عاطفه خصلتی و فرا خلقی به عنوان شاخصهای علایم جسمانی و رضایت از زندگی

Research on whether low emotional intelligence is related to somatic symptoms independent of affect has shown mixed findings (De Gucht, Fischler, & Heiser, 2004; Kooiman, 1998; Lundh & Simonsson-Sarnecki, 2001). This study examined what elements of emotional intelligence and affect predict somatic symptoms and life satisfaction. Undergraduate students (n = 488) completed the Trait Meta-Mood Scale, Pennebaker Inventory of Limbic Languidness, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, and the General Life subscale of the Extended Satisfaction with Life Scale. Measures were regressed on somatic symptoms and life satisfaction. The first model found that negative affect was the best predictor of somatic symptoms, followed by awareness of mood and ability to discriminate among moods. The second model found that affect was the best predictor of life satisfaction, but that the ability to repair negative moods and maintain positive moods also predicted a small amount of the variance. No interaction effects were found. Results do not support previous research that emotional intelligence does not predict somatic symptoms when affect is held constant.

Emotional intelligence, introduced by Salovey and Mayer (1990), is a broad construct that describes emotional abilities. Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) definition of emotion intelligence encompasses four main parts or branches involving the ability to be aware of and express emotions, the ability to notice how feelings influence thoughts, the ability to understand emotions, and the ability to regulate mood in a way that influences growth. Individuals use emotional intelligence to interact with their environment in a way that takes their own emotions and those of others into consideration. Trait meta-mood and alexithymia are two aspects of emotional intelligence. Trait meta-mood refers to the ability to be aware of and manage one’s emotions ( Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey, & Palfai, 1995), but does not include awareness of the feelings of others. In developing their measure of trait meta-mood, Salovey et al. found three main factors: Attention to Feelings (Attention) refers to the degree of awareness of one’s moods; Clarity of Feelings (Clarity) refers to the ability to discriminate among moods; and Mood Repair (Repair) refers to the ability to “repair unpleasant moods or maintain pleasant ones” (p. 129). It should be noted that as the measure is self-report, it actually reflects perceived emotional intelligence. Greater perceived abilities in Clarity and Repair appear to contribute to higher life satisfaction ( Extremera and Fernández-Berrocal, 2005 and Palmer et al., 2002). There also appear to be gender differences in perceived trait meta-mood abilities. Previous research has found that although females scored higher on Attention, males reported higher Clarity and Repair ( Extremera et al., 2007 and Thayer et al., 2003). Previous research suggests that when the greater attention to emotions exhibited by women is not balanced by greater emotional repair, this may lead to rumination and more negative affect ( Thayer et al., 2003). Whereas the construct of trait meta-mood is defined by the presence of emotional abilities, alexithymia, which exhibits some overlap with trait meta-mood (Coffey et al., 2003 and Lumley et al., 2005), is defined by the absence of emotional abilities. The term alexithymia was first introduced by Sifneos (1973) to describe patients exhibiting psychosomatic symptoms who had difficulty identifying and describing emotions. Alexithymic individuals tend to focus on external occurrences to the exclusion of emotional content (Kooiman, 1998), and have difficulty linking feelings to bodily sensation and motor activity (Waller & Scheidt, 2004). Alexithymia is associated with greater report of somatic symptoms and somatization. Somatization has been defined in various ways, but the common thread running through the definitions is report of somatic symptoms that are not explained by an organic condition (De Gucht & Fischler, 2002). Not surprisingly, it has been linked to lower life satisfaction (Grabe et al., 2003). Although a number of studies have found a small to moderate relationship between alexithymia and somatization (De Gucht and Heiser, 2003, Sayer et al., 2003 and Waller and Scheidt, 2004), other researchers have found that a bivariate relationship between alexithymia and somatization disappears when negative affect is accounted for (Kooiman, 1998 and Lundh and Simonsson-Sarnecki, 2001). De Gucht, Fischler, and Heiser (2004), however, found that, while negative affect was a greater predictor of somatic symptoms, the dimension of alexithymia involving difficulty identifying feelings was a predictor as well. This dimension of alexithymia appears to be related to the Attention and Clarity factors of trait meta-mood (Coffey et al., 2003). The purpose of this study was to examine whether trait meta-mood predicts somatic symptoms and life satisfaction beyond what is predicted by affect. (For this study, we prefer the term somatic symptoms, as identifying actual somatization is a more complicated process than can be determined by self-report measure.) We were also interested in whether trait meta-mood and affect were independent predictors of somatic symptoms and life satisfaction, or whether there was an interaction effect between trait meta-mood and affect. Two models of outcomes related to trait meta-mood and affect were employed. The first model of this study examined whether trait meta-mood predicted somatic symptoms beyond what is accounted for by affect, and whether there was an interaction between trait meta-mood and affect. Consistent with previous research on alexithymia, somatic symptoms, and affect (De Gucht et al., 2004 and Lundh and Simonsson-Sarnecki, 2001), the authors expected to find a relationship between somatic symptoms, negative affect, positive affect, and trait meta-mood, and we predicted that the strongest relationship would be between greater somatic symptoms and greater negative affect. As previous research has found that the difficulty identifying feelings factor in alexithymia appeared to predict somatic symptoms (De Gucht et al., 2004 and Grabe et al., 2004), we predicted also that there would be a negative relationship between somatic symptoms and the Attention and Clarity factors of trait meta-mood, as Attention and Clarity appear to be common to the identifying feelings aspect of alexithymia (Coffey et al., 2003). The second model of this study examined whether trait meta-mood predicted life satisfaction beyond what is accounted for by affect, and whether there was an interaction between trait meta-mood and affect. Consistent with previous research, the authors expected to find that life satisfaction is negatively related to negative affect (Extremera & Fernández-Berrocal, 2005), and positively related to the Clarity and Repair factors of trait meta-mood (Extremera and Fernández-Berrocal, 2005 and Palmer et al., 2002). No relationship between Attention to Feelings and life satisfaction was expected (Extremera and Fernández-Berrocal, 2005 and Palmer et al., 2002). 2. Methods 2.1. Participants The sample consisted of two data sets (n = 488) collected by the third author: a sample of University of Montana (UM) students enrolled in an Introductory Psychology class (n = 280), and a sample of University of Texas – Pan American (UTPA) students recruited from various psychology classes (n = 208). Ages ranged from 18 to 53, with 19 being the modal age, making up 23.6% of the sample. Females (n = 293) made up 60.0% of the samples, and males (n = 194) made up 39.9%. (One participant left the form specifying gender blank.) 2.2. Materials Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS; Salovey et al., 1995). We used a 30-item version of the original 48-item self-report measure of trait meta-mood that contains subscales measuring attention to one’s feelings (Attention), the ability to discriminate among feelings (Clarity), and the ability to repair or maintain one’s moods (Repair). Items are rated on a Likert scale from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree). Internal consistency is good for each of the subscales, as Cronbach’s coefficient alphas were all above .80 for the shorter version. As this is a self-report measure, it should be noted that the TMMS measures perceived emotional intelligence. Pennebaker Inventory of Limbic Languidness (PILL; Pennebaker, 1982). The PILL is a 54-item self-report measure of physical sensations and symptoms. It is scored on a 5-point Likert scale measuring the frequency of occurrence for each symptom from 1 (have never or almost never experienced the symptom) to 7 (more than once every week). One point is assigned for every item that is endorsed at a “3” (every month or so) or above, giving it a maximum total score of 54. Internal consistency is high (α = .88). Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). The PANAS is a 20-item scale that measures positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA). PA refers to “the extent to which a person feels enthusiastic, active, and alert” and NA refers to “subjective distress and unpleasurable engagement that subsumes a variety of aversive mood states, including anger, contempt, disgust, guilt, fear, and nervousness” (p. 1063). Items such as excited, hostile, and attentive are self-rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely). Scores on the scale for PA and NA are summed. Internal reliability alphas range from .86 to .90 for PA and from .84 to .87 for NA, and it appears to be a valid measure of mood. Extended Satisfaction with Life Scale (ESWLS; Alfonso, Allison, Rader, & Gorman, 1996). The ESWLS is a 50-item self-report measure of satisfaction with one’s life. There are nine domains in the full ESWLS, but only the General Life subscale (the first five items of the full ESWLS) was used for this study. The General Life subscale measures how satisfied individuals are with their lives. Internal consistency for the General Life section was reported to be high (α = .89).