Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Sep 22:8:1642.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01642. eCollection 2017.

Perceptual Sensitivity and Response to Strong Stimuli Are Related

Affiliations

Perceptual Sensitivity and Response to Strong Stimuli Are Related

Anna C Bolders et al. Front Psychol. .

Abstract

To shed new light on the long-standing debate about the (in)dependence of sensitivity to weak stimuli and overreactivity to strong stimuli, we examined the relation between these tendencies within the neurobehavioral framework of the Predictive and Reactive Control Systems (PARCS) theory (Tops et al., 2010, 2014). Whereas previous studies only considered overreactivity in terms of the individual tendency to experience unpleasant affect (punishment reactivity) resulting from strong sensory stimulation, we also took the individual tendency to experience pleasant affect (reward reactivity) resulting from strong sensory stimulation into account. According to PARCS theory, these temperamental tendencies overlap in terms of high reactivity toward stimulation, but oppose each other in terms of the response orientation (approach or avoid). PARCS theory predicts that both types of reactivity to strong stimuli relate to sensitivity to weak stimuli, but that these relationships are suppressed due to the opposing relationship between reward and punishment reactivity. We measured punishment and reward reactivity to strong stimuli and sensitivity to weak stimuli using scales from the Adult Temperament Questionnaire (Evans and Rothbart, 2007). Sensitivity was also measured more objectively using the masked auditory threshold. We found that sensitivity to weak stimuli (both self-reported and objectively assessed) was positively associated with self-reported punishment and reward reactivity to strong stimuli, but only when these reactivity measures were controlled for each other, implicating a mutual suppression effect. These results are in line with PARCS theory and suggest that sensitivity to weak stimuli and overreactivity are dependent, but this dependency is likely to be obscured if punishment and reward reactivity are not both taken into account.

Keywords: masked auditory threshold; overreactivity; perception; punishment reactivity; reward reactivity; sensitivity; suppression effect; temperament.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Schematic overview of the reactive (approach and avoidance) and predictive systems according to the Predictive and Reactive Control Systems (PARCS) theory. Within the boxes, which represent the systems, we provide a description of characteristic information processing/behavior mediated by the given system. The encircled terms indicate the temperamental tendencies that arise from bias toward the given system. The arrows indicate inhibitory relationships between the reactive systems and predictive systems, and between the reactive approach system and reactive avoidance system.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Relationships as predicted by Predictive and Reactive Control Systems (PARCS) theory and tested in the current study (A) between discomfort (punishment reactivity), high intensity pleasure (reward reactivity), and orienting sensitivity, and (B) between discomfort, high intensity pleasure, and auditory threshold.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Overview of the partial correlation coefficients and significance levels of the relationships (A) between discomfort (punishment reactivity), high intensity pleasure (reward reactivity), and orienting sensitivity and (B) between discomfort, high intensity pleasure, and auditory threshold. 1Controlled for sex, frustration, positive affect, and HIP or discomfort. 2Controlled for sex, frustration, positive affect. p < 0.10, p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Aron E. N., Aron A. (1997). Sensory-processing sensitivity and its relation to introversion and emotionality. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 73 345–368. 10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.345 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Aron E. N., Aron A., Jagiellowicz J. (2012). Sensory processing sensitivity: a review in the light of the evolution of biological responsivity. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 16 262–282. 10.1177/1088868311434213 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bachman J. G., O’Malley P. M. (1984). Yea-saying, nay-saying, and going to extremes: black- white differences in response styles. Public Opin. Q. 48 491–509. 10.1086/268845 - DOI
    1. Baumgartner H., Steenkamp J.-B. E. M. (2001). Response styles in marketing research: a cross-national investigation. J. Mark. Res. 38 143–156. 10.1509/jmkr.38.2.143.18840 - DOI
    1. Boksem M. A., Tops M., Kostermans E., De Cremer D. (2008). Sensitivity to punishment and reward omission: evidence from error-related ERP components. Biol. Psychol. 79 185–192. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2008.04.010 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources