What We Know about Emotional Intelligence: How It Affects Learning, Work, Relationships, and Our Mental Health (MIT Press)
Moshe Zeidner, Gerald Matthews, Richard D. Roberts
Language: English
Pages: 463
ISBN: B004FTQEG6
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
reflect the trend in competitive sports—as well as many other aspects of life—where “no one loses” and everyone gets a “Thanks for participating” trophy. The emphasis is on a heightened sense of entitlement, of comfort, and of rights and privileges. Twenge (2006) claims that today’s young adults—called the “Me Generation”—are characterized by excessive individualism and narcissism that feeds into social disconnection and depression. Her thesis is supported by several studies tracking changes in
EI-performance relationship appears to be both measure dependent, found to be higher for self-report than ability measures, as well as criterion-dependent. A more compelling argument, though, may be that EI indirectly mediates success by protecting students from salient barriers to classroom learning such as mental distress, teen pregnancy, substance abuse, truancy, delinquency, and violence (Hawkins et al. 2004). Equally the criterion space for studying academic success has so far been rather
intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence, and interpersonal intelligence. The final two intelligences covered by Gardner concern the individual’s attempts to understand their own, and other peoples, behaviors, motives, and/or emotions. Clearly, both of these constructs are relevant to emotional intelligence. Still Gardner’s model has been subject to certain criticisms. These criticisms include an inability to operationalize each of these constructs in the form of reliable, fair, and valid
to be highly correlated with personality constructs (see chapter 4). Unlike many self-report measures of EI, however, ability scales show discriminant validity evidence with respect to the five factor personality traits—openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism—a finding that has now been consistently replicated across a series of studies (e.g., Brackett and Mayer 2003; Palmer et al. 2003; Roberts et al. 2001). All correlations are less than 0.40; with both the
EQ-i The evidence we have reviewed provides a case study in the difficulties of assessing emotional and social competencies via self-report. In some ways the test development efforts seem well-founded. The facets of EI that the questionnaire aims to assess are among those commonly listed by researchers in the area (although the conceptual model is vague). Bar-On (1997) was assiduous in gathering normative data, and the EQ-i meets some reliability and validity criteria. Nevertheless, the empirical