The construct of emotional intelligence

Intelligence represents the individual’s overall level of intellectual ability. It serves as a general concept that includes several groups of mental abilities. Historically speaking, one of the first divisions of intelligence splits it into verbal, performance and social intelligence[1] (Thorndike, 1920). Social intelligence has been described as the ability to understand and manage people, and to act wisely in social situations (Thorndike & Stein, 1937). More recently, Cantor and Kihlstrom (1985, 1987) proposed social intelligence as a construct referring to a central personality process that underpins social behavior.

Over the last two decades, the concept of emotional intelligence (EI) – which can be viewed as the latest incarnation of the social intelligence concept –  has received much attention in the popular and scientific literature. Different definitions and operationalizations of EI exist, which can be roughly divided into (1) ability models and (2) mixed (traits with abilities) models (Joseph and Newman, 2010). Besides ability models, some authors identified several additional subcategories (e.g., Tsaousis and Kazi, 2013). The first is Bar-On’s model of emotional and social intelligence. In Bar-On's (2000) opinion, EI is a composite of different facets compromising cognitive, motivational  and affective constructs including five components: intrapersonal skills, interpersonal skills, adaptability, stress management, and general mood. The second model encompasses the social and emotional competencies: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management (Boyatzis and Sala, 2004). The third most recent model is the trait emotional intelligence model by Petrides et al. (2007) measuring typical performance of four components: well-being, sociability, self-control, and emotionality. Some authors have further suggested that it is the type of measurement rather than the theory per se that determines the nature of the model (e.g., Petrides et al., 2007). Joseph and Newman (2010) for instance suggested the division into: performance-based ability EI, self-report ability EI, and self-report mixed EI. 

On the other hand, the most influential ability or information-processing model is the one by Mayer et al. (2000; 2002; 2008 a,b). They define EI as the ability to recognize emotion, reason with emotion and emotion-related information, and process emotional information as part of general problem-solving (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 The main components of Emotional Intelligence

To measure these branches empirically, the authors developed the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). The test consists of performance tasks requiring responses that are evaluated against predetermined scoring criteria.

The central, still unsolved, questions about the ability EI construct are: first, do these four branches link up to a higher-order global EI factor supporting the idea of a unified area of ability – emotional intelligence – that can be subdivided into subsidiary areas of skill, and second, does the MSCEIT measure something that differs from IQ or personality?

A concern raised by several researchers was that one could question the usefulness of EI for enhancing the understanding of the determinants of human performance (e.g., Schulte et al., 2004; De Raad, 2005). This concern was supported by empirical evidence. Schulte and colleagues (2004), for instance, reported a corrected multiple R = 0.81 between EI and other well-known constructs: the big five personality dimensions and g. Similar findings were reported by De Raad (2005) and Fiori and Antonakis (2011). In the study by de Rad, 42% of emotional intelligence items were accommodated by the big five personality factor of emotional stability. The study by Fiori and Antonakis found that the MSCEIT is largely predicted by personality dimensions, general intelligence, and demographics having multiple R’s with the MSCEIT branches up to 0.66; for the general EI factor this relation was even stronger (Multiple R = 0.76). Furthermore, the low intercorrelations among the EI branches posed some doubts about the presence of an underlying higher-order EI factor. The authors suggested that the problems could be approached by revising the scoring process based on consensus/expert scores. In consensus scoring the highest scores are obtained for answers corresponding to those given by the majority of individuals in a large predetermined database. The evidence for the validity of this type of scoring is the high correlation between consensus and expert scores, which raises the question of the discriminatory characteristics of the test. For example, it would be rather unusual if gifted individuals on an IQ test provided the same responses as the majority of respondents. This would suggest that the test cannot sort high from average IQ individuals.

Two recent studies adopted a different theoretical perspective to tackle the question whether EI can be distinguished from IQ.  Gutiérrez-Cobo et al. (2016) instead of correlating EI branches with IQ test scores, performed an analysis on problem solving tasks. They divided the latter into “cool” (i.e., not emotionally laden) and “hot” (i.e., emotionally laden) laboratory tasks.  An example of a “hot” task is the IGT, where participants have to select one hundred different cards from four decks. The four decks contain unequal monetary punishments and rewards; the goal is to obtain as much money as possible. Examples of “cool” tasks were digit span and the symbol inspection time task, in which subjects were asked to discriminate between two symbols: + and x.  The analysis for “hot” cognitive tasks showed that higher-EI individuals tended to perform better in these cognitive tasks, whereas for the “cool” tasks no relation was observed, which would to some extent support the distinctiveness of the EI construct, at least in relation to IQ.

The central question put forward by Pietsching and Gittler (2017) was whether EI exhibits potential test score changes over time, similar to the dynamic generational changes of standardized IQ psychometric test performance in the general population known as the Flynn effect (Flynn, 1987). The meta-analysis included data from 160 samples (N = 16,738) from English-speaking countries over a time-span of 15 years (2001–2015). The main finding was that no substantial generational test score changes in overall or branch EI scores were observed. The authors suggested that one of the possible reasons for such a pattern may well be “that ability emotional intelligence is indeed a distinct intelligence domain that remains genuinely unaffected by causes that acted as boosters for other intelligence domains (e.g., fluid, crystallized, or spatial IQ)” (Pietsching and Gittler, 2017, p. 7).

Despite these shortcomings with respect to the concept and measurement of emotional intelligence, several recent studies have investigated the relationship between EI and aggression/deviant behavior, leadership, health/well-being and brain activity - topics that we will address in our forthcoming blogs.

References

Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory. In R. Bar-On, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 363–388). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boyatzis, R. E., & Sala, F. (2004). Assessing emotional intelligence competencies. In G. Geher (Ed.), Measuring emotional intelligence. Common ground and controversy (pp. 147–180). Hauppage, NY: Nova Science.

Cantor, N., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1985). Social intelligence: The cognitive basis of personality. In P. Shaver (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 15–33). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Cantor, N., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1987). Personality and social intelligence.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

De Raad, B. (2005). The trait-coverage of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 673-687.

Fiori, M., & Antonakis, J. (2011). The ability model of emotional intelligence: Searching for valid measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(3), 329–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.010

Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 171–191.

Gutiérrez-Cobo, M. J., Cabello, R., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2016). The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Cool and Hot Cognitive Processes: A Systematic Review. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00101

Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017286

Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008a). Human Abilities: Emotional Intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 507–536. 

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093646

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008b). Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits? American Psychologist, 63(6), 503–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.6.503

Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R. and Salovey, P. (2000). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27, 267-298.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D.R.  (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso emotional intelligence test (MSCEIT). Toronto: MHS.

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.

Pietschnig, J., & Gittler, G. (2017). Is ability-based emotional intelligence impervious to the Flynn effect? A cross-temporal meta-analysis (2001–2015). Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.12.006

Schulte, M.J., Ree, M.J., & Carretta, T.R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: not much more than g and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1059-1068.

Thorndike, E.,L. (1920). Intelligence and its use. Harper’s Magazine, 140, 227-235.

Thorndike, R. L., & Stein, S. (1937). An evaluation of the attempts to measure social intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 34, 275–285.

Tsaousis, I., & Kazi, S. (2013). Factorial invariance and latent mean differences of scores on trait emotional intelligence across gender and age. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(2), 169–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.08.016

---

[1] Some authors have argued that the concept was first introduced by Dewey in 1909 (Joseph and Newman, 2010)