Cognition, Language, and Development

Increases in Emotional Psychological Reports

2019, Vol. 122(3) 853–879
Intelligence After an ! The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Online Training Program sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0033294118771705
Are Associated With journals.sagepub.com/home/prx

Better Decision-Making on
the Iowa Gambling Task
Anna Alkozei and Ryan Smith
Department of Psychiatry, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

Lauren A. Demers
McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA, USA

Mareen Weber
McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Sarah M. Berryhill
Department of Psychiatry, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

William D. S. Killgore
Department of Psychiatry, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA; McLean Hospital,
Belmont, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Abstract
Higher levels of emotional intelligence have been associated with better inter and
intrapersonal functioning. In the present study, 59 healthy men and women were
randomized into either a three-week online training program targeted to improve
emotional intelligence (n ¼ 29), or a placebo control training program targeted
to improve awareness of nonemotional aspects of the environment (n ¼ 30).
Compared to placebo, participants in the emotional intelligence training group
showed increased performance on the total emotional intelligence score of the
Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, a performance measure of
emotional intelligence, as well as subscales of perceiving emotions and facilitating
thought. Moreover, after emotional intelligence training, but not after placebo training,
individuals displayed the ability to arrive at optimal performance faster (i.e., they
showed a faster learning rate) during an emotion-guided decision-making task

Corresponding Author:
Anna Alkozei, Department of Psychiatry, University of Arizona, 1501 N Campbell Ave, PO Box 245002,
Tucson, AZ 85724, USA.
Email: aalkozei@psychiatry.arizona.edu
854 Psychological Reports 122(3)

(i.e., the Iowa Gambling Task). More specifically, although both groups showed similar
performance at the start of the Iowa Gambling Task from pre- to posttraining, the
participants in the emotional intelligence training group learned to choose more advan-
tageous than disadvantageous decks than those in the placebo training group by the
time they reached the ‘‘hunch’’ period of the task (i.e., the point in the task when
implicit task learning is thought to have occurred). Greater total improvements in
performance on the Iowa Gambling Task from pre- to posttraining in the emotional
intelligence training group were also positively correlated with pre- to posttraining
changes in Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test scores, in particular with
changes in the ability to perceive emotions. The present study provides preliminary
evidence that emotional intelligence can be trained with the help of an online training
program targeted at adults; it also suggests that changes in emotional intelligence, as a
result of such a program, can lead to improved emotion-guided decision-making.

Keywords
emotional intelligence, Iowa Gambling Task, emotion-guided decision-making

Introduction
Emotional intelligence (EI) refers to an interrelated set of abilities—centered around
the accurate perception of emotion and its adaptive use in guiding thought and
behavior—that facilitate successful inter- and intrapersonal functioning (Salovey &
Mayer, 1990). How EI is best measured remains the subject of debate, but one
leading approach uses the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
(MSCEIT), which measures EI by testing an individual’s performance on various
emotion-related tasks in a manner similar to tests of cognitive intelligence (IQ;
Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003). An alternative approach is to measure
EI via an individual’s self-reported emotional abilities (e.g., Bar-On Emotional
Quotient Inventory (EQ-i); Bar-On, 2004). These two approaches are respectively
referred to as the ‘‘ability model’’ and the ‘‘trait model’’ for testing EI (Mayer,
Salovey, & Caruso, 2000). Whereas the ability model of EI objectively tests how
well an individual performs on a number of tasks in relation to other individuals
from the general population (such as one’s ability to identify emotions from facial
expressions), the trait model of EI taps into an individual’s self-assessment of his/her
socioemotional abilities (e.g., ‘‘I am good at reading other people’s facial expres-
sions’’). While both models may be useful in understanding how EI is associated
with a number of aspects of inter- and intrapersonal functioning, the two models
only show modest correlations with one another (Webb et al., 2013).

The association between EI and social/emotional adjustment

Across both types of measurement approaches, higher levels of EI are associated
with better academic, job, and interpersonal success. For example, trait EI
Alkozei et al. 855

measures have been shown to predict greater abilities to implement a transform-

ational leadership style, as well as less subjective stress and better performance in
managers (Barling, Slater, & Kevin Kelloway, 2000; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003;
Slaski & Cartwright, 2002). Ability EI has also been shown to predict greater
leadership emergence in small groups (Côté, Lopes, Salovey, & Miners, 2010).
In addition, higher trait EI has been associated with better physical, mental, and
psychosomatic health, as well as less burnout and reduced symptoms of psycho-
pathology in mental health nurses (Gerits, Derksen, Verbruggen, & Taylor,
2004; Schutte, Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Bhullar, & Rooke, 2007). Individuals
with higher ability EI also report more positive relationships with others, even
when controlling for personality and IQ (Lopes, Salovey, & Straus, 2003).
Specifically, individuals with higher MSCEIT scores on the ‘‘managing emo-
tions’’ subscale display higher quality interactions with friends when evaluated
by the participants themselves as well as by two separate friends (Lopes et al.,
2004). Individuals with higher levels of trait EI also report greater empathic
perspective taking and self-monitoring, and display greater cooperative
responses toward a partner. In addition, not only do individuals with higher
levels of trait EI report greater martial satisfaction, but such individuals also
report greater satisfaction with their partner if that partner displays higher levels
of trait EI (Schutte et al., 2001).

Enhancing EI
While using EI training as a way to improve emotional and social skills has
received relatively little attention within some areas of psychology (including clin-
ical psychology), similar training efforts have received considerable attention
within education and organizational psychology. For example, a number of
social and emotional skills programs have been implemented in school settings
(from kindergarten through high school), and have been shown to promote greater
academic performance and long-term success, better emotion regulation abilities,
higher self-esteem, increased prosocial behavior, as well as reductions in conduct
problems and emotional distress in comparison to no-training comparison groups
(for a review of such programs, see Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, &
Schellinger, 2011). One prominent example is the RULER program, the efficacy
of which has been empirically supported in school settings (Brackett, Rivers,
Reyes, & Salovey, 2012; Reyes, Brackett, Rivers, Elbertson, & Salovey, 2012;
Rivers, Brackett, Reyes, Elbertson, & Salovey, 2013). Furthermore, among emer-
ging adults, specifically university students, Pool Dacre and Qualter (2012) showed
that attending a series of weekly EI workshops led to increased ability EI and
emotional self-efficacy in comparison to students who chose a different elective.
The targeted training of social and emotional skills has also gained extensive
attention in the business setting. For example, Slaski and Cartwright (2003)
showed that attending a series of daylong programs to develop insight into
856 Psychological Reports 122(3)

self-related constructs led to increases in trait EI among UK managers. In a

further extension of these findings, N. Clarke (2010) also showed that such in-
person training workshops for UK project managers lead to improvements in
ability EI, as measured using the MSCEIT (i.e., in particular on the MSCEIT’s
branches of ‘‘understanding’’ and ‘‘managing’’ emotions). These studies there-
fore suggest that EI may be a malleable trait that can be enhanced through
training even in adulthood, and that training can enhance not only objectively
measured EI skills but also the perception of one’s EI competencies. However,
these studies have some methodological shortcomings. For example, the lack of
a comparison group in N. Clarke’s study, and lack of an active placebo control
group in Slaski and Cartwright’s study, makes it difficult to draw conclusions
about the specific content that was taught.
Furthermore, in our current technological era, it is also crucial to investigate
whether web-based training programs may be effective in improving EI, as such
programs are often easier to disseminate widely and may also represent a more
economical option. In line with this, a number of online programs aimed at the
prevention of mental health problems in adolescence have recently been shown
to lead to improvements in mental health literacy, support-seeking behavior, and
psychological well-being (A. M. Clarke, Kuosmanen, & Barry, 2015). While a
number of other commercially available online training programs targeting
social and emotional skills have been developed for children and adolescents
(e.g., ‘‘The Social Express’’), the efficacy of these other programs has not yet
been empirically tested. Furthermore, there appears to be a lack of research on
the potential use of online EI training programs for adults. Such programs may
be particularly useful in business or military settings, where administration of
lengthy in-person EI training by educators or psychologists may not be a viable
option. Consequently, more randomized, well-controlled trials investigating the
efficacy of online EI training programs in adulthood are needed. In addition to
being more cost effective to administer, this approach may also allow for more
flexible training schedules and quicker dissemination.

The role of EI in emotional decision-making

Considering that higher EI has been associated with better academic, inter-, and
intrapersonal success, it appears plausible to hypothesize that individuals with
higher levels of EI might also show better decision-making abilities (i.e., relative
to those with lower levels of EI) when performing tasks that involve the detection
and use of affective information (e.g., when deciding to study for an exam, even
though it might lead to short-term decreases in mood; when deciding how to best
respond to a partner or employee who is sad or angry; when deciding how to best
regulate one’s own emotion during stressful situations, etc.). In fact, Gutiérrez-
Cobo, Cabello, and Fernández-Berrocal (2016) have shown that ability EI, but not
trait EI, is positively associated with better decision-making abilities on ‘‘hot’’
Alkozei et al. 857

cognitive tasks that involve intense emotions, but have found no association
between EI and ‘‘cool’’ cognitive tasks that do not involve intense emotions.
Furthermore, in line with this, Alkozei, Schwab, and Killgore (2016) have
shown that individuals with higher levels of ability EI, but not trait EI, are more
likely to utilize relevant facial features when presented with photographs during the
performance of an emotional decision-making task. In addition, individuals with
higher levels of ability EI also perform faster on social exchange problems (Reis
et al., 2007), and were observed to display greater performance on a simulated
arctic rescue scenario task that included high levels of stress (Fallon, Matthews,
Panganiban, Wohleber, & Roberts, 2013; Fallon et al., 2014). While the majority
of these studies suggest that ability EI is a better predictor of success on emotional
decision-making tasks than trait EI, one study did show that higher levels of trait
EI were positively associated with the ability to ignore irrelevant facial cues during
a social gambling task (Telle, Senior, & Butler, 2011). This study did not include a
measure of ability EI, and it is therefore unclear whether measures of ability EI
would have been stronger predictors of task success. Overall, while these findings
are interesting and important, the tasks used to assess affective decision-making
ability in these studies are not commonly used and therefore not well validated. As
a result, based on these findings, it remains difficult to draw specific inferences
about the role of EI in real-life decision-making.
The Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), on the other hand, is a widely used task that
mimics real-world decision-making under conditions of uncertainty; it also spe-
cifically assesses the ability for decisions to be adaptively guided by patterns in
rewarding and punishing feedback. While there has been some debate in recent
years, improved performance on the IGT over time appears to occur via implicit
learning—that is, before the individual gains a conscious understanding of task
contingencies (Bechara, Damasio, Tranel, & Damasio, 1997, 2005). This implicit
learning is hypothesized to occur through what have been termed ‘‘somatic
markers’’ (i.e., pleasant/unpleasant bodily emotional responses that occur auto-
matically when considering different decision options in light of prior experience;
Bechara et al., 1997, 2005). It is also well established that individuals with brain
damage to the medial orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) perform poorly on this task,
most plausibly due to their acquired inability to effectively generate/use such
somatic affective signals to guide choice/behavior (Bechara, 2004).
Given that EI is in part defined by the ability to adaptively use emotions in
guiding decision-making, it makes sense to expect that IGT performance and EI
would be positively related. However, studies have shown no associations
between performance on the IGT and trait EI (Brabec, Gfeller, & Ross, 2012;
Demaree, Burns, & DeDonno, 2010). In contrast, better performance on the
IGT was shown to be associated with better ability EI in one study (Webb,
DelDonno, & Killgore, 2014), but this relationship did not remain significant
after controlling for IQ. Thus, IGT performance differences may reflect under-
lying differences in cognitive processing that contribute to both EI and IQ.
858 Psychological Reports 122(3)

While IQ seems to be a crucial factor in understanding individual differences in

IGT performance, it may be possible to augment IGT performance with targeted
EI training, even if such training does not affect IQ. This is important because,
while some aspects of intellectual ability can be increased with targeted training
(Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, & Perrig, 2008), the majority of research suggests
that IQ is not an easily malleable trait (e.g., Belmont & Butterfield, 1977; Chooi &
Thompson, 2012; Ferrara, Brown, & Campione, 1986; Spitz, 2013). EI, on the
other hand, can be enhanced with targeted training (as reviewed above), which
could lead to changes in IGT performance (i.e., even if IQ remained unchanged).
In fact, IGT performance can be negatively affected by a range of variables that
also negatively influence EI, such as high levels of negative affect (Suhr &
Tsanadis, 2007), trait anxiety (Jacobs et al., 2008; Miu, Heilman, & Houser,
2008), or prolonged sleep deprivation (Killgore, Balkin, & Wesensten, 2006;
Killgore et al., 2008; Olson, Weber, Rauch, & Killgore, 2016). Given such evi-
dence supporting the existence of a positive relationship between EI and IGT
performance, it is therefore reasonable to hypothesize that, by increasing an indi-
vidual’s EI, performance on the IGT might also improve (i.e., even when control-
ling for IQ scores). However, no study to date has investigated this possibility.
In summary, higher levels of EI have been shown to be predictive of inter-
personal and intrapersonal success. This may stem from the ability of high-EI
individuals to effectively gather and use emotion-related information in decision-
making, and the beneficial outcomes that result from this ability. The aim of the
present study was therefore to provide a preliminary investigation of whether a
six-lesson online EI training program could enhance EI in comparison to a
placebo training program that does not target emotional capacities, and to
assess whether such improvements would lead to changes in emotionally
guided decision-making ability, as measured by IGT performance. We chose
to assess both ability and trait EI because, while these measures do not correlate
highly with one another (and ability EI has been shown to be a better predictor
of performance on emotional decision-making tasks), we reasoned that it was
also important to assess whether our training program changed individuals’
perceptions of their own socioemotional competencies (i.e., as measured by
trait EI self-report measures).
Based on the previous findings reviewed above, we formulated the following
hypotheses.

1. Participants in the EI training program will show improvements in both

ability and trait EI in comparison to participants in a placebo training
program.
2. Participants in the EI training program will show improvements in IGT per-
formance in comparison to participants in a placebo training program.
3. Improved performance on the IGT will correlate with improvements in ability
EI, but not trait EI.
Alkozei et al. 859

Methods
Participants
In total, 62 individuals (54% female) were recruited from the greater Boston
area and were randomized in equal numbers to the active EI (i.e., ‘‘internal
awareness’’) or placebo (i.e., ‘‘external awareness’’) training programs.
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 50 years (M ¼ 27.55, SD ¼ 7.95), were
all primary English speakers, and free from major medical, neurological, and
psychiatric conditions (as determined by a thorough phone screen). Participants
reported completing an average of 15.63 years of education, ranging from 12 to
20 years (SD ¼ 1.98). The sample was predominantly Caucasian (53.2%), but
also included individuals identifying themselves as African American (11.3%),
Asian (16.1%), and multiracial (17.7%). Two participants in the active EI
condition and one participant in the placebo condition dropped out of the
study prematurely, leaving n ¼ 29 in the active EI program and n ¼ 30 in
the placebo condition.

Materials
Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory. The EQ-i was used to assess self-reported, or
trait, EI (Ruiz-Aranda, Salguero, & Fernández-Berrocal, 2011). The EQ-i
includes items describing different factors of emotionally intelligent behavior
(e.g., ‘‘I am aware of my feelings’’). The EQ-i provides a global score of EI,
as well as five composite subscales measuring various aspects of EI, including
the ability to relate well to others (Interpersonal), emotional self-awareness and
self-confidence (Intrapersonal), emotional flexibility and problem-solving
(Adaptability), ability to cope with stress (Stress Management), and general opti-
mism and contentedness (General mood). The raw EQ-i scores were transformed
into standard scores based on the general population norms provided by the test
manual and scoring program (nonadjusted for sex). The EQ-i has demonstrated
excellent internal consistency (a ¼ .97) and good test–retest reliability ranging
from r ¼ .75 to .80 (Bar-On, 2004).

The Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test. The MSCEIT was used to

assess the level of ability EI, based on reasoning about and solving of emotional
tasks. The MSCEIT consists of 141 items that measure the ability to (i) perceive
emotions (in oneself and others), (ii) understand emotions, (iii) manage emotions
(to promote personal growth), and (iv) use emotions to facilitate other
cognitive processes. The MSCEIT provides a global standardized score as well
as standardized scores for each of the four subscales. Participants’ scores
were evaluated using general consensus scoring (i.e., the extent to which a
participant’s answers match the answer given by the majority of individuals
from a large (N > 5000) independent normative sample). The MSCEIT has
860 Psychological Reports 122(3)

good convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity (Brackett & Mayer,

2003), internal consistency (a ¼ .45–.90; Rossen, Kranzler, & Algina, 2008)
and test–retest reliability (r ¼ .86; Brackett & Mayer, 2003).

Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. The Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of

Intelligence (WASI; Wechsler, 1999) was used as a measure of general intellectual
ability or ‘‘IQ.’’ The WASI is a widely used measure of intelligence and correlates
highly (r ¼ .92) with the longer Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS, Pearson
Assessment, Inc., San Antonio, TX; Wechsler, 1999) The WASI yields scores for
Full Scale IQ, Verbal IQ, and Performance IQ. The WASI was individually
administered by a trained research technician under the supervision of a licensed
doctoral level neuropsychologist. The WASI was administered in order to control
for IQ in our analysis, as previous studies have shown an association between IGT
scores and IQ (Webb et al., 2014).

Beck Depression Inventory. The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) is a 21-item

self-report questionnaire that assesses the presence and severity of depressive
symptoms over the preceding two weeks. This was included because EI has
previously been shown to be anticorrelated with depressive symptoms
(Downey et al., 2008), and therefore we included it in our analysis as a covariate.

EI training. Participants were randomized into one of two different types of

‘‘awareness training’’: an ‘‘internal’’ awareness training (active EI training con-
dition) and an ‘‘external’’ awareness training (placebo control condition); these
training program titles were chosen to avoid potential priming/expectation
effects when presented to participants. Both groups completed six online lessons,
two lessons a week, each separated by at least two days, over a three-week
period. Each lesson took between 30 and 45 minutes to complete (see Figure 1
for example screenshots of each program). The active EI training program was
designed to improve participants’ EI over the four MSCEIT ability branches:
understanding emotions, perceiving emotions, managing emotions, and using
emotions to facilitate other cognitive processes. The program was designed
with several considerations in mind. First, we wanted to ensure that we
addressed the major ability domains of the four-branch model of EI. Thus, we
created four core lessons, each lasting about 45 minutes to an hour, each
addressing skill development aimed at one of the four branches of the model.
To maximize training effectiveness, we also included an introductory overview of
the content to be learned (lesson 1), and a review of the core concepts again
upon conclusion of the training (lesson 6). Second, we wanted to ensure that
participants had ample opportunity to consolidate the learned information and
apply it actively in their own lives. Accordingly, we concluded each lesson with a
simple homework assignment and required the lessons to be completed with
a separation of several days between each. Third, we believed that compliance
Alkozei et al. 861

Figure 1. Example screenshots of the EI training and the placebo training program.
EI: emotional intelligence. (a) Example screenshot of how the EI training and the placebo
training were matched. (b) Example screenshot of other EI skills trained in the active EI
training program.

would be maximized by allowing participants some flexibility in the timing of the

lessons. Therefore, we established a three-week completion period for all six
lessons, with some flexibility in how often to complete the lessons. Overall, the
intent was to ensure coverage of all core skills, facilitate learning, consolidation,
and retention, and maximize engagement and compliance with the program.
In detail, for the ‘‘understanding emotions’’ module, participants learned about
how emotions can vary, how they can combine to form emotion blends, and how
emotions change over time depending on the situation (e.g., De Houwer &
Hermans, 2010). For the ‘‘perceiving emotions’’ module, participants were pri-
marily taught how to use facial cues to identify emotions in faces, primarily based
on work by Ekman (1999). For the ‘‘managing emotions’’ module, participants
learned basic problem-solving and cognitive reappraisal techniques, as well as
mindfulness skills; this content was based on standard cognitive behavioral ther-
apy and mindfulness-based approaches for regulating emotions (Campbell-Sills &
Barlow, 2007; Chambers, Gullone, & Allen, 2009). Finally, for the ‘‘facilitating
thought’’ module, participants learned how emotions influence decision-making
and other cognitive processes, including the role of arousal (i.e., the importance of
understanding the Yerkes–Dodson curve; Hanoch & Vitouch, 2004). Throughout
each lesson, participants completed tasks and games to test their knowledge.
In the placebo control training program, participants instead learned about
their external environment (weather, plants, urban infrastructure, and animals).
862 Psychological Reports 122(3)

This placebo training condition was closely matched to the EI training program,
such that participants practiced similar skills (e.g., learning to identify an
emotion from a face based on its features versus learning to identify a plant
based on the features of a leaf) across the different modules (see Figure 1(a)).
Participants in both conditions received an e-mail with a homework assignment
after each module in order to encourage practice and generalization of the skills
learned. Participants were asked to indicate whether they completed the home-
work and reflect on what they learned.

Iowa Gambling Task (IGT). The IGT is a widely used computerized decision-making
task that assesses the ability to implicitly learn from reward and punishment
contingencies in order to use this information to arrive at the most advantageous
decision-making strategy. The IGT is presented as a card game whereby partici-
pants are shown four decks of cards on the computer screen. Participants are
instructed to pick one card at a time from any deck they choose and that they may
change decks as often as they like. Each time they select a card, the computer will
inform them that they won money. However, every so often, the computer will
also inform them that they lost money as well. Participants are instructed that the
goal of the task is to win as much money as possible and that they have $2000 of
credit. A bar on the top of the screen indicates to participants how much money
they have won or lost. Participants were told that although it is unknown how
much money they will win in each deck, there is one piece of information that will
make it more likely that they will be successful at the game: out of these four decks
of cards, some are worse than others. To win, participants should try to stay away
from ‘‘bad’’ decks. (For two of the decks, the amount of money won is usually
high, but occasionally participants will receive an extremely large penalty. Over
the course of the task, these decks are considered disadvantageous, or ‘‘bad
decks,’’ because they will incur a net-loss overall. Two of the decks on the
other hand will lead to comparatively smaller wins, but also smaller losses.
Over the course of the task, these decks are considered advantageous, or ‘‘good
decks,’’ because choosing these decks frequently will incur a net-gain overall.)
Participants choose 100 cards over the course of the task before it self-terminates.
**In the present study, a variant of the IGT was chosen where decks could ‘‘run
out,’’ such that people were forced to switch decks they selected a given deck too
many times. In order to assess whether participants learn which decks are good
and which are bad, participants’ performance was calculated across five bins of
cards (i.e., within the 1st–20th card, the 21st–40th card, etc.). We calculated ‘‘net-
scores’’ for each bin (i.e., number of bad decks chosen minus number of good
decks chosen within each bin), and total number of good decks chosen to quantify
performance on the IGT. Previous work using the IGT (Bechara et al., 1997,
2005) has suggested that performance changes across bins 1–3 reflects the majority
of the implicit affective learning (i.e., encompassing what are termed the ‘‘pre-
punishment’’ and ‘‘pre-hunch’’ periods), whereas performance tends to stabilize in
Alkozei et al. 863

bins 4 and 5 (i.e., termed the ‘‘hunch’’ and ‘‘conceptual’’ periods, respectively), but
individuals gradually gain explicit self-reportable knowledge of why they are
choosing the good decks over the bad decks.

Procedure
Participants completed two comprehensive assessment sessions on separate days,
approximately three weeks apart. On the first visit, participants completed a
range of emotional and cognitive tests, including the MSCEIT, EQ-i, WASI,
BDI-II, and IGT. Participants were then randomized into one of the two aware-
ness-training conditions, and completed their assigned training program at home
via the Internet over the following three weeks. Participants returned for a
posttraining visit three weeks after their initial visit and completed some of
the same emotional and cognitive tests, including the MSCEIT, EQ-i, BDI-II,
and IGT. Participants were compensated for their time.

Ethical considerations
This study was reviewed and approved by the McLean Hospital Institutional
Review Board and the US Army Human Research Protection Office. All par-
ticipants were provided with written and verbal information about the study.
In order to participate in the study written consent was required.

Results
Descriptive statistics
Participants in the two groups did not differ in age, sex, BDI-II scores, general
intelligence, or EI at pretraining (see Table 1). EQ-i and MSCEIT scores were
positively correlated (r ¼ .45, p < .001). Scores on the MSCEIT correlated
negatively with scores on the BDI-II (r ¼ .51, p < .001), and positively with
scores on the WASI (r ¼ .29, p ¼ .03). Scores on the EQ-i also correlated nega-
tively with scores on the BDI-II (r ¼ .50, p < .001), but not with scores on the
WASI (r ¼ .05, p ¼ .70). Performance on the IGT at pretraining (i.e., total
number of good decks chosen) was significantly correlated with MSCEIT
scores (r ¼ .32, p ¼ .02), EQ-i scores (r ¼ .29, p ¼ .03), WASI scores (r ¼ .47,
p < .001), and BDI-II scores (r ¼ .42, p < .001). Controlling for the effects
of WASI and BDI-II scores, the relationships between IGT performance and
scores on the MSCEIT and EQ-i became nonsignificant (MSCEIT: r ¼ .04,
p ¼ .75; EQ-i: r ¼ .17, p ¼ .23). BDI-II scores did not significantly change for
either group from pre- to posttraining, F(1, 60) ¼ .12, p ¼ .73. As performance
on the EQ-i was associated with BDI-II scores, we controlled for this variable
in any analysis that included the EQ-i below. In addition, as performance on
864 Psychological Reports 122(3)

Table 1. Demographic information.

EI training Placebo training

(n ¼ 29) (n ¼ 30) Statistics

Age 27.03 (6.73) 26.79 (8.11) t(57) ¼ .12

Sex 58.6% female 50% female 2(1) ¼ .26
BDI-II 3.55 (3.37) 4.43 (4.9) t(57) ¼.79
EQ-i pretraining 101.59 (12.35) 99.86 (16.91) t(56) ¼ .44
MSCEIT pretraining 102.44 (10.93) 99.54 (11.28) t(57) ¼ 1.00
WASI 114.13 (13.68) 113.90 (11.69) t(57) ¼ .07
BDI-II: Beck Depression Inventory; EQ-i: Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory; MSCEIT: Mayer–Salovey–
Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test; WASI: Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence.

the MSCEIT and IGT was associated with both BDI-II and WASI scores, we
controlled for both of these variables in all analyses that included MSCEIT
and/or IGT scores below.

Data analysis plan

In order to test our first hypothesis—that active EI training program would lead
to increases in ability and trait EI (i.e., relative to the placebo training pro-
gram)—we used separate repeated measures analyses of covariance
(ANCOVA). EI scores (as measured by the EQ-i and MSCEIT) at pre- and
posttraining were entered as the dependent variables, and group allocation
(active EI versus placebo training) was entered as the independent variable.
As EQ-i and MSCEIT scores at pretraining were significantly associated with
both WASI and BDI-II scores at pretraining, we used WASI and BDI-II scores
at pretraining as covariates in the analysis. In order to test our second hypoth-
esis—that the active EI training program would lead to increases in IGT per-
formance (i.e., relative to the placebo training program)—we used a repeated
measures 2  2 ANCOVA. IGT netscores for each of the five bins separately at
pre- and posttraining were entered as the dependent variables, and group allo-
cation (active EI versus placebo training) was entered as the independent vari-
able. As IGT performance was significantly influenced by WASI and BDI-II
scores, these scores were entered as covariates in the analysis. Finally, to test our
third hypothesis—that changes in ability EI would be associated with changes in
IGT performance—we used partial correlations between changes in MSCEIT
scores and changes in total IGT performance (total netscores across the five
bins). WASI and BDI-II scores at pretraining were entered as covariates.

EI training. When controlling for BDI-II and WASI scores, participants in the EI
training group showed a significant increase in total MSCEIT scores in
Alkozei et al. 865

comparison to the placebo training group from pre- to posttraining, F(1,

55) ¼ 4.36, p ¼ .04. With regard to MSCEIT subscales, participants in the EI
versus placebo training group showed a significant increase in scores on the
perceiving emotions, F(1, 55) ¼ 4.65, p ¼ .04, and facilitating emotions branches
of the MSCEIT, F(1, 55) ¼ 21.54, p < .001, but not on the understanding, F(1,
55) ¼ .13, p ¼ .72, or managing emotions branches, F(1, 55) ¼ .26, p ¼ .61 (see
Figure 2). There were no changes in total EQ-i scores from pre- to posttraining
between the two groups, F(1, 54) ¼ .87, p ¼ .35 (see Table 2). Therefore, all
subsequent analyses focused only on MSCEIT EI scores (because these did
change as a result of our training program).
We further wanted to investigate whether improvements on the MSCEIT
were dependent on individuals’ baseline levels of ability EI and/or differences
in demographic characteristics, such as age and sex. In fact, while controlling for
WASI and BDI-II scores, greater change on the MSCEIT total scores and its
subscales of perceiving emotions, understanding emotions, and facilitating emo-
tions, was significantly negatively correlated with MSCEIT scores at baseline
(for all r values, .67 < r < .50; for all p values, p < .01). For the MSCEIT
branch of managing emotions, this negative correlation approached significance
(r ¼ .33, p ¼ .08). This indicates that the greater one’s initial MSCEIT scores at
baseline, the smaller the increase as a result of the training program. MSCEIT
total and subscale change scores were not significantly correlated with age (for
all t values, .16 < r < .06; for all p values, p > .40) and did not differ based on
sex (for all t values, 1.45 < t < .27; for all p values, p > .14).

IGT changes from pre- to posttraining. When controlling for WASI and BDI-II
scores, a repeated measures ANCOVA showed that there was no significant
effect of day of testing (i.e., from pre- to posttraining), F(1, 49) ¼ <.005,
p ¼ .99, and no significant day by netscore (per bin) by group interaction, F(4,
46) ¼ 1.99, p ¼ .11, (see Figure 3(a) and (b)). As we might have been underpow-
ered to detect a significant effect when looking at performance across the five
bins separately, we repeated this ANCOVA with IGT performance overall (i.e.,
total number of good decks chosen at pre- and posttraining) as the dependent
variables and group allocation (active EI versus placebo training) as the inde-
pendent variable. However, this analysis also showed no significant effect of day
of testing (pre- to posttraining), F(1, 59) ¼ .02, p ¼ .88, and no significant group
by IGT performance interaction, F(1, 50) ¼ 1.42, p ¼ .24.

Associations between changes in IGT performance and changes in ability EI. In order to
investigate whether changes in MSCEIT scores affected performance on the
IGT, we correlated the difference in MSCEIT scores from pre- to posttraining
with the difference in the total number of good decks chosen on the IGT from
pre- to posttraining while controlling for WASI and BDI-II scores. For partici-
pants in the EI training group, total MSCEIT difference scores were marginally
866 Psychological Reports 122(3)

(a) 125

120

115
EI training
MSCEIT Total 110

105 * Placebo training

100

95

90
Pre-training Post-training
(b)

(c)

Figure 2. Changes in MSCEIT total and subscale scores from pre- to posttraining. (a)
MSCEIT total; (b) MSCEIT perceiving emotions; (c) MSCEIT understanding emotions; (d)
MSCEIT managing emotions; (e) MSCEIT facilitating thought. All analyses were controlled
for WASI and BDI-II scores. MSCEIT: Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test;
WASI: Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence; BDI-II: Beck Depression Inventory.
*p < .05, **p < .001.
Alkozei et al. 867

(d)

(e)

Figure 2. Continued.

positively correlated with difference scores in the total number of good decks
chosen between pre- and posttraining (r ¼ .33, p ¼ .06, one-tailed), but this rela-
tionship was not present for participants in the placebo training group (r ¼ .01
p ¼ .49, one-tailed). The difference between the correlations within the two
groups was marginally significant (Z ¼ 1.4, p ¼ .06, one-tailed; see
Figure 4(a)). This correlation seemed to be driven by changes in the perceiving
emotions branch of the MSCEIT, as greater changes in the perceiving subscale
scores within the EI training group were associated with a greater change in the
total number of good decks chosen (r ¼ .46, p ¼ .03; two-tailed); this relationship
was not present for participants in the placebo training group (r ¼ .07, p ¼ .74,
two-tailed). This difference between the correlation coefficients of the two groups
reached statistical significance (Z ¼ 2.03, p ¼ .05, two-tailed; see Figure 4(b)).
For the other MSCEIT subscale scores, no such associations were found.

Follow-up analyses: EI training effects on IGT learning rate. It has been established that
learning on the IGT does not occur linearly; instead, individuals appear to go
868 Psychological Reports 122(3)

Table 2. Changes in MSCEIT scores from pre- to posttraining between the two groups.

EI Placebo
training training
(n ¼ 29) (n ¼ 30) Statistics

MSCEIT total pretraining 102.44 (10.93) 99.54 (11.28) F(1, 57) ¼ 2.98*
MSCEIT total posttraining 108.26 (10.11) 101.15 (14.35)
MSCEIT_understanding pretraining 99.70 (10.47) 98.03 (10.70) F(1, 57) ¼ .03
MSCEIT_understanding posttraining 103.07 (8.55) 100.84 (11.25)
MSCEIT_perceiving pretraining 105.32 (14.41) 105.81 (14.23) F(1, 57) ¼ 4.55*
MSCEIT_perceiving posttraining 112.49 (11.76) 105.54 (18.04)
MSCEIT_faciliating pretraining 102.39 (16.80) 101.65 (18.05) F(1, 57) ¼ 15.35**
MSCEIT_facilitating posttraining 120.12 (14.13) 103.96 (19.68)
MSCEIT_managing pretraining 100.14 (10.33) 98.03 (10.70) F(1, 57) ¼ .47
MSCEIT_managing posttraining 99.00 (10.05) 98.32 (11.55)
EQ-i total pretraining 101.59 (12.35) 99.86 (16.91) F(1, 55) ¼ .88
EQ-i total posttraining 102.69 (14.65) 99.07 (17.37)
EQ-i interpersonal pretraining 99.17.66 (18.51) 100.97 (15.11) F(1, 55) ¼ .1.32
EQ-i interpersonal posttraining 98.72 (17.48) 97.45 (16.91)
EQ-i intrapersonal pretraining 101.24 (14.58) 101.03 (19.31) F(1, 55) ¼ .80
EQ-i intrapersonal posttraining 101.03 (16.98) 99.07 (19.27)
EQ-i adaptability pretraining 101.52 (10.48) 99.21 (13.92) F(1, 55) ¼ .002
EQ-i adaptability posttraining 101.52 (11.28) 100.03 (15.35)
EQ-i stress management pretraining 105.21 (9.83) 102.28 (11.61) F(1, 55) ¼ .05
EQ-i stress management posttraining 106.72 (9.98) 103.45 (11.99)
EQ-i general mood pretraining 102.72 (12.06) 98.48 (16.76) F(1, 55) ¼ .13
EQ-i general mood posttraining 103.03 (12.71) 99.38 (17.97)
Note: All analyses were controlled for WASI and BDI-II scores. EQ-i: Bar-On Emotional Quotient
Inventory; MSCEIT: Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test; WASI: Wechsler Abbreviated
Scale of Intelligence; BDI-II: Beck Depression Inventory; *p < .05, **p < .001.

through different stages of learning (Bechara et al., 1997). Specifically, it has

been shown that individuals go through four stages: (a) a ‘‘pre-punishment’’
phase (approximately cards 0–10) where participants explore the different
decks, (b) a ‘‘pre-hunch’’ period (approximately cards 10–50) where participants
begin to implicitly learn from the pattern of rewards and losses, and start to
choose the advantageous decks without understanding why they are doing so, (c)
a ‘‘hunch’’ period (approximately cards 50–80) where performance begins to
stabilize and participants begin to demonstrate self-reportable knowledge
regarding the nature of the advantageous and disadvantageous decks, and finally
(d) a ‘‘conceptual period’’ (approximately cards 80–100) where participants have
Alkozei et al. 869

(a) 15

10

5
IGT Netscore

EI training
Placebo training
0
1 2 3 4 5

-5

-10
Bins

(b) 15

10
IGT Netscores

EI training

0
Placebo training
1 2 3 4 5

-5

-10
Bins

Figure 3. IGT netscores across the five bins for both groups. (a) Pretraining performance
on the IGT. (b) Posttraining performance on the IGT. All analyses were controlled for
WASI and BDI-II scores. WASI: Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence; BDI-II: Beck
Depression Inventory; IGT: Iowa Gambling Task.
full self-reportable knowledge of the game. As the group comparisons above
might have been limited by statistical power (i.e., a small sample size for the
number of measurements that were compared), we elected to conduct a follow-
up analysis to investigate whether the active EI training may have led to better
870 Psychological Reports 122(3)

Figure 4. Correlations between change in total MSCEIT scores and change in total
number of good decks chosen from pre- to posttraining for the internal awareness
group. (a) Total MSCEIT scores; (b) MSCEIT perceiving emotions scores. All analyses
were controlled for WASI and BDI-II scores. WASI: Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of
Intelligence; BDI-II: Beck Depression Inventory; MSCEIT: Mayer–Salovey–Caruso
Emotional Intelligence Test.
Alkozei et al. 871

learning on the IGT (i.e., relative to the placebo training). Specifically, as pre-
vious work has suggested the existence of individual differences in learning rate
on the IGT (Visser-Keizer, Westerhof-Evers, Gerritsen, Van Der Naalt, &
Spikman, 2016), we investigated the possibility that participants in the active
EI training group (relative to those in the placebo training group) would show
an increased learning rate during the implicit reward learning process. A higher
learning rate was here operationalized as learning to choose a greater number of
good minus bad decks from the start of the task until the beginning of the
‘‘hunch’’ period of the task (approximately from bin 1 to bin 3; cards 0–60).
This time window from the start of the task to the start of the ‘‘hunch’’ period
was specifically chosen because, as described above, it is considered the part of
the task in which the majority of implicit affective learning and performance
increases occur. In fact, between bins 1 to 3, we observed that participants in the
active EI training group had a significantly increased learning rate from pre- to
posttraining in comparison to participants in the placebo training group, even
when controlling for WASI and BDI-II scores, F(1, 49) ¼ 4.71, p ¼ .02.

Discussion
The aim of this preliminary study was to investigate the effectiveness of a three-
week, 6-lesson, online EI training program for improving EI and performance
on an emotional decision-making task. The results suggest that the training
program was successful in increasing ability, but not trait, EI scores in compari-
son to a placebo control training program. In particular, individuals who com-
pleted the active EI training program showed an enhanced ability to perceive
emotions, and to use their emotions to facilitate other cognitive processes.
Furthermore, individuals in the EI training program showed quicker learning
of the advantageous decision-making strategy on the IGT from pre-to posttrain-
ing (i.e., in comparison to the placebo control group). Increases in performance
on the IGT from pre- to posttraining also correlated positively with changes in
ability EI scores for individuals who underwent the EI training program, but not
for individuals in the placebo control group.
To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that an online EI training
program can successfully lead to an increase in ability EI (but not trait EI) in an
adult population, and that such a training program can also improve perform-
ance on an emotionally guided decision-making task. It is surprising that indi-
viduals in the present study did not show an increase in self-perceived (i.e., trait)
EI after the training program. One might have plausibly expected that the act of
going through such a training program would lead individuals to expect that
their abilities had improved, leading to higher self-reported EI. However, it is
also possible that the training program simply affected different individuals in
opposite ways. For example, just as children’s self-related beliefs become more
realistic with age, plausibly due to corrective feedback provided by additional
872 Psychological Reports 122(3)

experience (Keefer, 2015), it is conceivable that some individuals in our study

may have initially overestimated their abilities at pretraining—and subsequently
rated their abilities more accurately (and therefore lower) after repeated training
feedback. If this occurred in some individuals, while others instead felt that they
improved, this could have led to the nonsignificant change in trait EI that we
observed. However, this explanation remains speculative, and is merely meant to
highlight that multiple interpretations are possible.
With regard to ability EI, the MSCEIT measures an individual’s EI based on
their performance on a number of emotional problem-solving tasks, and does
not rely on subjective accounts or self-report; it is therefore less susceptible to
possible reporting biases in comparison to the subjective measures of trait EI.
Individuals in the present study increased primarily in their measured ability to
perceive emotions and to use emotions to enhance thought processes.
Interestingly, previous studies measuring training-related changes in EI on the
MSCEIT have instead found the most substantial changes in the ability to
understand and manage emotions (N. Clarke, 2010). This might be attributable
to differences in content or presentation format, but future research will
be necessary to better establish why these different training programs led to
improvements in different EI-related abilities, and whether such changes in
fact lead to more successful inter- and intrapersonal functioning.
It should be noted that all participants in the active condition received the
same type of EI training program. That is, the EI training was not specific or
tailored to an individual’s actual baseline EI abilities. As we have shown that
baseline differences in EI influenced training effects (i.e., individuals who had
initially lower MSCEIT scores showed greater improvements), it seems likely
that a more adaptive learning-based approach could lead to greater benefit.
For example, if some individuals possessed a superior ability to understand
and perceive emotions at baseline, but also found it difficult to manage their
emotions, then they may have benefited from increased practice on the module
that trained various strategies for managing emotions (i.e., while requiring
less practice on a module that trained their understanding of emotions).
Future studies might therefore benefit from testing individuals on different
branches of EI and implementing adaptive learning approaches to tailor the
training program to individual needs.
This is also the first study to show that training-related changes in EI corres-
pond to changes in performance on the IGT. While some previous studies have
aimed to investigate whether EI is associated with IGT performance, these
findings have either been limited to trait measures of EI (Sarmány-Schuller,
2009), or investigated individual contributions of ability EI and IQ the predic-
tion of IGT performance (Webb et al., 2014). In the present study, we replicated
Webb et al.’s (2014) finding that the significant correlation between MSCEIT
and performance on the IGT became nonsignificant when controlling for IQ.
Interestingly, the present findings also showed that changes in two MSCEIT
Alkozei et al. 873

scores from pre- to posttraining (i.e., perceiving emotions subscale scores and
total scores) did correlate with changes in IGT performance for individuals in
the active EI training group, but not for those in the placebo training group,
even when controlling for IQ (i.e., at significant levels for the perceiving emo-
tions scores, and at trend levels for total scores). These findings therefore suggest
that, while IQ plays an important role in predicting performance on the IGT, and
performance on tests of EI and IQ may draw on partially overlapping cognitive
processes, training-related increases in EI can still influence IGT performance over
and above what can be accounted for by baseline IQ levels. Furthermore, the
present findings suggest that the EI-related ability to accurately perceive/recognize
emotions may bear the greatest relevance to IGT performance.
The related increases we observed in IGT and EI appear plausible when one
considers that both EI and IGT performance are believed to draw on self-related
emotion perception processes. As such, by increasing individuals’ ability to
perceive their own emotional state, EI training may have facilitated their ability
to effectively perceive and use their own somatic emotional responses (somatic
markers) during the decision-making process as well. This interpretation is
consistent with previous findings that individuals with better interoceptive
awareness (i.e., on a heartbeat perception task) show improved performance
on the IGT in comparison to individuals with poorer interoceptive awareness
(Dunn et al., 2010; Werner, Jung, Duschek, & Schandry, 2009), and that indi-
viduals with better interoceptive awareness showed greater activity within the
anterior insula, which predicted better decision-making on the IGT (Werner
et al., 2013). These interpretations remain speculative, as we did not measure
interoceptive awareness in the present study; the MSCEIT is also unable to
measure a person’s objective ability to perceive their own emotions/bodily feel-
ings accurately. Future studies should therefore include interoceptive awareness
assessments to test this hypothesis further. It also remains unclear whether the
enhancing effects of EI on IGT performance persist for any extent beyond the
follow-up visit. Future studies would benefit from including long-term follow-up
assessments in order to establish whether EI training can lead to lasting
improvements in emotion-guided decision-making.
It should be noted that this is a preliminary study and its findings should be
replicated in larger sample sizes. While we found no effect of age or gender on
the rates of improvements in ability EI, and our sample included a relatively
broad age range (18–50 years), inferences regarding the generalizability of these
findings would nevertheless be strengthened by examination of additional popu-
lations, such as various age and cultural groups. In addition, the effects of EI
training on other aspects of inter- or intrapersonal functioning warrant further
investigation, such as quality of social relationships, psychological adjustment,
resilience to stress, and general well-being. Despite these limitations, the findings
from the present study suggest that EI can be successfully enhanced through
the use of a brief online training program, which is a considerably less costly,
874 Psychological Reports 122(3)

and a significantly more flexible mode of delivery, than in-person EI training

workshops that have been explored in previous studies. This type of EI training
program is therefore particularly easy to implement in a variety of different
situations, such as military, school, and workplace settings. This study also
benefits from a closely matched control group whereby participants were
asked to complete very similar tasks and activities that did not focus on emotion
but on the external environment. Considering that this is the first study to
empirically test the use of an online EI training program for adults, further
research will be necessary to compare the short- and long-term effectiveness of
online versus in-person EI training programs.

Conclusion
To our knowledge, the present study is the first to provide evidence that ability
EI can be improved via an online training program for adults; it is also the first
to show that changes in EI as a result of such a program can lead to improved
performance on an emotionally guided decision-making task, possibly by
improving self-related emotion recognition processes (e.g., improving interocep-
tive awareness). Future studies will be necessary to improve EI training programs
in such a way that individuals show superior performance on all branches of EI,
possibly through the use of computerized adaptive learning to tailor content
to each individual’s emotional strengths and weaknesses. Future work should
replicate these results in a larger sample size; they should also focus on the
long-term effects of EI training, and its impact on other aspects of inter- and
intrapersonal functioning, such as vocational and academic performance, quality
of relationships, and psychological well-being.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by a USAMRAA grant
to WDSK (W81XWH-09-1-0730).

References
Alkozei, A., Schwab, Z. J., & Killgore, W. D. (2016). The role of emotional intelligence
during an emotionally difficult decision-making task. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,
40(1), 1–16.
Bar-On, R. (2004). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Rationale, descrip-
tion and summary of psychometric properties. In E. Geher (Ed.), Measuring emotional
Alkozei et al. 875

intelligence: Common ground and controversy (pp. 115–145). Hauppauge, NY: Science
Publishers.
Barling, J., Slater, F., & Kevin Kelloway, E. (2000). Transformational leadership and
emotional intelligence: An exploratory study. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 21(3), 157–161.
Bechara, A. (2004). The role of emotion in decision-making: Evidence from neurological
patients with orbitofrontal damage. Brain and Cognition, 55(1), 30–40.
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1997). Deciding advanta-
geously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science, 275(5304), 1293–1295.
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (2005). The Iowa Gambling
Task and the somatic marker hypothesis: some questions and answers. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 9(4), 159–162.
Belmont, J. M., & Butterfield, E. C. (1977). The instructional approach to developmental
cognitive research. Perspectives on the development ofmemory and cognition, 437–481 .
Brabec, C. M., Gfeller, J. D., & Ross, M. J. (2012). An exploration of relationships
among measures of social cognition, decision making, and emotional intelligence.
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 34(8), 887–894.
Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental
validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and social psy-
chology bulletin, 29(9), 1147–1158.
Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Reyes, M. R., & Salovey, P. (2012). Enhancing academic
performance and social and emotional competence with the RULER feeling words
curriculum. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(2), 218–224.
Campbell-Sills, L., & Barlow, D. H. (2007). Incorporating emotion regulation into con-
ceptualizations and treatments of anxiety and mood disorders. In J. J. Gross (Ed.),
Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 552–559). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Chambers, R., Gullone, E., & Allen, N. B. (2009). Mindful emotion regulation: An
integrative review. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(6), 560–572.
Chooi, W.-T., & Thompson, L. A. (2012). Working memory training does not improve
intelligence in healthy young adults. Intelligence, 40(6), 531–542.
Clarke, A. M., Kuosmanen, T., & Barry, M. M. (2015). A systematic review of online
youth mental health promotion and prevention interventions. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 44(1), 90–113.
Clarke, N. (2010). The impact of a training programme designed to target the emotional
intelligence abilities of project managers. International Journal of Project Management,
28(5), 461–468.
Côté, S., Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Miners, C. T. (2010). Emotional intelligence
and leadership emergence in small groups. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3),
496–508.
De Houwer, J., & Hermans, D. (2010). Cognition and emotion: Reviews of current research
and theories. Hove, England: Psychology Press.
Demaree, H. A., Burns, K. J., & DeDonno, M. A. (2010). Intelligence, but not emotional
intelligence, predicts Iowa Gambling Task performance. Intelligence, 38(2), 249–254.
Downey, L. A., Johnston, P. J., Hansen, K., Schembri, R., Stough, C., Tuckwell, V., &
Schweitzer, I. (2008). The relationship between emotional intelligence and depression
in a clinical sample. The European Journal of Psychiatry, 22(2), 93–98.
876 Psychological Reports 122(3)

Dunn, B. D., Galton, H. C., Morgan, R., Evans, D., Oliver, C., Meyer, M., . . . Dalgleish,
T. (2010). Listening to your heart how interoception shapes emotion experience and
intuitive decision making. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1835–1844.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B.
(2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A
meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1),
405–432.
Ekman, P. (1999). Facial expressions. Handbook of Cognition and Emotion, 16, 301–320.
Fallon, C. K., Matthews, G., Panganiban, A. R., Wohleber, R., & Roberts, R. D. (2013).
Emotional intelligence and decision making under stress. Proceedings of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 57(1), 837–877.
Fallon, C. K., Panganiban, A. R., Wohleber, R., Matthews, G., Kustubayeva, A. M., &
Roberts, R. (2014). Emotional intelligence, cognitive ability and information search in
tactical decision-making. Personality and individual differences, 65, 24–29.
Ferrara, R. A., Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1986). Children’s learning and transfer
of inductive reasoning rules: Studies of proximal development. Child development,
1087–1099.
Gerits, L., Derksen, J. J., Verbruggen, A. B., & Taylor, S. J. (2004). Emotional intelli-
gence and adaptive success of nurses caring for people with mental retardation and
severe behavior problems. Mental Retardation, 42(2), 106–121.
Gutiérrez-Cobo, M. J., Cabello, R., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2016). The relationship
between emotional intelligence and cool and hot cognitive processes: A systematic
review. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 10, 101.
Hanoch, Y., & Vitouch, O. (2004). When less is more: Information, emotional arousal
and the ecological reframing of the Yerkes–Dodson law. Theory & Psychology, 14(4),
427–452.
Jacobs, M., Snow, J., Geraci, M., Vythilingam, M., Blair, R., Charney, D. S., . . . Blair, K.
S. (2008). Association between level of emotional intelligence and severity of anxiety in
generalized social phobia. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22(8), 1487–1495.
Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Perrig, W. J. (2008). Improving fluid intel-
ligence with training on working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 105(19), 6829–6833.
Keefer, K. V. (2015). Self-report assessments of emotional competencies: A critical
look at methods and meanings. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(1), 3–23.
Killgore, W. D. S., Balkin, T. J., & Wesensten, N. J. (2006). Impaired decision making
following 49 h of sleep deprivation. Journal of Sleep Research, 15(1), 7–13.
Killgore, W. D. S., Kahn-Greene, E. T., Lipizzi, E. L., Newman, R. A., Kamimori, G. H.,
& Balkin, T. J. (2008). Sleep deprivation reduces perceived emotional intelligence and
constructive thinking skills. Sleep Medicine, 9(5), 517–526.
Lopes, P. N., Brackett, M. A., Nezlek, J. B., Schütz, A., Sellin, I., & Salovey, P. (2004).
Emotional intelligence and social interaction. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 30(8), 1018–1034.
Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Straus, R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, personality, and
the perceived quality of social relationships. Personality and Individual Differences,
35(3), 641–658.
Alkozei et al. 877

Mandell, B., & Pherwani, S. (2003). Relationship between emotional intelligence and
transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 17(3), 387–404.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2000). Models of emotional intelligence.
In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 392–420). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional
intelligence with the MSCEIT V2. 0. Emotion, 3(1), 97.
Miu, A. C., Heilman, R. M., & Houser, D. (2008). Anxiety impairs decision-making:
Psychophysiological evidence from an Iowa Gambling Task. Biological Psychology,
77(3), 353–358.
Olson, E. A., Weber, M., Rauch, S. L., & Killgore, W. D. (2016). Daytime sleepiness is
associated with reduced integration of temporally distant outcomes on the Iowa
Gambling Task. Behavioral Sleep Medicine, 14(2), 200–211.
Pool Dacre, L., & Qualter, P. (2012). Improving emotional intelligence and emotional
self-efficacy through a teaching intervention for university students. Learning and
Individual Differences, 22(3), 306–312.
Reis, D. L., Brackett, M. A., Shamosh, N. A., Kiehl, K. A., Salovey, P., & Gray, J. R.
(2007). Emotional intelligence predicts individual differences in social exchange rea-
soning. NeuroImage, 35(3), 1385–1391.
Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Elbertson, N. A., & Salovey, P. (2012). The
interaction effects of program training, dosage, and implementation quality on tar-
geted student outcomes for the RULER approach to social and emotional learning.
School Psychology Review, 41(1), 82.
Rivers, S. E., Brackett, M. A., Reyes, M. R., Elbertson, N. A., & Salovey, P. (2013).
Improving the social and emotional climate of classrooms: A clustered randomized
controlled trial testing the RULER approach. Prevention Science, 14(1), 77–87.
Rossen, E., Kranzler, J. H., & Algina, J. (2008). Confirmatory factor analysis of the
MayerSaloveyCaruso emotional intelligence test V 2.0 (MSCEIT). Personality and
Individual Differences, 44(5), 1258–1269.
Ruiz-Aranda, D., Salguero, J. M., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2011). Emotional intelli-
gence and acute pain: The mediating effect of negative affect. The Journal of Pain,
12(11), 1190–1196.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 9(3), 185–211. doi: 10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG
Sarmány-Schuller, I. (2009). Emotional intelligence and decision-making of female stu-
dents of social work in the Iowa Gambling Task. Studia Psychologica, 51(4), 319.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Bobik, C., Coston, T. D., Greeson, C., Jedlicka,
C., . . . Wendorf, G. (2001). Emotional intelligence and interpersonal relations. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 141(4), 523–536.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2007).
A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between emotional intelligence and
health. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(6), 921–933.
Slaski, M., & Cartwright, S. (2002). Health, performance and emotional intelligence: An
exploratory study of retail managers. Stress and Health, 18(2), 63–68.
878 Psychological Reports 122(3)

Slaski, M., & Cartwright, S. (2003). Emotional intelligence training and its implications
for stress, health and performance. Stress and Health, 19(4), 233–239.
Spitz, H. H. (2013). The raising of intelligence: A selected history of attempts to raise
retarded intelligence: Routledge.
Suhr, J. A., & Tsanadis, J. (2007). Affect and personality correlates of the Iowa Gambling
Task. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(1), 27–36.
Telle, N.-T., Senior, C., & Butler, M. (2011). Trait emotional intelligence facilitates
responses to a social gambling task. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(4),
523–526.
Visser-Keizer, A. C., Westerhof-Evers, H. J., Gerritsen, M. J., van der Naalt, J., &
Spikman, J. M. (2016). To fear is to gain? The role of fear recognition in risky decision
making in TBI patients and healthy controls. PloS One, 11(11), e0166995.
Webb, C. A., DelDonno, S., & Killgore, W. D. S. (2014). The role of cognitive versus
emotional intelligence in Iowa Gambling Task performance: What’s emotion got to do
with it? Intelligence, 44, 112–119.
Webb, C. A., Schwab, Z. J., Weber, M., DelDonno, S., Kipman, M., Weiner, M. R., &
Killgore, W. D. S. (2013). Convergent and divergent validity of integrative versus
mixed model measures of emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 41(3), 149–156.
Werner, N. S., Jung, K., Duschek, S., & Schandry, R. (2009). Enhanced cardiac percep-
tion is associated with benefits in decision-making. Psychophysiology, 46(6),
1123–1129.
Werner, N. S., Schweitzer, N., Meindl, T., Duschek, S., Kambeitz, J., & Schandry, R.
(2013). Interoceptive awareness moderates neural activity during decision-making.
Biological Psychology, 94(3), 498–506.

Author Biographies
Anna Alkozei is a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Psychiatry,
University of Arizona. She is interested in identifying novel ways to improve
psychological wellbeing in healthy as well as clinical populations.

Ryan Smith is a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Psychiatry,

University of Arizona. His research focuses on the neural basis of interactions
between emotion and cognition.

Lauren A. Demers is a doctoral student at the Institute of Child Development,

University of Minnesota. Her research focuses on affective neuroscience and
developmental psychopathology.

Mareen Weber is a research psychologist. Her research interests include sleep

and traumatic brain injury.
Alkozei et al. 879

Sarah M. Berryhill is a research specialist at the University of Arizona. Her

research interests include stress, sleep, and decision making.

William D. S. Killgore is a professor of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Medical

Imaging at the University of Arizona and an associate professor of Psychology
in the Department of Psychiatry (part time) at the Harvard Medical School. His
current research focuses on the effects of sleep deprivation, stress, trauma, and
brain injury on emotional and brain functioning.
Copyright of Psychological Reports is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.