description of emotional intelligence essay

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Emotional Intelligence: How We Perceive, Evaluate, Express, and Control Emotions

Is EQ more important than IQ?

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Shereen Lehman, MS, is a healthcare journalist and fact checker. She has co-authored two books for the popular Dummies Series (as Shereen Jegtvig).

Hinterhaus Productions / Getty Images 

• How Do I Know If I'm Emotionally Intelligent?
• How It's Measured

Why Is Emotional Intelligence Useful?

• Ways to Practice
• Tips for Improving

Emotional intelligence (AKA EI or EQ for "emotional quotient") is the ability to perceive, interpret, demonstrate, control, evaluate, and use emotions to communicate with and relate to others effectively and constructively. This ability to express and control  emotions  is essential, but so is the ability to understand, interpret, and respond to the emotions of others. Some experts suggest that emotional intelligence is  more important than IQ  for success in life.

While being book-smart might help you pass tests, emotional intelligence prepares you for the real world by being aware of the feelings of others as well as your own feelings.

How Do I Know If I'm Emotionally Intelligent?

Some key signs and examples of emotional intelligence include:

• An ability to identify and describe what people are feeling
• An awareness of personal strengths and limitations
• Self-confidence and self-acceptance
• The ability to let go of mistakes
• An ability to accept and embrace change
• A strong sense of curiosity, particularly about other people
• Feelings of empathy and concern for others
• Showing sensitivity to the feelings of other people
• Accepting responsibility for mistakes
• The ability to manage emotions in difficult situations

How Is Emotional Intelligence Measured?

A number of different assessments have emerged to measure levels of emotional intelligence. Such tests generally fall into one of two types: self-report tests and ability tests.

Self-report tests are the most common because they are the easiest to administer and score. On such tests, respondents respond to questions or statements by rating their own behaviors. For example, on a statement such as "I often feel that I understand how others are feeling," a test-taker might describe the statement as disagree, somewhat disagree, agree, or strongly agree.

Ability tests, on the other hand, involve having people respond to situations and then assessing their skills. Such tests often require people to demonstrate their abilities, which are then rated by a third party.

If you are taking an emotional intelligence test administered by a mental health professional, here are two measures that might be used:

• Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) is an ability-based test that measures the four branches of Mayer and Salovey's EI model. Test-takers perform tasks designed to assess their ability to perceive, identify, understand, and manage emotions.
• Emotional and Social Competence Inventory (ESCI)   is based on an older instrument known as the Self-Assessment Questionnaire and involves having people who know the individual offer ratings of that person’s abilities in several different emotional competencies. The test is designed to evaluate the social and emotional abilities that help distinguish people as strong leaders.

There are also plenty of more informal online resources, many of them free, to investigate your emotional intelligence.

Try Our Free Emotional Intelligence Test

Our fast and free EQ test can help you determine whether or not your responses to certain situations in life indicate a high level of emotional intelligence:

What Are the 4 Components of Emotional Intelligence?

Researchers suggest that there are four different levels of emotional intelligence including emotional perception, the ability to reason using emotions, the ability to understand emotions, and the ability to manage emotions.  

• Perceiving emotions : The first step in understanding emotions is to perceive them accurately. In many cases, this might involve understanding nonverbal signals such as body language and facial expressions.
• Reasoning with emotions : The next step involves using emotions to promote thinking and cognitive activity. Emotions help prioritize what we pay attention and react to; we respond emotionally to things that garner our attention.
• Understanding emotions :   The emotions that we perceive can carry a wide variety of meanings. If someone is expressing angry emotions, the observer must interpret the cause of the person's anger and what it could mean. For example, if your boss is acting angry, it might mean that they are dissatisfied with your work, or it could be because they got a speeding ticket on their way to work that morning or that they've been fighting with their partner.
• Managing emotions : The ability to manage emotions effectively is a crucial part of emotional intelligence and the highest level. Regulating emotions and responding appropriately as well as responding to the emotions of others are all important aspects of emotional management.

Recognizing emotions - yours and theirs - can help you understand where others are coming from, the decisions they make, and how your own feelings can affect other people.

The four branches of this model are arranged by complexity with the more basic processes at the lower levels and the more advanced processes at the higher levels. For example, the lowest levels involve perceiving and expressing emotion, while higher levels require greater conscious involvement and involve regulating emotions.

Interest in teaching and learning social and emotional intelligence has grown in recent years. Social and emotional learning (SEL) programs have become a standard part of the curriculum for many schools.

The goal of these initiatives is not only to improve health and well-being but also to help students succeed academically and prevent bullying. There are many examples of how emotional intelligence can play a role in daily life.

Thinking Before Reacting

Emotionally intelligent people know that emotions can be powerful, but also temporary. When a highly charged emotional event happens, such as becoming angry with a co-worker, the emotionally intelligent response would be to take some time before responding.

This allows everyone to calm their emotions and think more rationally about all the factors surrounding the argument.

Greater Self-Awareness

Emotionally intelligent people are not only good at thinking about how other people might feel but they are also adept at understanding their own feelings. Self-awareness allows people to consider the many different factors that contribute to their emotions.

Empathy for Others

A large part of emotional intelligence is being able to think about and empathize with how other people are feeling. This often involves considering how you would respond if you were in the same situation.

People who have strong emotional intelligence are able to consider the perspectives, experiences, and emotions of other people and use this information to explain why people behave the way that they do.

How You Can Practice Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence can be used in many different ways in your daily life. Some different ways to practice emotional intelligence include:

• Being able to accept criticism and responsibility
• Being able to move on after making a mistake
• Being able to say no when you need to
• Being able to share your feelings with others
• Being able to solve problems in ways that work for everyone
• Having empathy for other people
• Having great listening skills
• Knowing why you do the things you do
• Not being judgemental of others

Emotional intelligence is essential for good interpersonal communication. Some experts believe that this ability is more important in determining life success than IQ alone. Fortunately, there are things that you can do to strengthen your own social and emotional intelligence.

Understanding emotions can be the key to better relationships, improved well-being, and stronger communication skills. 

Press Play for Advice On How to Be Less Judgmental

Hosted by therapist Amy Morin, LCSW, this episode of The Verywell Mind Podcast , shares how you can learn to be less judgmental. Click below to listen now.

Follow Now : Apple Podcasts / Spotify / Google Podcasts

Are There Downsides to Emotional Intelligence?

Having lower emotional intelligence skills can lead to a number of potential pitfalls that can affect multiple areas of life including work and relationships. People who have fewer emotional skills tend to get in more arguments, have lower quality relationships, and have poor emotional coping skills.

Being low on emotional intelligence can have a number of drawbacks, but having a very high level of emotional skills can also come with challenges. For example:

• Research suggests that people with high emotional intelligence may actually be less creative and innovative.
• Highly emotionally intelligent people may have a hard time delivering negative feedback for fear of hurting other people's feelings.
• Research has found that high EQ can sometimes be used for manipulative and deceptive purposes.

Can I Boost My Emotional Intelligence?

While some people might come by their emotional skills naturally, some evidence suggests that this is an ability you can develop and improve. For example, a 2019 randomized controlled trial found that emotional intelligence training could improve emotional abilities in workplace settings.

Being emotionally intelligent is important, but what steps can you take to improve your own social and emotional skills? Here are some tips.

If you want to understand what other people are feeling, the first step is to pay attention. Take the time to listen to what people are trying to tell you, both verbally and non-verbally. Body language can carry a great deal of meaning. When you sense that someone is feeling a certain way, consider the different factors that might be contributing to that emotion.

Picking up on emotions is critical, but we also need to be able to put ourselves into someone else's shoes in order to truly understand their point of view. Practice empathizing with other people. Imagine how you would feel in their situation. Such activities can help us build an emotional understanding of a specific situation as well as develop stronger emotional skills in the long-term.

The ability to reason with emotions is an important part of emotional intelligence. Consider how your own emotions influence your decisions and behaviors. When you are thinking about how other people respond, assess the role that their emotions play.

Why is this person feeling this way? Are there any unseen factors that might be contributing to these feelings? How to your emotions differ from theirs? As you explore such questions, you may find that it becomes easier to understand the role that emotions play in how people think and behave.

Drigas AS, Papoutsi C. A new layered model on emotional intelligence . Behav Sci (Basel). 2018;8(5):45. doi:10.3390/bs8050045

Salovey P, Mayer J. Emotional Intelligence . Imagination, Cognition, and Personality.  1990;9(3):185-211.

Feist GJ. A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity . Pers Soc Psychol Rev . 1998;2(4):290-309. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5

Côté S, Decelles KA, Mccarthy JM, Van kleef GA, Hideg I. The Jekyll and Hyde of emotional intelligence: emotion-regulation knowledge facilitates both prosocial and interpersonally deviant behavior . Psychol Sci . 2011;22(8):1073-80. doi:10.1177/0956797611416251

Gilar-Corbi R, Pozo-Rico T, Sánchez B, Castejón JL. Can emotional intelligence be improved? A randomized experimental study of a business-oriented EI training program for senior managers . PLoS One . 2019;14(10):e0224254. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0224254

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Healthcare (Basel)

Emotional Intelligence Measures: A Systematic Review

Lluna maría bru-luna.

1 Department of Basic Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Speech Therapy, Universitat de València, 46010 Valencia, Spain; [email protected]

Manuel Martí-Vilar

César merino-soto.

2 Psychology Research Institute, Universidad de San Martín de Porres, Lima 15102, Peru

José L. Cervera-Santiago

3 Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal, San Miguel 15088, Peru; ep.ude.vfnu@arevrecj

Associated Data

Not applicable.

Emotional intelligence (EI) refers to the ability to perceive, express, understand, and manage emotions. Current research indicates that it may protect against the emotional burden experienced in certain professions. This article aims to provide an updated systematic review of existing instruments to assess EI in professionals, focusing on the description of their characteristics as well as their psychometric properties (reliability and validity). A literature search was conducted in Web of Science (WoS). A total of 2761 items met the eligibility criteria, from which a total of 40 different instruments were extracted and analysed. Most were based on three main models (i.e., skill-based, trait-based, and mixed), which differ in the way they conceptualize and measure EI. All have been shown to have advantages and disadvantages inherent to the type of tool. The instruments reported in the largest number of studies are Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i), Schutte Self Report-Inventory (SSRI), Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test 2.0 (MSCEIT 2.0), Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS), Wong and Law’s Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS), and Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue). The main measure of the estimated reliability has been internal consistency, and the construction of EI measures was predominantly based on linear modelling or classical test theory. The study has limitations: we only searched a single database, the impossibility of estimating inter-rater reliability, and non-compliance with some items required by PRISMA.

1. Introduction

1.1. emotional intelligence.

Emotional intelligence (EI) was first described and conceptualized by Salovey and Mayer [ 1 ] as an ability-based construct analogous to general intelligence. They argued that individuals with a high level of EI had certain skills related to the evaluation and regulation of emotions and that consequently they were able to regulate emotions in themselves and in others in order to achieve a variety of adaptive outcomes. This construct has received increasing attention from both the scientific community and the general public due to its theoretical and practical implications for daily life. The same authors defined EI as “the ability to carry out accurate reasoning about emotions and the ability to use emotions and emotional knowledge to enhance thought” [ 2 ] (p. 511). This definition suggests that EI is far from being conceptualized as a one-dimensional attribute and that a multidimensional operationalization would be theoretically coherent.

1.2. Conceptualizations of Emotional Intelligence

However, over the past three decades, different ways of conceptualizing EI have emerged, which are mainly summarized in three models: ability, trait, and mixed. These models have influenced the construction of measuring instruments. In the ability model, developed by Mayer and Salovey, EI is seen as a form of innate intelligence made up of several capacities that influence how people understand and manage their own emotions and those of others. These emotion processing skills are: (1) perception, evaluation and expression of emotions, (2) emotional facilitation of thought, (3) understanding and analysis of emotions, and (4) reflective regulation of emotions [ 3 , 4 ]. Consistent with this conceptualization, the measures were designed as performance tests. Subsequently, the model proposed by Petrides and Furnham [ 5 ], the trait model, was developed. This model defines EI as a trait; that is, as a persistent behaviour pattern over time (as opposed to skill, which increases with time and training), and it is associated with dispositional tendencies, personality traits or self-efficacy beliefs. It is composed of fifteen personality dimensions, grouped under four factors: well-being, self-control, emotionality and sociability [ 6 ]. The last of the three main models of conceptualization of EI is the mixed one. It is made up of two large branches that consider this construct a mixture of traits, competencies and abilities. According to the first one, developed by Bar-On [ 7 ], EI is a set of non-cognitive abilities and competences that influence the ability to be successful in coping with environmental demands and pressures, and it is composed of five key components: intrapersonal skills, interpersonal skills, adaptation skills, stress management skills and general mood. The second one, proposed by Goleman [ 8 ], also conceptualizes EI as a mixed model that shares certain aspects with the Bar-On model. It is made up of the following elements: recognition of one’s own emotions, management of emotions, self-motivation, recognition of emotions in others, and management of relationships. These emotional and social competencies would contribute to managerial performance and leadership.

1.3. Importance of Emotional Intelligence

To date, the importance that academics attach to the study of EI has been recognized by the literature in many areas, such as the workplace. For example, in professions where working with people is needed, burnout syndrome is common. It is a syndrome that is expressed by an increase in emotional exhaustion and indifference, as well as by a decrease in professional effectiveness [ 9 ]. To date, numerous studies have shown that EI can help change employee attitudes and behaviours in jobs involving emotional demands by increasing job satisfaction and reducing job stress [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]. Likewise, on the one hand, it has been found that certain psychological variables, including EI and social competence, are related to less psychological distress. On the other hand, the acquisition of emotional and social skills can serve to develop resilience, which is a protective variable against psychological distress [ 14 ].

1.4. Types of Measures

With the challenge of choosing the conceptual model of EI also appears the challenge of choosing the appropriate measures to estimate it. For this reason, part of the work developed in the field of EI has focused on the creation of objective instruments to evaluate aspects associated with this construct. Most of them have been created around the main conceptualization models described in the previous paragraphs. Ability-based tools indicate people’s ability to understand emotions and how they work. These types of tests require participants to solve problems that are related to emotions and that contain answers deemed correct or incorrect (e.g., participants see several faces and respond by indicating the degree to which a specific emotion is present in the face). These instruments are maximal capacity tests and, unlike trait tests, they are not designed to predict typical behaviour. Ability EI instruments are usually employed in situations where a good theoretical understanding of emotions is required [ 15 ].

Trait-based instruments are generally composed of self-reported measures and are often developed as scales where there are no correct or incorrect answers, but the individual responds by choosing the item which relates more or less to their behaviour (e.g., “Understanding the needs and desires of others is not a problem for me”). They tend to measure typical behaviour, so they tend to provide a good prediction of actual behaviours in various situations [ 5 ]. Trait EI is a good predictor of effective coping styles when facing everyday stressors, both in adults and children, so these instruments are often used in situations characterized by stressors such as educational and employment contexts [ 15 ].

Questionnaires based on the EI mixed conceptualization often measure a combination of traits, social skills, competencies, and personality measures through self-reported modality (e.g., “When I am angry with others, I can tell them”). Some measures typically take 360-degree forms of assessment too (i.e., a self-report along with reports from supervisors, colleagues and subordinates). They are generally used in work environments, since they are often designed to predict and improve workplace performance and are often focused on emotional competencies that correlate with professional success. Despite the different ways of conceptualizing EI, there are some conceptual similarities between most instruments: they are hierarchical (i.e., they produce a total EI score along with scores on the different dimensions) and they have several conceptual overlaps that often include emotional perception, emotional regulation, and adaptive use of emotions [ 15 ].

1.5. Relevance of the Study

The proliferation of EI measures has received a lot of attention. However, this has not been the case in studies that synthesize their psychometric qualities, as well as those that describe their strengths and limitations. Therefore, there is a lack of studies that collect, with a wide review coverage, the instruments developed in recent years. The few reviews that can be found [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ] are limited to describing both the most popular measures (e.g., Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test [MSCEIT], Emotional Quotient Inventory [EQ-i], Trait Meta-Mood Scale [TMMS], Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire [TEIQue], or Schutte Self-Report Inventory [SSRI]) and those validated only in English, producing an apparent “Tower of Babel” effect (i.e., the over-representation of studies in one language and the under-representation in others) [ 20 ]. This is a problem that is not only more common than is believed, but it is also persistent [ 21 ]. This effect produces a barrier for the complete knowledge of current EI measures, the breadth of their uses in different contexts, and their incorporation into substantive studies relevant to multicultural understanding. In summary, it reduces the commonality of efforts made in different contexts to identify common and communicable objectives [ 22 ], specifically around the study of EI.

Therefore, a systematic review allows us to establish a knowledge base that contributes by (a) guiding and developing research efforts, (b) assisting in professional practice when choosing the most appropriate model in possible practical scenarios, and (c) facilitating the design of subsequent systematic evaluative reviews and meta-analysis of relevant psychometric parameters (e.g., factorial loads, reliability coefficients, correlations, etc.). For this reason, the aim of this article is to provide an updated systematic review of the existing instruments that allow the evaluation of EI in professionals, focusing on the description of its characteristics, as well as on its psychometric properties (reliability and validity). This systematic review is characterized by having a wide coverage (i.e., studies published in languages other than English) and having as a framework a consensus of description and taxonomy of valid evidence (i.e., “Standards”) [ 23 ].

2. Materials and Methods

This work contains a systematic review of the scientific literature published to date that includes measurements of EI. For its preparation, the guidelines proposed in the PRISMA statement [ 24 ] ( Table A1 ) carrying out systematic reviews have been followed. Regarding the evaluation of the quality of the articles, since our study does not analyse the studies that employ the EI instruments but the instruments themselves, the assessment of the internal or external validity of the studies is not applicable to this research. However, an internationally proposed guide to the study of the validity of instruments, called “Standards”, has also been used [ 23 ]. It presents guidelines for the study of the composition, use, and interpretation of what a test aims to measure and proposes five sources of validity of evidence: content, response processes, internal structure, relationship with other variables and the consequences of testing. Likewise, a recently proposed registration protocol [ 25 ] for carrying out systematic reviews has also been followed based on the five validity sources of the “Standards”.

2.1. Information Sources

The bibliographic search was carried out in three phases: an initial search to obtain an overview of the current situation, a system that applies inclusion–exclusion criteria, and a manual search to evaluate the results obtained. The search was conducted in February 2021 in the Web of Science (WoS) database, including all articles published from 1900 to 2020 (inclusive). This database was selected to perform the search because (a) it is among the databases that allows for a more efficient and adequate search coverage [ 26 ]; (b) it provides a better quality of indexing and of bibliographic records in terms of accuracy, control and granularity of information compared to other databases [ 27 ]; (c) the results are highly correlated with those of other search engines (e.g., Embase, MEDLINE and Google Scholar) [ 26 ]; (d) it is controlled by a human team specialising in the selection of its content (i.e., it is not fully automated) [ 28 ]; and (e) it has experienced a constant increase in scientific publications [ 29 ].

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

Although no protocol was written or registered prior to the research, the inclusion and exclusion criteria for articles and instruments were previously defined. The search was conducted according to these criteria.

2.2.1. Inclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria for the studies are made up of the following points: (a) published in peer-reviewed journals, (b) presented as full articles or short communications, (c) containing empirical and quantifiable results on psychometric properties (i.e., not only narrative descriptions), (d) containing cross-sectional or longitudinal designs, (e) written in any language (in order to collect as many instruments as possible, as well as to reduce the “Tower of Babel” effect) [ 20 ], and (f) published from 1900 to 2020 (to maximize the identification of EI measures).

As for the inclusion criteria of the instruments, they are made up of the following points: (a) instruments that measure EI, (b) articles that are the first creation study of the instrument, (c) instruments aimed at people over 18 years, (d) instruments that can be applied in the workplace.

2.2.2. Exclusion Criteria

On the other hand, research that presented at least one of the following exclusion criteria was discarded: (a) contains synthesis studies (i.e., systematic reviews or meta-analyses), instrument manuals or narrative articles of instrument characteristics, (b) contains only qualitative research designs, (c) published after 2020.

Instruments that presented at least one of the following exclusion criteria were discarded: (a) instruments that were validations of the original one, (b) instruments aimed at people under 18, (c) instruments to be used in areas specifically different from the workplace.

2.3. Search Strategy

All available methods to obtain empirical answers have been included so as to maximize the coverage of the results. The following terms were included: test, measure, questionnaire, scale and instrument. The combinations of terms used were: “emotional intelligence AND test”, “emotional intelligence AND measure”, “emotional intelligence AND questionnaire”, “emotional intelligence AND scale”, and “emotional intelligence AND instrument”. Only those article-type studies were selected.

In the selection process, the title, abstract and keywords of the studies identified in the search were reviewed with the aforementioned criteria. This was carried out by only one of the authors.

2.4. Data Collection

The data to be extracted from each of the instruments were also defined in advance, ensuring that the information was extracted in a uniform manner. The selected documents were then recorded in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to check for duplicate records.

Thus, the name of the instrument and its acronym, the language and country in which it was created, and its structural characteristics (i.e., type of measurement, number of items, dimensions and items of which they were composed, and theoretical model) were extracted together with relevant psychometric information (i.e., reliability and validity). This procedure was also carried out by the same author. Articles that used different versions of the original EI instrument were accepted, but the analysis was made only on their originals. Instruments whose original manuscript were inaccessible were discarded ( n = 10), but they are presented at the end of the results. All those articles that were duplicated or that had used measures aimed at people under 18 or for contexts specifically different from the professional area (e.g., school contexts, sports contexts, etc.) were eliminated. The search process and the number of selected and excluded results can be seen in Figure 1 . Regarding the ethical standards, no ethical approval or participant consent is required for this type of research (i.e., systematic review).

Flowchart according to PRISMA.

A total of 40 instruments were found ( Table 1 shows a synthesis of all of them). Below, a brief description of each one is presented, following which a division according to the theoretical model they use (i.e., ability-based model, trait-based model, mixed approach model, and others that do not correspond to any of them), and the psychometric properties of each one are explained.

Main characteristics of the included instruments.

TMMS: Trait Meta-Mood Scale, LOT: Life Orientation Test, CES-D: Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; SSRI: Schutte Self-Report Inventory, BFP: Big Five Personality, TAS: Toronto Alexithymia Scale, ZDS: Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale, BIS: Barratt Impulsiveness Scale; MEIS: Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale; MSCEIT: Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, MSCEIT 2.0: Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Revised Version, MSCEIT-YV: Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Youth Version, MSCEIT-TC: Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Chinese Version; PIEMO: Profile of Emotional Intelligence; WLEIS: Wong and Law’s Emotional Intelligence Scale, EQ-i: Emotional Quotient Inventory; WEIP-3: Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile-3, WEIP-S: Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile-Short Version, IRI: Interpersonal Reactivity Index, JABRI: Job Associate-Bisociate Review Index; MEIA: Multidimensional Emotional Intelligence Assessment, JPI-R: Jackson Personality Inventory-Revised, MEIA-W: Multidimensional Emotional Intelligence Assessment-Workplace, MEIA-W-R: Multidimensional Emotional Intelligence Assessment-Workplace-Revised; EmIn: Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire; IIESS-R: Sojo and Steinkopf Emotional Intelligence Inventory-Revised Version; SREIS: Self-Rated Emotional Intelligence Scale; EISDI: Emotional Intelligence Self-Description Inventory; GEIS: Greek Emotional Intelligence Scale, SSI: Social Skills Inventory, EES: Emotion Empathy Scale, SWLS: Satisfaction with Life Scale, PANAS: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, ASSET: An Organisational Stress Screening Tool; STEM: Situational Test of Emotion Management; OCEANIC-20: Openness Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism Index Condensed 20-item version, STEM-B: Situational Test of Emotion Management-Brief Version; STEU: Situational Test of Emotional Understanding, STEU-B: Situational Test of Emotional Understanding-Brief Version; ESCQ: Emotional Skills and Competence Questionnaire; AVEI: Audiovisual Test of Emotional Intelligence; GERT: Geneva Emotion Recognition Test, GERT-S: Geneva Emotion Recognition Test-Short Version, GECo: Geneva Emotional Competence Test; TIE: Test of Emotional Intelligence, SIE-T: Emotional Intelligence Scale-Faces, NEO-FFI: NEO Five-Factor Inventory; EIQ-SP: Self-Perception of Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire; TEIFA: Three-Branch Emotional Intelligence Forced-Choice Assessment; TEIRA: Three-Brach Emotional Intelligence Rating Scale Assessment; NEAT: North Dakota Emotional Abilities Test, DANVA 2-AF: Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy-Adult Faces; IIEP: Perceived Emotional Intelligence Inventory; MEIT: Mobile Emotional Intelligence Test; RAVEN: Raven’s Progressive Matrices; EIT: Emotional Intelligence Test; EQ-i: S: Emotional Quotient Inventory Short Version, EQ-i: 2.0: Emotional Quotient Inventory Revised Version, EQ-i: 360°: Emotional Quotient Inventory-360-degree version; EQ-i: YV: Emotional Quotient Inventory-Youth Version, EQ-i: YVS: Emotional Quotient Inventory Youth Short Version; ECI 2.0: Emotional Competence Inventory 2.0, ECI-U: Emotional Competence Inventory University Version; EIQ: Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire; 16PF: Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, OPQ: Occupational Personality Questionnaire, BTR: Belbin Team Roles; EIA: Emotional Intelligence Appraisal; EIS: Emotional Intelligence Scale; USMEQ-I: USM Emotional Quotient Inventory; TEIQue: Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire, TEIQue-SF: Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Short Form, TEIQue-360°: Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-360-degree version, TEIQue-AF: Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire Adolescent Form, TEIQue-CF: Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Child Form; REIS: Rotterdam Emotional Intelligence Scale, PEC: Profile of Emotional Competence.

3.1. Ability-Based Measures

The first category includes those instruments based on the ability-based model, mainly on that of Mayer and Salovey [ 4 ]. The first instrument created under this conceptualization is the Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS) [ 30 ], a self-report scale designed to assess people’s beliefs about their own emotional abilities. It measures three key aspects of perceived EI: attention to feelings, emotional clarity and repair of emotions. It presents a very good reliability [ 80 ] and convergent validity with various instruments, although the authors recommend the use of a later version of 30 items. It also presents a widely used 24-item version [ 31 ] that has been validated in many countries.

Three years later, the Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence (SSRI) test was developed [ 33 ]. This questionnaire is answered through a five-point Likert scale and is composed of one factor that is divided into three categories: appraisal and expression of emotion in the self and others, regulation of emotion in the self and others and utilization of emotions in solving problems. It shows excellent internal consistency. It presents negative correlations with instruments that measure alexithymia, depression and impulsivity among others, which confirms its convergent validity. There is a modified version [ 34 ] and an abbreviated version [ 35 ], and it has been translated into many languages.

The Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS) [ 37 ] is another tool developed by the authors that originally defined and conceptualized EI. The MEIS is a scale made up of 12 different tasks that contains 402 items and it has been translated into several languages. However, it has strong limitations such as its length and the low internal consistency offered by some of the tasks (e.g., “blends” and “progressions”; α = 0.49 and 0.51, respectively). These authors developed, years later, the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) [ 38 ]. The items developed for the MEIS served as the starting point for the MSCEIT. This measure is composed of a five-point Likert scale and multiple response items with correct and incorrect options, which comprise eight tasks. Each of the four dimensions is assessed through two tasks. It presents an adequate internal consistency. It currently has a revised version by the same authors, and another validated in a young population. In addition, it has been translated into many languages. This instrument has detractors. Its convergent validity has been questioned since no correlation has been found between the emotional perception scale of MSCEIT and other emotional perception tests [ 81 ]. As can be seen in Table 1 , the MSCEIT has two different approaches to construct the score (consensus score and expert score). In the case of EI, it is difficult to classify an answer as correct or incorrect, so if a person responds in a different way to the experts or the average, it might mean that they have low emotional capacity or present a different way of thinking [ 81 ].

In the same year, three more instruments based on this conceptualization were developed in different countries. The first one, the Profile of Emotional Intelligence (PIEMO) [ 40 ] is an inventory developed in Mexico. Their items consist of a statement that represents a paradigmatic behaviour trait of EI with true and false answers. It is composed of eight independent dimensions that together constitute a profile. Its internal consistency is excellent and its validity has been tested by a confirmatory factor analysis and expert consultations on the items.

The second instrument is Wong and Law’s Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS) [ 41 ]. It was developed in China to measure EI in a brief way in leadership and management studies. It has an adequate internal consistency and has positive correlations with the TMMS and the EQ-i. Subsequent studies have shown its predictive validity in relation to life satisfaction, happiness or psychological well-being, and its criteria’s validity with respect to personal well-being. Measurement equivalence of scores in different ethnic and gender groups has also been tested [ 82 ]. It has been translated into a multitude of languages and it is currently one of the most widely used instruments.

The third instrument is the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile-3 (WEIP-3) [ 43 ]. It is a scale designed in Australia as a self-report to measure the EI of people in work teams. It has very good internal consistency and presents correlations with several instruments that prove its convergent validity. The authors made a particularly interesting finding in their study. Teams that scored lower in the WEIP-3 performed at lower levels in their work than those with high EI. This instrument has a short version and has been translated into different languages.

The Multidimensional Emotional Intelligence Assessment (MEIA) [ 45 ] was developed in the USA. The authors state that the test takes only 20 min. It has very good internal consistency. Its validity has been tested in different ways. Content validity was tested by independent experts who considered each element as representative of its target scale. Convergent validity was tested by significant correlations between the scores and personality tests. Finally, the lack of correlation between the MEIA and theoretically unrelated personality tests proved the divergent validity. It has a version for the work context.

The Sojo and Steinkopf Emotional Intelligence Inventory—Revised version (IIESS-R) [ 47 ] was developed in Venezuela to measure the three dimensions that compose it. It presents 34 phrases that describe the reactions of people with high EI, as well as contrary behaviours. It has excellent internal consistency and its content has been validated through expert judgment. It shows correlations with some scales of similar instruments and its internal structure has been tested by exploratory analysis and PCA.

In the original article of the Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (EmIn), created for the Russian population [ 46 ], its author proposes his own model of ability-based EI that differs in some aspects from that proposed by Mayer and Salovey. Accordingly, he designed a questionnaire to measure the participants’ beliefs about their emotional abilities under this model. It is composed of two dimensions answered using a 4-point Likert scale. Their scales have a good internal consistency, but their validity has not been tested beyond the factor analysis of its internal structure. Years later, this same author developed the Videotest of Emotion Recognition [ 59 ], an instrument that uses videos as stimuli. It was also designed in Russia to obtain precision indexes in the recognition of the types of emotions, as well as the sensitivity and intensity of the observed emotions. It has 15 scales that measure through a single item each of the emotions recorded by the instrument. Its internal consistency is good. It is correlated with MSCEIT and EmIn, which proves its convergent validity.

Another instrument based on the Mayer and Salovey model is the Self-Rated Emotional Intelligence Scale (SREIS) [ 49 ]. It was developed throughout three studies that used the MSCEIT as a comparison. The first one did not show a very high correlation between the scores of both tools. In the second one, only men’s MSCEIT scores correlated with perceived social competence after personality measures remained constant. Finally, in the third only MSCEIT predicted social competence, but only for males again. Internal consistency was also not consistent throughout the three studies, as the α yielded values were 0.84, 0.77, and 0.66, respectively. Its internal structure was tested by a confirmatory factor analysis and the content of each item was validated by the judgment of students familiar with the Mayer and Salovey model. It has been translated into several languages.

The Emotional Intelligence Self-Description Inventory (EISDI) [ 49 ] is also a short instrument, consisting of four dimensions designed to assess EI in the workplace. It has an excellent internal consistency. It presents correlations with instruments such as the WLEIS and the SREIS and a discriminant validity with the Big Five Personality. The same year, the Greek Emotional Intelligence Scale (GEIS) [ 51 ] was developed in Greek to assess four basic dimensions of EI. Its internal consistency is very good, as well as its test–retest value. Its internal structure was verified by a PCA, and its convergent and divergent validity were tested by a series of studies with 12 different instruments.

MacCann and Roberts [ 51 ] developed two instruments to assess EI according to the ability-based model: the Situational Test of Emotion Management (STEM) and the Situational Test of Emotional Understanding (STEU). Both are made up of three dimensions and a similar number of items. The first one measures the management of emotions such as anger, sadness and fear, and it can be administered in two formats: multiple choice response and rate-the-extent (i.e., test takers rate the appropriateness, strength, or extent of each alternative, rather than selecting the correct alternative). The STEU presents a series of situations about context-reduced, personal-life context, and workplace-context, which provoke a main emotion that is the correct answer to be chosen by the participant among other incorrect ones. Both instruments have similar internal consistency for the multiple response format, while for the rate-the-extent format it is much higher. Both present criteria and convergent validity and have an abbreviated version.

The Emotional Skills and Competence Questionnaire (ESCQ) [ 53 ] is an instrument developed in Croatia that measures EI through three basic dimensions using a five-point Likert scale. The subscales have a reliability that varies between good an excellent, and they correlate with other EI and personality instruments. The ESCQ has been translated into several languages.

The Audiovisual Test of Emotional Intelligence (AVEI) [ 55 ] is an Israeli instrument aimed at educational settings related to care-centred professions. Their items are developed from primary and secondary emotions, both positive and negative. Each one consists of short videos generated by researchers with training in psychology and visual arts. People should choose the correct answer among 10 alternatives and it takes between 12 and 18 min to be completed. It requires computers equipped with audio. The internal consistency was calculated using ICC coefficients. It has content validations through expert consultations on the items and criteria since it correlates with measures traditionally related to EI.

The Geneva Emotion Recognition Test (GERT) [ 57 ] is a German test composed of 14 scales. The stimuli are, as in the AVEI, short image and audio videos recorded by five men and five women of different ages. Thus, people must choose which of the 14 emotions is being expressed by the actors, with the responses labelled as correct or incorrect. The reliability of the test is considered excellent, and the ecological and construct validity of the instrument has been tested.

The Test of Emotional Intelligence (TIE) [ 58 ] is developed in Poland. It consists of the same four dimensions as the MSCEIT. After providing participants with different emotional problems, they should indicate which emotion is most likely to occur or choose the most appropriate action. The score is based on expert judgment. It has a very good internal consistency. It has convergent validity since it correlates with the SSEIT and has construct since women scored higher than men.

The Self-Perception of Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (EIQ-SP) [ 60 ] is an instrument designed in Portugal and composed of the four dimensions belonging to the Mayer and Salovey’s ability-based model. Their scales have good internal consistency and are correlated with each other.

The Three-Branch Emotional Intelligence Rating Scale Assessment (TEIRA) [ 61 ] and the Three-Branch Emotional Intelligence Forced-Choice Assessment (TEIFA) [ 61 ] were developed in 2015. The first is made up of three scales and is answered by a six-point Likert scale. It presents internal consistency between good and excellent and convergent validity with STEU-B and STEM-B. On the other hand, TEIFA presents a format of forced choice in order to avoid the problem of social desirability in the rating scales. In this format, participants must choose among several positive statements and therefore they cannot simply rate themselves highly on everything (e.g., “Which one is more like you: I know why my emotions change or I manage my emotions well”). It consists of the same items and dimensions as the TEIRA. The study does not report the reliability of TEIFA, as the reliability of the forced-choice tests is artificially high. It presents convergent validity with the SSRI.

A year later, the North Dakota Emotional Abilities Test (NEAT) [ 62 ] was developed in the USA to assess the ability to perceive, understand and control emotions in the workplace. It contains items that describe scenarios of work environments, in which the person must rate the extent of certain emotions that the protagonist would experience in a certain situation. The internal consistency of its scales varies between good and excellent and its internal structure has been tested by a confirmatory factor analysis. In addition, the predictive validity of the instrument has also been tested.

The Inventory of Perceived Emotional Intelligence (IIEP) [ 63 ] was developed in Argentina. It measures different components of intrapersonal and interpersonal EI. This inventory is answered using a five-point Likert scale and it has reliable dimensions. Its content validity has been tested through consultations with judges to evaluate the items.

The last of the instruments in this category is the Emotional Intelligence Test (EIT) [ 65 ]. It was developed in Russia and has four dimensions that assess EI in the workplace. It has excellent internal consistency and convergent validity tested by correlations with the MSCEIT 2.0. No information regarding the items that compose it has been found.

3.2. Measures Based on the Mixed Model

The second category includes those instruments based on the mixed EI model, mainly the Bar-On model [ 7 ] and the Goleman model [ 8 ]. The first instrument of this model is the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) [ 7 ]. Its author was the first to define EI as a mixed concept between ability and personality trait. It is a self-report measure of behaviour that provides an estimate of EI and social intelligence. Their items are composed of short sentences that are answered using a five-point Likert scale. It takes about 30 min to complete, so other shorter versions have been developed, as well as a 360-degree version and a version for young people. It has been translated into more than 30 languages. It has an internal consistency between good and very good and its construct validity has been tested by correlations with other variables.

Emotional Competence Inventory 2.0 (ECI 2.0) [ 67 ], also called ESCI, is a widely used instrument. It was developed in the USA by another of the authors who conceptualized the mixed model of EI. It was designed in a 360-degree version to assess the emotional competencies of individuals and organizations. The internal consistency of others’ ratings is good, while that of oneself is questionable, and it shows positive correlations with constructs related to the work environment. It has a version for university students and has been translated into several languages.

The Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (EIQ) [ 68 ] is another tool designed to measure EI in the workplace. It has face, content, construct, and predictive validity, although the internal consistency of its scales varies between good and not very acceptable. Years later, the Emotional Intelligence Inventory [ 69 ] was developed in India. It was also designed to measure EI using a mixed concept in the workplace. It is made up of 10 dimensions, which have an internal consistency between acceptable and excellent. It has correlations with several related scales and with the number of promotions achieved and success in employment, which is proof of its predictive validity.

The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal (EIA) [ 70 ] is a set of surveys that measures EI in the workplace using the four main components of the Goleman model. Their items have been evaluated by experts. It has an internal consistency between very good and excellent. It has three versions: an online self-report, an online multi-rater report (which is combined with responses from co-workers), and another one that has anonymous ratings from several people to get an EI score for the whole team. The Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS) [ 71 ] is another tool based on the Goleman model. It is composed of three dimensions and it has excellent internal consistency. The content of the items has been validated by expert evaluations.

The USM Emotional Quotient Inventory (USMEQ-i) [ 72 ] is a tool developed in Malaysia. It consists of a total of seven dimensions composed of 46 items. Seven of these items make up the “faking index items”, that measure the tendency of respondents to manifest social desirability and have a very good internal consistency ( α = 0.83). The reliability of the total instrument yields excellent values.

The Indigenous Scale of Emotional Intelligence [ 73 ] is a Pakistani instrument developed in the Urdu language. The final items were selected from an initial set after passing through the judgment of four experts based on the fidelity to the construct: clarity, redundancy, reliability, and compression. It has excellent internal consistency. Additionally, it presents construct validity (as women obtain higher scores than men) and correlations with the EQ-i.

Years later, the Mobile Emotional Intelligence Test (MEIT) was developed [ 64 ]. It is a Spanish instrument used to measure EI online in work contexts. It is made up of seven tasks (perceptive tasks and identification tasks) to assess the emotional perception of both others and oneself, respectively, face task, in which the most appropriate photograph related to the demanded emotion must be chosen, three comprehension tasks (composition, deduction and retrospective), and story task, in which participants must choose the best action to manage feelings in a given story. It presents excellent internal consistency and convergent validity.

3.3. Trait-Based Measures

This category is composed of trait-based instruments. The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) [ 6 ] is the main instrument of this model. It is a tool widely used in many countries. It has excellent internal consistency and it shows significant correlations with the Big Five Personality. It has a short version, a 360-degree version, a version for children and another one for teenagers. It has been translated into many languages.

Years later, the Rotterdam Emotional Intelligence Scale (REIS) [ 75 ] was developed, the other instrument belonging to this category. It is a self-report instrument designed in Dutch. It has a very good internal consistency and it presents correlations with WEIS, TEIQue and PEC and its validity criterion has also been tested.

3.4. Measures Based on Other Models

Some instruments cannot be included within these categories since they have been conceptualized under different models. The first one is the Genos Emotional Intelligence Inventory [ 76 ], previously known as SUEIT. It is based on an original model. It was specifically designed for use in the workplace, but it does not measure EI per se, but rather the frequency with which people display a variety of emotionally intelligent behaviours in the workplace. It presents very good reliability and convergent and predictive validity. In addition, it has two reduced versions.

The Profile of Emotional Competence (PEC) [ 77 ] is based on the model of Mikolajczak [ 83 ], which replicates the four dimensions proposed by Mayer and Salovey but separates the identification from the expression of the emotions and distinguishes the intrapersonal aspect from the interpersonal aspect of each dimension. It contains two main scales, and has excellent internal consistency and convergent, divergent and criterion validity. The original one was developed in French, but it has been translated into several languages.

The last of the instruments identified is the Group-level Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire [ 79 ]. It was designed in the USA to assess EI in work groups under Ghuman’s theoretical model [ 79 ]. This model conceives EI as a two-component construct: group relationship capability (GRC) and group emotional capability (GEC). All of them have very good internal consistency.

Regarding the framework of the Standards, differences were found among them, resulting in an unequal distribution throughout the articles. The percentages of each type of validity can be seen in Table 2 .

Number of studies and percentages for each validity test.

The instruments whose original sources could not be retrieved are cited in Table 3 . The main reasons were that they were articles from books to which the authors did not have access, unpublished documents or documents with restricted access.

Information of the non-accessible instruments.

4. Discussion

The main aim of this study is to offer an updated systematic review of EI instruments in order to provide researchers and professionals with a list of tools that can be applied in the professional field with their characteristics, psychometric properties and versions, as well as a brief description of the instrument. For this purpose, a systematic review of the scientific literature on EI has been carried out using the WoS database through a search of all articles published between 1900 and the present.

The number of instruments developed has been increasing in recent years. In the 1990s barely any instruments were developed and their production was limited to approximately one per year and to practically one country (i.e., the USA). This may be due to the recent conceptualisation of EI, as well as to the difficulty that researchers found in constructing emotion-centred questions with objective criteria [ 15 ]. However, over the years, the production of instruments to measure EI has been increasing and, in addition, it has been extended to other geographical areas. This may be due to the importance that EI has reached over the years in multiple areas (e.g., health, organizational, educational, etc.). With the passage of time, and the introduction of new technologies, multimedia platforms have begun to be used to present stimuli to participants. Recent research in EI has determined that emotions are expressed and perceived through visual and auditory signals (i.e., the tone of voice and the dynamic movements of the face and body) [ 94 ]. Thus, a meta-analysis revealed that video-based tests tend to have a higher criterion-related validity than text-based stimuli [ 95 ].

Regarding the results, a total of 40 instruments produced from 1995 to 2020 have been located. The instruments registered in a greater number of studies, and that have been most used over the years are EQ-i, SSRI, MSCEIT 2.0, TMMS, WLEIS, and TEIQue. These tools have the largest number of versions (e.g., reduced or for different ages or contexts) and are the ones that have been validated in more languages. The most recent instruments hardly have translations apart from their original version, and they have been tested on very few occasions. Most of the articles have not been developed for a specific context.

On the other hand, as can be seen in the results, most of the instruments are grouped under the three main conceptual models described in the introduction (ability, trait and mixed). These models are vertebrated around the construct of EI. However, they present differences in the way of conceptualizing it and, therefore, also of measuring it. For example, the ability-based concept of EI is measured by maximum performance tests while trait-based EI is measured by self-report questionnaires. This may, in itself, lead to different outcomes, even if the underlying model used is the same [ 96 , 97 ].

The ability model, introduced by Mayer and Salovey, is composed of other hierarchically ordered abilities, in which the understanding and management dimensions involve higher-order cognitive processes (strategic), and are based on perception and facilitation, which involve instantaneous processing of emotional information (experiential) [ 4 ]. This model has received wide recognition and has served as a basis for the development of other models. However, it has been questioned through factor analysis that does not support a hierarchical model with an underlying global EI factor. Furthermore, emotional thought facilitation (second dimension) did not arise as a separate factor and was found to be empirically redundant with the other branches [ 96 ].

Intelligence and personality researchers have questioned the very existence of ability EI, and they suggest that it is nothing more than intelligence. This fact is supported by the high correlations found between ability-based EI and the intellectual quotient [ 15 , 96 ]. On the other hand, there is the possibility of falsifying the results by responding strategically for the purpose of social desirability. However, one of the advantages of the ability model is that, through the maximum performance tests, it is not possible to adulterate them. This is because participants must choose the answer they think is correct to get the highest possible score. Another advantage is that these types of instruments tend to be more attractive because they are made up of tests in which it is required to resolve problems, solve puzzles, perform comprehension tasks or choose images [ 15 ].

The Petrides and Furnham model [ 5 ] emerged as an alternative to the ability-based model and is related to dispositional tendencies, personality traits, or self-efficacy beliefs that are measured by self-report tests. The tools based on this model are not exempt from criticism. These instruments present a number of disadvantages, the most frequently cited are being vulnerability to counterfeiting and social desirability [ 96 ]. The participant can obtain a high EI profile by responding in a strategically and socially desirable way, especially when they are examined in work contexts by supervisors or in job interviews. People are not always good judges of their emotional abilities [ 98 ], and may tend to unintentionally underestimate or overestimate their EI. Another criticism of self-report tools is their ecological validity (i.e., external validity that analyses the test environment and determines how much it influences the results) [ 96 ].

On the contrary, the fact that such tools do not present correct or incorrect answers can be advantageous in certain cases. High EI trait scores are not necessarily adaptive or low maladaptive. That is, self-report tools give rise to emotional profiles that simply fit better and are more advantageous in some contexts than in others [ 97 ]. On the other hand, trait-based tools have demonstrated good incremental validity over cognitive intelligence and personality compared to ability-based EI tests [ 99 ]. Furthermore, they tend to have very good psychometric properties, have no questionable theoretical basis, and are moderately and significantly correlate with a large set of outcome variables [ 15 ].

One aspect observed in this systematic review is that the main measure of the estimated reliability in the analysed studies has been internal consistency. However, this estimate is not interchangeable with other measurement error estimates. This coefficient gives a photographic picture of the measurement error and does not include variability over time. There are other reliability indicators (e.g., stability or test–retest) that are more relevant for social intervention purposes [ 100 ], and that according to the estimation design, can differentiate into trait variability or state variability, that is, respectively stability and dependability [ 101 ]. It has been found that the use of stability measures as a reliability parameter is not frequent. In methodological and substantive contexts, reproducibility is essential for the advancement of knowledge. For this reason, it is necessary to identify measures that can be used as parameters to compare the results of different studies [ 102 ]. On the other hand, the standard coefficient of internal consistency has been coefficient α [ 103 ]. This measure has been questioned in relation to its apparent misinformed use of its restrictions [ 104 , 105 , 106 ], of which Cronbach himself highlighted its limited applications [ 104 ]. Other reliability measures have been recommended (e.g., ω) [ 107 ], and the reliability estimation practice in the creation of EI measurements needs to be updated. Usually, ω estimation is integrated into the modelling-based estimation, where SEM or IRT methodology is required to corroborate the internal structure of the score [ 108 , 109 , 110 ] and extract the parameters used to calculate reliability (i.e., factorial loads).

Another methodological aspect to highlight is that predominantly, the construction of EI measures was based on linear modelling or classical test theory. In contrast, the least used approach was item response theory (IRT), which provides other descriptive and evaluative parameters of the quality of the score measurement, such as the information function or the characteristic curves of the options, among others.

On the other hand, it is striking that some of the articles found prove the construct validity of their instruments by obtaining higher EI scores by women than men [ 56 , 58 , 73 ]. This has also been seen in the scientific literature and in research such as that of Fischer et al. [ 111 ], in which it was found that women tend to score higher in EI tests or empathy tests than men, especially, but not only, if it is measured through self-report. Additionally, striking is the study by Molero et al. [ 112 ], in which significant differences were observed among the various EI components between men and women. However, this is not the case in all the articles analysed in this study, nor in all the most current scientific literature. This fact has led to the development of different hypotheses about how far, why, and under what circumstances women could outperform men. There are several theories that have emerged around it. There is one that claims that these differences could be related to different modes of emotional processing in the brain [ 113 , 114 ]. Another theory points to possible differences in emotional perception that suggest that women are more accurate than men in this process when facial manifestations of emotion are subtle, but not when stimuli are highly expressive [ 115 ]. Additionally, another one points out that the expression of emotions is consistent with sex, which may be influenced by contextual factors, including the immediate social context and broader cultural contexts [ 116 ]. However, other variables such as age or years of experience in the position should also be taken into account. For example, the study by Miguel-Torres et al. [ 117 ] showed a better ability to feel, express, and understand emotional states in younger nurses, while the ability to regulate emotions was greater in those who had worked for more years. For this reason, nowadays firm conclusions cannot be drawn and it must be taken into account that the differences found are generally small. Thus, more research is needed on the differences that may exist between men and women in the processes of perception, expression and emotional management before establishing possible social implications of these findings.

4.1. Limitations

This study is not without limitations. Some are inherent in this type of studies, such as publication bias (i.e., the non-publication of studies with results that do not show significant differences) that could have resulted in a loss of articles that have not been published and that used instruments other than those found. In addition, instruments that could not be accessed from their original manuscript could not be included in the systematic review. On the other hand, despite the advantages of WoS, the fact that the search was conducted in a single database may lead to some loss of literature. Furthermore, the systematic review was restricted to peer-reviewed publications and thus different studies may be presented in other information sources, such as books or grey literature. Articles that were in the press and those that may have been published in the course of the compilation of this study have not been collected either. Additionally, the entire process of searching for references was carried out by only one investigator, so an estimate of inter-judge reliability cannot be made, as well as data extraction. There are many aspects of the PRISMA statement that, due to the purpose of our research, our study does not include (visible as NA in Table A1 ). However, it is necessary to develop a protocol for recording the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the primary studies to prevent bias (e.g., bias in the selection process). There are also some methodological aspects to be improved, such as the lack of methods used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies, the preparation or synthesis of the data, or the certainty in the body of evidence of a result. In future research it is necessary to take into account and develop these aspects in order to improve the replicability and methodological validity of the study, and to facilitate the transparency of the research process. In contrast to the above, one of the strengths of this study was to minimize the presence of biases that could alter the results. To minimize language bias, articles submitted in any language were searched for and accepted to avoid over-presentation of studies in one language, and under-presentation in others [ 20 ]. In addition, this study takes into account and exposes five sources of evidence of validity of the instruments through the Standards: content, response processes, internal structure, relationship with other variables and the consequences of testing. Other aspects to be improved in the future include performing the same search in other databases such as EBSCO and Scopus to obtain possible articles not covered in WoS. A manual search for additional articles would also be useful, for example, in the references of other articles or in the grey literature.

4.2. Practical Implication

The relationship between EI and personal development has been of great interest in psychological research over time [ 8 ]. A good study of the instruments that measure constructs such as EI can be of great help both in the field of prevention and psychological intervention in social settings. The revision of EI instruments is intended to contribute to facilitating work in the general population in a way that the development of EI is promoted and antisocial behaviours are reduced. In addition, since it correlates with variables that serve as protectors against psychological distress, this work also contributes to improving, in some cases, the general level of health.

Through this systematic review, we can see the great effort that has been made by researchers not only to improve existing EI measurement instruments, but also in the construction of new instruments that help professionals in the educational, business and health fields, as well as the general population. However, given the rapid changes that society is experiencing, partly due to the effects of modernization and technology, there is a demand to go beyond measurement. For example, from educational and business institutions and from family and community organizations it is necessary to promote activities, support and commitment towards actions oriented to EI under the consideration that this construct can be improved at any age and that it increases with experience.

5. Conclusions

From the results obtained in this study, numerous instruments have been found that can be used to measure EI in professionals. Over the years, the production of instruments to measure EI has been increasing and, moreover, has spread to other geographical areas. The most recent instruments have hardly been translated beyond their original version and have been tested very rarely. In order for future research to benefit from these new instruments, a greater number of uses in larger samples and in other contexts would be desirable.

In addition, most of the instruments are grouped under the three main conceptual models described in the introduction (ability, trait and mixed). Each model has a number of advantages and disadvantages. In the ability model it is not possible to adulterate the results by strategic responses and they tend to be more attractive tests; however, factor analyses do not support a hierarchical model with an underlying global EI factor. The trait-based model, on the other hand, employs measures that have no right or wrong answers, so they result in emotional profiles that are more advantageous in some contexts than others, and they tend to have very good psychometric properties. However, they are susceptible to falsification and social desirability.

On the other hand, it is necessary to identify measures that can be used as parameters to compare the results of different studies. In addition, the standard coefficient of internal consistency has been the α coefficient, which has been questioned in relation to its apparent misinformed use of its restrictions. It would be advisable to use other reliability measures and to update the reliability estimation practice in the creation of EI measures.

Finally, some of the articles found test the construct validity of their instruments by obtaining higher EI scores from women than from men. Different hypotheses have been developed about to what extent, why and under what circumstances women would outperform men; differences may be related to different modes of emotional processing in the brain or possible differences in emotional perception or to the influence of contextual factors. However, it would be interesting to further investigate the differences that may exist between men and women or to take into account other factors such as age or number of years of experience before establishing possible practical implications.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the casual helpers for their aid with information processing and searching.

PRISMA 2020 checklist.

NA = Not applicable.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.M.B.-L. and M.M.-V.; methodology, L.M.B.-L.; validation, L.M.B.-L.; formal analysis, L.M.B.-L.; investigation, L.M.B.-L.; data curation, L.M.B.-L.; writing—original draft preparation, L.M.B.-L.; writing—review and editing, L.M.B.-L., M.M.-V., C.M.-S. and J.L.C.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The Truth About Emotional Intelligence

For those who have it, it predicts success in many ways..

By Psychology Today Contributors published March 5, 2024 - last reviewed on March 6, 2024

A Brief History of Emotional Intelligence

Everyone values EI, but actually learning the component skills is another matter entirely.

By Marc Brackett, Ph.D., and Robin Stern, Ph.D.

Thirty-four years ago, in a world still debating whether emotions were a disruptive or adaptive force, two research psychologists proposed the concept of emotional intelligence . Peter Salovey and John Mayer contended that there is “a set of skills contributing to the accurate appraisal of emotions in self and others and the effective regulation of emotion in self and others” and that feelings could be harnessed to motivate oneself and to achieve in life. So unorthodox was the notion that people could benefit from their emotions that their article could find a home only in an obscure journal. Five years later, psychologist-writer Daniel Goleman, unconstrained by scholarly review processes, penned Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ , which widely popularized the idea.

Decades later, there exists a general understanding that emotions matter and can serve people’s goals ; emotions have a seat at the table. From gaslighting to rizz , recent words of the year, people have adopted the language of emotions. Parents want their children to have emotional intelligence, and the new field of social and emotional learning is helping teachers bring it into classrooms. Adults understand the importance of EI in relationships and consider it a desirable quality in a partner. CEOs see it as essential to the 21st-century workplace, a requirement for good decision-making , inspiring others, team functioning, and general productivity ; headhunters pose interview questions to assess it.

Further, we know from theory and some preliminary research that the skills of emotional intelligence actually matter. People who have them are healthier, happier, more effective, and more productive. EI predicts things of importance for children and adults. And if the worth of EI wasn’t clear before 2020, the pandemic halted so much social interaction—the growth medium of EI—that just about everyone hungered for human contact and stumbled in their social and emotional well-being.

However chastened the world is about the value of understanding yourself, maintaining friendships, and mastering daily frustrations, it’s inescapable that mental health in the U.S. has been declining in recent decades, especially among the young. If EI contributes to mental health and offers tools to address disappointments and uncertainties, how could that be?

As we see it, the number-one problem is implementation. People give lip service to wanting EI but don’t necessarily devote effort to gaining the skills. You can’t hold a one-hour workshop or put kids in a circle to talk about their feelings and call it EI. Emotional intelligence consists of a set of skills that advance developmentally, as people do, and their teaching has to be aligned with social and cognitive development. Just being aware of emotions is not enough. And you can’t teach EI to children unless you teach adults first; parents have to live it at home, teachers have to model it in school.

Becoming emotionally healthy and emotionally intelligent is hard work. That’s a hard sell in a culture that, over the past 30 years, has promoted the idea that you can gain mental health by taking a pill. Effort must go not only into gaining mental health but also maintaining it.

Emotional intelligence supports mental health, but it isn’t the whole of mental health. People get anxious or depressed for many reasons: Their biology may incline them to it. A partner suffers a debilitating experience. A breadwinner gets laid off. The more readily a person can recognize and label their emotional responses to life’s roller coaster, the better able they are to address those feelings while experiencing them, so as not to be overwhelmed by them.

Another major factor eroding the mental health of the population is that the world is exponentially more complicated today than even 30 years ago. There are more reasons for kids and adults to be anxious and overwhelmed. Climate change is an existential threat. There are school shootings. The governance of the country has been openly roiling for close to a decade, with a new level of uncertainty accompanying elections.

You can’t talk about mental health today without talking about technology. Digital technology was becoming available globally just as the concept of EI was introduced. When you are staring at a screen much of the day versus interacting with a live person, you miss out on important emotional currency.

At the same time, algorithms are keeping people in a state of emotional upheaval. Social media in particular have deliberately built into their platforms mechanisms to activate the nervous system . Research has shown a correlation between anxiety and time spent on social media.

It’s not impossible to course correct. The world has moved beyond the Freudian idea that emotions sit in a cauldron of the unconscious , driving us to do things we don’t want to do. We have an emotion system for a reason. Emotions are helpful. Happiness tells you that you are achieving your goals. Fear alerts you to prepare for danger. All emotions are data and information. There are skills that can help people use them wisely, but every one of them has to be learned.

Marc Brackett, Ph.D ., is the founding director of the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence and a professor in the Child Study Center. Robin Stern, Ph.D ., is the associate director of the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence and an associate research scientist in the Child Study Center.

Why You Should Expand Your Emotional Vocabulary

Emotional granularity, or the ability to precisely name a wide range of emotions, plays a critical role in psychological wellness. Here’s how to cultivate it.

By Katrina McCoy, Ph.D.

We’ve all felt it—the nagging of an unpleasant emotion that is difficult to name or explain. Maybe you chalk it up to feeling “off” or “upset.”

But finding more precise labels for our emotions can help us feel better—both in the moment and over the long term. This precise labeling of emotions is called emotional granularity.

The Benefits of Emotional Granularity Emotional granularity is a skill, and researchers have demonstrated its important role in psychological well-being for decades. For example, a 2015 review of the research on emotional granularity found that folks who could differentiate their emotions while experiencing intense distress were less likely to engage in potentially harmful coping strategies, such as binge drinking, lashing out at others, and hurting themselves.

This means a person who describes feeling “angry,” “disappointed,” “sad,” or “ashamed” in the context of, let’s say, a conflict with a friend is likely to cope more effectively with those feelings than a person who uses vague descriptions, such as feeling “bad” or “upset.”

Impressively, the benefits of emotional granularity extend beyond any specific moment of distress. That same 2015 review found that people who describe and label their emotions more specifically have less severe episodes of anxiety and depression .

How Emotional Granularity Works How does using more specific language to describe unpleasant experiences reduce distress? A straightforward answer is this: The more accurately we can describe our emotional experience and the context in which the experience is happening, the more information we have to decide what will help. Neuroscience even suggests that labeling our emotions can decrease activity in brain areas associated with negative emotions.

Yet a more nuanced answer requires us to take a step back and look at the components from which our emotions are made. Start by answering a simple question: What are emotions?

Neuroscientist Lisa Feldman Barrett succinctly sums up emotion as “your brain’s creation of what your bodily sensations mean about what is going on around you in the world.” Imagine this: Your heart is racing, your palms are sweaty, and you’re short of breath. If you are walking down a dark street alone at night, you might label your experience as fear . Now, imagine you are experiencing those same physical sensations while enjoying a candle-lit meal with a romantic interest. In that case, you might label the experience as attraction .

Thus, the same constellation of physiologic experiences organizes us around different actions depending on the context. In the first example, our fear functions to keep us safe and readies us to fight, flee, or freeze. In the second example, our attraction functions to focus our attention on our love interest, thus increasing our connectedness (and therefore regulation and well-being).

Importantly, our personal histories determine what predictions and needs we might have in any specific context. Throughout our lives, we collect diverse emotional experiences, typically first labeled by our early caregivers, which help us categorize and form our emotion concepts—the diverse collection of physical sensations, thoughts, and situations we learn to associate with a particular emotion.

Our concept of anger, for example, may include a flushed face, muscle tension, and being cut off in traffic. Our concept of anger may also have a racing heart, the urge to speak loudly, and thoughts of being taken for granted by a relationship partner. These categorizations help us to navigate our physiology in the context of the specific situation, to figure out if we should take a breath and focus on a podcast—if, say, we were cut off in traffic—or use communication skills to improve our relationship if we’re feeling taken for granted.

More precise language leads to more tailored responses (“mild annoyance” cues letting it go, whereas “outrage” cues advocating for change). Not only that, more precise language can allow us to incorporate details that create a different emotion category altogether. For example, if you home in to notice and describe hunger during a relational conflict, you may save yourself from experiencing anger.

How to Strengthen Emotional Granularity Precisely labeling your emotional experiences, then, is likely to improve your quality of life. But how should you go about developing this skill? Experts recommend creating new emotion concepts and examining our existing concepts more closely.

In her book How Emotions Are Made , Feldman Barrett suggests that one of the easiest ways to build new emotion concepts is to learn new words. She also suggests we can add to our emotion concepts by being “collector(s) of experiences” through perspective-taking (e.g., reading books, watching movies) and trying new things.

To start, explore the emotion words collected in the list below. Find one or two words you don’t typically use and ask yourself if they describe your recent experiences. Perhaps when you next notice that nagging, nameless emotion, you will skim this list of emotion words to find the ones that resonate.

Katrina McCoy, Ph.D ., is a psychotherapist, educator, consultant, and scholar with a private practice based in Westchester, New York.

......................................................

Name That Feeling

Happy, sad, and angry are useful terms but aren’t enough to describe the full range of our emotional experience. Explore this list to identify emotion words that better capture your feelings.

Anger Rage Indignation Vengefulness Wrath

Sadness Despair Disappointment Sorrow Grief

Happiness Joy Contentment Pleasure Exhilaration

Fear Anxiety Dread Terror Apprehension

You’ve Named Your Emotions—What Now?

Being aware of your emotions isn’t enough; you also have to manage them. These four strategies can help you master this second pillar of emotional intelligence.

By Michael Wiederman, Ph.D.

Awareness of your and others’ emotions is the foundation on which emotional intelligence rests. But awareness, in itself, is not enough. Here, let’s consider four ways you can develop another critical pillar of EI: emotional self- management .

1. Pause to mentally distance. In an emotionally charged situation, the path of least resistance is to follow your feelings. Instead, take conscious control of your attention and shift from allowing your limbic system to guide your behavior (reacting) to engaging your cerebral cortex (responding). Doing so lets you choose how to act.

Of course, mentally stepping out of a whirlwind of emotion is easier said than done. As a first step, it can be helpful to note the particular physical experiences that accompany troublesome emotions. Then, when a situation arises that triggers those physical responses, take a moment to mentally step out of your immediate experience. Asking yourself a question, or imagining what you might look like to others, often does the trick. At that point, although still physiologically keyed up, you’ll be able to more calmly consider the best course of action. In other words, you won’t be just reacting; you’ll be choosing how to act.

2. Take control of your self-talk . We’re frequently unaware of how much chatter goes on in the background of our minds. Such self-talk might not be in fully articulated phrases but just flashes of thought about what’s happening, what should be, or how right we are and how wrong someone else is.

Becoming aware of your self-talk is an important skill because it is those background beliefs that fuel our emotional responses. To genuinely defuse a strong negative emotion requires examining the underlying belief and how accurate or useful it is.

You may be tempted to justify the belief (This situation should not be so difficult!) but, instead, recognize that the situation is the way it is, no matter how much you wish otherwise. Ask yourself: How useful is it to me to keep clinging to this belief? You might also flex your conscious awareness to focus on asking: Over what parts of this situation do I have some degree of control? What do I need to do to exercise that control?

3. Enlist partners. Ask others you trust to help you recognize when your emotions seem to be getting the best of you. Agree on a gesture or word to serve as a signal that your trusted individual wonders whether you’re riding the led-by-your-limbic-system train.

Of course, they may get it wrong—and even when they’re right, it can feel irritating to be called out when you’re already keyed up. But instead of responding defensively, focus on the fact that this person is offering a gift—one that you asked for!—and is taking a risk. Respond with grace and gratitude .

4. Cultivate curiosity. Our brains are wired to draw conclusions quickly. These judgments are not necessarily accurate but often feel as if they are, and they are responsible for many of our negative emotional states. Working to be more curious about other peoples’ experiences, including their interpretation of events and their own motives for their behavior, helps inhibit such hasty judgments.

To be able to apply the brakes on your strong emotional reaction when triggered, practicing curiosity in situations that are not nearly as charged is a good way to build that skill for when it’s most important. A side benefit of cultivating curiosity is that it also promotes a sense of empathy and deeper connection with those you better try to understand.

A common thread across these strategies is the ability to recognize an emotional storm and decide to shift to conscious intentionality rather than reaction. Like any skill, it requires practice, and there will be lapses along the way. However, the benefits, both professional and personal, can be immense. How might your life be enhanced by greater emotional self-control ?

Michael Wiederman, Ph.D ., is a former clinical psychology professor who now works full-time applying psychology to the workplace.

Emotional Intelligence Is a Skill Set

Peter Salovey, a co-author of the original paper on EI, clears up some widespread misunderstandings.

In the late 1980s, John Mayer and I noticed that there were separate groups studying facial expressions, emotion vocabulary, and emotion self-management, all independently. We thought there was a framework under which all those topics fit—an arsenal of skills that describe abilities having to do with the emotions. We called it “emotional intelligence.”

The skills form four basic clusters. The first is identifying emotions in yourself and in others, through verbal and nonverbal means.

A second is understanding how emotion vocabulary gets used, how emotions transition over time, what the consequences are of an emotional arousal—for example, why shame often leads to anger, why jealousy often contains a component of envy.

A third area is emotion management, which includes managing not only one’s own emotions but also the emotions of others.

The fourth is the use of emotions, such as in cognitive activities like solving a problem and making a decision.

Once we had a way to measure emotional intelligence, we realized that we had to demonstrate that EI matters above and beyond standard features of personality , such as the Big Five personality traits ( openness to experience , conscientiousness , agreeableness , neuroticism , and extraversion ) and beyond traditional intelligence as measured by an IQ test. Only if emotional intelligence still accounted for variance in important outcomes could we claim that it has validity.

Over the next 20 years, we showed that, in fact, it did predict outcomes in school, at work, and in relationships. It predicted who would receive positive performance evaluations and get recommended for raises, who would be viewed as contributing the most creative ideas and leading a group. It correlated with aspects of friendship and positive social relations—less aggression , less use of illicit substances, more friends, greater satisfaction in relationships with friends. In lab experiments, EI predicted subjects’ behavior with a stranger: Those with EI were more able to elicit information, and strangers rated the interaction as more pleasant. People viewing films of the interactions rated those with EI as more empathic .

There has been a lot of playing with the construct of emotional intelligence—for example, regarding the features as traits. But that does not yield any unique information. I think it’s best to stick to a definition of EI based on skills and abilities.

Peter Salovey, Ph.D ., is the president of Yale University.

Submit your response to this story to [email protected] .

Pick up a copy of Psychology Today on newsstands now or subscribe to read the rest of this issue.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Examples Of Emotional Intelligence

Sara Viezzer

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc in Applied Neuropsychology

Sara Viezzer is a graduate of psychological studies at the University of Bristol and Padova. She has worked as an Assistant Psychologist in the NHS for the past two years in neuroscience and health psychology. Sara is presently pursuing a Doctorate in Clinical Psychology at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Emotional intelligence (EI) is the ability to recognize, understand and manage our own emotions while acknowledging and engaging with the emotions of others (Goleman, 1996).

Emotional intelligence comprises a set of skills, including empathy , problem-solving, interpersonal skills, and the capacity to regulate our own emotions. 

It plays a significant role in the contemporary world and is a better predictor of success, quality of relationships, and life satisfaction than intellectual intelligence (IQ) (Koubova and Buchko, 2013). 

In addition, research suggests that people with a higher emotional quotient (EQ) are more innovative and perform better in both academic and work environments (MacCann et al., 2020; Krén and Séllei, 2021). 

Emotional Intelligence in Everyday Life

Every day, we experience various emotions that drive us to feel or behave a certain way. 

We feel before we think, and this is an adaptive mechanism designed to respond quickly to stimuli in the environment. However, our minds also evolved in a way that allows us to reflect on and regulate our emotions so that they do not control our actions (Goleman, 2001). 

The ‘pause before you act’ is an example of how we can prevent temporary emotions from overriding us.

Thinking before lashing out at someone because we feel stressed or carefully evaluating a situation before attributing one’s fault are some of the little efforts we can take to separate our emotions from our thoughts and behaviors.

Taking other people’s perspectives before judging or labeling them also facilitates the expression of empathetic behaviors, making people feel more comfortable about sharing their experiences. This, in turn, helps create deeper connections with others in the longer term.

Apologizing for our own mistakes and practicing forgiveness are also simple actions that can reinforce healthy relationships that are based on reciprocal respect. By setting aside unhelpful emotions, including pride and resentment, it is possible to prioritize our relationship over our ego.

Emotional Intelligence in Education

In education, EI is regarded as an important skill for students to develop, both for their academic performance and future careers. 

Although factors such as IQ and conscientiousness are the stronger predictors of academic achievement, several studies also found a positive correlation with EI, with evidence of incremental validity over other variables (MacCann et al., 2020).

Different explanations have been provided on what factors may account for this association. 

First, students with higher EI could be better able to manage challenging emotions related to academic performance, including anxiety , boredom, and disappointment.

In addition, greater EI may promote the formation of more positive relationships with peers, teachers, and family, resulting in an enriched supportive system around the student.

Furthermore, EI might help students perform better in humanistic subjects requiring correct understanding and expression of emotions, such as arts and literature. 

As EI is becoming an increasingly important component of students’ curricula, there is a growing demand for teachers to implement behaviors informed by EI principles in classrooms (Mortiboys, 2013).

This means promoting collaboration between students, creating opportunities for reflection and metacognition, and encouraging assertive communication to meet students’ needs and values.

Emotional Intelligence in Relationships

Since EI also includes the ability to understand and empathize with the emotions of others, it is crucial for developing strong and good-quality relationships. 

In a research study, EI was positively related to higher scores on empathetic perspective-taking and self-monitoring in social situations, meaning that people with higher EI were better able to understand social contexts and adjust their self-presentation accordingly (Schutte et al., 2001). 

In addition, EI predicted the level of cooperation and affection in romantic relationships. In couples where one partner had high EI, they demonstrated overall better relationship satisfaction. 

The possible underlying reasons are that EI can help lead more productive conversations, allowing for better intimacy in relationships. At the same time, it is a useful tool for managing conflicts constructively, understanding others’ negative emotions, and being more open to negotiation (Schutte et al., 2001). 

Some practical behaviors that can help build emotionally intelligent relationships are taking care and developing strategies to support each other, practicing transparent communication without making assumptions to be able to attune to others’ feelings, and using changes in circumstances as an opportunity to redefine and revitalize our relationships (Zeidner, Matthews and Roberts, 2012).

Emotional Intelligence at Work

EI in the workplace has been associated with a greater likelihood of professional growth, both for the individual and for companies. 

A boost in overall productivity at work has been observed in employees that are emotionally intelligent and seem to be more committed to their careers and organization (Miao, Humphrey, and Qian, 2017). 

In addition, the interpersonal aspects of EI can facilitate work interactions by allowing a greater degree of openness to other people’s perspectives, which can, in turn, enhance the success of leadership (Fianko, Jnr, and Dzogbewu, 2020).

For example, practicing active listening during meetings and showing appreciation for the initiatives of others can foster trust and cooperation between co-workers.

As companies now tend to rely more on effective teamwork, the ability to clearly communicate tasks and objectives also plays a pivotal role (Krén and Séllei, 2021). Being aware of our communication skills as well as the listener’s level of comprehension can prevent misunderstandings and uncertainty about the most effective course of action. 

In addition, the ability of leaders to communicate the purpose and values of an organization can help develop a collective sense of goals, generating greater enthusiasm and commitment.

Being open to and providing constructive feedback while avoiding criticism is also an important element for professional development in employees, who can work on becoming a better version of themselves without feeling demotivated.

This can be promoted by clearly identifying areas of improvement while providing new learning opportunities and rewarding excellent work (Chernis et al., 1998).

Examples of low emotional intelligence 

Low EI is characterized by the inability to perceive emotions accurately and maintain meaningful social interactions (Goleman, 1996)

There are various ways in which this can manifest. People with low EI may struggle to listen to others’ perspectives and have difficulty acknowledging their own mistakes, with the risk of provoking argumentative conversations. 

They may also have little insight into how their emotions drive inappropriate behaviors, failing to understand when something they say is insensitive or tending to blame others for their problems.

Low EI may also present with frequent emotional outbursts or changes in mood , which reflects a reduced ability to control emotions.

Finally, people with low EI may have a very limited social circle due to reduced empathy and connectedness in relationships and difficulty maintaining an equal balance between give and take. 

Components of Emotional Intelligence

According to Daniel Goleman’s model, first outlined in his book Emotional Intelligence: Why it Can Matter More Than IQ (1996), there are four main competencies of emotional intelligence (Figure 1).

Self-Awareness

Self-awareness is the ability to accurately assess our own emotions, including their origin and the external events that trigger them. It provides a useful tool for decision-making, allowing us to base our actions on true facts rather than impulsive reactions. 

It also encompasses awareness about our own capabilities – strengths and weaknesses – knowing how our emotions are brought up by specific circumstances.

This consequently leads to better self-confidence as we have the power to choose emotional responses that are more appropriate to the context. 

Self-Management

Self-management is the capacity to regulate emotions and impulses in a productive way and to be resilient in the face of changing circumstances. 

People with strong self-regulation skills tend to be better able to act with integrity and in line with their own values when making decisions (trustworthiness), and they take responsibility for their own actions (conscientiousness).

In addition, they engage in realistic efforts to improve their performance, trying to take the initiative to maximize their chances of success. 

Social Awareness

Social awareness entails the ability to empathize with others’ emotions, even when these are not expressed explicitly, and to comprehend the social contexts and group dynamics they occur in.

Through empathy, it is possible to create a strong emotional bond with others, showing sensitivity to their feelings and responding in ways that validate them.

Social awareness also allows an understanding of the forces and power dynamics present in relationships and influences a person’s emotions.

Relationship Management 

Relationship management is the ability to inspire, influence, and motivate others while managing hostile situations with diplomacy and strategy. 

It involves practicing active listening toward others’ needs and maintaining open and clear communication to develop strong and positive relationships.

It also includes the capacity to deal with conflict and maintain leadership skills when motivating a group to work towards a common goal.

The model, therefore, distinguishes between awareness (recognition of emotions) and management (regulation of emotions) applied to the self and others . 

Figure 1. Readapted from Singh et al., 2022

How can emotional intelligence be increased?

Despite EI being correlated with personality traits, there is also evidence of it being a skill that can be improved with time and as our social interactions evolve (Nelis et al., 2009; Serrat, 2017). 

Below are some ways in which emotional intelligence can be increased:

Develop emotional awareness

• Acknowledging, identifying, and naming our feelings can increase emotional awareness. 
• A simple way to do this is by exploring our emotional reactions to life events with curiosity to validate feelings rather than avoiding them. 
• Practicing mindfulness is also a proven method of gaining perspective on our feelings. 
• Once we gain self-awareness, we also become more resilient to challenges, as we are better able not to feel overcome by adversity.

Practice active listening

• Practicing attentive listening to attune to other people’s feelings can help develop empathy. 
• While talking to others, it is important to avoid interrupting them or relating the conversation to ourselves, noticing the signals that indicate how the other person is feeling. 
• This can increase our ability to understand their emotional needs and identify ways to offer help. 

Assertive communication

• Assertive communication, which involves clearly expressing our perspectives, desires, and needs, can enhance our relationship with others as they can better understand our point of view. 
• To increase assertiveness, we can try and identify which emotions are more difficult for us to share and rehearse ways to express them.

Acknowledge others’ emotions

• When dealing with personal or job-related conflicts, it is important to acknowledge first the emotions that the counterpart is expressing. 
• This can help reduce stress levels and gives space to resolve the problem more objectively. 

Reframe the situation

• The second step is trying to reframe a problematic situation in a positive way, suggesting possible ways to help or finding a compromise to move toward conflict resolution.
• Setting concrete goals to promote emotionally intelligent behaviors in everyday life may involve being more present for others and engaging in more meaningful conversations. 
• To track our progress, we can ask our close ones for feedback and constantly identify areas of improvement.  

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is emotional intelligence important.

Possessing strong EI skills can have an overall positive impact on our life. It brings better awareness of our own feelings, allowing us to handle challenging situations with greater control and flexibility.

In addition, it helps create deeper connections with other people, strengthening the social support system around us and improving our mental well-being. People with high EI also seem to report better work-life balance as they can reconcile their roles in different aspects of their life.

When is emotional intelligence important?

EI is particularly important when dealing with everyday stressful situations. Preventing the escalation of negative emotions allows the introduction of more positive emotional states, protecting our general mental health and well-being. 

EI also plays a pivotal role in our ability to make objective decisions. Through EI skills, it is possible to be aware of superfluous emotions that can negatively influence the decision-making process and disregard them to enhance our ability to reach the final outcome. 

Finally, through greater emotional awareness, we can understand more clearly what our goals are and identify the motivations to accomplish them.

How does emotional intelligence make a good leader?

EI has proven to be a significant predictor of effective leadership and trust development in leader-employee interactions. 

Leaders with high EI can integrate the view of others when developing strategic plans directed towards a common goal and are committed to fostering a sense of purpose in their employees (Kennedy, Campis, and Leclerc, 2020). 

In addition, they prioritize the developmental needs of others, providing opportunities for professional development and reinforcing learning behaviors.

In general, with leadership tasks in an organization involving more complex and collaborative work, practicing relationship management skills becomes increasingly important.

Cherniss, C., Goleman, D., Emmerling, R., Cowan, K., & Adler, M. (1998). Bringing emotional intelligence to the workplace.  New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations, Rutgers University , 1-34.

Fianko, S. K., Jnr, S. A. J. S. A., & Dzogbewu, T. C. (2020). Does the interpersonal dimension of Goleman’s emotional intelligence model predict effective leadership?.  African Journal of Business and Economic Research ,  15 (4), 221.

Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ . Bloomsbury Publishing.

Goleman, D. (2001). An EI-based theory of performance.  The emotionally intelligent workplace: How to select for, measure, and improve emotional intelligence in individuals, groups, and organizations ,  1 (1), 27-44.

Kennedy, K., Campis, S., & Leclerc, L. (2020). Human-Centered Leadership: Creating Change From the Inside Out.  Nurse Leader ,  18 (3), 227-231.

Koubova, V., & Buchko, A. A. (2013). Life‐work balance: Emotional intelligence as a crucial component of achieving both personal life and work performance.  Management Research Review .

Krén, H., & Séllei, B. (2021). The role of emotional intelligence in organizational performance.  Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences ,  29 (1), 1-9.

MacCann, C., Jiang, Y., Brown, L. E., Double, K. S., Bucich, M., & Minbashian, A. (2020). Emotional intelligence predicts academic performance: A meta-analysis.  Psychological bulletin ,  146 (2), 150.

Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., & Qian, S. (2017). A meta‐analysis of emotional intelligence and work attitudes.  Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology ,  90 (2), 177-202.

Mortiboys, A. (2013).  Teaching with emotional intelligence: A step-by-step guide for higher and further education professionals . Routledge.

Nelis, D., Quoidbach, J., Mikolajczak, M., & Hansenne, M. (2009). Increasing emotional intelligence:(How) is it possible?.  Personality and individual differences ,  47 (1), 36-41.

Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Bobik, C., Coston, T. D., Greeson, C., Jedlicka, C., Rhodes, E. & Wendorf, G. (2001). Emotional intelligence and interpersonal relations.  The Journal of social psychology ,  141 (4), 523-536.

Serrat, O. (2017). Understanding and developing emotional intelligence. In  Knowledge solutions  (pp. 329-339). Springer, Singapore.

Singh, A., Prabhakar, R., & Kiran, J. S. (2022). Emotional Intelligence: A Literature Review Of Its Concept, Models, And Measures.  Journal of Positive School Psychology ,  6 (10), 2254-2275.

Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2012).  What we know about emotional intelligence: How it affects learning, work, relationships, and our mental health . MIT press.

REVIEW article

The measurement of emotional intelligence: a critical review of the literature and recommendations for researchers and practitioners.

• 1 School of Management, QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
• 2 Clinical Skills Development Service, Metro North Hospital and Health Service, Queensland Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
• 3 School of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, Australia
• 4 School of Advertising, Marketing and Public Relations, QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Emotional Intelligence (EI) emerged in the 1990s as an ability based construct analogous to general Intelligence. However, over the past 3 decades two further, conceptually distinct forms of EI have emerged (often termed “trait EI” and “mixed model EI”) along with a large number of psychometric tools designed to measure these forms. Currently more than 30 different widely-used measures of EI have been developed. Although there is some clarity within the EI field regarding the types of EI and their respective measures, those external to the field are faced with a seemingly complex EI literature, overlapping terminology, and multiple published measures. In this paper we seek to provide guidance to researchers and practitioners seeking to utilize EI in their work. We first provide an overview of the different conceptualizations of EI. We then provide a set of recommendations for practitioners and researchers regarding the most appropriate measures of EI for a range of different purposes. We provide guidance both on how to select and use different measures of EI. We conclude with a comprehensive review of the major measures of EI in terms of factor structure, reliability, and validity.

Overview and Purpose

The purpose of this article is to review major, widely-used measures of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and make recommendations regarding their appropriate use. This article is written primarily for academics and practitioners who are not currently experts on EI but who are considering utilizing EI in their research and/or practice. For ease of reading therefore, we begin this article with an introduction to the different types of EI, followed by a brief summary of different measures of EI and their respective facets. We then provide a detailed set of recommendations for researchers and practitioners. Recommendations focus primarily on choosing between EI constructs (ability EI, trait EI, mixed models) as well as choosing between specific tests. We take into account such factors as test length, number of facets measured and whether tests are freely available. Consequently we also provide recommendations both for users willing to purchase tests and those preferring to utilize freely available measures.

In our detailed literature review, we focus on a set of widely used measures and summarize evidence for their validity, reliability, and conceptual basis. Our review includes studies that focus purely on psychometric properties of EI measures as well as studies conducted within applied settings, particularly health care settings. We include comprehensive tables summarizing key empirical studies on each measure, in terms of their research design and main findings. Our review includes measures that are academic and/or commercial as well as those that are freely available or require payment. To assist users with accessing measures, we include web links to complete EI questionaries for freely available measures and to websites and/or example items for copyrighted measures. For readers interested in reviews relating primarily to EI constructs, theory and outcomes rather than specifically measures of EI, we recommend a number of recent high quality publications (e.g., Kun and Demetrovics, 2010 ; Gutiérrez-Cobo et al., 2016 ). Additionally, for readers interested in a review of measures without the extensive recommendations we provide here, we recommend the chapter by Siegling et al. (2015) .

Early Research on Emotional Intelligence

EI emerged as a major psychological construct in the early 1990s, where it was conceptualized as a set of abilities largely analogous to general intelligence. Early influential work on EI was conducted by Salovey and Mayer (1990) , who defined EI as the “the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions” (p. 189). They argued that individuals high in EI had certain emotional abilities and skills related to appraising and regulating emotions in the self and others. Accordingly, it was argued that individuals high in EI could accurately perceive certain emotions in themselves and others (e.g., anger, sadness) and also regulate emotions in themselves and others in order to achieve a range of adaptive outcomes or emotional states (e.g., motivation, creative thinking).

However, despite having a clear definition and conceptual basis, early research on EI was characterized by the development of multiple measures (e.g., Bar-On, 1997a , b ; Schutte et al., 1998 ; Mayer et al., 1999 ) with varying degrees of similarity (see Van Rooy et al., 2005 ). One cause of this proliferation was the commercial opportunities such tests offered to developers and the difficulties faced by researchers seeking to obtain copyrighted measures (see section Mixed EI for a summary of commercial measures). A further cause of this proliferation was the difficulty researchers faced in developing measures with good psychometric properties. A comprehensive discussion of this issue is beyond the scope of this article (see Petrides, 2011 for more details) however one clear challenge faced by early EI test developers was constructing emotion-focused questions that could be scored with objective criteria. In comparison to measures of cognitive ability that have objectively right/wrong answers (e.g., mathematical problems), items designed to measure emotional abilities often rely on expert judgment to define correct answers which is problematic for multiple reasons ( Roberts et al., 2001 ; Maul, 2012 ).

A further characteristic of many early measures was their failure to discriminate between measures of typical and maximal performance. In particular, some test developers moved away from pure ability based questions and utilized self-report questions (i.e., questions asking participants to rate behavioral tendencies and/or abilities rather than objectively assessing their abilities; e.g., Schutte et al., 1998 ). Other measures utilized broader definitions of EI that included social effectiveness in addition to typical EI facets (see Ashkanasy and Daus, 2005 ) (e.g., Boyatzis et al., 2000 ; Boyatzis and Goleman, 2007 ). Over time it became clear that these different measures were tapping into related, yet distinct underlying constructs. Currently, there are two popular methods of classifying EI measures. First is the distinction between trait and ability EI proposed initially by Petrides and Furnham (2000) and further clarified by Pérez et al. (2005) . Second is in terms of the three EI “streams” as proposed by Ashkanasy and Daus (2005) . Fortunately there is overlap between these two methods of classification as we discuss below.

Methods of Classifying EI

The distinction between ability EI and trait EI first proposed by Petrides and Furnham (2000) was based purely on whether the measure was a test of maximal performance (ability EI) or a self-report questionnaire (trait EI) ( Petrides and Furnham, 2000 ; Pérez et al., 2005 ). According to this method of classification, Ability EI tests measure constructs related to an individual's theoretical understanding of emotions and emotional functioning, whereas trait EI questionnaires measure typical behaviors in emotion-relevant situations (e.g., when an individual is confronted with stress or an upset friend) as well as self-rated abilities. Importantly, the key aspect of this method of classification is that EI type is best defined by method of measurement: all EI measures that are based on self-report items are termed “trait EI” whereas all measures that are based on maximal performance items are termed “ability EI”.

The second popular method of classifying EI measures refers the three EI “streams” ( Ashkanasy and Daus, 2005 ). According to this method of classification, stream 1 includes ability measures based on Mayer and Salovey's model; stream 2 includes self-report measures based on Mayer and Salovey's model and stream 3 includes “expanded models of emotional intelligence that encompass components not included in Salovey and Mayer's definition” (p. 443). Ashkanasy and Daus (2005) noted that stream 3 had also been referred to as “mixed” models in that they comprise a mixture of personality and behavioral items. The term “mixed EI” is now frequently used in the literature to refer to EI measures that measure a combination of traits, social skills and competencies and overlaps with other personality measures ( O'Boyle et al., 2011 ).

Prior to moving on, we note that Petrides and Furnham's (2000 ) trait vs. ability distinction is sufficient to categorize the vast majority of EI tests. Utilizing this system, both stream 2 (self-report) and stream 3 (self-report mixed) are simply classified as “trait” measures. Indeed as argued by Pérez et al. (2005) , this method of classification is probably sufficient given that self-report measures of EI tend to correlate strongly regardless of whether they are stream 2 or stream 3 measures. However, given that the terms “stream 3” and “mixed” are so extensively used in the EI literature, we will also use them here. We are not proposing that these terms are ideal or even useful when classifying EI, but rather we wish to adopt language that is most representative of the existing literature on EI. In the following section therefore, we refer to ability EI (stream 1), trait EI (steam 2), and mixed EI (stream 3). As outlined later, decisions regarding which measure of EI to use should be based on what form of EI is relevant to a particular research project or professional application.

For the purposes of this review, we refer to “ability” based measures as tests that utilize questions/items comparable to those found in IQ tests (see Austin, 2010 ). These include all tests containing ability-type items and not only those based directly on Mayer and Salovey's model. In contrast to trait based measures, ability measures do not require that participants self-report on various statements, but rather require that participants solve emotion-related problems that have answers that are deemed to be correct or incorrect (e.g., what emotion might someone feel prior to a job interview? (a) sadness, (b) excitement, (c) nervousness, (d) all of the above). Ability based measures give a good indication of individuals' ability to understand emotions and how they work. However since they are tests of maximal ability, they do not tend to predict typical behavior as well as trait based measures (see O'Connor et al., 2017 ). Nevertheless, ability-based measures are valid, albeit weak, predictors of a range of outcomes including work related attitudes such as job satisfaction ( Miao et al., 2017 ), and job performance ( O'Boyle et al., 2011 ).

In this review, we define trait based measures as those that utilize self-report items to measure overall EI and its sub dimensions. We utilize this term for measures that are self-report, and have not explicitly been termed as “mixed” or “stream 3” by others. Individuals high in various measures of trait EI have been found to have high levels of self-efficacy regarding emotion-related behaviors and tend to be competent at managing and regulating emotions in themselves and others. Also, since trait EI measures tend to measure typical behavior rather than maximal performance, they tend to provide a good prediction of actual behaviors in a range of situations ( Petrides and Furnham, 2000 ). Recent meta-analyses have linked trait EI to a range of work attitudes such as job satisfaction and organization commitment ( Miao et al., 2017 ), Job Performance ( O'Boyle et al., 2011 ).

As noted earlier, although the majority of EI measures can be categorized using the terms “ability EI” and “trait EI”, we adopt the term “mixed EI” in this review when this term has been explicitly used in our source articles. The term mixed EI is predominately used to refer to questionnaires that measure a combination of traits, social skills and competencies that overlap with other personality measures. Generally these measures are self-report, however a number also utilize 360 degree forms of assessment (self-report combined with multiple peer reports from supervisors, colleagues and subordinates) (e.g., Bar-On, 1997a , b ) This is particularly true for commercial measures designed to predict and improve performance in the workplace. A common aspect in many of these measures is the focus on emotional “competencies” which can theoretically be developed in individuals to enhance their professional success (See Goleman, 1995 ). Research on mixed measures have found them to be valid predictors of multiple emotion-related outcomes including job satisfaction, organizational commitment ( Miao et al., 2017 ), and job performance ( O'Boyle et al., 2011 ). Effect sizes of these relationships tend to be moderate and on par with trait-based measures.

We note that although different forms of EI have emerged (trait, ability, mixed) there are nevertheless a number of conceptual similarities in the majority of measures. In particular, the majority of EI measures are regarded as hierarchical meaning that they produce a total “EI score” for test takers along with scores on multiple facets/subscales. Additionally, the facets in ability, trait and mixed measures of EI have numerous conceptual overlaps. This is largely due to the early influential work of Mayer and Salovey. In particular, the majority of measures include facets relating to (1) perceiving emotions (in self and others), (2) regulating emotions in self, (3) regulating emotions in others, and (4) strategically utilizing emotions. Where relevant therefore, this article will compare how well different measures of EI assess the various facets common to multiple EI measures.

Emotional Intelligence Scales

The following emotional intelligence scales were selected to be reviewed in this article because they are all widely researched general measures of EI that also measure several of the major facets common to EI measures (perceiving emotions, regulating emotions, utilizing emotions).

1. Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Tests (MSCEIT) ( Mayer et al., 2002a , b ).

2. Self-report Emotional Intelligence Test (SREIT) ( Schutte et al., 1998 )

3. Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) ( Petrides and Furnham, 2001 )

4. Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) ( Bar-On, 1997a , b )

5. i) The Situational Test of Emotional Management (STEM) ( MacCann and Roberts, 2008 )

ii) The Situational Test of Emotional Understanding (STEU) ( MacCann and Roberts, 2008 )

6. Emotional and Social competence Inventory (ESCI) ( Boyatzis and Goleman, 2007 )

The complete literature review of these measures is included in the Literature Review section of this article. The following section provides a set of recommendations regarding which of these measures is appropriate to use across various research and applied scenarios.

Recommendations Regarding the Appropriate Use of Measures

Deciding between measuring trait ei, ability ei and mixed ei.

A key decision researchers/practitioners need to make prior to incorporating EI measures into their work is whether they should utilize a trait, ability or mixed measure of EI. In general, we suggest that when researchers/practitioners are interested in emotional abilities and competencies then they should utilize measures of ability EI. In particular ability EI is important in situations where a good theoretical understanding of emotions is required. For example a manager high in ability EI is more likely to make good decisions regarding team composition. Indeed numerous studies on ability EI and decision making in professionals indicates that those high in EI tend to be competent decision makers, problem solvers and negotiators due primarily to their enhanced abilities at perceiving and understanding emotions (see Mayer et al., 2008 ). More generally, ability EI research also has demonstrated associations between ability EI and social competence in children ( Schultz et al., 2004 ) and adults ( Brackett et al., 2006 ).

We suggest that researchers/practitioners should select trait measures of EI when they are interested in measuring behavioral tendencies and/or emotional self-efficacy. This should be when ongoing, typical behavior is likely to lead to positive outcomes, rather than intermittent, maximal performance. For example, research on task-induced stress (i.e., temporary states of negative affect evoked by short term, challenging tasks) has shown trait EI to have incremental validity over other predictors ( O'Connor et al., 2017 ). More generally, research tends to show that trait EI is a good predictor of effective coping styles in response to life stressors (e.g., Austin et al., 2010 ). Overall, trait EI is associated with a broad set of emotion and social related outcomes adults and children ( Mavroveli and Sánchez-Ruiz, 2011 ; Petrides et al., 2016 ) Therefore in situations characterized by ongoing stressors such as educational contexts and employment, we suggest that trait measures be used.

When both abilities and traits are important, researchers/practitioners might choose to use both ability and trait measures. Indeed some research demonstrates that both forms of EI are important stress buffers and that they exert their protective effects at different stages of the coping process: ability EI aids in the selection of coping strategies whereas trait EI predicts the implementation of such strategies once selected ( Davis and Humphrey, 2014 ).

Finally, when researchers/practitioners are interested in a broader set of emotion-related and social-related dispositions and competencies we recommend a mixed measure. Mixed measures are particularly appropriate in the context of the workplace. This seems to be the case for two reasons: first, the tendency to frame EI as a set of competencies that can be trained (e.g., Goleman, 1995 ; Boyatzis and Goleman, 2007 ) is likely to equip workers with a positive growth mindset regarding their EI. Second, the emphasis on 360 degree forms of assessment in mixed measures provides individuals with information not only on their self-perceptions, but on how others perceive them which is also particularly useful in training situations.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Trait and Ability EI

There are numerous advantages and disadvantages of the different forms of EI that test users should factor into their decision. One disadvantage of self-report measures is that people are not always good judges of their emotion-related abilities and tendencies ( Brackett et al., 2006 ; Sheldon et al., 2014 ; Boyatzis, 2018 ). A further disadvantage of self-report, trait based measures is their susceptibility to faking. Participants can easily come across as high in EI by answering questions in a strategic, socially desirable way. However, this is usually only an issue when test-takers believe that someone of importance (e.g., a supervisor or potential employer) will have access to their results. When it is for self-development or research, individuals are less likely to fake their answers to trait EI measures (see Tett et al., 2012 ). We also note that the theoretical bases of trait and mixed measures have also been questioned. Some have argued for example that self-report measures of EI measure nothing fundamentally different from the Big Five (e.g., Davies et al., 1998 ). We will not address this issue here as it has been extensively discussed elsewhere (e.g., Bucich and MacCann, 2019 ) however we emphasize that regardless of the statistical distinctiveness of self-report measures of EI, there is little question regarding their utility and predictive validity ( O'Boyle et al., 2011 ; Miao et al., 2017 ).

One advantage of ability based measures is that they cannot be faked. Test-takers are told to give the answer they believe is correct, and consequently should try to obtain a score as high as possible. A further advantage is that they are often more engaging tests. Rather than simply rating agreement with statements as in trait based measures, test-takers attempt to solve emotion-related problems, solve puzzles, and rate emotions in pictures.

Overall however, there are a number of fundamental problems with ability based measures. First, many personality and intelligence theorists question the very existence of ability EI, and suggest it is nothing more than intelligence. This claim is supported by high correlations between ability EI and IQ, although some have provided evidence to the contrary (e.g., MacCann et al., 2014 ). Additionally, the common measures of ability EI tend to have relatively poor psychometric properties in terms of reliability and validity. Ability EI measures do not tend to strongly predict outcomes that they theoretically should predict (e.g., O'Boyle et al., 2011 ; Miao et al., 2017 ). Maul (2012) also outlines a comprehensive set of problems with the most widely used ability measure, the MSCEIT, related to consensus-based scoring, reliability, and underrepresentation of the EI construct. Also see Petrides (2011) for a comprehensive critique of ability measures.

General Recommendation for Non-experts Choosing Between Ability and Trait EI

While the distinction between trait, ability and mixed EI is important, we acknowledge that many readers will simply be looking for an overall measure of emotional functioning that can predict personal and professional effectiveness. Therefore, when potential users have no overt preference for trait or ability measures but need to decide, we strongly recommend researchers/ practitioners begin with a trait-based measure of EI . Compared to ability based measures, trait based measures tend to have very good psychometric properties, do not have questionable theoretical bases and correlate moderately and meaningfully with a broad set of outcome variables. In general, we believe that trait based measures are more appropriate for most purposes than ability based measures. That being said, several adequate measures of ability EI exist and these have been reviewed in the Literature Review section. If there is a strong preference to use ability measures of EI then several good options exist as outlined later.

Choosing a Specific Measure of Trait EI

Based on our literature review we suggest that a very good, comprehensive measure of trait EI is the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire, or TEIQue ( Petrides and Furnham, 2001 ). If users are not restricted by time or costs (commercial users need to pay, researchers do not) then the TEIQue is a very good option. The TEIQue is a widely used questionnaire that measures 4 factors and 15 facets of trait EI. It has been cited in more than 2,000 academic studies. It is regarded as a “trait” measure of EI because it is based entirely on self-report responses, and facet scores represent typical behavior rather than maximal performance. There is extensive evidence in support of its reliability and validity ( Andrei et al., 2016 ). The four factors of the TEIQue map on to the broad EI facets present in multiple measures of EI as follows: emotionality = perceiving emotions, self-control = regulating emotions in self, sociability = regulating emotions in others, well-being = strategically utilizing emotions.

One disadvantage of the TEIQue however is that it is not freely available for commercial use. The website states that commercial or quasi-commercial use without permission is prohibited. The test can nevertheless be commercially used for a relatively small fee. The relevant webpage can be found here ( http://psychometriclab.com/ ). A second disadvantage is that the test can be fairly easily faked due to its use of a self-report response scale. However, this is generally only an issue when individuals have a reason for faking (e.g., their score will be seen by someone else and might impact their prospects of being selected for a job) (see Tett et al., 2012 ). Consequently, we do not recommend the TEIQue to be used for personnel selection, but it is relevant for other professional purposes such as in EI training and executive coaching.

There are very few free measures of trait EI that have been adequately investigated. One exception is the widely used, freely available measure termed the Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SREIT, Schutte et al., 1998 ). The SREIT has been cited more than 3,000 times. The full paper which includes all test items can be accessed here ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247166550_Development_and_Validation_of_a_Measure_of_Emotional_Intelligence ). Although it was designed to measure overall EI, subsequent research indicates that it performs better as a multidimensional scale measuring 4 distinct factors including: optimism/mood regulation, appraisal of emotions, social skills and utilization of emotions. These four scales again map closely to the broad facets present in many EI instruments as follows: optimism/mood regulation = regulating emotions in self, appraisal of emotions = perceiving emotions in self, social skills = regulating emotions in others, and utilization of emotions = strategically utilizing emotions. Please note that although one study has comprehensively critiqued the SREIT ( Petrides and Furnham, 2000 ), it actually works well as a multidimensional measure. This was acknowledged by the authors of the critique and has been subsequently confirmed (e.g., by O'Connor and Athota, 2013 ).

Long vs. Short Measures of Trait EI

The TEIQue is available in long form (153 items, 15 facets, 4 factors) and short form (30 items, 4 factors/subscales). A complete description of all factors and facets can be found here ( http://www.psychometriclab.com/adminsdata/files/TEIQue%20interpretations.pdf ). We recommend using the short form when users are interested in measuring only the 4 broad EI factors measured by this questionnaire (self-control, well-being, sociability, emotionality). Additionally, there is much more research on the short form of the questionnaire (e.g., Cooper and Petrides, 2010 ) (see Table 5 ), and the scoring instructions for the short form are freely available for researchers. If the short form is used, it is recommended that all factors/subscales are utilized because they predict outcomes in different ways (e.g., O'Connor and Brown, 2016 ). The SREIT is available only as a short, 33 item measure. All subscales are regarded as equally important and should be included if possible. Again it is noted that this test is freely available and the article publishing the items specifically states “Note: the authors permit free use of the scale for research and clinical purposes.”

When users require a comprehensive measure of trait EI, the long form of the TEIQue is also a good option (see Table 5 ). Although not as widely researched as the short version, the long version nevertheless has strong empirical support for reliability and validity. The long form is likely to be particularly useful for coaching and training purposes, because the use of 15 narrow facets allows for more focused training and intervention than measures with fewer broad facets/factors.

Choosing Between Measures of Ability EI

The most researched and supported measure of ability EI is the Mayer, Salovey, Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) (see Tables 2 , 3 ). It has been cited in more than 1,500 academic studies. It uses a 4 branch approach to ability EI and measures ability dimensions of perceiving emotions, facilitating thought, understanding emotions and managing emotions. These scales broadly map onto the broad constructs present in many measures of EI as follows: facilitating thought = strategically utilizing emotions, perceiving emotions = perceiving emotions in self and others, understanding emotions = understanding emotions, and managing emotions = regulating emotions in self and others. However, this is a highly commercialized test and relatively expensive to use. The test is also relatively long (141 items) and time consuming to complete (30–45 min).

A second, potentially more practical option includes two related tests of ability EI designed by MacCann and Roberts (2008) (see Tables 2 , 7 ). These tests are called the Situational Test of Emotion Management (STEM) and the Situational Test of Emotional Understanding (the STEU). These tests are becoming increasingly used in academic articles; the original paper has now been cited more than 250 times. The two aspects of ability EI measured in these tests map neatly onto two of the broad EI constructs present in multiple measures of EI. Specifically, the STEM can be regarded as a measure of emotional regulation in oneself and the STEU can be regarded as a measure of emotional understanding. As indicated in Table 7 , there is strong psychometric support for these tests (although the alpha for STEU is sometimes borderline/low). A further advantage of STEU is that it contains several items regarding workplace behavior, making it highly applicable for use in professional contexts.

If researchers/practitioners decide to use the STEM and STEU, additional measures might be required to measure the remaining broad EI constructs present in other tests. Although these measures could all come from relevant scales of tests reviewed in this article (see Table 1 ), there is a further option. Users should consider the Diagnostic Analysis of Non-verbal Accuracy scale (DANVA) which is a widely used, validated measure of perceiving emotion in others (see Nowicki and Duke, 1994 for an introduction to the DANVA). Alternatively, for those open to using a combination of ability and trait measures, users might wish to use Schutte et al.'s (1998) SREIT to assess remaining facets of EI (see Table 4 ). This is because it is free and captures aspects of EI not measured by STEM/STEU. These include appraisal of emotions (for perceiving emotions) and utilization of emotions (for strategically utilizing emotions), respectively.

Table 1 . Summary of recommended emotional intelligence assessment measures for each broad EI construct.

Therefore, if there is a strong preference to utilize ability based measures, the STEM, STEU, and DANVA represent some very good options worth considering. The advantage of using these over the MSCEIT is the lower cost of these measures and the reduced test time. Although the STEM, STEU, and DANVA do not seem to be freely available for commercial use, they are nevertheless appropriate for commercial use and likely to be cheaper than alternative options at this point in time.

Deciding Between Using a Single Measure or Multiple Measures

When seeking to measure EI, researchers/practitioners could choose to use (1) a single EI tool that measures overall EI along with common EI facets (i.e., perceiving emotions in self and others, regulating emotions in self and others and strategically utilizing emotions) or (2) some combination of existing scales from EI tool/s to cumulatively measure the four constructs.

The first option represents the most pragmatic and generally optimal solution because all information about the relevant facets and related measures would usually be located in a single document (e.g., test manual, journal article) or website. Additionally, if a paid test is used it would only require a single payment to a single author/institution. Furthermore, single EI tools are generally based on theoretical models of EI that have implications for training and development. For example EI facets in Goleman's (1995 ) model (as measured using the ESCI, Boyatzis and Goleman, 2007 ) are regarded as characteristics that can be trained. Therefore, if a single EI tool is selected, the theory underlying the tool could be used to model the interventions.

However, a disadvantage of the first option is that some EI measures will not contain the specific set of EI constructs researchers/practitioners are interested in assessing. This will often be the case when practitioners are seeking a comprehensive measure of EI but prefer a freely available measure. The second option specified above would solve this problem. However, the trade-off would be increased complexity and the absence of a single underlying theory that relates to the selected measures. Tables 2 – 8 describe facets within each measure as well as reliability and validity evidence for each facet and can be used to assist the selection of multiple measures if users choose to do this.

Table 2 . Summary of major emotional Intelligence assessment measures.

Table 3 . Review of selected studies detailing psychometric properties of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT).

Table 4 . Review of selected studies detailing psychometric properties of the Self-report Emotional Intelligence Test (SREIT).

Table 5 . Review of selected studies on psychometric properties of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue).

Table 6 . Review of selected studies on psychometric properties of the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) ( Bar-On, 1997a , b ).

Table 7 . Review of selected studies on psychometric properties of the STEU and STEM.

Table 8 . Review of selected studies on psychometric properties of the Emotional and Social competence Inventory (ESCI).

The Best Measure of Each Broad EI Construct (Evaluated Across all Reviewed Tests)

In some cases, researchers/practitioners will not need to measure overall EI, but instead seek to measure a single dimension of EI (e.g., emotion perception, emotion management etc.). In general, we caution the selective use of individual EI scales and recommend that users habitually measure and control for EI facets they are not directly interested in. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that in some cases users will have to select a single measure and consequently, this section specifies a selection of what we consider the “best” measures for each construct. We do this for both free measures and those requiring payment. In order to determine which measure constitutes the “best” measure for each construct, the following criteria were applied:

1. The measure should have been used in multiple research studies published in high quality journals.

2. There should be good evidence for the reliability of the measure in multiple academic studies incorporating the measure.

3. The measure should have obtained adequate validity evidence in multiple academic studies. Most importantly, evidence of construct validity should have been established, including findings demonstrating that the measure correlates meaningfully with measures of related constructs.

4. The measure should be based on a strong and well-supported theory of EI.

5. The measure should be practical (i.e., easy to administer, quickly completed and scored).

Where multiple measures met the above criteria, they were compared on their performance on each criterion (i.e., a measure with a lot of research scored higher on the first criteria than a measure with a medium level of research). Table 1 summarizes these results.

Please note that the Emotional and Social Intelligence Inventory (ESCI) by Boyatzis and Goleman (2007) has subscales that are also closely related to the ones listed in Table 1 (see full technical manual here ( http://www.eiconsortium.org/pdf/ESCI_user_guide.pdf ). The measure was developed primarily to predict and enhance performance at work and items are generally written to reflect workplace scenarios. Subscales from this test were not consistently chosen as the “best” measures because it has not had as extensive published research as the other tests. Most research using this measure has also used peer-ratings rather than self-ratings which makes it difficult to compare with the majority of measures (this is not a weakness though). Nevertheless, it should be considered if cost is not an issue and there is a strong desire to utilize a test specifically developed for the workplace.

Qualifications and Training

Although our purpose in this paper is not to outline the necessary training or qualifications required to administer the set of tests/questionnaires reviewed, we feel it is important to make some comments on this. First, we recommend that all researchers and practitioners considering using one more of these tests have a good understanding of the principles of psychological assessment. Users should understand the concepts of reliability, validity and the role of norms in psychological testing. There are many good introductory texts in this area (e.g., Kaplan and Saccuzzo, 2017 ). Furthermore, we recommend users have a good understanding of the limitations of psychological testing and assessment. When using EI measures to evaluate suitability of job applicants, these measures should form only part of the assessment process and should not be regarded as comprehensive information about applicants. Finally, some of the tests outlined in this review require specific certification and/or qualifications. Certification and/or qualification is required for administrators of the ESCI, MSCEIT, and EQi 2.0).

Literature Review

The final section of this article is a literature review of the 6 popular measures we have covered. We have included our review at the end of this article because we regard it as optional reading. We suggest that this section will be useful primarily for those seeking a more in depth understanding of the key studies underlying the various measures we have presented in earlier sections.

This literature review had two related aims; first to identify prominent EI measures used in the literature, as well as specifically in applied (e.g., health care) contexts. The emotional intelligence measures we included were those that measured both overall EI as well as more specific EI constructs common to multiple measures (e.g., those related to perceiving emotions in self and others, regulating emotions in self and others and strategically utilizing emotions). The second aim was to identify individual studies that have explored the validity and reliability of the specific emotional intelligence measures identified.

Inclusion Criteria

Four main inclusion criteria were applied to select literature: (a) focus on adult samples, (b) use of reputable, peer-reviewed journal articles, (c) use of an EI scale, and (d) where possible, use of a professional sample (e.g., health care professionals) rather than primarily student samples. The literature search therefore focused on empirical, quantitative investigations published in peer-reviewed journals. The articles reviewed therefore were generally methodologically sound and enabled a thorough analysis of some aspect of reliability or validity. We only reviewed articles published after 1990. Additionally, only papers in English were reviewed.

Papers were identified by conducting searches in the following electronic databases: PsycINFO, Medline, PubMED, CINAHL (Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature), EBSCO host and Google Scholar. Individual journals were also scanned such as The Journal of Nursing Measurement and Psychological Assessment.

Search Terms

When searching for emotional intelligence scales and related literature, search terms included: trait emotional intelligence, ability emotional intelligence, emotional intelligence scales, mixed emotional intelligence and emotional intelligence measures. Some common EI facet titles (e.g., self-awareness, self-regulation/self-management, social awareness, and relationship management) were also entered as search terms however this revealed far less relevant literature than searches based on EI terms. To access studies using professionals we also used terms such as workplace, healthcare, and nursing, along with emotional intelligence.

When searching for literature on the identified scales, the name of the respective scale was included in the search term (such as TEIQue scale) and the authors' names, along with terms such as workplace, organization, health care, nurses, health care professionals, to identify specific studies with a professional employee sample that utilized the specific scale. The terms validity and reliability were also used. Additionally, a similar search was conducted on articles that had cited the original papers. This search was done conducted utilizing Google Scholar. Table 2 summarizes the result of the first part of the literature review. It provides an overview of major Emotional Intelligence assessment measures, in terms of when they were developed, who developed them, what form of EI they measure, theoretical basis, test length and details regarding cost.

Tables 3 – 8 summarize research on the validity and reliability of the 6 tests included in Table 2 . In these tables we summarize the methodology used in major studies assessing reliability and validity as well as the results from these studies.

Collectively, these tables indicate that all 6 of the measures we reviewed have received some support for their reliability and validity. Measures with extensive research include the MSCEIT, SREIT, and TEIQue, and EQ-I and those with less total research are the STEU/STEM and ESCI. Existing research does not indicate that these latter measures are any less valid or reliable that the others; on the contrary they are promising measures but require further tests of reliability and validity. As noted previously, this table confirms that the tests with the strongest current evidence for construct and predictive validity are the self-report/trait EI measures (TEIQue, EQ-I, and SREIT). We note that although there is evidence for construct validity of the SREIT based on associations with theoretically related constructs (e.g., alexithymia, optimism; see Table 4 ), some have suggested the measure is problematic due to its use of self-report questions that primarily measure ability based constructs (see Petrides and Furnham, 2000 ).

In this article we have reviewed six widely used measures of EI and made recommendations regarding their appropriate use. This article was written primarily for researchers and practitioners who are not currently experts on EI and therefore we also clarified the difference between ability EI, trait EI and mixed EI. Overall, we recommend that users should use single, complete tests where possible and choose measures of EI most suitable for their purpose (i.e., choose ability EI when maximal performance is important and trait EI when typical performance is important). We also point out that, across the majority of emotion-related outcomes, trait EI tends to be a stronger predictor and consequently we suggest that new users of EI consider using a trait-based measure before assessing alternatives. The exception is in employment contexts where tests utilizing 360 degree assessment (primarily mixed measures) can also be very useful.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

The QUT library funded the article processing charges for this paper.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Andrei, F., Siegling, A. B., Aloe, A. M., Baldaro, B., and Petrides, K. V. (2016). The incremental validity of the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire (TEIQue): a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Personal. Assess. 98, 261–276. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2015.1084630

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ashkanasy, N. M., and Daus, C. S. (2005). Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior are vastly exaggerated. J. Organiz. Behav. 26, 441–452. doi: 10.1002/job.320

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Austin, E. J. (2010). Measurement of ability emotional intelligence: Results for two new tests. Br. J. Psychol. 101, 563–578. doi: 10.1348/000712609X474370

Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., and Mastoras, S. M. (2010). Emotional intelligence, coping and exam-related stress in Canadian undergraduate students. Austral. J. Psychol. 62, 42–50. doi: 10.1080/00049530903312899

Bar-On, R. (1996). The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): A Test of Emotional Intelligence . Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.

Google Scholar

Bar-On, R. (1997a). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: User's Manual. Toronto, ON: Multihealth Systems.

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

Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). Psicothema 18, 13–25.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Bar-On, R., Brown, J. M., Kirkcaldy, B. D., and Thomé, E. P. (2000). Emotional expression and implications for occupational stress; an application of the emotional quotient inventory (EQ-i). Personal. Indiv. Differe. 28, 1107–1118. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00160-9

Boyatzis, R., Rochford, K., and Cavanagh, K. V. (2017). Emotional intelligence competencies in engineer's effectiveness and engagement. Career Dev. Int. 22, 70–86. doi: 10.1108/CDI-08-2016-0136

Boyatzis, R. E. (2018). The behavioral level of emotional intelligence and its measurement. Front. Psychol. 9:01438. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01438

Boyatzis, R. E., and Gaskin, J. (2010). A Technical Note on the ESCI and ESCI-U: Factor Structure, Reliability, Convergent and Discriminant Validity Using EFA and CFA . Boston, MA: The Hay Group.

Boyatzis, R. E., and Goleman, D. (2007). Emotional and Social Competency Inventory. Boston, MA: The Hay Group.

Boyatzis, R. E., Goleman, D., and Rhee, K. (2000). “Clustering competence in emotional intelligence: insights from the emotional competence inventory (ECI),”in Handbook of Emotional Intelligence, eds R. Bar-On and J. D. A. Parker (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass), 343–362

Brackett, M. A., and Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personal. Social Psychol. Bull. 29, 1147–1158. doi: 10.1177/0146167203254596

Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., and Salovey, P. (2006). Relating emotional abilities to social functioning: a comparison of self-report and performance measures of emotional intelligence. J. Personal. Social Psychol. 91:780. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.780

Bucich, M., and MacCann, C. (2019). Emotional intelligence research in Australia: Past contributions and future directions. Austral. J. Psychol. 71, 59–67. doi: 10.1111/ajpy.12231

Conte, J. M. (2005). A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures. J. Organiz. Behav. 26, 433–440. doi: 10.1002/job.319

Cooper, A., and Petrides, K. (2010). A psychometric analysis of the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire–short form (TEIQue–SF) using item response theory. J. Personal. Assess. 92, 449–457. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2010.497426

Davies, M., Stankov, L., and Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: in search of an elusive construct. J. Personal. Social Psychol. 75:989. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.989

Davis, S. K., and Humphrey, N. (2014). Ability versus trait emotional intelligence. J. Indiv. Differ. 35, 54–52. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000127

Dawda, D., and Hart, S. D. (2000). Assessing emotional intelligence: reliability and validity of the bar-on emotional quotient inventory (EQ-i) in university students. Personal. Indiv. Diff. 28, 797–812. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00139-7

Dulewicz, V., Higgs, M., and Slaski, M. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence: content, construct and criterion-related validity. J. Manag. Psychol. 18, 405–420. doi: 10.1108/02683940310484017

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

Grant, A. M. (2013). Rocking the boat but keeping it steady: The role of emotion regulation in employee voice. Acad. Manag. J. 56, 1703–1723. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0035

Gutiérrez-Cobo, M. J., Cabello, R., and Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2016). The relationship between emotional intelligence and cool and hot cognitive processes: a systematic review. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 10:101. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00101

Heffernan, M., Quinn Griffin, M. T., Sister Rita McNulty, S. R., and Fitzpatrick, J. J. (2010). Self-compassion and emotional intelligence in nurses. Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 16, 366–373. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-172X.2010.01853.x

Kaplan, R. M., and Saccuzzo, D. P. (2017). Psychological Testing: Principles, Applications, and Issues . Mason, OH: Nelson Education.

Kinman, G., and Grant, L. (2011). Exploring stress resilience in trainee social workers: the role of emotional and social competencies. Br. J. Social Work 41, 261–275. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcq088

Kun, B., and Demetrovics, Z. (2010). Emotional intelligence and addictions: a systematic review. Subst. Misuse 45, 1131–1160. doi: 10.3109/10826080903567855

MacCann, C. (2006). Appendix 2.1 Instructions and Items in STEU (Situational Test of Emotional Understanding). Retrieved from: https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/934/3/03Appendices.pdf

MacCann, C., Joseph, D. L., Newman, D. A., and Roberts, R. D. (2014). Emotional intelligence is a second-stratum factor of intelligence: evidence from hierarchical and bifactor models. Emotion 14, 358–374. doi: 10.1037/a0034755

MacCann, C., and Roberts, R. D. (2008). New paradigms for assessing emotional intelligence: theory and data. Emotion 8, 540–551. doi: 10.1037/a0012746

Maul, A. (2012). The validity of the mayer–salovey–caruso emotional intelligence test (MSCEIT) as a measure of emotional intelligence. Emot. Rev. 4, 394–402. doi: 10.1177/1754073912445811

Mavroveli, S., and Sánchez-Ruiz, M. J. (2011). Trait emotional intelligence influences on academic achievement and school behaviour. Br. J. Edu. Psychol. 81, 112–134. doi: 10.1348/2044-8279.002009

Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., and Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence 27, 267–298. doi: 10.1016/S0160-2896(99)00016-1

Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., and Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annu. Rev. Psychol . 59, 507–536. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093646

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

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., and Caruso, D. R. (2002a). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) Item Booklet . Toronto, ON: MHS Publishers.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., and Caruso, D. R. (2002b). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) User's Manual . Toronto, ON: MHS Publishers.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., and Sitarenios, G. (2001). Emotional intelligence as a standard intelligence. Emotion 1, 232–242. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.1.3.232

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., and Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2. 0. Emotion 3 , 97–105. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.97

Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., and Qian, S. (2017). A meta-analysis of emotional intelligence and work attitudes. J. Occupat. Organiz. Psychol. 90, 177–202. doi: 10.1111/joop.12167

Mikolajczak, M., Menil, C., and Luminet, O. (2007). Explaining the protective effect of trait emotional intelligence regarding occupational stress: exploration of emotional labour processes. J. Res. Person. 41, 1107–1117. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2007.01.003

Morrison, J. (2008). The relationship between emotional intelligence competencies and preferred conflict-handling styles. J. Nurs. Manage. 16, 974–983. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2008.00876.x

Nowicki, S., and Duke, M. P. (1994). Individual differences in the nonverbal communication of affect: the diagnostic analysis of nonverbal accuracy scale. J. Nonverb. Behav. 18, 9–35. doi: 10.1007/BF02169077

O'Boyle, E. H. Jr., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., and Story, P. A. (2011). The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: a meta-analysis. J. Organiz. Beha. 32, 788–818. doi: 10.1002/job.714

O'Connor, P., Nguyen, J., and Anglim, J. (2017). Effectively coping with task stress: a study of the validity of the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire–short form (TEIQue–SF). J. Personal. Assess. 99, 304–314. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2016.1226175

O'Connor, P. J., and Athota, V. S. (2013). The intervening role of Agreeableness in the relationship between trait emotional intelligence and machiavellianism: reassessing the potential dark side of EI. Personal. Indiv. Differe. 55, 750–754. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.06.006

O'Connor, P. J., and Brown, C. M. (2016). Sex-linked personality traits and stress: emotional skills protect feminine women from stress but not feminine men. Personal. Indiv. Differe. 99, 28–32. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.075

Palmer, B. R., Stough, C., Harmer, R., and Gignac, G. (2009). “The genos emotional intelligence inventory: a measure designed specifically for workplace applications.” in Assessing Emotional Intelligence (Boston, MA: Springer), 103–117.

Pérez, J. C., Petrides, K. V., and Furnham, A. (2005). Measuring Trait Emotional Intelligence. Emotional intelligence: An International Handbook , ed R. Schulze and R. D. Roberts (Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber), 181–201.

Petrides, K. V. (2009). “Psychometric properties of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire,” in Advances in the Assessment of Emotional Intelligence , eds C. Stough, D. H. Saklofske and J. D. Parker (New York, NY: Springer), 85–101.

Petrides, K. V. (2011). “Ability and trait emotional intelligence,” in The Blackwell-Wiley Handbook of Individual Differences , eds T. Chamorro-Premuzic, A. Furnham, and S. von Stumm (New York, NY: Wiley).

Petrides, K. V., and Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence. Personal. Indivi. Differ. 29, 313–320. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00195-6

Petrides, K. V., and Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. Eur. J. Person. 15, 425–448. doi: 10.1002/per.416

Petrides, K. V., Mikolajczak, M., Mavroveli, S., Sanchez-Ruiz, M. J., Furnham, A., and Pérez-González, J. C. (2016). Developments in trait emotional intelligence research. Emot. Rev. 8, 335–341. doi: 10.1177/1754073916650493

Por, J., Barriball, L., Fitzpatrick, J., and Roberts, J. (2011). Emotional intelligence: Its relationship to stress, coping, well-being and professional performance in nursing students. Nurse Edu. Today 31, 855–860. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2010.12.023

Reed, S., Kassis, K., Nagel, R., Verbeck, N., Mahan, J. D., and Shell, R. (2015). Does emotional intelligence predict breaking bad news skills in pediatric interns? A pilot study. Med. Edu. Online 20:e24245. doi: 10.3402/meo.v20.24245

Roberts, R. D., Zeidner, M., and Matthews, G. (2001). Does emotional intelligence meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions. Emotion 1:196. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.1.3.196

Roseman, I. J. (2001). A Model of Appraisal in the Emotion System. Appraisal Processes in Emotion: Theory, Methods, Research , ed K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr and T. Johnstone (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 68–91.

Rosete, D., and Ciarrochi, J. (2005). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to workplace performance outcomes of leadership effectiveness. Leadership Organiz. Dev. J. 26, 388–399. doi: 10.1108/01437730510607871

Ruiz-Aranda, D., Extremera, N., and Pineda-Galán, C. (2014). Emotional intelligence, life satisfaction and subjective happiness in female student health professionals: the mediating effect of perceived stress. J. Psychia. Mental Health Nurs. 21, 106–113. doi: 10.1111/jpm.12052

Salovey, P., and Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imag. Cogn. Persona. 9, 185–211. doi: 10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG

Schlegel, K., and Mortillaro, M. (2019). The Geneva Emotional Competence Test (GECo): an ability measure of workplace emotional intelligence. J. Appl. Psychol. 104, 559–580. doi: 10.1037/apl0000365

Schultz, D., Izard, C. E., and Bear, G. (2004). Children's emotion processing: Relations to emotionality and aggression. Dev. Psychopathol. 16, 371–387. doi: 10.1017/S0954579404044566

Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., et al. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personal. Indivi. Diff. 25, 167–177. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00001-4

Sheldon, O. J., Dunning, D., and Ames, D. R. (2014). Emotionally unskilled, unaware, and uninterested in learning more: reactions to feedback about deficits in emotional intelligence. J. Appl. Psychol. 99, 125–137. doi: 10.1037/a0034138

Siegling, A. B., Saklofske, D. H., and Petrides, K. V. (2015). Measures of ability and trait emotional intelligence. Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs , eds G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, and D. H. Saklofske (San Diego, CA: Academic Press), 381–414.

Tett, R. P., Freund, K. A., Christiansen, N. D., Fox, K. E., and Coaster, J. (2012). Faking on self-report emotional intelligence and personality tests: Effects of faking opportunity, cognitive ability, and job type. Personal. Indivi. Diffe. 52, 195–201. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.017

Van Rooy, D. L., Viswesvaran, C., and Pluta, P. (2005). An evaluation of construct validity: What is this thing called emotional intelligence? Hum. Perform. 18, 445–462. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1804_9

Wong, C. S., Law, K. S., and Wong, P. M. (2004). Development and validation of a forced choice emotional intelligence for Chinese respondents in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific J. Manage. 21, 535–559. doi: 10.1023/B:APJM.0000048717.31261.d0

Wong, C. S., Wong, P. M., and Law, K. S. (2007). Evidence of the practical utility of Wong's emotional intelligence scale in Hong Kong and mainland China. Asia Pac. J. Manage. 24, 43–60. doi: 10.1007/s10490-006-9024-1

Keywords: emotional intelligence, measures, questionnaires, trait, ability, mixed, recommendations

Citation: O'Connor PJ, Hill A, Kaya M and Martin B (2019) The Measurement of Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Researchers and Practitioners. Front. Psychol. 10:1116. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01116

Received: 05 October 2018; Accepted: 29 April 2019; Published: 28 May 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 O'Connor, Hill, Kaya and Martin. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Peter J. O'Connor, peter.oconnor@qut.edu.au

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Presentations made painless

• Get Premium

124 Emotional Intelligence Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Inside This Article

Emotional intelligence is a crucial skill that helps individuals navigate their emotions, understand others' feelings, and build healthy relationships. It involves being aware of one's emotions, managing them effectively, and empathizing with others.

If you're looking for inspiration for an essay on emotional intelligence, we've got you covered. Here are 124 emotional intelligence essay topic ideas and examples to help you get started:

• The importance of emotional intelligence in leadership
• How emotional intelligence affects workplace performance
• Strategies for developing emotional intelligence in children
• The role of emotional intelligence in conflict resolution
• The impact of emotional intelligence on mental health
• How emotional intelligence can improve communication skills
• Emotional intelligence and its influence on decision-making
• The relationship between emotional intelligence and self-esteem
• Emotional intelligence and academic success
• The connection between emotional intelligence and empathy
• How emotional intelligence can enhance teamwork
• The benefits of emotional intelligence in relationships
• Emotional intelligence and its role in stress management
• The impact of emotional intelligence on job satisfaction
• Strategies for improving emotional intelligence in the workplace
• Emotional intelligence and its link to resilience
• The relationship between emotional intelligence and emotional regulation
• The connection between emotional intelligence and social skills
• How emotional intelligence can help in conflict resolution
• The role of emotional intelligence in effective leadership
• Emotional intelligence and its impact on mental health disorders
• The benefits of emotional intelligence in academic settings
• Strategies for developing emotional intelligence in adolescents
• The connection between emotional intelligence and self-awareness
• How emotional intelligence can improve decision-making skills
• The impact of emotional intelligence on interpersonal relationships
• Emotional intelligence and its influence on job performance
• The role of emotional intelligence in effective communication
• The benefits of emotional intelligence in team dynamics
• Strategies for enhancing emotional intelligence in the family
• Emotional intelligence and its impact on conflict resolution in the workplace
• The relationship between emotional intelligence and emotional resilience
• How emotional intelligence can help in managing stress
• The connection between emotional intelligence and emotional regulation in children
• The role of emotional intelligence in building empathy
• Emotional intelligence and its impact on social skills development
• The benefits of emotional intelligence in parenting
• Strategies for improving emotional intelligence in the classroom
• Emotional intelligence and its influence on academic success
• The connection between emotional intelligence and self-esteem in teenagers
• How emotional intelligence can improve decision-making in adolescents
• The impact of emotional intelligence on peer relationships
• Emotional intelligence and its role in mental health promotion
• The benefits of emotional intelligence in conflict resolution in school
• Strategies for developing emotional intelligence in young adults
• Emotional intelligence and its impact on social-emotional learning
• The relationship between emotional intelligence and self-compassion
• How emotional intelligence can enhance emotional regulation skills
• The connection between emotional intelligence and emotional intelligence in the workplace
• The role of emotional intelligence in effective team communication
• Emotional intelligence and its influence on job satisfaction in the workplace
• The benefits of emotional intelligence in building positive workplace relationships
• Strategies for improving emotional intelligence in diverse work environments
• Emotional intelligence and its impact on employee engagement
• The relationship between emotional intelligence and conflict resolution in the workplace
• How emotional intelligence can help in managing workplace stress
• The connection between emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness
• The role of emotional intelligence in promoting a positive work culture
• Emotional intelligence and its influence on organizational performance
• The benefits of emotional intelligence in building strong team dynamics
• Strategies for enhancing emotional intelligence in leadership roles
• Emotional intelligence and its impact on employee retention
• The relationship between emotional intelligence and effective communication in the workplace
• How emotional intelligence can improve decision-making in a professional setting
• The connection between emotional intelligence and emotional regulation in the workplace
• The role of emotional intelligence in conflict resolution in a team setting
• Emotional intelligence and its influence on team collaboration
• The benefits of emotional intelligence in building trust among team members
• Strategies for improving emotional intelligence in a fast-paced work environment
• Emotional intelligence and its impact on employee well-being
• The relationship between emotional intelligence and job performance
• How emotional intelligence can help in managing workplace conflicts
• The connection between emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness in a global organization
• The role of emotional intelligence in promoting diversity and inclusion in the workplace
• Emotional intelligence and its influence on employee morale
• The benefits of emotional intelligence in building strong client relationships
• Strategies for enhancing emotional intelligence in customer service roles
• Emotional intelligence and its impact on team productivity
• The relationship between emotional intelligence and

Want to create a presentation now?

Instantly Create A Deck

Let PitchGrade do this for me

Hassle Free

We will create your text and designs for you. Sit back and relax while we do the work.

Explore More Content

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service

© 2023 Pitchgrade

Home — Essay Samples — Psychology — Emotional Intelligence — Emotional Intelligence’ by Daniel Goleman: A Reflective Analysis

Emotional Intelligence' by Daniel Goleman: a Reflective Analysis

• Categories: Book Review Emotional Intelligence

About this sample

Words: 1250 |

Published: Dec 3, 2020

Words: 1250 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Literature Psychology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 903 words

4 pages / 1835 words

2 pages / 1094 words

3 pages / 1213 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Emotional Intelligence

Emotional analytics are involved in every action, decision and judgment that we undertake. People with emotional intelligence recognize this and use it to manage their life. In the course of the last two decades, this concept [...]

Emotional intelligence (EI) refers to the ability to recognize, understand, and manage one's emotions, as well as to perceive and influence the emotions of others. It plays a crucial role in shaping individuals' well-being, [...]

In conclusion, maturity is an essential attribute that contributes to personal growth, healthy relationships, and a harmonious society. It encompasses emotional intelligence, responsibility, self-awareness, and the ability to [...]

In conclusion, intelligence is a multifaceted concept that extends beyond cognitive abilities. Recognizing the diversity of human intelligences and the importance of emotional intelligence, it becomes clear that intelligence [...]

Intelligence research has been dominated by conceptualisation and IQ (Intelligence Quotient) for decades. However, a popular argument against IQ is that it measures a narrow, more mathematical aspect of intelligence (Mackintosh [...]

Emotional intelligence or EI is the ability to understand and manage your own emotions, and those of the people around you. People with a high degree of emotional intelligence know what they're feeling, what their emotions mean, [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence Informative Essay

For a long time, humans have often been described by scientists as emotional beings. The major reason behind this description is the scholarly notion that, in most occasions, our needs and wants are normally driven by our emotions. To this regard, our emotions are mostly categorized into two factions: positive and negative emotions. It is based upon these two facets of emotional attachments that humans make most decisions.

For example, our need to love someone or something is usually based on positive emotions just in the same way feelings of hate towards someone or something is primarily driven by negative emotions.

Having known this, skillful and artistic educators normally use these two sets of emotions to variably orient learning, development or even intelligence, as they wish. Students who are able to master the art of using good and bad emotions are normally regarded as having achieved emotional intelligence.

In most instances, emotionally intelligent students are able to make intelligible decisions regarding their surrounding environment and how they should behave. This, probably, is the reason why they tend to develop in a better way than their counterparts who are less emotionally intelligent.

Additionally, Saarni asserts that emotional intelligence (also known as emotional competence) also orients good self-regulation by both students and their teachers (Salovey & Sluyter, 1997, p.36) Effectually, this self control makes it easy for us to not only focus even in dilemmatic situations.

A good example is given by Saarni of the 6-year old Samuel who was able to act intelligently in spite of being in a tough situation when they were attacked by Fred (p.36-37).

Nevertheless, it is paramount to state that emotional intelligence, and the emotional development that comes thereof, does not equate general wisdom (Salovey & Sluyter, 1997, p.35). By general wisdom, we refer to usual ability of a person to make intelligent decision based on knowledge concerning general things in life.

According to Saarni, both students and teachers can have emotional intelligence even without having wisdom. This is based on the fact that emotional intelligence mostly comes from our environment and how we master the nature of occurrences in it (p.35).

It is based on this fact that Samuel (in spite of being a young boy with no formal education) was able to make an intelligent decision to save his sister (Jessie) and the elderly neighbor taking care of them (Mary) from the destructive activities of Fred (Mary’s son). All that Samuel did was to remember the instructions that had been given to him by her mom on how he should combat such events.

From this example, it is evidently clear that emotional intelligence plays a crucial role in learning and development. As a matter of fact, most children do not have well-formed brains to master all the right and wrong things in life.

However, by simply categorizing such things into the emotional facets of good and bad; they are not only able to understand you easily but they are also able to remember your teachings, when need be.

Similarly, adults also find emotional occurrences quite easy to remember and that is why simple artistic tools like photos, paintings, or even drawings can evoke great deep memories while intermittently orienting development and learning.

For this reason, parents, teachers, governments and other opinion leaders should strive to facilitate the proliferation of emotional intelligence through forums like art and design—which are easily memorable to both learners and their educators.

Saarni, C. “Emotional competence and self-regulation in childhood.” p.35-61. In Salovey, P., & Sluyter, D. J. (1997). Emotional development and emotional intelligence. New York: Basic Books.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, May 25). Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence. https://ivypanda.com/essays/emotional-development-and-emotional-intelligence/

"Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence." IvyPanda , 25 May 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/emotional-development-and-emotional-intelligence/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence'. 25 May.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence." May 25, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/emotional-development-and-emotional-intelligence/.

1. IvyPanda . "Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence." May 25, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/emotional-development-and-emotional-intelligence/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence." May 25, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/emotional-development-and-emotional-intelligence/.

• Types of Lies, Its Benefits or Harms
• Employee Motivation: Fred Maiorino's Case
• Edward William Lane's Views on the Orients
• Orient and Occident: "Orientalism" by Edward Said
• Religious Studies: Samuel Time
• Fred E. Fiedler's Model of Leadership
• The First Book of Samuel's Brief Analysis
• "Endgame" a Play by Samuel Beckett
• Film Studies: "The Mark of Zorro" by Fred Niblo
• Ambiguity of "The Lost Highway" Film
• The Effect of Alarm Clocks on Class Attendance
• Technological Literacy Unit Plan
• The No Child Left Behind: Goals and Objectives
• The Value of Your Education
• Online Education Goals and Instructional Objectives