- Email: [email protected]
The trait-coverage of emotional intelligence
Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687 www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
The trait-coverage of emotional intelligence Boele De Raad
*
Department of Psychology, The University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS, Groningen, NL, Netherlands Received 4 August 2003; received in revised form 31 March 2004; accepted 27 May 2004 Available online
Abstract In this paper it is explored to what extent emotional intelligence can be expressed in terms of a standard trait model. Two studies were performed. In Study 1 a total of 437 items from several emotional intelligence questionnaires were used. The items were classified into the categories comprised by the Abridged Big Five Circumplex (AB5C) model. The majority of those items ended up in categories delineated by the factors Agreeableness (II) and Emotional Stability (IV) of the Big Five. Most of the items that were not classifiable were ambiguous or included other elements of difficulty such as conditional statements or negations. In Study 2 a large pool of 728 Big Five items was used. Those items were selected that could be considered relevant for the description of emotional intelligence. Three hundred and eight items considered relevant were factored on the basis of ratings available from an earlier study. This yielded a four factor structure of which the factors strongly related to four of the Big Five factors. In both studies the Big Five segments III + V+ and V + III+ were left rather untouched, emphasizing that rational and organized information processing is not captured by understandings of emotional intelligence. Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Traits; Big five; Emotional intelligence; Structure
1. Introduction The core concepts of the psychology of individual differences––intelligence, personality, and emotions––presumably play a concordant role in a new (Leuner, 1966; Payne, 1986) psychological amalgam, emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995a; Salovey & Mayer, 1990) that has drawn the
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +31-50-3636304. E-mail address: [email protected] (B. De Raad).
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.022
674
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
attention of a wide audience. Considering the fact that those concepts have hitherto been treated as relatively separate realms, it is fair to ask for the magic formula that puts them together. From the personality trait perspective it is important to know what exactly the traits are that mark emotional intelligence; which traits are concealed by this ‘‘key to success’’ (Goleman, 1995a)? Matthews, Zeidner, and Roberts (2002) deal thoroughly with most of the issues involved. Much of the appeal of the concept is in what its implied mechanisms and processes can do for you, a competitive edge in emotional, social, and professional life. Much of the underlying ‘‘mythical’’ beliefs were, however, not found scientifically supported. As regards content, Matthews et al. (2002) have provided ample arguments that several of the components of emotional intelligence relate to single Big Five factors or combinations of them (see also Petrides & Furnham, 2001; Saklofske, Austin, & Minski, 2003; Van der Zee, Thijs, & Schakel, 2002). Interestingly, where Van der Zee et al. (2002) neither expected nor found a relationship between emotional intelligence and Big Five factor Conscientiousness, both Petrides and Furnham (2001) and Saklofske et al. (2003) found substantial correlations between those constructs. The focus is here on trait emotional intelligence (Petrides & Furnham, 2001) which refers to dispositional information collected through typical performance measures (self- or peer-report). Petrides and Furnham distinguish this type of emotional intelligence from ability emotional intelligence which concerns actual abilities measured with maximal-performance tests. Important questions are to what extent the distinct trait-aspects of emotional intelligence are accounted for by established trait models, and what the structure of emotional intelligence looks like within the frameworks of such models. In particular, this study aims at tracing and identifying emotional intelligence within the Big Five trait domain. Moreover, an attempt is made to find indications of where the domain of personality traits fails to capture features of emotional intelligence.
2. Trait facets of emotional intelligence Emotional Intelligence has been defined as a ‘‘subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor oneÕs own and othersÕ feelings and emotions, to discriminate them and to use this information to guide oneÕs thinking and actions’’ (Salovey & Mayer, 1990, p. 189; cf. Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Emotional intelligence is thus conceived of as the ability to process, i.e., understand and manage, emotional information. This conception corresponds to social intelligence which has been described as the ability to understand and manage people, and to act wisely in social situations (Thorndike, 1920; Thorndike & Stein, 1937). More recently, Cantor and Kihlstrom (1985, 1987) proposed social intelligence as a construct referring to a central personality process that underpins social behavior. This general definition of emotional intelligence suggests some equally general indications of personality traits that it may embody. Facets of the typical emotionality dimensions of the Big Five, Extraversion and Emotional Stability (or Neuroticism), form obvious areas where also emotional intelligence may find impersonations of its content. Similarly, the typical social domain of the Big Five, Agreeableness, may contain conceptual angles characteristic of emotional intelligence. On a conceptual basis McCrae (2000) pointed out connections between emotional intelligence and aspects of each of the dimensions of the Five Factor Model.
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
675
The information-processing component of emotional intelligence may seem somewhat at odds with the usual trait understanding. This need not be the case since each and every trait term may be seen as a shorthand concept for a specific way of processing information. Being extraverted, for example, refers to behavior in a certain context, usually a social one, which implies that information from the social context is being processed (cf. Ten Berge & De Raad, 1999, 2001). A complication in identifying the different components of emotional intelligence as traits or trait-facets may be formed by its presumed ‘‘manipulative connotations’’, because such connotations are largely indirect meanings of expressions. Examples from the BarOn EQ-I are ‘‘I know how to deal with problems that may upset me’’, ‘‘I think I can control difficult situations’’, ‘‘I canÕt get along well with others’’, and ‘‘I have difficulties with accepting the way I am’’ (back translated from Dutch by the author). These items and others that include expressions such as ‘‘I know how’’, ‘‘I can’’, ‘‘I am good at’’, etc. refer to abilities: the behavior implies a strategic element and a choice on the part of the agent. These ability-connotations had originally been attributed to ‘‘traditional views’’ of the more comprising social intelligence (cf. Salovey & Mayer, 1990, p. 187). The message given by Salovey and Mayer (1990) is that the explicit inclusion of affective information processing in the definition of social intelligence, as would be the case with its subset emotional intelligence, would neutralize or counter the manipulative understanding. In itself this is difficult to understand since affective information is imbued with manipulative capacities (cf. Ekman, 1992). Nevertheless, the type of information that is referred to here is also represented in the trait domain where there are many trait terms capturing manipulative features, as in for example, devious, cynical, flirtatious, deceitful, diplomatic, and of course manipulative. The remaining difficulty with emotional intelligence, whether this concept is an ability or a disposition, has been discussed quite thoroughly at several places (e.g., Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998; Hofstee, 2001; Matthews et al., 2002). Mayer and Salovey (1993, 1997) distinguished emotional intelligence from traits by defining traits as characteristic ways of behaving, involving dispositions toward behavior; and emotional intelligence as an ability (e.g., being able to figure out oneÕs own and othersÕ emotions), which implies ‘‘right’’ answers with respect to feelings. This may be possible for the perception of emotions of other people (e.g., Mayer & Geher, 1996), but may be rather difficult, especially regarding regulation of emotions. Is it possible to express the components of emotional intelligence in terms of a standard trait model? The main question for this study is whether the concept emotional intelligence and its operationalizations can be identified within the domain of normal personality traits. To this end items from various emotional intelligence questionnaires are evaluated in terms of facets of the socalled Big Five model (Study 1). Moreover, within the Big Five trait domain those traits are traced that may be considered as being relevant to describe components of emotional intelligence in order to arrive at a structuring of the emotional intelligence in terms of traits (Study 2).
3. Study 1 3.1. Subjects Five personality psychologists took part in this study. They were all quite familiar with the emotional intelligence construct and had built some expertise in that area.
676
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
Table 1 Five per cent of 437 items, both with high uÕs and with low uÕs High u’s Does tasks one by one in a disciplined way (1) Shows restlessness in stressful situations (1) Expects to fail when starting something new (2) Is a rather cheerful person (2) Finds it rather difficult to keep fears under control (2) Has control over emotions (3) Has been assigned to head a working team that is trying to come up with a creative solution to a nagging problem at work. The first thing to do is: draw up an agenda and allot time for discussion of each item to make the best use of the time together (4) Gets angry or fearful when physically threatened (5) Is ashamed about looks and behavior (6) Cannot stop thinking about problems (6) Low uÕs Experiences setbacks as a consequence to factors on which he/she has no influence (1) Works especially because of the reward (money) that it provides (1) Enjoys the things that are found of interest (2) Is in contact with his/her emotions (2) Is conscious of what happens to him/her even when he/she is upset (2) Knows when his/her emotions change (3) Becomes vigilant for emergency, carefully monitoring stewardesses and reading emergency instructions, when on an airplane that suddenly hits extremely bad turbulence and begins rocking from side to side (4) Is able to express emotional love, physical love and lusty sexual love with a particular partner (5) When failing a task or doing worse than he/she would like to, it is usually due to internal factors beyond his/her control like traits or IQ (6) When he/she has a major problem that is found extremely difficult to deal with, he/she goes to family members or friends for advice and/or support (6) Numbers between brackets refer to the lists of origin; all items are formulated or adapted such that they can be considered for applicability to self or other.
3.2. Materials In order to have at our disposal a full representation of the different semantic aspects of emotional intelligence, a variety of sources was used, including internet sources. A total of 437 emotional intelligence items were used (samples are provided in Table 1), stemming from: (1) Emotional Intelligence list developed by Thijs (1999), 1 consisting of 119 items comprising 17 scales. Of these the scales (a) Emotional self-consciousness, (b) Self-assurance and (c) Positive thinking cover the perception and interpretation of emotions of self. The scales (d) Coping with stress, (e) Autonomy, (f) Adaptation, (g) Self-motivation, (h) Self-development and (i) Self-control cover effectively coping with own emotions. (j) Affective listening, (k) Empathy, and (l) Concept of man cover perception and interpretation of othersÕ emotions. Finally, (m) Involve-
1
For information about the development if this instrument, please contact PiMedia, P.O. Box 1087, 3800 BB Maarssen, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 346 559010. Internet: www.pimedia.nl.
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
677
ment, (n) Team-capabilities, (o) Influencing others, (p) Dealing with conflicts, and (q) Development of others cover effectively dealing with emotions of others. (2) The Bar-On EQ-I (Bar-On, 1997) is a 133 item self-report measure consisting of 15 distinct scales comprising (a) emotional self-awareness, (b) assertiveness, (c) self-regard, (d) self-actualization, (e) independence, (f) empathy, (g) interpersonal relationships, (h) social responsibility, (i) problem solving, (j) reality testing, (k) flexibility, (l) stress tolerance, (m) impulse control, (n) happiness, and (o) optimism. (3) Schutte et al. (1998) developed a brief 33-item self-report measure of emotional intelligence, starting with Salovey and MayerÕs (1990) original model of emotional intelligence. The 33 items represent all portions of the Salovey and Mayer conceptual model (1990), with 13 items representing the appraisal and expression of emotion category, 10 items representing the regulation of emotion category, and 10 items representing the utilization of emotion category. (4) Thirty-eight items were distinguished as useful in the 10 questions with 4 alternatives each from Goleman (1995b). (5) Twenty items were taken from the web page ABCs of Personal Growth (2000) containing an emotional intelligence test. (6) Ninety-four items were formulated on the basis of the first 58 questions with alternatives from Shrink (2000). 3.3. Procedure The subjects were asked to evaluate each of the 437 emotional intelligence items on their fit to the facets of the so-called Abridged Big Five Circumplex (AB5C) representation of the Big Five model. The subjects were all familiar with this AB5C representation. This system consists of 90 segments representing the 10 factor poles of the Big Five and the 80 blends of traits due to pairs of factor poles (De Raad, Hendriks, & Hofstee, 1992). The blends represent substantial loadings on one factor (primary loading) and a smaller (secondary) loading on another factor. The subjects were instructed to judge for each emotional intelligence item whether that item could be accommodated by one of the ten Big Five factor poles (primary meaning), and in addition, where possible, whether the item could to some extent also be accommodated by a pole of another factor (secondary meaning).
4. Results and discussion The reliability of the classification into the AB5C-framework was first established per emotional intelligence item and subsequently averaged over the 437 items. An item obtained scores from all five judges for each assignment. If an item had been rated as a blend of two factors, it obtained a score Ô2Õ (plus or minus) for the primary factor to which it was assigned and a second score Ô1Õ (plus or minus) for thep secondary p factor. If an item was rated as factor-pure (assigned to a factor pole), the score was Ô 5 ¼ ð22 þ 12 ÞÕ for the pertaining factor, plus or minus (see Hendriks & Hofstee, 1994). The agreement for the five judges was computed per item by means of the formula for u, the mean coefficient of association: u ¼ ðy 0 y 5pÞ=ð5pðp 1ÞÞ, in which y is the vector of the sums of scores over the judges and y 0 y the sum of the squares of these sumscores, p is
678
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
the number of judges. With a perfect association u is 1; with hardly any association at all the value can be slightly negative. The mean u over all the 437 items was 0.52, which is not particularly high when comparing it, for example, with the coefficient of 0.67 obtained in a similar task, but with different types of items (De Raad & Doddema-Winsemius, 1999). Those items however, which were about instincts, showed more resemblance to the typical trait descriptive items than the ones from the present study on emotional intelligence. More specifically, the separate average uÕs for the six instruments or sets of items were 0.52 for (1), 0.58 for (2), 0.37 for (3), 0.42 for (4), 0.59 for (5), and 0.52 for (6), respectively. Table 1 gives 5% of the items, half of them with the highest uÕs and the other half with lowest uÕs. Inspection of the assignments to the AB5C segments by the five judges learned that above a u of 0.40 the items obtained the same Big Five assignment from four of the five judges, as primary or as secondary factor. For this reason, we accepted the items with a u above 0.40 as being accommodated in the Big Five framework, which means that a set of 290 items out of the 437 was caught in the Big Five system. Table 2 gives the distribution of these 290 emotional intelligenceitems over the AB5C-cells. The sums tell that the largest group of the emotional intelligencerelevant items (121) used in this study is related to Big Five factor IV, Emotional Stability, and the smallest group (21) is related to factor V, Intellectual autonomy. The factors I, II, and III have caught a comparable number of items, respectively, 47, 53, and 48. Of the Big Five factors II (Agreeableness) and III (Conscientiousness), the negative poles are not well represented among the emotional intelligence items. In contrast, for factor IV (Emotional Stability), it is the negative pole that is best represented among the emotional intelligence items. Certain segments are particularly accommodative to emotional intelligence items, namely the pairs of segments that are adjacent in meaning I ) IV) and IV ) I) (40), I + II+ and II + I+ (22), III + IV+ and IV + III+ (22), and the factor pure segment IV) (16). Of the total set of 437 items, 147 could not unequivocally be assigned to any of the AB5C segments. Of this set, the numbers were different for the six questionnaires. For the list developed by Thijs, 35% of the items dropped out, for the Bar On list this was 25%, for the Schutte et al. list 55%, for the Goleman list 45%, for the Personal Growth list 30%, and for the Shrink list this was Table 2 Distribution of EI-items over the AB5C-cells I+
I)
I+ I) II+ II) III+ III) IV+ IV) V+ V)
3 8 1 1 1 4 2 2 0
6 0 5 1 0 1 12 0 0
Sums
22
25
II+ 14 0 5
II)
III+
III)
1 3
2 1 2 1 6
1 3 0 1
9 0 4 1 8 2
0 2 3 0 1 0 0
15 3 1 2
1 4 3 0 2
43
10
33
15
IV+
IV)
11 1 10 1 7 1 7
1 28 0 7 5 7
7 0
16 0 12
45
76
V+ 1 0 3 0 3 0 5 0 0
V) 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 2 2
12
9
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
679
33%. Two possible explanations for why items could not be assigned to the AB5C segments are considered here. One is that the items fall outside the domain of the Big Five personality traits, and the other is that the items are too ambiguous or complex to be reliably identified as a personality descriptive item. It may be possible that items do not fit the Big Five domain because the Big Five is not comprising enough as regards representation of trait-semantics (cf. Ashton & Lee, 2001). Yet, there is not much reason to expect that the additional trait domain suggested by Ashton and Lee (capturing Honesty) would provide obvious accommodation to emotional intelligence items. Part of this question is also investigated in Study 2. The reason could also be that certain emotional intelligence items, and thus certain facets of the pertinent domain do not belong to the trait domain, or even that part of the distinguishing character of emotional intelligence is captured in those items. If so, the 147 items should be distinctively different in content and/or form from the 290 items that could be accommodated in the Big Five system. Scrutiny of these 147 items did not reveal any content-specificity, but suggested that the explanation has probably to be sought in item-ambiguity. Item-ambiguity or -complexity is observed in the majority of the 147 items, indicated by multiple meanings, vagueness, and negations. Examples are ‘‘I am not doing anything wrong in my life’’ (ambiguous, negation), ‘‘I usually hope for the best’’ (vague), ‘‘I am in contact with my emotions’’ (ambiguous, vague), and ‘‘I enjoy the things that interest me’’ (ambiguous). More important is that many of those items are put in a conditional format as in ‘‘When I am upset, I donÕt lose time trying to figure out what exactly I am feeling’’, ‘‘Even when I am upset, I am aware of what happens to me’’, ‘‘When I experience a positive emotion, I know how to make it last’’, and ‘‘Once my sobs and tears have been released, I feel great’’. The conditional parts are usually states or behaviors themselves that refer to different or even opposite behavioral characteristics of the person than the behavioral parts.
5. Study 2 In Study 2 a two-step procedure was followed in which as a first step a pool of items describing the Big Five was rated for its relevance to describe emotional intelligence. In the second step the items considered relevant for emotional intelligence were used to arrive at its structure. 5.1. First step 5.1.1. Subjects During this first step of Study 2 eight subjects took part, four psychologists, well acquainted with the concept of emotional intelligence and with the literature about it, and four students of psychology varying in being familiar with the concept and or the literature. All eight subjects were given a brief description of emotional intelligence, which preceded an instruction on how to rate 728 items on their relevance to describe emotional intelligence. 5.1.2. Material and procedure The list of 728 items originated from a pool of personality descriptive sentences which was used as a starting point for the development of a personality inventory to measure the Big Five factors
680
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
(Hendriks, Hofstee, & De Raad, 1999). That pool of items was developed to represent most of the segments of the AB5C. For the majority of the 90 segments, large numbers of behavior descriptive items were written totaling a few thousand, 914 of which were finally accepted on the basis of some criteria of utility. This set was further reduced, for example by excluding all items containing a negation, thus resulting in the 728 items which may be considered as fully covering the domain of semantics of the Big Five trait model. In the present study, subjects were asked to indicate for each item the extent to which that item could be considered as relevant for the description of emotional intelligence. The instruction was preceded by the following brief reminder of emotional intelligence: ‘‘An emotionally intelligent person recognizes emotions of self and of others, and is able to manage those emotions’’. The subjects could express their judgments on a four-point scale, with scale values ‘‘1’’ (not useful), ‘‘2’’ (more not useful than useful), ‘‘3’’ (more useful than not useful), and ‘‘4’’ (useful). 5.2. Results first step The scores of the eight subjects were added, in order to yield for each of the 728 personality descriptive items an index of relevance for the description of emotional intelligence. The alphacoefficient for inter-rater reliability was 0.80 (N ¼ 8), which means that the index of relevance may be considered reliable. The actual range of scores ran from 10 to 32, with a mean of 21.6. Table 3 contains a selection of items with one item for each different (uneven) sumscore. What is apparent from the full list, and is expressed to some extent in Table 3, is that a relatively large number of items in the low score section, and therefore considered not relevant for the description of emotional intelligence, belong to the domain of Conscientiousness. All items with a sumscore clearly above the average (23) were selected as being relevant for the description of emotional intelligence. This was a set of 308 items. In order to see which segments were tapped for emotional intelligence description, Table 4 gives the frequencies for emotional intelligence relevant items relative to the original AB5C frequencies. With 308 items out of the 728 considered relevant 42% would be expected for selection on the basis of chance. In Table 4 the proportions are given for each AB5C segment. What strikes one from this Table 4 are the proportions for Factor III: Conscientiousness is largely left unexploited
Table 3 Selection of items with index of relevance Respects othersÕ feelings Understands people who think differently Can be stirred up easily Chooses his/her words with care Is very pleased with himself/herself Keeps improving himself/herself Does things his/her own way Has difficulty keeping things in mind Starts tasks right away Wastes his/her time Accomplishes a lot of work
31 29 27 25 23 21 19 17 15 13 11
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
681
Table 4 Numbers of items considered emotional intelligence relevant, compared to totals I+
I)
0/3
II+
II)
III+
III)
IV+
IV)
V+
V)
30/36 2/3 7/8
12/25 5/7
0/1 1/5 3/13 1/3 0/13
0/7 0/2 0/0 1/9
1/2 1/1 3/3 1/1 0/0 0/1 3/3
1/1 6/13 4/5 7/10 0/2 1/2
11/39 0/0 7/18 2/4 4/40 0/10 8/28 1/2 1/6
0/0 2/13 2/7 4/7 0/4 1/12 0/0 9/16
I+ I) II+ II) III+ III) IV+ IV) V+ V)
12/15 4/8 0/0 3/8 4/8 3/3 7/15 0/1
3/9 2/3 0/1 0/1 0/0 0/1 3/4 0/1 3/8
6/10 0/0 4/5 1/2 18/18 1/2
24/30 0/1 10/18 1/3 13/22 7/13 10/14
0/0 1/4 1/31 0/6
0/7 0/0 0/2 1/7 2/24
4/8 0/0
6/7 0/0 11/17
Totals
33/61
11/28
69/84
82/131
7/76
4/58
13/19
36/57
1/8 34/147
19/67
(see totals). Furthermore, Factor V is apparently relatively unexploited, especially from the segments V + I +, V + III +, and V + IV+. The high proportion for II+ is mainly due to high frequencies for II+I+ and II + V+. The conclusion from this brief analysis is that many sectors of the Big Five domain are left unexplored, especially in the areas indicated by III + V +, III ) V), V + III +, and V + IV +, comprising the many items that are about being good (or bad) at processing information in an organized and rational way. 5.3. Second step 5.3.1. Subjects and material Self- and partner-ratings were available from 747 subjects on the total set of 728 items, which data have been factor analyzed yielding a five-factorial structure (Hendriks, 1997). The ratings from 747 subjects on the subset of 308 items were used for factor analysis, in order to arrive at the structure of emotional intelligence. The subjects ranged in age from 15 to 80 years, with a mean of 28. Some 20% were students of psychology who provided self-ratings, and the others were family members of these students or others who were well acquainted with them. They provided the partner-ratings. 5.4. Results second step A PCA was performed producing factors of which the first ten had the eigenvalues 53.4, 27.3, 18.6, 9.9, 6.4, 5.3, 4.3, 3.4, 3.2, and 3.0. Changes in the eigenvalue pattern are particularly clear after four and after seven factors. Since emotional intelligence in this study is sought after within the circumference of the Big Five domain, it makes sense not to pay attention to more than five factors. Two-, three-, four-, and five-factor solutions were varimax rotated. Fig. 1 gives the correlations between the factors from these different solutions. Factor four (F44) at the four-factor level splits into two factors at the five-factor level; also F44 seems to be relatively new while the other factors stabilize from the three-factor solution to the
682
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
F21 F22
.95 -.30 .55 -.82
F31 F32 F33
.99 .93 .88 -.47
F41 F42 F43 F44
.95 .97 .93 .65 -.75
F51 F52 F53 F54 F55
Fig. 1. Correlations between factors from different solutions.
four-factor solution. The four-factor solution is therefore accepted as the most adequate one to describe the structure of emotional intelligence as detected and identified within the larger and more comprehensive domain of personality traits. The four factors are represented in Table 5 by 10 positive high loading items and ten negative high loading items each. The first factor conveys Respect (versus disrespect), with items such as Respects the opinion of others, Respects others’ feelings, and Accepts people as they are, on the one hand, and on the other hand items such as Imposes his/her will on others, Uses others for his/her own ends, and Insults people. It is about taking into account opinions and interests, strengths and weaknesses of others versus letting prevail oneÕs own will, interest and mood, thereby exploiting others. This first factor seems to correspond largely with the Big Five factor Agreeableness, as is also indicated by AB5C origin of those items. Factor two describes Social competence, with items such as Acts comfortably with others, Starts conversations, and Makes people feel at ease, on the one hand, and on the other hand items such as Avoids company, Falls silent when strangers are around, and Keeps others at a distance. It is about knowing your way in the company of others versus avoiding such situations. This factor seems to correspond with Extraversion and to some extent with Agreeableness (see also the AB5C origin of those items). The third factor is about Emotional control, with items such as Can take his/her mind off his/her problems, Readily overcomes setbacks, and Is able to see the best in a situation, on the one hand and on the other hand items such as Invents problems for himself/herself, Gets overwhelmed by emotions, and Needs reassurance. It describes the ability to put emotions aside, to maintain good mood versus getting out of balance easily and letting emotions control behavior. This factor seems to correspond to Emotional stability. The fourth factor describes Sagacity and intelligence, with items such as Sees through problems, Wants to form his/her own opinions, and Looks at things from different angles on the one hand, and on the other hand items such as Will believe anything, Lets others determine his/her actions, and Acts without thinking. It it about being perceptive, understanding situations quickly, and being critical versus doing what other people do. This factor seems to correspond largely with the Dutch fifth Big Five factor Autonomy. This fourth factor may surprise given the low proportions of items selected from the Big Five factor V domain. The explanation for this is possibly that in addition to items that have a primary V + origin, many of the items that contribute to the meaning
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
683
Table 5 Structure of emotional intelligence Items
AB5C-origin
F1
Takes othersÕ interests into account Leaves room for othersÕ opinions Shows an understanding of othersÕ weaknesses Let others finish what they are saying Respects othersÕ feelings
2+ 2+5+ 2+5+
)0.56 )0.54 )0.53
F2 0.40 0.28 0.35
F3 0.11 0.03 0.13
F4 0.19 0.18 0.14
2+1) 2+
)0.52 )0.50
0.03 0.34
)0.01 0.23
0.24 0.17
Cuts others into pieces Interrupts others Uses others for his/her owns ends Pushes himself/herself forward Imposes his/her will on others
2) 2)1+ 2) 2)1+ 2)
0.69 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.73
)0.13 0.10 )0.14 0.27 )0.07
0.03 0.11 0.03 )0.02 0.09
)0.10 )0.11 )0.09 0.01 0.01
Acts comfortably with others Cheers people up Starts conversations Makes friends easily Makes people feel at ease
1 + 4+ 1+2+ 1+5+ 1+4+ 2+1+
0.11 )0.08 0.17 0.07 )0.32
0.67 0.66 0.65 0.64 0.60
)0.34 )0.10 )0.23 )0.28 0.03
0.04 0.01 0.06 )0.01 0.17
Avoids eye contact Keeps in the background Keeps others at a distance Falls silent when strangers are around Avoids contacts with others
1)5) 1)2+ 1) 1)5) 1)
)0.00 )0.38 0.05 )0.10 0.03
)0.43 )0.48 )0.53 )0.55 )0.63
0.28 0.20 0.24 0.44 0.33
)0.18 )0.09 0.03 )0.04 )0.04
Can take his/her mind off his/her problems Keeps a cool head Readily overcomes setbacks Can handle situations Is able to see the best in a situation
4+ 4 + 5+ 4+ 4 + 5+ 4+1+
)0.03 )0.13 )0.07 )0.05 )0.01
0.16 0.02 0.17 0.26 0.39
)0.60 )0.58 )0.55 )0.50 )0.48
)0.08 0.16 )0.02 0.26 0.02
Gets out of balance easily Feels threatened easily Panics easily Fears for the worst Invents problems for himself/herself
4)5) 4)1) 4)5) 4)1) 4)
0.12 0.22 0.15 0.11 0.14
)0.09 )0.22 )0.03 )0.19 )0.07
0.62 0.63 0.65 0.67 0.70
)0.20 )0.13 )0.23 )0.07 )0.11
Sees through problems Wants to understand things Finds out things quickly Wants to form his/her own opinions Is in touch with reality
5 + 3+ 5 + 2+ 5 + 4+ 5+ 5 + 3+
)0.09 )0.10 0.02 0.03 )0.23
0.15 0.20 0.10 0.18 0.14
)0.13 0.04 )0.20 )0.12 )0.17
0.61 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.52
Is easy to fool Let himself/herself be used Acts without thinking Echoes what others say Will believe anything
5)4) 5)4) 3)5) 5)2) 5)4)
0.05 )0.06 0.32 0.21 0.05
)0.00 )0.06 0.15 )0.05 )0.04
0.40 0.45 0.09 0.25 0.41
)0.46 )0.47 )0.48 )0.56 )0.58
684
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
Table 6 Correlations between Big Five factors and the emotional intelligence factors Big Five factors Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Intellectual autonomy
Emotional intelligence factors Respect
Social competence
Emotional control
Sagacity and intelligence
0.24 )0.93 )0.20 )0.08 0.11
0.87 0.32 )0.15 )0.07 0.09
)0.12 0.04 0.04 )0.90 )0.25
)0.08 0.03 0.38 )0.12 0.84
of the fourth factor have factor V as a secondary AB5C meaning, especially II + V+. In this respect, the AB5C origin of the items given in Table 5 gives a biased picture. In order to check the impression that these four factors are related to the factors I, II, IV, and V of the Big Five, respectively, correlations were computed between these four emotional intelligence-factors and the original Big Five factors which were based on all 728 items. These correlations are given in Table 6. The correlations given in Table 6 confirm the Big Five interpretations of the four emotional intelligence factors. The Conscientiousness domain of the Big Five was apparently not used as a resource for emotional intelligence description. Conscientiousness only adds moderately to the fourth emotional intelligence factor. 5.5. Discussion study 2 What more could one expect from a trait approach toward the description of components of emotional intelligence? The central characteristics of emotional intelligence, interpersonal understanding, empathy, emotional control, and managing people, are easily identified in the four factors or in combinations of them, namely respect and taking the perspective of others, acting competently with others around, expression of ideas and emotions, and versatility. Moreover, in their opposite poles these four factors also comprise the counterparts of respect, understanding and emotional control, which makes those four factors more realistic than is put forward in the definitions of emotional intelligence. The correlations with the Big Five factors show, however, that not much is new beyond what was known by the Big Five factors.
6. Final comment Considering the results from these two studies, where is the magic of emotional intelligence? A large proportion (42%) of the emotional intelligence items in Study 1 was accommodated by Big Five factor IV, and 51% of the items was equally distributed among Big Five factors I, II, and III. More specifically, both the factor IV poles, and the positive pole of factor II caught the majority of the items. The latter observation may be expressive of dealing with emotional and social information. Factor V accommodated only the remaining 5%. Study 1 did not provide signs of items that convey an intelligent way of dealing with the different types of information. Study 2,
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
685
however, did tap into intelligence (Big Five factor V: Intellect). However, it turned out that the majority of items contributing to this factor had a II+ origin (with secondary loadings on V+). The commonality between the two studies resides in the emphasis on Big Five factors II and IV, tapping into the social and emotional traits. Big Five factor III (Conscientiousness) did not play a prominent role in either of the two studies, thus supporting Van der Zee et al., 2002 findings. Both studies indicate that emotional intelligence traits are to be found only in a small number of facets of the Big Five system. In general, what strikes one in these studies is not so much what is emphasized as an operational description of emotional intelligence. What strikes one is rather what it does not emphasize. Relative to the Big Five system, emotional intelligence seems to cover a relatively small number of rather scattered areas of the Big Five domain. In terms of traits, emotional intelligence represents a stripped Big Five, especially as regards rational information processing. No magic observed. Where is the intelligence in the items of Study 1? It is apparently not in the item-questions. What could have made the items expressing intelligence, are correct or false answers. Most of the items investigated in this study were formulated in a ‘‘dispositional style’’, expressing what a person usually does, and not what a person could do to the best of his/her abilities. Some inventories were indeed formulated with alternative response possibilities, e.g. GolemanÕs list in Utne Reader. An example: ‘‘YouÕve taken a group of 4-year-olds to the park, and one of them starts crying because the others wonÕt play with her. What to do?’’ The alternative answers are (a) Stay out of it––let the kids deal with it on their own, (b) Talk to her and help her figure out ways to get the other kids to play with her, (c) Tell her in a kind voice not to cry, and (c) Try to distract the crying girl by showing her some other things she could play with. Alternative ‘‘b’’ is given as the correct (‘‘best’’) answer. The problem here is that the item represents an open context: we do not know, for example, why the other kids wonÕt play with her. Usually such contexts have a history that is not given in the item. In filling out the test, you may bring your own history, which could make all of the alternatives good alternatives. Accuracy in perception of emotions in others may provide part of the answer to the development of a test of emotional intelligence, as was given by Mayer and Geher (1996). Similarly, one might use othersÕ evaluations in an accuracy test of own emotions. Moreover, regarding regulation of emotion in self or other, it may be argued that certain responses are more adequate than others, for example, because they are more functional from an evolutionary point of view. Given such a theory, correct answers are possible where one may assume consent with those theories from the side of the person who does the test. As regards the ‘‘manipulative’’ reading of emotional intelligence, the approach may profit from making explicit what is hitherto left implicit or even denied. There is an unexplored field of nonprosocial behavior, knowledge of which adds to a full understanding of how people deal with each other (cf. De Raad, 1999).
Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank Dick Barelds for comments on an earlier version of this article.
686
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
References ABCs of Personal Growth (2000). Emotional Intelligence Test at www.helpself.com/eqtest.html. Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2001). A theoretical basis for the major dimensions of personality. European Journal of Personality, 15, 327–353. Bar-On, R. (1997). The emotional intelligence inventory (EQ-I): Technical manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. Cantor, N., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1985). Social intelligence: The cognitive basis of personality. In P. Shaver (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 15–33). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Cantor, N., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1987). Personality and social intelligence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: in search of an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 989–1015. De Raad, B. (1999). Interpersonal lexicon: structural evidence from two independently constructed verb-based taxonomies. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 15, 181–195. De Raad, B., & Doddema-Winsemius, M. (1999). Instincts and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 293–305. De Raad, B., Hendriks, A. A. J., & Hofstee, W. K. B. (1992). Towards a refined structure of personality traits. European Journal of Personality, 6, 301–319. Ekman, P. (1992). Telling lies: clues to deceit in the marketplace, marriage, and politics. New York: W.W. Norton. Goleman, D. (1995a). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books. Goleman, D. (1995b). WhatÕs your emotional intelligence quotient? Utne Reader, 72. Hendriks, A. A. J. (1997). The construction of the Five-Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI). Doctoral Disseration, University of Groningen. Hendriks, A. A. J., & Hofstee, W. K. B. (1994). Het karakteriseren van peroonlijkheidsschalen in termen van de vijfdimensionele eigenschappenruimte [Characterising personality scales in terms of the five-dimensional trait-space]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 49, 131–136. Hendriks, A. A. J., Hofstee, W. K. B., & De Raad, B. (1999). The five-factor personality inventory (FFPI). Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 307–325. Hofstee, W. K. B. (2001). Intelligence and personality: Do they mix? In J. M. Collis & S. Messick (Eds.), Intelligence and Personality: Bridging the Gap in Theory and Measurement (pp. 43–60). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Leuner, B. (1966). Emotional intelligence and emancipation. Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie, 15, 196–203. Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). Emotional intelligence: science and myth. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Mayer, J. D., & Geher, G. (1996). Emotional intelligence and the identification of emotion. Intelligence, 22, 89–113. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17, 433–442. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence?. In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3–34). New York: Basic Books. McCrae, R. R. (2000). Emotional intelligence from the perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality. In R. BarOn & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 263–276). New York: Jossey-Bass. Payne, W. L. (1986). A study of emotion: developing emotional intelligence, self-integration, relating to fear, pain, and desire. Dissertation abstracts international, 47, 203. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425–448. Saklofske, D. H., Austin, E. J., & Minski, P. S. (2003). Factor structure and validity of a trait emotional intelligence measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 707–721. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, cognition, and personality, 9, 185–211. Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167– 177. Shrink, C., (2000). Emotional Intelligence Test at www.queendom.com.
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
687
Ten Berge, M. A., & De Raad, B. (1999). Taxonomies of situations from a trait psychological perspective. A review. European Journal of Personality, 13, 337–360. Ten Berge, M. A., & De Raad, B. (2001). The construction of a joint taxonomy of traits and situations. European Journal of Personality, 15, 253–276. Thijs, M., (1999). De ontwikkeling en evaluatie van een vragenlijst voor emotionale intelligentie. University of Groningen. Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. HarperÕs Magazine, 140, 227–235. Thorndike, R. L., & Stein, S. (1937). An evaluation of the attempts to measure social intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 34, 275–284. Van der Zee, K., Thijs, M., & Schakel, L. (2002). The relationship of emotional intelligence with academic intelligence and the Big Five. European Journal of Personality, 16, 103–125.
The trait-coverage of emotional intelligence Boele De Raad
*
Department of Psychology, The University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS, Groningen, NL, Netherlands Received 4 August 2003; received in revised form 31 March 2004; accepted 27 May 2004 Available online
Abstract In this paper it is explored to what extent emotional intelligence can be expressed in terms of a standard trait model. Two studies were performed. In Study 1 a total of 437 items from several emotional intelligence questionnaires were used. The items were classified into the categories comprised by the Abridged Big Five Circumplex (AB5C) model. The majority of those items ended up in categories delineated by the factors Agreeableness (II) and Emotional Stability (IV) of the Big Five. Most of the items that were not classifiable were ambiguous or included other elements of difficulty such as conditional statements or negations. In Study 2 a large pool of 728 Big Five items was used. Those items were selected that could be considered relevant for the description of emotional intelligence. Three hundred and eight items considered relevant were factored on the basis of ratings available from an earlier study. This yielded a four factor structure of which the factors strongly related to four of the Big Five factors. In both studies the Big Five segments III + V+ and V + III+ were left rather untouched, emphasizing that rational and organized information processing is not captured by understandings of emotional intelligence. Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Traits; Big five; Emotional intelligence; Structure
1. Introduction The core concepts of the psychology of individual differences––intelligence, personality, and emotions––presumably play a concordant role in a new (Leuner, 1966; Payne, 1986) psychological amalgam, emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995a; Salovey & Mayer, 1990) that has drawn the
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +31-50-3636304. E-mail address: [email protected] (B. De Raad).
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.022
674
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
attention of a wide audience. Considering the fact that those concepts have hitherto been treated as relatively separate realms, it is fair to ask for the magic formula that puts them together. From the personality trait perspective it is important to know what exactly the traits are that mark emotional intelligence; which traits are concealed by this ‘‘key to success’’ (Goleman, 1995a)? Matthews, Zeidner, and Roberts (2002) deal thoroughly with most of the issues involved. Much of the appeal of the concept is in what its implied mechanisms and processes can do for you, a competitive edge in emotional, social, and professional life. Much of the underlying ‘‘mythical’’ beliefs were, however, not found scientifically supported. As regards content, Matthews et al. (2002) have provided ample arguments that several of the components of emotional intelligence relate to single Big Five factors or combinations of them (see also Petrides & Furnham, 2001; Saklofske, Austin, & Minski, 2003; Van der Zee, Thijs, & Schakel, 2002). Interestingly, where Van der Zee et al. (2002) neither expected nor found a relationship between emotional intelligence and Big Five factor Conscientiousness, both Petrides and Furnham (2001) and Saklofske et al. (2003) found substantial correlations between those constructs. The focus is here on trait emotional intelligence (Petrides & Furnham, 2001) which refers to dispositional information collected through typical performance measures (self- or peer-report). Petrides and Furnham distinguish this type of emotional intelligence from ability emotional intelligence which concerns actual abilities measured with maximal-performance tests. Important questions are to what extent the distinct trait-aspects of emotional intelligence are accounted for by established trait models, and what the structure of emotional intelligence looks like within the frameworks of such models. In particular, this study aims at tracing and identifying emotional intelligence within the Big Five trait domain. Moreover, an attempt is made to find indications of where the domain of personality traits fails to capture features of emotional intelligence.
2. Trait facets of emotional intelligence Emotional Intelligence has been defined as a ‘‘subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor oneÕs own and othersÕ feelings and emotions, to discriminate them and to use this information to guide oneÕs thinking and actions’’ (Salovey & Mayer, 1990, p. 189; cf. Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Emotional intelligence is thus conceived of as the ability to process, i.e., understand and manage, emotional information. This conception corresponds to social intelligence which has been described as the ability to understand and manage people, and to act wisely in social situations (Thorndike, 1920; Thorndike & Stein, 1937). More recently, Cantor and Kihlstrom (1985, 1987) proposed social intelligence as a construct referring to a central personality process that underpins social behavior. This general definition of emotional intelligence suggests some equally general indications of personality traits that it may embody. Facets of the typical emotionality dimensions of the Big Five, Extraversion and Emotional Stability (or Neuroticism), form obvious areas where also emotional intelligence may find impersonations of its content. Similarly, the typical social domain of the Big Five, Agreeableness, may contain conceptual angles characteristic of emotional intelligence. On a conceptual basis McCrae (2000) pointed out connections between emotional intelligence and aspects of each of the dimensions of the Five Factor Model.
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
675
The information-processing component of emotional intelligence may seem somewhat at odds with the usual trait understanding. This need not be the case since each and every trait term may be seen as a shorthand concept for a specific way of processing information. Being extraverted, for example, refers to behavior in a certain context, usually a social one, which implies that information from the social context is being processed (cf. Ten Berge & De Raad, 1999, 2001). A complication in identifying the different components of emotional intelligence as traits or trait-facets may be formed by its presumed ‘‘manipulative connotations’’, because such connotations are largely indirect meanings of expressions. Examples from the BarOn EQ-I are ‘‘I know how to deal with problems that may upset me’’, ‘‘I think I can control difficult situations’’, ‘‘I canÕt get along well with others’’, and ‘‘I have difficulties with accepting the way I am’’ (back translated from Dutch by the author). These items and others that include expressions such as ‘‘I know how’’, ‘‘I can’’, ‘‘I am good at’’, etc. refer to abilities: the behavior implies a strategic element and a choice on the part of the agent. These ability-connotations had originally been attributed to ‘‘traditional views’’ of the more comprising social intelligence (cf. Salovey & Mayer, 1990, p. 187). The message given by Salovey and Mayer (1990) is that the explicit inclusion of affective information processing in the definition of social intelligence, as would be the case with its subset emotional intelligence, would neutralize or counter the manipulative understanding. In itself this is difficult to understand since affective information is imbued with manipulative capacities (cf. Ekman, 1992). Nevertheless, the type of information that is referred to here is also represented in the trait domain where there are many trait terms capturing manipulative features, as in for example, devious, cynical, flirtatious, deceitful, diplomatic, and of course manipulative. The remaining difficulty with emotional intelligence, whether this concept is an ability or a disposition, has been discussed quite thoroughly at several places (e.g., Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998; Hofstee, 2001; Matthews et al., 2002). Mayer and Salovey (1993, 1997) distinguished emotional intelligence from traits by defining traits as characteristic ways of behaving, involving dispositions toward behavior; and emotional intelligence as an ability (e.g., being able to figure out oneÕs own and othersÕ emotions), which implies ‘‘right’’ answers with respect to feelings. This may be possible for the perception of emotions of other people (e.g., Mayer & Geher, 1996), but may be rather difficult, especially regarding regulation of emotions. Is it possible to express the components of emotional intelligence in terms of a standard trait model? The main question for this study is whether the concept emotional intelligence and its operationalizations can be identified within the domain of normal personality traits. To this end items from various emotional intelligence questionnaires are evaluated in terms of facets of the socalled Big Five model (Study 1). Moreover, within the Big Five trait domain those traits are traced that may be considered as being relevant to describe components of emotional intelligence in order to arrive at a structuring of the emotional intelligence in terms of traits (Study 2).
3. Study 1 3.1. Subjects Five personality psychologists took part in this study. They were all quite familiar with the emotional intelligence construct and had built some expertise in that area.
676
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
Table 1 Five per cent of 437 items, both with high uÕs and with low uÕs High u’s Does tasks one by one in a disciplined way (1) Shows restlessness in stressful situations (1) Expects to fail when starting something new (2) Is a rather cheerful person (2) Finds it rather difficult to keep fears under control (2) Has control over emotions (3) Has been assigned to head a working team that is trying to come up with a creative solution to a nagging problem at work. The first thing to do is: draw up an agenda and allot time for discussion of each item to make the best use of the time together (4) Gets angry or fearful when physically threatened (5) Is ashamed about looks and behavior (6) Cannot stop thinking about problems (6) Low uÕs Experiences setbacks as a consequence to factors on which he/she has no influence (1) Works especially because of the reward (money) that it provides (1) Enjoys the things that are found of interest (2) Is in contact with his/her emotions (2) Is conscious of what happens to him/her even when he/she is upset (2) Knows when his/her emotions change (3) Becomes vigilant for emergency, carefully monitoring stewardesses and reading emergency instructions, when on an airplane that suddenly hits extremely bad turbulence and begins rocking from side to side (4) Is able to express emotional love, physical love and lusty sexual love with a particular partner (5) When failing a task or doing worse than he/she would like to, it is usually due to internal factors beyond his/her control like traits or IQ (6) When he/she has a major problem that is found extremely difficult to deal with, he/she goes to family members or friends for advice and/or support (6) Numbers between brackets refer to the lists of origin; all items are formulated or adapted such that they can be considered for applicability to self or other.
3.2. Materials In order to have at our disposal a full representation of the different semantic aspects of emotional intelligence, a variety of sources was used, including internet sources. A total of 437 emotional intelligence items were used (samples are provided in Table 1), stemming from: (1) Emotional Intelligence list developed by Thijs (1999), 1 consisting of 119 items comprising 17 scales. Of these the scales (a) Emotional self-consciousness, (b) Self-assurance and (c) Positive thinking cover the perception and interpretation of emotions of self. The scales (d) Coping with stress, (e) Autonomy, (f) Adaptation, (g) Self-motivation, (h) Self-development and (i) Self-control cover effectively coping with own emotions. (j) Affective listening, (k) Empathy, and (l) Concept of man cover perception and interpretation of othersÕ emotions. Finally, (m) Involve-
1
For information about the development if this instrument, please contact PiMedia, P.O. Box 1087, 3800 BB Maarssen, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 346 559010. Internet: www.pimedia.nl.
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
677
ment, (n) Team-capabilities, (o) Influencing others, (p) Dealing with conflicts, and (q) Development of others cover effectively dealing with emotions of others. (2) The Bar-On EQ-I (Bar-On, 1997) is a 133 item self-report measure consisting of 15 distinct scales comprising (a) emotional self-awareness, (b) assertiveness, (c) self-regard, (d) self-actualization, (e) independence, (f) empathy, (g) interpersonal relationships, (h) social responsibility, (i) problem solving, (j) reality testing, (k) flexibility, (l) stress tolerance, (m) impulse control, (n) happiness, and (o) optimism. (3) Schutte et al. (1998) developed a brief 33-item self-report measure of emotional intelligence, starting with Salovey and MayerÕs (1990) original model of emotional intelligence. The 33 items represent all portions of the Salovey and Mayer conceptual model (1990), with 13 items representing the appraisal and expression of emotion category, 10 items representing the regulation of emotion category, and 10 items representing the utilization of emotion category. (4) Thirty-eight items were distinguished as useful in the 10 questions with 4 alternatives each from Goleman (1995b). (5) Twenty items were taken from the web page ABCs of Personal Growth (2000) containing an emotional intelligence test. (6) Ninety-four items were formulated on the basis of the first 58 questions with alternatives from Shrink (2000). 3.3. Procedure The subjects were asked to evaluate each of the 437 emotional intelligence items on their fit to the facets of the so-called Abridged Big Five Circumplex (AB5C) representation of the Big Five model. The subjects were all familiar with this AB5C representation. This system consists of 90 segments representing the 10 factor poles of the Big Five and the 80 blends of traits due to pairs of factor poles (De Raad, Hendriks, & Hofstee, 1992). The blends represent substantial loadings on one factor (primary loading) and a smaller (secondary) loading on another factor. The subjects were instructed to judge for each emotional intelligence item whether that item could be accommodated by one of the ten Big Five factor poles (primary meaning), and in addition, where possible, whether the item could to some extent also be accommodated by a pole of another factor (secondary meaning).
4. Results and discussion The reliability of the classification into the AB5C-framework was first established per emotional intelligence item and subsequently averaged over the 437 items. An item obtained scores from all five judges for each assignment. If an item had been rated as a blend of two factors, it obtained a score Ô2Õ (plus or minus) for the primary factor to which it was assigned and a second score Ô1Õ (plus or minus) for thep secondary p factor. If an item was rated as factor-pure (assigned to a factor pole), the score was Ô 5 ¼ ð22 þ 12 ÞÕ for the pertaining factor, plus or minus (see Hendriks & Hofstee, 1994). The agreement for the five judges was computed per item by means of the formula for u, the mean coefficient of association: u ¼ ðy 0 y 5pÞ=ð5pðp 1ÞÞ, in which y is the vector of the sums of scores over the judges and y 0 y the sum of the squares of these sumscores, p is
678
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
the number of judges. With a perfect association u is 1; with hardly any association at all the value can be slightly negative. The mean u over all the 437 items was 0.52, which is not particularly high when comparing it, for example, with the coefficient of 0.67 obtained in a similar task, but with different types of items (De Raad & Doddema-Winsemius, 1999). Those items however, which were about instincts, showed more resemblance to the typical trait descriptive items than the ones from the present study on emotional intelligence. More specifically, the separate average uÕs for the six instruments or sets of items were 0.52 for (1), 0.58 for (2), 0.37 for (3), 0.42 for (4), 0.59 for (5), and 0.52 for (6), respectively. Table 1 gives 5% of the items, half of them with the highest uÕs and the other half with lowest uÕs. Inspection of the assignments to the AB5C segments by the five judges learned that above a u of 0.40 the items obtained the same Big Five assignment from four of the five judges, as primary or as secondary factor. For this reason, we accepted the items with a u above 0.40 as being accommodated in the Big Five framework, which means that a set of 290 items out of the 437 was caught in the Big Five system. Table 2 gives the distribution of these 290 emotional intelligenceitems over the AB5C-cells. The sums tell that the largest group of the emotional intelligencerelevant items (121) used in this study is related to Big Five factor IV, Emotional Stability, and the smallest group (21) is related to factor V, Intellectual autonomy. The factors I, II, and III have caught a comparable number of items, respectively, 47, 53, and 48. Of the Big Five factors II (Agreeableness) and III (Conscientiousness), the negative poles are not well represented among the emotional intelligence items. In contrast, for factor IV (Emotional Stability), it is the negative pole that is best represented among the emotional intelligence items. Certain segments are particularly accommodative to emotional intelligence items, namely the pairs of segments that are adjacent in meaning I ) IV) and IV ) I) (40), I + II+ and II + I+ (22), III + IV+ and IV + III+ (22), and the factor pure segment IV) (16). Of the total set of 437 items, 147 could not unequivocally be assigned to any of the AB5C segments. Of this set, the numbers were different for the six questionnaires. For the list developed by Thijs, 35% of the items dropped out, for the Bar On list this was 25%, for the Schutte et al. list 55%, for the Goleman list 45%, for the Personal Growth list 30%, and for the Shrink list this was Table 2 Distribution of EI-items over the AB5C-cells I+
I)
I+ I) II+ II) III+ III) IV+ IV) V+ V)
3 8 1 1 1 4 2 2 0
6 0 5 1 0 1 12 0 0
Sums
22
25
II+ 14 0 5
II)
III+
III)
1 3
2 1 2 1 6
1 3 0 1
9 0 4 1 8 2
0 2 3 0 1 0 0
15 3 1 2
1 4 3 0 2
43
10
33
15
IV+
IV)
11 1 10 1 7 1 7
1 28 0 7 5 7
7 0
16 0 12
45
76
V+ 1 0 3 0 3 0 5 0 0
V) 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 2 2
12
9
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
679
33%. Two possible explanations for why items could not be assigned to the AB5C segments are considered here. One is that the items fall outside the domain of the Big Five personality traits, and the other is that the items are too ambiguous or complex to be reliably identified as a personality descriptive item. It may be possible that items do not fit the Big Five domain because the Big Five is not comprising enough as regards representation of trait-semantics (cf. Ashton & Lee, 2001). Yet, there is not much reason to expect that the additional trait domain suggested by Ashton and Lee (capturing Honesty) would provide obvious accommodation to emotional intelligence items. Part of this question is also investigated in Study 2. The reason could also be that certain emotional intelligence items, and thus certain facets of the pertinent domain do not belong to the trait domain, or even that part of the distinguishing character of emotional intelligence is captured in those items. If so, the 147 items should be distinctively different in content and/or form from the 290 items that could be accommodated in the Big Five system. Scrutiny of these 147 items did not reveal any content-specificity, but suggested that the explanation has probably to be sought in item-ambiguity. Item-ambiguity or -complexity is observed in the majority of the 147 items, indicated by multiple meanings, vagueness, and negations. Examples are ‘‘I am not doing anything wrong in my life’’ (ambiguous, negation), ‘‘I usually hope for the best’’ (vague), ‘‘I am in contact with my emotions’’ (ambiguous, vague), and ‘‘I enjoy the things that interest me’’ (ambiguous). More important is that many of those items are put in a conditional format as in ‘‘When I am upset, I donÕt lose time trying to figure out what exactly I am feeling’’, ‘‘Even when I am upset, I am aware of what happens to me’’, ‘‘When I experience a positive emotion, I know how to make it last’’, and ‘‘Once my sobs and tears have been released, I feel great’’. The conditional parts are usually states or behaviors themselves that refer to different or even opposite behavioral characteristics of the person than the behavioral parts.
5. Study 2 In Study 2 a two-step procedure was followed in which as a first step a pool of items describing the Big Five was rated for its relevance to describe emotional intelligence. In the second step the items considered relevant for emotional intelligence were used to arrive at its structure. 5.1. First step 5.1.1. Subjects During this first step of Study 2 eight subjects took part, four psychologists, well acquainted with the concept of emotional intelligence and with the literature about it, and four students of psychology varying in being familiar with the concept and or the literature. All eight subjects were given a brief description of emotional intelligence, which preceded an instruction on how to rate 728 items on their relevance to describe emotional intelligence. 5.1.2. Material and procedure The list of 728 items originated from a pool of personality descriptive sentences which was used as a starting point for the development of a personality inventory to measure the Big Five factors
680
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
(Hendriks, Hofstee, & De Raad, 1999). That pool of items was developed to represent most of the segments of the AB5C. For the majority of the 90 segments, large numbers of behavior descriptive items were written totaling a few thousand, 914 of which were finally accepted on the basis of some criteria of utility. This set was further reduced, for example by excluding all items containing a negation, thus resulting in the 728 items which may be considered as fully covering the domain of semantics of the Big Five trait model. In the present study, subjects were asked to indicate for each item the extent to which that item could be considered as relevant for the description of emotional intelligence. The instruction was preceded by the following brief reminder of emotional intelligence: ‘‘An emotionally intelligent person recognizes emotions of self and of others, and is able to manage those emotions’’. The subjects could express their judgments on a four-point scale, with scale values ‘‘1’’ (not useful), ‘‘2’’ (more not useful than useful), ‘‘3’’ (more useful than not useful), and ‘‘4’’ (useful). 5.2. Results first step The scores of the eight subjects were added, in order to yield for each of the 728 personality descriptive items an index of relevance for the description of emotional intelligence. The alphacoefficient for inter-rater reliability was 0.80 (N ¼ 8), which means that the index of relevance may be considered reliable. The actual range of scores ran from 10 to 32, with a mean of 21.6. Table 3 contains a selection of items with one item for each different (uneven) sumscore. What is apparent from the full list, and is expressed to some extent in Table 3, is that a relatively large number of items in the low score section, and therefore considered not relevant for the description of emotional intelligence, belong to the domain of Conscientiousness. All items with a sumscore clearly above the average (23) were selected as being relevant for the description of emotional intelligence. This was a set of 308 items. In order to see which segments were tapped for emotional intelligence description, Table 4 gives the frequencies for emotional intelligence relevant items relative to the original AB5C frequencies. With 308 items out of the 728 considered relevant 42% would be expected for selection on the basis of chance. In Table 4 the proportions are given for each AB5C segment. What strikes one from this Table 4 are the proportions for Factor III: Conscientiousness is largely left unexploited
Table 3 Selection of items with index of relevance Respects othersÕ feelings Understands people who think differently Can be stirred up easily Chooses his/her words with care Is very pleased with himself/herself Keeps improving himself/herself Does things his/her own way Has difficulty keeping things in mind Starts tasks right away Wastes his/her time Accomplishes a lot of work
31 29 27 25 23 21 19 17 15 13 11
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
681
Table 4 Numbers of items considered emotional intelligence relevant, compared to totals I+
I)
0/3
II+
II)
III+
III)
IV+
IV)
V+
V)
30/36 2/3 7/8
12/25 5/7
0/1 1/5 3/13 1/3 0/13
0/7 0/2 0/0 1/9
1/2 1/1 3/3 1/1 0/0 0/1 3/3
1/1 6/13 4/5 7/10 0/2 1/2
11/39 0/0 7/18 2/4 4/40 0/10 8/28 1/2 1/6
0/0 2/13 2/7 4/7 0/4 1/12 0/0 9/16
I+ I) II+ II) III+ III) IV+ IV) V+ V)
12/15 4/8 0/0 3/8 4/8 3/3 7/15 0/1
3/9 2/3 0/1 0/1 0/0 0/1 3/4 0/1 3/8
6/10 0/0 4/5 1/2 18/18 1/2
24/30 0/1 10/18 1/3 13/22 7/13 10/14
0/0 1/4 1/31 0/6
0/7 0/0 0/2 1/7 2/24
4/8 0/0
6/7 0/0 11/17
Totals
33/61
11/28
69/84
82/131
7/76
4/58
13/19
36/57
1/8 34/147
19/67
(see totals). Furthermore, Factor V is apparently relatively unexploited, especially from the segments V + I +, V + III +, and V + IV+. The high proportion for II+ is mainly due to high frequencies for II+I+ and II + V+. The conclusion from this brief analysis is that many sectors of the Big Five domain are left unexplored, especially in the areas indicated by III + V +, III ) V), V + III +, and V + IV +, comprising the many items that are about being good (or bad) at processing information in an organized and rational way. 5.3. Second step 5.3.1. Subjects and material Self- and partner-ratings were available from 747 subjects on the total set of 728 items, which data have been factor analyzed yielding a five-factorial structure (Hendriks, 1997). The ratings from 747 subjects on the subset of 308 items were used for factor analysis, in order to arrive at the structure of emotional intelligence. The subjects ranged in age from 15 to 80 years, with a mean of 28. Some 20% were students of psychology who provided self-ratings, and the others were family members of these students or others who were well acquainted with them. They provided the partner-ratings. 5.4. Results second step A PCA was performed producing factors of which the first ten had the eigenvalues 53.4, 27.3, 18.6, 9.9, 6.4, 5.3, 4.3, 3.4, 3.2, and 3.0. Changes in the eigenvalue pattern are particularly clear after four and after seven factors. Since emotional intelligence in this study is sought after within the circumference of the Big Five domain, it makes sense not to pay attention to more than five factors. Two-, three-, four-, and five-factor solutions were varimax rotated. Fig. 1 gives the correlations between the factors from these different solutions. Factor four (F44) at the four-factor level splits into two factors at the five-factor level; also F44 seems to be relatively new while the other factors stabilize from the three-factor solution to the
682
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
F21 F22
.95 -.30 .55 -.82
F31 F32 F33
.99 .93 .88 -.47
F41 F42 F43 F44
.95 .97 .93 .65 -.75
F51 F52 F53 F54 F55
Fig. 1. Correlations between factors from different solutions.
four-factor solution. The four-factor solution is therefore accepted as the most adequate one to describe the structure of emotional intelligence as detected and identified within the larger and more comprehensive domain of personality traits. The four factors are represented in Table 5 by 10 positive high loading items and ten negative high loading items each. The first factor conveys Respect (versus disrespect), with items such as Respects the opinion of others, Respects others’ feelings, and Accepts people as they are, on the one hand, and on the other hand items such as Imposes his/her will on others, Uses others for his/her own ends, and Insults people. It is about taking into account opinions and interests, strengths and weaknesses of others versus letting prevail oneÕs own will, interest and mood, thereby exploiting others. This first factor seems to correspond largely with the Big Five factor Agreeableness, as is also indicated by AB5C origin of those items. Factor two describes Social competence, with items such as Acts comfortably with others, Starts conversations, and Makes people feel at ease, on the one hand, and on the other hand items such as Avoids company, Falls silent when strangers are around, and Keeps others at a distance. It is about knowing your way in the company of others versus avoiding such situations. This factor seems to correspond with Extraversion and to some extent with Agreeableness (see also the AB5C origin of those items). The third factor is about Emotional control, with items such as Can take his/her mind off his/her problems, Readily overcomes setbacks, and Is able to see the best in a situation, on the one hand and on the other hand items such as Invents problems for himself/herself, Gets overwhelmed by emotions, and Needs reassurance. It describes the ability to put emotions aside, to maintain good mood versus getting out of balance easily and letting emotions control behavior. This factor seems to correspond to Emotional stability. The fourth factor describes Sagacity and intelligence, with items such as Sees through problems, Wants to form his/her own opinions, and Looks at things from different angles on the one hand, and on the other hand items such as Will believe anything, Lets others determine his/her actions, and Acts without thinking. It it about being perceptive, understanding situations quickly, and being critical versus doing what other people do. This factor seems to correspond largely with the Dutch fifth Big Five factor Autonomy. This fourth factor may surprise given the low proportions of items selected from the Big Five factor V domain. The explanation for this is possibly that in addition to items that have a primary V + origin, many of the items that contribute to the meaning
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
683
Table 5 Structure of emotional intelligence Items
AB5C-origin
F1
Takes othersÕ interests into account Leaves room for othersÕ opinions Shows an understanding of othersÕ weaknesses Let others finish what they are saying Respects othersÕ feelings
2+ 2+5+ 2+5+
)0.56 )0.54 )0.53
F2 0.40 0.28 0.35
F3 0.11 0.03 0.13
F4 0.19 0.18 0.14
2+1) 2+
)0.52 )0.50
0.03 0.34
)0.01 0.23
0.24 0.17
Cuts others into pieces Interrupts others Uses others for his/her owns ends Pushes himself/herself forward Imposes his/her will on others
2) 2)1+ 2) 2)1+ 2)
0.69 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.73
)0.13 0.10 )0.14 0.27 )0.07
0.03 0.11 0.03 )0.02 0.09
)0.10 )0.11 )0.09 0.01 0.01
Acts comfortably with others Cheers people up Starts conversations Makes friends easily Makes people feel at ease
1 + 4+ 1+2+ 1+5+ 1+4+ 2+1+
0.11 )0.08 0.17 0.07 )0.32
0.67 0.66 0.65 0.64 0.60
)0.34 )0.10 )0.23 )0.28 0.03
0.04 0.01 0.06 )0.01 0.17
Avoids eye contact Keeps in the background Keeps others at a distance Falls silent when strangers are around Avoids contacts with others
1)5) 1)2+ 1) 1)5) 1)
)0.00 )0.38 0.05 )0.10 0.03
)0.43 )0.48 )0.53 )0.55 )0.63
0.28 0.20 0.24 0.44 0.33
)0.18 )0.09 0.03 )0.04 )0.04
Can take his/her mind off his/her problems Keeps a cool head Readily overcomes setbacks Can handle situations Is able to see the best in a situation
4+ 4 + 5+ 4+ 4 + 5+ 4+1+
)0.03 )0.13 )0.07 )0.05 )0.01
0.16 0.02 0.17 0.26 0.39
)0.60 )0.58 )0.55 )0.50 )0.48
)0.08 0.16 )0.02 0.26 0.02
Gets out of balance easily Feels threatened easily Panics easily Fears for the worst Invents problems for himself/herself
4)5) 4)1) 4)5) 4)1) 4)
0.12 0.22 0.15 0.11 0.14
)0.09 )0.22 )0.03 )0.19 )0.07
0.62 0.63 0.65 0.67 0.70
)0.20 )0.13 )0.23 )0.07 )0.11
Sees through problems Wants to understand things Finds out things quickly Wants to form his/her own opinions Is in touch with reality
5 + 3+ 5 + 2+ 5 + 4+ 5+ 5 + 3+
)0.09 )0.10 0.02 0.03 )0.23
0.15 0.20 0.10 0.18 0.14
)0.13 0.04 )0.20 )0.12 )0.17
0.61 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.52
Is easy to fool Let himself/herself be used Acts without thinking Echoes what others say Will believe anything
5)4) 5)4) 3)5) 5)2) 5)4)
0.05 )0.06 0.32 0.21 0.05
)0.00 )0.06 0.15 )0.05 )0.04
0.40 0.45 0.09 0.25 0.41
)0.46 )0.47 )0.48 )0.56 )0.58
684
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
Table 6 Correlations between Big Five factors and the emotional intelligence factors Big Five factors Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Intellectual autonomy
Emotional intelligence factors Respect
Social competence
Emotional control
Sagacity and intelligence
0.24 )0.93 )0.20 )0.08 0.11
0.87 0.32 )0.15 )0.07 0.09
)0.12 0.04 0.04 )0.90 )0.25
)0.08 0.03 0.38 )0.12 0.84
of the fourth factor have factor V as a secondary AB5C meaning, especially II + V+. In this respect, the AB5C origin of the items given in Table 5 gives a biased picture. In order to check the impression that these four factors are related to the factors I, II, IV, and V of the Big Five, respectively, correlations were computed between these four emotional intelligence-factors and the original Big Five factors which were based on all 728 items. These correlations are given in Table 6. The correlations given in Table 6 confirm the Big Five interpretations of the four emotional intelligence factors. The Conscientiousness domain of the Big Five was apparently not used as a resource for emotional intelligence description. Conscientiousness only adds moderately to the fourth emotional intelligence factor. 5.5. Discussion study 2 What more could one expect from a trait approach toward the description of components of emotional intelligence? The central characteristics of emotional intelligence, interpersonal understanding, empathy, emotional control, and managing people, are easily identified in the four factors or in combinations of them, namely respect and taking the perspective of others, acting competently with others around, expression of ideas and emotions, and versatility. Moreover, in their opposite poles these four factors also comprise the counterparts of respect, understanding and emotional control, which makes those four factors more realistic than is put forward in the definitions of emotional intelligence. The correlations with the Big Five factors show, however, that not much is new beyond what was known by the Big Five factors.
6. Final comment Considering the results from these two studies, where is the magic of emotional intelligence? A large proportion (42%) of the emotional intelligence items in Study 1 was accommodated by Big Five factor IV, and 51% of the items was equally distributed among Big Five factors I, II, and III. More specifically, both the factor IV poles, and the positive pole of factor II caught the majority of the items. The latter observation may be expressive of dealing with emotional and social information. Factor V accommodated only the remaining 5%. Study 1 did not provide signs of items that convey an intelligent way of dealing with the different types of information. Study 2,
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
685
however, did tap into intelligence (Big Five factor V: Intellect). However, it turned out that the majority of items contributing to this factor had a II+ origin (with secondary loadings on V+). The commonality between the two studies resides in the emphasis on Big Five factors II and IV, tapping into the social and emotional traits. Big Five factor III (Conscientiousness) did not play a prominent role in either of the two studies, thus supporting Van der Zee et al., 2002 findings. Both studies indicate that emotional intelligence traits are to be found only in a small number of facets of the Big Five system. In general, what strikes one in these studies is not so much what is emphasized as an operational description of emotional intelligence. What strikes one is rather what it does not emphasize. Relative to the Big Five system, emotional intelligence seems to cover a relatively small number of rather scattered areas of the Big Five domain. In terms of traits, emotional intelligence represents a stripped Big Five, especially as regards rational information processing. No magic observed. Where is the intelligence in the items of Study 1? It is apparently not in the item-questions. What could have made the items expressing intelligence, are correct or false answers. Most of the items investigated in this study were formulated in a ‘‘dispositional style’’, expressing what a person usually does, and not what a person could do to the best of his/her abilities. Some inventories were indeed formulated with alternative response possibilities, e.g. GolemanÕs list in Utne Reader. An example: ‘‘YouÕve taken a group of 4-year-olds to the park, and one of them starts crying because the others wonÕt play with her. What to do?’’ The alternative answers are (a) Stay out of it––let the kids deal with it on their own, (b) Talk to her and help her figure out ways to get the other kids to play with her, (c) Tell her in a kind voice not to cry, and (c) Try to distract the crying girl by showing her some other things she could play with. Alternative ‘‘b’’ is given as the correct (‘‘best’’) answer. The problem here is that the item represents an open context: we do not know, for example, why the other kids wonÕt play with her. Usually such contexts have a history that is not given in the item. In filling out the test, you may bring your own history, which could make all of the alternatives good alternatives. Accuracy in perception of emotions in others may provide part of the answer to the development of a test of emotional intelligence, as was given by Mayer and Geher (1996). Similarly, one might use othersÕ evaluations in an accuracy test of own emotions. Moreover, regarding regulation of emotion in self or other, it may be argued that certain responses are more adequate than others, for example, because they are more functional from an evolutionary point of view. Given such a theory, correct answers are possible where one may assume consent with those theories from the side of the person who does the test. As regards the ‘‘manipulative’’ reading of emotional intelligence, the approach may profit from making explicit what is hitherto left implicit or even denied. There is an unexplored field of nonprosocial behavior, knowledge of which adds to a full understanding of how people deal with each other (cf. De Raad, 1999).
Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank Dick Barelds for comments on an earlier version of this article.
686
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
References ABCs of Personal Growth (2000). Emotional Intelligence Test at www.helpself.com/eqtest.html. Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2001). A theoretical basis for the major dimensions of personality. European Journal of Personality, 15, 327–353. Bar-On, R. (1997). The emotional intelligence inventory (EQ-I): Technical manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. Cantor, N., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1985). Social intelligence: The cognitive basis of personality. In P. Shaver (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 15–33). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Cantor, N., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1987). Personality and social intelligence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: in search of an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 989–1015. De Raad, B. (1999). Interpersonal lexicon: structural evidence from two independently constructed verb-based taxonomies. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 15, 181–195. De Raad, B., & Doddema-Winsemius, M. (1999). Instincts and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 293–305. De Raad, B., Hendriks, A. A. J., & Hofstee, W. K. B. (1992). Towards a refined structure of personality traits. European Journal of Personality, 6, 301–319. Ekman, P. (1992). Telling lies: clues to deceit in the marketplace, marriage, and politics. New York: W.W. Norton. Goleman, D. (1995a). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books. Goleman, D. (1995b). WhatÕs your emotional intelligence quotient? Utne Reader, 72. Hendriks, A. A. J. (1997). The construction of the Five-Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI). Doctoral Disseration, University of Groningen. Hendriks, A. A. J., & Hofstee, W. K. B. (1994). Het karakteriseren van peroonlijkheidsschalen in termen van de vijfdimensionele eigenschappenruimte [Characterising personality scales in terms of the five-dimensional trait-space]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 49, 131–136. Hendriks, A. A. J., Hofstee, W. K. B., & De Raad, B. (1999). The five-factor personality inventory (FFPI). Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 307–325. Hofstee, W. K. B. (2001). Intelligence and personality: Do they mix? In J. M. Collis & S. Messick (Eds.), Intelligence and Personality: Bridging the Gap in Theory and Measurement (pp. 43–60). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Leuner, B. (1966). Emotional intelligence and emancipation. Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie, 15, 196–203. Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). Emotional intelligence: science and myth. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Mayer, J. D., & Geher, G. (1996). Emotional intelligence and the identification of emotion. Intelligence, 22, 89–113. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17, 433–442. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence?. In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3–34). New York: Basic Books. McCrae, R. R. (2000). Emotional intelligence from the perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality. In R. BarOn & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 263–276). New York: Jossey-Bass. Payne, W. L. (1986). A study of emotion: developing emotional intelligence, self-integration, relating to fear, pain, and desire. Dissertation abstracts international, 47, 203. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425–448. Saklofske, D. H., Austin, E. J., & Minski, P. S. (2003). Factor structure and validity of a trait emotional intelligence measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 707–721. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, cognition, and personality, 9, 185–211. Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167– 177. Shrink, C., (2000). Emotional Intelligence Test at www.queendom.com.
B. De Raad / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 673–687
687
Ten Berge, M. A., & De Raad, B. (1999). Taxonomies of situations from a trait psychological perspective. A review. European Journal of Personality, 13, 337–360. Ten Berge, M. A., & De Raad, B. (2001). The construction of a joint taxonomy of traits and situations. European Journal of Personality, 15, 253–276. Thijs, M., (1999). De ontwikkeling en evaluatie van een vragenlijst voor emotionale intelligentie. University of Groningen. Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. HarperÕs Magazine, 140, 227–235. Thorndike, R. L., & Stein, S. (1937). An evaluation of the attempts to measure social intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 34, 275–284. Van der Zee, K., Thijs, M., & Schakel, L. (2002). The relationship of emotional intelligence with academic intelligence and the Big Five. European Journal of Personality, 16, 103–125.