Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

Emotional intelligence

Emotional intelligence (EI) or emotional quotient (EQ) is the capability of individuals to

recognize their own, and other people's emotions, to discriminate between different feelings and label
them appropriately, to use emotional information to guide thinking and behavior, and to manage
and/or adjust emotions to adapt environments or achieve one's goal(s). [1] Although the term first
appeared in a 1964 paper by Michael Beldoch, it gained popularity in the 1995 book by that title,
written by the author, psychologist, and science journalist Daniel Goleman. Since this time Goleman's
1995 theory has been criticized within the scientific community.
There are currently several models of EI. Goleman's original model may now
be considered a mixed model that combines what have subsequently been
modeled separately as ability EI and trait EI. Goleman defined EI as the array
of skills and characteristics that drive leadership performance. [2] The trait
model was developed by Konstantin Vasily Petrides in 2001. It "encompasses
behavioral dispositions and self perceived abilities and is measured through
self report".[3] The ability model, developed by Peter Salovey and John
Mayer in 2004, focuses on the individual's ability to process emotional
information and use it to navigate the social environment.[4]
Studies have shown that people with high EI have greater mental health, job
performance, and leadership skills although no causal relationships have been
shown and such findings are likely to be attributable to general
intelligence and specific personality traits rather than emotional intelligence as
a construct. For example, Goleman indicated that EI accounted for 67% of the
abilities deemed necessary for superior performance in leaders, and mattered
twice as much as technical expertise or IQ. [5] Other research finds that the
effect of EI on leadership and managerial performance is non-significant when
ability and personality are controlled for, [6] and that general intelligence
correlates very closely with leadership. [7] Markers of EI and methods of
developing it have become more widely coveted in the past decade. In
addition, studies have begun to provide evidence to help characterize the
neural mechanisms of emotional intelligence.[8][9][10]
Criticisms have centered on whether EI is a real intelligence and whether it
has incremental validity over IQ and the Big Five personality traits.[11] Review
finds that, in most studies, poor research methodology has exaggerated the
significance of EI.[12]


3Ability model
3.2Other measurements
4Mixed model
5Trait model
6General effects
7Criticisms of theoretical foundation
7.1Cannot be recognized as form of intelligence
7.2Confusing skills with moral qualities
7.3Has little predictive value
8Criticisms of measurement
8.1Ability model
8.1.1Measures conformity, not ability
8.1.2Measures knowledge, not ability
8.1.3Measures personality and general intelligence
8.2Self-report measures susceptible to faking
8.3Predictive power unsubstantiated
8.4NICHD pushes for consensus
9Interactions with other phenomena
9.2Job performance

9.5Self-esteem and drug use
10See also
12Further reading

The term "emotional intelligence" seems first to have appeared in a 1964
paper by Michael Beldoch,[13][14] and in the 1966 paper by B. Leuner
entitled Emotional intelligence and emancipation which appeared in the
psychotherapeutic journal: Practice of child psychology and child psychiatry.[15]
In 1983, Howard Gardner's Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple
Intelligences[16] introduced the idea that traditional types of intelligence, such
as IQ, fail to fully explain cognitive ability. He introduced the idea of multiple
intelligences which included both interpersonal intelligence (the capacity to
understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people)
and intrapersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand oneself, to
appreciate one's feelings, fears and motivations). [17]
The term subsequently appeared in Wayne Payne's doctoral thesis, A Study of
Emotion: Developing Emotional Intelligence from 1985.[18]
The first published use of the term 'EQ' (Emotional Quotient) is an article by
Keith Beasley in 1987 in the British Mensa magazine. [19][non-primary source needed]
[verification needed][citation needed]

In 1989 Stanley Greenspan put forward a model to describe EI, followed by

another by Peter Salovey and John Mayer published in the same year. [20]
However, the term became widely known with the publication of Goleman's
book: Emotional Intelligence Why it can matter more than IQ [21] (1995). It is
to this book's best-selling status that the term can attribute its popularity. [22]
[23] Goleman has followed up with several further popular publications of a
similar theme that reinforce use of the term. [24][25][26][27][28] To date, tests
measuring EI have not replaced IQ tests as a standard metric of intelligence.
Emotional Intelligence has also received criticism on its role in leadership and
business success.[29]
The distinction between trait emotional intelligence and ability emotional
intelligence was introduced in 2000.[30]

Emotional intelligence can be defined as the ability to monitor one's own and
other people's emotions, to discriminate between different emotions and label
them appropriately and to use emotional information to guide thinking and
behavior.[1] Emotional intelligence also reflects abilities to join intelligence,
empathy and emotions to enhance thought and understanding of

interpersonal dynamics.[31] However, substantial disagreement exists

regarding the definition of EI, with respect to both terminology and
operationalizations. Currently, there are three main models of EI:
1 Ability model
2 Mixed model (usually subsumed under trait EI) [32][33]
3 Trait model
Different models of EI have led to the development of various instruments for
the assessment of the construct. While some of these measures may overlap,
most researchers agree that they tap different constructs.
Specific ability models address the ways in which emotions facilitate thought
and understanding. For example, emotions may interact with thinking and
allow people to be better decision makers (Lyubomirsky et al. 2005). [31] A
person who is more responsive emotionally to crucial issues will attend to the
more crucial aspects of his or her life.[31] Aspects of emotional facilitation
factor is to also know how to include or exclude emotions from thought
depending on context and situation. [31] This is also related to emotional
reasoning and understanding in response to the people, environment and
circumstances one encounters in his or her day-to-day life. [31]

Ability model[edit]
Salovey and Mayer's conception of EI strives to define EI within the confines of
the standard criteria for a new intelligence.[34][35] Following their continuing
research, their initial definition of EI was revised to "The ability to perceive
emotion, integrate emotion to facilitate thought, understand emotions and to
regulate emotions to promote personal growth." However, after pursuing
further research, their definition of EI evolved into "the capacity to reason
about emotions, and of emotions, to enhance thinking. It includes the abilities
to accurately perceive emotions, to access and generate emotions so as to
assist thought, to understand emotions and emotional knowledge, and to
reflectively regulate emotions so as to promote emotional and intellectual
growth." [4]
The ability-based model views emotions as useful sources of information that
help one to make sense of and navigate the social environment. [36][37] The
model proposes that individuals vary in their ability to process information of
an emotional nature and in their ability to relate emotional processing to a
wider cognition. This ability is seen to manifest itself in certain adaptive
behaviors. The model claims that EI includes four types of abilities:
1 Perceiving emotions the ability to detect and decipher emotions in faces,
pictures, voices, and cultural artifactsincluding the ability to identify one's
own emotions. Perceiving emotions represents a basic aspect of emotional
intelligence, as it makes all other processing of emotional information

2 Using emotions the ability to harness emotions to facilitate various cognitive

activities, such as thinking and problem solving. The emotionally intelligent
person can capitalize fully upon his or her changing moods in order to best
fit the task at hand.
3 Understanding emotions the ability to comprehend emotion language and to
appreciate complicated relationships among emotions. For example,
understanding emotions encompasses the ability to be sensitive to slight
variations between emotions, and the ability to recognize and describe how
emotions evolve over time.
4 Managing emotions the ability to regulate emotions in both ourselves and in
others. Therefore, the emotionally intelligent person can harness emotions,
even negative ones, and manage them to achieve intended goals.
The ability EI model has been criticized in the research for lacking face and
predictive validity in the workplace. [38] However, in terms of construct validity,
ability EI tests have great advantage over self-report scales of EI because they
compare individual maximal performance to standard performance scales and
do not rely on individuals' endorsement of descriptive statements about

The current measure of Mayer and Salovey's model of EI, the Mayer-SaloveyCaruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) is based on a series of emotionbased problem-solving items.[37][40] Consistent with the model's claim of EI as a
type of intelligence, the test is modeled on ability-based IQ tests. By testing a
person's abilities on each of the four branches of emotional intelligence, it
generates scores for each of the branches as well as a total score.
Central to the four-branch model is the idea that EI requires attunement
to social norms. Therefore, the MSCEIT is scored in a consensus fashion, with
higher scores indicating higher overlap between an individual's answers and
those provided by a worldwide sample of respondents. The MSCEIT can also be
expert-scored, so that the amount of overlap is calculated between an
individual's answers and those provided by a group of 21 emotion researchers.

Although promoted as an ability test, the MSCEIT is unlike standard IQ tests in

that its items do not have objectively correct responses. Among other
challenges, the consensus scoring criterion means that it is impossible to
create items (questions) that only a minority of respondents can solve,
because, by definition, responses are deemed emotionally "intelligent" only if
the majority of the sample has endorsed them. This and other similar
problems have led some cognitive ability experts to question the definition of
EI as a genuine intelligence.[citation needed]
In a study by Fllesdal,[41] the MSCEIT test results of 111 business leaders were
compared with how their employees described their leader. It was found that

there were no correlations between a leader's test results and how he or she
was rated by the employees, with regard to empathy, ability to motivate, and
leader effectiveness. Fllesdal also criticized the Canadian company MultiHealth Systems, which administers the MSCEIT test. The test contains 141
questions but it was found after publishing the test that 19 of these did not
give the expected answers. This has led Multi-Health Systems to remove
answers to these 19 questions before scoring but without stating this officially.

Other measurements[edit]
Various other specific measures have also been used to assess ability in
emotional intelligence. These measures include:
1 Diagnostic Analysis of Non-verbal Accuracy [31] The Adult Facial version
includes 24 photographs of equal amount of happy,sad, angry, and fearful
facial expressions of both high and low intensities which are balanced by
gender. The tasks of the participants is to answer which of the four emotions
is present in the given stimuli.[31]
2 Japanese and Caucasian Brief Affect Recognition test [31] Participants try to
identify 56 faces of Caucasian and Japanese individuals expressing seven
emotions such happiness, contempt, disgust, sadness, anger, surprise, and
fear, which may also trail off for 0.2 seconds to a different emotion. [31]
3 Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale[31] Participants reads 26 social scenes
and answers their anticipated feelings and continuum of low to high emotional

Mixed model[edit]
The model introduced by Daniel Goleman [42] focuses on EI as a wide array of
competencies and skills that drive leadership performance. Goleman's model
outlines five main EI constructs (for more details see "What Makes A Leader"
by Daniel Goleman, best of Harvard Business Review 1998):
1 Self-awareness the ability to know one's emotions, strengths, weaknesses,
drives, values and goals and recognize their impact on others while
using gut feelings to guide decisions.
2 Self-regulation involves controlling or redirecting one's disruptive emotions
and impulses and adapting to changing circumstances.
3 Social skill managing relationships to move people in the desired direction
4 Empathy considering other people's feelings especially when making
5 Motivation being driven to achieve for the sake of achievement.
Goleman includes a set of emotional competencies within each construct of EI.
Emotional competencies are not innate talents, but rather learned capabilities
that must be worked on and can be developed to achieve outstanding
performance. Goleman posits that individuals are born with a general
emotional intelligence that determines their potential for learning emotional

competencies.[43] Goleman's model of EI has been criticized in the research

literature as mere "pop psychology" (Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008).

Two measurement tools are based on the Goleman model:
1 The Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI), which was created in 1999, and
the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI), a newer edition of
the ECI was developed in 2007. The Emotional and Social Competency
University Edition (ESCI-U) is also available. These tools developed by
Goleman and Boyatzis provide a behavioral measure of the Emotional and
Social competencies.
2 The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal, which was created in 2001 and which
can be taken as a self-report or 360-degree assessment. [44]

Trait model[edit]
See also: Trait theory
Konstantinos Vasilis Petrides ("K. V. Petrides") proposed a conceptual
distinction between the ability based model and a trait based model of EI and
has been developing the latter over many years in numerous publications. [30]
[45] Trait EI is "a constellation of emotional self-perceptions located at the lower
levels of personality."[45] In lay terms, trait EI refers to an individual's selfperceptions of their emotional abilities. This definition of EI encompasses
behavioral dispositions and self-perceived abilities and is measured by self
report, as opposed to the ability based model which refers to actual abilities,
which have proven highly resistant to scientific measurement. Trait EI should
be investigated within a personality framework.[46] An alternative label for the
same construct is trait emotional self-efficacy.
The trait EI model is general and subsumes the Goleman model discussed
above. The conceptualization of EI as a personality trait leads to a construct
that lies outside the taxonomy of human cognitive ability. This is an important
distinction in as much as it bears directly on the operationalization of the
construct and the theories and hypotheses that are formulated about it. [30]

There are many self-report measures of EI,[47] including the EQ-i, the
Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT), and the Schutte EI
model. None of these assess intelligence, abilities, or skills (as their authors
often claim), but rather, they are limited measures of trait emotional
intelligence.[45] One of the more comprehensive and widely researched
measures of this construct is the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire
(TEIQue), which was specifically designed to measure the construct
comprehensively and is available in many languages.

The TEIQue provides an operationalization for the model of Petrides and

colleagues, that conceptualizes EI in terms of personality. [48] The test
encompasses 15 subscales organized under four factors: well-being, selfcontrol, emotionality, and sociability. The psychometric properties of the
TEIQue were investigated in a study on a French-speaking population, where it
was reported that TEIQue scores were globally normally
distributed and reliable.[49]
The researchers also found TEIQue scores were unrelated to nonverbal
reasoning (Raven's matrices), which they interpreted as support for the
personality trait view of EI (as opposed to a form of intelligence). As expected,
TEIQue scores were positively related to some of the Big Five personality
traits (extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness) as well as
inversely related to others (alexithymia,neuroticism). A number of quantitative
genetic studies have been carried out within the trait EI model, which have
revealed significant genetic effects and heritabilities for all trait EI scores.
[50] Two recent studies (one a meta-analysis) involving direct comparisons of
multiple EI tests yielded very favorable results for the TEIQue. [33][51]

General effects[edit]
A review published in the journal of Annual Psychology found that higher
emotional intelligence is positively correlated with: [31]
1 Better social relations for children Among children and teens, emotional
intelligence positively correlates with good social interactions, relationships
and negatively correlates with deviance from social norms, anti-social
behavior measured both in and out of school as reported by children
themselves, their own family members as well as their teachers. [31]
2 Better social relations for adults High emotional intelligence among adults is
correlated with better self-perception of social ability and more successful
interpersonal relationships while less interpersonal aggression and
3 Highly emotionally intelligent individuals are perceived more positively by
others Other individuals perceive those with high EI to be more
pleasant,socially skilled and empathic to be around. [31]
4 Better family and intimate relationships High EI is correlated with better
relationships with the family and intimate partners on many aspects.
5 Better academic achievement Emotional intelligence is correlated with
greater achievement in academics as reported by teachers but generally not
higher grades once the factor of IQ is taken into account. [31]
6 Better social relations during work performance and in negotiations Higher
emotional intelligence is correlated with better social dynamics at work as
well as better negotiating ability.[31]
7 Better psychological well-being.- Emotional intelligence is positively correlated
with higher life satisfaction, self-esteem and lower levels of insecurity or
depression. It is also negatively correlated with poor health choices and

Criticisms of theoretical foundation[edit]

Cannot be recognized as form of intelligence[edit]
Goleman's early work has been criticized for assuming from the beginning that
EI is a type of intelligence or cognitive ability. Eysenck (2000)[52] writes that
Goleman's description of EI contains unsubstantiated assumptions about
intelligence in general, and that it even runs contrary to what researchers
have come to expect when studying types of intelligence:
"[Goleman] exemplifies more clearly than most the fundamental
absurdity of the tendency to class almost any type of behavior as an
'intelligence'... If these five 'abilities' define 'emotional intelligence',
we would expect some evidence that they are highly correlated;
Goleman admits that they might be quite uncorrelated, and in any
case if we cannot measure them, how do we know they are related?
So the whole theory is built on quicksand: there is no sound scientific
Similarly, Locke (2005)[53] claims that the concept of EI is in itself a
misinterpretation of the intelligence construct, and he offers an alternative
interpretation: it is not another form or type of intelligence, but intelligence
the ability to grasp abstractionsapplied to a particular life domain: emotions.
He suggests the concept should be re-labeled and referred to as a skill.
The essence of this criticism is that scientific inquiry depends on valid and
consistent construct utilization, and that before the introduction of the term EI,
psychologists had established theoretical distinctions between factors such as
abilities and achievements, skills and habits, attitudes and values, and
personality traits and emotional states. [54] Thus, some scholars believe that
the term EI merges and conflates such accepted concepts and definitions.

Confusing skills with moral qualities[edit]

Adam Grant warned of the common but mistaken perception of EI as a
desirable moral quality rather than a skill, Grant asserting that a welldeveloped EI is not only an instrumental tool for accomplishing goals, but has
a dark side as a weapon for manipulating others by robbing them of their
capacity to reason.[55]

Has little predictive value[edit]

Landy (2005)[56] claimed that the few incremental validity studies conducted
on EI have shown that it adds little or nothing to the explanation or prediction
of some common outcomes (most notably academic and work success). Landy
suggested that the reason why some studies have found a small increase
in predictive validity is a methodological fallacy, namely, that alternative
explanations have not been completely considered:

"EI is compared and contrasted with a measure of abstract

intelligence but not with a personality measure, or with a personality
measure but not with a measure of academic intelligence." Landy
Similarly, other researchers have raised concerns about the extent to which
self-report EI measures correlate with established personality dimensions.
Generally, self-report EI measures and personality measures have been said to
converge because they both purport to measure personality traits.
[45] Specifically, there appear to be two dimensions of the Big Five that stand
out as most related to self-report EI neuroticism and extroversion. In
particular, neuroticism has been said to relate to negative emotionality
and anxiety. Intuitively, individuals scoring high on neuroticism are likely to
score low on self-report EI measures.
The interpretations of the correlations between EI questionnaires and
personality have been varied. The prominent view in the scientific literature is
the Trait EI view, which re-interprets EI as a collection of personality traits. [57]

Criticisms of measurement[edit]
Ability model[edit]
Measures conformity, not ability[edit]

One criticism of the works of Mayer and Salovey comes from a study by
Roberts et al. (2001),[60] which suggests that the EI, as measured by the
MSCEIT, may only be measuring conformity. This argument is rooted in the
MSCEIT's use of consensus-based assessment, and in the fact that scores on
the MSCEIT are negatively distributed (meaning that its scores differentiate
between people with low EI better than people with high EI).
Measures knowledge, not ability[edit]

Further criticism has been leveled by Brody (2004), [61] who claimed that unlike
tests of cognitive ability, the MSCEIT "tests knowledge of emotions but not
necessarily the ability to perform tasks that are related to the knowledge that
is assessed". The main argument is that even though someone knows how he
should behave in an emotionally laden situation, it doesn't necessarily follow
that the person could actually carry out the reported behavior.
Measures personality and general intelligence[edit]

New research is surfacing that suggests that ability EI measures might be

measuring personality in addition to general intelligence. These studies
examined the multivariate effects of personality and intelligence on EI and
also corrected estimates for measurement error (which is often not done in
some validation studies). For example, a study by Schulte, Ree, Carretta
(2004),[62] showed that general intelligence (measured with the Wonderlic
Personnel Test), agreeableness (measured by the NEO-PI), as well as gender
could reliably be used to predict the measure of EI ability.

They gave a multiple correlation (R) of .81 with the MSCEIT (perfect prediction
would be 1). This result has been replicated by Fiori and Antonakis (2011),;
[63] they found a multiple R of .76 using Cattells "Culture Fair" intelligence test
and the Big Five Inventory (BFI); significant covariates were intelligence
(standardized beta = .39), agreeableness (standardized beta = .54), and
openness (standardized beta = .46). Antonakis and Dietz (2011a), [64] who
investigated the Ability Emotional Intelligence Measure found similar results
(Multiple R = .69), with significant predictors being intelligence, standardized
beta = .69 (using the Swaps Test and a Wechsler scales subtest, the 40-item
General Knowledge Task) and empathy, standardized beta = .26 (using the
Questionnaire Measure of Empathic Tendency)--see also Antonakis and Dietz
(2011b),[65] who show how including or excluding important controls variables
can fundamentally change resultsthus, it is important to always include
important controls like personality and intelligence when examining the
predictive validity of ability and trait EI models.

Self-report measures susceptible to faking[edit]

More formally termed socially desirable responding (SDR), faking good is
defined as a response pattern in which test-takers systematically represent
themselves with an excessive positive bias (Paulhus, 2002). This bias has long
been known to contaminate responses on personality inventories (Holtgraves,
2004; McFarland & Ryan, 2000; Peebles & Moore, 1998; Nichols & Greene,
1997; Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987), acting as a mediator of the relationships
between self-report measures (Nichols & Greene, 1997; Gangster et al., 1983).
[full citation needed]

It has been suggested that responding in a desirable way is a response set,

which is a situational and temporary response pattern (Pauls & Crost, 2004;
Paulhus, 1991). This is contrasted with a response style, which is a more longterm trait-like quality. Considering the contexts some self-report EI inventories
are used in (e.g., employment settings), the problems of response sets in highstakes scenarios become clear (Paulhus & Reid, 2001).
There are a few methods to prevent socially desirable responding on behavior
inventories. Some researchers believe it is necessary to warn test-takers not to
fake good before taking a personality test (e.g., McFarland, 2003). Some
inventories use validity scales in order to determine the likelihood or
consistency of the responses across all items.

Predictive power unsubstantiated[edit]

Landy[56] distinguishes between the "commercial wing" and "the academic
wing" of the EI movement, basing this distinction on the alleged predictive
power of EI as seen by the two currents. According to Landy, the former makes
expansive claims on the applied value of EI, while the latter is trying to warn
users against these claims. As an example, Goleman (1998) asserts that "the
most effective leaders are alike in one crucial way: they all have a high degree

of what has come to be known as emotional intelligence. ...emotional

intelligence is the sine qua non of leadership". In contrast, Mayer (1999)
cautions "the popular literature's implicationthat highly emotionally
intelligent people possess an unqualified advantage in lifeappears overly
enthusiastic at present and unsubstantiated by reasonable scientific
standards." Landy further reinforces this argument by noting that the data
upon which these claims are based are held in "proprietary databases", which
means they are unavailable to independent researchers for reanalysis,
replication, or verification.[56] Thus, the credibility of the findings cannot be
substantiated in a scientific way, unless those datasets are made public and
available for independent analysis.
In an academic exchange, Antonakis and Ashkanasy/Dasborough mostly
agreed that researchers testing whether EI matters for leadership have not
done so using robust research designs; therefore, currently there is no strong
evidence showing that EI predicts leadership outcomes when accounting for
personality and IQ.[66] Antonakis argued that EI might not be needed for
leadership effectiveness (he referred to this as the "curse of emotion"
phenomenon, because leaders who are too sensitive to their and others'
emotional states might have difficulty making decisions that would result
in emotional labor for the leader or followers). A recently published metaanalysis seems to support the Antonakis position: In fact, Harms and Cred
found that overall (and using data free from problems of common source and
common methods), EI measures correlated only = 0.11 with measures
of transformational leadership.[67] Interestingly, ability-measures of EI fared
worst (i.e., = 0.04); the WLEIS (Wong-Law measure) did a bit better ( =
0.08), and the Bar-On[68] measure better still ( = 0.18). However, the validity
of these estimates does not include the effects of IQ or the big five personality,
which correlate both with EI measures and leadership. [69] In a subsequent
paper analyzing the impact of EI on both job performance and leadership,
Harms and Cred[70] found that the meta-analytic validity estimates for EI
dropped to zero when Big Five traits and IQ were controlled for. Joseph and
Newman[71] meta-analytically showed the same result for Ability EI.
However, it is important to note that self-reported and Trait EI measures retain
a fair amount of predictive validity for job performance after controlling Big
Five traits and IQ.[71] Newman, Joseph, and MacCann[72] contend that the
greater predictive validity of Trait EI measures is due to their inclusion of
content related to achievement motivation, self efficacy, and self-rated
performance. Meta-analytic evidence confirms that self-reported emotional
intelligence predicts job performance well (as well as any other personality
measure), and this is due to mixed EI and trait EI measures' tapping into selfefficacy and self-rated performance, in addition to the domains of Neuroticism,
Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and IQ.[73]

NICHD pushes for consensus[edit]

The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development has recognized
that because there are divisions about the topic of emotional intelligence, the
mental health community needs to agree on some guidelines to describe good
mental health and positive mental living conditions. In their section, "Positive
Psychology and the Concept of Health," they explain. "Currently there are six
competing models of positive health, which are based on concepts such as
being above normal, character strengths and core virtues, developmental

maturity, social-emotional intelligence, subjective well-being, and resilience.

But these concepts define health in philosophical rather than empirical terms.
Dr. [Lawrence] Becker suggested the need for a consensus on the concept of
positive psychological health..."[74]

Interactions with other phenomena[edit]

Main article: Bullying and emotional intelligence
Bullying is abusive social interaction between peers which can
include aggression, harassment, and violence. Bullying is typically repetitive
and enacted by those who are in a position of power over the victim. A
growing body of research illustrates a significant relationship between bullying
and emotional intelligence.[75][76][77] Emotional intelligence (EI) is a set of
abilities related to the understanding, use and management of emotion as it
relates to one's self and others. Mayer et al., (2008) defines the dimensions of
overall EI as: "accurately perceiving emotion, using emotions to facilitate
thought, understanding emotion, and managing emotion". [78] The concept
combines emotional and intellectual processes. [79] Lower emotional
intelligence appears to be related to involvement in bullying, as the bully
and/or the victim of bullying. EI seems to play an important role in both
bullying behavior and victimization in bullying; given that EI is illustrated to be
malleable, EI education could greatly improve bullying prevention and
intervention initiatives.[80]

Job performance[edit]
Main article: Job performance and emotional intelligence
Research of EI and job performance shows mixed results: a positive relation
has been found in some of the studies, while in others there was no relation or
an inconsistent one.[73] This led researchers Cote and Miners (2006) [81] to offer
a compensatory model between EI and IQ, that posits that the association
between EI and job performance becomes more positive as cognitive
intelligence decreases, an idea first proposed in the context of academic
performance (Petrides, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004). The results of the
former study supported the compensatory model: employees with low IQ get
higher task performance and organizational citizenship behavior directed at
the organization, the higher their EI. It has also been observed that there is no
significant link between emotional intelligence and work attitude behavior. [82]
A more recent study suggests that EI is not necessarily a universally positive
trait.[83] They found a negative correlation between EI and managerial work
demands; while under low levels of managerial work demands, they found a
negative relationship between EI and teamwork effectiveness. An explanation
for this may suggest gender differences in EI, as women tend to score higher
levels than men.[71] This furthers the idea that job context plays a role in the
relationships between EI, teamwork effectiveness, and job performance.
Another interesting find was discussed in a study that assessed a possible link
between EI and entrepreneurial behaviors and success. [84]

Although studies between emotional intelligence (EI) and job performance has
shown mixed results of high and low correlations, EI is undeniably better
predictor than most of the hiring methods commonly used in companies, such
as letter of references, cover letter, among others. Fortunately, more
companies are turning to EI tests for recruitment and training processes. By
2008, 147 companies and consulting firms in U.S had developed programmes
that involved EI for training and hiring employees. [85] Van Rooy and
Viswesvaran (2004)[86] showed that EI correlated significantly with different
domains in performance, ranging from .24 for job performance to .10 for
academic performance. These findings may contribute organisations in
different ways. For instance, employees high on EI would be more aware of
their own emotions and from others, which in turn, could lead companies to
better profits and less unnecessary expenses. This is especially important for
expatriate managers, who have to deal with mixed emotions and feelings,
while adapting to a new working culture.[86] Moreover, employees high in EI
show more confidence in their roles, which allow them to face demanding
tasks positively.[87]
Emotional Intelligence accounted for more career success than IQ. [88] Similarly,
other studies argued that employees high on EI perform substantially better
than employees low in EI. This measured by self-reports and different work
performance indicators, such as wages, promotions and salary increase.
[89] According to Lopes an his colleagues (2006), [90] EI contributes to develop
strong and positive relationships with co-workers and perform efficiently in
work teams. This benefits performance of workers by providing emotional
support and instrumental resources needed to succeed in their roles. [91] Also,
emotional intelligent employees have better resources to cope with stressing
situations and demanding tasks, which enable them to outperform in those
situations.[90] For instance, Law et al. (2004)[89] found that EI was the best
predictor of job performance beyond general cognitive ability among IT
scientist in computer company in China. Another study was made with
employees from a telecommunication company in Pakistan. They tested the
relationship between job performance and the four components of EI: selfawareness, self-management, social awareness and relationship management.
They found that job performance was positively associated with relationship
management and social awareness; and no significant association with selfawareness and self-management.[92] Similarly, Sy, Tram, and OHara (2006)
[87] found that EI was associated positively with job performance in employees
from a food service company.[93]
In the job performance emotional intelligence correlation is important to
consider the effects of managing up, which refers to the good and positive
relationship between the employee and his/her supervisor. [94]Previous research
found that quality of this relationship could interfere in the results of the
subjective rating of job performance evaluation. [95] Emotional intelligent
employees devote more of their working time on managing their relationship
with supervisors. Hence, the likelihood of obtaining better results on
performance evaluation is greater for employees high in EI than for employees
with low EI.[87] Based on theoretical and methodological approaches, EI
measures are categorized in three main streams: (1) stream 1: ability-based
measures (e.g. MSCEIT), (2) stream 2: self-reports of abilities measures (e.g.
SREIT, SUEIT and WLEIS) and (3) stream 3: mixed-models (e.g. AES, ECI, EI
questionnaire, EIS, EQ-I and GENOS), which include measures of EI and

traditional social skills.[96] OBoyle Jr. an his colleagues (2011) [97] found that the
three EI streams together had a positive correlation of 0.28 with job
performance. Similarly, each of EI streams independently obtained a positive
correlation of 0.24, 0.30 and 0.28, respectively. Stream 2 and 3 showed an
incremental validity for predicting job performance over and above personality
(Five Factor model) and general cognitive ability. Both, stream 2 and 3 were
the second most important predictor of job performance below general
cognitive ability. Stream 2 explained 13.6% of the total variance; whereas
stream 3, explained 13.2%. In order to examine the reliability of these
findings, a publication bias analysis was developed. Results indicated that
studies on EI-job performance correlation prior to 2010 do not present
substantial evidences to suggest the presence of publication bias.
Despite the validity of previous findings, some researchers still question
whether EI job performance correlation makes a real impact on business
strategies. They argue that popularity of emotional intelligences studies is
due to media advertising, rather than objective scientific findings. [98] Also, it is
mentioned that relationship between job performance and EI is not as strong
as suggested. This relationship requires the presence of other constructs to
rise important outcomes. For instance, previous studies found that EI is
positively associated with teamwork effectiveness under job contexts of high
managerial work demands, which improves job performance. This is due to
activation of strong emotions during performance on this job context. In this
scenario, emotional intelligent individuals show a better set of resources to
succeed on their roles. However, individuals with high EI show a similar level of
performance than non-emotional intelligent employees under different job
contexts.[99] Moreover, Joseph and Newman (2010) [100] suggested that
emotional perception and emotional regulation components of EI highly
contribute to job performance under job contexts of high emotional demands.
Moon and Hur (2011)[101] found that emotional exhaustion (burn-out)
significantly influences the job performance EI relationship. Emotional
exhaustion showed a negative association with two components of EI
(optimism and social skills). This association impacted negatively to job
performance, as well. Hence, job performance EI relationship is stronger
under contexts of high emotional exhaustion or burn-out; in other words,
employees with high levels of optimism and social skills possess better
resources to outperform when facing high emotional exhaustion contexts.

A 2007 meta-analysis of 44 effect sizes by Schutte found that emotional
intelligence was associated with better mental and physical health.
Particularly, trait EI had the stronger association with mental and physical
health.[102] This was replicated again in 2010 by researcher Alexandra Martin
who found trait EI as a strong predictor for health after conducting a metaanalysis based on 105 effect sizes and 19,815 participants. This meta-analysis
also indicated that this line of research reached enough sufficiency and
stability in concluding EI as a positive predictor for health. [103]

Main article: Religiosity and emotional intelligence

A small 2004 study by Ellen Paek empirically examined the extent to which
religiosity, operationalized as religious orientation and religious behavior, is
related to the controversial[52][53][54] idea of emotional intelligence (EI). The
study examined the extent to which religious orientation and behavior were
related to self-reported EI in 148 church attending adult Christians. [104] Nonreligious individuals were not part of the study. The study found that the
individuals' self-reported religious orientation was positively correlated with
their perceiving themselves to have greater EI. While the number of religious
group activities was positively associated with perceived EI, number of years
of church attendance was unrelated. Significant positive correlations were also
found between level of religious commitment and perceived EI. Thus, the
Christian volunteers were more likely to consider themselves emotionally
intelligent if they spent more time in group activities and had more
commitment to their beliefs.
Tischler, Biberman and McKeage warn that there is still ambiguity in the above
concepts. In their 2002 article, entitled "Linking emotional intelligence,
spirituality and workplace performance: Definitions, models and ideas for
research", they reviewed literature on both EI and various aspect of spirituality.
They found that both EI and spirituality appear to lead to similar attitudes,
behaviors and skills, and that there often seems to be confusion, intersection
and linking between the two constructs.[105]

Self-esteem and drug use[edit]

A 2012 study cross examined emotional intelligence, selfesteem and marijuana dependence.[106] Out of a sample of 200, 100 of whom
were dependent on cannabis and the other 100 emotionally healthy, the
dependent group scored exceptionally low on EI when compared to the control
group. They also found that the dependent group also scored low on selfesteem when compared to the control.
Another study in 2010 examined whether or not low levels of EI had a
relationship with the degree of drug and alcohol addiction.[107] In the
assessment of 103 residents in a drug rehabilitation center, they examined
their EI along with other psychosocial factors in a one-month interval of
treatment. They found that participants' EI scores improved as their levels of
addiction lessened as part of their treatment.