درک هوش هیجانی و خوش بینی، بدبینی: تجزیه و تحلیل نقش آنها در پیش بینی سازگاری روانشناختی در نوجوانان

Abstract The current study examined the relationships between perceived emotional intelligence (PEI) (measured by Trait-Meta Mood Scale, TMMS), dispositional optimism/pessimism and psychological adjustment (perceived stress and life satisfaction) in a sample of 498 adolescents (202 males and 296 females). In addition, the present research investigated the extent to which dimensions of PEI predicted variance in life satisfaction and perceived stress beyond the variance explained for by individual differences in optimism and pessimism. TMMS dimensions and dispositional optimism/pessimism showed significant correlations in the expected direction with perceived stress and life satisfaction. Likewise, PEI and dispositional optimism/pessimism were not strongly redundant albeit related. Further hierarchical regression analyses confirmed that emotional clarity and mood repair still remained significant in predicting perceived stress and life satisfaction after the influence of optimism/pessimism were controlled. These results are consistent with previous findings on construct validity of PEI assessed by TMMS. In this sense, data suggest that adolescents with high perceptions of emotional abilities (in particular, high clarity and repair) generally show higher life satisfaction and lower perceived stress. Moreover, to some degree, this effect might be considered as independent from their own optimistic or pessimistic dispositions.

Introduction The body of research on individual differences has drastically grown in recent years. Some of the constructs that have classically attracted such a great deal of research attention as individual predictors are dispositional optimism/pessimism. To a certain extent, the interest is due to dispositional optimism/pessimism which have been found to be related to positive and negative adjustment, respectively. Dispositional optimism–pessimism is defined in terms of generalized expectancies concerning important future positive (optimism) and negative outcomes (pessimism) (Scheier & Carver, 1985). In addition, a number of investigators have found that optimism and pessimism represent two partially independent dimensions (Chang et al., 1997 and Mroczek et al., 1993) and are considered important predictors of psychological well-being (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 2001). A series of studies have also shown that these constructs have implications for the manner in which people cope with stressful experiences, and the success with which they cope in their lives. For example, higher scores on optimism have been associated with less psychological maladjustment, including higher perceived stress (Chang, 2002), and greater life satisfaction (Chang et al., 1997). In contrast, there is a good deal of evidence that links pessimism to lower life satisfaction (Chang et al., 1997), greater perceived stress (Chang, 2002) and higher depressive symptoms (Chang, Sanna, & Yang, 2003). For the last decade, increasing attention has been paid in examining the discriminant validity of dispositional optimism–pessimism with respect to other well-known personality variables. In this line, some researchers have confirmed that the influences of these constructs on adjustment can be distinguished from the effect of neuroticism, trait anxiety, self-mastery, self-esteem, information processing styles, and problem orientation, among others (Chang and D’Zurilla, 1996, Chang and Farrehi, 2001 and Scheier et al., 1994). However, more research would be necessary to distinguish the role of optimism and pessimism on adjustment over the influence of other personal predictors. In this sense, emotional intelligence (EI) has lately been suggested to be an important factor to predict psychological adjustment to life (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Following Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) theoretical approach, EI is conceptualized as the capacity to perceive, assimilate, understand, and manage emotions in oneself and others. While several ways of measuring EI have been devised (Geher, 2004), generally speaking they might be divided into two main categories: self-report and performance-based measures. Despite its limitations related to response biases, self-report measures are most typically used and they seem to be viable alternatives to performance-based measures for investigating particular research questions (Pérez, Petrides, & Furnham, 2005). In particular, they are generally chosen instead of performance-based measures because they are easy to use, imply relatively low costs in terms of time and economic resources and rely on introspection, which provides unique access to emotional-affective processes. One of the most widely used self-report measures is the Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS; Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey, & Palfai, 1995), based on Salovey and Mayer’s EI model (1990). This self-report measure evaluates three facets of the reflective processes that accompany mood states termed the meta mood experience (Salovey et al., 1995). Specifically, Attention, that is, perceived ability to attend to moods and emotions; (2) Clarity, that is, perceived ability to discriminate clearly among feelings; and (3) Repair, that is, individuals’ perceived ability to repair negative moods. The TMMS evaluates a ‘reasonable operationalisation of aspects of emotional intelligence’ (Salovey et al., 1995, p.147). This scale does not directly tap people’s emotional abilities but rather people’s perceived beliefs about their emotional abilities. Given its subjective nature, this instrument provides an index of what researchers have called a proxy for Perceived Emotional Intelligence (PEI) (Extremera and Fernández-Berrocal, 2005, Paek, 2006 and Salovey et al., 2002). This conceptual operationalization allows one to distinguish between those studies which employ self-report measures of EI assessing perceived abilities from those using mental abilities tests conceiving EI as a set of skills (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002). Despite the fact that several studies have demonstrated that PEI measured by the TMMS is related to a number of aspects of positive well-being (Fernández-Berrocal et al., 2005 and Schmidt and Andrykowski, 2004), no study has examined its incremental validity controlling for dispositional optimism/pessimism. Demonstrating the distinctive of PEI would have important implications for construct validity of TMMS, and thus would provide important theoretical insights into the role of emotion-related processes that influence psychological adjustment. Researchers using the TMMS have attempted to account for individual behaviour and emotional well-being, analyzing how meta-mood abilities influence our cognitions and actions (Salovey et al., 1995 and Salovey et al., 2002). Recent evidence suggests significant associations between PEI measured by the TMMS and psychological adjustment controlling for personality and mood states (Extremera and Fernández-Berrocal, 2005 and Palmer et al., 2002). However, Salovey et al. (1995) raised some concerns on discriminant validity of the TMMS with dispositional optimism, finding moderate correlations between TMMS dimensions (especially mood repair) and optimism measured by the Life orientation Test (LOT). It might be assumed that the way people attend to moods, discriminate between them and regulate emotions would provide insight to individuals about their knowledge of themselves. This emotional knowledge might provide a sense of positive expectancy for future affective events, establishing a conceptual link between PEI and dispositional optimism. It is tentative to think that high or low self-beliefs about one’s own emotions and capacity to discriminate and regulate moods might, in part, reflect dispositional optimism or pessimism, respectively. Accordingly, this overlapping might inflate the findings obtained with the TMMS dimensions on real life criteria questioning whether effects attributable to this EI self-report might really be due to variance that TMMS dimensions shared with dispositional optimism/pessimism. In this line, Catanzaro, Wasch, Kirsch, and Mearns (2000) have documented that our expectancies about one’s ability to terminate a negative mood state were moderately related to more global generalized expectancies such as optimism/pessimism. These authors considered that their findings supported the argument that both constructs are related, albeit conceptually distinct. While Optimism–Pessimism refers to a global generalized belief that positive/negative outcomes would be obtained, mood regulation expectancies would be limited to beliefs about reinforcers related to regulating negative mood (Catanzaro et al., 2000). In order to clarify the validity of PEI, it is necessary for research to distinguish the relative role of PEI and dispositional optimism/pessimism as unique predictors of psychological adjustment. Besides, most of the findings about the incremental validity of TMMS have been demonstrated in samples of adults (Extremera and Fernández-Berrocal, 2005 and Palmer et al., 2002). However, given that findings from adult populations may not generalize to adolescents and that little research has examined the usefulness of EI self-report measures in adolescents (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Bajgar, 2001), this study examined whether the TMMS dimensions would demonstrate incremental validity in an adolescent sample. Before developing EI training programs that may help to protect the adolescents from the emotional difficulties of everyday life, it is essential to establish in this population that EI is a distinctive construct which can predict important criteria over and above other well-established measures (Ciarrochi et al., 2001). Taking into account the above considerations, the purpose of the present study was twofold. First, we sought to examine the relations among dimensions of TMMS, dispositional optimism/pessimism and psychological adjustment (perceived stress and life satisfaction) in an adolescent sample. Secondly, we sought to examine the incremental validity of TMMS dimensions to predict perceived stress and life satisfaction after the effect of dispositional optimism/pessimism were controlled for statistically. We hypothesized that TMMS dimensions would be significantly related to dispositional optimism/pessimism but not highly enough to be considered redundant. Accordingly, we predicted that PEI would be related to perceived stress and life satisfaction and these associations would remain statistically significant over and above variance accounted for by dispositional optimism/pessimism.

3. Results 3.1. Descriptive analyses Pearson correlations, means, standard deviations and reliability of the different subscales used for the present adolescent sample are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Means, standard deviations, reliabilities and correlations between different measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. TMMS – Attention – 2. TMMS – Clarity .32⁎⁎ – 3. TMMS – Repair .23⁎⁎ .41⁎⁎ – 4. LOT-R-OPT .06 .22⁎⁎ .37⁎⁎ – 5. LOT-R-PESS .01 −.04 −.15⁎⁎ −.21⁎⁎ – 6. PSS .05 −.31⁎⁎ −.31⁎⁎ −.32⁎⁎ .24⁎⁎ – 7. SWLS .05 .21⁎⁎ .29⁎⁎ .26⁎⁎ −.21⁎⁎ −.48⁎⁎ – M 3.20 3.08 3.27 10.75 8.74 6.71 24.29 SD .84 .77 .77 2.52 2.36 2.83 6.22 Alpha .86 .82 .79 .51 .44 .66 .79 ⁎⁎ p < .01. Table options As the Table shows, although attention to feelings was positively related to other TMMS dimensions, no significant relationships between attention to feelings and dispositional optimism/pessimism and criterion measures were found. Conversely, scores on the clarity and repair dimensions were significantly related in the expected direction to scores on dispositional optimism and pessimism and adjustment measures. Specifically, clarity was found to be positively related to dispositional optimism and satisfaction with life and negatively associated with perceived stress. Interestingly, no significant relationship between clarity and dispositional pessimism was found. In the same line, higher scores on the repair dimension were positively associated with optimism and satisfaction with life and inversely related to pessimism and perceived stress. Regarding the relation between TMMS dimensions and optimism/pessimism, we found that clarity showed a modest relationship with optimism but not with pessimism while repair showed a moderate association with optimism (r = .37, p < .01) and to a lower degree with pessimism (r = −.15, p < .01). It is remarkable that these associations were not so strong as to suggest that TMMS dimensions and dispositional optimism/pessimism appraisal are redundant with each other. Finally, optimism/pessimism were significantly related in the expected direction to satisfaction with life and perceived stress. It is worth noting that clarity, repair and optimism/pessimism have obtained correlation indexes with life satisfaction and perceived stress very similar in direction and magnitude. In general, these findings support the notion that TMMS and LOT are measuring dimensions theoretically related but relatively independent, and thus indicate that both constructs are linked in a similar degree to perceived stress and life satisfaction. 3.2. Difference tests Difference tests were utilized to further analyze the potential gender differences in TMMS dimensions and the other criterion measures. An oneway ANOVA analysis revealed significant gender differences for the following dimensions: attention (M = 3.31 for females and M = 3.05; for males; p < .01), clarity (M = 3.01 for females and M = 3.19 for males; p < .05), repair (M = 3.17 for females and M = 3.43 for males; p < .01), perceived stress (M = 7.11 for females and M = 6.13 for males; p < .01), pessimism (M = 8.93 for females and M = 8.47 for males; p < .05) and optimism (M = 10.48 for females and M = 11.14 for males; p < .01). Finally, although males score higher than females, no significant differences were found for life satisfaction (M = 23.96 for females and M = 24.78 for males; p = .15). 3.3. Hierarchical regression analyses To examine the predictive utility of PEI in accounting for variance in life satisfaction and perceived stress beyond what is accounted for by dispositional optimism/pessimism, we conducted a series of hierarchical regression analyses for each of the two criterion measures. In the first step, sex and age were entered as covariates, dispositional optimism/pessimism were entered as the second step, and the three subscales of TMMS were entered in a block in the final step. The results of the regression analysis relative to the prediction of perceived stress and life satisfaction are reported in Table 2. Table 2. Hierarchical multiple regression predicting perceived stress and life satisfaction R2 F β P ΔR2 Perceived stress Covariates 0.03 7.22 0.03 Sex 0.16 0.05 Age −0.22 −0.48 Dispositional optimism/pessimism 0.15 21.91 0.12 Optimism −0.27 0.00⁎⁎ Pessimism 0.17 0.00⁎⁎ Perceived emotional intelligence 0.21 22.51 0.6 Clarity −0.19 0.00⁎⁎ Repair −0.12 0.01⁎ Life satisfaction Covariates 0.00 2.75 0.00 Sex −0.66 0.14 Age −0.08 0.06 Dispositional optimism/pessimism 0.09 12.84 0.09 Optimism 0.21 0.00⁎⁎ Pessimism −0.16 0.00⁎⁎ Perceived emotional intelligence 0.14 13.20 0.05 Clarity 0.10 0.02⁎ Repair 0.16 0.01⁎⁎ N = 490. ⁎ p < 0.05. ⁎⁎ p < 0.01. Table options With regard to perceived stress, a total of 21% of this variance was accounted for (R = 0.46, R2 = 0.21; F (6.489) = 13.20; p < 0.001), with optimism and pessimism accounting for 15% (p < 0.01) and clarity and repair significantly accounted for 6% (p < 0.01) of the unique variance in perceived stress. Subjects who reported a higher degree of optimism and lower degree of pessimism, as well as higher perceived skill at distinguishing between moods (Clarity) and greater skill at repairing mood (Repair) scored lower on perceived stress. For life satisfaction, a total of 14% of this variance was accounted for (R = 0.37, R2 = 0.14; F (6.489) = 22.51; p < 0.001), with optimism and pessimism accounting for 9% (p < 0.01) and clarity and repair significantly accounted for 5% (p < 0.01) of the unique variance in life satisfaction. Subjects who showed a higher degree of optimism and lower degree of pessimism, as well as subjects reporting a higher perceived skill at distinguishing between moods (Clarity) and greater skill at repairing mood (Repair) obtained higher scores on life satisfaction.