Emotional Intelligence: A Cross-Cultural Psychometric Analysis [PDF]

TEIQue, and performance measure of emotional intelligence, as assessed by the MSCEIT, were not strongly .... I would lik

3 downloads 17 Views 6MB Size

Recommend Stories


PDF Download Emotional Intelligence
What you seek is seeking you. Rumi

[PDF] Emotional Intelligence
I tried to make sense of the Four Books, until love arrived, and it all became a single syllable. Yunus

(PDF) Emotional Intelligence
Learn to light a candle in the darkest moments of someone’s life. Be the light that helps others see; i

[PDF] Emotional Intelligence
Learn to light a candle in the darkest moments of someone’s life. Be the light that helps others see; i

[PDF] Emotional Intelligence
We may have all come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now. M.L.King

[PDF] Emotional Intelligence
Why complain about yesterday, when you can make a better tomorrow by making the most of today? Anon

[PDF] Emotional Intelligence
Nothing in nature is unbeautiful. Alfred, Lord Tennyson

[PDF] Download Emotional Intelligence
Forget safety. Live where you fear to live. Destroy your reputation. Be notorious. Rumi

[PDF] Download Emotional Intelligence
If you feel beautiful, then you are. Even if you don't, you still are. Terri Guillemets

[PDF] Emotional Intelligence
Don’t grieve. Anything you lose comes round in another form. Rumi

Idea Transcript


UNIVERSITE DE PAUL CEZANNE, AIX-MARSEILLE III INSTITUT D’ADMINISTRATION DES ENTREPRISES Ecole Doctorale de Sciences Economiques et de Gestion d‘Aix-Marseille III Centre d'Etudes et de Recherche en Gestion d'Aix-Marseille

Emotional Intelligence: A Cross-Cultural Psychometric Analysis

Thèse pour obtenir le grade de DOCTEUR DE L‘UNIVERSITE D‘AIX-MARSEILLE III EN SCIENCES DE GESTION Présentée et soutenue publiquement le 28 Mars 2011 par

Jahanvash KARIM

JURY Monsieur Robert WEISZ Professeur, IAE d‘Aix-en-Provence, Université d‘Aix-Marseille III Monsieur Jean-Pierre NEVEU Professeur, IAE Université Montpellier 2. Monsieur Jean-Louis CHANDON Professeur, IAE d‘Aix-en-Provence, Université d‘Aix-Marseille III Madame Martine BRASSEUR Professeur, Université Paris Descartes Monsieur Oliver HERBACH Professeur, Université Bordeaux IV

0

Emotional Intelligence: A Cross-Cultural Psychometric Analysis ABSTRACT Despite the rather large literature concerning emotional intelligence, the vast majority of studies concerning development and validation of emotional intelligence scales have been done in the Western countries. Hence, a major limitation in this literature is its decidedly Western focus. The aim of this research was to assess the psychometric properties of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT), the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue), and the Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SREIT) in a cross-cultural comparative context involving the collectivist Pakistani (Eastern culture) and the individualist French (Western culture) students. Results of this study showed that participants from the French culture scored higher than participants from the Pakistani sample on the MSCEIT but not on the TEIQue and the SREIT. Multi-sample analyses revealed that the MSCEIT, the TEIQue, and the SREIT factor structures remained invariant across both cultures. Regarding discriminant validity, in both cultures, self-ratings of emotional intelligence, as assessed by the SREIT and the TEIQue, and performance measure of emotional intelligence, as assessed by the MSCEIT, were not strongly correlated. Furthermore, in both cultures, scores on the MSCEIT, the TEIQue, and the SREIT revealed to be unrelated to cognitive intelligence and communication styles. Finally, low to moderate correlations were observed between the EI measures and the Big Five personality dimensions. Regarding convergent validity of the self-report EI measures, in both cultures the scores on the TEIQue strongly correlated with the scores on the SREIT. With regard to incremental validity, in both cultures, after statistically controlling for the Big Five personality dimensions and cognitive ability, the MSCEIT and the SREIT revealed to be unrelated to satisfaction with life, positive affect, negative affect, and psychological distress. In contrast, the TEIQue factors accounted for a significant amount of variance in outcome variables after controlling for the Big Five personality dimensions and the cognitive intelligence. However, further analyses revealed that the associations were mainly because of the TEIQue‘s well-being factor. Finally, in both cultures, females scored higher than males on the MSCEIT but not on the TEIQue and the SREIT. In sum, the results of this study provide evidence for the factorial, discriminant, and convergent validity of these emotional intelligence measures in both cultures. However,

1

results regarding incremental validity of these measures are less promising than anticipated. Keywords: Emotional intelligence, validity, reliability, cross-cultural

2

L’Intelligence Emotionnelle: Une Analyse Psychométrique interculturelle. Résumé Malgré la littérature importante dans le champ de l‘intelligence émotionnelle, la très grande majorité des études sur le développement et la validation des échelles de mesure de l‘intelligence émotionnelle ont été réalisées dans des pays Occidentaux. D‘où, une limitation majeure de cette littérature dans son orientation purement occidentale. L‘objectif de cette recherche est d‘évaluer les propriétés psychométriques du Test d‘Intelligence Emotionnelle de Mayer-Salovey-Caruso (MSCEIT), du Questionnaire des Traits d‘Intelligence Emotionnelle (TEIQue), et du Test d‘auto-évaluation d‘Intelligence Emotionnelle (SREIT) dans un contexte comparatif interculturel comprenant des étudiants collectivistes Pakistanais (culture Orientale) et des étudiants individualistes Français (culture Occidentale). Les résultats de cette étude ont démontré que les participants de la culture française ont eu une meilleure performance par rapport aux participants pakistanais au MSCEIT mais pas au TEIQue et au SREIT. Les analyses d‘échantillons multiples ont révélé des structures factorielles invariantes du MSCEIT, du TEIQue, et du SREIT à travers les deux cultures. Concernant la validité discriminante, l‘auto-évaluation de l‘IE, mesurée par le SREIT et le TEIQue, et les mesures de performance de l‘IE, évaluées par le MSCEIT, n‘ont pas démontré une forte corrélation dans les deux cultures. En autre, les résultats au MSCEIT, au TEIQue, et au SREIT n‘ont pas démontré le lien avec l‘intelligence cognitive dans les deux cultures. Des corrélations faibles à modérées ont été observées entre les mesures de l‘IE et les dimensions de personnalité Big Five. Enfin, les mesures de l‘IE se sont révélées indépendantes de styles de communication. Concernant la validité convergente des mesures d‘auto-évaluation de l‘IE, les résultats au TEIQue ont montré une forte corrélation avec le SREIT dans les deux cultures. En ce qui concerne la validité incrémentale, après un contrôle statistique des dimensions de personnalité Big Five et la capacité cognitive, le MSCEIT et le SREIT n‘ont pas démontré le lien avec la satisfaction de vie, l‘affect positif, l‘affect négatif, et la détresse psychologique dans les deux cultures. En revanche, les facteurs du TEIQue ont expliqué une part significative de la variance dans les variables dépendantes après avoir contrôlé pour les dimensions de personnalité Big Five et l‘intelligence cognitive. Cependant, des analyses plus approfondies ont révélé que ces associations ont été en grande partie attribuées au facteur du bien-être du TEIQue. 3

Enfin, les femmes ont montré de meilleurs résultats que les hommes au MSCEIT mais pas au TEIQue et au SREIT dans les deux cultures. En résumé, les résultats de cette étude fournissent les preuves pour validité factorielle, discriminante, et convergente de ces mesures de l‘intelligence émotionnelles dans les deux cultures. Toutefois, les résultats concernant la validité incrémentale de ces mesures se sont avérés moins prometteurs que prévu.

4

DEDICATION

Dedicated to my mother, for her continued support and encouragement of my educational and personal pursuits.

―emotions may be felt both too much and too little, and in both cases not well; but to feel them at the right times, with reference to the right objects, towards the right people, with the right motive, and in the right way, is what is both intermediate and best, and this is characteristic of virtue‘‘ ---Aristotle

5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Professor Robert Weisz, for his countless hours of supervision, support, and wisdom. Professor Robert Weisz, I thank you for all your efforts to help me accomplish this task. I am honored to have had the opportunity to work with such incredible researcher, teacher, as well as a friend. You are truly gifted in facilitating the growth of others. Thank you for your investment in my life. I would also like to thank Professor Jean Louis Chandon. Professor Chandon you are a gem, and I really enjoyed working with you. Without your excellent teaching and help of statistical techniques this research was not possible. I would like to thank Jury members for their valuable comments on the earlier version of this manuscript. I would like to thank Professor Daniel Roland, Natalie Chevrier, Professor Haider Shah, Professor Abdul Raziq, and Professor Babrak Panezai for their extended help during data collection process. I would like to thank all my friends and colleagues who helped me in this project. I especially would like to thank Mr Rohail Ashraf and Mr. Aziz Javed. Thank you for being my encouragers and great team members. THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

6

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract

1

Dedication

5

Aknowledgments

6

Table of contents

7

List of Tables

10

List of Figures

12

INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction

13

2

Problem Statement and Rationale

15

3

Objectives of the Study

17

4

Significance of the Study

17

5

Organization of the Study

19

Chapter 1 : HISTORY OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 1.1

History of Cognitive Intelligence

20

1.2

Inclusion of Social intelligence (non-cognitive intelligence) in the

41

Cognitive Theories 1.3

The Origins of the Term ―Emotional Intelligence‖

48

Chapter 2 : EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE MEASURES 2.1

Approaches to EI

58

2.2

Ability EI or Performance Based Measures of EI

60

2.3

Trait EI, Mixed Model EI or Self-Report Measures of EI

66

2.4

Criticisms of EI

89

Chapter 3 : PROMINENT EI MODELS AND INSTRUMENTS 3.1

Rationale for the selection of EI measures for the study

97

3.2

Salovey and Mayer‘s (1990) EI Model

98

3.3

Mayer and Salovey (1997) Ability EI Model

101

3.4

Petrides & Furnham‘s (2001) Trait EI Model

116

Chapter 4: HYPOTHESES 4.1

Epistemology

122

4.2

Individualism and Collectivism

124

4.3

Rationale for the Selection of French and Pakistani Cultures

132

4.4

Country Differences on the MSCEIT, the TEIQue, and the SREIT

133 7

4.5

Structural Equivalence

148

4.6

Discriminant Validity: EI and Cognitive Intelligence

156

4.7

Discriminant Validity: EI and Personality

163

4.8

Discriminant Validity: Performance-based EI and mixed model EI

174

4.9

Discriminant Validity: EI and Communication styles

177

4.10

Convergent Validity: Self-Report EI Measures

181

4.11

Incremental Validity of the EI Measures

182

4.12

EI and Well-Being

185

4.13

Known Group Validation

190

Chapter 5: RESEARCH METHODOLGOY 5.1

Research Design

196

5.2

Sample Selection

196

5.3

Data Collection Procedures

197

5.4

Sample

198

5.5

Measures

198

5.6

Analyses of Data

204

Chapter 6: RESULTS 6.1

Missing Value Analyses and Data Cleaning

208

6.2

Country Differences on EI

210

6.3

Factorial Invariance

212

6.4

Discriminant Validity: EI and Cognitive Intelligence

218

6.5

Discriminant Validity: EI and Personality

219

6.6

Discriminant Validity: Performance-based EI and mixed model EI

222

6.7

Discriminant Validity: EI and Communication styles

224

6.8

Convergent Validity: Self-Report EI Measures

224

6.9

Incremental Validity

226

6.10

Known Group validation

228

Chapter 7: DISCUSSION 7.1

Internal Consistency Reliability

234

7.2

Mean Differences

236

7.3

Factorial Invariance

237

7.4

Discriminant and Convergent Validity

238

7.5

Incremental Validity

242

8

7.6

Gender Differences

245

7.7

Theoretical Considerations

246

7.8

Implications

248

6.9

Limitations and Future Directions

257

6.10

Weisz Communication Styles Model: A Deeper Investigation to EI.

263

6.11

Conclusion

270

REFERENCES APPENDICES I

QUESTIONNAIRES USED IN THE STUDY

II

RESULTS

III

CONFIRMATORY AND MULTI GROUP CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSES RESULTS

IV

ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT ON MBA EXECUTIVE STUDENTS

V

MSCEIT INTERNAL CONSISTENCY AND MEANS DOCUMENTED BY PREVIOUS STUDIES

VI

POST HOC REGRESSION ANALYSES RESULTS FOR THE TEIQue

VII

RESUME DE THESE EN FRANCAIS

9

LIST OF TABLES 1.1

Examples of items from Binet-Simon scale

26

1.2

Piaget‘s theory of cognitive development

28

1.3

Guiford‘s Structure of Intellect (SI) model

32

1.4

Carroll and Cattell-Horn model

36

1.5

Garndner‘s multiple intelligences

39

1.6

Sternberg‘s theory of intelligence

41

1.7

Understanding the behavior of other people

45

1.8

Coping with the behavior of other people

46

1.9

Bar-On conceptualization of Emotional Intelligence

52

1.10

The Genos model of EI

57

2.1

Differences between Performance-based and Self-report measures of EI

59

2.2

Classification of common EI Measures with Four Construct-Method

59

Pairings 2.3

The EQ-i Scales

68

2.4

The ECI Competencies

70

2.5

Multidimensional Emotional Intelligence Assessment

76

2.6

Genos Emotional Intelligence Inventory

78

2.7

Emotional Quotient Index

79

2.8

USM Emotional Quotient Inventory

80

2.9

Emotional Competence Scale

86

2.10

The Emotional Judgment Inventory

87

3.1

Percieving Emotions

105

3.2

Using Emotions

106

3.3

Understanding Emotions

107

3.4

Managing Emotions

109

3.5

Summary of the Mayer and Salovey (1997)EI model

110

3.6

The MSCEIT‘s branches and tasks

114

3.7

Examples of MSCEIT items

115

3.8

Factorial and subscales structure of the trait EI model

117

3.9

Examples of TEIQue items

119

3.10

Summary and comparison of EI measures

121 10

4.1

Integrated epistemology for conducting research on emotional intelligence

122

in the workplace. 4.2

Kluckhohn and Strodbeck‘s (1961) model

125

4.3

Triandis conceptualization of individualism and collectivism

126

4.4

Horizontal/vertical individualism and collectivism

127

4.5

Problems and corresponding cultural values in Schwartz‘s theory

128

4.6

Globe‘s individualism/collectivism dimension

132

4.7

Mean scores for happiness scales across France and Pakistan (Veenhoven,

144

2010) 4.8

Various structures of the SREIT

153

4.9

Criteria for Discriminant and Convergent Validity

157

4.10

Cattell's 16 Personality Factor Model

167

4.11

Costa & McCrae (1992) Big Five Trait Domains

168

4.12

Definition and Explication of the Big Five Domains

169

4.13

Items from the TEIQue and the SREIT

182

4.14

Summary of terms related to psychometrics

193

4.15

Summary of hypotheses

194

5.1

Characteristics of Sample

198

6.1

Complete data set for each sample

209

6.2

Summary of results

232

7.1

The difference between Emic and Etic

262

7.2

How Drivers Help and Hinder

266

7.3

Weisz Communication Styles Model: Psychological Languages, Growth

269

and Survival

11

LIST OF FIGURES 1.1

Plato‘s conceptualization of world

21

1.2

Guiford‘s Structure of Intellect (SI) model

33

1.3

Vernon hierarchical group factor theory

34

2.1

Roseman‘s structure of the emotions

61

2.2

The Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire

83

3.1

Salovey and Mayer‘s (1990) EI model

99

3.2

Mayer and Salovey ‗s (1997) EI model

104

3.3

The Trait EI components

116

4.1

Schwartz‘s value system

129

4.2

The difference between French and Pakistani cultures

133

4.3

The relationship between universal and culture specific affect program

135

4.4

Representation of dialect theory of emotion

136

6.1

MSCEIT multi-sample analyses: The parameter estimates of invariant

214

covariances model 6.2

TEIQue multi-sample analyses: The parameter estimates of invariant

216

covariances model 6.3

SREIT multi-sample analyses: The parameter estimates of invariant

218

covariances model 7.1

Cherniss and Goleman‘s (2001) Optimal Process Model

253

7.2

The perceptual positions

264

7.3

Capers and Goodman (1983) survival process

265

12

GENERAL INTRODUCTION The construct of emotional intelligence (EI) - the ability to identify, process, and manage emotions, in both oneself and others (Goleman, 2001; Mayer & Salovey, 1997) has received widespread attention, both within popular press and scholarly journals, ever since its inception in the 1990‘s. Indeed, ―few fields of psychological investigation appear to have touched so many disparate areas of human endeavor, since its inception, as has emotional intelligence‖ (Mattews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002, p. 4). Given the plethora of research, within EI field three research streams can be identified. Stream one relates to identifying how individual differences in EI relate to social, health and behavioural factors, which are important in real life. The second stream relates to identifying how EI is an important variable within work settings. Finally the third stream relates to EI models and psychometrics (test construction, reliability, validity, relations with other psychological constructs). To date, much of the research on EI has been conducted within the health and wellbeing perspective, focusing on EI as an important antecedent of health and well-being and/or moderating the relationship between various organizational or individual variables and well-being indicators. In literature, many mechanisms have been hypothesized to account for the nexus of relationships between EI and one‘s sense of well-being and positive mental health. Emotionally intelligent individuals, it is claimed, create a less stressful environment for themselves by conducting their personal and social lives in ways that produce fewer frustrating or distressing events (Epstein, 1998). They have rich social networks and are better able to utilize these networks to provide them with an emotional buffer against negative life events (Salovey, Bedell, Detweiler, & Mayer, 2000). They are more aware of their own emotions and are better able to manage their emotions effectively. Therefore, they experience lower levels of distress (Salovey, Bedell, Detweiler, & Mayer, 1999). They are better able to repair negative moods following a stressful event, as well as elicit and maintain positive moods when appropriate (Salovey, Woolery, & Mayer, 2001). They are less likely to experience negative emotions, and concomitantly, more likely to experience positive emotions (Mikolajczak, Nelis, Hansenne, & Quoidbach, 2008). They tend to interpret stressful situations in more benign and less stressful way, viewing them more as challenge rather than threats (Epstein, 1998). They are more adept at directing their thoughts away from negative emotions and are less likely to engage in dysfunctional worry and excessive rumination (Salovey et al., 2000). Finally, they engage in more active 13

coping responses to stressful situations (Zeidner & Saklofske, 1996). Thus, emotionally intelligent individuals are more likely to experience lower levels of distress and stressrelated emotions, and concomitantly experience higher levels of well-being. Likewise, within organizational settings, it is claimed that, EI is an important predictor of transformational and effective leadership (e.g., Barbuto & Burbach, 2006; Barling, Slater, & Kellowag, 2000; Brown & Moshavi, 2005; Downey, Papageorgiou, & Stough, 2006; Gardner & Stough, 2002; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002; Kerr, Garvin, Heaton, & Boyle, 2006; Leban & Zulauf, 2004), organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Carmeli, 2003; Law, Wong, Huang, & Li, 2008), conflict, frustration, stress and withdrawal behaviour (Bagshaw, 2000; Carmeli, 2003; Chapman & Clarke, 2003; Slaski1 & Cartwright, 2002; Suliman, 2007), and Performance (Brooks & Nafuko, 2006; Carmeli, 2003; Diggins & Kandola, 2004; Joseph & Newman, 2010; ; Mignonac, Herrbach, & Gond, 2003; Rode, et.al., 2007; Sy & Coté, 2004). Furthermore, various researchers have identified that EI indexes have critical implications for training and development (Cherniss, 2000; Cummings & Worley, 2005; Kunnanatt, 2004; Rozell, Pettijohn, & Parker, 2004), executive coaching (Peterson, 1996), team effectiveness (Druskat & Wolff, 2001), and for organizational change settings (Sy & Coté, 2004). With regard to third stream, a considerable amount of theoretical and empirical research has been done on the conceptualization of EI (e.g., Bar-On, 1997, 2000, 2006; Goleman, 1995, 1998, 2001; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Petrides & Furnham, 2001), as well as, its measures (e.g., Emotional Quotient Inventory; Bar-On, 1997; Mayer-SaloveyCaruso Emotional Intelligence Test; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso., 2002a; Self-report Emotional Intelligence Test; Schutte et al., 1998; Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire; Petrides, Pérez-Gonzalez, & Furnham, 2007). Recently, Stough, Saklofske, and Parker (2009) found that out of 906 researches conducted between 2006 and 2010 in the field of EI, 224 (23.5%) were in the area of Psychometric and Construct Validity (test construction, reliability, validity, relations with other psychological constructs— particularly personality and intelligence (IQ)). Thus, it is clear that, there is a continuous increasing trend toward conceptualization of EI, leading to significant advances in the measurement and refinement of the EI construct (for detailed discussions about EI conceptualizations and measurements please see Appendices I and II). The main focus of

14

current research is on third stream, that is, Psychometric and Construct Validity of EI measures. Problem Statement and Rationale Despite tremendous advances, one area of research in the EI field that remained a relatively untouched domain is that of cross-cultural EI research. Specifically, generalizability of EI theory in different cultures (the practice of ‗‗transporting‖ the EI instruments from one culture to other) has led to a concomitant increase in the need for researchers to evaluate the quality and, more importantly, the validity of the EI instruments across cultures (Ekermans, 2009; Gangopadhyay & Mandal, 2008; Palmer, Gignac, Ekermans, & Stough, 2008). EI instruments are closely linked to the cultural contexts in which they are designed (Ekermans, 2009). The majority of EI instruments have been developed in the United States (US), United Kingdom, Australia, or Europe. These instruments cannot simply be transported to other cultural contexts without investigating the psychometric properties of these instruments cross-culturally. When psychological instruments are transported, particularly from Western to non-Western cultures, they are more likely to run into bias problems (Van de Vijver & Leung, 2001). According to Ekermans (2009), In administering a self-report EI instrument, the presence (or absence) of certain ‗‗traits‘‘, competencies, or behavioural tendencies that would allow a person to respond in an emotionally intelligent way to the environment and cope with environmental pressures….. is measured within the boundaries of the cultural origin of the test. If the potential to display appropriate emotionally intelligent behaviours is context-dependent, then it might be reasoned that the context (socio-cultural context) should be considered when the behavioural manifestations (through which EI is often measured) of EI are captured in the development of a self-report instrument (p .267). In sum, if an EI measure fails to show comparable psychometric properties across different cultures, then its utility as a psychological construct is questionable (Brody, 2004). The psychometric properties of EI instruments have seldom been examined with demand and rigor across cultures, often leaving open questions of structural and measurement equivalence. 15

The current study sought to address this concern by simultaneously assessing the psychometric properties of different EI scales in two distinct cultural groups: the collectivist Pakistani and the individualist French. The collectivists tend to view themselves as members of an extended family (or organization), and place group interests ahead of individual needs. In contrast, Individualists tend to believe that personal goals and interests are more important than group interests (Hofstede, 1980). Some research indicates that cultural differences (individualism vs. collectivism) exist across wide range of emotion-related skills, abilities, or traits that essentially comprise the construct of the EI tapped by various EI instruments. For example, compared to collectivists, individualists are more effective in recognizing and understanding emotions (Matsumoto, 1992; 1989), report more verbal and non verbal emotional reactions (Matsumoto, Kudoh, Scherer, & Wallbott, 1988), are less likely to suppress their emotions (Matsumoto, Takeuchi, Andayani, Kouznetsova, & Krupp, 1998), are more assertive (Singhal & Nago, 1993), are less impulsive (Dzvonik, Retzlaff, & Popa, 2004), tend to view and present themselves positively (high self-esteem)(Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999), are more happy (Veenhoven, 1999), tend to be more optimistic (Fischer & Chalmers, 2008), demonstrate higher ability to cope with stress (Wen-Jiang & Song-Lin, 2007), have greater social skills (Brislin, 2000), and are more self-motivated (Jandt, 2010). Keeping in view these differences, more research needs to be conducted so that we can better understand the psychometric properties of EI instruments across cultures. Thus, a cross-cultural design is an answer to the call made by various researchers (e.g., Ekermans, 2009; Gangopadhyay & Mandal, 2008) for more systematically investigating cultural differences to determine whether the structure of EI replicates across distinct cultures and whether correlates of EI are culture-specific or they cut across cultural boundaries. To date, there is a paucity of cross-cultural research on EI across collectivistic and individualistic cultures. The major research question that guided this study was What are the key psychometric properties of EI measures in two seemingly different cultures (i.e., Pakistani and France) that are based on established EI models and are intended for use in organizational applications as well as for personal developments? 16

Objectives of the Study The broad objective of the present study was to validate the construct of EI crossculturally, that is, across Frenh and Pakistani samples. More specifically, the present study seeks to 1) Examine whether there are any differences on the the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, 2002), the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue: Petrides, Pérez-Gonzalez, & Furnham, 2007), and the Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SREIT; Schutte et al., 1998) scores between two cultures. 2) Examine the similarities and differences in the factor structures of these EI measures across Pakistani and French samples (factorial invariance). 3) Assess the discriminant validity of the MSCEIT, the TEIQue, and the SREIT across two cultures vis-à-vis cognitive intelligence (the Raven‘s Advanced Progressive Matrices), the Big Five personality measures, and the Weisz Communication Styles Inventory (WCSI: Chandon, Weisz, Lacaze, & Waxin, 1999: Weisz & Karim, 2011). 4) Examine whether the MSCEIT, the TEIQue, and the SREIT accounts for incremental variance in subjective well-being (positive affect, negative affect, and satisfaction with life) and psychological distress above and beyond the Big Five personality dimensions and cognitive intelligence in both cultures. 5) Examine whether there are gender differences on the MSCEIT, the TEIQue, and the SREIT within each culture. Significance of the Study The current study would help us in developing and extending a more universal organizational theory by investigating the generalizability of the EI theory in different cultures (―the practice of transporting and testing‖). Furthermore, the current study will help (international) managers in uncovering the cultural variability of the construct by scrutinizing the cultural biases (if any) at construct or factor level. This knowledge would be helpful in reducing ethnocentrism (if present) in EI instruments that are used for recruitment, selection, and training and development. In contrast to existing articles on EI measures, this study simultaneously examines three major measures of EI in two different 17

cultures. It expands the focus of test assessment beyond a single type of validity and makes clear which of the instruments demonstrate acceptable factorial, discriminant, convergent, and incremental validity. By providing insight into the incremental validity of the EI measures, this study sought to facilitate an understanding of the EI factors that would increase our knowledge of the constructs that effect psychological health of individuals. Learning more about the specific deficits related to emotion related abilities and traits seems essential for individuals, their managers, and counselors to cope effectively with certain types of behavior that go along with psychological well-being. Furthermore, knowledge of the deficits can be used in counseling programs to tailor specific interventions. The greater the knowledge about predictors of psychological health, the more successful we can be in preventing negative psychological health symptoms and facilitating health and well being (Day, Therrien, & Carroll 2005). A cross-cultural application of EI may have implications for international leadership. The role of EI in effective leadership has been widely recognized (e.g., Barbuto & Burbach, 2006; Barling, Slater, & Kellowag, 2000; Downey, Papageorgiou, & Stough, 2006; Gardner & Stough, 2002; Goleman et al., 2002; Leban, & Zulauf, 2004; Brown, & Moshavi, 2005), therefore, its role in international leadership cannot be overlooked. EI abilities are important for expatriates who are exposed to EI stimuli in different cultures because these abilities would allow an international leader to accurately capture important social and cultural data accompanying emotions, such as, emotional expression or emotional perception. According to Elfenbein and Ambady‘s (2003) ‘dialect theory‘ (of emotions), there are two affect programs which operates simultaneously, that is, universal affect program and culture specific program. Universal affect program is a guide that is similar for all cultural groups, whereas culture specific affect program incorporates some adjustments to universal affect program. Thus, results of this study would help international management practitioners by determining whether EI dimensions, factors, or facets operate according to universal affect program or culture specific affect program. Unfortunately, only few studies have assessed the factor structure and other psychometric properties of the EI instruments in Eastern (predominantly collectivist) 18

cultures. To my knowledge, to date, none of studies have used or validated the MSCEIT and the TEIQue in Eastern or South Asian context. The results of this study would enable researchers and practioners in both cultures to choose among various available EI measures the validated and free from cultural bias EI instrument(s). Furthermore, the results of this study will lead us to know whether research and interventions associated with EI (mainly developed in Western cultures) can be generalized to collectivist cultures without any cultural adaptation. Organization of the Study Chapter 1 of this dissertation discusses the history of the EI field. The evolution, definitions, models, and instruments of EI are discussed. Chapter 2 dicusses the prominent EI models and related instruments choosen for the present study. Chapter 3 presents hypotheses of the study. Chapter 4 describes the samples and measures used in the study, as well as provides information about the data analytic methods used in testing the hypotheses. Chapter 5 reports the results of the study. Finally, chapter 6 provides the discussion and practical implications of these results, in addition to providing directions for future research.

19

CHAPTER 1 HISTORY OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE This chapter deals with the development of various forms of intelligences. The development of intelligence (cognitive intelligence), development of social intelligence (often embedded in the theories of cognitive intelligence), and finally the birth of EI are discussed from historical perspective. Regarding social and EI, from a historical point of view, it is important to mention that for most part of the 21 st century the term social intelligence was used by theorists to represent much of what has come to be known as EI in early 1990‘s. This chapter covers the review of literature regarding intelligence, social intelligence, and EI mostly beginning from the inception of 20th century until the most recent theories of emotional intelligence. 1.1.

History of Cognitive Intelligence

1.1.1. Plato (429–347 B.C.E.) Attempts to understand the mind and its operation go back at least to the Ancient Greeks, such as Plato. He was the most famous of Socrates's pupils and tried to explain the nature of human knowledge. He founded his own school, the Academy, in 385. Plato's philosophy was based on his theory of a soul divided into three components, reason (innate intelligence), will and appetite. Plato identified the intellect with the Guardians, the will with the Auxiliaries, and the appetite with the Producers (Plato, 1901). Producers are not overly strong, brave, but also lack wisdom (with low innate intelligence). They consist of an overwhelming majority of people in a society and are engaged in various productive processes in the society, for example, building and farming. Auxiliaries consist of courageous individuals in the society. They are suited to policing and defensive professions. Finally, guardians are extraordinarily intelligent and virtuous people in a society running and controlling the state. His ideal state is an aristocracy, meaning "rule by the best" (Plato, 1901). Furthermore, he differentiated between sensible and intelligible worlds. According to him, the visible world is made up of "illusion" (shadows, reflections, paintings, poetry) and "belief" (any kind of knowledge of things that change, such as individual horses). 20

Belief may serve as a guide to life but it doesn't really involve thinking things. On the other hand, the intelligible world can be divided into the "reason" (knowledge of things like mathematics) and "intelligence‖ (the knowledge of the highest and most abstract categories of things, an understanding of the ultimate good) (Plato, 1901). Figure 1.1. Plato’s conceptualization of world.

1.1.2. Aristotle (384-322 BC) Aristotle presented the triarchic theory of intelligence including theoretical, practical, and productive intelligences. Theoretical intelligence refers to the use of both inductive and deductive processes to arrive at the understanding of a construct. Practical intelligence refers to understanding of the best course of action, as well as, execution of highest behavioral standards. Finally, productive intelligence refers to ―true course of reasoning‖ (Tigner & Tigner, 2000, p. 173). 1.1.3. Juan Huarte (1530 - 1592) Although, Juan Huarte is a relatively neglected figure in the field of psychology, his book Examen de ingenious par alas ciencias (the Examination of Men‘s Wits, 1575/1991) has been recognized as a precedent to organizational psychology (Chomsky, 2006; Ortega, 21

2005). Regarding cognitive intelligence, Huarte (1575/1991) proposed a multifaceted theory of intelligence that was not too far from today‘s crystallized–fluid distinction. He came up with the idea of three distinct levels of intelligence. The lowest of these is the ―docile wit‖, which refers to that there is nothing in the mind that is not simply transmitted to it by the senses (Chomsky, 2006). In other words, docile wit attributes to learning through connecting information received through the senses. This level of intelligence is mainly an important attribute of animals, who perceive the world through their senses experienced and are not actually thinking about. The middle level is normal human intelligence. Normal human intelligence is capable of acquiring knowledge through its own internal resources, perhaps making use of the data of sense but going on to construct a cognitive system in terms of concepts and principles that are developed on independent grounds; and it is capable of generating new thoughts and of finding appropriate and novel ways of expressing them, in ways that entirely transcend any training or experience (Chomsky, 2006, p. 8). The highest level, then, is absolute creativity, by means of which, some speak subtle and surprising things, never before seen, heard, experienced, thought of, as well as, not inducible from any external sources. Huarte maintains that the distinction between docile wit and normal intelligence is the distinction between beast and man. Simply having the second level of intelligence qualifies one as a human, and is the distinction between beast and man (Chomsky, 2006, p. 8). 1.1.4. Jean Etienne Esquirol (1772 – 1840) Jean Etienne Esquirol was first to differentiate between mental deficiency and insanity. According to him "Idiocy is not a disease but a condition in which the intellectual facilities are never manifested or have never been developed sufficiently to enable the idiot to acquire such amount of knowledge as persons of his own age reared in similar circumstances are capable of receiving." (cited in Plucker, 2003). Furthermore, he delineated that mental retardation exists on a continuum from normalcy to idiocy. 1.1.5. Jean Marc Gaspard Itard (1774-1838)

22

If we consider human intelligence at the period of earliest childhood man does not yet appear to rise above the level of the other animals. All his intellectual faculties are strictly confined to the narrow circle of his physical needs. It is upon himself alone that the operations of his mind are exercised. Education must then seize them and apply them to his instruction that is to say to a new order of things which has no connection with his first needs. Such is the source of all knowledge, all mental progress, and the creations of the most sublime genius. Whatever degree of probability there may be in this idea, I only repeat it here as the point of departure on the path towards realization of this last aim (Itard, 1801/1962, cited in Plucker, 2003). Itard earned fame by treating and training ‗The Wild Boy of Aveyron‘, who he named Victor, found in the forests of France in 1797. When found, Victor was not able to speak or understand. Itard, for nearly five years, used his teaching material, for example, a physical alphabet set to train or socialize Victor. Itard got some success for his training methods and materials, notably when Victor used the letters LAIT (a French word for milk) when needed milk (Lane, 1976). Thus, his work was an initial attempt toward the concept that the cognitive abilities of the developmentally disabled could be increased. 1.1.6. Edward Seguin (1812-1881) Seguin improved and expanded Itard‘s sensory-training approach, and put it into practice for mentally retarded students. He is famous for development of a board with ten geometric shapes, probably first reported non-verbal intelligence test (French, 2000). Seguin believed that through the use of sensory training techniques (focused on touch and utilization of material) and motor training techniques (age appropriate activities, simple to complex tasks, functional activities or work and play) the cognitive abilities of the developmentally disabled could be increased. 1.1.7. Francis Galton (1822-1911) Galton, the cousin of Charles Darwin, is known for his pioneering studies of human intelligence. In his famous book ―Hereditary Genius” (1869) he proposed that "genius" (or talent) is genetically rather than environmentally determined. He argued that "there is no escape from the conclusion that nature prevails enormously over nurture when the 23

differences of nurture do not exceed what is commonly found among persons of the same rank of society and in the same country " (Galton, 1875, p. 576). Galton coined the term Eugenics in 1883: ―the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species‖ (Wikipedia, 2010). He hypothesized that, if the qualities (such as genius) are hereditary then, there should be more eminent individuals among the relatives than among the general population. He found support for inheritance of abilities. By an examination of lists of famous people and their relatives he calculated the percentage of talented people in various degrees of relationships (kinship) to the initial famous people. He came up with the conclusion that the numbers of eminent relatives dropped off when going from the first degree to the second degree kinship and from the second degree to the third degree kinship and so on. Furthermore, he noticed that intelligence is reflected by the size of the head. He came with the conclusion that intelligent people have large heads. He also developed eugenics assessments to measure sensory acuity: the fineness of visual and auditory discriminations. 1.1.8. James McKeen Cattell (1860 - 1944) Cattell coined the term "mental test" (see Cattell, 1890, 1896) and devoted a significant amount of time trying to develop a useful intelligence test. For instance in his 1890 classic article ―Mental tests and measurements‖ he proposed 10 different tests to measure intelligence: (1) Dynamometer Pressure; (2) Rate of Movement; (3) Sensationareas; (4) Pressure causing Pain; (5) Least Noticeable difference in Weight; (6) Reactiontime for Sound; (7) Time for naming Colours; (8) Bi-section of a 50 cm. Line; (9) Judgment of 10 seconds time; and (10)Number of Letters remembered on once hearing. However, inspite of developing series of mental tests, he was unable to find relationship between sensory response and academic performance, as well as, between various sensory measures. 1.1.9. Edward Lee Thorndike (1874-1949) He earned fame from his work on animal intelligence. His book ―Animal Intelligence‖ written in 1911 is reckoned as ground breaking work in learning. From experiments on animals he introduced ―Law of Effect‖. In his various experiments conducted on animals he examined whether the animal, after much trial and error, would 24

learn to do the right thing in the problem situation (such as in hunger), and how rapid this learning might be. He came up with conclusion that, responses to a situation that are followed by satisfaction are strengthened and those followed by discomfort are weakened (Woodworth, 1952). Thorndike used objective measurements of intelligence on human subjects as early as 1904, for instance his book ―Introduction to the Theory of Mental and Social Measurements‖ shows his keen interests in the invention and improvement of tests measuring mental abilities. During 1920‘s he developed his famous test of intelligence ―CAVD‖, which combines four sorts of tasks: completion, arithmetic, vocabulary, directions. There are 17 levels of difficulty, ranging from the level of the three-year old child up to that of a very superior adult. The CAVD was intended to measure intellectual level on an absolute scale (Woodworth, 1952). Thorndike differentiated between three kinds of intelligences: (a) “abstract intelligence” (e.g., vocabulary, general information, learning ability, arithmetical reasoning, comprehension); (b) “mechanical intelligence” (the ability to visualize relationships among objects and understand how the physical world works); and (c) “social intelligence” (the ability to function successfully in interpersonal situation). Regarding abstract intelligence, Thorndike asserts that there are four dimensions which are important to take account of when measuring intelligence. These are (a) altitude (the difficult of tasks), (b) width (the variety of tasks), (c) area (a function of altitude and width), and finally (d) speed (the time for completing tasks) (Woodworth, 1952). 1.1.10. Alfred Binet (1857 – 1911) Binet is commonly known as the father of IQ testing. In 1905 he, with his colleague Theodore Simon, produced the Binet-Simon scale - the first intelligence test. This test comprised of 30 tasks they thought were representative of typical children's abilities at various ages. The tasks included were of increasing difficulty, as well as, level of tasks were constructed to match a specific development level. For instance, tasks developed for children of five years were capable of being solved by any normal child at the age of five. The easiest of tasks could be done by all children (even those who were severely retarded) (Wolf, 1969, 1973). Examples of items with increasing difficulty are presented in Table 1.1. 25

Table 1.1. Examples of items from Binet-Simon scale Difficulty Level Easy

Example Whether or not a child could follow a lighted match with his eyes. Whether or not a child could shake hands with the examiner.

Average

to point to various named body parts repeat back a series of 3 digits repeat simple sentences to define words like house, fork or mama.

Hard

to state the difference between pairs of things reproduce drawings from memory to construct sentences from three given words such as "Paris, river and fortune."

Hardest

to repeat back 7 random digits find three rhymes for the French word obéisance to answer questions such as "My neighbor has been receiving strange visitors. He has received in turn a doctor, a lawyer, and then a priest. What is taking place?".

By 1916, Lewis M. Terman of Stanford University, modified the original version of the Binet scale. The revised version was named as Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (Roid, 2003). The Stanford- Binet Intelligence Scales – Fifth Edition (SB5: Roid, 2003), is the latest version of the SB series. The five factors of the SB5 include: Fluid Reasoning, Knowledge, Quantitative Reasoning, Visual-Spatial Processing, and Working Memory. 1.1.11. Charles Spearman (1863-1945) Spearman is known for offering a first tenable psychometric definition of intelligence. He earned fame by presenting the idea that intelligent behavior is generated by a single, unitary quality within the human mind. He, after employing factor analysis technique on various intelligence tests, derived the theoretical entity, called the general factor ‗g‘. He found that scores on various mental aptitude tests were remarkably similar. Individuals who performed well on one cognitive test tended to perform well on the other or vice versa. Thus, he concluded (and later on accepted by many intelligence theorists) that ―intelligence‖ is a general cognitive ability that could be measured and numerically expressed (Spearman, 1904). 26

1.1.12. William Stern (1871-1938) Stern was influenced by the work of Binet on intelligence. Stern reviewed the principle findings in the field of cognitive intelligence testing and developed the idea of expressing results in the form of a single number, which he termed, the intelligence quotient or I.Q. He derived the formula for calculating IQ, that is, mental age divided by the chronological age. He looked at the individual test scores as particular mental ages (Plucker, 2003). 1.1.13. Lewis Madison Terman (1877 –1956) Terman is known for two major contributions in the field of intelligence. First, as discussed above, he modified the original version of the Binet scale. Second, he suggested that the ratio between mental and chronological age (Stern‘s IQ) must be multiplied by 100 to get rid of the decimals, that is, IQ = Mental Age/Chronological age X 100 (Minton, 1988). 1.1.14. Florence Laura Goodeough (1886-1959) Florence Goodenough is well-known for her Draw-a-Man test, designed for children aged two to thirteen. The test required children to draw a picture of a man. It was one of the famous nonverbal tests of the time and correlated well with other nonverbal tests of the time (Plucker, 2003). 1.1.15. Jean Piaget (1896-1980) According to Piaget (1963) "Intelligence is assimilation to the extent that it incorporates all the given data of experience within its framework…There can be no doubt either, that mental life is also accommodation to the environment. Assimilation can never be pure because by incorporating new elements into its earlier schemata the intelligence constantly modifies the latter in order to adjust them to new elements" (p. 6-7). Piaget believed that cognitive development occurs in four distinct stages. After observation of many children, he posited that children progress through 4 stages and that they all do so in the same order. He was of the opinion that when the child interacts with environment (physical and social), he/she organize information into groups of interrelated 27

ideas called "schemes". When a child observes something new in the environment, he/she must develop an entirely new scheme or develop an entirely new scheme to deal with it. Piaget‘s theory of cognitive development has had a tremendous influence on all modern developmental psychologists. Table 1.2. Piaget’s theory of cognitive development Stages Sensorimotor (0-2)

Description Child uses his senses and motor abilities to understand or comprehend the environment, beginning with reflexes and ending with complex combinations of sensorimotor skills. Primary circular reactions (1-4 months). An action of his own which serves as a stimulus and to which it responds with the same action again and again (e.g., the child gets satisfaction from sucking his/her thumb). Secondary circular reactions (4-12 months). Child behavior involves action that extends out to the environment (e.g., squeezing a rubber object and getting satisfaction from the sound). Tertiary circular reactions (12-24 months). ―making interesting things last‖ cycle, with constant variation (e.g., hitting the table with the fork -clunk-clunk).

Preoperational

Mental combinations (about 18 months). Children start using mental combinations to solve simple problems (e.g., putting down a toy in order to open a door). Children start using mental imagery and language. Are able to make mental representations of unseen objects, but cannot use deductive reasoning.

(2-7) Use of symbols (e.g., creative play, wherein papers are dishes, a box is the table, and so on). Understanding of past and future (e.g., by hearing ―Mommy will be home soon,‖ he/she stops crying).

Concrete operations (7-12)

Egocentric-sees things pretty much from his/her point of view (e.g., hold up an object so only he/she can see it and expect parents to see it too). They are now able to demonstrate conservation of number, use deductive reasoning, and can differentiate their perspective from that of other people. Conservation. The idea that a quantity remains the same despite changes in appearance (e.g., a child is shown four marbles in a row, then spread them out, the child will correctly answer that there are still four marbles). Classification. Will correctly identify whether there are more white 28

marbles or more black marbles.

Formal operations (12-up)

Seriation - putting things in order. putting things in order by, size, but may quickly lose track. Children are now capable of thinking logically and abstractly as well as theoretically. Use logical operations, and use them in the abstract, rather than the concrete. For example, Conjunction (Both A and B make a difference).Disjunction (It‘s either this or that). Implication (If it‘s this, then that will happen).Incompatibility (When this happens, that doesn‘t).

1.1.16. Catharine Morris Cox Miles (1890 – 1984) Cox‘s compiled the developmental histories for 301 geniuses. She found that estimated IQ correlated with achieved eminence. Furthermore, she found that, personality traits such as motivation, determination, and persistence were also critical to high achievement (Sears, 1986; Simonton & Song, 2009). 1.1.17. Cyril L. Burt (1883-1971) Burt was a strong proponent of the idea that intelligence is an inherited characteristic. In one of his early famous studies conducted in 1909, he compared the intelligence of boys enrolled in an elite preparatory academy with the intelligence of those attending a regular school. He found that boys enrolled in elite schools outperformed their counterparts on intelligence test. Thus, he concluded the boys from elite schools had higher innate intelligence, which they inherited from their parents. Additionally, he found that fathers of the boys in elite school were more successful than the fathers of boys enrolled in regular schools. He argued that the boys with higher intelligence had benefited from their parents genetic endowments. According to Burt (1957) "…[intelligence] denotes, first of all, a quality that is intellectual and not emotional or moral: in measuring it we try to rule out the effects of the child's zeal, interest, industry, and the like. Secondly, it denotes a general capacity, a capacity that enters into everything the child says or does or thinks; any want of 'intelligence' will therefore be revealed to some degree in almost all that he attempts; a weakness in some limited or specialized ability-for example, in the ability to speak or to read, to learn or to calculate-is of itself by no means a sign of defective intelligence.

29

Thirdly, intelligence is by definition an innate capacity: hence a lack of it is not necessarily proved by a lack of educational knowledge or skill" (p. 64-65). However, it is worth to mention that he has been widely criticized and refuted for fabricating or faking the data for his twin studies (e.g., Fancher, 1987). 1.1.18. Louis Leon Thurstone (1887-1955) L. L. Thurstone is a man who undoubtedly stands out from the masses for formally introducing the concept of multiple intelligences. Thurstone is widely known for his method of factor analysis, his comparative judgment scale, and his theory of intelligence. He developed new factor analytic techniques to determine the number and nature of latent constructs within a set of observed variables. These factor analytic techniques are still used by intelligence theorists for finding the nature of underlying intelligence dimensions associated with different intelligence scale. The 'Thurstone scale' was the first formal technique for measuring an attitude. Measuring attitudes on an interval scale allowed questions/statements related to an attitude to be ranked in relation to each other (Plucker, 2003). Most importantly, he presented The Theory of Primary Mental Abilities. His theory of intelligence challenged then-dominant Charles Spearman‘s paradigm of a unitary conception of intelligence (the ‗g‘ factor). As mentioned above Spearman, (1904), showed that scores on all intelligence tests load on a general factor ‗g‘. He concluded that disparate scores (regardless of the domain or how it was measured) are caused by common ―pool‖ of mental energy, naming general factor or ‗g‘. Using factor analysis, Thurstone found that intelligent behavior emerges from seven independent factors (PMA: Primary Mental Abilities): word fluency, verbal comprehension, spatial visualization, number facility, associative memory, reasoning, and perceptual speed (Thurstone, 1938). Thurstone administered his tests to both intellectually homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. When tests were administered to people with similar overall IQ scores, it was found that, despite similar overall IQ, people differed on primary mental abilities. Thus, these results supported Thustone‘s idea that people differ on different mental abilities. However, when PMA tests were administered to intellectually heterogeneous (people with diverse IQ scores) group, he did not find support for his idea 30

that seven PMAs were entirely separate. These results provided support for Spearman‘s general factor ‗g‘. Thurstone, via sophisticated statistical techniques, managed an elegant solution that resolved these apparently contradictory results. His final version of intelligence theory was a compromise between Spearman‘s ‗g‘ factor theory and his PMA theory that accounted for the presence of both a general factor and the seven PMA (Ruzgis, 1994). Thurstone‘s theory of intelligence was a major influence on later theories of hierarchical theories of intelligence, as well as, multiple intelligences (such as those of Guilford, Gardner, and Sternberg). 1.1.19. Psyche Cattell (1893-1989) Cattell (1940) observed many shortcomings in various instruments tapping the construct of intelligence. For instance, (a) no standardized intelligence tests for infants and toddlers were available at that time, (b) preschool intelligence tests that existed were not working quite well working with infants or toddlers, (c) the Standford-Binet IQ test worked well for the adults and older children, but it was difficult to administer the test to infants and toddlers, and (d) problems of standardization, overemphasis on social knowledge and gross motor skills also made these tests undesirable. Thus, keeping in view all these shortcomings of existing intelligence tests, she engaged herself in developing an entirely new intelligence scale for children. After analyzing the contents of various available intelligence scales, she took the best parts from each one and also created new test items. Finally, she developed a progressive intelligence test, known as, Cattell Infant Intelligence Scale. She published the test in The Measurement of Intelligence of Infants and Young Children (1940). The entire test, assembled in a kit of 45 familiar household items, could be administered individually in 20-30 minutes. 1.1.20. David Wechsler (1896 - 1981) Wechsler, in 1939, developed a‖battery‖ of intelligence tests known as the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale. He denied the idea that intelligence is not a single capacity but a multifaceted aggregate. According to him ―Intelligence is the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally and to deal effectively with his environment (Wechsler, 1944, p. 3).‖

31

There are three main types of Wechsler intelligence tests: (a) Wechsler Pre-school and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI) - 3-7 years; (b) Wechsler Intelligence scale for Children (WISC) - 7-16 years; (c) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) - 16 years and over. Wechsler's tests provide three scores; a verbal IQ score, a performance IQ score, and a composite IQ score based on the combined scores. Verbal scales consist of: information (a measure of general knowledge); Digit span (sets of digits to repeat initially forwards then backwards); Vocabulary (A measure of expressive word knowledge); Arithmetic (arithmetic brief story type problems); Comprehension (focus on issues of social awareness); and Similarities (A measure of concept formation). Performance scales consist of: Picture Completion (A test of attention to fine detail); Picture Arrangement (subject is required to arrange them into a logical sequence); Block Design (putting sets of blocks together to match patterns on cards); Digit Symbol (copying a coding pattern); and Object Assembly (Jig-saw type puzzles). 1.1.21. Joy Paul Guilford (1897 – 1987) Guiford is well-known for presenting Structure of Intellect (SI) model (Guilford, 1967). According to SI theory, an individual's performance on intelligence tests can be traced back to the underlying factors of intelligence (or mental abilities) (Michael, Comrey, & Fruchter, 1963). SI theory comprises different intellectual abilities organized along three dimensions—Operations ( general intellectual processes), Content (broad areas of information to which the human intellect applies the six operations), and Products (results of applying particular operations to specific contents). Table 1.3. Guiford’s Structure of Intellect (SI) model Operations Cognition Memory recording Memory retention Divergent production Convergent production Evaluation Content Visual Auditory

The ability to---understand, comprehend, discover, and become aware of information. encode information. recall information. generate multiple solutions to a problem; creativity. deduce a single solution to a problem; rule-following or problem-solving. judge whether or not information is accurate, consistent, or valid. Information perceived through seeing. Information perceived through hearing. 32

Kinesthetic

Information perceived through one's own physical actions. Information perceived as symbols or signs that have no meaning by themselves; e.g., the letters of an alphabet. Which is concerned with verbal meaning and ideas. Information perceived as acts of people.

Symbolic Semantic Behavioral Product Units Classes Relations Systems Transformations Implications

Single items of knowledge. Sets of units sharing common attributes. Units linked as opposites or in associations, sequences, or analogies. Multiple relations interrelated to comprise structures or networks. Changes, perspectives, conversions, or mutations to knowledge. Predictions, inferences, consequences, or anticipations of knowledge.

SI theory is represented as cube with each of the three dimensions occupying one side. In SI each mental ability is defined by a conjunction of the three dimensions, occupying one cell in the three-dimensional figure (see Figure 1.2). Thus, The 5 x 6 x 5 matrix provides at least 150 possible abilities. Figure 1.2. Guiford’s Structure of Intellect (SI) model.

1.1.22. Philip Ewart Vernon (1905 – 1987) Vernon differentiated between three types of intelligences: ―A‖, ―B‖, & ―C‖. Intelligence ―A‖ represents the biological substrate of human cognitive ability. Intelligence ―B‖ refers to the interaction between intelligence ―A‖ and environment. Finally, intelligence ―C‖ manifests itself on tests of cognitive ability (such as IQ scores obtained on 33

a particular test). The theory is based on three assumptions: (a) Intelligence B is immeasurable due to the large number of confounding variables in the environment; (b) Intelligence A in not concrete and can be only approached through measures of intelligence tests, that is, intelligence C; and (c) tests tapping cognitive intelligence are imperfect and vary to the degree that they precisely reflect intelligence A or B (cited in Jensen, 1994). Vernon is well-known for his hierarchical group factor theory of the structure of human cognitive abilities (1950). According to Vernon (1950) cognitive intelligence consists of varied sets of abilities that can be described at various levels. Figure 1.3. Vernon hierarchical group factor theory.

At the top of this model is Spearman‘s general factor (g), which accounts for the largest source of the variance in intelligence. Below ‗g‘ is a level comprising two major group factors, verbal/educational and spatial/mechanical. The verbal/educational (v:ed) factor includes verbal, numerical, and educational abilities. The spatial/mechanical (k:m) includes practical, mechanical, spatial, and physical abilities. The next level consists of minor group factors derived from the major group factors. For instance, verbal, numerical, and educational abilities represents minor factors of v:ed major factor, whereas practical, mechanical, spatial, and physical abilities represents minor factors derived from k:m major factor. The final level consists of specific abilities derived from minor factors. For instance, specific abilities such as reading, spelling, use of grammar and punctuation represents v:d major factor, whereas specific abilities such as the ability to think about 34

spatial relations when the body of the observer is central, and recognition of an object from different location would represent minor factor spatial abilities and major factor k:m. 1.1.23. Raymond B. Cattell (1905-1998) Cattel is well-known for developing the theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence. Cattell endorsed the conception of ‗g‘ general factor fostered by Spearman and further assumed that ―g‖ is largely due to the genes (Cattell, 1966). The theory was later elaborated by Horn and often is called as the Cattell-Horn theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence (Horn & Cattell, 1966). According to Cattell (1966) Fluid general ability (gf) is "that form of general intelligence which is largely innate and which adapts itself to all kinds of material, regardless of previous experience with it" (p. 369). Fluid intelligence (a) drives the individual to think and act quickly, (b) relates to solving novel problems, (c) drive individual‘s ability to encode short-term memories, (d) is a source of intelligence used by an individual when confronted by novel situation, and (e) is relatively independent of education and acculturation (Horn & Cattell, 1967). Cattel (1966) claimed that fluid intelligence is nearly 100% inherited. By contrast crystallized general ability (gc) is "A general factor, largely ... abilities learned at school, representing ... applications of [gf], and amount and intensity of schooling; it appears in vocabulary and numerical ability [tests]" (p. 369). crystallized abilities (a) stems from learning, (b) stems from acculturation, (c) are reflected in tests of acquired skills, use of language (such as vocabulary), and general information, and (d) are dependent on personality factors, educational, and cultural opportunity for its development (Horn & Cattell, 1967). Thus crystallized intelligence is acquired intelligence, little affected by the genes. 1.1.23. John B. Carroll (1916-2003) Carroll received fame for his seminal work, Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor Analytic Studies (1993), in which he reanalyzed over 400 data sets (between 1927 and 1987) of intelligence scores. Based on this dataset, he proposed a Three-stratum Model of Human Cognitive Abilities.

35

"The three-stratum theory of cognitive abilities is an expansion and extension of previous theories. It specifies what kinds of individual differences in cognitive abilities exist and how those kinds of individual differences are related to one another.It proposes that there are a fairly large number of distinct individual differences in cognitive ability, and that the relationships among them can be derived by classifying them into three different strata: stratum I, 'narrow' abilities; stratum II, 'broad abilities; and stratum III, consisting of a single 'general' ability (Carroll, 1997, p. 122)" Stratum I (specific level) consists of 69 different cognitive abilities. Stratum II (broad level) consists of eight broad factors arising from these specific abilities: fluid intelligence (Gf), crystallized intelligence (Gc), general memory and learning (Gy), broad visual perception (Gv), broad auditory perception (Gu), broad retrieval ability (Gr), broad cognitive speediness (Gs), and processing speed (Gt). Stratum III (the general level): representing general intellectual ability similar to ‗g‘. Carroll model includes number of themes previously presented by many researchers, such as, Spearman‘s ‗g‘ and specific factors, Cattell‘s ‗gc‘ and ‗gf‘, Thurstone‘s specific factors and Vernon‘s hierarchical approach. 1.1.24. Carroll and Cattell-Horn model The CHC theory represents the amalgamation of Carroll and Cattell-Horn models of cognitive intelligence. CHC was envisioned by Woodcock (1990) but was first described by Flanagan, McGrew and Ortiz (2000) in the psychology literature. There are two levels (Strata) in the CHC theory of intelligence: a broad stratum and a narrow stratum, with the abandonment of a ‗g‘ (general intelligence factor). Broad stratum consists of 16 intelligences, with each of these further divided into a number of specific abilities that make up the narrow stratum (see Table 1.4). Table 1.4. Carroll and Cattell-Horn model Broad stratum (Stratum II) Fluid intelligence/Reasoning (Gf)-the use of mental operations to solve novel and abstract problems Crystalised intelligence/knowledge (Gc)-

Narrow stratum (Stratum I) General sequential (deductive) reasoning, inductive reasoning, quantitative reasoning, logical thinking, and speed of reasoning. Language development, lexical knowledge, 36

Intelligence that is incorporated by individuals through a process of culture

General (domain-specific) knowledge (Gkn)- Breadth and dept of acquired knowledge in specialized (not general) domains. Visual-spatial abilities (Gv)- The ability to invent, remember, receive and transform visual images.

Auditory processing (Ga)-Abilities around hearing

Short-term memory (Gsm)-The ability to encode, be aware of information in the short-term memory. Long-term storage and retrieval (Gir)The ability to store information in long-term memory.

Cognitive processing speed (Gs)- The ability to perform cognitive tasks automatically and fluently Decision/Reaction time or speed (Gt)-The ability to react and make decisions quickly in response to simple stimuli Psychomotor speed (Gps)-The ability to perform body motor movements rapidly and fluently Quantitative knowledge (Gq)- A personal breadth and depth of other abilities gained primarily during formal education experiences of mathematics Reading/Writing (Grw)- Abilities relating

listening ability, general (verbal) information, information about culture, communication ability, oral production and fluency, grammatical sensitivity, foreign language proficiency and foreign language aptitude. Knowledge of English as second language, knowledge of singing, skill in lip-reading, geography achievement, general science information, mechanical knowledge and knowledge of behavioral content. Visualization, spatial relations, closure speed, flexibility of closure, visual memory, spatial scanning, serial perceptual integration, length estimation, perceptual illusions, perceptual alternations and imagery. Phonetic coding, speech sound discrimination, resistance to auditory stimulus, distortion memory for sound patterns, general sound discrimination, temporal tracking, musical discrimination and judgment, maintaining and judging rhythm, sound-intensity/duration discrimination, sound-frequency discrimination, hearing and speech threshold factors, absolute pitch and sound localisation Memory span and working memory

Associative memory, meaningful memory, free recall memory, ideational fluency, associational fluency, figural fluency, figural flexibility, sensitivity to problems, originality/creativity and learning abilities. Perceptual speed, rate of test-taking, number facility, speed of reasoning, reading speed and writing speed. Simple reaction time, choice reaction time, semantic processing speed, mental comparison speed and inspection time Speed of limb movement, writing speed, speed of articulation and movement time Mathematical knowledge and mathematical achievement

Reading decoding, reading comprehension, 37

to reading and writing skills and knowledge

Psychomotor abilities (Gp)- Ability to perform body motor movements with precision and coordination

printed language comprehension, cloze ability, spelling ability, writing ability, English usage knowledge, reading speed and writing speed Static strength, multilimb coordination, finger dexterity, manual dexterity, arm-hand steadiness, control precision, aiming and gross body equilibrium. Olfactory memory and olfactory sensitivity

Olfactory abilities (Go)- Abilities relating to the sense of smell Tactile abilities (Gh)- Abilities that depend Tactile sensitivity on the sense of touch Kinesthetic abilities (Gk)-Abilities that Kinesthetic sensitivity depend on the sense that detects bodily position, weight or movement of the muscles, tendons and joints Adapted from Maltby, Macaskill, and Day (2007, p. 298-299) 1.1.25. Arthur Robert Jensen (1923)

Jensen earned fame by publication of his controversial essay ―"How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" in the Harvard Educational Review, in 1969. In this article Jensen asserted that racial differences in intelligence test scores may have a genetic origin. Jensen accepts Spearman‘s idea of a general factor in human intelligence and defines cognitive intelligence as A working definition of intelligence, then, is that it is the g factor of an indefinitely large and varied battery of mental tests….We are forced to infer that g is of considerable importance in ‗real life‘ by the fact that g constitutes the largest component of total variance in all standard tests of intelligence or IQ, and the very same g is by far the largest component of variance in scholastic achievement (Jensen, 1979, pp. 249-50). Jensen distinguished between two types of cognitive abilities: Level I (associative learning) and Level II (conceptual learning). Level I refers to retention of input of simple facts and skills (e.g., rote memorization), whereas Level II refers to the ability to manipulate and transform inputs (or to solve complex problems). After analyzing data obtained from various studies Jensen concluded that Level I abilities are equally distributed among members of all races, whereas Level II abilities vary across races. For instance he

38

found that Level II abilities were high among whites and Asian-Americans than among African-Americans and Mexican-Americans (Jensen, 1969; 1979). 1.1.26. Howard Earl Gardner (1943-) Howard Gardner is well-known for his Theory of Multiple Intelligences (1983). According to him, ―intelligent behavior does not arise from a single unitary quality of the mind (such as ‗g‘) rather intelligent behaviors are generated through different pools of mental energy. The theory of multiple intelligence documents the extent to which individuals possess different kinds of minds and therefore learn, remember, perform, and understand in different ways‖ Gardner (1991). Table 1.5. Garndner’s multiple intelligences Visual/Spatial (“art smart” or “picture smart”) The ability to see things in one's mind in planning to create a novel product or solve a complex problem. Interpretation/creation of visual images. pictorial imagination/expression. understands relationship between images and meanings. Understand relationships between space and effect. Tasks/Tests: designing a costume; interpreting a painting; creating a room layout; creating a corporate logo etc. Verbal/Linguistic (“word smart” or “book smart”) The ability to read, write and speak well. written and spoken skills. retention, interpretation and explanation of information through language. understanding relationships between communication and meaning. Tasks/Tests: writing a set of instructions; speaking on a subject; editing a written piece or work; writing a speech; commentating on an event etc. Mathemactical/Logica (“math smart” or “logic smart”) The ability to think logically and to use deductive reasoning. Mathematical and scientific problem-solving approach. detecting patterns and scientific reasoning. analyzing problems, performing mathematical calculations, understanding relationship between cause and effect. Tasks/Tests: performing a mental arithmetic calculation; creating a process to measure something difficult; analyzing how a system/machine works; creating a novel process; devising a strategy. 39

Intrapersonal Intelligence (“self smart” or “introspection smart”) The ability to accurately understand one‘s self. personal cognizance. the ability to understand oneself and one's relationship to others. the ability to understand one's own need for, and reaction to change. Tasks/Tests: considering and deciding one's own aims and personal changes required to achieve them; considering and deciding one's own position in relation to the Emotional Intelligence model Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence ("body smart" or "movement smart") The ability to use physical body ( e.g., executing a series of dance steps or catching a fly ball). manual dexterity, physical agility and balance. eye and body coordination. Tasks/Tests: demonstrating a sports technique; Juggling; fliping a beer-mat; creating a mime to explain something; assessing work-station ergonomics. Interpersonal (“people smart” or “group smart”) The ability to understanding and empathise with others (social skills). relating to others. interpretating behaviours and communications. understanding the relationships. Tasks/Tests: interpretion of moods from facial expressions; demonstration of feelings through body language; recognizing the feelings of others in a planned manner. Musical-Rhythmic Intelligence (“music smart” or “sound smart”) The ability to play a tune by ear, or to execute a phrase with sensitivity and grace. awareness, appreciation and use of sound. recognizing tonal and rhythmic patterns. understanding relationships between sounds and feelings. Tasks/Tests: performing a musical piece; singing a song; reviewing a musical work. 1.1.27. Robert J. Sternberg (1949-) Sternberg is well-known for his Triarchic Theory of (Successful) Intelligence. According to Triarchic Theory ―intelligence is: 1) the ability to achieve one‘s goals in life, given one‘s socio cultural context; 2) by capitalizing on strengths and correcting or compensating for weaknesses; 3) in order to adapt to, shape, and select environments; and, 4) through a combination of analytical, creative, and practical abilities‖ (Sternberg, 2005, p. 189). In other words, according to this theory, intelligent behavior arises from a balance between analytical, creative and practical abilities. In this way these abilities (collectively) 40

allow individuals to achieve success within particular socio-cultural contexts (Sternberg, 1985). To be successful, an individual must make the best use of his/her all three abilities (i.e., analytical, creative and practical strengths) (Table 1.6). In other words Triarchic Theory calls for adaptability-both within the individual and within the individual's sociocultural context (Cianciolo & Sternberg, 2004) . Table 1.6. Sternberg’s theory of intelligence Component Analytical

Explanation Involves the abilities to evaluate, judge, analyze, compare and contrast information. Metacomponents - planning, monitoring, and evaluation of performing a task. Performance Components - the execution of plans and strategies developed by the metacomponents.

Creative

Knowledge-acquisition Components - selective encoding, when (a) relevent information is seperated from irrelevent, (b) when new and old information is organized, (c) when new information is compared to previous cognitive constructs. Involves the abilities to invent, discover, and other creative endeavors. Novelty – the way an individual reacts with the first exposure to a new scenario.

Practical ("street smarts")

Automatization – the way an individual handles repeated tasks, or practice. The abilities individuals apply (a) to adapt to their current environment, (b) shape their current environment, and (c) select better environment for applying their analytical and creative abilities.

1.2. Inclusion of Social intelligence (non-cognitive intelligence) in the Cognitive Theories 1.2.1. Aristotle About 2,300 years ago Aristotle presented the notion of emotional virtue. The current theories of EI largely rest on Aristotle‘s notion of ―managing one‘s emotional life with intelligence‖ (Kristjansson, 2007). Aristotle‘s ideas about emotional virtue provides a 41

rich source of practical advice about what nowadays is called emotion awareness, emotion regulation, and self-control by many EI theorists. For example, ―What matters, for Aristotle, is not to be psychologically aware of one‘s emotions in order to be able to control their onslaught, but rather to be morally aware of them and to manage them from within such that they help us to construct and maintain our self-respect ‖ (Kristjansson, 2006, p. 50). According to Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics 1106, cited in Zeidner, Mathhews, & Roberts, 2009), emotions ‗‗may be felt both too much and too little, and in both cases not well; but to feel them at the right times, with reference to the right objects, towards the right people, with the right motive, and in the right way, is what is both intermediate and best, and this is characteristic of virtue‘‘. Furthermore, among many other similarities, both EI theorists and Aristotle uphold a cognitive view of emotions. Both treat cognitions central to emotional experience (Kristjansson, 2006). 1.2.2. Thorndike (1920) As discussed in previous section, intelligence theories during the last century mainly remained focused on cognitive abilities, with only a minimal emphasis on noncognitive processes. Thorndike (1920) was the first prominent theorist who deviated from this cognitive dominated theme by introducing the component of ‗social intelligence‘ in his intelligence theory that was distinct from abstract/academic intelligence. He evaluated the predictive power of the cognitive intelligence or IQ and reached the conclusion that social intelligence is another kind of intelligence (different from IQ) which could explain aspects of success beyond traditional IQ or intellectual ability. He defined the new construct as ―the ability to manage and understand men and women, boys and girls, to act wisely in human relations‖ (Thorndike, 1920, p. 228). In other words, according to Thorndike (1920) social intelligence is a behavioral phenomenon (rather than IQ) meant to manage other people and act wisely in human relations (Landy, 2005, 2006). 1.2.3. George Washington Social Intelligence Test (Moss, Hunt, Omwake, & Ronning, 1927) One of the first widely used and evaluated tests that aimed to measure social intelligence was the George Washington Social Intelligence Test (Moss et al., 1927). 42

GWSI included 6 different dimensions: (a) Judgment in social situations, (b) Memory for names and faces, (c) Recognition of mental states from facial expression, (d) Observation of human behavior, (e) Social information, and (f) Recognition of mental states behind words. 1.2.4. Vernon (1933) As already mentioned in previous section Vernon is well-known for differentiating between three types of intelligences: ―A‖, ―B‖, & ―C‖ and for his hierarchical group factor theory. However, he was among the few who provided the comprehensive definition of social intelligence in early 1930‘s. According to him "ability to get along with people in general, social technique or ease in society, knowledge of social matters, susceptibility to stimuli from other members of a group, as well as insight into the temporary moods or underlying personality traits of strangers" (Vernon, 1933, p. 44 cited in Kihlstrom & Cantor, 2000). 1.2.5. Test of Social Proficiency (Jackson, 1940) Mainly based on Thorndike concept of social intelligence, Jackson (1940, cited in Landy, 2006) developed a test of social proficiency. Although, he provided sufficient evidence for the validity of the test, the test remained unrecognized by the scientists in the field. 1.2.6. Social Insight Scale (Chapin, 1942) Chapin (1942) defined social insight ―the capacity to see into a social situation, to appreciate the implications of things said and to interpret effectively the attitudes expressed so as to appreciate the significance of past behavior, or estimate the trend of future behavior‖ (p. 215). He developed a social insight scale, asking observers (other ratings) to categorize individuals as high or low on social insight. The lack of evidence regarding its validity made the scale relatively unpopular within social intelligence research (Landy, 2006). 1.2.7. Wedeck (1947)

43

Wedeck (1947, cited in landy, 2006) defined social intelligence in terms of psychological ability: ―the ability to judge correctly the feelings, moods, and motivations of others‖ (p. 133). He administered number of psychological constructs and after factor analysis found an entirely distinct factor representing social intelligence. Perhaps, Wedeck‘s (1947) study was one of the first studies which statistically provided the evidence for the construct of social intelligence. 1.2.8. Sechrest and Jackson (1961) Sechrest and Jackson (1961) developed a complex instrument tapping the construct of social intelligence. They found high positive correlations between cognitive complexity and social intelligence. This finding led them to conclude that cognitive complexity leads to social effectiveness. 1.2.9. Wechsler (1943) Although, Wechsler (see section 1.1.20) was a proponent of cognitive intelligence, however he also acknowledged the presence and importance of social intelligence as another form of intelligence. According to him "social intelligence is just general intelligence applied to social situations" (1958, p. 75). Furthermore, he proposed that nonintellective abilities are essential for predicting success in life. The main question is whether non-intellective, that is affective and conative abilities, are admissible as factors of general intelligence. (My contention) has been that such factors are not only admissible but necessary. I have tried to show that in addition to intellective there are also definite non-intellective factors that determine intelligent behavior. If the foregoing observations are correct, it follows that we cannot expect to measure total intelligence until our tests also include some measures of the non-intellective factors (Wechsler, 1943, p. 103). Studies have documented high correlations between the cognitive aspects of Wechsler IQ test and the Picture Arrangement task of Wechsler IQ test. In picture arrangement task respondents are asked to arrange pictures into chronological order to create a meaningful story or a social situation. Therefore, understanding the social situation (high scores on the picture arrangement task) seems strongly related to other cognitive abilities (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2007). 44

1.2.10. Guilford (1967) As mentioned previously, Guilford is well-known for his SI theory (see section 1.1.21). To recapitulate, according to SI theory, cognitive intelligence involves three ingredients: an operation, a content, and a product. In SI model, there are five operations, five contents, and six products. In SI, each mental ability is defined by a conjunction of the three dimensions, occupying one cell in the three-dimensional figure (see Figure 1.2). Thus, the model provides at least 150 (5 x 6 x 5) possible abilities. The appealing feature of SI model is (as opposed to other cognitive intelligence models) incorporation of both creativity and social intelligence or behavioral cognition into its structure. Within Guilford‘s (1967) SI model, social intelligence is depicted as the 30 different abilities (5 operations x 6 products) (see Figure 1.2) within the domain of behavioral operations. The SI model describes behavioral cognition facet as the ability of judging, evaluating, understanding, and appraising feelings, motives, thoughts, attitudes, or other psychological dispositions which may impact behavior in a social environment (O'Sullivan, Guilford, & deMille, 1965). In later years, Guilford and his colleagues made continuous efforts in developing a psychometric sound measure of social intelligence. They were successful in devising two test batteries relatively independent of the non-behavioral abilities in the SI model: (a) understanding the behavior of other people (cognition of behavioral content) and (b) coping with the behavior of other people (divergent production of behavioral content) (Kihlstrom & Cantor, 2000). The dimensions for both scales are presented in Table 1.7 and Table 1.8, respectively. Table 1.7: Understanding the behavior of other people Dimension Cognition of behavioral units Cognition of behavioral classes

Cognition of behavioral relations

The ability to--identify the internal mental states of individuals group together other people's mental states on the basis of similarity interpret meaningful connections among behavioral acts

45

Cognition of behavioral systems Cognition of behavioral transformations

interpret sequences of social behavior respond flexibly in interpreting changes in social behavior

Cognition of behavioral implications

predict what will happen in an interpersonal situation

Mainly adapted from Kihlstrom and Cantor (2000). Table 1.8: Coping with the behavior of other people Dimension Divergent production of behavioral units

The ability to--engage in behavioral acts which communicate internal mental states

Divergent production of behavioral classes

create recognizable categories of behavioral acts perform an act which has a bearing on what another person is doing maintain a sequence of interactions with another person alter an expression or a sequence of expressions predict many possible outcomes of a setting

Divergent production of behavioral relations Divergent production of behavioral systems

Divergent production of behavioral transformations Divergent production of behavioral implications Mainly adapted from Kihlstrom and Cantor (2000). 1.2.11. Gardner (1983)

As mentioned earlier (see section 1.1.26), Garnder‘s (1983) theory of multiple intelligences included two non-cognitive intelligences, which he termed ‗personal intelligences‘. Personal intelligences encompass interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences. Intrapersonal intelligences refers to an individual‘s ability to access and understand one‘s own internal aspects (such as thoughts) and emotions, to discriminate among own emotions and accurately label emotions, and use them as a means of guiding one‘s own behavior. People scoring high on this dimension are more likely to learn about themselves, are good in mediation, accurately predict their own feelings, are good at setting plans for themselves, are aware of their own feelings, and are realistic about their strengths and weaknesses. Interpersonal Intelligence, on the other hand, enables individuals to recognize and make distinctions about others‘ feelings and intentions (Gardner, 1983). People high on this dimensions are social and like to be with other people, could manipulate people‘s behavior, care about people, are able to perceive the feelings of other people, find it easy to talk to other people, are aware of other‘s body 46

language, like to be a part of team or work in team, and find it easy to emotionally help other people. Personal intelligences (i.e., interpersonal and intrapersonal) were recognized as the basic dimensions of many upcoming EI models (e.g., Bar-On, 1997; Goleman, 1995). Personal intelligences play an important role in almost every interaction. According to Garnder (1983), ―it is the unusual individual who does not try to deploy his understanding of the personal realm in order to improve his own well-being or his relationship to the community‖ (p.241). 1.2.12. Sternberg’s Practical Intelligence (1985) Social intelligence got negligible attention in Sterberg‘s early views of intelligence (Sternberg, 1980). Sternberg‘s views remained focus on reasoning and problem-solving skills as represented by traditional IQ tests (Kihlstrom & Cantor, 2000). However, in coming years he departed from traditional conceptualizations of intelligence and social intelligence became important ingredient of his Triachic view of intelligence (Sternberg, 1985). He defined intelligence as ―purposive adaptation to, and selection and shaping of, real-world environments relevant to one‘s life‖ (Sterberg, 1985, p.45). As discussed earlier (see section 1.1.27), according to the triarchic theory, intelligence is composed of analytical, creative, and practical abilities. Among the three abilities, practical intelligence explicitly includes social intelligence and defines intelligence in terms of behaviors that are relevant to one‘s life (Sternberg & Wagner, 1986). Intelligent behaviors involves (a) adaptation to the environment; (b) if adaptation fails, intelligent behavior attempt to shape and change the environment; (b) if both adaption and shaping fail, intelligent behavior is indicated by leaving the current environment and choosing another one. In sum, the idea of practical intelligence is that ―the expressions of intelligence can differ widely across individuals and groups, such that intelligence cannot be understood independently of the ways in which it is manifested‖ (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002, p. 126). Various researches have showed that practical intelligence is relatively independent of other IQ measures (e.g., Sternberg et al., 1995; Sternberg & Hudland, 2002).

47

According to Triachic theory, practical intelligence is dependent of ―tacit knowledge‖, which is defined as ―knowledge that is not explicitly taught or even verbalized, but is necessary for an individual to thrive in an environment‖ (Sternberg, Okagaki, & Jackson, 1990, p. 35).In other words, it is not taught formally and is learned without any explicit training or instruction. It is learnt through experience (Sternberg, 1999). Tacit knowledge can further be divided into three categories which have direct impact upon social and emotional intelligence, that is, (a) tacit knowledge about managing oneself (knowledge about self-motivation for dealing with everyday affairs), (b) tacit knowledge about managing others (knowledge about how to deal with one‘s interpersonal relationships), and (c) tacit knowledge about managing tasks (knowledge about performing, planning, and evaluating tasks) (Matthews et al., 2002). Thus it is safe to assume that ―overlap between EI and tacit knowledge is non-incidental‖ (Matthews et al., 2002, p. 130) and appears to be a useful construct for defining intelligent behavior. 1.3.

The Origins of the Term “Emotional Intelligence” As discussed in previous sections, in the history of human intelligence, for most

part of the 21st century the construct of social intelligence was used by theorists to represent much of what has come to be known as emotional intelligence. 1.3.1. Lenuner (1966) The term emotional intelligence was first time mentioned formally by Lenuner (1966, cited in Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002) in the article ―Emotional Intelligence and Emancipation,‖ published in German Journal Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie . Since the term emotional intelligence was used in German, the name remained tacit until 1986. 1.3.2. Payne (1986) In English language literature the term first time appeared in an unpublished dissertation by Payne (1986, cited in Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002). In his dissertation Payne mainly focused on fostering EI through some intervention strategies such a mental therapy. Payne distinguished EI from traditional IQ. According to him 48

The facts, meanings, truths, relationships, etc, (of EI) are those that exist in the realm of emotion. Thus, feelings are facts… the meanings are felt meanings (italics in original); the truths are emotional truths; the relationships are interpersonal relationships. And the problems we solve are emotional problems, that is, problems in the way we feel (p. 165; cited by Mayer, 2001). The definition of EI in Payne‘s dissertation is not clear, because it does not adequately indicate what is meant by felt meaning, emotional truth, and statements such as ―feelings are facets‖ (Mayer, 2001). Payne did not publish his theory or work, so the article published in 1990 by Salovey and Mayer is generally regarded as the birth of EI construct. 1.3.3. Salovey and Mayer (1990) Salovey and Mayer (1990) were first to utilize the term ―Emotional Intelligence‖ in the scientific literature (or peer reviewed journal), to represent the ability to deal with emotions. They drew on relevant evidence from previous intelligence and emotion research and presented the first comprehensive model of emotional intelligence. Indeed, these researchers were not only the first to publish extensive accounts of EI in peer-reviewed psychological journals (Mayer, DiPaolo & Salovey, 1990; Salovey & Mayer, 1990), they also remain the most prolific protagonists of EI in the scientific literature (see, e.g., Mayer, Caruso & Salovey, 1999, 2000; Mayer & Cobb, 2000; Mayer & Geher, 1996; Mayer & Salovey, 1993, 1997; Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2000a, 2000b; Salovey, Bedell, Deitweiler & Mayer, 1999, 2001; Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey & Palfai, 1995). They defined EI as ―the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one‘s own and others‘ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one‘s thinking and actions‖ (p. 287). Details about Mayer and Salovey (1990, 1997) model are provided in Chapter 3 of this report. 1.3.4. Goleman (1995) Although, Salovey and Mayer (1990) introduced the construct of EI to scientific world, it is Goleman who is widely recognized for the popularization of the construct. In 1995, Goleman wrote a book ―Emotional Intelligence‖ which provided an impetus for broadening the field of EI. Soon after the publication of this groundbreaking book, organizations began to consider the application of the EI construct within organizational 49

settings (see Goleman, 1998). According to Goleman (1995) ‗‗Emotional intelligence [includes] abilities such as being able to motivate oneself and persist in the face of frustrations; to control impulse and delay gratification; to regulate one‘s moods and keep distress from swamping the ability to think; to empathize and to hope‘‘ (p. 34). Goleman theory is based on the notion of emotional competence. Emmerling & Goleman (2003) defines emotional competence as ―a learned capability based on emotional intelligence that results in outstanding performance at work‖. Further to this Emmerling & Goleman (2003) assert that Mayer & Salovey‘s definition of emotional intelligence represents our potential for achieving mastery of specific abilities, whereas emotional competencies represent the degree to which an individual has mastered specific skills and abilities. Goleman‘s (1995) initial approach EI included the following five components: (a) Knowing one‘s emotions (to be aware of which emotions one is experiencing and why); (b) Managing emotions (to keep one‘s own emotions in check, to remain calm in potentially volatile situations and to maintain composure irrespective of one‘s emotions); (c) Motivating oneself (to remain focused on goals despite setbacks, to operate from hope of success rather than fear of failure, delaying gratification and to accept change to attain goals); (d) Recognizing emotions in others (understanding the feelings transmitted through verbal and nonverbal messages, to provide emotional support to people when needed and to understand the links between others‘ emotions and behavior); and (e) Handling relationships (to deal with problems without demeaning those who work with him or her, to not allow own or others‘ negative feelings to inhibit collaboration and to handle affective conflict with tact and diplomacy. We can easily find overlap among these five components and EI domains identified by Salovey & Mayer (1990). However with reference to Salovey & Mayer (1990) conceptualization, Goleman (1995) somewhat expanded the construct to include a number of specific social and communication skills influenced by the understanding and expression of emotions. 1.3.5. Mayer and Salovey (1997) Mayer and Salovey (1997) revised their 1990‘s model saying the former one ―omits thinking about feelings‖ (see Chapter 3 of the thesis for detailed discussion of Mayer and Salovey‘s model). 50

1.3.6. Cooper and Sawaf (1997) In 1997, Cooper & Sawaf wrote the book ―Executive EQ‖ and presented their four cornerstone model of EI, with particular reference to leaders within organizational settings. They defined EI as ―the ability to sense, understand, and effectively apply the power and acumen of emotions as a source of human energy, information and influence. Human emotions are the domain of core feelings, gut level, instincts and emotional sensations. When trusted and respected, emotional intelligence provides a deeper, more fully formed understanding of oneself and those around us‖. Cooper and Sawaf‘s (1997) EI model encompasses four cornerstones, each with four abilities or skills. The first cornerstone ―Emotional Literacy‖ refers to the knowledge and understanding of one‘s own emotions and how they function (emotional honesty, emotional energy, emotional feedback, practical intuition). The second cornerstone ―Emotional Fitness‖ refers to building authenticity, believability, and resilience (authentic presence, trust radius, constructive discontent, resilience and renewal).Third cornerstone ―Emotional Depth‖ includes the abilities of commitment, accountability, and conscience, applied integrity, influence without authority, and unique potential and purpose. Finally, the fourth cornerstone ―Emotional Alchemy‖ involves using emotions to discover creative opportunities (reflective time-sharing, opportunity sensing, creating the future, and intuitive flow) (for details see http://www.aymansawaf.com/exec-synopsis.html). 1.3.7. Bar-On (1997, 2000, 2006) Bar-On (1997, 2000, 2006) Emotional Quotient (EQ) model is one of the more widely known EI models. Bar-On (1997) defined EI as ‗‗an array of non-cognitive capabilities, competencies, and skills that influence one‘s ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands and pressures‘‘ (p. 14). The structure of the Bar-On model is multifactorial and not only includes the core emotion-processing EI abilities (Salovey & Mayer, 1990) but also includes several personality dispositions that have been historically identified as determinants of effective functioning. The Bar-On model encompasses 15 emotion related abilities or skills. These 15 conceptual components are grouped into five meta-components or theoretical clusters: intrapersonal, interpersonal, stress management, adaptability, and general mood.

51

The intrapersonal component for the Bar-On model encompasses abilities and dispositions such as to be aware of oneself, to understand one‘s strengths and weaknesses, and to express one‘s feelings and thoughts non-destructively. Interpersonal component of the model refers to the ability to be aware of others emotions, feelings and needs, and to establish and make cooperative, constructive and mutually satisfying relationships. Adaptability refers to the ability to effectively manage personal, social and environmental change by realistically and flexibly coping with the immediate situation, solving problem and making decisions. Stress management encompasses abilities and dispositions to constructively and effectively manage and control the emotions so that emotions work effectively for us. General mood refers to the ability to be optimistic and to be satisfied with oneself and others and with life. 15 EI components under five meta-components are defined in the Table 1.9. Table 1.9: Bar-On conceptualization of Emotional Intelligence Component Intrapersonal Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness

Independence Self actualization

Explanation To positively perceive oneself. To be aware of and understand one‘s emotions To effectively and constructively express one‘s emotions and oneself To be self-reliant and free of emotional dependency on others To strive to achieve personal goals and actualize one‘s potential

Interpersonal

Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationship

Stress Management Stress tolerance Impulse control Adaptability Reality Testing

To be aware of and understand how others feel To identify with one‘s social group and cooperate with others To establish mutually satisfying relationships and relate well with others

To effectively and constructively manage emotions To effectively and constructively control emotions To objectively validate one‘s feelings and thinking with external validity 52

Flexibility

To adapt and adjust one‘s feelings and thinking to new situations

Problem Solving

To effectively solve problems of personal and interpersonal nature

General Mood Optimism Happiness

To be positive and look at the brighter side of the life To feel content with oneself, other and life in general

1.3.8. Goleman (1998) Goleman (1998) expanded his earlier definition of emotional intelligence to include 25 competencies grouped into essentially the same five components (although the names of the components were altered). The five components with their associated competencies include (a) Self-awareness (emotional awareness, accurate self-assessment, self confidence); (b) Self-regulation (self control, trustworthiness, conscientiousness, adaptability, and innovation); (c) Motivation (achievement, commitment, initiative, optimism); (d) Empathy (understanding others, developing others, service orientation, diversity, and political awareness); and (e) Social Skills (influence, communication, conflict management, leadership, change catalyst, building bonds, collaboration/cooperation, team capabilities). 1.3.9. Dulewicz and Higgs (1999, 2004) Higgs and Dulewicz (1999) defined EI as ―being aware of, and managing one‘s own feelings and emotions; being sensitive to, and influencing others; sustaining one‘s motivation; and balancing one‘s motivation and drive with intuitive, conscientious and ethical behavior‖. After performing content analysis of literature they identified seven components related to EI: (a) self-awareness (b) emotional resilience (c) motivation (d) interpersonal sensitivity (e) influence (f) decisiveness (g) conscientiousness and integrity. Self awareness refers to the awareness of one‘s feelings and abilities to recognize and manage these feelings in a way which one feels that one can control. This includes a degree of self belief in one‘s ability to manage emotions and to control their impact in a work environment. (Dulewicz & Higgs ,1999, 2004).

53

Emotional Resilience, the second component, reflects the ability to perform consistently in a range of situations under pressure and to adopt behavior appropriately. This component also includes the ability to retain focus on a course of action or need for results in the face of personal challenges or criticism. Motivation, the third component refers to the drive and energy to achieve clear results and to balance both short and long-term goals with an ability to pursue demanding goals in the face of rejection or questioning (Dulewicz & Higgs ,1999, 2004). Interpersonal Sensitivity, the fourth component relates to the facility to be aware of and take account of the needs and perceptions of others in arriving at decisions and proposing solution to problem and challenges (Dulewicz & Higgs ,1999, 2004). Other abilities which are included in this component are the willingness to keep thoughts on solution open and actively listen to, and reflect on, the reactions and inputs from others. Influence, the fifth component, relates to the ability to persuade others to change a viewpoint, based on the understanding of their position and the recognition of the need to listen to this perspective and provide a rationale for change (Dulewicz & Higgs ,1999, 2004). Decisiveness, the sixth component, refers to the ability to arrive at clear decisions and drive their implementations when presented with incomplete or ambiguous information, using both rational and ―emotional‖ or insightful perception of key issues and implications (Dulewicz & Higgs ,1999, 2004). Conscientiousness and integrity, the final component, refers to the ability to display clear commitment to a course of action in the face of challenge and to match words and deeds in encouraging others to support the chosen direction (Dulewicz & Higgs ,1999 & Higgs, 2001). Dulewicz and Higgs (2004) propose that EI may be seen in terms of (a) Drivers, ―the core drivers in a work context, which are motivation and intuitive decision making‖ (b) Constrainers, ―the elements which constrain of limits on individual‘s behaviors and actions such as conscientiousness and emotional resilience‖ and (c) Enablers, ―the elements which facilitate achievement of results and goals such as interpersonal sensitivity, influence and self awareness‖. 1.3.10. Saarni (1999) 54

Saarni (1999) proposed a model of Emotional Competence on the notion that individuals and groups manage their emotions purposively. Her model mainly consists of eight skills of emotional competence: (1) awareness of one‘s own emotions, (2) the ability to discern and understand other‘s emotions, (3) the ability to use the vocabulary of emotion and expression, (4) the capacity for empathetic involvement, (5) the ability to differentiate internal subjective emotional experience from external emotional experience, (6) the capacity for adaptive coping with aversive emotions and distressing circumstances, (7) awareness of emotional communication with relationships, (8) the capacity for emotional self-efficacy. 1.3.11. Feldman (1999) Feldman (1999) developed his theory of Emotionally Intelligent Leadership. He divided emotionally intelligent leadership skills into five core skills and five higher order skills. The core skills represent the skills basic to the emotionally intelligent leader, while high order skills are needed to make the leader more effective. The core skills involves (1) being able to identify and understand one‘s own emotions, (2) being able to maintain selfcontrol amidst difficult times, (3) being able to read other emotions, (4) being able relate to others, and (5) being able to communicate efficiently (expression of emotions). The high order skills include (1) taking the responsibility and being accountable for one‘s actions, (2) being able to generate variety of choices for decision making, (3) being able to embrace vision that others can work toward, (4) being able to find the best possible choice for each situation-whether a popular or tough decision, and finally (5) being able to demonstrate self-determination, self-esteem, and a sense of personal-effectiveness. 1.3.12. Petrides & Furnham (2001) Petrides & Furnham (2001) conceptualized emotional intelligence in terms of personality. They organized in a single framework all affect related aspects of personality and labeled their model as ―Trait Emotional Intelligence Model‖ (for details please see Chapter 3 of this dissertation). 1.3.13. Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee (2002) Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee (2002) modified the Goleman (1998) model with the notion that certain emotional competencies differentiate great leaders from average 55

leaders. The revised model consists of 18 competencies organized into four clusters: SelfAwareness, Self-Management, Social Awareness, and Relationship Management. Self-Awareness concerns knowing one's internal states, preferences, resources, and intuitions (Emotional Awareness, Accurate Self-Assessment, Self-Confidence). SelfManagement concerns managing ones' internal states, impulses, and resources (Emotional Self-Control, Transparency, Adaptability, Achievement, Initiative, Optimism). Social Awareness refers to how people handle relationships and awareness of others‘ feelings, needs, and concerns (Empathy, Organizational Awareness, Service Orientation). Relationship Management refers to the skill or adeptness at inducing desirable responses in others. (Developing Others, Inspirational Leadership, Change Catalyst, Influence, Conflict, Management, Teamwork & Collaboration). 1.1.14. Verbeke, Belschak & Bagozzi (2004) Verbeke, Belschak and Bagozzi (2004) further elaborated and operationalized the concept of emotional competence. In their model they conceived emotional competence as the integration of 7 seemingly unrelated proficiencies (1) perspective taking, (2) strategic self presentation of emotions (3) helping targets of communication accept one‘s genuine emotional reactions (4) lack of guilt when using emotions strategically (5) fostering self authenticity (6) developing an ironic perspective and (7) incorporating one‘s moral code into the self –regulation of emotions. They differentiated the concept of Emotional Competence from Emotional Intelligence on the basis of domain specifity, learned capabilities and ethical values (which lack in EI and are present in EC). 1.3.15. Wakeman (2007) Wakeman (2007) presented his theory of EI on the premise that EI and emotional competence are distinct concepts and EI is necessary to support the development of emotional competency. The level of EI that an individual has may be measured by ascertaining which emotional competence factors the individual has developed. His 12 emotional competence facets are classified into two broader categories of Non-Cognitive self management and social dexterity. . Non-cognitive self-management personae dimension (cluster) includes items tapping: Emotional self-awareness, Self-confidence, Self-discipline, Conscientiousness, Initiative, and Dependability. Social dexterity 56

dimension (cluster) includes items tapping: Empathy, Leadership, Influence, Communication skills, Conflict management, Team ethics, and Relationships. 1.3.16. Genos EI model (Palmer, Stough, Harmer, & Gignac, 2009) Genos EI was originally conceptualized by Ben Palmer and Con Stough. It is mainly based on factor analyses by Gignac (2005) of the Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUIET; Palmer & Stough, 2001). The Genos model of emotional intelligence comprises a general factor (Overall or Total EI), as well as seven oblique factors outlined in Table 1.10 (Palmer et al., 2009). Table 1.10: The Genos model of EI Factor

Description

1. Emotional Self-Awareness

The skill of perceiving and understanding your own emotions

2. Emotional Expression

The skill of effectively expressing your own emotions

3. Emotional Awareness of Others

The skill of perceiving and understanding others‘ emotions

4. Emotional Reasoning

The skill of using emotional information in decision-making

5. Emotional Self-Management

The skill of managing your own emotions

6. Emotional Management of Others

The skill of positively influencing the emotions of others

7. Emotional Self-Control

The skill of effectively controlling your own strong emotions

Adapted from Palmer et al. (2009)

57

CHAPTER 2 EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE MEASURES The basic aim of this chapter is to review some of the literature on available EI instruments. The ability EI and trait EI constructs are discussed followed by measurement issues of the major EI conceptualizations. Finally, we provide a brief overview of the criticisms surrounding the EI field. 2.1.

Approaches to EI The plethora and diversity of EI models as well as instruments gave rise to the need

for a way to classify them. Two complementary conceptualizations of EI – i.e., mixed model framework and ability model framework – exist side by side in the literature (see Table 2.1). The proponents of ability EI framework view EI as a traditional intelligence, resembling other standard intelligences (e.g., verbal, numerical, figural), comprising of a set of skills that combines emotions with cognition measured through objective tests akin to IQ tests ([MSCEIT: Mayer et al., 2002). Proponents of mixed models, by contrast, view EI as an eclectic mix (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008) of traits, many dispositional, such as self-esteem, happiness, impulsiveness, self-management, and optimism, rather than as ability based. For example, Petrides and Furnham (2003) defined the construct as ―a constellation of behavioral dispositions and self-perceptions concerning one‘s ability to recognize, process, and utilize emotion-laden information. It encompasses empathy, impulsivity, and assertiveness as well as elements of social intelligence and personal intelligence‖ (p. 278). Thus, within these models, a large number of traits are amassed and mixed in with a few socio emotional abilities (Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008; Mayer, Salovey et al., 2008). Researchers in the mixed model framework have typically used selfreport measures to assess EI (e.g., Self-report Emotional Intelligence Test [SREIT]: Schutte et al., 1998; Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire [TEIQue]: Petrides, PérezGonzalez et al., 2007). Recently, Joseph & Newman (2010) suggested that, mixed model measures of EI can typically be organized into one of two complementary types: self-report ability EI or self-report mixed EI. The former includes self-report EI measures that are based on ability EI model (e.g., Self-Rated Emotional Intelligence Scale [SREIS]: Brackett, Rivers, 58

Shiffman, Lerner, & Salovey, 2006; Self-report Emotional Intelligence Test [SREIT]: Schutte et al., 1998). The latter includes measures which focus on ―non-cognitive‖ factors such as social skills, self-esteem and personality dimensions (e.g., TEIQue: Petrides, Pérez-Gonzalez et al., 2007; Bar-On, 1997). In sum, currently we have three distinct construct-method pairings of EI: performance based ability EI, self-report ability EI, and self-report mixed EI. For the simplicity of the discussion, we discuss the instruments based on ability versus mixed model approach. Table 2.1: Differences between Performance-based and Self-report measures of EI Performance-based EI Maximal Performance External appraisal of performance Response bias minimal Administration time long; testing complicated Abilitylike

Self-reported EI Typical performance Internal appraisal of performance Response bias may be great Administration time short; testing easy Personalitylike

Table 2.2: Classification of common EI Measures with Four Construct-Method Pairings Construct Method Self-Report

PerformanceBased

Ability-Based EI Self-report Ability Measures:

Mixed-Based EI Self-report Mixed Measures:

SREIT

ECI

WLEIS

EQ-i

WEIP

TEIQue

Performance-based Ability

Performance-based Mixed

Measures:

Measures:

MEIS

(no current measures)

MSCEIT Note. SREIT: Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (Schutte et al., 1998); WLEIS: Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (Wong & Law, 2002); Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (Jordan et al., 2002); ECI: Emotional Competence Inventory (Wolf, 2005); EQ-i: Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On, 1997); TEIQue: Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (Petrides, Pérez-Gonzalez et al., 2007); MEIS: Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 1999); MSCEIT: Mayer Salovey – Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (Mayer et al., 2002).

59

2.2.

Ability EI or Performance Based Measures of EI

2.2.1. Emotional Accuracy Research Scale (EARS: Mayer & Geher, 1996) The EARS (Mayer & Geher, 1996) is a performance based measure of empathic component of EI. The EARS consists of eight vignettes followed by pairs of mood items. Participants are required to read the vignettes and then choose emotions from the list of items that they believe the target of the vignette reported feeling. Two kinds of scoring are employed to assess the EI levels of the respondents: the consensus-agreement and the target-agreement. The consensus- agreement score refers to the degree to which participants select mood items that are most commonly chosen among the group of respondents. On the other hand, the target-agreement score refers to the degree to which participants are able to accurately choose mood items that the targets of the vignettes endorsed themselves. Mayer and Geher (1996) reported Cronbach‘s alpha of .24 and .53 for targetagreement and consensus- agreement, respectively. Likewise, Geher, Warner, & Brown (2001) reported low Cronbach‘s alpha of .52 and .55 for target-agreement and consensusagreement, respectively. Mayer and Geher (1996) study demonstrated evidence for the convergent and discriminant validity of the EARS vis-à-vis empathy and SAT scores. In addition, the EARS has found to exhibit predictive validity in predicting laboratoryempathy measure (Geher et al., 2001). 2.2.2. Situational Test of Emotional Understanding (STEU: MacCann & Roberts, 2008) MacCann and Roberts (2008) used Roseman‘s (2001) appraisal theory as the basis for the construction and scoring of the STEU. Roseman‘s appraisal theory of emotions describes how seventeen discrete emotions are generated according to specific combinations of seven appraisal dimensions. (a) Situational state. Whether an event is desired or unwanted (motive consistent versus motive inconsistent); (b) Motivational state. Desire to maximize rewards (Appetitive) versus desire to minimize punishment (Aversive); (c) Causal agency. Caused by self, caused by another person, or caused by situation; (d) Expectedness. Expected versus unexpected; (e) Certainty. Event has happened or certainly will happen (Certainty) versus event may or may not happen (Uncertainty); (f) 60

Control potential . Low control potential versus high control potential. High control potential refers to when one can do to change the motive relevant aspects of the event. Whereas, low control potential refers to when very little one can do to change the motive relevant aspects of the event. (g) Problem type. Problems may be instrumental or intrinsic. When problems are intrinsic, these are unwanted because of the inherent nature of the stimuli or event. Whereas, it is instrumental because it impedes the attainment of goals.

Figure 2.1. Roseman’s structure of the emotions (adapted from Roseman, 2001, pp. 70–71).

For example by looking at the model (Figure 2.1) relief results from circumstance– cause, certainty, motive consistency, and aversive stimuli. In other words, we experience relief when an unwanted event stops for us. The STEU contains 42 items. An example of the STEU item is, ―An unwanted situation becomes less likely or stops altogether. The person involved is most likely to feel: (a) regret, (b) hope, (c) joy, (d) sadness, (e) relief (the correct answer is relief)‖ (MacCann & Roberts, 2008, p. 542). Total scores are calculated by taking the mean of all item scores. MacCann and Roberts (2008) reported a reliability coefficient of .71 for the STEU. Initial study by MacCann and Roberts (2008) provides support in favor of discriminant and the convergent validity of the STEU vis-à-vis cognitive intelligence, MEIS, and 61

personality factors. In addition, the STEU incrementally predicted students‘ overall grades, beyond the effects of intelligence and personality. To my knowledge, this scale has not yet been used in other studies in the literature. 2.2.3. Situational Test of Emotion Management (STEM: MacCann & Roberts, 2008) The STEM is a 44-items performance based measure of EI tapping the emotion management aspect of EI. STEM is presented in two formats: the multiple-choice format or rate-the-extent format. The multiple-choice STEM is scored according to expert weights, and the rate-the-extent STEM is scored according to the distance from the expert ratings. It is worth to mention that, distance scores are reversed so that higher scores indicate higher levels of EI. An example of the STEM item in multiple-choice format is as follows. It is raining and an office worker without an umbrella must get to her car. The most effective action for her is to? a) Steal someone else‘s umbrella. b) Run to the care in the rain. c) Wait for the rain to stop And the example of the same STEM item in ratings-based format is as follows It is raining and an office worker without an umbrella must get to her car. The most effective action for her is to? Not at all effective

Extremely

effective a) Steal someone else‘s umbrella.

1

2

3

4

5

b) Run to the care in the rain.

1

2

3

4

5

c) Wait for the rain to stop

1

2

3

4

5

62

MacCann and Roberts (2008) reported reliability coefficients of .68 and .92 for multiple choice format and rate the extent format, respectively. MacCann and Roberts (2008) study provides support in favor of discriminant and the convergent validity of the STEM vis-à-vis cognitive intelligence, MEIS, and personality factors. In addition, the STEM incrementally predicted students‘ overall grades, beyond the effects of intelligence and personality. To my knowledge, other than study conducted by test authors, this scale has not yet been used in other studies in the literature. 2.2.4. Emotional Perception Questionnaire (EPQue: Mayer, DiPaolo, & Salovey, 1990) The EPQue (Mayer et al., 1990) consists of 6 facial images, 6 colors, and 6 abstract designs (a total of 18 visual stimuli). The six facial images represent six different emotions (i.e., surprise, fear, disgust, anger, happy, and sad). The six abstract designs (black and white) contains angular straight lines in two cases, curved lines in two cases, and a combination of straight and curved lines for two cases. Finally, the six colors chosen for the test are red, blue, green, yellow, black, and white. Each subset (i.e., face, color, and abstract design) is accompanied by 5-point rating scales representing the six primary emotions of happiness, sadness, anger, fear, surprise, and disgust. The EPQue is scored using consensus scoring method. A consensus is defined as the ability to perceive emotions that are consensually viewed as present or absent in the stimuli. For example, for the happy face, the modal response on the scale is 5 (definitely present), in this way, a rating of 4 or 5 is considered a consensual response. As well as this scale measures the amplitude of the emotions. Amplitude indicates the amount of total emotion that an individual observe in the 18 stimuli and is calculated as the mean scale response across all items (Mayer et al., 1990). A principal component analysis by Mayer et al. (1990) suggested EPQue to be aunifactorial scale. In addition they found EPQue to be related positively to empathy and extraversion. The EPQue has not been used much in the scientific literature and there is little information about its reliability and validity. 2.2.5. The Typical-Performance Emotional Management Test (TEMT; Freudenthaler & Neubauer, 2005) 63

The typical-performance emotional management test (TEMT; Freudenthaler & Neubauer, 2005) consists of two scales for the assessment of typical-performance in managing emotions in the self (18 items) and in others (24 items). Accordingly, ―the effectiveness of emotion-related behaviours is operationalized by measuring the individual‘s behavioural preferences in various emotional settings and evaluating those behaviours against predetermined scoring-criteria‖ (Freudenthaler & Neubauer, 2005, p. 572). In both scales, short descriptions of emotional situations are presented, followed by four response alternatives. Participants are required to choose the alternative that best described their typical behaviour in a given situation. The correctness of answers are predetermined by a panel of 10 experts in the field of emotions who had to rate the adequacy of the four response alternatives (from 4 to 1). Consequently, the best (most adequate) response is scored ‗‗4‘‘, the second-best ‗‗3‘‘, the third-best ‗‗2‘‘, and the fourthbest ‗‗1‘‘. Freudenthaler and Neubauer (2005) employed a principal axis exploratory factor analysis on the respective responses of the 277 subjects. The analyses yielded a two-factor solution, that is, managing emotions in the self (18 items) and in others (24 items). Cronbach alpha for both scales were .72 and .70, respectively. In addition, the two scales of intra- and interpersonal emotional abilities showed a positive intercorrelation of r = .29. Both correlations did not show relationship with cognitive intelligence. With regard to relationship with personality factors, higher intrapersonal emotional abilities were associated with lower neuroticism (r = -.51), higher scores on extraversion (r = .37), conscientiousness (r = .23) and openness (r = .21, p < .01). Whereas, interpersonal emotional abilities were only associated with agreeableness (r = .35) and openness to experience (r = .25). Recently, Freudenthaler, Neubauer, Gabler, and Scherl (2008) found both scales (i.e., intrapersonal and interpersonal) to be related positively to the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue). 2.2.6. Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy Scales (DANVA and DANVA-2; Nowicki & Duke, 1994) DANVA is a series of tests which not only tests the participants‘ ability to identify the nonverbal communication of emotion but also its level of intensity. The series 64

includes, Adult Faces 2, Child Faces 2, Adult Paralanguage 2, Child Paralanguage 2 and Adult Postures 2 (Nowicki, 2007). The DANVA-2 Adult Facial Expressions (DANVA2-AF) consists of 24 photographs of an equal number of happy, sad, angry and fearful facial expressions of high and low intensities (Nowicki & Carton, 1993). McIntire, Danforth, and Schneider (1997) reported a coefficient alpha of .90 and Nowicki and Carton (1993) reported the test-retest reliability of .84 among college students. Regarding convergent validity, the DANVA2-AF is highly related to the Japanese and Caucasian Facial Expressions of Emotion test (Matsumoto & Ekman, 1988) (r = .80) (McIntire et al., 1997). Regarding discriminant validity, DANVA2-AF has shown to be unrelated to IQ scores (Nowicki & Mitchell, 1998). Finally, regarding criterion related validity, lower DANVA2-AF scores have been found to be associated with higher number of conflicts (Verbeek, 1996), presence of nonverbal learning disabilities (Sprouse, Hall, Webster, & Bolen, 1998), and higher social anxiety scores (Abram, 1998). The DANVA 2-Child Facial Expressions (DANVA2-CF) consists of 24 photographs of child facial expressions; 12 female and 12 male participants showing an equal number of high and low intensity emotions (i.e., happy, sad, angry and fearful) (Nowicki, 2007). Nowicki and Mitchell (1998) reported coefficient alpha of .76 across 10 studies. Regarding convergent validity, the scores on the DANVA2-CF correlated significantly with those from the original DANVA-CF (Nowicki, 2007). The scores on DANVA2-CF are found to be unrelated to scores on cognitive ability tests (Nowicki & Mitchell, 1998), which is an evidence of discriminant validity of the test. DANVA 2: Adult Paralanguage (DANVA2-AP) consists of 24 stimuli. Participants listen to each stimulus and judge whether it is happy, sad, angry or fearful and how intense it is on a five point scale. Acceptable coefficient alphas have been reported for the test (Verbeek, 1996; Nowicki, 1995; Baum, Diforio, Tomlinson, & Walker, 1995). Nowicki (1995) reported a test-retest reliability of .83 for the test. Research has documented the convergent validity of the test vis-à-vis DANVA-CP (Nowicki, 1995) and discriminant validity vis-à-vis cognitive intelligence tests (Baum, 1997). Child Paralnguage (DANVA-2-CP) was developed to replace the original DANVA child voices test (Nowicki & Duke, 1994). The DANVA-2-CP is composed of 32 voice 65

trials. Nowicki and Demertzis (1997) reported a test-retest reliability of .88 for the scale. The DANVA-2-CP has shown to have convergent validity vis-à-vis original DANVA child voices (Demertzis & Nowicki, 1998). Baum and Nowicki (1997) provided evidence for the discriminant validity of the test vis-à-vis cognitive intelligence tests, that is, WISC-III Information and Vocabulary tests). Regarding criterion validity of the test, lower accuracy on the DANVA-2-CP has shown to be related to lower social competence and lower self esteem (Nowicki, 2007). DANVA2-Adult Posture Test (DANVA2-POS) consists of 32 photographs in both standing and seated postures. The photographs consist of happy, sad, angry and fearful emotions of high and low intensities. Nowicki (1999) has reported the Cronbach‘s coefficient alpha of .78 for the test and reported a nonsignificant correlation between scores on the DANVA2-POS and SAT Math and Verbal scores, an evidence of discriminant validity of the test. Lower accuracy on the DANVA2-POS is related to increased loneliness and increased social anxiety (Nowicki, 2007), an evidence of the criterion related validity of the test. 2.2.6. Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT: Mayer et al., 2002) The MSCEIT is a 141-item test that measures how well people perform tasks and solve emotional problems on eight tasks which are divided into four classes or branches of abilities, including (a) perceiving emotions, (b) facilitating thought, (c) understanding emotions, and (d) managing emotions. Analysis of the data by the test publisher provides 15 scores, including one for each task, one for each branch, one for each area, and one for total EI (please see Chapter 3 for a detailed discussion of the MSCEIT). 2.3.

Trait EI, Mixed Model EI or Self-Report Measures of EI

2.3.1. Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS: Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey, & Palfai, 1995) The TMMS provides an index of individual differences in a mood regulation process that involves monitoring, evaluating, and regulating emotions (Salovey et al., 1995). The TMMS comprises 30 items and is loosely based on the original model by Salovey and Mayer (1990). The items are responded on a 5-point Likert scale. The TMMS purports to measure three components of EI construct, namely, ―attention to emotion‖, 66

―emotional clarity‖, and ―emotion repair‖. Attention to feelings refers to how much attention individuals pay to their inner feelings and emotional states. Emotional clarity measures the ability to understand and discriminate among feelings. Finally, emotion repair measures the ability to regulate moods and repair negative emotional experiences. Sample items in the scale include: ―The best way for me to handle my feelings is to experience them to the fullest‖ (attention to emotion), ―when I become upset I remind myself of all the pleasure in life‖ (emotional repair), and ―I almost always know exactly how I am feeling‖ (emotion repair). It is worth to mention that TMMS does not yield global trait EI score and does not cover the entire trait EI sampling domain, thus, overlooks many core facets of the EI (Pérez, Petrides, & Furnham, 2005). Support has been found for the three factor structure of the TMMS (Palmer, Gignac, Bates, & Stough, 2003). Regarding incremental validity of the TMMS, Extremera and Fernandez-Berrocal (2005) found evidence supporting that emotional clarity scale of the TMMS adds significant variance to the prediction of life satisfaction beyond transient mood states. In another study, Landa, Lopez-Zafra, de Antonana, Martinez, and Pulido (2006) found support for the incremental predictive validity of the TMMS in predicting life satisfaction beyond Alexithymia and affectivity. 2.3.2. Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-I; Bar-On, 1997) Bar-On (1997) defined EI as ‗‗an array of non-cognitive capabilities, competencies, and skills that influence one‘s ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands and pressures‘‘ (p. 14). The EQ-I is one of the widely used measure of EI in the literature. The EQ-i contains 133 items in the form of short sentences and employs a 5-point response scale with a response format ranging from "very seldom or not true of me" (1) to "very often true of me or true of me" (5). The inventory yields a global EI score, 5 composite scales scores, and 15 subscale scores comprising the composite scales: Intrapersonal (comprising Self- Regard, Emotional Self-Awareness, Assertiveness, Independence, and Self- Actualization); Interpersonal (comprising Empathy, Social Responsibility, and Interpersonal Relationship); Stress Management (comprising Stress Tolerance and Impulse Control); Adaptability (comprising Reality-Testing, Flexibility, and Problem- Solving); and General Mood (comprising

67

Optimism and Happiness). A brief description of 15 subscales can be found in the Table 2.3. Table 2.3: The EQ-i Scales Scales Intrapersonal Self-Regard Emotional Self-Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization

Interpersonal Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationship

Competencies and Skills Assessed by Each Scale (Self-awareness and self-expression) To accurately perceive, understand and accept oneself. To be aware of and understand one’s emotions. To effectively and constructively express one’s emotions and oneself. To be self-reliant and free of emotional dependency on others. To strive to achieve personal goals and actualize one’s potential. (Social awareness and interpersonal relationship) To be aware of and understand how others feel. To identify with one’s social group and cooperate with others. To establish mutually satisfying relationships and relate well with others.

Stress Management Stress Tolerance Impulse Control

(Emotional management and regulation) To effectively and constructively manage emotions. To effectively and constructively control emotions.

Adaptability Reality-Testing

(Change management) To objectively validate one’s feelings and thinking with external reality. To adapt and adjust one’s feelings and thinking to new situations. To effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature.

Flexibility Problem-Solving

General Mood (Self-motivation) Optimism To be positive and look at the brighter side of life. Happiness To feel content with oneself, others and life in general. Adapted from Dawda and Hart (2000). Research indicates that the EQ-i domain and component scales have good internal consistency and a meaningful pattern of convergent validities with respect to measures of normal personality, depression, somatic symptomatology, intensity of affective experience and alexithymia (Dawda & Hart, 2000). Factor structure of the EQ-i has remained a problematic area. For example, Livingstone and Day (2005) employed CFA but did not find support for the proposed fivefactor model of the EQ-i. Subsequently they ran exploratory principal components analyses 68

to examine the structure of the EQ-i. The structure was not clear for the EQ-i. The scree plot indicated the presence of three components. In another study, Palmer, Manocha, Gignac, and Stough (2003) failed to found support for previous claims by Bar-On (1997) that the dimensional structure of the EQ-i 1–5–15 (total EQ–composite scales–subscales). In contrast, they found that the dimensional structure of the EQ-I comprised a general factor of EI and six primary factors. Regarding discriminant validity of the EQ-I, research indicates that EQ-i is mostly unrelated to the ability EI (i.e., MSCEIT) and cognitive intelligence (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Derksen, Kramer, & Katzo, 2002; Livingstone & Day, 2005). Regarding incremental validity, Livingstone and Day (2005) indicated that EQ-i five factors had a strong individual, nonunique relationship with life satisfaction, stress management, and mood, beyond big five personality dimensions. Dawda and Hart (2000) found moderate negative correlations between the EQ-i composite scales and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20; Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1994) and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck & Steer, 1987). In addition, they reported low to moderate correlations between the EQ-i scales and neuroticism (inversely related), extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness factors of the Big-Five. In a meta-analytic study, Schutte, Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Bhullar, and Rooke (2007) reported a high correlation between the EQ-i and mental health and psychosomatic health. However, a major ―limitation of the EQ-i is that it includes several irrelevant facets (e.g., problem solving, reality testing, independence) and neglects many relevant ones (e.g., emotion perception, emotion expression, emotion regulation)‖ (Pérez, Petrides, & Furnham, 2005). Thus, sampling domain of the EQ-i, is more closer to personality framework, then to EI framework. 2.3.3. Emotional Competence Inventory Version 2 (ECI: Wolf, 2005) The ECI represents a set of competencies related to EI. Based on the earlier work of Boyatzis, Goleman, and Rhee (1999), the Emotional Competence Inventory 2.0 (ECI) measures 18 competencies organized into four clusters: Self-Awareness, SelfManagement, Social Awareness, and Relationship Management. The ECI contains 73 items in the form of short sentences and employs a 6-point response scale with a response format ranging from "Never" (1), to ―Consistently‖ (5), and an option "Don‘t Know" (6) (Wolf, 2005). There are fewer items in the ECI-2 (72 versus the original 110). Boyatzis

69

and Sala (2004) argue that a key reason the test was shortened was to increase ease of use and utilization. Table 2.4 : The ECI Competencies Competency Explanation Self-Awareness Knowing one's internal states, preferences, resources, and intuitions. Emotional Awareness Recognizing one's emotions and their effects Accurate Self-Assessment Knowing one's strengths and limits Self-Confidence A strong sense of one's self-worth and capabilities Self-Management Emotional Self-Control Transparency Adaptability Achievement Initiative Optimism

Managing ones' internal states, impulses, and resources. Keeping disruptive emotions and impulses in check Maintaining integrity, acting congruently with one’s values Flexibility in handling change Striving to improve or meeting a standard of excellence Readiness to act on opportunities Persistence in pursuing goals despite obstacles and setbacks

Social Awareness

How people handle relationships and awareness of others‘ feelings, needs, and concerns. Sensing others' feelings and perspectives, and taking an active interest in their concerns Reading a group's emotional currents and power relationships Anticipating, recognizing, and meeting customers' needs

Empathy Organizational Awareness Service Orientation Relationship Management

Concerns the skill or adeptness at inducing desirable responses in others. Developing Others Sensing others' development needs and bolstering their abilities Inspirational Leadership Inspiring and guiding individuals and groups Change Catalyst Initiating or managing change Influence Wielding effective tactics for persuasion Conflict Management Negotiating and resolving disagreements Teamwork & Collaboration Working with others toward shared goals. Creating group synergy in pursuing collective goals. Adapted from Wolf (2005). A confirmatory factor analysis conducted by Manual, Seriavos, and Boyatzis (2005) revealed that the theoretical model was a reasonable fit (chi-squared = 856, df = 55, p = 0.0, RMSEA = .047, NFI = .998, CFI = .998, RFI = .993). The ECI technical manual (Wolf, 2005) reports reliability coefficient of .78 for the ECI 2.0. Regarding discriminant validity, Zadel (2004 reported in Wolf, 2005) findings show that there is no relation between personality traits and EI. Tumasjan, Welpe, Stich, 70

Spörrle, & Försterling (2005) found that the ECI 2.0 correlated highly (r =.41, p

Smile Life

When life gives you a hundred reasons to cry, show life that you have a thousand reasons to smile

Get in touch

© Copyright 2015 - 2024 PDFFOX.COM - All rights reserved.