1. 1]Knoll, N., Burkert, S., & Schwartzer, R. (2006). Reciprocal support provision: Personality as a moderator? European Journal of Personality, 20, 217-236. 2]Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2005). Gender differences in social support: A question of skill or responsiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 79-90. 3]Mayer J. D., Salovey P., Caruso, D.R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring Emotional Intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3, 97-105. 4]Brackett, M. A., Mayer, J. D., & Warner, R. M. (2004). Emotional intelligence and its relation to everyday Behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1387- 1402. 5]Brackett, M. A., Bosco, J. and Warner, R. M (2005). Emotional intelligence and relationship quality among couples. Personal Relationships, 12, 197-212. 6]Burhmester, D., Furman, W. Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Five domains of interpersonal competence in peer relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 991-1008. 7]Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. S. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504-528. References: Kerryellen Vroman, kgn3@unh.edu Department of Occupational Therapy Rebecca Warner, rmw@unh.edu Department of Psychology University of New Hampshire Durham NH 03824 Contact Information:Acknowledgements: Research supported by a Grant from the UNH Presidential Excellence Research Award program. Photos by Lisa Nugent, UNH Photographic Services. Personality and Quality of Social Support Provision in Close Relationships University of New Hampshire, Durham NH Dr. Rebecca Warner Department of Psychology Dr. Kerryellen Vroman Department of Occupational Therapy There was moderate agreement ( r = +.37) between Self and Significant Other evaluations of ability to provide social support, and strong agreement between existing ESS items and our new social support items. This is not sufficient evidence that the self ratings of Social Support provision are valid, but it is encouraging to find reasonable levels of agreement between the provider and recipient of support about the overall perceived evaluation of Social Support. For both Males and Females, the entire set of Big Five personality traits scores contributed significantly to the R 2 for prediction of self-rated Social Support provision when these variables were entered on the first step of hierarchical regressions. For both Males and Females, Agreeableness uniquely predicted a statistically significant proportion of the variance in self-rated Social Support provision. For Males only, Branch 4 EI predicted significant additional variance in SS provision (controlling for the Big Five personality traits); for Females, Branch 4 EI was not a significant predictor of social support provision after controlling for the Big Five. As in past research using EI to predict social behaviors, only Branch 4 was predictive of social support; and EI was more predictive of social support provision scores for males than for females. DiscussionIntroduction Method Present Study Measures: Participants completed the MSCEIT [3], a measure of EI that includes questions to evaluate four branches of ability, such as the ability to recognize emotions from facial expressions; the Gosling’s Big Five [7]; and a self report evaluation of their ability to provide quality SS to other people using reworded items from the existing Emotional Support Scale (ESS)[6] and new questions developed for this study. Participants identified a significant other to whom they provided social support; 53% chose mothers and 47% chose a friend, dating partner, or roommate. Significant others were sent surveys that included reworded items from the ESS and items from our new SS scale. All items were scored to obtain information about the quality and appropriateness of emotional and social support that they received from a participant. Participants: Data were obtained from 195 undergraduate psychology students who received course credit for participation. The sample was 72% female and 28% male; 96% between age 18 and 22; and 91% self identified as white European ethnicity. Analysis: Correlation and regression analyses examined gender, Big Five personality traits, and Branch 4 EI scores as predictors of self-evaluated ability to provide SS. The purpose was to provide an exploratory assessment of Emotional Intelligence as a predictor of the ability to provide appropriate and effective SS in close relationships, controlling for other known predictors including gender and personality traits of the support provider. We hypothesized that EI Branch 4 scores would predict a unique and statistically significant proportion of variance in scores on SS provision, even after statistically controlling for gender and Big Five personality traits. Do people differ in their ability to provide appropriate and effective social support? Are differences in social support provision associated with people’s traits or abilities? Results Regression Results Branch 4 EI as Predictor of Self-rated Social Support Provision Subsequent analyses examined only self-report ratings of SS provision. Because gender differences were predicted, separate hierarchical regression analysis were performed for male and female groups to see whether EIB4 predicts variance in self-rated SS provision, beyond any variance that can be predicted from the Big Five personality traits. The dependent variable was self-rated SS provision. Big Five personality traits scores were entered as a set on Step 1; and EIB4 was entered on Step 2. Cronbach Alpha Reliabilities For the Self and Significant Other (SO) ratings of SS provision using the ESS and our new social support question, Cronbach  reliabilities were satisfactory (ranging from.87 to.94). Because of high correlations between the existing ESS and our new social support items, we combined these single indexes of “Self perceived quality of social support” and “SO perceived quality of SS.” These summary indexes had Cronbach  reliabilities above.90. Cronbach  reliabilities for the Big Five personality traits were lower, ranging from.43 for Agreeableness to.71 for Extraversion. For males there was a statistically significant positive correlation between EIB4 and self-rated SS, r (n = 55) =.56, p<.001, two tailed. For females there was a statistically significant but smaller correlation between EIB4 and self-rated SS, r (n = 140) =.19, p =.022, two tailed. There was moderate agreement (r = +.37) between total Self and SO evaluations of “ability to provide social support.” Coefficients for Final Regression (Constant) Extraversion Openness Conscientious Agreeableness Neuroticism MSCEIT-B4 Model Summary Hierarchical Regression a Predictors: Neuroticism Conscientiousness Agreeableness Extraversion Openness b Predictors: Neuroticism Conscientiousness Agreeableness Extraversion EIB4 Males (N=55) Social support (SS) has been described as a resource; research has focused primarily on characteristics of recipients, asking questions such as “Who benefits from support?” and “Who perceives more support?” [1]. Few studies have examined characteristics of support providers. Women tend to provide more SS than men; this may be due in part to differential sex role socialization for care-giving roles [2]. Personality traits from the Big Five model have been examined. Extraversion is consistently related to higher levels of recipient perceived SS; Neuroticism is related to less satisfaction with support. Results for Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness have been less consistent [1]. Emotional Intelligence (EI) has not been considered in relation to social support provision. Previously, EI scores on the MISCEIT (Branch 4-emotion management skills) have been significantly predictive of social behaviors including interpersonal conflict [4], and relationship satisfaction and quality [5]. Previous studies have found more evidence for EI Branch 4 than for EI Branches 1, 2, and 3 as a predictor of social behaviors; correlations between EI and social behaviors have typically been stronger for males than for females. Females (N=140) 1a1a Step Change Statistics R 2 ChangeF Changep.41.47.41.06 R2R2 6.67 5.33 <.001.025.114.029.198.384.043.296 Standardized Coefficients Beta.717.935.221 1.636 3.011.333 2.309 t.477.354.826.108.004.740.025 p sr 2.010.000.029.101.000.060 Change Statistics R 2 ChangeF Changep.37.38.37.01 R2R2 15.88 1.02 <.001.315.190.108.268.327 -.019.072 Standardized Coefficients Beta 3.581 2.574 1.410 3.550 4.168 -.239 1.009 t.000.011.161.001.000.811.315 p sr 2.031.010.059.081.000.005 2b2b