Upload
ana-jimenez-escribano
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Emotional Intelligence 1
Running head: EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AMONG THE DEVELOPMENT
Performance-based Emotional Intelligence in young people and older adults
Beatriz Navarro Bravo1,2,3, José Miguel Latorre Postigo1,3, Pablo Fernández-Berrocal4 and
Ana Jiménez Escribano5
1Department of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Castilla-La Mancha. Albacete (Spain).
2Research Unit of the Primary Care Head Office of Albacete.Health and Social Care Foundation of Castilla-La Mancha. Albacete (Spain).
3Regional Centre of Biomedical Research, Unit of Health Psychology. Albacete (Spain).
4 Department of Basic Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Málaga (Spain).
5 University of Castilla-La Mancha Student. Albacete (Spain).
Corresponding author:Beatriz Navarro BravoTelephone number: +34 967 195131E mail: [email protected]
Emotional Intelligence 2
Abstract
The main objective was to evaluate the results in performance-based Emotional Intelligence
(EI) among the development.
We interviewed 166 participants (58 men and 108 women), 66 of them were between 18-30
years old, 53 were between 31-60 years old and 40 of them were over 60 years old. 4.8% of
them had primary studies and the rest had high school or college. All of them were working
or enrolled in colleges. As assessment tool we used the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional
Intelligence Test V.2.0 (MSCEIT V.2.0), a test which assesses performance-based EI.
The results show that there exist significant differences between young and old people in the
levels of EI. Young people had higher scores on performance-based EI, but these differences
disappear when we take into account the instruction level.
Keywords: Emotional Intelligence; Elderly; Age.
Emotional Intelligence 3
Performance-based Emotional Intelligence in young people and older adults
Currently, the most widely accepted definition of Emotional Intelligence (EI) is that
which understands EI as a construct that "involves the ability to perceive accurately,
appraise, and express emotion; the ability to access and / or generate feelings when they
facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the
ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth" (Mayer &
Salovey, 1997).
In recent years many instruments have emerged to measure EI, among which we can
find scales of performance or implementation among others. The scales of ability or
performance are based on the model of emotional processing of information, which poses an
assessment based on tasks and emotional exercises (Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008). The
assessed person’s responses are compared with the responses given by a large normative
group (consensus criteria) or by the responses given by a group of recognized experts in the
field of emotions (expert criteria). These methods show as advantages the reduction of the
effect of social desirability and of tendency to falsification, and as disadvantages the
difficulty to determine which answers are correct and the great amount of time needed for
completion, with the possible effect of fatigue that this entails (Roberts, Schulze &
MacCann, 2007).
There is not much previous research available on differences in EI at different stages
of evolutionary development, and when this happens, except in the study by Palmer, Gignac,
Manocha and Stough (2005), the samples do not usually go beyond the 66 years old.
Previous studies about EI and age have showed contradictory results. When we talk about
performance ratings, in a study using a sample of people between 19 and 66 years it has
been checked that middle-aged people score some more than youth in EI (Kafetsios, 2004),
Emotional Intelligence 4
including factors of Facilitation, Understanding and Managing of the emotion. Also in the
work in Spain by Extremera, Fernández-Berrocal and Salovey (2006) it was seen that
Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) scores increased with age in
a sample of between 16 and 58 years of age. In addition to age, higher scores on
performance measures of EI are related to education and the fact of receiving psychotherapy
or not (Goldenberg, Matheson & Mantler, 2006). On the contrary, other studies have not
found any significant relations between age and MSCEIT dimensions (Farrelly & Austin,
2007) and some authors have even obtained a negative correlation between age and
emotional perception (Day & Carroll, 2004; Palmer et al., 2005).
It has been found that the MSCEIT score presents correlations with other cognitive
performance tests such as verbal subscales of IQ tests (r = 0.36) (Roberts et al., 2007) or the
general intelligence (Roberts, Zeidner & Matthews, 2001). It is well known that from the
most classic studies to the most recent ones, when big samples of people of different ages
are compared using intelligence measures, the decrease in the scores is much lower when
the educational level is controlled (although the differences does not disappear completely)
(Kaufman, Reynols & McLean, 1989). In the last years it have also been found that fluid
intelligence is related to education as strongly as crystallized intelligence is (Kaufman,
Kaufman, Liu & Johnson, 2009).
Taking into account the relation between EI and other performance tests, we consider
that we can expect that the MSCEIT score, as a kind of intelligence, shows a similar pattern,
decreasing in the adulthood. We also consider that the educational level of the person might
influence these results.
Considering the contradictory results of previous research regarding to EI and age
and the fact that there are hardly studies that have measured the EI in people over 66 years
old, we have performed and exploratory study with the main objective of compare the scores
Emotional Intelligence 5
in the MSCEIT between young and old people and the influence of the educational level in
these scores.
Method
Design and variables
It is a cross-sectional correlational study. The variables used were: gender, age,
instruction level, scores on the four factors evaluated by the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso
Emotional Intelligence Test V.2.0 (Perception, Use, Understanding and Managing of the
emotions), and the global score on the MSCEIT.
Participants
This work has been made with the voluntary collaboration of 166 participants
ranging from 18 to 76 years old. In the total sample there were 58 men and 108 women. The
mean age of the sample was equal to 42.75 years (SD = 19.28).
Inclusion criteria were: age (to be older than 18 years), to be working or studying at
the time of this study and not to have any physical or psychological disability to answer the
questionnaires. We sought volunteers who were students or workers at the time of the study
as a form of controlling that they had a certain level of cognitive and intellectual activity,
necessary to complete the questionnaire MSCEIT.
Instruments
As a measure of IE performance we used the Spanish version of the Mayer-Salovey-
Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test V.2.0 (V.2.0 MSCEIT) (Extremera, Fernández-Berrocal,
& Salovey, 2006; Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2002; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso & Sitarenios,
2003). It is a questionnaire that assesses the EI with 141 items divided into eight sub-tests of
skill. You can get various scores with this test that differs in their level of generality. This
scale provides a global score of EI which in addition can be divided into two areas, the
Experiential Emotional Intelligence and Emotional Reasoning. These two areas are divided
Emotional Intelligence 6
into four sub-factors: the Perception of emotions, the Use of emotions, the Understanding of
emotions and the Managing of emotions. The reliability of the two halves is 0.93 for the
consensus criterion and 0.91 for the criterion of experts. The reliabilities of the two area
scores (Experiential and Strategic) are 0.90 and 0.90 for the consensus criterion and 0.88
and 0.86 for the criterion of experts. In the case of the four factors the reliability of both
methods is between 0.76 and 0.91 (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso & Sitarenios, 2003). Besides the
test-retest reliability for the global MSCEIT after three weeks is 0.86 (Brackett & Mayer,
2003).
Procedure
The sample was selected from different centres of studies in the province of Albacete
in Spain. This was done with the collaboration of several teachers who helped with the
selection of volunteers among their students. The questionnaires were self-administered in
group.
Data were entered into a database using SPSS 15.0 statistical software. Descriptive
analyses of the sample were carried out and comparisons were made between age and
gender groups in the scores on performance-based EI. In addition, we calculated correlations
among the different variables by dividing the subjects into age groups.
Results
Firstly the descriptive analyses of the sample were made. 4.8% of them had primary
studies and the rest had high school or college. Regarding gender the 34.9% were male and
the 65.1% female. All of them were working or enrolled in colleges. Table 1 shows the
scores in the MSCEIT of the groups divided by age and gender.
Insert here Table 1
Emotional Intelligence 7
Correlations between age, instruction level and IE assessed using the MSCEIT scale were
analyzed in the whole sample. We found significant negative correlations between age and
instruction level (r= -0.545; p= 0.000), emotional perception, emotional use, emotional
understanding and total score of the MSCEIT. Regarding to instruction level, we found
significant positive correlations between it and emotional perception, emotional use,
emotional understanding and total score of the MSCEIT. These correlations can be observed
with more detail in table 2.
Insert here Table 2
To compare the different scores on Emotional Intelligence by age we performed a
MANOVA (3 age groups) with the results in performance- based Emotional Intelligence
according to the consensus criterion of correctness using the sex as a covariate. After that we
performed the same model adding the instruction level as a covariate.
The results indicated that in terms of age groups, there are significant differences in
emotional use, F(2,155)= 4.305, p= 0.015, η2= 0.053, in emotional understanding,
F(2,155)= 3.892, p=0.022, η2= 0.048 and in the total MSCEIT score, F(2,155)= 4.164,
p=0.017, η2= 0.051. Using Scheffe`s method it was verified that these differences were
between the group under 30 years and the group over 60 years, being these scores higher in
the younger group. We repeated the general linear model, adjusting by instruction level.
With the adjusted model the differences between the younger and the older group disappear.
It was found that instruction level was related to emotional perception factor (p=0.047),
emotional use (p= 0.000), emotional understanding (p=0.002) and MSCEIT total score (p=
0.000).
Emotional Intelligence 8
Discussion
The young people group scored significantly higher than the older people group in
the factor of emotional use, the factor of emotional understanding and the total score of the
MSCEIT according to the consensus criteria. These results contradict in part some existing
literature, which found a positive correlation between age and scores on the various factors
and areas of the MSCEIT (Extremera, Fernández-Berrocal & Salovey, 2006). Even though
the available literature describe positive correlations between the score of the MSCEIT
(performance-based EI) and age, in the work by Palmer, Gignac, Manocha and Stough
(2002) no significant relationships were found between the total score of the MSCEIT and
age. However, negative correlations were found between age and scores on the subscale of
"Faces" of this test. The better scores in MSCEIT could be influenced by a higher
instruction level. Since the instruction level is related to all the already mentioned factors
and all three groups showed significant differences regarding years of studies, we consider
that the instruction level could explain the better performance on the scale of the youngest
participants.
We must note that the result in the MSCEIT test presents correlations with other
cognitive performance tests such as verbal subscales of IQ tests (r = 0.36) (Roberts, Schulze
& McCann, 2007) or the general intelligence (Roberts, Zeidner & Matthews, 2001). This
could be one explanation for the obtained results in which young people showed a better
performance on the MSCEIT, as it often happens in other scales that measure performance
as intelligence tests (Escorial, Rebollo, García, Colom, Abad & Espinosa, 2003).
Emotional Intelligence 9
Conclusions
Regarding the differences between age groups it has been observed that it is young
people who score higher on performance measures (MSCEIT), but this differences does not
remain when the educational level is included as a covariate.
Probably the fact that young people have obtained a better performance in EI is
related to their educational level, and therefore, to the greatest ability to run performance
tests.
Limitations and future research
The fact that participants were selected requesting voluntary cooperation may limit the
generalizability of results, as people who volunteered to participate could have certain
qualities that differentiate them from those who did not cooperate.
For the variables studied and the focus of the study, the EI, it would have been
appropriate to select people with a more equal level of education. We attempted this by
choosing older people who were studying at the time of collection of data, but despite this,
at the end significant differences in this respect between the three age groups appeared.
As a future line of research we propose to assess Emotional Intelligence and General
Intelligence using longitudinal methodology to see what is the evolution of both types of
intelligences among age and relationship between these two constructs at the different stages
of evolutionary development.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Professors Laura Ros, Rigoberto López ,Concha Fabeiro, Diosina Lozano
and David Igual for their help in the selection of the sample.
Conflict of Interest
There is not conflict of interest.
Emotional Intelligence 10
Emotional Intelligence 11
Reference List
Brackett, M. A. & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity
of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin., 29, 1147-1158.
Day, A. L., & 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, 1443-1458.
Escorial, E., Rebollo, I., García, L. F., Colom, R., Abad, F. J., & Espinosa, M. J. (2003). Las
aptitudes que se asocian al declive de la inteligencia: evidencias a partir del WAIS-
III. Psicothema, 15, 19-22.
Extremera, N., Fernández-Berrocal, P., & Salovey, P. (2006). Spanish version of the Mayer-
Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). Version 2.0: reliabilities,
age and gender differences. Psicothema., 18 Suppl, 42-48.
Farrelly, D., & Austin, E. (2007). Ability EI as an intelligence? Associations of the MSCEIT
with performance on emotion processing and social tasks and with cognitive ability.
Cognition and Emotion, 21, 1043-1063.
Goldenberg, I., Matheson, K., & Mantler, J. (2006). The assessment of emotional
intelligence: a comparison of performance-based and self-report methodologies.
Journal of Personality Assessment., 86, 33-45.
Kafetsios, K. (2004). Attachment and emotional intelligence abilities across the life course.
Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 129-145.
Emotional Intelligence 12
Kaufman, A.S., Kaufman, J.C., Liu, X., Johnson, C.K. (2009). How do educational
attainment and gender relate to fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, and
academic skills at ages 22-90 years. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 24, 153-
163.
Kaufman, A.S., Reynolds, C.R., McLean, J.E. (1989). Age and WAIS.R Intelligence in a
National Sample of Adults in the 20- to 74-year Age Range: A Cross-Sectional
Analysis with Educational Level Controlled. Intelligence, 13, 235-253.
Mayer, J. D. & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P.Salovey &
D.Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: educational
applications (pp. 3-31). New York: Basic Books.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional
Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). Version 2.0. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional
intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3, 97-105.
Palmer, B. R., Gignac, G., Manocha, R., & Stough, C. (2005). A psychometric evaluation of
the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test Version 2.0. Intelligence, 33,
285-305.
Roberts, R. D., Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2001). Does emotional intelligence meet
traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions. Emotion,
1, 196-231.
Emotional Intelligence 13
Roberts, R. D., Schulze, R., & MacCann, C. (2007). The measurement of emotional
intelligence: a decade of progress? In G.Boyle, G.Matthews, & D.Saklofske (Eds.),
Sage Personality Handbook Series (pp. 461-482). New York: Sage.
Emotional Intelligence 14
Table 1. Scores on the MSCEIT and instruction level on the age groups and on the groups divided by gender.
GROUPS DIVIDED BY AGE GROUPS DIVIDED BY GENDERS
30 years old or younger
Between 31-60 years old
61 years old or older Men Women
(n= 66) (n= 53) (n= 40) (n= 58) (n=108)
MEASURE M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Emotional Perception 0.47 0.09 0.47 0.10 0.43 0.14 0.43 0.11 0.47 0.11
Emotional Use 0.42 0.05 0.41 0.06 0.38 0.10 0.40 0.7 0.41 0.07
Emotional Understanding 0.46 0.05 0.45 0.06 0.43 0.07 0.44 0.06 0.45 0.06
Emotional Management 0.39 0.06 0.40 0.04 0.39 0.06 0.38 0.06 0.40 0.05
Total Score 0.44 0.05 0.43 0.05 0.41 0.07 0.42 0.05 0.43 0.05
Instruction level 4.00 0.00 3.66 0.553 3.35 0.736 3.72 0.523 3.70 0.568
Table 2. Correlations between age, instruction level and IE evaluated using the MSCEIT.
Measure Emotional Emotional Use Emotional Emotional Total Score
Emotional Intelligence 15
Perception Understanding Management
Age -.187* -.213** -.253** .031 -.233**
Instruction
level.209** .377** .323** .082 .350**
* p _ .05. ** p _ .01.