The Building Blocks of Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence as a practical concept revolutionized the way people view intelligence. This page looks at a brief history of the theories and research that informed the creation and use of the EQ-i® 2.0.
Intelligence has traditionally been defined as the capacity to understand, learn, recall, think rationally, solve problems, and apply what one has learned (Kaplan & Sadock, 1991). This capacity has conventionally been measured by cognitive intelligence or “IQ” (Intelligence Quotient).
Two of the most popular intelligence tests are the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. The former instrument was the first, developed in 1905 and published in 1916 (Terman, 1916). The Wechsler scale was developed in 1939 (Wechsler, 1939) and has evolved over the years, with the fourth edition released in 2008.
David Wechsler’s definition of “general intelligence” is perhaps the most useful, because it lends itself to the consideration of other forms of intelligence in addition to cognitive intelligence. He viewed this concept as the “aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his (her) environment” (Wechsler, 1958, p.7). In essence, this includes the ability to adapt to new situations and to cope with life circumstances successfully. Within this broad definition and wide conceptual framework it is possible to consider the notion of emotional intelligence. In fact, Wechsler discussed these “non-intellective” factors in general intelligence as early as 1940 (Wechsler, 1940). Although he concentrated his own work more on the “intellective” (or cognitive) aspects of intelligence, he was always clear about the existence and the importance of the non-cognitive component of general intelligence. Wechsler’s foresight and recognition of the importance of emotional intelligence is evident in his writings:
The main question is whether non-intellective, that is, affective and cognitive abilities are admissible as factors of general intelligence. The contention of this paper has been that such factors are not only admissible, but necessary. I have tried to show that in addition to intellective there are also definite non-intellective factors that determine intelligent behavior. If the foregoing observations are correct, it follows that we cannot expect to measure total intelligence until our tests also include some measures of the non-intellective factors (Wechsler, 1943, p. 103).
In 1948, Leeper proposed that “emotional thought” is part of and contributes to “logical thought” and intelligence in general. These early proposals were succeeded nearly half a century later by the ideas of Harvard University’s Howard Gardner, who broadened the way people have traditionally considered cognitive intelligence since the early twentieth century (Gardner, 1983). Gardner believes intelligence encompasses multiple dimensions, combining a variety of cognitive aspects with elements of emotional intelligence (or “personal intelligence,” as he called it). The emotional (or personal) dimension of his concept of “multiple intelligence” includes two general components that he referred to as “intrapsychic capacities” and “interpersonal skills.”
The concept of emotional intelligence has brought new depth to the understanding of human intelligence; it enhanced the ability to evaluate one’s general or overall intelligence. Not unlike cognitive intelligence, however, emotional intelligence has been difficult to define. Broadly speaking, emotional intelligence addresses the emotional, personal, social, and survival dimensions of intelligence, which are often more important for daily functioning than the more traditional cognitive aspects of intelligence. Emotional intelligence is concerned with understanding oneself and others, relating to people, and adapting to and coping with the immediate surroundings in order to be more successful in dealing with environmental demands. Emotional intelligence is tactical (immediate functioning), while cognitive intelligence is strategic (long-term capacity). Emotional intelligence helps to predict success, because it reflects how a person applies knowledge to the immediate situation. In a way, to measure emotional intelligence is to measure one’s “common sense” and ability to get along in the world.
The evolution of the EQ-i as an assessment of emotional intelligence began in 1980 with the independent development of a theoretically eclectic and multifactorial approach to operationally defining and measuring emotional intelligence. The seminal work of Bar-On (1980) was inspired by his work as a clinical psychologist, with the goal of answering the question, “Why do some people have better psychological well-being than others?” This question ultimately expanded into, “Why are some individuals better able to succeed in life than others?” These questions commanded a thorough review of the factors (emotional skills) thought to determine general success, in addition to maintaining positive emotional health. It soon became clear that the key to determining and predicting success is not cognitive intelligence alone, as many cognitively intelligent people flounder in life, while many less cognitively intelligent individuals succeed and prosper. During the 3-year period between 1983 and 1986 while he completed his doctoral studies in South Africa, Bar-On had directed his efforts at identifying the most important factors involved in coping with environmental demands, at which point his research revealed a non-significant relationship between cognitive intelligence and emotional intelligence.
The second phase of Bar-On’s research was conducted in Israel during the latter part of 1986 through late 1993. The third and final stage of Bar-On’s research, that led to the first commercial version of the EQ-i, began in 1994. This stage involved the continued examination of the EQ-i components to describe and measure the various subsets of emotional intelligence on a more diverse population. Collaborative research projects were conducted throughout Argentina, Canada, Germany, Great Britain, India, Israel, Nigeria, the Philippines, South Africa, Sweden, and the United States. These early development stages of the EQ-i included over 10,000 people from around the world.
Psychologists continued to challenge the conventional view of intelligence. John Mayer at the University of New Hampshire and Peter Salovey at Yale University concentrated their research efforts on the “emotional” aspect of intelligence (Mayer, 1986; Mayer, DiPalo & Salovey, 1990; Mayer, Mamberg & Volanth, 1988; Mayer & Salovey, 1988, 1993, 1995; Mayer, Salovey, Gomberg-Kauffman & Blainey, 1991; Mayer & Volanth, 1985; Salovey & Birnbaum, 1989; Salovey, Hsee & Mayer, 1993; Salovey & Mayer, 1990; Salovey, Mayer & Rosenhan, 1991; Salovey & Rodin, 1985). They expanded upon Gardner’s approach and looked primarily at six components of “emotional intelligence” that are very similar to what Bar-On (1997) refers to as Emotional Self-Awareness, Assertiveness, Empathy, Interpersonal Relationship, Stress Tolerance, and Impulse Control. Of the 15 factors underlying the EQ-i, 11 factors had been at the forefront of Bar-On’s research for nearly two decades. The 15 factors of the original EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) and their abbreviations are in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1. 15 Factors of the Original EQ-i
Intrapersonal Components
|
Interpersonal Components
|
Adaptability Components
|
Stress Management Components
|
General Mood Components
|
Copyright © 2011 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved. Based on the original BarOn EQ-i authored by Reuven Bar-On, copyright 1997.
The release of Daniel Goleman’s (1995) Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More than IQ served to popularize the construct of emotional intelligence, rendering it a hot topic among academics, coaches, consultants, psychologists, and the layperson alike, thereby paving the way for—and in some cases creating a demand for—a valid and reliable measure of EI. The extensive work of Reuven Bar-On culminated in 1997 with the release of the first psychometrically valid and reliable measure of emotional intelligence, the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997).
The term emotional intelligence (EI) has significantly evolved since the first release of the EQ-i, enduring rigorous debate over how to define it, how to measure it, whether it can be developed, and whether or not it adds incremental value over and above personality and IQ. This intense scrutiny of EI helped to refine the construct; not only has EI endured, its utility is more deeply understood, and its use more widespread. As a result, the operational definition of emotional intelligence as it relates to the EQ-i 2.0 is:
…a set of emotional and social skills that influence the way we perceive and express ourselves, develop and maintain social relationships, cope with challenges, and use emotional information in an effective and meaningful way.”
The following section will take a detailed look at the rich empirical support for the EQ-i that provided the foundation for developing the EQ-i 2.0.
Interest in the EQ-i has steadily increased since its release in 1997. The energy created and sustained by it is evidenced by the number of publications applying or investigating the EQ-i, including books (13), trade publications (countless), dissertations (77), and peer-reviewed articles (71). The EQ-i also garnered attention in several peer-reviewed journal Special Issues including Emotion, Psychological Inquiry, and the Journal of Organizational Behavior. The EQ-i has captured the attention of researchers and practitioners worldwide. It can be employed in many ways and in a variety of settings (see the Introduction for the applications of the EQ-i 2.0 across different settings). This section will take a detailed look at the rich research applications of the EQ-i across varied domains ranging from well-being and resilience to performance success and leadership.
Well-Being
The EQ-i evolved from a research question Dr. Reuven Bar-On proposed 25 years ago: “Why do some people have better psychological well-being than others?” Since then an entire body of research has developed, investigating the links between EI and well-being, generally concluding that EI is a beneficial predictor of emotional and psychological health and well-being (e.g., Martins et al., 2010; Yalcin et al., 2008).
Psychological well-being is defined as one’s overall psychological condition, which has widespread cognitive, emotional and behavioral implications (Bar-On, 1992). In the development and establishment of the EQ-i’s construct validity, relationships between psychological well-being and the various EQ-i subscales were examined. At the time, self-regard, interpersonal relationship, independence, assertiveness, self-actualization, happiness, problem-solving, stress tolerance, impulse control and reality testing were the most valid and reliable elements of psychological well-being (Bar-On, 1992). Additional facets of emotional intelligence (e.g., emotional self-awareness, empathy, optimism) were later included in Bar-On’s research and added to the conceptual model of the EQ-i, which further helped support the link between emotional intelligence and well-being (Goleman, 1995).
Overall EI has been shown to be correlated with some of the best measures of emotional functioning, such as emotional stability (positive relationship), apprehension (inverse relationship), and tension (inverse relationship) as measured by the 16PF (Bar-On, 2002). Moreover, high negative correlations were discovered between total EI and strong indicators of pathology such as anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia, and borderline features as measured with the PAI (Bar-On, 2002). Along a similar investigative vein, mean scores on the current EQ-i 2.0 were higher for the general population group than depressed/dysthymic and other clinical groups (e.g., schizophrenia) and each difference approached or exceeded a medium effect size (see Standardization, Reliability, and Validity).
Particularly in the case of the EQ-i, a meta-analysis conducted by Schutte et al. (2007) showed that the EQ-i, with an average effect size of .49, had a stronger association with measures of mental health than did other measures of EI (i.e., Trait Meta Mood Scale, Salovey et al., 1995; Assessing Emotions Scale, Schutte et al., 1998). More recently, another meta-analysis examining different measures of EI on a more globally diverse sample, concluded that the EQ-i had a similar association of .44 with measures of health (Martins et al., 2010). These two larger meta-analyses summarize years of research showing that the EQ-i can be beneficial in predicting psychological health outcomes in various settings. For instance, the EQ-i has proven to be valuable when examining the psychological adjustment of children with cancer. Regardless of the stage of illness or gender, children suffering from cancer who have higher emotional intelligence scores demonstrate better psychological adjustment and have stronger functioning of internalizing and externalizing behaviors (Haffey, 2007). Similar findings were observed in a control group study of adults with Type 2 diabetes who reported increased well-being, quality of life, and emotional intelligence after participating in a targeted EI development program (Yalcin, 2008).
Resilience
Emotional intelligence has at its core the ability to use emotions to effectively cope with challenges. This includes the capacity to choose among a repertoire of coping strategies (flexibility and stress tolerance), display a positive disposition towards your situation and change in general (optimism), and feel that you can calmly influence a stressful situation without being derailed by your emotions (problem solving).
As alluded to in the history of the EQ-i, coping with and remaining resilient in the face of demands and pressures have always been integral components of this assessment and, as such, much research has been conducted into whether EI supports resilience and coping in the face of stress in various situations and environments (e.g., workplace stress, physiological illness).
If emotional intelligence is central to how we cope, we would expect individuals with high EI to be more likely to use adaptive coping styles than maladaptive styles. Research has shown that the EQ-i is a positive predictor in using adaptive coping styles (“rational” and “detached”) and a negative predictor in using maladaptive coping styles (“emotional” and “avoidance”) (Petrides et al., 2007). Furthermore, this research suggests that EI is a predictor of coping style selection above any effects contributed by personality (e.g., the Big Five). This incremental finding supports the notion that since EI is amenable to coaching and development, by focusing training efforts here (rather than at personality characteristics), individuals become better equipped to identify emotions and choose effective coping strategies to remain resilient in the face of stress. In a study of school principals, significant positive relationships were found between EQ-i scores and principals’ resilience, with General Mood being a significant predictor of resilience (Bumphus, 2009). This type of research, linking the EQ-i to resilience, helps to shed light on the far-reaching effects emotional intelligence can have, not only on retaining top employees, but also on ensuring they are equipped to weather the inherent stressors that come with their roles. The EQ-i has also been shown to measure one’s ability to cope with the stressful environmental demands of adjusting to a new country (Bar-On, 1997), where Total EQ was shown to be positively related to acculturation (i.e., adjustment to a new environment) and emotional health.
Seligman’s term “learned optimism” may help explain why emotional intelligence is related to resilience in the face of stress. Learned optimists, when confronted with pressure or challenges, tend to make specific, temporary, and external attributions about their situation; pessimists make more enduring, global internal attributions about a stressor (Seligman, 2006). Various studies have shown the impact of optimism (one of the subscales of the EQ-i) and the ability to handle stress on performance in education settings (Schulman, 1995) and on job performance, as indicated by variables such as net sales (Lusch and Serpkenci, 1990; Schulman, 1995).
Overall, recognizing and identifying emotions and the way they manifest themselves in physiological symptoms, as well as managing these emotions, can help individuals recognize when they are stressed and, thus, reduce the chance of burnout. In a study examining coping with occupational stress, low to moderate positive correlations were found between EQ-i subscales and purposeful task-orientated efforts aimed at solving problems (as measured by the CISS; Endler & Parker, 1990, 1994); whereas low to moderate negative correlations were found between the subscales and emotional reactions to stressful situations (e.g., becoming angry or preoccupied) (Bar-On, 1997). Task-orientated coping tends to be related to adaptive outcomes in contrast to the nonadaptive outcomes of depression and anxiety associated with emotion coping processes.
Leadership
Leadership is one of the most intensely studied topics in the behavioral/organizational sciences. While research has increased our understanding of effective leadership in terms of personal characteristics and behavior, Barrow (1977) asserted that it is difficult to demonstrate whether leaders’ behavior has an impact on the performance of others or whether group productivity is the result of a multitude of other interactive forces. In this section, behaviors that have been associated with leadership effectiveness are identified, and research findings are presented that demonstrate how emotional intelligence both influences leadership and predicts leadership success or derailment.
The literature that examines the interrelationships between the variables involved in effective leadership supports a multidimensional approach to describing leadership behavior (Barrow, 1977). Early research in this area conducted at Ohio State University (Fleishman, 1953; Halpin, 1954; Stogdill & Coons, 1957) extracted, through factor analysis, nine dimensions of leadership behavior: initiation, membership, representation, integration, organization, domination, communication, recognition, and production. Two factors emerged that accounted for most of the variance: (1) initiating structure (the degree to which the leader focuses on activities such as assigning tasks and specifying procedures for group members), and (2) consideration (the degree to which the leader helps create an atmosphere that is warm, trusting, and supportive).
Researchers at the University of Michigan (Likert, 1961; Tannenbaum, 1966) classified leadership behavior in terms of two basic dimensions: (1) employee orientation, and (2) production orientation. According to this approach, the employee-oriented leader involves subordinates in decision making and includes them in goal setting. On the other hand, the production-oriented leader focuses on task organization, specification of procedures in order to complete the task, and setting precise work standards. These two studies represented major breakthroughs in the study of leadership.
Research in the area of leadership eventually changed its focus from examining behavioral dimensions to distinguishing between effective and ineffective leadership. Fiedler (1967) was one of the first researchers to study whether personal or situational characteristics are more important determinants of effective leadership than other characteristics. In his contingency model there are two basic aspects of leadership effectiveness: (a) relationship-motivated, and (b) task-motivated. While relationship-motivated leaders are primarily concerned with developing supportive group relationships, task-motivated leaders focus on task accomplishment. Leadership situations are defined on a continuum of favorability, with task-motivated leaders being more effective in highly favorable or unfavorable situations, and relationship-motivated leaders more effective in the mid-range of situation favorability. According to the contingency theory, individuals should be placed in situations that are best suited for their leadership characteristics.
One of the more current approaches to leadership focuses on transformational leadership. As its name implies, transformational leadership looks at the process of changing and transforming individuals. Burns (1978) described transformational leadership as a process in which leaders and subordinates raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation. Transformational leaders motivate individuals to perform beyond baseline expectations, arouse dormant needs in their subordinates, and regulate emotions. Emotional intelligence is thought to play a particularly important role in transforming others. Transformational leaders often seek to empower subordinates, which increases subordinate commitment. An effective transformational leader knows how emotions affect others’ interactions, whom others will follow, and how to make decisions. Transformational leaders are also able to understand and manage their own emotions, making it possible for them to be flexible and creative in their decision making, consider alternative approaches, and have the self-confidence needed to take action (Bass & Avolio, 1997).
Emotional intelligence as measured by the EQ-i contains a number of factors that have been identified as integral to effective leadership (Hansen, 2010; Jasvinder, 2010; Jerome, 2010), including the Interpersonal aspects of the EQ-i (Bumphus, 2009; Cavins, 2006; Hayashi, 2006), Stress Management (Cavins, 2006; Morehouse, 2007), Adaptability (Cavins, 2006; Morehouse, 2007), Empathy (Cavins, 2006), Optimism (Dries & Pepermans, 2007; Hayashi, 2006), Assertiveness (Dries & Pepermans, 2007; Gasiorowska, 2007), Independence (Dries & Pepermans, 2007), Flexibility (Dries & Pepermans, 2007), Self-Actualization (Gasiorowka, 2007), Problem Solving (Cavins, 2006; Gasiorowka, 2007), and Social Responsibility (Cavins, 2006; Dries & Pepermans, 2007). Despite the positive relationship between EI and leadership, the debate continues as to the depth and breadth of that relationship. Although ample empirical support is readily available in support of this EI-leadership connection, a number of independent studies have suggested a weak relationship between the two (Brown, Bryant, & Reilly, 2006; Milhoan, 2008; Noland, 2009; Oney, 2010; Snuggs, 2007).
The application of meta-analytic techniques is an effective method for empirically evaluating the breadth of research addressing the relationship between EI and Leadership. Rosenthal (1995) nicely describes the importance and utility of meta-analytic reviews as:
…quantitative summaries of research domains that describe the strength of the effect or phenomenon, its variability, its statistical significance, & the nature of the moderator variables from which one can predict the relative strength of the effect or phenomenon (Rosenthal, 1995).
In other words, a meta-analysis is the ‘study of studies’ that helps to remove the subjective interpretation around inconsistent research findings. Two independent meta-analyses have been conducted addressing the link between emotional intelligence as measured by the EQ-i and leadership. In a study conducted by Martin (2008), a strong positive relationship was found linking emotional intelligence to leadership. A second meta-analysis conducted by Harms and Crede (2010), further supports the link between emotional intelligence and leadership, specifically transformational leadership, when taking into account same-source raters (consistent raters of emotional intelligence and leadership).
Overall, the link between emotional intelligence and leadership is meaningful. Many variables such as empathy, self-awareness, and self-regard share a strong connection with transformational leadership. The EQ-i offers an assessment of the factors of emotional intelligence that are empirically linked to specific behaviors of successful leaders. As such, the EQ-i shows promise as a useful tool for coaching and developing effective leaders.
Personality
There has been some debate over whether the characteristics of emotional intelligence differ from traditional models of personality (most notably the Big Five, 16 PF and MBTI models), and if such a difference should exist, does EI add practical and incremental value over such personality measures?
The EQ-i was originally developed to measure a number of key “factors” that were related to psychological well-being, so there is little doubt that there will be some associations between emotional intelligence and personality. The caution here is that while EI can be related to various personality traits or types, it should be a distinct construct in and of itself, adding to our understanding of performance above and beyond that which is contributed by personality. Independent studies have shown mixed results on the distinctness of EI from personality. Ciarrochi et al. (2001), Davies et al. (1998) and Livingstone and Day (2005) showed strong overlap between EI and personality. Davies noted, for instance, that only a small amount of uniqueness remains in EI after removing the overlap contributed by personality.
Conversely, other independent researchers have concluded that EI can be separated and viewed as a distinct construct from personality (Petrides, Furnham, 2001) and that although relationships exist, EI can predict performance above and beyond measures of personality (Van Rooy and Viswesvaran, 2004; van der Zee & Wabeke, 2004). In the case of the Big Five, the EQ-i significantly explained variance in job competency performance after controlling for the Big Five (van der Zee & Wabeke, 2004). Researchers have also found relationships, but not complete overlap, between MBTI personality preferences and elements of the EQ-i. For example, people with a preference for extraversion tend to have higher results in Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Adaptability and General Mood Composite scales as well as higher Total EI results (Leary et al., 2009; Torrington, 2001; Farnsworth et al., 2002). There also emerges a positive correlation between a preference for feeling and the Interpersonal Composite which contains the elements of Empathy, Interpersonal Relationship, and Social Responsibility (Leary et al., 2009).
An independent meta-analysis helps to bring clarity to the debate (Rosenthal, 1991), concluding that there is likely more overlap between EI and personality than both researchers and EI practitioners would like; EI does add incremental validity over personality, yet personality failed to add incremental validity over emotional intelligence (Van Rooy and Viswesvaran, 2004). In this meta-analysis, Van Rooy and Viswesvaran found significant positive correlations between EI and each of the Big Five factors, ranging from .23 (Agreeableness, Openness to Experience) to .34 (Extraversion). Similar (albeit a bit stronger) correlations were found when examining the relationship between the EQ-i 2.0 and the Big Five personality traits, ranging from .10 (Openness to Experience) to .61 (Conscientiousness), and a negative relationship was found between Neuroticism and Total EI (-.71). However, as will be discussed in the next section, EI’s advantage over personality measures is that it is dynamic and can be improved through coaching, training and development, whereas people tend to feel “stuck” with the personality type or trait they are dealt (Stein & Book, 2006).
Training and Development
One advantage that the EQ-i has over any measure of personality is that the skills and behaviors measured by the EQ-i can be enhanced, whereas personality is largely viewed as a stable and relatively fixed characteristic of the way one functions in most situations, most of the time. For this reason, EI can be used to “translate” desired personality characteristics into skills and behaviors that are more amenable to coaching and training. There is a rabid market for training emotional intelligence; EI consulting and training thrives on the very notion that an individual’s EI can be enhanced through personal development. Goleman (1998) suggested that as many as four out of every five companies have efforts directed at improving the EI of their employees, with such end goals as increased customer service (Cavelzani, et al. 2003) and performance on cross-cultural projects (Gabel et al., 2005). Coaches, consultants, and HR professionals have a responsibility to become educated consumers and purveyors of responsible practice. Understanding the mechanisms involved in developing emotional intelligence is the first step to a successful training program. Independent research on the EQ-i generally supports the notion that EI is amenable to change (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2004; Fletcher et al., 2009), and that training programs do not simply result in higher EI scores, but rather practical behavioral change with implications for enhanced well-being, performance, and satisfaction.
Dulewicz and Higgs (2004) reported a number of significant changes in EQ-i scores from pre-test to post-test in a study of retail managers. Managers were part of a dedicated EI training program that met 1 day per week for 4 weeks with a 1 week hiatus between meetings to allow for the deliberate practice of the recently introduced EI behaviors. All training included the use of lectures, videos, practical exercises, role plays, and journaling, with emphasis placed on self-awareness, detachment, emotion regulation, emotion recognition, and empathy. Dulewicz et al. (2004) found that 8 out of the 15 subscales on the EQ-i were strengthened. Subscales such as Assertiveness, Self-Regard, Empathy, and Optimism all improved in the participants exposed to the training program, while no differences were evident in the control group.
Fletcher et al., (2009) demonstrated that emotional intelligence was modestly enhanced in UK medical students who were exposed to a 7-month EI training program that consisted of a 1 to 4 hour training session every month for 7 months. Two groups, a training group and a control group, completed the EQ-i on two separate occasions, with a comparison of pre- and post- test results nearing a 10-point difference on the total EQ-i score. A difference of this magnitude has been linked to meaningful and often observable behavior change (Bar-On, 1997). Similarly, Chang (2007) using an applied behavioral self-modification technique with students in a semester-long Psychology of Adjustment course focusing on assertiveness, empathy, self-regard, and emotion management, reporting meaningful improvement on post-test EQ-i scores. Meanwhile Sadri, Akbarzadeh, and Poushaneh (2009) reported elevated EI scores in male and female high school students after a 12-week training session.
The link between emotional intelligence and enhanced functioning and well-being lends itself to the ideal of training and development. Given that the application of deliberate EI training programs can yield noticeable differences in EI awareness and application, the utility of the EQ-i appears to extend beyond simply gaining insight into one’s persona, to provide a framework by which one can maximize his or her potential.
Performance
The complex and unpredictable nature of high-pressure performance inside and outside of the sporting arena can prompt a heightened level of emotional reactivity, and the inability to cope may lead to undesirable and often unpredictable outcomes. A primary objective of performance psychology is to identify the intrapersonal characteristics and situational variables that interact to influence performance. Although much interest has been directed toward the situational factors affecting performance, it is of utmost importance to examine how dispositional variables (e.g., self-regard, optimism) mitigate these situational factors, as well as how the interaction between dispositional variables may in fact permit increases in meaningful and sustainable behavior change. Given the interactive effects of dispositional factors— of which emotion is of primary interest —and the vast array of situational variables facing the performer, inconsistent performance should not be altogether surprising. However, if we can better understand the mechanisms responsible for mediating the intrapersonal, interpersonal and situational variables affecting high-pressure behavior, we can better account for the interactive effects of the environment and dispositional characteristics on performance, permitting the development of a meaningful intervention. The construct of emotional intelligence (EI), which has received attention in both applied and academic text, has been demonstrated to offer such mediating effects.
Research has demonstrated that enhanced EI can augment human performance and the many tertiary factors related to success such as stress management, self-regard, flexibility, and optimism. Given that the ability to understand and manage emotional information is a critical component of performance, the incorporation of the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) into applied practice provides an effective framework for skill development and performance enhancement.
For example, Perlini and Halverson (2006), in a study of National Hockey League (NHL) players, reported that these individuals score above the normative sample on total EQ-i and on three of the five composite measures, including the Intrapersonal, Stress Management, and the General Mood composites. This finding suggests that how an athlete perceives him or herself regulates the stress associated with elite-level performance, and how equipped he or she is with coping skills can translate into enhanced performance. However, an investigation of NCAA Division 1 athletes reported no differences in emotional intelligence between athletes and the normative population (Schwartz, 2008). Although such results are conflicting, it can be argued that performing at a truly elite level, such as in the NHL, requires a different set of skills than is required to perform at the collegiate level.
Pre-competition anxiety has often been associated with performance decrements in elite sport associated with the misallocation of attention, ineffective energy management, and decreased confidence. Independent sport research has reported that those athletes with higher levels of EI report less pre-competition anxiety in the moments leading up to competition (Lu, Li, Hsu, & Williams, 2010). The strong relationship between the Intrapersonal, Interpersonal and Stress Management Composite scales suggests that emotional intelligence can help mitigate the negative effects of performance anxiety. Similar results have been reported with combat sports (Gervais, 2008), golfers (Mousseau, 2008), and pilots (Logan, Papadogiannis, Stein, & Gorewhich, 2008).
The link between emotion and attention has been long considered an integral component of performance success (Nideffer, 1976). That is, as emotions escalate, attention may be adversely affected, broadening to a point of distractibility or excessively narrowing to a point at which relevant performance cues are overlooked. As such, attention control training has garnered significant research energy and recently it has been argued that emotional intelligence may provide a framework for enhancing attention allocation (Papadogiannis, Logan, Mann, & Escobar, 2009). The study of pilots and athletes provides two distinct populations that are regularly immersed in high pressure environments, requiring emotional skills to sustain and even enhance performance. Within these groups Papadogiannis et al. (2009) assessed the relationship between emotional intelligence (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997) and attentional skills (TAIS; Neideffer, 1976). Both the pilot and athlete groups reported higher Total EI, Emotional Self-Awareness, Stress Tolerance, and Impulse Control scores on the EQ-i, coupled with lower Internal and External Distractibility scores on the TAIS. These findings support the idea that emotional intelligence is associated with reduced distractibility in complex performance environments.
Job Satisfaction/Organizational Climate/Change
The EQ-i has proven to be an effective and versatile tool for use in the corporate environment. The EQ-i has been used as an employee screening tool (Bachman, Stein, Campbell, & Sitarenios, 2000), and it enhances the reliability and effectiveness of the employee recruitment and selection process (Durek & Gordon, 2009). A number of EQ-i factors have been shown to be directly related to performance success in a variety of domains, including sales (Harris, 2009; Mulligan, 2004; Sitarenios & Stein, 1998), medicine (Fletcher, Leadbetter, Curran, & O’Sullivan, 2009), sport (Perlini & Halverson, 2006), academic performance (Parker et al., 2004; Parker, Hogan, Eastabrook, Oke, & Wood, 2006; Walker 2007), and persistence (Giroir, 2010). Assertiveness, empathy, happiness, emotional self-awareness, and problem solving have all been linked to recruitment success within the US Air Force (Handley, 1997). Success, job satisfaction, and adaptation to organizational climate change can be predicted by looking at any number of EQ-i factors.
In a similar vein, the EQ-i has been used to evaluate and enhance the ongoing functioning and well-being of employees at critical and arbitrary stages of employment. Furthermore, the EQ-i has been used for gauging the impact and effectiveness of organizational change and job satisfaction (Engstrom, 2005; Thiebau, Breton, & Richoux, 2005), and collaborative conflict resolution (Malek, 2000). The EQ-i also enables the qualified professional to create tailor-made training programs to improve the emotional skills and functioning of individual employees or, on a larger scale, with the organization as a whole (Elfenbein, 2006; Frye, Bennett, Caldwell, 2006; Hughes & Terrell, 2007).
Not unlike the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI; Myers & McCulley, 1985), the EQ-i has also been used in group and team building contexts (Hughes & Terrell, 2007). Particularly useful in this domain has been the EQ 360, a multi-rater feedback assessment that provides unique and rich insight into the strengths and weaknesses from a self/other's perspective (Bar-On & Handley, 2003; Waddell, 2010). Without question, a large part of effective and cogent teamwork is knowing each member's strengths and limitations as well as having an appreciation for how others perceive themselves and those with whom they interact. Such insight permits each member to leverage the strengths from the individual or group whenever possible. Pinpointing and utilizing this type of information has proven effective for bonding, unifying, synchronizing , and strengthening a group or team (Hughes & Terrell, 2007; Hughes & Terrell, 2009).
A wealth of information has been generated over recent years concerning the emotional implications for performance success and the role emotions play in survival and everyday decision making. Recent technological advances in the study of emotion (e.g., fMRI, EEG, etc.) have shed light on the cortical and sub-cortical structures of the brain linked to the emotion-network that drives how we think, feel, and act. Of particular interest are the sub-cortical structures of the thalamus, cingulate cortex, amygdala and the cortical regions, such as the temporal lobe and the pre-frontal cortex. In the event one of these areas should become impaired, so too does the individual’s ability to process or use information effectively, often affecting thoughts, feelings, and actions. This structure-function relationship maintains implications for stress tolerance, well-being, decision-making, and success. However, to date little empirical research has directly linked EI to the very neural mechanisms that have been demonstrated to have a direct impact on what we perceive, how we react, the decisions we make, and ultimately the quality of life we lead.
According to the somatic marker hypothesis (Damasio et al., 1991), when we make a decision we first weigh the pros and cons or the benefits/consequences of the response options, a process that requires both emotional and cognitive processing. However, when faced with a simple choice, we often resort to cognitive rules to assist in the decision process; as the decision becomes more complex or we place greater value on the outcome, our cognitive rules may not be sufficient to render a decision and we get stuck! Enter emotions and the somatic marker hypothesis.
Somatic markers are simply connections between a stimulus (i.e., choice) and a resulting physiological sensation we experience when presented with such a stimulus. When presented with a given stimulus we experience certain sensations which in turn bias or influence our decisions. In most cases, the somatic marker directs attention to the most meaningful information to enhance decision making (Damasio et al., 1991); however, in the event a deficit in emotional processing is evident, decision making and judgment become impaired.
Bar-On et al., (2003) set out to determine whether individuals with impaired somatic markers (i.e., lesions to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex; VMPFC) would reflect that impairment through abnormal emotional intelligence. In this case, damage to the VMPFC is often associated with impaired judgment and decision making and, in turn, should be reflected by lower scores in EI. Comparing patients with lesions to various brain regions, Bar-On et al., (2003) demonstrated that those with lesions to the VMPFC reported lower EI despite showing no difference in IQ. Given the implications of VMPFC in the somatic marker hypothesis for decision making and subsequent behavior, Killgore and Yurgelon-Todd (2007) set out to assess the link between VMPFC activation (measured using fMRI) and levels of emotional intelligence. Similar to the results of Bar-On (2003), Killgore and Yurgelon-Todd reported that adolescents with relatively low emotional intelligence respond to emotionally provocative pictures with greater and more extensive brain activation than do those with well-developed emotional intelligence. In other words, emotional intelligence can moderate the impact of stressful stimuli, allowing the brain to operate more efficiently under stressful conditions (Haier et al., 1992).
Damage to temporal lobe functioning has been reliably linked to increased agitation, difficulty managing emotions, heightened irritability and, more recently, impaired social cognition (Walpole, Isaac, & Reynders, 2008). If damage or functional impairment of the temporal lobe presents emotional challenges, then perhaps the temporal region of the brain is linked to EI. Walpole et al., (2008) in a controlled experiment measured the emotional intelligence of patients with temporal lobe epilepsy and a healthy cohort matched for age and IQ. These findings suggest that impairment to the medial temporal lobe is related to lower emotional intelligence and impaired facial recognition, and to greater psychological distress as compared to healthy individuals.
To this point, emotional intelligence has been linked to VMPFC and the temporal lobe by means of comparing relatively healthy individuals to those with a structural deficit. In a series of studies conducted by Killgore and colleagues (Kahn-Greene, Lippizzi, Conrad, Kamimori, & Killgore, 2006; Killgore, Kahn-Greene, Lipizzi, Newman, Kamimori, & Balkin, 2008; Killgore, Killgore, Day, Li, Kamimori, & Balkin, 2007) healthy participants were used in a repeated measures design to isolate the simulated effects of VMPFC impairment on emotion functioning. Killgore et al., (2008) were able to demonstrate the cortical connection of emotional intelligence to the prefrontal cortex via sleep deprivation. It has been shown that sleep deprivation can result in temporary impairment of the prefrontal cortex, resulting in difficulties regulating higher-order executive functions such as impulse control, inhibition of aggression, willingness to act in a socially acceptable way (Kahn-Greene et al., 2006), and moral judgment (Killgore et al., 2007). When comparing sleep deprived EQ-i results to baseline results, sleep deprived participants reported decreased Total EQ, Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Stress Management Composite scores (Killgore et al., 2008), and those scoring lower at baseline were more susceptible to decrements in moral judgment performance (Killgore et al., 2007).
Although the neurological work investigating the substrates of emotional and social intelligence is relatively young, the results show promise for enhancing our understanding of the role emotional intelligence plays in our capacity to meet our daily demands. Emotional intelligence appears to have a broad neurological representation which, in turn, serves to moderate the effects of emotional stimuli affecting both our decisions and behaviors.Emotional intelligence has reached a level of maturity stemming from a wealth of research, a broad range of applications, and vast user experiences. The evolution of emotional intelligence will continue as the links between emotional intelligence and successful performance becomes better understood and researchers continue to push the boundaries of our understanding. In the meantime, the information that has been gleaned from research spanning more than two decades on the EQ-i was used as a catalyst to refine the operational definition of emotional intelligence, culminating in the EQ-i 2.0.