Abstract:

Introduction:
Sensory Processing Sensitivity (SPS) is a personality trait characterized by deeper cognitive processing of stimuli, heightened emotional reactivity, and increased sensitivity to environmental demands. Previous research has linked high SPS with greater vulnerability to stress and overstimulation. In academic contexts, highly sensitive students may be particularly susceptible to experiencing academic demands as overwhelming. However, SPS is a multidimensional construct, and its different components may relate differentially to students’ academic experiences. The present study aimed to identify sensitivity-based student profiles and examine their differential vulnerability to perceived academic overload in higher education contexts.

Methods:
A cross-sectional study was conducted with a sample of 801 Spanish university students (77.4% women; M age = 19.2), primarily enrolled in Social Sciences degrees. Participants were recruited through a non-probabilistic snowball sampling strategy and completed a self-administered digital assessment. A mixed variable-centered and person-centered analytical strategy was adopted to examine both the predictive and profile-based role of SPS in perceived academic overload. SPS was assessed using the 27-item Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS-27), which includes five dimensions: Sensitivity to Overstimulation (SOS), Aesthetic Sensitivity (AES), Low Sensory Threshold (LST), Psychophysiological Discrimination (FPD), and Harm Avoidance (HA). Perceived academic overload was measured using the corresponding subscale of the Academic Stress Scale (SAS-54).

Results:
The regression model was statistically significant, F(5, 795) = 53.52, p < .001, explaining 25.2% of the variance in perceived academic overload (R² = .252; adjusted R² = .247). Sensitivity to overstimulation (β = .430, p < .001), psychophysiological discrimination (β = .111, p = .003), and harm avoidance (β = .082, p = .021) were significant positive predictors of academic overload. In contrast, aesthetic sensitivity showed a small but significant negative association (β = −.100, p = .004). Low sensory threshold was not a significant predictor (p = .932).

Conclusions:
These findings highlight the importance of adopting both variable-centered and person-centered approaches when examining SPS in educational contexts. Identifying distinct sensitivity profiles provides a more nuanced understanding of students’ vulnerability to academic overload. From an applied perspective, these results may inform the design of tailored educational strategies and support systems that account for individual differences in sensory processing sensitivity, ultimately contributing to more inclusive and responsive learning environments.

Keywords:

High sensitivity, academic stress, perceived academic overload, highly sensitive students.