Part II – Emotional Intelligence Predicts Academic Performance:A Meta-Analysis

1By: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 intelligencepredicts academic performance: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(2),150–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000219Emotional IntelligenceEmotional intelligence (EI) is a relatively new construct compared withintelligence or personality, […]

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
Emotional intelligence (EI) is a relatively new construct compared with
intelligence or personality, with the first academic article appearing in 1990
(Salovey & Mayer, 1990). The concept was relatively unknown until it was
popularized by science journalist Daniel Goleman in his 1995 book Emotional
Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. This book sparked massive
interest from researchers and the general public in the late 1990s.
One effect of this sudden widespread popularity was that research teams
commenced their work in parallel, creating their own theories and assessments
rather than building on existing research. For much of the 1990s there was little
agreement on how to define or measure EI, leading to many different theories
and measures that were often quite dissimilar from each other (Davies, Stankov,
& Roberts, 1998).
To bring some clarity to the field, researchers suggested that a distinction should
be made between two kinds of measurement models—ability scales and rating
scales (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2000).
Ability scales require test-takers to demonstrate knowledge or to process
emotion-related information to provide a response. Rating scales require testtakers to rate their agreement with a series of statements about themselves (e.g.,
―I am able to handle most upsetting problems‖; Brackett, Rivers, Shiffman,
Lerner, & Salovey, 2006).
Evidence to date suggests that rating scales and ability scales of EI capture
different constructs and are only weakly related to each other (Brackett & Mayer,
2003; Brackett et al., 2006).
2
Paralleling the distinction between two measurement models is a similar
distinction of two theoretical models—mixed model and ability model theories of
EI.
Mixed model conceptualizations of EI include a broad mix of constructs that lead
to emotionally intelligent behavior, including emotion-related abilities, character
traits, and motivational elements (Bar-On, 2006; Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki,
2007). In contrast, ability models of EI conceptualize EI as a cognitive ability of a
similar type to verbal ability or quantitative ability, with the content domain as
emotions rather than words or numbers (MacCann, Joseph, Newman, & Roberts,
2014).
Ashkanasy and Daus (2005) distinguished between rating scales based on ability
theories and those based on mixed-model theories. They refer to three ‗streams‘
of EI measures:
a) ability scales,
b) ratings of EI abilities (self-perceptions of EI, sometimes referred to as
emotional self-efficacy; Qualter, Gardner, Pope, Hutchinson, & Whiteley,
2012), and
c) ratings of mixed model EI (often referred to as trait EI, after the major
mixed model conceptualization; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Petrides &
Furnham, 2000, 2003).
In the current meta-analysis, we separately consider results for these three
different types of assessments, based on theoretical and empirical evidence that
these are three separate constructs (Joseph & Newman, 2010; O‘Boyle et al.,
2011).