History[edit]

Emotional Strength was first introduced by Abraham Maslow in the 1950s.[15] The term "emotional
intelligence" seems first to have appeared in a 1964 paper by Michael Beldoch, [16][17] and in the
1966 paper by B. Leuner entitled Emotional intelligence and emancipation which appeared in the
psychotherapeutic journal: Practice of child psychology and child psychiatry.[18]
In 1983, Howard Gardner's Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences [19] introduced the
idea that traditional types of intelligence, such as IQ, fail to fully explain cognitive ability. He
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).[20]
The first published use of the term 'EQ' (Emotional Quotient) is an article by Keith Beasley in
1987 in the British Mensa magazine.[21]
Late in 1998, a Harvard Business Review article entitled "What Makes a Leader," caught the
attention of senior management at Johnson & Johnson's Consumer Companies (JJCC). The
article spoke to the importance of Emotional Intelligence (EI) in leadership success, and cited
several studies that demonstrated that EI is often the distinguishing factor between great leaders
and average leaders. JJCC funded a study which concluded that there was a strong relationship
between superior performing leaders and emotional competence, supporting theorist's
suggestions that the social, emotional and relational competency set commonly referred to as
Emotional Intelligence, is a distinguishing factor in leadership performance. [22]
In 1989 Stanley Greenspan put forward a model to describe EI, followed by another by Peter
Salovey and John Mayer published in the following year.[23]
However, the term became widely known with the publication of Goleman's book: Emotional
Intelligence – Why it can matter more than IQ[24] (1995). It is to this book's best-selling status that
the term can attribute its popularity.[25] Goleman has followed up with several similar publications
that reinforce use of the term.[26][27][28][29]
Tests measuring EI have not replaced IQ tests as a standard metric of intelligence. [30] Emotional
Intelligence has also received criticism on its role in leadership and business success. [31]

Definitions[edit]
Emotional intelligence has been defined, by Peter Salovey and John Mayer, as "the ability to
monitor one's own and other people's emotions, to discriminate between different emotions and
label them appropriately, and to use emotional information to guide thinking and behavior". This
definition was later broken down and refined into four proposed abilities: perceiving, using,
understanding, and managing emotions. These abilities are distinct yet related. [1] Emotional
intelligence also reflects abilities to join intelligence, empathy and emotions to enhance thought
and understanding of interpersonal dynamics.[32] However, substantial disagreement exists
regarding the definition of EI, with respect to both terminology and operationalizations. Currently,
there are three main models of EI:

1. Ability model
2. Mixed model (usually subsumed under trait EI)[33][34]
3. Trait 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
different constructs.
Specific ability models address the ways in which emotions facilitate thought and understanding.
For example, emotions may interact with thinking and allow people to be better decision makers
(Lyubomirsky et al. 2005).[32] A person who is more responsive emotionally to crucial issues will
attend to the more crucial aspects of his or her life.[32] Aspects of emotional facilitation factor is to
also know how to include or exclude emotions from thought depending on context and situation.
[32]
 This is also related to emotional reasoning and understanding in response to the people,
environment and circumstances one encounters in his or her day-to-day life. [32]

Ability model[edit]
Salovey and Mayer's conception of EI strives to define EI within the confines of the standard
criteria for a new intelligence. [35][36] 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 growth." However, after pursuing further
research, their definition of EI evolved into "the capacity to reason about emotions, and of
emotions, to enhance thinking. It includes the abilities to accurately perceive emotions, to access
and generate emotions so as to assist thought, to understand emotions and emotional
knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions so as to promote emotional and intellectual
growth." [5]
The ability-based model views emotions as useful sources of information that help one to make
sense of and navigate the social environment. [37][38] 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 claims that EI includes four types of abilities:

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 EI model has been criticized in the research for lacking face and predictive validity in
the workplace.[39] However, in terms of construct validity, ability EI tests have great advantage
over self-report scales of EI because they compare individual maximal performance to standard
performance scales and do not rely on individuals' endorsement of descriptive statements about
themselves.[40]

Measurement[edit]
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. [38]
[41]
 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.[38]
Although promoted as an ability test, the MSCEIT test is unlike standard IQ tests in that its items
do not have objectively correct responses. Among other challenges, 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 some
cognitive ability experts to question the definition of EI as a genuine intelligence. [42]
In a study by Føllesdal,[43] 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 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.

Other measurements[edit]
Various other specific measures have also been used to assess ability in emotional intelligence.
These measures include:

1. Diagnostic Analysis of Non-verbal Accuracy[32] – The Adult Facial version includes

24 photographs of equal amount of happy, sad, angry, and fearful facial
expressions of both high and low intensities which are balanced by gender. The
tasks of the participants is to answer which of the four emotions is present in the
given stimuli.[32]
2. Japanese and Caucasian Brief Affect Recognition test[32] – Participants try to
identify 56 faces of Caucasian and Japanese individuals expressing seven
emotions such happiness, contempt, disgust, sadness, anger, surprise, and fear,
which may also trail off for 0.2 seconds to a different emotion. [32]
3. Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale[32] – Participants reads 26 social scenes
and answers their anticipated feelings and continuum of low to high emotional
awareness.[32]

Mixed model[edit]
The model introduced by Daniel Goleman[26] focuses on EI as a wide array of competencies and
skills that drive leadership performance. Goleman's model outlines five main EI constructs (for
more details see "What Makes A Leader" by Daniel Goleman, best of Harvard Business Review
1998):

1. Self-awareness – the ability to know one's emotions, strengths, weaknesses,

drives, values and goals and recognize their impact on others while using gut
feelings to guide decisions.
2. Self-regulation – involves controlling or redirecting one's disruptive emotions and
impulses and adapting to changing circumstances.
3. Social skill – managing relationships to get along with others
4. Empathy – considering other people's feelings especially when making decisions
5. Motivation – being aware of what motivates them.
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. Goleman posits that individuals are born
with a general emotional intelligence that determines their potential for learning emotional
competencies.[44] Goleman's model of EI has been criticized in the research literature as mere
"pop psychology".[32]

Measurement[edit]
Two measurement tools are based on the Goleman model:

1. The Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI), which was created in 1999, and the
Emotional and Social Competence Inventory (ESCI), a newer edition of the ECI
was developed in 2007. The Emotional and Social Competence – University
Edition (ESCI-U) is also available. These tools developed by Goleman
and Boyatzis provide a behavioral measure of the Emotional and Social
Competencies.
2. The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal, which was created in 2001 and which can
be taken as a self-report or 360-degree assessment. [45]

Trait model[edit]
See also: Trait theory
Konstantinos V. Petrides ("K. V. Petrides") proposed a conceptual distinction between the ability
based model and a trait based model of EI and has been developing the latter over many years in
numerous publications.[46][47] Trait EI is "a constellation of emotional self-perceptions located at the
lower levels of personality."[47] 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.[48] An alternative label for the same construct is trait
emotional self-efficacy.
The trait EI model is general and subsumes the Goleman model 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. [46]

Measurement[edit]
There are many self-report measures of EI,[49] including the EQ-i, the Swinburne University
Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT), and the Schutte 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.[47] The most widely used and widely researched measure of self-
report or self-schema (as it is currently referred to) emotional intelligence is the EQ-i 2.0.
Originally known as the BarOn EQ-i, it was the first self-report measure of emotional intelligence
available, the only measure predating Goleman's best-selling book. There are over 200 studies
that have used the EQ-i or EQ-i 2.0. It has the best norms, reliability, and validity of any self-
report instrument and was the first one reviewed in the Buros Mental Measures Book [citation needed]. The
EQ-i 2.0 is available in many different languages as it is used worldwide.
The TEIQue provides an operationalization for the model of Konstantinos V. Petrides and
colleagues, that conceptualizes EI in terms of personality. [50] 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.[51]
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.[52] Two recent studies (one a meta-analysis) involving direct
comparisons of multiple EI tests yielded very favorable results for the TEIQue. [34][53]
The Big Five Personality Traits theory gives a simple blueprint to understand others and
improving relationships by knowing why people tend to behave the way they do. You can also
use this theory to help better understand yourself and how to get along with others better than
ever before. The Big Five Model, is also known as the Five Factor Model, is the most widely
accepted personality theory held by psychologist today. The theory states that personality
personality can boil down to five factors, known as the acronym CANOE or OCEAN
(conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, extraversion). Unlike other trait theories that sort
individuals into binary categories (introvert or extrovert), the Big Five Model asserts that each
personality trait is a spectrum. Therefore, individuals are ranked on a scale between two extreme
ends.[54][55][56][57]

General effects[edit]
A review published in the journal of Annual Psychology in 2008 found that higher emotional
intelligence is positively correlated with:[32]

1. Better social relations for children – Among children and teens, emotional
intelligence positively correlates with good social interactions, relationships and
negatively correlates with deviance from social norms, anti-social behavior
measured both in and out of school as reported by children themselves, their own
family members as well as their teachers.
2. Better social relations for adults – High emotional intelligence among adults is
correlated with better self-perception of social ability and more successful
interpersonal relationships while less interpersonal aggression and problems.
3. Highly emotionally intelligent individuals are perceived more positively by others –
Other individuals perceive those with high EI to be more pleasant, socially skilled
and empathic to be around.
4. Better academic achievement – Emotional intelligence is correlated with greater
achievement in academics as reported by teachers but generally not higher
grades once the factor of IQ is taken into account.
5. Better social dynamics at work as well as better negotiating ability.
6. Better psychological well-being - Emotional intelligence is positively correlated
with higher life satisfaction, self-esteem and lower levels of insecurity or
depression. It is also negatively correlated with poor health choices and behavior.

Emotionally intelligent individuals are more likely to have a better understanding of themselves
and to make conscious decisions based on emotion and rationale combined. Overall, it leads a
person to self-actualization.[58][59]
In recent years the relevance and importance of emotional intelligence in contexts of business
leadership, commercial negotiation and dispute resolution has been increasingly recognised, and
professional qualifications and continuous professional development have incorporated aspects
of understanding emotions and developing greater insight into emotional interactions. [60][61][62]

Criticisms[edit]
EI, and Goleman's original 1995 analysis, have been criticized by some within the scientific
community,[63] despite reports of its usefulness in the popular press.[64]

Predictive power[edit]
Landy distinguishes between the "commercial" and "academic" discussion of EI, basing this
distinction on the alleged predictive power of EI as seen by each of the two. [65] According to
Landy, the former makes expansive claims on the applied value of EI, while the latter 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.
[65]
 Furthermore, Murensky (2000) states it is difficult to create objective measures of emotional
intelligence and demonstrate its influence on leadership as many scales are self-report
measures.[66]
In an academic exchange, Antonakis and Ashkanasy/Dasborough mostly agreed that
researchers testing whether EI matters for leadership have not done so using robust research
designs; therefore, currently there is no strong evidence showing that EI predicts leadership
outcomes when accounting for personality and IQ.[67] Antonakis argued that EI might not be
needed for leadership effectiveness (he referred to this as the "curse of emotion" phenomenon,
because leaders who are too sensitive to their and others' emotional states might have difficulty
making decisions that would result in emotional labor for the leader or followers). A 2010 meta-
analysis seems to support the Antonakis position: In fact, Harms and Credé found that overall
(and using data free from problems of common source and common methods), EI measures
correlated only ρ = 0.11 with measures of transformational leadership.[68] Barling, Slater, and
Kelloway (2000) also support Harms and Crede's position on transformational leadership. [69]
Ability-measures of EI fared worst (i.e., ρ = 0.04); the WLEIS (Wong-Law measure) did a bit
better (ρ = 0.08), and the Bar-On[70] measure slightly better (ρ = 0.18). However, the validity of
these estimates does not include the effects of IQ or the big five personality, which correlate both
with EI measures and leadership. [71] In a subsequent paper analyzing the impact of EI on both job
performance and leadership, Harms and Credé[72] found that the meta-analytic validity estimates
for EI dropped to zero when Big Five traits and IQ were controlled for. Joseph and Newman
meta-analytically showed the same result for Ability EI. [12]
However, self-reported and Trait EI measures retain a fair amount of predictive validity for job
performance after controlling Big Five traits and IQ. [12] Newman, Joseph, and MacCann[73] contend
that the greater predictive validity of Trait EI measures is due to their inclusion of content related
to achievement motivation, self efficacy, and self-rated performance. Meta-analytic evidence
confirms that self-reported emotional intelligence predicting job performance is due to mixed EI
and trait EI measures' tapping into self-efficacy and self-rated performance, in addition to the
domains of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and IQ. As such, the predictive ability
of mixed EI to job performance drops to nil when controlling for these factors. [14]
Rosete and Ciarrochi (2005) also explored the predictive ability of EI and job performance. [74] They
concluded that higher EI was associated with higher leadership effectiveness regarding
achievement of organizational goals. Their study shows EI may serve an identifying tool in
understanding who is (or is not) likely to deal effectively with colleagues. Furthermore, there
exists the ability to develop and enhance leadership qualities through the advancement of one's
emotional intelligence. Groves, McEnrue, and Shen (2008) found EI can be deliberately
developed, specifically facilitating thinking with emotions (FT) and monitoring and regulation of
emotions (RE) in the workplace.[75]

Correlation with personality[edit]

Similarly, 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
personality traits.[47] 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 measures.
Studies have examined the multivariate effects of personality and intelligence on EI and also
attempted to correct estimates for measurement error. For example, a study by Schulte, Ree,
Carretta (2004),[76] showed that general intelligence (measured with the Wonderlic Personnel
Test), agreeableness (measured by the NEO-PI), as well as gender could reliably be used to
predict the measure of EI ability. They gave a multiple correlation (R) of .81 with the MSCEIT
(perfect prediction would be 1). This result has been replicated by Fiori and Antonakis (2011),;
[77]
 they found a multiple R of .76 using Cattell's "Culture Fair" intelligence test and the Big Five
Inventory (BFI); significant covariates were intelligence (standardized beta = .39), agreeableness
(standardized beta = .54), and openness (standardized beta = .46). Antonakis and Dietz (2011a),
[78]
 who investigated the Ability Emotional Intelligence Measure found similar results (Multiple R = .
69), with significant predictors being intelligence, standardized beta = .69 (using the Swaps Test
and a Wechsler scales subtest, the 40-item General Knowledge Task) and empathy,
standardized beta = .26 (using the Questionnaire Measure of Empathic Tendency). Antonakis
and Dietz (2011b) also show how including or excluding important controls variables can
fundamentally change results.
Interpretations of the correlations between EI questionnaires and personality have been varied,
but a prominent view in the scientific literature is the Trait EI view, which re-interprets EI as a
collection of personality traits.[51][79][80]
A 2011 meta-analysis classified EI studies into three streams: "(1) ability‐based models that use
objective test items; (2) self‐report or peer‐report measures based on the four‐branch model of
EI; and (3) “mixed models” of emotional competencies." It found that these "three streams have
corrected correlations ranging from 0.24 to 0.30 with job performance. The three streams
correlated differently with cognitive ability and with neuroticism, extraversion, openness,
agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Streams 2 and 3 have the largest incremental validity
beyond cognitive ability and the Five Factor Model (FFM)." The meta-analysis concluded that "all
three streams of EI exhibited substantial relative importance in the presence of FFM and
intelligence when predicting job performance." [13] A follow-up meta-analysis in 2015 further
substantiated these findings, and addressed concerns about "the questionable construct validity
of mixed EI measures" by arguing that "mixed EI instruments assess a combination of ability EI
and self-perceptions, in addition to personality and cognitive ability." [14]

Socially desirable responding[edit]

Socially desirable responding (SDR), or "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). [full citation needed]
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 items.