Overview 4.3.1
The concept of emotional intelligence was originally defined by Salovey and Mayer (1990, p.189) 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”. The construct has its roots in Thorndike’s (1920) concept of social intelligence and Gardner’s (1983) interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences. The concept was popularised by Goleman (1995) in his book “Emotional Intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ” in which he presented EI as being, in some instances, more important than traditional cognitive intelligence, and an important predictor of human potential and success in a wide range of life domains. Subsequently, a number of different conceptualisations of EI have emerged and the topic has become the focus of a considerable amount of both scientific and popular interest. Results suggest that EI may
Schutte et al., 2001), although academic researchers have challenged what they regard as exaggerated and unsubstantiated popular claims for EI (e.g., Brackett, Lopes, et al., 2004; Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000).
Models of EI 4.3.2
Within the emotional intelligence literature, two competing models of EI have emerged. Whilst the ability model defines EI as a set of emotion-related cognitive skills, other researchers have proposed alternative conceptualizations of the construct. These tend to be referred to as ‘mixed’, ‘trait’ or ‘personality’ approaches to EI. In contrast to the ability model, these conceptualizations include cognitive and also non-cognitive processes such as personality traits related to adaptive coping, and social competencies (Petrides & Furnham, 2006).
EI researchers have developed measures that correspond to their own conceptualization of the construct, and different assessment modalities are associated with the different type of model. Whilst ability models of EI assess the construct using performance-based measures modelled on tests of cognitive intelligence (IQ tests) requiring respondents to solve emotion-related problems, the trait approach generally employs self-report instruments which ask respondent to describe themselves on Likert-scale items which assess self-perceived skills, abilities and personality traits. The difference between the two approaches is sometimes expressed as tests of typical vs. maximal performance (Petrides & Furnham, 2000).
The Ability Model of EI 4.3.2.1
Whilst the Salovey and Mayer (1990) model incorporated aspects of personality, Mayer and Salovey (1997) produced a more focused definition. This ‘ability’ model conceptualises EI as a form of intelligence distinct from IQ that relates to the individual’s ability to reason with emotions and solve emotional problems in four areas: “the ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emotion; the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth” (p.10). Thus the four ‘branches’ of the model are: perceiving emotions, using emotions, understanding emotions and managing
emotions. The model is hierarchical and developmental, with branches arranged from the more basic, earlier-developing skills to higher processes requiring greater maturity. So, for example, emotional regulation is likely to depend to some extent on the individual first having emotional perception and understanding.
The researchers developed the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS; Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999) and subsequently the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT, Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002) to test and measure their conceptualization of EI. The MSCEIT assesses perception of emotions by requiring respondents to indicate how much of a particular emotion is being suggested or expressed in pictures of faces, patterns or landscapes. Using emotions to facilitate thought is assessed by requiring respondents to describe emotional sensations and how they relate to other sensory modalities such as taste and colour, and also by having users identify which feelings are likely to facilitate or impede various tasks. Emotional understanding is assessed via a set of questions relating to how simple emotions combine to form more complex emotions, and how emotions may change in response to particular situations. Finally, tasks that assess the management of emotions present respondents with a number of emotion-laden hypothetical situations for which they choose the most effective way of managing their own or others’ emotions.
Trait/mixed Models of EI 4.3.2.2
4.3.2.2.1 Introduction
Two distinct types of EI instrument are classified as ‘trait’ (or ‘mixed’ or ‘personality’) measures of EI: self-report instruments based on Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) model of EI, and broader conceptualizations of the EI construct.
4.3.2.2.2 Self-report Instruments Based on the Ability Model
Self-report instruments based on the ability approach elicit the respondent’s self-perceived emotional skills. The Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS; Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey, & Palfai, 1995) was an early example of such a measure. Similarly, the Schutte Emotional
Intelligence Scale (SEIS; Schutte et al., 1998) is also considered a trait measure although it is based on the Salovey and Mayer (1990) ability model of EI.
4.3.2.2.3 Broader Conceptualizations of the EI Construct
A popular model of EI based on a broad conceptualization of the construct is Petrides and Furnham’s (2003) trait model, which conceptualises EI in terms of the emotion-related aspects of personality, and therefore as a personality trait (albeit one which is distinct from other traits such as the Big Five; Petrides & Furnham, 2001). According to this model EI is “a constellation of behavioral dispositions and self-perceptions concerning one’s ability to recognize, process, and utilize emotion-laden information" (Petrides, Furnham, & Frederickson, 2004, p. 278) and “a constellation of emotion-related self-perceptions and dispositions located at the lower levels of personality hierarchies" (Petrides, Pérez-González, & Furnham, 2007, p. 26). It is measured using the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue; Petrides & Furnham, 2003), which comprises 153 item and 15 subscales organised under four factors: well-being, self- control, emotionality, and sociability.
A similar model is Goleman’s (1995) Emotional Competencies model of EI. This is based on Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) definition of EI, but additionally includes other ability, personality and temperament factors. It comprises five components: (a) knowing one's emotions, (b) managing emotions, (c) motivating oneself, (d) recognizing emotions in others, and (e) handling relationships. The Emotional Competencies Inventory (ECI; Boyatzis, Goleman, & Rhee, 2000) is based on Goleman’s conceptualisation of EI.
Bar-On (1997) similarly employs a broad definition of EI and places emphasis on psychological well-being and adaptation to environmental demands. Bar-On’s (1997) model defines EI as “an array of non-cognitive capabilities, competencies, and skills that influence one’s ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands and pressures” (Bar-On, 1997, p.14). The model comprises the following abilities: intrapersonal (e.g., recognizing and understanding one’s own feelings); interpersonal (e.g., empathy); adaptability (the ability to adapt one's emotions and behaviors according to the situation) and stress management. Bar-On developed
instruments to measure the construct as conceptualized by his model: the BarOn EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) and the BarOn EQ-i:Youth Version (Bar-On & Parker, 2000). The EQ-i incorporates five dimensions of EI (intrapersonal skills, interpersonal skills, adaptability, stress management and general mood) and comprises 15 subscales and 133 items.
Criticisms and Controversies 4.3.3
There exist a number of areas of substantial disagreement among researchers with respect to EI, many of which relate to the legitimacy of the construct and how it should be defined and measured.
One of the most common criticisms levelled at EI relates to its uniqueness as a construct. Substantial overlap between measures of trait EI and personality, and between cognitive EI and intelligence (e.g., Davies et al., 1998; Newsome et al., 2000) have led to claims that EI is merely a ‘repackaging’ of well-established individual difference constructs that offers little in the way of unique predictive value (Bowman, Markham, & Roberts, 2001; Brody, 2004; Davies et al., 1998; Landy, 2005).
Other controversies centre around the relative merits of competing models of EI and associated definitional and measurement issues. Proponents of the ability model generally view trait or mixed models as being excessively broad conceptualizations of the construct that cannot readily be differentiated from models of personality, and are therefore weak and flawed (Brackett & Salovey, 2006). Trait EI measures have also been criticized for relying on the individual’s own perceptions of their emotional skills, when they may not be able to accurately assess their own abilities in this area (Brackett et al., 2006). Moreover, it has been suggested that self-report measures are susceptible to faking and socially-desirable responding (Grubb & McDaniel, 2007; Schutte et al., 1998) and may be influenced by the respondent’s mood (Mayer, 2001) as well as aspects of their self-concept and self-awareness (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008). As such they may not accurately reflect actual abilities.
However, ability models and their related measurement instruments have also met with their share of criticism. Some researchers claim that there is insufficient evidence that EI is an intelligence comparable to traditional cognitive intelligence (e.g., Roberts, et al., 2001), a position that is taken by proponents of the trait approach, who claim instead that EI belongs within personality hierarchies (Petrides, Furnham, & Mavroveli, 2007). It has also been argued that test instruments relating to emotional experience do not readily lend themselves to veridical scoring criteria (Brody, 2004; O’Sullivan & Ekman, 2004; Petrides & Furnham, 2001; Roberts et al., 2001). Further, the use of consensus scoring (where the modal response is taken to be correct) raises questions regarding how accurate or representative this method is, and whether the test is, in effect, merely measuring conformity to social norms (Matthews & Zeidner, 2000; Roberts et al., 2001).
Finally, the fact that research generally indicates that self-report and ability measures share only small amounts of variance (e.g., Brackett et al., 2006; Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Brackett & Salovey, 2006; Goldenberg, Matheson, & Mantler, 2006; Livingstone & Day, 2005; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004; O’Connor & Little, 1993; Van Rooy, Viswesvaran, & Pluta, 2005; Warwick & Nettelbeck, 2004; Zeidner et al., 2005) has led to suggestions that the two types of measure are tapping different constructs.
Summary 4.3.4
To summarise, numerous different conceptualizations, models and measures of EI currently co- exist and there is ongoing disagreement about what factors should constitute emotional intelligence and how the term should be used. Whilst some researchers (e.g., Mayer, Salovey et al., 2000) see the different approaches as mutually exclusive, others suggest that they are complementary aspects of emotions and find utility in both models (e.g., Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000; Tett, Fox, & Wang, 2005).
However, regardless of the conceptualization of the construct, the various approaches share a number of common features which relate to the awareness, understanding and regulation of the emotions of oneself and others and the adaptive use of emotions to facilitate positive outcomes.
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE TRANSITION TO UNIVERSITY