Why You’re Not “Too Sensitive”

Being described as “too sensitive” is one of the most common ways people learn to doubt their own perceptions. The phrase is often used to explain distress, interpersonal friction, or withdrawal. Yet psychological research suggests that sensitivity is rarely the core problem. Instead, distress frequently arises from a mismatch between a person’s level of attunement and the relational or institutional context they are in (Petrides et al., 2016; Prilleltensky, 2014).

In other words, sensitivity is often named where containment is lacking.

Sensitivity as attunement, not fragility

Contemporary psychological research distinguishes between emotional fragility and perceptual or relational attunement. Studies on emotional intelligence and social perception indicate that some individuals are more attuned to nuance, inconsistency, and affective shifts in others (Petrides et al., 2016).

This heightened attunement is associated with:

• noticing subtle changes in tone or behaviour

• detecting ambiguity or misalignment early

• anticipating relational consequences

Research does not show that such attunement is inherently maladaptive. On the contrary, it is often linked to empathy, ethical awareness, and interpersonal competence (Petrides et al., 2016). Difficulties arise when attunement operates in environments that do not reciprocate clarity or safety.

When sensitivity becomes a liability

Organisational and clinical research suggests that highly attuned individuals are more vulnerable to self-doubt in contexts characterised by ambiguity, unspoken power dynamics, or inconsistent feedback (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Kahn, 2017).

In such settings:

• subtle signals matter because explicit information is missing

• people rely on inference rather than shared meaning

• responsibility for interpretation shifts inward

As a result, attunement may be reframed as oversensitivity, particularly when it draws attention to discomfort others prefer not to address (Williams & Dempsey, 2018).

The social function of the label “too sensitive”

Research on power and discourse suggests that labelling someone as “too sensitive” often functions as a regulatory move, rather than a neutral description (Ashforth et al., 2016).

The label:

• relocates the problem into the individual

• discourages further articulation of concern

• protects existing relational or institutional norms

Studies on institutional betrayal show that such reframing is especially common when addressing the concern would require accountability or change (Freyd, 2018). From this perspective, “too sensitive” is less a psychological diagnosis than a relational manoeuvre.

The internalisation of doubt

Repeated exposure to this label can have cumulative psychological effects. Research on epistemic trust suggests that when individuals’ perceptions are repeatedly minimised or questioned, they may begin to doubt the legitimacy of their own interpretations (Fonagy & Allison, 2014; Fonagy et al., 2017).

Clinically, this often appears as:

• second-guessing initial reactions

• deferring to others’ interpretations

• delaying action until distress becomes overwhelming

Importantly, this pattern reflects an erosion of epistemic confidence, not excessive emotionality.

Reframing sensitivity

Psychological research increasingly frames sensitivity as context-dependent. The same level of attunement that feels overwhelming in one environment may be entirely manageable — even valuable — in another (Kahn, 2017; Prilleltensky, 2014).

From this viewpoint, the more useful question is not “Am I too sensitive?” but “What does my sensitivity register here?” That shift relocates attention from self-judgement to relational conditions.

A note on calibration

From a clinical perspective, reducing distress does not require becoming less sensitive. It often involves learning where sensitivity is supported, where it is exploited, and where it is misread. You are not required to blunt perception in order to function. You are not obliged to translate discomfort into self-criticism. Research suggests that recognising sensitivity as information — rather than evidence — is an important step in restoring self-trust (Fonagy et al., 2017; Prilleltensky, 2014).