Development and Validation of Two Short Forms of the Managing the Emotions of Others (MEOS) Scale
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 58-item MEOS assesses managing the emotions of others, a component of trait emotional intelligence (EI). Managing another person’s emotions can be used with the intention of helping the target but also in a strategically manipulative manner; the subscales of the MEOS cover both these aspects of emotion management. In order to allow researchers to access shorter versions of the MEOS for use in studies where administering the full-length scale is not feasible, two short forms of the MEOS with six (MEOS-SF) and four (MEOS-VSF) items per sub-scale were developed and validated. Study 1 used factor analysis of pre-existing MEOS item data to select items for the short forms and also compared the bivariate correlations of the MEOS, MEOS-SF and MEOS-VSF with personality and global trait EI. Study 2 examined the MEOS-SF and MEOS-VSF in two new samples (N = 394, 226). The results from both studies showed that the short forms had good psychometric properties and associations similar to those of the full-length MEOS with personality, global trait EI, and other measures. The MEOS-SF and MEOS-VSF are hence suitable for use in contexts where a brief assessment of the full range of the domain of managing the emotions of others is required. The availability of short subscales assessing the manipulative facets of the MEOS is especially relevant to the emerging area of “dark side” trait EI research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it