Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AssessingEmotionsScaleBookChapter2 PDF
AssessingEmotionsScaleBookChapter2 PDF
net/publication/216626162
CITATIONS READS
108 43,084
3 authors, including:
Navjot Bhullar
University of New England (Australia)
79 PUBLICATIONS 1,544 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
High quality markets & value chains for small-scale & emerging beef cattle farmers in South Africa View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Navjot Bhullar on 18 May 2016.
Publishing.
Theoretical Rationale
Intelligence Scale, the Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test, or the Schutte Emotional
Intelligence Scale, is based on Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) original model of emotional
emotion in the self and others, expression of emotion, regulation of emotion in the self
and others, and utilization of emotion in solving problems. Subsumed under these
branches are functions such as verbal and non verbal appraisal and expression of emotion
and using emotions to motivate as part of the utilisation of emotions. Mayer, Salovey,
and Caruso (2004) have since refined their 1990 model, but the basic aspects of
emotional intelligence proposed in the newer model remain similar to those of the 1990
model.
intelligence. In their 1990 model, Salovey and Mayer described emotional intelligence as
a mix of what might be considered abilities and traits. More recently, Mayer and Salovey
(Mayer et al., 2004; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003) have argued for a pure
associated with a measurement approach that focuses on latent abilities assessed through
performance tasks.
Other theorists and researchers (Neubauer & Freudenthaler, 2005; Petrides &
Furnham, 2001, 2003) have argued that emotional intelligence can be usefully
intelligence draws on self or other reports to gather information regarding the display of
emotional intelligence characteristics in daily life. Even though some literature presents
alternatives (e.g., Mayer, Salovey & Caruso., 2000), we believe that both are important
typical emotional intelligence. Respondents rate themselves on the items using a five-
point scale. Respondents require on average five minutes to complete the scale. Table 1
shows the items comprising the measures and instructions to respondents. Total scale
scores are calculated by reverse coding items 5, 28 and 33, and then summing all items.
Scores can range from 33 to 165, with higher scores indicating more characteristic
emotional intelligence.
Salovey and Mayer (1990) emotional intelligence model identified a strong first factor
(Schutte, Malouff, Hall, Haggerty, Cooper, Golden, & Dornheim, 1998). This factor
included items from all branches of the model. Based on these results, Schutte et al.
(1998) recommended using total scores on the 33-item scale. Several other factor
analytic studies focusing on the structure of the scale have also found a one factor
solution (Brackett & Mayer, 2003), in some cases as having reasonable fit along with a fit
for subfactors (Ciarrochi, Chan, and Bajgar, 2001) or as a higher order factor with
associated subfactors (Gignac, Palmer, Manocha, & Stough, 2005), while other studies
have suggested, based on identification of factors within the scale, focus on subfactors
rather than a higher order factor (Petrides & Furnham, 2000; Saklofske, Austin, &
Minski, 2003). The subscales based on this identification of factors will be discussed
below.
The most widely used subscales derived from the 33-item Assessing Emotions
Scale are those based on factors identified by Petrides and Furnham (2000), Ciarrochi et
al. (2001), and Saklofske et al. (2003). These factor analytic studies suggested a four-
factor solution for the 33 items. The four factors were described as follows: perception of
emotions, managing emotions in the self, social skills or managing others’ emotions, and
utilizing emotions. The items comprising the subscales based on these factors (Ciarrochi
et al., 2001) are as follows: Perception of Emotion (items 5, 9, 15, 18, 19, 22, 25, 29, 32,
33), Managing Own Emotions (items 2, 3, 10, 12, 14, 21, 23, 28, 31), Managing Others’
Emotions (items 1, 4, 11, 13, 16, 24, 26, 30), and Utilization of Emotion (items 6, 7, 8,
17, 20, 27). All 33 items are included in one of these four subscales. While subsequent
factor analytic studies (Chapman & Hayslip, 2006; Saklofske et al., 2003) have provided
support for the factors that form the basis for the subscales, there has been some variation
in what items load on the factors. Further, using exploratory factor analysis, Austin,
Saklofske, Huang and McKinney (2004) found the 33-item scale items grouped into just
three factors.
distributions for different groups. Table 2 shows means and standard deviations on the
total scale for various samples. In some cases the means reported in the research article
or chapter were the average of all scale items rather than the sum of scale items. So that
the means from different samples on the total scale score can easily be compared, the
Several studies have reported means and standard deviations on total scale scores
separately for men and women. Generally these studies have found that women score
somewhat higher on the measure than men. In some studies this difference has been
statistically significant (e.g., Carmeli & Josman, 2006; Ciarrochi et al., 2001; Pau &
Croucher, 2003; Van Rooy, Alonso & Viswaran, 2005; Saklofske, Austin, Galloway &
Davidson, 2007; Schutte et al., 1998); in other studies the difference has not been
statistically significant (e.g., Saklofske, Austin & Minski, 2003; Schutte, Malouff, Bobik,
Coston, Greeson, Jedlicka, Rhodes & Wendorf, 2001; Wing, Schutte & Byrne, 2006).
Table 3 provides a selection of mean scores for males and females reported for different
samples.
Ciarrochi et al. (2001) reported mean scores and standard deviations for a sample
of adolescents on the four subscales they identified and Ciarrochi, Deanne and Anderson
(2002) reported mean scores and standard deviations for three of the subscales for a
sample of university students. The values, expressed as the average for the items
comprising the scale, allowing for comparison between scales with differing numbers of
items, were as follows for 131 Australian adolescents: Perception of Emotion (M=3.57,
SD=0.58), Managing Own Emotions (M=3.71, SD=0.52), Managing Others’ Emotions
(M=3.63, SD=.58), and Utilization of Emotion (M=3.69, SD=0.66); and for university
consistency for the Utilization scale was low, it was not used in the Ciarrochi et al. (2002)
The items for the original Assessing Emotions scale were in English (Schutte et
al., 1998) and most studies utilising the scale have used the English language version of
the scale. However, some studies have used translations of the scale. These include
Carmeli (2003), who used a Hebrew version of the scale; Oginska-Bulk (2005), who used
a Polish version of the scale; Sjoberg (2005), who used a Swedish version of the scale;
Psychometric properties
Internal Consistency
In the development sample of 346 participants, Schutte et al. (1998) found the
to be .90. Numerous other studies have reported the internal consistency of the 33 item
scale. Table 2 shows the internal consistency, measured through Cronbach’s alpha, for
Emotions, .66, .66 and Utilisation of Emotion, .55, (the alpha for this scale was not
Test-retest reliability
Schutte et al. (1998) reported a two-week test-retest reliability of .78 for total
scale scores.
Evidence of Validity
Emotions Scale and other measures of emotional functioning. The results of these studies
provide some evidence regarding the validity of the Assessing Emotions Scale. Schutte
et al. (1998) found that scores on the Assessing Emotions Scale were substantially related
to greater attention to emotions, greater clarity of emotions, and less alexithymia (which
involves lack of awareness of emotion and inability to express emotion). Brackett and
Mayer (2003) found that scores on the Assessing Emotions Scale were correlated with
scores on the EQ-i, another self-report measure of emotional intelligence that is based on
a broader definition of emotional intelligence and with the MSCEIT (a performance test
and the EQ-i was substantial, at r = .43, while the relationship between Assessing
Emotions Scale scores and the MSCEIT, although statistically significant, was not strong
at r = .18. Bastian, Burns and Nettelbeck (2005) found that scores on the Assessing
Emotions Scale were related to attention to emotions, clarity of emotions and repair of
emotions. Bastian et al. (2005) did not find Assessing Emotions Scale scores to be
associated with outcomes one might expect to be related to emotional intelligence. Such
outcomes are found in various life realms including mental health, employment, and
academic pursuits. Examples of early findings include that Assessing Emotions Scale
scores related to more optimism, greater impulse control, lack of depressed affect
(Schutte et al., 1998), more empathic perspective taking, greater self-monitoring in social
situations, more closeness and warmth in relationships, and greater marital satisfaction
(Schutte & Malouff, 2002), first year university grades (Schutte et al., 1998), supervisor
1998), and better mood repair after a negative mood induction (Schutte, Malouff,
diverse samples of participants. Across samples, scores on the Assessing Emotions Scale
examined relationships between scores on the Assessing Emotions Scale and outcomes in
various realms. Examples of findings include that higher scores on the scale are
associated with less debilitating fatigue (Brown & Schutte, 2006), better supervisor rated
task performance and better organisational citizenship (Carmeli & Josman, 2006), less
depression (Oginska-Bulik, 2005), and greater life satisfaction (Wing, Schutte & Byrne,
2006).
provided by other recognised concepts, such as compliance with social norms or major
resulting in self-report scales assessing how compliant with social norms a respondent is
rather than the respondent’s perception of his or her emotional functioning. Under
does not seem to influence scores on the Assessing Emotions Scale; Kirk, Schutte and
Hine (2007) found that scores on the Assessing Emotions Scale were not associated with
Several studies have examined the relationship between scores on the Assessing
Emotions Scale and the Big Five Dimensions. Five dimensions, extraversion (surgency),
agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability (the low end of which has been
termed neuroticism), and openness, seem to underlie many characteristic traits (Goldberg,
1993; John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & Costa, 1999). These Big Five dimensions
relatively distinct from these dimensions. Schutte et al. (1998), Brackett and Mayer
(2003), and Bastian et al. (2005) respectively reported the following correlations between
the Assessing Emotions Scale and each of the Big Five Dimensions: extraversion, .28,
.32, .61; agreeableness, .26, .09, .23; conscientiousness, .21, .25, .32; emotional stability,
.28, .19, .37; and openness, .54, .43, .43. These correlations indicate that across studies
scores on the Assessing Emotions Scale are relatively distinct from scores on each of the
Big Five Dimensions. Openness had the highest average association with the Assessing
Practical Considerations
The Assessing Emotions Scale has been used in many studies of emotional
intelligence and has been much written about, as indicated by over 200 publications listed
in the PsycINFO database as citing the article that first described the scale. The scale has
been used with respondents from a variety of populations. The development sample of
participants consisted of adults of a range of ages. Most subsequent studies have used the
measure with adults. Ciarochi et al. (2001) found that the scale had good psychometric
properties when used with Australian adolescents, Charbonneau and Nicol (2002) used
the scale with Canadian adolescents, and Liau, Liau, Teoh, and Liau (2003) used the
scale with Malaysian adolescents. As the reading grade level of the scale is that typical
of students in their fifth year of school (Schutte et al.,1998), as assessed by the Flesch-
Kincaid reading level formula, it seems reasonable to use the scale with adolescents.
The Assessing Emotions Scale was first developed and validated as an English
language scale and the majority of studies using the scale have focused on participants
from English speaking countries. It seems that the scale has potential in translated
versions. Findings from studies using translations of the scale to languages such as
Hebrew and Polish show that these other language versions of the scale result in
hypothesised findings, such as that Assessing Emotions Scale scores are related to better
supervisor-rated work performance (Carmeli & Josman, 2006) and less perceived work
Purpose of Assessment
The purpose of the assessment should be kept in mind when deciding whether to
use the Assessing Emotions Scale. Schutte et al. (1998) suggested that the scale might
appropriately be used for research purposes and to assist individuals who are motivated to
the items on the scale are transparent and respondents may perceive some answers as
more socially desirable than others, Schutte et al. (1998) suggested that the scale is not
appropriate for use with individuals who have an incentive to present themselves in a
socially desirable manner. Even though Kirk et al. (2007) found that Assessing Emotions
Scale scores were not related to social desirability responding, the participants in this
study provided information under confidential conditions and had no incentive to provide
responses they perceived as socially desirable. We recommend that the scale not be used
motivated to give what they perceive to be desirable answers, performance test measures
appropriate. The Assessing Emotions Scale is based on the definition put forth in the
original Salovey and Mayer (1990) model. Other measures, such as the EQ-i (Bar-On,
2000), are based on broader definitions of emotional intelligence that include adaptive
Further Development
Huang and McKenney (2004) drew on the 33 items of the Assessing Emotions Scale to
construct a 41-item scale with 21 reverse-keyed items. This 41-item scale includes
reversed wording for nine of the originally positively worded 30 items of the Assessing
Emotions Scale and eight new reverse-keyed items. The internal consistency for the 41-
item scale was .85. Gignac, Palmer, Manocha and Stough (2005) selected the 28 items of
the 33 items that based on their qualitative analysis best fit the conceptual categories of
either an ability (Mayer et al., 2004) or a trait (Bar-On, 2000, Petrides & Furnham, 2003;
Tett, Fox & Wang, 2005). There may be additional important dimensions of emotional
dimensions.
Self-efficacy for emotional functioning is the perception or belief that one can
achieve desired outcomes in the emotional realm. Petrides and Furnham (2003) posited
As Petrides and Furnham (2003) themselves pointed out, trait emotional intelligence
are other aspects of trait emotional intelligence not encompassed by emotional self-
efficacy.
Kirk et al. (2007) found support for the notion that self-efficacy is a dimension of
adaptive emotional functioning as defined by the four branch model of Mayer at al.
(2004). In this research emotional self-efficacy emerged as a reliable and valid construct
that had significant relationships with both trait emotional intelligence (measured by the
Assessing Emotions Scale) and ability emotional intelligence (measured by the MCEIT),
but also accounted for separate variance from these emotional intelligence dimensions.
Many human characteristics that are generally conceived of as traits that have
state counterparts (e.g., Schutte et al., 2003). Emotional intelligence may manifest itself
as a temporary or intermediate state (Wing et al., 2006) as well as a longer lasting trait.
Just as there are state as well as trait versions of the Positive and Negative Affect Scales
(Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) and the Trait-State Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger,
Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983), state assessments of emotional intelligence
may be developed.
The interactionist approach to human functioning (e.g., Mishel, 1977) posits that
most behaviour is the result of the interplay of individual traits and the influence of
situations. Situations may have inherent qualities that elicit similar behaviours, thoughts
and emotions in the majority of individuals who encounter these situations. Such
Recent research by Schutte, Price and Malouff (2007) found that individuals could
reliably identify the emotional affordance of many situations and that the effectiveness of
intelligence.
Conclusion
intelligence, has been widely used in research and various studies suggest that the scale
has good reliability and reasonable evidence of validity. The Assessing Emotions Scale
may be best used for research purposes and to assist individuals who are motivated to
Assessing Emotions Scale can play a role might focus on expanding the conceptual
Abraham, R. (2000). The role of job control as a moderator of emotional dissonance and
169-184.
Austin, E.J., Saklofske, D.H., Huang, S.H.S., & McKenney, D. (2004). Measurement
Schutte et al.’s (1998) measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 555-
562.
Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional
Bastian, V.A., Burns, N.R., & Nettelbeck, T. (2005). Emotional intelligence predicts
life skills, but not as well as personality and cognitive abilities. Personality and
Brown, R. F. & Schutte, N.S. (2006). Direct and indirect relationships between emotional
19, 403-419.
Chapman, B.P. & Hayslip, B. Jr. (2006). Emotional intelligence in young and middle
Clyne, C. & Blampied, N.M. (2004). Training in emotion regulation as a treatment for
Ciarrochi, J., Chan, A.Y.C., & Bajgar, J. (2001). Measuring emotional intelligence in
Ciarrochi, J., Deane, F.P., & Anderson, S. (2002). Emotional intelligence moderates
the relationship between stress and mental health. Personality and Individual
Depape, A.R., Hakim-Larson, J., Voelker, S., Page, S., & Jackson, D.L. (2006).
Gignac, G.E., Palmer, B.R., Manocha, R., & Stough, C. (2005). An examination of
the factor structure of the schutte self-report emotional intelligence (SSREI) scale
via confirmatory factor analysis, Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1029-
1042.
Goldberg, L.R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American
Guastello, D.D. & Guastello, S.J. (2003). Androgyny, gender role behaviour, and
emotional intelligence among college students and their parents. Sex Roles, 49, 663-
673.
John, O. J., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History,
Guilford.
Kirk, B.A., Schutte, N.S., & Hine, D.W. (2007). Development and validation of a
Liau, A.K., Liau, A.W.L., Teoh, G.B.S., & Liau, M.T.L. (2003). The case for
Malouff, J.M., & Schutte, N.S. (1998). Emotional intelligence scores predict counselor
Washington, DC.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2000). Models of emotional intelligence. In R.
University Press.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory,
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional
intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0, Emotion, 3, 97-105.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In: L. A. Pervin
Mishel, W. (1977). The interaction of persona and situation. In D. Magnusson & N.S.
Newcombe, M.J. & Ashkanasy, N.M. (2002). The role of affect and affective
175.
Pau, A.K.H. & Croucher, R. (2003). Emotional intelligence and perceived stress in
42, 491-502.
Saklofske, D.H., Austin, E.J., & Minski, P.S. (2003). Factor structure and validity of a
1091-1100.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 9, 185-211.
Schutte, N.S. & Malouff, J.M. (2002). Incorporating emotional skills in a college
Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Bobik, C., Conston, T., Greeson, C., Jedlicka, C., Rhodes,
Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E., Haggerty, D.J., Cooper, J.T., Golden, C.J., &
Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Segrera, E., Wolf, A., & Rodgers, L. (2003). States
reflecting the Big Five dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 34,
591-603.
Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Simunek, M., Hollander, S., & McKenley, J. (2002).
Schutte, N.S., Price, I., & Malouff, J.M. (2007). Situational aspects of emotional
Schutte, N. S., Schuettpelz, E, & Malouff, J. M. (2001). Emotional intelligence and task
Scott, G., Ciarrochi, J. & Deane, F.P. (2004). Disadvantages of being an individualist
Psychologist, 6, 79-95.
Spielberger, C.D., Gorsuch, R.L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P.R., & Jacobs, G.A. (1983).
Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychology Press.
Tett, R.P., Fox, K.E., & Wang, A. (2005). Development and validation of a self-report
Thingujam, N.K.S. & Ram, U. (2000). Emotional intelligence scale: Indian norms.
Journal of Education and Psychology, 58, 40-48.
55-73.
Van Rooy, D.L., & Alexander, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Group differences in
Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
Wing, J.F., Schutte, N.S., & Byrne, B. (2006). The effect of positive writing on
1291-1302.
Zizzi, S.J., Deaner, H.R., & Hirschhorn, D.K. (2003). The relationship between
Directions: Each of the following items asks you about your emotions or reactions
associated with emotions. After deciding whether a statement is generally true for you,
use the 5-point scale to respond to the statement. Please circle the “1” if you strongly
disagree that this is like you, the “2” if you somewhat disagree that this is like you, “3” if
you neither agree nor disagree that this is like you, the “4” if you somewhat agree that
this is like you, and the “5” if you strongly agree that this is like you.
There are no right or wrong answers. Please give the response that best describes you.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = somewhat disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat agree
5 = strongly agree
8. Emotions are one of the things that make my life worth living. 1 2 3 4 5
29. I know what other people are feeling just by looking at them. 1 2 3 4 5
30. I help other people feel better when they are down. 1 2 3 4 5
31. I use good moods to help myself keep trying in the face of
obstacles. 1 2 3 4 5
32. I can tell how people are feeling by listening to the tone
of their voice. 1 2 3 4 5
Internal Consistency, Means and Standard Deviations for the Assessing Emotions Scale
Brackett & Mayer, 2003 207 university United States .93 123.42 14.52
students
Brown & Schutte, 2006 167 university Australia .85 126.51 11.61
students
Carmeli & Josman, 2006 215 employees Israel .83 126.39 12.21
Liau, Liau, Teoh, Liau 203 adolescents Malaysia .76 132.08 11.14
Pau & Croucher, 2003 223 university United States .90 117.54 14.90
students
Schutte, Malouff, Hall, 346 community United States .90 128.86 15.57
Haggerty, Cooper, members and
Golden, & Dornheim, university students
1998
Van Rooy, Alonso, & 275 university United States .87 129.46 14.21
Viswesvaran, 2005 students
**Scale scores in this study were reported as a low score indicating high emotional
intelligence. To allow comparison with other sample means, the mean was converted.
Nicola, can we also point out (with ***) that for certain studies such as Abraham (2000),
means and SDs are not provided in the article.
Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations for Males and Females on the Assessing Emotions Scale
Pau & Croucher, British dental 103 115.10 16.37 110 119.82 13.05
2003 students
Schutte et al., 1998 United States 111 124.78 16.52 218 130.94 15.09
adults
Van Rooy et al., United States 59 127.15 12.82 216 130.09 14.53
2005 university
students