Chapter 32
The Ability Model of Emotional Intelligence

DAVID R. CARUSO, PETER SALOVEY, MARC BRACKETT AND JOHN D. MAYER

Disclosures: Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso receive royalties from sales of the MSCEIT assessment; Brackett and Caruso receive royalties from sales of a book used for school-based EI training; and Caruso and Salovey receive royalties from the sales of a book.

Human intelligence consists of a general factor, or g, which means that no matter how intelligence is defined and measured, its various components are moderately and positively correlated with one another (see, for example, Carroll, 1993). Yet, researchers have also found that underneath this general factor of intelligence, or the ability to learn and acquire knowledge, lies a number of more specific abilities or intelligences ranging from verbal to spatial intelligence. Over the decades, many specific abilities or intelligences have been proposed, including a set of intelligences sometimes referred to as “hot” intelligences. These hot intelligences operate on data that is important to us as humans, such as social relations and emotions. One of the more recently proposed hot intelligences is emotional intelligence (EI; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Even though EI was originally defined as an intelligence, where reasoning operates on emotions and emotions constructively inform reasoning, the term has been broadened to encompass a variety of views that some have labeled as soft skills or even more curiously, as noncognitive abilities. We'll briefly explore the many meanings of EI and then focus our attention on EI as an intelligence. In this chapter we expand upon research that demonstrates the validity of EI and also incorporate research on the influence of programs to enhance EI.

The general public was made aware of the concept of EI through the publication of a book in 1995 (Goleman, 1995). EI was broadly conceived in this popular book as a set of skills, abilities, and desirable personality traits, but focused on four core abilities of self and other emotional awareness and management. As a result, EI has come to refer to traits such as optimism and assertiveness, competencies such as leadership, and emotional abilities such as accurate emotion perception (for a review, see Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008). In turn, these three approaches to EI have been operationally defined through a set of personality self-report measures, 360-degree competency assessments, and ability-based measures of emotional skills (Mayer et al., 2008). These are described in Table 32.1.

Table 32.1 Three Approaches to Emotional Intelligence

Approach Definition Example Traits
Personality Noncognitive traits Assertiveness, optimism, happiness
Competency Leadership competencies Achievement, transparency, service orientation
Ability Emotion skills Emotion perception, emotion regulation

Not surprisingly, the personality approach has a great deal of overlap with traditional models and measures of standard personality trait models such as the big five (Brackett & Mayer, 2003). Competency-based models are based on standard leadership competency models. Our focus in this chapter will be on the ability-based approach to EI. This integrative approach to the conceptualization of EI represents the construct as a standard intelligence. Research on this approach to EI shows that it can be reliably measured using performance tests, that it appears to have discriminant validity with regard to traditional personality models, and that it predicts a set of important outcomes.

Precursors to a Theory of Emotional Intelligence

Emotions are often viewed as confusing and disruptive to cognitive processing and decision making. Yet, research on emotions demonstrates that they are adaptive. For example, for many years, Averill has argued that just as intellectual skills are learned and developed, so too can we acquire a repertoire of emotional skills that allow us to achieve, in his words, our full potential (Averill & Nunley, 1992). Likewise, in his model of multiple intelligences, Gardner (1985) described two personal intelligences: interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence. The latter is defined as

the core capacity at work here is access to one's own feeling life—one's range of affects or emotions: the capacity instantly to effect discriminations among these feelings and, eventually, to label them, to enmesh them in symbolic codes, to draw upon them as a means of understanding and guiding one's behavior. In its most primitive form, the intrapersonal intelligence amounts to little more than the capacity to distinguish a feeling of pleasure from one of pain and, on the basis of such discrimination, to become more involved in or to withdraw from a situation. At its most advanced level, intrapersonal knowledge allows one to detect and to symbolize complex and highly differentiated sets of feelings. One finds this form of intelligence developed in the novelist (like Proust) who can write introspectively about feelings. (p. 239 in paperback edition, original italics)

In the spirit of Gardner, Averill, and others (Leuner, 1966; Payne, 1986), we believe that there is an intelligence involving the processing of affectively-charged information (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). We define emotional intelligence as involving the capacity both to reason about emotions and to use emotions to assistance reasoning. Our model of EI includes the abilities to identify emotions accurately in oneself and in other people, understand emotions and emotional language, manage emotions in oneself and in other people, and use emotions to facilitate cognitive activities and motivate adaptive behavior (Mayer & Salovey, 1997).

In this chapter, we outline the four-branch model of EI and consider some issues in its assessment. Then we review research on the application of EI in various domains of life, and finally we consider the key findings, limitations, and opportunities for future research.

A Four-Branch Ability Model of Emotional Intelligence

We began work on a model of EI in the late 1980s by reviewing the research literature and asking what emotion-related skills and abilities modern investigators of emotion had tried—successfully or not—to operationalize over the years (reviewed in Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008). Could these skills be pulled together into a coherent whole? Four clusters or branches of EI emerged from the research (Mayer & Salovey, 1997): (1) perceiving emotions, (2) using emotions to facilitate thought, (3) understanding emotions, and (4) managing emotions in a way that enhances personal growth and social relations. We see a distinction between the second branch (using emotions) and the other three. Whereas the first, third, and fourth branches involve reasoning about emotions, the second branch uniquely involves using emotions to enhance reasoning. The four branches form a hierarchy, with identifying emotion in the self and others as the most fundamental or basic-level skill and managing emotions as the most superordinate skill. The ability to manage emotions in oneself and others is the culmination of the competencies represented by the other three branches. Individual differences in the four areas of EI have been reviewed elsewhere (e.g., Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000a, 2000b; Mayer, Salovey, et al., 2008; Salovey, Bedell, Detweiler, & Mayer, 2000; Salovey, Mayer, & Caruso, 2002); here, we provide a brief summary of the skills (see Exhibit 32.1).

Perceiving Emotions

Emotion perception involves registering, attending to, and deciphering emotion-laden messages as they are expressed in facial expressions, voice tone, or cultural artifacts. Individuals differ in their abilities to discern the emotional content of such stimuli. These competencies are basic information-processing skills in which the relevant information consists of feelings and mood states. For example, some individuals with alexithymia have difficult expressing their emotions verbally, presumably because they have difficulty identifying those feelings (Apfel & Sifneos, 1979; Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1994a, 1994b).

Using Emotions to Facilitate Thought

This second branch of EI focuses on how emotion affects the cognitive system and, as such, can be harnessed for more effective problem solving, reasoning, decision making, and creative endeavors. Of course, cognition can be disrupted by emotions, such as anxiety and fear, but emotions also can prioritize the cognitive system to attend to what is important (Easterbrook, 1959; Leeper, 1948; Mandler, 1975; Simon, 1982), and even to focus on what it does best in a given mood (e.g., Palfai & Salovey, 1993; Schwarz, 1990). This second ability turns on its head the notion that emotions always interfere with decision making and that we need to “check our emotions at the door,” especially in the workplace.

Understanding Emotions

The most fundamental competency at this level concerns the ability to label emotions with words and to recognize the relationships among exemplars of the affective lexicon. The emotionally intelligent individual is able to recognize that the terms used to describe emotions are arranged into families and that groups of emotion terms form fuzzy sets (Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988). Perhaps more importantly, the relations among these terms are deduced—for example, that annoyance and irritation can lead to rage if the provocative stimulus is not eliminated. This is the branch of EI that we would expect to be most highly correlated with verbal intelligence.

Managing Emotions

The emotionally intelligent individual can repair her negative moods and emotions and maintain positive moods and emotions when doing so is appropriate. (It is also sometimes desirable to maintain negative emotional states, such as when one anticipates having to be part of a debate, collect an unpaid bill, or compete in a race.) This regulatory process comprises several steps. Individuals must (a) believe that they can modify their emotions; (b) monitor their moods and emotional states accurately; (c) identify and discriminate those moods and emotions in need of regulation; (d) employ strategies to change these moods and emotions, most commonly, to alleviate negative feelings or maintain positive feelings; and (e) assess the effectiveness of those strategies.

Individuals differ in the expectancy that they can alleviate negative moods. Some people believe that when they are upset they can do something that will make them feel better; others insist that nothing will improve their negative moods. Individuals who believe they can successfully repair their moods engage in active responses to stress, whereas people low in self-efficacy of regulation display avoidance responses, as well as depressive and mild somatic symptoms (Cantanzaro & Greenwood, 1994; Goldman, Kraemer, & Salovey, 1996). The ability to help others enhance their moods is also an aspect of EI, as individuals often rely on their social networks to provide not just a practical but an emotional buffer against negative life events (Stroebe & Stroebe, 1996). Moreover, individuals appear to derive a sense of efficacy and social worth from helping others feel better and by contributing to their joy.

Measuring Emotional Intelligence

Over the years, we have developed a set of task-based measures of EI, the latest being the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002a). Elsewhere, we have tried to make the case that ability-based measures may be a more appropriate way to operationalize our model of EI as compared to self-report inventories (Brackett, Rivers, Shiffman, Lerner, & Salovey, 2006; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008).

The MSCEIT has eight tasks, as depicted in Exhibit 32.2: Two tasks measure each of the four branches of EI. Branch 1, Perceiving Emotions, is measured through (1) Faces, for which participants are asked to accurately identify the emotions in faces, and (2) Pictures, for which participants are asked to accurately identify the emotions conveyed by landscapes and designs. Branch 2, Using Emotions to Facilitate Thought, is measured by the (3) Sensations task, for which participants compare emotions to other tactile and sensory stimuli, and, (4) Facilitation, for which participants identify which emotions would best facilitate a type of thinking (e.g., planning a birthday party). Branch 3, Understanding Emotions, is measured through (5) Changes, which tests a person's ability to know which emotion would change into another (e.g., frustration into aggression), and (6) Blends, which asks participants to identify which emotions would form a third emotion. Branch 4, Managing Emotions, is measured through (7) Emotional Management, which involves presenting participants with hypothetical scenarios and asking how they would maintain or change their feelings in them, and (8) Emotional Relations, which involves asking participants how to manage others' feelings.

The MSCEIT produces a total score, scores at two area levels, and at the four branch levels, as well as scores for the eight individual tasks. Reliabilities at the total and branch levels of the MSCEIT are adequate. We (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2001, 2003) were able to establish that the MSCEIT test's overall reliability is r = .91 or .93 (depending upon whether expert-based or general consensus–based scoring is employed; see Mayer et al., 2002b), with branch scores (representing the four-branch model) of r = .76 to .91. Brackett and Mayer (2003) have reported that the MSCEIT has test–retest reliability of r = .86 after 1 month.

Predicting Outcomes

We have provided more substantial summaries of the relations between MSCEIT scores and important, real-life outcomes elsewhere (Brackett, Rivers, & Salovey, 2011; Mayer, Salovey, et al. 2008) and we summarize them briefly here. First, we know that EI, measured as an ability with the MSCEIT, does not overlap substantially with other psychological constructs such as the Big Five personality traits (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Lopes, Salovey, & Straus, 2003). Self-report measures of EI, on the other hand, tend to be highly correlated with existing measures of personality. For instance, Brackett and Mayer (2003) reported a multiple R between the Big Five and the Bar-On EQ-i of .75, whereas for the MSCEIT the R was only .38. The MSCEIT appears to be free of the biasing influences of mood and social desirability as well (Lopes et al., 2003).

EI seems especially relevant when discussing psychological constructs related to a life well lived. People higher in EI are less likely to engage in violent behavior such as bullying and are less likely to use tobacco, drink alcohol to excess, or take illicit drugs (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Brackett, Mayer, & Warner, 2004; Trinidad & Johnson, 2002). Individuals high in EI also report more positive interactions and relations with other people (Côté, Lopes, Salovey, & Miners, 2010).

Applications of Emotional Intelligence

There have been several major areas of application of EI theory and measurement—in education, human resources management (especially executive coaching), and politics—and we will look at these three domains in turn.

Education

In recent years, the theme of emotional intelligence has been used in a general manner to organize efforts to teach schoolchildren various kinds of skills that help to build competency in self-management and social relations. In the educational literature, this is usually called social and emotional learning (SEL; Elias, Hunter, & Kress, 2001; Payton et al., 2000), and programs range from the teaching of discrete skills in, for example, social problem solving (reviewed in Cohen, 2001; Elias et al., 1997) and conflict management (e.g., Lantieri & Patti, 1996), to larger curricula organized around broader issues of social development. A recent meta-analysis of a large number of eclectic approaches to SEL by the advocacy group CASEL (Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning) showed positive effects for such programs (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011).

Zins, Elias, Greenberg, and Weissberg (2000) suggest that to be successful, school-based programs should be comprehensive, multiyear, and integrated into the curriculum and extracurricular activities. They should be theoretically based, as well as developmentally and culturally appropriate. They should promote a caring, supportive, and challenging classroom and school climate; teach a broad range of skills; be undertaken by well-trained staff with adequate, ongoing support; promote school, family, and community partnerships; and be systematically monitored and evaluated. In addition, it is important to conduct randomized control studies of such programs, and to date, few have been conducted (e.g., Reyes, Brackett, Rivers, Elbertson, & Salovey, 2012).

One of the few randomized control studies has been based on the ability model of EI, which was adapted for use in primary and secondary schools for teachers, administrators, and students and their families (Brackett, Caruso, & Stern, 2013). This approach teaches the emotion skills of recognizing, understanding, labeling, expressing, and regulating emotions (a subset of the Mayer-Salovey ability model known by the acronym RULER), and the curriculum has been implemented in hundreds of schools. In one study, students in middle school classrooms using RULER for one academic year had higher end-of-year grades and higher teacher ratings of social and emotional competence compared to students in the comparison group (Brackett, Rivers, Reyes, & Salovey, 2012). A randomized control trial in 62 schools tested whether RULER improves the social and emotional climate of classrooms (Rivers, Brackett, Reyes, & Elbertson, 2012). After one academic year, schools that implemented RULER were rated by independent observers as having higher degrees of warmth and connectedness, more autonomy and leadership and less bullying among students, and teachers who focused more on students' interests and motivations, compared to non-RULER classrooms. Additional research examined whether first-year shifts in the emotional qualities of classrooms were followed by improvements in classroom organization and instruction at the end of the second year (Hagelskamp, Brackett, Rivers, & Salovey, 2013). Classrooms in RULER schools exhibited greater emotional support, better classroom organization, and more instructional support at the end of the second year of program delivery as compared to comparison classrooms. Other research shows that, consistent with RULER's implementation plan, mere delivery of RULER lessons is not enough for cultivating benefits for students. In one study, students had more positive outcomes, including higher EI, when they were in classrooms with teachers who had attended more training, taught more lessons, and were rated by independent observers as high-quality program implementers (Reyes et al., 2012). Thus, SEL programs such as RULER must be taught authentically, consistently, and with high quality in order to achieve intended outcomes. In addition, the dearth of randomized control studies, and the lack of multiyear longitudinal studies to demonstrate the long-term impact of SEL training, suggest a cautious, research-based approach to program development and implementation.

Human Resources Management

The workplace has been the most popular domain for applications of EI, in part because following Goleman's (1995) best-selling book on EI, he teamed up with Hay Group, one of the leading human resources development and consulting firms worldwide, to promote their measures of workplace competencies and the programs developed to enhance these skills among workers (Goleman, 1998; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). Some of the extravagant claims about EI that can be found in this literature have been criticized quite deservedly (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000). For example, Cooper and Sawaf (1997, p. xxvii) wrote that “if the driving force of intelligence in twentieth century business has been IQ, then…in the dawning twenty-first century it will be EQ” or that “use of EI for recruitment decisions leads to 90-percentile success rates” (Watkin, 2000, p. 91). This kind of hyperbole notwithstanding, there is a slowly growing literature suggesting that EI may matter in the workplace (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2002; Cherniss & Goleman, 2001; Jordan, Ashkanasy, & Härtel, 2003).

From our own work, we have seen that business students working together in task groups who scored highly on the MSCEIT are more likely to be viewed by their peers as developing well-articulated, visionary goals for the group than those students with lower MSCEIT scores (Côté et al., 2010). In a different study, business students working in teams who scored highly on the MSCEIT, especially the managing emotions branch, were more likely to have satisfying social interactions and to elicit social support from the other group members (Côté et al., 2010). In both of these studies, associations with EI and the various outcomes held even after controlling for the Big Five personality dimensions. Similarly, students with high MSCEIT scores were more likely to perform well (e.g., on examinations) in an organizational behavior and leadership course (Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2002) and in their campus jobs (Janovics & Christiansen, 2001).

In real-world studies of organizations and leadership, there have been some hints that EI is related to more positive outcomes. In a study among employees of the finance group within a health insurance company, the understanding emotions branch and total MSCEIT scores appear to predict the size of annual salary raises, and the managing emotions branch score appears to predict total compensation. Our propensity to take risk and our willingness to make risky decisions is a function, in part, of our EI. Decision making occurs due to both our thoughts about the decision as well as our current mood state. In an ingenious set of experiments, Yip and Côté (2013) found that those low in EI, specifically their emotional understanding ability (EUA), allowed the effects of incidental anxiety to impact their willingness to make risky decisions. Those higher on EUA were not influenced by their incidental anxiety. The effect disappeared, however, when low-EUA participants were instructed on the spillover effect of anxiety onto unrelated decisions.

As we write this, only 4.2% of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are female (catalyst.org). That number may not be surprising, as American corporations have been male-dominated since their inception. We won't go into the reasons for the lack of representation of women in positions of leadership, but we will point out differences between men and women in EI. As a group, women outperform men on our ability-based measure of EI (MSCEIT). The difference is statistically significant and the greatest difference is on the fourth branch, emotion management (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002b). At the same time, women tend to underestimate their EI and men tend to overestimate their ability. Insofar as EI predicts important outcomes such as quality of relationships, how work is performed, and being able to generate compelling visions, it is our belief that the edge women have over men with regard to EI may begin to address these gender imbalances. And, perhaps, they will also begin to address a bias that emotions are unprofessional. Indeed, the fundamental premise of EI is that emotions contain data, that they can help us think, create empathic connections between people, and assist us in making good decisions.

Politics

As compared to education and human resources management, applications of EI in politics are relatively recent. Based loosely on discoveries about the neurological underpinnings of the interactions between emotion and rational decision making (e.g., Adolphs & Damasio, 2001; Damasio, 1994; Jaušovec, Jaušovec, & Gerlič, 2001; LeDoux, 1996, 2000), Marcus, Neuman, and MacKuen (2000) provide a perspective on political judgment that they call affective intelligence. This is designed to examine how momentary psychological states, such as mood and emotion, interact with ongoing beliefs and values, such as self-interest, in determining political behavior.

Other scholars have looked especially at case examples of political leadership. In a study of all the presidents of the United States from Roosevelt to Clinton, Greenstein (2000) suggests that six qualities are needed for successful presidential leadership: (1) effectiveness as a public communicator; (2) organizational capacity; (3) political skill; (4) vision; (5) cognitive style; and (6) emotional intelligence. In considering EI, Greenstein focuses most explicitly on the fourth branch of our model, the management of emotions, and notes that the presidents differed quite a bit in this regard:

The vesuvian LBJ was subject to mood swings of clinical proportions. Jimmy Carter's rigidity was a significant impediment to his White House performance. The defective impulse control of Bill Clinton led him into actions that led to his impeachment. Richard Nixon was the most emotionally flawed of the presidents considered here. His anger and suspiciousness were of Shakespearean proportions. He more than any other president summons up the classic notion of the tragic hero who is defeated by the very qualities that brought him success (p. 199).

In the final sentences of his fascinating analysis, Greenstein (2000, p. 200) reveals just how central he believes EI is to presidential success: “Beware the presidential contender who lacks EI. In its absence all else may turn to ashes.”

Clinical Applications

The ability model of EI may have applications in psychotherapy and the treatment of mental illness. An intervention program in early-course schizophrenia (Eack, Greenwald, et al., 2010) found significant increases in MSCEIT scores after a year of cognitive enhancement therapy. In a sample of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, MSCEIT scores negatively correlated with disorganized symptoms and poorer functioning in the community (Kee et al., 2009). In addition, the managing emotions subtests of the MSCEIT have been included as a standard measure of social cognitive functioning in schizophrenia research (Eack, Greeno, et al., 2010).

It is possible that EI predicts attachment style or orientation, with secure attachment positively correlated with MSCEIT scores (Kafetsios, 2004). Similarly, some data suggest that EI predicts relationship quality. If both partners are low on EI, they tend to experience more conflict and report poorer-quality relationships. Interestingly, couples with a mismatch in EI, that is, where one partner is high and the other low, report greater satisfaction than do couples where both partners have high EI (Brackett, Warner, & Bosco, 2005).

EI also may have a protective factor, but perhaps for men only. In a series of studies, EI predicted the extent to which men engaged in “bad behavior” such as vandalism, physical fights, and illegal drug use (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Brackett et al., 2004).

Conclusion

In this chapter, we outlined various approaches to EI and then focused on the ability model of EI. EI is a form of intelligence that predicts a set of outcomes related to health and well-being as well as to longer-term relationships. Research on human intelligence is just a little over 100 years old, and research on EI began only about 20 years ago. However, there are a number of things we do know about EI and a number of questions we hope that researchers and practitioners will address in the future.

Summary Points

  • EI is a form of standard intelligence; it is not a soft skill, nor is it a set of personality traits.
  • EI can and should be measured objectively.
  • EI can be differentiated from traditional personality traits such as the Big Five.
  • EI predicts important life outcomes in children and adults, and does so at levels one associates with other important psychological constructs.
  • The next phase of research should include the development of integrative models of EI and objective measures of a wide range of emotional abilities.
  • The question as to whether, and how, EI itself can be increased needs to be addressed with experimental interventions. If the underlying aptitude cannot be raised, applied research should determine what sorts of positive impact EI training has on people's lives.

References

  1. Adolphs, R., & Damasio, A. R. (2001). The interaction of affect and cognition: A neurobiological perspective. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Handbook of affect and social cognition (pp. 27–49). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
  2. Apfel, R. J., & Sifneos, P. E. (1979). Alexithymia: Concept and measurement. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 32, 180–190.
  3. Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. (2002). Emotion in the workplace: The new challenge for managers. The Academy of Management Executive, 16, 76–86.
  4. Averill, J. R., & Nunley, E. P. (1992). Voyages of the heart: Living an emotionally creative life. New York, NY: Free Press.
  5. Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D. A., & Taylor, G. J. (1994a). The Twenty-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale—I. Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38, 23–32.
  6. Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D. A., & Taylor, G. J. (1994b). The Twenty-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale—II. Convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validity. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38, 33–40.
  7. Brackett, M. A., Caruso, D. R., & Stern, R. (2013). The anchors of emotional literacy. Port Chester, NY: Dude Press.
  8. Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1147–1158.
  9. Brackett, M. A., Mayer, J. D., & Warner, R. M. (2004). Emotional intelligence and its relation to everyday behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1387–1402.
  10. Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Reyes, M. R., & Salovey, P. (2012). Enhancing academic performance and social and emotional competence with the RULER feeling words curriculum. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 218–224.
  11. Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., & Salovey, P. (2011). Emotional intelligence: Implications for personal, social, academic, and workplace success. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 88–103.
  12. Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., & Salovey, P. (2006). Relating emotional abilities to social functioning: A comparison of self-report and performance measures of emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 780.
  13. Brackett, M. A., Warner, R. M., & Bosco, J. S. (2005). Emotional intelligence and relationship quality among couples. Personal Relationships, 12, 197–212.
  14. Cantanzaro, S. J., & Greenwood, G. (1994). Expectancies for negative mood regulation, coping and dysphoria among college students. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 41, 34–44.
  15. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Cherniss, C., & Goleman, D. (2001). The emotionally intelligent workplace: How to select for, measure and improve emotional intelligence in individuals, groups and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  17. Cohen, J. (2001). Social and emotional education: Core concepts and practices. In Jonathan Cohen (Ed.), Caring classrooms/intelligent schools: The social emotional education of young children (pp. 3–29). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  18. Cooper, R. K., & Sawaf, A. (1997). Applying emotional intelligence in the workplace. Training & Development, 51(12), 31–38.
  19. Côté, S., Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Miners, C. T. H. (2010). Emotional intelligence and leadership emergence in small groups. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 496–508.
  20. Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason and the human mind. New York, NY: Grossett/Putnam.
  21. Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Emotion and attribution of intentionality in leader-member relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 615–634.
  22. Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2000). Emotional intelligence: A review and evaluation study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 341–372.
  23. Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432.
  24. Eack, S. M., Greeno, C. G., Pogue-Geile, M. F., Newhill, C. E., Hogarty, G. E., & Keshavan, M. S. (2010). Assessing social-cognitive deficits in schizophrenia with the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 36, 370–380.
  25. Eack, S. M., Greenwald, D., Hogarty, S., Cooley, S., DiBarry, A. L., & Montrose, D. (2010). Cognitive enhancement therapy for early-course schizophrenia: Effects of a two-year randomized controlled trial. Psychiatric Services, 60, 1468–1476.
  26. Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 66, 183.
  27. Elias, M. J., Hunter, L., & Kress, J. S. (2001). Emotional intelligence and education. In J. Ciarrochi, J. P. Forgas, & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Emotional intelligence in everyday life: A scientific inquiry (pp. 133–149). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
  28. Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., Hayens, N. M., & Shriver, T. P. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  29. Gardner, H. (1985). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.
  30. Goldman, S. L., Kraemer, D. T., & Salovey, P. (1996). Beliefs about mood moderate the relationship of stress to illness and symptom reporting. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 41, 115–128.
  31. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam.
  32. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Random House.
  33. Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2002). The new leaders: Transforming the art of leadership into the science of results. London, England: Little, Brown.
  34. Greenstein, F. I. (2000). The presidential difference: Leadership style from FDR to Clinton. New York, NY: Free Press.
  35. Hagelskamp, C., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., & Salovey, P. (2013). Improving classroom quality with the RULER Approach to social and emotional learning: Proximal and distal outcomes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(3–4), 530–543.
  36. Janovics, J., & Christiansen, N. D. (2001, April). Emotional intelligence at the workplace. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the Social of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
  37. Jaušovec, N., Jaušovec, K., & Gerlič, I. (2001). Differences in event-related and induced EEG patterns in the theta and alpha frequency bands related to human emotional intelligence. Neuroscience Letters, 311, 93–96.
  38. Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Härtel, C. E. (2003). The case for emotional intelligence in organizational research. The Academy of Management Review, 28, 195–197.
  39. Kafetsios, K. (2004). Attachment and emotional intelligence abilities across the life course. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 129–145.
  40. Kee, K. S., Horan, W. P., Salovey, P., Kern, R. S., Sergi, M. J., Fiske, A. P.,…Green, M. F. (2009). Emotional intelligence in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 107, 61–68.
  41. Lantieri, L., & Patti, J. (1996). The road to peace in our schools. Educational Leadership, 54, 28–31.
  42. LeDoux, J. E. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
  43. LeDoux, J. E. (2000). Emotion circuits in the brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23, 155–184.
  44. Leeper, R. W. (1948). A motivational theory of emotion to replace emotion as disorganized response. Psychological Review, 55, 5.
  45. Leuner, B. (1966). Emotional intelligence and emancipation: A psychodynamic study on women. Praxis der kinderpsychologie und kinderpsychiatri, 15, 196.
  46. Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Straus, R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, personality, and the perceived quality of social relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 641–658.
  47. Mandler, G. (1975). Mind and emotion. New York, NY: Wiley.
  48. Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  49. Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 507–536.
  50. Mayer, J. D. & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3–34). New York, NY: Basic Books.
  51. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000a). Emotional intelligence as zeitgeist, as personality, and as a standard intelligence. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Handbooks of emotional intelligence (pp. 92–117). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  52. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000b). Models of emotional intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbooks of intelligence (pp. 396–420). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  53. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002a). The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT), Version 2.0. Toronto, Canada: Multi Health Systems.
  54. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002b). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) user's manual. Toronto, Ontario: Multi Health Systems.
  55. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits? American Psychologist, 63, 503–517.
  56. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2001). Emotional intelligence as a standard intelligence. Emotion, 1(3), 232–242.
  57. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3, 97.
  58. Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive structure or emotions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  59. Palfai, T. P., & Salovey, P. (1993). The influence of depressed and elate mood on deductive and inductive reasoning. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 13, 57–71.
  60. Payne, W. L. (1986). A study of emotion, developing emotional intelligence: Self-integration, relating to fear, pain, and desire. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 203A.
  61. Payton, J. W., Wardlaw, D. M., Graczyk, P. A., Bloodworth, M. R., Tompsett, C. J., & Weissberg, R. P. (2000). Social and emotional learning: A framework for promoting mental health and reducing risk behavior in children and youth. Journal of School Health, 70, 179–185.
  62. Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Elbertson, N. A., & Salovey, P. (2012). The interaction effects of program training, dosage, and implementation quality on targeted student outcomes for the RULER Approach to social and emotional learning. School Psychology Review, 41, 82–99.
  63. Rivers, S. E., Brackett, M. A., Reyes, M. R., & Elbertson, N. A. (2012). Improving the social and emotional climate of classrooms: A clustered randomized controlled trial testing the RULER Approach. Prevention Science, 14, 77–87.
  64. Salovey, P., Bedell, B. T., Detweiler, J. B., & Mayer, J. D. (2000). Current directions in emotional intelligence research. Handbook of Emotions, 2, 504–520.
  65. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185–211.
  66. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). The positive psychology of emotional intelligence. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), The handbook of positive psychology (pp. 159–171). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  67. Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as information: informational and motivational functions of affective states. In E. T. Higgins & E. M. Sorrentino (Eds.): Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 527–561), New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  68. Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality: Empirically grounded economic reason (Vol. 3). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  69. Stroebe, W., & Stroebe, M. (1996). The social psychology of social support. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 597–621). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  70. Trinidad, D. R., & Johnson, C. A. (2002). The association between emotional intelligence and early adolescent tobacco and alcohol use. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 95–105.
  71. Watkin, C. (2000). Developing emotional intelligence. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 2, 89–92.
  72. Yip, J. A., & Côté, S. (2013). The emotionally intelligent decision maker: Emotion-understanding ability reduces the effect of incidental anxiety on risk taking. Psychological Science, 24, 48–55.
  73. Zins, J. E., Elias, M. J., Greenberg, M. T., & Weissberg, R. P. (2000). Promoting social and emotional competence in children. In K. M. Minke & G. C. Bear (Eds.), Preventing school problems—promoting school success: Strategies and programs that work (pp. 71–100). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset
3.143.231.26