Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is a biomedical condition associated with exposure to man-made radio-frequency electromagnetic fields. Common sources are devices like mobile phones, wireless networks, base stations, computers, TVs, and more. Identifying individuals at risk of developing EHS is important. Those with heightened sensory processing sensitivity (SPS; the ability to perceive, process, and react to environmental stimuli, approximately 25% to 30% of the population) are of special interest. SPS could also be associated with connectedness to nature (CNS) and EHS. In the current gender-matched cross-sectional study (n = 450; 225 men and 225 women) we assessed gender differences in environmental sensitivity assessed as SPS, EHS, and CNS. Women had higher general EHS prevalence than men (13.3% vs. 5.3%), higher mean values on perceived sensitivity for 5 out of 9 categories of electromagnetic equipment (computers, electrical appliances, fluorescent lighting, mobile phones, and television) and they had higher scores on the three EHS Scales EHS General, EHS Scale, and EHS Index, in addition to higher SPS and CNS scores. The gender differences vanished when adjusting for SPS in the multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) analyses, suggesting that the differences in these scales were associated with SPS. The statistical equation modeling (SEM) results showed a significant positive direct effect of SPS on CNS, and a significant indirect effect mediated by EHS. The present study provides the first empirical evidence that highly sensitive individuals are capable of perceiving electromagnetic radiation. The results indicate that perceived EHS and CNS are driven by SPS and not by gender. Key Words: Electromagnetic hypersensitivity—Radio-frequency electromagnetic fields—Connectedness to nature—Environmental sensitivity—Sensory processing sensitivity—Highly sensitive person scale— Ecology—Environmental psychology
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AcevedoB., AronE., PosposS., & JessenD. (2018). The functional highly sensitive brain: A review of the brain circuits underlying sensory processing sensitivity and seemingly related disorders. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373, 20170161.
2.
AcevedoB. P., SantanderT., MarhenkeR., AronA., & AronE. (2021). Sensory processing sensitivity predicts individual differences in resting-state functional connectivity associated with depth of processing. Neuropsychobiology, 80, 185–200.
AnsalK., JoseD. S., & RajanR. K. (2018). Review on biological effect of electromagnetic radiation. 2018 International Conference on Circuits and Systems in Digital Enterprise Technology (ICCSDET).
5.
AronE. N., & AronA. (1997). Sensory-processing sensitivity and its relation to introversion and emotionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 345–368.
6.
AronE. N., AronA., & JagiellowiczJ. (2012). Sensory processing sensitivity: A review in the light of the evolution of biological responsivity. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 16, 262–282.
7.
AronA., KetayS., HeddenT., AronE. N., Rose MarkusH., & GabrieliJ. D. (2010). Temperament trait of sensory processing sensitivity moderates cultural differences in neural response. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5, 219–226.
8.
AssaryE., ZavosH. M., KrapohlE., KeersR., & PluessM. (2021). Genetic architecture of environmental sensitivity reflects multiple heritable components: A twin study with adolescents. Molecular Psychiatry, 26, 4896–4904.
9.
AugnerC., GnambsT., WinkerR., & BarthA. (2012). Acute effects of electromagnetic fields emitted by GSM mobile phones on subjective well-being and physiological reactions: a meta-analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 424, 11–15.
10.
AuvinenA., FeychtingM., AhlbomA., HillertL., ElliottP., SchüzJ., KromhoutH., ToledanoM. B., JohansenC., PoulsenA. H., VermeulenR., HeinävaaraS., KojoK., & TettamantiG. (2019). Headache, tinnitus and hearing loss in the international Cohort Study of Mobile Phone Use and Health (COSMOS) in Sweden and Finland. International Journal of Epidemiology, 48, 1567–1579.
11.
BandaraP., & CarpenterD. O. (2018). Planetary electromagnetic pollution: It is time to assess its impact. The Lancet. Planetary Health, 2, e512–e514.
12.
Baron-EpelO., & AndersonN. (2004). Self-reported health. Encyclopedia of Health and Behavior, 1, 630–634.
13.
Baryła-MatejczukM., PoleszakW., & PorzakR. (2023). Short Polish version of the highly sensitive person scale–exploring its multidimensional structure in a sample of emerging adults. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 11, 72–86.
14.
BelpommeD., CampagnacC., & IrigarayP. (2015). Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder. Reviews on Environmental Health, 30, 251–271.
15.
BelpommeD., & IrigarayP. (2022). Why electrohypersensitivity and related symptoms are caused by non-ionizing man-made electromagnetic fields: An overview and medical assessment. Environmental Research, 212, 113374.
16.
BoakesR. A. (2021). Performance on learning to associate a stimulus with positive reinforcement. In Operant-pavlovian interactions (pp.67–101). Routledge.
17.
Bosch-CapblanchX., EsuE., OringanjeC. M., DongusS., JalilianH., EyersJ., AuerC., MeremikwuM., & RöösliM. (2024). The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields exposure on human self-reported symptoms: A systematic review of human experimental studies. Environment International, 187, 108612.
18.
BrindleK., MouldingR., BakkerK., & NedeljkovicM. (2015). Is the relationship between sensory‐processing sensitivity and negative affect mediated by emotional regulation? Australian Journal of Psychology, 67, 214–221.
19.
CadoganE., LionettiF., MurphyM., & SettiA. (2023). Watching a video of nature reduces negative affect and rumination, while positive affect is determined by the level of sensory processing sensitivity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 90, 102031.
CarlbergM., & HardellL. (2017). Evaluation of mobile phone and cordless phone use and glioma risk using the Bradford Hill viewpoints from 1965 on association or causation. BioMed Research International, 2017, 9218486.
22.
ChacónA., Pérez-ChacónM., Borda-MasM., Avargues-NavarroM. L., & López-JiménezA. M. (2021). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the highly sensitive person scale to the adult Spanish population (HSPS-S). Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 14, 1041–1052.
23.
ChenF., CurranP. J., BollenK. A., KirbyJ., & PaxtonP. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the use of fixed cutoff points in RMSEA test statistic in structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 36, 462–494.
24.
ChoY. M., LimH. J., JangH., KimK., ChoiJ. W., ShinC., LeeS. K., KwonJ. H., & KimN. (2016). A follow-up study of the association between mobile phone use and symptoms of ill health. Environmental Health and Toxicology, 32, e2017001.
25.
ChristopherB., MaryY. S., KhandakerM. U., BradleyD., ChewM., & JojoP. (2020). Effects of mobile phone radiation on certain hematological parameters. Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 166, 108443.
26.
DavidS., BrownL. L., HeemskerkA. M., AronE., LeemansA., & AronA. (2022). Sensory processing sensitivity and axonal microarchitecture: Identifying brain structural characteristics for behavior. Brain Structure & Function, 227, 2769–2785.
27.
DieudonnéM. (2020). Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: A critical review of explanatory hypotheses. Environmental Health, 19, 1–12.
28.
EberleS. (2017). An Underworld Journey: Learning to cope with electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Ecopsychology, 9, 106–111.
29.
EgnerL. E., SütterlinS., & CalogiuriG. (2020). Proposing a framework for the restorative effects of nature through conditioning: Conditioned restoration theory. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17, 6792.
30.
ElsawyN., ElkholyS., AzmyR., MaherE. A., & ShamloulR. (2019). Electrophysiological assessment of the impact of mobile phone radiation on cognition in persons with epilepsy. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology: official Publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society, 36, 112–118.
31.
EltitiS., WallaceD., ZougkouK., RussoR., JosephS., RasorP., & FoxE. (2007). Development and evaluation of the electromagnetic hypersensitivity questionnaire. Bioelectromagnetics, 28, 137–151.
32.
FryerL. K., OzonoS., CarterP., NakaoK., & AndersonC. J. (2014). Instrumental reasons for studying in compulsory English courses: I didn’t come to university to study English, so why should I? Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 239–256.
33.
GenuisS. J. (2008). Fielding a current idea: Exploring the public health impact of electromagnetic radiation. Public Health, 122, 113–124.
34.
GenuisS. J., & LippC. T. (2012). Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: fact or fiction?. Science of the Total Environment, 414, 103–112.
35.
GibsonP. R. (2016). The hidden marginalization of persons with environmental sensitivities. Ecopsychology, 8, 131–137.
36.
GibsonP. R. (2017). Introduction to the special issue on environmental sensitivities: Living on the margins with access denied. Ecopsychology, 9, 53–59, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 140 Huguenot Street, 3rd Floor New Rochelle, NY 10801 USA.
37.
GolonkaK., & GullaB. (2021). Individual differences and susceptibility to burnout syndrome: Sensory processing sensitivity and its relation to exhaustion and disengagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 751350.
38.
GrevenC. U., & HombergJ. R. (2020). Sensory processing sensitivity—for better or for worse? Theory, evidence, and societal implications. In The highly sensitive brain (pp.51–74). Elsevier.
39.
GrevenC. U., LionettiF., BoothC., AronE. N., FoxE., SchendanH. E., PluessM., BruiningH., AcevedoB., BijttebierP., & HombergJ. (2019). Sensory Processing Sensitivity in the context of Environmental Sensitivity: A critical review and development of research agenda. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 98, 287–305.
40.
HalgamugeM. N., SkafidasE., & DavisD. (2020). A meta analysis of in vitro exposures to weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phones (1990–2015). Environmental Research, 109227.
41.
HietanenM., HämäläinenA. M., & HusmanT. (2002). Hypersensitivity symptoms associated with exposure to cellular telephones: no causal link. Bioelectromagnetics: Journal of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, The Society for Physical Regulation in Biology and Medicine. The European Bioelectromagnetics Association, 23(4),264–270.
42.
HombergJ. R., SchubertD., AsanE., & AronE. N. (2016). Sensory processing sensitivity and serotonin gene variance: Insights into mechanisms shaping environmental sensitivity. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 71, 472–483.
43.
HuL. T., & BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.
44.
IdlerE. L., & BenyaminiY. (1997). Self-rated health and mortality: A review of twenty-seven community studies. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38, 21–37.
45.
JohanssonA., NordinS., HeidenM., & SandströmM. (2010). Symptoms, personality traits, and stress in people with mobile phone-related symptoms and electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 68, 37–45.
46.
KacprzykA., KanclerzG., RokitaE., & TatońG. (2021). Which sources of electromagnetic field are of the highest concern for electrosensitive individuals?–Questionnaire study with a literature review. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 40, 33–40.
47.
KimK.H., KabirE., & JahanS. A. (2016). The use of cell phone and insight into its potential human health impacts. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 188, 221.
KjellgrenA., LindahlA., & NorlanderT. (2009). Altered states of consciousness and mystical experiences during sensory isolation in flotation tank: Is the highly sensitive personality variable of importance? Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 29, 135–146.
50.
KonradS., & HerzbergP. Y. (2017). Psychometric properties and validation of a German high sensitive person scale (HSPS-G). European Journal of Psychological Assessment.
51.
KwonM. K., ChoiJ. Y., KimS. K., YooT. K., & KimD. W. (2012). Effects of radiation emitted by WCDMA mobile phones on electromagnetic hypersensitive subjects. Environmental Health, 11,(1), 69.
52.
KüçerN., & PamukçuT. (2014). Self-reported symptoms associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields: A questionnaire study. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 33, 15–17.
53.
La VigneraS., CondorelliR. A., VicariE., D’AgataR., & CalogeroA. E. (2012). Effects of the exposure to mobile phones on male reproduction: A review of the literature. Journal of Andrology, 33, 350–356.
LinJ. C. (2016). Human exposure to RF, microwave, and millimeter-wave electromagnetic radiation [Health Effects]. IEEE Microwave Magazine, 17, 32–36.
57.
LionettiF., AronA., AronE. N., BurnsG. L., JagiellowiczJ., & PluessM. (2018). Dandelions, tulips and orchids: Evidence for the existence of low-sensitive, medium-sensitive and high-sensitive individuals. Translational Psychiatry, 8, 24.
58.
LiuT., GengL., YeL., & ZhouK. (2019). “Mother Nature” enhances connectedness to nature and pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 61, 37–45.
59.
LowK. E. (2012). The social life of the senses: Charting directions. Sociology Compass, 6, 271–282.
60.
LuX., HojoS., MizukoshiA., & KatohT. (2023). Prevalence and correlation of multiple chemical sensitivity and electromagnetic hypersensitivity with age, sex, and depression in the Japanese population: A retrospective study. BMC Public Health, 23, 1205.
61.
LundbergO., & ManderbackaK. (1996). Assessing reliability of a measure of self-rated health. Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine, 24, 218–224.
62.
LuptonB. S., FønnebøV., SøgaardA. J., & FylkesnesK. (2005). The Finnmark Intervention Study: Do community-based intervention programmes threaten self-rated health and well-being? Experiences from Båtsfjord, a fishing village in North Norway. European Journal of Public Health, 15, 91–96.
63.
MarinoA. A., KimP. Y., & Frilot IiC. (2017). Trigeminal neurons detect cellphone radiation: Thermal or nonthermal is not the question. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 36, 123–131.
64.
MartensA. L., SlottjeP., SmidT., KromhoutH., VermeulenR. C., & TimmermansD. R. (2018). Longitudinal associations between risk appraisal of base stations for mobile phones, radio or television and non-specific symptoms. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 112, 81–89.
65.
MayerF. S., & FrantzC. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503–515.
66.
MichonC., O’sullivanM., DelahuntyC., & KerryJ. (2009). The investigation of gender‐related sensitivity differences in food perception. Journal of Sensory Studies, 24, 922–937.
67.
MyersS. S. (2017). Planetary health: Protecting human health on a rapidly changing planet. Lancet (London, England), 390, 2860–2868.
68.
NadeemM. D., RaghuwanshiS. K., YadavR. K., & AnjumS. (2019). High power cell tower radiation: Hazards in public health. I-Manager’s Journal on Mobile Applications and Technologies, 6, 42.
69.
NaumannF. V., AcevedoB. P., JagiellowiczJ., GrevenC. U., & HombergJ. R. (2020). Etiology of sensory processing sensitivity: Neurobiology, genes, and evolution. In The Highly Sensitive Brain (pp.109–134). Elsevier.
70.
NTNU. (2023. The ethics portal. Norwegian University of Technology and Science (NTNU). Available from: https://www.ntnu.edu/ethics-portal
71.
OkechukwuC. E. (2020). Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on neurophysiology. Advances in Human Biology, 10, 6–10.
72.
OlkhovskiyI., StolyarM., LagutinskayaD., ZakhvataevV., & KhleboprosR. (2019). The Effect of Mobile Phone Radiation on in vitro Platelet Aggregation in Patients with Polycythemia Vera and Ischemic Stroke. Biophysics, 64, 62–66.
73.
ParsaeiH., FarazM., & MortazaviS. M. J. (2024). A decision support system for managing health symptoms of living near mobile phone base stations. Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering.
RubinG. J., MunshiJ. D., & WesselyS. (2005). Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: A systematic review of provocation studies. Psychosomatic Medicine, 67, 224–232.
76.
RubinG. J., CleareA. J., & WesselyS. (2008). Psychological factors associated with self reported sensitivity to mobile phones. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 64,(1), 1–9.
77.
ŞahinF., & YanZ. (2013). Mobile phones in data collection: A systematic review. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning (IJCBPL), 3, 67–87.
78.
SchmidM. R., LoughranS. P., RegelS. J., MurbachM., Bratic GrunauerA., RusterholzT., BersagliereA., KusterN., & AchermannP. (2012). Sleep EEG alterations: Effects of different pulse‐modulated radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Journal of Sleep Research, 21, 50–58.
79.
SchreiberJ. B. (2017). Update to core reporting practices in structural equation modeling. Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy: RSAP, 13, 634–643.
80.
SettiA., LionettiF., KagariR. L., MotherwayL., & PluessM. (2022). The temperament trait of environmental sensitivity is associated with connectedness to nature and affinity to animals. Heliyon, 8, e09861.
81.
SiqueiraE. C., de SouzaF. T. A., FerreiraE., SouzaR. P., MacedoS. C., FriedmanE., GomezM. V., GomesC. C., & GomezR. S. (2016). Cell phone use is associated with an inflammatory cytokine profile of parotid gland saliva. Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine: official Publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology, 45, 682–686.
82.
SlottjeP., van MoorselaarI., van StrienR., VermeulenR., KromhoutH., & HussA. (2017). Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) in occupational and primary health care: A nation-wide survey among general practitioners, occupational physicians and hygienists in the Netherlands. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 220, 395–400.
83.
SmolewskaK. A., McCabeS. B., & WoodyE. Z. (2006). A psychometric evaluation of the Highly Sensitive Person Scale: The components of sensory-processing sensitivity and their relation to the BIS/BAS and “Big Five”. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1269–1279.
84.
SteinY., & UdasinI. G. (2020). Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS, microwave syndrome)–Review of mechanisms. Environmental Research, 186, 109445.
85.
SubramanianS. V., HuijtsT., & AvendanoM. (2010). Self-reported health assessments in the 2002 World Health Survey: How do they correlate with education? Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 88, 131–138.
86.
SudimacS., SaleV., & KühnS. (2022). How nature nurtures: Amygdala activity decreases as the result of a one-hour walk in nature. Molecular Psychiatry, 27, 4446–4452.
87.
SzetoG. P., & LeeR. (2002). An ergonomic evaluation comparing desktop, notebook, and subnotebook computers. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83, 527–532.
88.
TråH. V., VoldenF., & WattenR. G. (2023). High Sensitivity: Factor structure of the highly sensitive person scale and personality traits in a high and low sensitivity group. Two gender—matched studies. Nordic Psychology, 75, 328–350.
89.
UbheninA. E., IsabonaJ., AnuraF., & IdrisR. I. (2024). Unraveling the impact of electromagnetic radiation on human health: A comprehensive review. African Journal Of Pharmaceutical Research And Development, 16, 91–99.
90.
ViechtbauerW., SmitsL., KotzD., BudéL., SpigtM., SerroyenJ., & CrutzenR. (2015). A simple formula for the calculation of sample size in pilot studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68, 1375–1379.
91.
VolkowN. D., TomasiD., WangG.-J., VaskaP., FowlerJ. S., TelangF., AlexoffD., LoganJ., & WongC. (2011). Effects of cell phone radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism. JAMA, 305, 808–813.
92.
WattenR. G., VoldenF., & TråH. V. (2024). Sensory processing sensitivity is negatively associated with sensation seeking. Current Issues in Personality Psychology; doi: 10.5114/CIPP/178415
93.
WHO. (2005). Electromagnetic fields and public health, electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Fact sheet No. 296.
94.
WHO. (2011). Electromagnetic fields and public health: Mobile phones. Fact sheet No. 193, 4.
95.
WiartJ., WatanabeS., WuT., JosephW., & LeeK. A. (2019). Electromagnetic fields (EMF) exposure. Annals of Telecommunications, 74, 1–3, Springer.
96.
WilliamsJ. M., & BlagroveM. (2022). Paranormal experiences, sensory-processing sensitivity, and the priming of pareidolia. PloS One, 17, e0274595.
97.
ZothansiamaM., LalramdinpuiiM., & JagetiaG. C. (2017). Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 36, 295–305.
