BarOn Model of Social and Emotional Intelligence (ESI) (2023)

"Emotional intelligence" has become a topic of great interest in science, as well as the general public, since the publication of a bestseller of the same name in 1995 (Goleman). Despite this high level of interest in thisNew ideain the last decade, scholars have studied this construction for most of the 20th century; and the historical roots of this wider area go back to the 19th century.(2)

Publications began to appear in the 20th century with Edward Thorndike's work onsocial intelligencein 1920. Many of these early studies focused on describing, defining, and evaluating socially competent behavior (Chapin, 1942; Doll, 1935; Moss & Hunt, 1927; Moss et al., 1927; Thorndike, 1920). Edgar Doll published the first instrument designed to measure socially intelligent behavior in young children (1935). Possibly influenced by Thorndike and Doll, David Wechsler included two subscales ("Comprehension" and "Picture Arrangement") in his well-known cognitive intelligence test that appears to have been designed to measure aspects of social intelligence. Within a year of the first publication of this test in 1939, Wechsler described the influence ofnon-intellectual factorson intelligent behavior, which was yet another reference to this construction (1940). Furthermore, in the first of a series of publications that followed this first description, he argued that our models of intelligence would not be complete until we could adequately describe these factors (1943).

Scholars have begun to shift their attention from describing and assessing social intelligence to understanding the purpose of interpersonal behavior and the role it plays in effective adaptability (Zirkel, 2000). This line of research helped to define human effectiveness from a societal perspective and also strengthened a very important aspect of Wechsler's definition of general intelligence: "The capacity of the individual to act purposefully" (1958, p. 7). Furthermore, this helped to position social intelligence as part of general intelligence.

Early definitions of social intelligence influenced the way in whichemotional intelligencewas conceptualized later. Contemporary theorists such as Peter Salovey and John Mayer originally viewed emotional intelligence as part of social intelligence (1990, p. 189), suggesting that the two concepts are related and, in all likelihood, may represent interrelated components of the same construct.

At about the same time that researchers began to explore various ways of describing, defining, and assessing social intelligence, scientific research in this area began to focus onalexithymia(MacLean, 1949; Ruesch, 1948), which is the essence of socio-emotional intelligence insofar as it focuses on the ability (or rather the inability) to recognize, understand, and describe emotions.

Two parallel and possibly evolved new directions of alexithymia have beenpsychological mindset(Appelbaum, 1973) eemotional awareness(Lane e Schwartz, 1987).

Research exploring the neural circuitry that governs emotional awareness (Lane, 2000), as well as additional emotional and social aspects of this concept (Bar-On et al., 2003; Bechara & Bar-On, in press; Bechara et al., 2000 ; Damasio, 1994; Lane & McRae, 2004; LeDoux, 1996), began to provide tangible evidence for the anatomical underpinnings of this larger construct that some have questioned as an intangible myth (Davies et al., 1998; Matthews et al., 2003; Zeidner et al., 2001).

The literature reveals several attempts to combine the emotional and social components of this construct. For example, Howard Gardner (1983) explains that his conceptualization ofpersonal intelligencesis based onintrapersonal(emotional)intelligenceyinterpersonal(social)intelligence. . . . Furthermore, Carolyn Saarni (1990) describesemotional competenceincluding eight interrelated emotional and social skills. Furthermore, I showed thatsocioemotional intelligenceit is made up of a series of intrapersonal and interpersonal competencies, skills and facilitators that combine to determine effective human behavior (1988, 1997b, 2000).(3)Based on the above, it is more correct to refer to this construct as "emotional-social intelligence" rather than as "emotional intelligence" or "social intelligence", as I suggested some time ago (2000). Throughout this article, I will refer to this broader construct as "socio-emotional intelligence" ("ESI").

Since the time of Thorndike (1920), a number of different conceptualizations of ESI have emerged that have created an interesting mix of confusion, controversy, and opportunity regarding the best approach to defining and measuring this construct. In an effort to help clarify this situation, theEncyclopedia of Applied Psychology(Spielberger, 2004) has recently suggested that there are currently three main conceptual models: (a) the Salovey-Mayer model (Mayer & Salovey, 1997) which defines this construct as the ability to perceive, understand, manage and use emotions to facilitate thinking , measured by a skill-based measure (Mayer et al., 2002); (b) Goleman's model (1998) which sees this construct as a wide range of competencies and skills that drive managerial performance, measured by multi-evaluator assessment (Boyatzis et al., 2001); and (c) the Bar-On model (1997b, 2000) which describes a cross section of interrelated emotional and social competencies, skills and enablers that impact intelligent behavior as measured by self-report (1997a, 1997b) within an expandable multi potential - modal approach that includes interviewing and multi-rater assessment (Bar-On & Handley, 2003a, 2003b).

The purpose of this article is to present, describe and examine the Bar-On model of socio-emotional intelligence (ESI). This is an empirically based theoretical article. As such, several findings are presented to describe this ESI theory and demonstrate that it is a comprehensive, robust, and valid conceptualization of the construct.

The first part of the article describes the Bar-On model and measure of socio-emotional intelligence and how it was developed. The second part provides the reader with a description of the model's construct validity, and the third part describes its predictive validity. I then show that the Bar-On model is a teachable and learnable concept. In the last part of the article, I summarize the key points, discuss model limitations that need to be addressed, and raise the idea of ​​developing a more complete and robust ESI model based on the most powerful aspects of existing conceptualizations of this construct.

The theoretical basis of the Bar-On model

Darwin's early work on the importance of emotional expression for survival and adaptation (1872/1965) influenced the continued development of the Bar-On model, which emphasizes the importance of emotional expression and analyzes the outcome of emotionally and socially intelligent behavior. in Darwinian terms of effective adaptation. An additional influence on my thinking can be traced to Thorndike's description of social intelligence and its importance to human performance (1920), as well as Wechsler's observations of the impact of non-cognitive and conative factors on what I do. He termed "intelligent behavior" (1940, 1943). Sifneos's (1967) description of alexithymia at the pathological end of the ESI continuum and Appelbaum's (1973) conceptualization of psychological mindset at the eupppsychic end of that continuum also had an impact on the ongoing development of Bar-On.

From Darwin to the present, most descriptions, definitions and conceptualizations of socio-emotional intelligence include one or more of the following key components: (a) the ability to recognize, understand and express emotions and feelings; (b) the ability to understand how others feel and relate to them; (c) the ability to manage and control emotions; (d) ability to manage change, adapt and solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature; and (e) the ability to generate positive affect and be self-motivated.

The Bar-On model provides the theoretical basis for the EQ-i, which was originally developed to assess various aspects of this construct, as well as to examine its conceptualization. According to this model,Social and emotional intelligence is a cross-section of interrelated emotional and social competencies, skills, and enablers that determine how effectively we understand and express ourselves, understand and relate to others, and cope with daily demands.. The social and emotional competencies, skills, and enablers referred to in this conceptualization include the five main components described above; and each of these components comprises a set of closely related competencies, skills and enablers described in the Appendix. According to this model, being emotionally and socially intelligent is understanding and expressing yourself effectively, understanding and relating well to others, and successfully dealing with daily demands, challenges, and pressures. This is based, first of all, on the intrapersonal ability to be self-aware, understand your strengths and weaknesses, and express your feelings and thoughts in a non-destructive way. At the interpersonal level, being emotionally and socially intelligent encompasses the ability to be aware of the emotions, feelings, and needs of others and to establish and maintain cooperative, constructive, and mutually satisfying relationships. Ultimately, being emotionally and socially intelligent means managing personal, social and environmental changes effectively, realistically and flexibly dealing with the immediate situation, solving problems and making decisions. For this, we must manage emotions so that they work in our favor and not against us, and we must be optimistic, positive and motivated enough.

Description of the instrument used to develop the Bar-On model (the EQ-i)

To better understand the ESI Bar-On model and how it was developed, it is important to first describe the Emotional Quotient Inventory (the EQ-i), which played a key role in the development of this model. For the purpose of the present discussion, it is also useful to emphasize that the Bar-On model is operationalized by the EQ-i.

The EQ-i is a self-report measure of emotionally and socially intelligent behavior that provides an estimate of socio-emotional intelligence. The EQ-i was the first measure of its kind published by a publisher of psychological tests (Bar-On, 1997a), the first measure of its kind to be peer-reviewed in theBuros mental measurement yearbook(Plake & Impara, 1999) and the most widely used measure of socio-emotional intelligence to date (Bar-On, 2004). A detailed description of the psychometric properties of this measure and how it was developed can be found inBar-On EQ-i Technical Manual(Bar-On, 1997b) and in the recent book by Glenn Geher entitledEmotional intelligence measurement:Common ground and controversy(2004).

In summary, the EQ-i contains 133 items in short sentence form and uses a 5-point response scale with a textual response format ranging from "very rarely or not true for me" (1) to "very often ". often true for me." or true for me" (5). A list of inventory items can be found in the technical manual for the instrument (Bar-On, 1997b). The EQ-i is suitable for persons 17 years of age and older and takes approximately 40 minutes to complete. be completed.(4)

The individual's responses generate a total EQ score and scores on the following 5 composite scales, comprising 15 subscale scores: Intrapersonal (comprising self-esteem, emotional self-awareness, assertiveness, independence, and self-actualization); Interpersonal (comprising Empathy, Social Responsibility and Interpersonal Relationship); Stress Management (comprising Stress Tolerance and Impulse Control); Adaptability (comprises Reality Tests, Flexibility and Problem Solving); and general mood (including optimism and happiness). A brief description of these competencies, skills and enablers of socio-emotional intelligence measured by the 15 subscales can be found in the Annex mentioned above.

Scores are computer generated. Raw scores are automatically tabulated and converted to standard scores based on a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. This is similar to IQ (Intelligence Quotient) scores, which I intended when I coined the term "EQ". " ("Emotional Quotient") during my doctoral studies (1988). Average to above average EQ scores on the EQ-i suggest that the respondent is effective in emotional and social functioning. The higher the scores, the more positive the prediction of functioning effectively to meet daily demands and challenges.On the other hand, low EQ scores suggest an inability to be effective and the possible existence of emotional, social and/or behavioral problems.

The EQ-i has a built-in correction factor that automatically adjusts scale scores based on scores obtained from two of the instrument's validity indices (positive impression and negative impression). This is an important feature for self-report measures as it reduces the potentially skewing effects of response bias, thus increasing the accuracy of the results.

The rigorous development of the EQ-i helped create a robust model of ESI

The EQ-i was originally built as an experimental instrument designed to examine the conceptual model ofemotional and social functioningthat I started to develop in the early 1980s (1988). At that time, I hypothesized that effective emotional and social functioning should eventually lead to a sense of psychological well-being. It was also reasoned that the results obtained with the application of said instrument in large and diverse population samples would reveal more about emotionally and socially intelligent behavior and about the underlying construction of socio-emotional intelligence. Based on the findings gained from applying the EQ-i to a wide range of studies over the past two decades, I have continually shaped my conceptualization of this construct; these changes were minor and continue in an effort to maintain an empirically based theory.

The development of the Bar-On model and ESI measure took place in six main steps over a 17-year period: (1) identify and logically group various emotional and social competencies believed to impact effectiveness and psychological well-being with based on my experience as a clinical psychologist and literature review; (2) clearly define the individual key clusters of competencies, skills, and enablers that emerged; (3) initially generate about 1,000 items based on my professional experience, literature review, and information from experienced health professionals who were asked to generate questions they would ask in an interview situation guided by my definitions; (4) determine the inclusion of 15 primary scales and 133 items in the published version of the instrument based on a combination of theoretical considerations and statistical findings generated by item analysis and factor analysis; (5) initially standardize the final version of the instrument in 3,831 adults in North America in 1996; and (6) continue to standardize and validate the instrument in all cultures. EQ-i's first normative sample included people from all Canadian provinces and nearly all US states. The composition of the sample by sex and age included 49% men and 51% women aged between 16 and 100 years, with a mean age of 34.3 years. The sample was 79% White, 8% Asian American, 7% African American, 3% Hispanic, and 1% Native American.(5)For more detailed demographic information, including the educational and occupational background of the original normative sample, the reader is referred to the instrument's technical manual (Bar-On, 1997b).

The EQ-i has been translated into over 30 languages,(6)and data was collected from various locations around the world. Previous versions of the inventory were completed by a total of 3,000 people in six countries (Argentina, Germany, India, Israel, Nigeria and South Africa). The first translation of the EQ-i was from English to Spanish to allow extensive data collection in Argentina,(7)This was followed by data collection in several other countries. In addition to providing cross-cultural data, this preliminary pilot testing of the EQ-i was important in selecting and changing items, continuing to develop and validate the scale, and establishing the final nature of the response format.

Numerous reliability and validity studies have been conducted around the world over the last two decades, some of which will be mentioned in the following sections to describe the reliability and validity of the EQ-i and the construct it measures.

The result of this rigorous development process generated psychometric properties that shed light on the validity and robustness of the model. After discussing the age-gender effect, factor structure, and reliability, I will focus primarily on the construct validity and predictive validity of the model. This approach of examining the validity of a concept by examining the psychometric properties of scales designed to measure that concept is not uncommon in psychology in general, as well as in the specific area of ​​ESI [eg, Newsome et al., 2000; Petrids and Furnham, 2000; Salovey et al., 1995; Van Rooy and Viswesvaran, 2004].

The impact of age, gender and ethnicity on the Bar-On model.An analysis of variance of the US normative sample (n=3831) was performed to examine the effect of age, gender, and ethnicity on EQ-i scores (Bar-On, 1997b). It was thought that the results would also shed light on the underlying construct of the ESI.

Although the results indicated some significant differences between the age groups compared, these differences are relatively small in magnitude. In summary, older groups scored significantly higher than younger groups on most EQ-i scales; and 40-year-old respondents had the highest average scores. An increase in socio-emotional intelligence with age is also observed in children (Bar-On & Parker, 2000). The findings presented here, which are based on a cross-sectional comparison of different age groups, will eventually be compared with findings from an ongoing longitudinal study of the same cohort (n=23,000) over a 25-year period from birth to death. birth . early adulthood. . This will give you a more accurate indication of how the ESI develops and changes over time.(8)Others have reported similar increases in ESI with age based on employing EQ-i, MEIS(9)and other measures of this construct (Goleman, 1998). These findings are interesting when one considers that cognitive intelligence increases until late adolescence and then begins to decline slightly in the second and third decades of life, as originally reported by Wechsler (1958). The results suggest that as you age, you become more emotionally and socially intelligent.

Regarding gender, no differences were revealed between men and women regarding the general ESI. However, there are statistically significant gender differences for some of the factors measured by the EQ-i, but the effects are small for the most part. According to the North American normative sample (Bar-On, 1997b), women seem to have better interpersonal skills than men, but the latter have greater intrapersonal capacity, manage emotions better and are more adaptable than the former. . More specifically, the Bar-On model reveals that women are more aware of emotions, show more empathy, relate better interpersonally, and are more socially responsible than men. On the other hand, men seem to have better self-esteem, are more self-sufficient, handle stress better, are more flexible, solve better problems and are more optimistic than women. Similar gender patterns were observed in almost all other population samples that were examined with the EQ-i. Deficiencies in men's interpersonal skills, compared to women, may explain why psychopathy is diagnosed much more often in men than in women; and significantly lower stress tolerance among women may explain why women suffer from more anxiety-related disorders than men (American Psychiatric Association, 1994).

An examination of the North American normative sample, in which the EQ-i was normalized, revealed no significant differences in the ESI between the various ethnic groups compared (Bar-On, 1997b, 2000, 2004; Bar-On & Parker, 2000). This is an interesting finding compared to some of the controversial findings presented over the years that suggest significant differences in cognitive intelligence across various ethnic groups (eg, Suzuki & Valencia, 1997).

To summarize the above findings, the Bar-On model reveals that older people are more emotionally and socially intelligent than younger people, women are more emotionally aware than men, while the latter are more skilled at managing emotions. than the former, and that there are no significant differences in socioemotional intelligence among the various ethnic groups examined in North America.

The factor structure of the Bar-On model.Factor analysis was applied to study the 15-factor structure of the EQ-i to empirically assess the extent to which it is theoretically valid. In addition, this statistical procedure was used to examine the factor structure of the Bar-On model (that is, to examine the extent to which the factor components of this model exist structurally). This analysis was performed for the first time on the normative sample, moving from exploratory to confirmatory factor analysis (Bar-On, 1997b).

Based on a varimax rotation, a 13-factor solution provided the most theoretically meaningful interpretation. These results provided a reasonable match with the subscale structure of the EQ-i. However, the empirical 13-factor framework that emerged raised an important question that needed to be addressed: Can the 15-factor model used in the Bar-On model and the ESI measure still be justified in light of the findings that suggested a more consistent approach? model? of 13 factors? factor structure? The essential differences that were identified between the theoretical framework and the one that emerged as a result of the exploratory factor analysis were the following: (a) two factors emerged from the Impulse Control items; (b) although self-esteem, self-actualization, optimism and happiness represent four separate scales, most of their items are based on two factors; (c) although assertiveness and independence are considered two separate subscales, items from both subscales were loaded on one factor; and (d) although two separate experimental factors arose from the Empathy and Social Responsibility items, they are the two factors with the highest correlation (0.80).

Confirmatory factor analysis was initially applied to resolve the aforementioned differences between the 15-factor structure of the Bar-On model and the 13 factors that emerged from the exploratory factor analysis. Although the results supported a 15-factor structure in the end, which fits the theoretical basis of Bar-On's model and measure (Bar-On, 1997b), additional confirmatory factor analysis was subsequently applied to the same dataset (n = 3831) in an attempt to explore an alternative factor structure (Bar-On, 2000). The elements mentionedproblematicthe factors (Independence, Self-realization, Optimism, Happiness and Social Responsibility) were excluded from the second analysis. Self-actualization, optimism and happiness were excluded from this analysis because several of their items carried the self-esteem factor, while others carried an additional, even weaker factor; Furthermore, these three factors appear in the literature mainly as facilitators of the ESI, and not as actual components of the construct itself; Wechsler referred to them as "conative factors" (1940, 1943). Independence was excluded from the analysis because its items strongly carried the Assertiveness factor and because it rarely appears in the literature as an integral component of the ESI; however, assertiveness (ability to express emotions and feelings) definitely appears in the literature, from Darwin to the present, as an important part of this construct. For similar empirical and theoretical reasons, it was decided to exclude the items Social Responsibility; moreover, this subscale has been shown to have an extremely high correlation with Empathy, as mentioned above, meaning that they likely measure the same domain.

The results of this second analysis clearly suggested a 10-factor framework, which is empirically feasible and theoretically acceptable as an alternative to the aforementioned 15-factor framework. In the order of their extraction, the ten factors that emerged are: (1) Self-esteem, (2) Interpersonal relationships, (3) Impulse control, (4) Problem solving, (5) Emotional self-awareness, (6) Flexibility, (7) Reality Testing, (8) Stress Tolerance, (9) Assertiveness and (10) Empathy. These ten factors seem to be the key components of the ESI, while the five factors that were excluded from the second confirmatory factor analysis (optimism, self-actualization, happiness, independence and social responsibility) seem to be important correlates and facilitators of this construct . . The ten core components and five enablers together describe and predict emotionally and socially intelligent behavior, as shown below.

The factorial validation of EQ-i presented here compares favorably with that of MSCEIT and ECI.(10)

The reliability of the Bar-On model.The reliability of the EQ-i has been scrutinized by several researchers over the past 20 years. A consensus of findings reveals that Bar-On's conceptual and evaluation model is consistent, stable, and reliable (Bar-On, 2004). More specifically, the overall internal consistency coefficient of the EQ-i is 0.97 based on the North American normative sample (Bar-On, 1997b). This far exceeds the 0.90 minimum for total scores suggested by Nunnally (1978). Internal consistency was recently reexamined in 51,623 adults in North America, revealing nearly identical results with a slight average increase of 0.025 in consistency coefficients (Bar-On, 2004). An overall test reliability of the EQ-i retest is 0.72 for men (n=73) and 0.80 for women (n=279) at six months (Bar-On, 2004). Similar findings regarding the reliability of the EQ-i have been reported by other investigators around the world (eg, Matthews et al., 2002; Newsome et al., 2000; Petrides & Furnham, 2000). These results compare favorably with other measures of this construct.(11)

In short, the results presented here show that there is good consistency between the factorial components of this model, as well as stability over time.

The construct validity of EQ-i confirms that the Bar-On model describes ESI

To show that a concept is robust, it must first be shown that it is actually describing what it was designed to do. This is usually done by examining its construct validity. There are a number of basic approaches to examining the construct validity of psychometric and conceptual models (Anastasi, 1988). The approach I took was simply to show that the EQ-i is more correlated with other ESI measures than it is with measures of other constructs such as cognitive intelligence and personality. As will be shown, the results confirm that the EQ-i has theany lessamount of overlap with evidence from cognitive tests. This is followed by findings that indicate abigger thandegree of overlap with personality tests. It's himmayorthere is a degree of domain overlap between the EQ-i and other ESI measures.

In an effort to examine the divergent construct validity of the Bar-On model, the EQ-i was administered concurrently with several measures of cognitive intelligence (including the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Raven's Progressive Matrix, and the General Intelligence Scale ). capacity for adults) for a total of 4218 subjects in six studies (Bar-On, 2004). The results indicate that there is only minimal overlap between the EQ-i and tests of cognitive (academic) intelligence, which is expected because this instrument was not designed or intended to assess this type of performance. This finding is also confirmed by David Van Rooy and colleagues (Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004; Van Rooy et al., 2004; D. L. Van Rooy, April 2003 personal communication), who suggest that no more than 4% of EQ- i variation can be explained by cognitive intelligence according to a recent meta-analysis including 10 studies (n>5,000). In addition to shedding light on the construct validity of the Bar-On model and the ESI measure (i.e., what it does and does not describe), these findings indicate that socio-emotional intelligence and cognitive intelligence are not strongly correlated. and probably separate buildings. This assumption is not only supported statistically by findings presented by myself and others (Bar-On, 2004; Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004; Van Rooy et al., 2004), but there is also neurological evidence to suggest that the neural centers that that govern emotions - Social intelligence and those that govern cognitive intelligence are located in different areas of the brain. More succinctly, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex(12)appears to be governing basic aspects of the ESI (Bar-On et al., 2003; Bechara & Bar-On, in press; Lane & McRae, 2004), while the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is thought to govern key aspects of cognitive functioning (Duncan, 2001).

After submitting their pioneering meta-analysis of emotional intelligence for publication in December 2002, Van Rooy and Viswesvaran expanded the number of studies in their original analysis of the construct validity of emotional intelligence. Their most recent meta-analysis suggests that the degree of overlap between the EQ-i and personality tests probably does not exceed 15% based on 8 studies involving more than 1700 people (D. L. Van Rooy, personal communication, April 2003). This overlap is less than previously thought and strongly suggests that the EQ-i must be measuring more than just personality traits. It also makes sense that the EQ-i is not measuring personality traits, because the 15 emotional and social competencies, skills, and enablers it measures (a) increase almost continuously from infancy to the end of the fourth decade of life, as mentioned above. . and (b) it can also increase significantly in a matter of weeks as a result of training (Bar-On, 2003, 2004); personalityfeaturesthey are simply not as malleable as these competencies, skills and enablers appear to be. When this small degree of overlap with personality is combined with the even smaller degree of overlap with cognitive intelligence, the large unexplained variation that remains logically suggests that the EQ-i is measuring something more than these constructs; and based on what follows, I argue that a substantial amount of this unexplained variation in the Bar-On model and measure can be explained by the greater domain overlap that is observed when EQ-i is correlated with other ESI measures. More precisely, the degree of significant overlap between the EQ-i and these other ESI measures is nearly double that explained by personality and cognitive intelligence combined.

To examine the convergent construct validity of the model and the Bar-On measure, the correlation between the EQ-i and other ESI instruments was evaluated. In another publication (2004), I summarized the main findings related to the convergent construct validity of the EQ-i based on 13 studies involving a total of 2417 people. These findings indicate that the degree of domain overlap between the EQ-i and other ESI measures is about 36%, which is substantial when assessing construct validity (Anastasi, 1988). When compared to a 4% overlap with IQ tests and a 15% overlap with personality tests, it is obvious that the EQ-i is measuring what these other ESI measures measure (i.e. emotional, social intelligence) rather than of cognitive intelligence or personality. features.

The above findings suggest that the EQ-i has good construct validity, that is, for the most part, this instrument measures what it was designed to measure. This suggests that the Bar-On model is a valid ESI concept as it describes key aspects of socio-emotional intelligence rather than other psychological constructs such as cognitive intelligence or personality. The empirical demonstration of this point (Bar-On, 2004) is believed to dispel what some psychologists have assumed regarding Bar-On's conceptual and psychometric model and prematurely concluded based on less extensive and conclusive findings (e.g., Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Matthews et al., 2002; Newsome et al., 2000). Other ESI measures, such as the ECI and the MSCEIT, have not yet examined construct validity as robustly as the EQ-i has in larger and more diverse samples.(13)

When EQ-i-related findings are compared to the actual degree of domain overlap between skill-based ESI measures and tests of cognitive intelligence and personality (Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004; Van Rooy et al., 2004), the accuracy , meaning, and usefulness of dichotomously describing these measures as "mixed" or (not mixed) “capacity” models are questioned. On the one hand, the EQ-i overlaps tests of cognitive intelligence and personality by no more than 20%, while the degree of overlap between the MSCEIT and this type of test does not exceed 15% (Bar-On, 2004; Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004; Van Rooy et al., 2004; D. L. Van Rooy, personal communication, April 2003). In other words, the vast majority of variance in the conceptual and psychometric models (80% and 85% respectively) is not explained by personality and/or cognitive intelligence. Therefore, the “mixed” characteristic used by some (Mayer et al., 2000) to describesomeof these models, exists inallsuch models and measures in the sense that they all overlap with personality traits and cognitive intelligence to some extent, but the actual difference between them within that small degree of overlap does not justify the use of descriptors like "mixed" versus "skills" like a meaningful way to categorize these models and measures. All models of human behavior are influenced, at least to some extent, by a "mixed" cross section of biopsychosocial predictors and enablers, including biomedical predispositions and conditions, cognitive intelligence, personality, motivation, and environmental influences.(14)

ESI's Bar-On model predicts several aspects of human performance

In addition to demonstrating that the Bar-On model is capable of describing what it purports to describe (ESI), it must also be demonstrated that it is capable of predicting various aspects of human behavior, performance, and effectiveness to argue that it represents a robust and reliable concept. viable. The best way to do this is to examine its predictive validity (ie, the predictive validity of the psychometric instrument that measures the Bar-On Conceptual Model).

In various publications, I have described 20 predictive validity studies to date, conducted on a total of 22,971 EQ-i participants in seven countries around the world. These publications shed much light on the predictive validity of the EQ-i, examining its ability to predict performance in social, school, and workplace interactions, as well as its impact on physical health, psychological health, self-actualization, and subjectivity. well-being (Bar-On, 1997b, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005; Bar-On, et al., 2005; Krivoy et al., 2000). Based on these findings, the average coefficient of predictive validity is 0.59, suggesting that the Bar-On model is capable of predicting several aspects of human performance. The main findings related to the predictive capacity of this conceptual and psychometric model are summarized below.

The relationship between the Bar-On model and physical health.Three studies (Bar-On, 2004; Krivoy et al., 2000) suggest that there is a moderate but significant relationship between ESI and physical health.

In the first study (Krivoy et al., 2000), the i-EQ results of 35 adolescent cancer survivors were compared with those of a control group composed of 35 adolescents randomly selected from the sample of the local normative population. In addition to revealing significant differences between the two groups with respect to overall ESI, the most powerful EQ-i subscale that was able to distinguish between the experimental and control groups was Optimism, which is a great enabler of emotionally and socially intelligent behavior, it was. mentioned before.

In another study I conducted (2004), 3,571 adults completed the EQ-i and answered the following question: "I feel good about my general health." This question was intended to provide a self-perceived assessment of physical health so that you could examine the degree to which it might be influenced by socio-emotional intelligence.(15)The results of a multiple regression analysis produced an overall correlation of 0.49.

In a recent study (Bar-On & Fund, 2004), a population sample of 2,514 male recruits in the Israel Defense Forces completed the EQ-i early in their tenure. Of this sample, 91 recruits were identified with medical profiles indicating mild or minor health issues that would allow them to continue serving in the military with very few limitations. Another 42 recruits were found who proved to have more serious medical problems but not serious enough to warrant a medical discharge. I then randomly selected an additional group of 42 recruits from the sample (n = 2514) who did not receive a medical profile and therefore were considered physically healthy. This procedure created three groups representing three different levels of physical health. Multiple regression analysis was applied to the data, using the three different levels of physical health as the dependent variable and the recruits' scores on the 15 EQ-i subscales as the independent variables. The analysis produced an overall correlation of 0.37, which suggests a low to moderate but significant relationship between ESI and physical health for the studied sample.

Based on the most powerful EQ-i scales that emerged from these studies, it appears that (a) the ability to be self-aware, (b) the ability to manage emotions and manage stress, (c) the ability to solve problems of a personal nature and interpersonal and (d) the ability to maintain an optimistic disposition are significantly related to physical health.

The relationship between the Bar-On model and psychological health.In one of the first studies to examine the relationship between ESI and psychological health, the EQ-i scores of 418 psychiatric patients were compared with matched control groups in Argentina, Israel, South Africa, and the United States (Bar-On, 1997b). . ). In addition to significant differences on the overall ESI, EQ-i scores revealed significant differences on most scales between clinical samples and control groups.

In a more recent study, which included a sample of 2,514 men who completed the EQ-i at the time of joining the Israel Defense Forces, I identified 152 recruits who were eventually discharged on psychiatric grounds (2003). I then randomly selected an additional group of 152 out of 241 who were diagnosed with less severe psychiatric disorders that allowed them to continue their mission with relatively few limitations. The EQ-i scores of these two groups were compared to a randomly selected group of 152 recruits from the same population sample (n=2,514) who did not receive a psychiatric profile during their entire period of military service. This created three groups representing three different levels of psychological health: (a) people who were so severely disturbed that they were unable to complete a full mission, (b) people who were given less severe psychiatric profiles that allowed them to continue in active military service until completion, and (c) persons who completed military service without having received a psychiatric profile. A multiple regression analysis was applied to examine the degree of impact of ESI on psychological health; the results revealed a moderate but significant relationship between the two (0.39).

The results of these studies suggest that the most powerful ESI competencies, skills and enablers that affect psychological health are (a) the ability to manage emotions and deal with stress, (b) the drive to achieve personal goals to actualize one's inner potential each one. and lead a more meaningful life, and (c) the ability to check feelings and thoughts. This particular constellation of findings makes sense, because deficiencies in these specific skills can lead to anxiety (inability to properly manage emotions), depression (inability to achieve personal goals and lead a more meaningful life), and reality-testing problems. (an inability to control emotions). inability to adequately verify feelings and thoughts) respectively. It is also convincing that such deficits, in one form or another, are pathognomonic of most psychiatric disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1994); and if not directly pathogenic, they are likely to be a significant contributor to these disorders. Furthermore, tranquilizers, antidepressants, and neuroleptics (antipsychotics) represent three of the four major classifications of psychotropic drugs traditionally administered to treat these specific disorders (Kaplan & Sadock, 1991).

The results presented here compare quite favorably with other ESI measures.(sixteen)

The relationship between the Bar-On model and social interaction.In addition to several previous studies that indicated a significant relationship between ESI and social interaction (Bar-On, 1988, 1997b, 2000), a recent examination of an older dataset sheds new light on the nature of this relationship. -i was standardized in North America (Bar-On, 1997b), 533 participants in the normative sample completed the 16PF in addition to the EQ-i others (Cattell et al., 1970). This factor was selected as the dependent variable, and the 15 EQ-i subscales as the independent variables, and the results of applying a multiple regression analysis to the data suggested that the ESI, as conceptualized by the Bar-On model, is highly significant related to social interaction (0.69). This strongly indicates that ESI has a substantial impact and can predict the nature of interpersonal interaction. The results compare quite favorably with those generated by other ESI measures.(17)

The relationship between the Bar-On model and school performance.Contrary to the study by Newsome et al. in 2000 that did not reveal a statistically significant relationship between EQ-i scores and performance in school, four major studies conducted on much larger samples in South Africa, Canada, and the United States (Bar-On, 1997b, 2003; Parker et al. al .al., 2004; Swart, 1996) clearly indicate that such a relationship exists. Furthermore, these results confirm that the Bar-On model is able to identify and predict who will perform well in school and who will not.

In a pathway analysis conducted by James Parker and colleagues on 667 Canadian high school students (2004), the overall degree of correlation between ESI and academic achievement was 0.41, indicating a moderate but statistically significant correlation between them. . This means that at least 17% of school performance is a function of socio-emotional intelligence in addition to cognitive intelligence. These findings suggest that the Bar-On model is able to identify students who will perform well and those who will fail.

The results of a study of 448 university students in South Africa indicated that there is a significant difference in ESI between successful and unsuccessful students (Swart, 1996). These results were confirmed by an additional study of 1,125 college students in the United States, which I described in 1997. In both studies, the most successful students were the most emotionally and socially intelligent. More specifically, the ability to manage one's emotions, to validate one's feelings and to solve personal and interpersonal problems are important for academic success; Furthermore, academic performance seems to be facilitated by the ability to set personal goals, as well as being optimistic and motivated enough to achieve them.

More recently, Claude Marchessault examined the impact of EQ-i scores on the grade point average (GPA) of 106 first-year college students at an American university (C. Marchessault, personal communication Jan. 7, 2005). Students completed the EQ-i at the beginning of the school year and their GPA was calculated mid-year. Multiple regression analysis revealed a correlation of 0.45, once again confirming a significant relationship between ESI and school performance. Students' EQ-i scores will also be compared to their GPA at the end of the academic year, with results published at a later date.

The importance of developing and applying ESI performance models in the school setting is that they will be helpful in identifying students who need guided intervention. Comparing students' EQ-i scores with such performance models will provide a scientific way to identify their ESI strengths and weaknesses. Based on results to date, improving weaker ESI skills and competencies is expected to increase performance in school.

The results presented here compare quite favorably with those generated by other ESI measures.(18)

The relationship between the Bar-On model and workplace performance.In six studies that my colleagues and I have conducted, summarized, and cited over the past few years (Bar-On, 1997b, 2004; Bar-On et al., 2005; Handley, 1997; Ruderman & Bar-On, 2003), the O EQ -i showed that there is a significant relationship between ESI and occupational performance.

In the first known study to directly examine the relationship between ESI and occupational performance, the EQ-i scores of 1,171 US Air Force recruiters were compared with their ability to meet annual recruiting quotas (Handley, 1997; Bar-On et al. ., 2005 ). ). Based on USAF criteria, they were divided into those who managed to reach at least 100% of their annual quota (“high performance”) and those who achieved less than 80% (“low performance”), which represents a very robust method of assessing occupational performance. A discriminant function analysis indicated that the EQ-i scores were able to quite accurately identify high performers and low performers, showing that the relationship between ESI and occupational performance is high (0.53) on a sample basis studied. Prior to 1996, it cost the USAF approximately $3 million for an average of 100 mismatches per year. After a year of combining the pre-employment ESI assessment with interviews and comparing EQ-i scores to the model for successful recruiters, they increased their ability to predict successful recruiters nearly three times, dramatically reduced first-year attrition due to incompatibilities and cut their financial costs. loses about 92%. Based on these results, the US General Accounting Office presented a Congressional Report to the Senate Armed Services Committee praising the USAF's use of the ESI assessment (US General Accounting Office, 1998).

In two other studies, performance in highly stressful and potentially dangerous occupations was studied by comparing EQ-i scores with externally assessed performance for a sample of 335 regular combat soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and for an additional sample of 240 soldiers in an elite IDF unit (Bar-On et al., 2005). Both studies clearly revealed a significant relationship between ESI and this specific type of occupational performance; the coefficient of predictive validity in the first study was 0.55 and 0.51 in the second.

In three additional studies described by me (Bar-On, 2004; Bar-On et al., 2005), leadership was studied by examining the relationship between EQ-i scores and peer naming in one study (ie, among new recruits to the IDF), membership in a criteria group in another study (i.e., IDF recruits who were accepted for officer training versus those who were not) they were) and the multi-rater evaluations in the third study conducted at the Center for Creative Leadership in the US (ie, ratings on 21 different leadership criteria by an average of seven to eight work colleagues). The results indicate, respectively, that there is a moderate to high relationship between ESI and leadership based on predictive validity coefficients of 0.39 (n=536), 0.49 (n=940) and 0.82 (n=236). ). revealed. The third study shows that successful leadership strongly depends on emotional and social intelligence – close to two thirds (67%) to be exact.

The average coefficient of predictive validity for the six studies described above is 0.54, which means that almost 30% of the variation in occupational performance is based on the ESI described by the Bar-On model. When compared to Wagner's extensive meta-analysis which revealed that cognitive intelligence accounts for approximately 6% of occupational performance (1997), the findings presented here suggest that EQ accounts for approximately five times more variation than IQ to explain this kind of performance. . Results indicate that high performers in the workplace have significantly higher ESI than low performers. Interestingly, in one of the studies described above (Bar-On et al., 2005), results suggest that EQ-i was able to predict performance very well (0.55) even over an 18-month period. .

The findings described here suggest that the most powerful ESI contributors to occupational performance are: (a) the ability to know and accept oneself; (b) the ability to be aware of the feelings, concerns and needs of others; (c) the ability to manage emotions; (d) the ability to be realistic and put things in proper perspective; and (e) the ability to have a positive disposition.

Based on the results presented here, the EQ-i compares quite favorably with other ESI measures for predicting occupational performance.(19)

The relationship between the Bar-On model and self-actualization.Self-actualization is the process of striving to actualize one's skills, abilities and potential talents. It requires skill and motivation to set and achieve goals and is characterized by being involved and committed to a variety of interests and activities. Self-actualization is thought to be a lifelong endeavor that leads to an enriched and meaningful life. It's not just a performance, but an attempt to do your best.

In a reexamination of an earlier dataset used in my doctoral research (1988), I recently performed a multiple regression analysis to study the impact of ESI competencies, skills, and facilitators on self-actualization. A subset of 67 South African college students were identified in the dataset who simultaneously completed an earlier version of the EQ-i and the Personal Orientation Inventory (Shostrom, 1974), which is a popularly used measure of self-actualization. The I scale, which captures 85% of the POI items, was designated as the dependent variable, while the EQ-i subscale scores were identified as the independent variables. The results indicated that the ESI significantly impacts self-realization (0.64).

Three additional studies also examined this relationship (Bar-On, 2001). Large samples were studied in the Netherlands (n=1639), Israel (n=2702) and North America (n=3831). The results of these studies confirm the South African study indicating that the ESI has a strong impact on self-realization with multiple regression correlations reaching 0.78, 0.75 and 0.80 for the Dutch, Israeli and US samples, respectively. It is also interesting to note that the relationship between cognitive intelligence(20)and self-realization for the Israeli sample (0.02) and the Dutch sample (0.08) was not statistically significant (Bar-On, 2001). This means that it is socio-emotional intelligence, much more than cognitive intelligence, that influences the ability to do one's best, achieve goals and realize one's potential to the fullest. Of course, a high IQ does not guarantee that someone will actualize their potential, but a high IQ is definitely more important in this regard.

A very similar model emerged in each of the studies mentioned above regarding the ESI's ability to predict self-actualization. In addition to being motivated enough to set and achieve personal goals, self-actualization depends first and foremost on a deep sense of self-awareness and understanding of who you are, what you want to do, what you can do and what you like. pendency. Self-actualization also relies on good problem-solving to make strong, independent decisions about what one wants to do and then being assertive enough to follow through with those personal decisions. Also, one needs to be optimistic and positive to more fully realize one's potential and lead a more meaningful life based on the findings of these studies.

The relationship between the Bar-On model and subjective well-being.In a recent study (Bar-On, 2005), it was shown that ESI, as conceptualized by the Bar-On model, also affects subjective well-being. The well-being was defined in this study as a subjective state that arises from a feeling of satisfaction (a) with one's own physical health and with one's self as a person, (b) with the surrounding interpersonal relationships, and (c) with the occupation and a economy. situation. A measure of subjective well-being was built from nine questions that directly touch these three areas. In a large sample from North America (n=3571), the relationship between ESI and well-being was examined using multiple regression analysis. The results indicate that the two constructs are highly correlated (0.76). Based on the four highest ESI predictors of well-being, it appears that the following competencies, skills, and enablers contribute most to this subjective state: (a) the ability to understand and accept one's emotions and oneself, (b) the ability to ability to strive to set and achieve personal goals to increase one's potential and (c) the ability to check one's feelings and put things in their proper perspective.

These findings are substantially higher than those generated by other ESI measures.(21)

The findings presented here suggest that the Bar-On model is a better predictor of human performance than other existing models, especially when compared to the “skill model” as some have assumed to be the case (Matthews et al., 2002). ). It also seems to predict a wider range of performance than other ESI models based on current literature (eg Geher, 2004).

The Bar-On model can be taught and learned

After demonstrating that the ESI Bar-On model significantly affects various aspects of human performance, it is logical to ask whether emotionally and socially intelligent behavior can be enhanced to improve performance as well as self-actualization and subjective well-being. To address this issue empirically, the following briefly summarizes findings from four studies to show that emotionally and socially intelligent behavior can be enhanced in school, the workplace, and the clinical setting.

In recent years, children in an increasing number of schools across the United States have been introduced to the "Self Science" curriculum developed by Karen Stone-McCown and her colleagues 40 years ago (1998). As this project is ongoing and the results are still being analyzed, I would like to focus on one of the most successful examples to date that reveals the potential of this effort. The specific example is a 7th grade class of 26 children whose average age was 12 at the time of the study (Freedman, 2003). They were assessed with the youth version of the EQ-i (the EQ-i:YV) at the beginning of the 2002-2003 school year and again at the end of the school year. A comparison of pre- and post-intervention assessments suggests that children's emotional and social intelligence significantly increased after receiving one year of this enriching ESI curriculum. At the end of the year, the children were able to understand and express themselves better, understand and relate to others, manage and control their emotions and adapt to their immediate environment at school. These significant changes suggest that this and similar educational programs can make a difference and that the Bar-On model can accurately monitor and measure these changes. What needs to be done in these studies in the future is to look at the behavioral parameters before and after the intervention to see if there were any positive changes, such as better school attendance, better school performance, less violence, less incidents of bullying, etc. drug abuse and teenage pregnancy. , etc.

One of the most interesting studies showing that emotionally and socially intelligent behavior can be improved in adults was carried out by Sjölund and Gustafsson in Sweden (2001). They compared the EQ-i scores of 29 people before and after attending a workshop designed to increase management skills. When the workshop was held in 2000, most participants were in their 40s and had approximately 15 years of management experience. Among other skills, techniques were taught aimed at strengthening the ESI competencies considered important for their work as managers; and these specific skills and abilities were those described in the Bar-On model. He not only increased his total EQ score from an average of 97 to 106 (page-level<.000), but 9 of the 15 EQ-i subscales also increased significantly. The two ESI skills that increased the most as a result of their participation in the workshop were emotional self-awareness and empathy, considered by many to be the two most important components of socio-emotional intelligence. Another interesting result was that participants who started the workshop with the lowest EQ-i scores made the most progress. Kate Cannon, who developed this program, confirmed similar findings based on her experience conducting these workshops in the United States (Bar-On, 2003). This is particularly important and encouraging because people with the lowest EQ scores need to improve their ESI skills the most.

At a conference on emotional intelligence held in Nova Scotia in 2003, Geetu Orme presented the results of the one-on-one training he has provided to corporate executives in the UK since 1999. He tested 47 executives with the EQ-i before starting the training and then , a few months after completing the weekly sessions provided. His training was based on strengthening the weaker ESI factors that were identified by his EQ-i scores. The five EQ-i subscale scores that revealed the most significant changes were as follows: Self-Esteem (87 to 95), Self-Actualization (92 to 102), Stress Tolerance (97 to 102), Reality Testing (97 to 109), and Happiness (93 to 100).

Beyond the classroom and workplace, there is also evidence that ESI competencies and skills can be enhanced in the clinical setting. Using an earlier version of the EQ-i, a graduate student at the University of Pretoria tested a group of 58 patients hospitalized for myocardial infarction (Dunkley, 1996). After testing, 22 of these patients were randomly selected to participate in a stress management program. The program included instruction on how to better identify the sources of stress in their lives and apply more effective ways of dealing with these situations. EQ-i was administered a second time five weeks after completion of this program. In addition to significant changes in total EQ scores (92 vs. 102,t-valor=-5,47,page-level=.000), nine of the subscale scores revealed statistically significant changes. Given the primary focus of this program on stress management, it is not surprising that the ESI competency that changed the most as a result of this training was Stress Tolerance (the ability to manage emotions); this is even more important when considering that stress is considered one of the main psychosocial factors that affect cardiovascular disorders such as myocardial infarction. Most of the EQ-i scores of patients who participated in the stress management program were significantly higher than the scores obtained by those who did not participate in the program.

The results of these studies suggest that the ESI factors described by the Bar-On model can be taught and learned, and that these factors can be improved by relatively simple teaching methods in a relatively short period of time.

Discussion

The results presented in this article showed that emotional and social intelligence, as conceptualized in the Bar-On model, is a multifactorial set of interrelated emotional and social skills, abilities and facilitators that influence the ability to recognize, understand and manage emotions. , relating to others, adapting to changes and solving problems of a personal and interpersonal nature and dealing efficiently with the demands, challenges and pressures of everyday life. It was also demonstrated that the development of this model was rigorous and that the result of this process produced a valid concept and measure of ESI. This model is not only consistent and stable over time and across cultures, but it is also capable of describing the construct for which it was designed (socio-emotional intelligence). The importance and usefulness of the Bar-On model has also been demonstrated when examining its ability to predict various aspects of human behavior and performance. Furthermore, showing that the concept can be taught and learned and that the ESI factors involved can be improved underscores the importance and usefulness of this model.

The studies presented should be replicated in more diverse environments. It is important to continue to study this model to learn how best to apply it at home, at school, and at work. Future studies should use a wide variety of methods to examine the relationship between the Bar-On model and an even wider range of human performance. In light of the fact that all of the studies presented were cross-sectional, future research should also attempt to longitudinally examine this model and its ability to describe ESI and predict human performance over time; and it was explained that said study is ongoing. It is particularly important to continue to examine the ESI and its predictive validity across cultures in an effort to better assess its applicability in parenting, education, work, and health around the world.

Hopefully, this model and the discoveries it spawned will find their way more routinely into the home, school, and workplace. Parents and educators can benefit from this by raising and educating children to be more emotionally and socially intelligent, effective and productive from an early age. Human resource personnel in organizations could also make wider use of this model and measure in hiring, training, and succession planning to increase individual effectiveness and organizational productivity. In addition, healthcare professionals can benefit from focusing on the aforementioned ESI components of the Bar-On model in diagnostic, repair and preventive work. This approach can be used to map ESI areas that need improvement to increase individual effectiveness, self-actualization and overall well-being.

Any given ESI model, no matter how valid, robust, and viable it may be, only describes a limited view of an individual's capacity for emotionally and socially intelligent behavior. To provide a more complete and comprehensive description of the capacity for this type of behavior, we should consider creating an extended model that incorporates the best conceptual and psychometric aspects of existing ESI models. As such, a future challenge in this field is to explore how best to create a multi-dimensional model that captures both the potential (or capability) for emotionally and socially intelligent behavior, as well as self-report and multi-rater assessment of this type. Behavioral Analysis Our ability to more fully describe ESI will be incomplete until we can create a multidimensional and multimodal approach. By applying an expanded ESI model, we will eventually be more effective in mapping this construct, assessing its importance and understanding how best to apply it. Encouraging this approach is also the best way to discourage the proliferation of unsubstantiated theories that encourage misconceptions and false claims about what socio-emotional intelligence is and what it is not and what it can and cannot predict.

APPENDIX

EQ-i scales and what they measure

References

American Psychiatric Association (1994).Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental illness.disorders,4th edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Anastasi, A. (1988).psychological tests(6th ed.). Nova York: Macmillan Publishing.

Appelbaum, S.A. (1973). Psychological mentality: word, concept and essence.International Journal of Psychoanalysis,54, 35-46.

BarOn, R. (1988).The development of a concept of psychological well-being.. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Rhodes, South Africa.

BarOn, R. (1997a).The Emotional Quotient Inventory(EQ-i):An emotional intelligence test. Toronto, Canadá: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.

BarOn, R. (1997b).The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Technical Manual. Toronto, Canadá: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.

BarOn, R. (2000). Emotional and Social Intelligence: Perspectives from the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i). In R. Bar-On and J.D.A. Parker (Eds.),emotional intelligence handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bar-On, R. (2001). Emotional intelligence and self-actualization. In Joseph Ciarrochi, Joe Forgas, and John D. Mayer (Eds.),Emotional intelligence in everyday life: a scientific investigation. Nova York: Psychology Press.

Bar-On, R. (2003). How important is it to educate people to be emotionally and socially intelligent? Can be done?Perspectives in Education,21(4), 3-13.

Bar-On, R. (2004). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Rationale, description and summary of psychometric properties. In Glenn Geher (Ed.),measuring emotional intelligence:Common ground and controversy. . . . Hauppauge, Nova York: Nova Science Publishers, p. 111-142.

Bar-On, R. (2005). Emotional intelligence and subjective well-being. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Bar-On, R. & Fund, S. (2004). The impact of emotional and social intelligence on self-perceived physical health. Unpublished manuscript.

Bar-On, R. e Handley, R. (2003a).The Bar -In EQ-360. Toronto, Canadá: Multiple Health Systems.

Bar-On, R. e Handley, R. (2003b).The Bar-On EQ-360: Technical Manual. Toronto, Canadá: Multiple Health Systems.

Bar-On, R., Handley, R. & Fund, S. (2005). The impact of emotional and social intelligence on performance. In Vanessa Druskat, Fabio Sala, and Gerald Mount (eds.),Linking emotional intelligence and job performance:Current research evidence. . . . Mahwah, Nova Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bar-On, R. e Parker, J. D. A. (2000).The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory:youth version(EQ-i:YV)Technical manual. Toronto, Canadá: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.

Bar-On R, Tranel D, Denburg NL. & Bechara, A. (2003). Exploring the neurological substrate of emotional and social intelligence.Brain, 126, 1790-1800.

Bechara, A. and Bar-On, R. (in press). The neurological substrates of emotional and social intelligence: evidence from patients with focal brain injuries. In J.T. Cacioppo and G.G. Bernston (Eds.),Essays in social neuroscience.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bechara, A., Tranel, D. & Damásio, R. (2000). Poor judgment despite high intellect: neurological evidence for emotional intelligence. In R. Bar-On and J.D.A. Parker (Eds.),emotional intelligence handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bern, DJ & Allen, A. (1974). On predicting some people at some point: the search for consistency of behavior across situations.psychological review,81(6), 506-520.

Boyatzis, R. E., Goleman, D. e HayGroup (2001).The Emotional Skills Inventory (ECI). Boston: HayGroup.

Boyatzis, R.E. and Sala, F. (2004). The Emotional Skills Inventory (ECI). In Glenn Geher (Ed.),measuring emotional intelligence:Common ground and controversy. . . . Hauppauge, Nova York: Nova Science Publishers.

Brackett, M.A. & Mayer, J.D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant and incremental validity of competitive measures of emotional intelligence.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,29(9), 1147-1158.

Brackett, MA & Salovey, P. (2004). Measuring emotional intelligence with the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). In Glenn Geher (Ed.),measuring emotional intelligence:Common ground and controversy. . . . Hauppauge, Nova York: Nova Science Publishers.

Brackett, M.A., Warner, R.M., & Bosco, J. (2003). Emotional intelligence and relationship satisfaction among dating couples. Submitted for publication.

Campbell, D.T. & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multifeature-multimethod matrix.Psychological Bulletin,56, 81-105.

Cattell, R.B., Eber, H.W. e Tatsuoka, M.M. (1970).Manual for the Sixteen Personality Factors Questionnaire(16PF). Champaign, Illinois: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Chapin, FS (1942). Preliminary standardization of a social impact scale.American Sociological Review, 7, 214-225.

Damasio, A.R. (1994).Descartes error:Emotion, reason and the human brain. Nueva York: Grosset/Putnam.

Darwin, C. (1872/1965).The expression of emotions in man and animals.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Davies, M., Stankov, L. & Roberts, RD. (1998). Emotional intelligence: in search of an elusive construction.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,75, 989-1015.

Doll, E.A. (1935). A generic scale of social maturity.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 5, 180-188.

Duncan, J. (2001). An adaptive encoding model of neural function in the prefrontal cortex.Nature Reviews Neuroscience,2, 820-829.

Dunkley, J. (1996). The psychological well-being of patients with coronary disease before and after an intervention program. Master's thesis unpublished. University of Pretoria, South Africa.

Freedman, J. (2003). Key lessons from 35 years of social-emotional education: how self-science builds self-awareness, positive relationships, and healthy decision-making.Perspectives in Education,21(4), 69-80.

Gardner, H. (1983).states of animation. Nova York: Basic Books.

Geher, G. (Ed.) (2004).measuring emotional intelligence:Common ground and controversy. . . . Hauppauge, Nova York: Nova Science Publishers.

Goleman, D. (1995).Emotional intelligence. . . . Nova York: Bantam Books.

Goleman, D. (1998).Working with emotional intelligence. . . . Nova York: Bantam Books.

Handley. R. (1997, April). The AFRS measures emotional intelligence.Air Force Recruiting News.

Kaplan, H.I. & Sadock, B.J. (1991). Sinopse de Psiquiatria (6ª ed.). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.

Krivoy, E., Weyl Ben-Arush, M., Bar-On, R. (2000). Comparison of the emotional intelligence of adolescent cancer survivors with a corresponding sample of the normative population.Medical and Pediatric Oncology,35(3), 382.

Lane, RD (2000). Levels of Emotional Awareness: Neurological, Psychological and Social Perspectives. In R. Bar-On and J.D.A. Parker (Eds.),emotional intelligence handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lane, R.D. & McRae, K. (2004). Neural substrates of conscious emotional experience: a cognitive neuroscientific perspective. In BM Amsterdam and J. Benjamins (Eds.),Consciousness, emotional self-regulation and the brain, p. 87-122.

Lane, R.D. & Schwartz, G.E. (1987). Levels of emotional awareness: a theory of cognitive development and its application to psychopathology.American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 133-143.

LeDoux, J. (1996).The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Foundations of the Emotional Life. Nova York: Simon and Schuster.

MacLean, P.D. (1949). Psychosomatic illness and the visceral brain: recent developments related to Papez's theory of emotion.Psychosomatic Medicine, II, 338-353.

Matthews, G., Roberts, RD., Zeidner, M. (2003). Emotional intelligence development: a skeptical but not dismissive perspective.Human development,46, 109-114.

Matthews, G., Zeidner, M. e Roberts, R.D. (2002).Emotional intelligence:science and myth. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Mayer, J.D. & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence: in P. Salovey and D. Sluyter (Eds.).Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Implications for Educators(pp. 3-31). Nova York: Basic Books.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. & Caruso, D. (2000). Emotional intelligence models. In RJ Sternberg (Ed.),intelligence manual. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. y Caruso, D.R. (2002).Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test(MSCEIT). Toronto, Canadá: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.

Moss, F.A. & Hunt, T. (1927). Are you socially intelligent?american scientist, 137, 108-110.

Moss, F.A., Hunt, T., Omwake, K.T. e Ronning, M.M. (1927).social intelligence test. Washington, DC: Center for Psychological Care.

Newsome, S., Day, A.L., & Cantano, V.M. (2000). Assessing the predictive validity of emotional intelligence.Personality and individual differences,29, 1005-1016.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978).psychometric theory(2nd ed.). Nova York: McGraw-Hill.

Orme, G. (2003). Emotional intelligence: the forefront of interventions in corporate and educational environments. Paper presented May 29, 2003 at the Nexus EQ Conference, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Parker, J.D.A., Creque, R.E., Barnhart, D.L., Harris, J.I., Majeski, S.A., Wood, L.M., Bond, B.J., & Hogan, M.J. (2004). Academic Achievement in High School: Does Emotional Intelligence Matter?Personality and individual differences,37, 1321-1330.

Petrides, K.V. & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence.Personality and individual differences,29, 313-320.

Plake, B. S. e Impara, J. C. (Eds.). (1999).Supplement to the Thirteenth Yearbook of Mental Measurements. . . . Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute for Mental Measurement.

Ruderman, M. & Bar-On, R. (2003). The impact of emotional intelligence on leadership. Unpublished manuscript.

Ruesch, J. (1948). child personality.Psychosomatic Medicine, 10, 134-144.

Saarni, C. (1990). Emotional competence: how emotions and relationships are integrated. In R.A. Thomson (ed.),socioemotional development. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (vol. 36, p. 101–1 115–182). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Salovey, P. & Mayer, J.D. (nineteen ninety). Emotional intelligence.Imagination, cognition and personality, 9, 185-211.

Salovey, P., Mayer, J.D., Goldman, S.L., Turvey, C. & Palfai, TP. (1995). Emotional attention, clarity and repair: exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. In J. W. Pennebaker (ed.).Emotion, revelation and health(pp. 125-154). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Shadbolt, B., Barresi, J. & Craft, P. (2002). Self-rated health as a predictor of survival in patients with advanced cancer.Journal of Clinical Oncology,20(10), 2514-2519.

Shostrom, E.L. (1974).personal guidance inventory:An inventory for measuring self-actualization. San Diego, CA: Education Industry Testing Service.

Sifneos, PE (1967). Clinical observations on some patients suffering from a variety of psychosomatic illnesses.Psychosomatic Medicine Law, 21, 133-136.

Sjölund, M. and Gustafsson, H. (2001).Study of the results of a training program and assessment of leadership development based on emotional intelligence. An internal report prepared for the Skanska Management Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.

Spielberger, C. (Ed.) (2004).Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology. Academic Press.

Stone-McCown, K., Jensen, A.L., Freedman, J.M. e Rideout, M.C. (1998).science itself:The emotional intelligence curriculum.. San Mateo, CA: Six seconds.

Suzuki, L.A. and Valencia, R.R. (1997). Race-ethnicity and measured intelligence. american psychologist,52(10), 1103-114.

Swart, A. (1996).The relationship between well-being and academic performance. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Pretoria, South Africa.

Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses.Harper's Magazine, 140, 227-235.

US Office of General Accounting (1998). Military Recruitment: The Department of Defense could improve its recruiter selection and incentive systems. Report of the United States Congress submitted to the United States Senate Armed Services Committee on January 30, 1998 (GAO/NSIAD - 98 - 58).

Van Rooy, D.L., Pluta, P. & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). An assessment of construct validity: what is this thing called emotional intelligence? Manuscript submitted for publication.

Van Rooy, D.L. & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: a meta-analytic investigation of predictive validity and nomological network.Vocational Behavior Magazine,sixty-five, 71-95.

Wagner RK (1997). Intelligence, training and employment.american psychologist, 52 (10):1059-69.

Wechsler, D. (1940). Non-intellectual factors in general intelligence.Psychological Bulletin, 37, 444-445.

Wechsler, D. (1943). Non-intellectual factors in general intelligence.Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 38, 100-104.

Wechsler, D. (1958).The measurement and assessment of adult intelligence (4th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins Company.

Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, RD. (2001). Calm down, you're going too fast: emotional intelligence is still a "slippery" intelligence.Emotion,vol. 1(number 3), 265-275.

Zirkel, S. (2000). Social intelligence: The development and maintenance of intentional behavior. In R. Bar-On and J.D.A. Parker (Eds.),emotional intelligence handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

final notes

1) For several years I have been referring to this construct as "socio-emotional intelligence", which I have recently shortened to "socio-emotional intelligence".

2) It was Charles Darwin who published the first known work in the broader area of ​​socio-emotional intelligence as early as 1872 (on the importance of emotional expression for survival and adaptation).

3) This work began in the early 1980s as part of my doctoral research (1988).

4) I have also developed a 60-item youth version of the EQ-i (the EQ-i:YV), which is applicable from ages 8 to 18 and takes approximately 15 minutes to complete (Bar-On & Parker, 2000 ). .

5) Approximately 2% of the sample did not indicate their ethnic origin.

6) The translation process created not only over 30 different translations, but also more than one version of the same language into multiple languages. For example, there are two versions of French (European and North American), Spanish (European and Central American) and Portuguese (European and South American). The aim of this ongoing translation process is to facilitate the use of the Bar-On model and measurement by practitioners and researchers. For more details, the reader is referred to the Foreign Language Translation Department of Multi-Health Systems Publisher in Canada (www.mhs.com).

7) The translation into Spanish was made by Prof. Daniel Gómez Dupertuis and his colleagues at the National University of La Plata in Buenos Aires. This highly methodical and professional approach became a reference for future translations and was replicated by other translators.

8) This study is being conducted by Human Resources Development Canada and is currently in its tenth year. It represents the first longitudinal study of socio-emotional intelligence and is expected to shed much light on how this construct develops, what affects it, and what is affected by it from birth through early adulthood. Individuals and their parents have provided a wide range of biomedical, developmental, personality, cognitive, educational, social, and behavioral information. Additionally, subjects were tested with the youth version of the EQ-i every two years and will continue to be tested with the adult version of the EQ-i starting at age 18.

9) The MEIS (Multifactorial Emotional Intelligence Test) is an earlier version of the MSCEIT (Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Test of Emotional Intelligence), which was designed to measure the authors' 4-branch theory of emotional intelligence.

10) Although the 4 metafactor structure of the MSCEIT is evidently confirmed by factor analysis (Brackett & Salovey, 2004), an examination of the subfactor structure of the 8 EI tasks included in the subfactors has not been found in the literature. the measure that can mean that it has not been confirmed. The 18-factor structure of the ICE does not seem to be empirically justified according to the latest findings (Boyatzis & Sala, 2004); a 9-factor framework emerged in place of the current measure framework (Boyatzis et al., 2001), as well as earlier conceptualizations of Goleman's model (Goleman, 1998).

11) Brackett and Salovey reported split-half reliability correlations of 0.93 and 0.91 for the total MSCEIT score and a retest reliability of 0.86 after a relatively short period of three weeks (2004).

12) Fairly recent findings suggest that the right insular and somatosensory cortices, as well as the right amygdala, are also involved, forming a neural circuit with the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (Bar-On et al., 2003; Bechara & Bar-On , in the press). ).

13) Unfortunately, very few published studies have examined the degree of correlation between the MSCEIT and other ESI measures; and most of the existing publications mostly present conflicting evidence for the construct validity of the MSCEIT. However, it is not enough to assess the construct validity of a measure by examining only its divergent construct validity (ie, what it is not measuring); you must also logically present convergent construct validity (ie, what you are measuring). To establish that a particular measure of a psychological construct is psychometrically sound, it is axiomatic in the test construct to examine and compare divergent and convergent evidence (Anastasi, 1988; Campbell & Fiske, 1959).

14) This argument has been made in psychology for over a quarter of a century (Ben & Allen, 1974); and more than half a century ago, David Wechsler specifically argued that some of this "mixture" affects intelligent behavior (Wechsler, 1940, 1943).

15) There is a growing body of medical literature suggesting that self-perceived health is significantly correlated with clinically assessed health and is a good predictor of general physical condition (Shadbolt et al., 2002).

16) The MSCEIT showed correlations with measures of anxiety and depression ranging from 0.25 to 0.33 (Brackett & Salovey, 2004). However, it is unclear whether actual clinical samples have been studied with this instrument.

17) Brackett and colleagues found correlations in the range of 0.28 to 0.45 between MSCEIT and "quality of interpersonal relationships" (2003).

18) Brackett and Salovey describe correlations between the MSCEIT and school performance in the range of 0.20 to 0.25 (2004).

19) The correlation between the MSCEIT and various aspects of occupational performance ranges from 0.22 to 0.46 (Brackett & Salovey, 2004).

20) Cognitive intelligence was assessed with the Raven Progressive Matrix in the Israeli sample and with the General Adult Mental Ability Scale in the Dutch sample.

21) The highest correlations obtained between the MSCEIT and various subjective well-being scales vary between 0.27 and 0.36 according to the study carried out by Brackett and Mayer (2003).