Emotional intelligence: An important skill to learn now more than ever

Introduction

Human beings are an intricate species of emotion and cognition. Even though emotions are known to play a crucial role in our lives, their underlying mechanisms are yet to be revealed clearly and little is known about its correlation with cognitive processes. Generally, reasoning ability enables us to judge or rationalize the concepts or constructs, and make decisions, while emotions help us to understand and empathize with others. A traditional view on highly intelligent people has good reasoning skills, profound memory, and a well-defined logical mind, which was supported by intelligent quotient (IQ) tests, designed to determine to test an individuals’ intelligence and capability based only on the logical reasoning and the aptitude,¹ is now revised after the EI concept became famous.

Research studies have clearly stated that emotions induce changes at three levels such as physiological, cognitive, and behavioural,² as well as that they have both positive and negative reactivity. For example, an individual gets frightened on seeing a snake (negative valence), which will be implied physiologically as an increase in heart beats, cognitively as racing thoughts about danger, and behaviourally as an urge to run away. Researchers and psychologists such as Charles Spearman, Louis L. Thurstone, Joy Paul Guilford, Robert Sternberg, and Howard Gardner defined the nature, structure, characteristics, and types of human intelligence. Some of the famous pioneers in the EI research include John Mayer, Peter Salovey, David Caruso, Daniel Goleman, E.L. Thorndike, and Reuven Bar-On, who have illustrated the significant features that regulate an individual’s EI.

General definition of EI is the ability of an individual to recognize, practice, and regulate emotions in oneself in positive ways to overcome issues, communicate efficiently, understand others, relieve stress and resolve conflicts. Dr. Daniel Goleman, a researcher and psychologist from Harvard University, defined EI as an ability of a person to identify emotions in oneself and others, to motivate oneself, and to handle his or her feelings in a way to express them appropriately and effectively to others.³

EI was defined by Mayer & Salovey (1990) in terms of cognitive abilities/intellectual aspects, where Goleman & Reuven Bar-On described about EI in terms of Personal aspects/Personality traits. The Four-branch model of emotional intelligence proposed by Mayer & Salovey focuses the greatest emphasis on perception, facilitating thoughts with the emotions i.e. emotional integration, understanding and managing the emotions.⁴ On the other hand, the Reuven Bar-On (2002)⁵ model composed of emotional and social abilities, skills and facilitators, and it relays on the abilities such as awareness of ones’ emotions, understanding interpersonal dynamism, self-actualization, reality testing, happiness, stress endurance, and optimism. All of these elements are believed to be interrelated and work together cooperative. Furthermore, Daniel Goleman (1998)⁶ lays his emphasis on self-awareness, self-control or self-management, empathizing skills, problem solving, handling conflicts, and leadership skills as the characteristic features of an emotionally intelligent person. Concisely, Reuven Bar-On’s mixed ability model, which emphasises the impact of person’s personality traits on his overall well-being, while Goleman’s model is more focused on professional skills success at workplace.^7,8

However, Daniel Goleman’s book ‘EI – Why it can matter more than IQ’ (1995)⁹ owes for the current popularity of the EI theory. Following the approval of EI, several constructs have been predicted. The “ability” model of Mayer and Salovey and Goleman and Bar-On’s “mixed” models are the two major approaches that emerged as the result of dynamic research and intense interest in the EI field and called as theoretical models of EI. The primary approach is known as an ability-based model where EI is defined as an ability to process, understand, analyse, assimilate, and control information related to emotion, which are typically evaluated by items or questionnaires which are not used in traditional cognitive tests. The secondary approach is referred as a mixed-model, in which EI is considered as a combination of ability constructs, personality traits, and intrinsic motivation, which are often assessed by self-report or observer-report rating scales.¹⁰ This review talks about EI components, significant theories and models of EI, and the most popular EI assessment tools.

General components of emotional intelligence

In his book, Goleman (1998)⁶ presents five components of emotional intelligence:

Major theories on the evolution of EI

Mayer and Salovey’s ability model

Mayer and Salovey’s four branch model of EI stratified EI into four stages through which a person becomes emotionally intelligent.²¹

On the other hand, Reuven Bar-On and Goleman projected the mixed ability models which include certain personality traits as well, which include a collection of emotion-related dispositions and self-perceptions. Generally, mixed models of EI are defined as the models that mix together the core idea of EI with a variety of other personality traits which maybe unrelated to emotions or intelligence.

Daniel Goleman’s theory of EI

In 1983, Howard Gardner explained that his hypothecation of personal intelligences is based on intrapersonal (also known as emotional) intelligence and interpersonal (also known as social) intelligence. Captivated by the research work of Salovey and Mayer, Daniel Goleman (1998) continued his EI research and proposed a four-branch model which in turn included 20 emotional competencies and includes more than 25 characteristics of EI which range from emotional self-awareness to diverse qualities as teamwork, collaborating skills, service orientation, taking initiative, motivating others and formulating goals. Addition of personality traits like trustworthiness, innovation, team player, and other personality features lead to further criticism.²² His contribution in the field of EI is phenomenal, as he popularized the theory to wider audience and emphasized the topic with his book in 1995, ‘EI: Why it can matter more than IQ’. He characterized EI as a latent, inborn latent, and which later lead to the development of emotional competencies. He described emotional competencies as factors which are not innate talents, but those that can be learnt and developed. He compared EI and emotional competencies to apples and apple sauces.²³ He pioneered the application of EI concept to business by publishing an article in Harvard Business Review.²⁴ Particularly, individuals high in EI have good interpersonal, social and team building skills, avoid conflicts, fights, and other social altercations, and develop good social interactive skills. For example, If IQ get a placement in an organisation, his EI determines his stability and accomplishments in his workplace.^25–27 Highly intelligent people are more open, receptive, agreeable, extroverts, prevent self-destructive habits or negative behaviours such as smoking, excessive drinking, or drug abuse, and less apt to engage in problem behaviours or violent episodes with others. They tend to be involved in occupations that require social interactions like teaching, coaching, counselling and educating other individuals and they live together with harmony, acceptance, and satisfaction^28,29

Goleman’s EI competency model

Goleman established Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI), which is a multi-rater instrument that offers self-report, expert (manager) report, direct report, and associates’ ratings on several behavioural indicators of EI.⁷ About 40% of the ECI was derived from the previous questionnaire, Self-Assessment Questionnaire, which was developed by Richard Boyatzis (1994) based on the EI competencies.³⁰ EI competencies refer to a measure of competencies which was extracted and verified against the performance of several number of executives, general managers, and leaders in North America.³¹ ECI was improved upon the Self-Assessment Questionnaire in order to expand the application across all occupations and life settings.

Bar-On’s theory of EI

Bar-On’ theory incorporates both emotional and social competencies, and referred his model as ‘Emotional Social Intelligence’ (ESI) rather than EI or social intelligence.⁵ The key concepts related to emotional and social competencies, skills and facilitators referred in Bar-On’s ESI theory include one or more of the following main components: (a) the ability to identify, comprehend and express emotions or feelings; (b) the ability to empathize and relate to other’s feelings and emotions; (c) the ability to regulate and control emotions; (d) the ability to handle alteration, acclimatize and resolve problems of a private and mutual nature; and (e) the ability to create positive affect and remain self-motivated and optimistic.³² He defined ESI as a cross-section of interdependent emotional and social competencies, skills and aids that govern the effectiveness of understanding and expressing emotions in oneself and others, and associate with them, and manage our daily emotional demands. He postulated that EI can be educated and established over a span of time via training, emotional programming in a sequential basis, and therapy.⁷ He believes that highly intelligent subjects are better in coping skills when they face challenges and pressures of everyday life.

Bar-On’s (2002) model of EI

Bar-On’s model of EI is considered process-driven rather than outcome-driven approach, as it concentrates mainly on the ‘potential or capacity for success’ rather than ‘success’ itself.³² Further, Bar-On’s model associates EI to positive psychology which correlates positively with a person’s overall happiness and mental well-being.^5,33 Similar to Mayer and Salovey’s model, Bar-On’s model also includes four emotional aspects (self-awareness, self-control, self-expression, and empathy) as well as reality testing—the ability to assess the gap between the actual meaning and his or her emotional experience or perception, and enduring stressful experiences—the ability to remain strong, optimistic and balanced in the face of difficulty. In contrast to Goleman’s model, Bar-On model includes stress handling techniques and mood components like optimism, staying positive, and happiness. Additionally, they join reality testing which also assess the impulse control, an ability in stopping oneself from engaging in a reckless manner to a certain stressful or challenging situation. Bar-On’s (2006) model illustrates the five important components which are further sub-divided into 15 subcomponents²⁶:

Based on the theoretic basis of the Bar-On model, EQ Inventory (EQ-i) was developed. EQ-i was formerly devised to assess the various aspects of ESI and also to examine its conceptualization. EQ-i reflected an operationalized form of ESI, which was constructed mainly to examine the functioning of ESI theory. Thus, the EQ-i – a self-report measure which is used to measure the ESI emphases on estimating a person’s coping capacity to the demands and pressures of the situation or environment,³² rather than validating his or her personality or cognitive aspects⁵ claimed that his model as a ‘better predictor of human performance’ as it enabled to validate both professional and academic aspects (Table 1).

Methods of classifying EI

The primary method of classifying EI measures was suggested by Petrides and Furnham (2000). They distinguished ability EI and trait EI based solely on whether the test aimed at measuring maximal performance (ability EI) or personality aspects in the form of a self-report questionnaire (trait EI).^34,35 The basic difference in this method of classification relays on the constructs measured as the Ability EI tests measure constructs that are related to a persons’ understanding of emotions and emotional abilities on a theoretical basis, while trait EI questionnaires measure the actual behaviours of a subject in emotionally relevant settings (for example, when a person is exposed to stressful event or challenged by an upset friend) and self-rated capacities. Significantly, the method of measurement defines the key type of the EI tested. For instance, all EI aspects measured by self-report items are termed as ‘trait EI’, whilst all EI aspects measured by maximal performance items are termed as ‘ability EI’.

Secondarily, EI measures are classified into three EI ‘streams’.³⁶ In the secondary method of classification, stream 1 involve ability measures and stream 2 includes self-report measures, and both are measured based on Mayer and Salovey’s model. On the other hand, stream 3 include ‘expanded models of EI’, which incorporate certain components that are not found in Salovey and Mayer’s definition (p. 443) and referred to as “mixed” models. Stream 3 encompasses both personality and cognitive behavioural items. Several literature reviews in EI often refers the term “mixed EI” as an EI measure that measure a combination of personality traits, social skills and emotional competencies.³⁷

Three major forms of EI measures such as trait, ability, and mixed, have emerged from a number of conceptual similarities in the majority of measures. Especially, most of the measures can be graded based on their meanings, so that scoring by the researcher or psychologists, can be done in the form of a total “EI score” for the participants as well as scores on multiple facets or subscales. Indeed, the initial EI model proposed by Mayer and Salovey has a robust influence on the expansion of EI measures, as the features in ability, trait and mixed measures of EI are shown to have several conceptual super-impositions.

Ability EI – Items/questions used in the assessment of ability EI is similar to those found in the IQ test.³⁸ Similar to Mayer and Salovey’s model, the ability EI measure includes all emotional assessment questionnaire as well as all tests containing ability-type items. On the controversy to trait EI measures, ability measures do not evaluate self-report answers given by the test-takers on various statements, but rather score the answers that can solve emotion-related problems, which can be estimated as correct or incorrect. Generally, ability-based measures generate a good score, which indicates a person’s ability to recognise emotions and its functions. But, since they are tests are generated to test the maximal ability of an individual, and they are not designed to predict typical behaviour and trait-based measures.³⁹ However, ability-based measures are weak, but valid and predict a range of professional attitudes such as professional satisfaction⁴⁰ and work-related performance.³⁷

Trait EI – Overall EI and its subdimensions can be measured by trait-based measures using self-report items. Subjects who scored high in various measures of trait EI were estimated to have very high levels of self-efficacy in terms of emotion-related behaviours and also competency in emotional regulation and management in oneself as well as in others. Further, trait EI nearly measures the characteristic behaviour rather than maximal performance, and they are inclined to provide a good validation of actual behaviours in a variety of emotional settings.³⁴ Recently, meta-analyses reports have shown clear association between trait EI and a range of work-related attitudes such as professional satisfaction and loyalty to their organization or company,⁴⁰ and work-related performance.³⁷

Mixed EI - The term mixed EI originally refers to the combination of ability and trait EI measures, which include items/questionnaires aimed at measuring mixture of traits, social skills and competencies that intersect with other personality measures. Even though these measures consist of self-report items, some of the items use 360-degree forms of assessment which include self-report items combined with multiple associate reports such as supervisors, colleagues and subordinates).⁴¹ Some of the measures are especially formulated to substantiate and improve the performance in professional atmosphere and can be used as commercial measure. Emotional competencies are theoretically defined as the capabilities that can be learned and developed in subjects to enhance their social skills and enhance professional success.⁴² Research studies have confirmed the validity of mixed EI measures as it is a good predictor of multiple emotion-related outcomes such as job satisfaction, dedication to organization,⁴⁰ and work-related performance.³⁷

Comparing the different forms of EI measures

Different kinds and numbers of dimensions for the various EI measures were developed by researchers based on the various definitions of the EI construct.⁴³ Mainly, these EI measures use diverse response formats such as self-report, ability, and informant approaches. For instance, ECI and EQ-i, commonly used self-report EI measures, sample a broad range of individual differences, but nearly all of the self-report scales have acceptable dependability rate or loaded with well-established personality dimensions.⁴⁴ A major limitation of self-report measures is that subjects cannot judge their emotion-related abilities and tendencies truly in a reliable way.^45–47 Furthermore, trait-based measures are susceptible to faking. Participants can easily cheat and gain good scores in EI by selecting answers which are in line with a strategic, socially desirable way.

When discussing the acceptability of the ‘ability model’ over other models of EI,^4,48 suggests that certain mixed models, and the insertion of certain personality and non-intellective elements in the EI construct, create much concern by making exaggerated claims. However, the ability model is postulated as the most promising one among all the EI measures,⁴⁹ but Mayer and Salovey (2003) also propose that EI tests must be applied with great caution. The ability model recommends a ‘purer’ approach to the theory by making a firm amalgamation of emotions and intelligence cooperatively compared to the mixed ability model.⁵⁰ Ability-based EI measures (e.g., Multifactor EI Scale [MEIS] and Mayer-Salovey-Caruso EI Tests Version 2.0 [MSCEIT V.2]) are more discrete from the Big Five personality dimensions, and also have high association with general mental ability than self-report EI measures.⁵¹ Additionally, Van Rooy et al. (2005)⁴⁸ analysed the ability model and supported the efficacy of this model over the mixed ability models, as ability model clearly differentiates EI from IQ and other personality models. However, their study indicated a high correlation between self-report and personality measures, while no correlation was found between MSCEIT and either personality or cognitive based measures. These results create serious doubts regarding the validity and reliability of the ability model. The basic advantages of the ability EI measures are that they are not subjected to be faked, as the participants are asked to provide the answers which they feel or believe as correct, and also try to obtain a high score. Furthermore, test-takers are engaged actively in the ability EI measures as they attempt to solve emotion-related problems and puzzles, and rate the emotional states in pictures, in contrast to simply rating the agreements with statements in trait-based measures.

Because of the disadvantages such as overlapping with the cognitive ability and statistical validity in predicting work performance, ability-based EI measures are also considered as the measures of social intelligence. Even Thorndike suggested that early measures of social intelligence tests measured the general mental ability very poorly.^52,53 Among few studies investigating the level of overlap between the trait and ability-based EI measures indicated that the correlation between MSCEIT and Bar-On scales was 0.36,⁵⁴ and the correlation between the MSCEIT and Bar-On scales was 0.21,⁵⁵ indicating that they share approximately 13% and 4% of their variance, respectively. The correlation values between different EI measures are evidently low, which gives raise to doubts whether these items are all measuring the same construct.⁵⁶ Nevertheless, self-report measures often receive lesser attention than ability-based EI measures, because of the lack of psychometric support. On the other hand, ability-based EI measures receive attention continuously, and henceforth, additional assessments conducted to estimate the convergent validity across various EI measures have become essential.

Other major disadvantages of ability-based measures are the questions raised by many personality and intelligence theorists who suspect the existence of ability EI. They postulate that ability EI is similar to intelligence, which is supported by high correlation coefficient score between ability EI and IQ.⁵⁷ In terms of reliability and validity, ability EI measures commonly have very poor psychometric properties, and do not predict the variables strongly.^37,40 Maul (2012) has reported a comprehensive set of problems with the MSCEIT’s interpretive argument, in terms of consensus-based scoring, lower reliability, and underestimation of the EI construct, and indistinct logical association between the test content and the construct.⁵⁸

Emotional intelligence assessment measures

The following EI assessment measures were chosen to be highlighted in this article as they are all utilised regularly, and enable the researchers, psychologists, clinicians, and psychiatrists to measure many of the major features common to EI measures (e.g., perceiving, regulating, and utilizing emotions).

Self-report Emotional Intelligence Test (SREIT)

In 1998, Schutte developed a self-report EI questionnaire, called as Schutte Self-Report EI Test (SREIT) based on Salovey and Mayer’s model (1990).⁶⁴ The SREIT is a self-report test of emotional intelligence that tested four EI constructs such as appraisal and expression of emotion, optimism or management of emotion, social skills and utilisation of emotions.⁶⁴ SREIT consists of 33 self-report questionnaire items which were designed in order to assess the four scales among the several EI constructs such as “emotional appraisal (perceiving emotions in self), social skills (regulating emotions in others), optimism or mood regulation (regulating emotions in self when facing challenges or adversity), and uses of emotions (strategically utilizing emotions to resolve issues and improve mood and well-being)”. The test’s internal consistency was strong (exhibiting Cronbach’s alpha of 0.90) and correlation for test-retest reliability was also found to be 0.78. The scale was also designed to test against theoretically related constructs such as “alexithymia, optimism, pessimism, mood regulation, non-verbal communication of affect, recognition and clarity of feelings, depressive symptoms and impulsive behaviour”. Petrides and Furnham (2000) criticised the SREIT scale, even though it has good internal consistency and test-retest reliability, it was criticised for its one-dimensional structure such as trait forms of EI and the psychometric properties such as confusing ability.³⁴ Additional criticism was acknowledged by the other authors, and then was confirmed by O’Connor and Athota, 2013.⁶⁵ Subjects were instructed to answer the questionnaire items on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 point (denotes strong disagreement) to 5 point (denotes strong agreement).

Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue)

The TEIQue is accessible in long form (153 items, 15 facets, and 4 factors) and short form (30 items, and 4 factors or subscales).^66–68

TEIQue-Long forms – As EI is largely determined by human personality, inclusion of personality aspects provide the context in which EI operates. Comprehensively, the TEIQue is based on trait EI theory, and designed as self-report inventory. This theory conceptualizes EI as personality trait, which also described it as “emotional self-efficacy”. In contrast to Schutte et al. (1998)⁶⁴ measure, it is not designed to validate ability-based EI using the self-report questionnaire. It comprises 153 items, estimating 15 distinct facets, 4 factors, and global trait EI.⁶⁹ A thorough analysis of the EI literature and available constructs^14,41,70 together led to the development of these items and facets.

TEIQue-Short forms – Petrides and Furnham also developed a short-form questionnaire. This short-form questionnaire contains 30-items and the same four factors (such as self-control, well-being, sociability, and emotionality) similar to the long version, which is designed mainly to estimate the global trait EI (trait EI). From each of the 15 facets of the TEIQue, only two items were chosen based on the correlations with corresponding total facet scores for the inclusion in the short form.^71,72 In the short form scale, it is often recommended that all factors or subscales are used as they detect results in different ways.³⁹ All subscales carry equal importance and should be included.^73,74

TEIQue 360° and 360°-Short Form – These are the other adaptable forms of TEIQue which are utilised for the assortment of other-ratings. Both the long- and the short-forms of the TEIQue have their own 360° form. Particularly, they are useful when the results for self-versus observer-ratings contrast on trait EI (examples like in leadership skill research and its applications).⁷¹

Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i)

The EQ-i model was developed by Bar-On⁴¹ by mixing cognitive ability with personality aspects, as he considered EI as a mixture of intelligence and personality i.e., mixed construct. The EQ-i scales put emphasis on the influence of personality traits on a subject’s overall well-being. Bar-On’s model was developed from data obtained from empirical research which indicate that personal factors related to EI influence the emotional and social elements of behaviour particularly. The EQ-I is intended to measure the abilities and the potentiality to perform rather than performance itself, and thus EQ-i can be considered as process-oriented measure rather than outcome-oriented measure. The EQ-i consists of 133-self-report assessment items, which takes around 25-30 minutes to complete.⁷⁵ The EQ-i scoring is provided as a total score as well as factor and facet/subscale scores. The scores for five composite scales such as intrapersonal, interpersonal, adaptability, general mood status, and stress management were measured individually. Revision on the EQ-i scale led to the development of EQ-i 2.0.⁷⁵ The overall EQ-i can be used to provide total EI scores and also subscale scores.

The overall internal consistency reliability of EQ-i was 0.76. The test–retest reliability of the EQ-I was adequate, which was found to be 0.85 after 1 month and 0.75 after 4 months.⁴¹ Comparable to correlations in traditional intelligence tests and its various components, EQ-i showed the average correlation between various EQ-i subscales was found be aggregable (i.e., 0.50 with respect to convergent validity).⁴³ The correlation of the EQ-i was 0.36 with the MEIS.⁵⁴ In terms of the discriminant validity,⁷⁶ the correlation score of the EQ-I with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale was found to be 0.12,⁷⁵ while the average EQ-i correlation score with the Big Five personality measures was found to be around 0.50. The correlation between the EQ-i and the anxiety scale from Cattell’s 16PF test was found to be -0.77, indicating strong overlap of EI measure with a trait anxiety measure.⁷⁷ In terms of criterion validity (Slaski and Cartwright, 2002), a study conducted on retail managers showed an EQ-i correlation of 0.55, -0.41, -0.50, and 0.22 with morality, stress, general health, and supervisor performance ratings, respectively. Indeed, Bar-On (1997) also proposed that the EQ-i measures non-cognitive features of individuals’ performance. For example, a student’s ability to handle everyday pressures and demands. Conclusively, Bar-On (1997) postulated that EI is an important determinant of academic success, based on the items included in non-cognitive aspects, which was supported by the unpublished studies mentioned in the EQ-i Technical Manual. The main limitations of EQ-i are the lack of discriminant validity evidence despite of its adequate reliability and some validity evidence. The correlation coefficient of the total EQ-i score was only 0.01 with their Grade Point Average in a study conducted on 160 Canadian college students,⁷⁷ which unqualifies the EQ-i as a selection device. Similar to Goleman’s ESCI model, Bar-On’s model is subjected to be faked, as the participants can intentionally tailor their answers for better scores.⁷⁸ Therefore, further validation for the constructs is necessary.

The Situational Test of Emotional Management (STEM) and The Situational Test of Emotional Understanding (STEU)

MacCann and Roberts (2008)⁷⁹ developed ability-based EI measures. Mainly in this model, the STEM and the STEU scales assess the strategic EI areas such as understanding and managing emotions^19,20 out of the four hierarchical ordered branches of emotion-correlated abilities outlined by Mayer et al. previously (2000a, b).

STEM: The STEM consists of 44 multiple-choice items, and it was designed in both multiple-choice and rate-the-extent formats (such as the participants need to appropriately rate the relevancy, strength, or extent of each alternative, rather than choosing the correct answer). A pilot study investigating the emotional states of 50 individuals, which they had described from their past two weeks experiences (with a total of 290 situations) using a semi-structured interview method were used to assign the questionnaires or items in the STEM model. These items were designed by conducting semi-structured interviews with. These items were categorized such as 18 items for anger, 14 items for sadness, and 12 items for fear and tested in individuals. Estimates of Cronbach’s alpha were slightly low (0.68) in a study conducted using 207 Australian students⁸⁰ and reasonable (0.85) in a study conducted using 850 Belgian medical students.⁷⁹ Some evidence of convergent and discriminative validity of the STEM was found. The correlation validity between the STEM and MSCEIT management scores was found to be 0.30, and were also found to correlate with understanding and perception of emotions.^38,79,80

STEU: The STEU is an ability test for emotional understanding, a key component of EI. STEU assesses the understanding the emotions of oneself and others, and the reason behind the evolution of different emotions in complex situations. This test is developed based on ability models and more suitable than self-report model in order to prevent overlapping with personality traits. The items in the STEU model were constructed based on the Roseman’s (2001) emotion appraisal theory, and thus the scoring is done by marking and adding the number of the correct or incorrect answers. In this model, combination of seven appraisal dimensions explain the 17 most common emotions. In the standard version, the STEU scale consists of 42 multiple-choice item stems with five possible reactions. The STEU has 19 scenarios selected from 42-item version of STEU using an inter-response time analysis.^79,81 In each questionnaire item, a different interpersonal scenario presenting emotional situations is described, the participants are asked to select the more likely emotional response experienced by one of the persons in that situation from five of the given emotions. In this model, 14 emotions were evaluated in three separate contexts – de-contextualization or context-reduction (n =14 items), work or workplace context (n =14 items) and private or personal life context (n =14 items).

Emotional and Social competence Inventory (ESCI)

Boyatzis, Goleman and his co-workers developed an ESCI model which is a mixed model of EI.³¹ They designed ESCI to evaluate both the personality aspects and cognitive abilities in the perspective of emotional competencies and positive social behaviours.^31,70 This model emphases mainly on predicting workplace success. The ECI has 110 items and evaluates 20 competencies, which are classified into four clusters: (a) Self-Awareness, (b) Self-Management, (c) Social Awareness, and (d) Social Skills. The ESCI also utilises 360-degree assessment techniques such as self, peer, and supervisor ratings. Boyatzis and Goleman embed a set of emotional competencies within each construct of EI In ESCI model. They defined emotional competencies are not inbuilt capabilities, but as abilities that can be learned and applied in activities by an individual to attain an outstanding performance. However, they also argued that generally individuals need to have an innate EI potential that determine their ability for learning emotional competencies. The internal consistency reliability of the self-assessment ESCI scales was found to be in the range of 0.61 to 0.85, while for peer and supervisor rating scales was found to be in the range of 0.80 to 0.95.⁴³ The validity evidence of ESCI is derived from the Self-Assessment Questionnaire, which is a precursor of the ESCI. Few independent, peer-reviewed research studies that assessed the reliability (accuracy) and validity of the ESCI have produced uncertain findings. Limitation of ESCI model include content overlap of the ESCI competencies with the four dimensions of the Big Five personality Inventory such as openness to new experiences, extraversion, conscientiousness, and emotional stability, and other psychological constructs such as motivation and leadership qualities.^51,56

Discussion

The EI concept has gained much attention from 1990 from the psychological society, academic areas, therapy settings and mainstream society. EI consists of several constructs which are devised to measure an individual’s different traits or abilities. Overall, research studies conducted for more than a decade based on EI-based theories and models have demonstrated the importance and crucial role of EI in the overall intelligence, and its positive correlation with good mental health and well-being.⁸²

Several theories have been proposed by various researchers and psychologist from 1990 till date. Among them, the most rational and famous theories and models are described in this review. First, Howard Gardner postulated the multidimensional aspect of intelligence, which cannot be measured by single intelligence test.¹² Second, non-intellectual skills are also equally important for the success and well-being of individual’s life in addition to intellectual skills, is the central point of E.L. Thorndike, who proposed Thorndike theory of social intelligence.¹⁵ Third, Peter Salovey and John Mayer proposed EI as a subset of social intelligence. They described the concept in detail and coined the term, and proposed ability model.¹⁴ Forth, Daniel Goleman (1998) gave a new perspective to EI by deeply explaining the nature, evolution, biology and importance of EI. His proposal popularized the EI concept worldwide,²⁴ as he included several characteristics of EI from emotional self-awareness to social skills, job performance, teamplay, taking initiative and motivation. Finally, the two broad models of adult EI proposed by Bar-On^32,83 and Mayer and Salovey^19,21 correlate with different skills of emotional competence. Specifically, emotional self-awareness, emotional perception in oneself and others, ability to empathize with others’ feelings and concerns, management of emotional response and modulation of emotional reactivity are found to be related both to EI and emotional competence skills.

Although, the type of EI measured depends on the method of measurement used and is intricated by the different results obtained through the ability and trial EI, without any correlation. Nevertheless, ability, trait and mixed EI measures help in understanding, analysing and handling emotions in oneself and others, which in turn associated with an improved quality of life. Even though the theory and models predict the EI score, in terms of operationalisation, developers and theorists posit the need to design an instrument or a tool (consisting a list of questionnaire or items related to emotional, personality and social competencies) or improve the existing measures to precisely evaluate and assess the emotional skills of a subject.⁸⁴ The pure models (ability or trait) highlight the cognitive ability, and measures the scores using an objective, performance-based test, while mixed models evaluate IQ and personality traits using self-report questionnaire.

Measures of ability EI are found to overlap partially with long-standing measures of coping approaches and emotional regulation; but some empirical research postulates that ability EI predicts additional information that can be learned through personality and coping measures.^49,50 On the contrary, trait EI measures are found to overlap significantly with long-standing, well-defined measures of personality, and so its use and added applicability value is currently under debate. However, a few models are found to provide a good indication of EI and social skills. For example, Bar-On model conceptualized ESI as a multifaceted collection of interconnected emotional and social competencies, skills and facilitators. These competencies are found to impact one’s ability (a) to identify, comprehend and manage emotions, (b) to empathize with others, (c) to acclimatize to variation and resolve problems, and (d) to deal with everyday demands, tasks and burdens. Although the significance and utility of ESI has been revealed by investigating its ability to indicate different features of behaviour, its predictability for emotionally and socially intelligent behaviours are limited, as there are only certain number of questions which evaluate the emotional states and social skills of a test-taker in a specific situation. By developing an expanded model of ESI, these limitations can be handled, and more comprehensive and exclusive measurements can be derived by constructing a multi-tiered and multi-channel approach. The best-known measures such as the EQ-i, the ESCI, and the MSCEIT are found to be quite expensive, and thus their use regularly in a university or clinical setting is quite difficult. Many other EI measures are available freely with adequate reliability and validity similar to the better-known measures,⁸⁵ which can used extensively in any setting.

In spite of the extensive research and data collected on EI in the last decade, EI still remains a contentious topic. The number of the constructs involved in EI, the validity of the construct, advantage of one type of model over another, the type of EI measures, and the ability to teach EI are the frequently debated topics. Overall, three important areas require more focus in EI research. First, the reliability of the each of the models of EI, clear distinction between EI constructs and its related concepts such as personality, and further validation of the developed model needs to be evaluated. Particularly, the ability to learn and develop EI skills is an important arena for future research, and thus the programs designed to teach EI in organizations needs to be evaluated carefully. Finally, further research needs to focus on the implementation of EI construct to public sectors. Henceforth, EI concepts can be applied pragmatically with children and adolescent populations if it can be proven that these concepts can be developed as well as learning these concepts promotes favourable outcomes (e.g., academic, personal, moral/ethical).⁷ Over the past two decades, though much is decoded in EI, but still significant questions regarding constructs, measuring tools, and the capacity to learn and apply EI in reaching desirable outcomes remains to be uncovered.¹⁰