0% found this document useful (0 votes)
28 views16 pagesTopic 6
C2
Uploaded by
Rocio Barrionuevo AlvarezCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
28 views16 pagesTopic 6
C2
Uploaded by
Rocio Barrionuevo AlvarezCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 16
Soci and Pesonaty Prycelogy Comps /t 2011): 88-103, 10.11114.1751-90082010.00334x
Emotional Intelligence: Implications for Personal, Social,
Academic, and Workplace Success
Marc A. Brackett*, Susan E. Rivers, and Peter Salovey
Yale University
Abstract
This article presents an overview of the ability model of emotional intelligence and includes a dis-
cussion about how and why the concept became useful in both educational and workplace set-
tings. We review the four underlying emotional abilities comprising emotional intelligence and
the assessment tools that that have been developed to measure the construct. A primary goal is to
provide a review of the research describing the correlates of emotional intelligence. We describe
what is known about how emotionally intelligent people function both intra- and interpersonally
and in both academic and workplace settings
The facts point in one direction: The job offer you have in hand is perfect — great sal-
ary, ideal location, and tremendous growth opportunities. Yet, there is something that
makes you feel uneasy about resigning from your current position and moving on.
What will you do? Ignore the feeling and choose what appears to be the logical path,
or go with your gut and risk disappointing your family? Or, might you consider both
your thoughts and feelings about the job in order to make the decision? Solving prob-
Jems and making wise decisions using both thoughts and feelings or logic and intuition
is a part of what we refer to as emotional intelligence (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Salovey
& Mayer, 1990)
Linking emotions and intelligence was relatively novel when first introduced in a theo-
retical model about twenty years ago (Salovey & Mayer, 1990; but see Gardner,
1983/1993). Among the many questions posed by both researchers and laypersons alike
were: Is emotional intelligence an innate, nonmalleable mental ability? Can it be acquired
with instruction and training? Is it a new intelligence or just the repackaging of existing
constructs? How can it be measured reliably and validly? What does the existence of an
emotional intelligence mean in everyday life? In what ways does emotional intelligence
affect mental health, relationships, daily decisions, and academic and workplace perfor-
mance?
In this article, we provide an overview of the theory of emotional intelligence, includ
ing a brief discussion about how and why the concept has been used in both educational
and workplace settings. Because the field is now replete with articles, books, and training
manuals on the topic — and because the definitions, claims, and measures of emotional
intelligence have become extremely diverse — we also clarify definitional and measure-
ment issues. A final goal is to provide an up-to-date review of the research describing
what the lives of emotionally intelligent people ‘look like’ personally, socially, academi-
cally, and in the workplace
©2011 The Authors
Sodal and Pesoalty Psychology Compass © 2011 Blane Publishing Led Emotional intelligence 89
What is Emotional Intelligence?
Initial conception of emotional intelligence
Emotional intelligence was described formally by Salovey and Mayer (1990). They
defined it as ‘the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to dis
cziminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions’
(p. 189). They also provided an initial empirical demonstration of how an aspect of emo-
tional intelligence could be measured as a mental ability (Mayer, DiPaolo, & Salovey,
1990). In both articles, emotional intelligence was presented as a way to conceptualize
the relation between cognition and affect. Historically, ‘emotion’ and ‘intelligence’ were
viewed as being in opposition to one another (Lloyd, 1979). How could one be intelli-
gent about the emotional aspects of life when emotions derail individuals from achieving
their goals (e.g., Young, 1943)? The theory of emotional intelligence suggested the oppo-
site: emotions make cognitive processes adaptive and individuals can think rationally
about emotions.
Emotional intelligence is an outgrowth of two areas of psychological research that
emerged over forty years ago. The first area, cognition and affect, involved how cognitive
and emotional processes interact to enhance thinking (Bower, 1981; Isen, Shalker, Clark,
& Karp, 1978; Zajonc, 1980). Emotions like anger, happiness, and fear, as well as mood
states, preferences, and bodily states, influence how people think, make decisions, and
perform different tasks (Forgas & Moylan, 1987; Mayer & Bremer, 1985; Salovey &
Birnbaum, 1989). The second was an evolution in models of intelligence itself. Rather
than viewing intelligence strictly as how well one engaged in analytic tasks associated
with memory, reasoning, judgment, and abstract thought, theorists and investigators
began considering intelligence as a broader array of mental abilities (e.g., Cantor & Kihl-
strom, 1987; Gardner, 1983/1993; Stemberg, 1985). Sternberg (1985), for example, urged
educators and scientists to place an emphasis on creative abilities and practical knowledge
that could be acquired through careful navigation of one’s everyday environment. Gard-
ner’s (1983) ‘personal intelligences,’ including the capacities involved in accessing one’s
own feeling life (intrapersonal intelligence) and the ability to monitor others’ emotions
and mood (interpersonal intelligence), provided a compatible backdrop for considering
emotional intelligence as a viable construct.
Popularization of emotional intelligence
The term ‘emotional intelligence’ was mostly unfamiliar to researchers and the general
public until Goleman (1995) wrote the best-selling trade book, Emotional Intelligence: Why
it can Matter More than IQ. The book quickly caught the eye of the media, public, and
researchers. In it, Goleman described how scientists had discovered a connection between
emotional competencies and prosocial behavior; he also declared that emotional intelli-
gence was both an answer to the violence plaguing our schools and ‘as powerful and at
times more powerful than IQ’ in predicting success in life (Goleman, 1995; p. 34). Both
in the 1995 book and in a later book focusing on workplace applications of emotional
intelligence (Goleman, 1998), Goleman described the construct as an array of positive
attributes including political awareness, self-confidence, conscientiousness, and achieve-
ment motives rather than focusing only on an intelligence that could help individuals
solve problems effectively (Brackett & Geher, 2006). Goleman’s views on emotional
intelligence, in part because they were articulated for/to the general public, extended
2011 The Authors Sool anal Pvsenalty Psychology Compass 8 (2011; 88-103, 10.11114.1781-8004.2010.00538."
Soval ana Persoralty Psychology Comeass © 2011 Blacel Publishing Li 90 Emotional Intelligence
beyond the empirical evidence that was available (Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998;
Hedlund & Stemberg, 2000; Mayer & Cobb, 2000). Yet, people from all professions —
educators, psychologists, human resource professionals, and corporate executives — began
to incorporate emotional intelligence into their daily vernacular and professional practices.
Definitions and measures of emotional intelligence varied widely, with little consensus
about what emotional intelligence is and is not.
Alltemative models of emotional intelligence
‘Today, there are two scientific approaches to emotional intelligence. They can be charac-
terized as the ability model and mixed models (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2000). The
ability model views emotional intelligence as a standard intelligence and argues that the
construct meets traditional criteria for an intelligence (Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008b;
Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008a). Proponents of the abilit
model measure emotional intelligence as a mental ability with performance assessments
that have a criterion of correctness (ie., there are better and worse answers, which are
determined using complex scoring algorithms). Mixed models are so called because they
mix the ability conception with personality traits and competencies such as optimism,
self-esteem, and emotional self-efficacy (see Cherniss, 2010, for a review). Proponents of
this approach use self-report instruments as opposed to performance assessments to mea-
sure emotional intelligence (i.c., instead of asking people to demonstrate how they per-
ceive an emotional expression accurately, self-report measures ask people to judge and
report how good they are at perceiving others’ emotions accurately)
‘There has been a debate about the ideal method to measure emotional intelligence.
On the surface, self-report (or self-judgment) scales are desirable: they are less costly, eas-
ier to administer, and take considerably less time to complete than performance tests
(Brackett, Rivers, Shifiman, Leer, & Salovey, 2006). However, it is well known that
self-report measures are problematic because respondents can provide socially desirable
responses rather than truthful ones, or respondents may not actually know how good th
are at emotion-based tasks — to whom do they compare themselves (¢.g., DeNisi &
Shaw, 1977; Paulhus, Lysy, & Yik, 1998)? As they apply to emotional intelligence, self-
report measures are related weakly to performance assessments and lack discriminant
validity from existing measures of personality (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Brackett et al.,
2006). In a meta-analysis of 13 studies that compared performance tests (e.g., Mayer,
Salovey, & Caruso, 2002) and self-report scales (e.g., EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997), Van Rooy,
Viswesvaran, and Pluta (2005) reported that performance tests were relatively distinct
from self-report measures (r = 0.14). Even when a self-report measure is designed to map
onto performance tests, correlations are very low (Brackett et al., 2006a). Finally,
self-report measures of emotional intelligence are more susceptible to faking than perfor-
mance tests (Day & Carroll, 2008)
For the reasons described in this section, we assert that the ability-based definition and
performance-based measurement of emotional intelligence should be preferred. This
makes it possible to both operationalize the construct distinctly and assess its unique
contribution to important life outcomes over and above personality attributes, This view-
point is supported by researchers not associated with any of the established measures of
emotional intelligence (e.g., Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002). The focus for the
remainder of this article, therefore, is on the ability model of emotional intelligence.
‘A more thorough review of the validity of both ability and mixed models of emotional
©2011 The Authors Sexil and Personality Psychology Compass 5/1 (2011): 8-103, 10.1111/.1781-8008.2010.00534
Socal and Pessoal Psychology Compass © 2011 Blacwel Publishing Lid Emotional Intelligence 91
intelligence can be found in a recent meta-analysis (O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack,
Hawver, & Story, 2010)
‘The Mayer and Salovey Model of Emotional Intelligence
The Mayer and Salovey (1997) model of emotional intelligence defines four discrete
mental abilities (also referred to as “branches’) that comprise emotional intelligence: (i)
perception of emotion, (ii) use of emotion to facilitate thought, (iii) understanding of
emotion, and (jv) management of emotion. These four inter-related abilities are arranged
hierarchically such that more basic psychological processes (i.e. perceiving emotions) are
at the base or foundation of the model and more advanced psychological processes (i.¢.,
conscious, reflective regulation of emotion) are at the top. Empirical demonstrations of
whether the higher-level abilities are dependent, to some extent, upon the lower-level
abilities, have yet to be conducted. Here, we provide a brief description of the four abili-
ties, which are described more fully elsewhere (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer et al.,
2008a,b)
‘The first branch, ‘Perception of emotion,’ includes the ability to identify and differen
tiate emotions in the self and others. A basic aspect of this ability is identifying emotions
accurately in physical states (including bodily expressions) and thoughts, At a more
advanced level, this ability enables one to identify emotions in other people, works of art,
and objects using cues such as sound, appearance, color, language, and behavior. The
ability to discriminate between honest and false emotional expressions in others is consid-
ered an especially sophisticated perceiving ability. Finally, appropriately expressing emo-
tions and related needs represents more complex problem solving on this branch.
The second branch, ‘Use of emotion to facilitate thinking,’ refers to harnessing emo-
tions to facilitate cognitive activities such as reasoning, problem solving, and interpersonal
communication, A basic aspect of this ability is using emotions to prioritize thinking by
directing attention to important information about the environment or other people:
More advanced skills involve generating vivid emotions to aid judgment and memory
processes, and generating moods to facilitate the consideration of multiple perspectives
Producing emotional states to foster different thinking styles (¢.g., people's thinking is
more detail-oriented, substantive, and focused when in sad versus happy moods) consti
tutes an especially high level of ability on this branch
The third branch, ‘Understanding and analyzing emotions,’ includes comprehension of
the language and meaning of emotions and an understanding of the antecedents of emo-
tions. Basic skill in this area includes labeling emotions with accurate language as well as
recognizing similarities and differences between emotion labels and emotions themselves
Interpreting meanings and origins of emotions (¢.g., sadness can result from a loss, joy
can follow from attaining a goal) and understanding complex feelings such as simulta-
neous moods or emotions (feeling both interested and bored), or blends of feelings (¢.g.,
contempt as a combination of disgust and anger) represent more advanced levels of
understanding emotion. Recognizing transitions between emotions (¢.g., sadness may lead
to despair which may lead to devastation) is an especially sophisticated component of this
branch,
The fourth branch, ‘Reflective regulation of emotions,’ includes the ability to prevent,
reduce, enhance, or modify an emotional response in oneself and others, as well as the
ability to experience a range of emotions while making decisions about the appropriate-
ness or usefulness of an emotion in a given situation. Basic emotion regulation ability
involves attending to and staying open to pleasant and unpleasant feelings, while more
@ 2011 The Authors Socal anal Pvsnalty Psychology Compass 8 (2011: 8-103, 10.11114.1781-8004.2010.00538.
Soval ana Ptsonalty Psychology Comeass © 2011 Blacel Publishing Lt 92. Emotional Intelligence
advanced ability involves engaging or detaching from an emotion depending on its per-
ceived utility in a situation, Monitoring and reflecting on one’s own emotions and those
of others (e.g, processing whether the emotion is typical, acceptable, or influential) also
represents more complex problem solving within this branch.
Measuring emotional intelligence
There are a number of published performance tests that measure distinct components of
emotional intelligence (j.e., one or more of the branches of Mayer and Salovey’s model,
but not all branches). For example, two frequently used measures of perceptual accuracy
of emotion are the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy Scales (DANVA and
DANVA-2; Nowicki & Duke, 1994). Elsewhere, these and other measures are described
in detail (Brackett & Geher, 2006; Mayer et al., 2008a,b). A comprehensive performance
test of emotional intelligence is the Mayer-Salovey—Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
(MSCEIT; Mayer et al., 2002) for adults and the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional
Intelligence Test, Youth Version (MSCEIT-YV; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2005) for
adolescents (ages 12-17). These are considered performance tests because they require
individuals to solve tasks pertaining to each of the four abilities defined by the theory
(Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003). The adult version of the MSCEIT has
cight tasks (two for each of the four branches), as depicted in Figure 1, The test takes
about 45 minutes to complete and yields scores for each of the four branches and a total
score. Here, we provide a brief overview of the adult version of the test. More detailed
descriptions of both the adult and youth versions of the tests can be found elsewhere
(Rivers, Brackett, & Salovey, 2008).
The first branch, Perceiving Emotions, is measured by asking respondents to identify
the emotions expressed in photographs of people's faces (Faces) as well as the feelings
suggested by artistic designs and landscapes (Pictures). For example, in the Faces task, par-
ticipants are presented with a picture of a person expressing a basic emotion like joy.
MSCEIT TASKS
Managing Meneses
Emotion
Emotional
Intelligence
Perceiving
Emotion
Hine
Figure 1 Graphical representation of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso model of Emotional Intelligence.
© 2011 The Authors Sol anl Personality Psychology Compass 5 (2011): 8-108, 10,11114.1751-8004 2010.00338.x
Sota and Personalty Psychology Compass © 2011 Blake Publishing Li Emotional Intelligence 93
Below the picture is a list of five emotions; the test-taker is asked to rate on a five-point
scale how much of each particular emotion is expressed in the picture.
The second branch, Using Emotion to Facilitate Thought, is measured by wo tests
that assess people's ability to describe emotional sensations and their parallels to other sen-
sory modalities using a non-feeling vocabulary (Sensations) and identify the feelings that
might facilitate or interfere with the successful performance of various cognitive and
behavioral tasks (Facilitation). For example, the task measuring Sensations presents partici-
pants with a sentence asking them to imagine feeling an emotion such as guilt, Partici-
pants are then given a list of adjectives pertaining to other sensory modalities (e.g., warm,
blue, and sour) and are asked to rate on a five-point scale from ‘Not Alike’ to ‘Very
Much Alike’ how much the feeling of guilt is similar to the adjectives.
‘The third branch, Understanding Emotion, is measured by two tasks that pertain to a
person's ability to analyze blended or complex emotions (Blends) and to understand how
emotional reactions change over time or how they follow upon one another (Changes)
For example, a question on the Blends task presents a statement such as ‘Anticipation and
joy often combine to form...", Participants are then presented with a list of response
alternatives and choose the most appropriate.
The fourth branch, Managing Emotions, has two subtests that assess how participants
would nranage their own emotions (Emotion Management) and how they would manage
the emotions of others (Social Management). For example, the Social Management task
asks participants to read a vignette about another person, and then determine how effec-
tive several different courses of action would be in coping with emotions in the vignette
Participants rate a number of possible actions ranging from ‘Very ineffective’ to ‘Very
effective.”
‘On the MSCEIT, better and worse answers are determined by consensus or expert
scoring. Consensus scores reflect the proportion of people in the normative sample (over
5,000 people from North America) who endorsed each MSCEIT test item. Expert norms
were obtained from 21 investigators, including psychologists and philosophers who were
members of the International Society for Research on Emotion (ISRE). These scientists
and scholars provided their expert judgment on each of the test’s items based on findings
from the professional literature on emotion. Scores are weighted by the proportion of the
normative or expert sample that provided the same answer. Full-scale MSCEIT scores
based on both the consensus and expert norms correlate quite highly, r= 0.91 (Mayer
et al., 2003). Generally, correlations with various outcomes are replicated across the two
scoring methods as well, The MSCEIT is reliable at the full-scale level and at the area
and branch levels (Mayer et al., 2003), but it should not be scored at the level of individ~
ual tasks
Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, and Sitarenios (2001) and Mayer et al. (2003, 2008a,b) claim
that the MSCEIT meets the criteria for a test of intelligence because: (j) it has a factor
structure congruent with the four branches of the theoretical model; (ii) the four abilities
have expected convergent and discriminant validity (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Gil-Olarte,
Palomera Martin, & Brackett, 2006; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004; Lopes, Salovey, &
Straus, 2003; Van Rooy et al., 2005; Warwick & Nettelbeck, 2004); that is, they are
statistically independent from other well established constructs (including personality traits),
are meaningfully related to other mental abilities such as verbal intelligence, and are asso-
ciated with conceptually-related constructs such as empathy; (jii) emotional intelligence
develops with age and experience, and finally; (iv) the abilities are measured objectively.
‘The MSCEIT has been criticized on a number of grounds (for reviews see Matthews
et al., 2002; Rivers et al., 2008). Here, we point out a few valid concems about the test.
& 2011 The Authors Sol aralPvsenalty Psychology Compass 8 (2011: 8-103, 10.11114.1781-8004.2010.00538."
Soval ana Prsonalty Psychology Comeass © 2011 Blacel Publishing Lt 94 Emotional Intelligence
First, the MSCEIT was designed as an casy-to-administer test that can be completed
using cither paper-and-pencil or online versions. This structure does not allow for the
direct assessment of certain skills such as the appropriate expression of emotion and the
ability to regulate emotions in realtime, which would require either sophisticated techo-
nology or experimental conditions. Thus, the MSCEIT may be more closely related to
crystallized intelligence (the ability to use skills and knowledge) rather than fluid intelli-
gence (the capacity to think logically and problem-solve) (Farrelly & Austin, 2007). Sec-
ond, certain dimensions on the MSCEIT, like the perception of emotion, have a small
number and range of facial expressions. The test also taps a limited scope of non-verbal
channels; it does not capture gesture, voice, or posture (O'Sullivan & Ekman, 2004)
With respect to scoring, both consensus and expert methods have their limitations.
Day (2004) questioned whether high EI individuals know what everyone else knows
about emotion or know more about emotion, It may be that agreement with the consen-
sus reflects average emotional intelligence, not high emotional intelligence. MacCann,
Roberts, Matthews, and Zeidner (2004) found that emotion ability measures using veridi-
cal scoring (ie., tasks that have a true or real answer as opposed to those that are rated as
more or less effective according to a consensus; Geher & Renstrom, 2004) might be ideal
because they converge better with other ability measures than those using consensus
based scoring
Emotional Intelligence in Everyday Life
Even though the Adult Version of the MSCEIT was published in 2002 and the Youth
Version is still under development, a number of studies have provided evidence support
ing the validity of both tests. The findings with adults, in particular, indicate that the
MSCEIT is measuring something different than other intelligence and personality assess
ments, and that it predicts psychological constructs and behavior above and beyond exist-
ing measures of intelligence and personality (see Cherniss, 2010; Mayer et al., 2008a,b,
for reviews). Scores on the test are associated with relevant outcomes across multiple
dimensions, including cognitive and social functioning, psychological well being, psycho-
pathology, academic performance, and leadership and other behaviors in the workplace
In this section we provide an overview of studies that demonstrate the validity of both
versions of the test.
Relation to cognitive abilities
According to the ability model of emotional intelligence, each ability influences how
individuals utilize emotions to facilitate thinking or regulate emotions to focus on impor-
tant information. For these reasons, emotional intelligence is hypothesized to correlate
moderately with other intelligences, like verbal-propositional intelligence (Mayer & Salo-
vey, 1997). A recent meta-analysis of 18 studies that used the MSCEIT and its predeces~
sor test, the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999)
supports these hypotheses. Van Rooy et al. (2005) reported correlations in the 0.30 range
between MSCEIT scores and assessments of both verbal and spatial intelligence. Other
studies have shown that MSCEIT scores correlate moderately (rs = 0.20-0.50) with ver-
bal SAT scores (Brackett, Mayer, & Warner, 2004; David, 2005), WAIS-III scores (Lopes
et al., 2003), ACT scores (O'Connor & Little, 2003), reasoning ability (O'Connor &
Lite, 2003), academic giftedness (Zeidner, Shani-Zinovich, Matthews, & Roberts,
2005), and measures of general intelligence (e.g., Gil-Olarte et al. 2006). In general,
©2011 The Authors Sexil an Personality Psychology Compass 5 (2011): 8-103, 10.1111/.1751-8008.2010.00534
Socal and Pessoal Psychology Compass © 2011 Blacwel Publishing Lid Emotional Intelligence 95
scores on the test correlate more highly with measures of crystallized rather than fluid
intelligence. The Understanding of Emotion domain on the MSCEIT tends to have the
strongest relationship to measures of general cognitive function (rs = 0.40-0.60). This is
not surprising as this subtest relies on knowledge of a sophisticated emotional vocabulary
(Lopes et al., 2003)
MSCEIT scores are related to the amount of cognitive effort employed to solve
problems (generally) and performance on emotion-laden social problems, in particular.
In one study, individuals with higher MSCEIT scores used less cognitive effort while
solving emotion-laded problems, as assessed by patterns in theta and alpha frequency
bands of electroencephalographic activity of the brain (Jausovec, Jausovec, & Gerlic,
2001). In another study, individuals with higher MSCEIT scores solved social problems
that were affective in content more quickly than those with lower scores (Reis et al.,
2007). These studies provide preliminary evidence for the neural correlates of emotional
intelligence
Mental health and well being
‘The most common complaints that lead people to psychotherapy are anxiety and depres-
sion. The skills associated with emotional intelligence, therefore, should help individuals
to deal effectively with unpleasant emotions and to promote pleasant emotions in order
to promote both personal growth and well being. MSCEIT scores correlate (1s = 0.10—
0.40) with psychopathologies that have roots in emotional disturbances, including
depression, social anxiety disorder, and schizophrenia. David (2005) reported negative
correlations between MSCEIT scores and depression and anxiety. O'Connor and Little
(2003) showed that MSCEIT scores correlated negatively with anxiety. Gardner and
Qualter (2009) found a relationship between MSCEIT scores and Borderline Personality
Disorder (BPD) criteria in a large sample of non-clinical adults. MSCEIT scores also were
lower among inpatients diagnosed with major depressive disorder, substance abuse disor-
der, and BPD when they were compared to a matched control group sample (Hertel,
Schutz, & Lammers, 2009). In another study, patients with schizophrenia performed
significantly worse than controls on the MSCEIT. Among the patients, lower MSCEIT
scores also were associated with higher negative and disorganized symptoms, as well as
worse community functioning (Kee et al., 2009). On the positive side, among college
students, MSCEIT scores correlated positively with measures of psychological well being
(Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Lopes et al., 2003). It also appears that individuals with higher
MSCEIT scores are more likely to seek psychotherapy in times of need (Goldenberg,
Matheson, & Mantler, 2006)
Rivers et al. (2010) conducted an initial validity test of the MSCEIT-YV using student
and teacher reports of academic, social, and personal functioning on the Behavior Assess-
ment System for Children (BASC; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992). Students scoring
higher on the MSCEIT were less likely to be rated by their teachers as having externaliz~
ing problems (e.g., hyperactivity, aggression, conduct problems), internalizing problems
(c.g., anxiety, depression), and school problems. The association between MSCEIT scores
and school problems was particularly high (y= —0.57), indicating that students with
higher emotional intelligence may have better attention skills and fewer learning prob-
lems. Finally, in a study with 54 adolescents recruited from both psychiatric clinics and
the community, MSCEIT scores were shown to moderate the association between sexual
abuse and both suicidal ideation and attempts (Cha & Nock, 2009). It may be that
2011 The Authors Sool anal Pvsnalty Psychology Compass 5 (2011: 88-103, 10.11114.1781-8004.2010.00538."
Soval ana Petsonalty Psychology Comeass © 2011 Blacel Publishing Li 96 Emotional Intelligence
emotional intelligence is a protective factor for serious psychological problems among
adolescents
Social functioning
Emotional intelligence is postulated to promote positive social functioning by helping
individuals to detect others’ emotion states, adopt others’ perspectives, enhance commu-
nication, and regulate behavior. Indeed, people with higher MSCEIT scores tend to be
more socially competent, to have better quality relationships, and to be viewed as more
interpersonally sensitive than those with lower MSCEIT scores (Brackett, Warner, &
Bosco, 2005; Brackett et al., 2006a; Lopes, Salovey, Cété, & Beers, 2005; Lopes et al.,
2003, 2004). Most of these associations remain statistically significant (7s in the 0.30
range) even after controlling for established personality traits such as neuroticism and
general intelligence
Mayer-Salovey—Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test scores have been associated posi-
tively with selfperceived supportive relationships with friends and parents, and negatively
associated with antagonistic and conflictual relationships with close friends (Lopes et al.,
2004). For example, college students with higher MSCEIT scores were viewed by their
peers as more interpersonally sensitive and prosocial (Lopes et al., 2005). Higher MSCEIT.
scores were associated strongly (rs > 0.50) with judges’ positive ratings of ‘the ability to
work well with others’ and ‘overall social competence’ using a videotaped ‘getting
acquainted’ social interaction, but for men only (Brackett ct al., 2006a). Finally, MSCEIT
scores correlated significantly with secure attachment styles, which reflect emotional
closeness to others as well as feeling comfortable both depending on others and having
others depend on oneself (Kafetsios, 2004)
Emotional intelligence should facilitate successful navigation through the emotion-
laden situations one encounters in romantic relationships. In one study, dating and mar-
ried couples with higher MSCEIT scores reported more satisfaction and happiness in their
relationships (Brackett et al., 2005). Moreover, if both partners had low MSCEIT scores,
relationship quality was lower and both conflict and maladaptive relationship behaviors
were higher than when both partners had high MSCEIT scores (Brackett et al., 2005)
Individuals may even select partners initially based on similarity of emotional intelligence
scores (Brackett, 2006), although evidence for such a phenomenon may reflect the possi-
bility that partners’ emotional intelligence converges over time. How emotional intelli-
gence contributes to relationship quality and satisfaction is still unknown; longitudinal
research will provide insights.
Among teenagers, those lower in emotional intelligence were rated in one study as
more aggressive than others and tended to engage in more conflictual behavior than their
counterparts who scored higher in emotional intelligence (Mayer, Perkins, Caruso, &
Salovey, 2001a; Rubin, 1999). Middle school students’ MSCEIT-YV scores were corre-
lated positively with teacher ratings of adaptive skills including social skills and leadership
ability. Emotional intelligence scores correlated with student self-reports of the same out-
comes. Finally, MSCEIT-YV scores correlated positively with student reports of having
healthy social relationships, high self-reliance, and better-quality relationships with their
parents (Rivers et al., 2010)
Emotional intelligence has been negatively associated with maladaptive lifestyle choices.
Lower MSCEIT scores among male college students were related to higher levels of drug
and alcohol use as well as stealing and fighting (Brackett et al., 2004; Mayer et al., 2004)
Inner-city adolescents’ smoking also was related to lower MSCEIT scores (Trinidad &
©2011 The Authors Sexil an Personality Psychology Compass 5/1 (2011) 8-103, 10.1111/.1751-8008.2010.00534
Socal and Pessoal Psychology Compass © 2011 Blacwel Publishing Lid Emotional intelligence 97
Johnson, 2002). It appears that emotional intelligence may help individuals both to navi-
gate their social worlds more effectively and make better choices about engaging in se
destructive behavior.
Academic performance
Emotional intelligence is hypothesized to aid in prioritizing thinking and to enable one
to manage emotions in anxiety-provoking situations, such as taking standardized tests.
Evidence supporting the role of emotional intelligence in academic settings is mixed.
Some studies show positive associations (Barchard, 2003; Brackett & Mayer, 2003),
whereas others show no links at all (O'Connor & Little, 2003; Rode et al., 2007). In
two studies with college students, MSCEIT total scores and grades were correlated
modestly (Barchard, 2003; Brackett & Mayer, 2003). However, the correlations in these
studies became non-significant once verbal intelligence scores were controlled. A study
with high school students in Spain, however, demonstrated the incremental validity of
emotional intelligence in the predication of grades. Scores on the MSCEIT, which was
administered at the start of the academic year, correlated with final grades after control-
ling for both personality and academic intelligence (Gil-Olarte et al., 2006). Among mid-
dle school students, MSCEIT scores correlated significantly with year-end academic and
behavior grades after controlling for scores on verbal standardized tests (prs = 0.34, 0.21,
respectfully) (Rivers et al., 2010). The findings from middle and high school students
may be stronger than those using college student samples due to a restricted range of
grades among college student samples.
Although more research is necessary to unpack whether (and how) emotional intelli
gence relates to academic performance, it appears that emotional intelligence may influ-
ence other aspects of student performance in school, Students scoring higher on the
MSCEIT-YV were less likely to be rated by their teacher as having school problems,
including attention and learning problems. Students scoring higher on the MSCEIT-YV
also were less likely to report negative attitudes toward school and toward their teachers
(Rivers et al., 2008)
Workplace performance
Emotional intelligence is hypothesized to influence the success with which employees
interact with colleagues, the strategies they use to manage conflict and stress, and overall
job performance (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005; Lopes, Caté, & Salovey, 2006a). Preliminary
findings with the MSCEIT suggest that emotional intelligence positively contributes to
several aspects of workplace performance. In a health insurance company, analysts and
clerical employees from the finance department with higher MSCEIT scores had higher
company tank and received greater merit pay increases than employees with lower
MSCEIT scores. Employees with higher emotional intelligence also received better peer
and/or supervisor ratings of interpersonal facilitation, stress tolerance, and leadership
potential than those with lower emotional intelligence (Lopes et al., 2006b). Similarly,
among middle and high school teachers, MSCEIT scores were associated positively with
job satisfaction and negatively with burnout. These associations were mediated by teacher
reports of experiencing positive emotions in school and their perceived support from
their school principal (Brackett, Palomera, Mojsa, Reyes, & Salovey, 2010a)
Emotional intelligence has been associated with the extent to which managers conduct
themselves in ways that are supportive of the goals of the organization, according to the
2011 The Authors Sool anal Pvsnatty Psychology Compass 8 (2011: 86-103, 10.11114.1781-8004.2010.00538.
Soval ana Petsonalty Psychology Comeass © 2011 Blacel Publishing Li 98 Emotional Intelligence
ratings of their supervisors (Cété & Miners, 2006). MSCEIT scores for 38 manufacturing
supervisors’ managerial performance correlated positively with managerial performance
ratings by nearly 1,300 employees (Kerr, Garvin, Heaton, & Boyle, 2006). MSCEIT
scores of senior executives predicted leadership effectiveness as rated by managers (Rosete
& Ciarrochi, 2005). With few exceptions, most of the associations in the above studies
remained statistically significant after controlling for age, gender, education, verbal ability,
and personality traits. More thorough discussions on the role of emotional intelligence in
the workplace, including both job performance and leadership, can be found elsewhere
(Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005; Cdté, Lopes, Salovey, & Miners, 2010; O’Boyle et al., 2010).
Conclusion and Future Directions
Scientific findings on emotional intelligence support the notion that emotions are func
tional when the information they provide is attended to, interpreted accurately, integrated
into thinking and behavior, and managed effectively. According to emotional intelligence
theory, the cognitive, physiological, and behavioral changes that accompany emotional
responses are adaptive — these changes prepare us to respond to the event that caused the
emotion to occur (Lazarus, 1991). The theory also asserts that emotions serve important
social functions, conveying information about other people’s thoughts, intentions,
and behavior (Ekman, 1973; Keltner & Haidt, 2001). Indeed, the ability to integrate
emotional information into cognitive activities is essential to effective functioning across
the life course (Damasio, 1994)
Think back to the scenario that opened this article. You had a choice: stay in your
current job or accept a new one that has great benefits. Logically, the choice was obvious
= accept the new job. But you felt uneasy about this choice. How could you integrate
the information from this feeling to make a wise decision? Recognizing that the feeling is
a discomforting one may prompt you to reflect upon the aspects of your current job that
are unsatisfying, as well as the aspects of the prospective job that may make it not as
desirable as it seems. In your current job, perhaps you are not recognized often for your
contributions. In the new job, perhaps you will be required to travel more often and thus
lose valuable time with your family. Understanding the causes and consequences of the
uneasiness is informative to both managing the feeling and making a decision. Maybe the
uneasiness is connected to apprehension about having to establish yourself in a new place
with a new group of colleagues. In this case, asking a respected colleague or mentor for a
pep talk might be sufficient to reduce your nervousness. If the cause is the increased wa-
vel, then talking with your spouse and children about the implications of the new job
might help you to manage the emotion and also help you make a choice. For individuals
with high emotional intelligence, the above process may happen automatically and regu-
larly. For many others, it is likely that formal learning opportunities will be necessary to
acquire this problem-solving skill. Ideally, skill development in this area begins carly, and
is on-going,
Other research we have conducted shows that the emotion knowledge and skills that
comprise emotional intelligence can be taught and developed (Brackett, Rivers, Reyes, &
Salovey, 2010b). Our school-based prevention programs, called The RULER Approach,
are designed to provide skill-building opportunities for students, teachers, school leaders,
and family members to develop the skills of recognizing, understanding, labeling, express-
ing, and regulating emotions (the RULER skills) in order to make better decisions, form
and maintain mutually supportive relationships, behave in prosocial ways, and regulate their
feclings in order to experience greater well being. Findings from a randomized-controlled
©2011 The Authors Sexil an Personality Psychology Compass 5/1 (2011): 8-103, 10.1111/.1751-8008.2010.00534
Socal and Pessoal Psychology Compass © 2011 Blacwel Publishing Lid Emotional intelligence 99
experiment testing The RULER Approach suggest that it creates a more positive learning
climate (Brackett et al., 2010b). RULER classrooms were rated as having more interactions
reflecting positive relationships and respect; more prosocial behavior; greater enthusiasm
about learning; fewer instances of bullying between students; less frequent expression
of anger or frustration by teachers, Teachers in RULER classrooms were also. more
supportive of students, encouraging them to be autonomous in their learning and to share
their ideas. Other research shows that an emotionally positive learning climate is a primary
precursor to both academic engagement and achievement (Reyes et al., 2010)
Thus, how educators and students feel, and how they utilize and respond to their feel-
ings, influences the school environment in ways that support learning and development.
A recent meta-analysis examining the impact of social and emotional learning program-
ming shows that a systematic process for promoting the social and emotional develop-
ment of students is the common element among schools that report an increase in
academic success, improved quality of relationships between teachers and students, and a
decrease in problem behavior (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger,
forthcoming). Applications of emotional intelligence theory extend beyond the classroom
— we have created training programs for businesses, medical professionals, and parents.
Each of these applications strives to develop the skills of emotional intelligence. Empirical
investigations examining whether adults can raise their emotional intelligence are under-
way.
What we know about emotional intelligence suggests that the construct is operational~
ized best as a set of mental abilities involving emotion-based problem solving measured
with performance tests, as opposed to a set of traits and perceived abilities measured with
self-report batteries. Preferring ability models makes it possible to both develop valid per-
formance assessment tools and analyze the extent to which the construct contributes
unique variance to a person’s everyday behavior. Although research in this field is in its
incipient stages, what we have leaned thus far is promising: emotional intelligence can
be measured objectively, it predicts important life outcomes, and it appears that the skills
that comprise the construct can be learned. Over the next few decades, the field will
advance as researchers continue to test and revise emotional intelligence theory and assess
ments, conduct validation studies, and create professional development programs.
Short Biographies
Mare A. Brackett, Ph.D., is a Research Scientist in the Department of Psychology at Yale
University. He also is Deputy Director of the Health, Emotion, and Behavior Laboratory
and Head of the Emotional Intelligence Unit in the Edward Zigler Center in Child
Development and Social Policy. Dr. Brackett is the author of more than 70 scholarly
publications, including seven social and emotional learning curricula, He is the lead
developer of The RULER Approach to Social and Emotional Leaming, which posits that
teaching the skills of recognizing, understanding, labeling, expressing, and regulating
emotion contributes to positive development. Dr. Brackett's grant-funded research
focuses on examining the impact of emotion-based skills training on child and adult out-
comes related to psychological health, social competence, and both academic and work
performance. In 2009, he was awarded the Joseph E. Zins Award from CASEL for his
contributions to research on social and emotional learning. He works in school systems
and corporations around the world in the areas of assessment and training,
Susan E, Rivers, Ph.D., is an Associate Research Scientist in the Department of Psy-
chology at Yale University, where she eared her doctorate. She also is the Associate
© 2011 The Authors Sool anal Pvsenalty Psychology Compass 8 (2011: 88-03, 10.11114.1781-8004.2010.00538.
Soval ana Petsoralty Psychology Comeass © 2011 Blacel Publishing Li 100 Emotional intelligence
Director of the Health, Emotion, and Behavior Laboratory at Yale. Her research draws
from both social and health psychological perspectives to understand the conditions that
promote and impede healthy living across the life span. She is a co-developer of The
RULER Approach as well as several curricula designed to teach emotion skills. In her
grant-funded research, she investigates how emotional skills training affects positive youth
development and creates supportive learning environments. She also conducts research
looking at how the RULER skills prevent risk-taking behaviors and bullying, and pro-
mote healthy relationships and wellness. Dr. Rivers is the co-author of many scholarly
articles and papers, a consultant to businesses and schools, and works as an educational
advisor on children’s television programs, providing expertise on both resources to teach
children emotional literacy and best practices for evaluating such programs
Peter Salovey, Ph.D., Provost of Yale University, is the Chris Argyris Professor of
Psychology. He joined the Yale faculty in 1986 after receiving an A.B. and A.M. from
Stanford University and a Ph.D. from Yale. Professor Salovey has authored or edited
thirteen books translated into eleven languages and published more than 350 journal arti-
cles and essays, focused primarily on human emotion and health behavior. With John D.
Mayer he developed a broad framework called “Emotional Intelligence,’ the theory that
just as people have a wide range of intellectual abilities, they also have a wide range of
measurable emotional skills that profoundly affect their thinking and action. In his
research on health behavior, Professor Salovey investigates the effectiveness of health pro-
motion messages in persuading people to change risky behaviors relevant to cancer and
HIV/AIDS. Professor Salovey served as president of the Society for General Psychology
and treasurer of the International Society for Research on Emotion, He was the founding
editor of the Review of General Psychology and an associate editor of Emotion and Psychological
Bulletin.
Endnote
* Correspondence address: Department of Psychology, Yale University P.O. Box 208205 New Haven, CT 06511
USA. Emil: mare.bracke@yale.edu.
References
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. 8. (2005). Rumors of the death of emotional in
are vastly exaggerated. Jounal of Organizational Beahvior, 26, 441-452.
Barchard, K. A. (2003). Does emotional intelligence assist in the prediction of academic success?
Poychological Measurement, 63, 840-858.
Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Tediical Manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Bower, G. H, (1981). Mood and memory, American Peychologist, 36, 129-148,
Brackett, M. A. (2006). Emotional intelligence, relationship quality, and partwer seletion, Paper presented to the Society
‘of Personality and Social Psychology, Palm Springs, CA.
Brackett, M. A., & Geher, G. (2006). Measuring emotional intelligence: Paradigmatic