You are on page 1of 20

Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Findings, and Implications

Author(s): John D. Mayer, Peter Salovey and David R. Caruso
Source: Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 15, No. 3 (2004), pp. 197-215
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20447229
Accessed: 29-01-2018 18:36 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Psychological Inquiry

This content downloaded from 148.202.168.13 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 18:36:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Psychological Inquiry Copyright ?) 2004 by
2004, Vol. 15, No. 3, 197-215 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Findings, and
John D. Mayer
Department of Psychology
University of New Hampshire

Peter Salovey
Department of Psychology
Yale University

David R. Caruso
Work-Life Strategies

Many people have expressed opinions about the sci 2003; Davies et al., 1998; Newsome, Day, & Catano,
entific viability of emotional intelligence (El). El has 2000).
been said to matter twice as much as IQ (Goleman, In contrast, our view of El takes the emotional intel
1998, p. 31). Yet, it has been labeled an "elusive con ligence terminology seriously. We define EI as
cept" (Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998, p. 989). It
hias also, according to some, "proven resistant to ade the capacity to reason about emotions, and of emotions
q[uate measurement" (Becker, 2003, p. 194). Others to enhance thinking. It includes the abilities to accu
hlave claimed that a "considerable body of research" rately perceive emotions, to access and generate emo
suggests that El provides the basis for competencies tions so as to assist thought, to understand emotions
important "in almost any job" (Cherniss, 2000, p. 10). and emotional knowledge, and to reflectively regulate
iBut, "El appears to be more myth than science ... emotions so as to promote emotional and intellectual
growth (e.g., Mayer & Salovey, 1997).
(_Nlatthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002, p. 547). The
studiy of El even raises the question of whether there
can lbe too many intelligences (Holland & Stemnberg, El from this theoretical perspective refers specifi
2%0(0). cally to the cooperative combination of intelligence and
Part of the apparent diversity of opinion on El re emotion (e.g., Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000; Mayer
flects a divide in the field. Initial, broad public expo & Salovey, 1997; Roberts, Zeidner, & Matthews, 2001).
sure to El or "EQ," was the result of a series of Here, one finds no unusual claims for the potency of El;
newspaper and magazine articles (e.g., Gibbs, 1995) quite the contrary, researchers seek to expose popular
that drew on a tradebook about El (Goleman, 1995). claims as unfounded, given the evidence thus far (e.g.,
These naive representations are sometimes reacted to Davies et al., 1998; Mayer, 1999; Mayer, Salovey, &
1by psychologists who are concerned that some of the Caruso, 2000b). Our own research, and that of many
popular ideas will be taken seriously by other psychol other researchers, fits within these bounds.
Ogists (e.g., Davies et al., 1998; Epstein, 1998). We view El as a member of a class of intelligences
T'hese popularizations equated EI with everything including the social, practical, and personal
from "zeal and persistence" (Goleman, 1995, p. 285) intelligences that we have come to call the hot
to general "character," (Gowing 2001, pp. 89-90). intelligences (Mayer & Mitchell, 1998; Mayer &
Measures associated with such perspectives identi Salovey, in press). The label refers to the fact that these
fied El with such qualities as reality testing, inde intelligences operate on hot cognitions-cognitions
pendence, and long lists of work-related dealing with matters of personal, emotional impor
competencies (Bar-On, 1997; Gowing, 2001). These tance to the individual (Abelson, 1963; Zajonc, 1980).
conceptualizations and associated measures often In the next section of this article, we describe the na
lhave little or nothing specifically to do with emotion ture of El, as well as the four-branch model of El we
or intelligence and, consequently, fail to map onto have developed, and the measurement instruments we
the term emotional intelligence. Those who have use to study it. In the Controversies and Findings sec
employed such approaches increasingly acknowl tion, we examine the growing evidence that El exists,
edge that their scales assess self-reports of some that it satisfies many of the criteria that identify an in
thing considerably broader than El (Bar-On, 2000, p. telligence, and that it predicts matters of consequence.
364). Unsurprisingly, such measures overlap with In the Discussion section, we summarize what is now
existing scales of personality and are highly corre known about people who vary in El and suggest what
lated with them (Bar-On, 1997; Brackett & Mayer, can be done to move the field forward.

This content downloaded from 148.202.168.13 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 18:36:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

. 29 Jan 2018 18:36:26 UTC All use subject to http://about. Mayer & Salovey. patient groups were identified who ested in hot intelligences (Mayer & Mitchell. & Collins. 1993.13 on Mon. MAYER. CARUSO Background DiPaolo. 2001). cerned the normative interaction of emotion and 1966. a theory and demonstration measure of it (Mayer. Sternberg. ancient Greek Stoic idea that reason was superior to emotion (described in Payne. Wechsler. practi 1975. searchers examined whether depression enhanced real Our own thinking about El was influenced by the istic thinking (Alloy & Abramson. pure. Lazarus. they developed what might be called an artificial El O'Sullivan. In computer sci cal. In par 198 This content downloaded from 148. (Dyer.g. Emotion and emotional information. Clark. 1980). Croucher. 1983. 2001). and of The Theory of Emotional Intelligence ten signal. 1985). 1978). In berg. 1983. Although many inter sentences. For example. 1983. 1986. primarily. the Romantic movement's emphasis as Binet. 2000. Taylor. volves the capacity to see patterns. The study and measurement of El there existed innate. growing research in psychology con which they operate (Carroll. Detterman. Bogen. Roseman.jstor. 2000a). 1997). verbal-proposi thought (e. Salovey. 1965. 1986. Russell. 1993.org/terms . Wechsler. 1997. as operating on emotional informa tion. & Caruso. SALOVEY. 1993. Specific emotions are be in a dissertation (Payne. Two decades later. six. Shalker. 2000b. general factor. Ekman. to the environment (Sternberg & Detterman. & pert systems that included emotional understanding. p. 1993). and extended textual passages. as well as the general ability to learn and adapt feeling and thought (for a review. Spinoza. Wong. 1981). 1993. We con Hoppe. 1921. 1961) and psychiatry (Leuner. a perceptual-organizational intelligence that in neutral in regard to intelligence (e. precisely? The philosophical-and later evolutionary-view is that emotions govern. motivated responses to situations (Darwin. or g carried on within modem psychology (e. Horn & Cattell. The term emotional intelligence itself was used in 1675/1959). TenHouten. actions between emotion and cognition are relatively too. Lubinski. 1986. 1990). 1978). ceive of El. Day. & Caruso. To address the concept of El seriously. & Walter. & Bagby. 2001).. tional intelligence concerns understanding vocabulary. 1995). 2000. and Wechsler. Debates as to the relative impor Terman. 1983. 1990. 1985).. guished according to the kinds of information on In the 1980s. 1950). Mayer. some re (Shea. emotional information ence. interrelation of emotion and cognition also reflected the increased interest in the interaction of these pro cesses (Cacioppo. 5). 1982. (Carroll. 2001). Ryan. Mayer. and others call to broaden the study of intelligence by attending to examined whether some people regulate their emo multiple specific intelligences (Gardner. 1984. & Salovey. Wagner. among others on emotional expression in the arts (Solomon.g. 1997). 2004) that operate on social. Clore. Izard. Lee. 2003. see Mayer. 1966). 1983. For example.. 1998. 2000). Isen. Leeper. 1981. 1948. 1988. Salovey. Clark & Fiske. 1969. Thorndike. as well as a spatial intelligence (for a review.g. emotional knowledge has its roots in the work of such psychometric pioneers (Reddy. 1927). (Fancher. & deMille. see Mayer. 1985). 1979). Izard. These include the that we next turn. Ortony. and of course. 1994. we wrote two lieved to arise in response to appraisals of different cate articles on El that explicitly defined El and developed gories of relationships (Davitz. 457-458) and philoso Different types of intelligence are often distin phy (DeSousa. the European Sentimentalist movement's idea that Intelligence. Picard. Williams.202. Bower. It is to those concepts and their interconnection tion between emotion and cognition. 2000). 2002. to recognize miss other interactions appeared more germane to the idea ing parts of pictures. 1975. Young. In 1990. Stern tions more effectively than others (Isen et al. pp. & Karp. 1994. Emotion taxonomies have proposed any the 1960s in an incidental fashion in literary criticism where from two dimensions or categories of emotions to (Van Ghent. 1985. But what is that. Spearman. There exists. Salovey & Mayer. Guilford. one must un There are a number of general cultural influences derstand something about both intelligence and emo that serve as a context for our thinking about the rela tion. and to put puzzle pieces together that emotions interact with thought in productive ways (Wechsler. Forgas. Intelligence can be viewed as repre and the political turmoil of the 1960s and the public senting. 2002. This ability is often tance and rationality of emotion and cognition were said to be represented by a common. it was employed more extensively Plutchik. We are particularly inter clinical practice. 1943. Solomon. 17. Nussbaum. had difficulty expressing their emotions (Sifneos. 1984). 1872/1998. Wechsler. personal. Damasio. 1997). to eight or ten (Ekman & Friesen. Gardner.168. & Benbow. Salovey. Sloman & Mayer. 1987. 1986). we also editorialized for its further study (Mayer & Context for the El Concept Salovey. therefore. the capacity to carry out abstract discussion it elicited of the proper balance between thought. Neuropsychological studies of the & Horvath. p. artificial intelligence researchers developed ex (Ford & Tisak. & Caruso.

such relationships involve those important to sur ter an earlier figure we employed (Mayer & Salovey. as well as through a unique pattern of associ are relatively discrete areas of information processing ated signals from proprioceptive. riow being communicated in. 1998. & IMPLICATIONS ticular. whereas a 30-year-old may well do even better. Gross. animals-rather than the more general Mitchell. 1993.cherer... Schwarz. Emotional information is an emerging in 2002. El and the four-branch ability model.168. A. Izard. and conveyed through its own unique communication the capacity of emotion to enhance thought (Branch 2) channels. from perception to man play. By contrast. TARGET ARTICLE: THEORY. 1992. These Even small children are often taught to "count to 10" fouLr areas became known as the four-branch model. appeasement. (c) un (Averill & Nunley. it involves face. formation source in this regard. & Zeitlin. records its mean (Cytowic. The institutionalization of in volves developing a knowledge base about such formation refers to the degree to which a culture rec experiences on which the intelligence can draw ognizes information as important. 1994. Knowledge ings. Mayer & Mitchell. It involves language. 1995. Isen. is a developmental progression of skills from the more basic to the more sophisticated (see Mayer & Salovey. reflects the perception of emo E. Scherer et al. Roseman. affective. Ekman. Caruso. To institutionalize such may be emotionally apprehensive if she breaks her par knowledge (beyond access to a privileged few) would ents' favorite lamp (Lewis. Palfai & Salovey. school teachers (Elias et al. 2001). .13 on Mon. a feeling component (Davitz. a change it from tacit to explicit. emotion management S. reflects the have been understood in earlier times (though they capacity to analyze emotions. Branch 1. 1998. 2002). 1990). The least institu 1990. in nonverbal perception and expression of emotion in the being more circumscribed-that is. the understanding of emotion. to a (Buck. 29 Jan 2018 18:36:26 UTC All use subject to http://about. involves the capacity of emo communication can address (Mayer. even a 2-year old al. Salovey. courtships. 6-year-old will easily surpass the 2-year-olds' capacity at labeling and discriminating among feelings. 2001. Part of intelligence in of institutionalization. vival and reproduction including "threats. Ortony et al. Walker. we which necessarily involves the rest of personality. Emotional and other information compared. Quinlan. 2001).. There are grade-school prim some types of problem solving are specifically facili ers on language and on aspects of language under tated by some emotions but not others (Erez & Isen. Nowicki & lesser extent. The devel tionalized information area. For example. Scherer. 1998. 1975.jstor. the WValibott. & all personality (Mayer. Banse. This emotional information may be perception and expression of emotion (Branch 1). 1993. (b) use emotion to facilitate thought. within his or her over 1973. 1993). 1998). Izard. At the same time. and cogni that we expect to be modularized or bound within the tive channels (Damasio. 1993.. like human others' facial and postural expressions. 1993.. 2001). 1984. which operates of language and propositional thought. Such emotional signals communicate (Branch 4) must be integrated within an individual's iniormation about the individual's appraisals and mo overall plans and goals. guidebooks for 1988. Thus.. and social awareness ernotion. 1997). af before getting mad or to "smile for Grandpa. dlerstand emotions. 1994. That have found it convenient to divide the abilities and is. 1969. 2001). Ekman & Friesen. 1988. standing. self-knowledge. and understand their outcomes (Frijda. however. Within each branch there also tivated reactions to relationships and their vicissitudes. 20). in on information that is tacit or unstated (Stemnberg et terms of Branch 3 (understanding). 1993). Most emotion theories include & Sitarenios. and related communication channels understandings of relationships among people and. voice. Wagner. and acknowledges expertise in the area (Mayer of the link between emotions and thinking can be used et al. Lane. reviews of the existing psychological literature. and yet they are only trends over time. Schwartz. 2000). p. 1984). 1997). as noted. tions to assist thinking. 2001). Scherer. In our Branch 4 reflects the management of emotion. further difference between emotional informa and many discuss the existence of distinctive physio ticn and general language is their respective degrees logical signs of some emotions. isolation . 2001). tyl)es of relationships that other kinds of verbal Branch 2. Parrott." (Plutchik..org/terms . highly institutionalized. chological subsystems-that is. emotions are managed in the context of the individ skills of El into four areas: the ability to (a) perceive ual's goals.. For example. is that as opmental aspect of Branch 3 coincides with the growth sociated with practical intelligence. greetings. 2001. Emotional meanings Branch 3. appreciate their probable are better understood now). agement. facilitation. FINDINGS. 2000). attacks." By early 199 This content downloaded from 148. emotion system. say. represents the degree to which the ability is Each emotion conveys a unique set of identifying integrated within the rest of an individuals' major psy signals-emotional information (Buck.202. and (d) manage emotion. and The order of the branches. 1984. by definition.motional information processing is an evolved area of tion and involves the capacity to recognize emotion in communication among mammals. Verbal-propositional intelligence is to direct one's planning (Izard. 1997).. It is different from language..

Using Emotions to Facilitate Thought.g. Philippot. 2002. & West. and (f) Blends.13 on Mon. Wenzlaff. the MEIS. and (b) Pictures. for each of We have argued that El meets standards for a tradi 400-plus items). Twenty-one scholars and researchers with spe more-or-less correct answers. 2002). 2001). Mayer & Geher. Rude. 1969. 1984). for which tests of El to be considered true tests of intelligence. completed the MSCEIT.jstor. SALOVEY.g..g. Roseman. We noted that the lack of convergence was likely due Controversies and Findings Regarding El to the use of only two expert raters for roughly 2.g. Mayer. For example.43 to . 1999. 1990.. 1999. According to our theory of El.. 1999). Buck. 1993.. Erber. Rime. joy and challenge). 2002). of course. 1982. Perceiving Emotions. however. ings (Gross. for which participants answers (e. showed promise in initial studies (Mayer presenting participants with hypothetical scenarios and et al. can be wrong. We nimity (e. & Salovey. in our manage others' feelings so that a desired outcome is original study on the MEIS. An Bratslavsky. In fact. Rosenhan & Messick.. Mayer et al. helps to ad scales to measure El (Mayer. El should develop with age. Notably. Larsen. Understanding Emotions. section. El have grown.g. Caruso. anger and disgust) must be better than compare emotions to other tactile and sensory stimuli others (e. Mayer et or less correct... al. 29 Jan 2018 18:36:26 UTC All use subject to http://about. Finally. is measured through (a) Faces. which asks ternatives to such a scoring procedure. Abe & Izard. 1998. Managing Emotions. Do El test items have a "right" answer? For Ekman & Friesen. 2002).. The most re At the same time. some researchers asking how they would maintain or change their feel noted that expert scoring. the MSCEIT expert Mayer et al. such 200 This content downloaded from 148. including abilities to avoid feelings or to should correlate with other intelligences. and (d) Facilitation. Kagan. is gether in the feeling of contempt?" some of the possible measured by (c) Sensations. expert and general scoring achieved (e. Minimally. employed to determine the correctness of an answer. 1993). into another (e. which involves asking participants how to general scoring (Roberts et al. others have raised questions con cent of these is the MSCEIT (Mayer. Chapin. the general best facilitate a type of thinking (e. "Which two emotional experiences might blend to Branch 2.. through (e) Changes.g.. El test items can be scoring was based on a larger number of emotion ex operationalized in such a fashion that there are perts. Second. evolved signals. 1983). who attended the biannual cific patterns of correlations similar to those of known conference of the International Society for Research intelligences. expert and general consensus. 1988. for One such method uses the general consensus of which participants identify the emotions that would test-takers. & Caruso. CARUSO adulthood.g. Palfai & El questions. 2003. 1996). 1966). 1976. but only reframe appraisals to reassure oneself or achieve equa modestly so. Several methods can be (e.org/terms . correlated between r = . This makes sense because emotions are Salovey. Ortony et For that reason. 1990. 1942. Fromme & O'Brien. Tice & present evidence supporting these criteria here. we mean that El meets To investigate the potential convergence between three broad criteria (Gardner. Salovey. test responses is according to an expert criterion in Branch 4. which involves method. &Cisamolo.. is measured which experts judge the correct answers to a test.. planning a birth consensus should identify the optimal answer to many day party. and serve to organize some of our comments. We have constructed a series of the MSCEIT and its precursor. EI shows spe cialties in emotion.g. it is important to examine possible al al. Isen. 1975). frustration into aggression. Ford & Tisak. 1990).202. if a person selects an alternative chosen by know under what circumstances emotional intensity less 75% of the group. 2001). That through (g) Emotion Management. Davitz.. Thayer. as developed for the MEIS. Recently. 1974.. and the majority of the group should Branch 3. typical. 2000. 1966). Campbell. & Krathwohl. 1971. 2001). 2000. 2001. is on what El predicts and what the high El person is like The Mayer-Salovey-Cwaruso Emotional Intelligence (Matthews et al. the means of emotional self-management scribe a factorially unified domain. the mental tasks should de on Emotion. In addition. however. The group.78 (Mayer et al. equally important focus at this point. tional intelligence. participants are asked to identify the emotions conveyed they must have answers that can be evaluated as more by landscapes and designs (Arnheim. 1999. for which participants are asked to identify the Can El Be Operationalized as an Ability? emotions in faces (e. too. dress such issues. By that.. is measured appreciate the meaning of most of these messages. which tests a person's ability to Therefore. The MSCEIT has eight tasks: two to measure each These questions also are examined in the following of the four branches of El. Branch 1.000 test alternatives (5 alternatives.. if a person is asked. participants to identify the emotions that are involved in A second method for evaluating the correctness of more complex affective states (Plutchik. 1984). MAYER. First.168. 1996. the individual's score is incremented ens and increases and how one emotional state changes by . Erez & Isen. Research with scales such as Test (MSCEI). cerning our theory and measure of El and its adequacy. and (h) Emotion Re created scores that were unsettlingly different from lationships. Ekman.75 and so on.

the participant's self-reported empathy was emotion is portrayed and expressed (e.70 .. 29 Jan 2018 18:36:26 UTC All use subject to http://about.99 Blends . The 40 students then watched videotapes (Roberts et al. is among the worst in the battery" clergraduates. and Brown (2001) exam mance-based scales. they recruited a group of the 20 of the subtests that form the highest branches of the highest scoring and 20 lowest scoring students on a model. calculated by either general or tions that more closely approximate real life settings. & Sitarenios.jstor.98 Managing . to unrelated to such ability (Geher et al.98 Faces .64 .93 ..org/terms . expert scoring. FINDINGS.82 . split-half reliabilities are employed t each task are placed on each half). TARGET ARTICLE: THEORY.202.63 .80 ..168. (2002) Individual Tasks Expert' Consensusa Consensus-Expert Agreement l'otal test . to identify how the graduate students were feeling. in almost every instance. & IMPLICATIONS a group can be expected to be conversant with how contrast.. relative to provide an overall assessment of El that has high inter low-scoring individuals.66 .64 .79 ..97 Understanding . (2003) Mayer et al.98 Perceiving .90 . were significantly better able nal consistency (reliability) . 2002. 2003). 1998. nate between better and worse answers to emotional In this investigation. the correspondence between problems. scientific nature" (Matthews et al.90 . More recently. 2001.94 Nfor analyses 2015-2111 2015-2112 5000 ANote. have a rich and sophisticated emotions vocabulary. 224)." (Matthews et al. this ability may generalize to laboratory condi scores on the MSCEIT.90 . adis sically ecologically valid to the extent that some emo cussion of the MEIS and MSCEIT was followed by the tional information is communicated through writing and statement that "the reliabilities of these perfor photographs.91 ..93 Facilitating . Warner. Geher. These Are Tests of El Reliable? aznd other relevant values are reproduced in Table 1.76 .13 on Mon. Salovey.97 Facilitation . p.87 .. p. area..80 .62 .. Written provements would depend on "complex and arduous" and visual items about emotional information are intrin work (Davies et al. in faces)..88 . p.. 1013).91 . and Such findings suggest that people are able to discrimi to know the conditions that elicit emotions..96 and . Reliabilities of the MSCEIT and Convergence Across Scoring Methods Total Test Level Area Level Branch Level Mayer et al. Different methods converge to a single crite the percentage of experts who chose a given alternative rion jointly endorsed both by the majority of participants zind the percentage of a general sample across the 705 and by a group of highly selected emotions experts. the of graduate students describing what was on their same authors acknowledge that "the MEIS/MSCEIT rnin(ds. to the accurate perception of emotion in a real life target.97 Pictures .98 (Mayer.g.69 97 Emotional relationships .98 Experiential area . Table 3). Test dition.. In ad alternatives of the test was extremely high. Another article proceeded "the reliability To test this idea.95 Strategic area . In p.64 .. Task level reliabilities are coefficient 201 This content downloaded from 148. 2001. Table 1.98 Changes . are far ined whether people who exhibited accurate emotional from optimal . Caruso.98 Sensations . and branch levels. 516). Elsewhere.. (2003) Mayer et al.96 Emotional management . from the perspective of making valid perception and understanding had abilities that extended inferences of a . however. and thus probably the most important compo measure of El understanding from a sample of 124 un nents of the MEIS . aAt the total. correlated between r = . 198).88 . A review of early measures of El concluded that "ob Are written El items ecologically valid? Eco jective measures of emotional intelligence suffer from logical validity refers to how well a test or laboratory sit poor reliability" and went on to state that possible im uation can generalize to situations in real life.77 .55 .91.65 . High El-scoring participants. 2002.81 . MSCEIT = Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test.83 ..68 .. r = .70 .86 .

31 Transitions .66 . MAYER. Table 1) Total Test .91.85 . Matthews. 2002).84 Synesthesia . definition and conceptualization of El and attendant To explain the previously stated comments then: sampling difficulties" (Matthews et al.52 .68 .73 Self ..88 . Are Tests of El Valid? The test-retest reliability is r = . Table 1. Its reliability is researchers have suggested that for tests of El. that acknowledges the high internal consistency of the Reliabilities at all levels of the MSCEIT are re MEIS and MSCEIT. 2001). CARUSO Examining the actual MSCEIT reliabilities can the purposes of demonstration studies.70 .78 Facilitating . and Man pears to refer to the individual tasks of the MEIS or aging aspects of our model. The recommended scores-those we tests at the Branch. which appears to take into ac expert or general consensus scoring is employed).94 nr .94 Faces .66 .84 .55 .84 . (1999.81 . test reliabilities of the MSCEIT (or MEIS) at the When we employ the MSCEIT (or MEIS) for valid Branch.95 Perceiving .37 . Two tasks are employed to MSCEIT-a level at which the scales were not de assess each branch of the model. Table 1) (2001. Roberts..38 .88 nr . 2002. and branch scores representing the four-branch model of r = . developed in 1990 and 1996 for operationalize all the possible definitions of El (or any Table 2.84 . We are encouraged by all reliability is r = . and place in or near the passages.. we focus on scores at the Total. 2002. with count the recommended use of the test.35 .76 Other . The MSCEIT' s over they were intended to be used.96a .60 Understanding . 35). In addition.76 .87 Designs .78 .94 . presumably refers to using the ported in Table 1. The MEIS's reliabilities.58 Perspectives .67 .76 to . Area. In the third quote. Those tests. Table 2) (2002. the authors El into an Experiential Area consisting of Branches 1 appear to imply that those individual task scores are the and 2 and a Strategic area consisting of Branches 3 and most important of the test.91 or . 2003. Roberts et al.93 (depending on whether the authors' last quote.89 . Nor were Branch. Reliabilities of the MEIS Mayer et al.70 .86 (Brackett & Mayer. MEIS = Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale.90 . pp. bAn alpha reliability of .86 to . 2003). 14. 286) (2000. or Total reliabilities raised in any prominent dividuals.13 on Mon. The last quote.jstor. this likely u 202 This content downloaded from 148. Area. area reliabilities of r = . The second "far from optimal" quote ap to the Perceiving. "Con comparable to the MSCEIT at the branch and total lev tent Validity is a difficult area. did have reliabilities that were MSCEIT produces four branch scores that correspond quite modest. & should be interpreted with caution due to their lower re Zeidner. shed light on these apparent contradictions.72 .74 Blends .72 . nr aCalculated for factor-based scale. 19.168. Ciarrochi et al. 29 Jan 2018 18:36:26 UTC All use subject to http://about.90 nr . The test manual ex for a reader to independently evaluate the actual reli plicitly warns that if task level scores are employed.202. The which were very brief.46 .86 . as reported in four Do Tests of El Have Content Validity? Some large-sample studies. given disputes over the els (it had no area-level scoring).96a .66 . we divide signed to be employed. Understanding.85 Music .57 . SALOVEY. or Total test levels at which and others employ-are in bold.70 heterogeneity of items across the tasks involved..81a nr nr . Area.89a nrb nr . and Total El levels. The total El test score indexes a participant's perfor these summary statements took into consideration the mance across all test areas.86a nr nr .49 .69 Managing . making it quite difficult Branch levels (Mayer et al. Using. 46).51 . liability (Mayer et al. p. If The original criticisms were aimed at our first explor one ever designed a test that was intended to atory measures of El.85 Biases .43 . Roberts et al. they ability of the test (MacCann. p.34 Progressions .61 Nfor analyses 500 134 704 180-183 Notes.68 .org/terms . There is little indication that 4. Caruso et al.85 Stories . are in Table 2.90.59 . ity studies or interpret them in providing feedback to in Area.82 .

The MSCEIT and MEIS. is reliable. The ties-g-is stronger at lower levels of intelligence content validity of a test.168. Roberts et al. and has an agreed of ability-based and self-report tests. Mayer. Does the MSCEIT range (See Table 3). 245). respectively. then.. (e. regarding re-lation to measures of social intelligence may be no El. we clearly described a gifted Israeli high school students (Zeidner & fnir-branch ability theory of El. 2003) and r = . Finally.. reflecting that it is separable into Expe employ here.18. 2003. Moreover. & Roberts. El is surprisingly distinct from other intelligences.. i]lgT. the Scale of Emotional Intelli gence (Schutte et al. spect to intelligence in general. Jaulsovec. are there. 29 Jan 2018 18:36:26 UTC All use subject to http://about.01 to . Table 11). 2001. 2001). it is possible to model the test(s) with two are based on a very different definition of El than we oblique factors. are likely divided into four areas of skills as we have suggested. 2001).jstor. 1997). p. Lysy. In port scales of El: Many self-report measures typically addition.15. The Understanding branch of the MSCEIT and MEIS have the highest correlations with other measures of intelligence. is more typically than higher levels. which are sometimes con lerns. The Levels of Emo (Hedlund & Stemnberg. The MSCEIT (and inllividuals who scored high on El. as measured by patterns in theta and alpha fre sidered an index of self-perceived El.25 to . And. 1997). Ciarrochi et al. 2004. as expected on factor structure. 2002. with a sample of 105 (Ciarrochi. Jausovec. 1998). & Mayer.35 Discriminant validity 3. We don't know tional Awareness Scale is a rater-evaluation system for how many intelligences are best to distinguish. and managing) provide an When the MSCEIT was correlated with several excellent fit to the tests (Day & Carroll.. Bar-On. in the r = . self-report IQ scales correlate at the r = . but we a person's integrative complexity in perceiving emo do Inow that El appears to be an intelligence. EQ-i (Bar-On..31 with them. four-factor solu but explicitly blend in popularized ideas (Schutte et al. Does the MSCEIT consideration of the conceptual connection of each task duplicate self-report measures of El? With re to) the theory. scribing already established personality dimensions. studying some self-re iraiel]Ligence is that the correlation among abili port measures of El. indicating weak overlap be measured as an ability. systematically from each of those four branches.30 level or below with actual. Matthews.21. Clore.. required less cognitive effort to solve prob perience measures of mood. The MSCEIT samples Shani-Zinovich. 2000. to be only weakly associated with self-perceived El.15 quency bands of electroencephalographic activity of (Lopes. others are based on our definition. abil ity-based performance measures of intelligence Do Tests of El Have Reasonable Factorial (Paulhus. That scale. however. "Too many intelligences?" The values are shown in Table 4.202. Mayer. in a neuropsychological study. 1998). 2003. 2004). Is the MSCEIT different Scale (Collins.. and fromt verbal and other intelligences? El. Study 1) . Evidence suggests that the MSCEIT's personality traits? Schaie (2001) noted. (1998) pronounced: 203 This content downloaded from 148. Correlations with other branches simply duplicate already-existing measures of are still lower. FINDINGS. an alternative way of de (:Barchard. TARGET ARTICLE: THEORY.. is only slightly correlated with For example. 2001). also. and Gerlic (2001) found that those Caputi. One's perceived intelli Validity? Another related question about El is gence is considerably different from one's actual intel whether it is a unitary intelligence and whether it can be ligence. using two tasks to measure each. 2000. 2003.. therefore. can -. as (Brackett & Mayer. other measures of self-reported El such as the Bar-On Salovey. But is it a new intelligence? And.alovey. "It is equally important to show that a new set of higher than its relation to traditional intelligences constructs is not simply . tiions reflecting the four branches individually (perceiv 1998). Some began as measures of other psycho riential El (including perceiving and using emotions) logical constructs such as emotional well-being and and Strategic El areas (including understanding and still retain many scales related to those earlier ideas managing emotions. which included Discriminant validity 2. 95). The tasks themselves have been selected over a decade of study. soIme have asked. In this case. Salovey. tween scales such as the MSCEIT and the many self-re reflecting that the ability can be considered unitary. & Yik. 2003). it correlated r = . Caruso et al.29 (Gohm & the brain. & IMPLICATIONS construct). Jensen (2003) recently argued that one attribute of such as the NEO" (p. or the Occupational Per sonality Questionnaire 32-Emotional Intelligence Discriminant validity 1.g. such difficulties would certainly arise. Caruso et al.13 on Mon.. r = . . as assessed with the MEIS) are also only weakly associated with meta-ex MSCEIT.. T'here is general agreement that the MSCEIT and its There is a second reason to expect a disjunction be precursors such as the MEIS yield one-factor solutions. p. Collins. tion. & Straus. understanding. r = . the MSCEIT.org/terms . This pattern was found for the evaluated according to the authors' own stated position MSCEIT subtasks among a sample of 208 normal and on the concept. S. Davies et al. 136). using. This is a standard pattern for intelligences.

Correlations ofAbility-Assessed El With Other Intelligence Measures Total El Perceiving Using Understanding Managing Measure.. N = 207 . in press)b.21** .31 nr nr nr nr (Collins. (Barchard.04 .14* . 29 Jan 2018 18:36:26 UTC All use subject to http://about.05 . 2002)". . Branch 2: Synesthesia. N = 107 . 2001) a.l. 2001)b Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale (Ciarrochi et . 1999.07 .15 . .10 . 287)a.20** N = 500 Verbal SATs (Brackett & Mayer.36** . N = 667-669 Perceptual-Organizational IQ Armed Services Vocational Aptitude .005.00 . (Roberts et al. and N 0 Emotions Emotions Emotions Emotions Verbal IQ Army Alpha Vocabulary (Mayer et al. N = 90-101 Trait Meta-Mood Experience Scale (Attention). Study.). 2001) a. 2001.22** Occupational Personality Questionnaire 32-El Scale -. Correlations ofAbility-Assessed EI With Self-Report or Rater-Coded Measures of EI Total Perceiving Using Understanding Managing Measure.28*** Schutte Scale (Brackett & Mayer.05. 204 This content downloaded from 148. pp..09* .11 (OGSI) Cartoon Predictions (II).11 Table 2) b.N= 105 Trait Meta-Mood Experience Scale (TMMS) Total .13 on Mon. Branch Relations. N = 207 .40* .. 2001) a.23** -..22* -.C.04 .Table 3.15* .06 .01 .21* .18* .04 Shipley Institute of Living IQ (Lam & Kirby. Emotional Intelligence Test. (Roberts et al. 2002.06 . 2003)b.01.12 .18 .02 .16 .00 Battery-Mechanical (perc-org). N= 141-142 OGSI Social Translations (II).N= 207 .168. Table 4.38** ..32*** Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery-General . p.29 nr nr nr nr (Gohm & Clore. and N El Emotions Emotions Emotions Emotions Bar-On EQ-i (Brackett & Mayer.20* .06 . 2003)'.04 et al. ***p < .36* . . *p < .22* .09 . 2001.27* (verbal-prop.40** .17* . N = 141-142 OGSI Missing Cartoons (II). pp. in press)" Notes. . Branch 1: Faces. El = emotional intelligence. p.03 106-107) bc..32* .05 (Lopes et al.01 . in press)b.org/terms .05 . 2003.15 ns ns 20*a ns al. pp. bUsed the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence correlations were reported at the task level only.25** . 2003)b . (Lopes .08 -.00 .04 . 2002. N= 304 Social IQ O'Sullivan & Guilford measure of Social Intelligence . As a consequence. aBased on reports of the Stories and Perspectives tasks of the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale. (Barchard.202. 106-107) bc. N = 141-142 Note.08 106-107) b. N = 667-669 ASVAB. N = 90-101 Trait Meta-Mood Experience Scale (Repair).13 . a Used the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale. (Barchard. (Lopes . 2001. .27* et al.(I) General IQ Air Force Qualifying Test (Roberts et al.16* N = 667-669 16 Personality Factor Scale B (Pelletteri. 95)b Trait Meta-Mood Experience Scale (Clarity)..16** .15* . EI = emotional intelligence.03 .05 -. **p < .12 .40** .09 . here each branch is represented b Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test Vl.jstor. Study. 2003)b.22* .27* . . 2003.11 .. 2003.

1994.01 5 .00 . 2003. respectively.18* .06 ..07 . 1998).02 5 . for example.168.13*** Total 1 -.16* .16* .08 .18** .21** . p.13 on Mon.21*** . MEIS & NEO Personality Inventory.05 MW -. (Day & Carroll. 1013).13* .00 mw . self-control = conscientiousness. TARGET ARTICLE: THEORY.09. and an R(201) = .13* .11* -.02 5 .org/terms .05 .01 4.02 .04 .10* .18* .09* 2 -. **p < ..11 *** . People higher in El are agreeable.19** .08** .19* .21** -.10 .03 .04 .10* .17* .11 .13* .04 .18** .01 .10 .06 and -.07 -.09** .05* . N= 656-671.13* .12 . .13 .05 .09* .03 .21** .24* .16* . Schutte et al.05 . r(l584) = .. 85) N= 183.19** .05 Mw --09** .04 Using 1 -.39** .01 .11*** .04 .21** 4 -.11*** Notes. On the other hand.06* .01 -. Table 5 shows the relation between the (to overlap substantially with personality measures MEIS and MSCEIT and each of the five factors. (2001). 29 Jan 2018 18:36:26 UTC All use subject to http://about.02 .12 . can tell us a little about the characteristics of a high El Indeed.13* .18* .38.01 3 . a personal communication (7/14/03) supplied the branch-leve and Carroll.17* . r(1584) = .19* 3 -.24*** .23** .13 .11 .202.07* .19* 3 -.jstor.13* . . al ail. 1 1. rnultiple R(201) = .10*** . Table 5. MSCEIT = Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Em emotional intelligence. (in press).02 . Agreeablen corresponding scale and is omitted (Russell & Karol. 2004): MSCEIT & NEO-PI: N = 237.05 Mw -. Brackett. two widely used self-report measures of El individual.24*** .06* .24* .03 -.08 . ***p < .01.15* .05 . WeightedMean Correlations Between EI (MEISand MSCEIT) and theBigFivePersonalit Traits Across Several Studies (Total N = 1584)a Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness Perceiving 1 -.04 .00 .08** . personal communica MSCEIT correlations.09 .01 .15* .21** . Schutte et The relations for extraversion and neuroticism.13* . yields a ies.23** .06 -.18* .01 -.08 .06 4 -. 205 This content downloaded from 148.13* . at the MSCEIT and the Big Five is R(201) = .02 .06 .04 Managing 1 -.16* .21** .02 -. and conscientious.07 . Each (Bar-On.11* .75.08 .05.19* .005.21. & IMPLICATIONS "Little remains of emotional intelligence that is unique The precise relations between El and the Big Five znd psychometrically sound" (p.20 .00 3 -. Regressing the correlation represents a weighted mean over five stud Big Five on the Bar-On EQ-i.19* 3 -. and Warn Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale.10*** Understanding 1 -.04 4 -.01 . r(1584) = . are lower.19** 4 . Schutte El scale (Brackett & Mayer.11* 2 .15* .15*** . 3 = Brack NEO-PI: N = 206-207. the comparable figure for though still statistically significant.14* .05 .13 .17*** .18*** . Mayer.17*** .07** . 5 = Brackett et al.05 -. alnclusion criteria: N > 150. 1997. 1998). r(l584) = .28** .02 -.06 .01 5 -.08* 2 -.16* 2 .16* 2 -.17** .2 = Personality Factor Scale approximation of the Big 5 factor scales (extraversion = extrav tough-mindedness = openness.52 for the open. 1 = Roberts et al. FINDINGS.19* .05 mw -.17. *p < .05 5 .

11 -. The incremental prediction of El and general intelligence..16* Enterprising -. aN = 182-183. neither claims nor mained positively criticisms related to both GPA and year in the are en themselves. 2001.02 . Such claims do a average disservice in El compared to the standardization to the sample.08 -. SALOVEY. students (Ashkanasy & Dasborough. A few other correlations what Elwith personality actually does pr also are of interest 2001). Boone and 1998. Emotion re N to say. ***p < .20** . Unger.23** . Mayer.05 -.25 amongHigher college El showed more adaptive defense mechanisms.10 .08 .p.202. *p < .04 Bond Defense Style Questionnaire (Pelletteri.07 Questionnaire on Smoking Intentions (Trinidad. Brackett Many of the & Mayer 2003. Scheier. sublimation.07 . (2002) Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test. Experiencing 2000b).18* Lower intentions to smoke -.02 -. & Shani-Zinovich.08 -. Academically gifted students in Israel scored higher on Fina sponding on the MSCEIT is the test than their less gifted unrelated peers. dN = 96.11 . & Johnson Effective in turning down offers of smoking -. Relation of EI With Selected Other Scales of Personality TotalIEl Perceiving Using Understanding Managing Scale and Subscales Emotions Emotions Emotions Emotions Holland's Self-Directed Search (Caruso et al. have argued againstAfter themcontrolling for repeatedly demographic and academic vari (Maye Mayer & Cobb. Theseof students in scored psycholog above ence.01 .12 Public self-consciousness .02 -. adaptive & Kirby.. Lam & Kirby.23** . r = .08 .13 on Mon.09 . in which IQ.07 .life" a stronger re (Gibbs cover. cN = 416. 34.07 .1 1gic (Lopes et El (Understanding and al. Goleman. El cor d (Caruso. as "more 2003). Barchard.01 .02 . 29 Jan 2018 18:36:26 UTC All use subject to http://about.05 -.org/terms . Several studies have as coun social work.01 Social .12 .08 . 2002.04 Maladaptive defense style -.20** -.20 to ." or. 1995.. 2002)b Adaptive defense style . has been modest to slight.12 . powerful tha mattering "twice as much as academic In one study. 2003.01 . El = emotional intelligence. CARUSO Table 6.18* . 2000.00 -. 2003). relates with grades about2002). MAYER.10 Artistic -. 2002).02 -. field. ables.005. particularly in strate t desirability.04 .11 -.01.Mayer higher area scores in et al. Caruso et al.. lation was found. & Salovey. however. 2003) . 31 claims suggest that ied El predicts 90 graduate major students training in school and clinical life o at levels virtually unheard psychology programs.02 -.168.08 .07 -.05. nisms such as denial (Pelletteri.of popularizations Zeidner El-or & E some put it-view itShani-Zinovich.16 -. salesperson.17* -.jstor. demonstrations are nece 21U This content downloaded from 148.07 .06 . Chou. DiGiuseppe (2002) stud p. performance ex simply "best predictor ofplicitly success in involved emotion-related tasks.05 . or project school grades and intellectual problem solving.05 Social Anxiety -. 2003) Total score . Zeidner Management.15* . are and reported in Table 6 higher in El (as an ability) obtain scores on land Self-Directed Search indicating they a likely to prefer socialAcademic occupations such performance.02 -.05 -. **p < . & Buss's Public-Private S Private self-consciousness -.02 Investigative . r = . Brackett & Mayer.02 Note.21* Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability (Lopes et al. Careful program. in preference toLamless 2003. 2002). 2003.15* -.06 -.15 Fennigstein.01 -.03 Conventional -. with What Is Known About themost correlations Predictive dropping to a Validity of El? nonsignificant range once general intelligence is partialed out of the relation (Barchard. and teaching to now been carried enterprising out on the prediction from El to occu such as being a clerk. bN = 107. 2002)a Realisitic -.

He found a and unique pattern of prediction emerges when one ex negative relation between Perceiving Emotions and arnines the association between El to deviancy and psychological aggression (insults and emotional tor problem behavior. Findings related to leadership and For example. 29 Jan 2018 18:36:26 UTC All use subject to http://about. dimensions describing an individual's surrounding life Gohm. partialing out the effect of apparently appreciate El in their supervisors. (2003) found that higher bezhavioral rating scale that can be used to identify Managing Emotion scores in particular were positively plrwsical and verbal aggression among children in the related to the quality of interactions with friends (Study school-yard and classroom. over the past year. 2002). in press). gence and empathy. and these are then aggregated into press).45 be Emotion scores were more liked and more valued by tween. She students and related them to a German-translated ver then correlated scores of the adolescent MEIS with stu sion of the MSCEIT. Some of the dimensions employed to describe the life space in that study and later ones are shown in Table 7. and -. Study 2 examined approximately 4. Swift (2002) examined El among 59 indi ordinates. positively related to stress management among college The first such study with El was an undergraduate students who either closely attended to their emotion senrior honors thesis (Formica.27.org/terms . To index the the . & Chabot. Relations for both studies remained sc. Study 2 involved speak to your mother last week?"). Giles (2001) found a positive relation be viduals in a court-mandated violence-prevention tween aspects of subordinates' commitment to their 207 This content downloaded from 148. El varies inversely with bullying. student-rated aggression and El the opposite sex. he found a rise in olence. participants describe literally more than a tistical significance after other personality variables thousand individual elements of their external lives via were partialed out (Cote. Findings with the items such as "What is the most advanced course you MSCEIT across organizations suggest some of the have taken in Engineering?" and "How long have complexity that may exist when examining El in social you been a lab technician?" correlated r = -.g.20 with El.its and their teachers to fill out the Behavioral As actions recorded in the diaries of 100 German college sessment Scale for Children for those they knew. even when partialing measures of intelli were overwhelmed by it. Corser.168. the nior executives tested in a large international produc nuitmber of times an individual vandalized something tion and service organization (Collins. Lopes et al. measured by organizational behavior. and Dalsky (2004) found that El was (N\llayer. 1998).30 to . 1992). In the study.26 with El after partialing out for both not be either central or necessary El may decline going IQ and sex. FINDINGS. however. Emotional Regulation (Branch 4) of A series of studies has constructed new criteria of the MSCEIT again predicted key aspects of rated so tlhe life space-the social situations and groups that are cial sensitivity and quality of interactions. however.39 with organizations. Studying b)0th SAT scores and the Big Five (Brackett. Unexpectedly. Lopes. These relations remain Emotion branch scores. 2004). two small groups of managers (13 each from a public & Warner. 1998). Social Devi up the corporate ladder. A consistent program in New Haven. and private organization) along with 108 of their sub Finally. That was the case with 59 se ance.40 range. & Beers. were collected.jstor. in Flife space test items. & IMPLICATIONS Predictions to deviant behavior. Mayer. Rubin (1999) employed the Behavioral Assessment Predictions to prosocial and other positive Scvale for Children (Reynolds & Kamphaus. significant even after partialing out the influence of the A second line of research employs life-report data: Big Five personality traits. In career tracks in which El skills may El and r = -. It is both conceptu 76 members of a residential college who were well aLly and empirically distinct from self-report data as tra known to each other and for whom sociometric data ditionally conceived (Funder. 2001). for example. 1999. psychological aggression with higher Managing Tirinidad & Johnson. wvere correlated with the MEIS. sev or regularly distanced from and intellectualized their eiral life space dimensions specifically related to El feelings. even when both intelligence and personality variables are statistically controlled for. Study 1 involved 66 participants divided into 24 belong to in high school?" "How many times did you groups and studied over a semester.13 on Mon.(ores. personal reports of external life surroundings and events Similar findings were obtained across two addi that an individual can reasonably observe (e. TARGET ARTICLE: THEORY.202.. "How tional studies of student groups at two different univer nmany wine glasses do you own?" "What clubs did you sities. These results maintained their sta life-space. and drug problems (Rubin. and strong relations among students who experienced little emotion or wvere found. In that study and a later one. Carlsmith. those lower in an organization = -. Students with higher Managing denjit reports and found a correlation of r = -. tobacco use. She asked about 50 stu 1). Mayer. with rs in exteirnal to and surround the person. Connecticut.500 social inter dt. 2001. El showed no such advantage. and similar questions correlated r On the other hand. Salovey. Rational Control. vi ment). measured by the number of physical fights. a behaviors.

General Behavioral Surveys. Life Space.05 -. Emo Perhaps El is more importa tional Understanding. 'Used the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test.13 on Mon.org/terms .168. Controlling for Overall Tobacco and Alcohol Use 1. SALOVEY.leaders. adjustments. the El of returned the 11 by 208 This content downloaded from 148.05.07 Amount of marijuana owne Times used illegal drugs in t Alcohol Use -. or frequencies) and was multip *p < .20* Number of times vandalized something? Bracket.45* Number of physical fights in last year? Times vandalized something last year? Trinidad & Johnson. CARUSO Table 7. 2002a.005. 2004b. N = 188-202. in one organization.17* When was the last time you insulted someone in p When was the last time you shot a BB or pellet gu Brackett & Mayer. 26 teams.06 -.02 .05 ns How skilled are you in martial arts? Describe your experience writing poetr Destructive Behavior -.19* -. organization and supervisors' teamEl. ns = not significant. customer relations have may be the most direct favorably in con fluenced by El.46. r = .33** .30** .20* Ever smoked cigarette? Do you smoke once a day? Ever tried an alcoholic beverage? Have you drunk alcohol in the last 7 days? Notes. N = 208.26** What is the most advance course level you have take How long have you been a lab technician? Life Enthusiasm .27*** -.01 Bottles of beer owned? Times in the last month fell asle Cigarette Smoking Packs of cigarettes owned at this time? -.22** ns How long have you kept a journal of yo (-) When was the last time you shot a bb Relatedness . N = 209-242 Illegal Drug User (Men): -. r Thi on = . made across those 26 questionnaires teams. who Similarly. better 164 individuals) pre supe dicted customer satisfaction employed with claimsundergraduates. were forwas theinver Emotion Management scale mance. Partial Corre Drug Use -. Partial Correlation Controlling Rational Control -. adjusters (11 leaders. time intervals.32* Times smoked marijuana in last month? Money spent on drugs in last month ? Deviant Behavior (Men): -. Mayer. N = 232. (These however.02 Number of cigarettes smoked per day? Social Deviance Number of physical fights in the last year? -. 29 Jan 2018 18:36:26 UTC All use subject to http://about. For all items the r numbers of objects or events. bUsed the M Act Frequency.39** -.19** How many movie dramas have you How many pictures of friends/famil Solitary Culture -.01. & Warner.51.202. El = emotional intelligence. **p <. ***p < . in the other). The average That El of would also 26 teams ofexplain claims why h predicted. 1998a. r = -.jstor. Emotional Intelligence and Life-Report Datac Correlation Partial Life-Report Measure CrWithElI Correlation With Sample ItemS" ihE With El Formica.22. 2003b. MAYER.

po)itant to success. They measured mother's El when ity. We be ing literally thousands of participants who have had l-ieve that further research remains warranted in this their El levels assessed by two ability measures of El.. In other words. 1985). More generally. As El rises. emotional patterns and Development of El and learning of emotional sequences. maternal El mea with age. An equiva p loyed the MSCEIT and the other employed an adoles lently important concern. training programs. 2003). cognitive intelligence. In relation Marsland and Likavec (2003) noted that to operationalizing El. knowledge. & Salovey. men who worked in 40 groups on a simulated consul tancy project. The limited evi sured objectively 2?/2 years earlier when the infants dence presented thus far suggests that El increases were 1 year of age. which is interest telligence was partialed out in a regression analysis ing considering that Understanding is most related to (Janovics & Christiansen. Both used short-term outcomes of importance. and measure something distinct relative to infants and their mothers. FINDINGS. We have speculated that El is a rela We have previously suggested that El must meet three tively stable aptitude. and distinct from a wide range of also significantly related to quality of attachment. involving training in emotional knowledge on desired outcomes in studies from many different laboratories and employ the studies (Forrey. but may also meet brain-based criteria . 2003). whereas emotional knowl criteria to be considered a standard intelligence: (a) it edge--the kind of information that emotional intelli must be operationalized as a mental ability. and with. The result remained significant even after controlling for the Big Five personality traits Discussion (Cote. measured as an ability. and anxiety disorders. and emotion as an evolved symbol system (Ekman. In a cross-sectional design Part of interpersonal relationships involves moti sampling roughly 400 college students (about 100 vating others. 209 This content downloaded from 148. predicts a variety of im One of our own studies examined developmental portant outcomes. prosocial peer relations. the MEIS.13 on Mon. Dyck. Gohm and Clore (2002) found higher quality vision statements than others. and its precursor. TARGET ARTICLE: THEORY. is that El predict cenit adaptation of the MSCEIT. from those with mental retardation. were highly reliable. 2002). but not those with Asperger' s suggested by others (Gardner.. and factor (which can be divided into two or four relatedness in this sample of 67 predominantly White subfactors). As El declines. Emotional information con cerns the meaning of emotions. measures of relatedness. mea personality scales examined thus far.gulished autistic children. Some research has begun on the developmental ability that represents a new kind of performance rela course and implications of El. measure a set of abilities that form a unitary related to child empathy. the appraisals of relationships they reflect. accumulating evidence indicates ADHD. 2003). though this was a limited age range. area. El test items can be developed rnother-child interactions often predict preschooler's that possess both correct answers and ecological valid social competence. Syndrome. 1983). The mothers' El scores were earlier intelligences. so does academic per trends in El between adolescent and college-age stu formance. and especially Perceiving scores. and there was little or no influence of We have presented evidence about El. the MSCEIT. (b) it must gence operates on-is relatively easy to acquire and meet correlational criterion that indicate it is a unitary teach. Stephenson.168. scales have been developed that are highly scores. employing their own ability tasks of suggest that El not only meets our own criteria for an emotional recognition. The existence of brain areas implicated in in sured as an ability and secure attachment measured ob tegrating emotional and cognitive areas (Damasio. Maternal Total El sures. Onie way to interpret such findings is to suggest that The Present Status of El Measurement El positively contributes to job performance when the rmaintenance of positive personal commitments is im El is an intelligence that operates on. Lopes. These no increase in MSCEIT scores across the college vision statements were generated by 137 women and years. and other similar criteria. The college students scored somewhat higher communicate motivating messages such as vision than the adolescent youth (Mayer et al. The statements. jectively are interrelated and both predict social 1994. Schohet (2001). 2000.202. the ability to dents. 1999). and the correlation remained significant when cognitive in least strong was that for Perceiving. however. emotional information. Higher El individuals appear to write each year). TenHouten et al. and (c) it must exhibit growth emotional knowledge to counselors and students so as to with age-a developmental course similar to that of raise their El or change their behavior. The most striking trend was for Understanding. tive to earlier measures of intelligence and other per Two theses we located reported attempts to teach sonality dispositions.org/terms . that El. One study em other intelligences (Mayer et al. at this point. On a related note. In relation to the correlational patterns of El mea their children were 3/2 years of age.jstor. found that child El distin intelligence. 29 Jan 2018 18:36:26 UTC All use subject to http://about. and the evolution of competence. Ferguson.. 1999). & IMPLICATIONS survey of employers of 176 working students.

particularly if the individ on their spot on the food chain and I think that's wrong. in deviation above or below the mean score of 100. (Vitello-Cicciu.. they have clear under gether with qualitative studies of high El individuals standings of what they can and cannot do: (Mayers.. p. high and I have to do something else for a while Second. a great deal of criticism in the El area per (Vitello-Cicciu. perceives her emo First. it usually means that maybe I've been work ported (Mayer. The individual tends to be more open and agree doesn't work to create a team atmosphere . 2001. 2001. in general. or if I start to get angry again assured ourselves that the claims were indeed unsup and again. 11 of these individuals were high scorers. Such individuals may also be more adept at Understanding Criticism in the Area describing motivational goals. The high El person is drawn to occupa you have to show a lot of respect to everybody that you tions involving social interactions such as teaching and work with. 2003. Those criti cisms do not apply here. and that "A cause nurse managers are. ual scored higher in the understanding emotions portion I think that's not being sensitive to their needs and it of El.13 on Mon. relative to others. Other self-report scales are 210 This content downloaded from 148. 2000. The person also tends to be somewhat higher in verbal. To do this. I can't control What Is the High El Individual Like? their husbands or their sickness or what's going on in their families but ask what can I do in this unit to drop A composite picture. whose El construct" (Pfeiffer. the workplace] because that's the one thing I control. 2001. if they start to intensify a the psychological literature. p. If I can't han popular claims publicly and repeatedly as soon as we dle emotions very well. Perkins.. deviance. 2001). Nine. 2001. p. The high El person is more likely to have pos high. 1999. a great deal of criticism is aimed at the naive tions and uses them as signals in self-understanding and popularizations of the concept.202.jstor. The high El individual. What sense ropolitan medical center. like the other high scorers. one also senses The high El individual. 104) most centrally. or violent episodes with emotional levels in general-will keep cooperation others. To working as a team. and why such an individual would. it probably means that I'm tired. and missions. is less apt the openness and agreeableness that characterize such to engage in problem behaviors and avoids self-de individuals. or both" (Becker. Reading through this and other cases. Mayer et ing a little too much and maybe the stress level is a little al. p. particu larly if the individual scored highly on emotional man agement. 2001. understand their meanings. in general. 87) counseling more so than to occupations involving cleri cal or administrative tasks. I think able than others. Caruso.org/terms . high scorers on major weakness with the extant El literature is the the MSCEIT. 140)? overall EIQ = 119. SALOVEY. aims.. Certain of those self-report approaches are Such above average El scorers show understanding appropriate as measures of self-perceived EI. Vitello-Cicciu. CARUSO problem behaviors. The critical comments about El that we sometimes have quoted throughout this article may raise the A case example. 2001. and manage emo The desire to manage other peoples' feelings comes tions better than others. objective measures of the Some excerpts from a nurse-manager (case 9). drug abuse.. can better perceive emotions. indicates some of the style of a high There are some rules of thumb that are helpful for El individual (Vitello-Cicciu.168. how their emotional management of them structive. Mayer & Cobb. (Vitello-Cicciu. Vitello-Cicciu (2001) adminis question of how to integrate the negative views of the tered the MSCEIT to 50 nurse managers at a large met field with the information in this article. exces selves and others-based as it is on a monitoring of sive drinking. 2000b). sessions of sentimental attachment around the home value their family members and other friends. This theory is deeply rooted in If I start to get very emotional. and particularly the ir management: responsible claims in the popular press. Solving emotional problems out of a recognition and respect for how others feel: likely requires less cognitive effort for this individual. I can't control their [the nurses] lives. MAYER. and we argued against the little bit. p. She then interviewed 14 man can be made of comments such as that "purported agers in depth who scored more than one standard measures of emotional intelligence are unreliable. and other intelligences. use them in thought. this information helps us to I've got to do something to break it [the stress level in characterize the individual high in El. I've seen other people talk down to people depending social. the stress level . and to have more positive social interactions. negative behaviors such as smoking. Manager making sense of criticism of the El area.. but do not of what to do in their workplaces to help keep people measure actual El ability. 80). 104) tains to self-report scales as opposed to El measured as an ability. 29 Jan 2018 18:36:26 UTC All use subject to http://about. 194). p. Be valid. & Salovey.. and drug use rise. lack of scientifically sound.

. (c) understanding the pro searchers who do this are expected to find out if such an cesses underlying El. 29 Jan 2018 18:36:26 UTC All use subject to http://about. Becker. verbal intelli books. and branch levels.g. and. C. specific factor structure of its subscales. 566-577. Department of Psychology. the exact con Given that there exist legitimate criticisms of our tent of its tasks.. New York: Wiley. different mea publication lags that occur in scientific journals and sures of an intelligence-say. and the S. And are there a thousand further improve have not fully integrated new work in their comments ments that could be made to the test? Yes. P. research in the field of El is dynamically ex ing the skills assessed by the test? Is it important to panding. In 1990. The priorities for research in the area as we now see called "emotional intelligence. 194. 299-302). area. Computer simulations of per research we have reported here attempts to address sonality (pp. R. J. There also exist le bal intelligence has come from such matters as its con gitimate criticisms that can be leveled at our ability vergent.13 on Mon. (1963). A. 2001. to move the field forward.). absolutely. these were to explore and what it predicts. 2003. Their importance. (d) determining whether teach intelligence actually exists. Salovey & Mayer. 140). Re and other personality traits. (e. psychometric senses of the word valid. & IMPLICATIONS mreasures that may be better viewed as traditional per those priorities. own and others' work into context by asking "How Our perspective has led us to focus in these early days much does this matter?" and "How high a priority is it?" of El research on the broader issues of El: What it is [n regard to our own priorities. may lie more in procedure. have reported here establish a reasonably secure foothold fCr El in the intelligence literature. 211 This content downloaded from 148. discriminant. More technical concerns. NH 03824. reliable. higher standards for Our perspective on a century of research in intelligence one or another specific features of the tests we employ.168. These criticisms should serve." We also provided pre them concern (a) learning more about what El predicts. Univer determine whether El is of importance. discover that the MSCEIT is at least an adequate test to address something about what it may predict. a means is necessary for balancing the two. Pfeiffer.org/terms . 1990. this is a point we agree with and structure? Is it critical to conduct further studies into have made repeatedly (e. a convenient-to-administer test that is highly re liable at the total-score.. our fifth guideline for understanding crit generally in the intelligence field. the exact emotional and cognitive processes underly Third. so that we and other interested researchers could try to understand what El may be related to and predict. and pro Abe. FINDINGS. gence-tend to correlate highly with one another Fourth. (1999). scnbed our belief that there may exist a new intelligence. Studies thus far support the idea the possible existence of an El and. Durham. 77. including the and have served. Tomkins & S. Would it also be nice for the MSCEIT sonality assessments. liminary empirical data in support of the possibility (b) understanding how El relates to other intelligences (Mayer et al. this may be an unavoidable product of In traditional intelligence research. if it existed. A. as well as the tests we de perhaps. model and at the MSCEIT.202.g. and the reliability of the smaller divi work and also a near-infinite list of desirable but possi sions of tests that measure it. are without question bly unattainable criteria for just about any measurement important. ies that would be useful to conduct.mayer@unh. & Izard. A longitudinal study of emotion vides a reasonably valid measure of El in the many expression and personality relations in early development. p. by constructing ing emotional knowledge has a desirable effect on individual tasks that can tap the intelligence and by ex behavioral outcomes and might change EI itself. These have been our priorities since 1990. 2003). for example. Having accomplished these theoretical steps. we de key issues about El in these ways. Examining the specific statements of some have higher reliabilities at the level of the individual cI-itics and comparing them to the work they cite sug tasks? Is there "slippage" of the exact content validity? gests that they often are unaware of recent articles or Perhaps. The MSCEIT is. E. Computer simulation of "hot cognition. from its underlying neuropsychological un signed that led up to it. E-mail: to develop a measurement instrument that was suffi jack. Mesick (Eds. however. as much as what they icism in the area is to place legitimate criticisms of our specifically illustrate about verbal intelligence itself. there are a near-infinite list of potential stud despite small variations in how they are constructed. Again. Brackett & Mayer. and predictive validity. The series of studies we groups to better understand its developmental course.. of course. p. Abelson. testing suggests that the greatest understanding of ver and areas of possible improvement." In S. part. re Note searchers are generally expected to provide evidence as to whether their claim has any practical significance. and valid. References indeed. In as there are for any such test. rather than as self-estimates of to possess a more unique or somewhat different factor one' s own El. 1990). Mayer. derpinnings. it was necessary sity of New Hampshire. how they inform advances in procedures and methods Coinsequently. and ploring the existence of the hypothesized intelligence (e) expanding El measurement to a wider range of age through various research studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.edu ciently easy to use. To John D.jstor. TARGET ARTICLE: THEORY.

Damasio. 34. V. 29 Jan 2018 18:36:26 UTC All use subject to http://about. 1387-1402. New York: Norton. 108.. A. (1984). T. (2002). (1998). group Bar-On. M. New York: Putnam. M. (1981). T. Description of the socio-emotional life Ciarrochi. (2001). American Psychologist. Davitz. Frey. Descartes' error. (1992). Emotional aware mystery offers revolutionary insights into emotions. Journal and consciousness. R. L. 10. S. Kagan. Emotional intelligence and leadership success. S. A. 75. M. (2001). (1993). The communication of emotion. Personal Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. The expression of the emotions in man emotionally creative life. R. Dyck. R.jstor. Schwab-Stone. Preliminary standardization of a social impact Feyerherm. D. R. school. VA: Association for Supervi Guilford. P. published doctoral dissertation. (1998). R. (2003). D. L. A. R. New York: Free Press.. I.). (2002). & Roberts.). R. ( 1985). Do autism spec Boone. 343-362. N. M. 87. & Mayer. & Dasborough. ity measure of emotional intelligence to personality. 1443-1458. R.). R. T. (1942). 28. 1477-1490. Unpublished thesis. D. (2000. Convergent. R. A. & Friesen. A. A. E. & Beers. Zins. 441-485. Journal of Fancher. 18-22. J. MAYER. Emotional intel recognizing the emotions from facial cues. Alexandria. NJ: training on emotional intelligence. 7. Bar-On & J. Spain. M. 192-195. J. The man who tasted shapes: A bizarre medical Ashkanasy.. Relation of an abil chology. (1975). Does "g" exist? Intelligence.168. E. Emotions. D. 363-388). Emotional intelligence trum disorders differ from each other and from non-spectrum and success in professional graduate programs in psychology. and MIT Press. versy. can Psychologist. and animals. F. P. discriminant. 79. S. Buck. mental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. (1997).. (1983). B. Unpublished dissertation. LA. Journal of Personality diction of academic success? Educational & Psychological and Social Psychology. IL. Detterman. R. R. Journal of Counseling Psychology. assessment. and Individual Differences. gence. 989-1015. (1983). E. Deerfield. of Education for Business. C. J. M. Cuenca. NJ: Law (empathy). Cambridge. Ekman. Is emotional intelligence a viable concept? Acad 99-108. Manuscript in preparation. Emotional intelligence and scale. Affect and social cognition. Caputi.. & Nunley. & Salovey. New York: lines for educators. Vancouver. (1976).. Inc. E? & Shiver. P. Salovey. 162-171.. Kessler. A. In L. The effect of biblically based peer counselor 17th annual Carnegie Symposium on cognition. Averill. E. Parker (Eds. New York: Academic. R. Englewood Cliffs. P. (1996). Judgment of contingency in Cot?. T. 539-561. Inc. T. American Sociological Review. Elias. and incre search in review. J. and application at home.. 63. R. it matters. M. Promoting social and emotional learning: Guide Buck. S.. Emotional intelligence and depressed and non-depressed students: Sadder but wiser? Jour vision formulation and articulation. 214-225. (2004). nal of Experimental Psychology. S. V. Lincoln. & Krathwohl. P. New York: Oxford Univer ining its place in the nomological network. (1994).. & Fiske. the bad and the ugly. 819-831. S. Stankov.). J.. K. Haynes. Striving and feeling: Interactions among goals. J. R. P. & DiGiuseppe. Mayer. Weissberg. J. 36. CARUSO Alloy. K. Human Communication and Research. Mayer. 840-858. M. Dyer. with an introduction. Y. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Cacioppo. New York: Cambridge University Press. N. 2. 306-320. 36.13 on Mon. N. Lopes.. J. shire. P. D. April).. Journal of Applied Psy Caruso. L. (2000). D? & Warner. University of British Columbia. Becker. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (2000). 212 This content downloaded from 148. 6. R. N. A critical evalua space: Life qualities and activities related to emotional in tion of the emotional intelligence concept. & Rice. emy of Management Review. sion and Curriculum Development. Un Frijda.. (Eds. M. P.. Using an ability-based measure of manual. G. R. Ameri ligence. (1993). M. emotional intelligence to predict individual performance. P. studies. G. 196-206. K. (1983). Personality the Emotional Quotient Inventory. (1973). rence Erlbaum Associates. The rationality of emotion. In R. Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor Erez. (1872/1998). The develop Tesser (Eds. R. L. & Caroll. J. (2003). J. J.org/terms . E. MA: development. Cytowic. Canada: Multi-Health Systems.. & Salovey. toral thesis. M. (2002.. (in press). New Orleans. (2003). L. (1974). H. (1969). E.. 1147-1158. (2001). The handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory. R. Emotion.. ual Differences.. Greenberg. ligence and the prediction of behavior. Chan. Voyages of the heart: Living an Darwin. Affect and cognition: The Forrey. Emotional and social intelligence: Exam taries by Paul Ekman (3rd ed.202. (1971). The role of affect in narratives.). S. Art and visual perception (The new version ed. Journal of Educational Psychology. 407-412. M. R. C. Bar-On. Clark. Emotional Arnheim. 36. P.. 129-148. H. (2002). Does emotional intelligence assist in the pre gence: In search of an elusive construct. & Mayer. Personality and Individ NJ: Prentice Hall. M. Ciarrochi. 105-116. regulation ability and the quality of social interaction. 7. Emotions revealed. Cot?. 251-275). M.. P. J. Social neuroscience: Understanding the Epstein.. 10.. D. ence. J. The laws of emotion. Inc. P. (Ed. The intelligence men: Makers of the IQ contro Personality Assessment.. 79. The influence of positive affect on the analytic studies. components of expectancy motivation. Martin & A. 29. NJ: and utility of a measure of trait emotional awareness. P. M. The language of emotion. (2000).. T. team performance: The good. New York: Academic. Chapin. Mood and memory. disorders on emotion recognition tests? European Child and Paper presented at the International Society for Research on Adolescent Psychiatry. NE. 28. Ekman. ment and validation of a scale to measure affective sensitivity affect. afterword. R. New York: Putnam. Formica. D.. Emotional intelli Barchard. & Tisak. J.). University of Nebraska. The distinctiveness Forgas. R. NH. (2004). A. 43. SALOVEY. Erber. D. Cognitive Sci Bower. J. (1987). N. American Psychologist... Mahwah. Lopes. Emotional intelligence: What it is and why tional Journal of Organizational Analysis. 1055-1067. and commen Barchard. Campbell. B.. Y? & Caputi. Constructive thinking: The key to emotional intel pieces fosters understanding the whole and vice versa. The self-regulation of moods. & Shochet. (2001). A test of nonverbal receiving ability: Preliminary T. (1988). reasoning. Toronto. (1997). Measurement. (2002). Unmasking the face: A guide to Brackett. M. Ferguson. Ekman. DeSousa. N. New York: Praeger. (2003). and self-regulation (pp. A further search for social intelli for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Unpublished doc sity Press. & Abramson. P. (1998). Mahwah. S. Berkeley: University of California Press. (2003). C. University of New Hamp vidual Differences. Hillsdale. (2003).211-242. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting for the Society Ford.. Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from performance. Darwin and facial expression: A century of re Brackett. (1979). & Isen. and group citizenship behaviours. (2003). Collins. L. 75. Personality and Indi telligence. A. S. Durham. Davies.. Carroll.. M. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 57. Interna Cherniss. in the workplace (pp. (1982). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Technical Day. M. ity and Individual Differences. V. ness and emotional intelligence in leadership teaching. W. L. S.. 349-358. New York: Times Books.. 18. A. K. July). J. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

. Intelli the theta and alpha frequency bands related to human emotional gence. Warner. 449-477. 136-167). M. C. MA: MIT Press. (1995. Lam. J. 213 This content downloaded from 148.). M. G. Gardner. or irrelevant? Manu 1018-1034. (1995). (2001).). Wong. L. R. In L. (2003). Affect as information: An indi J. Emotional intel gence (pp. 89-113. Refinement of the theory of fluid Mayer. A. A. Psychological Inquiry. (2003. Emotional intelligence and the Zeitlin. J. N.. E. New York: Jossey-Bass. emotional intelli loop? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advances in cognitive science (pp. Lewis & Gohm. 118-144. vidual differences approach. & Kirby. U. T.. (1996). (2002. University of New South Wales. of the emotional accuracy research scale. B. ligence: Science and myth. Motivation and Emotion. M. chology. R. Inc. chology. personality.. Working with emotional intelligence. R.. J. F. Jounal of Educational Sharkey (Ed. A. Izard.. The handbook of affect and social Izard. 75-86. C. -E. L. D. New York: Basic intelligences: A multi-trait multimethod study of their crystal Books. D. A. G. 32. Handbook of emotional intelli Matthews. & Cobb. (2001). M. B. Larsen. gence. tific contributions: From the trilogy-of-mind to the systems set. Clark. F. 290-314). A. (2000). E. C.. & Gerlic.. (1990). 249-257.. P.). 31. 641-658. 337-363. Brackett.202. Affect. (2001). J. D. C. Four systems for emotion activation: Cognitive and cognition (pp. D. Emotional intelli tion.). Perceiving affec vantage? An exploration of the impact of emotional and general tive content in ambiguous visual stimuli: A component of emo intelligence on individual performance. (2001). intelligence. H... The wisdom in feeling: Psychological processes in emo Lopes.... Social Behavior & Personality: An International suring the life space. P.. K. Nezlek. How mood influences cognition. M. P.: Ellis Horwood Limited.1-12. Personality Assessment. In N.org/terms . R. J. New York: Guilford. (1966). W. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. H. "Emotions as a disorganized response. S. D. (2004). J. C. J. Measurement of emotional competence. Primary divisions of personality and their scien Emotion. (1982). 35. 89-113). J. K. script in preparation. R. 30. (2003). Journal of the circular ordering of emotion. J. (2001). R. (2000). CA. S. Roberts. 253-270.13 on Mon. 68-90. Schutz. New York: Basic Books. Psychology. A dimensional approach to A cognitive-developmental measure of emotion. P. Time. GA.. (2002). Day. J. J. ac psychology? APA Monitor. & Christiansen. 253-296. M. & Geher. Oxford: Oxford Uni intelligences. (1998). L. Salovey. Journal of Personality Assessment. Forgas (Ed. Consensus scoring and empirical option weighting of perfor Cherniss & D. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Mayer. unnecessary. Intelligence. A. & tional intelligence (pp. and practical intelligence. (1998)... P. Mahwah. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Meeting of the grating social. D. (1994). J. 83-131). (1983). S. (2002). Profiling new business de Mayer. (1948). DiPaolo. versity Press. 60-68. Leeper. 31... (2000). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple Lee. 17. York: Bantam. 15. C. B. 36. Horn. J. & Brown. Lane. (2004). T. Gibbs.. S. Differences in Mayer. 142. C. & Christiansen. D. 93-96. S. 29. (2002). 539-553. Personality & Individual Differences. 55. New York: Guilford. 645-662. S. D. A. (1993). D. 133-143. 6. G. K. Sydney. L. (1998). P.. and behavior: A cognitive Mayer. 54. D. J. 267-298.. N. intelligence. and crystallized general intelligences. C. G. D. A systems framework for the field of personality ing in complex situations: Theoretical issues with practical im psychology. 410-431). Emotional intelligence: Popular or scientific Isen. G.. 31.. May). (1999). Cambridge. I. Salovey. Quinlan. & Cattell. 55. The role of supervisory emotional intelligence Leuner.. Go wing. & IMPLICATIONS Fromme. Journal of Consumer Psychology. A. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple Lazarus. Handbook of emotions (2nd ed. Giles. Emotion. K. R. 29 Jan 2018 18:36:26 UTC All use subject to http://about. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum non-cognitive processes. M. 9. New York: Bantam. (2000). (2000). J. Is emotional intelligence and ad Mayer. 50. Personality and workplace (pp. gence.K. Describing velopment: Personality correlates of successful ideation and im the person's external environment: Conceptualizing and mea plementation. & Sternberg. & Clore. Intelligence.. In C. plications. 95-106. Carlsmith. Praxis in direct report organizational commitment. Salovey pp. 100. 163-183. D.). Chichester. & Straus. P.. Sellin. R. cessibility of material in memory. lized and fluid characteristics. D. Haviland-Jones (Eds.. E. Emotional intelligence and social interac Gohm. & O'Brien. In J. Social and academic intelligences (10th Anniversary Edition ed. T. Emotional intelligence or adaptive emotions? Mayer. L. A. A motivational theory of emotions to replace 373-388. Lewis. & Dalsky. Lopes.). T. gence in the workplace.271-299. Journal of Research in Personality. R. 265-280).. Associates. C. Review of General Psy chology. An influence of positive affect on decision mak Mayer. Schwartz. (Eds. M. (2004).jstor. C. D. Emotional intelli Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior.. 11. & Zeidner. E. 193-203. Jausovec. (1990). Predictive validity ences. M. A. E. Zeidner. Gardner. & Chabot. Caruso. Emotional intelli Goleman. In M.. 12. N. Unpublished mas der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie. emotional.. San Francisco. (2001). D. (2003). Atlanta. 146. San Diego. J. Psychological Review. In R. J. Emotion and adaptation.. D. Psycho Funder. (2000). D. (1993). 129-141. N. -M. Corser. J. New York: Norton. J. W. D.. (1998). The emergence of human emotions. R. (2001).. Mayer. 5-21. Australia. Emotional intelli event-related and induced electroencephalography patterns in gence meets traditional standards for an intelligence. logical Inquiry. 2. J. Matthews. (2001).. The Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale: identification of emotion. Educational policy on emotional Jensen. Journal of Social Psy tional intelligence.. ter's thesis. Jausovec. & Roberts. Gross.. & Salovey.). L. The EQ factor. I. Iseti. The personality puzzle. October 2). June). (in press). Review of General Psychology. & Karp. D. S. view. J. CA: Jossey-Bass. B. K. 29. D." Psychological Review. M. The emotionally intelligent mance-based emotional intelligence (El) tests. (1978). Individual Differences.168. 71-80. 30. Parker (Eds.. 57. Goleman (Eds. Mayer. Neuroscience Letters. Journal. P. G. Walker. Bar-On & J. 124-134. D. Emotional intelligence and emancipation. N. Too many intelligences? Inte petence. H. (1966). Intelligence.. Emotional intelligence. MacCann. 27. FINDINGS. intelligence. & Salovey. Personality & Individual Differ Geher. M. J. TARGET ARTICLE: THEORY. G. R. Shalker. N. 1. New ships. J. D. infant attachment and child socio-emotional com Hedlund. D. Janovics. 311. gence under stress: Useful. L. J. 36. Janovics. American Psychological Society. Barrett & P. D. M. D. 772-781. & Mayer. Toward a science of mood regulation. A classification system for the data of person Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psy ality psychology and adjoining fields.. & Likavec. (1999). and the perceived quality of social relation Goleman. M. 11. Regularities in Spearman's Law of Dimin intelligence: Does it make sense? Educational Psychology Re ishing Returns. D. C. The emerging field of emotional regulation: An Marsland. Maternal emotional integrative review. (1986).

23. D. (1990). D. telligence. (1994)... Review of personality and social intelligence (pp. Affective computing. L. and as a standard intelligence.).. Salovey. (Eds. in child and adult faces and voices and social competence in pre Schaie. Journal of Per Mayer. P. (1975). Advances in cog Picard.. D.. Why robots will have emotions. gence as Zeitgeist. J. ance Service. 3-31). R. Philippot. 1). Affect and expectation. (2003). 396-420). ences from vocal expression correlate across languages and cul O'Sullivan. Nowicki. Studying the emotion-antecedent appraisal process: emotions. 47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.131-137. Hillsdale.. P. D. A. 92-117). Reports from tures. Schwarz. L. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. D. Social Intelligence Rim?. R. R.. J. R. D. Emotional development and Reynolds. 17. P.. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. & Catano. S. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. New York: Guilford. The navigation of feeling: A framework for the Mayer. MA: MIT Press. tional intelligence and giftedness. (2000b). 13. C.). S. Beverly Hills. Seligman (Eds. Nussbaum. & Mitchell. Importance of as Paulhus. 341-359). Salovey. 97-105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mayer. & Wallbott. Zeidner. Banse. D. J. Emotion. Psychology. M. J. In tivational functions of affective states. tion. ON: MHS. Scale for Children manual. D. & Yik. Champaign. R. L. Tomic & J. CARUSO Mayer. D. alexithymic characteristics and physical disease. Salovey. (1993). The intelligence of emotional in York: Harper-Collins. Shea.. New York: Guilford.. (1992). & Mitchell. 337-353). (Vol. CA: Jossey-Bass. 1. tween emotional intelligence and aggression in urban adoles Mayer.. P. Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test ?Youth Immaculata. (2002).. J. (1999). & Matthews. 136. M. The wisdom in feeling: Sorrentino (Eds. D. (2000a)..). E. 525-554.. Psychother Dissertation Abstracts International. M.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. M. Emotions: A general psychoevolutionary theory. 1. C. S. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. S. Lopez vidual Differences. (2001). Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 138-142.. L. J. conference on artificial intelligenc. D. A. A. (2001). G. J. K. (1966). The handbook of positive psychology (pp. 3. Golden. Emotion. 23. 325-355. & Salovey. Salovey. Inc. The cognitive Scherer.). 57-71.. D. processing. J. 43-75).. Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2. R. P.. & Dornheim.. T. Cognition and Personality. J. relationships. R. V. Mayer. Assessing the pre Salovey. (1990). Hall. J. R. R.. Research Version.. and Personality. Greenwich. 185-211. 59. Ekman (Eds. 93. Journal of Personality and So Peterson & M. (1984). Emotional intelli Some new data and conclusions. Emo 197-219). Behavior Assessment emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. Perkins. (1984). Feldman Barrett & P. 5. Lubinski. Self-report mea sessing spatial ability in intellectually talented young adoles sures of intelligence: Are they useful as proxy IQ tests? Journal cents: A 20-year longitudinal study. Salovey. W. manual. 1005-1016. & Caruso. In C. sonality and Social Psychology. What is emotional intelligence? history of emotions. M. An expert system approach. E. (2002). San Francisco. tion. D.. R. P. P. (1993). Accuracy in identifying affect New York: Oxford University Press. Handbook of intelli Rosenhan.). S. as personality. A circumplex model of affect. Social schemata of [Emotional Intelligence. Emotional intelligence as a standard intelligence. 34. Newsome. No. Cognitive determinants of emotions: A struc In R. (1998). P.. K. R. Circle Pines. Emotional intelligence. Cooper. & Kamphaus. & Sitaremos. Social. D. Zeidner. 5. (2001). Character cial Psychology. P. Plutchik. Russell. Clore. Caruso. & Sitaremos. (1994). (2001).Roeper Review. Feelings as information: Informational and mo Parrott. (2002). relating to fear. 182-194. Sluyter (Eds. Toronto. 26. Cognition. (1993). tional intelligence. CA: Morgan Kaufman. Ortony. I. 38-^19.. G. Journal of Educational of Personality Psychology. D. & Cisamolo. R. D. & General Psychology Mono and developmental characteristics: Comments on Roberts. (2002).. intelligence meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Mayer. A study of emotion: Developing emotional in Sifneos. Shaver (Ed. Personality and Indi chology of emotional intelligence. 214 This content downloaded from 148. M. L.. R. Snyder & S.. (2001). J. (2000). nia. I. & Caruso.202. P. Genetic. (1986). (1981). P. 1161-1178.. 167-177. J. pp. Parker (Eds. Models of emo 11-36).). D. D. 527-561). Guilford. 196-231.). In E. & Karol. (1980). (2003). Imagina Individual Differences. D. G.. J.).. D. & Salovey. H. 159-171). peripheral changes in emotion. Salovey (Eds. graphs. W. University of Southern Califor Schutte. 2. 38-44... R. 1. 8605928). Rubin. N. In P. Testing. pp. J. J. Sloman. (1998).0. 29. The relationship between emotional intelligence In T. Proceedings of the seventh international joint and ego defense mechanisms. Development and val Palfai. E. Higgins & E. (1997). 65-70.). (2001). In C. A. Russell. Journal gence (pp. Salovey. CA: Sage. J. 433^42. J. Does emotional American Psychological Association. R.org/terms .. M. Imagina Emotion. Emotion. W.. (1998). (1997). Cambridge. L. & Salovey. D. Psychological processes in emotional intelligence (pp. Dean (Ed. J. Kingma (Eds. A. D. N. Mayer. D. D. (2001). Bar-On & J. C. Day.). & Caruso. P. 16 PFfifth edition administrator's 232-242. Emotions.. Emotional intelligence and its role in mitigat Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) ing aggression: A correlational study of the relationship be user's manual. and health (pp.. (1988). the Psychological Laboratory. R. of Personality and Social Psychology. Emotion infer structure of emotions. Caruso. (2001).. J. M. M. Unpublished dissertation. G. Sternberg (Ed. & Collins. IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Mayer. The functional utility of negative emotions. 604-614. San Francisco. nition and educational practice (Vol. P. P.203 A (UMI No. 9. & Caruso. P. Scherer & P. P. Intelligence. W. 25. D. C. Personality and elated mood on deductive and inductive reasoning. J. M. Upheavals of thought: The intelligence of Scherer. Plutchik. Journal of Psychology. pain and desire. C. strengths and virtues (pp. Lysy. Payne.. Emotional intelligence: Popular but elusive personality: From Spearman's g to contemporary models of hot construct. R. D. Personal Intelligence].. Mayer. L. Haggerty. M. D. Roeper Review. (pp. In R. J.. cents. Washington. R. & Caruso. D. The positive psy dictive validity of emotional intelligence. (1990). K. & Messick.. In W.. M. 124.. In K. 3. J. Handbook of emotional tural theory. The psychology and biology of emotion. AAC apy and psychosomatics. S. Salovey & D. MAYER. Approaches to emotion. P.. 29 Jan 2018 18:36:26 UTC All use subject to http://about. Pennsylvania. Toronto. D. D. Reddy. (1965). Cognition and Emotion.. Immaculata College. DC: Roberts. In P. D. 32. Mayer.13 on Mon. (1998). Malouff. Caruso. & Croucher. MN: American Guid New York: Basic Books. J. D. psychology: Vol. 76-92. (2004). Salovey. 7. Roseman. P. J. A. & Benbow. P.jstor. Emotional intelligence: Psychometric status school children. C. 39-59. R.). and Matthews (2001). SALOVEY.168. 39. 243-248. R. G. Problems of psychotherapy of patients with telligence: Self-integration. M. ON: MHS.. W.. & deMille. The influence of depressed and idation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Pelletteri.. L. M. 66. B. G. & Salovey. & Salovey. CT: JAI. T. Intelligence as a subsystem of Pfeiffer.. New Mayer. D.. (2001). T. & Mayer.

Emotion in man and animal: Its nature and rela Terman. (2000). WAIS-IH: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Taylor. 12. E. Personality & Individual Differences. & West. New York: Wiley. C.. J. Stemberg. (1996).13 on Mon.. Manuscript trol. 3-15). American Psychologist. (2000). M. S. R. A. telligence of nurse leaders. Zajonc. Intelligence and its measurement: A sym tion to attitude and motive. In M. Psychotherapy Corporation. Journal of Educational Psychology. M. In R. Leadership practices and emotional in sage. C. D. New York: Ox ferences. New York. (2002). ford University Press. (2001). Handbook of intelligence (pp. P. D. TARGET ARTICLE: THEORY. Wechsler. 113-121. and anger to heterosexual male intimate partner violence. conative. Whitman College.. (1675/1959). & Walter. (1986). C. C. & Bratslavsky. M. A. C. & Detterman. Sternberg. TX: The Psychological opment of a new self-report alexithymia scale. J. J. Teaching emotional intelligence in elemen cents. tary school: The effectiveness of a specialized curriculum. Unger. Cambridge: Cam Testing common sense. E. G. W.. The association between M. Santa Barbara. R. & Johnson. CA. New York: Macmillan. J. R. 78-83. Norwood. Wagner. D. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics. R. W. B. 215 This content downloaded from 148. CA. The English novel: Form and function.. The relationship of emotional intelligence. bridge University Press. 151-175.. hos Wechsler. Psychological Inquiry.202. The abilities of man. Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no in Thayer. G. Cognitive. P. 11. K.. & Shani-Zinovich. Sternberg (Ed. (2002). R. B.. Trinidad. Spinoza.. M.-P. L. Williams. (1950).168. San Antonio. 191-199. R. 230. R. (1985). R.). D. (1921). FINDINGS. What is intelligence. & IMPLICATIONS Solomon. Chou. Young. K. posium. R. emotional intelligence and early adolescent tobacco and alco New York: Guilford. Practical intelligence. Ryan. & Horvath. 35.jstor. B. New nior honors thesis. in preparation. Human intelligence: The model is the mes Vitello-Cicciu. Wagner. 380-395). Assessing emo Tice. ligence with psychosocial smoking risk factors for adoles Stephenson. M.. D.. (2003). 1111-1118. an overview. 29 Jan 2018 18:36:26 UTC All use subject to http://about. Trinidad. D. 95-105. L. Gottschalk-Gleser content anal sion and attitude certainty.). R. Zeidner. 945-954. 50. M. Giving in to feel good: The tional intelligence in gifted and non-gifted high school place of emotion regulation in the context of general self-con students: Outcomes depend on the measure. 5. T. 44. R. Sternberg. York: Harper & Row. & Bagby. (1980). American Psychologist. Science. J. Swift. hol use. ysis. (2002). O. Ethics (Part III: On the origin and nature of (2004). II. D. NJ: Ablex. F. M. Se Van Ghent. (1995). 44. A. R. E. Personality and Individual Differences. D. The philosophy of emotions. The origin of everyday moods.org/terms . S. Hoppe. (1985). R. Rude.. D. 149-159. & Johnson. J. 912-927.. New York University. and Psychosomatics. 533-548. vulnerability to depression: The role of thought suppres Alexithymia and the split brain: IV. (1943). Spearman. (1927). Cognitive TenHouten. Cognition & Emotion. Handbook of emotions (pp. (1997). M. Chico. 127-133. E. J. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.). (1985).. Lewis & J. The protective association between emotional intel emotions). Wenzlaff. 36. 32.. and non-intellective intel tility. J. S. Bogen. I. Haviland-Jones (Eds. (2000). The Fielding Institute. 16. American Psychologist. New York: Dover. J. D. (1961).. J. D.. (2003). ligence. Toward the devel Scale (Third ed.