This article was downloaded by: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] On: 2 May 2011 Ac cess details: Access Details:

[subscription number 934223502] Publisher Psycholo gy Press Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK The Journal of Social Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription informa tion: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t914957664 Is Emotional Intelligence an Advantage? An Exploration of the Impact of Emotiona l and General Intelligence on Individual Performance Laura Thi Lama; Susan L. Kirbyb a College of Arts and Sciences, Texas Tech Unive rsity, b Department of Management, Southwest Texas State University, Online publ ication date: 02 April 2010 To cite this Article Lam, Laura Thi and Kirby, Susan L.(2002) 'Is Emotional Inte lligence an Advantage? An Exploration of the Impact of Emotional and General Intelligence on Individual Performance', The Journal of Social Psychology, 142: 1, 133 143 To link to this Article: DOI: 10. 1080/00224540209603891 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224540209603891 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditio ns-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private stu dy purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-sel ling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to an yone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accura te or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses shou ld be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be li able for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages what soever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

The Journal of Social Psvcholoav. 2002.142(1), 133-143 Is Emotional Intelligence an Advantage? An Exploration of the Impact of Emotiona l and General Intelligence on Individual Performance Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 22:04 2 May 2011 LAURA THI LAM College of Arts and Sciences Texas Tech University SUSAN L. KIRBY Department of Management Southwest Texas State University ABSTRACT. Emotional intelligence is an increasingly popular consulting tool. Acc ording to popular opinion and work-place testimonials, emotional intelligence in creases performance and productivity; however, there has been a general lack of independent, systematic analysis substantiating that claim. The authors investig ated whether emotional intelligence would account for increases in individual co gnitive-based performance over and above the level attributable to traditional g eneral intelligence. The authors measured emotional intelligence with the Multif actor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS; J. D. Mayer, P. Salovey, & D. R. Carus o, 1997). As measured by the MEIS, overall emotional intelligence is a composite of the 3 distinct emotional reasoning abilities: perceiving, understanding, and regulating emotions (J. D. Mayer & P. Salovey, 1997). Although further psychome tric analysis of the MEIS is warranted, the authors found that overall emotional intelligence, emotional perception, and emotional regulation uniquely explained individual cognitive-based performance over and beyond the level attributable t o general intelligence. Key words: cognitive-based performance, emotional intell igence, general intelligence, Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale THE IDEA THAT HIGH EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE may lead to personal and professional success has generated a great deal of excitement among the general public, manag ers, academics, and business consultants alike. According to popular opinion and work-place testimonials, emotional intelligence affects individual performance. Proponents claim that increasing emotional intelligence can do everything from improving the general quality of work life to enhancing 133

134 The Journal of Social Psychology Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 22:04 2 May 2011 career success. As one of the best known supporters of the importance of emotion al intelligence has stated, Emotional intelligence gives you a competitive edge. . . .Having great intellectual abilities may make you a superb fiscal analyst or legal scholar, but a highly developed emotional intelligence will make you a ca ndidate for CEO or a brilliant trial lawyer (Goleman, 1997, p. 76). Although much work has gone into the development and application of emotional intelligence in peoples lives, there has been a general lack of independent, systematic analysis of the claim that emotional intelligence increases individual performance over and above the level expected from traditional notions of general intelligence. P eoples understanding of that relationship is largely from anecdotal sources such as those noted earlier. Therefore, in the present study, we os examined the impa ct of emotional intelligence on individual performance: D e emotional intelligen ce account for increases in individual cognitive-based performance over and abov e the level attributable to general intelligence? General Intelligence The existence of a single measure of intellectual ability, or general intelligen ce, is orthodoxy both among psychologists and in the general public (Gardner, 19 98). General intelligence is the ability to acquire basic knowledge and use it i n novel situations. There are basic assumptions underlying the theory of general intelligence: (a) People are born with a fixed, potential intelligence, and (b) general intelligence can be measured (Gardner; Gottfredson, 1998). The measurem ent of general intelligence consists of completion of number series; pattern rec ognition; and analogies designed to capture mathematical-reasoning, verbal, and spatial-visualization abilities. According to Gottfredson, Intelligence as measur ed by IQ tests is the single most effective predictor known of individual perfor mance at school and on the job (p. 24). Emotional Intelligence With increasing usage of emotional intelligence by managers and scholars, resear chers have proposed many definitions of emotional intelligence; however, only on e appears to consider both emotions and cognition equally. According to Mayer an d Salovey (1997). emotional intelligence reflects not a single trait or ability but, rather, a composite of distinct emotional reasoning abilities: perceiving, understanding, and regulating emotions. Perceiving emotions consists of recogniz ing and interpreting the meaning of various emotional states, as well as their r elations to other sensory experiences. Understanding emotions involves Address correspondence to Susan L. Kirby, Department of Management, College o Bu sif ness Administration, Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 78666; sklO@swt.edu (e-mail).

Lam & Kirby 135 Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 22:04 2 May 2011 comprehension of how basic emotions are blended to form complex emotions, how em otions are affected by events surrounding experiences, and whether various emoti onal reactions are likely in given social settings. Regulating emotions encompas ses the control of emotions in oneself and in others. An individuals emotional in telligence is an indication of how he or she perceives, understands, and regulat es emotions. In sum, emotional intelligence is a form of intelligence that invol ves the ability to monitor ones own and others feelings and emotions, to discrimina te among them and to use this information to guide ones thinking and actions (Salo vey & Mayer, 1990, p. 189). With the recent development of a comprehensive emoti onal intelligence scale, the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS; May er, Salovey, & Caruso, 1997). it is possible to investigate more thoroughly the relationship between emotional intelligence and individual performance. To asses s the soundness of claims that emotional intelligence accounts for personal perf ormance gains over and above those attributable to general intelligence (Cooper & Sawaf, 1997; Goleman, 1997; Salovey & Sluyter, 1997; Weisinger, 1997), we exam ined the relationships between emotional intelligence, general intelligence, and individual cognitive-based performance. We explored whether overall emotional i ntelligence and its distinct emotional reasoning abilities would positively cont ribute to individual cognitive-based performance over and above the level explai ned by general intelligence. We formulated the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1: Overall emotional intelligence contributes to individual cognitive -based performance over and above the level attributable to general intelligence , and the relationship is positive. Hypothesis 2: Perceiving emotions contribute s to individual cognitive-based performance over and above the level attributabl e to general intelligence, and the relationship is positive. Hypothesis 3 Unders tanding emotions contributes to individual cognitive: based performance over and above the level attributable to general intelligence, and the relationship is p ositive. Hyporhesis 4: Regulating emotions contributes to individual cognitive-b ased performance over and above the level attributable to general intelligence, and the relationship is positive. Method Sample and Design The participants were 304 undergraduates (152 men and 152 women) at a university in the western United States. Each participant completed a paper-andpencil meas ure of individual cognitive performance, the short version of the MEIS (Mayer et al., 1997), the Shipley Institute of Living IQ Scale (Western Psychological Ser vices, 1967). and a questionnaire assessing demographic char-

136 The Journal of Social Psychufogy acteristics. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 33 years (M= 20.8 years, SD = 2.4) and were primarily Caucasian (88.5%). Each participant received a fold er containing all the necessary materials (i.e., written instructions, measures, and response sheets). The primary researcher reviewed the testing instructions with the participants to ensure optimal understanding of what was required to pe rform each of the tasks as accurately as possible. Measures MEIS (short version). The MEIS consists of eight tasks that are divided into components representing three levels of emotional reasoning ability: perce iving, understanding, and regulating emotions (Mayer et al., 1997). The scale yi elds four scores: an overall score reflecting general emotional intelligence and a score for each of the three emotional reasoning abilities. The short version of the MEIS consists of 258 items and takes approximately 40 min to complete. Th e MEIS is scored by an expert scoring method, in which each response is compared with an expert answer-that is, the response that the MEIS experts believe is th e most accurate assessment of a particular ability (Mayer & Geher, 1996; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer et al., 1997). For each component, the percentage of corre ct answers (as determined by the MEIS developers) serves as the component score. The three component scores are summed to obtain a measure of overall emotional intelligence. General intelligence. We used the Shipley Institute of Living IQ S cale (Westem Psychological Services, 1967) to assess the participants general int elligence. This test is timed and takes exactly 20 rnin to complete (10 min for the vocabulary test and 10 min for the abstract-thinking test). A raw score is c alculated for each of the subtests along with a raw total (sum of the two subtes ts), which is used to estimate an I score with a mean of 100 and a standard devi ation of 15 Q (Zachary, Crumpton, & Speigel, 1985; Zachary, Paulson, & Gorsuch, 1985). The total raw score is used to estimate an IQ equivalent on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R; Wechsler, 1958). The Shipley provides a reliable estimate of general intelligence and has been correlated as high as . 85 with the WAIS-R (Zachary, Paulson, et al., 1985). Individual cognitive-based pedormance. We assessed the dependent measure, individual cognitive-based perfor mance, with 8 problems selected from the Bumey (1974) logical reasoning test. To simulate the time pressures faced in the modem work place (Cooper, 1997), we pl aced the participants in a stressful situation by choosing very difficult cognit ive reasoning problems and limiting the time given to complete them. Level of di fficulty was based on solution scores to the Bumey test observed by Lam, Bell, S orell, Taylor, and Yang (1998). Of the original 21 items, we selected the 8 most difficult for the performance task. To Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 22:04 2 May 2011

Larn&Kirby 137 Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 22:04 2 May 2011 elicit performance-related stress, we gave the participants 1 min to solve each problem. We based the timing on the finding that both easy and difficult problem s took an average of 1.4 min to complete (Lam et al.). We told the participants (a) that the measure of performance emphasized both accuracy and speed, (b) that they should try to complete all items within the allotted time, and (c) that th ey should solve correctly as many problems as possible. The 8 items consisted of a variety of verbal analogies, syllogisms, and problems similar to the Piagetia n tasks in more traditional assessments of formal reasoning abilities (Burney). The percentage of problems answered correctly was the measure of performance. Th e participant with the highest score (or the participants who tied for the highe st score) on his or her individual performance task received $25. The monetary r eward ensured that the participants maintained high levels of motivation while p erforming the task. Results We computed subscale reliabilities for each component of the MEIS (Mayer et al., 1997). Because of low alpha coefficients for some of the original emotional-int elligence measures, we conducted an analysis of the item-to-total correlation. W e removed items with correlations to their respective subscales of less than .05 and reran the reliability tests. In the case of the understanding component, we retained only the Relativity subscale (the only understanding subscale with an acceptable a level) because the reliability analysis indicated that the removal of more items from the Blends, Progression, and Transition subscales did not res ult in acceptable alpha levels for these subscales (Nunnally, 1967, 1978). The r evised emotional intelligence scale used in subsequent analysis contained more t han 75% of the original items (for results of the reliability analysis, see Tabl e 1). Descriptive statistics providing the mean values for the emotional intelli gence measures and general intelligence appear in Table 2. Given that overall em otional intelligence is a composite of Variables 1 through 3, we expected signif icant correlations between those variables. We conducted an additional analysis to assess the validity of the generalintelligence measure. Because the Shipley I nstitute of Living IQ Scale (Western Psychological Services, 1967) measures inte llectual ability, we expected it to be correlated with other measures of the sam e ability, such as standardized academic achievement tests (Gottfredson, 1998). We collected SAT scores as part of the demographic information for each particip ant. The participants IQ and SAT scores were significantly and positively correla ted, r = .42, p < .001; thus, the correlation provided evidence of concurrent va lidity for the Shipley scale. To address multicollinearity problems, we tested t he hypotheses by using four separate multiple regression analyses with ordered p redictor variables. Because overall emotional intelligence is the sum of the ind ividual components, overall

138 The Journal of Social Psychology TABLE 1 Cronbachs Alpha (a) Reliability Statistics for the Subscales of the Multi factor Emotional Intelligence Scale (Mayer, Saiovey, & Caruso, 1997) Original Items Revised Items Subscale a a Perceiving emotions Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 22:04 2 May 2011 Perceiving Synesthesia Feeling Bias .49 .63 .5 I 42 60 28 .60 .69 31 55 24 27 Understanding emotions Blendinga Progression* Transitiona Relativity .3 I .I6 .22 .52 8 8 24 40 .3 I .3 1 .46 .65 8 6 I5 28 Regulating emotions Managing Emotions in Oneself Managing Emotions in Others .37 24 24 -70 .58 14 1 8 .48 excluded from further analysis these subscales of the understanding component of

emotional intelligence because of unacceptable reliability measures. emotional intelligence cannot be entered into an equation containing its compone nts, and the components cannot be entered into regression equations together. Be cause we were interested in the impact of emotional intelligence on individual p erformance over and above the level of performance attributable to general intel Q ligence, we entered I first into all four ordered predictor regression models. As expected (Gottfredson, 1998). the omnibus F was significant, and general int elligence was significantlyand positively related to cognitive-based individual performance in all four models. The results supported Hypothesis 1: Overall emot ional intelligence contributed to individual cognitive-based performance over an d above the level attributable to general intelligence, and the relationship was positive, R2 change = .034, F(2,291) = 11.37, p < ,001. The results also suppor ted Hypothesis 2: Perceiving emotions contributed to individual cognitive-based performance over and above the level attributable to general intelligence, and t he relationship was positive, R2change = .074, F(2,292) = 23.24, p c .001. The r esults did not support Hypothesis 3: Understanding emotions did not contribute t o individual cognitive-

Lam & Kirby 139 TABLE 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for the Measures of Emotional and G eneral Intelligence Measure 1. Perceiving emotions 2. Understanding M .73 .66 SD .08 .10 1 2 3 4 5 .08 .23* .56** .05 emotions 3. Regulating emotions 4. Overall emotional Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 22:04 2 May 2011 .64 .66 106.46 .18 .08 .02 .32** .73** .I1 intelligence 5. General intelligence * p < .01. **p < .001. .25* 6.69 .38** based performance over and above the level attributable to general intelligence, R2 change = .008, F(2.291) = 2.75, p > .05. The results supported Hypothesis 4: Regulating emotions contributed to cognitive-based performance over and above t he level attributable to general intelligence, and the relationship was positive

, R2 change = .024, F(2, 291) = 7.59, p < .01. Discussion In the present study, we used the conceptualization of emotional intelligence) M ayer et al., 1997) to investigate how an individuals ability to perceive, underst and, and regulate emotions is related to performance. We addressed the limitatio ns in the extant literature concerning the relationship between emotional intell igence and individual performance and examined the utility of the MEIS (Mayer et al.). We examined individual performance in relation to general intelligence an d to overall emotional intelligence and its components: perceiving, understandin g, and regulating emotions. As expected, general intelligence made a significant contribution to the prediction of individual performance of a cognitive task (G ottfredson, 1998). In addition, overall emotional intelligence, perceiving emoti ons, and regulating emotions all contributed positively to individual cognitivebased performance; however, understanding emotions did not add to the explanatio n of variance in individual cognitive-based performance over and above the level attributable to general intelligence. Perceiving emotions consists of recognizi ng the presence and interpreting the meaning of various emotional states, wherea s regulating emotions encompasses the control of emotions in oneself and in othe rs. Perceiving and regulating emotions are likely tapping into the two main comp onents of emotional intelligence put forth by the original proponent of multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1998). According to Gardner (p. 22), accurately deter-

I0 4 The Journal o Social Psychology f Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 22:04 2 May 2011 mining moods, feelings and other mental states in oneself (intrapersonal intelli gence) and in others (interpersonal intelligence) and using the information as a guide for behavior defines a key component of emotional intelligence. Perceiving emotions is the ability to accurately determine emotions, whereas regulating em otions relates to controlling and using information about emotions. Both element s of emotional intelligence are concerned with the perception and regulation of emotions in oneself and others (intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligence). I n the present study, understanding emotions did not contribute to cognitivebased performance over and above the level attributable to general intelligence. Unde rstanding, as measured in the present study, is the ability to describe the like liness of emotions in a given social setting. The ability merely to describe emo tions and their relations to other sensory experiences may have very little impa ct on ones ability to harness emotions in the service of performing cognitive tas ks. However, we were able to test only one of the four components of understandi ng emotions because of internal-consistency problems with that component of the MEIS (Mayer et al., 1997). Further analysis as the MEIS is refined may allow for a more thorough examination of the understanding component of emotional intelli gence and may uncover a relationship to performance that we were unable to disco ver. Pe8ormance Implications It is a common belief that, when emotions are intertwined with role, performance , or both, they tend to interfere with task achievement (Ashforth & Humphrey, 19 95). We believe that the specific emotions experienced and their interpretation and regulation, rather than the presence of emotions per se, may cause problems for task performance. Individuals do not cause their emotions to occur and have little control over which emotions they experience, because the connections from the emotional systems to the cognitive systems are stronger than connections fro m the cognitive systems to the emotional systems [of the brain] (LeDoux, 1996, p. 19). However, once emotions occur and are recognized by the cognitive systems o f the brain, the ability to guard against distracting emotions and to build on e nhancing emotions facilitates individual task performance as well as team perfor mance. Depending on whether the emotions are perceived as enhancing or distracti ng, the perception and regulation of emotions operate through two opposite emoti onal control mechanisms: bufering and personal engagement. Buffering is a common way to control undesirable emotions. On the one hand, buffering involves encaps ulating and segregating emotions so that they do not interfere with the task at hand (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995). On the other hand, Kahn (1990, 1992) hypothesi zed that personal engagement, or emotional involvement in tasks, reflects the hi ghest level of motivation and results in high performance. Personal engagement h as been likened tofrow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), or a state of peak

Lam&Kirby 141 performance in which emotions are not just contained and channeled, but positive, energized, and aligned with the task at hand (Goleman, 1997, p. 90). Individual s with high emotional intelligence may use buffering techniques to internally en capsulate and segregate emotions so that they do not interfere with task perform ance. Because individuals with well-developed emotional intelligence are able to identify and control their own emotions and those of others, they are less like ly to be paralyzed by fear, hijacked by negative emotions, and strangled by anxi ety, all of which have negative effects on both individual and team performance (Seipp, 1991). Conversely, people may use the same control to channel positive e motions and use them to achieve maximum personal engagement and productivity in themselves and others. Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 22:04 2 May 2011 Limitations The use of cognitive reasoning problems for the individual performance task may restrict the generalizability of the present findings beyond behaviors specific to that type of paper-and-pencil activity. We selected the task on the basis of the representativenessof problem-solving behaviors, which are required in all do mains of life (Burney, 1974). However, we acknowledge that solving reasoning pro blems may not provide the same information as solving problems involving social tasks, such as team performance. Measuring performance of social tasks may yield different information about emotional intelligence and how it affects performan ce in an interpersonal setting. Although the ability to perceive and regulate em otions explained individual performance over and above the level attributable to general intelligence in the present study, the ability to perceive and manage e motions may increase the motivation and effectiveness of teams as well. In fact, one would expect greater gains in social situations such as those found in the work place, where getting along with others is critical to success (Goleman, 199 7). We also realize that there are reliability issues associated with the MEIS ( Mayer et al., 1997). We increased the reliability of the component subscales by eliminating items, but we believe that more work is needed on the scale, especia lly on the understanding component. That component is especially difficult to me asure because it involves measuring how individuals account for the impact of so cial context on the interpretation of emotions. Because contexts vary widely, it is difficult to duplicate that construct in questionnaire format. Last, given t he basic nature of the task and measures involved in the present study, the fact that our sample consisted of undergraduate students should not affect the gener alizability of our findings. However, because our sample consisted of a relative ly homogeneous group of participants, different findings may occur with differen t populations and in different settings. Examining emotional intelligence in est ablished work places may provide insights into how people manage emotions in con texts that last for several years, where deeper social rela-

142 The Journal of Social PsychoIogy tionships may be present, and where people from different races and ethnic backg rounds come together to work toward common goals. Future Directions The present study has provided many potential paths for future researchers. Firs t, because we selected cognitive-based activities for the individual tasks, diff erent types of problem solving, or even group tasks, may provide interesting fin dings. Second, the relationship between emotional intelligence and individual co gnitive performance was the major variable of interest. However, exploration of how emotional intelligenceregulates other areas in life may be fruitful. For exa mple, the question of how emotional intelligence affects task-interdependent act ivities, organizational commitment,or job satisfaction warrants investigation. L ast, researchers have reported gender differences in emotional expressions (cf. Geary, 1998). Because there are differences in emotional expression between men and women, it is likely that there are also other emotional differences related to emotional intelligence. There are numerous opportunities for future explorati ons of significant gender differences in the individual components of emotional intelligence as well as in overall emotional intelligence.If researchers find su ch differences, then it would be advantageous to explore and understand the natu re and sources of those differences. How such differences, if they exist, affect individual and team performance may also be of interest to researchers and prac titioners alike. Conclusion Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 22:04 2 May 2011 The investigation of how an individuals ability to perceive and regulate emotions affects performance yielded some interesting insights into how people may use s uch abilities in performing stressful cognitive tasks. Overall emotional intelli gence was related to performance inzhat higher emotional intelligence was associ ated with better scores on one measure of cognitive performance. In addition, th e MEIS (Mayer et al., 1997) allowed for the investigation of how emotional intel ligence affected performance by providing both an overall emotional intelligence score and subscale scores that represented its components. Thus, the usefulness of the MEIS was demonstrated by its versatility in examining either the overall construct or its components. REFERENCES Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotions in the workplace: A reapprai sal. Human Relations, 48, 97-125. Burney. G. M. (1974). The construction and val idation of an objective formal reasoning instrument. Xerox University Micmfilms (No. 75-5403). Cooper, R. K. (1997). Applying emotional intelligence in the work place. Training & Development, 38, 3 1-38. Cooper, R. K., & Sawaf, A. (1997). Ex ecutive EQ: Emotional intelligence in leadership and organization. New York: Gro sset-Putnam.

Lam& Kirby 143 Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New Yor k: Harper & Row. Gardner, H.(1998). A multiplicity of intelligences. Scientific American Presents Intelligence, 9, 18-23. Geary, D. C. (1998). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences. Washington, DC:American Psychological Assoc iation. Goleman, D. (1997). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ.New York: Bantam Books. Gottfredson, L. S. (1998). The general intelligence f actor. Scientljk American Presents Intelligence, 9, 24-29. Kahn, W. A. (1990). P sychological conditions o personal engagement and disengagement f at work. Acade my of Management Journal, 33, 692-724. Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Ps ychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45, 321-349. Lam, L. T., Bell, R. W., Sorrell, G. T., Taylor, C. S., & Yang, E. K. (1998). Correlations between s exual knowledge, attitudes, and behavior: Formal vs. concrete operations. Unpubl ished manuscript, Texas Tech University at Lubbock. f LeDoux, J. (1996). The emo tional brain: The mysterious underpinnings o emotional life. New York: Touchston e. Mayer, J. D., & Geher, G.(1996). Emotional intelligence and the identificatio n of emotion. Intelligence, 22, 89-1 13. Mayer, J. D.. & Salovey, P. (1997). Wha t is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. 1. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional dev elopment and emotional intelligence (pp.3-3 I ) . New York: Basic Books. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (1997). The Multifactor Emotional Intellig ence Scale. Information at http://www.eiconsortium.org/measures/meis.htrn Nunnal ly, J. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D . (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 18 5-21 1. Salovey, P.. & Sluyter. J. D. (Eds.). (1997). Emotional development and emotional intelligence. New York: Basic Books. Seipp, B. (1991). Anxiety and aca demic performance: A meta-analysis.Anxiety Research, 4, 46-53. Wechsler, D. (195 8). The measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence. Baltimore: Williams & W ilkins. Weisinger, H. (1997). Emotional intelligence at work: The untapped edge for success. New York Jossey-Bass. Western Psychological Services. (1967). Shipl ey Institute of Living Scale. Los Angeles: Author. Zachary, R. A., Crumpton, E., & Spiegel, D. (1985). Estimating WAIS IQ from the Shipley Institute of Living S cale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 532-540. Zachary, R.A., Paulson. M. J. , & Gorsuch, R. (1985). Estimating WAIS I from the ShipQ ley Institute of Living Scale using continuously adjusted age norms. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41 , 820-83 1. Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 22:04 2 May 2011 Received December 20, 1999 Accepted November 20, 2000