217 Emotional Intelligence

http://ccm.sagepub.com

Cultural Management International Journal of Cross

DOI: 10.1177/1470595809335725 2009; 9; 217 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management

Sudeep Sharma, Jürgen Deller, Ramakrishna Biswal and Manas K. Mandal Cultures

Emotional Intelligence: Factorial Structure and Construct Validity across

http://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/2/217 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:International Journal of Cross Cultural Management Additional services and information for

http://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://ccm.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/9/2/217 Citations

at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on February 19, 2010 http://ccm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://ccm.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

http://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/9/2/217


Emotional IntelligenceFactorial Structure and Construct Validity across Cultures

abstract This study empirically examines the construct of emotional Intelligence (EI) cross-culturally. Participants (N = 200) from Germany (N = 100) and India (N = 100) completed the Emotional Intelligence Scale, NEO-Five Factor Personality Inventory (Form-S) and Hofstede’s Value Survey (Module 94). The major objectives of the study were to examine cross-culturally (a) the factor structure of EI, and (b) the construct of EI as distinct from personality. Results revealed different factor structures for these two cultures, and the construct of EI failed to correlate with the dimensions of personality. Implications of the findings for leadership in a specific culture as well as across different cultures are discussed.

key words • Big Five • construct validity • emotional intelligence • factorial structure • Germany • India • personality

© The Author(s), 2009. Reprints and Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/JournalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1470595809335725

CCM International Journal of

Cross CulturalManagement

1. Introduction

Recent studies conducted on ‘emotional intelligence’ (EI) illustrate the relevance of this construct for psychological research. The major question analyzed in these stud-ies relates to the construct validity of EI,

as distinct from intelligence (Bar-On, 1997; Day and Carroll, 2004; Mayer et al., 1999; Van Rooy and Viswesvaran, 2004) and per-sonality (Ackerman and Heggestad, 1997; Davies et al., 1998; Dwada and Hart, 2000; Newsome et al., 2000; Saklofske et al., 2003). Even though this question has raised diverse

Sudeep SharmaLondon School of Economics and Political Science, UK, and Olin Business School, Washington University, St. Louis, USA

Jürgen DellerLeuphana University of Lüneburg, Germany, and Lucas Graduate School of Business, San José State University, USA

Ramakrishna BiswalDelhi University, India

Manas K. MandalIndian Institute of Technology-Kharagpur, India

2009 Vol 9(2): 217–236



International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 9(2)218

opinions amongst researchers, few attempts have been made to examine the cross-cultural validity of the construct. This validity, how-ever, is a prerequisite for international man-agers’ success, as it will allow them to use the construct in their daily routines in different cultures in the same way.

Emotional intelligence is perhaps one of the most widely researched psychological constructs in the 21st century (e.g. Ashkanasy, 2003; Bar-On, 2006; Boyatzis et al., 2000; Drusket and Wolff, 2001). Many researchers have debated the concept of emotional intel-ligence and the validity of emotional intel-ligence measures (e.g. Ciarrochi et al., 2000; Law et al., 2004; McCrae, 2000; Perez et al., 2005; Petrides and Furnham, 2000; Van Rooy and Viswesvaran, 2004). In an effort to clarify different concepts of emotional intel-ligence, the Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology (Spielberger, 2004) recently suggested that there are currently three major conceptual models in this field:

(a) The Salovey-Mayer model (Mayer and Salovey, 1997), which defines this construct as the ability to perceive, understand, manage and use emotions to facilitate thinking, measured by an ability-based measure: either the Mayer Emotional Intelligence Scale – MEIS (Mayer and Salovey, 1997) or its latest ver-sion, MESCEIT v 2.0 (Mayer et al., 2002).

(b) The Goleman model (1998), which views this construct as comprising a wide array of competencies and skills, which drive managerial performance, measured by a multi-rater assessment named the Emotional Competencies Inventory – ECI (Boyatzis et al., 2000).

(c) The Bar-On model (1997b, 2000), which describes a cross-section of interrelated emotional and social competencies, skills and facilitators that impact intelligent behavior, measured by self-report in the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory – EQ-I (1997a, 1997b).

Many researchers also recognize two differ-ent models of emotional intelligence (e.g., Hedlund and Sternberg, 2000; Mayer et al., 1999). One of these is referred to as the ‘ability model’ and the other as the ‘mixed model’. The ability model defines EI as a type of intelligence, whereas the mixed model is more dispositional or trait-based in nature (Petrides and Furnham, 2000), with less of a cognitive emphasis. According to Mayer and Salovey, who propounded the ability model in 1997, the MEIS was developed using the notion of emotional intelligence as a model of general intelligence. Salovey and Mayer (1990, p. 189) proposed a formal definition of emotional intelligence as being, ‘the abil-ity to monitor one’s own and others’ feel-ings, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and action’. Later this definition was refined and broken down into four proposed fac-tors that are distinct yet related: perceiving, using, understanding, and managing emotions (Mayer and Salovey, 1997).

In contrast, Bar-On deems emotional intelligence to comprise an array of non-cognitive capabilities, competencies, and skills, which all influence one’s ability to suc-ceed in coping with environmental demands and pressures (Bar-On, 1997). The factor structure of emotional intelligence includes Intrapersonal (emotional self-awareness, assertiveness, self regard, self actualization, independence), Interpersonal (empathy, inter-personal relationships, social responsibility), Stress Management (problem solving, reality testing, flexibility), and Adaptability (stress tolerance, impulse control) (Bar-On, 1997).

These theoretical models described the construct of emotional intelligence without much attention to any cross-cultural evidence which supported their theoretical positions. Because it is believed that emotions are socially constructed to a great extent, the construct of emotional intelligence needs a cross-cultural database to validate its theoretical position. In the present paper, an attempt has been



219

made to create such a database. Further to this, the cultural invariance, whether proven or not, will have great relevance in the field of cross-cultural management. This is because the input drawn from it should assist global managers in any decisions which they make based on cultural peculiarities or similarities in a global market.

One of the most pertinent issues domi-nating current research in psychology is the cross-cultural study of emotion. Culture plays an important role in the understand-ing and expression of emotions (Ekman, 1972, 1993; Friesen, 1972; Mandal et al., 1996; Matsumoto, 1989, 2002; Mesquita et al., 1997). Cross-cultural studies have shown that social behaviour varies across cultures (Amir and Sharon, 1987), and that emo-tional responses within a social network are also evaluated based on core cultural prac-tices (Markus and Kitayama, 1994; Shweder and Much, 1987; see also Mesquita et al., 1997). Markus and Kitayama (1991) further explained that cultures have a set of specific consequences for cognition, emotion and motivation. Elfenbein and Ambady (2002a, 2002b, 2003) argued that the rate of emotion recognition is fairly stable across cultures, but that people tend to recognize the expression of basic emotions more easily during interac-tions with people from their own culture than with people from other cultures.

Recently Matsumuto et al. (2008) found significant differences in the understanding and expression of emotion across cultures. They found that members of individualistic cultures endorse more emotion expression, whereas members of collectivistic cultures endorse less. Their findings further illustrate that the expression of negative emotions with in-group members is more common in individualistic societies. In an extensive meta-analysis of emotion expression and recogni-tion studies across cultures, Van Hemert et al. (2007) found that besides statistical arte-facts directly related to sample sizes, and method-related factors (self-report question-

naires versus facial recognition measures, for example), substantive country-level variables such as mode of subsistence, political vari-ables, stability of a country, and aggregated psychological variables (e.g. individualism, religious values) explained a substantial part of the cross-cultural differences in emo-tions that have been reported. It is possible that some facets of EI contain pan-cultural characteristics while other facets are more culture-specific. These aspects have rarely been studied across cultures with reference to the construct of emotional intelligence.

Generalizability across cultures and lan-guages is crucial for the evaluation of an emotional intelligence taxonomy or structure. When new instruments have to be used for educational purposes or for job selection, test developers need to consider the multicultural dimensions of our societies. Methodological aspects then become an issue; when an EI questionnaire developed in one cultural con-text is to be applied to another, invariance of its psychometric properties cannot be merely assumed (Parker et al., 2005). Therefore, an investigation into the cross-cultural validity of the EI construct could make a valuable contribution to the present literature.

Because the origin of the EI construct lies primarily in Western literature (Bar-On, 2000; Cooper and Ayman, 1997; Goleman, 1995; Mayer et al., 2004), there has been a general tendency to conceive the construct as being universal without realizing that ‘emo-tion’ is also a cross-culturally embedded con-struct (Sibia et al., 2003). Pant and Prakash (2004) critically evaluated one of the origi-nal measures of emotional intelligence – the Mayer Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS) – in an Indian context, and concluded that most of the reliabilities of the MEIS subtests were weak for the Indian sample. They sug-gested, however, that the MEIS might work in the Indian sample if cultural context were taken into account during the validation and testing process.

Hofstede (2001), and more recently the

Sharma et al.: Emotional Intelligence across Cultures




GLOBE study (House et al., 2004), explained that cultural differences could affect psycho-logical constructs of human behavior. So far, all factor structures of emotional intelligence have evolved only on the basis of studies done in Western (predominantly individualis-tic) cultures (Bar-On, 2000; Goleman, 1995; Mayer et al., 2000). Few studies have assessed the factor structure of emotional intelligence in Eastern (primarily collectivistic) cultures. This becomes all the more important if we assume that the basic constituents are only emotion and intelligence. Because both are psychological processes, and all psychological processes are somewhat culturally embedded, it is presumed that emotional intelligence must also be culturally constructed.

The need for a cross-cultural validation of EI (Bar-On, 2006; Conte, 2005) and its implications for management (Gabel et al., 2005) have been argued by earlier researchers. However, research to date has yet to system-atically examine the pan-culturality of this construct across diverse cultural groups. Parker et al. (2005) have investigated the generalizability of the concept of EI to the North American culture, but not many stud-ies have tried to evaluate the replicability of factor structures of the EI construct beyond this culture, for example, in Eastern cultures.

A cross-cultural application of emotional intelligence may have implications for leader-ship, communication, and human relations skills in organizations. Emotional intelligence, that is, sensing others’ emotional states, is a key element of interpersonal communicative competence. As such, it may help leaders to build up trusting and empathic relations with direct reports and superiors. Leaders who can both recognize and manage their own and others’ emotions will be able to more successfully manage emotionally challenging situations and provide support and model-ling to direct reports. Emotionally intelligent leaders are proficient to regulate their own emotions and those of others. They can also use emotional information in decision-

making to achieve appropriate outcomes. EI helps them communicate visions to, and form constructive relationships with, others (cf. Ashkenasy and Daus, 2002). If emotional intelligence contributes to effective domestic leadership, it may also contribute to effective cross-cultural leadership. Expatriates who are exposed to EI stimuli in a different culture would be able to read these just as they can at home, without further learning. However, this will only be the case if EI is the same construct across cultures.

To understand the differences and simi-larities between factor structures of the scale in Western and Eastern cultures, Hofstede’s (1983) distinction between collectivistic and individualistic cultures can be used as a frame-work. According to Hofstede (1983), individ-ualism and collectivism represent a conglom-eration of values concerning the relationship between an individual and his or her collec-tivity in society. Triandis (1989, 1995) men-tioned that collectivistic societies emphasize a number of characteristics, including giving priority to group goals as a means for attain-ing individual goals, concern for how one’s actions will impact on in-group members, and a tendency to share resources with other in-group members. The other important dif-ference between individualism and collectiv-ism concerns the pursuit of personal versus group goals and interests (Triandis, 1989). Individualists operate according to self-inter-est, whereas collectivists operate according to group interest. The key word here, ‘self ’, is inseparable from emotional intelligence (Gangopadhyay and Mandal, 2008).

The notion that emotional intelligence is more than simply emotion and intelligence is substantiated by the concept of ‘self ’ hav-ing developed in culture-specific settings. Such an idea suggests that ‘self ’ has the potential to influence emotional intelligence (Gangopadhyay et al., 2008). Therefore, dimensions like understanding the emotions of self and others could have a different meaning for collectivistic societies. People



221

in these societies prefer social relationships to individual profit during social interac-tions, for example in negotiation (Salacuse, 1998). Therefore, they may control their own feelings in order to preserve harmoni-ous relationships in groups. For example, if we look closely at Indian literature, we find some traces in the text of references to emo-tional intelligence. In our view one of the most famous scriptures of Hindu literature, The Bhagavad Gita (origin dated around 1500 B.C.), also speaks about managing one’s emo-tions. It contains a beautiful description of the discourse between Arjun and his charioteer, Lord Krishna. Their discourse, which took place just before the onset of a war, is one of the greatest philosophical and religious dia-logues known to man (Prabhupada, 1986). If we look at some of the shloks (some examples given in Appendix 2), out of the eighteen chapters of The Bhagavad Gita, we find that they speak about how man is caught in emo-tional crises and how one should understand and manage his emotions in order to fulfill his duty. There, for the sake of the group, Arjun manages his own emotions and sacrifices his self-feelings, for the good of society. In one sense, the Indian notion of emotional intel-ligence can also be defined as using emotions to do what is right and fulfill one’s karma in life. We can conclude from this that in many situations people in a collectivistic culture like India tend to manage their emotions for the sake of their society or group, where that may not be the case so much in individualis-tic cultures.

Given this background, the broad objec-tive of the present study was to validate the construct of EI cross-culturally. For this, we have used one of the most widely used EI measures: Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale (Schutte et al., 1998). The rationale behind using this scale was that although many researchers in the past have investi-gated the psychometric properties of this scale and compared the resulting factor struc-tures with the factor structure given by the

developers (Austin et al., 2004; Gignac et al., 2005; Petrides and Furnham, 2000; Saklofske et al., 2003), as yet no studies have tried to evaluate the factor structure of this scale cross-culturally. Two of Hofstede’s dimen-sions, namely individualism/collectivism and power distance, are being used to measure the impact of cultural differences on the EI construct. We have previously mentioned that individualism/collectivism could influence the EI construct. Power distance is a dimen-sion that is embedded within the individual-ism/collectivism dimension. According to Hofstede (1991), individualism is associated with lower power distance, while collectiv-ism is associated with higher power distance. Based on an empirical comparison of data from three different data samples (Bond, 1987; Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 1994), Bond (1996) identified a single factor that included both individualism (.86) and power distance (–.76), and this led him to suggest that col-lectivism is associated with hierarchy. In the spirit of this recommendation, the likely inter-action between collectivism and high power distance as dimensions of national cultures deserves consideration (Schermerhorn and Bond, 1997). Therefore, in order to under-stand the differences in the factor structures of EI across individualistic and collectivistic societies, the influence of power distance on the EI construct cannot be ignored.

Thus, the first objective of this study is to examine the similarities and differences in the factor structures of EI between an Indian and a German sample. According to GLOBE (House et al., 2004) as well as Hofstede’s (1983) cultural dimensions, these countries represent two different culture clusters. India is a society which is character-ized by high power distance and collectivism, whereas Germany has lower power distance and a higher degree of individualism.

Sharma et al.: Emotional Intelligence across Cultures




1.1 Emotional Intelligence and Personality

In recent years, a growing number of empiri-cal studies have also aimed to validate the construct of emotional intelligence (Brackett and Mayer, 2003; Ciarrochi et al., 2002; Perez et al., 2005; Petrides and Furnham, 2000; Saklofske et al., 2003). Personality research-ers, in particular, have found a high correla-tion between EI measures and personality dimensions. They claim that emotional intel-ligence is not a unique construct; instead, they see it as a part of the personality model (e.g. Ackerman and Heggestad, 1997; Davies et al., 1998; Dwada and Hart, 2000; Newsome et al., 2000; Saklofske et al., 2003). In contrast, EI researchers have claimed that emotional intel-ligence is a construct which is independent of personality (e.g. Bar-On, 1997; Brackett and Mayer, 2003; Lopes et al., 2003).

McCrae (2000), in a review of the Big Five personality dimensions, suggested that EI should be most strongly related to the ‘openness to experience’ dimension, but this claim lacks strong empirical evidence (see Van Rooy and Viswesvaran, 2004). Dawda and Hart (2000), using the self-report EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997), found particularly high correlations between EI and personality, as measured with the NEO-FFI personal-ity dimensions. Bar-On (1997) found low to moderate correlation between EI dimensions based on his model and 16-PF personality dimensions. Such a contradiction in findings may be resolved by examining the functional independence of EI from personality across cultures. Therefore, the second objective of our study is to examine the proposition that EI is distinct from personality dimensions across cultures.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The sample for the present study consist-ed of 100 adult participants from each of

Germany and India. The German sample comprised 51 men and 49 women (mean age = 33.82 years, S.D. = 9.16), whereas the Indian sample consisted of 80 men and 20 women (mean age = 28.85 years, S.D. = 3.50). Middle managers from lead-ing IT companies which the authors could access, and graduate management students, in nearly equal proportions, participated in the study. All participants volunteered for the study, and none reported having any mood disturbance at the time of testing.

2.2. Scales

2.2.1. Measure of Emotional Intelligence The 33-item self-report Emotional Intelligence Scale (SEIS) (Schutte et al., 1998) represents all portions of the concep-tual model of Salovey and Mayer (1990). This is a self-report measurement of emo-tional intelligence. The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the scale is α = .87, and the test-retest reliability is .78. As there was no German version of this scale availa-ble, it was translated and back translated into the German language by bilingual experts (see Appendix 1). The internal consistency of the German version was satisfactory, with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from α = .71 to .76 for all four factors. For the Indian sam-ple, the original (English) version of the scale was utilized. The Cronbach’s alpha for the present India sample was reported as α = .84. The four factorial structure of the SEIS given by Ciarrochi et al. (2002) was consid-ered as a standard factor solution for all the major statistical analysis of the present stud-ies. The factors are:

(a) perception of emotions, (b) managing own emotions, (c) managing others’ emotions, and (d) utilization of emotions.

2.2.2 Measure of Personality The NEO- FFI: Form S (NEO-FFI; Costa and McCrae, 1988) is a 60-item questionnaire measuring



Sharma et al.: Emotional Intelligence across Cultures 223

the personality dimensions of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness; there are 12 questions for each dimension. The five NEO-FFI factors, as a brief version of the NEO Personality Inventory NEO-PI-R) correlate at between r = .75 and r = .89 with the respective dimensions. Internal consistency indices of the NEO-FFI scales range from α = .74 to .89, which is satisfactory to good. The reli-ability coefficients for the German NEO-FFI (Borkenau and Ostendorf, 1993) range from α = .70 to .85. The reliability coefficients for the NEO-FFI were α = .73 for the German sample and α = .69 for the Indian sample, respectively.

2.2.3 Measures of Cultural Dimensions The Hofstede VSM 94 questionnaires (Hofstede, 1994) are one of the major descriptors of cultural differences. VSM94 consists of 20 items, and measures five cul-tural dimensions: power distance, individual-ism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation (Hofstede, 1991). The internal consistency of Hofstede’s 20 item VSM 94 for both cultures is satisfactory (α = .77 for German sample; α = .84 for Indian sample). The German version of Hofstede’s VSM 94 (Hofstede, 1994) was used for the German sample.

2.3. Procedure

Permission for data collection was obtained well in advance from the respective organi-zations (IT firms and management schools) in Germany and India. Participants from dif-ferent management schools completed the questionnaire during class time (average 1.5 hours). Managers in workplaces were given the questionnaires during office hours, along with the permission of their superiors to com-plete them. The researchers then explained the purpose and procedure of filling out the questionnaires. The participants completed a short demographic form, the NEO-FFI personality test (Costa and McCrae, 1988),

the Emotional Intelligence Scale (Schutte et al., 1998), and the VSM94 Scale (Hofstede, 1991, 2001).

3. Results

In order to study the cross-cultural generaliz-abiltiy of the EI construct, we examined the Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale’s factor structure in the Indian and German samples using exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA).

3.1. Exploratory Factor Analyses of Emotional Intelligence Construct

Based on the outcome measure (SEIS score), a 33 x 33 inter-correlation matrix was cre-ated and submitted to principal component analysis with a varimax-rotation (Kaiser Normalization) method for the German and Indian data. We used scree plot as the criterion, and found that the four-factor solu-tion was the most suitable in both the Indian and German samples. The four-factor solu-tion accounted for 40.4% and 54.3% of the variance for Germany and India respectively. Similarly to previous findings (Ciarrochi et al., 2002; Petrides and Furnham, 2000), our factor analysis for two samples resulted in four-factor solutions. We followed Ciarrochi’s (2002) four-factor solution as standard, and found nine common items shared by both cultures (see bold items in Tables 1 and 2).

3.2 Confirmatory Factor Analyses of Emotional Intelligence Construct

The four-factor structure of the SEIS was tested in both the Indian and the German sample using confirmatory factor analy-sis with R statistic- version 2.6 (R-Project, 1994). Examining the replicability of fac-tors by means of CFA can be achieved by two different strategies – single group models and multiple group models. We followed the single-group model of CFA, in which the fit




Table 1 Factor loadings of SEIS based on German sample. (N = 100)a

Factors 1 2 3 4

EI14 .746EI13 .689EI26 .644EI11 .616EI16 .616EI12 .592EI23 .591EI5 .524EI20 .478EI15 .424EI1 .328EI33 .267EI32 .821EI29 .705EI18 .596EI2 .567EI22 .470EI8 .642EI21 –.592EI17 .547EI7 .509EI9 .459EI6 .453EI4 .423EI24 .336EI31 .288EI27 –.637EI3 .526EI30 –.521EI10 .515EI25 .489EI19 .473EI28 .370

a Please refer to Schutte et al. (1998) for item details. Bold items indicate common items between the Indian and German factor structures.




Table 2 Factor loadings of SEIS based on Indian sample (N = 100)a

Factors 1 2 3 4

EI6 .723EI22 .667EI33 –.637EI5 –.612EI3 .611EI7 .563EI15 –.543EI8 .500EI27 .479EI23 .446EI10 .432EI17 .813EI18 .756EI19 .689EI20 .653EI4 .572EI2 .549EI9 .461EI30 .815EI31 .768EI1 .594EI21 .583EI32 .544EI26 .502EI16 .495EI28 –.711EI13 .687EI14 .633EI29 .625EI25 .602EI12 .586EI24 .531EI11 .503

a Please refer to Schutte et al. (1998) for item details. Bold items indicate common items between the Indian and German factor structures.




of a normative target structure matrix can be tested on a new sample by fixing all the variable loadings to the values in that matrix (the target structure matrix could have been derived from previous EFAs on a normative sample).

CFA offers a variety of statistical tests and indices designed to assess the goodness-of-fit of data to a proposed model. Considering the multidimensionality of goodness-of-fit (Tanaka, 1993) in all models, we evaluated the goodness-of-fit of the German and Indian model in both samples by means of the fol-lowing indices:

(a) the chi-square (c2) test statistic, (b) the Goodness of Fit index (GFI)

(Joreskog and Sorbom, 1989), (c) the Root Mean Square Error of

Approximation (RMSEA) (Browne and Cudek, 1993),

(d) the Non Normed Fit Index (NFI) (Bentler and Bonett, 1980),

(e) the Tucker Fit Index (TFI) (Tucker and Lewis, 1973), and

(f) the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) (Bentler, 1989, see Table 3).

RMSEA, NFI, and CFI are particularly important in our case because they have been designed with the goal of evaluating the fit of covariance structure models (Caprara et al., 2000).

Table 3 shows the significance tests and goodness-of-fit indices for each model. Based on their values, our analysis indicates that the Indian varimax model does not provide a good fit to the data when applied to the German sample. Also the German model is not a good fit for the Indian sample. Thus, on the basis of conventional CFA fit criteria, the Indian and German models can not be judged as being cross-culturally valid models.A x2/df value of 2 or less is generally viewed as a good fit (Church and Burke, 1994). The GFI provides an index of the proportion of variance accounted for by the model (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1989), and values of .90 or higher are generally considered to indicate a good fit; the root mean square index gives the average correlational discrepancy between the sample and model-produced correlation matrices relating to the observed measures (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1989). Browne and Cudeck (1993) argued that a model shows a close fit if the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is less than .05 and that ‘values up to .08 represent reasonable errors of approximation in the population’.

3.3. EI and NEO-FFI Personality Dimensions

Table 4 shows the relationship between EI and NEO-FFI personality dimensions. For the German sample, agreeableness was

Table 3 Overall Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Confirmatory Factor Analysis Single-Group Models

Absolute indices Relative indicesStructural Model c2 df c 2/df GFI RMS TLI NFI CFI

1. Indian SampleGerman Varimax 2678.8 516 5.19 .406 .206 .165 .158 .1842. German SampleIndian Varimax 1433.6 516 2.78 .541 .134 .151 .124 .171

Note. N = 100. GFI = goodness-of-fit index; RMS = root mean square; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; NFI = normed fit index; CFI = normed noncentrality fit index.




found to have a low correlation with ‘percep-tion of emotions’ (r = –.29) and ‘managing emotions of others’ (r = .26). All other rela-tionships between EI and personality dimen-sions were negligible. For the Indian sample ‘extraversion’ and ‘conscientiousness’ were significantly correlated with most dimensions of emotional intelligence. Table 3 shows that extraversion was highly correlated with ‘man-aging other’s emotions’ (r = .74), ‘perception of emotions’ (r = .60) and ‘managing own emotions’ (r = .58). Conscientiousness had a high correlation with ‘perception of emo-

tions’ (r = .45) and ‘managing own emotions’ (r = .46).

3.4. Individualism and Power Distance

The differential factor structure, as well as the relationship between EI and personality dimensions, suggested we should analyze the effect of culture (denoted here by individual-ism and power distance). The mean scores on individualism were 56 for India and 89 for Germany, and on power distance, they were 63 for India and 21 for Germany. The differ-

Table 5 Summary of ANCOVA indicating the difference (F) between Germany and India on SEIS dimensions with individualism (Fi) and power distance (Fpd) as covariates

SEIS dimensions F Fi Fpd

Perception of emotion 6.22 ** 5.25** 6.08**Manage own emotion 14.33** 13.28** 14.67**Managing others’ emotion 22.26** 21.29** 21.52**Utilization of emotion 0.55 0.84 0.53

** significant at the 0.01 level; degrees of freedom = 1

Table 4 Intercorrelations (Pearson’s ‘r’) NEO-FFI Personality Dimensions and SEIS for German sample (N = 100) and Indian sample (N = 100)

Big-Five Personality Dimensions →Emotional Intelligence dimensions ↓ N E O A C

Perception of emotion –.033(G) –.023(G) –.070(G) –.297**(G) –.094(G) .069(I) .600**(I) .123(I) –.047(I) .459**(I)Managing own emotions –.123(G) .090(G) –.112(G) –.109(G) .038(G) .070(I) .585**(I) .031(I) –.031(I) .463**(I)Managing others emotions .190(G) .131(G) .127(G) .261**(G) –.058(G) .172(I) .743**(I) –.089(I) –.086(I) .313**(I)Utilization of emotions .240*(G) .167(G) .220(G)* .250*(G) –.008(G) .216*(I) .244*(I) –.024(I) –.293**(I) .221*(I)

Note. N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, O = Openness to Experience, A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness, G=German sample, I= Indian sample.* significant at the 0.05 level** significant at the 0.01 level




ences between these dimensions were found to be significant for both the Indian and German samples (p < .05 for each dimen-sion). These scores justify our claim that the two samples differ on these dimensions. We hypothesized that the indices of individual-ism and power distance, if partialled out, could provide an explanation for the cultural differences identified between the German and Indian samples. Our results showed a significant difference between these two cul-tures along most dimensions of SEIS, even after controlling for the effects of individu-alism and power distance. The difference between Germany and India was non- significant for the SEIS dimension of ‘utili-zation of emotions’ (see Table 5).

4. Discussion

The present study attempted to evaluate a trait-based measure of EI cross-culturally. Assuming EI to be a culturally embedded construct, we expected to find a difference in factor structures between samples from Germany and India. Both EFA and CFA findings partially confirmed our notion. We also examined the item clusters in terms of commonalities and specificities between both cultures. The factor structures indicated similarities and differences. The overall CFA results also provided empirical support for cross-cultural specificities in a four-factor structure of the EI construct in German and Indian cultures. The aim of the present study was not to identify the factor struc-tures that evolved in each culture, but rather to see whether the structures have evolved differently in each culture. Therefore, in the present study, we did not carry out any factor labeling for the respective cultures.

Earlier studies which used British (Petrides and Furnham, 2000), Australian (Gignac et al., 2005), and Canadian (Saklofske et al., 2003) samples have elicited nearly identical factor structures of SEIS. Twenty-five (out of 33) items of SEIS between the studies

of Saklofske et al. (2003) and Petrides and Furnham (2000), and 31 items between the studies of Petrides and Furnham (2000) and Ciarrochi et al. (2002) had similar items clus-tered within the four factorial structures of SEIS. These findings are more indicative of the universality of EI as a construct than they are of culture specificities.

However, all of these studies exclusively used samples from GLOBE’s Anglo cluster, and thus these data only replicated findings from the same culture cluster. The results of the present study differ from the Anglo ones. Our findings noted only nine items that were shared between Germany and India within the given factor structures of SEIS proposed by Ciarrochi et al. (2002). For example, both cultures had items like ‘By looking at their facial expressions’, and ‘I recognize the emotions people are experiencing’ clustered under the factor ‘per-ception of emotions’. These items shared identical meanings for Germany and India. Earlier studies suggested that the perception of emotions is universal, while expression of such emotions may be culture-specific (Mandal et al., 1996; Mandal et al., 2001).

There were nine items common to the factor structures of both countries of this study, and among those nine items, only three fell into the same factor of the factor struc-ture found by other researchers (Ciarrochi et al., 2002; Petrides and Furnham, 2000). Items such as ‘I have control over my emotions’, ‘I use good moods to help myself keep trying in the face of obstacles’ and ‘By looking at their facial expres-sions, I recognize the emotions people are experienc-ing’ showed some common features across all cultures. Therefore, these items show a com-ponent of emotional intelligence commonly shared by three cultures.

The differences between German and Indian cultures may be explained in terms of individualism and power distance. Whereas Western cultures (for example, Germany, UK, Canada) are high in individualism and low in power distance, Eastern cultures (for example, India, Japan) are high in collectiv-




ism as well as in power distance (Hofstede, 1991). Matsumoto (1993) observed cultural differences for emotional regulation in terms of individualism versus collectivism. He found that people from collectivist societies like India and other Asian cultures avoid negative reflection upon the group, and they are thus less likely to display negative affect publicly. In contrast, people from individual-istic societies (like the U.S. and Canada) do not suppress these communication cues, and are more likely to display their negative emo-tions without masking.

In the EI scale, items like ‘I know when to speak about my personal problems to others’ and ‘I present myself in a way that makes a good impres-sion on others’ seem to have some cultural specificity. While good impressions can form an important aspect of social relationships in India as an example of a collectivistic culture, this is not so common in German culture. Additionally, in German culture, as an example of an individualistic culture, it is important that a person should know when one should or should not speak about the problems he or she is facing. However, in col-lectivistic cultures like India, it is common-place for one to express personal problems with others more often than those in individ-ualistic cultures would do. In a collectivistic society, others also feel open to hearing one’s problems, since people in a collectivistic cul-ture want to spend more time in social groups and follow their norms by hearing the prob-lems of others, although they may not try to solve their problems.

The second objective of the study was to examine whether EI is distinct from person-ality dimensions across cultures. Correlations were done between EI and personality dimensions for each culture. The analyses yielded mixed findings. For the German sample, the relationship between these two constructs was nearly independent, except for a moderately low correlation between the personality dimension of agreeableness and the EI dimensions of ‘managing other’s emo-

tions’ and ‘utilization of emotions’. Western researchers also found moderate to high cor-relations between EI and the ‘agreeableness’ dimension of Big-Five personality tests (e.g. Brackett and Mayer, 2003; Saklofske et al., 2003). The personality dimension of extra-version had a moderate relationship with most EI dimensions in the Indian sample. The personality dimension of conscientious-ness was moderately correlated with the EI dimensions of ‘perception of emotions’ and ‘managing own emotions’. These find-ings suggest that the constructs of EI and personality do not overlap except for some dimensions which depend upon the social construction in a given culture. However, some other variables might potentially have influenced the present research; there may, for example, have been a response bias in either or both samples.

However, the relatively high reliability coefficients of NEO-FFI and SEIS in both cultures show that poor reliability cannot be the cause of different factor structures and the relationship between personality dimen-sions and EI dimensions. Also, we are aware that factor analysis results are always sample dependent. Different sample compositions can lead to different factor solutions. Therefore, replications of our findings with different sam-ples from the same cultural backgrounds will be necessary. Another reason for our results could be the poor factor structure of SEIS, the importance of which has been noted by pre-vious researchers (see Petrides and Furnham, 2000; Mayer et al., 2000). Thus, there is a need for further research in this direction. Nevertheless, the cultural differences between India and Germany are definitely one possi-ble explanation for the results.

For example, in collective societies like India, individual responsibility has less rel-evance, as people like to work in groups, and follow group ideals. Because of an indi-vidual’s preference for responsibility shar-ing, it may be preferable to maintain strong interpersonal relationships through impulse




control or conscientiousness. In a group, however, those who take initiative and con-nect people for societal causes are perceived as being extraverted, conscientious and emo-tionally intelligent.

Unlike Indians, Germans live in an indi-vidualistic society, where individuals take responsibility for their own actions, and the present findings suggest that they tend to perceive emotions in somewhat similar ways within groups. The relationship between EI and personality dimensions was orthogonal for the German subjects, indicating that the two constructs are independent for individu-alistically oriented societies. Confirmation of this has also been found in previous studies (Bar-On, 1997; Brackett and Mayer., 2003; Lopes et al., 2003).

To examine the effect of cultural predis-positions on EI, we controlled statistically for two culturally embedded dimensions: individualism and power distance (Hofstede, 1983, 1991). There were cultural differ-ences between these dimensions, confirm-ing Hofstede’s (1991) notion that German society is more individualistic and has less power distance, while Indian society is more collectivist and has more power distance. These differences in cultural dimensions, however, did not fully explain the difference in EI scores between the two countries. Even after partialling out the effects of individual-ism and power distance, EI group differences remained significant for all dimensions except ‘how people utilize emotions’ as the outcome measure (see Table 5).

Perhaps the most glaring weakness still evident in this research is one that has limited the study of factor analysis for decades: small samples, which constrain the power of statis-tical analyses. Future studies investigating the cross-cultural validation of EI measures should incorporate large samples from mul-tiple countries representing different cultural clusters, as well as utilizing other prominent EI measures (e.g. MSCEIT, Bar-On EQ-I) for greater variability in the resulting data

sets. In a global market, such input will help improve decision-making for managers, by producing evidence on cultural peculiarities and similarities in the understanding and expression of emotion.

Our results can be interpreted in sup-port of Thomas’ (2006) notion that cultural specific norms may exist for experiencing emotions. The construct of emotional intel-ligence (which in our study was measured by the SEIS scale), therefore, can be seen as a product of, and limited to, the culture in which it was developed. Thomas cautions that emotional intelligence may be mean-ingful only within the culture in which that particular construct was developed. Thus, it may not apply to another. Given our results, the construct of emotional intelligence can indeed be understood to be culture-specific rather than culture-general.

However, given the limited psychometric qualities of the SEIS scale, as well as the rela-tively small sample sizes, it may be premature to come to this conclusion without applying scales with better psychometric properties to larger, possibly more representative sam-ples. Therefore, a conclusion should not be based on results from the SEIS scale alone. The results of this study hint to the neces-sity for leaders to acquire culture-specific EI-knowledge. If they then apply this knowl-edge appropriately, they will enjoy the effects on leadership, communication, and human relations, in such organizations as those men-tioned earlier in this paper. Hence in terms of the selection of leaders, it could be wise to select those who have already acquired these competencies for a specific different culture, or those with a high learning ability and motivation.

In summary, we propose EI to be a culturally-shaped construct, consisting of both culture-specific and culture-general ele-ments. Such a conclusion, however, triggers more questions than it answers, and therefore, demands further cross-cultural research.




Acknowledgements

We are indebted to Nicolai Dyroff, Christian Müller, and A. M. Rao for collecting data in their organizations, and to Joyce Osland for her comments on an earlier version of this paper. Data in both countries were collected for partial fulfilment of a Master’s dissertation submitted by the first author. For research assistance, we thank our colleague Sebastian Laube at Leuphana University of Lüneburg and Illinois Institute of Technology, and Amit Gupta at Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.

ReferencesAckerman, P.L. and Heggestad, E.D. (1997)

‘Intelligence, Personality and Interests: Evidence for Overlapping Traits’, Psychological Bulletin 121(2): 219–245.

Amir, Y. and Sharon, I. (1987) ‘Are Social Psychological Laws Cross-culturally Valid?’ Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 18(4): 383–470.

Ashkanasy, N.M. (2003) ‘Emotions in Organizations: A Multilevel Perspective’, in F.Dansereau, and F. J. Yammarino (eds), Research in Multi-level Issues: Multi-level Issues in Organizational Behavior and Strategy, Vol. 2 pp. 9–54. Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Ashkenasy, N.M. and Daus, C.S. (2002) ‘Emotion in the Workplace: The New Challenge for Managers’, Academy of Management Executive 16(1): 76–86.

Austin, E.J., Saklofske, D.H., Huang, S.H.S., and McKenney, D. (2004) ‘Measurement of Trait Emotional Intelligence: Testing and Cross-validating a Modified Version of Schutte et al.’s (1998) Measure’, Personality and Individual Differences 36: 555–62.

Bar-On, R. (1997a) The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): A Test of Emotional Intelligence. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.

Bar-On, R. (1997b) The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Technical Manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.

Bar-On, R. (2000) ‘Emotional and Social Intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory’, in R. Bar-On and J.D.A. Parker (eds), The Handbook of EI, pp. 363–388. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bar-On, R. (2006) The Bar-On Model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI), Psicothema 18(supl.): 13–25.

Bentler, P.M. (1989) EQS: A structural equations program manual. Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software.

Bentler, P.M. and Bonett, D.G. (1980) ‘Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Co-variance Structures’, Psychological Bulletin 88(3): 588–606.

Bond, M.H. (1987) ‘Chinese Culture Connection: Chinese Values and the Search for Culture-free Dimensions of Culture’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 18(2): 143–64.

Bond, M.H. (1996) ‘Chinese Values’, in M.H. Bond (ed.), The Handbook of Chinese Psychology. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Borkenau, P. and Ostendorf, F. (1993) NEO-Fünf-Faktoren Inventar (NEO-FFI) nach Costa und McCrae. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Boyatzis, R.E., Goleman, D. and Rhee, K. (2000) ‚Clustering Competence in Emotional Intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI)’, in R. Bar-On and J. D. Parker, (eds). Handbook of Emotional Intelligence, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brackett, M.A. and Mayer, J.D. (2003) ‘Convergent, Discriminant, and Incremental Validity of Competing Measures of EI’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29(9): 1147–1158.

Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993) ‘Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit’, in K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long (eds), Testing structural equation models, pp. 136–162. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C., Bermez, J., Maslach, C. and Ruch, W. (2000) ‘Multivariate Methods for the Comparison of Factor Structures in Cross-cultural Research: An Illustration With the Big Five Questionnaire’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 31(4): 437–464.

Church, A.T. and Burke, P.J. (1994) ‘Exploratory and Confirmatory Tests of the Big Five and Tellegen’s Three- and Four-dimensional Models’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66(1): 93–114.

Ciarrochi, J.V., Chan, A.Y.C. and Caputi, P. (2000) ‘A Critical Evaluation of the Emotional Intelligence Construct’, Personality and Individual Differences 28(3): 539–561.

Ciarrochi, J., Deane, F.P. and Anderson, S. (2002) ‘EI Moderates the Relationship Between Stress and Mental Health’, Personality and Individual Differences 32(2): 197–209.

Conte, J.M. (2005) ‘A Review and Critique of EI Measures’, Journal of Organizational Behavior 26(4): 433–440.




Cooper, R. and Ayman, S. (1997) Executive EQ: Emotional Intelligence in Leadership and Organizations. London: Orion Books.

Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1988) The NEO PI/FFI Manual Supplement. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources .

Davies, M., Stankov, L. and Roberts, R.D. (1998) ‘Emotional Intelligence: In Search of an Elusive Construct’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75(4): 989–1015.

Day, A.L. and Carroll, S.A. (2004) ‘Using an Ability-based Measure of Emotional Intelligence to Predict Individual Performance, Group Performance, and Group Citizenship Behaviours’, Personality and Individual Differences 36(6): 1443–58.

Drusket, V.U and Wolff, S.V. (2001) ‘Building the Emotional Intelligence of Groups’, Harvard Business Review (March): 80–90.

Dwada, D. and Hart, S.D. (2000) ‘Assessing Emotional Intelligence: Reliability and Validity of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) in University Students’, Personality and Individual Differences 28(4): 797–812.

Ekman, P. (1972) ‘Universals and Cultural Differences in Facial Expressions of Emotion’, in J. Cole (ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1971, Vol. 19, pp. 207–282. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Ekman, P. (1993) ‘Facial Expression and Emotion’, American Psychologist 48(4): 384–392.

Elfenbein, H.A. and Ambady, N. (2002a) ‘Is There an In-group Advantage in Emotion?’, Psychological Bulletin 128(2): 243–249.

Elfenbein, H.A. and Ambady, N. (2002b) ‘On the Universality and Cultural Specificity of Emotion Recognition: A Meta-analysis’, Psychological Bulletin 128(2): 203–235.

Elfenbein, H.A. and Ambady, N. (2003) ‘When Familiarity Breeds Accuracy: Cultural Exposure and Facial Emotion Recognition’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85(2): 276–290.

Friesen, W.V. (1972). ‘Cultural Difference in Facial Expressions in a Social Situation: An Experimental Test of the Concept of Display Rules’, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, San Francisco.

Gabel, R.S., Dolan, S.L. and Cerdin, J.L. (2005) ‘Emotional Intelligence as a Predictor of Cultural Adjustment for Success in Global Assignments’, Career Development International 10(5): 359–374.

Gangopadhyay, M. and Mandal, M.K. (2008)

‘Emotional Intelligence: A Universal or a Culture-specific Construct?’, In R.J. Emmerling, V.K. Shanwal and M.K. Mandal (eds), Emotional Intelligence: Theoretical and Cultural Perspectives, New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Gignac, G.E., Palmer, B.R., Manocha, R. and Stough, C.(2005) ‘An Examination of the Factor Structure of the Schutte Self-report Emotional Intelligence (SSREI) Scale via Confirmatory Factor Analysis’, Personality and Individual Differences 39(6): 1029–1042.

Goleman, D. (1995) Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

Goleman, D. (1998) Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam.

Hedlund, J. and Sternberg, R.J. (2000) ‘Too Many Intelligences? Integrating Social, Emotional, and Practical Intelligence’, in R. Bar-On and J. D. A. Parker (eds), The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence, pp.136–167. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1983) ‘Dimensions of Natural Cultures in Fifty Countries and Three Regions’, in J.B. Deregowski, S. Dziurawiec and R.C. Annis (eds), Expiscations in Cross-cultural Psychology, , pp. 335–355. Lisse, NL: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (1994) ‘Value Survey Module 94’, http://feweb.uvt.nl/center/hofstede/VSM.html (accessed 9 February 2008).

Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences (2nd edn). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (2004) Leadership, Culture, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. (1989) LISREL 7: User’s Reference Guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.

Law, K.S., Wong, C.S. and Song, L.J. (2004) ‘The Construct and Criterion Validity of Emotional Intelligence and its Potential Utility for Management Studies’, Journal of Applied Psychology 89(3): 483–496.

Lopes, P.N., Salovey, P. and Strauss, R. (2003) ‘Emotional Intelligence, Personality and the Perceived Quality of Social Relationships’, Personality and Individual Differences 35(3): 641–658.




Mandal, M.K., Bryden, M.P. and Bulman-Fleming, M.B. (1996) ‘Similarities and Variations in Facial Expressions of Emotions: Cross-cultural Evidence’, International Journal of Neuroscience 31(1): 49–58.

Mandal, M.K., Harizuka, S., Bhushan, B. and Mishra, R.C. (2001) ‘Cultural Variation in Hemi Facial Asymmetry of Emotional Expressions’, British Journal of Social Psychology 40(3): 385–398.

Markus, H. and Kitayama, S. (1991) ‘Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation’, Psychological Review 98(2): 224–253.

Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (1994) ‘The Cultural Construction of Self and Emotion: Implications for Social Behaviour’, in S. Kitayama, and H.R. Markus (eds), Emotion and Culture: Empirical Studies of Mutual Influence, pp. 89–130. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Matsumoto, D. (1989) ‘Cultural Influences on the Perception of Emotion’, Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology 20(1): 92–105.

Matsumoto, D. (1993) ‘Ethnic Differences in Affect Intensity, Emotion Judgments, Display Rule Attitudes, and Self-reported Emotional Expression in an American Sample’, Motivation and Emotion 17(2): 107–123.

Matsumoto, D. (2002) ‘Methodological Requirements to Test a Possible In-Group Advantage in Judging Emotions Across Cultures: Comments on Elfenbein and Ambady and Evidence’, Psychological Bulletin 128(2): 236–242.

Matsumoto, D. et al. (2008) ‘Mapping Expressive Differences Around the World: The Relationship Between Emotional Display Rules and Individualism Versus Collectivism’, Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology 39(1): 55–74.

Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R. and Salovey, P. (1999) ‘Emotional Intelligence Meets Traditional Standards for Emotional Intelligence’, Intelligence 27(4): 267–298.

Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1997) ‘What is Emotional Intelligence?’, in P. Salovey, and D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Educational Implications, pp. 3–31. New York: Basic Books.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D. (2000) ‘Models of Emotional Intelligence’, in R.J. Sternberg (ed.), Handbook of Intelligence, pp. 396–420. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D. (2002) Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test

(MSCEIT), Version 2.0. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D. (2004) ‘Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Findings, and Implications’, Psychological Inquiry 15(3): 197–215.

McCrae, R.R. (2000) ‘EI from the Perspective of the Five-factor Model of Personality’, in R. Bar-On and J.D.A. Parker (eds), Handbook of EI, pp. 263–276. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mesquita, B., Frijda, N.H. and Scherer, K.R.(1997) ‘Culture and Emotion’, in J.E. Berry, P.B. Daisen, and T.S. Saraswathi (eds), Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology: Vol. 2. Basic Processes and Developmental Psychology, pp. 255–297. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Newsome, S., Day, A.L. and Catano, V.M. (2000) ‘Assessing the Predictive Validity of Emotional Intelligence’, Personality and Individual Differences 29(6): 1005–1016.

Pant, N. and Prakash, A. (2004) ‘Multi-factor EI Scale (MEIS) in India: An Evaluation’, Psychological Studies 49(1): 142–146.

Parker, J.D.A., Saklofske, D.H., Shaughnessy, P.A., Huang, S.H.S., Wood, L.M. and Eastabrook, J.M. (2005) ‘Generalizability of the Emotional Intelligence Construct: A Cross-cultural Study of North American Aboriginal Youth’, Personality and Individual Differences 39(1): 215–227.

Perez, J.C., Petrides, K.V. and Furnham, A. (2005) ‘Measuring Trait EI’, in R. Schulze and R.D. Roberts (eds), EI –An International Handbook, pp. 181– 201.Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe and Huber Publishers.

Petrides, K.V. and Furnham, A. (2000) ‘On the Dimensional Structure of Emotional Intelligence’, Personality and Individual Differences 29(2): 313–320.

Prabhupada, A.C.B.S. (1986) Bhagavad Gita as it is. Mumbai: The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

R- Project (1994) ‘R Statistic- version 2.6’, http://www.r-project.org/ (accessed 24 December 2007).

Saklofske, D.H., Austin, E.J. and Minski, P.S. (2003) ‘Factor Structure and Validity of a Trait Emotional Intelligence Measure’, Personality and Individual Differences 34(4): 707–721.

Salacuse, J. (1998) ‘Ten Ways That Culture Affects Negotiating Style: Some Survey Results’, Negotiation Journal 14(3): 221–235.

Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990) ‘Emotional Intelligence’, Imagination, Cognition and Personality 9(3): 185–211.




Schermerhorn, J.R. and Bond, M.H. (1997) ‘Cross-cultural Leadership Dynamics in Collectivism and High Power Distance Settings’, Leadership and Organizational Development Journal 18(4): 187–202.

Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E., Haggerty, D.J., Cooper, J.T., Golden, C.J. and Dornheim, L. (1998) ‘Development and Validation of a Measure of Emotional Intelligence’, Personality and Individual Differences 25(2): 167–177.

Schwartz, S.H. (1994) ‘Cultural Dimensions of Values: Toward an Understanding of National Differences’, in U. Kam, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.C. Choi, and G. Yoon (eds), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Application, pp. 85–119. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Sibia, A., Srivastava, A.K. and Misra G. (2003) ‘Emotional Intelligence: Western and Indian perspectives, Indian Psychological Abstracts and Reviews 10(1): 3–41.

Shweder, R. and Much, N. (1987) ‘Determinations of Meaning: Discourse and Moral Socialization’, in W. Kurtines, and J. Gewirtz (eds), Moral Development Through Social Interaction, pp.197–244. New York: Wiley.

Spielberger, C. (ed.) (2004) Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology. Academic Press.

Tanaka, J.S. (1993) ‘Multifaceted Conceptions of Fit in Structural Equation Models’, in K.A. Bollen and J.S. Long (eds), Testing Structural Equation Models, pp. 10–39. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Thomas, D.C. (2006) ‘Domain and Development of Cultural Intelligence: The Importance of Mindfulness’, Group Organization Management 31(1): 78–99.

Triandis, H.C. (1989) ‘The Self and Social Behaviour in Differing Cultural Contexts’, Psychological Review 96(3): 506–520.

Triandis, H.C. (1995) Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Tucker, L.R. and Lewis, C. (1973) ‘A Reliability Coefficient for Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis’, Psychometrika 38(1): 1–10.

Van Hemert, D.A., Poortinga, Y.H. and Van de Vijver, F.J.R. (2007) ‘Emotion and Culture: A Meta-analysis’, Cognition and Emotion 21(5): 913–943.

Van Rooy, D.L. and Viswesvaran, C. (2004) ‘Emotional Intelligence: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Predictive Validity and Nomological Net’, Journal of Vocational Behaviour 65(1): 71–95.

SUDEEP SHARMA is in the Department of Organizational Behavior, Olin Business School, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, Missouri, United States, 63130. He recently moved from Department of Employment Relations and Organizational Behavior, the London School of Economics and Politicial Scienes, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom. [email:[email protected]]

JÜRGEN DELLER is founder of the Institute for Strategic HR Management Research and Development (SMARD), Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Wilschenbrucher Weg 84a, D-21335, Lüneburg, Germany. He is also visiting professor in Lucas Graduate School of Business, San José State University, USA. [email:[email protected]]

RAMAKRISHNA BISWAL is in the Department of Psychology, Delhi University, North Campus, Near Mall Road, Delhi, India, 110007. [email:[email protected]]

MANAS K. MANDAL is Director in the Defence Institute of Psychological Research, Defence Research and Development Organiza-tion, Lucknow Road, Delhi-110054, India. [email address: [email protected]]

Please address correspondence to Manas K. Mandal.

Appendix 1

The 33 item German version of Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale.

1. Ich weiß, wann ich mit anderen über meine persönlichen Probleme sprechen kann.

2. Wenn ich in schwierigen Situationen bin, erinnere ich mich an ähnliche Situationen und daran, wie ich sie bewältigt habe.

3. Ich erwarte, daß ich die meisten Dinge, die ich versuche, gut mache.

4. Andere Personen finden es leicht, mir zu vertrauen.

5. Ich finde es schwierig, die non-verbalen Botschaften anderer Personen zu verstehen.




6. Einige bedeutsame Ereignisse in meinem Leben haben mich dazu geführt, neu zu bewerten, was wichtig oder unwichtig ist.

7. Wenn sich meine Stimmung ändert, sehe ich neue Möglichkeiten.

8. Gefühle gehören zu den Dingen, die mein Leben lebenswert machen.

9. Ich bin mir meiner Gefühle bewusst, wenn ich sie erlebe.

10. Ich erwarte, daß gute Dinge passieren.11. Ich teile meine Gefühle gerne mit

anderen.12. Wenn ich ein positives Gefühl erlebe,

weiß ich, was ich tun muss, damit es andauert.

13. Ich plane Ereignisse, die anderen Freude bereiten.

14. Ich finde Aktivitäten heraus, die mich glücklich machen.

15. Ich bin mir der non-verbalen Botschaften bewusst, die ich anderen sende.

16. Ich präsentiere mich auf eine Art, die bei anderen einen guten Eindruck hinterlässt.

17. Wenn ich in guter Stimmung bin, fällt es mir leicht, Probleme zu lösen.

18. Ich erkenne die Gefühle anderer an ihren Gesichtsausdrücken.

19. Ich weiß, weshalb sich meine Gefühle ändern.

20. Wenn ich in guter Stimmung bin, kann ich neue Ideen entwickeln.

21. Ich habe meine Gefühle unter Kontrolle.22. Ich erkenne meine Gefühle leicht, wenn

ich sie erlebe.23. Ich motiviere mich dadurch, daß ich

mir ein positives Ergebnis der Aufgaben vorstelle, die ich angehe.

24. Ich lobe andere, wenn sie etwas gut gemacht haben.

25. Ich bin mir der non-verbalen Botschaften anderer Personen bewusst.

26. Wenn mir eine andere Person von einem wichtigen Ereignis in ihrem Leben berichtet, fühle ich mich fast, als hätte ich es selbst erlebt.

27. Wenn ich eine emotionale Veränderung

spüre, neige ich zur Entwicklung neuer Ideen.

28. Wenn ich vor einer Herausforderung stehe, gebe ich auf, weil ich glaube, daß ich scheitern werde.

29. Ich weiß, was andere Personen fühlen, wenn ich sie nur ansehe.

30. Ich helfe anderen Personen, sich besser zu fühlen, wenn sie niedergeschlagen sind.

31. Ich nutze gute Stimmung, um mich angesichts von Hindernissen anzuspornen.

32. Ich kann sagen, wie Personen sich fühlen, wenn ich den Tonfall ihrer Stimme höre.

33. Es ist schwierig für mich zu verstehen, warum Personen so fühlen wie sie fühlen.

Appendix 2

Shlok 1duhkhesv anudvigna-manahsukhesu vigata-sprhahvita-raga-bhaya-krodhahsthita-dhir munir ucyate

(The Bhagavad Gita, 2; 56)

Translation – One who is not disturbed in mind even amidst the threefold miseries or elated when there is happiness, and who is free from attachment, fear and anger, is called a sage of steady mind (Swami Prabhupada, 1986).

Shlok 2krodhad bhavati sammohahsammohat smrti-vibhramahsmrti-bhramsad buddhi-nasobuddhi-nasat pranasyati

(The Bhagavad Gita, 2; 63)

Translation – From anger, complete delusion arises, and from delusion bewilderment of memory. When memory is bewildered, intel-ligence is lost, and intelligence is lost one falls down again into the material pool (Swami Prabhupada, 1986).




Résumé

L’intelligence émotionnelle : structure factorielle et validité dans diverses cultures (Sudeep Sharma, Juergen Deller, Ramakrishna Biswal et Manas K. Mandal)Cette étude est un examen transculturel de l’intelligence émotionnelle (IE). Les participants (N = 200) d’Allemagne (N = 100) et d’Inde (N = 100) ont complété l’échelle d’intelligence émotionnelle, NEO- Five Factor Personality Inventory et le module de valeur de la surveillance de 1994 (Hofstede’s Value Survey – Module 94). L’étude avait pour objectifs majeurs d’examiner de façon transculturelle (i) la structure des facteurs de l’IE et (ii) le construct de l’IE comme étant distinct de la personnalité. Les résultats ont révélé différentes structures factorielles pour ces deux cultures, tandis que le construct de l’IE n’a pas pu être corrélé aux dimensions de la personnalité. Les implications de ces résultats pour le leadership dans une culture spécifique et pour des cultures différentes sont examinées.

Sudeep Sharma, Juergen Deller, Ramakrishna Biswal and Manas K. Mandal



Documents

217 Emotional Intelligence