Эмоционалды интеллект: Өзіңді түсіну және басқару өнері

Capability to understand one's emotions and use this understanding to guide thinking and behavior

Emotional intelligence (EI) is defined as the ability to perceive, use, understand, manage, and handle emotions. People with high emotional intelligence can recognize their own emotions and those of others, use emotional information to guide thinking and behavior, discern between different feelings and label them appropriately, and adjust emotions to adapt to environments. Although the term first appeared in 1964, it gained popularity in the 1995 bestselling book Emotional Intelligence by science journalist Daniel Goleman. Goleman defined EI as the array of skills and characteristics that drive leadership performance. Some researchers suggest that emotional intelligence can be learned and strengthened, while others claim it is an inborn characteristic. Various models have been developed to measure EI. In 1987, Keith Beasley used the term Emotional Quotient (EQ) in an article, named after the Intelligence Quotient (IQ). The ability model, (Mayeret al., 2023) focuses on the individual's ability to process emotional information and use it to navigate the social environment. Goleman's original model may now be considered a mixed model that combines what has since been modeled separately as ability EI and trait EI. Recent research has focused on emotion recognition, which refers to the attribution of emotional states based on observations of visual and auditory nonverbal cues. In addition, neurological studies have sought to characterize the neural mechanisms of emotional intelligence. Studies show that there is a correlation between people with high EI and positive workplace performance, although no causal relationships have been shown. EI is typically associated with empathy because it involves a person connecting their personal experiences with those of others. Since its popularization in recent decades, methods of developing EI have become sought by people seeking to become more effective leaders. Criticisms have centered on whether EI is a real intelligence, and whether it has incremental validity over IQ and the Big Five personality traits. However, meta analyses have found that certain measures of EI have validity even when controlling for IQ and personality. The term "emotional intelligence" seems first to have appeared in a 1964 paper by Michael Beldoch, and in the 1966 paper by B. Leuner titled Emotional Intelligence and Emancipation which appeared in the psychotherapeutic journal Practice of child psychology and child psychiatry. In 1983, Howard Gardner's Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences introduced the idea that traditional types of intelligence, such as IQ, fail to fully explain cognitive ability. He introduced the idea of multiple intelligences which included both interpersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people) and intrapersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one's feelings, fears and motivations). The first published use of the term "EQ" (Emotional Quotient) is an article by Keith Beasley in 1987 in the British Mensa magazine. In 1989, Stanley Greenspan put forward a model to describe EI, followed by another by Peter Salovey and John Mayer the following year. However, the term became widely known with the publication of Goleman's book: Emotional Intelligence – Why it can matter more than IQ (1995). It is to this book's bestselling status that the term can attribute its popularity. Goleman followed up with several similar publications that reinforce use of the term. Late in 1998, Goleman's Harvard Business Review article entitled "What Makes a Leader?" Tests measuring EI have not replaced IQ tests as a standard metric of intelligence, and Emotional Intelligence has received criticism regarding its role in leadership and business success.

The current measure of Mayer and Salovey's model of EI, the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT), is based on a series of emotion based problem solving items. Consistent with the model's claim of EI as a type of intelligence, the test is modeled on ability based IQ tests. By testing a person's abilities on each of the four branches of emotional intelligence, it generates scores for each of the branches as well as a total score. Central to the four branch model is the idea that EI requires attunement to social norms. Therefore, the MSCEIT is scored in a consensus fashion, with higher scores indicating higher overlap between an individual's answers and those provided by a worldwide sample of respondents. The MSCEIT can also be expert scored so that the amount of overlap is calculated between an individual's answers and those provided by a group of 21 emotion researchers. In a study by Føllesdal, the MSCEIT test results of 111 business leaders were compared with how their employees described their leader. It was found that there were no correlations between a leader's test results and how he or she was rated by the employees, with regard to empathy, ability to motivate, and leader effectiveness. Føllesdal also criticized the Canadian company Multi Health Systems, which administers the test. The test contains 141 questions but it was found after publishing the test that 19 of these did not give the expected answers. This has led Multi Health Systems to remove answers to these 19 questions before scoring but without stating this officially.

Konstantinos V. Petrides proposed a conceptual distinction between the ability based model and a trait based model of EI and has been developing the latter over many years in numerous publications. Trait EI is "a constellation of emotional self perceptions located at the lower levels of personality." An alternative label for the same construct is trait emotional self efficacy. The trait EI model is general and subsumes the Goleman model discussed above. The conceptualization of EI as a personality trait leads to a construct that lies outside the taxonomy of human cognitive ability. This is an important distinction in that it bears directly on the operationalization of the construct and the theories and hypotheses that are formulated about it. including the EQ i, the Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT), and the Schutte EI model. None of these assess intelligence, abilities, or skills (as their authors often claim), but rather, they are limited measures of trait emotional intelligence. Originally known as the BarOn EQ i, it was the first self report measure of emotional intelligence available, the only measure predating Goleman's bestselling book. The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) provides an operationalization for the model of Konstantinos V. Petrides and colleagues, that conceptualizes EI in terms of personality. The test encompasses 15 subscales organized under four factors: well being, self control, emotionality, and sociability. The psychometric properties of the TEIQue were investigated in a study on a French speaking population, where it was reported that TEIQue scores were globally normally distributed and reliable. Two studies (one a meta analysis) involving direct comparisons of multiple EI tests yielded very favorable results for the TEIQue. The Big Five Personality Traits theory offers a straightforward framework for understanding and enhancing relationships by uncovering the motivations behind people's behaviors. This theory is equally valuable for self awareness and for improving interpersonal dynamics. Also referred to as the Five Factor Model, the Big Five Model is the most widely accepted personality theory. It suggests that personality can be distilled into five fundamental dimensions, often remembered as CANOE or OCEAN (conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness, extraversion). In contrast to other trait theories that sort individuals into binary categories (e. g. introvert or extrovert), the Big Five Model asserts that each personality trait exists on a spectrum. Consequently, individuals are positioned along a continuum between two contrasting poles.

Bullying is an abusive social interaction between peers that can include aggression, harassment, and violence. Bullying is typically repetitive and enacted by those who are in a position of power over the victim. A growing body of research illustrates between bullying and emotional intelligence. It also shows that emotional intelligence is a key factor in cybervictimization. Emotional intelligence (EI) is a set of abilities related to the understanding, use, and management of emotion as it relates to one's self and others. Mayer et al. define EI as: "accurately perceiving emotion, using emotions to facilitate thought, understanding emotion, and managing emotion". The concept combines emotional and intellectual processes. Lower emotional intelligence appears to be related to involvement in bullying, as the bully and/or the victim of bullying. EI seems to play an important role in both bullying behavior and victimization in bullying; given that EI is malleable, EI education could improve bullying prevention and intervention initiatives.

A meta analysis of emotional intelligence and job performance showed correlations of r=.20 (for job performance & ability EI) and r=.29 (for job performance and mixed EI). The results of the former study supported the compensatory model: employees with low IQ get higher task performance and organizational citizenship behavior directed at the organization, the higher their EI. It has also been observed that there is no significant link between emotional intelligence and work attitude behavior. Another study suggests that EI is not necessarily a universally positive trait. The study found a negative correlation between EI ; while under low levels of managerial work demands, they found a negative relationship between EI and teamwork effectiveness. An explanation for this may be gender differences in EI, as women tend to score higher levels than men. Although studies between emotional intelligence (EI) and job performance have shown mixed results of high and low correlations, EI is an undeniably better predictor than most of the hiring methods commonly used in companies, such as letters of reference or cover letters. By 2008, 147 companies and consulting firms in the U. S. had developed programmes that involved EI for training and hiring employees. showed that EI correlated significantly with different domains in performance, ranging from .24 for job performance to .10 for academic performance. Employees high on EI would be more aware of their own emotions and others', which in turn, could lead companies to better profits and less unnecessary expenses. This is especially important for expatriate managers, who have to deal with mixed emotions and feelings, while adapting to a new working culture. According to a science book by the journalist Daniel Goleman, emotional intelligence accounts for more career success than IQ. Other studies argued that employees high on EI perform substantially better than employees low in EI. This is measured by self reports and different work performance indicators, such as wages, promotions and salary increase. According to Lopes et al. EI contributes to developing strong and positive relationships with co workers and to performing efficiently in work teams. This benefits performance of workers by providing emotional support and instrumental resources needed to succeed in their roles. Emotionally intelligent employees have better resources to cope with stressing situations and demanding tasks, which enable them to outperform in those situations. Previous research found that the quality of this relationship could influence subjective assessments of job performance. Employees with strong emotional intelligence tend to dedicate more time to cultivating their rapport with supervisors. As a result, those with higher EI are more likely to achieve favorable outcomes in performance evaluations compared to those with lower EI. O'Boyle Jr. et al. found that the three EI streams together had a positive correlation of 0.28 with job performance. Similarly, each of EI streams independently obtained a positive correlation of 0.24, 0.30, and 0.28, respectively. Streams 2 and 3 showed an incremental validity for predicting job performance over and above personality (Five Factor model) and general cognitive ability. Both streams 2 and 3 were the second most important predictor of job performance, below general cognitive ability. Stream 2 explained 13.6% of the total variance, whereas stream 3 explained 13.2%. In order to examine the reliability of these findings, a publication bias analysis was developed. Results indicated that studies on EI job performance correlation prior to 2010 do not present substantial evidence to suggest the presence of publication bias. Noting that O'Boyle Jr. et al. had included self rated performance and academic performance in their meta analysis, Joseph, Jin, Newman, & O'Boyle collaborated to update the meta analysis to focus specifically on job performance; using measures of job performance, these authors showed r=.20 (for job performance & ability EI) and r=.29 (for job performance and mixed EI). but, despite the validity of previous findings, some researchers still question whether EI job performance correlation makes a real impact on business strategies. Critics argue that the popularity of EI studies is due to media advertising, rather than objective scientific findings. Also, the relationship between job performance and EI is not as strong as suggested. This relationship requires the presence of other constructs to raise important outcomes. For instance, studies found that EI is positively associated with teamwork effectiveness under job contexts of high managerial work demands, which improves job performance. This is due to the activation of strong emotions during the performance on this job context. In this scenario, emotionally intelligent individuals show a better set of resources to succeed in their roles. However, individuals with high EI show a similar level of performance than non emotionally intelligent employees under different job contexts. found that emotional exhaustion ("burn out") significantly influences the job performance EI relationship. Emotional exhaustion showed a negative association with two components of EI (optimism and social skills). Hence, the job performance EI relationship is stronger under contexts of high emotional exhaustion or burn out; in other words, employees with high levels of optimism and social skills possess better resources to outperform when facing high emotional exhaustion contexts.

Several studies attempt to study the relationship between EI and leadership. Although EI plays a positive role in leadership effectiveness, what makes a leader effective is what he/she does with his/her role, rather than his/her interpersonal skills and abilities. Although in the past a good or effective leader gave orders and controlled the overall performance of the organization, almost everything is different nowadays: leaders are now expected to motivate and create a sense of belonging that makes employees feel comfortable, thus, making them work more effectively. This does not mean that actions are more important than emotional intelligence. Leaders still need to grow emotionally in order to handle stress, life balance, and other things. A proper way to grow emotionally, for instance, is developing a sense of empathy since empathy is a key factor when it comes to emotional intelligence. In a study conducted to analyze the relationship between school counselors' EI and leadership skills, it was concluded that several participants were good leaders because their emotional intelligence was developed in counselor preparations, where empathy is taught.

A 2007 meta analysis of 44 effect sizes by Schutte et al. found that emotional intelligence was associated with better mental and physical health. Particularly, trait EI had the stronger association with mental and physical health. This was replicated in 2010 by researcher Alexandra Martins who found trait EI is a strong predictor for health after conducting a meta analysis based on 105 effect sizes and 19,815 participants. This meta analysis also indicated that this line of research reached enough sufficiency and stability to conclude EI is a positive predictor for health.

A 2012 study in India cross examined emotional intelligence, self esteem, and marijuana dependence. Out of a sample of 200, 100 of whom were dependent on cannabis and the other 100 emotionally healthy, the dependent group scored exceptionally low on EI when compared to the control group. They also found that the dependent group also scored low on self esteem when compared to the control. Another study in 2010 examined whether or not low levels of EI had a relationship with the degree of drug and alcohol addiction in Australia. In the assessment of 103 residents in a drug rehabilitation center, they examined their EI along with other psychosocial factors in a one month interval of treatment. They found that participants' EI scores improved as their levels of addiction lessened as part of their treatment.

A 2020 meta analysis showed that students with higher emotional intelligence show higher academic performance at school. This was a summary of over 1,246 effects from 158 different studies, with a sample size of 42,529. Students with higher emotional intelligence had better scores on standardized tests and achieved higher grades. The effect was significantly larger for humanities than for science/maths areas of study, and significantly larger for ability emotional intelligence (measured with objective tasks), than for rating scales of emotional intelligence. The association of emotional intelligence with higher academic achievement was still significant even after considering the effect of students' Big Five personality and intelligence. There are three reasons why greater emotional intelligence might predict stronger academic performance. First, emotionally intelligent students are able to regulate their emotions at school—they are able to control their anxiety surrounding tests and assessment, and their boredom when the material is not intrinsically interesting. This means their emotions do not impede their test scores or their ability to learn. Second, emotionally intelligent students are able to build better social relationships with other students and with instructors. This means that they have sources of help when needed—other students and teachers are more willing to help them when they get stuck. Third, some of the abilities of emotional intelligence (understanding emotions, for example) overlap with academic content, particularly in the humanities. That is, analyzing universal themes in literature or the social forces underpinning historic events require a knowledge of human emotions.

Landy distinguishes between the "commercial" and "academic" discussion of EI, basing this distinction on the alleged predictive power of EI as seen by each of the two. According to Landy, the former makes expansive claims on the applied value of EI, while the latter is trying to warn users against these claims. As an example, Goleman (1998) asserts that "the most effective leaders are alike in one crucial way: they all have a high degree of what has come to be known as emotional intelligence emotional intelligence is the sine qua non of leadership." In contrast, Mayer (1999) cautions that "the popular literature's implication—that highly emotionally intelligent people possess an unqualified advantage in life—appears overly enthusiastic at present and unsubstantiated by reasonable scientific standards." Landy further reinforces this argument by noting that the data upon which these claims are based are held in "proprietary databases", which means they are unavailable to independent researchers for reanalysis, replication, or verification. In a 2009 academic exchange, Antonakis and Ashkanasy/Dasborough mostly agreed that researchers who test whether EI matters for leadership have not done so using robust research designs; therefore, currently there is no strong evidence showing that EI predicts leadership outcomes when accounting for personality and IQ. Antonakis argued that EI might not be needed for leadership effectiveness (he referred to this as the "curse of emotion" phenomenon, because leaders who are too sensitive to their and others' emotional states might have difficulty making decisions that would result in emotional labor for the leader or followers). A 2010 meta analysis seems to support the Antonakis position: it found that, using data free from problems of common source and common methods, EI measures correlated only ρ=0.11 with measures of transformational leadership. Barling, Slater, and Kelloway also support this position on transformational leadership. Ability measures of EI fared worst (i. e., ρ=0.04); the WLEIS (Wong Law measure) did a bit better (ρ=0.08), and the Bar On measure slightly better (ρ=0.18). However, the validity of these estimates does not include the effects of IQ or the big five personality, which correlate both with EI measures and leadership. A study analyzing the impact of EI on both job performance and leadership found that the meta analytic validity estimates for EI dropped to zero when Big Five traits and IQ were controlled for. A meta analysis showed the same result for Ability EI. Meta analytic evidence confirms that self reported emotional intelligence predicting job performance is due to mixed EI and trait EI measures tapping into self efficacy and self rated performance, in addition to the domains of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and IQ. As such, the predictive ability of mixed EI to job performance drops to nil when controlling for these factors. A study of the predictive ability of EI for job performance concluded that higher EI was associated with higher leadership effectiveness regarding achievement of organizational goals. This study shows that EI may serve an identifying tool in understanding who is (or is not) likely to deal effectively with colleagues. Furthermore, one can develop and enhance one's leadership qualities by advancing one's emotional intelligence. EI can be deliberately developed, specifically the facets of "facilitating thinking with emotions" and "monitoring and regulation of emotions" in the workplace.

Researchers raised concerns about the extent to which self report EI measures correlate with established personality dimensions. Self report EI measures and personality measures converge because they both purport to measure personality traits. They gave a multiple correlation (R) of .81 with the MSCEIT (perfect prediction would be 1). This result was replicated. The replication found a multiple R of .76 using Cattell's "Culture Fair" intelligence test and the Big Five Inventory (BFI); significant covariates were intelligence (standardized beta = .39), agreeableness (standardized beta = .54), and openness (standardized beta = .46). A study of the Ability Emotional Intelligence Measure found similar results (Multiple R = .69), with significant predictors being intelligence, standardized beta = .69 (using the Swaps Test and a Wechsler scales subtest, the 40 item General Knowledge Task) and empathy, standardized beta = .26 (using the Questionnaire Measure of Empathic Tendency). Antonakis and Dietz (2011b) also show how including or excluding important controls variables can fundamentally change results. Interpretations of the correlations between EI questionnaires and personality have been varied, but a prominent view is the Trait EI view, which re interprets EI as a collection of personality traits. A 2011 meta analysis classified EI studies into three streams: "(1) ability‐based models that use objective test items; (2) self‐report or peer‐report measures based on the four‐branch model of EI; and (3) 'mixed models' of emotional competencies." It found that these "three streams have corrected correlations ranging from 0.24 to 0.30 with job performance. The three streams correlated differently with cognitive ability and with neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Streams 2 and 3 have the largest incremental validity beyond cognitive ability and the Five Factor Model (FFM)." The meta analysis concluded that "all three streams of EI exhibited substantial relative importance in the presence of FFM and intelligence when predicting job performance." However, the overlap between the general factor of personality and ability EI was more moderate, with a correlation of about 0.28. This research found that emotional intelligence showed negative associations with all three dark triad domains of personality. Of the four ability branches of emotional intelligence, the largest effects were for emotion management (versus emotion perception, use, or understanding) and for psychopathy (versus narcissism or Machiavellianism). The two different facets of narcissism showed different relationships with emotional intelligence. Vulnerable narcissism (characterized by anxiety and fragile self esteem) was associated with lower emotional intelligence. However, grandiose narcissism (characterized by self confidence, dominance, and an inflated sense of ego) related to higher levels of emotional intelligence. This indicates that not all "dark" personalities lack emotional intelligence. A 2021 meta analysis showed that emotional intelligence was positively associated with secure attachment in adults, but negatively associated with insecure attachment styles such as anxious attachment and avoidant attachment. The associations with anxious attachment and avoidant attachment were significant for both ability EI and for rating scales of EI. However, only rating scales of EI showed a significantly positive association with secure attachment. The authors suggest that the early development of attachment styles may facilitate (or hinder) the development of emotional abilities and traits involved in EI.

Socially desirable responding (SDR), or "faking good", is a response pattern in which test takers systematically represent themselves with an excessive positive bias. This bias has long been known to contaminate responses on personality inventories, acting as a mediator of the relationships between self report measures. It has been suggested that responding in a desirable way is a "response set"—a situational and temporary response pattern. This is contrasted with a "response style", which is a more long term trait like quality. Considering the contexts in which some self report EI inventories are used (e. g., employment settings), the problems of response sets in high stakes scenarios are clear. There is evidence that people can ‘‘fake good’’ on emotional intelligence tests, resulting in inaccurate measurement with several studies showing people can distort their responses on both self rated and informant rated emotional intelligence measures when instructed to. There are a few methods to prevent socially desirable responding on behavior inventories. Some researchers believe it is necessary to warn test takers not to fake good before taking a personality test. Some inventories use validity scales in order to determine the likelihood or consistency of the responses across all items.

Adam Grant warned of the common but mistaken perception of EI as a desirable moral quality rather than a skill.

One criticism of the works of Mayer and Salovey comes from a study that suggests that the EI, as measured by the MSCEIT, may only be measuring conformity. This argument is rooted in the MSCEIT's use of consensus based assessment, and in the fact that scores on the MSCEIT are negatively distributed (meaning that its scores differentiate between people with low EI better than people with high EI).

Another criticism says that in contrast with tests of cognitive ability, the MSCEIT "tests knowledge of emotions but not necessarily the ability to perform tasks that are related to the knowledge that is assessed". If someone knows how they should behave in an emotionally laden situation, it does not necessarily follow that they could actually carry out the reported behavior.

The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development recognized that because there are divisions about the topic of EI, the mental health community needs to agree on some guidelines to describe good mental health and positive mental living conditions. In their section, "Positive Psychology and the Concept of Health", they explain: "Currently there are six competing models of positive health, which are based on concepts such as being above normal, character strengths and core virtues, developmental maturity, social emotional intelligence, subjective well being, and resilience. But these concepts define health in philosophical rather than empirical terms. Dr. [Lawrence] Becker suggested the need for a consensus on the concept of positive psychological health ".