Emotional Intelligence New Ability or Ec

Emotional Intelligence
New Ability or Eclectic Traits?
John D. Mayer University of New Hampshire

Peter Salovey and David R. Caruso Yale University
Some individuals have a greater capacity than others to included in these models do not directly concern emotion
carry out sophisticated information processing about emo- or intelligence or their intersection (Matthews et al., 2004,
tions and emotion-relevant stimuli and to use this informa- p. 185). We agree with many of our colleagues who have
tion as a guide to thinking and behavior. The authors have noted that the term emotional intelligence is now employed
termed this set of abilities emotional intelligence (EI). to cover too many things—too many different traits, too
Since the introduction of the concept, however, a schism many different concepts (Landy, 2005; Murphy & Side-
has developed in which some researchers focus on EI as a man, 2006; Zeidner, Roberts, & Matthews, 2004). “These
distinct group of mental abilities, and other researchers models,” wrote Daus and Ashkanasy (2003, pp. 69 –70),
instead study an eclectic mix of positive traits such as “have done more harm than good regarding establishing
happiness, self-esteem, and optimism. Clarifying what EI is emotional intelligence as a legitimate, empirical construct
and is not can help the field by better distinguishing re- with incremental validity potential.” In this article, we
search that is truly pertinent to EI from research that is not. explore these key criticisms of the field, contrasting what
EI— conceptualized as an ability—is an important variable we believe to be a meaningful theory of EI with models
both conceptually and empirically, and it shows incremen- describing it as a mix of traits.
tal validity for predicting socially relevant outcomes. Our principal claim is that a valid EI concept can be
distinguished from other approaches. This valid conception
Keywords: emotion, intelligence, emotional intelligence,
of EI includes the ability to engage in sophisticated infor-
personality, measurement
mation processing about one’s own and others’ emotions
T
and the ability to use this information as a guide to thinking
he notion that there is an emotional intelligence (EI)
and behavior. That is, individuals high in EI pay attention
began as a tentative proposal (Mayer, DiPaolo, &
to, use, understand, and manage emotions, and these skills
Salovey, 1990; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). The orig-
serve adaptive functions that potentially benefit themselves
inal idea was that some individuals possess the ability to
and others (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004; Salovey &
reason about and use emotions to enhance thought more
Grewal, 2005). As we use the term, emotional intelligence
effectively than others. Since 1990, EI has grown into a
is an instance of a standard intelligence that can enrich the
small industry of publication, testing, education, and con-
discussion of human capacities (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso,
sulting (Matthews, Roberts, & Zeidner, 2004; Matthews,
& Sitarenios, 2001).
Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002). Matthews et al. (2002) have
The deeper question raised by Locke’s (2005) and
outlined the dramatic growth of the psychological literature
others’ assertions that EI has become overgeneral is “How
concerning an EI. Yet the apparent size of the field dwarfs
does one decide something ought or ought not to be called
what we regard as relevant scientific research in the area. In
emotional intelligence?” To address this question, in the
fact, one commentator recently argued that EI is an invalid
first section of this article, The Schism in the Field, we
concept in part because it is defined in too many ways
examine the central conception of EI and the current con-
(Locke, 2005, p. 425).
fusion in the field. In the second section, The Four-Branch
The original definition of EI conceptualized it as a set
of interrelated abilities (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Salovey
& Mayer, 1990). Yet other investigators have described EI John D. Mayer, Department of Psychology, University of New Hamp-
as an eclectic mix of traits, many dispositional, such as shire; Peter Salovey and David R. Caruso, Department of Psychology,
happiness, self-esteem, optimism, and self-management, Yale University.
Full disclosure of interest: John D. Mayer, Peter Salovey, and David
rather than as ability based (Bar-On, 2004; Boyatzis & R. Caruso receive royalties from the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional
Sala, 2004; Petrides & Furnham, 2001; Tett, Fox, & Wang, Intelligence Test, which is published by Multi-Health Systems (MHS),
2005). This alternative approach to the concept—the use of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
the term to designate eclectic mixes of traits— has led to We gratefully acknowledge the comments of Marc A. Brackett and
Susan E. Rivers on drafts of this manuscript.
considerable confusion and misunderstandings as to what Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John
an EI is or should be (Daus & Ashkanasy, 2003; Gohm, D. Mayer, Department of Psychology, University of New Hampshire, 10
2004; Mayer, 2006). Many features, such as self-esteem, Library Way, Durham, NH 03824. E-mail: jack.mayer@unh.edu
September 2008 ● American Psychologist 503

Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association 0003-066X/08/$12.00
Vol. 63, No. 6, 503–517 DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.6.503
volved in utilizing emotions (Salovey & Mayer, 1990, p.
190). Subsequent interpreters of our work, however, were
instrumental to (what we regard as) unmooring the concept
from its key terms. These interpreters appear to have con-
fused what we thought of as expressions of EI with the
ability itself. For example, we suggested that the emotion-
ally intelligent person might be “a pleasure to be around”
and that those lacking in EI might be prone to depression
(Salovey & Mayer, 1990, p. 201). Elsewhere in these early
writings, we noted that EI might be related to openness
(Mayer & Salovey, 1993, p. 438).
External Factors
A journalistic rendering of EI created and also complicated
the popular understanding of it. Goleman’s (1995) best-
selling book Emotional Intelligence began with the early
version of our EI model but mixed in many other person-
ality traits including persistence, zeal, self-control, charac-
ter as a whole, and other positive attributes. The book
John D. received extensive coverage in the press, including a cover
Mayer story in Time magazine (Gibbs, 1995). Because the book
Photo by Lisa Nugent included, in part, the theory we developed, some investi-
gators wrongly believed that we endorsed this complex
and, at times, haphazard composite of attributes as an
interpretation of EI.
Model of EI, we further describe our approach to EI. In the The journalistic version became the public face of EI
third section, The Significance of EI, we examine the and attracted further attention, in part, perhaps, owing to its
various reasons why EI is important as a discrete variable. extraordinary claims. Goleman (1995, p. 34) wrote of EI’s
Finally, in the Discussion and Recommendations section, importance that “what data exist, suggest it can be as
we consider how the term emotional intelligence has come powerful, and at times more powerful, than IQ.” A few
to be so misused and the steps that can be taken to improve years later, Goleman (1998a, p. 94) remarked that “nearly
terminology and research in the area. 90% of the difference” between star performers at work
and average ones was due to EI. Although these ideas
The Schism in the Field appeared in trade books and magazine and newspaper
Initial Ideas articles, they influenced scientific articles as well. For ex-
ample, one refereed journal article noted that “EI accounts
Our initial view of EI was that it consists of a group of for over 85% of outstanding performance in top leaders”
related mental abilities. For example, we first defined EI as and “EI—not IQ—predicts top performance” (Watkin,
“the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and 2000, p. 89). Our own work never made such claims, and
emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this we actively critiqued them (Mayer, 1999; Mayer & Cobb,
information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (Salovey 2000; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso,
& Mayer, 1990, p. 189). An empirical companion piece 2000). More recently, Goleman (2005, p. xiii) wrote that
operationalized aspects of EI as an ability: Participants others who believed that EI predicts huge proportions of
examined a set of colors, faces, and designs and had to success had misunderstood his 1995 book.
identify each one’s emotional content (Mayer et al., 1990).
In a subsequent editorial in the journal Intelligence, we The Advent of Mixed Models
discussed the difference between traits such as extraver- With EI defined in the public mind as a variety of positive
sion, self-confidence, and EI, noting, attributes, subsequent approaches continued to expand the
Although a trait such as extraversion may depend on social skill, concept. One defined EI quite broadly as, “an array of
or result in it, [it] is a . . . preference rather than an ability. noncognitive capabilities, competencies, and skills that in-
Knowing what another person feels, in contrast, is a mental fluence one’s ability to succeed in coping with environ-
ability. Such knowledge may stem from g, or be somewhat mental demands and pressures” (Bar-On, 1997, p. 14).
independent of it. The way in which we have defined emotional Although the model included emotion-related qualities
intelligence—as involving a series of mental abilities— qualifies
such as emotional self-awareness and empathy, into the
it as a form of intelligence. (Mayer & Salovey, 1993, p. 435)
mix were added many additional qualities, including reality
Although we were clear about our ability conception, testing, assertiveness, self-regard, and self-actualization. It
we acknowledge that our earliest model was, in some of its was this mixing in of related and unrelated attributes that
specifics, overly broad. That model, for example, included led us to call these mixed models of EI (Mayer et al., 2000).
flexible planning and creative thinking as two skills in- A second mixed model of EI included such qualities as
504 September 2008 ● American Psychologist

The Four-Branch Model of EI
General Introduction to EI
Intelligence considered. It is possible to de-
velop a coherent approach to the concept of EI. In order to
describe an EI, we need first to define intelligence. From
the beginning of intelligence theorizing and testing, debates
have raged regarding not only the nature of intelligence but
also how many intelligences exist (Neisser et al., 1996).
However, even the fiercest of g theorists, those proposing
that intelligence is best described as consisting of a single,
general mental ability factor, allow for the existence of
more specific ability factors (e.g., Carroll, 1993).
Intelligences can be divided up in different ways, for
example, according to whether they address crystallized
(memory-dependent) or fluid (process-dependent) abilities
or, alternatively, according to the type of information that
is their focus. The approach that divides intelligences into
information areas, for example, yields a verbal/proposi-
tional intelligence that deals with words and logic and a
Peter Salovey
Photo by Michael spatial intelligence that deals with arranging and rotating
Marsland objects in space, among others. Analogously, an EI would
address (a) the capacity to reason with and about emotions
and/or (b) the contribution of the emotions system to en-
hancing intelligence.
trustworthiness, adaptability, innovation, communication, One longstanding grouping of intelligences divides
and team capabilities as emotional competencies (Gole- them into verbal/propositional and perceptual/organiza-
man, 1998b). The additions of this model led to the char- tional areas (e.g., Kaufman, 2000). For decades, research-
ers have searched for an elusive third intelligence, believ-
acterization of such an approach as “preposterously all-
ing that these two core intelligences by themselves were
encompassing” (Locke, 2005, p. 428).
insufficient to describe individual differences in mental
Still another research team defined a trait EI as refer-
abilities (Walker & Foley, 1973; Wechsler, 1943). In 1920,
ring to “a constellation of behavioral dispositions and
Thorndike (p. 228) suggested the existence of a social
self-perceptions concerning one’s ability to recognize, pro-
intelligence, which involved “the ability to understand and
cess, and utilize emotion-laden information. It encom- manage men and women, boys and girls—to act wisely in
passes . . . empathy, impulsivity, and assertiveness as well human relations” (see also Bureau of Personnel Adminis-
as elements of social intelligence . . . and personal intelli- tration, 1930; Thorndike & Stein, 1937). Social intelligence
gence” (Petrides & Furnham, 2003, p. 278). At this point, began to be investigated, although it had vocal critics—
the pattern is clear: A large number of personality traits are whose criticisms may have impeded the field’s growth
amassed, mixed in with a few socioemotional abilities, and (Cronbach, 1960).
the model is called one of EI or trait EI. (The “trait” None of the proposed earlier intelligences, however,
designation is particularly confusing, as trait is typically explicitly concerned an EI—reasoning validly about emo-
defined as a distinguishing quality, or an inherited charac- tions and then using emotions in the reasoning process. By
teristic, and could apply to any EI model.) Generally speak- the early 1980s, there was a greater openness to the idea of
ing, these models include little or no justification for why specific (or multiple) intelligences (Gardner, 1983; Guil-
certain traits are included and others are not, or why, for ford, 1959; Sternberg, 1985), and at the same time, research
that matter, certain emotional abilities are included and in emotions was blossoming. Ekman (1973) and others had
others are not, except for an occasional mention that the resurrected Darwin’s ideas that some types of emotional
attributes have been chosen because they are most likely to information—for example, human facial expressions of
predict success (e.g., Bar-On, 1997). certain emotions—are universal; others examined how
Such approaches are disappointing from a theoretical events lead to cognitive appraisals that in turn generate
and construct validity standpoint, and they are scientifically emotions (Dyer, 1983; Roseman, 1984; Scherer, 1993;
challenging in that, with so many independent qualities, it Sloman & Croucher, 1981; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985).
is hard to identify a global theme to these lists of attributes. Perhaps the elusive intelligence that could comple-
There is, however, an alternative to such a state of (what we ment the traditional dichotomy of verbal/propositional and
see as) disorganization. We believe that our four-branch perceptual/organizational might be one of EI. An EI, after
model of emotional intelligence, for example, provides one all, when compared with social intelligence, arguably could
conceptually coherent approach (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). have a more distinct brain locus in the limbic system and its
It is to this model that we turn next. cortical projections (Damasio, 1994; LeDoux, 2000; Mac-

understand their own and others’ actions (e.g., Dyer, 1983;
Ekman, 1973).
By the 1990s, the significance of emotions and their
meanings were better appreciated and were increasingly
studied empirically. The functional role of emotions as
communication signals became widely accepted, although
further issues remain to be explored, such as the meanings
of affective dimensions and how social influences may
modify emotional expression (Averill, 1992; Barrett &
Russell, 1999). Prominent undergraduate textbooks on
emotion and research handbooks appeared (e.g., Carlson &
Hatfield, 1992; Lazarus, 1991; Lewis & Haviland-Jones,
2000; Oatley & Jenkins, 1996; Strongman, 1996). Curric-
ula designed expressly to teach emotional knowledge and
literacy in the schools also have been developed (Brackett
et al., 2007; Maurer, Brackett, & Plein, 2004; Wilson,
Brackett, DeRosier, & Rivers, 2007).
EI and the Four-Branch Model
David R. Emotional abilities can be thought of as falling along a
Caruso
Photo by Michael continuum from those that are relatively lower level, in the
Marsland sense of carrying out fundamental, discrete psychological
functions, to those that are more developmentally complex
and operate in the service of personal self-management and
goals. Crucial among lower level, fundamental skills is the
Lean, 1973; TenHouten, Hoppe, Bogen, & Walter, 1985). capacity to perceive emotions accurately. Higher level
An initial theory of EI developed these ideas along with a skills include, for example, the capacity to manage emo-
first demonstration study to indicate how aspects of it might tions properly. These skills can be arranged in a rough
be measured (Mayer et al., 1990; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). hierarchy of four branches (these branches refer to a tree-
Emotions as signals. To describe convincingly like diagram; Mayer & Salovey, 1997). These include the
what it means to reason with emotions, however, one must abilities to (a) perceive emotions in oneself and others
understand their informational content. Initially, some peo- accurately, (b) use emotions to facilitate thinking, (c) un-
ple express surprise that emotions convey information at derstand emotions, emotional language, and the signals
all. Emotions often are viewed as irrational, will-o’-the- conveyed by emotions, and (d) manage emotions so as to
wisp states— even pathological in their arbitrariness attain specific goals (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). These four
(Young, 1943). Although this does describe the operation branches are illustrated in Figure 1.
of emotion at times, it is far from a complete picture of a As an example, imagine a situation in which a young
normal, functioning emotion system. man visits a friend in the hospital who has been in a car
The meanings of specific emotion terms have been accident. The first area of EI involves perceiving emotions.
understood by philosophers for hundreds of years (So- As the young man surveys the hospital room, the visiting
lomon, 2000) and have been refined by psychologists relatives, and his unconscious friend, he may wonder,
(Clore, Ortony, & Foss, 1987; Frijda, 1988; Ortony, Clore, “What is each family member feeling?” Perhaps he per-
& Collins, 1988; Roseman, 1984; Smith & Ellsworth, ceives the worry and anxiety in their faces. Feelings are
1985). For example, happiness includes a signal of wanting complex; also emerging from within him may be fear of his
to join with others; sadness is a signal of loss and of own mortality and a guilty relief—with a surge in en-
wanting comfort (or to be alone). Until recently, however, ergy—in response to being spared the accident himself and
the significance of these terms was not always recognized. remaining unharmed.
William James, for example, wrote that he would rather The anxiety experienced by those around the young
“read verbal descriptions of the shapes of the rocks on my man redirects his attention from his own concerns to a
New Hampshire farm” than a catalog of emotional mean- focus on the well-being of his friend. Using energy from
ings (James, 1892/1920, p. 375). the fear and relief, he may feel motivated to talk with
Such viewpoints began to change as the emotion sys- family members and find out how they are. This is an
tem increasingly came to be seen as an evolved signaling example of using emotion to facilitate thought.
system (Darwin, 1872/1998; Ekman, 1973). To be sure, To understand the emotions of the situation involves
some differences exist in expressing and reading emotions asking “What sorts of feelings emerge from such a situa-
across cultures (Ekman, 1973; Elfenbein & Ambady, tion?” and “How can these feelings be expected to change
2002a; Mesquita, 2001). At the same time, there is com- over time?” The accident is unexpected and severe, so the
pelling evidence that many emotion meanings are in large family’s shock is palpable. The young man may reason that
part universal—and play a key role in helping people to one feature of such shock is its emergence from a rapid

Figure 1
The Four-Branch Model of Emotional Intelligence (Mayer & Salovey,1997)
Emotional Intelligence
Managing emotions so as to attain specific goals
Understanding emotions, emotional language, and

the signals conveyed by emotions
Using emotions to facilitate thinking
Perceiving emotions accurately

in oneself and others
Note. Each branch describes a set of skills that make up overall emotional intelligence. Each branch has its own developmental trajectory, proceeding from
relatively easy skills to more sophisticated ones. For example, Perceiving Emotions typically begins with the ability to perceive basic emotions in faces and voice tones
and may progress to the accurate perception of emotional blends and to the detection of emotional microexpressions in the face.
combination of surprise, sadness, and other mostly negative pictures of faces, in one task, and in photographs and
emotions (Goodrum, 2005). artwork, in another. As another example, one of the Un-
Knowing this, and understanding these feelings, he derstanding Emotions tasks employs items such as the
may find that one possible course would be to engage in following to gauge the capacity to reason with emotions:
emotion management. After regulating his own emotions,
What feeling, when intensified and coupled with a sense of
perhaps by observing them, and thereby psychologically
injustice, is most likely to lead a person to experience anger? (a)
distancing himself from them, the young person may in- frustration (b) guilt (c) melancholy (d) fatigue
quire of the parents how they came to learn of the accident
and how they are holding up, what their days are like, and Responses on the MSCEIT are scored with respect to
how he can be of assistance. Listening creates a caring their degree of correctness, as determined by their corre-
environment while helping to clarify the disturbing, ongo- spondence with the answers provided by a group of emo-
ing events. tions experts (i.e., emotion researchers) or a normative
sample of the general population. The best answer to the
Measuring EI
sample question above is “(a) frustration” because, inten-
Ability measures of EI. Individual differences sified, it leads to anger. This approach to scoring is some-
exist in each of these four processes. For example, some what similar to that used for certain subtests of classic
people are more accurate in initially perceiving how each intelligence tests such as Comprehension on the Wechsler
individual in this story might be feeling, recognizing their Adult Intelligence Scale (Matarazzo, 1972; Wechsler,
feelings from faces and postures. Such individual differ- 1997). Criticisms of this scoring procedure also have been
ences can be measured. Each ability area of our four- raised and are discussed in the next section.
branch model of EI can be operationalized formally as a set Theory of the measurement of EI. There
of to-be-solved problems, and test takers’ responses can be are two powerful theoretical reasons why only such a
checked against a criterion of correctness. There are a clearly focused, ability-based approach can best measure
number of ability-based scales of emotional perception EI. First, intelligences most generally are defined as mental
(Archer, Costanzo, & Akert, 2001; Matsumoto, LeRoux, & abilities, and measuring mental abilities involves asking
Wilson-Cohn, 2000), emotional identification and under- test takers relevant questions and then evaluating their
standing (Geher, Warner, & Brown, 2001), and emotional answers against a criterion of correctness (e.g., Carroll,
integrative complexity (Lane, Quinlan, Schwartz, Walker, 1993). The MSCEIT expert scoring system identified cor-
& Zeitlin, 1990). rect answers by using the pooled responses of 21 emotions
One measure that spans these areas is the Mayer- researchers (Mayer et al., 2003).
Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). It In addition, according to the Standards for Educa-
consists of eight tasks, two for each of the four branches of tional and Psychological Testing, validity evidence is
our EI model (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999; Mayer, partly based on response processes. That is, “Theoretical
Salovey, & Caruso, 2002; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & . . . analyses of the response processes of test takers can
Sitarenios, 2003). For example, Perceiving Emotions is provide evidence concerning the fit between the construct
assessed by asking participants to identify emotions in and the detailed nature of performance or response” (Amer-

ican Educational Research Association [AERA], American verbal intelligence, and lower with perceptual/organiza-
Psychological Association [APA], & National Council on tional IQ (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000; Mayer et al.,
Measurement in Education [NCME], 1999, p. 12; see also 1999). Most of the overlap with verbal intelligence is
Ployhart, 2006). Requiring test takers to meet a criterion of accounted for by the third branch of the MSCEIT, Under-
correctness provides an excellent fit to the emotional intel- standing Emotions.
ligence concept. Incisive criticism in the area has promoted EI also should be relatively independent of more tra-
the progression from an early reliance on the consensus of ditional personality scales. To test this, one can correlate
test takers as a criterion to the use of emotions experts (e.g., scales of EI with the Big Five personality traits. The Big
Roberts, Zeidner, & Matthews, 2001). The two approaches Five traits are Extraversion–Introversion, Neuroticism–Sta-
to scoring— expert and general consensus— correlate bility, Openness–Closedness, Agreeableness–Disagree-
highly with each other (Mayer et al., 2003). However, there ableness, and Conscientiousness–Carelessness. Each of the
is further room for refinement of such criteria, including the Big Five traits can be divided into more specific traits. For
development of a veridical scoring system for many EI test example, one approach to the Big Five divides Extraver-
items. sion–Introversion into such facets as gregariousness, asser-
Mixed models of EI, recall, are those that mix many tiveness, and warmth (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The Big
attributes such as self-esteem and optimism into the ability Five represents a good starting point for frequently studied
model. These approaches typically measure EI through personality dimensions, although some traits arguably are
self-judgments, using items of the form “I understand my not measured by the Big Five (e.g., educated– uneducated,
emotions well” (true/false). Such items draw information diplomatic– humorous, religious– unreligious; Saucier &
that is filtered through the self-concept of the test taker. Goldberg, 1998).
Test takers, however, may or may not be able to understand EI, defined here as an ability, should have minimal
the question, may or may not have received accurate feed- correlations with Big Five traits such as Extraversion or
back regarding the accuracy of their emotional perceptions Neuroticism: Whether or not people are sociable or emo-
before, and may, in their self-evaluations, be influenced by tional, they can be smart about emotions. We did predict
mood and tendencies toward self-aggrandizement. In direct that EI would have a modest relation to Openness, as
tests, self-judgment-based response processes are not Openness often correlates with intelligences (Mayer &
highly correlated with measured abilities of perceiving, Salovey, 1993). Some representative correlations between
using, understanding, and/or managing emotions (Brackett, the MSCEIT and the Big Five are shown in the first row of
Rivers, Shiffman, Lerner, & Salovey, 2006). Table 1; the scale correlated .25 with Openness and .28
In addition, because mixed-model tests often include with Agreeableness, a trait that includes empathic and
EI-irrelevant variables such as need for achievement and interpersonally sensitive content, and had lower correla-
self-esteem, they assess the wrong concepts. Including tions with the rest (Brackett & Mayer, 2003).
other variables increases the degree of construct-irrelevant In contrast, mixed-model self-judgment scales labeled
variance, which, as it rises, progressively invalidates a test as measuring “emotional intelligence” appear to measure
(AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999). For example, test makers many variables that are relevant to motivations, social
who add commonly studied personality traits (e.g., asser- skills, and other areas of personality but not necessarily to
tiveness, optimism) to their scales end up measuring clas- an EI (Brackett & Mayer, 2003). Although variables such
sically defined personality traits rather than EI. Naming as optimism, self-control, and the like each have specific
such a test one of “emotional intelligence” does not clarify and uniquely important variance, as one measures many
this situation. such traits together, they begin to reflect broader, more
A test that focuses specifically on constructs relevant general traits of the sort found on the Big Five.
to EI and that evaluates responses as to their correctness The relations of several mixed-model scales of EI to
possesses good evidence for its validity. A priori, it stands the NEO–Personality Inventory–Revised (NEO-PI-R;
a much greater chance of measuring the concept success- Costa & McCrae, 1992), a measure of the Big Five per-
fully. This is a strictly conceptual issue. Nonetheless, there sonality traits, are illustrated in the next four rows of Table
is substantial empirical evidence as well that ability tests 1. Notably, mixed-model scales correlate ⫺.57 and ⫺.70
such as the MSCEIT measure EI rather than other con- with Neuroticism in two instances, and .47 and .68 with
structs, whereas other scales possess considerable con- Extraversion in two others; their relations with Openness or
struct-irrelevant variance—most specifically, an overlap even Agreeableness are somewhat lower. The overlap be-
with personality traits such as Neuroticism, Extraversion, tween mixed-model measures of EI and the NEO-PI-R
and Conscientiousness (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; New- becomes more striking when it is put into context. Consider
some, Day, & Catano, 2000). a test explicitly designed to be parallel to the NEO-PI-R—
Key findings concerning EI and other psy- the Big Five Inventory (Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann,
chological traits. If, as we claim, EI involves a 2003). The Big Five Inventory’s correlations with the
unique source of variation that reflects a new intelligence, NEO-PI-R (see Table 1, bottom row) are often not higher
then it should exhibit some overlap with other intelligence than the correlations exhibited by the mixed-model EI
scales. Studies indicate that EI, as measured by the MS- scales. That is, the mixed-model EI scales overlap with the
CEIT and its precursor test the Multifactor Emotional In- Big Five, sometimes as much as scales explicitly designed
telligence Scale (MEIS), correlates about .35 or so with to measure the Big Five overlap with each other. The

Table 1
Several Relevant Tests Ordered According to Their Correlation With the NEO-PI-R Measure of the Big Five
The Big Five
Test Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
Emotional intelligence (as ability)

Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test:
Total EIa ⫺.08 .11 .25*** .28*** .03
Mixed-model, self-judgment scales
Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test: Overall EIa ⫺.19** .32*** .43*** .09 .25***
Emotional Competence Inventory: Self-Awareness
Clusterb ⫺.07 .47** .28** .00 .30**
Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Overall EQa ⫺.57*** .37*** .16* .27*** .48***
Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue):
Overall EIc ⫺.70*** .68** .44** ⫺.04 .34**
Big Five subscales with each other (as a comparison)
Big Five Inventoryd (Extraversion with extraversion;
neuroticism with neuroticism, etc.) .66*** .76*** .68*** .66*** .70***
Note. NEO-PI-R ⫽ Revised NEO Personality Inventory; EI ⫽ emotional intelligence.
a
Results are from Brackett and Mayer (2003); higher correlations between the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory and the NEO-Five-Factor Inventory have been
reported (Dawda & Hart, 2000, p. 807). b Correlations are from Boyatzis and Sala (2004) and Murensky (2000); only cluster-level results are reported. c Cor-
relations are from Petrides and Furnham (2003). d An alternative measure of the Big Five traits correlated with the NEO-PI; results are from Gosling, Rentfrow, and
Swann (2003).
*
p ⬍ .05. **p ⬍ .01. ***p ⬍ .001.
mixed-model scales drop off in association with traits such skills. The convergence among ability measures of emo-
as Openness and Agreeableness, which arguably are most tional perception such as the Japanese and Caucasian Brief
likely to be related to EI. Overall, the MSCEIT shows the Affect Recognition Test (JACBART; Matsumoto et al.,
greatest independence from the Big Five. The mixed-model 2000), the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy
scales’ high overlap, and their pattern of overlap, with the (DANVA; Nowicki & Duke, 1994), and the MSCEIT is
Big Five indicates that for such mixed-model measures, low, with most published values falling between .00 and
construct-irrelevant variance predominates. .30 (Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008). On the plus side,
A final issue concerning the mixed-model scales la- the subscales of the MSCEIT converge with one another
beled “emotional intelligence” is that, unmoored from any (with correlations ranging from .16 to .58) despite using
constraints of the EI terminology, they sample across the different response formats across branches (Mayer et al.,
domain of psychological traits in a haphazard fashion. As a 2003). MSCEIT scores also correlate with the ability to
consequence, at least some among the different self-judg- forecast one’s future emotions (Dunn, Brackett, Ashton-
ment mixed-model EI scales in the area correlate at lower James, Schneiderman, & Salovey, 2007) and with the ac-
levels with one another than they do with the Big Five curate perception of emotion in music (Resnicow, Salovey,
(Brackett & Mayer, 2003). & Repp, 2004). Nonetheless, this issue is unsettling and
Of course, tests such as the MSCEIT must meet ad- requires further understanding (Mayer et al., 2008).
ditional psychometric standards as well: reliability and Compared with the convergent validity evidence, the
structural, convergent, and discriminant validity among discriminant validity evidence is promising. The very mod-
them. The split-half reliability of the overall EI score on the est correlations between MSCEIT scores and traits of the
MSCEIT is .91, with reliabilities for the four branches Big Five (and other personality measures), as well as
ranging from the high .70s to the low .90s, and test–retest traditional intelligences, strongly indicate that the ability to
reliability is in the high .80s (Mayer et al., 2003). Confir- reason about emotions (i.e., EI) is a new construct. We
matory factor analyses indicate that both a one-factor earlier reported some MSCEIT–Big Five correlations; the
model, indicating the presence of an overall EI, and four- MSCEIT total score correlates at similarly low levels, in
factor models fit the data adequately, with other models the .20 to .35 range, with verbal intelligence and empathy
possible (notably, a three-factor model that combines (Mayer et al., 2004).
Branches 1 and 2 is also plausible; Gignac, 2005; Mayer, A number of observers and commentators on the field
Panter, Salovey, & Sitaraneos, 2005; Mayer et al., 2003; have expressed reservations about whether such tests are
Palmer, Gignac, Manocha, & Stough, 2005). adequate measures of EI and whether they predict impor-
One fly in the MSCEIT ointment concerns its conver- tant outcomes (e.g., Brody, 2004; Oatley, 2004; Zeidner,
gent validity with other ability measures of specific EI Matthews, & Roberts, 2001). The recent Annual Review of

Psychology examination of EI and its measurement covers arily, new measures can incrementally increase conceptual
such concerns in greater detail and summarizes many of the clarity and understanding within a field.
central, continuing issues (Mayer et al., 2008). To date, Journalistic accounts of EI raised unrealistic ideas
however, we believe that ability scales provide the best such as that “90% of the difference” between star perform-
benchmark for this new construct, although existing scales ers and other workers is attributable to “emotional intelli-
still have room for substantial improvement. gence factors” (Goleman, 1998a, p. 94) and that 85% of
success could be attributed to EI (Watkin, 2000, p. 89)—
The Significance of EI claims that we have repeatedly pointed out are misleading
General Considerations of the Validity of an and unsupported by research (e.g., Mayer, 1999; Mayer &
EI Measure Cobb, 2000; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer et al., 2000).
EI is just one variable among many other mental abilities,
We recognize that the MSCEIT has important limitations cognitive styles, and socioemotional traits, and EI should
(see, e.g., our Recommendation 5 below), and yet we predict important outcomes at levels usually found for
consider it among the better and most widely used of the other such psychological variables. Predictions from psy-
valid measures available. As such, we focus on it in this chological measures to outcome variables for complex
section. The measurement issues surrounding EI are ele- behavior are considered satisfactory in the .10 to .20 range,
ments of broader questions: Is a measure such as the good in the .20 to .30 range, and still better when higher
MSCEIT a valid assessment of EI? And can a test such as than .30 (Meyer, Finn, et al., 2001, p. 134). With this in
the MSCEIT account for new variance in important out- mind, we examined studies in which EI predicted, or failed
comes? In the mid-20th century, psychologists believed to predict, key outcomes; Table 2 reports instances where
that such questions about validity could be answered on the EI added incremental validity in a study—to indicate where
basis of findings from key correlational and experimental EI may make its most important predictions.
studies of the test itself (e.g., Barley, 1962).
EI and Understanding Feelings
A more contemporary view, by contrast, considers the
validity of a test a consequence of ongoing critical evalu- Higher EI does appear to promote better attention to physical
ation not only of the test itself but also of the theoretical and mental processes relevant to clinical outcomes. For ex-
framework supporting it and its embeddedness in broader ample, people higher in some EI skills are more accurate in
conceptualizations. For example, a test’s measure of a detecting variations in their own heartbeat—an emotion-re-
concept depends on how the test author(s) define the con- lated physiological response (Schneider, Lyons, & Williams,
cept, and that definition, in turn, will be reliant on other 2005). Higher EI individuals also are better able to recognize
hypotheses and definitions, sometimes referred to as aux- and reason about the emotional consequences of events. For
iliary theories. As summarized by G. T. Smith (2005), “In example, higher EI individuals are more accurate in affective
part for this reason, no theory is ever fully proved or forecasting—that is, in predicting how they will feel at some
disproved. At any given time, evidence tends to favor some point in the future in response to an event, such as the outcome
theories or research programs, over others” (pp. 397–398). of a U.S. presidential election (Dunn et al., 2007).
Thus far, the measurement evidence tends to favor the
EI and Subjective Symptoms
ability-based EI approach described here over other re-
search alternatives (such as dismissing EI or using mixed Abilities such as affective forecasting are important, for
models). Valid approaches to EI can be divided into two example, because psychotherapy patients from a wide di-
central areas: specific-ability approaches, such as the study versity of backgrounds seek help with the hope of gaining
of accurate emotional perception, and integrative models of insight into their feelings and motives (Evans, Acosta, &
EI, one example of which is the four-branch model and the Yamamoto, 1986; Noble, Douglas, & Newman, 1999). If
MSCEIT (see Mayer et al., 2008, for other measures). EI increases an individual’s attention to and accuracy about
Drawing on revised criteria for test validity (AERA, APA, his or her feelings under various conditions, this could, in
& NCME, 1999), a research team (including one of the turn, minimize the individual’s psychiatric symptoms.
present authors) surveyed such EI measures and concluded David (2005) examined EI and psychiatric distress on the
that tests based either on specific or integrative ability Symptom Checklist–90 –Revised (SCL-90-R). The higher
approaches to measurement exhibited generally good evi- a person’s EI, the lower their reports of symptoms on the
dence for their validity. Tests based on mixed models, by Positive Symptom Total (r ⫽ ⫺.38), including, for exam-
contrast, did not adequately measure EI (Mayer et al., ple, fewer headaches and less trouble concentrating. Scores
2008). on the Symptom Distress Index, which measures symptom
Here, we elaborate more specifically on the validity— intensity, also declined as EI rose (r ⫽ ⫺.22). After she
both general and incremental— of the MSCEIT measure controlled for the Big Five personality dimensions, EI still
and the four-branch approach, particularly as it relates to accounted for between 1% and 6% of the variance in
clinical and applied phenomena. Hunsley and Meyer (2003, SCL-90-R scales—supporting the incremental validity of
p. 446; cf. McFall, 2005) noted, “The concept of incremen- EI (see Table 2). Other reports have indicated that, for
tal validity is essentially a simple and straightforward one: example, those diagnosed with dysthymia have lower EI
does a measure add to the prediction of a criterion above scores than other psychiatric groups (Lizeretti, Oberst,
what can be predicted by other sources of data?” Second- Chamarro, & Farriols, 2006).

Table 2
Selected Correlations From Several Studies Indicating That High Emotional Intelligence (EI) Is Associated With
Better Social Relations, and Low EI With Deviant Behavior
Correlation Incremental relation or
Study and criterion measure with EI partial correlation with EI
David (2005)
SCL-90-R Global Severity Index ⫺.31** ⌬ R2 ⫽ .03***
SCL-90-R Positive Symptom Total ⫺.38** ⌬ R2 ⫽ .06***
SCL-90-R Positive Symptom Distress ⫺.22** ⌬ R2 ⫽ .01*
Lopes, Salovey, Côté, & Beers (2005)a
Peer nominations of interpersonal sensitivity .29* —
Peer nominations of interpersonal competence, dominance, and assertiveness .05 —
Reciprocal friendship nominations .23* —
Rosete (2007)
Manager’s rating of achieving business outcomes .26** ␤ ⫽ .24**
Manager’s effective interpersonal behaviors .52** ␤ ⫽ .49**
Brackett & Mayer ( 2003)
Drug use (Amount of marijuana owned? Times used illegal drugs in last month?) ⫺.05 ⫺.07
Social deviance (Number of physical fights in the last year? Number of times
vandalized something?) ⫺.27*** ⫺.20**
Brackett, Mayer, & Warner (2004)
Illegal drug user (men only) (Times smoked marijuana in the last month? Money
spent on drugs in last month?) ⫺.32* ⫺.34**
Deviant behavior (men only) (Number of physical fights in last year? Times
vandalized something last year?) ⫺.40* ⫺.27*
Trinidad & Johnson (2002)b
Overall tobacco and alcohol use ⫺.19* R2 ⫽ .12***
Note. For more complete reporting, see the original reports. The criterion scale is the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) unless otherwise
noted. SCL-90-R ⫽ Symptom Checklist–90 –Revised.
a
Emotional Regulation scale (only) from the MSCEIT. b Trinidad and Johnson (2002) used the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS; Mayer, Caruso, &
Salovey, 1999), which was a precursor ability scale to the MSCEIT.
*
p ⬍ .05. **p ⬍ .01. ***p ⬍ .001.
EI and Understanding Social Relationships ple, judges’ positive ratings of a videotaped “getting ac-
quainted” social interaction were predicted by the MS-
Many psychotherapy clients hope to improve what have be-
CEIT, although again, only for men and not for women.
come problematic social behaviors and relationships (Evans et
Ratings of the ability to work well with others as well as
al., 1986; Noble et al., 1999). Research on EI indicates that
overall judged social competence correlated .53 and .51,
people with high EI tend to be more socially competent, to
respectively, with EI. The authors noted that significant
have better quality relationships, and to be viewed as more
correlations remained after they partialed out the Big Five
interpersonally sensitive than those lower in EI (Brackett et
(Brackett et al., 2006).
al., 2006; Brackett, Warner, & Bosco, 2005; Lopes et al.,
Just as higher EI predicts better social outcomes, lower
2004; Lopes, Salovey, Côté, & Beers, 2005; Lopes, Salovey,
EI predicts interpersonal conflict and maladjustment. Teenag-
& Straus, 2003). Many associations between EI and these
ers lower in EI were rated as more aggressive than others and
kinds of variables remain significant even after one controls
tended to engage in more conflictual behavior than their
for the influence of traditional personality variables and gen-
higher EI peers in two small-sample studies (Mayer, Perkins,
eral intelligence on the measured outcome.
Caruso, & Salovey, 2001; Rubin, 1999). Lower EI also pre-
In one study of friendships, the relationship between
dicted greater drug and alcohol abuse. For example, levels of
EI and participants’ engagement in destructive responses to
drug and alcohol use are related to lower EI among males
life events experienced by their friends was often signifi-
(Brackett, Mayer, & Warner, 2004). Inner-city adolescents’
cant, even after the researchers controlled for the Big Five,
smoking is also related to their EI (Trinidad & Johnson, 2002).
psychological well-being, empathy, life satisfaction, and
Verbal SAT scores, but for men only (Brackett et al., EI and Understanding Work Relationships
2006); MSCEIT correlations ranged from ⫺.02 to ⫺.33.
Although the findings described above were based on High EI correlates with better relationships in business
self-evaluated outcome criteria, similar findings have come settings as well. Managers higher in EI are better able to
from observer reports of the same individuals. For exam- cultivate productive working relationships with others and

to demonstrate greater personal integrity according to mul- practitioners. EI can be defined as an intelligence that
tirater feedback (Rosete & Ciarrochi, 2005). EI also pre- explains important variance in an individual’s problem
dicts the extent to which managers engage in behaviors that solving and social relationships. Yet the acceptance of the
are supportive of the goals of the organization, according to construct is threatened less by its critics, perhaps, than by
the ratings of their supervisors (Côté & Miners, 2006). In those who are so enthusiastic about it as to apply the term
one study, 38 manufacturing supervisors’ managerial per- indiscriminately to a variety of traditional personality vari-
formance was evaluated by their 1,258 employees. Total EI ables (as pointed out by Daus & Ashkanasy, 2003, and
correlated .39 with these managerial performance ratings, Murphy & Sideman, 2006).
with the strongest relations for the ability to perceive emo-
Why Do Some Investigators and Practitioners
tions and to use emotions (Kerr, Garvin, & Heaton, 2006).
Use the Term Emotional Intelligence Overly
Rosete (2007) studied 122 public service managers’
Broadly?
business and leadership performance and found that the
MSCEIT correlated .26 with a supervisor’s appraisal of a Expansion of the emotional and cognitive
manager’s effective business performance (“focuses strate- areas of thinking. Why are traits such as the need
gically,” “ensures closure and delivers on intended re- for achievement, self-control, and social effectiveness (let
sults”) and .52 with an appraisal of a manager’s effective alone character and leveraging diversity) sometimes re-
interpersonal behaviors (“guides, mentors, and develops ferred to as EI? Perhaps one contributing cause is a lack of
people,” “someone who communicates clearly”). A hierar- perspective on personality as a whole. Psychology needs
chical regression analysis predicting effective business per- good overviews of the central areas of mental function—
formance indicated that EI was a significant predictor even models that define personality’s major areas. Yet few such
after both an estimate of cognitive ability (16 PF Question- overviews reached any level of currency or consensus in
naire, Scale B) and the Big Five were entered. A similar the psychology of the 1980s and 1990s. Hilgard (1980)
analysis for the interpersonal behavior rating showed that indicated that psychology is thrown out of balance by the
ability EI was also a significant predictor after cognitive absence of such models. Indeed, the cognitive revolution of
ability and personality were statistically controlled (see the 1960s and 1970s (Miller, 2003), followed by the intense
Table 2). interest in affective (emotional) sciences in the 1980s and
A somewhat more complex relationship between EI 1990s (e.g., Barsade, Brief, & Spataro, 2003), contributed
and other variables was found by Côté and Miners (2006). to a sense that cognitive and emotional systems were dom-
In their study, employees with low cognitive intelligence inant aspects of the whole of personality. Many psycholo-
(scoring one standard deviation or more below the sample gists and other investigators began to refer to cognition,
mean on the Culture Fair Intelligence Test) exhibited better affect, and behavior, as though they provided complete
performance and citizenship behavior if they scored higher coverage of the study of mental life (e.g., Thompson &
on the MSCEIT but not otherwise, whereas those with high Fine, 1999). In that impoverished context, the term emo-
cognitive intelligence (one standard deviation or more tional intelligence could be mistaken as a label for much of
above the mean) showed no advantage of EI. In a small- mental processing. In fact, however, the three-legged stool
sample study of employees in the finance division of an of cognition, affect, and behavior underemphasizes such
insurance company, higher MSCEIT scores were associ- areas of personality as representations of the self, motiva-
ated with positive ratings of work behavior by peers and tion, and self-control processes; more comprehensive mod-
supervisors as well as with recommendations for greater els have since been proposed (Mayer, 2003, 2005; McAd-
year-end salary increases (Lopes et al., 2006). ams & Pals, 2006).
Considerations of Incremental Validity Reaction to the Big Five. Also during the
1980s and 1990s, the most pervasive empirical work in
Empirical evidence suggests that EI often contributes to personality psychology involved the study of the Big Five
incremental predictions of social effectiveness, over and traits (Goldberg, 1993; Goldberg & Rosolack, 1994; John
above frequently employed measures of personality and & Srivastava, 1999)—so much so that many people iden-
intelligence, as exhibited in Table 2. The EI concept further tified personality as merely, or essentially, the Big Five
incrementally increases our clarity in understanding why (Block, 1995). Yet that Big Five model dispossessed many
certain people—those who score higher on EI scales—are traditionally important personality variables (Block, 1995;
more successful in their relationships at home and at work. Mayer, 2005). There was a reaction against the Big Five
These higher EI individuals are better able to recognize and model that had, during those years, so represented the field.
reason about their emotions, as well as about the emotional The advent of EI encouraged some to revisit a number
consequences of their decisions, and the emotions of oth- of social and emotional traits and conceive of them as
ers. Together, the empirical and conceptual increments forming new models of social effectiveness and well-being.
indicate that EI is a useful variable for study. Furnham and Petrides included in their model self-judged
Discussion and Recommendations adaptability, assertiveness, social competence, and stress
management, among other traits, which were included un-
EI as a Valid and Significant New Concept der those authors’ label trait emotional intelligence (Pet-
In this article, we have argued that there exists a valid and rides & Furnham, 2001, pp. 40, 47). Acknowledging the
conceptually important new variable for investigators and considerable overlap between their dimensions and those of

the Big Five traits, they stated that “even if there were Ashkanasy, 2005; Gohm, 2004); to date, however, this
complete overlap between trait EI and the main personality message has not been heeded as we believe it should be.
dimensions . . . we believe that the theoretical and explan-
atory power of any psychological construct, including trait Recommendations
EI, is much more important than its incremental validity”
The tradition of exaggerated tenderness in psychiatry and psy-
(Petrides & Furnham, 2001, p. 54).Their research was
chology reflects our “therapeutic attitude” and contrasts with that
recently used as part of the basis for the launch of yet of scholars in fields like philosophy or law, where a dumb
another self-judgment scale with “emotional intelligence” argument is called a dumb argument, and he who makes a dumb
in its name (Tett et al., 2005). argument can expect to be slapped down by his peers. (Meehl,
Although we agree that theoretical clarity is, at times, 1973, p. 228)
more important than incremental validity, we also believe
in staying within scientific bounds in the use of such terms Those investigators interested in EI increasingly are
as emotion and intelligence— unless, of course, such terms asking for clarification of what is and is not legitimate work
require revision. Those investigators who wander outside in the field. Murphy and Sideman (2006, p. 296) put it as a
the conceptual network, however, offer no rationale for need to “succeed in separating the valid work from the
revising such terms. hype.” One central concern of ours (and of others), here
The seduction of the emotional. There is a and elsewhere, has been to distinguish better from poorer
broader cultural perspective, as well, that may promote approaches to EI.
such yearnings for a broader EI. Throughout history, phi- From our perspective, renaming the Big Five and
losophers and pundits alike have argued about whether to other classic personality traits as “emotional intelligence”
follow one’s “head” or one’s “heart.” Through much of this reflects a lack of understanding of personality theory and
time, the “heads” have had the upper hand, so to speak. The undermines good scientific practice. It obscures the mean-
Stoic tradition that thought trumps emotions is well em- ing of EI, and EI is an important enough new construct as
bedded in Western philosophy. Still, at times, those with to make that unfortunate and problematic. Only when re-
emotional urges have leapt forward to argue that the heart searchers revert to using the term to refer to its legitimate
should be all-important. It appears that some of our writ- meaning within the conceptual, scientific network can it be
taken seriously (AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999; Cronbach
ings have inspired a bit of an outbreak of that type.
& Meehl, 1955). There are a good number of researchers
And yet, viewing emotions as all-important would be
who understand this and who have used the term consis-
a mistake, as it represents a false dichotomy (cf. Damasio,
tently in a meaningful fashion. As for the others, one of our
1994). Relying on emotional characteristics, or on motives,
reasons for writing this article is to convince them of the
or on any single part of personality would leave the indi-
common sense of using the current personality terminol-
vidual unbalanced, from our perspective. A truly healthy
ogy. On a very practical level, it is often impossible to
individual has neither thought alone, nor emotion alone, but evaluate a journal article purporting to study EI on the basis
a functional integration among his or her major psycholog- of keywords or the abstract: The study may examine well-
ical processes. In this view, mental energy—a combination being, assertiveness, self-perceptions of emotional abilities,
of motives and emotions—works with adaptive thinking or actual abilities.
and leads to effective behaviors, all the while being mon- We have provided an overview of EI in particular with
itored, guided, and controlled, where necessary, by self- an eye to helping distinguish EI from other more traditional
consciousness (Mayer, 2007). Being warm is not enough personality variables. We have attempted to make it clearer
(although it may be pleasant); ditto exhibiting assertive- than before where EI begins and ends and where other
ness. Rather, all its parts must come together for personal- personality approaches pick up. Much of the mixed-model
ity to work. research on EI (sometimes called EQ), can be described by
Our viewpoint. We agree with a number of what Lakatos (1968, cited in G. T. Smith, 2005, p. 401)
observers of this area of study that the term emotional referred to as a “degenerating research program,” which
intelligence is used in too all-inclusive a fashion and in too consists of a series of defensive shifts in terminology and
many different ways (Landy, 2005; Locke, 2005; Matthews hypotheses “unlikely to yield new knowledge or under-
et al., 2004; Murphy, 2006). Referring in particular to the standing.”
broadened definitions of EI, Locke (2005) remarked, We realize that the recommendations below may be
“What does EI . . . not include?” (p. 428). We believe that obvious to many, even to those who have not read our
there is a valid EI concept. However, we certainly agree article. To be as clear as we can be, however, we propose
that there is widespread misuse of the term to apply to a set of simple recommendations that we believe will help
concepts that simply are not concerned with emotion or to safeguard the field and foster its progress.
intelligence or their intersection. The misuses of the term Recommendation 1. In our opinion, the jour-
are, to us, invalid in that they attempt to overthrow or nalistic popularizations of EI frequently employ inadequate
subvert the standard scientific language in psychology, and overly broad definitions of EI, implausible claims, and
with no apparent rationale for doing so. Other investigators misunderstandings of the concepts and research more gen-
similarly have pointed out that it is important to distinguish erally. We urge researchers and practitioners alike to refer
between valid and invalid uses of the concept (Daus & to the scientific literature on emotions, intelligence, and

emotional intelligence to guide their thinking. Simply put, overly broad uses of the term, and by recommending al-
researchers need to cite the research literature rather than ternatives, we can apply some persuasion gradually to
journalistic renderings of scientific concepts, which serve a discourage such usage and make others aware of its prob-
different purpose. lematic nature. That said, we continue to believe that EI is
Recommendation 2. Referring to the diverse an important, newly described construct. It organizes a
approaches to EI, one research group observed, “It is pre- number of specific mental abilities having to do with iden-
cisely because of this heterogeneity that we need clear tifying, understanding, managing, and using emotions; it is
conceptualization and definition” (Zeidner et al., 2004, p. distinct from other constructs; it unifies a set of heretofore
247). To restore clarity to the study of EI, we recommend diverse psychological processes for examination; and it
that the term emotional intelligence be limited to abilities at makes practical, though modest, predictions about key in-
the intersection between emotions and intelligence—spe- terpersonal behaviors.
cifically limited to the set of abilities involved in reasoning In this article, we hope to have separated this EI from
about emotions and using emotions to enhance reasoning. other constructs that may be important in their own right
Recommendation 3. We recommend that but are ill-labeled as emotional intelligence. By clarifying
those interested in EI refocus on research relevant to the our model and discussing some of the confusion in the area,
ability conception of EI. This includes studies using emo- we hope to encourage researchers and practitioners to dis-
tional knowledge measures, emotional facial recognition tinguish EI from other domains of study. Such distinctions
ability, levels of emotional awareness, emerging research will help pave the way for a healthier, more convincing,
on emotional self-regulation, and related areas (e.g., Elfen- and better understood EI, one that best can serve the
bein & Ambady, 2002b; Izard et al., 2001; Lane et al., discipline of psychology and other fields.
1990; Mayer et al., 2003; Nowicki & Mitchell, 1998).
Recommendation 4. We recommend that REFERENCES
groups of widely studied personality traits, including mo-
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological
tives such as the need for achievement, self-related con- Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999).
cepts such as self-control, emotional traits such as happi- Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC:
ness, and social styles such as assertiveness should be American Educational Research Association.
called what they are, rather than being mixed together in Archer, D., Costanzo, M., & Akert, R. (2001). The Interpersonal Percep-
haphazard-seeming assortments and named emotional in- tion Task (IPT): Alternative approaches to problems of theory and
design. In J. A. Hall & F. J. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity:
telligence. Theory and measurement (pp. 161–182). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Recommendation 5. Much remains unknown Averill, J. R. (1992). The structural bases of emotional behavior: A
about EI (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2007). Our final metatheoretical analysis. Review of Personality and Social Psychology,
recommendation is that, following the clearer terminology 13, 1–24.
Barley, W. W. (1962). The retreat to commitment. New York: Knopf.
and conceptions above, good theorizing and research on EI Bar-On, R. (1997). BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory: Technical man-
continue until more is known about the concept and about ual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
human mental abilities more generally. Enough has been Bar-On, R. (2004). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i):
learned to indicate that EI is a promising area for study but Rationale, description and summary of psychometric properties. In G.
also that significant gaps in knowledge remain. For exam- Geher (Ed.), Measuring emotional intelligence: Common ground and
controversy (pp. 115–145). New York: Nova Science.
ple, there needs to be greater attention to issues of culture Barrett, L. F., & Russell, J. A. (1999). The structure of current affect:
and gender and their impact on theories of EI and the Controversies and emerging consensus. Current Directions in Psycho-
measurement of EI. Further progress in the measurement of logical Science, 8, 10 –14.
EI generally also is required. Applications of EI must be Barsade, S. G., Brief, A. P., & Spataro, S. E. (2003). The affective
conducted with much greater attention to the research lit- revolution in organizational behavior: The emergence of a paradigm. In
J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science
erature, be grounded in good theory, and reject outlandish (2nd ed., pp. 3–52). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
claims. Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to person-
The MSCEIT, we believe, is a useful, integrative ality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187–215.
approach to measuring EI. At the same time, we acknowl- Boyatzis, R. E., & Sala, F. (2004). The Emotional Competence Inventory
edge that the test has important limitations. For example, (ECI). In G. Geher (Ed.), Measuring emotional intelligence: Common
ground and controversy (pp. 147–180). New York: Nova Science.
the present version of the MSCEIT may be insufficient to Brackett, M. A., Kremenitzer, J. P., Maurer, M., Carpenter, M. D., Rivers,
validly assess a person’s accuracy in emotional perception S. E., & Katulak, N. A. (2007). Emotional literacy in the classroom:
(e.g., O’Sullivan & Ekman, 2004; Roberts et al., 2006). In Upper elementary. Port Chester, NY: Dude Publishing/National Pro-
addition, its factor structure remains open for discussion fessional Resources.
Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and
(Palmer et al., 2005; Rode et al., in press). There remains incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence.
room for further understanding and substantial improve- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1147–1158.
ment in these and other areas. Brackett, M. A., Mayer, J. D., & Warner, R. M. (2004). Emotional
Regarding the recommendations as a whole, we real- intelligence and the prediction of behavior. Personality and Individual
ize that there are many stakeholders in this area. A number Differences, 36, 1387–1402.
Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., & Salovey, P.
of those stakeholders would naturally hope to continue (2006). Relating emotional abilities to social functioning: A comparison
using the term emotional intelligence as they have been. of self-report and performance measures of emotional intelligence.
We hope that by highlighting the valid criticism of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 780 –795.

Brackett, M. A., Warner, R. M., & Bosco, J. (2005). Emotional intelli- Gohm, C. L. (2004). Moving forward with emotional intelligence. Psy-
gence and relationship quality among couples. Personal Relationships, chological Inquiry, 15, 222–227.
12, 197–212. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits.
Brody, N. (2004). What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional American Psychologist, 48, 26 –34.
intelligence is not. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 234 –238. Goldberg, L. R., & Rosolack, T. K. (1994). The Big Five factor structure
Bureau of Personnel Administration. (1930). Partially standardized tests as an integrative framework: An empirical comparison with Eysenck’s
of social intelligence. Public Personnel Studies, 8, 73–79. P-E-N model. In C. F. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin
Carlson, J. G., & Hatfield, E. (1992). Psychology of emotion. San Diego, (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from
CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. infancy to adulthood (pp. 7–35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.
analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Goleman, D. (1998a). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review,
Ciarrochi, J. V., Chan, A. Y., & Caputi, P. (2000). A critical evaluation of 76, 93–102.
the emotional intelligence concept. Personality and Individual Differ- Goleman, D. (1998b). Working with emotional intelligence. New York:
ences, 28, 539 –561. Bantam.
Clore, G. L., Ortony, A., & Foss, M. A. (1987). The psychological Goleman, D. (2005). Emotional intelligence (10th anniversary ed.). New
foundations of the affective lexicon. Journal of Personality and Social York: Bantam.
Psychology, 53, 751–766. Goodrum, S. (2005). The interaction between thoughts and emotions
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory following the news of a loved one’s murder. Omega: Journal of Death
(NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional and Dying, 51, 143–160.
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. J. (2003). A very brief
Côté, S., & Miners, C. T. H. (2006). Emotional intelligence, cognitive measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in
intelligence and job performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, Personality, 37, 504 –528.
1–28. Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cronbach, L. J. (1960). Essentials of psychological testing (2nd ed.). New Hilgard, E. R. (1980). The trilogy of mind: Cognition, affection, and
York: Harper & Row. conation. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 16, 107–
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psycholog- 117.
ical tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302. Hunsley, J., & Meyer, G. J. (2003). The incremental validity of psycho-
Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error. New York: Putnam. logical testing and assessment: Conceptual, methodological, and statis-
Darwin, C. (1998). The expression of the emotions in man and animals; tical issues. Psychological Assessment, 15, 446 – 455.
with an introduction, afterword, and commentaries by Paul Ekman (3rd Izard, C., Fine, S., Schultz, D., Mostow, A. J., Ackerman, B., & Young-
ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. (Original work published strom, E. (2001). Emotion knowledge as a predictor of social behavior
1872) and academic competence in children at risk. Psychological Science,
Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). Will the real emotional intelli- 12, 18 –23.
gence please stand up? On deconstructing the emotional intelligence James, W. (1920). Psychology: Briefer course. New York: Henry Holt.
“debate.” The Industrial–Organizational Psychologist, 41, 69 –72. (Original work published 1892)
Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). The case for the ability-based John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy:
model of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior. Journal of History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin &
Organizational Behavior, 26, 453– 466. O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd
David, S. A. (2005). Emotional intelligence: Conceptual and methodolog- ed., pp. 102–138). New York/London: Guilford Press.
ical issues, and its role in coping and well-being. Unpublished doctoral Kaufman, A. S. (2000). Tests of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),
dissertation, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Handbook of intelligence (pp. 445– 476). New York: Cambridge Uni-
Dawda, D., & Hart, S. D. (2000). Assessing emotional intelligence: versity Press.
Reliability and validity of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory Kerr, R., Garvin, J., & Heaton, N. (2006). Emotional intelligence and
(EQ-i) in university students. Personality and Individual Differences, leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development
28, 797– 812. Journal, 27, 265–279.
Dunn, E. W., Brackett, M. A., Ashton-James, C., Schneiderman, E., & Landy, F. J. (2005). Some historical and scientific issues related to
Salovey, P. (2007). On emotionally intelligent time travel: Individual research on emotional intelligence. Journal of Organizational Behav-
differences in affective forecasting ability. Personality and Social Psy- ior, 26, 411– 424.
chology Bulletin, 33, 85–93. Lane, R. D., Quinlan, D. M., Schwartz, G. E., Walker, P. A., & Zeitlin,
Dyer, M. G. (1983). The role of affect in narratives. Cognitive Science, 7, S. B. (1990). The Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale: A cognitive–
211–242. developmental measure of emotion. Journal of Personality Assessment,
Ekman, P. (1973). Darwin and facial expression: A century of research in 55, 124 –134.
review. New York: Academic Press. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford
Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2002a). On the universality and cultural University Press.
specificity of emotion recognition: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bul- LeDoux, J. E. (2000). Emotion circuits in the brain. Annual Review of
letin, 128, 203–235. Neuroscience, 23, 155–184.
Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2002b). Predicting workplace outcomes Lewis, M., & Haviland-Jones. (2000). Handbook of emotions (2nd ed.).
from the ability to eavesdrop on feelings. Journal of Applied Psychol- New York: Guilford Press.
ogy, 87, 963–971. Lizeretti, N. P., Oberst, U., Chamarro, A., & Farriols, N. (2006). Evalu-
Evans, L. A., Acosta, F. X., & Yamamoto, J. (1986). Patient requests: ación de la inteligencia emocional en pacientes con psicopatologı́a:
Correlates and therapeutic implications for Hispanic, Black, and Cau- Resultados preliminares usando el TMMS-24 y el MSCEIT [Assess-
casian patients. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 213–221. ment of emotional intelligence in patients with psychopathology: Pre-
Frijda, N. H. (1988). The laws of emotion. American Psychologist, 43, liminary results using TMSS-24 and the MSCEIT]. Ansiedad y Estrés,
349 –358. 12, 355–364.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Locke, E. A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept.
New York: Basic Books. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 425– 431.
Geher, G., Warner, R. M., & Brown, A. S. (2001). Predictive validity of Lopes, P. N., Brackett, M. A., Nezlek, J. B., Schütz, A., Sellin, I., &
the Emotional Accuracy Research Scale. Intelligence, 29, 373–388. Salovey, P. (2004). Emotional intelligence and social interaction. Per-
Gibbs, N. (1995, October 2). The EQ factor. Time, 146, 60 – 68. sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1018 –1034.
Gignac, G. E. (2005). Evaluating the MSCEIT V2.0 via CFA: Comment Lopes, P. N., Côté, S., Grewal, D., Salovey, P., Kadis, J., & Gall, M.
on Mayer et al. (2003). Emotion, 5, 233–235. (2006). Evidence that emotional intelligence is related to job perfor-

mance, interpersonal facilitation, affect and attitudes at work, and Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Mea-
leadership potential. Psicothema, 18, 132–138. suring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3,
Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., Côté, S., & Beers, M. (2005). Emotion regu- 97–105.
lation abilities and the quality of social interaction. Emotion, 5, 113– McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental
118. principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychol-
Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Straus, R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, ogist, 61, 204 –217.
personality, and the perceived quality of social relationships. Person- McFall, R. M. (2005). Theory and utility—Key themes in evidence-based
ality and Individual Differences, 35, 641– 658. assessment: Comment on the special section. Psychological Assess-
MacLean, P. D. (1973). A triune concept of the brain and behavior. ment, 17, 312–325.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Meehl, P. E. (1973). Why I do not attend case conferences. In P. E. Meehl
Matarazzo, J. D. (1972). Wechsler’s measurement and appraisal of adult (Ed.), Psychodiagnosis: Selected papers (pp. 225–302). New York:
intelligence (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Norton.
Matsumoto, D., LeRoux, J., & Wilson-Cohn, C. (2000). A new test to Mesquita, B. (2001). Emotions in collectivist and individualist contexts.
measure emotion recognition ability: Matsumoto and Ekman’s Japa- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 68 –74.
nese and Caucasian Brief Affect Recognition Test (JACBART). Jour- Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G. G., Moreland, L. K., Dies,
nal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 179 –209. R. R., et al. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assess-
Matthews, G., Roberts, R. D., & Zeidner, M. (2004). Seven myths about ment: A review of evidence and issues. American Psychologist, 56,
emotional intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 179 –196. 128 –165.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). Emotional intelli- Miller, G. A. (2003). The cognitive revolution: A historical perspective.
gence: Science and myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 141–144.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2007). Emotional intelli- Murensky, C. L. (2000). The relationships between emotional intelli-
gence: Knowns and unknowns. Oxford, England: Oxford University gence, personality, critical thinking ability and organizational leader-
Press. ship performance at upper levels of management. Dissertation Ab-
Maurer, M., Brackett, M., & Plain, F. (2004). Emotional literacy in the stracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 61(2-B),
middle school. Port Chester, NY: Dude Publishing/National Profes- 1121 (US: University Microfilms International ISSN/ISBN: 0419 –
sional Resources. 4217).
Mayer, J. D. (1999). Emotional intelligence: Popular or scientific psy- Murphy, K. R. (Ed.). (2006). A critique of emotional intelligence: What
chology? APA Monitor, 30, 50. are the problems and how can they be fixed? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mayer, J. D. (2003). Structural divisions of personality and the classifi- Murphy, K. R., & Sideman, L. (2006). The fadification of emotional
cation of traits. Review of General Psychology, 7, 381– 401. intelligence. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), A critique of emotional intelli-
Mayer, J. D. (2005). A tale of two visions: Can a new view of personality gence: What are the problems and how can they be fixed (pp. 283–299).
help integrate psychology? American Psychologist, 60, 294 –307. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mayer, J. D. (2006). A new field guide to emotional intelligence. In J. Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci,
Ciarrochi, J. P. Forgas, & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Emotional intelligence in S. J., et al. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American
everyday life (2nd ed., pp. 3–26). New York: Psychology Press. Psychologist, 51, 77–101.
Mayer, J. D. (2007). Personality function and personality change. In J.
Newsome, S., Day, A. L., & Catano, V. M. (2000). Assessing the
Ciarrochi & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Applying emotional intelligence (pp.
predictive validity of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual
125–143). New York: Psychology Press.
Differences, 29, 1005–1016.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence
Noble, L. M., Douglas, B. C., & Newman, S. P. (1999). What do patients
meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27, 267–
want and do we want to know? A review of patients’ requests of
298.
psychiatric services. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 100, 321–327.
Mayer, J. D., & Cobb, C. D. (2000). Educational policy on emotional
intelligence: Does it make sense? Educational Psychology Review, 12, Nowicki, S. J., & Duke, M. P. (1994). Individual differences in the
163–183. nonverbal communication of affect: The Diagnostic Analysis of Non-
Mayer, J. D., DiPaolo, M. T., & Salovey, P. (1990). Perceiving affective verbal Accuracy Scale. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 19, 9 –35.
content in ambiguous visual stimuli: A component of emotional intel- Nowicki, S. J., & Mitchell, J. (1998). Accuracy in identifying affect in
ligence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54, 772–781. child and adult faces and voices and social competence in preschool
Mayer, J. D., Panter, A. T., Salovey, P., & Sitaraneos, G. (2005). A children. Genetic, Social, & General Psychology Monographs, 124,
discrepancy in analyses of the MSCEIT—resolving the mystery and 39 –59.
understanding its implications: A reply to Gignac (2005). Emotion, 5, Oatley, K. (2004). Emotional intelligence and the intelligence of emo-
236 –237. tions. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 216 –221.
Mayer, J. D., Perkins, D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2001). Emotional Oatley, K., & Jenkins, J. M. (1996). Understanding emotions. Oxford,
intelligence and giftedness. Roeper Review, 23, 131–137. England: Blackwell.
Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. M. (1988). The cognitive structure
Emotional intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 507–536. of emotions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intel- O’Sullivan, M., & Ekman, P. (2004). Facial expression recognition and
ligence. Intelligence, 17, 433– 442. emotional intelligence. In G. Geher (Ed.), Measuring emotional intel-
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. ligence: Common ground and controversy (pp. 91–111). Hauppauge,
Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional NY: Nova Science.
intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3–31). New York: Basic Palmer, B. R., Gignac, G., Manocha, R., & Stough, C. (2005). A psycho-
Books. metric evaluation of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Models of emotional Test Version 2.0. Intelligence, 33, 285–305.
intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence:
396 – 420). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxono-
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso mies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425– 448.
Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) user’s manual. Toronto, On- Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence:
tario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Behavioural validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reac-
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: tivity to mood induction. European Journal of Personality, 17, 39 –57.
Theory, findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 60, 197– Ployhart, R. E. (2006). The predictor response process model. In J. A.
215. Weekley & R. E. Ployhart (Eds.), Situational judgment tests: Theory,
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2001). Emo- measurement, and application (pp. 83–105). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
tional intelligence as a standard intelligence. Emotion, 1, 232–242. Resnicow, J. E., Salovey, P., & Repp, B. H. (2004). Is recognition of

emotion in musical performance an aspect of emotional intelligence? Smith, G. T. (2005). On construct validity: Issues of method and mea-
Music Perception, 22, 145–158. surement. Psychological Assessment, 17, 396 – 408.
Roberts, R. D., Schulze, R., O’Brien, K., MacCann, C., Reid, J., & Maul, Solomon, R. C. (2000). The philosophy of emotions. In M. Lewis & J. M.
A. (2006). Exploring the validity of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emo- Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 3–15). New York:
tional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) with established emotions measures. Guilford Press.
Emotion, 6, 663– 669. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Human intelligence: The model is the message.
Roberts, R. D., Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2001). Does emotional Science, 230, 1111–1118.
intelligence meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new Strongman, K. T. (1996). The psychology of emotion: Theories of emotion
data and conclusions. Emotion, 1, 196 –231. in perspective (4th ed.). Oxford, England: Wiley.
Rode, J. C., Mooney, C. H., Arthaud-day, M. L., Near, J. P., Rubin, R. S., TenHouten, W. D., Hoppe, J. E., Bogen, J. E., & Walter, D. O. (1985).
Baldwin, T. T., et al. (in press). An examination of the structural, Alexithymia and the split brain: IV. Gottschalk–Gleser content analy-
discriminant, nomological, and incremental predictive validity of the sis, an overview. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 44, 113–121.
MSCEIT V 2.0. Intelligence. Tett, R. P., Fox, K. E., & Wang, A. (2005). Development and validation
Roseman, I. (1984). Cognitive determinants of emotions: A structural of a self-report measure of emotional intelligence as a multidimensional
theory. In P. Shaver (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: trait domain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 859 – 888.
Vol. 5. Emotions, relationships, and health (pp. 11–36). Beverly Hills, Thompson, L., & Fine, G. A. (1999). Socially shared cognition, affect, and
CA: Sage. behavior: A review and integration. Personality and Social Psychology
Rosete, D. (2007). Does emotional intelligence play an important role in Review, 3, 278 –302.
leadership effectiveness? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harper’s Magazine,
of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. 140, 227–235.
Rosete, D., & Ciarrochi, J. (2005). Emotional intelligence and its rela- Thorndike, E. L., & Stein, S. (1937). An evaluation of the attempts to
tionship to workplace performance of leadership effectiveness. Lead- measure social intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 34, 275–285.
ership & Organization Development Journal, 26, 388 –399. Trinidad, D. R., & Johnson, C. A. (2002). The association between
Rubin, M. M. (1999). Emotional intelligence and its role in mitigating emotional intelligence and early adolescent tobacco and alcohol use.
aggression: A correlational study of the relationship between emotional Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 95–105.
intelligence and aggression in urban adolescents. Unpublished doctoral Walker, R. E., & Foley, J. M. (1973). Social intelligence: Its history and
dissertation, Immaculata College, Immaculata, Pennsylvania. measurement. Psychological Reports, 33, 839 – 864.
Salovey, P., & Grewal, D. (2005). The science of emotional intelligence. Watkin, C. (2000). Developing emotional intelligence. International Jour-
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 281–285. nal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 89 –92.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Wechsler, D. (1943). Non-intellective factors in general intelligence.
Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185–211. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 101–103.
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1998). What is beyond the Big Five? Wechsler, D. (1997). WAIS III: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (3rd
Journal of Personality, 66, 495–524. ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Scherer, K. R. (1993). Studying the emotion-antecedent appraisal process: Wilson, M. E., Brackett, M. A., DeRosier, M. E., & Rivers, S. E. (2007).
An expert system approach. Cognition and Emotion, 7, 325–355. Emotional literacy in the classroom: Kindergarten, first grade, second
Schneider, T. R., Lyons, J. B., & Williams, M. (2005). Emotional intel- grade. Cary, NC: SELmedia.
ligence and autonomic self-perception: Emotional abilities are related Young, P. T. (1943). Emotion in man and animal: Its nature and relation
to visceral acuity. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 853– 861. to attitude and motive. New York: Wiley.
Sloman, A., & Croucher, M. (1981). Why robots will have emotions. In Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2001). Slow down, you
P. J. Hayes (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint move too fast: Emotional intelligence remains an “elusive” intelligence.
Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 197–202). San Fran- Emotion, 1, 265–275.
cisco: Morgan Kaufmann. Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D., & Matthews, G. (2004). The emotional
Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in intelligence bandwagon: Too fast to live, too young to die? Psycholog-
emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813– 838. ical Inquiry, 15, 239 –248.

Emotional Intelligence New Ability or Ec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Emotional Intelligence New Ability or Ec

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Emotional Intelligence New Ability or Ec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Emotional Intelligence

New Ability or Eclectic Traits?

John D. Mayer University of New Hampshire

September 2008 ● American Psychologist 503

504 September 2008 ● American Psychologist

September 2008 ● American Psychologist 505

506 September 2008 ● American Psychologist

Managing emotions so as to attain specific goals

Understanding emotions, emotional language, and

Using emotions to facilitate thinking

Perceiving emotions accurately

September 2008 ● American Psychologist 507

508 September 2008 ● American Psychologist

Test Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness

Emotional intelligence (as ability)

September 2008 ● American Psychologist 509

510 September 2008 ● American Psychologist

September 2008 ● American Psychologist 511

512 September 2008 ● American Psychologist

September 2008 ● American Psychologist 513

514 September 2008 ● American Psychologist

September 2008 ● American Psychologist 515

516 September 2008 ● American Psychologist

September 2008 ● American Psychologist 517

You might also like