David R. Caruso

Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence

An intelligence must meet several standard criteria before it can be considered scientifically legitimate. First, it should be capable of being operationalized as a set of abilities. Second, it should meet certain correlational criteria: the abilities defined by the intelligence should form a related set (i.e., be intercorrelated), and be related to pre-existing intelligences, while also showing some unique variance. Third, the abilities of the intelligence should develop with age and experience. In two studies, adults (N=503) and adolescents (N=229) took a new, 12-subscale ability test of emotional intelligence: the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS). The present studies show that emotional intelligence, as measured by the MEIS, meets the above three classical criteria of a standard intelligence.

Models of emotional intelligence

COMPETING MODELS OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE Studies of emotional intelligence initially appeared in academic articles beginning in the early 1990s. By middecade, the concept had attracted considerable popular attention, and powerful claims were made concerning its importance for predicting success. Emotional intelligence is the set of abilities that accounts for how peoples emotional reports vary in their accuracy and how the more accurate understanding of emotion leads to better problem solving in an individuals emotional life. More formally, we define emotional intelligence as the ability to perceive and express emotion, assimilate emotion in thought, understand and reason with emotion, and regulate emotion in the self and others (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). As of now, the academic concept has been developed over several theoretical articles (e.g., Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Salovey & Mayer, 1990) and is based on a growing body of relevant research (e.g., Averill & Nunley, 1992; Buck, 1984; Lane, Sechrest, Reidel et al., 1996; Mayer, DiPaolo, & Salovey, 1990; Mayer & Geher, 1996; Mayer & Stevens, 1994; Rosenthal, Hall, DiMatteo, Rogers, & Archer, 1979; Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey, & Palfai, 1995; see also, Salovey & Sluyter, 1997). Shortly after the academic work began, a popular book on the subject appeared (Goleman, 1995a). The book covered much of the literature reviewed in the aforementioned articles as well as considerable additional research on emotions and the brain, emotions and social behavior, and school-based programs designed to help children develop emotional and social skills.

Emotional intelligence as a standard intelligence

The authors have claimed that emotional intelligence (EI) meets traditional standards for an intelligence (J. D. Mayer, D. R. Caruso, & P. Salovey, 1999). R. D. Roberts, M. Zeidner, and G. Matthews (2001) questioned whether that claim was warranted. The central issue raised by Roberts et al. concerning Mayer et al. (1999) is whether there are correct answers to questions on tests purporting to measure EI as a set of abilities. To address this issue (and others), the present authors briefly restate their view of intelligence, emotion, and EI. They then present arguments for the reasonableness of measuring EI as an ability, indicate that correct answers exist, and summarize recent data suggesting that such measures are, indeed, reliable.

Relation of an Ability Measure of Emotional Intelligence to Personality

Is emotional intelligence simply a naive theory of personality, or is it a form of intelligence? If emotional intelligence is to be of value, it must measure something unique and distinct from standard personality traits. To explore this question, this study examined an ability test of emotional intelligence and its relationship to personality test variables to determine the extent to which these constructs overlap. A sample of 183 men and women took the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999), an ability measure of emotional intelligence as well as measures of career interests, personality, and social behavior. Emotional intelligence was measured reliably and was relatively independent of traditionally defined personality traits, supporting the discriminant validity of the emotional intelligence construct.

Emotional intelligence and giftedness

This article examines the relation between concepts of emotional giftedness and emotional intelligence, and attempts to relate a persons level of emotional intelligence to the actual ways they cope with challenging social situations. Emotional intelligence and social behavior were explored in a pilot study with adolescents. Emotional intelligence was measured with the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 1997), an ability‐based measure of emotional perception, facilitation, understanding, and management. General intelligence was measured with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Scale (Dunn & Dunn, 1981). Each of the 11 adolescents also answered questions about how he or she had handled a difficult social encounter. Those with higher emotional intelligence were better able to identify their own and others’ emotions in situations, use that information to guide their actions, and resist peer pressure than others.

The Ability Model of Emotional Intelligence: Principles and Updates

This article presents seven principles that have guided our thinking about emotional intelligence, some of them new. We have reformulated our original ability model here guided by these principles, clarified earlier statements of the model that were unclear, and revised portions of it in response to current research. In this revision, we also positioned emotional intelligence amidst other hot intelligences including personal and social intelligences, and examined the implications of the changes to the model. We discuss the present and future of the concept of emotional intelligence as a mental ability.

AUTHORS' RESPONSES: "A Further Consideration of the Issues of Emotional Intelligence"

An American Psychological Association (APA) task force was assigned the difficult task of creating a consensus document regarding intelligence and related mental abilities. Its members acknowledged much ongoing debate in the field—even regarding what intelligence is. Such debate, however, can still reflect progress. As the task force noted, “Scientific research rarely begins with fully agreed definitions, though it may eventually lead to them” (Neisser et al., 1996, p. 77). Writing more generally of such controversies, the Neisser task force counseled:

Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Personality Traits.

Psychologists have searched for personality traits related to intellectual performance for nearly a half century. The greatest success has been obtained with traits that are closely related to intellectual functioning, as opposed to more general personality traits. Intellect-related traits include such characteristics as curiosity, but may also include less studied traits. A 76-item test of intellect-related personality traits was developed, measuring both traditional traits as well as less studied ones such as absorption. The test was administered to a group of 150 individuals, of whom 46 were Gifted children, and the remainder were either part of a chronological- or mental-age comparison group. Three component-based traits were obtained: Intellectual Absorption, Apathy, and Pleasure, and these were found to be related to intellectual performance.

Does Personal Intelligence Exist? Evidence From a New Ability-Based Measure

Personal intelligence has been defined as the ability to reason about personality and personality-relevant information and to use that information to guide ones actions and more generally, ones life. We constructed an initial version of an ability-based measure to test whether personal intelligence can be measured and whether it exists as a unitary intelligence. In 3 studies (N = 241, 308, and 385), we administered this Test of Personal Intelligence (TOPI), composed of 4 sections, to undergraduates along with criterion measures. Results suggested that a personal intelligence can be measured, that it might exist as a unified area of mental abilities, and that it represents psychological qualities that have intriguing predictive aspects.

Computer-Assisted Instruction for the Mentally Retarded

Publisher Summary This chapter investigates the applications and research on computer- assisted instruction (CAI) for the mentally retarded and evaluates the extent to which individualization has been addressed. CAI can be short, cartoonlike educational games or semester-long, text-based question-and-answer instruction. The type of CAI that is based on discovery learning is referred to as simulation. This type of CAI gives the student a goal to reach or a problem to solve and requires the student to learn concepts through trial and error. For example, the ongoing simulation “Oligopoly” requires business students to operate a chocolate firm in an oligopolistic market, given certain market conditions and business choices. The motivational approach to CAI is to make boring instruction fun by making it a game, which will keep students engaged in instruction longer. Some concern has been expressed, however, that the extrinsic motivation provided by the computer game might undermine any intrinsic interest a student might have in the subject matter. If CAI is to provide individualized instruction, then it might benefit from what is known about one-to-one tutoring, an individualized form of instruction which is the most effective form of instruction. Research in CAI programming for mentally retarded people is needed in two main areas-methods for individualizing CAI and methods that address group characteristics of the mentally retarded.