Emotional Intelligence, Burnout, and Job Insecurity Research Paper

The notion of emotional intelligence

According to Mayer, Salovey and Caruso (2008), the original notion of emotional intelligence (EI) was that some people have the capacity to reason as well as utilize emotions to augment their thoughts more efficiently than others (p.503). Ever since 1990, emotional intelligence has developed into a small sphere of consulting, education, testing and publication (Mathews, Roberts & Zeidner, 2004, p.179).

Nevertheless, the visible size of the sphere transcends what we perceive as pertinent scientific research in the field. As a matter of fact, Locke (2005) recently asserted that emotional intelligence is an invalid notion partly because it is described in a variety of ways (p.425).

It is worthy to mention that emotional intelligence was initially defined as a set of interconnected capabilities. Nonetheless, a number of scholars have defined emotional intelligence as an assorted blend of traits such as self-worth, happiness, self-management and optimism as opposed to ability-based concept (Petrides & Furnham, 2001, p.425).

This alternative approach to emotional intelligence notion (using the term to assign assorted blends of traits) has resulted in substantial misunderstanding and confusion as regard the nature of emotional intelligence. Many aspects, such as self-worth, incorporate in these models are not directly associated with emotion or intelligence or their interrelation (Mathews, Roberts & Zeidner, 2004, p.185).

The main factors of Emotional Intelligence

Schutte and others (1998) assert that there are various emotional intelligence models that offer alternative theoretical outlines for conceptualizing the idea (p.168).

For example, Salovey and Mayer (1990) proposed an emotional intelligence model that embraces three groups of adaptive capabilities: “appraisal and expression of emotion, regulation of emotion and utilization of emotions in solving problems” (p.185). In spite of the fact that emotions are at the center of this model, it also embraces social and cognitive roles related to the utilization, regulation as well as expression of emotions (Schutte et al., 1998, p.168).

Salovey and Mayer (1990) have developed a modified emotional intelligence model which lends credence to the cognitive elements of emotional intelligence. The adjusted model embraces four categories of emotional intelligence: discernment, assessment and expression of emotion; emotional facilitation of thoughts; perception, evaluating and using emotional awareness; and reflective regulation of emotion to promote intellectual and emotion development.

The first category is considered as the most elementary process whereas the reflective regulation of emotions is perceived as the most intricate process. In addition, each category has different levels of capabilities which an individual masters in a chronological order (Schutte et al., 1998, p.168).

Comparison between Bar-On EI Scale and Scutte’s 33-item EI Scale

There are different types of scales used to assess the construct of emotional intelligence. For instance, the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory is a 133-item self-report assessment comprising of 15 discrete scales. These scales measure: optimism, happiness, impulse management, stress tolerance, flexibility, problem solving, social responsibility, interpersonal relationships, empathy, self-realization, self-respect, assertiveness and emotional self-recognition (Schutte et al., 1998, p.168).

Bar-On Emotional Intelligence Scales have demonstrated proof of validity since they compare favorably with other measures that are tentatively differentiated and related between groups such as persons who rated themselves as exceptional on individual achievements and those who individuals who rated themselves as low achievers (Schutte et al., 1998, p.169).

On the other hand, Scutte’s 33-item emotional intelligence Scale model is developed on the basis of the original emotional intelligence model crafted by Salovey and Mayer (1990) in order to create a solid basis for measuring individuals’ present level of emotional intelligence (Schutte et al., 1998, p.169). The 33-items loading on factor one embodies all segments of the conceptual model of Salovey and Mayer (1990).

The depiction of various groups of the model in this set of 33 items is approximately in proportion to the model. 13 items (of Scutte’s 33-item Emotional Intelligence Scale) emerged from those produced for the expression and appraisal of emotion category of the model. The second batch of 10 items emerged from those produced for the regulation of emotion category while the last 10 items emerged from those items produced for the utilization of emotion category (Schutte et al., 1998, p.171).

Shuttle’s Emotional Intelligence scale

Emotional intelligence is commonly conceptualized as a rather trait-like enduring attribute. A number of similar trait-like attributes are associated with one of the big five personality dimensions: openness to experience (intellect); conscientiousness; agreeableness; extraversion; and neuroticism.

In order to measure the place of EI as assessed by the 33-item self-report scale in the context of the big-five structure (and to offer information on the discriminate validity of the scale), scores on the 33-item scale were associated with the big-five personality aspects (Schutte et al., 1998, p.175).

Shuttle’s Emotional Intelligence Reliability and Validity

It is generally assumed that a valid measure of emotional intelligence is associated with measures that evaluate precise attributes of impulsivity, ability to regulate emotions, depressed mood, outlook on life and expression of emotion. As anticipated, upper scores on the 33-item emotional intelligence scale were positively correlated with mood repair as quantified by the Mood Repair subscale of the Trait Meta Mood Scale [r(47)=0.68, p<0.0001]; enhanced attention of feeling as quantified by the Attention subscale of Trait Meta Mood Scale [r(48)=0.63, p<0.0001]; diminished alexithymia as calculated by the Toronto Alexithymia Scale [r(24)=-0.65, p<0.0001]; enhanced optimism as gauged by the optimism scale of Life Orientation Test [r(26)=0.52, p<0.006]; reduced impulsivity as computed by the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale [r(55)=-0.39, p<0.003]; and reduced depression as computed by the Zung Depression Scale [r(37)=-0.37, p<0.021] (Schutte et al., 1998, p.172).

In order to corroborate the initial findings of internal consistency of the 33-item scale, Schutte and others requested five male and 27 female students from southeastern United States college [average age=30.11, S.D=10.13] to reply to the 33-item measure.

The cross-check of internal consistency of 33-item scale revealed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87 for all the participants. In order to assess the test-retest reliability of the 33-item scale, the researchers requested six males and 22 females college students [average age=32.00; S.D-10.13] to respond to the scale twice with an interval of 14 days between measurements. The test-retest reliability of the 33-item measure was 0.78 (Schutte et al., 1998, p.173).

Schutte’s Emotional Intelligence interpretive guideline

The emotional intelligence model developed by Salovey and Mayer (1990) provided the conceptual backdrop for the items used in the Schutte’s 33-item scale. A factor examination of a large segment of items proposed a one-factor solution of 33 items that brought about scale items that characterized each group: utilization of emotions in solving problems; regulation of emotion in the self and others; appraisal and expression of emotion in the self and others.

Given that the initial pool of items represented all groups and elements of the hypothetical emotional intelligence model developed by Salovey and Mayer (1990) and since the first factor generated from a factor examination embraced an approximately equal number of items from various groups and elements of the model, one can construe the outcomes of the factor analysis as a reflection of identical construct of emotional intelligence.

Nevertheless, caution should be taken when making this conclusion. First, there are other operationalizations of emotional intelligence to the ones offered by Salovey and Mayer (1990) model. Second, the scale has a limited number of self-report items (33 items). This means that alternative measurement techniques or items might reveal more specific aspects of emotional intelligence (Schutte et al., 1998, p.173).

What’s more, the 33-item scale revealed fine internal reliability when two different samples were used. For example, the test-retest sample showed that the scores were reasonably consistent over time. The 33-item scale also revealed proof of validity. For instance, scores on 33-item scale were associated with eight of nine measures envisaged to be associated with emotional intelligence. The other measures evaluated hypothetically related constructs such as impulsivity, ability to regulate emotion, and outlook on life.

In nutshell, the 33-item scale provides a valid and reasonable measure of emotional intelligence as hypothesized by Salovey and Mayer (1990). The potential use of Schutte’s 33-item scale in hypothetical studies may include investigating the nature of emotional intelligence such as the effects of emotional intelligence, determinants of emotional intelligence, and whether emotional intelligence can be improved (Schutte et al., 1998, p.176).

References

Locke, E. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 425–431.

Mathews, G., Roberts, D., & Zeidner, M. (2004). Seven myths about emotional intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 179–196.

Mayer, J., Salovey, P., & Caruso, R. (2008). Emotional Intelligence: New Ability or Eclectic Traits? American Psychologist, 63(6), 503-517.

Petrides, K., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425–448.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185-211.

Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E., Haggerty, D.J., Copper, J.T., Golden, C.J., & et al. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177.