154

Examining the Structure of the Trait Meta-Mood Scale

Benjamin Palmer, Gilles Gignac, Timothy Bates and Con Stough
Swinburne University, Australia

Despite the development of numerous measures of emotional intelligence, there is a lack of independent
research substantiating their psychometric properties. In the present paper, exploratory factor analysis
and structural equation modelling were used to assess the factorial and construct validity of the Trait Meta-
Mood Scale (TMMS; Salovey Mayer, Goldman, Turvey, & Palfai, 1995). In a general population sample
(n = 310), the three factors (Attention, Clarity and Repair) were replicated, although support for a fourth
factor was also found. Support was also found for the construct validity of the emotional management
competency assessed by the TMMS. Overall, the findings support the Attention, Clarity and Repair decom-
position of the TMMS. Directions for further validation of the TMMS and the construct of emotional intelli-
gence are discussed.

ince Salovey and Mayer's (1990) conceptualisation of
emotional intelligence (EI), the construct has generated
wide spread interest and attention. Several different models of
El now exist (e.g., Bar-On, 1997; Cooper & Sawaf, 1997;
Goleman, 1995; Mayer & Salovey, 1997) and a number
of assessment measures have been developed (Mayer, Salovey
& Caruso, 2000). To-date, several self-report measures and an
objective measure of EI, for which there are right and wrong
answers to emotion-related questions based on consensual
responses, have been developed (e.g., the Bar-On Emotional
Quotient Inventory [Bar-On EQ-i] Bar-On, 1997; the Trait
Meta-Mood Scale [TMMS], Salovey, Mayer, Goldman,
Turvey, & Palfai, 1995; Schutte, et al., 1998; the Mayer,
Salovey, Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, [MSCEIT],
Mayer, Salovey, & Caurso, 1999). Despite these develop-
ments, little is known about the measurement of EI (Salovey,
Bedwell, Detweiler, & Mayer, 2000). Psychometric evalua-
tions are scarce and relatively few independent studies have
examined or confirmed the measurement properties reported
by the test authors. In the present paper, we report a replicative
effort of the factorial and construct validity of the TMMS
(Salovey et al., 1995).
The TMMS has been developed from research on reflective
processes that accompany mood states (e.g., Mayer &
Gaschke, 1988; Mayer, Salovey, Gomberg-Kaufman, &
Blainey, 1991; Mayer & Stevens, 1994). This research has
identified an " ... ongoing process associated with moods
whereby individuals continually reflect upon their feelings,
monitoring, evaluating, and regulating them..." termed the
meta-mood experience (Salovey et al., 1995 p. 127). Drawing
from this work, the TMMS is comprised of 30 items that
define three subscales based on factor analysis by Salovey
et al. (1995). These are labelled Attention to Feelings (e.g.,
"I pay a lot of attention to my feelings"); Clarity of Feelings
(e.g., "I am usually very clear about my feelings"); and Mood
Repair (e.g., "Although I am sometimes sad, I have a mostly
optimistic outlook"). As a measure of El. the TMMS assesses
one of the higher order, more complex, competencies of
EI proposed by Mayer and Salovey (1997), specifically, the
ability to effectively regulate and manage one's emotions.
However, the TMMS measures individuals' perceived ability
to effectively regulate and manage emotions as opposed
to their actual capacity or level of emotional intelligence
(Salovey et al., 2000).
Preliminary psychometric analysis of the TMMS by Salovey
et al. (1995) suggests that this scale may provide a reliable and
valid self-report index of the ability to monitor and manage
emotions. Salovey et al. (1995) report that each of the three
subscales of the TMMS measure something coherent and inter-
nally consistent (coefficient a = .86, .88, .82 for Attention to
Feelings, Clarity of Feelings and Mood Repair respectively),
and demonstrate evidence of both convergent and discriminant
validity. Attention to Feelings was found to correlate positively
with the tendency to attend to aspects of ongoing conscious-
ness as measured by the Private Self-Consciousness and Public
Self-Consciousness subscales of the Self-Consciousness Scale
(SCS; Scheier & Carver, 1985), r = .42, r = .36 p < .01 respec-
tively). Clarity of Feelings was found to correlate negatively
with ambivalence over emotional expression and with depres-
sion, r = -. 25, r = .-. 27, p < .05 respectively. Finally,
Mood Repair was found to negatively correlate with depres-
sion, and to positively correlate with optimism and beliefs
about the changeability of negative moods as measured by the
CES-D r = .37, p < .01 (Radloff, 1997), the Life Orientation
Test r = .57, p < .01 (LOT; Scheier & Carver, 1985), and
the Expectancies for Negative Mood Regulation r = .53,
p < .01 (NMR; Catanzaro & Mearns, 1990). Collectively,
these psychometric properties suggest that the TMMS
has potential utility as a measure of the capacity to monitor
and manage emotions.
In order to confirm this utility, further psychometric scrutiny
of the TMMS is needed. The dimensional structure of psycho-
logical tests is one of the most rudimentary psychometric
properties (Kline, 2000). There have been several independent
psychometric evaluations of the TMMS confirming its re-
lationship with ambivalence over emotional expression and
depression (Lee, & Lee, 1998; Martinez-Pons, 1997). Further-
more, independent studies have also found scores on the test
to be related positively to measures of life satisfaction
(Martinez-Pons, 1997; Palmer, Donaldson, & Stough, 2002).
However, to-date, Salovey et al. (1995) are the only re-
searchers to have examined the dimensional structure of the
TMMS. Martinez-Pons (1997) proposed a functional sequence
of the emotional management construct. Specifically, that
clarity of feelings (Clarity) would not be possible without
attention to feelings (Attention); and that the capacity to repair
negative moods and emotions (Repair) would not be possible
unless emotions were experienced clearly (Clarity). Using path

Address for correspondence: Professor Con Stough, Centre for Neuropsychology, School of Biophysical Sciences and Electrical Engineering, Swinburne
University of Technology, PO Box 218 Hawthorn VIC 3122, Australia. Email: cstoughswin.edu.au

I Australian Journal of Psychology Vol. 55, No. 3, 2003 pp. 154- 158 - -

analytic methodology, Martinez-Pons (1997) found evidence
for this proposed functional sequence of the construct assessed
by the TMMS x2 (108) = 1.73, p = ns. However, the three
factors Attention, Clarity and Repair and the functional
sequence proposed by Martinez-Pons (1997) have not been
further examined. Further replica studies are necessary to
establish the factorial validity of EI instruments such as the
TMMS.
We performed an exploratory principal components factor
analysis of the TMMS with a sample taken from the general
population. We also used structural equation modelling to
assess the functional sequence of the construct the TMMS
assesses as proposed by Martinez-Pons (1997). It was expected
that the three-factor model and functional sequence would be
confirmed by these analyses. The resolution of the three-factor
structure and functional sequence would provide additional
support for factorial validity of the TMMS and the construct
validity of the emotional management competency of EI it has
been purported to assess.
METHOD
Participants
The sample comprised 310 participants, (221 females,
86 males, 3 unreported) ranging in age from 15 to 79 years
with a mean age of 39.42 years (SD = 13.81). The ethnic
composition of the sample was relatively representative
of the Australian population with the majority being White/
Caucasian Australians (72.5%), White/Caucasian immigrants
(17%), and Asian or of Pacific Islander decent (9.5%).
In comparison to the Australian population, the sample
was slightly above average in education. Two point one per
cent had completed primary school education only, 22.9% had
completed secondary school education only, 20.5% had
completed a tertiary certificate/diploma, 30.8% had completed
an undergraduate degree, and 21.2% had completed
a postgraduate degree. Participants were recruited for the
study via advertisements in local newspapers and received a
small stipend for participating.
Materials
Trait-Meta Mood Scale (TMMS; Salovey et al., 1995). We
used the 30-item version of the TMMS as recommended by
Salovey et al. (1995). Participants responded on a 5-point scale
where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. Total and
subscale scores were derived by summing the item responses.
Procedure
Participants self-administered the questionnaire in their own
time and were debriefed afterwards where possible.
RESULTS
The means (and standard deviations in parentheses) for the
Attention, Clarity and Repairs sub scales were 51 (7.9), 42.5
(7.9), 23.2 (4.3) respectively. The means and standard devia-
tions of the present sample were very similar to a sample
of United States (US) Air Force recruits, but significantly
higher than a sample of first year psychology students on the
Clarity, M = 35.21 SD(8.65) t(l, 408) = 7.87, p < .05, d = .90,
and Repair M = 20.53 SD(5.0) t(l, 408) = 5.18, p < .05 d = .60
sub scales (Davies, Stankov & Roberts 1998). The means
and standard deviations of the present sample provide some
of the first Australian general population norms for the
TMMS and indicate that there may be differences between
sub-populations.
Australian Journal of Psychology - December 2003
Examining the Structure of the Trait Meta-Mood Scale 155
ExploratoryAnalysis
To determine the correct number of factors to extract from the
data set, a parallel analysis (Principal Components Analysis)
was performed using the procedure provided by O'Connor
(2000). There is an emerging consensus in the factor analytic
literature that two decision strategies, Parallel Analysis
and the Minimum Average Partial method (i.e., Velicer, 1976),
are substantially more accurate than competing algorithms
(i.e., the Kaiser Criterion and maximum-likelihood based
fit statistics) for determining the correct number of factors
to extract from a data set (Velicer, Eaton, & Fava, 2000;
Zwick & Velicer, 1986). The parallel analysis suggested that
four factors should be extracted as shown in Figure 1.
These four factors accounted for 47.87% of the variance
in the data set with factors 1 through 4 accounting for 23.54%,
11.71%, 6.64%, and 5.98% of the variance respectively.
To further assess the dimensional structure of the TMMS these
four factors were rotated according to an oblique rotation
(Direct Oblimin with Kaiser Normalisation). The resulting
factor (pattern matrix) loadings are shown in Table 1.
The first three factors of the present data closely replicated
the Clarity, Attention and Repair factors of the TMMS
as reported by Salovey et al. (1995). The first factor corre-
sponded to the Clarity of Feelings subscale, the highest
loading item being "I almost always know exactly how I am
feeling". The second factor replicated the Attention to Feelings
subscale the highest loading item being "It is usually a waste
of time to think about your emotions." The third factor corre-
sponded to the Mood Repair subscale with the highest loading
item being "No matter how badly I feel, I try to think about
pleasant things". The results of the present study also
suggested the existence of a possible fourth factor within the
TMMS. Six items loaded significantly on this fourth factor;
however, only two of these items (14, and 9) loaded signifi-
cantly on the fourth factor alone. The internal consistency
estimates (Cronbach's alpha) for these four factors were
largely respectable: Clarity (a = .87), Attention ( = .84) and
Mood Repair (a = .71), with the exception of the fourth factor
(ac = .62) not achieving the criterion of > .70 (Kline, 2000).
Structural Equation Modelling
Given the discrepancy between the present findings and previ-
ous dimensional analyses of the TMMS (i.e., four-verses-three
primary factors), we decided to assess the goodness of fit of a
E
a
a,
D
a
.c
w2
0
PCA
Parallelanalysis
Eingenvalue number
Figure I
Scree plot of eigenvalues derived from the parallel
and principal component analysis.
156 Benjamin Palmer, Gilles Gignac, Timothy Bates and Con Stough

Table I 1998). Also, the RMSEA value of .103 is larger than the
Factor (pattern matrix) Loadings of Principal Components allowable value of .05 (Byrne, 2001). In contrast, all four of
Analysis with Oblimin Rotation for the TMMS the last models assessed demonstrated good fit based on the
Kline adjustment values. Further, the CFI values for these four
Item Factor I Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 models were all comfortably above the recognised critical
value of .95 (Byrne, 2001). Finally, the RMSEA values for all
30 .848
four models approach the critical value of .05 (Byrne, 2001).
25 .820 -.111 Thus, taken as a whole, the general factor model can be
16 .752 .197 rejected outright, in favour of three and/or four factor models.
5 .736 Further, the models based on oblique (correlated) factors
28 .699 .119 represented the data more accurately (as suggested by their
respective fit indices as shown in Table 2) than orthogonal
6 .682 -.122 (uncorrelated) factors.
15 .576 .172 -.117 All of the correlations between the factors were positive and
22 .574 .219 statistically significant as shown in Figure 2. The correlation
20 .434 .335 .227 between Attention and Clarity (r = .39) and Clarity and Repair
(r = .50) are both distinctively larger than the correlation
11 .338 .246 .284 between Attention and Repair (r = .12), suggesting a sequen-
29 .720 .136 tial model of emotional intelligence. To further test this
17 .705 hypothesis, a structural equation model was tested to deter-
23 .184 .655 -.123 -.106 mine if Clarity mediated the relationship between Attention
and Repair as proposed by Martinez-Pons (1997). As shown in
24 .645 -.425
Figure 2, the hypothesis of mediation was supported, with the
21 .174 .629 -.327 correlation of r =.12, p < .05 being reduced to a non-signifi-
18 .581 .116 cant value of r = -.05 ns, replicating the results of Martinez-
2 .560 -.183 .206 Pons (1997). With the path from Attention to Repair omitted,
the fit indices differed from the three oblique factors model
7 .556 .254 -.250
minimally by only decimal points ( = 953.18; Kline Adjust-
27 .553 .273 ment 2.37; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .067).
4 .551
DISCUSSION
10 .544 .209 -.150
The findings of the current study support the Attention, Clarity
3 .457 .242
and Repair subscale structure of the TMMS as reported by
12 .296 .183 -.229 Salovey et al. (1995) in an Australian general population
26 -.135 .798 sample. Evidence for a fourth factor was found; however, only
I .741 two items loaded independently on this fourth factor. Confir-
matory analyses suggested that both three- and four-factor
13 -.125 .707
models provided a good fit with the present data. The discrep-
8 .174 .534 .369 ancy between the three-factor dimensional structure of the
14 .212 .666 TMMS reported by Salovey et al. (1995) and the exploratory
9 .170 .188 .580 four-factor model of the present study may be attributable to
differences in the samples assessed. Subject sample size,
19 .197 .378 .516
variable sample size, and variations in the gender, social
Note: Factor loadings have been sorted ascending and those > .3 1 classes, levels of education and other such sampling parame-
are in bold text. ters can all affect factor pattern reproduction (Velicer & Fava,
1998). Indeed, the dimensional analysis of the TMMS reported
by Salovey et al. (1995) was based on a sample size of 200
range of structural models for the data using confirmatory American individuals as apposed to the 310 Australian partici-
factor analysis (AMOS; Arbuckle, 1999). Five models were pants in the present study. Furthermore, the means of the
tested (a) a General Factor model; (b) an orthogonal three- present sample were found to differ significantly from a
factor model; (c) an oblique three-factor model; (d) an orthog- sample of first year psychology students on the Clarity and
onal four-factor model; and (e) an oblique four-factor model. Repair subscales. This finding highlights potential differences
As can be seen in Table 2, the General Factor model did not in the way sub-populations respond to the TMMS and the need
satisfy the Kline adjustment critical value of less than 3 (Kline, to establish sub-population and cross cultural norms for the

Table 2
Goodness of Fit Indices for the Five Different Models of the TMMS Assessed

General Three Three Four Four

Factor Orthogonal Oblique Orthogonal Oblique
Factors Factors Factors Factors
X2 1727.37 1037.64 952.75 897.01 781.92
Kline adjust 4.27 2.56 2.37 2.25 1.99
CFI .951 .977 .980 .982 .986
RMSEA .103 .070 .067 .064 .057
- ----

Australian Journal of Psychology - December 2003


* =p<.05; ** = p<.001
Figure 2
Structural equation model depicting the mediating effect of Clarity on the relationship between Attention and Repair.
scale. Although the present data provides some of the first
general population norms for the TMMS more Australian
normative data for this scale is needed.
The findings of the current study also provided support for
the three-phase functional sequence of the emotional manage-
ment competency of EI assessed by the TMMS (Martinez-
Pons, 1997). In the confirmatory analyses, oblique (correlated)
three and four-factor models provided better fit statistics than
orthogonal (uncorrelated) factor models. Indeed, the correla-
tions between the Attention, Clarity and Repair factors
assessed in the oblique three-factor model were all positive
and significant. Furthermore, the relationship between the
Attention and Repair factors was found to be mediated
by Clarity. This finding provides support for the notion
proposed by Martinez-Pons (1997), that clarity of feelings is
not possible without attention to feelings, and that emotional
repair is not possible unless one is clear about the moods and
emotions they are experiencing.
The dimensions assessed by the TMMS, have a strong
theoretical basis from research on the reflective processes that
accompany mood states, and empirical evidence for Attention,
Clarity and Repair as components of emotional monitoring and
management is mounting. However, future research needs
to replicate the extent to which the TMMS is related to other
measures of mood and emotional management, and to deter-
mine the extent to which it correlates with measures of person-
ality such as the NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and other
emotional dispositions (i.e., general affectivity and optimism).
Comparative research examining the value of the TMMS
and other measures of emotional monitoring and management
over and above normal personality and other constructs (stress
tolerance, adaptability, charisma) in predicting theoretically
related life criteria (i.e., life satisfaction, interpersonal success)
would also be of much value. A comparison of the TMMS and
the performance-based or objective, Emotional Management
sub scales of the MSCEIT (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 1999),
may help delineate whether this aspect of EI is best assessed
with self-report or performance based measures.
Whether EI is best assessed with performance-based or self-
report scales is currently unknown. Indeed little is known
about the measurement of EI and much more psychometric
research on existing scales is needed. In particular independent
research is required to evaluate claims made by test publishers
concerning the reliability and validity of EI scales.
Australian Journal of Psychology - December 2003
Examining the Structure of the Trait Meta-Mood Scale I 57
REFERENCES
Arbuckle, J.L (1999). Amos 4.01. Chicago: SmallWaters Corp.
Bar-On, R. (1997). Emotional Quotient Inventory: Technical manual.
Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Byrne, B. (2001). Structural Equation Modelling with AMOS: Basic
concepts, applications, and programming. Manwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Catanzaro, S.J., & Mearns, J. (1990). Measuring generalized expectancies
for negative mood regulation: Initial scale development and implica-
tions. Journalof PersonalityAssessment, 54, 546-563.
Cooper, R.K., & Sawaf, A. (1997). Executive EQ: Emotional intelligence
in leadership and organisations.Grosset/Putnum: New York
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO PersonalityInventory
(NEO-PIR) and NEO Five-FactorInventory professional manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. (1998). Emotional intelligence:
In search of an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75, 989-1015.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Kline, R.B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equations
modelling. New York: The Guildford Press.
Kline, P. (2000). A psychometrics primer. London: Free Association
Books.
Lee, S.J., & Lee, H.K. (1998). The research on the validation of the Trait
Meta-Mood Scale: The domain exploration of emotional intelligence.
Korean Journalof Social &PersonalityPsychology, 11, 95-116.
Martinez-Pons, M. (1997). The relation of emotional intelligence with
selected areas of personal functioning. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 17, 3-14.
Mayer, J.D., & Gaschke, Y.N. (1988). The experience and meta-experi-
ence of mood. Journal of personality and social psychology, 55,
102-111.
Mayer, J., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P.
Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional
intelligence: Implicationsfor educators (pp. 3-31). New York: Basic-
books, Inc.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., &Caruso, D.R. (1999). Working Manualfor the
MSCEIT Research Version 1.1. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health
Systems.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso (2000). Models of emotional
intelligence. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence.
(pp. 396-420) New York: Cambridge.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., Gomberg-Kaufman, S., & Blainey, K. (1991).
A broader conception of mood experience. Journalof Personalityand
Social Psychology, 60, 100-111.
Mayer, J.D., & Stevens, A.A. (1994). An emerging understanding of the
reflective (meta-) experience of mood. Journalof Research in Person-
ality, 28, 351-373.
O'Connor, P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the
number of components using parallel analysis and Velicier's MAP
test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 32(3),
396-402.
158 Benjamin Palmer, Gilles Gignac, Timothy Bates and Con Stough
Palmer, B.R., Donaldson, K., &Stough, C. (2002). Emotional Intelligence
and Life Satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 33,
1091-1100.
Radloff, L.S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for
research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measure-
ment, 1, 385-401.
Salovey, P., Bedell, B.T., Detweiler, J.B., & Mayer, J.D. (2000). Current
directions in emotional intelligence research. In M. Lewis & J.M.
Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 504-511).
New York: Guilford Press.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination,
Cognitionand Personality, 9, 185-21 1.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J., Goldman, S., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. (1995).
Emotional attention, clarity and repair: Exploring emotional intelli-
gence using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. In J.W. Pennebaker (Ed.),
Emotion, disclosure, and health (pp. 125-154) Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health:
Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies.
Health Psychology, 4. 219-247.
Australian Journal of Psychology - December 2003
Schutte, N., Malouff, J., Hall, L., Haggerty, D., Cooper, J., Golden, C..
& Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure
of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences,
25, 167-177
Velicer, W.F. (1976). Determining the number of components from
the matrix of partial correlations. Multivariate Behavioural Research,
12, 3-22.
Velicer, W.F., Eaton, C.A., & Fava, J.L. (2000). Construct explication
through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation
of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors
or components. In R.D. Goffen & Helmes, E. (Eds.), Problems
and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at
seventy (pp. 41-71). Norwell, MA, US: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Velicer, W.F., &Fava, J.L. (1998). Affects of variable and subject sampling
on factor pattern recovery. PsychologicalMethods, 3. 231-251.
Zwick, W.R., &Velicer, W.F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for deter-
mining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin,
99, 432-442