manuscript (versión 2013).doc

Emotional Intelligence 1

Running head: EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AMONG THE DEVELOPMENT

Performance-based Emotional Intelligence in young people and older adults

Beatriz Navarro Bravo1,2,3, José Miguel Latorre Postigo1,3, Pablo Fernández-Berrocal4 and

Ana Jiménez Escribano5

1Department of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Castilla-La Mancha. Albacete (Spain).

2Research Unit of the Primary Care Head Office of Albacete.Health and Social Care Foundation of Castilla-La Mancha. Albacete (Spain).

3Regional Centre of Biomedical Research, Unit of Health Psychology. Albacete (Spain).

4 Department of Basic Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Málaga (Spain).

5 University of Castilla-La Mancha Student. Albacete (Spain).

Corresponding author:Beatriz Navarro BravoTelephone number: +34 967 195131E mail: [email protected]


Abstract

The main objective was to evaluate the results in performance-based Emotional Intelligence

(EI) among the development.

We interviewed 166 participants (58 men and 108 women), 66 of them were between 18-30

years old, 53 were between 31-60 years old and 40 of them were over 60 years old. 4.8% of

them had primary studies and the rest had high school or college. All of them were working

or enrolled in colleges. As assessment tool we used the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional

Intelligence Test V.2.0 (MSCEIT V.2.0), a test which assesses performance-based EI.

The results show that there exist significant differences between young and old people in the

levels of EI. Young people had higher scores on performance-based EI, but these differences

disappear when we take into account the instruction level.

Keywords: Emotional Intelligence; Elderly; Age.


Performance-based Emotional Intelligence in young people and older adults

Currently, the most widely accepted definition of Emotional Intelligence (EI) is that

which understands EI as a construct that "involves the ability to perceive accurately,

appraise, and express emotion; the ability to access and / or generate feelings when they

facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the

ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth" (Mayer &

Salovey, 1997).

In recent years many instruments have emerged to measure EI, among which we can

find scales of performance or implementation among others. The scales of ability or

performance are based on the model of emotional processing of information, which poses an

assessment based on tasks and emotional exercises (Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008). The

assessed person’s responses are compared with the responses given by a large normative

group (consensus criteria) or by the responses given by a group of recognized experts in the

field of emotions (expert criteria). These methods show as advantages the reduction of the

effect of social desirability and of tendency to falsification, and as disadvantages the

difficulty to determine which answers are correct and the great amount of time needed for

completion, with the possible effect of fatigue that this entails (Roberts, Schulze &

MacCann, 2007).

There is not much previous research available on differences in EI at different stages

of evolutionary development, and when this happens, except in the study by Palmer, Gignac,

Manocha and Stough (2005), the samples do not usually go beyond the 66 years old.

Previous studies about EI and age have showed contradictory results. When we talk about

performance ratings, in a study using a sample of people between 19 and 66 years it has

been checked that middle-aged people score some more than youth in EI (Kafetsios, 2004),


including factors of Facilitation, Understanding and Managing of the emotion. Also in the

work in Spain by Extremera, Fernández-Berrocal and Salovey (2006) it was seen that

Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) scores increased with age in

a sample of between 16 and 58 years of age. In addition to age, higher scores on

performance measures of EI are related to education and the fact of receiving psychotherapy

or not (Goldenberg, Matheson & Mantler, 2006). On the contrary, other studies have not

found any significant relations between age and MSCEIT dimensions (Farrelly & Austin,

2007) and some authors have even obtained a negative correlation between age and

emotional perception (Day & Carroll, 2004; Palmer et al., 2005).

It has been found that the MSCEIT score presents correlations with other cognitive

performance tests such as verbal subscales of IQ tests (r = 0.36) (Roberts et al., 2007) or the

general intelligence (Roberts, Zeidner & Matthews, 2001). It is well known that from the

most classic studies to the most recent ones, when big samples of people of different ages

are compared using intelligence measures, the decrease in the scores is much lower when

the educational level is controlled (although the differences does not disappear completely)

(Kaufman, Reynols & McLean, 1989). In the last years it have also been found that fluid

intelligence is related to education as strongly as crystallized intelligence is (Kaufman,

Kaufman, Liu & Johnson, 2009).

Taking into account the relation between EI and other performance tests, we consider

that we can expect that the MSCEIT score, as a kind of intelligence, shows a similar pattern,

decreasing in the adulthood. We also consider that the educational level of the person might

influence these results.

Considering the contradictory results of previous research regarding to EI and age

and the fact that there are hardly studies that have measured the EI in people over 66 years

old, we have performed and exploratory study with the main objective of compare the scores


in the MSCEIT between young and old people and the influence of the educational level in

these scores.

Method

Design and variables

It is a cross-sectional correlational study. The variables used were: gender, age,

instruction level, scores on the four factors evaluated by the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso

Emotional Intelligence Test V.2.0 (Perception, Use, Understanding and Managing of the

emotions), and the global score on the MSCEIT.

Participants

This work has been made with the voluntary collaboration of 166 participants

ranging from 18 to 76 years old. In the total sample there were 58 men and 108 women. The

mean age of the sample was equal to 42.75 years (SD = 19.28).

Inclusion criteria were: age (to be older than 18 years), to be working or studying at

the time of this study and not to have any physical or psychological disability to answer the

questionnaires. We sought volunteers who were students or workers at the time of the study

as a form of controlling that they had a certain level of cognitive and intellectual activity,

necessary to complete the questionnaire MSCEIT.

Instruments

As a measure of IE performance we used the Spanish version of the Mayer-Salovey-

Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test V.2.0 (V.2.0 MSCEIT) (Extremera, Fernández-Berrocal,

& Salovey, 2006; Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2002; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso & Sitarenios,

2003). It is a questionnaire that assesses the EI with 141 items divided into eight sub-tests of

skill. You can get various scores with this test that differs in their level of generality. This

scale provides a global score of EI which in addition can be divided into two areas, the

Experiential Emotional Intelligence and Emotional Reasoning. These two areas are divided


into four sub-factors: the Perception of emotions, the Use of emotions, the Understanding of

emotions and the Managing of emotions. The reliability of the two halves is 0.93 for the

consensus criterion and 0.91 for the criterion of experts. The reliabilities of the two area

scores (Experiential and Strategic) are 0.90 and 0.90 for the consensus criterion and 0.88

and 0.86 for the criterion of experts. In the case of the four factors the reliability of both

methods is between 0.76 and 0.91 (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso & Sitarenios, 2003). Besides the

test-retest reliability for the global MSCEIT after three weeks is 0.86 (Brackett & Mayer,

2003).

Procedure

The sample was selected from different centres of studies in the province of Albacete

in Spain. This was done with the collaboration of several teachers who helped with the

selection of volunteers among their students. The questionnaires were self-administered in

group.

Data were entered into a database using SPSS 15.0 statistical software. Descriptive

analyses of the sample were carried out and comparisons were made between age and

gender groups in the scores on performance-based EI. In addition, we calculated correlations

among the different variables by dividing the subjects into age groups.

Results

Firstly the descriptive analyses of the sample were made. 4.8% of them had primary

studies and the rest had high school or college. Regarding gender the 34.9% were male and

the 65.1% female. All of them were working or enrolled in colleges. Table 1 shows the

scores in the MSCEIT of the groups divided by age and gender.

Insert here Table 1


Correlations between age, instruction level and IE assessed using the MSCEIT scale were

analyzed in the whole sample. We found significant negative correlations between age and

instruction level (r= -0.545; p= 0.000), emotional perception, emotional use, emotional

understanding and total score of the MSCEIT. Regarding to instruction level, we found

significant positive correlations between it and emotional perception, emotional use,

emotional understanding and total score of the MSCEIT. These correlations can be observed

with more detail in table 2.

Insert here Table 2

To compare the different scores on Emotional Intelligence by age we performed a

MANOVA (3 age groups) with the results in performance- based Emotional Intelligence

according to the consensus criterion of correctness using the sex as a covariate. After that we

performed the same model adding the instruction level as a covariate.

The results indicated that in terms of age groups, there are significant differences in

emotional use, F(2,155)= 4.305, p= 0.015, η2= 0.053, in emotional understanding,

F(2,155)= 3.892, p=0.022, η2= 0.048 and in the total MSCEIT score, F(2,155)= 4.164,

p=0.017, η2= 0.051. Using Scheffe`s method it was verified that these differences were

between the group under 30 years and the group over 60 years, being these scores higher in

the younger group. We repeated the general linear model, adjusting by instruction level.

With the adjusted model the differences between the younger and the older group disappear.

It was found that instruction level was related to emotional perception factor (p=0.047),

emotional use (p= 0.000), emotional understanding (p=0.002) and MSCEIT total score (p=

0.000).


Discussion

The young people group scored significantly higher than the older people group in

the factor of emotional use, the factor of emotional understanding and the total score of the

MSCEIT according to the consensus criteria. These results contradict in part some existing

literature, which found a positive correlation between age and scores on the various factors

and areas of the MSCEIT (Extremera, Fernández-Berrocal & Salovey, 2006). Even though

the available literature describe positive correlations between the score of the MSCEIT

(performance-based EI) and age, in the work by Palmer, Gignac, Manocha and Stough

(2002) no significant relationships were found between the total score of the MSCEIT and

age. However, negative correlations were found between age and scores on the subscale of

"Faces" of this test. The better scores in MSCEIT could be influenced by a higher

instruction level. Since the instruction level is related to all the already mentioned factors

and all three groups showed significant differences regarding years of studies, we consider

that the instruction level could explain the better performance on the scale of the youngest

participants.

We must note that the result in the MSCEIT test presents correlations with other

cognitive performance tests such as verbal subscales of IQ tests (r = 0.36) (Roberts, Schulze

& McCann, 2007) or the general intelligence (Roberts, Zeidner & Matthews, 2001). This

could be one explanation for the obtained results in which young people showed a better

performance on the MSCEIT, as it often happens in other scales that measure performance

as intelligence tests (Escorial, Rebollo, García, Colom, Abad & Espinosa, 2003).


Conclusions

Regarding the differences between age groups it has been observed that it is young

people who score higher on performance measures (MSCEIT), but this differences does not

remain when the educational level is included as a covariate.

Probably the fact that young people have obtained a better performance in EI is

related to their educational level, and therefore, to the greatest ability to run performance

tests.

Limitations and future research

The fact that participants were selected requesting voluntary cooperation may limit the

generalizability of results, as people who volunteered to participate could have certain

qualities that differentiate them from those who did not cooperate.

For the variables studied and the focus of the study, the EI, it would have been

appropriate to select people with a more equal level of education. We attempted this by

choosing older people who were studying at the time of collection of data, but despite this,

at the end significant differences in this respect between the three age groups appeared.

As a future line of research we propose to assess Emotional Intelligence and General

Intelligence using longitudinal methodology to see what is the evolution of both types of

intelligences among age and relationship between these two constructs at the different stages

of evolutionary development.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Professors Laura Ros, Rigoberto López ,Concha Fabeiro, Diosina Lozano

and David Igual for their help in the selection of the sample.

Conflict of Interest

There is not conflict of interest.


Reference List

Brackett, M. A. & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity

of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin., 29, 1147-1158.

Day, A. L., & Carroll, S. A. (2004). Using an ability-based measure of emotional

intelligence to predict individual performance, group performance, and group

citizenship behaviours. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1443-1458.

Escorial, E., Rebollo, I., García, L. F., Colom, R., Abad, F. J., & Espinosa, M. J. (2003). Las

aptitudes que se asocian al declive de la inteligencia: evidencias a partir del WAIS-

III. Psicothema, 15, 19-22.

Extremera, N., Fernández-Berrocal, P., & Salovey, P. (2006). Spanish version of the Mayer-

Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). Version 2.0: reliabilities,

age and gender differences. Psicothema., 18 Suppl, 42-48.

Farrelly, D., & Austin, E. (2007). Ability EI as an intelligence? Associations of the MSCEIT

with performance on emotion processing and social tasks and with cognitive ability.

Cognition and Emotion, 21, 1043-1063.

Goldenberg, I., Matheson, K., & Mantler, J. (2006). The assessment of emotional

intelligence: a comparison of performance-based and self-report methodologies.

Journal of Personality Assessment., 86, 33-45.

Kafetsios, K. (2004). Attachment and emotional intelligence abilities across the life course.

Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 129-145.


Kaufman, A.S., Kaufman, J.C., Liu, X., Johnson, C.K. (2009). How do educational

attainment and gender relate to fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, and

academic skills at ages 22-90 years. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 24, 153-

163.

Kaufman, A.S., Reynolds, C.R., McLean, J.E. (1989). Age and WAIS.R Intelligence in a

National Sample of Adults in the 20- to 74-year Age Range: A Cross-Sectional

Analysis with Educational Level Controlled. Intelligence, 13, 235-253.

Mayer, J. D. & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P.Salovey &

D.Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: educational

applications (pp. 3-31). New York: Basic Books.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional

Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). Version 2.0. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional

intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3, 97-105.

Palmer, B. R., Gignac, G., Manocha, R., & Stough, C. (2005). A psychometric evaluation of

the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test Version 2.0. Intelligence, 33,

285-305.

Roberts, R. D., Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2001). Does emotional intelligence meet

traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions. Emotion,

1, 196-231.


Roberts, R. D., Schulze, R., & MacCann, C. (2007). The measurement of emotional

intelligence: a decade of progress? In G.Boyle, G.Matthews, & D.Saklofske (Eds.),

Sage Personality Handbook Series (pp. 461-482). New York: Sage.


Table 1. Scores on the MSCEIT and instruction level on the age groups and on the groups divided by gender.

GROUPS DIVIDED BY AGE GROUPS DIVIDED BY GENDERS

30 years old or younger

Between 31-60 years old

61 years old or older Men Women

(n= 66) (n= 53) (n= 40) (n= 58) (n=108)

MEASURE M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Emotional Perception 0.47 0.09 0.47 0.10 0.43 0.14 0.43 0.11 0.47 0.11

Emotional Use 0.42 0.05 0.41 0.06 0.38 0.10 0.40 0.7 0.41 0.07

Emotional Understanding 0.46 0.05 0.45 0.06 0.43 0.07 0.44 0.06 0.45 0.06

Emotional Management 0.39 0.06 0.40 0.04 0.39 0.06 0.38 0.06 0.40 0.05

Total Score 0.44 0.05 0.43 0.05 0.41 0.07 0.42 0.05 0.43 0.05

Instruction level 4.00 0.00 3.66 0.553 3.35 0.736 3.72 0.523 3.70 0.568

Table 2. Correlations between age, instruction level and IE evaluated using the MSCEIT.

Measure Emotional Emotional Use Emotional Emotional Total Score


Perception Understanding Management

Age -.187* -.213** -.253** .031 -.233**

Instruction

level.209** .377** .323** .082 .350**

* p _ .05. ** p _ .01.

manuscript (versión 2013).doc

Documents