Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
1
RUNNING HEAD: Exploring Emotional Intelligence
Exploring Emotional Intelligence as a mediator for coping styles and nicotine dependence
Honors Psychology Thesis
Alison Wilhelm
Vanderbilt University
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
2
Introduction
Why do we, as humans, do what we know is bad for us? Even with an American obesity
epidemic, McDonald’s remains one of our largest restaurant chains (Food and Drink Weekly,
2006). Recent figures cite 34% of the American population is obese and 32.7% are overweight
(Reuters, 2009). Even though a Big Mac alone tacks on 540 calories to your meal, 27 million
people dine at McDonald’s daily and this figure increases by 1 million yearly (Business Week,
2007). Motorcyclist accidents account for 11% of all traffic related deaths (Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety, 2007), but some states still refuse to pass universal helmet laws. In fact,
Pennsylvania even recently revoked theirs. Most notoriously, however, cigarette smoking will
cause 1 in every 5 American deaths, but recent statistics show that 43 million (American Cancer
Society) continue to smoke, despite risks for smoking-related illness (Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2006). With such a high probability of death, the motivation for
smoking in today’s individuals seems questionable.
One common theory has been that smoking provides stress-relief in individuals prone to
elevated levels of anxiety (Scheitrum and Akillas, 2002). The need for stress-relief connects
anxiety to nicotine dependence in several ways. Anxiety can be classified as either state related,
meaning that it is context dependent in a distress situation, or trait related, referring to the
tendency to respond anxiously in expectation of stressful events. Research indicates that traitanxiety is more commonly associated with nicotine dependence. Audrain et al. (1998) found
correlations between trait anxiety and chronic smokers. This study also found a positive
correlation between smokers’ levels of anxiety and nicotine dependence. Interestingly, results
also showed that the average score on trait anxiety measures was significantly higher in smokers
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
3
v. non-smokers. Audrain’s research illustrates a clear connection between anxiety and smoking,
but does little to explain or hypothesize the source of the correlation.
Smokers also changed their behavior patterns in response to perceived versus actual
stress levels. Anxious individuals are more likely to experience greater perceived stress,
suggesting that they may be more likely to smoke as a method of dealing with stress (Patterson et
al., 2004). In an interesting correlation, his data also showed that college smokers were more
likely to binge drink, suffer from increased rates of depression, and employ emotion-focused
coping skills more often than others (Patterson et al., 2004). This data suggests that emotional
elicitation responses in smokers may be skewed and promote negative affect, and the
mechanisms causing smokers to experience higher levels of perceived stress and a greater
intensity of emotions are also unclear.
Appraisal Theory and Coping Mechanisms
Stress and the emotional causes of anxiety must also be accounted for in terms of their
antecedents. Appraisal Theory explains the elicitation of emotions based on the evaluation of
surrounding stimuli, or the expectation of stimuli, in reference to the individual’s well-being
(Lazarus and Smith, 1990). Theorists believe emotion developed as an adaptive function for selfpreservation. In evolutionary terms, the physiological responses to emotions and the arousal of
the autonomic nervous system in emotional states illustrate the importance of emotion. Similarly,
emotions benefit individuals as forms of social-communication and self-regulatory tools to
convey information about one’s current state. The key aspect of this definition of emotion is the
importance of relying on the appraised meaning of a stimulus in relation to well-being of the
individual to govern emotional arousal (Lazarus & Smith, 1990).
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
4
One way Appraisal Theory explains emotion elicitation is through the structural model.
The structural model includes two stages of appraisal, primary and secondary. Primary appraisal
relies on the question of well-being; how relevant is the situation to my personal well-being, and
is it beneficial or harmful to my goals? Secondary appraisal deals with resources – toward whom
do I need to direct my coping efforts (self vs other), what are my coping resources (tangible and
psychological, also called problem-focused and emotion-focused coping potential), and how
likely is the situation to change in the future? In both stages of the structural model, the key
factor is not the stimuli prompting the appraisal but, rather, how the individual interprets it
(Smith and Kirby, 2000).
Different patterns of appraisals combine to produce discrete emotional states. Several
factors influence an individual’s perception of a circumstance and lead an individual to elicit
different emotions. Primary appraisal is attained through assessing the importance of the
situation to and individual and desirability of the situation. After taking this assessment of the
circumstances into account, secondary appraisal allows an individual to evaluate accountability,
emotion-focused coping potential, problem-focused coping potential, and future expectancy of
the situation. Any variation of these six components can result in a different emotion. For
example, anxiety is elicited in a situation that is (1) important to the individual, (2) undesirable to
the individual, and (3) there are not many available resources for emotion-focused coping.
Situations falling into the pattern of these circumstances is likely to evoke a sense of an
“ambiguous threat” (Smith & Lazarus, 1990) and elicit an anxious reaction. Other emotions are
the result of different combinations of importance, desirability, coping resources, and
expectancies.
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
5
Negative emotions, or ones which involve a potential harm to the individual and are
therefore incongruent with the person’s goals, generally produce feelings of stress. This feeling
of stress usually results in one, or both, of two broad categories of coping responses: problemfocused or emotion-focused coping. Problem-focused coping usually involves changing an
environment to suit one’s personal goals, whereas emotion-focused coping involves changing
oneself in reaction to one’s environment (Lazarus & Smith, 1990). Emotion-focused coping
behaviors are classified into avoidant and accommodative coping strategies. Accommodative
strategies involve skills like acceptance, positive growth and reappraisal, or social support
seeking, which often promote pragmatic resolutions in situational conflicts. On the contrary,
avoidant strategies are generally viewed as maladaptive, like self-blame or substance use. When
considering substance use in terms of the appraisal theory, it becomes an example of cognitive
dissonance. The motives for smoking are not congruent with the goals of personal well-being,
and overrides an individual’s primary goal of self-preservation. Even when substance-use is
defined as a strategy for avoidant emotion-focused coping, it is not fully understood why we
practice behaviors that contradict the primary goals of coping.
Emotion-focused Coping and Emotional Awareness
In terms of emotions and coping, Sayette (2004) looks at emotion management and
behavior. Sayette (2004) theorizes that addiction stems from emotional misregulation, or failure
to exert control over one’s responses. In the case of smoking, misregulation may be concerned
with the individual’s failure to regulate their responses to negative stress, stimuli, or mood.
Sayette (2004) found that negative affect induction led subjects to impulsive actions when they
believed they had control over their mood. Other significant findings suggest that secondary
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
6
appraisal correlates to smoking behaviors as a method for mood adjustment. Smoking has shown
both sedative and stimulant effects in users (Patterson et al., 2004), and smokers rely on this
form of substance abuse as coping behavior to alter affect. Impulsive behaviors, like smoking,
may be attempts at emotion-focused coping to alter one’s personal state. Since other research has
connected craving and nicotine dependence to trait-anxiety, one can hypothesize that anxiety
interferes with the process of self-monitoring, and standards may not always reflect the basic
goals of primary appraisal, health and well-being.
Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence offers an explanation as to the influence of self-monitoring in
emotion-focused coping behaviors. When considering Appraisal Theory, emotional intelligence
may also account for how emotions appear in each individual. Mayer et al. (2004) defines
emotional intelligence as:
The capacity to reason about emotions, and of emotions to enhance thinking. It includes our
abilities to accurately perceive emotions, to access and generate emotions… to understand
emotions and emotional knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions”
Like the appraisal theory, emotional intelligence theories attempt to explain the balance between
cognition and emotion in human thought. Emotional intelligence informs the individual about the
body’s state of well-being when exposed to certain stimuli. From this response, individuals
decide which coping skills (problem or emotion focused) to use based on the information
associated with the elicited emotion (Mayer et al., 2004).
Emotional Intelligence theory centers on a four basic abilities of individuals to: (1)
perceive emotion, (2) incorporate emotion into thought, (3) develop their knowledge of emotion
across their lifespan, and (4) manage and control emotion (Mayer et al., 2004). Part 1 of the
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
7
definition focuses on one’s ability to interpret verbal and nonverbal communication. Part 2
reflects the connection between emotions and problem-solving; this branch refers to how
emotional appraisal affects one’s planning and coping behaviors. The third component, involves
the learned changes in emotional control over time, and the evolution of our intelligence over
one’s lifespan. The final aspect of emotional intelligence, managing emotions, relates most
closely to the processes used for self-regulation. Part 4 covers how emotions are controlled in the
context of goals or standards. Just as emotions play an important part in prompting both
proactive and reactive behaviors, an individual’s emotional intelligence mediates how one
interprets and applies emotion to actions.
Appraisal Theory and Emotional Intelligence in the context of trait-anxiety and Nicotine
dependence
Between Appraisal Theory and Emotional Intelligence Theory, many key components of
each overlap in the contexts of addiction and anxiety. Mayer et al. (2004) describes the
archetypal high EI individual as one who is an active, efficient problem-solver and less likely to
engage in maladaptive coping behaviors, such as drinking, smoking, or drug abuse. These traits
almost exactly oppose those that characterize the trait- anxiety smokers described in Patterson et
al. (2004). Patterson et al. (2004) describes trait anxiety smokers as more likely to engage in
emotion-focused coping behaviors, like binge-drinking, and shows higher rates of depression.
Theoretically, trait anxiety and emotional awareness could influence one’s choice of coping
behavior selected in secondary appraisal. Trait anxiety in these individuals may influence
emotion-focused coping potential, and lead to maladaptive behaviors like smoking as a selfmedication strategy. Smoking cigarettes provides an example of cognitive incongruence, as it is
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
8
not compatible with the standards of health and personal well-being, but may act as an emotionfocused coping behavior to adjust an individual’s response to a given situation. From the
perspective of emotional intelligence, one can hypothesize that individuals suffer from traitanxiety because they cannot properly manage their emotions or use them to facilitate rational
thought. As a trait-anxious individual with low emotional-intelligence begins to experience the
negative emotions associated with anxiety, their ability to recognize these emotions may be
impaired and may result in the use of smoking as a form of emotion-focused coping behavior. By
changing themselves (through smoking), individuals treat they symptoms of their anxiety rather
than address the cause of their negative emotions. However, in overall respect to emotional
intelligence, the literature is inconclusive as to how emotional intelligence interacts with selfregulation in anxious individuals.
Research Aims and Goals
During secondary appraisal, it seems that Emotional Intelligence would play a significant
role in the appraising emotion-focused coping potential. In an instant, individuals are forced to
identify and interpret arousal, while identifying the best course of action to adjust an emotion.
What drives the appraisal of coping potential? How does an individual discern what resources
are best to accommodate for a given emotions? Based on these limitations in current research,
this research hopes to explore how Emotional Intelligence factors into the process of selecting a
coping behavior. Beyond simply investigating coping behaviors, we will investigate the use of
maladaptive coping strategies and aim to establish correlations between Emotional Intelligence,
Emotion-Focused Coping, and Trait-anxiety in smoking versus non-smoking adults. The key
aims for this study are to: (1) investigate a possible correlation between low EI and trait-anxiety,
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
9
(2) test for a positive correlation between high levels of EI and more frequent usage of emotionfocused coping strategies, and (3) evaluate the levels of nicotine dependence in participants with
a coincidence of trait-anxiety and low EI, which are assumed to be higher based on theoretical
implications.
Study One
Procedure
As a preliminary study for the overall aims of this project, analyses were conducted on an
archival dataset consisting of a series of studies, each of which included a broad personality
assessment that shared a common core of key dispositional variables . The dataset included 1385
participants. A subset of participants (n = 107) completed both the Trait-Meta Mood scale
(Salovey et al., 1995) and the COPE (David, Kirby, & Smith, 2007), which were used in this
study.
Measures
The Trait-Meta Mood Scale (TMMS) (see Appendix A) will be used to operationalize
emotional intelligence (EI) in participants. Emotional intelligence reflects on an individuals’
ability to moderate affect across situations. Measures of participants EI will be necessary to
search for correlations between levels of EI in respect to participants’ responses to anxiety and
their use of emotion-focused coping skills. In order to construct an evaluation of EI, the TMMS
measures three factors: attention to, clarity of, and the mood repair of emotions (Salovey et al.,
1991). The original assessment includes 48-items to which participants respond on a 1-to-5
Likert Scale, but for this research will use the shortened 30-item scale. Computation of internal
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
10
consistency found the 30-item TMMS to have high alpha levels on Cronbach’s scale for each
factor: α = 0.86 for attention, α = 0. 88 for clarity, and α = 0.82 for repair (Salovey et al., 1991).
The scale is equally divided to address the three-components of emotional intelligence, and it
includes reversed scored items to prevent an acquisition set (Salovey et al., 1991). The TMMS
will provide insight into individuals’ strategies for dealing with emotion post-appraisal, as well
as their abilities to self-regulate their emotions.
The COPE (Carver et al., 1983) (Appendix B) asks participants to evaluate how their
usual response during stressful events. Participants rank the frequency they act in accordance
with the “I”-statement listed per each of the 42-items. Responses are noted using a 4-point scale;
a score of 1 indicates a minimal occurrence of a behavior, and a 4 indicates a general reliance on
that item as a coping strategy. The frequency scale is described as 1= I usually don’t do this at all,
2= I usually do this a little bit, 3= I usually do this a medium amount, 4= I usually do this a lot.
The COPE classifies participants into the following coping-style groups: (1) Active
Coping/Planning, (2) Positive Reinterpretation & Growth, (3) Denial, (4) Behavioral
Disengagement, (5) Acceptance, (6) Use of Alcohol, (7) Seeking Social Support, (8) Focus on
Venting Emotions, (9) Use of Humor, (10) Trusting in God, and (11) Mental Disengagement.
Results
Pearson correlation coefficients were derived from subscales of the TMMS and COPE.
Attention to emotion, clarity of emotion, and mood repair subscales were evaluated from
correlations with the 20 coping styles listed in the COPE. Attention to emotion showed to highest
positive correlation to social support seeking, r = .405 p < .001, and the highest negative
correlation with stoicism, r = .279 p < .01. For emotional clarity, positive reappraisal r = .310 p
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
11
< .001 and catastrophizing, r = -.422 p < .001 showed significant correlation. Like clarity, Mood
repair correlated highly with positive reappraisal, r = .698 p < .001, and catastrophizing, r = -.464
p <.001. For the purpose of study two, it is worthwhile to note that subscales of mood repair
showed a slight negative correlation with substance abuse, r = -.167 p < .01. Similarly, both
clarity and mood repair show inverse correlations with behavioral disengagement, r = -.353 and
r = -.375 p < .001.
Significance values vary based on the sample available for comparison. For
a complete list of correlational values, see Table 1.1.
Wilhelm
TABLE 1.1
Two-Tail
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
Correlations between COPE and TMMS subscales
12
N= 107
Attention Subscale
Clarity Subscale
Mood Repair Subscale
Emotional Social Support (.405)
Catastrophizing (-.422)
Positive Growth/ Reappraisal (.698)
Venting (.371)
Isolation (-.404)
Active Coping (.526)
Behavioral Disengagement (-.353)
Planning (.521)
Signficance
P < .001
Catastrophizing (-.464)
Behavioral Disengagement (-. 375)
Isolation (-.361)
P < .01
P < .05
Instrumental Social Support (.303)
Planning (.332)
Prayer (.333)
Active Coping (.291)
Denial (-.323)
Restraint (.288)
Stoicism (-.279)
Active Coping (.269)
Denial (-.262)
Planning (.243)
Mental Disengagement (-.237)
Instrumental Social Support (.236)
Positive Growth/Reappraisal
Stoicism (-.237)
Humor (.200)
(.213)
Acceptance (.214)
Mental Disengagement (-.199)
Self-Blame (-.203)
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
13
Discussion
Correlations shown in this data set are valuable for characterizing the differences in
coping across the subscales in emotional intelligence. Based on the values in Table 1.1, Mood
repair seems to be the most important factor in using positive emotion-focused coping strategies.
It shows both a high positive correlation with accommodative coping skills and inverse
correlations with avoidant mechanisms. These values can be used to hypothetically construct
prototypes, using coping styles, of “high” and “low” emotional intelligence individuals. A high
EI individual is likely to select accommodative coping strategies like positive reappraisal, active
coping, and emotional social support seeking, as shown in Table 1.1. On the other hand, a low EI
individual will use avoidant emotion-focused coping behaviors, like catastrophizing, isolation, or
denial. Additionally, low EI individuals in this study tend to rely on behavioral disengagement,
and choose to withdraw completely from a situation rather than adapt to the emotion elicited by a
negative situation.
For the research aims of this thesis, Study One offers several findings that would support
the hypotheses of Study Two. Because the low EI individual constructed above demonstrates the
tendency to choose avoidant coping behaviors, like isolation and denial, one might infer that
have difficulty directly interacting with their environment. Whereas someone with high EI, is
more likely to either directly address the state of their environment with a problem-focused
coping behavior, like Active Coping, or choose a accommodative emotion-focused coping
behavior, like positive reappraisal, and directly engage with current circumstances. Study Two
will evaluate why low EI individuals dissociate from their environment, and if this causes them
to experience trait, rather than situation specific state, anxiety.
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
14
The data in Study One also shows that emotional intelligence subscales correlate
positively with a tendency to use emotion-focused coping. This implies individuals with high
levels of emotional clarity and mood repair will have an “appraisal style” of emotion-focused
coping or an increased tendency to use emotion-focused coping strategies. Hopefully, Study Two
will replicate this finding in a concentrated sample.
In Study Two, it will be useful to note that in Table 1.1 Mood Repair correlates
negatively with substance abuse. Because Study Two explores the implications of emotional
intelligence on nicotine dependence, this finding bolsters the claim that individuals who
frequently rely on substance abuse as an avoidant coping mechanism are more likely to be low
EI individuals. However, in order to observe the effect of emotional intelligence and trait-anxiety
on nicotine dependence additional data is needed.
Study Two
Participants
Undergraduate participants (n=195) were recruited from Vanderbilt University subject
pool. The sample ranged in ages from 18-22 and the male to female ratio was 71: 127.
Participants were asked to identify as Smokers or Non-smokers on an item that asked whether or
not participants had smoked cigarettes within the past year. Those who responded “yes”
completed the “Hooked on Nicotine Checklist” (Di Franza et. al., 2002) to gauge their levels of
nicotine dependence. 50 participants identified themselves as having smoked cigarettes within
the past year, 145 did not. Self-report statistics rather than physiological testing classified
participants’ dependence based on their perception of their smoking habits.
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
15
Procedure
All measures of this study were self-report analyses and all data was collected online via
a Survey Monkey site <http:/www.surveymonkey.com>. Participants registered with an
anonymous participant ID to log into the assessment. Participants then completed several selfreport measures on anxiety, nicotine dependence, and coping style.
Measures
The Hooked on Nicotine Checklist (HONC) is a 10-item questionnaire intended to
evaluate the level of dependence experienced by each individual smoker (see Appendix C). The
HONC relies on a comparative scale of need, rather than statistical assessment of the quantity of
cigarettes smoked. Each questionnaire consists of 10 “yes or no” items that differentiate smokers
who have lost autonomy versus those who have not (Wellman et al., 2005). Participants’ positive
responses are summed and two or more agreements with the statements indicate a loss of
autonomy. Because the checklist focuses on the individual’s cravings for cigarettes, it has shown
high validity across groups of long and short-term smokers (Sledjeski et al., 2007). Reliability
scores, comparatively, have an α= 0.877 on Cronbach’s scale.
In addition, additional context-specific items (Appendix C.1) will be used in conjunction
with the HONC. Items indicating the number of cigarettes smoked daily, concerning “social
smoking” or the joint usage of alcohol and tobacco in peer contexts, and how current state
(tiredness, stress, etc.) influences smoking behavior will be added to the HONC.
In addition to the HONC, all participants will also be administered the State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory (STAI). The STAI (see Appendix D) assessed stress-reactions and
manifestations of anxiety in participants. The STAI is a 20 item list, in which participants rank
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
16
how often the experience certain emotional states. Twenty items are self-report items that are
phrased as “I” statements and each is then evaluated on a four-point Likert scale. Internal
consistency is αs > .89, and test-retest reliability is r = .88. The trait-focused version will be used
in this study, as it has shown consistent reliability and validity within the across samples (Grös et.
al., 2007).
As another assessment of stress responses, participants will also complete a perceived
stress measure. The Cohen Perceived Stress Scale gauges an individual’s current stress relative
to objective situations. There are 14- items rated on a self-response scale from 1 to 5, and the
responses gauge frequency of occurrence. Since it’s development in 1983, the PSS has shown
reliability and validity consistently ( r = . 85) (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983). Scoring
from these items will reflect STAI measures and contribute descriptive statistics to the
characterization of the sample.
Like Study One, Study Two will also employ the Trait-Meta Mood Scale (TMMS) (see
Appendix A) to gauge emotional intelligence (EI) in participants. The TMMS demonstrates
significant reliability and internal consistency (Salovey et al., 1991) and will be reused in Study
Two.
As a comparison measure for the TMMS responses, participants’ coping skills will also
be evaluated by a self-report questionnaire. In order to collect data for aim 2 of this study, the
Abbreviated form of the COPE will be used. The shortened COPE measure does not include
measures of Catastrophizing, Stoicism, Isolation, Restraint, and Mental Disengagement.
“Positive Reframing” also replaces the measure for Positive Growth/ Reappraisal in this
measure; likewise, “Distraction” is introduced as a comparable measure to mental disengagement.
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
17
Similar to the modified HONC, participants will complete a modified COPE that contains items
specifically related to smoking. For example, “I smoke when…” to indicate smoking as a coping
behavior rather than simply a substance-abuse coping style.
Participant’s general emotional disposition will also be evaluated through the Appraisal
Style Inventory (David, Kirby, & Smith, 2007). Participants are asked to predict how they would
react in twelve hypothetical situations and respond on a 9-point scale. Situations present positive
and negative scenarios in order to gauge a trend in appraisals, and the questionnaire ask
participants to respond on their perceptions of accountability, importance, and fluidity of the
situation. Six situations are positive, six are negative, six are affiliative, and six are achievement
related. The reliability of across all twelve measures of disposition are (1) motivational relevance
= .83, (2) motivational congruence = .80, (3) Emotion-Focused Coping Potential = .87, (4)
Problem-Focused Coping Potential = .78, (5) Self-Accountability = .64, (6) OtherAccountability = .77, and (6) Future Expectancy = .74 (David, Kirby, & Smith) (Appendix E).
Anticipated Results
The anticipated results for this study are expected to show: (1) a significant inverse
correlation between each of the TMMS subscales and trait-anxiety. Aim (2) will show a
replication of Study One’s data with a positive correlation between high TMMS subscales and
the use of Emotion-focused coping behaviors. Aim (2) will also look to establish a positive
correlation between TMMS subscales and appraisal style. Finally, Aim (3) should detect a
significant difference in levels of nicotine dependence in the target group of individuals with
comorbid trait-anxiety and low EI.
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
18
Results
Aim (1)
Significant correlations were found between “Trait Only” measures of the STAI, and the
Clarity and Mood Repair subscales of the TMMS. Pearson Correlation coefficient with the
Clarity subscale was equal to r = -.470 p< .01. Mood Repair showed a correlation of r = -.636
p< .01. Analysis of the Attention to emotion subscale versus the STAI showed a non-significant
correlation.
Table 2.1
STAI – Trait Only
Significance
STAI and TMMS Measures, N = 196
Attention Subscale of
TMMS
r = -. 120
Clarity Subscale of
TMMS
r = -.470
Mood Repair
Subscale of TMMS
r = -. 636
p> .05
(Non-Significant)
p< .001
p< .001
Cohen’s Perceived Stress Scale also showed an inverse relationship with the Clarity and
Mood Repair subscales. Correlation co-efficients are listed in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2
Perceived Stress Scale
Significance
Aim (2)
Perceived Stress Scale and TMMS Measures, N = 196
Attention Subscale of
TMMS
r=.064
Clarity Subscale of
TMMS
r = -.403
Mood Repair
Subscale of TMMS
r = -. 468
P > .05
(Non-Significant)
P < .001
P < .001
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
19
For the results in Aim 2, we sought to replicate the trends shown in Study One. In the
new sample, there are some changes in statistical significance of correlations as well as strength
of correlation when compared to Study One. Correlations for the new data set are listed in Table
2.3. In the Attention subscale, Denial ( r = -.157) and Behavioral Disengagement ( r = -.247)
show inverse correlations that were not observed in Study One. The magnitude of correlation
between Venting and Attention decreased significantly ( r1= .371  r2 =,.171) but Positive
Reframing and Emotional Social Support showed comparable recreations in this data. Planning
and Active Coping showed no correlation. For the Clarity Subscale, Behavioral Disengagement,
Self-Blame, and Acceptance illustrated similar magnitudes of correlation, but the figures for
Self-Blame and Acceptance were more significant, p < .01 versus p < .05 in Study One.
Mediation, Emotional Social Support, and Acceptance were found to be significant in this trial,
but findings for Humor and Prayer were not replicated. Behavioral Disengagement and Positive
Reframing measures remained strong correlations in both sets, and Self-Blame increased in both
r and p- values. Table 2.3 provides the figures for significant correlations found in the data.
Aim (3)
Data showed no significant difference in levels of nicotine dependence across the
different levels of EI in those who completed smoking measures. Smoking rates amongst this
population were uncharacteristically low, mean response on the HONC was Xavg= 1.48 with a
SD= 2.41. Scores within this range would indicate low levels of dependence.
However, analysis of smoking behavior revealed three, as opposed to the expected two,
levels of variance in nicotine use. From this finding, a new class of participants offered
significant findings on measures of appraisal style, coping strategies, and TMMS subscales.
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
20
Participants were divided into three-groups to explore between-group comparisons in the other
measures; groups were constructed as: (1) self-reported smokers, n = 50, (2) Non-smokers, n =
137, and (3) discrepant smokers, n = 9, who did not self-identify as smokers but reported
smoking behaviors.
Data from the COPE showed significant variances across the groups in use of several
different coping strategies. Table 2.4 lists the means of the likelihood of relying on that coping
mechanism per participant level.
Wilhelm
Table 2.3
Two-Tail
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
21
Correlations between TMMS and Abbreviated COPE1 in Study Two Sample, N = 196
Attention Subscale
Clarity Subscale
Mood Repair Subscale
Instrumental Social Support (.278)
Behavioral Disengagement (-.326)
Positive Reframing (.386)
Signficance
P < .001
Emotional Social Support (.251)
Behavioral Disengagement (-. 382)
Behavioral Disengagement (-.247)
Self-Blame (-.318)
Denial (-.249)
P < .01
Denial (-.231)
Acceptance (.243)
Self-Blame (-.222)
Instrumental Social Support (.235)
Acceptance (.185)
Active Coping (.199)
Planning (.198)
P < .05
Venting (.171)
Active Coping (.182)
Meditation (.173)
Positive Reframing (.159)
Planning (.148)
Distraction (.143)
Denial (-.157)
2
Emotional Social Support (.142)
1
As noted in Methods: This COPE measure used in this study was the abbreviated format, thus measures of Catastrophizing, Stoicism, Isolation, Restraint, and
Mental Disengagement were not included. “Positive Reframing” also replaces the measure for Positive Growth/ Reappraisal in this measure; likewise,
“Distraction” is introduced as a comparable measure to mental disengagement
2
Italics indicate the presence of a coping strategy that was not significantly correlated with that TMMS measure in the Study One data
Wilhelm
Table 2.4
Coping Strategies
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
22
Mean Frequency of Use of Specific Coping Mechanisms Across Levels, N = 197
Self-Reported
Non-Smokers
Discrepant
SD from
Smokers
n = 138
Smokers
Mean
n = 50
F-Test Value
Degrees of
P-value
Freedom
n=9
Use of Smoking
Xavg= 1.800
Xavg= 1.00
Xavg= 1.944
SD= .661
f = 47.200
df = 2
p < .001
Use of Alcohol
Xavg= 1.940
Xavg= 1.289
Xavg= 1.777
SD= .768
f = 15.990
df = 2
p < .001
Use of Perscription/
Illicit Drugs
Xavg= 1.400
Xavg= 1.061
Xavg= 1.611
SD= .503
f = 13.381
df = 2
p < .001
Denial
Xavg= 1.410
Xavg= 1.300
Xavg= 1.777
SD= .547
f = 3.701
df = 2
p < . 05
Behavioral
Disengagement
Xavg= 1.560
Xavg= 1.481
Xavg= 2.277
SD= .601
f = 7.964
df = 2
p < .001
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
23
Measures of Appraisal Style also showed significant differences between groups in
measures of situational importance, congruence, self v. other responsibility, and overall emotionfocused coping. Overall, Discrepant Smokers scored noticeably lower on measures than NonSmokers or Smokers. Table 2.5 compares the differences between smoking levels on reports of
Appraisal Style. Although all scores are comparable, Non-Smokers and Smokers often scored
items more closely than Discrepant Smokers. The values for the Discrepant group are bolded to
highlight the deviation from the other scores.
Table 2.5
Average Scores on Appraisal Styles Across Smoking Levels, N = 196
Standard
Smokers
Non-Smokers
Discrepant Smokers
SD= .071
Xavg= 7.02
Xavg= 7.51
Xavg= 6.21
SD= .074
Xavg= 7.51
Xavg= 7.95
Xavg= 6.44
SD= .908
Xavg= 6.67
Xavg= 6.72
Xavg= 5.96
SD= .956
Xavg= 6.62
Xavg= 6.84
Xavg= 5.57
SD= 1.05
Xavg= 7.56
Xavg= 8.02
Xavg= 6.72
Deviation
Importance across all
Situations
Congruence across all
Situations
Self-responsibility in
Positive Situations
Other-responsibility in
Affiliative Situations
EFCP Positive
Situations
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
24
Discussion
Study Two was constructed to address 3 key aims over the course of study. Through this
sample, Aim (1) ‘results will show a correlation between low EI and trait anxiety’ was confirmed
by our data. From the data in this sample, for the Clarity and Mood Repair dimensions of the
TMMS, trait anxiety and perceived stress are inversely correlated with these scales of Emotional
Intelligence. Skills associated with clarity of emotion and mood repair characterize the “high EI”
individual. On the contrary, the figures in Table 2.1 illustrate that those with poor clarity and
mood repair are more likely to also be trait-anxious individuals. It may be that these individuals
experience anxiety without direct stimuli because they cannot efficiently discern and react to
their emotional appraisal. Likewise the poor levels of self-awareness characterized in lower
levels of emotional clarity, may lead individuals to experience anxiety at the expectation of
events, rather than the event itself, which is the key difference in State v. Trait Anxiety. In
support of Patterson’s (2004) data, both the STAI and PSS measures show similar inverse trends
with TMMS measures. Therefore, these trends characterize the typical low-EI individual as
someone who is susceptible to elevated levels of stress-related arousal. One could postulate the
failures in Mood Repair abilities prolong and intensify the experience of anxiety for low-EI
individuals when it is trait-related, as opposed to the event specific state-related anxiety.
Individuals who are adept at Mood Repair may score higher on state-anxiety items because they
are able to recover quickly from stressful stimuli in a situation. The steep inverse correlation
between state-related anxiety and Mood Repair once again emphasizes the importance of Mood
Repair in effective Emotion-focused coping.
Trait-Anxiety was inversely correlated with important elements of emotional intelligence,
and results unexpectedly showed a correlation with perceived stress as well. Aim (1) was
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
25
intended to characterize trait-anxious individual as one who also exhibits low levels of EI and is
therefore less likely to be adept at emotion-focused coping. Scores on the Clarity and Mood
Repair subscales of the TMMS, suggest that these individuals do struggle with accommodative
emotion-focused coping.
In comparison AIM (2) evaluates the coping skills and Appraisal styles of individuals
who would be considered high EI, or score highly on measures of the TMMS. Across both
studies, several coping mechanisms showed strong replications of correlation and significance.
For the Attention subscale, Emotional Social Support Seeking was the strongest in both.
Awareness of one’s emotions may prompt these individuals to seek social support as the first
method of emotion-focused coping. Clarity subscales showed an almost identical correlation
with Behavioral Disengagement in both samples, r1= -. 353 and r 2 = -.326 both p < . 001. If an
individual can discern clearly one’s emotional state, it may facilitate a more pragmatic approach
to coping and leave individuals less likely to draw away from a situation. Likewise, Mood Repair
remained inversely correlated with Behavioral Disengagement and positively correlated with
Positive Reappraisal/ Reframing. These coping skills may be closely related in the context that
reframing a situation to reduce distress may deter an individual from withdrawing for the
situation. Positive Reappraisal reduces levels of distress and makes a situation appear more
manageable, and functions as instantaneous Mood Repair. Individuals who have high levels of
emotional clarity and mood repair have reliably shown in both samples that they are more likely
to engage in positive emotion-focused coping practices and unlikely to use maladaptive emotionfocused coping practices or exhibit negative problem-focused coping behaviors, i.e. behavioral
disengagement.
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
26
On measures of Appraisal Style, some interesting correlations surfaced in support of the
hypothesis that high EI individuals rely more consistently on emotion-focused coping strategies.
The Attention subscale of the TMMS showed a significant positive correlation with situational
importance, r = .301 p < .001. Under Appraisal Theory, attention plays an important part of
helping discern the appropriate reaction to take to a situation. Individuals with keen emotionalself-awareness may use this appraisal style to efficient assess their emotional arousal before
coping with it. The Clarity and Mood Repair scales also showed associations with general use of
Problem (PFCP) vs. Emotion-focused coping potential (EFCP). Clarity was correlated to PFCP,
r = .280, p < .001, and Mood Repair correlated to PFCP as well, but at a lower level of
significance, r = .245 p < .01. However, the result that most supports Aim (2) is that both Clarity
and Mood Repair are linked to EFCP across all situations. Correlation values for Clarity are
r= .374 p < .001, and values for Mood Repair are r= .352 p < .001. Correlations with EFCP show
a greater magnitude and significance than the findings for PFCP and other Appraisal Styles. As
expected, this data seems to confirm that higher levels of EI, especially Clarity and Mood Repair,
correlate with increased frequency using emotion focused coping strategies. An appraisal style
of EFCP characterizes an individual with a predisposition to rely on emotion-focused coping
strategies; therefore, the correlation between TMMS subscales and ASI data supports this claim.
Both studies showed emotional clarity and mood repair to be important factors in
effective coping. High levels of Clarity and Mood Repair reliably illustrate positive correlations
with positive emotion-focused coping behaviors and inverse functions with maladaptive emotion
and problem-focused coping strategies. Measures on Appraisal Style corroborate these findings
by reporting significant correlations for Clarity and Mood Repair with Emotion-Focused Coping
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
27
Potential and Problem-Focused Coping Potential in all situations, negative and positive.
Implying that Emotional Intelligence does directly impact Appraisal Style and coping strategies.
Unlike the first two hypotheses in this study, Aim (3) was rejected by the data from this
sample. Originally, Aim (3) hoped to establish a correlation between levels of EI and nicotine
dependence; however, no significant associations were found in the data. Further analysis of the
data, though, revealed an additional level for analysis. The new category of Discrepant Smokers
show markedly different responses from Smokers and Non-Smokers on several measures.
For example, there are significant differences in the coping practices between Smokers,
Non-Smokers, and Discrepant Smokers. Smokers reported low rates of reliance on smoking as a
coping strategy (Xavg= 1.80), but reported that they rely more on alcohol as a coping strategy
(Xavg= 1.94). Although the increase is slight, many Smoker’s smoking behaviors could be
classified as social-smokers and the coincidence of alcohol and nicotine use supports this. For
the measure of smoking as a coping mechanism, Discrepant Smokers exhibited the highest rates
of usage (Xavg= 1.9) even though they did not self-report as smokers. This presents an interesting
finding that seems to corroborate the data showing Discrepant Smokers as having the highest
rates of use for denial as a coping mechanism. Essentially, these Discrepant Smokers are actively
practicing denial as they report themselves as non-smokers, but report nicotine use. Discrepant
Smokers also interestingly show the highest rates of coping through illicit drugs; They score +1
standard deviation above Non-smokers on this item. Likewise, Discrepant Smokers most
frequently rely on behavioral disengagement as a coping mechanism. With an average of Xavg=
2.27, it is the highest rate figure on the table, and scores +1 standard deviation over the average
use rates for both Smokers and Non-Smokers.
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
28
Similarly, to the COPE measure, Discrepant Smokers illustrated interesting patterns of
scores on Appraisal Style. In many items, Discrepant Smokers scores diverge from the range
established by Smokers and Non-Smokers. On measures of congruence, importance, and otherresponsibility, the average score varies by more than at least one standard deviation in
comparison with one of the other two groups. For overall importance of situation, Discrepant
Smokers scored a full standard deviation below both other groups. This finding resonates with
their elevated use of behavioral disengagement as a coping strategy. If Discrepant Smokers feel
no sense of motivation in a stress-inducing situation, it seems plausible that taking no action
would be a common response. Discrepant Smokers also scored 1 SD below the means for
Smokers and Non-Smokers on the Congruence in all situations measure. Based on the
developing prototype of the Discrepant Smoker, this individual is incapable of appraising
desirability in a situation because he cannot clearly discern how he is affected by his emotions, a
failure in clarity. Although the EFCP score for Discrepant Smokers is not a full SD below nonsmokers, it is worthwhile to note the range between Non-Smokers and Discrepant Smokers on
this measure. It seems that Non-Smokers more effectively use emotion-focused coping skills in
positive situations ( Xavg= 8.02) , whereas Discrepant Smokers score much lower on EFCP
(Xavg= 6.72) in this scenario. Between the COPE and ASI measures, the Discrepant Smokers
group appears to be functioning at the lowest level of emotional intelligence with the poorest
coping skills.
From this data, we are able to construct the Discrepant Smoker as a caricature of low-EI
infused with maladaptive coping styles. In contrast this data exonerates the typical smoker, to a
degree, and reveals that some individuals employ substance abuse as an effectual type of
emotion-focused coping despite its health risks. Essentially, the individuals represented in the
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
29
Smoker’s category combine presumably average to high levels of emotional intelligence with a
tendency to rely on a maladaptive emotion-focused coping strategy, despite its behavioral
incongruence.
Limitations and Areas for Future Study
One key factor that may have contributed to the rejection of Aim (3) and limited the
generalizability of the analyses in this study is the composition of our sample. Participant
selection for this study may have also affected the outcome of nicotine dependence measures.
Overall, our sample population is very homogenous, which is a function of using university
subject pools. The smoking habits of college students are not representative of the general
public; as so, social smokers are overrepresented in the data. Because smoking is becoming a
stigmatized behavior among youths, students may have also felt the need to adhere to social
norms by: underreporting, failing to self-report, or downplaying their smoking behaviors as the
more acceptable “social smoking”. Likewise, these issues are a consequence of relying on selfreport measures as well. If further study on were to continue on this theory, more concrete
measures of nicotine use would have to be administered.
For future study, it may be worthwhile to explore the implications of this data under other
circumstances. One interesting avenue might be pursuing further analysis of the Discrepant
Smoker population. Although the Discrepant Smoking is irrelevant, the underlying behavioral
patterns are interesting. The failure of emotional self-awareness seems to influence incongruent
goals and behaviors in these individuals. Based on the Appraisal styles and trends in coping
mechanisms exhibited by these individuals, investigating ways to enhance emotional intelligence,
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
30
especially clarity and mood repair, may have important implications in the treatment of addictive
populations.
General Discussion
Studies One and Two have shown Clarity and Mood Repair to be the most important
indicators for adaptive coping. Study One and Aim (2) data show that these strengths in these
two areas are more positively associated with the use of positive coping behaviors and rejecting
negative coping behaviors. From these findings, we have developed prototypical models of
coping behaviors and appraisal styles of High EI and Low EI individuals. Additionally, the
findings on Discrepant Smokers have helped construct another model in this study, Very Low EI
individuals. The characteristic differences between these groups strongly suggests that EI
somehow mediates the appraisal of coping potential and influences the selection of coping
behaviors. In general, these findings are beneficial in understanding the subconscious processes
of the structural model of Appraisal Theory. By understanding the role of EI in an individual’s
selection of coping behaviors, we may be able to more fully understand our emotional reactions.
Some have a tendency to view emotion-focused coping as a negative attribute; many
falsely assume that it is maladaptive. However, as this study has shown, emotion-focused coping
behaviors can be effective when used appropriately. Although differences in levels of EI will not
explain away maladaptive coping or behavioral incongruence, analysis of EI does offer insight to
why individuals have a tendency to rely on different appraisal styles across situations. Having a
High EI may not stop you from lighting up a cigarette, but at least it will help you cope more
efficiently with your inability to quit.
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
31
References
American Cancer Society. Questions about Smoking, Tobacco, and Health. November 2008.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2x_Questions_About_Smoking_
Tobacco_and_Health.asp.
Arndt, M. “McDonald’s 24 / 7”. Business Week. Published 5 February 2007. http://
www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_06/b4020001.htm.
Audrain, J., Lerman, C., Gomez, C., Boyd, N. R., & Orleans, C. T. (1998). The role of trait
anxiety in nicotine dependence. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 3, 29-42.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A
theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,
267-283.
Clark, D. B., Wood, D. S., Martin, C. S., Cornelius, J. R., Lynch, K. G. & Shiffman, S. (2005).
Multidimensional assessment of nicotine dependence in adolescents. Journal of Drug
and Alcohol Dependence, 77, 235-242.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived
stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette smoking related mortality. September
2006. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco.data_statistics/factsheet/cig_smoking_mort.htm.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. (1988). Manual for the ways of coping questionnaire.
Redwood City: Mind Garden.
Food and Drink Weekly. Published 23 January 2006. http://www.allbusiness.com/business
planning/business-structures-corporations/857636-1.html.
Fox, M. Reuters. Obese Americans now outweigh the merely overweight. 9 January 2009. http://
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
32
www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50863H20090109.
Grös, D.F., Antony, M.M., Simms, L. J., & McCabe, R. E. (2007). Psychometric Properties of
State-Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA): Comparison to the
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Psychological Assessment, 19(4), 369-381.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Popularity of high performance motorcycles help
push rider deaths to near-record high. 11 Septemeber 2007. http: //www. Iihs.org/
news/rss/pr091107.html.
Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Coping theory and research: Past, present, and future. Psychosomatic
Medicine, 55, 234-245.
Mayer, J. D, Salovey, P. & Caruso, D. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings,
implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 197-215.
Metzger. (1976). Reliability and Validity Study of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 32 (2), 276-278.
Patterson, F., Lerman, C., Kaufman, V. G., Neuner, G. A., & Audrain-McGovern, J. (2004).
Cigarette smoking practices among American college students: Review and future
directions. Journal of American College Health, 52, 203- 210.
Pennebaker, J. W., Chung, C. K., Ireland, M., Gonzales, A. & Booth, R. J. (2007) The LIWC
2007 Application. 14 April 2008. http:// www.liwc.net.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S. L., Turvey, C. & Palfai, T. P. (1995). Emotional
attention, clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the trait-meta mood
scale. In J. W. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, Disclosure, and Health (pp.125-154).
Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Assn.
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
33
Sayette, M. A. (2004). Self-regulatory failure and addiction. In R. F. Baumesiter & K. Vohs
(Eds.) Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications (pp.447-465).
New York: Guilford Press.
Scheitrum, R. & Akillas, E. (2002). Effects of personality style, anxiety, and depression on
reported reasons for smoking. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 7, 57-64.
Schiffman, S., Waters, A. J., & Hickcox, M. (2004). The Nicotine Dependence Syndrome Scale
(NDSS): a multidimensional measure of nicotine dependence. Nicotine and Tobacco
Research, 6, 327-348.
Sledjeski, E. M., Dierker, L. C., Costello, D., Shiffman, S., Donny, E., & Flay, B. R. (2007).
Predictive validity in four nicotine dependence measures in a college sample. Journal of
Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 87, 10-19.
Smith, C. A. & Kirby, L. D. (2001). Toward delivering on the promise of appraisal theory. In K.
R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.). Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory,
Methods, Research (pp. 121-138). New York: Oxford University Press.
Smith, C. A. & Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Emotion and adaptation. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.). Handbook
of Personality: Theory and Research (pp. 609- 637). New York: Guilford.
Wellman, R. J., DiFranza, J. R., Savageau, J. A., Godiwala, S., Friedman, K. & Hazelton, J.
(2005). Measuring adults’ loss of autonomy over nicotine use: The Hooked on Nicotine
Checklist. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 7(1), 157-161.
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
34
APPENDIX A
Trait Meta Mood Scale
Items are rated across a Likert scale: 1=strongly disagree, 2= somewhat disagree, 3= neither
agree no disagree, 4= somewhat agree, 5= strongly agree.
Directions: Please read each statement and decide whether or not you agree with it.
1. The variety of human feelings makes life more interesting.
2. I try to think good thoughts no matter how badly I feel.
3. I don’t have much energy when I am happy.
4. People would be better off it they felt less and thought more.
5. I usually don’t have much energy when I’m sad.
6. When I’m angry, I usually let myself feel that way.
7. I don’t think it’s worth paying attention to your emotions or moods.
8. I don’t usually care much about what I’m feeling.
9. Sometimes I can’t tell what my feelings are.
10. If I find myself getting mad, I try to calm myself down.
11. I have lots of energy when I feel sad.
12. I am rarely confused about how I feel.
13. I think about my mood constantly.
14. I don’t let my feelings interfere with what I am thinking.
15. Feelings give direction to life.
16. Although I am sometimes sad, I have a mostly optimistic outlook.
17.When I am upset I realize that the “good things in life” are illusions.
18. I believe in acting from the heart.
19. I can never tell how I feel.
20. When I am happy I realize how foolish most of my worries are.
21. I believe it’s healthy to feel whatever emotion you feel.
22. The best way for me to handle my feelings is to experience them to the fullest.
23. When I become upset I remind myself of all the pleasures in life.
24. My beliefs and opinions always seem to change depending on how I feel.
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
25. I usually have lots of energy when I’m happy.
26. I am often aware of my feelings on a matter.
27. When I’m depressed. I can’t help but think of bad thoughts.
28. I am usually confused about how I feel.
29. One should never be guided by emotions.
30. If I’m in too good mood, I remind myself of reality to bring myself down.
31. I never give in to my emotions.
32. Although I am sometimes happy, I have a mostly pessimistic outlook.
33. I feel at ease about my emotions.
34. It’s important to block out some feelings in order to preserve your sanity.
35. I pay a lot of attention to how I feel.
36. When I’m in a good mood, I’m optimistic about the future.
37. I can’t make sense of my feelings.
38. I don’t pay much attention to my feelings.
39. Whenever I’m in a bad mood, I’m pessimistic about the future.
40. I never worry about being in too good a mood.
41. I often think about my feelings.
42. I am usually very clear about my feelings.
43. No matter how badly I feel, I try to think about pleasant things.
44.Feelings are a weakness humans have.
45. I usually know my feelings about a matter.
46. It is usually a waste of time to think about your emotions.
47. When I am happy I sometimes remind myself of everything that could go wrong.
48. I almost always know exactly how I am feeling.
35
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
36
APPENDIX B
Brief COPE
We are interested in how people respond when they confront difficult or stressful events in their
lives. There are many ways to try to deal with stress. These items ask what you generally feel
and do when you experience stressful events. Obviously, different events bring out somewhat
different responses, but think about what you usually do when you are under a lot of stress.
Each item says something about a particular way of coping. We want to know to what extent
you generally do what the item says - how much or how frequently. Don't answer on the basis of
whether it seems to work or not, just whether or not you do it. Use these response choices. Try
to rate each item separately in your mind from the others. Make your answers as true FOR YOU
as you can. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers, so choose the most accurate answer for
you - not what you think most people would or should say or do.
1 = I usually don't do this at all
2 = I usually do this a little bit
3 = I usually do this a medium amount
4 = I usually do this a lot
1) I turn to work or other activities to take my mind off things.
_______
2) I concentrate my efforts on doing something about the situation I'm in.
_______
3) I say to myself "this isn't real".
_______
4) I use alcohol or other drugs to make myself feel better.
_______
5) I get emotional support from others.
_______
6) I give up trying to deal with it.
_______
7) I take action to try to make the situation better.
_______
8) I refuse to believe that it has happened.
_______
9) I say things to let my unpleasant feelings escape.
_______
10) I get help and advice from other people.
_______
11) I use alcohol or other drugs to help me get through it.
_______
12) I try to see it in a different light, to make it seem more positive.
_______
13) I criticize myself.
_______
14) I try to come up with a strategy about what to do.
_______
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
15) I get comfort and understanding from someone.
_______
16) I give up the attempt to cope.
_______
17) I look for something good in what is happening.
_______
18) I make jokes about it.
_______
19) I do something to think about it less, such as going to movies,
watching TV, reading, daydreaming, sleeping, or shopping.
_______
20) I accept the reality of the fact that it has happened.
_______
21) I express my negative feelings.
_______
22) I try to find comfort in my religion or spiritual beliefs.
_______
23) I try to get advice or help from other people about what to do.
_______
24) I learn to live with it.
_______
25) I think hard about what steps to take.
_______
26) I blame myself for things that happen.
_______
27) I praying or meditate.
_______
28) I make fun of the situation.
_______
37
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
APPENDIX C
Hooked on Nicotine Checklist
1. Have you ever tried to quit smoking, but couldn’t?
2. Do you smoke now because it is really hard to quit?
3. Have you ever felt like you were addicted to tobacco?
4. Do you ever have strong craving to smoke?
5. Have you ever felt like you really needed a cigarette?
6. Is it hard to keep from smoking in places where you are not supposed to?
When you tried to quit smoking…
7. Did you find it hard to concentrate because you couldn’t smoke?
8. Did you feel more irritable because you couldn’t smoke?
9. Did you feel a strong need or urge to smoke?
10. Did you feel nervous, restless, or anxious because you couldn’t smoke?
C.1 Additional Measures added to evaluate smoking behaviors
1. How many days out of the past 30 have you smoked?
2. How many cigarettes do you smoke, on average, per week?
3. When you smoke, do you smoke alone or with others?
4. Do you usually smoke when consuming alcohol?
5. When smoking, do you smoke the whole cigarette?
38
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
39
APPENDIX D
STATE-TRAIT ANXIETY INVENTORY
A number of statements which people have used to describe themselves are given below. Choose the
response that indicates how you generally feel and place an "X" in the appropriate column.. There are no
right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement but give the answer which
seems to describe how you generally feel.
Almost
Almost
Sometimes Often
1.
2.
3.
4.
I feel pleasant
I feel nervous and restless
I feel satisfied with myself
I wish I could be as happy as others
5.
6.
7.
8.
seems to be
I feel like a failure
I feel rested
I am "calm, cool and collected"
I feel that difficulties are piling up so that I cannot overcome them
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Never
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
Always
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
I worry too much over something that really doesn't matter
I am happy
I have disturbing thoughts
I lack self-confidence
I feel secure
I make decisions easily
I feel inadequate
I am content
Some unimportant thought runs through my mind and bothers me
18.
I take disappointments so keenly that
19.
20.
I can't put them out of my mind
I am a steady person
I get in a state of tension or turmoil
as I think over my recent concerns
and interest
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
40
APPENDIX E
APPRAISAL STYLE INVENTORY
For the final set of questions, you will see brief descriptions of 12 hypothetical situations. Each
situation is followed by a series of questions.
For each situation please try to imagine yourself in the situation as vividly as you can. If such a
situation happened to you, what do you think would have caused it or brought it about? What
would it mean to you to be in this situation? When you are imagining yourself in the situation as
vividly as you can, please answer the questions that follow the description. First you will be
asked to briefly describe what you think caused this situation (that is, what do you imagine the
cause to be), and then you will be asked some specific questions about what you are thinking
within this imaginary situation.
You should use a 9-point scale (1-9) to answer these specific questions. For some of the
questions specific end-points will be provided in parentheses to help you define the scale for that
question. If there are no end-points provided you should use the following scale.
1-------2-------3-------4-------5-------6-------7-------8-------9
not at all ---------------- moderately ------------------ extremely
So for each specific question you should answer by listing a number between 1 and 9. When you have
answered all the questions for one situation you should go on to the next situation, until you have
imagined yourself in all 12 situations. There are no right or wrong answers. Please try to answer every
question as best you can, and make it true for you
Think about what you want and don't want in this situation. Answer the following questions as if you
were actually experiencing the situation.
[Questions continue on following page]
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
41
1. How certain are you that you will be able to influence things to make (or keep) the situation the way
you want it?
2. How important is what is happening in this situation to you?
3. Think about what you do and do not want in this situation. How consistent is the situation with what
you want?
4. To what extent do you consider YOURSELF responsible for this situation?
5. To what extent do you consider SOMEONE ELSE responsible for this situation?
6. Think about how you would like this situation to turn out. For any reason, how consistent with these
wishes do you expect this situation to become (or stay)?
7. How certain are you that you will, or will not, be able to deal emotionally with what is happening in
this situation however it turns out?
Wilhelm
Exploring Emotional Intelligence
42