11 - Emotional Intelligence Flashcards
Why are some individuals better able to
succeed in life than others?
-IQ does not fully explain success. There are other qualities:
social/emotional qualities
-It became clear that the key to determining and
predicting success is not 100% cognitive intelligence, as
many cognitively intelligent people flounder in life, while
many less cognitively intelligent individuals succeed and
prosper.
-Emotions were once thought of as mainly an interference
to our ability to reason rationally… However, today, we will
see how understanding and managing emotions and
reason are viewed as complementary processes that are
important to functioning.
Brief history of emotional intelligence
*The popular terms have changed over the years
-Interpersonal intelligence → Social intelligence → Emotional intelligence
(The idea has gained much popular interest over the years
-Various popular books but little scientific articles
-Eventually, the scientific society became interested
- Gardner describes 2 “personal” intelligences
- Intrapersonal
- Interpersonal
- Sternberg: Some people have better social skills than others
- “Social competence” (Sternberg 1981)
- Social intelligence is not captured in IQ (Sternberg 1985)
- According to Salovey and Mayer (1990), emotional intelligence is “the ability to monitor
one’s feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to
guide one’s thinking and actions” - Social intelligence refers to understanding and successfully handling social interactions
(Thorndike, 1920), whereas Emotional intelligence refers to understanding and
regulating emotions in oneself and in others.
- Social Intelligence
History
Identified by
Thorndike (1920)
* First to advocate
for social
intelligence
* Observed that
some people
were more
social than
others
* Anecdotal – not
measured in
laboratory
Weschler
* General
Intelligence
turned inward
Several early
tests
* Match emotion
with face
(matching)
* Recognize
emotion in faces
(naming)
* Judgment in
social situations
Rosenthal et al.
(1979)
* Profile of
nonverbal
sensitivity
(PONS) =
Identify
emotions from
video clips.
* Is this social
intelligence or
perception?
* What would
the person do
with these
percepts?
More recent tests
* To infer the
emotion of a
protagonist in a
story or video
* Judge the
relationship of 2
individuals
based on a
picture
* Self report
questionnaire “I
prefer to be
around ppl”, etc.
Gardner’s criteria for isolating an intelligence
1. Evolutionary history
2. Developmental history
3. Island of ability (or disability)
Social intelligence
1. Primates live in social group. Survival would depend on social
intelligence. “Social function of intellect” to predict and
manipulate other members of your group.
2. We learn to predict and manipulate other members of our groups.
(e.g. Children learn to lie, etc).
3. Richard Borcherds (Cambridge mathematician) has a very high
IQ but low score on Baron-Cohen social competence tests
(Baron-Cohen, 2003)
Validity of the concept
Just like IQ, if social intelligence is a thing that individuals vary on (i.e. an ability on which individuals differ), then ..
- The various tests of social intelligence should
correlate with each other
- These skills should be partly independent
from g : social intelligence is not only g
applied to social aspects of life
In other words…
If independent, social intelligence tests should correlate with one another but not with general
intelligence.
There should be a positive manifold leading to a gsocial .
And that gsocial should not correlate with g
Sternberg and Smith (1985)
* Different measures of social intelligence did not correlate well together
* They often correlated better with general intelligence.
* These results are the same as many other studies before 1983
Ford and Fisk (1983)
* The different test of social intelligence correlate well (r = .36)
* They correlated better together than with IQ (r=.26)
Schneider et al (1996)
* Analyses large battery of social measures
* Distinguishes 7 social factors
* Largely independent of general intelligence.
How do we reconcile all this? Why do some studies find
independence between g and social intelligence, while
others don’t?
Hypotheses :
1. Some social skills are independent from one another
- Ability to sympathize for others vs. ability to show support
2. Various types of tests were used
- Open ended tests: Similar to personality questionnaires.
- Tests with “correct” answers: might not be the same in reality.
These type of test tend to correlate better with IQ.
— Analogous to the implicit-explicit or tacit learning – general
intelligence?
- Emotional intelligence
Early definitions
“Interpersonal intelligence is the ability
to understand other people: what
motivates them, how they work, how to
work cooperatively with them.
Successful sales people, politicians,
teachers, clinicians, and religious
leaders are all likely to be individuals
with high degree of interpersonal
intelligence. Intrapersonal intelligence
is a correlative ability, turned inward. It
is a capacity to forms accurate,
veridical model of oneself and to be
able to use that model to operate
effectively in life.” Garner 1993, page 9
Early definitions
Interpersonal intelligence ~ social intelligence
Intrapersonal intelligence ~ emotional intelligence
* A problem of concept!
* We start with those observations and we presume they fit together as a
concept.
* We try to define the concept, make a model and find a way to measure that
concept.
* Challenge: apply human made rules/definition/category to already existing
things
* The concept of emotional intelligence remains fuzzy
Early models
* The 2004 edition of the Encyclopedia of
Applied Psychology delineates three major
conceptual models of emotional
intelligence:
* the Bar-On model
* the Mayer-Salovey model
* the Goleman model
Trait versus ability ?
Ability:
EI = an ability (various
abilities). Example Mayer
and Salovey, 1997
Trait:
EI = a trait (personality
dispositions). Example
Petrides and Furnham, 2001
Mixed models:
EI = an ability and a
personal trait. Example BarOn model or Cherniss, 2010
The Goleman Model:
Goleman (1995)
“Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ”
* Based on Mayer’s work
* Heavily criticized
* “Nearly 90% of the difference between star performers
at work and average ones is due to EI” (p.94)
https://hbr.org/video/4421646384001/the-explaineremotional-intelligence
* Goleman explaining his theory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7m9eNoB3NU
The Bar-On Model (1980s)
Emotional intelligence is “…a set of emotional and social skills that influence the way we perceive and express ourselves, develop and maintain social relationships, cope with challenges, and use emotional information in an
effective and meaningful way.”
The Bar-On model focuses on the non-cognitive, emotional, and social facets of EI, defining EI in
terms of personal and interpersonal behavior
In a number of publications, Bar-On has argued that most
definitions of emotional intelligence comprise at least one
of the following five clusters of emotional and social
competencies, which are the ability to
1. Understand one’s emotions and express feelings
2. Understand how others feel and to relate with them
3. Manage and control emotions
4. Manage change and solve problems of a personal
and interpersonal nature
5. Generate positive mood and be self-motivated
This construct is essentially tactical and immediate in
nature; it reflects a person’s common sense and ability to
get along in the world.
Mayer & Salovey Model (1980s-90s)
Emotional intelligence as “the subset of social intelligence that
involves the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings
and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this
information to guide one’s thinking and actions.”
* EI = an ability
* 4 branch model : According to Mayer & Salovey (1997), EI is
* Perceiving emotions
* Using emotions to facilitate thought
- Knowing which emotional states are optimal for
certain outcomes
- Adoption of multiple perspectives is important here
* Understanding emotional information
- Knowing how emotions evolve and develop (e.g.,
predicting how emotions will change)
* Regulating or managing emotions
- Knowing short- and long-term strategies for changing
or prolonging certain emotions
Note: The top of the list is the most
simple (e.g., perceiving emotions),
and the bottom of the list is the
most complex (e.g., regulating
emotions).
Again in Mayer and Salovey
Criteria for testing Emotional Intelligence (Mayer et al. 2002).
* A test should:
1. Identify a cognitive ability – not a personality dimension
2. Performance should improve with age (Binet’s original criterion)
3. Convergent and discriminant validity
* tests of emotional intelligence should correlate with one another
(convergence)
* these correlations should not be attributable to their correlation
with g (discriminant)
Differences between the 3 models:
*Bar – On: EQ-i 2.0 test
Self-Perception
Self-Expression
Interpersonal
Decision making
Stress Management
*Mayer and Salovey: MSCEIT test
Perceiving emotions
Facilitating thought
Understanding emotions
Managing emotions
*Goleman:
Self-awareness
Self-regulation
Social skills
Empathy
Motivation
Evaluating Emotional Intelligence
- Rapid proliferation of EI test in the last 2 decades because of the commercial opportunities such tests offered to
developers
2 main categories :
1. Objective tests - Like the MSCEIT (Mayer et al.)
- Tend to correlate with g
2. Self report questionnaires - Like the EQ-I
- Tend to correlate with personality inventory (big5)
The 2 measures of emotional intelligence have low correlations between them (r=.04 to .21) Bracket and Mayer
(2003), Bastian et al (2005)
Right or wrong answers test vs. Questionnaires
*Right or wrong answers test
-Ability EI tests measure
constructs related to an
individual’s theoretical
understanding of emotions and
emotional functioning
-Right and wrong answers, says
who? Difficult to define
objective scoring criteria.
-Example : Mayer and
Salovey MSCEIT
-Other Popular performance
measures: Emotion Regulation
Profile-Revised (ERP-R); The
Situational Test of Emotion
Understanding (STEU) and the
Situational Test of Emotion
Management (STEM); and The
Test of Emotional Intelligence
(TEMINT)
*Questionnaires
-Trait EI questionnaires measure
typical behaviors in emotion-relevant situations (e.g., when
an individual is confronted with
stress or an upset friend) as well
as self-rated abilities.
-Self report also has its limitations:
seems to tap into scales tap into
self-concepts rather than actual
abilities
-Example : Bar-On EQ-i
-Other Self-report measures: Self-Rated Emotional
Intelligence Scale (SREIS); Wong and Law
Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS); Schutte SelfReport Emotional Intelligence Test (SSEIT); Trait
Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS); Bar-On Emotional
Quotient Inventory (EQ-i); The Trait Emotional
Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue)
More info on right or wrong answers tests (performance measures)
- Questions similar to IQ tests
- Answers correct or incorrect
- Does not require self-report
- Gives a good indication of individuals’
ability to understand emotions and how
they work - Does not predict behavior as well as trait
tests or personality tests would (O’Connor
et al., 2017) - Valid measures with weak (but existent)
ability to predict job satisfaction (Miao et
al., 2017) and job performance (O’Boyle et
al., 2011).
MSCEIT – based on Mayer & Salovey (1980s-90s)
Example of a performance test
Objective testing with right or wrong answers
4 branches each containing 2 subtests
Area scores:
1-Experiential EIQ: Recognizing emotions, comparing them to other sensations, and determining how they interact with thought
Branches:
1-a Perceiving Emotions
1-b Using Emotions
Area scores:
2- Strategic EIQ: Understanding emotional meanings, their implications for relationships and how to manage them
Branches:
2-a Understanding Emotions
2-b Managing Emotions
Ex:
Identifying Emotions
Indicate how much of each emotion is present in this picture.
Reminder : Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
(MSCEIT; Mayer et al. 2002) is a test with correct answers
Other examples: facilitation, understanding emotions, managing emotions
Predictive validity
* Do scores on an emotional intelligence test predict achievements in the
real world?
* A lot of claims but little evidence to support them…
* No convincing evidence that it improves earnings or higher grades
MSCEIT’s reliability and validity
Reminder :
* Criterion validity means it can predict positive outcomes such as
prosocial behavior
* Construct validity means EI is related to constructs that we would
expect it to be related to and unrelated to constructs we expect
it to be unrelated to (such as the Big Five personality traits)
* Incremental validity means EI predicts success in areas such as
academia over and above other measures such as the Raven’s
Advanced Progressive Matrices
- The MSCEIT has good reliability and validity (including criterion validity,
construct validity, and incremental validity). - Score on the MSCEIT are positively associated with peer ratings of prosocial
behavior (Lopes et al., 2005) and empathy (Ciarrocchi et al., 2000) and
negatively associated with conflicts and negative interactions with friends
(Brackett et al., 2004; Lopes et al., 2003, 2004). - Low scores on the MSCEIT predicted social deviance when controlling for
personality and scholastic aptitude (Brackett and Mayer (2003) - The MSCEIT predicted academic achievement over and above cognitive
ability measured with Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (Raven et al.,
1993) and personality measured with the Eysenck Personality QuestionnaireRevised (Sanavio et al., 1997) in study by Lanciano and Curci (2014)
Critics of the performance approach
-Emotions are subjective and that objective tests imply the risk of ignoring this
subjectivity (Austin, 2010; Petrides, 2011; Rossen et al., 2008).
-It is difficult to justify objective scoring criteria (Roberts et al., 2001): typically,
performance tests use expert scoring (experts define what the best answer is) or
consensus scoring (the answers that a majority of test takers give are defined as
optimum), and it is sometimes questioned whether majority answers can be
termed ‘intelligent’.
-However, expert scores and consensus scores typically converge (Mayer et al.,
2002)
-Still, in response to criticism, the MSCEIT-YV now uses a scoring criterion that was
derived from empirical findings on the adaptiveness of certain reactions (i.e.,
veridical scoring).
-Føllesdal and Hagtvet (2009) showed that considerable variance
in the scores could be predicted on the basis of general mental
abilities and traits such as agreeableness or empathy (Antonakis
and Dietz, 2011; Fiori and Antonakis, 2011; Schulte et al., 2004).
-EI performance tests have also been criticized for involving
solutions to abstract questions and for not measuring actual
behavior (Petrides and Furnham, 2003). The test seems to mostly
measure the perception of emotions and knowledge about
emotions. Like most ability tests, it measure potential rather than
behaviors (Rentzsch and Schütz, 2009; Schütz and Marcus, 2004).
Other Performance Measures
* ERP-R: Respondents choose which emotional strategy they
would use in a specific scenario presented in a vignette
* STEM: Also uses hypothetical scenarios
* TEMINT: Emotional reasoning
* See also Goleman Emotional and Social competence
Inventory (ESCI) (Boyatzis and Goleman, 2007).
http://www.danielgoleman.info/ei-assessments/
Self report measures/questionnaires
- Ask respondents to retrospectively report their everyday experiences and
behaviors (e.g., Schutte et al., 1998). - Can be trait based, ability based or mixed model approach
- Assumes respondents have sufficient knowledge about their own emotions and
their functioning and can report them. - Example : “how smart do you think you are”
- In contrast to performance tests, self-report measures ask respondents to
retrospectively report their everyday experiences and behaviors (e.g., Schutte
et al., 1998). - Validity limited by bias – halo effect in the way ppl describe themselves
EQ-I – based on the Bar-On (1980s)
Example of a self reported evaluation of emotional intelligence
* Emotional Quotient (EQ)
* EQ-i (1997) : Self-report scale, 133 items and 15 factors
* Later developed the EQ 360 (46 items) and the
EQi : YV (youth version)
Self-report scales can be categorized into two groups: ability-based and trait-based (or mixed model-based) scales.
Emotional Quotient
Inventory 2.0 (EQ-i 2.0)
(Bar-On)
* Self-report
* 5 points Likert
Scale
Self-perception, self-expression, interpersonal, decision making, stress management
(see images)
Predictive value of the EQ-I
* VERSION 1 of the Bar-On (1997) reported good internal consistency and
retest reliability.
* High scores on trait EI correlates with
- high levels of self-efficacy regarding emotion-related behaviors
- competent at managing and regulating emotions in themselves and
others.
* Trait EI is linked to work attitudes
- Trait EI is linked to job satisfaction and organization commitment
(meta-analyses by Miao et al., 2017)
- Trait EI is linked to job Performance (meta-analyses by O’Boyle et al.,
2011)
- However, there was a problem with construct validity because the scale
tends to correlate with personality tests like the NEO-PI - Highly correlated with personality scales (e.g., anxiety, depression,
neuroticism, alexithymia; Dawda and Hart, 2000; Newsome et al., 2000;
Parker et al., 2001). - Also, the Trait EI measures generally assess typical behavior rather than
maximal performance - Hence, they tend to provide a good prediction of actual behaviors in
a range of situations (Petrides and Furnham, 2000). - Moreover, the incremental validity of this inventory (over personality) has
been questioned by some researchers (e.g., Conte, 2005), and others
have found some effects, for example, low scores on this scale predicted
alcohol consumption even after controlling for Revised NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO-PI-R) scores (Costa and McCrae, 1992) and SAT scores
(Brackett and Mayer, 2003).
Positive aspects :
* Time saving (in developing, administering, and scoring the test)
- there are many more self-report scales than performance tests
* Access to the client’s perception of themselves (Brackett et al., 2006)
Other Self-report
Measures
* SREIS: Uses the four branch model
* WLEIS: Has four subscales that were based on the literature, (1) the
appraisal of one’s own emotion, (2) the appraisal of emotions in
others, (3) the use of emotions to facilitate performance, and (4)
the regulation of emotions in oneself
* SSEIT: Measures three domains of EI, (1) appraisal and expression of
emotions, (2) regulation of emotions, and (3) utilization of emotions.
Disputes over whether the subscales are empirically valid
* TMMS: Has three subscales that (1) determine the extent to which
individuals attend to their feelings (Attention), (2) feel clear about
them (Clarity), and (3) use positive thinking to regulate negative
moods (Repair).
* EQ-I: Has five subscales measuring (1) intrapersonal skill, (2)
interpersonal skill, (3) stress management, (4) adaptability, and (5)
general mood.
* TEIQue: Measures four EI factors, Well-Being, Self-Control,
Emotionality, Sociability, and adaptability/self-motivation
Informant Reports
- Not as much research using informant reports, despite the fact that they
appear to be a more reliable method of measuring EI (particularly
because informant reports can be aggregated across informants,
whereas self-reports cannot) - Informant reports of EI have better criterion validity. For example, they
predict relationship quality better than self-reports - Researchers unfortunately often believe informant reports are more timeconsuming, expensive, and ineffective (i.e., informants will not
cooperate / low informant response rates). This isn’t true! Response rates
tend to be 75-95% and this method can be low-cost and no more timeconsuming than self-report methods. More research is needed using
informant reports! - Something to think about if you’re planning to do an honors’ thesis in
psychology at some point!
Is emotional
intelligence
really a thing?
- A number of academics have attacked the models
presented for their definitional fuzziness, lack of
empirical data, inconsistencies of the various
measures developed, and so on. - FYI : Many of the same criticisms applied to
emotional intelligence could easily be applied to
cognitive intelligence, such as the fact that there
is still no uniformly accepted single theory after
over 100 years of research disproportionate
emphasis on application before validation.
Criterion for Emotional Intelligence (according to Mayer et al 2002)
1. Tests / questionnaires must identify a cognitive ability.
* Something you use in dealing with X situations.
* Not a personality dimension
2. Performance should improve with age
* Like Binet’s original criterion for an intelligence test.
3. Convergent and discriminant validity:
* tests of emotional intelligence should correlate with one another (convergence)
* these correlations should not be attributable to their correlation with g
(discriminant) These skills should be partly independent from g : emotional
intelligence is not only g applied to social aspects of life
* In other words, if independent, emotional intelligence tests should correlate with
one another but not with general intelligence.
Bastian et al. (2005)
* Relation between Emotional intelligence and Personality ?
* Compared self reported measures of emotional intelligence (EI) to:
- Correct answer tests (MSCEIT)
- Intelligence tests (ravens)
- Big Five personality tests
Factor analysis of the MSCEIT
Results :
* Subtests correlate well with one another
- .16 < r < .56
- Positive manifold
* A general factor emerges
- Subtests load on it .4 - .68
* Meta analysis suggest three sub-factors
- Perception/Facilitation
- Understanding
- Management
* Rather low correlations with general intelligence
- .25 < r .35
- Low discriminative validity
Bastian et al. (2005)
Predictive validity of the MSCEIT
* Fairly weak data.
* Tests improve with age as analogy with IQ suggests.
* Girls better than boys.
- Consistent with social observation.
* For every extra friend a person has in school income 2% higher.
- But still weaker predictor than IQ.
* Correlation with education tend to disappear if IQ factored out.
* But these tests of things that IQ predicts might miss the point of
emotional intelligence.
