|
Emotional Intelligence, also called EI and often measured as an Emotional Intelligence Quotient or EQ, describes an ability, capacity, or skill to perceive, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups. However, being a relatively new area, the definition of emotional intelligence is still in a state of flux. Some, such as John D. Mayer prefer to distinguish emotional knowledge from emotional intelligence, as discussed below. In 1920, E. L. Thorndike, at Columbia University, , used the term "social intelligence" to describe the skill of getting along with other people. In 1975, Howard Gardner's The Shattered Mind, began the formulation of the idea for "Multiple Intelligences" (he identifies eight intelligences, later two more are added), including both interpersonal intelligence and intrapersonal intelligence. Many psychologists, such as Gardner, believe that traditional measures of intelligence, such as the IQ test, fail to fully explain cognitive ability. The term "emotional intelligence" appears to have originated with Wayne Payne , but was popularized by Daniel Goleman . Research on the concept originated with Peter Salovey and John "Jack" Mayer starting in the late 1980s. In 1990, their seminal paper defined the concept as an intelligence. Mayer and Salovey continue to research the concept. The term "emotional quotient" seems to have originated in an article by Keith Beasley . There are numerous other assessments of emotional intelligence each advocating different models and measures. Defining emotional intelligence The distinction between intelligence and knowledge in the area of cognition (i.e. IQ) is very clear, where generally, psychological research demonstrates that IQ is a reliable measure of cognitive capacity, and is stable over time. In the area of emotion (i.e. EQ) that distinction between intelligence and knowledge is murky. Current definitions of EQ are inconsistent about what it measures: some say that EQ is dynamic, it can be learned or increased; whereas others (such as Mayer) say that EQ is stable, and cannot be increased. Emotional intelligence Mayer and Salovey and emotional intelligence They suggested that the capacity to perceive and understand emotions define a new variable in personality. The Mayer-Salovey model defines emotional intelligence as the capacity to understand emotional information and to reason with emotions. More specifically, they divide emotional intelligence abilities into four areas -- in their four branch model: Goleman's five emotional competencies Extending Gardner's multiple intelligence, Salovey proposed five categories when defining emotional intelligence. And Goleman(1995) adopted Salovey's definition which divides emotional intelligence into the following five emotional competencies: Measures of Emotional Intelligence Some researchers believe EI is a cognitive ability just as is IQ (eg, Mayer & Salovey, 2000), while others believe it is a combination of perceived abilities and traits (e.g., Schutte et al. 1998). These opposing views have inspired two separate domains of inventories – ability-based measures, which focus on maximal performance, and mixed-model measures, which focus on typical performance (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000; Petrides & Furnham, 2000). Maximal performance is an indication of the best cognitive performance a test-taker can achieve on a test, while typical performance indicates a test-taker’s performance under ordinary test conditions (Dennis, Sternberg, & Beatty, 2000). Self-report measures of EI There are several self-report measures of EI. An overview is online. One of the commercial products is called The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal by Bradberry and Greaves , is administered as a self- or 360-degree assessment of the emotional intelligence skills popularized by Goleman. The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal measures: Other assessments include Reven BarOn's EQi, the EQ Map, the Six seconds Emotional Intelligence Assessment (SEI), the Emotional Competence Inventory, the Ei360, and a test by Tett, Fox, and Wang . Ability-based measures of EI The MSCEIT measure is a measure of EI involving a series of emotion-based problem solving items with relatively low face-validity, of which the answers have been deemed correct by consensus (MacCann, Roberts, Matthews, & Zeidner, 2004; Roberts, Zeidner, & Matthews, 2001). The MSCEIT (Mayer - Salovey - Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test) purports to measure emotional intelligence across the following domains: For more on this topic see psychological testing and evaluation. A discussion on the strengths of ability-based measures versus self-report measures was written by . Nancy Gibbs on emotional intelligence In October of 1995, Nancy Gibbs wrote an article on emotional intelligence that appeared in Time Magazine, wherein she mentioned Goleman's book, adding to the book's popularity, but misrepresented Mayer and Salovey's view. In the misquotation, "Their Mayer and Salovey's notion is about to bound into the national conversation, handily shortened to EQ, thanks to a new book, Emotional Intelligence (Bantam) by Daniel Goleman...", Nancy Gibbs made it look like Goleman's book accurately reflected Mayer and Salovey's concept of emotional intelligence without even mentioning the main differences. John D. Mayer criticized Gibb's article on his Web site at the University of New Hampshire. Among other things, he criticized the subtitle on the issue's cover ("It's not your IQ. Its not even a number. But emotional intelligence may be the best predictor of success in life, redefining what it means to be smart."), because the subtitle makes the reader think that emotional intelligence is not measurable and that emotional intelligence correlates with "success in life." Mayer and Salovey's view, to the contrary, states that EI is measurable, even with a psychometric test such as the MSCEIT, and makes no claim about EI's predictability for success in life. Criticisms A significant criticism is that emotional intelligence has no "benchmark" to set itself against. While IQ tests are designed to correlate as closely as possible with school grades, emotional intelligence seems to have no similar objective quantity it can be based on. The criticism of the works of Mayer and Salovey include a study by Roberts et.al. . That research warns that EQ may actually be measuring conformity. However, Mayer et.al. , provide further theoretical basis for their theories. Nevertheless, many psychological researchers do not accept emotional intelligence to be a part of "standard" intelligence (like IQ). Goleman's work is also criticized in the psychological community. Eysenck (), for example comments that Goleman "exemplifies more clearly than most the fundamental absurdity of the tendency to class almost any type of behaviour as an 'intelligence'. . . .If these five 'abilities' define 'emotional intelligence', we would expect some evidence that they are highly correlated; Goleman admits that they might be quite uncorrelated, and in any case if we cannot measure them, how do we know they are related? So the whole theory is built on quicksand; there is no sound scientific basis." Self-report EI merely another measure of Personality? Some researchers have raised concerns with the extent to which self-report EI measures correlate with established personality dimensions such as those within the Big Five (Gignac, 2005; Malouff, Thorsteinsson, & Schutte, 2005). Generally, self-report EI measures and personality measures have been said to converge because they both purport to measure traits, and because they are both measured in the self-report form (Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2002). Specifically, there appear to be two dimensions of the Big Five that stand out as most related to self-report EI – neuroticism and extraversion. In particular, neuroticism has been said to relate to negative emotionality and anxiety (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Intuitively, individuals scoring high on neuroticism are likely to score low on self-report EI measures (Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2002). While many studies have looked at the relationship between neuroticism and self-report EI measures, few have examined that relationship with the TMMS (Trait Meta Mood Scale) and SEI (Schutte EI Scale) specifically (Gignac, Palmer, Manocha, & Stough, in press). A study by Davies, Stankov, and Roberts (1998) reported a strong negative correlation between total TMMS scores and neuroticism scores (r = -.40). Another study by Warrick and Nettlebeck (2004) reported a moderate negative correlation between neuroticism and the TMMS total score (-.27), although there was a notable limitation in their sample size (n = 84). As for the SEI, an initial study by Schutte et al. (1998) reported a moderate negative correlation between neuroticism and total SEI scores (r = -.28), although the sample size was also notably small (n = 23). In a larger study (n = 354) by Saklofske (2003), the SEI optimism subscale was reported to have a strong negative relationship with neuroticism (r = -.52). Collectively, there does appear to be evidence of an overlap between neuroticism and self-report EI measures such as the TMMS and SEI. However, it is unclear in the literature exactly what level of correlation between personality and self-report EI is so high as to suggest that it self-report EI is redundant. The interpretations of moderate-to-high correlations between self-report EI and personality have been varied and inconsistent. Some researchers have asserted that correlations in the .40 range constitute outright construct redundancy (eg, Davies, Stankov & Roberts, 1998), while others have suggested that self-report EI is a personality trait in itself (eg, Petrides & Furnham, 2001). Gignac (2005) asserted that it would be difficult for any self-report individual difference measure to demonstrate exceptional incremental validity above and beyond the Big Five, and recommended that factor analytic methodology be used to test for construct redundancy (as opposed to zero-order correlations). Before conclusive and convincing arguments can be asserted as to whether self-report EI is redundant or related to personality, it would be useful to statistically extricate the effects of neuroticism from the relationship between the TMMS and SEI, and determine whether the EI subscales still form a general factor (EI g) after the extrication. While the overlap between EI and personality is a large concern, there are other factors that bring the psychometric properties of self-report EI inventories into question. Self-report EI - Susceptibility to Faking Good Self-report EI measures, much like personality measures, are comprised of highly face-valid items. This may make understanding what test items are ‘really asking’ routinely easy, and could expose the inventories to a phenomenon known as “faking good.” More formally termed socially desirable responding (SDR), “faking good” is defined as a response pattern where test-takers systematically represent themselves with an excessive positive bias (Paulhus, 2002). This bias has long been known to contaminate responses on personality inventories (Holtgraves, 2004; McFarland & Ryan, 2000; Peebles & Moore, 1998; Nichols & Greene, 1997; Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987), and act as a mediator of the relationships between self-report measures (Nichols & Greene, 1997; Ganster et al., 1983). It has been suggested that responding in a desirable way is a response set, which is a situational and temporary response pattern (Pauls & Crost, 2004; Paulhus, 1991). This is contrasted with a response style, which is a more long-term trait-like quality. Considering the contexts certain self-report EI inventories are used in (eg, employment settings), the problems of response sets in high-stakes scenarios become clear (Paulhus & Reid, 2001). Highlighting the extent to which response biases are considered a confound to accurate personality measurement, some researchers even believe it is necessary to warn test-takers not to fake good before taking a personality test (e.g., McFarland, 2003). In summary, given the inherent similarities between personality testing and self-report EI testing (both are self-report, both measure traits, and both are said to converge moderately-to-highly), it may be reasonable to assert that socially desirable responding has the capacity to contaminate responses on self-report EI measures. Specifically, should self-report EI measures be largely contaminated by SDR, their construct validity may be compromised (Cronbach & Meehl, 1996). See also | |||||||
|
| ||||||||
 |
|
| |