Applied Research and Evaluation THE ROLE OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN MENTAL HEALTH AND TYPE D PERSONALITY AMONG YOUNG ADULTS
PAUL BRANSCUM, PH.D., RD AMIR BHOCHHIBHOYA, MBA, MS The University of Oklahoma, Norman MANOJ SHARMA, PH.D., MBBS The University of Cincinnati, Ohio
ABSTRACT
The concept of Emotional Intelligence (EI) was developed as a way to evaluate and highlight the importance of emotional health as it relates to overall quality of life. This study examines the predictive nature of EI with standardized measures of mental health to create a model that can be utilized to create more effective health promotion interventions. Step-wise multiple regression was used to predict mental health (Kessler K-6 scale) and Type D personality (Denollett’s Scale of Negative Affectivity and Social Inhibition) with five dimensions of EI. The results revealed that while not all of the dimensions of EI regressed significantly in each model, mood management was highly predictive of all mental health measures under investigation. Cut-off points for each scale were also helpful in interpreting the relatedness of EI to mental health.
Int’l. Quarterly of Community Health Education, Vol. 34(4) 351-365, 2013-2014 Ó 2014, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/IQ.34.4.e http://baywood.com 351
352 / BRANSCUM, BHOCHHIBHOYA AND SHARMA
INTRODUCTION Emotions are an essential part of being human. Humans can experience emotions such as love, happiness, hatred, and sadness, and express emotions by smiling, laughing, and crying. While emotions are an essential and important part of human nature, they are also a motivating factor for most human behavior [1]. Emotional health is one’s capacity to express feelings in appropriate ways and ability to cope with various emotive situations [2]. The concept of Emotional Intelligence (EI) was developed as a way to evaluate and highlight the importance of emotional health. There is no universal definition of EI, but Salovey and Mayer formally defined it as “the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions” [3, p. 189]. From a theoretical perspective, EI is the combination of emotion and intelligence, and is different from technical and cognitive abilities [4]. Daniel Goleman introduced the Personality Model of EI, which includes five major domains: self-awareness, managing one’s own emotions, self-motivation, empathy, and handling external relationship [5]. He defines self-awareness as an individual’s ability to recognize one’s emotions when they occur. Managing one’s own emotions is to handle emotions in a fashion that builds self-awareness. Self-motivation is the ability to channel emotions for the achievement of a goal. Empathy is to recognize and appreciate emotions among other people. Handling external relationships is the ability to manage emotions in establishing better relationships with others. Previous studies have reported a high degree of association between EI and a number of determinants of mental and physical health, social relationships, and performance in the workplace [6]. Examples of mental and physical health include stress management [7], academic success [8], and physical activity [9]. Examples of social relationships include those for both children [10, 11] and adults [12, 13]. Finally, examples of workplace performance include personal leadership [14] and conflict management [15]. In a recent review of the current state of research related to EI, the scope, appropriateness, and measurement of EI in research were reviewed [6]. One of the issues for future direction the authors made was that more research on EI was needed in order to determine to what other factors EI could be related. Emotional Intelligence is a relatively new concept in the field of health promotion and education, and understanding how emotions are related to mental health and its determinants could help lead to a better understanding of this issue, and to more appropriate and effective interventions. Given the lack of research on the determinants of mental health among young adults, the purpose of this research was to examine the predictive nature of EI with standardized measures of mental health.
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN YOUNG ADULTS /
353
METHODS Instrumentation A 48-item questionnaire was developed for this study, to evaluate the following variables of interest: Mental Health (The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale K-6, 6 items); two traits of Type D personality (Denollett’s Scale of Negative Affectivity, 7 items); and Social Inhibition, 7 items); Emotional Intelligence (EI); newly developed scale including five modalities of EI: self-awareness, 5 items; mood management, 5 items; self-motivation, 5 items; empathy, 5 items; managing relationships, 5 items; and personal demographic information, 3 items. The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale K-6
Overall mental health was evaluated by the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale K-6, which is currently used in the U.S. National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) [16]. The Kessler K-6 scale has been validated across major sociodemographic groups in the United States, as well as international populations including residents of South America [17] and Japan [18], to be useful as a brief inventory to screen for risk of 12-month serious mental illness (SMI) [19]. Items are evaluated with the root phrase During the past 30 days, about how often did you feel . . . followed by nervous?, hopeless?, restless or fidgety?, so depressed that nothing could cheer you up?, that everything was an effort?, and worthless? Each item is ranked categorically and scored by the following answers: All of the time (1), Most of the time (2), Some of the time (3), A little of the time (4), and None of the time (5). Scores ranged from 6 to 30, with lower scores indicating a higher risk for mental disturbances and higher scores indicating a lower risk for mental disturbances. In addition, the scoring system of the National Comorbidity Survey allows populations to be dichotomized into risk categories; scores from 6-18 are considered High Risk for SMI and scores greater than 19 are considered Low/No Risk for SMI [20]. Denollett’s Scale of Negative Affectivity and Social Inhibition (Type D Personality)
Type D personality is a term that has been coined to describe the degree of distress an individual is experiencing and is a joint tendency of negative affectivity, or a predisposition toward feelings of anxiety, irritability, and overall negative emotions, and social inhibition, or a predisposition toward reticence, or shyness due to fear of rejection or disapproval from others [21]. Type D personality was initially developed as a personality trait for patients experiencing cardiovascular disease, and many studies have been done to show the prevalence and effects of Type D personality among this clinical population [22]; however,
354 / BRANSCUM, BHOCHHIBHOYA AND SHARMA
recently a systematic review revealed that this trait also has implications for the general population as a vulnerability factor for distress that can lead to disease-promoting conditions for both mental and physical impairments. Both scales contained seven items, scored as False (1), Rather False (2), Neutral (3), Rather True (4), and True (5). Example items for negative affectivity were I often feel unhappy? and I take a gloomy view of things? Example items for social inhibition were I make contact easily when I meet people? and I find it hard to start a conversation? Scores for each subscale ranged from 7 to 35, with lower scores indicating a lower risk for experiencing negative affectivity and social inhibition and higher scores indicating a higher risk for negative affectivity and social inhibition. In addition, Denollet [21] suggests a cutoff of 17, in order to categorize Type D individuals for both scores; therefore, scores from 7-17 were considered Non-Type D personality, and scores greater than or equal to 18 were considered Type D personality. Emotional Intelligence
Various instruments have been developed for evaluating EI. Some widely used instruments are the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI), the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i), and version 2 of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) [23]. Limitations exist, however, in administering these measures to larger populations, given the number of items each test contains (ECI has 110 items; EQ-i has 133 items; and the MSCEIT v.2 has 141 items), and none contain all five domains of EI Goleman identified (self-awareness, managing own emotions, self-motivation, empathy, and managing external relationships) [5]. Therefore, a new measure of EI was developed to be relatively brief, yet comprehensive. Survey Development
To develop the instrument to evaluate five dimensions of EI, each dimension was first constitutively defined, and items were generated based on each definition. Four items were developed for each dimension, and example items included: self-awareness (I know before I get angry?), managing own emotions (I react appropriately under anger?), self-motivation (I overcome impulsiveness in accomplishing any goal?), empathy (I am adept at recognizing positive feelings in others?), and managing external relationships (I am adept at resolving conflicts?). All items were scored on a 5-point Likert type scale, scored from Never (1), Hardly Ever (2), Sometimes (3), Almost Always (4), to Always (5). All of the dimensions’ sub-scores could range from 4-20, with scores closer to 4 indicating a low ability of EI, and scores closer to 20 indicating a high ability of EI. After the survey was developed, it was distributed to a panel of six experts, who were asked to evaluate the instrument on its face and content validity. Panel members had expertise in the areas of instrument development and emotional
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN YOUNG ADULTS /
355
intelligence. The review included a two-round process, whereby the panel gave initial suggestions regarding appearance, item wording, and appropriateness of each item for each dimension. After changes were made, the instrument was re-evaluated in a second round by the same panel and minor comments were submitted. After data collection occurred, the psychometrics of the instrument were evaluated. First, Cronbach’s alpha scores were evaluated to establish the internal consistency reliability of each scale. As presented by Di Lorio [24], when developing a new scale, for items to be internally consistent they should all correlate between 0.20 and 0.80, or it is an indication that an item does not belong on the scale (if correlations are less than 0.20) or is redundant (if correlations are greater than 0.80). Of the five EI dimensions, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were mostly sufficient with three scales having adequate measures (Self Motivation = 0.75; Empathy = 0.82; and Managing Relationships = 0.75), one scale having a slightly lower than adequate measure (Mood Management = 0.67), and one scale having an unacceptable measure (Self-Awareness = 0.54). To improve the reliability of the scale, one item was removed due to low correlations with other items (modified scale for Self-Awareness = 0.61). In addition, confirmatory factor analysis using the maximum likelihood estimation was used to determine construct validity for each scale. Scree plots and Eigenvalues (ranging from 1.687 to 2.319) indicated a one-factor solution for each construct subscale, and each item loaded significantly on its given dimension of EI (Table 1). Design and Data Analysis This study was cross-sectional by design. An a priori sample size calculation was performed to a medium to small effect size (Cohen f = 0.07) with five predictor variables, an alpha of .05 and power of 80%. A sample size of 189 was determined to be adequate for this study (G*Power, Version 3.1.3). For recruitment, students were identified for participation from large undergraduate classes from a large Southern public university in the University’s College of Arts and Sciences. Potential participants were first asked to read a statement, which disclosed the purpose of the study, and procedures for data collection. Students who indicated willingness to volunteer were then given a survey that contained all sections previously mentioned. The University of Oklahoma Review Board approved this study (Protocol # 2156). Frequencies, means, and standard deviations were first used to summarize all responses. In order to evaluate the predictive nature of the EI dimensions, three stepwise multiple regression models were used with mental health status, negative affectivity and social inhibition serving as dependent variables. An a priori criterion to enter each model was set at an alpha of 0.05 and the criterion to be removed from the model was an alpha of 0.10. For all data analysis, outliers were examined by use of Cook’s distance and multicollinearity was examined by use of
356 / BRANSCUM, BHOCHHIBHOYA AND SHARMA
Table 1. Construct Validity for Final Scale Evaluating Goleman’s Five Dimensions of Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence dimension Self-awareness
Item’s Scale’s factor eigenvalue loading 1.687
I know before I get angry.
0.570
I know before I get anxious.
0.722
I recognize feelings as they occur.
0.475
Mood management
2.016
I manage my negative feelings.
0.801
I manage my positive feelings.
0.640
I react appropriately under anger.
0.442
I react appropriately under anxiety.
0.430
Self-motivation
2.319
I direct my feelings toward a goal.
0.481
I overcome self-doubt in accomplishing any goal.
0.691
I overcome inertia in accomplishing any goal.
0.829
I overcome impulsiveness in accomplishing
0.646
any goal. Empathy
2.609
I am adept at recognizing anger in others.
0.778
I am adept at recognizing anxiety in others.
0.829
I am adept at recognizing positive feelings in others.
0.656
I am adept at recognizing nonverbal cues associated
0.656
with feelings in others. Managing relationships
2.300
I am adept at handling interpersonal relationships.
0.525
I am adept at resolving conflicts.
0.823
I am adept in negotiation skills.
0.682
I am able to harness feelings to improve relationships.
0.603
Note: Maximum likelihood estimation used for all subscales.
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN YOUNG ADULTS /
357
variance inflation factor, and no issues were found for either assumption. Additionally, as previously mentioned, both the Kessler K-6 scale and Type-D personality scales have cut-off points that can be used to dichotomize populations into high and low risk. Therefore, participants were grouped according to appropriate cut-off points and independent t-tests were used to examine differences between groups for each dimension of EI. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine significance and Cohen’s d was used to determine practical significance, for small (d = 0.20), medium (d = 0.50), and large (d = 0.80) effects. All data were analyzed by SPSS (Version 19.0). RESULTS Means and standard deviations for study variables are reported on Table 2. There were slightly more men (n = 168; 50.3%) than women (n = 166; 49.7%) enrolled in this study, and the average age of participants was 20.7 years (SD = 2.7). Regarding race, the sample was highly representative of the institution, as 75.4% were Caucasian (n = 252), 6.0% were African American (n = 20), 6.9% were Asian (n = 23), 3.3% were Native American (n = 11), 6.6% were Hispanic (n = 22), and 1.8% were classified as Other (n = 6), which included mixed race and ethnicity. Regression Models Three univariate regression analyses were performed, predicting the Mental Health Status, Negative Affectivity, and Social Inhibition with self-awareness, managing one’s emotions, self-motivation, empathy, and managing external relationships. For Mental Health Status, mood management was the only dimension statistically significant (p = 0.001), explaining 12.1% of the variance. For Social Inhibition, mood management (p = 0.001) and managing relationships (p = 0.001) were statistically significant, collectively explaining 20.7% of the variance. For Negative Affectivity, mood management (p = 0.001), self-motivation (p = 0.002), managing relationships (p = 0.001), and empathy (p = 0.016) were statistically significant, collectively explaining 25.9% of the variance. Final regression models are summarized in Table 3. Differences in Dimensions of Emotional Intelligence for Risk of Serious Mental Illness and Type D Personality Using the cut-offs for the Kessler K-6 scale, it was found that most students were at low risk for serious mental illness (n = 295; 88%). Independent t-tests found that mood management (p = 0.001), self-motivation (p = 0.026), and expressing empathy (p = 0.015) were all significantly lower among students with low risk for SMI, compared to those at high risk. Mood management also had a medium to high effect size (d = 0.74), and self-motivation (d = 0.39) and
358 / BRANSCUM, BHOCHHIBHOYA AND SHARMA
Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients for Dimensions of Emotional Intelligence, Type D Personality, and Mental Health Status (n = 334) Possible minimummaximum
Observed minimummaximum
Mean (SD)
Cronbach’s a
Emotional Intelligence Self-awareness Mood management Self-motivation Empathy Managing relationships
3-15 4-20 4-20 4-20 4-20
5-15 8-20 9-20 7-20 8-20
11.45 (1.75) 14.92 (2.26) 14.67 (2.13) 15.68 (2.23) 15.33 (2.27)
0.61 0.67 0.75 0.82 0.75
Mental Health
6-30
6-30
24.15 (4.23)
0.83
Type D personality Negative affectivity Social inhibition
7-35 7-35
7-35 7-35
15.61 (5.08) 16.43 (5.52)
0.86 0.73
Theoretical construct
expressing empathy (d = 0.42) both had a low to medium effect sizes. Using the cut-offs for the Type D personality scales, it was found that students had a higher risk for this trait, as 31% (n = 103) were considered Type D for Negative Affectivity and 38% (n = 128) were considered Type D for Social Inhibition. Independent t-tests found that all dimensions of EI were significantly higher among those without Type D personality. For Negative Affectivity, selfawareness (d = 0.22) and expressing empathy (d = 0.31) both had small to medium effect sizes, managing relationships had a medium effect size (d = 0.50), and mood management (d = 0.79) and self-motivation (d = 0.62) had a medium to large effect size. For Social Inhibition, self-awareness (d = 0.35), expressing empathy (d = 0.46), and mood management (d = 0.47) had a small to medium effect size and self-motivation (d = 0.52) and managing relationships (d = 0.79) had a medium to large effect size. A summary of measures can be found on Table 4. DISCUSSION Mental health is becoming an important area of study in health education, health promotion, and public health as more research shows a relationship between mental and physical health as well as overall quality of life. The purpose of this study was to examine the predictive nature of the five dimensions of EI, namely
0.121
0.207
0.259
Mental health status Constant Mood management
Social inhibition Constant Mood management Managing relationships
Negative affectivity Constant Mood management Self-motivation Managing relationships Empathy
Adjusted r2
35.300 –0.801 –0.420 –0.435 0.324
36.322 –0.857 –0.454
14.424 0.652
Unstandardized coefficients B
2.171 0.134 0.137 0.127 0.133
2.179 0.129 0.130
1.449 0.096
Std. error
–0.357 –0.176 –0.195 0.142
–0.354 –0.187
0.351
Standardized coefficients Beta
16.259 –5.970 –3.056 –3.427 2.429
16.668 –6.637 –3.500
9.957 6.798
t
0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.016
0.001 0.001 0.001
0.001 0.001
p-Value
Table 3. Parameter Estimates from Final Regression Models of Each Measure of Mental Health (n = 334)
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN YOUNG ADULTS / 359
4-15 5-20 5-20 5-20 5-20
4-15 5-20 5-20 5-20 5-20
4-15 5-20 5-20 5-20 5-20
Possible range
Note: SMI (Serious Mental Illness).
Self-awareness Mood management Self-motivation Empathy Managing relationships
Social inhibition
Self-awareness Mood management Self-motivation Empathy Managing relationships
Negative affectivity
Self-awareness Mood management Self-motivation Empathy Managing relationships
EI variable Mental health status
11.14 (1.15) 14.29 (2.28) 14.01 (2.05) 15.07 (2.23) 14.29 (2.34)
Type D (n = 128) M (SD)
Non-type D (n = 206) M (SD) 11.67 (1.77) 15.32 (2.16) 15.08 (2.07) 16.07 (2.16) 15.97 (1.99)
11.20 (1.51) 13.76 (2.25) 13.79 (1.86) 15.21 (2.22) 14.56 (2.44)
Type D (n = 103) M (SD)
Non-type D (n = 231) M (SD) 11.59 (1.84) 15.44 (2.07) 15.06 (2.13) 15.90 (2.22) 15.67 (2.12)
11.23 (1.66) 13.49 (2.55) 13.95 (2.91) 14.87 (2.82) 14.69 (2.92)
High risk for SMI (n = 39) M (SD)
11.51 (1.76) 15.12 (2.16) 14.77 (2.0) 15.80 (2.13) 15.42 (2.16)
Low risk for SMI (n = 295) M (SD)
0.007* 0.001* 0.001* 0.001* 0.001*
p-Value
0.044* 0.001* 0.001* 0.009* 0.001*
p-Value
0.359 0.001* 0.026* 0.015* 0.061
p-Value
Table 4. Differences in Emotional Intelligence between Groups as Risk for Serious Mental Illness (SMI) and Type D Personality
0.35 0.47 0.52 0.46 0.79
Effect size (Cohen’s d)
0.22 0.79 0.62 0.31 0.50
Effect size (Cohen’s d)
— 0.74 0.39 0.42 —
Effect size (Cohen’s d)
360 / BRANSCUM, BHOCHHIBHOYA AND SHARMA
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN YOUNG ADULTS /
361
self-awareness, managing one’s own emotions, self-motivation, empathy, and handling external relationship with mental health status, negative affectivity, and social inhibition serving as dependent variables. In addition, this study examined the difference in the five dimensions of EI between young adults at risk for serious mental illness, and for those who are considered both types of Type D personality. The two unique ways of data analysis strengthens this study, as it allows for the dependent variables under investigation to serve as a continuous variable in regression models, and as a dichotomous variable in models using independent t-tests. Results from this study found that mood management was a predictor for mental health status accounting for 12.1% of the variance in the dependent variable. Mood management entails handling feelings so that they become relevant to the present situation and response is appropriate. This is vital for a positive mental health status. The findings are in consonance with the study done by Mayer, Roberts, and Barsade [6] which also found a high degree of association between emotional intelligence and determinants of mental health in the workplace. Results from this study also found that social inhibition was negatively predicted by mood management and managing relationships, the two accounting for 20.7% variance in the dependent variable. Social inhibition entails predisposition towards reticence, or shyness due to fear of rejection or disapproval from others. This type of attribute is likely to be negatively influenced by the ability to handle interpersonal relationships, ability to resolve conflicts, and ability to negotiate (which is the construct of managing relationships) and handling feelings so that they become relevant to the present situation and response is appropriate (which is the construct of mood management). This relationship has not been studied in the literature and is unique to our study. Results from this study also found that negative affectivity was negatively predicted by mood management, self-motivation, and managing relationships while positively predicted by empathy. Negative affectivity is a predisposition toward feelings of anxiety, irritability, and overall negative emotions. This type of attribute is likely to be negatively influenced by the ability to handle interpersonal relationships, ability to resolve conflicts, and ability to negotiate (which is the construct of managing relationships), gatherings one’s feelings and directing them toward a goal (which is the construct of self-motivation), and handling feelings so that they become relevant to the present situation and response is appropriate (which is the construct of mood management). This type of attribute is also likely to be positively influenced by the construct of empathy, which is the ability to recognize feelings in others and tuning into their verbal and non-verbal cues. This relationship has not been studied in the literature and is unique to our study. Finally, results from this study found that very little of the sample was at high risk for serious mental illness (SMI; n = 39; 11.7% of the sample), which is
362 / BRANSCUM, BHOCHHIBHOYA AND SHARMA
consistent with other studies using non-clinical, community samples [25, 26]. Past studies have shown that this survey can detect risk (greater than 90%) for mental disorders, as characterized by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edition) [27]. In this study, the mood management dimension of EI was found to have the largest effect size between those at risk for SMI, indicating the importance of being able to handle emotions and be self-aware. A moderate level of the sample was at risk for exhibiting both types of Type D personality; specially, negative affectivity (n = 103; 30.8%) and social isolation (n = 38.3%). Additionally, when taken together it was found that only about half (n = 172; 51.5%) of the sample was not at risk for either type of Type D personality, and ~20% of the sample was at risk for both types of Types D personality (n = 69; 20.7%). For those exhibiting negative affectivity, the mood management dimension of EI was found to have the largest effect size when compared with those not exhibiting negative affectivity, which was similar for those being at risk for SMI. For those exhibiting social isolation the managing relationships dimension of EI was found to have the largest effect size when compared with those not exhibiting social isolation, which was expected, given the inherent connection there is between being socially isolated and having an inability to develop and manage outside relationships. Limitations This study was not without some limitations. First, the study did not utilize random selection of participants, which introduced sampling bias. Ideally, random selection of participants would have added the ability to generalize the results. Second, the instruments used were self-reports and these are prone to dishonesty, erroneous markings, etc., which introduces measurement bias. Unfortunately not much can be done in this regard as we are interested in finding out the inner thinking of the participants. Finally, the design of the study was cross-sectional in nature and therefore nothing can be said about the temporality of association between the various sets of measures reported in this study. Implications for Practice For interventions that build mental health, emotional intelligence offers promise to enhance their effectiveness. Aspects such as recognizing feeling in oneself, recognizing feelings in others, caring for others’ feelings, regulating feelings in oneself, and harnessing feelings for managing relationships can be used to promote mental health in college students and possibly other target populations as well. A variety of methods that entail lecture, case studies, role-plays, simulations, and psychodrama can be used to build the constructs of emotional intelligence. People suffering from social inhibition and negative affectivity can also benefit from the constructs of emotional intelligence. This can be applied in both
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN YOUNG ADULTS /
363
the general population as well as clinical populations. Mood management and managing relationships have been found to be inversely related to both social inhibition and negative affectivity. So if these constructs of emotional intelligence are increased, the negative traits of social inhibition and negative affectivity will decrease. Both these constructs can be easily modified through educational programs. Likewise the construct of self-motivation is inversely related to negative affectivity, which can also be enhanced through educational programs. Empathy or caring for others feelings was found in this study to be beneficial in reducing negative affectivity. REFERENCES 1. G. S. F. Li, F. J. Lu, and A. H. H. Wang, Exploring the Relationships of Physical Activity, Emotional Intelligence and Health in Taiwan College Students, Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness, 7:1, pp. 55-63, 2009. doi: 10.1016/S1728-869X(09) 60008-3 2. M. Minkler, K. M. Roe, and M. Price, The Physical and Emotional Health of Grandmothers Raising Grandchildren in the Crack Cocaine Epidemic, The Gerontologist, 32:6, pp. 752-761, 1992. doi: 10.1093/geront/32.6.752 3. P. Salovey and J. D. Mayer, Emotional Intelligence, Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, pp. 185-211, 1989-1990. doi: 10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG 4. J. D. Mayer, P. Salovey, and D. R. Caruso, Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Findings, and Implications, Psychological Inquiry, 15:3, pp. 197-215, 2004. 5. D. Goleman, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ, Bantam, New York, 2006. 6. J. D. Mayer, R. D. Roberts, and S. G. Barsade, Human Abilities: Emotional Intelligence, Annual Reviews of Psychology, 59, pp. 507-536, 2008. doi: 10.1146/annurev. psych.59.103006.093646 7. J. Ciarrochi, F. P. Deane, and S. Anderson, Emotional Intelligence Moderates the Relationship Between Stress and Mental Health, Personality and Individual Differences, 32:2, pp. 197-209, 2002. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00012-5 8. J. D. Parker, L. J. Summerfeldt, M. J. Hogan, and S. A. Majeski, Emotional Intelligence and Academic Success: Examining the Transition From High School to University, Personality and Individual Differences, 36:1, pp. 163-172, 2004. doi: 10.1016/ S0191-8869(03)00076-X 9. R. D. Omar Dev, I. A. Ismail, M. S. Omar-Fauzee, M. C. Abdullah, and S. K. Geok, Emotional Intelligence as a Potential Underlying Mechanism for Physical Activity among Malaysian Adults, American Journal of Health Sciences, 3:3, pp. 211-222, 2012. 10. S. A. Denham, K. A. Blair, E. DeMulder, J. Levitas, K. Sawyer, and S. AuerbachMajor, Preschool Emotional Competence: Pathway to Social Competence, Child Development, 74:1, pp. 238-256, 2003. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00533 11. S. E. Fine, C. E. Izard, A. J. Mostow, C. J. Trentacosta, and B. P. Ackerman, First Grade Emotion Knowledge as a Predictor of Fifth Grade Self-Reported Internalizing Behaviors in Children from Economically Disadvantaged Families, Development and Psychopathology, 15, pp. 331-342, 2003. doi: 10.1017/S095457940300018X
364 / BRANSCUM, BHOCHHIBHOYA AND SHARMA
12. M. A. Brackett, S. E. Rivers, S. Shiffman, N. Lerner, and P. Salovey, Relating Emotional Abilities to Social Functioning: A Comparison of Self-Report and Performance Measures of Emotional Intelligence, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91:4, pp. 780-795, 2006. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.780 13. P. N. Lopes, M. A. Brackett, J. B. Nezlek, A. Schutz, I. Sellin, and P. Salovey, Emotional Intelligence and Social Interaction, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, pp. 1018-1034, 2004. doi: 10.1177/0146167204264762 14. K. A. Barchard, Does Emotional Intelligence Assist in the Prediction of Academic Success? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63:5, pp. 840-858, 2003. doi: 10.1177/0013164403251333 15. A. Schlaerth, N. Ensari, and J. Christian, A Meta-Analytical Review of the Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and Leaders’ Constructive Conflict Management, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16:1, pp. 126-136, 2013. doi: 10.1177/ 1368430212439907 16. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Health Interview Survey. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/quest_doc.htm 17. L. S. Andersen, A. Grimsrud, L. Myer, D. R. Williams, D. J. Stein, and S. Seedat, The Psychometric Properties of the K10 and K6 Scales in Screening for Mood and Anxiety Disorders in the South African Stress and Health Study, International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 20:4, pp. 215-223, 2011. doi: 10.1002/ mpr.351 18. K. Sakurai, A. Nishi, K. Kondo, K. Yanagida, and N. Kawakami, Screening Performance of K6/K10 and Other Screening Instruments for Mood and Anxiety Disorders in Japan, Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 65:5, pp. 434-441, 2011. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1819.2011.02236.x 19. R. C. Kessler, G. Andrews, L. J. Colpe, E. Hiripi, D. K. Mroczek, S. L. T. Normand, E. E. Walters, and A. M. Zaslavsky, Short Screening Scales to Monitor Population Prevalences and Trends in Non-Specific Psychological Distress, Psychological Medicine, 32:6, pp. 959-976, 2002. doi: 10.1017/S0033291702006074 20. National Comorbidity Survey, Instruments. Available at http://www.hcp.med.harvard. edu/ncs/instruments.php 21. J. Denollet, DS14: Standard Assessment of Negative Affectivity, Social Inhibition, and Type D personality, Psychosomatic Medicine, 67:1, pp. 89-97, 2005. doi: 10.1097/ 01.psy.0000149256.81953.49 22. G. Grande, M. Romppel, and J. Barth, Association Between Type D Personality and Prognosis in Patients with Cardiovascular Diseases: A Systematic Review and MetaAnalysis, Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 43:3, pp. 299-310, 2012. doi: 10.1007/ s12160-011-9339-0 23. J. M. Conte, A Review and Critique of Emotional Intelligence Measures, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26:4, pp. 433-440, 2005. doi: 10.1002/job.319 24. C. Konicki Di Lorio, Measurement in Health Behavior: Methods for Research and Evaluation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California, 2005. 25. R. C. Kessler, P. R. Barker, L. J. Colpe, J. F. Epstein, J. C. Gfroerer, E. Hiripi, M. J. Howes, S. T. Normand, R. W. Manderscheid, E. E. Walters, and A. M. Zaslavsky, Screening for Serious Mental Illness in the General Population, Archives of General Psychiatry, 60:2, pp. 184-189, 2003. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.60.2.184
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN YOUNG ADULTS /
365
26. A. P. Knowlden, M. Sharma, A. Kanekar, and A. Atri, Sense of Coherence and Hardiness as Predictors of Mental Health of College Students. International Quarterly of Community Health Education, 56, pp. 55-68, 2012-2013. doi: 10.2190/IQ.33.1.e 27. T. A. Furukawa, R. C. Kessler, T. Slade, and G. Andrews, The Performance of the K6 and K10 Screening Scales for Psychological Distress in the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being, Psychological Medicine, 33:2, pp. 357-362, 2003. doi: 10.1017/S0033291702006700
Direct reprint requests to: Paul Branscum, Ph.D., RD The University of Oklahoma Department of Health and Exercise Science 1401 Asp Avenue Norman, OK 73019 e-mail: [email protected]
PAUL BRANSCUM, PH.D., RD AMIR BHOCHHIBHOYA, MBA, MS The University of Oklahoma, Norman MANOJ SHARMA, PH.D., MBBS The University of Cincinnati, Ohio
ABSTRACT
The concept of Emotional Intelligence (EI) was developed as a way to evaluate and highlight the importance of emotional health as it relates to overall quality of life. This study examines the predictive nature of EI with standardized measures of mental health to create a model that can be utilized to create more effective health promotion interventions. Step-wise multiple regression was used to predict mental health (Kessler K-6 scale) and Type D personality (Denollett’s Scale of Negative Affectivity and Social Inhibition) with five dimensions of EI. The results revealed that while not all of the dimensions of EI regressed significantly in each model, mood management was highly predictive of all mental health measures under investigation. Cut-off points for each scale were also helpful in interpreting the relatedness of EI to mental health.
Int’l. Quarterly of Community Health Education, Vol. 34(4) 351-365, 2013-2014 Ó 2014, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/IQ.34.4.e http://baywood.com 351
352 / BRANSCUM, BHOCHHIBHOYA AND SHARMA
INTRODUCTION Emotions are an essential part of being human. Humans can experience emotions such as love, happiness, hatred, and sadness, and express emotions by smiling, laughing, and crying. While emotions are an essential and important part of human nature, they are also a motivating factor for most human behavior [1]. Emotional health is one’s capacity to express feelings in appropriate ways and ability to cope with various emotive situations [2]. The concept of Emotional Intelligence (EI) was developed as a way to evaluate and highlight the importance of emotional health. There is no universal definition of EI, but Salovey and Mayer formally defined it as “the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions” [3, p. 189]. From a theoretical perspective, EI is the combination of emotion and intelligence, and is different from technical and cognitive abilities [4]. Daniel Goleman introduced the Personality Model of EI, which includes five major domains: self-awareness, managing one’s own emotions, self-motivation, empathy, and handling external relationship [5]. He defines self-awareness as an individual’s ability to recognize one’s emotions when they occur. Managing one’s own emotions is to handle emotions in a fashion that builds self-awareness. Self-motivation is the ability to channel emotions for the achievement of a goal. Empathy is to recognize and appreciate emotions among other people. Handling external relationships is the ability to manage emotions in establishing better relationships with others. Previous studies have reported a high degree of association between EI and a number of determinants of mental and physical health, social relationships, and performance in the workplace [6]. Examples of mental and physical health include stress management [7], academic success [8], and physical activity [9]. Examples of social relationships include those for both children [10, 11] and adults [12, 13]. Finally, examples of workplace performance include personal leadership [14] and conflict management [15]. In a recent review of the current state of research related to EI, the scope, appropriateness, and measurement of EI in research were reviewed [6]. One of the issues for future direction the authors made was that more research on EI was needed in order to determine to what other factors EI could be related. Emotional Intelligence is a relatively new concept in the field of health promotion and education, and understanding how emotions are related to mental health and its determinants could help lead to a better understanding of this issue, and to more appropriate and effective interventions. Given the lack of research on the determinants of mental health among young adults, the purpose of this research was to examine the predictive nature of EI with standardized measures of mental health.
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN YOUNG ADULTS /
353
METHODS Instrumentation A 48-item questionnaire was developed for this study, to evaluate the following variables of interest: Mental Health (The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale K-6, 6 items); two traits of Type D personality (Denollett’s Scale of Negative Affectivity, 7 items); and Social Inhibition, 7 items); Emotional Intelligence (EI); newly developed scale including five modalities of EI: self-awareness, 5 items; mood management, 5 items; self-motivation, 5 items; empathy, 5 items; managing relationships, 5 items; and personal demographic information, 3 items. The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale K-6
Overall mental health was evaluated by the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale K-6, which is currently used in the U.S. National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) [16]. The Kessler K-6 scale has been validated across major sociodemographic groups in the United States, as well as international populations including residents of South America [17] and Japan [18], to be useful as a brief inventory to screen for risk of 12-month serious mental illness (SMI) [19]. Items are evaluated with the root phrase During the past 30 days, about how often did you feel . . . followed by nervous?, hopeless?, restless or fidgety?, so depressed that nothing could cheer you up?, that everything was an effort?, and worthless? Each item is ranked categorically and scored by the following answers: All of the time (1), Most of the time (2), Some of the time (3), A little of the time (4), and None of the time (5). Scores ranged from 6 to 30, with lower scores indicating a higher risk for mental disturbances and higher scores indicating a lower risk for mental disturbances. In addition, the scoring system of the National Comorbidity Survey allows populations to be dichotomized into risk categories; scores from 6-18 are considered High Risk for SMI and scores greater than 19 are considered Low/No Risk for SMI [20]. Denollett’s Scale of Negative Affectivity and Social Inhibition (Type D Personality)
Type D personality is a term that has been coined to describe the degree of distress an individual is experiencing and is a joint tendency of negative affectivity, or a predisposition toward feelings of anxiety, irritability, and overall negative emotions, and social inhibition, or a predisposition toward reticence, or shyness due to fear of rejection or disapproval from others [21]. Type D personality was initially developed as a personality trait for patients experiencing cardiovascular disease, and many studies have been done to show the prevalence and effects of Type D personality among this clinical population [22]; however,
354 / BRANSCUM, BHOCHHIBHOYA AND SHARMA
recently a systematic review revealed that this trait also has implications for the general population as a vulnerability factor for distress that can lead to disease-promoting conditions for both mental and physical impairments. Both scales contained seven items, scored as False (1), Rather False (2), Neutral (3), Rather True (4), and True (5). Example items for negative affectivity were I often feel unhappy? and I take a gloomy view of things? Example items for social inhibition were I make contact easily when I meet people? and I find it hard to start a conversation? Scores for each subscale ranged from 7 to 35, with lower scores indicating a lower risk for experiencing negative affectivity and social inhibition and higher scores indicating a higher risk for negative affectivity and social inhibition. In addition, Denollet [21] suggests a cutoff of 17, in order to categorize Type D individuals for both scores; therefore, scores from 7-17 were considered Non-Type D personality, and scores greater than or equal to 18 were considered Type D personality. Emotional Intelligence
Various instruments have been developed for evaluating EI. Some widely used instruments are the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI), the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i), and version 2 of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) [23]. Limitations exist, however, in administering these measures to larger populations, given the number of items each test contains (ECI has 110 items; EQ-i has 133 items; and the MSCEIT v.2 has 141 items), and none contain all five domains of EI Goleman identified (self-awareness, managing own emotions, self-motivation, empathy, and managing external relationships) [5]. Therefore, a new measure of EI was developed to be relatively brief, yet comprehensive. Survey Development
To develop the instrument to evaluate five dimensions of EI, each dimension was first constitutively defined, and items were generated based on each definition. Four items were developed for each dimension, and example items included: self-awareness (I know before I get angry?), managing own emotions (I react appropriately under anger?), self-motivation (I overcome impulsiveness in accomplishing any goal?), empathy (I am adept at recognizing positive feelings in others?), and managing external relationships (I am adept at resolving conflicts?). All items were scored on a 5-point Likert type scale, scored from Never (1), Hardly Ever (2), Sometimes (3), Almost Always (4), to Always (5). All of the dimensions’ sub-scores could range from 4-20, with scores closer to 4 indicating a low ability of EI, and scores closer to 20 indicating a high ability of EI. After the survey was developed, it was distributed to a panel of six experts, who were asked to evaluate the instrument on its face and content validity. Panel members had expertise in the areas of instrument development and emotional
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN YOUNG ADULTS /
355
intelligence. The review included a two-round process, whereby the panel gave initial suggestions regarding appearance, item wording, and appropriateness of each item for each dimension. After changes were made, the instrument was re-evaluated in a second round by the same panel and minor comments were submitted. After data collection occurred, the psychometrics of the instrument were evaluated. First, Cronbach’s alpha scores were evaluated to establish the internal consistency reliability of each scale. As presented by Di Lorio [24], when developing a new scale, for items to be internally consistent they should all correlate between 0.20 and 0.80, or it is an indication that an item does not belong on the scale (if correlations are less than 0.20) or is redundant (if correlations are greater than 0.80). Of the five EI dimensions, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were mostly sufficient with three scales having adequate measures (Self Motivation = 0.75; Empathy = 0.82; and Managing Relationships = 0.75), one scale having a slightly lower than adequate measure (Mood Management = 0.67), and one scale having an unacceptable measure (Self-Awareness = 0.54). To improve the reliability of the scale, one item was removed due to low correlations with other items (modified scale for Self-Awareness = 0.61). In addition, confirmatory factor analysis using the maximum likelihood estimation was used to determine construct validity for each scale. Scree plots and Eigenvalues (ranging from 1.687 to 2.319) indicated a one-factor solution for each construct subscale, and each item loaded significantly on its given dimension of EI (Table 1). Design and Data Analysis This study was cross-sectional by design. An a priori sample size calculation was performed to a medium to small effect size (Cohen f = 0.07) with five predictor variables, an alpha of .05 and power of 80%. A sample size of 189 was determined to be adequate for this study (G*Power, Version 3.1.3). For recruitment, students were identified for participation from large undergraduate classes from a large Southern public university in the University’s College of Arts and Sciences. Potential participants were first asked to read a statement, which disclosed the purpose of the study, and procedures for data collection. Students who indicated willingness to volunteer were then given a survey that contained all sections previously mentioned. The University of Oklahoma Review Board approved this study (Protocol # 2156). Frequencies, means, and standard deviations were first used to summarize all responses. In order to evaluate the predictive nature of the EI dimensions, three stepwise multiple regression models were used with mental health status, negative affectivity and social inhibition serving as dependent variables. An a priori criterion to enter each model was set at an alpha of 0.05 and the criterion to be removed from the model was an alpha of 0.10. For all data analysis, outliers were examined by use of Cook’s distance and multicollinearity was examined by use of
356 / BRANSCUM, BHOCHHIBHOYA AND SHARMA
Table 1. Construct Validity for Final Scale Evaluating Goleman’s Five Dimensions of Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence dimension Self-awareness
Item’s Scale’s factor eigenvalue loading 1.687
I know before I get angry.
0.570
I know before I get anxious.
0.722
I recognize feelings as they occur.
0.475
Mood management
2.016
I manage my negative feelings.
0.801
I manage my positive feelings.
0.640
I react appropriately under anger.
0.442
I react appropriately under anxiety.
0.430
Self-motivation
2.319
I direct my feelings toward a goal.
0.481
I overcome self-doubt in accomplishing any goal.
0.691
I overcome inertia in accomplishing any goal.
0.829
I overcome impulsiveness in accomplishing
0.646
any goal. Empathy
2.609
I am adept at recognizing anger in others.
0.778
I am adept at recognizing anxiety in others.
0.829
I am adept at recognizing positive feelings in others.
0.656
I am adept at recognizing nonverbal cues associated
0.656
with feelings in others. Managing relationships
2.300
I am adept at handling interpersonal relationships.
0.525
I am adept at resolving conflicts.
0.823
I am adept in negotiation skills.
0.682
I am able to harness feelings to improve relationships.
0.603
Note: Maximum likelihood estimation used for all subscales.
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN YOUNG ADULTS /
357
variance inflation factor, and no issues were found for either assumption. Additionally, as previously mentioned, both the Kessler K-6 scale and Type-D personality scales have cut-off points that can be used to dichotomize populations into high and low risk. Therefore, participants were grouped according to appropriate cut-off points and independent t-tests were used to examine differences between groups for each dimension of EI. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine significance and Cohen’s d was used to determine practical significance, for small (d = 0.20), medium (d = 0.50), and large (d = 0.80) effects. All data were analyzed by SPSS (Version 19.0). RESULTS Means and standard deviations for study variables are reported on Table 2. There were slightly more men (n = 168; 50.3%) than women (n = 166; 49.7%) enrolled in this study, and the average age of participants was 20.7 years (SD = 2.7). Regarding race, the sample was highly representative of the institution, as 75.4% were Caucasian (n = 252), 6.0% were African American (n = 20), 6.9% were Asian (n = 23), 3.3% were Native American (n = 11), 6.6% were Hispanic (n = 22), and 1.8% were classified as Other (n = 6), which included mixed race and ethnicity. Regression Models Three univariate regression analyses were performed, predicting the Mental Health Status, Negative Affectivity, and Social Inhibition with self-awareness, managing one’s emotions, self-motivation, empathy, and managing external relationships. For Mental Health Status, mood management was the only dimension statistically significant (p = 0.001), explaining 12.1% of the variance. For Social Inhibition, mood management (p = 0.001) and managing relationships (p = 0.001) were statistically significant, collectively explaining 20.7% of the variance. For Negative Affectivity, mood management (p = 0.001), self-motivation (p = 0.002), managing relationships (p = 0.001), and empathy (p = 0.016) were statistically significant, collectively explaining 25.9% of the variance. Final regression models are summarized in Table 3. Differences in Dimensions of Emotional Intelligence for Risk of Serious Mental Illness and Type D Personality Using the cut-offs for the Kessler K-6 scale, it was found that most students were at low risk for serious mental illness (n = 295; 88%). Independent t-tests found that mood management (p = 0.001), self-motivation (p = 0.026), and expressing empathy (p = 0.015) were all significantly lower among students with low risk for SMI, compared to those at high risk. Mood management also had a medium to high effect size (d = 0.74), and self-motivation (d = 0.39) and
358 / BRANSCUM, BHOCHHIBHOYA AND SHARMA
Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients for Dimensions of Emotional Intelligence, Type D Personality, and Mental Health Status (n = 334) Possible minimummaximum
Observed minimummaximum
Mean (SD)
Cronbach’s a
Emotional Intelligence Self-awareness Mood management Self-motivation Empathy Managing relationships
3-15 4-20 4-20 4-20 4-20
5-15 8-20 9-20 7-20 8-20
11.45 (1.75) 14.92 (2.26) 14.67 (2.13) 15.68 (2.23) 15.33 (2.27)
0.61 0.67 0.75 0.82 0.75
Mental Health
6-30
6-30
24.15 (4.23)
0.83
Type D personality Negative affectivity Social inhibition
7-35 7-35
7-35 7-35
15.61 (5.08) 16.43 (5.52)
0.86 0.73
Theoretical construct
expressing empathy (d = 0.42) both had a low to medium effect sizes. Using the cut-offs for the Type D personality scales, it was found that students had a higher risk for this trait, as 31% (n = 103) were considered Type D for Negative Affectivity and 38% (n = 128) were considered Type D for Social Inhibition. Independent t-tests found that all dimensions of EI were significantly higher among those without Type D personality. For Negative Affectivity, selfawareness (d = 0.22) and expressing empathy (d = 0.31) both had small to medium effect sizes, managing relationships had a medium effect size (d = 0.50), and mood management (d = 0.79) and self-motivation (d = 0.62) had a medium to large effect size. For Social Inhibition, self-awareness (d = 0.35), expressing empathy (d = 0.46), and mood management (d = 0.47) had a small to medium effect size and self-motivation (d = 0.52) and managing relationships (d = 0.79) had a medium to large effect size. A summary of measures can be found on Table 4. DISCUSSION Mental health is becoming an important area of study in health education, health promotion, and public health as more research shows a relationship between mental and physical health as well as overall quality of life. The purpose of this study was to examine the predictive nature of the five dimensions of EI, namely
0.121
0.207
0.259
Mental health status Constant Mood management
Social inhibition Constant Mood management Managing relationships
Negative affectivity Constant Mood management Self-motivation Managing relationships Empathy
Adjusted r2
35.300 –0.801 –0.420 –0.435 0.324
36.322 –0.857 –0.454
14.424 0.652
Unstandardized coefficients B
2.171 0.134 0.137 0.127 0.133
2.179 0.129 0.130
1.449 0.096
Std. error
–0.357 –0.176 –0.195 0.142
–0.354 –0.187
0.351
Standardized coefficients Beta
16.259 –5.970 –3.056 –3.427 2.429
16.668 –6.637 –3.500
9.957 6.798
t
0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.016
0.001 0.001 0.001
0.001 0.001
p-Value
Table 3. Parameter Estimates from Final Regression Models of Each Measure of Mental Health (n = 334)
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN YOUNG ADULTS / 359
4-15 5-20 5-20 5-20 5-20
4-15 5-20 5-20 5-20 5-20
4-15 5-20 5-20 5-20 5-20
Possible range
Note: SMI (Serious Mental Illness).
Self-awareness Mood management Self-motivation Empathy Managing relationships
Social inhibition
Self-awareness Mood management Self-motivation Empathy Managing relationships
Negative affectivity
Self-awareness Mood management Self-motivation Empathy Managing relationships
EI variable Mental health status
11.14 (1.15) 14.29 (2.28) 14.01 (2.05) 15.07 (2.23) 14.29 (2.34)
Type D (n = 128) M (SD)
Non-type D (n = 206) M (SD) 11.67 (1.77) 15.32 (2.16) 15.08 (2.07) 16.07 (2.16) 15.97 (1.99)
11.20 (1.51) 13.76 (2.25) 13.79 (1.86) 15.21 (2.22) 14.56 (2.44)
Type D (n = 103) M (SD)
Non-type D (n = 231) M (SD) 11.59 (1.84) 15.44 (2.07) 15.06 (2.13) 15.90 (2.22) 15.67 (2.12)
11.23 (1.66) 13.49 (2.55) 13.95 (2.91) 14.87 (2.82) 14.69 (2.92)
High risk for SMI (n = 39) M (SD)
11.51 (1.76) 15.12 (2.16) 14.77 (2.0) 15.80 (2.13) 15.42 (2.16)
Low risk for SMI (n = 295) M (SD)
0.007* 0.001* 0.001* 0.001* 0.001*
p-Value
0.044* 0.001* 0.001* 0.009* 0.001*
p-Value
0.359 0.001* 0.026* 0.015* 0.061
p-Value
Table 4. Differences in Emotional Intelligence between Groups as Risk for Serious Mental Illness (SMI) and Type D Personality
0.35 0.47 0.52 0.46 0.79
Effect size (Cohen’s d)
0.22 0.79 0.62 0.31 0.50
Effect size (Cohen’s d)
— 0.74 0.39 0.42 —
Effect size (Cohen’s d)
360 / BRANSCUM, BHOCHHIBHOYA AND SHARMA
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN YOUNG ADULTS /
361
self-awareness, managing one’s own emotions, self-motivation, empathy, and handling external relationship with mental health status, negative affectivity, and social inhibition serving as dependent variables. In addition, this study examined the difference in the five dimensions of EI between young adults at risk for serious mental illness, and for those who are considered both types of Type D personality. The two unique ways of data analysis strengthens this study, as it allows for the dependent variables under investigation to serve as a continuous variable in regression models, and as a dichotomous variable in models using independent t-tests. Results from this study found that mood management was a predictor for mental health status accounting for 12.1% of the variance in the dependent variable. Mood management entails handling feelings so that they become relevant to the present situation and response is appropriate. This is vital for a positive mental health status. The findings are in consonance with the study done by Mayer, Roberts, and Barsade [6] which also found a high degree of association between emotional intelligence and determinants of mental health in the workplace. Results from this study also found that social inhibition was negatively predicted by mood management and managing relationships, the two accounting for 20.7% variance in the dependent variable. Social inhibition entails predisposition towards reticence, or shyness due to fear of rejection or disapproval from others. This type of attribute is likely to be negatively influenced by the ability to handle interpersonal relationships, ability to resolve conflicts, and ability to negotiate (which is the construct of managing relationships) and handling feelings so that they become relevant to the present situation and response is appropriate (which is the construct of mood management). This relationship has not been studied in the literature and is unique to our study. Results from this study also found that negative affectivity was negatively predicted by mood management, self-motivation, and managing relationships while positively predicted by empathy. Negative affectivity is a predisposition toward feelings of anxiety, irritability, and overall negative emotions. This type of attribute is likely to be negatively influenced by the ability to handle interpersonal relationships, ability to resolve conflicts, and ability to negotiate (which is the construct of managing relationships), gatherings one’s feelings and directing them toward a goal (which is the construct of self-motivation), and handling feelings so that they become relevant to the present situation and response is appropriate (which is the construct of mood management). This type of attribute is also likely to be positively influenced by the construct of empathy, which is the ability to recognize feelings in others and tuning into their verbal and non-verbal cues. This relationship has not been studied in the literature and is unique to our study. Finally, results from this study found that very little of the sample was at high risk for serious mental illness (SMI; n = 39; 11.7% of the sample), which is
362 / BRANSCUM, BHOCHHIBHOYA AND SHARMA
consistent with other studies using non-clinical, community samples [25, 26]. Past studies have shown that this survey can detect risk (greater than 90%) for mental disorders, as characterized by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edition) [27]. In this study, the mood management dimension of EI was found to have the largest effect size between those at risk for SMI, indicating the importance of being able to handle emotions and be self-aware. A moderate level of the sample was at risk for exhibiting both types of Type D personality; specially, negative affectivity (n = 103; 30.8%) and social isolation (n = 38.3%). Additionally, when taken together it was found that only about half (n = 172; 51.5%) of the sample was not at risk for either type of Type D personality, and ~20% of the sample was at risk for both types of Types D personality (n = 69; 20.7%). For those exhibiting negative affectivity, the mood management dimension of EI was found to have the largest effect size when compared with those not exhibiting negative affectivity, which was similar for those being at risk for SMI. For those exhibiting social isolation the managing relationships dimension of EI was found to have the largest effect size when compared with those not exhibiting social isolation, which was expected, given the inherent connection there is between being socially isolated and having an inability to develop and manage outside relationships. Limitations This study was not without some limitations. First, the study did not utilize random selection of participants, which introduced sampling bias. Ideally, random selection of participants would have added the ability to generalize the results. Second, the instruments used were self-reports and these are prone to dishonesty, erroneous markings, etc., which introduces measurement bias. Unfortunately not much can be done in this regard as we are interested in finding out the inner thinking of the participants. Finally, the design of the study was cross-sectional in nature and therefore nothing can be said about the temporality of association between the various sets of measures reported in this study. Implications for Practice For interventions that build mental health, emotional intelligence offers promise to enhance their effectiveness. Aspects such as recognizing feeling in oneself, recognizing feelings in others, caring for others’ feelings, regulating feelings in oneself, and harnessing feelings for managing relationships can be used to promote mental health in college students and possibly other target populations as well. A variety of methods that entail lecture, case studies, role-plays, simulations, and psychodrama can be used to build the constructs of emotional intelligence. People suffering from social inhibition and negative affectivity can also benefit from the constructs of emotional intelligence. This can be applied in both
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN YOUNG ADULTS /
363
the general population as well as clinical populations. Mood management and managing relationships have been found to be inversely related to both social inhibition and negative affectivity. So if these constructs of emotional intelligence are increased, the negative traits of social inhibition and negative affectivity will decrease. Both these constructs can be easily modified through educational programs. Likewise the construct of self-motivation is inversely related to negative affectivity, which can also be enhanced through educational programs. Empathy or caring for others feelings was found in this study to be beneficial in reducing negative affectivity. REFERENCES 1. G. S. F. Li, F. J. Lu, and A. H. H. Wang, Exploring the Relationships of Physical Activity, Emotional Intelligence and Health in Taiwan College Students, Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness, 7:1, pp. 55-63, 2009. doi: 10.1016/S1728-869X(09) 60008-3 2. M. Minkler, K. M. Roe, and M. Price, The Physical and Emotional Health of Grandmothers Raising Grandchildren in the Crack Cocaine Epidemic, The Gerontologist, 32:6, pp. 752-761, 1992. doi: 10.1093/geront/32.6.752 3. P. Salovey and J. D. Mayer, Emotional Intelligence, Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, pp. 185-211, 1989-1990. doi: 10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG 4. J. D. Mayer, P. Salovey, and D. R. Caruso, Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Findings, and Implications, Psychological Inquiry, 15:3, pp. 197-215, 2004. 5. D. Goleman, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ, Bantam, New York, 2006. 6. J. D. Mayer, R. D. Roberts, and S. G. Barsade, Human Abilities: Emotional Intelligence, Annual Reviews of Psychology, 59, pp. 507-536, 2008. doi: 10.1146/annurev. psych.59.103006.093646 7. J. Ciarrochi, F. P. Deane, and S. Anderson, Emotional Intelligence Moderates the Relationship Between Stress and Mental Health, Personality and Individual Differences, 32:2, pp. 197-209, 2002. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00012-5 8. J. D. Parker, L. J. Summerfeldt, M. J. Hogan, and S. A. Majeski, Emotional Intelligence and Academic Success: Examining the Transition From High School to University, Personality and Individual Differences, 36:1, pp. 163-172, 2004. doi: 10.1016/ S0191-8869(03)00076-X 9. R. D. Omar Dev, I. A. Ismail, M. S. Omar-Fauzee, M. C. Abdullah, and S. K. Geok, Emotional Intelligence as a Potential Underlying Mechanism for Physical Activity among Malaysian Adults, American Journal of Health Sciences, 3:3, pp. 211-222, 2012. 10. S. A. Denham, K. A. Blair, E. DeMulder, J. Levitas, K. Sawyer, and S. AuerbachMajor, Preschool Emotional Competence: Pathway to Social Competence, Child Development, 74:1, pp. 238-256, 2003. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00533 11. S. E. Fine, C. E. Izard, A. J. Mostow, C. J. Trentacosta, and B. P. Ackerman, First Grade Emotion Knowledge as a Predictor of Fifth Grade Self-Reported Internalizing Behaviors in Children from Economically Disadvantaged Families, Development and Psychopathology, 15, pp. 331-342, 2003. doi: 10.1017/S095457940300018X
364 / BRANSCUM, BHOCHHIBHOYA AND SHARMA
12. M. A. Brackett, S. E. Rivers, S. Shiffman, N. Lerner, and P. Salovey, Relating Emotional Abilities to Social Functioning: A Comparison of Self-Report and Performance Measures of Emotional Intelligence, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91:4, pp. 780-795, 2006. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.780 13. P. N. Lopes, M. A. Brackett, J. B. Nezlek, A. Schutz, I. Sellin, and P. Salovey, Emotional Intelligence and Social Interaction, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, pp. 1018-1034, 2004. doi: 10.1177/0146167204264762 14. K. A. Barchard, Does Emotional Intelligence Assist in the Prediction of Academic Success? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63:5, pp. 840-858, 2003. doi: 10.1177/0013164403251333 15. A. Schlaerth, N. Ensari, and J. Christian, A Meta-Analytical Review of the Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and Leaders’ Constructive Conflict Management, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16:1, pp. 126-136, 2013. doi: 10.1177/ 1368430212439907 16. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Health Interview Survey. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/quest_doc.htm 17. L. S. Andersen, A. Grimsrud, L. Myer, D. R. Williams, D. J. Stein, and S. Seedat, The Psychometric Properties of the K10 and K6 Scales in Screening for Mood and Anxiety Disorders in the South African Stress and Health Study, International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 20:4, pp. 215-223, 2011. doi: 10.1002/ mpr.351 18. K. Sakurai, A. Nishi, K. Kondo, K. Yanagida, and N. Kawakami, Screening Performance of K6/K10 and Other Screening Instruments for Mood and Anxiety Disorders in Japan, Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 65:5, pp. 434-441, 2011. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1819.2011.02236.x 19. R. C. Kessler, G. Andrews, L. J. Colpe, E. Hiripi, D. K. Mroczek, S. L. T. Normand, E. E. Walters, and A. M. Zaslavsky, Short Screening Scales to Monitor Population Prevalences and Trends in Non-Specific Psychological Distress, Psychological Medicine, 32:6, pp. 959-976, 2002. doi: 10.1017/S0033291702006074 20. National Comorbidity Survey, Instruments. Available at http://www.hcp.med.harvard. edu/ncs/instruments.php 21. J. Denollet, DS14: Standard Assessment of Negative Affectivity, Social Inhibition, and Type D personality, Psychosomatic Medicine, 67:1, pp. 89-97, 2005. doi: 10.1097/ 01.psy.0000149256.81953.49 22. G. Grande, M. Romppel, and J. Barth, Association Between Type D Personality and Prognosis in Patients with Cardiovascular Diseases: A Systematic Review and MetaAnalysis, Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 43:3, pp. 299-310, 2012. doi: 10.1007/ s12160-011-9339-0 23. J. M. Conte, A Review and Critique of Emotional Intelligence Measures, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26:4, pp. 433-440, 2005. doi: 10.1002/job.319 24. C. Konicki Di Lorio, Measurement in Health Behavior: Methods for Research and Evaluation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California, 2005. 25. R. C. Kessler, P. R. Barker, L. J. Colpe, J. F. Epstein, J. C. Gfroerer, E. Hiripi, M. J. Howes, S. T. Normand, R. W. Manderscheid, E. E. Walters, and A. M. Zaslavsky, Screening for Serious Mental Illness in the General Population, Archives of General Psychiatry, 60:2, pp. 184-189, 2003. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.60.2.184
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN YOUNG ADULTS /
365
26. A. P. Knowlden, M. Sharma, A. Kanekar, and A. Atri, Sense of Coherence and Hardiness as Predictors of Mental Health of College Students. International Quarterly of Community Health Education, 56, pp. 55-68, 2012-2013. doi: 10.2190/IQ.33.1.e 27. T. A. Furukawa, R. C. Kessler, T. Slade, and G. Andrews, The Performance of the K6 and K10 Screening Scales for Psychological Distress in the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being, Psychological Medicine, 33:2, pp. 357-362, 2003. doi: 10.1017/S0033291702006700
Direct reprint requests to: Paul Branscum, Ph.D., RD The University of Oklahoma Department of Health and Exercise Science 1401 Asp Avenue Norman, OK 73019 e-mail: [email protected]
