CCM International Journal of

Cross Cultural
2009 Vol 9(2): 217–236 Management

Emotional Intelligence
Factorial Structure and Construct Validity
across Cultures

Sudeep Sharma Ramakrishna Biswal

London School of Economics and Political Science, Delhi University, India
UK, and Olin Business School, Washington
University, St. Louis, USA
Manas K. Mandal
Indian Institute of Technology-Kharagpur, India
Jürgen Deller
Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Germany, and
Lucas Graduate School of Business, San José State
University, USA

abstract   This study empirically examines the construct of emotional Intelligence (EI)
cross-culturally. Participants (N = 200) from Germany (N = 100) and India (N = 100)
completed the Emotional Intelligence Scale, NEO-Five Factor Personality Inventory
(Form-S) and Hofstede’s Value Survey (Module 94). The major objectives of the study were
to examine cross-culturally (a) the factor structure of EI, and (b) the construct of EI as
distinct from personality. Results revealed different factor structures for these two cultures,
and the construct of EI failed to correlate with the dimensions of personality. Implications
of the findings for leadership in a specific culture as well as across different cultures are
discussed.
key words • Big Five • construct validity • emotional intelligence • factorial structure •
Germany • India • personality
as distinct from intelligence (Bar-On, 1997;
1. Introduction
Day and Carroll, 2004; Mayer et al., 1999;
Recent studies conducted on ‘emotional Van Rooy and Viswesvaran, 2004) and per-
intelligence’ (EI) illustrate the relevance of sonality (Ackerman and Heggestad, 1997;
this construct for psychological research. Davies et al., 1998; Dwada and Hart, 2000;
The major question analyzed in these stud- Newsome et al., 2000; Saklofske et al., 2003).
ies relates to the construct validity of EI, Even though this question has raised diverse
© The Author(s), 2009. Reprints and Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/JournalsPermissions.nav 
DOI: 10.1177/1470595809335725

Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of New England on June 6, 2015

218   International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 9(2)
opinions amongst researchers, few attempts
have been made to examine the cross-­cultural
validity of the construct. This validity, how-
ever, is a prerequisite for international man-
agers’ success, as it will allow them to use the
construct in their daily routines in different
cultures in the same way.
Emotional intelligence is perhaps one
of the most widely researched psychological
constructs in the 21st century (e.g. Ashkanasy,
2003; Bar-On, 2006; Boyatzis et al., 2000;
Drusket and Wolff, 2001). Many researchers
have debated the concept of emotional intel-
ligence and the validity of emotional intel-
ligence measures (e.g. Ciarrochi et al., 2000;
Law et al., 2004; McCrae, 2000; Perez et
al., 2005; Petrides and Furnham, 2000; Van
Rooy and Viswesvaran, 2004). In an effort to
clarify different concepts of emotional intel-
ligence, the Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology
(Spielberger, 2004) recently suggested that
there are currently three major conceptual
models in this field:
(a) The Salovey-Mayer model (Mayer
and Salovey, 1997), which defines this
construct as the ability to perceive,
understand, manage and use emotions
to facilitate thinking, measured by an
ability-based measure: either the Mayer
Emotional Intelligence Scale – MEIS
(Mayer and Salovey, 1997) or its latest ver-
sion, MESCEIT v 2.0 (Mayer et al., 2002).
(b) The Goleman model (1998), which views
this construct as comprising a wide array
of competencies and skills, which drive
managerial performance, measured
by a multi-rater assessment named the
Emotional Competencies Inventory
– ECI (Boyatzis et al., 2000).
(c) The Bar-On model (1997b, 2000), which
describes a cross-section of interrelated
emotional and social competencies, skills
and facilitators that impact intelligent
behavior, measured by self-report in the
Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory
– EQ-I (1997a, 1997b).
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of New England on June 6, 2015
Many researchers also recognize two differ-
ent models of emotional intelligence (e.g.,
Hedlund and Sternberg, 2000; Mayer et
al., 1999). One of these is referred to as the
‘ability model’ and the other as the ‘mixed
model’. The ability model defines EI as a type
of intelligence, whereas the mixed model is
more dispositional or trait-based in nature
(Petrides and Furnham, 2000), with less of a
cognitive emphasis. According to Mayer and
Salovey, who propounded the ability model
in 1997, the MEIS was developed using the
notion of emotional intelligence as a model
of general intelligence. Salovey and Mayer
(1990, p. 189) proposed a formal definition
of emotional intelligence as being, ‘the abil-
ity to monitor one’s own and others’ feel-
ings, to discriminate among them, and to
use this information to guide one’s thinking
and action’. Later this definition was refined
and broken down into four proposed fac-
tors that are distinct yet related: perceiving,
using, understanding, and managing emotions
(Mayer and Salovey, 1997).
In contrast, Bar-On deems emotional
intelligence to comprise an array of non-
cognitive capabilities, competencies, and
skills, which all influence one’s ability to suc-
ceed in coping with environmental demands
and pressures (Bar-On, 1997). The factor
structure of emotional intelligence includes
Intrapersonal (emotional self-awareness,
assertiveness, self regard, self actualization,
independence), Interpersonal (empathy, inter­
personal relationships, social responsibility),
Stress Management (problem solving, reality
testing, flexibility), and Adaptability (stress
tolerance, impulse control) (Bar-On, 1997).
These theoretical models described the
construct of emotional intelligence without
much attention to any cross-cultural evidence
which supported their theoretical positions.
Because it is believed that emotions are socially
constructed to a great extent, the construct of
emotional intelligence needs a cross-cultural
database to validate its theoretical position.
In the present paper, an attempt has been

made to create such a database. Further to
this, the cultural invariance, whether proven
or not, will have great relevance in the field of
cross-cultural management. This is because
the input drawn from it should assist global
managers in any decisions which they make
based on cultural peculiarities or similarities
in a global market.
One of the most pertinent issues domi-
nating current research in psychology is the
cross-cultural study of emotion. Culture
plays an important role in the understand-
ing and expression of emotions (Ekman,
1972, 1993; Friesen, 1972; Mandal et al.,
1996; Matsumoto, 1989, 2002; Mesquita et
al., 1997). Cross-cultural studies have shown
that social behaviour varies across cultures
(Amir and Sharon, 1987), and that emo-
tional responses within a social network are
also evaluated based on core cultural prac-
tices (Markus and Kitayama, 1994; Shweder
and Much, 1987; see also Mesquita et al.,
1997). Markus and Kitayama (1991) further
explained that cultures have a set of specific
consequences for cognition, emotion and
motivation. Elfenbein and Ambady (2002a,
2002b, 2003) argued that the rate of emotion
recognition is fairly stable across cultures, but
that people tend to recognize the expression
of basic emotions more easily during interac-
tions with people from their own culture than
with people from other cultures.
Recently Matsumuto et al. (2008) found
significant differences in the understanding
and expression of emotion across cultures.
They found that members of individualistic
cultures endorse more emotion expression,
whereas members of collectivistic cultures
endorse less. Their findings further illustrate
that the expression of negative emotions
with in-group members is more common in
individualistic societies. In an extensive meta-
analysis of emotion expression and recogni-
tion studies across cultures, Van Hemert et
al. (2007) found that besides statistical arte-
facts directly related to sample sizes, and
method-related factors (self-report question-
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of New England on June 6, 2015
Sharma et al.: Emotional Intelligence across Cultures 219
naires ­versus facial recognition measures, for
example), substantive country-level variables
such as mode of subsistence, political vari-
ables, stability of a country, and aggregated
psycho­logical variables (e.g. individualism,
religious values) explained a substantial part
of the cross-cultural differences in emo-
tions that have been reported. It is possible
that some facets of EI contain pan-cultural
characteristics while other facets are more
­culture-­specific. These aspects have rarely
been studied across cultures with reference to
the construct of emotional intelligence.
Generalizability across cultures and lan-
guages is crucial for the evaluation of an
emotional intelligence taxonomy or structure.
When new instruments have to be used for
educational purposes or for job selection, test
developers need to consider the multicultural
dimensions of our societies. Methodological
aspects then become an issue; when an EI
questionnaire developed in one cultural con-
text is to be applied to another, invariance of
its psychometric properties cannot be merely
assumed (Parker et al., 2005). Therefore, an
investigation into the cross-cultural validity
of the EI construct could make a valuable
contribution to the present literature.
Because the origin of the EI construct
lies primarily in Western literature (Bar-On,
2000; Cooper and Ayman, 1997; Goleman,
1995; Mayer et al., 2004), there has been a
general tendency to conceive the construct as
being universal without realizing that ‘emo-
tion’ is also a cross-culturally embedded con-
struct (Sibia et al., 2003). Pant and Prakash
(2004) critically evaluated one of the origi-
nal measures of emotional intelligence – the
Mayer Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS)
– in an Indian context, and concluded that
most of the reliabilities of the MEIS subtests
were weak for the Indian sample. They sug-
gested, however, that the MEIS might work
in the Indian sample if cultural context were
taken into account during the validation and
testing process.
Hofstede (2001), and more recently the
220   International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 9(2)
GLOBE study (House et al., 2004), explained
that cultural differences could affect psycho-
logical constructs of human behavior. So far,
all factor structures of emotional intelligence
have evolved only on the basis of studies
done in Western (predominantly individualis-
tic) cultures (Bar-On, 2000; Goleman, 1995;
Mayer et al., 2000). Few studies have assessed
the factor structure of emotional intelligence
in Eastern (primarily collectivistic) cultures.
This becomes all the more important if we
assume that the basic constituents are only
emotion and intelligence. Because both are
psychological processes, and all psychological
processes are somewhat culturally embedded,
it is presumed that emotional intelligence
must also be culturally constructed.
The need for a cross-cultural ­ validation
of EI (Bar-On, 2006; Conte, 2005) and its
implications for management (Gabel et al.,
2005) have been argued by earlier ­researchers.
However, research to date has yet to system-
atically examine the pan-­culturality of this
construct across diverse cultural groups.
Parker et al. (2005) have investigated the
generalizability of the concept of EI to the
North American culture, but not many stud-
ies have tried to evaluate the replicability of
factor structures of the EI construct beyond
this culture, for example, in Eastern cultures.
A cross-cultural application of emotional
intelligence may have implications for leader­
ship, communication, and human relations
skills in organizations. Emotional intelligence,
that is, sensing others’ emotional states, is a
key element of interpersonal communicative
competence. As such, it may help leaders to
build up trusting and empathic relations with
direct reports and superiors. Leaders who
can both recognize and manage their own
and others’ emotions will be able to more
successfully manage emotionally challenging
situations and provide support and model-
ling to direct reports. Emotionally intelligent
­leaders are proficient to regulate their own
emotions and those of others. They can
also use emotional information in decision-
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of New England on June 6, 2015
making to achieve appropriate outcomes.
EI helps them communicate visions to, and
form constructive relationships with, others
(cf. Ashkenasy and Daus, 2002). If emotional
intelligence contributes to effective domestic
leadership, it may also contribute to effective
cross-­cultural leadership. Expatriates who are
exposed to EI stimuli in a different culture
would be able to read these just as they can
at home, without further learning. However,
this will only be the case if EI is the same
construct across cultures.
To understand the differences and simi-
larities between factor structures of the scale
in Western and Eastern cultures, Hofstede’s
(1983) distinction between collectivistic and
individualistic cultures can be used as a frame-
work. According to Hofstede (1983), individ-
ualism and collectivism represent a conglom-
eration of values concerning the relationship
between an individual and his or her collec-
tivity in society. Triandis (1989, 1995) men-
tioned that collectivistic societies emphasize
a number of characteristics, including giving
priority to group goals as a means for attain-
ing individual goals, concern for how one’s
actions will impact on in-group members,
and a tendency to share resources with other
in-group members. The other important dif-
ference between individualism and collectiv-
ism concerns the pursuit of personal versus
group goals and interests (Triandis, 1989).
Individualists operate according to self-inter-
est, whereas collectivists operate according
to group interest. The key word here, ‘self ’,
is inseparable from emotional intelligence
(Gangopadhyay and Mandal, 2008).
The notion that emotional intelligence is
more than simply emotion and intelligence
is substantiated by the concept of ‘self ’ hav-
ing developed in culture-specific settings.
Such an idea suggests that ‘self ’ has the
potential to influence emotional intelligence
(Gangopadhyay et al., 2008). Therefore,
dimensions like understanding the emotions
of self and others could have a different
meaning for collectivistic societies. People

in these societies prefer social relationships
to individual profit during social interac-
tions, for example in negotiation (Salacuse,
1998). Therefore, they may control their
own feelings in order to preserve harmoni-
ous relationships in groups. For example, if
we look closely at Indian literature, we find
some ­traces in the text of references to emo-
tional intelligence. In our view one of the
most famous scriptures of Hindu literature,
The Bhagavad Gita (origin dated around 1500
B.C.), also speaks about managing one’s emo-
tions. It contains a beautiful description of the
discourse between Arjun and his charioteer,
Lord Krishna. Their discourse, which took
place just before the onset of a war, is one of
the greatest philosophical and religious dia-
logues known to man (Prabhupada, 1986). If
we look at some of the shloks (some examples
given in Appendix 2), out of the eighteen
chapters of The Bhagavad Gita, we find that
they speak about how man is caught in emo-
tional crises and how one should understand
and manage his emotions in order to fulfill his
duty. There, for the sake of the group, Arjun
manages his own emotions and sacrifices his
self-feelings, for the good of society. In one
sense, the Indian notion of emotional intel-
ligence can also be defined as using emotions
to do what is right and fulfill one’s karma in
life. We can conclude from this that in many
situations people in a collectivistic culture
like India tend to manage their emotions for
the sake of their society or group, where that
may not be the case so much in individualis-
tic cultures.
Given this background, the broad objec-
tive of the present study was to validate the
construct of EI cross-culturally. For this, we
have used one of the most widely used EI
measures: Schutte Emotional Intelligence
Scale (Schutte et al., 1998). The rationale
behind using this scale was that although
many researchers in the past have investi­
gated the psychometric properties of this
scale and compared the resulting factor struc-
tures with the factor structure given by the
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of New England on June 6, 2015
Sharma et al.: Emotional Intelligence across Cultures 221
developers (Austin et al., 2004; Gignac et al.,
2005; Petrides and Furnham, 2000; Saklofske
et al., 2003), as yet no studies have tried to
evaluate the factor structure of this scale
cross-­culturally. Two of Hofstede’s dimen­
sions, namely individualism/­collectivism and
power distance, are being used to measure
the impact of cultural differences on the EI
construct. We have previously mentioned that
individualism/collectivism could influence
the EI construct. Power distance is a dimen-
sion that is embedded within the individual-
ism/collectivism dimension. According to
Hofstede (1991), individualism is associated
with lower power distance, while collectiv-
ism is associated with higher power distance.
Based on an empirical comparison of data
from three different data samples (Bond,
1987; Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 1994), Bond
(1996) identified a single factor that included
both individualism (.86) and power distance
(–.76), and this led him to suggest that col-
lectivism is associated with hierarchy. In the
spirit of this recommendation, the likely inter-
action between collectivism and high power
distance as dimensions of national cultures
deserves consideration (Schermerhorn and
Bond, 1997). Therefore, in order to under-
stand the differences in the factor structures
of EI across individualistic and collectivistic
societies, the influence of power distance on
the EI construct cannot be ignored.
Thus, the first objective of this study is
to examine the similarities and differences
in the factor structures of EI between an
Indian and a German sample. According
to GLOBE (House et al., 2004) as well as
Hofstede’s (1983) cultural dimensions, these
countries represent two different culture
clusters. India is a society which is character-
ized by high power distance and collectivism,
whereas Germany has lower power distance
and a higher degree of individualism.
222   International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 9(2)
1.1 Emotional Intelligence and
Personality
In recent years, a growing number of empiri­
cal studies have also aimed to validate the
construct of emotional intelligence (Brackett
and Mayer, 2003; Ciarrochi et al., 2002; Perez
et al., 2005; Petrides and Furnham, 2000;
Saklofske et al., 2003). Personality research-
ers, in particular, have found a high correla-
tion between EI measures and personality
dimensions. They claim that emotional intel-
ligence is not a unique construct; instead, they
see it as a part of the personality model (e.g.
Ackerman and Heggestad, 1997; Davies et al.,
1998; Dwada and Hart, 2000; Newsome et al.,
2000; Saklofske et al., 2003). In contrast, EI
researchers have claimed that emotional intel-
ligence is a construct which is independent of
personality (e.g. Bar-On, 1997; Brackett and
Mayer, 2003; Lopes et al., 2003).
McCrae (2000), in a review of the Big
Five personality dimensions, suggested that
EI should be most strongly related to the
‘openness to experience’ dimension, but this
claim lacks strong empirical evidence (see
Van Rooy and Viswesvaran, 2004). Dawda
and Hart (2000), using the self-report EQ-
i (Bar-On, 1997), found particularly high
correlations between EI and personality,
as measured with the NEO-FFI personal-
ity dimensions. Bar-On (1997) found low to
moderate correlation between EI dimensions
based on his model and 16-PF personality
dimensions. Such a contradiction in findings
may be resolved by examining the functional
independence of EI from personality across
cultures. Therefore, the second objective of
our study is to examine the proposition that
EI is distinct from personality dimensions
across cultures.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The sample for the present study consist-
ed of 100 adult participants from each of
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of New England on June 6, 2015
Germany and India. The German sample
comprised 51 men and 49 women (mean
age = 33.82 years, S.D. = 9.16), whereas
the Indian sample consisted of 80 men
and 20 women (mean age = 28.85 years,
S.D. = 3.50). Middle ­ managers from lead-
ing IT companies which the authors could
access, and graduate management ­ students,
in nearly equal proportions, participated in
the study. All participants volunteered for the
study, and none reported having any mood
disturbance at the time of testing.
2.2. Scales
2.2.1. Measure of Emotional Intelli­
gence  The 33-item self-report Emotional
Intelligence Scale (SEIS) (Schutte et al.,
1998) represents all portions of the concep-
tual model of Salovey and Mayer (1990).
This is a self-report measurement of emo-
tional intelligence. The internal consistency
(Cronbach’s alpha) of the scale is α = .87,
and the test-retest reliability is .78. As there
was no German version of this scale availa-
ble, it was translated and back translated into
the German language by bilingual experts
(see Appendix 1). The internal consistency
of the German version was satisfactory, with
Cronbach’s alpha ranging from α = .71 to
.76 for all four factors. For the Indian sam-
ple, the original (English) version of the scale
was utilized. The Cronbach’s alpha for the
present India sample was reported as α =
.84. The four factorial structure of the SEIS
given by Ciarrochi et al. (2002) was consid-
ered as a standard factor solution for all the
major statistical analysis of the present stud-
ies. The factors are:
(a) perception of emotions,
(b) managing own emotions,
(c) managing others’ emotions, and
(d) utilization of emotions.
2.2.2 Measure of Personality  The NEO-
FFI: Form S (NEO-FFI; Costa and McCrae,
1988) is a 60-item questionnaire measuring

the personality dimensions of Neuroticism,
Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness; there are 12 questions for
each dimension. The five NEO-FFI factors,
as a brief version of the NEO Personality
Inventory NEO-PI-R) correlate at between
r = .75 and r = .89 with the respective
dimensions. Internal consistency indices of
the NEO-FFI scales range from α = .74 to
.89, which is satisfactory to good. The reli-
ability coefficients for the German NEO-FFI
(Borkenau and Ostendorf, 1993) range from
α = .70 to .85. The reliability coefficients for
the NEO-FFI were α = .73 for the German
sample and α = .69 for the Indian sample,
respectively.
2.2.3 Measures of Cultural Dimensions
  The Hofstede VSM 94 questionnaires
(Hofstede, 1994) are one of the major
descriptors of cultural differences. VSM94
consists of 20 items, and measures five cul-
tural dimensions: power distance, individual-
ism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and
long-term orientation (Hofstede, 1991). The
internal consistency of Hofstede’s 20 item
VSM 94 for both cultures is satisfactory (α =
.77 for German sample; α = .84 for Indian
sample). The German version of Hofstede’s
VSM 94 (Hofstede, 1994) was used for the
German sample.
2.3. Procedure
Permission for data collection was obtained
well in advance from the respective organi-
zations (IT firms and management schools)
in Germany and India. Participants from dif-
ferent management schools completed the
questionnaire during class time (average 1.5
hours). Managers in workplaces were given
the questionnaires during office hours, along
with the permission of their superiors to com-
plete them. The researchers then explained
the purpose and procedure of filling out the
questionnaires. The participants completed
a short demographic form, the NEO-FFI
personality test (Costa and McCrae, 1988),
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of New England on June 6, 2015
Sharma et al.: Emotional Intelligence across Cultures 223
the Emotional Intelligence Scale (Schutte et
al., 1998), and the VSM94 Scale (Hofstede,
1991, 2001).
3. Results
In order to study the cross-cultural generaliz-
abiltiy of the EI construct, we examined the
Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale’s factor
structure in the Indian and German samples
using exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory
factor analyses (CFA).
3.1. Exploratory Factor
Analyses of Emotional
Intelligence Construct
Based on the outcome measure (SEIS score),
a 33 x 33 inter-correlation matrix was cre-
ated and submitted to principal component
analysis with a varimax-rotation (Kaiser
Normalization) method for the German
and Indian data. We used scree plot as the
­criterion, and found that the four-factor solu-
tion was the most suitable in both the Indian
and German samples. The four-factor solu-
tion accounted for 40.4% and 54.3% of the
variance for Germany and India respectively.
Similarly to previous findings (Ciarrochi et
al., 2002; Petrides and Furnham, 2000), our
factor analysis for two samples resulted in
four-factor solutions. We followed Ciarrochi’s
(2002) four-factor solution as standard, and
found nine common items shared by both
cultures (see bold items in Tables 1 and 2).
3.2 Confirmatory Factor
Analyses of Emotional
Intelligence Construct
The four-factor structure of the SEIS was
tested in both the Indian and the German
sample using confirmatory factor analy-
sis with R statistic- version 2.6 (R-Project,
1994). Examining the replicability of fac-
tors by means of CFA can be achieved by
two different strategies – single group models
and multiple group models. We followed the
single-group model of CFA, in which the fit
224   International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 9(2)

Table 1  Factor loadings of SEIS based on German sample. (N = 100)a

Factors
1 2 3 4

EI14 .746
EI13 .689
EI26 .644
EI11 .616
EI16 .616
EI12 .592
EI23 .591
EI5 .524
EI20 .478
EI15 .424
EI1 .328
EI33 .267
EI32 .821
EI29 .705
EI18 .596
EI2 .567
EI22 .470
EI8 .642
EI21 –.592
EI17 .547
EI7 .509
EI9 .459
EI6 .453
EI4 .423
EI24 .336
EI31 .288
EI27 –.637
EI3 .526
EI30 –.521
EI10 .515
EI25 .489
EI19 .473
EI28 .370
a
Please refer to Schutte et al. (1998) for item details. Bold items indicate common items between the Indian and
German factor structures.

Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of New England on June 6, 2015

 Sharma et al.: Emotional Intelligence across Cultures 225

Table 2  Factor loadings of SEIS based on Indian sample (N = 100)a

Factors
1 2 3 4

EI6 .723
EI22 .667
EI33 –.637
EI5 –.612
EI3 .611
EI7 .563
EI15 –.543
EI8 .500
EI27 .479
EI23 .446
EI10 .432
EI17 .813
EI18 .756
EI19 .689
EI20 .653
EI4 .572
EI2 .549
EI9 .461
EI30 .815
EI31 .768
EI1 .594
EI21 .583
EI32 .544
EI26 .502
EI16 .495
EI28 –.711
EI13 .687
EI14 .633
EI29 .625
EI25 .602
EI12 .586
EI24 .531
EI11 .503
a
Please refer to Schutte et al. (1998) for item details. Bold items indicate common items between the Indian and
German factor structures.

Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of New England on June 6, 2015

226   International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 9(2)

Table 3  Overall Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Confirmatory Factor Analysis Single-Group Models

Absolute indices Relative indices

Structural Model χ2 df χ 2/df GFI RMS TLI NFI CFI

1.  Indian Sample

German Varimax 2678.8 516 5.19 .406 .206 .165 .158 .184
2.  German Sample
Indian Varimax 1433.6 516 2.78 .541 .134 .151 .124 .171

Note. N = 100. GFI = goodness-of-fit index; RMS = root mean square; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; NFI = normed
fit index; CFI = normed noncentrality fit index.

of a normative target structure matrix can
be tested on a new sample by fixing all the
variable loadings to the values in that matrix
(the target structure matrix could have been
derived from previous EFAs on a normative
sample).
CFA offers a variety of statistical tests and
indices designed to assess the goodness-of-fit
of data to a proposed model. Considering
the multidimensionality of goodness-of-fit
(Tanaka, 1993) in all models, we evaluated
the goodness-of-fit of the German and Indian
model in both samples by means of the fol-
lowing indices:
(a) the chi-square (χ2) test statistic,
(b) the Goodness of Fit index (GFI)
(Joreskog and Sorbom, 1989),
(c) the Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA) (Browne and
Cudek, 1993),
(d) the Non Normed Fit Index (NFI)
(Bentler and Bonett, 1980),
(e) the Tucker Fit Index (TFI) (Tucker and
Lewis, 1973), and
(f) the Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
(Bentler, 1989, see Table 3).
RMSEA, NFI, and CFI are particularly
important in our case because they have been
designed with the goal of evaluating the fit
of covariance structure models (Caprara et
al., 2000).
Table 3 shows the significance tests and
goodness-of-fit indices for each model. Based
on their values, our analysis indicates that
the Indian varimax model does not provide
a good fit to the data when applied to the
German sample. Also the German model is
not a good fit for the Indian sample. Thus,
on the basis of conventional CFA fit criteria,
the Indian and German models can not be
judged as being cross-culturally valid ­models.
A x2/df value of 2 or less is generally viewed
as a good fit (Church and Burke, 1994). The
GFI provides an index of the proportion of
variance accounted for by the model (Joreskog
and Sorbom, 1989), and values of .90 or
higher are generally considered to indicate a
good fit; the root mean square index gives the
average correlational discrepancy between
the sample and model-produced correlation
matrices relating to the observed measures
(Joreskog and Sorbom, 1989). Browne and
Cudeck (1993) argued that a model shows
a close fit if the root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) is less than .05 and
that ‘values up to .08 represent reasonable
errors of approximation in the population’.
3.3. EI and NEO-FFI Personality
Dimensions
Table 4 shows the relationship between
EI and NEO-FFI personality dimensions.
For the German sample, agreeableness was

Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of New England on June 6, 2015

 Sharma et al.: Emotional Intelligence across Cultures 227

Table 4  Intercorrelations (Pearson’s ‘r’) NEO-FFI Personality Dimensions and SEIS for German
sample (N = 100) and Indian sample (N = 100)

Big-Five Personality Dimensions →

Emotional Intelligence dimensions ↓ N E O A C

Perception of emotion –.033(G) –.023(G) –.070(G) –.297**(G) –.094(G)

.069(I) .600**(I) .123(I) –.047(I) .459**(I)
Managing own emotions –.123(G) .090(G) –.112(G) –.109(G) .038(G)
.070(I) .585**(I) .031(I) –.031(I) .463**(I)
Managing others emotions .190(G) .131(G) .127(G) .261**(G) –.058(G)
.172(I) .743**(I) –.089(I) –.086(I) .313**(I)
Utilization of emotions .240*(G) .167(G) .220(G)* .250*(G) –.008(G)
.216*(I) .244*(I) –.024(I) –.293**(I) .221*(I)

Note. N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, O = Openness to Experience, A = Agreeableness, C =

Conscientiousness, G=German sample, I= Indian sample.
* significant at the 0.05 level
** significant at the 0.01 level

Table 5  Summary of ANCOVA indicating the difference (F) between Germany and India on
SEIS dimensions with individualism (Fi) and power distance (Fpd) as covariates

SEIS dimensions F Fi Fpd

Perception of emotion 6.22 ** 5.25** 6.08**

Manage own emotion 14.33** 13.28** 14.67**
Managing others’ emotion 22.26** 21.29** 21.52**
Utilization of emotion 0.55 0.84 0.53

** significant at the 0.01 level; degrees of freedom = 1

found to have a low correlation with ‘percep-
tion of emotions’ (r = –.29) and ‘managing
emotions of others’ (r = .26). All other rela-
tionships between EI and personality dimen-
sions were negligible. For the Indian sample
‘extraversion’ and ‘conscientiousness’ were
significantly correlated with most dimensions
of emotional intelligence. Table 3 shows that
extraversion was highly correlated with ‘man-
aging other’s emotions’ (r = .74), ‘perception
of emotions’ (r = .60) and ‘managing own
emotions’ (r = .58). Conscientiousness had
a high correlation with ‘perception of emo-
tions’ (r = .45) and ‘managing own emotions’
(r = .46).
3.4. Individualism and Power
Distance
The differential factor structure, as well as
the relationship between EI and personality
dimensions, suggested we should analyze the
effect of culture (denoted here by individual-
ism and power distance). The mean scores on
individualism were 56 for India and 89 for
Germany, and on power distance, they were
63 for India and 21 for Germany. The differ-

Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of New England on June 6, 2015

228   International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 9(2)
ences between these dimensions were found
to be significant for both the Indian and
German samples (p < .05 for each dimen-
sion). These scores justify our claim that the
two samples differ on these dimensions. We
hypothesized that the indices of individual-
ism and power distance, if partialled out,
could provide an explanation for the cultural
differences ­ identified between the German
and Indian samples. Our results showed a
­significant difference between these two cul-
tures along most dimensions of SEIS, even
after controlling for the effects of individu-
alism and power distance. The difference
between Germany and India was non-
­significant for the SEIS dimension of ‘utili-
zation of emotions’ (see Table 5).
4. Discussion
The present study attempted to evaluate a
trait-based measure of EI cross-culturally.
Assuming EI to be a culturally embedded
construct, we expected to find a difference
in factor structures between samples from
Germany and India. Both EFA and CFA
findings partially confirmed our notion. We
also examined the item clusters in terms
of commonalities and specificities between
both cultures. The factor structures indicated
similarities and differences. The overall CFA
results also provided empirical support for
cross-cultural specificities in a four-­factor
structure of the EI construct in German
and Indian cultures. The aim of the present
study was not to identify the factor struc-
tures that evolved in each culture, but rather
to see whether the structures have evolved
differ­ently in each culture. Therefore, in the
present study, we did not carry out any factor
labeling for the respective cultures.
Earlier studies which used British (Petrides
and Furnham, 2000), Australian (Gignac et
al., 2005), and Canadian (Saklofske et al.,
2003) samples have elicited nearly identical
factor structures of SEIS. Twenty-five (out
of 33) items of SEIS between the studies
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of New England on June 6, 2015
of Saklofske et al. (2003) and Petrides and
Furnham (2000), and 31 items between the
studies of Petrides and Furnham (2000) and
Ciarrochi et al. (2002) had similar items clus-
tered within the four factorial structures of
SEIS. These findings are more indicative of
the universality of EI as a construct than they
are of culture specificities.
However, all of these studies exclusively
used samples from GLOBE’s Anglo cluster,
and thus these data only replicated findings
from the same culture cluster. The results of
the present study differ from the Anglo ones.
Our findings noted only nine items that were
shared between Germany and India within
the given factor structures of SEIS proposed
by Ciarrochi et al. (2002). For example, both
cultures had items like ‘By looking at their facial
expressions’, and ‘I recognize the emotions people are
experiencing’ clustered under the factor ‘per-
ception of emotions’. These items shared
identical meanings for Germany and India.
Earlier studies suggested that the perception
of emotions is universal, while expression
of such emotions may be culture-specific
(Mandal et al., 1996; Mandal et al., 2001).
There were nine items common to the
factor structures of both countries of this
study, and among those nine items, only three
fell into the same factor of the factor struc-
ture found by other researchers (Ciarrochi
et al., 2002; Petrides and Furnham, 2000).
Items such as ‘I have control over my emotions’, ‘I
use good moods to help myself keep trying in the face
of obstacles’ and ‘By looking at their facial expres-
sions, I recognize the emotions people are experienc-
ing’ showed some common features across all
cultures. Therefore, these items show a com-
ponent of emotional intelligence commonly
shared by three cultures.
The differences between German and
Indian cultures may be explained in terms of
individualism and power distance. Whereas
Western cultures (for example, Germany,
UK, Canada) are high in individualism and
low in power distance, Eastern cultures (for
example, India, Japan) are high in collectiv-

ism as well as in power distance (Hofstede,
1991). Matsumoto (1993) observed cultural
differences for emotional regulation in terms
of individualism versus collectivism. He
found that people from collectivist societies
like India and other Asian cultures avoid
­negative reflection upon the group, and they
are thus less likely to display negative affect
publicly. In contrast, people from individual-
istic societies (like the U.S. and Canada) do
not suppress these communication cues, and
are more likely to display their negative emo-
tions without masking.
In the EI scale, items like ‘I know when to
speak about my personal problems to others’ and ‘I
present myself in a way that makes a good impres-
sion on others’ seem to have some cultural
s­ pecificity. While good impressions can form
an important aspect of social relationships
in India as an example of a collectivistic
culture, this is not so common in German
culture. Additionally, in German culture, as
an example of an individualistic culture, it is
important that a person should know when
one should or should not speak about the
problems he or she is facing. However, in col-
lectivistic cultures like India, it is common-
place for one to express personal problems
with others more often than those in individ-
ualistic cultures would do. In a collectivistic
society, others also feel open to hearing one’s
problems, since people in a collectivistic cul-
ture want to spend more time in social groups
and follow their norms by hearing the prob-
lems of others, although they may not try to
solve their problems.
The second objective of the study was to
examine whether EI is distinct from person-
ality dimensions across cultures. Correlations
were done between EI and personality
dimensions for each culture. The analyses
yielded mixed findings. For the German
sample, the relationship between these two
constructs was nearly independent, except
for a moderately low correlation between the
personality dimension of agreeableness and
the EI dimensions of ‘managing other’s emo-
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of New England on June 6, 2015
Sharma et al.: Emotional Intelligence across Cultures 229
tions’ and ‘utilization of emotions’. Western
researchers also found moderate to high cor-
relations between EI and the ‘agreeableness’
dimension of Big-Five personality tests (e.g.
Brackett and Mayer, 2003; Saklofske et al.,
2003). The personality dimension of extra-
version had a moderate relationship with
most EI dimensions in the Indian sample.
The personality dimension of conscientious-
ness was moderately correlated with the
EI dimensions of ‘perception of emotions’
and ‘managing own emotions’. These find-
ings suggest that the constructs of EI and
per­sonality do not overlap except for some
dimensions which depend upon the social
construction in a given culture. However,
some other variables might potentially have
influenced the present research; there may,
for example, have been a response bias in
either or both samples.
However, the relatively high reliability
coefficients of NEO-FFI and SEIS in both
cultures show that poor reliability cannot be
the cause of different factor structures and
the relationship between personality dimen-
sions and EI dimensions. Also, we are aware
that factor analysis results are always ­sample
dependent. Different sample compositions can
lead to different factor solutions. Therefore,
replications of our findings with different sam-
ples from the same cultural backgrounds will
be necessary. Another reason for our results
could be the poor factor structure of SEIS, the
importance of which has been noted by pre-
vious researchers (see Petrides and Furnham,
2000; Mayer et al., 2000). Thus, there is a
need for further research in this direction.
Nevertheless, the cultural differences between
India and Germany are definitely one possi-
ble explanation for the results.
For example, in collective societies like
India, individual responsibility has less rel-
evance, as people like to work in groups,
and follow group ideals. Because of an indi-
vidual’s preference for responsibility shar-
ing, it may be preferable to maintain strong
interpersonal relationships through impulse
230   International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 9(2)
control or conscientiousness. In a group,
however, those who take initiative and con-
nect people for societal causes are perceived
as being extraverted, conscientious and emo-
tionally intelligent.
Unlike Indians, Germans live in an indi-
vidualistic society, where individuals take
responsibility for their own actions, and the
present findings suggest that they tend to
perceive emotions in somewhat similar ways
within groups. The relationship between EI
and personality dimensions was orthogonal
for the German subjects, indicating that the
two constructs are independent for individu-
alistically oriented societies. Confirmation of
this has also been found in previous studies
(Bar-On, 1997; Brackett and Mayer., 2003;
Lopes et al., 2003).
To examine the effect of cultural predis-
positions on EI, we controlled statistically
for two culturally embedded dimensions:
individualism and power distance (Hofstede,
1983, 1991). There were cultural differ-
ences between these dimensions, confirm-
ing Hofstede’s (1991) notion that German
society is more individualistic and has less
power distance, while Indian society is more
collectivist and has more power distance.
These differences in cultural dimensions,
however, did not fully explain the difference
in EI scores between the two countries. Even
after partialling out the effects of individual-
ism and power distance, EI group differences
remained significant for all dimensions except
‘how people utilize emotions’ as the outcome
measure (see Table 5).
Perhaps the most glaring weakness still
evident in this research is one that has limited
the study of factor analysis for decades: small
samples, which constrain the power of statis­
tical analyses. Future studies investigating
the cross-cultural validation of EI measures
should incorporate large samples from mul-
tiple countries representing different cultural
clusters, as well as utilizing other prominent
EI measures (e.g. MSCEIT, Bar-On EQ-I)
for greater variability in the resulting data
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of New England on June 6, 2015
sets. In a global market, such input will help
improve decision-making for managers, by
producing evidence on cultural peculiarities
and similarities in the understanding and
expression of emotion.
Our results can be interpreted in sup-
port of Thomas’ (2006) notion that cultural
specific norms may exist for experiencing
emotions. The construct of emotional intel-
ligence (which in our study was measured
by the SEIS scale), therefore, can be seen as
a product of, and limited to, the culture in
which it was developed. Thomas cautions
that emotional intelligence may be mean-
ingful only within the culture in which that
particular construct was developed. Thus, it
may not apply to another. Given our results,
the construct of emotional intelligence can
indeed be understood to be culture-specific
rather than culture-general.
However, given the limited psychometric
qualities of the SEIS scale, as well as the rela-
tively small sample sizes, it may be premature
to come to this conclusion without applying
scales with better psychometric properties
to larger, possibly more representative sam-
ples. Therefore, a conclusion should not be
based on results from the SEIS scale alone.
The results of this study hint to the neces-
sity for leaders to acquire culture-specific
EI-knowledge. If they then apply this knowl-
edge appropriately, they will enjoy the effects
on leadership, communication, and human
­relations, in such organizations as those men-
tioned earlier in this paper. Hence in terms
of the selection of leaders, it could be wise to
select those who have already acquired these
competencies for a specific different culture,
or those with a high learning ability and
motivation.
In summary, we propose EI to be a
­culturally-shaped construct, consisting of
both culture-specific and culture-general ele-
ments. Such a conclusion, however, triggers
more questions than it answers, and therefore,
demands further cross-cultural research.

Acknowledgements
We are indebted to Nicolai Dyroff, Christian
Müller, and A. M. Rao for collecting data in
their organizations, and to Joyce Osland for her
comments on an earlier version of this paper.
Data in both countries were collected for partial
fulfilment of a Master’s dissertation submitted by
the first author. For research assistance, we thank
our colleague Sebastian Laube at Leuphana
University of Lüneburg and Illinois Institute of
Technology, and Amit Gupta at Indian Institute
of Science, Bangalore.
References
Ackerman, P.L. and Heggestad, E.D. (1997)
‘Intelligence, Personality and Interests:
Evidence for Overlapping Traits’, Psychological
Bulletin 121(2): 219–245.
Amir, Y. and Sharon, I. (1987) ‘Are Social
Psychological Laws Cross-culturally Valid?’
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 18(4):
383–470.
Ashkanasy, N.M. (2003) ‘Emotions in
Organizations: A Multilevel Perspective’,
in F.Dansereau, and F. J. Yammarino (eds),
Research in Multi-level Issues: Multi-level Issues in
Organizational Behavior and Strategy, Vol. 2 pp.
9–54. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Ashkenasy, N.M. and Daus, C.S. (2002) ‘Emotion
in the Workplace: The New Challenge for
Managers’, Academy of Management Executive
16(1): 76–86.
Austin, E.J., Saklofske, D.H., Huang, S.H.S., and
McKenney, D. (2004) ‘Measurement of Trait
Emotional Intelligence: Testing and Cross-
validating a Modified Version of Schutte et
al.’s (1998) Measure’, Personality and Individual
Differences 36: 555–62.
Bar-On, R. (1997a) The Emotional Quotient Inventory
(EQ-i): A Test of Emotional Intelligence. Toronto,
Canada: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.
Bar-On, R. (1997b) The Emotional Quotient Inventory
(EQ-i): Technical Manual. Toronto, Canada:
Multi-Health Systems, Inc.
Bar-On, R. (2000) ‘Emotional and Social
Intelligence: Insights from the Emotional
Quotient Inventory’, in R. Bar-On and J.D.A.
Parker (eds), The Handbook of EI, pp. 363–388.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bar-On, R. (2006) The Bar-On Model of
Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI), Psicothema
18(supl.): 13–25.
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of New England on June 6, 2015
Sharma et al.: Emotional Intelligence across Cultures 231
Bentler, P.M. (1989) EQS: A structural equations
program manual. Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical
Software.
Bentler, P.M. and Bonett, D.G. (1980)
‘Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in
the Analysis of Co-variance Structures’,
Psychological Bulletin 88(3): 588–606.
Bond, M.H. (1987) ‘Chinese Culture Connection:
Chinese Values and the Search for Culture-
free Dimensions of Culture’, Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology 18(2): 143–64.
Bond, M.H. (1996) ‘Chinese Values’, in M.H.
Bond (ed.), The Handbook of Chinese Psychology.
Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Borkenau, P. and Ostendorf, F. (1993) NEO-
Fünf-Faktoren Inventar (NEO-FFI) nach Costa und
McCrae. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Boyatzis, R.E., Goleman, D. and Rhee, K.
(2000) ‚Clustering Competence in Emotional
Intelligence: Insights from the Emotional
Competence Inventory (ECI)’, in R. Bar-On
and J. D. Parker, (eds). Handbook of Emotional
Intelligence, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brackett, M.A. and Mayer, J.D. (2003)
‘Convergent, Discriminant, and Incremental
Validity of Competing Measures of EI’,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29(9):
1147–1158.
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993)
‘Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit’,
in K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long (eds), Testing
structural equation models, pp. 136–162. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C., Bermez,
J., Maslach, C. and Ruch, W. (2000)
‘Multivariate Methods for the Comparison
of Factor Structures in Cross-cultural
Research: An Illustration With the Big Five
Questionnaire’, Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology 31(4): 437–464.
Church, A.T. and Burke, P.J. (1994) ‘Exploratory
and Confirmatory Tests of the Big Five and
Tellegen’s Three- and Four-dimensional
Models’, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 66(1): 93–114.
Ciarrochi, J.V., Chan, A.Y.C. and Caputi, P.
(2000) ‘A Critical Evaluation of the Emotional
Intelligence Construct’, Personality and Individual
Differences 28(3): 539–561.
Ciarrochi, J., Deane, F.P. and Anderson, S. (2002)
‘EI Moderates the Relationship Between
Stress and Mental Health’, Personality and
Individual Differences 32(2): 197–209.
Conte, J.M. (2005) ‘A Review and Critique of
EI Measures’, Journal of Organizational Behavior
26(4): 433–440.
232   International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 9(2)
Cooper, R. and Ayman, S. (1997) Executive
EQ: Emotional Intelligence in Leadership and
Organizations. London: Orion Books.
Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1988) The NEO
PI/FFI Manual Supplement. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources .
Davies, M., Stankov, L. and Roberts, R.D. (1998)
‘Emotional Intelligence: In Search of an
Elusive Construct’, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 75(4): 989–1015.
Day, A.L. and Carroll, S.A. (2004) ‘Using
an Ability-based Measure of Emotional
Intelligence to Predict Individual
Performance, Group Performance, and
Group Citizenship Behaviours’, Personality and
Individual Differences 36(6): 1443–58.
Drusket, V.U and Wolff, S.V. (2001) ‘Building the
Emotional Intelligence of Groups’, Harvard
Business Review (March): 80–90.
Dwada, D. and Hart, S.D. (2000) ‘Assessing
Emotional Intelligence: Reliability and
Validity of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient
Inventory (EQ-i) in University Students’,
Personality and Individual Differences 28(4):
797–812.
Ekman, P. (1972) ‘Universals and Cultural
Differences in Facial Expressions of
Emotion’, in J. Cole (ed.), Nebraska Symposium
on Motivation, 1971, Vol. 19, pp. 207–282.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Ekman, P. (1993) ‘Facial Expression and
Emotion’, American Psychologist 48(4): 384–392.
Elfenbein, H.A. and Ambady, N. (2002a) ‘Is
There an In-group Advantage in Emotion?’,
Psychological Bulletin 128(2): 243–249.
Elfenbein, H.A. and Ambady, N. (2002b) ‘On
the Universality and Cultural Specificity
of Emotion Recognition: A Meta-analysis’,
Psychological Bulletin 128(2): 203–235.
Elfenbein, H.A. and Ambady, N. (2003) ‘When
Familiarity Breeds Accuracy: Cultural
Exposure and Facial Emotion Recognition’,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85(2):
276–290.
Friesen, W.V. (1972). ‘Cultural Difference in
Facial Expressions in a Social Situation: An
Experimental Test of the Concept of Display
Rules’, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
University of California, San Francisco.
Gabel, R.S., Dolan, S.L. and Cerdin, J.L. (2005)
‘Emotional Intelligence as a Predictor of
Cultural Adjustment for Success in Global
Assignments’, Career Development International
10(5): 359–374.
Gangopadhyay, M. and Mandal, M.K. (2008)
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of New England on June 6, 2015
‘Emotional Intelligence: A Universal or
a Culture-specific Construct?’, In R.J.
Emmerling, V.K. Shanwal and M.K. Mandal
(eds), Emotional Intelligence: Theoretical and
Cultural Perspectives, New York: Nova Science
Publishers, Inc.
Gignac, G.E., Palmer, B.R., Manocha, R. and
Stough, C.(2005) ‘An Examination of the
Factor Structure of the Schutte Self-report
Emotional Intelligence (SSREI) Scale via
Confirmatory Factor Analysis’, Personality and
Individual Differences 39(6): 1029–1042.
Goleman, D. (1995) Emotional Intelligence. New
York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (1998) Working with Emotional
Intelligence. New York: Bantam.
Hedlund, J. and Sternberg, R.J. (2000) ‘Too
Many Intelligences? Integrating Social,
Emotional, and Practical Intelligence’, in
R. Bar-On and J. D. A. Parker (eds), The
Handbook of Emotional Intelligence, pp.136–167.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences:
International Differences in Work-related Values. Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1983) ‘Dimensions of Natural
Cultures in Fifty Countries and Three
Regions’, in J.B. Deregowski, S. Dziurawiec
and R.C. Annis (eds), Expiscations in Cross-
cultural Psychology, , pp. 335–355. Lisse, NL:
Swets and Zeitlinger.
Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and Organizations:
Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1994) ‘Value Survey Module 94’,
http://feweb.uvt.nl/center/hofstede/VSM.
html (accessed 9 February 2008).
Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences (2nd
edn). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman,
P.W. and Gupta, V. (2004) Leadership, Culture,
and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62
Societies. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. (1989) LISREL
7: User’s Reference Guide. Mooresville, IN:
Scientific Software.
Law, K.S., Wong, C.S. and Song, L.J. (2004)
‘The Construct and Criterion Validity of
Emotional Intelligence and its Potential
Utility for Management Studies’, Journal of
Applied Psychology 89(3): 483–496.
Lopes, P.N., Salovey, P. and Strauss, R. (2003)
‘Emotional Intelligence, Personality and the
Perceived Quality of Social Relationships’,
Personality and Individual Differences 35(3):
641–658.

Mandal, M.K., Bryden, M.P. and Bulman-
Fleming, M.B. (1996) ‘Similarities and
Variations in Facial Expressions of Emotions:
Cross-cultural Evidence’, International Journal
of Neuroscience 31(1): 49–58.
Mandal, M.K., Harizuka, S., Bhushan, B. and
Mishra, R.C. (2001) ‘Cultural Variation
in Hemi Facial Asymmetry of Emotional
Expressions’, British Journal of Social Psychology
40(3): 385–398.
Markus, H. and Kitayama, S. (1991) ‘Culture
and the Self: Implications for Cognition,
Emotion, and Motivation’, Psychological Review
98(2): 224–253.
Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (1994) ‘The
Cultural Construction of Self and Emotion:
Implications for Social Behaviour’, in S.
Kitayama, and H.R. Markus (eds), Emotion
and Culture: Empirical Studies of Mutual Influence,
pp. 89–130. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Matsumoto, D. (1989) ‘Cultural Influences on
the Perception of Emotion’, Journal of Cross
Cultural Psychology 20(1): 92–105.
Matsumoto, D. (1993) ‘Ethnic Differences in
Affect Intensity, Emotion Judgments, Display
Rule Attitudes, and Self-reported Emotional
Expression in an American Sample’,
Motivation and Emotion 17(2): 107–123.
Matsumoto, D. (2002) ‘Methodological
Requirements to Test a Possible In-Group
Advantage in Judging Emotions Across
Cultures: Comments on Elfenbein and
Ambady and Evidence’, Psychological Bulletin
128(2): 236–242.
Matsumoto, D. et al. (2008) ‘Mapping Expressive
Differences Around the World: The
Relationship Between Emotional Display
Rules and Individualism Versus Collectivism’,
Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology 39(1): 55–74.
Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R. and Salovey, P. (1999)
‘Emotional Intelligence Meets Traditional
Standards for Emotional Intelligence’,
Intelligence 27(4): 267–298.
Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1997) ‘What is
Emotional Intelligence?’, in P. Salovey, and
D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional Development and
Emotional Intelligence: Educational Implications, pp.
3–31. New York: Basic Books.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D. (2000)
‘Models of Emotional Intelligence’, in R.J.
Sternberg (ed.), Handbook of Intelligence, pp.
396–420. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D. (2002)
Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of New England on June 6, 2015
Sharma et al.: Emotional Intelligence across Cultures 233
(MSCEIT), Version 2.0. Toronto, Canada:
Multi-Health Systems.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D. (2004)
‘Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Findings,
and Implications’, Psychological Inquiry 15(3):
197–215.
McCrae, R.R. (2000) ‘EI from the Perspective of
the Five-factor Model of Personality’, in R.
Bar-On and J.D.A. Parker (eds), Handbook of
EI, pp. 263–276. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Mesquita, B., Frijda, N.H. and Scherer,
K.R.(1997) ‘Culture and Emotion’, in J.E.
Berry, P.B. Daisen, and T.S. Saraswathi (eds),
Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology: Vol. 2.
Basic Processes and Developmental Psychology, pp.
255–297. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Newsome, S., Day, A.L. and Catano, V.M. (2000)
‘Assessing the Predictive Validity of Emotional
Intelligence’, Personality and Individual Differences
29(6): 1005–1016.
Pant, N. and Prakash, A. (2004) ‘Multi-factor
EI Scale (MEIS) in India: An Evaluation’,
Psychological Studies 49(1): 142–146.
Parker, J.D.A., Saklofske, D.H., Shaughnessy,
P.A., Huang, S.H.S., Wood, L.M. and
Eastabrook, J.M. (2005) ‘Generalizability
of the Emotional Intelligence Construct:
A Cross-cultural Study of North American
Aboriginal Youth’, Personality and Individual
Differences 39(1): 215–227.
Perez, J.C., Petrides, K.V. and Furnham, A.
(2005) ‘Measuring Trait EI’, in R. Schulze
and R.D. Roberts (eds), EI –An International
Handbook, pp. 181– 201.Cambridge, MA:
Hogrefe and Huber Publishers.
Petrides, K.V. and Furnham, A. (2000) ‘On
the Dimensional Structure of Emotional
Intelligence’, Personality and Individual Differences
29(2): 313–320.
Prabhupada, A.C.B.S. (1986) Bhagavad Gita as it
is. Mumbai: The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.
R- Project (1994) ‘R Statistic- version 2.6’,
http://www.r-project.org/ (accessed 24
December 2007).
Saklofske, D.H., Austin, E.J. and Minski, P.S.
(2003) ‘Factor Structure and Validity of
a Trait Emotional Intelligence Measure’,
Personality and Individual Differences 34(4):
707–721.
Salacuse, J. (1998) ‘Ten Ways That Culture
Affects Negotiating Style: Some Survey
Results’, Negotiation Journal 14(3): 221–235.
Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990) ‘Emotional
Intelligence’, Imagination, Cognition and
Personality 9(3): 185–211.
234   International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 9(2)
Schermerhorn, J.R. and Bond, M.H. (1997)
‘Cross-cultural Leadership Dynamics in
Collectivism and High Power Distance
Settings’, Leadership and Organizational
Development Journal 18(4): 187–202.
Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E.,
Haggerty, D.J., Cooper, J.T., Golden, C.J.
and Dornheim, L. (1998) ‘Development
and Validation of a Measure of Emotional
Intelligence’, Personality and Individual Differences
25(2): 167–177.
Schwartz, S.H. (1994) ‘Cultural Dimensions
of Values: Toward an Understanding of
National Differences’, in U. Kam, H.C.
Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.C. Choi, and
G. Yoon (eds), Individualism and Collectivism:
Theory, Method, and Application, pp. 85–119. Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Sibia, A., Srivastava, A.K. and Misra G. (2003)
‘Emotional Intelligence: Western and Indian
perspectives, Indian Psychological Abstracts and
Reviews 10(1): 3–41.
Shweder, R. and Much, N. (1987)
‘Determinations of Meaning: Discourse and
Moral Socialization’, in W. Kurtines, and J.
Gewirtz (eds), Moral Development Through Social
Interaction, pp.197–244. New York: Wiley.
Spielberger, C. (ed.) (2004) Encyclopedia of Applied
Psychology. Academic Press.
Tanaka, J.S. (1993) ‘Multifaceted Conceptions of
Fit in Structural Equation Models’, in K.A.
Bollen and J.S. Long (eds), Testing Structural
Equation Models, pp. 10–39. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
Thomas, D.C. (2006) ‘Domain and Development
of Cultural Intelligence: The Importance of
Mindfulness’, Group Organization Management
31(1): 78–99.
Triandis, H.C. (1989) ‘The Self and Social
Behaviour in Differing Cultural Contexts’,
Psychological Review 96(3): 506–520.
Triandis, H.C. (1995) Individualism and Collectivism.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Tucker, L.R. and Lewis, C. (1973) ‘A Reliability
Coefficient for Maximum Likelihood Factor
Analysis’, Psychometrika 38(1): 1–10.
Van Hemert, D.A., Poortinga, Y.H. and Van de
Vijver, F.J.R. (2007) ‘Emotion and Culture:
A Meta-analysis’, Cognition and Emotion 21(5):
913–943.
Van Rooy, D.L. and Viswesvaran, C. (2004)
‘Emotional Intelligence: A Meta-Analytic
Investigation of Predictive Validity and
Nomological Net’, Journal of Vocational
Behaviour 65(1): 71–95.
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of New England on June 6, 2015
SUDEEP SHARMA is in the Department
of Organizational Behavior, Olin Business
School, Washington University in St. Louis,
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, Missouri,
United States, 63130. He recently moved from
Department of Employment Relations and
Organizational Behavior, the London School
of Economics and Politicial Scienes, Houghton
Street, London, WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom.
[email:sudeep.sharma@alumni.lse.ac.uk]
JÜRGEN DELLER is founder of the Institute
for Strategic HR Management Research and
Development (SMARD), Leuphana University of
Lüneburg, Wilschenbrucher Weg 84a, D-21335,
Lüneburg, Germany. He is also visiting professor
in Lucas Graduate School of Business, San José
State University, USA.
[email:deller@leuphana.de]
RAMAKRISHNA BISWAL is in the
Department of Psychology, Delhi University,
North Campus, Near Mall Road, Delhi, India,
110007. [email:rkbpsych@gmail.com]
Manas K. Mandal is Director in the
Defence Institute of Psychological Research,
Defence Research and Development Organiza­
tion, Lucknow Road, Delhi-110054, India.
[email address: mkmdipr@yahoo.co.in]
Please address correspondence to Manas K.
Mandal.
Appendix 1
The 33 item German version of Schutte
Emotional Intelligence Scale.
  1. Ich weiß, wann ich mit anderen über
meine persönlichen Probleme sprechen
kann.
  2. Wenn ich in schwierigen Situationen
bin, erinnere ich mich an ähnliche
Situationen und daran, wie ich sie
bewältigt habe.
  3. Ich erwarte, daß ich die meisten Dinge,
die ich versuche, gut mache.
  4. Andere Personen finden es leicht, mir zu
vertrauen.
  5. Ich finde es schwierig, die non-verbalen
Botschaften anderer Personen zu
verstehen.

  6. Einige bedeutsame Ereignisse in meinem
Leben haben mich dazu geführt, neu zu
bewerten, was wichtig oder unwichtig ist.
  7. Wenn sich meine Stimmung ändert, sehe
ich neue Möglichkeiten.
  8. Gefühle gehören zu den Dingen, die
mein Leben lebenswert machen.
  9. Ich bin mir meiner Gefühle bewusst,
wenn ich sie erlebe.
10. Ich erwarte, daß gute Dinge passieren.
11. Ich teile meine Gefühle gerne mit
anderen.
12. Wenn ich ein positives Gefühl erlebe,
weiß ich, was ich tun muss, damit es
andauert.
13. Ich plane Ereignisse, die anderen Freude
bereiten.
14. Ich finde Aktivitäten heraus, die mich
glücklich machen.
15. Ich bin mir der non-verbalen Botschaften
bewusst, die ich anderen sende.
16. Ich präsentiere mich auf eine Art,
die bei anderen einen guten Eindruck
hinterlässt.
17. Wenn ich in guter Stimmung bin, fällt es
mir leicht, Probleme zu lösen.
18. Ich erkenne die Gefühle anderer an
ihren Gesichtsausdrücken.
19. Ich weiß, weshalb sich meine Gefühle
ändern.
20. Wenn ich in guter Stimmung bin, kann
ich neue Ideen entwickeln.
21. Ich habe meine Gefühle unter Kontrolle.
22. Ich erkenne meine Gefühle leicht, wenn
ich sie erlebe.
23. Ich motiviere mich dadurch, daß ich
mir ein positives Ergebnis der Aufgaben
vorstelle, die ich angehe.
24. Ich lobe andere, wenn sie etwas gut
gemacht haben.
25. Ich bin mir der non-verbalen
Botschaften anderer Personen bewusst.
26. Wenn mir eine andere Person von einem
wichtigen Ereignis in ihrem Leben
berichtet, fühle ich mich fast, als hätte
ich es selbst erlebt.
27. Wenn ich eine emotionale Veränderung
Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of New England on June 6, 2015
Sharma et al.: Emotional Intelligence across Cultures 235
spüre, neige ich zur Entwicklung neuer
Ideen.
28. Wenn ich vor einer Herausforderung
stehe, gebe ich auf, weil ich glaube, daß
ich scheitern werde.
29. Ich weiß, was andere Personen fühlen,
wenn ich sie nur ansehe.
30. Ich helfe anderen Personen, sich besser
zu fühlen, wenn sie niedergeschlagen
sind.
31. Ich nutze gute Stimmung, um
mich angesichts von Hindernissen
anzuspornen.
32. Ich kann sagen, wie Personen sich
fühlen, wenn ich den Tonfall ihrer
Stimme höre.
33. Es ist schwierig für mich zu verstehen,
warum Personen so fühlen wie sie fühlen.
Appendix 2
Shlok 1
duhkhesv anudvigna-manah
sukhesu vigata-sprhah
vita-raga-bhaya-krodhah
sthita-dhir munir ucyate
(The Bhagavad Gita, 2; 56)
Translation – One who is not disturbed in
mind even amidst the threefold miseries or
elated when there is happiness, and who is
free from attachment, fear and anger, is called
a sage of steady mind (Swami Prabhupada,
1986).
Shlok 2
krodhad bhavati sammohah
sammohat smrti-vibhramah
smrti-bhramsad buddhi-naso
buddhi-nasat pranasyati
(The Bhagavad Gita, 2; 63)
Translation – From anger, complete delusion
arises, and from delusion bewilderment of
memory. When memory is bewildered, intel-
ligence is lost, and intelligence is lost one falls
down again into the material pool (Swami
Prabhupada, 1986).
236   International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 9(2)

Résumé
L’intelligence émotionnelle : structure factorielle et validité dans diverses
cultures (Sudeep Sharma, Juergen Deller, Ramakrishna Biswal et Manas K.
Mandal)
Cette étude est un examen transculturel de l’intelligence émotionnelle (IE). Les participants
(N = 200) d’Allemagne (N = 100) et d’Inde (N = 100) ont complété l’échelle d’intelligence
émotionnelle, NEO- Five Factor Personality Inventory et le module de valeur de la surveillance
de 1994 (Hofstede’s Value Survey – Module 94). L’étude avait pour objectifs majeurs
d’examiner de façon transculturelle (i) la structure des facteurs de l’IE et (ii) le construct de
l’IE comme étant distinct de la personnalité. Les résultats ont révélé différentes structures
factorielles pour ces deux cultures, tandis que le construct de l’IE n’a pas pu être corrélé aux
dimensions de la personnalité. Les implications de ces résultats pour le leadership dans une
culture spécifique et pour des cultures différentes sont examinées.

Sudeep Sharma, Juergen Deller, Ramakrishna Biswal and Manas K. Mandal

Downloaded from ccm.sagepub.com at University of New England on June 6, 2015