Sample
The samples used in validating the MDEES included 503 adults (164 men and 333 women) whose mean age
was 23 years (ranging from 17 to 70 years) and 290 adolescents (115 male and 140 female; 35 no gender indicated)
whose mean age was 14 years (ranging from 11 to 18 years). ( Caruso & Mayer, 1998 ).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
The Cronbach alpha coefficient for the entire scale of 30 items was found to be .88 ( Caruso & Mayer, 1998 ).
Using the 26 items that formed six factors in the scale (see below) yielded an alpha coefficient of .86. The alpha
coefficients for the six subscales varied from .44 to .80 (Empathic Suffering 5.80; Positive Sharing 5.71;
Responsive Crying 5.72; Emotional Attention 5.63; Feeling for Others 5.59; Emotional Contagion 5.44). Using
the same items from the subscales described by Caruso and Mayer (1998) ,Olckers, Buys, and Grobler (2010)
reported alpha coefficients ranging from .32 to .82 (Empathic Suffering 5.79; Positive Sharing 5.85; Responsive
Crying 5.69; Emotional Attention 5.51; Feeling for Others 5.61; Emotional Contagion 5.32).
Test/C0Retest
Test/C0retest reliability of the MDEES is not currently available.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
In the sample of adolescents, there was a positive correlation ( r5.63) with an adaptation of the Emotional
Empathetic Tendency Scale ( Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972 ). Also, for the adult subsample, Emotional Attention cor-
related positively (.34) with Eisenberg’s Parenting Style scale ( Eisenberg, Fabes, & Losoya, 1997 ).
Divergent/Discriminant
Caruso and Mayer (1998, p. 14) reported that, ‘The new scale did not, generally, correlate with a measure of
social loneliness, with one exception: the correlation between the Responsive Crying scale and social loneliness
was2.13 ( p,.05). However, the scores share less than 2% of the variance ( r25.016).’ Also, higher scores for
women than men have been shown for the overall scale score and on all subscale scores (all p,.001; Caruso &
Mayer, 1998 ), although this gender difference has not always been observed ( Faye et al. 2011 ). Studies have also
shown significantly higher scores for older individuals ( Caruso & Mayer, 1998; Faye et al., 2011 ).
Construct/Factor Analytic
Caruso and Mayer (1998) undertook a principal components analysis to examine the structure of the MDEES
in the sample of 793 adults and adolescents described above. The PCA yielded six components (with eigenvalues
greater than one) labeled: Empathic Suffering (8 items), Positive Sharing (5 items), Responsive Crying (3 items),
Emotional Attention (4 items), Feeling for Others (3 items), and Emotional Contagion (2 items). However, in a
confirmatory factor analysis using a sample of 212 adults, Olckers et al. (2010) were unable to verify the six-
dimensional structure claimed for the MDEES. Individual factor loadings were low for variables associated with
Emotional Attention, Feel for Others, and Emotional Contagion.
Criterion/Predictive
The MDEES was found to predict a number of behavioral criteria. Caruso and Mayer (1998) examined the rela-
tionship between MDEES scores and various lifespace scales. ‘Lifespace scales are self-report scales, similar to
bio-data scales, which record information on the types and frequency of behavior a subject engages in’ (Caruso &
Mayer, 1988, p. 8). The MDEES scores correlated with artistic skills ( r5.12), satisfaction with one’s career, social
and personal life ( r5.23), a warm, supportive upbringing ( r5.20), and attendance at cultural events in the sam-
ple of adults ( r5.18) ( Caruso & Mayer, 1998 ). Scores on the MDEES also predicted ( r5.30) preferences fo rper-
sonal, non-erotic touch in a sample ( N5129) of university students ( Draper & Elmer, 2008 ). Also, in an Iranian
sample of 70 undergraduates, a cognitive-affective reading-based course that aids in emotion regulation signifi-
cantly predicted MDEES scores ( Rouhani, 2008 ).261 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION