INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 6411
www.rsisinternational.org
Interoception and Personality: A Mind–Body Integrative Framework
for Understanding Emotional and Social Functioning
Enrica Tortora
1
, Valeria Cioffi
1*
, Chiara Scognamiglio
1
, Lucia Luciana Mosca
1
, Enrico Moretto
1
,
Raffaele Sperandeo
2
.
1
SiPGI–Postgraduate School of Integrated Gestalt Psychotherapy, Torre Annunziata, Italy
2
Department of Neuroscience and Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, University of
Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy
*
Corresponding Author
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000523
Received: 23 October 2025; Accepted: 04 November 2025; Published: 18 November 2025
ABSTRACT
This study presents a narrative integrative review examining the relationship between interoception and
personality across neuroscientific, psychological, and Gestalt perspectives. Peer-reviewed literature (2000-2024)
from PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus was reviewed using search terms related to interoception, personality
traits, embodied cognition, and Gestalt therapy, with inclusion criteria emphasizing empirical studies of
psychophysiological correlates of personality (extraversion-introversion, neuroticism-stability) and theoretical
work linking neuroscientific evidence to experiential frameworks. By synthesizing theoretical convergences and
identifying empirical gaps, the review proposes a testable integrative framework in which personality traits—
introversion, extraversion, and neuroticism—are reinterpreted as stable patterns of interoceptive self-regulation
and embodied modes of relational contact with the environment.
The framework conceptualizes personality not as a fixed set of traits, but as a dynamic process of organismic
self-regulation shaped by the integration of bodily and mental processes in social context. This perspective has
implications for psychotherapy, education, and organizational settings, where interoceptive awareness training
may enhance emotional regulation, empathy, and relational functioning. The proposed model offers an
interdisciplinary contribution that bridges neuroscientific and phenomenological approaches, providing testable
hypotheses for future empirical research on the embodied foundations of personality and social behavior.
Keywords: interoception; personality; embodiment; emotion; Gestalt; self-regulation.
INTRODUCTION
Interoception, the perception and interpretation of internal bodily states, has emerged as a fundamental
dimension for understanding how subjective experience is constructed. Modern neurobiological models of
consciousness describe perceptual experience as a phenomenon that emerges from the interaction between
interoceptive and proprioceptive processes on the one hand and exteroceptive information on the other [1, 2, 3].
This integrative perspective aligns with embodied cognition theory, which reconceptualizes cognitive processes
not as disembodied computational operations, but as rooted in the organism's continuous sensorimotor and
affective engagement with its environment [4]. The present work adopts a neurophenomenological framework [
5, 6], which seeks to bridge first-person phenomenological experience with third-person neuroscientific
evidence, recognizing that neither biological mechanisms nor subjective reports alone can fully account for the
embodied nature of mind.
Gestalt psychotherapy shares this non-dualistic view but extends it beyond the cognitive dimension toward a
radically relational and phenomenological understanding of experience. In the Gestalt paradigm, the body is
conceptualized as the primary organ of contact: the locus where experience becomes present and meaningful
through engagement with the environment [7, 8]. Contact, in this framework, refers to the dynamic process
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 6412
www.rsisinternational.org
through which the organism meets and responds to environmental demands, regulating its boundaries and needs
in real time [9]. Organismic regulation denotes the self-adjusting capacity of the organism to maintain
equilibrium by modulating arousal, attention, and action in response to the field [10]. Within this organism-
environment field theory, experience emerges neither as purely internal nor external, but at the contact boundary,
the relational interface where self and world co-constitute each other [9, 10]. Interoception, therefore, is not
merely the perception of isolated bodily signals; it constitutes a foundational dimension of contact, through
which the organism orients itself in the field, assesses relational demands, and regulates its adaptive responses.
In Gestalt theory, the “es” function encompasses bodily and emotional experiences, i.e., deeply interoceptive
processes that influence perception and are in turn modified by perception itself, in a dynamic circularity
reminiscent of that described by modern neurobiological models of consciousness [9, 3, 11]. While neuroscience
describes how the body communicates with the brain through afferent pathways and specific brain structures,
Gestalt redefines this communication in the context of lived experience and relationship with the environment.
In this perspective, rather than being traced back to brain configurations or psychometric traits, the concept of
personality can be described as the form that the contact process takes over time, the relatively stable mode
through which an organism organizes its own activation, perceives and responds to the field, and regulates the
boundary between itself and the environment [8].
Gestalt theory offers a conceptual paradigm that can serve as a unifying framework for integrating
neuroscientific evidence on interoception with psychological models of personality [7, 8, 9, 10]. Three elements
make this perspective particularly promising:
1. Overcoming mind-body dualism: Gestalt conceives of human experience as a unitary process that unfolds at
the contact boundary, avoiding both biological reductionism and cognitive abstraction. In this framework,
interoceptive processes and personality traits are not separate entities to be correlated, but co-emergent
aspects of a single organismic process.
2. The relational dimension: while many approaches to interoception treat it as a predominantly individual and
introspective phenomenon, Gestalt situates it in the context of the organism-environment relationship.
Interoception is not only self-perception, but orientation in the field, regulation of contact, modulation of
relational presence.
3. The focus on process: Gestalt does not limit itself to describing states or traits, but focuses on the dynamic
processes through which experience is organized moment by moment. This allows us to understand
personality not as a fixed structure, but as a relatively stable processual pattern of organismic self-regulation,
rooted in recurring modes of perception, arousal, and contact.
This article does not intend to present new empirical data, but to propose a theoretical-conceptual reflection on
the relationship between interoceptive processes and personality traits, with the aim of integrating
neuroscientific, psychological, and Gestalt perspectives into a unified mind-body model.
METHODOLOGY
This work is a theoretical-conceptual reflection based on an integrative narrative review approach. Unlike
systematic reviews, which aim for exhaustive coverage and quantitative synthesis, narrative reviews synthesize
diverse bodies of literature to generate new theoretical frameworks and identify conceptual patterns [12, 13].
The following electronic databases were consulted: Google Scholar, PubMed and Scopus, covering publications
from 2000 to 2024. Search terms were combined using Boolean operators across four domains: (1) Interoception:
"interoception" OR "interoceptive awareness" OR "interoceptive sensitivity" OR "interoceptive accuracy"; (2)
Personality: "personality traits" OR "Big Five" OR "extraversion" OR "introversion" OR "neuroticism" OR
"Eysenck"; (3) Embodiment: "Gestalt therapy" OR "phenomenology" OR "embodied cognition" OR "embodied
self-regulation" OR "organism-environment field"; (4) Psychophysiology: "arousal" OR "autonomic nervous
system" OR "psychophysiology" OR "heart rate variability". Articles were included if they were peer-reviewed
studies in English or Italian with explicit focus on interoception, personality traits, embodied self-regulation, or
phenomenological approaches to mind-body integration, with particular emphasis on empirical studies
investigating psychophysiological correlates of personality (specifically extraversion-introversion and
neuroticism-stability dimensions) and theoretical works linking neuroscientific evidence to experiential or
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 6413
www.rsisinternational.org
relational frameworks. Exclusion criteria eliminated non-peer-reviewed studies, articles focused exclusively on
neurological disorders without reference to personality or interoception, literature not available in full text, and
studies on animal populations not directly relevant to the human neurobiological models discussed.
The selection process was conducted iteratively: initial screening based on titles and abstracts identified
potentially relevant articles, followed by full-text examination to assess relevance and quality. Additional
contributions were identified through snowballing (bibliographic analysis of reference lists) to capture seminal
works not retrieved in the initial search, including foundational Gestalt therapy texts and classic arousal-
personality studies. Given the integrative nature of this review, no formal quality assessment tool was applied;
however, priority was given to empirical studies published in high-impact peer-reviewed journals, theoretical
works with established citation impact, and convergent evidence across multiple independent research groups.
The analysis focused on identifying conceptual convergences across three domains: (1) neurobiological models
of interoception (insular circuits, autonomic nervous system, afferent pathways, predictive coding frameworks);
(2) arousal-based personality theories (Eysenck model, Big Five, Gray's RST, Cloninger's psychobiological
model); (3) phenomenological and embodied perspectives (Gestalt organism-environment field theory,
embodied cognition, neurophenomenology). The goal was not to conduct a quantitative meta-analysis or
exhaustive literature mapping, but to propose a qualitative synthesis aimed at mapping conceptual overlaps
between disciplinary domains, identifying gaps and inconsistencies in empirical findings, generating testable
hypotheses for future research, and providing a coherent integrative framework transcending mind-body
dualism. As a narrative review, this work does not claim exhaustive coverage of all relevant literature; the
selection reflects the authors' theoretical interests and interpretive lens, particularly the Gestalt psychotherapy
perspective. Future systematic reviews with meta-analytic techniques would be valuable to quantitatively assess
effect sizes and moderators in the interoception-personality relationship.
Interoception: definitions and models
In the context of this theoretical reflection, interoception is a key construct for understanding the link between
body, emotion, and personality. It describes the way in which individuals experience and attribute meaning to
internal physiological states, forming an essential basis for self-awareness and emotional regulation processes.
Interoception differs from exteroception, which is the perception of stimulation coming from outside the body,
and proprioception, which is the perception of the body's position in space [14]. Generally, interoceptive signals
are considered to be those related to hunger, satiety, itching, thirst, muscular, bladder, gastrointestinal,
respiratory, and cardiac effort, temperature, blood (pH, glucose level), vasomotor flushing, air hunger, shivering,
sensual touch, genital sensation, bruising, headache, broken bones, and many other visceral sensations [15].
Definitions of this construct tend to consider as interoceptive those bodily signals that are sent through lamina 1
to the anterior insula or anterior cingulate cortex [16], or through the cranial nerves (vagus and glossopharyngeal)
to the nucleus of the solitary tract [17].
An important aspect of interoception, currently the subject of scientific debate, is the multiple levels of cognitive
representation at which this phenomenon can occur implicit homeostasis, conscious perception of a signal
without recognition of the specific signal, recognition without the need for a verbal label, and verbal labeling of
the signal [18]. Measurements of interoception, therefore, concern different levels of this hierarchy.
In order to distinguish between objective, subjective, and metacognitive aspects of interoception, Garfinkel and
Critchley (2013) developed a tripartite model that distinguishes this construct into three aspects or levels of
processing [19]: interoceptive accuracy, which is the process of accurately detecting internal bodily sensations;
interoceptive sensitivity, which represents the individual's self-reported beliefs about their own attention and
accuracy in perceiving internal signals; and finally, interoceptive awareness, which represents a metacognitive
measure of the correspondence between objective interoceptive accuracy and self-assessed interoceptive
sensitivity.
With regard to the measurement of this construct, most studies on interoceptive accuracy have relied almost
exclusively on measures of heartbeat counting (HCT) or discrimination (HDT). Respiratory and gastric tests are
also measures used to assess interoceptive ability. There are also self-assessment measures that evaluate self-
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 6414
www.rsisinternational.org
reported interoception, or interoceptive sensitivity [19], such as the Body Perception Questionnaire (BPQ) [20]
and the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA) [21]. Table 1 shows the three
dimensions of the construct (accuracy, sensitivity, awareness), their level of analysis (physiological, subjective,
metacognitive) and the typical measurement methods.
Tab. 1 – The three dimensions of interoception
Dimension
Definition
Level of Analysis
Typical Measures
Interoceptive
Accuracy
Objective detection of internal signals
Physiological
Heartbeat Detection
Task
Interoceptive
Sensitivity
Self-reported attention to bodily signals
Cognitive/Subjective
BPQ, MAIA subscales
Interoceptive
Awareness
Metacognitive correspondence between
accuracy and sensitivity
Metacognitive
Difference scores,
awareness indices
Contemporary theoretical frameworks: predictive coding and active inference
Recent neuroscientific models have expanded our understanding of interoception beyond simple signal
detection. According to predictive coding and active inference frameworks, interoceptive experience emerges
from the brain's ongoing process of generating predictions about internal bodily states and comparing these
predictions with actual sensory input [11, 22]. In this view, the brain functions as a predictive machine that
continuously constructs and updates internal models of the body's physiological condition.
Seth and Friston (2016) propose that emotions and feelings arise through active interoceptive inference: the brain
generates top-down predictions about expected interoceptive signals, and discrepancies between predictions and
actual signals (prediction errors) are minimized either by updating beliefs or by changing physiological states
through autonomic control [22]. This framework bridges interoceptive processing with emotion regulation,
suggesting that individual differences in how prediction errors are weighted and resolved may contribute to
personality variations in emotional reactivity and stability.
Recent empirical work supports this theoretical integration. Allen and Tsakiris (2018) demonstrated that
individual differences in interoceptive accuracy relate to the precision-weighting of interoceptive prediction
errors, with implications for emotional experience [23]. Critchley and Garfinkel (2017) further elaborated on
how aberrant interoceptive predictive processing may underlie anxiety and mood disorders [24]. These
contemporary models provide a mechanistic account of how physiological arousal, interoceptive processing, and
subjective experience interact, a perspective that resonates with the embodied and processual view of personality
proposed in this article.
Interoception in emotional and social functioning
In psychology and cognitive neuroscience, interoception has been studied mainly in relation to the phenomenon
of emotional processing: interoceptive accuracy, which is fundamental for detecting emotional signals and
judging emotional intensity [25], is related to emotional lability [26], emotion regulation [27; 28], focus on
arousal [30], and emotional intensity [27, 30, 31, 32, 33] and reduced pain tolerance [34, 35]. There are also
associations between specific internal states and particular emotions, such as that between disgust and cardiac
and gastric activity [36], anger and increased heart rate and temperature [37, 38], fear and increased heart rate
and blood pressure [37, 39], and surprise and increased skin conductance and decreased pulse blood volume
(variation in blood volume per heartbeat).
In addition to this, some studies have shown that, in addition to influencing self-focused emotional processing,
interoceptive abilities are linked to greater reactivity to the emotions of others [40, 41, 42].
Given the importance of interoception in typical functioning, which affects not only emotional processing but
also learning and decision-making, many studies have investigated interoceptive impairment in various
psychopathological conditions: atypical interoception is, in fact, ubiquitous in all psychiatric and neurological
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 6415
www.rsisinternational.org
conditions [43, 44, 45]. Most of the existing work on interoception and psychopathology, however, consists of
correlational designs, suggesting that the relationship between these two phenomena is complex and potentially
variable depending on the conditions [18, 46].
Taken together, this evidence suggests that interoception is a fundamental dimension of subjective experience
and psychological regulation. Not only does it enable the perception of bodily states, but it also acts as a bridge
between somatic experience and processes of meaning-making, thus paving the way for integration with
personality models and psychotherapeutic theories that recognize the body as a locus of awareness and
relationship.
Terminological clarifications: interoception, arousal, and excitement
Before proceeding with the discussion of arousal and excitement in the Gestalt framework, it is essential to
clarify the operational definitions of key constructs employed throughout this article, as they span multiple levels
of analysis and derive from distinct research traditions. Table 1bis provides a systematic overview of these
constructs, their definitions and measurement methods.
Table 1bis operationalizes the key constructs used in this integrative framework, distinguishing between
neurobiological, phenomenological, and relational levels of analysis to avoid terminological confusion and
clarify how these dimensions relate without collapsing into reductionism.
Operational Definition
Level of Analysis
Measurement/Assessment Method
Objective precision in
detecting internal bodily
signals
Physiological/
Behavioral
Heartbeat counting task (HCT),
heartbeat discrimination task (HDT),
respiratory tracking
Self-reported subjective
attention to and awareness of
bodily sensations
Cognitive/Subjective
Body Perception Questionnaire (BPQ),
MAIA subscales
Metacognitive insight:
correspondence between
objective accuracy and
subjective sensitivity
Metacognitive
Correlation or difference scores between
IAcc and IS
Objective activation level of
the autonomic nervous
system (ANS)
Neurobiological
Heart rate (HR), heart rate variability
(HRV), skin conductance level (SCL),
cortisol
Individual's characteristic
resting level of neural
excitation (ARAS activity)
Neurobiological
(trait)
Resting HRV, baseline cortisol, EEG
alpha power
Subjective interpretation and
conscious awareness of
physiological arousal states
Phenomenological/
Subjective
Self-report scales (e.g., STAI-state),
phenomenological interviews
Energy mobilized by the
organism in response to an
emerging need; includes
physiological arousal +
intentional meaning
Phenomenological/
Relational
Clinical observation in therapy, client
self-report in here-and-now
Dynamic relational process
through which organism
meets environmental
demands, regulating
boundaries and needs in
real-time
Relational/
Processual
Therapeutic observation of contact
cycle, phenomenological description
Organism's capacity to
maintain equilibrium by
modulating arousal,
Systemic/Relational
Gestalt contact cycle assessment,
homeostatic regulation markers
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 6416
www.rsisinternational.org
attention, and action in
response to field demands
Stable pattern of cognition,
emotion, and behavior
across situations
Dispositional
Big Five Inventory (BFI), NEO-PI-R,
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire
(EPQ)
Relatively stable processual
pattern of interoceptive self-
regulation and embodied
contact style with
environment
Processual/Embodied
Phenomenological case formulation,
longitudinal observation of contact
patterns
The construct of interoception and the concept of physiological arousal are often used interchangeably in the
literature but represent distinct theoretical concepts. Physiological arousal refers to the objective level of
activation of the autonomic nervous system, measurable by cardiovascular and electrodermal parameters.
Interoception represents the subjective perception and interpretation of these physiological states [47, 49].
In this article, when referring to Eysenck's personality theory and the ARAS (ascending reticular activating
system), we distinguish between basal arousal and the perception of arousal. The former represents an
individual's objective level of neural excitation, which varies systematically and is higher in introverts and lower
in extroverts. The perception of arousal (interoception) represents the subjective awareness and cognitive
evaluation of basal arousal.
In the Gestalt perspective, the term "excitement" is used in a broader and more phenomenological sense,
referring not only to physiological arousal but also to the energy mobilized by the organism in response to an
emerging need, with a strong component of meaning and intentionality [7].
This distinction will be important for understanding how neuroscientific data on arousal translates into the
language of embodied experience and relationship.
Personality: neuropsychological and psychological perspectives
The study of personality has always been a central theme in psychology, as it reflects the uniqueness of the
individual and their way of perceiving, feeling, and acting in the world. In this article, the integrated perspective
links the analysis of personality with that of interoception, both interpreted as ways in which the organism
organizes internal and external experience, maintaining a dynamic balance between arousal, regulation, and
contact [49].
Eysenck's arousal-based model: a functional reference point
According to Eysenck's personality theory (1967), individual behavior is linked to relatively stable and partly
hereditary traits [50]. Personality differences, attributable to biological factors, depend on the balance between
excitatory and inhibitory neural mechanisms.
It is important to clarify the epistemological position adopted in this article regarding Eysenck's model. We do
not endorse a reductionist view that reduces personality to brain mechanisms alone. Rather, we use Eysenck's
arousal-based framework as a functional reference point that describes one level of analysis, the neurobiological
substrate, which must then be integrated with phenomenological and relational dimensions to achieve a
comprehensive understanding of personality. As we will argue, the neurobiological patterns described by
Eysenck become meaningful only when understood as embodied in lived experience and expressed through
characteristic modes of organism-environment contact.
Eysenck's model distinguishes three main traits: extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism, associated with
two fundamental brain systems: the reticular-cortical and reticular-limbic circuits, regulated by the ARAS
(ascending reticular activating system) in the reticular formation of the brainstem [50, 51].
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 6417
www.rsisinternational.org
Extraversion-introversion is influenced by the arousal of the reticular-cortical circuit in response to external
stimuli. In introverts, the ARAS generates high neural activation, inducing behaviors aimed at limiting external
stimulation. In extroverts, on the other hand, the ARAS is less active, promoting stimulus-seeking behaviors to
compensate for underactivation [52, 53].
Neuroticism is related to the arousal of the limbic reticular circuit in response to emotional stimuli. Individuals
with high levels of neuroticism show greater arousal in response to emotional stimuli, while more emotionally
stable individuals show more restrained responses [52, 53]. Neuroimaging evidence confirms the relationship
between personality traits and the structure/functioning of specific brain regions [54]. Based on these data, it can
be hypothesized that those with high introversion and neuroticism exhibit higher autonomic activity than those
who are extroverted and emotionally stable.
Psychophysiological evidence: bridging neurobiology and subjective experience
Cardiovascular and electrodermal measures are common tools for observing differences in arousal between
personality types [53]. Studies such as those by Richards and Eves (1991) [55] and Matthews and Gilliland
(1999) [53] have confirmed that introverts show an increase in heart rate in response to auditory stimuli, a result
consistent with that observed by Harvey and Hirschmann (1980) [56]. On an electrodermal level, Wilson (1990)
[57] found higher levels of skin conductance in introverts, which was confirmed by Matthews and Gilliland
(1999) [53]. More recent studies emphasize the importance of neuroticism: Norris et al. (2007) [58] found that
it predicts greater electrodermal reactivity to aversive visual stimuli, while Reynaud et al. (2012) observed more
intense skin responses to scary movies in neurotic subjects [59].
These psychophysiological findings represent a critical bridge between neurobiological arousal and
interoceptive experience. When we observe that introverts show heightened cardiovascular reactivity, we are not
merely documenting a biological fact—we are identifying the physiological substrate of what becomes, at the
experiential level, a denser and noisier internal field. The elevated skin conductance in neurotic individuals is
not just an autonomic response; it constitutes the bodily material that, when interoceptively perceived and
interpreted, contributes to the subjective experience of anxiety and emotional vulnerability.
This is where the phenomenological translation becomes essential. Neuroscience describes what happens at
the physiological level (increased heart rate, heightened electrodermal activity), but it cannot directly access how
this is experienced by the individual. Gestalt theory and interoception research provide the conceptual tools to
understand how these neurobiological patterns are lived, felt, and expressed in the organism's relationship with
its environment. The neurobiological arousal documented in laboratory settings becomes meaningful only when
we understand how it is interoceptively processed and integrated into the individual's characteristic style of
contact with the world.
Considering this evidence and the characteristics of personality traits related to arousal, a correlation between
personality type and sensitivity to internal stimuli, that is, interoception, becomes not only plausible but
theoretically necessary. Neuropsychological models, therefore, can serve as a bridge between bodily and mental
functioning, suggesting that personality traits reflect stable modes of interoceptive regulation. In this sense,
introversion and neuroticism could be associated with greater sensitivity to internal states, while extraversion
and emotional stability could be associated with different patterns of interoceptive resonance.
Complementary models: Gray and Cloninger
While Eysenck's model provides the foundational framework for this article, contemporary theories offer
complementary perspectives enriching our understanding of personality-arousal relationships.
Gray's Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) proposes the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS), sensitive to
threat and associated with anxiety, and the Behavioral Activation System (BAS), sensitive to reward and linked
to impulsivity [60]. The BIS overlaps conceptually with neuroticism and heightened interoceptive monitoring,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 6418
www.rsisinternational.org
while BAS shares features with extraversion and reduced interoceptive salience [61]. Cloninger's
psychobiological model identifies temperament dimensions linked to neurotransmitter systems [62], with harm
avoidance showing conceptual overlap with neuroticism and associations with heightened interoceptive
sensitivity [63].
These models converge on a fundamental insight: stable individual differences in personality reflect systematic
variations in how the nervous system generates, regulates, and responds to internal arousal states. What differs
is primarily the emphasis, arousal regulation (Eysenck), motivational orientation (Gray), or neurochemical
substrates (Cloninger), but all point toward personality as embodied patterns of psychophysiological self-
regulation. This convergence sets the stage for examining how these neurobiological arousal patterns are
transformed into subjective experience through interoceptive processes, a central focus of the integrative
framework proposed in this article.
From neurobiology to embodied personality: toward an integrative synthesis
The neuropsychological evidence reviewed in this section establishes that personality traits have identifiable
neurobiological correlates in patterns of arousal, autonomic reactivity, and neural circuit functioning. However,
this is not the endpoint of our analysis but rather its starting point.
The crucial theoretical move, and the distinctive contribution of this article, is recognizing that these
neurobiological patterns do not exist in isolation from lived experience. They become personality as we know it
only through the mediating process of interoceptive awareness and regulation. The introvert's heightened ARAS
reactivity becomes the phenomenological experience of an "activated internal field" through interoceptive
processing. The neurotic individual's limbic hyperreactivity translates into subjective anxiety through the
perception, interpretation, and often misinterpretation of autonomic signals.
This is where the Gestalt perspective becomes indispensable. Gestalt theory does not reject the neurobiological
level but insists that it be understood within the larger context of organism-environment field dynamics. Arousal
is never merely a brain state; it is always arousal in relation to an environmental demand, a relational context,
an emerging need. Personality, from this integrated perspective, emerges at the contact boundary, where
neurobiological arousal, interoceptive processing, and relational meaning-making converge into characteristic,
repeatable patterns of experience and action.
The following section examines the empirical evidence linking interoception and personality, guided by this
integrated theoretical framework that refuses to reduce personality to either neurobiology alone or subjective
experience alone, instead understanding it as the dynamic interplay between body, mind, and relational field.
Interoception and personality: theoretical convergences
The analysis of interoception and personality shows relevant theoretical convergences: both describe how the
organism regulates its internal states in relation to the context, translating physiological processes into relatively
stable subjective experiences. Neuropsychological and psychophysiological models indicate that personality is
not only cognitive, but a dynamic set of bodily, emotional, and relational patterns, suggesting possible
relationships between personality and interoception
According to biological personality theory, one would expect a close connection between sensory interoception
and personality types related to arousal. Sensory behavioral measures, such as heart rate detection, are direct
tools for investigating the relationship between actual (personality-related) and perceived (interoceptive) arousal.
Empirical evidence: an inconsistent landscape
Despite increasing theoretical interest, empirical findings on the relationship between interoception and
personality remain inconsistent. Existing studies have focused primarily on heart rate detection tasks or
unidimensional questionnaires such as the BPQ [64], making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. Table 2
summarizes representative studies on interoception and personality, highlighting variability in measurement
methods, sample composition, and outcomes.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 6419
www.rsisinternational.org
Table 2 – Key empirical findings linking interoception and personality traits
Study
Sample
Interoception
Measure
Personality
Measure
Key Findings
Limitations
Pollatos et al.
(2007)
Adults (N=80)
Heartbeat
perception
(accuracy)
STAI (trait
anxiety)
Positive correlation
between trait anxiety
and interoceptive
accuracy
Limited to cardiac
domain; anxiety ≠
neuroticism
directly
Critchley et
al. (2004)
Adults (N=19)
Heartbeat
detection + fMRI
Not specified
Greater insular
activation in high
interoceptive accuracy
Small sample; no
explicit personality
assessment
Dunn et al.
(2010)
Adults (N=89)
Heartbeat
detection
Affective traits
Interoceptive accuracy
linked to emotional
experience
Correlational
design; university
sample only
Ferentzi et
al. (2018)
University
students
(N=120)
Body Awareness
Questionnaire
(subjective)
Big Five
Inventory
No significant
correlation with
extraversion or
neuroticism;
correlation with
somatosensory
amplification
Self-report only;
restricted age
range; subjective
measure
Lyyra &
Parviainen
(2018)
Adults (N=60,
age 20-60)
Heartbeat
discrimination
task (objective)
Karolinska Scales
+ Adult
Temperament
Questionnaire
Positive association
between interoceptive
accuracy and
introversion
Cross-sectional;
cardiac-focused
Mallorquí-
Bagué et al.
(2014)
Adults with joint
hypermobility
(N=42)
Heartbeat
detection
STAI (state/trait
anxiety)
Relationships between
anxiety and
interoceptive
sensitivity, moderated
by hypermobility
Clinical subsample;
limited
generalizability
This heterogeneity in findings reflects methodological variability across several dimensions: (1) different
operationalizations of interoception (objective accuracy vs. subjective self-report), (2) diverse personality
frameworks (Big Five, Eysenck, temperament models), (3) sample characteristics (age, clinical vs. non-clinical),
and (4) predominantly correlational designs that cannot establish causal directionality. The field would benefit
significantly from multidimensional and cross-method approaches combining behavioral, physiological, and
self-report measures within unified theoretical frameworks.
Theoretical predictions and empirical patterns
Despite methodological inconsistencies, certain patterns emerge that align with theoretical predictions derived
from arousal-based personality models. Using Eysenck's framework as a reference point, neuroticism-stability
could be linked to higher-order interoceptive dimensions, such as the ability to "trust" one's bodily sensations,
as assessed by the MAIA [21].
The reticular-limbic circuit, responsible for neuroticism, regulates emotional reactivity to stimuli and subsequent
experiences [54]. Neurotic individuals, characterized by high sensitivity to bodily stimuli and greater concern
about them, may find it difficult to respond affirmatively to MAIA questions such as "I trust my bodily
sensations." This difficulty may reflect not reduced interoceptive accuracy per se, but rather impaired
metacognitive awareness and dysfunctional interpretation of accurately detected signals.
Several studies support associations between anxiety-related traits and interoception. Pollatos et al. (2007) [32]
found a positive correlation between trait anxiety and interoceptive awareness (heartbeat perception score),
which can be explained by the increased reactivity of the autonomic system in anxious individuals. Critchley et
al. (2004) and Dunn et al. (2010) [67, 68] observed similar results in fMRI studies, demonstrating heightened
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 6420
www.rsisinternational.org
insular activation during interoceptive processing. Ewing et al. (2017) [69] showed that poor sleep quality
increases interoceptive sensitivity in people with anxiety and/or depression. Ehlers et al. (2000) found greater
interoceptive awareness in subjects with panic disorder [70].
Studies on subclinical populations, such as those by Mallorquí-Bagué et al. (2014) [71], show relationships
between state anxiety and interoceptive sensitivity, with more pronounced effects in hypermobile subjects.
Overall, this evidence suggests a positive link between interoception and anxiety, and indirectly with traits such
as neuroticism, which predicts trait anxiety [72] and greater autonomic arousal [50].
However, not all studies confirm these associations. Ferentzi et al. (2018) highlighted the scarcity of empirical
studies on the relationship between personality and interoception [73]: their study found no significant
correlations between extraversion-introversion or neuroticism-stability and interoceptive sensitivity, while a
relationship with somatosensory amplification emerged. In contrast, Lyyra and Parviainen (2018) observed a
positive association between interoceptive accuracy and introversion [74].
Critical analysis of empirical evidence: mixed results and possible explanations
The empirical literature on the relationship between interoception and personality presents conflicting results
that warrant further discussion. While some research supports the hypothesis of a correlation between greater
interoceptive sensitivity and introversion-neuroticism, other studies find no significant associations.
Lyyra and Parviainen (2018) [74] reported a positive association between interoceptive accuracy (measured with
a heartbeat discrimination task) and introversion, using both the Karolinska Scales of Personality and the Adult
Temperament Questionnaire. Similarly, several correlational studies have documented positive associations
between neuroticism and interoceptive sensitivity in clinical and subclinical populations [31, 67, 70]. These
findings are consistent with Eysenck's theory of the relationship between basal arousal and personality.
However, Ferentzi et al. (2018), in a study of university students, found no significant correlations between
extraversion-introversion or neuroticism-stability (measured with the Big Five Inventory) and interoceptive
sensitivity (measured with the Body Awareness Questionnaire) [73]. They found a correlation only with
somatosensory amplification, which reflects a tendency to interpret bodily sensations as symptoms of illness,
rather than an ability to detect them accurately. This discrepancy suggests that the relationship between
personality and interoception may be more complex than a simple direct association.
The presence of such discrepancies in the empirical landscape could be explained by three methodological
factors. First, the studies described used different operationalizations of interoception. Lyyra and Parviainen used
an objective measure of accuracy, namely a behavioral cardiac discrimination task, while Ferentzi et al. used a
self-administered body awareness questionnaire, which is a subjective measure [74, 73]. As described in
Garfinkel and Critchley's tripartite model, accuracy and awareness represent distinct aspects of interoception. It
is possible that personality traits correlate differently with each aspect: for example, neuroticism may be
associated with greater self-reported sensitivity (hypervigilant concern with bodily sensations) but not
necessarily with greater objective accuracy in detecting signals.
The sample chosen may represent another methodological factor responsible for the empirical divergences
observed. Ferentzi et al. used only university students, while Lyyra and Parviainen included participants of
various age groups [73, 74]. The effects of age [75] gender [76, 77] on interoception have been documented. It
is possible that the relationship between personality and interoception manifests differently at different stages of
life or across genders.
Furthermore, a gap in the literature is the role of conscious regulation and cognitive interpretation of
interoceptive signals. For example, a neurotic individual may have high interoceptive accuracy that allows them
to detect bodily signals but even higher self-managed sensitivity due to anxious hypervigilance. An emotionally
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 6421
www.rsisinternational.org
stable individual may have moderate interoceptive sensitivity but superior metacognitive awareness [19]. These
fine distinctions are not always captured by the measures used in studies.
Based on the available theoretical and empirical evidence, it can be hypothesized with reasonable confidence
that introversion is associated with greater interoceptive accuracy. It is plausible, although requiring further
verification, that neuroticism correlates with greater self-managed sensitivity and metacognitive impairment.
Finally, it is proposed as a working hypothesis that emotional stability is characterized by integrated interoceptive
awareness. This gradual model, which distinguishes empirically supported aspects from more speculative ones,
provides a basis for future empirical investigations using Garfinkel and Critchley's comprehensive tripartite
model, rather than unidimensional measures of interoception, and sets the stage for the Gestalt reinterpretation
that follows.
Toward a Gestalt interpretation: personality traits as embodied contact style
The theoretical and empirical evidence outlined thus far suggests that the neural foundations of interoception
functionally overlap with those of arousal-related personality traits, particularly extraversion-introversion and
neuroticism-stability.
This psychophysiological correlation, however significant, does not exhaust our understanding of the
phenomenon. This is where the Gestalt perspective offers an essential interpretative contribution, allowing us to
move from describing correlations to understanding the process through which interoception and personality co-
constitute each other in lived experience.
In Gestalt theory, the body represents the "measure" of experience: it is through its resonances, tensions, and
rhythms that the organism continuously evaluates the quality of contact with the environment [4]. In this
perspective, interoception, rather than a mere detection of discrete physiological signals (heartbeat, muscle
tension, gastric activity), constitutes the background tone of the subjective field, the affective tone through which
the organism feels present to itself and to the world.
When we talk about interoceptive sensitivity in this article, it is important to distinguish between the
neurobiological level of arousal and the phenomenological level of embodied experience. At the neurobiological
level of arousal, introverts have a higher basal arousal; at the phenomenological level, this translates into an
experience of a denser and more activated internal field. The ability to perceive, tolerate, and modulate this
activation (interoception) is therefore the bridge between neurobiological data and lived experience.
From this perspective, personality traits could be understood as relatively stable modes of organizing arousal
and contact, rooted in characteristic interoceptive patterns. This aspect differs from the main traits discussed.
Introversion and increased interoceptive sensitivity: Introverts, characterized by greater reactivity of the
ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) and therefore higher basal arousal levels [50], would experience
a noisier and more stimulating internal field. In Gestalt terms, we could say that introverts have a greater density
of figures emerging from the interoceptive field: bodily sensations, affective states, and visceral resonances tend
to emerge more easily in the figure, requiring attention and processing. This explains both the tendency to
withdraw from excessive external stimuli (which would add further arousal to an already activated system) and
the preferential orientation towards the internal world. The greater interoceptive accuracy of introverts,
documented empirically [74], could represent a constitutive feature of their contact style: they would be more
"tuned in" to their own bodies because the body speaks louder.
Extroversion and exteroceptive orientation: Extroverts, on the other hand, with a less reactive ARAS and
therefore lower basal arousal, experience a relatively 'quiet' internal field. Bodily sensations tend to remain in
the background and do not easily emerge into the foreground. This would explain the active search for external
stimulation: extroverts need more environmental input to reach optimal levels of arousal. In terms of contact, it
can be hypothesized that extroverts are predominantly oriented toward the outside world, toward others, toward
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 6422
www.rsisinternational.org
action in the world. Lower interoceptive sensitivity would not necessarily represent a deficit, but rather an
adaptive characteristic of this style that allows the individual to have more fluid and relaxed contact with the
environment, unburdened by excessive bodily self-monitoring.
Neuroticism and interoceptive dysregulation: Neuroticism, related to the hyperreactivity of the reticular-limbic
circuit to emotional stimuli [57], could be understood gestaltically as a difficulty in modulating emotional
arousal. Neurotic individuals not only perceive interoceptive signals more intensely (as documented by
correlations with autonomic arousal), but also tend to interpret them dysfunctionally, as signals of danger or loss
of control. This recalls the "Trust" dimension of MAIA [21]: the difficulty in trusting one's bodily sensations
would represent an interruption of intimate contact with oneself. In Gestalt terms, this dynamic is reminiscent
of the clinical picture of impairment of the ego function of the self, although this connection remains an
interpretative hypothesis to be verified empirically. According to this perspective, the individual is unable to take
actions that satisfy their needs and interrupts contact with themselves and their environment through contact
interruption mechanisms. These mechanisms are anachronistic responses to past situations and may no longer
be functional in the present. In this dynamic, arousal does not flow naturally towards contact and its resolution,
but is held back, monitored anxiously, and amplified by the attention focused on it. This would create a vicious
circle in which interoceptive hypervigilance increases arousal, which in turn fuels anxiety and hypervigilance.
Emotional stability and interoceptive integration: Emotional stability, on the other hand, would seem to be
characterized by an integrated capacity for self-regulation, in which interoceptive signals are perceived in a
balanced way, neither ignored nor amplified, and used as reliable guides for action. From a Gestalt perspective,
this dynamic could be seen in the light of the proper functioning of the two functions of the Self (Ego function
and Personality function) [7]: the organism accurately perceives its bodily and emotional needs, integrates them
into the context of the field, and mobilizes the energy necessary for their satisfaction without excess or
deficiency. The body becomes an ally in contact, not an obstacle or a source of concern.
The Gestalt contact cycle [7, 89], which includes the phases of pre-contact, contact initiation, full contact, and
post-contact, has a rhythmic pattern that is reflected in the oscillations of interoceptive states. In pre-contact, a
vague bodily sensation emerges that signals a need; in contact-taking, bodily arousal intensifies and focuses; in
full contact, there is a peak of activation and involvement; in post-contact, the organism relaxes and integrates
the experience. From a Gestalt perspective, when the natural contact/withdrawal movement of the cycle is
interrupted and goes out of rhythm, pathology emerges. Different personality traits may correspond to different
modulations of this interoceptive rhythm.
Introverts may have a slower, more internalized rhythm, with a prolonged pre-contact phase characterized by
careful processing of emerging sensations. Extroverts may experience faster transitions, with less processing in
the pre-contact phase and more energy in the full contact phase with the environment and post-contact (focus on
the environment). Finally, neurotics may show difficulties in transitions, with a pre-contact phase characterized
by anticipatory anxiety and a post-contact phase compromised by an inability to let go activated energy (Gestalt
excitement) and return to equilibrium. In such cases, the contact cycle tends to manifest itself in a discontinuous
and fragmented manner, rather than in a fluid flow of self-regulation.
The Gestalt perspective allows us to understand personality not as a set of abstract traits or as the mere result of
neurobiological configurations, but as an embodied gestalt: a relatively stable processual configuration of
perception, arousal, contact, and regulation that emerges from the continuous interaction between organism and
environment and is rooted in characteristic interoceptive patterns.
In this framework, interoception would represent the voice of the body in the organism-environment dialogue:
through sensitivity to internal states, the organism orients itself, evaluates, decides, and acts [90]. Personality,
then, could be considered as the characteristic way in which an individual "listens" to this voice, whether they
amplify or attenuate it, whether they trust or distrust it, whether they integrate it fluently into the contact process
or experience it as a source of discomfort and concern. Table 3 and Figure 1 illustrate the proposed integrative
model, showing how interoception bridges neurobiological arousal and lived experience, shaping distinct Gestalt
contact styles and rhythmic patterns associated with different personality traits.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 6423
www.rsisinternational.org
Tab. 3 - Integrative model linking personality traits, neurobiological arousal, interoceptive experience, and
Gestalt contact styles
Personality
Trait
Neurobiological
Level
Interoceptive
Experience
Gestalt Contact
Style
Contact Rhythm
Pattern
Introversion
↑ Basal arousal (high
ARAS reactivity)
Dense, noisy internal
field – high
interoceptive
sensitivity
Inward orientation,
careful bodily
listening
Slow rhythm – long
pre-contact phase
Extraversion
↓ Basal arousal (low
ARAS reactivity)
Quiet internal field –
low interoceptive
salience
Outward
orientation, action
toward environment
Fast rhythm – quick
transitions to contact
Neuroticism
↑ Reticular-limbic
reactivity
Amplified
interoceptive signals,
hypervigilance
Difficulty
modulating arousal,
distrust of body
Fragmented rhythm
– stuck between pre-
and post-contact
Emotional
Stability
Balanced autonomic
regulation
Integrated
interoception – signals
as reliable guides
Harmonious self-
regulation, fluid
arousal modulation
Fluid rhythm – full,
rhythmic contact
cycle
Figure 1. Gestalt Contact Cycle and Personality Traits as Embodied Contact Styles
The model illustrates how interoception functions as a bridge between neurobiology and lived experience,
shaping distinct rhythmic patterns of the Gestalt contact cycle across different personality traits (introversion,
extraversion, neuroticism, and emotional stability).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 6424
www.rsisinternational.org
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
This article has proposed considering interoception not as an isolated process, but as the core through which the
neurobiological patterns of personality are embodied in lived experience. By integrating neuroscientific
evidence, personality models, and the Gestalt perspective, a unified theoretical framework emerges that
transcends the mind-body dualism.
The integrated model: from neurobiology to relational meaning
At the neurobiological level, the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) and the reticular-limbic circuit
modulate the organism's basal level of arousal [57]. These circuits generate arousal patterns that manifest as
specific bodily states: cardiac acceleration, muscle tension, visceral activation. Interoception, through insular
and anterior cingulate cortex circuits, transforms these physiological signals into neural representations
accessible to consciousness [16, 19].
However, neural translation does not exhaust the phenomenon. At the phenomenological-experiential level, these
signals become embodied meanings: physiological arousal becomes subjectively experienced as emotion.
Gestalt field theory illuminates this passage, framing interoceptive signals not as isolated elements but as the
affective backdrop through which the organism organizes perception and action. Interoception is not the
perception of isolated elements, but the manifestation of the figure-ground dynamic through which the organism
continuously organizes its experience.
At the relational and behavioral level, according to the Gestalt perspective, this process can be interpreted as the
crystallization of stable modes of contact: personality. In this theoretical framework, the introvert's greater
interoceptive sensitivity may represent not a neurological deficit, but an adaptive feature of a contact style that
favors internal processing. The extrovert's search for stimulation would reflect a less "noisy" interoceptive field,
which requires more external input. The neurotic's pattern of interoceptive hypermonitoring and distrust of
bodily sensations would represent, instead, an interruption of the contact cycle in which arousal is retained and
amplified by anxiety, generating a vicious circle of dysregulation.
Emotional stability, on the other hand, would seem to be characterized by an integrated capacity for self-
regulation in which interoceptive signals are accurately perceived, interpreted in a balanced way, and used as
reliable guides for action. A possible Gestalt interpretation For Gestalt, this represents the proper functioning of
the two functions of the Self (Ego function and Personality function) [4]: the organism perceives its own bodily
and emotional needs, integrates them into the relational context, and mobilizes the energy necessary for
conscious contact.
The Gestalt reading of the neuroscientific evidence on interoception does not intend to propose an overlap
between models belonging to different levels of analysis, but rather their functional coherence. Neuroscience
describes the physiological mechanisms of internal regulation and arousal, while the phenomenological and
relational perspective of Gestalt offers a language for understanding how these processes are experienced and
expressed in subjective and interpersonal experience. In this sense, the proposed integration does not aim to
explain neurobiological phenomena in psychotherapeutic terms, but to promote a conceptual translation between
the bodily and experiential planes, recognizing both as complementary aspects of the same embodied self-
regulatory process.
The integration proposed here is functional rather than ontological, acknowledging distinct explanatory levels
between neuroscience and phenomenology. Rather than merging paradigms, the model seeks coherence across
them, recognizing that neurobiological and experiential accounts address complementary dimensions of
embodied self-regulation.
Clinical and applicative implications
This integrated model suggests that psychotherapeutic intervention should aim at the conscious integration of
interoceptive processes, not their elimination or cognitive control. In Gestalt practice, working on awareness in
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 6425
www.rsisinternational.org
the here and now [4] allows the client to recognize their characteristic interoceptive pattern and to experience
new ways of connecting with their body and environment. For a neurotic individual, therapeutic work could
focus on awareness of interoceptive hypervigilance and the development of trust in one's bodily sensations,
reducing the use of mechanisms that limit emotional engagement with bodily experience. For an extrovert,
therapy could involve consciously exploring their capacity for internal contact, developing access to more
reflective dimensions of experience.
Understanding personality in the light of more or less stable interoceptive patterns allows us to abandon a
pathologizing view of individuals' relational and behavioral difficulties. From this perspective, they take on the
connotation of organic adaptations that have served a useful function for the survival of individuals in a specific
phase of life. Therefore, they can be renegotiated in the context of an authentic relationship and conscious contact
such as that established between patient and therapist in a Gestalt setting.
Clinical practices such as Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), Body Awareness Therapy, and Somatic
Experiencing exemplify how interoceptive training can foster emotional regulation and embodied presence,
principles consistent with Gestalt therapy’s focus on awareness and contact.
Implications for the social sciences, education, and organizational contexts
Although this article is rooted in the neuroscientific understanding of personality and psychotherapeutic practice,
the proposed integrated model has significant implications for broader fields of social sciences. This section
briefly explores these connections.
Understanding personality as a configuration of characteristic interoceptive patterns offers a new perspective on
how individuals learn [80]. Students with more pronounced introversion profiles may benefit from learning
environments that value internal reflection, deep processing, and mindful contact with their own cognitive
processes. Conversely, students with higher extroversion profiles may thrive in collaborative learning contexts
with greater external stimulation and social interaction. Recognizing that these styles reflect stable modes of
interoceptive self-regulation, rather than deficits or capricious preferences, could support a more inclusive and
personalized pedagogy. Furthermore, developing somatic awareness programs in schools could help students
recognize their characteristic interoceptive patterns and regulate their behavior more consciously [81].
In the organizational context, understanding personality as an embodied contact style has implications for
communication, teamwork, and leadership style. Leaders with heightened interoceptive sensitivity may excel in
emotional reading and empathetic support of employees but may be vulnerable to excessive emotional
involvement. Conversely, leaders with lower interoceptive sensitivity may be less vulnerable to emotional stress
but may have difficulty recognizing the emotional needs of teams. Organizations that implement body awareness
and self-regulation programs based on Gestalt practice may improve communication, reduce burnout, and
promote a more mindful and relational work environment [82, 83].
At the public health level, promoting somatic awareness practices, such as body scans or mindful movement,
may support emotional regulation and stress reduction. Furthermore, recognizing how different personality traits
correlate with distinct interoception patterns could inform more targeted public health intervention strategies,
particularly for neurotic individuals who may benefit from interventions focused on trust in bodily signals and
reduction of hypervigilance.
The theoretical implications outlined open up multiple avenues for future research, including ethnographic
studies on the processes through which individuals with different personality profiles experience and interpret
organizational and cultural contexts, as well as evaluative research on the effectiveness of body awareness
programs in educational and organizational settings. Cross-cultural comparative analyses aimed at investigating
differences in the interpretation and valorization of interoceptive sensitivity between Eastern and Western
cultural traditions are also particularly relevant.
From an educational standpoint, promoting body literacy and self-regulation skills in students may enhance
emotional competence, while in organizations, embodied leadership training can improve empathy and
resilience.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 6426
www.rsisinternational.org
Cultural and Gender Considerations
Interoceptive awareness and its interpretation are influenced by cultural norms and gendered patterns of
socialization. Women often report higher body awareness but also greater interoceptive anxiety [76, 77, 91, 92],
while cultural contexts differ in how bodily sensitivity is valued: Eastern traditions often emphasizing balance
and attunement, Western ones emphasizing control and mastery [93, 93]. Future research should address how
these variables mediate the relationship between interoception, personality, and relational functioning.
Future Directions and Research Implications
This article has proposed a theoretical-conceptual reflection on the relationship between interoception and
personality, integrating neuroscientific evidence, psychological models of personality, and the
phenomenological-relational perspective of Gestalt psychotherapy. The main contribution is to propose that
personality cannot be reduced to either brain configurations or abstract psychometric constructs, but can be
defined in light of the interoceptive and relational processes through which an organism stably modulates its
contact with the environment.
Limitations and methodological considerations
It is important to emphasize that this work is a theoretical-conceptual reflection, not an empirical study. Although
the neuroscientific and psychophysiological evidence cited supports the proposed hypotheses, the explicit
connection between the three areas (neurobiology, interoception, and Gestalt personality) remains largely
speculative and requires empirical validation. Furthermore, the existing literature presents significant
methodological biases: studies on interoception have mainly focused on measuring cardiac awareness (heartbeat
detection task), underrepresenting other interoceptive dimensions (gastrointestinal, respiratory,
thermoregulatory). This limits the generalizability of the conclusions. Most studies have used small samples
(university students), raising questions about the transferability of results to populations that differ in age,
culture, and clinical context.
The Gestalt reinterpretation proposed in this work is a hermeneutic operation that aims to integrate empirical
data into a coherent phenomenological-relational framework [84]. This methodological approach is consistent
with the tradition of second-generation affective neuroscience and embodied cognition, which recognize the
need to integrate neuroscientific levels of analysis with phenomenological and experiential dimensions [8, 86].
Integrative approaches such as interpersonal neurobiology [87] have demonstrated the fruitfulness of models
that link neurobiological patterns to relational and processual dynamics without biological reductionism.
Although not directly verifiable through individual empirical studies, this type of theoretical synthesis performs
an essential heuristic function: it generates testable hypotheses, guides future research, and offers clinicians
conceptual frameworks for understanding complex phenomena that elude one-dimensional perspectives.
Future research directions
Future research should aim to empirically validate the proposed theoretical connections between interoceptive
processes and personality traits. Longitudinal and cross-sectional studies could explore how individual
differences in accuracy, sensitivity, and interoceptive awareness (assessed, for example, using the
Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness, MAIA) [21, 88] relate to the main personality
dimensions measured using standardized instruments (such as the NEO-PI-R or the Big Five Inventory) [89, 90].
The integration of subjective and physiological measure, such as heart rate variability, electrodermal activity,
and brain imaging of the insular and cingulate regions, would allow for a multilevel analysis capable of linking
biological regulation, subjective awareness, and personality expression.
From a psychosocial perspective, research could investigate how interoceptive sensitivity influences emotional
regulation, empathy, and interpersonal behaviors in everyday contexts. For example, individuals with greater
body awareness may show finer affective attunement and greater relational competence, while low interoceptive
sensitivity may be associated with externalizing tendencies or lower emotional awareness. These hypotheses
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 6427
www.rsisinternational.org
could be tested in educational, clinical, and organizational contexts to assess how interventions focused on
interoception or mindfulness affect emotional competence, stress regulation, and relational well-being [95, 96].
Further comparative and cross-cultural studies could also clarify how sociocultural norms influence the
interpretation and regulation of bodily sensations, highlighting the role of interoception as a mediator between
biological processes and social behavior. Experimental interventions aimed at enhancing body awareness could
provide practical guidance for improving self-regulation, resilience, and well-being in different populations.
With solid empirical support, the proposed theoretical integration could contribute to a broader and more
embodied understanding of personality and social functioning.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has proposed an integrated theoretical model linking interoception and personality through the lenses
of embodied cognition and Gestalt theory. Personality is here understood as a dynamic process of bodily and
relational regulation rather than a static set of traits.
In summary, the proposed framework integrates three interdependent levels:
(1) neurobiological regulation, describing autonomic and neural mechanisms of arousal;
(2) interoceptive awareness, capturing the subjective and metacognitive perception of bodily states;
(3) relational contact, as conceptualized in Gestalt theory, where self-regulation unfolds in the organism–
environment field.
This interdisciplinary perspective bridges neuroscientific and phenomenological domains, offering a coherent
account of the embodied foundations of personality. While conceptually robust, the framework requires
empirical validation through multilevel studies integrating physiological and experiential measures. Such
research could substantiate the proposed links between body awareness, emotional regulation, and relational
functioning, contributing to a more grounded understanding of human experience.
Ethical Approval Statement: This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in
the Declaration of Helsinki and the Ethical Code for Research in Psychology of the Italian Association of
Psychology (AIP), approved in 2015 and updated in July 2022 to comply with GDPR regulations. Since the
study did not involve clinical interventions or the collection of sensitive data requiring formal approval from an
ethics committee, obtaining a specific ethical approval code was not necessary. However, all procedures adhered
to ethical standards to protect participants, ensuring anonymity, data confidentiality, and obtaining informed
consent.
Data Availability Statement: This article is a theoretical and conceptual reflection based on an integrative
narrative review of previously published studies. No new empirical data were collected or generated; therefore,
data sharing is not applicable.
Disclosure Statement: The authors declare no competing financial or non-financial interests.
REFERENCES
1. Carvalho, G. B., & Damasio, A. (2021). Interoception and the origin of feelings: A new synthesis.
BioEssays, 43(6), 2000261.
2. Pessoa, L. (2022). The entangled brain: How perception, cognition, and emotion are woven together.
MIT Press.
3. Francesetti, G. (2024). The phenomenal field: The origin of the self and the world. Phenomena Journal -
International Journal of Psychopathology, Neuroscience and Psychotherapy, 6(1), 1–5.
https://doi.org/10.32069/PJ.2021.2.218
4. Foglia, L., & Wilson, R. A. (2013). Embodied cognition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive
Science, 4(3), 319– 325.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 6428
www.rsisinternational.org
5. Varela, F. J. (1996). Neurophenomenology: A methodological remedy for the hard problem. Journal of
Consciousness Studies, 3(4), 330– 349.
6. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Harvard
University Press.
7. Perls, F. S., Hefferline, R. F., & Goodman, P. (1951). Gestalt therapy: Excitement and growth in the
human personality. Dell Publishing
8. Francesetti, G. (2015). From individual symptoms to psychopathological fields: Towards a field
perspective on clinical human suffering. British Gestalt Journal, 24(1), 5–19.
9. Robine, J.-M. (2006). Il rivelarsi del sé nel contatto: Studi di psicoterapia della Gestalt. FrancoAngeli.
10. Spagnuolo Lobb, M. (2011). The now-for-next in psychotherapy: Gestalt therapy evolution. Gestalt
Books.
11. Seth, A. K., & Friston, K. J. (2016). Active interoceptive inference and the emotional brain. Current
Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 19, 13–18.
12. Allen, M., & Tsakiris, M. (2018). The hierarchical organisation of interoceptive inference. Neuroscience
& Biobehavioral Reviews.
13. Critchley, H. D., & Garfinkel, S. N. (2017). Interoception and emotion. Current Opinion in Psychology,
17, 7-14.
14. Sherrington, C. S. (1906). Observations on the scratch-reflex in the spinal dog. The Journal of
Physiology, 34(1–2), 1–50.
15. Khalsa, S. S., & Lapidus, R. C. (2016). Can interoception improve the pragmatic search for biomarkers
in psychiatry? Frontiers in Psychiatry, 7, 121.
16. Craig, A. D. (2002). How do you feel? Interoception: The sense of the physiological condition of the
body. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(8), 655–666.
17. Critchley, H. D., & Harrison, N. A. (2013). Visceral influences on brain and behavior. Neuron, 77(4),
624–638.
18. Brewer, R., Murphy, J., & Bird, G. (2021). Atypical interoception as a common risk factor for
psychopathology: A review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 130, 470–508.
19. Garfinkel, S. N., & Critchley, H. D. (2013). Interoception, emotion and brain: New insights link internal
physiology to social behaviour. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(3), 231–234.
20. Porges, S. W. (1993). Body Perception Questionnaire. University of Maryland, Laboratory of
Developmental Assessment.
21. Mehling, W. E., Price, C., Daubenmier, J., Acree, M., Bartmess, E., & Stewart, A. (2012). The
multidimensional assessment of interoceptive awareness (MAIA). PLoS One, 7(11), e48230.
22. Seth, A. K., & Friston, K. J. (2016). Active interoceptive inference and the emotional brain. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1708), 20160007.
23. Allen, M., & Tsakiris, M. (2018). The hierarchical organisation of interoceptive inference. Neuroscience
& Biobehavioral Reviews.
24. Critchley, H. D., & Garfinkel, S. N. (2017). Interoception and emotion. Current Opinion in Psychology,
17, 7-14.
25. Bechara, A., & Naqvi, N. (2004). Listening to your heart: Interoceptive awareness as a gateway to feeling.
Nature Neuroscience, 7(2), 102–103.
26. Schandry, R. (1981). Heart beat perception and emotional experience. Psychophysiology, 18(4), 483–
488.
27. Fumoso, M., Elia, M., Siliprandi, E., & Ferrara, F. (2012). Anxiety and interoceptive awareness: An
experimental study. Psychology, 3(5), 422 – 426 .
28. Kever, A., Pollatos, O., Vermeulen, N., & Grynberg, D. (2015). Interoceptive sensitivity facilitates both
antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation strategies. Personality and Individual Differences,
87, 20–23.
29. Barrett, L. F., Quigley, K. S., Bliss-Moreau, E., & Aronson, K. R. (2004). Interoceptive sensitivity and
self-reports of emotional experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 684–697.
30. Herbert, B. M., Herbert, C., & Pollatos, O. (2011). On the relationship between interoceptive awareness
and alexithymia: Is interoceptive awareness related to emotional awareness? Journal of Personality,
79(5), 1149–1175.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 6429
www.rsisinternational.org
31. Pollatos, O., Herbert, B. M., Matthias, E., & Schandry, R. (2007). Heart rate response after emotional
presentation is modulated by interoceptive awareness. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 63,
117–124.
32. Pollatos, O., Traut-Mattausch, E., Schroeder, H., & Schandry, R. (2007). Interoceptive awareness
mediates the relationship between anxiety and the intensity of unpleasant feelings. Journal of Anxiety
Disorders, 21, 931–943.
33. Vienna, S., Zhang, J., & Scherg, M. (2000). Effects of emotional visual stimulation on temporal
characteristics of interoceptive brain waves. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 43(3), 243–254.
34. Pollatos, O., Füstös, J., & Critchley, H. D. (2012). On the generalised embodiment of pain: How
interoceptive sensitivity modulates cutaneous pain perception. Pain, 153(8), 1680–1686.
35. Rainauli, A. (2025). Through the eyes of Gestalt therapy: The emergence of existential experience on the
contact boundary. Phenomena Journal - International Journal of Psychopathology, Neuroscience and
Psychotherapy, 7(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.32069/PJ.2021.2.225
36. Harrison, N. A., Gray, M. A., Gianaros, P. J., & Critchley, H. D. (2010). The embodiment of emotional
feelings in the brain. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(38), 12878–12884.
37. Ekman, P., Levenson, R. W., & Friesen, W. V. (1983). Autonomic nervous system activity distinguishes
among emotions. Science, 221(4616), 1208–1210.
38. Ray, R. D., Wilhelm, F. H., & Gross, J. J. (2008). All in the mind’s eye? Anger rumination and reappraisal.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 133–145.
39. Schwartz, G. E., Weinberger, D. A., & Singer, J. A. (1981). Cardiovascular differentiation of happiness,
sadness, anger, and fear following imagery and exercise. Psychosomatic Medicine, 43(4), 343–364.
40. Terasawa, Y., Moriguchi, Y., Tochizawa, S., & Umeda, S. (2014). Interoceptive sensitivity predicts
sensitivity to the emotions of others. Cognition and Emotion, 28(8), 1435–1448.
41. Georgiou, E., Mai, S., Fernandez, K. C., & Pollatos, O. (2018). I see neither your fear, nor your sadness:
interoception in adolescents. Consciousness and Cognition, 60, 52–61.
42. Chick, C. F., Rounds, J. D., Hill, A. B., & Anderson, A. K. (2019). My body, your emotions:
Viscerosomatic modulation of facial expression discrimination. Biological Psychology, 144, 107779.
43. Paulus, M. P., & Stein, M. B. (2010). Interoception in anxiety and depression. Brain Structure and
Function, 214, 451–463.
44. Aaronson, S. T., Sears, P., Ruvuna, F., Bunker, M., Conway, C. R., Dougherty, D. D., et al. (2017). A 5-
Year observational study of patients with treatment-resistant depression treated with vagus nerve
stimulation or treatment as usual. American Journal of Psychiatry, 174(7), 640–648.
45. Eshkevari, E., Rieger, E., Musiat, P., & Treasure, J. (2014). An investigation of interoceptive sensitivity
in eating disorders using a heartbeat detection task and a self-report measure. European Eating Disorders
Review, 22, 383–388.
46. Orlando, G. (2020). Gestalt Therapy and Panic attacks: Base Relational Model, life cycle and clinic in
GTK. Phenomena Journal - International Journal of Psychopathology, Neuroscience and
Psychotherapy, 2(2), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.32069/pj.2020.2.39
47. Craig, A. D. (2009). How do you feel: now? The anterior insula and human awareness. Nature Reviews
Neuroscience, 10(1), 59–70.
48. Seth, A. K., & Friston, K. J. (2016). Active interoceptive inference and the emotional brain. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1708), 20160007.
49. Lommatzsch, A., Cirasino, D. ., De Fabrizio, M. ., Orlando, S. ., Terzi, C., & Antoncecchi, M. . (2024).
The Working on the emotion of anger in panic disorder: a phenomenological-existential and Gestalt
psychotherapy approach. Phenomena Journal - International Journal of Psychopathology, Neuroscience
and Psychotherapy, 6(1), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.32069/PJ.2021.2.195
50. Eysenck, H. (2017). The biological basis of personality. Routledge.
51. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science
approach. Plenum Press.
52. Maltby, J., Day, L., & Macaskill, A. (2017). Personality, individual differences and intelligence. Pearson
Education Limited.
53. Matthews, G., & Gilliland, K. (1999). The personality theories of H. J. Eysenck and J. A. Gray: A
comparative review. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(5), 583–626.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 6430
www.rsisinternational.org
54. Mitchell, R. L., & Kumari, V. (2016). Hans Eysenck's interface between the brain and personality:
Modern evidence on the cognitive neuroscience of personality. Personality and Individual
Differences, 103, 74-81.
55. Richards, M., & Eves, F. F. (1991). Personality, temperament and the cardiac defense
response. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(10), 999-1007.
56. Harvey, F., & Hirschmann, R. (1980). The influence of extraversion and neuroticism on heart rate
responses to aversive visual stimuli. Personality and Individual Differences, 1(1), 97–100.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(80)90011-2
57. Wilson, G. D. (1990). Personality, time of day, and arousal. Personality and Individual Differences, 11(2),
153–168.
58. Norris, C. J., Larsen, J. T., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). Neuroticism is associated with larger and more
prolonged electrodermal responses to emotionally evocative pictures. Psychophysiology, 44(5), 823–
826. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00551.
59. Reynaud, E., El Khoury-Malhame, M., Rossier, J., Blin, O., & Khalfa, S. (2012). Neuroticism modifies
psychophysiological responses to fearful films. PLoS One, 7(3), e32413.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032413.
60. Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions
of the septo-hippocampal system (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
61. Corr, P. J. (2008). Reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST): Introduction. In P. J. Corr (Ed.), The
reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality (pp. 1-43). Cambridge University Press.
62. Cloninger, C. R. (1987). A systematic method for clinical description and classification of personality
variants. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44(6), 573-588.
63. Pang, J., Tang, X., Li, H., et al. (2019). Altered interoceptive processing in generalized anxiety disorder—
A heartbeat-evoked potential research. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, 616.
64. Garfinkel, S. N., Seth, A. K., Barrett, L. F., Suzuki, K., & Critchley, H. D. (2014). Knowing your own
heart: Distinguishing interoceptive accuracy from interoceptive awareness. Biological Psychology, 104,
65–74.
65. Zuckerman, M., Buchsbaum, M. S., & Murphy, D. L. (1980). Sensation seeking and its biological
correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 88(1), 187.
66. Lyons M., Hughes S. (2015). Feeling me feeling you: Links between the dark triad and internal body
awareness. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 308–311.
67. Critchley, H. D., Wiens, S., Rotshtein, P., Öhman, A., & Dolan, R. J. (2004). Neural systems supporting
interoceptive awareness. Nature neuroscience, 7(2), 189-195.
68. Dunn, B. D., Galton, H. C., Morgan, R., Evans, D., Oliver, C., Meyer, M., ... & Dalgleish, T. (2010).
Listening to your heart: How interoception shapes emotion experience and intuitive decision
making. Psychological science, 21(12), 1835-1844.
69. Ewing, D. L., Manassei, M., van Praag, C. G., Philippides, A. O., Critchley, H. D., & Garfinkel, S. N.
(2017). Sleep and the heart: Interoceptive differences linked to poor experiential sleep quality in anxiety
and depression. Biological psychology, 127, 163-172.
70. Ertan, D., Hingray, C., Burlacu, E., Sterlé, A., & El-Hage, W. (2021). Post-traumatic stress disorder
following childbirth. BMC psychiatry, 21(1), 155.
71. Mallorquí-Bagué N., Garfinkel S. N., Engels M., Eccles J. A., Pailhez G., Bulbena A., Critchley H. D.
(2014). Neuroimaging and psychophysiological investigation of the link between anxiety, enhanced
affective reactivity and interoception in people with joint mobility. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–8.
10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01162
72. Zinbarg, R. E., Mineka, S., Bobova, L., Craske, M. G., Vrshek-Schallhorn, S., Griffith, J. W., ... & Anand,
D. (2016). Testing a hierarchical model of neuroticism and its cognitive facets: Latent structure and
prospective prediction of first onsets of anxiety and unipolar mood disorders during 3 years in late
adolescence. Clinical Psychological Science, 4(5), 805-824.
73. Ferentzi, E., Drew, R., Tihanyi, B. T., & Köteles, F. (2018). Interoceptive accuracy and body awareness–
Temporal and longitudinal associations in a non-clinical sample. Physiology & behavior, 184, 100-107.
74. Lyyra, P., & Parviainen, T. (2018). Behavioral inhibition underlies the link between interoceptive
sensitivity and anxiety-related temperamental traits. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 1026.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 6431
www.rsisinternational.org
75. Khalsa, S. S., Rudrauf, D., Feinstein, J. S., & Tranel, D. (2009). The pathways of interoceptive awareness.
Nature Neuroscience, 12(12), 1494–1496.
76. Franzoi, S. L., Kessenich, J. J., & Sugrue, P. A. (1989). Gender differences in the experience of body
awareness: An experiential sampling study. Sex Roles, 21(7–8), 499–515.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289100
77. Grabauskaitė, A., Baranauskas, M., & Griškova-Bulanova, I. (2017). Interoception and gender: What
aspects should we pay attention to?. Consciousness and cognition, 48, 129-137.
78. Salonia, G. (2013). La psicoterapia della Gestalt: Ermeneutica e clinica. FrancoAngeli.
79. Capparelli, T., Langella, C., Giannetti, C., Scognamiglio, R., & Messina, M. (2022). Phenomenology of
Shame: a Review on Genesis and Developments. Phenomena Journal - International Journal of
Psychopathology, Neuroscience and Psychotherapy, 4(1), 8–18. https://doi.org/10.32069/PJ.2021.2.124
80. Geniola, N., Cini, A., Ballotti, S., Roti, S., Gabriele, G., & Verardo, A. (2025). Well-being and quality of
life for the psychotherapist: a research proposal. Phenomena Journal - International Journal of
Psychopathology, Neuroscience and Psychotherapy, 7(2), 77–81. https://doi.org/10.32069/PJ.2021.2.234
81. Mehling, W. E., Wrubel, J., & Stewart, A. (2018). Body awareness training in education: Applications
and outcomes. Mindfulness, 9(3), 847–858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0824-3
82. Woldt, A. L., & Toman, S. M. (Eds.). (2010). Gestalt therapy: History, theory, and practice. SAGE
Publications.
83. Greenberg, L. S. (2004). Emotion–focused therapy. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy: An
International Journal of Theory & Practice, 11(1), 3-16.
84. Quattrini, P., & Cini, A. (2020). Theory, Practice and Technique: Self-supervision in Gestalt
psychotherapy. Phenomena Journal - International Journal of Psychopathology, Neuroscience and
Psychotherapy, 2(1), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.32069/pj.2020.1.55
85. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Harvard
University Press.
86. Colombetti, G. (2014). The feeling body: Affective science meets the enactive mind. MIT Press.
87. Siegel, D. J. (2012). The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we are
(2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
88. Di Sarno, A. D., Barone, M., De Masis, M., Di Gennaro, R., Fabbricino, I., Forino, A. A., & Luceri, J. F.
(2025). Validity and effectiveness of Gestalt Play Therapy: a proposal for defining a shared research
protocol. Phenomena Journal - International Journal of Psychopathology, Neuroscience and
Psychotherapy, 7(3), 98–105. https://doi.org/10.32069/PJ.2021.2.241
89. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-
Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
90. John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The big five inventory-versions 4a and 54.
University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.
91. Pennebaker, J. W., & Roberts, T. A. (1992). Toward a his and hers theory of emotion: Gender differences
in visceral perception. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11(3), 199-212.
92. Murphy, J., Geary, H., Millgate, E., Catmur, C., & Bird, G. (2018). Direct and indirect effects of age on
interoceptive accuracy and awareness across the adult lifespan. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(3),
1193-1202. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1339-z
93. Ma-Kellams, C. (2014). Cross-cultural differences in somatic awareness and interoceptive accuracy: A
review of the literature and directions for future research. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1379.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01379
94. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. Putnam.
95. Cini, A., Oliva, S., & Quattrini, G. P. (2019). Well - Being: a proposal research on Gestalt therapy
efficacy. Phenomena Journal - International Journal of Psychopathology, Neuroscience and
Psychotherapy, 1(1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.32069/pj.2019.1.36
96. Roti, S., Berti, F., Geniola, N., Zajotti, S., Calvaresi, G., Defraia, M., & Cini, A. (2023). A Gestalt
journey: how the well-being changes during a Gestalt treatment. Phenomena Journal - International
Journal of Psychopathology, Neuroscience and Psychotherapy, 5(2).
https://doi.org/10.32069/PJ.2021.2.204