Download pdf - From Emotional Intelligence to Intelligent Choice of Partner

This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 11 October 2014, At: 03:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Social PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

From Emotional Intelligence toIntelligent Choice of PartnerOren Aaron Amitay a & Myriam Mongrain aa York UniversityPublished online: 07 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Oren Aaron Amitay & Myriam Mongrain (2007) From Emotional Intelligenceto Intelligent Choice of Partner, The Journal of Social Psychology, 147:4, 325-343, DOI: 10.3200/SOCP.147.4.325-344

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.147.4.325-344

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.3200/SOCP.147.4.325-344

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.3200/SOCP.147.4.325-344

http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.147.4.325-344

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Address correspondence to Oren Aaron Amitay, Department of Psychology, Ryerson University, Jorgenson Hall (JOR) 826, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 2K3, Canada; [email protected] (e-mail).

325

The Journal of Social Psychology, 2007, 147(4), 325–343

Copyright © 2007 Heldref Publications

From Emotional Intelligence to Intelligent Choice of Partner

OREN AARON AMITAYMYRIAM MONGRAIN

York University

ABSTRACT. The authors examined interpersonal correlates of emotional intelligence (EI) in a sample of individuals with a history of depression. The authors focused on potentially adaptive relationship dynamics associated with EI that may help protect these vulnerable individuals from further distress. Participants with high EI, as measured with the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; J. D. Mayer, P. Salovey, & D. R. Caruso, 2002), saw their partners as less hostile, critical, and rejecting in their support styles than did participants with low EI. Partners’ own reports mostly corroborated these findings. Unexpectedly, although partners of high EI participants reported offering less active and directive support than did partners of low EI participants, high EI participants perceived their partners as more supportive than did low EI participants. Partners of emotionally intelligent participants also reported being more conscientious and open to experiences, offering some evidence of the stress-buffering hypothesis associated with higher EI.

Keywords: assortive mating, depression, emotional intelligence, social support

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE (EI) and its possible association with various facets of human functioning became the focus of much theoretical and empirical research during the 1990s (Salovey & Sluyter, 1997). Accompanying this move-ment was an increasing interest in positive psychology and the resilience factors that help people in the face of adverse conditions (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). The present work represents an attempt to combine these areas of research by studying EI in a sample of people vulnerable to major depression. In this study, we aimed to identify adaptive personality features that correlate with depression and may help people with a history of depression create more supportive inter-personal environments for themselves. Specifically, we tested the possibility that having high EI would be related to having a more supportive and less critical romantic partner than the average low EI participant would have.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

54 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Salovey and Mayer (1990) introduced the term emotional intelligence to describe people’s ability to understand, perceive, manage, and use emotions to help them function adaptively in various areas of their life. The EI construct has its roots in Thorndike’s (1920) concept of social intelligence, Gardner’s (1983) concept of personal intelligence, and related themes focusing on the ability to understand and deal with others and to engage competently in social situations. Seeking to investigate whether EI promoted healthier functioning at the personal, interpersonal, societal, and cultural levels, Mayer, DiPaolo, and Salovey (1990) developed the first peer-reviewed and published scale designed specifically to assess this construct. Although numerous other researchers soon adopted the term EI, often modifying and expanding its meaning, those researchers have devoted very little systematic and scientifically acceptable research to operationally defin-ing and testing EI and the tools they have claimed can assess it (Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998; for an exhaustive review and critique of the EI literature, see Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002; see also Roberts, Zeidner, & Matthews, 2001). In contrast, a methodical investigation of EI led Mayer and colleagues to focus on what they considered to be a quantifiable conceptualization of this construct, which they described as involving

the ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emotion; the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth. (Mayer & Salovey, 1997, p. 10)

Such abilities comprise what Mayer and Salovey identified as the four-branch model of EI: (a) perceiving emotions, (b) using emotions to facilitate thought, (c) understanding emotions, and (d) managing emotions. Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (1997, 2002) developed the Multibranch Emotional Intel-ligence Scale (MEIS) to objectively measure and psychometrically confirm their four-branch model in a manner similar to how psychologists have confirmed the methodologies that traditional intelligence tests employ. In four key studies on the reliability and validity of the MEIS, researchers produced encouraging results (see Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000; Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999; Roberts et al., 2001; for a review, see Matthews et al., 2002).

Mayer et al. (2002) improved the MEIS to create the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT).1 Because the MSCEIT is a relatively new instrument, researchers have yet to publish much data on its reliability and valid-ity. However, initial results have indicated important conceptual and statistical similarities between the current MSCEIT (version 2.0) and its two predecessors (MSCEIT version 1.1 and the MEIS; Mayer et al., 2002; see the Method section for further information on the MSCEIT’s reliability and validity). In the present study, we used the MSCEIT (version 2.0) to measure EI in the hopes of produc-ing further construct validity for this test and elaborating on the interpersonal benefits of high EI.

326 The Journal of Social Psychology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

54 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

In their exploration of links between EI and various facets of human function-ing, Mayer, Salovey, and others have demonstrated the value of examining inde-pendently the different abilities captured by the MSCEIT’s four branches (which correspond to the components of the four-branch model of EI). For instance, Lopes, Salovey, and Strauss (2003) found that higher levels of Managing Emotions on the MSCEIT were associated with improved parental support and perceived quality of relationships with friends. Mayer et al. (2002) reported on a number of as-yet unpublished studies which indicate positive correlations between different branch scores on the MSCEIT and attachment security (how easily individuals are able to form close relationships with others without feeling overly dependent on them, and how confident and comfortable they feel in such relationships and when they are alone; see Fullam, 2002). Different MSCEIT tasks have also been associated with perceptions of support and reassurances of one’s worth from one’s social network, as well as feelings of closeness and the provision of support to people in one’s life (Fullam). Finally, Brackett (2001) and Formica (1998) found that high levels of EI were highly correlated with a feeling of connectedness with and caring for signifi-cant others. In short, researchers have successfully used the ability-based measures of EI to demonstrate that people who are more adept at perceiving, understanding, and using emotions tend to enjoy healthier self-esteem and more positive or sup-portive relationships.

One area of functioning that researchers have yet to explore with the MSCEIT (at least at the time that we conducted the present research) is depres-sion; this is somewhat surprising given that one might expect a mood disorder such as depression to be related to EI. According to Blazer, Kessler, McGonagle, and Swartz (1994), lifetime prevalence rates of major depression may be as high as 17.1%. Other researchers have reported rates of relapse ranging from approximately 45% (Lewinsohn, Zeiss, & Duncan, 1989) to 80% (Judd, 1997), with sufferers experiencing an average of four episodes in their lifetimes (Judd). Depression is thus relatively pervasive and highly recurrent, which warrants further investigation into factors that may lead to, help prevent, or mitigate the course of this disorder.

Recent studies exploring EI and depression have revealed the complexity of the relation between these two variables as well as the advantage of incorpo-rating multifactor models of EI into such research. For example, Martinez-Pons’ (2003) path analyses indicated that individuals scoring higher on a multifactor model of self-reported trait EI were more goal-oriented, more satisfied with life, and less depressed than were lower scorers. Similarly, Saklofske, Austin, and Minski (2003) found that a four-factor model of trait EI was correlated positively with life satisfaction and negatively with proneness to depression. In a study on possible moderating effects of EI on stress and mental health, Ciar-rochi, Deane, and Anderson (2002) reported that higher self-ratings of one’s ability to manage emotions predicted lower levels of depression. However, when Ciarrochi et al. (2002) conducted similar studies using a more objective

Amitay & Mongrain 327

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

54 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

measure of emotional perception—one that was ability-based (i.e., actually test-ing EI-related abilities rather than relying on self-ratings) and modeled after the Perceiving Emotions subscale of the MEIS (Mayer et al., 1999; Mayer & Geher, 1996; see also Freudenthaler & Neubauer, 2005; Matthews et al., 2002)—their results indicated, surprisingly, that superior ability to identify emotions was related to higher levels of depression, hopelessness, and suicidal ideation in response to stress (Ciarrochi et al., 2002). In light of the preceding discrepant results when assessing EI through self-report versus objective, ability-based indexes, more research is needed to help elucidate this construct’s apparent relation to depression.

One avenue of research that might help clarify EI’s possible role in the etiology or recurrence of mood disorders pertains to social relations. Numerous studies have indicated that various interpersonal factors, either in depressed individuals (e.g., lack of social skills) or in those around them (e.g., excessive criticism), can contribute to the development (e.g., Davila, Hammen, Burge, Paley, & Daley, 1995), maintenance (e.g., Bieling & Alden, 2001), and relapse (e.g., Hooley & Teasdale, 1989) of depression. In contrast, other researchers (e.g., Brown, Andrews, Harris, Adler, & Bridge, 1986) have found that social support from a significant other mitigates the risk of depres-sion. Lopes, Salovey, Côté, and Beers (2005) found that objectively assessed superior ability to regulate emotions correlated with participants’ self- and peer-reported levels of interpersonal sensitivity and prosocial tendencies. Similarly, a series of studies by Schutte et al. (2001) revealed positive cor-relations between self-reported trait EI and several indicators of superior interpersonal functioning. These results suggest that depressed individuals with high EI may reduce their risk of becoming more depressed, or relaps-ing in times of remission, if they are inclined to mate with more supportive significant others.

Accordingly, in the current study, we intended to examine, in a population with a history of depression, associations between EI and the interpersonal styles of the study participants’ romantic partners. We hypothesized that depressed individuals with higher levels of EI would be more likely to choose support-ive partners (see Lopes et al., 2003). In contrast to the majority of researchers who have used self-report-based measurements of EI, we assessed EI with the MSCEIT, an ability-based test that is not affected by social desirability bias or current mood state (Lopes et al., 2003). Although this approach helped us avoid the typical limitations of self-report methodologies (Matthews et al., 2002), it did raise the possibility that we might not be able to see the aforementioned links between EI and depression that researchers observed in self-report-based studies (for relations between self-reported and objectively assessed measures of EI, see Freudenthaler & Neubauer, 2005). Nevertheless, Mayer et al.’s (2002) review of MSCEIT data on positive social correlates of ability-based measurements of EI lent support to our main hypothesis.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

54 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

We further aimed, in the current project, to improve on past research by supplementing participants’ ratings of their partners’ support styles with the partners’ own descriptions of their behaviors. These data were intended to pro-vide an additional perspective from which to assess the interpersonal milieu of each participant, and to help reduce the risk that factors potentially unaccounted for might impact a participant’s perceptions of partner support. Another of our goals was to confirm the utility of investigating phenomena related to EI within the framework of the four-branch model (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Although researchers have shown that the different abilities measured by the MSCEIT are related to each other and to a more general EI construct, there are theoretical and empirical reasons to postulate that the MSCEIT’s constituent factors uniquely predict certain indicators of adaptive and maladaptive functioning (e.g., Lopes et al., 2003; Mayer et al., 2002; Salovey & Mayer). To investigate this possibility, we used individual branches of the MSCEIT in our analyses.

In sum, we investigated the following hypotheses: (a) EI would be positively related to participants’ perceptions of better social support and to lower levels of criticism from their partners; (b) partners of emotionally intelligent individu-als would themselves report being more supportive and less critical; and (c) for high EI participants, there would be a high degree of correspondence between participant and partner reports of social support, indicating that the participant’s appraisal of the interpersonal environment was realistic.

Method

Participants

Participants came from a sample of graduate students who had been recruited for a larger research project focusing on depression and interpersonal relationships (see Mongrain & Blackburn, 2005). On the basis of clinical interviews, all were diag-nosed with a prior history of major depression. Each participant was in a romantic relationship at the time of the study and did not exhibit any of the following exclu-sionary criteria: (a) suicidality, (b) psychotic features, (c) substance abuse, (d) bipo-lar disorder, (e) eating disorder, or (f) schizoid, schizotypal, borderline, or antisocial personality disorders. Past episodes of major depression were confirmed through the Structured Clinical Interview (SCID, version 2.0; First, Spitzer, Gibbon, Williams, & Benjamin, 1994) for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV). The SCID was also used to assess whether individuals presented with comorbid disorders that would disqualify them from the study.

Procedure

Following the interview, participants completed a package of question-naires including the Support Actions Scale Circumplex (SAS-C; Trobst, 2000)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

54 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

and the Criticism and Support Perception Scale (CSPS), which we constructed for this study. We mailed these measures to participants’ romantic partners who completed them from home and returned them in postage-paid envelopes that we had provided them. We also mailed participants instructions on how to access a Web site that enabled them to complete an online version of the MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002). Of the 70 participants whose partners returned their questionnaire packages, there were 58 who completed the online measure of EI.2 Of these 58 participants, 8 had partners who provided incomplete data on their questionnaires, resulting in a final total of 50 couples in the study sample. The group of participants that completed the entire battery of tests for this study did not differ from the larger sample on any of the dependent measures. They also did not differ from the larger group in terms of psychopathology (e.g., self-reported depressive symptomology, as assessed with the Center for Epide-miologic Studies Depression Scale; Radloff, 1977) at the time of the interview or number of previous episodes of depression. These variables similarly did not differ between the 8 participants whose partners provided only partial data and the remaining 50 participants. To maintain statistical power in light of the relatively small sample size, we conducted analyses on all 58 target participants where appropriate.

Nine of these 58 participants (16%) had received a diagnosis of a current major depressive episode during the initial assessment. Because they completed the MSCEIT several weeks after the initial interview, their depression statuses at that time were unknown, although there is reason to believe, given the natural course of depression (see Angst, 1988), that these participants may have then been in remission. Women (n = 42; 72%) outnumbered men (n = 16; 28%) in the study sample, and the majority of the sample was Caucasian (n = 51; 88%), with 2 participants (3%) identifying themselves as Asian, 3 (5%) identifying them-selves as belonging to another ethnic/cultural group, and 2 (3%) not providing that information. The participants ranged from 23 to 53 years of age (M = 29.88 years, SD = 5.88 years) and were, at the time of the study, in intimate relationships lasting between 6 months and 16 years (M = 4.86 years, SD = 3.21 years). Of all 58 participants, 24 (41%) were married, 20 (35%) were living with their partners, and 12 (21%) lived apart from their partners; 2 participants did not provide this information on their living arrangements. Most participants were childless (84%), 4 (7%) had one child, 3 (5%) had two children, 1 (2%) had four children, and 1 (2%) had five children.

Measures

SCID for DSM-IV, Axis I Disorders (SCID I; First et al., 1995) and Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID II; First et al., 1996). The SCID I and SCID II are structured clinical interviews to diagnose DSM-IV Axis I disorders and Axis II personality disorders. We audio taped all of the SCID interviews, and an expert


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

54 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

coder rated one-third of them. Interrater reliability was very high at 98% and 93% for Axis I and Axis II disorders, respectively. There was 95% agreement for the diagnosis of past depression.

MSCEIT. The MSCEIT represents the four-branch model of EI, with measure-ments of (a) Perceiving Emotions, (b) Understanding Emotions, (c) Managing Emotions, and (d) Using Emotions to Facilitate Thought. The MSCEIT produces branch scores for each of the four components and a total score that incorporates all four components and provides a more global assessment of an individual’s EI. The branch scores are calculated using the following criteria : For Perceiving Emotions, respondents identify feelings in themselves and recognize what feelings are being conveyed by pictures of other people’s faces and of certain inanimate objects (abstract art and landscapes). For Using Emotions to Facilitate Thought, participants compare different emotions with various sensations such as light and temperature and indicate how moods can interact with each other and influence thinking. For Understanding Emotions, participants label emotions, recognize the normal emotional responses to various situations, and appreciate how certain emotions may conflict in particular situations or change over time. For Managing Emotions, participants are presented with different situations in which people must regulate feelings in themselves and others, and they evalu-ate the effectiveness of alternative actions in achieving a desired result (i.e., emotional state).

Respondents received credit for their answers if they endorsed the same or similar responses to those of a normative sample that was composed of more than 5,000 individuals (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2001, 2003). Mayer et al. (2001, 2003) reported strong correlations (r > .90) between scores based on consensus norms and those based on expert raters in the field of emo-tions. All scores were standardized in relation to the normative sample, which has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15; higher scores are indicative of greater EI. In the current study, the publisher of the MSCEIT, Multi-Health Systems, scored participants’ responses to it using the aforementioned con-sensus-scoring norms. The mean total EI score for the current sample (M = 101.28, SD = 17.88) approximated that of the normative sample. The mean score for men (M = 93.16, SD = 22.88) and the mean score for women (M = 104.45, SD = 14.65) were also similar to reported mean MSCEIT scores by gender for the normative sample (M = 95.44 for men; M = 103.79 for women). Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations for each branch score for the current sample.

Split-half reliabilities for the normative sample’s total score were .91 for expert scoring and .93 for consensus scoring, and they ranged from .79 to .91 for the four branch scores for both types of scoring (Mayer et al., 2003). In different samples, Brackett and Mayer (2003) reported test–retest reliabilities of .86 for the MSCEIT total score and .74–.78 for the four branch scores, whereas Lopes et al. (2003)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

54 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

reported split-half reliabilities of .88 for the total score and .60–.89 for the four branch scores. Brackett and Mayer reported that, for social deviance, the MSCEIT had predictive and discriminant validity in comparisons with measures of personality (see O’Connor & Little, 2003) and well-being. Lopes et al. (2003) reported that the MSCEIT had incremental validity, with respect to personality and verbal intelligence, in the prediction of satisfaction with social relations. In short, both published and as yet unpublished research (as reported in Mayer et al., 2002) on the current, shorter


TABLE 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Scores on Tests of Partner Support Styles and Participants’ Emotional Intelligence (EI)

Scale or subscale M SD

Participant perceptions of partner support styles (n = 58)

SAS-C Dominant–nurturant 80.43 12.95 Dominant–cold/hostile 47.96 11.79 Submissive–nurturant 66.96 11.64 Submissive–cold/hostile 36.52 11.20CSPS Supportiveness 8.15 3.81 Criticalness 3.54 2.09

Partner self-reported support styles (n = 50)

SAS-C Dominant–nurturant 80.75 11.99 Dominant–cold/hostile 49.31 12.85 Submissive–nurturant 66.25 9.62 Submissive–cold/hostile 39.41 10.33CSPS Supportiveness 7.90 4.26 Criticalness 4.38 1.96

Participant MSCEIT scores (n = 58)

Total MSCEIT 101.28 17.88 Perceiving Emotions 100.32 15.90 Using Emotions to Facilitate Thought 98.62 16.78 Understanding Emotions 105.88 18.14 Managing Emotions 101.81 15.53

Note. SAS-C = Support Actions Scale Circumplex (Trobst, 2000); CSPS = Criticism and Support Perception Scale, a measure created for this study, based on Hooley and Teasdale (1989) and Davila et al. (1997), in which participants rate elements of partner support and criticism on a 9-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 9 (very); MSCEIT = Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (Mayer et al., 2002).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

54 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

version of the MSCEIT (version 2.0) indicates that it performs as well as, or better than, its two predecessors as a valid and reliable objective measure of EI.

SAS-C. The SAS-C contains descriptions of different ways one might provide or withhold support when a partner is in need. Trobst developed the SAS-C on the basis of the original interpersonal circle literature (Freedman, Leary, Ossario, & Coffey, 1951; Leary, 1957; see also Sullivan, 1953). She derived 8-item (octant) scales through a series of geometric procedures and statistical analyses on a larger pool of items that had been generated by three experts in interpersonal circumplex modeling whom she had instructed “to assess social support behaviors likely to be undertaken by prototypic individuals of dispositional circumplex types” (Trobst, 1999, p. 975). The octants lie along the interpersonal axes of dominance and nur-turance, which are orthogonal to each other. Dominance is the degree to which one is either dominant or submissive, and nurturance is the degree to which one is either warm and loving, or cold and hateful, in provision of support (Trobst). Respondents taking the SAS-C rate, on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always), how often their partners respond to their needs for help or support in ways that reflect varying levels of nurturance and dominance. In the present study, romantic partners also rated their own supportive behaviors toward the participants.

Trobst (2000) provided construct validity for the SAS-C by demonstrating that it generally relates to a variety of other interpersonal circumplex models, support scales, and personality characteristics. The SAS-C’s octants can be formulated into quadrants that capture the four combinations of dominance and nurturance: (a) dominant–nurturant (e.g., “enthusiastically help out”), (b) domi-nant–cold/hostile (e.g., “advise them to pay attention to what I have to say”), (c) submissive–nurturant (e.g., “not give my opinions unless asked”), and (d) sub-missive–cold/hostile (e.g., “distance myself”; see Carson, 1996, for a discussion of similar applications of circumplex models). In the present study, we decided to use quadrants to enable more parsimonious analyses and presentation of the data. Internal consistencies (αs) for the quadrants ranged from .83 to .89 for par-ticipants and .77 to .89 for partners, with mean αs of .86 and .83, respectively. Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations for the SAS-C quadrants for participants and their partners; quadrant scores can range from a minimum of 16 to a maximum of 128.

The Criticism and Support Perception Scale (CSPS). In this measure, which we adapted from the work of Hooley and Teasdale (1989) and Davila, Bradbury, Cohan, and Tochluk (1997), participants rated, on two separate subscales, how critical and supportive their partners were of them from 1 (not at all) to 9 (very). Partners also rated their own behaviors and indicated how critical and supportive they were of the participants. These items were expected to provide an overall indication of the association between EI and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

54 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

social support, as well as offer converging evidence for the results obtained with the SAS-C.

Results

Data Analyses

We first investigated whether there were statistically significant correlations between the total MSCEIT scores and social support. We examined correlations meeting this criterion through stepwise regression analysis procedures in which we entered the four MSCEIT branches to determine which aspect of EI uniquely contributed to certain partner characteristics. Because MSCEIT variables were all significantly correlated with each other (rs ranging from .36 to .83, all ps < .01), we considered collinearity diagnostics a major determinant in constructing and evaluating predictive regression models. We also conducted independent-samples t tests to determine whether men and women differed from each other on any of the measures of interest. Because we did not find any statistically significant dif-ferences between the sexes, we combined their scores in subsequent analyses.

One of our hypotheses revolved around the degree of correspondence between participants’ and partners’ reports of how much support partners pro-vide. We decided to test this hypothesis by examining whether EI is predictive of discrepancies between participant-perceived and partner-rated levels of sup-port. To detect these discrepancies, we regressed participants’ perceptions of social support on partners’ ratings of the same behaviors, treating the residuals as the difference between participants' ratings and partners' self-ratings. We entered EI as a predictor of these residuals and expected it to have a nonsig-nificant effect, which would indicate a high degree of correspondence between the two types of ratings.

EI and Perceptions of Partner Support

Our analysis revealed that the total MSCEIT score was significantly cor-related with only one SAS-C quadrant from the participants’ questionnaires (see Table 2). Consistent with our first hypothesis, EI was negatively correlated with perception of submissive–cold/hostile support, indicating that those scoring higher on EI saw their partners as less likely to remain cold and distant when the participants were in need of assistance.

To better establish which aspects of EI best predict this type of support style, we regressed the submissive–cold/hostile quadrant onto the MSCEIT factors using the stepwise selection procedure. That is, we entered all four factors of EI as pre-dictors of participants’ reports of their partners’ submissive–cold/hostile support style, and we used stepwise selection to determine the best regression model. The only MSCEIT variable that uniquely predicted submissive–cold/hostile support


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

54 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Amitay & Mongrain 335T

AB

LE

2. C

orre

lati

ons

Bet

wee

n P

arti

cipa

nts’

May

er-S

alov

ey-C

arus

o E

mot

iona

l Int

ellig

ence

Tes

t (M

SCE

IT;

May

er e

t al

., 20

02)

Scor

es a

nd P

erce

ptio

ns o

f P

artn

er S

uppo

rt S

tyle

s

M

SCE

IT s

core

s

B

ranc

h sc

ores

To

tal

Perc

eivi

ng

Usi

ng E

mot

ion

to

Und

erst

andi

ng

Man

agin

gSc

ale

or s

ubsc

ale

sco

res

Em

otio

ns

Faci

litat

e T

houg

ht

Em

otio

ns

Em

otio

ns

Part

icip

ant

perc

epti

ons

of p

artn

er s

uppo

rt s

tyle

s (n

= 5

8)SA

S-C

Dom

inan

t–nu

rtur

ant

.12

.08

.14

–.04

.2

5a

D

omin

ant–

cold

/hos

tile

–.21

–.

13

–.01

–.

43**

* –.

17

Subm

issi

ve–n

urtu

rant

–.

02

–.05

–.

12

.11

.07

Su

bmis

sive

–col

d/ho

stile

–.

27*

–.27

* –.

22

–.13

–.

25a

CSP

S

Supp

ortiv

enes

s .1

3 .0

2 .1

1 .0

5 .2

1

Cri

tical

ness

–.

31*

–.19

–.

14

–.33

* –.

29a

Part

ner

self

-rep

orte

d su

ppor

t st

yles

(n

= 5

0)SA

S-C

Dom

inan

t–nu

rtur

ant

–.42

**

–.39

**

–.13

–.

42**

–.

27a

D

omin

ant–

cold

/hos

tile

–.38

**

–.30

**

–.10

–.

31**

–.

43**

Su

bmis

sive

–nur

tura

nt

–.13

–.

18

–.29

* .0

1 .1

7

Subm

issi

ve–c

old/

host

ile

–.05

–.

11

–.15

.0

6 .0

3C

SPS

Sup

port

iven

ess

–.20

–.

15

.02

–.23

–.

31*

Cri

tical

ness

.1

6 .1

2 .1

1 .0

9 .0

3

Not

e. S

AS-

C =

Sup

port

Act

ions

Sca

le C

ircu

mpl

ex (

Tro

bst,

2000

); C

SPS

= C

ritic

ism

and

Sup

port

Per

cept

ion

Scal

e, a

mea

sure

cre

ated

for

thi

s st

udy,

ba

sed

on H

oole

y an

d Te

asda

le (

1989

) an

d D

avila

et a

l. (1

997)

, in

whi

ch p

artic

ipan

ts r

ate

elem

ents

of

part

ner

supp

ort a

nd c

ritic

ism

on

a 9-

poin

t Lik

ert-

type

sca

le r

angi

ng f

rom

1 (

not

at a

ll)

to 9

(ve

ry).

a Sig

nifi

cant

onl

y fo

r p

< .0

6.* p

< .0

5. **

p <

.01.

*** p

< .0

01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

54 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

was Perceiving Emotions, F(1, 55) = 4.47, p < .05, β = –.27, R2 = .08. Participants who were better at recognizing how they and others feel reported having a partner who was less critical, rejecting, and avoidant when the participant was in need of help or support.

As Table 2 shows, the total MSCEIT score was also significantly correlated with participants’ perceptions of their mates’ criticalness (on the CSPS), indicat-ing that emotionally intelligent participants rated their partners as less critical than did participants with lower EI. When we regressed the four MSCEIT branch scores onto this variable, stepwise selection procedures indicated that Under-standing Emotions uniquely predicted perception of significant other’s critical-ness, F(1, 56) = 7.55, p < .01, β = –.35, R2 = .12. Participants with a greater ability to label and appreciate feelings in themselves and others (i.e., greater empathy) saw their partners as being less critical of them.

EI and Partner Reports of Social Support

Our examination of the relation between participants’ total EI scores and their partners’ self-reports of support styles revealed two significant correlations with the dominant–cold/hostile and dominant–nurturant quadrants (see Table 2). In partial support of our second hypothesis, the overall pattern suggested that individuals with higher EI were less likely than were individuals with lower EI to have partners who reported being dominant in their support styles. As described previously, we used stepwise regression analysis to examine in greater detail the relation between individual EI factors and partners’ self-reported support style for the dominant quadrants of the SAS-C. The only MSCEIT component that was uniquely predic-tive of dominant–cold/hostile support was Managing Emotions, F(1, 48) = 10.62, p < .005, β = –.43, R2 = .18. Participants who were better able to experience and use their emotions to help guide their actions had partners who described themselves as being less arrogant, critical, and directive when offering support.

When we entered all four of the MSCEIT variables as predictors of part-ners’ dominant–nurturant support, an interesting relation appeared: Perceiving Emotions and Understanding Emotions both contributed significantly to domi-nant–nurturant score, F(2, 47) = 6.69, p < .005, βs = –.30 and –.28, respectively, R2 = .22. The direction of the coefficients indicated that participants who could recognize feelings in themselves and others, and who could understand the nature of emotions, were less likely than were other participants to be with partners who saw themselves as taking an active, directive, and supportive role when the participants were in need of help. These results suggest that vulnerable individu-als with high EI may be less reliant on a mate for social or emotional support in times of need than are vulnerable individuals with low EI.

In summary, higher EI was related to perceptions of partners as less criti-cal, less rejecting, and less likely to avoid providing support. Partner self-reports indicated that the mates of high EI participants similarly saw themselves as less


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

54 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

negative (i.e., critical and arrogant) when offering help than did the mates of low EI participants. However, these partners also described themselves as generally less actively involved in providing support to their significant others than did partners of low EI participants.

Congruence Between Participant Perceptions and Partner Reports of Support

The correlations between participants’ perceptions and their partners’ reports of social support indicated a fairly high degree of agreement (rs ranging from .27 to .46, ps < .05), except for scores on the CSPS Criticalness subscale (r = .18, ns). We expected EI to be a nonsignificant predictor of residual scores between participant perceptions and partner ratings of partner-provided support. However, if participants’ MSCEIT scores predicted a significant amount of variance in their perceptions of support—over and above that explained by partners’ self-reports—then EI could be related to biases in perceptions. To test this possibility, we conducted separate regression analyses on all of the participant ratings on the SAS-C and CSPS, entering EI as a predictor of the residual scores after control-ling for partners’ own ratings of each of the outcome variables.

EI was a significant predictor of residual scores for dominant–nurturant support. That is, EI accounted for a significant discrepancy in the perception of partners’ dominant–nurturant support, ∆R2 = .09, β = .33, p < .05. This finding indicates that participants with high EI perceived their partners as being even more active and supportive in times of need than the partners themselves reported. Total EI also significantly predicted residual CSPS Criticalness scores, ∆R2 = .08, β = –.29, p < .05. Participants with higher levels of EI believed their partners to be less critical than the partners described themselves. These findings suggest that, contrary to our hypothesis, EI may be related to positive biases in the perception of support provided by significant others.

Discussion

In line with the recent emphasis in psychological literature on positive psy-chology and hardiness against pernicious circumstances (e.g., Seligman & Csik-szentmihalyi, 2000), in the present study we investigated psychological mecha-nisms that may help protect people vulnerable to depression from suffering future episodes. Specifically, we examined whether emotionally intelligent individuals with a history of depression have romantic partners who possess more favorable support styles—which could potentially mitigate these individuals’ vulnerability to distress (e.g., Billings & Moos, 1984; Cohen & Wills, 1985; Hooley & Teasdale, 1989)—than do the partners of depression-prone individuals with low EI.

We assessed EI with a multifactor, ability-based test that is not susceptible to self-report biases or mood effects (Lopes et al., 2003; Matthews et al., 2002). We also obtained reports of partner support from both members of the relationship


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

54 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

to examine similarities in perceptions of support. Our results support the notion that EI represents a unified form of intelligence comprised of several interrelated subfactors that are uniquely related to various psychological and behavioral phenomena (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). For instance, Perceiving Emotions from the MSCEIT was negatively related to perceptions of submissive–cold/hostile support. Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2000) considered perceiving (and express-ing) emotions the first step in their four-branch model of EI, because people can-not process and use feelings adaptively if they are unable first to notice, attend to, and decipher emotional messages in their environment. In the present case, participants skilled at recognizing how they and others feel were less likely to perceive their partners as critical or as rejecting and disregarding their feelings (see Trobst, 2000). Similarly, Understanding Emotions, which Mayer et al. (2000) considered the third step in their model of EI, was negatively correlated with perceptions of partner’s criticalness. Participants who can appreciate the nature of feelings in themselves and others, or who are more empathic, describe their mates as being less critical than do participants who lack these capacities. Given the consistently observed association between partner criticism and depression relapse (see Hooley & Licht, 1997; Hooley & Teasdale, 1989), it makes sense that emotionally intelligent people at risk of this disorder would choose partners who are less likely to display such negative characteristics.

Partners’ own self-reports partially supported the favorable perceptions of support associated with high participant EI. For example, partners of emotion-ally intelligent participants were lower on the dominant–cold/hostile quadrant of the SAS-C. Regression using the four branches of the MSCEIT indicated that Managing Emotions was largely responsible for this effect. That is, participants who can better regulate emotions in themselves and others are with partners who describe themselves as less critical, arrogant, and controlling when offering assistance (Trobst, 2000). Partners of individuals with high EI were also lower on the dominant–nurturant quadrant of the SAS-C. Regression analysis revealed that Perceiving Emotions and Understanding Emotions together accounted for much of this result. Participants with higher clarity of feelings and empathy had significant others who reported being less directive and supportive in their pro-vision of help. Together, these results suggest that high EI is related to greater self-sufficiency and a lower need for active or dominant support.

An interesting finding relates to the apparent discrepancies between par-ticipant and partner depictions of support. Despite general agreement between both members of the relationship concerning most of the variables of interest, EI predicted embellishments in the participants’ perceptions of partner support. Specifically, compared with partner reports, participants with higher EI saw their mates as more supportive and positively involved in times of need, as well as less critical in general, than did participants with lower EI. This finding is consistent with prior research indicating that small, positive illusions about one’s romantic partner are associated with a happier and more resilient relationship (Murray,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

54 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

2001). More generally, research has indicated that positive illusions, which psy-chologists postulate are related to optimism and a sense of personal control, are associated with various physical, mental, and social benefits (see Seligman, 1998; Taylor, 1989; Taylor, Kemeny, Reed, Bower, & Gruenewald, 2000). Similarly, social support alone may not protect someone from becoming depressed; rather, as Wethington and Kessler (1986) have argued, the perception of the availability of social support may determine how well one is able to cope with stressors in one’s environment more strongly than does actual social support. Accordingly, it may be more important to measure perceptions of partner support among vulner-able individuals with high EI than it is to measure actual support provided.

Limitations

Notwithstanding our attempts at adding to and improving on past research in the field of EI, we need to address several limitations of the present study. First, only a relatively small proportion of the participants in the original study completed the questionnaires specific to the present study, likely because of the effort required and the lack of remuneration. Accordingly, we cannot rule out the possibility that the sample was biased in some way, even though participants’ EI scores were within the norms that Mayer et al. (2002) reported and were indistin-guishable from the original study’s larger sample in terms of level of psychopa-thology. A more serious limitation is the difficulty in generalizing our findings to the broader population. That is, a graduate student participant is generally higher functioning and brighter than is an average participant from the population at large, so our results may not apply to a more normative group. Additionally, to draw firm conclusions on the adaptive value of EI, we would need a method to document over time the potential recurrence of a major depressive episode and other indexes of distress.

Future Directions

The field of EI is relatively new (although see Sternberg, 2000, for a review of other types of intelligences studied over the past century that share similarities with broader conceptualizations of EI) and thus requires further clarification and operationalization (Mayer et al., 2002). The MSCEIT represents an impressive step toward achieving this goal by using an ability-based battery that supports the concept of EI as a unitary construct composed of four interrelated sets of cognitive and emotional skills (see Salovey & Mayer, 1990). The current study adds to the validation of the MSCEIT by linking the different components of the four-branch model of EI to various elements of interpersonal functioning in ways that one might expect. However, we should note that no single element of EI was related to a participant having a more supportive, more reliable, and less critical partner. Instead, all four branches contributed to differential perceptions


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

54 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

and self-reports of more supportive significant others. Additional research using the four branches might clarify which aspects of EI are most strongly related to adaptive interpersonal perceptions and functioning.

Researchers should continue to investigate and elucidate the mechanisms and motivations underlying healthy mate choices and the relationship dynamics of emotionally intelligent individuals. Although it is unclear whether people can be taught to improve their EI (Matthews et al., 2002; cf. Goleman, 1995), this information could nevertheless be used to model or teach vulnerable individuals more adaptive ways of viewing and dealing with their circumstances. It could also help such individuals recognize behaviors in prospective or current significant others that might promote a more positive social environment. Such an approach to coping with adversity underscores positive psychology’s focus on finding ways to encourage people to utilize their strengths and potential to flourish both personally and interpersonally.

NOTES

1. The current version of the MSCEIT (version 2.0), which we used in this study, is a sig-nificantly shortened form of the original MSCEIT (version 1.1), which, in turn, was based on the MEIS. MSCEIT version 2.0 is now commonly referred to as simply MSCEIT. 2. We did not remunerate participants or their partners for going online and completing this 55-min assessment. Given the labor-intensive nature of the larger project, it is likely that several individuals did not complete the MSCEIT because of fatigue and a lack of incentive.

AUTHOR NOTES

Oren Aaron Amitay, who obtained his PhD in clinical psychology from York Uni-versity in 2006, is currently an assistant professor in the department of psychology at Ryer-son University. His research interests complement his clinical practice, which focuses on personality and interpersonal variables associated with depression and other mental disor-ders. Myriam Mongrain obtained her PhD in clinical psychology from McGill University and has pursued her research interest in personality vulnerability to depression since her arrival at York University in 1993. She is currently interested in cognitive, interpersonal, and social support variables associated with immature dependence and self-criticism, with the goal of developing better models predicting depressive onsets.

REFERENCES

Angst, J. (1988). Clinical course of affective disorders. In T. Helgasen & R. J. Daily (Eds.), Depressive illness: Prediction of course and outcome (pp. 1–47). Berlin: Springer.

Bieling, P. J., & Alden, L. E. (2001). Sociotropy, autonomy, and the interpersonal model of depression: An integration. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25, 167–184.

Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1984) Coping, stress, and social resources among adults with unipolar depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 877–891.

Blazer, D. G., Kessler, R. C., McGonagle, K. A., & Swartz, M. S. (1994). The prevalence and distribution of major depression in a national community sample: The National Comorbidity Survey. American Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 979–986.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

54 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Brackett, M. A. (2001). Describing the life space and its relation to emotional intelligence. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH.

Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1147–1158.

Brown, G. W., Andrews, B., Harris, T. O., Adler, Z., & Bridge, L. (1986). Social support, self-esteem and depression. Psychological Medicine, 16, 813–831.

Carson, R. C. (1996). Seamlessness in personality and its derangements. Journal of Per-sonality Assessment, 66, 240–247.

Ciarrochi, J. V., Chan, A. Y. C., & Caputi, P. (2000). A critical evaluation of the emotional intelligence construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 539–561.

Ciarrochi, J., Deane, F. P., & Anderson, S. (2002). Emotional intelligence moderates the relationship between stress and mental health. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 197–209.

Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.

Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.

Davila, J., Bradbury T. N., Cohan, C. L., & Tochluk, S. (1997). Marital functioning and depressive symptoms: Evidence for a stress generation model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 849–861.

Davila, J., Hammen, C., Burge, D., Paley, B., & Daley, S. E. (1995). Poor interpersonal problem-solving as a mechanism of stress generation in depression among adolescent women. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 592–600.

First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. W. (1995). Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV Axis I disorders—Research version (SCID-I, Version 2.0, January 1995, Final Version). New York: Biometrics Research.

First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., Williams, J. B. W., & Benjamin, L. (1994). Struc-tured clinical interview for DSM-IV Axis II personality disorders (SCID-II, Version 2.0). New York: Biometrics Research.

Formica, S. (1998). Description of the socio-emotional life space: Life qualities and activi-ties related to emotional intelligence. Unpublished senior honors thesis, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH.

Freedman, M. B., Leary, T. F., Ossario, A. G., & Coffey, H. S. (1951). The interpersonal dimension of personality. Journal of Personality, 20, 143–161.

Freudenthaler, H. H., & Neubauer, A. C. (2005). Emotional intelligence: The convergent and discriminant validities of intra- and interpersonal emotional abilities. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 569–579.

Fullam, A. (2002). Adult attachment, emotional intelligence, health and immunological responsiveness to stress. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, New-ark, NJ.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Goleman, G. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.Hooley, J. M., & Licht, D. M. (1997). Expressed emotion and causal attributions in the

spouses of depressed patients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 298–306.Hooley, J M., & Teasdale, J. D. (1989). Predictors of relapse in unipolar depressives:

Expressed emotion, marital distress, and perceived criticism. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98, 229–235.

Judd, L. J. (1997). The clinical course of unipolar major depressive disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry 54, 989–991.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

54 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Leary, T. F. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press.Lewinsohn, P. M., Zeiss, A. M., & Duncan, E. M. (1989). Probability of relapse after recov-

ery from an episode of depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98, 107–116.Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., Côté, S., & Beers, M. (2005). Emotion regulation abilities and

the quality of social interaction. Emotion, 5, 113–118.Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Straus, R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, personality, and

the perceived quality of social relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 641–658.

Martinez-Pons, M. (2003). The relation of emotional intelligence with selected areas of personal functioning. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 17, 3–13.

Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27, 267–298.

Mayer, J. D., DiPaolo, M., & Salovey, P. (1990). Perceiving affective content in ambiguous visual stimuli: A component of emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality Assess-ment, 54, 772–781.

Mayer, J. D., & Geher, G. (1996). Emotional intelligence and the identification of emotion. Intelligence, 22, 89–113.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators (pp. 3–31). New York: Basic Books.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (1997). Emotional IQ Test [CD-ROM]. Need-ham, MA: Virtual Knowledge.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Models of emotional intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 396–420). Cambridge, MA: Cam-bridge University Press.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intel-ligence Test (MSCEIT) user’s manual. Toronto, Canada: MHS Publishers.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2001). Emotional intelligence as a standard intelligence. Emotion, 1, 232–242.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3, 97–105.

Mongrain, M., & Blackburn, S. (2005). Cognitive vulnerability and lifetime risk for major depression in graduate students. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Murray, S. L. (2001). Seeking a sense of conviction: Motivated cognition in close relation-ships. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychol-ogy: Interpersonal processes (pp. 107–126). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

O’Connor, R. M., Jr., & Little, I. S. (2003). Revisiting the predictive validity of emotional intelligence: Self-report versus ability-based measures. Personality and Individual Dif-ferences, 34, 707–721.

Radloff, L. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.

Roberts, R. D., Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2001). Does emotional intelligence meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions. Emotion, 1, 196–231.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185–211.

Salovey, P., & Sluyter, D. J. (1997). Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications. New York: Basic Books.

Saklofske, D. H., Austin, E. J., & Minski, P. S. (2003). Factor structure and validity of a trait emotional intelligence measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 707–721.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

54 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Bobik, C., Coston, T. D., Greeson, C., Jedlicka, C., et al. (2001). Emotional intelligence and interpersonal relations. The Journal of Social Psy-chology, 141, 523–536.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1998). The prediction and prevention of depression. In D. K. Routh & R. J. DeRubeis (Eds.), The science of clinical psychology: Accomplishments and future directions (pp. 201–214). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.

Sternberg, R. J. (2000). The concept of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 3–15). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. Oxford, England: Norton.Taylor, S. E. (1989). Positive illusions: Creative self-deception and the healthy mind. New

York: Basic Books.Taylor, S. E., Kemeny, M. E., Reed, G. M., Bower, J. E. & Gruenewald, T. L. (2000).

Psychological resources, positive illusions, and health. American Psychologist, 55, 99–109.

Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harper’s, 140, 227–235.Trobst, K. K. (1999). Social support as an interpersonal construct. European Journal of

Psychological Assessment, 15, 246–255.Trobst, K. K. (2000). An interpersonal conceptualization and quantification of social sup-

port transactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 971–986.Wethington, E., & Kessler, R. C. (1986). Perceived support, received support, and adjust-

ment to stressful life events. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 27, 78–89.

Received February 7, 2006Accepted June 21, 2006


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

54 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� ■ � ��

�� ■ � ��

��

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

54 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014