Among all the theories about emotional intelligence, those proposed by Mayer and Salovey and Petrides have generated the most interest in terms of research and application. Each of their theoretical paradigms conceptualise Emotional Intelligence (EI) from one of two perspectives: as a form of pure intelligence consisting of cognitive ability only (Mayer & Salovey, 1990), or as a group of personality traits (Petrides & Furnham, 2001).
The lack of a consistent framework for EI has led to the development of numerous conflicting findings. In order to avoid this confusion, Petrides and Furnham (2001) suggested the differentiation between “ability EI” and “trait EI” to distinguish the two approaches. The use of performance tests lead to the development of the theory of EI as of interrelated cognitive abilities (Mayer & Salovey, 1990), and the realm of Intelligence, thus being classified at “ability EI”. The measurement of EI through the use of self-report questionnaires lead to the understanding that EI was a construct of self perceived personality traits and behaviours. (Petrides & Furnham, 2001),and is classified as “trait EI”.
Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot
The ability model defines EI as the “ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (Salovey, & Mayer, 1990) This initial concept perceives EI as a construct within the broad range of human cognitive abilities (van der Zee & Wabeke, 2004). It refers to cognitive skills which are required to deal with problems that are usually encountered in day to day life, such as issues at work, interaction with loved ones or assimilating to a new culture. (van der Zee & Wabeke, 2004) This concept was later developed into four distinct yet still interrelated abilities. This model, known as the Four Branch Model, developed by Mayer and Salovey (1997) defines four different abilities or skills, which are referred to as branches; specifically identifying, using, understanding and managing emotions (Caruso, Mayer & Salovey 2002; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Salovey & Grewal, 2005)
The first branch, Identifying Emotions, is a group of skills, such as the “ability to identify feelings, express emotions accurately, and differentiate between real and phony emotional expressions” (Caruso, Mayer & Salovey 2002; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Salovey & Grewal, 2005). The second branch, Using Emotions, is the ability to use emotions to focus on important events, to facilitate cognitive activities such as problem solving. The third branch, Understanding Emotions, is the ability to understand emotional states and the ability to recognise the causes of emotions. The fourth branch, Managing Emotions, includes the ability to regulate emotions and the ability to solve emotion focused problems without the need to suppress negative emotional states. (Caruso, Mayer and Salovey 2002; Mayer and Salovey, 1997; Salovey & Grewal, 2005)
Mayer, Salovey, Caruso and Sitarenios (2001) further explain that these branches
function in a hierarchical manner with the identification of emotions the most basic, emotional management as the most complex. The identification of emotions is believed to be foundation of EI, as it is responsible for the processing of emotional information. (Salovey & Grewal, 2005). As a result of this, and individual who lacks the ability to process an emotion on the lowest branch, would also lack the ability to manage emotions at a higher level.
The ability model perceives EI as a social intelligence, in which emotion and thought interact in order to understand and deal with others in a meaningful way. (Caruso, Mayer and Salovey 2002; Mayer and Salovey, 1997). This, in turn, would enable individuals to manage and understand their own emotional states.(Mayer & Salovey; 1990)
In order to prove that EI was a true form of intelligence, Mayer, Caruso, Salovey (1999) identified three specific criteria, namely conceptual, correlational and developmental. The first criteria, conceptual, refers to the fact that any intelligence must reflect the mental processes, rather than just ideal behaviours, or non-intellectual achievement, such as self-esteem. The second criteria, correlation, implies that any intelligence must be linked to a set of closely related abilities that are similar to existing intelligences, in this instance, social intelligence. The developmental criterion, states that the intelligence develops with age.
This view of EI lead to the development of performance methods of assessment that claim to test actual abilities as opposed to self-reports of abilities (Bastian, Burns & Nettelbeck, 2005). These tests were firstly the Multi Factor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS) and currently the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCIET) (Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2004; Salovey & Grewal, 2005). Both of these are commercially available instruments, used to asses EI as an ability, through questions which relate to all four branches of the model. The MSCEIT is based on a series of emotion-based problem-solving items and is modelled on IQ tests. Through the testing of an individual’s abilities on each of the four branches, it generates scores for each of the branches, in addition to a total score. The measures are claimed to correlate with existing intelligences but independent of personality measure.
These performance measures assess intelligence by having the individual engage in a number of cognitive tasks. These measures have traditionally been regarded highly in traditional intelligence testing due to the fact that intelligence relates to the capacity of an individual to perform well at mental tasks. As a result, the performance of particular mental tasks demonstrates their actual abilities, whereas other methods measure beliefs about those capacities (Mayer & Salovey, 1993).
Performance measures have been criticised on their supposed inability to focus on the “the inherent subjectivity of emotional experience” (Perez, Petrides & Furnham, 2005). In contrast to general cognitive ability tests, tests of ability EI are seen to not to be able to be scored objectively scored because, in most cases, there are no clear criteria for what makes an answer right or wrong. The scoring methods can be seen to objectify emotional experience which, in effect, results in more IQ test type scoring, that some perceive as invalidating the psychological content. (Petrides, Furnham, & Mavroveli, 2007)
Ability EI tests have attempted to remedy this by introducing alternative scoring procedures. However, this links to Salovey and Grewal (2005) preposition that, the key to the four-branch model is the idea that EI requires an individual’s adaptation to social norms. As a result, the MSCEIT is scored in a consensus manner, with higher scores indicating higher overlap between an individual’s answers and those taken from a worldwide sample.
Another criticism has been that, as emotions are expressed through the verbal medium, the understanding of emotions partially depends on being able to do so. Conditions, such as alexithymia, which is the inability to appraise and verbally express emotions, may impact on the measurement of cognitive emotional processes (Mayer & Salovey, 1990; van der Zee & Wabeke 2004). In order to remedy such conditions, variants of traditional instruments have been introduced. One such instrument is the Beth Israel Psychosomatic Questionnaire, “which presented brief scenarios to patients who were asked to respond in an open ended fashion.” (Mayer & Salovey, 1990).
However, Locke (2005) criticises the preposition that EI is a form of intelligence. He perceives EI as a misconception of intelligence and suggests that it should be reinterpreted as a skill as he believes that “it is not another form or type of intelligence, but intelligence-the ability to grasp abstractions-applied to a particular life domain: emotions.”
Further developing the concept of EI, Petrides and Furnham (2001), introduced the distinction between ability and, what they entitled, “trait EI”. They propose that EI connected with behavioural predispositions and self-perceived abilities and, as a result, it resided with the personality framework.
As trait EI is concerned with cross-situational consistencies in behaviour, which are perceived as “traits” as opposed to ability EI, which focuses on actual skills, it is
accessed via self-report questionnaires that measure typical behaviour. Initially, the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) (Petrides & Furnham, 2001) and, more recently the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) (Petrides, Furnham & Frederickson, 2004). The TEIQue consists of 153 items organised under four-factors, which are well-being, self-control, emotionality, and sociability (Freudenthaler et al, 2008). Relying on a person’s self-awareness, self-report measures are accurate if the person’s self-concept is accurate. However, if the person’s self-concept is inaccurate, a self-report measure may result in the measurement of the individuals self-concept and not the true behaviours and attitudes of them (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2000).
The concept of trait EI has also been criticised as focusing heavily on established personality taxonomies (Warwick & Nettlebeck, 2004). The self-report methodology has been criticised for high loadings with personality characteristics, poor reliability and the small number of reverse keyed items respectively (Petrides & Furnham, 2000; Saklofske, Austin & Minski, 2003). However, much research has found validity in relation to personality by locating the construct in Eysenckian and Big Five personality factors, generally showing large correlations with Big Five Personality factors of Extraversion and Neuroticism with smaller correlations with Openness, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (Petrides & Furnham, 2001; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Warwick & Nettlebeck, 2004; van Der Zee, Thijs & Schakel, 2002). Nevertheless, although self-report is a less direct measurement of emotional intelligence, it avoids the scoring problem associated with ability measures in that it is extremely difficult to objectively score a concept which is so inherently subjective (Saklofske, Austin & Minski, 2003; Furnham & Petrides, 2003).
Emotional Intelligence has created much debate regarding the legitimacy of each of the most influential models, as each describe the concept in different ways. The division of abilities and traits can be difficult, as, together, they can work to support each other. As Goleman (2003) proposes, a learnable skill’s foundation, such as architectural drawing, is often entrenched in a non-learnable ability, such as spatial intelligence. As research delves deeper into these concepts, newer conceptualisation are being developed, that may shed more light on EI. One such model is the “mixed” model, which suggests that EI encompasses facets of both trait and ability EI, as suggested by Bar-On (Shulman & Hmenover, 2006). These conceptualisations are much broader in scale and cover much that each of the individual concepts make not take into account. As a result, much of the discussion of the validity of which model may create more meaningful outcomes, beyond the traditional arenas of personality and intelligence.
