1

By:
Carolyn MacCann email the author, Yixin Jiang, Luke E. R. Brown, Kit S. Double,
Micaela Bucich, Amirali Minbashian, MacCann, C., Jiang, Y., Brown, L. E. R.,
Double, K. S., Bucich, M., & Minbashian, A. (2020). Emotional intelligence
predicts academic performance: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(2),
150–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000219
Emotional Intelligence and Academic Performance
There is ample evidence to suggest that EI has a positive association with
academic performance. Social and emotional learning programs (which are
broadly based on Goleman’s model of EI) are known to increase academic
performance, with Durlak et al.’s (2011) meta-analysis showing that such
programs result in an 11-percentile improvement in academic performance.
Social and emotional learning focuses on developing five key competencies that
overlap substantially with Goleman’s emotional competencies (self-awareness,
social awareness, self-management, relationship skills, and responsible decision
making; CASEL, 2003). Programs were more effective if they followed a
sequenced, step-by-step approach, used active forms of learning, allowed
adequate time for skill development, and had explicit learning goals (Durlak et
al., 2011). The effect of SEL programs on academic performance was stronger
when teachers ran the programs (d = .34) compared with non-school personnel
(d = .12).
There is also some direct evidence that EI is positively associated with academic
performance. Three meta-analyses to date have examined this question, and all
have found a positive association. First, Van Rooy and Viswesvaran
(2004) estimated a corrected correlation of .10 between EI and academic
performance (k = 10). This analysis did not distinguish between the different
streams of EI. Second, Perera and DiGiacomo (2013) examined rating scales of
EI, finding a corrected correlation of .20 with academic performance (k = 48).
Effects were stronger for younger students and at earlier levels of education.
Other moderators examined were not significant. These included (a) the gender
composition of the sample, (b) the instrument used, and (c) whether the sample
was in a transition year (i.e., first year of high school or university).
2
Perera and DiGiacomo did not include ability scales in their analysis nor
distinguish between mixed EI and self-rated EI. They also did not assess the
incremental prediction of EI above the known effects of personality and
intelligence.
Richardson et al. (2012) examined the relationship between EI and academic
performance as part of a wide-sweeping meta-analytic review of 42 noncognitive
correlates of academic performance. They reported a slightly smaller relationship
between EI and academic performance (ρ = .17) but included only 14 studies and
did not differentiate between ability scales and rating scales.
The current comprehensive meta-analysis expands on previous work in five ways.
First, we cover all relevant research whereas previous studies included only a
small subset (i.e., we located 162 relevant citations, such that Richardson’s k of 14
studies represents less than 10% of the available data).
Second, we include ability-based EI assessments as well as rating scales.
The relation between ability EI and academic performance has never previously
been reported in meta-analyses, despite being the most objective and arguably
most valid assessments of EI (Matthews et al., 2002; Mayer et al., 2008).
Third, we use the now-standard categorization of EI scales into ability EI, selfrated EI, and mixed EI to separately examine the effects of EI on academic
performance across these three different constructs (cf. Ashkanasy & Daus,
2005; Joseph & Newman, 2010; O’Boyle et al., 2011).
Fourth, we examine a range of moderators of the effects (described in more
detail in the sections below), including EI stream, EI facet, sample age, gender
composition, and publication type.
Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, we examine the incremental validity of EI
above and beyond the effects of personality and intelligence by constructing
a correlation matrix of EI, intelligence, personality and academic performance.
The correlations in this matrix are drawn from (a) our original meta-analyses
(EI/academic performance and intelligence/academic performance correlations)
and (b) previously published meta-analyses (personality/EI,
personality/performance, intelligence/performance, intelligence/personality,
and the relations among personality domains; Joseph & Newman, 2010; Judge,
Jackson, Shaw, Scott, & Rich, 2007; Poropat, 2009; van der Linden et al.,
2017; van der Linden, te-Nijenhuis, & Bakker, 2010). Moreover, we use relative
3
importance analysis to compare the relative contribution of intelligence,
personality, and EI to explaining differences in academic performance (Johnson,
2000; LeBreton & Tonidandel, 2008). That is, we are building a more
comprehensive picture of the extent to which EI predicts academic performance
than ever before, including a consideration of the relative importance of EI
compared with other well-known predictors of academic performance.
Our major hypothesis is that EI will be positively associated with academic
performance (Hypothesis 1).
Moderators of the EI/Academic Performance Relationship
EI Stream
Although evidence suggests a positive association of EI with academic
performance, it is not clear whether this relationship differs for ability versus
self-rated versus mixed EI. Meta-analyses predicting workplace performance and
wellbeing outcomes have found different effects for these three streams (Harms &
Credé, 2010; Joseph & Newman, 2010; Martins et al., 2010; Miao, Humphrey, &
Qian, 2017; O’Boyle et al., 2011; Sánchez-Álvarez, Extremera, & FernandezBerrocal, 2016; Schutte et al., 2007).
Across multiple outcomes: workplace performance, organizational citizenship
behaviors, counterproductive workplace behaviors, leadership, subjective
wellbeing, and health outcomes, major meta-analyses link EI to positive life
outcomes.