Abstract
Emotional intelligence is a form of intelligence directed at emotional information: the capacity to perceive emotions accurately, to use them to facilitate thought, to understand their meanings and progressions, and to manage them in oneself and others. Since its introduction in 1990 the construct has been formalised in two broad ways — as a mental ability measured with performance tests, and as a constellation of emotion-related traits measured by self-report — a distinction that determines what any given study is actually measuring. This article defines emotional intelligence, sets out the four-branch ability model, contrasts the ability and trait approaches, and reviews the meta-analytic evidence on whether emotional intelligence predicts performance and well-being beyond cognitive ability and personality. Three interactive demonstrations explore the four-branch hierarchy, the ability-versus-trait measurement contrast, and the arithmetic of incremental validity.
Keywords: emotional intelligence, ability model, trait emotional intelligence, incremental validity, emotion regulation
Emotional intelligence is the ability to reason about emotions and to use emotions to reason, encompassing the capacity to perceive emotions, access and generate emotions to assist thought, understand emotions and emotional knowledge, and reflectively regulate emotions so as to promote emotional and intellectual growth (Mayer et al., 2008). Peter Salovey and John Mayer named and defined the concept in 1990, framing it as a genuine intelligence — a set of abilities for processing emotional information — rather than a personality style or a synonym for being agreeable (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). The claim was consequential: if emotions carry information and can be reasoned about skilfully, then the skill should be measurable, should vary between people, and should predict how well they navigate a world saturated with emotional signals.
That claim also opened a fault line that still organises the field. One tradition keeps emotional intelligence a strict mental ability, tested with problems that have better and worse answers and scored like an aptitude test (Mayer et al., 2016). A second treats it as a bundle of emotional self-perceptions and dispositions — assertiveness, optimism, empathy, self-regulation — measured, like personality, by asking people to describe themselves (Petrides & Furnham, 2001). The two are only weakly correlated and predict different things, so a great deal of confusion about emotional intelligence dissolves once one asks which of them a given test, headline, or training programme has in mind. The sections below define the construct, map its components, distinguish the two measurement traditions, and weigh what the evidence shows it can and cannot predict.
- Emotional intelligence is the capacity to perceive, use, understand, and manage emotions — a set of abilities for processing emotional information, introduced by Salovey and Mayer in 1990 (Salovey & Mayer, 1990).
- The ability model arranges these skills in four branches of increasing complexity, from perceiving emotions to managing them, and tests them with performance items that have better and worse answers (Mayer et al., 2016).
- Ability emotional intelligence and trait emotional intelligence are distinct constructs measured differently — maximal-performance tests versus self-report — and correlate only weakly (Petrides & Furnham, 2001; Mayer et al., 2008).
- Meta-analyses show emotional intelligence predicts job performance, academic achievement, and well-being, and adds incremental validity beyond cognitive ability and the Big Five (O’Boyle et al., 2011; MacCann et al., 2020).
- Emotional-intelligence abilities can be trained, though effect sizes are moderate and durability is not yet well established (Kotsou et al., 2019; Mattingly & Kraiger, 2019).
What Emotional Intelligence Is
In the Medical Subject Headings vocabulary, emotional intelligence is the ability to perceive, understand, and manage one’s own emotions and the emotions of others — a definition that places the accent squarely on emotional information as the material being reasoned about. What separates emotional intelligence from a general disposition to be warm or well-adjusted is that it names a processing capacity: the accurate reading of an emotional signal, the correct inference about what produced it and where it will lead, and the effective regulation of the resulting state (Salovey & Mayer, 1990).
Two commitments follow from treating this as an intelligence. First, there must be right and wrong answers, or at least better and worse ones: a face either does or does not express fear, an emotional situation either does or does not tend to escalate. This is what makes performance measurement possible and distinguishes the ability model from a questionnaire about how emotionally skilled a person believes they are (Mayer et al., 2008). Second, the ability should meet the standard psychometric criteria for an intelligence — its components should intercorrelate, its scores should rise with age and experience, and it should relate to but remain distinct from established intelligences (Mayer et al., 2016).
It is worth separating the construct from the popular idea it is often confused with. In public discussion “emotional intelligence” frequently means a broad recipe for success — self-motivation, persistence, social charm — assembled from many traits. This popular usage owes much to Daniel Goleman’s 1995 bestseller, whose subtitle — Why It Can Matter More Than IQ — announced a claim that far outran the evidence (Goleman, 1995). Such a mixed model, which folds emotional abilities together with motivation and personality dispositions, is closer to what researchers now call the trait model, and conflating it with the ability model is the source of many overstated claims about what emotional intelligence guarantees (Mayer et al., 2008). The construct proper is narrower and, precisely because it is narrower, testable.
Types of Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence sits within the broader category of intelligence in the Medical Subject Headings hierarchy, and the vocabulary files three narrower descriptors beneath it. These are not the four branches of the ability model — they are separate indexing terms MeSH treats as components of the emotional-intelligence domain, and they overlap only partially with the psychological model. The classification is an indexing convenience for retrieving literature, not a theoretical claim that emotional intelligence decomposes cleanly into exactly these three parts.
MeSH Components of Emotional Intelligence
| Component | What it refers to |
|---|---|
| Emotional Adjustment | The capacity to adapt one’s emotional state to changing circumstances — the regulatory, coping side of emotional functioning that overlaps with the managing-emotions branch. |
| Empathy | The perception and vicarious sharing of another person’s emotional state, underlying the accurate reading of others’ emotions. |
| Motivation | The drives and goals that direct behaviour, which emotional information is used to facilitate and sustain. |
The Four-Branch Ability Model
The dominant scientific account of emotional intelligence is the four-branch model of Mayer and Salovey, which arranges the abilities in a hierarchy from basic perception to complex regulation (Mayer et al., 2016). The branches are meant to be ordered: the higher ones depend on the lower, so a person cannot manage an emotion they cannot first perceive and understand.
The first branch, perceiving emotions, is the ability to identify emotions in faces, voices, postures, and even in objects and art — the perceptual front end on which everything else rests. The second, using emotions to facilitate thought, is the capacity to harness a feeling to direct attention and to prime the kind of thinking a task needs; a mild positive mood, for instance, tends to aid brainstorming, while a more sober mood aids careful checking. The third, understanding emotions, is knowledge about the emotional lexicon and its grammar — how emotions blend, how one transitions into another, and what circumstances produce them, so that one can see that thwarted hope may curdle into resentment. The fourth and highest, managing emotions, is the regulation of feeling in oneself and others: staying open to emotion, moderating it without suppressing the information it carries, and guiding it toward a goal (Mayer et al., 2008).
The Four-Branch Ability Model as an Ordered Hierarchy
The first demonstration walks a single emotional situation up through the four branches, showing how the same scenario is processed differently at each level and why the higher abilities presuppose the lower ones.
The four-branch ability model
One workplace scenario, processed at each level of the hierarchy. Select a branch to see how the same situation is handled there — and which lower ability it depends on.
You notice a colleague's smile does not reach the eyes and their voice has tightened. You register: this is tension, not ease.
Depends on: Nothing — this is the perceptual front end everything else rests on.
The branches are ordered: perception is the base, regulation the apex. Because each higher ability presupposes the ones beneath it, a deficit low in the hierarchy caps everything above it — you cannot manage a feeling you never perceived.
Ability and Trait Models
The deepest division in the field is not about which abilities count but about how emotional intelligence should be measured, and the choice defines two different constructs (Mayer et al., 2008). Ability emotional intelligence is assessed like an aptitude: with performance tasks that have correct answers scored against expert or consensus criteria, the best known being the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). It captures what a person can do with emotional information at their best — maximal performance.
Trait emotional intelligence, by contrast, is a constellation of emotional self-perceptions and dispositions located in the lower levels of personality space, and it is measured by self-report questionnaires that ask people to describe their typical emotional functioning (Petrides & Furnham, 2001). Factor-analytic work locates trait emotional intelligence largely within the Big Five and Giant Three personality dimensions, which is why it behaves like a personality variable rather than a cognitive ability (Petrides et al., 2007). Self-report instruments range from measures built explicitly on the trait model to earlier scales such as the widely used self-report measure of Schutte and colleagues (Schutte et al., 1998).The consequence is that the two families of test correlate only modestly with each other, and each predicts different outcomes: because a self-report of emotional skill is a judgement a person makes about themselves, it is shaped by self-image and personality in ways a performance test is not. A study reporting that “emotional intelligence” predicts some outcome is therefore ambiguous until one knows which construct, and which kind of test, produced the number (Mayer et al., 2008).
Two Measurement Traditions
| Feature | Ability model | Trait model |
|---|---|---|
| What it measures | A mental ability for processing emotional information. | Emotion-related self-perceptions and dispositions. |
| How it is measured | Performance tasks with better and worse answers. | Self-report questionnaires about typical functioning. |
| Kind of performance | Maximal — what a person can do at best. | Typical — what a person usually does. |
| Where it sits | Alongside cognitive intelligences. | Within personality factor space. |
The second demonstration contrasts the two measurement approaches directly, showing how the same individual can land at different points on an ability test and a self-report scale, and why a weak correlation between the two is exactly what the distinction predicts.
Ability vs. self-report: one person, two scores
Set a person’s true emotional ability and how favourably they see themselves. An ability test tracks the former; a self-report scale is pulled toward the latter.
Because self-report blends true skill with self-perception, two people of equal ability can report very different scores — which is exactly why ability and trait measures correlate only modestly and predict different things.
Does Emotional Intelligence Predict Outcomes?
The construct earns its keep only if it predicts something beyond what established measures already capture, and the key test is incremental validity: does emotional intelligence add explanatory power over and above cognitive ability and personality? The meta-analytic answer is a qualified yes. Across studies, emotional intelligence relates to job performance, and both the ability and trait streams contribute incremental prediction beyond cognitive ability and the Big Five, with the trait and mixed streams often showing the larger workplace correlations (O’Boyle et al., 2011). An integrative model further shows that emotional intelligence relates to performance partly through a cascade — emotion perception feeding emotion understanding, which feeds regulation, which feeds performance (Joseph & Newman, 2010).
The evidence is strongest and most instructive in the academic domain. A large meta-analysis found that emotional intelligence predicts academic performance, and that ability emotional intelligence retains incremental validity after both intelligence and personality are controlled — consistent with the interpretation that understanding and managing emotions helps students handle the social and self-regulatory demands of study (MacCann et al., 2020). Emotional intelligence also relates reliably to subjective well-being, with people higher in it reporting greater life satisfaction and positive affect (Sánchez-Álvarez et al., 2016), and to workplace attitudes such as job satisfaction and organisational commitment (Miao et al., 2017).
Two cautions temper these findings. Effect sizes are generally modest, and because much of the workplace evidence uses self-report trait measures, part of the observed prediction reflects the overlap of those measures with personality rather than a distinct emotional ability (Mayer et al., 2008). The most defensible reading is that emotional intelligence, especially in the workplace, contributes when the job itself is emotionally demanding — a moderating role rather than a universal advantage (Côté & Miners, 2006).
The third demonstration makes the incremental-validity logic concrete: adjusting how strongly emotional intelligence and cognitive ability each relate to an outcome, and how much they overlap, shows how much variance emotional intelligence adds on its own.
Incremental validity: what EI adds on its own
Set how strongly cognitive ability and emotional intelligence each relate to an outcome, and how much the two overlap. Watch how much variance EI adds beyond ability.
Incremental validity, not the zero-order correlation, is the honest test of a predictor. The more EI overlaps with what you already measure, the less it can add on its own.
Worked Example
Suppose a study predicting job performance finds that cognitive ability correlates with performance at r = 0.50, a trait emotional-intelligence measure correlates with performance at r = 0.30, and the two predictors correlate with each other at r = 0.25. How much does emotional intelligence add beyond cognitive ability alone?
Cognitive ability by itself explains r² = 0.50² = 0.25, or 25% of the variance in performance. With two predictors, the squared multiple correlation is R² = (r₁² + r₂² − 2·r₁·r₂·r₁₂) / (1 − r₁₂²). Substituting, the numerator is 0.25 + 0.09 − 2(0.50)(0.30)(0.25) = 0.34 − 0.075 = 0.265, and the denominator is 1 − 0.25² = 0.9375. So R² = 0.265 / 0.9375 = 0.2827, about 28.3% of the variance.
The incremental contribution of emotional intelligence is the difference: ΔR² = 0.2827 − 0.25 = 0.0327, roughly 3.3 percentage points of variance that emotional intelligence explains over and above cognitive ability. This is modest — far less than the 9% its zero-order correlation of 0.30 might suggest — precisely because emotional intelligence overlaps with cognitive ability, so part of what it predicts was already captured. That gap between a predictor’s raw correlation and its incremental contribution is the crux of the validity debate: the honest question is never whether emotional intelligence correlates with an outcome, but how much it adds once the usual predictors are in the model (O’Boyle et al., 2011).
Discussion
Emotional intelligence has travelled from a 1990 proposal to one of the most studied and most contested constructs in applied psychology, and the contest is productive. The ability model has largely won the argument about definition: to be an intelligence, emotional intelligence must be an ability, tested with problems that have better and worse answers, and kept distinct from the personality traits with which the popular version conflates it (Mayer et al., 2016). The trait model, in turn, has a legitimate object — people’s emotional self-perceptions — provided it is understood as a personality construct and not mistaken for a measured ability (Petrides et al., 2007).
The practical stakes explain the intensity of the debate. Claims that emotional intelligence matters more than cognitive ability for success have been influential in education and management, and they have often outrun the evidence, which shows real but modest incremental effects concentrated in emotionally demanding contexts (O’Boyle et al., 2011; Côté & Miners, 2006). Holding the ability–trait distinction firmly in view is the single most useful corrective: it dissolves apparent contradictions in the literature, most of which turn out to be comparisons between studies that measured different constructs under the same name (Mayer et al., 2008).
Current Directions
Two lines of recent work stand out. The first asks whether emotional intelligence can be raised by training rather than merely measured. Reviews and meta-analyses of intervention studies find that emotional-intelligence abilities are trainable, with moderate average gains, though the durability of those gains and their transfer to real-world outcomes remain under-evidenced, and study quality is uneven (Kotsou et al., 2019; Mattingly & Kraiger, 2019). School-based social-and-emotional-learning programmes built on the ability model represent the largest applied test of this idea (Brackett et al., 2011).
The second line refines the outcome side. Rather than asking whether emotional intelligence predicts a global criterion, current work specifies when and through what path it matters: the cascading model traces perception through understanding to regulation and thence to performance (Joseph & Newman, 2010), and moderation analyses show the workplace payoff is largest where emotional labour is high (Côté & Miners, 2006). The consistent, well-powered link to subjective well-being has also shifted attention from performance toward emotional intelligence as a resource for mental health and life satisfaction (Sánchez-Álvarez et al., 2016).
Common Misconceptions
- “Emotional intelligence matters more than IQ for success.”
- This popular claim outruns the evidence. Emotional intelligence shows real but modest incremental validity over cognitive ability and personality, concentrated in emotionally demanding roles; it complements cognitive ability rather than surpassing it (O’Boyle et al., 2011; Côté & Miners, 2006).
- “Emotional intelligence is just a personality trait.”
- Trait emotional intelligence does sit within personality space, but ability emotional intelligence, measured with performance tests, behaves like a cognitive ability and retains incremental validity after personality is controlled. The two are distinct constructs, not one (Mayer et al., 2008; MacCann et al., 2020).
- “A self-report questionnaire measures how skilled someone actually is.”
- Self-report captures how emotionally skilled a person believes they are, which is shaped by self-image and personality. Measuring an ability requires performance items with better and worse answers, not a person’s rating of themselves (Petrides & Furnham, 2001; Mayer et al., 2016).
- “Emotional intelligence means always being positive and agreeable.”
- Managing emotions means regulating them toward a goal without discarding the information they carry — sometimes that means staying open to anger or sadness, not suppressing it. Skill lies in appropriate regulation, not in relentless positivity (Salovey & Mayer, 1990).
Glossary
- Ability emotional intelligence.
- Emotional intelligence conceived as a mental ability and measured with performance tasks that have better and worse answers, reflecting maximal performance.
- Big Five.
- The five-factor model of personality — openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism — against which trait emotional intelligence is benchmarked and within which it largely sits.
- Cascading model.
- The proposal that the emotional-intelligence branches operate in sequence — perceiving emotions feeds understanding, which feeds regulation, which in turn feeds performance.
- Emotional intelligence.
- The capacity to perceive, use, understand, and manage emotions in oneself and others; a set of abilities for processing emotional information.
- Emotional labour.
- The regulation of one’s emotional expression as part of a job’s demands; roles high in emotional labour are where emotional intelligence shows its largest workplace payoff.
- Four-branch model.
- The ability model of Mayer and Salovey, ordering emotional abilities from perceiving emotions, through using and understanding them, to managing them, with higher branches depending on lower ones.
- Incremental validity.
- The additional criterion variance a predictor explains over and above other predictors already in the model; for emotional intelligence, the variance it adds beyond cognitive ability and personality.
- Managing emotions.
- The highest branch of the ability model: regulating feeling in oneself and others, moderating emotion toward a goal without suppressing the information it carries.
- Maximal performance.
- What a person can do at their best when trying hard, the kind of behaviour an ability test elicits, as opposed to what they typically do.
- Mixed model.
- An approach, associated with Goleman and Bar-On, that combines emotional abilities with motivation and personality dispositions into a single broad construct; it overlaps heavily with the trait model.
- MSCEIT.
- The Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, the best-known performance measure of ability emotional intelligence, scored against expert or consensus criteria.
- Perceiving emotions.
- The first branch of the ability model: the accurate identification of emotions in faces, voices, postures, and other signals, on which the higher abilities depend.
- Trait emotional intelligence.
- A constellation of emotion-related self-perceptions and dispositions located within personality space and measured by self-report questionnaires about typical functioning.
- Understanding emotions.
- The third branch of the ability model: knowledge of the emotional lexicon — how emotions blend, progress, and arise from circumstances.
- Using emotions.
- The second branch of the ability model: harnessing emotions to facilitate thought, directing attention and priming the kind of cognition a task requires.
- Zero-order correlation.
- The simple bivariate correlation between a predictor and an outcome, with no other variables controlled — contrasted with incremental validity, which measures what a predictor adds once others are in the model.
Key Researchers
Reuven Bar-On
(born 1944). Psychologist who coined the term “EQ” and developed the Emotional Quotient Inventory and the Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence, an influential mixed-trait approach. Wikipedia · Wikidata
Marc A. Brackett
(living). Director of the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence and creator of the RULER approach to social-and-emotional learning, which applies the ability model in schools (Brackett et al., 2011). Faculty · Google Scholar · Wikipedia
David R. Caruso
(living). Management psychologist and research affiliate of the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence; co-author of the MSCEIT and a leading proponent of the ability model in organisational settings (Mayer et al., 2008). ORCID · Google Scholar
John D. Mayer
(living). Personality psychologist at the University of New Hampshire; with Salovey the co-originator of the ability model of emotional intelligence and co-author of the MSCEIT performance test (Mayer et al., 2008; Mayer et al., 2016). ORCID · Faculty · Google Scholar · Wikipedia
K. V. Petrides
(living). Professor of psychology and psychometrics at University College London and founding director of the London Psychometric Laboratory; originator of the trait emotional-intelligence construct and the TEIQue measure (Petrides & Furnham, 2001; Petrides et al., 2007). ORCID · Faculty
Peter Salovey
(born 1958). Social psychologist, Sterling Professor and President Emeritus of Yale University; with Mayer he named and defined emotional intelligence in 1990 (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). ORCID · Faculty · Wikipedia
Frequently Asked Questions
What is emotional intelligence?
Emotional intelligence is the capacity to perceive emotions accurately, to use them to facilitate thought, to understand their meanings and how they change, and to manage them in oneself and others. Introduced by Salovey and Mayer in 1990, it treats emotions as information that can be reasoned about skilfully, and holds that this skill varies from person to person and can be measured.
What is the difference between ability and trait emotional intelligence?
Ability emotional intelligence is measured with performance tests that have better and worse answers and reflects what a person can do with emotional information at their best. Trait emotional intelligence is measured by self-report questionnaires about typical emotional functioning and sits within personality space. The two correlate only weakly and predict different things.
What are the four branches of emotional intelligence?
In the Mayer–Salovey ability model the four branches, from most basic to most complex, are perceiving emotions, using emotions to facilitate thought, understanding emotions, and managing emotions. They are hierarchical: managing an emotion depends on first being able to perceive and understand it.
How is emotional intelligence measured?
The ability model uses performance tests, most notably the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, scored against expert or consensus answers. The trait model uses self-report questionnaires such as the TEIQue or earlier scales. Because these measure different constructs, the choice of test determines what a study is actually assessing.
Does emotional intelligence predict success?
Meta-analyses show that emotional intelligence predicts job performance, academic achievement, and well-being, and that it adds incremental validity beyond cognitive ability and personality. The effects are real but generally modest, and are largest in roles and situations that place heavy emotional demands on the person.
Can emotional intelligence be improved?
Reviews of intervention studies find that emotional-intelligence abilities can be trained, with moderate average gains. However, the durability of those gains and how well they transfer to everyday behaviour are not yet well established, and the quality of training studies varies considerably.
Is emotional intelligence just being nice or agreeable?
No. Managing emotions means regulating them toward a goal while preserving the information they carry, which sometimes means remaining open to negative feelings rather than suppressing them. Emotional intelligence is a processing skill, not a disposition to be relentlessly positive or agreeable.
Is emotional intelligence more important than IQ?
The evidence does not support the popular claim that it matters more than cognitive ability. Emotional intelligence contributes over and above cognitive ability and personality, but the incremental contribution is modest and context-dependent; it complements rather than replaces general intelligence.
References
Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., & Salovey, P. (2011). Emotional intelligence: Implications for personal, social, academic, and workplace success. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(1), 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00334.x
Côté, S., & Miners, C. T. H. (2006). Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.51.1.1
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam Books.
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017286
Kotsou, I., Mikolajczak, M., Heeren, A., Grégoire, J., & Leys, C. (2019). Improving emotional intelligence: A systematic review of existing work and future challenges. Emotion Review, 11(2), 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073917735902
MacCann, C., Jiang, Y., Brown, L. E. R., Double, K. S., Bucich, M., & Minbashian, A. (2020). Emotional intelligence predicts academic performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(2), 150–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000219
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits? American Psychologist, 63(6), 503–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.6.503
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2016). The ability model of emotional intelligence: Principles and updates. Emotion Review, 8(4), 290–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073916639667
Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., & Qian, S. (2017). A meta-analysis of emotional intelligence and work attitudes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90(2), 177–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12167
O’Boyle, E. H., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011). The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(5), 788–818. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.714
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15(6), 425–448. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.416
Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British Journal of Psychology, 98(2), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712606X120618
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9(3), 185–211. https://doi.org/10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG
Sánchez-Álvarez, N., Extremera, N., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2016). The relation between emotional intelligence and subjective well-being: A meta-analytic investigation. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(3), 276–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1058968
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(2), 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00001-4
Mattingly, V., & Kraiger, K. (2019). Can emotional intelligence be trained? A meta-analytical investigation. Human Resource Management Review, 29(2), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.03.002