Emotional intelligence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Emotional Intelligence, also called EI and often measured as an Emotional Intelligence Quotient or EQ, describes an ability, capacity, or skill to perceive, assess, and manage the emotions 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 John D. Mayer (2005a) prefer to distinguish emotional knowledge from emotional intelligence, as discussed below.

In 1920, E. L. Thorndike, at Columbia University, (Thorndike 1920), used the term "social intelligence" to describe the skill of getting along with other people. In 1975, Howard Gardner's The Shattered Mind, (Gardner 1975) began the formulation of the idea for "Multiple Intelligences" (he identifies eight intelligences, later two more are added), 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. (Smith 2002)

The term "emotional intelligence" appears to have originated with Wayne Payne (1985), but was popularized by Daniel Goleman (1995), who has published several books and articles about emotional intelligence and its application to business. Research on the concept originated with Peter Salovey and John "Jack" Mayer starting in the late 1980s. In 1990, their seminal paper (1990) defined the concept as an intelligence. Mayer and Salovey continue to research the concept. The term "emotional quotient" seems to have originated in an article by Keith Beasley (1987). There are numerous other assessments of emotional intelligence each advocating different models and measures.

Contents

[edit] Defining emotional intelligence

The distinction between intelligence and knowledge in the area of cognition (i.e. 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 (such as Bradberry and Greaves 2005) say that EQ is dynamic, it can be learned or increased; whereas others (such as Mayer) say that EQ is stable, and cannot be increased.

[edit] 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). 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).

[edit] Self-report measures of EI

Self-report measures of EI include the Emotional Intelligence Appraisal by Bradberry and Greaves, which can be taken via a passcode included in their book (2005c). The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal is an assessment of the four skills from Daniel Goleman's model. The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal is administered as a self or 360-degree assessment.

The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal measures:

  • Personal competence, including:
    • Self-Awareness: Recognizing and understanding your emotions in the moment, as well as your tendencies across time and situation.
    • Self-Management: Using awareness of emotions to manage 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.

Other assessments include Reven BarOn's EQi, the EQ Map, the Six seconds Emotional Intelligence Assessment (SEI), the Emotional Competence Inventory, the Ei360, and a test by Tett, Fox, and Wang (2005).

[edit] Ability-based measures of EI

The MSCEIT measure is a 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 (Mayer - Salovey - Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test) purports to measure emotional intelligence across the following domains:

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 (Ciarroch and Mayer 2005).

[edit] Nancy Gibbs on emotional intelligence

In October of 1995, Nancy Gibbs (1995) 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.

John D. Mayer criticized Gibb's article on his Web site (Mayer 2005c) 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 correlates 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 EI's predictability for success in life.

[edit] 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 criticism of the works of Mayer and Salovey include a study by Roberts et.al. (2001). That research warns that EQ may actually be measuring conformity. However, Mayer et.al. [[#endnote_mayer.salovey.caruso.sitarenios.2001{{{3}}}|(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).

Goleman's work is also criticized in the psychological community. Eysenck (2000), 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."

[edit] Self-report EI merely another measure of Personality?

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 (Trait Meta Mood Scale) and SEI (Schutte EI Scale) 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.

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.

[edit] Self-report EI - Susceptibility to Faking Good

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).

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). Some of the issues of self - report fakability can be overcome in the MSCEIT by using Consensus based assessment (CBA).

[edit] Corporate Uses and Misuses of EI Testing

In the mid-1990's and onward there have been rumors and other anecdotal reports regarding companies embracing the implications of emotional intelligence as a management tool.

At its best, exercises to improve EI among managers have been used in the hopes of improving the ability of managers to improve communications between each other and their subordinates (For example, the popular 360 Degree Evaluation, as used by Honeywell Aerospace).

At its worst, EI examinations can been utilized as a means of legal but unethical discrimination against both job applicants and current workers who happen to have either introverted personalities or exhibit moderately flat affect. As many people suffering from depression or abuse as children tend to fall into these categories, EI pre-employment or performance review screenings tend to serve as yet another obstacle against people who are only trying to use their intellect or skill to compensate for disabling conditions that are present through no fault of their own (See Bait and Switched by Barbara Ehrenreich).

[edit] See also

[edit] References

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.(ISBN 0-553-09503-X)

  • a b Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional Intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ. London : Bloomsbury. (ISBN 0-7475-2622-2)
  • 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.
  • a 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.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). Abstract available at http://eqi.org/payne.htm
  • ^ 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 19 Sept 2006.
  • ^ Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990). "Emotional intelligence." Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9(1990), 185-211. [3]
  • 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.
  • Stein, S and Book, H. "The EQ Edge". Toronto: Jossey-Bass. EQ Edge.com
  • Stein, S (1998). EQ, not just IQ, may be key to high-tech career success. website
  • Stein, S (1999). Americans Have Higher Emotional Intelligence Than Canadians. website
  • Stein, S (1997). Emotional Intelligence (EQ) Gets Better with Age. [4]
  • Stein, S (1997). Men and Women Have Different Kinds and Levels of Emotional Intelligence, EQ for Both Sexes is Key to Workplace Success. website
  • Technical Brochures regarding the psychometric properties of the BOEI (Benchmark of Emotional Intelligence), EQ-i, and MSCEIT. website
  • ^ Tett, R. P., Fox, K. E., & Wang, A. (2005). Development and validation of a self-report measure of emotional intelligence as a multidimensional trait domain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 859-888.
  • ^ 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. website

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/m/o/Emotional_intelligence.html"