See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327165882

Social–Emotional Expertise (SEE) Scale: Development and Initial Validation

Article  in  Assessment · August 2018

DOI: 10.1177/1073191118794866

CITATIONS READS
13 1,482

3 authors, including:

Marcus Wild Jo-Anne Bachorowski

Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University
14 PUBLICATIONS   123 CITATIONS    51 PUBLICATIONS   3,899 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jo-Anne Bachorowski on 07 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

794866
research-article2018
ASMXXX10.1177/1073191118794866AssessmentMcBrien et al.

Article
Assessment

Social–Emotional Expertise (SEE) Scale:

1–13
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Development and Initial Validation sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1073191118794866
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118794866
journals.sagepub.com/home/asm

Ashley McBrien1,2, Marcus Wild1, and Jo-Anne Bachorowski1

Abstract
Social–emotional expertise (SEE) represents a synthesis of specific cognitive abilities related to social interactions, and
emphasizes the timing and synchrony of behaviors that contribute to overall social–emotional ability. As a step toward
SEE construct validation, we conducted three experiments to develop a self-report measure that captured key elements
of our conceptualization of SEE. In Experiment 1, we generated and tested 76 items for a measure of SEE. The resultant
25-item scale is reliable, test–retest: r(80) = .82, p < .001, and internally consistent (Cronbach’s α = .90). Experiments 2
and 3 examined the relationships between the SEE Scale and related constructs. Convergent constructs, such as emotional
intelligence, r(885) = .62, p < .01, and social anxiety, r(885) = −.59, p < .01, and discriminant constructs, such as social
desirability, r(885) = .19, p < .01, and self-monitoring, r(885) = .28, p < .01, were found to be related in the expected
directions. Additionally, two factors were statistically identified: Adaptability and Expressivity. The items contributing to
each factor describe the ability to successfully navigate social environments and the ability to successfully convey affect and
ideas to other people, respectively. These factors correlate with related constructs in distinct and theoretically relevant
ways.

Keywords
social ability, social–emotional interactions, affect, scale development

In daily life, it is clear that the ease with which people inter-
act with others is subject to individual differences: Some
people handle social situations fluently, whereas others are
less proficient. One approach to understanding such differ-
ences has been to use constructs which attempt to character-
ize the cognitive and affect-related processes that
presumably underlie social behavior. “Emotional intelli-
gence” (EI; Salovey & Mayer, 1990), “social intelligence”
(SI; Sternberg & Smith, 1985; R. L. Thorndike & Stein,
1937), “empathy” (Davis, 1983; Lawrence, Shaw, Baker,
Baron-Cohen, & David, 2004), and “interpersonal sensitiv-
ity” (IS; Hall & Bernieri, 2001) are four such constructs. As
they are typically described, these constructs focus on the
accurate processing of social cues and the use of those cues
to inform future behavior. However, these constructs do not
focus on the actual behaviors that facilitate interactions and
convey socially meaningful cues.
To bridge this gap in understanding between prosocial
cognition and behavior, we propose the construct of “Social–
Emotional Expertise” (SEE). As conceptualized here, SEE
involves the coordination of affect-related gestures and
vocalizations, with an emphasis on the quality and temporal
dynamics of these signals. SEE is thought to include automa-
ticity in response to social signals (Spunt & Lieberman,
2013), with little in the way of conscious deliberation required
for the smooth navigation of social encounters. The responses
themselves are collectively thought of as a “toolkit” of affect-
related behaviors that taken together, enhance the quality of
interactions. To illustrate, consider your reaction to a joke
told by an acquaintance. Determining that what your acquain-
tance just said was a joke, what the joke means, why your
acquaintance just made the joke, and what your acquaintance
may be feeling having made this joke are comfortably within
the purview of constructs such as EI and IS. The particulars
of your response, and the timing in response to your acquain-
tance, is the essence of SEE. Awareness of this acquaintance’s
feelings and knowledge of how to best respond to those feel-
ings is important, but the key component of a high-quality
interaction is how that understanding is then translated into
prosocial behavior. Knowing how and when to laugh at a
good joke, how to respond when the joke is bad or offensive,
and timing the response so that the quality of the interaction
does not suffer unduly would all be SEE skills. Conversely,
1
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA
2
Marian University, Nashville, TN, USA
Corresponding Author:
Jo-Anne Bachorowski, Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University,
PMB 407817, 2301 Vanderbilt Place, Nashville, TN 37240-7817, USA.
Email: j.a.bachorowski@vanderbilt.edu
2 Assessment 00(0)
poor timing and inappropriate volume of your laughter, inap-
propriate timing or duration of eye contact, or a lack of
acknowledgement of the joke altogether, would represent a
lack of SEE skills being utilized in the interaction. In these
ways, the timing and use of behavior is directly tied to the
quality of the interaction taking place.
Associated Constructs
We expect there to be moderate associations among SEE
and conceptually related constructs. In particular, SEE has
considerable conceptual overlap with some characteriza-
tions of both EI and IS. EI is itself an umbrella concept that
encompasses many terms (e.g., “people skills”; Goldenberg,
Matheson, & Mantler, 2006), and is most consistently
described as being composed of perception and understand-
ing of emotions and emotion-related signals in oneself and
others (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003). The
original EI model consists of four branches: (a) understand-
ing emotions, emotional language, and emotion-related sig-
nals; (b) accurate perception of emotions in self and others;
(c) management of emotions for goal attainment; and (d)
use of emotions to facilitate thinking (Mayer & Salovey,
1997; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008). Of the four
branches, it is anticipated that the first two might be most
closely related to SEE in that variety of emotionally expres-
sive behaviors and perceptive ability affect the quality of
interactions; those who are higher in EI in these two
domains may also be higher in SEE.
SI was first described by E. L. Thorndike (1920), along
with abstract and mechanical intelligence, as one of three
subcomponents of overall intelligence. Due to SI’s strong
correlation with verbal intelligence, R. L. Thorndike and
Stein (1937) declared that the verbally based attempts to
generate the construct were missing key aspects of ecologi-
cal validity to support the idea of a distinct SI. Since that
time, the SI construct has been given a variety of defini-
tions, including the application of general intelligence to
social situations (Wechsler, 1958), the ability to understand
other people (Barnes & Sternberg, 1989), and the ability to
have successful interactions with others (Ford & Tisak,
1983). Similar to EI, the fundamental discrepancy among
definitions of SI is whether it is defined as a cognitive abil-
ity, like general intelligence, or as a personality characteris-
tic or trait. Measures of SI have been found to be
indistinguishable from general intelligence on verbal tasks.
The two constructs are, however, distinguishable in nonver-
bal behaviors (Kihlstrom & Cantor, 2000), an empirical
outcome that bears on SI’s relation to SEE. This divergence
of SI and IQ in nonverbal behavior is indicative of the key
role that behavior, separately from verbal intelligence, plays
in the quality of social interactions. Since the early 1990’s,
SI has been seen as the overarching construct under which
other constructs such as EI are subcomponents (Mayer &
Salovey, 1993). From this, we tentatively consider SEE to
be related to SI in a similar way to how SEE is hypothesized
to be related to EI, with SEE being most closely associated
with the nonverbal behavioral component of SI which has
been shown to be most distinct from abstract intelligence.
Accounts of SI in the popular press are even closer to our
conceptualization of SEE. Goleman’s (2007) account of SI is
perhaps the most widely known, and demonstrates this simi-
larity quite nicely. He proposed a dual-factor construction of
SI composed of social awareness and social facility. Social
awareness is presented as the cognitive component of SI,
while social facility is proposed to encompass the behavioral
manifestations of social awareness that allows for smooth,
effective interactions. Our conceptualization of SEE tracks
closely with what Goleman has proposed as the core of SI.
However, while the ideas presented by Goleman are logically
supported by empirical work in other areas, such as cognitive
neuroscience, the constructs that he proposed comprise SI are
theoretically but not empirically driven. SEE represents a
similar theoretical perspective, but we seek to empirically
evaluate the behaviors and cognitive mechanisms that under-
pin successful social interactions. “Social awareness” closely
resembles the cognitive components proposed as part of SEE,
and is more reflective of the SI construct as it has been pro-
posed and tested by others in the field, while “social facility”
resembles the behavioral components of SEE, but is not at all
reflective of SI as it has been empirically defined. SI has been,
by the very nature of being labeled an intelligence, restricted
to the cognitive abilities involved in understanding social situ-
ations. To involve behavioral components that require the
translation of understanding into actions moves beyond the
realm of an intelligence and into the domain of expertise. SEE
is therefore proposed as a construct to account for the transi-
tion from understanding to behavior that SI cannot.
Empathy has been a long-standing focus of research on
successful interactions (e.g., Davis, 1980; Singer, 2006).
Yet as a construct, it has been difficult to define. The con-
temporary conceptualization of empathy, based on work
conducted by Davis (1983, 1994), uses a multidimensional
approach, with a cognitive understanding of another’s expe-
rience and the emotional reaction to the experiences of oth-
ers being two key components. The interpersonal reactivity
index (Davis, 1980) was a seminal measure in quantifying
the multidimensional nature of empathy, with four primary
factors identified: perspective taking, fantasy, empathic
concern, and personal distress. These four factors encapsu-
late the qualities typically associated with empathy, and
allow for these dimensions to be explored psychometrically
(for related work, see Carré, Stefaniak, D’Ambrosio,
Bensalah, & Besche-Richard, 2013; Lawrence et al., 2004).
However, despite its many iterations and dimensions, con-
ceptualizations of empathy all retain the core attribute of
being an internal response to the perception of another’s
experience. While empathy is no doubt vital for having
McBrien et al.
smooth and productive social interactions, its various
descriptions do not provide a mechanism by which it can be
translated into high-quality interactions. SEE offers a
hypothesized avenue through which social cognition is real-
ized in the quality of an interaction through behavioral
expression.
IS is a fourth construct for which we expect some asso-
ciations with SEE. IS most typically refers to “the ability to
accurately assess other people’s abilities, states, and traits
from nonverbal cues” (Kenny, 2004; Montepare, 2004;
Snodgrass, Hecht, & Ploutz-Snyder, 1998). To date, most
research on IS has been primarily concerned with the accu-
racy of judgments concerning character attributes and emo-
tional states of others (Kenny, 1994); these judgments
presumably then affect how those making the judgments
react to others (Gore, 2009). This ability to make accurate
inferences about others’ emotional states and characteristics,
as well as showing an overall awareness of social situations,
could conceivably be related to SEE: Such judgments inform
responses to a wide range of emotion-related circumstances
with a variety of individuals. Much like EI and empathy, IS
has been predominantly defined by the cognitive elements of
social interactions. Unlike EI and empathy, IS has also been
associated with behavior through constructs such as rapport
(Hall & Bernieri, 2001; Tickle-Degnen & Rosenthal, 1987),
thereby establishing a link between self-reports of behavior
and third-party ratings of that behavior (Bernieri, Gillis,
Davis, & Grahe, 1996). A vital test of SEE as a valid con-
struct will be whether self-report ratings of the cognitive ele-
ments of SEE are associated with higher interaction quality
as rated by third-party observers.
Standard measures of the aforementioned constructs rely
heavily on both the accuracy of judgments and the ability to
correctly label emotions (Ambady, LaPlante, & Johnson,
2001; Hall, DiMatteo, Rogers, & Archer, 1979; Mayer et al.,
2003). Although SEE is expected to have some degree of
association with these constructs, our current conceptualiza-
tion is that SEE, while still incorporating accuracy, is more
concerned with the quality and temporal dynamics of non-
verbal behaviors during social interactions. Key to this
emphasis on quality and temporal dynamics is the concept of
fluency. Fluency has many meanings, but typically includes
the concepts of ease of use and/or ease of retrieval from
memory (Evans, 2008; Jacoby, Kelley, & Dywan, 1989;
Kuhn & Stahl, 2003). Applying the definition of fluency in
linguistics (i.e., the ability to use language accurately, auto-
matically, and with prosody; Kuhn, Schwanenflugel, &
Meisinger, 2010) to social interactions, we find an excellent
starting point for how we conceptualize SEE.
Just as in language, social interactions are of the highest
quality when the appropriate tone and rhythm are used
(dynamics), both people show a level of understanding of
one another (accuracy), and responses are delivered without
extensive deliberation (automatic). While the accuracy
3
component of SEE is less central to SEE than for EI and IS,
we nonetheless consider accuracy to be an important aspect
of SEE. Specifically, we posit that accuracy is a necessary
but not sufficient condition for SEE. This position concern-
ing accuracy therefore represents a point of potential over-
lap with associated constructs. What arguably differentiates
SEE, however, are the behavioral manifestations of accu-
rate social cognition. Namely, what are the specific behav-
iors and corresponding timing of those behaviors that are
most closely predictive of high-quality social–emotional
interactions? This is the question that we hope to answer
with SEE. We speculate that SEE might be well-described
as a “social–emotional toolkit,” composed of affect-related
behaviors that promote higher quality interactions when
used with optimal timing. Relative to those lower in SEE,
individuals high in SEE should therefore have more flexi-
bility with respect to how they interact with others. This
flexibility affords the ability to adapt to a variety of social
interactions, make ongoing adjustments throughout the
duration of an interaction, and excel in ambiguous or awk-
ward social situations. In other words, the flexibility
afforded to someone who has high SEE allows for that indi-
vidual to adapt to the rhythm of a given interaction.
Additionally, the rhythm of an interaction may vary
depending on a host of demographic features, but particu-
larly gender. Many social and affective measures show
small but reliable gender differences, and gender has been
shown to be an important factor in social interaction and
communication (e.g., Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004;
Friedman, Prince, Riggio, & DiMatteo, 1980; Schutte et al.,
1998). Examination of the relationship between gender and
SEE will be therefore of value.
The studies reported here focus on analyses of self-report
data to develop a questionnaire for quantifying SEE through
individuals’ self-assessments of SEE attributes. In these
studies, we drew from the classic construct-validation rec-
ommendations of Cronbach and Meehl (1955) to (a) inves-
tigate the internal structure of the scale, (b) establish
test–retest reliability, and (c) use other relevant self-report
measures to evaluate convergent and discriminant validities
of the SEE Scale.
General Method
Three studies were designed to develop and test the psycho-
metric properties of a self-report measure of SEE. All mate-
rials and methods were approved by the institutional review
board.
Participants
Participants were all 18 years of age or older and compen-
sated for their participation, either through course credit (for
undergraduate participants) or monetarily, through Amazon’s
4 Assessment 00(0)
Mechanical Turk. For the purposes of scale development, an
inclusion criterion was that each participant report that
American English was their native language.
Procedure
The self-report surveys administered in each experiment
were administered either in person (Experiments 1 and 3) or
through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (Experiment 2). All
participants provided written informed consent before
beginning the surveys.
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using SPSS software. Items were gen-
erated initially to cover our intuitive conceptual domains of
behavior that are involved in social interactions. Experiment
1 was designed as proof of concept and to remove redun-
dant items from the initial item pool. Item removal was
done by analyzing internal consistency of the items and
eliminating items that had interitem and item-total correla-
tions that were too high or too low, as well as items that did
not have variability in participant responses. Experiment 2
was designed to evaluate the dimensionality of the con-
struct. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to iden-
tify factors. Additionally, Pearson correlations were used to
evaluate the relationships between the SEE Scale and
related constructs. Experiment 3 was designed to measure
the test–retest reliability of the SEE Scale, as well as to fur-
ther evaluate the validity of the construct through its rela-
tionship with associated constructs. As a result, Pearson
correlations were the primary statistical outcome.
Experiment 1
In this study, we tested our initial item sample of SEE-
related attributes.
Method
Two separate groups of psychology undergraduate students
participated in exchange for course credit. The first group (n
= 55) ranged in age from 18 to 22 years (M = 19.62, SD =
.99, data on participant sex were not collected). Data from
one participant was excluded because his or her question-
naire was incomplete. Participants in the second group (n =
57) were between the age of 18 and 26 years (M = 19.82,
SD = 1.50); 30% male (n = 17) and 70% female (n = 39).
Race/ethnicity was not measured in either sample. Signed
consent forms were returned alongside the completed
questionnaires.
Participants in the first group were asked to complete an
initial pool of 76 items. These items were written based on
our conceptualization concerning the characteristics and
features of the SEE construct. The items assessed various
aspects of SEE, including perceived quality and timing of
emotion-related signals (e.g., facial expressions, hand ges-
tures), ease of interaction in a variety of emotion-related
contexts, and how others might evaluate one’s social skills.
Items were judged on a 7-point Likert-type scale with
anchors of never, neutral, and always. The instructions were
“Please answer each of the following items by circling the
response that best describes what’s typical of you.” The ini-
tial pool of items contained several redundant items for
each domain of behavior, with the intention of identifying
the items that had the best psychometric properties within
each domain. The resulting data were used in preliminary
analyses that led to a 32-item revision of the SEE Scale.
Participants in the second group completed this revised
version. Because response distributions for many of the
items on the first version of the scale were negatively
skewed, responses for the second version were on a 5-point
Likert-type scale in an effort to increase the normality of the
response distribution. Participants in the second group also
completed the 13-item Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability
Scale (MCSDS; Reynolds, 1982); this scale was included in
order to assess the extent to which SEE Scale scores were
associated with social desirability.
Results and Discussion
First Iteration of the SEE Scale. Data analyses (i.e., Cron-
bach’s alpha, means, item-total correlations, and interitem
correlations) were used to statistically determine which
items should be removed from the SEE Scale according to
the recommendations made by Clark and Watson (1995).
Due at least in part to the large number of items, the first
version of the scale was statistically overdetermined, as
indexed by its very high-internal consistency (76 items; α
= .98). Ten items were eliminated because they had high
means (>5.5 on a 7-point scale) and therefore low-response
variability. However, for conceptual reasons, one item with
a mean greater than 5.5 was retained. Of the 10 eliminated
items, 3 also had low item-total correlations (<.30).
Cronbach’s alpha on this shorter version (66 items) was .98.
Based on interitem and item-total correlations that were
either very low (<.15) or very high (>.70) as well as on
conceptual grounds, 26 additional items were then elimi-
nated (see Appendix A). The remaining 40 items had a
Cronbach’s alpha of .97. To tighten the scale and further
reduce the number of items, some items were reworded and
others were eliminated. One additional item regarding
laughter was added. The second version of the SEE Scale
therefore consisted of 32 items.
Second Iteration of the SEE Scale. Cronbach’s alpha for this
version of the SEE Scale (32 items) was .91. Based on int-
eritem and item-total correlations as well as item content, 6
McBrien et al.
items were removed, leaving 26 remaining (α = .90). Total
SEE Scale scores were unrelated to either age, r(54) = .11,
p > .20, or gender, t(54) = −.86, p > .20. Importantly, total
scores on the SEE Scale and total MCSDS scores had a non-
significant Pearson correlation of r =.17 (p > .20), indicat-
ing that SEE responses are largely independent of social
desirability.
Following the analyses described for Experiment 2 and
stemming from a recommendation by colleagues, one addi-
tional item was removed from the SEE Scale due to its
ambiguous nature and poor fit with the factor structure of
the scale (see Appendix A). Though the SEE Scale used in
Experiments 2 and 3 included this item, responses to this
item were not used in statistical analyses. The final version
of the SEE Scale (see Appendix A for the removed items
and Appendix B for the final scale) therefore consists of 25
items.
Experiment 2
This study was designed to further explore the psychomet-
ric properties of the 25-item version of the scale using EFA.
Convergent and discriminant validity was also examined by
comparing scores on the SEE Scale with scores from mea-
sures of related constructs such as EI, IS, and empathy.
Method
Participants were recruited through Amazon’s online
“Mechanical Turk” marketplace, in which workers can
complete tasks in exchange for small amounts of monetary
compensation. For this stage of SEE Scale development, in
an effort to reduce potential culture- or language-related
confounds, participants were limited to U.S. residents (as
determined from the IP address of the computer used to
complete the surveys). Participants’ (total n = 1,000) data
were therefore excluded if they resided outside of the
United States (n = 121), were nonnative English speakers
(n = 44), returned invalid responses (i.e., the same choice
was selected for every question) or the majority of the ques-
tionnaires were incomplete (n = 62). Data from the remain-
ing participants (n = 885) were used in EFA. All participants
provided an electronic signature to consent to participation
in the study and were compensated with $0.25 for comple-
tion of the surveys. Participants were 37.9% (n = 335)
male, 61.5% (n = 544) were female, and 0.6% (n = 6) iden-
tified as other or preferred not to answer. Participants’ age
ranged from 18 to 76 years (M = 33.99, SD = 12.13). The
participant sample was well educated: 13.1% (n = 116) had
graduate degrees, 41.7% (n = 369) were college graduates,
33.2% (n = 294) had some college, 11.1% (n = 98) com-
pleted 11 to 12 years of school, and 0.8% (n = 8) completed
10 or fewer years of school. Most participants identified
themselves as White (77.9%, n = 689), with 9.5% (n = 84)
5
identified as Black/African American, 6.2% (n = 55) iden-
tified as Asian, 3.1% (n = 27) identified as Hispanic or
Latino, and 3.4% (n = 30) identified as other or preferred
not to answer.
A link to a secure, online version of self-report measures
using REDCap software (Harris et al., 2009) was made
available on Mechanical Turk. Participants completed the
SEE Scale and several measures expected to provide evi-
dence of convergent and discriminant validity. The MCSDS
(Reynolds, 1982), the Interpersonal Sensitivity Measure
(IPSM; Boyce & Parker, 1989), and the Self-Monitoring
Scale (SMS; Snyder, 1974) were hypothesized to be mea-
sures of discriminant validity and therefore unrelated to or
negatively correlated with the SEE Scale. The EI Scale
(Schutte et al., 1998) and the Social Interaction Anxiety
Scale (SIAS; Mattick & Clarke, 1998), on the other hand,
were hypothesized to be measures of convergent validity
and positively correlate with the SEE Scale.
Results and Discussion
Exploratory Factor Analysis. Internal structure of the final
version of the SEE Scale was examined using EFA to statis-
tically discover underlying latent factors. Rather than prin-
cipal component analysis (which identifies factors based on
linear combinations to find optimal groupings for sub-
scales), “true” EFA was used in order to identify factors
based solely on common variance. EFA is a desirable
approach in this situation because it identifies underlying
structures and latent factors (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCal-
lum, & Strahan, 1999). Principal-axis factoring was used to
identify latent factors using oblique (Promax) rotation,
which allows for factors to be intercorrelated. To ascertain
the number of statistically meaningful factors, the follow-
ing metrics were considered: (a) the interpretability of each
solution, (b) factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, and (c)
factor loadings greater than or equal to 0.30. Additionally,
because the criterion of using eigenvalues greater than 1 can
yield spurious factors (Velicer & Jackson, 1990), a parallel
analysis (Horn, 1965) was conducted to determine which
factors were ultimately suitable to retain.
All items were highly correlated (i.e., >.40) with the
SEE Scale total score (see Table 1). The principal-axis fac-
tor analysis revealed four factors with eigenvalues greater
than 1.00. The eigenvalue of the first factor (9.35) clearly
met that goal, whereas the remaining factors had much
lower eigenvalues (1.72, 1.33, and 1.13). The parallel anal-
yses, conducted both with random data and with permuta-
tions on the raw data, indicated the possibility of nine
factors, two of which had eigenvalues greater than 1 (8.81
and 1.15). Because parallel analyses of this kind tend to
identify more factors than are statistically warranted, many
of the resultant factors should be disregarded despite their
statistical significance (Buja & Eyuboglu, 1992).
6 Assessment 00(0)

Table 1. SEE Scale Mean Rating (SD), Factor Loading, and Item-Total Scale Correlation for Each Scale Item in Experiment 2.

Item-total scale
Factor SEE Scale items M (SD) rating (0-4) Factor I loading Factor II loading correlation

Factor I I’m good at making eye contact (1) 2.63 (1.13) .55 −.02 .55
(Adaptability) I can talk easily with people of any level 2.65 (1.07) .65 .001 .65
(kids, peers, professors, etc.) (2)
In social interactions, my facial 2.24 (0.98) .52 .11 .62
expressions are perfectly timed (4)
I’m good at confronting people about 2.21 (1.14) .79 −.21 .64
sensitive situations without making
them feel awkward or disrespected (5)
I can express annoyance without putting 2.17 (1.02) .72 −.22 .53
people off (6)
I use just the right amount and kind of 2.36 (1.02) .64 .004 .66
touch in my social interactions (7)
In conversations, my hand gestures are 2.56 (0.92) .36 .15 .50
helpful, not distracting (8)
I can easily draw on my various social 2.47 (1.03) .61 .13 .70
skills as situations warrant (9)
At social events like parties, people often 2.03 (1.08) .55 .06 .64
introduce themselves to me (12)
I know just the right things to say and do 2.17 (1.07) .52 .01 .61
when someone I know is upset (13)
I can make awkward social interactions 2.19 (1.10) .62 .12 .71
feel more comfortable (15)
I produce the right sorts of smiles at just 2.37 (1.00) .45 .26 .68
the right times (16)
If people observed me in a group, they 1.52 (1.16) .61 .08 .68
would say I’m the most socially gifted
(17)
I’m a natural at knowing how to 2.22 (1.03) .58 .17 .71
coordinate my emotional responses to
others’ emotions (18)
I have a relaxed, open body posture 2.34 (1.08) .65 .01 .66
when I talk with people (19)
I know how to calm a heated 2.39 (1.05) .52 .08 .64
conversation (24)
Factor II I use people’s body language to help me 2.91 (0.88) .16 .43 .53
(Expressivity) know how to respond to them (3)
I’m animated when I speak (10) 2.37 (1.12) −.12 .61 .44
I’m good at reading facial expressions 2.91 (0.90) .17 .41 .50
(11)
I use the qualities of my voice to 2.27 (1.04) .15 .54 .65
influence others (14)
Others would say I have an expressive 2.49 (1.10) −.12 .77 .59
face (20)
People are swayed or influenced by my 2.10 (0.99) .07 .65 .65
emotional signals (21)
I use my voice to convey my emotions 2.56 (1.00) −.13 .78 .58
(22)
I nod my head the right amount to let 2.89 (0.84) .03 .45 .45
others know that I’m listening (23)
I’m good at using laughter to make other 2.82 (1.02) .21 .36 .61
people feel good (25)

Note. SEE = social–emotional expertise. Item numbers are given between parentheses.
McBrien et al.
Table 2. SEE Scale Total and Factor Mean Scores (SD) and Gender Differences in Experiment 2.
Total Sample Males
(N = 879) (n = 335)
SEE Scale total score 60.79 (15.42) 58.96 (14.84)
Adaptability 37.14 (10.97) 36.66 (10.40)
Expressivity 23.65 (5.75) 22.29 (5.65)
Note. SEE = social–emotional expertise.
**p < .01 ***p < .001.
Taking this package of statistical outcomes into account
in conjunction with our conceptualization of SEE, we
arrived at a solution in which the SEE Scale consists of two
factors: (a) Factor I, which we have labeled “Adaptability”
(eigenvalue = 9.35, 37.38% of variance explained), con-
sists of 16 items that are largely characterized by the ability
to easily adapt to a variety of social and emotional interper-
sonal situations (e.g., “I know just the right things to say
and do when someone I know is upset”); and (b) Factor II,
labeled “Expressivity” (eigenvalue = 1.72, 6.87% of vari-
ance explained), consists of 9 items (e.g., “I’m animated
when I speak”) that each reflect the ability to express emo-
tion to others. The two factors correlated with each other,
r(883) = .67, p < .001. Cronbach’s alpha for the SEE Scale
total score was .92, and values for the Adaptability and
Expressivity subscales were also high (i.e., .91 and .82,
respectively), with an average interitem correlation of .32.
Different patterns of correlations between the Adaptability
and Expressivity subscales and measures of convergent and
discriminant measures of validity would further support the
presence of these two factors (see Experiment 3 for discus-
sion of these results).
Gender Differences. There were significant gender differ-
ences for total SEE Scale and Expressivity subscale scores:
t(877) = −2.83, p < .01, and t(877) = −5.62, p < .001,
respectively. In both cases, females provided somewhat
higher self-report ratings than males (see Table 2). The
Adaptability subscale scores were not associated with par-
ticipant gender, t(877) = −1.06, p > .05. Although the gen-
der effects that were obtained were statistically significant,
the associated effect sizes were small to medium (see Table
2). Moreover, these gender differences were not unex-
pected, as measures of many social and affective constructs
show higher scores for females than for males (e.g., Baron-
Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004; Friedman et al., 1980; Schutte
et al., 1998).
Convergent and Discriminant Validity. To evaluate convergent
and discriminant validity via self-report, correlations among
the SEE Scale and self-report measures of several associated
constructs were examined (see Table 3). Convergent validity
with related constructs was supported, as SEE had significant
7
Females
(n = 544) t(877) d
61.98 (15.71) −2.83** .20
37.48 (11.35) −1.06 .08
24.50 (5.66) −5.62*** .39
negative correlations with both social anxiety, r(883) = −.59,
p < .01, and IS, including both the total IPSM score, r(883)
= −.23, p < .01, and its subscale scores (see Table 3). These
negative correlations were expected because the SIAS and
IPSM measures were created to evaluate distress associated
with hypersensitivity to negative aspects of social interac-
tions. This hypersensitivity to negative social stimuli is in
contrast with SEE, which may incorporate a hypersensitivity
to aspects of social interactions, but not a preoccupation with
negative experiences. Discriminant validity was supported
by social desirability (MCSDS) scores, which were weakly
correlated with total SEE scores, r(883) = .19, p < .01. This
relationship was largely accounted for by the Adaptability
factor scores, r(883) = .28, p < .01. SEE total scores were
also correlated with self-monitoring scores, r(883) = .28, all
ps < .01.
Also as expected, SEE scores were strongly and posi-
tively correlated with self-reports of EI, r(883) = .62, p <
.01. Because of the strong correlation with EI, an EFA was
conducted using the items from both the SEE Scale and
the EI measure. Items from both scales were comparable
in that they both measured responses using a 5-point
Likert-type scale. Based on the scree plot, five factors
were extracted using principal axis factoring with Promax
rotation (two SEE factors with factor loadings from 0.28
to 0.74; three EI factors with factor loadings ranging from
0.23 to 0.77). With only four exceptions (out of 58 total
items), the items from the two scales loaded on separate
factors, indicating that the SEE and EI scales contain items
that reflect different latent factors. In other words, these
results suggest—at least via these two measurement
scales—that SEE and EI are separate constructs.
Alternatively, given the strong correlation between the
two scales, it is possible that a common higher level factor
might occur upstream of the factors revealed by this
analysis.
Experiment 3
The purposes of this third study were to (a) assess the test–
retest reliability of the SEE Scale and (b) to further assess
convergent and discriminant validity using additional scales
that measure theoretically related constructs.
8 Assessment 00(0)

Table 3. Associations Among the SEE Scale and Self-Report Measures of Convergent and Discriminant Validity in Experiment 2.

Measure SEE Scale total SEEAdaptability factor SEEExpressivity factor M SD

Discriminant measures
MCSDS .19** .28** −.01 6.13 3.04
SMS .28** .23** .31** 11.70 4.22
Convergent measures
IPSM −.23** −.31** −.03 53.74 16.69
Interpersonal −.34** −.43** −.10** 10.90 4.96
awareness
Need for approval .30** .23** .37** 16.43 3.77
Separation anxiety −.34** −.41** −.12** 10.11 5.10
Timidity −.06 −.08* −.01 11.36 4.46
Fragile inner self −.35** −.39** .21** 4.93 3.51
EI .62** .57** .58** 87.84 16.69
SIAS −.59** −.65** −.35** 33.54 15.89
M 60.79 37.14 23.65
SD 15.42 10.97 5.75

Note. N = 885. MCSDS = Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale; SMS = Self-Monitoring Scale; IPSM = Interpersonal Sensitivity Measure
(including subscales); EI = Emotional Intelligence measure; SIAS = Social Interaction Anxiety Scale. The SMS, EI, and SIAS measures were used to test
for convergent validity, whereas the MCSDS and IPSM were used to test for discriminant validity.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Method Scale scores were positively correlated with the measures

Undergraduate students (n = 82) participated for extra
credit. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 29 years;
32.9% male (n = 27) and 67.1% female (n = 55) and were
52.4% White, 25.6% Asian/Pacific Islander, 11.0%
Hispanic/Latino, 2.4% African American, and 8.5% other.
Participants, who were tested in a psychology laboratory,
completed the SEE Scale on two separate occasions, approxi-
mately 4 weeks apart (M = 32.02 days), with 70.7% of par-
ticipants completing both SEE-scale administrations on both
occasions. Across the two questionnaire administrations, par-
ticipants also completed several measures of hypothesized
convergent validity: the Basic Empathy Scale–Adult (BES-
A; Carré et al., 2013), EI Scale (Schutte et al., 1998), Affective
Communication Test (ACT; Friedman et al., 1980), personal-
ity traits (NEO-FFI-3; McCrae & Costa, 2010), Berkeley
Expressivity Questionnaire (BEQ; Gross & John, 1995),
Empathy Quotient (EQ; Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright,
2004), the SIAS, and the SMS. Measures expected to be only
weakly associated with the SEE Scale included the Emotional
Intensity Scale (EIS; Bachorowski & Braaten, 1994), the
IPSM, the MCSDS, the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS;
Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999), the Satisfaction With Life
Scale (SLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), and
the interpersonal reactivity index (empathy and perspective-
taking subscales only; Davis, 1980).
Results and Discussion
The SEE Scale exhibited good test–retest validity, with a
correlation of r(80) = .82, p < .001. As expected, SEE
we included for their potential to provide evidence of con-
vergent validity (see Table 4). Most notably, SEE Scale
scores and SEE factor scores were strongly correlated with
EI, SEETotal r(80) = .60, p < .001; SEEAdaptibility r(80) = .56,
p < .001; SEEExpressivity r(80) = .47, p < .001, and extraver-
sion, SEETotal r(80) = .60, p < .001; SEEAdaptibility r(80) =
.55, p < .001; SEEExpressivity r(80) = .49, p < .001. SEE
Scale scores also had correlations of moderate strength with
EQ scores, SEETotal r(80) = .43, p < .001; SEEAdaptibility
r(80) = .40, p < .001; SEEExpressivity r(80) = .33, p < .001,
and SHS scores, SEETotal r(80) = .42, p < .001; SEEAdaptibility
r(80) = .41, p < .001; SEEExpressivity r(80) = .33, p < .001.
As in Experiment 2, SEE Scale scores were strongly
and negatively correlated with social anxiety as measured
with SIAS scores, r(80) = −.56, p < .001. This global cor-
relation was driven to a larger degree by the SEEAdaptability
factor, r(80) = −.59, p < .001, than the SEEExpressivity fac-
tor, r(80) = −.39, p < .001.
Even though the two factors of the SEE Scale,
Adaptability and Expressivity, are themselves highly cor-
related, r(80) = .57, p < .001, there were some instances in
which convergent or discriminant measures support the
idea that these factors are conceptually unique (see Table 4).
For example, self-monitoring, as measured with SMS
scores, had a stronger negative correlation with the
Expressivity factor, r(80) = −.40, p < .001, than it did with
the Adaptability factor, r(80) = −.24, p < .01. Neuroticism
scores, as measured with the NEO, was not significantly
correlated with either the Expressivity factor or the SEE
Scale total score, although it was correlated with r(80) =
−.31, p < .001. Similarly, the personality trait of Openness
McBrien et al. 9

Table 4. Test–Retest Validity and Correlations With Convergent and Discriminant Validity Measures in Experiment 3.

Measure SEE Scale total (test) Adaptability factor Expressivity factor SEE Scale total (retest)

SEE Scale total (test) — .94** .81** .82**

Adaptability factor .94** — .57** .79**
Expressivity factor .81** .57** — .60**
SEE Scale total (retest) .82** .79** .60** —
IPSM −.13 −.19 .00 −.16
SIAS −.56** −.59** −.39** −.67**
SMS −.33** −.24* −.40** −.30*
SLS .24* .26* .15 .29*
ACT .62** .54** .61** .65**
Empathy questionnaire .43** .40** .33** .41**
EIS −.04 −.08 .02 −.09
BES-A .08 .04 .15 .23
EI .60** .56** .47** .78**
IRI-empathy .03 .03 .03 .19
IRI-perspective taking .10 .07 .09 .17
BEQ .14 .00 .34* .16
MCSDS −.15 −.13 −.14 −.16
NEO subscales
Neuroticism −.25 −.31* −.07 −.30*
Extraversion .60** .55** .49** .61**
Openness .16 .04 .30* .16
Agreeableness −.10 −.07 −.17 .00
Conscientiousness .02 .09 −.08 .05
SHS .42** .41** .33* .55**

Note. N = 80. IPSM = Interpersonal Sensitivity Measure; SIAS = Social Interaction Anxiety Scale; SMS = Self-Monitoring Scale; SLS = Satisfaction With
Life Scale; ACT = Affective Communication Test; EIS = Emotional Intensity Scale; BES-A = Basic Empathy Scale–Adult; EI = Emotional Intelligence
measure; IRI = interpersonal reactivity index; BEQ = Berkeley Expressivity Questionnaire; MCSDS = Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale;
SHS = Subjective Happiness Scale.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

correlated with the SEEExpressivity, r(80) = .30, p < .001, but
was not related to either the SEEAdaptability or SEETotal score.
EI was also more strongly correlated with SEEAdaptibility than
it was with SEEExpressivity, indicating that SEEAdaptibility may
overlap with the cognitive components necessary for SEE
more than SEEExpressivity.
General Discussion
The results from the studies reported here describe the
development of a self-report measure of SEE and its basic
statistical properties. Through three item iterations and four
studies (two studies as part of Experiment 1), the resultant
SEE Scale consists of 25 items, each scored with a 5-point
Likert-type scale. The scale has both high-internal consis-
tency and test–retest reliability. Factor analyses revealed
that the SEE Scale consists of two factors, Adaptability and
Expressivity. This two-factor solution is further supported
by different patterns of correlations with measures of related
constructs.
In conceptually expected patterns, the SEE Scale was
also shown to have convergent and discriminant validity—
at least in relation to other self-report measures. Although
SEE Scale scores were strongly correlated with EI, this cor-
relation was expected in that SEE is thought to build on the
two of the four EI branches (i.e., perceiving emotions and
expressing emotions; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). An EFA of
the SEE and EI measures showed that, for the most part,
items from the two scales loaded on different factors. This
outcome suggests that although the constructs are conceptu-
ally related, they are also statistically separable. In other
words, SEE is not best described as a subcomponent of EI.
Further work investigating the relationship between SEE
and its factors and the four subcomponents of EI may reveal
more nuanced associations between the two constructs.
Also as anticipated, social anxiety was strongly and nega-
tively correlated with SEE scores, indicating that particular
patterns of SEE behaviors could be expressed or notably
absent in anxious individuals. For instance, SEEAdaptability
had a stronger negative correlation with SIAS scores than
did SEEExpressivity. This pattern indicates that people with
10 Assessment 00(0)

social anxiety may be less flexible in the ways they are able
to interact with others. Further investigation in a population
with social anxiety could help elucidate the contribution
SEE may make to the development or presentation of social
anxiety.
There are some key limitations to the experiments pre-
sented above. First, the participant samples are not repre-
sentative of the population at large and were small in
Experiment 1, limiting generalizability of the findings.
Future studies will benefit from larger, more racially and
ethnically diverse samples which may offer insight into dif-
ferences in SEE across cultures. Second, there are well-
documented limitations to data collected from participants
on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, such as paying less atten-
tion to experimental materials (e.g., Goodman, Cryder, &
Cheema, 2013). Finally, self-reported SEE scores were not
compared with ratings of social ability by third-party
observers or expert judges, limiting conclusions that can be
made about the correlations of SEE Scale total scores with
the real-life social abilities. Future studies will benefit from
multiple sources of interaction quality rating to examine the
validity of the SEE Scale.
Future Directions
Continuing with our process of construct validation
(Cronbach & Meehl, 1955), ongoing studies are focused on
investigating the behavioral validity of the SEE construct
and its associations with other relevant constructs. Our cur-
rent foci are measuring SEE in naturalistic laboratory-based
paradigms, and studying perceptual judgments and psycho-
physiological responses to individuals who differ in SEE
Scale scores. A second key avenue will be to examine the
cognitive processes, such as the speed and accuracy of
retrieval, that lead to more socially adaptive behavior.
Finally, it will be of interest to assess SEE in clinical popu-
lations in which social behaviors are typically impaired,
such as with social anxiety and autism spectrum disorder.

Appendix A
SEE Scale: Removed Items
Standard = removed for the second version of the scale
Italicized = removed for the third version of the scale
Bolded = removed for the fourth and final version of the scale

1. I can get an accurate read on the overall emotional “climate” as soon as I walk in a room.
2. I can tell when others feel uncomfortable.
3. People would say I’m approachable.
4. When I’m with people I haven’t met before, my social adeptness allows me to have a central role.
5. I use body language during conversations.
6. I have strong social skills.
7. I know how to use language to draw a person in.
8. People are engaged with what I have to say.
9. My emotional signals are effective.
10. My friends would agree that I’m the emotional diplomat of our group.
11. I feel comfortable talking to people in powerful positions.
12. I use my hands the right amount to emphasize what I’m saying.
13. Strangers are comfortable approaching me for help.
14. I’m good at continuing a conversation when there are lulls.
15. I’m the one in control during a conversation.
16. I make facial expressions at the right time in interactions with others.
17. I have an intuitive sense for making well-timed emotional expression and gestures.
18. People connect with me because of my social grace, not because I demand attention.
19. It’s easy for people to tell how I’m feeling.
20. I am good at saying the right things at the right time.
21. I can tell when the person I’m talking to loses interest.
22. People think I’m easy to talk to.
23. At social events, I feel comfortable introducing myself to people I don’t know.
24. I make a good first impression.
25. I can communicate emotions with my eyes.
McBrien et al. 11

26. I’m usually the one guiding the conversation.

27. People would agree that I’m likeable.
28. My “toolkit” of social–emotional skills is large.
29. I am good at reading people’s emotions from their body language.
30. I’m very confident in social situations.
31. Even when I’m feeling sad, I can make other people feel good.
32. I can smoothly join a group conversation.
33. The first impression that people have of me is usually quite positive.
34. My friends would describe me as a social magnet.
35. It’s easy for people to read my emotional state.
36. I can express anger without alienating people.
37. I know just the right things to say and do when someone I know is happy.
38. I make the right amount of eye contact.
39. Interacting with others comes naturally to me.
40. If I’m in an awkward social interaction, I can rely on my expressions and gestures to smooth things out.
41. I’m comfortable in most any kind of social context.
42. I’m good at masking what I really feel in order to control the emotional climate among my friends.
43. I smile when others smile.
44. I use the right facial expressions at the right times.
45. People feel comfortable having important conversations with me.
46. I’m good at masking what I really feel in order to make a good impression.
47. My friends often look to me for how they should respond emotionally.
48. My friends would say that I’m especially fluent in emotional communication.
49. I can tell how others are feeling based on how their voice sounds.
50. People feel comfortable chatting with me.
51. I’m adept at reading situations and knowing how to respond.
52. I like meeting new people.

Appendix B
SEE Scale (Final Version)
Please Answer Each of the Following Items by Circling the Response That Best Describes What’s Typical of You.

Neutral Never Always

1. I’m good at making eye contact. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I can talk easily with people of any level (kids, peers, professors, etc.). 1 2 3 4 5
3. I use people’s body language to help me know how to respond to them. 1 2 3 4 5
4. In social interactions, my facial expressions are perfectly timed. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I’m good at confronting people about sensitive situations without making them feel 1 2 3 4 5
awkward or disrespected.
6. I can express annoyance without putting people off. 1 2 3 4 5
7. I use just the right amount and kind of touch in my social interactions. 1 2 3 4 5
8. In conversations, my hand gestures are helpful, not distracting. 1 2 3 4 5
9. I can easily draw on my various social skills as situations warrant. 1 2 3 4 5
10. I’m animated when I speak. 1 2 3 4 5
11. I’m good at reading facial expressions. 1 2 3 4 5
12. At social events like parties, people often introduce themselves to me. 1 2 3 4 5
13. I know just the right things to say and do when someone I know is upset. 1 2 3 4 5
14. I use the qualities of my voice to influence others. 1 2 3 4 5
15. I can make awkward social interactions feel more comfortable. 1 2 3 4 5
16. I produce the “right” sorts of smiles at just the right times. 1 2 3 4 5
17. If people observed me in a group, they would say I’m the most socially gifted. 1 2 3 4 5
18. I’m a natural at knowing how to coordinate my emotional responses to others’ emotions. 1 2 3 4 5

(continued)
12
Appendix B (continued)
19. I have a relaxed, open body posture when I talk with people.
20. Others would say I have an expressive face.
21. People are swayed or influenced by my emotional signals.
22. I use my voice to convey my emotions.
23. I nod my head the right amount to let others know that I’m listening.
24. I know how to calm a heated conversation.
25. I’m good at using laughter to make other people feel good.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:
REDCap data capture and management instruments were sup-
ported by UL1 TR000445 from NCATS/NIH.
References
Ambady, N., LaPlante, D., & Johnson, E. (2001). Thin-slice judg-
ments as a measure of interpersonal sensitivity. In J. A. Hall
& F. J. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and
measurement (pp. 89-102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bachorowski, J.-A., & Braaten, E. (1994). Emotional intensity:
Measurement and theoretical implications. Personality and
Individual Differences, 17, 191-199.
Barnes, M. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1989). Social intelligence and
decoding of nonverbal cues. Intelligence, 13, 263-287.
Baron-Cohen, B., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quo-
tient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or
high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 163-175.
Bernieri, F. J., Gillis, J. S., Davis, J. M., & Grahe, J. E. (1996).
Dyad rapport and the accuracy of its judgment across situ-
ations: A lens model analysis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 71, 110-129.
Boyce, P., & Parker, G. (1989). Development of a scale to mea-
sure interpersonal sensitivity. Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Psychiatry, 23, 341-351.
Buja, A., & Eyuboglu, N. (1992). Remarks on parallel analysis.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 27, 509-540.
Carré, A., Stefaniak, F., D’Ambrosio, F., Bensalah, L., & Besche-
Richard, C. (2013). The Basic Empathy Scale in Adults
(BES-A): Factor structure of a revised form. Psychological
Assessment, 23, 679-691.
Clark, L., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues
in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7,
309-319.
Cronbach, L., & Meehl, P. (1955). Construct validity in psycho-
logical tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to indi-
vidual differences in empathy. Retrieved from http://www.
Assessment 00(0)
Neutral Never Always
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
ucp.pt/site/resources/documents/ICS/GNC/ArtigosGNC/
AlexandreCastroCaldas/24_Da80.pdf
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empa-
thy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113-126.
Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985).
The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 49, 71-75.
Evans, R. (2008). The sociology of expertise: The distribution of
social fluency. Sociology Compass, 2, 281-298.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E.
J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in
psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272-299.
Ford, M. E., & Tisak, M. S. (1983). A further search for social
intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75,
197-206.
Friedman, H. S., Prince, L. M., Riggio, R. E., & DiMatteo, M.
R. (1980). Understanding and assessing nonverbal expres-
siveness: The Affective Communication Test. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 333-351.
Goldenberg, I., Matheson, K., & Mantler, J. (2006). The assess-
ment of emotional intelligence: A comparison of perfor-
mance-based and self-report methodologies. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 86, 33-45.
Goleman, D. (2007). Social intelligence: The new science of
human relationships. New York, NY: Random House.
Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data col-
lection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of
Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision
Making, 26, 213-224.
Gore, J. (2009). The interaction of sex, verbal, and nonverbal cues
in same-sex first encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,
33, 279-299.
Gross, J., & John, O. (1995). Facets of emotional expressivity:
Three self-report factors and their correlates. Personality and
Individual Differences, 19, 555-568.
Hall, J. A., & Bernieri, F. J. (Eds.). (2001). Interpersonal sensi-
tivity: Theory and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Hall, J. A., DiMatteo, M. R., Rogers, P. L., & Archer, D. (1979).
Sensitivity to nonverbal communication: The PONS test.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Harris, P. A., Taylor, R., Thielke, R., Payne, J., Gonzalez, N.,
& Conde, J. G. (2009). Research electronic data capture
 McBrien et al.
(REDCap): A metadata-driven methodology and workflow
process for providing translational research informatics sup-
port. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 42, 377-381.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in
factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179-185.
Jacoby, L. L., Kelley, C. M., & Dywan, J. (1989). Memory attribu-
tions. In H. L. Roediger, III & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Varieties
of memory and consciousness: Essays in honour of Endel
Tulving (pp. 391-422). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations
analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kenny, D. A. (2004). PERSON: A general model of interpersonal
perception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8,
265-280.
Kihlstrom, J. F., & Cantor, N. (2000). Social intelligence. In R.
J. Sternberg (Eds.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 359-379).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010).
Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency:
Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading
Research Quarterly, 45, 230-251.
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of devel-
opmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95, 3-21.
Lawrence, E. J., Shaw, P., Baker, D., Baron-Cohen, S., & David,
A. S. (2004). Measuring empathy: reliability and validity of
the Empathy Quotient. Psychological Medicine, 34, 911-920.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective
happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation.
Social Indicators Research, 46, 137-155.
Mattick, R., & Clarke, J. (1998). Development and validation of
measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction
anxiety. Behavior Research and Therapy, 36, 455-470.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional
intelligence. Intelligence, 17, 433-442.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence?
In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and
emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3-31).
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional
intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits? The American
Psychologist, 63, 503-517.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003).
Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0.
Emotion, 3, 97-105.
View publication stats
13
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2010). NEO Inventories: Professional
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Montepare, J. M. (2004). Exploring interpersonal sensitivity:
What, who, why, and to what end? Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior, 28, 143-145.
Reynolds, W. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short
forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119-125.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence.
Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185-211.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper,
J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and
validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality
and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177.
Singer, T. (2006). The neuronal basis and ontogeny of empathy
and mind reading: Review of literature and implications for
future research. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30,
855-863.
Snodgrass, S. E., Hecht, M. A., & Ploutz-Snyder, R. (1998).
Interpersonal sensitivity: Expressivity or perceptivity?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 238-249.
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.
Spunt, R. P., & Lieberman, M. D. (2013). The busy social brain:
Evidence for automaticity and control in the neural sys-
tems supporting social cognition and action understanding.
Psychological Science, 24, 80-86.
Sternberg, R. J., & Smith, C. (1985). Social intelligence and decod-
ing skills in nonverbal communication. Social Cognition, 3,
168-192.
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harper’s
Magazine, 140, 227-235.
Thorndike, R. L., & Stein, S. (1937). An evaluation of the attempts
to measure social intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 34,
275-285.
Tickle-Degnen, L., & Rosenthal, R. (1987). Group rapport and non-
verbal behavior. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Group processes and
intergroup relations (pp. 113-136). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Velicer, W. F., & Jackson, D. N. (1990). Component analysis
versus common factor analysis: Some issues in selecting an
appropriate procedure. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25,
1-28.
Wechsler, D. (1958). The measurement and appraisal of adult
intelligence (4th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams &
Wilkins.