INS NYC 2024 Program

Poster	Poster Session 05 Program Schedule 02/15/2024 02:30 pm - 03:45 pm Room: Majestic Complex (Posters 61-120) Poster Session 05: Neuropsychiatry \| Addiction/Dependence \| Stress/Coping \| Emotional/Social Processes Final Abstract #86 Emotional Intelligence Ability and Experiential Avoidance Melissa Reich-Fuehrer, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States Lindsey Hildebrand, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States Gabriela Franca, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States Camryn Wellman, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States Shivani Desai, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States Alisa Huskey, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States William Killgore, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States Category: Emotion Regulation Keyword 1: emotional processes Objective: Experiential avoidance (EA) is defined as an unwillingness to remain in contact with things that cause distress (thoughts, feelings) regardless of negative long-term impact. This aspect of avoidance has been associated with greater likelihood of showing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and other problems with anxiety. On the other hand, Emotional intelligence (EI) is the ability to perceive, use, understand, and manage both one’s own emotions and the emotions of others. The role of EI as a potential protective factor against using EA has not been investigated. We hypothesize that individuals who have higher EI ability will be less likely to use EA techniques. Participants and Methods: A total of 165 healthy adults, 57 females (Mage=20.12, SD=2.543) and 108 males (Mage=20.35, SD=2.119) participated in this study. To assess overall EI ability we used the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) which comprises 4 branch scores: perceiving emotions (PE), facilitating thought (FT), understanding emotions (UE), and managing emotions (ME). Higher scores indicate greater EI ability. EA was assessed using the Multidimensional Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire (MEAQ) which has 6 distinct subscales: Procrastination (P), Distraction/Suppression (D/S), Behavioral Avoidance (BA), Distress Endurance (DE), Repression/Denial (R/D), and Distress Aversion (DA). Higher scores indicate greater likelihood of using the avoidance technique. We conducted a series of stepwise linear regressions to assess if EI branches were associated with the 6 MEAQ subscales. Results: In combination, all 4 EI branches accounted for 39.8% of the variance in procrastination (R²=.398, F(4,92)=15.236, p<.0001). Both FT (β=-.351, p<.0001) and PE (β=-.395, p<.0001) had a negative association with procrastination, but UE (β=.406, p<.0001) and ME (β=.223, p<.0001) predicted increased procrastination. EI branches FT, UE, and ME accounted for 28.1% of the variance in distraction/suppression (R²=.281, F(2,94)=12.139, p<.0001). FT (β=-.407, p<.0001) and UE (β=-.323, p=.001) had negative relationships with distraction/suppression while ME (β=.232, p=.018) had a positive relationship. PE, ME, and FT branch scores accounted for 48.5% of the variance in distress aversion scores (R²=.485, F(3,93)=29.140, p<.0001). Only PE (β=-.904, p<.0001) had a negative relationship with distress aversion while ME (β=.526, p<.0001) and FT (β=.310, p=.001) had positive relationships. UE predicted the use of repression/denial and distress endurance. UE accounted for 5.6% of the variance (R²=.056, F(1,94)=5.613, p=.020) in repression and denial; higher UE scores (β=-.236, p=.020) predicted increased repression/denial. UE accounted for 4.8% of the variance (R²=.048, F(1,95)=4.797, p=.031) in distress endurance and higher UE scores (β=-.219, p=.031) predicted decreased distress endurance. There was no association between any EI branch and behavioral avoidance. Conclusions: Contrary to our hypothesis, some EI branches predicted positive relationships with avoidance techniques. Managing emotions predicted a positive relationship with three subscales and facilitating thought/understanding emotions predicted a positive relationship on a singular subscale despite otherwise being negative. None of the EI branches accounted for all 6 subscales, however understanding emotions was the significant predictor on use of avoidance techniques. This indicates that individuals who have a high understanding of emotions are less likely to avoid sources of distress and individuals with high management of emotions are more likely to be avoidant.

Poster

02/15/2024
02:30 pm - 03:45 pm
Room: Majestic Complex (Posters 61-120)

Poster Session 05: Neuropsychiatry | Addiction/Dependence | Stress/Coping | Emotional/Social Processes

Final Abstract #86

Emotional Intelligence Ability and Experiential Avoidance

Melissa Reich-Fuehrer, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
Lindsey Hildebrand, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
Gabriela Franca, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
Camryn Wellman, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
Shivani Desai, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
Alisa Huskey, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
William Killgore, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States

Category: Emotion Regulation

Keyword 1: emotional processes

Objective:

Experiential avoidance (EA) is defined as an unwillingness to remain in contact with things that cause distress (thoughts, feelings) regardless of negative long-term impact. This aspect of avoidance has been associated with greater likelihood of showing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and other problems with anxiety. On the other hand, Emotional intelligence (EI) is the ability to perceive, use, understand, and manage both one’s own emotions and the emotions of others. The role of EI as a potential protective factor against using EA has not been investigated. We hypothesize that individuals who have higher EI ability will be less likely to use EA techniques.

Participants and Methods:

A total of 165 healthy adults, 57 females (Mage=20.12, SD=2.543) and 108 males (Mage=20.35, SD=2.119) participated in this study. To assess overall EI ability we used the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) which comprises 4 branch scores: perceiving emotions (PE), facilitating thought (FT), understanding emotions (UE), and managing emotions (ME). Higher scores indicate greater EI ability. EA was assessed using the Multidimensional Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire (MEAQ) which has 6 distinct subscales: Procrastination (P), Distraction/Suppression (D/S), Behavioral Avoidance (BA), Distress Endurance (DE), Repression/Denial (R/D), and Distress Aversion (DA). Higher scores indicate greater likelihood of using the avoidance technique. We conducted a series of stepwise linear regressions to assess if EI branches were associated with the 6 MEAQ subscales.

Results:

In combination, all 4 EI branches accounted for 39.8% of the variance in procrastination (R²=.398, F(4,92)=15.236, p<.0001). Both FT (β=-.351, p<.0001) and PE (β=-.395, p<.0001) had a negative association with procrastination, but UE (β=.406, p<.0001) and ME (β=.223, p<.0001) predicted increased procrastination.

EI branches FT, UE, and ME accounted for 28.1% of the variance in distraction/suppression (R²=.281, F(2,94)=12.139, p<.0001). FT (β=-.407, p<.0001) and UE (β=-.323, p=.001) had negative relationships with distraction/suppression while ME (β=.232, p=.018) had a positive relationship.

PE, ME, and FT branch scores accounted for 48.5% of the variance in distress aversion scores (R²=.485, F(3,93)=29.140, p<.0001). Only PE (β=-.904, p<.0001) had a negative relationship with distress aversion while ME (β=.526, p<.0001) and FT (β=.310, p=.001) had positive relationships.

UE predicted the use of repression/denial and distress endurance. UE accounted for 5.6% of the variance (R²=.056, F(1,94)=5.613, p=.020) in repression and denial; higher UE scores (β=-.236, p=.020) predicted increased repression/denial. UE accounted for 4.8% of the variance (R²=.048, F(1,95)=4.797, p=.031) in distress endurance and higher UE scores (β=-.219, p=.031) predicted decreased distress endurance.

There was no association between any EI branch and behavioral avoidance.

Conclusions:

Contrary to our hypothesis, some EI branches predicted positive relationships with avoidance techniques. Managing emotions predicted a positive relationship with three subscales and facilitating thought/understanding emotions predicted a positive relationship on a singular subscale despite otherwise being negative. None of the EI branches accounted for all 6 subscales, however understanding emotions was the significant predictor on use of avoidance techniques. This indicates that individuals who have a high understanding of emotions are less likely to avoid sources of distress and individuals with high management of emotions are more likely to be avoidant.