Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Silvera Martinussenog Dahl 2001
Silvera Martinussenog Dahl 2001
net/publication/11799351
CITATIONS READS
332 16,789
3 authors:
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Tove Irene Dahl on 18 February 2019.
Silvera, D. H., Martinussen, M. & Dahl, T. I. (2001). The Tromsù Social Intelligence Scale, a self-report measure of social intelligence.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42, 313±319
Social intelligence is a construct that not only appeals to laymen as a relevant individual difference but also has shown promising practical
applications. Nevertheless, the use of social intelligence in research and applied settings has been limited by definitional problems, difficulties
in empirically differentiating social intelligence from related constructs, and the complexity of most existing measures of social intelligence.
The goal of the present research was to address some of these obstacles by designing a multi-faceted social intelligence measure that is short
and easy to administer. Three studies were conducted to develop and validate the Tromsù Social Intelligence Scale (TSIS). Study 1 examined
professional psychologists' interpretations of social intelligence to derive a consensually agreed-upon definition of the construct. In Study 2, a
large pool of social intelligence items were tested, and a 3-factor, 21-item scale was identified. In Study 3, the stability of this measure was
confirmed.
David Silvera, University of Tromsù, Department of Psychology, 9037 Tromsù, Norway. E-mail: davids@psyk.uit.no
Most individuals have no difficulty thinking of a person they distinct constructs) and verbal ability (e.g., Ford & Tisak,
know who seems to prosper in social situations. This type of 1983; Heidrich & Denny, 1994; Wong, Day, Maxwell &
person is well-liked by everyone, never seems uncomfortable Meara, 1995).
under even the most awkward social conditions, and always The second difficulty in defining social intelligence is the
seems to be alert to even the most subtle conversational fact that different researchers have defined this construct in
cues. In many cases it is even easier to think of someone who distinctly different ways over the years (e.g., Thorndike,
really suffers in social situations Ða person who is basically 1920; Guilford, 1967; Ford & Tisak, 1983; Kosmitzki &
a good, competent individual, who nevertheless always John, 1993). Some definitions emphasize the cognitive
seems to get the worst of social interactions. component, or ``the ability to understand other people''
People like these serve as the basis of our understanding (e.g., Barnes & Sternberg, 1989). Others take a more
that there is some underlying individual difference that behavioral emphasis, such as ``the ability to interact
causes different people to have different degrees of success in successfully with other people'' (e.g., Ford & Tisak, 1983),
social situations, an individual difference that is often and still others rely on a more psychometric foundation and
referred to in the psychological literature as social intelli- define social intelligence along the lines of ``the ability to
gence. Despite our subjective feelings that social intelligence perform well on tests that measure social skills'' (e.g.,
is a real and influential individual difference, however, Keating, 1978).
research has often failed to demonstrate the validity of the The third difficulty, which is closely related to the second,
social intelligence construct (e.g., Sternberg & Smith, 1985; is that social intelligence is undoubtedly a multifaceted
Walker & Foley, 1973). It is likely that these failures are in construct. For example, Kosmitzki and John (1993)
part due to difficulties in defining social intelligence. identified several components of social intelligence: (a)
perceptiveness of others' internal states and moods; (b)
general ability to deal with other people; (c) knowledge
Defining social intelligence about social rules and social life; (d) insight and sensitivity in
The first problem in defining social intelligence is the complex social situations; (e) use of social techniques to
question of whether the social intelligence construct exists at manipulate others; (f) perspective taking; and (g) social
all. Specifically, many researchers have questioned whether adaptation.
social intelligence is a distinct and psychologically useful Theoretically at least, the third difficulty allows us to
construct, a perspective supported by difficulties in empiri- solve the first. It seems clear that some of the components of
cally separating social intelligence from related constructs social intelligence (i.e., those based on knowledge and
such as academic intelligence (e.g., Keating, 1978; Riggio, reasoning skills) should be expected to relate closely to
Messamer & Throckmorton, 1991; however, see Barnes & general intelligence but not so closely to personality traits
Sternberg, 1989; Sternberg, Conway, Ketron & Bernstein, such as extraversion. Conversely, other components (i.e.,
1981 for evidence that social and academic intelligence are those based on performance in social settings) might be
# 2001 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. ISSN 0036-5564.
314 David H. Silvera, Monica Martinussen and Tove I. Dahl Scand J Psychol 42 (2001)
more closely related to extraversion but less closely related paper-and-pencil format, designed for use in both experi-
to general intelligence. With this in mind, it is possible that mental and survey research in both basic and applied
treating social intelligence as a multi-faceted construct might settings.
help to clarify the relationship between social intelligence
and related psychological constructs.
STUDY 1
Because there seems to be little consensus about a precise
Current tests and issues in measuring social intelligence
definition of social intelligence, a pilot study was conducted
A large number of tests measuring general intelligence have using a procedure similar to that used by Kosmitzki and
been constructed and validated throughout this century. John (1993) to explore experts' implicit theories about social
These tests have been used in clinical settings as well as for intelligence.
selection purposes and research. When it comes to measur-
ing social intelligence, however, few tests are commercially
available, and as far as we know there are no tests of social METHOD
intelligence in the Norwegian language (see Taylor, 1990, for
an overview). Participants
Furthermore, there are a number of problems with Participants were 14 members of the psychology faculty at the
existing measures of social intelligence. First, many of them University of Tromsù who participated on a voluntary basis.
are time consuming and difficult to administer. Second, and
most importantly, different types of social intelligence
measures (i.e., self-report, behavioral, assessment by ob- Procedure
servers, etc.) are often not highly correlated with one Participants were given a short questionnaire assessing their
another (Wong, Day, Maxwell & Meara, 1995). Among definition of social intelligence. The first item was an open-ended
the likely explanations for these inconsistencies are (a) question: ``How would you define the construct social intelligence?''
The remainder of the questionnaire consisted of a list of 27 abilities
disagreements in the definition of social intelligence, (b) low
that might be related to social intelligence (e.g., ``Understanding
reliability among many nonverbal methods for measuring social contexts''). For each of these abilities, participants were asked
social intelligence, and (c) possible biases in self-reported the degree to which that ability was relevant to the social intelligence
results (e.g., self-serving bias; see Miller & Ross, 1975). construct on a scale from 0 (not relevant) to 4 (very relevant).
Table 1. Factor loadings and correlations with MCSD for TSIS items in Study 2a
Social
information Social Social
TSIS item processing skills awareness MCSD
SP subscale:
1. Jeg kan forutsi andre menneskers oppfùrsel. 0.72 0.02
3. Jeg vet hvordan mine handlinger vil faÊ andre til aÊ fùle seg. 0.70 0.02
6. Jeg forstaÊr andre menneskers fùlelser. 0.59 0.04
9. Jeg forstaÊr andres ùnsker. 0.57 0.01
14. Ofte kan jeg skjùnne hva andre prùver aÊ formidle, uten at det behùves aÊ si noe. 0.69 0.01
17. Jeg kan forutsi hvordan andre vil reagere paÊ hvordan jeg oppfùrer meg. 0.62 0.02
19. Ofte kan jeg forstaÊ hva andre egentlig mener gjennom deres blikk, kroppsspraÊk, o.l. 0.76 0.00
SS subscale:
4. Jeg fùler meg ofte usikker sammen med nye mennesker jeg ikke kjenner. 0.71 0.18 *
7. Jeg glir lett inn i sosiale situasjoner. 0.83 0.19 * *
10. Jeg er flink til aÊ gaÊ inn i nye situasjoner og treffe folk for fùrste gang. 0.77 0.17 *
12. Jeg har vanskelig for aÊ komme overens med andre mennesker. 0.69 0.18 *
15. Det tar lang tid fùr jeg lúrer aÊ kjenne andre godt. 0.61 0.15 *
18. Jeg er flink til aÊ finne meg til rette sammen med nye mennesker. 0.84 0.14
20. Jeg har ofte problemer med aÊ finne paÊ gode samtaleemner. 0.63 0.11
SA subscale:
2. Jeg synes ofte det er vanskelig aÊ forstaÊ andres valg. 0.58 0.22 * *
5. Folk overrasker meg ofte med ting de gjùr. 0.60 0.07
8. Andre mennesker blir sint paÊ meg uten at jeg kan forklare hvorfor. 0.40 0.61 0.12
11. Det virker som folk ofte blir sint eller irritert paÊ meg naÊr jeg sier hva jeg mener. 0.70 0.18 * *
13. Jeg finner folk uforutsigbare. 0.57 0.12
16. Jeg har ofte saÊret andre uten aÊ vñre klar over det. 0.74 0.20 * *
21. Jeg blir ofte overrasket av andres reaksjoner paÊ det jeg gjùr. 0.70 0.06
a
The numbers preceding each item indicate the sequence of presentation of items in the final version of the TSIS. Items 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13,
15, 16 and 21 are negatively worded and should be reverse scored. Factor loadings below 0.30 are not reported.
* * p < 0:01, * p < 0:05 (two-tailed).
Table 2. Subscale correlations in Study 2 fit, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA; Browne &
Social
Cudek, 1993) were used as measures of relative model fit.
information Social
MCSD processing skills Even for models with poor absolute fit, recent research
suggests that CFI values of 0.95 or higher (Hu & Bentler,
Social Information Processing 0.01 1999; Carlson & Mulaik, 1993) and RMSEA values of 0.08
Social Skills 0.20 * * 0.30 * * * or lower indicate reasonably good overall model fit (Steiger,
Social Awareness 0.22 * * 0.25 * * * 0.30 * * *
1989; Browne & Mels, 1990; Browne & Cudek, 1993). Based
* * * p < 0:001, * * p < 0:01 (two-tailed). on these values, the present model showed acceptable
relative fit, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.07, but poor absolute
fit, 2 (175) 360:48, p < 0:001.2
Confirmatory factor analysis
social intelligence is defined differently from the classic designed to tap a multi-faceted definition of social intelli-
``Western'' definition (see, e.g., Kagitcibasi, 1996). gence, it can be an important step in this direction.
Marx, E. M., Williams, J. & Claridge, G. C. (1994). Social problem- APPENDIX. ENGLISH VERSION OF THE TSISa
solving in depression. European Review of Applied Psychology,
44, 271±279.
Miller, D. T. & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving bias in the attribution Factor 1: Social information processing (SP)
of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213±225. 1. I can predict other peoples' behavior.
Osipow, S. H. & Walsh, W. B. (1973). Social intelligence and the 3. I know how my actions will make others feel.
selection of counselors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 20,
6. I understand other peoples' feelings.
366±369.
Pace, D., Stamler, V. L. & Yarris, E. (1992). A challenge to the 9. I understand others' wishes.
challenges: Counseling centers of the 1990s. Counseling Psycho- 14. I can often understand what others are trying to
logist, 20, 183±288. accomplish without the need for them to say anything.
Plant, W. T. & Richardson, H. (1958). The IQ of the average college 17. I can predict how others will react to my behavior.
student. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 5, 229± 231.
19. I can often understand what others really mean through
Popkin, S. J., Schaie, K. W. & Krauss, I. K. (1983). Age-fair
assessment of psychometric intelligence. Educational Geron- their expression, body language, etc.
tology, 9, 47±55.
Riggio, R. E., Messamer, J. & Throckmorton, B. (1991). Social and
academic intelligence: Conceptually distinct but overlapping Factor 2: Social skills (SS)
constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 695 ±702.
4. I often feel uncertain around new people who I don't
Rudmin, F. W. (1999). Norwegian short-form of the Marlowe-
Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Scandinavian Journal of know.
Psychology, 40, 229±233. 7. I fit in easily in social situations.
Searight, H. R., Dunn, E. J., Grisso, J. T. & Margolis, R. B. (1989). 10. I am good at entering new situations and meeting people
Relation of cognitive functioning to daily living skills in a for the first time.
geriatric population. Psychological Reports, 64, 399±404.
12. I have a hard time getting along with other people.
Silvera, D. H., Martinussen, M. & Dahl, T. I. (2000). Preliminary
validation of a self-report measure of social intelligence. Annual 15. It takes a long time for me to get to know others well.
meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, 18. I am good at getting on good terms with new people.
IL. 20. I frequently have problems finding good conversation
Steiger, J. H. (1989). EzPATH: A supplementary module for topics.
SYSTAT and SYGRAPH. Evanston, IL: SYSTAT.
Sternberg, R. J., Conway, B. E., Ketron, J. L. & Bernstein, M.
(1981). People's conceptions of intelligence. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 41, 35±37. Factor 3: Social awareness (SA)
Sternberg, R. J. & Smith, C. (1985). Social intelligence and decoding 2. I often feel that it is difficult to understand others'
skills in nonverbal communication. Journal of Social Cognition, choices.
3, 16±31.
5. People often surprise me with the things they do.
Taylor, E. H. (1990). The assessment of social intelligence.
Psychotherapy, 27, 445 ±457. 8. Other people become angry with me without me being
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its use. Harper's Magazine, able to explain why.
140, 227±235. 11. It seems as though people are often angry or irritated
Walker, R. E. & Foley, J. M. (1973). Social intelligence: Its history with me when I say what I think.
and measurement. Psychological Reports, 33, 451± 495.
13. I find people unpredictable.
Wong, C. M. T., Day, J. D., Maxwell, S. E., Meara, N. M. (1995). A
multitrait-multimethod study of academic and social intelligence 16. I have often hurt others without realizing it.
in college students. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 21. I am often surprised by others' reactions to what I do.
117±133. a
This translation is taken from Silvera, Martinussen & Dahl
Received 24 March 2000, accepted 30 August 2000 (2000), which provides preliminary validation of the English
version of the TSIS.