The Mentalized Affectivity Scale (MAS): Development and validation of the Italian version

Abstract

This study proposes a psychometric validation of the Italian version of the Mentalized Affectivity Scale (MAS) developed by Greenberg and colleagues in 2017. The mentalized affectivity construct integrates mentalization ability in the process of emotional regulation. An adult sample (N = 506) completed the 60-items MAS online version. In contrast to the three-factor structure of the original version, the Italian context confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses with splitted sample (CFA = 258; EFA = 248) revealed a five-factor structure. The hierarchically structured MAS factors are: Emotional Processing (being able to process emotion in situations); Expressing Emotions (talking and knowing emotions); Identifying Emotions (awareness of emotions); Control Processing (to control emotional reactions and expression), and Autobiographical Memory (related to childhood experiences). We also verified the convergent validity and reliability of the Italian version of the MAS by correlating the above five factors with measures of emotion regulation and reflective functioning. Moreover, we analyzed the relationships among the factors of the MAS, personality measures and well-being indexes, such as life satisfaction and self-efficacy: The new 35-item MAS scale showed robust correlations with all the tested constructs. Our results confirm that the MAS is a useful measure to assess mentalized affectivity, with the Italian version showing a more complex structure than the original English one, thus enriching the literature about mentalization.

Mentalized affectivity in a nutshell: Validation of the Italian version of the Brief-Mentalized Affectivity Scale (B-MAS)

“…Indeed, to predict other’s emotional responses, we have to elicit and utilise our past and present internal affective representations—and the more individuals use such representations when attempting to understand the emotional reactions of others, the higher their levels of empathy are [ 25 ]. Following Rinaldi and colleagues [ 23 ], we also correlated the B-MAS subscales to RFQ subscales (Certainty, RFQ_C, and Uncertainty, RFQ_U). Since reflective functioning represents the operationalization of mentalization [ 24 ], we expected to find a strong correlation between an adaptive reflective functioning (revealed by high scores at the RFQ_C scale and low scores at the RFQ_U scale) and the ability to identify, process, and express emotions.…”

“…The Italian validation of the MAS has found a five-factor hierarchical structure [ 23 ]. These are Identifying Emotions, Expressing Emotions, Curiosity about Emotions, Processing Emotions, and Autobiographical Memory.…”

“…The MAS possesses good psychometric properties [ 17 , 23 ]. However, since it consists of 60 items (35 in the Italian version), its length may make it too demanding to be used in clinical and research settings.…”

Development and validation of the Brief‐Mentalized Affectivity Scale: Evidence from cross‐sectional online data and an urban community‐based mental health clinic

“…Mentalized affectivity theory posits that regulating an emotion, including managing, altering, or modulating an emotion, is reliant upon the individual's capacity for mentalization. Mentalized affectivity can be measured with the MAS was first introduced in Greenberg et al (2017); one validation study has been published (Rinaldi et al, 2021). The present article reports on the psychometric development and evaluation of a brief 12-item measure of the MAS that will be useful in both research and clinical contexts.…”

Teachers during the COVID-19 Era: The Mediation Role Played by Mentalizing Ability on the Relationship between Depressive Symptoms, Anxious Trait, and Job Burnout

“…Processing of Emotions. Seven items from the Mentalized Affectivity Scale (MAS; [52]) were administered to assess teachers' mentalizing affectivity in terms of emotional processing ability, that is, an individual's ability to manage emotions in terms of modifying and/or refining them in a new experience. Respondents were asked to rate their degree of agreement with a set of statements on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree).…”