The Seven Myths of Emotional Intelligence - Coursework Example

07 December 2007 The seven myths of Emotional Intelligence There are seven myths which have been postulated about the concept of Emotional Intelligence. This paper will attempt to summarize the seven myths with special emphasis on five of the seven. These myths are misconceptions which have been put forward to prove that there is empirical evidence for the theory of Emotional Intelligence (EI). The first Emotional Intelligence myth is “Definitions of EI are conceptually coherent.” Mathews et al. 2004 posit that advocates of EI propose that EI covers a wide range of emotional, social and personal competencies. Conversely, Rogers 2001 (as cited in Mathews, Richard and Zeidner 2004) argues that there is no clear definition. Further, the large number of “qualities” incorporated in EI may be overpowering. Mayer et al. 2000 (as cited in Mathews, Richard and Zeidner 2004) insists that EI spans from “an ability for processing information” pertaining to emotions which is regulated by the intellect to a “complex interaction of qualities of emotions, mood, personality and social orientation applied in both interpersonal and intrapersonal situations.” Therefore, Mayer and Salovet 1997 define EI as “the capacity to reason about emotions” whilst Goleman 1995 describe EI “by exclusion,” that is everything that is constructive that is not labelled by the Intelligence Quotient. Hence, Mathews et al. conclude that there is “little agreement” about EI’s attributes. Some researchers see EI as a cognitive aptitude for processing emotional stimuli, whilst others view EI as attributes of personality and still others insists that EI refers to some facility for adapting to challenging situations. Zeidner et al. (as cited in Mathews, Richard and Zeidner 2004) posit that there are at least three constructs which are qualitatively diverse in nature which can be categorized as EI. Zeidner et al. consider these three constructs to be interrelated. However, there is little evidence for the interrelation of these three constructs which include the child’s temperament, skills that are learned based on one’s culture and self evaluation and self reflection. Not only are the conceptualizations of EI problematic but the extent of the influence of EI on behaviour is also ambiguous. Particularly, this ambiguity is observed in the work of Goleman(1995) and Bar-On (1997). Yet another source of ambiguity is the ability of EI to generalize across events and challenges that are different in nature. EI advocates suggest that an individual who may be effective in handling anger may also be effective in managing situations that incites fear. However, Panksepp, (suggests that such an assumption goes contrary to the basic theories of emotion which conclude that each emotion is maintained by “a distinct neuropsychological system.” Mathews et al. put forward eight different conceptualizations of EI which include temperament, character, adaptiveness, acquired implicit skills and acquired explicit skills to name a few. However, Gohm insists that this lack of consensus on the definitions is not the end of the line for EI. Gohm reminds her readers that there are several other psychological concepts without consensual definitions. It is not surprising that the confusion and uncertainty which plagues the definitions of EI also spills over to the instrumentation of EI. The second myth is that “Measures of EI Meet Standard Psychometric Criteria.” It is possible to categorize the great variety of EI measures into two major groups of instrumentation, namely, self-report and performance based measures. Self-report measures typically test a variety of constructs. Therefore, it incorporates ability as well as personality traits. This self report measures has endless challenges. Thus, in order to uplift EI to the rank of a “legitimate” cognitive ability, Mayer et al (1999) suggested performance based measures similar to those found in intelligence literature (181). Nevertheless there are a number of psychometric principles which govern the acceptability of the “measurement properties of psychological tests.” These include content validity, reliability, and predictive validity and construct validity. Content validity refers to whether or not a test measure the concept it is supposed to test as well as the components of the test that should be rejected or maintained. In light of the fact that EI covers a wide range of constructs, content validity is difficult to determine. Reliability implies that when a test is given one time, the same results should occur if the same tests are given another time under similar circumstances. This type of reliability is termed test-retest reliability. Bar-On, (as cited in Mathews et al. 2004, p.182) suggests that self report measures of EI has shown a “”decent levels” of this type and internal consistency reliability (the degree to which responses by individuals show a relationship items within a test and other items of the same test) has been “satisfactory.” Contrastingly, performance based measures range from unacceptable low to high levels of reliability. Thus, researchers conclude that “more detailed attention needs to be given to investigating the reliability of performance-based measures of EI.” Predictive Validity refers to the extent to which a test can be used to accurately “predict important practical outcomes of emotional life.” Mayer and Salovey (as cited in Mathews et al. 2004, p. 183) insists that a concept is only considered to fit into the “scientific domain” if it meets “conceptual, psychometric and developmental criteria”. It is believed that EI meets the “criteria required for a traditional, cognitive intelligence test. However Mathews et al. propose that the “ability tests for EI meet criteria for a cognitive intelligence” is the fourth myth. (185) Mathews et al. notes that “the most important criterion is that the intelligence in question is capable of being operationalized as a set of abilities. Therefore, EI needs to reflect “cognitive performance rather than nonintellective attainments or preferred ways of behaving.” One must be able to determine whether responses to an aspect of feelings are correct or incorrect. Generally, though EI responses may be correct or incorrect not according to a particular standard but according to the precise situation. Therefore it is still unclear as to how to score an EI test item as emotionally intelligent. Three performance-based methods of scoring comprise “expert scoring, target judgement and group consensus.” (186) However, these methods are awkward in explaining EI. Thus, although EI has made some inroads in terms of reliability of the construct researchers are still doubtful about whether or not the “latent construct is truly an intelligence.” (187) Nonetheless Gohm concludes that a lack of completely accurate measures in the field of EI is not detrimental to the study or usefulness of EI to predicting real life occurrences. The fifth myth is that “EI relates to Emotion as IQ relates to Cognition.” (187) Mathews et al. posits that a good theory entails “both a description of individual differences in processing components supporting EI, as well as an account of the adaptive significance of these individual differences.” Therefore, in reference to a performance-based test of EI, two logical steps in construct validity would be necessary to rank order individuals on a scale of emotional adaptiveness. The first involves linking the score to individual differences in processing and the second concerns showing that the processing characteristics of high EI presents some sort of benefit in the real world emotional situations. This result is what is needed to demonstrate that the test has predictive validity and can be applied in a practical manner. However, Mathews and Zeidner 2000 discovered that as there is a lack of predictive validity so too is a “lack of evidence that the construct is linked to distinct sets of processes and adaptive outcomes.” Mathews believes that many problems occur when one tries to separate emotions from cognition. Gohm insists that one’s cognition and emotions are intricately linked. Even if they are separate systems the cognition and emotions work together. Finally myth seven posits that “EI is critical for real world success.” This seventh myth was validated by Gohm who also agrees that there is lack of validation for the success of EI in the workplace. Mathews notes that several advocates of EI claim that EI is able to predict workplace better than one’s intelligence can. (189) Gibbs, (as cited in Mathew p.189) presented an article to Times magazine stating’ “In the corporate world...IQ gets you hired but EQ gets you promoted.” Nevertheless there is no scientific result to demonstrate a causal link between EI and any of its presumed helpful outcomes. In the workplace many factors are said to contribute to increased success and productivity. One such factor as highlighted by Bar-On, 1997 comprise “influencing one’s ability to cope with environmental demands.”(189) Another factor posited by Goleman (as cited in Mathews) include “the communication of ideas and intentions in interesting and assertive ways that lead to comfortable occupational environments. A third factor involves linking high EI to ability to design projects filled with a fusing of feelings and aesthetics. Gohm believes that Mathews et al. in researching and evaluating EI have indeed been helpful to the field of EI. References Mathews, Gerald, Roberts, Richard and Zeidner, Moshe. 2004. Seven Myths about Emotional Intelligence. Psychological Inquiry. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Vol.15 No.3 179-196. Gohm, Caroll. Moving Forward with Emotional Intelligence. Read More