Avances en el estudio de la Inteligencia Emocional

Avances en el estudio de la Inteligencia Emocional
Table 4. Factor Analysis of TMMS-24 and TAS-20 Scores
Scale Factor 1 “Clarity” Factor 2 “Attention” Factor 3 “Repair”
TMMS
Attention .95
Clarity .71
Repair .72
TAS
Difficulties Identification -.66 .60
Difficulties Describing -.88
Externally Oriented Thinking .82
Note. TMMS-24=Trait Meta Mood Scale (24-item form);
TAS-20=Toronto Alexithymia Scale (20-item version); only salient loadings (>.30) are displayed.
Caution has to be taken when generalizing
the findings because of possible limitations of the
present study. In keeping with previous research,
validation of the instrument was based on a battery
of self-report instruments. Direct behavioral observations,
like in stressful situations, were not available.
The sample was mixed, comprising of undergraduates
and non-student research volunteers.
Results were comparable for both sub-groups. But
also in the non-student sub-sample the educational
level was above average.
The TMMS-24 is a self-report questionnaire
that assesses perceived emotional intelligence. Perceived
and performance-based EI should not be
equated (Mayer et al., 2000), because they are only
weakly related (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; O’Connor
& Little, 2003). However, there exists also evidence
that some of the characteristics of the ability
model, i.e. separability, sequential and
hierarchical order of the component processes, also
apply to perceived EI (see Ramos et al., 2007).
As a self-report measure, the TMMS-24 assesses
‘perceived EI’ which seems to be related with
perceived ‘self-efficacy’. A positive correlation, let’s
say, between Repair and an adaptive coping style
means that participants who believe that they could
manage emotions also believe that they could adequately
cope with problems. This may not reflect an
artifact of response-bias alone. Instead, perceived
emotional competencies (emotional self-efficacy)
may serve a meaningful psychological function and
determine behavior independent of actual abilities.
Perceived EI should therefore be distinguished from
actual ability as well as from basic temperament
traits. Although the latter may be related with perceived
EI in a hierarchical personality system (see
Petrides et al., 2007).
Some authors (e.g., Furnham & Petrides,
2003; Spain, Eaton, & Funder, 2000) have also argued
that self-report measures are most adequate
when predicting affect laden variables, because of
their inherently subjective nature. But perceived
EI is not limited to predicting subjective processes.
Measures of perceived EI were equally demonstrated
to predict observable behavior. Only to
give a few examples, perceived EI as assessed with
the TMMS was shown to predict psycho-physiological
reactions (Salovey et al., 2002) and health
behavior (i.e. number of visits at health centers;
Goldman et al., 1996). Moreover, perceived EI
predicted social competence as rated by peers
(Mavroveli et al., 2007).
From our point of view, more emphasize
should be placed on approaches that help integrate
ability and trait EI, because both bits of information
are complementary. In keeping with Fernández-
Berrocal and Extremera (2006), research should
also address moderating factors between both measures
to understand when and why they converge.
For this purpose, it is essential to have performance
and self-report measures derived from the same
theory and thus assessing comparable components.
The 24-item version of the Trait Meta Mood Scale
can ideally serve this purpose because of its sound
theoretical underpinning in the Mayer and Salovey
EI framework.
143