emotional intelligenceei.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/pub312_eichapter2011final.pdf ·...

P1: PHB Trim: 7in × 10in Top: 0.5in Gutter: 0.875inCUUS1280-26 cuus1280/Sternberg ISBN: 978 0 521 51806 2 February 11, 2011 18:4

CHAPTER 26

Emotional Intelligence

John D. Mayer, Peter Salovey, David R. Caruso,and Lillia Cherkasskiy

Emotional Intelligence at 20 Years

A comprehensive initial theory of emo-tional intelligence (EI) and a preliminarydemonstration that it could be measuredappeared 20 years ago in the scientific lit-erature (Mayer, Salovey, & DiPaolo, 1990;Salovey & Mayer, 1990). In the 2000 editionof the Handbook of Intelligence we definedemotional intelligence as

the ability to perceive and express emo-tion, assimilate emotion in thought, under-stand and reason with emotion, and regu-late emotion in the self and others. (Mayer,Salovey, & Caruso, 2000, p. 396; see alsoMayer & Salovey, 1997)

Today, EI is conceived of in much thesame way by many investigators, and there isa much better sense of what EI is, how it canbe measured, and what it predicts than therewas two or even one decade ago. Althoughalternative uses of the term EI exist, theyare more likely to refer to a group of diversepositive traits and competencies, not all hav-ing to do with emotions, intelligence, or

their intersection. There is increasing recog-nition that this latter use of the term emo-tional intelligence is confusing (e.g., Daus &Ashkanasy, 2003).

Emotional Intelligence Over 20 Years

Before the 1990 articles on emotional intel-ligence, the term was used on a mostlyoccasional and inconsistent basis. A liter-ary critic commented that some of JaneAusten’s characters exhibited an “emotionalintelligence” (Van Ghent, 1953). In a prefem-inist German article on motherhood, theauthor speculated that women might rejecttheir roles as housewives and mothers dueto a lack of emotional intelligence (Leuner,1966). (We note that Leuner proposed LSDas a treatment for such women!) A morefocused approach appeared in a disserta-tion by Payne (1986), who argued that “themass suppression of emotion throughoutthe civilized world has stifled our growthemotionally.”

In addition to these uses of the term, anumber of related concepts also emerged

528


EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 529

by the late 20th century. Influenced by theHindu yogic traditions, Carl Jung (1921) sug-gested that some people used a feeling func-tion to understand the world: thinking withtheir hearts. Much later, Steiner (1984) pro-posed the existence of emotional literacyand argued that greater emotional aware-ness could improve a person’s well-being(see also Steiner, 1986, 2003; Steiner & Perry,1997). Saarni (1990, 1997) argued for a gen-eral emotional competence and proposeda model for tracking its development inchildren (Saarni, 1990, 1997, in press). Inthe intelligence tradition, Gardner (1993)proposed an intrapersonal intelligence thatwas especially focused on the awareness offeelings.

Relevant empirical work emerged as well.Investigators studying nonverbal perceptionhad begun to examine people’s accuracyat recognizing emotions in facial expres-sions and bodily postures (e.g., Buck, 1984;Rosenthal et al., 1979). And a number ofresearchers became interested in how emo-tions influence thought and vice versa (seereviews by Matthews et al., 2002; Mayer,2000; Oatley, 2004). Our own model of emo-tional intelligence emerged in the context ofthese related lines of work.

Within a few years after publication ofour initial articles in 1990, a book about EIwritten for a general audience appeared, sell-ing millions of copies worldwide (Goleman,1995). The book covered much of the litera-ture reviewed in the aforementioned articlesas well as considerable additional researchon emotions and brain function, emotionsand social behavior, and school-based pro-grams designed to help children developemotional and social skills.

Goleman’s book emphasized earlier com-ments we had made concerning how peo-ple with emotional intelligence might bemore socially effective than others in cer-tain respects (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Par-ticularly strong claims were made as toemotional intelligence’s contribution to theindividual and society (Goleman, 1995,p. xii). This combination of science andhuman potential attracted extensive mediacoverage, culminating, perhaps, when Time

magazine asked the question “What’s yourEQ?” on its cover, and stated:

It’s not your IQ. It’s not even a number.But emotional intelligence may be the bestpredictor of success in life, redefining whatit means to be smart. (Time, 1995)

In short order, the phrase “emotionalintelligence” became widely known, appear-ing in many magazine and newspaper arti-cles (e.g., Bennetts, 1996; Henig, 1996;Peterson, 1997), books (e.g., Cooper &Sawaf, 1997; Gottman, 1997; Salerno, 1996;Segal, 1997; Shapiro, 1997; Simmons & Sim-mons, 1997; Steiner & Perry, 1997; Weisinger,1997), and even in popular comic strips,Dilbert (Adams, 1997) and Zippy the Pin-head (Griffith, 1996). Although the phrasewas widely disseminated, its exact meaningoften became distorted, and discussions inthe popular media were rarely rooted in thescientific literature on the topic.

The first portion of this chapter reviewsthe concept of emotional intelligence. Someattention is paid to what is meant by theterms emotion, intelligence, and emotionalintelligence. A distinction is drawn betweenmodels of emotional intelligence that focuson mental abilities and alternative modelsthat, increasingly, are recognized as speak-ing more generally of personality. Measuresof emotional intelligence are examined inthe chapter’s second section. Findings con-cerning what emotional intelligence predictsare the topic of the chapter’s third section.And finally, we take a look forward in thegeneral discussion.

Theoretical Considerations

The Terms Emotion and Intelligence

Theories should be internally consistent,make meaningful use of technical language,and provide the basis for useful predictions.One issue in studying emotional intelligenceis that some theories pertain to emotionsand intelligence, whereas others seem farbroader. Therefore, it is worth examiningthe constituent terms, emotion, intelligence,and their combination at the outset.


530 JOHN D. MAYER, PETER SALOVEY, DAVID R. CARUSO, AND LILLIA CHERKASSKIY

CONCEPTIONS OF EMOTIONEmotions are recognized as one of threeor four fundamental classes of mentaloperations. These classes include motiva-tion, emotion, cognition, and (less fre-quently) consciousness (Bain, 1855/1977;Izard, 1993; MacLean, 1973; Mayer, 1995a,1995b; Plutchik, 1984; Tomkins, 1962; see Hil-gard, 1980; Mayer, Chabot, & Carlsmith,1997, for reviews). Among the triad of moti-vation, emotion, and cognition, basic moti-vations arise in response to internal bodilystates and include drives such as hunger,thirst, need for social contact, and sex-ual desires. Motivations are responsible fordirecting the organism to carry out simpleacts so as to satisfy survival and reproduc-tive needs. In their basic form, motivationsfollow a relatively determined time course(e.g., thirst rises until quenched) and aretypically satisfied in a specific fashion (e.g.,thirst is satisfied by drinking fluids).

Emotions form the second class of thistriad. Emotions appear to have evolvedacross mammalian species so as to signaland respond to changes in relationshipsbetween the individual and the environ-ment (including one’s imagined place withinit). For example, anger arises in responseto perceived threat or injustice; fear arisesin response to perceived danger. Emotionsrespond to perceived changes in relation-ships. Moreover, each emotion organizesseveral basic behavioral responses to therelationship; for example, fear organizesfreezing or fleeing. Emotions are thereforemore flexible than motivations, though notquite so flexible as cognition.

Cognition, the third member of the triad,allows the organism to learn from the envi-ronment and to solve problems in novel sit-uations. This is often in the service of satis-fying motives or keeping emotions positive.Cognition includes learning, memory, andproblem solving. It is ongoing, and involvesflexible, intentional information processingbased on learning and memory (see Mayeret al., 1997, for a review of these concepts).

The term emotional intelligence, then,implies something having to do with theintersection of emotion and cognition. From

our perspective, evaluating theories of emo-tional intelligence requires an assessment ofthe degree to which the theory actually per-tains to this intersection.

CONCEPTIONS OF INTELLIGENCEAn intelligence researcher was invited mis-takenly to a conference on military intel-ligence by someone who noticed he wasan expert on intelligence – but did notnotice the kinds of intelligence he studied.1

Howard Gardner (1997) uses this true storyabout himself to make the point that intelli-gence is used differently by different people.Although we acknowledge different mean-ings of the term, we also believe intelligencepossesses a core meaning in the sciences.Artificial intelligence, human intelligence,even Offices of Military Intelligence allimply gathering information, learning aboutthat information, and using it to guide rea-soning and solve problems. Human and arti-ficial intelligence both imply a mental abil-ity associated with cognitive operations. Themental ability model was represented inpure form by Terman (1921, p. 128), whostated, “An individual is intelligent in pro-portion as he is able to carry on abstractthinking.” In fact, symposia on intelligenceover the years repeatedly conclude that thefirst hallmark of intelligence is the capacityto carry out valid abstract reasoning (Stern-berg, 1997).

Intelligence, conceptualized as abstractthinking, has often been demonstrated topredict one or another type of success, par-ticularly academic success. But although itis a potent predictor, it is far from a per-fect one, leaving the vast amount of variance

1 The problem of the meaning of intelligence is anold one in the field and should not discourage us.Spearman (1927, p. 24) noted:

The most enthusiastic advocates of intel-ligence become doubtful of it themselves.From having naively assumed that its natureis straightway conveyed by its name, theynow set out to discover what this naturereally is. In the last act, the truth standsrevealed, that the name really has no defi-nite meaning at all; it shows itself to be noth-ing more than a hypostatized word, appliedindiscriminately to all sorts of things.



in successful behavior unexplained. AsWechsler (1940, p. 444) put it, “individualswith identical IQs may differ very markedlyin regard to their effective ability to copewith the environment.” One way to regardthis limitation is to view human life as natu-rally complex and as subject both to chanceevents and to complicated interactions. Asecond approach is to search for better waysto assess intelligence (e.g., Sternberg, 1997).A third approach is to attribute the dif-ference to a combination of nonintellec-tive factors, such as personality traits. Theseapproaches are all complementary and haveall been used with different degrees of effec-tiveness in enhancing psychological predic-tions of positive outcomes.

Note, however, that there is a fourthalternative to dealing with limitations ofIQ’s predictive ability. That is to rede-fine intelligence itself as a combination ofmental ability and personality traits. Thisapproach seems very unsatisfactory becauseit overrides a century of conceptual usageof the term intelligence. Labeling nonin-tellectual characteristics intelligence poten-tially obscures their meaning (cf. Salovey &Mayer, 1994; Sternberg, 1997). Scarr (1989)notes that goodness in human relationships,athletic ability (i.e., kinesthetic ability), andcertain talents in music, dance, and paint-ing have all been labeled intelligence at onetime or another. She cautions, however, that“to call them intelligence does not do justiceeither to theories of intelligence or to thepersonality traits and special talents that liebeyond the consensual definition of intelli-gence” (p. 78). Nonetheless, some investiga-tors in the emotional intelligence field haveproposed this approach – and we cover thembriefly in the section on what we term mixedmodels.

Emotional Intelligence

Both in Western history and in psychology,emotions and reasoning sometimes havebeen viewed in opposition to one another(e.g., Schaffer, Gilmer, & Schoen, 1940;Publilius Syrus, 100 BCE/1961; Woodworth,1940; Young, 1936). The contemporary

view that emotions convey informationabout relationships, however, suggests thatemotions and intelligence can work handin hand. Emotions reflect relationshipsbetween a person and a friend, a family,the situation, a society, or more internally,between a person and a reflection or mem-ory. For example, joy might indicate one’sidentification with a friend’s success; sadnessmight indicate disappointment with one’sself. Emotional intelligence refers in part toan ability to recognize the meanings of suchemotional patterns and to reason and prob-lem solve on the basis of them (Mayer &Salovey, 1997; Salovey & Mayer, 1990).

ABILITY MODELS: SPECIFICAND INTEGRATIVEIntelligences are mental abilities, and in theemotional intelligence area, some researchfocuses on specific abilities related to emo-tional intelligence, and other research exam-ines many abilities together. Specific-abilitymodels examine a particular realm of emo-tional intelligence in depth – for example,perceiving emotion in faces. Global abilitymodels look at the general overall patternof EI. Parallel to such approaches, the emo-tional intelligence area has given rise to toolsfor assessment that focus on specific areasand global areas. Specific measures exam-ine just the recognition of emotions in faces,or solely the capacity to be aware of sub-tle emotional meanings; as such, the specificapproaches have the advantage of assessingEI in depth in a particular area and under-standing how a person reasons about a givensubject matter. Integrative models betterallow for an overview of how the parts of EIfit together to form an overall intelligence.

AN EXAMPLE OF AN INTEGRATIVEAPPROACHIn this section, we examine an integra-tive approach to emotional intelligence, theFour-Branch Model of Emotional Intelli-gence (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). An inte-grative approach can provide a reasonablefirst overview of an area because it drawstogether examples of the specific areasthat make up reasoning about emotions



and emotional information. For reviews ofspecific-ability areas, the reader is referredto Matsumoto et al. (2000) and Roseman& Evdokas (2004) for examples involvingfacial emotion recognition and emotionalappraisal, respectively.

To return to the integrative approach,as we now view it, emotional intelligencedraws together emotional abilities from fourclasses or branches, as shown in Table 26.1.(The specific skills listed in Column 1 aremeant to be representative; there are otherskills that could be included on each branchas well as the ones shown.) The most basicskills involve the perception and appraisalof emotion. For example, early on, an infantlearns to perceive emotions in facial expres-sions. The infant cries in distress, or smilesin joy, and watches her reaction mirroredin the parent’s face, as the parent empath-ically reflects those feelings. As the childgrows, he or she discriminates more finelyamong genuine versus merely polite smilesand other gradations of expression. Peo-ple also read emotional information in theobjects they encounter, interpreting emo-tionally the expansiveness of a dining hall,or the stoicism of a simple and spare Shakerchair (cf. Arnheim, 1974).

The second set of emotional intelligenceskills involves using emotional experiencesto promote thinking, including weighingemotions against one another and againstother sensations and thoughts, and allowingemotions to direct attention. For example, amanager may use a low-energy emotion tohelp her focus on the detailed editing of abudget spreadsheet.

The third branch involves understandingand reasoning about emotions and using lan-guage to describe them. The experience ofspecific emotions – happiness, anger, fear,and the like – is rule-governed. Anger gen-erally rises when justice is denied; fear oftenchanges to relief; dejection may separateus from others. Sadness and anger “move”according to their own characteristic rules,just as the knight and bishop on a chessboardmove in different ways. Consider a womanwho is extremely angry and an hour laterashamed. It is likely that certain events in

Table 26.1 Overview of a Integrative-ModelApproach to Emotional IntelligenceOverall Definition

Examples of Specific Areas

Perception andExpression ofEmotion

Identifying and expressingemotions in one’s physicalstates, feelings, andthoughts.

Identifying and expressingemotions in other people,artwork, language, etc.

AssimilatingEmotion inThought

Using emotions toprioritize thinking inproductive ways

Generating emotions asaids to judgment andmemory

Understandingand AnalyzingEmotion

Labeling emotions,including complexemotions, and recognizingsimultaneous feelings

Understandingrelationships associatedwith shifts of emotion

ReflectiveRegulation ofEmotion

Staying open to feelings

Being able to reflectivelymonitor and regulateemotions to promoteemotional and intellectualgrowth (after Mayer &Salovey, 1997, p. 11)

“Emotional intelligence is the set of abilities thataccount for how people’s emotional perceptionand understanding vary in their accuracy. Moreformally, we define emotional intelligence as theability to perceive and express emotion, assimi-late emotion in thought, understand and reasonwith emotion, and regulate emotion in the selfand others” (after Mayer & Salovey, 1997).

particular may have intervened: she mighthave expressed her anger more forcefullythan she intended, or discovered she falselybelieved that a friend had betrayed her.Emotional understanding involves the abil-ity to recognize the emotions, to know



how they unfold, and to reason about themaccordingly.

The fourth branch of emotional intelli-gence involves the management and regula-tion of emotion in oneself and others, suchas knowing how to calm down after feel-ing angry or being able to alleviate the anx-iety of another person. Tasks defining thesefour branches are described in greater detailin the section concerning scale developmentbelow.

This mental ability model of emotionalintelligence makes predictions about theinternal structure of the intelligence, andalso its implications for a person’s life. Thetheory predicts that emotional intelligenceis, in fact, an intelligence like other intel-ligences in that it meets three empiricalcriteria. First, mental problems have rightor wrong answers, as assessed by the con-vergence of methods for scoring the cor-rectness of an answer. Second, the mea-sured skills correlate with other measuresof mental ability (because mental abilitiestend to intercorrelate), and correlate mod-erately with socioemotional traits hypothe-sized to promote or covary with higher emo-tional intelligence, including agreeableness,empathy, and openness (the latter trait cor-relates generally with intelligences; Mayer,DiPaolo, & Salovey, 1990; Mayer, Roberts,& Barsade, 2008). Third, the absolute abil-ity level at emotional problem solving riseswith age into middle adulthood.

The model further predicts that emotion-ally intelligent individuals are more likelyto (1) have been raised by socioemotion-ally sensitive parents, (2) be able to com-municate and discuss feelings, (3) be nonde-fensive more generally, (4) be able to copewith emotions effectively and, if desirable,(5) develop expert knowledge in a particularemotional area such as aesthetics, moral orethical responsiveness, social problem solv-ing, leadership, or spiritual feeling (Mayer &Salovey, 1995).

For us, the limits of EI correspond tobasic problem solving that centers on emo-tional reasoning itself. There are likely other,important abilities that blend into emo-tional intelligence. For example, recognizing

cultural differences in emotional expressionis related to EI but might better be con-sidered an aspect of cultural intelligencebecause the information is as relevant tosociocultural as to emotional understanding(e.g., Earley & Ang, 2003). Although theserelated abilities are not part of our model,they likely overlap with EI.

Models Labeled “Emotional Intelligence”

BACKGROUND TO MIXINGINTELLIGENCE(S) WITH PERSONALITYTRAITSIn addition to models of emotional intelli-gence, there are models labeled “emotionalintelligence” but that include many nonin-telligence qualities and traits that, to ourminds, more clearly belong to other areasof personality. The idea of mixing intelli-gence with other factors surely is not new.No less an eminent figure than David Wech-sler (1943, p. 103) wondered “whether non-intellective, that is, affective and conative[motivational] abilities are admissible as fac-tors in general intelligence.” He suggests thatsuch traits might be. A few sentences there-after, however, he qualifies the notion: theypredict intelligent behavior (as opposed tobeing a part of intelligence per se). Wech-sler straddled the fence, as it were. On theone hand, he at times defined intelligenceas involving “the aggregate or global capac-ity of the individual to act purposefully, tothink rationally and to deal effectively with hisenvironment” (italics added; Wechsler, 1958,p. 7). On the other hand, the intelligencetests that carry his name focus on measuringmental abilities.

MIXED MODELS: SETS OF PERSONALITYCHARACTERISTICS INCLUDING SOMERELATED TO EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCEAfter Wechsler’s work, the matter seemsto have been settled to most people’ssatisfaction: Intelligence is a mental abil-ity. However, some people doing workon emotional intelligence have generatedmixed models: that is, personality charac-teristics mixed in with the abilities of emo-tional intelligence. We acknowledge that



our first articles on emotional intelligencecould have been construed in such a man-ner (e.g., Mayer, DiPaolo, & Salovey, 1990;Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Although (to us)these articles set out a clear mental abil-ity conception of emotional intelligence,they also freely described personality char-acteristics that might accompany such anintelligence. Emotional intelligence was saidto distinguish those who are “genuine andwarm . . . [from those who] appear obliviousand boorish.” Emotionally intelligent indi-viduals were also said to exhibit “persistenceat challenging tasks’ and have “positive atti-tudes toward life . . . that lead to better out-comes and greater rewards for themselvesand others” (Salovey & Mayer, 1990, pp. 199–200). We ourselves may have seemed tomix clear mental abilities with their out-comes and consequences in these initialarticles.

Almost immediately after these initialarticles on emotional intelligence appeared,we recognized that it was crucial to distin-guish more clearly the mental ability con-cept from its outcomes. Although traits suchas warmth and persistence are important, webelieve they are better addressed directly,and as distinct from emotional intelligence(Mayer & Salovey, 1993, 1997).

Whether or not our own early writ-ings contributed to the confusion, Gole-man’s (1995) account of emotional intel-ligence included a number of personalityqualities clearly outside the realm of theintelligences. The five areas Goleman listsare depicted in the first column of Table 26.2,including (1) knowing one’s emotions, (2)managing emotions, (3) motivating oneself,(4) recognizing emotions in others, and (5)handling relationships. Each area is furtherdivided. Goleman’s specific attributes undermotivation, for example, include marshalingemotions, delaying gratification, and enter-ing flow states (Goleman, 1995, p. 43). Eventhough this was a journalistic account ratherthan a scientific work, Goleman recognizedthat he was moving from emotional intel-ligence to something far broader. He statesthat “‘ego resilience,’ . . . is quite similar to

[this model of] emotional intelligence” inthat it includes social (and emotional) com-petencies (Goleman, 1995, p. 44). He noted,“There is an old-fashioned word for the bodyof skills that emotional intelligence repre-sents: character” (Goleman, 1995, p. 285).

Goleman (1995) also appeared to makeextraordinary claims for the predictive valid-ity of his mixed model. Emotional intelli-gence, he argued, would confer:

an advantage in any domain in life,whether in romance and intimate relation-ships or picking up the unspoken rules thatgovern success in organizational politics.(Goleman, 1995, p. 36)

Arguing that “at best, IQ contributesabout 20% to the factors that determinelife success,” he seemed to us and to othersto imply that emotional intelligence wouldaccount for much of the “80% [left] to otherfactors” (Goleman, 1995, p. 34). “ What dataexist,” Goleman wrote of emotional intelli-gence, “suggest it can be as powerful, and attimes more powerful, than IQ.” The misim-pressions created by these arguments havebeen addressed by Goleman in an excellentintroductory chapter to the 10th anniversaryedition of his book (Goleman, 2005).

In the earlier edition of this chapter(Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000), and inseveral other articles, we described in con-siderable detail why his claims were not onlyunsupported by the evidence, but deeplyimplausible (Mayer, 1998; Mayer & Cobb,2000; Mayer & Salovey, 1997). In the 10thanniversary edition of his book, Goleman(2005) said he had been misunderstood andacknowledged that such ideas were unreal-istic. It is understandable that a book on EIwritten for the general public would stretchthe boundaries of available empirical find-ings to make a point. It is also understand-able that the popular media might embracesuch claims. As we see it, however, otherscientists should have employed a more crit-ical eye regarding such a loose rendering ofa scientific construct.

A number of ensuing mixed models usingthe name emotional intelligence appeared. For



Table 26.2 Evolution of the Journalistic Account of “Emotional Intelligence”

Goleman (1995) Bar-On (1997) Petrides and Furnham (2003)Overall Definition(s) Overall Definition Overall Definition

“the abilities called hereemotional intelligence, whichinclude self-control, zeal andpersistence, and the ability tomotivate oneself” (Goleman,1995, p. xii). [ . . . and . . . ]“There is an old-fashionedword for the body of skillsthat emotional intelligencerepresents: character”(Goleman, 1995, p. 28).

Major Areas of Skills andSpecific Examples

Knowing One’s Emotions∗recognizing a feelingas it happens

∗monitoring feelings frommoment to moment

Managing Emotions∗handling feelings so theyare appropriate

∗being able to soothe oneself∗being able to shake offrampant anxiety, gloom,or irritability

Motivating Oneself∗marshaling emotions in theservice of a goal

∗delaying gratification andstifling impulsiveness

∗being able to get intothe “flow” state

Recognizing Emotions in Others∗having empathic awareness∗being attuned to what othersneed or want

Handling Relationships∗having skill in managingemotions in others

∗interacting smoothlywith others

“Emotional intelligenceis . . . an array of noncognitivecapabilities, competencies, andskills that influence one’s abilityto succeed in coping withenvironmental demands andpressures” (Bar-On, 1997, p. 14).

Major Areas of Skills andSpecific Skills

Intrapersonal Skills∗Emotional self-awareness∗Assertiveness∗Self-Regard∗Self-Actualization∗Independence

Interpersonal Skills∗Interpersonal relationships∗Social responsibility∗Empathy

Adaptability Scales∗Problem solving∗Reality testing∗Flexibility

Stress-Management Scales∗Stress tolerance∗Impulse control

General Mood∗Happiness∗Optimism

“a constellation ofemotion-relatedself-perceptions anddispositions, assessed throughself-report. The precisecomposition of theseself-perceptions anddispositions varies acrossdifferent conceptualizations,with some . . . being broaderthan others” (Petrides &Furnham, 2003, p. 40).

Major Areas of Skills andSpecific Skills∗Adaptability∗Assertiveness∗Emotional appraisal (self and∗others)∗Emotion expression∗Emotion management (others)∗Emotion regulation∗Impulsiveness∗Relationship skills∗Self-esteem∗Self-motivation∗Social competence∗Stress management∗Trait empathy∗Trait happiness∗Trait optimism

(Petrides & Furnham, 2001,p. 428)



example, Bar-On’s (1997) model of emo-tional intelligence was intended to answerthe question “Why are some individualsmore able to succeed in life than oth-ers?” A more recent model by Petrides andFurnham (2001, 2003) seems to cover muchthe same ground. Other, similar approacheshave been proposed (e.g., Tett, Fox, &Wang, 2005). Two of these models are sum-marized in Table 26.2. For example, in hisself-report assessment, Bar-On includedsuch characteristics as emotional self-awareness, assertiveness, self-regard, self-actualization, and independence.

ARE MIXED MODELS OF EMOTIONALINTELLIGENCE REALLY EMOTIONALINTELLIGENCE?Mixed models have come in for a gooddeal of criticism in the psychological liter-ature. Referring specifically to Goleman’s(1998) model of emotional intelligence,Locke (2005) referred to it as “preposter-ous.” In fairness, however, Goleman writesas a journalist, not as a scientist. The 2008

Annual Review of Psychology coverage ofthe field concluded the concept of mixedmodels was questionable (Mayer, Roberts,& Barsade, 2008). Perhaps more impor-tant, recent reviews increasingly reflect theidea that the measurement project emanat-ing from such models has failed (Daus &Ashkanasy, 2003; Grubb & McDaniel, 2007;Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008; Mayer,Salovey, & Caruso, 2008; Zeidner, Roberts,& Matthews, 2008). We will discuss theseproblems briefly later in this chapter.

The problem is that the conceptof mixed-model emotional intelligence isunmoored from the twin concepts of emo-tion and of intelligence. Recall that Gole-man (1995) acknowledges that his modelis little different from Block and Block’s(1980) model of ego-strength. Petrides andFurnham (2003) acknowledge the contentoverlap between what they are discussingand the Big Five personality traits. TheBig Five are often-measured traits includingExtraversion-Introversion, Stability-Neuro-ticism, Openness-Closedness, Conscien-tiousness-Carelessness, and Agreeableness-

Disagreeableness (e.g., Goldberg, 1990);they seem to have little to do with emo-tional intelligence. These mixed models,unmoored from the concepts of “emotion”and “intelligence,” also have included con-cepts of constructive thinking (Epstein &Meier, 1989), ego strength (Block & Block,1980), social desirability (Paulhus, 1991),social insight (Chapin, 1967), and manyother constructs.

The Measurement of EmotionalIntelligence

Mental ability models of emotional intel-ligence, as well as mixed models, haveprompted the construction of instrumentsto measure emotional intelligence. Mentalability models of emotional intelligence aremost directly assessed by ability measures.Ability measures have the advantage of rep-resenting an individual’s performance levelon a task. We deal with those here, reserv-ing a brief section later for mixed-modelmeasures.

Measures of Emotional Intelligence

EARLY WORKEmotional Intelligence Measurement before

Emotional Intelligence Theory We refer read-ers to our chapter in the original Hand-book for an examination of the early mea-sures that led up to contemporary workin emotional intelligence research (Mayer,Salovey, & Caruso, 2000). That earlierchapter examines precursor specific-abilitymeasures related to perceiving emotion.Included were a number of scales of thenonverbal assessment of emotion, for exam-ple, of faces (Buck, 1976; Campbell, Kagan,& Krathwohl, 1971; Kagan, 1978; Rosenthalet al., 1979), as well as some additional back-ground on our own work in developing mea-sures of emotional intelligence.

In the past 20 years, a great numberof improved, revised ability scales of EIhave been introduced and we briefly out-line them here. As with models of emotionalintelligence more generally, ability scales



of EI can be divided into “specific-ability”measures and “integrative-model” measures.Specific-ability tests focus on a single areaor subarea of emotional intelligence and theintegrative-model approach involves teststhat span several different ability areas ofemotional intelligence. Here, we describeseveral examples of such scales.

EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC-ABILITYMEASURESPerhaps the most highly developed area ofspecific-ability measurement in emotionalintelligence concerns assessments of peo-ple’s abilities to discern emotional facialexpressions. Among these measures, per-haps the most widely used group is theDiagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy(DANVA) tests developed by Nowicki andcolleagues (e.g., Nowicki & Carton, 1993;Pitterman & Nowicki, 2004). The differentversions of these tests measure people’s abil-ities to assess emotions in faces, posture,and auditory perception. For example, inthe adult faces version of the test, partic-ipants are exposed to a series of 24 facesdivided among basic emotions and equatedfor gender. Then, they must indicate theemotion present in the given face. Anotherrelatively recent scale of note in this areais the Japanese and Caucasian Brief AffectRecognition Test (JACBART; Matsumotoet al., 2000).

Beyond the emotion-in-faces area, recentadditions to ability scales have appeared inthe areas of understanding emotions andemotion management. These include theSituational Test of Emotional Understand-ing (STEU) and the Situational Test ofEmotion Management (STEM; MacCann &Roberts, 2008). The STEU asks questionsabout a person’s ability to appraise and reactto complicated emotional situations. Somequestions are phrased to be low in contextwhile others are higher in context. An exam-ple of a low-context item is this:

An unwanted situation becomes less likelyor stops altogether. The person involved ismost likely to feel: (a) regret, (b) hope, (c)joy, (d) sadness, (e) relief. (MacCann &Roberts, 2008, p. 542)

High context items are similar but add inspecifics, for example,

A supervisor who is unpleasant to workfor leaves Alfonso’s work. Alfonso is mostlikely to feel . . . ? (McCann & Roberts,2008, p. 542)

Answers to the STEU are keyed to an emo-tional appraisal theory developed by Rose-man (2001); the correct answer for the ques-tion above in Roseman’s system is “(e)relief.”

The STEM focuses on emotion man-agement, as opposed to the STEU’s focuson understanding. The STEM, a situationaljudgment task type of assessment, presentsbrief vignettes to people; then, correctanswers as to management are keyed toresponses indicated by two expert groupswho answered the scale.

EXAMPLES OF INTEGRATIVE-MODELMEASURESIntegrative-model measures are similar tospecific-ability measures described earlier,but rather than measure just one area ofemotional intelligence, they measure multi-ple areas. As such, they generally are longerand more comprehensive than specific-ability measures. Schultz and Izard’s Assess-ment of Children’s Emotion Skills, or ACES(e.g., Schultz et al., 2001), measures chil-dren’s abilities to assess emotions in picturesof faces, understand the emotions gener-ated by social situations, and appreciate theemotions stemming from social behavior. Ithas been successfully used in a number ofresearch studies (one to be described in thesection, “Examples of EI Research”).

In our own laboratory, we have devel-oped the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso EmotionalIntelligence Test or MSCEIT. The MSCEITis a 141-item scale that measures (1) perceiv-ing emotions, (2) using emotions to facil-itate thought, (3) understanding emotions,and (4) managing emotions: four areas cor-responding to the four branches of ourmodel. Each branch contains two tasks. Theperceiving-emotions area, for example, isdivided into “faces” and “pictures” tasks. Inthe “faces” task, test takers view a series of



faces and respond as to how much a specificemotion (e.g., sadness, fear, happiness, etc.)might be present, using a 5-point scale foreach emotion. “Pictures” is similar exceptthat abstract images and landscape photosare employed in place of faces.

The facilitation area is measured with“sensations” and “facilitation” tasks. For thesensations task, for example, test takers areasked to generate a moderate level of anemotion (e.g., joy) and then to match sen-sations such as a sweet taste or a cool tem-perature to those feelings. The facilitationtask asks participants to match a mood tothe kind of thinking it might enhance.

The understanding emotions area is mea-sured by “blends” and “changes.” In theblends task, participants match combina-tions of basic emotions to more complexblends: for example, “anger” and “disgust”might match reasonably closely to “con-tempt.” In the changes task, one kind of itemasks what emotion might result if anotheremotion were intensified (e.g., intensifiedfrustration might lead to rage).

The management area is assessed by emo-tion management and emotional relation-ship tasks. Each presents brief vignettesabout an emotion-eliciting event and asksthe best way to manage emotions in relationto it. Emotion management focuses on reg-ulating one’s own emotions; emotional rela-tionships focuses on regulating the feelingsof others.

Scoring the MSCEIT Scoring of theMSCEIT and its precursors has generatedseveral potential criteria for correct answers.These include identifying correct answersaccording to a general population group con-sensus (i.e., of the standardization sample),or the consensus of emotion experts. A thirdpossibility, having targets describe theiremotions, is possible for some tasks such asfaces, where the photographed person candescribe his or her feelings at the time ofthe picture. Work with the earlier Multifac-tor Emotional Intelligence Scale indicatedthat consensus, expert, and target scoringmethods for the same tasks converged on the

same answers (Mayer & Geher, 1996). Workwith the MSCEIT employed more rigorousprocedures. Twenty-one emotions expertsprovided answers to the test. These expert-identified answers converged dramaticallywith consensus-identified correct answers inthe general sample. Such convergence addsconfidence to the expert scoring approach,perhaps, as the optimal method. The natureof emotional information differs from infor-mation that is often included in standardintelligence tests, and thus, necessitates theuse of different scoring methods. However,the existence of two, independent scoringkeys has proven confusing to some, and thelack of a true, veridical scoring key is prob-lematic to others (Matthews, Zeidner, &Roberts, 2002).

The Cohesiveness of the MSCEIT TasksIntegrative-model approaches to emotionalintelligence tell us about how the differentareas of emotional intelligence may relate toeach other – if at all. The MSCEIT and itsprecursors make clear that emotional intel-ligence is a unitary ability. That is, the tasksare generally positively intercorrelated withone another. Beyond that general factor ofEI, a number of subsidiary factors can beidentified. One solution for the MSCEIT’sfactorial structure divides emotional intelli-gence into three areas: (1) emotional percep-tion, (2) emotional understanding, and (3)emotional management. Others solutionsare consistent with the four-factor model.However, some studies have recommendedalternative factor models for the MSCEIT(Palmer et al., 2005).

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AS A MIXEDMODEL MEASURED BY SELF-REPORTSCALESJust as the ability model of emotional intelli-gence has generated measures of emotionalintelligence, so have mixed models. Thesemodels are almost entirely based on self-report. As such, they are filtered througha person’s self-concept and impression man-agement motives.



Ability measurement possesses processvalidity evidence. For example, intelligencetests include a scoring process that verifiesthat participants can solve problems cor-rectly, independently of the test taker’sclaims. Self-report lacks such validity evi-dence; consider the validity of a hypotheticalself-report intelligence measure that asks,simply, “How smart do you think you are?”In fact, self-reported intelligence has a rela-tively low correlation with actual, measuredintelligence via ability scales (e.g., Paulhus,Lysy, & Yik, 1998). This also is the casefor emotional intelligence, where correla-tions between the MSCEIT and a self-reportscale based on our four-branch model rangedbetween r = .07 and .19 in two samples(Brackett et al., 2006).

Most mixed-model scales, in additionto using self-report, simply measure traitsdrawn from personality research that areunrelated to emotional intelligence. Bar-On’s Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi)

includes factors more or less consistent withthe individual attributes listed in Table 26.2of this chapter, ranging from self-actual-ization to happiness.

Such tests represent, in substantial part, apositive-negative halo effect in how peopledescribe themselves. The Bar-On EQi, forexample, correlates negatively and highly (inthe r = –.50 to –.75 range) with measures ofnegative affect such as the Beck DepressionInventory and the Zung Self-Rating Depres-sion Scale. It also correlates positively withtraits related to positive affect. A cross-national administration of the Bar-On andthe 16PF (e.g., Cattell, Cattell, & Cattell,1993) indicated that the Bar-On was consis-tently positively correlated (mostly betweenr = .40 and .60) with emotional stabil-ity, and with components of extraversionincluding social boldness and social warmth(Bar-On, 1997, pp. 110–111). Tests such asthe Bar-On, the Tett (Tett, Fox, & Wang,2005), and the scales by Petrides and Furn-ham (2001, 2003) overlap with personalityscales such as the NEO-PI measure of theBig Five as highly as do measures expresslydeveloped as alternative measures of the Big

Five itself (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008,Table 1).

What Does EmotionalIntelligence Predict?

We next turn to the predictive valid-ity of emotional intelligence (excludingmixed-model measures). Emotional intelli-gence predicts specific outcomes in limitedbut important domains of social interaction.Although emotional intelligence identifiesunique variance, it also overlaps, at least atlow levels, with other commonly assessedvariables. For that reason, researchers inter-ested in emotional intelligence should exam-ine incremental validity of EI in their work,comparing EI assessments with measures ofcognitive ability and of other commonlymeasured personality traits such as the BigFive. Finally, given that some studies haveshown differential gender effects, we sug-gest that researchers examine their data todetermine whether EI’s effects are similarfor men and women. We begin with just twoexamples of some of the intriguing researchin the area and then talk more globally ofwhat EI predicts.

Examples of EI Research

Rosete (2005, 2009) conducted a workplacestudy that illustrates why it is critical toexamine multiple aspects of managerial per-formance. He studied 117 managers froman Australian public service organization,administering the MSCEIT as well as apersonality scale (16 PF) and an EI self-report scale. He also collected performancemanagement ratings based on an exten-sive data collection and discussion processbetween the manager and his or her super-visor. These performance behaviors had twodimensions: “what they accomplish” and“how they accomplish it.” The “what theyaccomplish” scale indicated the extent towhich the manager hit certain targets suchas reaching tax revenue goals or decreas-ing health insurance costs. The “how they



accomplish it” ratings examined leadershipbehaviors such as “facilitates cooperationand partnerships,” “communicates clearly,”and “inspires a sense of purpose and direc-tion.” The MSCEIT significantly predictedperformance “what’s,” accounting for 5%of the variance after controlling for cogni-tive ability and personality. More interest-ing, however, was that EI accounted for 22%of the variance for performance “how’s,”even after accounting for cognitive abilityand personality. These results suggest thatEI may play a more important role in howmanagers do their work rather than in whatthey accomplish.

In a series of studies, Trentacosta andIzard (2007) examined children’s emotionalknowledge and its relation to academicperformance. For example, these authorstested 193 children attending kindergartenin an urban school system chiefly serv-ing low-income and minority children. Ofthese kindergarteners, 142 were followed upin first grade (Trentacosta & Izard, 2007).The researchers collected various measuresof attention, verbal ability, student-teachercloseness, and academic competence. Theyalso employed a measure of “emotional reg-ulation” – a measure of emotional neg-ativity and instability similar to Neuroti-cism on the Big Five, and the Assess-ment of Children’s Emotion Skills (ACES),which measures knowledge of emotionalfacial expressions, the emotions involvedin social situations, and emotions in socialbehaviors.

In this particular study, high ACES scor-ers exhibited better attention to the teacherand to in-class test materials, higher ver-bal ability, and better overall academic per-formance in the r = .20 to .40 range.(These findings are similar to those found bythese authors and their colleagues in otherstudies.) In a path-analytic model gener-ated using structural equation modeling, theauthors concluded that emotion knowledgehas a direct, independent influence on aca-demic achievement of r = .17 (p < .05) aftercontrolling for the many other variables ofthe study, including intelligence, emotional-ity, and attention.

Reviewing Recent Reviews

The aforementioned research studies rep-resent just two examples of the burgeon-ing empirical work in the EI area. The fieldof emotional intelligence has recently seenthree highly visible reviews and critiquesthat focus especially on ability-based mea-sures. We will summarize the major pointsand conclusions of those reviews briefly herein regard to what EI predicts.

An article by Zeidner, Roberts, andMatthews (2008), “The Science of Emo-tional Intelligence,” appeared in the Euro-pean Psychologist. The writers divide EIresearch into four conceptual approaches,but then reduce these, when it comesto measurement, to two: the ability andmixed-model approaches we describe here,writing that “reviews of the various mea-sures of EI . . . have generally been struc-tured around this distinction” (Zeidner etal., 2008, p. 68). In their test-criterion sec-tion, they report some selected findings infavor of both types of instruments. Later,however, they conclude that a morato-rium on the development of new self-report instruments is needed, while fur-ther objective (i.e., ability) measures shouldbe developed. The basis for this recom-mendation appears to be their conclu-sion that mixed-model scales are difficultto distinguish from well-known personalitydimensions.

To find out more about what EI pre-dicts, it is necessary to move to one of theother two reviews discussed here: Mayer,Salovey, and Caruso’s (2008) article, “Emo-tional Intelligence: New Ability or Eclec-tic Traits?” appearing in the American Psy-chologist. This review was organized aroundthe schism in the field between ability andmixed models and argued (much as wehave here) that the emotional intelligenceterm was best applied only to the abilityapproach. The empirical review of measureswas summarized, in large part, in a tableconcerning representative EI results. Thistable addressed concerns about the incre-mental validity of EI in predicting variousmeasures of social behavior, with such traits



as the Big Five and verbal intelligence par-tialed out. Five studies illustrated such incre-mental prediction.

Relative to the other two reviews, AnnualReview coverage was most focused on out-comes of EI. This review can be regardedmore as a consensus document, as it drewauthors from both of the other reviewsmentioned earlier, and a third independentemotions expert. The authors provided aqualitative review of results from all knownability measures of EI, with results from 1990

forward. Their conclusions for emotionalintelligence were presented in their Table 2

and related discussion (Mayer, Roberts, &Barsade, 2008, p. 525).

They concluded the following: Children,adolescents, and adults higher in emotionalintelligence exhibited better social relationsthan others. In most studies reviewed, EIcorrelated positively with indices of goodsocial relations and social competencies,and negatively with the use of destruc-tive interpersonal strategies and indices ofsocial deviance. Moreover, individuals withhigh EI were perceived as more pleas-ant, empathic, and socially adroit than oth-ers. As might be expected, these resultsgeneralized to better intimate and familyrelations (for which, however, there werefewer relevant studies and results). The find-ings also generalized to work environments,where employees exhibited more positiveperformance, engaged in better negotiationswith others, and left others feeling bet-ter in stressful work encounters. Of spe-cific interest to intelligence researchers andeducators, although EI was correlated withbetter academic achievement, this oftenwashed out when IQ was partialed out.Finally, those with higher emotional intelli-gence also experienced higher levels of sub-jective well-being than did their lower-EIcounterparts.

Most of the relationships reviewedbetween EI and the criteria mentioned ear-lier were in the r = .20 to .30 range,and many relationships remained significantafter partialing out a number of controlvariables. However, such results can disap-point readers who are expecting that a single

psychological construct accounts for 80% ofthe variance in important life outcomes! Toput these EI results in context, Meyer andcolleagues (2001) noted that psychologistsought to be pleased to find relationships atthis level – which are comparable to thosebetween, for example, college grades and jobperformance (r = .16), criminal history andrecidivism (r = .18), and gender and weight(r = .26), among others.

The Future of Emotional Intelligence

Capturing the Energy of Mixed-ModelApproaches

Earlier in this chapter, it probably seemedas if we dismissed mixed-model approachesto emotional intelligence. Although we areskeptical that this approach will lead toadvances in our understanding of emotionalintelligence per se, we do acknowledge thatmany of the traits studied in mixed modelsare of considerable importance. That is whywe recommend calling those traits what theyare: aspects of personality, rather than emo-tional intelligence.

Some psychologists have raised the ideathat such traits should be called emotionalintelligence simply because they do not fitcomfortably into, say, the Big Five approachto personality. The Big Five (described ear-lier) are five traits often used to representsome of the basic aspects of personal func-tioning. There is nothing in the discipline ofpersonality psychology, however, that oughtto pressure researchers into an either-orchoice between emotional intelligence andthe Big Five.

In fact, there are several recent contem-porary models of personality that can har-ness the power of studying traits such asoptimism and the achievement motive, andcompetencies such as diversity-sensitivity,and the like. Some models allow for broadorganizations of traits, such as the Big Fiveapproach, and contemporary variations ofit such as the HEXACO and 10-Aspectsmodels (e.g., DeYoung, Quilty, & Peter-son, 2007; Goldberg, 1990). Other mod-els divide personality into functional areas



such as a person’s mental energy (e.g.,motives and emotions), or self-regulation(e.g., self-monitoring, self-control and plan-ning). These latter models include Mischeland Shoda’s Cognitive-Affective PersonalitySystem (CAPS) model (e.g., Mischel, 2004)and the Systems Set division (e.g., Mayer,2003, 2005). McAdams and Pal’s (2006) “NewBig Five” is a hybrid model that dividespersonality into traits, characteristic adap-tations, and other qualities.

The aforementioned Systems Set dividespersonality into four areas and may beespecially suitable for the organization ofmixed-model personality characteristics(Mayer, 2003). The first is Energy Devel-opment, which concerns how the person’smotives and emotions combine to enhancean individual’s psychological energy. Secondis Knowledge Guidance, which concernshow intelligences and knowledge combinetogether to guide mental energy. Third isAction Implementation, which includes aperson’s plans and procedures for operatingin the situations she or he faces. Finally,there is Executive Consciousness, whichinvolves self-monitoring and self-guidance.The four parts of the Systems Set areillustrated in Figure 26.1.

The Systems Set serves as a reasonableorganizer for personality traits. In one study,for example, participants using the four-fold division were able to sort 70 commonlystudied personality traits into its four cat-egories far better than they could sort thetraits using alternative divisions of personal-ity. Using the Systems Set in that study, 97%of the traits could be assigned an area, andjudges agreed to such assignments at levelswell above chance (Mayer, 2003).

An example of how EI related charac-teristics might be organized is illustrated inTable 26.3. At the top are the four areas ofpersonal function, as divided according tothe Systems Set model. Immediately beloware four brief descriptions of the areas.Below that are some prototypical traits thatdescribe each area. For example, EnergyDevelopment is described by such traits asthe need for achievement and positive affect.Or, to take another example, Executive

ExecutiveManagement

ActionImplementa-tion

EnergyDevelopment

KnowledgeGuidance

Figure 26.1. The four areas of the systems set.This four-part division of personality hasadvantages for classifying traits and otherqualities of personality. Energy Developmentinvolves the interactions of motivations andemotions. Knowledge Guidance helps directmental energy toward goals. ActionImplementation contains plans and skills foroperating in the outside environment, andExecutive Management helps monitor and controlthe rest. For a further discussion, please refer tothe text. Detail from Mayer, J. D. (2009).Psychotherapist’s Wall Chart. Lulu.com.Reproduced with permission.

Consciousness is described by such traits asself-awareness and self-monitoring.

In the last row of Table 26.3, the methodis applied to the Trait Emotional Intelli-gence Questionnaire (TEIQue; Petrides &Furnham, 2003). This self-report, mixed-model measure assesses 15 qualities includ-ing Adaptability, Assertiveness, EmotionPerception, Emotion Expression, and so on.These traits are difficult to make congru-ent with emotional intelligence as reason-ably defined. They are, however, very easyto organize within the Systems Set, as shownin the last row of Table 26.3.

When, in the American Psychologist arti-cle, we recommended that personality traitsbe labeled as personality traits, part of thereason was to ensure that the field of emo-tional intelligence survives and thrives as areputable scientific area. The other reason,however, is that much of the energy behindmixed models, we believe, can contributemore generally to the contemporary field of



Table 26.3 The Systems Set and Its Integration of Personality Parts

The Systems Set’s Four Areas

Names of theSystems Set

EnergyDevelopment

KnowledgeGuidance

ExecutiveManagement

ActionImplementation

Brief Description Motives andemotions jointogether toenhance anindividual’spsychic energy

Intelligencesoperate onknowledge toenhance problemsolving

Self-monitoring,self-regulation,defense and coping

Customary stylesof carrying outbehavior alongwith plans foraction

Generallyrelevant traits

Specificmotivations ofachievement,power, affiliation;positive andnegativeemotionality aswell as specifictendencies towardemotions (e.g.,happiness, sadness,etc.)

Intelligence,emotionalintelligence,competencies,optimism-pessimism, actualself, ideal self,self-esteem, etc.;mental models ofother people andthe world

Self-awareness,self-monitoring,defensiveness,repression-sensitization,problem-focusedcoping, emotion-focused coping

Secureattachment,sociability,shyness, socialskills, groupcompetencies

Traits of theTEIQueorganizedaccordingly

Self-motivation;Trait happiness

Emotionalperception;Self-esteem; Socialawareness; Traitempathy; Traitoptimism

Adaptability;Emotionalregulation;Impulsiveness(low); Stressmanagement

Assertiveness;Emotionalexpression;Emotionalmanagementof others;Relationships

personality psychology if researchers in thearea see how to integrate their work in thatnow-burgeoning area. We hope our earlierdescription can serve as one illustration ofhow this might be done.

THE MENTAL ABILITY OF EMOTIONALREASONING: REALLY AN INTELLIGENCE?To return to the mental ability concep-tion of emotional intelligence, there aretwo further questions often asked about EI.The first is, Is emotional intelligence (asan ability) an intelligence, or a talent, oran acquired skill? Whether EI is an intel-ligence is, to some extent, a matter ofone’s definition of “intelligence,” “talent,”and “skill.” To us, an intelligence is a men-tal ability that involves abstract reasoning

with information in an area of some breadthand consequence. Consequently, verbal-comprehension, perceptual-organizationalabilities, and emotional intelligence all rep-resent intelligences. By contrast, “talents”begin to mix in highly practiced, physi-cal operations with mental operations, forexample, in certain forms of musical perfor-mance and athletic prowess. Mental skills,such as those displayed in the game of chess,involve highly focused abilities at limiteddomains. Because the exact demarcationamong intelligences, talents, and skills is dif-ficult to fix at present, this will be a matterof some opinion.

Another issue that speaks to whetherEI is a true intelligence is its universal-ity versus cross-cultural nature. We believe



emotional intelligence is universal or nearlyso, and that such universality bolsters itsstatus as an intelligence. The MSCEIT hasbeen translated into such different languagesas French, Spanish, Japanese, and Norwe-gian, and appears to perform comparablyin different cultures. Another specific-abilitytest of EI, the Japanese and Caucasian BriefAffect Recognition Test (JACBART), relieson faces from two different cultures for par-ticipants to examine, and the test has beenused and is valid with people from manyparts of the world. That said, translatorsof the MSCEIT, for example, have oftenneeded to change items to suit a particularculture so that its content fits with nationalcultural expectations. Although EI may beuniversal, in other words, the interpretationof specific items may vary somewhat fromculture to culture. There exist, it appears,both universal aspects of emotional under-standing and aspects of such understandingsthat are culturally specific. This seems, onceagain, consistent with the intelligence con-cept as presently understood.

Further Research Needed

We have noted that emotional intelligenceis part of a larger group of hot intelligences(Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004). Theseintelligences are called “hot” because theyconcern personally relevant information towhich people often have personal reactions:of pain, pleasure, defensiveness, emotional-ity, or moral judgment. Of the partly over-lapping intelligences, social intelligence isbeing newly reoperationalized as a men-tal ability and has recently seen a revivalof interest (e.g., Legree, 1995; Sternberg &Smith, 1985; Weis & Suß, 2007; Wong, Day,Maxwell, & Meara, 1995). A growing bodyof research supports a practical or success-ful intelligence (Sternberg, 2003). There alsoare recent mentions of cultural, personal,and spiritual intelligences (Earley & Ang,2003; Emmons, 2000; Mayer, 2009). Researchon the degree these intelligences overlapand interpenetrate is needed – and remark-ably little exists. Moreover, once more isunderstood about the hot intelligences as

a group, their relation and integration withthe “cool” intelligences will require furtherunderstanding.

Justifiable Excitement OverEmotional Intelligence

To return to emotional intelligence itself,we believe emotional intelligence is worththe excitement. The rigorous search fornew intelligences can result in important,incremental predictive power over currentmeasures of intelligence. We believe thatemotional intelligence identifies a previouslyoverlooked area of ability critical to cer-tain important areas of human function-ing. Before the theory, emotionally intelli-gent skills lay hidden in the boundary areabetween mental ability and noncognitivedispositions. Many intelligence researcherswere relieved when Scarr (1989) came to thedefense of traditional intelligence with thestatement that “human virtues . . . such asgoodness in human relationships, and talentsin music, dance, and painting, should not becalled intelligent.” Yet there is a borderlandbetween the two. Musical ability, after all,is related to intelligence (e.g., Schellenberg,2006). Our own intuition was that therewas something more than simple emotion-ality among those people sometimes labeledas touchy-feely, bleeding hearts, sensitive,or empathic souls. Emotional intelligenceis the mental ability that lurks amidst theemotions.

There is a social implication of this find-ing. Scarr (1989) believes that labeling anattribute as an intelligence adjusts socialbehavior so as to value the entity morethan before. She suspects this is one reasonsome have labeled nonintelligences, suchas warmth, as intelligence. Identifying anactual intelligence, therefore, might possi-bly readjust values. For example, peoplewho have different kinds of skills oftencan communicate more convincingly abouttheir abilities and limitations. We have oftennoticed that people in cars readily say, “Oh, Ican’t navigate well” (low spatial intelligence)and pass the map over to someone else, orturn on the global positioning system (GPS).



We look forward to the day when, ratherthan dismiss someone else as a “bleedingheart,” or a “touchy feely type,” or “over-sensitive,” a person will feel comfortablesaying, “Oh, I can’t read emotions; you helpme understand how to make my friend feelbetter.” Passing the job of emotional read-ing over to the individual who can per-form it (or, indeed, passing it to some futureemotion-sensing device) would be readjust-ing social values in a way that might makegood sense for all parties.

Conclusion

There is growing consensus that emotionalintelligence involves the capacity to rea-son accurately with emotion and emotionalinformation, and of emotion to enhancethought. There is an increasing call to “weedout” those conceptualizations that do notmake sense to be called emotional intelligence.Alternatively, they can be transplanted inthe soil of personality psychology, wherethey better belong. Current research sug-gests that mental ability models of emo-tional intelligence can be described as astandard intelligence, and they empiricallymeet the criteria for a standard intelligence.Emotional intelligence therefore providesa recognition of an exciting new area ofhuman ability.

Acknowledgment

The first three authors disclose that theyreceive royalty payments from the sale of anassessment tool, the Mayer-Salovey-CarusoEmotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) pub-lished by MHS, Inc., and discussed in thischapter.

References

Adams, S. (1997, April 7). Dilbert. In BostonGlobe (comics section), Boston, MA.

Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and visual perception (Thenew version). Berkeley: University of Califor-nia Press.

Bain, A. (1855/1977). The senses and the intellect.London: John W. Parker & Son. [Reprinted inD. N. Robinson (Ed.), Significant contributionsto the history of psychology: 1750–1920 [Series A:Orientations; Vol. 4]. Washington, DC: Uni-versity Publications of America.

Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional QuotientInventory (EQ-i): Technical manual. Toronto,Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Bennetts, L. (March, 1996). Emotional savvy.Parents, 56–61.

Block, J., & Block, J. H. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego resiliency in the organizationof behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), The Min-nesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. 13,pp. 33–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brackett, M., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Conver-gent, discriminant, and incremental valid-ity of competing measures of emotionalintelligence. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 64, 1147–1158.

Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S.,Lerner, N., & Salovey, P. (2006). Relatingemotional abilities to social functioning: Acomparison of self-report and performancemeasures of emotional intelligence. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 780–795.

Buck, R. (1976). A test of nonverbal receivingability: Preliminary studies. Human Commu-nication Research, 2, 162–171.

Buck, R. (1984). The communication of emotion.New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Buck, R., Miller, R. E., & Caul, D. F. (1974). Sex,personality, and physiological variables in thecommunication of emotion via facial expres-sion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 30, 587–596.

Campbell, R. J., Kagan, N. I., & Krathwohl,D. R. (1971). The development and valida-tion of a scale to measure affective sensitivity(empathy). Journal of Counseling Psychology,18, 407–412.

Cattell, R. B., Cattell, A. K., & Cattell, H. E. P.(1993). Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire(5th ed.). Champaign, IL: Institute for Person-ality and Ability Testing.

Chapin, F. S. (1967). The social insight test. PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Cooper, R. K., & Sawaf, A. (1997). Executive EQ:Emotional intelligence in leadership and organi-zations. New York, NY: Grosset/Putnam.

Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003).Will the real emotional intelligence pleasestand up? On deconstructing the emotional



intelligence “debate.” Industrial–Organi-zational Psychologist, 41, 69–72.

DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B.(2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspectsof the Big Five. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 93, 880–896.

Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intel-ligence: Individual interactions across cultures.Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Ekman, P. (1973). Darwin and facial expression: Acentury of research in review. New York, NY:Academic Press.

Emmons, R. A. (2000). Is spirituality an intel-ligence? Motivation, cognition, and the psy-chology of ultimate concern. InternationalJournal for the Psychology of Religion, 10, 3–26.

Epstein, S., & Meier, P. (1989). Constructivethinking: A broad coping variable with spe-cific components. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 54, 332–350.

Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind (10th anniver-sary ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (March, 1997). “Who owns ‘intel-ligence?’” Invited talk, in G. Sinatra (Chair)and C. Bereiter (Discussant), Expanding ourconcept of intelligence: What’s missing andwhat could we gain? Symposium at theAnnual Meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, Chicago, IL.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “descrip-tion of personality”: The Big-Five factor solu-tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 59, 1216–1229.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. NewYork, NY: Bantam Books.

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intel-ligence. New York, NY: Bantam.

Goleman, D. (2005). Emotional intelligence (10thanniversary ed.). New York, NY: Bantam.

Gottman, J. (1997). The heart of parenting: How toraise an emotionally intelligent child. New York,NY: Simon & Schuster.

Griffith, B. (1996, November 17). Zippy the Pin-head. Boston Globe (comics section), Boston,MA.

Grubb, W. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2007). Thefakability of Bar-On’s Emotional QuotientInventory Short Form: Catch me if you can.Human Performance, 20, 43–59.

Henig, R. M. (1996, June). Are you smarter thanyou think? McCall’s, 84–91.

Hilgard, E. R. (1980). The trilogy of mind:Cognition, affection, and conation. Journalof the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 16,107–117.

Izard, C. E. (1993). Four systems for emotion acti-vation: Cognitive and noncognitive processes.Psychological Review, 100, 68–90.

Jung, C. (1921/1971). Psychological types (H. G.Baynes, Trans.; R. F. C. Hull, Rev. Trans.).Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.[Original work published 1921]

Kagan, N. (1978). Affective sensitivity test: Valid-ity and reliability. Paper presented at the 86thmeeting of the American Psychological Asso-ciation, San Francisco, CA.

Legree, P. J. (1995). Evidence for an oblique socialintelligence factor established with a Likert-based testing procedure. Intelligence, 21, 247–266.

Leuner, B. (1966). Emotional intelligence andemancipation. Praxis der Kinderpsychologieund Kinderpsychiatie, 15, 193–203.

Leuner B. (1966). Emotional intelligence andemancipation. Praxis Kinderpsychol. Kinder-psychiatrie, 15, 193–203.

MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. (2008). Newparadigms for assessing emotional intelli-gence: Theory and data. Emotion, 8, 540–551.

MacLean, P. D. (1973). A triune concept of thebrain and behavior. Toronto, Canada: Univer-sity of Toronto Press.

Matsumoto, D., LeRoux, J., & Wilson-Cohn, C.,Raroque, J., Kooken, K., Ekman, P., Yrizarry,N., Loewinger, S., Uchida, H., Yee, A., Amo,L., & Goh, A. (2000). A new test to measureemotion recognition ability: Matsumoto andEkman’s Japanese and Caucasian Brief AffectRecognition Test (JACBART). Journal of Non-verbal Behavior, 24, 179–209.

Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D.(2002). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mayer, J. D. (1995a). The System-Topics Frame-work and the structural arrangement of sys-tems within and around personality. Journalof Personality, 63, 459–493.

Mayer, J. D. (1995b). A framework for the classi-fication of personality components. Journal ofPersonality, 63, 819–877.

Mayer, J. D. (1999). Emotional intelligence:Popular or scientific psychology? APA Mon-itor, 30, 50.

Mayer J. D. (2000). Emotion, intelligence, emo-tional intelligence. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.),The Handbook of Affect and Social Cognition(pp. 410–31). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mayer, J. D. (2003). Structural divisions of per-sonality and the classification of traits. Reviewof General Psychology, 7, 381–401.



Mayer, J. D. (2005). A tale of two visions:Can a new view of personality help integratepsychology? American Psychologist, 60, 294–307.

Mayer, J. D. (2009). Personal intelligenceexpressed: A theoretical analysis. Review ofGeneral Psychology, 13, 46–58.

Mayer, J. D., Chabot, H. F., & Carlsmith, K.M. (1997). Conation, affect, and cognition inpersonality. In G. Matthews (Ed.), Cognitivescience perspectives on personality and emotion(pp. 31–63). New York, NY: Elsevier.

Mayer, J. D., & Cobb, C. D. (2000). Educationalpolicy on emotional intelligence: Does it makesense? Educational Psychology Review, 12, 163–183.

Mayer, J. D., DiPaolo, M. T., & Salovey, P.(1990). Perceiving affective content in ambigu-ous visual stimuli: A component of emotionalintelligence. Journal of Personality Assessment,54, 772–781.

Mayer, J. D., & Geher, G. (1996). Emotionalintelligence and the identification of emotion.Intelligence, 22, 89–113.

Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S.G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intel-ligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 507–536.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelli-gence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence,17, 433–442.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1995). Emotionalintelligence and the construction and regula-tion of feelings. Applied and Preventive Psy-chology, 4, 197–208.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emo-tional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter(Eds.). Emotional development and emotionalintelligence: Implications for educators (pp. 3–31). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (1997).Emotional IQ test (CD ROM). Needham, MA:Virtual Knowledge.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000).Models of emotional intelligence. In R. J.Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence(pp. 396–420). New York, NY: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004).Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings,and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 60,197–215.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008).Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectictraits? American Psychologist, 63, 503–517.

Mayer, J.D., & Stevens, A. (1994). An emergingunderstanding of the reflective (meta-) expe-rience of mood. Journal of Research in Person-ality, 28, 351–373.

McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new BigFive: Fundamental principles for an integra-tive science of personality. American Psychol-ogist, 61, 204–217.

Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G.G., Moreland, K. L., Dies, R. R., Eisman, E.J., Kubiszyn, T. W., & Read, G. M. (2001).Psychological testing and psychological assess-ment: A review of evidence and issues. Amer-ican Psychologist, 52, 128–165.

Mischel, W. (2004). Toward an integrative sci-ence of the person. Annual Review of Psychol-ogy, 55, 1–22.

Nowicki S. J., & Carton J. (1993). The mea-surement of emotional intensity from facialexpressions. Journal of Social Psychology, 133,749–750.

Oatley, K. (2004). Emotional intelligence and theintelligence of emotions. Psychological Inquiry,15, 216–221.

Palmer, B. R., Gignac, G., Manocha, R., &Stough, C. (2005). A psychometric evalua-tion of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso EmotionalIntelligence Test Version 2.0. Intelligence, 33,285–305.

Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and con-trol of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R.Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Mea-sures of personality and social psychological atti-tudes (pp. 17–60). New York, NY: AcademicPress/Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Paulhus D. L., Lysy D. C., & Yik M. S. M. (1998).Self-report measures of intelligence: Are theyuseful as proxy IQ tests? Journal of Personality,66, 525–554.

Payne, W. L. (1986). A study of emotion: Devel-oping emotional intelligence; Self-integration;relating to fear, pain and desire. DissertationAbstracts International, 47, (01), p. 203A. (Uni-versity Microfilms No. AAC 8605928).

Peterson, K. S. (1997, February 18). Signs of intel-ligence: Do new definitions of smart dilutemeaning? USA Today, Section D, p. 1.

Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emo-tional intelligence: Psychometric investigationwith reference to established trait taxonomies.European Journal of Personality, 15, 425–448.

Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Traitemotional intelligence: Behavioural validationin two studies of emotion recognition and



reactivity to mood induction. European Jour-nal of Personality, 17, 39–57.

Pitterman H., & Nowicki S. J. 2004. A test of theability to identify emotion in human standingand sitting postures: The diagnostic analysis ofnonverbal accuracy-2 posture test (DANVA2-POS). Genetic Social and General PsychologicalMonographs, 130, 146–162.

Plutchik, R. (1984). Emotions: A general psycho-evolutionary theory. In K. R. Scherer & P.Ekman (Eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 197–219). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Publilius Syrus. (1961). “Sententiae.” In J. W. Duff& A. M. Duff (Eds.), Minor Latin poets. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Orig-inal work published c. 100 BCE]

Rosenthal, R., Hall, J. A., DiMatteo, M. R.,Rogers, P. L., & Archer, D (1979). Sensitivityto nonverbal communication: The PONS Test.Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.

Roseman, I. J., & Evdokas, A. (2004). Appraisalscause experienced emotions: Experimentalevidence. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 1–28.

Rosete, D. (2005, June 12–14). A leaders edge –what attributes make an effective leader? Paperpresented at the Fifth Annual Emotional Intel-ligence Conference, the Netherlands.

Rosete, D. (2009). A leaders edge – what attributesmake an effective leader? Manuscript in prepa-ration.

Saarni, C. (1990). Emotional competence: Howemotions and relationships become inte-grated. In R. A. Thompson (Ed.), Socioemo-tional development: Nebraska symposium onmotivation (Vol. 36, pp. 115–182). Lincoln: Uni-versity of Nebraska Press.

Saarni, C. (1997). Emotional competence andself-regulation in childhood. In P. Salovey &D. J. Sluyter, Emotional development and emo-tional intelligence (pp. 35–66). New York, NY:Basic Books.

Saarni, C. (in press). Developing emotional compe-tence. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Salerno, J. G.,(1996). The whole intelligence: Emo-tional quotient (EQ). Oakbank, South Aus-tralia: Noble House of Australia.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotionalintelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Per-sonality, 9, 185–211.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1994). Some finalthoughts about personality and intelligence. InR. J. Sternberg, & P. Ruzgis (Eds.), Personalityand intelligence (pp. 303–318). Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S., Turvey,C., & Palfai, T. (1995). Emotional attention,clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional intel-ligence using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. InJ. W. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure,and health (pp. 125–154). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Scarr, S. (1989). Protecting general intelligence:Constructs and consequences for interven-tion. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Intelligence: Measure-ment, theory, and public policy. Urbana: Uni-versity of Illinois Press.

Schaffer, L. F., Gilmer, B., & Schoen, M. (1940).Psychology (p. xii). New York: Harper &Brothers.

Schellenberg, E. G. (2006). Long-term positiveassociations between music lessons and IQ.Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 457–468.

Schultz, D., Izard, C. E., Ackerman, B. P., &Youngstrom, E. A. (2001). Emotion knowl-edge in economically disadvantaged children:Self-regulatory antecedents and relations forto social difficulties and withdrawal. Develop-ment and Psychopathology, 13, 53–67.

Segal, J. (1997). Raising your emotional intelligence.New York, NY: Holt.

Shapiro, L. E. (1997). How to raise a child with ahigh E.Q: A parents’ guide to emotional intelli-gence. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Simmons, S., & Simmons, J. C. (1997). Measur-ing emotional intelligence with techniques for self-improvement. Arlington, TX: Summit Publish-ing Group.

Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. NewYork, NY: Macmillan.

Steiner, C. M. (1986). When a man loves a woman.New York, NY: Grove Press.

Steiner, C. M. (2003). Emotional literacy: Intelli-gence with a heart. Fawnskin, CA: PersonhoodPress.

Steiner, C., & Perry, P. (1997). Achievingemotional literacy: A program to increaseyour emotional intelligence. New York, NY:Avon.

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A newtheory of human intelligence. New York, NY:Penguin Books.

Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence: Howpractical and creative intelligence determine suc-cess in life. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). A broad view of intelli-gence: The theory of successful intelligence.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice andResearch, 55, 139–154.



Sternberg, R. J., & Smith, C. (1985). Social intel-ligence and decoding skills in nonverbal com-munication. Social Cognition, 3, 168–192.

Taylor, G. J., Ryan, D., & Bagby, R. M. (1985).Toward the development of a new self-reportalexithymia scale. Psychotherapy and psychoso-matics, 44, 191–199.

Terman, L. M. (1921). II [Second contribution to“Intelligence and its measurement: A sympo-sium”]. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12,127–133.

Tett, R. P., Fox, K. E., & Wang, A. (2005). Devel-opment and validation of a self-report mea-sure of emotional intelligence as a multidi-mensional trait domain. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 31, 859–888.

Thorndike, R. L., & Stein, S. (1937). An evalua-tion of the attempts to measure social intelli-gence. Psychological Bulletin, 34, 275–284.

Time. (1995, October 2). [Cover]. New York:Time Warner.

Tomkins, S. S. (1962). Affect, imagery, conscious-ness: Vol. 1, The positive affects. New York, NY:Springer.

Trentacosta, C. J., & Izard, C. E. (2007). Kinder-garten children’s emotion competence as apredictor of their academic competence infirst grade. Emotion, 7, 77–88.

Van Ghent D. (1953). The English novel: Form andfunction. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Wechsler, D. (1940). Nonintellective factors ingeneral intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 37,444–445.

Wechsler, D. (1943). Non-intellective factorsin general intelligence. Journal of AbnormalSocial Psychology, 38, 100–104.

Wechsler, D. (1958). The measurement andappraisal of adult intelligence (4th ed.). Balti-more, MD: Williams & Wilkins.

Weis, S., & Suß, H. M. (2007). Reviving thesearch for social intelligence – A multitrait-multimethod study of its structure and con-struct validity. Personality and Individual Dif-ferences, 42, 3–14.

Weisinger, H. (1997). Emotional intelligence atwork. New York: Jossey-Bass.

Wong, C. T., Day, J. D., Maxwell, S. E., & Meara,N. M. (1995). A multitrait-multimethod studyof academic and social intelligence in collegestudents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87,117–133.

Woodworth, R. S. (1940). Psychology (4th ed.).New York, NY: Henry Holt.

Young, P. T. (1936). Motivation of behavior. NewYork, NY: Wiley.

Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D., & Matthews,G. (2008). The science of emotionalintelligence: Current consensus and con-troversies. European Psychologist, 13, 64–78.

emotional intelligenceei.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/pub312_eichapter2011final.pdf ·...

Documents