The Troms Social Intelligence Scale, a self-report measure of social

intelligence
DAVID H. SILVERA
1
, MONICA MARTINUSSEN
1
and TOVE I. DAHL
1
1
Department of Psychology, University of Troms, Norway
Silvera, D. H., Martinussen, M. & Dahl, T. I. (2001). The Troms Social Intelligence Scale, a self-report measure of social intelligence.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42, 313319
Social intelligence is a construct that not only appeals to laymen as a relevant individual difference but also has shown promising practical
applications. Nevertheless, the use of social intelligence in research and applied settings has been limited by definitional problems, difficulties
in empirically differentiating social intelligence from related constructs, and the complexity of most existing measures of social intelligence.
The goal of the present research was to address some of these obstacles by designing a multi-faceted social intelligence measure that is short
and easy to administer. Three studies were conducted to develop and validate the Troms Social Intelligence Scale (TSIS). Study 1 examined
professional psychologists' interpretations of social intelligence to derive a consensually agreed-upon definition of the construct. In Study 2, a
large pool of social intelligence items were tested, and a 3-factor, 21-item scale was identified. In Study 3, the stability of this measure was
confirmed.
David Silvera, University of Troms, Department of Psychology, 9037 Troms, Norway. E-mail: davids@psyk.uit.no
Most individuals have no difficulty thinking of a person they
know who seems to prosper in social situations. This type of
person is well-liked by everyone, never seems uncomfortable
under even the most awkward social conditions, and always
seems to be alert to even the most subtle conversational
cues. In many cases it is even easier to think of someone who
really suffers in social situationsa person who is basically
a good, competent individual, who nevertheless always
seems to get the worst of social interactions.
People like these serve as the basis of our understanding
that there is some underlying individual difference that
causes different people to have different degrees of success in
social situations, an individual difference that is often
referred to in the psychological literature as social intelli-
gence. Despite our subjective feelings that social intelligence
is a real and influential individual difference, however,
research has often failed to demonstrate the validity of the
social intelligence construct (e.g., Sternberg & Smith, 1985;
Walker & Foley, 1973). It is likely that these failures are in
part due to difficulties in defining social intelligence.
Defining social intelligence
The first problem in defining social intelligence is the
question of whether the social intelligence construct exists at
all. Specifically, many researchers have questioned whether
social intelligence is a distinct and psychologically useful
construct, a perspective supported by difficulties in empiri-
cally separating social intelligence from related constructs
such as academic intelligence (e.g., Keating, 1978; Riggio,
Messamer & Throckmorton, 1991; however, see Barnes &
Sternberg, 1989; Sternberg, Conway, Ketron & Bernstein,
1981 for evidence that social and academic intelligence are
distinct constructs) and verbal ability (e.g., Ford & Tisak,
1983; Heidrich & Denny, 1994; Wong, Day, Maxwell &
Meara, 1995).
The second difficulty in defining social intelligence is the
fact that different researchers have defined this construct in
distinctly different ways over the years (e.g., Thorndike,
1920; Guilford, 1967; Ford & Tisak, 1983; Kosmitzki &
John, 1993). Some definitions emphasize the cognitive
component, or ``the ability to understand other people''
(e.g., Barnes & Sternberg, 1989). Others take a more
behavioral emphasis, such as ``the ability to interact
successfully with other people'' (e.g., Ford & Tisak, 1983),
and still others rely on a more psychometric foundation and
define social intelligence along the lines of ``the ability to
perform well on tests that measure social skills'' (e.g.,
Keating, 1978).
The third difficulty, which is closely related to the second,
is that social intelligence is undoubtedly a multifaceted
construct. For example, Kosmitzki and John (1993)
identified several components of social intelligence: (a)
perceptiveness of others' internal states and moods; (b)
general ability to deal with other people; (c) knowledge
about social rules and social life; (d) insight and sensitivity in
complex social situations; (e) use of social techniques to
manipulate others; (f) perspective taking; and (g) social
adaptation.
Theoretically at least, the third difficulty allows us to
solve the first. It seems clear that some of the components of
social intelligence (i.e., those based on knowledge and
reasoning skills) should be expected to relate closely to
general intelligence but not so closely to personality traits
such as extraversion. Conversely, other components (i.e.,
those based on performance in social settings) might be
# 2001 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. ISSN 0036-5564.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2001, 42, 313319
more closely related to extraversion but less closely related
to general intelligence. With this in mind, it is possible that
treating social intelligence as a multi-faceted construct might
help to clarify the relationship between social intelligence
and related psychological constructs.
Current tests and issues in measuring social intelligence
A large number of tests measuring general intelligence have
been constructed and validated throughout this century.
These tests have been used in clinical settings as well as for
selection purposes and research. When it comes to measur-
ing social intelligence, however, few tests are commercially
available, and as far as we know there are no tests of social
intelligence in the Norwegian language (see Taylor, 1990, for
an overview).
Furthermore, there are a number of problems with
existing measures of social intelligence. First, many of them
are time consuming and difficult to administer. Second, and
most importantly, different types of social intelligence
measures (i.e., self-report, behavioral, assessment by ob-
servers, etc.) are often not highly correlated with one
another (Wong, Day, Maxwell & Meara, 1995). Among
the likely explanations for these inconsistencies are (a)
disagreements in the definition of social intelligence, (b) low
reliability among many nonverbal methods for measuring
social intelligence, and (c) possible biases in self-reported
results (e.g., self-serving bias; see Miller & Ross, 1975).
The present research
Most of the problems in previous attempts to measure social
intelligence can be resolved by using a simple, self-report
format. First, this format is very simple and allows for rapid
administration, avoiding the complications and time de-
mands associated with many existing social intelligence
measures. Second, definitional problems can be minimized
by (a) obtaining expert opinions from professional psychol-
ogists about how social intelligence should be defined and
combining these opinions to form a consensual definition;
and (b) including items in a preliminary version of a social
intelligence measure that tap a variety of potential sub-
domains of social intelligence, then using factor analysis to
determine which of these sub-domains empirically identify
themselves as distinct from the others. Finally, avoiding
nonverbal measures should avoid the reliability problems
associated with such measures. The only significant draw-
back of a self-report measure is the potential of biased
responses, and this problem can be largely addressed by
including a measure of social desirability response bias in the
validation process.
With these considerations in mind, the objective of the
present research was to develop and provide preliminary
validation for the Troms Social Intelligence Scale (TSIS), a
Norwegian measure of social intelligence in a self-report,
paper-and-pencil format, designed for use in both experi-
mental and survey research in both basic and applied
settings.
STUDY 1
Because there seems to be little consensus about a precise
definition of social intelligence, a pilot study was conducted
using a procedure similar to that used by Kosmitzki and
John (1993) to explore experts' implicit theories about social
intelligence.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 14 members of the psychology faculty at the
University of Troms who participated on a voluntary basis.
Procedure
Participants were given a short questionnaire assessing their
definition of social intelligence. The first item was an open-ended
question: ``How would you define the construct social intelligence?''
The remainder of the questionnaire consisted of a list of 27 abilities
that might be related to social intelligence (e.g., ``Understanding
social contexts''). For each of these abilities, participants were asked
the degree to which that ability was relevant to the social intelligence
construct on a scale from 0 (not relevant) to 4 (very relevant).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A qualitative evaluation of responses to the open-ended
response measure suggested the following as a working
definition for social intelligence: ``the ability to understand
other people and how they will react to different social
situations''. The ability to understand others was by far the
most frequently mentioned aspect of social intelligence
(mentioned by 73% of responding participants) on this
measure.
Among the quantitative questions, the abilities most
strongly identified with social intelligence were understand-
ing others (M=3.92, SD=0.28), understanding social
contexts (M=3.85, SD=0.38), taking others' perspectives
(M=3.77, SD=0.60), and predicting others' reactions
(M=3.69, SD=0.63). Among the items that were not
regarded as closely related to social intelligence, perhaps the
most surprising were getting along well in social gatherings
(M=1.85, SD=1.46), creating a good first impression,
(M=2.00, SD=1.00), intelligence (M=1.85, SD=1.14),
and being well-liked (M=1.69, SD=1.32).
Based on these ratings, it seems clear that these experts
viewed social intelligence as primarily based on cognitive
skills like perspective-taking and judging other people. Most
behavioral skills, such as getting along well with others, were
rated as much less central to the social intelligence construct.
# 2001 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.
314 David H. Silvera, Monica Martinussen and Tove I. Dahl Scand J Psychol 42 (2001)
STUDY 2
Based on the results from Study 1, a preliminary version of
the TSIS was developed. This version contained a total of
103 items asking respondents to rate themselves on various
abilities associated with social intelligence. The majority of
these items were designed to correspond with the expert
evaluations of social intelligence from Study 1. However, it
is also possible that the procedure in Study 1 resulted in an
``expert bias'' that emphasized cognitive over behavioral
aspects of social intelligence. Because of this possibility and
because of the prevalence of behavioral measures in previous
social intelligence research, several behavioral items were
included in the preliminary version of the TSIS. The purpose
of Study 2 was to identify a psychometrically sound subset
of these items through factor analysis.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 202 students at the University of Troms who
participated on a voluntary basis.
Materials
Social Desirability. The tendency to respond in a socially desirable
fashion was measured using the Norwegian short form of the
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSD; Crowne &
Marlowe, 1960) developed by Rudmin (1999). This scale consists of
10 true-false items, half of which are reverse coded, and measures
the tendency to respond in an unrealistically self-flattering fashion.
Social Intelligence. Social intelligence was measured using a
preliminary 103-item version of the TSIS. Each of the items was a
statement concerning an ability related to the social intelligence
concept (e.g., ``I can predict other peoples' behavior''). Respondents
were asked the degree to which each statement described them on a
scale from 1 (``Describes me extremely poorly'') to 7 (``Describes me
extremely well''). Only the endpoints of the scale had semantic
labels.
Procedure
Participants were given the experimental materials during their
classes and asked to return them during the next class session.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Exploratory factor analysis
After recoding items that were negatively worded, an
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) using principle compo-
nents analysis and varimax rotation was conducted on the
103 preliminary TSIS items. This analysis revealed a total of
28 factors with eigenvalues above 1.00, but examination of
the scree plot indicated that a 3-factor solution was most
appropriate. This solution explained a total of 30% of the
variance in the original item set. Based on this result, items
were selected according to the following criteria: (a) a
minimum factor loading of 0.45 on one of the three factors;
(b) a maximum cross-loading of 0.35 on other factors; and
(c) a maximum correlation of 0.30 with the MCSD. In
addition, it was agreed that an equal number of items would
be selected to represent each factor. This resulted in the
selection of 21 items, seven of which represented each of the
three factors in the EFA solution (see Table 1; a preliminary
English translation of these items is also shown in the
Appendix). Based on the content of the items loading on
each factor, the subscales of items representing the three
factors were labeled Social information Processing (SP),
Social Skills (SS), and Social Awareness (SA).
The 21 items were then submitted to another EFA using
principle components analysis and varimax rotation. The
results of this analysis are shown in Table 1. Overall, the 3-
factor solution explained 51% of the variance in the 21
items. Each of the items has a loading of 0.55 or higher on
its primary factor, and only one item had a cross-loading of
more than 0.30 on other factors.
1
Reliability and social desirability
Internal reliability for each of the three factors was
evaluated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Based on this
measure, the SP ( 0:81), SS ( 0:86), and SA ( 0:79)
subscales of the TSIS all showed acceptable internal
reliability.
Another important criterion for evaluating psychological
measurement instruments is their susceptibility to response
bias. One particularly problematic bias is the social
desirability response set, which can be measured by the
MCSD. To measure this response set, each item in the final
21-item version of the TSIS was correlated with scores on
the Norwegian version of the MCSD. These correlations
ranged from 0.01 to 0.22 (see the last column of Table 1).
None of the items in the SP subscale were significantly
correlated with the MCSD. Several of the SS and SA items
were significantly correlated with MCSD scores, but the low
magnitude of these correlations indicates very little shared
variance with the MCSD (i.e., every item had less than 5%
shared variance with the MCSD).
In addition, the TSIS subscales were correlated with each
other and with the MCSD (see Table 2). Similar to the
item-level analysis, the SP subscale of the TSIS was not
correlated with MCSD scores, but both the SS and SA
subscales were significantly correlated with MCSD scores.
Again, however, the magnitude of these correlations
indicates that none of the TSIS subscales had more than
5% shared variance with the MCSD. The 3 TSIS subscales
were also moderately intercorrelated (0.25 to 0.30), which is
to be expected given that they measure three facets of the
same construct.
# 2001 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.
Scand J Psychol 42 (2001) Social Intelligence Scale 315
Confirmatory factor analysis
Finally, the 21-item solution was submitted to a Confirma-
tory Factor Analysis (CFA) using AMOS 4.0 (Arbuckle &
Wothke, 1999). The structural model included three content-
based factors (SP, SS, and SA) responsible for seven items
each, and an additional method factor that was responsible
for the 11 items with negative wording. Thus, each positively
worded item was accounted for only by its primary content-
based factor (see Table 1 for a mapping of items onto
factors) and each negatively worded item was accounted for
both by its primary content-based factor and the method
factor. In addition to the Chi-squared measure of absolute
fit, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA; Browne &
Cudek, 1993) were used as measures of relative model fit.
Even for models with poor absolute fit, recent research
suggests that CFI values of 0.95 or higher (Hu & Bentler,
1999; Carlson & Mulaik, 1993) and RMSEA values of 0.08
or lower indicate reasonably good overall model fit (Steiger,
1989; Browne & Mels, 1990; Browne & Cudek, 1993). Based
on these values, the present model showed acceptable
relative fit, CFI =0.99, RMSEA=0.07, but poor absolute
fit,
2
(175) 360:48, p < 0:001.
2
STUDY 3
The 21-item version of the TSIS identified in Study 2 was
given to a new sample in order to verify its psychometric
properties. The purpose of Study 3 was to confirm the factor
structure obtained in Study 2. Also, because gender fairness
(Pace, Stamler & Yarris, 1992) and age fairness (Popkin,
Schaie & Krauss, 1983) are important issues in the
assessment literature, Study 3 examined the relationships
between the TSIS subscales and these demographic vari-
ables.
Table 2. Subscale correlations in Study 2
MCSD
Social
information
processing
Social
skills
Social Information Processing 0.01
Social Skills 0.20** 0.30***
Social Awareness 0.22** 0.25*** 0.30***
*** p < 0:001, ** p < 0:01 (two-tailed).
Table 1. Factor loadings and correlations with MCSD for TSIS items in Study 2
a
TSIS item
Social
information
processing
Social
skills
Social
awareness MCSD
SP subscale:
1. Jeg kan forutsi andre menneskers oppfrsel. 0.72 0.02
3. Jeg vet hvordan mine handlinger vil fa andre til a fle seg. 0.70 0.02
6. Jeg forsta r andre menneskers flelser. 0.59 0.04
9. Jeg forsta r andres nsker. 0.57 0.01
14. Ofte kan jeg skjnne hva andre prver a formidle, uten at det behves a si noe. 0.69 0.01
17. Jeg kan forutsi hvordan andre vil reagere pa hvordan jeg oppfrer meg. 0.62 0.02
19. Ofte kan jeg forsta hva andre egentlig mener gjennom deres blikk, kroppsspra k, o.l. 0.76 0.00
SS subscale:
4. Jeg fler meg ofte usikker sammen med nye mennesker jeg ikke kjenner. 0.71 0.18*
7. Jeg glir lett inn i sosiale situasjoner. 0.83 0.19**
10. Jeg er flink til a ga inn i nye situasjoner og treffe folk for frste gang. 0.77 0.17*
12. Jeg har vanskelig for a komme overens med andre mennesker. 0.69 0.18*
15. Det tar lang tid fr jeg lrer a kjenne andre godt. 0.61 0.15*
18. Jeg er flink til a finne meg til rette sammen med nye mennesker. 0.84 0.14
20. Jeg har ofte problemer med a finne pa gode samtaleemner. 0.63 0.11
SA subscale:
2. Jeg synes ofte det er vanskelig a forsta andres valg. 0.58 0.22**
5. Folk overrasker meg ofte med ting de gjr. 0.60 0.07
8. Andre mennesker blir sint pa meg uten at jeg kan forklare hvorfor. 0.40 0.61 0.12
11. Det virker som folk ofte blir sint eller irritert pa meg na r jeg sier hva jeg mener. 0.70 0.18**
13. Jeg finner folk uforutsigbare. 0.57 0.12
16. Jeg har ofte sa ret andre uten a vre klar over det. 0.74 0.20**
21. Jeg blir ofte overrasket av andres reaksjoner pa det jeg gjr. 0.70 0.06
a
The numbers preceding each item indicate the sequence of presentation of items in the final version of the TSIS. Items 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13,
15, 16 and 21 are negatively worded and should be reverse scored. Factor loadings below 0.30 are not reported.
** p < 0:01, * p < 0:05 (two-tailed).
# 2001 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.
316 David H. Silvera, Monica Martinussen and Tove I. Dahl Scand J Psychol 42 (2001)
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 290 students (182 female, 108 male) at the
University of Troms who were compensated with an instant win
lottery ticket worth 20 Norwegian kroner (approximately $2.50).
The mean age of participants was 24.73 years (SD=5.83 years).
Procedure
The TSIS was given to participants in small groups in addition to a
short demographic questionnaire asking for participants' age and
gender. Participants completed these materials in the presence of the
experimenter and returned them prior to leaving the experimental
room.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Preliminary analyses
Internal reliability for each of the three factors was
evaluated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Based on this
measure, the SP ( 0:79), SS ( 0:85), and SA ( 0:72)
subscales all showed acceptable internal reliability. The
three TSIS subscales were significantly correlated with each
other, but as in Study 2 these correlations were moderate to
low in magnitude (0.16 to 0.39; see Table 3).
Gender norms for the three TSIS subscales are shown in
Table 4. A series of t-tests were conducted to identify gender
differences on the TSIS subscales. None of these analyses
indicated a significant association between gender and
scores on the TSIS subscales, although there was a margin-
ally significant tendency for women to report higher scores
than men on the SA subscale, F(1,286) =3.33, p < 0:10. In
addition, correlations were computed between age and
scores on the three TSIS subscales. Age was not significantly
correlated with scores on any of the TSIS subscales,
although there was a marginally significant correlation
between age and scores on the SP subscale, r(287) =0.11,
p < 0:10. These results suggest that the TSIS is unbiased with
regard to both age and gender.
Confirmatory factor analysis
The 21 TSIS items were submitted to a CFA using AMOS
4.0 (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999). As in Study 2, the specified
model included the three content-based factors responsible
for seven items each, and an additional method factor that
was responsible for the 11 items with negative wording. The
results were essentially identical to those in Study 2,
confirming the original factor structure in an independent
sample. Again, the model showed acceptable relative fit,
CFI =0.99, RMSEA=0.07, but poor absolute fit,

2
(175) 424:42, p < 0:001
2
.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The present studies provide a preliminary validation of the
TSIS, a self-report measure of social intelligence. Factor
analyses identified a 3-factor structure underlying social
intelligence: (a) social information processing; (b) social
skills; and (c) social awareness. This factor structure was
shown to be consistent across two independent samples. In
addition, Study 2 showed that the TSIS items and subscales
were reasonably free of social desirability response bias and
Study 3 showed that the TSIS subscales were relatively
unbiased in terms of both gender and age.
Limitations of the present research
Although we believe the present research represents a
significant step toward the development of a psychometri-
cally sound social intelligence measure, some important
issues remain to be addressed. First and foremost, research
is required to validate the TSIS against related ability
measures such as academic intelligence, related individual
difference measures such as empathy and EQ, and general
personality measures such as the Five Factor Model.
Second, the present research relies on responses from
samples of college students. Because college students differ
from the general population in terms of variables that are
likely to be associated with social intelligence, including
general intelligence (Plant & Richardson, 1958) and age (and
therefore experience in social situations), the structure of the
TSIS should be confirmed using a more general adult
population. Finally, the purpose of the present research was
to develop a Norwegian social intelligence measure. As such,
translations of the TSIS should be carefully validated before
use in other cultures, particularly those cultures in which
Table 3. TSIS subscale correlations in Study 3
Social information processing Social skills
Social Skills 0.22***
Social Awareness 0.39*** 0.16**
*** p < 0:001, ** p < 0:01 (two-tailed).
Table 4. Gender norms for TSIS subscales
Female Male F-value
a
Mean SD Mean SD
Social Information
Processing
33.09 5.49 32.29 6.88 1.19
Social Skills 33.20 7.23 32.79 7.71 0.21
Social Awareness 37.52 4.82 36.35 5.96 3.33
a
The degrees of freedom for the F-values are (1,286) for Social
Information Processing and Social Awareness, and F(1,287) for
Social Skills.
# 2001 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.
Scand J Psychol 42 (2001) Social Intelligence Scale 317
social intelligence is defined differently from the classic
``Western'' definition (see, e.g., Kagitcibasi, 1996).
Practical and theoretical contributions of the TSIS
The creation of the TSIS addresses a significant deficiency in
the measurement tools available to researchers in general
and to Scandinavian researchers in particular. Social
intelligence measures have been shown to have useful
applications in both clinical settings (e.g., Marx, Williams
& Claridge, 1994; Searight, Dunn, Grisso & Margolis, 1989)
and personnel selection settings (e.g., Osipow & Walsh,
1973). Unfortunately, social intelligence measures have
probably not been used as frequently as their utility justifies
because few social intelligence measures are available
(particularly in Scandinavia), and because existing social
intelligence measures are both complicated and time-
consuming. These limitations are particularly critical in
population surveys where measures must be easy to
administer and the cost of adding items is very high, and
in personnel selection settings where several useful measure-
ment instruments are competing for precious time with each
job candidate. Because the TSIS is easy to administer and
takes little time to complete, it can potentially add a great
deal to both research and applications in these domains.
In addition to these practical concerns, the TSIS addresses
an important theoretical problem in the domain of social
intelligence. Although most researchers are aware that
different definitions of social intelligence are used by
different researchers, it remains the case that they adopt a
single definition as their own and essentially ignore the
others (e.g., Barnes & Sternberg, 1989; Ford & Tisak, 1983;
Keating, 1978). This makes it extremely difficult to compare
results across different social intelligence studies and to
obtain a holistic picture of what is known and unknown in
this domain. By allowing researchers to test multiple facets
of social intelligence simultaneously, the TSIS can help to
eliminate this difficulty. Researchers interested in cognitive
aspects of social intelligence (e.g., Barnes & Sternberg, 1989)
might emphasize the SP and SA subscales of the TSIS,
whereas researchers more interested in behavioral aspects
(e.g., Ford & Tisak, 1983) of social intelligence might
emphasize the SS subscale; however, the fact that these three
distinct facets of social intelligence are represented in a
single measure allows the possibility of comparing the
relative importance of the different facets across different
aspects of social behavior.
Furthermore, there is sufficient empirical evidence at this
point in time to support the validity and importance of
several facets of social intelligence. As such, it is time to
move beyond the ``my definition is better than your
definition'' stage to address the important question of which
facets of social intelligence have the most explanatory power
with respect to different aspects of social performance and
different social conditions. Because the TSIS is explicitly
designed to tap a multi-faceted definition of social intelli-
gence, it can be an important step in this direction.
We thank Stein-Kjetil Moe, and Pa l Iversen for their assistance in
collecting data for this research.
NOTES
1
Item 9 had a cross-loading of 0.31 in the EFA on the 103-item
version of the TSIS. Consequently, although the cross-loading of
0.40 on the 21-item version of the TSIS exceeded our original
criterion value, we elected to retain this item.
2
For comparative purposes, CFAs were also run in Study 2 and
Study 3 with the same model excluding the method factor (i.e., with
only the 3 content-based factors). In Study 2, this resulted in the
following fit indices: CFI =0.98, RMSEA=0.09,
2
(186)
457:07, p < 0:001. In Study 3, the CFA results were CFI =0.98,
RMSEA=0.08,
2
(186) 535:58, p < 0:001. Based on these
results, the method factor was added because (a) MacCallum,
Browne and Sugawara (1996) suggest that RMSEA values between
0.08 and 0.10 indicate only mediocre model fit, and (b) the addition
of the method factor led to a substantial reduction in the Chi-
squared values relative to the number of degrees of freedom added
to the model (
2
=df 8:78 in Study 2 and 10.11 in Study 3).
REFERENCES
Arbuckle, J. & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS 4.0 User's Guide.
Chicago, IL: Smallwaters Corporation.
Barnes, M. L. & Sternberg, R. J. (1989). Social intelligence and
decoding of nonverbal cues. Intelligence, 13, 263287.
Browne, M. W. & Cudek, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing
model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural
equation models (pp. 132162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Browne, M. W. & Mels, G. (1990). RAMONA user's guide.
Unpublished report, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State
University, Columbus.
Carlson, M. & Mulaik, S. (1993). Trait ratings from descriptions of
behaviors as mediated by components of meaning. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 28, 111159.
Crowne, D. P. & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social
desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 24, 349354.
Ford, M. E. & Tisak, M. S. (1983). A further search for social
intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 197206.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York,
NY: McGraw Hill.
Heidrich, S. M. & Denny, N. W. (1994). Does social problem
solving differ from other types of problem solving during the
adult years? Experimental Aging Research, 20, 105126.
Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 155.
Kagitcibasi, C. (1996). Family and human development across
cultures: A view from the other side. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers: Mahweh, New Jersey.
Keating, D. P. (1978). A search for social intelligence. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 70, 218223.
Kosmitzki, C. & John, O. P. (1993). The implicit use of explicit
conceptions of social intelligence. Personality and Individual
Differences, 15, 1123.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W. & Sugawara, H. M. (1996).
Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance
structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130149.
# 2001 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.
318 David H. Silvera, Monica Martinussen and Tove I. Dahl Scand J Psychol 42 (2001)
Marx, E. M., Williams, J. & Claridge, G. C. (1994). Social problem-
solving in depression. European Review of Applied Psychology,
44, 271279.
Miller, D. T. & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving bias in the attribution
of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213225.
Osipow, S. H. & Walsh, W. B. (1973). Social intelligence and the
selection of counselors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 20,
366369.
Pace, D., Stamler, V. L. & Yarris, E. (1992). A challenge to the
challenges: Counseling centers of the 1990s. Counseling Psycho-
logist, 20, 183288.
Plant, W. T. & Richardson, H. (1958). The IQ of the average college
student. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 5, 229231.
Popkin, S. J., Schaie, K. W. & Krauss, I. K. (1983). Age-fair
assessment of psychometric intelligence. Educational Geron-
tology, 9, 4755.
Riggio, R. E., Messamer, J. & Throckmorton, B. (1991). Social and
academic intelligence: Conceptually distinct but overlapping
constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 695702.
Rudmin, F. W. (1999). Norwegian short-form of the Marlowe-
Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 40, 229233.
Searight, H. R., Dunn, E. J., Grisso, J. T. & Margolis, R. B. (1989).
Relation of cognitive functioning to daily living skills in a
geriatric population. Psychological Reports, 64, 399404.
Silvera, D. H., Martinussen, M. & Dahl, T. I. (2000). Preliminary
validation of a self-report measure of social intelligence. Annual
meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago,
IL.
Steiger, J. H. (1989). EzPATH: A supplementary module for
SYSTAT and SYGRAPH. Evanston, IL: SYSTAT.
Sternberg, R. J., Conway, B. E., Ketron, J. L. & Bernstein, M.
(1981). People's conceptions of intelligence. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 41, 3537.
Sternberg, R. J. & Smith, C. (1985). Social intelligence and decoding
skills in nonverbal communication. Journal of Social Cognition,
3, 1631.
Taylor, E. H. (1990). The assessment of social intelligence.
Psychotherapy, 27, 445457.
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its use. Harper's Magazine,
140, 227235.
Walker, R. E. & Foley, J. M. (1973). Social intelligence: Its history
and measurement. Psychological Reports, 33, 451495.
Wong, C. M. T., Day, J. D., Maxwell, S. E., Meara, N. M. (1995). A
multitrait-multimethod study of academic and social intelligence
in college students. Journal of Educational Research, 87,
117133.
Received 24 March 2000, accepted 30 August 2000
APPENDIX. ENGLISH VERSION OF THE TSIS
a
Factor 1: Social information processing (SP)
1. I can predict other peoples' behavior.
3. I know how my actions will make others feel.
6. I understand other peoples' feelings.
9. I understand others' wishes.
14. I can often understand what others are trying to
accomplish without the need for them to say anything.
17. I can predict how others will react to my behavior.
19. I can often understand what others really mean through
their expression, body language, etc.
Factor 2: Social skills (SS)
4. I often feel uncertain around new people who I don't
know.
7. I fit in easily in social situations.
10. I am good at entering new situations and meeting people
for the first time.
12. I have a hard time getting along with other people.
15. It takes a long time for me to get to know others well.
18. I am good at getting on good terms with new people.
20. I frequently have problems finding good conversation
topics.
Factor 3: Social awareness (SA)
2. I often feel that it is difficult to understand others'
choices.
5. People often surprise me with the things they do.
8. Other people become angry with me without me being
able to explain why.
11. It seems as though people are often angry or irritated
with me when I say what I think.
13. I find people unpredictable.
16. I have often hurt others without realizing it.
21. I am often surprised by others' reactions to what I do.
a
This translation is taken from Silvera, Martinussen & Dahl
(2000), which provides preliminary validation of the English
version of the TSIS.
# 2001 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.
Scand J Psychol 42 (2001) Social Intelligence Scale 319