Transcript Slide 1

Personality and Quality of Social Support Provision in Close Relationships
Results
Cronbach Alpha Reliabilities
Do people differ in their ability to provide
appropriate and effective social support?
Are differences in social support provision
associated with people’s traits or abilities?
Introduction
Branch 4 EI as Predictor of Self-rated Social Support Provision
For the Self and Significant Other (SO) ratings of SS provision using
the ESS and our new social support question, Cronbach  reliabilities
were satisfactory (ranging from .87 to .94). Because of high
correlations between the existing ESS and our new social support
items, we combined these single indexes of “Self perceived quality of
social support” and “SO perceived quality of SS.” These summary
indexes had Cronbach  reliabilities above .90. Cronbach  reliabilities
for the Big Five personality traits were lower, ranging from .43 for
Agreeableness to .71 for Extraversion.
Emotional Intelligence (EI) has not been considered in relation to social support
provision. Previously, EI scores on the MISCEIT (Branch 4-emotion management
skills) have been significantly predictive of social behaviors including interpersonal
conflict [4], and relationship satisfaction and quality [5].
Previous studies have found more evidence for EI Branch 4 than for EI Branches 1, 2,
and 3 as a predictor of social behaviors; correlations between EI and social behaviors
have typically been stronger for males than for females.
Present Study
The purpose was to provide an exploratory assessment of Emotional Intelligence as a
predictor of the ability to provide appropriate and effective SS in close relationships,
controlling for other known predictors including gender and personality traits of the
support provider.
We hypothesized that EI Branch 4 scores would predict a unique and statistically
significant proportion of variance in scores on SS provision, even after statistically
controlling for gender and Big Five personality traits.
Method
Participants: Data were obtained from 195 undergraduate psychology students who
received course credit for participation. The sample was 72% female and 28% male;
96% between age 18 and 22; and 91% self identified as white European ethnicity.
Measures: Participants completed the MSCEIT [3], a measure of EI that includes
questions to evaluate four branches of ability, such as the ability to recognize emotions
from facial expressions; the Gosling’s Big Five [7]; and a self report evaluation of their
ability to provide quality SS to other people using reworded items from the existing
Emotional Support Scale (ESS)[6] and new questions developed for this study.
Participants identified a significant other to whom they provided social support;
53% chose mothers and 47% chose a friend, dating partner, or roommate. Significant
others were sent surveys that included reworded items from the ESS and items from
our new SS scale. All items were scored to obtain information about the quality and
appropriateness of emotional and social support that they received from a participant.
Analysis: Correlation and regression analyses examined gender, Big Five personality
traits, and Branch 4 EI scores as predictors of self-evaluated ability to provide SS.
For females there was a statistically significant but smaller correlation between
EIB4 and self-rated SS, r (n = 140) = .19, p = .022, two tailed.
There was moderate agreement (r = +.37) between total Self and SO
evaluations
of “ability to provide social support.”
Department of Psychology
Dr. Kerryellen Vroman
Department of Occupational Therapy
University of New Hampshire, Durham NH
Regression Results
Subsequent analyses examined only self-report ratings of SS provision. Because gender differences were predicted, separate
hierarchical regression analysis were performed for male and female groups to see whether EIB4 predicts variance in self-rated SS
provision, beyond any variance that can be predicted from the Big Five personality traits. The dependent variable was self-rated SS
provision. Big Five personality traits scores were entered as a set on Step 1; and EIB4 was entered on Step 2.
Model Summary Hierarchical Regression
Social support (SS) has been described as a resource; research has focused primarily
on characteristics of recipients, asking questions such as “Who benefits from
support?” and “Who perceives more support?” [1].
Few studies have examined characteristics of support providers. Women tend to
provide more SS than men; this may be due in part to differential sex role socialization
for care-giving roles [2]. Personality traits from the Big Five model have been
examined. Extraversion is consistently related to higher levels of recipient perceived
SS; Neuroticism is related to less satisfaction with support. Results for Openness,
Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness have been less consistent [1].
For males there was a statistically significant positive correlation between EIB4
and self-rated SS, r (n = 55) = .56, p< .001, two tailed.
Dr. Rebecca Warner
Females
Males
(N=140)
(N=55)
Change Statistics
Step
R2
Discussion
Change Statistics
R2 Change
F Change
p
R2
R2 Change
F Change
p
1a
.41
.41
6.67
<.001
.37
.37
15.88
<.001
2b
.47
.06
5.33
.025
.38
.01
1.02
.315
Coefficients for Final Regression
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
(Constant)
t
p
.717
.477
sr2
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
t
p
3.581
.000
sr2
Extraversion
.114
.935
.354
.010
.190
2.574
.011
.031
Openness
.029
.221
.826
.000
.108
1.410
.161
.010
Conscientious
.198
1.636
.108
.029
.268
3.550
.001
.059
Agreeableness
.384
3.011
.004
.101
.327
4.168
.000
.081
Neuroticism
.043
.333
.740
.000
-.019
-.239
.811
.000
MSCEIT-B4
.296
2.309
.025
.060
.072
1.009
.315
.005
a Predictors:
Neuroticism
Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Extraversion
Openness
b Predictors:
Neuroticism
Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Extraversion
EIB4
There was moderate agreement ( r = +.37) between Self and
Significant Other evaluations of ability to provide social support,
and strong agreement between existing ESS items and our new
social support items. This is not sufficient evidence that the self
ratings of Social Support provision are valid, but it is encouraging
to find reasonable levels of agreement between the provider and
recipient of support about the overall perceived evaluation of
Social Support.
For both Males and Females, the entire set of Big Five personality
traits scores contributed significantly to the R2 for prediction of
self-rated Social Support provision when these variables were
entered on the first step of hierarchical regressions.
For both Males and Females, Agreeableness uniquely predicted a
statistically significant proportion of the variance in self-rated
Social Support provision.
For Males only, Branch 4 EI predicted significant additional
variance in SS provision (controlling for the Big Five personality
traits); for Females, Branch 4 EI was not a significant predictor of
social support provision after controlling for the Big Five.
As in past research using EI to predict social behaviors, only
Branch 4 was predictive of social support; and EI was more
predictive of social support provision scores for males than for
females.
References:
1] Knoll, N., Burkert, S., & Schwartzer, R. (2006). Reciprocal support provision:
Personality as a moderator? European Journal of Personality, 20, 217-236.
2] Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2005). Gender differences in social support:
A question of skill or responsiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88,
79-90.
3] Mayer J. D., Salovey P., Caruso, D.R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring
Emotional Intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3, 97-105.
4] Brackett, M. A., Mayer, J. D., & Warner, R. M. (2004). Emotional intelligence and
its relation to everyday Behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 13871402.
5] Brackett, M. A., Bosco, J. and Warner, R. M (2005). Emotional intelligence and
relationship quality among couples. Personal Relationships, 12, 197-212.
6] Burhmester, D., Furman, W. Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Five
domains of interpersonal competence in peer relationships. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 55, 991-1008.
7] Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. S. (2003). A very brief measure of the
Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504-528.
Acknowledgements:
Contact Information:
Research supported by a Grant from
the UNH Presidential Excellence
Research Award program. Photos by
Lisa Nugent, UNH Photographic
Services.
Kerryellen Vroman, [email protected]
Department of Occupational Therapy
Rebecca Warner, [email protected]
Department of Psychology
University of New Hampshire
Durham NH 03824