1<P3***; P2<P3*). Pro-social: P1=4.30, P2=4.42, P3=4.67 (P1<P3*; others ns). Performance: P1=5.41, P2=5.21, P3=5.26 (P1>P2*; others ns). Impression management: P1=4.48, P2=4.88, P3=5.19 (P1<P2***; P1<P3***; P2<P3*). ER strategies—Reappraisal: P1=5.37, P2=5.13, P3=4.86 (P1>P2**; P1>P3***; P2>P3*). Suppression: P1=3.68, P2=4.19, P3=4.15 (P1<P2***; P1<P3**; P2 vs P3 ns). Rumination: P1=3.02, P2=3.61, P3=4.11 (all pairwise differences ***). Overall, the High SPS – Low ER Competency group pursued contra-hedonic and impression management goals and relied more on rumination and suppression; the Low SPS – High ER Competency group pursued pro-hedonic goals and used reappraisal; the Moderate SPS – ER Competency group leaned toward suppression and rumination.

Integrating multidimensional and process models of ER, the study shows that SPS meaningfully clusters with ER competencies and predicts distinct ER goals and strategies. Highly sensitive individuals with lower ER proficiency favor contra-hedonic and impression management goals and rely on response-focused strategies (rumination, suppression), potentially reflecting heightened emotional reactivity, social attunement, and personality correlates (higher neuroticism, lower extraversion). Conversely, less sensitive individuals with stronger ER competencies prioritize pro-hedonic goals and antecedent-focused strategies (reappraisal). The Moderate SPS group shows balanced competencies and a tendency toward suppression, possibly due to managing higher-intensity emotions. Gender and age patterns suggest males and older students are less likely to exhibit the High SPS – Low ER profile, consistent with improved ER competencies and lower SPS levels. These findings elucidate mechanisms by which SPS shapes ER processes—from goals to strategies—informing tailored interventions for highly sensitive individuals experiencing distress.

The study identifies three SPS–ER competency profiles in Chinese college students and demonstrates that higher SPS combined with lower ER proficiency is associated with contra-hedonic and impression management goals and a preference for response-focused strategies, particularly rumination. Less sensitive individuals with stronger ER competencies prefer pro-hedonic goals and reappraisal. These insights advance understanding of ER mechanisms in the context of SPS and suggest that psychological support for highly sensitive individuals should target motivational goals and promote antecedent-focused strategies. Future research should examine developmental trajectories, broaden the strategy repertoire, and employ longitudinal, daily diary, or experimental methods across more diverse populations and cultural contexts.

The sample was predominantly female college students, limiting generalizability beyond student and Chinese contexts. The study assessed only three ER strategies (two response-focused), not capturing the broader repertoire of antecedent-focused strategies used in daily life. The cross-sectional, self-report design may not reflect dynamic emotion processes; longitudinal, daily diary, and experimental designs are recommended for deeper causal insights.