Jump to content

Emotional intelligence: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 85: Line 85:


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.
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.

<!-- Comment -->I'm not pro-EI, but this is a rather weird and tangential argument against EI. For example: there is little or no evidence that the Big 5 personality factors currently in vogue have unique neural bases, either. I think someone needs to review the original source articles to make sure the authors' intent was actually to dismiss EI as a useful construct based on this, or if a single author cited these works for that (his own) purpose.


=== There is insufficient evidence that emotional intelligence has a unique neural basis ===
=== There is insufficient evidence that emotional intelligence has a unique neural basis ===

Revision as of 21:39, 19 April 2007

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 psychologists, such as John D. Mayer Template:Ref harvard, prefer to distinguish emotional knowledge from emotional intelligence, as discussed below.

Origins of the Term

In 1920, E. L. Thorndike, at Columbia University, Template:Ref harvard, used the term "social intelligence" to describe the skill of getting along with other people. In 1975, Howard Gardner's The Shattered Mind, Template:Ref harvardbegan 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. Template:Ref harvard

The term "emotional intelligence" appears to have originated with Wayne Payne Template:Ref harvard, but was popularized by Daniel Goleman Template:Ref harvard, who has published several books and articles about emotional intelligence and its application to business. As is the case in so many fields, language is a major barrier and primary cause for bias when it comes to determining a subject's origin or history. Payne may have coined the phrase for the Anglo-Saxon world, but historically he was a bit late -- in fact, about 20 years late. In the early Sixties Dutch science fiction author Carl Lans published 2 novels in which he not only elaborates on the concept, he also actually uses the phrase Emotional Quotient. These books were never translated. They formed the base of an immensely popular radio show.

Research on the concept originated with Peter Salovey and John "Jack" Mayer starting in the late 1980s. In 1990, their seminal paper Template:Ref harvarddefined 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 Template:Ref harvard. There are numerous other assessments of emotional intelligence each advocating different models and measures.

1995 Time Magazine Article

In October of 1995, Nancy Gibbs wrote an article [Gireesh Babu] on emotional intelligence that appeared in Time Magazine, wherein she mentioned Goleman's book and the work of Mayer and Salovey. Her article added to the book's popularity and caused a domino effect of media interest in emotional intelligence.[citation needed]

Defining emotional intelligence

EQ Map

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) the distinction between intelligence and knowledge is murky. Current definitions of EQ are inconsistent about what it measures: some Template:Ref harvardsay that EQ is dynamic, and can be learned or increased; whereas others (such as Mayer) say that EQ is stable, and cannot be increased.

Measures of Emotional Intelligence

Some researchers believe EI is a cognitive ability just as is IQ (eg, Mayer & Salovey, 2000), others believe it is a combination of perceived abilities and traits (e.g., Schutte et al. 1998), while others consider it a skill that can be measuredTemplate:Ref harvard. These opposing views have inspired separate domains of inventories.

Self-report measures of EQ

Self-report measures of EI include the Emotional Intelligence Appraisal by Bradberry and Greaves, which can be taken online via a passcode included in their book Template:Ref harvard, as a self-scoring booklet, or as an online 360-degree assessment. The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal measures the four EQ skills from Daniel Goleman's model:

  • Self-Awareness
  • Self-Management
  • Social Awareness
  • Relationship Management

Other assessments include the EQi, the EQ Map, SEI, ECI, Ei360, and a test by Tett, Fox, and Wang Template:Ref harvard.

Ability-based measures of EI

The MSCEIT measure is a measure of EI involving Shanil 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, Consensus based assessment and evaluation. A discussion on the strengths of ability-based measures versus self-report measures was written by Template:Ref harvard.

Behavioral Measure of EI

A second generation workplace-specific emotional intelligence assessment has been developed by Dr. Ben Palmer, Professor Con Stough, and the Organizational Psychology Research Unit (OPRU) at Swinburne University in Australia. The Swinburne model, renamed and commercially distrubuted as the Genos EI, measures 7 dimensions in a 360 assessment (self, managers, peers, direct reports, clients/customers) and focuses on perceived behavior, by self and others, rather than self-reported skill or ability (competency). The research at Swinburne began in the mid-90's and the assessment has been commercially available through the Genos EI accredited global network of consultants and executive coaches since 2001.

The 7 dimensions measured by the Genos EI are:

  1. Emotional Self-Awareness
  2. Emotional Expression
  3. Emotional Understanding of Others
  4. Emotional Reasoning
  5. Emotional Self-Management
  6. Emotional Management of Others
  7. Emotional Self-Control

The design of the Genos EI addresses a common criticism of self-only assessments, in that its 360 feedback neutralizes any attempt by the assessee to look good (SDR). The anonymous feedback from the various rater groups clearly identifies the gaps between self-perception and how others perceive the subject's day-to-day behaviors in the workplace. Because the Genos EI assessment measures behavior, a focus that is unique among EI assessments, the developmental recommendations delivered in the assessment report set a foundation for a cognitive-behavioral restructuring process that allows successful performance to be accurately measured by a repeat assessment after the developmental work is complete.

Dr. Palmer is internationally recognized as an authority in Emotional Intelligence and is a Research Member and contributing author for the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence. For his bio and additional links to his peer-reviewed and published research papers, see his EI Consortium page or go to the Genos web site.

Emotional Intelligence to Resolve Conflicts

An important subfield of EI explores how emotional intelligence can be applied to benefit people dealing with a conflict or negotiation. Researchers conducting work on emotional intelligence and conflict include Roger Fisher and Daniel Shapiro of Harvard's Negotiation Project, Foo, Elfenbein, Tan, and Aik (2004), who examine the effects of emotional intelligence on creating and claiming value in a negotiation; Allred, who examines the role of compassion and anger in negotiation; and Fulmer and Barry (2004), who study ways that intelligence -- both cognitive and emotional -- affect the negotiation process.

Somatic (Mind/Body) Applications of Emotional Intelligence

Another important subfield of EI explores the important mind/body connection of Somatic Intelligence with Emotional Intelligence. Researchers conducting work in this area include Tim Warneka (2006) who examine the importance of the development Somatic Intelligence as a fundamental foundation for the creation of Emotional Intelligence. In particular, Warneka explores this mind/body subfield of EI by exploring the principles of the non-violent martial art of Aikido, which Warneka refers to as "embodied Emotional Intelligence".

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. Template:Ref harvard. That research warns that EQ may actually be measuring conformity. However, Mayer et.al. Template:Ref harvard, 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 areas of the psychological community. Eysenck Template:Ref harvard, 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."

Claims for the Predictive Power of Emotional Intelligence are too Extreme

It has been argued that Goleman has made unproven claims for the power of emotional intelligence to predict life and work skill. In a recent book Goleman and colleagues made unsubstantiated claims about the utility of EI for leadership. Again, members of the academic community took issue with this, according to Antonakis (2003, p. 359):

See: Antonakis, J. (2003). Why “emotional intelligence” does not predict leadership effectiveness: A comment on Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter, and Buckley. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(4), 355-361.

Antonakis, J. (2004). On why “emotional intelligence” will not predict leadership effectiveness beyond IQ or the “big five”: An extension and rejoinder. Organizational Analysis, 12(2), 171-182.

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).

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.

I'm not pro-EI, but this is a rather weird and tangential argument against EI. For example: there is little or no evidence that the Big 5 personality factors currently in vogue have unique neural bases, either. I think someone needs to review the original source articles to make sure the authors' intent was actually to dismiss EI as a useful construct based on this, or if a single author cited these works for that (his own) purpose.

There is insufficient evidence that emotional intelligence has a unique neural basis

There is no knowledge of the independence or interaction of putative brain circuits for EI with structural and neurochemical brain circuits for general intelligence (Oberauer, Schulze, Wilhelm, & Suss, 2005) or with structural and neurochemical brain circuits for personality (Paris, 2005), or with structural and neurochemical brain circuits for emotions (Phelps, 2006).

Cognitive neuroscience research suggests that human emotions and social skills depend on a multitude of neural circuits serving many behaviors, including attachment, empathy, face and emotion recognition, emotional sensation, emotional expression, the mirror neuron system, language skills, personality components, working memory, long term memory, reasoning, decision making and others (Cacioppo & Berntson, 2004; Insel & Fernald, 2004; Paris, 2005; Phelps, 2006). These neural circuits interact and overlap, and many circuits (for working memory, long term memory, mirror neurons, decision making) contribute to general functional intelligence (Gallese, Keysers, & Rizzolatti, 2004; Kahneman, 2003; Oberauer et al., 2005; Phelps, 2006)..” (Waterhouse, 2006b, pp. 252-253).

Self-report EI - Susceptibility to 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). One way of off-setting "faking good" responses is to use the psychometric technique of Consensus based assessment to create standards for assessing EI that cannot be faked.

Corporate Uses and Misuses of EI Testing

At its worst, EI examinations can be utilized as a means of unethical discrimination against both job applicants and current workers who happen to have either introverted personalities or exhibit moderately flat affect. As many people suffering from depression or abuse as children tend to fall into these categories, EI pre-employment or performance review screenings based on emotional intelligence can serve as an obstacle against people who have disabling conditions. (See Bait and Switched by Barbara Ehrenreich.)

See also

References

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.(ISBN 0-553-09503-X)

  • a b Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional Intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ. London : Bloomsbury. (ISBN 0-7475-2622-2)
  • 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.
  • a b Mayer, J. (2005a). "Can Emotional Knowledge be Improved? Can you raise emotional intelligence?” The University of New Hampshire. Web reference at http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/ei%20Improve/ei%20Rasing%20EI.htmaccessed January 2, 2006.
  • ^ Mayer, J. (2005b) "Emotional Intelligence Information: A Site Dedicated to Communicating Scientific Information about Emotional Intelligence, Including Relevant Aspects of Emotions, Cognition, and Personality." The University of New Hampshire. Web reference at http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/index.html accessed January 2, 2006.
  • ^ Mayer, J. (2005c). "Is EI the Best Predictor of Success in Life?" The University of New Hampshire. Web reference at http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/ei%20Controversies/eicontroversy1%20best%20predictor.htm accessed January 2, 2006.
  • ^ Mayer, J. (2005c). "How Do You Measure Emotional Intelligence?" The University of New Hampshire. Web reference at [3] accessed January 2, 2006.
  • ^ Mayer, J.D. & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17, 433-442.
  • ^ Mayer, J., Salovey, P., Caruso, D.R., and Sitarenios, G. (2001) "Emotional intelligence as a standard intelligence." Emotion, 1, 232-242.
  • ^ Payne, W.L. (1985). A study of emotion: developing emotional intelligence; self-integration; relating to fear, pain and desire (theory, structure of reality, problem-solving, contraction/expansion, tuning in/comingout/letting go). A Doctoral Dissertation. Cincinnati, OH: The Union For Experimenting Colleges And Universities (now The Union Institute). Abstract available at http://eqi.org/payne.htm
  • ^ Roberts, R.D., Zeidner, M., and Matthews, G. (2001). "Does Emotional Intelligence Meet Traditional Standards for an Intelligence? Some New Data and Conclusions." Emotion, Vol 1, no 3, pages 196-231. Web pre-publication version available at http://eqi.org/ei_abs4.htm accessed 19 Sept 2006.
  • ^ Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990). "Emotional intelligence." Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9(1990), 185-211. [4]
  • Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E., Haggerty, D.J., Cooper, J.T., Golden, C.J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177.
  • ^ Smith, M. K. (2002) "Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences," the encyclopedia of informal education, Downloaded from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm on October 31, 2005.
  • Stein, S and Book, H. "The EQ Edge". Toronto: Jossey-Bass. EQ Edge.com
  • Stein, S (1997). Men and Women Have Different Kinds and Levels of Emotional Intelligence, EQ for Both Sexes is Key to Workplace Success. website
  • Technical Brochures regarding the psychometric properties of the BOEI (Benchmark of Emotional Intelligence), EQ-i, and MSCEIT. website
  • ^ Tett, R. P., Fox, K. E., & Wang, A. (2005). Development and validation of a self-report measure of emotional intelligence as a multidimensional trait domain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 859-888.
  • ^ Thorndike, R.K. (1920). "Intelligence and Its Uses," Harper's Magazine 140, 227-335.
  • Warneka, T. (2006). Leading People the Black Belt Way: Conquering the Five Core Problems Facing Leaders Today. Asogomi Press. Cleveland, Ohio. website
  • Waterhouse, Lynn. (2006a). Multiple Intelligences, the Mozart Effect, and Emotional Intelligence: A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 41(4), Fall, pp. 207-225.
  • Waterhouse, Lynn. (2006b). "Inadequate Evidence for Multiple Intelligences, Mozart Effect, and Emotional Intelligence Theories." Educational Psychologist, 41(4), Fall, pp. 247-255.

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Emotional_intelligence&oldid=124194290"