Emotion

Emotional Competence and Extrinsic Emotion Regulation

Directed Toward an Ostracized Person
Yuki Nozaki
Online First Publication, May 4, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000081

CITATION
Nozaki, Y. (2015, May 4). Emotional Competence and Extrinsic Emotion Regulation Directed
Toward an Ostracized Person. Emotion. Advance online publication.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000081

Emotion
2015, Vol. 15, No. 3, 000

2015 American Psychological Association

1528-3542/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000081

Emotional Competence and Extrinsic Emotion Regulation Directed Toward

an Ostracized Person
Yuki Nozaki

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Kyoto University and Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Tokyo, Japan
Positive interpersonal relationships hinge on individuals competence in regulating others emotions as
well as their own. Nevertheless, little is known about the relationship between emotional competence and
specific interpersonal behaviors. In particular, it is unclear which situations require emotional competence for extrinsic emotion regulation and whether emotionally competent individuals actually attempt to
regulate others emotions. To clarify these issues, the current investigation examined the relationship
between emotional competence and extrinsic emotion regulation directed toward an ostracized person.
The results of Study 1 (N 39) indicated that interpersonal emotional competence (competence related
to others emotions) was positively associated with participants efforts to relieve the ostracized persons
sadness. In Study 2 (N 120), this relationship was moderated by the ostracized persons emotional
expression. In particular, participants with high interpersonal emotional competence were more likely to
attempt to regulate the sadness of ostracized individuals who expressed neutral affect. In contrast, when
the ostracized person expressed sadness, there were no significant relationships between high or low
interpersonal emotional competence and extrinsic emotion regulation behavior. These results offer novel
insight into how emotionally competent individuals use their competence to benefit others.
Keywords: emotional competence, emotional intelligence, extrinsic emotion regulation, ostracism,
Cyberball

conflicting conceptions. The model consisted of three conceptions

of EC: knowledge, ability, and trait. Knowledge refers to broad,
complex conceptual-declarative emotional knowledge. Ability refers to emotion-related abilities, particularly those in which an
individual can engage when asked. Trait refers to the propensity to
behave in a certain way in emotional situations. These three levels
of emotion-related individual differences are loosely connected, in
that knowledge does not always translate into abilities, and abilities do not always translate into usual behavior. For example, an
individual may know that distraction is an effective strategy for
decreasing anger, but implementation of this strategy may not be
possible while they are becoming angry. In a similar vein, individuals may be able to distract themselves from situations that
evoke anger when asked but unable to do so on their own initiative.
This study focused on the trait level of EC.1
Previous studies have shown that the trait level of EC was
associated with the quality of interpersonal relationships. Indeed,
individuals with higher trait-level EC have been found to report
greater satisfaction in romantic and other interpersonal relationships (e.g., Malouff, Schutte, & Thorsteinsson, 2014; SchrderAb & Schtz, 2011; Schutte et al., 2001; Smith, Ciarrochi, &
Heaven, 2008) and less loneliness (e.g., Saklofske, Austin, &
Minski, 2003). In addition, peers have been shown to regard such
individuals as more cooperative (e.g., Frederickson, Petrides, &
Simmonds, 2012). Individuals who rated their partners as high in

The regulation and understanding of ones own and others

emotions is pivotal to social interaction. However, there are individual differences in competence with respect to understanding
and regulating ones own and others emotions appropriately.
Although this individual difference was originally conceptualized
as emotional intelligence (EI; Petrides & Furnham, 2003; Salovey
& Mayer, 1990), it has also been termed emotional competence
(EC). For example, Scherer (2007) suggested that researchers
should drop the potentially misleading term intelligence and
define this concept as EC in using the emotion mechanism, and
some recent empirical articles have used the term EC rather than
EI (e.g., Brasseur, Grgoire, Bourdu, & Mikolajczak, 2013; Kotsou, Nelis, Grgoire, & Mikolajczak, 2011; Nelis et al., 2011). In
light of this, the term EC will be used in this article.
Some researchers have argued that EC should be considered a
form of intelligence (ability model; Mayer & Salovey, 1997),
whereas others suggest that it should be regarded as a constellation
of emotional self-perceptions located at the lower levels of personality hierarchies (trait model; Petrides & Furnham, 2003).
Mikolajczak (2009) proposed a tripartite model to reconcile these

The research reported here was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Japan

Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) fellows (13J05204). I thank
Satoko Kuwahara, Asuka Tamura, Minako Nakatani, and Saori Fuwa for
their help with data collection.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Yuki
Nozaki, Graduate School of Education, Kyoto University, YoshidaHonmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan. E-mail: yuki.nozaki.kt@
gmail.com

1
As in previous studies (Brasseur et al., 2013; Kotsou et al., 2011; Nelis
et al., 2011), the term emotional competence is used in this article as a
synonym for trait emotional intelligence, a constellation of emotional
self-perceptions located at the lower levels of personality hierarchies
(Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007).

NOZAKI

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

EC have been found to report greater interpersonal satisfaction

with their partners (Schutte et al., 2001; Smith, Heaven, & Ciarrochi, 2008).
Although these studies have indicated that high EC leads to
successful interpersonal relationships, individuals cannot achieve
this overnight, as they are required to accumulate appropriate
interpersonal behaviors in specific social situations. Nevertheless,
little is known about the relationship between EC and specific
interpersonal behaviors. In particular, the link between EC and the
regulation of others emotions remains unknown. For example, do
emotionally competent individuals actually try to regulate others
emotions when they are faced with real pressures and their actions
have real consequences? In which types of situations are individual
differences in EC associated with the regulation of others emotions? The goal of this study was to test these questions experimentally.

Emotional Competence and Extrinsic

Emotion Regulation
In social situations, individuals regulate both their own and
others emotions. The former is referred to as intrinsic emotion
regulation, whereas the latter is known as extrinsic emotion
regulation (Gross, 2013). To date, the majority of studies have
focused on intrinsic emotion regulation (Gross, 2013; Zaki &
Williams, 2013). This is also the case with EC studies. In some
studies, researchers induce stress in participants by asking them to
perform difficult tasks. These studies revealed that, after stressful
laboratory tasks, individuals with higher EC exhibited lower levels
of negative emotion (Mikolajczak, Petrides, Coumans, & Luminet,
2009; Mikolajczak, Roy, Verstrynge, & Luminet, 2009) and salivary cortisol, an indicator of physiological stress response (Mikolajczak, Roy, Luminet, Fille, & De Timary, 2007; Salovey,
Stroud, Woolery, & Epel, 2002), relative to those with lower EC.
Other studies have examined the ways in which emotionally competent individuals regulate their own emotions in interpersonal
contexts. For example, the EC dimension concerning the regulation and use of emotions was shown to be negatively associated
with cyberbullying (Baroncelli & Ciucci, 2014). Moreover, Nozaki
and Koyasu (2013a) manipulated ostracism experimentally and
found that individuals with high EC inhibited retaliation against
others subsequent to being ostracized.
However, EC theory involves both intrinsic and extrinsic emotion regulation (Brasseur et al., 2013; Petrides & Furnham, 2003).
Extrinsic emotion regulation is distinct from intrinsic emotion
regulation in that such behavior could directly alter others psychological states. Moreover, performing appropriate extrinsic
emotion regulation is positively related to the quality of interpersonal relationships (Niven, Holman, & Totterdell, 2012). Therefore, this area of study will expand current understanding regarding how emotionally competent individuals use their own EC to
benefit others as a means of building successful interpersonal
relationships. Although previous studies have investigated the
relationship between EC and recognition of others emotions,
which is an antecedent process of extrinsic emotion regulation
(e.g., Austin, 2004, 2005; Petrides & Furnham, 2003), understanding others negative emotions does not necessarily lead to empathy or extrinsic emotion regulation (Decety & Lamm, 2006).
This is because empathic response does not come without costs

(Hodges & Klein, 2001). Therefore, further studies are required

to determine how EC is related to extrinsic emotion regulation
behaviors.
While there has been little research conducted in this area, some
recent studies have revealed positive associations between EC and
prosocial extrinsic emotion regulation strategies such as Enhance
(offering help or reassurance) and Divert (using humor and arranging an enjoyable activity; Austin & ODonnell, 2013; Austin,
Saklofske, Smith, & Tohver, 2014). However, these studies examined extrinsic emotion regulation via a self-report questionnaire;
therefore, whether individuals with high EC actually attempt to
regulate others emotions in specific social situations remains
unclear. Indeed, one of the fundamental questions in personality
psychology is that of whether personality traits are related to what
people do when they are faced with real pressures and their actions
have real consequences (Fleeson & Gallagher, 2009). Because the
trait level of EC is located at the lower levels of personality
hierarchies (Petrides & Furnham, 2003), manifestation of EC in a
specific social behavior can also be regarded as a theoretically
fundamental issue. Moreover, Austin et al. (2013, 2014) did not
identify the types of situations in which individuals perform extrinsic emotion regulation. Because situational factors moderate
the strength of trait manifestation in behaviors (Ching et al., 2014),
it is reasonable to assume that EC is important for extrinsic
emotion regulation in some situations but not others. To address
these limitations, further studies are required to establish social
situations experimentally and assess extrinsic emotion regulation
behaviorally. This type of investigation could provide a deeper
understanding of the relationship between EC and extrinsic emotion regulation.

Ostracism and Individual Differences in EC

The present study focused on ostracism as a situation in which
individual differences in EC emerge. Ostracism by peers is common, and managing this problem successfully provides a basis for
healthy social development (Killen, Mulvey, & Hitti, 2013). Ostracism has been defined as follows: being ignored and excluded,
and it often occurs without excessive explanation or explicit negative attention (Williams, 2007, p. 429). Because individuals have
a strong need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), it is unsurprising that previous studies have consistently shown that the
experience of ostracism elicits negative emotions such as sadness
(e.g., Wesselmann, Wirth, Mroczek, & Williams, 2012; Williams,
Cheung, & Choi, 2000).
Recently, several studies have examined the ways in which
individuals react or behave when they witness another person
being ostracized. These studies revealed that simply observing
ostracism elicited negative emotions that were similar to those of
individuals experiencing ostracism themselves (Wesselmann,
Bagg, & Williams, 2009). Observers also feel empathy toward
victims of ostracism and attempt to comfort them. For example,
people have been found to write more encouraging emails to
victims after witnessing ostracism (Masten, Morelli, & Eisenberger, 2011). Moreover, in some studies, individuals who participated in a ball-tossing game allocated more tosses to an ostracized
person after witnessing the ostracism (Riem, BakermansKranenburg, Huffmeijer, & van IJzendoorn, 2013; Wesselmann,
Wirth, Pryor, Reeder, & Williams, 2013). This ball-tossing behav-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

EMOTIONAL COMPETENCE AND EXTRINSIC REGULATION

ior was positively associated with sympathetic emotions toward

the victim rather than anger toward the ostracizers (Wesselmann et
al., 2013).
Emotionally competent individuals may be more likely to attempt to relieve an ostracized persons sadness via extrinsic emotion regulation. If an individual attempts to relieve an ostracized
persons sadness, the ostracizers could also begin to ostracize him
or her in addition to the original victim, as a means of punishment
(Wesselmann et al., 2013). Given this risk, there will be individual
differences in the extent to which people engage in extrinsic
emotion regulation directed toward an ostracized person while
witnessing ostracism. As the consequences of ostracism are related
to emotion (e.g., increased sadness), EC could play an important
role in dealing with ostracism (Nozaki & Koyasu, 2013a, 2013b).
However, there have been no studies conducted to examine
whether EC explains extrinsic emotion regulation directed toward an ostracized person. Therefore, the goal of the present
investigation was to examine the relationship between EC and
extrinsic emotion regulation in two studies conducted to determine the type of person who would attempt to comfort an
ostracized individual.

Second, individual differences in EC may emerge when ostracized individuals do not express sadness. In this case, individuals use a more abstract, inferential route to the generation
of empathic reactions (Engen & Singer, 2013). Specifically,
they must infer the ostracized persons emotions based on cues
in the environment (e.g., other people are trying to ostracize
that person). Theoretically, it is assumed that individuals with
high EC are capable of inferring others emotional states based
on situational cues (Saarni, 1999). If only emotionally competent individuals are able to form a deep understanding of an
ostracized persons sadness in the absence of salient emotional
expression, this may facilitate extrinsic emotion regulation directed toward the ostracized person. Therefore, individual differences in EC may emerge more strongly when ostracized
individuals do not express sadness.
The second study manipulated ostracized individuals emotional expressions and examined the effects of this manipulation
on the relationship between EC and extrinsic emotion regulation. The findings of this study revealed the types of situations
in which EC matters in extrinsic emotion regulation.

Effects of Ostracized Individuals

Emotional Expressions

The Present Investigation

Ostracized individuals do not always express their negative

emotions while they are experiencing ostracism. Previous research has revealed that some individuals deliberately inhibit
expressing their emotions, even though they would like to
express them honestly, to avoid appearing weak (Joseph, Williams, Irwing, & Cammock, 1994; King & Emmons, 1990;
Spokas, Luterek, & Heimberg, 2009). Accordingly, empathy
theory suggests two routes to the generation of empathic reactions. One is a stimulusresponse, perception-based route that is
used when there is sufficient sensory information regarding
others psychological states. The other is a more abstract,
inferential route that is used when there is minimal sensory
information available regarding others psychological states;
this route requires the use of contextual information (Engen &
Singer, 2013; Singer & Lamm, 2009). Because the existence of
different pathways is an important factor that should be taken
into account when assessing individual differences in empathy
(Singer & Lamm, 2009), it seems reasonable to examine the
ways in which an ostracized persons emotional expression
affects the relationship between EC and extrinsic emotion regulation.
There are two possibilities relevant to this line of questioning.
First, individual differences in EC may emerge when an ostracized
person expresses sadness. In this case, the individual uses a
stimulusresponse, perception-based route to the generation of
empathic reactions (Engen & Singer, 2013). Indeed, previous
research has indicated that individuals with high EC are more
sensitive to emotional stimuli relative to those with low EC
(Petrides & Furnham, 2003). This strong sensitivity to emotional
stimuli may facilitate extrinsic emotion regulation directed toward
those who express sadness. Therefore, those with high EC may be
more likely to attempt to regulate the negative emotion of an
ostracized person who expresses sadness.

The aim of the present investigation was to examine the relationship between EC and extrinsic emotion regulation directed
toward an ostracized person. More important, EC comprises both
intrapersonal (competence related to ones own emotions) and
interpersonal (competence related to others emotions) dimensions
(e.g., Brasseur et al., 2013). Because interpersonal EC is a domain
related to others emotions, it is likely to be positively associated
with greater levels of regulation of an ostracized persons sadness
(extrinsic emotion regulation). The present study investigated this
hypothesis by experimentally devising a situation in which others
were ostracized (Study 1). In Study 2, the emotional expression
(sad or neutral) of an ostracized person was examined as a moderator of the relationship between EC and extrinsic emotion regulation.
In addition, previous studies have emphasized the importance
of controlling for other related factors, such as social desirability and personality traits, in EC studies to determine whether
EC is distinct from these constructs (e.g., Zeidner, Roberts, &
Matthews, 2008). Therefore, social desirability (Studies 1 and
2) and the Big Five personality traits (Study 2) were controlled
for when examining the relationship between EC and extrinsic
emotion regulation directed toward an ostracized person. Moreover, sex was also included as a control variable, as several
studies have reported sex differences in extrinsic emotion regulation (e.g., Niven, Totterdell, Stride, & Holman, 2011).

Study 1
The goal of Study 1 was to investigate the relationship between
EC and extrinsic emotion regulation directed toward an ostracized
person. It was hypothesized that individuals with high interpersonal EC would be more likely to regulate the ostracized persons
sadness.

NOZAKI

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Method
Participants. Forty undergraduate or graduate students participated in the experiment. One participant indicated that he or she
was completely aware that the other players were controlled by the
computer program; therefore, this participant was excluded from
the analysis. This resulted in a final sample of 39 participants (21
men, 18 women; Mage 21.33, SD 3.32).
Materials and procedure. Approximately 1 week before the
experiment, participants completed an EC questionnaire online. In
the experimental session, four participants who were unknown to
each other were seated in front of computers in the same experimental room. Some groups only contained three participants; in
such cases, a research assistant acted as a confederate and
participated in the experiment. Participants were separated by
partitions and could not see each other during the experiment.
Subsequent to providing written and verbal informed consent,
participants completed a social desirability questionnaire.2
Thereafter, they were informed that the aim of the study was to
examine the effects of mental visualization and they would be
playing an Internet ball-tossing game on the computers. They
were asked to visualize the situation, themselves, and the other
players. They were also instructed to wear earmuffs during the
game to allow them to concentrate on playing. The actual
purpose of the earmuffs was to prevent participants from hearing other participants pressing keys. Participants completed a
practice session, played Cyberball, and then answered questions
concerning their motivation for relieving other players sadness.
When the experiment concluded, participants were thoroughly
debriefed and informed of the true purpose of the study. More
important, they were informed that the other players were not
participants in the same room but controlled by the computer. The
procedure was approved by the ethics committee at the Graduate
School of Education, Kyoto University.
Emotional competence. The Profile of Emotional Competence (PEC; Brasseur et al., 2013; Japanese translation: Nozaki
& Koyasu, in press) was used to assess EC. This scale consists
of two second-order subscales: intrapersonal and interpersonal
EC. Each subscale contains five first-order factors: identification, comprehension, expression, regulation, and utilization of
emotions. Participants rated 50 items on a 5-point scale ranging
from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). The PEC was used
in the present investigation, because it is the only EC measure
that can be used to comprehensively assess self- and otherrelated emotional competency as different domains. Previous
studies have shown substantial convergent correlations between
the PEC and an existing EC measure (Brasseur et al., 2013;
Nozaki & Koyasu, in press). These studies have also revealed
adequate reliability, factorial validity (distinctness of intra- and
interpersonal domains of EC), and concurrent validity for the
PEC. Nozaki and Koyasu (in press) also demonstrated the
incremental validity of the PEC over the Big Five personality
traits. Moreover, the scores of both the PEC and the abovementioned existing EC measure are significant predictors of health
and have incremental predictive power over and above other
predictors such as age, sex, health behaviors (diet, physical
activity, smoking, and drinking), body mass index, and educational level (Mikolajczak et al., in press). These studies suggest
that the PEC has adequate psychometric properties. This scale

yields two area scores: intrapersonal EC and interpersonal EC.

Cronbachs coefficients were .85 for intrapersonal EC and .84
for interpersonal EC in this sample.
Social desirability. The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability
Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960; Japanese translation: Kitamura
& Suzuki, 1986) was used to assess social desirability. Participants
responded to 33 items rated on a dichotomous scale (true/false).
Cronbachs coefficient was .73 in this sample.
Cyberball. Participants played Cyberball (Williams et al.,
2000), an online ball-tossing game, which allowed for the assessment of behaviors intended to relieve the ostracized persons
sadness. Participants were told that they would be represented by
an animated hand at the bottom of the computer screen, with the
other three players represented by animated figures located opposite and to the left and right of the participants animated hand.
When the ball was tossed to the participants, they pressed 1, 2, or
3 on the keyboard to throw the ball to the left, opposite, or right
player, respectively.
In the practice session, participants played Cyberball with other
participants, and the session lasted for as long as it took to
complete 10 throws. In the experimental session, the computer
controlled the three other agents during the game; however, the
participants believed that they were playing the game with three
other participants. In this session, two of the other players (ostracizers) were programmed to ostracize the third player (an ostracized person), as described in Wesselmann et al. (2013). Each
ostracizer threw the ball to the other ostracizer and the participant
equally frequently. The ostracized person was programmed to
throw the ball to other players equally frequently. The location of
the ostracized person was counterbalanced across participants. The
dependent variable (extrinsic emotion regulation) was the proportion of ball tosses from the participant to the ostracized person. The
experimental session ended once the participant had thrown the
ball 20 times.
Motivation for relieving other players sadness. Participants
motivation for relieving the other players sadness during the game
was also measured; specifically, participants were asked to rate
their agreement with the following statements: You attempted to
reduce the left (/opposite/right) players sadness during the game,
and You attempted to increase the left (/opposite/right) players
enjoyment during the game. These two items were positively
associated with each other (r .62, p .001 for ratings of the
ostracized person, r .54, p .001 for ratings of the ostracizers).
Responses were rated from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much).

Results and Discussion

Confirmation of the meaning of ball-tossing behavior. The
proportion of ball tosses from the participant to the ostracized
person was positively associated with motivation for relieving the
ostracized persons sadness after controlling for motivation for
relieving ostracizers sadness (r .32, p .047, 95% CI
2
Participants completed the social desirability scale at the experimental
session and not before to decrease the burden to participants before the
experiment. The correlation between social desirability and the proportion
of ball tosses from the participant to the ostracized person was trivial (see
Table 1), and the mean value of these proportions was similar to that
reported in Riem et al. (2013). Therefore, there is no indication of an effect
resulting from this procedure.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

EMOTIONAL COMPETENCE AND EXTRINSIC REGULATION

[.00, .58]).3 Therefore, tossing the ball toward the ostracized person
appeared to indicate an attempt to regulate that persons sadness.
Mean proportion ball tosses to the ostracized person. A t test
was performed and indicated that the mean proportion of ball
tosses from the participant to the ostracized person (M 41.41%,
SD 10.06) was significantly higher than that of chance
(33.33%), t(38) 5.01, p .001, d 0.80. Therefore, participants appeared to attempt to regulate the ostracized persons
sadness more frequently than they would have by chance.
Relationship between EC and ball-tossing behavior.
Correlation analyses were performed to examine the relationship
between EC and ball tosses from the participant to the ostracized
person. Intercorrelations between EC, ball tosses from the participant to the ostracized person, and control variables are summarized in Table 1. The results showed that interpersonal EC was
positively correlated with the proportion of ball tosses from the
participant to the ostracized person (r .32, p .047, 95% CI
[.01, .58]).4 However, there was no significant relationship between intrapersonal EC and this behavior (r .04, p .819, 95%
CI [.28, .35]). Furthermore, partial correlation analyses indicated
that even after controlling for sex and social desirability, the
relationship between interpersonal EC and the proportion of ball
tosses from the participant to the ostracized person remained
significant (r .33, p .044, 95% CI [.02, .59]); however, there
was no significant relationship between intrapersonal EC and this
behavior (r .01, p .977, 95% CI [.31, .32]). These findings
suggest that participants with high interpersonal EC were more
likely to attempt to regulate ostracized individuals sadness by
throwing the ball to them.

Study 2
The main goal of Study 2 was to examine the ways in which an
ostracized persons emotional expression moderates the relationship between EC and extrinsic emotion regulation directed toward
the ostracized person. Furthermore, because the sample size in
Study 1 was small, Study 2 also sought to ascertain whether the
positive association between interpersonal EC and extrinsic emotion regulation would also be observed in a larger sample. The Big
Five personality traits, social desirability, and sex were controlled
for in the analysis.

Method
Participants. There were 124 undergraduate or graduate students participated in the experiment. Four participants were excluded from the analysis because they indicated that they were
completely aware that the other players were controlled by the
computer program. This resulted in a final sample of 120 participants, who were randomly assigned to either the sadness expression condition (40 men, 20 women; Mage 20.55, SD 1.81) or
the neutral expression condition (39 men, 21 women; Mage
20.40, SD 1.59). The conditions were balanced for sex ratio.
Materials and procedure. The procedure was similar to that
of Study 1. Approximately 1 week before the experimental session, participants completed the EC and Big Five Inventory questionnaires online. At the experimental sessions, four people participated in the experiment simultaneously; when there were only
three participants available, a research assistant participated as a

confederate. Subsequent to providing written and verbal informed

consent, participants completed a social desirability questionnaire,
played the Cyberball game, and answered the questions for the
manipulation check and those regarding motivation for relieving
another players sadness. When the experiment concluded, participants were thoroughly debriefed (as described in the Method
section for Study 1). The procedure was approved by the ethics
committee at the Graduate School of Education, Kyoto University.
Emotional competence. EC was measured using the PEC
(Brasseur et al., 2013; described in Study 1). Cronbachs coefficients were .84 for intrapersonal EC and .89 for interpersonal EC
in this sample.
Big Five personality traits. The Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003; Japanese translation: Oshio, Abe, & Cutrone, 2012) was used to assess the Big Five
personality traits. Extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, openness, and conscientiousness were each assessed using two items
rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7
(totally agree). Although the TIPI is a very short scale, previous
studies have shown substantial convergent correlations between
the TIPI and existing Big Five measures (Ehrhart et al., 2009;
Gosling et al., 2003; Oshio, Abe, Cutrone, & Gosling, 2013).
Moreover, the TIPI and an existing Big Five measure demonstrated similar correlations with external variables (Gosling et al.,
2003). Therefore, the TIPI is thought to capture the content of the
Big Five sufficiently. In this study, the interitem correlation coefficients for the traits ranged from .27 to .63. Oshio et al. (2012)
reported adequate testretest reliability (r .64 .86) for the TIPI
in a Japanese sample.
Social desirability. Social desirability was measured using
the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960; Japanese translation: Kitamura & Suzuki, 1986;
described in Study 1). Cronbachs coefficient for this sample
was .74.
3
Although the proportion of balls tossed from the participant to the
ostracized person was positively related to the motivation for relieving the
ostracized persons sadness, the strength of this correlation was moderate.
This motivation was not related to social desirability (r .04) and
moderately related to interpersonal EC (r .30) after controlling for
motivation for relieving the ostracizers sadness. Wesselmann et al. (2013)
also revealed moderate correlations between ball-tossing behavior and
sympathetic emotions (r .36) and compensation motive (r .27).
Therefore, the strength of the correlation was similar to those reported in
previous research. The strength of these correlations was probably only
moderate because it reflected an intention-behavior gap (Sheeran, 2002).
For example, even though participants reported that they had attempted to
relieve the ostracized persons sadness, they may not have done so sufficiently in reality, because there is a risk that ostracizers will begin to
ostracize them as a form of punishment (Wesselmann et al., 2013). This
type of gap could reduce the strength of the correlation (Sheeran, 2002).
Ball-tossing behavior was interpreted as extrinsic emotion regulation behavior in accordance with previous research (Reim et al., 2013; Wesselmann et al., 2013), because the present investigation focused on what
participants actually did rather than what they intended to do.
4
When focusing on subsets of interpersonal EC, expression and
regulation were more strongly related to ball-tossing behavior toward
the ostracized person (r .39 40), followed by utilization (r .27),
and the remaining subsets (r .01.07). These results are reasonable
because the content of both expression (example item: Other people
tend to confide in me about personal issues) and regulation (example
item: I am good at lifting other peoples spirits) is related to successful
involvement with others.

NOZAKI

Table 1
Intercorrelations for Control Variables, EC, and Ball-Tosses From the Participant to the
Ostracized Person in Study 1
1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Sexa
Social desirability
Intrapersonal EC
Interpersonal EC
Boll-tosses from the participant
to the ostracized person

.12 [.20, .42]

.09 [.23, .39]
.10 [.22, .40]
.18 [.14, .47]

.50 [.22, .71]

.49 [.20, .70]

.72 [.52, .84]

.06 [.26, .37]

.04 [.28, .35]

.32 [.01, .58]

Note. N 39; EC emotional competence.

Men 0, women 1.
p .05. p .01. p .001.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Cyberball. Participants played Cyberball, an online balltossing game, with three other players. As described in Study 1,
participants played Cyberball with the other participants during the
practice session; however, during the experimental session, two of
the other players (ostracizers) were programmed to ostracize the
third player (the ostracized person). As in Study 1, each ostracizer
threw the ball to the other ostracizer and the participant equally
frequently. The ostracized person threw the balls to the other
players equally frequently. The location of the ostracized person
was counterbalanced across participants.
In addition, the players could change their avatars emotional
expressions. There were illustrations of the emotional facial expressions located close to each avatar. Participants were instructed
to press the key that corresponded to their emotions; this key
allowed participants to change the illustrations of their avatars
emotional facial expressions as their emotions changed during the
game. They pressed the n, s, a, and h keys to change the illustration
of the avatars emotional facial expression to neutral, sad, angry,
and happy, respectively.
The ostracized persons emotional expression was manipulated.
In particular, in the sadness expression condition, the illustration of
the ostracized persons emotional facial expression changed from
neutral to sad once participants had thrown the ball 10 times. In the
neutral expression condition, the illustration of the ostracized
persons emotional facial expression was neutral throughout the
game. In both conditions, the illustrations of the other two players
emotional facial expressions were always neutral.
The illustrations of emotional facial expressions used in the
study are shown in Figure 1. To validate the illustrations, a
separate sample of participants (N 41) rated each of the illustrations according to their perception of sadness, anger, happiness,
and neutral affect. All items were rated from 1 (not at all) to 7
(very much). Table 2 shows the means and SDs for the preliminary
study. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that there were

significant differences in the perceived emotion measures. Ryans

Q post hoc analyses showed that the sadness, anger, happiness, and
neutral ratings were highest for the sad, angry, happy, and neutral
illustrations, respectively (ps .001). These results confirmed that
the illustrations of emotional facial expressions were interpreted as
intended.
Manipulation check. To determine whether the manipulation
of the ostracized persons emotional expression was successful,
participants rated their agreement with the following statement:
The left (/opposite/right) player felt sadness during the game.
They also rated the extent to which each player felt joy during the
game to obscure the experimenters intention. Participants responded to all items using a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7
(very much).
Motivation for relieving other players sadness. Participants rated the same items as those used in Study 1. As in Study
1, the two items were positively associated with each other (r
.65, p .001 for ratings of the ostracized person; r .44, p .001
for ratings of the ostracizers).

Results and Discussion

Manipulation check. A t test revealed that participants ratings of the ostracized persons sadness were significantly higher in
the sadness expression condition (M 5.90, SD 1.30) relative
to the neutral expression condition (M 3.48, SD 2.05),
t(118) 7.70, p .001, d 1.41, 95% CI [0.83, 1.99], which
confirmed that the manipulation was successful.

Table 2
Perceived Emotion in the Facial Expression Illustrations Used
in Study 2
Facial expression illustrations

Figure 1.

Illustrations of emotional facial expression used in Study 2.

Perceived
emotion

Sadness
M (SD)

Anger
M (SD)

Joy
M (SD)

Sadness
Anger
Joy
Neutral

6.29 (0.71)
2.71 (1.60)
1.17 (0.44)
2.54 (1.58)

3.24 (1.59)
6.85 (0.42)
1.22 (0.47)
1.71 (1.17)

1.71 (1.19)
1.95 (1.38)
6,88 (0.33)
3.85 (1.87)

Note. N 41.

p .001.

Neutral
M (SD)

3.00 (1.77) 106.85

2.22 (1.44) 139.78
3.76 (1.49) 391.74
6.20 (0.94) 95.03

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

EMOTIONAL COMPETENCE AND EXTRINSIC REGULATION

Confirmation of the meaning of ball-tossing behavior. As

in Study 1, a partial correlation analysis indicated that the proportion of ball tosses from the participant to the ostracized person was
positively associated with motivation for relieving the ostracized
persons sadness after controlling for motivation for relieving
ostracizers sadness (r .46, p .001, 95% CI [.30, .59]). This
result confirmed that this behavior could be interpreted as an
attempt to regulate the ostracized persons sadness.
Mean proportion of ball tosses to the ostracized person. In
both the sadness and neutral expression conditions, the proportions
of ball tosses from the participant to the ostracized person were
significantly higher than that of chance (33.33%; M 42.42%,
SD 14.10 for the sadness expression condition; M 39.92%,
SD 12.94 for the neutral expression condition), t(59) 4.99,
p .001, d 0.64; t(59) 3.94, p .001, d 0.51, respectively.
These results indicated that participants attempted to regulate the
ostracized persons sadness more frequently than they would have
by chance in both conditions. The difference in the proportions of
ball tosses to the ostracized person between conditions did not
reach significance, t(118) 1.01, p .31, d 0.18, 95% CI
[0.40, 0.76].
Relationship between EC and ball-tossing behavior.
Intercorrelations between EC, ball tosses from the participant to
the ostracized person, and control variables are summarized in
Table 3. As in Study 1, interpersonal EC was positively correlated
with ball tosses from the participant to the ostracized person (r
.24. p .007, 95% CI [.07, .40]).5 Unexpectedly, intrapersonal EC
was also positively correlated with ball tosses from the participant
to the ostracized person (r .24. p .008, 95% CI [.07, .40]).6
A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to
investigate the moderating effect of the conditions on ball tosses
from the participant to the ostracized person. Following the recommendations of Aiken and West (1991), all continuous predictors were centered. In Step 1, sex (men 0, women 1), social
desirability, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness,
and conscientiousness were entered. In Step 2, condition (neutral
expression 0, sadness expression 1), intrapersonal EC, and
interpersonal EC were entered. In Step 3, intrapersonal EC
condition and interpersonal EC condition interactions were
entered. The results are summarized in Table 4.
As expected, the interaction between interpersonal EC and condition was significant. The interaction was decomposed via simple
slope analysis (see Figure 2). The results showed that interpersonal
EC was positively associated with ball tosses from the participant
to the ostracized person in the neutral expression condition (B
9.30, p .028, 95% CI [1.03, 17.57]). However, this relationship
was nonsignificant in the sadness expression condition
(B 2.50, p .557, 95% CI [10.91, 5.91]). These results
suggest that individual differences in interpersonal EC emerge in
the regulation of an ostracized persons sadness when the ostracized persons expression is neutral.

General Discussion
It is important to investigate the relationship between EC and
extrinsic emotion regulation to understand better how individuals
with high EC use their competence to benefit others. As expected,
interpersonal EC was positively associated with extrinsic emotion
regulation directed toward the ostracized person (Study 1). Fur-

thermore, this relationship was moderated by the ostracized persons emotional expression (Study 2). When the ostracized person
did not express sadness, individuals with high interpersonal EC
were more likely to regulate the ostracized persons sadness relative to individuals with low interpersonal EC. In contrast, when the
ostracized person expressed sadness, the relationship between interpersonal EC and extrinsic emotion regulation behavior was
nonsignificant.

EC and Extrinsic Emotion Regulation Directed

Toward an Ostracized Person
The results presented herein indicate that individual differences
in interpersonal EC emerged in the regulation of an ostracized
persons sadness, but only when the ostracized person did not
express sadness. Empathy theory, which is a related area of EC,
suggests two routes to the generation of empathic reactions. One is
a stimulusresponse and perception-based route that is used when
sensory information regarding others psychological states is sufficient, whereas the other is a more abstract and inferential route
that is used when there is minimal sensory information available
regarding others psychological states, and the use of contextual
information is required (Engen & Singer, 2013; Singer & Lamm,
2009). When sadness was not expressed, individuals likely used
the more abstract and inferential route to the generation of empathetic reactions. That is, they had to infer the ostracized persons
emotional state based on contextual information (e.g., the two
other players not throwing the ball to that player). In this case,
individuals use top down processes, such as mentalizing, to infer
5
When focusing on subsets of interpersonal EC, identification was more
strongly related to ball-tossing behavior toward the ostracized person (r
.39) than it was to the remaining subsets (r .24 .27) in the neutral
expression condition. Therefore, contrary to Study 1, identification was the
strongest predictor in Study 2. This may be because of the difference in
situations between Study 1 and 2. Because there was a neutral facial
expression for the ostracized person in Study 2, participants inferred that
persons hidden emotions. In contrast, in Study 1, participants did not need
to infer the hidden emotions of the ostracized person, because there was no
neutral facial expression. Therefore, identification (example item: I can tell
whether a person is angry, sad, or happy, even if they dont talk to me),
which is related to competence in inferring others emotions, would play a
more important role in Study 2.
6
Additional partial correlation analyses were performed to determine
whether intrapersonal EC was related to ball tosses from the participant to
the ostracized person in each condition after controlling for the other
variables. The results showed that after controlling for sex, social desirability, and Big Five personality traits, intrapersonal EC was positively
associated with ball tosses from the participant to the ostracized person in
the sadness expression condition, r .33, p .017. However, this
relationship was nonsignificant in the neutral expression condition, r .16,
p .253. Therefore, the unexpected significant correlation between intrapersonal EC and ball tosses from the participant to the ostracized person
was present mainly in the sadness condition. Empathy research suggests
that in the perception of negative emotions in others, intrinsic emotion
regulation is an important process in the inhibition of ones own distress,
and allows for nonegocentric consideration of others (Decety & Lamm,
2006). That is, when the stimulusresponse, perception-based route to the
generation of extrinsic emotion regulation was used, intrapersonal EC may
have worked by promoting understanding and regulating aversive personal
distress while participants were paying attention to the ostracized persons
condition. Nevertheless, because the interaction between intrapersonal EC
and condition was nonsignificant in the multiple regression analysis, this
finding should be interpreted with caution.

NOZAKI

.03 [.21, .15]

.00 [.18, .18]

.09 [.09, .27]

.24 [.07, .40] .24 [.07, .40]

the other persons emotions (Singer & Lamm, 2009). Theoretically, individuals with high interpersonal EC are highly competent
in inferring others emotional states based on situational cues
(Saarni, 1999). Indeed, it appears that these individuals could infer
the ostracized persons sadness without that persons explicitly
expressing it, and they were more likely to throw the ball to the
ostracized person. Therefore, interpersonal EC is important to
extrinsic emotion regulation in this situation.
In contrast, when the ostracized person expressed sadness, individuals likely used the stimulusresponse, perception-based
route in the generation of empathic reactions. Previous research
suggests that when individuals perceive sensory information regarding others emotions, they automatically experience the same
emotions, which leads to recognition of the other persons emotion
(Decety & Lamm, 2006). Because this automatic process is not top
down, it is likely to work equally well in individuals with either
low or high interpersonal EC. Therefore, one possibility is that
there was no significant relationship between interpersonal EC and
ball tosses from the participant to the ostracized person in the
sadness expression condition because individuals with low interpersonal EC could sense the ostracized persons sadness to an
extent that was sufficient for the facilitation of extrinsic emotion
regulation. Another possibility is that individuals with low interpersonal EC simply followed clear social norms and did not feel
empathy. When an ostracized person intentionally expresses obvious sadness, this is a social signal that demands a response.
Therefore, individuals with low interpersonal EC may simply
follow this social signal without feeling empathy, which may
explain why there was no significant relationship between interpersonal EC and ball tosses in the sadness condition. Future studies
examining the possible mechanisms underlying extrinsic emotion
regulation when a target expresses clear sadness would be valuable.

.13 [.06, .30]

Theoretical Implications
Note. N 120; EC emotional competence.
a
Men 0, women 1. b Neutral expression 0, sadness expression 1.

p .05. p .01. p .001.

.06 [.24, .12]

.16 [.02, .33]
.13 [.05, .31]

1. Sex
2. Social desirability
3. Extraversion
4. Agreeableness
5. Conscientiousness
6. Neuroticism
7. Openness
8. Conditionb
9. Intrapersonal EC
10. Interpersonal EC
11. Boll-tosses from the
participant to the
ostracized person

.20 [.03, .37]

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
a

Table 3
Intercorrelations for Control Variables, EC, and Ball-Tosses From the Participant to the Ostracized Person in Study 2

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

.14 [.04, .32]

.02 [.20, .16]
.14 [.04, .31]
.03 [.21, .15]
.03 [.15, .21] .29 [.11, .44]
.04 [.14, .22]
.02 [.16, .20]
.15 [.03, .32] .25 [.08, .41]

.13 [.31, .05] .17 [.34, .01] .18 [.35, .00]

.24 [.41, .07]
.18 [.01, .35]

.10 [.08, .27]

.35 [.18, .50]
.22 [.38, .04]
.07 [.24, .11]
.14 [.04, .31] .45 [.30, .58]
.02 [.19, .16] .02 [.20, .15]
.06 [.12, .24] .19 [.36, .01]
.08 [.10, .26]
.10 [.27, .08]
.01 [.19, .17]
.39 [.22, .53]
.28 [.10, .43]
.25 [.08, .41]
.54 [.66, .40] .39 [.22, .53]
.06 [.23, .12]
.05 [.13, .23] .25 [.08, .41]

.47 [.32, .60]

.22 [.04, .39]
.41 [.24, .55]
.35 [.50, .19] .38 [.22, .53]
.07 [.25, .11] .66 [.55, .75]
.02 [.20, .16] .34 [.18, .49]

10

The present investigation contributes to a deeper understanding

of the social function of EC. Because EC is a derivative of social
intelligence (Salovey & Mayer, 1990), EC theory proposes that it
plays an important role in social situations (e.g., Brasseur et al.,
2013; Petrides & Furnham, 2003). Indeed, previous studies have
shown that higher EC is associated with building successful interpersonal relationships (e.g., Frederickson et al., 2012; Saklofske et
al., 2003; Schrder-Ab & Schtz, 2011; Schutte et al., 2001).
However, individuals should accumulate appropriate interpersonal
behaviors in specific social situations to achieve this. Whether and
when personality traits are related to what people do when they are
faced with real pressures and their actions have real consequences
is a fundamental question in personality psychology, including
studies involving trait-level EC (Ching et al., 2014; Fleeson &
Gallagher, 2009). Nevertheless, we know little about the relationship between EC and specific interpersonal behaviors. The present
investigation clarifies this issue with respect to extrinsic emotion
regulation. Although EC theory covers both intrinsic and extrinsic
emotion regulation (Brasseur et al., 2013; Petrides & Furnham,
2003), previous experimental studies examining EC have focused
mainly on intrinsic emotion regulation (e.g., Mikolajczak, Petrides
et al., 2009; Mikolajczak, Roy et al., 2009; Nozaki & Koyasu,
2013a; Salovey et al., 2002). Extrinsic emotion regulation is dis-

EMOTIONAL COMPETENCE AND EXTRINSIC REGULATION

Table 4
Unstandardized Regression Coefficients in Predicting the BollTosses to the Ostracized Person

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Predictor
Step 1
Intercept
Gendera
Social desirability
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Neuroticism
Openness
Step 2
Conditionb
Intrapersonal EC
Interpersonal EC
Step 3
Intrapersonal EC
Condition
Interpersonal EC
Condition
Total R2

B
38.33
4.02
0.22
0.48
1.61
0.48
1.47
1.53
2.73
2.71
9.30

95% CI

[34.56, 42.09]
[1.22, 9.25]
[0.33, 0.77]
[1.39, 2.34]
[3.68, 0.47]
[1.60, 2.56]
[0.75, 3.69]
[3.55, 0.50]

20.19
1.52
0.79
0.51
1.53
0.46
1.31
1.50

[2.10, 7.55]
[6.66, 12.09]
[1.03, 17.57]

1.12
0.57
2.23

R2
.10

.07

.03
9.89
11.80

[2.67, 22.45]
[22.95, 0.65]

1.56
2.10

.20

Note. N 120; EC emotional competence; CI confidence interval.

Coefficients were from the final model.
a
Men 0, women 1. b Neutral expression 0, sadness expression 1.

p .05. p .001.

unclear, because the present investigation used computerized players in the Cyberball game. However, it did appear that participants
regarded the ball-tossing behavior as extrinsic emotion regulation,
given that the proportions of ball tosses from the participant to the
ostracized person were positively correlated with ratings of motivation for relieving the ostracized persons sadness. Moreover,
previous research has indicated that individuals included by one
player and ostracized by the other two players experienced lower
levels of negative emotion relative to individuals ostracized by
three players (DeWall, Twenge, Bushman, Im, & Williams, 2010).
Therefore, the ball-tossing behavior measured herein would be
likely to relieve an ostracized persons sadness. Nevertheless,
future researchers could conduct an experiment in which another
participant is also ostracized, and investigate whether extrinsic
emotion regulation behaviors relieve sadness in that situation.
Second, the present investigation used a new EC measure rather
than older, more widely used ones. Furthermore, the Big Five
personality traits were assessed using a very short measure. Although previous studies have found the psychometric properties of
the measures used in the present investigation to be adequate, as
described in the Method sections, several researchers have expressed concern regarding the use of very short Big Five measures
(e.g., Cred, Harms, Niehorster, & Gaye-Valentine, 2012). Therefore, future researchers could assess the replicability of the current
results using alternative EC and personality measures. Third,
Study 2 used illustrations of the animated characters emotional

tinct from intrinsic emotion regulation, in that such behavior can

directly alter others psychological states. Therefore, the current
study allows for a deeper understanding of how emotionally competent individuals use their own EC to benefit others as a means of
building successful interpersonal relationships.
A few previous studies have investigated the relationship between EC and extrinsic emotion regulation (Austin & ODonnell,
2013, Austin, Saklofske, Smith, & Tohver, 2014), and the present
investigation addressed some of their limitations. Because these
studies examined extrinsic emotion regulation via a self-report
questionnaire, whether emotionally competent individuals actually
attempt to regulate others emotions when faced with real pressures was unclear. The present investigation contributed to addressing this limitation by establishing the ostracism situation
experimentally and assessing participants extrinsic emotion regulation behaviorally. In addition, Austin & ODonnell (2013, Austin et al., 2014) did not consider the types of situations in which
individuals perform extrinsic emotion regulation. By manipulating
ostracized individuals emotional expressions in accordance with
the two routes (a stimulusresponse and perception-based route
and an abstract and inferential route) to empathic responses suggested by empathy theory (Engen & Singer, 2013; Singer &
Lamm, 2009), the present findings identified the types of situations
in which interpersonal EC matters in extrinsic emotion regulation.
These results offer novel insights into the link between interpersonal EC and extrinsic emotion regulation.

Limitations and Future Directions

Despite the notable strengths of the present study, it was also
subject to several limitations. First, whether ball-tossing behavior
would actually relieve an ostracized persons sadness remains

Figure 2. Moderated effects of the condition on the relationship between

interpersonal emotional competence and proportion of the ball-tosses from
the participant to the ostracized person.

NOZAKI

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

10

facial expressions rather than photographs of real peoples emotional facial expressions. Because the Cyberball game uses animated characters, the present investigation used illustrations to
match. Although some previous studies also used animated characters emotional facial expressions as emotional cues (e.g.,
Masuda, Ellsworth, Mesquita, Leu, Tanida, & Van de Veerdonk,
2008), future researchers could examine whether the current results are replicable using photographs of the emotional facial
expressions of real people. Fourth, the present study did not
examine the possibility that emotionally competent individuals
may attempt to increase an ostracized persons negative emotions
if they can obtain benefits from this action. Indeed, recent studies
have suggested that, rather than acting prosocially, emotionally
competent individuals may regulate others sadness to achieve
their own goals (e.g., Ct, DeCelles, McCarthy, Van Kleef, &
Hideg, 2011). Because there were no explicit benefits involved in
ostracizing a person in the present study, future research should
attempt to determine whether behaviors change when there are
benefits involved in ostracizing another person.
Despite these limitations, the findings presented herein clarified
whether emotionally competent individuals actually attempt to
regulate others emotions and revealed some of the situations that
require EC for extrinsic emotion regulation. The results also offered novel insights into how individuals with high interpersonal
EC use their competence to benefit others.

References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Austin, E. J. (2004). An investigation of the relationship between trait
emotional intelligence and emotional task performance. Personality and
Individual Differences, 36, 18551864. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid
.2003.07.006
Austin, E. J. (2005). Emotional intelligence and emotional information
processing. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 403 414. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.017
Austin, E. J., & ODonnell, M. M. (2013). Development and preliminary
validation of a scale to assess managing the emotions of others. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 834 839. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.005
Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., Smith, M., & Tohver, G. (2014). Associations of the managing the emotions of others (MEOS) scale with
personality, the Dark Triad and trait EI. Personality and Individual
Differences, 65, 8 13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.060
Baroncelli, A., & Ciucci, E. (2014). Unique effects of different components
of trait emotional intelligence in traditional bullying and cyberbullying.
Journal of Adolescence, 37, 807 815. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.adolescence.2014.05.009
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117
.3.497
Brasseur, S., Grgoire, J., Bourdu, R., & Mikolajczak, M. (2013). The
Profile of Emotional Competence (PEC): Development and validation of
a self-reported measure that fits dimensions of emotional competence
theory. PLoS ONE, 8, e62635. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone
.0062635
Ching, C. M., Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., Reyes, J. A. S., TanakaMatsumi, J., Takaoka, S., . . . Alvarez, J. M. (2014). The manifestation
of traits in everyday behavior and affect: A five-culture study. Journal

of Research in Personality, 48, 116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp

.2013.10.002
Ct, S., Decelles, K. A., McCarthy, J. M., Van Kleef, G. A., & Hideg, I.
(2011). The Jekyll and Hyde of emotional intelligence: Emotionregulation knowledge facilitates both prosocial and interpersonally deviant behavior. Psychological Science, 22, 10731080. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0956797611416251
Cred, M., Harms, P., Niehorster, S., & Gaye-Valentine, A. (2012). An
evaluation of the consequences of using short measures of the Big Five
personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102,
874 888. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027403
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability
independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24,
349 354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0047358
Decety, J., & Lamm, C. (2006). Human empathy through the lens of social
neuroscience. TheScientificWorldJOURNAL, 6, 1146 1163. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2006.221
DeWall, C., Twenge, J., Bushman, B., Im, C., & Williams, K. (2010). A
little acceptance goes a long way: Applying social impact theory to the
rejectionaggression link. Social Psychological and Personality Science,
1, 168 174.
Ehrhart, M. G., Ehrhart, K. H., Roesch, S. C., Chung-Herrera, B. G.,
Nadler, K., & Bradshaw, K. (2009). Testing the latent factor structure
and construct validity of the Ten-Item Personality Inventory. Personality
and Individual Differences, 47, 900 905. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.paid.2009.07.012
Engen, H. G., & Singer, T. (2013). Empathy circuits. Current Opinion in
Neurobiology, 23, 275282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.11
.003
Fleeson, W., & Gallagher, P. (2009). The implications of Big Five standing
for the distribution of trait manifestation in behavior: Fifteen experiencesampling studies and a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 97, 10971114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016786
Frederickson, N., Petrides, K. V., & Simmonds, E. (2012). Trait emotional
intelligence as a predictor of socioemotional outcomes in early adolescence. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 323328. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.034
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief
measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in
Personality, 37, 504 528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566
(03)00046-1
Gross, J. J. (2013). Emotion regulation: Taking stock and moving forward.
Emotion, 13, 359 365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032135
Hodges, S. D., & Klein, K. J. K. (2001). Regulating the costs of empathy:
The price of being human. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 30, 437
452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1053-5357(01)00112-3
Joseph, S., Williams, R., Irwing, P., & Cammock, T. (1994). The preliminary development of a measure to assess attitudes towards emotional
expression. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 869 875. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90231-3
Killen, M., Mulvey, K. L., & Hitti, A. (2013). Social exclusion in childhood: A developmental intergroup perspective. Child Development, 84,
772790. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12012
King, L. A., & Emmons, R. A. (1990). Conflict over emotional expression:
Psychological and physical correlates. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 58, 864 877. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.5
.864
Kitamura, T., & Suzuki, T. (1986). Japanese version of Social Desirability
Scale. Japanese Bulletin of Social Psychiatry, 9, 173180.
Kotsou, I., Nelis, D., Grgoire, J., & Mikolajczak, M. (2011). Emotional
plasticity: Conditions and effects of improving emotional competence in
adulthood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 827 839. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/a0023047

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

EMOTIONAL COMPETENCE AND EXTRINSIC REGULATION

Malouff, J. M., Schutte, N. S., & Thorsteinsson, E. B. (2014). Trait
emotional intelligence and romantic relationship satisfaction: A metaanalysis. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 42, 53 66. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2012.748549
Masten, C. L., Morelli, S. A., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2011). An fMRI
investigation of empathy for social pain and subsequent prosocial
behavior. NeuroImage, 55, 381388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.neuroimage.2010.11.060
Masuda, T., Ellsworth, P. C., Mesquita, B., Leu, J., Tanida, S., & Van de
Veerdonk, E. (2008). Placing the face in context: Cultural differences in
the perception of facial emotion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 94, 365381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.365
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P.
Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional
intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 331). New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Mikolajczak, M. (2009). Going beyond the ability-trait debate: The threelevel model of emotional intelligence. Electronic Journal of Applied
Psychology, 5, 2531.
Mikolajczak, M., Avalosse, H., Vancorenland, S., Verniest, R., Callens,
M., van Broeck, N., . . . Mierop, A. (in press). A nationally representative study of emotional competence and health. Emotion.
Mikolajczak, M., Petrides, K. V., Coumans, N., & Luminet, O. (2009). The
moderating effect of trait emotional intelligence on mood deterioration
following laboratory-induced stress. International Journal of Clinical
and Health Psychology, 9, 455 477.
Mikolajczak, M., Roy, E., Luminet, O., Fille, C., & de Timary, P. (2007).
The moderating impact of emotional intelligence on free cortisol responses to stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 32, 1000 1012. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2007.07.009
Mikolajczak, M., Roy, E., Verstrynge, V., & Luminet, O. (2009). An
exploration of the moderating effect of trait emotional intelligence on
memory and attention in neutral and stressful conditions. British
Journal of Psychology, 100, 699 715. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/
000712608X395522
Nelis, D., Kotsou, I., Quoidbach, J., Hansenne, M., Weytens, F., Dupuis,
P., & Mikolajczak, M. (2011). Increasing emotional competence improves psychological and physical well-being, social relationships, and
employability. Emotion, 11, 354 366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0021554
Niven, K., Holman, D., & Totterdell, P. (2012). How to win friendship and
trust by influencing peoples feelings: An investigation of interpersonal
affect regulation and the quality of relationships. Human Relations, 65,
777 805. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726712439909
Niven, K., Totterdell, P., Stride, C. B., & Holman, D. (2011). Emotion
regulation of others and self (EROS): The development and validation of
a new individual difference measure. Current Psychology, 30, 5373.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-011-9099-9
Nozaki, Y., & Koyasu, M. (2013a). Effects of emotional intelligence on
inhibiting retaliation for ostracism in Cyberball. Psychologia, 56, 167
178. http://dx.doi.org/10.2117/psysoc.2013.167
Nozaki, Y., & Koyasu, M. (2013b). The relationship between trait emotional intelligence and interaction with ostracized others retaliation.
PLoS ONE, 8, e77579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077579
Nozaki, Y., & Koyasu, M. (2015). Can we apply an emotional competence
measure to an Eastern Population? Psychometric properties of the Profile of Emotional Competence in a Japanese Population. [Advance
online publication]. Assessment. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1073191115571124
Oshio, A., Abe, S., & Cutrone, P. (2012). Nihongoban Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI-J) sakusei no kokoromi [Development, reliability,
and validity of the Japanese version of Ten Item Personality Inventory
(TIPI-J)]. The Japanese Journal of Personality, 21, 40 52. http://dx.doi
.org/10.2132/personality.21.40

11

Oshio, A., Abe, S., Cutrone, P., & Gosling, S. D. (2013). Big five content
representation of the Japanese version of the Ten-Item Personality
Inventory. Psychology, 4, 924 929.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence:
Behavioural validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. European Journal of Personality, 17, 39 57.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.466
Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait
emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British Journal of
Psychology, 98, 273289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000712606
X120618
Riem, M. M. E., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Huffmeijer, R., & van
IJzendoorn, M. H. (2013). Does intranasal oxytocin promote prosocial
behavior to an excluded fellow player? A randomized-controlled trial
with Cyberball. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 38, 1418 1425. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2012.12.023
Saarni, C. (1999). The development of emotional competence (1st ed.).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Saklofske, D., Austin, E., & Minski, P. (2003). Factor structure and validity
of a trait emotional intelligence measure. Personality and Individual
Differences, 34, 707721. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869
(02)00056-9
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination,
Cognition and Personality, 9, 185211. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/
DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG
Salovey, P., Stroud, L. R., Woolery, A., & Epel, E. S. (2002). Perceived
emotional intelligence, stress reactivity, and symptom reports: Further
explorations using the trait meta-mood scale. Psychology & Health, 17,
611 627. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870440290025812
Scherer, K. R. (2007). Componential emotion theory can inform models of
emotional competence. In G. Matthews, M. Zeidner, & R. Roberts
(Eds.), The science of emotional intelligence: Knowns and unknowns
(pp. 101126). New York: Oxford University Press.
Schrder-Ab, M., & Schtz, A. (2011). Walking in each others shoes:
Perspective taking mediates effects of emotional intelligence on relationship quality. European Journal of Personality, 25, 155169. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.818
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Bobik, C., Coston, T. D., Greeson, C.,
Jedlicka, C., . . . Wendorf, G. (2001). Emotional intelligence and
interpersonal relations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 523536.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224540109600569
Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of
social psychology, Vol. 12 (pp. 136). Hove, United Kingdom: Psychology Press.
Singer, T., & Lamm, C. (2009). The social neuroscience of empathy.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156, 8196. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04418.x
Smith, L., Ciarrochi, J., & Heaven, P. C. L. (2008). The stability and
change of trait emotional intelligence, conflict communication patterns,
and relationship satisfaction: A one-year longitudinal study. Personality
and Individual Differences, 45, 738 743. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.paid.2008.07.023
Smith, L., Heaven, P. C. L., & Ciarrochi, J. (2008). Trait emotional
intelligence, conflict communication patterns, and relationship satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1314 1325. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.11.024
Spokas, M., Luterek, J. A., & Heimberg, R. G. (2009). Social anxiety and
emotional suppression: The mediating role of beliefs. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 40, 283291. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2008.12.004
Wesselmann, E. D., Bagg, D., & Williams, K. D. (2009). I Feel Your
Pain: The effects of observing ostracism on the ostracism detection

12

NOZAKI

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

system. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1308 1311.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.003
Wesselmann, E. D., Wirth, J. H., Mroczek, D. K., & Williams, K. D.
(2012). Dial a feeling: Detecting moderation of affect decline during
ostracism. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 580 586. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.039
Wesselmann, E. D., Wirth, J. H., Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., & Williams,
K. D. (2013). When do we ostracize? Social Psychological & Personality Science, 4, 108 115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550612443386
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58,
425 452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641
Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism:
Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 79, 748 762. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514

.79.5.748
Zaki, J., & Williams, W. C. (2013). Interpersonal emotion regulation.
Emotion, 13, 803 810. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033839
Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D., & Matthews, G. (2008). The science of
emotional intelligence: Current consensus and controversies. European
Psychologist, 13, 64 78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.13.1.64

Received September 25, 2014

Revision received March 17, 2015
Accepted March 17, 2015