Changes: Emotional intelligence

Revision as of 08:33, 18 October 2013

Clinical: Approaches · Group therapy · Techniques · Types of problem · Areas of specialism · Taxonomies · Therapeutic issues · Modes of delivery · Model translation project · Personal experiences ·

Emotion

Articles

Lists

This box: view • talk • edit

Emotional Intelligence (EI), often measured as an Emotional Intelligence Quotient (EQ), describes an ability, capacity, or skill to perceive, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups. It is a relatively new area of psychological research. The definition of EI is constantly changing.

Origins of the concept

The most distant roots of Emotional intelligence can be traced back to Darwin’s early work on the importance of emotional expression for survival and adaptation.^[1] In the 1900's, even though traditional definitions of intelligence emphasized cognitive aspects such as memory and problem-solving, several influential researchers in the intelligence field of study had begun to recognize the importance of the non-cognitive aspects. For instance, as early as 1920, E. L. Thorndike at Columbia University, used the term social intelligence to describe the skill of understanding and managing other people. ^[2]

Similarly, in 1940 David Wechsler described the influence of non-intellective factors on intelligent behavior, and further argued that our models of intelligence would not be complete until we can adequately describe these factors.^[1] In 1975, Howard Gardner's Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences ^[3] introduced the idea of Multiple Intelligences which included both Interpersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people) and Intrapersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one's feelings, fears and motivations). In Gardner's view, traditional types intelligence, such as IQ, fail to fully explain cognitive ability ^[4]. Thus, even though the names given to the concept varied, there was a common belief that traditional definitions of intelligence are lacking in ability to fully explain performance outcomes.

The first use of the term "Emotional Intelligence" is usually attributed to Wayne Payne's doctoral thesis, A study of emotion: Developing emotional intelligence from 1985 ^[5]. However, prior to this, the term "emotional intelligence" had appeared in Leuner (1966). Greenspan (1989) also put forward an EI model, followed by Salovey and Mayer (1990) and Goleman (1995).

As a result of the growing acknowledgement of professionals for the importance and relevance of emotions to work outcomes ^[6], the research on the topic continued to gain momentum, but it wasn’t until the publication of Daniel Goleman's best seller Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ that the term became widely popularized. ^[7] Nancy Gibbs' 1995 Time magazine article highlighted Goleman's book and was the first in a string of mainstream media interest in EI ^[8]. Thereafter, articles on EI began to appear with increasing frequency across a wide range of academic and popular outlets.

Defining emotional intelligence

There are a lot of arguments about the definition of EI, arguments that regard both terminology and operationalizations. The first published attempt toward a definition was made by Salovey and Mayer (1990) who defined EI as “the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions” ^[9]

Despite this early definition, there has been confusion regarding the exact meaning of this construct. The definitions are so varied, and the field is growing so rapidly, that researchers are constantly amending even their own definitions of the construct. ^[10]. Up to the present day, there are three main models of EI:

Ability-based EI models
Mixed models of EI
Trait EI models

The ability - based model

Salovey and Mayer's conception of EI strives to define EI within the confines of the standard criteria for a new intelligence. Following their continuing research, their initial definition of EI was revised to: "The ability to perceive emotion, integrate emotion to facilitate thought, understand emotions, and to regulate emotions to promote personal growth" ^[11].

The ability based model views emotions as useful sources of information that help one to make sense of and navigate the social environment ^[12]. The model proposes that individuals vary in their ability to process information of an emotional nature and in their ability to relate emotional processing to a wider cognition. This ability is seen to manifest itself in certain adaptive behaviors. The model proposes that EI includes 4 types of abilities: ^[11]

Perceiving emotions - the ability to detect and decipher emotions in faces, pictures, voices, and cultural artifacts- including the ability to identify one’s own emotions. Perceiving emotions represents a basic aspect of emotional intelligence, as it makes all other processing of emotional information possible.
Using emotions - the ability to harness emotions to facilitate various cognitive activities, such as thinking and problem solving. The emotionally intelligent person can capitalize fully upon his or her changing moods in order to best fit the task at hand.
Understanding emotions - the ability to comprehend emotion language and to appreciate complicated relationships among emotions. For example, understanding emotions encompasses the ability to be sensitive to slight variations between emotions, and the ability to recognize and describe how emotions evolve over time.
Managing emotions - the ability to regulate emotions in both ourselves and in others. Therefore, the emotionally intelligent person can harness emotions, even negative ones, and manage them to achieve intended goals.

Measurement of the ability - based model

Different models of EI have led to the development of various instruments for the assessment of the construct. While some of these measures may overlap, most researchers agree that they tap slightly different constructs. The current measure of Mayer and Salovey’s model of EI, the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) is based on a series of emotion-based problem-solving items^[12]. Consistent with the model's notion of EI as a type of intelligence, the test is modeled off of ability-based IQ tests. By testing a person’s abilities on each of the four branches of emotional intelligence, it generates scores for each of the branches as well as a total score.

Central to the four-branch model is the idea that EI requires attunement to social norms. Therefore, the MSCEIT is scored in a consensus fashion, with higher scores indicating higher overlap between an individual’s answers and those provided by a worldwide sample of respondents. The MSCEIT can also be expert-scored, so that the amount of overlap is calculated between an individual’s answers and those provided by a group of 21 emotion researchers^[12].

Although promoted as an ability test, the MSCEIT is most unlike standard IQ tests in that its items do not have objectively correct responses. Among other problems, the consensus scoring criterion means that it is impossible to create items (questions) that only a minority of respondents can solve, because, by definition, responses are deemed emotionally 'intelligent' only if the majority of the sample has endorsed them. This and other similar problems have led cognitive ability experts to question the definition of EI as a genuine intelligence.

Mixed models of EI

The Emotional Competencies (Goleman) model

The EI model introduced by Daniel Goleman ^[13] focuses on EI as a wide array of competencies and skills that drive managerial performance, measured by multi-rater assessment and self-assessment (Bradberry and Greaves, 2005). In Working with Emotional Intelligence (1998), Goleman explored the function of EI on the job, and claimed EI to be the strongest predictor of success in the workplace, with more recent confirmation of these findings on a worldwide sample seen in Bradberry and Greaves, "The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book" (2005). Goleman's model outlines four main EI constructs: ^[13]

Self-awareness - the ability to read one's emotions and recognize their impact while using gut feelings to guide decisions.
Self-management - involves controlling one's emotions and impulses and adapting to changing circumstances.
Social awareness - the ability to sense, understand, and react to other's emotions while comprehending social networks.
Relationship management - the ability to inspire, influence, and develop others while managing conflict.

Goleman includes a set of emotional competencies within each construct of EI. Emotional competencies are not innate talents, but rather learned capabilities that must be worked on and developed to achieve outstanding performance. Goleman posits that individuals are born with a general emotional intelligence that determines their potential for learning emotional competencies.^[14]

Measurement of the Emotional Competencies (Goleman) model

Measurement tools based on Goleman’s model of emotional intelligence include the Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI^[14]) and the Emotional Intelligence Appraisal, which can be taken as a self-report or 360-degree assessment (Bradberry and Greaves, 2005) (EIA^[15]).

The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI)

Psychologist Reuven Bar-On (2006) developed one of the first measures of EI that used the term "Emotion Quotient". He defines emotional intelligence as being concerned with effectively understanding oneself and others, relating well to people, and adapting to and coping with the immediate surroundings to be more successful in dealing with environmental demands ^[16]. Bar-On posits that EI develops over time and that it can be improved through training, programming, and therapy ^[1]. Bar-On hypothesizes that those individuals with higher than average E.Q.’s are in general more successful in meeting environmental demands and pressures. He also notes that a deficiency in EI can mean a lack of success and the existence of emotional problems. Problems in coping with one’s environment are thought, by Bar-On, to be especially common among those individuals lacking in the subscales of reality testing, problem solving, stress tolerance, and impulse control. In general, Bar-On considers emotional intelligence and cognitive intelligence to contribute equally to a person’s general intelligence, which then offers an indication of one’s potential to succeed in life ^[1]

Measurement of the ESI Model

The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQ-i), is a self-report measure of EI developed as a measure of emotionally and socially competent behavior that provides an estimate of one's emotional and social intelligence. The EQ-i is not meant to measure personality traits or cognitive capacity, but rather the mental ability to be successful in dealing with environmental demands and pressures ^[1]. One hundred and thirty three items are used to obtain a Total EQ (Total Emotion Quotient) and to produce five composite scale scores, corresponding to the five main components of the Bar-On model. A limitation of this model is that it claims to measure some kind of ability through self-report items.

The Trait EI model

Petrides et al. (2000a, 2004, 2007) proposed a conceptual distinction between the ability based model and a trait based model of EI^[17]. Trait EI (or ‘trait emotional self-efficacy’) refers to "a constellation of behavioral dispositions and self-perceptions concerning one’s ability to recognize, process, and utilize emotion-laden information". This definition of EI encompasses behavioral dispositions and self perceived abilities and is measured by self report, as opposed to the ability based model which refers to actual abilities as they express themselves in performance based measures. Trait EI should be investigated within a personality framework. ^[18]

The trait EI model is general and subsumes the Goleman and Bar-On models discussed above. Petrides et al. are major critics of the ability-based model and the MSCEIT arguing that they are based on "psychometrically meaningless" scoring procedures (e.g., Petrides, Furnham, & Mavroveli, 2007).

The conceptualization of EI as a personality trait leads to a construct that lies outside the taxonomy of human cognitive ability. This is an important distinction in as much as it bears directly on the operationalization of the construct and the theories and hypotheses that are formulated about it ^[17]. The trait EI model is among the most salient in the scientific literature.

Measurement of the Trait EI model

There are many self-report measures of EI, including the EQi, the Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT), the Six Seconds Emotional Intelligence Assessment (SEI), the Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SSEIT), a test by Tett, Fox, and Wang (2005). From the perspective of the trait EI model, none of these assess intelligence, abilities, or skills (as their authors often claim), but rather, they are limited measures of trait emotional self-efficacy (Petrides, Furnham, & Mavroveli, 2007). The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) is an open-access measure that was specifically designed to measure the construct comprehensively and is currently available in 15 languages.

The TEIQue provides an operationalization for Petrides and colleagues' model that conceptualizes EI in terms of personality ^[19]. The test encompasses 15 subscales organized under four factors: Well-Being, Self-Control, Emotionality, and Sociability. The psychometric properties of the TEIQue were investigated in a recent study on a French-Speaking Population, where it was reported that TEIQue scores were globally normally distributed and reliable^[20].

The researchers also found TEIQue scores were unrelated to nonverbal reasoning (Raven’s matrices), which they interpreted as support for the personality trait view of EI (as opposed to a form of intelligence). As expected, TEIQue scores were positively related to some personality dimensions (optimism, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness) as well as inversely related to others(alexithymia, neuroticism).

Alexithymia and EI

Alexithymia from the Greek words λέξις and θυμός (literally "lack of words for emotions") is a term coined by Peter Sifneos in 1973 ^[21]^[22] to describe people who appeared to have deficiencies in understanding, processing, or describing their emotions. Viewed as a spectrum between high and low EI, the alexithymia construct is strongly inversely related to EI, representing its lower range.^[23] The individual's level of alexithymia can be measured with self-scored questionnaires such as the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) or the Bermond-Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire (BVAQ)^[24] or by observer rated measures such as the Observer Alexithymia Scale (OAS).

Criticism of the theoretical foundation of EI

EI is too broadly defined and the definitions are unstable

One of the arguments against the theoretical soundness of the concept suggests that the constant changing and broadening of its definition- which has come to encompass many unrelated elements - had rendered it an unintelligible concept:

"What is the common or integrating element in a concept that includes: introspection about emotions, Emotional expression, non-verbal communication with others, empathy, self-regulation, planning, creative thinking and the direction of attention? There is none." ^[25]

Other critics^[26] mention that without some stabilization of the concepts and the measurement instruments, meta-analyses are difficult to implement , and the theory coherence is likely to be adversely impacted by this instability.

EI cannot be recognized as a form of intelligence

Goleman's early work has been criticized for assuming from the beginning that EI is a type of intelligence. Eysenck (2000) writes that Goleman's description of EI contains unsubstantiated assumptions about intelligence in general, and that it even runs contrary to what researchers have come to expect when studying types of intelligence:

"Goleman exemplifies more clearly than most the fundamental absurdity of the tendency to class almost any type of behaviour as an 'intelligence'... If these five 'abilities' define 'emotional intelligence', we would expect some evidence that they are highly correlated; Goleman admits that they might be quite uncorrelated, and in any case if we cannot measure them, how do we know they are related? So the whole theory is built on quicksand; there is no sound scientific basis".

Similarly, Locke (2005) ^[25] claims that the concept of EI in itself is a misinterpretation of the intelligence construct, and he offers an alternative interpretation: it is not another form or type of intelligence, but intelligence (the ability to grasp abstractions) applied to a particular life domain: emotions. He suggests the concept should be re-labeled and referred to as a skill.

EI has no substantial predictive value

Landy (2005) ^[26] has claimed that the few incremental validity studies conducted on EI have demonstrated that it adds little or nothing to the explanation or prediction of some common outcomes (most notably academic and work success). Landy proposes that the reason some studies have found a small increase in predictive validity is in fact a methodological fallacy - incomplete consideration of alternative explanations:

"EI is compared and contrasted with a measure of abstract intelligence but not with a personality measure, or with a personality measure but not with a measure of academic intelligence." Landy (2005)

In accordance with this suggestion, other researchers have raised concerns with the extent to which self-report EI measures correlate with established personality dimensions. Generally, self-report EI measures and personality measures have been said to converge because they both purport to measure traits, and because they are both measured in the self-report form ^[27]. Specifically, there appear to be two dimensions of the Big Five that stand out as most related to self-report EI – neuroticism and extraversion. In particular, neuroticism has been said to relate to negative emotionality and anxiety. Intuitively, individuals scoring high on neuroticism are likely to score low on self-report EI measures. ^[27]

The interpretations of the correlations between self-report EI and personality have been varied and inconsistent. Some researchers have asserted that correlations in the .40 range constitute outright construct redundancy^[28], while others have suggested that self-report EI is a personality trait in itself.^[17]

Criticism on measurement issues

Ability based measures are measuring conformity, not ability

One criticism of the works of Mayer and Salovey comes from a study by Roberts et.al. (2001) ^[29], which suggests that the EI, as measured by the MSCEIT, may only be measuring conformity. This argument is rooted in the MSCEIT's use of consensus-based assessment, and in the fact that scores on the MSCEIT are negatively distributed (meaning that its scores differentiate between people with low EI better than people with high EI).

Ability based measures are measuring knowledge (not actual ability)

Further criticism has been offered by Brody (2004)^[30], who claimed that unlike tests of cognitive ability, the MSCEIT "tests knowledge of emotions but not necessarily the ability to perform tasks that are related to the knowledge that is assessed". The main argument is that even though someone knows how he should behave in an emotionally laden situation, it doesn’t necessarily follow that he could actually carry out the reported behavior.

Self report measures are susceptible to faking good

More formally termed socially desirable responding (SDR), faking good is defined as a response pattern in which test-takers systematically represent themselves with an excessive positive bias (Paulhus, 2002). This bias has long been known to contaminate responses on personality inventories (Holtgraves, 2004; McFarland & Ryan, 2000; Peebles & Moore, 1998; Nichols & Greene, 1997; Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987), acting as a mediator of the relationships between self-report measures (Nichols & Greene, 1997; Ganster et al., 1983).

It has been suggested that responding in a desirable way is a response set, which is a situational and temporary response pattern (Pauls & Crost, 2004; Paulhus, 1991). This is contrasted with a response style, which is a more long-term trait-like quality. Considering the contexts some self-report EI inventories are used in (e.g., employment settings), the problems of response sets in high-stakes scenarios become clear (Paulhus & Reid, 2001).

There are a few methods to prevent socially desirable responding on behavior inventories. Some researchers believe it is necessary to warn test-takers not to fake good before taking a personality test (e.g., McFarland, 2003). Some inventories use validity scales in order to determine the likelihood or consistency of the responses across all items.

Claims for the predictive power of EI are too extreme

Landy ^[26] distinguishes between the 'commercial wing' and 'the academic wing' of the EI movement, basing this distinction on the alleged predictive power of EI as seen by the two currents. According to Landy, the former makes expansive claims on the applied value of EI, while the later is trying to warn users against these claims. As an example. Goleman (1998) asserts that "the most effective leaders are alike in one crucial way: they all have a high degree of what has come to be known as emotional intelligence. ...emotional intelligence is the sine qua non of leadership". In contrast, Mayer (1999) cautions "the popular literature’s implication—that highly emotionally intelligent people possess an unqualified advantage in life—appears overly enthusiastic at present and unsubstantiated by reasonable scientific standards."

Landy further reinforces this argument by noting that the data upon which these claims are based are held in ‘proprietary databases', which means they are unavailable to independent researchers for reanalysis, replication, or verification^[26]. Thus, the credibility of the findings cannot be substantiated in a scientific manner, unless those datasets are made public and available for independent analysis.

Corporate uses and misuses of EI testing

Whenever a new assessment tool is proposed for hiring purposes, the concern arises that it might lead to unfair job discrimination. The use of EI tests, whose validity has not been established, may lead to arbitrary discrimination practices.

References & Bibliography

↑ ^1.0 ^1.1 ^1.2 ^1.3 ^1.4 Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). Psicothema, 18 , supl., 13-25.
↑ Thorndike, R.K. (1920). "Intelligence and Its Uses", Harper's Magazine 140, 227-335.
↑ Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
↑ Smith, M. K. (2002) "Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences", the encyclopedia of informal education, Downloaded from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm on October 31, 2005.
↑ Payne, W.L. (1983/1986). A study of emotion: developing emotional intelligence; self integration; relating to fear, pain and desire. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, p. 203A. (University microfilms No. AAC 8605928)
↑ Feldman-Barrett, L., & Salovey, P. (eds.). (2002). The wisdom in feeling: psychological processes in emotional intelligence. New York: Guilford Press.
↑ Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books
↑ Gibbs, Nancy (1995, October 2). The EQ Factor. Time magazine. Web reference at http://www.time.com/time/classroom/psych/unit5_article1.html accessed January 2, 2006.
↑ Salovey, P. & Mayer, J.D. (1990) "Emotional intelligence" Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185-211
↑ Dulewicz V & Higgs M. (2000). Emotional intelligence – A review and evaluation study. Journal of Managerial Psychology 15 (4), 341 – 372
↑ ^11.0 ^11.1 Mayer, J.D. & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (eds.): Emotional development and emotional intelligence: educational applications (pp. 3-31). New York: Basic Books.
↑ ^12.0 ^12.1 ^12.2 Salovey P and Grewal D (2005) The Science of Emotional Intelligence. Current directions in psychological science, Volume14 -6
↑ ^13.0 ^13.1 Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books
↑ ^14.0 ^14.1 Boyatzis, R., Goleman, D., & Rhee, K. (2000). Clustering competence in emotional intelligence: insights from the emotional competence inventory (ECI). In R. Bar-On & J.D.A. Parker (eds.): Handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 343-362). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
↑ Bradberry, T. & Greaves, J. (2005). The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book, (New York: Simon and Schuster). Bradberry, T. and Greaves J. (2005) "Heartless Bosses," The Harvard Business Review.
↑ Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): a test of emotional intelligence. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
↑ ^17.0 ^17.1 ^17.2 Petrides, K. V. & Furnham, A. (2000a). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 313-320
↑ Petrides, K. V. & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425-448
↑ Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence: behavioral validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. European Journal of Personality, 17, 39–75
↑ Mikolajczak, Luminet, Leroy, and Roy (2007). Psychometric Properties of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire: Factor Structure, Reliability, Construct, and Incremental Validity in a French-Speaking Population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88(3), 338–353
↑ Bar-On, Reuven; Parker, James DA (2000). The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School, and in the Workplace. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. ISBN 0787949841. pp. 40-59
↑ Taylor, Graeme J; Bagby, R. Michael and Parker, James DA (1997). Disorders of Affect Regulation: Alexithymia in Medical and Psychiatric Illness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres. ISBN 052145610X. pp.28-31
↑ Parker JDA, Taylor GJ, Bagby RM (2001). "The Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and Alexithymia". Personality and Individual Differences 30, 107–115
↑ Vorst HCM, Bermond B (February 2001). "Validity and reliability of the Bermond-Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire". Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 30, Number 3, pp. 413–434(22)
↑ ^25.0 ^25.1 Locke, E.A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 425-431.
↑ ^26.0 ^26.1 ^26.2 ^26.3 Landy, F.J. (2005). Some historical and scientific issues related to research on emotional intelligence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 411-424.
↑ ^27.0 ^27.1 MacCann, C., Roberts, R.D., Matthews, G., & Zeidner, M. (2004). Consensus scoring and empirical option weighting of performance-based emotional intelligence tests. Personality & Individual Differences, 36, 645-662.
↑ Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 989-1015.
↑ Roberts, R. D., Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2001). Does emotional intelligence meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions. Emotion, 1, 196–231
↑ Brody, N. (2004). What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 234-238.

Key texts

Books

Salovey, P., & Sluyter, D. J. (Eds.). (1997). Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Educational Implications. New York: Basic Books.

Wyer, Jr., R. S., & Srull, T. K. (Eds.). (1989). Social Intelligence and Cognitive Assessments of Personality (Advances in Social Cognition, Vol. 2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Papers

Additional material

Books

Papers

References

^{^} Bar-On, R. (1997). Development of the Bar-On EQ-i: A measure of emotional intelligence and social intelligence. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Bar-On, R. and Parker, J. (Eds) (2000). The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence : Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School and in the Workplace, Indianapolis, IN: Jossey-Bass.

^a ^b ^c Bradberry, T. and Greaves, J. (2005). The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book: How to Put Your EQ to Work, New York: Simon and Schuster.
Conte, J.M. (2005) A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26, 433–440.-->
Ciarrochi, H. and Mayer, J. (2005). "Can Self-Report Measures Contribute to the Study of Emotional Intelligence? A Conversation between Joseph Ciarrochi and John D. Mayer" The University of New Hampshire. Web reference at http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/ei%20Controversies/ei%20can%20self%20report%20contribute.htm accessed January 2, 2006.

http://www.time.com/time/classroom/psych/unit5_article1.html] accessed January 2, 2006. [1]

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books. (ISBN 0553375067)
MacCann, C., Roberts, R.D., Matthews, G., & Zeidner, M. (2004). Consensus scoring and empirical option weighting of performance-based emotional intelligence tests. Personality & Individual Differences, 36, 645-662.
Mayer, J. (2005a). "Can Emotional Knowledge be Improved? Can you raise emotional intelligence?” The University of New Hampshire. Web reference at http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/ei%20Improve/ei%20Rasing%20EI.htmaccessed January 2, 2006.
Mayer, J. (2005b) "Emotional Intelligence Information: A Site Dedicated to Communicating Scientific Information about Emotional Intelligence, Including Relevant Aspects of Emotions, Cognition, and Personality." The University of New Hampshire. Web reference at http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/index.html accessed January 2, 2006.
Mayer, J. (2005c). "Is EI the Best Predictor of Success in Life?" The University of New Hampshire. Web reference at http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/ei%20Controversies/eicontroversy1%20best%20predictor.htm accessed January 2, 2006.
Mayer, J. (2005c). "How Do You Measure Emotional Intelligence?" The University of New Hampshire. Web reference at [2] accessed January 2, 2006.
Mayer, J.D. & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17, 433-442.
Mayer, J., Salovey, P., Caruso, D.R., and Sitarenios, G. (2001) "Emotional intelligence as a standard intelligence." Emotion, 1, 232-242.
Payne, W.L. (1985). A study of emotion: developing emotional intelligence; self-integration; relating to fear, pain and desire (theory, structure of reality, problem-solving, contraction/expansion, tuning in/comingout/letting go). A Doctoral Dissertation. Cincinnati, OH: The Union For Experimenting Colleges And Universities (now The Union Institute).
Roberts, R.D., Zeidner, M., and Matthews, G. (2001). "Does Emotional Intelligence Meet Traditional Standards for an Intelligence? Some New Data and Conclusions." Emotion, Vol 1, no 3, pages 196-231. Web pre-publication version available at http://eqi.org/ei_abs4.htm accessed January 2. 2006.
Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990). "Emotional intelligence." Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9(1990), 185-211.
Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E., Haggerty, D.J., Cooper, J.T., Golden, C.J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177.
Smith, M. K. (2002) "Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences," the encyclopedia of informal education, Downloaded from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm on October 31, 2005.

External links

Emotional Intelligence Information from John Mayer's University of New Hampshire Web site
Peter Salovey, Yale Psychology Faculty
eq.org Directory of emotional intelligence sites
Bullying and emotional intelligence
Time Magazine Report: The EQ Factor
Emotional Intelligence Consortium, consortium founded by Daniel Goleman
Edutopia: Overview on Emotional Intelligence
Introduction to Emotional Intelligence Education
The NexusEQ Conferences; international summits on EQ
Review of EI Literature March 2004
Emotional Intelligence & the Body
SchoolToolsTv.com

Emotion
Aspects of Emotion studied
Introduction \| \|Animal emotionality \| List of emotions \| Emotional abuse \| Emotional adjustment \| Emotional bias \| Emotional content \| Emotional control \| Emotional development \| Emotional distance \| Emotional exhaustion \| Emotional immaturity \| Emotional forecasting \| Emotional intelligence \| Emotional maturity \| Emotions and culture \| Emotion and decision making \| Emotion and memory \| Emotional responses Emotional security \|Emotional stability \| Emotional trauma \|Emotionality \| Expressed emotion \|
Theories of emotion
James-Lange theory \| Cannon Bard theory \|Robert Plutchik's theory of emotion \| Two factor theory of emotion \|
Physiology of emotion
Affective neuroscience \| Neurobiology of emotions \| [[]] \| [[]] \|
Emotion in clinical settings
Anxiety \| Clinical depression \| Emotionally disturbed \| Emotional instability \| Fear \| Guilt \| Shame \|
Assessing emotion
Stroop test \| [[]] \| [[]] \|
Treating emotional problems
CBT \| Psychotherapy \|
Prominant workers in emotion
William James \| Paul Ekman \| Robert Plutchik \| Stanley Schachter \| Daniel Siegel \| [[]] \|
edit

This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors).

[baron06-1] 1.0 ^1.1 ^1.2 ^1.3 ^1.4 Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). Psicothema, 18 , supl., 13-25.

[2] Thorndike, R.K. (1920). "Intelligence and Its Uses", Harper's Magazine 140, 227-335.

[3] Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.

[4] Smith, M. K. (2002) "Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences", the encyclopedia of informal education, Downloaded from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm on October 31, 2005.

[5] Payne, W.L. (1983/1986). A study of emotion: developing emotional intelligence; self integration; relating to fear, pain and desire. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, p. 203A. (University microfilms No. AAC 8605928)

[6] Feldman-Barrett, L., & Salovey, P. (eds.). (2002). The wisdom in feeling: psychological processes in emotional intelligence. New York: Guilford Press.

[goleman95-7] Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books

[8] Gibbs, Nancy (1995, October 2). The EQ Factor. Time magazine. Web reference at http://www.time.com/time/classroom/psych/unit5_article1.html accessed January 2, 2006.

[salovey90-9] Salovey, P. & Mayer, J.D. (1990) "Emotional intelligence" Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185-211

[10] Dulewicz V & Higgs M. (2000). Emotional intelligence – A review and evaluation study. Journal of Managerial Psychology 15 (4), 341 – 372

[salovey97-11] 11.0 ^11.1 Mayer, J.D. & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (eds.): Emotional development and emotional intelligence: educational applications (pp. 3-31). New York: Basic Books.

[grewal-12] 12.0 ^12.1 ^12.2 Salovey P and Grewal D (2005) The Science of Emotional Intelligence. Current directions in psychological science, Volume14 -6

[goleman98-13] 13.0 ^13.1 Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books

[boy-14] 14.0 ^14.1 Boyatzis, R., Goleman, D., & Rhee, K. (2000). Clustering competence in emotional intelligence: insights from the emotional competence inventory (ECI). In R. Bar-On & J.D.A. Parker (eds.): Handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 343-362). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

[15] Bradberry, T. & Greaves, J. (2005). The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book, (New York: Simon and Schuster). Bradberry, T. and Greaves J. (2005) "Heartless Bosses," The Harvard Business Review.

[16] Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): a test of emotional intelligence. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

[pet2000-17] 17.0 ^17.1 ^17.2 Petrides, K. V. & Furnham, A. (2000a). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 313-320

[18] Petrides, K. V. & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425-448

[19] Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence: behavioral validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. European Journal of Personality, 17, 39–75

[20] Mikolajczak, Luminet, Leroy, and Roy (2007). Psychometric Properties of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire: Factor Structure, Reliability, Construct, and Incremental Validity in a French-Speaking Population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88(3), 338–353

[21] Bar-On, Reuven; Parker, James DA (2000). The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School, and in the Workplace. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. ISBN 0787949841. pp. 40-59

[22] Taylor, Graeme J; Bagby, R. Michael and Parker, James DA (1997). Disorders of Affect Regulation: Alexithymia in Medical and Psychiatric Illness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres. ISBN 052145610X. pp.28-31

[23] Parker JDA, Taylor GJ, Bagby RM (2001). "The Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and Alexithymia". Personality and Individual Differences 30, 107–115

[24] Vorst HCM, Bermond B (February 2001). "Validity and reliability of the Bermond-Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire". Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 30, Number 3, pp. 413–434(22)

[locke-25] 25.0 ^25.1 Locke, E.A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 425-431.

[landy-26] 26.0 ^26.1 ^26.2 ^26.3 Landy, F.J. (2005). Some historical and scientific issues related to research on emotional intelligence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 411-424.

[zeidner-27] 27.0 ^27.1 MacCann, C., Roberts, R.D., Matthews, G., & Zeidner, M. (2004). Consensus scoring and empirical option weighting of performance-based emotional intelligence tests. Personality & Individual Differences, 36, 645-662.

[28] Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 989-1015.

[29] Roberts, R. D., Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2001). Does emotional intelligence meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions. Emotion, 1, 196–231

[30] Brody, N. (2004). What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 234-238.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

Changes: Emotional intelligence

Revision as of 08:33, 18 October 2013

Contents

Origins of the concept

Defining emotional intelligence

The ability - based model

Measurement of the ability - based model

Mixed models of EI

The Emotional Competencies (Goleman) model

Measurement of the Emotional Competencies (Goleman) model

The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI)

Measurement of the ESI Model

The Trait EI model

Measurement of the Trait EI model

Alexithymia and EI

Criticism of the theoretical foundation of EI

EI is too broadly defined and the definitions are unstable

EI cannot be recognized as a form of intelligence

EI has no substantial predictive value

Criticism on measurement issues

Ability based measures are measuring conformity, not ability

Ability based measures are measuring knowledge (not actual ability)

Self report measures are susceptible to faking good

Claims for the predictive power of EI are too extreme

Corporate uses and misuses of EI testing

See also

References & Bibliography

Key texts

Books

Papers

Additional material

Books

Papers

References

External links

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{ClinPsy}}
+{{emotion}}
-'''''Emotional Intelligence''''', also called '''''EI''''' or '''''EQ''''', describes an ability, capacity, or [[skill]] to perceive, assess, and manage the [[emotion]]s of one's self, of others, and of groups.  However, being a relatively new area, the definition of emotional intelligence is still in a state of flux.  Some, such as Mayer {{ref harvard|mayer.2005a|2005a|a}} prefer to distinguish '''''emotional knowledge''''' from emotional intelligence, as discussed below.
+'''Emotional Intelligence''' ('''EI'''), often measured as an '''Emotional Intelligence Quotient''' ('''EQ'''), describes an [[ability]], capacity, or [[skill]] to perceive, assess, and manage the [[emotion]]s of one's [[Self (psychology)|self]], of others, and of [[Group Emotion|groups]]. It is a relatively new area of psychological research. The definition of EI is constantly changing.
+==Origins of the concept==
-In 1920, E. L. Thorndike, at Columbia University, {{ref harvard|thorndike.1920|Thorndike 1920|none}}, used the term "social intelligence" to describe the skill of getting along with other people.  In 1975, Howard Gardner's ''The Shattered Mind,'' {{ref harvard|gardner.1975|Gardner 1975|none}} began the formulation of the idea for "Multiple Intelligences" (he identifies eight intelligences), including both interpersonal intelligence and intrapersonal intelligence.  Many psychologists, such as Gardner, believe that traditional measures of intelligence, such as the IQ test, fail to fully explain cognitive ability. {{ref harvard|smith.2002|Smith 2002|none}}
+The most distant roots of Emotional intelligence can be traced back to Darwin’s early work on the importance of emotional expression for survival and adaptation.<ref name="baron06"> Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). Psicothema, 18 , supl., 13-25. </ref> In the 1900's, even though traditional definitions of [[intelligence]] emphasized cognitive aspects such as [[memory]] and [[problem-solving]], several influential researchers in the intelligence field of study had begun to recognize the importance of the non-cognitive aspects. For instance, as early as 1920, [[E. L. Thorndike]] at Columbia University, used the term [[social intelligence]] to describe the skill of understanding and managing other people. <ref> Thorndike, R.K. (1920). "Intelligence and Its Uses", Harper's Magazine 140, 227-335. </ref>
-The term "emotional intelligence" appears to have originated with Wayne Payne {{ref harvard|payne.1985|1985|none}}, but was popularized by Daniel Goleman {{ref harvard|goleman.1995|1995|a}}.  The leading research on the concept originated with Peter Salovey and John "Jack" Mayer starting in the late 1980s.  In 1990, their seminal paper {{ref harvard|salovey.mayer.1990|1990|a}} defined the concept as an intelligence.  Mayer and Salovey continue to research the concept, and created an [[emotional intelligence tests|emotional intelligence test]] called the MSCEIT (Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test).  The term "emotional quotient" seems to have originated in an article by Keith Beasley {{ref harvard|beasley.1987|1987|none}}.  Bar-on {{ref harvard|baron.1997|1997|none}} developed a test measuring emotional quotient, called the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi).  There are numerous other assessments of emotional intelligence each advocating different models and measures.
+Similarly, in 1940 [[David Wechsler]] described the influence of non-intellective factors on intelligent behavior, and further argued that our models of intelligence would not be complete until we can adequately describe these factors.<ref name="baron06"/> In 1975, [[Howard Gardner]]'s ''Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences'' <ref>Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.</ref> introduced the idea of [[Multiple Intelligences]] which included both ''Interpersonal intelligence'' (the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people) and ''Intrapersonal intelligence'' (the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one's feelings, fears and motivations). In Gardner's view, traditional types intelligence, such as IQ, fail to fully explain cognitive ability <ref> Smith, M. K. (2002) "Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences", the encyclopedia of informal education, Downloaded from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm on October 31, 2005. </ref>. Thus, even though the names given to the concept varied, there was a common belief that traditional definitions of intelligence are lacking in ability to fully explain performance outcomes.
+The first use of the term "Emotional Intelligence" is usually attributed to [[Wayne Payne]]'s doctoral thesis, ''A study of emotion: Developing emotional intelligence'' from 1985 <ref> Payne, W.L. (1983/1986). A study of emotion: developing emotional intelligence; self integration; relating to fear, pain and desire. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, p. 203A. (University microfilms No. AAC 8605928) </ref>. However, prior to this, the term "emotional intelligence" had appeared in Leuner (1966). Greenspan (1989) also put forward an EI model, followed by [[Peter Salovey|Salovey]] and [[John D. Mayer|Mayer]] (1990) and Goleman (1995).
+As a result of the growing acknowledgement of professionals for the importance and relevance of emotions to work outcomes <ref>Feldman-Barrett, L., & Salovey, P. (eds.). (2002). The wisdom in feeling: psychological processes in emotional intelligence. New York: Guilford Press.</ref>, the research on the topic continued to gain momentum, but it wasn’t until the publication of [[Daniel Goleman]]'s best seller ''Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ'' that the term became widely popularized. <ref name="goleman95"> Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books</ref> Nancy Gibbs' 1995 [[Time]] magazine article highlighted Goleman's book and was the first in a string of mainstream media interest in EI <ref> Gibbs, Nancy (1995, October 2). The EQ Factor. Time magazine. Web reference at http://www.time.com/time/classroom/psych/unit5_article1.html accessed January 2, 2006. </ref>. Thereafter, articles on EI began to appear with increasing frequency across a wide range of academic and popular outlets.
 ==Defining emotional intelligence==
-The distinction between [[intelligence]] and [[knowledge]] in the area of [[cognition]] (i.e. [[intelligence quotient|IQ]]) is very clear, where generally, psychological research demonstrates that IQ is a reliable measure of cognitive capacity, and is stable over time.   In the area of [[emotion]] (i.e. EQ) that distinction between intelligence and knowledge is murky. Current definitions of EQ are inconsistent about what it measures: some {{ref harvard|bradberry.greaves.2005|such as Bradberry and Greaves 2005|b}} say that EQ is dynamic, it can be learned or increased; whereas others (such as Mayers) say that EQ is stable, and cannot be increased.  Mayer's {{ref harvard|mayer.2005a|2005a|b}} is consistent with cognition-based definitions of intelligence and knowledge, stating that emotional "intelligence is unlikely to be any more easily raised than general intelligence," but "emotional knowledge can be increased. . . fairly easily."  Under Mayer's definition, '''''emotional knowledge''''' would be the level of perception and assessment that an individual has of their emotions at any given moment in time.
+There are a lot of arguments about the definition of EI, arguments that regard both [[terminology]] and [[operationalization]]s. The first published attempt toward a definition was made by Salovey and Mayer (1990) who defined EI as “the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions” <ref name="salovey90">Salovey, P. & Mayer, J.D. (1990) [http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/EIAssets/EmotionalIntelligenceProper/EI1990%20Emotional%20Intelligence.pdf "Emotional intelligence"] Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185-211 </ref>
-== Emotional intelligence ==
-===Mayer and Salovey and emotional intelligence===
-In the early 1990s, [[John D. Mayer]] and [[Peter Salovey]] published a series of papers on emotional intelligence. {{ref harvard|salovey.mayer.1990|Salovey and Mayer 1990|none}} {{ref harvard|mayer.salovey.1993|Mayer and Salovey 1993|none}} They suggested that the capacity to perceive and understand emotions define a new variable in personality.  The Mayer-Salovey model defines emotional intelligence as the capacity to understand emotional information and to reason with emotions.  More specifically, they divide emotional intelligence abilities into four areas -- in their four branch model:
+Despite this early definition, there has been confusion regarding the exact meaning of this construct. The definitions are so varied, and the field is growing so rapidly, that researchers are constantly amending even their own definitions of the construct. <ref> Dulewicz V & Higgs M. (2000). Emotional intelligence – A review and evaluation study. Journal of Managerial Psychology 15 (4), 341 – 372</ref>. Up to the present day, there are three main models of EI:
-#The capacity to accurately perceive emotions.
-#The capacity to use emotions to facilitate thinking.
-#The capacity to understand emotional meanings.
-#The capacity to manage emotions.
+*Ability-based EI models
-These four abilities are assessed by criterion-based (or abilities-based) tests (the researchers have introduced several versions, the latest of which is the MSCEIT V2.0).
+*Mixed models of EI
+*Trait EI models
+===The ability - based model ===
-===Goleman and emotional intelligence===
-[[Daniel Goleman]] popularized his view of emotional intelligence in the 1995 best-selling book: ''Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ''. {{ref harvard|goleman.1995|Goleman 1995|b}} Goleman generalized the Mayer/Salovey research and adapted it to a general public audience. In doing so, he altered the meaning of the term and added claims that the original theory never made.  Goleman drew together research in [[Neurophysiology|neurophysiology]], [[Psychology|psychology]] and [[Cognitive science|cognitive science]]. Much of his book is based on Mayer and Salovey's original 1990 article. However, he modified emotional intelligence as conceived by Mayer and Salovey {{ref harvard|mayer.2005b|Mayer 2005b|none}} with other observations based on other scientific findings, including:
+Salovey and Mayer's conception of EI strives to define EI within the confines of the standard criteria for a new intelligence. Following their continuing research, their initial definition of EI was revised to: "The ability to perceive emotion, integrate emotion to facilitate thought, understand emotions, and to regulate emotions to promote personal growth" <ref name="salovey97"> Mayer, J.D. & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (eds.): Emotional development and emotional intelligence: educational applications (pp. 3-31). New York: Basic Books. </ref>.
-* A part of the human brain called the ''[[amygdala]]'' or ''reptilian brain'' (because it has similar functions to those of reptiles) does most of the processing of human emotional responses. These responses mostly occur automatically, as in the case of the familiar [[fight or flight | flight-or-attack]] response triggered by threatening situations. Humans have [[evolution|evolved]] in such a way that a '''neural hijack''' takes place that provides a quick answer to [[personal life|life]]'s critical situations. This hijacking is said to happen because of raised stress levels (which affect heart rate, blood pressure, hearing problems, eye conditions, muscle tension, cholesterol levels and hormone secretion) causing the brain to start reacting to sensory information rather than concentrating on and understanding it in order to make conscious decisions.
-* In humans, the reptilian brain has links with the [[neocortex]], which can accordingly exert some control over the largely automatic responses of the reptilian brain.
-* The amount of control has a [[genetics|genetic]] component; yet one can learn to control emotions to a certain degree. Most people do learn this at some point. Further, it is possible to hone the skill, achieving greater abilities to [[management|manage]] emotions. Therefore, Goleman believes that emotional intelligence is learnable.
-* Goleman points out there is not a strong correlation between the [[Intelligence quotient]] ([[IQ]]) and success in life. While popular opinion is that [[IQ]] predicts success, there is little conclusive evidence. There is research showing IQ is linked to completion of high school, attainment of higher education, avoidance of dependence on welfare, avoidance of criminal conviction, there is not proof that IQ predicts these outcomes. In 1995 Goleman asserted that EQ is the missing link; in the last 10 years researchers have found that emotional intelligence is an important predictor of grades, promotions, health, and relationship quality.
+The ability based model views emotions as useful sources of information that help one to make sense of and navigate the [[social environment]] <ref name="grewal"> Salovey P and Grewal D (2005) The Science of Emotional Intelligence. Current directions in psychological science, Volume14 -6 </ref>. The model proposes that individuals vary in their ability to process information of an emotional nature and in their ability to relate emotional processing to a wider [[cognition]]. This ability is seen to manifest itself in certain adaptive behaviors. The model proposes that EI includes 4 types of abilities: <ref name="salovey97"/>
-Goleman's popularized definition of emotional intelligence at first displaced the more careful scientific definition of Mayer and Salovey in the public imagination. However, recent interests have turned back, in part, toward Mayer and Salovey's definition, providing a compelling case for their conception.  Nevertheless, Goleman brought attention to the fact that emotions play a crucial role in everyday life, and that so-called "normal" people can enhance their emotional competency. Many other books on emotional intelligence have appeared in the train of Goleman's work.
+# Perceiving emotions - the ability to detect and decipher emotions in faces, pictures, voices, and [[cultural artifacts]]- including the ability to identify one’s own emotions. Perceiving emotions represents a basic aspect of emotional intelligence, as it makes all other processing of emotional information possible.
-==== Goleman's five emotional competencies ====
+# Using emotions - the ability to harness emotions to facilitate various cognitive activities, such as thinking and problem solving. The emotionally intelligent person can capitalize fully upon his or her changing [[Mood (psychology)|moods]] in order to best fit the task at hand.
-Goleman divides emotional intelligence into the following five emotional competencies:
+# Understanding emotions - the ability to comprehend emotion [[language]] and to appreciate complicated relationships among emotions. For example, understanding emotions encompasses the ability to be sensitive to slight variations between emotions, and the ability to recognize and describe how emotions evolve over time.
-#The ability to identify and name one's emotional states and to understand the link between emotions, thought and action.
+# Managing emotions - the ability to regulate emotions in both ourselves and in others. Therefore, the emotionally intelligent person can harness emotions, even negative ones, and manage them to achieve intended goals.
-#The capacity to [[management|manage]] one's emotional states &mdash; to control emotions or to shift undesirable emotional states to more adequate ones.
-#The ability to enter into emotional states (at will) associated with a drive to achieve and be successful.
-#The capacity to read, be sensitive to, and influence other people's emotions.
-#The ability to enter and sustain satisfactory interpersonal [[Personal relationship|relationship]]s.
+==== Measurement of the ability - based model ====
-In Goleman's view, these emotional competencies build on each other in a [[hierarchy]]. At the bottom of his hierarchy "1" is the ability to identity one's emotional state. Some knowledge of "competency 1" is needed to move to the next competency.  Likewise, knowledge and/or skill in the first three competencies is needed to read and influence positively other people's emotions ("competency 4"). The first four competencies lead to increased ability to enter and sustain good relationships ("competency 5").
+Different models of EI have led to the development of various instruments for the [[Psychometrics|assessment]] of the construct. While some of these measures may overlap, most researchers agree that they tap slightly different constructs. The current measure of Mayer and Salovey’s model of EI, the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) is based on a series of emotion-based problem-solving items<ref name="grewal"/>. Consistent with the model's notion of EI as a type of intelligence, the test is modeled off of ability-based [[IQ tests]]. By testing a person’s abilities on each of the four branches of emotional intelligence, it generates scores for each of the branches as well as a total score.
-Goleman observes that emotions always exist &mdash; we always feel something. Organizations of all kinds often prize "being [[rationality|rational]]", whereas they do not esteem "being emotional." But even in the most "rational" of decisions, emotions persist: how else do we decide which criteria to use for evaluating the options in making a decision? &mdash; ''pace'' experience and statistical probabilities. Emotions also play a role in making a final decision between equally good choices &mdash; ''pace'' random chance. Goleman also laments [[gender role]] idiosyncrasies: Western society usually sees it as acceptable for women to show their emotions, but not for men.
+Central to the four-branch model is the idea that EI requires attunement to [[social norms]]. Therefore, the MSCEIT is [[Consensus based assessment|scored in a consensus fashion]], with higher scores indicating higher overlap between an individual’s answers and those provided by a worldwide sample of respondents. The MSCEIT can also be expert-scored, so that the amount of overlap is calculated between an individual’s answers and those provided by a group of 21 [[emotion|emotion researchers]]<ref name="grewal"/>.
-==Measures of Emotional Intelligence==
-Some researchers believe EI is a cognitive ability just as is IQ (eg, Mayer & Salovey, 2000), while others believe it is a combination of perceived abilities and traits (e.g., Schutte et al. 1998; Bar-On, 1997). These opposing views have inspired two separate domains of inventories – ability-based measures, which focus on maximal performance, and mixed-model measures, which focus on typical performance (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000; Petrides & Furnham, 2000). Maximal performance is an indication of the best cognitive performance a test-taker can achieve on a test, while typical performance indicates a test-taker’s performance under ordinary test conditions (Dennis, Sternberg, & Beatty, 2000).
+Although promoted as an ability test, the MSCEIT is most unlike standard IQ tests in that its items do not have objectively correct responses. Among other problems, the consensus scoring criterion means that it is impossible to create items (questions) that only a minority of respondents can solve, because, by definition, responses are deemed emotionally 'intelligent' only if the majority of the sample has endorsed them. This and other similar problems have led cognitive ability experts to question the definition of EI as a genuine intelligence.
-===Ability-based measures of EI===
-The MSCEIT measure is an ‘objective’ measure of EI involving a series of emotion-based problem solving items with relatively low face-validity, of which the answers have been deemed correct by consensus (MacCann, Roberts, Matthews, & Zeidner, 2004; Roberts, Zeidner, & Matthews, 2001). The MSCEIT purports to measure emotional intelligence across the following domains:
+===Mixed models of EI===
-*Experiential Area
-*#Perceiving Emotions Branch
-*#Facilitating Thinking Branch
-*Strategic Area
-*#Understanding Emotional Meaning Branch
-*#Managing Emotions Branch
+====The Emotional Competencies (Goleman) model ====
-For more on this topic see [[psychological testing]] and [[evaluation]].  A discussion on the strengths of ability-based measures versus self-report measures was written by {{ref harvard|ciarrochi.mayer.2005|Ciarroch and Mayer 2005|none}}.
+The EI model introduced by Daniel Goleman <ref name="goleman98">Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books</ref> focuses on EI as a wide array of competencies and skills that drive managerial performance, measured by [[360-degree feedback|multi-rater assessment]] and self-assessment (Bradberry and Greaves, 2005). In ''Working with Emotional Intelligence'' (1998), Goleman explored the function of EI on the job, and claimed EI to be the strongest predictor of success in the workplace, with more recent confirmation of these findings on a worldwide sample seen in Bradberry and Greaves, "The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book" (2005).
-===Self-report measures of EI===
+Goleman's model outlines four main EI constructs: <ref name="goleman98"/>
-Bradberry and Greaves {{ref harvard|bradberry.greaves.2005|2005c|c}}, based on the work of Goleman, give the following four areas as significant for measuring emotional knowledge. Their test, ''The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal'' is a self-administered, online assessment that is included in their book [http://www.eiquickbook.com The Emotional Intelligence Quickbook].
-*Personal competence, including:
-**Self-awareness: Only when somebody is aware of their strengths and weaknesses can they maximise their potential.
-**Self-management: Using awareness of your emotions to manage your response to different situations and people.
-*Social competence, including:
-**Social awareness: Understanding the perspectives of other people including their motivations, their emotions, and the meaning of what they do and say.
-**Relationship Management: Using awareness of one's own emotions and the emotions of others to manage relationships to a successful outcome.
-[http://www.talentsmart.com Emotional Intelligence Appraisal]
+#Self-awareness - the ability to read one's emotions and recognize their impact while using [[feeling#Gut feeling|gut feelings]] to guide decisions.
-===Nancy Gibbs on emotional intelligence===
+#Self-management - involves controlling one's emotions and impulses and adapting to changing circumstances.
-In October of 1995, Nancy Gibbs {{ref harvard|gibbs.10.2.1995|1995|none}} wrote an article on emotional intelligence that appeared in [[Time Magazine]], wherein she mentioned Goleman's book, adding to the book's popularity, but misrepresented Mayer and Salovey's view.  In the misquotation, "Their [Mayer and Salovey's] notion is about to bound into the national conversation, handily shortened to EQ, thanks to a new book, Emotional Intelligence ([[Bantam]]) by Daniel Goleman...", Nancy Gibbs made it look like Goleman's book accurately reflected Mayer and Salovey's concept of emotional intelligence without even mentioning the main differences.
+#Social awareness - the ability to sense, understand, and react to other's emotions while comprehending [[social networks]].
+#[[Interpersonal relationship|Relationship management]] - the ability to inspire, influence, and develop others while [[Conflict management|managing conflict]].
+Goleman includes a set of [[Emotional competence|emotional competencies]] within each construct of EI. Emotional competencies are not innate talents, but rather learned capabilities that must be worked on and developed to achieve outstanding performance. Goleman posits that individuals are born with a general emotional intelligence that determines their potential for learning emotional competencies.<ref name="boy">Boyatzis, R., Goleman, D., & Rhee, K. (2000). Clustering competence in emotional intelligence: insights from the emotional competence inventory (ECI). In R. Bar-On & J.D.A. Parker (eds.): Handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 343-362). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.</ref>
+====Measurement of the Emotional Competencies (Goleman) model ====
-John Mayer criticized Gibb's article on his Web site {{ref harvard|mayer.2005c|Mayer 2005c|none}} at the [[University of New Hampshire]]. Among other things, he criticized the subtitle on the issue's cover ("It's not your IQ. Its not even a number. But emotional intelligence may be the best predictor of success in life, redefining what it means to be smart."), because the subtitle makes the reader think that emotional intelligence is not measurable and that emotional intelligence [[correlate]]s with "success in life." Mayer and Salovey's view, to the contrary, states that EI is measurable, even with a [[psychometric]] test such as the MSCEIT, and makes no claim about EIs predictability for success in life.
+Measurement tools based on Goleman’s model of emotional intelligence include the Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI<ref name="boy"/>) and the Emotional Intelligence Appraisal, which can be taken as a self-report or 360-degree assessment (Bradberry and Greaves, 2005) (EIA<ref> Bradberry, T. & Greaves, J. (2005). The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book, (New York: Simon and Schuster).   Bradberry, T. and Greaves J. (2005) "Heartless Bosses," The Harvard Business Review.</ref>).
-== Criticisms ==
-A significant criticism is that emotional intelligence has no "benchmark" to set itself against. While IQ tests are designed to correlate as closely as possible with school grades, emotional intelligence seems to have no similar objective quantity it can be based on.
+==== The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI) ====
-The criticism of the works of Mayer and Salovey include a study by Roberts et.al. {{ref harvard|roberts.zeidner.matthews|2001|none}}.  That research warns that EQ may actually be measuring conformity.  However, Mayer et.al. {{ref harvard|mayer.salovey.caruso.sitarenios.2001|2001|none}}, provide further theoretical basis for their theories. Nevertheless, many psychological researchers do not accept emotional intelligence to be a part of "standard" intelligence (like IQ).
+Psychologist Reuven Bar-On (2006) developed one of the first measures of EI that used the term "[[Emotion Quotient]]". He defines emotional intelligence as being concerned with effectively understanding oneself and others, relating well to people, and adapting to and [[Coping (psychology)|coping]] with the immediate surroundings to be more successful in dealing with environmental demands <ref>Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): a test of emotional intelligence. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.</ref>. Bar-On posits that EI develops over time and that it can be improved through training, programming, and therapy <ref name="baron06"/>. Bar-On hypothesizes that those individuals with higher than average E.Q.’s are in general more successful in meeting environmental demands and pressures. He also notes that a deficiency in EI can mean a lack of success and the existence of emotional problems. Problems in coping with one’s environment are thought, by Bar-On, to be especially common among those individuals lacking in the subscales of reality testing, problem solving, stress tolerance, and impulse control. In general, Bar-On considers emotional intelligence and cognitive intelligence to contribute equally to a person’s [[general intelligence]], which then offers an indication of one’s potential to succeed in life <ref name="baron06"/>
+====Measurement of the ESI Model ====
-Goleman's work is also criticized in the psychological community.  [[Hans Eysenck|Eysenck]] ({{ref harvard|eysenck.2002|2000|none}}), for example comments that Goleman "exemplifies more clearly than most the fundamental absurdity of the tendency to class almost any type of behaviour as an 'intelligence'. . . .If these five 'abilities' define 'emotional intelligence', we would expect some evidence that they are highly correlated; Goleman admits that they might be quite uncorrelated, and in any case if we cannot measure them, how do we know they are related?  So the whole theory is built on quicksand; there is no sound scientific basis."
+The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQ-i), is a self-report measure of EI developed as a measure of emotionally and socially competent behavior that provides an estimate of one's emotional and social intelligence. The EQ-i is not meant to measure personality traits or cognitive capacity, but rather the mental ability to be successful in dealing with environmental demands and pressures <ref name="baron06"/>. One hundred and thirty three items are used to obtain a Total EQ (Total Emotion Quotient) and to produce five composite scale scores, corresponding to the five main components of the Bar-On model. A limitation of this model is that it claims to measure some kind of ability through self-report items.
-===Self-report EI merely another measure of Personality?===
+===The Trait EI model ===
-Some researchers have raised concerns with the extent to which self-report EI measures correlate with established personality dimensions such as those within the Big Five (Gignac, 2005; Malouff, Thorsteinsson, & Schutte, 2005). Generally, self-report EI measures and personality measures have been said to converge because they both purport to measure traits, and because they are both measured in the self-report form (Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2002). Specifically, there appear to be two dimensions of the Big Five that stand out as most related to self-report EI – neuroticism and extraversion. In particular, neuroticism has been said to relate to negative emotionality and anxiety (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Intuitively, individuals scoring high on neuroticism are likely to score low on self-report EI measures (Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2002). While many studies have looked at the relationship between neuroticism and self-report EI measures, few have examined that relationship with the TMMS and SEI specifically (Gignac, Palmer, Manocha, & Stough, in press). A study by Davies, Stankov, and Roberts (1998) reported a strong negative correlation between total TMMS scores and neuroticism scores (r = -.40). Another study by Warrick and Nettlebeck (2004) reported a moderate negative correlation between neuroticism and the TMMS total score (-.27), although there was a notable limitation in their sample size (n = 84). As for the SEI, an initial study by Schutte et al. (1998) reported a moderate negative correlation between neuroticism and total SEI scores (r = -.28), although the sample size was also notably small (n = 23). In a larger study (n = 354) by Saklofske (2003), the SEI optimism subscale was reported to have a strong negative relationship with neuroticism (r = -.52). Collectively, there does appear to be evidence of an overlap between neuroticism and self-report EI measures such as the TMMS and SEI. However, it is unclear in the literature exactly what level of correlation between personality and self-report EI is so high as to suggest that it self-report EI is redundant.
+Petrides et al. (2000a, 2004, 2007) proposed a conceptual distinction between the ability based model and a [[trait]] based model of EI<ref name="pet2000"> Petrides, K. V. & Furnham, A. (2000a). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 313-320</ref>. Trait EI (or ‘trait emotional self-efficacy’) refers to "a constellation of [[Dispositional Affect|behavioral dispositions]] and [[Self-perception theory|self-perceptions]] concerning one’s ability to recognize, process, and utilize emotion-laden information". This definition of EI encompasses behavioral dispositions and self perceived abilities and is measured by [[Self-report inventory|self report]], as opposed to the ability based model which refers to actual abilities as they express themselves in performance based measures. Trait EI should be investigated within a [[personality]] framework. <ref> Petrides, K. V. & Furnham, A. (2001).  Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies.  European Journal of Personality, 15, 425-448 </ref>
-The interpretations of moderate-to-high correlations between self-report EI and personality have been varied and inconsistent. Some researchers have asserted that correlations in the .40 range constitute outright construct redundancy (eg, Davies, Stankov & Roberts, 1998), while others have suggested that self-report EI is a personality trait in itself (eg, Petrides & Furnham, 2001). Gignac (2005) asserted that it would be difficult for any self-report individual difference measure to demonstrate exceptional incremental validity above and beyond the Big Five, and recommended that factor analytic methodology be used to test for construct redundancy (as opposed to zero-order correlations). Before conclusive and convincing arguments can be asserted as to whether self-report EI is redundant or related to personality, it would be useful to statistically extricate the effects of neuroticism from the relationship between the TMMS and SEI, and determine whether the EI subscales still form a general factor (EI g) after the extrication. While the overlap between EI and personality is a large concern, there are other factors that bring the psychometric properties of self-report EI inventories into question.
+The trait EI model is general and subsumes the Goleman and Bar-On models discussed above. Petrides et al. are major critics of the ability-based model and the MSCEIT arguing that they are based on "psychometrically meaningless" scoring procedures (e.g., Petrides, Furnham, & Mavroveli, 2007).
-===Self-report EI - Susceptibility to Faking Good===
+The conceptualization of EI as a personality trait leads to a construct that lies outside the [[taxonomy]] of human cognitive ability. This is an important distinction in as much as it bears directly on the operationalization of the construct and the theories and hypotheses that are formulated about it <ref name="pet2000"/>. The trait EI model is among the most salient in the scientific literature.
-Self-report EI measures, much like personality measures, are comprised of highly face-valid items. This may make understanding what test items are ‘really asking’ routinely easy, and could expose the inventories to a phenomenon known as “faking good.” More formally termed socially desirable responding (SDR), “faking good” is defined as a response pattern where test-takers systematically represent themselves with an excessive positive bias (Paulhus, 2002). This bias has long been known to contaminate responses on personality inventories (Holtgraves, 2004; McFarland & Ryan, 2000; Peebles & Moore, 1998; Nichols & Greene, 1997; Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987), and act as a mediator of the relationships between self-report measures (Nichols & Greene, 1997; Ganster et al., 1983).
+====Measurement of the Trait EI model====
-It has been suggested that responding in a desirable way is a response set, which is a situational and temporary response pattern (Pauls & Crost, 2004; Paulhus, 1991). This is contrasted with a response style, which is a more long-term trait-like quality. Considering the contexts certain self-report EI inventories are used in (eg, employment settings), the problems of response sets in high-stakes scenarios become clear (Paulhus & Reid, 2001). Highlighting the extent to which response biases are considered a confound to accurate personality measurement, some researchers even believe it is necessary to warn test-takers not to fake good before taking a personality test (e.g., McFarland, 2003). In summary, given the inherent similarities between personality testing and self-report EI testing (both are self-report, both measure traits, and both are said to converge moderately-to-highly), it may be reasonable to assert that socially desirable responding has the capacity to contaminate responses on self-report EI measures. Specifically, should self-report EI measures be largely contaminated by SDR, their construct validity may be compromised (Cronbach & Meehl, 1996).
+There are many self-report measures of EI, including the EQi, the Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT), the Six Seconds Emotional Intelligence Assessment (SEI), the Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SSEIT), a test by Tett, Fox, and Wang {{ref harvard|tett.fox.wang.2005|2005|none}}. From the perspective of the trait EI model, none of these assess intelligence, abilities, or skills (as their authors often claim), but rather, they are limited measures of trait emotional self-efficacy (Petrides, Furnham, & Mavroveli, 2007). The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) is an open-access measure that was specifically designed to measure the construct comprehensively and is currently available in 15 languages.
-===Ability-based models===
+The TEIQue provides an operationalization for Petrides and colleagues' model that conceptualizes EI in terms of personality <ref>Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence: behavioral validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. European Journal of Personality, 17, 39–75</ref>. The test encompasses 15 subscales organized under four factors: [[Quality of life|Well-Being]], [[Self-Control]], [[Emotionality]], and [[Sociability]]. The psychometric properties of the TEIQue were investigated in a recent study on a French-Speaking Population, where it was reported that TEIQue scores were globally [[normally distributed]] and [[Reliability (statistics)|reliable]]<ref>Mikolajczak, Luminet, Leroy, and Roy (2007). Psychometric Properties of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire: Factor Structure, Reliability, Construct, and Incremental Validity in a French-Speaking Population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88(3), 338–353 </ref>.
-Ability-based models (eg., Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, Emotional Intelligence Test; MSCEIT, Mayer et al., 2000) are ‘objective’ measures involving a series of emotional problem solving items with relatively low face-validity, of which the answers have been deemed correct by consensus (MacCann, Roberts, Matthews, & Zeidner, 2004; Roberts, Zeidner, & Matthews, 2001). This approach is regarded by the authors and its proponents to be somewhat of a ‘gold-standard’ measure of EI, since it relies on directly measured EI rather than self-reports of it (MacCann, Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2004; Caruso, Mayer, & Salovey, 2002; Mayer & Salovey, 2000). This method, however, has some notable downfalls. Petrides & Furnham, (2000) noted that, independent of inter-rater reliability, determining item ‘correctness’ for emotion-based items is greatly problematic as there are no objective criteria to refer to. Additionally, the administration of the MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2000) is time consuming at best (up to 45 minutes) – a luxury not often available in applied settings. Conversely, self-report measures of EI are relatively quick to administer and are highly face-valid.
+The researchers also found TEIQue scores were unrelated to nonverbal reasoning ([[Raven's Progressive Matrices|Raven’s matrices]]), which they interpreted as support for the personality trait view of EI (as opposed to a form of intelligence). As expected, TEIQue scores were positively related to some personality dimensions ([[optimism]], [[agreeableness]], [[Openness to experience|openness]], [[conscientiousness]]) as well as inversely related to others([[alexithymia]], [[neuroticism]]).
+==Alexithymia and EI==
+[[Alexithymia]] from the Greek words λέξις and θυμός (literally "lack of words for emotions") is a term coined by Peter Sifneos in 1973 <ref>Bar-On, Reuven; Parker, James DA (2000). The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School, and in the Workplace. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. ISBN 0787949841. pp. 40-59</ref><ref>Taylor, Graeme J; Bagby, R. Michael and Parker, James DA (1997). Disorders of Affect Regulation: Alexithymia in Medical and Psychiatric Illness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres. ISBN 052145610X. pp.28-31</ref> to describe people who appeared to have [[Deficiency|deficiencies]] in understanding, processing, or describing their emotions. Viewed as a spectrum between high and low EI, the alexithymia construct is strongly inversely related to EI, representing its lower range.<ref>Parker JDA, Taylor GJ, Bagby RM (2001). "The Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and Alexithymia". Personality and Individual Differences 30, 107–115</ref> The individual's level of alexithymia can be measured with self-scored [[questionnaires]] such as the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) or the Bermond-Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire (BVAQ)<ref>Vorst HCM, Bermond B (February 2001). "Validity and reliability of the Bermond-Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire". Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 30, Number 3, pp. 413–434(22)</ref> or by observer rated measures such as the Observer Alexithymia Scale (OAS).
+==Criticism of the theoretical foundation of EI==
+===EI is too broadly defined and the definitions are unstable===
+One of the arguments against the theoretical soundness of the concept suggests that the constant changing and broadening of its definition- which has come to encompass many unrelated elements - had rendered it an unintelligible concept:
+"What is the common or integrating element in a concept that includes: [[introspection]] about emotions, [[Emotional expression]], non-verbal [[communication]] with others, empathy, self-regulation, [[planning]], [[creative thinking]] and the direction of [[attention]]? There is none." <ref name="locke">Locke, E.A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 425-431.</ref>
+Other critics<ref name="landy">Landy, F.J. (2005). Some historical and scientific issues related to research on emotional intelligence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 411-424.</ref> mention that without some stabilization of the concepts and the measurement instruments, [[meta-analyses]] are difficult to implement , and the theory coherence is likely to be adversely impacted by this instability.
+===EI cannot be recognized as a form of intelligence===
+Goleman's early work has been criticized for assuming from the beginning that EI is a type of intelligence. Eysenck {{ref harvard|eysenck.2002|2000|none}}</blockquote> writes that Goleman's description of EI contains unsubstantiated assumptions about intelligence in general, and that it even runs contrary to what researchers have come to expect when studying types of intelligence:
+"Goleman exemplifies more clearly than most the fundamental absurdity of the tendency to class almost any type of behaviour as an 'intelligence'... If these five 'abilities' define 'emotional intelligence', we would expect some evidence that they are highly correlated; Goleman admits that they might be quite uncorrelated, and in any case if we cannot measure them, how do we know they are related? So the whole theory is built on quicksand; there is no sound scientific basis".
+Similarly, Locke (2005) <ref name="locke"/> claims that the concept of EI in itself is a misinterpretation of the intelligence construct, and he offers an alternative interpretation: it is not another form or type of intelligence, but intelligence (the ability to grasp [[abstractions]]) applied to a particular life domain: emotions. He suggests the concept should be re-labeled and referred to as a skill.
+===EI has no substantial predictive value===
+Landy (2005) <ref name="landy"/> has claimed that the few [[incremental]] validity studies conducted on EI have demonstrated that it adds little or nothing to the explanation or prediction of some common outcomes (most notably academic and work success). Landy proposes that the reason some studies have found a small increase in [[predictive validity]] is in fact a [[Methodology|methodological]] fallacy - incomplete consideration of alternative explanations:
+"EI is compared and contrasted with a measure of abstract intelligence but not with a personality measure, or with a personality measure but not with a measure of academic intelligence." Landy (2005)
+In accordance with this suggestion, other researchers have raised concerns with the extent to which self-report EI measures correlate with established personality dimensions. Generally, self-report EI measures and personality measures have been said to converge because they both purport to measure traits, and because they are both measured in the self-report form <ref name="zeidner"> MacCann, C., Roberts, R.D., Matthews, G., & Zeidner, M. (2004). Consensus scoring and empirical option weighting of performance-based emotional intelligence tests. Personality & Individual Differences, 36, 645-662.</ref>. Specifically, there appear to be two dimensions of the [[Big Five personality traits|Big Five]] that stand out as most related to self-report EI – [[neuroticism]] and [[extraversion]]. In particular, neuroticism has been said to relate to negative emotionality and [[anxiety]]. Intuitively, individuals scoring high on neuroticism are likely to score low on self-report EI measures. <ref name="zeidner"/>
+The interpretations of the [[correlations]] between self-report EI and personality have been varied and inconsistent. Some researchers have asserted that correlations in the .40 range constitute outright construct redundancy<ref> Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 989-1015.</ref>, while others have suggested that self-report EI is a personality trait in itself.<ref name="pet2000"/>
+==Criticism on measurement issues==
+===Ability based measures are measuring conformity, not ability===
+One criticism of the works of Mayer and Salovey comes from a study by Roberts et.al. (2001) <ref>Roberts, R. D., Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2001). Does emotional intelligence meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions. Emotion, 1, 196–231</ref>, which suggests that the EI, as measured by the MSCEIT, may only be measuring conformity. This argument is rooted in the MSCEIT's use of consensus-based assessment, and in the fact that scores on the MSCEIT are negatively distributed (meaning that its scores differentiate between people with low EI better than people with high EI).
+===Ability based measures are measuring knowledge (not actual ability)===
+Further criticism has been offered by Brody (2004)<ref> Brody, N. (2004). What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 234-238. </ref>, who claimed that unlike tests of cognitive ability, the MSCEIT "tests knowledge of emotions but not necessarily the ability to perform tasks that are related to the knowledge that is assessed". The main argument is that even though someone knows how he should behave in an emotionally laden situation, it doesn’t necessarily follow that he could actually carry out the reported behavior.
+===Self report measures are susceptible to faking good===
+More formally termed socially desirable responding (SDR), faking good is defined as a response pattern in which test-takers systematically represent themselves with an excessive positive bias (Paulhus, 2002). This bias has long been known to contaminate responses on personality inventories (Holtgraves, 2004; McFarland & Ryan, 2000; Peebles & Moore, 1998; Nichols & Greene, 1997; Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987), acting as a mediator of the relationships between self-report measures (Nichols & Greene, 1997; Ganster et al., 1983).
+It has been suggested that responding in a desirable way is a response set, which is a situational and temporary response pattern (Pauls & Crost, 2004; Paulhus, 1991). This is contrasted with a response style, which is a more long-term trait-like quality. Considering the contexts some self-report EI inventories are used in (e.g., employment settings), the problems of response sets in high-stakes scenarios become clear (Paulhus & Reid, 2001).
+There are a few methods to prevent socially desirable responding on behavior inventories. Some researchers believe it is necessary to warn test-takers not to fake good before taking a personality test (e.g., McFarland, 2003). Some inventories use validity scales in order to determine the likelihood or consistency of the responses across all items.
+===Claims for the predictive power of EI are too extreme===
+Landy <ref name="landy"/> distinguishes between the 'commercial wing' and 'the academic wing' of the EI movement, basing this distinction on the alleged predictive power of EI as seen by the two currents. According to Landy, the former makes expansive claims on the applied value of EI, while the later is trying to warn users against these claims. As an example. Goleman (1998) asserts that "the most effective leaders are alike in one crucial way: they all have a high degree of what has come to be known as emotional intelligence. ...emotional intelligence is the sine qua non of leadership". In contrast, Mayer (1999) cautions "the popular literature’s implication—that highly emotionally intelligent people possess an unqualified advantage in life—appears overly enthusiastic at present and unsubstantiated by reasonable scientific standards."
+Landy further reinforces this argument by noting that the data upon which these claims are based are held in ‘proprietary databases', which means they are unavailable to independent researchers for reanalysis, replication, or verification<ref name="landy"/>. Thus, the credibility of the findings cannot be substantiated in a scientific manner, unless those datasets are made public and available for independent analysis.
+===Corporate uses and misuses of EI testing===
+Whenever a new assessment tool is proposed for hiring purposes, the concern arises that it might lead to unfair job discrimination. The use of EI tests, whose validity has not been established, may lead to arbitrary discrimination practices.
 ==See also==
+{{col-begin}}
+{{col-3}}
+* [[Affective education]]
+* [[Alexithymia]]
+* [[Assessment of emotional intelligence]]/[[Emotional intelligence measures]]
+* [[Collaborative intelligence]]
+* [[Consensus based assessment (CBA)]]
+* [[Creativity]]
+* [[Cultural Intelligence]]
+* [[Dispositional Affect]]
+{{col-3}}
+* [[Emotion work]]
+* [[Emotional competence]]
+* [[Emotional contagion]]
+* [[Emotional intelligence and orgasm]]
+* [[Emotional labor]]
+* [[Emotional literacy]]
+* [[Emotions in Decision Making]]
+* [[Empathy]]
+{{col-3}}
+* [[Intelligence quotient]]
+* [[Intercultural competence]]
+* [[Interpersonal emotion regulation]]
+* [[List of emotions]]
+* [[Motivation]]
+* [[Psychological mindedness]]
+* [[Relationship Intelligence Quotient]]
+* [[Social IQ]]
+* [[Social neuroscience]]
+* [[Theory of multiple intelligences]]
+{{col-end}}
 ==References & Bibliography==
+{{reflist}}
 ==Key texts==
 ===Books===
 * Salovey, P., & Sluyter, D. J. (Eds.). (1997). [[Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Educational Implications]]. New York: Basic Books.
 * Wyer, Jr., R. S., & Srull, T. K. (Eds.). (1989). [[Social Intelligence and Cognitive Assessments of Personality]] (Advances in Social Cognition, Vol. 2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
 ===Papers===
 ==Additional material==
 ===Books===
@@ Line 113: / Line 189: @@
 ==References==
-*{{note label|baron.1997|1997|none}}Bar-On, R. (1997).  Development of the Bar-On EQ-i: A measure of emotional intelligence and social intelligence. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
+*{{note label|baron.1997|1997|none}}Bar-On, R. (1997). Development of the Bar-On EQ-i: A measure of emotional intelligence and social intelligence. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
-<!--currently not used in the article: *Bar-On, R. and Parker, J. (Eds) (2000). ''The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence : Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School and in the Workplace'', Indianapolis, IN: Jossey-Bass. -->
+*Bar-On, R. and Parker, J. (Eds) (2000). ''The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence : Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School and in the Workplace'', Indianapolis, IN: Jossey-Bass.
-*{{note label|beasley.1987|1987|none}}Beasley, K. (1987) "The Emotional Quotient." ''Mensa (The British Mensa Magazine.'' Wolverhampton, United Kingdom: The British Mensa Society. May. (See http://www.pintados.co.uk/keith/iq_eq.htm downloaded October 30, 2005).
 *{{note label|bradberry.greaves.2005|Bradberry and Greaves 2005|a}}{{note label|bradberry.greaves.2005|Bradberry and Greaves 2005|b}}{{note label|bradberry.greaves.2005|Bradberry and Greaves 2005|c}}Bradberry, T. and Greaves, J. (2005). ''The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book: How to Put Your EQ to Work'', New York: Simon and Schuster.
-<!--currently not used in the article: *Conte, J.M. (2005) A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures. ''Journal of Organizational Behavior'' 26, 433–440.-->
+*Conte, J.M. (2005) A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures. ''Journal of Organizational Behavior'' 26, 433–440.-->
-*{{note label|ciarrochi.mayer.2005|Ciarroch and Mayer 2005|none}}Ciarrochi, H. and Mayer, J. (2005). "Can Self-Report Measures Contribute to the Study of Emotional Intelligence? A Conversation between Joseph Ciarrochi and John D. Mayer" The University of New Hampshire. Web reference at [http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/ei%20Controversies/ei%20can%20self%20report%20contribute.htm http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/ei%20Controversies/ei%20can%20self%20report%20contribute.htm] accessed January 2, 2006.
+*Ciarrochi, H. and Mayer, J. (2005). "Can Self-Report Measures Contribute to the Study of Emotional Intelligence? A Conversation between Joseph Ciarrochi and John D. Mayer" The University of New Hampshire. Web reference at http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/ei%20Controversies/ei%20can%20self%20report%20contribute.htm accessed January 2, 2006.
+http://www.time.com/time/classroom/psych/unit5_article1.html] accessed January 2, 2006. [http://www.time.com/time/mediakit/about/biographies/senioreditorialstaff/gibbs.html]
-*{{note label|eysenck.2002|2000|none}}[[Hans Eysenck | Eysenck, H.]] (2000). ''Intelligence: A New Look'', Transaction Publishers, (ISBN 0-7658-0707-6), pp. 109-110.
+*Goleman, D. (1995). ''Emotional Intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ.'' New York: Bantam Books. (ISBN 0553375067)
-*{{note label|gardner.1975|Gardner 1975|none}}Gardner, H. (1975) ''The Shattered Mind.'' New York: Knopf.
-*{{note label|gibbs.10.2.1995|Gibbs 1995|none}}Gibbs, Nancy (1995). "The EQ Factor," ''[[Time Magazine]]'' ([[October 2]]). Web reference at [http://www.time.com/time/classroom/psych/unit5_article1.html http://www.time.com/time/classroom/psych/unit5_article1.html] accessed January 2, 2006. [http://www.time.com/time/mediakit/about/biographies/senioreditorialstaff/gibbs.html]
-*{{note label|goleman.1995|1995|a}}{{note label|goleman.1995|Goleman 1995|b}}Goleman, D. (1995). ''Emotional Intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ.'' New York: Bantam Books. (ISBN 0553375067)
 *MacCann, C., Roberts, R.D., Matthews, G., & Zeidner, M. (2004). Consensus scoring and empirical option weighting of performance-based emotional intelligence tests. Personality & Individual Differences, 36, 645-662.
+*Mayer, J. (2005a). "Can Emotional Knowledge be Improved? Can you raise emotional intelligence?” The University of New Hampshire. Web reference at http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/ei%20Improve/ei%20Rasing%20EI.htmaccessed January 2, 2006.
-<!--currently not used in the article: *Maturana, H. and Francisco J. V. (1998) ''The tree of knowledge: the biological roots of human understanding'', Translated by Robert Paloucci. Shambhala Publications.-->
-*{{note label|mayer.2005a|Mayer 2005a|a}}{{note label|mayer.2005a|Mayer 2005a|b}}Mayer, J. (2005a). "Can Emotional Knowledge be Improved? Can you raise emotional intelligence?” The University of New Hampshire.  Web reference at [http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/ei%20Improve/ei%20Rasing%20EI.htm http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/ei%20Improve/ei%20Rasing%20EI.htm]accessed January 2, 2006.
+*Mayer, J. (2005b) "Emotional Intelligence Information: A Site Dedicated to Communicating Scientific Information about Emotional Intelligence, Including Relevant Aspects of Emotions, Cognition, and Personality." The University of New Hampshire. Web reference at http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/index.html accessed January 2, 2006.
-*{{note label|mayer.2005b|Mayer 2005b|none}}Mayer, J. (2005b) "Emotional Intelligence Information: A Site Dedicated to Communicating Scientific Information about Emotional Intelligence, Including Relevant Aspects of Emotions, Cognition, and Personality." The University of New Hampshire.  Web reference at [http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/index.html http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/index.html] accessed January 2, 2006.
+*Mayer, J. (2005c). "Is EI the Best Predictor of Success in Life?" The University of New Hampshire. Web reference at http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/ei%20Controversies/eicontroversy1%20best%20predictor.htm accessed January 2, 2006.
-*{{note label|mayer.2005c|Mayer 2005c|none}}Mayer, J. (2005c). "Is EI the Best Predictor of Success in Life?" The University of New Hampshire.  Web reference at [http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/ei%20Controversies/eicontroversy1%20best%20predictor.htm http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/ei%20Controversies/eicontroversy1%20best%20predictor.htm] accessed January 2, 2006.
+*Mayer, J. (2005c). "How Do You Measure Emotional Intelligence?" The University of New Hampshire. Web reference at [http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/ei%20Measuring%20EI/eiMeasure%20How%20do%20you.htm] accessed January 2, 2006.
+*Mayer, J.D. & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence. ''Intelligence'', 17, 433-442.
-*{{note label|mayer.2005c|Mayer 2005c|none}}Mayer, J. (2005c). "How Do You Measure Emotional Intelligence?" The University of New Hampshire.  Web reference at [http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/ei%20Measuring%20EI/eiMeasure%20How%20do%20you.htm] accessed January 2, 2006.
-*{{note label|mayer.salovey.1993|1993|none}}Mayer, J.D. & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence. ''Intelligence'', 17, 433-442.
+*Mayer, J., Salovey, P., Caruso, D.R., and Sitarenios, G. (2001) "Emotional intelligence as a standard intelligence." ''Emotion'', 1, 232-242.
+*Payne, W.L. (1985). A study of emotion: developing emotional intelligence; self-integration; relating to fear, pain and desire (theory, structure of reality, problem-solving, contraction/expansion, tuning in/comingout/letting go). A Doctoral Dissertation. Cincinnati, OH: The Union For Experimenting Colleges And Universities (now The Union Institute).
-*{{note label|mayer.salovey.caruso.sitarenios.2001|2001|none}}Mayer, J., Salovey, P., Caruso, D.R., and Sitarenios, G. (2001) "Emotional intelligence as a standard intelligence." ''Emotion'', 1, 232-242.
+*Roberts, R.D., Zeidner, M., and Matthews, G. (2001). "Does Emotional Intelligence Meet Traditional Standards for an Intelligence? Some New Data and Conclusions." ''Emotion'', Vol 1, no 3, pages 196-231. Web pre-publication version available at http://eqi.org/ei_abs4.htm accessed January 2. 2006.
-<!--*currently not used in article: Merlevede, P. & Bridoux, D. (2001). ''7 Steps to Emotional Intelligence''. Crown House Publishing Ltd (ISBN 1899836500).-->
+*Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990). "Emotional intelligence." ''Imagination, Cognition, and Personality'', 9(1990), 185-211.
-*{{note label|payne.1985|1985|none}}Payne, W.L. (1985). A study of emotion: developing emotional intelligence; self-integration; relating to fear, pain and desire (theory, structure of reality, problem-solving, contraction/expansion, tuning in/comingout/letting go).  A Doctoral Dissertation. Cincinnati, OH: The Union For Experimenting Colleges And Universities (now The Union Institute).
-*{{note label|roberts.zeidner.matthews|2001|none}}Roberts, R.D., Zeidner, M., and Matthews, G. (2001). "Does Emotional Intelligence Meet Traditional Standards for an Intelligence? Some New Data and Conclusions." ''Emotion'', Vol 1, no 3, pages 196-231. Web pre-publication version available at [http://eqi.org/ei_abs4.htm http://eqi.org/ei_abs4.htm] accessed January 2. 2006.
-*{{note label|salovey.mayer.1990|1990|none}}Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990). "Emotional intelligence." ''Imagination, Cognition, and Personality'', 9(1990), 185-211.
 *Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E., Haggerty, D.J., Cooper, J.T., Golden, C.J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177.
-*{{note label|smith.2002|Smith 2002|none}}Smith, M. K. (2002) "Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences," ''the encyclopedia of informal education'', Downloaded from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm on October 31, 2005.
+*Smith, M. K. (2002) "Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences," ''the encyclopedia of informal education'', Downloaded from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm on October 31, 2005.
-*{{note label|thorndike.1920|Thorndike 2002|none}}Thorndike, R.K. (1920). "Intelligence and Its Uses," ''Harper's Magazine'' 140, 227-335.
-* Warneka, T. (2006). ''Leading People the Black Belt Way: Conquering the Five Core Problems Facing Leaders Today''. Asogomi Press. Cleveland, Ohio. [http://www.blackbeltconsultants.com website]
-==See also==
-* [[Emotion work]]
-* [[List of emotions]], [[Empathy]]
-* [[Theory of multiple intelligences]]
-* [[Motivation]]
 ==External links==
@@ Line 150: / Line 214: @@
 *[http://www.yale.edu/psychology/FacInfo/Salovey.html Peter Salovey, Yale Psychology Faculty]
 *[http://www.eq.org eq.org] Directory of emotional intelligence sites
 *[http://www.bullyeq.com Bullying and emotional intelligence]
 *[http://www.time.com/time/classroom/psych/unit5_article1.html Time Magazine Report: ''The EQ Factor'']
 *[http://www.eiconsortium.org Emotional Intelligence Consortium], consortium founded by Daniel Goleman
@@ Line 158: / Line 222: @@
 * [http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r150/r150_e.pdf Review of EI Literature] March 2004
 * [http://www.blackbeltconsultants.com Emotional Intelligence & the Body]
+* [http://www.schooltoolstv.com SchoolToolsTv.com]
+{{EmotionSpec}}
+{{enWP|Emotional intelligence}}
 [[Category:Emotion]]
 [[Category:Personality]]
 [[Category:Popular psychology]]
+[[Category:Emotional intelligence]]
-[[da:EQ]]
-[[de:Emotionale Intelligenz]]
-[[fr:Intelligence émotionnelle]]
-[[he:אינטליגנציה רגשית]]
-[[hu:Érzelmi intelligencia]]
-[[nl:Emotionele intelligentie]]
-[[pl:Inteligencja emocjonalna]]
-[[pt:Inteligência emocional]]
-[[sv:EQ]]
-{{enWP|Emotional intelligence}}