A total of 562 psychology students from the University of Granada (Spain) participated in the study, with a mean age of 20.13 years (SD = 4.54), of whom 114 were men (means (M) = 20.70 years; standard deviation (SD) = 4.91) and 448 were women (M = 19.99 years; SD = 4.45). A total of 117 patients diagnosed with social anxiety disorder (SAD), following the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; (APA, 2013)), from 5 countries also participated (54 from Ecuador, 17 from Paraguay, 18 from Bolivia, 8 from Puerto Rico and 20 from Spain), with a mean age of 24.90 years (SD = 8.90), of whom 42 were men (M = 25.43 years; SD = 8.40) and 75 were women (M = 24.61 years; SD = 9.21).

(a) Highly Sensitive People Scale-Modified (HSP-M20). A modification of the “Are you highly sensitive?” questionnaire proposed by Aron (1999) was used, eliminating 2 of the 22 items from the questionnaire due to some problems on comprehension in the Spanish language. The HSP-M20 (see Table 1) constitutes a reduced and slightly modified version of the most widespread and widely used self-report measure in research on sensory processing sensitivity called the “Highly Sensitive Person Scale” (HSPS) (Aron and Aron, 1997). Of the 27 items included in this last measure, 7 (items 1, 10, 11, 12, 15, 23 and 25) were omitted. The HSP-M20 (like the original scale by (Aron and Aron, 1997)) attempts to assess the degree of sensitivity that a person has to both external (mainly) and internal stimuli and events. The HSP-M20 is answered on a five-point Likert scale (from 1 = “Very uncharacteristic of me” to 5 = “Very characteristic of me”). The higher the score, the greater the SPS. This scale, together with other added items, has been commonly used in the evaluation of patients being treated for social anxiety problems (Salazar et al, 2022). In this study no statistically significant differences were found between countries within each sex.

(b) Social Anxiety Questionnaire for Adults (SAQ; (Caballo et al, 2012)). The SAQ was developed to assess social anxiety in Spain, Portugal, and most Ibero-American countries. The questionnaire consists of 30 items that are answered using a five-point Likert scale (from 1 = “Not at all or very little” to 5 = “A lot or very much”), indicating the degree of unease, stress or nervousness experienced in each social situation. The items are grouped into five dimensions (or subscales): (1) Interactions with strangers, (2) Interactions with people I find attractive, (3) Assertive expression of annoyance, disgust, or displeasure, (4) Criticism or embarrassment, and (5) Speaking in public/Interacting with people in authority. The higher the score, the higher the social anxiety, both in the different dimensions and in the total score. These dimensions were empirically identified with more than 30,000 non-clinical participants, over 1000 patients and the participation of 18 countries. The psychometric properties of the instrument can be found in Caballo et al. (2012). The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for the SAQ total score has ranged from 0.88 to 0.93 and that of the dimensions has ranged from 0.74 to 0.90. In this study it was 0.90 for the total score and 0.81, 0.77, 0.76, 0.67 and 0.86 in the corresponding dimensions for the university sample, and 0.95 for the total score and 0.89, 0.91, 0.86, 0.76 and 0.86 in the corresponding dimensions for the clinical sample.

(c) Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale, Self-Report Version (LSAS-SR; (Liebowitz, 1987)). The LSAS-SR consists of 24 items assessing fear or anxiety (Anxiety subscale) and avoidance (Avoidance subscale) of specific social situations. Participants are asked to rate their fear or anxiety on a Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (None) to 3 (Severe) as well as avoidance on the same type of scale, from 0 (Never) to 3 (Usually). The total score is obtained by adding the Anxiety subscale score and the Avoidance subscale score. The higher the score, the higher the anxiety or avoidance or both. The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) found of the total LSAS-SR has ranged from 0.93 to 0.95 and that of the subscales has ranged from 0.83 to 0.93 (González et al, 1998; Terra et al, 2006). In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.94, 0.90, and 0.88 for the total score and the Anxiety and Avoidance subscales, respectively, in the university sample, and 0.96, 0.94, and 0.93 in the clinical sample.

(d) Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II; (Beck et al, 1996)). BDI-II measures the magnitude of depression by means of 21 items with four response options that are ordered according to severity, from 0 to 3 points. The respondent must choose the option that best describes his or her current situation during the last two weeks. The higher the score, the greater the presence of depressive symptoms. Reliability levels reported with Spanish samples are high (e.g., (Salazar et al, 2014)) and in the study by Salazar et al. (2022) Cronbach’s alpha was 0.90. In this study it was 0.92 for university students and 0.90 for patients.

(e) Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ; (Meyer et al, 1990)), Spanish version of Nuevo et al. (2002). The PSWQ is a unidimensional instrument that assesses the excessiveness, generality, and uncontrollability of worries and consists of 16 items that are answered on a five-point Likert scale (from 1 = “Not at all” to 5 = “Very much”). The original questionnaire (Meyer et al, 1990) contains five negative items (1, 3, 5, 8, 10 and 11), but the Spanish version used in this study contains the negative items reformulated into positive items due to the problematic nature of negatively worded items for Spanish speakers. The total score is obtained by adding the scores of all the items and the higher it is, the greater the degree of worry. The levels of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) reported on the instrument are excellent (e.g., 0.92 on (Counsell et al, 2017); 0.95 on (Salazar et al, 2022)). In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.95 for the students and 0.94 for the patients.

(f) Questionnaire for Avoidant Personality Disorder (QAPD). The QAPD is a seven-items scale that measures Avoidant personality disorder (APD) derived from the personality questionnaire of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II; (First et al, 1999)). The original response scale (yes/no) was modified to a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 = “Very uncharacteristic of me” to 5 = “Very characteristic of me”. The higher the score the higher the possibility of being diagnosed with a APD. In the study by Salazar et al. (2022) Cronbach’s alpha was 0.85 and in this study, it was 0.82 for university students and 0.85 for patients.

(g) Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; (Rosenberg, 1965; Rosenberg et al, 1995)). The RSES is the most widely used self-report measure to assess self-esteem. According to Rosenberg (1965), it evaluates “the feeling that one is good enough” (p. 31). It consists of 10 items, five formulated positively and five negatively. Each item is answered on a four-point Likert scale (from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 4 = “Strongly agree”). To calculate a total score of the negative items is inverted and all are added together. The higher the score, the higher the self-esteem. Regarding its internal consistency, Cronbach’s alphas of 0.81 (Cheng et al, 2015) and 0.88 (Fleming and Courtney, 1984) and test-retest reliability of 0.82 (Fleming and Courtney, 1984) have been reported. In the study by Salazar et al. (2022) Cronbach’s alpha was 0.87 and in this study, it was 0.89 for the university sample and 0.87 for the clinical sample.

(h) Social Skills Assessment Questionnaire (SOSAQ; (Caballo et al, 2017)). The SOSAQ is a 40-item questionnaire that assesses 10 social skills (four items per skill): (1) Interacting with strangers; (2) Expressing positive feelings; (3) Dealing with criticism; (4) Interacting with people I am attracted to; (5) Keeping calm in embarrassing situations; (6) Speaking in public/Interacting with people in authority, (7) Dealing with embarrassing situations; (8) Defending one’s rights; (9) Apologizing, and (10) Refusing requests. Each item is answered on a Likert scale, from 1 (“Very uncharacteristic of me”) to 5 (“Very characteristic of me”). No items were negatively worded, so that the score is obtained by adding the items directly. In each skill the minimum score is 1 and the maximum score is 20. The higher the score the higher the social skill assessed. Caballo et al. (2017) reported reliability coefficients (Guttman split-half reliability) between 0.66 and 0.89, and internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) between 0.64 and 0.90 for the SOSAQ dimensions and for the total score of 0.86 (Guttman’s) and 0.88 (Cronbach’s alpha). It has been significantly correlated with the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (r = 0.53) and with the Social Anxiety Questionnaire for adults (SAQ) (r = –0.49) (Salazar et al, 2022). Cronbach’s alpha for the total score was 0.93 in the Salazar et al. (2022) research. In this study it was 0.89 for the total score and for the dimensions 0.80, 0.84, 0.79, 0.91, 0.74, 0.86, 0.63, 0.75, 0.84 and 0.81, respectively, in the university sample and 0.93 for the total score and for the dimensions of 0.81, 0.84, 0.88, 0.95, 0.84, 0.80, 0.74, 0.81, 0.89 and 0.86, respectively, in the clinical sample.

(i) World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQoL-Bref; (World Health Organization, 1996)). The WHOQoL-Bref consists of 26 items that assess the individual’s perception of his or her quality of life. The first two items are examined separately. Item one refers to the general perception of their quality of life and item two to the general perception of their health. The remaining 24 items are distributed in four domains, in which quality of life is assessed independently: (1) Physical health (7 items), which refers to activities of daily living, medication dependence, energy and fatigue, mobility, pain and discomfort, sleep and work capacity; (2) Psychological (6 items), which refers to body image, positive and negative feelings, self-esteem, spirituality and personal beliefs, and higher processes (thinking, learning, memory and concentration); (3) Social relationships (3 items), which refers to personal relationships, social support and sexual activity; and (4) Environment (8 items), which refers to economic resources, physical security, the social security system (access and quality), family environment, opportunities to acquire new knowledge and skills, opportunities for leisure and free time activities, physical environment (pollution, noise, traffic, climate) and transportation. The items are answered on a five-choice Likert scale, and before the scores in each domain and overall are calculated, the scores of three items must be reversed. The higher the score, the higher the quality of life in the respective domain. In the study by Salazar et al. (2022) Cronbach’s alpha was 0.92, and in this study, it was 0.90 in university students and 0.90 in patients. Regarding the sections, in university students it was 0.72 (physical health), 0.83 (psychological area), 0.62 (social relations) and 0.74 (environment) and in patients the alpha was 0.57 (physical health), 0.63 (psychological area), 0.79 (social relations) and 0.78 (environment).

(j) Anticipatory Social Behaviours Questionnaire (ASBQ; (Hinrichsen and Clark, 2003)). The ASBQ is a 12-item questionnaire that assesses the type and level of cognitive strategies used by individuals prior to social situations. These include rehearsal for the upcoming situation, catastrophizing, and thinking about past social situations. Participants are asked to rate the frequency with which they typically engage in specific behaviors or have specific thoughts prior to a social situation. Each item is rated on a 1 (Never) to 4 (Always) scale, and higher scores indicate more use of maladaptive cognitive strategies. The internal consistency reported for ASBQ is high ($\alpha$ = 0.88; (Hinrichsen and Clark, 2003)), and in this study it was 0.90 for the student sample.

(k) Experiences Questionnaire (EQ; (Fresco et al, 2007)). The EQ is a 17-item self-report measure composed by two subscales: (1) Decentering subscale, formed by the first 11 items which would indicate the ability to distance oneself from one’s thoughts and feelings. The higher the score on this subscale, the greater the capacity for distancing, which is a positive characteristic of the person. (2) Rumination subscale, formed by the six last items which would indicate that the person turns his thoughts over and over again. The higher the score, the more focused the person is on his own thoughts, which is a negative characteristic of the individual. Both subscales use a 5-point Likert scale. The Decentering subscale has been shown to have adequate to good internal consistency as well as convergent and divergent validity (Fresco et al, 2007). In the sample of students in this study it was 0.79 for Decentering and 0.74 for Rumination.

(l) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS; (Frost et al, 1990)). The MPS has been developed to assess perfectionism, very common in people with social phobia. This scale consists of 35 items that are distributed over six subscales. In addition, there is a global perfectionism score, which is the sum of all subscales except Organization. The subscales are as follows: (1) Concern over mistakes (CM), composed of 9 items, which assess negative reactions to errors, a tendency to interpret mistakes as equivalent to failure and a tendency to believe that one will lose the respect to others after failure. (2) Personal standards (PS), composed of 7 items, which reflect the establishment of very high standards and the excessive importance given to these high standards for self-evaluation. (3) Parent expectations (PE), composed of 5 items, which assess the tendency to believe that parents themselves set very high goals. (4) Parental criticism (PC), composed of 4 items, which assess to the perception that the parents themselves are (or were) too critical. (5) Doubting of actions (D), composed of 4 items, which assess the extent to which people doubt their ability to perform tasks. (6) Organization (O), composed of 6 items, which assess the tendency to be orderly or organized and reflects an emphasis on order and discipline that has often been associated with perfectionism. This subscale is slightly different from the previous ones and is not included in the overall perfectionism score. Good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) has been demonstrated for both the general measure of perfectionism and the six subscales (Frost et al, 1990). In the sample of students in this study it was 0.93 for the total score and 0.90, 0.82, 0.87, 0.84, 0.71 and 0.88 for the subscales.

(m) Exploratory Questionnaire of Personality (“Cuestionario exploratorio de personalidad-III”, CEPER-III; (Caballo et al, 2011)). This self-report instrument is composed of 168 items that assess 14 personality styles: paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, histrionic, narcissistic, antisocial, borderline, avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive, passive-aggressive, sadistic, self-defeating, and depressive. It also includes two items that assess sincerity. The first ten styles follow the DSM-5 criteria (APA, 2013), the passive-aggressive and depressive styles follow the DSM-IV criteria (APA, 1994), and the self-defeating and sadistic styles follow the DSM-III-R criteria (APA, 1987). Although the questionnaire’s items follow the diagnostic criteria of personality disorders, the CEPER-III has been developed to assess personality styles. The response format is Likert-type, ranging from 1 = “Very uncharacteristic of me” to 7 = “Very characteristic of me”. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for the overall score with Spanish samples has been excellent (0.97 in (Caballo et al, 2011)) and good (from 0.76 to 0.89) for each of the personality styles (Caballo et al, 2011). In the sample of students in this study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.97 for the total score and for the Paranoid styles 0.80, Schizoid 0.74, Schizotypal 0.81, Antisocial 0.73, Borderline 0.86, Histrionic 0.79, Narcissistic 0.78, Avoidant 0.87, Dependent 0.86, Obsessive-compulsive 0.80, Passive-aggressive 0.73, Self-destructive 0.83, Depressive 0.91 and Sadistic 0.83.

For the psychology students’ sample, the questionnaires were completed in a class. They were filled out voluntarily and anonymously. For the clinical sample included in the study, it had been selected to participate in the “Multidimensional Intervention for Social Anxiety” (MISA) program (Caballo et al, 2023). The present study included data from patients obtained in the pre-treatment stage, before going through the program. Previous articles (Caballo et al, 2021; Salazar et al, 2022) have published data on the application of the MISA program to some of these patients.

Initially, an analysis was performed on some of the psychometric properties of the PAS-M20, such as its factor structure by means of exploratory factor analysis, its internal consistency and reliability by calculating Cronbach’s alpha and the Guttman split-half reliability, respectively, in the samples of students and patients with SAD.

Next, an analysis of the differences in means according to sex (using Student’s t test) was performed regarding the temperamental trait of sensitivity to sensory processing to establish the discrepancies between men and women, both among university students and among patients.

Then, in order to analyze the relationship between the personality trait of SPS and other psychological difficulties, such as social anxiety, avoidant personality disorder, dysfunctional worries, depression, self-esteem, social skills and quality of life, the correlations (Pearson’s r) were examined both in the student sample and in the patient sample. In the student sample, correlations (Pearson’s r) were also examined for the three factors obtained from the PAS-M20 with anticipatory social behaviors, experiences (distancing and rumination), perfectionism and personality styles/disorders.

Finally, a sample of students was selected to compare, using Student’s t test (and in some cases also using the Mann-Whitney U test), those who had the highest scores in the trait of high SPS with those who showed the lowest scores in that trait. To obtain these subsamples, we categorized subjects as highly sensitive when their HSP-M20 score was at least one standard deviation above the mean and as low sensitive when their score was at least one standard deviation below the mean.

Using exploratory factor analysis with oblique rotation, the most coherent solution for this scale was that of 3 factors in both samples. The cumulative variance was 33.46% for the university students and 41.01% for the patients with social anxiety disorder. In Table 1 we have included the items of these 3 factors for the two samples. The factor Ease of Excitation (EOE) shared 6 items across samples, the factor Low Sensory Threshold (LST) shared 3 items across samples and the factor Aesthetic Sensitivity (AES) shared 2 items across samples (although in the case of the patients the items included in this factor were not very coherent). The 3-factor solution was the one with the most congruent dimensions, although far from constituting an easily explainable situation, due to differences between the samples in the items that loaded on each factor and the low accumulated variances (see Table 1).

The factor analysis of this 20-item version of the HSP-M20 does not seem to yield clearly consistent results when comparing the content of the 3 factors in the two samples used in the study. The solutions with more factors, although they increased the percentage of accumulated variance, included very diverse items in each factor and item loading differed across samples. Taking these problems into account, we decided to use the total score of the HSP-M20 as the main variable when relating the SPS to the other variables used in this study. However, in the case of the students, and despite some problems of coherence in the factors found, we have also included convergent validity correlations with the other variables for those three factors, EOE, LST and AES, in the analyses.

Table 2 shows the correlations of the three factors with the total score of the HSP-M20 and between themselves in the sample of university students, clearly the EOE and LST factors are more related to each other than to AES.

The analysis of internal consistency of the HSP-M20 was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, which in the case of the student sample was 0.81 for the overall score of the scale and 0.73, 0.57 and 0.70 for the factors Low Sensory Threshold, Aesthetic Sensitivity, and Ease of Excitability, respectively. In the sample of patients, Cronbach’s alpha for the total score was 0.80 and 0.64, 0.19 and 0.79 for the factors Low Sensory Threshold, Aesthetic Sensitivity and Ease of Excitability, respectively.

Guttman split-half reliability was also calculated, which was 0.84 for the total score of the HSP-M20 and 0.78, 0.62 and 0.74 for the factors Low Sensory Threshold, Aesthetic Sensitivity, and Ease of Excitability, respectively, in the student sample. In the patient sample, Guttman split-half reliability was 0.80 for the total score of the HSP-M20 and 0.64, 0.12 and 0.81 for the factors Low Sensory Threshold, Aesthetic Sensitivity, and Ease of Excitability, respectively. Finally, the average correlation between items was 0.18 in both samples.

In the sample of university students, women scored significantly higher than men (p 0.001) in the total score of the HSP-M20. Regarding scale scores, only in the EOE factor did women score significantly higher than men (p 0.001). In the sample of patients, these differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.059) although women scored higher than men on the HSP-M20 (Table 3).

We can also find that patients with SAD had higher averages than university students in the total score of the HSP-M20. When comparing the men in both samples, we also found that the differences were not statistically significant (t = 1.54; p = 0.125), while in women they were (t = 2.02; p 0.05).

The correlations between the scores on the HSP-M20 and those obtained in other variables used in this study are very diverse. We used instruments that assessed social anxiety (including avoidant personality disorder), worries, depression, social skills, self-esteem and quality of life in both university subjects and patients with SAD. In addition, in university students we also assessed dysfunctional anticipatory behaviors, the ability to distance oneself from one’s own thoughts and feelings, ruminative thoughts, various facets of perfectionism, and personality styles/disorders (We chose to assess personality styles based on the DSM-IV/DSM-5/DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria (APA, 1994; APA, 2013; APA, 2022) and not on the alternative DSM-5/DSM-5-TR classification based on the Big Five traits (Five Factor Model, FFM), since the contribution of this model to clinical practice and the treatment of personality disorders has been null so far (see (Caballo et al, 2024) for a more detailed review), despite the numerous studies conducted in the area).

Tables 4,5 present correlations found in the sample of university students, for the overall score of the HSP-M20 and its three factors. Thus, in Table 4 the highest correlations of high personal sensitivity were with the Worries (r = 0.52), with Avoidant Personality Disorder (r = 0.49) and Social Anxiety (r_LSAS = 0.46 and r_SAQ = 0.44), particularly in situations that have to do with criticism and embarrassment (r = 0.39) and those that require speaking in public or interacting to people in authority (r = 0.37), but also in interaction with strangers (r = 0.32) and in the assertive expression of annoyance, disgust or displeasure (r = 0.31). There were also positive correlations, although not as high as the previous ones (0.20 r 0.30) between high personal sensitivity and Depression (r = 0.29), and with the social skill of Apologizing (r = 0.20), and negative relationships with Self-esteem (r = –0.27), Quality of Life, particularly in the areas of physical health (r = –0.29), psychological (r = –0.26) and global (r = –0.27) quality of life and also with two types of Social Skills such as keeping calm in embarrassing situations) (r = –0.29), speaking in public/interacting with people in authority (r = –0.25).

Regarding the factors of SPS in university students, the results of the EOE and the LST are very similar to those obtained with the overall high sensitivity, especially in the case of the former. However, the third factor, AES, had different correlations with many of the variables than those of the other two factors. For example, it did not have significant correlations with avoidant personality disorder or with social anxiety, except in situations that have to do with criticism and embarrassment (r = 0.10), nor with self-esteem and quality of life. The correlation with worries was also very low (r = 0.13) and, unlike the negative correlations of the HSP-M20, the EOE or the LST with social skills, the AES had significant positive correlations with some but no other variables.

In Table 5 we find significant correlations between personal sensitivity and other variables such as Rumination (r = 0.47), Anticipatory Social Behaviors (r = 0.44) and Perfectionist Doubts about one’s ability to perform tasks (r = 0.45). There were also significant correlations, although not as high as the previous ones (0.20 r 0.40) between high personal sensitivity and negative reactions to mistakes (r = 0.32), the setting of very high standards and the excessive importance given to these high standards for self-evaluation (r = 0.24) and Perfectionism in general (r = 0.35). Regarding personality styles, participants with high SPS were characterized by symptoms typical of Avoidant (r = 0.47), Schizotypal (r = 0.46), Depressive (r = 0.43), Borderline (r = 0.42) and Dependent (r = 0.40) personality styles. It is also interesting to highlight the low correlations, or lack of them, between high SPS and the antisocial, histrionic, narcissistic and sadistic personality styles.

Regarding the factors of high SPS, the results of the EOE and LST factors were also very similar to those obtained with overall high SPS. The correlations of the AES factor with the rest of the variables were considerably lower than in the case of the other two factors in most cases and in some of them there were no significant correlations, especially with certain personality styles (schizoid, avoidant, dependent, self-destructive, depressive and sadistic). In the Decentering subscale (the ability to distance oneself from one’s own thoughts and feelings) of the EQ, the AES factor correlated significantly in a positive way, while both the HSP-M20 and the EOE and LST factors correlated negatively.

In the case of patients with SAD (Table 6), the highest correlation of high personal sensitivity was with Worries (r = 0.63). Other important correlations (0.20 r 0.40) were with global Social Anxiety (r = 0.39 in both the LSAS and the SAQ), especially in situations that have to do with criticism and embarrassment (r = 0.46), those that require the assertive expression of annoyance, disgust or displeasure (r = 0.40), and speaking in public or interacting to people in authority (r = 0.38), with Avoidant Personality Disorder (r = 0.39), with Depression (r = 0.38), with a type of Social Skill such as keeping calm in embarrassing situations (r = –0.41), Self-esteem (r = –0.30) and with Quality of Life (r = –0.27), particularly in the general perception of their quality of life (r = –0.31), the general perception of their health (r = –0.26), environmental factors that help quality of life (r = –0.24) and their psychological health (r = –0.23). Also interesting is the total lack of correlation with most social skills. Finally, it should be noted that the questionnaires shown in Table 5 were not administered to patients with SAD.

Although the correlations between the scores obtained on the high SPS scale and the rest of the variables were statistically significant in most cases, we examined differences between participants with high and low sensory processing sensitivity in the student sample. We did not do this in the sample of patients with SAD because the sample size was small and there would be too few participants in the extreme groups. The results for female university students are shown in Table 7 and for male university students in Table 8.

As we can see in Table 7, the differences between university women with high and low SPS were significant in almost all the variables (except for some types of social skills and an area of quality of life—the perception of the quality of their health). Women with high SPS had more Worries, more Social Anxiety (including Avoidant Personality Disorder), lower Self-esteem, lower Quality of Life (p 0.001), and had greater difficulty with some types of Social Skills than women with low SPS.

In Table 7 we can see that women with high sensory processing sensitivity scored significantly higher on almost all variables than women with low SPS (with p 0.001 in most cases). Highly sensitive women had more Anticipatory Behaviors, more Rumination, more maladaptive Perfectionist ideas of all kinds, less ability to Distance themselves from their own thoughts and feelings, and scored significantly higher than low SPS women in almost all Personality styles, except for histrionic and sadistic personality styles, although the differences in antisocial and narcissistic styles were barely significant as were correlations with measures of perfectionist ideas regarding the tendency to believe that one’s parents set very high goals and the tendency to be neat or organized, reflecting an emphasis on order and discipline that has often been associated with perfectionism.

Regarding male university students (Table 8), those with high sensory processing sensitivity had more Worries, more Social Anxiety (including Avoidant Personality Disorder), lower Self-esteem, were more Depressed, had a lower Quality of Life in general and in three of its facets (p 0.001 or p 0.01), greater difficulty in two types of Social Skills (coping with criticism and keeping calm in embarrassing situations) than men with low SPS. Although we used t-test as our main tool for finding possible differences, we also used non-parametric statistics (Mann-Whitney U test) to confirm these differences due to the low number of participants in the two groups (Table 8).

In Table 8 we can see that male university students who scored high on sensory processing sensitivity scored significantly higher on most of the variables than men who scored low on SPS. The differences were not as high as in the case of women due to the smaller sample size. Highly SPS men had more Rumination, more perfectionist ideas in general and particularly in negative reactions to errors, in the tendency to interpret mistakes as equivalent to failure and to believe that one will lose the respect of others after this failure, and in the extent to which people doubt about their ability to perform tasks, had more Anticipatory Behaviors, and they also scored higher in different Personality styles (particularly the avoidant style) than low SPS men.