Can Emotional Intelligence Be Schooled Qm a Critical Review

SCHOOLING EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCEZEIDNER, ROBERTS, MATTHEWS

Can Emotional Intelligence Be Schooled? A Critical Review

Moshe ZeidnerCenter for Interdisciplinary Research of Emotions

University of Haifa, Israel

Richard D. RobertsDepartment of Psychology

University of Sydney, Australia

Gerald MatthewsDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of Cincinnati

This article critically reviews the claimed role of emotional intelligence (EI) in the educationaland school context. Our review shows that most intervention programs were not specifically de-signed to change EI, and very few systematic interventions meet the canons of internal and ex-ternal validity. Consequently, little objective evidence attesting to the useful role of EI as a pre-dictor of school success and adjustment exists beyond that predicted by intelligence andpersonality factors. Herein we discuss several crucial issues that need to be addressed prior todeveloping and implementing EI programs, and we provide specific guidelines for the develop-ment, implementation, and evaluation of future EI programs. Currently, the successful school-ing of EI is still undetermined.

Emotional intelligence (EI) is a relatively new and growingarea of investigation that has, virtually since its inception,generated controversy both in the scientific community andin the popular media. Concerned by a lack of consensus, re-searchers have recently directed increasingly extensive ef-forts toward resolving conceptual and measurement issues(e.g., Roberts, Zeidner, & Matthews, 2001; Zeidner,Matthews, & Roberts, 2001). Efforts also have been directedtoward determining the developmental trajectory of EI andrelated concepts (e.g., Denham, 1998; Saarni, 1999) andwhether, in fact, it can be modified (e.g., Salovey & Sluyter,1997). Concurrent with this basic focus, commentators havefocused both on developing and critiquing meaningful appli-cations of EI (for a review see Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts,in press).

In the spirit of this research, this article reviews criticallywhat we currently know (and do not know) about the cultiva-tion and schooling of EI. We begin with a brief overview of

the EI concept and its assessment. We then discuss both distal(developmental) and proximal (schooling) factors purport-edly shaping the development of EI. An examination of cur-rent trends in social and emotional learning programsfollows. We conclude by proposing some general principlesand guidelines for conducting school-based EI interventionsand program evaluations. This article presents an attempt tomove toward theory of EI in educational context by offeringour provisional take of the best conceptualizations and dataavailable on the schooling of EI.

DEFINITION

Popular interest in EI has at times tended to obscure defini-tional clarity (Matthews et al., in press). The term is too oftenused in the most all-encompassing and protean of ways, thusleaving it bereft of conceptual meaning. For example, thepopulist, although widely influential account Goleman(1995) offered, appears to define EI by exclusion as being anydesirable feature of personal character that is not cognitive in-telligence. More recently, Goleman (2001) has suggested thatthe competencies associated with EI relate to four cardinal

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 37(4), 215231Copyright 2002, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Moshe Zeidner, Center for Inter-disciplinary Research of Emotions, University of Haifa, Mt. Carmel, Is-rael 31905. E-mail: [email protected]

domains, defined by two key domain facets: (a) abilityrec-ognition versus regulation of emotion, and (b) tar-getwhether competence relates to self versus others. TheCartesian product of the two facet categories (ability by tar-get) yields the following four EI components: (a) recognitionof emotions in self; (b) recognition of emotions in others; (c)regulation of emotions in self; and (d) regulation of emotionsin others. However, although this analysis suggests somefields of inquiry, it does not identify a unifying common ele-ment among the components. Furthermore, it does not de-scribe how to distinguish EI from other, distinct abilities andpersonality traits that may influence recognition and regula-tion of emotions. Therefore, what is meant exactly by the termEI, at least as Goleman and colleagues use it, is unclear.

As in studies of conventional intelligence, progress in con-ceptualization operates in tandem with efforts at measure-ment of the construct. Consequently, researchers working intest development have offered more precise definitions. Per-haps the most widely accepted definition of EI is the abilityto monitor ones own and others emotions, to discriminateamong them, and to use the information to guide ones think-ing and actions (Salovey & Mayer, 1990, p. 189). This defi-nition differs from Golemans categorical scheme inidentifying emotional information processing as a necessaryprecursor of emotional regulation.

Difficulties in conceptualization lead to problems in dif-ferentiating EI from a multitude of other ability, personality,and motivation constructs that are already employed in edu-cational psychology (Zeidner et al., 2001). EI lacks the com-prehensive, multistratum models established forconventional mental abilities (Carroll, 1993). Indeed, EImeasures overlap with well-established personality con-structs, such as those of the Five Factor Model (see Davies,Stankov, & Roberts, 1998; McCrae, 2000). Mayer, Caruso, &Salovey (2000) warned that careful analysis is required to dis-tinguish what is (and what is not) part of EI. Mayer et al. dis-tinguish between (a) mental ability models, focusing onaptitude for processing affective information, and (b) mixedmodels that conceptualize EI as a diverse construct, includ-ing aspects of personality as well as the ability to perceive, as-similate, understand, and manage emotions. These mixedmodels include motivational factors and affective disposi-tions (e.g., self-concept, assertiveness, empathy; see Bar-On,1997; Goleman, 1995).

A related issue is the extent to which EI should be differen-tiated from social intelligence. Ford and Tisak (1983) identi-fied the following three criteria as attributes of socialintelligence: (a) decoding of social cues (e.g., ability to readnonverbal cues), (b) effectiveness of ones social perfor-mance (viewed in terms of behavioral outcomes), and (c) asocial measure with a skill component. However, pinpointingwhat abilities or skills do (or do not) fall within the domain ofsocial intelligence, or even whether an empirically coherentconstruct of social intelligence exists, has been relatively dif-ficult (Keating, 1978). The measurement of the construct

proved to be an almost insurmountable task, and when mea-sured, the results have failed to yield a conceptually coherentfactor (see Kihlstrom & Cantor, 2000, for a review of at-tempts to conceptualize and measure this construct; see alsoCarroll, 1993).

On the one hand, perhaps a narrower focus on emotionalfunctioning might establish EI as a more robust constructthan social intelligence. On the other hand, much of the in-terest in scales for EI resides in their capacity to predictpro-social behaviors such as altruism and providing emo-tional support to others, versus antisocial behaviors such asviolence and drug use.

Mayer and Salovey (1993) originally described EI as aspecific type of social intelligence. Recently, however,Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, and Sitarenios (2001) have pro-posed that emotions are fundamentally social in nature, blur-ring the conceptual distinction between emotional and socialintelligences. In the applied context, as we discuss later, manyof the educational programs that claim to enhance emotionalawareness and functioning may in fact target social behaviorsfor change.

For the most part, existing definitions of EI are structural,viewing EI as a stable quality of the individual, albeit oneconsidered more malleable than cognitive intelligence(Goleman, 1995). However, effective emotional functioningoften appears to be situation dependent; the most adaptive ac-tion in emotional circumstances depends on the relation be-tween the person (or persons) involved and socioculturalnorms. Zeidner et al. (2001) suggested that EI may perhaps beseen in the juncture of person and environment, that is, the ex-tent to which the persons beliefs and action tendencies sur-rounding given emotions match culturally definedrequirements. The structureprocess distinction also high-lights difficulties in placing EI within causal models of abili-ties and behavior. Whether EI represents an aptitude forhandling challenging situations, whose expression may varyaccording to environmental contingencies, or an outcomevariable, reflecting the successful resolution of environmen-tal contingencies is not always clear.

Alternatively, drawing a rigid line between aptitudes andoutcomes is misleading. Current theory on aptitude (cf.Snow, 1992, 1996; Snow, Corno, & Jackson, 1996; see alsoStanford Aptitude Seminar, 2002) points to the importance ofthe synergistic functioning of cognitive ability, emotion, andmotivation in educational settings. Zeidner (2001) andZeidner and Matthews (2000) also espoused a synergisticperspective on EI in several recent publications. Affect andmotivation contribute to learning through processes such asstrategy choice, focusing of attention, and mindful invest-ment of effort. This perspective suggests a focus on EI as a setof processes supporting adaptation to emotive situations andcontinued refinement of emotional skills so that the aptitudeis itself the outcome of prior learning.

Aptitude theory handles the structureprocess dilemma bydifferentiating molar and molecular perspectives (see Stan-

216 ZEIDNER, ROBERTS, MATTHEWS

ford Aptitude Seminar, 2001). At the molar level, a given apti-tude is seen as an abstract structural quality of the person, a setof propensities for behavior whose expression depends on sit-uational factors. At the molecular level, aptitude can be seen inthe cognitive, affective, and conative processes that supportdynamic interaction with the environment. This view empha-sizes the reciprocity of personsituation interaction, focusingon how processes support effective action within specific situ-ations, as well as learning from experience (i.e., interactionwith the situation changes the person). Thus, we might see EIas constituting both general tendencies toward emotionalcompetence (molar level) and as an emergent quality of emo-tional processing and regulation that, over time, enhancesemotional functioning within some specified situations orcontexts (molecular level). From this perspective, EI might beseen as an adaptive trajectory followed by the personsitua-tion interaction. For example, the molar emotional skill of be-ing able to calm an angry person may represent a morecomplex dynamic transaction as the emotionally intelligentindividual becomes progressively more adept at activelyshaping the social environment to dissipate anger. We mightdistinguish (a) processes that reflect the skill, such as perspec-tive taking and expressing sympathy, (b) regulative processesthat monitor the ongoing success of calming efforts, and (c)learning processes that modify the persons skills and knowl-edge of anger dynamically. Conversely, a less emotionally in-telligent individual might be prone to exacerbate situationsthat elicit anger, becoming locked into self-perpetuating cy-cles of suspicion and hostility.

As demonstrated earlier, people have referred to and de-fined the concept of EI many ways. Herein we adopt a molardefinition of EI as an hypothetical individual difference con-struct, referring to a set of competencies or skills for han-dling affectively loaded encounters, which might predictfuture adaptive outcomes (Matthews & Zeidner, 2000, p.41). We do not rigidly differentiate competencies and skillshere, but skills are seen as more complex and more closelylinked to specific situations. EI is a snapshot of emotionalcompetencies represented in declarative and procedurallong-term memory, although EI changes through experienceand learning. Our definition assumes that competencies gen-eralize across emotive situations, although situational rele-vance of competencies varies. Over short time periods,underlying competencies may be distinguished from out-comes of specific encounters, such as achieving personalgoals, interpersonal harmony, and emotional well-being andcoping with stress successfully. Over longer periods (weeksand months), processing of outcomes feeds back into changein competencies. Hence, we recognize the merits of the eco-logical view of aptitude contributors to the Stanford AptitudeSeminar (2001) proposed.

A theoretical understanding of emotional competency re-quires that it be linked to the dynamically changing per-sonsituation system treated holistically. However, at thisearly stage of EI research, we recognize that practical inter-

ventions are more likely to be geared toward demonstratingchanges on standard tests of the construct. We anticipate thatdemonstrable changes at the molar level will initiate moreprocess-oriented research and, eventually, a more sophisti-cated conception of EI as emerging from dynamic personsit-uation interaction.

MEASUREMENT

Numerous promising developments in EI assessment haveoccurred since the term first appeared over a decade ago, andwe have seen a rapid propagation of EI measures (for reviewssee Ciarrochi, Chan, Caputi, & Roberts, 2001; Matthews etal., in press). Popular measures include the Bar-On Emo-tional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997), the SchutteSelf-Report Inventory (Schutte et al., 1998), the TraitMeta-Mood Scale (Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey, &Palfai, 1995), the Multi-Factor Emotional Intelligence Scale(MEIS; Mayer et al., 2000), and most recently, theMayerSaloveyCaruso Emotional Intelligence Test(MSCIET; Mayer, Caruso, Salovey, & Sitarenios, submit-ted). The content of these EI measures varies as a function ofthe theoretical conceptualizations and interpretations of EIappearing in the literature.

In common with many individual difference constructs,including IQ, the road to understanding EI has started from at-tempts to develop a satisfactory operational definition of theconstruct (Matthews et al., in press); that is, researchers havebegun with some initial description or conceptualization ofthe qualities associated with EI and attempted to develop reli-able and valid measures for these qualities. However, the con-ceptual disagreements previously discussed are mirrored by amajor disjunction in measurement paradigm. In the one campare those who conceptualize EI as a well-defined set of emo-tion-processing skills (e.g., Mayer et al., 1999, 2000). Theseresearchers aim to assess EI through objective performancescales. In the other camp are those who adopt a broader, pro-tean definition, encompassing multiple aspects of personalfunctioning more loosely related to emotion (e.g., Bar-On,1997; Boyatzis, Goleman, & Rhee, 2000; Goleman, 1995).These researchers aim to measure EI through self-report pro-tocols designed to assess beliefs and perceptions about an in-dividuals competencies in specific domains of EI (Salovey,Woolery, & Mayer, 2001). Subjective inventories typicallysample a diversity of constructs and hence assume a mixedmodel of EI (i.e., assume the concept to be both an ability andpersonality trait). We now turn to a detailed discussion ofself-report (and then performance-based) measures.

Self-Reported Emotional Intelligence

Self-report indexes generally ask a person to endorse a seriesof descriptive statements, usually on some form of ratingscale. For example, in the Schutte Self-Report Inventory(Schutte et al., 1998), individuals rate themselves from 1

SCHOOLING EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 217

(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) on 33 statements(e.g., I know why my emotions change; I expect goodthings to happen). Several problems and serious omissionscurrently plague the research on EI that employs self-reportmethodologies (see Davies et al., 1998; Matthews et al., inpress; Zeidner et al., 2001). Self-perceptions of EI may be in-accurate, being vulnerable to the range of response sets andsocial desirability factors afflicting self-report measures, aswell as deception and impression management. Indeed, emo-tional competence may not be consciously accessible. Theseproblems are, of course, common to all scales based onself-report, including personality assessment. To counteractthis criticism in other fields where self-reports are used, re-searchers have devised several procedures, including com-paring self-assessed responses to reports a respondents peersprovided (see e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992). However, valida-tion studies of this type appear not to have been conductedwith respect to the vast majority of self-report measures of EI,but they are urgently needed (see Roberts et al., 2001).

Whether items asking students to self-appraise intellectualability (e.g., I am an extremely intelligent student) wouldmake for a valid measure of cognitive intelligence is alsoquestionable. Under the assumption that EI constitutes a tra-ditional form of intelligence, the usefulness of analogousitems about ones EI seems doubtful (Salovey, Bedell,Detweiler, & Mayer, 2000). Note that past research has re-ported rather modest associations between self-rated and ac-tual ability measures. A meta-analytic review of 55 studiesMabe and West (1982) conducted yielded a mean correlation(validity coefficient of self-rating) of 0.34 betweenself-evaluations of intelligence and objective intelligence testscores. More recent studies (see e.g., Paulhus, Lysy, & Yik,1998) concurred that the correlations between self-reports ofintelligence and mental test performance tend to be rathermodest (about r = .30).

Moreover, measures of EI that assess noncognitive traits(e.g., assertiveness, optimism, impulse control) seem to betapping dimensions of individual differences that relate toestablished personality constructs rather than to contempo-rary notions of what constitutes intelligence (Davies et al.,1998; Matthews et al., in press; Roberts et al., 2001). More-over, empirical data pointing to the substantial relation be-tween EI and existing personality measures has, curiously,actually been used to support the discriminant validity andconceptual soundness of EI (see e.g., Bar-On, 2000). Forexample, Dawda and Harts (2000) recent study revealedaverage correlations approaching 0.50 between measures ofthe Big Five Personality Factors (i.e., neuroticism, extrover-sion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) andBar-Ons EQ-i measure. Noting the relative independenceof each of the Big Five Personality Factors (e.g., Costa &McCrae, 1992), these data suggest that the EQ-i is nothingbut a proxy measure of a composite of Big Five PersonalityFactors constructs, weighted most strongly toward lowneuroticism.

Performance-Based Emotional Intelligence

In view of the foregoing problems associated with the use ofself-report measures, several authors have advocated the de-velopment of more objective performance-based ability indi-cators of EI (e.g., Mayer et al., 1999, 2000; Mayer & Salovey,1997; Mayer et al., 2000a, 2000b). According to these au-thors, ability testing is the gold standard in intelligence re-search because intelligence refers to the actual capacity toperform well at mental problemsnot just ones beliefsabout such capacities (see also Carroll, 1993). Under thisframework, a human ability is measured by having a personsolve a problem (e.g., identify the emotion in a persons face,story, or painting). In addition, the examinees answer shouldbe available for evaluation against accuracy criteria (Mayer& Geher, 1996). Consequently, task-based measures engageparticipants in exercises designed to assess competenciessupporting emotionally intelligent skills. The ability-basedmode of assessment Mayer and Salovey (1997) proposed andits underlying four-branch EI conceptual model has gainedcurrency largely because it appears ability oriented and em-pirically based. Their four-branch model, described in thesection covering definitions, is currently operationalizedthrough the MEIS and the more recent MSCEIT tests.

Considerable difficulty exists in determining objectivelycorrect responses to stimuli involving emotional content andin applying truly veridical criteria in scoring tasks of emo-tional ability. Proponents of EI as a type of cognitive abilityhave thus promoted three alternative scoring procedures todiscriminate right from wrong answers on perfor-mance-based measures of EI (Mayer, Caruso et al., 2000).These are:

1. Consensual scoring. An examinee receives credit forendorsing responses that the group endorses. Thus, if thegroup agrees that a face (or design, passage of music, etc.)conveys a happy or sad emotion, then that becomes thecorrect response. This measurement approach assumes thatobservations for a large number of people can be pooled andcan serve as reliable measures.

2. Expert scoring. Experts in the field of emotions (e.g.,psychologists, psychiatrists, philosophers) examine certainstimuli (e.g., a face, passage of music, a design) and then usetheir best judgment to determine the emotion expressed inthat stimulus. Allegedly, the expert brings professionalknow-how to bear on judgments about emotional meanings.The test taker receives credit for ratings closest to those thatthe experts employed.

3. Target scoring. A judge (i.e., the test taker) assesseswhat a target (e.g., artist, photographer, musician) is por-traying at the time he or she was engaged in some emotionalactivity (e.g., writing a poem, playing a musical score, paint-ing, sculpting, photography). A series of emotion-ratingscales is then used to assess the match between the emotionsconveyed to the judge by the stimuli and those reported by


the target. Target scoring has received rather little attentionin previous research, ostensibly because it is suitable onlyfor emotion identification tasks, and not for other, higherlevel EI aspects.

The use of multiple scoring methods in objective assess-ment of EI contrasts with the scoring of conventional intel-ligence tests. The logic of facet analytic thinking (see e.g.,Guttman & Levy, 1991; Zeidner & Feitelson, 1989) is thatthe main criterion for an intelligence task is the applicationof a true veridical criterion against which one judges a re-sponse as correct or incorrect. The scoring of IQ tests is rel-atively straightforward, although concerns linger over theextent to which intelligence testing is truly culture fair, de-spite efforts to remove obvious sources of cultural bias.Generally a clear rationale exists for justifying the correct-ness of an answer, often derived from some formal,rule-bound system such as mathematics, geometry, or logic.It is also relatively straightforward to determine which indi-viduals are expert in these areas and, therefore, are profes-sionally qualified to act as arbiters. By contrast, agreementbetween scoring methods seems mediocre for the MEIS(Roberts et al., 2001). Reliability of scoring across methodsappears to be substantially improved for the MSCEIT(Mayer et al., 2001). However, researchers remain troubledthat no logical or conceptual criterion exists for deciding onthe correct answer for these tests.

Summary

Currently several problems exist with conventional EI as-sessment methods. Psychometric problems include thequestionable rationales for scoring ability-like tests, redun-dancy with personality for self-report tests, lack of conver-gence among tests, and lack of discriminant validity. Theseare exacerbated by a raft of problems with specific tests,such as poor subscale reliabilities and suspect factor struc-tures. Issues also exist related to the culture and gender fair-ness of the tests, given that scoring method appears toinfluence group differences (Roberts et al., 2001). The maintheoretical problems (in part reflecting neglect of constructvalidity) include ambiguity about the processes supportingEI and failure to develop and test acceptable criteria for in-dividual differences in real-world adaptation. These variousproblems may or may not be insuperable, but existing re-search does not yet even show that EI exists as a well-de-fined psychometric and theoretical construct, let alone thatit is critical for adaptation to real-world emotional chal-lengesa major criteria for meeting the traditional standardfor an intelligence. The failure of convergence is a funda-mental weakness of the field. For now, we must work withdistinct conceptions of EI-as-ability and EI-as-personality,noting for both conceptions that what competencies andprocesses underpin the construct is not entirely evident.

DISTAL DETERMINANTS OFEMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

Any systematic attempt to account for the origins and devel-opment of emotional competencies needs to consider a con-fluence of multiple factors, including genetic, temperamen-tal, environmental, and educational variables interacting incomplex and dynamic ways.

Genetic Factors

We note briefly that EI is most likely to have a heritable com-ponent in common with the intelligence and personality fac-tors that correlate with the construct (e.g., Matthews & Deary,1998; Scarr, 1981; Scarr & Weinberg, 1977; Zeidner, 1995).The precursor to adult personality is temperamentbiologi-cal-based qualities such as emotionality, adaptability, socia-bility (Kagan, 1994). Temperament may impact on thegrowth and development of major facets of EI such as emo-tional reactivity and self-control (see Halberstadt, Denham,& Dunsmore, 2001). Research on early emotional develop-ment suggests that infants ability to decode emotions and torespond expressively to emotional signals has innate determi-nants and may be controlled by separate emotion perceptionand expression systems (Izard, 2001). In a prospective study,preschool emotion labeling predicted positive social behav-ior and academic competence 4 years later when the childrenwere in third grade (Izard et al., 2001).

Hence, emotional competencies may reflect developmen-tal changes as well as the effects of deliberate socializationpractices. Effective interventions might be facilitated byquantitative models, which aim to discriminate between thedifferent influences exerted on emotional development. Suchmodels would also tell us how correlations between parentsand childrens EI scores (if found empirically) derived fromcommon genes and the influence of the family environment.In fact, these models partition environmental variance intotwo components: (a) between-family variance and (b)within-family variance. Between-family variance refers toenvironmental influences associated with being reared in dif-ferent families, such as differences among families in affec-tive socialization practices, parental emotionalexpressiveness, reinforcement patterns, parentchild interac-tion, attachment processes, and the like. By contrast,within-family environmental influences may be attributableto different treatment of individuals reared in the same family(e.g., different emotional behaviors and expressiveness to-ward siblings reared together in the same family).

Carefully constructed behavioral genetic designs that ex-plicitly distinguish and model the effects of genes, environ-ment, and their interaction, using groups such as twins andadopted children, are required to resolve some of the morevexing issues surrounding EI. Unfortunately, to date, no re-search may be brought to bear on these issues. Nevertheless,


we note that, although genes may directly code for some as-pects of EI, heritability of EI does not imply that the individ-uals EI is fixed and insensitive to interventions. In addition,geneenvironment interaction may influence observed(phenotypic) EI: genes may influence which environmentsbest foster the development of EI in the child. Genes may alsoproduce indirect effects through affecting personsituationinteraction (cf. Stanford Aptitude Seminar, 2001). To demon-strate the notion of aptitude in person in situation, an inhibitedtemperament might lead to a reduced frequency of interactionwith other children, and hence to lack of opportunity for de-veloping emotional skills. The overly excitable infant mayinitiate overly punitive or controlling behaviors in the care-giver so that the childs biology influences the parentschild-rearing practices (Hock, 1992). In sum, research isneeded to differentiate the roles in acquisition of emotionalcompetencies of (a) environmental factors, including explicitsocialization practices, (b) developmental changes in temper-amental emotional response and cognitive capabilities, and(c) geneenvironment interaction.

Socialization Factors

EI proponents claim that parental socialization practices de-termine, in large part, the development of EI in children(Saarni, 1999, 2000; Salovey & Sluyter, 1997). What chil-dren purportedly learn from their parents in the familial con-text is their emotional knowledge base, as well as competencein emotion identification and regulation (Mayer & Salovey,1997). Family socialization has been theorized to impact di-rectly the childs social and emotional competency, as well asto work indirectly on socioemotional competence through thechilds understanding of emotions and acquisition of socialknowledge (see Garner, Jones, & Miner, 1994).

Parental socialization of emotional competencies is said tobe carried out both by parents acting directly on the child,mainly through the way parents regulate the childrens emo-tions (e.g., through explicit lessons or informal conversationsabout emotion regulation). Parental influences are alsoclaimed to act indirectly on the child (e.g., through the obser-vation and modeling of others emotional responses and com-petencies; Lewis & Saarni, 1985). The basic assumption hereis that a child whose parents display constructive EI-relatedbehavior in everyday life is most likely to initiate it as part ofhis or her own behavioral repertoire.

Given the rather tenuous empirical knowledge base relat-ing directly to the origins of EI as a multidimensional con-struct, drawing any definitive conclusions regarding specificfactors impacting EI development is difficult. A substantialbody of research exists, however, focusing on the socializa-tion of specific emotional competencies (e.g., emotion per-ception, emotional understanding, self-regulation), whichSaarni (1999), Denham (1998), and Matthews et al. (in press)have recently reviewed. Based on these reviews, several so-

cialization processes are reported to impact on thedevelopment of competencies. These may be summarized asfollows:

1. The quality of early attachment between child andcaregivers appears related to empathic concern as well asemotional regulation and dysregulation.

2. Parental expressiveness and sensitivity to childrensemotions (particularly in time of need) appears related toemotional understanding and competence, pro-social behav-ior, sympathy, style of responding to others negative affect,and coping with stress.

3. Child-rearing practices (e.g., authoritative vs. permis-sive; supportive vs. nonsupportive; autonomous vs. control-ling) appears related to the development of self-regulation,psychosocial competence, childrens emotional reactivity,coping, and social competence.

4. Open family discourse about emotions appears re-lated to the childs emotional awareness, social competence,sympathy, and emotion regulation abilities.

Summary

Notwithstanding the progress made in understanding the de-velopment of specific emotional and social competencies, westill do not know much about the origins of the multifacetedconstruct of EI. Broadly, a secure and emotionally open fam-ily environment supports the development of emotional com-petencies. However, current research allows us to make veryfew further substantiated generalizations about the determi-nants of childrens EI. We do not know whether good fam-ily environments influence competence via direct instruction,availability of positive role models, avoidance of harmfullevels of interpersonal conflict, or simply through affordingan environment that supports the childs self-directed explo-ration and acquisition of emotional knowledge. A majorproblem is the lack of clear criteria for expressions of EI; wecannot say, for example, whether children who interact wellwith their peers are emotionally intelligent or whether theypossess more specific social skills. Further systematic re-search is needed with regard to the direct contributions of spe-cific parental socialization practices on the parameters ofemotional competencies (expression, regulation, coping withstress, etc.).

The foregoing type of needed research is nicely exempli-fied in a study Xu and Corno (1998)conducted, which exam-ined the dynamics of homework and its potential to developself-responsibility in children. This study shows that every-day experiences with homework, as mediated by parents, pro-vide opportunities for children to learn organizational andself-regulatory skills that presumably enable them to copewith various difficulties associated with doing homework, in-cluding negative emotions such as anger and frustration. Theauthors make the case that homework is a particularly good


reference task for addressing the issue of socialization be-cause it is a task uniquely situated between home and school,evoking a good deal of emotion and involving instructionfrom both parents and teachers.

Little is known about the role of peers and other socializ-ing agents, as well as television and other mass media expo-sure, in the development of emotions and emotion regulation.Researchers recognize that teachers play an important role inthe childs emotional development through modeling emo-tional behaviors and through explicit instruction (Mayer &Salovey, 1997), but the role of the teacher in shaping EI in thechild requires more attention.

PROXIMAL DETERMINANTS OFEMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

This section reviews what we know about the education andschooling of EI. We begin by presenting an overview of thegrowth of school-based socioemotional intervention pro-grams. Most of the current programs hailed as EI interven-tions fall under the general rubric of social and emotionallearning (SEL) programsan umbrella term that provides acommon framework for programs with a wide array of speci-fied outcomes. It refers to the knowledge, skills, and compe-tencies that children acquire through social and emotional ed-ucation, instruction, activities, or promotion efforts. Giventhe difficulties defining EI (already discussed), we want tostress at the outset that no one program exists that exclusivelyaddresses the full gamut of emotional processes and skillssubsumed under the various conceptions of EI. In addition,many programs (e.g., social skills training) make no refer-ence to emotional development, but, may, in fact, improvesome aspects of emotional functioning. Consequently, wecannot currently review all such programs, choosing insteadto present illustrative examples of programs that focus espe-cially on emotion in conjunction with other types of function-ing whose relation to EI is debatable. Whether any such pro-gram is in fact directed toward EI depends on the way EI isinitially defined.

School-Based Intervention Programs

Increasingly, educators and psychologists understand thatchildrens emotional learning should be given serious consid-eration and promoted in schools (Elias et al., 1997). Elias etal. call social and emotional education the missingpiecethat part of the mission of the school that, althoughalways close to the thoughts of many teachers, somehoweluded them. The trend of bringing emotional literacy intoschools makes emotions and social life themselves key topicsfor learning and discussion, rather than treating these mostcompelling facets of a childs life as irrelevant intrusions.

The school setting is arguably one of the most importantcontexts for learning emotional skills and competencies(Mayer & Salovey, 1997). In the process of emotional learn-ing, the individual develops the aptitudes, skills, attitudes,and values necessary to acquire emotional competence. Emo-tional education may be provided through a variety of diverseefforts such as classroom instruction, extracurricular activi-ties, a supportive school climate, and the involvement of stu-dents, teachers, and parents in community activities. Undersuch a framework, Mayer and Geher (1996), for example, hy-pothesized that educating those who are low in emotionalcompetencies to improve their abilities to recognize, express,and regulate their feelings better may be possible. However,exactly how this is to be accomplished remains unspecified.

Curricular-based programs (reviewed, for example, byCohen, 1999a) purportedly educate children about the valueof emotional competencies. They also seek to foster the de-velopment of specific skills in these areas (e.g., recognition ofemotions in self and perception of emotions in others, copingskills, conflict-resolution skills). Importantly, they can alsobe integrated into whatever instructional unit is currently be-ing taught. Given that children can learn by observing and bymodeling real, as well as symbolic and representational, mod-els, curricular-based emotional learning comes naturally withmany of the liberal arts. For example, children can learn fromliterature how characters express and display their emotions,what makes the characters feel as they do, how the characterscope in response to their feelings, and how effective the vari-ous methods of coping employed are. This form of affectivelearning proceeds throughout the educational system, and asthe literary (or artistic) scenarios become more complex, sodoes emotional learning, seeking at this point to promote thedevelopment of social and emotional competencies.

However, the response of educators to the renewed aware-ness about the importance of emotional education has beenmixed (Elias et al., 1997). Emotion education is often viewedwith skepticism, as being outside the primary, academic man-date and scope of the schools. Indeed, many educators regardEI curricula and prevention programs as frills or disjointed,fleeting fads (cf. Zins, Elias, Greenberg, & Weissberg, 2000).Opponents of EI literacy programs in the classroom furtherargue that schools need to concentrate efforts on academicachievement because there is simply not enough time to ad-dress other topics, regardless of their merit. Indeed, one maywonder about the questionable nature of some hokey con-tent and the ultimate value in schools spending time on foster-ing emotional competencies and skills. Thus, the questionarises: Do EI programs make the best use of student time? Thelarger issue is not just whether these programs produce somemeasurable behavioral change, but whether the time spent onthem is the best use of time or whether it would be better spenton academics.

Having said this, we have seen an upsurge in interest in so-cial and emotional learning. One possible reason for this is theclaim that emotional competencies are of prime importance


for academicsuccess.Accordingly, someclaimthatEI isposi-tively related toacademicachievementandproductiveexperi-ence in the world (Elias et al., 1997). In fact, processes we hadconsidered as purely cognitive or intellectual may be basicallyphenomena in which the cognitive and emotional aspectswork synergistically (see Stanford Aptitude Seminar, 2001).Accordingly, EI programs purportedly buttress skills to listenor focus, to feel committed and responsible for work, to reinimpulses, and to cope with upsetting events (Goleman, 1995).Proponents of the EI construct have claimed that research hasrecently rediscovered what good teachers and parents haveknown all along. Knowledge about our self and others, as wellas the capacity to use this knowledge to solve problems adap-tively, provides an essential foundation for academic learning(Cohen, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c; Goleman, 1995).

As indicated by a substantial literature linking anxietyand emotional distress to poor academic achievement (seeZeidner, 1998, for review), poor regulation of aversiveemotions, particularly debilitating levels of evaluative anxi-ety, may directly impact student achievement. Thus, evalu-ation anxiety is frequently cited among the factors at play indetermining a wide array of unfavorable outcomes and con-tingencies, including poor cognitive performance, scholas-tic underachievement, psychological distress, and ill health.Indeed, many students have the ability to do well on exams,but perform poorly because of their debilitating levels ofanxiety. Consequently, test anxiety may limit educational orvocational development because test scores and grades to-day influence entrance to many educational or vocationaltraining programs. To the extent that anxiety affects perfor-mance in some substantial way, some examinees will per-form less well than their ability and achievement wouldotherwise allow.

Notwithstanding the potential importance of EI to intel-lectual attainment, several proponents of the EI construct(Aronson, 2000; Goleman, 1995) have made unsubstanti-ated (even quite fantastic) claims with respect to the predic-tive utility of EI in the academic domain. With respect tothe incremental validity of EI beyond IQ, the distinguishedpsychologist Aronson wrote: Studies have demonstratedthat emotional intelligence (EQ) and academic intelligenceare separate qualities, and that emotional intelligence is abetter predictor of success in school (p. 102). Yet Aronsonhas failed to provide evidence for the foregoing claim bycomparing the validity coefficients of IQ and EI in predict-ing academic performance (via appropriate statistical tests).In fact, few studies have tested for the incremental validityof EI when IQ is held statistically constant. Furthermore, al-though most SEL programs have not specifically designatedimprovement of school achievement as one of their primarygoals, Goleman has argued that current programs in fact doimprove childrens academic achievement scores andschool performance. However, we cannot find any empiri-cal evidence to support this claim (for a review seeMatthews et al., in press).

Current Programs

The idea that students emotional and social problems can beaddressed through school-based intervention programs be-came popular among educational reformers during the 1990s.A broad spectrum of SEL programs, implemented mainly inthe United States, designed to teach socioemotional compe-tencies in the school are now available, including social skillstraining, cognitivebehavioral modification, self-manage-ment, and multimodal programs (Topping, Holmes, &Bremner, 2000). Goldman (1995) largely spurred current in-terest in emotional learning, and Elias et al.s (1997) Pro-moting Social and Emotional Learning reinforced it. TheNueva School in Hillsborough, California, was the first tostart an emotional literacy program, and New Haven, Con-necticut, was the first city to implement such a program inpublic schools districtwide. Once established, the EI concepthas proven itself a catalyst to the thinking and planning for ed-ucators and policy makers. Thus, well in excess of 700 schooldistricts across the United States have expressed interest inimplementing the emotional literacy approach (Goleman,1995). The Collaborative for Social and Emotional Learningat the University of Illinois reports that today thousands ofU.S. schools are using more than 150 emotional literacy pro-grams. Programs seeking to inculcate emotional and socialcompetencies are known by myriad names, such as life-skillstraining, self-science, education for care, social awareness,social problem-solving, social competency, and resolvingconflicts creatively.

Most current programs reported in the literature are tar-geted at the general student population in the United States.Accordingly, they encompass a set of skills believed essentialfor the average U.S. classroom student (i.e., not only the childsuffering from emotional or social adjustment problems). Towhat degree these programs are appropriate for students inother national or cultural contexts, however, still remains un-clear. Also unclear is to what extent those students needingintervention the most (i.e., those characterized bymaladaptive emotional responses) would profit from conven-tional programs requiring them to share their emotions, butthat might overwhelm the emotionally oversensitive child.

Extensively surveying the myriad SEL intervention pro-grams (or emotion-based curricular materials) available onthe market today is beyond the scope of this article (for a re-cent survey of prevalent programs, see Cohen, 1999a, 1999b,1999c). In fact, given the meager specific EI content of theseprograms, doing so would make little sense. To illustrate thispoint, Table 1 briefly describes salient features (e.g., goals, EIcontent, evaluation results) underlying a sample of the mostpopular and frequently referenced of these so-called EI inter-vention programs (see Goleman, 1995, appendices DF).

As Table 1 shows, current intervention programs target awide array of behavioral objectives, including improving so-cial, communication, and life skills (problem-solving strate-gies, assertiveness training); modifying emotional regulation


TABLE 1Selected Socioemotional Learning Intervention Programs: Goals, Target Population, Emotional Intelligence Content, and Evaluation Results

Target Population Goals Emotional Intelligence Content Evaluation Results

Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies developers: Kusche and Greenberg (Greenberg, Kusche, Cook, & Quamma, 1995)Grades K12, with emphasis on younger

childrenTo improve childrens ability to understand, ex-

press, and regulate emotionsUnderstanding, discussing, expressing, and reg-

ulating negative emotions (e.g., anger)Program was effective for both low- and

high-risk special students in Grades 23 inimproving emotional fluency and the range ofvocabulary in discussing emotional experi-ences, in understanding of emotions, and effi-cacy beliefs regarding management of emo-tions and developmental aspects of someelements of emotions

To understand perspective of others Controling impulsesTo solve social problems Empathic understanding of others feelings

Resolving Conflicts Creatively Program(K12) developer: Lantieri (Aber, Jones, Brown, Chaudry, & Samples, 1998)Grades K12 To reduce youth violence by promoting con-

structive anger control and conflict resolutionskills

Identifying ones own negative feelings in con-flict situations

Program evaluation based on two waves of de-velopmental data (5,053 children from Grades26 from 11 New York elementary schools)

To improve intergroup relations Regulating anger in ones self Those receiving a high number of lessons had asignificantly slower growth in self-reportedhostile attributions and teacher-reported ag-gressive behavior, compared to children re-ceiving fewer lessons. More than 87% of theteachers said that RCCP was having a posi-tive impact on their students. About 92% ofthe students felt good about themselves, and64% of the teachers reported less physicalroles

To foster a caring and peaceful community oflearners

Taking the perspective of others and empathiz-ing with others feelings

Improving Social AwarenessSocial Problem Solving Projectdeveloper: Elias (Clabby & Elias 1999; Elias & Clabby, 1992; Elias, Gara, Ubriaco, Rothbaum, Clabby, & Schuyler, 1986)Grades K12, with emphasis on elementary

and middle school childrenTo improve problem-solving skills Students are taught skills in areas loosely over-

lapping with emotional intelligence, includ-ing: awareness of feelings; self-control, angerand stress management, emotion-focusedcoping, adaptability, and perspective taking

An initial evaluation of the Improving SocialAwareness Program showed that the programreduced the impact of typical middle schoolstressors (Elias & Clabby, 1992)

To enhance involvement Follow-up evaluation 6 years later documentedlong-term gains in childrens pro-social be-havior, sense of efficacy, and reduction in pa-thology and socially disordered behaviors(aggression, vandalism). Program participantsshowed higher levels of positive pro-socialbehavior and lower levels of antisocial andself-destructive behavior

(continued)223

224 TABLE 1 (Continued)Target Population Goals Emotional Intelligence Content Evaluation Results

To increase behavior and interpersonal effec-tiveness

Students are taught to recognize emotions inpictures and facial expressions related toemotions. Emotional lessons merge naturallyinto reading and writing, health, science, andsocial studies

Clabby & Elias (1999) reported follow-up eval-uation results for a program involving a com-parison of three cohorts of students who hadreceived social decision-making lessons in el-ementary school. Elias et al. (1991) reportedthat students who had received a 2-year socialdecision-making program in elementaryschools showed higher levels of positivepro-social behavior and lower levels of anti-social self-destructive and socially disorderedbehaviors when followed up in high school 4to 6 years later than did the control studentswho had not received this program

YaleNew Haven Social Competence Promotion Program developer: Weissberg (Shriver, Schwab-Stone, & DeFalco, 1999)Grades 58 To develop self-worth Feelings of awareness, emotion-focused coping,

and adaptability; self-management (e.g.,self-monitoring, self-control, and perspectivetaking)

The K12 curriculum was implemented gradu-ally over a 4-year period, thus enabling theschool district to learn from the implementa-tion. Rather informal surveys of the degree ofsatisfaction with the program were conductedamong teachers, parents, administrators, andstudents (Shriver, Schwab-Stone, & Defalco,1999)To foster socially skilled and positive rela-tionships with peers and adults

To engage in positive, self-protective practicesTo feel motivated to contribute responsibly and

ethically to peers, family, school, and com-munity

Oaklands Child Development Project developers: Schaps (Child Development Project Report, 1999)Grades K6, particularly high-risk children To build a caring and fair school community by

nurturing basic values and helping studentsbecome caring, fair, and responsible citizens

Empathy CDP was evaluated in three separate studies(Child Development Project Report, 1999).Study 1 followed children from Grades K4,with longer term assessments in 6th, 7th, and8th grades. Study 2 assessed two programsand two comparison schools. Study 3 as-sessed six districts in the United States. Re-sults point to the central importance of a car-ing school community for the development ofpersonal and social qualities (e.g., social com-petence, concern for others, conflict resolu-tion skills, sense of autonomy) and academicorientations (motivation, liking for school)and qualities that help students avoid the riskof problematic behaviors

Impulse control

Note. RCCP = Resolving Conflicts Creatively Program; CDP = Child Development Project.

and coping techniques; effective peer-relation training; foster-ing conflict-resolution and responsible decision-making skills;promoting health; preventing alcohol, tobacco, and illegal druguse; reducing violence; developing self-esteem; and enrichinglinguistic experiences. Furthermore, programs vary widelywith respect to their systematic coverage of the major EI com-ponents. Whereas some programs target relatively few ele-ments directly related to EI (e.g., Oakland Child DevelopmentProject), others (e.g., Promoting Alternative Thinking Strat-egies [PATHS]) cover a range of important components, pro-cesses, or both that are prevalent in EI models. For example, inthe former program, perspective taking, conflict-resolutionskills, coping with stress, awareness and regulation of emo-tions, and several other related concepts are all subject to inter-vention. The behavioral objectives prevalent EI programs mostfrequently targeted, as represented in Table 1, include: (a)problem solving; (b) awareness and understanding of emotionsin self and others; (c) impulse control; (d) emotion regulation;(e) coping with environmental stress and negative emotions;and (f) perspective taking and empathy.

EI components can be identified both by examining theprogram description and curricular materials. Objectives band d are perhaps the most central to EI, whereas the remain-der relate to some definitions of EI but not to others. For ex-ample, Goleman (1995) emphasizes impulse control,whereas Bar-On (1997) highlights coping. However, thesecomponents are not always specified as program objectives inthe program planning stage nor are they consistently assessedduring the program evaluation phase. Each of the programshas attracted disproportionate levels of systematic evalua-tionfor example, the YaleNew Haven Social CompetencePromotion Program appears to have proceeded relatively un-checked, whereas several studies have examined PATH.Moreover, some of the evaluation studies may be construedas one-time programs with no long-term follow-up, whereasothers have followed up after 5 years or more (Elias &Clabby, 1992).

Salovey et al. (2000) concluded that students and teacherstend to like these programs; they see them as helpful and im-pacting on social behavior, especially at school. However,few of the programs were specifically designed to serve asprimary prevention (or similar) interventions for promoting,developing, or fostering EI skills. Goleman (1995; appendi-ces DF) lists various programs said to promote EI, but themajority of these programs were designed for other purposes(e.g., promoting conflict-resolution skills, enhancing prob-lem-solving skills, reducing illegal drug use). Whereas vari-ous facets of EI (e.g., emotional perception and awareness,understanding, emotional regulation) are implicit in modelsdeveloped to promote emotional and social competencies,these facets have rarely been a central focus of preventive in-tervention. Thus, a violence-reduction or conflict-resolutionprogram may include a module focusing on anger expressionand management as a means to help participants control vio-lent behavior and reduce aggressive and offending behavior

without making this the focus of the program. A cursory ex-amination of Table 1 shows that, aside perhaps from thePATH program, none of the others specifically addresses allmajor facets of EI. In most cases, only one or two facets ofemotional competency are actually addressed per program.

Given this state of affairs, rather than attempting to drawany conclusions from existing interventions, providing spe-cific tailor-made guidelines for the construction, implemen-tation, and evaluation of EI programs that go beyond existingprograms for more general social development might makemore sense. Before proceeding, however, we discuss severalcritical issues that require attention before progressing to-ward the construction and implementation phases.

Critical Issues

One cardinal issue is whether some generalized construct ofEI that can be augmented over its component processes actu-ally exists. If not, developing targeted EI programs designedto enhance and develop EI as a general emotional compe-tency seems pointless. Furthermore, if no general EI con-struct exists, then emotional competence needs to be treatedmultidimensionally, suggesting that the focus should be ondesigning programs that develop multiple constituent com-ponents of emotional competence (e.g., emotional percep-tion, awareness, management). Additionally, competenciesand skills might require to be developed within specific set-tings (e.g., emotional perception during situations evokinganger, grief, and guilt). Procedural skills (i.e., those skills thatare implicit and unconscious) tend to be situation specificrather than general. Thus, a more focused approach might beto promote whatever specific skills are most relevant for aparticular target population dealing with some specific issue(e.g., anger management during sports for adolescent girls).To what extent we actually need to develop EI as a generalconstruct or instead focus on the development of specificemotional competencies or skills is still unclear.

Moreover, assuming we can identify a coherent EI con-struct (or set of constructs) that we want to cultivate in theschools, the ultimate aim of EI development requires clarifi-cation. Is the aim to bring the emotionally illiterate up tosome acceptable norm of emotional behavior? Assuming thisproposition is correct, would focusing on the specific deficitsof individuals rather than enhancing EI in general not be moreproductive? Or is the aim to raise a generation of emotionalprodigies? Furthermore, if we assume that EI is multidimen-sional, students may have specific EI profiles with particularstrengths and weaknesses. Should educators focus onstrengthening weak points in the students emotional profileor further enhancing strengths?

A related issue is whether EI shows transferability, whichis central to establishing EI as something distinct from ac-quired socioemotional skills (Matthews & Zeidner, 2000).Will EI skills show transfer and generalizability across con-


texts? That is, if we attempt to develop EI in one context (saythe school), will this skill necessarily transfer to other con-texts (e.g., family, peer relationships)? Correspondingly, ifone emotional skill (e.g., expression of emotions) is taught,are corresponding improvements in other emotional skills(e.g., understanding of emotions) likely? Clearly, acquiringemotional skills does not ensure socially or emotionally intel-ligent behavior. Thus, perception of sadness in others doesnot ensure empathic behavior toward another in social situa-tions. Furthermore, instruction in social skills and behaviorsshould not be taken as a panacea for school problems such asclassroom aggression. For example, the more Machiavellianchild most likely knows when breaking the rules is personallyadvantageous. Children with high social intelligence but lowempathy appear more likely to use aggression instrumentally(Bjrkqvist, sterman, & Kaukiainen, 2000), and bulliesmay hold positive perceptions of their social acceptance (Da-vid & Kirstner, 2000). EI programs might even help thesechildren to manipulate others!

GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT,IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION

OF EI INTERVENTION PROGRAMS

Assuming we can address the foregoing issues adequately,the next step is developing specific EI intervention programs.Most current SEL programs are too broadly defined for theirexploration to shed light on EI, and their specific EI content ismeager at best (whatever their value in other respects).Hence, the issue is whether educators should aim to developprograms that are distinctive from current practice in focus-ing primarily on EI, rather than on specific social skills, stressmanagement, or acquisition of specific behaviors. Thus, wenow offer several targeted guidelines for the developmentand assessment of tailor-made EI programs of this kind.

Developing and implementing EI programs in the schoolsrest on several basic assumptions. First, we assumed thatschools can and should promote components of EI in a sus-tained manner throughout the school years. We further as-sumed that sustained effort to enhance childrens emotionaldevelopment can help students adapt better to the constraints,pressures, and affordances of their environment. Further-more, we assumed that developing emotional skills is a com-prehensive process involving a total collaborative effortamong students, teacher, administrators, and community.Finally, we assumed that implementing any substantivechange in schools needs to include all or most of the signifi-cant members of the childrens home and environment.

Base EI Intervention Programs on a SolidConceptual Framework

EI intervention programs should be based on a solid theoreti-cal framework, permitting a clear definition of EI and a coher-

ent rationale for program objectives and methods for achiev-ing them (Elias et al., 1997; Zins, Travis, & Freppan, 1997). Awide array of models, ranging from behavior change andlearning theories to those specific to theories of EI, may po-tentially serve as guides in identifying aptitudes and under-standing the processes and factors involved in developing ef-fective intervention strategies. Settling on a valid definitionof EI and identifying critical EI aptitudes is the first step in theprocess. Clearly, different conceptualizations of EI wouldlead to different intervention programs and techniques, vary-ing operational measures, and perhaps different evaluationoutcomes as well.

At this stage, we recommend that the program be explicitlybased on one of several alternative conceptualizations previ-ously described. An ability-based conceptualization, such asthat that Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey (1999), or Matthews andZeidner (2000) suggested, would support training of specificcompetencies such as emotion perception, use of emotion lan-guage,andregulationofaffect.Amixedconception, includ-ing elements of personality, might train the person in qualitiessuchassocial skills, impulsecontrol, andadaptivecopingwithstressful encounters in the school and family. A more dy-namic, ecological conception (cf. Stanford Aptitude Semi-nar, 2001) might focus additionally on whether the schoolenvironment promotes effective emotional learning and theprocesses supporting effective personsituation interaction.By contrast, programs based on intuitive, idiosyncratic, oroverinclusive accounts of EI are unlikely to succeed.

Carefully Specify Program Goals andBehavioral Outcomes

The next challenge is to determine the specific program goalsfor the target population under consideration (Zins et al.,2000). Program goals should be targeted at strengtheningthose key components of EI targeted on the basis of the con-ceptual framework underpinning the program. Once the EIuniverse of discourse is clearly defined, developing opera-tional program objectives (and procedures to achieve theseobjectives) should be fairly straightforward. Program materi-als and procedures could be justified if they were targeted atthe specific components subsumed under the EI construct andvalid and appropriate measures were developed to assessthese specific components. Thus, program developers shouldstate the desired outcomes of the EI training program in termsof the specific skills to be learned (e.g., The sixth-grade stu-dent will be able to label 6 positive and 6 negative emotionsafter the 4th session of the EI training program).

Identify the Educational, Sociocultural, andDevelopmental Context for ProgramImplementation

The specific educational and sociocultural contexts in whichEI programs will be implemented needs to be identified and


defined from the outset (Zins et al., 2000), otherwise effortsmay be directed at the wrong targets or sociocultural contextsand may consequently prove to be inappropriate and unsuc-cessful. Relevant constituencies that need to be identified oninception include student age and cultural group, school mi-lieu and culture, teacher and administrative staff characteris-tics, and the broader community. EI programs should strive tofoster appreciation of diversity and respect for the demands ofgrowing up in a pluralistic society. They should be sensitive,relevant, and responsive with regard to the ethnic, gender, andsocioeconomic composition of students. These programsshould also consider the various needs and demands placedon the faculty and staff delivering the instruction and services(Elias et al., 1997).

Furthermore, instructional methods and program contentshould be developmentally appropriate for the ages (and thegrades) at which the program is being delivered (see e.g.,Shriver, Schwab-Stone, & DeFalco, 1999). Thus, EI pro-grams should be based on developmentally appropriate, se-quential preschool to high school classroom instruction(Cohen, 1999a). Such an EI program would adopt a develop-mental focus that is attentive to age-related issues and ensurecontinued intervention across developmental periods. For ex-ample, a program designed to improve students skills inidentifying, expressing, or understanding emotional statesshould be structured according to a developmental hierar-chybeginning with basic emotions (e.g., happy, sad, angry)and proceeding to more complex emotional states (e.g., jeal-ous, guilty, proud).

Fully Integrate EI Programs Into the SchoolEducational and Instructional Curriculum

Optimally EI programs should not be taught as add ons to theregular curriculum, but they should be fully integrated intothe overall school academic program (Elias et al., 1997;Salovey et al., 1999). Accordingly, an emerging strategy inemotional education is not to create a special class for teach-ing emotional skills, but rather to complement regular aca-demic subjects by blending lessons on emotions with othertopics (e.g., arts, health, science). Thus, students can learnabout how to harness emotions in gym; how to handle stress,anxiety, or frustration in math class; and how to empathizewith anothers plight when reading powerful literature(Salovey et al., 1999). In fact, one would not expect lastingchanges to happen unless the programs principles becomepart of the entire schools culture (Patti & Lantieri, 1999).

Furthermore, effective EI programs should be an essen-tial ongoing part of childrens education over the course oftheir schooling. Thus, plans should be made to provide theintervention over multiple years (Zins et al., 1997); the on-going process provides repeated opportunities for studentsto discover more about themselves and further develop

these competencies as they themselves develop (Cohen,1999a, 1999b, 1999c).

Make Provisions for Practice and forGeneralizing the Domain of EmotionalSkills Across Different Classes ofBehavioral Performance

Social skills may not be applied automatically to every socialtask and situation encountered. Thus, to produce meaningfuleffects on specific target behaviors, including opportunitiesfor students to practice emotional skills in specific and mean-ingful emotion-laden contexts appears necessary. Conse-quently, special efforts should be made to promote general-ization of EI skills acquired in the classroom to nonclassroomcontexts. One way of doing this is to provide students withample opportunities to practice emotional competencies bothwithin and outside the classroom context. Thus, the curricu-lum should include strategies to facilitate generalizationsacross settings, individuals, and academic subjects. In this re-spect, the cultivation of emotional competencies is similar tothe cultivation of cognitive skills: practicing what is learnedas well as obtaining environmental feedback on ones perfor-mance is absolutely essential.

Ensure Professional Development ofProgram Personnel

Preparing teachers and other staff involved in EI programsadequately so that they can fulfill their professional role inimplementing EI interventions is essential. Because nothingin the standard curriculum prepares teachers for this type ofaffective experience, many teachers are often reluctant totackle a topic that seems so foreign to their training, routines,and emotional abilities. Therefore, plans must be made toprovide the staff that will deliver or supervise the programwith sufficient knowledge, skills, and expertise. Thus, profes-sional development programs are essential to train teachersbefore and during program implementation, including peri-odic on-site consultations for the program staff.

Use Robust Experimental,Psychometrically Sound Designs forAssessing Program Effectiveness

Wherever feasible, future research should employ true exper-imental designs in which experimental units (classrooms orstudents) are randomly assigned to experimental or controlgroups, thereby ensuring the initial equivalence of experi-mental and control groups. The large majority of SEL inter-vention programs implemented and assessed to date have em-ployed quasi-experimental designs with intact classrooms


serving as experimental units. This is particularly problem-atic given that obtaining pretest scores before the implemen-tation of the intervention is frequently not possible.

EI programs need to have mechanisms in place to ensurehigh-quality program monitoring and implementation (Zinset al., 2000). Ensuring that EI programs are delivered asplanned and measuring the quality of implementation is cru-cial. Unless these aspects are evaluated, assessing programoutcomes and replicating effect is difficult. FollowingGreenberg, Kusche, Cook, & Quamma (1995), assessing whoparticipated in the EI training and instruction of students anddetermining what dose (frequency and duration) of trainingwas provided to implementers, the context of training, themechanisms in place to determine that program implementa-tion was conducted as planned, the technical support pro-vided, the quality of the intervention, and student affectiveresponses to the program are important. Furthermore, to ob-tain evidence that progress is being made, the program shouldbe periodically monitored using multiple indicators (e.g., ob-servations, interviews with teachers and students, feedbackinventories). Structured classroom observations should bemade periodically, as well as visits to both program and com-parison schools.

To assess program outcomes using reliable and validatedmeasures of EI and its components is critical, rather than em-ploying generic measures of emotional and social skills. Notethat most current EI measures have been developed for adultpopulations with few current measures specifically designedfor school-aged populations (one notable exception isBar-Ons downscaled EQ-i measure for youth). Conse-quently, we see an urgent need to develop appropriate mea-sures to assess the impact of EI for school-aged children andyouth. Unfortunately, as we have discussed, significant prob-lems exist in assessing EI so that we cannot be sure that differ-ent measures of EI are assessing the same underlyingconstruct. The personal attribute that is the target of measure-ment efforts is hazily defined, largely in terms of everyday,implicit, qualities rather than constructs explicitly derivedfrom psychological theory. Distinguishing EI from intelli-gence, personality, and emotion itself also presents seriousconceptual and empirical problems. Developing a reliableand valid measure of EI for tracking school-basedinterventional programs is necessary but not sufficient. In thelonger term, the more finely tuned, process-oriented ap-proach advocated by the Stanford Aptitude Seminar (2001)must supplement the assessment of generalized emotionalcompetence.

To develop preventive models that apply to multiplegroups (students of diverse ethnicity and cultural groups), weneed to evaluate the aptitude by treatment interactions toevaluate which interventions are successful with particulargroups. Future evaluations might consider testing for aptitudeby treatment and the field may soon be ready for a meta-anal-ysis with students characteristics as blocking variables. In-vestigation of aptitude treatment interactions (ATIs) is also

compatible with dynamic transactional accounts of class-room learning (see Stanford Aptitude Seminar, 2001).

CONCLUSION

Our review of the intervention literature suggests that rela-tively few programs can be considered EI intervention pro-grams. Indeed, when examining programs touted as EI inter-vention programs, one is surprised and puzzled by thesparseness of the emotional content of these programs. Often,in cases in which elements of EI have appeared in the pro-grams goal statement, measures of the key components of EIwere not used in assessing mediator or outcome variables.Furthermore, among those emotional literacy programs thathave been assessed, most suffer from serious methodologicalflaws (inadequate controls, threats to internal validity, poormeasures, assessment of short-term impact alone, etc.). Al-though an increasing number of programs are being evaluatedformally, many still have not been subjected to systematicempirical scrutiny. Researchers have also not demonstratedthat interventions focusing on the core constructs of EI, suchas emotional awareness, are more successful than those basedon other principles, such as behavior modification.

One possible reason for this is that most current programswere not designed initially as EI intervention programs, butwere designed for other purposes (e.g., social skills or an-ger-control programs, health education, drug abuse preven-tion, or delinquency prevention programs). Myriad programsseeking to inculcate emotional and social competencies(life-skills training, self-science, education for care, socialawareness, socialproblemsolving, socialcompetency,andre-solving conflicts creatively) predate the concept of EI. Propo-nents of EI intervention have vested these existing programswith a minimal dosage of EI content and have enthusiasticallyembraced them as their own. Currently, little research showswhether programs touted as EI interventions are actually ef-fective in enhancing the kinds of skills included in currentmodels of EI. Thus, putting aside claims that EI skills can becultivated and improved in the classrooms, the contributionsof the numerous existing programs touted as EI interventionsare modest. Where evaluation is possible, outcomes tend to bemixed or moderate (see Topping et al., 2000).

Clearly, several guidelines presented herein for the devel-opment of EI programs are universal and generic, rather thantargeted and specific, and seem to be important for any suc-cessful intervention. In fact, the entire history of innovation ineducation appears to follow the pattern of program and evalu-ation problems. The ATIs literature makes clear that pro-grams tend to be useful to some of the students some of thetime, and this seems to be the guiding principle in evaluation.In actuality, we know very little about the effects ofschool-based teaching and promotion of EI skills, and we stillneed to determine to what extent EI programs meaningfullymodify EI skills.


How the contribution of EI could be other than limited,given that we know so little about the development and deter-minants of EI, is difficult to determine (Matthews et al, inpress). No published behavioral genetic studies using con-ventional measures of EI to tease apart biology from environ-ment exist. Also, we know little about the socialization of EIaside from research on separate competencies (emotionalawareness and understanding, empathy, emotion regulation).Research is needed to allow us to make substantiated state-ments on the environmental and genetic determinants of EI.In contrast to the vast body of developmental literature ongeneral intelligence, empirical research on the developmentof EI is scant indeed. Furthermore, little consensus exists onhow to conceptualize and measure EI and little objective evi-dence exists attesting to the useful role of EI as a predictor ofschool success and adjustment in addition to that predicted byintelligence and personality factors.

Even staunch advocates agree that we will only be able tospeak to the optimistic claims about EI after they have beensubjected to rigorous controlled evaluation (Salovey et al.,1999). Although in principle, efficient ways may be found toeducate thosewhoare lowinEI,wecurrentlydonotknowhowthis is to be accomplished. Moreover, little empirical evidencegenerated by current studies would recommend particular in-tervention strategies. In sum, despite current theorizing aboutEI programs, we really do not know that much about how theywork or, indeed, whether they work at all.

Overall, despite the problems in the conceptualization,measurement, and validation of the EI construct, the EI con-cept has proven itself a catalyst to the thinking and planningof educators and policy makers with respect to training socialand emotional skills in the schools. Proponents of EI havesupported and added impetus to the trend of bringing emo-tional literacy into schools and making emotions and sociallife themselves key topics for learning and discussion. EI re-search has recognized the potential for using the school set-ting as one of the most important contexts for learning andteaching of emotional skills and competencies. The schooland community may be used as a means of training emotionalcompetencies for real life and fostering the development ofspecific skills in these areas (e.g., recognition of emotions inself and others, empathy, conflict resolution). In general, EIresearch has been consistent with a rising tide of understand-ing among educators that childrens emotional learning is notoutside the mandate of the school and, indeed, should begiven serious consideration and promoted in schools.

Given the present state-of-the-art research and empiricalknowledge, the benefits of EI appear to reside largely in rais-ing awareness of emotional issues and motivating educatorsand managers to take emotional issues seriously. A growingrealization acknowledges that the psychological processesconsidered to be purely cognitive or intellectual, in fact, de-pend on a synergy between cognition and emotion (or,strictly, between different modes of cognition; see StanfordAptitude Seminar, 2001). Consequently, developing pro-

grams for improving emotional skills in the classroom andworkplace is increasingly seen as legitimate. Whether theseprograms are actually fostering EI competencies, variousskills are most likely learned during participation in theseprograms. These potentially useful skills include labeling anddescribing emotions and enriching linguistic experiences; ap-praising basic emotions in oneself and others; managing emo-tions; managing conflict; understanding the perspective ofothers; honing verbal communication skills and deci-sion-making and problem-solving techniques; cultivating apositive outlook toward life; engaging in assertiveness train-ing and effective peer-relation training; promoting health;preventing alcohol, tobacco, and drug use; reducing violence;and developing positive self-esteem. We suspect that suchskills are typically specific to the life issue concerned withoutbuilding any general set of competencies or contributing tosolving other problems, but future research may show other-wise. Currently, EI serves, among other things, as a cheer-leader, helping to win support for potentially (although notalways actually) useful interventions focused on a heteroge-neous collection of emotional, cognitive, and behavioralskills.

In conclusion, although we have no definitive decisionwith regard to the successful schooling of EI, dismissing thepotential value and importance of school-based EI interven-tions might be premature. We await systematic program plan-ning and evaluation studies, based on the suggestedguidelines offered herein, to inform us whether EI can be ef-fectively schooled.

REFERENCES

Aber, J. L., Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., Chaudry, N., & Samples, F. (1998).Resolving conflict creatively: Evaluating the developmental effectsof a school-based violence prevention program in neighborhood andclassroom context. Development and Psychopathology, 10,187213.

Aronson, E. (2000). Nobody left to hate: Teaching compassion after Colum-bine. New York: Worth.

Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Intelligence Inventory (EQ-I): TechnicalManual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from theEmotional Quotient Inventory. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.),The handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 363388). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Boyatzis, R., Goleman, D., & Rhee, K. (2000). Clustering competence inemotional intelligence: Insights from the emotional competence inven-tory. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotionalintelligence (pp. 343362). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bjrkqvist, K., sterman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (2000). Social intelli-genceempathy = aggression?: Erratum. Aggression & Violent Be-havior, 5, 429.

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analyticstudies. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ciarrochi, J., Chan, A., Caputi, P., & Roberts, R. D. (2001). Assessing emo-tional intelligence (EI): A critical evaluation. In J. Ciarrochi, J. Forgas,& J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Emotional intelligence in everyday life: A scien-tific inquiry (pp. 2545). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.


Child Development Project Report (1999). Developmental Studies Center,Oakland, CA. Unpublished report.

Clabby, J., & Elias, M. (1999). Social decision making/problem solving pro-gram. Unpublished research report.

Cohen, J. (Ed.). (1999a). Educating minds and hearts: Social emotionallearning and the passage into adolescence. New York: Teachers Col-lege Press.

Cohen, J. (1999b). Learning about social and emotional learning: Currentthemes and future directions. In J. Cohen (Ed.), Educating minds andhearts: Social emotional learning and the passage into adolescence(pp. 184191). New York: Teachers College Press.

Cohen, J. (1999c). Social and emotional learning: Past and present. In J. Co-hen (Ed.), Educating minds and hearts: Social emotional learning andthe passage into adolescence (pp. 323). New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PIR Professional Manual.Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

David, C. F., & Kistner, J. A. (2000). Do positive self-perceptions have adark side? Examination of the link between perceptual bias and ag-gression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 327337.

Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: Insearch of an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 75, 9891015.

Dawda, D., & Hart, S. D. (2000). Assessing emotional intelligence: Reliabil-ity and validity of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) inuniversity students. Personality and Individual Differences, 28,797812.

Denham, S. A. (1998). Emotional development in young children. NewYork: Guilford.

Elias, M. J., & Clabby, J. (1992). Building social problem solving skills:Guidelines from a school-based program. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Elias, M. J., Gara, M. A., Schuyler, T. F., Branden-Muller, L. R., & Sayette,M. A. (1991). The promotion of social competence: Longitudinal studyof a preventive school-based program. American Journal ofOrthopsychiatry, 61, 409417.

Elias, M. J., Gara, M. A., Ubriaco, M., Rothbaum, P. A., Clabby, J. F., &Schuyler, T. (1986). Impact of a preventive social problem solving in-tervention on childrens coping with middle-school stressors. AmericanJournal of Community Psychology, 14, 259275.

Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T.,Haynes, N. M., Kessler, R., Schwab-Stone, M. E., & Shriver, T. P.(1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for edu-cators. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.

Ford, M. E., & Tisak, M. (1983). A further search for social intelligence.Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 196206.

Garner, P. W., Jones, D. C., & Miner, J. L. (1994). Social competence amonglow-income preschoolers: Emotion socialization practices and socialcognitive correlates. Child Development, 65, 622637.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.Goleman, D. (2001). An EI-based theory of performance. In C. Cherniss & D.

Goleman (Eds.), The emotionally intelligent workplace: How to selectfor, measure, and improve emotional intelligence in individuals, groups,and organizations (Chap. 3, pp. 2744). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Greenberg, M. T., Kusche, C. A., Cook, E. T., & Quamma, J. P. (1995). Pro-moting emotional competence in school-aged children: The effects of thePATHS curriculum. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 117136.

Guttman, L., & Levy, S. (1991). Two structural laws for intelligence tests. In-telligence, 15, 79103.

Halberstadt, A. G., Denham, S. A., & Dunsmore, J. C. (2001). Affective so-cial competence. Social Development, 10, 79119

Hock, M. (1992). Exchange of aversive communicative acts between motherand child as related to perceived child-rearing practices and anxiety ofthe child. In K. A. Hagtvet & B. T. Johnsen (Eds.), Advances in test anxi-ety research (Vol. 7, pp. 156174). Lisse, Amsterdam, Holland: Swetsand Zeitlinger.

Izard, C. (2001). Emotional intelligence or adaptive emotions? Emotion, 1,249257.

Izard, C., Fine, S. E., Schultz, D., Mostow, A. J., Ackerman, B. P., &Youngstrom, E. A. (2001). Emotion knowledge as a predictor of socialbehavior and academic competence in children at risk. PsychologicalScience, 12, 1823.

Kagan, J. (1994). Galens prophecy. New York: Basic.Keating, D. P. (1978). A search for social intelligence. Journal of Educa-

tional Psychology, 70, 218223.Kihlstrom, J. F., & Cantor, N. (2000). Social intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg

(Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp.359379). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Lantieri, L., & Patti, J. (1996). Waging peace in our schools. Boston: Beacon.Lewis, M., & Saarni, C. (Eds.). (1985). The socialization of emotions. New

York: Plenum.Mabe, P. A., & West, S. G. (1982). Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A re-

view and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 280296.Matthews, G., & Deary, I. J. (1998). Personality traits. New York: Cam-

bridge University Press.Matthews, G., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Emotional intelligence, adaptation to

stressful encounters, and health outcomes. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A.Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 459489). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (in press). Emotional intelli-gence: Science and myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligencemeets traditional standards for intelligence. Intelligence, 27,267298.

Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2000). Selecting a measure ofemotional intelligence: The case of ability scales. In R. Bar-On & J. D.A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence (pp.320342). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mayer, J. D., & Geher, G. (1996). Emotional intelligence and the identifica-tion of emotion. Intelligence, 22, 89113.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelli-gence. Intelligence, 17, 433442.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P.Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotionalintelligence: Educational implications (pp. 331). New York: Basic.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000a). Emotional intelligence asZeitgeist, as personality, and as a mental ability. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A.Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000b). Competing modelsof emotional intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook ofhuman intelligence (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2001). Emotionalintelligence as a standard intelligence. Emotion, 1, 232242.

McCrae, R. R. (2000). Emotional intelligence from the perspective of theFive-Factor Model of Personality. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker(Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 263276). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Paulhus, D. L., Lysy, D. C., & Yik, M. S. M. (1998). Self-report measu

Documents

Can Emotional Intelligence Be Schooled Qm a Critical Review