Sei sulla pagina 1di 21

Emotional intelligence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Emotional Intelligence (EI) describes the ability, capacity, skill or, in the case of the
trait EI model, a self-perceived ability, to identify, assess, and manage the emotions of
one's self, of others, and of groups.[1] Different models have been proposed for the
definition of EI and disagreement exists as to how the term should be used.[2] Despite
these disagreements, which are often highly technical, the ability EI and trait EI models
(but not the mixed models) enjoy support in the literature and have successful
applications in different domains.


• 1 Origins of the concept

• 2 Defining emotional intelligence
o 2.1 The ability-based model
 2.1.1 Measurement of the ability-based model
o 2.2 Mixed models of EI
 2.2.1 The Emotional Competencies (Goleman) model
 2.2.2 Measurement of the Emotional Competencies (Goleman)
 2.2.3 The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI)
 2.2.4 Measurement of the ESI Model
o 2.3 The Trait EI model
 2.3.1 Measurement of the Trait EI model
• 3 Alexithymia and EI
• 4 Criticism of the theoretical foundation of EI
o 4.1 EI is too broadly defined and the definitions are unstable
o 4.2 EI cannot be recognized as a form of intelligence
o 4.3 EI has no substantial predictive value
• 5 Criticism on measurement issues
o 5.1 Ability based measures are measuring conformity, not ability
o 5.2 Ability based measures are measuring knowledge (not actual ability)
o 5.3 Self report measures are susceptible to faking good
o 5.4 Claims for the predictive power of EI are too extreme
o 5.5 EI, IQ and job performance
• 6 See also
• 7 Notes and references

• 8 External links
[edit] Origins of the concept
The earliest roots of emotional intelligence can be traced to Darwin’s work on the
importance of emotional expression for survival and second adaptation.[3] In the 1900s,
even though traditional definitions of intelligence emphasized cognitive aspects such as
memory and problem-solving, several influential researchers in the intelligence field of
study had begun to recognize the importance of the non-cognitive aspects. For instance,
as early as 1920, E. L. Thorndike used the term social intelligence to describe the skill of
understanding and managing other people.[4]

Similarly, in 1940 David Wechsler described the influence of non-intellective factors on

intelligent behavior, and further argued that our models of intelligence would not be
complete until we can adequately describe these factors.[3] In 1983, Howard Gardner's
Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences [5] introduced the idea of Multiple
Intelligences which included both Interpersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand
the intentions, motivations and desires of other people) and Intrapersonal intelligence
(the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one's feelings, fears and motivations).
In Gardner's view, traditional types of intelligence, such as IQ, fail to fully explain
cognitive ability.[6] Thus, even though the names given to the concept varied, there was a
common belief that traditional definitions of intelligence are lacking in ability to fully
explain performance outcomes.

The first use of the term "Emotional Intelligence" is usually attributed to Wayne Payne's
doctoral thesis, A Study of Emotion: Developing Emotional Intelligence from 1985.[7]
However, prior to this, the term "emotional intelligence" had appeared in Leuner (1966).
Greenspan (1989) also put forward an EI model, followed by Salovey and Mayer (1990),
and Goleman (1995).

As a result of the growing acknowledgement by professionals of the importance and

relevance of emotions to work outcomes,[8] the research on the topic continued to gain
momentum, but it wasn’t until the publication of Daniel Goleman's best seller Emotional
Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ that the term became widely popularized.
Nancy Gibbs' 1995 Time magazine article highlighted Goleman's book and was the
first in a string of mainstream media interest in EI.[10] Thereafter, articles on EI began to
appear with increasing frequency across a wide range of academic and popular outlets.

[edit] Defining emotional intelligence

Substantial disagreement exists regarding the definition of EI, with respect to both
terminology and operationalizations. There has been much confusion regarding the exact
meaning of this construct. The definitions are so varied, and the field is growing so
rapidly, that researchers are constantly amending even their own definitions of the
construct. At the present time, there are three main models of EI:

• Ability EI models
• Mixed models of EI
• Trait EI model

[edit] The ability-based model

Salovey and Mayer's conception of EI strives to define EI within the confines of the
standard criteria for a new intelligence. Following their continuing research, their initial
definition of EI was revised to: "The ability to perceive emotion, integrate emotion to
facilitate thought, understand emotions and to regulate emotions to promote personal

The ability based model views emotions as useful sources of information that help one to
make sense of and navigate the social environment.[11] The model proposes that
individuals vary in their ability to process information of an emotional nature and in their
ability to relate emotional processing to a wider cognition. This ability is seen to manifest
itself in certain adaptive behaviors. The model proposes that EI includes 4 types of

1. Perceiving emotions — the ability to detect and decipher emotions in faces,

pictures, voices, and cultural artifacts- including the ability to identify one’s own
emotions. Perceiving emotions represents a basic aspect of emotional intelligence,
as it makes all other processing of emotional information possible.
2. Using emotions — the ability to harness emotions to facilitate various cognitive
activities, such as thinking and problem solving. The emotionally intelligent
person can capitalize fully upon his or her changing moods in order to best fit the
task at hand.
3. Understanding emotions — the ability to comprehend emotion language and to
appreciate complicated relationships among emotions. For example,
understanding emotions encompasses the ability to be sensitive to slight variations
between emotions, and the ability to recognize and describe how emotions evolve
over time.
4. Managing emotions — the ability to regulate emotions in both ourselves and in
others. Therefore, the emotionally intelligent person can harness emotions, even
negative ones, and manage them to achieve intended goals.

The ability-based model has been criticized in the research for lacking face and predictive
validity in the workplace. [12]

[edit] Measurement of the ability-based model

Different models of EI have led to the development of various instruments for the
assessment of the construct. While some of these measures may overlap, most researchers
agree that they tap slightly different constructs. The current measure of Mayer and
Salovey’s model of EI, the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
(MSCEIT) is based on a series of emotion-based problem-solving items.[11] Consistent
with the model's claim of EI as a type of intelligence, the test is modeled on ability-based
IQ tests. By testing a person’s abilities on each of the four branches of emotional
intelligence, it generates scores for each of the branches as well as a total score.

Central to the four-branch model is the idea that EI requires attunement to social norms.
Therefore, the MSCEIT is scored in a consensus fashion, with higher scores indicating
higher overlap between an individual’s answers and those provided by a worldwide
sample of respondents. The MSCEIT can also be expert-scored, so that the amount of
overlap is calculated between an individual’s answers and those provided by a group of
21 emotion researchers.[11]

Although promoted as an ability test, the MSCEIT is most unlike standard IQ tests in that
its items do not have objectively correct responses. Among other problems, the consensus
scoring criterion means that it is impossible to create items (questions) that only a
minority of respondents can solve, because, by definition, responses are deemed
emotionally 'intelligent' only if the majority of the sample has endorsed them. This and
other similar problems have led cognitive ability experts to question the definition of EI
as a genuine intelligence.

In a study by Føllesdal [13] the MSCEIT test results of 111 business leaders were
compared with how their employees described their leader. It was found that there were
no correlations between a leader's test results and how he or she was rated by the
employees, with regard to empathy, ability to motivate, and leader effectiveness.
Føllesdal also criticized the Canadian company Multi-Health Systems, which administers
the MSCEIT test. The test contains 141 questions but it was found after publishing the
test that 19 of these did not give the expected answers. This has led Multi-Health Systems
to remove answers to these 19 questions before scoring, but without stating this officially.

[edit] Mixed models of EI

[edit] The Emotional Competencies (Goleman) model

The model introduced by Daniel Goleman [14] focuses on EI as a wide array of

competencies and skills that drive leadership performance. Goleman's model outlines
four main EI constructs:[1]

1. Self-awareness — the ability to read one's emotions and recognize their impact
while using gut feelings to guide decisions.
2. Self-management — involves controlling one's emotions and impulses and
adapting to changing circumstances.
3. Social awareness — the ability to sense, understand, and react to others' emotions
while comprehending social networks.
4. Relationship management — the ability to inspire, influence, and develop others
while managing conflict.

Goleman includes a set of emotional competencies within each construct of EI.

Emotional competencies are not innate talents, but rather learned capabilities that must be
worked on and can be developed to achieve outstanding performance[1]. Goleman posits
that individuals are born with a general emotional intelligence that determines their
potential for learning emotional competencies.[15] Goleman's model of EI has been
criticized in the research literature as mere "pop psychology" (Mayer, Roberts, &
Barsade, 2008).

[edit] Measurement of the Emotional Competencies (Goleman) model

Two measurement tools are based on the Goleman model:

1) The Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI), which was created in 1999 and the
Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI), which was created in 2007.

2) The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal, which was created in 2001 and which can be
taken as a self-report or 360-degree assessment[16].

[edit] The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI)

Bar-On[3] defines emotional intelligence as being concerned with effectively

understanding oneself and others, relating well to people, and adapting to and coping
with the immediate surroundings to be more successful in dealing with environmental
demands.[17] Bar-On posits that EI develops over time and that it can be improved through
training, programming, and therapy.[3] Bar-On hypothesizes that those individuals with
higher than average E.Q.’s are in general more successful in meeting environmental
demands and pressures. He also notes that a deficiency in EI can mean a lack of success
and the existence of emotional problems. Problems in coping with one’s environment are
thought, by Bar-On, to be especially common among those individuals lacking in the
subscales of reality testing, problem solving, stress tolerance, and impulse control. In
general, Bar-On considers emotional intelligence and cognitive intelligence to contribute
equally to a person’s general intelligence, which then offers an indication of one’s
potential to succeed in life.[3] However, doubts have been expressed about this model in
the research literature (in particular about the validity of self-report as an index of
emotional intelligence) and in scientific settings, it is being replaced by the trait EI model
discussed below [18]

[edit] Measurement of the ESI Model

The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQ-i), is a self-report measure of EI developed

as a measure of emotionally and socially competent behavior that provides an estimate of
one's emotional and social intelligence. The EQ-i is not meant to measure personality
traits or cognitive capacity, but rather the mental ability to be successful in dealing with
environmental demands and pressures.[3] One hundred and thirty three items (questions or
factors) are used to obtain a Total EQ (Total Emotional Quotient) and to produce five
composite scale scores, corresponding to the five main components of the Bar-On model.
A limitation of this model is that it claims to measure some kind of ability through self-
report items (for a discussion, see Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2007). The EQ-i has
been found to be highly susceptible to faking (Day & Carroll, 2008; Grubb & McDaniel,

[edit] The Trait EI model

Petrides and colleagues [19] (see also Petrides, 2009) proposed a conceptual distinction
between the ability based model and a trait based model of EI.[20] Trait EI is "a
constellation of emotion-related self-perceptions located at the lower levels of
personality". In lay terms, trait EI refers to an individual's self-perceptions of their
emotional abilities. This definition of EI encompasses behavioral dispositions and self
perceived abilities and is measured by self report, as opposed to the ability based model
which refers to actual abilities, which have proven highly resistant to scientific
measurement. Trait EI should be investigated within a personality framework.[21] An
alternative label for the same construct is trait emotional self-efficacy.

The trait EI model is general and subsumes the Goleman and Bar-On models discussed
above. The conceptualization of EI as a personality trait leads to a construct that lies
outside the taxonomy of human cognitive ability. This is an important distinction in as
much as it bears directly on the operationalization of the construct and the theories and
hypotheses that are formulated about it.[20]

[edit] Measurement of the Trait EI model

There are many self-report measures of EI, including the EQi, the Swinburne University
Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT),the Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test
(SSEIT), a measure by Tett, Fox, and Wang (2005). From the perspective of the trait EI
model, none of these assess intelligence, abilities, or skills (as their authors often claim),
but rather, they are limited measures of trait emotional intelligence (Petrides, Furnham, &
Mavroveli, 2007). The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) is an open-
access measure that was specifically designed to measure the construct comprehensively
and is currently available in 15 languages.

The TEIQue provides an operationalization for Petrides and colleagues' model that
conceptualizes EI in terms of personality.[22] The test encompasses 15 subscales organized
under four factors: Well-Being, Self-Control, Emotionality, and Sociability. The
psychometric properties of the TEIQue were investigated in a study on a French-
Speaking Population, where it was reported that TEIQue scores were globally normally
distributed and reliable.[23]

The researchers also found TEIQue scores were unrelated to nonverbal reasoning
(Raven’s matrices), which they interpreted as support for the personality trait view of EI
(as opposed to a form of intelligence). As expected, TEIQue scores were positively
related to some of the Big Five personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, openness,
conscientiousness) as well as inversely related to others(alexithymia, neuroticism). A
number of quantitative genetic studies have been carried out within the trait EI model,
which have revealed significant genetic effects and heritabilities for all trait EI scores .[24].
[edit] Alexithymia and EI
Alexithymia from the Greek words λέξις and θυμός (literally "lack of words for
emotions") is a term coined by Peter Sifneos in 1973 [25][26] to describe people who
appeared to have deficiencies in understanding, processing, or describing their emotions.
Viewed as a spectrum between high and low EI, the alexithymia construct is strongly
inversely related to EI, representing its lower range.[27] The individual's level of
alexithymia can be measured with self-scored questionnaires such as the Toronto
Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) or the Bermond-Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire (BVAQ)
or by observer rated measures such as the Observer Alexithymia Scale (OAS).

[edit] Criticism of the theoretical foundation of EI

[edit] EI is too broadly defined and the definitions are unstable

One of the arguments against the theoretical soundness of the concept suggests that the
constant changing and broadening of its definition- which has come to encompass many
unrelated elements — had rendered it an unintelligible concept.

Arguing that EI is an invalid concept, Locke (2005) asked: "What is the common or
integrating element in a concept that includes: introspection about emotions, Emotional
expression, non-verbal communication with others, empathy, self-regulation, planning,
creative thinking and the direction of attention?" He answered by saying: "There is none."
Commenting on the multiple factors that have been included in the definition, Locke
asked rhetorically: "What does EI not include?" [29]

Other critics[30] mention that without some stabilization of the concepts and the
measurement instruments, meta-analyses are difficult to implement, and the theory
coherence is likely to be adversely impacted by this instability.

[edit] EI cannot be recognized as a form of intelligence

Goleman's early work has been criticized for assuming from the beginning that EI is a
type of intelligence. Eysenck (2000) writes that Goleman's description of EI contains
assumptions about intelligence in general, and that it even runs contrary to what
researchers have come to expect when studying types of intelligence:

"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".
Similarly, Locke (2005) [29] claims that the concept of EI is in itself a misinterpretation of
the intelligence construct, and he offers an alternative interpretation: it is not another
form or type of intelligence, but intelligence—the ability to grasp abstractions--applied to
a particular life domain: emotions. He suggests the concept should be re-labeled and
referred to as a skill.

The essence of this criticism is that scientific inquiry depends on valid and consistent
construct utilization, and that in advance of the introduction of the term EI, psychologists
had established theoretical distinctions between factors such as abilities and
achievements, skills and habits, attitudes and values, and personality traits and emotional
states. [31] The term EI is viewed by some as having merged and conflated accepted
concepts and definitions.

[edit] EI has no substantial predictive value

Landy (2005)[30] has claimed that the few incremental validity studies conducted on EI
have demonstrated that it adds little or nothing to the explanation or prediction of some
common outcomes (most notably academic and work success). Landy proposes that the
reason some studies have found a small increase in predictive validity is in fact a
methodological fallacy — incomplete consideration of alternative explanations:

"EI is compared and contrasted with a measure of abstract intelligence but not with a
personality measure, or with a personality measure but not with a measure of academic
intelligence." Landy (2005)

In accordance with this suggestion, other researchers have raised concerns about the
extent to which self-report EI measures correlate with established personality dimensions.
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.[32] 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. Intuitively,
individuals scoring high on neuroticism, are likely to score low on self-report EI

The interpretations of the correlations between EI questionnaires and personality have

been varied, with the trait EI view that re-intrprets EI as a collection of personality traits
being prominent in the scientific literature. [33][34][35]

[edit] Criticism on measurement issues

[edit] Ability based measures are measuring conformity, not ability

One criticism of the works of Mayer and Salovey comes from a study by Roberts et al.
(2001),[36] which suggests that the EI, as measured by the MSCEIT, may only be
measuring conformity. This argument is rooted in the MSCEIT's use of consensus-based
assessment, and in the fact that scores on the MSCEIT are negatively distributed
(meaning that its scores differentiate between people with low EI better than people with
high EI).

[edit] Ability based measures are measuring knowledge (not actual ability)

Further criticism has been offered by Brody (2004),[37] who claimed that unlike tests of
cognitive ability, the MSCEIT "tests knowledge of emotions but not necessarily the
ability to perform tasks that are related to the knowledge that is assessed". The main
argument is that even though someone knows how he should behave in an emotionally
laden situation, it doesn’t necessarily follow that he could actually carry out the reported

[edit] Self report measures are susceptible to faking good

More formally termed socially desirable responding (SDR), faking good is defined as a
response pattern in which 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), acting as a
mediator of the relationships between self-report measures (Nichols & Greene, 1997;
Gangster 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 some self-report EI inventories are used in (e.g., employment settings), the
problems of response sets in high-stakes scenarios become clear (Paulhus & Reid, 2001).

There are a few methods to prevent socially desirable responding on behavior

inventories. Some researchers believe it is necessary to warn test-takers not to fake good
before taking a personality test (e.g., McFarland, 2003). Some inventories use validity
scales in order to determine the likelihood or consistency of the responses across all

[edit] Claims for the predictive power of EI are too extreme

Landy [30] distinguishes between the 'commercial wing' and 'the academic wing' of the EI
movement, basing this distinction on the alleged predictive power of EI as seen by the
two currents. According to Landy, the former makes expansive claims on the applied
value of EI, while the later is trying to warn users against these claims. As an example.
Goleman (1998) asserts that "the most effective leaders are alike in one crucial way: they
all have a high degree of what has come to be known as emotional intelligence.
...emotional intelligence is the sine qua non of leadership". In contrast, Mayer (1999)
cautions "the popular literature’s implication—that highly emotionally intelligent people
possess an unqualified advantage in life—appears overly enthusiastic at present and
unsubstantiated by reasonable scientific standards."

Landy further reinforces this argument by noting that the data upon which these claims
are based are held in ‘proprietary databases', which means they are unavailable to
independent researchers for reanalysis, replication, or verification.[30] Thus, the credibility
of the findings cannot be substantiated in a scientific manner, unless those datasets are
made public and available for independent analysis.

[edit] EI, IQ and job performance

Research of EI and job performance show mixed results: a positive relation has been
found in some of the studies, in others there was no relation or an inconsistent one. This
led researchers Cote and Miners (2006)[38] to offer a compensatory model between EI and
IQ, that posits that the association between EI and job performance becomes more
positive as cognitive intelligence decreases, an idea first proposed in the context of
academic performance (Petrides, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004). The results of the
former study supported the compensatory model: employees with low IQ get higher task
performance and organizational citizenship behavior directed at the organization, the
higher their EI(Emotional Intelligence).

[edit] See also

The length of this "see also" section may adversely affect readability. Please
ensure that the "see also" links are not mentioned elsewhere in the article, are not
red links, are as few in number and as relevant as possible. (July 2009)

• Collaborative intelligence
• Consensus based assessment (CBA)
• Creativity
• Cultural Intelligence
• Cyberflora
• Dispositional Affect
• Emotional bias
• Emotional capital
• Emotion work
• Emotional contagion
• Emotional labor
• Emotions in Decision Making
• Empathy
• Human fit
• Intelligence quotient
• Intercultural competence
• List of emotions
• Motivation
• People skills
• Positive psychology
• Psychological mindedness
• Theory of multiple intelligences
• Perception management
• Scheler's Stratification of Emotional Life
• Waldorf education

[edit] Notes and references

1. ^ a b c Bradberry, Travis and Greaves, Jean. (2009). "Emotional Intelligence 2.0". San Francisco:
Publishers Group West. (ISBN: 9780974320625)
2. ^ Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. & Caruso, D.R. (2008). Emotional Intelligence: New ability or eclectic
traits, American Psychologist, 63, 6, 503-517.
3. ^ a b c d e f Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI).
Psicothema, 18 , supl., 13-25.
4. ^ Thorndike, R.K. (1920). "Intelligence and Its Uses", Harper's Magazine 140, 227-335.
5. ^ Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
6. ^ Smith, M. K. (2002) "Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences", the encyclopedia of informal
education, Downloaded from on October 31, 2005.
7. ^ Payne, W.L. (1983/1986). A study of emotion: developing emotional intelligence; self
integration; relating to fear, pain and desire. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, p. 203A.
(University microfilms No. AAC 8605928)
8. ^ Feldman-Barrett, L., & Salovey, P. (eds.). (2002). The wisdom in feeling: psychological
processes in emotional intelligence. New York: Guilford Press.
9. ^ Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books
10. ^ Gibbs, Nancy (1995, October 2). The EQ Factor. Time magazine. Web reference at accessed January 2, 2006.
11. ^ a b c Salovey P and Grewal D (2005) The Science of Emotional Intelligence. Current directions in
psychological science, Volume14 -6
12. ^ Bradberry, T. and Su, L. (2003). Ability-versus skill-based assessment of emotional intelligence,
Psicothema, Vol. 18, supl., pp. 59-66.
13. ^ Hallvard Føllesdal -
'Emotional Intelligence as Ability: Assessing the Construct Validity of Scores from the Mayer-
Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT)' Phd Thesis and accompanying papers,
University of Oslo 2008
14. ^ Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books
15. ^ Boyatzis, R., Goleman, D., & Rhee, K. (2000). Clustering competence in emotional intelligence:
insights from the emotional competence inventory (ECI). In R. Bar-On & J.D.A. Parker (eds.):
Handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 343-362). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16. ^ Bradberry, Travis and Greaves, Jean. (2009). Emotional Intelligence 2.0. San Francisco:
Publishers Group West. ISBN 9780974320625
17. ^ Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): a test of emotional intelligence.
Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
18. ^ Kluemper, D. H. (2008) Trait emotional intelligence: The impact of core-self evaluations and
social desirability. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(6), 1402-1412. Lak
19. ^ Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional intelligence in
personality factor space. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 273-289.
20. ^ a b Petrides, K. V. & Furnham, A. (2000a). On the dimensional structure of emotional
intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 313-320
21. ^ Petrides, K. V. & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation
with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425-448
22. ^ Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence: behavioral validation in
two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. European Journal of
Personality, 17, 39–75
23. ^ Mikolajczak, Luminet, Leroy, and Roy (2007). Psychometric Properties of the Trait Emotional
Intelligence Questionnaire: Factor Structure, Reliability, Construct, and Incremental Validity in a
French-Speaking Population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88(3), 338–353
24. ^ Vernon, P. A., Petrides, K. V., Bratko, D., & Schermer, J. A. (2008). A behavioral genetic study
of trait emotional intelligence. Emotion, 8, 635-642.
25. ^ Bar-On, Reuven; Parker, James DA (2000). The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory,
Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School, and in the Workplace. San
Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. ISBN 0787949841. pp. 40-59
26. ^ Taylor, Graeme J; Bagby, R. Michael and Parker, James DA (1997). Disorders of Affect
Regulation: Alexithymia in Medical and Psychiatric Illness. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Pres. ISBN 052145610X. pp.28-31
27. ^ Parker JDA, Taylor GJ, Bagby RM (2001). "The Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence
and Alexithymia". Personality and Individual Differences 30, 107–115
28. ^ Vorst HCM, Bermond B (February 2001). "Validity and reliability of the Bermond-Vorst
Alexithymia Questionnaire". Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 30, Number 3, pp.
29. ^ a b c Locke, E.A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 425-431.
30. ^ a b c d Landy, F.J. (2005). Some historical and scientific issues related to research on emotional
intelligence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 411-424.
31. ^ Mattiuzzi, P.G. Emotional Intelligence? I'm not feeling it.
32. ^ a b MacCann, C., Roberts, R.D., Matthews, G., & Zeidner, M. (2004). Consensus scoring and
empirical option weighting of performance-based emotional intelligence tests. Personality &
Individual Differences, 36, 645-662.
33. ^ Mikolajczak, M., Luminet, O., Leroy, C., & Roy, E. (2007). Psychometric properties of the Trait
Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 338-353.
34. ^ Smith, L., Ciarrochi, J., & Heaven, P. C. L., (2008). The stability and change of trait emotional
intelligence, conflict communication patterns, and relationship satisfaction: A one-year
longitudinal study. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 738-743.
35. ^ Austin, E.J. (2008). A reaction time study of responses to trait and ability emotional intelligence
test items. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1855-1864.
36. ^ Roberts, R. D., Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2001). Does emotional intelligence meet
traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions. Emotion, 1, 196–231
37. ^ Brody, N. (2004). What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not.
Psychological Inquiry, 15, 234-238.
38. ^ Cote, S. and Miners, C.T.H. (2006). "Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence and job
performance", Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(1), pp1-28.

[edit] External links

• Emotional Intelligence Consortium
• Trait emotional intelligence University College London, academic research
• Overview on Social-Emotional Learning, Edutopia
• The EQ Factor, Time Magazine. October 2, 1995

Retrieved from ""

Some supporting previous studies-

1)The effects of emotional intelligence on job performance and life
satisfaction for the research and development scientists in China

Journal Asia Pacific Journal of Management

Publisher Springer Netherlands

ISSN 0217-4561 (Print) 1572-9958 (Online)

VOLUME 29 , NUMBER 7 -July 1998

Does ?emotional intelligence?

matter in the workplace?
Well-known author seeks to answer that question as the keynote speaker
for APA?s Annual Convention.

By Bridget Murray
Monitor staff

P eople who rise to the top of their field?whether it?s psychology, law, medicine,
engineering or banking?aren?t just good at their jobs. They?re affable, resilient and
optimistic, suggests a growing store of studies on professional leaders.

In other words, it takes more than traditional cognitive intelligence to be successful

at work. It also takes 'emotional intelligence,' the ability to restrain negative feelings
such as anger and self-doubt, and instead focus on positive ones such as confidence
and congeniality, claims an emerging school of behavioral thought. The theory first
captured the public imagination three years ago with the release of 'Emotional
Intelligence: Why it Can Matter More than IQ,' (Bantam, 1995) by psychologist
Daniel Goleman, PhD. In the book, Goleman stirred controversy with his claim that
people endowed with emotional skill excel in life, perhaps more so than those with a
high IQ. Goleman drew his propositions from behavioral, brain and personality
research by such psychologists as Peter Salovey, PhD, and John Mayer, PhD, who
first proposed the model of emotional intelligence.

In a new book to be released this fall, 'Working With Emotional Intelligence'

(Bantam), Goleman focuses on the need for emotional intelligence at work, an area
often considered more head than heart. Not only do bosses and corporate leaders
need high doses of emotional intelligence, but every people-oriented job demands it
too, Goleman argues. Also, whereas IQ is relatively fixed, emotional intelligence can
be built and learned, he claims. Companies can test and teach emotional intelligence,
and many employers are already beginning to do so, he says.

However, while some psychologists view Goleman?s proposition as an encouraging

prescription for building career skills, others say its validity is as yet unproven. Some
of the theory?s critics question the way emotional intelligence is defined and claim it
cannot be taught. Others maintain that cognitive and technical skills ultimately
qualify people for the best jobs and help them excel at those jobs.

Goleman is the keynote speaker for the APA Annual Convention Opening Session,
Friday, Aug. 14, at 5 p.m. in the Marriott Hotel, Yerba Buena Salon 9.

The definition question

At issue for many of the theory?s critics is the way Goleman defines emotional
intelligence. John Mayer, PhD, a University of New Hampshire psychologist, who was
one of the first to coin the term defines it more narrowly than Goleman. For Mayer,
emotional intelligence is the ability to understand how others? emotions work and to
control one?s own emotions. By comparison, Goleman defines emotional intelligence
more broadly, also including such competencies as optimism, conscientiousness,
motivation, empathy and social competence.

According to Mayer, these broader traits that Goleman relates to emotional

intelligence are considered personality traits by other theorists. For example,
psychologist Edward Gordon, PhD, says that emotional intelligence deals largely with
personality and mood, aspects of the individual that cannot be changed. Gordon,
president of a Chicago-based employee-training company, claims that improving
employees? literacy and analytical skills, not their emotional skills, is the best way to
boost job performance. 'Work success is mostly cognitively driven,' says Gordon.
'Emotion by itself won?t get you very far.'

Responding to such charges, Goleman says cognitive skill 'gets you in the door' of a
company, but emotional skill helps you thrive once you?re hired. To illustrate
Goleman?s point, psychologist Steven Stein, PhD, a marketer of tests that assess
employees? emotional intelligence quotient (EQ), cites the example of a Harvard
business graduate who received numerous job offers from companies clamoring to
hire her. However, due to a lack of emotional intelligence, the woman continually
sparred with her employers and couldn?t keep any of the jobs.
Studies of close to 500 organizations worldwide, reviewed by Goleman in his book,
indicate that people who score highest on EQ measures rise to the top of
corporations. 'Star' employees possess more interpersonal skills and confidence, for
example, than 'regular' employees who receive less glowing performance reviews.

'Emotional intelligence matters twice as much as technical and analytic skill

combined for star performances,' he says. 'And the higher people move up in the
company, the more crucial emotional intelligence becomes.'

EQ at work

Bosses and leaders, in particular, need high EQ because they represent the
organization to the public, they interact with the highest number of people within
and outside the organization and they set the tone for employee morale, says
Goleman. Leaders with empathy are able to understand their employees? needs and
provide them with constructive feedback, he says.

Different jobs also call for different types of emotional intelligence, Goleman says.
For example, success in sales requires the empathic ability to gauge a customer?s
mood and the interpersonal skill to decide when to pitch a product and when to keep
quiet. By comparison, success in painting or professional tennis requires a more
individual form of self-discipline and motivation.

And there are gender differences in emotional intelligence as well, says Stein. After
administering EQ assessments to 4,500 men and 3,200 women, his organization
found that women score higher than men on measures of empathy and social
responsibility, but men outperform women on stress tolerance and self-confidence
measures. In other words, says Stein, women and men are equally as intelligent
emotionally, but they?re strong in different areas.

Teaching emotional strength

Patterns of emotional intelligence are not fixed, however. So men and women can
boost their all-round EQ by building their emotional abilities where they lack them,
claims Stein.

Working with psychologists and executive coaches, for example, women can hone
their assertiveness skills and learn such stress-management techniques as
meditation, yoga and jogging, says Stein. Men can learn the importance of listening
to co-workers and customers, reading their moods and winning their trust?all
increasingly important aspects of leadership, teamwork and customer and co-worker
relations, says Stein.

Indeed, notes Goleman, the real value of the growing work on emotional intelligence
is its implications for workplace training.

'IQ is relatively stable throughout life but much of emotional skill is learned,' says
Goleman. 'There?s a huge market for psychologists as executive coaches, helping
people in the workplace build their emotional competencies.'
Goleman predicts companies will increasingly opt for EQ training as they realize that
it raises job productivity and customer satisfaction. His book explores models and
guidelines for such training.

'Emotional intelligence affects just about everything you do at work,' says Goleman.
'Even when you work in a solitary setting, how well you work has a lot to do with
how well you discipline and motivate yourself.'

? 'Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence,' by Peter Salovey, PhD, and

John Mayer, PhD (Basic Books, 1997).

? 'Executive EQ: Emotional Intelligence in Leadership and Organization,' by Robert

Cooper and Ayman Sawaf (Perigree, 1998).

? 'Emotional Intelligence at Work,' by Hendrie Weisinger, PhD (Jossey-Bass, 1997).

? 'Enhancing Learning in Training and Adult Education,' by Ronald Morgan, PhD,

Judith Ponticell, PhD, and Edward Gordon, PhD (Praeger, 1998).

Emotional intelligence and work

1)Research Article
Customer-oriented selling: Exploring the roles of emotional
intelligence and organizational commitment
Elizabeth J. Rozell, Charles E. Pettijohn *, R. Stephen Parker
Southwest Missouri State University
email: Charles E. Pettijohn (
Correspondence to Charles E. Pettijohn, Department of Marketing, College of Business
Administration, Southwest Missouri State University, 901 South National Avenue, Springfield, MO

Professional salespeople are often placed in situations where role conflict and ambiguity are
prevalent. They are generally expected to sell a firm's products and services to generate
immediate profits, while simultaneously building customer satisfaction and promoting lifetime
customers and the long-term economic viability of the firm. The concept of customer-oriented
selling illustrates the conflict, as salespeople are required to forgo immediate benefits in lieu of
long-term rewards. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationships existing between
customer-oriented selling, emotional intelligence, and organizational commitment. The results
indicate that a salesperson's customer orientation level is significantly related to emotional
intelligence. Implications of the findings indicate that managers should consider using emotional
intelligence as a selection and human-resource development tool, as improvements in emotional
intelligence are correlated with greater levels of customer orientation. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals,
Article Request:

Article Information:





Ioannis Nikolaou, Ioannis Tsaousis


International Journal of Organizational Analysis







327 - 342






Document Access:

Existing customers:

Please login above.

You do not have rights to view the article

Purchase this document:

Price payable: GBP £13.00
plus handling charge of GBP £1.50 and VAT where applicable.

Request this document:

Print or e-mail a document request to your librarian.

Reprints & permissions:



The purpose of the present study is to explore the relationship between

emotional intelligence and sources of occupational stress and outcomes on a
sample of professionals in mental health institutions. A total of 212 participants
were administered the Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire as well as the
Organizational Stress Screening Tool (ASSET), a new organizational screening
tool, which measures workplace stress. The results were in the expected
direction showing a negative correlation between emotional intelligence and
stress at work, indicating that high scorers in overall EI suffered less stress
related to occupational environment. A positive correlation was also found
between emotional intelligence and organizational commitment, which according
to the ASSET model is considered as a consequence of stress, suggesting a
new role for EI as a determinant of employee loyalty to organizations. Finally, the
relationship between EI, job stress, and various demographic variables such as
gender, age, and education was investigated and results are discussed in the
light of the organizational framework.


Article Type:

General review

Article URL:

Articles that form part of the Emerald Backfiles have been created through digital
scanning. Whilst all efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, Emerald will not
be held responsible for any inaccuracies. If you require further clarification please

Article Request:
The relationship between emotional intelligence
and work attitudes, behavior and outcomes: An
examination among senior managers

Article Information:


The relationship between emotional intelligence and work

attitudes, behavior and outcomes: An examination among senior


Abraham Carmeli

Journal of Managerial Psychology







788 - 813







Document Access:

Existing customers:

Please login above.

You do not have rights to view the article

Purchase this document:

Price payable: GBP £13.00
plus handling charge of GBP £1.50 and VAT where applicable.

Request this document:

Print or e-mail a document request to your librarian.

Reprints & permissions:



The literature suggests that managerial skills in general, and emotional

intelligence in particular, play a significant role in the success of senior managers
in the workplace. This argument, despite its popularity, remains elusive. This can
be attributed to the fact that although a few studies have provided evidence to
support this argument, it has not received an appropriate empirical investigation.
This study attempts to narrow this gap by empirically examining the extent to
which senior managers with a high emotional intelligence employed in public
sector organizations develop positive work attitudes, behavior and outcomes.
The results indicate that emotional intelligence augments positive work attitudes,
altruistic behavior and work outcomes, and moderates the effect of work-family
conflict on career commitment but not the effect on job satisfaction.


Altruism, Family friendly organizations, Job commitment, Job satisfaction

Article Type:

Research paper

Article URL: