- Email: [email protected]
Enhancing emotional intelligence at school: Evaluation of the effectiveness of a two-year intervention program in Spanish pre-adolescents
Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 193–200
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Enhancing emotional intelligence at school: Evaluation of the effectiveness of a two-year intervention program in Spanish pre-adolescents P. Viguer ⁎, M.J. Cantero, R. Bañuls Developmental Psychology, University of Valencia, Av. Blasco Ibañez 21, Valencia ES 46010, Spain
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 3 January 2017 Received in revised form 13 March 2017 Accepted 14 March 2017 Available online xxxx Keywords: Emotional intelligence School-based intervention Primary school student
a b s t r a c t The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a two-year intervention program to promote emotional intelligence (EI) at school. Participants were 228 primary school pupils between 10 and 11 years old. This study evaluated the effects of the intervention using a pre- and post-experimental design with a control group and four evaluation moments. EI was assessed with the EQ-i:YV questionnaire by Bar-On and Parker (2000), adapted to Spanish by Ferrándiz, Hernández, Bermejo, Ferrando, and Sáinz (2012). The results showed the effectiveness of the intervention, highlighting an increase in all the EI dimensions of the Bar-On model: intrapersonal, interpersonal, stress management, adaptability, and general mood. These findings suggest that EI can be improved. Results are discussed, and recommendations are made for future implementation. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction In recent years, there has been growing interest in the role of emotional intelligence (EI) in students' emotional health (Martins, Ramalho, & Morin, 2010; Schutte, Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Bhullar, & Rooke, 2007), academic success (Costa & Faria, 2015; Perera & DiGiacomo, 2013, 2015), and emotional adjustment in school (Mavroveli & Sánchez-Ruiz, 2011; Petrides, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004). However, promotion of EI in schools has been controversial because it challenges traditional “rationalist” views of education (Humphrey, Curran, Morris, Farrell, & Woods, 2007). Furthermore, research findings in this area have been inconsistent (Nelis et al., 2011; Nelis, Quoidbach, Mikolajczak, & Hansenne, 2009; Pool & Qualter, 2012), and some important questions remain unanswered, such as whether EI can be taught in school, and whether improved EI would have an impact on children's emotional health. However, first it is important to define what is meant by EI. Matthews, Zeidner, and Roberts (2002) defined EI as a set of hierarchically organized core competences for identifying, processing, and regulating one's own emotions and those of others. In addition, Petrides et al. (2004) consider EI to be a constellation of emotional self-perceptions and a collection of personality traits related to people's perceptions of
⁎ Corresponding author at: Av. Blasco Ibañez 21, Valencia ES 46010, Spain. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Viguer), [email protected] (M.J. Cantero), [email protected] (R. Bañuls).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.036 0191-8869/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
their emotional abilities. Moreover, EI can be conceptualized as an ability or a trait (Petrides & Furnham, 2003). Initially, there were two major EI conceptual models: the SaloveyMayer ability model and the Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). The Salovey-Mayer model defines EI as “the ability to monitor one's own and others' emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use the information to guide one's thinking and actions” (Salovey & Mayer, 1990, p. 189). The Bar-On (1997) model defines EI as “an array of non-cognitive capabilities, competencies, and skills that influence one's ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands and pressures” (p. 14). The ESI model combines cognitive abilities characteristic of EI with emotional facets or dispositions related to EI as a trait. Currently, two other important models complete the main conceptual frameworks: Petrides model and Mikolajczak tripartite model. The Petrides model (2011), the dominant trait theory of EI in the psychological literature, defines EI as a constellation of emotional perceptions assessed via questionnaires and rating scales (Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007). The tripartite model (Mikolajczak, Petrides, Coumans, & Luminet., 2009) integrates EI as a set of abilities, skills and dispositions. This latter perspective is particularly useful and provides a theoretical basis for the examination of increases in EI due to intervention efforts. In any case, EI is clearly an important factor that leads to positive outcomes for individuals by providing the ability to adapt successfully to stressful environments (Ciarrochi, Deane, & Anderson, 2002). The meta-analytic reviews by Schutte et al. (2007), Martins et al. (2010), and Sánchez-Álvarez, Extremera, and Fernández-Berrocal (2015)
194
P. Viguer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 193–200
synthesize a large number of empirical studies that have measured the effects of EI on adaptive outcomes in children, such as quality of life, academic success, resistance to stress, health, well-being, and the quality of their social relationships. Moreover, research suggests that behavioral interventions, may affect EI as a pertinent outcome (McIlvain, Miller, Lawhead, Barbosa-Leiker, & Anderson, 2015; Ruttledge & Petrides, 2012). Taking these results into account, many school-based interventions designed to promote EI have been created within the framework of socio emotional learning (SEL) (see meta-analysis by Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011 of 213 school-based programs). After analyzing these programs, Matthews, Zeidner, and Roberts (2002, 2007) indicated that the main gaps in EI programs are: (1) most of them lack a clear theoretical and methodological rationale; (2) they usually target only some EI dimensions and add a number of skills that are not considered parts of EI; (3) when evaluations exist, they are limited to teachers' subjective impressions; (4) they do not consider the long-term effects; and (4) few of the evaluations include a control group. In fact, in their review about the role of EI in the school context, Zeidner, Roberts, and Matthews (2002) point out that most intervention programs are not specifically designed to change EI, and very few systematic interventions meet the requirements for internal and external validity. Based on the evidence proposed, in order to respond to some of the issues mentioned above and address these gaps, this research evaluates the effectiveness of a school-based emotional intelligence program in the Spanish context. This program is called EDI: would you like to travel around the planet of emotions? (EDI Program). Based on Zeidner et al.'s (2002) specific guidelines for the development, implementation, and evaluation of EI intervention programs: (1) the EDI program was based on a solid conceptual framework: the Bar-On model, a teachable and learnable model described by Bar-On (2006); (2) program goals were carefully specified; (3) the educational and developmental context for program implementation was identified, specifically pre-adolescents in school; (4) the EDI program was fully integrated into the school educational and instructional curriculum; specifically, our program was implemented by trained psychologists during two academic years (5th and 6th grade of Spanish elementary education) in regular tutorial classes; (5) we made provisions for practicing and generalizing the domain of emotional skills across different types of behavioral performance; (6) we provided professional development for program personnel; and (7) we used robust, experimental, psychometric designs to assess program effectiveness. Thus, the current study extends previous research in at least four ways. First, we focused on all the emotional intelligence dimensions, based on the Bar-On model (intrapersonal skills, interpersonal skills, managing emotions, adaptability and general mood), rather than on only one specific component of EI. Some studies have shown that emotionally and socially intelligent behavior can be enhanced in school based on the Bar-On model. In this framework, the “Self-Science Curriculum” developed by Stone-McCown, Jensen, Freedman, and Rideout (1998) has been applied in the United States in the past few years. The study by Freedman (2003) with 12-year-old children has shown the potential of this training, and the results indicate that the children's EI increased significantly after one year of an ESI-enriching curriculum. Second, we used a quasi-experimental design with assignment to an intervention or control group in order to examine intervention effects. Third, we compared the effects of one intervention year and the effects of two intervention years. Fourth, to the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to use this theoretical model and a rigorous evaluation design in Spanish elementary school students. In the Spanish context, the INTEMO program was based on the ability model and addressed to secondary students (Castillo, Salguero, Fernández-Berrocal, & Balluerka, 2013; Ruiz-Aranda, Salguero, Cabello, Palomera, & Berrocal, 2012).
The main goal of our study is to investigate the effectiveness of a two-year EDI intervention. More specifically, using a controlled design, we test the impact of the program on the different EI dimensions. The available research suggests that it is possible to improve EI (Bar-On, Maree, & Elias, 2007; Freedman, 2003). Thus, we hypothesize the following: (1) the intervention will increase participants' EI dimensions, measured at the end of the first intervention year; (2) the effects of the training will be present after six months; (3) a second intervention year will further improve the emotional intelligence dimensions; (4) without the intervention, the EI dimensions will not increase over time. 2. Methods 2.1. Participants A total of 311 individuals initiated this two-year longitudinal study, and 83 individuals dropped out of the study during the first year. Thus, the final sample consisted of 228 children, 124 males (54.4%) and 104 females (45.6%). Their ages ranged from 10 to 11 years (M = 10.32; SD = 0.47). All the participants were in the fifth grade at five public elementary schools in the province of Valencia (Spain). With regard to nationality, 85.5% (n = 195) were Spanish, and 14.5% (n = 33) were immigrants from Asia (30.3%, n = 10), South America (12.1%, n = 4), Eastern Europe (24.3 %, n = 8), Arab countries (33.3%, n = 11). In addition, 18.4% (n = 42) were Spanish Roma,1 and 26.8% of the participants (n = 61) had learning disabilities. A total of 182 children (79.8%) from all the public schools in a municipality (a total of 4 schools) participated in the EDI program (group intervention). These children were all of the pupils in fifth grade in the public school system in this municipality. The students in the four public schools do not differ in age or sex. However, one of the schools presents a higher percentage of immigrant students and students with learning difficulties because of its more peripheral situation (see Appendix A for socio-demographic data for each school). Contact was made with all the schools from a neighboring municipality with similar socio-demographic characteristics. Three of them decided to participate, but two decided to drop out of the study after the first assessment. Thus, a total of 46 children (20.2%) were evaluated and participated in the longitudinal study as a control group. To avoid selection bias and confirm that the intervention and control groups were not different at baseline, homogeneity analysis was performed. Tests for homogeneity revealed no significant differences between groups at time 1 (baseline): age (t (226) = − 0.03, p = 0.98), gender (χ2 (1, N = 228) = 0.00, p = 0.99), nationality (χ2 (1, N = 228) = 0.026, p = 0.87), Spanish Roma ethnicity (χ2 (1, N = 228) = 0.394, p = 0.53), and learning difficulties (χ2 (1, N = 228) = 0.013, p = 0.909) (see Table 1). Participants were assessed at four points in time: before the intervention (baseline), at the end of the first intervention year (approximately six months later), at the beginning of the second intervention year (approximately six months later), and after the second intervention year (approximately six months later). 2.2. Measure Emotional Intelligence was assessed using the Spanish version of the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i:YV, Bar-On & Parker, 2000), adapted to Spanish by Ferrándiz, Hernández, Bermejo, Ferrando, and Sáinz (2012). The EQ-i:YV is a 60-item self-report measure of emotional 1 The social situation of the Spanish Roma population is heterogeneous, and it is an error to associate this ethnic group with social exclusion. The schooling of Roma children is practically normalized, but the frequency of school absenteeism and premature abandonment are a cause for concern. These phenomena are compounded in secondary education, especially for girls. In addition, the presence of Roma in post-compulsory studies is infrequent. Therefore, the adult Roma population has lower education levels than the population as a whole (Laparra, 2011). In our sample, 59.5% of Roma children have learning difficulties (n = 25).
P. Viguer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 193–200
195
Table 1 Descriptive statistics for intervention and control groups.
Age (M) Gender Nationality Roma ethnic group Learning disabilities
Boys Girls Spanish Immigrant Yes No Yes No
Total (N = 228)
Intervention group (n = 182)
Control group (n = 46)
10.32 (SD = 0.47) n = 124 n = 104 n = 195 n = 33 n = 42 n = 186 n = 61 n = 167
10.32 (SD = 0.47) 54.4% (n = 99) 45.6% (n = 83) 85.7% (n = 156) 14.3% (n = 26) 19.2% (n = 35) 80.8% (n = 147) 26.9% (n = 49) 73.1% (n = 133)
10.33 (SD = 0.47) 54.3% (n = 25) 45.7% (n = 21) 84.8% (n = 39) 15.2% (n = 7) 15.2% (n = 7) 84.8% (n = 39) 26.1% (n = 12) 73.9% (n = 34)
intelligence for use with children and adolescents between 7 and 18 years old. Subjects have to respond in the way that best describes the way they feel, think, or act in most situations on four-point Likertscales (ranging from 1 for “very seldom or not true of me,” to 4 for “very often true or true of me”). The instrument has five subscales: intrapersonal intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, stress management, adaptability, and general mood. A high score on any individual scale reflects a higher level of emotional competency. The Cronbach's Alpha coefficients (α) in the Spanish validation study were 0.63 for the intrapersonal scale; 0.72 for the interpersonal scale; 0.77 for the stress management scale; 0.77 for the adaptability scale, and 0.80 for general mood (Ferrándiz et al., 2012). The present study had acceptable internal reliabilities at the four measurement times. For the intrapersonal scale, α coefficients were 0.63, 0.64, 0.77, and 0.70 for times 1 to 4, respectively; for the interpersonal scale, α were 0.71, 0.68, 0.76, and 0.77; for the stress management scale, α were 0.75, 0.81, 0.82, and 0.82; for the adaptability scale, α were 0.76, 0.82, 0.81, and 0.87, and for the general mood scale, α were 0.77, 0.84, 0.81, and 0.87.
training in assertiveness and empathy, taking responsibility for one's emotions in relationships, and solving problems cooperatively and through negotiation. In the third module, emotional regulation, the main goal was to learn to regulate emotions. We especially taught the students to be open to all kinds of emotions, develop tolerance to frustration and stress, and regulate their own and others' emotions. In the fourth module, general mood, the main goal was to promote positive affective mood. Basic training involved learning positive thinking strategies to use in everyday tasks and showing optimistic thoughts when facing the task. To enhance the transfer effect of our training, we focused on actionoriented exercises and the participants' personal experiences, and we developed reality-based training materials. In addition, all the participants received a booklet with a summary of the theoretical input and exercises. Finally, to monitor the program's implementation, the psychologists responsible for the program met biweekly, and a coordination meeting with the school staff was held every month.
2.3. Intervention design
2.4. Procedure
The EDI program was conducted by a trained psychologist, and the group's teacher attended the sessions. A total of three psychologists were involved. Before the school intervention, professional training was provided for psychologists and group teachers. The intervention was carried out during two academic courses. In each academic year, the training sessions took place for sixteen weeks, with a one-week interval between sessions. The intervention focused on teaching theoretical knowledge about emotions and training school children during the pre-adolescence period (10–12 years old) to apply specific emotional skills in their daily lives. The procedure was standardized and based on guidelines that included exercises and structured input from the trainers. The EDI program was carried out during school hours officially designated for tutorial lessons. We used a comprehensive approach that includes experiential methodology with psycho-physical, psycho-dramatic, and systemic techniques, as well as some cognitive-behavioral techniques. The structure of the intervention was based on established methods such as storytelling, drama, theatre, and relaxation. Other complementary techniques used were film forum or group sculpture, group discussion, case studies, brainstorming, and music therapy. At the same time, we also used techniques such as empathic stimulation, active listening, positive reinforcement, and modeling to strengthen the learning. Our training program's design was based on Bar-On's model. In the first module, intrapersonal skills, the main goal was to know and understand their own and others' emotions. In addition, participants were introduced to topics such as perceiving emotions, body and mind, being aware of their own emotions, identifying and discriminating emotions, adequately expressing emotions, differentiating their own emotional states from others', and learning to accept, respect, and love one another. The goal of the second module, interpersonal skills, was to develop greater competence in social relations. Accordingly, we provided
School administrators, staff, and families were informed of the purpose of the study and gave their informed consent to take part. All the participants completed the measures four times: (1) time 1, baseline, at the beginning of 5th grade and before the first intervention training (January 2012); (2) time 2, at the end of the 5th grade intervention sessions; (3) time 3, follow-up assessment at the beginning of 6th grade and before the second intervention training; (4) time 4, at the end of the 6th grade and after the second intervention training. All the participants in the intervention group attended all the sessions held in the two academic years. These sessions were held in academic tutorial hours. Control group participants completed the same measures at the same time as the intervention group, but they were not exposed to the training. During the EI intervention period, students in the control group received the usual tutorial lessons about classroom organization and climate, coordination with students' families, and study techniques. 3. Results Mixed-model group (intervention/control) × time (time 1, time 2, time 3, time 4) repeated-measures ANOVAs were performed on each IE dimension, with group as between-subject factor and time as within-subject factor (statistical analyses were performed with SPSS 22). In each case, we wanted to determine the group-time interaction, which would indicate a differential change for the two groups. Multivariate analyses showed a significant group-time interaction for the intrapersonal (Wilks λ = 0.892, F (3,224) = 9.046, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.11), interpersonal (Wilks λ = 0.877, F (3,224) = 10.513, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.123), stress management (Wilks λ = 0.816, F (3,224) = 16.795, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.19), adaptability (Wilks λ = 0.792, F (3,224) = 19.623, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.208) and general mood (Wilks λ = 0.872, F (3,224) = 10.94, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.13) dimensions. The principal
196
P. Viguer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 193–200
Table 2 Interaction effects between intervention and control group, means, and standard-deviations for IE dimensions.
Intrapersonal
F (3678) = 10.05, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.04
Interpersonal
F (3678) = 8.77, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.04
Stress management
F (3678) = 15.75, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.07
Adaptability
F (3678) = 6.69, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.03
General mood
F (3678) = 13.36, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.06
Group
T1
T2
T3
T4
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
14.27 (3.86) 14.26 (3.99) 36.07 (5.81) 36.37 (6.85) 33.50 (7.23) 33.13 (7.08) 28.91 (4.90) 28.93 (5.28) 44.12 (6.14) 44.83 (5.98)
16.12 (3.23) 13.87 (4.03) 37.82 (4.80) 35.30 (6.13) 35.13 (5.23) 32.96 (6.12) 29.70 (5.24) 28.83 (5.84) 46.84 (6.50) 43.76 (4.97)
15.96 (3.22) 13.93 (3.46) 37.53 (5.08) 35.26 (4.64) 34.90 (4.61) 32.52 (4.63) 29.92 (5.99) 29.50 (4.72) 47.04 (5.18) 43.74 (4.84)
16.13 (3.05) 13.65 (3.78) 38.68 (4.35) 34.54 (7.73) 36.71 (4.36) 31.13 (4.77) 32.13 (5.21) 28.39 (5.31) 48.64 (5.59) 42.72 (4.70)
Note: Group 1: intervention (n = 128), group 2: control (n = 46).
effects of the interaction, the means, and the standard deviations for the IE dimensions in each temporal moment are shown in Table 2. The study of simple effects between groups (see Table 3) confirmed the homogeneity of the intervention and control groups in all the EI dimensions before the intervention. No differences between groups were found on baseline scores. After the first intervention year (time 2), significant differences between groups were obtained for intrapersonal EI, interpersonal EI, stress management, and general mood, with higher scores found in the treatment group. These differences between groups remained at the follow up measure (time 3). Finally, after the second year training (time 4), all the dimensions, including adaptability, were higher in the intervention group, with a significant increase in their scores. In time 4, the effect sizes (η2p ) were large for management stress and general mood, and moderate for the other dimensions. The results for the evolution of the treatment and control groups over time (T1–T4) in each dimension are presented below (cf. Figs. 1– 5). 3.1. Intrapersonal intelligence Studying the evolution of the groups over time, a significant effect was observed in the treatment group (Wilks λ = 0.71, F (3224) = 29.84, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.29). There was a significant increase in their scores from time 1 (baseline measure) to time 2 (mean difference = − 1.85, SE = 0.20, p b 0.001, d = 0.52, 95% CI [1.32, 2.38]), from time 1 to time 3 (mean difference = −1.69, SE = 0.21, p b 0.001, d = 0.47, 95% CI [1.12, 2.26]), and from time 1 to time 4 (mean difference = − 1.86, SE = 0.29, p b 0.001, d = 0.58, 95% CI [1.09, 2.64]). The effect sizes (Cohen's d) were moderate. There were no significant differences found in the other pairwise comparisons. Regarding the control group, there were no significant differences across time (Wilks λ = 0.99, F (3224) = 0.46, p = 0.712, η2p = 0.006). 3.2. Interpersonal intelligence When comparing interpersonal intelligence in each group at the four evaluation moments, significant changes were observed in the treatment group (Wilks λ = 0.80, F (3224) = 19.24, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.21). There was a significant increase in their scores from time 1 (baseline
measure) to time 2 (mean difference = −1.75, SE = 0.43, p b 0.001, d = 0.33, 95% CI [0.61, 2.89]), from time 1 to time 3 (mean difference = −1.46, SE = 0.49, p = 0.017, d = 0.27, 95% CI [0.17, 2.75]), and from time 1 to time 4 (mean difference = −2.61, SE = 0.47, p b 0.001, d = 0.51, 95% CI [1.35, 3.87]). Furthermore, there was a significant increase in the scores from time 3 to time 4 (mean difference = − 1.15, SE = 0.20, p b 0.001, d = 0.24, 95% CI [0.62, 1.68]). The effect sizes were small for the intermediate assessments, but moderate for the pairwise comparisons between pre-treatment and the last assessment (time 4). In the case of the control group, no significant differences were found over time (Wilks λ = 0.97, F (3224) = 2.05, p = 0.108, η2p = 0.027).
3.3. Stress management For this dimension, significant effects were observed in the treatment group (Wilks λ = 0.72, F (3224) = 29.67, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.28) and the control group (Wilks λ = 0.95, F (3224) = 3.95, p = 0.009, η2p = 0.050). In the treatment group, there was a significant increase in the scores from time 1 (baseline measure) to time 2 (mean difference = −1.63, SE = 0.40, p b 0.001, d = 0.26, 95% CI [0.56, 2.70]), from time 1 to time 3 (mean difference = −1.40, SE = 0.41, p = 0.005, d = 0.23, 95% CI [0.29, 2.50]), and from time 1 to time 4 (mean difference = −3.21, SE = 0.45, p b 0.001, d = 0.54, 95% CI [2.03, 4.40]). Moreover, there was a significant increase in the stress management scores from time 2 to time 4 (mean difference = −1.59, SE = 0.31, p b 0.001, d = 0.33, 95% CI [0.78, 2.39]) and from time 3 to time 4 (mean difference = −1.82, SE = 0.22, p b 0.001, d = 0.40, 95% CI [1.23, 2.41]). The effect sizes were moderate for the comparison of baseline and time 4, and small for the other comparisons. In the control group, there was a significant decrease in the stress management scores. This decrease was significant between time 2 and time 4 (mean difference = 1.83, SE = 0.60, p = 0.016, d = −0.33, 95% CI [−3.43, −0.22]) and between time 3 and time 4 (mean difference = 1.39, SE = 0.44, p = 0.011, d = −0.30, 95% CI [−2.57, −0.21]). These results suggest a long-term increase in stress management scores in the treatment group after the training and a significant decrease in the group without the intervention. In addition, the study of simple effects between groups in time 4 (F (1226) = 57.88, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.20) showed significant differences in stress management scores, with a very large effect size.
Table 3 Simple effects between groups on time 1, time 2, time 3, and time 4 scores. Time 1
IN EN SM AD GM
Time 2
Time 3
Time 4
F
df
p
η2
F
df
p
η2
F
df
p
η2
F
df
p
η2
0.00 0.09 0.10 0.00 0.50
1/226 1/226 1/226 1/226 1/226
0.990 0.761 0.756 0.978 0.482
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
16.04 8.94 5.88 0.97 9.01
1/226 1/226 1/226 1/226 1/226
0.000 0.003 0.016 0.326 0.003
0.07 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.04
14.10 6.98 9.72 0.19 15.31
1/226 1/226 1/226 1/226 1/226
0.000 0.009 0.002 0.661 0.000
0.06 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.06
17.81 32.01 57.88 18.80 43.78
1/226 1/226 1/226 1/226 1/226
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.07 0.12 0.20 0.08 0.16
Note: IN: intrapersonal intelligence; EN: interpersonal intelligence; SM: stress management; AD: adaptability; GM: general mood.
P. Viguer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 193–200
197
Fig. 1. Effect of EI intervention program on intrapersonal intelligence across four evaluation times for the treatment and control groups (time 1 = baseline; time 2 = at the end of the first intervention year; time 3 = follow-up; and time 4 = after the second intervention year).
Fig. 3. Effect of EI intervention program on stress management across four evaluation times for the treatment and control groups (time 1 = baseline; time 2 = at the end of the first intervention year; time 3 = follow-up; and time 4 = after the second intervention year).
3.4. Adaptability Comparing adaptability in each group at the four evaluation moments, significant changes were observed in the treatment group (Wilks λ = 0.60, F (3224) = 49.61, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.40). There was a significant increase in their scores from time 1 (baseline measure) to time 4 (mean difference = −3.22, SE = 0.48, p b 0.001, d = 0.64, 95%
CI [1.94, 4.50]), from time 2 to time 4 (mean difference = − 2.43, SE = 0.37, p b 0.001, d = 0.47, 95% CI [1.46, 3.41]), and from time 3 to time 4 (mean difference = −2.21, SE = 0.21, p b 0.001, d = 0.39, 95% CI [1.65, 2.78]). The difference between the baseline measure and time 4 had a large effect size, and the other differences had moderate effect sizes. In the control group, no significant differences were found over time (Wilks λ = 0.97, F (3224) = 2.31, p = 0.08, η2p = 0.03).
Fig. 2. Effect of EI intervention program on interpersonal intelligence across four evaluation times for the treatment and control groups (time 1 = baseline; time 2 = at the end of the first intervention year; time 3 = follow-up; and time 4 = after the second intervention year).
Fig. 4. Effect of EI intervention program on adaptability across four evaluation times for the treatment and control groups (time 1 = baseline; time 2 = at the end of the first intervention year; time 3 = follow-up; and time 4 = after the second intervention year).
198
P. Viguer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 193–200
Fig. 5. Effect of EI intervention program on general mood across four evaluation times for the treatment and control groups (time 1 = baseline; time 2 = at the end of the first intervention year; time 3 = follow-up; and time 4 = after the second intervention year).
3.5. General mood For general mood, significant effects were observed in the treatment group (Wilks λ = 0.75, F (3224) = 24.64, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.25). There was a significant increase in the scores from time 1 (baseline measure) to time 2 (mean difference = −2.73, SE = 0.54, p b 0.001, d = 0.43, 95% CI [1.28, 4.17]), from time 1 to time 3 (mean difference = −2.93, SE = 0.52, p b 0.001, d = 0.51, 95% CI [1.56, 4.30]), and from time 1 to time 4 (mean difference = −4.53, SE = 0.54, p b 0.001, d = 0.77, 95% CI [3.10, 5.95]). Moreover, there was a significant increase in stress management scores from time 2 to time 4 (mean difference = −1.80, SE = 0.40, p b 0.001, d = 0.30, 95% CI [0.75, 2.86]) and from time 3 to time 4 (mean difference = −1.60, SE = 0.39, p b 0.001, d = 0.30, 95% CI [0.56, 2.64]). The effect sizes were moderate for the pairwise comparisons from baseline to time 3 and baseline to time 4, and small for the other comparisons. These results suggest a long-term increase in general mood scores in the treatment group after the intervention. In addition, the study of simple effects between groups at time 4 (F (1226) = 43.78, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.16) showed significant differences in general mood scores, with a very large effect size. In the control group, no significant differences were found over time (Wilks λ = 0.98, F (3224) = 1.49, p = 0.217, η2p = 0.02).
4. Discussion The aim of the present study was to determine the effectiveness of a two-year intervention program designed to improve emotional intelligence in Spanish pre-adolescents at school. Basically, we want to highlight that our intervention led to a significant increase in the EI dimensions in the long term, and the results support our research hypotheses. The main results for the EI dimensions suggest, as expected, that the intervention improved intrapersonal intelligence in the first year. This increase remained stable six months later, and a second intervention year allowed this improvement to be maintained. It should be noted that the EQ-i:YV intrapersonal scale has the lowest internal reliability, especially in time 1 and time 2. Regarding interpersonal intelligence and general mood, the first intervention year improved these
dimensions, and this increase also remained stable six months after the intervention. A second intervention year significantly further improved these dimensions, in addition to the improvement observed after the first intervention year. These results highlight the usefulness of the second intervention year in enhancing interpersonal intelligence and general mood. In the case of the adaptability dimension, we observed that the intervention during the first intervention year was not able to produce changes in the treatment group, which showed the same evolution as the non-intervention group. A second intervention year was needed to significantly improve this dimension, and so our results highlight the need for long-term interventions. In these four EI dimensions, the largest difference between the intervention and nonintervention groups was found after the second intervention year. Moreover, without intervention, none of the EI dimensions changed over time. Finally, regarding stress management, the intervention during the first intervention year improved the results, and this increase remained stable six months after the intervention. A second intervention year significantly improved stress management with regard to the improvement observed after the first intervention year. However, without intervention, stress management decreased significantly over time, indicating the need for a specific intervention for this dimension. It seems that changes related to pre-adolescence and the stress associated with the end of this educational stage could affect stress management negatively. The EI intervention progressively improved this dimension, as the greatest effectiveness of the EDI intervention program was found after the second intervention year, with the highest effect size between the intervention and non-intervention groups. This result highlights the usefulness of the second intervention year in compensating for this developmental tendency. Previous studies suggest that adolescents with high EI cope well with the transition to secondary school (Qualter, Whiteley, Hutchinson, & Pope, 2007). Therefore, our results confirm the need to promote the EI dimensions and appropriate coping strategies during the last years of primary school in order to facilitate the transition to secondary school. In summary, the hypotheses have basically been confirmed. The major finding of this study is that a first intervention year produced improvements in all the EI dimensions (hypothesis 1), except adaptability, and all the positive changes remained stable during a 6-month period after the first intervention year (hypothesis 2). In the case of adaptability, a second intervention year was necessary to achieve the expected results (hypothesis 3). Regarding the effectiveness of a second intervention year (hypothesis 3), our results show that this long-term intervention allows students: (1) to continue to improve interpersonal intelligence, stress management, and general mood; (2) experience changes in adaptability when the first intervention year is not enough to achieve them; and (3) maintain the results found after the first intervention year, as in the case of intrapersonal intelligence. In this regard, it is important to note that future studies may use long intervention programs to enhance the effects of emotional intelligence interventions. Moreover, without intervention, the EI dimensions did not increase over time (hypothesis 4), or they even decreased (stress management). Changes related to pre-adolescence alone did not improve emotional intelligence. Thus, the EDI program shows successful teaching of EI, underlining the potential value and importance of school-based EI interventions. Zeidner et al. (2002) indicated the need for systematic program planning and evaluation studies in school settings, and they proposed some specific guidelines for the development, implementation, and evaluation of EI intervention programs. The EDI program conforms to these specific guidelines, and its effectiveness suggests that EI can be effectively taught in school. Some limitations of this intervention study should be noted. One drawback is that the present study employs a self-report instrument. The review by Zeidner et al. (2002) pointed out that emotional competence may not be consciously accessible, and self-perceptions of EI may be misleading, “being vulnerable to the range of response sets and social desirability factors afflicting self-report measures” (p. 218). These
P. Viguer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 193–200
problems are common to all self-report scales, and it would be advisable to use multiple scoring methods. Although the EQ-i:YV (Bar-On & Parker, 2000) is considered an adequate measure of emotional intelligence (Qualter et al., 2007), future research should design and validate new measures of emotional intelligence for children based on this theoretical framework. Moreover, a second limitation of our study was the different number of participants in the intervention and non-intervention groups, due to the difficulty of long-term evaluation in the group without intervention.
199
In summary, this is the first study to focus on all the emotional intelligence dimensions found in the Bar-On model, in Spanish pre-adolescent pupils. It breaks new ground, especially by conceptualizing emotional intelligence as perceived social and emotional competencies, leaving ample room for future research to refine its findings. The study suggests that a school-based intervention might enhance emotional competencies in primary education, and it highlights the need for long-term interventions in order to maximize the effects.
Appendix A. Socio-demographic data for each school
Intervention group (n = 182)
Age M (SD) Gender Nationality Roma ethnic group Learning disabilities
a b c d
Boys Girls Spanish Immigrant Yes No Yes No
Control group
School 1 (n = 42)
School 2 (n = 46)
School 3 (n = 46)
School 4 (n = 48)
School 5 (n = 46)
10.21(0.42) 61.9% (n = 26) 38.1% (n = 16) 92.9% (n = 39) 7.1% (n = 3) 19.0% (n = 8) 81.0% (n = 34) 19.0% (n = 8) 81.0% (n = 34)
10.35 (0.48) 56.5% (n = 26) 43.5% (n = 20) 69.6% (n = 32) 30.4% (n = 14)a 26.1% (n = 12) 73.9% (n = 34) 41.3% (n = 19)c 58.7% (n = 27)
10.26 (0.44) 50.0% (n = 23) 50.0% (n = 23) 91.3% (n = 42) 8.7% (n = 4) 26.1% (n = 12) 73.9% (n = 34) 32.6% (n = 15) 67.4% (n = 31)
10.46(0.50) 50.0% (n = 24) 50.0% (n = 24) 89.6% (n = 43) 10.4% (n = 5) 6.3% (n = 3)b 93.8% (n = 45) 14.6% (n = 7)d 85.4% (n = 41)
10.33 (0.47) 54.3% (n = 25) 45.7% (n = 21) 84.8% (n = 39) 15.2% (n = 7) 15.2% (n = 7) 84.8% (n = 39) 26.1% (n = 12) 73.9% (n = 34)
z = 3.4. z = −2.4. z = 2.5. z = −2.1.
References Bar-On, R. (1997). The emotional quotient inventory (EQ-i): Technical manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems, Inc. Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). Psicothema, 18, 13–25. Bar-On, R., & Parker, J. D. A. (2000). Bar-On emotional quotient inventory: Youth version. Incorporated: Multi-Health system. Bar-On, R., Maree, K., & Elias, M. J. (2007). Educating people to be emotionally intelligent. Greenwood Publishing Group. Castillo, R., Salguero, J. M., Fernández-Berrocal, P., & Balluerka, N. (2013). Effects of an emotional intelligence intervention on aggression and empathy among adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 36(5), 883–892. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence. 2013.07.001. Ciarrochi, J., Deane, F. P., & Anderson, S. (2002). Emotional intelligence moderates the relationship between stress and mental health. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(2), 197–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00012-5. Costa, A., & Faria, L. (2015). The impact of Emotional Intelligence on academic achievement: A longitudinal study in Portuguese secondary school. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 38–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.011. 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(1), 405–432. http://dx. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564. Ferrándiz, C., Hernández, D., Bermejo, R., Ferrando, M., & Sáinz, M. (2012). Social and emotional intelligence in childhood and adolescence: Spanish validation of a measurement instrument. Journal of Psychodidactics, 17(2), 309–338. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1387/Rev.Psicodidact.2814. Freedman, J. (2003). Key lessons from 35 years of social-emotional education: How selfscience builds self-awareness, positive relationships, and healthy decision-making: Research paper. Perspectives in Education, 21(4), 69–80. Humphrey, N., Curran, A., Morris, E., Farrell, P., & Woods, K. (2007). Emotional intelligence and education: A critical review. Educational Psychology, 27(2), 235–254. http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/01443410601066735. Laparra, M. (2011). Diagnóstico social de la comunidad gitana en España. Un análisis contrastado de la Encuesta del CIS a Hogares de Población Gitana 2007. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad, Política Social e Igualdad. Martins, A., Ramalho, N., & Morin, E. (2010). A comprehensive meta-analysis of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 554–564. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.029. Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). Emotional intelligence: Science or myth? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (Eds.). (2007). The science of emotional intelligence: Knowns and unknowns (pp. 3–48). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Mavroveli, S., & Sánchez-Ruiz, M. J. (2011). Trait emotional intelligence influences on academic achievement and school behaviour. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 112–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/2044-8279.002009. McIlvain, S. J., Miller, B., Lawhead, B. A., Barbosa-Leiker, C., & Anderson, A. (2015). Piloting yoga and assessing outcomes in a residential behavioural health unit. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 22(3), 199–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ jpm.12184. Mikolajczak, M., Petrides, K. V., Coumans, N., & Luminet, O. (2009). The moderatingeffect of trait emotional intelligence on mood deterioration following laboratory-induced stress. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 9(3), 455–477. Nelis, D., Quoidbach, J., Mikolajczak, M., & Hansenne, M. (2009). Increasing emotional intelligence: (How) is it possible? Personality and Individual Differences, 47(1), 36–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.046. Nelis, D., Kotsou, I., Quoidbach, J., Hansenne, M., Weytens, F., Dupuis, P., & Mikolajczak, M. (2011). Increasing emotional competence improves psychological and physical wellbeing, social relationships, and employability. Emotion, 11(2), 354–366. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/a0021554. Perera, H. N., & DiGiacomo, M. (2013). The relationship of trait emotional intelligence with academic performance: A meta-analytic review. Learning and Individual Differences, 28, 20–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.08.002. Perera, H. N., & DiGiacomo, M. (2015). The role of trait emotional intelligence in academic performance during the university transition: An integrative model of mediation via social support, coping, and adjustment. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 208–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.001. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence: Behavioral validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. European Journal of Personality, 17, 39–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.466. Petrides, K. V., Frederickson, N., & Furnham, A. (2004). The role of trait emotional intelligence in academic performance and deviant behavior at school. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 277–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00084-9. Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British Journal of Psychology, 98(2), 273–289. http://dx.doi. org/10.1348/000712606X120618. Pool, L. D., & Qualter, P. (2012). Improving emotional intelligence and emotional self-efficacy through a teaching intervention for university students. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(3), 306–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.01.010. Qualter, P., Whiteley, H. E., Hutchinson, J. M., & Pope, D. J. (2007). Supporting the development of emotional intelligence competencies to ease the transition from primary to high school. Educational Psychology in Practice, 23(1), 79–95. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/02667360601154584. Ruiz-Aranda, D., Salguero, J. M., Cabello, R., Palomera, R., & Berrocal, P. F. (2012). Can an emotional intelligence program improve adolescents' psychosocial adjustment? Results from the INTEMO project. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 40(8), 1373–1379. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2012.40.8.1373. Ruttledge, R. A., & Petrides, K. V. (2012). A cognitive behavioural group approach for adolescents with disruptive behaviour in schools. School Psychology International, 33(2), 223–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143034311415908.
200
P. Viguer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 193–200
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/DUG G-P24E-52WK-6CDG. Sánchez-Álvarez, N., Extremera, N., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2015). The relation between emotional intelligence and subjective well-being: A meta-analytic investigation. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11, 276–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760. 2015.1058968. Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2007). A metaanalytic investigation of the relationship between emotional intelligence and
health. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 921–933. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.paid. 2006.09.003. Stone-McCown, K., Jensen, A. L., Freedman, J. M., & Rideout, M. C. (1998). Self science: The emotional intelligence curriculum. San Mateo, CA: Six Seconds. Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D., & Matthews, G. (2002). Can emotional intelligence be schooled? A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 37(4), 215–231. http://dx.doi. org/10.1207/S15326985EP3704_2.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Enhancing emotional intelligence at school: Evaluation of the effectiveness of a two-year intervention program in Spanish pre-adolescents P. Viguer ⁎, M.J. Cantero, R. Bañuls Developmental Psychology, University of Valencia, Av. Blasco Ibañez 21, Valencia ES 46010, Spain
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 3 January 2017 Received in revised form 13 March 2017 Accepted 14 March 2017 Available online xxxx Keywords: Emotional intelligence School-based intervention Primary school student
a b s t r a c t The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a two-year intervention program to promote emotional intelligence (EI) at school. Participants were 228 primary school pupils between 10 and 11 years old. This study evaluated the effects of the intervention using a pre- and post-experimental design with a control group and four evaluation moments. EI was assessed with the EQ-i:YV questionnaire by Bar-On and Parker (2000), adapted to Spanish by Ferrándiz, Hernández, Bermejo, Ferrando, and Sáinz (2012). The results showed the effectiveness of the intervention, highlighting an increase in all the EI dimensions of the Bar-On model: intrapersonal, interpersonal, stress management, adaptability, and general mood. These findings suggest that EI can be improved. Results are discussed, and recommendations are made for future implementation. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction In recent years, there has been growing interest in the role of emotional intelligence (EI) in students' emotional health (Martins, Ramalho, & Morin, 2010; Schutte, Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Bhullar, & Rooke, 2007), academic success (Costa & Faria, 2015; Perera & DiGiacomo, 2013, 2015), and emotional adjustment in school (Mavroveli & Sánchez-Ruiz, 2011; Petrides, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004). However, promotion of EI in schools has been controversial because it challenges traditional “rationalist” views of education (Humphrey, Curran, Morris, Farrell, & Woods, 2007). Furthermore, research findings in this area have been inconsistent (Nelis et al., 2011; Nelis, Quoidbach, Mikolajczak, & Hansenne, 2009; Pool & Qualter, 2012), and some important questions remain unanswered, such as whether EI can be taught in school, and whether improved EI would have an impact on children's emotional health. However, first it is important to define what is meant by EI. Matthews, Zeidner, and Roberts (2002) defined EI as a set of hierarchically organized core competences for identifying, processing, and regulating one's own emotions and those of others. In addition, Petrides et al. (2004) consider EI to be a constellation of emotional self-perceptions and a collection of personality traits related to people's perceptions of
⁎ Corresponding author at: Av. Blasco Ibañez 21, Valencia ES 46010, Spain. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Viguer), [email protected] (M.J. Cantero), [email protected] (R. Bañuls).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.036 0191-8869/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
their emotional abilities. Moreover, EI can be conceptualized as an ability or a trait (Petrides & Furnham, 2003). Initially, there were two major EI conceptual models: the SaloveyMayer ability model and the Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). The Salovey-Mayer model defines EI as “the ability to monitor one's own and others' emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use the information to guide one's thinking and actions” (Salovey & Mayer, 1990, p. 189). The Bar-On (1997) model defines EI as “an array of non-cognitive capabilities, competencies, and skills that influence one's ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands and pressures” (p. 14). The ESI model combines cognitive abilities characteristic of EI with emotional facets or dispositions related to EI as a trait. Currently, two other important models complete the main conceptual frameworks: Petrides model and Mikolajczak tripartite model. The Petrides model (2011), the dominant trait theory of EI in the psychological literature, defines EI as a constellation of emotional perceptions assessed via questionnaires and rating scales (Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007). The tripartite model (Mikolajczak, Petrides, Coumans, & Luminet., 2009) integrates EI as a set of abilities, skills and dispositions. This latter perspective is particularly useful and provides a theoretical basis for the examination of increases in EI due to intervention efforts. In any case, EI is clearly an important factor that leads to positive outcomes for individuals by providing the ability to adapt successfully to stressful environments (Ciarrochi, Deane, & Anderson, 2002). The meta-analytic reviews by Schutte et al. (2007), Martins et al. (2010), and Sánchez-Álvarez, Extremera, and Fernández-Berrocal (2015)
194
P. Viguer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 193–200
synthesize a large number of empirical studies that have measured the effects of EI on adaptive outcomes in children, such as quality of life, academic success, resistance to stress, health, well-being, and the quality of their social relationships. Moreover, research suggests that behavioral interventions, may affect EI as a pertinent outcome (McIlvain, Miller, Lawhead, Barbosa-Leiker, & Anderson, 2015; Ruttledge & Petrides, 2012). Taking these results into account, many school-based interventions designed to promote EI have been created within the framework of socio emotional learning (SEL) (see meta-analysis by Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011 of 213 school-based programs). After analyzing these programs, Matthews, Zeidner, and Roberts (2002, 2007) indicated that the main gaps in EI programs are: (1) most of them lack a clear theoretical and methodological rationale; (2) they usually target only some EI dimensions and add a number of skills that are not considered parts of EI; (3) when evaluations exist, they are limited to teachers' subjective impressions; (4) they do not consider the long-term effects; and (4) few of the evaluations include a control group. In fact, in their review about the role of EI in the school context, Zeidner, Roberts, and Matthews (2002) point out that most intervention programs are not specifically designed to change EI, and very few systematic interventions meet the requirements for internal and external validity. Based on the evidence proposed, in order to respond to some of the issues mentioned above and address these gaps, this research evaluates the effectiveness of a school-based emotional intelligence program in the Spanish context. This program is called EDI: would you like to travel around the planet of emotions? (EDI Program). Based on Zeidner et al.'s (2002) specific guidelines for the development, implementation, and evaluation of EI intervention programs: (1) the EDI program was based on a solid conceptual framework: the Bar-On model, a teachable and learnable model described by Bar-On (2006); (2) program goals were carefully specified; (3) the educational and developmental context for program implementation was identified, specifically pre-adolescents in school; (4) the EDI program was fully integrated into the school educational and instructional curriculum; specifically, our program was implemented by trained psychologists during two academic years (5th and 6th grade of Spanish elementary education) in regular tutorial classes; (5) we made provisions for practicing and generalizing the domain of emotional skills across different types of behavioral performance; (6) we provided professional development for program personnel; and (7) we used robust, experimental, psychometric designs to assess program effectiveness. Thus, the current study extends previous research in at least four ways. First, we focused on all the emotional intelligence dimensions, based on the Bar-On model (intrapersonal skills, interpersonal skills, managing emotions, adaptability and general mood), rather than on only one specific component of EI. Some studies have shown that emotionally and socially intelligent behavior can be enhanced in school based on the Bar-On model. In this framework, the “Self-Science Curriculum” developed by Stone-McCown, Jensen, Freedman, and Rideout (1998) has been applied in the United States in the past few years. The study by Freedman (2003) with 12-year-old children has shown the potential of this training, and the results indicate that the children's EI increased significantly after one year of an ESI-enriching curriculum. Second, we used a quasi-experimental design with assignment to an intervention or control group in order to examine intervention effects. Third, we compared the effects of one intervention year and the effects of two intervention years. Fourth, to the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to use this theoretical model and a rigorous evaluation design in Spanish elementary school students. In the Spanish context, the INTEMO program was based on the ability model and addressed to secondary students (Castillo, Salguero, Fernández-Berrocal, & Balluerka, 2013; Ruiz-Aranda, Salguero, Cabello, Palomera, & Berrocal, 2012).
The main goal of our study is to investigate the effectiveness of a two-year EDI intervention. More specifically, using a controlled design, we test the impact of the program on the different EI dimensions. The available research suggests that it is possible to improve EI (Bar-On, Maree, & Elias, 2007; Freedman, 2003). Thus, we hypothesize the following: (1) the intervention will increase participants' EI dimensions, measured at the end of the first intervention year; (2) the effects of the training will be present after six months; (3) a second intervention year will further improve the emotional intelligence dimensions; (4) without the intervention, the EI dimensions will not increase over time. 2. Methods 2.1. Participants A total of 311 individuals initiated this two-year longitudinal study, and 83 individuals dropped out of the study during the first year. Thus, the final sample consisted of 228 children, 124 males (54.4%) and 104 females (45.6%). Their ages ranged from 10 to 11 years (M = 10.32; SD = 0.47). All the participants were in the fifth grade at five public elementary schools in the province of Valencia (Spain). With regard to nationality, 85.5% (n = 195) were Spanish, and 14.5% (n = 33) were immigrants from Asia (30.3%, n = 10), South America (12.1%, n = 4), Eastern Europe (24.3 %, n = 8), Arab countries (33.3%, n = 11). In addition, 18.4% (n = 42) were Spanish Roma,1 and 26.8% of the participants (n = 61) had learning disabilities. A total of 182 children (79.8%) from all the public schools in a municipality (a total of 4 schools) participated in the EDI program (group intervention). These children were all of the pupils in fifth grade in the public school system in this municipality. The students in the four public schools do not differ in age or sex. However, one of the schools presents a higher percentage of immigrant students and students with learning difficulties because of its more peripheral situation (see Appendix A for socio-demographic data for each school). Contact was made with all the schools from a neighboring municipality with similar socio-demographic characteristics. Three of them decided to participate, but two decided to drop out of the study after the first assessment. Thus, a total of 46 children (20.2%) were evaluated and participated in the longitudinal study as a control group. To avoid selection bias and confirm that the intervention and control groups were not different at baseline, homogeneity analysis was performed. Tests for homogeneity revealed no significant differences between groups at time 1 (baseline): age (t (226) = − 0.03, p = 0.98), gender (χ2 (1, N = 228) = 0.00, p = 0.99), nationality (χ2 (1, N = 228) = 0.026, p = 0.87), Spanish Roma ethnicity (χ2 (1, N = 228) = 0.394, p = 0.53), and learning difficulties (χ2 (1, N = 228) = 0.013, p = 0.909) (see Table 1). Participants were assessed at four points in time: before the intervention (baseline), at the end of the first intervention year (approximately six months later), at the beginning of the second intervention year (approximately six months later), and after the second intervention year (approximately six months later). 2.2. Measure Emotional Intelligence was assessed using the Spanish version of the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i:YV, Bar-On & Parker, 2000), adapted to Spanish by Ferrándiz, Hernández, Bermejo, Ferrando, and Sáinz (2012). The EQ-i:YV is a 60-item self-report measure of emotional 1 The social situation of the Spanish Roma population is heterogeneous, and it is an error to associate this ethnic group with social exclusion. The schooling of Roma children is practically normalized, but the frequency of school absenteeism and premature abandonment are a cause for concern. These phenomena are compounded in secondary education, especially for girls. In addition, the presence of Roma in post-compulsory studies is infrequent. Therefore, the adult Roma population has lower education levels than the population as a whole (Laparra, 2011). In our sample, 59.5% of Roma children have learning difficulties (n = 25).
P. Viguer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 193–200
195
Table 1 Descriptive statistics for intervention and control groups.
Age (M) Gender Nationality Roma ethnic group Learning disabilities
Boys Girls Spanish Immigrant Yes No Yes No
Total (N = 228)
Intervention group (n = 182)
Control group (n = 46)
10.32 (SD = 0.47) n = 124 n = 104 n = 195 n = 33 n = 42 n = 186 n = 61 n = 167
10.32 (SD = 0.47) 54.4% (n = 99) 45.6% (n = 83) 85.7% (n = 156) 14.3% (n = 26) 19.2% (n = 35) 80.8% (n = 147) 26.9% (n = 49) 73.1% (n = 133)
10.33 (SD = 0.47) 54.3% (n = 25) 45.7% (n = 21) 84.8% (n = 39) 15.2% (n = 7) 15.2% (n = 7) 84.8% (n = 39) 26.1% (n = 12) 73.9% (n = 34)
intelligence for use with children and adolescents between 7 and 18 years old. Subjects have to respond in the way that best describes the way they feel, think, or act in most situations on four-point Likertscales (ranging from 1 for “very seldom or not true of me,” to 4 for “very often true or true of me”). The instrument has five subscales: intrapersonal intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, stress management, adaptability, and general mood. A high score on any individual scale reflects a higher level of emotional competency. The Cronbach's Alpha coefficients (α) in the Spanish validation study were 0.63 for the intrapersonal scale; 0.72 for the interpersonal scale; 0.77 for the stress management scale; 0.77 for the adaptability scale, and 0.80 for general mood (Ferrándiz et al., 2012). The present study had acceptable internal reliabilities at the four measurement times. For the intrapersonal scale, α coefficients were 0.63, 0.64, 0.77, and 0.70 for times 1 to 4, respectively; for the interpersonal scale, α were 0.71, 0.68, 0.76, and 0.77; for the stress management scale, α were 0.75, 0.81, 0.82, and 0.82; for the adaptability scale, α were 0.76, 0.82, 0.81, and 0.87, and for the general mood scale, α were 0.77, 0.84, 0.81, and 0.87.
training in assertiveness and empathy, taking responsibility for one's emotions in relationships, and solving problems cooperatively and through negotiation. In the third module, emotional regulation, the main goal was to learn to regulate emotions. We especially taught the students to be open to all kinds of emotions, develop tolerance to frustration and stress, and regulate their own and others' emotions. In the fourth module, general mood, the main goal was to promote positive affective mood. Basic training involved learning positive thinking strategies to use in everyday tasks and showing optimistic thoughts when facing the task. To enhance the transfer effect of our training, we focused on actionoriented exercises and the participants' personal experiences, and we developed reality-based training materials. In addition, all the participants received a booklet with a summary of the theoretical input and exercises. Finally, to monitor the program's implementation, the psychologists responsible for the program met biweekly, and a coordination meeting with the school staff was held every month.
2.3. Intervention design
2.4. Procedure
The EDI program was conducted by a trained psychologist, and the group's teacher attended the sessions. A total of three psychologists were involved. Before the school intervention, professional training was provided for psychologists and group teachers. The intervention was carried out during two academic courses. In each academic year, the training sessions took place for sixteen weeks, with a one-week interval between sessions. The intervention focused on teaching theoretical knowledge about emotions and training school children during the pre-adolescence period (10–12 years old) to apply specific emotional skills in their daily lives. The procedure was standardized and based on guidelines that included exercises and structured input from the trainers. The EDI program was carried out during school hours officially designated for tutorial lessons. We used a comprehensive approach that includes experiential methodology with psycho-physical, psycho-dramatic, and systemic techniques, as well as some cognitive-behavioral techniques. The structure of the intervention was based on established methods such as storytelling, drama, theatre, and relaxation. Other complementary techniques used were film forum or group sculpture, group discussion, case studies, brainstorming, and music therapy. At the same time, we also used techniques such as empathic stimulation, active listening, positive reinforcement, and modeling to strengthen the learning. Our training program's design was based on Bar-On's model. In the first module, intrapersonal skills, the main goal was to know and understand their own and others' emotions. In addition, participants were introduced to topics such as perceiving emotions, body and mind, being aware of their own emotions, identifying and discriminating emotions, adequately expressing emotions, differentiating their own emotional states from others', and learning to accept, respect, and love one another. The goal of the second module, interpersonal skills, was to develop greater competence in social relations. Accordingly, we provided
School administrators, staff, and families were informed of the purpose of the study and gave their informed consent to take part. All the participants completed the measures four times: (1) time 1, baseline, at the beginning of 5th grade and before the first intervention training (January 2012); (2) time 2, at the end of the 5th grade intervention sessions; (3) time 3, follow-up assessment at the beginning of 6th grade and before the second intervention training; (4) time 4, at the end of the 6th grade and after the second intervention training. All the participants in the intervention group attended all the sessions held in the two academic years. These sessions were held in academic tutorial hours. Control group participants completed the same measures at the same time as the intervention group, but they were not exposed to the training. During the EI intervention period, students in the control group received the usual tutorial lessons about classroom organization and climate, coordination with students' families, and study techniques. 3. Results Mixed-model group (intervention/control) × time (time 1, time 2, time 3, time 4) repeated-measures ANOVAs were performed on each IE dimension, with group as between-subject factor and time as within-subject factor (statistical analyses were performed with SPSS 22). In each case, we wanted to determine the group-time interaction, which would indicate a differential change for the two groups. Multivariate analyses showed a significant group-time interaction for the intrapersonal (Wilks λ = 0.892, F (3,224) = 9.046, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.11), interpersonal (Wilks λ = 0.877, F (3,224) = 10.513, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.123), stress management (Wilks λ = 0.816, F (3,224) = 16.795, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.19), adaptability (Wilks λ = 0.792, F (3,224) = 19.623, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.208) and general mood (Wilks λ = 0.872, F (3,224) = 10.94, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.13) dimensions. The principal
196
P. Viguer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 193–200
Table 2 Interaction effects between intervention and control group, means, and standard-deviations for IE dimensions.
Intrapersonal
F (3678) = 10.05, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.04
Interpersonal
F (3678) = 8.77, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.04
Stress management
F (3678) = 15.75, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.07
Adaptability
F (3678) = 6.69, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.03
General mood
F (3678) = 13.36, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.06
Group
T1
T2
T3
T4
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
14.27 (3.86) 14.26 (3.99) 36.07 (5.81) 36.37 (6.85) 33.50 (7.23) 33.13 (7.08) 28.91 (4.90) 28.93 (5.28) 44.12 (6.14) 44.83 (5.98)
16.12 (3.23) 13.87 (4.03) 37.82 (4.80) 35.30 (6.13) 35.13 (5.23) 32.96 (6.12) 29.70 (5.24) 28.83 (5.84) 46.84 (6.50) 43.76 (4.97)
15.96 (3.22) 13.93 (3.46) 37.53 (5.08) 35.26 (4.64) 34.90 (4.61) 32.52 (4.63) 29.92 (5.99) 29.50 (4.72) 47.04 (5.18) 43.74 (4.84)
16.13 (3.05) 13.65 (3.78) 38.68 (4.35) 34.54 (7.73) 36.71 (4.36) 31.13 (4.77) 32.13 (5.21) 28.39 (5.31) 48.64 (5.59) 42.72 (4.70)
Note: Group 1: intervention (n = 128), group 2: control (n = 46).
effects of the interaction, the means, and the standard deviations for the IE dimensions in each temporal moment are shown in Table 2. The study of simple effects between groups (see Table 3) confirmed the homogeneity of the intervention and control groups in all the EI dimensions before the intervention. No differences between groups were found on baseline scores. After the first intervention year (time 2), significant differences between groups were obtained for intrapersonal EI, interpersonal EI, stress management, and general mood, with higher scores found in the treatment group. These differences between groups remained at the follow up measure (time 3). Finally, after the second year training (time 4), all the dimensions, including adaptability, were higher in the intervention group, with a significant increase in their scores. In time 4, the effect sizes (η2p ) were large for management stress and general mood, and moderate for the other dimensions. The results for the evolution of the treatment and control groups over time (T1–T4) in each dimension are presented below (cf. Figs. 1– 5). 3.1. Intrapersonal intelligence Studying the evolution of the groups over time, a significant effect was observed in the treatment group (Wilks λ = 0.71, F (3224) = 29.84, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.29). There was a significant increase in their scores from time 1 (baseline measure) to time 2 (mean difference = − 1.85, SE = 0.20, p b 0.001, d = 0.52, 95% CI [1.32, 2.38]), from time 1 to time 3 (mean difference = −1.69, SE = 0.21, p b 0.001, d = 0.47, 95% CI [1.12, 2.26]), and from time 1 to time 4 (mean difference = − 1.86, SE = 0.29, p b 0.001, d = 0.58, 95% CI [1.09, 2.64]). The effect sizes (Cohen's d) were moderate. There were no significant differences found in the other pairwise comparisons. Regarding the control group, there were no significant differences across time (Wilks λ = 0.99, F (3224) = 0.46, p = 0.712, η2p = 0.006). 3.2. Interpersonal intelligence When comparing interpersonal intelligence in each group at the four evaluation moments, significant changes were observed in the treatment group (Wilks λ = 0.80, F (3224) = 19.24, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.21). There was a significant increase in their scores from time 1 (baseline
measure) to time 2 (mean difference = −1.75, SE = 0.43, p b 0.001, d = 0.33, 95% CI [0.61, 2.89]), from time 1 to time 3 (mean difference = −1.46, SE = 0.49, p = 0.017, d = 0.27, 95% CI [0.17, 2.75]), and from time 1 to time 4 (mean difference = −2.61, SE = 0.47, p b 0.001, d = 0.51, 95% CI [1.35, 3.87]). Furthermore, there was a significant increase in the scores from time 3 to time 4 (mean difference = − 1.15, SE = 0.20, p b 0.001, d = 0.24, 95% CI [0.62, 1.68]). The effect sizes were small for the intermediate assessments, but moderate for the pairwise comparisons between pre-treatment and the last assessment (time 4). In the case of the control group, no significant differences were found over time (Wilks λ = 0.97, F (3224) = 2.05, p = 0.108, η2p = 0.027).
3.3. Stress management For this dimension, significant effects were observed in the treatment group (Wilks λ = 0.72, F (3224) = 29.67, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.28) and the control group (Wilks λ = 0.95, F (3224) = 3.95, p = 0.009, η2p = 0.050). In the treatment group, there was a significant increase in the scores from time 1 (baseline measure) to time 2 (mean difference = −1.63, SE = 0.40, p b 0.001, d = 0.26, 95% CI [0.56, 2.70]), from time 1 to time 3 (mean difference = −1.40, SE = 0.41, p = 0.005, d = 0.23, 95% CI [0.29, 2.50]), and from time 1 to time 4 (mean difference = −3.21, SE = 0.45, p b 0.001, d = 0.54, 95% CI [2.03, 4.40]). Moreover, there was a significant increase in the stress management scores from time 2 to time 4 (mean difference = −1.59, SE = 0.31, p b 0.001, d = 0.33, 95% CI [0.78, 2.39]) and from time 3 to time 4 (mean difference = −1.82, SE = 0.22, p b 0.001, d = 0.40, 95% CI [1.23, 2.41]). The effect sizes were moderate for the comparison of baseline and time 4, and small for the other comparisons. In the control group, there was a significant decrease in the stress management scores. This decrease was significant between time 2 and time 4 (mean difference = 1.83, SE = 0.60, p = 0.016, d = −0.33, 95% CI [−3.43, −0.22]) and between time 3 and time 4 (mean difference = 1.39, SE = 0.44, p = 0.011, d = −0.30, 95% CI [−2.57, −0.21]). These results suggest a long-term increase in stress management scores in the treatment group after the training and a significant decrease in the group without the intervention. In addition, the study of simple effects between groups in time 4 (F (1226) = 57.88, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.20) showed significant differences in stress management scores, with a very large effect size.
Table 3 Simple effects between groups on time 1, time 2, time 3, and time 4 scores. Time 1
IN EN SM AD GM
Time 2
Time 3
Time 4
F
df
p
η2
F
df
p
η2
F
df
p
η2
F
df
p
η2
0.00 0.09 0.10 0.00 0.50
1/226 1/226 1/226 1/226 1/226
0.990 0.761 0.756 0.978 0.482
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
16.04 8.94 5.88 0.97 9.01
1/226 1/226 1/226 1/226 1/226
0.000 0.003 0.016 0.326 0.003
0.07 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.04
14.10 6.98 9.72 0.19 15.31
1/226 1/226 1/226 1/226 1/226
0.000 0.009 0.002 0.661 0.000
0.06 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.06
17.81 32.01 57.88 18.80 43.78
1/226 1/226 1/226 1/226 1/226
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.07 0.12 0.20 0.08 0.16
Note: IN: intrapersonal intelligence; EN: interpersonal intelligence; SM: stress management; AD: adaptability; GM: general mood.
P. Viguer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 193–200
197
Fig. 1. Effect of EI intervention program on intrapersonal intelligence across four evaluation times for the treatment and control groups (time 1 = baseline; time 2 = at the end of the first intervention year; time 3 = follow-up; and time 4 = after the second intervention year).
Fig. 3. Effect of EI intervention program on stress management across four evaluation times for the treatment and control groups (time 1 = baseline; time 2 = at the end of the first intervention year; time 3 = follow-up; and time 4 = after the second intervention year).
3.4. Adaptability Comparing adaptability in each group at the four evaluation moments, significant changes were observed in the treatment group (Wilks λ = 0.60, F (3224) = 49.61, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.40). There was a significant increase in their scores from time 1 (baseline measure) to time 4 (mean difference = −3.22, SE = 0.48, p b 0.001, d = 0.64, 95%
CI [1.94, 4.50]), from time 2 to time 4 (mean difference = − 2.43, SE = 0.37, p b 0.001, d = 0.47, 95% CI [1.46, 3.41]), and from time 3 to time 4 (mean difference = −2.21, SE = 0.21, p b 0.001, d = 0.39, 95% CI [1.65, 2.78]). The difference between the baseline measure and time 4 had a large effect size, and the other differences had moderate effect sizes. In the control group, no significant differences were found over time (Wilks λ = 0.97, F (3224) = 2.31, p = 0.08, η2p = 0.03).
Fig. 2. Effect of EI intervention program on interpersonal intelligence across four evaluation times for the treatment and control groups (time 1 = baseline; time 2 = at the end of the first intervention year; time 3 = follow-up; and time 4 = after the second intervention year).
Fig. 4. Effect of EI intervention program on adaptability across four evaluation times for the treatment and control groups (time 1 = baseline; time 2 = at the end of the first intervention year; time 3 = follow-up; and time 4 = after the second intervention year).
198
P. Viguer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 193–200
Fig. 5. Effect of EI intervention program on general mood across four evaluation times for the treatment and control groups (time 1 = baseline; time 2 = at the end of the first intervention year; time 3 = follow-up; and time 4 = after the second intervention year).
3.5. General mood For general mood, significant effects were observed in the treatment group (Wilks λ = 0.75, F (3224) = 24.64, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.25). There was a significant increase in the scores from time 1 (baseline measure) to time 2 (mean difference = −2.73, SE = 0.54, p b 0.001, d = 0.43, 95% CI [1.28, 4.17]), from time 1 to time 3 (mean difference = −2.93, SE = 0.52, p b 0.001, d = 0.51, 95% CI [1.56, 4.30]), and from time 1 to time 4 (mean difference = −4.53, SE = 0.54, p b 0.001, d = 0.77, 95% CI [3.10, 5.95]). Moreover, there was a significant increase in stress management scores from time 2 to time 4 (mean difference = −1.80, SE = 0.40, p b 0.001, d = 0.30, 95% CI [0.75, 2.86]) and from time 3 to time 4 (mean difference = −1.60, SE = 0.39, p b 0.001, d = 0.30, 95% CI [0.56, 2.64]). The effect sizes were moderate for the pairwise comparisons from baseline to time 3 and baseline to time 4, and small for the other comparisons. These results suggest a long-term increase in general mood scores in the treatment group after the intervention. In addition, the study of simple effects between groups at time 4 (F (1226) = 43.78, p b 0.001, η2p = 0.16) showed significant differences in general mood scores, with a very large effect size. In the control group, no significant differences were found over time (Wilks λ = 0.98, F (3224) = 1.49, p = 0.217, η2p = 0.02).
4. Discussion The aim of the present study was to determine the effectiveness of a two-year intervention program designed to improve emotional intelligence in Spanish pre-adolescents at school. Basically, we want to highlight that our intervention led to a significant increase in the EI dimensions in the long term, and the results support our research hypotheses. The main results for the EI dimensions suggest, as expected, that the intervention improved intrapersonal intelligence in the first year. This increase remained stable six months later, and a second intervention year allowed this improvement to be maintained. It should be noted that the EQ-i:YV intrapersonal scale has the lowest internal reliability, especially in time 1 and time 2. Regarding interpersonal intelligence and general mood, the first intervention year improved these
dimensions, and this increase also remained stable six months after the intervention. A second intervention year significantly further improved these dimensions, in addition to the improvement observed after the first intervention year. These results highlight the usefulness of the second intervention year in enhancing interpersonal intelligence and general mood. In the case of the adaptability dimension, we observed that the intervention during the first intervention year was not able to produce changes in the treatment group, which showed the same evolution as the non-intervention group. A second intervention year was needed to significantly improve this dimension, and so our results highlight the need for long-term interventions. In these four EI dimensions, the largest difference between the intervention and nonintervention groups was found after the second intervention year. Moreover, without intervention, none of the EI dimensions changed over time. Finally, regarding stress management, the intervention during the first intervention year improved the results, and this increase remained stable six months after the intervention. A second intervention year significantly improved stress management with regard to the improvement observed after the first intervention year. However, without intervention, stress management decreased significantly over time, indicating the need for a specific intervention for this dimension. It seems that changes related to pre-adolescence and the stress associated with the end of this educational stage could affect stress management negatively. The EI intervention progressively improved this dimension, as the greatest effectiveness of the EDI intervention program was found after the second intervention year, with the highest effect size between the intervention and non-intervention groups. This result highlights the usefulness of the second intervention year in compensating for this developmental tendency. Previous studies suggest that adolescents with high EI cope well with the transition to secondary school (Qualter, Whiteley, Hutchinson, & Pope, 2007). Therefore, our results confirm the need to promote the EI dimensions and appropriate coping strategies during the last years of primary school in order to facilitate the transition to secondary school. In summary, the hypotheses have basically been confirmed. The major finding of this study is that a first intervention year produced improvements in all the EI dimensions (hypothesis 1), except adaptability, and all the positive changes remained stable during a 6-month period after the first intervention year (hypothesis 2). In the case of adaptability, a second intervention year was necessary to achieve the expected results (hypothesis 3). Regarding the effectiveness of a second intervention year (hypothesis 3), our results show that this long-term intervention allows students: (1) to continue to improve interpersonal intelligence, stress management, and general mood; (2) experience changes in adaptability when the first intervention year is not enough to achieve them; and (3) maintain the results found after the first intervention year, as in the case of intrapersonal intelligence. In this regard, it is important to note that future studies may use long intervention programs to enhance the effects of emotional intelligence interventions. Moreover, without intervention, the EI dimensions did not increase over time (hypothesis 4), or they even decreased (stress management). Changes related to pre-adolescence alone did not improve emotional intelligence. Thus, the EDI program shows successful teaching of EI, underlining the potential value and importance of school-based EI interventions. Zeidner et al. (2002) indicated the need for systematic program planning and evaluation studies in school settings, and they proposed some specific guidelines for the development, implementation, and evaluation of EI intervention programs. The EDI program conforms to these specific guidelines, and its effectiveness suggests that EI can be effectively taught in school. Some limitations of this intervention study should be noted. One drawback is that the present study employs a self-report instrument. The review by Zeidner et al. (2002) pointed out that emotional competence may not be consciously accessible, and self-perceptions of EI may be misleading, “being vulnerable to the range of response sets and social desirability factors afflicting self-report measures” (p. 218). These
P. Viguer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 193–200
problems are common to all self-report scales, and it would be advisable to use multiple scoring methods. Although the EQ-i:YV (Bar-On & Parker, 2000) is considered an adequate measure of emotional intelligence (Qualter et al., 2007), future research should design and validate new measures of emotional intelligence for children based on this theoretical framework. Moreover, a second limitation of our study was the different number of participants in the intervention and non-intervention groups, due to the difficulty of long-term evaluation in the group without intervention.
199
In summary, this is the first study to focus on all the emotional intelligence dimensions found in the Bar-On model, in Spanish pre-adolescent pupils. It breaks new ground, especially by conceptualizing emotional intelligence as perceived social and emotional competencies, leaving ample room for future research to refine its findings. The study suggests that a school-based intervention might enhance emotional competencies in primary education, and it highlights the need for long-term interventions in order to maximize the effects.
Appendix A. Socio-demographic data for each school
Intervention group (n = 182)
Age M (SD) Gender Nationality Roma ethnic group Learning disabilities
a b c d
Boys Girls Spanish Immigrant Yes No Yes No
Control group
School 1 (n = 42)
School 2 (n = 46)
School 3 (n = 46)
School 4 (n = 48)
School 5 (n = 46)
10.21(0.42) 61.9% (n = 26) 38.1% (n = 16) 92.9% (n = 39) 7.1% (n = 3) 19.0% (n = 8) 81.0% (n = 34) 19.0% (n = 8) 81.0% (n = 34)
10.35 (0.48) 56.5% (n = 26) 43.5% (n = 20) 69.6% (n = 32) 30.4% (n = 14)a 26.1% (n = 12) 73.9% (n = 34) 41.3% (n = 19)c 58.7% (n = 27)
10.26 (0.44) 50.0% (n = 23) 50.0% (n = 23) 91.3% (n = 42) 8.7% (n = 4) 26.1% (n = 12) 73.9% (n = 34) 32.6% (n = 15) 67.4% (n = 31)
10.46(0.50) 50.0% (n = 24) 50.0% (n = 24) 89.6% (n = 43) 10.4% (n = 5) 6.3% (n = 3)b 93.8% (n = 45) 14.6% (n = 7)d 85.4% (n = 41)
10.33 (0.47) 54.3% (n = 25) 45.7% (n = 21) 84.8% (n = 39) 15.2% (n = 7) 15.2% (n = 7) 84.8% (n = 39) 26.1% (n = 12) 73.9% (n = 34)
z = 3.4. z = −2.4. z = 2.5. z = −2.1.
References Bar-On, R. (1997). The emotional quotient inventory (EQ-i): Technical manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems, Inc. Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). Psicothema, 18, 13–25. Bar-On, R., & Parker, J. D. A. (2000). Bar-On emotional quotient inventory: Youth version. Incorporated: Multi-Health system. Bar-On, R., Maree, K., & Elias, M. J. (2007). Educating people to be emotionally intelligent. Greenwood Publishing Group. Castillo, R., Salguero, J. M., Fernández-Berrocal, P., & Balluerka, N. (2013). Effects of an emotional intelligence intervention on aggression and empathy among adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 36(5), 883–892. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence. 2013.07.001. Ciarrochi, J., Deane, F. P., & Anderson, S. (2002). Emotional intelligence moderates the relationship between stress and mental health. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(2), 197–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00012-5. Costa, A., & Faria, L. (2015). The impact of Emotional Intelligence on academic achievement: A longitudinal study in Portuguese secondary school. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 38–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.011. 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(1), 405–432. http://dx. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564. Ferrándiz, C., Hernández, D., Bermejo, R., Ferrando, M., & Sáinz, M. (2012). Social and emotional intelligence in childhood and adolescence: Spanish validation of a measurement instrument. Journal of Psychodidactics, 17(2), 309–338. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1387/Rev.Psicodidact.2814. Freedman, J. (2003). Key lessons from 35 years of social-emotional education: How selfscience builds self-awareness, positive relationships, and healthy decision-making: Research paper. Perspectives in Education, 21(4), 69–80. Humphrey, N., Curran, A., Morris, E., Farrell, P., & Woods, K. (2007). Emotional intelligence and education: A critical review. Educational Psychology, 27(2), 235–254. http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/01443410601066735. Laparra, M. (2011). Diagnóstico social de la comunidad gitana en España. Un análisis contrastado de la Encuesta del CIS a Hogares de Población Gitana 2007. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad, Política Social e Igualdad. Martins, A., Ramalho, N., & Morin, E. (2010). A comprehensive meta-analysis of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 554–564. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.029. Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). Emotional intelligence: Science or myth? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (Eds.). (2007). The science of emotional intelligence: Knowns and unknowns (pp. 3–48). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Mavroveli, S., & Sánchez-Ruiz, M. J. (2011). Trait emotional intelligence influences on academic achievement and school behaviour. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 112–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/2044-8279.002009. McIlvain, S. J., Miller, B., Lawhead, B. A., Barbosa-Leiker, C., & Anderson, A. (2015). Piloting yoga and assessing outcomes in a residential behavioural health unit. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 22(3), 199–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ jpm.12184. Mikolajczak, M., Petrides, K. V., Coumans, N., & Luminet, O. (2009). The moderatingeffect of trait emotional intelligence on mood deterioration following laboratory-induced stress. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 9(3), 455–477. Nelis, D., Quoidbach, J., Mikolajczak, M., & Hansenne, M. (2009). Increasing emotional intelligence: (How) is it possible? Personality and Individual Differences, 47(1), 36–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.046. Nelis, D., Kotsou, I., Quoidbach, J., Hansenne, M., Weytens, F., Dupuis, P., & Mikolajczak, M. (2011). Increasing emotional competence improves psychological and physical wellbeing, social relationships, and employability. Emotion, 11(2), 354–366. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/a0021554. Perera, H. N., & DiGiacomo, M. (2013). The relationship of trait emotional intelligence with academic performance: A meta-analytic review. Learning and Individual Differences, 28, 20–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.08.002. Perera, H. N., & DiGiacomo, M. (2015). The role of trait emotional intelligence in academic performance during the university transition: An integrative model of mediation via social support, coping, and adjustment. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 208–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.001. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence: Behavioral validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. European Journal of Personality, 17, 39–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.466. Petrides, K. V., Frederickson, N., & Furnham, A. (2004). The role of trait emotional intelligence in academic performance and deviant behavior at school. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 277–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00084-9. Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British Journal of Psychology, 98(2), 273–289. http://dx.doi. org/10.1348/000712606X120618. Pool, L. D., & Qualter, P. (2012). Improving emotional intelligence and emotional self-efficacy through a teaching intervention for university students. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(3), 306–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.01.010. Qualter, P., Whiteley, H. E., Hutchinson, J. M., & Pope, D. J. (2007). Supporting the development of emotional intelligence competencies to ease the transition from primary to high school. Educational Psychology in Practice, 23(1), 79–95. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/02667360601154584. Ruiz-Aranda, D., Salguero, J. M., Cabello, R., Palomera, R., & Berrocal, P. F. (2012). Can an emotional intelligence program improve adolescents' psychosocial adjustment? Results from the INTEMO project. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 40(8), 1373–1379. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2012.40.8.1373. Ruttledge, R. A., & Petrides, K. V. (2012). A cognitive behavioural group approach for adolescents with disruptive behaviour in schools. School Psychology International, 33(2), 223–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143034311415908.
200
P. Viguer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 193–200
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/DUG G-P24E-52WK-6CDG. Sánchez-Álvarez, N., Extremera, N., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2015). The relation between emotional intelligence and subjective well-being: A meta-analytic investigation. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11, 276–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760. 2015.1058968. Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2007). A metaanalytic investigation of the relationship between emotional intelligence and
health. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 921–933. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.paid. 2006.09.003. Stone-McCown, K., Jensen, A. L., Freedman, J. M., & Rideout, M. C. (1998). Self science: The emotional intelligence curriculum. San Mateo, CA: Six Seconds. Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D., & Matthews, G. (2002). Can emotional intelligence be schooled? A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 37(4), 215–231. http://dx.doi. org/10.1207/S15326985EP3704_2.