Emotional Intelligence (EI/EQ)

Name : M.Saad Siddiqui Roll No: 06-0110 Section: X

1

Date: 20th November 2008

Contents

Introduction...................................................................................................5 Background....................................................................................................6 Defining Emotional Intelligence (EI).................................................................7 1. The ability-based model..............................................................................7 Measurement of the ability-based model..........................................................8 2. Mixed models of EI.....................................................................................9 (i) The Emotional Competencies (Goleman) model............................................9 Measurement of the Emotional Competencies (Goleman) model........................10 (ii) The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI)..............................10 Measurement of the ESI Model........................................................................10 3. The Trait EI model......................................................................................11 Measurement of the Trait EI model..................................................................12 Conclusion.....................................................................................................14 Further Research............................................................................................15 References.....................................................................................................152

Bibliography...................................................................................................15

AcknowledgementsThanks to my colleagues at FAST University for giving ideas and offering valuable advice. And thanks to Miss. Sultana, teacher of psychology, for advice and help in getting started on the report. M.Saad Siddiqui S110.06

3

AbstractIt is useful and interesting to consider how important it is for effective performance at work. There is a considerable body of research suggesting that a persons ability to perceive, identify and manage emotion provides the basis for the kinds of social and emotional competencies that are important for success in almost any job. Furthermore, as the pace of change increases and the world of work make ever greater demands on a persons cognitive, emotional, and physical resources, this particular set of abilities will become increasingly important.

4

IntroductionIt turns out that a scientist can see the future by watching four-yearolds interact with a flower. The researcher invites the children, one by one, into a plain room and begins the gentle torment. You can have this flower right now, he says. But if you wait while I run an errand, you can have two flowers when I get back. And then he leaves. Some children grab for the treat the minute he's out the door. Some last a few minutes before they give in. But others are determined to wait. They cover their eyes, they put their heads down, they sing to themselves, they try to play games or even fall asleep. When the researcher returns, he gives these children their hard-earned flowers. And then, science waits for them to grow up. By the time the children reach high school, something remarkable has happened. A survey of the children's parents and teachers found that those who as four-year-olds had the fortitude to hold out for the second flower generally grew up to be better adjusted, more popular, adventurous, confident and dependable teenagers. The children who gave in to temptation early on were more likely to be lonely, easily frustrated and stubborn. They buckled under stress and shied away from challenges. When we think of brilliance we see Einstein, deep-eyed, woolly haired, a thinking machine with skin and mismatched socks. High achievers, we imagine, were wired for greatness from birth. But then you have to wonder why, over time, natural talent seems to ignite in some people and dim in others. This is where the marshmallows come in. It seems that the ability to delay gratification is a master skill, a triumph of the reasoning brain over the impulsive one. It is a sign, in short of emotional intelligence. And it doesn't show up on an IQ test.

5

For most of this century, scientists have worshipped the hardware of the brain and the software of the mind; the messy powers of the heart were left to the poets. But cognitive theory could simply not explain the questions we wonder about most: why some people just seem to have a gift for living well; why the smartest kid in the class will probably not end up the richest; why we like some people virtually on sight and distrust others; why some people remain buoyant in the face of troubles that would sink a less resilient soul. What qualities of the mind or spirit, in short determine who succeeds? Emotional Intelligence (EI) often measured as an Emotional Intelligence Quotient (EQ) describes ability, capacity, skill or a self-perceived ability, to identify, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups. It is a relatively new area of psychological research and its definition is constantly changing.

BackgroundThe most distant roots of Emotional intelligence can be traced back to Darwins early work on the importance of emotional expression for survival and second adaptation. In the 1900s, even though traditional definitions of intelligence emphasized cognitive aspects such as memory and problemsolving, several influential researchers in the intelligence field of study had begun to recognize the importance of the non-cognitive aspects. For instance, as early as 1920, E. L. Thorndike used the term social intelligence to describe the skill of understanding and managing other people. Similarly, in 1940 David Wechsler described the influence of nonintellective factors on intelligent behaviour, and further argued that our models of intelligence would not be complete until we can adequately describe these factors. In 1983, Howard Gardner's Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences introduced the idea of Multiple Intelligences which included both Interpersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people) and Intrapersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one's feelings, fears and motivations). In Gardner's view, traditional types of intelligence, such as IQ, fail to fully explain cognitive ability. Thus, even though the names given to the concept varied, there was a common belief that traditional definitions of intelligence are lacking in ability to fully explain performance outcomes.

6

The first use of the term "Emotional Intelligence" is usually attributed to Wayne Payne's doctoral thesis, A study of emotion: Developing emotional intelligence from 1985. However, prior to this, the term "emotional intelligence" had appeared in Leuner (1966). Greenspan (1989) also put forward an EI model, followed by Salovey and Mayer (1990) and Goleman (1995). As a result of the growing acknowledgement of professionals for the importance and relevance of emotions to work outcomes, the research on the topic continued to gain momentum, but it wasnt until the publication of Daniel Goleman's best seller Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ that the term became widely popularized. Nancy Gibbs' 1995 Time magazine article highlighted Goleman's book and was the first in a string of mainstream media interest in EI. Thereafter, articles on EI began to appear with increasing frequency across a wide range of academic and popular outlets.

Defining Emotional Intelligence (EI)There are a lot of arguments about the definition of EI. One attempt toward a definition was made by Peter Salovey and John D. Mayer (1990) who defined EI as 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. Despite this early definition, there has been confusion regarding the exact meaning of this construct. The definitions are so varied, and the field is growing so rapidly, that researchers are constantly amending even their own definitions of the construct. Up to the present day, there are three main models of EI: 1.Ability-based EI models 2.Mixed models of EI 3.Trait EI model 1. The ability-based model

7

Salovey and Mayer's conception of EI strives to define EI within the confines of the standard criteria for a new intelligence. Following their continuing research, their initial definition of EI was revised to: "The ability to perceive emotion, integrate emotion to facilitate thought, understand emotions and to regulate emotions to promote personal growth." The ability based model views emotions as useful sources of information that help one to make sense of and navigate the social environment. The model proposes that individuals vary in their ability to process information of an emotional nature and in their ability to relate emotional processing to a wider cognition. This ability is seen to manifest itself in certain adaptive behaviours. The model proposes that EI includes 4 types of abilities:1.Perceiving emotions the ability to detect and decipher emotions

in faces, pictures, voices, and cultural artefacts- including the ability to identify ones own emotions. Perceiving emotions represents a basic aspect of emotional intelligence, as it makes all other processing of emotional information possible.2.Using emotions the ability to harness emotions to facilitate

various cognitive activities, such as thinking and problem solving. The emotionally intelligent person can capitalize fully upon his or her changing moods in order to best fit the task at hand. 3.Understanding emotions the ability to comprehend emotion language and to appreciate complicated relationships among emotions. For example, understanding emotions encompasses the ability to be sensitive to slight variations between emotions, and the ability to recognize and describe how emotions evolve over time.4.Managing emotions the ability to regulate emotions in both

ourselves and in others. Therefore, the emotionally intelligent person can harness emotions, even negative ones, and manage them to achieve intended goals.

8

Measurement of the ability-based model Different models of EI have led to the development of various instruments for the assessment of the construct. While some of these measures may overlap, most researchers agree that they tap slightly different constructs. The current measure of Mayer and Saloveys model of EI, the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) is based on a series of emotion-based problem-solving items. Consistent with the model's claim of EI as a type of intelligence, the test is modeled on abilitybased IQ tests. By testing a persons abilities on each of the four branches of emotional intelligence, it generates scores for each of the branches as well as a total score. Central to the four-branch model is the idea that EI requires atonement to social norms. Therefore, the MSCEIT is scored in a consensus fashion, with higher scores indicating higher overlap between an individuals answers and those provided by a worldwide sample of respondents. The MSCEIT can also be expert-scored, so that the amount of overlap is calculated between an individuals answers and those provided by a group of 21 emotion researchers.

9

Although promoted as an ability test, the MSCEIT is most unlike standard IQ tests in that its items do not have objectively correct responses. Among other problems, the consensus scoring criterion means that it is impossible to create items (questions) that only a minority of respondents can solve, because, by definition, responses are deemed emotionally 'intelligent' only if the majority of the sample has endorsed them. This and other similar problems have led cognitive ability experts to question the definition of EI as a genuine intelligence. 2. Mixed models of EI (i) The Emotional Competencies (Goleman) model The model introduced by Daniel Goleman focuses on EI as a wide array of competencies and skills that drive leadership performance. Goleman's model outlines four main EI constructs:1.Self-awareness the ability to read one's emotions and recognize

their impact while using gut feelings to guide decisions.2.Self-management

involves controlling one's emotions and impulses and adapting to changing circumstances.3.Social awareness the ability to sense, understand, and react to

others' emotions while comprehending social networks.4.Relationship management the ability to inspire, influence, and

develop others while managing conflict.

10

Goleman includes a set of emotional competencies within each construct of EI. Emotional competencies are not innate talents, but rather learned capabilities that must be worked on and developed to achieve outstanding performance. Goleman posits that individuals are born with a general emotional intelligence that determines their potential for learning emotional competencies. Goleman's model of EI has been criticized in the research literature as mere pop-psychology (Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008). Measurement of the Emotional Competencies (Goleman) model Two measurement tools are based on the Goleman model: 1) The Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI) which was created in 1999 and the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI), which was created in 2007. 2) The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal, which was created in 2001 and which can be taken as a self-report or 360-degree assessment (Bradberry and Greaves, 2005). (ii) The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI) Reuven Bar-On (2006) developed one of the first measures of EI that used the term Emotion Quotient. He defines emotional intelligence as being concerned with effectively understanding oneself and others, relating well to people, and adapting to and coping with the immediate surroundings to be more successful in dealing with environmental demands. Bar-On posits that EI develops over time and that it can be improved through training, programming and therapy. Bar-On hypothesizes that those individuals with higher than average E.Q.s are in general more successful in meeting environmental demands and pressures. He also notes that a deficiency in EI can mean a lack of success and the existence of emotional problems. Problems in coping with ones environment are thought, by Bar-On, to be especially common among those individuals lacking in the subscales of reality testing, problem solving, stress tolerance, and impulse control. In general, Bar-On considers emotional intelligence and cognitive intelligence to contribute equally to a persons general intelligence, which then offers an indication of ones potential to succeed in life. However, doubts have been expressed about this model in the research literature (in particular about the validity of self-report as an index of emotional intelligence) and in scientific

11

settings it is being replaced by the trait emotional intelligence (trait EI) model discussed below.

Measurement of the ESI Model The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) is a self-report measure of EI developed as a measure of emotionally and socially competent behavior that provides an estimate of one's emotional and social intelligence. The EQ-i is not meant to measure personality traits or cognitive capacity, but rather the mental ability to be successful in dealing with environmental demands and pressures. One hundred and thirty three items (questions or factors) are used to obtain a Total EQ (Total Emotion Quotient) and to produce five composite scale scores, corresponding to the five main components of the Bar-On model. A limitation of this model is that it claims to measure some kind of ability through self-report items (see Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2007). The EQ-i has been found to be highly susceptible to faking (Day & Carroll, 2008; Grubb & McDaniel, 2007).

12

3. The Trait EI model Petrides et al. (2000a, 2004, 2007) proposed a conceptual distinction between the ability based model and a trait based model of EI. Trait EI is "a constellation of emotion-related self-perceptions located at the lower levels of personality". In lay terms, trait EI refers to an individual's self-perceptions of their emotional abilities. This definition of EI encompasses behavioural dispositions and self perceived abilities and is measured by self report, as opposed to the ability based model which refers to actual abilities, which13

have proven highly resistant to scientific measurement. Trait EI should be investigated within a personality framework. An alternative label for the same construct is trait emotional self-efficacy. The trait EI model is general and subsumes the Goleman and Bar-On models discussed above. Petrides et al. are major critics of the ability-based model and the MSCEIT arguing that they are based on "psychometrically meaningless" scoring procedures (e.g., Petrides, Furnham, & Mavroveli, 2007). The conceptualization of EI as a personality trait leads to a construct that lies outside the taxonomy of human cognitive ability. This is an important distinction in as much as it bears directly on the operationalization of the construct and the theories and hypotheses that are formulated about it. Measurement of the Trait EI model There are many self-report measures of EI, including the EQi, the Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT), the Six Seconds Emotional Intelligence Assessment (SEI), the Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SSEIT), a test by Tett, Fox, and Wang. (2005) From the perspective of the trait EI model, none of these assess intelligence, abilities, or skills (as their authors often claim), but rather, they are limited measures of trait emotional intelligence (Petrides, Furnham, & Mavroveli, 2007). The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) is an open-access measure that was specifically designed to measure the construct comprehensively and is currently available in 15 languages.

The TEIQue provides an operationalization for Petrides and colleagues' model that conceptualizes EI in terms of personality.The test encompasses 15 subscales organized under four factors: Well-Being, Self-Control, Emotionality, and Sociability. The psychometric properties of the TEIQue14

were investigated in a recent study on a French-Speaking Population, where it was reported that TEIQue scores were globally normally distributed and reliable.

The researchers also found TEIQue scores were unrelated to nonverbal reasoning (Ravens matrices), which they interpreted as support for the personality trait view of EI (as opposed to a form of intelligence). As expected, TEIQue scores were positively related to some of the Big Five personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness) as well as inversely related to others.

15

ConclusionIn some ways, emotional intelligence really is not new. In fact, it is based on a long history of research and theory in personality and social. Furthermore, Goleman has never claimed otherwise. In fact, one of his main points was that the abilities associated with emotional intelligence have been studied by psychologists for many years, and there is an impressive, and growing, body of research suggesting that these abilities are important for success in many areas of life. It is useful and interesting to consider how important it is for effective performance at work. There is a considerable body of research suggesting that a persons ability to perceive, identify and manage emotion provides the basis for the kinds of social and emotional competencies that are important for success in almost any job. Furthermore, as the pace of change increases and the world of work make ever greater demands on a persons cognitive, emotional, and physical resources, this particular set of abilities will become increasingly important. I/O psychologists are best situated to help clients to use emotional intelligence to improve both productivity and psychological well-being in the workplace of tomorrow.

16

Further ResearchCriticisms on Ability-based model Criticisms on ESI model

Referenceshttp://www.psychometriclab.com/Default.aspx?Content=Page&id=7 http://www.time.com/time/classroom/psych/unit5_article1.html http://www.beyondtraining.com.au/Emotional_IQ.html http://www.baatschools.com/emotional_intelligence.php http://www.peoplesmithglobal.com/emotion/index.asp

17

BibliographyBar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: User's manual . Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. Bar-On, R. (in press). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory. In R. Bar-On & J. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Barsade, S. (1998). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion in groups (Working paper ). New Haven, CT: Yale University School of Management. Barsade, S., & Gibson, D. E. (1998). Group emotion: A view from the top and bottom. In D. G. e. al. (Ed.), Research on managing groups and teams. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

18