The validity of the Bar-On emotional intelligence quotient in an offender population

Personality and Individual Differences 37 (2004) 695–706www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

The validity of the Bar-On emotional intelligence quotientin an offender population q

Toni Hemmati a,b,*, Jeremy F. Mills a,b, Daryl G. Kroner c

a Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canadab Department of Psychology, Bath Institution, P.O. Box 1500, 5775 Bath Road, Bath, ON, Canada K0H 1G0c Deparment of Psychology, Pittsburgh Institution, P.O. Box 4510, HNY 15, Kingston, ON, Canada K7L 5E5

Received 21 January 2003; received in revised form 22 September 2003; accepted 6 October 2003

Available online 19 November 2003

Abstract

Recent research has suggested that emotional intelligence can be quantified and is distinct from general

intelligence. Bar-On (1997) established a self-report measure of emotional intelligence, the Emotional

Quotient Inventory (EQ-i), proposed to reflect the potential for success in life. The current study examinesthe validity of the EQ-i in an offender sample. Results show that the EQ-i has no relationship with age, only

a weak relationship with IQ, but a strong negative correlation with measures of psychopathology,

depression and hopelessness. In addition, offenders as a group score higher than normals. Discussion

centres on the suggestion that offenders interpret items differently from non-offenders, respond differently,

and therefore require distinctive norms.

� 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Emotional intelligence; Offenders; Personality

1. Introduction

While the current wave of interest in measuring emotional intelligence was stimulated byGardner (1983), research into emotional measurement theory has been well established for several

qThe views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Correctional

Services of Canada.* Corresponding author. Address: Department of Psychology, Bath Institution, P.O. Box 1500, 5775 Bath Road,

Bath, ON, Canada K0H 1G0. Tel.: +1-613-351-8019; fax: +1-613-351-8347.

E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Hemmati).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.10.003

mail to: [email protected]

696 T. Hemmati et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 37 (2004) 695–706

decades. Eysenck (1975) offered a summary of past research into emotion measurement. Tradi-tionally, attempts were made to measure emotions across three distinct parameters: physiologicalconcomitants (e.g., heart rate); introspective assessment (i.e., self-report); and behavioural obser-vation (i.e., judging observed behaviour). Citing past research, Eysenck concluded ‘‘the evidencesuggests that verbal report, far from being a throwback to pre-behaviouristic days, is in many waysthe preferred method of measuring and indexing states of emotional arousal’’ (p. 441).Gardner (1983) proposed that there are seven primary types of intelligence: verbal, mathe-

matical–logical, spatial, kinesthetic, musical, intraphysic abilities (insight, inner contentment) andpersonal intelligences. The personal intelligences consist of interpersonal intelligence, the ability tounderstand others, and intrapersonal intelligence, the ability to develop an accurate model of theself and use it effectively to operate throughout life. Analogous to these personal intelligences, isthe concept of emotional intelligence, proposed by Salovey and Mayer (1990) and popularized byGoleman (1995).Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2000) present a comprehensive review of three distinct concepts

of emotional intelligence from the literature: The first is as a popular representation of currentculture––a zeitgeist. The second consists of emotional intelligence as a component of, or synon-ymous with, personality. The third view, reflecting the perspective of Mayer et al., is that emo-tional intelligence is conceptualized as a mental ability. From this perspective, ability is linked toskill and capacity. In support of the ability model, Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey (1999) illustratedthrough factor analysis that emotional intelligence is composed of three separate factors: per-ceiving and expressing emotions; assimilating and understanding emotions; and managing thoseemotions. These authors suggest that emotional intelligence can be useful in predicting particularlife criteria such as parental warmth, life satisfaction and artistic ability.Rather than a measure of emotion per se, emotional intelligence is a measure of one�s ability

to recognize, use and regulate emotional, personal and social information in an adaptive way(Mayer et al., 1999). Bar-On endorses this concept but includes the personality aspects of generalmood and happiness in the Bar-On emotional intelligence quotient (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997). Hedescribes emotional intelligence as the emotional, personal, social and survival dimensions ofintelligence. Based on this definition, Bar-On developed the EQ-i as a measure of emotionalintelligence.

1.1. Intelligence quotient

A number of studies have examined the relationship between emotional intelligence and tra-ditional measures of cognitive intelligence. However, these studies have used various measures ofboth types of intelligence. For example, Bar-On (1997, p. 137) reported the absence of a rela-tionship (r ¼ 0:12) between the EQ-i and the total score of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale(WAIS) as evidence for the divergent validity of the EQ-i from IQ. However, the sample was verysmall (n ¼ 40) and only the total WAIS score was reported. Similarly, Newsome, Day, andCatano (2000) also reported no relationship (r ¼ 0:08) between the EQ-i and a measure of cog-nitive ability, the Wonderlic Personnel Test. Other research into the relationship of the EQ-i witha Standard Intelligence Test was conducted by Derksen, Kramer, and Datzko (2002). Theseresearchers examined the relationship of the EQ-i with the General Adult Mental Ability Scale(GAMA), a non-verbal measure of general intelligence, in a sample of 489 men. The authors

T. Hemmati et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 37 (2004) 695–706 697

found that the total EQ-i score was not related to GAMA but the EQ-i scales of stress and generalmood were significantly but weakly related to GAMA (r ¼ 0:10 and r ¼ 0:12, respectively).Although the relationship was statistically significantly the overall variance accounted for was lessthan two percent.Emotional intelligence as measured by the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS;

Mayer et al., 1999) has also been studied with measures of cognitive intelligence. Through theirdevelopment of the MEIS, Mayer et al. (1999) found that emotional intelligence was correlated(r ¼ 0:36) with the vocabulary scale of the Army Alpha Intelligence Scale. Subsequent researchby Ciarrochi, Chan, and Caputi (2000) did not find a relationship (r ¼ 0:05) between emotionalintelligence as measured by the MEIS and cognitive intelligence as measured by the Raven�sIntelligence Test. Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey (2000) later argued that the low correlation be-tween emotional intelligence and the Raven�s was due to the Raven�s measurement of perfor-mance or spatial intelligence and not verbal performance.None of the above studies examined the relationship of emotional intelligence with both verbal

and non-verbal (performance) measures of cognitive intelligence. The discrepancies between thesefindings may hinge upon this distinction. The current study will examine the relationship ofemotional intelligence with cognitive intelligence as measured by both verbal and performancemeasures of cognitive intelligence.

1.2. Age

Research has demonstrated that IQ decreases with age in adulthood (e.g., Derksen et al., 2002).One might expect then, that emotional intelligence would also diminish as one ages, however thisis not the case: Bar-On (1997) found that EQ-i and scale scores were positively and significantlyrelated to age. With age broken into 10-year blocks, the 40–49 year-old age group consistently hadthe highest means across domains. This finding was replicated in a more recent study (Derksenet al., 2002) although these authors found a decrease in EQ-i scores past the age of 65 years. If therelationship between EQ-i and age is consistent, it might be reflected in offender populations witha broad age range representation.

1.3. Psychopathology

Bar-On proposed that emotional intelligence contributes to psychological well being. He sug-gested that in addition to traditional IQ tests, EQ-i can make a unique contribution to ‘‘betterunderstand people and their potential to succeed in various aspects of life’’ (Bar-On, 1997, p. 4).Bar-On demonstrated that EQ-i total scores are positively related to measures of emotionalhealth, and negatively related to measures of psychopathology and neuroticism.Dawda and Hart (2000) found that EQ-i scores were positively correlated with emotional

stability and negatively correlated with neuroticism and psychopathology. Parker, Taylor, andBagby (2001) also found a strong negative relationship between EQ-i scores and alexithymia.They suggested that because alexithymia is associated with illness behaviour and increasedmortality from all causes, high emotional intelligence might convey protective factors againstmental and physical illness. They proposed that individuals high in alexithymia (therefore low inemotional intelligence) are intolerant of stress and possess limited adaptive resources.


1.4. Criminality

Gardner (1983) stipulates ‘‘in the day-to-day world, no intelligence is more important than theinterpersonal (intelligence). If you don�t have it, you�ll make poor choices about who to marry,what job to take and so on’’ (p. 12). If this position is true, then those who make poor choices(e.g., commit offences) would be expected to have lower interpersonal intelligence than those whodo not commit offences. Little research has been conducted on the utility of emotional intelligencemeasures with criminals. Goleman (1995) stated that empathy (as defined as the capacity to knowhow another feels) is absent in criminal psychopaths, rapists and child molesters. He furtherasserted that the inability to feel the victim�s pain allows a perpetrator to fabricate and believelies that further facilitate their crime, for example, a child molester who believes he is expressinglove.The literature on emotional intelligence measures in correctional facilities is limited. Bar-On

(1997) cites an unpublished study that indicates prisoners in an American state facility scoredsignificantly lower on the total and most scale scores when compared to a matched group from acommunity sample. Bar-On speculated that for this population, emotional intelligence is equatedto success in abiding by the rules of society (Bar-On, 1997, p. 146). It is implied then that con-versely, low scores of emotional intelligence will be related to not abiding by societal laws. Ifindeed ability is related to capacity and behaviour, then the EQ-i might offer a unique insight intoforensic populations.The purpose of the current study is to examine the validity of the Bar-On EQ-i with an offender

population. Consistent with prior research there are four hypotheses: First, past research com-paring emotional intelligence measures to those of general intelligence showed a positive rela-tionship between emotional intelligence and verbal components of IQ (Mayer et al., 1999). Therewere minimal relationships between emotional intelligence and non-verbal IQ measures. It istherefore hypothesized that EQ-i scores will be positively related to verbal IQ but not to per-formance IQ. Second, if the EQ-i captures the ability to deal effectively with day to day life then itis expected to be inversely related to measures of psychopathology. Third, studies have demon-strated a general increase in emotional intelligence with age, therefore it is hypothesized that EQ-iscores will be positively related to age among offenders. Fourth, if the EQ-i is predictive of successin life, then offenders� scores on the EQ-i should be lower than those of the normative sample.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Participants were 119 male inmates in a medium security federal institution with an average ageof 37.0 years (SD 11.7, range 20–60). The racial composition of the sample was 70% White, 15%Black, 12% Native American, 2% Asian and 1% other. Twenty-six subjects were serving lifesentences; of the remaining subjects, the mean sentence length was 6.0 years (SD 3.6, range 2–16.8years). Offenders� most serious index (confining) offences were assaultive 45%, robbery 34%,property 9%, sexual 4%, criminal negligence/driving 5% and drugs 3%. All of the participantsvolunteered and were not paid for their involvement in the study.


2.2. Materials

2.2.1. Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997)

The EQ-i is a 133-item questionnaire with a 5-point Likert Response Scale. Responses to eachitem can range from 1, very seldom or not true of me to 5, very often or true of me for positively ornegatively-keyed items. The final item is a self-report on honesty of responding and is not includedin any scale. The results are reported in four formats: the total score, the validity score, 5 scales,and 15 subscales. The scales and subscales are intrapersonal intelligence (emotional self-aware-ness, assertiveness, self-regard, self-actualization, independence); interpersonal intelligence(empathy, interpersonal relationships, social responsibility); adaptability (problem solving, realitytesting, flexibility); stress management (stress tolerance, impulse control); general mood (happi-ness, optimism). Higher scores indicate a higher level of emotional intelligence. Scores werederived by using item scales provided in the manual.

2.2.2. Basic Personality Inventory (BPI; Jackson, 1997)The BPI is a 240-item instrument comprised of 12 scales: hypochondriasis, depression, anxiety,

interpersonal problems, alienation, impulse expression, persecutory ideation, thinking disorder,self-depreciation, social introversion, denial, and deviation. Participants respond in a true or falseformat. Each of the 11 clinical scales (excluding deviation) has 20 items with balanced true/falsekeying. The deviation scale is a critical-item scale, with all items true-keyed. The BPI has dem-onstrated reliability and validity when used in an offender population (Kroner & Reddon, 1996;Kroner, Holden, & Reddon, 1997; Kroner, Reddon, & Beckett, 1991).

2.2.3. Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR; Paulhus, 1994)The BIDR is a 40-item self-report with a seven-point Likert Response Scale. Items are scored

from 1, not true to 7, very true. Results are reported in two scales: Self-Deception Enhancement(SDE) and Impression Management (IM). SDE is a measure of the degree to which respondentsanswer honestly, although their answers are inflated through self-deception. IM however, rep-resents deliberate manipulation to demonstrate a better (or worse) presentation. Kroner andWeekes (1996) have demonstrated the reliability and validity of the BIDR when used with anoffender sample.

2.2.4. Depression Hopelessness and Suicide Screening Form (DHS; Mills & Kroner, 2002)The DHS is a 39-item true/false response questionnaire designed to screen for hopelessness and

depression and flag suicide and self-harm concerns. Depression and hopelessness items are bothnegatively and positively keyed. A response of true to a positively-keyed item, is scored as 1 (e.g.,My problems don’t seem to end). A false response to a negatively-keyed item is scored as 1 (e.g.,My future will be mostly happy). Higher scores on the depression scale indicate depressed affect,such as sadness, social withdrawal and a reduced interest in previously enjoyed activities. Elevatedscores on the hopelessness scale are suggestive of despair, for example the inability to anticipatefuture happiness and little sense of self-efficacy. The DHS includes a 13-item critical item checklistfor self-harm and suicide ideation that is not to be summed (e.g., I recently had thoughts of hurtingmyself). Developed and normed on an offender population, the DHS has demonstrated bothinternal consistency and validity (Mills & Kroner, in press).


2.2.5. Multidimensional Aptitude Battery-II (MAB; Jackson, 1998)

The MAB-II is a measure of aptitude and intelligence. Scores are reported in three formats: Asa verbal IQ comprised of information, comprehension, arithmetic, similarities and vocabularysubscales; as performance IQ comprised of digit symbol, picture completion, spatial, picturearrangement, and object assembly subscales; and as an overall IQ score.

2.3. Procedure

Offenders were approached at the time they completed testing for a psychological risk assess-ment and asked if they would participate in this research. Agreement was indicated by signing aconsent form. All participants were tested for literacy and achieved at least a grade five readinglevel. All of the measures were administered within a time period of two or three days.The EQ-i manual (Bar-On, 1997, p. 43) states that item 133 is included as a validity measure

and not summed in any scale: a response of 4, often true of me or 5, very often true of me rendersthe results invalid. This is not a reverse-scored item, therefore the indication of non-validityshould be 1, very seldom or not true of me, or 2, seldom true of me. Only one subject in the currentstudy responded with 1 for this item and was dropped from analysis. No one responded with 2,therefore the total n was reduced from 119 to 118.

3. Results

Table 1 shows the mean, range, standard deviation, alpha and T -score equivalents for the EQ-itotal, scales, and 15 subscales. Calculation of the T -score equivalents was based upon the NorthAmerican norms provided by Bar-On (1997). Table 2 provides descriptive statistics for the BPI,DHS, BIDR and MAB scales. All EQ-i scale intercorrelations are significant at the p < 0:01 level(Table 3). DHS scores were available for only 104 participants and only 92 participants had MABscores.Table 4 shows the correlations between EQ-i total and EQ-i scales with other measures used in

the study. The EQ-i total and scales are negatively correlated with the DHS and BPI scales withthe exception of BPI denial that shows a positive relationship. EQ-i is also positively related to theBIDR scales. All correlations between the EQ-i and the BPI, DHS and BIDR are significant at thep < 0:01 level with the exception of the EQ-i interpersonal scale with the BPI thinking disorderscale that is non-significant. Correlations between the EQ-i and the MAB total score were sta-tistically significant at the p < 0:05 level for only the EQ-i scales of adaptability and general mood.Although three scales of the EQ-i (interpersonal, adaptability, general mood) were related toMAB verbal, there were no relationships between MAB performance and the EQ-i scales.To test for a relationship between EQ-i score and age, four age categories similar to those used

by Bar-On (1997) were compared: less than 29 years (n ¼ 36), 30–39 years (n ¼ 35), 40–49 years(n ¼ 32), and 50 years and older (n ¼ 15). A one-way ANOVA between EQ-i and age groupsrevealed no differences in EQ-i scores (F ð3; 114Þ ¼ 0:043, p > 0:05).Most EQ-i scale scores were higher for the current sample than those reported for the nor-

mative sample by Bar-On (1997). T -tests between group means, correcting for unequal variancewhen encountered (Reddon, 1992), indicated the offender scores were significantly greater than

Table 1

EQ-i descriptive statistics

Scale Range Mean SD Alpha T -score equivalent

EQ-i total 320–577 481.3 57.7 0.97 104.8

Intrapersonal 103–190 164.4 20.0 0.92 105.6

Emotional self-awareness 17–40 32.6 5.5 0.83 107.9

Assertiveness 16–35 28.2 4.5 0.73 107.9

Self-regard 18–45 37.5 6.3 0.87 104.1

Self-actualization 23–45 37.7 5.3 0.75 100.0

Independence 18–35 28.3 4.0 0.59 103.1

Interpersonal 64–120 102.4 12.4 0.90 103.9

Empathy 19–40 33.6 4.8 0.75 100.4

Interpersonal relationships 23–55 46.0 6.6 0.85 104.4

Social responsibility 23–50 44.4 5.2 0.79 102.2

Adaptability 73–130 107.9 13.8 0.90 106.1

Problem solving 20–40 32.9 5.1 0.83 103.6

Reality testing 30–50 42.8 5.3 0.76 108.8

Flexibility 14–40 32.1 5.2 0.76 109.7

Stress management 43–87 69.6 9.5 0.84 102.1

Impulse control 23–43 34.5 4.5 0.61 99.8

Stress tolerance 19–45 35.1 6.0 0.82 103.8

General mood 41–85 70.0 10.2 0.89 99.1

Happiness 21–45 37.0 6.1 0.83 98.6

Optimism 19–40 33.0 5.0 0.78 100.1


those of the normative sample for the EQ-i total, intrapersonal, interpersonal, and adaptabilityscales (Table 5).

4. Discussion

Consistent with prior research (e.g., Mayer et al., 1999; Mayer, Caruso et al., 2000; Mayer,Salovey et al., 2000), the results from the current study support the hypothesis that EQ-i is weaklyrelated to verbal IQ, though there is no relationship between EQ-i and performance IQ. Theseresults are also consistent with those of Derksen et al. (2002) who found minimal but significantrelationships between the EQ-i scales and IQ total score.Mayer et al. (1999) specified three criteria for an intelligence: First, that it can be operation-

alized by a set of abilities; second, that these abilities should form related sets and be related to astandard pre-existing intelligence while still accounting for unique variance; and third that abil-ities of the intelligence will develop with age and experience from youth to adulthood. By meetingthese criteria, the EQ-i would qualify as a measure of emotional intelligence by Mayer et al.�s(1999) standards. However, Davies, Stankov, and Roberts (1998) specify that if emotionalintelligence is to qualify as an intelligence, it must be independent from personality traits. Thisposition is also supported by Mayer et al. (1999), Mayer, Caruso et al. (2000), and Mayer, Salovey

Table 2

BPI, DHS, BIDR, and MAB descriptives

Scale Range Mean SD

BPI hypochondriasis 0–16 3.6 3.4

BPI depression 0–15 3.9 3.1

BPI denial 0–16 7.1 3.2

BPI interpersonal problems 1–17 5.7 3.4

BPI alienation 0–12 3.7 2.7

BPI persecutory ideation 0–15 3.8 3.1

BPI anxiety 0–14 4.3 3.0

BPI thinking disorder 0–7 1.6 1.7

BPI impulse expression 0–17 5.0 3.6

BPI social introversion 0–19 5.1 3.7

BPI self-depreciation 0–14 2.0 2.5

BPI deviation 0–10 3.2 1.9

DHS totala 0–22 2.4 3.8

DHS hopelessnessa 0–9 0.5 1.2

DHS depressiona 0–14 2.1 3.1

BIDR impression management 32–134 82.7 19.9

BIDR self-deception 43–123 94.9 13.0

MAB overallb 73–128 95.0 12.5

MAB verbalb 74–122 93.7 11.0

MAB performanceb 70–134 98.7 14.9aDHS scores based on 104 participants.bMAB scores based on 92 participants and are reported in standardized form (M ¼ 100, SD ¼ 15).


et al. (2000). Eysenck (1975) and Bar-On (1997) though, both include personality components as anecessity in an emotional intelligence concept. Our results that show the EQ-i is more stronglyrelated to psychopathology than IQ is reflective of the personality-inclusion view. It is interestingto note that although inclusive of personality, it could be argued that the EQ-i meets the first twoof the (personality-excluded) criteria for intelligence stipulated by Mayer et al. Without pre-adultparticipants however, the third criterion for an intelligence, the developmental component cannotbe fully tested.In the current sample, the hypothesis that EQ-i scores increase with age was not supported.

Both correlational analysis and a one-way ANOVA failed to show a relationship between EQ-iand age. Derksen et al. (2002) and Bar-On (1997) however, found a positive relationship betweenEQ-i and age in community samples. The failure to replicate that finding in the current samplemight be unique to an offender sample. A replication with a larger offender sample would help toverify this finding.The third hypothesis was that there would be an inverse relationship between EQ-i and psy-

chopathology. This was supported by the strong relationship between EQ-i and psychopathologyas measured by the BPI and DHS. The size of these correlations when compared to those betweenEQ-i and IQ suggests that the EQ-i may be more strongly linked to personality constructs thancognitive intelligence. Similar correlations were found by Bar-On (1997) between EQ-i total andnegative affect measured by the Beck Depression Inventory and the Zung Self-rating DepressionScale.

Table 3

EQ-i interscale correlations

Scale 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

1. EQ total 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.87 0.92 0.90 0.79 0.79 0.56 0.85 0.75 0.77 0.88 0.87 0.84 0.80 0.85 0.72 0.86 0.85

2. Intrapersonal 0.81 0.87 0.80 0.82 0.91 0.82 0.83 0.65 0.86 0.64 0.68 0.80 0.80 0.77 0.70 0.78 0.70 0.76 0.77

3. Interpersonal 0.86 0.69 0.83 0.75 0.74 0.68 0.41 0.73 0.90 0.89 0.93 0.77 0.74 0.75 0.72 0.52 0.79 0.76

4. Adaptability 0.80 0.86 0.79 0.71 0.74 0.48 0.80 0.73 0.75 0.81 0.92 0.85 0.87 0.80 0.64 0.82 0.77

5. Stress

mangement

0.79 0.80 0.65 0.62 0.49 0.69 0.54 0.54 0.72 0.75 0.73 0.63 0.94 0.88 0.75 0.71

6. General mood 0.84 0.66 0.67 0.41 0.75 0.68 0.69 0.82 0.77 0.75 0.74 0.79 0.62 0.91 0.94

7. Self-regard 0.70 0.71 0.53 0.75 0.56 0.60 0.76 0.71 0.75 0.63 0.76 0.68 0.75 0.81

8. Emotional

self-awareness

0.69 0.37 0.63 0.61 0.57 0.77 0.67 0.62 0.58 0.67 0.50 0.64 0.59

9. Assertiveness 0.41 0.62 0.56 0.59 0.67 0.67 0.65 0.64 0.66 0.44 0.66 0.60

10. Independence 0.46 0.31 0.34 0.41 0.45 0.49 0.33 0.45 0.46 0.36 0.39

11. Self-actual-

ization

0.56 0.67 0.67 0.77 0.65 0.69 0.64 0.62 0.67 0.71

12. Empathy 0.82 0.75 0.65 0.58 0.69 0.56 0.40 0.69 0.57

13. Social

responsibility

0.70 0.70 0.58 0.71 0.55 0.41 0.70 0.59

14. Interpersonal

relationship

0.71 0.76 0.65 0.75 0.53 0.74 0.78

15. Reality

testing

0.68 0.73 0.73 0.61 0.75 0.69

16. Flexibility 0.56 0.74 0.57 0.63 0.74

17. Problem

solving

0.63 0.49 0.79 0.60

18. Stress

tolerance

0.66 0.77 0.70

19. Impulse

control

0.56 0.59

20. Optimism 0.71

21. Happiness

T.Hem

matiet

al./Perso

nality

andIndivid

ualDifferen

ces37(2004)695–706

703

Table 4

EQ-i scale correlations with BPI, DHS, BIDR, IQ, and age

Scale EQ-i total Intra Inter Adapt Stress General mood

BPI hypochondriasis )0.50 )0.47 )0.43 )0.47 )0.44 )0.47BPI depression )0.67 )0.65 )0.54 )0.60 )0.62 )0.67BPI denial 0.44 0.45 0.30 0.41 0.45 0.38

BPI interpersonal problems )0.64 )0.56 )0.65 )0.61 )0.56 )0.62BPI alienation )0.54 )0.46 )0.51 )0.55 )0.49 )0.52BPI persecutory ideation )0.44 )0.44 )0.31 )0.41 )0.40 )0.42BPI anxiety )0.50 )0.49 )0.34 )0.43 )0.57 )0.45BPI thinking disorder )0.26 )0.20 )0.19 ns )0.28 )0.32 )0.26BPI impulse expression )0.65 )0.59 )0.52 )0.62 )0.67 )0.63BPI social introversion )0.56 )0.54 )0.55 )0.53 )0.38 )0.54BPI self-depreciation )0.57 )0.56 )0.49 )0.49 )0.50 )0.58BPI deviation )0.64 )0.62 )0.56 )0.60 )0.54 )0.58DHS total )0.61 )0.57 )0.50 )0.61 )0.50 )0.61DHS hopelessness )0.47 )0.43 )0.36 )0.43 )0.41 )0.51DHS depression )0.59 )0.54 )0.46 )0.57 )0.50 )0.60BIDR impression

management

0.50 0.48 0.46 0.47 0.42 0.45

BIDR self-deception 0.43 0.43 0.33 0.43 0.38 0.39

MAB overall 0.20 ns 0.15 ns 0.20 ns 0.25 0.18 ns 0.21

MAB verbal 0.21 0.16 ns 0.21 0.25 0.17 ns 0.21

MAB performance 0.17 ns 0.12 ns 0.18 ns 0.20 ns 0.15 ns 0.17 ns

Age )0.01 ns )0.01 ns )0.04 ns )0.02 ns 0.02 ns 0.00 ns

Note: All correlations between the EQ-i, EQ-i scales, BPI scales, BIDR scales and DHS scales are significant at the

p < 0:01 level unless otherwise indicated. Correlations with the MAB and its scales are significant at the p < 0:05 levelunless otherwise indicated.

Table 5

Comparison between inmate scores and Bar-On�s (1997) normative sample

Scale t df p

EQ total 2.97 122.47 <0.01

Intrapersonal 4.03 3947 <0.001

Interpersonal 2.49 122.6 <0.05

Adaptability 6.40 3947 <0.001

Stress management 1.47 3947 ns

General mood 0.53 122.35 ns


The fourth hypothesis that offenders as a group would have lower scores than those of thenormative sample was not supported. If it is true that individuals who make poor life decisions(i.e., engage in criminal activity) are lower in emotional intelligence than those who make good lifedecisions (i.e., choose not to engage in criminal activity), then the finding that offenders havescores equal to or higher than non-offenders presents a paradox. A potential explanation is thatoffenders demonstrate a high degree of social desirability in their responses. This however, isconfounded by research that shows a significant negative relationship between the BIDR andcriminal risk indices (Mills & Kroner, submitted; Mills, Loza, & Kroner, 2003). In other words, as


a group, offenders who demonstrate the least amount of socially desirable responding have thegreater risk of re-offence. This intuitively paradoxical finding suggests that these high-risk indi-viduals would respond to other measures (i.e., EQ-i) with the same low degree of socially desirableresponding. Taken together, this suggests that correcting for socially desirable responding inoffender scores in the same manner as for non-offenders to produce corrected clinical scores willnot yield comparable results. As suggested by Mills et al. (2003) it appears that the items mighthold different meaning for offenders in the way that they see themselves and in the way they reportthat information.Although different results might be obtained using a larger sample, the failure of offender scores

to reflect those of the normative sample suggests the need for offender norms distinct from non-offender norms. In regard to the type of measure used, although self-report is the most commonand arguably the preferred method of measuring emotion (Diener, 2000; Watson, 2000), it may beinsufficient to gauge the level of intelligence governing emotion. Alternative measures that do notrely purely on self-report could be less susceptible to socially desirable responding and therebyyield different results when applied to an offender population. Further research in testing com-peting models of emotional intelligence that account for the potential influence of sociallydesirable responding is recommended.

References

Bar-On, R. (1997). EQ-i Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.

Ciarrochi, J. V., Chan, A. Y. C., & Caputi, P. (2000). A critical evaluation of the emotional intelligence construct.

Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 539–561.

Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of an illusive construct. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 989–1015.

Dawda, D., & Hart, S. D. (2000). Assessing emotional intelligence: Reliability and validity of the Bar-On Emotional

Quotient Inventory (EQ-I) in university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 797–812.

Derksen, J., Kramer, I., & Datzko, M. (2002). Does a self-report measure for emotional intelligence assess something

different than general intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 37–48.

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American

Psychologist, 55, 34–43.

Eysenck, H. J. (1975). The measurement of emotion: Psychological parameters and methods. In L. Levi (Ed.),

Emotions––their parameters and measurement. New York: Raven Press.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

Jackson, D. N. (1997). Basic Personality Inventory. London, ON: Research Psychologist Press.

Jackson, D. N. (1998). Multidimensional aptitude battery-II. London, ON: Research Psychologist Press.

Kroner, D. G., Holden, R. R., & Reddon, J. R. (1997). Validity of the Basic Personality Inventory in a correctional

setting. Assessment, 4, 141–153.

Kroner, D. G., & Reddon, J. R. (1996). Factor structure of the Basic Personality Inventory with incarcerated offenders.

Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 18, 275–284.

Kroner, D. G., Reddon, J. R., & Beckett, N. (1991). Basic Personality Inventory clinical and validity scales: Stability

and internal consistency. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 13, 147–154.

Kroner, D. G., & Weekes, J. R. (1996). Balanced inventory of desirable responding: Factor structure, reliability and

validity with an offender sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 323–333.

Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an

intelligence. Intelligence, 27, 267–298.


Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2000). Selecting a measure of emotional intelligence: The case for ability

studies. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence theory, development, assessment,

and application at home, school, and in the workplace. San Franciso: Jossey-Bass.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Emotional intelligence as zeitgeist, as personality, and as a mental

ability. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence theory, development, assessment,

and application at home, school, and in the workplace. San Franciso: Jossey-Bass.

Mills, J. F., & Kroner, D. G. (2002). The depression, hopelessness and suicide screening form. Unpublished user guide.

Mills, J. F., & Kroner, D. G. (submitted). Impression management and self-report among violent offenders.

Mills, J. F., & Kroner, D. G. (in press). A new instrument to screen for depression, hopelessness and suicide in

offenders. Psychological Services.

Mills, J. F., Loza, W., & Kroner, D. G. (2003). Predictive validity despite social desirability: Evidence for the robustness

of self-report among offenders. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 13, 144–154.

Newsome, S., Day, A. L., & Catano, V. M. (2000). Assessing the predictive validity of emotional intelligence.


Parker, D. A., Taylor, G. J., & Bagby, R. M. (2001). The relationship between emotional intelligence and alexithymia.


Paulhus, D. L. (1994). Balanced inventory of desirable responding: Reference manual for the BIDR version 6.

Unpublished manuscript. University of British Columbia.

Reddon, J. R. (1992). A_Stat: Statistical hypotheses and utilities (version 2.0). Applied Psychological Measurement, 16,

86.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185–211.

Watson, D. (2000). Mood and temperament. New York: Guilford Press.

Documents

The validity of the Bar-On emotional intelligence quotient in an offender population