page_content
stringlengths 39
150k
|
|---|
Parker, J., & Endler, N. (2006). Coping with coping assessment: A critical review. European Journal of Personality ,6, 321/C0344. Available from
http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1002/per.2410060502 .
Parkes, K. (1994). Personality and coping as moderators of work stress processes: Models, methods and measures. Work & Stress: An
International Journal of Work, Health & Organisations ,8, 110/C0129. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1080/02678379408259984 .
Patterson, J. M., & McCubbin, H. I. (1987). Adolescent coping style and behaviors: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Adolescence ,
10, 163/C0186. Doi:10.1016/S0140-1971(87)80086-6.
Pedrabissi, L., & Santinello, M. (1994). Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations: Revision of validity and psychometric properties. Ricerche di
Psicologia ,18,4 9/C063.
Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Porter, L., & Stone, A. (1996). An approach to assessing daily coping. In M. Zeidner, & N. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research,
applications (pp. 133 /C0150). Oxford, UK: Wiley.
Ptacek, J., Smith, R., Espe, K., & Raffety, B. (1994). Limited correspondence between daily coping reports and retrospective coping recall.
Psychological Assessment ,6,4 1/C049. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1037/1040-3590.6.1.41 .
Puskar, K., & Lamb, J. (1991). Life events, problems, stresses, and coping methods of adolescents. Issues in Mental Health Nursing ,12, 267/C0281.
Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.3109/01612849109040520 .
Rafnsson, F., Smari, K., Windle, M., Mears, S., & Endler, N. (2006). Factor structure and psychometric characteristics of the Icelandic version of
the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS). Personality and Individual Differences ,40, 1247/C01258. Available from http://dx.doi.org/
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.011 .
Rees, C., & Bath, P. (2000). The psychometric properties of The Miller Behavioral Style with adult daughters of women with early breast can-
cer: A literature review and empirical study. Journal of Advanced Nursing ,32, 366/C0374. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1046/
j.1365-2648.2000.01485 .
Roth, S., & Cohen, L. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and copying with stress. American Psychologist ,41, 813/C0819. Available from http://dx.doi.
org/doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.7.813 .
Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J., & Snyder, S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the self: A two process model of perceived control. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology ,42,5/C037. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.5 .
Sawang, S., Oei, T. P. S., Goh, Y. W., Mansoer, W., Markhum, E., & Ranawake, D. (2010). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Way of Coping
Checklist-Revised (WCCL-R) in the Asian context. Applied Psychology: An International Review ,59, 202/C0219. Available from http://dx.doi.
org/doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00378.x .
Scheier, M., & Carver, C. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and physical well-being: Theoretical overview and empirical update.
Cognitive Therapy and Research ,16, 201/C0228. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1007/BF01173489 .
Scherer, R. F., & Brodzinski, J. D. (1990). An analysis of the Ways of Coping Questionnaire. Management Communication Quarterly ,3, 401/C0418.
Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1177/0893318990003003008 .
Schumacher, A., Krohne, H., & Kohlmann, C. (1989). The assessment of coping dispositions: IV. Coping in ego-threat situations. Mainzer
Berichte zur Personlichkeitsforschung ,25, 151/C0167.
Schwarzer, R., & Knoll, N. (2003). Positive coping: Mastering demands and searching for meaning. In S. Lopez, & C. Snyder (Eds.), Handbook
of positive psychological assessment . Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Schwarzer, R., & Leppin, A. (1991). Social support and health: A theoretical and empirical overview. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships ,
8,9 9/C0127. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1177/0265407591081005 .
Schwarzer, R., & Schwarzer, C. (1996). A critical instrument of coping instruments. In M. Zeidner, & N. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of copy: Theory,
research, applications (pp. 107 /C0132). Oxford: John Wiley.
Shiloh, S., Koehly, L., Jenkins, J., Martin, J., & Hadley, D. (2008). Monitoring coping style moderates emotional reactions to genetic testing for
hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: A longitudinal study. Psycho-Oncology ,17, 746/C0755. Available from http://dx.doi.org/
doi:10.1002/pon.1338 .
Siegel, K., Schrimschaw, E., & Pretter, S. (2005). Stress-related growth among women living with HIV/AIDS: Examination of an explanatory
model. Journal of Behavioral Medicine ,28, 403/C0414. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1007/s10865-005-9015-6 .
Skinner, E., Edge, K., Altman, J., & Sherwood, H. (2003). Searching for the structure of coping: A review and critique of category systems for
classifying ways of coping. Psychological Bulletin ,129, 216/C0269. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.2.216 .
Sohl, S. J., & Moyer, A. (2009). Refining the conceptualization of future-oriented self-regulatory behavior: Proactive coping. Personality and
Individual Differences ,47, 139/C0144. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.02.013 .
Somhlaba, N., & Wait, J. (2008). Psychological adjustment to conjugal bereavement: Do social networks aid coping following spousal death?
Journal of Death and Dying ,57, 341/C0366. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.2190/OM.57.4.b .
Spangenber, J., & Theron, J. (2010). Stress and coping strategies in spouses of depressed patients. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and
Applied ,133, 253/C0262. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1080/00223989909599738 .
Steptoe, A. (1989). An abbreviated version of the Miller Behavioral Style Scale. British Journal of Clinical Psychology ,28, 183/C0184. Available
from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1989.tb00830.x .
Steptoe, A., & O’Sullivan, J. (1986). Monitoring and blunting coping styles in women prior to surgery. British Journal of Clinical Psychology ,25,
143/C0144. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1986.tb00683.x .
Sullivan, J. R. (2009). Preliminary psychometric data for the Academic Coping Strategies Scale. Assessment for Effective Intervention ,35, 114/C0127.
Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1177/1534508408327609 .
Sullivan, T., Ashare, R., Jaquier, V., & Tennen, H. (2012). Risk factors for alcohol-related problems among victims of partner violence.
Substance Use & Misuse ,47, 673/C0685. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.3109/10826084.2012.657132 .
Sørlie, T., & Sexton, H. (2001). The factor structure of ‘The Ways of Coping Questionnaire’ and the process of coping in surgical patients.
Personality and Individual Differences ,30, 961/C0975. Doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00086-6.
Thompson, A., & Gaudreau, P. (2008). From optimism and pessimism to coping: The mediating role of academic motivation. International
Journal of Stress ,15, 269/C0288. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1037/a0012941 .350 12. MEASURES OF COPING FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Ursin, H. (1980). Personality, activation and somatic health. In S. Levine, & H. Ursin (Eds.), Coping and health (NATO Conference Series III:
Human factors) . New York: Plenum.
van Zuuren, F. (1993). Coping style and anxiety during prenatal diagnosis. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology ,11,5 7/C059. Available
from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1080/02646839308403195 .
van Zuuren, F., De Jongh, A., Beekers, C., & Swinkels, P. (1999). Coping with dental treatment correlates of dispositional and domain specific
monitoring and blunting. Psychology and Health ,14, 323/C0337. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1080/08870449908407331 .
van Zuuren, F., & Wolfs, H. (1991). Styles of information seeking under threat: personal and situational aspects of monitoring and blunting.
Personality and Individual Differences ,12, 141/C0149. Doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)90097-U.
Vidyasagar, N., & Koshy, S. (2010). Stress and coping in mothers of autistic children. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology ,36,
245/C0248.
Vitaliano, P. P., Russo, J., Carr, J. E., Maiuro, R. D., & Becker, J. (1985). The ways of coping checklist: Revision and psychometric properties.
Multivariate Behavioral Research ,20,3/C026. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2001_1 .
Wakefield, C., Homewood, J., Mahmut, M., Taylor, A., & Meiser, B. (2007). Usefulness of the TMSI in individuals considering genetic testing
for cancer risk. Patient Education and Counseling ,69,2 9/C038.
Wardle, F. J., Collins, W., Pemet, A. L., Whitehead, M. I., Boume, T. H., & Campbell, S. (1993). Psychological impact of screening for familial
ovarian cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute ,85, 653/C0657. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1093/jnci/85.8.653 .
Weisz, J., McCabe, M., & Dennig, M. (1994). Primary and secondary control among children undergoing medical procedures: Adjustment as a
function of coping style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology ,62, 324/C0443. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1037/0022-
006X.62.2.324 .
Wright, T. A. (1990). The Ways of Coping instrument: Reliability and temporal stability for a sample of employees. Psychological Reports ,67,
155/C0162. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.2466/PR0.67.5.155-162 .
Wright, T. A., & Sweeney, D. (1989). Coping strategies and diastolic blood pressure. Psychological Reports ,65, 443/C0449. Available from http://
dx.doi.org/doi:10.2466/pr0.1989.65.2.443 .
Ziedner, M. (1994). Personal and contextual determinants of coping and anxiety in an evaluative situation: A prospective study. Personality and
Individual Differences ,16, 898/C0918. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1080/10615809408248390 .
Ziedner, M., & Hammer, A. (1992). Coping with missile attack: Resources, strategies, and outcomes. Journal of Personality ,60, 709/C0746.
Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.111/j.1467.1992.tb00271.x .351 REFERENCES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
CHAPTER
13
Measures of Sensation Seeking
Marvin Zuckerman1and Anton Aluja2
1University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA
2University of Lleida, Lleida, Catalonia, Spain
The sensation seeking construct is defined as: ‘A trait defined by the seeking of varied, novel, complex, and
intense sensations and experiences, and the willingness to take physical, social, legal, and financial risks for the
sake of such experience’ ( Zuckerman, 1994 , p. 27). Some have equated sensation seeking with ‘risk seeking’.
However the definition above stresses the ‘willingness’ to take risks for the rewards of the primary qualities of
valued stimulation such as novelty and intensity. Others have equated the trait with ‘thrill seeking’. Thrill seek-
ing is identified with one type of sensation seeking involving activities with a primary physical risk, as in the
thrill and adventure seeking subscale of the Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS) (described in Zuckerman, 1994 ). Not
all types of sensation seeking involve risk. Entertainment preferences, for instance, may involve arousal through
sensory or vicarious experience but there is no perceived risk ( Zuckerman, 1996, 2006a, 2006b ). Measures of sen-
sation seeking exhibit validity in a wide range of contexts, far beyond the initial use as a method devised to pre-
dict the outcomes of sensory deprivation experiments. Some changes in the original theory of optimal levels
of stimulus intensity were needed to include individual differences in preferences for novelty and change
(Zuckerman et al., 1993b).
Volunteers for sensory deprivation experiments tend to be drawn from the high sensation seeking range of the
General scale of the SSS. Post-experimental interviews revealed that they volunteer because they hope to have
some unusual experiences suggested by the media, like hallucinations and ‘ out-of-body ’ experiences. Sensation
seeking is more involved with seeking of novel internal or external sensory or fantasy experiences than with
mundane cognitive or social experiences. Low sensation seekers tend to regard such experiences as risky and
tend not to volunteer even despite financial incentives. Sensation seeking, as measured by the SSS-II General
scale, was related to volunteering for sensory deprivation, drug, and hypnosis experiments but not for experi-
ments in learning or social psychology ( Zuckerman, 1994 ).
Soldiers who volunteered for certain types of risky behavior in the American or Israeli army and Israel secu-
rity forces were found to be high sensation seekers ( Zuckerman, 1994 ). Israeli psychologists found that those dec-
orated for bravery in combat during the Yom Kippur war scored higher on the SSS than other soldiers who
fought in the war but won no decorations ( Neria, Solomon, Ginsberg, & Dekel, 2000 ).
Police are not higher in sensation seeking than the general population ( Goma-i-Freixanet & Wismeijer, 2002;
Homant, Kennedy, & Howton, 1994 ), but patrol officers who engage in high-speed car chases do score higher
on measures of sensation seeking ( Homant et al., 1994 ). Sensation seeking is not a universal motive in all those
who engage in such activities, but it is a strong trait in those who voluntarily take extra risks. This confirms the
part of the SS definition, ‘ ...the willingness to take risks ...for the sake of such experience. ’
If we array various sports by their mean scores on the Total score of the SSS-V (see Table 3-1, p. 394,
Zuckerman, 2007 ), the highest scoring group is expedition mountain climbers who attempt to climb the highest
mountains like Mt. Everest. Next highest are groups of skydivers, elite mountain climbers and white-water canoe-
ists all of whom score higher than the norm, not only on the Total SSS, but also on Thrill and Adventure Seeking
(TAS) and Experience Seeking (ES) subscales. Karate fighters, physical education students, ice-hockey players,
male teachers, and tennis players, tend to score in the middle range on norms based on university students.
352Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386915-9.00013-9 ©2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
The mean scores of volley-ball players and female teachers tend to be low. Jack and Ronan (1998) also found that
skydivers and mountain climbers as well as hang-gliders tend to score highly on the SSS-V Total, whereas the
scores of swimmers and auto-racers were average, while golfers and marathon runners scored lower. O’Sullivan,
Zuckerman, and Kraft (1998) compared male football and baseball team players and female equestrians, field
hockey and lacrosse team students with unselected undergraduates using the Zuckerman /C0Kuhlman Personality
Questionnaire (ZKPQ) Impulsive Unsocialized Sensation Seeking Scale (ImpSS). None of the female teams differed
from the undergraduate controls or among themselves on the ImpSS. The male baseball and football teams actually
scored lower on the ImpSS than the general male undergraduates.
If risky sports are more attractive to high sensation seekers, why are auto racers not high in sensation seeking?
And why are non-risky sports like pool, target shooting and modern dancing associated with high sensation
seeking? Chess is a game (or sport) associated with cerebral competition, but surprisingly, players of the game
score more highly than non-players on the SSS Total, and more experienced players score even more highly
(Joireman, Fick, & Anderson, 2002 ). Novelty and intensity of the activity, whether physical or cerebral, are impor-
tant but not the whole story.
Driving for high sensation seekers is a chance to expre ss their need for thrills and excitement at the risk of
physical or legal harm. Risky driving is shown in ina ppropriate speeding, following too closely at high
speeds (‘ tail-gating ’), driving while intoxicated (DWI), freque nt and abrupt lane changes, and aggressive,
inconsiderate driving in general. From a review of 40 studies of sensation seeking and risky driving, Jonah
(1997) reported positive correlations bet ween sensation seeking and risky driving. Correlations were higher
among men and in studies where the full SSS was administered. In another study, high sensation seekers
were found to drive faster than low sensation seekers ( Heino, 1996 ). Highs and lows did not differ in their
perceptions of risk but high sensation seekers were more willing to accept risk. High sensation seekers fol-
lowed the car ahead of them at a closer distance (tailga ting) than did the low sensation seekers. High sensa-
tion seekers did not perceive their following distances as risky. Burns and Wilde (1995) also reported that
sensation seeking correlated directly with observed fast and reckless driving and with records of past viola-
tions. These and other behavioral stu dies confirm that risk judgments of sensation seekers are biased toward
t h el o we n de n a b l i n gt h e mt ot a k eg r e a t e rr i s k st han more risk-aversive low sensation seekers ( Rosenbloom &
Wolf, 2002 ).
Studies of university students showed that experience in heterosexual activities and number of partners was
positively associated with SSS General scores on the SSS-IV ( Hoyle, Fejfar, & Miller, 2000; Zuckerman, 1994 ).
Some items, particularly in the Disinhibition subscale (Dis), were confounded with sexual content (attitudes not
experience), but for males, sexual activities and partners correlated with all of the subscales not just the Dis scale.
Homosexual risky activities in gay men showed similar positive correlations with sensation seeking ( Kalichman
et al., 1994 ).Hoyle et al. (2000) reported that sexual risk taking was defined by number of partners, unprotected
sex, and high-risk sexual encounters such as sex with a stranger. Sensation seeking was related to all three cate-
gories. Correlations with the SSS were higher than those for nearly all other personality traits. Cohen and
Fromme (2002) found that the ZKPQ ImpSS predicted risky sex behavior in a university sample at two points in
time one year apart. ImpSS predicted risky sex behavior through its effects on outcome expectancies, particularly
positive ones.
Beginning in the mid-1990s there has been increasing study of sensation seeking and sex in gay populations.
The AIDS epidemic and the high risk status of Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) increased the urgency of
this research. Kalichman et al. (1994) devised two types of sensation seeking scales for MSM related research. The
Sexual Sensation Seeking Scale (SSSS) items pertain to seeking sensation through sex but the items are not spe-
cific to sexual orientation. The Nonsexual Experience Seeking Scale (NSES) is a general sensation or experience
seeking scale with no reference to sex in the items. A series of studies of MSMs using both scales and the SSS
were carried out by Kalichman et al. (1994) /C0(see Zuckerman, 2007 , Table 5.2, p. 161). Three high risk behaviors
were predicted: many sexual partners, anal sex without condoms, and use of alcohol and drugs just prior to or
during sex. Kalichman et al. (1994) found that both the SSSS and the NSES correlated positively with the three
risk factors. In the largest study, using 509 gay men, those having multiple sexual partners and anal sex without
condoms scored more highly on the Dis and BS subscales of the SSS-V than did less risk-taking MSMs ( Bancroft
et al. 2003 ). Another study, using the SSS-IV, found that the General scale correlated with all high risk behaviors
(Dolezal, Meyer-Bahlburg-Heino, Remien, & Petkova, 1997 ), whereas Schroth (1996) found that only the number
of sexual partners was related to the SSS-V Total score.
Zuckerman and Kuhlman (2000) conducted a study of risky behaviors among college students using the
ZKPQ. The first question asked about different types of risky behavior, i.e. Is there a general risk-taker? Smoking,353 13. MEASURES OF SENSATION SEEKING
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
drinking, drug taking, and sex were all intercorrelated forming a central risk taking factor. Driving and gambling
were more peripheral to the central factor related to drinking. The connection between sex and drinking
and drugs may be the sensation seeking traits of disinhibition and impulsivity. The ImpSS scale correlated
significantly with drinking, smoking, drugs, and sex, but not with driving or gambling. High risk takers
on a composite risk index scored more highly than low risk takers on ImpSS as well as Sociability (Sy) and
Aggressiveness /C0Hostility (Agg-Host).
Substance use and abuse has been associated with sensation seeking (see Zuckerman, 1994, 2007 ). In the
first studies on college students ( Zuckerman, 1994 ), about two-thirds of high sensation seekers (as measured
on the SSS-IV) had used drugs compared with less than a third of low sensation seekers. Twenty years later,
t h er e s u l t sw e r en e a r l yt h es a m e( Kumar, Pekala, & Cummings, 1993 ). Based on the Optimal Level of Arousal
(OLA) theory, we expected higher sensation seeking wi th use of stimulant drugs like cocaine rather than sup-
pressant drugs like heroin. However sensation seekin g was more highly related to the number of drugs used
rather than type of drug. University students and nava l personnel who used illegal drugs, including mari-
juana, were higher on sensation seeking than abstainer s from alcohol or drugs and users of alcohol. High sen-
sation seeking college students in the past had expe rimented with LSD and other hallucinogens. More
recently, sensation seekers have discovered 3,4-methylenedioxy- N-methylamphetamine (MDMA; Ecstasy), an
amphetamine analogue with psychedelic effects and enhanced energy. It is commonly used at dance parties
or ‘raves ’. MDMA users scored more highly on the Experience Seeking subscale of the SSS than either mari-
juana only users or non-drug users ( Daumann, Pelz, Becker, Tuchtenhagen, & Gonzoulis-Mayfrank, 2001 )
and on the ImpSS scale of the ZKPQ ( Benschoip, Rabes, & Korf, 2003 ). SS scales predict future smoking,
drinking, and drug use among adolescents (see Table 4.1, p. 113 in Zuckerman, 2007 ). For example, Ames,
Sussman, and Dent (1999) used the 11-item sensation seeking part of the ZKPQ ImpSS scale to predict
drug use in over 1000 high-school students at baseli ne and after a one-year follow-up. Sensation seeking
predicted drug use even when controlling for beliefs or attitudes. The ImpSS contains no potentially con-
founding content itself.
Firefighters have a generally boring occupation punctuated by periods of high excitement when they actually
rush off to fight fires. It is a risky occupation. Not surprisingly, they score highly on the SSS-V Total and ES and
Dis subscales ( Goma-i-Freixanet, Perez, & Torrubia, 1988 ). Police and soldiers as groups are not high sensation
seekers, although those who volunteer for risky assignments or engage in risky behaviors do tend to be high sen-
sation seekers. Less obvious occupations chosen by high sensation seekers are air-traffic controllers, medical per-
sonnel choosing to work in emergency room settings, and rape crisis counselors ( Zuckerman, 1994 ). These work
settings involve highly stressful situations in which the physical risk is not that of the employees, but that of
air passengers or patients. High sensation seekers seem to enjoy stressful environments, but may suffer from
boredom when the settings are quiet.
Areas of behavior described above in relation to sensation seeking have often involved risk. However the pre-
ferences of sensation seekers in entertainment involve little or no risk but merely reflect their reward values in
stimulation: novelty, intensity, and complexity ( Zuckerman, 2006a, 2006b ). Complexity is a stimulus attribute pre-
ferred by high sensation seekers. This is seen in their preferences among simple designs ( Zuckerman, 1994 ). High
sensation seekers prefer designs that are complex and asymmetrical, whereas low sensation seekers prefer
designs that are simple and symmetrical. The arousal potential of movies affects their attraction for high sensa-
tion seekers and avoidance for low sensation seekers; highs like horror and sexually explicit films and fast-
moving action films ( Zuckerman, 1994 ). Given a choice, high sensation seekers prefer action movies, with high
correlations between number of channel switches and SSS scores. Channel surfing reflects sensation seekers’ need
for change and novelty and their boredom susceptibility ( Perse, 1996 ).
Preferences in music seem to reflect the intensity dimension. High sensation seekers among college students
like all types of rock music, but particularly ‘ hard rock ’o r‘ heavy metal ’ types ( Stratton & Zalanowski, 1997;
Zuckerman, 1994 ). Low sensation seekers prefer bland movie-track type music. However among the older fac-
ulty, the correlation between listening time to rock and sensation seeking was in the opposite direction reflecting
a reduction in sensation seeking into middle and old age. Rawlings, Barrantes, Vidal, and Furnham (2000) found
a common factor in preferences for violent-abstract painting and hard rock music at one pole, and dislike or low
liking for emotionally neutral-realistic paintings and easy-listening type music at the other. Sensation seeking,
particularly the Dis subscale, correlated positively with liking of rock music and emotional-abstract art, and low
liking for neutral-realistic paintings and easy-listening music. The distinctive preferences involved both emotional
content and style. A liking for violent and erotic content in photographs and paintings ( Rawlings, 2003 ) was
found in high sensation seekers in comparison with low sensation seekers who prefer pleasant paintings of354 13. MEASURES OF SENSATION SEEKING
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
low emotional intensity. Zuckerman et al. (1993) related stylistic preferences among 19th century paintings to
sensation seeking. Expressionistic art, involving intense color and emotional content (e.g., Van Gogh), was liked
relatively more by high sensation seekers as measured by the SSS-V. Furnham and Walker (2001) , using the SSS
VI, found a preference for Pop art among high sensation seekers, and Furnham and Avison (1997) found that
high sensation seekers also liked surreal art. Both pop and surreal art use familiar objects and images of people
in novel contexts. The preferences of sensation seekers in media, music, and art reflect an appetite for both nov-
elty and intensity in style and violence and eroticism in content. In general, there is a preference for style and
content that is arousing whether in realistic photographic or abstract and novel styles, or some combination of
the two. In music, intensity creates a liking for hard edge rock music although this depends on generational dif-
ferences in exposure.
Behavioral differences between high and low scorers on the SSS scales also depend on genetic, physiological,
biochemical, and neurological differences. A biosocial theory of sensation seeking has been developed as part of
the trait construct. The reader is referred to previous publications on the biological bases of sensation seeking
Zuckerman (2005, 2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2011) . Behavior genetic studies using the SSS-V and twins (both separated
and raised together), have shown a high degree of heritability for the Total Score and its subscales ( Zuckerman,
1994, 2002b ). Molecular genetic studies have shown an association between novelty seeking and the dopamine
receptor 4 gene (DRD4). The monoamine theory of sensation seeking involves three monoamines: dopamine,
serotonin and norepinephrine ( Zuckerman, 1995 ). Dopamine in the medial forebrain bundle and the nucleus
accumbens mediates the approach to novel and arousing stimuli; serotonin reactivity regulates the strength of
inhibition; and noreprinephrine mediates general arousal. Sensation seeking is based on strong dopaminergic
reactivity to novel and intense stimuli, weak serotonergic reactivity, and accounting for the connection between
sensation seeking and impulsivity, and low fear arousability in relation to weak noradrenergic reactivity. This
model bases the trait of sensation seeking on an interaction between these neurotransmitter systems. As for evi-
dence for individual differences in brain function, there are two such models for sensation seeking: Dellu, Piazza,
Mayo, LeMoal, and Simon (1996) employed a model using rats which were highly reactive (exploratory) to novel
environments, whereas Saxton, Siegel, and Lukas (1987) used a psychophysiological marker, related to sensation
seeking in humans, to distinguish high and low sensation seeking cats. Research using functional magnetic reso-
nance imaging (fMRI) in humans is moving brain studies into sensation seeking from lower animals back to
humans. Psychophysiological studies of humans ( Zuckerman, 1990 ) have shown a heightened sensitivity of sen-
sation seekers in their arousal to novel stimuli. Studies using the evoked potential have shown high cortical arou-
sability and tolerance for high intensity stimuli (augmenting) in high sensation seekers, whereas low sensation
seekers show a cortical inhibitory response (reducing).
The first SSS was developed during the author’s re search program into sensory deprivation (see
Zuckerman, 1994 ) involving the idea of individual differences in an Optimal Level of Stimulation (OLS) and an
Optimal Level of Arousal (OLA). The OLS theory postulated that intensity of sensation varies directly with
intensity of stimulation, but affective response varies i n a curvilinear fashion: the pleasurable quality of sensa-
tion increases with intensity up to some optimal level after which it decreases wit h further stimulation and
soon becomes aversive. According to OLS theory, a sens ory deprivation situation would be particularly aver-
sive for high sensation seekers. Hebb transformed OLS theory to an OLA one mainta ining that the curvilinear
relationship between affective response and efficiency of learning and performance was related to level of cen-
tral brain arousal: individuals feel and function best a t intermediate levels of arousal. At very low levels they
are not alert, or interested and do not feel positive emotions; at very high levels there is increasing negative
emotion like anxiety. Hebb localized the OLA in the ascending Reticular Activating System (RAS) and sug-
gested that the cortex has a feedback function that in re sponse to over-arousal can deactivate or inhibit the
sensory sources of arousal through the descending RAS. A fter the initial positive re action to the novelty of the
sensory deprivation situation, the effect of drastic stim ulus reduction decreases arousal of the cortical nervous
system as measured by electroencephalography (EEG). The major stress in long-term sensory deprivation is
due to lowered arousal, which in the waking condition i s experienced as boredom. However the introduction
of even meaningless novel and changing stimuli can t emporarily alleviate the stress (see revision in
Zuckerman, 1994 ) .T h ep r o b l e mw i t ht h ei n i t i a lc o n s t r u c tw a st h ea b s e n c eo far o l ef o rn o v e l t yb e y o n di n t e n -
sity of stimulation. Novelty has some arousal function, but it is difficult to conceive of an ‘ optimal level of
novelty ’. In writing items for the first experimental form o f the SSS, the emphasis was on intensity of sensation
rather than need for novel stimulation . It was expected that factors might be in the form of sensory sources of
stimulation like visual, auditory, gustatory, tactual, a nd olfactory. However, many of the general factor items
emphasized novelty.355 13. MEASURES OF SENSATION SEEKING
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
MEASURES REVIEWED HERE
1.Sensation-Seeking Scale (Form V) ( Zuckerman, 1994 )
2.Sensation-Seeking Scale (Form VI) ( Zuckerman, 1994 )
3.Impulsive Sensation Seeking Scale from ZKPQ (Zuckerman et al., 1993)
4.Impulsive Sensation Seeking Scale from ZKPQ 69-item Short Form ( Aluja, Garcı ´a, & Garcı ´a, 2003 )
5.ImpSS Scale from Cross-Cultural Shortened Form of the ZKPQ ( Aluja et al., 2006 )
6.Zuckerman /C0Kuhlman /C0Aluja Personality Questionnaire (Aluja et al., 2010b)
Other Sensation Seeking Scales
1.Novelty Seeking Scale ( Cloninger, Svrakic, Bayo ´n, & Przybeck, 1999 )
2.Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking ( Arnett, 1994 )
3.Brief Sensation Seeking Scale ( Hoyle, Stephenson, Palgreen, Lorch, & Donohew, 2002 )
OVER VIEW OF THE MEASURES
The first SSS used a forced-choice response format because of a concern about the influence of social desirabil-
ity, a response set of great concern at that time. Every item contained an A or B version, one representing a high
sensation seeking and the other a low sensation seeking choice. An attempt was made to word the items so that
the two choices seemed equally desirable or undesirable. The resulting scales did not correlate with social desir-
ability. Although this response form may have been unnecessary it did not seem to pose any problems for
respondents and was retained in subsequent Forms II through to Form V.
In accord with the initial focus on intensity of stimulation, 14 of the 54 items in Form I described a liking for
extremes of stimulation in various sensory modalities. Sixteen of the items described a desire to engage in excit-
ing or risky sports or activities or an adventurous as opposed to a secure life. Eight items described a liking for
novel as opposed to familiar stimuli, situations, or persons.
A General SS was constructed from the 22 items loading most highly on the unrotated first factor in both men
and women ( Zuckerman, 1994 ). Most of the items describing a preference or aversion to stimulus intensities of
simple sensory stimuli did not load on the general factor. Many of those pertaining to physical risk taking did
load on that factor and experience seeking items also did so.
The analysis of Forms I and II suggested that there might be subtraits or facets of the General factor that were
not expressed because of the paucity of items representing them. Exciting but risky sports and novelty seeking
were examples. In order to define these factors new items were written for the experimental SSS Form III. Form
III consisted of the 50 items from Form I plus 63 new items for a total of 113 items. The General scale in Form II
was replicated in analysis of the first unrotated factor, but both orthogonal and oblique rotations yielded four
factors that were similar in both men and women ( Zuckerman, 1994 ). These factors are described in terms of their
content:
Thrill and Adventure Seeking (TAS)
The items express a desire to engage in extreme sports that provide unusual and intense experiences, like sky-
diving, or more common sports that can provide intense sensations in their expression through speed and
extreme risk, like driving fast or skiing down extreme slopes. Most items are not phrased in terms of actual expe-
rience but in terms of desired experience.
Experience Seeking (ES)
The items describe seeking novel experiences through the mind and the senses as in music, art, travel, social
nonconformity and association with like-minded individuals and groups.
Disinhibition (Dis)
The items describe a desire to engage in disinhibited social behavior as facilitated by alcohol in parties and
impulsive sexual activities. A general item sums up the disinhibited attitude: ‘ I like to have new and exciting experi-
ences even if they are a little unconventional or illegal ’. This factor drew largely on new items not present in earlier
forms of the SSS (I and II).356 13. MEASURES OF SENSATION SEEKING
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Boredom Susceptibility (BS)
The items express an intolerance for routine work and boring people. The quality of excitement is valued
above reliability in people. There is an expressed need for change and unpredictability in stimulation.
These four facets have been widely replicated in factor analyses of the SSS in other countries and different lan-
guages (e.g., Zuckerman, 1994, 2007 ). The facets were moderately intercorrelated as we would expect from a hier-
archal model. However some of the correlations were too high indicating a lack of discriminant validity. There
were an unequal number of items in the four facets. Because the General scale was not representative of some of
the facets, particularly disinhibition, it was decided to construct a new form with an equal number of items in
each of the four factors, retaining the items with the best convergent (correlation with their own factor) and
divergent validity. This would enable us to use a total score in place of the General scale. The total of the four
facets would have content validity in the sense of a balance between the content facets that came out of the factor
analysis. A second aim was to reduce the number of items in the scale from 72 to 40 by selecting the best 10 items
for each of the four subfactors. After these successive revisions, Form V of the Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS-V)
was constructed. Forms V and VI of the Sensation Seeking Scales are available in the appendices of Zuckerman
(1994) . In this chapter we describe subsequent SS scales developed as part of a five-factor theory.
Zuckerman has been working on the Sensation Seeking construct for 50 years and the SSS has evolved from
the first version published in the 1960s to the last measure called Zuckerman /C0Kuhlman /C0Aluja Personality
Questionnaire (Aluja et al., 2010). Zuckerman also constructed an additional measure to evaluate the states of sen-
sation seeking and anxiety in risky situations named Sensation Seeking and Anxiety States Scales (SSAST). The
SSAST has 36 adjective items and two factors, including positive-affect SS items and anxiety negative-affect items.
The scale, scoring keys and psychometric properties are available in the appendices of Zuckerman’s (1994) book.
Sensation-Seeking Scale (SSS Form V)
(Zuckerman, 1994 ).
Variable
The SSS (Form V) measures the following variables: Thrill and Adventure Seeking, Experience Seeking,
Disinhibition, and Boredom Susceptibility.
Description
In the late 1970s, Zuckerman collaborated with Hans and Sybil Eysenck in the development of the SSS-V using
a large twin sample in England ( Zuckerman, 1994 ). This offered the combined advantage of getting a large com-
munity sample in place of the university samples previously used in scale development and undertaking a
genetic analysis of the new scales. An American sample of university students was also used.
The items from the SSS-IV were administered to the participants and independent principal components anal-
yses were conducted in four samples consisting of American and English males and females. Principal compo-
nents analyses with both oblique and orthogonal rotations were used. The results for the oblique rotation were
very similar so the results from the orthogonal rotations so the orthogonal were used for scale development.
The same four dimensions found in Form IV were also found in each of the four samples. Form V was obtained
by the selection of the best 10 items in each subscale. The 10 highest loaded items for each factor in all four
samples were selected for the new 10-item scales: Thrill and adventure seeking (TAS), Experience seeking (ES),
Disinhibition (Dis), and Boredom susceptibility (BS). Some items were removed because they had nearly equal
loadings on other components. This reduced the intercorrelations among the four subscales as compared with
those in Form IV, but the correlations still justified calculation of a Total score based on the sum of the four sub-
scales. The clearest component was TAS since almost all items had a loading larger than 0.30. ES and Dis sub-
scales also showed a similar good fit. On the other hand, BS presented the least satisfactory structure. The
structure of the SSS-V has been replicated in various countries and cultures, including: Australia, Israel, Canada,
England, and Spain. The Sensation Seeking Scale (Form V) is one of the most widely used of the sensation seek-
ing scales (see revision by Aluja, Garcı ´a, & Garcı ´a, 2004 ).
Sample
The English sample comprised 254 males and 639 females from the Maudsley Twin Register, aged 15 /C070
years. The American sample consisted of 97 male and female undergraduates.357 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Cronbach alpha coefficients for the total score ranged from 0.83 to 0.86. Those for the subscales were generally
moderate (0.6 to 0.8). These coefficients were quite similar in the English and American samples, and in both
sexes ( Zuckerman, 1994 ). Despite the reduced number of items in the subscales, the only scale showing lower
alpha coefficients as compared with Form IV was Experience Seeking (ES).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Zuckerman (1994) reported correlations between SSS-V and NEO-PI. Total SSS-V scales correlated positively
0.45 with Openness to Experience and 0.22 with Extraversion. Aluja et al. (2003) correlated the SSS-V total score
with the NEO-PI-R. Extraversion and Openness to Experience were positively and significantly related to the
SSS-V Total, but the patterns for the SSS subscales were different. TAS and ES correlated most highly and signifi-
cantly with NEO Openness.
Zuckerman (1994) described the relationships between the SSS IV and V and Eysenck’s scales in many studies.
In general the SSS correlated low to moderately with extraversion and psychoticism but not at all with
neuroticism.
Divergent/Discriminant
Negative correlations between the SSS-V and NEO scales were provided in Zuckerman (1994) , Table 3-10.
Disinhibition scales correlated negatively with Agreeableness ( 20.37), Boredom Susceptibility ( 20.32) and total
SSS-V scale ( 20.31), and Conscientiousness correlated negatively with the Disinhibition ( 20.24), Boredom
susceptibility ( 20.20) and total SSS-V scales.
Construct/Factor Analytic
The factor structure of the Sensation-Seeking Scale (SSS), obtained by principal components analysis and vari-
max rotation, in English and American samples was compared, and a new form of the SSS (Form V) applicable
to both groups was developed. Three of the four factors showed good cross-national and cross-sex reliability (i.e.,
significant and reasonably high resemblance between the four national and gender samples). English and
American males did not differ on the total SSS score, but American females scored higher than English females.
Males in both countries scored higher than females on the total SSS score and on the Thrill and Adventure-
Seeking and Disinhibition subscales. Significant age declines occurred for both sexes, particularly on Thrill and
Adventure Seeking and Disinhibition. The Total score correlated highly ( r50.74) with the SS General score from
Forms II and IV.
Haynes, Miles, and Clements (2000) examined the SSS-V using Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
Modification Indexes (MIs) and Standardised Parameters Changes (SEPCs) pointed out the existence of correlations
between several items. Incorporation of the correlation of the error variances improved the fit of the four sub-
scales, analysed in an independent way. As a result, they suggested an abbreviated version with four items for
each subscale. Items were selected on the grounds of factor loadings from the modified models, and the absence
of correlations with other selected items. The authors concluded that serious convergence problems were experi-
enced with the shortened version.
Criterion/Predictive
The SSS Forms IV and V have shown a wide range of relations with phenomena associated with novel and
intense experiences and weak inhibition of approach behavior in risky situations ( Zuckerman, 1994, 2007 ). The
breadth of findings far exceeded the original studies focused on sensory deprivation experiments and volunteer-
ing for novel experiments or situations perceived as risky. Hoyle et al. (2000) in their meta-analyses of sexual risk
taking in 38 studies using the SSS, found mean effect sizes of 0.25 for number of sexual partners and 0.19 for gen-
eral sex risk taking. Results were higher for college students and gay men relative to the general non-college pop-
ulation. These coefficients were higher than those found for the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, as well as the
Costa and McCrae (1992) NEO personality inventory.
Jonah (1997) reviewed the literature relating sensation seeking to risky driving. The majority of 40 studies
showed significant relationships with correlations in the 0.30 to 0.40 range. The results are impressive considering
that some studies used only abbreviated forms of the SSS-V which, as a rule, have lower reliabilities than the full358 13. MEASURES OF SENSATION SEEKING
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
or total scale. The TAS subscale exhibited the highest relationship because it involves primarily an indifference to
physical risk.
Monoamine oxidase type B (MAO-B) is an enzyme assessed from blood platelets which has been found to be
negatively related to sensation seeking and to be low in persons with personality and clinical disorders character-
ized by high sensation seeking ( Zuckerman, 1994 ). In the brain, MAO serves to regulate the monoamines particu-
larly dopamine. Significant negative correlations were found between MAO-B and General or Total Sensation
Seeking in 10 of 15 studies testing the relationship ( Zuckerman, 2007 ). The median correlation across all studies
was low, only 0.27, but in 13 of the 15 groups the correlation was negative supporting the non-chance nature of
the outcome overall.
Location
Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Results and Comments
Since its publication, the SSS-Form V has been the most widely used SSS form, although some researchers con-
tinued to use Forms II and IV. A new Form VI has found little use in the research literature, but is described later
in this chapter.
Earlier forms of the SSS, II, IV, and V contained some terms which became anachronistic in later generations
or assumed different meanings like ‘swingers’ and ‘jet-setters.’ In the current version of SSS-V ( Zuckerman, 1994 )
such terms were either defined or changed. A more serious problem was that some items in the ES and Dis scales
referred to drinking or drugs so were a confounding factor in studies of the relation between sensation seeking
and actual alcohol and drug use. A similar problem arose with sexual content. Some researchers removed these
items and some did not use the scales containing them. Item or scale exclusion usually made no difference in
results. The ImpSS and SS scales, developed within the ZKPQ, eliminated all content describing such specific
activities, replacing them with more generally stated items.
Note: The Sensation Seeking Scale Form V is available in Zuckerman (1994) .
SSS-FORM V SAMPLE ITEMS
Appendices A /C0D.Below are examples of the forced-
choice items for each subscale:
Directions: Each of the ı ´tems below contains two
choices A and B. Please indicate which of the choices
most describes your likes or the way you feel.
1. A. I like ‘wild’ uninhibited parties.
B.I prefer quiet parties with good conversation.
2. A. There some movies I enjoy seeing a second or
even third time.B.I can’t stand watching a movie that I’ve seen
before.
3. A. I often wish I could be a mountain climber.
B.I can’t understand people who risk their necks
climbing mountains.
4. A. I dislike all body odors.
B.I like some of the earthy body smells.
Notes : Scoring keys: TAS: 3A; ES: 4B; Dis: 1A; BS: 2B.
Reproduced with permission.
Sensation-Seeking Scale (SSS Form VI)
(Zuckerman, 1994 ).
Variable
The SSS-VI measures the following variables: Experience /C0TAS; Experience /C0Dis; Intentions /C0TAS; and
Intentions /C0Dis.
Description
The SSS (Form VI) has two sections using the same items in both ( Zuckerman, 1994 ). However the first section
deals with experience and uses a three point Likert-type response scale, i.e., 1. I have never done this. 2. I have
done this once. 3. I have done this more than once. The second part is an intentions scale and also uses a three359 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
choice response format: 1. I have no desire to do this. 2. I have thought of doing this but will probably not do it.
3. I have thought of doing this and will do it if I have the chance. Two subscales are used in both the experience
and intention forms: TAS and Dis. These two subscales were chosen simply because they lent themselves most
easily to the experience/intentions formats. The scales allow a contrast between past and present behavior and
between behavior and fantasy.
Factor analysis showed a distinction between TAS and Dis factors in the intensions scale for both men and
women, but in the experience scale only for women. The scores are based on the two factors in the intensions
scale although the same factor items are scored in the experience scale for the sake of comparability. The four
scores are: Experience-TAS; Experience-Dis; Intentions-TAS; Intentions-Dis. Experience and intentions correlate
highly for Dis (0.70 to 0.78), whereas they correlate only moderately for TAS (0.44 to 0.58), possibly because the
activities described are more unusual and less likely to have been carried out at a young college age.
Sample
The samples involved in the development of the SSS-VI are described in the original article ( Zuckerman, 1984 ),
not currently accessible to us.
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Cronbach alpha coefficients were high for the two I scales and the E-Dis, ranging from 0.83 to 0.94. They were
somewhat lower for the E-TAS scale (0.62 to 0.66) ( Zuckerman, 1994 ).
Test/C0Retest
Retest reliabilities for a 7-week interval were high, being 0.93 for the E-TAS and E-Dis scales and 0.87 and 0.84
respectively for I-Dis and I-TAS scales ( Zuckerman, 1994 ).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Form VI I-Dis correlated highly with Form V Dis (0.60 to 0.76) as did Form VI E-Dis (0.56 to 0.80). Form VI I-
TAS also correlated highly with Form V TAS (0.64 to 0.79), but Form VI E-TAS and Form V TAS correlated at
lower level (0.37 to 0.53).
Divergent/Discriminant
Zuckerman (1994) reported correlations between SSS-VI and EPQ E-Dis and I-Dis TAS ranging from 20.27
and20.30, as well as 20.30 and 20.28 with the EPQ Lie scale for males and females respectively. The correla-
tions of E-Dis and I-Dis with Crowne and Marlowe Social Desirability Scale were moderate only for men
(20.40).
Construct/Factor Analytic
A principal components analysis was carried out to analyze the structure of the SSS-VI. The intention part
yielded two primary dimensions clearly identifiable as TAS and Dis in men and women. The Experience part,
however, yielded the two dimensions in women but they tended to overlap for men. Of the initial 80 items, 64
loaded over 0.30 on either TAS or Dis factors, and lower on the other factors for both men and women
(Zuckerman, 1994 ).
Criterion/Predictive
The TAS scale ı ´tems were nearly all of intention or desire type, because it was assumed that few young per-
sons would have the chance to engage in some of the more unusual thrill-seeking activities, like parachuting.
Some Dis items referred to preferences or aversions for activities already experienced. ES could be restricted by
lack of environmental opportunity or financial resources. The more behaviorally items were based on reports of
past experiences ( Zuckerman, 1994 ).
Location
Zuckerman, M. (1994) Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. Appendices E /C0H New York:
Cambridge University Press.360 13. MEASURES OF SENSATION SEEKING
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Results and Comments
Form VI is not a substitute for Form V since it is missing the ES, BS and total scores from that form. It should
only be used where the interest is solely in TAS and Dis scales and where the queries about the specific types of
experience would be appropriate and acceptable to the population tested ( Zuckerman, 1994 ).
SSS (ACTIVITIES SCALE, FORM-VI) SAMPLE ITEMS
This questionnaire has two parts: part I (Experience;
the first 64 items) and Part II (Intentions for the future;
65 to 128 items). Next it is listed as example an item of
each one of the four scales:
Directions: Part I: Below you will find a list of many
different kinds of activities. Please indicate whether you
have actually engaged in this activity or not in the past
(Part II: ...engaged in this activity in the future). Answer
all items using one of the following options: Part I: A. I
have done this; B. One response for each of the items: A, B
or C. Part II: I have no desire to do this. B. I have thought
of doing third, but probably will not do it. C. I have
thought of doing this and will do it if I have the chance.
Examples :
13. Parachute jumping (E-TAS)2. Reading books about explicit sex (E-Dis)
65. Climbing steep mountains. (I-TAS)
66. Reading books about explicit sex (I-Dis)
Scoring keys :
In scoring either Experience or Intention scales each
response is weighted as follows: A: 1; B: 2; C: 3. All the
weighted responses for each of the four subscales are
summed and the total constitutes the raw score for that
scale.
Infrequency (7 items): 11; E-Dis. (42 items): 2; I-TAS:
(22 items). 65; I-Dis (42 items): 66.
Notes :
The Sensation Seeking Scale Form VI is published
and available in Zuckerman (1994) .
Reproduced with permission.
Impulsive Sensation Seeking Scale (ImpSS) /C0(from ZKPQ)
(Zuckerman et al., 1993).
Variable
The ZKPQ (alternative Big Five) measures the following variables: Impulsive Sensation Seeking,
Aggression /C0Hostility, Activity, Sociability, and Neuroticism /C0Anxiety.
Description
By the late 1980s the 4-factor form of the SSS had become a validated and useful measure of the sensation
seeking construct in many diverse areas. A larger question was posed: how did the SS construct fit into the wider
realm of personality? At that time the most popular factor models were Eysenck’s three-factor theory and
Cattell’s 16-factor theory. A reliable 5-factor model had emerged from analyses of general traits as derived from
ratings based on single adjectives. Costa and McCrae began with a three-factor model in a questionnaire form,
but later added two more factors resembling the ‘ Big Five ’ promulgated by Goldberg and others ( Costa &
McCrae, 1992 ). Their questionnaire has been the most popular one used in personality trait studies although its
claim to primacy among personality trait models has not gone unchallenged ( Block, 1995; Boyle, 2008; Eysenck,
1992; Zuckerman, 1992 ).
Sensation seeking was not represented as a major factor in the Big Five, partly because of the paucity of adjec-
tives describing the trait in the earlier lexical studies and the limited number of sensation seeking items in the
analyses of the Costa and McCrea exploratory forms. The belief that sensation seeking was a primary dimension
of personality was based on its high heritability, many biological and physiological correlates, found in animal
behavioral models as well as studies of humans, and the range of its behavioral correlates. Impulsivity was
another trait not well represented in the Big Five, except as a facet of Neuroticism.
Zuckerman, Kuhlman, and Camac (1988) and later, Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Thornquist, and Kiers (1991) ,
proposed an alternative 5-factor model formed by Impulsive Sensation Seeking (ImpSS), Aggression /C0Hostility
(Agg-Host), Activity (Act), Sociability (Sy), and Neuroticism /C0Anxiety (N-Anx). Unlike Costa and McCrae’s theo-
retical model, both Eysenck and Zuckerman’s models provide a causal explanation of personality. These three
models show similar factorial structures for the first three or four factors (Zuckerman et al., 1993).361 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Zuckerman and colleagues began with selection of 46 scales representing traits that had been widely used in
studies of the biological basis of personality ( Zuckerman et al., 1988 ). The selection included the four sensation
seeking facets from the SSS-V and various impulsivity scales. A robust five-factor solution, emerged from the fac-
tor analyses of these scales including: Neuroticism /C0Anxiety, Aggression /C0Hostility, Sociability, Activity, and
Impulsive Sensation Seeking. The factor structure was replicated in a second sample ( Zuckerman et al., 1991 ). In
subsequent sections we will focus on the ImpSS factor and scales. Information on the other scales can be found in
Zuckerman (2002a, 2002b, 2008a, 2008b) .
Item analyses and factor analyses of items were used to develop scales for the five primary factors
(Zuckerman et al., 1993). Further factor analyses of the intercorrelations of the items within the ImpSS scale
revealed two subfactors. Eleven items reflected sensation seeking or general need for thrills and excitement and a
general need for change and novelty. Unlike the SSS, in which some of the items referred to specific activities
like sex, drugs, and drinking, the ZKPQ items are not that specific and therefore avoided the confounding factor
in some items of the SSS-V and earlier forms.
Nine items described impulsivity, as primarily due to a lack of planning and a tendency to act without think-
ing. The Imp and SS items may be scored together and/or scored for the separate Imp and SS components. The
connection between sensation seeking and impulsivity may be due to common biological correlates or a ‘ marriage
of traits made in biology ’(Zuckerman, 1993 ). The ImpSS scale is shown below; note the change in response format
from the forced choice response format in the SSS to the True /C0False format in the ZKPQ.
Sample
In two American studies, samples included 522 undergraduate students and in a second study 157 participants
(Zuckerman et al., 1993). In a Spanish study ( Aluja et al., 2004 ), the participants were 1006 volunteer psychology
undergraduates from Spanish universities (367 male and 639 female). The mean age was 22.16 years ( SD54.81)
for males, and 22.31 years ( SD55.08) for females.
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Zuckerman et al. (1993) reported Cronbach alpha coefficients obtained in two studies that ranged from 0.72 to
0.86. Participants were 1006 psychology undergraduates. The ImpSS scale exhibited alpha coefficients of 0.77 and
0.78 in the studies (males and females). In the Aluja et al. (2004) study, the alpha coefficients ranged from 0.77 to
0.85 in males and females (ImpSS: 0.83). Alpha coefficients for the ImpSS in male and female samples in eight
countries, including seven translated scales, ranged from 0.68 to 0.84 with a median of 0.80 (see Table 11.2 in
Zuckerman, 2008a, 2008b ).
Test/C0Retest
Test/C0retest reliabilities for ImpSS over a 3 /C04 week interval in an American sample was 0.80 and over six
weeks, and seven months in German samples were 0.80 and 0.78 respectively ( Schmitz, 2004 ).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Convergent correlation coefficients link ImpSS with EPQ P and NEO conscientiousness, Sy with EPQ and
NEO E, N-Anx with EPQ and NEO N, and Agg-Host with NEO Agreeableness. Also, correlations of ImpSS with
observer ratings, friends and relatives ( Angleitner, Riemann, & Spinath, 2004 ) and spouses were 0.50 and 0.63
respectively.
Divergent/Discriminant
ImpSS obtained a correlation of 20.25 with NEO Agreeableness and 20.53 with Conscientiousness ( Aluja,
Garcı ´a, & Garcı ´a, 2002 ).
Construct/Factor Analytic
Zuckerman et al. (1993) performed an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with the EPQ-R (Eysenck Personality
Inventory /C0Revised), the ZKPQ (Zuckerman /C0Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire, form III /C0Revised;
Zuckerman et al., 1993), and the NEO-PI-R (NEO Personality Inventory Revised; Costa & McCrae, 1992 ). The
Neuroticism scales from the EPQ-R and the NEO-PI-R grouped together with the Neuroticism /C0Anxiety Scale of362 13. MEASURES OF SENSATION SEEKING
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
the ZKPQ-III-R. In a second factor, the Extraversion Scales of the EPQ-R and the NEO-PI-R grouped with the
Sociability and Activity Scales of the ZKPQ. The three instruments share common factors of Extraversion and
Neuroticism within two of the primary factors.
In the three-factor structure, the Psychoticism Scale of the EPQ-R, and the Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness Scales of the NEO-PI-R define the third factor. Impulsive Sensation Seeking and the
Aggression /C0Hostility of the ZKPQ have their largest loadings on this factor. In the four-factor structure, the
Psychoticism factor was split into two factors. Conscientiousness, Psychoticism, and Impulsive Sensation Seeking
define one of them, whereas Agreeableness, Aggression /C0Hostility, and Openness load mainly on the other. In
another analysis, the 30 facets of the NEO-PI-R were used instead of the Big-Five factor scales. These results cor-
roborated the previous 4-factor structure plus an additional factor exclusively formed by the 6 NEO Openness
facets. Correlations between the ZKPQ ImpSS and EPQ and NEO scales were: 0.55, 0.28, 0.01, 20.51, 0.28, 0.01,
0.23, and 0.00 for Psychoticism, Extraversion, Neuroticism of EPQ and Conscientiousness, Extraversion,
Neuroticism, Agreeableness and Openness, respectively.
Criterion/Predictive
Ball (1995) used the ZKPQ in a study of 450 cocaine abusers seeking treatment. ImpSS correlated with severity
of drug abuse and addiction and predicted treatment outcome. ImpSS is correlated with substance use and abuse
in community and college samples and risk taking in general.
The ImpSS can be broken down into two subscales: impulsivity and sensation seeking. In a laboratory study a
measure of betting persistence in the face of increasing loss was related to the impulsivity (Imp) but not to the
sensation seeking (SS) subscale ( Breen & Zuckerman, 1999 ).
In their review of sexual behavior, Hoyle et al. (2000) compared the SSS-V with the ZKPQ ImpSS. The SSS was
superior in prediction of number of partners (0.33 to 0.19) but the ZKPQ was better for predicting other high-risk
sex encounters (0.27 vs. 0.19). In any broad criterion like ‘ risky sexual behavior ’o r‘ risky driving behavior ’ there are
different kinds of criteria and the type and degree of prediction may depend on the specific criteria. For instance
in prediction of acculturation patterns in immigrants to Germany ( Schmitz, 2004 ) the ZKPQ SS subscale corre-
lated positively with integration and negatively with separation modes of adjustment, but the Imp subscale corre-
lated negatively with integration and positively with marginalization.
Location
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Joireman, J., Teta, P., & Kraft, M. (1993). A comparison of three structural
models for personality: The big three, the big five, and the alternative five. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65 , 757/C0768.
Aluja, A, Garcı ´a, O., & Garcı ´a, L.F. (2004). Replicability of the three, four and five Zuckerman’s personality
super-factors: exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the EPQ-RS, ZKPQ and NEO-PI-R. Personality and
Individual Differences, 36 , 1093/C01108.
Aluja, A., Garcı ´a, O´., & Garcı ´a, L.F. (2002). A comparative study of Zuckerman’s three structural models for
personality through the NEO-PI-R, ZKPQ-III-R, EPQ-R and Goldberg’s 50-bipolar adjectives. Personality and
Individual Differences, 33 , 713/C0725.
Results and Comments
Data from Zuckerman et al. (1993) showed that the EPQ-R, ZKPQ and NEO-PI-R questionnaires could be well
described by a three-factor model. The three-factor structure highlights the negative relationships of Psychoticism
with Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. This argument was also sustained by Eysenck (1991) and other
investigators although with different interpretations ( Draycott & Kline, 1995; John, 1990; Saggino, 2000 ).
The Aggression /C0Hostility and Impulsive Sensation Seeking Scales of the ZKPQ would be integrated in the
Psychoticism factor.
Replicating Costa and McCrae’s findings (1992), Openness loads on the Extraversion factor in the three-factor
model. In a four-factor analysis Impulsive Sensation Seeking loads on a factor along with EPQ Psychoticism and
NEO Conscientiousness and the primary correlations of Impulsive Sensation Seeking are with these two scales.
Significant but much lower correlations are found between Impulsive Sensation Seeking and EPQ Extraversion.
Construct and predictive validity studies have replicated many of the findings using the SSS-V scales with
a number of new findings generally supporting the construct validity of the SS scales developed within the
alternative five theory assessed by the ZKPQ. A caution is that the results are sometimes specific to the particular
subscale of the SSS or ImpSS or the particular behavioral criteria used.363 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
IMPULSIVE SENSATION SEEKING SCALE (IMPSS) /C0(FROM ZKPQ)
Directions: If you agree with a statement or decide
that it describes you, answer TRUE. If you disagree with
a statement or feel that it is not descriptive of you,
answer FALSE. Answer every statement either True or
False even if you are not entirely sure of your answer.
1.(1) (I) I tend to begin a new job without much
advance planning on how I will do it.
2.(6) [I*] I usually think about what I am going to do
before doing it.
3.(14) [I] I often do things on impulse.
4.(19) [I] I very seldom spend much time on the
details of planning ahead.
5.(24) [SS] I like to have new and exciting experiences
and sensations even if they are a little frightening.
6.(29) [I*] Before I begin a complicated job, I make
careful plans.
7.(34) [SS] I would like to take off on a trip with no
preplanned or defining routes or timetable.
8.(39) [I] I enjoy getting into new situations where you
can’t predict how things will turn out.
9.(45) [SS] I like doing things just for the thrill of it.
10.(50) [SS] I tend to change interests frequently.
11.(55) [55] I sometimes like to do things that are a little
frightening.
12.(60) [SS] I’ll try anything once.
13.(65) [SS] I would like the kind of life where one is
on the move and traveling a lot with lots of change
and excitement.14.(70) [SS] I sometimes do ‘crazy’ things just for fun.
15.(75) [SS] I like to explore a strange city or section of
town by myself, even if it means getting lost.
16.(79) [SS] I prefer friends who are excitingly
unpredictable.
17.(84) [I] I often get so carried away by new and
exciting things and ideas that I never think of
possible complications.
18.(89) [I] I am an impulsive person.
19.(95) [SS] I like ‘wild’ uninhibited parties.
Notes :
1.Item numbers in parentheses are those for the
item in the 99 item ZKPQ. An ‘I’ in the brackets
indicates it is an impulsivity item; ‘SS’ in the
brackets indicates a sensation seeking item. The
total ImpSS score consists of all the items, but
some investigators may also be interested in
scoring the I and SS subscales separately. All
items are scored 1 for the ‘True’ response except
for items 2 and 6 where the star after the ‘I’
indicates scoring for the ‘False’ response.
2.This table is adapted from Table 2.3 (p. 46) in M.
Zuckerman (1994) Behavioral expressions and
biosocial bases of sensation seeking, published by
Cambridge University Press.
3.Reproduced with permission.
Impulsive Sensation Seeking Scale (ImpSS) /C0(from ZKPQ 69-item short form)
(Aluja et al., 2003 ).
Variable
The ZKPQ (69-item form) measures the following variables: Impulsive Sensation Seeking, Aggression /C0
Hostility, Activity, Sociability, and Neuroticism /C0Anxiety.
Description
This ZKPQ 69-item shortened version was developed by Aluja et al. (2003) after discovering that several of the
ZKPQ 89-items (without Infrequency scale) were grouped into different factors than in the ( Aluja et al., 2003 )
principal components analyses, while other items were highly correlated among them (and Modification Indexes
regarding covariance among them were also high). The structure of the questionnaire was analysed by
Exploratory (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) procedures. It was found that a 69-item model
showed better fit, similar reliability coefficients, and slightly better construct and convergent validity than the
89-item version. Internal consistency coefficients were acceptable and similar to those reported in Zuckerman
et al. (1993).
Sample
The sample was composed of 1006 undergraduate students (367 male and 639 female) following different
degrees: Law, Education Science, Physical Education, and Marketing, from three Spanish universities. The mean
age was 22.16 years ( SD54.81) for males, and 22.31 years ( SD55.08) for females.364 13. MEASURES OF SENSATION SEEKING
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Cronbach alpha coefficients for the ImpSS 69-item version were 0.78 and 0.81 for males and females respec-
tively ( Aluja et al., 2003 ).
Test/C0Retest
Test/C0retest reliability coefficients have not been reported to-date.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
The original ZKPQ 89-items and 69-item versions were correlated with the EPQ-R, the SSS Form V and the
NEO-PI-R, for both the original 89-item and the 69-item versions, with very similar values for both. EPQ N corre-
lated highly with N-Anx (0.81) and somewhat lower with Agg-Hos (0.36). EPQ E was related to Sy (0.69 and
0.66). The EPQ-P scale was related to ImpSS (0.56 and 0.53) and to Agg-Hos (0.29 and 0.25). Thus, the SSS scales
were essentially related to ImpSS and to a lesser extent, to Agg-Hos, Sy, and Act. The NEO-O scale was only
related to ImpSS (0.32 and 0.33). NEO-O was only related to ImpSS (0.32 and 0.33). NEO-C was more highly
related (negatively) to ImpSS ( 20.50 and 20.45) and positively to Act (0.26 and 0.24) ( Aluja et al., 2003 ).
Divergent/Discriminant
The NEO-A measure was negatively correlated with Agg-Hos ( 20.55 and 20.51) and to ImpSS ( 20.25 and
20.25)/C0(Aluja et al., 2003 ).
Construct/Factor Analytic
In the Aluja et al. (2003) study we have used AMOS 4.0 CFA techniques to compare the fit of the items to their
respective EFA principal components generated factors. Fit indices of five ZKPQ models with both orthogonal
and oblique rotations, were compared to its original 89-item version. The simple structure of the 69-item model
obtained low indices although higher than those reported elsewhere with several personality structural models
derived through EFA ( Borkenau & Ostendorf, 1990; Church & Burke, 1994; Vassend & Skrondal, 1995 ). In the
69-item EFA structure, the secondary loadings were low, but nevertheless, the fit improved when correlated error
terms were added as well. When the five-factor 69-item version of the ZKPQ factors was analysed independently
through CFA, fit indices were adequate except for the Agg-Hos scale.
Criterion/Predictive
In the Aluja, Garcı ´a, Blanch, De Lorenzo, and Fibla (2009) study, the association between different impulsive /C0
disinhibited personality traits, such as Psychoticism, Sensitivity to Reward, Sensation-Seeking (ZKPQ-69),
Aggressiveness, and 5-HTTLPR and 5-HTTVNTR genetic polymorphisms were evaluated in an imprisoned male
sample. Higher scores of the impulsive /C0disinhibited personality traits tended to be associated with both, carrying
one or two copies of the 5-HTTPLR S allele (S/S homozygous and S/L heterozygous) and carrying two copies of the
5-HTTVNTR 12 allele (12/12 homozygous). Genotype, allele, haplotype and extended genotype distribution between
low and high impulsive-disinhibited groups confirmed this association. Allele S and genotypes S/S 1S/L at the
5-HTTLPR locus and allele 12 and genotype 12/12 at the 5-HTTVNTR locus were overrepresented in the high scoring
group. The inmates carrying Androgen Receptor (AR) CAG repeats length short and GGN long haplotype group
(short/C0long haplotype) obtained higher scores on all personality scales. Differences were found for the Impulsive
Sensation-Seeking scale (age-adjusted multivariate analysis, p,0.016) and z index ( p,0.036), when comparing
extreme groups in the impulsive /C0disinhibited personality ( Aluja, Garcı ´a, Blanch, & Fibla, 2011 ).
Location
Aluja, A., Garcı ´a, O´., & Garcı ´a, L.F. (2003). Psychometric properties of the Zuckerman /C0Kuhlman personality
questionnaire (ZKPQ-III-R): a study of a shortened form. Personality and Individual Differences, 34 ,1 0 8 3/C01097.
Results and Comments
The ZKPQ 69-item version is a refined shortened version t hat includes the best ZKPQ items after sophisticated item
analysis using EFA and CFA procedures. The five-factor struc ture is very robust. Convergent and discriminant validity
is similar to that obtained by correlational analysis with the EPQ-RS, the SSS-V and the NEO-PI-R, corroborating the365 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
outcomes found by Zuckerman et al. (1993) and Zuckerman, Joireman, Kraft, and Kuhlman (1999) . This shortened ver-
sion provides the researchers with a valid and reliable mea sure of the Zuckerman personality model with 20 items less.
IMPULSIVE SENSATION SEEKING SCALE
(FROM ZKPQ 69-ITEM SHORT-FORM)
1.(1) (I) I tend to begin a new job without much
advance planning on how I will do it.
2.(14) [I] I often do things on impulse.
3.(19) [I] I very seldom spend much time on the
details of planning ahead.
4.(24) [SS] I like to have new and exciting
experiences and sensations even if they are a little
frightening.
5.(34) [SS] I would like to take off on a trip with no
preplanned or defining routes or timetable.
6.(39) [I] I enjoy getting into new situations where you
can’t predict how things will turn out.
7.(45) [SS] I like doing things just for the thrill of it.
8.(50) [SS] I tend to change interests frequently.9.(55) [55] I sometimes like to do things that are a little
frightening.
10.(65) [SS] I would like the kind of life where one is
on the move and traveling a lot with lots of change
and excitement.
11.(70) [SS] I sometimes do ‘crazy’ things just for fun.
12.(75) [SS] I like to explore a strange city or section of
town by myself, even if it means getting lost.
13.(79) [SS] I prefer friends who are excitingly
unpredictable.
14.(84) [I] I often get so carried away by new and
exciting things and ideas that I never think of
possible complications.
Note: Reproduced with permission.
ImpSS Scale from Cross-Cultural Shortened Form of ZKPQ (ZKPQ-50-CC)
(Aluja et al., 2006 ).
Variable
The ZKPQ-50-CC measures the following variables: Impulsive Sensation Seeking, Aggression /C0Hostility,
Activity, Sociability, and Neuroticism /C0Anxiety.
Description
Those who use tests for research are always demanding shorter forms. Many of these short forms lose reliabil-
ity because of the loss of items and show attenuated relationships with the original long forms. Aluja et al. (2006)
and Aluja et al. (2007b) developed a short form of the ZKPQ in four languages: English (United States), French
(Switzerland), German (Germany), and Spanish (Spain).
An exploratory factor analysis was conducted in the calibration sample and a confirmatory factor analysis in a
different validation sample. Using several criteria derived from EFA and CFA item analysis, including modifica-
tion index and standardized regression weights, 10 items per scale were selected. This short version (named
ZKPQ-50-CC) presents psychometric properties strongly similar to the original version in the four countries. The
factor structure was near equivalent across the four countries since the congruence indices were all higher than
0.90. The results were five 10-item scales representing the original five ZKPQ factors in all four countries and lan-
guages. Cross language similarity of the five factors was high and the scales correlated highly with their longer
versions. The same items were used for all five scales in all four cultures.
The ImpSS 10-item scale contained only two Imp compared with eight SS items, compared with eight Imp and
11 SS in the ZKPQ. Thus impulsivity plays a smaller role in the total ImpSS score in the short form. However we
kept the original label for the scale even though it is more of a general SS scale. There are not enough items repre-
senting impulsivity to score it as a separate facet of ImpSS in this shortened scale.
Sample
The total sample included 4621 participants (1667 males [36.1%], and 2954 females [63.9%]). The sample was
randomly divided into calibration ( N52322) and validation ( N52299) groups. The numbers of subjects in the
four countries were 517 from Germany (Mean age: 26.94 years; SD54.31), 962 from Spain (Mean age: 21.39 years;
SD52.97), 764 from the French-speaking part of Switzerland (Mean age: 21.68 years; SD53.05), and 2378 from
the United States of America (age was not coded for this sample).366 13. MEASURES OF SENSATION SEEKING
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Reliability
Internal Consistency
All scales exhibited Cronbach alpha coefficients above 0.70 in each country, except for the Agg-Host scale in
Germany, Spain and Switzerland, and the Sy scale in Germany. However, these latter alpha coefficients were
only slightly lower (0.60 to 0.68) ( Aluja et al., 2006 ).
Test/C0Retest
No test /C0retest reliability coefficients have been reported to-date.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Convergent validity of the ZKPQ-50-CC was analyzed by Aluja and Blanch (2011) correlating similar ZKPQ-
50-CC with TCI-R and NEO-FFI-R scales. The positive correlations with similar content scales were found
between ZKPQ-50-CC and TCI-R scales: ImpSS and Novelty Seeking (0.50), N-Anx and Harm Avoidance (0.58),
Sy and Reward Dependence (0.55), Act and Persistence (0.52), and ImpSS and Self-Transcendence (0.30). The pos-
itive correlations between the ZKPQ-50-CC and the NEO-FFI-R similar content scales were: ImpSS and
Extraversion (0.41), N-Anx and Neuroticism (0.68), and Sy and E (0.64). Positive correlations were found between
the ZKPQ-50-CC and NEO-FFI-R instruments: ImpSS and Extraversion (0.41), N-Anx and Neuroticism (0.68), and
Sy and E (0.64). The convergent validity results are similar to those found between the full ZKPQ and the TCI.
Divergent/Discriminant
Negative correlations were found between the ZKPQ-50-CC and NEO-FFI-R instruments: e.g., ZKPQ Agg-
Host correlated ( 20.43) with Agreeableness. The ZKPQ ImsSS correlation with conscientiousness was ( 20.51),
while with extraversion it was only 0.23.
Construct/Factor Analytic
Structural validity was analyzed by both exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). Five
factors were explicitly extracted in the EFA calibration sample using a principal components method with
Varimax rotation ( N54621). The five factors accounted for 25.69% of the variance. A CFA was then performed
on the 50 items ( χ255664.66; d.f. 51165; χ2/d.f.54.86; SMSR 50.01; CFI 50.78; GFI 50.90; RMSEA 50.04).
Correlations between the latent variables for oblique models were: ImpSS/N-Anx: 20.11/20.04; ImpSS/Agg-
Host: 0.31/0.34, ImpSS/Act: 0.19/0.14, ImpSS/Sy: 20.40/20.36, N-Anx/Agg-Host: 0.28/0.24, N-Anx/Act:
20.05/20.08, N-Anx/Sy: 0.17/0.19, Agg-Host/Act: 0.04/0.03, Agg-Host/Sy: 20.08/20.09 and Act-Sy: 20.18/
20.19.
Criterion/Predictive
The ZKPQ-50-CC predicts MCMI-III personality disorder (PD) scales. ImpSS is the most relevant predictor for
the Narcissistic, Antisocial and Obsessive /C0Compulsive (negative) PDs. Finally, Agg-Host and Agreeableness pre-
sented an opposite pattern of results. Agg-Host was the most predictive dimension for the Sadistic disorder, and
contributed to the Paranoid, Antisocial, Narcissistic, Dependent and Passive /C0Aggressive PDs (Aluja et al., 2007).
Location
Aluja, A, Rossier, J., Garcı ´a, L.F, Angleitner, A., Kuhlman, D.M., & Zuckerman, M. (2006). A cross-cultural
shortened form of the ZKPQ (ZKPQ-50-CC) adapted to English, French, German and Spanish languages.
Personality and Individual Differences, 41 , 619/C0628.
Results and Comments
The results of ZKPQ-50-CC study represent, therefore, a double contribution to the ZKPQ literature: (1) dem-
onstrating the cross-cultural validity of Zuckerman’s Alternative Five Factor Personality Model; and (2) develop-
ing a short version with good psychometric and structural properties in four different languages (English,
French, German, and Spanish). The cross-cultural design and the use of multivariate statistical procedures in its
development give this short version the edge over the 35-item, and 69-item ZKPQ versions, developed with
American and Spanish samples, respectively.367 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
IMPSS SCALE (FROM ZKPQ-50-CC) SAMPLE ITEMS
Instructions: On this page you will find a series of statements that people might use to describe themselves. Read
each statement and decide whether or not it describes you. If you agree with a statement or decide that it describes
you answer TRUE, marking the letter T with a cross. If you disagree with a statement or feel that it is not descriptive
of you, answer FALSE, marking the letter F with a cross.
T5TRUE; F 5FALSE
(Mark the chosen letter with a cross)
Answer every statement either True (T) or False (F) even if you are not entirely sure of your answer.
Example : T F I have always told the truth.
6 T F *14. I often do things on impulse.
13 T F 34. I would like to take off on a trip with no pre-planned or definite routes or timetables.
17 T F 39. I enjoy getting into new situations where you can’t predict how things will turn out.
24 T F 55. I sometimes like to do things that are a little frightening.
26 T F 60. I’ll try anything once.
30 T F 65. I would like the kind of life where one is on the move and traveling a lot, with lots of
change and excitement.
34 T F 70. I sometimes do ‘crazy’ things just for fun.
39 T F 79. I prefer friends who are excitingly unpredictable.
42 T F 84. I often get so carried away by new and exciting things and ideas that I never think of
possible complications.
49 T F 95. I like ‘wild’ uninhibited parties.
Notes :
*Corresponds to number on ZKPQ (full version). e.g., Item 6 in the ZKPQ-50 is Item 14 on the ZKPQ.
Reproduced with permission.
Sensation Seeking Scale /C0from Zuckerman /C0Kuhlman /C0Aluja Personality Questionnaire
(ZKA-PQ)
(Aluja, Kuhlman, & Zuckerman, 2010b ).
Variable
The ZKA-PQ measures the following variables:
Domains : Neuroticism, Activity, Extraversion, Sensation Seeking, and Aggressiveness.
Facets : Physical Aggression, Verbal Aggression, Anger; Hostility, Work Compulsion, General Activity,
Restlessness, Work Energy, Positive Emotions, Social Warmth, Exhibitionism, Sociability, Anxiety, Depression,
Dependency, Low Self-Esteem, Thrill and Adventure Seeking, Experience Seeking, Disinhibition, and Boredom
Susceptibility/Impulsivity.
Description
Most contemporary personality trait models are based on a hierarchal model in which broader traits, like E, N,
and P or the Big Five contain narrower traits, which in turn may contain even narrower traits until we get down
to the level of specific habits. Many models start with measures of the broader traits and only later, if ever get
down to defining the narrower traits or facets that make up the broader traits.
The original factor analyses of the SSS yielded four facets of sensation seeking ( Zuckerman, 1994 ). However
the analyses that led to the development of the ZKPQ used a much more limited sample of SSS items because
four other major factors had to be defined. Consequently only two facets of sensation seeking, impulsivity
and general sensation seeking were defined. In order to better define all five ZKPQ factors a larger sampling of
candidate items were factored in order to develop a factor/facet model. Using previous factor analytic research
(e.g., Eysenck & Wilson, 1991; McCrae & Costa, 2008 ),Aluja et al. (2010b) selected a sample of items for possible
facets of five major factors. Subscales of impulsivity were added to the original sampling of items on the368 13. MEASURES OF SENSATION SEEKING
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
possibility that this trait would emerge as a major factor or a separate facet of sensation seeking. All of the origi-
nal sensation-seeking items were included. One hundred items for each potential factor including 20 items foreach of the five hypothesized facets were included.
Scale development occurred in two phases. First, fact or analyses were done on the 20 items within each facet
of each factor. The ten best items for each facet were selected on the basis of highest loadings on the facet totaland relatively lower loadings on the other facets within the factor. Next factor analyses were done using the 25
facet scores. The result was that some facets within som e factors were too weak so that the weakest facet was
removed from each factor leaving four facets for each. For instance an antisocial facet had been postulated for
the SS factor, but the factor analysis of facets did not justify the existence of such a facet on this or other factors.A separate impulsivity facet was predicted for the SS fact or, but instead the original four factors from the SSS
IV and V emerged again from this analysis. They were eas ily recognized from their content although all items
from the SSS with specific content relating to sex, dru gs, or drinking had been replaced by more general items.
However some items from the Lack of Premediation impuls ivity scale did load on the Boredom Susceptibility
facet so this facet was renamed. The final four facets o f the SS factor were labeled: SS1. Thrill and Adventure
Seeking; SS2. Experience Seeking; SS3. Disinhibition; SS4. Boredom Susceptibility/Impulsivity.
Thus we have come back to the original structure of facets in the SSS, with impulsivity relegated to
some items in the BS scale and exclusion of content confounding items. Given the confirmation of the factorstructure in other samples, it is recommended that investigators use this new sensation seeking scale in prefer-ence to the older one in the SSS-V. This scale is extracted from the larger ZKA-PQ and the results could be differ-ent from those using the SSS-V scales. Replication should be checked. Note that it uses a four-point Likert-typeresponse format in place of the true /C0false format of the original ZKPQ and the forced choice form of the SSS-V.
Sample
Five samples were analyzed in the development of the ZKA-PQ. The first two samples consisted of Spanish
individuals who answered the questionnaire anonymously. The first sample consisted of 1042 subjects
(559 women, and 483 men) with a mean age of 38.6 years ( SD516.02). The second sample had 529 subjects
(271 women and 258 men) with a mean age of 44.2 ( SD518.12). The third sample consisted of 480 American
undergraduate students (360 women, 119 men) from an introductory psychology course with a mean age of18.48 years ( SD50.87).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Cronbach alpha coefficients for the total factor and the facet scores were estimated in the Spanish and
American samples. The mean alpha coefficient for the five factors was 0.88 (Spanish sample) and 0.91 (Americansample). Alpha coefficients for the Sensation Seeking dimension were 0.70 and 0.72 for the Spanish andUSA samples, respectively. For the four SS facets, alpha coefficients for the Spanish sample were: SS1: 0.73; SS2:0.70; SS3: 0.72; and SS4: 0.65, respectively. For the USA sample, they were 0.81, 0.73, 0.73, and 0.61 respectively.Only alpha coefficient for the SS4, Boredom susceptibility/Impulsivity, was less than 0.70.
Test/C0Retest
Test/C0retest reliability coefficients are not currently available for the ZKA-PQ.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Convergent validity of the ZKA-PQ was studied by correlating its factors with the NEO-FFI-R and the TCI-R
140. The ZKA-PQ alternative Big Five scales correlated positively with the corresponding scales of the NEO-FFI-
R Neuroticism (0.71), Extraversion (0.62), Openness (0.27), Agreeableness (0.32), and Conscientiousness (0.34).
Also positive correlations were obtained between the ZKA-PQ scales and the corresponding scales of the TCI-R140 Novelty Seeking (0.51), Harm Avoidance (0.58), Reward Dependence (0.47) and Persistence (0.69) respectively(Aluja et al., 2010). Likewise, Garcı ´a et al. (2012) reported that:
the ZKPQ and the TCI-R Impulsive Sensation Seeking correlated with Novelty Seeking (0.66), Neuroticism /C0Anxiety with Harm
Avoidance (0.68), and Aggression /C0Hostility with Cooperativeness (0.60), with some lower correlations: Activity correlated with369 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Persistence (0.46), Self-Directiveness with Neuroticism /C0Anxiety (0.49) and Aggression /C0Hostility (0.32), Reward Dependence with
Sociability (0.31) and Aggression /C0Hostility (0.27), and Self-Transcendence with Impulsive Sensation Seeking (0.28). In an unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Dolcet (2006) correlated the factors of a short version of the ZKPQ (ZKPQ-50-CC; Aluja et al., 2006 ) with TCI-R in
a sample from the Spanish population. Reported results were very similar to those of Zuckerman and Cloninger (1996) .
Divergent/Discriminant
Aluja et al. (2010) also found negative and significant correlations between ZKA-PQ factors and NEO-FFI-
R and the Cloninger TCI-R 140. The five ZKA-PQ scales correlated negatively with the NEO-FFI-R
scales, as follows: Aggressiveness /C0Agreeableness ( 20.53), Aggressiveness /C0Contentiousness ( 20.32), Sensation
Seeking /C0Agreeableness ( 20.28), Sensation Seeking /C0Conscientiousness ( 20.36). Negative correlations between
the ZKA-PQ scales and the TCI-R 140 scales were as follows: Aggressiveness /C0Self-Direction ( 20.46),
Aggressiveness /C0Cooperativeness ( 20.49), Neuroticism /C0Self-Direction ( 20.64).
Construct/Factor Analytic
The construct validity of the ZKA-PQ was analyzed by means of exploratory factor analysis based on the inter-
correlations of the ZKQ-PQ and TCI-R facets. A 5-factor solution was obtained, the second factor of which
includes all four of the Sensation Seeking scales from the ZKA-PQ, two of the Aggression facet scales (AG1, phys-
ical aggression, AG2 verbal aggression), and two Novelty Seeking (NS 2 and 4) facets from the TCI-R. It also
includes ZKA-PQ exhibitionism (EX3) and negative loadings from TCI-R self-acceptance (SD4) and fear of uncer-
tainty (HA2) and a positive loading from impulsiveness (NS2). Although this is primarily a sensation seeking
factor it is mixed with other kinds of facets ( Aluja, Blanch, Garcı ´a, Garcı ´a, & Escorial, 2012 ).
The five factors of the original ZKPQ were well replicated, and the factor structure (principal axis plus vari-
max rotation) was shown to be highly congruent in the three samples despite cultural and age differences
between the samples. Factor intercorrelations indicate a relative orthogonality among the five factors, with two
exceptions. Specifically, significant correlations were found between Aggressiveness and Sensation Seeking, and
between Neuroticism and Extraversion (Aluja et al., 2010).
Criterion/Predictive
The mean predictive capacity of the ZKA-PQ dimensions with regard to the 10 PD MCMI-III (Millon Clinical
Multiaxial Inventory) scales was 33%.The use of the facets improved this with 37%; therefore, facets might pro-
vide a very slightly better descriptive capacity than the broader factors. The locally weighted scatterplot smooth-
ing graphical analyses between the ZKA-PQ dimensions and the MCM-III PD scales showed that the personality
dimensions predicted the three clusters from the II DSM-IV axis in a way very similar to that reported in the pre-
vious study with the ZKPQ by Aluja, Rossier, and Zuckerman (2007b) . In both studies, this procedure is useful in
ascertaining the relationships between the personality dimensions and the severity of the scores in the three PD
clusters ( Aluja et al., 2012 ).
Location
Aluja, A., Kuhlman, M., & Zuckerman, M. (2010). Development of the Zuckerman-Kuhlman-Aluja Personality
Questionnaire (ZKA-PQ): A factor/facet version of the Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ).
Journal of Personality Assessment, 92 ,1/C017.
Results and Comments
The ZKA-PQ is a new questionnaire based in the Zuckerman’s five factor model. The five ZKA-PQ factors
are similar to those from the ZKPQ, but are not totally equivalent because the new factors have been
built from the facets. The results showed correlations between the ZKA-PQ and the NEO-PI-R/TCI-R
(shortened versions) which were similar and in the predicted direction to those obtained using the original
ZKPQ. However, there was a low correlation between AC and SD (0.16). Additionally, we obtained correlations
between AG and NS (0.32), EX and N ( 20.29), SD (0.32) and Co (0.39), and NE and E ( 20.27). These correlations
were also in the same direction of the previous findings, even though they were significant in the present study
(Garcı ´a et al., 2012).370 13. MEASURES OF SENSATION SEEKING
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
SENSATION SEEKING SCALE (IN ZKA-PQ)
Directions: A number of statements are shown below
that describe some ways in which people act and think.
Please indicate for each statement how much you agree
or disagree. If you have not experienced that circum-stance, please try to describe how you would act orwhat you think about that situation. If you DisagreeStrongly write 1, If you Disagree Somewhat write 2, ifyou Agree Somewhat write 3, and if you Agree Stronglywrite 4. Be sure to indicate your agreement or disagree-ment for every statement.
1. Disagree Strongly, 2. Disagree Somewhat, 3. Agree
Somewhat, 4. Agree Strongly
1.(2) [TAS] I enjoy the sensations of speeding in a car.
2.(7) [ES} I would like to take off on a trip with no
pre-planned or definite routes or timetables.
3.(12) [Dis] I’ll try anything once.
4.(17) [BS/Imp] I prefer friends who are excitingly
unpredictable.
5.(22) [TAS] I like some physical activities that are
somewhat risky.
6.(27) [ES] I enjoy getting into new situations where
you can’t predict how things will turn out.
7.(32) [Dis] I like ‘wild’ uninhibited parties.
8.(37) [BS/Imp] I get restless if I have to stay around
home for any length of time.
9.(42) [TAS] I prefer fast-moving activities or sports.
10.(47) [ES] I would like the kind of life where one is
on the move and traveling a lot, with lots of changeand excitement.
11.(52) [Dis] I like to let myself go and do impulsive
things just for fun.
12.(57) [BS/Imp] I enjoy spending time in the familiar
surroundings of my home or apartment.
13.(62) [TAS] I would like to learn to fly an airplane.
14.(67) [[ES] I would like to travel to foreign lands
where the people are quite different from the peoplein my own country.
15.(72) [Dis] I go to parties to meet exciting and
stimulating people.
16.(77) [BS/Imp] I am polite and attentive to someone
even if I do not find their conversation interesting.
17.(82) [TAS] I think I would enjoy being a fire-fighter.
18.(87) [ES] I like people who are unusual or different
from most other people.
19.(92) [Dis] I do not try to restrain my urges to have
exciting experiences.
20.(97) [BS/Imp] I have a reserved and cautious
attitude toward life.
21.(102) [TAS] If I were in the Army I might volunteer
for exciting but dangerous duties.
22.(107) [ES] I enjoy many types of loud, intense rock
music.
23.(112) [Dis] I prefer quiet parties where one can have
good conversation.
24.(117) [BS/Imp] My thinking is usually cautious and
sensible.25.(122) [TAS] I do not like to engage in sports or
activities in which there is a significant risk of
getting hurt.
26.(127) [ES} I would not like a job involving a lot of travel.
27.(132) [Dis] I am not interested in having new
experiences just for the sake of experiencing newsensations.
28.(137) [BS/Imp] I don’t like to start a project until I
know exactly how to proceed.
29.(142) [TAS] I don’t think I would like flying in a
small airplane.
30.(147) [ES] I do not like people who behave in
uncontrolled and unconventional ways.
31.(152) [Dis] I enjoy quiet, melodic popular or classical
music.
32.(157) [BS/Imp] I tend to value and follow a rational
and moderate approach to things.
33.(162) [TAS] Given a choice I would never volunteer
for any activity that is physically risky.
34.
(167) [ES] I am comfortable with the familiarity of afixed daily routine.
35.(172) [Dis] One should not go too far in physical
intimacy until one gets to know the other person.
36.(177) [BS/Imp] I usually make up my mind through
careful reasoning.
37.(182) [TAS] I would never travel to other countries
where there is unrest and the threat of violence.
38.(187) [ES] I would prefer to travel to places where
people speak my language and have the samecustoms.
39.(192) [Dis] One of my goals in life is to experience
intense and pleasurable sensations.
40.(197) [BS/Imp] Before I get into a new situation I
like to find out what to expect from it.
Notes :
The items for the SSS are extracted from the ZKA-PQ(Aluja et al., 2010).
TAS5Thrill and Adventure Seeking; ES 5Experience
Seeking; Dis 5Disinhibition;
BS/Imp 5Boredom Susceptibility/Impulsivity.
Scoring :
Each non-reversed item is weighted 1 to 4 depend-
ing on the response. However reversed items, indi-cated by a star after the item number, are weighted inthe reverse direction, i.e. 1 54, 253, 352, 451. The
raw score for each subscale, TAS, ES, Dis, or BS/Imp,
is the sum of the 10 weighted items for that subscale.A Total SSS score is the sum of the 4 subscales, or all40 items.
TAS: items: 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25*, 29*, 33*, 37*ES items: 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, 26*, 30*, 34*, 38*Dis items: 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23*, 27*, 31*, 35*, 39BS/Imp items: 4, 8, 12*, 16*, 20*, 24*, 28*, 32*, 36*, 40*
Reproduced with permission. |
OTHER SENSATION SEEKING SCALES
Novelty Seeking Scale (NSS) /C0(from TCI-R)
(Cloninger et al., 1999 ).
Variable
The NSS which measures novelty seeking tendencies, is a subscale of the Temperament and Character
Inventory Revised (TCI-R) ( Cloninger et al., 1999 ).
Description
The TCI-R developed by Cloninger et al. (1999) , is a revised version of the TCI ( Cloninger, Przybeck, Svrakic, &
Wetzel, 1994 ) used as a measure for their biosocial personality model based on four temperaments (Novelty
Seeking [NS], Harm Avoidance [HA], Reward Dependence [RD], and Persistence [PS]) and three character traits
(Self-directedness [SD], Cooperativeness [CO], and Self-transcendence [ST]). In this latter form, a 5-point Likert
response format was incorporated, and the PS short scales was converted into a dimension with an additional new
subscale for RD (RD2). Both versions had 240-items but the TCI-R preserved 189 of the original TCI items. Overall,
37-items were also eliminated, and 51-new items were incorporated, including 5 validity items. The factorial
structure of the TCI-R was robust and similar to the TCI, with acceptable facet reliability.
Cloninger, Svrakic, and Przybeck (1993) constructed a set of scales based on a biological model for personality.
One of these is called Novelty Seeking (NS). Factor analysis was not used in the development of these scales.
Four rationally derived facets describe the NS factor: The Temperament facets for Novelty Seeking (NS) are:
Exploratory excitability (NS1), Impulsiveness (NS2), Extravagance (NS3) and Disorderliness (NS4) (60 items). The
content resembles that of the ImpSS of the ZKPQ. It is therefore not surprising that NS and ImpSS correlate
highly (0.68) ( Zuckerman & Cloninger, 1996 ). Although the TCI as a whole suffers from psychometric problems
in factor validity it has been widely used in the psychiatric, genetic, and psychobiological literature. NS and
ImpSS correlate highly. NS in particular has been linked to a dopamine receptor gene ( Ebstein et al., 1996 ).
In recent years, the TCI-R has been adapted to several languages and cross-cultural contexts with clinical and
non-clinical samples.
Sample
A recent Spanish validation of the TCI-R was carried out by Aluja et al. (2010). Participants were 928 voluntary
students and friends and relatives (396 males and 532 women). The 195 students constituted 27% of the total
sample. The average age was 30.69 years ( SD511.62; range: 18 /C077 years), for males 31.28 years ( SD511.84;
range: 18 /C077 years) and for females 30.11 years (SD: 11.32; range 18 /C075 years).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Cronbach alpha coefficients for the subscales/facets varied between 0.63 and 0.85 (Garcı ´a et al., 2012). Alpha
coefficients for the Novelty Seeking facets ranged from 0.45 to 0.67. The total NS alpha coefficient was 0.63
(Garcı ´a et al., 2012).
Test/C0Retest
Hansenne et al. (2005) assessed the test /C0retest reliabilities using the two-way random effects model intraclass
correlation coefficient (ICC). The coefficients for the dimensions were derived from all the individual items (i.e.,
all NS items and not NS1, NS2, NS3, NS4 as items). Test /C0retest reliabilities were calculated at two weeks and at
6 months. All ICCs were statistically significant. At two weeks, ICCs ranged from 0.81 to 0.89 and at 6 weeks
from 0.53 to 0.65.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
In the Aluja and Blanch (2011) study, positive correlations were found between TCI-R Novelty Seeking and ImpSS
(0.50), Agg-Host (0.23), Sy (0.29) of the ZKPQ-50-CC and NEO-FFI-R Extraversion (0.30), and Openness (0.20).372 13. MEASURES OF SENSATION SEEKING
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Divergent/Discriminant
Negative correlations were found between Novelty Seeking and Agreeableness ( 2.24), and with
Conscientiousness ( 2.39) ( Aluja & Blanch, 2011 ).
Construct/Factor Analytic
TCI-R principal components analyses were conducted with promax oblique rotation in a two step procedure:
(a) using the 16 facets of Temperament; and (b) using the three Character dimensions. Four Temperament factors
were extracted in accordance with the ‘eigenvalue greater than one’ criteria, explaining 61.61% of the total vari-
ance (F-I: 23.47%; F-II: 16.05%; F-III: 14.54%; F-IV: 7.55%). The same procedure was replicated for the age groups
with similar results. Total congruence coefficients ranged between 0.76 and 1 for facets, and 0.92 and 0.95 for fac-
torial matrices. Besides, PCA analyses with the Character facets were performed for the full sample and age
groups with Promax rotations and ‘ eigenvalue one ’ criteria. We extracted three factors that accounted to 59.88% of
the total variance (F-I: 32.07%; F-II: 16.84%; F-III: 10.97%) (Aluja et al., 2010).
A principal components analysis with varimax rotation was performed on the intercorrelations of the TCI-R,
NEO-FFI-R (O: Openness, C: Conscientiousness, E: Extraversion, A: Agreeableness and N: Neuroticism) and
ZKPQ-50-CC scales. A 5-component solution with total variance of 72% was derived ( Aluja et al, 2011 ). The first
component (Aggression/Agreeableness) largely consisted of A, CO and Agg-Host, with secondary loadings
on C, NS, ImpSS, SD, and RD from the other factors. The second component (Neuroticism) was constituted by
N, N-Anx, and HA, with a secondary loading on SD. The third component (Extraversion) was primarily defined
by Sy, E, and RD with secondary loadings on ImpSS and NS. The fourth component (Persistence/Activity/
Conscientiousness) was defined by PS, Act, and C. whereas the fifth component (Openness/Self-Transcendence)
consisted of O and ST ( Aluja et al., 2011 ). Using Spanish samples, Aluja and Blanch (2011) carried out a principal
components analysis with varimax rotation of the TCI-R, ZKPQ-50-CC and NEO-FFI-R in a Spanish sample of
928 voluntary university students. The first component included Sy, Extraversion E, RD, ImpSS and NS showing
good convergent validity for Novelty Seeking scales and ImpSS scales but a lack of discriminant validity between
them and extraversion scales.
Criterion/Predictive
Novelty Seeking was significantly predictive of frequency of drinking and problem drinking ( Galen, Henderson, &
Whitman, 1997 ).
Location
Aluja, A. & Blanch, A (2011). The five and seven factor personality models: Differences and similitudes
between the TCI-R, NEO-FFI-R and ZKPQ-50-CC. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14 , 659/C0666.
Cloninger C.R., Svrakic D.M., Bayo ´n, C., & Przybeck T.R. (1999). Measurement of psychopathology as variants
of personality. In C.R. Cloninger, D.M. Svrakic, C. Bayo ´n, & T.R. Przybeck (Eds.), Personality and psychopathology .
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Hansenne, M., Delhez, M., & Cloninger, C.R. (2005) . Psychometric properties of the Temperament and
Character Inventory-Revised (TCI-R) in a Belgian sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85 ,4 0/C049.
Results and Comments
Novelty Seeking test scores in a group of 124 unrelated Israeli subjects are significantly associated with a par-
ticular exon polymorphism, the 7-repeat allele in the locus for the D4 dopamine receptor gene (D4DR) although
replications are not consistently successful. The association of high Novelty Seeking and the 7-repeat allele was
independent of ethnicity, sex or age of the subjects ( Ebstein et al., 1996 ).
NSS SAMPLE ITEMS
Directions: In this questionnaire you will find state-
ments that people might use to describe their attitudes,
opinions, interests and other personal feelings. For each
of the following questions, please circle the numberthat best describes the way you usually or generally act
or feel.
15Definitely false. 2 5Most or probably false.
35Neither true nor false, or about equally true373 OTHER SENSATION SEEKING SCALES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
and false. 4 5Most or probably true. 5 5Definitely
true.
Examples :
1. I often try new things for fun or thrills even if
most people feel it is a waste of time (Exploratory
Excitability)
10. I often do things based on how I feel at the
moment without thinking about how they were
done in the past (Impulsiveness)
14. I am more reserved and controlled than most
people (Extravagance)44. I like it when people can do whatever they
want without strict rules and regulations
(Disorderliness)
Scoring keys :
NS1 (10 items) 51.
NS2 (9 items) 510.
NS3 (9 ı ´tems)514 (inverse).
NS4 (7 items) 544.
NS5NS11NS21NS31NS4.
Note: Reproduced with permission.
Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking (AISS)
(Arnett, 1994 ).
Variable
The AISS measures sensation seeking tendencies.
Description
The last definition of sensation seeking includes both intensity and novelty as qualities of stimulation that
were particularly rewarding for high sensation seekers (e.g., Zuckerman, 1994 ). The AISS was designed to assess
the personality trait of sensation seeking, which is presumed to contribute to risk preferences. Sensation seeking
is defined as a need for novel and intense stimulation. Arnett (1994) attempted to incorporate these two qualities
in separate subscales for his SS scale. He deliberately avoided items with content involving ‘ illegal or norm-
breaking behavior ’ like those in the SSS-V (but eliminated in the ZKPQ and in its subsequent forms). The Arnett
Inventory of Sensation Seeking ( Arnett, 1994 ) is a 20-item self-report measure of sensation seeking based on a
conceptualization of sensation seeking that includes two dimensions: need for intense stimulation and need for
novel stimulation.
Sample
Arnett (1994) used several samples: The first sample consisted of 116 adolescents aged 16 /C018 years (54 boys
and 62 girls), the second sample consisted of 139 adolescents aged 16 /C018 years (67 boys and 72 girls), and the
third sample comprised 38 adults aged 41 /C059 years.
Reliability
Internal Consistency
The Cronbach alpha coefficient was 0.70 for the total scale, 0.64 for the Intensity subscale, and 0.50 for the
Novelty subscale ( Arnett, 1994 ).Roth (2003) in Germany reported lower alpha coefficients: 0.61 for the Total
score, 0.53 for Intensity and 0.52 for Novelty. In a recent study by Smorti and Guarnieri (2013) in Italy, alpha coef-
ficients ranged from 0.56 to 0.71.
Test/C0Retest
The three month test /C0retest stability coefficients exceeded 0.80 ( Arnett, 1994 ).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
AISS scales correlated with total SSS-V scales 0.35 (in tensity), 0.33 (Novelty) and AISS total score (0.41).
However among the subscale correlations of the two tests SSS-Disinhibition correlated only with AISS Intensity
(0.41) and SSS-Experience Seeking correlated only wit h AISS Novelty. It appears that the distinction between374 13. MEASURES OF SENSATION SEEKING
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
novelty and intensity seeking exists in the SSS under different scale names: Dis for intensity and ES for
novelty.
Divergent/Discriminant
Smorti and Guarnieri (2013) analyzed the discriminative validity of AISS scales by assessing the differences
between males and females via univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs), with gender as a fixed factor. A sam-
ple of adolescent males showed significantly higher scores on the Novelty scale than did adolescent females,
M516.25, SD52.99 vs. M515.22, SD53.23, respectively [ F(1347)59.32, p,.005; η25.03]. Adolescent males
also exhibited significantly higher on the Intensity scale than did adolescent females, M528.18, SD54.12 vs.
M523.94, SD54.08, respectively [ F(1347)5107.93, p,.001; η25.24]. Males showed significantly higher scores
on AISS total score than did females, M544.83, SD55.57 vs. M539.17, SD55.51, respectively [ F(1347)588.20,
p,0.001; η250.20].
Construct/Factor Analytic
The EQS 6.1 confirmatory factor analysis carried out by Smorti and Guarnieri (2013) revealed an unsatisfactory
goodness-of-fit for the full 20-item AISS (CFI 571, and SRMSR 50.07), but the scale of 17 items obtained satisfac-
tory values (CFI 591, and SRMSR 50.05).
Criterion/Predictive
The AISS total score correlated significantly with risky behaviors including: driving while intoxicated (0.24),
sex with someone not known well known (0.30), and vandalism (0.33) ( Arnett, 1994 ).
Location
Arnett, J. (1994). Sensation seeking: A new conceptualization and a new scale. Personality and Individual
Differences, 16 , 289/C0296.
Results and Comments
The AISS represents a new conceptualization of sensation seeking focused on high sensation seekers’ need for
stimulation novelty and intensity that is useful for exploring its link with different types of risky behaviors.
Although this scale contains no items on risky behaviors, the AISS subscales were associated with risky driving
and alcohol use.
AISS SAMPLE ITEMS
Directions: For each item, indicate which response
best applies to you:
20 items using 4-point scales (1 5describes me very
well to 4 5does not describe me at all)
Two sub-scales: Novelty (1) and Intensity (2). Examples:1.I can see how it would be interesting to marry
someone from a foreign country. (Novelty)
2.When I listen to music, I like it to be loud. (Intensity)
Note: Reproduced with permission.
Brief Sensation Seeking Scale (BSSS)
(Hoyle et al., 2002 ).
Variable
The BSSS measures sensation seeking tendencies.
Description
The need for a brief SSS representing all four SSS facets led Hoyle et al. (2002) to devise an 8-item BSSS with
two items for each facet. They avoided items with alcohol or drug content. The facets are not scored but a Total
SSS is used with a 5-point Likert-type response format for the items. The Brief Sensation Seeking Scale was cre-
ated by adapting items from the SSS-V ( Zuckerman, 1994 ) and a set of items derived from the SSS-V but tailored375 OTHER SENSATION SEEKING SCALES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
for adolescents. In the final version of the BSSS, each of the four primary dimensions of sensation seeking
is represented by two items. Responses are indicated on five-point scales labeled, ‘ strongly disagree ’, ‘disagree ’,
‘neither disagree nor agree ’, ‘agree ’, and ‘ strongly agree ’. For research purposes, the scale was titled ‘Interest and
Preference Survey’.
Sample
Students at a middle school and a high school were invited to participate in a survey of interests and prefer-
ences. From among 1692 students on the roll, a total of 1302 students (77%) completed the survey in the first
study. In the second study participants were 6368 adolescents in grades seven through 12 recruited by telephone
from class rolls in two metropolitan areas in the south-eastern United States ( Hoyle et al., 2002 ).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Cronbach alpha coefficients ranged from 0.74 to 0.79 for various ethnic groups. Coefficient alpha for four of
the six groups ranged from 0.74 and 0.79. The alpha coefficient for African /C0American males was 0.68 ( Hoyle
et al., 2002 ).
Test/C0Retest
Test/C0retest reliability in a sample of children (aged 7 /C012 years) was found to be 0.71 ( Jensen, Weaver, Ivic, &
Imboden, 2011 ).
Convergent/Concurrent
Using the full sample, BSSS scores correlated with risk factors as follows: Deviance (0.34), Perceived peer use
of marijuana (0.40), Perceived family use of marijuana (0.22), and Perceived community use of marijuana (0.23).
Divergent/Discriminant
Correlations with protective factors were: Absence of depression 20.20, Self-acceptance 20.18, Quality of
home life ( 20.29), Law abidance ( 20.41), Religiosity ( 20.24), and Perceived sanctions against marijuana use
(20.39).
Construct/Factor Analytic
Using a confirmatory factor analysis, a single-factor model was specified. Estimation of the single-factor model
produced promising values for the indexes of fit. All loadings were statistically significant, ranging from 0.32 for
item 2, to 0.62 for items 6 and 8 ( Hoyle et al., 2002 ).
Criterion/Predictive
BSSS scores correlated as expected with an array of drug-related outcomes as well as risk and protective
factors for problem behaviors. For example, the BSSS predicted tobacco, alcohol and drug use and attitudes
toward these substances in all ethnic groups ( Hoyle et al., 2002 ). Correlations between BSSS scores and responses
to drug-related ı ´tems in the full sample were: tobacco (0.36), alcohol (0.36) marijuana (0.35), inhalants (0.22),
hallucinogens (0.29) and cocaine/crack (0.17).
Location
Hoyle, R.H., Stephenson, M.T., Palmgreen, P., Lorch, E.P., & Donohew, R.L. (2002) Reliability and validity of a
brief measure of sensation seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 32 , 401/C0414.
Results and Comments
The authors asserted that the BSSS is a viable measure of sensation seeking for adolescents and young adults.
Internal consistency of the scale is sufficient to conclude that items are good indicators of the sensation seeking
construct. Wisely, the authors did not attempt to construct subscales for the four factors based on only two items
for each. The total 8 item scale is sufficiently reliable to show the effects of media anti-drug messages in large
populations of adolescents (e.g., Palmgreen, Donohew, Lorch, Hoyle, & Stephenson, 2001 ).376 13. MEASURES OF SENSATION SEEKING
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
BRIEF SENSATION SEEKING SCALE
Response Categories:
1.Strongly disagree
2.Disagree
3.Neither disagree nor agree
4.Agree
5.Strongly agree
Experience seeking
1.I would like to explore strange places.Boredom susceptibility
2.I get restless when I spend too much time at
home.
Thrill and adventure seeking
3.I like to do frightening things.
Disinhibition
4.I like wild parties.
Note: Reproduced with permission.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
From an ad hoc scale developed to predict responses to sensory deprivation, the search for validity has broad-
ened the vision of the sensation seeking construct to a basic personality trait with its roots in evolution, genetics,
and biology. The SSS has been developed in two directions: one a general SS scale combined with a closely asso-
ciated trait, impulsivity (ImpSS in the ZKPQ); the other, a content improved version of the original four basic
content factors (SS in the ZKA-PQ). The items of the current version of the SSS scales included in the ZKA-PQ
have been revised, taking into account specific behaviors such as the use of alcohol, drugs or other specific beha-
viors that could enhance the predictive power of the scales.
If durability is a test of the utility of a construct and its associated assessment tools, then sensation seeking has
proven its survival value. After 50 years it continues to remain of central interest in many fields of psychology.
Although it remains a minor facet of extraversion in the Big Five, the genetic and biological findings support the
contention that sensation seeking is a basic personality trait.
In future research, the sensation seeking psychobiological model can be incorporated into the study of
molecular genetics ( Aluja et al., 2011 ), brain system techniques ( DeYoung, 2010 ), neuronal biochemistry, MRI
(Ryman et al., 2011 ), or electrophysiology ( Carolan, Jaspers-Fayer, Asmaro, Douglas, & Liotti, 2014 ). Research
using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in humans is moving brain studies into sensation seeking
from lower animals back to humans.
Using the new SSS scales included in the ZKA-PQ, it can be seen that individuals having a lack of inhibitory
control show high levels of impulsivity and aggressiveness, and also lower serotoninergic activity. Disinhibition
syndromes defined as a disruption of active inhibitory processes regulating tendencies to respond, refer to
human behavior interpreted as arising from lessened controls on response inclinations. Disinhibited individuals
appear unable to control their immediate response inclinations as a means of achieving long-term goals. Among
the behavioral traits and forms of psychopathology characterized primarily by disinhibition are risky sexuality,
impulsiveness, aggressiveness, antisocial and borderline behavior, as well as alcohol and drug abuse. These
behavioral traits are highly related to sensation seeking. In the near future, it is expected that psychobiological
research in molecular genetics and functional brain imaging will contribute to a better understanding of the
biological bases of personality, including sensation seeking.
References
Aluja, A., & Blanch, A. (2011). Five and seven personality models study: Relationships between the TCI-R, NEO-FFI-R and ZKPQ-50-CC.
Spanish Journal of Psychology ,14, 659/C0666.
Aluja, A., Blanch, A., Garcı ´a, L. F., Garcı ´a, O., & Escorial, S. (2012). Zuckerman-Kuhlman-Aluja Personality Questionnaire (ZKA-PQ) as a
predictor of MCMI-III personality disorders scales. Personality and Mental Health ,6, 217/C0227.
Aluja, A., Garcı ´a, L. F., Blanch, A., De Lorenzo, D., & Fibla, J. (2009). Impulsive-disinhibited personality traits and serotonin transporter gene
polymorphisms: Association study in an inmate’s sample. Journal of Psychiatric Research ,43, 906/C0914.
Aluja, A., Garcı ´a, L. F., Blanch, A., & Fibla, J. (2011). Association of androgen-receptor gene, CAG and GGN repeat length and impulsive-
disinhibited personality traits in inmates: The role of short-long haplotype. Psychiatric Genetics ,21, 229/C0239.
Aluja, A., Garcı ´a, O´., & Garcı ´a, L. F. (2002). A comparative study of Zuckerman’s three structural models for personality through the NEO-PI-
R, ZKPQ-III-R, EPQ-R and Goldberg’s 50-bipolar adjectives. Personality and Individual Differences ,33, 713/C0725.377 REFERENCES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Aluja, A., Garcı ´a, O´., & Garcı ´a, L. F. (2003). Psychometric properties of the Zuckerman-Kuhlman personality questionnaire (ZKPQ-III-R): A
study of a shortened form. Personality and Individual Differences ,34, 1083/C01097.
Aluja, A., Garcı ´a, O´., & Garcı ´a, L. F. (2004). Exploring the structure of Zuckerman’s sensation seeking scale, form V in a Spanish sample.
Psychological Reports ,95, 338/C0344.
Aluja, A., Kuhlman, D. M., & Zuckerman, M. (2010b). Development of the Zuckerman-Kuhlman-Aluja Personality Questionnaire (ZKA-PQ): A
factor/facet version of the Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ). Journal of Personality Assessment ,92, 418/C0431.
Aluja, A., Rossier, J., Garcı ´a, L. F., Angleitner, A., Kuhlman, D. M., & Zuckerman, M. (2006). A cross-cultural form of the ZKPQ (ZKPQ-50-CC)
adapted to English, French, German, and Spanish languages. Personality and Individual Differences ,41, 619/C0628.
Aluja, A., Rossier, J., & Zuckerman, M. (2007b). Equivalence of paper and pencil vs. internet forms of the ZKPQ-50-CC in the Spanish and
Suisse samples. Personality and Individual Differences ,43, 2022/C02032.
Ames, S. L., Sussman, S., & Dent, C. W. (1999). Pro-drug use myths and competing constructs in the prediction of substance use among youths
at continuation high schools: A one year prospective study. Personality and Individual Differences ,26, 987/C01004.
Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., & Spinath, A. (2004). Investigating the ZKPQ III-R. Psychometric properties, relations to the five-factor model,
and genetic and environmental influences on its scales and facets. In R. M. Stelmack (Ed.), On the psychobiology of personality: Essays in honor
of Marvin Zuckerman . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Arnett, J. (1994). Sensation seeking: A new conceptualization and a new scale. Personality and Individual Differences ,16, 289/C0296.
Ball, S. A. (1995). The validity of an alternative five-factor measure of personality in cocaine abusers. Psychological Assessment ,7, 148/C0154.
Bancroft, J., Janssen, E., Strong, D., Carnes, L., Vuladinovic, Z., & Long, J. S. (2003). Sexual risk-taking in gay men: The relevance of sexual
arousability, mood, and sensation seeking. Archives of Sexual Behavior ,32, 555/C0572.
Benschoip, A., Rabes, M., & Korf, D. J. (2003). Pill testing /C0ecstasy and prevention: A scientific evaluation in three European cities . Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Rosenberg Publishers.
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin ,117, 187/C0215.
Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1990). Comparing exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: A study on the 5-factor model of personality.
Personality and Individual Differences ,11, 515/C0524.
Boyle, G. J. (2008). Critique of the five-factor model of personality. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
personality theory and assessment (Vol. 1): Personality theories and models (pp. 295 /C0312). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Breen, R. B., & Zuckerman, M. (1999). ’Chasing’ in gambling behavior: Personality and cognitive determinants. Personality and Individual
Differences ,27, 1097/C01111.
Burns, P. C., & Wilde, G. S. (1995). Risk-taking in male taxi drivers: Relationships among personality, observational data and driver records.
Personality and Individual Differences ,18, 267/C0278.
Carolan, P. L., Jaspers-Fayer, F., Asmaro, D. T., Douglas, K. S., & Liotti, M. (2014). Electrophysiology of blunted emotional bias in psychopathic
personality. Psychophysiology ,51(1), 36/C041.
Church, A. T., & Burke, P. J. (1994). Exploratory and confirmatory tests of the big five and Tellegen’s three- and four-dimensional models.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,66,9 3/C0114.
Cloninger, C. R., Przybeck, T. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Wetzel, R. D. (1994). The Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI): A guide to its development
and use . St Louis, MO: Center for Psychology of Personality, Washington University.
Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., Bayo ´n, C., & Przybeck, T. R. (1999). Measurement of psychopathology as variants of personality. In C. R.
Cloninger, D. M. Svrakic, C. Bayo ´n, & T. R. Przybeck (Eds.), Personality and psychopathology (pp. 21 /C040). Washington, DC: American
Psychiatric Press.
Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General
Psychiatry ,50, 975/C0990.
Cohen, E. S., & Fromme, K. (2002). Differential determinants of young adult substance use and high risk sexual behavior. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology ,32, 1124/C01150.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R: Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) . Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Daumann, J., Pelz, S., Becker, S., Tuchtenhagen, F., & Gonzoulis-Mayfrank, E. (2001). Psychological profile of abstinent recreational Ecstasy
(MDMA) users and significance of concomitant cannabis use. Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental ,16, 627/C0633.
Dellu, F., Piazza, P. V., Mayo, W., LeMoal, M., & Simon, H. (1996). Novelty-seeking in rats; Biobehavioral characteristics and possible relation-
ship with the sensation-seeking trait in man. Neuropsychobiology ,34, 136/C0145.
DeYoung, C. G. (2010). Personality neuroscience and the biology of traits. Social and Personality Psychology Compass ,4(12), 1165 /C01180.
Dolcet, J. (2006). Cara’cter y Temperamento: Similitudes y Diferencias entre los modelos de Personalidad de 7 y 5 factores. [Character and tem-
perament: Similarities and differences between personality models of 7 and 5 factors]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: University of
Lleida, Spain.
Dolezal, C., Meyer-Bahlburg-Heino, F. L., Remien, R. H., & Petkova, E. (1997). Substance use during sex and sensation seeking as predictors of
sexual risk behavior among HIV 1and HIV-gay men. AIDS and Behavior ,1,1 9/C028.
Draycott, S. G., & Kline, P. (1995). The big three or big five /C0the EPQ-R vs. the NEO-PI: A research note, replication and elaboration.
Personality and Individual Differences ,18, 801/C0804.
Ebstein, R. P., Novick, O., Umansky, R., Priel, B., Osher, Y., Blain, D., et al. (1996). Dopamine D4 Receptor (DRD4) exon III polymorphism asso-
ciated with the human personality trait of novelty seeking. Nature Genetics ,12,7 8/C080.
Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality, 16, 5 or 3? Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences ,12,
773/C0790.
Eysenck, H. J. (1992). Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality and Individual Differences ,13, 667/C0673.
Eysenck, H. J., & Wilson, G. D. (1991). The Eysenck personality profiler . London: Corporate Assessment Network.
Furnham, A., & Avison, M. (1997). Personality and preference for surreal paintings. Personality and Individual Differences ,23, 923/C0935.378 13. MEASURES OF SENSATION SEEKING
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Furnham, A., & Walker, J. (2001). Personality and judgments of abstract, pop art, and representational paintings. European Journal of
Personality ,15,5 7/C072.
Galen, L. W., Henderson, M. J., & Whitman, R. D. (1997). The utility of novelty seeking, harm avoidance, and expectancy in the prediction of
drinking. Addictive Behaviors ,22,9 3/C0106.
Garcı ´a, L. F., Escorial, S., Garcı ´a, O., Blanch, A., & Aluja, A. (2012). Structural analysis of the facets and dimensions of the Zuckerman-
Kuhlman-Aluja Personality Questionnaire (ZKA-PQ) and the NEO-PI-R. Journal of Personality Assessment ,94, 156/C0163.
Goma-i-Freixanet, M., Perez, J., & Torrubia, R. (1988). Personality variables in antisocial and prosocial disinhibitory behavior. In T. E. Moffitt ,
& S. A. Mednick (Eds.), Biological contributions to crime causation (pp. 211 /C0222). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
Goma-i-Freixanet, M., & Wismeijer, A. J. (2002). Applying personality theory to a group of police bodyguards: A physically risky prosocial
prototype? Psicothema ,14, 387/C0392.
Hansenne, M., Delhez, M., & Cloninger, C. R. (2005). Psychometric properties of the Temperament and Character Inventory-Revised (TCI-R)
in a Belgian sample. Journal of Personality Assessment ,85,4 0/C049.
Haynes, C. A., Miles, J. N. V., & Clements, K. (2000). A confirmatory factor analysis of two models of sensation seeking. Personality and
Individual Differences ,29, 823/C0839.
Heino, A. (1996). Risk taking in car driving: Perceptions, individual differences and effects of safety incentives. University of Groningen doctoral
dissertation.
Homant, R. J., Kennedy, D. B., & Howton, J. D. (1994). Risk taking and police pursuit. Journal of Social Psychology ,134, 213/C0221.
Hoyle, R. H., Fejfar, M. C., & Miller, J. D. (2000). Personality and sexual risk-taking: A quantitative review. Journal of Personality ,68,
1203/C01231.
Hoyle, R. H., Stephenson, M. T., Palgreen, P., Lorch, E. P., & Donohew, R. L. (2002). Reliability and validity of a brief measure of sensation
seeking. Personality and Individual Differences ,32, 401/C0414.
Jack, S. J., & Ronan, K. R. (1998). Sensation seeking among high- and low-risk sports participants. Personality and Individual Differences ,25,
1063/C01083.
Jensen, J. D., Weaver, A. J., Ivic, R., & Imboden, K. (2011). Developing a brief sensation seeking scale for children: Establishing concurrent
validity with video game use and rule-breaking behavior. Media Psychology ,14(1), 71/C095.
John, O. P. (1990). The ‘big five’ factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin
(Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 66 /C0100). New York: Guilford.
Joireman, J. A., Fick, C. S., & Anderson, J. W. (2002). Sensation seeking and involvement in chess. Personality and Individual Differences ,32,
509/C0515.
Jonah, B. A. (1997). Sensation seeking and risky driving: A review and synthesis of the literature. Accident Analysis and Prevention ,29, 651/C0665.
Kalichman, S. C., Johnson, J. R., Adair, V., Rompa, D., Multhauf, K., Johnson, J., et al. (1994). Sexual sensation seeking: Scale development and
predicting AIDS-risk behavior among homosexually active men. Journal of Personality Assessment ,62, 385/C0397.
Kumar, V. K., Pekala, R. J., & Cummings, J. (1993). Sensation seeking, drug use, and reported paranormal beliefs and experiences. Personality
and Individual Differences ,14, 685/C0691.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2008). Empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor model of personality. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, &
D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment (Vol. 1): Personality theories and models (pp. 273 /C0294). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Neria, Y., Solomon, Z., Ginsberg, K., & Dekel, R. (2000). Sensation seeking, wartime performance, and long-term adjustment among Israeli war
veterans. Personality and Individual Differences ,29, 921/C0932.
O’Sullivan, D. M., Zuckerman, M., & Kraft, M. (1998). Personality characteristics of male and female participants in team sports. Personality
and Individual Differences ,25, 119/C0128.
Palmgreen, P., Donohew, L., Lorch, E. P., Hoyle, R. H., & Stephenson, M. T. (2001). Television campaigns and adolescent marijuana use: Tests
of sensation seeking targeting. American Journal of Public Health ,91, 292/C0296.
Perse, E. M. (1996). Sensation seeking and the use of television for arousal. Communication Reports ,9,3 7/C048.
Rawlings, D. (2003). Personality correlates of liking for ‘unpleasant’ paintings and photographs. Personality and Individual Differences ,34,
395/C0410.
Rawlings, D., Barrantes, I., Vidal, N., & Furnham, A. (2000). Personality and aesthetic preference in Spain and England: Two studies relating
sensation seeking and openness to experience to liking for paintings and music. European Journal of Personality ,14, 553/C0576.
Rosenbloom, T., & Wolf, Y. (2002). Signal detection in conditions of everyday life traffic dilemmas. Accident Analysis and Prevention ,34,
763/C0772.
Roth, M. (2003). Validation of the Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking (AISS) efficiency to predict the willingness towards occupational
chance, and affection by social desirability. Personality and Individual Differences ,35, 1307/C01314.
Ryman, S. G., Gasparovic, C., Bedrick, E. J., Flores, R. A., Marshall, A. N., et al. (2011). Brain biochemistry and personality: A magnetic reso-
nance spectroscopy study. PLoS One ,6(11), e26758.
Saggino, A. (2000). The big three or the big five? A replication study. Personality and Individual Differences ,28, 879/C0886.
Saxton, P. M., Siegel, J., & Lukas, J. H. (1987). Visual evoked potential augmenting-reducing slopes in cats; 2: Correlations with behavior.
Personality and Individual Differences ,8, 511/C0519.
Schmitz, P. G. (2004). On the alternative five-factor model of personality: Structure and correlates. In R. M. Stelmack (Ed.), On the psychobiology
of personality: Essays in honor of Marvin Zuckerman (pp. 65 /C087). Oxford: Elsevier.
Schroth, M. L. (1996). Scores on sensation seeking as a predictor of sexual activities among homosexuals. Perceptual and Motor Skills ,82,
657/C0658.
Smorti, M., & Guarnieri, S. (2013). A study on the validity of the Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking (AISS) in an Italian adolescent sample.
International Journal of Advances in Psychology ,2,1 0/C017.
Stratton, V. N., & Zalanowski, A. H. (1997). The relationship between various characteristic moods and most commonly listened to types of
music. Journal of Music Therapy ,34, 129/C0140.379 REFERENCES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Vassend, O., & Skrondal, A. (1995). Factor analytic studies of the NEO Personality Inventory and the five-factor model: The problem of high
structural complexity and conceptual indeterminacy. Personality and Individual Differences ,19, 135/C0147.
Zuckerman, M. (1984). Experience and desire; A new format for sensation seeking scales. Journal of Behavioral Assesssment ,6, 101/C0114.
Zuckerman, M. (1990). The psychophysiology of sensation seeing. Journal of Personality ,58, 313/C0345.
Zuckerman, M. (1992). What is a basic factor and which factors are basic? Turtles all the way down. Personality and Individual Differences ,13,
675/C0681.
Zuckerman, M. (1993). Sensation seeking and impulsivity: A marriage of traits made in biology? In W. G. McCown, J. L. Johnsom, & M. B.
Shure (Eds.), The impulsive client: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 71 /C091). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking . New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zuckerman, M. (1995). Good and bad humors: Biochemical bases of personality and its disorders. Psychological Science ,6, 325/C0332.
Zuckerman, M. (1996). Sensation seeking and the taste for vicarious horror. In J. B. Weaver, & R. Tamborini (Eds.), Horror films: Current research
on audience preferences and reactions (pp. 147 /C0160). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zuckerman, M. (2002a). Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ): An alternative five-factorial model. In B. DeRaad, & M.
Perugini (Eds.), Big five assessment (pp. 377 /C0396). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
Zuckerman, M. (2002b). Genetics of sensation seeking. In J. Benjamin, R. P. Epstein, & R. H. Belmaker (Eds.), Molecular genetics and the human
personality (pp. 193 /C0210). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Zuckerman, M. (2005). Psychobiology of personality (2nd ed., revised and updated) . New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zuckerman, M. (2006a). Sensation seeking in entertainment. In J. Bryant, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of entertainment (pp. 367 /C0387).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zuckerman, M. (2006b). Biosocial bases of sensation seeking. In T. Canli (Ed.), Biology of personality and individual differences (pp. 37 /C059). New
York: Guilford.
Zuckerman, M. (2007). Sensation seeking and risky behavior . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Zuckerman, M. (2008a). Personality and sensation seeking. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. J. Saklofske (Eds.), The Sage handbook of personality
theory and assessment, Vol. 1: Personality theories and models (pp. 379 /C0398). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Zuckerman, M. (2008b). Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire: An operational definition of the alternative five factorial model of
personality. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment, Vol. 2: Personality
measurement and testing (pp. 219 /C0238). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Zuckerman, M. (2011). Personality science: Three approaches and their applications to the causes and treatment of depression . Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Zuckerman, M., & Cloninger, C. R. (1996). Relationships between Cloninger’s, Zuckerman’s, and Eysenck’s dimensions of personality.
Personality and Individual Differences ,21, 283/C0285.
Zuckerman, M., Joireman, J., Kraft, M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (1999). Where do motivational and emotional traits fit within three factor models of
personality? Journal of Personality and Individual Differences ,26, 487/C0504.
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D., Thornquist, M., & Kiers, H. (1991). Five (or three) robust questionnaire scale factors of personality without cul-
ture. Personality and Individual Differences ,12, 929/C0941.
Zuckerman, M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (2000). Personality and risk-taking: Common biosocial factors. Journal of Personality ,68, 999/C01029.
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., & Camac, C. (1988). What lies beyond E and N? Factor analyses of scales believed to measure basic dimen-
sions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,54,9 6/C0107.380 13. MEASURES OF SENSATION SEEKING
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
CHAPTER
14
Measures of Ability and Trait
Emotional Intelligence
Alexander B. Siegling1, Donald H. Saklofske2and K.V . Petrides3
1University College London, London, UK;2University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada;
3University College London, London, UK
Emotional intelligence (EI) has emerged as a core construct in mainstream psychology and beyond. In an early
attempt to describe intelligence beyond the confines of the traditional ‘cognitive type’, E.L. Thorndike (1920) pro-
posed the notion of social intelligence, which he loosely defined as ‘the ability to understand men and women,
boys and girls /C0to act wisely in human relations’ (p. 227). The appealing nature of this hypothesis spawned
much empirical research that did not, on the whole, match expectations.
Nevertheless, the idea proved highly influential and was substantially extended by Gardner (1983) in his the-
ory of multiple intelligences. This theory also proved more influential than successful in terms of generating
empirical support. Of the various intelligences that Gardner suggested, his two personal intelligences (intraper-
sonal and interpersonal) are especially germane to EI. ‘Intrapersonal intelligence involves the capacity to under-
stand oneself, to have an effective working model of oneself /C0including one’s own desires, fears, and capacities
/C0and to use such information effectively in regulating one’s own life,’ whereas ‘interpersonal intelligence
denotes a person’s capacity to understand the intentions, motivations, and desires of other people and, conse-
quently, to work effectively with others’ ( Gardner, 1999 , p. 43).
Because ‘non-cognitive intelligences’ tend to be loos ely defined, great overlap exists between them. It is
almost impossible to delineate where one starts and t he other stops because their sampling domains, when
specified, overlap very considerably. Indeed, it may be fa ir to say that the proliferation of labels like ‘intraper-
sonal, interpersonal, emotional, and social’ to desc ribe what is, by and large, the same sampling domain is a
demonstration of the ‘jangle fallacy’ (viz., a groundle ss inference that two constructs are different simply
because they have different labels) that has been plaguing personality research for a long time ( Block, 1995 ).
Of all these interrelated constructs, EI is by far the most prevalent both in the academic as well as in the
popular literature.
Widespread interest in EI led to the development of m any different scales purporting to measure the con-
struct ( Stough, Saklofske, & Parker, 2009 ). Early work, some of it featured in this chapter, disregarded the dif-
ference between typical versus maximal performance ( Cronbach, 1949 ). Typical performance concerns how we
tend to behave most of the time and relies heavily on self -report measurement, whereas maximal performance
concerns how we behave when we exert maximum effor t in a situation and relies heavily on performance-
based tests.
In the field of EI, just like in the seed field of social intelligence, some researchers developed self-report ques-
tionnaires while others tried to develop maximum-performance tests, but all claimed to operationalize the same
construct, viz., EI. Petrides and Furnham (2001) argued that such claims are untenable because different measure-
ment approaches yield different results, even if they are based on the same underlying model. This argument has
381Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386915-9.00014-0 ©2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
received consistent empirical support in the literature (e.g., Freudenthaler & Neubauer, 2007; Martins, Ramalho,
& Morin, 2010 ) and provided the grounds for the distinction between two different EI constructs: trait EI and
ability EI.
Although the trait EI and ability EI labels are not mere substitutes for self-report and maximum-performance
measurement, it is the measurement methodology that lies at the heart of the distinction. In other words, the
differentiation between trait EI and ability EI is predicated mainly on the method used to measure the construct
and noton the elements (facets) that the various models are hypothesized to encompass. As such, it is unrelated
to the distinction between ‘mixed’ and ‘ability’ models of EI ( Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000 ), which is based on
whether a theoretical model ‘mixes’ cognitive abilities and personality traits.
Unlike the distinction between trait EI and ability EI, that between ‘mixed’ and ‘ability’ models pays no heed
to the most crucial aspect of construct operationalization (viz., the method of measurement) and explicitly
proposes that cognitive abilities may be measured via self-report (see Mayer et al., 2000 ), which is psychometri-
cally untenable. Research on self-estimates of intelligence has demonstrated that people tend to provide inflated
self-estimates of their abilities and that such estimates correlate only moderately with measured levels of the
same ability ( Visser et al., 2008 ). In short, the distinction between mixed versus ability models is at variance both
with established psychometric theory as well as with all available empirical evidence.
The trait EI and ability EI literatures have develope d relatively independently, with the former being
several times larger than the latter. Hundreds of studies have been conducted in the two fields and
several meta-analyses have been published (e.g., Dana & Newman, 2010; Martins et al., 2010 ). It would
be beyond the scope of this chapter to provide detailed coverage of all this research, although
many studies have been briefly summarized in the va lidity sections under each instrument below. More
details can be found in the various meta-analyses and in an overview chapter by Austin, Parker, Petrides,
and Saklofske (2008) .
MEASURES REVIEWED HERE
While numerous scales, mainly self-report measures, have appeared in the past 10 /C015 years, we have elected
to report on 13 of these that meet several criteria, including that the scale must fall clearly within the realm
described in EI models, have demonstrated reasonable psychometric properties, and proved useful in both
research and applied settings. We include both ability and trait EI measures. Workplace-oriented trait EI
measures will be described concisely.
Ability EI
1.Mayer/C0Salovey /C0Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test ( Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002 )
2.Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale ( Lane et al., 1990 )
3.Situational Test of Emotional Understanding/Management ( MacCann & Roberts, 2008 )
Trait EI
General
1.Trait Meta-Mood Scale ( Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey, & Palfai, 1995 )
2.Emotional Quotient Inventory ( Bar-On, 1997 ) and EQ-i 2.0 ( Multi-Health Systems, 2011 )
3.Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire ( Petrides, 2001, 2009 )
4.Assessing Emotions Scale ( Schutte et al., 1998 )
Workplace-oriented
1.Wong & Law Emotional Intelligence Scale ( Wong & Law, 2002 )
2.Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile ( Jordan, Ashkanasy, Ha ¨rtel, & Hooper, 2002 )
3.Multidimensional Emotional Intelligence Assessment ( Tett, Fox, & Wang, 2005 )
4.Genos Emotional Intelligence Inventory ( Gignac, 2010 )382 14. MEASURES OF ABILITY AND TRAIT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
OVER VIEW OF THE MEASURES
Measurement of Ability EI
The most prominent measure of ability EI is the MSCEIT ( Mayer et al., 2002 ), although a number of alterna-
tives have been developed more recently. Because these tests adopt different methodologies in order to address
the task of creating items with emotional content that must be scored veridically, it is difficult to evaluate them
as a single class of instruments.
Broadly speaking, the main challenge that ability EI tests have to tackle is the inherent subjectivity of
emotional experience ( Watson, 2000 ). Unlike standard cognitive ability tests, tests of ability EI cannot be
objectively scored because in the vast majority of emotion-related domains there are no clear-cut criteria for
what may constitute a veridical response ( Matthews, Roberts, & Zeidner, 2004 ). Ability EI tests have tried to
bypass this problem by employing alternative scoring procedures, which had been used in the past for addres-
sing similar challenges in the operationalization of social intelligence, but without marked success ( O’Sullivan &
Ekman, 2004 ).
Less conventional procedures, such as ‘consensus’ and ‘expert’ scoring, attempt to engineer ‘correct’ responses
among a number of equally logical alternatives, but yield scores that are not fully interpretable psychologically.
Indeed, it has been pointed out that it is unclear whether such scores reflect a confound with vocabulary size
(Wilhelm, 2005 ), conformity to social norms ( Matthews et al., 2006 ), theoretical knowledge about emotions
(Austin, 2010 ), stereotypical judgments ( O’Sullivan, 2007 ), or some unknown combination, or even an interaction,
of some, or of all of these factors (see also Maul, 2012 ).
A range of other concerns have been highlighted in the literature, touching on conceptual, psychometric, and
empirical limitations. Core issues involve logical and conceptual inconsistencies, unstable factor structures, and
weak predictive validities (e.g., Brody, 2004; Fiori & Antonakis, 2011; Maul, 2012; O’Sullivan & Ekman, 2004;
Roberts, Zeidner, & Matthews, 2001 ). Such shortcomings have prompted the development of a new wave of
ability EI measures, some of which have sufficiently developed nomological networks to merit inclusion in
this chapter.
The MSCEIT is viewed as a comprehensive measure of ability EI, as it is based on the developers’ four-branch
model, which has essentially dominated the field. The LEAS, STEU, and STEM are more specific measures of par-
ticular areas associated with ability EI, developed to assess one of the four branches of Mayer and Salovey’s (1997)
model. These measures depart from the related MSCEIT tasks in their methods of measurement and scoring.
Similarly, the LEAS focuses on the measurement of emotional awareness, which is conceptually equivalent to
another branch of the same model. Like other measures of specific emotion-related skills, the first LEAS version
preceded the burst of EI measures, but more recent publications have situated the measure within the EI context.
Measurement of Trait EI
It is argued that the measurement of EI via self-report is more straightforward than through maximum-
performance, because only the former methodology is consistent with the subjective nature of emotional experi-
ences. Self-report measures of EI have generally avoided the pitfalls plaguing ability EI assessment and are much
more widely used in the scientific psychology literature. In general, they have higher internal consistencies, more
stable factor structures, and are grounded on established psychometric and mathematical models. Meta-analyses
have shown that self-report measures of EI outperform performance-based measures of EI by large margins (e.g.,
Martins et al., 2010; O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, & Story, 2011 ).
On the negative side, self-report measures have often neglected the theoretical aspects of construct operationa-
lization. Few of the current EI measures have been developed within a sound theoretical framework. In fact,
many authors continue to claim that such measures actually assess mental abilities, competencies, or skills, and
interpret their results accordingly. As mentioned above, this is psychometrically untenable, although this ten-
dency has softened over the years, as the theory of trait EI gained ground in the literature.
Trait EI (or trait emotional self-efficacy) is formally defined as a constellation of emotional self-perceptions
located at the lower levels of personality hierarchies ( Petrides, Pe ´rez-Gonza ´lez, & Furnham, 2007 ). The label does
not merely refer to variance captured by self-report questionnaires claiming to assess ‘EI’. Rather it explicitly
refers to a comprehensive conceptualization of the affective variance in the realm of personality as expressed in
the construct’s sampling domain ( Table 14.1 ). This point has direct implications both for the correct interpretation
of research findings as well as for meta-analyses adopting potentially flawed grouping practices based on purely
semantic criteria ( Pace & Brannick, 2010 ).383 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
In addition to the issue of measurement, construct operationalization also has to grapple with the challenge of
defining a coherent sampling domain. This challenge does not much affect the performance-based approach that
is dominated by a single model wherein the conceptualization and measurement aspects of the operational defi-
nition are entirely conflated, but looms large in the self-report approach wherein there seem to be a multitude of
sampling domains.
With respect to the elements they encompass, the various EI models tend to be complementary rather than
contradictory ( Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000 ). Moreover, salient EI models have many facets in common, even
though most of them also include isolated facets that are prima facie irrelevant to emotions. The commonalities
between the various models provided the basis for the first formal sampling domain of trait EI, which included
shared facets and excluded isolated ones ( Petrides & Furnham, 2001 ).
Of the trait EI measures reviewed here, the majority were developed for the assessment of adults from the gen-
eral population. Three measures were specifically developed for workplace applications ( Gignac, 2010; Jordan
et al., 2002; Tett et al., 2005 ), although one has a general-population version. Furthermore, some of the measures
have short forms, 360-degree assessments, and versions specifically developed for children and adolescents
(Bar-On, 1997; Gignac, 2010; Jordan et al., 2002; Petrides, 2001 ). While the measures vary considerably in content
breadth and length, most yield an overall trait EI score and at least one level of subscale scores.
ABILITY EI MEASURES
Mayer/C0Salovey /C0Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT)
(Mayer et al., 2002 ).
Variable
The MSCEIT is an ability-based assessment of EI, measuring how people perform on emotion-related tasks
and solve emotional problems; it is based on the authors’ four-branch model of EI ( Mayer & Salovey, 1997 ),
comprising the abilities to (1) perceive emotions (in oneself, others, objects, arts, music etc.); (2) generate and use
emotions to facilitate thought; (3) understand emotional information; and (4) manage emotions in oneself and
others. Adding to the MSCEIT is a youth version (MSCEIT-YV) that will be briefly described here alongside
the MSCEIT.TABLE 14.1 The Adult Sampling Domain of Trait Emotional Intelligence
Facets High scorers view themselves as ...
Adaptability ...flexible and willing to adapt to new conditions
Assertiveness ...forthright, frank, and willing to stand up for their rights
Emotion expression ...capable of communicating their feelings to others
Emotion management (others) ...capable of influencing other people’s feelings
Emotion perception (self and others) ...clear about their own and other people’s feelings
Emotion regulation ...capable of controlling their emotions
Impulsiveness (low) ...reflective and less likely to give in to their urges
Relationships ...capable of maintaining fulfilling personal relationships
Self-esteem ...successful and self-confident
Self-motivation ...driven and unlikely to give up in the face of adversity
Social awareness ...accomplished networkers with superior social skills
Stress management ...capable of withstanding pressure and regulating stress
Trait empathy ...capable of taking someone else’s perspective
Trait happiness ...cheerful and satisfied with their lives
Trait optimism ...confident and likely to ‘look on the bright side’ of life384 14. MEASURES OF ABILITY AND TRAIT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Description
MSCEIT
The MSCEIT yields a total ability EI score and scores for each of the four ability EI branches. There are two
additional area scores that summarize the four branches: Experiential EI, consisting of the Perceiving Emotions
and Facilitating Thought branches, and Strategic EI, which includes the branches of Understanding Emotions
and Managing Emotions. Further, performance scores are computed for each of the eight tasks (2 per branch),
although the focus is typically on total ability EI and the four branch scores in research. The MSCEIT has a total
of 141 items and can be administered in 30 to 45 minutes.
The MSCEIT offers general consensus and expert consensus scoring options, which yield very similar results.
In consensus scoring, individual item responses are compared to those of the normative sample. MSCEIT scores
based on consensus scoring are computed as empirical percentiles with an average of 100 and a standard devia-
tion of 15. Similarly, the expert consensus scoring option uses the averaged responses of 21 emotions experts as
the correct criterion. Across the MSCEIT’s total, area, branch, and task scores, correlations between expert and
consensus rating range between .93 to .99 ( Mayer et al., 2002 ).
MSCEIT-YV
The MSCEIT-YV is currently being developed and thus only available for research. The scale structure of the
MSCEIT-YV is the same as that for the adult version. The MSCEIT-YV has 184 items and therefore a longer
administration time in its present state.
Sample
MSCEIT
The normative data comes from over 5000 respondents at over 50 research sites, with an unspecified
majority from the U.S. The sample included individual s of both genders (52.0% female, 10.7% unreported)
and the majority of respondents were under the age of 30 years ( M524.13, SD59.89, range: 17 /C079).
The ethnic classifications of White ( 58.6%), Asian (26.4%), Black (5.4%), and Hispanic (4.9%) were unevenly
represented. Although a large percentage of the sam ple had college or university experience, including
some with Masters degrees or higher, there were so me who had graduated from high school or elementary
school only.
As the authors recommend general consensus score s for most samples, normative data will be reported
for this scoring method. The sample had a total ability EI raw score of .51 ( SD5.06) and branch raw scores
of .52 ( SD5.10) for Perceiving Emotions, .48 ( SD5.08) for Facilitating Thought, .55 ( SD5.08) for
Understanding Emotions, and .45 ( SD5.08) for Managing Emotions (raw scores have a theoretical range of
0 to 1). Both area scores had a mean of .50 and a standard deviation of .07. All scores had a negative skew
close to 1.
MSCEIT-YV
There is little information available so far on the standardization sample and psychometric properties of the
youth version (see Papadogiannis, Logan, & Sitarenios, 2009 ). In a sample of 102 U.S. elementary and middle
school students (mean age: 10.25 years, SD51.29; 41% male), a total ability EI standard score of 93.62
(SD515.94) and branch standard scores of 87.25 ( SD519.66) for Perceiving Emotions, 97.53 ( SD516.97) for
Facilitating Thought, 91.08 ( SD515.10) for Understanding Emotions, and 96.43 ( SD515.01) for Managing
Emotions were reported. The area scores were 92.15 ( SD517.51) for Experiential EI and 93.08 ( SD515.04) for
Strategic EI ( Windingstad et al., 2011 ).
Reliability (MSCEIT)
Internal Consistency
Due to item heterogeneity, the MSCEIT uses the split-half coefficients as a measure of internal consistency at
the total, area, and branch levels; Cronbach alpha coefficients are used for the eight subtest scores, as these have
homogeneous items. The general consensus scoring method has produced slightly higher split-half coefficients
(those for expert scoring are reported in parentheses): .93 (.91) for total EI, .91 (.90) for Perceiving Emotions,
.79 (.76) for Facilitating Thought, .80 (.77) for Understanding Emotions and .83 (.81) for Managing Emotions.385 ABILITY EI MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Split-half coefficients for the area scores were .90 (.90) for Experiential EI and .88 (.86) for Strategic EI. The task
scores have lower levels of internal consistency, with Cronbach alpha coefficients ranging from .64 (.62) to .88
(.87; Mayer et al., 2002 ).
Test/C0Retest
A test/C0retest reliability coefficient of r5.86 was found for a sample of 60 respondents over a three-week inter-
val ( Brackett & Mayer, 2003 ). Over an unspecified period, test /C0retest correlations ranged from .74 to .89 across
branch scores ( Mayer et al., 2002 ;N562).
Reliability (MSCEIT-YV)
Internal Consistency
Item homogeneity was reported for a sample of 50 U.S. students with an age range from 10 to 18 years
(M514.3, SD52.5). The Cronbach alpha coefficient was high ( α5.84 for total EI; Peters, Kanzler, & Rossen,
2009 ).
Validity (MSCEIT)
Convergent/Concurrent
Correlations of the MSCEIT with the STEM and STEU were .36 and .33 ( Austin, 2010 ). Correlations with
cognitive ability tend to be significant within a weak to moderate range (e.g., Livingstone & Day, 2005 ; Mayer
et al., 1999).
Divergent/Discriminant
Correlations with self-report measures of trait EI, such as the EQ-i ( r5.21) or AES ( r5.18;Brackett & Mayer,
2003 ), tend to be weak. Further, the MSCEIT scores are conceptually and empirically distinct from well-
established personality traits, showing small correlations ( r5.00 to .24) with general personality factors (for a
review, see Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004 ). Management and Emotional Understanding both exhibited a low
correlation with verbal ability ( r5.14), and Emotional Understanding also correlated weakly with problem solv-
ing ( r5.15). Total EI ability correlated weakly ( r5.05) with Raven’s progressive matrices ( Ciarrochi et al., 2000 ),
indicating that the construct does not simply reflect ‘g’.
Construct/Factor Analytic
The MSCEIT was developed and validated with respect to Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) ability EI model.
Empirically, when the branch scores were constrained to load on higher-order factors, the data failed to support
the four-factor model, χ2
(16)539.78, p,.05, RMSEA 5.10, CFI 5.91 (e.g., Fiori & Antonakis, 2011 ). A meta-
analytic structural equation modeling approach using the pooled data of more than 10,000 individuals showed
excellent model fit ( Fan, Jackson, Yang, Tang, & Zhang, 2010 ). However, the authors of this study proposed an
alternative three-factor solution for the MSCEIT, as the first two branches were highly correlated ( r5.90).
Criterion/Predictive
MSCEIT scores exhibited low to moderate correlations with life enthusiasm ( r5.22), tobacco and alcohol use
(r5.19), social deviance ( r52.27), and drug use ( r52.32;Mayer et al., 2004 ). MSCEIT scores have not demon-
strated incremental predictive validity when controlling for general intelligence and personality factors ( Brody,
2004 ).
Validity (MSCEIT-YV)
Two independent studies found that the MSCEIT-YV scores correlated moderately with the EQ-i-YV scores,
indicating that these instruments measure overlapping, but distinct constructs, as is the case with the adult ver-
sions ( Peters et al., 2009; Windingstad et al., 2011 ). Overall EI correlated with general cognitive ability ( r5.35)
and reading achievement ( r5.35), but was not significantly associated with mathematics ( r5.17). Further, over-
all EI correlated negatively with emotion-oriented coping ( r52.46) and the number of discipline referrals
(r5.35;Peters et al., 2009 ).386 14. MEASURES OF ABILITY AND TRAIT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Location
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D.R. (2002). Mayer/C0Salovey /C0Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT):
User’s manual. Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.
Results and Comments
The MSCEIT has been used in organizational, educational, clinical, social, and health settings. It is important
to keep in mind that research has yet to overcome the challenges associated with measuring and scoring
emotion-related skills objectively, in a way that resembles more established domains of intelligence. It is also
uncertain that the underlying model, which has been used as a basis for several other EI measures, covers a par-
ticular ability dimension comprehensively (for a more detailed discussion of these and other issues, see Brody,
2004; Maul, 2012; and Roberts, Schulze, & MacCann, 2008 ). Future research needs to test and, if necessary, modify
the ability EI model underlying the MSCEIT and other measures.
MSCEIT SAMPLE ITEMS
What mood(s) might be helpful to feel when figuring
out what caused a fight among three young children?
Each of the three young children is telling a different
story about how the fight started. Figuring out what
happened requires attending to the details of the stories
and weighing many facts.
Not Useful/Useful
a.happiness 1 2 3 4 5
b.surprise 1 2 3 4 5
c.sadness 1 2 3 4 5
A feeling of concern most closely combines the emo-
tions of _____________.
a.love, anxiety, surprise, anger
b.surprise, pride, anger, fearc.acceptance, anxiety, fear, anticipation
d.fear, joy, surprise, embarrassment
e.anxiety, caring, anticipation
Imagine you are feeling loud, large, delicate, and
bright green. How much is that feeling like each of the
following?
Not Alike/Very Much Alike
a.excited 1 2 3 4 5
b.jealous 1 2 3 4 5
c.afraid 1 2 3 4 5
Notes : The MSCEIT is commercially available through
MHS ( www.mhs.com ), with discounts offered to
researchers.
Reproduced with permission.
Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale (LEAS)
(Lane et al., 1990 ).
Variable
The LEAS focuses on the awareness of one’s own and others’ emotions, which are key factors in the majority
of EI models. The LEAS assesses the five levels of emotional awareness identified in Lane and Schwartz’s (1987)
cognitive-developmental theory: bodily sensations, action tendencies, single emotions, blends of emotions,
and combinations of blends. This model provides a framework explaining individual differences in the experi-
ence and expression of emotions, emphasizing structure over content. The original LEAS preceded the burst
of research on EI and, thus, was not initially considered a measure of this more general construct. However,
more recent articles have situated the construct assessed with the LEAS within the dimensional boundaries of
ability EI (e.g., Igarashi et al., 2011; Veirman et al., 2011 ).
Description
LEAS
The LEAS is a paper-pencil performance questionnaire, which presents 20 interpersonal, emotion-evoking
situations, each of which is described in two to four sentences and involves two persons. The scenes are selected
to elicit four types of emotion (anger, fear, happiness, and sadness), which increase in their level of complexity.
The respondent is asked to describe how s/he would feel in that situation and how the other person might feel387 ABILITY EI MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
in that situation. Each scene is scored separately for the emotion assigned to the self and the other person on a
scale from 0 to 4, using the following criteria (a sample item is presented at the end of this review):
Level 0 (lowest score) /C0non-emotion response where the word ‘feel’ reflects a thought, rather than true
feeling.
Level 1 /C0awareness of physiological cues (e.g., ‘I’d feel tired’).
Level 2 /C0includes words typically used in other contexts, but nonetheless conveying relatively
undifferentiated emotion (e.g., ‘I’d feel bad,’ using the word feel to convey an action tendency, such as ‘I’d feel
like punching the wall’).
Level 3 /C0uses one word that conveys typical, undifferentiated emotion (e.g., happy, sad, angry).
Level 4 /C0uses two or more Level 3 words that convey greater emotional differentiation than either word on
its own.
A total score represents the higher of the two scores, unless there are two Level 4 scores. In case of two Level
4 scores, a total score of 5 is awarded if the self and other descriptions can be differentiated from each other. The
scores range from 0 /C080 for Self and Other descriptions and 0 /C0100 for total although only the total score is to be
used. The initial 20-item version requires 30 min for completion by the participant and scoring by a trained rater.
For this reason, a computer-scoring method has been developed, producing alpha coefficient and validities that
are comparable to hand scoring ( Barchard et al., 2010 ). A Japanese version (LEAS-J; Igarashi et al., 2011 ) has
recently appeared in the literature.
LEAS/C0Children A child version (LEAS-C; Bajgar, Ciarrochi, Lane, & Deane, 2005 ) was developed by using
items from the adult version, modified slightly in terms of vocabulary, grammar, and context, where necessary.
Two items were added, resulting in a total of 12 items (three per emotion: happiness, anger, sadness, and fear).
As with the adult version, the particular emotions reflected in the scenarios have no implications for scoring.
Instead, the focus is on the emotion complexity of children’s responses, rather than their correctness. The LEAS-C
can be administered individually or in groups, mirroring the adult version in response and scoring format. The
estimated completion time is 20 minutes. Total scores range from 0 to 48 for Self- and Other-awareness and from
0 to 60 for total awareness. The LEAS-C has been translated into Dutch ( Veirman et al., 2011 ).
Sample
LEAS
In the initial study, the LEAS was administered to 40 undergraduate students (20 female), who were mostly in
their late teens and early 20s ( Lane et al., 1990 ). Sample means were not reported. Normative data for a larger
sample of 380 community members (age range 18 /C080 years) were reported in Lane et al. (1996) . Participants in
this study had a mean total score of 61.9 ( SD510.7). The sample used to assess the reliability and validity of the
Japanese LEAS-J consisted of 344 Japanese university students aged 18 /C038 years ( M520.13). Sample means for
the Self, Other, and total scores were 40.79 ( SD510.98), 36.76 ( SD59.53), and 50.05 ( SD59.38), respectively.
LEAS-C
The LEAS-C was initially administered to a group of 51 children (25 female), who were 10 and 11 years of
age and recruited at two private schools. Girls had a mean total score of 38.20 ( SD53.60), whereas boys had a
mean of 34.15 ( SD54.32). Mean Self and Other scores for girls were 33.88 ( SD54.53) and 32.96 ( SD54.00),
respectively; for boys, these scores were 30.65 ( SD56.20) and 29.31 ( SD56.10), respectively ( Bajgar et al., 2005 ).
The Dutch version of the LEAS-C was administered to a Belgian sample of primary and secondary school
children (47% male; aged 10 /C017 years, MAge513.30, SD51.80), whose first language was Dutch. The sample
means for the Self, Other, and total scores were 30.94 ( SD55.98), 29.22 ( SD56.30), and 34.85 ( SD55.49;
Veirman et al., 2011 ).
Reliability (LEAS)
Internal Consistency
The Cronbach alpha coefficient was found to be .81 ( Lane et al., 1990 ). In a larger sample ( N5380), alpha
coefficients were high for the Self ( α5.84), Other ( α5.83), and total ( α5.88) scores ( Lane et al., 1996 ).
Similar Cronbach alpha coefficients (Self 5.82, Other 5.77, total 5.83) were reported for the LEAS-J subscales
(Igarashi et al., 2011 ).388 14. MEASURES OF ABILITY AND TRAIT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Inter-Rater
Twenty protocols scored independently by two trained raters led to high inter-rater reliability, r5.84 (Lane
et al., 1990 ). In Lane et al. (1996) , inter-rater reliabilities were high for the Self ( r5.98), Other ( r5.91), and total
(r5.92) scores. Similarly, Igarashi et al. (2011) reported acceptable levels of inter-rater reliability (Self 5.88,
Other5.87, total 5.90).
Reliability (LEAS-C)
Internal Consistency
For the LEAS-C, Cronbach alpha coefficients were .71 for Self scores, .64 for Other scores, and .66 for total
scores ( Bajgar et al., 2005 ). In the Dutch-speaking sample, alpha coefficients were .73 for Self, .73 for Other, and
.76 for total scores ( Veirman et al., 2011 ).
Inter-Rater
Inter-rater reliability was .93 for Self scores, .86 for Other scores, and .86 for total scores ( Bajgar et al., 2005 ).
Validity (LEAS)
Convergent/Concurrent
In the initial publication of the LEAS, scores were shown to correlate with other measures of cognitive-
developmental complexity: the Parental Descriptions Scale ( r5.35) and the Washington University Sentence
Completion Test of Ego Development ( r5.40;Lane et al., 1990 ).
Divergent/Discriminant
There was little correlation with emotion scales ( r5.08 to2.27). Further, the LEAS did not correlate with the
number of words used ( r5.12), suggesting that complexity does not simply reflect verbal productivity ( Lane
et al., 1990 ). The Japanese version correlated weakly with the Big Five ( r5.02/C0.20) and alexithymia ( r5.00/C0.05).
Validity (LEAS-C)
Convergent/Concurrent
Convergent validity for the LEAS-C as an objective assessment of emotion complexity in children was demon-
strated by a significant association with an emotion comprehension task and two verbal tasks. Also, as antici-
pated, the LEAS-C was more strongly associated with emotion comprehension than emotion expression ( Bajgar
et al., 2005 ). Convergent validity of the Dutch version was demonstrated with measures of ability EI, intelligence,
and personality ( Veirman et al., 2011 ).
Divergent/Discriminant
Discriminant validity was apparent from associations with measures of social and emotional impairment
(Veirman et al., 2011 ).
Construct/Factor Analytic
For the LEAS-C ( Veirman et al., 2011 ), the one-factor structure showed acceptable to good fit in a CFA
(χ2(54)5102.23, χ2/df51.89; SRMR 5.05; RMSEA 5.05 CFI 5.91; BIC 59107.56). In addition, the evidence
showed that the self and other scores should be viewed as distinct, yet highly ( r5.79) correlated subfactors of
emotional awareness.
Criterion/Predictive
No criterion/predictive validity evidence is currently available.
Location
Lane, R.D., Quinlan, D.M., Schwartz, G.E., Walker, P.A., & Zeitlin, S.B. (1990). The levels of emotional
awareness scale: A cognitive-developmental measure of emotion. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55 , 124/C0134.
Bajgar, J., Ciarrochi, J., Lane, R., & Deane, F. (2005). Development of the Levels of Emotional Awareness
Scale for Children (LEAS-C). British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23 , 569/C0586.389 ABILITY EI MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Results and Comments
The unique feature of the LEAS in the ability EI literature is its narrow measurement domain (emotional
awareness) and focus on qualitatively distinguishable levels, rather than scores on continuous measurement
scales. A strength over other maximum-performance measures of emotion-related qualities is that responses are
scored against strictly defined criteria, instead of elusive expert or consensus data. By pooling the data of various
samples, it was shown that there is a stable and generalizable sex difference in emotional awareness ( Feldman-
Barrett, Lane, Sechrest, & Schwartz, 2000 ). Clinical research with the LEAS showed that patients with PTSD score
significantly lower on the LEAS than non-PTSD controls. Also, LEAS scores were differentially associated with
activation in the ventral anterior cingulate cortex between PTSD patients and healthy controls during trauma-
script imagery ( Frewen et al., 2008 ).
LEAS SAMPLE ITEM
Scene 20 from the LEAS (as reported in Lane et al., 1996 )
You and your best friend are in the same line of
work. There is a prize given annually to the best perfor-
mance of the year. The two of you work hard to
win the prize. One night the winner is announced:
your friend. How would you feel? How would your
friend feel?
Example of responses at each level
0/C0I don’t work hard to win ‘prizes.’ My friend
would probably feel that the judges knew what they
were doing.
1/C0I’d feel sick about it. It’s hard for me to say
what my friend would feel /C0it would all depend
on what our relationship was like and what the prize
meant to her.
2/C0I’d probably feel bad about it for a few days and
try to figure out what went wrong. I’m sure my
friend would be feeling really good.3/C0We would both feel happy. Hey, you can’t win
‘em all!
4/C0I would feel depressed /C0the friend in this light
is just like any other competitor. I would also
begrudgingly feel happy for my friend and
rationalize that the judges had erred. My friend
would feel very gratified but would take the prize in
stride to save the friendship.
5/C0I’d feel disappointed that I didn’t win but glad
that if someone else did, that person was my friend.
My friend probably deserved it! My friend would
feel happy and proud but slightly worried that my
feelings might be hurt.
Notes : The LEAS and its scoring manual may be
obtained from Dr. Lane at [email protected] .T h e
child form LEAS-C (including three translations) can be
obtained from: www.uow.edu.au/hea lth/iimh/archives/
UOW024727.html (Reproduced with permission).
Situational Test of Emotional Understanding (STEU) and Management (STEM)
(MacCann & Roberts, 2008 ).
Variable
The STEU and STEM are two newer measures of ability EI. As their labels indicate, these measures more spe-
cifically assess emotional understanding and management, which are also two of the four EI dimensions of
Mayer and Salovey’s (2000) model.
Description
The STEU and STEM were developed to distinguish between construct and test effects, as the MSCEIT was at
that point the only measure of ability EI and specifically of Mayer et al.’s (2000) four-branch model. Another driv-
ing force that prompted the authors to develop these measures was the MSCEIT’s rate-the-extent procedures and
expert or population-based scoring procedures. Consistent with Roseman’s (2001) appraisal theory, STEU items
are scored according to clearly defined standards. The STEU consists of 42 multiple-choice items (14 related to
specific contexts, 14 related to personal life in general, and 14 related to the workplace), from which a total score
is derived by calculating the mean. The total scores range from 0 to 1.
Based on the Situational Judgement Test paradigm, the STEM measures people’s management of three emo-
tions (fear, anger, and sadness), providing two response formats: (a) multiple-choice, whereby the respondent390 14. MEASURES OF ABILITY AND TRAIT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
selects the most appropriate response to the situation (score range: 0 /C01); and (b) rate-the-extent, in which the
respondent rates different response options according to their effectiveness (response range: 1 /C06). The multiple-
choice option is scored according to expert weights, whereas an additional rate-the-extent option is scored based
on the distance of a response from the expert rating. The purpose of having these two response formats is to dis-
tinguish between test effects and construct effects. There are 44 items on the STEM, of which 18 focus on anger
content, 14 on sadness, and 12 are directed at fear content.
Sample
The initial investigation was carried out on two separate samples. The first sample consisted of 207
Psychology undergraduate students (140 women) with a mean age of 21.1 years (Median 519.0, SD55.6). Most
of the participants were of Anglo-Celtic and Asian backgrounds. Two-hundred participants completed the STEU,
resulting in a mean score of 0.60 ( SD50.13); one-hundred-twelve participants completed the STEM in multiple-
choice format, obtaining a mean score of .52 ( SD5.07), whereas 91 participants achieved a mean score of 2.57
(SD5.46) with the rate-the-extent method ( MacCann & Roberts, 2008 ).
A non-student work sample of 149 participants (107 women) completed the same STEU as the first sample,
but a modified STEM which was reduced to 30 items and administered in multiple-choice format only. The age
range of this sample was 18 to 59 years with mean age of 35.33 years ( SD511.03). This sample had a mean STEU
score of .63 ( SD5.09) and a mean STEM score of .61 ( SD50.08). The comparable STEM mean in the first sample
(with 13 items removed) was .57 ( SD5.09;MacCann & Roberts, 2008 ).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
The undergraduate student sample responses exhibited Cronbach alpha coefficients of .71 (STEU), .68 (STEM-
multiple choice), and .92 (STEM-rate the extent); the 30-item STEM (multiple-choice format) produced scores
with an alpha coefficient of .72 in this sample. The STEU and STEM (multiple-choice) scores in the work sample
exhibited alpha coefficients of .43 and .61, respectively. The Cronbach alpha was significantly lower in the work
sample than in the student sample ( MacCann & Roberts, 2008 ).
Test/C0Retest
Over a 10-week period, test /C0retest correlations were .55 for the STEM and .66 for the STEU (MacCann, 2010).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Correlations with measures of vocabulary ( r5.49, .41) and university grades ( r5.37, .16) indicated that the
STEU and STEM, respectively, measure a form of intelligence. In particular, the multiple-choice format seems to
represent ability, as the scores produced with this method were more strongly associated with vocabulary than
personality dimensions, whereas the opposite was true for rate-the-extent scores. STEU scores explained incre-
mental variance over vocabulary in STEM scores and in the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale stories sub-
test scores, which load highest on the general ability EI factor. A problematic pattern, however, was that both
STEM and STEU scores were more strongly associated with vocabulary than the stories test, indicating that these
measure verbal intelligence primarily, rather than specifically EI ( MacCann & Roberts, 2008 ).
Austin (2010) examined the STEU and STEM’s associations with intelligence, emotion perception, and ability
EI, as assessed with the MSCEIT. Only the STEU and MSCEIT (Understanding Emotions) were significantly asso-
ciated with intelligence and measures of emotion perception. Both the STEU and STEM scores correlated with
the MSCEIT total score and most branch scores, whereas neither was related to trait EI.
Divergent/Discriminant
Divergent validity was assessed by correlating the STEM and STEU with two trait EI measures ( Austin, 2010 ).
Correlations of the STEU with the TEIQue and AES were .03 and /C0.04, respectively. The STEM’s correlations
with these measures were .12 and .13. All four correlations were not statistically significant. Correlations with
personality were modest ( r5.02 to .24) and mostly non-significant.391 ABILITY EI MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Construct/Factor Analytic
A study by Ferguson and Austin (2010) supported the unidimensional structure of both measures. The KMO
statistics in principal-component analyses reached acceptable levels of .55 (STEU) and .56 (STEM).
Criterion/Predictive
A strength demonstrated by the STEU and STEM is that both predicted incremental variance in psychology
course grades (beyond the effects of intelligence and personality). Consistent with previous findings involving
the MSCEIT’s Understanding Emotions branch as the strongest predictor of academic success, the STEU also pre-
dicted overall grades incrementally ( MacCann & Roberts, 2008 ).
Location
MacCann, C., & Roberts, R.D. (2008). New paradigms for assessing emotional intelligence: Theory and data.
Emotion ,8, 540/C0551.
Results and Comments
While the STEU and STEM entail potential advances in the scoring of respondents’ interpretation of, and reac-
tion to emotional scenarios, they have only appeared in a few studies. More research is necessary to examine and
develop the reliability and construct validity of these measures. Future research is also needed to ascertain that
these measures tap primarily the emotion-related aspects of intelligence, rather than more fundamental aspects
of intelligence, such as verbal ability.
STEU-LIKE AND STEM-LIKE ITEMS
STEU: Pete just had a paper accepted for publication.
He is most likely to feel (a) regret; (b) hope; (c) relief;
(d) sadness; (e) joy.
STEM: Upon arriving at her gym, Colleen becomes
angry as she finds out that her scheduled yoga class has
just been cancelled for the second week in a row.
Which of the following is the most appropriate
response to the situation?(a) Try to ignore her anger and go home; (b)
Complain at the reception; (c) Participate in a similar
class/C0aerobics; (d) Cancel her membership
Rate each response option in terms of its effec-
tiveness.
Note:MacCann and Roberts’ (2008) original paper
includes online Appendices at: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0012746.supp (Retrieved January 3, 2014).
TRAIT EI MEASURES
Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS)
(Salovey et al., 1995 ).
Variable
The TMMS was developed to assess enduring qualities of the reflective experience of mood, encompassing the
abilities to reflect upon and manage one’s own emotions. Although the authors made it clear that they do not
consider the TMMS an EI measure, they view it has having utility for identifying core individual differences that
characterize people who are high in EI, specifically people who can disclose feelings to themselves and others
(Salovey et al., 1995 ).
Description
Based on self-report, the TMMS specifically measures people’s tendency to attend to emotions (Attention, 21
items), discriminate between, or understand feelings (Clarity, 15 items), and regulate moods (Repair, 12 items). In
contrast to other EI measures, the TMMS was not developed to give a global EI score. The 48 items are presented
on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 ( strong disagree )t o5( strongly agree ). A revised 30-item version was constructed
by dropping items with low loadings less than .40; for this version, the numbers of items per scale are 13 for
Attention, 11 for Clarity, and 6 for Repair ( Salovey et al., 1995 ).392 14. MEASURES OF ABILITY AND TRAIT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
A Spanish short version of the TMMS was developed by Ferna ´ndez-Berrocal, Extremera, and Ramos (2004) .
This version consists of 24 items from the original English version (eight per scale).
Sample
Undergraduate students had scale means of 4.10 ( SD50.52) for Attention, 3.27 ( SD50.70) for Clarity, and
3.59 ( SD50.90) for Repair ( Salovey, Stroud, Woolery, & Epel, 2002 ).
The scale means of the Spanish short version were quite similar across the three scales in a Spanish sample of
184 undergraduate students. Specifically, this sample had means of 3.25 ( SD5.80) for Attention, 3.19 ( SD5.81)
for Clarity, and 3.22 ( SD5.78) for Repair ( Extremera, & Ferna ´ndez-Berrocal, 2005 ).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
For the English version of the TMMS, Cronbach alpha coefficients were .86 for Attention, .87 for Clarity, and
.82 for Repair; alpha coefficients were equal for the 30-item version (.88 for Clarity; Salovey et al., 1995 ). For the
24-item Spanish version, Cronbach alphas were .88 for Attention, .89 for Clarity, and .86 for Repair ( Extremera, &
Ferna ´ndez-Berrocal, 2005 ).
Test/C0Retest
Test/C0retest correlations over a four-week period were .60 for Attention, .70 for Clarity, and .83 for Repair
(Ferna ´ndez-Berrocal et al., 2004 ).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
The AES correlated positively with the TMMS subscales of Attention to feelings ( r5.63,N548), Clarity of
feelings ( r5.52,N547) and Mood Repair ( r5.68,N547). Further, the Attention scale correlated positively with
public ( r5.36) and private ( r5.42) self-consciousness, while the Clarity scale correlated negatively with ambiva-
lence over emotional expression ( r52.25) and depression ( r52.27). The Repair scale correlated negatively with
depression ( r52.37) and positively with optimism ( r5.57) and beliefs regarding negative mood regulation
(r5.53;Salovey et al., 1995 ). Correlations with the Big Five were moderate between Attention and Neuroticism
(r5.37), between Clarity and Extraversion ( r5.32) or Openness ( r5.30), and between Repair and Neuroticism
(r52.44;Extremera, & Ferna ´ndez-Berrocal, 2005 ).
Divergent/Discriminant
The divergent/discriminant validities of the three scales have not been deliberately examined. However, the
scales showed different patterns of associations with various criteria ( N586;Salovey et al., 1995 ). Attention was
unrelated to depression ( r52.08), optimism ( r5.09), and mood regulation ( r5.17). Clarity and Repair were
unrelated to self-consciousness ( r5.01/C0.18), and Clarity also correlated non-significantly ( r5.12) with both opti-
mism and mood regulations.
Construct/Factor Analytic
A confirmatory factor analysis ( N5148) of the 48 items supported to the theoretical three-factor structure of
the TMMS ( χ2(48)549.56, p..05; GFI 5.94; RMSEA 5.05;Salovey et al., 1995 ).
Criterion/Predictive
The TMMS scales appear to predict various emotion-related criteria. Mood Repair predicted less passive cop-
ing ( r52.31 to 2.34) and a decreased perception of induced laboratory stressors as threatening ( r52.35);
Clarity predicted a greater increase in negative mood ( r5.32), but decreased cortical release during stressful
situations ( r52.31,2.40); Attention correlated negatively with cortical and blood pressure as a function to labo-
ratory challenges ( r5.27;Salovey et al., 2002 ).Thompson, Waltz, Croyle, and Pepper (2007) found Repair to be a
unique predictor of well-being vis-a `-vis demographic and affective variables, whereas the Attention and Clarity
scales predicted somatic symptoms incrementally. In terms of mental health, the TMMS has shown some crite-
rion validity, although it is among the weaker trait EI measures in the literature ( Martins et al., 2010 ).393 TRAIT EI MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Location
Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. (1995). Emotional attention, clarity, and repair:
Exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait Meta /C0Mood Scale. In J. W. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure,
and health (pp. 125 /C0154). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Results and Comments
The TMMS focuses exclusively on intrapersonal feelings. It must be remembered that the self-report response
format has implications for the nature of the factors being measured, rendering them akin to personality traits
rather than ‘abilities,’ as originally envisaged. The non-significant to weak associations among the Attention,
Clarity, and Repair factors suggests that these scales represent fairly distinct trait dimensions.
The full TMMS is included in Salovey et al. (1995) , which can be accessed from: www.unh.edu/emotional_
intelligence/ei%20Measuring%20Mood/mm%20SMMS.htm (Retrieved January 3, 2014).
Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i and EQ-i 2.0)
(Bar-On, 1997 ; MHS, 2011).
Variable
Bar-On (1997) conceptualized EI as ‘an array of non-cognitive capabilities, competencies, and skills that influ-
ence one’s ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands and pressures’ (p. 14). However, it has been
noted that the EQ-i should really be viewed as measure of trait EI ( Petrides & Furnham, 2001 ).
Description
EQ-i
The EQ-i instruments are based on Bar-On’s EI model, which consists of 15 specific components that fall into
five theoretical clusters ( Bar-On, 2006 ): Intrapersonal (comprising Self-Regard, Emotional Self-Awareness,
Assertiveness, Independence, and Self-Actualization); Interpersonal (comprising Empathy, Social Responsibility,
and Interpersonal Relationship); Stress Management (comprising Stress Tolerance and Impulse Control);
Adaptability (comprising Reality-Testing, Flexibility, and Problem-Solving); and General Mood (comprising
Optimism and Happiness).
The EQ-i is suitable for adults 17 years or older. There is a total of 133 items with 7 /C09 items measuring each of
the model’s facets. Each item is presented as a self-statement, rated on a 5-point Likert scale with a range of 1
(very seldom true ornot true for me )t o5( very often true of me ortrue of me ). The items produce a total EQ score, five
composite scores reflecting each of the five broad clusters, and scores for each of the 15 facets. The total score has
been revised to exclude the general mood items, which can be calculated separately ( Bar-On, 2000 ). The scale
also includes subscales to assess the validity of the responses: an inconsistency index, a positive impression scale,
and a negative impression scale.
A short version of 51 items (EQ-i:Short; Bar-On, 2002 ) was derived from the items of four theoretical clusters
of the Bar-On (1997) model: intrapersonal, interpersonal, stress management, and adaptability. In addition to pro-
viding composite scores for these four clusters, the EQ-i:Short yields a total EI score and indicators of inconsis-
tency and positive impression. Translations of both adult forms are available in numerous languages ( Wood
et al., 2009 ).
EQ-i:Youth Version
A youth version (EQ-i:YV, Bar-On & Parker, 2000 ) has been developed for children and adolescents 7 to 18
years of age. Also based on Bar-On’s (1997) model, the EQ-i:YV consists of 60 items belonging to 7 scales: inter-
personal, intrapersonal, stress management, adaptability, general mood, positive impression, and an inconsis-
tency index. The first four scales are included in the overall EQ score for this version. A short form, the EQ-i:YV
(S), contains 30 items that are distributed across 5 scales: interpersonal, intrapersonal, stress management, adapt-
ability, and positive impression. An additional observer rating scale to be completed by teachers and parents was
developed in recent years.394 14. MEASURES OF ABILITY AND TRAIT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
EQ-i 2.0
A new adult version, the EQ-i 2.0, has recently become available (MHS, 2011) and is suitable for individuals
181years. While having the same number of composites, subscales, and items, there are some significant
changes to the items, norms, factors, and subscales. Compared to the EQ-i, in which individual items had been
keyed on multiple subscales, the EQ-i 2.0 items are unique to individual subscales. The composites and subscales
are: Self-Perception (Self-Regard, Self-Actualization, Emotional Self-Awareness), Self-Expression (Emotional
Expression, Assertiveness, Independence), Interpersonal (Interpersonal Relationships, Empathy, Social
Responsibility), Decision Making (Problem Solving, Reality Testing, Impulse Control), and Stress Management
(Flexibility, Stress Tolerance, Optimism). Five validity indices are employed to assist in determining the ‘accu-
racy’ of the self-reported responses.
Sample
The North American normative sample of the EQ-i comprised 3,831 adults from most American states and all
Canadian provinces ( Bar-On, 1997 ). Normative data for the EQ-i:YV ( Bar-On & Parker, 2000 ) were obtained from
9172 children and adolescents.
EQ-i 2.0 normative sample comprises 4000 adults from all American states and Canadian provinces of the U.S.
and Canadian general populations.
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Across seven samples, the EQ-i had an average alpha level of .76 for its 15 facets. The range of Cronbach alpha
coefficients was .69 for social responsibility to .86 for self-regard. The EQ-i:Short also had acceptable alpha levels,
ranging from .76. to .93, as well as an acceptable average of inter-item correlations, which ranged from .18 to .43
(Bar-On, 2002 ).
For both the full and short forms of the EQ-i:YV, Cronbach alpha coefficients ranged from .65 to .90 for the full
form and from .65 to .90 for the short form ( Bar-On & Parker, 2000 ).
The EQ-i 2.0 total scale alpha coefficient was .97. The alpha coefficients for the five composite scales ranged
from .88 to .93 and all subscales showed a minimum Cronbach alpha of .77. These alpha coefficients held also for
the age and gender normative groups (MHS, 2011).
Test/C0Retest
The EQ-i’s test /C0retest reliability in a South African sample was .85 over a one-month period and .75 over a
four-month period, with a low of .78 for social responsibility and a high of .92 for self-regard ( Bar-On, 1997 ).
Over a six-month period, test /C0retest correlations ranged from .57 to .80 for the EQ-i:Short ( Bar-On, 2002 ). In a
study of 238 undergraduate students, test /C0retest correlations were stable over a 32-month period, ranging from
.43 for adaptability to .75 for stress management ( Parker et al., 2005b ).
For the EQ-i:YV, adequate levels of test /C0retest reliability were reported over a 3-week period, ranging from
.77 for general mood to .89 for total EI for the full form and from .81 for interpersonal EI to .88 for stress manage-
ment for the short form ( Wood et al., 2009 ).
Over a 2 /C04 week time interval, test /C0retest correlations of the EQ-i 2.0 were .92 for the total score, .86 to .91 for
the five factors, and .78 to .89 for the subscales ( N5204). Eight-week test /C0retest correlations for 104 individuals
were .81 for the total score, .76 to .83 for the composite scores, and .70 to .84 for the subscales.
Validity (EQ-i)
Convergent/Concurrent
The EQ-i total score exhibited a moderate correlation of .43 with the AES ( Schutte et al., 1998 ) and shared con-
siderable variance with the Big Five ( r5.75) in a sample of college students ( Brackett & Mayer, 2003 ). In a sample
of Canadian military personal, correlations with the Big Five ranged from .15 (stress management and extraver-
sion) to .66 (stress management and emotional stability) across factor scores ( Livingstone & Day, 2005 ). These
results support the trait EI framework proposed for self-report measures of the concept.395 TRAIT EI MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Divergent/Discriminant
The EQ-i total score correlated weakly with the MSCEIT ( r5.21) in college students. In the military sample,
the EQ-i exhibited low to moderate correlations with MSCEIT scores ( r5.13 to .31), and only the Interpersonal
factor correlated with cognitive ability, specifically with spatial ability ( r52.16).
Construct/Factor Analytic
The 15 facets consistently load on to a single higher-order EI factor across cultures, indicating that they share a
unifying, coherent trait content. Yet, studies have failed to replicate the theoretical five-factor structure (e.g.,
Livingstone & Day, 2005 ), with some producing factor structures of 10 ( Bar-On’s, 1997, 2000 ) or six factors
(Palmer, Manocha, Gignac, & Stough, 2003 ). A study of measurement invariance and differential item functioning
in work and student samples from different cultures demonstrated the cross-cultural robustness of the EQ-i:Short
(Ekermans, Saklofske, Austin, & Stough, 2011 ).
Criterion/Predictive
The EQ-i was found to predict a range of life outcome variables surrounding success and well-being, such as
depression ( r52.56), job competence ( r5.51), drug use ( r52.24), alcohol use ( r5220), and antisocial deviance
(r52.21; see Wood et al., 2009 , for a summary). A meta-analysis resulted in a weighted average association of
r5.44 between the EQ-i global score and mental health ( Martins et al., 2010 ). This association was slightly lower
than that for the TEIQue, but considerably stronger than those for the AES and TMMS.
Validity (EQ-i:YV)
Construct/Factor Analytic
In a study of Aboriginal children and adolescents, the four-factor structure of the EQ-i:YV was found to fit the
data ( Parker et al., 2005a ), supporting the use of the measure within this population. Likewise, this study found
that the four-factor structure could be extracted from the data of a non-Aboriginal youth sample.
Criterion/Predictive
The EQ-i:YV scores differed significantly across different levels of academic achievement, as assessed by the
end-of-year GPA. Specifically, successful students exhibited significantly higher scores on the adaptability, inter-
personal, and stress management dimensions than less successful students ( Parker et al., 2004 ).
Validity (EQ-i 2.0)
Convergent/Concurrent
The total EI scores from the original and version 2.0 correlated .90. Correlations in the expected directions with
other psychological measures added further support to the convergent validity of the EQ-i 2.0. Total EI was posi-
tively and significantly correlated with both the Social Skills Inventory ( Riggio & Carney, 2003 ) total score
(r5.54) as well as the majority of SSI subscales. EI total score was also positively and significantly correlated
with Extraversion ( r5.57), Ag reeableness ( r5.36), and Conscientiousness ( r5.61) measured by the NEO-FFI
(Costa & McCrae, 1992 ). The six EI composite scales also showed lower but positive correlations with these three
personality factors.
Divergent/Discriminant
A correlation between the EQ-i 2.0 and the NEO-FFI indicative of discriminative validity was Openness
(r5.10,N5100). Orthogonality with ability EI, as assessed with the MSCEIT, was indicated by a non-significant
correlation ( r5.12) between the total scores; the various composite and subscale scores were also not significantly
associated.
Construct/Factor Analytic
Two demographically matched groups from the 4000 subject normative data set were employed to examine
the factor structure of the EQ-i 2.0. Principal axis factoring with direct oblimin rotation supported the 5-factor
and 15 subscale structure of scale. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed this theoretical factor structure through
the testing of six models. All goodness of fit indices (GFI, AGFI, NFI, NNFI, CFI) were above .90 and the RMSEA
was below .10 which was considered to ‘further support the factor structure of the E-i 2.0 as outlined by theory
and EFA results’ (MHS, 2011, p. 140).396 14. MEASURES OF ABILITY AND TRAIT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Criterion/Predictive
Several studies attesting to the criterion validity of the EQ-i 2.0 are presented in the manual. Corporate job suc-
cess was positively related to the EQ-i 2.0 total score, with comparisons between leaders and the normative aver-
age showing medium to large effects. As well, EI was higher for postgraduate versus high school students
(d50.33) and this difference was further supported by higher scores on most of the composite scales and sub-
scales for the university groups. An examination of clinical groups, defined as either depressed/dysthymic or
other clinical diagnosis, showed that they scored lower on the total EI score than the normative sample ( d50.57
and 0.45, respectively). This trend held for all composite scales except the Interpersonal scale.
Location
Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) . Technical manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.
Bar-On, R., & Parker, J.D.A. (2000). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Youth version . Technical manual.
Toronto: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.
Results and Comments
A major conceptual concern is that the EQ-i is intended to assess capabilities, competencies, and skills through
self-report. More appropriately, the scores can be interpreted through the trait EI framework outlined by Petrides
and Furnham (2001) . Further, even though the EQ-i seems to assess a coherent domain of characteristics, it may
not cover the construct domain it is intended to represent adequately. The EQ-i includes some facets that appear
unrelated to emotions (e.g., Reality testing, Self-actualization, Independence), while missing facets that have
appeared across other measures reviewed in this chapter, such as emotion perception and emotion regulation.
At the time of writing this chapter, no study using the EQ-i 2.0 can be found in the peer-reviewed literature.
EQ-I AND EQ-I 2.0 SAMPLE ITEMS
EQ-i
These questions are ranked with these responses:
1.Very seldom or Not true of me
2.Seldom true of me
3.Sometimes true of me
4.Often true of me
5.Very often true of me or True of me
When faced with a difficult situation, I like to
collect all the information about it that I can.
I’m generally motivated to continue, even when
things get difficult.
I’m sensitive to the feelings of others.EQ-i 2.0
These questions are ranked with these responses:
Never/
RarelyOccasionally Sometimes Often Always/
Almost
Always
12 3 4 5
I’m aware of the impact of my mood on others.
I feel overwhelmed when I need to make a decision.
I care about other people’s feelings.
Note: All EQ-i versions are commercially available from
MHS at: www.mhs.com (Reproduced with permission).
Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue)
(Petrides, 2001, 2009 ).
Variable
Trait EI is defined as a constellation of emotional self-perceptions located at the lower levels of personality
hierarchies ( Petrides, Pita et al., 2007 ). The construct concerns people’s self-perceptions of their emotional abili-
ties, which is why it has also been labeled as trait emotional self-efficacy.
Description
TEIQue and TEIQue /C0Adolescent Form
The trait EI sampling domain was derived from a comprehensive content analysis of other EI models and
similar constructs, resulting in a total of 15 facets: adaptability, assertiveness, emotion expression, emotion397 TRAIT EI MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
management, emotion perception, emotion regulation, low impulsiveness, relationships, stress management, self-
esteem, self-motivation, social awareness, trait empathy, trait happiness, and trait optimism.
The TEIQue, currently in version 1.50, comprises several forms and has been translated and validated in
numerous languages. The 15 facets are reduced to a global trait EI composite and four factors: Well-Being, Self-
Control, Emotionality, and Sociability. The standard 153-item self-report forms for adults (TEIQue) and adoles-
cents (TEIQue /C0AF, aged 13 /C017 years) have a completion time of 25 minutes, whereas the 30-item short forms
can be completed in seven minutes for adults (TEIQue /C0SF) and ten minutes for adolescents (TEIQue /C0ASF; aged
12/C017 years). Peer ratings are obtained using the TEIQue /C0360 (153 items) and its short version, the
TEIQue /C0360S (15 items). Items of all forms are answered on a 7-point Likert-type response scale, ranging from 1
(completely disagree )t o7( completely agree ).
TEIQue /C0Child Form
A developmentally appropriate sampling domain of nine facets was established for children aged between 8
and 12 years ( Mavroveli, Petrides, Shove, & Whitehead, 2008 ). The child form (TEIQue /C0CF) has 75 items and a
completion time of 25 minutes; its short-form variant (TEIQue /C0CSF) of 36 items has a completion time of 10 /C015
minutes. The TEIQue /C0CF does not yield factor scores, but measures nine distinct facets, in addition to yielding a
global trait EI score: adaptability, affective disposition, emotion expression, emotion perception, emotion regula-
tion, low impulsivity, peer relations, self-esteem, and self-motivation. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type
response scale. Short TEIQue forms are to be used primarily for assessing global trait EI, although it is possible
to derive a priori factor scores for the adult and adolescent forms.
Sample
TEIQue
The UK adult normative sample included 1721 individuals (912 female, 764 male, 61 unreported) with a mean
age of 29.65 years ( SD511.94, range 15.7 /C077). A majority of the sample is of White UK origin (58%) and holds
high-school diplomas (30.8%) or undergraduate degrees (29.5%). The sample means are 4.82 ( SD50.57) for
females and 4.95 for males ( SD50.61). Factor means range from 4.26 ( SD50.76) for females on Self-Control to
5.28 ( SD50.83) for males on Well-Being ( Petrides, 2009 ).
TEIQue /C0AF
Descriptive statistics for a large sample of adolescents ( N51842, age range: 14 /C016 years) were presented in
Petrides (2009) . Global trait EI and factor means were: global trait EI ( M54.53, SD50.58), Emotionality
(M54.71, SD50.67), Self-Control ( M54.01, SD50.75), Sociability ( M54.65, SD50.73) and Well-Being
(M54.89, SD50.96).
TEIQue /C0CF
For the TEIQue /C0CF, normative data was initially provided for a male sample of 188 British students (mean
age: 10.18 years; Mavroveli et al., 2008 ). Global trait EI means ranged from 3.19 ( SD50.29) to 3.43 ( SD50.32)
across experimental groups. In a sample of 565 children (mean age 59.12 years, SD51.27), boys ( n5274) had an
overall trait EI mean of 3.55 ( SD50.43), which was significantly lower than that of girls ( M5.65,SD50.45;
n5286; p,.01;Mavroveli & Sanchez-Ruiz, 2011 ).
Reliability (TEIQue)
Internal Consistency
Cronbach alpha coefficients for global trait EI were .89 for females and .92 for males; for females, alpha coeffi-
cients at the factor-level were .75 (Emotionality), .78 (Self-Control), .79 (Sociability), and .83 (Well-Being); for
males, alpha coefficients are .80 (Emotionality), .78 (Self-Control), .82 (Sociability), and .84 (Well-Being).
Test/C0Retest
Temporal stability was reported for 58 university students with a mean age of 19.14 years ( SD51.17 years).
Over a 12-month period, the test /C0retest reliability coefficients were 0.59 for Emotionality, 0.74 for Self-Control,
0.71 for Sociability, 0.86 for Well-being, and 0.78 for global trait EI ( Petrides, 2009 ). These values are consistent
with the stability coefficients of higher-order traits.398 14. MEASURES OF ABILITY AND TRAIT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Reliability (TEIQue /C0AF)
Internal Consistency
The Cronbach alpha coefficient was .84 for a pre-adolescent sample, using the TEIQue-ASF ( Petrides et al.,
2006 ). In a British sample of 490 high school students with a mean age of 16.65 years, a similar alpha of .83 was
obtained ( Mikolajczak, Petrides, & Hurry, 2009 ).Petrides (2009) reported alpha coefficients of .74 (Emotionality),
.76 (Self-Control), .80 (Sociability), .85 (Well-Being), and .89 (Global trait EI) for 1842 adolescents, which are only
slightly lower than those of the adult population.
Reliability (TEIQue /C0CF)
Internal Consistency
Cronbach alpha coefficients were found to be .76 in a mixed-gender sample ( N5139, mean age: 11.23 years)
and .73 for the boy-only sample ( Mavroveli et al., 2008 ). In another mixed-gender sample ( N5565), the alpha
coefficient was found to be .84 for global trait EI, ranging from .57 (adaptability and emotion perception) to .76
(Affective disposition) /C0(see Mavroveli & Sanchez-Ruiz, 2011 ).
Test/C0Retest
Over a 3-month period, in a mixed-gender sample, the attenuated and disattenuated test /C0retest reliabilities
were found to be .79 and 1.00, respectively ( Mavroveli et al., 2008 ).
Validity (TEIQue)
Convergent/Concurrent
The TEIQue correlated positively with the AES ( r5.73) and the MEIA ( r5.77;Gardner & Qualter, 2010 ).
Divergent/Discriminant
The TEIQue’s correlations with the STEM and STEU were .03 and .16, respectively ( Austin, 2010 ).
Criterion/Predictive
Petrides et al. (2007) showed that the TEIQue scores predict various emotion-laden criteria, such as depression
(β52.56), dysfunctional attitudes ( β52.38), coping styles ( β5.44 to .57), and hostility ( β52.21) after control-
ling for personality, as well as depression ( β52.20) and various maladaptive personality dimensions ( β5.21 to
2.49) after controlling for positive and negative affect. TEIQue scores also predicted nine distinct personality dis-
orders after controlling for positive and negative mood states.
Validity (TEIQue /C0CF)
Convergent/Concurrent
No convergent/concurrent evidence is currently available.
Divergent/Discriminant
Consistent with trait EI theory, the TEIQue /C0CF exhibited only a weak correlation with verbal ability ( r5.15;
Mavroveli et al., 2008 ). The TEIQue /C0CF correlated negatively with a scale assessing behavioral and social pro-
blems, when completed by teachers ( r52.34;Mavroveli & Sanchez-Ruiz, 2011 ).
Criterion/Predictive
The TEIQue-CF scores differentiated between pupils with a record of unauthorized absences or exclusions
from school and controls ( Mavroveli et al., 2008 ). It also predicted teacher-rated positive behavior ( r5.24) and
negative behavior ( r52.34).
Location
Petrides, K.V. (2009). Technical manual for the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaires (TEIQue). London:
London Psychometric Laboratory.
Petrides, K.V., & Furnham, A. (2006). The role of trait emotional intelligence in a gender-specific model of
organizational variables. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 36, 552 /C0569.399 TRAIT EI MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Results and Comments
The family of TEIQue instruments are among the most widely used measures to tap emotion-related individ-
ual differences in organizational, clinical, health, educational, and research settings. Hitherto, they have been
translated into more than 20 languages worldwide. The TEIQue instruments provide a solid basis for further
research into trait EI and, specifically, studying the domain of the construct and its implications in research and
applied contexts.
TRAIT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
QUESTIONNAIRE /C0SHORT FORM
Instructions: Please answer each statement below by putting a circle around the number that best reflects your
degree of agreement or disagreement with that statement. Do not think too long about the exact meaning of the state-
ments. Work quickly and try to answer as accurately as possible. There are no right or wrong answers. There are
seven possible responses to each statement ranging from ‘Completely Disagree’ (number 1) to ‘Completely Agree’
(number 7).
1.Expressing my emotions with words is not a problem for me. 1234567
2.I often find it difficult to see things from another person’s viewpoint.* 1234567
3.On the whole, I’m a highly motivated person. 1234567
4.I usually find it difficult to regulate my emotions.* 1234567
5.I generally don’t find life enjoyable.* 1234567
6.I can deal effectively with people. 1234567
7.I tend to change my mind frequently.* 1234567
8.Many times, I can’t figure out what emotion I’m feeling.* 1234567
9.I feel that I have a number of good qualities. 1234567
10.I often find it difficult to stand up for my rights.* 1234567
11.I’m usually able to influence the way other people feel. 1234567
12.On the whole, I have a gloomy perspective on most things.* 1234567
13.Those close to me often complain that I don’t treat them right.* 1234567
14.I often find it difficult to adjust my life according to the circumstances.* 1234567
15.On the whole, I’m able to deal with stress. 1234567
16.I often find it difficult to show my affection to those close to me.* 1234567
17.I’m normally able to ‘get into someone’s shoes’ and experience their emotions. 1234567
18.I normally find it difficult to keep myself motivated.* 1234567
19.I’m usually able to find ways to control my emotions when I want to. 1234567
20.On the whole, I’m pleased with my life. 1234567
21.I would describe myself as a good negotiator. 1234567
22.I tend to get involved in things I later wish I could get out of.* 1234567
23.I often pause and think about my feelings. 1234567
24.I believe I’m full of personal strengths. 1234567
25.I tend to ‘back down’ even if I know I’m right.* 1234567
26.I don’t seem to have any power at all over other people’s feelings.* 1234567
27.I generally believe that things will work out fine in my life. 1234567
28.I find it difficult to bond well even with those close to me.* 1234567
29.Generally, I’m able to adapt to new environments. 1234567
30.Others admire me for being relaxed. 1234567
Notes :
*Reverse worded item.
Reproduced with permission.
Any commercial use of this instrument is strictly prohibited.
All TEIQue forms and information pertaining to their use can be obtained from the London Psychometric
Laboratory website at: www.psychometriclab.com (Retrieved January 3, 2014).400 14. MEASURES OF ABILITY AND TRAIT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Assessing Emotions Scale (AES)
(Schutte et al., 1998 ).
Variable
This scale is based on Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) original model that focuses on appraising, expressing,
regulating, and using emotions. More recently, Mayer et al. (2004) have somewhat modified their model, defining
EI as an ‘ability’, but the AES has remained grounded in the original model.
Description
The AES has been variously referred to as the Emotional Intelligence Scale, the Self-Report Emotional
Intelligence Test, and the Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale. It has 33 items with minimal reading level,
answered on a 5-point Likert-type response scale that ranges from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’.
The intent of the scale is to provide an overall measure of EI, with scores ranging from 33 to 165 and higher
scores indicating greater levels of EI. Variants of the scale have been proposed by Austin, Saklofske, Huang, and
McKenney (2004) as well as Gignac, Palmer, Manocha, and Stough (2005) .
Sample
While the scale-validation sample was not extensively described, it did include both university students and
‘individuals from diverse community settings’ ( Schutte et al, 1998 , p. 170) with a mean age of 29.27 years
(SD510.23). Of a total of 346 participants, 218 were women and 111 men (17 did not report their gender).
The mean EI scores were 13.94 ( SD515.09) for women and 124.78 ( SD516.52) for men, a difference that was sta-
tistically significant, ( p,0.001).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
The Cronbach alpha coefficient was .90 in the initial study. A second study was conducted with a very small
sample of USA college students (27 female, 5 male; mean age 530.11 years, SD58.45), yielding an alpha coeffi-
cient of .87. Since then, a number of studies have reported internal consistency estimates for the AES using
diverse populations (e.g., university students, community members, employees) from different countries (e.g.,
Canada, Israel, New Zealand, Poland). Those studies reported alpha coefficients ranging from .76 to .95, with the
majority being in the .80 to .90 range ( Schutte, Malouff, & Bhullar, 2009 ).
Test/C0Retest
A small sample of USA college students (22 females, 5 males; mean age 532 years, SD510.13) completed the
AES on two occasions separated by two weeks, resulting in a test /C0retest coefficient of .78.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Several studies supporting the validity of the AES were included in the original article. For example, the AES
was positively and significantly correlated ( p,.0001) with the TMMS subscales of Attention to feelings ( r5.63,
N548), Clarity of feelings ( r5.52,N547) and Mood Repair ( r5.68,N547), as well as with the optimism scale
of the Life Orientation Test ( r5.52,N526). Further, it correlated strongly with both the TEIQue ( r5.73), MEIA
(r5.84;Gardner & Qualter, 2010 ), and the EQ-i ( r5.21;Brackett & Mayer, 2003 ).
Correlations between the AES and the Big Five scores derived from various measures have been weak to mod-
erate across studies, with Openness ( r5.43 to .54) and Extraversion ( r5.31 to .61) emerging as the strongest per-
sonality correlates ( Schutte et al., 2009 ).
Divergent/Discriminant
The AES did not correlate with social-desirability indicators (Kirk et al., 2007) and correlated weakly with the
MSCEIT ( r5.18;Brackett & Mayer, 2003 ).401 TRAIT EI MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Construct/Factor Analytic
The intended single-factor solution is supported by the finding of a strong higher-order first factor ( Schutte,
et al., 1998 ). Using the crude ‘Little Jiffy’ factor-analytic approach (principal-components, orthogonal rotation), 33
of the original 62 items loaded .40 and higher on the first factor. The remaining three factors also with eigen-
values greater than 1 were deemed to be ‘conceptually distinct’ from the first large factor. Other studies have
suggested that subscales be formed from a factor analysis of items, resulting in four-factor (e.g., Saklofske,
Austin, & Minski, 2003 ) or three-factor solutions ( Austin et al., 2004 ).
Criterion/Predictive
Schutte et al. (1998) found that therapists ( M5134.92, SD520.25) scored significantly higher than incarcerated
criminals ( M5120.08, SD517.71, p,.012) and a sample receiving treatment in a substance abuse program
(M5122.23, SD514.08, p,.035). The AES scores also predicted year-end college grade point average ( r5.32,
p,.01,N563), although AES and SAT scores were uncorrelated ( r5/C0.06,N541). Other predictive studies are
summarized in Schutte et al. (2009) .
Location
Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E., Haggerty, D.J., Cooper, J.T., Golden, C.J., & Dornheim, L. (1998).
Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25 ,
167/C0177.
Results and Comments
The AES has been very widely used in research (for a summary, see Schutte et al., 2009 ). It is one of the earlier
self-report EI measures, it is brief, and available without cost to both researchers and practitioners. Overall,
research has shown that the AES has good psychometric properties and it does generally support a general-
factor interpretation of EI. Other scales reviewed in this chapter, such as the EQ-i have the advantage of assessing
EI facets and should be preferred where more detailed emotional profiling is required.
ASSESSING EMOTIONS SCALE
Directions: Each of the following items asks you
about your emotions and reactions associated with emo-
tions. After deciding if a statement is generally true for
you, use the 5-point scale to respond to the statement.
Please circle the ‘1’ if you strongly disagree that this is
like you, the ‘2’ if you somewhat disagree that this is like
you, the ‘3’ if you neither agree nor disagree that this
is like you, the ‘4’ if you somewhat agree that this is like
you, and the ‘5’ if you strongly agree that this is
like you.
There are no right or wrong answers. Please give the
response that best describes you.
15strongly disagree
25somewhat disagree
35neither agree nor disagree
45somewhat agree
55strongly agree
1.I know when to speak about my personal
problems to others.
2.When I am faced with obstacles, I remember
times I faced similar obstacles and overcame
them.
3.I expect that I will do well on most things I try.
4.Other people find it easy to confide in me.5.I find it hard to understand the non-verbal
messages of other people.*
6.Some of the major events of my life have led me
to re-evaluate what is important and not
important.
7.When my mood changes, I see new possibilities.
8.Emotions are one of the things that make my life
worth living.
9.I am aware of my emotions as I experience them.
10.I expect good things to happen.
11.I like to share my emotions with others.
12.When I experience a positive emotion, I know
how to make it last.
13.I arrange events others enjoy.
14.I seek out activities that make me happy.
15.I am aware of the non-verbal messages I send to
others.
16.I present myself in a way that makes a good
impression on others.
17.When I am in a positive mood, solving problems
is easy for me.
18.By looking at their facial expressions, I recognize
the emotions people are experiencing.
19.I know why my emotions change.402 14. MEASURES OF ABILITY AND TRAIT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
20.When I am in a positive mood, I am able to come
up with new ideas.
21.I have control over my emotions.
22.I easily recognize my emotions as I experience
them.
23.I motivate myself by imagining a good outcome
to tasks I take on.
24.I compliment others when they have done
something well.
25.I am aware of the non-verbal messages other
people send.
26.When another person tells me about an
important event in his or her life, I almost feel as
though I have experienced this event myself.
27.When I feel a change in emotions, I tend to come
up with new ideas.28.When I am faced with a challenge, I give up
because I believe I will fail.*
29.I know what other people are feeling just by
looking at them.
30.I help other people feel better when they are down.
31.I use good moods to help myself keep trying in
the face of obstacles.
32.I can tell how people are feeling by listening to
the tone of their voice.
33.It is difficult for me to understand why people
feel the way they do.*
Notes :
*Reverse worded item.
Reproduced with permission.
The authors permit use of the scale for research and/
or clinical purposes (see Schutte et al., 1998 ).
WORKPLACE-ORIENTED MEASURES
Wong & Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS)
(Wong & Law, 2002 ).
Variable
Wong and Law (2002) defined EI as a four-dimensional construct, including Self Emotional Appraisal (SEA),
Others’ Emotional Appraisal (OEA), Regulation of Emotion (ROE), and Use of Emotion (UOE) following from
the conceptual framework of Salovey and Mayer (1990) .
Description
The Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale ( Wong & Law, 2002 ) is a self-report measure comprised of 16
items and answered on a 7-point Likert-type response scale. Four items are used to assess each of the four dimen-
sions: SEA, OEA, ROE and UOE .A general EI score can be obtained by summing up the responses to all 16
items.
Sample
Several samples were used in the creation of the WLEIS reported in Wong and Law (2002) . Thirty-six items
were administered to 189 undergraduate Hong Kong business students and 16 retained items were then com-
pleted by two groups of 72 and 146 undergraduate students. This was followed by another administration of the
WLEIS to 110 undergraduate and 116 Hong Kong university employees (mean total EI score 54.95, SD5.79,
n5116) and then to 149 supervisor-subordinate dyads (60 supervisors rating up to 4 subordinates).
Subordinates’ supervisor-rated total EI was 4.63 ( SD5.83). Data are not provided on age and gender for the
various samples except for the subordinates in the last sample (mean age 529.02 years, SD56.97, 52.8% female).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Cronbach alpha coefficients reported in various studies in Wong and Law’s (2002) article were: 0.86 /C00.92 for
SEA; 0.82 /C00.93 for OEA; 0.85 /C00.91 for UOE; and 0.71 /C00.84 for ROE. The alpha coefficient for the total 16-item
scale in the supervisor-subordinate study was .94.
Test/C0Retest
No test /C0retest reliability coefficients are currently available.403 WORKPLACE-ORIENTED MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Convergent validity evidence of all four dimensions is found in the significant correlations with the Life
Satisfaction, which ranged from r5.16 to r5.46, and from r5.12 to r5.40 in the second cross-validation study
(Wong & Law, 2002 ). A moderate and significant correlation with EQ-i ( r5.63) also attests to the WLEIS’ conver-
gent validity ( Wong & Law, 2002 ).
Divergent/Discriminant
Intelligence correlated between .06 and /C0.29 with the WLEIS factors. Furthermore, correlations of the WLEIS
with measures of the Big Five indicated that the WLEIS and personality share some variance, but this varied
from negligible to moderate.
Construct/Factor Analytic
An exploratory-factor analysis (maximum-likelihood method, varimax rotation) on the data from a sample of
189 undergraduate students indicated a clear four-factor structure with the selected 16-items; the average factor
loading of these items on their respective WLEIS dimensions was .80. The four-factor solution explained 71.5% of
the total variance and fit the data reasonably well in a confirmatory-factor analysis ( N572) from the first cross-
validation study, χ2
(98)5132.41, RMR 5.08, CFI 5.95, TLI 5.93. The second study ( N5146) also showed that
the four-factor model fit the data reasonably well, χ2
(98)5179.33, RMR 5.07, CFI 5.91, TLI 5.89 ( Wong &
Law, 2002 ).
Criterion/Predictive
Many studies have examined and demonstrated the WLEIS’s criterion and predictive validity. For example, its
global score was found to predict perceived organizational justice ( r5.17) and turnover intentions in employees
of a financial organization ( r52.14; Meisler, 2013), as well as indicators of job satisfaction ( r5.35 to .46) and
burnout ( r52.32 to2.56) in doctors (Weng et al., 2011).
Location
Wong, C.S., & Law, K.S. (2002) . The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and
attitude: An exploratory study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 13 , 193/C0324.
Results and Comments
Overall, there is support for the reliability and factor structure of the WLEIS based on samples from North
America and South East Asia. The appeal of this scale is that it is readily available and brief. A 16-item scale that
has four replicable factors and also yields a composite score is another advantage of the WLEIS.
WONG & LAW EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE SCALE
This scale also contains items about how people feel and act. Using the 1 /C07 scale below, please indicate your
agreement with each item by circling the appropriate number.
12 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Neither agree
nor disagreeSlightly agree Agree Strongly agree
1.I have a good sense of why I have certain feelings most of the time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2.I have good understanding of my own emotions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3.I really understand what I feel. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4.I always know whether or not I am happy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5.I always know my friends’ emotions from their behavior. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6.I am a good observer of others’ emotions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7.I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8.I have good understanding of the emotions of people around me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7404 14. MEASURES OF ABILITY AND TRAIT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
9.I always set goals for myself and then try my best to achieve them. 1234567
10.I always tell myself I am a competent person. 1234567
11.I am a self-motivated person. 1234567
12.I would always encourage myself to try my best. 1234567
13.I am able to control my temper and handle difficulties rationally. 1234567
14.I am quite capable of controlling my own emotions. 1234567
15.I can always calm down quickly when I am very angry. 1234567
16.I have good control of my own emotions. 1234567
Notes :
Scales: SEA 51/C04; OEA 55/C08; ROE 59/C012; UOE 513/C016.
Reproduced with permission.
Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP)
(Jordan et al., 2002 ).
Variable
The WEIP is a self-report measure of the EI of work team members. It was constructed to tap emotion-related
intrapersonal and interpersonal abilities that contribute to performance within work teams.
Description
The WEIP conforms to Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) revised ability model, but focuses specifically on people’s
attitudes and behaviors in relation to work team members. There are 30 items with a 7-point response scale,
yielding a total EI score, two broad scale scores (Ability to deal with own emotions and the Ability to deal with
others’ emotions), and seven subscale scores: Awareness of own emotions, Ability to discuss own emotions,
Ability to use own emotions to facilitate thinking, Ability to recognize others’ emotions/detect false displays of
emotion, and Ability to manage others’ emotions.
A short version (WEIP-S) of 16 items was developed measuring four factors (four items each): Awareness of
own emotions, Management of own emotions, Awareness of others’ emotions, and Management of others’ emo-
tions ( Jordan & Lawrence, 2009 ). This four-factor structure was replicated with a Spanish translation of the
WEIP-S ( Lopez-Zafra, Martos, Martos, & Augusto-Landa, 2012 ).
Sample
Descriptive statistics were reported for total EI ( M5115.47, SD513.16) and the broad scales of Dealing with
own emotions ( M576.74, SD59.30, min. 57, max. 5126) and Dealing with others’ emotions ( M538.73,
SD55.88, min 57, max 5126). The shortened version (WEIP-S) development sample comprised 620 employees
of a large public sector organization ( Jordan & Lawrence, 2009 ). The means for the four factors were 4.14
(SD51.15) for Awareness of own emotions, 5.32 ( SD5.79) for Management of own emotions, 4.45 ( SD5.93) for
Awareness of others’ emotions, and 4.71 ( SD5.88) for Management of others’ emotions.
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Jordan and Troth (2004) reported Cronbach alpha coefficients for total EI ( α5.80), the two broad scales
(Dealing with own emotions α5.79, Dealing with others’ emotions α5.80), and the five subscales ( α5.71 to
.80). In the validation sample, Cronbach alphas for the WEIP-S factors were .85 for Awareness of own emotions,
.77 for Management of own emotions, .81 for Awareness of others’ emotions, and .81 for Management of others’
emotions.405 WORKPLACE-ORIENTED MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Test/C0Retest
In a sample of 99 employees, test /C0retest reliabilities over a four-month period ranged from .67 (Management
of own emotions) to .83 (Awareness of others’ emotions; Jordan & Lawrence, 2009 ). Over an eight-month period,
they ranged from .64 (Management of own emotions) to .80 (Awareness of own emotions), with a mean of .59.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Convergent validity was assessed with the TMMS. The WEIP scores had small-to-moderate correlations
with mood Clarity ( r5.17/C0.25) and Repair ( r5.22/C0.28), and non-significant correlations with Attention to
moods ( r5.03/C0.08). Similar correlations with the TMMS were observed for the Spanish version. Concurrent
validity was demonstrated through correlations with the self-monitoring ( r52.09 to .40), perspective taking
(r527. To .43), personal distress ( r52.25 to 2.31), creative thinking ( r5.29 to .34), and emotional control
(r5.24 to .29).
Divergent/Discriminant
The WEIP correlated weakly ( r5.23) with cognitive ability in one study ( Sue-Chan & Latham,
2004 ). In another study, two subscales (ability to express one’s own emotions and ability to identify
others’ emotions) showed non-significant correlations of .04 and 2.02, respectively, with the Wonderlic
Personnel Test.
Construct/Factor Analytic
Confirmatory factor analyses supported the scale’s four-factor model across two organizational samples, rela-
tive to competing models that were also tested ( Jordan & Lawrence, 2009 ). Model fit indices were χ2
(98)5271.33,
p,.001, RMSEA 5.05, SRMR 5.05, CFI 5.95, IFI 5.95, NFI 5.92, NNFI 5.94 for the first sample and
χ2
(98)5151.54, p,.001, RMSEA 5.05, SRMR 5.06, CFI 5.95, IFI 5.95, NFI 5.87, NNFI 5.94 for the second
sample.
Criterion/Predictive
The WEIP scores correlated moderately with team playing behavior ( r5.32), course grades ( r5.26;Sue-Chan
& Latham, 2004 ), and a dominant conflict resolution style ( r5.35;Jordan & Troth, 2004 ) for individuals. They
also predicted integrative problem solving ( r5.45) for teams ( Jordan & Troth, 2004 ).
Location
Jordan, P.J., & Lawrence, S.A. (2009) Emotional intelligence in teams: Development and initial validation of the
Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile /C0Short Version (WEIP-S). Journal of Management & Organization, 15 ,
452/C0469.
Results and Comments
Individuals high in the total EI score sought collaborative solutions when presented with conflict ( Jordan &
Troth, 2002, 2004 ), and the ability to deal with own, but not others’ emotions predicted work collaboration
(Jordan & Troth, 2002 ). In another study, EI completely mediated the relationship between the Situational
Interview and team-playing behavior ( Sue-Chan & Latham, 2004 ). In this latter study, EI was assessed through
WEIP peer ratings, yielding a high level of internal consistency ( α5.93).
WORKGROUP EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
PROFILE /C0SHORT VERSION
The questions in this survey ask you about your attitudes and behaviors in relation to team members in your
work unit. While you are completing these questions, please think about the immediate work unit in which you work
most of the time.
Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements about your feelings when working
with team members in your work unit.406 14. MEASURES OF ABILITY AND TRAIT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Strongly Disagree Disagree Not sure tend
to DisagreeNeither Agree
nor DisagreeNot sure tend
to AgreeAgree Strongly Agree
12 3 4 5 6 7
1.I respect the opinion of team members, even if I think they are wrong. 1234567
2.I can explain the emotions I feel to team members. 1234567
3.I can read my fellow team members ‘true’ feelings, even if they try to hide them. 1234567
4.I can discuss the emotions I feel with other team members. 1234567
5.When I am frustrated with fellow team members, I can overcome my frustration. 1234567
6.I am able to describe accurately the way others in the team are feeling. 1234567
7.When deciding on a dispute, I try to see all sides of a disagreement before
I come to a conclusion.1234567
8.My enthusiasm can be contagious for members of my team. 1234567
9.When I talk to a team member I can gauge their true feelings from their
body language.1234567
10.If I feel down, I can tell team members what will make me feel better. 1234567
11.I can tell when team members don’t mean what they say. 1234567
12.I am able to cheer team members up when they are feeling down. 1234567
13.I can talk to other members of the team about the emotions I experience. 1234567
14.I can get my fellow team members to share my keenness for a project. 1234567
15.I can provide the ‘spark’ to get fellow team members enthusiastic. 1234567
16.I give a fair hearing to my fellow team members’ ideas. 1234567
Notes :
Scales:
Awareness of Own Emotions 52, 4, 10, 13
Management of Own Emotions 51, 5, 7, 16
Awareness of Others’ Emotions 53, 6, 9 ,11
Management of Others’ Emotions 58, 12, 14, 15
The various WEIP versions should be requested from the authors.
Reproduced with permission.
Multidimensional Emotional Intelligence Assessment (MEIA)
(Tett et al., 2005 ).
Variable
The MEIA is based on a multidimensional conceptualization of EI again aligned to Salovey and Mayer’s (1990)
model. Assessed through self-report, EI is viewed as a trait-like quality pertaining to the capacity and willingness
to deal with emotions in the self and others.
Description
The MEIA consists of 150 items measuring 10 distinct dimensions. The items are rated on 6-point Likert-type
response scales, ranging from strongly disagree tostrongly agree . Consistent with their multidimensional view of
EI, the scale developers aimed to build the 10 dimensions such that they are maximally distinct from each other.
The 10 dimensions are grouped into core EI facets and proximal EI outcomes. The core EI facets are Recognition
of Emotion in the Self, Regulation of Emotion in the Self, Recognition of Emotion in Others, Regulation of
Emotion in Others, Nonverbal Emotional Expression, and Empathy. The proximal EI outcomes are Intuition vs.
Reason, Creative Thinking, Mood Redirected Attention, and Motivating Emotions.
A version developed for workplace applications, the MEIA-W (122 items), has been adapted from the original
version. Items of the MEIA-W are placed in a work context. Both versions are available for individuals 16 years
and older.407 WORKPLACE-ORIENTED MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Sample
In an American student sample, aged 18 to 20 years (54% female), the 6-point scale means ranged from 3.30
(SD5.69) to 3.72 ( SD5.67) among the six core dimensions and from 3.15 ( SD5.61) to 3.85 ( SD5.63) among the
four proximal outcomes ( Tett & Fox, 2006 ). In a sample of 225 American and Australian workers from different
sectors (50.5% female), the core-dimension scale means ranged from 3.81 ( SD5.58) to 4.54 ( SD5.69), whereas
proximate-outcome scale means ranged from 3.12 ( SD5.67) to 4.73 ( SD5.61;Tett & Fox, 2006 ).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Cronbach alpha coefficients for the 10 MEIA dimensions averaged .79 and ranged from .74 to .83 ( Tett & Fox,
2006 ). In independent studies, the alpha coefficients have ranged from .82 to .90 ( Gardner & Qualter, 2010 ) and
from .74 to .84 ( Barchard & Christensen, 2007 ). Alpha coefficients for the MEIA-W ranged from .61 to .88, with a
mean level of .75 ( Tett & Fox, 2006 ).
Test/C0Retest
The test /C0retest reliability coefficients ranged from .67 to .88 with a median of .76 over a period of four to six
weeks ( Tett et al., 2005 ).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
The MEIA correlated strongly with the TEIQue ( r5.77) and the AES ( r5.84;Gardner & Qualter, 2010 ).
Divergent/Discriminant
The dimensions showed low to moderate correlations with social desirability ( r5.00 to .38; Tett et al., 2005 ).
Discriminant correlations with other relevant constructs (e.g., ability EI, cognitive ability) have not been
examined.
Construct/Factor Analytic
Results from a 10-factor confirmatory factor analysis [Satorra-Bentler scaled χ2
(332)5674.93, p,.001;
RMSEA 5.05, CFI 5.93, SMRMR 5.05] and small to moderate intercorrelations ( r5.04 to .62) among the 10 dimen-
sions provided evidence that the 10 dimensions of the MEIA are distinguishable ( Barchard & Christensen, 2007 ).
This independent study also supported a higher-order model of three factors (Self Orientation, Other Orientation,
and Emotional Sharing), Satorra-Bentler scaled χ2
(128)5282.29, p,.001, RMSEA 5.05, CFI 5.95, SMRMR 5.06,
AIC526.29, which is consistent with the model that was empirically derived during scale development ( Tett et al.,
2005) and subsequently confirmed in a different sample ( Tett & Fox, 2006 ). However, the results indicated that
higher-order factors cannot account for the associations among the 10 dimensions ( Barchard & Christensen, 2007 ).
Criterion/Predictive
The MEIA scores predicted a diverse range of social and emotional criteria ( β5.04 to .26 for the global score),
which were assessed concurrently ( Gardner & Qualter, 2010 ). They also predicted incremental variance in many
of these criteria over personality.
Location
Tett, R.P., Fox, K.E., & Wang, A. (2005). Development and validation of a self-report measure of emotional
intelligence as a multidimensional trait domain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31 , 859/C0888.
Results and Comments
The MEIA is a relatively recent addition to the list of EI measures and its evidence base seems to be growing.
Gardner and Qualter (2010) found the concurrent predictive effects of the MEIA to be consistently lower than
those of the TEIQue but higher than those of the AES across a range of outcomes (e.g., anger, loneliness, alcohol
abuse, and happiness). The incremental predictive effects over gender, age, and the Big Five were similar to those
of the AES.
Notes : Both versions are available through Sigma Assessment Systems Inc. ( www.sigmaassessmentsystems.
com). Sample items for each dimension can be found in Tett and Fox (2006) .408 14. MEASURES OF ABILITY AND TRAIT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Genos Emotional Intelligence Inventory (Genos EI)
(Palmer & Stough, 2006 ).
Variable
EI as measured with the Genos EI is broadly defined as ‘the ability to purposely adapt, shape, and select envir-
onments through the use of emotionally relevant processes’ ( Gignac, 2010 , p. 1). However, the developers have
emphasized the focus on ‘typical EI performance’ as opposed to ‘maximal EI performance’, measuring the fre-
quency of emotionally intelligent workplace behaviors.
Description
The Genos EI is the successor of the 64-item Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT). The
measure was designed for the identification, selection, and development of employees. Similar to the more gen-
eral TEIQue, the Genos EI model was derived from a comprehensive analysis of other EI measures. Seventy items
are evenly distributed across seven dimensions: Emotional Self-Awareness, Emotional Expression, Emotional
Awareness of Others, Emotional Reasoning, Emotional Self-Management, Emotional Management of Others, and
Emotional Self-Control. The items have a 5-point Likert response scale, ranging from 1 ( Almost Never )t o5
(Almost Always ), and yield a Total EI score, seven subscale scores, an inconsistency index score, and two socially
desirable responding scores.
Two abbreviated versions of 31 and 14 items have been developed for use in research contexts.
Sample
The normative sample consists of 4775 individuals (52.9% female), recruited from research, workshop, and
professional settings in mostly industrialized countries across the world. The sample has an age range of 18 to 76
years ( M541.5, SD59.62), making the measure administrable to adults (18 1years) from the general workforce.
Furthermore, the sample is representative of various educational levels, occupations, role levels (e.g. CEOs and
employees), and industries.
The overall sample has a mean Total EI score of 270.13 ( SD527.76) and subscale scores range from 38.36
(SD54.72) for Emotional Self-Management to 41.94 ( SD54.56) for Emotional Self-Awareness. The score ranges
are 7 to 350 for Total EI and 1 to 70 for the seven subscales ( Palmer, Stough, Harmer, & Gignac, 2009 ).
The Concise Version has a Total EI normative sample mean of 121.86 ( SD513.84), with subscale means rang-
ing from 15.75 ( SD55.89) for Emotional Self-Control to 20.16 ( SD56.65) for Emotional Reasoning. The score
ranges for this version are 7 to 217 for Total EI and 1 to 4 or 5 for the subscales. Total EI as measured with the
Short Version (score range: 7 /C098) had a sample mean of 55.88 ( SD56.67; Palmer et al., 2009 ).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
The mean Cronbach alpha coefficient was .96 for Total EI, ranging from .71 to .85 across subscales ( Palmer
et al., 2009 ).
The Concise Version exhibited alpha coefficients of .93 for Total EI and .71 to .75 for the subscales. The alpha
coefficient of the Short Version was .87 ( Palmer et al., 2009 ).
Test/C0Retest
Correlations between Total EI scores were examined at 2- and 8-month intervals, reaching high stability levels
of .83 and .72, respectively ( Gignac, 2010 ).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
The Total EI score correlated significantly with the SUEIT. The seven-factor model, as uncovered in the SUEIT,
also showed a high level of shared variance (46.2%) with the TMMS scores in a sample of Australian female man-
agers ( Taylor, Bagby, & Parker, 2003 ). Furthermore, the Genos EI correlated with different types of leadership,
a range of workplace-specific well-being indicators, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment
(Gignac, 2010 ).409 WORKPLACE-ORIENTED MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Divergent/Discriminant
Non-significant correlations with a transactional leadership style ( r52.01 to2.11) and modest correlations
with socially desirable responding ( r52.03 to .29) were reported ( Gignac, 2010 ). Of the Big Five personality
traits, only agreeableness correlated weakly with the Genos EI scores, showing average correlations of .10 and .17
across two samples (the other four factors reached moderate average correlations in at least one of the two sam-
ples; Gignac, 2010 ).
Construct/Factor Analytic
Confirmatory factor analyses showed that the Genos EI 7-factor model fit the normative sample ( N54775)
data significantly better than a range of competing models, CFI 5.95, RMSEA 5.07, SRMR 5.04 and TLI 5.93,
including the one underlying its predecessor, the SUEIT ( Gignac, 2010 ).
Criterion/Predictive
Job performance has been used as a general criterion for the predictive validity of the Genos EI ( Gignac, 2010 ).
Genos scores demonstrated considerable predictive and incremental validity, as evidenced through correlations
with sales performance when controlling for specific work-related behaviors (e.g., days on territory, length of
calls) and with annual revenue generation among recruitment consultants over and above the Big Five, intelli-
gence, and socially desirable responding.
Location
Gignac, G.E. (2010). Genos Emotional Intelligence Technical Manual (2nd edition). Sydney, NSW: Genos.
Results and Comments
The Genos EI is one of the most comprehensive workplace related measures of EI. As noted by the devel-
opers, further evidence of the inventory’s predictive v alidity is needed, taking a pr ocess-oriented approach
(e.g., using criteria such as dealing with unpredictab le situations, demonstrating cultural adaptability,
and learning new tasks and procedures successf ully) and not only an outcome-oriented approach ( Palmer
et al., 2009 ).
GENOS EI SAMPLE ITEMS
You are required to indica te on the response scale
how often you believe you demonstrate the behavior
i nq u e s t i o n .T h e r ea r ef i v ep o s s i b l er e s p o n s e st o
each statement (shown below). You are required to
circle the number that corresponds to your answer
where...
15Almost Never
25Seldom
35Sometimes
45Usually
55Almost Always
Emotional Self-Awareness: I fail to recognize how my
feelings drive my behavior at work.’*
Emotional Expression: ‘When I get frustrated with
something at work, I discuss my frustration
appropriately.’Emotional Awareness of Others: ‘I find it difficult to
identify the things that motivate people at work.’*
Emotional Reasoning: ‘I consider the way others may
react to decisions when communicating.’
Emotional Self-Management: ‘I engage in activities
that make me feel positive at work.’
Emotional Management of Others: ‘I am effective in
helping others feel positive at work.’
Emotional Self-Control: ‘I fail to control my temper
at work.’*
Notes :
*Reverse worded item.
The different Genos EI versions and the technical
manual (2nd edition; Gignac, 2010 ) are available from
Genos International at: www.genosinternational.com/
emotional-intelligence (Reproduced with permission).410 14. MEASURES OF ABILITY AND TRAIT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Research in the field of ability EI must continue to focus on the development of objective measurement and
scoring methods. Moreover, much of the research in this area is based on Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) four-
branch model, which either could be seen as overly restricting the EI construct or alternatively giving it a clear,
concise and precise definition. But as has been the case with intelligence, the construction of a theoretical model
of ability EI requires ongoing development. Taken together, it will be important to develop and compare different
maximum-performance measures of the same model to help disentangle the effects of measurement methods
and theoretical content.
Research in the field of trait EI would benefit from moving towards a unifying model and measurement
domain to be used as a common basis for all measures. The presence of several measures is important to the
extent that they are based on a single model, or at least a small set of competing models. Having numerous mea-
sures with varying measurement domains, on the other hand, complicates the comparison of scores and the accu-
mulation of findings. Greater certainty in the boundaries of the underlying dimension and confidence in the
uniquely representative facets is needed.
Considering the wealth of facets across, and even within trait EI measures, a key issue to address is the identi-
fication of facets that are primarily related to individual-difference dimensions other than the one targeted by the
research community (trait EI). The same applies to potentially redundant facets, whose general variance is effi-
ciently distributed across other facets. Both these types of facet lead to inadequate representations of the underly-
ing dimension and are prone to compromising the explanatory power and incremental validity of trait EI
(Siegling & Petrides, 2013 ).
References
Austin, E. J. (2010). Measurement of ability emotional intelligence: results for two new tests. British Journal of Psychology ,101, 563/C0578.
Austin, E. J., Parker, J. D. A., Petrides, K. V., & Saklofske, D. H. (2008). Emotional intelligence. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment (pp. 576 /C0596). London: Sage.
Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., Huang, S. H. S., & McKenney, D. (2004). Measurement of trait emotional intelligence: Testing and validating a
modified version of Schutte et al.’s (1998) measure. Personality and Individual Differences ,36, 555/C0562.
Bajgar, J., Ciarrochi, J., Lane, R., & Deane, F. (2005). Development of the Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale for Children (LEAS-C). British
Journal of Developmental Psychology ,23, 569/C0586.
Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) .Technical manual . Toronto: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.
Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory. In R. Bar-On, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.),
Handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 363 /C0388). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bar-On, R. (2002). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Short. Technical manual . Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). Psicothema ,18(Suppl), 13 /C025.
Bar-On, R., & Parker, J. D. A. (2000). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Youth version. Technical manual . Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Barchard, K. A., Bajgar, J., Leaf, D. E., & Lane, R. (2010). Computer scoring of the Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale. Behavior Research
Methods ,42, 586/C0595.
Barchard, K. A., & Christensen, M. M. (2007). Dimensionality and higher-order factor structure of self-reported emotional intelligence.
Personality and Individual Differences ,42, 971/C0985.
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin ,117, 187/C0215.
Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin ,29, 1147/C01158.
Brody, N. (2004). What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not. Psychological Inquiry ,15, 234/C0238.
Ciarrochi, J. V., Chan, A. Y. C., & Caputi, P. (2000). A critical evaluation of the emotional intelligence construct. Personality and Individual
Differences ,28, 539/C0561.
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 . Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cronbach, L. J. (1949). Essentials of psychological testing . New York: Harper and Row.
Dana, J. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: an integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology ,
95,5 4/C078.
Ekermans, G., Saklofske, D. H., Austin, E., & Stough, C. (2011). Measurement invariance and differential item functioning of the Bar-On EQ-i:S
measure over Canadian, Scottish, South African and Australian samples. Personality and Individual Differences ,50, 286/C0290.
Extremera, N., & Ferna ´ndez-Berrocal, P. (2005). Perceived emotional intelligence and life satisfaction: predictive and incremental validity using
the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. Personality and Individual Differences ,39, 937/C0948.
Fan, H., Jackson, T., Yang, X., Tang, W., & Zhang, J. (2010). The factor structure of the Mayer /C0Salovey /C0Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test V
2.0 (MSCEIT): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach. Personality and Individual Differences ,48, 781/C0785.411 REFERENCES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Feldman-Barrett, L., Lane, R. D., Sechrest, L., & Schwartz, G. E. (2000). Sex differences in emotional awareness. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulleting ,26, 1027/C01035.
Ferguson, F. J., & Austin, E. J. (2010). The factor structures of the STEM and the STEU. Personality and Individual Differences ,51, 791/C0794.
Ferna ´ndez-Berrocal, P., Extremera, N., & Ramos, N. (2004). Validity and reliability of the Spanish modified version of the Trait Meta-Mood
Scale. Psychological Reports ,94, 751/C0755.
Fiori, M., & Antonakis, J. (2011). The ability model of emotional intelligence: searching for valid measures. Personality and Individual Differences ,
50, 329/C0334.
Freudenthaler, H. H., & Neubauer, A. C. (2007). Measuring emotional management abilities: further evidence of the importance to distinguish
between typical and maximum performance. Personality and Individual Differences ,42, 1561/C01572.
Frewen, P., Lane, R. D., Neufeld, R. W. J., Densmore, M., Stevens, T., & Lanius, R. (2008). Neural correlates of levels of emotional awareness
during trauma script-imagery in posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychosomatic Medicine ,70,2 7/C031.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences . New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century . New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, K. J., & Qualter, P. (2010). Concurrent and incremental validity of three trait emotional intelligence measures. Australian Journal of
Psychology ,62,5/C013.
Gignac, G. E. (2010). Genos Emotional Intelligence Technical Manual (2nd edition). Sydney, NSW: Genos Press.
Gignac, G. E., Palmer, B. R., Manocha, R., & Stough, C. (2005). An examination of the factor structure of the Schutte Self-Report Emotional
Intelligence (SSREI) scale via confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences ,39, 1029/C01042.
Igarashi, T., Komaki, G., Lane, R. D., Moriguchi, Y., Nishimura, H., Arakawa, H., et al. (2011). The reliability and validity of the Japanese ver-
sion of the Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale (LEAS-J). BioPsychoSocial Medicine ,5,2 .
Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., Ha ¨rtel, C. E. J., & Hooper, G. (2002). Workgroup emotional intelligence: scale development and relationship to
team process effectiveness and goal focus. Human Resource Management Review ,12, 195/C0214.
Jordan, P. J., & Lawrence, S. A. (2009). Emotional intelligence in teams: Development and initial validation of the short version of the
Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S). Journal of Management & Organization ,15, 452/C0469.
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2002). Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution: Implications for Human Resource Development. Advances
in Developing Human Resources ,4,6 2/C079.
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2004). Managing emotions during team problem solving: emotional intelligence and conflict resolution. Human
Performance ,17, 195/C0218.
Lane, R. D., Quinlan, D. M., Schwartz, G. E., Walker, P. A., & Zeitlin, S. B. (1990). The levels of emotional awareness scale: a cognitive-
developmental measure of emotion. Journal of Personality Assessment ,55, 124/C0134.
Lane, R. D., & Schwartz, G. E. (1987). Levels of emotional awareness: a cognitive-developmental theory and its application to psychopathol-
ogy. American Journal of Psychiatry ,144, 133/C0143.
Lane, R. D., Sechrest, L., Riedel, R., Weldon, V., Kaszniak, A., & Schwartz, G. E. (1996). Impaired verbal and nonverbal emotion recognition in
alexithymia. Psychosomatic Medicine ,58, 203/C0210.
Livingstone, H. A., & Day, A. L. (2005). Comparing the construct and criterion-related validity of ability-based and mixed-model measures of
emotional intelligence. Educational and Psychological Measurement ,65, 757/C0779.
Lopez-Zafra, E., Martos, M. -P., Martos, M. P. B., & Augusto-Landa, J. M. (2012). Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Work
Group Emotional Intelligence Profile-Short version. Psicothema ,24, 495/C0502.
MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2008). New paradigms for assessing emotional intelligence: theory and data. Emotion ,8, 540/C0551.
Martins, A., Ramalho, N., & Morin, E. (2010). A comprehensive meta-analysis of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health.
Personality and Individual Differences ,49, 554/C0564.
Matthews, G., Emo, A. K., Funke, G., Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D., Costa, P. T., Jr., et al. (2006). Emotional intelligence, personality, and task-
induced stress. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied ,12,9 6/C0107.
Matthews, G., Roberts, R. D., & Zeidner, M. (2004). Seven myths about emotional intelligence. Psychological Inquiry ,15, 179/C0196.
Maul, A. (2012). The validity of the Mayer /C0Salovey /C0Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) as a measure of emotional intelligence.
Emotion Review ,4, 394/C0402.
Mavroveli, S., Petrides, K. V., Shove, C., & Whitehead, A. (2008). Validation of the construct of trait emotional intelligence in children.
European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry ,17, 516/C0526.
Mavroveli, S., & Sanchez-Ruiz, M. J. (2011). Trait emotional intelligence influences on academic achievement and school behavior. British
Journal of Educational Psychology ,81, 112/C0134.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey, & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intel-
ligence (pp. 3/C031). New York: Basic Books.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Models of emotional intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human intelligence
(pp. 396 /C0420). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer/C0Salovey /C0Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT): User’s manual . Toronto, Ontario:
Multi-Health Systems, Inc.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: theory, findings and implications. Psychological Inquiry ,15, 197/C0215.
Mikolajczak, M., Petrides, K. V., & Hurry, J. (2009). Adolescents choosing self-harm as an emotion regulation strategy: the protective role of
trait emotional intelligence. British Journal of Clinical Psychology ,48, 181/C0193.
Multi-Health Systems (2011). EQ-i Launch Kit. Retrieved from ,http://ei.mhs.com/EQi20.aspx ..
O’Boyle, E. H., Jr, Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011). The relation between emotional intelligence and job
performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior ,32, 788/C0818.
O’Sullivan, M. (2007). Trolling for trout, trawling for tuna: the methodological morass in measuring emotional intelligence. In G. Matthews,
M. Zeidner, & R. Roberts (Eds.), Emotional intelligence: Knowns and unknowns (pp. 258 /C0287). Oxford: OUP.412 14. MEASURES OF ABILITY AND TRAIT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
O’Sullivan, M., & Ekman, P. (2004). Facial expression recognition and emotional intelligence. In G. Geher (Ed.), Measuring emotional intelligence:
Common ground and controversy . Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishing.
Pace, V. L., & Brannick, M. T. (2010). How similar are personality scales of the ‘same’ construct? A meta-analytic investigation. Personality and
Individual Differences ,49, 669/C0676.
Palmer, B. R., Manocha, R., Gignac, G., & Stough, C. (2003). Examining the factor structure of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory with
an Australian general population sample. Personality and Individual Differences ,35, 1191/C01210.
Palmer, B. R., & Stough, C. (2006). Genos Emotional Intelligence Inventory . Sydney, NSW: Genos.
Palmer, B. R., Stough, C., Harmer, R., & Gignac, G. E. (2009). The Genos Emotional Intelligence Inventory: a measure designed specifically for
workplace applications. In C. Stough, D. H. Saklofske, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Assessing emotional intelligence: Theory, research, and applica-
tions (pp. 103 /C0117). New York: Springer.
Papadogiannis, P. K., Logan, D., & Sitarenios, G. (2009). An ability model of emotional intelligence: a rationale, description, and application of
the Mayer Salovey Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test. In C. Stough, D. H. Saklofske, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Assessing emotional intelli-
gence: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 43 /C065). New York: Springer.
Parker, J. D. A., Creque, R. E., Barnhart, D. L., Harris Irons, J., Majeski, S. A., Wood, L. M., et al. (2004). Academic achievement in high school:
does emotional intelligence matter? Personality and Individual Differences ,37, 1321/C01330.
Parker, J. D. A., Saklofske, D. H., Shaughnessy, P. A., Huang, S. H. S., Wood, L. M., & Eastabrook, J. M. (2005a). Generalizability of the emo-
tional intelligence construct: a crosscultural study of North American Aboriginal youth. Personality and Individual Differences ,39, 215/C0227.
Parker, J. D. A., Saklofske, D. H., Wood, L. M., Eastabrook, J. M., & Taylor, R. N. (2005b). Stability and change in emotional intelligence:
exploring the transition to young adulthood. Journal of Individual Differences ,26, 100/C0106.
Peters, C., Kanzler, J. H., & Rossen, E. (2009). Validity of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso emotional intelligence test: youth version /C0research edi-
tion. Canadian Journal of School Psychology ,24,7 6/C081.
Petrides, K. V. (2001). A psychometric investigation into the construct of emotional intelligence . Doctoral dissertation, University College London.
Petrides, K. V. (2009). Technical manual for the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaires (TEIQue) . London: London Psychometric Laboratory.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies.
European Journal of Personality ,15, 425/C0448.
Petrides, K. V., Pe ´rez-Gonza ´lez, J. C., & Furnham, A. (2007). On the criterion and incremental validity of trait emotional intelligence. Cognition
and Emotion ,21,2 6/C055.
Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British Journal of
Psychology ,98, 273/C0289.
Petrides, K. V., Sangareau, Y., Furnham, A., & Frederickson, N. (2006). Trait emotional intelligence and children’s peer relations at school.
Social Development ,15, 537/C0547.
Riggio, R. E., & Carney, D. R. (2003). Social skills inventory manual (2nded.). Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.
Roberts, R. D., Schulze, R., & MacCann, C. (2008). The measurement of emotional intelligence: a decade of progress? In G. J. Boyle, G.
Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment, Vol. 2: Personality measurement and testing
(pp. 461 /C0482). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Roberts, R. D., Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2001). Does emotional intelligence meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data
and conclusions. Emotion ,1, 196/C0231.
Roseman, I. J. (2001). A model of appraisal in the emotion system: integrating theory, research, and applications. In K. R. Scherer, & A. Schorr
(Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 68 /C091). New York: Oxford University Press.
Saklofske, D. H., Austin, E. J., & Minski, P. S. (2003). Factor structure and validity of a trait emotional intelligence measures. Personality and
Individual Differences ,34, 1091/C01100.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality ,9, 185/C0211.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S. L., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. P. (1995). Emotional attention, clarity, and repair: exploring emotional intelli-
gence using the trait meta-mood scale. In J. W. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure, and health (pp. 125 /C0154). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Salovey, P., Stroud, L. R., Woolery, A., & Epel, E. S. (2002). Perceived emotional intelligence, stress reactivity, and symptom reports: further
explorations using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. Psychology and Health ,17, 611/C0627.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., & Bhullar, N. (2009). The Assessing Emotions Scale. In C. Stough, D. H. Saklofske, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.),
Assessing emotional intelligence: theory, research, and applications (pp. 119 /C0134). New York, NY, US: Springer Science 1Business Media; US.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., et al. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of
emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences ,25, 167/C0177.
Siegling, A. B., & Petrides, K. V. (July, 2013). A criterion-referenced approach to developing the content domain of trait emotional intelligence . Paper
presented at the meeting of the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences, Barcelona, Spain.
Stough, C., Saklofske, D. H., & Parker, J. D. A. (2009). A brief analysis of 20 years of emotional intelligence: an introduction to Assessing
Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Research, and Applications. In C. Stough, D. H. Saklofske, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Assessing emotional intel-
ligence: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 119 /C0134). New York: Springer.
Sue-Chan, C., & Latham, G. P. (2004). The Situational Interview as a predictor of academic and team performance: a study of the mediating
effects of cognitive ability and emotional intelligence. International Journal of Selection and Assessment ,12, 312/C0320.
Taylor, G. J., Bagby, R. M., & Parker, J. D. A. (2003). The 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale /C0IV. Reliability and factorial validity in different
languages and cultures. Journal of Psychosomatic Research ,55, 277/C0283.
Tett, R. P., & Fox, K. E. (2006). Confirmatory facture structure of Trait Emotional Intelligence in student and worker samples. Personality and
Individual Differences ,41, 1155/C01168.
Tett, R. P., Fox, K. E., & Wang, A. (2005). Development and validation of a self-report measure of emotional intelligence as a multidimensional
trait domain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin ,31, 859/C0888.413 REFERENCES
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
Thompson, B. L., Waltz, J., Croyle, K., & Pepper, A. C. (2007). Trait meta-mood and affect as predictors of somatic symptoms and life satisfac-
tion. Personality and Individual Differences ,43, 1786/C01795.
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harper’s Magazine ,140, 227/C0235.
Veirman, E., Brouwers, S. A., & Fontaine, J. R. J. (2011). The assessment of emotional awareness in children. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment ,27, 265/C0273.
Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., & Vernon, P. A. (2008). What makes you think you’re so smart? Measured abilities, personality, and sex differ-
ences as correlates of self-estimates of multiple intelligences. Journal of Individual Differences ,29,3 5/C044.
Watson, D. (2000). Mood and temperament . New York: Guilford Press.
Wilhelm, O. (2005). Measures of emotional intelligence: practice and standards. In R. Schulze, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), International handbook of
emotional intelligence (pp. 131 /C0154). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
Windingstad, S., McCallum, R. S., Mee Bell, S., & Dunn, P. (2011). Measures of emotional intelligence and social acceptability in children: a
concurrent validity study. Canadian Journal of School Psychology ,26, 107/C0126.
Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study.
The Leadership Quarterly ,13(3), 243 /C0274. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00099-1 .
Wood, L. M., Parker, J. D. A., & Keefer, K. V. (2009). Assessing emotional intelligence using the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) and
related instruments. In C. Stough, D. H. Saklofske, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Assessing emotional intelligence: Theory, research, and applications
(pp. 67 /C084). New York, NY: Springer.414 14. MEASURES OF ABILITY AND TRAIT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
III. EMOTION REGULATION |
CHAPTER
15
Measures of Adult Attachment
and Related Constructs
Marı´a T eresa Frı ´as1, Phillip R. Shaver1and Mario Mikulincer2
1University of California, Davis, CA, USA;2Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, Herzliya, Israel
Attachment theory (e.g., Bowlby, 1980, 1982) has become one of the most influential conceptual frameworks
for studying relationships across the lifespan ( Cassidy & Shaver, 2008 ). The theory was first proposed by a
British psychoanalyst, John Bowlby, to explain the formation and continuing significance of emotional bonds
between human children and their primary caregivers (usually the parents), who are thought to provide a child
with a ‘safe haven’ in times of threat or distress and a ‘secure base’ from which to explore the world and develop
intellectual, physical, and social skills. When threats or troubles arise, an infant typically signals or approaches a
specific significant other (an ‘attachment figure,’ in the theory’s terms), for protection, comfort, and assistance
with emotion regulation. Over time, experiences and expectations established in these early attachment relation-
ships become guidelines for how information about important relationships established and maintained across
the lifespan is to be encoded, processed, interpreted, stored in memory, and acted on (e.g., Bowlby, 1982).
The nature, dynamics, and relational implications of attachment bonds in adulthood, especially in ‘romantic’ or
couple relationships, have been extensively studied (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007 ).
Bowlby proposed that encounters with physical or psychological dangers and threats (strangers, predators, or
being tired, hungry, ill, alarmed, or uncertain about an attachment figure’s whereabouts) automatically activate a
child’s attachment system. That is, humans are innately motivated to seek proximity and comfort from familiar
others when they feel threatened. Repeated interactions with available and responsive individuals lead to the for-
mation of relatively secure attachment bonds with those individuals. But when a person’s attachment figures are
not reliably available and supportive /C0that is, when a stable sense of security is not attained /C0serious doubts
about the effectiveness of seeking proximity to caring others are aroused. This can result in either hyperactivation
or deactivation of a person’s attachment behavioral system (the hypothetical innate physiological system that
underlies attachment behavior). Hyperactivation is indicated by energetic, anxious, or intrusive attempts to force
a relationship partner to pay more attention and provide better care. Deactivation involves the suppression
or inhibition of support-seeking tendencies and is indicated by what Bowlby called intimacy ‘avoidance’ and
‘compulsive self-reliance.’
Bowlby believed that a particular history of attachment experiences shapes a person’s ‘internal working mod-
els’ of self and relationship partners, which govern expectations and emotional reactions in close relationships.
These models account for relatively stable individual differences in attachment orientations, which can be mea-
sured along two dimensions: attachment anxiety and attachment-related avoidance ( Brennan, Clark, & Shaver,
1998 ). Parenthetically, we prefer not to use the common term ‘attachment avoidance,’ because, theoretically
speaking, the individuals we are calling ‘avoidant’ do not avoid attachment itself, but act avoidantly in attach-
ment relationships.
A person’s position on the anxiety dimension indicates the degree to which he or she worries that a partner
will not be available and supportive in times of need, which heightens efforts to demand and maintain the
417Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386915-9.00015-2 ©2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
partner’s attention. A person’s position on the avoidance dimension indicates the extent to which he or she
distrusts the partners’ goodwill and ability to help, which heightens efforts to maintain a safe degree of mental
privacy, behavioral independence, and self-reliance.
MEASURES REVIEWED HERE
Here we review self-report measures of individual differences in attachment orientations, or styles /C0differ-
ences in security, attachment anxiety, and avoidance. We also review measures of individual differences in the
functioning of other ‘behavioral systems’ (Bowlby, 1982) such as caregiving and power.
Measures of Attachment Orientation or Attachment Style
1.Romantic Attachment Categories ( Hazan & Shaver, 1987 )
2.Adult Attachment Scale ( Collins, 1996; Collins & Read, 1990 )
3.Relationships Questionnaire ( Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991 )
4.Attachment Style Questionnaire ( Feeney, Noller, & Hanrahan, 1994 )
5.Adult Attachment Questionnaire ( Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996 )
6.Experiences in Close Relationships ( Brennan et al., 1998 )
7.Experiences in Close Relationships /C0Revised ( Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000 )
8.Experiences in Close Relationships /C0Relationship Structures Questionnaire ( Fraley, Heffernan, Vicary, &
Brumbaugh, 2011 )
9.State Adult Attachment Measure ( Gillath, Hart, Noftle, & Stockdale, 2009 )
10.Pet Attachment Questionnaire ( Zilcha-Mano, Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2011 )
Behavioral Systems Scales
1.Caregiving System Scale ( Shaver, Mikulincer, & Shemesh-Iron, 2010 )
2.Social Support Scale Based on Attachment Theory ( Frı´as, Shaver, & Dı ´az-Loving, 2014 )
3.Power Behavioral System Scale ( Shaver, Segev, & Mikulincer, 2011 )
OVER VIEW OF THE MEASURES
Measures of Attachment Orientation or Attachment Style
Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) first observed and named different patterns of attachment between
infants and their primary caregivers, or attachment figures. When Hazan and Shaver (1987) began to study simi-
lar patterns in the context of adolescent and adult romantic relationships, they created a measure of Romantic
Attachment Categories modeled on Ainsworth’s three infant categories: secure, anxious, and avoidant.
Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) made a case for a four-category classification system, based on two underly-
ing dimensions. Over time, many other researchers created continuous multi-item measures of these or related
dimensions. In 1998, Brennan et al. factor-analyzed items from the measures created up to that time, finding two
higher-level factors similar to the ones underlying Bartholomew and Horowitz’s classification system, which
Brennan et al. called anxiety and avoidance. We include here various measures representing the history of mea-
sure development. As research on adolescent and adult attachment continued over the years, researchers realized
that besides being attached to other people, a person can be ‘attached’ to pets. We therefore include a measure of
that kind of attachment. Researchers, especially experimentalists, also needed a measure of ‘state’ attachment
security, anxiety, and avoidance, and we have included one such measure, the State Adult Attachment Measure
(SAAM; Gillath et al., 2009 ).
Behavioral Systems Scales
Because it is often important to measure a person’s orientation, not just as someone who is emotionally
attached to someone else, but also as someone who is serving as an attachment figure or caregiver for someone
else. Bowlby (1982) theorized that human beings possess an innate caregiving behavioral system, just as they pos-
sess an innate attachment behavioral system. In couple relationships, such as marriages, it is especially important418 15. MEASURES OF ADULT ATTACHMENT AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
to map a person’s orientation to both attachment and caregiving. We have therefore included two measures
related to caregiving. Possible additional behavioral systems have been proposed in recent years, one having to
do with power in relationships, so we have included, as an example, a measure of power orientations.
MEASURES OF ATTACHMENT ORIENTATION OR ATTACHMENT STYLE
Romantic Attachment Categories (RAC)
(Hazan & Shaver, 1987 ).
Variable
Hazan and Shaver (1987) were the first to explore the possibility that romantic love is an attachment process
and that the attachment patterns identified by Ainsworth et al. (1978) in studies of infant /C0mother attachment are
evident in adult romantic relationships. Hazan and Shaver translated the key features of the three infant attach-
ment patterns /C0secure, anxious, and avoidant /C0into terms appropriate for adult romantic love (or romantic
attachment).
Description
In the original RAC measure ( Hazan & Shaver, 1987 ), participants were asked to choose which of three cate-
gorical descriptions fit them best, but in many later studies, investigators have asked for scaled ratings of the
self-applicability of each description (using either categorical disagree/agree scales or ordinal scales ranging
from ‘not at all like me’ to ‘very much like me’).
Sample
Initial validation of this measure was based on the responses of 620 men and women, ranging in age from 14
to 82 years ( M536), who completed a newspaper survey questionnaire. In Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) initial
study, 56% of the participants classified themselves as secure, 25% as avoidant, and 19% as anxious (cf. Campos
et al., 1983). Hazan and Shaver (1987) also undertook a replication study involving 108 undergraduate students
(M518 years).
Reliability
This measure has a vignette format. There is no way to compute reliability.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
As evidence of convergent/concurrent validity, attachment style classifications using the RAC have been
highly associated with other attachment style measures such as the Adult Attachment Style Measure (AAS;
Collins, 1996 ).Collins and Read (1990) found that participants who classified themselves as secure on the RAC
scored more highly on Collins and Read’s close (i.e., secure) subscale than did participants who classified them-
selves as anxious or avoidant, F(2, 110)514.31, p,.01. Participants who classified themselves as anxious on the
RAC also scored more highly on Collins and Read’s anxiety subscale than did secure individuals, F(2,110)56.62,
p,.01. Finally, participants who classified themselves as avoidant on the RAC scored lower on Collins and
Read’s depend subscale than did secure or anxious individuals, F(2,110)58.04, p,.05.
Divergent/Discriminant
As evidence of discriminant validity, Hazan and Shaver (1990), for example, reported that a sample of secure
participants scored lower on measures of loneliness and depression, F(2,658)560.73, p,.001; anxiety,
F(2,658)542.87, p,.001; hostility, F(2,658)516.64, p,.001; psychosomatic illness, F(2,658)519.50, p,.001; and phys-
ical illness, F(2,658)510.40, p,.001, than insecure participants, whether anxious or avoidant.
Construct/Factor Analytic
Because the RAC is a categorical measure, factor analyses are not readily applicable.419 MEASURES OF ATTACHMENT ORIENTATION OR ATTACHMENT STYLE
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
Criterion/Predictive
As evidence of criterion/predictive validity, several studies (e.g., Shaver & Brennan, 1992) have shown
that the RAC differentially predicts relationship-related constructs with the Big Five personality factors
statistically controlled.
Location
Hazan, C. & Shaver, P.R. (1987) Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process . Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 52 , 511/C0524.
Results and Comments
These results using the RAC support Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) proposal that romantic love can be conceptu-
alized as an attachment process and that adult attachment styles resemble the infant attachment patterns
described by Ainsworth et al. (1978) . Other researchers have noted, however, that it would be more precise to
use continuous, multi-item measures of the dimensions underlying attachment patterns, and several alternative
measures have been created over the years, several of which are described below.
ROMANTIC ATTACHMENT CATEGORIES
Avoidant
I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others. I
find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to
allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when
anyone gets too close, and often, love partners want me
to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.
Anxious
I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I
would like. I often worry that my partner doesn’t reallylove me or won’t want to stay with me. I want to merge
completely with another person [later changed to: I
want to get very close to my partner], and this desire
sometimes scares people away.
Secure
I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am
comfortable depending on them and having them
depend on me. I don’t often worry about being aban-
doned or about someone getting too close to me.
Note: Reproduced with permission.
Adult Attachment Scale (AAS)
(Collins, 1996; Collins & Read, 1990 ).
Variable
Collins and Read (1990, p. 644) ‘developed a multi-item scale to measure dimensions underlying adult attach-
ment styles to replace Hazan and Shaver’s discrete, categorical measure. Based on multi-sentence type descrip-
tions, Collins and Read (1990) had argued that there were limitations to a categorical measure.’ Since each type
description contained statements about more than one aspect of relationships (e.g., being comfortable with close-
ness and being able to depend on others), respondents therefore had to accept an entire description that may not
have reflected their position on all facets, and likewise, researchers were unable to assess the degree to which a
particular style characterized a particular person. Moreover, the categorical measure assumed that there were
three mutually exclusive attachment styles, making it difficult to examine possible relations among styles or to
evaluate whether there were actually just three adult attachment patterns. For these reasons, Collins and Read
(1990) sought to develop a more sensitive measure of adult romantic attachment styles, which was subsequently
revised by Collins (1996) .
Description
The 18-item AAS was originally constructed by Collins and Read (1990) , based on Hazan and Shaver’s (1987)
Following factor analysis with oblique rotation ( N5406), three subscales were elucidated (each with 6 items): (a)
theClose subscale concerns comfort with closeness and intimacy; (b) the Depend subscale assesses comfort with
depending on others and the belief that partners can be relied upon when needed; and (c) the Anxiety subscale420 15. MEASURES OF ADULT ATTACHMENT AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
measures the extent to which a person is worried about being rejected and abandoned (Collins & Read, Table 2;
cf.Collins, 1996 , pp. 814 /C0815). Respondents rate each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Collins (1996) revised
the scale by replacing a few items to improve reliability and validity. The revised 18-item version correlated .98
with the original version ( N5295).
Sample
Collins and Read (1990) collected data from 406 undergraduates (184 males; 206 females) ranging in age from
17 to 37 years ( M518.8 years). In a second study, Collins and Read utilized a sample of 118 undergraduates
ranging in age from 17 to 24 years ( M518.6 years). In a third study, Collins and Read employed a sample of 71
dating couples ranging in age from 18 /C044 years ( M522 years). Subsequently, Collins (1996) utilized samples of
135 undergraduates (53 male; 82 female) ranging in age from 18 to 25 years ( M518.7 years), of whom, 55% were
in a romantic relationship. In a replication study, Collins (p. 821) utilized a further sample of 129 undergraduates
(56 male; 73 female) ranging in age from 17 to 30 years ( M519.2 years).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Collins and Read (1990, p. 646) reported Cronbach alpha coefficients for the three subscales (Close, Depend,
and Anxiety) of .69, .75, and .72, respectively ( N5406). Subsequently, Collins (1996, p. 814) reported alpha coeffi-
cients of .77, .78, and .85, respectively. In the Collins (1996) replication study ( N5129), alpha coefficients for the
three subscales were found to be .82, .80, and .83, respectively (Collins, p. 821).
Test/C0Retest
A subset ( N5101) of Collins and Read’s (1990) sample completed the AAS again two months later. Stability
coefficients for Close, Depend, and Anxiety subscales were found to be .68, .71, and .52, respectively (Collins &
Read, p. 647).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Positive correlations indicative of convergent/concurrent validity were reported by Collins and Read (1990,
Table 8, p. 652) . Subsequently, in a sample of 135 undergraduates, the Close and Depend subscales of the AAS
correlated .53 with each other ( Collins, 1996 , p. 814). In the replication sample of 129 undergraduates, the Close
and Depend subscales correlated .67 (Collins, p. 821). Also, positive associations between the Close and Depend
subscales and other measures of adult attachment have been reported. Thus, the Close subscale correlated posi-
tively (.25 with love/security, .29 with responsive/dependable, .16 with self-worth/reliance, .15 with trust, .30
with partner warmth/closeness, and .26 with minimizing negative impact). Likewise, the Depend subscale corre-
lated positively (.27 with love/security, .16 with responsive/dependable, .14 with self-worth/reliance, .17 with
trust, .38 with partner warmth/closeness, .28 with minimizing negative impact) ( Collins, 1996 , p. 816). Additional
positive correlations with various other measures indicative of convergent/concurrent validity also have been
reported (see Collins, 1996 , Table 2).
Divergent/Discriminant
Numerous negligible or negative correlations indicative of divergent/discriminant validity had been reported
byCollins and Read (1990, Table 8, p. 652) . Subsequently, Collins (1996, p. 814) reported that the Anxiety sub-
scale correlated 2.34 with the Close subscale, and 2.46 with the Depend subscale. In the replication sample, the
Anxiety subscale correlated 2.28 with the Close subscale, and 2.46 with the Depend subscale (Collins, p. 821).
As well, Collins (p. 816) reported ( N5135) that the Anxiety subscale correlated 2.25 with love/security, 2.21
with responsive/dependable, 2.20 with self-worth/reliance, 2.18 with trust, 2.34 with partner warmth/close-
ness, and 2.27 with minimizing negative impact. Additional negligible or negative correlations with various
other measures indicative of divergent/discriminant validity also have been reported (see Collins, 1996 , Table 2).
Construct/Factor Analytic
As indicated above, in constructing the original AAS, Collins and Read (1990) conducted an exploratory factor
analysis with oblique rotation ( N5406) based on the 21 321 item intercorrelation matrix and extracted three fac-
tors that clearly defined the AAS structure (see Collins & Read, Table 2, p. 647, for the factor loadings on each of421 MEASURES OF ATTACHMENT ORIENTATION OR ATTACHMENT STYLE
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
the original 198 items). ‘Factor 1 (Depend) and Factor 3 (Close) were moderately correlated (.41)’ suggesting
some measurement overlap between these two AAS subscales. Subsequently, Collins (1996, pp. 814 /C0815,
N5295) confirmed the tripartite structure of the AAS (based on a factor analysis of the revised items).
Criterion/Predictive
Evidence of predictive validity was reported by Collins (1996, Table 5, p. 823) . For example, as predictors of
scores on the Anxiety subscale, the standardized beta coefficients were as follows: love/security ( 2.22), respon-
sive/dependable ( 2.24), self-worth/reliance ( 2.18), trust ( 2.23), partner warmth/closeness ( 2.29), and mini-
mizing negative impact ( 2.21). In contrast, there were no significant predictors for scores on the Close/Depend
subscales. Further evidence of predictive validity in relation to predicting scores on measures of attributions,
emotions, and behavioral intentions was provided by Collins (Table 6, p. 824).
Location
Collins, N.L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 , 810/C0832.
Results and Comments
The three AAS subscales can be used as continuous measures of the dimensions underlying differences in
adult attachment patterns (comfort with closeness, comfort with depending on others, and fear of rejection).
Second, scores on the AAS can be used to place people into discrete attachment-style categories (secure, avoidant,
preoccupied or anxious). As the Close and Depend subscales correlate closely with each other, in some studies
(e.g., Collins, Feeney, and Brooke, 2000 ) they have been collapsed into a single dimension, making the resultant
two subscales similar to the ECR scales described below.
ADULT ATTACHMENT SCALE
Instructions: Please read each of the following state-
ments and rate the extent to which it describes your
feelings about romantic relationships. Please think
about all your relationships (past and present) and
respond in terms of how you generally feel in these
relationships. If you have never been involved in a
romantic relationship, answer in terms of how you
think you would feel.
1.I find it relatively easy to get close to people.
2.I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on
others.
3.I often worry that romantic partners don’t really
love me.
4.I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I
would like.
5.I am comfortable depending on others.
6.I don’t worry about people getting too close to me.
7.I find that people are never there when you need
them.
8.I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to
others.
9.I often worry that romantic partners won’t want to
stay with me.
10.When I show my feelings for others, I’m afraid they
will not feel the same about me.
11.I often wonder whether romantic partners really
care about me.12.I am comfortable developing close relationships
with others.
13.I am uncomfortable when anyone gets too
emotionally close to me.
14.I know that people will be there when I need them.
15.I want to get close to people, but I worry about
being hurt.
16.I find it difficult to trust others completely.
17.Romantic partners often want me to be emotionally
closer than I feel comfortable being.
18.I am not sure that I can always depend on people to
be there when I need them.
Notes : Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from: 1 5Not at all characteristic to 5 5Very
characteristic.
Items 1, 5, 6, 12, and 14 are reverse-keyed prior to
computing the subscale scores.
The Close score is computed by averaging items 1, 6,
8, 12, 13, and 17. Higher scores indicate greater dis-
comfort with closeness and intimacy.
The Depend score is computed by averaging items 2,
5, 7, 14, 16, and 18. Higher scores reflect greater dis-
comfort depending on others.
The Anxiety score is computed by averaging items 3,
4, 9, 10, 11, and 15. Higher scores reflect greater fear
of being rejected or unloved.
Reproduced with permission.422 15. MEASURES OF ADULT ATTACHMENT AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
Relationships Questionnaire (RQ)
(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991 ).
Variable
Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) proposed a four-category model of adult attachment styles, corresponding to
the four types that can be logically derived from crossing two dimensions that can be labeled either as anxiety and
avoidance or, as Bartholomew (1990) suggested, model of self and model of others (following Bowlby’s conception
of internal working models). This framework distinguishes between what Bartholomew (1990) called dismissingly
avoidant individuals and fearfully avoidant individuals. The former, as shown in the Figure, tend to hold a positive
model of the self and a negative model of others, whereas the latter tend to hold negative models both of the self
and others. Hence, fearfully avoidant individuals share with preoccupied individuals (those anxious but not avoi-
dant) their negative self-models, but differ from them in having a negative model of others as well.
FOUR-CATEGORY MODEL OF ATTACHMENT STYLES
(BARTHOLOMEW & HOROWITZ, 1991 )
Model of OtherModel of Self
Positive Negative
PositiveSecure
Comfortable with
intimacy and autonomyPreoccupied
Preoccupied with
relationships
NegativeDismissing
Dismissing of intimacy
and counter-dependentFearful
Fearful of intimacy and
socially avoidant
Description
According to Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991, p. 229) , the RQ is ‘an adaptation of the attachment measure
developed by Hazan and Shaver (1987) .’Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) developed multi-sentence descrip-
tions of the four attachment styles (following the method used by Hazan & Shaver, 1987 ) that apply to close rela-
tionships in general, not only romantic ones. Respondents rate each of the four descriptive paragraphs in the RQ
for themselves (or for a friend) on a 7-point Likert-type scale, resulting in self-report or friend-report ratings of
attachment. As the ratings may sometimes be equal, participants may also be asked to indicate which of the four
attachment styles describes them best.
Sample
Seventy-seven undergraduate students (37 male; 40 female) ranging in age from 18 to 22 years ( M519.6 years)
took part in Bartholomew and Horowitz’s (1991) initial study. A sample of 77 friends ranging in age from 18 to
23 years ( M519.8 years) was also utilized. A second study was based on a sample of 69 undergraduates
(33 female; 36 male) ranging in age from 17 to 24 years ( M519.5 years).
Reliability
No reliability information for the RQ was reported by Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) .
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Continuous ratings of Bartholomew and Horowitz’s (1991) four RQ attachment-style prototypes correlated posi-
tively with the subscales of the Adult Attachment Questionnaire (AAQ; Simpson et al., 1996 ; see our review of AAQ
below). In Bartholomew and Horowitz’s (1991) first study, continuous ratings of the secure prototype correlated posi-
tively with measures of intimacy (.77), balance of control in friendships (.29), level of involvement in romantic423 MEASURES OF ATTACHMENT ORIENTATION OR ATTACHMENT STYLE
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
relationships (.40), self-confidence (.41), and warmth (.59 ). Continuous ratings of the dismissing prototype were posi-
tively associated with self-confidence (.52). Also, ratings o f the preoccupied prototype correlated positively with emo-
tional expressiveness (.78), level of romantic involvement (.34), disclosure (.60), and tendency to rely on others (.64).
Divergent/Discriminant
InBartholomew and Horowitz’s (1991) first study, continuous ratings of the secure prototype correlated nega-
tively with measures with emotional expressiveness ( 2.69), frequency of crying ( 2.55), warmth ( 2.68), caregiving
(2.37), and with all of the scales related to involvement in close relationships (ranging from 2.57 to2.33). Ratings
of the preoccupied prototype correlated negatively with self-confidence ( 2.33), as also did ratings of the fearful pro-
totype ( 2.70), and correlated negatively with all the measures indicating involvement in close relationships (ranging
from2.30 to2.36).
Construct/Factor Analytic
Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991, p. 231) reported that, ‘a factor analysis was performed to examine the con-
vergence of interview ratings, the subjects’ self-ratings, and the friends’ ratings ...[using] a principal components
analysis with varimax rotation of the intercorrelations of the three sets of attachment ratings (with axes rotated to
facilitate interpretation). The two factors accounted for 47% of the variance.’ Presumably, the principal compo-
nents analysis reported by Bartholomew and Horowitz was based on the intercorrelations derived from the
rather small sample of 77 undergraduates in their first study which may raise concerns about the robustness of
the resulting solution (cf. Boyle, Stankov, & Cattell, 1995 ).
Location
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L.M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 , 226/C0244.
Results and Comments
Bartholomew and Horowitz’s conceptual analysis and use of the RQ in their studies showed that few people
clearly manifest a single attachment style. Instead, most report a mix of tendencies, suggesting that important
inter-individual variability is ignored when people are categorized. Subsequent attempts to measure adult attach-
ment, such as the Relationships Scales Questionnaire (RSQ; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994 ) have therefore used a
multi-item method to assess the dimensions underlying attachment patterns. Because the RSQ is similar to the
ECR, described below, we will not include its items here.
RELATIONSHIPS QUESTIONNAIRE
Instructions: Following are descriptions of four gen-
eral relationship styles that people often report. Please
read each description and CIRCLE the letter correspond-
ing to the style that bestdescribes you or is closest to the
way you generally are in your close relationships.
Secure
It is easy for me to become emotionally close to
others. I am comfortable depending on others and hav-
ing others depending on me. I don’t worry about being
alone or having others not to accept me.
Preoccupied
I want to be completely emotionally intimate with
others, but I often find that others are reluctant to get as
close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being without
close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others
don’t value me as much as I value them.Dismissing
I am comfortable without close emotional relation-
ships. It is very important to me to feel independent and
self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on others or
have other depend on me.
Fearful
I am uncomfortable getting close to others. I want
emotionally close relationships, but I find it difficult to
trust others completely, or to depend on them. I worry
that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close
to others.
Notes : Each paragraph description is rated on a
7-point Likert-type scale ranging from: 1 5This is
nothing like me to 7 5This is exactly like me.
Reproduced with permission.424 15. MEASURES OF ADULT ATTACHMENT AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ)
(Feeney et al., 1994 ).
Variable
Feeney et al. (1994) claimed that all of the extant adult attachment-style measures were limited in applicability
because they generally assumed that respondents were involved in a romantic relationship or had previous expe-
rience with such relationships. Moreover, the existing measures were generally designed for use with college stu-
dents or members of adult communities, making them inappropriate for younger adolescents. They were also
concerned that most of the extant measures were based on concepts and phrasing from Hazan and Shaver’s
(1987) three-category measure, which may not have adequately captured the richness of the conceptual domain
outlined by Bowlby (1982) and Ainsworth et al. (1978) . They therefore developed the ASQ to address these issues.
Description
The ASQ contains 40 items based on the major features included in both three- and four-category models of
adult attachment, together with the basic themes and issues identified in infant attachment research. Such con-
structs include self-esteem, comfort with closeness, trust, healthy independence, avoidance of intimacy, lack of
trust, valuing independence, compulsive self-reliance, emphasis on achievement, overdependence, interpersonal
anxiety, aloneness, desire for approval, lack of confidence, preoccupation with relationships, low self-esteem, lack
of trust, interpersonal anxiety, desire for contact and intimacy, need for approval, anger/hostility. Items are rated
on a 6-point scale. The five ASQ scales were derived from factor analyses, as described below.
Sample
In order to ensure the appropriateness of the ASQ for younger samples, Feeney et al. (1994) administered it to
a sample of ( N5248) students in Grade 8 (most aged between 12 and 13 years).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
In the initial study by Feeney et al. (1994) , Cronbach alpha coefficients for the five subscales (in the order
described above), were .80, .84, .79, .76, and .76, respectively.
Test/C0Retest
Stability coefficients based on a 10-week test /C0retest interval were found to be .74, .74, .78, .72, and .67, respec-
tively (for subscales: Confidence, Discomfort with Closeness, Need for Approval, Preoccupation with
Relationships, and Relationships as Secondary, respectively).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Ratings of Hazan and Shaver’s secure category description correlated positively with confidence (.34). Ratings
of their avoidant category correlated positively with discomfort (.46), need for approval (.13), and relationships as
secondary (.27). Ratings of Hazan and Shaver’s anxious category correlated positively with discomfort with close-
ness (.18), need for approval (.40), preoccupation with relationships (.60), and relationships as secondary (.06).
Divergent/Discriminant
Ratings of Hazan and Shaver’s secure category description correlated negatively with discomfort ( 2.50), need
for approval ( 2.17), preoccupation with relationships ( 2.24), and relationships as secondary ( 2.24). Ratings of
Hazan and Shaver’s avoidant category correlated negatively with confidence ( 2.14) and preoccupation with rela-
tionships ( 2.06). Finally, ratings of Hazan and Shaver’s anxious category correlated negatively with confidence
(2.29).
Construct/Factor Analytic
The five scales were derived from a principal components analysis of the intercorrelations of 65 initial items
followed by orthogonal (varimax) rotation. Based on the analysis ( N5248), five components were extracted,
resulting in the removal of 25 items and retention of 40 items (see Feeney et al., 1994 ).425 MEASURES OF ATTACHMENT ORIENTATION OR ATTACHMENT STYLE
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
Location
Feeney, J.A., Noller, P., & Hanrahan, M. (1994). Assessing adult attachment: Developments in the conceptuali-
zation of security and insecurity. In M.B. Sperling & W.H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults: Theory, assessment,
and treatment (pp. 128 /C0152). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
ATTACHMENT STYLE QUESTIONNAIRE
Show how much you agree with each of the follow-
ing items by rating them on this scale:
1.Overall, I am a worthwhile person.
2.I am easier to get to know than most people.
3.I feel confident that other people will be there for
me when I need them.
4.I prefer to depend on myself rather than other people.
5.I prefer to keep to myself.
6.To ask for help is to admit that you’re a failure.
7.People’s worth should be judged by what they
achieve.
8.Achieving things is more important than building
relationships.
9.Doing your best is more important that getting on
with others.
10.If you’ve got a job to do, you should do it no matter
who gets hurt.
11.It’s important to me that others like me.
12.It’s important to me to avoid doing things that
others won’t like.
13.I find it hard to make a decision unless I know what
other people think.
14.My relationships with others are generally superficial.
15.Sometimes I think I am no good at all.
16.I find it hard to trust other people.
17.I find it difficult to depend on others.
18.I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I
would like.
19.I find it relatively easy to get close to other people.
20.I find easy to trust others.
21.I feel comfortable depending on other people.
22.I worry that others won’t care about me as much as
I care about them.
23.I worry about people getting too close.
24.I worry that I won’t measure up to other people.
25.I have mixed feelings about being close to others.26.While I want to get close to others, I feel uneasy
about it.
27.I wonder why people would want to be involved
with me.
28.It’s very important to me to have a close relationship.
29.I worry a lot about my relationships.
30.I wonder how I would cope without someone to
love me.
31.I feel confident about relating to others.
32.I often feel left out or alone.
33.I often worry that I do not really fit with other
people.
34.Other people have their own problems, so I don’t
bother them with mine.
35.When I talk over my problems with others, I
generally feel ashamed or foolish.
36.I am too busy with other activities to put much time
into relationships.
37.If something is bothering me, others are generally
aware and concerned.
38.I am confident that other people will like and
respect me.
39.I get frustrated when others are not available when I
need them.
40.Other people often disappoint me.
Notes : Items are rated on a 6-point scale ranging
from: 1 5Totally disagree to 6 5Totally agree.
Prior to computing the five subscale scores, items
20, 21, and 33 are reverse-keyed. The subscales are
Confidence (in self and others) (items 1 /C03, 19, 31, 33,
37, and 38), Discomfort with Closeness (4, 5, 16, 17,
20, 21, 23, 25, 26, and 34), Need for Approval (11 /C013,
15, 24, 27, and 35), Preoccupation with Relationships
(18, 22, 28 /C030, 32, 39, and 40), and Relationships as
Secondary (6 /C010, 14, and 36).
Reproduced with permission.
Adult Attachment Questionnaire (AAQ)
(Simpson et al., 1996 ).
Variable
Simpson et al. (1996) developed the AAQ based on earlier work by Simpson (1990) , to assess attachment orien-
tations in romantic relationships.426 15. MEASURES OF ADULT ATTACHMENT AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
Description
The AAQ includes items from Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) three category descriptions plus items specifically
developed to assess worries about abandonment and lack of reciprocation of love. The AAQ is a 17-item measure
comprising two subscales labeled: (a) avoidance and (b) ambivalence (attachment anxiety). The avoidance dimen-
sion reflects the degree to which individuals hold negative views of others and tend to avoid or withdraw from
closeness and intimacy in relationships. The ambivalence dimension reflects the degree to which a person pos-
sesses negative self-views and is excessively preoccupied with issues such as rejection, loss, and partner’s level of
commitment. Responses are on a 7-point Likert-type scale.
Sample
TheSimpson et al. (1996) study was based on 123 dating couples (123 males; 123 females) that had been dating
for at least six months ( M521 months). The ages of the men and women ranged from 17 to 23 years ( M519.6
years, and M518.9 years, respectively).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
The Cronbach alpha coefficient reported for the avoidance scale was .70 for men and .74 for women. The alpha
coefficient for the ambivalence dimension was .72 for men and .76 for women ( Simpson et al., 1996 ).
Test/C0Retest
No information on test /C0retest reliability was reported by Simpson et al. (1996) .
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Simpson et al. (1996) calculated correlations between the two AAQ attachment dimensions and ratings of
Bartholomew and Horowitz’s (1991) four RQ prototypes. AAQ avoidance correlated positively with fearful (.55),
and dismissive (.32). AAQ ambivalence correlated positively with fearful (.32) and anxious-ambivalent (.46).
AAQ avoidance correlated positively with fearful-avoidant (.55), with dismissive-avoidant (.32) ( Simpson et al.,
1996 , Table 1, p. 905).
Divergent/Discriminant
Simpson et al. (1996) calculated correlations between the two AAQ attachment dimensions and ratings of
Bartholomew and Horowitz’s (1991) four RQ prototypes. AAQ avoidance correlated negatively with secure
(2.51), self-axis ( 2.29), while AAQ ambivalence correlated negatively with dismissive ( 2.17), with secure
(2.19), and with self-axis ( 2.52) (see Simpson, 1996, Table 1, p. 905).
Construct/Factor Analytic
A principal-axis factor analysis ( N5123) of the intercorrelations of the 17 AAQ item responses, using varimax
rotation, revealed two dimensions:
‘The first dimension reflects the extent to which individuals exhibit avoidance, that is, the degree to which they have negative views
of others and tend to avoid or withdraw from closeness and intimacy in relationships ...The second dimension taps individuals’ level
of ambivalence, which reflects the degree to which individuals possess negative self-views in regard to their relationships and are
excessively preoccupied with issues of abandonment, loss, and partners’ level of commitment.’ ( Simpson et al. (1996, pp. 902 /C0903)
Criterion/Predictive
Simpson et al. (1996) conducted a series of multiple regression analyses to predict, from the AAQ avoidance
and ambivalence subscales, real-life distress, anger, anxiety, supportiveness, and interaction quality during
an interaction with a partner when facing a stressful situation. These regression analyses were performed while
controlling for (a) Goldberg’s (1990) measure of the Big Five personality traits; (b) a series of relationship mea-
sures (love, liking, commitment, satisfaction, trust, and subjective closeness); and (c) the partner’s scores on
the dependent measures. AAQ avoidance was negatively predictive of understanding a partner’s feelings
during a relationship-threatening interaction, β52.33,p,.03 (Simpson et al., 2011 ), and with greater anger in a427 MEASURES OF ATTACHMENT ORIENTATION OR ATTACHMENT STYLE
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
stress-provoking situation, β5.34,p,.01 (Rholes, Simpson, & Orin ˜a, 1999 ). In couple relationships, AAQ anxiety
was positively predictive of the perceived amount of conflict, β5.11,p,.05; number of conflicts (reported in a
daily diary), β5.50, p,.10; escalation of conflict, β5.18, p,.01; and hurtfulness of conflict, β5.25, p,.01
(Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, & Kashy, 2005 ).
Location
Simpson, J.A., Rholes, W.S., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: An attachment perspective.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 , 899/C0914.
Results and Comments
The associations between the AAQ subscales and measures of empathy, anger, and conflict are consistent with
the idea proposed by Bowlby that the negative expectations held by insecure people bias their perceptions of the
social environment in ways that confirm and sustain their fears, pessimistic beliefs, and negative expectations
regarding attachment figures. The results also show that such negative expectations influence behavior in ways
that may alienate partners and undermine relationships.
ADULT ATTACHMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Please indicate how you typically feel toward roman-
tic (dating) partners in general. Keep in mind that there
are no right or wrong answers.
Avoidant items
1.I find it relatively easy to get close to others.*
2.I’m not very comfortable having to depend on other
people.
3.I’m comfortable having others depend on me.*
5.I don’t like people getting too close to me.
6.I’m somewhat uncomfortable being too close to others.
7.I find it difficult to trust others completely.
8.I’m nervous whenever anyone gets too close to me.
9.Others often want me to be more intimate than I feel
comfortable being.
Anxiety items
4.I rarely worry about being abandoned by others.*
10.Others often are reluctant to get as close as I would
like.11.I often worry that my partner(s) don’t really
love me.
12.I rarely worry about my partner(s) leaving me.*
13.I often want to merge completely with others, and
this desire sometimes scares them away.
14.I’m confident others would never hurt me by
suddenly ending our relationship.*
15.I usually want more closeness and intimacy than
others do.
16.The thought of being left by others rarely enters
my mind.*
17.I’m confident that my partner(s) love me just as
much as I love them.*
Notes : Items are rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale
ranging from: 1 5Strongly disagree to 7 5Strongly
agree.
*Reverse worded item.
Reproduced with permission.
Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR)
(Brennan et al., 1998 ).
Variable
By the late 1990s, the measures described thus far, and several others (e.g., Armsden & Greenberg, 1987 ;
Carnelley et al., 1994; Onishi & Gjerde, 1994; West & Sheldon-Keller, 1994 ) had appeared, and it had become clear
that more scales, largely redundant with the old ones, would appear if no one discovered and described their
essence. Brennan et al. (1998) therefore constructed a questionnaire that would summarize all self-report scales
that had been developed to measure adult attachment styles.428 15. MEASURES OF ADULT ATTACHMENT AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
Description
Brennan et al. (1998) drew 323 items from 60 subscales of all known measures of attachment and administered
them to a large sample of undergraduates ( N51086). A factor analysis with oblique rotation yielded two main
factors labeled: attachment anxiety and attachment-related avoidance, which were almost orthogonal (despite the
use of oblique rotation, which allowed the factors to be correlated if the data warranted it). Brennan et al. then
selected 18 items to represent each factor, and those 36 items constitute the ECR. The items are rated on a 7-point
Likert-type response scale.
Sample
The sample included 682 women and 403 men, ranging in age from 16 to 50 years, with a median age of 18
years. Roughly half of them ( N5487) described themselves as seriously involved in a relationship at the time of
testing; the rest were dating casually ( N5220) or not at all ( N5376). For those in a relationship, median relation-
ship length was 15 months.
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Cronbach alpha coefficients were .92 and .94 for anxiety and avoidance, respectively in Brennan et al. (1998)
study, and have been high in many subsequent studies, including studies based on translations of the scales into
other languages (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007 ).
Test/C0Retest
No information on test /C0retest reliability is currently available.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Brennan et al. correlated participants’ scores on the new anxiety and avoidance scales with the three subscales
ofCollins’s (1996) AAS. The Brennan et al. avoidance subscale correlated positively with the anxiety subscale
(.41) of the AAS. The Brennan et al. new anxiety subscale correlated positively with Collins’s (1996) anxiety sub-
scale (.79). ECR anxiety also correlated positively with measures of proximity seeking (.60), jealousy (.80), distrust
(.46), defensiveness (.20), anxious clinging to partners (.75), and ambivalence (.26). ECR avoidance correlated pos-
itively with jealousy (.26), distrust (.62), defensiveness (.68), and ambivalence (.76). See Brennan et al. (1998) for
more details about the convergent validity of the ECR measure.
Divergent/Discriminant
Brennan et al. correlated participants’ scores on the new anxiety and avoidance scales with the three subscales
ofCollins’s (1996) AAS. The Brennan et al. avoidance subscale correlated negatively with the close ( 2.87), and
depend ( 2.73). The Brennan et al. new anxiety subscale correlated negatively with the depend subscale ( 2.39).
ECR avoidance correlated negatively with communication ( 2.24), and negatively with communication ( 2.68).
Construct/Factor Analytic
Brennan et al. (1998) performed a principal-components analysis of the responses of 1085 undergraduates
based on the item intercorrelations for the 323 items drawn from a number of different attachment measures.
A higher-order factor analysis produced two clear dimensions representing the ECR anxiety and avoidance
subscales, respectively.
Criterion/Predictive
Noftle and Shaver (2006) provided evidence that the ECR anxiety and avoidance subscales significantly predict
relationship-quality variables after controlling for measures of the Big Five ( Costa & McCrae, 1995 ) personality
trait constructs.
Location
Brennan, K.A., Clark, C.L., & Shaver, P.R. (1998). Self-repo rt measurement of adult attach ment: An integrative over-
view. In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46 /C076). New York: Guilford.429 MEASURES OF ATTACHMENT ORIENTATION OR ATTACHMENT STYLE
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
Results and Comments
These findings suggest that the attachment anxiety dimension is similar to Bartholomew and Horowitz’s
model-of-self dimension, and that the avoidance dimension is similar to their model-of-others dimension.
The ECR has been used in hundreds of studies of hypotheses based on attachment theory, and has demonstrated
construct validity. The ECR measure has been reduced in length by some investigators (e.g., Wei, Russell,
Mallinckrodt, & Vogel, 2007 ) and translated into many different languages (e.g., Spanish: Alonso-Arbiol,
Balluerka, and Shaver, 2007; Frı ´as et al., 2014 ; Hebrew: Mikulincer & Florian, 2000 ), providing substantial cross-
cultural support for its psychometric properties.
EXPERIENCES IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS
The following statements concern how you generally
feel in close relationships (e.g., with romantic partners, close
friends, or family members). Respond to each statement by
i n d i c a t i n gh o wm u c hy o ua g r e eo rd i s a g r e ew i t hi t .
1.I prefer not to show others how I feel deep down.
2.I worry about being rejected or abandoned.
3.I am very comfortable being close to other people.
4.I worry a lot about my relationships.
5.Just when someone starts to get close to me I find
myself pulling away.
6.I worry that others won’t care about me as much as
I care about them.
7.I get uncomfortable when someone wants to be very
close to me.
8.I worry a fair amount about losing my close
relationship partners.
9.I don’t feel comfortable opening up to others.
10.I often wish that close relationship partners’ feelings
for me were as strong as my feelings for them.
11.I want to get close to others, but I keep pulling back.
12.I want to get very close to others, and this
sometimes scares them away.
13.I am nervous when another person gets too close
to me.
14.I worry about being alone.
15.I feel comfortable sharing my private thoughts and
feelings with others.
16.My desire to be very close sometimes scares people
away.
17.I try to avoid getting too close to others.
18.I need a lot of reassurance that close relationship
partners really care about me.
19.I find it relatively easy to get close to others.
20.Sometimes I feel that I try to force others to show
more feeling, more commitment to our relationship
than they otherwise would.
21.I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on close
relationship partners.22.I do not often worry about being abandoned.
23.I prefer not to be too close to others.
24.If I can’t get a relationship partner to show interest
in me, I get upset or angry.
25.I tell my close relationship partners just about
everything.
26.I find that my partners don’t want to get as close as
I would like.
27.I usually discuss my problems and concerns with
close others.
28.When I don’t have close others around, I feel
somewhat anxious and insecure.
29.I feel comfortable depending on others.
30.I get frustrated when my close relationship partners
are not around as much as I would like.
31.I don’t mind asking close others for comfort, advice,
or help.
32.I get frustrated if relationship partners are not
available when I need them.
33.It helps to turn to close others in times of need.
34.When other people disapprove of me, I feel really
bad about myself.
35.I turn to close relationship partners for many things,
including comfort and reassurance.
36.I resent it when my relationship partners spend time
away from me.
Notes :
Items are rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 5Strongly disagree to 7 5Strongly agree.
Items 3, 15, 19, 22, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, and 35 must be
reverse-keyed prior to computing the subscale scores.
The avoidance score is computed by averaging the 18
odd-numbered (1, 3, 5, etc.) items, with higher scores
reflecting greater avoidance.
The anxiety score is computed by averaging the 18
even-numbered items (2, 4, 6, etc.), with higher scores
reflecting greater anxiety.
Reproduced with permission.430 15. MEASURES OF ADULT ATTACHMENT AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
Experiences in Close Relationships /C0Revised (ECR-R)
(Fraley et al., 2000 ).
Variable
Fraley et al. (2000) conducted an item response theory (IRT) analysis of four of the commonly used self-report
measures: (1) ECR ( Brennan et al., 1998 ); (2) AAS ( Collins & Read, 1990 ); (3) RSQ ( Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994 );
and (4) an early version of the AAQ ( Simpson, 1990 ). Three of the four attachment measures exhibited relatively
low precision in assessing degrees of attachment security (i.e., at the lower-score ends of the two insecurity sub-
scales, anxiety and avoidance; see Fraley et al., 2000 , for details). The ECR subscales exhibited the best psycho-
metric properties of the four original scales, but the authors found that the ECR could be improved by using IRT
methods to select items from the original Brennan et al. (1998) data set to ‘assess the secure end of each dimen-
sion with same degree of fidelity as the insecure end’ ( Fraley et al. (2000, p. 357) .
Description
For each of their two ECR-R scales, anxiety and avoidance, Fraley et al. (2000) chose the 18 items, from the
Brennan et al. (1998) item pool ( N5323), with the highest discrimination values in particular areas of the mea-
surement continuum. Thirteen of the 18 anxiety items (72%) were from the original ECR anxiety scale. Seven of
the 18 avoidance items (39%) were from the original ECR avoidance scale. Because there was so much overlap
between the new items and the original ECR items, Fraley et al. referred to the new measure as the Experiences
in Close Relationships Questionnaire-Revised (ECR-R).
Sample
The data originally collected by Brennan et al. (1998) was based on 1,085 undergraduate students (682 females;
404 males) ranging in age from 16 to 50 years (Mdn 518 years) who rated 323 items drawn from 14 self-report
scales (measuring attachment organization) using a 7-point Likert-type response scale.
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Fraley et al. (2000, p. 353) reported that, ‘An important feature of these scales is that they both have Cronbach
alpha reliabilities of .81 in the simulations.’
Test/C0Retest
Based on 500 simulations, Fraley et al. reported estimated mean test /C0retest reliability coefficients as high as
.82 (see Fraley et al., 2000 , Table 1, p. 355). In addition, simulation data based on differing item parameters pro-
vided estimated test /C0retest stability coefficients for the ECR Anxiety subscale (.91 and .94) and for the Avoidance
subscale (.90 and .91), respectively (see Table 4, p. 363).
Validity
Evidence for convergent and divergent validity was not reported by Fraley et al. (2000) in their IRT study.
Construct/Factor Analytic
Fraley et al. began their research using cluster analysis of the 323 items ( Brennan et al., 1998 ) and averaging
items scores within the 30 resulting clusters. They then performed a principal-axis factor analysis of the 30 cluster
scores, followed by varimax rotation. Two main factors emerged, which the authors rotated to represent the anxi-
ety and avoidance dimensions, respectively. The ECR-R items represented the two factors well, but Fraley et al.
mentioned that the resulting scales still did not discriminate precisely in their secure regions. Fraley et al. sug-
gested that future research be carried out to improve the scales’ secure regions.
Criterion/Predictive
Both Fraley et al. (2000) attachment subscales were predictive of measures of relationship satisfaction and
adaptation to losses. The anxiety subscale was positively predictive of bereavement-related anxiety, β5.31,
p,.05; depression, β5.52,p,.05; and symptoms of Post Traumatic Disorder (PTSD), β5.50,p,.05 (Fraley &431 MEASURES OF ATTACHMENT ORIENTATION OR ATTACHMENT STYLE
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
Bonanno, 2004). In another study (Vicary & Fraley, 2007), avoidance was significantly predictive of relationship
dissatisfaction, β5.28,p,.001).
Location
Fraley, R.C., Waller, N.G., & Brennan, K.A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of
adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 , 350/C0365.
Results and Comments
Fraley et al. (2000) suggested on the basis of their study that further IRT work needs to be done on attachment
scales such as the ECR-R. The Fraley et al. (2000) IRT analysis implied that the ECR-R has better psychometric
properties than any of the four other commonly used measures of adult attachment, but the differences were
small. And subsequent studies have found that the two ECR-R subscales are more highly correlated with each
other than the original ECR subscales ( Cameron, Finnegan, & Morry, 2012 ), which in some cases might make it
more difficult to distinguish effects of anxiety from effects of avoidance.
EXPERIENCES IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS /C0REVISED
The following statements concern how you generally
feel in close relationships (e.g., with romantic partners, close
friends, or family members). Respond to each statement by
i n d i c a t i n gh o wm u c hy o ua g r e eo rd i s a g r e ew i t hi t .
Avoidance items
1.I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down.
2.I feel comfortable sharing my private thoughts and
feelings with my partner.*
3.I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on
romantic partners.
4.I am very comfortable being close to romantic
partners.*
5.I don’t feel comfortable opening up to romantic
partners.
6.I prefer not to be too close to romantic partners.
7.I get uncomfortable when a romantic partner wants
to be very close.
8.I find it relatively easy to get close to my partner.*
9.It’s not difficult for me to get close to my partner.*
10.I usually discuss my problems and concerns with
my partner.*
11.It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of
need.*
12.I tell my partner just about everything.*
13.I talk things over with my partner.*
14.I am nervous when partners get too close to me.
15.I feel comfortable depending on romantic partners.*
16.I find it easy to depend on romantic partners.*
17.It’s easy for me to be affectionate with my partner.*
18.My partner really understands me and my needs.*
Anxiety items
1.I’m afraid that I will lose my partner’s love.
2.I often worry that my partner will not want to stay
with me.3.I often worry that my partner doesn’t really
love me.
4.I worry that romantic partners won’t care about me
as much as I care about them.
5.I often wish that my partner’s feelings for me were
as strong as my feelings for him or her.
6.I worry a lot about my relationships.
7.When my partner is out of sight, I worry that
he or she might become interested in someone
else.
8.When I show my feelings for romantic partners, I’m
afraid they will not feel the same about me.
9.I rarely worry about my partner leaving me.*
10.My romantic partner makes me doubt myself.
11.I do not often worry about being abandoned.*
12.I find that my partner(s) don’t want to get as close
as I would like.
13.Sometimes romantic partners change their feelings
about me for no apparent reason.
14.My desire to be very close sometimes scares people
away.
15.I’m afraid that once a romantic partner gets to know
me, he or she won’t like who I really am.
16.It makes me mad that I don’t get the affection and
support I need from my partner.
17.I worry that I won’t measure up to other people.
18.My partner only seems to notice me when I’m
angry.
Notes :
*Reverse worded item.
Items are rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging
from: 1 5Strongly disagree to 7 5Strongly agree.
Reproduced with permission.432 15. MEASURES OF ADULT ATTACHMENT AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
Experiences in Close Relationships /C0Relationship Structures Questionnaire (ECR-RS)
(Fraley et al., 2011 )
Variable
Although a great deal of research supports the idea that people have general trait-like attachment orientations,
it is also likely that a person’s orientations can be somewhat different in different relationships. If someone, for
example, has a history of being rejected by his or her parents but is currently involved in a romantic relationship
with a supportive and responsive partner, the person may be secure with respect to his or her romantic partner
but relatively insecure with respect to his or her parents.
Description
Fraley et al. (2011) initially chose 10 items from the ECR-R that were not worded in a manner that was explic-
itly focused on romantic relationships and were not overly redundant with the other chosen items. Based on reli-
ability analyses across the different relationships, six avoidance items (1 /C06) and three anxiety items (7 /C09) were
retained and used to assess attachment with respect to mother, father, romantic partners, and best friends. For
each item, participants were asked to indicate on a 7-point scale indicative of the extent to which the item
described their orientation in that particular relationship. (Items 1 /C04 must be reverse scored prior to computing
the subscales scores.)
Sample
Participants were 21,838 Internet users (81.5% women, 18.5% men, with an average age of 31.35 years;
SD511.28) who reported being involved in an exclusive dating or marital relationship.
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Cronbach alpha coefficients for the anxiety subscale were .88, .90, .91, and .90 for mother, father, partner,
and friend, respectively. Alpha coefficients for the avoidance subscale were .92, .90, .87, and .88. Finally, alpha
coefficients for global anxiety and avoidance (based on averaging across relationships) were .85 and .88
(Fraley et al., 2011 ).
Test/C0Retest
No information on test /C0retest reliability seems to be currently available.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Attachment-related anxiety with respect to one’s partner positively correlated with looking for alternatives to
one’s primary partner (.21). Attachment-related avoidance with respect to one’s partner was positively correlated
with investment in the primary relationship (.28), and it was positively correlated with looking for alternatives to
one’s primary partner (.38). In contrast, only a few associations between attachment insecurities with respect to
other attachment figures and romantic relationship quality turned out to be significant. Avoidance with respect
to mother was positively associated with investment in one’s romantic relationship (.14).
Divergent/Discriminant
Attachment-related anxiety with respect to one’s partner correlated negatively with commitment ( 2.22), and
with relationship satisfaction ( 2.37). Attachment-related avoidance with respect to one’s partner correlated nega-
tively with commitment ( 2.53), and relationship satisfaction ( 2.49). Anxiety with respect to friends was nega-
tively associated with relationship satisfaction ( 2.12). Avoidance with respect to friends was negatively
associated with relationship satisfaction ( 2.11).
Construct/Factor Analytic
Fraley et al. performed separate principal axis factor analyses, followed by varimax rotation, for the 10 items
in each of the four relationship domains. For each of the four, two clear factors were obtained, anxiety and
avoidance.433 MEASURES OF ATTACHMENT ORIENTATION OR ATTACHMENT STYLE
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
Criterion/Predictive
A longitudinal study ( Zayas, Mischel, Shoda, & Aber, 2011 ) showed that observed maternal caregiving when
children were 18 months old predicted lower adult anxiety with romantic partners and lower avoidance with
friends and partners. The predictive correlations for attachment to peers were higher than were those with
mothers. The differential predictive effects of early parental behavior on different later relationships could not
have been observed with previous, general measures of attachment security or insecurity prior to the develop-
ment of the ECR-RS.
Location
Fraley, R.C., Heffernan, M.E., Vicary, A.M., & Brumbaugh, C.C. (2011). The Experiences in Close
Relationships-Relationship Structures Questionnaire: A method for assessing attachment orientations across
relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23 , 615/C0625.
Results and Comments
Fraley et al. (2011) developed the Experiences in Close Relationships: Relationship Structure Questionnaire
(ECR-RS) to allow researchers to evaluate the degree of attachment-orientation similarity and difference across
different relationships. The ECR-RS allows assessment of attachment anxiety and avoidance in different
relationships.
EXPERIENCES IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS /C0RELATIONSHIP
STRUCTURES QUESTIONNAIRE
Please answer the following 10 questions about your
mother or a mother-like figure.
1.I usually discuss my problems and concerns with
this person.
2.I talk things over with this person.
3.It helps to turn to this person in times of need.
4.I find it easy to depend on this person.
5.I prefer not to show this person how I feel
deep down.
6.I don’t feel comfortable opening up to this person.7.I’m afraid this person may abandon me.
8.I worry that this person won’t care about me as
much as I care about him or her.
9.I often worry that this person doesn’t really care
for me.
10.I don’t fully trust this person.
Notes : Items are rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale
ranging from: 1 5Strongly disagree to 7 5Strongly
agree.
Reproduced with permission.
State Adult Attachment Measure (SAAM)
(Gillath et al., 2009 ).
Variable
As with most psychological constructs, it is possible to measure both state and trait attachment insecurities. To
measure attachment states, Gillath et al. (2009) constructed the SAAM.
Description
Gillath et al. (2009) reworded the 36 ECR items with reference to a particular situation or context. They devised
new items to assess combinations of anxiety and avoidance (Bartholomew’s secure, fearful, preoccupied, and dis-
missing patterns), as well as items addressing content such as the low end of the anxiety dimension (e.g., ‘I feel
relaxed knowing that close others are there for me right now’). They invited attachment researchers to examine
the new item pool and make suggestions for any additional items. The final version of the SAAM included 21
items that loaded on three factors: anxiety, avoidance, and security. Items are rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale
measuring three factors labeled: Security, Anxiety, and Avoidance. In order to measure attachment as a state, par-
ticipants must respond as to how they feel right now.434 15. MEASURES OF ADULT ATTACHMENT AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
Sample
A sample of 347 undergraduates (258 women and 89 men, ranging in age from 18 to 35 years; Mdn519 years
participated in the primary study. Subsequently, Bosmans et al. (2014) investigated the validity of the SAAM in a
sample of 268 Dutch undergraduate students (45 males; 212 females; 11 did not indicate gender) whose mean age
was 19.08 years ( SD52.47).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
According to Gillath et al. (2009) , Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were .84, .83, and .87, respectively, for the three
subscales. Likewise, Bosmans et al. (2014) reported alpha coefficients ranging from .78 to .86 for the three SAAM
subscales.
Test/C0Retest
Stability coefficients over a three-month test /C0retest interval were .51, .53, and .59 for anxiety, avoidance, and
security, respectively ( Gillath et al., 2009 ).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Gillath et al. (2009) reported that SAAM security correlated positively with RQ security (.54), and that SAAM
anxiety correlated positively with ECR anxiety (.42), and with RQ preoccupied (.39). Also, SAAM avoidance was
positively correlated with ECR avoidance (.59), with RQ dismissive (.28), and with RQ fearful (.45). It was also
negatively correlated with the RQ secure style ( 2.37). Bosmans et al. (2014) reported positive correlations
between the secure and anxious subscales (.23), and between the SAAM anxiety (.44) and avoidance subscales
(.65) with the ECR-R (Dutch version).
Divergent/Discriminant
Gillath et al. (2009) reported nonsignificant with other measures of mood, emotion, and personality supporting
the discriminant validity of the scale. SAAM anxiety correlated negatively with RQ dismissive ( 2.22), while
SAAM security correlated negatively with both ECR anxiety ( 2.32), and avoidance ( 2.49). Likewise, Bosmans
et al. (2014) reported negative correlations between security and avoidance subscales ( 2.49), and between avoid-
ance and anxiety subscales ( 2.36). Bosmans et al. also reported negative correlations (ranging from 2.29 to
2.59) between the SAAM subscales and the ECR-R (Dutch version).
Construct/Factor Analytic
Gillath et al. (2009) performed an exploratory factor analysis (p. 365) followed by promax rotation to determine
the factor structure of their items. The Scree plot ( Cattell, 1978; Cattell & Vogelmann, 1977 ) suggested that the 3-
factor solution was the most easily interpreted and was supported by a confirmatory factor analysis.
Criterion/Predictive
Gillath et al. (2009) also showed that the SAAM, especially the security subscale, continued to predict real-life
relationship quality even after other variables were statistically controlled. Bosmans et al. (2014, Table 6) pro-
vided standardized beta coefficients indicative of predictive validity of the SAAM subscales.
Location
Gillath, O., Hart, J., Noftle, E.E., & Stockdale, G.D. (2009). Development and validation of a state adult attach-
ment measure (SAAM). Journal of Research in Personality, 43 , 362/C0373.
Results and Comments
According to Gillath et al. (2009) , state changes in attachment security occur along three dimensions. The inclu-
sion of a separate security subscale may suggest a way out of the problem identified by Fraley et al. (2000) , dis-
cussed earlier, that most previous attachment insecurity scales discriminated poorly at their ‘secure’ ends.435 MEASURES OF ATTACHMENT ORIENTATION OR ATTACHMENT STYLE
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
STATE ADULT ATTACHMENT MEASURE
The following statements concern how you feel right
now. Please respond to each statement by indicating
how much you agree or disagree with it as it reflects
your current feelings. Please indicate on a scale of 1 /C07
how you feel at the moment.
Security
I feel loved.
I feel like I have someone to rely on.
I feel secure and close to other people.
If something went wrong right now I feel like I could
depend on someone.
I feel like others care about me.
I feel relaxed knowing that close others are there for
me right now.
I feel I can trust the people who are close to me.
Anxiety
I feel a strong need to be unconditionally loved
right now.
I really need to feel loved right now.
I want to share my feelings with someone.I want to talk with someone who cares for me about
things that are worrying me.
I wish someone close could see me now.
I wish someone would tell me they really love me.
I really need someone’s emotional support.
Avoidance
If someone tried to get close to me, I would try to
keep my distance.
The idea of being emotionally close to someone
makes me nervous.
I’m afraid someone will want to get too close to me.
I feel alone and yet don’t feel like getting close
to others.
I have mixed feelings about being close to other
people.
I would be uncomfortable having a good friend or a
relationship partner close to me.
I feel like I am loved by others but I really don’t care.
Notes : Items are rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale
ranging from: Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.
Reproduced with permission.
Pet Attachment Questionnaire (PAQ)
(Zilcha-Mano et al., 2011 ).
Variable
Zilcha-Mano et al. (2011) pointed out that human-pet bonds often meet the four prerequisites for an attach-
ment relationship. Pet owners commonly seek closeness to their pets (e.g., Enders-Slegers, 2000 ); they perceive
their pets as providing affection and support in times of need (e.g., Geisler, 2004 ); they feel distressed when sepa-
rated from their pet (e.g., Hunt, Al-Awadi, & Johnson, 2008 ); and their pet may serve as a secure base from which
to pursue a variety of activities (McNichollas & Collins, 1995). Zilcha-Mano et al. therefore hypothesized that
attachment to pets would have a structure similar to that found in studies of human-human attachment relation-
ships (i.e., could be characterized in terms of anxiety and avoidance). To test this hypothesis, Zilcha-Mano et al.
developed the Pet Attachment Questionnaire (PAQ) described below.
Description
Items were obtained from three sources. First, Zilcha-Mano et al. (2011) borrowed some from the ECR
(Brennan et al., 1998 ; reviewed above) and the AAS ( Collins, 1996 ; also reviewed above) that seemed relevant to
human-pet relationships (e.g., ‘I prefer not to be too close to my pet,’ ‘I’m often worried about what I’ll do if
something bad happens to my pet’). Second, the authors borrowed items from scales measuring human-pet rela-
tionships (e.g., the Comfort from Companion Animal Scale by Zasloff, 1996 ) related to discomfort with closeness
to and dependence on a pet (e.g., ‘My pet and I have a very close relationship,’ reverse coded) or worries about
being unloved or rejected by a pet (e.g., ‘My pet always makes me feel loved,’ reverse coded). Third, the authors
conducted semi-structured interviews with 33 pet owners who were asked to describe their relationship with
their pets. Statements indicating anxiety or avoidance were transformed into scale items (e.g., ‘She is precious to
me; I don’t know what I would do without her’). Participants were asked to rate a total of 50 items on a 7-point436 15. MEASURES OF ADULT ATTACHMENT AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
Likert-type scale. The final version of the scale contained 26 items evenly distributed between the anxiety and
avoidance subscales.
Sample
Participants were 189 female and 111 male Israeli pet owners, ranging in age from 13 to 68 years, M527.8,
SD511.5). Seventy-eight percent of the participants completed the scales with reference to their current pet, and
the remaining 22% completed them with reference to a past pet. Most participants were dog owners (73.7%) or
cat owners (17.3%).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Zilcha-Mano et al. (2011) reported that Cronbach’s alpha were .86 and .87, for anxiety and avoidance
respectively.
Test/C0Retest
Stability coefficients after an interval of six months were .75 for anxiety and .80 for avoidance ( Zilcha-Mano
et al., 2011 ).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
As reported for other adult attachment measures, PAQ anxiety correlated positively with a measure of neuroti-
cism (.15). PAQ anxiety was positively correlated with ECR anxiety (.60), but it was also positively correlated
with ECR avoidance (.35). PAQ avoidance was positively correlated with ECR anxiety (.19).
Divergent/Discriminant
Relatively small correlations (from .02 to .15) provided evidence that the PAQ attachment dimensions are dif-
ferent from the Big Five personality traits. For example, PAQ avoidance correlated negatively with extraversion
(2.14). PAQ avoidance was unrelated to ECR avoidance (.08).
Construct/Factor Analytic
Zilcha-Mano et al. (2011) performed a principal components analysis followed by varimax rotation, yielding
two components labeled: anxiety and avoidance. This two-dimensional structure was also supported by a confir-
matory factor analysis (see Zilcha-Mano for details).
Criterion/Predictive
PAQ anxiety and avoidance were significantly associated with self-report measures of negative expectations
regarding pet behavior in attachment-related domains, β5.23 and β5.39, p,.01, and PAQ avoidance was
inversely associated with self-report measures of positive expectations about a pet, β52 .36, p,.001. These
results are similar to what has been found in research on human-human relationships (i.e., avoidance is associ-
ated with reduced positive feelings; anxiety is associated with heightened negative feelings; Mikulincer & Shaver,
2007 ). Also, insecure attachment to pets was uniquely associated with poor mental health, and this association
was not explained by personality traits, the strength of the human-pet relationship, social desirability bias, or
even attachment in human-human relationships ( Zilcha-Mano et al., 2011 ).
Location
Zilcha-Mano, S., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P.R. (2011). An attachment perspective on human-pet relationships:
Conceptualization and assessment of pet attachment orientations. Journal of Research in Personality, 45 , 345/C0357.
Results and Comments
There do seem to be the usual two dimensions of attachment insecurity in people’s relationships with pets,
but the scales associate differently with other variables in the two different relationship domains, suggesting that
avoidant individuals might be able to experience and express their insecurity in relation to pets in ways that they
defend against experiencing in human relationships.437 MEASURES OF ATTACHMENT ORIENTATION OR ATTACHMENT STYLE
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
PET ATTACHMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Please read each of the following statements; think
about their relationship with a particular present or past
pet; rate the extent to which each item described your
feelings and thoughts in this relationship.
Avoidance
1.Being close to my pet is pleasant for me.*
3.I prefer not to be too close to my pet.
5.I prefer to keep some distance from my pet.
7.Often my pet is a nuisance to me.
9.I feel distant from my pet.
11.I’m not very attached to my pet.
13.If necessary, I would be able to give away my pet
without any difficulties.
15.I have no problem parting with my pet for a long
duration.
17.I get uncomfortable when my pet wants to be close
to me.
19.I get nervous when my pet gets too close to me.
21.I want to get close to my pet, but I keep pulling
away.
23.I try to avoid getting too close to my pet.
25.When I’m away from my pet for a long period of
time, I hardly think about it.
Anxiety
2.I’m often worried about what I’ll do if something
bad happens to my pet.4.Sometimes I feel that I force my pet to show more
commitment and desire to be close to me.
6.If I can’t get my pet to show interest in me, I get
upset or angry.
8.Signs of affection from my pet bolster my self-
worth.
10.I often feel that my pet doesn’t allow me to get as
close as I would like.
12.I get angry when my pet doesn’t want to be close to
me as much as I would like it to.
14.I get frustrated when my pet is not around as much
as I would like it to be.
16.I need shows of affection from my pet to feel there
is someone who accepts me as I am.
18.I feel frustrated if my pet doesn’t seem to be
available for me when I need it.
20.Without acts of affection from my pet I feel
worthless.
22.I am worried about being left alone without
my pet.
24.I need expressions of love from my pet to feel
valuable.
26.I need a lot of reassurance from my pet that it
loves me.
Notes : Items are rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale
ranging from: 1 5Not at all to 75Very much .
*Reverse worded item.
Reproduced with permission.
BEHAVIORAL SYSTEMS SCALES
To explain the fact that human beings, like some of their primate relatives, seem to be biologically equipped
for attachment, caregiving, sexual mating, and other kinds of social behavior, Bowlby (1982) borrowed the con-
cept of ‘behavioral systems’ from ethology. Following his lead, subsequent attachment researchers have referred
to, for example, the attachment behavioral system (or attachment system, for short), the caregiving behavioral
system (or caregiving system), and so on. These systems are thought to be species-universal neural programs that
govern the choice, activation, and termination of behavioral sequences in ways that have contributed to survival
and reproductive success during evolutionary history. The attachment system’s main goal is to attain safety and
security in a relationship with a trusted other; the exploration system’s goal is to explore and learn about one’s
environment while developing a variety of life skills; the caregiving system’s goal is to promote the safety and
welfare of conspecifics, especially those to whom one is genetically related, but also to other conspecifics for
whom one has sympathy or empathy. Each system is thought to be ‘activated’ automatically by stimuli or situa-
tions that make a particular goal salient (e.g., loud noises that signal danger and arouse a desire for protection)
and ‘deactivated’ or ‘terminated’ by stimuli that signal goal attainment. Individual differences in the functioning
of these behavioral systems are presumed to occur for both genetic and experiential reasons.
Although each behavioral system is thought to include a primary strategy for meeting its goals, a person’s history
of failed attempts to use the primary strategy successfully can cause him or her to develop secondary strategies (such
as extreme self-reliance in the case of avoidant attachment). These secondary strategies can be characterized in terms
of hyperactivation or deactivation of the relevant behavioral system ( Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007 ). Hyperactivation438 15. MEASURES OF ADULT ATTACHMENT AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
strategies intensify the system’s efforts to influence other people to respond in accordance with the system’s goal
(similar to anxious attachment), and deactivation strategies involve down-regulation of a behavioral system to reduce
the frustration and anguish of repeated unsuccessful efforts to attain the system’s goal (similar to avoidant attach-
ment). In the following sections we review measures of some of the key behavioral systems other than attachment.
The goal of the caregiving behavioral system is to reduce other people’s suffering, protect them from harm,
and foster their growth and development ( Collins, Ford, Guichard, Kane, and Feeney, 2010 ). According to
Bowlby (1982), this system emerged over the course of evolution because it increased the inclusive fitness of
humans by making it more likely that children, siblings, and tribe members with whom a person shared genes
would survive to reproductive age and succeed in producing and rearing offspring. In humans, the system is
capable of extension to mates, friends, and even strangers.
According to Collins et al. (2010) , a caring concern for another person’s needs includes sensitivity and respon-
siveness, the two aspects of parental caregiving emphasized by Bowlby (1982) and Ainsworth et al. (1978) .
Sensitivity includes attunement to, and accurate interpretation of, another person’s signals of distress, worry, or
need, and responding effectively to them ( George & Solomon, 2008 ).Responsiveness includes generous intentions,
validation of the troubled person’s needs and feelings; respecting his or her beliefs, attitudes and values; and
helping the person feel loved, understood, and cared for ( Reis & Shaver, 1988 ).
Although it is assumed by attachment researchers that everyone is born with the potential to become an
effective caregiver, early social experiences are thought to affect one’s sensitivity and responsiveness to others.
Shaver et al. (2010) developed the Caregiving System Scale, described below, to measure individual differences
in caregiving within couple relationships.
Caregiving System Scale (CSS)
(Shaver et al., 2010 ).
Variable
Kunce and Shaver (1994) expected the effectiveness of caregiving in adult couple relationships to depend on
sensitivity and responsiveness. They hypothesized that adult attachment orientations (anxiety and avoidance)
would be systematically related to caregiving patterns, and that the kind of support provided to others would be
affected by the caregiver’s own attachment needs. For example, anxiously wishing to get closer to one’s partner
could cause a person to be intrusive or compulsive about caregiving. Hyperactivated caregiving is intrusive,
poorly timed, and effortful, and is aimed at making oneself indispensable to a partner or applauding oneself for
being competent or admirable as a caregiver. These goals can be achieved by exaggerating appraisals of others’
needs, adopting a hypervigilant stance toward other people’s imagined needs or troubles, forcing others to accept
one’s caregiving efforts, and focusing on others’ needs to neglect of one’s own. Deactivation of the caregiving sys-
tem involves insufficient empathy, withdrawal from caregiving, offering only half-hearted assistance, and insist-
ing on maintaining emotional distance when another person seeks care ( Shaver et al., 2010 ).
Description
The Caregiving System Scale (CSS) was designed to assess individual differences in hyperactivation and deac-
tivation of the caregiving system; it includes 20 items evenly distributed on these two dimensions. The instruc-
tions ask respondents to think about situations in which other people need help, without focusing on a specific
person, and to rate the extent to which each item is or is not self-descriptive on a 7-point Likert-type scale.
Sample
The CSS was used in a study of 108 female and 70 male Israeli undergraduates who completed the measure in
Hebrew, and 263 female and 73 male American undergraduates who completed it in English.
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Cronbach alpha coefficients were found to be .81 and .82 for the hyperactivation dimension and .87 and .88 for
the deactivation dimension, for Israeli and American samples, respectively ( Shaver et al., 2010 ).439 BEHAVIORAL SYSTEMS SCALES
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
Test/C0Retest
Shaver et al. (2010) reported stability coefficients over a 4-month test /C0retest interval of .76 for hyperactivation
and .72 for deactivation, respectively.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
CSS hyperactivation correlated positively with compulsive caregiving (.40), being distressed during a dyadic
interaction (.43), and scoring higher on the ECR Anxiety scale (.29). CSS deactivation correlated positively with
controlling care (.25) and ECR avoidance (.43).
Divergent/Discriminant
Because the correlations between the CSS scales and the corresponding ECR attachment scales were only moder-
ate in size, and because the CSS scales were not highly correlated with broad measures of personality (not specifi-
cally reported here), Shaver et al. concluded that the CSS is not simply redundant with other constructs such as
attachment insecurity or personality traits. CSS hyperactivation correlated negatively with being supportive during
a dyadic interaction ( 2.36). CSS deactivation correlated negatively with maintaining proximity to a needy partner
(2.45), sensitivity to a partner’s signals and needs ( 2.47), and being supportive during a dyadic interaction ( 2.32).
Construct/Factor Analytic
The CSS scales were created by subjecting the item intercorrelations to a principal components analysis fol-
lowed by varimax rotation. A two-component structure corresponding to the constructs of hyperactivated and
deactivated caregiving was obtained in both American and Israeli samples.
Location
Shaver, P.R., Mikulincer, M., & Shemesh-Iron, M. (2010). A behavioral-systems perspective on prosocial behav-
ior. In M. Mikulincer & P. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior (pp. 73 /C092). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Results and Comments
By developing this measure, Shaver et al. (2010) began to illuminate the functioning of the caregiving behav-
ioral system, one of several behavioral systems discussed in the attachment literature.
CAREGIVING SYSTEM SCALE
In the following questionnaire, we are interested in
the way you usually feel, think, and act when you
are involved in helping other people. Please read each
statement and indicate the extent to which you agree
with it.
Deactivation items
1.When I see people in distress, I don’t feel
comfortable jumping in to help.
3.I sometimes feel that helping others is a waste
of time.
5.I often don’t pay much attention to other people’s
discomfort or distress.
7.I don’t invest a lot of energy trying to help others.
9.Thinking about helping others doesn’t excite me
very much.
11.I don’t often feel an urge to help others.
13.I have no problem helping people who are troubled
or distressed.15.When I notice that someone seems to need help, I
often prefer not to get involved.
17.It’s hard for me to work up much interest in helping
others.
19.I feel uncomfortable when I’m required to help
others.
Hyperactivation items
2.When helping people, I often worry that I won’t be
as good at it as other people are.
4.When I’m unable to help a person who is in distress,
I feel worthless.
6.I feel bad when others don’t want my help.
8.I sometimes try to help others more than they
actually want me to.
10.When people don’t want my help, I still sometimes
feel compelled to help.
12.I often get anxious when I think nobody needs
my help.440 15. MEASURES OF ADULT ATTACHMENT AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
14.I often worry about not being successful when I try
to help others who need me.
16.When I decide to help someone, I worry that I won’t
be able to solve the problem or ease the person’s
distress.
18.I sometimes worry that I try to help others more
than they want me to.20.I sometimes feel that I intrude too much while
trying to help others.
Notes : Items are rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale
ranging from: 1 5Strongly disagree to 7 5Strongly
agree.
Reproduced with permission.
Social Support Scale Based on Attachment Theory (SSS)
(Frı´as et al., 2014 ).
Variable
According to attachment theory (Bowlby, 1982), security-providing interactions with attachment
figures reinforce reliance on social support as a distress-regulation strategy and encourage optimistic beliefs
about other people’s supportiveness. This sense of security reflects positive working models of self and others,
which include positive perceptions and expectations of others’ support that make people more likely to seek and
provide support ( Mikulincer & Shaver, 2009 ). Insecure individuals, either anxious or avoidant, are predisposed
to appraise their attachment figures’ availability and responsiveness negatively and to perceive and remember
others’ helpful behavior as less supportive than it actually was (Collins & Feeney, 2004). Either because they
place high value on autonomy and self-sufficiency (avoidant individuals) or because the chronic activation of
their attachment system does not allow them to benefit from the social support they receive (anxious indivi-
duals), insecure people may experience negative rather positive emotions after receiving social support
(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2009 ).
Description
The SSS contains 45 items addressing four issues: (1) beliefs about others socially supportive behavior; (2) seek-
ing social support; (3) perception of receiving social support; and (4) emotional reactions to receiving social sup-
port. Based on factor analyses, the items assessing beliefs about others’ socially supportive behavior were
divided into two subscales: positive beliefs (9 items) and negative (skeptical, suspicious) beliefs (4 items). The
seeking social support subscale includes 11 items. The perception of receiving social support subscale includes 8
items. Finally, the emotional reactions to receiving social support items were divided into two subscales, one con-
cerning positive emotional reactions (9 items) and the other concerning negative emotions (4 items). All of the
items are evaluated on a 6-point scale.
Sample
The SSS was validated on a sample of 366 American undergraduate students.
Reliability
Cronbach alpha coefficients were as follows: positive beliefs .79; negative (skeptical, suspicious) beliefs .77;
seeking social support subscale .84; perception of receiving social support subscale .92; positive emotional reac-
tions to receiving social support .90; and negative emotional reactions to receiving social support .82.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Positive beliefs about others correlated positively with reappraisal coping (.29). Negative beliefs correlated pos-
itively with attachment anxiety (.19), and passive acceptance (.19), and diverting coping (.15). Seeking social sup-
port correlated positively with attachment anxiety (.19), and reappraisal coping (.39). Perception of receiving
social support correlated positively with reappraisal coping (.46). Positive reactions to receiving social support
correlated positively with reappraisal coping (.50). Finally, negative reactions to receiving social support441 BEHAVIORAL SYSTEMS SCALES
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
correlated positively with attachment anxiety (.38), with avoidance (.33), with passive coping (.46), and with
diverting coping (.45).
Divergent/Discriminant
Positive beliefs about others correlated negatively with attachment-related avoidance ( 2.24). Seeking social
support correlated negatively with attachment-related avoidance ( 2.32). Perception of receiving social support
correlated negatively with attachment anxiety ( 2.19), avoidance ( 2.43), and diverting coping ( 2.26). Positive
reactions to receiving social support correlated negatively with attachment-related avoidance ( 2.36). Also, nega-
tive reactions to receiving social support correlated negatively with reappraisal coping ( 2.19).
Construct/Factor Analytic
Frı´as et al. performed a series of principal components analyses followed by varimax rotation, one for each of
the following sections: beliefs about others’ intentions to help, seeking social support, perceiving social support,
and reactions to receiving social support. The results indicated that both the seeking and the perceiving social
support sections of the SSS were unidimensional, whereas beliefs about others’ intentions and emotional reac-
tions to social support were bidimensional. Therefore, both the beliefs and the emotional reactions sections were
divided into positive and negative subscales.
Location
Frı´as, M., Shaver, P. R., & Dı ´az-Loving, R. (2014). Cultural syndromes as moderators of the relation between
attachment insecurities, coping, and social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships ,31,3/C031.
Results and Comments
Evidence of convergent validity of the SSS with the ECR insecurity scales fits with anxious individuals’ previ-
ously documented ambivalence and attempts to induce a relationship partner to pay more attention and provide
better care (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2009 ). These results also fit with anxious individuals’ heightened distress,
even when their partners are rated by observers as behaving positively toward them ( Campbell et al., 2005 ).
Avoidance predicted negative reactions to receiving social support and was negatively associated with seeking
social support, perception of received social support as helpful, and reacting positively to social support. These
results accord with Bowlby’s concept of ‘compulsive self-reliance.’
SOCIAL SUPPORT SCALE BASED ON ATTACHMENT THEORY
The following statements concern what you think
about how people relate to others and establish bonds
with them. If you agree strongly with a statement, indi-
cate 6. If you disagree strongly, indicate 1. If your degree
of agreement or disagreement falls between those
extremes, choose one of the values from 2 to 5. Please
answer honestly; your data will remain anonymous.
Beliefs about others socially supportive
behavior items
1.Everyone would like to help others.
2.People help mainly to make themselves feel good.
3.People help mainly because they care about
others.
4.People help others mainly when they feel they owe
them something.
5.People help because they are generous.
6.People help in order to get something in return.
7.People help because they know others need them.
8.People help in order to appear good.9.People help because they are truly compassionate.
10.People help because they truly want to.
11.People often help someone because they feel
grateful for what they received from him/her in
the past.
12.There is something inside people that drives them to
help others.
13.People help in order to strengthen their
relationships with others.
Seeking social support items
The next set of questions concerns people you turn to
when you are troubled or in need. Keeping those people
in mind, complete the following sentences:
When I am in trouble or need, I ask them ...
14.To understand my feelings.
15.To comfort me.
16.To help me perform physical tasks that are hard for
me to do.442 15. MEASURES OF ADULT ATTACHMENT AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
17.To be with me and keep me company.
18.To understand what I do or have done.
19.To listen.
20.To give good advice.
21.To provide what I need.
22.To show their concern for me.
23.To take care of me when I’m ill.
24.For very little, I prefer to solve my problems on
my own.
Perception of receiving social support items
When I am in trouble or in need, I feel that they
actually do:
25.Understand my feelings.
26.Comfort me.
27.Stay with me and keep me company.
28.Understand what I do or have done.
29.Listen.
30.Give me good advice.
31.Provide what I need.
32.Show their concern for me.Emotional reactions to receiving social
support
When I receive support, I feel ...
33.Grateful.
34.Much better.
35.Ashamed or guilty because I couldn’t handle my
troubles on my own.
36.Well taken care of.
37.Weak.
38.Loved.
39.Useless.
40.Happy.
41.More motivated to solve my problems.
42.Upset.
43.Eager to help in return.
44.Secure.
45.Understood.
Notes : Items are rated on a 6-point scale ranging
from: 1 5Disagree strongly to 6 5Agree strongly).
Reproduced with permission.
Power Behavioral System Scale (PBSS)
(Shaver et al., 2011 ).
Variable
Shaver et al. (2011) tentatively proposed a new behavioral system concerned with power or assertion.
The main goal of the power system is to remove threats and obstacles that interfere with one’s sense of autonomy
or constrain one’s access to valuable resources. With a sense of power, people can more easily help others,
acquire resources, and gain access to desirable mates. Once a person’s power system is activated, he or she is
likely to call upon a repertoire of behaviors aimed at protecting or restoring power or influence, such as asserting
oneself, establishing one’s authority, expressing confidence in one’s strengths and opinions, and deterring others
from exerting control over one’s resources. As with the other behavioral systems, failed attempts to exercise
power or influence can result in the development of one or both of two nonoptimal, secondary power strategies:
hyperactivation and deactivation of the power system.
Hyperactivation strategies include efforts to maintain a sense of power, even when it is not objectively chal-
lenged; an indiscriminate urge to assert power over others; frequent anger and hostility toward others; and a
proclivity to attack others following even minimal signs of competition. Deactivation, in contrast, involves termi-
nating or ‘shutting off’ the power system even in the presence of an explicit assault or provocation. Deactivation
involves avoidance of situations that call for activation of the power system and assertion of one’s rights and
opinions, such as competitions, arguments, or disputes (see Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003 ).
Description
The PBSS asks respondents to think about situations in which they had a disagreement or conflict with another per-
son or group, and to rate the extent to which each item is or is not self-descriptive using a 7-point Likert-type response
scale. Item and factor analyses indicated that the items, a s intended, coherently assess two secondary power-system
strategies: hyperactivation and deactivation. The 14 hyperactivation items focus on the urgent and exaggerated need
for power and control over resources and other people, frequent bouts of anger and aggression, and anxieties and443 BEHAVIORAL SYSTEMS SCALES
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
worries about being defeated in competitions or disputes. The 14 deactivation items focus on attempts to avoid assert-
ing power and authority as well as feelings of uneasiness about competition and disputes.
Sample
Shaver et al. (2011) validated the Power Behavioral Systems Scale (PBSS) was validated on a sample of
211 female and 151 male Israeli undergraduates.
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Cronbach’s alphas were .85 for the hyperactivation items and .90 for deactivation items ( Shaver et al., 2011 ).
Test/C0Retest
Shaver et al. (2011) showed good stability of the PBSS (analyzed with a different sample) over a 4-month
test/C0retest interval, being .74 and .79, respectively, for the hyperactivation and deactivation subscales.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
PBSS hyperactivation correlated positively with trait anger, anger externalization, hostile outlook, rumination
on anger-related thoughts, and problems in controlling anger expression ( rsranging from .31 to .58). None of
these variables were significantly associated with PBSS deactivation. Deactivation was correlated with anger
internalization (.37). Hyperactivated power correlated positively with both ECR anxiety (.26) and avoidance (.54),
while deactivation was associated only with anxiety (.22).
Divergent/Discriminant
The pattern of results obtained by Shaver et al. (2011) suggests that power and the associated emotion of anger
do not work in the same way as attachment and caregiving.
Construct/Factor Analytic
The PBSS scales were created by subjecting an initial 50-item pool to a principal components analysis followed
by varimax rotation. A two-component structure corresponding to the constructs of hyperactivated and deacti-
vated power was obtained.
Location
Shaver, P.R., Segev, M., & Mikulincer, M. (2011). A behavioral systems perspective on power and aggression.
In P.R. Shaver & M. Mikulincer (Eds.), Human aggression and violence. Causes, manifestations, and consequences
(pp. 71 /C087). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Results and Comments
PBSS hyperactivation has been associated with reports of physical and verbal aggression, anger, and hostility;
risk of violent behavior; and abusive behavior in intimate relationships. None of these variables has been signifi-
cantly associated with deactivation. Hyperactivation has also been associated with trait anger, anger externaliza-
tion, anger arousal, hostile outlook, rumination on anger-related thoughts, and problems in controlling anger
expression. Deactivation has been significantly associated with anger internalization, suggesting that an angry
state of mind is still active despite deactivation of the power system and that anger-related feelings are directed
toward the self rather than other people.
Finally, both hyperactivation and deactivation have been associated with lower scores on measures of feelings
of dominance and power, implying that these orientations are two different ways of coping with lack of power.
In addition, deactivation but not hyperactivation is associated with measures of submissiveness and self-abase-
ment, indicating that people who score high on deactivation of the power system suppress their own needs and
desires while deferring to others.
Hyperactivated power was associated significantly with both ECR anxiety and avoidance, and deactivation was
associated only with anxiety. These results are quite different from ones for other behavioral systems measures, sug-
gesting that power and the associated emotion of anger do not work in the same way as, for example, caregiving.444 15. MEASURES OF ADULT ATTACHMENT AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
POWER BEHAVIORAL SYSTEM SCALE
In the following questionnaire, we are interested in
the way you usually feel, think, and act when you have
an argument, conflict, disagreement, or fight with other
people. Please read each statement and indicate the
extent to which you agree with it.
Deactivation items
I tend to relinquish important goals if their
attainment requires confronting other people.
It’s hard for me to react assertively when someone
hurts my feelings, even if the blow to my self-esteem
is severe and unjustified.
During an argument, I usually don’t try very hard to
defend my viewpoint.
I’d rather compromise than fight for my point of view,
even if it means sacrificing some of my own interests.
I tend to avoid attacking, even if it’s a matter of self-
defense.
I’d rather let others win an argument, even when I
know I’m right.
I’d rather bend my principles somewhat rather than
get into an argument or struggle with someone.
Even when someone takes something I value or need,
I don’t usually raise a fuss about it.
It’s hard for me to confront someone, even when I
know it’s justifiable.
I’d rather not show people I’m angry, even when my
anger is justified.
I’d rather avoid situations that require me to exert
authority over others.
I’d rather not confront other people, even when I’m
being harmed or my interests are being ignored.
When someone insults or ignores me, I can maintain
my balance and ‘cool.’
I find it difficult to debate with someone even when
the issue at hand is important to me.Hyperactivation items
It’s very hard for me to accept losing an argument or
conflict with someone else.
I feel anxious in situations where I have little control
over other people and their actions.
In an argument or disagreement, my strong desire to
fight back makes it difficult for me to consider other
possible responses.
Sometimes I get so engrossed in a battle or conflict
with someone, I forget what I was originally trying to
accomplish.
When someone attacks me and I have no opportunity
to fight back, I feel very frustrated.
When I feel I don’t have much control over others, I
feel anxious and frustrated.
It’s hard for me to stop arguing, even when the other
person has conceded.
When people undermine my authority, I feel very
upset about it.
When I’m unsuccessful at getting people to do what I
want, I feel inadequate and depressed.
When somebody hurts me, I’m flooded with thoughts
of revenge.
I am quick to confront people who threaten to hurt
me or my interests.
During a confrontation, when I’m not successful in
fighting back, I feel weak and helpless.
Sometimes, my strong impulse to fight back keeps
me from choosing the best way to get what I’m
entitled to.
I enjoy having complete authority over others.
Notes : Items are rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale
ranging from: 1 5Strongly disagree to 7 5Strongly
agree.
Reproduced with permission.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Beginning with Bowlby’s creation of attachment theory, as an offshoot of psychoanalytic theory, and propelled
by Ainsworth’s invention of the Strange Situation assessment procedure for infants, and then extended into per-
sonality/social psychology by Hazan and Shaver (1987) , the study of adolescent and adult attachment has mush-
roomed over several decades to become one of the major topics in the social/personality field. As the topic area
has grown, new measures have been created and refined, and at present there is no sign of a slow-down in this
process. There is very strong evidence for the importance of attachment security in various kinds of relationships,
including ones with pets and religious personages. A great deal of research shows that the two main dimensions
of insecurity first identified by Ainsworth et al. (1978) , attachment anxiety and avoidance, can be distinguished
and have many distinct correlates with other variables and mental and relational processes.445 FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
Several alternative attachment measures are available, and most of them have good reliability (both internal
consistency and test /C0retest reliability) and construct validity. When measures of social desirability bias are
included in attachment studies, the attachment measures do not seem to be contaminated with bias.
There is still room to improve measures of attachment-related variables. The attachment anxiety subscales of
many of the measures do not have any or many positively worded items, and as Fraley and his colleagues have
shown, attachment insecurity scales discriminate better on their insecure ends than on their secure (i.e., non-
avoidant and non-anxious) ends. When this problem has been tackled, as has happened in creating the ECR-R,
anxiety and avoidance become more highly correlated with each other. This probably happens because expand-
ing the scales at their secure ends in similar ways causes the two kinds of security items to correlate with each
other, which in turn makes the scales as wholes correlate more with each other. Whether or not this leads to
weaker detection of distinct effects of anxiety and avoidance remains unclear.
Enough work has been done to create and evaluate measures of attachment theory’s key constructs that we
can be confident that the theory is worth pursuing further with even better measures. We hope the present chap-
ter stirs interest in providing such measures.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation . Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Alonso-Arbiol, I., Balluerka, N., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). A Spanish version of the Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR) adult attachment
questionnaire. Personal Relationships ,14,4 5/C063.
Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psy-
chological wellbeing in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence ,16, 427/C0454.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology ,61, 226/C0244.
Bosmans, G., Bowles, D. P., Dewitte, M., De Winter, S., & Braet, C. (2014). An experimental evaluation of the state adult attachment measure:
The influence of attachment primes on the content of state attachment representations. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 5, 134/C0150.
Boyle, G. J., Stankov, L., & Cattell, R. B. (1995). Measurement and statistical models in the study of personality and intelligence. In D. H.
Saklofske, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 417 /C0446). New York: Plenum.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson, &
W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46 /C076). New York: Guilford.
Cameron, J. J., Finnegan, H., & Morry, M. M. (2012). Orthogonal dreams in an oblique world: A meta-analysis of the association between
attachment anxiety and avoidance. Journal of Research in Personality ,46, 472/C0476.
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J., & Kashy, D. A. (2005). Perceptions of conflict and support in romantic relationships: The role of attach-
ment anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,88, 510/C0531.
Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences . New York: Plenum.
Cattell, R. B., & Vogelmann, S. (1977). A comprehensive trial of the scree and K.G. criteria for determining the number of factors. Multivariate
Behavioral Research ,12, 289/C0325.
Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology ,71, 810/C0832.
Collins, N. L., Feeney, B. C., & Brooke, C. (2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiving in inti-
mate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,78, 1053/C01073.
Collins, N. L., Ford, M. B., Guichard, A. C., Kane, H. S., & Feeney, B. C. (2010). Responding to need in intimate relationships: Social support
and caregiving processes in couples. In M. Mikulincer, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior (pp. 367 /C0389).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment working models and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology ,58, 644/C0663.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory.
Journal of Personality Assessment ,64,2 1/C050.
Enders-Slegers, M. (2000). The meaning of companion animals: Qualitative analysis of the life histories of elderly cat and dog owners. In E. S.
Podberscek, J. A. Paul, & J. A. Serpell (Eds.), Companion animals and us: Exploring the relationships between people and pets (pp. 209 /C0236).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Hanrahan, M. (1994). Assessing adult attachment: Developments in the conceptualization of security and insecurity.
In M. B. Sperling, & W. H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults: Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 128 /C0152). New York, NY: Guilford.
Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The Experiences in Close Relationships-Relationship Structures
Questionnaire: A method for assessing attachment orientations across relationships. Psychological Assessment ,23, 615/C0625.
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology ,78, 350/C0365.
Frı´as, M. T., Shaver, P. R., & Dı ´az-Loving, R. (2014). Individualism and collectivism as moderators of the relation between attachment insecuri-
ties, coping, and social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships ,31,1/C031.446 15. MEASURES OF ADULT ATTACHMENT AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
Geisler, A. M. (2004). Companion animals in palliative care. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care ,21, 285/C0288.
George, C., & Solomon, J. (2008). The caregiving behavioral system: A behavioral system approach to parenting. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver
(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 833 /C0856). New York, NY: Guilford.
Gillath, O., Hart, J., Noftle, E. E., & Stockdale, G. D. (2009). Development and validation of a state adult attachment measure (SAAM). Journal
of Research in Personality ,43, 362/C0373.
Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). The metaphysics of measurement: The case of adult attachment. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman
(Eds.), Advances in personal relationships: Vol. 5, Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 17 /C052). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,52,
511/C0524.
Hunt, M., Al-Awadi, H., & Johnson, M. (2008). Psychological sequelae of pet loss following hurricane Katrina. Anthrozoo ¨s,21, 109/C0121.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review ,110, 265/C0284.
Kunce, L. J., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). An attachment-theoretical approach to caregiving in romantic relationships. In K. Bartholomew &
D. Pearlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships. Attachment processes in adulthood (Vol. 5, pp. 205 /C0237). London: Kingsley.
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (2000). Exploring individual differences in reactions to mortality salience. Does attachment style regulate terror
management mechanisms? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,79, 260/C0273.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change . New York, NY: Guilford.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2009). An attachment and behavioral systems perspective on social support. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships ,26,7/C019.
Noftle, E. E., & Shaver, P. R. (2006). Attachment dimensions and the big five personality traits: Associations and comparative ability to predict
relationship quality. Journal of Research in Personality ,40, 179/C0208.
Onishi, M., & Gjerde, P. F. (1994). Adult attachment styles: A multi-method examination of personality characteristics. Paper presented at the biennial
meeting of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367 /C0389).
Chichester, England: Wiley.
Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., & Orin ˜a, M. M. (1999). Attachment and anger in an anxiety-provoking situation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology ,76, 940/C0957.
Shaver, P. R., & Brennan, K. A. (1992). Attachment styles and the “Big Five” personality traits: Their connections with each other and with
romantic relationship outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin ,18, 536/C0545.
Shaver, P. R., Mikulincer, M., & Shemesh-Iron, M. (2010). A behavioral-systems perspective on prosocial behavior. In M. Mikulincer, & P.
Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior (pp. 73 /C092). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Shaver, P. R., Segev, M., & Mikulincer, M. (2011). A behavioral systems perspective on power and aggression. In P. R. Shaver, & M.
Mikulincer (Eds.), Human aggression and violence. Causes, manifestations, and consequences (pp. 71 /C087). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Simpson, J. (1990). The influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,59, 971/C0980.
Simpson, J. A., Kim, J. S., Fillo, J., Ickes, W., Rholes, W. S., Orin ˜a, M. M., et al. (2011). Attachment and the management of empathic accuracy
in relationship-threatening situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin ,37, 242/C0254.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: An attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology ,71, 899/C0914.
Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale (ECR) /C0Short Form: Reliability,
validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment ,88, 187/C0204.
West, M. L., & Sheldon-Keller, A. E. (1994). Patterns of relating: An adult attachment perspective . New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Zasloff, R. L. (1996). Measuring attachment to companion animals: A dog is not a cat is not a bird. Applied Animal Behavior Science ,47,4 3/C048.
Zayas, V., Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Aber, L. (2011). Roots of adult attachment: Maternal caregiving at 18 months predicts adult peer and part-
ner attachment. Social Psychological and Personality Science ,2, 289/C0297.
Zilcha-Mano, S., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2011). An attachment perspective on human /C0pet relationships: Conceptualization and assess-
ment of pet attachment orientations. Journal of Research in Personality ,45, 345/C0357.447 REFERENCES
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
CHAPTER
16
Measures of Concerns with Public
Image and Social Evaluation
Mark R. Leary, Katrina P . Jongman-Sereno and Kate J. Diebels
Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
People’s outcomes in life are greatly affected by other people’s impressions and evaluations of them. Whether
people are perceived as friendly or unfriendly, intelligent or stupid, sincere or duplicitous, dependable or irre-
sponsible, or in myriad other ways has broad-ranging implications for how they fare in their social, occupational,
romantic, financial, and other pursuits. As a result, people are attuned to how they are being perceived and eval-
uated by others, often try to behave in ways that convey impressions of themselves to others that will result in
desired outcomes, and sometimes become distressed when others do not perceive and evaluate them as they
desire ( Leary, 1995; Schlenker, 2012 ).
Although being concerned with other people’s judgments is sometimes viewed as a sign of insecurity, vanity,
deceit, or manipulativeness, in fact, social-evaluative concerns are a normal and adaptive aspect of human behav-
ior. Concerns with social evaluations keep socially undesirable behaviors in check and facilitate smooth and
rewarding social interactions. People who pay insufficient attention to how they are viewed by others fare very
poorly in domains of life in which others’ evaluations may affect their outcomes. Indeed, a world in which no
one cared how they were viewed by other people would be intolerable for everyone.
Although most people occasionally become concerned with how they are perceived and evaluated by others,
individuals differ in the degree to which they are attuned to other people’s evaluations of them, are motivated to
make desired impressions on others, experience distress when their public images are damaged or others’ evalua-
tions of them are unfavorable, and use various tactics to convey impressions of themselves to other people. This
chapter focuses on measures of personality characteristics that reflect individual differences in such concerns.
These differences in concerns with public image and social evaluation moderate people’s behavior when the
importance of others’ evaluations is salient and help to predict an array of behaviors and emotions that are tied
to people’s concerns with others’ impressions and evaluations of them ( Leary, 1995 ).
People’s concerns with public image and social evaluations are reflected in a number of psychological pro-
cesses involving attentional, motivational, emotional, and behavioral elements. These features are obviously cor-
related and interdependent, yet they reflect distinct processes that underlie individual differences in social-
evaluative concerns.
First, people differ in the degree to which they think about other people’s impressions of them and desire to
be evaluated in particular ways. Some people think a great deal about their public images, are cognizant that
others might be evaluating them, and mull over the possibility of making undesired impressions. Other people
think about their social image and others’ evaluations much less frequently and do so primarily when situational
demands make social evaluation particularly salient. All other things being equal, people who are more attuned
to the fact that other people are scrutinizing or judging them will be more concerned about social evaluations /C0
and more motivated to manage their impressions in ways that convey desired impressions /C0than those who
think less about how they are being viewed by others.
Second, people differ in the degree to which they worry about being perceived and evaluated in undesired
ways and experience emotional distress when the possibility of making undesired impressions arises.
448Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386915-9.00016-4 ©2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
Whereas some people are rarely troubled by social anxiety, embarrassment, and other negative emotions when
they think that others might evaluate them negatively, other people become greatly distressed when they might
make an undesired impression or be evaluated negatively.
Third, people differ in the nature of the public images they try to maintain and in the tactics they use to foster
such images. For example, people may place more or less emphasis on being viewed as likeable versus compe-
tent, and may use different behavioral tactics to convey these images to other people. Given the same interper-
sonal goals, people may use different self-presentational tactics.
This chapter reviews measures that assess these three aspects of concerns with public image and social evalua-
tion. Although conceptually distinct, these aspects of social-evaluative concerns are obviously interdependent
and often highly correlated. Furthermore, many of the measures that we discuss, even ones that purport to assess
only one of these aspects of concerns with public image and social evaluation, actually measure more than one.
For practical research purposes, this conflation of constructs is often not an issue because the investigator is inter-
ested in measuring a global concern with public image or social evaluation and has no need to distinguish among
the underlying, component processes. Yet, we caution researchers that some of these measures do not assess the
distinct constructs that their labels might imply, and we urge them to consider the item content carefully.
MEASURES REVIEWED HERE
We have chosen nine measures that reflect concerns with public image and social evaluation for review.
These measures fall roughly into three categories that reflect the three processes just described. Specifically, we
review measures that reflect (1) attentiveness to social evaluation and motivation to impression-manage; (2) affec-
tive reactions to social-evaluative concerns; and (3) self-presentational styles.
Attentiveness to Social Evaluation and Motivation to Impression-Manage
1.Public Self-Consciousness Scale ( Scheier & Carver, 1985 )
2.Self-Monitoring Scale ( Snyder & Gangestad, 1986 )
3.Martin /C0Larsen Approval Motivation Scale ( Martin, 1984 )
Affective Reactions to Social-Evaluative Concerns
4.Social Interaction Anxiety Scale ( Mattick & Clarke, 1998 )
5.Social Phobia Scale ( Mattick & Clarke, 1998 )
6.Social Physique Anxiety Scale ( Hart, Leary, & Rejeski, 1989 )
7.Susceptibility to Embarrassment Scale ( Kelly & Jones, 1997 )
Self-Presentational Behaviors
8.Self-Presentation Tactics ( Lee, Quigley, Nesler, Corbett, & Tedeschi, 1999 )
9.Impression Management Styles ( Bolino & Turnley, 1999 )
OVER VIEW OF THE MEASURES
The first three measures involve the degree to which people attend to their public images and, thus, are moti-
vated to manage other people’s impressions and evaluations of them. Public self-consciousness involves the
degree to which people attend to and think about their public image, self-monitoring involves the degree to
which people monitor their public image so that it is appropriate to social norms and the roles they play,
and approval motivation involves the degree to which people are motivated to obtain approval and avoid
disapproval from other people. All three of the scales reviewed in this section are revisions of earlier scales.
The revised Public Self-consciousness Scale ( Scheier & Carver, 1985 ) is intended for community samples,
although the original measure ( Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975 ) is an equally sound scale that is typically used
for college-educated respondents. In contrast, the revised versions of the Self-monitoring Scale ( Snyder &
Gangestad, 1986 ) and the Martin /C0Larsen Approval Motivation Scale ( Martin, 1984 ) described here are decidedly
better measures than their predecessors.449 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
The second set of measures assesses emotional reactions that arise when people become concerned with how
others are perceiving and evaluating them. A number of good measures of social anxiety have been developed
(see Leary, 1991 , for a review), but we review only the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale ( Mattick & Clarke, 1998 )
because it is one of the most recent additions to the body of such measures. Researchers interested in measuring
individual differences in social anxiety should consider the merits of the various scales that exist. Despite its
name, the Social Phobia Scale ( Mattick & Clarke, 1998 ) does not measure social phobia per se but rather individ-
ual differences in the degree to which people become anxious when they believe that others are observing
or scrutinizing them. We prefer the term ‘scrutiny fear’ for this construct. The Social Physique Anxiety Scale
(Hart et al., 1989 ) assesses individual differences in the degree to which people experience social anxiety when
they believe that others are evaluating their body or physique. The fourth scale in this section is the
Susceptibility to Embarrassment Scale ( Kelly & Jones, 1997 ), the first new measure of embarrassability to appear
since Modigliani’s (1966) classic scale.
Finally, we review two measures that assess the kinds of impressions that people prefer to make on others and
the tactics that they use to do so. The Self-Presentation Tactics Scale ( Lee et al., 1999 ) contains subscales that
assess the use of 12 self-presentation tactics, including excuses, justifications, disclaimers, self-handicapping,
apologies, intimidation, supplication, entitlement, enhancement, blasting, and exemplification. In contrast, the
Impression Management Styles Scale ( Bolino & Turnley, 1999 ) measures the degree to which people use each of
the five self-presentational styles identified by Jones and Pittman (1982) /C0to appear competent (self-promotion),
friendly and likeable (ingratiation), morally exemplary (exemplification), threatening (intimidation), and helpless
and weak (supplication).
As should be clear, each of the nine measures reviewed here assesses a fundamentally different construct.
Each of the constructs involves people’s concerns with their social image and others’ evaluations of them, but the
measures tap into different aspects of these concerns.
Public Self-Consciousness Scale (PuSC)
(Scheier & Carver, 1985 ).
Variable
Public self-consciousness refers to the degree to which people are aware of themselves as social objects, are
attuned to the impressions they make on others, and think about how other people might be perceiving or evalu-
ating them.
Sample
The revised PuSC Scale was developed using a sample of 298 university students ( Scheier & Carver, 1985 ).
Description
The original PuSC was developed empirically during construction of the Self-consciousness Scale, a 23-item
measure that includes subscales for public self-consciousness, private self-consciousness, and social anxiety
(Fenigstein et al., 1975 ). The seven items on the PuSC Scale assess the extent to which people focus on themselves
as social objects and are aware of or concerned about how they are viewed by others. Public self-consciousness
consistently emerges as one of three factors in factor analyses of the Self-consciousness Scale.
Although the original PuSC Scale has good psychometric properties and has been used extensively, certain scale
items may be difficult for nonstudent respondents to understand. As a result, Scheier and Carver (1985) reworded
problematic items without changing their content. Scores on the revised PuSC Scale correlated 0.84 with the original
scale. Furthermore, each of the revised items loaded onto the appropriate factors, with similar magnitudes, as the
original items. On the revised PuSC Scale, which uses a 4-point response format, the mean scores for a sample of
213 male and 85 female undergraduate students were 13.5 and 14.2, respectively, with no significant difference
between men and women. The mean score was 11.8 for a sample of 396 female adults (aged 45 /C050 years).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the revised PuSC Scale was found to be 0.84, which was slightly higher than that
for the original scale ( Scheier & Carver, 1985 ).White and Peloza (2009) also reported a similar alpha coefficient450 16. MEASURES OF CONCERNS WITH PUBLIC IMAGE AND SOCIAL EVALUATION
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
(α50.81), and a study that administered an Arabic translation of the revised PuSC Scale reported Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients of 0.75 with high-school students and 0.81 with university students ( Alanazi, 2001 ). Studies that have
used the original PuSC Scale typically demonstrate alpha coefficients exceeding 0.70 ( Crawford & Novak, 2013;
Ghorbani, Watson, & Weathington, 2009; McKenzie & Hoyle, 2008 ) if not 0.80 ( Crawford & Novak, 2013; LaBrie,
Pedersen, Neighbors, & Hummer, 2008; Lalwani, Shrum, & Chiu, 2009; Park, Sher, & Krull, 2006; Workman & Lee,
2011; Xu, 2008 ), although Sharp, Voci, and Hewstone (2011) reported an alpha coefficient of 0.67.
Test/C0Retest
For the revised scale, the 4-week test-retest correlation was found to be 0.74 ( Scheier & Carver, 1985 ).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
The original PuSC Scale correlated with variables that reflect an awareness of oneself as a social object and
concerns with others’ impressions, including social anxiety ( r50.34), fear of negative evaluation ( rs50.65, 0.63),
social identity ( rs50.46, 0.54), and shyness ( r50.30) ( Schlenker & Weigold, 1990 ). The scale also correlated with
scores on the Self-Monitoring Scale ( r50.19 to 0.30), which reflects the degree to which people manage their
impressions to meet the demands of the current social situation ( Briggs, Cheek, & Buss, 1980 ). The original PuSC
Scale correlated only moderately with sociability ( r50.22; Carver & Glass, 1976 ).
Divergent/Discriminant
The original PuSC Scale did not correlate with measures of intelligence ( r520.11), need for achievement
(r50.09), test anxiety ( r520.01), or impulsivity ( r520.12). Additionally, the PuSC Scale did not correlate with
openness ( r50.02), extraversion ( r520.02), neuroticism ( r50.02), affinity-seeking ( r50.09), or self-esteem
(r520.08), and correlated only weakly with conscientiousness ( r50.16) and agreeableness ( r50.18) ( Lee,
Moore, Park, & Park, 2012 ). Several studies show that the PuSC Scale does not correlate with measures of social
desirability (e.g., Hofmann, Gschwendner, & Schmitt, 2005 ), although it did correlate weakly ( r520.23) with
scores on a short form of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale ( Heintz & Steele-Johnson, 2004 ).
Construct/Factor Analytic
Public self-consciousness consistently emerges as one of three factors in factor analyses of the Self-consciousness
Scale, whether the original or revised scale items are used ( Bernstein, Teng, & Garbin, 1986; Burnkrant & Page, 1984;
Chang, 1998; Cramer, 2000; Fenigstein et al., 1975; Nystedt & Smari, 1989; Scheier & Carver, 1985 ). However, ques-
tions have been raised about whether the public self-consciousness items themselves might be multidimensional.
For example, Mittal and Balasubramanian (1987) suggested that the Public Self-consciousness Scale is composed of
two factors /C0style consciousness (concern about one’s personal behavioral style and self-presentation) and appear-
ance consciousness (concern about one’s physical appearance and attractiveness).
Although some evidence supports a two-factor structure for the original PuSC Scale ( Nystedt & Ljungberg,
2002; Watson, Morris, Ramsey, Hickman, & Waddell, 1996 ), the two factors relate similarly to other measures
(Watson et al., 1996 ), and separate research supports a unidimensional structure for both the original PuSC
Scale ( Bernstein et al., 1986; Burnkrant & Page, 1984; Cramer, 2000; Piliavin & Charng, 1988 ) and the revised
scale ( Alanazi, 2001; Chang, 1998; Martin & Debus, 1999 ). Evidently, the bulk of the evidence supports a one-
factor structure.
Criterion/Predictive
Two studies demonstrated that people who score high in public self-consciousness think about themselves
from the perspectives of other people more than those who are low in public self-consciousness, as the conceptu-
alization of the construct suggests. When asked to draw an ‘E’ on their forehead, high publicly self-conscious par-
ticipants were significantly more likely than lows to draw the ‘E’ from an external perspective /C0that is, so that it
appeared normal to an observer /C0consistent with the idea that they view themselves as a social object from the
perspective of others ( Hass, 1984 ). Furthermore, participants who were high in public self-consciousness demon-
strated a stronger ‘self-as-target’ bias by overestimating the likelihood that they would be chosen to participate
in a demonstration in front of their peers, compared to participants low in public self-consciousness
(Fenigstein, 1984 ). Thinking about oneself from the perspectives of other people is associated with a greater sense
that one is the target of others’ actions.451 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES |
Subsets and Splits