,DanaInfo Jca Sagepub Com+71

Journal of Career Assessment
http://jca.sagepub.com
Emotional Intelligence and Decisional Conflict Styles: Some Empirical Evidence

Among Italian High School Students
Annamaria Di Fabio and David L. Blustein
Journal of Career Assessment 2010; 18; 71 originally published online Dec 2, 2009;
DOI: 10.1177/1069072709350904
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jca.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/1/71
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Journal of Career Assessment can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jca.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jca.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://jca.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/18/1/71
Downloaded from http://jca.sagepub.com at Univ de Oviedo-Bib Univ on March 29, 2010

Journal of Career Assessment
18(1) 71-81
ª The Author(s) 2010
Emotional Intelligence and Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Decisional Conflict Styles DOI: 10.1177/1069072709350904
http://jca.sagepub.com
Some Empirical Evidence Among

Italian High School Students
Annamaria Di Fabio1 and David L. Blustein2
Abstract
This study assessed the relationship between emotional intelligence and decisional conflict styles.
Five hundred and twenty-eight Italian high school students (median age ¼ 18; SD ¼ .76) were given
the Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire (MDMQ) and the Bar-On Emotional Quotient
Inventory: short (Bar-On EQ-i:S). The Intrapersonal dimension of emotional intelligence emerged
as the best inverse predictor of nonadaptive styles, whereas the Adaptability dimension was the best
predictor of the adaptive style of vigilance; the Interpersonal dimension of emotional intelligence was
associated with the nonadaptive styles. The results provide an in-depth look at the relationship
between the emotional intelligence construct and the decisional conflict styles, yielding new areas
of research, assessment, and intervention.
Keywords
decisional conflict, emotional intelligence, career choice process
The literature on career development has increasingly focused on the role played by emotions in the
career decision-making processes (Emmerling & Cherniss, 2003; Kidd, 1998; Phillips, 1997). Emo-
tions, in addition to cognition, represent an important factor in contributing to various aspects of
career choice and career behavior (Kidd, 1998). According to Young and Valach (1996), various
aspects of the career development process are closely connected to emotions and therefore aware-
ness of one’s own emotions seems essential to the development and implementation of an individ-
ual’s career path. In support of the importance of emotions in the area of career development, Cooper
(1997) demonstrated that those who trust their own feelings and allow themselves to be guided by
these feelings seem to have more successful career paths. In an attempt to understand the role of
emotions in relation to managing decisional conflicts, we are proposing that emotional intelligence
1
Department of Psychology, Annamaria DiFabio–University, Florence
2
Department of Counseling, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Blustein–Boston College, Chestnut Hill
Corresponding Author:
David L. Blustein, Department of Counseling, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Blustein–Boston College, Chestnut
Hill, MA 02467.
Email: blusteid@bc.edu
71
72 Journal of Career Assessment 18(1)
is a potentially important variable that can enhance knowledge about career development (Emmer-
ling & Cherniss, 2003). Emotional intelligence may provide a powerful tool in career assessment
and case conceptualizations, thereby providing counselors with the capacity to design interventions
that are well suited to the emotional functioning of their clients.
The term emotional intelligence, made popular by Goleman (1995), was advanced by Salovey
and Mayer (1990) to describe the individual’s ability to monitor his or her own sentiments and those
of others, discriminating among the various types of emotions and utilizing this information to guide
thoughts and actions. Mayer and Salovey (1997) have expanded their definition to include the capac-
ity to perceive emotions, compare emotions and feelings connected to them, understand information
derived from emotions, and the capacity to manage these emotions.
According to the distinction present in literature (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000), it is possible
to differentiate among models of emotional intelligence between mental ability models and mixed
models. The first set of models conceptualizes emotional intelligence as a fairly well-defined set of
emotional-processing skills that are assessed through objective, performance tests. In contrast, the
second set of models encompass multiple aspects of personal functioning that aim to measure emo-
tional intelligence through self-report protocols.
In the current study, we rely on the Bar-On theoretical model (1997, 2000), according to which
emotional intelligence is defined as a blending of emotional and social competencies that determine
the way in which one relates to oneself and to others, and one’s capacity to deal with external pres-
sures and demands. Emotional intelligence is, therefore, an important factor in determining the
capacity to be successful in life and in influencing the overall well-being of individuals. Emotional
intelligence is thought to develop over time, transforming throughout one’s lifespan; moreover,
emotional intelligence can be enhanced and modified through training programs. Bar-On (2000)
identified four dimensions of emotional intelligence: Intrapersonal, which refers to the awareness
of one’s own emotions and the ability to express one’s feelings and communicate one’s needs; Inter-
personal, the ability to establish interpersonal cooperative, constructive and satisfactory relation-
ships and understand other people’s feelings; Stress management, the ability to manage and
regulate emotions; and Adaptability, the ability to use emotions to put effective strategies of problem
solving into action.
In general, emotional intelligence can be understood as the reliance upon greater awareness of
one’s emotions and the capacity to manage and use these emotions adaptively in interpersonal situa-
tions (Emmerling & Cherniss, 2003). Moreover, emotional intelligence encompasses the integration
of emotional experience with thoughts and actions. For this reason, emotional intelligence may play
a considerable role in career exploration and in managing the conflict that emerges in the decision-
making processes. Brown, George-Curran, and Smith (2003) underscored that individuals with
greater emotional intelligence will probably have greater trust in their own capacity to confront tasks
relative to scholastic/professional decision making. Emmerling and Cherniss (2003) highlighted var-
ious points about emotional intelligence that are relevant to the challenges that individuals face
when making important career decisions. Those who possess greater emotional intelligence seem
more aware of their own interests and professional values and they may be able to communicate
them more efficaciously during the career exploration and decision-making processes. Individuals
with lower emotional intelligence have the tendency to give socially desirable answers and seem
very easily influenced in forming judgments; individuals with a higher level of emotional intelli-
gence, being in tune with their own interests, values, and needs and being less exposed to the types
of aforementioned bias, may be able to adapt more effectively to conflicts in career decision making.
Taken together, these contributions suggest that individuals with higher levels of emotional
intelligence seem to be better able to manage their own emotional response when facing career
decision-making conflicts. In addition, those who are better able to understand and manage their
own emotions will probably be better able to predict the emotional consequences of potential career
72
Di Fabio and Blustein 73
choice dilemmas, thus avoiding jobs that may result in unpleasant responsibilities and tasks, and
instead choose those career options that yield greater job and life satisfaction.
As detailed in the career development literature (e.g., Blustein, 2006; Hackett & Betz, 1995;
Savickas, 2004), there are few other decisions that influence people’s lives as those related to career
choice. As a means of understanding this challenge, the model proposed by Savickas (2004) iden-
tifies five principal typologies of problems and conflicts linked to career choices (informational,
decisional, relational, motivational, and environmental). The typology of decisional problems is
rooted in a deficit in decision-making abilities in that even when an adequate quantity of information
is available, deficits in decisional competence may hinder the ability to process this information and
make a decision that leads to a suitable occupational choice.
One useful way to study the career decision-making process is to examine individual differences
in how people approach and manage decisional conflicts. In the current study, we use a taxonomy of
approaches to decisional conflict developed by Mann, Burnett, Radford, and Ford (1997) that rep-
resents a revision of the previous model by Janis and Mann (1977). One of the most important con-
tributions of the Janis and Mann theory is their delineation of individual differences in how people
approach decisional conflict. According to this taxonomy, prior to the necessity to effect important
choices, strong conflicts arise in the individual that are caused by simultaneous and opposite tenden-
cies that bring about hesitation, feelings of uncertainty, and signs of emotional stress. In short, this
conflict theory refers to the way in which people manage the psychological conflicts that emerge in
the decision-making process. There are four decisional conflict styles identified by Janis and Mann
(1977): vigilance, panic (or hypervigilance), co pout (or defensive avoidance), and compliance; the
latter is further articulated into nonconflictual adherence and nonconflictual change. Each style is
determined by the combination of two antecedents: temporal pressure and the optimism/pessimism
dimension on the possibility of finding a solution to the problem. According to this model, all the
modalities listed above are present in every person; what changes is the frequency with which each
strategy is used. Frequency of use would depend on both the personality of the decision-maker and
the decisional situation (Janis & Mann, 1977).
This model was subsequently revised and adapted by Mann et al. (1997), who defined it with the
following taxonomy of decisional conflict styles: avoidance, vigilance, procrastination, and hyper-
vigilance. Avoidance refers to the tendency to avoid decision making by projecting the responsibil-
ity of the decision on others; vigilance is the careful and involved clarification of the goal to be
reached through the decision-making process and the thorough evaluation of each option prior to
deciding; procrastination is the tendency to postpone the decisional conflict; hypervigilance refers
to the tendency to frenetically look for a solution by impulsively grasping the first option that
appears. Attention to differences in how individuals approach decisional conflicts enables counse-
lors to make more informed judgments about the sort of interventions that clients and students will
find helpful (Germeijs & De Boeck, 2003; Nota & Soresi, 2000b).
The aforementioned theoretical connections have been evaluated in a recent study with
apprentices by Di Fabio and Palazzeschi (2007). This study found that the emotional intelligence
dimension that appears most inversely related to nonadaptive decisional conflict styles is Intra-
personal, suggesting that the use of nonadaptive styles in decision making is primarily linked to a
lack of awareness of one’s own emotions. The dimension most strongly related to the adaptive
style of vigilance is Adaptability, underlining that the use of an adaptive decisional conflict style
is mostly linked to the ability to use emotions to put efficacious strategies of problem solving into
action.
The Interpersonal dimension has, nevertheless, recently emerged as particularly pertinent in
career choice conflicts, as well. The relationship between Career Decision Difficulties as defined
by Gati, Krausz, and Osipow (1996) and the emotional intelligence construct, as theorized by
Bar-On (1997, 2000), among a sample of Italian paid trainees (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2008)
73
revealed a number of informative findings: lower emotional intelligence was associated with greater
Lack of readiness, caused by the difficulty that the individual can come up against prior to beginning
the decisional process; greater Lack of information on the decisional process, on jobs, on oneself and
on the way in which to obtain this information; greater Perception of inconsistent information based
on the unreliability of this information and on the presence of internal and external conflicts. In par-
ticular, Lack of readiness is inversely tied to the Intrapersonal dimension and to a lesser degree to
the Stress Management dimension; the Lack of information dimension is inversely tied to the Intra-
personal dimension and secondarily to the Adaptability dimension; the Inconsistent information
dimension is inversely associated with the Intrapersonal dimension and also has an inverse relation-
ship with the Interpersonal dimension. The results of the study, furthermore, demonstrate that the
Intrapersonal dimension is the best inverse predictor of each of the three dimensions on the Career
Decision Difficulties Questionnaire (CDDQ). Nevertheless, each of these three dimensions on the
CDDQ is secondarily predicted by a different component of emotional intelligence, underlining the
specificity of the various decisional difficulties.
In this regard, the role of the Interpersonal dimension seems to facilitate the ability to make use of
information judged as consistent by the decision maker. These results clearly convey the central role
that relationships play in the domain of vocational behavior (Blustein, 2001; Blustein, Phillips,
Jobin-Davis, Finkelberg, & Roarke, 1997; Phillips, Christopher-Sisk, & Gravino, 2001), underlining
the connection between interpersonal relationships and career development (Blustein, Schultheiss,
& Flum, 2004).
Whereas previous research has examined the relationship between emotional intelligence and
decisional styles in a nonstudent sample (cf. Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2007), it seems prudent at this
point to examine these relationship among high school students who face such complex challenges
and often need to negotiate many emotionally laden barriers in their career decision making. This
sample was chosen because this is a critical period full of challenges regarding education and career
options (academic or work choice). This period of time particularly highlights decisional pressures,
thus making the differences all the more evident and salient to the participants.
Based on our review of the literature, we have conducted this study to explore the following
hypotheses: Individuals who rely on nonadaptive decisional conflict styles (avoidance, procrastina-
tion, hypervigilance) will tend to demonstrate less adaptive levels of emotional intelligence; individ-
uals who rely on the adaptive style of vigilance will tend to demonstrate more adaptive levels of
emotional intelligence; individuals who rely on the Intrapersonal dimension and secondarily on the
Interpersonal dimension of emotional intelligence will tend to use more maladaptive decisional
styles (Avoidance, Procrastination, Hypervigilance); individuals who rely on the Adaptability
dimension will tend to demonstrate greater use of the adaptive style of vigilance.
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 528 students, of which 233 were males (44.1%) and 295 females (55.9%),
enrolled in the last two classes of varying types of high schools located in the province of Arezzo
(Tuscany). The sample was composed as follows: 39% Scientific Lyceum (a pre-university setting;
N ¼ 206); 25.4% Technical Commercial Institute (a more technical program that leads primarily to
work but also may lead to university; N ¼ 134); 16% Classical Lyceum (a preuniversity setting that
is rooted in classical studies; N ¼ 85); 10.1% Technical Institute for Social Services (a technical
program that prepares students for work in social services; N ¼ 53); 9.5% Technical-Industrial Insti-
tute (a technical program that is primarily work-bound; N ¼ 50). The age of the participants ranged
from 17 to 20 years, with an average age of 18 years and a standard deviation of .76. The vast
74
majority of the students in the sample are European (i.e., White Italians), who are primarily from
middle-class backgrounds.
Instruments
Assessment of emotional intelligence. To evaluate emotional intelligence, the Italian version of the
Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Short (Bar-On EQ-i:S; Bar-On, 2002; Italian version; Giorgi
& Di Fabio, 2005) was used. This instrument is composed of 51 items with responses based on a
5-point Likert scale (from 1 ¼ ‘‘very rarely or never true’’ to 5 ¼ ‘‘very often or always true’’). The
short version used in this study provided a total score (Emotional Quotient) for the four emotional
intelligence dimensions: Intrapersonal, associated with awareness of one’s own emotions, strong,
and weak points and the ability to express one’s own feelings (It is difficult for me to express my feel-
ings.); Interpersonal, tied to social awareness and to interpersonal relationships, implies knowing
how to recognize emotions, feelings, and the needs of others and knowing how to establish and
maintain cooperative, constructive, and satisfying relationships (I am not able to understand the
emotions of others.); Adaptability, tied to the ability to flexibly deal with daily problems (My way
of dealing with difficulties is to take one step at a time.); and Stress Management, the ability to deal
with stressful situations in an appropriate way, knowing how to manage emotions beneficially
(I have difficulty controlling my anxiety.). Cronbach’s a coefficient was .79 for the Intrapersonal
dimension, .79 for the Interpersonal dimension, .78 for the Adaptability dimension, and .84 for the
Stress Management dimension. The total score of the questionnaire demonstrates adequate concur-
rent validity in a sample of high school students, with a correlation of .41 with the La Mia Vita da
Studente (My Life as a Student) questionnaire by Soresi and Nota (2003) and with the five factors on
the Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ) by Caprara, Barbaranelli, and Borgogni (1993): Energy (r ¼ .38),
Agreeableness (r ¼ .47), Conscientiousness (r ¼ .40), Emotional stability (r ¼ .42) and Openness
(r ¼ .42). Relative to construct validity, the four individual factors taken together yielded a variance
of 41.80%. The resulting confirmatory factor analysis underlined the goodness of fit of the emerging
factorial structure (Giorgi & Di Fabio, 2005).
Assessment of decisional conflict styles. To evaluate differences in how students approach decisional
conflict, the Italian version adapted by Nota, Mann, and Soresi (2003) of the Melbourne Decision
Making Questionnaire (MDMQ) by Mann et al. (1997) was used. The instrument consists of 22
statements; participants are asked to express the extent to which each corresponds to their situation
based on a 3-point Likert scale (1 ¼ not true, 2 ¼ sometimes true, 3 ¼ true). The MDMQ assesses
four decisional conflict styles: avoidance (F1), vigilance (F2), procrastination (F3), and hypervigi-
lance (F4). The statements relative to the first strategy, avoidance, include affirmations such as
‘‘I prefer letting others make decisions’’ and ‘‘I avoid making decisions.’’ High scores indicate the
tendency to avoid conflict by giving others the responsibility of deciding or by justifying the non-
resolution of a problem. The items relative to vigilance include statements such as ‘‘When I have to
make a decision, I like to stop and consider all the possible alternatives.’’ and ‘‘I am very careful
before making a choice’’; high scores also indicate a precise and rational manner of proceeding,
tending toward the careful examination of all possible options. Examples of items from the third
strategy, procrastination, are ‘‘I postpone making decisions until it is too late to make a choice’’ and
‘‘I postpone making decisions’’; yet, high scores indicate the tendency to delay the decision-making
moment. The last factor, hypervigilance, includes statements such as ‘‘When I have to make a deci-
sion, I feel as if I’m pressed by urgency’’ and ‘‘The possibility that even ‘small things’ might be a
mistake makes me repeatedly change my mind’’; higher scores indicate a frenetic search for a way
to resolve the conflict and the person often ends up clinging impulsively to the first solution that
comes along (Nota et al., 2003). The Italian-adapted version yielded the following reliability
75
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations Relative to MDMQ and Bar-On EQ-i: S
Variable M DS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. MDMQ (F1) 9.23 2.84 –

2. MDMQ (F2) 15.20 2.58 .18** –
3. MDMQ (F3) 7.63 2.12 .51** .12** –
4. MDMQ (F4) 8.99 2.16 .44** .05 .47** –
5. EQ total 128.08 15.16 .42** .35** .44** .35** –
6. INTRA 36.94 6.38 .54** .12* .44** .41** .71** –
7. INTER 38.78 5.52 .30** .24** .32** .19** .69** .33** –
8. STR MAN 27.44 6.13 .05 .16** .19** .18** .66** .28** .18** –
9. ADAPT 24.92 4.34 .24** .52** .22** .13** .63** .31** .41** .25** –
Note. N ¼ 528. **p < .01; *p < .05.
MDMQ (F1) ¼ Avoidance; MDMQ (F2) ¼ Vigilance; MDMQ (F3) ¼ Procrastination; MDMQ (F4) ¼ Hypervigilance; EQ
total ¼ Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Short total score; INTRA ¼ Intrapersonal; INTER ¼ Interpersonal; STR
MANG ¼ Stress Management; ADAPT ¼ Adaptability.
coefficients: a ¼ .78 for avoidance, a ¼ .68 for vigilance, a ¼ .65 for procrastination and a ¼ .60 for
hypervigilance (Nota & Soresi, 2000a). In a later study (Di Fabio & Busoni, 2006a), even more
promising values of reliability emerged: a ¼ .82 for avoidance, a ¼ .70 for vigilance, a ¼ .71 for
procrastination, and a ¼ .67 for hypervigilance.
The MDMQ provides adequate concurrent validity, yielding correlations (from r ¼ .24 to r ¼ .59)
with the dimensions on the General Decision Making Style by Scott and Bruce (1995). Relative to con-
struct validity, a four-factor model emerged: the first factor (avoidance) explained 21.55% of the var-
iance, the second factor (vigilance) explained 10.66% of the variance, the third factor (procrastination)
explained 6.06% of the variance, and the fourth factor (hypervigilance) explained 4.67% of the var-
iance. A confirmatory factor analysis, moreover, underlined the factorial structure goodness of fit
(Nota & Soresi, 2000a).
Procedure and Data Analysis

The instruments were administered collectively in the classroom by specialized staff at a time agreed
upon with the school and with respect for the law on privacy and informed consent. The administration
order was counterbalanced to control the effects of presentation order. The students knew that they
would receive individual feedback and could also successively make use of an orientation session.
The data were examined initially using descriptive statistics, Pearson’s r correlations. We then
used the Enter method of multiple regressions, using as an independent variable the scales from the
Bar-On EQ-i: S that correlated with each decisional conflict style (avoidance, vigilance, procrasti-
nation, hypervigilance).
Results
The results of the descriptive statistics and the correlations between scores on the MDMQ and the
Bar-On EQ:i S are reported in Table 1. Inverse and significant correlations emerged between emo-
tional intelligence and each of the nonadaptive styles and positive correlations between emotional
intelligence and the adaptive style of vigilance.
In relation to the impact of the dimensions from the Bar-On EQ-i: S on each of the four decisional
styles from the MDMQ, the results of the multiple regression analyses are reported in Tables 2–5.
It is important to observe that the Type I error-rate is moderated by the use of a very conservative
a level in each analysis (.001). In addition, the decision to use multiple univariate regression
76
Table 2. Multiple Regression: Predictive Values of Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Adaptability Dimensions on
the Decisional Style of Avoidance (N ¼ 528)
Variable B SEB b p
1. Intrapersonal .22 .02 .49 .001

2. Interpersonal .16 .02 .24 .001
3. Adaptability .06 .03 .10 .011
Note. R2 ¼ .32 (p < .001).
Table 3. Multiple Regression: Predictive Values of Adaptability, Interpersonal, Stress Management, and Intraperso-
nal Dimensions on the Decisional Style of Vigilance (N ¼ 528)
Variable B SEB b p
1. Adaptability .29 .03 .49 .001

2. Interpersonal .01 .02 .04 ns
3. Stress management .01 .02 .03 ns
4. Intrapersonal .03 .02 .01 ns
Note. R2 ¼ .30 (p < .001).
Table 4. Multiple Regression: Predictive Values of Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Adaptability, and Stress Manage-
ment Dimensions on the Decisional Style of Procrastination (N ¼ 528)
Variable B SEB b p
1. Intrapersonal .12 .01 .35 .001

2. Interpersonal .06 .02 .17 .001
3. Adaptability .03 .02 .07 ns
4. Stress management .01 .01 .04 ns
Note. R2 ¼ .23 (p < .001).
Table 5. Multiple Regression: Predictive Values of Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Stress Management, and Adaptabil-
ity Dimensions on the Decisional Style of Hypervigilance (N ¼ 528)
Variable B SEB b p
1 Intrapersonal .13 .02 .38 .001

2 Interpersonal .01 .02 .05 ns
3 Stress Management .02 .02 .06 ns
4 Adaptability .08 .02 .02 ns
Note. R2 ¼ .18 (p < .001).
analyses is based on the objective of presenting circumscribed and clear results, which might have
been confounded by a multivariate approach. Moreover, we do not believe that we have sufficient
theoretical input to justify more precise statistical modeling approaches.
In relation to the impact of the Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Adaptability dimensions on the
decisional conflict style of avoidance, the regression model (see Table 2) reveals that avoidance is
77
most optimally explained by the Intrapersonal variable, with a regression coefficient of b ¼ .49
(p ¼ .001). The Interpersonal and Adaptability dimensions also explain avoidance, with a regression
coefficient of b ¼ .24 (p ¼ .001) and b ¼ .10 (p ¼ .011), respectively.
The regression model (see Table 3) indicates that the Adaptability variable functions as a predic-
tor of the decisional style of vigilance, with a regression coefficient of b ¼ .49.
Concerning the impact of Intrapersonal and Interpersonal dimensions on the decisional style of
procrastination, the regression model (see Table 4) indicates that procrastination is better explained
by the Intrapersonal variable with a regression coefficient of b ¼ .35. In addition, the Interperso-
nal dimension explains, to a lesser extent, procrastination with a regression coefficient of b ¼ .17
(p ¼ .001).
The regression model (see Table 5) shows the Intrapersonal variable as the only predictor of the
decisional style of hypervigilance with a regression coefficient of b ¼ .38 (p ¼ .001).
Discussion
The objective of the current study was to analyze the relationship between emotional intelligence
and variability in approaches to decisional conflict in an Italian sample of students attending the last
2 years of high school. As indicated in the results of our analyses, the first and second hypotheses
were confirmed: an analysis of the beta weights reveals the presence of inverse relationships
between emotional intelligence and each of the nonadaptive conflict styles and some positive rela-
tionships between emotional intelligence and the adaptive style of vigilance.
Furthermore, less adaptive modes of emotional intelligence were associated with nonadaptive
decisional approaches to conflict (avoidance, procrastination, hypervigilance), whereas more adap-
tive emotional intelligence was associated with the use of an adaptive decisional approach to conflict
(vigilance). More specifically, at an emotional intelligence dimension level, Intrapersonal is the
dimension that is most inversely related to the nonadaptive decisional styles on the MDMQ, under-
scoring how a lack of awareness of one’s own emotions can favor the use of inadequate decisional
conflict styles. The Adaptability dimension is robustly related to the adaptive approach of vigilance,
highlighting the importance of the ability to use emotions for effecting efficacious problem-solving
strategies.
In general, the third hypothesis was also confirmed; the results of multiple regressions indicated
that the Intrapersonal dimension is the best inverse predictor of each of the nonadaptive decisional
conflict styles on MDMQ, affirming how limited awareness of one’s own emotions plays a consid-
erable role in one’s approach to decisional conflict. Furthermore, it should be noted that, with the
exception of the maladaptive style of hypervigilance, a lower score on the Interpersonal dimension
is secondarily associated with the nonadaptive styles of avoidance and procrastination. This set of
results provides some empirical support for various lines of research and theory that have linked
vocational functioning to the world of relationships, social support, and intimacy (Blustein, 2001,
2006). The results of the current study thus suggest the continuation of research for the integrative
study of connections between vocational and relational domains of experience (Phillips et al., 2001).
Finally, the fourth hypothesis was also confirmed: the best predictor of vigilance is the Adaptabil-
ity dimension, underlining the role of the ability to use emotions in the problem solving process as a
fundamental emotional competence linked to the use of an adaptive approach to decisional conflict.
This finding underscores the importance of this dimension in relation to a decisional conflict
approach characterized by a careful and rational way of proceeding that involves the clarification
of the goal to be reached through the decision-making process and the thorough evaluation of each
option as a means of managing decisional conflict (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2007).
The results of the current study suggest the presence of a relationship between emotional intel-
ligence and decisional conflict styles among high school students, although it is necessary to point
78
out some limits to our research. The first limit is the generalizability of the results, obtained in a
specific sample of students enrolled in the last 2 years of three school complexes located in a Tuscan
province. Therefore, it would be propitious, in future research, to investigate emotional intelligence
and its relationship with decisional conflict styles in diverse samples from other cultural contexts.
This study presents an additional limit tied to the use of the self-report type of measurement. In par-
ticular, in the measurement of emotional intelligence, it would be beneficial to place self-report mea-
surements and instruments able to demonstrate emotional intelligence ability, such as the MISCEIT
(Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002), side by side, so as to better compare the results.
Further research might also analyze the impact of emotional intelligence on decisional conflict
styles by taking into consideration other correlates, such as personality traits, self-esteem, self-
efficacy, life satisfaction, and perceived social support (Di Fabio, 2006; Di Fabio & Busoni,
2006a, 2006b), in an attempt to define possible models related to both adaptive and nonadaptive
approaches to decisional conflict.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned limitations, the results of the current study provide an
in-depth look at the relationship between the emotional intelligence construct and the decisional
conflict styles within an Italian context. As indicated earlier, emotional intelligence is viewed as
a mutable skill (Bar-On, 1997, 2000, 2002; Cooper, 1997), in that it can be enhanced as a result
of psychoeducational training and counseling. Assuming that our results are replicated, some new
intervention and assessment strategies may be developed to enhance the impact and effectiveness
of career counseling and career development education. From the assessment perspective, we
believe that indices of emotional intelligence and decisional conflict styles can be used to provide
more focused interventions for clients and students (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2004; Emmerling & Cher-
niss, 2003). In addition, psychoeducational groups can be developed that can enhance prevention
efforts to reduce decisional problems (Bisquerra, 2006). From the perspective of career counseling,
identification of clients that, based on commonly used decisional conflict orientations, could benefit
from greater self-awareness can be employed with the intention of enhancing emotional reactions;
optimally, these efforts can result in more efficacious career decision making.
Declaration of Conflicting Interest

The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.
References
Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Intelligence Inventory (EQ-I): Technical Manual. Toronto: Multi-Health
Systems.
Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i).
In R. Bar-on & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 363-388). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bar-On, R. (2002). Bar-on emotional quotient inventory: Short Technical Manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-
Health Systems.
Bisquerra, R. (2006). Orientación psicopedagógica y educación emocional [Psychoeducational guidance and
emotional education]. Estudios sobre educación, 11, 9-25.
Blustein, D. L. (2001). The interface of work and relationships: A critical knowledge base for 21st century
psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 179-192.
79
Blustein, D. L. (2006). The psychology of working. A new perspective for Career Development, Counseling, and
Public Policy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.
Blustein, D. L., Schultheiss, D. E., & Flum, H. (2004). Toward a relational perspective of the psychology of
careers and working: A social constructionist analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 423-440.
Blustein, D. L., Phillips, S. D., Jobin-Davis, K., Finkelberg, S., & Roarke, A. (1997). The school-to-work
transition: A theory-building investigation. The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 364-402.
Brown, C., George-Curran, R., & Smith, M. L. (2003). The role of emotional intelligence in the career
commitment and decision-making process. Journal of Career Assessment, 11, 379-392.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Borgogni, L. (1993). BFQ: Big Five Questionnaire. Manuale [BFQ: Big
Five Questionnaire. Manual] (2nd ed.). Firenze: O.S. Organizzazioni Speciali.
Cooper, R. K. (1997). Applying emotional intelligence in the work place. Training & Development, 51, 31-38.
Di Fabio, A. (2006). Decisional procrastination correlates: Personality traits, self-esteem or perception of
cognitive failure? International Journal for Education and Vocational Guidance, 6, 109-122.
Di Fabio, A., & Busoni, L. (2006a). Covariation des styles décisionnels: perception d’échec cognitif, estime de
soi ou traits de personnalité ? [Correlates of decisional styles: perception of cognitive failure, self-esteem or
personality traits?]. L’Orientation Scolaire et Professionnelle, 35, 363-385.
Di Fabio, A., & Busoni, L. (2006b). Tipologie di decisori e autostima, self-efficacy, percezione di fallimento
cognitivo, personalità e soddisfazione di vita in un campione di apprendisti [Typologies of decision-makers
and self-esteem, self-efficacy, cognitive failures, personality and life satisfaction in a sample of trainees].
Risorsa Uomo, 12, 327-340.
Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2007). Intelligenza emotiva, tratti di personalità e stili decisionali: Alcune
evidenze empiriche in un campione italiano di apprendisti [Emotional intelligence, personality traits and
decisional style: Some empirical evidence in an Italian sample of apprentices]. Risorsa Uomo, 13, 469-486.
Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2008). Indécision vocationnelle et intelligence émotionnelle: quelques données
empiriques sur un échantillon d’apprentis italiens [Career decision difficulties and emotional intelligence:
some empirical evidence in an Italian sample of wage-earning apprentices]. Pratiques Psychologiques, 14,
213-222.
Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2004). Can emotional intelligence be developed? International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 15, 95-111.
Emmerling, R. J., & Cherniss, C. (2003). Emotional intelligence and career choice process. Journal of Career
Assessment, 11, 153-167.
Gati, I., Krausz, M., & Osipow, S. H. (1996). A taxonomy of difficulties in career decision making. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 43, 510-526.
Germeijs, V., & De Boeck, P. (2003). Career indecision: Three factors from decision theory. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 62, 11-25.
Giorgi, G., & Di Fabio, A. (2005, November). Adattamento italiano del Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory:
Short (Bar-On EQ-i:S): Risultati preliminari in un campione di studenti di scuola superiore [Italian adapta-
tion of Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Short (Bar-On EQ-i:S): Preliminary results in a sample of
Italian high school students]. Comunication presented at 7 Congresso Nazionale Orientamento alla scelta:
Ricerche, formazione, applicazioni, Padova.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ? NY: Bantam Books.
Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1995). Self-efficacy and career choice and development. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-
efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment (pp. 249-280). New York: Plenum Press.
Kidd, J. M. (1998). Emotion: An absent presence in career theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 275-288.
Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment.
New York: Free Press.
Mann, L., Burnett, P., Radford, M., & Ford, S. (1997). The Melbourne Decision Making Inventory: An instru-
ment for measuring patterns for coping with decisional conflict. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10,
1-19.
80
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.),
Emotional development and emotional intelligence (pp. 3-31). New York: Basic Books.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Selecting a measure of emotional intelligence: The case of
ability scales. In R. Bar-On & J. D. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 320-342). San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso emotional intelligence test. New
York: Multi-Health Systems Inc.
Nota, L., Mann, L., & Soresi, S. (2003). Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire. Clipper. Portfolio per
l’orientamento dai 15 ai 19 anni [Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire. Clipper. Portfolio for guiding
15 to 19 years old]. Firenze: ITER-Institute for Training Education and Research.
Nota, L., & Soresi, S. (2000a). Adattamento italiano del Melbourne Decision making Questionnaire di Leon
Mann [Italian adaptation of the Melbourne Decision making Questionnaire by Leon Mann]. Giornale
Italiano di Psicologia dell’Orientamento, 1/3, 38-52.
Nota, L., & Soresi, S. (2000b). Quanta fiducia ho in me? [How much trust do I have in myself?]. Firenze: ITER-
Institute for Training Education and Research.
Phillips, S. P. (1997). Toward an expand definition of adaptive decision making. The Career Development
Quarterly, 45, 275-287.
Phillips, S. D., Christopher-Sisk, E. K., & Gravino, K. L. (2001). Making career decision in a relational context.
The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 193-214.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9,
185-211.
Savickas, M. (2004). Vocational psychology. In C. Spielberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied psychology
(pp. 655-667). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1995). Decision-making style: The development and assessment of a new measure.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 818-831.
Soresi, S., & Nota, L. (2003). La mia vita da studente [My student life]. Firenze: ITER—Institute of Training
Education and Research.
Young, R. A., & Valach, L. (1996). Interpretation and action in career counseling. In M. L. Savickas &
W. B. Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of career counseling theory and practice (pp. 361-375). Palo Alto, CA:
Davies-Black.
81

,DanaInfo Jca Sagepub Com+71

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

,DanaInfo Jca Sagepub Com+71

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Career Assessment

Emotional Intelligence and Decisional Conflict Styles: Some Empirical Evidence

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jca.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Downloaded from http://jca.sagepub.com at Univ de Oviedo-Bib Univ on March 29, 2010

Some Empirical Evidence Among

Annamaria Di Fabio1 and David L. Blustein2

1. MDMQ (F1) 9.23 2.84 –

Procedure and Data Analysis

1. Intrapersonal .22 .02 .49 .001

1. Adaptability .29 .03 .49 .001

Note. R2 ¼ .30 (p < .001).

1. Intrapersonal .12 .01 .35 .001

1 Intrapersonal .13 .02 .38 .001

Declaration of Conflicting Interest

You might also like