UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Emotional intelligence and intimately assaultive men Winters, Jason 2001

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_2001-0550.pdf [ 1.94MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0099610.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0099610-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0099610-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0099610-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0099610-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0099610-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0099610-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INTIMATELY ASSAULTIVE MEN by JASON WINTERS B.Sc, University of British Columbia, 1997 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Psychology; Forensic Area) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 2001 © Jason Winters, 2001 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) Abstract Research on the causes of male intimate assault has typically focused on personality disorders (e.g. Dutton, 1994a; Dutton, 1998), social learning theory (e.g. Dutton, 1998), sociological feminism and patriarchy (e.g. Bograd, 1988; Dobash & Dobash, 1979), and sociobiology (e.g. Daly & Wilson, 1988; Buss, 1994; Strachan & Dutton, 1992). To date, there is no literature specifically addressing the relationship between battering and emotional intelligence, a concept that captures the success, or lack thereof, of a person's functioning in their immediate environment. Forty-four men convicted of spousal assault completed the Emotional Quotient-Inventory (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997), the Propensity for Abusiveness Scale (PAS; Dutton, 1995b), and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR; Paulhus, 1984, 1988, 1991). Results indicate that batterers score significantly lower than the general population on all components of the EQ-i. Additionally, for 9 of 16 EQ-i subscales, scores correlate negatively and significantly with scores on the PAS, suggesting that deficits in various components of emotional intelligence are related to an increase in the propensity to be abusive. Implications for batterer treatment are discussed. iii Table of Contents Abstract ii List of Tables iv Introduction 1 Emotional Intelligence 1 Emotional Intelligence and Wife Battering 2 Method 4 Measures 4 The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) 4 The Propensity for Abusiveness Scale (PAS) 5 The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) 6 Results 6 Discussion 7 Conclusion 11 References 13 Figures 17 Tables 18 Appendices 25 IV List of Tables Table 1: The EQ-i Topographical Approach 18 Table 2: EQ-i Total Scores and Interpretive Categories 19 Table 3: Batterer EQ-i Total and Composite Scale Mean Scores 20 Table 4: Batterer EQ-i Subscale Mean Scores 21 Table 5: Comparison of Mean PAS Score for the Current Sample of Batterers with Previous Samples of Men 22 Table 6: Correlations of Batterer EQ-i Total and Composite Scores with the PAS 23 Table 7: Correlations of Batterer EQ-i Subscale Scores and the PAS 24 1 Introduction Dutton (1995a) defines wife assault as "any physical act of aggression by a man against a woman with whom he is in an intimate (i.e. sexual-emotional) relationship" (p. 3). The literature on wife assault prevalence rates (e.g. Straus, 1979; Straus, Gelles & Steinmetz, 1980) has distinguished severe assault (e.g. hitting with a fist or an object, and assault with a weapon) from non-severe assault. Injuries sustained from severe assault typically require medical attention and in most jurisdictions assault must be severe to meet standards for arrest (Dutton, 1995a). This, however, is not meant to minimize the physical and psychological impact of all forms of domestic abuse. Lifetime prevalence rates of wife assault in North America have been reported to be anywhere from 19% to 23% (Kennedy & Dutton as cited in Dutton, 1995; Schulman, 1979; Straus, Gelles & Steinmetz, 1980; Statistics Canada, 1993) and rates of severe wife assault have been documented as ranging from 5.4% to 11.3% (Kennedy & Dutton as cited in Dutton, 1995; Schulman, 1979; Straus, Gelles & Steinmetz 1980). Given that in Canada and the United States there are 12,429,159 (Statistics Canada, 2000) and 102,773,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001) woman aged 19 and older, respectively, potentially 1,000,000 Canadian and 8,500,000 American women have been victims of severe wife assault. Given the high rates of wife assault, it is no surprise that there is much empirical literature dedicated to its study. Theories of domestic violence have addressed personality disorders (e.g. Dutton, 1994a; Dutton, 1998), social learning (e.g. Dutton, 1998), sociological feminism and patriarchy (e.g. Bograd, 1988; Dobash & Dobash, 1979), and sociobiology (e.g. Daly & Wilson, 1988; Buss, 1994; Strachan & Dutton, 1992). To date, there is no literature specifically addressing the relationship between battering and emotional intelligence, a construct that captures the success, or lack thereof, of a person's functioning in their immediate environment. Given that wife assault can be seen as maladaptive behaviour in the context of an intimate relationship, the study of emotional intelligence may add to our understanding of domestic violence. Emotional Intelligence The construct of emotional intelligence arose from the attempt to understand why some individuals maintain psychological well-being better than others. Twentieth century research on intelligence was dominated by cognitive intelligence, which Bar-On defines as "one's ability to learn, recall, apply, think, reason, and abstract" (pp. 1, 1997). However, Bar-On (1997) noticed that people who scored high on the intelligence quotient (IQ), a measure of cognitive intelligence, were not always successful in dealing with normal daily environmental and psychological demands, whereas other people with lower IQ scores seemed very successful with respect to those same demands. He postulates that variation in emotional intelligence could account for the discrepancies between cognitive intelligence and social functioning. Bar-On began his exploration of emotional intelligence by building on the work of Weschler (1943), Gardner (1983), and Mayer and Salovey (e.g. 1993, 1995). Although Wechsler chose to focus on cognitive intelligence, he did make mention of the non-intellective aspects of general intelligence. Wechsler (1958) describes general 2 intelligence as "the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his (or her) environment" (p. 7). He stresses the importance of being able to deal with and adapt to changing demands of daily life, strategies that would act as the foundation for future exploration of emotional intelligence. Gardner (1983) expanded on Wechsler's work and introduced two components of emotional intelligence, "intrapsychic capacities" and "interpersonal skills." From there, Mayer and Salovey, who have produced an abundance of research on emotional intelligence, expanded Gardner's two components to six (1993). Those six components (Emotional Self-Awareness, Assertiveness, Empathy, Interpersonal Relationship, Stress Tolerance, and Impulse Control) were later incorporated into the Bar-On Emotional Quotient-Inventory (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997), a measure of emotional intelligence. Bar-On (1997) developed his own definition of emotional intelligence, which he describes as "an array of non-cognitive capabilities, competencies, and skills that influence one's ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands and pressures" (p. 3). Emotional intelligence, as Bar-On frames it, is comprised of emotional, personal, social and survival dimensions of intelligence. Further, Bar-On states that individuals who are emotionally intelligent will be competent at understanding themselves and others, relating to people, and adapting to and coping with the immediate surroundings. This, in turn, will increase their ability to be successful in dealing with environmental demands. For Bar-On, emotional intelligence relates to immediate functioning while cognitive intelligence relates to long-term, strategic capacity. In other words, emotional intelligence is process oriented rather than outcome oriented. Published in 1997, the EQ-i is a self-report measure based on 17 years of data collection that yields a total emotional intelligence score, f ive composite scores (intrapersonal, interpersonal, adaptability, stress management and general mood), and 15 content subscale scores (emotional self-awareness, self-regard, self-actualization, assertiveness, independence, empathy, social responsibility, interpersonal relationship, reality testing, flexibility, problem solving, stress tolerance, impulse control, optimism and happiness). Bar-On organizes scale components in two ways using a systemic and a topographical approach. The systemic approach is an arrangement of similar types of factors that logically and statistically fit together, producing a three level hierarchical tree (see Figure 1). The topographical approach contrasts the various EQ-i component scores by rank ordering factors from core to resultant, linked by supporters. That is, the core factors lead to resultant factors but both are dependent upon the supporting factors. For example, Emotional Self-Awareness (a core factor) is dependent on Self-Regard (a supporting factor) as is Interpersonal Relationships (a resultant factor; see Table 1). Emotional Intelligence and Wife Battering The EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) is a measure of one's ability to cope with and adapt to his/her immediate environment. In the context of interpersonal relationships, in particular intimate relationships, a low scoring individual will theoretically display maladaptive relationship behaviour. Since domestic violence can be seen as a severe form of relationship dysfunction, emotional intelligence and its components should be negatively 3 related to wife assault. Literature on male spousal batterers gives credence to this hypothesis. It has been shown that abusive men are unassertive (Rosenbaum & O'Leary, 1981) and because they lack the skills and confidence to express their needs, they use intimidation and aggression to obtain what they want (Falk, 1977). Additionally, male batterers appear to be unable to communicate in the emotional context of intimate relationships (Sonkin & Durphy, 1982), and seem to lack the verbal skills to express power and emotional needs (Dutton, 1998). In other words, batterers are unable to verbally articulate their feelings, thoughts, needs and emotions in a non-destructive way. One may expect this combination of deficits to be reflected by a low score on the Assertiveness subscale of the EQ-i. Dutton, Saunders, Starzomski and Bartholomew (1994) found that male batterers are insecurely and fearfully attached to their intimate partners. This, in turn, causes them to experience high levels of anxiety. Unable to abate the aversive symptoms themselves, they turn to their intimate partners who, unaware of the batterers' inner aversive state, are also powerless to help. Because physically abusive men seem to lack reflective insight, they project their anger and fear onto their partners. At the same time, batterers may experience "masked dependency" as they are unable to leave their relationships for fear of being alone (Dutton, 1998). Thus, domestically violent men appear to use abuse to maintain control making it possible for them to avoid unmet power needs. Because batterers appear to be emotionally dependent, unable to form and maintain healthy intimate relationships, are unhappy, and have difficulty linking inner emotions with objective circumstances, they should hypothetically score low on the EQ-i Interpersonal, Independence, Happiness and Reality Testing subscales. Along similar lines, domestically violent men are extremely sensitive to criticism and the threat of rejection (Sonkin, Martin & Walker, 1985; Dutton, 1998). They lack the assertiveness to express their feelings and as such, fall back upon aggressive impulses. In such circumstances, batterers will react by striking out. On the EQ-i, this would hypothetically be exemplified by low scores on the Assertiveness and Impulse Control subscales. When confronted in domestic violence treatment, batterers often deny and/or minimize their abusive behaviour, and blame their victims and/or circumstances (Sonkin, Martin & Walker, 1985; Dutton, 1998). By avoiding responsibility, abusive men are able to minimize the guilt and shame associated with harming their partners. Abusive men coming into treatment also evidence constriction of affect (Dutton, 1998). They appear to be unable to recognize and adequately process their emotions. Reports from therapists suggest that batterers experience "emotional poverty" in speech and thought. Additionally, domestically violent men display low levels of empathy and report feeling that they lack control within their intimate relationships (Dutton, 1998). Overall, physically abusive men avoid taking responsibility for their behaviour, report feeling powerless in their intimate relationships, and demonstrate constricted affect and minimal empathy. On the EQ-i, this would theoretically be demonstrated by low scores on Self-Regard, Self-Actualization, Happiness, Empathy and Assertiveness subscales (Bar-On, 1997). Given that the EQ-i provides a global appraisal of social functioning, and in so doing addresses deficits already empirically linked to wife assault, domestically violent 4 men hypothetically should score lower on emotional intelligence and its components. If emotional intelligence and abusiveness are negatively and strongly related, the EQ-i could be incorporated into treatment as an initial assessment tool, pinpointing strengths and weaknesses that should be addressed. Method Potential participants were recruited from pre-trial centers and court-mandated assaultive husband treatment groups in British Columbia and Washington State. To be included in the study, the men were required to have minimum of one conviction for wife assault and be at least 18 years old. Additionally, to minimize the possible influence of treatment on study results, only those men that had received no more than 5 hours of domestic violence treatment were given the opportunity to participate. The average age of participants (N = 44) was 34.5 (SD 9.8), and ranged from 20 to 56. Thirty-six percent of participants identified themselves as not religious, 22.2% as Christian, 22.2% as Catholic, 8.9 % as Protestant, 4.4% as First Nation, 2.2% as Sikh and 2.2% as Adidam. Sixty-nine percent of participants identified themselves as Caucasian, 13.3% as First Nations, 6.7% as Hispanic, 4.4% as East Indian, 2.2% as African North American and 2.2% as Chinese. Twenty-four percent of participants were common-law at the time of the study, 22.2% were single, 17.8% were separated, 11.1% were divorced, 11.1% were dating and 11.1% were married. Thirty-seven percent of the samples were incarcerated at the time of the study and 63% were in court-mandated treatment groups. For men in court-mandated therapy, treatment providers introduced the study and candidates that showed interest met with a research assistant. Research packages, including consent forms, the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997), the Propensity for Abusiveness Scale (PAS; Dutton, 1995a), the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR, Paulhus, 1984, 1988, 1991) and information sheets (age, ethnicity, religion, previous hours in treatment and relationship status), were distributed to the men to fill out at their convenience, and a research assistant clarified the instructions. The men were directed to return the completed research packages in self-addressed envelopes to the University of British Columbia laboratory. After the packages were received and scored, participant payment was mailed. Incarcerated men that were interested in participating met with a research assistant in a classroom setting. After instructions were explained, the men were given as much time as necessary (approximately 1 hour) to fill out the questionnaires. Participant payment was submitted to institution administration to be deposited into the participants' accounts. Measures The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) The EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) is comprised of 133 self-report items each scored on a five point Likert scale. Responses range from "not true of me" (1) through to "true of me" (5). The scale requires that those being assessed be at least 16 years of age and have, at minimum, a grade 6 reading level. The EQ-i has been normed in North America 5 (N=3831), Argentina, Germany, South Africa, Israel, India and Nigeria. Raw scores for each EQ-i scale are converted into standard scores based on a population mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. Cronbach's alphas for the subscales range from .70 to .89. Once scored, the EQ-i yields a total score, 5 composite scores (Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Adaptability, Stress Management and General Mood), 15 content subscale scores (Emotional Self-Awareness, Self-Regard, Self-Actualization, Assertiveness, Independence, Empathy, Social Responsibility, Interpersonal Relationship, Reality Testing, Flexibility, Problem Solving, Stress Tolerance, Impulse Control, Optimism and Happiness), and 4 validity scores (omission rate, inconsistency index, Positive Impression and Negative Impression). If omission rate for any of the subscales exceeds the allotted amount (6% or more), scoring is considered invalid. An elevation above 12 on the inconsistency index (calculated by summing the differences in scores between responses on ten pairs of items), suggests that the individual being assessed is randomly responding and therefore the assessment is invalid. Additionally, scores on the Positive and/or Negative Impression management scales that exceed two standard deviations above or below the population mean of 100 (+/- 30) imply that responding is biased and that results may not be valid. For the purposes of this study, the pencil and paper version was utilized and scoring was completed using EQ-i software. The Propensity for Abusiveness Scale (PAS) Previous measures of domestic abuse are explicit self-report inventories (e.g. Conflict Tactics Scale, CTS; Straus, 1979; Severity of Violence Against Women Scale, SVAWS; Marshall, 1992; Psychological Maltreatment of Women Index, PMWI; Tolman, 1989) and are therefore influenced by socially desirable responding and reactivity (Arias & Beach, 1987; Dutton, 1995b). Socially desirable responding is characterized by responses that fit perceived positive social norms (Paulhus, 1984). Reactivity, which is especially prevalent in the forensic context where consequences are drastic, is the intentional manipulation of explicit inventories designed to capture abusive behaviour (Dutton, 1995b). Using the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus, 1979), Browning and Dutton (1986) found that men in initial stages of treatment only reported 53% of abuse that their partners reported. Additionally, measures of social desirability (e.g. Marlowe-Crowne Scale; Crowne & Marlowe, 1960; Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding; Paulhus, 1984) correlate negatively and significantly with self-report measures of abuse (Dutton & Hemphill, 1992). To counter reactivity and socially desirable responding when assessing for abusiveness, Dutton (1995b) derived a list of questions from measures of constellations related to spousal abuse, but that did not explicitly address abusive behaviour (Borderline Personality Organization; Oldham, Clarkin, Appelbaum, Carr, Kernberg, Lotterman & Haas, 1985; Trauma Symptoms Checklist; Briere & Runtz, 1989, chronic trauma symptoms; Egna Minnen Betraffande Uppfostran, recollections of parental rejection; Ross, Campbell & Clayter, 1982; Relationship Style Questionnaire, attachment style; Griffin & Bartholemew, 1994; Multidimensional Anger Inventory, anger; Siegel, 1989). The questions were administered to 96 men and abuse measures (CTS; Straus, 1979; SVAWS; Marshall, 1992; PMWI; Tolman, 1989) were given to their partners. Dutton (1995a) correlated each measure with female abuse reports, selected subscales with the highest bivariate correlations with abusiveness, and factor analyzed the 6 new scale. A new measure, the Propensity for Abusiveness Scale (PAS), comprising 29 Likert-scale items and yielding three factors (Recalled Negative Parental Treatment, Affective Lability and Trauma Symptoms) was created that makes no explicit reference to abusive behaviour. Scoring of the PAS is done by summing the responses to each item. The initial conception study results (Dutton, 1995a) revealed a mean score for assaultive men of 62.2 (SD = 17.1) and for non-assaultive men, 44.7 (SD = 11.7). The PAS correctly classified approximately 80% of men within one standard deviation above or below the mean in psychological abusiveness as described by their partners. Scores on the PAS correlated positively and significantly with all measures of abuse, as reported by partners. Cronbach's alpha for the PAS was found to be .91. The validation study (Dutton, Landolt, Starzomski & Bodnarchuk, 2001) reported similar results. PAS scores for samples of gay men, college students, clinical outpatients and assaultive men were, respectively, 46.0 (SD = 12.7), 47.2 (SD = 47.2), 52.4 (SD = 21.4), and 66.1 (SD = 33.7). For all samples, scores on the PAS correlated strongly, positively and significantly with verbal, psychological and physical abuse as reported by partners. The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) The BIDR (Paulhus, 1984, 1988, 1991) is a 40-item self-report scale that acts as a gauge of socially desirable responding. Using seven-point Likert-scale style questions, it measures two constructs: "self-deceptive positivity" (honest but positively biased responses; pp. 36) and impression management (intentional self-presentation to assessor or audience; Paulhus, 1991). Self-deception, which is not necessarily intentional, is the over/inflated claims of one's positive cognitive attributes and overconfidence in one's cognitive abilities (judgments and rationality). Impression management is the intentional and systematic overreport on desirable behaviour items and underreport on undesirable behaviour items. For impression management, the claims are overt, and therefore any misrepresentation is intentional. To score the BIDR, negatively keyed items are reversed and one point is given for each extreme response (6 or 7). The BIDR yields two scales: impression management (items 1 to 20) and self-deception (items 21 - 40). For each scale, the minimum score is 0 and the maximum score is 20. Therefore, only individuals that are consistently giving exaggerated responses will get high scores. Results Of the current sample of 44 batterers, none scored in the Markedly High or Very High categories for total EQ-i score (see Table 2). Three men (6.8%) scored above Average, 26 (59.0%) scored below Average and 6 (13.6%) scored in the bottom category, Markedly Low. Batterers scored significantly lower than the EQ-i norms (p = 100, d = 15) on EQ-i total score and all EQ-i composite scales and subscales (see Tables 3 and 4). As a group, batterers scored one standard deviation (15) below the population mean (p = 100) on EQ-i total score (M= 85.16, SD = 17.16). With the exception of the Assertiveness subscale (t = - 2.518, p < .05, df= 43) and the Independence subscale (t = -2.925,/^ < .01, df= 43), one sample t-tests comparing batterer EQ-i scores to those of the 7 general public were significant at the p < .005 level. On the EQ-i Positive and Negative Impression Management scales, mean scores for batterers were 90.50 (SD = 14.14) and 111.86 (SD = 20.82), respectively. Both scores were within the required two standard deviations (+/- 30) of the population mean of 100. The mean score on the Inconsistency Index was 6.66 (SD = 2.74), which is well below the critical value, 12. Table 5 shows that on the PAS, the current sample of batterers scored significantly lower than both the initial 1995 self-referred assaultive sample (Dutton, 1995b) and the validation study assaultive sample (Dutton et al, 2001), but still scored significantly higher than the initial study controls (Dutton, 1995b) and the validation study samples of gay men and college students (Dutton et al, 2001). Although EQ-i Total score and all composite and subscale scores correlated negatively with PAS scores, 8 of the 21 correlations did not reach significance (see Tables 6 and 7). Those EQ-i scores that did significantly correlate with PAS scores are: EQ- i Total (r = - .446, p < .01); Intrapersonal composite (r = - A4l,p < .01); Adaptability composite (r = - .459,p < .01); Stress Management composite (r = - .329, p < .05); Emotional Self-Awareness subscale (r = - .304, p < .05); Assertiveness subscale(r = - .372, p < .01); Self-Regard subscale (r = - .410, p < .01); Independence subscale (r = - .298, p < .05); Problem Solving subscale (r = - .371,p < .05); Reality Testing subscale (r = - .504,p < .001); Flexibility subscale (r = - .300,/? < .05); Impulse Control subscale (r = - .357,p < .05); and Happiness subscale (r = -.347,/?<.05). For the current sample of batterers, the mean score on the BIDR Self-Deception scale was 3.6 (SD = 3.6). This finding is significantly lower than that among previous samples of religious male adults (M= 7.6, t = - 7.449, p < .001, df= 43; Quinn as cited in Paulhus, 1991) and male college students (M= 7.5, t = - 7.262,p < .001, df = 43; Paulhus, 1988). On the BIDR Impression Management scale, the mean score for the current sample of batterers was 5.0 (SD - 2.9). This score is significantly lower than those reported for prior samples of male religious adults (M= 7.3, t = - 5.149,/? < .001, df = 43; Quinn as cited in Paulhus, 1991), college students (M= 11.9, t= - 15.651,/? < .001, df= 43; Paulhus, 1984) and 48 Alcoholics Anonymous members (M= 11.2, t = - 14.053, p < .001, df= 43; Mellor, Conory & Masteller as cited in Paulhus, 1991) but is not significantly different from a previous sample of male college students (M= 4.3, / = 1.700, p>.05, df= 43; Paulhus, 1988). Discussion Although in the past researchers have expressed concerns that domestically violent men may evidence socially desirable responding (Dutton & Hemphill, 1992), it appears that this is not the case for the current sample. It seems that the current sample of batterers did not covertly or overtly attempt to present in a socially desirable manner. In fact, impression management scores for this sample of assaultive men are significantly lower than BIDR norms (Paulhus, 1981, 1984 & 1991). Additionally, on the EQ-i Positive and Negative Impression scales, the current sample scored well within the valid range. It is suspected that the discrepancy between the current results and those of Dutton and Hemphill (1992) may stem from the fact that the researchers were using explicit self-report abuse measures; reactivity generated by the measures may have resulted in the 8 observed increase in socially desirable responding. Regardless, socially desirable responding appears not to be an issue with this sample of batterers. As was expected, the current sample of batterers scored significantly lower on the EQ-i than the general population. The EQ-i total score and composite scores all approached one standard deviation below population norms. Significantly lower scores on all scales of the EQ-i suggest that the current sample of domestically violent men displays overall deficits in global social functioning. The majority of the sample (59.0%) scored below Average on Total EQ-i score and therefore, according to Bar-On (1997), "need improvement." Six of the 44 (13.6%) abusive men in this sample scored in the Markedly Low category. According to Bar-On (1997), those individuals that score in the Markedly Low category exhibit "atypically impaired emotional capacity" and are in need of drastic improvement. Total EQ-i and PAS scores correlate negatively, strongly and significantly suggesting that a deficit in emotional intelligence may be related to an increased propensity to be intimately assaultive. Although scores on EQ-i composite scales are reported, correlations between EQ-i composite scores and PAS scores only hint at which areas of emotional intelligence are related to this increased propensity to be assaultive. To address specific deficits in emotional intelligence that are related to propensity for assaultiveness, it is necessary to examine the individual subscale components of the EQ-i model. The current sample of batterers scored low on the Emotional Self-Awareness subscale indicating that they may not be aware of their emotions and that they lack insight into how their emotions arise. Further, scores on the Emotional Self-Awareness subscale correlate negatively and significantly with PAS scores. This is not surprising considering that domestic violence treatment therapists often report that their clients evidence constricted affect (Dutton, 1995a). Also, assaultive men appear to be unaware emotionally such that all arousal-producing emotions get expressed as anger, which in turn gets translates into aggression (Gondolf as cited in Dutton, 1995a). In treatment, assaultive men could be taught to recognize emotions and their origin. By monitoring arousal and source of emotions, men could learn to modulate affect, and thus control their anger. On the Assertiveness subscale, the batterers scored significantly lower than the population suggesting that they are unable to express their feelings, thoughts and beliefs, and are unable to defend their rights in a non-destructive way. As stated by Bar-On (1997), individuals who score low on the Assertiveness subscale are either shy and quite or aggressive and abusive. Clearly, domestically violent men would compromise the latter. When correlated with PAS scores, Assertiveness subscale scores were related negatively and significantly implying that deficits in assertiveness are associated with propensity for assaultiveness. This is consistent with previous research that indicates domestically violent men are unassertive (Rosenbaum & O'Leary, 1981) and that because they are unable to express their feelings and needs, they resort to intimidation and aggression (Falk, 1977). Current treatment for domestically violent men often contains a module on assertiveness training (Dutton, 1998), which is in general positively received by group members. In theory, by teaching abusive men to express feelings, thoughts, emotions and needs in a non-destructive way, they would be able to avoid using aggression and intimidation as a means of communication and power. 9 The batterers scored significantly lower than the population on the Self-Regard subscale. The EQ-i manual (Bar-On, 1997) states that individuals who score low on the Self-Regard subscale have little self-respect and personal acceptance, and are unable to accept both their strengths and weaknesses. They do not like themselves, feel inferior, and have low self-confidence, self-adequacy, and inner strength. Batterer scores on the PAS also correlate negatively and significantly with Self-Regard subscale scores. Prior research has shown that guilt and shame are associated with being violent towards one's intimate partner, and that batterers use anger to avoid those unpleasant feelings (Dutton, 1995a, 1998). Because assaultive men are unable to control their aggressive behaviour, and in so doing harm their intimate partners with whom they are intimately attached, they experience shame and guilt. In the treatment setting, therapists have described the first night of group treatment as the "vicarious detoxification" of shame and guilt (Wallace & Nosko as cited in Dutton, in press). Stosney (in press) posits that a successful treatment program should give assaultive men the skills they need to avoid abusive behaviour (e.g. assertiveness training, control of emotions, compassion, etc.). By having an alternative to violence, the men can prevent feelings of anger, inferiority, self-hate, guilt and shame associated with intimate assault. Consequently, they will experience improvements in self-esteem and self-regard. On the Independence subscale, the current sample scored significantly lower than EQ-i norms, implying that they may be clingy and they lack self-reliance, self-direction and autonomy. Scores on the Independence subscale correlate negatively and significantly with PAS scores suggesting that dependency and propensity for abusiveness are related. Dutton (1998) describes assaultive men as being fearfully attached to their intimate partners; batterers experience high levels of anxiety in their intimate relationships but are unable to leave, leading to what Dutton (1998) describes as "masked dependency". Also, anecdotal evidence from treatment groups suggests that many abusive men have few close friends with whom they can confide. As such, the batterers become dependent on their partners to fulfill both intimate and "best-friend" roles. Any tension that arises in their relationships cannot be expelled elsewhere. It is important that therapists stress that the men make an effort to establish a social support network to reduce the excessive burden placed on their intimate partners. Compared to the general population, batterers scored significantly lower on the Problem Solving subscale. Although the Problem Solving subscale taps into general problem solving skills, it seems to also relate to the propensity to be domestically violent. Scores on the Problem Solving subscale correlate negatively and significantly with PAS scores. I suspect the negative endorsement of subscale questions such as "When facing a problem, the first thing I do is stop and think" reflects batterers' inability to control their anger when confronted with real or perceived personal slights by their intimate partners. When experiencing high arousal in conjunction with negative affect, rather than systematically addressing its origin and the related circumstances, batterers resort to what has become a learned response: anxiety, anger and aggression. Some treatment programs teach "time-outs" as a means to avoid this instinctive learned response. By removing themselves from a confrontational situation, batterers give themselves a chance to reflect upon the situation and to analyze it in a step-by-step fashion. This "time-out" exercise could be expanded to include a component on systematically addressing irrational thoughts that are produced by highly arousing situations. By extinguishing irrational 10 thought patterns, batterers may find it easier to resolve confrontations in a non-destructive manner. Previously, Dutton (1998, 1994a, 1994b) has linked Borderline Personality Organization (BPO; Olham et al, 1985) with domestically violent behaviour. Like individuals with Borderline Personality, batterers have "intense, unstable interpersonal relationships that are characterized by intermittent undermining of the significant other, manipulation, and masked dependency" (pp. 61; Gunderson as cited in Dutton, 1998). Also, intimately abusive men have an unstable sense of self, are unable to be alone, and experience abandonment anxiety and intense anger (Gunderson as cited in Dutton, 1998). Scores on the BPO scale correlate positively and significantly with measures of abuse (1998, 1994a, 1994b). One component of BPO is Reality Testing, a construct that is also part of Bar-On's EQ-i (1997). The current sample of batterers scored significantly lower than the general population on the EQ-i Reality Testing subscale. The EQ-i manual (Bar-On, 1997) states that individuals who score low on the Reality Testing subscale are unable to evaluate the relationship between subjective experience and objective reality. Further, they are unable to see things objectively, and link events and reality with relevant feelings and perceptions. This is not unlike Dutton's description of the batterer with borderline characteristics (1998, 1994a, 1994b). The batterer experiences a cyclical tension build-up that is appears to be of internal origin. The cause of this tension is attributed to the intimate partner. Thus, the batterer projects onto his partner what he is experiencing. Additionally, it is possible that insecure and fearful attachment experienced by many batterers leads them to misinterpret the behaviour of their intimate partners. Due to high levels of anxiety, and the associated anger and hyperarousal, batterers may often perceive normal relationship behaviour as threatening to their fragile self-esteems. On the EQ-i Flexibility subscale, batterers scored significantly lower than norms and scores were significantly and negatively correlated with the PAS. This implies that batterers are unable to modulate thoughts, emotions and behaviours to correspond to changing environment and demands. That is, they are unable to adapt to unfamiliar, unpredictable and dynamic circumstances. Batterers' inflexibility appears to be related to their propensity for abusive behaviour. It could be said that batterers evidence an inflexible pattern of behaviour within their intimate relationships. Intimate relationships, by their nature, are dynamic and adapting to a relationship that evolves and changes requires effort and a certain level of social competence. Perhaps assaultive men, fixated on a pattern of maladaptive behaviour and without the necessary skills to adjust, respond to change with hostility and aggression. One of the goals of Cognitive Behavioural Treatment for spousal batterers is to break this pattern (Dutton, 1998). As was expected, batterers scored significantly lower than the general population on the Impulsiveness subscale of the EQ-i, and scores correlated negatively and significantly with PAS scores. Bar-On (1997) describes an individual scoring low on the Impulsiveness subscale as unable to resist or delay impulses or drives and temptations to act. The low scoring individual is impatient, has low frustration tolerance, and lacks control of hostility, aggression and irresponsible behaviour. This leads to anger control problems, and abusive, explosive and unpredictable behaviour. In the past, researchers and therapists have noted that some subgroups of assaultive men are impulsive (Tweed and Dutton, 1998; Stosney, 1996; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). The relationship between impulsivity and domestically assaultive behaviour is not surprising. Impulsive, 11 abusive men react strongly when experiencing negative arousal and are unable to self-soothe or return to baseline level (Dutton, 1998). Frustration and anxiety lead to explosive, uncontrolled aggression that is usually followed by guilt and shame. In treatment, impulsivity is linked with problem solving skills. If assaultive men can learn to take a "time-out", and examine the circumstances, their feelings and emotions from a distance rather than in-situ, impulsive, aggressive behaviour may possibly be decreased or extinguished. On the Happiness subscale, batterers scored significantly lower than EQ-i norms implying that assaultive men are unhappy and morose. They do not enjoy company, are unpleasant in most contexts and find it difficult to have fun. This may reflect their current circumstances; individuals in the sample were either incarcerated or in court mandated treatment groups as part of a sentence for spousal assault. PAS and Happiness subscale scores correlated negatively and significantly. This is not surprising when one considers that abusive relationships are not likely to be conducive to positive affect. As mentioned earlier, batterers experience high levels of shame, guilt and anxiety associated with their abusive behaviour (Dutton, 1995a, 1998). With an improvement in relationship functioning, and the resultant decrease in aggressive behaviour, happiness may increase. Of the 15 EQ-i subscales, scores on six subscales (Self-Actualization, Empathy, Interpersonal, Social Responsibility, Stress Tolerance and Optimism) were significantly lower than those of the general population but did not correlate significantly with scores on the PAS. For the Self-Actualization, Interpersonal, Social Responsibility, Stress Tolerance and Optimism subscales, this would be expected since there is no theoretical basis to expect these to be related to abuse. Further, subscale items for those five components make reference to global social functioning and therefore do not specifically relate to intimate relationship behaviour. Alternatively, anecdotal accounts from therapists have linked low empathy with domestic violence, yet no research has specifically addressed the issue. Findings from the current study suggest that low empathy is not related the propensity for abusiveness. One perspective on this issue is that it is not that batterers lack empathy; instead it is a deficit in compassion that is related to domestic violence (Katz & Katz, 2001). Batterers are aware of their partner's feelings, but fearful attachment, and the associated anxiety and fear, smother empathetic responses. Fixated on their own negative arousal, batterers may effectively blunt empathy. A lack of compassion, on the other hand, allows batterers to affectively ignore the emotional and physical pain inflicted upon their intimate partners. The relationships between empathy, compassion and domestic violence need to be explored. Conclusion As was expected, batterers appear to have lower emotional intelligence than the general population. In addition, low scores on nine components of emotional intelligence (Emotional Self-Awareness, Assertiveness, Self-Regard, Independence, Problem Solving, Reality Testing, Flexibility, Impulse Control and Happiness) seem to be associated with an increased propensity for abusiveness. However, it is not clear how these factors relate specifically to domestically violent behaviour. It should therefore be the aim of future research to examine the association between scores on partner reported abuse measures 12 (e.g. SVAWS; Marshall, 1992; CTS; Straus, 1979) and the men's EQ-i scores. In addition, because this study is of a correlational nature, it is imperative to determine the causal links between aspects of emotional intelligence and domestically violent behaviour. The EQ-i may prove to be useful as an intake assessment tool and as a gauge for domestic violence treatment. For each individual treatment group member, the EQ-i could be used to determine strengths and deficits in relationship functioning that have been shown to be associated with domestically violent behaviour. Treatment goals could be set for each individual and the group as a whole. Therapists could tailor treatment content depending on the group's level of functioning as determined by the EQ-i. At termination of group, the EQ-i could be used as a measure of improved relationship functioning. Thus, use of the EQ-i may improve treatment efficiency and efficacy. 13 References Arias, I., & Beach, S. R.(1987). Validity of self-reports of marital violence. Journal of Family Violence, 2(2), 139-150. Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar On Emotional Quotient Inventory: User's manual. Toronto, ONT: Multi-Health Systems Inc. Bograd, M. (1988). Feminist perspectives on wife abuse: An introduction. In M . Bograd & K. Yllo (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on wife (pp. 11-26). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Briere, J., & Runtz, M . (1989). The Trauma Symptoms Checklist (TSC-33): Early data on a new scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4(2), 151-163. Browning, J., & Dutton, D. G. (1986). Assessment of wife assault with the Conflict Tactics Scale: Using couple data to quantify the differential reporting effect. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 375-379. Buss, D. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of socially desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354. Daly, M. , & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New York: Aldine. Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. New York, NY: Free Press. Dutton, D. G. (in press). The treatment of assaultiveness. In D. G. Dutton & D. Sonkin (Eds.), The Treatment of Anger and Abuse. California: Hayworth. Dutton, D. G. (1998). The abusive personality: Violence and control in intimate relationships. New York: Guilford Press. Dutton, D. G. (1995a). The domestic assault of women. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Dutton, D. G. (1995b). A scale for measuring propensity for abusiveness. Journal of Family Violence, 10(2), 203-221. Dutton, D. G. (1994a). The origin and structure of the abusive personality. Journal of Personality Disorders, 8, 181-191. 14 Dutton, D. G. (1994b). Behavioural and affective correlates of borderline personality organization in wife assaulters. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 17(3), 266-277. Dutton, D. G., & Hemphill, K. J. (1992). Patterns of socially desirable responding among perpetrators and victims of wife assault. Violence and Victims, 7(1), 29-40. Dutton, D. G., Landolt, M . A., Starzomski, A., & Bodnarchuk, M. (2001). Validation of the propensity for abusiveness scale in diverse male populations. Journal of Family Violence, 16(1), 59-73. Dutton, D. G., Saunders, K., Starzomski, A., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Intimacy-anger and insecure attachment as precursors of abuse in intimate relationships. Journal of Applied and Social Psychology, 24(15), 1367-1386. Dutton, D. G., & Starzomski, A. J. (1994). Psychological differences between court-referred and self-referred wife assaulters. Criminal Justice and Behavior: An International Journal, 21(2), 203-222. Elliot, F. (1977). The neurology of explosive rage: The episodic dyscontrol syndrome. In M . Roy (Ed.), Battered women: A psychosociological study of domestoc violence. New York, NY: Van Nostrand. Falk, M . (1977). Men who assault their wives. In M. Roy (Ed.) Battered women: A psychosocial study of domestic violence. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind. New York, NY: Basic Books. Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). The metaphysics of measurement: The case of adult attachment. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships, Vol. 5: Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 17-52). London: Jessica Kingsley. Hamberger, J. K., & Hastings, J. E. (1986). Personality correlates of men who abuse their partners: A cross-validation stidy. Journal of Family Violence, 1(4), 323-342. Katz, Z., & Katz, J. (personal communication, September 4, 2001). Kennedy, L. W., & Dutton, D. G. (1989). The incidence of wife assault in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 21(1), 40-54. Marshall, L. (1992). Development of the severity of violence against women scales. Journal of Family Violence, 7(2), 103-121. Mayer, J., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17(4), 433-442. 15 Mayer, J., & Salovey, P. (1995). Emotional intelligence and the construction and regulation of feelings. Applied and Preventative Psychology, 60, 100-111. Mellor, S., Conroy, L., & Mateller, B. K. (1986). Comparative trait analysis of long-term recovering alcoholics. Psychological Reports, 58, 411-418. Oldham, J., Clarkin, J., Appelbaum, A., Carr, A., Kernberg, P., Lotterman, A., & Haas, G. (1985). A self-report measure instrument for Borderline Personality Organization. In T. H. McGlashan (Ed.), The Borderline: Current Empirical Research, (pp. 1-18), The Progress in Psychiatry Series. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Parker, J. D. A. (2000). Emotional intelligence: Clinical and therapeutic implications. In R. Bar-On, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence, (pp. 490-504). San Fransico, CA: Jossey-Bass. Paulhus, D. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598-609. Paulhus, D. (1988). Assessing self-deception and impression management in self-reports: The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Unpublished manual, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Paulhus, D. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, (pp. 17-59), San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc. Rosenbaum, A., & O'Leary, D. K. (1981). Marital violence: Characteristics of abusive couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 63-71. Ross, M . W., Campbell, R. L., & Clayter, J. R. (1982). New inventory of meauremnet of parental rearing patterns: An English form of the EMBU. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 66, 499-507. Siegel, J. M . (1986). The multidimensional anger inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 191-200. Snell, J. E., Rosenwald, P. J., & Robey, A. (1964). The wifebeater's wife. Archives of General Psychiatry, 2, 107-113. Sonkin, D. J., & Durphy, M. (1982). Learning to live without violence: A handbook for men. San Fransisco, CA: Volcano Press. Sonkin, D. J., Martin, D., & Walker, L. E. A. (1985). The male batterer: A treatment approach. New York, NY: Springer. 16 Statistics Canada (2000). Canadian statistics. [On-line]. Available: http://wvvvv.statscan.ca/english/Pgdb/People/Population/demo 1 Oa.htm. Stosney, S. (in press). The compassion workshop for abusive men. In D. G. Dutton & D. Sonkin (Eds.), The Treatment of Anger and Abuse. California: Hayworth. Stosney, S. (1996). Empathy development as a treatment ofprogram for male batterers. New York, NY: Gilford Press. Strachan, K., & Dutton, D. G. (1992). The role of power and gender in anger responses to jealousy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(22), 1721 -1740. Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring family conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88. Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. Garden City, NY: Anchor/Doubleday. Tolman, R. M . (1989). The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of women by their male partners. Violence and Victims, 4(3), 159-177. Tweed, R., & Dutton, D. G. (1998). A comparison of impulsive and instrumental subgroups of batterers. Violence and Victims, 13(3), 217-230. United States of America Bureau of Census (1979). National crime survey. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Press. United States of America Bureau of Census (2001). Population and Household Economic Topics. [On-line]. Available: http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/intfile2-l.txt. Weschler, D. (1943). Non-intellective factors in general intelligence. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 38, 100-104. 17 Figures Figure 1. The EQ-i systemic approach. Total Score 1 1 1 1 Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Self-Regard/Self-Actualization Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationship Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving Stress Tolerance Impulse Control Optimism Happiness 18 Tables Table 1 The EQ-i Topographical Approach Core Factors self-awareness, empathy, assertiveness, reality testing, flexibility, impulse control Supporting Factors self-regard, independence, social responsibility, optimism, stress tolerance Resultant Factors problem solving, interpersonal relationship, self-actualization, happiness Table 2 E Q - i Total Scores and Interpretive Categories (Total N = 44) Interpretive Category N Markedly High 130+ 0 Very High 120- -129 0 High 110 --119 3 Average 90- 109 15 Low 80- 89 9 Very Low 70- 79 11 Markedly Low <70 6 Total 44 20 Table 3 Batterer EQ-i Total and Composite Scale Mean Scores (N = 44) Mean Standard Deviation t Total 85.16 17.16 - 5.735*** Intrapersonal Composite 88.82 14.83 - 5.022*** Interpersonal Composite 86.70 15.21 - 5 797*** Adaptability Composite 89.27 19.11 - 3 724*** Stress Management Composite 88.48 15.56 - 4.911*** General Mood Composite 87.18 13.96 - 6.091*** Note. Sample means were compared to population mean of 100, standard deviation 15, using one-sample t-test; degrees of freedom = 43; * p < .05, * p < .01, *** p < .005. 21 Table 4 Batterer EQ-i Subscale Mean Scores (N = 44) Mean Standard t Deviation Emotional Self-Awareness 91.86 16.88 -3 197*** Assertiveness 95.50 11.85 -2 518* Self-Regard 90.86 13.78 -4 398*** Self-Actualization 88.32 16.28 -4 758*** Independence 92.16 17.78 -2 925** Empathy 86.55 14.82 -6 022*** Interpersonal Relationship 92.09 15.02 -3 493*** Social Responsibility 86.27 14.04 -6 4gg*** Problem Solving 90.41 18.87 -3 371*** Reality Testing 90.57 19.21 -3 257*** Flexibility 92.82 15.44 -3 085*** Stress Tolerance 91.84 13.03 -4 Impulse Control 87.50 16.82 -4 931*** Optimism 90.91 14.02 -4 302*** Happiness 85.80 14.08 -6 692*** Note. Sample means were compared to population mean of 100, standard deviation 15, using one-sample t-test; degrees of freedom = 43; * p < .05, * p < .01, *** p < .005. 22 Table 5 Comparison of Mean PAS Score for the Current Sample of Batterers with Previous Samples of Men Samples Mean Standard Deviation Current Sample 55.0 18.1 Self-Referred Assaultive 62.2 17.1 -2.682** .010 (Dutton, 1995b) Controls 44.7 11.7 3.816*** < .001 (Dutton, 1995b) Assaultive 66.1 33.7 -4.130*** < .001 (Dutton et al., 2001) Gay Men 46.0 12.7 3.333** .002 (Dutton etal., 2001) Clinical Outpatient 52.4 21.4 0.957 .344 (Duttonetal., 2001) College Students 47.2 18.2 2.888** .006 Note. Degrees of Freedom is 43. * t-test significant atp< .05 level, ** t-test significant at p < .01 level, *** t-test is significant aXp < .005 level. 23 Table 6 Correlations of Batterer E Q - i Total and Composite Scores with the PAS (N = 44) P Total - .446** .002 Intrapersonal Composite _ 441** .003 Interpersonal Composite - .291 .055 Adaptability Composite - .459** .002 Stress Management Composite - .329* .029 General Mood Composite - .256 .093 Note. * correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed), ** correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 24 Table 7 Correlations of Batterer EQ-i Subscale Scores and the PAS (N = 44) r p Emotional Self-Awareness - .304* .045 Assertiveness - .372* .013 Self-Regard - .410** .006 Self-Actualization -.179 .245 Independence - .298* .049 Empathy - .136 .380 Interpersonal Relationship - .209 .174 Social Responsibility -.258 .091 Problem Solving - .371* .013 Reality Testing - .504** <.001 Flexibility - .300* .048 Stress Tolerance - .253 .098 Impulse Control - .357* .017 Optimism - .161 .296 Happiness - .347* .021 Note. * correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed), ** correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 25 Appendices The BarOn EQ-i by Dr. Reuven Bar-On 26 TM Introduction The EQ-i™ consists of statements that provide you with an opportunity to describe yourself by indi-cating the degree to which each statement is true of the way you feel, think, or act most of the time and in most situations. There are five possible responses to each sentence. 1 • Very seldom or Not true of me 2 • Seldom true of me 3 - Sometimes true of me 4 - Often true of me 5 - Very often true of me or True of me Instructions Read each statement and decide which one of the five possible responses best describes you. Mark your choices on the answer sheet by filling in the circle containing the number that corresponds to your answer. If a statement does not apply to you, respond in such a way that will give the best indication of how you would possibly feel, think, or act. Although some of the sentences may not give you all the information you would like to receive, choose the response that seems the best, even if you are not sure. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers and no "good" or "bad" choices. Answer openly and honestly by indicating how you actually are and not how you would like to be or how you would like to be seen. There is no time limit, but work quickly and make sure that you consider and respond to every statement. 1. My approach in overcoming difficulties is 7. to move step by step. 8. 2. It's hard for me to enjoy life. 3. I prefer a job in which Fm told pretty much 9. what to do. It's fairly easy for me to express feelings. I try to see things as they really are, with-out fantasizing or daydreaming about them. Fm in touch with my emotions. 4. I know how to deal with upsetting problems. 10. 5. I like everyone I meet. 11. 6. I try to make my life as meaningful as I can. 12. Fm unable to show affection. I feel sure of myself in most situations. I have a feeling that something is wrong with my mind. Co—ri-fatO 1997 Mahi-HaM. Systems Inc. AB rights rocrwd. bo the United Stsses, 908 tbmgm* Frfll BML, North Tomwiod*. NY 14120-2060,1-800- 456-3003. b>CM^iTKVkiohMl^Amac,yarxXo,ONM2H3M6,1-800-268-6011.1-416-492-2627, Fn 1-416-492-3343. 1 - Very seldom or Not true of me 2 - Seldom true of me 3 - Sometimes true of me 4 - Often true of me 5 • Very often true of me or True of me 27 13. It is a problem controlling my anger. 14. It's difficult for me to begin new things. 15. When faced with a difficult situation, I like to collect all the information about it that I can. 28. It's hard for me to make adjustments in general. 29. I like to get an overview of a problem before trying to solve it. 30. It doesn't bother me to take advantage of people, especially if they deserve it. 16. I like helping people. 17. It's hard for me to smile. 18. I'm unable to understand the way other people feel. 31. I'm a fairly cheerful person. 32. I prefer others to make decisions for me. 33. I can handle stress, without getting too nervous. 34. I have good thoughts about everyone. 35. It's hard for me to understand the way I feel. 36. In the past few years, I've accomplished little. 19. When working with others, I tend to rely more on their ideas than my own. 20. I believe that I can stay on top of tough situations. 21. I really don't know what I'm good at. 22. I'm unable to express my ideas to others. 23. It's hard for me to share my deep feelings with others. 24. I lack self-confidence. 37. When I'm angry with others, I can tell them about it. 38. I have had strange experiences that can't be explained. 39. It's easy for me to make friends. 25. I think I've lost my mind. 26. I'm optimistic about most things I do. 27. When I start talking, it is hard to stop. 40. I have good self-respect. 41. I do very weird things. 42. My impulsiveness creates problems. Coovriiht O 1997 Muk>-He»lth Syttcml lnc All righa reierwd In the United StMcx, 908 NU««ri F»U. BJvd, North Too««nd«, NY 14120-2060. l-*00- 456-3003. " In C*i*i*, 3770 VSctorii P»t Avenue, Tororto, ON M2H 3M6,1-S00-268-6011,1-416-492-2627. F«x 1-416-492-3343. 1 - Very seldom or Not true of me 2 - Seldom true of me 3 - Sometimes true of me 4 • Often true of me 5 • Very often true of me or True of me 28 43. It's difficult for me to change my opinion 58. about things. 44. Fm good at understanding the way other 59. people feel. 6 Q 45. When facing a problem, the first thing I do is stop and think. People tell me to lower my voice in discussions. It's easy for me to adjust to new conditions. When trying to solve a problem, I look at each possibility and then decide on the best way. 46. Others find it hard to depend on me. 47. I am satisfied with my life. 48. It's hard for me to make decisions on my own. 49. I don't hold up well under stress. 50. I don't do anything bad in my life. 51. I don't get enjoyment from what I do. 61. I would stop and help a crying child find his or her parents, even if I had to be somewhere else at the same time. 62. I'm fun to be with. 63. Fm aware of the way I feel. 64. I feel that it's hard for me to control my anxiety. 65. Nothing disturbs me. 66. I don't get that excited about my interests. 52. It's hard to express my intimate feelings. 53. People don't understand the way I think. 54. I generally hope for the best. 67. When I disagree with someone, Fm able to say so. 68. I tend to fade out and lose contact with what happens around me. 69. I don't get along well with others. 55. My friends can tell me intimate things about themselves. 56. I don't feel good about myself. 57. I see these strange things that others don't see. 70. It's hard for me to accept myself just the way I am. 71. I feel cut off from my body. 72. I care what happens to other people. . . • ^ C«»ri«hlOJ997 Mulb-He»fth Systems hc. All rights reserved, hi the United Sum, 908 Niagara Falls Blvd, North Tonawaoda, NY 14120-2060, l-«00- 456-3003. Copynght C 1997. " " j ^ ^ r^venae, Toronto. ON M2H 3M6.1-800-268-6011.1-416-492-2627, Fo 1-416-492-3343. 3 1 - Very seldom or Not true of me 2 - Seldom true of me 3 - Sometimes true of me 4 - Often true of me 5 - Very often true of me or True of me 29 73. I'm impatient. 74. I'm able to change old habits. 75. It's hard for me to decide on the best solu-tion when solving problems. 88. Even when upset, I'm aware of what's happening to me. 89. In handling situations that arise, I try to think of as many approaches as I can. 90. I'm able to respect others. 76. If I could get away with breaking the law in certain situations, I would. 77. I get depressed. 78. I know how to keep calm in difficult situations. 79. I have not told a lie in my life. 80. Fm generally motivated to continue, even when things get difficult. 81. I try to continue and develop those things that I enjoy. 91. I'm not that happy with my life. 92. I'm more of a follower than a leader. 93. It's hard for me to face unpleasant things. 94. I have not broken a law of any kind. 95. I enjoy those things that interest me. 96 It's fairly easy for me to tell people what I think. 82. It's hard for me to say "no" when I want to. 83. I get carried away with my imagination and fantasies. 84. My close relationships mean a lot to me and to my friends. 97. I tend to exaggerate. 98. I'm sensitive to the feelings of others. 99. I have good relations with others. Fm happy with the type of person I am. I have strong impulses that are hard to control. It's generally hard for me to make changes in my daily life. 100. I feel comfortable with my body. 101. I am a very strange person. 102. Fm impulsive. r • 0 .oo, MuIti-HcW. System* Inc. All rights reserved In the United SOSes, 908 Mag*. Fills Blvd, North Toaawsnda, NY 14120-2060.1-800- 456-3003. Copyngh. O .997. " • ^ ^ ^ ' ^ J^m^ T o r o a t o , QN M2H 3M6.1-800-26W0I1. M1M92-2627. Fax M16-492-3343. 1 - Very seldom or Not true of me 2 • Seldom true of me 3 - Sometimes true of me 4 - Often true of me 5 - Very often true of me or True of me 30 103. It's hard for me to change my ways. 104. I think it's important to be a law-abiding citizen. 105. I enjoy weekends and holidays. 118. I generally get stuck when thinking about different ways of solving problems. 119. It's hard for me to see people suffer. 120. I like to have fun. 106. I generally expect things will turn out all right, despite setbacks from time to time. 107. I tend to cling to others. 108. I believe in my ability to handle most upsetting problems. 121. I seem to need other people more than they need me. 122. I get anxious. 123. I don't have bad days. 109. I have not been embarrassed for anything that Fve done. 110. I try to get as much as I can out of those things that I enjoy. 111. Others think that I lack assertiveness. 112. I can easily pull out. of daydreams and tune into the reality of the immediate situation. 113. People think that I'm sociable. 114. I'm happy with the way I look. 124. I avoid hurting other people's feelings. 125. I don't have a good idea of what I want to do in life. 126. If s difficult for me to stand up for my rights. 127. It's hard for me to keep things in the right perspective. 128. I don't keep in touch with friends. 129. Looking at both my good points and bad points, I feel good about myself. 115. I have strange thoughts that no one can understand. 116. It's hard for me to describe my feelings. 117. I've got a bad temper. 130. I tend to explode with anger easily. 131. It would be hard for me to adjust if I were forced to leave my home. 132. Before beginning something new, I usually feel that ITl fail. 133. I responded openly and honestly to the above sentences. Copyright O 1997. Moili4ic^ Syaems I i ^ ID Canada, 3770 Victoria Pwk Avenue. Toronto. ON M2H 3M6.1-800-268-6011.1-416-492-2627, Fax 1-416-492-3343. 5 31 Propensity for Abusiveness (PAS) PART 1 For each of the statements below, please circle the number to the right of the statement that most accurately describes how it applies to you, from 1 (completely undescriptive of you) to 5 (completely descriptive of you). 1 2 3 4 5 completely mostly partly mostly completely undescriptive of undescriptive of undescriptive & descriptive of descriptive of you you you partly you descriptive 1. I can make myself angry about something in the past just by thinking about it. 2. I get so angry, I feel that I might lose control. 3. If I let people see the way I feel, I'd be considered a hard person to get along with. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 PART 2 For each of the statements below, please indicate how true it is about you by circling the appropriate number. 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 never true seldom true sometimes often true always true true 4. 5. 6. I see myself in totally different ways at different times. I feel empty inside. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 I tend to feel things in a somewhat extreme way, experiencing 1 2 3 4 5 either great joy or intense despair. It is hard for me to be sure about what others think of me, even people who have known me very well. I feel people don't give me the respect I deserve unless I put pressure on them. Somehow, I never know quite how to conduct myself with people. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 32 PART 3 Please read each of the following statements and rate the extent to which it describes your feelings about romantic relationships by circling the appropriate number. Think about all of your romantic relationships, past and present, and respond in terms of how you generally feel in these relationships. Not at all like me Somewhat like me Very much like me 1 2 3 4 5 10. I find it difficult to depend on other people. 1 2 3 4 5 11. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close 1 2 3 4 5 to others. 12. I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others. 1 2 3 4 5 PART 4 How often have you experienced each of the following in the last two months? Please circle the appropriate number. 0 1 2 3 never occasionally fairly often very often 13. Insomnia (trouble getting to sleep) 0 ' 2 3 14. Restless sleep 0 - 2 3 15. Nightmares 0 2 3 16. Anxiety attacks 0 ' 2 3 17. Fear of women 0 2 3 18. Feeling tense all the time 0 ' 2 3 19. Having trouble breathing 0 2 3 33 PART 5 Beside each statement, please circle the number of the response listed below that best describes how often the experience happened to you with your mother (or female guardian) and father (or male guardian) when you were growing up. If you had more than one mother/father figure, please answer for the persons who you feel played the most important role in your upbringing. 1 2 3 4 never occurred occasionally occurred often occurred always occurred Father or Guardian Mother or Guardian 20. My parent punished me even for small offenses. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 21. As a child I was physically punished or scolded in the presence of others. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 22. My parent gave me more corporal (physical) punishment than I deserved. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 23. I felt my parent thought it was my fault when he/she was unhappy. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 24. I think my parent was mean and grudging toward me. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 25. I was punished by my parent without having done anything 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 26. My parent criticized me and told me how lazy and useless I was in front of others. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 27. My parent would punish me hard, even for trifles. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 28. My parent treated me in such a way that I felt ashamed. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 29. I was beaten by my parent. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 34 Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) INSTRUCTIONS: Using the scale below as a guide, please circle the number beside each statement to indicate how true it is. Not True | Somewhat True I Very True 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. My first impressions of people usually turn 1 out to be right. 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. It would be hard for me to break any of my bad habits. 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I don't care to know what other people 1 really think of me. 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. I have not always been honest with myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. 1 always know why 1 like things. 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. When my emotions are aroused, it biases 1 my thinking. 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Once I've made up my mind, other people 1 can seldom change my opinion. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. 1 am not a safe driver when 1 exceed the 1 speed limit. 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. I am fully in control of my own fate. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. It's hard for me to shut off a disturbing 1 thought. 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. 1 never regret my decisions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. 1 sometimes lose out on things because 1 1 can't make up my mind soon enough. 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. The reason 1 vote is because my vote can 1 make a difference. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. My parents were not always fair when they 1 punished me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 35 Not True | Somewhat True I Very True 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. I am a completely rational person. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. I rarely appreciate criticism. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. 1 am very confident of my judgments. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. 1 have sometimes doubted my ability as a lover. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. It's all right with me if some people happen to dislike me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. 1 don't always know the reasons why 1 do the things 1 do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. 1 sometimes tell lies if 1 have to. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. 1 never cover up my mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. There have been occasions when 1 have taken advantage of someone. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. 1 never swear. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. 1 sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. 1 always obey laws, even if I'm unlikely to get caught. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. 1 have said something bad about a friend behind his/her back. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. When 1 hear people talking privately, 1 avoid listening. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. 1 have received too much change from a salesperson without telling him or her. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. 1 always declare everything at customs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31. When 1 was young 1 sometimes stole things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 36 Not True | Somewhat True I Very True 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 32. I have never dropped litter on the streets. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 33. 1 sometimes drive faster than the speed 1 limit. 2 3 4 5 6 7 34. 1 never read sexy books or magazines. ' 2 3 4 5 6 7 35. 1 have done things that 1 don't tell other 1 people about. 2 3 4 5 6 7 36. I have never taken things that don't belong 1 to me. 2 3 4 5 6 7 37. I have taken sick-leave from work or school 1 even though I wasn't really sick. 2 3 4 5 6 7 38. I have never damaged a library book or 1 store merchandise without reporting it. 2 3 4 5 6 7 39. I have some pretty awful habits. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 40. I don't gossip about other people's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 business. 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items