a study of the need for emotional intelligence in
TRANSCRIPT
A Study of the Need for Emotional Intelligence in University Judicial Officers
A Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty
of
Drexel University
by
Candace M. Wannamaker
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree
of
Doctor of Philosophy
November 16, 2005
i
© Copyright 2005 Candace M. Wannamaker. All Rights Reserved.
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this amazing accomplishment to my amazing husband Kent, Thank you
for continuously believing in me and for always impelling me to be the best that I could
be. Your love, your strength, your support and most of all your sense of humor are the
things that helped me accomplish this goal. I promise to make up for all the rides I
missed because I was writing. I will ride by your side much more this summer. You
helped me to understand that it’s not the destination, but the journey that is most
important. Thank you for keeping the sanctimonious platitudes at bay! Loving you has
helped me to grow as a person and a scholar. I love you!
To my three intelligent, beautiful and remarkably different daughters Stephanie
Taylor, Jenna Lauren, Taylor Elizabeth; Thank all three of you for being supportive and
for understanding that mom’s have homework too. Intellect, aptitude, good judgment
perseverance, creativity, unique talents, kindness and gentleness make up the things that I
admire in each of you as individuals, as well as together. I love each of you and I know
that the future holds extraordinary things for each of you! Never stop challenging
yourselves and know that I will be behind you cheering as I have been since you were
born.
To my father, CWP, thank you for putting up with the delays and for pushing me
to believe in myself through your eyes. You have always taught me to work hard and
push further that I thought I could ever reach. Thank you for your words of wisdom. I
finally did it daddy!
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The journey of higher education is always an exigent and demanding progression.
Without the support, encouragement and assistance of my friends, my professional
colleagues, and my family, to champion my efforts, the goal of attaining a doctoral
degree would have mattered little and possibly have been unreachable. I would like to
express my genuine appreciation and gratitude to these important individuals.
To Dr. Shelia Vaidya, thank you for picking up the academic pieces to this puzzle
and helping me to fit them all back together in a stronger more scholarly way. Your
guidance has meant a lot to me. Without you, this contribution to the literature would not
have been possible.
To my committee members, Dr. Annette Molyneux and Dr. Robert Laessig (from
start to finish – helping me to keep my eye on the prize!), Dr. Elizabeth Haslam, Dr.
Marion Dugan and Dr. Suzanne Willard, thank you for taking the time out of your busy
lives to guide my research and to give of yourselves to assist in my growth as a scholar.
To my many friends that kept the faith and listened to me tell you that it would be
over soon, Thank you! And to DL, one darned fine attorney, your final words of legal
wisdom (EFTR) allowed me take the last leg of the journey with a smile and new found
determination.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................1
1.1 Relevance of the Study .....................................................................................5
1.2 Contextual Framework of the Study .................................................................5
1.3 Chickering and Reisser’s Human Developmental Model.................................7
1.4 Statement of the Problem..................................................................................9
1.5 Questions Guiding the Study ..........................................................................10
1.6 Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................11
1.7 Definition of Terms.........................................................................................12
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...........................................................13
2.1 Emotional Intelligence ....................................................................................13
2.1.1 Historical Context of Emotional Intelligence ..................................14
2.1.2 Bar-On’s Model of Emotional Intelligence ......................................21
2.1.3 Goleman’s Model of Emotional Intelligence....................................25
2.1.4 Salovey and Mayer’s Model of Emotional Intelligence ...................30
2.2 Judicial Affairs................................................................................................34
2.2.1 Characteristics of University Judicial Officers ................................34
v
2.2.2 The History of Student Discipline and the Evolution of the University Judicial Officer.........................................................................35
2.2.3 College Discipline in the 1700’s.......................................................35
2.2.4 College Discipline in the 1800’s.......................................................36
2.2.5 In Loco Parentis ................................................................................37
2.2.6 Historical Faculty Responsibility......................................................37
2.2.7 College Discipline in the 1950’s......................................................38
2.2.8 College Discipline in the 1960’s......................................................38
2.2.8.1 Due Process.......................................................................39
2.2.9 College Discipline in the 1970’s......................................................40
2.2.10 College Discipline Today ..............................................................41
2.3 Literature Review Summary ...........................................................................45
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................46
3.1 Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................46
3.2 Type of Research ............................................................................................46
3.3 Research Design and Method .........................................................................47
3.4 Site and Sample...............................................................................................49
3.5 Limitations ......................................................................................................49
3.6 Data Collection Plan .......................................................................................50
3.7 Survey Instrument...........................................................................................51
3.8 Data Collection ...............................................................................................52
3.9 Hypotheses......................................................................................................53
vi
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS..................................................................................................54
4.1 Pilot Study Results..........................................................................................54
4.1.1 Pilot Survey......................................................................................55
4.1.2 Reliability.........................................................................................56
4.1.3 Cronbach Alpha Results ..................................................................56
4.1.4 Mean Inter-item Correlation ............................................................59
4.2 Cronbach Alpha Analysis of Pilot Results......................................................59
4.2.1 Scale Composition – Intrapersonal (IAP) ........................................59
4.2.2 Scale Composition – Interpersonal (IEP) ........................................60
4.2.3 Scale Composition – Adaptability (AD)..........................................60
4.2.4 Scale Composition – Stress Management (SM) ..............................61
4.2.5 Scale Composition – General Mood (GM)......................................61
4.3 Alpha Scores if Item Deleted..........................................................................62
4.4 Overall Scale Composition .............................................................................62
4.5 Overview of the Data Analysis for Research Survey .....................................63
4.5.1 Research Questions..........................................................................64
4.5.2 Research Design...............................................................................64
4.5.3 Procedures........................................................................................65
4.5.4 Site and Sample................................................................................65
4.6 Data Collection Procedures.............................................................................66
4.7 Survey Demographics.....................................................................................67
4.8 Survey Analysis ..............................................................................................72
4.8.1 Question One ...................................................................................73
vii
4.8.2 Descriptive Data Analysis................................................................73
4.8.3 Question Two...................................................................................75
4.8.4 Outliers and Normality Assumption ...............................................75
4.8.5 Analysis of Variance and Freidman Test.........................................80
4.9 Summary of Results........................................................................................85
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ...........................................................................87
5.1 Importance of a Study to Explore the Self-Reported Rating of Emotional Intelligence of University Judicial Officers.........................................................87
5.2 Relevance of the Study ........................................................................................88
5.3 Results..................................................................................................................90
5.3.1 Intrapersonal Group Findings ...............................................................90
5.3.2 Interpersonal Group Findings ...............................................................91
5.3.3 Adaptability Group Findings ................................................................92
5.3.4 Stress Management Group Findings.....................................................93
5.3.5 General Mood Group Findings .............................................................94
5.4 Group Differences................................................................................................95
5.5 Implications for Research and Practice.................................................................96
5.5.1 University judicial officers ...................................................................97
5.5.2 Future Curriculum Development ..........................................................98
5.6 Conclusions........................................................................................................100
LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................103
APPENDIX 1: Research Survey Instrument ..................................................................112
APPENDIX 2: Pilot Study Participant Demographics ...................................................117
viii
APPENDIX 3: Pilot Study Results .................................................................................118
APPENDIX 4: Descriptive Analysis ..............................................................................126
APPENDIX 5: Summary of Means for Individual Questions ........................................130
APPENDIX 6: Total Mean for All Groupings ..............................................................135
VITA................................................................................................................................136
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Chickering and Reisser’s Modified Developmental Framework Vectors That Contend With Emotion: .........................................................................................7 Table 2: Characteristics Said To Make Up Emotional Intelligence ..................................20
Table 3: Bar-On’s Five Scales and 15 Subscales of Emotional Intelligence.....................23
Table 4: Goleman’s Original Model of Emotional Intelligence ........................................25
Table 5: Goleman’s Current Model of Emotional Intelligence .........................................26
Table 6: The Mayer & Salovey Model of Emotional Intelligence ....................................31
Table 7: Survey Question Groupings................................................................................56
Table 8: Cronbach Alpha Reliability Coefficients............................................................58
Table 9: Mean Inter-Item Correlations Summary Statistics .............................................59
Table 10: Alpha Scores if Item Deleted............................................................................62
Table 11: All Scale Composition Group Analysis............................................................63
Table 12: Participant Gender ............................................................................................67
Table 13: Participant Age .................................................................................................68
Table 14: Ethnicity of Participants ...................................................................................69
Table 15: Institution Information......................................................................................69
Table 16: Institution Size ..................................................................................................70
Table 17: Degree Achieved ..............................................................................................71
Table 18: Years in the field of Judicial Affairs.................................................................72
Table 19: Repeated Measurements Analysis of Variance for Response Variable “Rating of Construct Groups” ...........................................................................81
Table 20: Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts using Adaptability as the Reference Category............................................................................................................82
x
Table 21: Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts Comparing Successive Groups ................83
Table 22: Summary of Hypotheses and Survey Findings.................................................86
Table 23: Means for All Groups .......................................................................................96
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: The Potential Roles of Emotional Intelligence In Everyday Life ............................................................................................................................................16
Figure 2: Means and Medians for All Groups ..................................................................74
Figure 3: Boxplots of All Groups .....................................................................................76
Figure 4: A Q-Q Plot of the Distribution of the General Mood Scores............................77
Figure 5: A Q-Q Plot of the Distribution of the Intrapersonal Scores ..............................78
Figure 6: A Q-Q Plot of the Distribution of the Interpersonal Scores ..............................78
Figure 7: A Q-Q Plot of the Distribution of the Stress Management Scores....................79
Figure 8: A Q-Q Plot of the Distribution of the Adaptability Scores ...............................79
Figure 9: Mean Rating Scores for All Groups ..................................................................84
xii
ABSTRACT A Study of the Need for Emotional Intelligence in University Judicial Officers
Candace M. Wannamaker Shelia R. Viadya, Ph.D.
A university judicial officer must be able to identify their own emotions as well as
the emotions of the students they are guiding through the judicial process to be able to
respond appropriately to student needs. On college campuses, disciplinary situations are
often very emotional. Students display different types and levels of emotion during a
single disciplinary meeting. It is the responsibility of the judicial officer to manage these
situations with a developmental purpose in mind (Wilson, 1996).
This study investigated and explored the self-reported awareness of need for
emotional intelligence of university judicial officers that have a responsibility to ensure
that students on a college campus follow the college or university code of conduct. A
survey was developed, piloted and sent to the Association of Student Judicial Affairs, an
organization consisting of university judicial officers across the united states from over
1500 institutions of higher education.
Data demonstrates that university judicial officers report a high overall rating of
importance for the constructs of emotional intelligence, yet there is a significant
difference between the self-reported ratings of the ratings of importance for the five
different groups of emotional intelligence (Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Adaptability,
Stress Management and General Mood).
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Beginning in the 1960’s, important changes have occurred in the student services
profession. There has been a great deal of activity and development in higher education
throughout the nation. In the fall of 1964, the Free Speech Movement that occurred on
the University of California Berkley campus created the beginning of an onset of student
protest, demonstrations and violence nationwide (Parker, Knefelkamp & Widick, 1978).
According to Parker et. al. (1978), student affairs/student services professionals and many
others involved in higher education administration recognized that the policies of in loco
parentis (see definitions), were no longer capable of managing the rapidly changing
student bodies of the era’s campus communities. Student services professionals were
now adopting a developmental orientation when interacting with students. Student affairs
professionals began to respond to the whole student, not just the academic student by
attending to individual personal differences and by taking into consideration the
developmental level of each student. Theorists such as Sanford (1962) and Keniston
(1971) make a case that colleges and universities should be “developmental
communities” where students need to experience challenges and support to further
develop as individuals. Today, with a developmental mindset, student services or student
affairs professionals, as commonly named, have become key leadership positions on
college campuses.
In the last decade, researchers have suggested that the qualities of effective
leadership may be connected to an individual’s emotional intelligence (Burgess, Palmer,
Stough, & Walls 2001, Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000).
2
The individual most often responsible for the student disciplinary system may
have a title ranging from the vice president of student affairs to the dean of students or
the chief university judicial officer. In the context of this study, the individual
responsible for the administration of campus discipline will be referred to as the
university judicial officer.
The university judicial officer at an institution of higher education has core
responsibilities of assuring that the student population follows the campus rules and
regulations. With the ever changing needs of today’s college students, a university
judicial officer is often faced with being able to “read between the lines” of the displayed
emotions that are often presented as a student proceeds through the disciplinary system.
This can be an emotional and intimidating process for all involved, as the student is
challenged with a process that will affect their future. A university judicial officer must
possess the ability to understand and assimilate their own emotions, understand and
assimilate basic emotional experiences of students, as well as perceive and appraise the
emotion of the student involved in the process. Interpretation of and adaptation to
emotions are key elements in the student judicial process (Dannells, 1997; Delworth &
Hanson, 1989; Gehring, 1998; Hoekema, 1996; Stevens, 1999; Stoner, 1998; Travelstead,
1997; Wilson, 1996).
According to Aristotle, “Those who possess the rare skill to be angry with the right
person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way are
at an advantage in any domain of life” (Langley, 2000, p.177). According to Langley,
these words may be the first recorded mentioning of the importance of emotion in human
interactions. Since that time, many have studied emotions and other qualities that connect
3
with human behavior (AbiSamra, 2000; Bar-On, 2000; Bar-On, 2001; Bar-On, 2002;
Bar-On, 2005; Bliming & Alschuler, 1996; Brown, 1999; Brualdi, 1996; Caruso, Mayer,
Perkins, & Salovey, 1999; Cherniss, 2000; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Caruso, Mayer &
Salovey, 2002; Delworth & Hanson, 1989; Doyle, 2004; Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000; Elias,
2001; Epstein, 1999; Finegan, 1998; Ford-Martin, 2001; Gardner, 1995; Goleman, 1995,
1998, 2001A, 2001B; Keniston, 1971; Kress, Norris, Schoenholtz, Elias & Seigle, 2004;
Mayer & Geher, 1996; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer, Salovey & Caruso 2000; Mayer,
2001; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso & Sitarenios, 2001; McDowelle & Bell, 2000; Parker,
Knefelkamp & Widick, 1978; Pfeiffer, 2001; Salovey & Mayer, 1990; Salovey &
Sluyter, 1997; Sanford, 1962; Smith, 1994; Travelstead, 1997; Wechsler, 1958; Weiss,
2000; Wilson, 1996; Zirkel, 2000).
Peter Salovey and John Mayer first conceived the concept of emotional
intelligence over a decade ago. Their concepts consist of four sections: managing and
regulating emotion, understanding and reasoning about emotion, assimilating basic
emotional experiences, and perceiving and appraising emotion (Salovey & Mayer, 1990;
Baggett, Sutarso, Sutarso & Tapia, 1996; Bernet, 1996; Finegan, 1998; Goleman, 1998;
Langley 2000; McDowelle & Bell 1998). Much of the research concerning emotional
intelligence conducted by Mayer, Caruso and Salovey (1999) has contended that an
individual’s emotions are engaged in all aspects of communication. Emotions are
something that we are familiar with and use in our daily lives, as well as something we
recognize readily in everyday situations as we read peoples’ faces or body language. As
Brown (1999) reports, the ability to recognize our own personal feelings and emotions as
4
well as a student’s feelings and emotions quite possibly is what assists an individual in
resolving conflicts, solving problems, and improving the interactions.
A university judicial officer operating from the basic assumptions of a student
development model must possess the attributes of self-awareness and self-understanding
to be an effective student affairs professional. According to Delworth and Hanson (1989)
“knowing and understanding one’s own inner life of feelings and personal meanings as
well as the effect it has on others is an important quality for those practicing from a
counseling model” (p.272). A judicial officer must also recognize the importance of an
affective or emotional domain to a student’s overall development and well-being. In
support, Delworth & Hanson (1989) state that a student affairs professional attending to a
student using a counseling and developmental model should pay special attention “…to
the feelings and personal meanings students convey through their conversations and
behavior” (p.272). Leading to a conceptual framework where the process provides a
framework where emotion and personal interpretation are a standard element of
university judicial officer’s interactions with students. Using emotions, understanding
emotions, and having the ability to manage emotions appear to be critical issues when
working with college aged students. Delworth and Hanson (1989) provide research that
supports the idea that “…attending to a students emotional concerns can increase the
student’s ability to enjoy and succeed in academic work” (p.271). Student affairs
professionals can assist in helping a student succeed in all areas by addressing issues of
an emotional nature that may interfere with learning. Delworth and Hanson (1989)
supplied this important information concerning feelings and emotions preceding the
inception of the term emotional intelligence introduced in 1990 by Mayer and Salovey.
5
Although the phrase emotional intelligence was not in their vocabulary, it is clear that the
central importance of understanding emotion and feelings can serve as a foundation to
demonstrate that this is an area that should be considered as an integral component in the
profession of student affairs.
1.1 Relevance of the Study
A judicial officer must be able to identify their emotions as well as the emotions
of the students they are guiding through the judicial process to respond appropriately to
student needs. On college campuses, disciplinary situations are often very emotional.
Students display different types and levels of emotion during a single disciplinary
meeting. It is the responsibility of the judicial officer to manage these situations with a
developmental purpose in mind (Wilson, 1996). According to Doyle (2004), most
student affairs practitioners manage the daily challenges of solving problems and
supporting students, which takes precedence over many issues surrounding the profession
of student affairs. However, Doyle (2004) states that the understanding of student
development theories is what is consistently attributed to forming positive relationships
with students.
1.2 Contextual Framework of the Study
Although Eric Erickson details human development in eight stages from birth to
death, the most important stage as it is applied to college student development is the stage
of identity development. Arthur Chickering elaborated on Erickson’s human
development model as a framework for college student development. According to
Parker et. al. (1978), Arthur Chickering’s model of college student development is a
classic for student personnel practitioners because it filled a gap left by earlier theorists.
6
Chickering’s seven hierarchical vectors of college student development can be paralleled
to the single stage of establishing identity in Erickson’s model. Chickering’s vectors are
designed specifically to address the behaviors of college students. These vectors of
college student development provide a framework for thinking systematically about a
college student’s developmental patterns from the ages of 18 yrs. through 25 yrs., and
offer suggestions to foster interpersonal growth (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). The
seven vectors draw from Sanford (1966) the idea of challenges and support to foster
personal growth. The college campus environment provides the challenges and an
environment, which in turn encourages new responses and ultimately brings about
developmental growth for the student.
Chickering’s college student development model contains seven vectors. For the
purpose of this research study, only vectors one through three are detailed in Table 1, as
these are vectors that specifically detail the emotional development of college students. It
is important to note that Chickering’s model reports that the extent of growth that a
student experiences, appears to depend on both the student’s readiness and the institution.
7
Table 1: Chickering and Reisser’s modified developmental framework vectors that contend with emotion: From To
1. Developing Competence Low rating of competence (intellectual, physical, interpersonal) Lack of confidence in one’s abilities
High ratings of competence in each area Strong sense of self competence
2. Managing Emotions Little control over disruptive emotions (fear and anxiety, anger leading to aggression,, depression, guilt and shame, and dysfunctional sexual of romantic attraction) Little awareness of feelings Inability to integrate feelings with actions
Flexible control and appropriate expression Increasing awareness and acceptance of emotions Ability to integrate feelings with responsible action
3. Moving Through Autonomy toward Interdependence
Emotional dependence Poor self direction or ability to solve problems; little freedom or confidence to be mobile Independence
Freedom from continual and pressing needs for reassurance Instrumental independence (inner direction, persistence, and mobility) Recognition and acceptance of the importance of interdependence
(Chickering and Reisser, 1998)
1.3 Chickering and Reisser’s Human Developmental Model
The first of seven vectors in the college student development model, Developing
Competence, assists in moving an individual from a lack of confidence in one’s own
abilities to a strong sense of self-competence in intellectual, interpersonal as well as
physical situations. The second vector of Chickering’s developmental model is the stage
where emotions appear in the developmental process for a college student. This second
vector includes the inception or beginning stages of managing one’s emotions. At the
beginning of this vector, the individual has little control over disruptive emotions such as
fear and anxiety and anger. These emotions can lead to aggression, depression, guilt and
8
shame and dysfunctional sexual or romantic attraction. Chickering and Reisser explain
that the individual may have little or no awareness of feelings or emotion or the ability to
deal with these issues. Continuing through this vector of development, an individual
achieves flexible control and appropriate expression of emotions, which are distinct
characteristics as paralleled to a mixed model of emotional intelligence (Bar-On, 2000).
Chickering and Reisser (1993) further report that movement through the second vector
assists the individual in increasing awareness and acceptance of emotions as well as the
ability to integrate feelings and emotions with responsible and appropriate action.
Continuing through Chickering’s third vector of development, that of moving through
autonomy toward interdependence, an individual has not completely mastered their
emotional potential. Until this third vector is accomplished, an individual is still
considered to be emotionally dependent since the individual portrays poor self-direction
or the ability to solve problems intertwined with emotion. This lack of freedom from
continual and pressing needs for reassurance creates a lack of independence and the
inability for the individual to be confident and mobile in the dependence of their
emotions. After attaining completion of the third vector, the individual gains freedom
from continual and pressing needs for reassurance and instrumental independence is
developed, complete with inner direction, persistence and mobility of emotion
(Chickering & Reisser, 1993).
According to Donald D. Gehring (1998), one of the original founders of the
Association for Student Judicial Affairs (ASJA), vectors two and three of Chickering’s
developmental model include an “awareness of emotions, being able to appropriately
channel them and balancing control and expression” (p.264). Gehring further explains
9
that a university judicial officer’s responsibility is to recognize the propensity for the
purpose of the disciplinary process, not just be a means to uphold the community
standards, but to channel the process in a way that will promote further development and
growth for the student by creating a delicate balance between education, student
development and punishment. One aspiration of a developmentally focused university
judicial officer is to foster the growth and development of these vectors within a student
to assist the student in personal growth. Developing mature interpersonal relationships,
establishing identity, developing purpose and developing integrity conclude Chickering’s
vectors of student development that can only be developed further after the first three
vectors are successfully expanded.
Another objective of a university judicial officer is to assist the student who
violates the student code of conduct to gain knowledge from their mistakes and to
propose a way for them to develop the personal skills that will assist them in making
more ethical and responsible decisions in the future. In view of the fact that educators
often encompass the characteristics associated with emotional intelligence into the
developmental perspectives of being an effective student affairs professional, it is the
objective of this research study to explore whether or not judicial officers rate the
constructs of emotional intelligence to be important or unimportant in their role as a
university judicial officer.
1.4 Statement of the Problem
The work of student affairs professionals has existed almost as long as higher
education in the United States (Doyle, 2004). Documented as early as the early 1700’s,
during the first 200 years of American Higher education, university presidents, faculty
10
members and tutors served in the roles currently employed by today’s student affairs
professionals (Dannells, 1997; Doyle, 2004; Rudolf, 1990). These university employees
were responsible for a student’s intellectual growth, spiritual growth, emotional growth
and moral development (Blimling & Alschuler, 1996). In fact, Blimling & Alschuler
state, “What are totally separated as academics and student affairs were once a seamless
integrated responsibility of all people holding positions in colonial colleges” (p.204). In
the position of a university judicial officer, the scope of a disciplinarian in higher
education has become even more narrow as it is separated from academics. Universities
and colleges now hire student affairs professionals that are judicial affairs specialists.
These specialized university judicial officers often make critical decisions that
affect a student’s future. While conducting a disciplinary hearing, these decisions include
consideration of the sanction appropriate for the violation, determination with reference
to whether this student can remain in the community and learn from the mistakes made,
as well as trying to appropriately determine if the student’s needs are being met by the
process. It is the intent of this research study to explain if university judicial officers
recognize the importance of emotional intelligence as needed in their performance as a
specialized student affairs university judicial officer. An exploratory research study of
this type is necessary to examine the self-reported rating of importance of university
judicial officers concerning the need to be emotionally intelligent.
1.5 Questions Guiding the Study
The following questions will be addressed in this research study:
1. Do university judicial officers perceive the construct of emotional intelligence
defined as identifying their own emotions as well as the emotions of others, using
11
those emotions, understanding those emotions, and having the ability to manage
emotions as important while working in the capacity as a university judicial
officer? and,
2. Is there a difference in this rating of importance between the five groupings of
Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Adaptability, Stress Management and General
Mood?
1.6 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this research study is to investigate the self-reported importance of
emotional intelligence of university judicial officers (UJO). The university judicial
officer, as the sole administrator responsible for discipline on a college campus, has the
responsibility to determine appropriate sanctions for specific violations of the student
code of conduct. This research study intends to explore the self-reported awareness and
need for emotional intelligence of university judicial officers that have a responsibility to
ensure that students on a college campus follow the college or university code of conduct.
Furthermore, based on the conceptual framework described earlier, such awareness
would imply that emotional intelligence used in the daily practice of a university judicial
officer would be important for success in handling disciplinary situations involving
students. The results of this research will contribute to the literature of emotional
intelligence and education, as well as support the need for a university judicial officer to
recognize and enhance their own ratings of emotional intelligence to perform their
judicial responsibilities keeping a student developmental perspective in place.
12
1.7 Definition of Terms
Emotional intelligence – A form of social intelligence that involves 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 own thinking and action. (Salovey & Mayer, 1990).
University judicial officer – is the person designated by the university president to be
responsible for the administration of the student code of conduct (Stoner, 1998, p.15).
Policy – is defined as the written regulations of a college or university as found in but not
limited to, the student code of conduct, the residence life handbook, and
graduate/undergraduate catalogs (Stoner, 1998, p.15).
Sanctions - The penalty for noncompliance specified in a violation of a student code of
conduct.
Student – The term student includes all persons taking courses, both full and part time,
pursuing undergraduate, graduate or professional studies and who attend post secondary
educational institutions (Stoner, 1998, p.15).
Suspension – Separation of the student from the college of university for a definite period
of time, after which the student is eligible to return (Stoner, 1998, p.27.).
Expulsion – Permanent separation from the college or university (Stoner, 1998, p.27).
Disciplinary Probation – A written reprimand for a violation of a specific policy of the
student code of conduct. Probation is for a designated period of time and includes the
probability of more severe disciplinary sanctions if the student is found to be violating
institutional policies (Stoner, 1998, p.27.)
In loco parentis - In the place of a parent; instead of a parent; charged, factitiously, with a
parent's rights, duties, and responsibilities. Black's Law Dictionary.
13
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The review of literature discovered no research studies that investigate the
relationship between emotional intelligence and a university judicial officer’s need to be
emotionally intelligent. There also appears to be very little research, or studies
investigating the areas combining higher education administration issues and the study of
emotional intelligence. Although researchers mention the need to be able to understand
and manage their own emotions as an educator, the lack of research combining the areas
of emotional intelligence and judicial affairs in higher education suggests a large gap in a
very important research area (Delworth and Hanson, 1989; Chickering & Reisser, 1993,
Dannells, 1997). Hence, a study that focuses on a university judicial officer’s perceived
need for emotional intelligence would fill this gap and contribute to the existing
emotional intelligence literature. The following information provided as a literature
review encompasses an overview of the different constructs and theories of emotional
intelligence as researched by John Mayer, Ronald Goleman, and Dr. Reuven BarOn. The
historical context and the development of judicial affairs in higher education will also be
explored in the literature review. The topics of emotional intelligence and the area of
judicial affairs in higher education are reviewed individually in the chapter, as there were
no research studies on issues pertaining to the combination of the topics.
2.1 Emotional Intelligence
An individual’s intelligence is typically described involving mental capabilities.
These capabilities usually include the ability to reason, the ability to plan, the ability to
solve problems, the ability to think abstractly, the ability to comprehend ideas and
language, and the ability to learn. In the psychology field, the description of intelligence
14
has a much broader scope. Intelligence in the area of psychology generally considers
intelligence a personality trait as distinct from creativity, personality, character, or
wisdom (Gardner, 1995). Many studies exist in the area of intelligences ( Bar-On, 2002;
Bernet, 1996; Brown, 1999; Brualdi, 1996; Burgess, Palmer, , Stough & Walls, 2001;
Caruso, Mayer, Perkins & Salovey, 1999; Cherniss, 2000; Ciarrochi, Chan, Caputi, &
Roberts, 2001; Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000; Finegan, 1998; Ford-Martin, Gardner, 1993;
Gardner, 1995; Goleman, 1995; Goleman, 1998; Goleman, 2001A; Goleman, 2001B;
Langley, 2000; Mayer & Geher, 1996; Mayer, Caruso & Salovey, 1999; Mayer, &
Salovey, 1997; Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2000; Mayer, 2001; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso,
& Sitarenios, 2001; Mayer, Perkins, Caruso & Salovey, 2001; McDowelle & Bell, 2000;
Pfeiffer, 2001; Reiff, Hates, & Bramel, 2001; Salovey & Mayer, 1990; Salovey &
Sluyter, 1997; Weiss, 2000). However, the very same literature contends that an
individual’s intelligence is not viewed as it was in the past. No longer is there a singular
focus on an individual’s intelligence quotient. Instead, other intelligences are now being
investigated and examined.
2.1.1. Historical Context of Emotional Intelligence
Dr. Reuven Bar-On (2005) reports that “publications began appearing in the
twentieth century with the work of Edward Thorndike on social intelligence in 1920” (pg.
1). Many of the early studies concerning emotions and behavior focused on the
description of, the definition of, and the assessment of socially competent behaviors. In
1935, Edgar Doll published the first instrument designed to measure the socially
intelligent behavior in young children (Bar-On, 2005).
15
In 1940, Wechsler described “non-intelligent” factors of behavior such as personality
traits as well as, an individual’s anxiety, persistence and goal awareness, which also can
be attributed to be a reference to the construct of emotional intelligence. Scholars began
to shift their focused attention from describing and assessing general intellectual
intelligence, to gaining an understanding of the purposeful interpersonal behaviors and
the role intelligence plays in an individual’s effective adaptability (Zirkel, 2000). With
this shift in concentration, came the strengthening of Wechsler’s definition of general
intelligence. According to Bar-On (2005), these early characterizations of intelligence
may have influenced the way that emotional intelligence was later conceptualized.
In the 1960’s there was interest in an individuals’ social intelligence. Social
intelligence, as originally described by E.L. Thorndike in the 1920’s, referred to an
individual’s ability to understand and manage other people, and to engage in adaptive
social interactions (Cantor and Kihlstrom, 1987). However the interest seems to have
faded with the advent of the 1970’s (Salovey & Sluyter, 1997).
Interest in social intelligence or other intelligences revived in 1983 when Howard
Gardner introduced the theory of multiple intelligences (Brualdi, 1996; Gardner, 1993;
Gardner, 1995). Gardner proposed that a wide spectrum of differing intelligences made
up an individual’s total intelligence and that multiple intelligences are crucial for success
in life. This multifaceted view of intelligence such as the linguistic and logical
mathematical intelligences associated with traditional IQ tests was supportive to
understanding that intellectual intelligence may not be the sole predictor of success in an
individual’s life.
16
Emotion appears to be engaged in all aspects of human interaction. Our emotions
are something that we are familiar with and use in our daily life, as well as something that
we recognize readily in everyday situations as we read peoples’ faces or body language.
According to Ciarrochi, Chan, Caputi, and Roberts (2001), Figure 2.1 represents a model
of the potential roles of emotional intelligence in aspects of everyday life. Ciarrochi et.
al. report that an individual’s perception, expression, understanding and management of
emotions is directly related to the major life events that they have experienced. These
emotions are then interpreted and adapted according to those life events, leading to life
outcomes, either positive or negative. Hence the importance of being able to understand
and manage emotion as it is applied to life.
Figure 1: The Potential Roles of Emotional Intelligence In Everyday Life
Life Events Life Outcomes Major life events ADAPTATION Mental Health Daily Hassles Relationship quality Daily uplifts Work Success Other emotion- School Success Eliciting events Physical Health EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE Perceiving Expressing Understanding Managing
(Ciarrochi, J. P., Chan, A., Caputi, P. Roberts, R., p.26, 2001), reprinted with permission from Joseph Ciarrochi.
According to Brown (1999), the ability to recognize our personal feelings and
emotions and other’s feelings and emotions help us to resolve conflicts, solve problems,
17
and improve during our interactions with others. Educators are recognizing the value of
emotional as well as cognitive development and are focusing on the value of increasing
training to help develop emotionally intelligent individuals. The concept of emotional
well-being is increasingly being considered and recognized as a predictor of success in
school, family life, and an individual’s work life (Brown, 1999). Emotional intelligence
is distinguished from cognitive intelligence by its focus on feelings and behaviors rather
than on facts and knowledge. Emotional intelligence represents a collaboration of
personal and social competencies that include the ability to recognize one’s own personal
feelings and emotions and those of others and to use that information to resolve conflict
solve problems and improve interactions with others.
Brown (1999) further states that emotional learning processes cannot be separated
from cognitive wants and that the two must work together to affect emotional
understanding and facilitate problem solving. Incorporating the following process of
cognitive and emotional understanding, Finegan (1998) suggests that an emotional
development process is intertwined with the cognitive skills of thinking, prioritizing,
analyzing, and decision-making. According to Finegan, this process suggests that:
a. Emotional intelligence involves the perception, appraisal, expression and regulation of emotions.
b. Emotional learning facilitates thinking; it involves the use of emotions to prioritize thinking and aid judgment.
c. Emotional knowledge evolves through the analysis of emotions. d. Intellectual growth is spurred by the reflective regulations of emotions,
and e. Emotional intelligence facilitates problem solving by enabling the learner
to consider his/her own as well as others emotional states and pattern behavior accordingly
(p.3, 1998).
18
Evidence is mounting to support that emotional intelligence may also be a factor
in determining success in life as well and not just in organizational structures (Cherniss,
2000; Geher, Warner and Brown, 2001). According to Bernet (1996), emotion seems to
be engaged in all aspects of human interaction. Emotions are something that we are
familiar with and use in our daily life, as well as something that we recognize readily in
everyday situations as we read peoples’ faces or body language. According to Brown
(1999), the ability to recognize our personal feelings and emotions and other’s feelings
and emotions helps us to resolve conflicts, solve problems, and improve during our
interactions with others.
The exploration of emotion has become an important area of research (Bernet,
1996). In addition, the concept of emotional well-being is increasingly being considered
and recognized as a predictor of success in school, family life, and work life (Brown,
1999). This information further supports the idea that emotions may play more of a role
in our lives than we once believed.
Emotional intelligence is distinguished from cognitive intelligence by its focus on
feelings and behavior rather than on facts and knowledge. Emotional intelligence
represents a collaboration of personal and social competencies that include the ability to
recognize personal feelings and emotions, and feelings and emotions of others and to use
that information to resolve conflict, solve problems, and improve interactions with others.
Taking into consideration that in the workplace where success is dependent upon
teamwork, collaboration, and good interpersonal relationships, educators are uniting in
their realization that traditional concepts of intelligence is not the single-handed driving
force that promotes success. According to Brown (1999), emotional intelligence, which
19
reflects one's ability to interact with each other in a positive manner, is often the final
determination of success.
With the recent surge in research concerning emotional intelligence, three
different approaches emerged in defining models of emotional intelligence (See Table
2.1). Bar-On’s mixed model of emotional intelligence, Goleman’s performance model,
and Mayer’s intelligence model is illustrated in Table 2.1. Bar-On’s model has been
popularized as a mixed model approach that blends emotional intelligence with other
characteristics such as motivation, relationship development and an individual’s well-
being. An example of this model is the Bar-On model based on personality theory and an
individual’s well-being. The second model defined as a model of emotional intelligence
as a theory of performance was created by Daniel Goleman. The third model, an ability
model, concerning emotional intelligence is defined as an intelligence that involves
emotion is explained by Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso. The three major contributors to the
exploration of these models will be discussed individually and in more detail later in this
chapter.
20
Table 2: Characteristics Said to Make Up Emotional Intelligence
Bar-On Mixed Model
Goleman Performance Model
Mayer, Caruso and Salovey Ability Model
(1) Intrapersonal EQ
Awareness, Assertiveness, Self-Regard, Self-actualization, Independence
(1) Intra- awareness
Accurate self assessment Self Control
(1) Ability to perceive emotions accurately – Emotional Awareness
Emotions in faces, music and designs
(2) Interpersonal EQ
Empathy, Interpersonal relationships, Social responsibility
(2) Self-regulation
Self Control Trustworthiness Consciousness Adaptability Innovation
(2) The ability to use emotions to facilitate thought
Accurately relating emotions to other basic sensations. Using emotions to shift perspectives.
(3) Adaptability EQ
Reality Testing Flexibility Problem solving,
(3) Motivation
Achievement Drive Commitment Initiative Optimism
(3) The ability to understand emotions and their meanings
Ability to analyze emotions in parts. Ability to understand likely transitions from one feeling to another. Ability to understand complex feelings in stories.
(4) Stress Management EQ
Stress tolerance, Impulse control
(4) Empathy
Understanding others Developing others Service orientation Leveraging diversity Political awareness
(4) The ability to manage emotions
Ability to manage emotions in the self. Ability to manage emotions in others
(5) General Mood EQ
Happiness, Optimism
(5) Social Skills
Influence Communication Conflict Management, Leadership, Change catalyst, Building bonds, Collaboration and cooperation, Team capabilities
21
2.1.2 Bar-On’s Model of Emotional Intelligence
In the early 1980’s Dr. Reuven Bar-On began the development of the Emotional
Quotient Inventory (EQ-i). Bar-On reports that the EQ-i “was originally constructed as
an experimental instrument designed to examine the concept of emotional and social
functioning” (Bar-On, 2001, p.363). Dr. Bar-On created the term emotional quotient
(EQ) to describe his mixed approach to the evaluation of an individual’s general
intelligence. He explained that the emotional quotient reflects our ability to operate
successfully with other people and with our feelings (Bar-On, 2001).
Dr. Bar-On developed the Bar-On EQ-i, an emotional intelligence inventory, after
17 years of extensive research. Since that time, the instrument has been translated into
twenty-two languages and normative data has been collected in more than fifteen
countries (Bar-On, 2001). This emotional intelligence inventory is the first scientifically
developed and validated measure of emotional intelligence that reflects one's ability to
deal with environmental challenges and helps to predict one’s success in life, including
professional and personal pursuits (AbiSamra, 2000).
The EQ-i is separated into five different scales with fifteen subscales as detailed
in Table 2.2. The first of these scales assess an individual’s Intrapersonal EQ which
consists of self-regard, emotional self-awareness, assertiveness, independence and self-
actualization. The second scale assesses the individual’s Interpersonal EQ consisting of
empathy, social responsibility, and interpersonal relationships. Adaptability EQ is the
third measure of Bar-On’s scale. This scale focuses on reality testing, flexibility and
problem solving or how an individual handles emotion in the moment. The fourth scale
assesses an individual’s Stress Management EQ. This scale is comprised of stress
22
tolerance and impulse control. The fifth and final scale of the EQ-i measures an
individual’s General Mood EQ, consisting of optimism and happiness.
23
Table 3: Bar-On’s Five Scales And 15 Subscales Of Emotional Intelligence
SCALE SUBSCALE MEASURES
Intrapersonal EQ
Self-Regard (SR) Emotional Self Awareness (ES) Assertiveness (AS) Self-Actualization (SA)
The ability to be aware of, understand, accept, and respect oneself The ability to recognize and understand one’s emotions The ability to express feelings, beliefs, and thoughts to defend one’s rights in a non destructive manner The ability to realize one’s potential and to do what one wants to do, enjoys doing, and can do
Interpersonal EQ Empathy (EM) Social Responsibility (RE) Interpersonal relationships (IR)
The ability to be aware of, understand and appreciate the feelings of others The ability to demonstrate oneself as a cooperative contributing and constructive member of one’s social group The ability to establish and maintain mutually satisfying relationships that are characterized by emotional closeness , intimacy and by giving and receiving affection
Adaptability EQ Reality Testing (RT) Flexibility (FL) Problem Solving (PS)
The ability assess the correspondence between what is internally and subjectively experienced and what externally and objectively exists The ability to adjust one’s feelings, thoughts and behavior to changing situations and conditions The ability to identify and define personal and social problems as well as to generate and implement potentially effective solutions
Stress Management EQ
Stress Tolerance (ST) Impulse Control (IC)
The ability to withstand adverse events, stressful situations, and strong emotions with out “falling apart” by actively and positively coping with stress The ability to resist or delay and impulse, drive, or temptation to act, and to control one’s emotions
General Mood EQ Optimism (OP) Happiness (HA)
The ability to “look at the brighter side of life” and to maintain a positive attitude, even in the face of adversity The ability to feel satisfied with one’s life, to enjoy oneself and others and to have fun and express positive emotions
24
Bar-On reports that the research “findings obtained to date suggest that the EQ-i
is measuring emotional and social intelligence…more specifically, the EQ-i is tapping the
ability to be aware of, understand, control, and express emotions” (Bar-On, 2001, pp.372
-373). This ability model created by Bar-On is a selection of emotional, personal and
social abilities that affect an individual’s overall ability to manage the daily pressures and
demands of life. Bar-On further reports that the ability is “apparently based on a core
capacity to be aware of, understand, control and express emotions effectively” (p.374).
Although Bar-On’s early research focused on the emotional quotient, it was not
until the 1990’s that emotional intelligence truly began to receive recognition as a distinct
form of intelligence (Geher, Warner & Brown, 2001; Salovey & Sluyter, 1997). The
concept of an individual’s emotional intelligence (EI) was explained and expanded upon
by Mayer and Salovey in 1990 (Mayer, Perkins, Caruso & Salovey, 2001), and
popularized by Daniel Goleman in 1995 (Goleman, 1995).
Goleman (1998) readily admits that it is John Mayer and Peter Salovey who first
proposed the most influential theory of emotional intelligence in 1990. Researchers now
agree that IQ alone is no longer the sole measure for success. Several researchers have
reported that IQ alone accounts for 20 % of the necessary skills and social intelligences
required for success, with the remaining 80% divided between emotional and social
intelligences (Brown, 1999; Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000; Goleman, 1995).
In 1990, Mayer and Salovey identified emotional intelligence as the ability to
monitor one’s own and other’s feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to
use this information to guide one’s thinking and action (Bernet, 1996; Finegan, 1998;
25
Mayer & Geher, 1996.; Mayer, Caruso & Salovey, 1999; Mayer & Salovey, 1997;
Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2000; Mayer, 2001).
Since that time, many theorists have explored and elaborated on that concept.
Although the theories developed since 1990 have differed in many aspects, most
communicate a universal core of fundamental concepts such as the abilities to recognize
and regulate emotions in ourselves and in others (Bernet, 1996; Finegan, 1998; Goleman,
2001A; Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999; Mayer, Perkins, Caruso & Salovey, 2001;
Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2000; Salovey & Sluyter, 1997).
2.1.3 Goleman’s Model of Emotional Intelligence
In 1995, Goleman elaborated on the original Salovey & Mayer definition of
emotional intelligence to suggest five major emotional intelligence domains as reported
in Table 4.
Table 4: Goleman’s original model of emotional intelligence.
Goleman’s Model of Emotional Intelligence
1. Assessment of emotions 2. Regulation of emotions 3. Motivating and emotional self control 4. Understanding and recognizing emotions 5. Relationships and emotions
The first of Goleman’s emotional intelligence domains includes knowing one’s
emotions. This domain involves assessing and knowing what the emotion is as it occurs.
The second domain of managing emotions is described as handling those emotions in an
appropriate manner that builds on self-awareness. Motivating oneself or emotional self-
26
control is the third domain. The fourth domain involves recognizing emotions in others.
This domain involves empathy and Goleman considers it to be a “people skill” (Goleman,
1995, p.43). The last domain in Goleman’s original model consists of handling
relationships. Goleman states that the ability of handling a relationship is in part the
ability of managing emotions in others. Goleman contends that capacities for emotional
intelligence each have a distinctive involvement to form our lives. To some extent, these
capacities build upon one another to formulate social skills. These abilities do not
guarantee that people will develop or display emotional competencies. Goleman suggests
that individual’s use competencies in many areas across many spectrums.
Goleman has currently revised his original theory of emotional intelligence as
shown in Table 5. He now suggests that there are four domains rather than his original
five domains (Goleman, 2001B).
Table 5: Goleman’s current model of emotional intelligence.
Goleman’s Current Model of Emotional Intelligence
1. Emotional Self Awareness 2. Emotional Self Management 3. Social Awareness 4. Relationship Management
The first component or cluster of emotional intelligence is that of Emotional Self-
Awareness, or knowing what one feels. Recognizing one's own feelings, how they affect
one's performance, and the realization of our own strengths as well as our weaknesses, is
an important part of the self-awareness cluster.
27
The second component of emotional intelligence is Emotional Self-Management.
This component reflects the ability to regulate stressful affects such as anxiety or anger,
as well as how to deal with those situations. This component is reflected when an
individual seems to keep their cool during a stressful situation. Self-management also
reflects the abilities of an individual to be flexible and adaptable, looking at different
perspectives of a situation.
Social-Awareness, the third component, encompasses the competency of
empathy. The Social-Awareness cluster is described as the cluster where an individual is
aware of others emotions, concerns, and needs. Being aware of this information and
internally processing it, allows the individual to read situations and act accordingly.
The Relationship Management component makes up the fourth segment of
Goleman's current model. This component relates to how we interact with others in
emotional situations. Goleman believes that if we cannot control our emotional outbursts
and impulses, and we lack the necessary skill of empathy, there is less chance that we
will be effective in our relationships. The Relationship Management cluster includes
many of the skills necessary for being successful in social situations. Communication is
also an essential element in the relationship management cluster (Goleman, 2001B).
According to Goleman (2001A), emotional intelligence at its most general rating,
refers to the abilities to identify, reflect and adjust emotions in ourselves as well as to be
aware of the emotions of others. Currently, Goleman relates the capacities for each
domain in his emotional intelligence model are:
(a) Independent: Each makes a unique contribution to job performance. (b) Interdependent: Each draws to some extent on certain others, with
many strong interactions.
28
(c) Hierarchical: The emotional intelligence capacities build upon one another. For example, self-awareness is crucial for self-regulation and empathy; self-regulation and self-awareness contribute to motivation; all the first four are at work in social skills.
(d) Necessary, but not sufficient: Having an underlying emotional ability does not guarantee people will develop or display the associated competencies, such as collaboration or leadership. Factors such as the climate of an organization or a person’s interest in his or her job will also determine whether the competence manifests itself.
(e) Generic: The general list is to some extent applicable to all jobs. However, different jobs make differing competence demands
(Goleman, 1998, pp.27-28).
Although Goleman explains that these capacities are hierarchical, meaning that
one cannot fully pass on to the next phase or tier without accomplishing the previous
stage with some degree of success. These capacities are not fixed and an individual can
experience many levels at the same time. Goleman (1998) also states that emotional
intelligence determines our potential for learning the practical skills that underlie the four
emotional intelligence clusters. He maintains that emotional competence illustrates how
much of that potential we have realized by learning and mastering skills and translating
emotional intelligence into on the job capabilities.
According to Hall & Torrance (1980), empathy and super-awareness to the needs
of others is a trait that lies outside the realm of human abilities that can be measured.
Hall & Torrance report that many attempts have been made to measure these abilities, but
with very little success. In their view, if empathy and awareness to others needs were
accessed in a way that was based on reasoning, those qualities may reflect a measurable
intellectual ability that would be associated with friendliness, compassion and happiness;
all traits reported to be representative characteristics of emotionally intelligent individuals
(Goleman, 1995; Pfeiffer, 2001). The information reported in 1980 by Hall and
29
Torrance was prescient in that these traits are currently being measured as traits of
emotional intelligence. The traits of flexibility and freedom of thoughts as well as a high
rating of motivation, either intrinsic or extrinsic, the ability to express emotion, the ability
to manage stress, self confidence, and the ability to cope with tension are also valued
characteristics of emotional intelligence (Caruso, Mayer, Perkins, & Salovey, 1999;
Cherniss, 1998; Goleman, 1995, 1997; Levinson, 1997; Olszewski-Kubilius, 2000;
Pfeiffer, 2001; Reiff, Hates & Bramel, 2001).
Currently, Goleman emphasizes that emotional intelligence at its most general
rating, refers to the abilities to identify, reflect and adjust emotions in ourselves as well as
to be aware of the emotions of others (Cherniss & Goleman, 2001; Goleman, 2001A).
According to Goleman, emotional intelligence refers to the ability to recognize our own
feelings and those of others, to motivate ourselves, and to manage emotions in ourselves
and in our relationships. (Clawson 1999; Dulewicz & Higgs 2000; Goleman 1998;
Burgess, Palmer, Stough & Walls 2001). In another cognitive research study conducted
by Sternberg, Wagner, Williams, and Horvath (cited in McDowelle & Bell, 1998) it is
reported that these differences in IQ and success at work accounted for between 4% and
25% variance of job performance. This leads us to the conclusion that a major part of
what enhances our job performance is affected by non-IQ factors. McDowelle & Bell
(1998) state “emotionality and rationality complement each other in the work world.
They can be viewed as inseparable parts of the life of the organization. They must both
be acknowledged and incorporated into organizational life” (p.192).
30
2.1.4 Salovey and Mayer’s Model of Emotional Intelligence
Since the origination of the theory of emotional intelligence in 1990, Mayer and
Salovey have worked diligently to refine their academic and scientific model of
emotional intelligence model. Their current model, developed in 1997, is decidedly
cognitive in focus and revolves around four tiers or ratings that are not genetically fixed
or set in early childhood. As people grow and develop, they also seem to develop a
greater sense of emotional intelligence suggesting that these traits of emotional
intelligence can be developed over time (Epstein, 1999; Ford-Martin, 2001; Goleman,
2001A; Weiss, 2000).
According to Mayer, Perkins, Caruso & Salovey (2001), the emotionally
intelligent person is skilled in four distinct branches: identifying, using, understanding,
and regulating emotions. These four distinct areas are outlined in Mayer and Salovey’s
current model. The newest model begins with the idea that emotions contain information
about relationships (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, and Sitarenios (2001). (See Table 6).
31
Table 6: The Mayer & Salovey Model of Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence is viewed as consisting of four separate components or branches.
1) Perceiving and Identifying Emotions The ability to recognize how you and those around you are feeling.
2) Facilitation of Thought The ability to generate emotion, and then reason with this emotion.
3) Understanding Emotions The ability to understand complex emotions and emotional "chains", how emotions transition from one stage to another.
4) Managing Emotions The ability which allows you to manage emotions in your self and in others.
The recognition, the evaluation and the communication of emotions initiate the
first branch of Mayer and Salovey’s model. The second branch involves using emotions
to think constructively such as utilizing those emotions to make judgments, the
consideration of an alternative viewpoint, and an appreciation that a change in emotional
state and point of view can promote various types of solutions to problems. The third
branch combines the abilities of classifying and differentiating between emotions to help
integrate different feelings. This rating also works toward helping us to form rules about
the feelings we experience. The fourth and final branch involves the ability to take the
emotions we experience and use them in support of a social goal (Finegan, 1998;
Cherniss & Goleman, 2001). The four hierarchical developmental branches established
by Mayer and Salovey in 1997, although different from Goleman’s ratings of emotional
intelligence, seem to incorporate several fundamental principles of personal development
theory. These developmental stages discussed by Salovey and Mayer are reported to be
32
hierarchical. The Mayer and Salovey model frames the complexity of emotional skills
that develop from the first tier and continue through the fourth, whereas Goleman's
competencies, in contrast, can be viewed along a continuum of mastery.
According to Caruso, Mayer, Perkins, & Salovey (2001), individuals need to be
able to identify their emotions as well as the emotions of others. Using those emotions,
understanding those emotions, and having the ability to manage those emotions is also
required to be successful. Caruso et al. (2001) relate that when an individual works in an
administrative or work environment that requires the cooperation and collaboration, the
skills of emotional intelligence become even more essential.
Caruso et al. (2001) also report that emotional intelligence can assist in
facilitating this work in helping to generate new and creative ideas and solutions to
problems. At times, some of the problems that are challenging an individual can be very
complex, while at other times the problem-solving task may be effortless. According to
Caruso et al. (2001), problem solving requires creative thought to generate ideal
solutions. Caruso et al. (2001) deduce that emotional intelligence can help the individual
to think creatively in many ways such as, viewing the problem from multiple
perspectives, brainstorming or generating new and creative ideas, being inventive,
generating original ideas and solutions to the problem, and defining and recognizing new
solutions.
Supporting the idea that creative inquiry while problem solving may also involve
characteristics of emotional intelligence, Giorgios and Johnson (2001) state that the
creative inquiry necessary in solving problems, involves asking questions that may or
may not generate an answer or solution to the original problem. Giorgios and Johnson
33
(2001) report that on occasion within the investigative process, new questions, as well as
new problems may arise. It is at these times that individuals are generally risk takers
because in some way they must venture into the unknown, embracing changes that
challenge them physically, mentally, emotionally, financially, and/or spiritually.
Becoming skilled in the investigative process is a key component to one of the
many responsibilities of a university judicial officer. Many university judicial officers
are from different backgrounds, with differing levels of education as well as experience.
Most university judicial officers seem to present themselves to be welcoming, balanced,
kindhearted and effective leaders in the field of judicial affairs. Judicial Affairs is a
specialized area in higher education administration that has the opportunity to affect a
student’s life in a positive or negative matter. As a university judicial officer, a decision
concerning a student’s future is determined by the interpretation of how the student
presents them self during a disciplinary hearing in the Judicial Officer’s office. Empathy,
recognition and understanding the student’s frame of mind and emotions may assist the
university judicial officer in making the appropriate decision about responsibility and
sanctioning. Examining the rating of importance concerning the need for emotional
intelligence of a university judicial officer is an important task. The goal of this research
study is to identify how the position of a university judicial officer came into being as
well as to examine what about the position of a university judicial officer makes
emotional intelligence important. To understand the evolution of the position of a
university judicial officer, a history of the campus disciplinary system and judicial affairs,
is essential. This is discussed in the next section.
34
2.2 Judicial Affairs
2.2.1 Characteristics of University Judicial Officers
The literature surrounding the position of a university judicial officer states that to
be a good Judicial Officer, candidates need to possess strong interpersonal skills,
assertiveness, and the ability to hold their ground and help others see things from a
different perspective (Wilson, 1996). Judicial Officers must also have good active
listening skills, a willingness to embrace diversity, a non-judgmental philosophy, and a
maturity rating that will enable them to make very difficult decisions that may possibly
lead to some uncomfortable circumstances for students (Wilson, 1996).
Emotionality and judiciousness are essential components incorporated into the job
skills of a university judicial officer (Wilson, 1996). A university judicial officer handles
emotional situations on a daily basis when adjudicating cases of student misconduct in a
university disciplinary system. Therefore, one could posit that university judicial officers
make decisions that have the potential to influence a student’s future.
Many researchers report that emotional intelligence refers to the ability for
recognizing our own feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, and for
managing emotions in ourselves and in our relationships (Clawson 1999, Dulewicz &
Higgs 2000, Goleman 1998, Burgess, Palmer, Stough & Walls 2001). When a
university judicial officer has the abilities to recognize and manage emotions, the
disciplinary process has the potential to be more developmental for the student involved
in the process that is the ultimate goal of the educational disciplinary process (Wilson,
1996). If a judicial officer does not reflect a caring empathetic persona that enables him
or her to evaluate and to react appropriately to a student during a time of emotional
35
distress or discomfort, according to Wilson (1996) the judicial process may not be in the
best interest of the student. According to Goleman (1995), “If the test of social skill is
the ability to calm distressing emotions in others, then handling someone at the peak of
rage is perhaps the ultimate measure of mastery” (p.124). It is the intent of this research
study to determine if a university judicial officer at an institution of higher education
recognizes the importance of emotional intelligence while involved in a disciplinary
process.
2.2.2 The History of Student Discipline and the Evolution of the
University Judicial Officer
Historically, student discipline has been looked upon as an institutional
responsibility. The concept of a university acting in loco parentis had it’s origin based
“….on the authority of the king for his subjects and on the legality that the colonial
colleges were in fact acting in place of the parent, since the college students of colonial
times were often only 13 or 14 years old” (Dannells, 1997, p.xi).
2.2.3 College Discipline in the 1700’s
During the 18th Century, students were exposed to an undemocratic form of
governance that did very little to differentiate between mental discipline and behavioral
discipline. When students attended a university or college in this time period, every
minute from awakening to sleep was accounted for. According to Dannells (1997), “the
treatment of students and the atmosphere it produced resembled a low grade boy’s
boarding school straight out of the pages of Dickens” (p.3). Instruction and authoritarian
schedules were a way of life for the college students. Students were told when to
awaken, when, what and how much to eat, what to wear, when to sleep and how to
36
conduct themselves in a proper manner. The university president, as well as the teachers
monitored behavior. In difficult or severe disciplinary cases, the college president would
relay the details of the case to a hearing board for determination of sanction. The
punishments ranged from expulsion to a round of fatherly counseling carried out by a
faculty member. However, until 1718, public flogging was the standard means of
sanctioning a student that had misbehaved. Harvard changed those standards in 1718
when they decided that boxing a student’s ears was a more appropriate sanction for
misbehavior (Dannells, 1997).
2.2.4 College Discipline in the 1800’s
In the 1800’s, as colleges and universities began to be established throughout the
country, many small religious based institutes of higher education were established.
These colleges and universities used student discipline as the vanguard to emphasize the
moral teachings of these religious based institutions. In 1822, Thomas Jefferson wrote a
detailed letter to Thomas Cooper, the second president of what is now the University of
South Carolina and previously South Carolina College. This letter informed Mr. Cooper,
The article of discipline is the most difficult problem in American education. Premature ideas of independence, too little repressed by parents, beget a spirit of insubordination, which is the great obstacle to science with us and a principle cause of its decay since the revolution. I look to it with dismay in our institution as a breaker ahead, which I am far from confident we shall be able to weather
Olson & Mitter, 1996, p.90
According to Gehring (1998), Jefferson’s message to Thomas cooper was
“…important in the understanding of the historical context of the judicial affairs
profession that becomes even more significant when it is analyzed” (p.263). Jefferson
37
was describing discipline problems in higher education in the year 1822. This provides
information that disciplining college students is not a new problem, but is something that
has plagued university administrators for more than 181 years. This also leads us to the
understanding that discipline on the college campus challenged one of the brightest men
in the history of the United States (Gehring, 1998).
2.2.5 In Loco Parentis
The doctrine of in loco parentis, attributed from judicial interpretations inherited
from England, is the principle that governed American college’s view of discipline for
many years. This doctrine holds that colleges and universities act in the place of the
parents. This predictably allowed colleges and universities to create and enforce any rule
or regulation concerning the moral and ethical, physical, and intellectual development of
the students that the parent would make (Ardaiolo, 1983). In 1860, William Tecumseh
Sherman, the president of a military college in Louisiana stated that the “dullest boys
have the most affectionate mothers and the most vicious boys come recommended with
all the virtues of saints” (Hoekema, 1996, p.4). Sherman continued in the in loco parentis
philosophy that was present in that era in stating that he would consider himself to be a
father figure to every student that needed his attention.
2.2.6 Historical Faculty Responsibility
Towards the end of the century, faculty responsibility in student disciplinary
issues began to disappear and the responsibility once again transferred to the university
president. The president would then direct an appointed faculty member to make the
difficult decisions concerning discipline. These faculty members would eventually come
to be titled as The Dean of Men or The Dean of Women. These Dean positions became
38
almost standard on college and university campuses (Dannells, 1997). These early Deans
of men and women became the philosophical as well as the practical side of discipline for
students. Around this time counseling of students became popular and students also
became more involved in the disciplinary process.
As early as 1892, Deans of Women were formally appointed when Alice Freeman
Palmer and Marion Talbot were appointed as the first Dean of Women and Assistant
Dean of Women at the University of Chicago (Schwartz, 2001). In 1909, Thomas Clark
of the University of Illinois, was the first male administrator to carry the title of Dean of
Men. Clark was a professor of rhetoric (Schwartz, 2001). These first formal disciplinary
leaders were appointed 70 and 89 years after Thomas Jefferson’s original letter
questioning the need for addressing discipline on our college campuses. If human nature
is consistent, there was a need, which in turn resulted in the position of a University
judicial officer or Dean of Discipline.
2.2.7 College Discipline in the 1950’s
In the 1950’s and continuing into the 1960’s, there continued to be an explosion
of public higher education institutions. During this time, the area of student discipline
was “a necessary condition to maintain an orderly institution and to provide some
predictability for day to day interacting” (Dannells, 1997, p.xi).
2.2.8 College Discipline in the 1960’s
Before the 1960’s it was rare for the legal system to consider the propriety or
fairness of a college’s academic evaluation or disciplinary action (Wright, 1969; Stevens,
1999). Courts rarely became involved with the handling of matters considered the
responsibility of the college or university. And today, the courts continue to allow
39
colleges and universities considerable discretion in how due process protection is
provided to students. Today, the legal system only chooses to intervene with academic
disciplinary decisions when constitutional standards of the students are clearly violated
(Stevens, 1999).
2.2.8.1 Due Process
The phrase due process, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
U.S. Constitution, requires that federal and state governments provide citizens with
substantive fairness and certain procedures or process before depriving them of life,
liberty, or property interests. The courts have intentionally retained flexibility in the wide
interpretation of the requirements of due process in higher education, and no exact
formula or procedure exists for the process due in any individual situation (Stevens,
1999). Both public and private institutions are legally obligated to fairly and reasonably
carry out the requirements of their written and implied contracts with students and faculty
(Stevens, 1999). Student handbooks and the university code of student conduct provided
to the student population are considered binding contracts. It is the responsibility of the
university judicial officer to ensure that a fundamentally fair process is followed as it is
written and interpreted in these published and distributed policies.
As the late 1960’s approached, institutions of higher education effectively
abandoned the in loco parentis principle. In essence, the doctrine of in loco parentis was
perceived as being as helpful as it was possibly harmful. Not only did in loco parentis
mean that colleges and universities had the authority to dictate the policies that
constituted the student code of conduct, it also implied that colleges and universities
40
would assume a duty to protect its students from harm. This held an institution to a
higher standard of care for each of the students enrolled (Hoekema, 1996).
2.2.9 College Discipline in the 1970’s
As the 1970’s approached, the composition of institutes of higher education began
to change. Three major changes seemed to redirect the purpose of student discipline
(Dannells, 1997). The first key alteration was the lowering of the age of majority from
21 to 18 years of age. The lowering of the age of majority resulted in a drastic
adjustment in the relationship between the student and the institution. The college or
university was no longer in the relationship with the student as a caretaker, but now in a
contractual relationship with an individual considered an adult. The second area of
change was that the student population had now changed from a large portion of full time
students that were 18 to 21 years old, to now being a very large percentage of part-time
students that were between their mid to late twenties and mid thirties. The needs of these
students were inherently different from the needs of the students previously educated.
Thirdly, the population of students was becoming more culturally and racially diverse.
These changes assisted universities in coming to the realization that students had different
needs, different value systems, and that all were becoming a part of the college and
university community that needed to be addressed differently in a student judicial system
(Dannells, 1997).
In 1979, a landmark decision by a federal appellate court (Bradshaw v. Rawlings,
612 F.2d 135 [3 Cir. 1979]) lessened the grip of in loco parentis on higher education.
The federal court asserted that the modern American colleges were no longer the
gatekeepers of safety for enrolled students on the campuses of higher education.
41
Since this decision, disciplinary codes of conduct evolved to set boundaries for
students. Therefore assisting in establishing administrative positions to enforce rules and
regulations and ensure a fundamental fairness. Courts give colleges and universities
much latitude in creating and enforcing their own rules as long as they are within the
boundaries of legal due process (Travelstead, 1997). This consideration of due process
results from the landmark decisions of Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education in
1961 and Esteban v. Central Missouri State College (1967). These decisions rest on the
supposition that a student at a public institution of higher education has a property
interest in education and therefore is afforded due process (Ardaiolo, 1983, Travelstead,
1997). Due process requires the court to see that all actions by one individual are
identified to the other party in a judicious and reasonable way so the other party can
prepare for and defend against the action brought by an adversary. Due process,
considered as a legal term and not an educational developmental term, is replaced in the
higher education disciplinary arena with the term “fundamental fairness” in university
judicial systems (Stoner, 1998). Fundamental fairness then becomes an essential part of
every disciplinary process.
2.2.10 College Discipline Today
A principal purpose of the student disciplinary system is to impose and encourage
the institutional and community standards of behavior. This occurs by imposing
sanctions or punishments for violations committed. An equally important purpose of a
student judicial system is to carve out a framework that provides fundamental fairness for
the students processed through the judicial system. Nevertheless, the major purpose of a
college or university disciplinary system that sets it apart from any criminal or civil court
42
system is that the sanctions or punishments imposed are done so with a developmental
purpose in mind (Wilson, 1996). Many experts in the field of student development have
worked to develop and refine the student judicial process. The disciplinary process is
structured to facilitate the ethical, moral, emotional and intellectual development of
students. The objective of the process is to assist students who violate policy to gain
knowledge from mistakes and to assist them in making more ethical and responsible
decisions in the future. This responsibility belongs to the university judicial officer in
many institutions of higher education.
A large responsibility of the university judicial officer concerns making decisions
that direct the educational developmental process. According to Ariely and Zakay
(2001), time is necessary to process information to make any decision. Occasionally, a
judicial officer will think about a decision at great length before reaching a conclusion.
Yet, some decisions are agonizingly slow; the decisions in other situations emerge with
lightening speed. Even these quickly reached decisions undergo some form of a thought
process or an information synthesis if even for very short duration. The more a decision
process is methodical and logical, the more time necessary for its completion or
movement into action. Many day-to-day decisions fall into one of two categories: some
decisions take a very short duration and in fact seem to be automatic such as what to wear
to work, what to eat for lunch, or where to park your car. Other decisions take a long
time and seem to be very laborious. These decisions include issues such as getting
married, buying a home, wanting children, or suspending a student for violating the code
of conduct. A university judicial officer must consider the implications for the future of
those decisions. According to Stevens (1999), “when facts are in dispute, the ideal of just
43
decision making requires unbiased, principled deliberation” (p.1). Frequently university
judicial officers are required to make discretionary decisions based on the interpretation
of facts presented to them by a student. This presentation of facts must then be
deciphered, interpreted, and taken into consideration before reaching a conclusion. Based
on the information provided, a university judicial officer makes a decision that affects a
student’s future. Through the most recent rulings in the courts, institutions of higher
education continue to have considerable discretion in deciding the fate of students who
find themselves entrenched in a university judicial process (Stevens, 1999). This is a
large amount of authority bestowed upon a university judicial officer.
Student discipline has been a point of contention and trepidation for most of the
history of higher education in the United States beginning with the initial dissatisfaction
with virtuous and moralistic paternalism in the colonial colleges, to the most recent
controversies with reference to hate speech versus First Amendment rights. Student
behaviors and the institutional responses to those behaviors have perplexed college
administrators with a set of issues that are both fundamental and timely (Dannells, 1997).
Smith (1994), explained that “student misconduct is an enduring reality—not temporal
problem—that demands continual attention” (p.84).
Students on college campuses encounter a variety of complex situations for which
they are often ill prepared by experience or individual stages of personal development.
The relationship between students’ attitudes and values and the environment that supports
and challenges them often leads to conflict between the institution that is upholding a
particular standard, and the individual that is feeling constrained and limited. This
44
conflict often affects the ethical positions and choices of both the individuals and the
institution (Ebbs & Wilcox, 1992).
According to Dannells (1997) at one time, student discipline was a central part of the
college mission. Today, the student disciplinary process has moved to the periphery of
most campus’s agenda. Since the demise of in loco parentis, most campuses are without
a guiding reason for engaging in student discipline, and most faculty and students are, at
best, only marginally involved in the day-to-day matters of students conduct (Dannells,
1997; Stevens, 1999). The literature reports that this view will continue to change when
university administrators understand the necessity to promote a community that will
uphold university standards and expectations, and that students, faculty and
administration will consider it a privilege to encourage and enforce these standards.
Student development theorists support the notion that peer influence can be extremely
pervasive for traditional aged college students (Dannells, 1997).
Campus disciplinary systems must operate to cultivate the development of disciplined
students. University judicial officers need to structure an approach to discipline to include
methods of compassionate confrontation. This approach would include examining the
behavior of the student involved in the process critically in a challenging and supportive
relationship. The goal of the educational developmental disciplinary process is to explore
what can be learned from the situation and create a teachable moment for the student
while assisting them in owning the behavior (Dannells, 1997). According to Dannells
(1997), the most effective student disciplinary system is a preventive system that creates
an environment on the campus that demonstrates caring and compassion and one that
45
discourages hateful and destructive behavior by recognizing the commitment to the
community and by helping the student to recognize this commitment.
2.3 Literature Review Summary
It is clear from the much-researched area of emotional intelligence that an
individual’s emotional intelligence may be important to how to how they interact and
navigate through life (Bernet, 1996; Brown, 1999; Burgess, Palmer, Stough, & Walls
2001; Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000; Cherniss, 2000; Geher, Warner and Brown, 2001;
Goleman 1995; Goleman 1997; Mayer & Geher, 1996; Mayer, Caruso & Salovey, 1999;
Mayer, & Salovey, 1997; Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2000; Mayer, 2001; Mayer,
Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2001; Mayer, Perkins, Caruso & Salovey, 2001;
McDowelle & Bell, 2000; Pfeiffer, 2001; Reiff, Hates, & Bramel, 2001; Salovey &
Mayer, 1990; Salovey & Sluyter, 1997; Weiss, 2000).
The literature reviewed suggests that many of the characteristics that describe
emotional intelligence are also thought as the necessary characteristics that a university
judicial officer should possess to be effective in their role of achieving fundamental
fairness for students. As student affairs professionals strive to become more in touch
with students on the college and university campus, the need for being aware of emotion,
managing emotion, and understanding emotion could be a critical focus.
This research study will examine the university judicial officers self reported rating of
importance to be inherently empathic, perceptive to identifying emotions, understanding
emotions, as well as managing those emotions with themselves as well as with students
involved in the disciplinary process.
46
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to assess the self-reported rating of importance of
emotional intelligence of a university judicial officer. Since the interpretation of and
adaptation to emotions are key elements in the student judicial process as reported
previously, this study researches the rating of importance of a national sample of
university judicial officers to report if they believe that emotional intelligence is
necessary to effectively perform their job responsibilities. This methodology chapter
outlines the procedures used in this research study. Specifically, the research design used
to conduct the study, the site and sample selection, concluding with the data collection.
3.2 Type of Research
In view of the fact that the foundation research and concepts of emotional
intelligence have only come to the attention of educators since the 1980’s, many
university judicial officers may not recognize what it means to be emotionally intelligent.
While both qualitative and quantitative methodologies could be used to address the issue
of the self-reported rating for emotional intelligence by university judicial officers, the
researcher has chosen to use a quantitative research method. For this research study, the
self-reported rating of importance of the differing concepts encompassing emotional
intelligence of the participants was examined. The quantitative paradigm was thought to
be the most appropriate research method in the context of this study because of the
exploratory relationship described above. According to Creswell (1998), a quantitative
study “is an inquiry into a social or human problem, based on testing a theory composed
of variables, measured with numbers, and analyzed with statistical procedures, in order to
47
determine whether the predictive generalizations of the theory hold true” (p.2). With this
type of research, the researcher is thought to be objective and independent from any
connection with participants. Throughout the research, the researcher remained
anonymous from the study participants to fulfill IRB requirements and therefore the
information collected is observed as value-free and unbiased.
3.3 Research Design and Method
This quantitative research study used a survey questionnaire designed to assess
the self-reported rating of importance of the constructs of emotional intelligence among
university judicial officers to obtain objective numerical data concerning the believed
need for emotional intelligence. This survey design provided a numeric description from
a national sample of university judicial officers and was collected at one point in time.
This type of data collection enabled the generalization of the findings from a sample of
responses of the population surveyed (Creswell,1994). According to Hedrick, Bickman,
and Rog (1993), “surveys are used when it is necessary to obtain the same information
items from large numbers of respondents” (p.85). Since the population surveyed
consisted of over 1,200 members from the ASJA organization, a survey was thought to be
the most comprehensive method to collect data.
Additionally, the researcher gathered information on the following variables:
institutional size, institutional affiliation, participant’s years in the field of judicial affairs,
participants accredited degree, participants age, as well as the gender of the participant.
Although qualitative methods would have afforded more in-depth information pertaining
to the rating of importance concerning the need for emotional intelligence, personal
interviews of this large national sample would have invited great financial costs as well
48
as requiring a sustained length of time. Conducting a qualitative study of a few
individuals would not have allowed the researcher to investigate the large number of
variables involved. Additionally, the quantifiable data collected by the self-selected
participants allowed the researcher to generalize findings to the larger population of
university judicial officers. Using survey research also allowed the researcher to
investigate the research question with minimal costs and minimal delays.
The quantitative paradigm provided an objective examination, measurement, and
evaluation of the self-reported rating of importance that each participant presented,
therefore a negative or positive relationship could be compared and correlated with the
other variables in the study such as institution size, years in the field, public or private
institution and gender.
In January 2004, the institutional review board approved the research study. The
central office of the Association for Student Judicial Affairs (ASJA) provided the email
addresses for the 1200 active members of the association. These subjects were identified
as being active dues paying members of the Association for Student Judicial Affairs that
had the primary responsibility for administering discipline on a college or university
campus.
Each member of the association received an emailed cover letter with a request
for participation from the central office staff member that is also the administrator of the
list serve. Since the researcher is a member of the ASJA organization, having the survey
sent from the central office administrator allowed the researcher to remain anonymous to
the participants and therefore reduce bias with respect to participants answering favorably
or negatively because of a previous relationship with the researcher. The participants
49
were provided a website address and were directed to a secured server web site location
to complete a survey questionnaire. This questionnaire was used to assess the
participant’s personal rating of importance as to whether or not they thought that a
university judicial officer needed to possess factors that are prominent to being
considered emotionally intelligent. Participants were provided the web address for
completing the survey only after agreeing to participate in this research study. The
survey was not available to those participants that did not complete an agreement form.
3.4 Site and Sample
In January 2004, the cover letter was emailed to the board of directors of ASJA,
from the central office of ASJA, for the pilot study. The email was directed only to the
executive members of the board. In February 2004, the revised survey and cover letter
was sent out by the central office to all members of the Association for Student Judicial
Affairs (ASJA). This judicial association was founded in 1986, by Donald D. Gehring.
The association has approximately twelve-hundred members from 750 institutions of
higher education throughout the United States and Canada. This membership listing is
available for research purposes to anyone that is a member of the organization. Members
of this association consist of Coordinators, Directors, Deans of Students and Vice
Presidents that are responsible for administrating the campus discipline systems at a
college or university.
3.5 Limitations
As with most research, this study was designed with a recognized number of
limitations inherent in the use of a self-reported survey. As a self-reported survey, the
data gathered for this research is dependent on the honest in-depth reporting of thoughts,
50
perceptions, and rating of importance and judgments of the university judicial officers
surveyed. Emotional intelligence may have been a new concept to many individuals
participating in this research study. Many who took the survey may not have had a broad
knowledge base pertaining to emotional intelligence, and therefore they may not have
had an accurate perception of the concepts of emotional intelligence. To control
presenter bias and personal interaction with the participants, which could possibly
influence the response to the rating of importance assessment survey, the participants
were not given a presentation on emotional intelligence prior to taking the survey
instrument, nor were they aware of the identity of the researcher.
3.6 Data Collection Plan
The data for this research was collected from the online survey that was hosted on
a secured server in the Drexel University School of Education. This server site is
physically located in the School of Education at Drexel University and was carefully
monitored for activity and security.
The individuals for this research study were self-selected, as each participant
belonging to the Association for Student Judicial Affairs has an equal chance to
participate in the research survey. Based on a population of 1200 members, 400 surveys
were completed and usable which provided a confidence rating of 95% with a confidence
interval of P<.04 according to the Creative Research Systems sample size calculator
(Creative Research Systems, 2002).
As an active participant in the ASJA organization, the researcher’s experience, is
that surveys for conducting research and data collection have been very successful with
this population in the past. Most individuals belonging to ASJA present the results and
51
conclusions to the organization upon the completion of the research. These findings are
presented during the yearly international conference.
Verbal and email correspondence with Dr. Jack Mayer, Dr. Peter Salovey, Dr.
David Caruso and Dr. Nicola Schutte and Dr. Maurice Elias offered advice and assisted
with the development and construction of the survey tool. Each researcher contributed
suggestions and examples for consideration for the development of the survey.
Overwhelmingly, the researchers suggested that a current emotional intelligence scale be
adapted for the purpose of this study. Dr. Caruso suggested that emotional intelligence
may be related to the certain styles of problem solving used by university judicial
officers. He suggested that this research study could be an important aspect while
looking at the self-reported rating of importance concerning emotional intelligence and
university judicial officers.
3.7 Survey Instrument
After examining several emotional intelligence instruments and researching three
different frameworks of emotional intelligence, the Bar-On model of emotional
intelligence was selected as the emotional intelligence theory for the framework of the
rating of importance assessment survey. The self-reported survey questionnaire is a
variation of the Bar-On emotional intelligence model scales as outlined in Table 3. The
Bar-On Model of the EQ-i:S is an emotional intelligence tool that is currently used to
assess an individual’s emotional intelligence. Since the intent of this research is not to
assess a university judicial officer’s emotional intelligence, but to assess their self-
reported rating of importance of the concepts pertaining to emotional intelligence, the
questions for the survey were developed with a concentration on a university judicial
52
process. For example, a question that would be used to assess an individual’s level of
emotional intelligence may read, “I know what other people are feeling just by looking at
them”. For use in this research survey questions were written to assess the rating of
importance of a specific construct of emotional intelligence. A sample question from the
survey would read as follows: “When working as a student judicial officer, how
important is it to be able to recognize the emotions that others express non-verbally"?
The survey questions were framed to assess the rating of importance based on the
constructs of emotional intelligence. Questions were scaled on a Likert Scale. To answer
the survey questions, the respondents chose an answer using the following scales; Very
Important(5), Somewhat Important(4), Slightly Important(3), Neither Important or
Unimportant(2), and Not at all important(1).
3.8 Data Collection
A pilot study was conducted with the 14 member Executive Board of the
Association for Student Judicial Affairs. The data was analyzed by the Executive Board
for face validity, internal consistency and content validity. The board members made
suggestions on word changes for increased clarification, recommendations for question
sequence, as well as suggestions to make the survey more aesthetically pleasing. A
description of the participants in the pilot study is provided in the Appendix. The final
version of the survey was then tested for reliability and validity utilizing SPSS version
12, and a Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated to determine the coefficient of test reliability.
Details of this analysis will be discussed in Chapter 4.
The data from this quantitative study was processed and analyzed using the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences program (SPSS) version 12, to compute and
53
analyze descriptive and inferential statistical analysis. The following analyses were
performed on the data gathered from the survey and will be discussed in greater detail in
Chapter 4: Descriptive data analysis, outlier and normality assumption testing, the
parametric procedure (one-way repeated measures analysis of variance) and the
corresponding non-parametric test, the Friedman test, Mauchly’s test of Sphericity and
the Huynh-Feldt test.
3.9 Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses were tested when analyzing the research data:
Null Hypotheses:
(1) University judicial officers do not perceive the construct of emotional
intelligence, defined as identifying their own emotions as well as the emotions of
others, using those emotions, understanding those emotions, and having the
ability to manage emotions as important while working in the capacity as a
university judicial officer. And,
(2) There is no significant difference between the self-reported ratings of the
ratings of importance for the five different sub groups of emotional intelligence
(Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Adaptability, Stress Management and General
Mood).
54
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
The first step was to conduct the pilot study using the survey instrument. The pilot
study results are presented in this chapter. Following the pilot study results, this chapter
includes a brief explanation of the data collection process using the survey instrument,
detailed demographic information collected in the survey, as well as data analysis, for the
research study. Provided in this chapter are the research questions and the null
hypotheses. The results of the tests of normality assumptions as well as the parametric
and non-parametric tests that were used to examine the data are reported. Lastly, a
chapter summary is presented, detailing the analysis to accept or reject the null hypotheses
stated in the research.
4.1 Pilot Study Results
A pilot study is performed for many reasons. For the purpose of this research
study, one function of the pilot survey was to determine the internal reliability and the
content validity of the survey instrument. Other aspects addressed were to identify any
logistical problems which might occur using the survey to conduct the study and in
general, to refine the survey instrument.
As described in Chapter 3, the survey instrument was adapted from another survey
instrument, the Bar-On EQ-i., with permission. The instrument was intended to assess the
rating for the need for emotional intelligence as reported by university judicial officers.
This survey instrument was reviewed for content and face validity by experts in the field
of emotional intelligence (Dr. John D. Mayer, Dr. Peter Salovey, Dr. David Caruso, Dr.
Maurice Elias, and Dr. Nicola Schutte). These experts well know for their expertise in
55
emotional intelligence reviewed the survey items for content and for appropriateness in
the instrument.
Experts in the field of judicial affairs, also known for their expertise in the field of
judicial affairs (Dr. John Zacker, Dr. Nancy Giacomini, Dr. Donald Gehring, Dr. William
Fisher, Dr. Daisy Waryold, and several other executive board members of ASJA), also
reviewed the survey instrument for content and appropriateness.
Feedback from the experts in both areas, including suggestions in wording and
clarification, was taken into consideration when refining the final version of the survey
used for the pilot study. As stated by Bar-On (Bar-On, 1997, p. 89), content validity and
face validity are not true measures in a statistical sense. He states that measures of content
and face validity are more of an indication of “how well the items are thought to cover the
domain of each of the scales (content validity) and how easily they are understood by the
respondent (face validity)”.
4.1.1 Pilot Survey
The pilot survey contained 45 questions. The questions, grouped into five clusters
to assess reliability, were based upon the five differing scale compositions associated with
Bar-On’s theory emotional intelligence (Bar-On, 1997). Table 7 displays the grouping of
the questions on the pilot survey for each of the emotional intelligence construct groups.
IRB approved the research survey in January 2004. The approved pilot survey
was sent electronically to 14 elected members who constitute the executive board for the
Association for Student Judicial Affairs (ASJA). All fourteen surveys were returned and
all surveys were considered complete and usable.
56
Table 7: Survey Question Groupings
5 Construct Groups Survey Questions Items N=
Intrapersonal (IAP) 3,8,13,18,23,28,33,38,42,44 10 Interpersonal (IEP) 2,7,12,17,21,27,32,37,41,45 10 Adaptability (AD) 5,10,15,20,25,30,35 7 Stress Management (SM) 4,9,14,19,24,29,34,39 8 General Mood (GM) 1,6,11,16,22,26,31,36,40,43 10
4.1.2 Reliability
The Cronbach Coefficient Alpha was used to measure internal consistency, to
assess the reliability of the survey instrument. Internal consistency refers to the degree to
which all of the items of each group measure the same construct. Examining the
reliability of the instrument assisted the researcher in understanding the degree to which
individual differences in the survey scores are attributed to true differences in the
instrument items under consideration (Anastasi, 1988).
4.1.3 Cronbach Alpha Results
The Cronbach Alpha requires only one test administration and can be used for both
binary-type and large-scale data (Creswell, 1994; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Yu, 2004).
The Cronbach alpha measured the squared correlation between observed scores and true
scores. It measured reliability in terms of the ratio of true score variance to observed
score variance (Yu, 2004). According to Nunnally & Bernstein (1994), for an instrument
to be reliable, the relationship between the true score and the observed score should be
strong. Using the Cronbach Alpha to test for reliability, the measurement error should be
minimized so that error is not highly correlated with the true score.
The range of internal consistency using the Cronbach Alpha extends from 0.00,
resulting in poor reliability, to 1.00, considered perfect reliability. The stronger the items
57
are inter-related, the more likely the test is consistent. Therefore, the higher the alpha
score, the more reliable the instrument may be.
The researcher coded and entered the pilot survey results into a spreadsheet using
the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software program (SPSS), version 12.
Using the SPSS software, the Cronbach alpha computed the reliability coefficients. The
raw alpha score is based on the inter-relation or item correlation of the test items. The
stronger the items are inter-related, the more likely the test is consistent (Yu, 2004). The
second score reported the standardized score, which is based upon the item covariance and
is a measure of how a distribution of a single item or variable spreads out. The covariance
measure of the distributions of two variables illustrates that the higher the correlation
coefficient is, the higher the covariance will be. Therefore the higher the alpha score, the
more reliable the instrument may be.
According to Yu (2004), it is sometimes mistakenly believed that the standard
Alpha is superior to the raw Alpha because it is thought that the standardized Alpha may
normalize skewed data. Yu (2004) however reports that the standardized Alpha is a linear
transformation and therefore it does not normalize the data. Although both the raw and
standardized alpha scores are acceptable and in this case comparable, the researcher chose
to report on the standardized scores since the variance, as well as the covariance is taken
into account during the statistical computation for the standardized Alpha score.
According to Nunnally and Bernstein, (1994) “the Cronbach’s coefficient alpha is
perhaps the most important outcome, as it provides actual estimates of reliability” (p.212).
Mitchell & Jolley (2000) state that the significance of an alpha below .50 when using the
Cronbach Alpha would not be considered internally consistent, and that an alpha above
58
.60, is usually considered to be internally consistent. Nevertheless, Nunnally & Bernstein
(1994) state that an alpha score of .70 would be considered moderately reliable. The
researcher used the .70 alpha score in the final version of the survey instrument for all
groups as a consistent measure of reliability and internal consistency.
The Cronbach Alpha based on standardized items for the survey ranged from .60
in the Adaptability grouping to .80 in the Interpersonal grouping. The reliability
Coefficient Alpha representing all groups resulted in an alpha score of .91 for the pilot
study. The Interpersonal, Stress Management and the General Mood groupings had a
single test question (item) removed from the computation of the pilot data analysis
because there was zero variance in the answers given by the pilot survey participants. For
those particular questions, all participants in the pilot survey reported that the answer to
the questions was believed to be “Very Important”. Since variance is a critical component
in the Cronbach Alpha calculation, if there is no variance in the response, there will be no
result for that item. With no variance, standardized Cronbach Alpha, based on covariance
matrix, cannot be computed, therefore the items were removed from the calculation Yu
(2000). The results of the Cronbach Alpha for all groupings are listed in Table 8.
Table 8 – Cronbach Alpha Reliability Coefficients
Summary Groups Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Standardized Items
N of Items
Items removed for zero variance
Intrapersonal (IAP) .80 10 0 Interpersonal (IEP) .80 9 1 - #7 Adaptability (AD) .60 7 0 Stress Management (SM)
.71 7 1 - #4
General Mood (GM) .70 9 1 - #11
59
4.1.4 Mean inter-item Correlation
Mean inter-item correlations of the survey, were also obtained in the pilot study to
provide evidence that the items are measuring the same underlying construct. According
to Mitchell & Jolley (2000, p. 96) “most experts would say that a measure that had a
median inter-item correlation of .35 or greater has an adequate degree of internal
consistency.” Typically, as the average inter-item correlation increases, the Cronbach's
alpha would tend to increase as well. If the inter-item correlations are high then there is
evidence that the reliability is positive, referring to how well the items measure a single
uni-dimensional fundamental construct. The mean inter-item correlation for the five
groupings of the survey was assessed at .69 (r = .69 → r2 = 48% degree of variance) as
reported in Table 9. This implies that the survey instrument has more than adequate
degree of internal consistency and inter-item correlation.
Table 9: Mean Inter-Item Correlations Summary Statistics
Mean Minimum Maximum
r 2 N of Groups Inter-Item Correlations .69 .36 .90
.48 5
4.2 Cronbach Alpha Analysis Of Pilot Results
4.2.1 Scale Composition – Intrapersonal (IAP)
The Intrapersonal (IAP) scale composition contained 10 questions. All questions
were used in the standardized alpha correlation in the Cronbach Alpha analysis. The IAP
rating concerning the need for emotional intelligence produced a standardized alpha score
60
of .80, indicative of a fairly high rating of internal consistency. The individual alpha
score of reliability for the IAP scale composition if a test item is removed, ranges from
.71 to .81. Although the alpha score could be increased slightly by removing question
#28, the increase would be minimal and therefore the researcher made the decision to
keep question #28 in the survey. (See Appendix 2, for further details).
4.2.2 Scale Composition – Interpersonal (IEP)
The Interpersonal (IEP) scale composition contained 10 questions. Question #7
was removed from the alpha correlation because it also registered a zero variance. Using
the remaining nine questions, the IEP ratings concerning the need for emotional
intelligence from the pilot resulted in a standardized alpha score of .80, which is
indicative of a fairly high rating of internal consistency. For the IEP subset, the
individual alpha scores of reliability if a test item is removed ranges from .69 to .78
therefore resulting in a lower total alpha score. Removing any questions from this scale
composition would decrease the alpha score; therefore, all questions were retained for use
in the survey.
4.2.3 Scale Composition – Adaptability (AD)
The Adaptability (AD) scale composition originally contained seven questions.
All questions were used in the initial standardized alpha correlation. Although the other
four scale compositions (IAP, IEP, SM and GM,) had standardized alpha scores above
the .70 range, the Adaptability (AD) scale scored a standardized alpha of .60. Taking
into account that a higher alpha score would be beneficial for accessing the instrument’s
overall reliability, the researcher recalculated the alpha scores removing questions 25 and
30 from the survey instrument. By eliminating questions 25 and question 30 from the
61
survey, the overall internal consistency was affected. The alpha score increased and
produced an improved internal consistency of .70.
4.2.4 Scale Composition – Stress Management (SM)
The Stress Management (SM) scale composition contained 8 questions, one (#4)
which was removed for zero variance in the computation. The SM beliefs concerning the
need for emotional intelligence produced a standardized alpha score of .71, also
indicative of a fairly high rating of internal consistency. For the SM subset, the
individual alpha score of reliability if a test item is removed range from .64 to .75. Just
as in the IAP scale composition, the alpha score could be increased slightly by removing
a question (Q9 or Q19) but the increase would be minimal and therefore the researcher
made the decision to keep all SM group questions in the survey.
4.2.5 Scale Composition - General Mood (GM)
The General Mood (GM) scale composition contained 10 questions. Question 11
was removed from the alpha correlation because it registered a zero variance, meaning
that all participants answered the same for this question. Using the remaining nine
questions, the GM beliefs concerning the need for emotional intelligence demonstrated a
standardized alpha score of .70 indicative of moderate internal consistency. For the GM
subset, the individual alpha scores of reliability if a test item is removed range from .56 to
.67 therefore resulting in a lower total alpha score. Removing questions from this scale
composition would decrease the alpha score therefore all questions remained.
62
4.3 Alpha Scores if Item Deleted
The pilot survey instrument containing 45 questions was subdivided into five
groupings. Based on the Cronbach Coefficient Alpha analysis for the pilot study,
questions 25 and 30 were removed to increase the reliability for the Adaptability scale.
As reflected in Table 10, the separate individual sub-scale groupings of reliability
in the survey instrument range from .70 to .80. Therefore, it may be concluded that there
is a high degree of internal consistency on the scale.
Table 10: Alpha Scores if Item Deleted
IAP - Q Alpha if Item
Deleted
IEP - Q Alpha if Item
Deleted
AD - Q Alpha if Item
Deleted
SM - Q Alpha if Item
Deleted
GM - Q Alpha if Item
Deleted Q3 0.76 Q2 0.70 Q5 0.52 Q4 NA Q1 0.60 Q8 0.74 Q7 NA Q10 0.62 Q9 0.74 Q6 0.63
Q13 0.77 Q12 0.77 Q15 0.71 Q14 0.64 Q11 NA Q18 0.76 Q17 0.78 Q20 0.58 Q19 0.75 Q16 0.56 Q23 0.74 Q21 0.69 Q25 NA Q24 0.70 Q22 0.58 Q28 0.81 Q27 0.77 Q30 NA Q29 0.68 Q26 0.58 Q33 0.71 Q32 0.71 Q35 0.68 Q34 0.68 Q31 0.60 Q38 0.75 Q37 0.72 Q39 0.66 Q36 0.63 Q42 0.79 Q41 0.70 Q40 0.62 Q44 0.71 Q45 0.71 Q43 0.67
ALPHA 0.80 ALPHA 0.80 ALPHA 0.70 ALPHA 0.71 ALPHA 0.70
4.4 Overall Scale Composition
After the reliability within the groups was analyzed, the Cronbach Alpha was
again used to determine the reliability between the groups. The results suggest that
removing a group would decrease the overall alpha scale and therefore reduce the rating
of reliability of the overall survey instrument as shown in Table 9. The overall alpha
63
score of .91 is quite high and suggests a statistically reliable survey instrument.
Therefore, use of the survey instrument to determine the belief of the importance of
emotional intelligence in university judicial officers seems reasonable. The overall alpha
score for the rating of beliefs concerning the need for emotional intelligence produced a
standardized alpha score of .91 as reported in Table 11.
Table 11: All Scale Composition Group Analysis
All Scale Composition Group Analysis Alpha if Group Deleted
Sum GM 0.80 Sum IEP 0.82 Sum SM 0.89 Sum IAP 0.87 Sum AD 0.87
TOTAL ALPHA 0.91
4.5 Overview of the Data Analysis for Research Survey
This research study examined the rating of the importance of emotional
intelligence as reported by university judicial officers. Data for this research study were
gathered using an online survey. The statistical analysis presented in this study uses the
data obtained from a self-selected, sample population of university judicial officers who
are currently members of the Association for Student Judicial Affairs (ASJA).
64
4.5.1 Research Questions
The study examines the self-reported rating of importance of emotional
intelligence of university judicial officers. This section discusses the statistical
analysis used to address the following research questions;
1. Do university judicial officers perceive the construct of emotional intelligence
defined as identifying their own emotions as well as the emotions of others, using
those emotions, understanding those emotions, and having the ability to manage
emotions as important while working in the capacity as a university judicial
officer. ? and,
2. Is there a difference in this rating of importance between the five sub groups of
Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Adaptability, Stress Management and General
Mood?
Findings for the research study are reported in the following order: Research design,
research method, site and sample, data collection procedures, survey population
demographics, survey analyses, hypotheses, questions and a chapter summary.
4.5.2 Research Design
This exploratory quantitative research study used a survey questionnaire designed
to assess the self-reported rating of importance for the need for emotional intelligence in
university judicial officers to obtain objective numerical data concerning the believed
need for emotional intelligence. Additionally this survey gathered data on the following
variables: institutional size, location, years in the field of judicial affairs, as well as the
gender of the participants.
65
4.5.3 Procedures
In February 2004, the current President of the Association for Student Judicial
Affairs (ASJA), Dr. John J. Zacker granted permission for the researcher to survey the
membership population. The central office administrator of ASJA electronically sent out
an email to the active members of the association. The revised survey, based on the
analysis of the pilot study containing 43 questions, was sent to twelve-hundred (1,200)
members. These subjects were identified as being active dues paying members of the
Association for Student Judicial Affairs and have the primary responsibility for
administering discipline on a college or university campus.
4.5.4 Site and Sample
Each ASJA member received a cover letter via email, with a request for
participation from a central office staff member. Having the survey sent from the office
administrator allowed the researcher to remain anonymous to the participants and
therefore reduce bias. The participants were directed to a secured server web site
location to complete a survey questionnaire that would assess their personal rating of
importance as to whether or not they think that university judicial officers need to possess
the factors that are noted to be emotionally intelligent (see Appendix 1).
The association has approximately 1200 members from 750 institutions of higher
education throughout the United States and Canada. This membership listing is available
for research purposes to anyone that is a member of the organization. Members of this
association consist of Coordinators, Directors, Deans of Students and Vice Presidents that
are responsible for administrating the campus discipline systems at a college or
university.
66
4.6 Data Collection Procedures
As the electronic surveys were completed by the participants, they were instructed
to click on the submit button. When the button was clicked, a time stamped, anonymous
email was sent to the researcher that contained the responses to each of the questions.
Each survey submitted was printed out and a number was hand written on the top left
corner. The email was then transferred to an electronic folder located on the researcher’s
hard drive that was created to contain the electronic responses. This folder was password
protected. Each survey was reviewed and visually proofed using the demographic
information and the time stamp to omit duplicate responses to the survey. The data was
then coded and entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS),
version 12, spreadsheet. The items were identified using a Likert Scale rating. The items
marked as “very important” were assigned the value of five (5); “somewhat important”
was given the value of four (4); “slightly important” was assigned the value of three (3);
“neither important or unimportant” was assigned the value of two (2); “not at all
important” was assigned the value of one(1); and finally, any question that was left blank,
was assigned the null value of nine (9). The Interpersonal, Intrapersonal and General
Mood groupings contained 10 questions and had possible ratings as high as 50 points and
as low as 10 points. The Stress Management grouping containing 8 questions rated from
a high of 40 points to a low of 8 points and finally, the Adaptability grouping containing
5 questions rated as high as 25 and as low as 5 points.
The collection of data continued until 425 surveys were obtained. With a total of
four hundred and twenty five (425) survey responses received; 400 were deemed
complete and usable. Twenty five surveys were eliminated on the basis of incomplete or
67
submission of multiple entries that were identified through the timestamp, identical
answers and identical demographic information. At this time, the web site was disabled
so that further surveys could not be submitted for inclusion in the data. The sample’s
demographic characteristics are presented in Tables 10 through 16.
4.7 Survey Demographics
The gender reported for the participants was almost evenly distributed as reported
in Table 12, with 45.3% for males (n=179) and 54.7% for females (n=216), and 1.3% of
the participants providing no answer (n=5).
Table 12: Participant Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent 1 181 45.3 45.6 2 216 54.0 54.4
Valid
Total 397 99.3 100.0 Missing 9 3 .8
Total 400 100.0
The largest percentage of the participants (38.5%) ranged from the ages of 26 to
35 years old. Participants ranging from 36 – 45 years made up 28.8% and participants
ranging in age from 46 – 55 had a 21% reporting rate. The remaining 11.4% were under
25 years old or over 56 years old. Two participants (.05%) did not list an age group.
68
Table 13: Participant Age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Valid Under 25 19 4.8 4.8 26 – 35 154 38.5 38.7 36 – 45 115 28.8 28.9 46 – 55 84 21.0 21.1 56 – 65 25 6.3 6.3 Over 65 1 .3 .3 Total 398 99.5 100.0 Missing Values 2 .5 Total 400 100.0
Table 14 report the participant’s ethnicity. The ethnicity of the participants was
reported as 75% Caucasian (n=300), 10.3% African American (n=41), 5% Latino or
Hispanic (n=20), and the remaining 9.9% were of Asian, Middle Eastern, Native
American, Other or No Answer responses (n=39). The majority of the responses were
from Caucasian participants. This response is a reflection of the population of the
organization surveyed. Although the ASJA organization is working to increase the
diversity of the membership, it is not reflected in this study.
69
Table 14: Ethnicity of Participants
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent Valid African
American 41 10.3 10.5
Asian 4 1.0 1.0 Caucasian 300 75.0 76.9 Hispanic/Latino 20 5.0 5.1 Middle Eastern 7 1.8 1.8 Native
American 7 1.8 1.8
Other 11 2.8 2.8 Total 390 97.5 100.0 Missing 10 2.5 Total 400 100.0
Sixty-three percent (n=253) of the responses of the participants came from
primarily public institutions, while 32.5% (n=130) of the responses were from private
universities and colleges as reported in Table 15. The remaining 3.3% of responses
(n=13) were reported as community college with 1% of the participants indicating no
response.
Table 15: Institution Information
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent Valid Public 253 63.3 63.9 Private 130 32.5 32.8 Community 13 3.3 3.3 Total 396 99.0 100.0 Missing 4 1.0 Total 400 100.0
70
Institution size varied from <1,000 students (n=15 / 3.8%) to >15,000 students
(n= 139 / 34.8%). Institutions with 1001-5000 students comprised 25.8% of the
responses, while institutions enrolling 5,001-10,000 students reported 17.5% and 15.8%
reporting for 10,001-15,000 students. Two and a half percent (n=10) did not report
institution size as reported in Table 16.
Table 16: Institution Size
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent Valid under 1000 15 3.8 3.8 1001 - 5000 103 25.8 26.4 5001 - 10000 70 17.5 17.9 10001 - 15000 63 15.8 16.2 over 15 139 34.8 35.6 Total 390 97.5 100.0 Missing 10 2.5 Total 400 100.0
Participants that reported achieving a Master’s Degree totaled 273 (68.3%).
Doctoral rating achievement was reported at 15.5% (n=62) and 31 participants (7.8%)
reported the achievement of a Bachelors degree as reported in Table 17. Six and a half
percent of the participants had attained a Juris Doctorate degree and a single respondent
reported attaining an Associates degree. Seven participants did not indicate a degree
(1.8%).
71
Table 17: Degree Achieved
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Associates 1 .3 .3 Bachelors 31 7.8 7.9 Masters 273 68.3 69.5
Doctorate 62 15.5 15.8 Juris Doctorate 26 6.5 6.6
Valid
Total 393 98.3 100.0 Missing 9 7 1.8
Total 400 100.0
The final piece of demographic information as reported in Table 18, gathered was
the number of years the individual had been a university judicial officer, or responsible
for a university of college disciplinary system. One hundred and sixty-one responses
were from professionals that had been in the field of judicial affairs for one to three years
(39%), followed by four to six years of experience (n=109, 27.3%), seven to ten years
(n=61, 15.3%), eleven to fifteen years (n=40, 10%), and over sixteen years (n= 25, 6.3%).
Four participants did not report how long they had been in the field of judicial affairs
(n=4, 1%). The remaining four participants (1%) did not report the number of years they
had been in the field of judicial affairs.
72
Table 18: Years in the field of Judicial Affairs
Frequency Percent Valid Percent 1 – 3 161 40.3 40.7 4 – 6 109 27.3 27.5 7 – 10 61 15.3 15.4 11 – 15 40 10.0 10.1
16 + 25 6.3 6.3
Valid
Total 396 99.0 100.0 Missing 9 4 1.0
Total 400 100.0
4.8 Survey Analysis
A Likert scale was used as a measurement scale to classify and rate the rating of
importance of the questions on the survey. Interval scale data was collected and
analyzed for this research study. The ratings of very important (5), somewhat important
(4), slightly important (3), neither important or unimportant (2), and not important at all,
(1), make no assumption that the difference between the ratings are of equal distance or
size (Fitz-Gibbon & Morris, 1978, Wiersma, 2000).
For the purpose of this research study, a null hypothesis was formed for each of
the two research questions. The null hypothesis will be used to indicate that there is no
relationship between the independent variable (the assessment or judgment of the
university judicial officers) and the dependant variable (the rating of importance of
emotional intelligence). According to Schloss & Smith (1999), the null hypothesis is
typically the opposite of the hypothesis that the researcher is trying to confirm. The
analysis of each question for this research study begins by stating the question, the null
hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis.
73
4.8.1 Question 1:
Question 1 asks whether university judicial officers perceive the constructs of
emotional intelligence defined as identifying their own emotions as well as the emotions
of others, using those emotions, understanding those emotions, and having the ability to
manage emotions, as important while working in the capacity as a university judicial
officer. The null hypothesis for Question 1 states:
University judicial officers do not report a high overall rating of importance for the
constructs of emotional intelligence.
The alternative hypothesis states that university judicial officers report a high overall
rating of importance for the constructs of emotional intelligence.
4.8.2 Descriptive Data Analysis
To explore Question 1 and to test the null and alternative hypotheses, descriptive
data was used for analysis. To address the null hypothesis it was necessary to determine
the mean and median for the questions on the online survey for the ratings of the answers
reported as illustrated in the Appendix. This summary describes the data that was
reported from the four hundred (400) participant surveys. The quantitative analysis
reports the selected answers for each of the questions and the overall percentages of the
response for all participants.
The median and mean ratings for the five groups in the survey, are detailed in
Figure 2. The Intrapersonal median had a rating of 4.2 with a mean rating of 4.1. The
Interpersonal median and mean resulted in an identical rating of 4.2. The Adaptability
group median rated at 4.8 with a mean rating of 4.7. The highest of all of the groups was
the Stress Management Grouping with a median rating of 4.9 and a mean rating of 4.8.
74
The last group, General Mood, had identical median and mean ratings of 4.4. These
medians and means reflect a somewhat important to very important rating in each of the
separate constructs of emotional intelligence as perceived by the participants in the
research study and as self-reported on the survey.
Figure 2 – Means and Medians for All Groups
Group Means and Medians
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.8
4.9
4.7
4.8
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.2
3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5
All Groups Mean
General Mood Mean
General Mood Median
Stress Management Mean
Stress Management Median
Adaptability Mean
Adaptability Median
Interpersonal Mean
Interpersonal Median
Intrapersonal Mean
Intrapersonal Median
The overall total mean for all groups as represented in Figure 2, resulted in a
rating of 4.5, reflecting a strong indication that university judicial officers rate the
constructs of emotional intelligence as somewhat to very important. This overall rating
of 4.5 (90%), supports rejection of the null hypothesis that university judicial officers do
not report a high overall rating of importance for the constructs of emotional intelligence.
Therefore, it is stated that university judicial officers do report a high rating of
importance for the constructs of emotional intelligence.
75
University judicial officers rate that it is important to be able to identify their own
emotions as well as the emotions of others, use those emotions, understand those
emotions, and have the ability to manage those emotions while performing the
responsibilities of a university judicial officer.
4.8.3 Question 2
Question 2 asks whether there is a difference in the ratings of importance of the
five construct groups of emotional intelligence (Intrapersonal, Interpersonal,
Adaptability, Stress Management and General Mood), as rated by university judicial
officers. The null hypothesis for Question 2 states:
There is no significant difference between the judicial officers’ ratings of
importance of the five different construct groups of emotional intelligence.
The alternative hypothesis states that there is a significant difference between the ratings.
4.8.4 Outliers and Normality Assumption
To explore Question 2 and to test the null and alternative hypotheses, the data was
first screened for outliers. This examination was accomplished visually using boxplots.
A boxplot makes no distributional assumptions nor does it require any prior estimate of a
mean or standard deviation. Outliers or values that are extreme in relation to the rest of
the data are easily identified because they stand out from the grouping results. The
boxplots are shown in Figure 3.
76
Figure 3. Boxplots of All Groups
General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Stress Management
Adaptability
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
37
12
12350248333
73
65
100312
396392
359
349
72
326
74
Figure 3. Boxplots summarizing the distributions of the ratings for the five
construct groups of emotional intelligence. The horizontal line in each box
indicates the median score for the associated group. The interquartile range
for each group is indicated by the height of the associated box. Circles
indicate individual ratings that lie between 1.5 and 3 interquartile ranges from
the nearest edge of the box. Asterisks indicate individual ratings that lie
more than three interquartile ranges from the nearest edge of the box.
The boxplots suggest the presence of a “ceiling” effect in the sense that the scores
are never higher than five and the scores for the Stress Management and Adaptability
ratings show medians that are only slightly below five. The Intrapersonal and
77
Interpersonal groups show outliers, but no extreme cases. In contrast, the General Mood,
Stress Management, and Adaptability each show one extreme case. A few extreme cases
are to be expected in a sample of 400, and should have a negligible effect on the
conclusions (Antoniotti 2001).
A Q-Q Plot was obtained for the scores for each construct group to determine
whether the values of the ratings were normally distributed. These are shown in Figures
4 through 8.
Figure 4. A Q-Q Plot of the Distribution of the General Mood Scores
2 3 4 5
Observed Value
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
Expe
cted
Nor
mal
Val
ue
Normal Q-Q Plot of GENERAL MOOD
78
Figure 5. A Q-Q Plot of the Distribution of the Intrapersonal Scores.
2 3 4 5
Observed Value
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
Expe
cted
Nor
mal
Val
ue
Normal Q-Q Plot of INTRAPERSONAL
Figure 6. A Q-Q plot of the distribution of the Interpersonal scores.
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
Observed Value
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
Expe
cted
Nor
mal
Val
ue
Normal Q-Q Plot of INTERPERSONAL
79
Figure 7. A Q-Q plot of the distribution of the Stress Management scores.
2.4 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.8 5.1
Observed Value
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5.0
5.2
Expe
cted
Nor
mal
Val
ue
Normal Q-Q Plot of STRESS MANAGEMENT
Figure 8. A Q-Q plot of the distribution of the Adaptability scores.
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Observed Value
3.6
3.9
4.2
4.5
4.8
5.1
Expe
cted
Nor
mal
Val
ue
Normal Q-Q Plot of ADAPTABILITY
80
The interpretation of a Q-Q plot is that the more the points on the plot tend to fall
along a straight line, the closer the data values are to having a normal distribution
(Antoniotti 2001). The plots suggest that the data are not fully normal, especially the
Stress Management and Adaptability groups (presumably due to the ceiling effect
discussed above).
Although Wilcox (1998) reports that even the slightest deviation from normality
may have substantial consequences for power analysis, other researchers (Hays, 1994;
Kirk, 1995; Lindman,1992; Mitchell & Jolley, 2001; Rutherford, 2001), report that
analysis of variance is robust with respect to violations of the normality assumptions,
especially when the sample population is greater than 30. Hays (1994) further describes
the effects on analysis of variance of non-normal distributions.
4.8.5 Analysis of Variance and Friedman Test
Due to the possibility that the non-normality or ceiling effect may affect the
analyses, the five groups were compared with both a parametric procedure (one-way
repeated measures analysis of variance) and with the corresponding non-parametric test
(the Friedman test) in SPSS, version 12.
Repeated measures analysis of variance is the appropriate procedure to use to
compare the ratings of importance of the construct groups because each judicial officer
rated each of the five groups. Thus, the ratings were made “repeatedly” within each
judicial officer. Thus, the comparisons between the groups can be made within the
judicial officers, which is properly done with the repeated measures analysis of variance.
Prior to performing the analysis of variance, Mauchly’s test of sphericity was
performed, which is a test of homogeneity of covariance that is required for a repeated
81
measures analysis. The hypothesis of homogeneity of covariance was rejected with a p-
value less than .001 (even though the boxplots in Figure 3 suggest that variance in the
five groups does not vary widely). In view of the evidence of lack of homogeneity of
covariance, the conservative Huynh-Feldt approach was used in the analysis of variance,
because this approach takes account of a lack of homogeneity of covariance.
Table 19 shows the results of the repeated measures analysis of variance.
Table 19: Repeated Measurements Analysis of Variance for Response Variable “Rating of Construct Groups”
Source df F p
Between Judicial Officers
Error 399 (0.090)
Within Judicial Officers
Construct Groups 3.60 389.2 <.001
Error 1437.4 (0.106)
Note: Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square error. The
within-judicial-officers computations were performed using the Huynh-
Feldt approach (which yields fractional degrees of freedom).
Table 19 indicates that the p-value for the comparison between the construct
groups is less than .001. This implies that the judicial officers rated the construct groups
as having significantly different importance.
82
The analysis was repeated with the nonparametric Friedman test which yielded a
χ2 statistic of 885.3 with 4 degrees of freedom, which yields a p-value that is less than
.001. This confirms the finding of the repeated measures analysis of variance that the
officers rated the construct groups as having significantly different importance.
To explore which means were significantly different from each other, within-
subjects contrast tests were performed using Adaptability as the reference category. The
results of these tests are summarized in Table 20.
Table 20: Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts using Adaptability as the Reference Category
Source Type
Type III Sum of Squares df
Mean Square F p
Type General Mood 61.231 1 61.231 341.791 .000 Intrapersonal 130.416 1 130.416 625.107 .000 Interpersonal 179.426 1 179.426 670.679 .000 Stress
Management .497 1 .497 3.471 .063
Error(Type) General Mood 71.479 399 .179 Intrapersonal 83.244 399 .209 Interpersonal 106.744 399 .268 Stress
Management 57.133 399 .143
Table 20 implies that the General Mood, Intrapersonal, and Interpersonal
construct groups were rated significantly differently from the Adaptability group, with all
the p-values being less than .001. In contrast, Table 18 implies that no evidence is
present of a difference in rating between the Stress Management and Adaptability groups,
with a p-value of .063.
83
To further explore the differences in the ratings a second set of within-subjects
contrasts was performed using comparisons between successive groups. The results of
this analysis are summarized in Table 21.
Table 21: Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts Comparing Successive Groups
Source Type Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
Type GM vs. IAP 12.924 1 12.924 85.822 .000 IAP vs. IEP 3.901 1 3.901 18.767 .000 IEP vs. SM 161.036 1 161.036 667.333 .000 SM vs. AD .497 1 .497 3.471 .063 Error(Type) GM vs. IAP 60.086 399 .151 IAP vs. IEP 82.929 399 .208 IEP vs. SM 96.284 399 .241 SM vs. AD 57.133 399 .143
Note: GM = General Mood; IAP = Intrapersonal; IEP = Interpersonal; SM = Stress Management; AD = Adaptability
Table 21 implies that the Intrapersonal and Interpersonal groups were rated
significantly differently, even though Figure 3 suggests that the median ratings for these
two groups are quite close to each other.
Figure 9 shows the mean rating score for each construct group with a 95%
confidence interval for each mean.
84
Figure 9. Mean Rating Scores for All Groups
General Mood Interpersonal Intrapersonal Stress Management
Adaptability
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
95%
CI
Figure 9. Mean rating scores for each construct group (circles) with 95%
confidence intervals (vertical bars).
It is instructive to compare the mean rating scores as summarized in Figure 9,
with the summary of the scores in the boxplots in Figure 3. The horizontal lines in the
boxplots (indicating medians) imply that Intrapersonal and Interpersonal groups have
roughly equal medians. However, the circles in Figure 9 imply that the Intrapersonal
construct group was rated slightly lower on average (mean) than the Interpersonal group.
This difference between the Interpersonal and Intrapersonal groups is further supported in
Figure 9 above.
85
4.9 Summary of Results
Results of data analysis support the rejection of the first null hypothesis;
university judicial officers do not report a high rating of overall of importance for the
constructs of emotional intelligence. The overall means for the group constructs rated
from 4.1 through 4.8, with an overall mean of 4.5 reflecting a somewhat to very
important rating therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. University judicial officers rate
that it is important to be able to identify their own emotions as well as the emotions of
others, use those emotions, understand those emotions, and have the ability to manage
those emotions.
The second null hypothesis; there is no significant difference between the self-
reported ratings of the ratings of importance for the five different groups of emotional
intelligence (Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Adaptability, Stress Management and General
Mood) cannot be rejected. Although the medians of the groups were not statistically
significantly different, (all groups were rated as important or somewhat important) there
are statistically significant differences among some of the groups, therefore, the null
hypothesis cannot be rejected. University judicial officers rate the groups of
intrapersonal, interpersonal, adaptability, stress management and general mood
statistically differently.
86
Table 22: Summary of Hypotheses and Survey Findings
Hypothesis Results
NHO 1 – University judicial officers do not report a high overall rating of importance for the constructs of emotional intelligence.
Rejected. • University judicial officers report a high
rating of overall of importance for the constructs of emotional intelligence.
• The overall mean for the constructs rated from 4.1 through 4.8, with an overall mean of 4.5 reflecting a somewhat important to very important rating.
NHO 2 - There is no significant difference between the self-reported ratings of the ratings of importance for the five different groups of emotional intelligence (Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Adaptability, Stress Management and General Mood).
Cannot Reject. • The medians for the overall groups were
not statistically shown to be rated as different, but,
• The groups were shown to be statistically significantly different:
o Homogeneity of covariance Mauchly sphericity test: p < .001
o Huynh-Feldt : p < .001 o Repeated Measurements Analysis
of Variance: p < 001 o Friedman test: p < .001
87
CHAPTER 5 – DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
5.1 Importance of a Study to Explore the Self-Reported Rating of Emotional
Intelligence of University Judicial Officers.
The need for the exploration of university judicial officer’s ratings of the
importance of the constructs of emotional intelligence has become a necessity because
the interaction with that a student experiences with a university judicial officer very often
has an influence on the student’s overall college experience. Assisting student affairs
professionals in becoming a developmentally focused campus professional that
challenges as well as supports students that are attending classes and living on our
campuses is become common practice in many higher education programs (Delworth &
Hanson, 1989). University disciplinary programs are changing rapidly at today’s
institutions of higher education. Student conduct is becoming a high profile issue at
many colleges and universities across the country. University judicial officers often
influence and direct the future of a student that is involved in the disciplinary process.
The demands of becoming an effective influence in a students life has changed
dramatically from the presence of in loco parentis. The university judicial officer can no
longer rely on general intelligence and the university code of conduct to assist in molding
developing college students. Combining emotional intelligence along with general
intelligence and the university code of student conduct, will assist in an overall more
effective student affairs professional and more discipline among students.
This research study explores the self-reported rating of the importance of
emotional intelligence as university judicial officers. The purpose of this study was to
88
assess the rating of importance of the constructs of emotional intelligence as rated by
university judicial officers. A second purpose was to explore if there a difference in this
rating of importance between the five different groups (Intrapersonal, Interpersonal,
Adaptability, Stress Management and General Mood) found in the survey assessment tool
designed by the researcher and modeled after Bar-On’s theory of emotional intelligence.
Discussed in this chapter are the findings of the study and the potential implications of
those findings. Finally, recommendations for future practices garnered from the results
of this research study are offered.
In the review of literature, there were many connections concerning the constructs
of emotional intelligence and the factors or characteristics that constitute an effective
university judicial officer, yet there has been little research that has connected these two
areas systematically. The literature has demonstrated the importance of flexible control
and appropriate expression of emotions (Bar-On, 2000) as well as awareness and
acceptance of emotions and the ability to integrate feelings and emotions with responsible
and appropriate action (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). The literature review also reported
on the need to understand and manage emotion as an educator (Delworth and Hanson,
1989; Chickering & Reisser, 1993, Dannells, 1997). Yet, the ideals of combining the use
and development of the constructs emotional intelligence specifically in the area of
student discipline formed a gap to be explored with this research.
5.2 Relevance of the Study
To determine the significance of the findings for this study, stakeholders were
identified that could benefit from this research. Those stakeholders identified by the
researcher are university judicial officers, Educators and Program or Curriculum
89
Developers. The student population involved in the disciplinary process can also be
identified as a benefactor of this research as the overall outcome of the research has the
potential to develop more emotionally intelligent judicial officers as well a more student
developmentally focused university judicial system for students.
The results of this research study will stimulate university judicial officers to
consider the importance of their own awareness of emotional intelligence when
conducting disciplinary meetings with students. This research study is also intended to
expand on and further explore the need to incorporate the elements of emotional
intelligence into programs of higher education so that students in degree programs in
higher education are exposed to the basic concepts of emotional intelligence. This
awareness may spark an interest to increasingly develop their own emotional intelligence
to help them become more proficient in their responsibilities as educators in Student
Affairs. Educators and graduate program developers would receive this information and
possibly conclude that programs need to embrace the challenge of incorporating the
concepts of emotional intelligence in higher education programs as they may have a
better understanding of the concepts identified by university judicial officers as being
important. In addition, this research study may support the development of programs and
curriculum specifically designed to enhance an educator’s as well as a student’s personal
skills of emotional intelligence. And finally, the university judicial officers may be more
aware of the concepts of emotional intelligence and therefore able to recognize and react
to a student’s emotional needs while going through a difficult disciplinary process.
90
5.3 Results
University judicial officers report a strong indication that all constructs of
emotional intelligence are important. In the following sections, the individual groups
(Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Adaptability, Stress Management and General Mood)
recognized in the research study will be explained using the constructs of emotional
intelligence that were reported as important by university judicial officers. The mean
score for the individual questions can be found in Appendix 4.
5.3.1 Intrapersonal Group Findings
The Intrapersonal concept consists of constructs that address a university judicial
officer’s internal self-awareness and self-management issues. In paralleling the
constructs of emotional intelligence and the ratings of those constructs as reported by
university judicial officers, a high rating in the Intrapersonal grouping implies that
university judicial officers believe that it is important to be in touch with their feelings,
feel good about themselves, and present a positive outlook. A rating of importance
suggests that the judicial officer accepts and respects him or herself and has an overall
good sense of self. A high score would also reflect that it is important for a university
judicial officer to express their feelings during the process of the disciplinary proceedings
and to allow the student to express their feelings too.
University judicial officers report that it is important to be in touch with their
feelings and emotions during the judicial process. It is also important to recognize how
they are feeing during the process, and to understand why they feel like they do during the
disciplinary process. The university judicial officers also report that it is important to
recognize and understand why students feel the way they do during the process as well.
91
University judicial officers also report that it is important to be able to express
ideas and to challenge the thinking process while involved in the disciplinary process.
They rate that it is important to be able to make their own decisions regarding disciplinary
situations and outcomes and to also have the ability to understand why they make those
decisions when interacting with students during the disciplinary process. University
judicial officers report that it is important to be able to feel that they have accomplished
goals and to be more of a leader than a follower as a university judicial officer.
5.3.2 Interpersonal Group Findings
The Interpersonal concept relates to the interpersonal relations of a university
judicial officer and their social interactions with others. A high rating in the Interpersonal
grouping would reflect that university judicial officers believe that it is important to be
responsible and dependable individuals that have good social skills. These are skills that
are frequently used to understand, interact with and relate to students during the
disciplinary process. A high rating would reflect a belief in the need for awareness and
appreciation of the feelings of the students involved in the process. The university
judicial officers believe that it is important to be sensitive to students feelings and to
understand why the students feel the way they do during the disciplinary process. A high
rating in the Interpersonal grouping would also reflect that university judicial officers
think that it is important to be constructive, responsible and dependable while interacting
with students along the same line as following the ethical principles of student affairs
professionals established by the American College Personnel Association (Kitchener,
1985). They would genuinely like to help students and strive to understand the way that a
student may feel while going through the disciplinary process. The genuine caring would
92
be reflected in the university judicial officers behavior while attending to a student
involved in the process.
The only question in the Interpersonal grouping that rated less than somewhat
important was; how important is it to have a close relationship with students involved in
the process? The mean rating for this question reflected that university judicial officers
consider it neither important nor unimportant to develop a close relationship with a
student involved in the process.
5.3.3 Adaptability Group Findings
The Adaptability concept relates to how a university judicial officer works through
changing situations while maneuvering through the disciplinary process with students. In
paralleling the constructs of emotional intelligence and the ratings in the Adaptability
group as reported by university judicial officers, a high rating would reflect that the
university judicial officer believes that it is important to be flexible, realistic and effective
in understanding problematic situations. These characteristics assist in the university
judicial officer’s ability to be competent in arriving at adequate solutions while involved
in the disciplinary process. University judicial officers who rate Adaptability high would
believe that it is important to find good ways of dealing with everyday difficulties that are
valuable to daily living and normal functioning. They would believe that it is important
to be able to evaluate the correspondence between what they actually experience and what
in reality actually exists.
A high rating in the Adaptability grouping would also reflect that a university
judicial officer thinks that it is important be realistic, well grounded and in sync with the
campus environment. They would believe that it is important to be able to size up a
93
situation, and also to be able to adjust their emotions, thoughts and behaviors to these
changing situations and conditions. University judicial officers would also consider that it
is important to be good at recognizing and defining problems as well as generating and
implementing potentially effective solutions. A high rating in the Adaptability grouping
would reflect that university judicial officer’s believe that it is important to be a problem
solver rather than a problem avoider. They would conduct hearings following a
systematic process, which would assist in overcoming difficult situations during the
disciplinary process.
The university judicial officers rated that it is also important to be focused on the
situation at hand to try to view the situation as it really is during the disciplinary process.
Gathering the necessary information prior to assessing the situation before making
decisions, considering all available information to get an overview of the students
situation and integrate new information presented to make the best decision when
problem solving. University judicial officers that rate the Adaptability group high would
also consider it important to be able to think outside of the box and to take many different
approaches when handling disciplinary situations.
5.3.4 Stress Management Group Findings
The Stress Management concept centers on the importance of a university judicial
officer to be able handle the everyday stress that may be reflected while working in the
capacity of a disciplinarian in a higher education setting. A high rating in the Stress
Management group would reflect that a university judicial officer believes that it is
important to be able to withstand stress without falling apart or losing control during the
disciplinary process. They would also consider it important to remain generally calm, to
94
work well under pressure, and to be effective at handling stress under anxiety producing
conditions or conditions that provoke an element of danger during the disciplinary
process. This effectiveness would allow them to withstand stressful events and situations
and to be able to cope with this stress and respond positively. A high rating in Stress
Management would also reflect that the university judicial officer believes it would be
important for them to not become impatient or agitated during the disciplinary process
and to effectively allow the student as much time as they need to manage the process.
5.3.5 General Mood Group Findings
General Mood concept was structured to reflect the optimism and happiness of
university judicial officers. In comparison to the constructs of emotional intelligence and
the ratings of the General Mood group as reported by university judicial officers, an
individual’s ability to enjoy life as well as having a positive outlook on life and
experiencing an overall feeling of contentment is rated as important. A high rating of the
General Mood grouping would reflect that an individual believes that while acting in the
role of a university judicial officer, it is important to be cheerful, positive, hopeful and/or
optimistic while involved in the disciplinary process. A high rating would also reflect that
a university judicial officer believes that these characteristics are essential for interaction
with others and would be considered a motivational component in problem solving and
stress tolerance.
Judicial officers report that they believe that it is important to look at the brighter
side of things and to maintain a positive attitude while interacting with students involved
in disciplinary situations. Confidence in themselves and organizational skills are also
rated as important. Finally, university judicial officers report that it is important to
95
believe in their own ability to handle most upsetting problems during the disciplinary
process. They report that confidence plays a role in being able to suspect that they will be
successful when trying a new or different approach during the disciplinary process.
5.4 Group Differences
In examining the findings reported by the participants, the researcher found that
there was no significant difference between the ratings of the Stress Management and the
Adaptability groups.
These two groups may be similarly rated because of the necessity for a university
judicial officer to be able to be flexible not resistant to adjusting their approach to a
disciplinary incident based upon the thoughts and behaviors that are guiding the situation.
This adaptability may also play a role in the high importance rating reported by university
judicial officers to be able to be able to remain calm under pressure. Combining the
qualities of stress management and adaptability would allow a judicial officer to remain
calm and not be rattled by the process and to be able to think outside the box as they
search for different solutions as reported in the questions on the survey.
The Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and the General Mood groups were all rated
significantly different from the Adaptability and Stress Management groups, as well as
with each other (see Tables 18-21). Although close in mean rating, the Intrapersonal
group and the Interpersonal group also seem to differ in the rating as reported by
university judicial officers. This similarity in mean rating reflects that university judicial
officer’s believe that it is important to be aware of their own personal self management
issues as well as the importance to have good social skills and interactions with others.
96
This similarity in rating is also reported to reflect importance in the valuing of others and
treating others with respect as well as being true to themselves.
Whilst all five groups had mean ratings of 4.1 or higher, with the highest (Stress
Management) being rated at 4.8 and the overall mean rating of all groups being reported
as 4.5, university judicial officers report that all groups are important, yet the ratings of
the groups in comparison differ.
Table 23: Mean Rating for All Groups
Interpersonal Group 4.1
Interpersonal Group 4.2
Adaptability Group 4.7
Stress Management Group 4.8
General Mood Group 4.4
All Groups 4.5
5.5 Implications for Research and Practice
There are several significant points to be drawn from this research study. The
first is that the university judicial officer’s rate the constructs of emotional intelligence as
important while performing their responsibilities effectively and with fundamental
fairness. Thus, this research study has significant implications to increase the awareness
of emotional intelligence and the formative implementation of emotional intelligence into
the curriculum of higher education student affairs programs. Findings indicate that this
research study can assist in enlightening the campus community by being mindful of the
concepts of emotional intelligence and by continuing to offer emotional intelligence a
97
place in the world of academics. Further research is necessary to continue with the
exploration of university judicial officer’s ratings of emotional intelligence. Inviting
student affairs professionals, focus groups, students and faculty, and university staff into
this further research will serve as an important conduit to exposing our campuses to the
need for emotional intelligence.
5.5.1 University Judicial Officers
In this research study, university judicial officers report that it is important to be
able to identify emotion, understand emotion, manage emotion and use emotion while
involved in a university disciplinary role . It is now time to regard this research
information and consider the responses given by university judicial officers in rating the
importance of emotional intelligence to establish formative methods to educate our future
student affairs professionals so that they are provided with the skills they need to be
emotionally intelligent leaders on campuses nationwide.
Integrating emotion into an everyday practice, student affairs professionals and
university judicial officers have an obligation to make the most positive impression they
can while working with students. Educational professionals have the potential to have a
lasting influence over the students they come in contact with on a daily basis (Caruso,
Mayer & Salovey; 2002). As related to student affairs, a knowledge of emotional
intelligence can assist these professionals to facilitate these influences. The ability to
identify emotions allows the university judicial officer to accurately recognize their
emotions as well as the emotions of students involved in the process. The ability to
express those emotions accurately and to differentiate between honest and not genuine
emotions will also assist in enhancing the process for the student.
98
According to Caruso et al. (2002), a greater refinement of an individual’s personal
skills of self awareness can aid in the accurate evaluation and interpretation of emotions
when working with others. Understanding emotion may allow a university judicial
officer to recognize what is motivating a student, and therefore shape the disciplinary
meeting or process in a way that would be most beneficial for all involved. Managing
emotions will allow university judicial officers to handle the stressors associated with
facilitating a university disciplinary system. Meeting with frustrated students, talking
with inquisitive parents, and acting as a liaison between many different departments sets
up the potential for a university judicial officer to rush to judgment or make a bad
decision. Managing their own emotions and being aware and responsive to others
emotions can assist in doing what is best for everyone involved.
5.5.2 Future Curriculum development
Research states that educational institutions have traditionally focused on
curriculum development with the importance of academics and IQ in mind, with less
attention given to emotional intelligence (Tucker, Sojka, Barone, & McCarthy, 2000).
Following the latest research, institutions of higher education are now beginning to merge
intrapersonal and interpersonal competencies into their curriculum. Research by Tucker
et al. (2000) demonstrates that incorporating emotional intelligence into the curriculum
through the use of experimental exercises and assessment tools could be beneficial for
our future leaders in graduate programs. A major focal point is that leaders must possess
not only theoretical knowledge, but also emotional intelligence to be successful.
Cherniss & Goleman (1998) state that emotional intelligence can be improved
through learning than along this same thought process, incorporating emotional
99
intelligence into the curriculum of graduate programs involving student affairs
professions only makes sense. Enhancing these programs to establish that university
judicial officers are deep-rooted with the constructs that the research participants have
reported to be important, would work to enhance the students that they are involved with
on a daily basis.
According to Kress et al. (2004), there are several competencies that are
frequently projected to be considered important for educators to be able to connect with
today’s college students as they progress into adulthood. Some of those competencies are
linked to constructs of emotional intelligence. In order of frequency, according to Kress
et al. (2004), the most frequently mentioned competencies are higher-rating thinking and
problem solving, interpersonal and intrapersonal communication, decision making,
effective communication, and finally self management. Similarly, some these
competencies are encompassed in the area of emotional intelligence. Therefore, if
university judicial officers become more formatively focused on developing their own
emotional intelligence, the benefits of that development, would be reaped by students
nationwide.
Sorting out the action to be taken to formulate a curriculum to develop the skills
associated with emotional intelligence can be accomplished in many ways. First and
foremost it is important to gather information from focus groups comprised of university
judicial officers, students and faculty members. The information gathered will help to
determine the focus, the priorities and the guidelines for the learning materials. It will be
important to fit or mold the curriculum to the needs of all involved in the process.
Judicial officers, faculty members and students will need input to determine the essentials
100
of the learning materials. Input from all involved would also include goals and objectives
for learning, practicing the skills and the sequence and methods of the course work. Since
many student affairs programs in higher education currently enlist coursework in student
development and counseling to some degree, the focus of a course that evolves around
the personal development of the concepts of emotional intelligence would be an effortless
integration.
5.6 Conclusions:
University judicial officers meet with students on a regular basis. They complete
team or departmental projects, share an office with others, go to staff meetings, make
campus wide presentations and act as a liaison within the campus community to others
departments and the surrounding community. This study demonstrates that the need for
the importance for emotional intelligence has been rated as important by university
judicial officers on college campuses across the nation. The skills of emotional
intelligence should continue to be encouraged in educational settings. According to
Elias, (2001), the theory of emotional intelligence directs out attention to certain
developmental strengths that should be encouraged in education. The ABC’s as Elias
refers to them; Appreciation, Belonging, Confidence, Competencies and Contributions,
are intertwined with our interdependent world (Elias, 2001). Although we assert that we
are independent; are we ever truly totally independent? Are we ever truly alone without
any type of emotional interaction?
The constructs of emotional intelligence support the strengthening of one’s ability
is to assist with understanding, managing and expressing the social and emotional aspects
of life in ways that enable the successful accomplishment of life tasks. These tasks
101
include learning, forming relationships, solving everyday problems, and adapting to the
complex demands of growth and development (Elias et al. 1997). In preparing
individuals to address these skills, a university judicial officer can embrace emotional
intelligence and emotional skills as a key component in the goals of their role as a student
affairs professional. Moreover, emotional intelligence competencies are emerging as
vital constructs of today’s educational standards. This is not surprising, given the
growing body of evidence that emotional intelligence constructs are integral to life
success (Cohen, 1999; Elias et al, 1997; Goleman 1995; Salovey and Sluyter, 1997). To
be successful in these endeavors, it is important for individuals to recognize and label
their own feelings and the feelings of others, to be able to manage those feelings so that
they can carry out essential responsibilities, build positive relationships, and be
thoughtful problem solvers and decision makers.
It would suitably serve the student affairs profession to acknowledge that
intrapersonal and interpersonal issues, an individual’s emotional adaptability, stress
management skills and finally their overall general mood should be considered and
incorporated in student affairs programs in higher education to instruct and further
develop our future campus professionals. Although educators usually agree on the
importance of these concepts, labeling them as emotional intelligence has not yet reached
a place of comfort. As the basic and essential elements are agreed upon regardless of the
label, institutes of higher education need to continue to assure that these concepts are
implemented into educational programs extending beyond staff development workshops
and basic introductory coursework.
102
Finally, according Bencivenga & Elias, “visionary leaders look at education in the
21st century with a new definition of excellence” (2003, p. 60). Educators must extend
outside academic success, and embrace the goals of life success. We must entrust
ourselves to become dynamic in exploring our own emotional intelligence so that we can
aspire to assist the students on our college campuses in becoming all that they can be.
When we connect general intelligence with emotional intelligence, we create a positive
learning environment not only for our students, but for ourselves as well. As reflected in
this research study, university judicial officers report that the constructs of emotional
intelligence are important therefore, when we practice these constructs of emotional
intelligence we can exercise a supportive relationship with our colleagues, with our
students and hopefully with how our students relate with one another.
Clearly, there is much more research that needs to be conducted concerning the
connection between emotional intelligence and student affairs programs, more
specifically judicial affairs professionals.
103
List of References
AbiSamra, Nada (2000). The relationship between emotional intelligence and academic achievement in eleventh graders. Unpublished manuscript, Auburn University at Montgomery.
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice
Hall. Antoniotti, W. (2001). Statistics. Brookfield, Connecticut: Twenty-First Century
Books. Antonius, R. (2003). Interpreting quantitative data with SPSS. London: Sage
Publications. Ardaiolo, F. P. (1983). What is due process? In M. J. Barr (Ed.) New directions for
student services: Student affairs and the law. (p. 13-26). New York, NY: Jossey- Bass Publishers.
Ariely, D. & Zakay, D. (2001). A timely account of the role of duration in decision-
making. Acta Psychologica. V. 108, I. 2, September 2001 (p.187-207). Baggett, L.K., Sutarso, P., Sutarso, T., Tapia, M. (1996). The effect of gender and GPA
on emotional intelligence. (Report No. TM0263). Washington, DC: Eric Clearinghouse on Higher Education Washington DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 406 410).
Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the emotional
quotient inventory. In R. Bar-On & J.D. Parker (Eds.) The handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory and practice of development, evaluation, education, and implementation at home, school, and in the workplace (pp. 363 - 388). New York, NY: Jossey Bass.
Bar-On, R. (2001). Emotional Intelligence and Self Actualization. In C. Ciarrochi, J.P.
Forgas, and J.D. Mayer (Eds.) Emotional intelligence and everyday life: An introduction. (pp.82 - 97). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Bar-On, R (2002). Bar-On EQ-i BarOn emotional quotient inventory: A measure of
emotional intelligence. North Tonawanda, New York: Multi-Health Systems Inc. Bar-On, R (2002). Bar-On EQ-i BarOn emotional quotient inventory: Short. North
Tonawanda, New York: Multi-Health Systems Inc. Bar-On, R. (2005). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence. In P. Fernandez-
Berrocal and N. Extremera (Guest Editors), Special Issue on Emotional Intelligence. Psicothema, 17.
104
Bencivenga, A.S., Elias, M.J. (2003). Leading schools of excellence in academics,
character, and social emotional development. National Association of Secondary School Principles. NASSP Bulletin. Reston: December. Vol. 87, Issue 637; pgs. 60 – 73.
Bernet, M. (1996). Emotional intelligence: Components and correlates. (Report No.
CG027298). Washington, DC: Eric Clearinghouse on Higher Education Washington DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 408 535).
Bliming, G.S., & Alschuler, A.S. (1996). Creating a home for the spirit of learning:
Contributions of student development educators. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 203-215.
Bluman, A.G. (1992) Elementary statistics: A step by step approach. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Publishers.
Bradshaw v. Rawlings, 612 F.2d 135 (3rd Cir. 1979). United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit. Bradshaw, Donald; Cuneo, Alfred and Cuneo, Carole, Appellants, No. 79-1409, v. Bruce D. Rawlings, Gilbert D. Rawlings, Borough of Doylestown, Pennsylvania, Delaware Valley College, Marjorie E. Moyer, t/a Sunny Beverages, Maennerchor Society, Saab Motor Company, (four cases).
Brown, B.L. (1999). Emotional intelligence: Keeping your job. Trends and issues.
(Report No. CE079312). Washington, DC: Eric Clearinghouse on Higher Education Washington DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 435 041)
Brualdi, A. C. (1996). Multiple intelligences: Gardner’s Theory. (Report No.
ED410226). Washington, DC: Eric Clearinghouse on Higher Education Washington DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 410 226).
Burgess, Z., Palmer, P., Stough, C., Walls, M. (2001). Emotional intelligence and
effective leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22, 1, 5-10.
Cantor, N., & Kihlstrom, J.F. (1987). Personality and social intelligence. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Caruso, D.R., Mayer, J.D., Perkins, D.M., Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence
meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, v27, n4, 267-294. Cherniss, C. (2000, April). Emotional intelligence: What it is and why it matters. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
105
Chickering, A. & Reisser, L., (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Ciarrochi, J. P., Chan, A., Caputi, P. Roberts, R. (2001). Measuring Emotional
Intelligence. In C. Ciarrochi, J.P. Forgas, and J.D. Mayer (Eds.) Emotional intelligence and everyday life: An introduction. (pp.25 - 45). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Caruso, D.R., Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. (2002). Emotional intelligence and emotional leadership. In R.E. Riggo, S.E. Murphy, F.J. Pirozzolo (Eds.) Multiple intelligences and leadership. (pp.55-74). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Clawson, J. G. (1999). Rating three leadership: Getting below the surface. Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Creswell, J.W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creative Research Systems (2002). Sample size calculator found at
http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm. Dannells, M. (1997). From discipline to development: Rethinking student conduct in
higher education. (Report No. BBB32577). Washington, DC: Eric Clearinghouse on Higher Education Washington DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 408 919)
Delworth, U. Hanson, G.R. and Associates (1989). Student services: A handbook for the
profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961). Doyle, J.A. (2004). Where have we come from and where are we going? A review of
past student affairs philosophies and an analysis of the current student learning philosophy. Journal of College Student Development, 24, Issue 1, 68-86.
Dulewicz, V. & Higgs, M. (2000). Emotional intelligence- A review and evaluation
study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 4, 341-372. Ebbs, S.L. & Wilcox, J. R. (1992). The leadership compass: Values and ethics in higher
education. (Report No. BBB27915). Washington, DC: Eric Clearinghouse on Higher Education Washington DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 350 970).
Elias, M.J., Zins, J.E., Weissberg, R.P., Frey, K.S., Greenberg, M.T., Haynes, N.M.,
Kessler, R., Schwab-Stone, M.E., Shriver, T.P. (1997). Promoting Social and
106
Emotional Learning: Guidelines for Educators. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Virginia.
Elias, M. J. (2001). Easing transitions with social-emotional learning. Principal
Leadership. Reston: March 2001 Vol. 1, Issue 7; Pgs. 20-26. Epstein, R. (1999, July). The key to our emotions. Psychology Today (1999, July). Esteban v. Central Missouri State College, 415 F.2d 1077 (8th Cir. 1969). Finegan, J.E. (1998). Measuring emotional intelligence: Where we are today. (Report
No. TM029315). Washington, DC: Eric Clearinghouse on Higher Education Washington DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 426 087).
Fitz-Gibbon, C.T. and Morris, L.L. (1978). How calculate statistics. London: Sage
Publications. Fitz-Gibbon, C.T. and Morris, L.L. (1987). How to analyze data. London: Sage
Publications. Ford-Martin, P. (2001). Emotional intelligence. Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology,
2001. Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds. New York: Basic. Gardner, H. (1995). Leading minds. New York: Basic. Geher, G., Warner, R.M., Brown, A.S. (2001). Predictive validity of the emotional
accuracy research scale. Intelligence, Nov. 2001, v29, i5, 373-391. Gehring, D.D. (1998). What does the future hold for student judicial affairs? In B.G.
Paterson & W.L. Kibler (Eds.). The administration of campus discipline: student, organizational and community issues (pp. 255-267). Ashville, NC: College Administration Publications, Inc.
George, D. & Mallery, P. (2001). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and
reference, 10.0 update. Needhan Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Giorgios, C & Johnson, N. (2001). Creativity. The Reading Teacher, v54, n6, 632-640. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.
107
Goleman, D., (2001A). Emotional intelligence: Issues in paradigm building. In C Cherniss & D Goleman (Eds.). The emotionally intelligent workplace ( pp. 13-26). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Goleman, D., (2001B). An EI-Based theory of performance. In C Cherniss & D
Goleman (Eds.). The emotionally intelligent workplace (pp. 27-44). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Hall, L.K. & Torrance E.P. (1980). Assessing further reaches of creative potential.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 1980, v14, n1, 1-19. Hays, W.L. (1994). Statistics. 5th Edition. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. Hedrick, T. E., Bickman, L., & Rog, D. J. (1993). Applied research design: A practical
guide (Applied Social Research Methods Series Vol. 32). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
High, R. (2000). Computing news. Retrieved May 7, 2005, from
http://cc.uoregon.edu/cnews/spring2000/outliers.html Hoekema, D. A. (1996). College life in america: Historical context and legal issues. In
W. L. Mercer (Ed.) New directions for student services: Critical issues in judicial affairs: Current trends in practice. (p. 3-18). New York, NY: Jossey- Bass Publishers.
Hopkins, W. G. (2000). A new view of statistics. Retrieved June 8, 2004, from
http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/ttest.html. Howitt, D. and Cramer, D. (2000). First steps in research and statistics: A practical
workbook for psychology students. Great Britain; TJ International Ltd. Kirk, R.E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavior sciences. 3rd
Edition. Pacific Grove CA: Brookes/Cole. Kitchener, K.S. (1985). Ethical principles and decisions in student affairs. In H.J. Canon
and R.D. Brown (Eds.) Applied ethics in student services (pps. 17-20). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Publishers.
Keniston, K. (1971). Youth and dissent. New Yourk: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Kress, J.S., Norris, J.A., Schoenholtz, D.A., Elias, M.J., Seigle, P. (2004) Bringing
together educational standards and social and emotional learning: making the case for educators. American Journal of Education. Chicago: November 2004. Vol. 111, Issue 1; pgs. 68 – 90.
108
Lantieri, L. (2001) Why we need schools with heart and soul: Reclaiming children and youth, Vol. 10, no. 1 (2001): 1-3.
Levinson, M.H. (1997). Mapping creativity with a capital “C”. ETC.: A review of
general semantics, v54, n4, 447-454. Lindman, H.R. (1992). Analysis of variance in experimental design. New York:
Springer-Verlag. Langley, A. (2000). Emotional intelligence: A new evaluation for management
development. Career Development International, 5, 3, 177-183. Mayer, J.D., & Geher, G. (1996). Emotional Intelligence and the identification of
emotion. Intelligence, 22, 89-113. Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional
standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27, pp.267-298. Mayer, J.D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is Emotional Intelligence? In P. Salovey & D.J.
Sluyter (Eds.) Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence. New York: Basic Books.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Emotional intelligence as a zeitgeist,
as personality, and as a mental ability. In R. Bar-On & J.D. Parker (Eds.) The handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory and practice of development, evaluation, education, and implementation at home, school, and in the workplace (pp. 92 - 117). New York, NY: Jossey Bass.
Mayer, J. D. (2001). A Field Guide to Emotional Intelligence. In C. Ciarrochi, J.P.
Forgas, and J.D. Mayer (Eds.) Emotional intelligence and everyday life: An introduction. (pp.3 - 24). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R., Sitarenios, G. (2001). Emotional intelligence
as a standard intelligence. Emotion, 1, 232-242. Mayer, J.D., Perkins, D.M., Caruso, D.R., Salovey, P. (2001). Emotional intelligence
and giftedness. Roeper Review, 2001, 23, 3, 131-149. McDowelle, J.O. & Bell, E.D., (2000). Emotional intelligence and educational
leadership. In Toward the year 2000: Leadership quality for schools – 1998 NCPEA Yearbook (pp. 190-195). East Carolina University.
Mitchell, M. and Jolley J. (2000). Research design explained. Fort Worth, Texas:
Harcourt College Publishers.
109
Morgan, G.A. & Griego, O.V. (1998). Easy use and interpretation of spss for windows: Answering research questions with statistics. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nunnally, J.C. & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Inc. Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (2004). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-
Hill, Inc. Olson, M. & Mitter, M. (1996). Dealing with difference: Competing cultures, singular codes. In W. L. Mercer (Ed.) New directions for student services: Critical issues in judicial affairs: Current trends in practice. (p. 89 – 98). New York, NY: Jossey- Bass Publishers.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2000). The transition from childhood giftedness to adult creative
productiveness: Psychological characteristics and social support. Roeper Review, v23, n2, 65-71.
Parker, C.A., Knefelkamo, L., and Widick, C. (1978). New directions for student
services: Applying new developmental findings. Washington: Jossey_Bass Inc. Pfeiffer, S.I. (2001). Emotional Intelligence: Popular but elusive construct. Roeper
Review, 23, n3, 138-142. Reiff, H.B., Hates, N.M. Bramel, M.H. (2001). The relation of LD and gender with
emotional intelligence in college students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, v34, n1, 66-78.
Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college and university: A history. Athens: The
University of Georgia Press. Rutherford, A. (2001). Introducing ANOVA and ANCOVA: A glm approach. London:
Sage Publications. Sahai, H & Ageel, M.I. (2000). The analysis of variance: Fixed, random and mixed
models. Boston: Birkhäuser. Salovey, P. & Mayer, J. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, cognition, and
personality, 9 (3), 185-211. Salovey, P. & Sluyter, D. J. (Eds.). (1997). Emotional Development and Emotional
Intelligence. New York: Basic Books. Sanford, N. (1962). The American college. New York: Wiley. Schloss, P.J. & Smith, M.A. (1999). Conducting research. Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
110
Schwartz, R. A. (2001). The disappearing deans of men—where they went and why: A
historical perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American research association. Washington, DC: Eric Clearinghouse on Higher Education Washington DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 454 787).
Sims, R. L. (2000). Bivariate data analysis: A practical guide. Huntington, New York:
Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Smith, D. B. (1994). Student discipline in American colleges and universities: A
historical overview. Educational Horizons, 72(2), 78-85. Stevens, E. (1999). Due process and higher education: A systemic approach to fair
decision making. (Report No. BBB32577). Washington, DC: Eric Clearinghouse on Higher Education Washington DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 435 311).
Stoner, E. N., II and Cerminara, K. L. (1990). Harnessing the spirit of insubordination: A
model student disciplinary code. Journal of college and university law. 17 (2), (p. 89 – 121).
Stoner, E. (1998). A model code for student discipline. In B.G. Paterson & W.L. Kibler
(Eds.). The administration of campus discipline: student, organizational and community issues (pp. 3-42). Ashville, NC: College Administration Publications, Inc.
Travelstead, W. W. (1997). Introduction and historical context. In R. Caruso and W.
Travelstead (Eds.) New directions for student services: Enhancing campus judicial systems. (p. 3-16). New York, NY: Jossey- Bass Publishers.
Tucker, M.L., Sojka, J.Z., Barone, F.J., McCarthy, A.M. (2000). Training tomorrow’s
leaders: Enhancing the emotional intelligence of business graduates. Journal of Education for Business. Washington: July/August 2000. Vol.75, Issue 6; pgs. 331-338.
Wechsler, D. (1958). The measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence (4th ed.).
Baltimore, MD: The Williams & Wilkins Company. Weiss, R.P. (2000). Promoting emotional intelligence in organizations: Making training
in emotional intelligence effective. Training and Development (2000, August). Weirsma, W. (2000). Research methods in education: An introduction. Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon A Pearson Education Company. Wilcox, R.R. (1998). How many discoveries have been lost by ignoring modern
statistical methods? American Psychologist, 53,300-314.
111
Wilson, J. M. (1996). Processes for resolving student disciplinary matters. In W. L.
Mercer (Ed.) New directions for student services: Critical issues in judicial affairs: Current trends in practice. (p. 33-52). New York, NY: Jossey- Bass Publishers.
Yu, C. H. (2001). An introduction to computing and interpreting Cronbach Coefficient
Alpha in SAS. Proceedings of 26th SAS User Group International Conference [CD-ROM], Paper 26.
Zirkel, S. (2000). Social intelligence: The development and maintenance of purposive
behavior. In R. Bar-On & J.D.A. Parker (Eds.) The handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory and practice of development, evaluation, education, and implementation at home, school, and in the workplace. New York, NY: Jossey Bass.
112
APPENDIX 1: Research Survey Instrument
Self - Reported Beliefs about Emotional Intelligence
The following is a request for participation in a research survey titled "A Study of the Need for Emotional Intelligence in University Judicial Officers". This research will examine your self -reported beliefs concerning emotional intelligence as a university judicial officer in higher education. The information gathered from this research will remain confidential and the submission will be anonymous. The researcher has taken the precautions to secure the data on a secured server protected by a firewall.
The following survey instrument will ask you about your beliefs associated with emotions or emotional situations in relation to your position as a university judicial officer. The selection response for each question varies in the amount of the importance that this question would have only in relation to your job as a university judicial officer. The 45 question survey should take approximately 10 minutes to complete.
If you wish to participate in this research survey please click the link below that will direct you to the survey. If you do not wish to participate in this survey please click the link that will take you to the ASJA Home Page.
Thank you for your time.
I wish to participate in the research survey.
ASJA Home Page.
113
APPENDIX 1: Research Survey Instrument (Cont.)
Self - Reported Beliefs about Emotional Intelligence
Please fill in the following information before continuing.
Job Title :
Years with a primary responsibility in Judicial Affairs: Please Select
Highest Degree Completed: Please Select
Age Range: Please Select
Institution Type: Please Select
Institution Size: Please Select
Gender: Please Select
Ethnicity: Please Select
Directions: Each of the following items asks you about your belief associated with emotions or emotional situations. After deciding the personal importance of each question for you, use the scale listed with each question to respond to the statement. For example, please select the box labelled “Very Important” if you feel that the statement is personally “very important” in your work as a university judicial officer. The selection for each question varies in the amount of the importance that this question would have only in relation to your job as a university judicial officer.
There are no right or wrong answers. Please give the response that best describes how you feel.
The answers to choose from are as follows: • Very Important • Somewhat Important • Slightly Important • Neither Important or Unimportant • Not at all important
114
APPENDIX 1: Research Survey Instrument (Cont.)
AS A UNIVERSITY JUDICIAL OFFICER HOW IMPORTANT IS IT:
1. To be a fairly cheerful person in general? Please Select
2. To like helping students? Please Select
3. To be able to express your ideas to others while involved in the disciplinary process?
Please Select
4. To be able to control your own anger during the disciplinary process?
Please Select
5. To move step by step to overcome difficult situations during the disciplinary process?
Please Select
6. To feel sure of yourself and confident while managing the disciplinary process?
Please Select
7. To understand the way students are feeling during the disciplinary process?
Please Select
8. To be able to make your own decisions regarding disciplinary situations and outcomes?
Please Select
9. To be able to control your impulsiveness so that it does not cause problems during the disciplinary process?
Please Select
10. To try and see things as they really are during the disciplinary process?
Please Select
11. To be able to stay on top of important situations during the disciplinary process?
Please Select
12. To be able to appropriately comprehend the way students feel during the disciplinary process?
Please Select
13. To be able to understand the way you feel when interacting with students during the disciplinary process?
Please Select
14. To be able to control your anxiety during the disciplinary process?
Please Select
115
APPENDIX 1: Research Survey Instrument (Cont.)
15. To be able to collect all the information you can about a difficult situation during the disciplinary process?
Please Select
16. To be optimistic about conducting the student disciplinary process?
Please Select
17. That your students can tell you personal things about themselves during the disciplinary process?
Please Select
18. To be able to feel that you have accomplished goals in the past few years in the area of Judicial Affairs?
Please Select
19. To be able to control your own anger during the judicial process?
Please Select
20. To get an overview of a disciplinary situation before trying to resolve it?
Please Select
21. To care what happens to the student involved in the disciplinary process
Please Select
22. To be able to enjoy your professional life? Please Select
23. To be able to make decisions on your own concerning the disciplinary process and outcomes?
Please Select
24. To be able to control your own strong impulses during the disciplinary process?
Please Select
25. To be able to stop and think before facing a problem while engaged in the disciplinary process?
Please Select
26. To be satisfied with your professional life? Please Select 27. To have close relationships with students involved in the disciplinary process?
Please Select
28. To be able to express your feelings and concerns to students during the disciplinary process?
Please Select
29. To not be impulsive during the disciplinary process? Please Select
30. To be able to look at all of the possibilities and then decide the best solution when solving a problem?
Please Select
31. To not get personally disheartened or sad during the disciplinary process?
Please Select
116
APPENDIX 1: Research Survey Instrument (Cont.)
32. To be able to respect the students involved in the disciplinary process?
Please Select
33. To be more of a leader rather than a follower? Please Select
34. To not have a bad temper during the disciplinary process? Please Select
35. To think of many approaches when handling disciplinary situations?
Please Select
36. To be able to generally expect that things will turn out alright, despite set backs from time to time during the disciplinary process?
Please Select
37. To be sensitive to the feelings of students involved in the disciplinary process?
Please Select
38. To feel that others do not think that you lack assertiveness during the disciplinary process?
Please Select
39. To not be impatient during the disciplinary process? Please Select
40. To believe in your ability to handle most upsetting problems during the disciplinary process?
Please Select
41. To have good relations with colleagues? Please Select
42. To be able to describe your feelings during a disciplinary process?
Please Select
43. To feel as if you will be successful when trying a new or different approach during the disciplinary process?
Please Select
44. To stand up for your rights as a University Judicial Officer? Please Select
45. For students involved in the disciplinary process to think that you are friendly?
Please Select
Please click the submit button to finish - Copyright © 2003 [Dissertation Survey].
All rights reserved. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THIS SURVEY!
Submit Form
Reset Form
117
APPENDIX 2: Pilot Study Participant Demographics
Demographics of Participants Pilot Survey
Years in Judicial Affairs Rating of Education Age
1-3 years 3 21.42% J.D. 0 0.00% <25 0 0.00%
4-6 years 2 14.28% Associate 0 0.00% 26-35 7 50.00%
7-10 years 3 21.42% Bachelors 0 0.00% 36-45 3 21.42%
11-15 years 3 21.42% Masters 9 64.28% 46-55 1 7.14%
16+ years 3 21.42% Doctoral 5 35.71% 56-65 3 21.44%
N/S 0 0.00% Other 0 0.00% >65 0 0.00%
14 99.96% N/S 0 0.00% N/S 0 0.00%
14 100.00% 14 100.00%
Institution Institution Size Gender
Private 6 42.85% <1,000 2 14.28% males 7
Public 7 50.00% 1,001-5,000 2 14.28% females 7
Com. College 0 0.00% 5,001-10,000 2 14.28% 14
other 1 7.14% 10,001-15,000 1 7.14%
N/S 0 0.00% >15,000 5 35.71%
14 100.00% N/S 2 0.00%
14 100.00%
118
APPENDIX 3: Pilot Study Results
Pilot Study Cronbach Alpha Reliability Coefficients
Survey Groups
Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items
N of Items
Items removed for zero variance
General Mood (GM)
.705
9
1 - #11
Interpersonal (IEP)
.809
9
1 - #7
Intrapersonal (IAP)
.800
10
0
Self Management (SM)
.719
7
1 - #4
Adaptability (AD)
.601
7
0
ALL Groups
.919
5
0
Pilot Study Summary statistics
Mean Minimum Maximum Range Maximum/ Minimum Variance
N of Groups
Item Means 40.171 33.071 45.857 12.786 1.387 29.598 5
Item Variances 14.376 3.610 32.901 29.291 9.114 120.347 5
Inter-Item Covariances 8.628 4.495 18.604 14.110 4.139 23.695 5
Inter-Item Correlations .693 .360 .900 .540 2.500 .033 5
The covariance matrix is calculated and used in the analysis.
119
APPENDIX 3: Pilot Study Results (Cont.) Pilot Study Intrapersonal Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items
N of Items
.754 .800 9 Pilot Study Intrapersonal Question Item Analysis
Scale Mean if Item is deleted
Scale variance if Item is deleted
Corrected Item-Total correlation
Squared Multiple
Correlation
Alpha if Item Deleted
Q3 36.29 27.297 .479 .548 .769 Q8 36.79 24.489 .639 .704 .744
Q13 36.79 26.797 .385 .665 .770 Q18 36.71 26.989 .459 .729 .768
Q23 36.93 23.302 .590 .641 .743 Q28 37.43 28.110 .045 .303 .813 Q33 37.21 19.258 .719 .785 .716
Q38 37.50 21.038 .550 .814 .750 Q42 36.86 27.055 .158 .647 .798
Q44 37.14 21.363 .787 .848 .713 ALPHA = .800
120
APPENDIX 3: Pilot Study Results (Cont.)
Pilot Study Interpersonal Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items
N of Items
.754 .809 9 Pilot Study Interpersonal Question Item Analysis
Scale Mean if Item is deleted
Scale variance if Item is deleted
Corrected Item-Total correlation
Squared Multiple
Correlation
Alpha if Item Deleted
Q2 35.43 11.341 .766 .935 .705
Q12 35.29 13.758 -.055 .762 .773
Q17 35.86 12.132 .150 .365 .784
Q21 35.50 10.885 .845 .903 .691
Q27 36.86 8.440 .450 .845 .772
Q32 35.64 11.324 .617 .916 .713
Q37 35.57 11.802 .489 .885 .729
Q41 35.57 11.033 .739 .915 .700
Q45 36.00 9.846 .549 .880 .710
ALPHA = .809
121
APPENDIX 3: Pilot Study Results (Cont.)
Pilot Study Adaptability Reliability Statistics – All Original Questions
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items
N of Items
.614 .601 7
Pilot Study Adaptability Question Item Analysis – All Original Questions
Scale Mean if Item is deleted
Scale variance if Item is deleted
Corrected Item-Total correlation
Squared Multiple
Correlation
Alpha if Item Deleted
Q5 26.86 10.132 .228 .937 .742
Q10 27.21 6.951 .657 .845 .643 Q15 26.64 10.709 .144 .900 .750 Q22 27.00 9.231 .493 .867 .703
Q25 27.36 7.324 .523 .932 .686 Q30 26.79 8.797 .554 .862 .688
Q35 27.57 6.110 .608 .925 .669 ALPHA = .601
122
APPENDIX 3: Pilot Study Results (Cont.)
Pilot Study Stress Management Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items
N of Items
.734 .719 7
Pilot Study Stress Management Question Item Analysis
Scale Mean if Item is deleted
Scale variance if Item is deleted
Corrected Item-Total correlation
Squared Multiple
Correlation
Alpha if Item Deleted
Q9 26.86 10.132 .228 .937 .742
Q14 27.21 6.951 .657 .845 .643
Q19 26.64 10.709 .144 .900 .750
Q24 27.00 9.231 .493 .867 .703
Q29 27.36 7.324 .523 .932 .686
Q34 26.79 8.797 .554 .862 .688
Q39 27.57 6.110 .608 .925 .669
ALPHA = .719
123
APPENDIX 3: Pilot Study Results (Cont.) Pilot Study General Mood Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items
N of Items
.640 .705 9
Pilot Study General Mood Question Item Analysis
Scale Mean if Item is deleted
Scale variance if Item is deleted
Corrected Item-Total correlation
Squared Multiple
Correlation
Alpha if Item Deleted
Q1 35.71 8.835 .349 .857 .606 Q6 35.36 9.786 .235 .703 .630
Q16 35.71 8.527 .601 .953 .566 Q22 35.50 8.885 .493 .971 .587 Q26 35.43 8.879 .535 .960 .583 Q31 35.93 8.071 .340 .689 .608 Q36 35.71 9.297 .223 .924 .632 Q40 35.71 8.527 .270 .891 .627 Q43 36.07 7.918 .214 .850 .671
ALPHA = .705
124
APPENDIX 3: Pilot Study Results (Cont.)
Pilot Study Adaptability Reliability Statistics after removing questions 25 and 30
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items
N of Items
.692 .706 5
Pilot Study Adaptability Question Item Analysis after removing questions 25 and 30
Scale Mean if Item is deleted
Scale variance if Item is deleted
Corrected Item-Total correlation
Squared Multiple Correlation
Alpha if Item Deleted
Q5 19.00 1.538 .667 .808 .524
Q10 18.64 2.401 .449 .613 .653
Q15 18.71 2.220 .280 .747 .719
Q20 18.79 2.027 .593 .630 .585
Q35 18.86 2.286 .336 .461 .686
ALPHA = .706
125
APPENDIX 3: Pilot Study Results (Cont.)
Pilot Study All Reliability Statistics for 5 Scale Composition Groups
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items
N of groups
.882 .919 5
Pilot Study All Scale Composition Group Analysis
Scale Mean if Item is deleted
Scale variance if Item is deleted
Corrected Item-Total correlation
Squared Multiple
Correlation
Alpha if Item Deleted
SumGM 155.93 147.610 .957 .931 .801
SumIEP 160.43 159.187 .870 .814 .826
SumSM 164.29 186.835 .513 .552 .899
SumIAP 155.00 114.308 .793 .857 .879
SumAD 167.79 197.258 .816 .781 .872
ALPHA = .919
126
APPENDIX 4: Descriptive Analysis
QUESTIONS: How Important is it as a University Judicial Officer to………
Very Important
5
Somewhat Important
4
Slightly Important
3
Not Important
/Unimportant 2
Not at all Important
1
131 200 36 30 2 1. To be a fairly cheerful person in
general? 32.80% 52.10% 9% 7.50% 0.50% 378 20 2 0 0 2. To like helping students?
94.50% 5% 0.50% 0 0 319 61 8 9 3
79.80% 15.30% 2% 2.30% 0.80% 3. To be able to express your ideas to
others while involved in the disciplinary process?
373 25 2 0 0 4. To be able to control your own anger during the disciplinary process? 93.30% 6.30% 0.50% 0 0
290 97 4 7 1
5. To move step by step to overcome difficult situations during the disciplinary process? 72.70% 24.30% 1% 1.80% 0.30%
285 10 5 0 0 71.30% 27.50% 1.80% 0 0
6. To feel sure of yourself and confident while managing the disciplinary process?
266 120 12 0 0 7. To understand the way students are feeling during the disciplinary process?
65.50% 30% 3% 0 0
199 167 26 6 2 49.80% 41.80% 6.50% 1.50% 0.50%
8. To be able to make your own decisions regarding disciplinary situations and outcomes?
350 43 4 1 2 87.50% 10.80% 1% 0.30% 0.50%
9. To be able to control your impulsiveness so that it does not cause problems during the disciplinary process?
343 49 5 3 0 10. To try and see things as they really are during the disciplinary process? 85.80% 12.30% 1.30% 0.80% 0
322 69 4 1 1 80.50% 17.30% 1% 0.30% 0.30%
11. To be able to stay on top of important situations during the disciplinary process?
224 161 11 4 0 56% 40.30% 2.80% 1% 0
12. To be able to appropriately comprehend the way students feel during the disciplinary process?
226 149 19 3 1 56.50% 37.30% 4.80% 0.80% 0.30%
13. To be able to understand the way you feel when interacting with students during the disciplinary process?
242 128 21 5 3 14. To be able to control your anxiety during the disciplinary process? 60.50% 32% 5.30% 1.30% 0.80%
337 54 6 2 0 15. To be able to collect all the information you can about a difficult situation during the disciplinary process?
84.30% 13.50% 1.50% 0.50% 0
181 157 29 28 3 16. To be optimistic about conducting the student disciplinary process? 45.30% 39.30% 7.30% 7% 0.80%
127
APPENDIX 4: Descriptive Analysis (Cont.)
120 165 66 39 8 17. That your students can tell you personal things about themselves during the disciplinary process?
30% 41.30% 16.50% 9.80% 2%
167 177 41 14 0 18. To be able to feel that you have accomplished goals in the past few years in the area of Judicial Affairs?
41.80% 44.30% 10.30% 3.50% 0
362 36 2 0 0 19. To be able to control your own anger during the judicial process? 90.50% 9% 0.50% 0 0
315 73 6 3 2 20. To get an overview of a disciplinary situation before trying to resolve it? 78.80% 18.30% 1.50% 0.80% 0.50%
292 93 8 4 1 21. To care what happens to the student involved in the disciplinary process 73% 23.30% 2% 1% 0.30%
283 103 5 6 0 22. To be able to enjoy your professional life? 70.80% 25.80% 1.30% 1.50% 0
171 180 32 14 2 23. To be able to make decisions on your own concerning the disciplinary process and outcomes?
42.80% 45% 8% 3.50% 0.50%
318 69 8 2 1 24. To be able to control your own strong impulses during the disciplinary process?
79.50% 17.30% 2% 0.50% 0.30%
26. To be satisfied with your professional life?
254 63.50%
121 30.30%
13 3.30%
12 3%
0 0
23 65 92 120 0 27. To have close relationships with students involved in the disciplinary process?
5.80% 16.30% 23% 30% 0
28. To be able to express your feelings and concerns to students during the disciplinary process?
134 33.5%
159 39.8%
66 16.5%
26 6.5%
14 3.5%
29. To not be impulsive during the disciplinary process?
311 77.8%
69 17.3%
10 2.5%
4 1%
3 .8%
117 161 59 44 19 31. To not get personally disheartened or sad during the disciplinary process? 29.30% 40.30% 14.80% 11% 4.80%
288 80 12 16 2 32. To be able to respect the students involved in the disciplinary process? 72% 20% 3% 4% 0.50%
154 133 39 61 12 33. To be more of a leader rather than a follower? 38.50% 33.30% 9.80% 15.30% 3%
341 50 4 2 2 34. To not have a bad temper during the disciplinary process? 85.30% 12.50% 1% 0.50% 0.50%
248 133 12 4 3 35. To think of many approaches when handling disciplinary situations? 62% 33.30% 3% 1% 0.80%
169 182 28 17 4 36. To be able to generally expect that things will turn out alright, despite set backs from time to time during the disciplinary process?
42.30% 45.50% 7% 4.30% 1%
234 130 31 3 1 37. To be sensitive to the feelings of students involved in the disciplinary process?
58.50% 32.50% 7.80% 0.80% 0.30%
128
APPENDIX 4: Descriptive Analysis (Cont.)
89 149 62 74 25 38. To feel that others do not think that you lack assertiveness during the disciplinary process?
22.30% 37.30% 15.50% 18.50% 6.30%
239 135 21 3 2 39. To not be impatient during the disciplinary process? 59.80% 33.80% 5.30% 0.80% 0.50%
282 108 9 1 0 40. To believe in your ability to handle most upsetting problems during the disciplinary process?
70.50% 27% 2.30% 0.30% 0
239 136 16 7 2 41. To have good relations with colleagues? 59.80% 34% 4% 1.80% 0.50%
75 130 81 67 45 42. To be able to describe your feelings during a disciplinary process? 18.80% 32.50% 20.30% 16.80% 11.30%
109 217 47 24 3 27% 54.30% 11.80% 6% 0.80%
43. To feel as if you will be successful when trying a new or different approach during the disciplinary process?
211 107 31 36 14 44. To stand up for your rights as a University Judicial Officer? 52.80% 26.80% 7.80% 9% 3.50%
44 130 109 89 28 45. For students involved in the disciplinary process to think that you are friendly?
11% 32.50% 27.30% 22.30% 7%
129
APPENDIX 4: Descriptive Analysis (Cont.) Descriptive Statistics – Mean and Standard Deviation for Each Question
Mean Std. Deviation N GM1 - Q1 4.06 0.895 400 IEP1 - Q2 4.94 0.258 400 IAP1 - Q3 4.71 0.687 400 SM1 - Q4 4.93 0.278 400 AD1 - Q5 4.66 0.655 400 GM2 - Q6 4.7 0.485 400 IEP2 - Q7 4.62 0.631 400 IAP2 - Q8 4.39 0.72 400 SM2 - Q9 4.85 0.476 400 AD2 - Q10 4.83 0.46 400 GM3 - Q11 4.75 0.634 400 IEP3 - Q12 4.51 0.605 400 IAP3 - Q13 4.47 0.722 400 SM3 - Q14 4.5 0.756 400 AD3 - Q15 4.81 0.516 400 GM4 - Q16 4.2 0.957 400 IEP4 - Q17 3.86 1.048 400 IAP4 - Q18 4.24 0.804 400 SM4 - Q19 4.9 0.317 400 AD4 - Q20 4.73 0.618 400 IEP5 - Q21 4.66 0.674 400 GM5 - Q22 4.64 0.706 400 IAP5 - Q23 4.25 0.819 400 SM5 - Q24 4.74 0.628 400 GM6 - Q26 4.54 0.703 400 IEP6 - Q27 2.47 1.201 400 IAP6 - Q28 3.93 1.055 400 SM6 - Q29 4.68 0.754 400 GM7 - Q31 3.78 1.124 400 IEP7 - Q32 4.58 0.84 400 IAP7 - Q33 3.88 1.18 400 SM7 - Q34 4.81 0.562 400 AD5 - Q35 4.55 0.677 400 GM8 - Q36 4.24 0.835 400 IEP8 - Q37 4.47 0.728 400 IAP8 -Q38 3.5 1.214 400 SM8 - Q39 4.51 0.679 400 GM9 - Q40 4.68 0.528 400 IEP9 - Q41 4.51 0.704 400 IAP9 - Q42 3.29 1.287 400 GM10 - Q43 4.01 0.836 400 IAP10 - Q44 4.16 1.14 400 IEP10 - Q45 3.18 1.112 400
130
APPENDIX 5: Summary of Means for Individual Questions
Summary of Survey Questions Summary of Results
Survey Questions
“How important is it as a University judicial officer”………….
1. Total Mean 2. Total % of ratings in the - Very
Important and Somewhat Important range.
To be a fairly cheerful person in general? 1. Q1 – has a mean rating of 4.06. 2. 84.9% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To like helping students? 1. Q2 – has a mean rating of 4.94. 2. 99.5% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To be able to express your ideas to others while involved in the disciplinary process?
1. Q3 – has a mean rating of 4.71. 2. 94.1% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To be able to control your own anger during the disciplinary process?
1. Q4 – has a mean rating of 4.93. 2. 99.6% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To move step by step to overcome difficult situations during the disciplinary process?
1. Q5 – has a mean rating of 4.66 2. 97% of the participants rated this question in
the very important to somewhat important range.
To feel sure of yourself and confident while managing the disciplinary process?
1. Q6 – has a mean rating of 4.70 2. 98.8% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To understand the way students are feeling during the disciplinary process?
1. Q7 – has a mean rating of 4.62 2. 95.5% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To be able to make your own decisions regarding disciplinary situations and outcomes?
1. Q8 – has a mean rating of 4.39 2. 91.6% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To be able to control your impulsiveness so that it does not cause problems during the disciplinary process?
1. Q9 – has a mean rating of 4.85 2. 98.3% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
131
APPENDIX 5: Summary of Means for Individual Questions (Cont.)
To try and see things as they really are during the disciplinary process?
1. Q10 – has a mean rating of 4.83 2. 98.1% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To be able to stay on top of important situations during the disciplinary process?
1. Q11 – has a mean rating of 4.75 2. 97.8% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To be able to appropriately comprehend the way students feel during the disciplinary process?
1. Q12 – has a mean rating of 4.51 2. 96.3% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To be able to understand the way you feel when interacting with students during the disciplinary process?
1. Q13 – has a mean rating of 4.48 2. 93.8% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To be able to control your anxiety during the disciplinary process?
1. Q14 – has a mean rating of 4.50 2. 92.5% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To be able to collect all the information you can about a difficult situation during the disciplinary process?
1. Q15 – has a mean rating of 4.81 2. 97.8% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To be optimistic about conducting the student disciplinary process?
1. Q16 – has a mean rating of 4.20 2. 84.6% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
That your students can tell you personal things about themselves during the disciplinary process?
1. Q17 – has a mean rating of 3.86 2. 71.3% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To be able to feel that you have accomplished goals in the past few years in the area of Judicial Affairs?
1. Q18 – has a mean rating of 4.23 2. 86.2% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To be able to control your own anger during the judicial process?
1. Q19 – has a mean rating of 4.90 2. 99.5% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
132
APPENDIX 5: Summary of Means for Individual Questions
To get an overview of a disciplinary situation before trying to resolve it?
1. Q20 – has a mean rating of 4.73 2. 97.1% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To care what happens to the student involved in the disciplinary process
1. Q21 – has a mean rating of 4.66 2. 96.3% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To be able to enjoy your professional life?
1. Q22 – has a mean rating of 4.64 2. 96.6% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To be able to make decisions on your own concerning the disciplinary process and outcomes?
1. Q23 – has a mean rating of 4.25 2. 87.8% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To be able to control your own strong impulses during the disciplinary process?
1. Q24 – has a mean rating of 4.74 2. 96.8% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To be satisfied with your professional life?
1. Q26 – has a mean rating of 4.54 2. 93.8% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To have close relationships with students involved in the disciplinary process?
1. Q27 – has a mean rating of 2.47 2. 22.1% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To be able to express your feelings and concerns to students during the disciplinary process?
1. Q28 – has a mean rating of 3.93 2. 73.3% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To not be impulsive during the disciplinary process?
1. Q29 – has a mean rating of 4.68 2. 95.1% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To not get personally disheartened or sad during the disciplinary process?
1. Q31 – has a mean rating of 3.78 2. 69.6% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
133
APPENDIX 5: Summary of Means for Individual Questions
To be able to respect the students involved in the disciplinary process?
1. Q32 – has a mean rating of 4.57 2. 92% of the participants rated this question in
the very important to somewhat important range.
To be more of a leader rather than a follower?
1. Q33 – has a mean rating of 3.88 2. 71.8% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To not have a bad temper during the disciplinary process?
1. Q34 – has a mean rating of 4.81 2. 97.8% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To think of many approaches when handling disciplinary situations?
1. Q35 – has a mean rating of 4.55 2. 95.5% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To be able to generally expect that things will turn out alright, despite set backs from time to time during the disciplinary process?
1. Q36 – has a mean rating of 4.24 2. 87.8% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To be sensitive to the feelings of students involved in the disciplinary process?
1. Q37 – has a mean rating of 4.47 2. 91% of the participants rated this question in
the very important to somewhat important range.
To feel that others do not think that you lack assertiveness during the disciplinary process?
1. Q38 – has a mean rating of 3.50 2. 59.6% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To not be impatient during the disciplinary process?
1. Q39 – has a mean rating of 4.52 2. 93.6% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To believe in your ability to handle most upsetting problems during the disciplinary process?
1. Q40 – has a mean rating of 4.68 2. 97.5% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To have good relations with colleagues? 1. Q41 – has a mean rating of 4.51 2. 93.8% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
134
APPENDIX 5: Summary of Means for Individual Questions
To be able to describe your feelings during a disciplinary process?
1. Q42 – has a mean rating of 3.29 2. 51.3% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To feel as if you will be successful when trying a new or different approach during the disciplinary process?
1. Q43 – has a mean rating of 4.01 2. 81.3% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
To stand up for your rights as a university judicial officer?
1. Q44 – has a mean rating of 4.16 2. 79.6% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
For students involved in the disciplinary process to think that you are friendly?
1. Q45 – has a mean rating of 3.18 2. 43.5% of the participants rated this question
in the very important to somewhat important range.
135
APPENDIX 6: Total Mean for All Groupings
Totals Mean N Std.
Deviation Std. Error
Mean Variance % of
Total Sum
General Mood 4.4 400 .4082 .0203 .167 100%
Interpersonal 4.2 400 .4262 .0213 .182 100%
Intrapersonal 4.1 400 .5151 .0257 .265 100%
Stress Management 4.8 400 .3456 .0171 .119 100%
Adaptability 4.7 400 .3242 .0162 .105 100%
136
VITA
Candace Wannamaker, Ph.D. Director-Office of Support Services
Department of Public Safety 3201 Arch Street, Suite 350
Philadelphia, PA 19104 (215) 895-1550
EDUCATION Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA
Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Leadership and Learning Technologies 2006Dissertation: “A Study of the Need for Emotional Intelligence in University Judicial Officers”
University of Delaware, Newark, DE M.Ed. in Student Affairs Administration in Higher Education 1997
University of Delaware, Newark, DE B.A. in Physical Education and Health 1984
EXPERIENCE
Director, Office of Support Services, Drexel University 2006 - CurrentInstructor, Pennoni Honor’s College, Drexel University 2003 - CurrentAssistant Director of Investigative and Support Services, Department of Public Safety, Drexel University
2002 - 2006
Mediation Faculty Member Association for Student Judicial Affairs Gehring Institute
2002 - 2003
Assistant Dean of Students / Director of Judicial Affairs, Drexel University
1999 - 2002
Director, Student Judicial Programs, Morgan State University 1998 - 1999
Graduate Judicial Assistant - Dean of Students Office, University of Delaware
1995 - 1997
Student Development Assistant - Center for Counseling and Student Development, University of Delaware
1995 - 1997
Practicum Counselor/Alcohol Educator, Center for Counseling and Student Development, University of Delaware
1995 - 1997
Interim Coordinator for the Office of Greek Affairs - University of Delaware
1995 - 1996
RELATED EXPERIENCE Co-Chairperson Steering Committee, (VAWA) 2005 - Current
Co-Chair, ASJA Ethics Committee (1998 – 1999) 1998 - 1999
137
Student Chairperson of the Graduate Constituency of the Commission on the Status of Women (Presidential nominated position)
1995 - 1997
Published illustrations and diagrams in Applying Career Development Theory to Counseling by Dr. Richard Sharf
1997
Morgan State Junior Class Advisor
1997 – 1998
New Student Orientation
1999 - Current
Instructor – Honor’s Seminar – Ethical Decision Making
2003 - Current
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
IACLEA – International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators ASIS - American Society for Industrial Security NCHERM - National Center for Higher Education Risk Management CALCASA – California Coalition Against Sexual Assault ACPA - American College Personnel Association ASJA - Association for Student Judicial Affairs NASPA - National Association of Student Personnel Administrators CPHE - Center for Policy in Higher Education CAI – Center for Academic Integrity
PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATIONS
ASJA - The Public Safety Perspective of Judicial Affairs: How to break down the Barriers ASJA – "Substance Abuse on Campus" ASJA – "Anger Management – Addressing Anger on the College Campus" ASJA – Entering the Digital Millennium: Are we ready? – Copyright and Internet Law ASJA – “Training your University Student Judicial Board” ASJA – “Compassionate Conduct” ASJA – “Stemming the Tide of Abusive Drinking: The Delaware Plan” ASJA – “Judicial Database Management – Keeping Track Without Getting Lost” Drexel University - "What's Up With Napster? Copyright, the Internet, and You Drexel University - “Drexel’s Computer and Network Acceptable Use Policy.” Drexel University – “Academic Honesty Policies – What you Need to Know as a Student” Drexel University – “Sexual Assault and Awareness - What Student’s Need to Know” Lander University - Basic Mediation Skills Training University of Delaware - Basic and Advanced Mediation Training University of Delaware - “The Skilled Facilitator” Donald D. Gehring Institute - Basic and Advanced Mediation Training
PROFESSIONAL AWARDS
ASJA – New professional of the Year – 2000 ASJA – Winner of the Doctoral Level Case Study Competition - 2003 Morgan State University – Top Cop Award – 1999 University of Delaware – Certificate of Excellence in Student Development