4/9/2019 © Universal Class, Inc.

- Class Lesson: Lesson 7: Criticism of the Theoretical Foundation and Measures of Assessment of Emotional …

Lesson 7: Criticism of the Theoretical Foundation and

Measures of Assessment of Emotional Intelligence
Lesson Summary: One of the primary criticisms of the theoretical foundation of EQ is the
assumption made within certain models of EQ that Emotional Intelligence is a form of true
intelligence.

Criticism of the Theoretical Foundation and Measures of

Assessment of Emotional Intelligence

Now that we have explored the different models of Emotional Intelligence and briefly discussed
the positive aspects of Emotional Intelligence as a whole, it's time to recognize the many
criticisms of the EQ concept, and of measurement methods of Emotional Intelligence.

One of the primary criticisms of the theoretical foundation of EQ is the assumption made within
certain models of EQ that Emotional Intelligence is a form of true intelligence. Intelligence has
been defined in a variety of ways within different fields and typically includes concepts such as
logic, understanding, abstract thought, self awareness, ability to learn, problem solving,
communication, and so on. Within the field of psychology, there are different approaches to
human intelligence, the most famous of which is psychometrics.
Psychometrics is the measure of certain cognitive abilities and includes IQ, as well as some
scholastic measurements. Some psychologists also recognize a general intelligence
factor. While most IQ tests will measure certain cognitive functions, such as pattern recognition
and natural language skills, Emotional Intelligence typically measures other cognitive
processes, such as memory, rapid decision-making, and ability to retrieve general knowledge.

Both of these concepts relate closely with the idea of Emotional Intelligence, and some
psychologists argue that Emotional Intelligence quotients are merely aspects of general
https://www.universalclass.com/z/579/8900231/shortform/printpreview.htm?LessonID=53297&FLAG=PrintPreview 1/4
4/9/2019 © Universal Class, Inc. - Class Lesson: Lesson 7: Criticism of the Theoretical Foundation and Measures of Assessment of Emotional …

intelligence. Defining intelligence is controversial and certainly leads to some of the challenges
with getting EQ recognized as a form of legitimate intelligence.

Historically speaking, there are two definitions of intelligence that have been proposed by
experts in various fields. First, 52 researchers put forth the following proposed definition of
intelligence: "A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to
reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and
learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, and narrow academic skill, or test-taking
smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings -
catching on, making sense of things, or figuring out what to do."
Alternatively, a 1995 report that was published by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American
Psychological Association defined intelligence as the following: "Individuals differ from one
another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to
learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by
taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they're never entirely
consistent: A given person's intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different
domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of intelligence are attempts to clarify and
organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in
some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all of the important questions, and
none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently
asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen, somewhat different, definitions."

Obviously, it is easy to see why some criticize Emotional Intelligence as a form of true
intelligence, given that it remains essentially impossible for psychologists to define what
incorporates intelligence itself. This hotly contested issue is often considered one of semantics
that may play an important role in developing the psychological theories of Emotional
Intelligence, but may not be particularly relevant to many of the people who utilize concepts of
EQ in a practical arena.

Why does it matter? As just mentioned, it may not matter at all to people who are attempting to
utilize the concepts of EQ to better themselves or others. Within the field of psychology, it does
matter, primarily because prior to the development of Emotional Intelligence theories, the general
psychological world had defined and established theoretical distinctions between certain abilities,
skills, habits, attitudes, personality traits, and emotional states. As EI theories have been
developed, it has resulted in some dissent within the field, as it combines many of these qualities
into this concept of EI, removing them from being distinctly different constructs.

Another of the more popular criticisms of Emotional Intelligence is whether or not it has the
ability to generate any accurate predictions regarding an individual's success, although most
models claim they do have varying predictive value. Some of the research that seems to
support some predictive value within Emotional Intelligence may make accurate predictions,
according to these critics, but they may be predicting things not based on a genuine idea of
Emotional Intelligence, so much as on personality characteristics that could have been
predicted using a personality assessment, rather then being a genuinely unique to the EQ
concept.

https://www.universalclass.com/z/579/8900231/shortform/printpreview.htm?LessonID=53297&FLAG=PrintPreview 2/4
4/9/2019 © Universal Class, Inc. - Class Lesson: Lesson 7: Criticism of the Theoretical Foundation and Measures of Assessment of Emotional …

When it comes to criticisms regarding the measurement of EQ, it is easy to see why the majority
of EQ measurement assessments are heavily criticized for reasons already discussed. Most
specifically, the arguments typically involve heavy criticism of the use of self report that many of
the EI models rely upon. But the self reports are not the only cause for concern, according to
those offering critiques about EI measurement methods.

One of the more obvious criticisms is that some of the models -- particularly the Ability Model --
does not measure ability, but rather measures conformity. Because the measures of the Ability
Model require a comparison be made between an individual and others who have taken the
assessment on a global scale, using common patterns of social skills, some critics argue that this
is a measure of conformity far more than actual ability on an individual basis. The Ability Model is
heavily criticized for other reasons, as well; it is accused of measuring knowledge more so than
ability (again, thus making the Ability Model not a form of true intelligence). The Trait Model, and
some other models, are also criticized as measuring personality characteristics and general
intelligence, rather then a distinct Emotional Intelligence. There are some critiques that identify
the use of Emotional Intelligence, when serving the express needs of a business or corporation,
to sometimes disregard any potential stresses or psychological disturbances due to EI
assessments, and training that does not also address an individual's general psychological state
or the use of Emotional Intelligence techniques in other areas of life.

Of course, the main criticism of measurement of Emotional Intelligence always returns to the
issue of self report. Although there are models of EI that do not rely solely on self report, many of
them do, making it particularly challenging to verify the results according to psychological
standards. While acknowledging that there are certainly studies where self report is the only
possible method of measurement, it is nevertheless ideal for other forms of measurement to be
used whenever possible. Self reports are typically looked down upon for a number of
reasons. First, it may simply reflect the individual's interpretation of the question and (when
applicable) potential answers. A sound assessment should be composed of clear and
unambiguous questions and answers that have been fully vetted before use. Nevertheless, when
an individual is performing a self assessment, they may easily interpret a question or answer
differently than it was meant even under the best circumstances. Thus, false data is produced.

A second very common concern with self reporting is when people lie. The fact is that people
often want to make themselves appear to be as successful or capable as possible. Particularly if
https://www.universalclass.com/z/579/8900231/shortform/printpreview.htm?LessonID=53297&FLAG=PrintPreview 3/4
4/9/2019 © Universal Class, Inc. - Class Lesson: Lesson 7: Criticism of the Theoretical Foundation and Measures of Assessment of Emotional …

an assessment is being conducted by an individual's place of work, or a contractor is brought in

who will be sharing results with the employer, the subject will obviously want to appear as
capable as possible -- sometimes resulting in an inauthentic assessment. Of course, false reports
can be given a in a self report by individuals who do not mean to lie, but who simply perceive
themselves in a way that may not provide an accurate reflection of their Emotional
Intelligence. People tend to want to believe they are capable and successful in a number of ways
that may not be accurate. These individuals will have inaccurate assessments, though they never
meant to answer disingenuously.

© Universal Class, Inc.

https://www.universalclass.com/z/579/8900231/shortform/printpreview.htm?LessonID=53297&FLAG=PrintPreview 4/4