Emotional Intelligence: Fact or Fad?
There seems to be an increasing interest in the concept of Emotional Intelligence (EI) these last few years in the private sector (see Google , BBC News, and other business news), but do we really know as a society how the actual concept was developed and the reliability of EQ tools measuring EI?
In this article…
I critically evaluate the concept of EI and EQ from a psychological perspective. Specifically, I defend the position that the concept of EI and the related concept of a measurable Emotional Quotient (EQ) are useful, but that further refinement is essential.
Emotional intelligence refers to your ability to understand and manage your own emotions and those of others.
In 1990, psychologists Mayer and Salovey were the first ones to define EI in a systematic manner and build a formal framework around it [1]. However, its sudden popularity spike and widespread adoption in society, triggered criticism from the scientific community on the grounds that the scientific research underlying it is insufficient. The following sections aim to cover some of the criticisms and supportive evidence for the concept of EI.
Criticism of the concept of EI
One of the first attempts to quantify EI was the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test V2.0 (MSCEIT), in the form of a questionnaire, which measured a variety of abilities based on their EI model — the ability to identify and understand others’ emotions, as well as knowing when and how to use one’s own emotions depending on the situation, and how to manage them.
However, considering that the MSCEIT ‘ability model’ features a 141-item scale, it is noted for being too vague and broad for any actual meaning in the scoring [2]. It is also important to note that with self-reporting tools (i.e. questionnaires) there is generally some uncertainty in terms of how reliable the responses might be, which needs to be taken into account.
Emotional intelligence refers to your ability to understand and manage your own emotions and those of others.
Mayer et al.’s approach triggered the interest of other psychologists such as Bar-On [3], [4] and Goleman [5], who undertook further supportive research on EI by using what they called ‘mixed models’ — a combination of aspects from both EI (e.g. emotional states) and personality models (e.g. self-control, conscientiousness, etc).
While the MSCEIT ‘ability model’ of Mayer et al. was developed to define EI as a set of certain abilities from physiological and cognitive factors, Bar-On and Goleman sought different biological and cognitive theories for EI, and ways to apply EQ in real-world scenarios, which led to the development of their own version of EQ tools. For instance, Bar-On sought to make a link between EI and Darwin’s theory of effective adaptation, specifically on the communication of emotions in humans and animals for environmental adaptation and survival. Goleman on the other hand, focused on linking EI with the amygdala — the ‘flight or flight response’ system of our brain for controlling basic emotions. Despite their efforts, there was insufficient scientific research to back their theories [2].
Nonetheless, Goleman decided to promote his ‘mixed models’ version of EQ to the general public and business world in a clear non-scientific language, and popularised it as a predictor of job performance [2], [6].
Goleman’s approach triggered criticism from Hans Eysenck, a prominent figure in the field of intelligence and personality. He argued that mixing EQ and personality measurements in job performance tests, leads to unclear findings of what actually contributes to the final score (was the score influenced by certain EI factors, or personality factors?), labelling it as an unscientific approach [2], [7]. Eysenck also raised the important point that there is no objective assessment benchmark when it comes to EQ (e.g. such as the one that exists in the education system), but Goleman counterargued that measures of job success are a benchmark in themselves. Other researchers highlighted mixed results between EI and achievement in education and the workplace [8], [9], as well as mixed results on sex differences in EI, depending on which psychologist’s (Mayer, Bar-On, Goleman) EQ tool was used [2].
Mixing EQ and personality measurements in job performance tests, leads to unclear findings of what actually contributes to the final score — an unscientific approach.
Findings supporting the concept of EI
However, despite the above criticisms, studies also exist in various settings, where self-report scales of EQ have led to some positive insights. For example, a positive association between high EQ and better mental health was found in self-report scores of 7,898 participants from a meta-analysis of 35 studies conducted by Schutte et al. [10]. While this is not enough to prove a cause and effect connection, the authors suggested as a possible mechanism that gaining a better understanding of one’s own emotions reduces the chances of experiencing mental health issues.
Another study also suggested a link between high EQ and participants’ ability to cope better under stress, providing further support for this mechanism [11]. Similarly, in the work environment, a study comparing 103 salespeople’s responses to a 33-item EQ questionnaire and other self-report measures of job performance, showed a positive association between EQ and job performance [12].
An positive association between high EQ and better mental health was found in self-report scores of 7,898 participants from a meta-analysis of 35 studies.
In 2017 there was a study which aimed to identify the effects of EI in (1) one’s ability to manage change in the workplace and (2) one’s attitude towards such change [13]. The findings, which were gathered through questionnaires distributed to employees and managers of public and private organisations, revealed a positive link between the EI level of an individual and their ability to handle change. However, as with other EI studies, which rely on establishing links and associations (or correlations) between two factors, it is important to remember that they do not suffice to prove causation, because the outcome might have occured due to the presence of other factors which were unaccounted for (e.g. IQ level, personality or behavioural factors, etc).
Gaining a better understanding of one’s own emotions reduces the chances of experiencing mental health issues.
Lastly, although findings on sex differences in EI found no significant difference between men’s and women’s overall EI scores, women appeared to score higher on interpersonal skills (e.g. empathy, social skills, etc) and on having better emotional awareness than men [2]. In contrast, men scored higher in regards to coping better with stress, better at problem solving as well as more flexible, optimistic and confident.
Concluding remarks
I believe that EI and EQ are useful concepts, but more refinement is required before they can be trusted as a tool. The field of EI is fairly new and requires further research to set some universal guidelines and additional ways of measuring EQ that are not solely dependent on self-reporting. However, despite some of the initial criticisms, it is a concept that could complement other established indices, such as the classic IQ test, and help scientists gain a more holistic understanding of human intelligence and how it impacts people’s lives.
Note from the author…
If you found this article helpful or interesting, recommend it and share it, so others can benefit from it too! 😊
Follow me and the Medium publication ‘A Cup of Psyence’ for more evidence-based articles.
‘A Cup of Psyence’ is a collection of essays on human psychology, science, user experience (UX), technology, and general wellbeing — curated by C. Maltezou-Papastylianou, with the occasional invited article by other experts.
References
[2] J. Maltby, L. Day, and A. Macaskill, Personality, individual differences and intelligence. 2017.
[5] D. Goleman, Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bloomsbury Publishing, 1996.
[6] B. Peltier, The psychology of executive coaching: Theory and application. Routledge, 2011.
