Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024-10
Signaling High Sensitivity to Influence Others: Initial Evidence for the Roles of Reinforcement Sensitivity,Sensory Processing Sensitivity,and the Dark Triad
Signaling high sensitivity to others may help individuals with heightened sensitivity to stimuli to craft their social relations to a preferred activation level (“assertive signaling of specific needs” hypothesis). Signaling sensitivity could be also a deceptive strategy helping to extract resources or obtain the desired treatment (“deceptive signaling” hypothesis). The study presents the construction of the measure of signaling high sensitivity to influence others and an initial test of both hypotheses. Two hundred and one participants ranging in age from 18 to 67 (M = 25.6; SD = 7.03) reported on their reinforcement sensitivity (behavioral approach and inhibition system), sensory processing sensitivity, and the Dark Triad. Signaling high sensitivity to influence others was weakly, but significantly, associated with behavioral inhibition system sensitivity, which was consistent with the “assertive signaling of specific needs” hypothesis. The behavioral approach system was positively correlated with signaling high sensitivity, which indicated that this influence strategy could be treated as an assertive self-presentational strategy helping in achieving social rewards for individuals with high reward responsiveness. Narcissism and psychopathy accounted for an additional amount of variance in signaling high sensitivity over and beyond reinforcement sensitivity. This was consistent with the “deceptive signaling” hypothesis. Signaling high sensitivity could be regarded as a strategy to achieve social goals using deception rather than as an expression of sensitive personality.
AlbertiR. E.EmmonsM. L. (1970). Your perfect right: A guide to assertive behavior. San Luis Obispo.
2.
ArabiS. (2020). The highly sensitive person’s guide to dealing with toxic people: How to reclaim your power from narcissists and other manipulators. New Harbinger Publications, Inc.
3.
AronE. (2010). Psychotherapy and the highly sensitive person: Improving outcomes for that minority of people who are the majority of clients. Taylor and Francis.
4.
AronE. N.AronA. (1997). Sensory-processing sensitivity and its relation to introversion and emotionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 345–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.345
5.
AronE. N.AronA.JagiellowiczJ. (2012). Sensory processing sensitivity: A review in the light of the evolution of biological responsivity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(3), 262–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311434213
6.
BackM. D.KüfnerA. C. P.DufnerM.GerlachT. M.RauthmannJ. F.DenissenJ. J. A. (2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 1013–1037. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034431
7.
Baryła-MatejczukM.PoleszakW.PorzakR. (2021). Short polish version of the highly sensitive person scale – exploring its multidimensional structure in a sample of emerging adults. In: Current issues in personality psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp.2021.107339
BussD. M.GomesM.HigginsD. S.LauterbachK. (1987). Tactics of manipulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1219–1229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1219
11.
CampbellB.ManningJ. (2018). The rise of victimhood culture: Microaggressions, safe spaces, and the new culture wars. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70329-9
12.
CarverC.S.WhiteT.L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319
13.
ChoiJ. J.GreenD. L.KappS. A. (2010). Victimization, victims’ needs, and empowerment in victim offender mediation. International Review of Victimology, 17(3), 267–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/026975801001700302
14.
CooperA.GomezR. (2008). The development of a short form of the sensitivity to punishment and sensitivity to reward Questionnaire. Journal of Individual Differences, 29(2), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001.29.2.90
15.
CorrP. J. (2016). Reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality questionnaires: Structural survey with recommendations. Personality and Individual Differences, 89, 60–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.045
16.
Costa-LópezB.Ferrer-CascalesR.Ruiz-RobledilloN.Albaladejo-BlázquezN.Baryła-MatejczukM. (2021). Relationship between sensory processing and quality of life: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10(17), 3961. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10173961
17.
DickinsonK. A.PincusA. L. (2003). Interpersonal analysis of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17(3), 188–207. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.17.3.188.22146
18.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
19.
GersonJ.PlagnolA. C.CorrP. J. (2017). Passive and active Facebook use measure (PAUM): Validation and relationship to the reinforcement sensitivity theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.034
20.
GibsonB.SachauD. (2000). Sandbagging as a self-presentational strategy: Claiming to be less than you are. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(1), 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200261006
21.
GomezR.StavropoulosV.WatsonS.BrownT. M.CorrP. J. (2022). Unique associations of revised-reinforcement sensitivity theory constructs with social anxiety. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 20(5), 2838–2850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-021-00552-9
22.
GrayJ. A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An inquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system. Behaviour and Brain Sciences, 5(3), 469–484. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00013066
23.
GuadagnoliE.VelicerW. F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.265
24.
HartW.TortorielloG. K.RichardsonK.BreedenC. J. (2019). Profiles and profile comparisons between Dark Triad constructs on self-presentation tactic usage and tactic beliefs. Journal of Personality, 87(3), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12411
25.
HensonR. K.RobertsJ. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282485
26.
HeymN.FergusonE.LawrenceC. (2008). An evaluation of the relationship between Gray’s revised RST and Eysenck’s PEN: Distinguishing BIS and FFFS in Carver and White’s BIS/BAS scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(8), 709–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.013
27.
IimuraS. (2021). Highly sensitive adolescents: The relationship between weekly life events and weekly socioemotional well-being. British Journal of Psychology, 112(4), 1103–1129. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12505
28.
IimuraS.YanoK.IshiiY. (2022). Environmental sensitivity in adults: Psychometric properties of the Japanese version of the highly sensitive person scale 10-item version. Journal of Personality Assessment, 105(1), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2022.2047988
29.
JaukE.KnödlerM.FrenzelJ.KanskeP. (2022). Do highly sensitive persons display hypersensitive narcissism? Similarities and differences in the nomological networks of sensory processing sensitivity and vulnerable narcissism. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 79(1), 228–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23406
30.
JonasonP. K.LyonsM.BaughmanH. M.VernonP. A. (2014). What a tangled web we weave: The Dark Triad traits and deception. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 117–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.038
31.
JonasonP. K.WebsterG. D. (2012). A protean approach to social influence: Dark Triad personalities and social influence tactics. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(4), 521–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.023
32.
JonesD.N.PaulhusD.L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113514105
33.
JungW. H.LeeT. Y.KimM.LeeJ.OhS.LhoS. K.MoonS. Y.KwonJ. S. (2021). Sex Differences in the behavioral inhibition system and ventromedial prefrontal cortex connectivity. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience. 17(6), 571–578https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsab118
34.
KoenigA. M. (2018). Comparing prescriptive and descriptive gender stereotypes about children, adults, and the elderly. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1086. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01086
35.
KonradS.HerzbergP. Y. (2019). Psychometric properties and validation of a German high sensitive person scale (HSPS-G). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35(3), 364–378. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000411
36.
LeeS. J.QuigleyB. M.NeslerM. S.CorbettA. B.TedeschiJ. T. (1999). Development of a self-presentation tactics scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(4), 701–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00178-0
37.
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(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-017-0090-6
38.
LionettiF.PastoreM.MoscardinoU.NocentiniA.PluessK.PluessM. (2019). Sensory processing sensitivity and its association with personality traits and affect: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 138–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.05.013
39.
McNaughtonN.CorrP. J. (2004). A two-dimensional neuropsychology of defense: Fear/anxiety and defensive distance. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 28(3), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.03.0
40.
MillerJ. D.HoffmanB. J.GaughanE. T.GentileB.MaplesJ.Keith CampbellW. (2011). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: A nomological network analysis. Journal of Personality, 79(5), 1013–1042. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00711.x
41.
NikitinJ.FreundA.M. (2010). When wanting and fearing go together: The effect of co-occurring social approach and avoidance motivation on behavior, affect, and cognition. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(5), 783–804.
42.
NitschinksL.TobinS. J.VanmanE. J. (2022). The dark triad and online self-presentation styles and beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 194, 111641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111641
43.
OkE.QianY.StrejcekB.AquinoK. (2021). Signaling virtuous victimhood as indicators of Dark Triad personalities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(6), 1634–1661. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000329
44.
PaulhusD. L. (2014). Toward a taxonomy of dark personalities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(6), 421–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414547737
45.
PaulhusD. L.CurtisS. R.JonesD. N. (2018). Aggression as a trait: The dark tetrad alternative. Current Opinion in Psychology, 19, 88–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.007
46.
PaulhusD. L.WilliamsK. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6
47.
PluessM. (2015). Individual differences in environmental sensitivity. Child Development Perspectives, 9(3), 138–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12120
48.
PluessM.BelskyJ. (2013). Vantage sensitivity: Individual differences in response to positive experiences. Psychological Bulletin, 139(4), 901–916. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030196
49.
RogozaR.CieciuchJ. (2019). Structural investigation of the short dark triad Questionnaire in polish population. Current Psychology, 38(3), 756–763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9653-1
50.
SchützA. (1998). Assertive, offensive, protective, and defensive styles of self-presentation: A taxonomy. The Journal of Psychology, 132(6), 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223989809599293
51.
SemenynaS. W.HoneyP. L. (2015). Dominance styles mediate sex differences in Dark Triad traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.046
52.
SmithH. L.SrikenJ.ErfordB. T. (2019). Clinical and research utility of the highly sensitive person scale. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 41(3), 221–241. https://doi.org/10.17744/mehc.41.3.03
53.
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(6), 1269–1279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.09.022
54.
TuckerR. K.WeaverR. L.ReddenE. M. (1983). Differentiating assertiveness, aggressiveness, and shyness: A factor analysis. Psychological Reports, 53(2), 607–611. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1983.53.2.607
55.
WłodarskaK. A.ZyskowskaE.TerebusM. K.RogozaR. (2021). The dark triad and BIS/BAS: A meta-analysis. Current Psychology, 40(11), 5349–5357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00467-8
56.
WolfM.van DoornG. S.WeissingF. J. (2008). Evolutionary emergence of responsive and unresponsive personalities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(41), 15825–15830. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805473105
57.
WorthingtonR. L.WhittakerT. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127
58.
Wytykowska-KaczorekA.BiałaszekW.OstaszewskiP. (2015). Psychometric parameters of the Polish short version of sensitivity to punishment and reward scale. Studia Psychologiczne, 53(2), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10167-010-0083-6
59.
ŻemojtelPiotrowskaM. A.PiotrowskiJ. P.CieciuchJ.CalogeroR. M.Van HielA.ArgenteroP.BaltatescuS.BaranT.BardhwajG.BukowskiM.ChargaziaM.ClintonA.HalikM. H. J.IliskoD.KhachatryanN.Klicperova-BakerM.KostalJ.KovacsM.Wills-HerreraE. (2017). Measurement of psychological entitlement in 28 countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 33(3), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000286
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
