The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and...

The SAGEHandbook of

Personality Theory and Assessment

9781412946520-FM-Vol2 1/25/08 2:03 PM Page i

The SAGEHandbook of

Personality Theory and Assessment

Edited by

Gregory J. BoyleGerald Matthews

Donald H. Saklofske

Los Angeles • London • New Delhi • Singapore

SAGE

9781412946520-FM-Vol2 1/25/08 2:03 PM Page iii

Measuring EmotionalIntelligence as a Mental Ability

in Adults and Children

Susan E. Rivers, Marc A. Brackett and Peter Salovey

Emotional intelligence (EI) refers to thecapacity to both reason about emotion anduse emotion to enhance thinking and prob-lem solving. This capacity is developedthrough skills in four domains having to dowith perceiving, using, understanding, andmanaging emotions (Mayer and Salovey,1997; Salovey and Mayer, 1990). This con-ceptualization of EI, known as the ability model, is distinct from popularizedconceptualizations of the construct thatemerged in the mid-1990s. In this chapter,we describe EI assessments which are basedon Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) model of EI, the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso EmotionalIntelligence Test (MSCEIT), for adults(Mayer et al., 2002a), and the youth version,the MSCEIT-YV (Mayer et al., 2005a).

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE THEORY

Emotional intelligence refers to how thinkingabout emotion and integrating emotion into

cognitive processes both facilitate andenhance reasoning (Mayer and Salovey,1997; Salovey and Mayer, 1990). Emotionalintelligence theory emerged from research onintelligence and on emotion which, until thelate 1980s, were two relatively divergentareas of inquiry. Similar to conceptualiza-tions of intelligence, EI involves the capacityto engage in abstract reasoning, but aboutemotions in particular. Emotions convey reg-ular signals and meanings about the status ofindividuals’ relationships between them-selves and their physical and social environ-ment (e.g. Ekman, 1973; Lazarus, 1991). Forexample, anger signifies that someone orsomething is blocking one’s goal, and fearsignifies that someone or something in theenvironment poses a threat. Thus, recogniz-ing and understanding emotions in the selfand in others can influence behavior anddecision making in adaptive ways. Further,emotions can facilitate or impede differenttypes of thought processes. Studies ofpatients with prefrontal lobe brain damagedemonstrate that the ability to integrate

21

9781412946520-Ch21 29/3/08 12:23 PM Page 440

emotional information with rational decisionmaking and other cognitive processes isessential for people to manage their dailylives (Damasio, 1994).

Mayer and Salovey (1997; Salovey andMayer, 1990) identified four relatively dis-tinct domains of emotion abilities: perceiv-ing, using, understanding, and managingemotion, representing what they called thefour-branch model of EI. The four abilitiesconstituting EI are hypothesized to havedevelopmental trajectories, such that abilitieswithin each domain evolve from basic tomore advanced and complex. The model fur-ther stipulates that the four abilities are hier-archical in structure with the abilities at thefoundation (perceiving emotion) being nec-essary to develop and use skills across theother domains (outlined in Figure 21.1).Perceiving emotion is followed by using

emotion and understanding emotion, andmanaging emotion resides at the top of thehierarchy. The four-branch model of EI ismeasured by the Mayer–Salovey–CarusoEmotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) andadaptations of it (Mayer et al., 2002a).

Perceiving emotion, the first domain, is theability to perceive and identify emotions inoneself and others through stimuli includingpeople’s facial expressions and voices, aswell as stories, music, and artifacts (e.g.Ekman and Friesen, 1975; Nowicki andMitchell, 1998; Scherer et al., 2001). Thisability involves identifying and differentiat-ing emotions in one’s physical states (includ-ing bodily expressions), feelings, andthoughts, and in the behavioral expressionsof others, as well as in the cues expressed inart, music, and other objects. More advancedperceiving emotion abilities encompass

MEASURING EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AS A MENTAL ABILITY IN ADULTS AND CHILDREN 441

Figure 21.1 Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) four-branch model of EI and the MSCEIT tasks foreach domain of skills

9781412946520-Ch21 29/3/08 12:23 PM 41

adaptively expressing emotions and relatedneeds, and discriminating between honestand false emotional expressions in others.

Using emotion to facilitate thought, thesecond domain, refers to the use of emotionboth to focus attention and to think morerationally, logically, and creatively. The mostbasic aspects of this ability are prioritizingthinking by directing attention to importantinformation about the environment or others.Different emotional states modify thinkingprocesses, such that certain emotions aremore and less adaptive for various kinds ofreasoning tasks (Isen, 1987; Palfai andSalovey, 1993; Schwarz, 1990; Schwarz andClore, 1996). For example, positive emotionsare more useful in stimulating creativethought (Fredrickson, 1998; Isen andDaubman, 1984; Isen et al., 1987), andslightly negative moods are more tuned tosolving deductive reasoning tasks (Palfai andSalovey, 1993). Generating vivid emotions toaid judgment and memory processes andgenerating moods to facilitate both consider-ation of multiple perspectives and differentthinking styles (e.g. inductive versus deduc-tive reasoning) reflects more advanced usingemotion ability.

Understanding emotion, the third domain,includes, at its most basic level, labeling emo-tions accurately. Understanding the emotionallexicon and the manner in which emotionscombine, progress, and transition from one tothe other (e.g. the combination of fear andanger in a certain context to form jealousyand the progression from contentment todelight to elation) reflects more advancedunderstanding emotion ability. Understandingthe language of emotion facilitates theprocess of analyzing emotions. Individualswho are skilled at understanding emotionshave a particularly rich ‘feelings’ vocabularyand appreciate the relationships among termsdescribing different feeling states. They maybe especially adept at identifying the coremeaning or themes underlying various emo-tional experiences, such as anger indicatingthat one’s goal has been blocked or happinessindicating that one’s goal has been attained

(e.g. Lazarus, 1991). Understanding thecauses and consequences of emotional statesand the information they provide regardingthe person–environment relationship guidesattention, decision making, and behavioralresponses.

Managing emotion, the fourth domain,refers to the ability to regulate moods andemotions in oneself and in other people. Tomanage emotions effectively, people must beable to monitor, discriminate, and label theirown and others’ feelings accurately, believethat they can improve or modify these feel-ings, assess the effectiveness of these strate-gies, and employ strategies that will alterthese feelings. This ability involves attendingand staying open to pleasant and unpleasantfeelings as well as engaging in or detachingfrom an emotion depending on its perceivedutility in a particular situation. Monitoringand reflecting on the emotions in the self andothers (e.g. processing whether the emotionis typical, acceptable, or influential) repre-sents more complex emotion regulation ability. Managing emotions (e.g. reducing,enhancing, or maintaining) in the self andothers without compromising the informa-tion value of the emotion reflects an espe-cially advanced level of ability. Managingemotions effectively enables one to accom-plish situational goals, express sociallyappropriate emotions, and behave in sociallyacceptable ways (Gross, 1998).

ASSESSING EMOTIONALINTELLIGENCE

EI refers the capacity to use emotions inthinking, planning, and decision making(Salovey and Grewal, 2005). By this defini-tion, measuring EI using performance testsor ability scales, as opposed to using self-report indices, is logical. Moreover, people’sperceptions of their intelligence typically are not highly related to their actual or meas-ured intelligence. Most people make inaccu-rate self-judgments about their intelligence,

442 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

9781412946520-Ch21 29/3/08 12:23 PM Page 442

tending to either under or overestimate theirperformance on objective tests (Alicke,1985; Dunning et al., 2003; Mabe and West,1982). Indeed, Paulhus et al. (1998) reportthat correlations between self-reported andactual verbal intelligence tend to be below0.30. Research from our laboratory showedthat undergraduates’ self-reports of their EIcorrelated less than 0.20 with their perform-ance on an ability test of EI in three separatestudies (Brackett et al., 2006). By dividingparticipants into quartiles based on their per-formance on a performance measure of EI,the MSCEIT, and plotting both performanceon the MSCEIT as well as responses to aself-report measure of EI (which mappedonto the MSCEIT), the discrepancy betweenthese two types of tasks is evident, as Figure 21.2 shows (Brackett et al., 2006,study 1). Participants scoring in the lowertwo quartiles overestimate their EI whilethose scoring in the higher two quartilesunderestimate their EI.

Assessments that ask respondents howgood they are at recognizing their emotionsand those of others or how effectively theyregulate anger, are prone to response biasessuch as social desirability. Performance tests

like the MSCEIT are not associated withsocial desirability (Lopes et al., 2003). Arecent meta-analyses of 13 studies (com-bined sample size of 2,442) revealed that the MSCEIT is relatively distinct from self-report indices of EI that are currently in use (overall r = 0.14) (Van Rooy andViswesvaran, 2004), such as measures byBar-On (1997, 2004) and Schutte et al.(1998). Moreover, unlike the MSCEIT, self-report indices of EI tend to overlap signifi-cantly with measures of personality traits andsubjective wellbeing (Brackett and Mayer,2003; O’Connor and Little, 2003). Thus, as with verbal or quantitative intelligence,ability scales should be the standard formeasuring EI.

THE MAYER–SALOVEY–CARUSOEMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE TEST(MSCEIT)

In adults, the four-branch model of EI is assessedusing the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso EmotionalIntelligence Test Version 2.0 (MSCEIT) (Mayeret al., 2002a). The MSCEIT is a 141-item test


Figure 21.2 Discrepancy between self-reported EI and performance on the MSCEIT (Brackettet al., 2006)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Bottom Second Third Top

MSCEIT Performance

EI P

erce

ntile

Self-Reported E I M S C E I T

9781412946520-Ch21 29/3/08 12:23 PM Page 443

comprised of a total of eight tasks. Two tasksmeasure each of the four ability domains, asFigure 21.1 shows.

The MSCEIT was based on the 402-itemmulti-factor emotional intelligence scale(MEIS) (Mayer et al., 1997a, 1999). Empiricalstudies with the MEIS provided evidence foran underlying unified structure for EI withthree distinguishable subfactors (perception,understanding, and management), and that EIwas distinguishable from general intelligenceand self-reported empathy (see Mayer et al.,2002b). The MEIS was then modified into the294-item MSCEIT Research Version 1.1 fortwo reasons. First, its extensive length made itimpractical for use in both applied andresearch settings. Second, there was limitedevidence for the using emotion factor (domain2). The revised test included improved itemsand scales and has since been shortened to theMSCEIT Version 2.0.

The revised MSCEIT, available fromMulti-Health Systems (MHS), can be admin-istered individually or in groups using apaper-and-pencil or an online version; bothversions are scored by the test publisher(MHS). Scores using the paper-and-penciland online versions are indistinguishable(Mayer et al., 2003). Test administrationtakes approximately 30 to 45 minutes.Details on how the test is scored aredescribed later in the chapter (see also<www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/>).The MSCEIT has a grade 8 reading level andhas been normed on women and men aged 17 years or older (Mayer et al., 2002b). Aseparate EI test for individuals younger than17 years, the MSCEIT-Youth Version(MSCEIT-YV) (Mayer et al., 2005a) hasbecome available and is described in thesecond part of this chapter.

Description of tasks

The technical manual describes in detail theeight tasks that comprise the MSCEIT(Mayer et al., 2002b); here, we provide abrief summary of each.

Perceiving emotionThe ability to perceive emotion is assessed

by asking respondents to identify and differ-entiate emotions expressed in photographs ofpeople’s faces (faces task) as well as emotionsrepresented in artistic designs and landscapes(pictures task). Respondents first examine animage and then use a five-point scale to indi-cate the extent to which each of five emotions(e.g. happy, sad, fear) are expressed in theimage (1 = none at all, 5 = extreme).

Using emotionThe ability to use emotion to facilitate

thinking is assessed by asking respondents tocompare emotional feelings to those of sen-sory modalities like taste, color, and temper-ature (sensations task). By way of thiscross-modality matching task, respondentsare asked to imagine feeling ‘closed’, ‘dark’,and ‘numb’ and then to use a five-point scaleto evaluate how much this combination ofsensations are similar to three different emo-tions (e.g. sad, content, calm; 1 = not alike, 5 = very much alike). In a second task, respon-dents identify the feelings that assist or inter-fere with performing various cognitive andbehavioral activities (facilitation task). Forexample, respondents are asked, ‘Whatmood(s) might be helpful to feel when com-posing an inspiring military march?’Respondents rate a list of possible moods(e.g. anger, excitement) using a five-pointscale (1 = not useful, 5 = useful).

Understanding emotionUnderstanding emotion and employing

emotional knowledge is assessed by askingrespondents to decompose emotion blendsand to construct simple emotions to formcomplex feelings (blends task). For exam-ple, respondents are provided with the stem,‘Sadness, guilt, and regret combine to form …’, and are asked to identify from alist of five emotion words which best com-pletes the sentence (i.e. grief, annoyance,depression, remorse, misery). In a secondtask, respondents are asked to identify transi-tions between emotions, such as identifying


9781412946520-Ch21 29/3/08 12:23 PM Page 444


an event that would have happened to makea woman feel ashamed and then worthless(changes task). Respondents choose themost appropriate response from a list of fiveresponse alternatives (i.e. overwhelmed,depressed, ashamed, self-conscious, jittery).

Managing emotionThe ability to regulate emotion is assessed

with the emotion management task whichmeasures the ability to identify the effective-ness of various emotion management strate-gies to achieve a specified intrapersonal goalin a given situation (e.g. preserving a positivemood). For example, respondents read a shortvignette about another person, and then eval-uate the effectiveness of four different coursesof action to cope with emotions in the story. Asecond task, social management, measuresthe ability to identify the effectiveness ofthree different strategies to manage others’emotions in various situations to achieve aspecified interpersonal goal (e.g. maintaininga good relationship with a close friend). For both tasks, respondents use five-pointLikert-type scales to rate the effectiveness of the strategies (1 = very ineffective, 5 = very effective).

Scoring the MSCEIT

Performance on the MSCEIT is calculatedusing two types of scoring approaches: con-sensus and expert. In consensus or normativescoring, each response option is weightedaccording to responses provided by the nor-mative sample. If, for example, 82% of thesample selected option D and 16% of thesample selected option B, the score for arespondent who selected option D would beincremented 0.82 while the score for arespondent who selected option B would beincremented 0.16. Higher scores, using this method, reflect greater agreement withthe general consensus. Consensus-based measurement (CBM) relies on two assump-tions: (a) large samples of individuals con-verge on correct answers, and (b) knowledge

of a representative sample of individualsapproximates how knowledge is used andapplied (Legree, 1995; Legree et al., 2005).CBM is useful when a formal informationsource is not readily available (Legree et al.,2005), and is appropriate for the MSCEITbecause knowledge related to the perception,use, understanding, and regulation of emo-tions is emerging and varies according to cul-tural norms. Expert scoring works in asimilar way to consensus scoring except thatresponses are compared to those made by apanel of 21 international experts in researchon emotion. Test administrators choose thescoring method employed by the publisher.

Expert and consensus scoring producehighly correlated test results (r = 0.91), withexpert scoring yielding slightly higher scoresthan consensus scoring (Mayer et al., 2003;Palmer et al., 2005). The correspondencebetween the two scoring methods addressescriticisms raised about earlier versions of theMSCEIT (i.e. MEIS, MSCEIT ResearchVersion 1.0) that the general consensus mayidentify qualitatively different responses thanexperts (e.g. Matthews et al., 2002). Thistopic is addressed in more detail by Mayer et al. (2003).

The MSCEIT yields seven scores: one foreach of the four domains, two area scores,and a total EI score. Task scores are com-bined to form scores for each of the domains,as illustrated in Figure 21.1. Experiential EI,computed from the perceiving and usingtasks, reflects the extent to which respon-dents recognize emotions, compare emotionsto other sensations, and understand howemotions interact with thought processes.Strategic EI, computed from the understand-ing and management tasks, reflects the extentto which respondents understand emotionalinformation and use that information forplanning and management of the self and ofothers. The total score, computed from performance on each of the eight tasks,reflects overall EI. Task scores generally arenot interpreted as these tend to be less reli-able than domain, area, and total scores(Mayer et al., 2002b).

9781412946520-Ch21 29/3/08 12:23 PM Page 445


Individual respondents are compared tothe normative sample of 5,000 respondents toderive scores, which are computed as empir-ical percentiles and then standardized to anormal scale, like intelligence, with a meanof 100 and a standard deviation of 15 (Mayeret al., 2002b). The MSCEIT technicalmanual provides guidelines for interpretingranges of scores.

PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES

Reliability

The technical manual reports split-half relia-bilities, using the Spearman–Brown correc-tion, for both types of scoring (generalconsensus and expert) for the overall test (r’s ≥ 0.91), the two areas (r’s ≥ 0.86), the four domains (0.76 £ r's ≤ 0.91), and theeight tasks (0.56 ≤ r's ≤ 0.88), based on thenormative sample (N = 5,000) (Mayer et al.,2002b). Split-half reliability coefficients areused to test reliability, as they involve theorderly allocation of different item types tothe two different halves of the test (Nunnally,1978). We reviewed the literature and identi-fied 26 published studies that used either theMSCEIT Research Version 1.1 or Version2.0, (only English language versions). Theaverage reliabilities reported in the literaturegenerally replicate those in the technicalmanual. Where there are deviations from thereliabilities reported in the technical, the reli-abilities of these published studies tend to belower as the level of specificity increases(e.g. moving from the total score to the tasklevel scores). The test–retest reliability of theMSCEIT among a sample of 60 undergradu-ates at a three-week interval is r = 0.86(Brackett and Mayer, 2003).

Intercorrelations among scales

EI theory posits that the skills of perceiving,using, understanding, and regulating emotion

reflect a unified set of abilities. Accordingly,the intercorrelations between tasks and scaleson the MSCEIT should be moderate and positive. The intercorrelations of scoresbetween tasks and scales, using the norma-tive sample (N = 5,000), range from 0.14 to0.57, with somewhat lower correlationsreported between the tasks and somewhathigher correlations reported between thedomains (Mayer et al., 2002b).

Structural validity

The design of the MSCEIT reflects the four-branch model of EI. In a confirmatory factoranalysis of the eight MSCEIT tasks using alarge portion of the standardized sample,Mayer et al. (2003) tested the fit of the one-,two-, and four-factor models. Each model fitfairly well. The four-factor solution was thebest fit, as evidenced by the following goodness-of-fit indices using consensus andexpert scoring methods, respectively: NFI = 0.98,0.97; TLI = 0.96, 0.97; RMSEA = 0.05, 0.04.A reanalysis of Mayer et al.’s (2003) datayielded comparable results for the four-factorsolution, but lower goodness-of-fit for both theone- and two-factor solutions (Gignac, 2005).The difference in fit can be traced to an unpub-lished change in the algorithm for Amos 4.0;Gignac used Amos 4.2 in the reanalysis(Mayer et al., 2005b). Using a differentsample, Palmer et al. (2005) reported that abetter one-factor model may be obtained byemploying a hierarchical model. These data,however, did not support a four-factor model.Additional research is necessary to verify theoptimal factor structure of the MSCEIT.

Concurrent, discriminant, andpredictive validity

Emotional intelligence theory posits thatemotion abilities represent an intelligencethat is distinct from, but related to, generaland verbal intelligence, and that these abili-ties contribute to effectiveness across a

9781412946520-Ch21 29/3/08 12:23 PM Page 446

variety of domains. Accumulating research,described in this section, provides empiricalevidence of these postulates, and attests tothe validity of the MSCEIT (also seeBrackett and Salovey, 2004; Mayer et al.,2004; Rivers et al., in press).

EI is related to but distinct from generaland verbal intelligence

MSCEIT scores are distinguishable fromintelligence, but (as predicted) there is somepositive overlap as both are tapping into atype of intelligence. For example, in samplesof college undergraduates, correlationsbetween MSCEIT scores and verbal SATscores (obtained from college registrars)range between 0.32 and 0.35 (Brackett andMayer, 2003; Brackett et al., 2004). Gil-Olarte and colleagues (2006) replicated a pos-itive, moderate correlation between MSCEITscores and verbal intelligence (r = 0.31) in asample of high-school students (n = 77) inSpain using the Spanish translation of theMSCEIT (Extremera et al., 2006) and a gen-eral intelligence test, the Factorial GeneralIntelligence (IGF-5r, Yuste, 2002).

Promising studies examining MSCEITscores and brain activity provide evidencethat emotional intelligence is distinct fromgeneral intelligence. Jausovec and colleagues(2001) showed that MSCEIT scores pre-dicted the amount of cognitive effortemployed to solve emotion-related problems.While completing emotion-related tasks,individuals with high MSCEIT scores (n = 120) used less cognitive effort, assessedby patterns in theta and alpha frequencybands of electroencephalographic activity ofthe brain, compared to individuals with aver-age MSCEIT scores (n = 89). In anotherstudy, Jausovec and Jausovec (2005) madeEEG recordings of 30 participants duringtwo types of problem-solving tasks: analyti-cal (recognizing patterns of figures) andemotion-related (identifying emotions infaces). They compared recordings betweenparticipants who were high or average inintelligence (assessed with subscales of theWAIS), and between participants who were

high or average in emotional intelligence(assessed with the MSCEIT). Significant differences in brain activity (i.e. event-related desynchronization/synchronization;ERD/ERS) during the analytical tasksemerged only between those high versusaverage in intelligence, while significant dif-ferences in brain activity during the emotion-related tasks emerged only between thosehigh versus average in emotional intelli-gence. The authors interpret these findings asevidence that ‘emotional intelligence andverbal/performance intelligence representdistinct components of cognitive architec-ture’ (Jausovec and Jausovec, 2005: 223).

EI is related to but distinct frompersonality

Emotional intelligence theory posits thatemotional intelligence does not vary as afunction of personality characteristics(Mayer and Salovey, 1997). Individuals high(or low) in emotional intelligence are notexpected to differ on major personality traits such as extroversion or neuroticism.Numerous empirical investigations showthat personality accounts for a small amountof the variance in MSCEIT scores (Brackett and Mayer, 2003; Brackett et al., 2006; Gil-Olarte Marquez et al., 2006; Lopes et al.,2003; Mayer et al., 2004; Van Rooy and Viswesvaran, 2004; Warwick andNettelbeck, 2004). Indeed, across five stud-ies (n = 1,584) EI (measured by the MSCEITor the MEIS) correlated moderately and pos-itively with two of the Big Five personalitytraits: agreeableness (weighted r = 0.21) and openness (weighted r = 0.17); therewere low but significant correlations withextraversion, neuroticism, and conscien-tiousness (weighted r’s = 0.06, −0.09, and0.11, respectively; Mayer et al., 2004). Eachof these correlations is quite modest, and itis clear that the traits measured in the mostprominent model of personality are gener-ally unrelated to EI indicating that theMSCEIT is assessing a construct not cur-rently measured by common personalityinventories.


9781412946520-Ch21 29/3/08 12:23 PM Page 447

Associations of EI with other emotion-related abilities

Assessing the convergent validity of theMSCEIT is an area that has received limitedattention in the literature. One study reportedthat the perception of emotions tasks on theMSCEIT did not correlate significantly withother measures of emotion perception(Roberts et al., 2006). However, there are fewother empirical tests examining the relation-ship of the MSCEIT to other task-basedassessments of emotion-related skills.

A recent set of studies examined the roleof EI in the ability to accurately predictfuture feelings, or forecast affect (Dunn et al., 2007). Individual differences in EI, andin managing emotions in particular, predictaccuracy in affective forecasting. For exam-ple, in study 1, on US election day, collegeundergraduates (n = 84) were asked to pre-dict how they would feel if their choice forpresident won the election, and how theywould feel if their candidate lost. Two daysafter the election, they were asked how theyactually felt. Students scoring higher on the MSCEIT more accurately predicted their future feelings. This effect replicatedacross situations – anticipating feelings inresponse to receiving a grade on a term paper and in response to the outcome of a basketball game.

The finding that scores on the MSCEITpredict accuracy in affective forecasting isinteresting and contributes important empir-ical evidence supporting both the validity ofthe MSCEIT and EI theory (Dunn et al.,2007). First, MSCEIT scores were used topredict an actual behavior (individualsmaking predictions about their future feel-ings) extending self-report evidence fromprevious research. Second, the findings pro-vide support for emotional intelligencetheory by showing that emotion abilities arerelevant to an emotion-related task (predict-ing future feelings). Third, because domainscores in emotion management were the sig-nificant predictor of accuracy scores, theseresults shed some light on the plausibleprocesses by which EI may contribute to

greater forecasting accuracy. As Dunn andcolleagues suggest, individuals who scorehigh in this domain likely are not just pre-dicting how they will feel if a certain eventoccurs, but they probably also are calibratingthe intensity and perhaps the direction ofthat feeling (positivity, negativity) accordingto the resources they have available, includ-ing emotion management strategies such associal support seeking, cognitive reap-praisal, and meaning making (e.g. weighingthe significance of the event against otherevents).

Relationship of EI to academicperformance

Research from the US and Spain providesevidence that MSCEIT scores are related toacademic performance. Among US collegeundergraduates (n = 330) there was a smallbut significant positive correlation (r = 0.14,p < 0.01) between MSCEIT scores and col-lege GPA (obtained from the college regis-trar) (Brackett et al., 2004). Amonghigh-school students in Spain (n = 77),MSCEIT scores collected at the start of theacademic year predicted end-of-year grades(r = 0.43), after controlling for generalintelligence (Gil-Olarte Marquez et al.,2006). The difference in the strength of thecorrelations between the samples from theUS and Spain may be a result of restrictedrange in MSCEIT scores (and grades, forthat matter) among American college stu-dent samples. These findings are corrobo-rated by Mestre and colleagues (2006) whoreport a positive correlation between theSpanish version of the MSCEIT and teacherreports of academic performance in highschool. After controlling for IQ and the BigFive personality traits, boys’ (n = 63) scoreson the strategic area of the MSCEIT (under-standing and managing emotion) were posi-tively related to teacher-ratings of thestudents’ academic adaptation (e.g. stu-dent’s average academic achievement,extent to which students completes home-work and attends class, belief that studentwill fare well in life).


9781412946520-Ch21 29/3/08 12:23 PM Page 448

Relationship of EI to social functioningScores on a test of EI ought to be related to

indicators of social functioning as emotionabilities are integral to effective social inter-actions (Mayer and Salovey, 1997). Forexample, recognizing the emotions of othersfacilitates perspective-taking, which pro-motes empathy and provision of social sup-port; expressing emotions in a clear wayleads to fewer misunderstandings, and regulating emotions can reduce the likeli-hood of expressing emotions at inappropriatetimes or to inappropriate persons (e.g. yellingat one’s best friend after getting a parkingticket).

Across numerous studies, MSCEIT scorescorrelate with self-report measures of socialfunctioning. In one study of 103 undergradu-ates, participants with higher scores on themanaging emotions domains of the MSCEITwere more likely to report having better qual-ity relationships including more positiverelations with others and greater intimacy,companionship, and affection in their rela-tionships (Lopes et al., 2003). In addition,participants with higher MSCEIT totalscores were less likely to report having rela-tionships that were rife with conflict andantagonism. These correlations remainedsignificant after controlling for the Big Fiveand verbal intelligence.

In a daily diary study of 99 German under-graduates, scores on the managing emotiondomain of the MSCEIT also correlated posi-tively with perceived self-presentational suc-cess in opposite-sex interactions, even aftercontrolling for personality characteristics(Lopes et al., 2004, Study 2). Participantsscoring higher on the managing emotionsdomain of the MSCEIT were more likely toreport that they had behaved competently andattractively when interacting with someoneof the opposite sex, and that their oppositesex interaction partner perceived them posi-tively (e.g. as intelligent and friendly).

A study of 86 heterosexual couplesextended these findings (Brackett et al.,2005). Compared to couples where at leastone member of the couple scored high on the

MSCEIT, among couples where both indi-viduals scored low on the MSCEIT, positiveevaluations of the relationship were lower.Individuals in low EI couples reported beingless satisfied with the relationship, and thatthe relationship was less supportive, secure,and important. One limitation of this study isthat the majority of the participating coupleshad been dating for less than one year. In afollow-up study of couples in longer-termrelationships, among couples where bothindividuals had low MSCEIT scores (low EIcouples), evaluations of the relationship weremore negative compared to couples whereboth individuals had high MSCEIT scores(high EI couples) (Brackett et al., 2005).Among couples where only one individualscored high on the MSCEIT (mixed cou-ples), evaluations of the relationship fell inbetween those made by low and high EI couples.

The types of strategies couples use toresolve conflict in the relationship may medi-ate the relationships between emotional intel-ligence and relationship quality. Low EIcouples reported using more destructive con-flict resolution strategies (e.g. yelling) thanhigh EI couples (Brackett et al., 2005). Astudy with college students lends additionalsupport to this proposition (Brackett et al., 2006, Study 2). Among 139 men,MSCEIT total scores correlated with assess-ments of ineffective interpersonal strategies(range of r’s = 0.22 to 0.33, p’s < 0.05), con-trolling for personality, intelligence, well-being, and empathy. For example, inresponse to a conflict with a close friend orroommate, compared to men with higher EI,men with lower EI were more likely torespond by avoiding or screaming at the otherperson. Further, in response to a friend orroommate sharing good news (such as secur-ing a great summer job or getting a goodgrade on a paper), men with lower EI weremore likely to respond by pointing out a prob-lem with the event or by not paying muchattention, compared to men with higher EI. In this study, the relationship between MSCEITtotal scores and interpersonal strategies was


9781412946520-Ch21 29/3/08 12:23 PM Page 449

not significant for women (n = 216, r’s <|0.14|).

Studies assessing the relationship betweenMSCEIT scores and peer-reports of socialcompetence contribute additional evidencethat emotional intelligence – managing emo-tions in particular – is related to social func-tioning. Individuals scoring higher on themanaging emotions domain of the MSCEITwere more likely to be rated by two friends ashaving positive social interactions and lesslikely to be rated as having negative interac-tions, after controlling for gender and the BigFive personality characteristics (Lopes et al.,2004, Study 1). Similarly, among high-schoolgirls in Spain, after controlling for IQ and per-sonality, scores on the strategic areas (under-standing and managing) of the MSCEIT werecorrelated positively with social adaptation, asderived from friendship nominations (Mestreet al., 2006). There was no relationshipbetween MSCEIT scores and peer-ratings ofsocial adaptation among boys (n = 63).However, in this sample, teacher reports ofsocial functioning were related to boys’MSCEIT scores. Controlling for IQ and theBig Five personality traits, scores on thestrategic area of the MSCEIT for high-schoolboys were negatively related to engaging inconflict and being hostile toward classmates.

MSCEIT scores also predict real-timesocial behavior. In a laboratory-based study,participants (n = 50) interacted in a ‘getting-to-know-you’ waiting room task with anostensible peer (actually a confederate of theexperimenter). For men (n = 22), MSCEITtotal scores positively correlated with sev-eral behavioral indicators of social compe-tence, as evaluated by independent observers(r’s = 0.47 to 0.60, p’s < .05). Specifically,men with higher scores on the MSCEIT weremore likely than men with lower scores on theMSCEIT to be rated as (a) showing greaterinterest in their interaction partner, (b) moresocially engaged, (c) more socially compe-tent, and (d) being a team player. These find-ings remained significant after statisticallycontrolling for the Big Five in multipleregression analyses (Brackett et al., 2006).

Finally, two recent studies by cognitiveneuroscientists provide further evidence thatMSCEIT scores are related to social func-tioning (Reis et al., 2007). In Study 1 (n = 48), individuals with higher MSCEITscores solved social problems more quicklyand accurately than those with lowerMSCEIT scores, after controlling for performance in solving comparable but problems of a non-social nature. In Study 2,functional magnetic resonance imaging(FMRI) was used to assess the neural activityof healthy adults (n = 16) as they engaged insocial and non-social reasoning. MSCEITscores selectively predicted neural activity intwo brain regions linked to social reasoning:the frontal and anterior temporal lobes.Higher MSCEIT scores were related to lesshemodynamic activation in these regions,which according to the authors suggestseither that individuals with higher EI aremore efficient in social reasoning, comparedto those with lower EI, or that those withlower EI have more difficulty with social rea-soning tasks, utilizing greater brain activity.Both interpretations are plausible.

Relationship of EI to workplacecompetence

EI should contribute to workplace com-petence, including success at work and leadership, as the skills of emotional intelli-gence are instrumental in communicatingeffectively during social interactions, man-aging conflict and stress well, and operatingunder pressure (Lopes et al., 2006). Among44 analysts and clerical employees at aFortune 400 insurance company, scores onthe MSCEIT correlated positively withobjective performance indicators includingcompany rank and percent merit payincreases, r’s > 0.35. Informant evaluationsof social competence from peers and super-visors also correlated significantly withemployees’ MSCEIT scores. Employeeswith higher MSCEIT scores were rated tobe more interpersonally sensitive, moresocial, and more likely to contribute to apositive work environment.


9781412946520-Ch21 29/3/08 12:23 PM Page 450

Similarly, EI was related to leadershipbehaviors in a sample of 41 senior level exec-utives (Rosete and Ciarrochi, 2005).Executives with higher MSCEIT scores weremore likely to be rated as demonstrating lead-ership behaviors (e.g. cultivating productiveworking relationships, as exemplifying per-sonal drive and integrity). Follow-up analysesshowed that scores on the perceiving emotionsdomain was the strongest predictor of leader-ship behaviors, after controlling for cognitiveintelligence and personality. This study con-tributes to our knowledge of which domain ofEI skills (perceiving emotion) may contributemost to effective leadership.

EI may matter more in the workplace whencognitive intelligence is lower. In a sample of175 full-time workers at a public university,MSCEIT scores were positively related to jobperformance, but only among individualswith low cognitive intelligence (i.e. one stan-dard deviation below the mean) (Cote andMiners, 2006). This same pattern occurred fororganizational citizenship behavior directedat the organization; emotional intelligencewas positively related to citizenship behavior,but only among those individuals with lowcognitive intelligence. All analyses controlledfor personality and relevant demographicvariables (e.g. level of education).

Relationship of EI to psychological well-being, at-risk behaviors andpsychopathology

Identifying emotions and responding effi-ciently to the information they provide aboutone’s relationship to the environment shoulddirect action in ways the promote well-being.There is some evidence that EI is related to psychological well-being. Among collegestudents, psychological well-being, as asses-sed by Ryff’s measure (Ryff, 1989) corre-lates positively and significantly with totalMSCEIT scores, range r’s = 0.19 to 0.28, p’s< 0.001 (Brackett and Mayer, 2003; Brackettet al., 2006, study 2). The generalizability ofthis relationship beyond college samples isunknown. One study did not find significantassociations between subscale scores on the

MSCEIT (Research Version 1.1) and life orjob satisfaction among Canadian militarypersonnel (Livingstone and Day, 2005).

One pathway by which EI may promotewell-being is that individuals high in EI mayavoid risky behaviors. There is some evi-dence that individuals higher in EI are lesslikely to engage in behaviors that place theirhealth and wellbeing at risk. For example,among male undergraduates (n = 89),MSCEIT total scores correlated negativelywith drug and alcohol use (r’s = −0.34 and −0.26, respectively) and with deviant behavior(r = −0.27) after controlling for personalityand verbal intelligence (Brackett et al., 2004).Similarly, in a sample of 243 male and femalecollege undergraduates, MSCEIT scores werenegatively related to engagement in riskybehaviors, including aggression, substanceabuse, sexual, and criminal behaviors (ranger’s = −0.18 to −0.25, p’s < 0.05) (Omori et al.,2006). Among 205 adolescents (106 boys,mean age = 12.6 years), Trinidad and Johnson(2002) found a significant negative correlationbetween total scores on the adolescent versionof the MEIS (Mayer et al., 1997b) and use oftobacco and alcohol (r = −0.19, p < 0.05),which remained significant after controllingfor age, gender, and self-reported grades.Thus, there is emerging evidence that EI maybe a protective factor for risk taking.

We identified no studies examiningMSCEIT scores in individuals diagnosedwith psychopathology, such as unipolardepression, social anxiety disorder, andschizophrenia (Keltner and Kring, 1998).There is some preliminary evidence suggest-ing that there may be relevant associations.MSCEIT scores correlate negatively withdepression (assessed by the SymptomChecklist-90-R) and anxiety (assessed byboth the Symptom Checklist-90-R and the16PF), r's = −0.25 and −0.24, respectively(David, 2005; O’Connor and Little, 2003).

Gender differences in MSCEIT scoresGender differences exist on many emotion

abilities. Women, for example, tend to out-perform men on a variety of performance


9781412946520-Ch21 29/3/08 12:23 PM Page 451


measures of emotional abilities (L.R. Brodyand Hall, 1993, 2000), perhaps because par-ents tend to talk about emotions more withtheir daughters than their sons (Adams et al.,1995; Fivush, 1991, 1998; Fivush et al.,2000). On the MSCEIT, women tend to out-perform men, at least among college studentsamples (Brackett and Mayer, 2003; Brackettet al., 2004, 2005, 2006). Effect sizes rangefrom η2 = 0.034 to 0.180, and differences aretypically less than one standard deviation.Comparable gender differences emergedwith the MEIS (Mayer et al., 1999).

There is evidence for the presence ofgender differences in the relationshipbetween EI and social functioning. Forexample, MSCEIT scores were related tosocial deviance (drug and alcohol use,aggressive acts) for men but not for women(Brackett et al., 2004). The evidence ofgender differences in correlates of emotionalabilities is not unique to the MSCEIT. Abilityto regulate emotions effectively was relatedto social functioning for boys but not for girls(Eisenberg et al., 1995). In contrast, the abil-ity to decode and encode emotions con-tributed to social competence for girls but notboys (Custrini and Feldman, 1989). Few the-oretical explanations for these differences areoffered in the literature. One plausible expla-nation may be that behaviors often are inter-preted depending on the gender of the actor(Shields, 2002). Indeed, parents categorizechildren’s social behaviors differentlydepending on the gender of the child (Baconand Ashmore, 1985).

The reasons underlying gender differencesin the correlations between MSCEIT scoresand social functioning remain unclear. Onereason may be due to a threshold (Brackett et al., 2006). There may be a minimum levelof EI that is needed to function effectively insocial situations, and the proportion of menwho fall below this threshold may be higherthan the proportion of women. Becausewomen have higher MSCEIT scores thanmen, women (as a group) may have attainedthat threshold. Differences in scores forwomen, then, would not explain variance in

social competence. These hypotheses are inneed to be tested in a sample with a largenumber of low-scoring women to seewhether the effects are due to EI or gender.

Another possible explanation for genderdifferences in correlations between theMSCEIT and social functioning may be thatthe MSCEIT is not tapping into EI forwomen in the same way as it does for men(Brackett et al., 2006). Emotional abilitiesmay manifest differently for men andwomen. For example, there is a stereotypethat women in the US are more adept emo-tionally than men (e.g. L.R. Brody and Hall,2000). These expectations may influencehow emotional abilities operate in men andwomen. For both men and women, express-ing emotions that violate social norms anddisplay rules can lead to social consequencesin daily interactions (Frijda and Mesquita,1994; Saarni, 1999); thus, learning to regu-late these emotions is adaptive (Goffman,1959; Hochschild, 1983). However, thesocial norms governing ‘appropriate’ gen-dered behavior for men and women are dif-ferent. Thus, it is possible that the MSCEITis biased in that it better assesses the emo-tional abilities of men (and thus it better pre-dicts relevant social outcomes for men), but itmay not capture the abilities of women ade-quately (and thus is not related to social out-comes for women). More research is neededto explain the presence of gender differencesin EI and its correlates.

Critiques of MSCEIT

That EI exists and is measured validly by theMSCEIT has been questioned. Such critiquesare not surprising given the relatively recentintroduction of EI in the scientific literatureas well as the outrageous claims by the pop-ular press that EI may be the best predictor oflife success (Gibbs, 1995). In this section, wereview some of the common critiques of theMSCEIT, in particular the content of the testand its scoring methods (see also N. Brody,2004; Matthews et al., 2002).

9781412946520-Ch21 29/3/08 12:23 PM Page 452


The content of the MSCEIT is limited by its design. As a standardized, easy-to-administer, transportable test for researchersto use with individuals and groups, it is notpossible to include direct assessments of allemotion abilities captured by the EI frame-work, especially higher order and more fluidskills, such as expressing emotions appropri-ately and accurately, using emotions to prior-itize thinking about important information,and being open to and monitoring emotionsfor purposes of regulation. To assess theseabilities, more complex procedures, such asbehavioral indicators or reaction time tasks,may be required. Such procedures are noteasily administered. The specific items thatcomprise the MSCEIT do not capture the fullrange of emotions or, for the perceiving emo-tion tasks in particular, or all channels ofexpression such as tone of voice, gesture, andphysiological arousal (e.g. O’Sullivan andEkman, 2004).

Assessing all relevant skills with one testmay not be appropriate or realistic. To addresssome of the limitations of the content of theMSCEIT, research is needed examining theconvergent validity of the MSCEIT with otherperformance-based tasks of emotion abilities,as well as comparing their predictive validity(e.g. Roberts et al., 2006). Few performance-based assessments are available for measuringeach of the domains of skills delineated by thefour-branch model, either individually or col-lectively (Rivers et al., 2007).

There also are critiques of the consensusand expert scoring methods. For example, ithas been argued that the MSCEIT may notmeasure emotion skills, but rather conver-gence to popular opinion (Geher andRenstrom, 2004). As described in the sectionon scoring, high MSCEIT scores reflectgreater agreement with a general consensusor with experts. Thus, as Day (2004) ques-tions, ‘Does the high EI individual know whateveryone else knows or does the high EI indi-vidual know more and know better?’ Relianceon response convergence may limit emotionalcreativity from contributing to emotion skills(Averill, 2004). Further, knowing how others

identify an emotional expression is differentfrom knowing what emotion is actually beingconveyed by the expression (O’Sullivan andEkman, 2004); the former is not contingentnecessarily upon accuracy in identification.The strong correlation between the expert andconsensus scoring methods suggests thatexperts rely, in part, on consensus judgment(Mayer et al., 2001); that is, being an expertmeans knowing the consensus better than theaverage person (see Rivers et al., in press). Toour knowledge, there is no research docu-menting that expertise in emotion yields adistinct set of responses from responsesderived by a consensus. However, it is possi-ble that response sets do differ betweenexperts and a consensus. Relying on veridicalscoring to evaluate performance on theMSCEIT would provide an alternative toexpert and consensus scoring methods(MacCann et al., 2004), however there isoften more than one ‘correct’ response toemotion-laden problems. Alternative scoringmethods such as those using flexible scoringwhereby experts rank responses should beconsidered (Mayer et al., 2004).

Future directions

Evidence supporting the validity of theMSCEIT is accumulating rapidly. Importantly,this evidence also provides support for EItheory. To move beyond correlational evi-dence, prospective studies are warranted toexamine causal links between emotion skillsand relevant outcomes. One approach is toexamine how EI operates in ongoing emotional situations. Powerful emotion situ-ations, such as interpersonal conflict, prepar-ing for an important exam, making a majorlife decision such as switching jobs or select-ing a college, require greater use of emotionskills. Thus, EI should be especially influen-tial in predicting outcomes in such circum-stances. Identifying the mechanisms bywhich EI contributes to optimal performanceduring emotion-laden situations would provide a richer understanding of when and

9781412946520-Ch21 29/3/08 12:23 PM Page 453


how individuals use emotion skills, and alsowhich of the domains of skills (perceiving,using, understanding, and managing) con-tribute most (or least) to performance. Thesestudies also would contribute to our knowl-edge of the extent to which the MSCEITmeasures a person’s ability to process andintegrate emotional information when think-ing critically about emotions and what aperson will do in the context of daily emotional events (e.g. Van Rooy andViswesvaran, 2004). Further, we know littleabout how the collective EI of groups ordyads contributes to performance of thegroup/dyad. As described earlier in the chap-ter, individuals’ MSCEIT scores are relatedto various indicators of relationship quality,but when looking at characteristics of agroup or dyad, the composite scores of thegroups’ members may contribute to interac-tion quality and performance (see Brackett et al., 2005). In summary, the aim of futureresearch is to explore how EI contributes per-formance and functioning.

MEASURING EMOTIONALINTELLIGENCE OF YOUTH WITH THEMSCEIT-YV

Until recently, testing the developmental pos-tulates of EI theory (i.e. that emotional intel-ligence develops with age and experience)has been limited by available measurementinstruments. A youth version of the MSCEIT –the MSCEIT-YV – is now available (Mayeret al., 2005). The MSCEIT-YV can beadministered individually or in groups, and isappropriate for children aged 11 years to 17 years. In this section, we describe this testand report two studies examining its reliabil-ity and validity.

MSCEIT-YV: test description

The research version of the MSCEIT-YVcontains 180 items divided among four

sections, each representing one of the fourdomains of the four-branch model (Mayerand Salovey, 1997). Initial analyses by thetest developers led to a revised scoring algo-rithm based on 97 items. Descriptions of thetest and study results reported here use thisrevised scoring algorithm.

Perceiving emotions is assessed throughidentification of emotions in eight pho-tographed faces. Respondents are asked to identify the extent to which each of four emotions (e.g. surprise, anger, fear, happiness) are present on each of the facesusing a five-point Likert-type response scale(1 = none at all, 5 = a very strong feeling).

Using emotions is assessed by askingrespondents to compare emotion labels to avariety of physical sensations. For example,in one task respondents are asked to imagine‘feeling surprised after getting an unexpectedgift’ and then are asked to rate the extent towhich that feeling of surprise is like each ofthe following terms: yellow, cold, quick, andenergetic. Responses are made using a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = does not feel thisway; 5 = definitely feels this way).

Understanding emotions is assessed byasking respondents to identify the definitionor causes of emotions. For example, on onetask respondents match an emotion term with a description of a hypothetical situation,such as ‘When you worry that somethingawful and dangerous is about to happen, you feel …’. Using a multiple-choice format,respondents select the best term from a list offive emotion terms (e.g. sadness, envy, fear,frustration, or jealousy).

Managing emotions is assessed by askingrespondents to evaluate the effectiveness ofseveral actions in making an individual feel acertain way. A situation is described whereinthe target character is feeling one way butneeds to feel a different way in order to com-plete a specified task (e.g. Li is excited abouta party but needs to study). Several actionsare described following this description (e.g.think about the importance of the grade andthe test; watch TV; call a friend to talk).Respondents indicate the extent to which the

9781412946520-Ch21 29/3/08 12:23 PM Page 454


action would help the target characterachieve the specified goal using a five-pointscale (1 = not at all helpful, 5 = very helpful).

Scoring the MSCEIT-YV

Performance on the MSCEIT-YV is calcu-lated using veridical scoring (see Roberts et al., 2001). Three experts in emotion con-sulted the empirical literature and determinedindependently the best responses to eachitem on the test. The experts agreed upon thebest responses. Where there was disagree-ment, the item was dropped. Responses thatmatched the experts were assigned twopoints. In cases where more than oneresponse was deemed appropriate, eachresponse option was assigned one point.

Similar to the MSCEIT, the MSCEIT-YVyields seven scores: one for each of the fourdomains (perceiving, using, understanding,and managing), two area scores (experiential[perceiving + using] and strategic [under-standing + managing]), and a total EI score.To compute scores, individual respondentsare compared to a normative sample of2,000. Scores are computed as empirical per-centiles and then standardized to a normalscale, like intelligence, with a mean of 100and a standard deviation of 15.

Using two independent samples drawnfrom US public schools, we tested the relia-bility of the MSCEIT-YV and also conductedinitial validity tests (Rivers et al., 2006).Sample 1 included 215 students (47% girls;mean age = 10.97 years, SD = 0.63 years) andsample 2 included 546 students (51% girls;mean age = 11.69 years, SD = 1.02 years).

ReliabilityTwo methods were used to compute the reli-ability of the MSCEIT-YV. For domainscores, Cronbach’s alphas were computedand were acceptable, range of α’s = 0.70 to 0.84. Split-half reliabilities with theSpearman–Brown correction were used tocompute reliabilities for the total score andthe two area scores, because response formats

across the test varied (i.e. Likert-type scale,multiple choice). The reliability for the totalscore was acceptable, r’s = 0.89, as was thereliability for the experiential area, r’s = 0.88.The reliability was low for the strategic area,r’s = 0.62 to 0.64.

Gender and age differences in scores There were no significant gender differencesin sample 1, but in sample 2, girls scored sig-nificantly higher than boys overall, on thetwo strategic areas, and in three of the fourdomains (not perceiving), p’s < 0.001. Age,generally, was unrelated to MSCEIT scoresin both samples, r's < |0.15|. Thus, there waslittle evidence for developmental differencesin EI within this age group.

ValidityUsing school, social, and personal criteria,we conducted an initial validity test of theMSCEIT-YV (Rivers et al., 2006). In sample1, we examined student and teacher reportsof academic, social, and personal functioningusing the Behavior Assessment System forChildren (BASC) (Reynolds and Kamphaus,1992). Students scoring higher on theMSCEIT were less likely to be rated by theirteacher as having externalizing problems(e.g. hyperactivity, aggression, conduct prob-lems), internalizing problems (e.g. anxiety,depression), or school problems (e.g. atten-tion and learning problems), r’s = |0.26| to|0.56|, p’s < 0.001. Students scoring higheron the MSCEIT-YV also were more likely tobe rated by their teachers as having adaptiveskills including social skills, leadership, andstudy skills, r = 0.37, p < 0.001. Student self-reports correlated significantly withMSCEIT-YV total scores as well. Studentsscoring higher on the MSCEIT-YV were lesslikely to report negative attitudes towardschool and toward their teachers (r(212) = −.30, p < .001), and less likely to report emo-tional symptoms like anxiety, social stress,low self-esteem, and depression, r's = |0.19|to |0.30|, p’s < 0.01.

In sample 2, we examined student self-reports of academic, social, and personal

9781412946520-Ch21 29/3/08 12:23 PM Page 455

functioning using several subscales from theBASC-II (Reynolds and Kamphaus, 2004).Students scoring higher on the MSCEIT-YVwere less likely to have negative attitudestoward school and toward their teachers, andwere more likely to report having positivesocial relationships, high self-reliance, andpositive relationships with their parents, r’s = |0.10| to |0.37|, p’s < 0.05. These dataprovide initial evidence that emotional intel-ligence, as measured by the MSCEIT-YV isrelated to academic, social, and personalfunctioning among youth.

CONCLUSION

EI is a set of mental abilities that relies on theboth the emotion and cognitive systems toenhance reasoning and solve emotion-ladenproblems. The MSCEIT, for adults, andMSCEIT-YV, for youth and adolescents, aretwo assessment tools that operationalizes EIas skills in four different domains: perceiving,using, understanding, and managing emotion.These tests require test-takers to apply theiremotion-related abilities to solve emotion-based problems. Although research on theMSCEIT and the MSCEIT-YV is still in a rel-atively early stage, what we know about theirreliability and validity is promising.

REFERENCES

Adams, S., Kuebli, J., Boyle, P.A. and Fivush, R.(1995) ‘Gender differences in parent-childconversations about past emotions: A longi-tudinal investigation’, Sex Roles, 33(5/6):309–23.

Alicke, M.D. (1985) ‘Global self-evaluation asdetermined by the desirability and controlla-bility of trait adjectives’, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 49(6):1621–30.

Averill, J.R. (2004) ‘A tale of two snarks:Emotional intelligence and emotional cre-ativity compared’, Psychological Inquiry,15(3): 228–33.

Bacon, M.K. and Ashmore, R.D. (1985) ‘Howmothers and fathers categorize descriptionsof social behavior attributed to daughtersand sons’, Social Cognition, 3(2): 193–217.

Bar-On, R. (1997) Bar-On Emotional QuotientInventory: Technical Manual. Toronto,Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Bar-On, R. (2004) ‘The Bar-On EmotionalQuotient Inventory (EQ-i): Rationale, descrip-tion, and summary of psychometric proper-ties’, in G. Geher (ed.), Measuring EmotionalIntelligence: Common Ground andControversy. Hauppauge, NY: Nova SciencePublishers. pp. 111–42.

Brackett, M.A., Cox, A., Gaines, S.O. andSalovey, P. (2005) ‘Emotional intelligence andrelationship quality among heterosexual couples’, unpublished manuscript.

Brackett, M.A. and Mayer, J.D. (2003)‘Convergent, discriminant, and incremen-tal validity of competing measures of emo-tional intelligence’, Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 29(9): 1147–58.

Brackett, M.A., Mayer, J.D. and Warner, R.M.(2004) ‘Emotional intelligence and its rela-tion to everyday behaviour’, Personality andIndividual Differences, 36(6): 1387–402.

Brackett, M.A., Rivers, S.E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N.and Salovey, P. (2006) ‘Relating emotionalabilities to social functioning: A comparisonof self-report and performance measures ofemotional intelligence’, Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 91(4): 780–95.

Brackett, M.A. and Salovey, P. (2004)‘Measuring emotional intelligence with the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso EmotionalIntelligence Test (MSCEIT)’, in G. Geher (ed.),Measuring Emotional Intelligence: CommonGround and Controversy. Happauge, NY:Nova Science Publishers. pp. 179–94.

Brackett, M.A., Warner, R.M. and Bosco, J.S.(2005) ‘Emotional intelligence and relation-ship quality among couples’, PersonalRelationships, 12(2): 197–212.

Brody, L.R. and Hall, J.A. (1993) ‘Gender andemotion’, in M. Lewis and J.M. Haviland(eds), Handbook of Emotions. New York:Guilford Press. pp. 447–60.

Brody, L.R. and Hall, J.A. (2000) ‘Gender, emo-tion, and expression’, in M. Lewis and J.M. Haviland (eds), Handbook of Emotions(2nd edition). New York: Guilford Press. pp.338–49.


9781412946520-Ch21 29/3/08 12:23 PM Page 456


Brody, N. (2004) ‘What cognitive intelligence isand what emotional intelligence is not’,Psychological Inquiry, 15(3): 234–8.

Cote, S. and Miners, C.T.H. (2006) ‘Emotionalintelligence, cognitive intelligence, and jobperformance’, Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 51(1): 1–28.

Custrini, R. and Feldman, R.S. (1989)‘Children’s social competence and non-verbal encoding and decoding of emotion.Journal of Child Clinical Psychology, 18(4):336–42.

Damasio, A.R. (1994) DeCartes’ Error: Emotion,Reason, and the Human Brain. New York:Grosset/Putnam.

David, S.A. (2005) Emotional Intelligence:Developmental Antecedents, Psychologicaland Social Outcomes. Melbourne: Universityof Melbourne, unpublished dissertation.

Day, A.L. (2004) ‘The measurement of emo-tional intelligence: The good, the bad, andthe ugly’, in G. Geher (ed.), MeasuringEmotional Intelligence: Common Groundand Controversy. Hauppauge: Nova SciencePublishers. pp. 239–64.

Dunn, E.W., Brackett, M.A., Ashton-James, C.,Schneiderman, E. and Salovey, P. (2007) ‘Onemotionally intelligent time travel: Individualdifferences in affective forecasting ability’,Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,33(1): 85–93.

Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J. andKruger, J. (2003) ‘Why people fail to recognizetheir own incompetence’, Current Directionsin Psychological Science, 12(3): 83–7.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B. et al.(1995) ‘The role of emotionality and regulationin children’s social functioning: A longitudinalstudy. Child Development, 66(5): 1360–84.

Ekman, P. (1973) Darwin and Facial Expression:A Century of Research in Review. Oxford:Academic Press.

Ekman, P. and Friesen, W.V. (1975) Unmaskingthe Face: A Guide to Recognizing Emotionsfrom Facial Clues. Oxford: Prentice-Hall.

Extremera, N., Fernandez-Berrocal, P. andSalovey, P. (2006) ‘Spanish version of theMayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional IntelligenceTest (MSCEIT) Version 2.0: Reliabilities, age,and gender differences’, Psicothema,18(suppl): 42–8.

Fivush, R. (1991) ‘Gender and emotion inmother-child conversations about the past’,

Journal of Narrative and Life History, 1(4):325–41.

Fivush, R. (1998) ‘Methodological challenges inthe study of emotional socialization’,Psychological Inquiry, 9(4): 281–3.

Fivush, R., Brotman, M.A., Buckner, J.P. andGoodman, S.H. (2000) ‘Gender differencesin parent-child emotion narratives’, SexRoles, 42(3-4): 233–53.

Fredrickson, B. L. (1998) ‘What good are positive emotions?’, Review of GeneralPsychology, 2(3): 300–19.

Frijda, N.H. and Mesquita, B. (1994) ‘The social roles and functions of emotions’, in S. Kitayama and H.R. Markus (eds), Emotionand Culture: Empirical Studies of MutualInfluence. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association. pp. 51–87.

Geher, G. and Renstrom, K. (2004) ‘Measure-ment issues in emotional intelligenceresearch’, in G. Geher (ed.), MeasuringEmotional Intelligence: Common Groundand Controversy. Hauppauge, NY: NovaScience Publishers. pp. 1–17.

Gibbs, N. (1995) ‘The EQ Factor’, TimeMagazine, 146 (October 2).

Gignac, G. E. (2005) ‘Evaluating the MSCEITV2.0 via CFA: Comment on Mayer et al.(2003)’, Emotion, 5(2): 233–5.

Gil-Olarte Marquez, P., Palomera Martin, R. andBrackett, M.A. (2006) ‘Relating emotionalintelligence to social competences, and aca-demic achievement among high school stu-dents’, Psicothema, 18(suppl): 118–23.

Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self inEveryday Life. New York: Doubleday Anchor.

Gross, J. J. (1998) ‘The emerging field of emo-tion regulation: An integrative review’,Review of General Psychology, 2(3): 271–99.

Hochschild, A. (1983) The Managed Heart:Commercialization of Human Feeling.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Isen, A.M. (1987) ‘Positive affect, cognitiveprocesses, and social behavior’, in L.Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in ExperimentalSocial Psychology, vol. 20. San Diego, CA:Academic Press. pp. 203–53.

Isen, A.M. and Daubman, K.A. (1984) ‘Theinfluence of affect on categorization’,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,47(6): 1206–17.

Isen, A.M., Daubman, K.A. and Nowicki, G.P.(1987) ‘Positive affect facilitates creative

9781412946520-Ch21 29/3/08 12:23 PM Page 457

problem solving’, Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 52(6): 1122–31.

Jausovec, N. and Jausovec, K. (2005)‘Differences in induced gamma and upperalpha oscillations in the human brain relatedto verbal/performance and emotional intelli-gence’, International Journal ofPsychophysiology, 56(3): 223–35.

Jausovec, N., Jausovec, K. and Gerlic, I. (2001)‘Differences in event-related and inducedelectroencephalography patterns in thetheta and alpha frequency bands related tohuman emotional intelligence’,Neuroscience Letters, 311(2): 93–6.

Keltner, D. and Kring, A.M. (1998) ‘Emotion,social function, and psychopathology’,Review of General Psychology, 2(3): 320–42.

Lazarus, R.S. (1991) Emotion and Adaptation.New York: Oxford University Press.

Legree, P.J. (1995) ‘Evidence for an obliquesocial intelligence factor established with aLikert-based testing procedure’, Intelligence,21(3): 247–66.

Legree, P.J., Psotka, J., Tremble, T. and Bourne,D.R. (2005) ‘Using consensus based meas-urement to assess emotional intelligence’, inR. Schulze and R.D. Roberts (eds), EmotionalIntelligence: An International Handbook.Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & HuberPublishers. pp. 155–79.

Livingstone, H.A. and Day, A.L. (2005)‘Comparing the construct and criterion-related validity of ability-based and mixed model measures of emotional intelli-gence’, Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, 65(5): 757–79.

Lopes, P.N., Brackett, M.A., Nezlek, J.B.,Schutz, A., Sellin, I. and Salovey, P. (2004)‘Emotional intelligence and social interac-tion’, Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 30(8): 1018–34.

Lopes, P.N., Cote, S. and Salovey, P. (2006) ‘Anability model of emotional intelligence:Implications for assessment and training’, inV. Druskat, F. Sala and G. Mount (eds),Linking Emotional Intelligence andPerformance at Work. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 53–80.

Lopes, P.N., Salovey, P. and Straus, R. (2003)‘Emotional intelligence, personality, and theperceived quality of social relationships’,Personality and Individual Differences, 35(3):641–58.

Mabe, P.A. and West, S.G. (1982) ‘Validity ofself-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis’, Journal of Applied Psychology,67(3): 280–96.

MacCann, C., Matthews, G., Zeidner, M. andRoberts, R.D. (2004) ‘The assessment ofemotional intelligence: On frameworks, fis-sures, and the future’, in G. Geher (ed.),Measuring Emotional Intelligence: CommonGround and Controversy. Hauppauge, NY:Nova Science Publishing. pp. 19–50.

Matthews, G., Zeidner, M. and Roberts, R.D.(2002) Emotional Intelligence: Science andMyth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R. and Salovey, P. (1999)‘Emotional intelligence meets traditionalstandards for an intelligence’, Intelligence,27(4): 267–98.

Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R. and Salovey, P.(2005a) The Mayer-Salovey-CarusoEmotional Intelligence Test-Youth Version(MSCEIT-YV), Research Version. Toronto:Multi Health Systems.

Mayer, J.D., Panter, A., Salovey, P., Caruso, D.R.and Sitarenios, G. (2005b) ‘A discrepancy inanalyses of the MSCEIT – Resolving the mys-tery and understanding its implications: Areply to Gignac (2005)’, Emotion, 5(2): 236–7.

Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1997) ‘What is emo-tional intelligence?’, in P. Salovey and D.J. Sluyter (eds), Emotional Development andEmotional Intelligence: EducationalImplications. New York: Basic Books. pp. 3–34.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D.R.(1997a). Emotional IQ Test [CD-ROM].Needham, MA: Virtual Knowledge.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D.R.(1997b) Multifactor Emotional IntelligenceScale, Student Version. Durham, NH.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D.R.(2002a) The Mayer-Salovey-CarusoEmotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT), Version2.0. Toronto: Multi Health Systems.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D.R. (2002b)Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional IntelligenceTest (MSCEIT): User’s Manual. NorthTonawanda, New York: Multi-Health Systems.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D.R. (2004)‘Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings, and implications’, Psychological Inquiry, 15:197–215.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D.R. andSitarenios, G. (2001) ‘Emotional intelligence


9781412946520-Ch21 29/3/08 12:23 PM Page 458

as a standard intelligence’, Emotion, 3(1):232–42.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D.R. andSitarenios, G. (2003) ‘Measuring emotionalintelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0’, Emotion,3(1): 97–105.

Mestre, J.M., Guil, R., Lopes, P.N., Salovey, P.and Gil-Olarte, P. (2006) ‘Emotional intelli-gence and social and academic adaptationto school’, Psicothema, 18(suppl): 112–17.

Nowicki, S. and Mitchell, J. (1998) ‘Accuracy inidentifying affect in child and adult faces andvoices and social competence in preschoolchildren’, Genetic, Social, and GeneralPsychology Monographs, 124(1): 39–59.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978) Psychometric Theory.New York: McGraw-Hill.

O’Connor, R.M., Jr. and Little, I.S. (2003)‘Revisiting the predictive validity of emo-tional intelligence: Self-report versus ability-based measures’, Personality and IndividualDifferences, 35(8): 1893–902.

O’Sullivan, M. and Ekman, P. (2004) ‘Facialexpression recognition and emotional intelligence’, in G. Geher (ed.), EmotionalIntelligence: Common Ground andControversy. Hauppauge, NY: Nova SciencePublishers. pp. 89–109.

Omori, M., Rivers, S.E., Brackett, M.A. andSalovey, P. (2006) ‘Emotion skills as a protec-tive factor for risky behaviors among collegestudents’, unpublished manuscript.

Palfai, T.P. and Salovey, P. (1993) ‘The influenceof depressed and elated mood on deductiveand inductive reasoning’, Imagination,Cognition and Personality, 13(1): 57–71.

Palmer, B.R., Gignac, G., Monocha, R. andStough, C. (2005) ‘A psychometric evalua-tion of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso EmotionalIntelligence Test version 2.0’, Intelligence,33(3): 285–305.

Paulhus, D.L., Lysy, D.C. and Yik, M.S.M.(1998) ‘Self-report measures of intelligence:Are they useful as proxy IQ tests? Journal ofPersonality, 66(4): 525–54.

Reis, D.L., Brackett, M.A., Shamosh, N.A.,Kiehl, K.A., Salovey, P. and Gray, J.R. (2007)‘Emotional intelligence predicts individualdifferences in social exchange reasoning’,Neuro Image, 35(3): 1385–91.

Reynolds, C.R. and Kamphaus, R.W. (1992)Behavior Assessment System for Children.Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Reynolds, C.R. and Kamphaus, R.W. (2004)Behavior Assessment System for Children(2nd edition). Circle Pines, MN: AGSPublishing.

Rivers, S.E., Brackett, M.A. and Salovey, P.(2006) ‘Emotional intelligence and its rela-tions to social, emotional, and academic out-comes among adolescents’, unpublishedmanuscript.

Rivers, S.E., Brackett, M.A., Salovey, P. andMayer, J.D. (2007) ‘Measuring emotionalintelligence as a set of mental abilities’, in G. Matthews, M. Zeidner and R.D. Roberts (eds), The Science ofEmotional Intelligence. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, pp. 230–57.

Roberts, R.D., Schulze, R., O’Brien, K.,MacCann, C., Reid, J. and Maul, A. (2006)‘Exploring the validity of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT)with established emotions measures’,Emotion, 6(4): 663–9.

Roberts, R.D., Zeidner, M. and Matthews, G.(2001) ‘Does emotional intelligence meettraditional standards for an intelligence?Some new data and conclusions’, Emotion,1(3): 196–231.

Rosete, D. and Ciarrochi, J. (2005) ‘Emotionalintelligence and its relationship to workplaceperformance outcomes of leadership effec-tiveness’, Leadership and OrganizationDevelopment Journal, 26(5): 388–99.

Ryff, C.D. (1989) ‘Happiness is everything, or isit? Explorations on the meaning of psycho-logical well-being’, Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 57(6): 1069–81.

Saarni, C. (1999) The Development of EmotionalCompetence. New York: Guilford Press.

Salovey, P. and Grewal, D. (2005) ‘The scienceof emotional intelligence’, Current Directionsin Psychological Science, 14(6): 281–5.

Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990) ‘Emotionalintelligence’, Imagination, Cognition andPersonality, 9(3): 185–211.

Scherer, K.R., Banse, R. and Wallbott, H.G.(2001) ‘Emotion inferences from vocalexpression correlate across languages andcultures’, Journal of Cross CulturalPsychology, 32(1): 76–92.

Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E.,Haggerty, D.J., Cooper, J.T., Golden, C.J, andDornheim, L. (1998) ‘Development and validation of a measure of emotional


9781412946520-Ch21 29/3/08 12:23 PM Page 459

intelligence’, Personality and IndividualDifferences, 25(2): 167–77.

Schwarz, N. (1990) ‘Feelings as information:Informational and motivational functions ofaffective states’, in E.T. Higgins and R.M.Sorrentino (eds), Handbook of Motivation andCognition: Foundations of Social Behavior (Vol.2). New York: Guilford Press. pp. 528–61.

Schwarz, N. and Clore, G.L. (1996) ‘Feelingsand phenomenal experiences’, in E.T. Higgins and A.W. Kruglanski (eds), SocialPsychology: Handbook of Basic Principles.New York: Guilford Press. pp. 433–65.

Shields, S.A. (2002) Speaking From the Heart:Gender and the Social Meaning of Emotion.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Trinidad, D.R. and Johnson, C.A. (2002) ‘Theassociation between emotional intelligenceand early adolescent tobacco and alcoholuse’, Personality and Individual Differences,32(1): 95–105.

Van Rooy, D.L. and Viswesvaran, C. (2004)‘Emotional intelligence: A meta-analyticinvestigation of predictive validity and nomo-logical net’, Journal of Vocational Behavior,65(1): 71–95.

Warwick, J. and Nettelbeck, T. (2004)‘Emotional intelligence is…?’, Person-ality and Individual Differences, 37(5):1091–100.

Yuste, C. (2002) Inteligencia General Factorial-Revisada 5 (IGF-r 5). Madrid: EOS.


9781412946520-Ch21 29/3/08 12:23 PM Page 460

The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and...

Documents

Transcript of The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and...