Download - Bera2006_EI in G&T a Pilot Study_04.09.06
1
By:
Emotional Intelligence In
G&T: A Pilot Study
BERA Annual Meeting
Warwick University ______ September 6-9 2006
Mercedes Ferrando
(Murcia University, Spain)
Richard Bailey
(Roehampton University)
2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Emotional Intelligence and Giftedness
Assessing Emotional Intelligence in Gifted and Non-Gifted
Emotional Intelligence among Gifted Adolescents in Hong Kong
PILOT STUDY
Aims
Methodology
Sample
Instrument
Procedure
Data analysis
Results & Discussion
Conclusions
3
LITERATURE REVIEW
EI & Giftedness: Mayer, Perkins, Caruso and Salovey (2001)
Aim to study the relationship between concepts of emotional
giftedness and emotional intelligence
Sample: 11 G&T students from 13 to 17 years old Instruments:
MEIS (Multidimensional Emotional Intelligence Scale)
Procedure: Qualitative (interviews), controlling IQ and Verbal
intelligence
Results:
• The students with high emotional intelligence showed a better and
more completely organize emotions material about peer
relationships when compared to those lower in EI
• High EI resembles not only to emotional giftedness but also to the
related concept of positive maladjustment (Dabrowsi 1970)
• What EI theory added to the concept of emotional giftedness is the
operative measure
4
EI in gifted and non-gifted: Zeidner et al. (2005)
Aim examined and compared the scores of academically gifted and non-
gifted
Sample: gifted (N =83) and non-gifted (N =125) Procedure: quantitative
(SSRI, MSCEIT, IQ)
Instruments: MSCEIT (Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence
Test), SSRI (Schuttle Self Report Inventory)
Procedure: G&T were taken form gifted classes, whereas non-gifted were
taken from regular ones.
Results: Scores on EI are measure dependent (gifted score higher on
MSCEIT, but lower on SSRI)
LITERATURE REVIEW
5
EI among gifted: the Chan study
Aim relationship between EI & Social Coping strategies
Sample: 259 G&T (12 -16 years; 123 boys and 136 girls)
Instruments: SSRI (Schuttle Self Report Inventory) and Social Coping Questionnaire
Procedure: G&T students were nominated by their schools to joint the gifted program at Chinese University
Results: from highest to lowest gifted scores were: social skills; self-management of emotions, empathy, and utilization of emotions. With an overall score on SSRI of 130.96
LITERATURE REVIEW
6
Aims
To explore the emotional intelligence components in a sample of G&T pupils.
Specifically:
a) To look for a characteristic profile of G&T
b) To compare G&T profile with a non-G&T sample
To do so, two samples were tested:
A group of non-G&T pupils (N= 79, age from 12 to 15 years old) selected
randomly from a local school at Kent (U.K)
A group of 16 G&T pupils who attended to the G&T summer school held
by NAGTY at Canterbury Christ Church University during August of 2005
(from 13 to 16 years old).
7
Sample distribution
8
Intrapersonal scale
capacity to understand the individual
emotions, it is associated with awareness of
ones own feelings and positively
Interpersonal scale capacity to understand and appreciate the
emotions and feeling of others
Stress management scale capacity to work well under pressure
Adaptability scale ability to cope flexibly with everyday problems
General mood
Positive impression scale is a measure of social desirability
optimism and happiness
EQ
-i:Y
V
Instrument
9
Gifted N= 16 Non-gifted N=63
Raw scores Z scores Raw scores Z scores
MEAN SD MEAN SD MEAN SD MEAN SD
Intrapersonal 15,00 4,42 ,31 1,16 13,48 3,57 -,08 ,943
Interpersonal 41,75 4,29 ,46 ,99 39,18 4,19 -,12 ,971
Stress 34 6,36 ,19 ,97 32,44 6,62 -,04 1,009
Adaptability 32,12 4,33 1,03 ,89 25,70 4,03 -,28 ,829
Mood 42,25 8,82 -,03 1,46 42,52 5,14 ,009 ,852
Positive
Impression 13,31 2,72 -,09 ,56 13,88 5,29 ,02 1,091
EQ 60,18 6,01 ,73 ,95 54,26 5,80 -,20 ,920
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR GIFTED AND NON GIFTED STUDENTS IN EQ-i:YV
RESULTS Descriptive Statistics
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Intrapersonal Interpersonal Stress-
management
Adaptability Mood Possitive
Impression
EI all
Gifted Non-gifted
11
Non significant group-by gender interaction effect when controlling age for
each components of emotional intelligence:
Intrapersonal F(1, 64)=1.747, p=.191; interpersonal F(1, 64)= .011, p=.918; stress F(1,
64)=.890, p=.349; adaptability F(1, 64)=.460, p=.500; mood F(1, 64)=.558, p=.458; positive-
impression F(1, 64)=.003, p=.956; and EQ all F(1, 64)=.749, p=.390.
Analysis of simple effects of group showed that gifted students scored
significantly higher than non-gifted on adaptability
[F(1, 64)=27.598, p=.000, partial 2=.301] and emotional intelligence total [F(1,
64)=11.791, p=.001, partial 2=.156] once that age was controlled; also we have founded a
marginal significant differences for interpersonal abilities favouring gifted group [F(1,
64)=3.185, p=.079, partial 2=.047].
The results showed only significance effects for interpersonal abilities [F(1,
64)=5.683, p=.020, partial 2=.082]. Girls scored higher than boys.
The main effect of age was no significant for emotional intelligence
subscales
(range p=.721 – p=.140) (ranging from p= .721 for adaptability to p= .140 for stress
management)
RESULTS ANCOVAs
12
The comparisons between both profiles suggested that gifted scored higher
than non-gifted.
Statistically significant differences depending on group (gifted non-gifted) were
found, favouring to gifted, on adaptability and in the total EQ.
The high scores obtained by gifted on adaptability means superiority in the
following abilities: a) reality testing or skills to validate one’s emotions; b)
flexibility or skill to adjust one’s emotions, thoughts, and behaviour to changing
situations and conditions and c) problem solving or ability to identify and define
problems as well as to generate and implement potentially effective solutions.
These results are non surprising if we take into account the different authors’
contributions which pointed out that gifted show open mind, flexibility, tolerance
to ambiguity, risk taking, problem finding and the fact that these students are
better at proposing new and valid solutions to problems.
No statistically significant differences were founded between girls and boys, but
for interpersonal component favouring girls
Conclusions
13
1. Gifted scored higher than non-gifted on EQ total
Our data disagree with the data obtained by Zeidner et al (2005) who
found that when measuring EI through a self report inventory, gifted
children scored lower than non-gifted.
This disagreement between results may be due to the use of different
measures, thus the Bar-On EQi:YV was used in our study while SSRI
was used in the one done by Zeidner et al. (2005). Bring into mind that in
the research done by Zeidner et al (2005) and the one done by Chan
(2003) it was obtained 30 points of difference between both sample using
the SSRI, it may be due to a poor reliability of the scale (SSRI), as other
authors have pointed out (Petrides and Fulham 2000, Saklosfske et al
2003).
CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSION
14
CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSION
2. statistically significant differences, on adaptability favouring G&T
pupils were found
That means G&T show superiority in the following abilities:
a) Reality testing or skills to validate one’s emotions;
b) Flexibility or skill to adjust one’s emotions, thoughts, and behaviour
to changing situations and conditions and
c) Problem solving or ability to identify and define problems as well as
to generate and implement potentially effective solutions
These results are non surprising if we take into account the several
authors’ contributions which pointed out that gifted show open mind,
flexibility, tolerance to ambiguity, risk taking, problem finding and the fact
that these students are better at proposing new and valid solutions to
problems
15
CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSION
3. No statistically significant differences were founded between girls
and boys, but for interpersonal component favouring girls
Our data agree with these obtained by BarOn and Parker, (2000)
and Chan (2003), but disagree with the results obtained by Zeidner
et al. (2005), who found that females obtained higher scores than
males, using MSCEIT (Mayer–Salovey-Caruso Emotional
Intelligence Test, 2002) as well as the SSRI (Schulte Self-Report
Inventory, Schutte et al, 1998).
That means girls are better at understanding and appreciating the
emotions and feeling of others
4. The main effect of age was no significant for emotional intelligence
subscales
