|
Description
Emotional intelligence (EI) has received much attention in the psychological literature and beyond, generating intense demand for applications in educational, organizational and clinical settings. Many researchers (e.g. Austin, 2004; Austin, Saklofske, & Egan, 2005; Petrides & Furnham, 2000, 2003; Spence, Oades, & Caputi, 2004; Tett, Fox, & Wang, 2005) distinguish between two EI constructs, depending on whether the operationalization process is based on self-report (as in personality questionnaires) or on maximum-performance (as in IQ tests). Trait EI (or trait emotional self-efficacy) concerns emotion-related dispositions and self-perceptions measured via self-report, whereas ability EI (or cognitive-emotional ability) concerns emotion-related cognitive abilities measured via performance-based tests. The conceptual differences between the two constructs are directly reflected in empirical findings, which reveal very low correlations between measures of trait and ability EI (e.g. O'Connor & Little, 2003; Warwick & Nettelbeck, 2004).
The operationalization of ability EI is problematic because the subjectivity of emotional experience undermines the development of maximum-performance (IQ-like) tests (Brody, 2004; Matthews, Roberts, & Zeidner, 2004; Robinson & Clore, 2002). In contrast, the operationalization of trait EI is straightforward because the construct encompasses self-perceptions and dispositions, which accord with the subjective nature of emotions. Petrides and Furnham (2001) content-analysed salient models of EI and cognate constructs in the literature and derived the first sampling domain of trait EI, which is shown in Table 1. As can be seen in the table, the domain comprises personality facets that are specifically related to affect.
Since trait EI is a personality trait, as opposed to a cognitive ability, an important question is where it belongs within established personality hierarchies. Where is trait EI located in Eysenckian and Big Five factor space? Locating trait EI in personality space is important, not least because it will allow us to connect the construct to the mainstream personality literature. Theorists who propose new individual differences constructs ought to be in a position to demonstrate how these constructs relate to extant knowledge in the field. This has been a major objective of our definition and development of trait EI. Furthermore, establishing the location of trait EI within existing taxonomies can provide empirical support for the construct's discriminant validity vis-a-vis the higher-order traits. If a distinct trait EI factor can be isolated in personality space, it means that a sufficient number of trait EI facets share enough common variance to define a separate factor in joint analyses with the Giant Three or the Big Five, which constitutes clear evidence of discriminant validity.
The present study also seeks to examine the criterion and incremental validity of trait EI. The relevant analyses will help evaluate the criticism that the construct does not predict anything over and above the basic personality dimensions. Issues such as criterion, discriminant and incremental validity have important theoretical implications and it is essential that studies designed to address them be based on comprehensive and psychometrically robust measures. Then, and only then, can we be sure that our conclusions reflect the nature of the construct and not the various deficiencies in the vehicles used to operationalize it.
Six variables were used as criteria in the study. They were specifically chosen for their theoretical relevance to trait EI and have also been incorporated in cross-cultural research aiming to replicate and extend the findings presented herein.
Life satisfaction concerns a cognitive evaluation of one's circumstances against a set of subjective criteria (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). It was hypothesized that trait EI would be positively associated with life satisfaction (H1a; see also Saklofske, Austin, & Minski, 2003).
Rumination is defined as 'passively and repetitively focusing on one's symptoms of distress and the circumstances surrounding these symptoms' (Nolen-Hoeksema, McBride, & Larson, 1997, p. 855). It was hypothesized that high trait EI individuals would be less likely to ruminate than their low trait EI peers (H2a).
Coping is the process by which people try to manage stress. Coping styles can be either adaptive or maladaptive (Roger, Jarvis, & Najarian, 1993). Compared to their low trait EI peers, high trait EI individuals should be more likely to employ adaptive coping styles ('rational' and 'detached'; H3a and H4a, respectively) and less likely to employ maladaptive coping styles ('emotional' and 'avoidant'; H5a and H6a, respectively) when dealing with stress. However, it should be kept in mind that the adaptive or maladaptive value of a coping strategy is also a function of situational and other personal factors that were not examined in this study (see Lazarus, 1991; Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002).
The aforementioned hypotheses concern the criterion validity of trait EI and seek to establish new nodes in its nomological network. A further objective of the study was to investigate the incremental validity of the construct, i.e. the extent to which it predicts criterion variance over and above the Giant Three and Big Five personality dimensions. The relevant analyses address the criticism that trait EI is merely a rework of the basic (higher-order) personality traits and cannot predict any variance that is not predicted by them. It was hypothesized that trait EI would be a reliable predictor of all six criteria, both in the presence of the Giant Three (plus social desirability; H1b to H6b) and in the presence of the Big Five (H1c to H6c).
Method
Participants
Two hundred and seventy-four students participated in the study, of whom 92 were male and 182 female. The mean age for the sample was 25.45 years (SD = 5.85 years).
Materials
Trait emotional intelligence questionnaire
The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue v. 1.00) (Petrides, 2001) (1) covers the sampling domain of trait EI comprehensively, assessing all of the 15 facets in Table 1. An investigation of the psychometric properties of the inventory can be found in Mikolajczak, Luminet, Leroy, and Roy (in press). For the purposes of this study, we adapted the TEIQue into Greek. Items were translated into Greek and back-translated into English. It took a total of six passes until all three authors were content with the quality of the translation. The final version comprised 144 questions based on a seven-point Likert scale. The internal consistencies of the 15 scales and global trait EI are presented in parentheses in Table 3.
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire
We used the 84-item Greek adaptation of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975) to measure the three Eysenckian dimensions (Neuroticism, N; Extraversion, E; Psychoticism, P) and social desirability (L). The EPQ is usually based on a dichotomous ('yes/no') scale. However, because the psychoticism factor in the original form of the questionnaire suffered from low internal consistency (Eysenck, Eysenck, & Barrett, 1985), we decided to use a six-point Likert scale to help increase variability in the responses and, hopefully, the reliability of the scores. The alphas of the three dimensions are given in parentheses in Table 3, where it can be seen that the polytomous Likert scale was not conducive to the internal consistency of psychoticism.
Traits Personality Questionnaire
The Traits Personality Questionnaire (TEXA[PI]) (Tsaousis, 1996, 1999) is based on the Big Five model of... |
More articles from British Journal of Psychology
Characterizing linguistic structure with mutual information., May 01, 2007
Predicting children's word-spelling difficulty for common English word..., May 01, 2007
Kinship and altruism: a cross-cultural experimental study., May 01, 2007
Erratum.(Correction notice), May 01, 2007
Looking for additional articles?
Click here
to search our database of over 3 million articles.
|
