Moshe Zeidner

International handbook of personality and intelligence

Basic and Theoretical Issues in the Study of Intelligence and Personality: History of Personality and Intelligence Theory and Research: The Challenge E.S. Barratt. Models and Paradigms in Personality and Intelligence Research L. Stankov, et al. Personality and Intelligence at the Crossroads: Intelligence and Personality in Social Behavior M. Ford. Intellective and Personality Factors in Literacy R.C. Calfee. Empirical Links between Personality and Intelligence: Personality Trait Correlates of Intelligence M. Zeidner. Theoretical and Empirical Relationships between Personality and Intelligence J. Brebner, C. Stough. Measurement and Assessment of Personality and Intelligence: Measurement and Statistical Models in the Study of Personality and Intelligence G.J. Boyle, et al. Current Issues in the Assessment of Intelligence and Personality D.F. Lohman, T. Rocklin. Applications and Clinical Parameters: Personality in Industrial and Organizational Psychology R. Kanfer, et al. Counseling and the Role of Personality and Intelligence N.E. Amundson, et al. 24 additional articles. Index.

Chapter 23 – Self-Regulation: Directions and Challenges for Future Research

Publisher Summary This chapter presents the current state of the field of self-regulation, providing foundations of knowledge for the development of a more comprehensive understanding of self-regulation theory, research, and applications. The chapter reflects recent advances in conceptualization, methodology, research, individual differences, and areas of application, and represents some of the best contemporary thinking and research on key facets of self-regulation. At present, there is considerable confusion with respect to the criteria attributes of self-regulation, its key components, and related constructs from the same semantic domain. There are almost as many definitions and conceptions of self-regulation as there are lines of research on the topic. Thus, the term is used in somewhat different ways by researchers in different subfields, and various terms are used to denote the same concept (for example, self-regulation, self-control, self-management, problem solving, behavioral control, mood control, and self-regulated learning).

Emotional intelligence, personality, and task-induced stress

Emotional intelligence (EI) may predict stress responses and coping strategies in a variety of applied settings. This study compares EI and the personality factors of the Five Factor Model (FFM) as predictors of task-induced stress responses. Participants (N = 200) were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 task conditions, 3 of which were designed to be stressful. Results confirmed that low EI was related to worry states and avoidance coping, even with the FFM statistically controlled. However, EI was not specifically related to task-induced changes in stress state. Results also confirmed that Neuroticism related to distress, worry, and emotion-focused coping, and Conscientiousness predicted use of task-focused coping. The applied utility of EI and personality measures is discussed.

Can Emotional Intelligence Be Schooled? A Critical Review

This article critically reviews the claimed role of emotional intelligence (EI) in the educational and school context. Our review shows that most intervention programs were not specifically designed to change EI, and very few systematic interventions meet the canons of internal and external validity. Consequently, little objective evidence attesting to the useful role of EI as a predictor of school success and adjustment exists beyond that predicted by intelligence and personality factors. Herein we discuss several crucial issues that need to be addressed prior to developing and implementing EI programs, and we provide specific guidelines for the development, implementation, and evaluation of future EI programs. Currently, the successful schooling of EI is still undetermined.

The Science of Emotional Intelligence Current Consensus and Controversies

Almost from its inception, the emotional intelligence (EI) construct has been an elusive one. After nearly 2 decades of research, there still appears to be little consensus over how EI should be conceptualized or assessed and the efficacy of practical applications in real life settings. This paper aims at providing a snapshot of the state-of-the-art in research involving this newly minted construct. Specifically, in separate sections of this article, we set out to distinguish what is known from what is unknown in relation to three paramount concerns of EI research, i.e., conceptualization, assessment, and applications. In each section, we start by discussing assertions that may be made with some degree of confidence, elucidating what are essentially sources of consensus concerning EI. We move then to discuss sources of controversy; those things for which there is less agreement among EI researchers. We hope that this “straight talk” about the current status of EI research will provide a platform for new r...

Essay versus Multiple-Choice Type Classroom Exams: The Student’s Perspective

AbstractThe major aim of the present research was to compare students’ attitudes and dispositions toward teacher-made essay versus multiple-choice type exams. The primary study was conducted on a sample of 174 junior high school students, who were administered a test attitude inventory specifically designed to assess students’ attitudes towards essay versus multiple-choice type formats on a variety of critical dimensions. The study was partially replicated on a sample of 101 seventh- and eighth-grade students who were administered a modified version of the test attitude inventory that was used in the first study. Overall, the data from both studies were remarkably consistent, pointing to more favorable student attitudes towards multiple-choice compared to essay type formats on most dimensions assessed. The practical significance of the results for classroom test construction are discussed and some suggestions are made about potential future applications of test attitude inventories in the classroom setting.

Slow Down, You Move Too Fast: Emotional Intelligence Remains an "Elusive" Intelligence

Commentators on the R. D. Roberts, M. Zeidner, and G. Matthews (2001) article on the measurement of emotional intelligence (EI) made various pertinent observations that confirm the growing interest in this topic. This rejoinder finds general agreement on some key issues: learning from the history of ability testing, developing more sophisticated structural models of ability, studying emotional abilities across the life span, and establishing predictive and construct validity. However, scoring methods for tests of EI remain problematic. This rejoinder acknowledges recent improvements in convergence between different scoring methods but discusses further difficulties related to (a) neglect of group differences in normative social behaviors, (b) segregation of separate domains of knowledge linked to cognitive and emotional intelligences, (c) potential confounding of competence with learned skills and cultural factors, and (d) lack of specification of adaptive functions of EI. Empirical studies have not yet established that the Multi-Factor Emotional Intelligence Scale and related tests assess a broad EI factor of real-world significance.

The Emotional Intelligence, Health, and Well-Being Nexus: What Have We Learned and What Have We Missed?

This paper reviews the claimed pivotal role of emotional intelligence (EI) in well-being and health. Specifically, we examine the utility of EI in predicting health and well-being and point to future research issues that the field might profitably explore. EI is predictive of various indicators of well-being, as well as both physical and psychological health, but existing research has methodological limitations including over-reliance on self-report measures, and neglect of overlap between EI and personality measures. Interventions focusing on emotional perception, understanding and expression, and emotion regulation, seem potentially important for improving health and well-being, but research on EI has not yet made a major contribution to therapeutic practice. Future research, using a finer-grained approach to measurement of both predictors and criteria might most usefully focus on intra- and inter-personal processes that may mediate effects of EI on health. A video abstract of this article can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_8JZX1Uc4k.

Consensus scoring and empirical option weighting of performance-based Emotional Intelligence (EI) tests

Faces and Designs (N=102) from the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) were scored using five different consensual-scoring methods: proportion, mode, lenient mode, distance, and adjusted distance. The aim was to determine which scoring methods were superior in terms of reliability, discriminability (distribution shape), and validity. Where possible, the Method of Reciprocal Averages (MRA)—used previously on dichotomously scored aptitude tests (to improve reliability)—was applied to consensus scores. Psychometric analyses suggested that the most promising techniques were proportion and mode scoring, with MRA scaling ameliorating some potential weaknesses apparent with these forms of consensual-scoring. Faces and Designs showed weak correlations with pro-social personality dimensions, with crystallized intelligence, and with visualization abilities. The study concludes with suggested remedies for addressing measurement problems endemic to EI research.

Self-Regulation: An Introductory Overview

Publisher Summary This chapter provides an overview of an important area in psychological research, i.e., self-regulation. Although self-regulation is a relative newcomer in the psychology journals, there is now a large but diverse body of research on this topic. The search for a general understanding of self-regulation is not coherent given the diversity in the field. For example, researchers in one area, such as educational psychology, may not read articles on self-regulation produced by researchers working in a different area, such as health psychology. The main reason for this alienation may be that applied psychologists working within a particular context consider themselves a specific scientific community: They speak the same language, use their own conceptual models, and construct their own instruments and research designs to collect data about a specific aspect of self-regulation (for example, about self-regulated learning, managing stress, regulation of ones health) in a specific context (for example, homes, classrooms, health clinics, workplaces). This has resulted in large bodies of domain-specific knowledge about self-regulation, each covering specific aspects of self-regulation and using their own scientific terminology. A consequence of such domain or area specificity is that the information assembled about self-regulation is published in separate journals. Even more detrimental to the development of a common insight into the various phenomena of self-regulation is that a kaleidoscope of terms and labels exists and that these may sound unfamiliar, even alien, to researchers who are not in that particular area.