Authored by Ashley Ginter*
Abstract
present study was designed to address two specific goals. The first was to analyze the differences between incarcerated and non-incarcerated individuals regarding their scores on specific Rorschach variables that are associated with emotional intelligence (EI). The second was to investigate the differences in scores on Rorschach variables reflecting emotional responsiveness (CF+C, MC-PPD) and emotional management (CF+C/SumC, M-, H, and PHR) among different levels of intellectual ability for both the incarcerated and outpatient samples. The study involved an examination of archival data from incarcerated individuals receiving mental health services and individuals receiving mental health services at a community clinic. Findings indicated there was a significant difference in CF+C/SumC scores between the different levels of care and incarceration status. These results indicate those who are not incarcerated likely have more adaptive emotion management skills to manage internal and external emotionally toned stimuli in comparison to those who are incarcerated, particularly incarcerated individuals who need the highest level of mental health care. Further, the results indicated participants’ responses on the emotional management/human interaction variables (i.e., CF+C/SumC and PHR) were able to significantly classify their incarceration status, with an overall correct classification of 63.3%. Future research is needed to better understand the relationships between incarceration status and EI abilities. Utilizing the Rorschach as a Measurement of the Emotional Intelligence of Incarcerated Populations.
Introduction
In 2013, the United States held over 1,574,000 people in state and federal prisons, reflecting a .3% increase from 2012 and constituting the largest incarcerated population in the world [1]. The Bureau of Justice reported that inmates sentenced for violent offenses comprised 54% of the state prison population in 2012, with an estimated 58% of male and 61% of female inmates in state or federal prison being age 39 years or younger [2]. Thus, young people represent a large percentage of the individuals incarcerated in U.S. jails, raising a concern about the future of these young people, specifically their re-incarceration rates. Results of a study conducted in 2005 by the Department of Justice showed that of all prisoners released in 1994, 67.5% were rearrested within 3 years, 61.7% of whom were convicted of a violent offense [2]. Additionally, the results showed that of all prisoners released in 1983, 62.5% were rearrested within 3 years, 59.6% of whom were convicted of a violent offense [2].
The seemingly increasing numbers of incarcerated individuals and the high degree of recidivism among those attempting to reenter society support a continued need for research to establish assessment measures that not only help clarify overall cognitive and psychological functioning, but also improve overall psychological treatment programs and rehabilitation for incarcerated individuals in the United States [1,2]. Research has shown that individuals with higher cognitive functioning in general are typically better adjusted psychologically, emotionally, and socially [3]. However, given that many prisoners exhibit low levels of cognitive functioning, improving the emotional intelligence (EI) of this population may be one important area of interest related to treatment and rehabilitation [4]. EI reflects the ability to discriminate, monitor, and appropriately label one’s own and other people’s emotions [5]. When people are able to label and monitor their emotions accurately, they are able to utilize emotional information to guide themselves toward more appropriate and healthier thinking and behavior.
Studies have indicated that a large number of individuals who are incarcerated exhibit antisocial and psychopathic traits. For example, Fazel and Danesh found that 47% of incarcerated men in the United States met the criteria for antisocial personality disorder (APD), while 63% of incarcerated men in the United Kingdom met the same criteria [6]. It has long been suggested that individuals with antisocial and psychopathic traits have numerous difficulties with social interaction and often exhibit impairments in various emotional tasks, such as understanding and connecting with others socially and emotionally, suggesting a likely deficit in EI [7-9]. The few studies conducted on the specific correlation between EI and incarcerated individuals showed that those with psychopathy are impaired on a range of EI abilities, suggesting EI is an important area for understanding the deficits of those with psychopathy and for understanding the relationship to recidivism [7].
Emotional intelligence plays an important part in the presence, maintenance, and coping of negative emotions, and therefore may affect the outcomes and specific treatment needs of incarcerated populations. Although there is a growing body of literature to support the crucial role of negative emotional states in the offense and recidivating processes of offenders, there has been relatively little theoretical or applied research in this area [10]. However, the available research strongly supports that negative emotional states are important and dynamic risk factors that increase the risk of reoffending, particularly among those already in forensic settings [10]. Thus, an individual’s ability to identify, process, and manage negative emotional states should be included in all psychological interventions to reduce the likelihood of recidivism.
Three different models have been developed to define EI since the first use of the term in Payne’s doctoral thesis, A Study of Emotion: Developing Emotional Intelligence [11]. Salovey and Mayer developed a model that is widely known and used, called the ability model [5]. The ability model comprises an individual’s ability to process emotional information and use it to navigate his or her social environment [12]. This includes the capacity to accurately perceive emotions, to access and generate emotions to assist thought, to understand emotions and emotional knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions so as to promote emotional and intellectual growth [13]. Mayer et al. argued that individuals vary in their ability to process information of an emotional nature and to relate emotional processing to a wider cognition, which often manifests in certain adaptive behaviors [13]. Therefore, if an individual lacks these capacities and abilities, it is suggested that the deficiency will manifest in maladaptive behaviors, such as criminality or psychopathology.
Goleman [14] later proposed a model of EI, subsequently termed the mixed model, because he argued that EI is the combination of Mayer and Salovey’s ability model and a model that would later become known as Petrides’s trait model [15]. Goleman’s mixed model defines EI as an array of skills and characteristics that drive leadership performance. Goleman outlined five main EI constructs: (a) self-awareness, (b) self-regulation, (c) social skill, (d) empathy, and (e) motivation [14]. This “mixed” model supports that individuals are born with a general EI that determines their potential for learning specific emotional competencies later in life [16].
Petrides subsequently proposed a model, called the trait model (trait EI), which focuses on the involvement of behavioral dispositions and self-perceived abilities that are measured through self-report as the basis for EI [15]. As such, trait EI encompasses behavioral dispositions and self-perceived abilities that are measured by self-report, as opposed to the earlier ability model, which refers to specific EI abilities. Furthermore, Petrides and Furnham argued that trait EI should only be investigated within a personality framework, which typically includes variables such as empathy, optimism, and impulsivity, but can also include general constructs such as motivation and happiness [15].
In general, there are several advantages of using the ability model over both the trait model and the mixed model of EI. For instance, the definition used in the ability model is the most “unitary and cohesive” definition (Mayer et al., 2004). Furthermore, the ability model does not include the personality characteristics that are found in the other models, which do not seem to be directly a component of either emotion or intelligence [13].
Along with the different models of EI are different assessment measures. One such measure is the Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT), which is designed to measure trait EI [17]. However, it does not assess intelligence, abilities, or skills, as it is limited to the personality framework that is emphasized in trait EI. In fact, few trait EI measures have been developed within a clear theoretical framework, with even fewer having empirical foundations [18]. The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) is based on a series of emotion-based problem-solving items and is designed to measure ability EI [13]. The MSCEIT was modeled on ability-based IQ tests by testing a person’s ability in each of the four branches of EI outlined by Salovey and Mayer [5].
It then generates scores for each of the branches as well as a total score. The MSCEIT is based on the idea that EI requires attunement to social norms; therefore, it is scored in a consensus fashion, with “higher scores indicating higher overlap between an individual’s answers, and those provided by a worldwide sample of respondents” [19]. It can also be expert scored so the amount of overlap is calculated between an individual’s answers and those provided by a group of emotion researchers. The MSCEIT is unlike standard IQ tests in that its items do not have objectively correct responses. However, according to Spain, Eaton, and Funder, the consensus scoring criterion means it is impossible to create items that a minority can solve because responses are deemed “emotionally intelligent” only if endorsed by the majority of the sample [20]. Thus, ability EI tests cannot be objectively scored because there are no clear-cut criteria for what constitutes a correct response, although research indicates some improvement in these measures [20]. Furthermore, the ability EI measures ignore the inherent subjectivity of emotional experience [20].
The Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI), the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI), and the Emotional Social Competency–Universal Edition (ESCI-U) were developed by Goleman and Boyatzis to measure EI based on the mixed model perspective [21]. These measures are designed to provide a behavioral measure of the emotional and social competencies of each individual; however, the developers and users of the ECI and similar methods have failed to provide sufficient information about their psychometric properties [18].
As EI contributes to the presence and maintenance of negative emotions, additional measures that assess EI may offer critical information with regard to the emotional regulation, functioning, and coping abilities of incarcerated individuals who frequently have difficulties appropriately and effectively dealing with negative emotions. For example, the Rorschach (R-PAS) is an evidencesupported, performance-based method that yields insight into the coping styles, emotional regulation, and emotional sensitivity of participants. Furthermore, it adds incremental validity to selfreport findings, as many of the EI measures are solely self-report [22]. The ambiguous and complex stimuli within the Rorschach highlight the individual’s complexity and layering in emotional functioning and processing, both within oneself and with regard to relating to others. Thus, the Rorschach may be a better assessment tool with which to evaluate EI and other emotional regulation variables that may not be as easily accessed through traditionally used self-report measures.
Ordinarily, the assessment of incarcerated individuals involves mostly traditional measures for understanding an inmate’s cognitive, personality, and emotional functioning, typically through measures such as the Wechsler’s Adult Intelligent Scale – Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV), Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), or Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – Second Edition (MMPI-2). However, the Rorschach potentially has something additional to add. The Rorschach includes several scales that involve EI abilities, such as emotional lability [23]. For example, research has supported the idea that the Blend% is an indicator of complexity and layering in emotional functioning, which may reflect a personality trait or a reaction to situational stress, including those that involve emotions [24]. It may also indicate confusing emotional experiences or an inability to perceive and understand emotions within oneself, in others, or in the environment.
Other scales that may be associated with emotionally-related processing and responsiveness include the R8910%, CF+C, MCPPD, Cblend, C, and C’ [24]. Additionally, social interactions and quality of relationships are important aspects of EI [25]. Scales that may be associated with human interactions include the M-, H, and PHR scales. Together, these scales may provide a better understanding of an individual’s EI abilities and capabilities than do self-report measures of EI or other traditional assessment measures. This better understanding of these abilities may offer well-needed benefits in the assessment of incarcerated individuals, as these abilities have been found to be related to greater mental health, exemplary job performance, leadership skills, and overall healthier and more adaptive behaviors [26].
To read more about this article...Open access Journal of Addiction and Psychology
Please follow the URL to access more information about this article
To know more about our Journals....Iris Publishers
No comments:
Post a Comment