Copyright © 2000 Institute of Applied and Behavioral Management

Measuring Emotional Intelligence:

Development and Validation of an Instrument

Kerry D. Carson

Paula Phillips Carson

Betty J. Birkenmeier

University of Louisiana at Lafayette

ABSTRACT

Emotional intelligence has been discussed in the popular business press over the past few years

and has recently found its way into prestigious business and industrial psychology journals.

However, there is no validated instrument available in the academic literature for management

consultants, trainers, and business practitioners to use when surveying employees' perceptions of

their emotional intelligence. The authors therefore constructed and examined a new measure,

beginning with 269 items which were eventually trimmed to 30 items. All items loaded cleanly

on their respective factors. In Study 1 and Study 2, reliabilities were: Emotional Intelligence

measure = .86, 91; Empathetic Response dimension = .87, 92; Mood Regulation dimension =

.77, 76; Interpersonal Skills dimension = .82, 82; Internal Motivation dimension = .78, 81; and

Self-Awareness dimension = .69, .70, respectively. It was found that emotional intelligence was

positively related to proactive personality and personal control, but negatively related to

irritability/verbal hostility and emotional exhaustion. The construct's relationships with selected

demographic variables were inconclusive.

Measuring Emotional Intelligence:

Development and Validation of an Instrument

Emotional intelligence appears to be a concept which has now come of age. Touted as a

construct which can assist organizations in reducing turnover, identifying transformational

leaders, facilitating executive coaching, creating more effective work teams, improving

organizational culture, stimulating creativity, and enhancing employee acceptance of radical

change (Fernandez-Araoz, 1999; Huy, 1999), emotional intelligence is experiencing increasing

acceptance by organizational consultants and business practitioners working in domains as

varied as profit-seeking businesses, public school systems, and not-for-profit social service

agencies. The promised individual and organizational benefits yielded by a greater

understanding of emotional intelligence, coupled with the emerging assertion that everyone can

(and should) be trained to become more emotionally intelligent (Reich & Goleman, 1999), has

encouraged the emergence and/or strategic repositioning of consulting firms and institutions.

For example, Hay Group has joined the ranks of Daniel Goleman (1995, 1998; recognized

advocate and guru of emotional intelligence in the mainstream) and Case Western Reserve

University to sponsor a three-day seminar on emotional intelligence. And, numerous web sites

have been established promoting greater awareness of the efficacy of emotional intelligence

measurement and enhancement (for example, see www.eq.org, www.eiconsortium.org, and

www.eqi.org).

It has been a decade since the construct of emotional intelligence was first introduced into

the psychology literature (e.g., Mayer, DiPaolo and Salovey, 1990; Mayer and Salovey, 1995;

Salovey and Mayer, 1989-90), it has more recently created a stir in the popular business press

(e.g., Bates, 1999; Epstein, 1999; Farnham, 1996; Koonce, 1996; Martinez, 1997; O'Brien,

1996), as well as in the academic business literature. In fact, emotional intelligence has been

discussed in such prestigious outlets as the Academy of Management Review (Huy, 1999), and

the Harvard Business Review, where Goleman (1998a) suggested that research "clearly shows

that emotional intelligence is the sine qua non of leadership" (p. 94). While there are many

proponents of emotional intelligence, caution is also warranted as some have suggested that

emotional intelligence is a very broad concept and is just another management fad (e.g.,

Tossman, 1999).

Despite all this press and publicity, what is evidently and frustratingly lacking is a

robustly validated, non-proprietary measure of emotional intelligence in the public domain.

Because it has been suggested by some that emotional intelligence may play a key role in the

workplace (Huy, 1999; Goleman, 1998b), it is important that there is a psychometrically-sound,

readily-available emotional intelligence instrument. No instrument has been published, however,

in the academic literature. Therefore, the purpose of this research effort is to develop a reliable,

valid measure of employees' perceptions of their emotional intelligence. Consultants,

practitioners, and trainers can use such a measure to assess their interventions to increase

emotional intelligence among employees, and researchers can assess the construct's importance.

Additionally, standardized measures of this type of intelligence can generate new research

streams (cf. House and Aditya, 1997).

Salovey and Mayer (1989-90) originally defined emotional intelligence as the "ability to

monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and use this

information to guide one's thinking and actions" (p. 189). Individuals high on emotional

intelligence defer immediate gratification and exhibit self-control in order to optimize pleasure

over their lifetime. Also, they display enlightened self-interest by engaging in activities that are

both pro-individual and pro-social. Finally, they neither over-repress nor over-express

emotionality, but rather feel emotions flexibly and appropriately to the situation (Mayer and

Salovey, 1995).

Daniel Goleman, author of the best-selling book titled Emotional Intelligence (1995) and

more recently Working with Emotional Intelligence (1998), indicates that emotional intelligence

is a multidimensional construct. He suggests that the five underlying factors of emotional

intelligence are: (a) empathetic response, the facility to pick up on others' feelings; (b) mood

regulation, the capacity to control negative emotions; (c) interpersonal skill, social competence to

interact smoothly with others; (d) internal motivation, the ability to delay gratification in pursuit

of a goal; and (e) self-awareness, psychological insight into one's own true feelings. These five

dimensions were used in the development of an emotional intelligence measure.

Construct Validity

In attempting to determine the construct validity of a new measure, it is necessary to

examine the nomological network of the instrument by assessing its convergent and divergent

properties. To establish convergent validity, the emotional intelligence measure is compared to

two constructs: (a) proactive personality, and (b) personal control. Divergent validity is

evaluated by comparing the focal instrument to: (a) emotional exhaustion, and (b) irritability/

verbal hostility.

Those with a proactive personality look for opportunities, seek improvement, and want to

make a constructive difference. They enjoy overcoming obstacles and challenging the status

quo. They are goal-oriented, initiate change, and persevere until a task is accomplished

(Bateman & Crant, 1993). Proactive personalities are action-oriented individuals who, rather

than being constrained by a situation, look for ways to change, manipulate, and exploit the

environment (Seiber, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999). Similarly, individuals high on emotional

intelligence are adaptive. They understand how their behaviors contribute to life's outcomes, so

they actively engage in goal-setting and planning. They are willing to accept challenging tasks,

persist in the face of adversity, and reward themselves for their accomplishments (Goleman,

1995). Thus, high convergent validity would be expected between emotional intelligence and

proactivity.

Those individuals who are low on personal control like being told what to do and avoid

autonomy so they don=t get into trouble. They prefer that a supervisor dictate rather than

involve them in decision-making. They like the familiar and routine. In contrast, those high on

personal control are not passive and helpless when it comes to work. They feel a sense of

empowerment and want to take action. They persist in the face of obstacles (Frese, Kring,

Soose, & Zempel, 1996). Additionally, those high on personal control, like those high on

emotional intelligence, feel more connected and socially integrated at work (Ross & Wright,

1998). Emotionally intelligent individuals display initiative, strive for improvement, and show

flexibility while toiling through task performance (Goleman, 1998b). Emotionally intelligent

individuals are optimistic. They believe they can influence their environment, so they are self-

motivated to do so (Sosik & Megerian, 1999). They are self-confident, sure of their capabilities,

and want responsibility/control. Resultantly, they like being autonomous, making decisions, and

engaging in calculated risks (Goldman, 1998b; Salovey & Mayer, 1989-90). Given the

similarities between personal control and emotional intelligence, the constructs should be highly

correlated.

Emotional exhaustion, with the associated feelings of being over-extended and

psychologically drained, is the key component of burnout (Schutte, Toppinen, Kalimo, &

Schaufeli, 2000). Emotional exhaustion is the opposite of enthusiasm, commitment, energy,

spirit and creativity (Layman & Guyden, 2000). Individuals who feel emotionally exhausted are

typically drained, fatigued and stressed (Maslach & Jackson, 1984). Relatedly, those low in

emotional intelligence are likely to feel unrewarded, underappreciated, and distressed (Salovey

& Mayer, 1989-90). This negative affectivity translates into emotional exhaustion in the

workplace (cf. Staw, Bell & Clausen, 1986). In contrast, those scoring high on emotional

intelligence are able to challenge their foul moods and not dwell on negative thinking (Mayer &

Salovey, 1995). Further, those high on emotional intelligence are even-tempered (Sosik &

Megerian, 1999), not irritable or verbally hostile. People who are irritable are impatient, lose

their tempers easily, are grouchy, and let unimportant irritations bother them. Behaviors

associated with verbal hostility include getting into arguments, using strong language, raising

voices, and saying disagreeable things (Richins, 1983). When anger is counterproductive in a

situation, and an individual continues to behave with irritability and hostility, low emotional

intelligence is being displayed (Mayer & Salovey, 1995). Therefore, there should be negative

relationships between irritability/verbal hostility and emotional intelligence and between

emotional exhaustion and emotional intelligence.

There may be some emotional intelligence differences between individuals based on

demographics. For example, Goleman (1995) suggests that emotional intelligence increases with

age. Additionally, there may be gender differences. For instance, women may have higher

levels of empathy (Trobst, Collins & Embree, 1994) and be better at encoding and decoding

nonverbal communication than men (Hall, 1987), thus implying a higher level of emotional

intelligence. Therefore, older individuals should report higher levels of emotional intelligence

than younger individuals and women should report higher levels of emotional intelligence than

men.

The Investigation

Construction of the emotional intelligence measure occurred in three major phases. In

the first stage of constructing the scale, one of the authors generated 269 positively and

negatively worded items to represent the full range of the five emotional intelligence dimensions.

Consistent with the theoretical underpinnings of extant research on emotional intelligence, the

basis of these items were derived directly from Goleman's (1995) conceptualization of the

emotional intelligence dimensions. Next, the second author assessed the items for clarity and

meaningfulness, sorting the items back into the five intended theoretical dimensions. This judge

trimmed all dimensions back to 16 items each, retaining the items that were evaluated to best

represent the dimension. In the second stage, a total of 80 items were then examined in Study 1

with undergraduate students to determine the factor structure and the reliabilities of the intended

instrument. In the final stage (Study 2), MBA student respondents were surveyed to examine the

emotional intelligence construct's nomological validity. Student samples were deemed

appropriate because of the independence of emotional intelligence and extensive work

experience (Goleman, 1998).

Study 1

The development of a multi-item measure involves not only item generation and content

validity verification, but also an assessment of the individual items and establishment of the new

measure's reliability (Churchill, 1979; Scarpello & Vandenberg, 1987). The items generated by

the authors should load cleanly on the five theoretical dimensions of emotional intelligence

(Hair, Anderson & Tatham, 1987). Additionally, items lowering internal consistency should be

identified and deleted. Nunnally (1978) suggests as a guideline that reliabilities should be above

a = .70.

Method

Sample

To ensure the likelihood of sufficient score variation in Study 1, surveys were

administered to students in variety of business classes from the sophomore level through

foundation courses in the MBA program at a large regional university in the southeastern United

States. A total of 344 surveys were distributed during class periods. Five of these were not

sufficiently completed and were removed from the sample, leaving a total of 339 surveys.

Demographic information was collected on chronological age, gender, ethnic

background, and numbers of hours employed per week. The average age of the respondents was

24 years old, 51.5 percent were female, 77.1 percent were Caucasian while 12.4 percent were

African-American, and the average hours of employment per week were 20.5.

Procedures

The surveys were administered during class time in Study 1. It was emphasized that

completion of the survey was voluntary. Anonymity of the respondents was protected in that

names were not requested, and surveys were placed in an individual envelope upon completion.

The following prefatory instructions introduced the survey. "This survey includes statements for

measuring how you have felt and acted during your everyday encounters over the past few

months. It was prepared by university researchers to learn more about how a select group of

students generally feel about their life and work. Your responses will be completely

confidential. In no instance will an individual be identified as having provided a particular

response. The data will be used for research purposes only. This is not a test. There are no right

or wrong answers. The best answer is one that is honest. For each statement below, decide

which response best indicates your attitude or position - how much you agree or disagree with

the statement. Place the number of the response on the line at the left." The 80 items were

anchored with a five-point rating scale ranging from 1 for "Strongly Disagree" to 5 for "Strongly

Agree."

Results

Analyses were conducted on Study 1 data to examine the factor structure of the construct

and to determine the reliabilities of the overall measure and its dimensions. The pool of 80

emotional intelligence items was interpreted using principal-axes factor analysis with an

orthogonal rotation to a varimax criterion. The researchers extracted five factors, and items with

loadings greater than .40 were initially examined. Factor 1 was identified as Empathetic

Response (13 items); Factor 2 as Mood Regulation (15 items); Factor 3 as Interpersonal Skills

(13 items); Factor 4 as Internal Motivation (11 items); and Factor 5 as Self-Awareness (10

items). Given that multidimensional measures are ideally reduced to the same number of items

per factor and that long measures can result in response fatigue, the dimensions were tailored to

six items each (Rummel, 1970). All items with loadings at or above .30 on other dimensions

were eliminated and the highest remaining loadings on the respective dimensions were chosen.

The retained 30 items and their loadings from this initial extraction are reported in Table 1.

An examination of the internal consistency and domain sampling adequacy suggested

that these items sufficiently tapped the factor structure of emotional intelligence. Reliability for

the overall measure was .86, and the reliabilities for the Empathetic Response, Mood Regulation,

Interpersonal Skills, Internal Motivation, and Self-Awareness dimensions were .87, .77, .82, .76,

and .69, respectively. Thus, the overall measure and its dimensions are adequately reliable,

except for a lower than desired internal consistency of the Self-Awareness dimension.

Correlations among the dimensions as well as with demographic variable are shown in Table 2.

Study 2

To establish the construct validity of the self-report measure, Study 2 was conducted to

test the relationships of the overall instrument and its dimensions with other established

constructs.

Sample

Ninety MBA students at the large regional southeastern university completed surveys in

Study 2 (100% response rate; 100% useable). Of these respondents, 43% were female, 49%

were married, and the average age was 30.

Procedures

All surveys were distributed during class periods, and the MBA sample received similar

instructions from the researchers as did the undergraduate students in Study 1. Directions for

Section A of the questionnaire were "The survey begins with statements about your PERSONAL

FEELINGS. For each statement below, decide which response best indicates your attitude or

position - how much you agree or disagree with the statement. Place the number of the response

to the left." A 5-point rating scale was used to measure responses (1 = strongly disagree to 5 =

strongly agree). For Section B, the instructions were "Below are a number of statements each of

which you may agree or disagree with depending on your own personal evaluation of YOUR

PRESENT JOB AND YOUR ROLE. If you are a full time student, you may consider school to be

your present job. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each statement." The

final section of the survey asked for demographic-related information.

Measures

The following measures were used in Study 2 to assess construct validity.

Emotional Intelligence was tapped in the MBA sample (a = .91) with the 30 items developed in

the first phase of this study. The 6-item dimensional reliabilities for the sample were: (a)

empathetic response (a = .92), (b) mood regulation (a = .76), (c) interpersonal skills (a = .82), (d)

internal motivation (a = .81), and (e) self-awareness (a = .70).

Proactive Personality Scale (a = .82) was gauged with seven items from the scale developed by

Bateman and Crant (1993). One sample item is "I am constantly on the lookout for new ways to

improve my life."

Irritability/Verbal Hostility (a = .70) was a seven-item measure from Richins (1983). Sample

items include "I lose my temper easily but get over it quickly." and "I can't help getting into

arguments when people disagree with me."

Emotional Exhaustion (a = .80) was a 3-item measure adapted from the Maslach and Jackson

(1984) burnout scale. One sample item is "I feel emotionally drained from my work."

Personal Control (a = .80) was gauged using four reversed scored items from Frese and

colleagues' (1996) control rejection instrument. A sample item is "I would rather be told exactly

what I have to do. Then I make fewer mistakes" (reversed scored).

Results

For the MBA sample, convergent validity was supported as there was a positive

relationship between proactive personality and perceived emotional intelligence (r = .61, p < .01;

empathetic response, r = .37, p < .01; mood regulation, r = .38, p < .01; interpersonal skills, r =

.45, p < .01; internal motivation, r = .70, p < .01; self-awareness, r = .40, p < .01). Also, there

was a positive relationship between personal control and perceived emotional intelligence (r =

.51, p < .01; empathetic response, r = .37, p < .01; mood regulation, r = .28, p < .01;

interpersonal skills, r = .36, p < .01; internal motivation, r = .33, p < .01; self-awareness, r = .46,

p < .01).

Further, divergent validity was supported with a negative relationship between irritability/verbal

hostility and perceived emotional intelligence (r = -.53, p < .01; empathetic response, r = -.37, p

< .01; mood regulation, r = -.53, p < .01; interpersonal skills, r = -.32, p < .01; internal

motivation, r = -.27, p < .01; self-awareness, r = -.41, p < .01). Also, there was a negative

relationship between emotional exhaustion and perceived emotional intelligence (r = -.39, p <

.01) though the interpersonal skills dimension was nonsignificant (interpersonal skills, r = -.19,

ns; empathetic response, r = -.22, p < .05; mood regulation, r = -.37, p < .01; internal motivation,

r = -.33, p < .01; self-awareness, r = -.35, p < .01). See Table 3

In Study 2, the demographic relationships were not as expected for emotional intelligence

or any of its dimensions. Older individuals did not report significantly higher levels of emotional

intelligence than younger ones (r = .16, ns) which may be due to limited variance in the sample.

Further, women did not report significantly higher levels than men (r = -.07, ns.

Discussion

In Study 1, items tapping the five factors of emotional intelligence were identified and

their psychometric properties examined. Factor analysis revealed 62 items that loaded cleanly on

their respective factors, and these were trimmed to six items for each of the five factors. The

overall measure was reliable (a = .86). All underlying dimensions displayed adequate reliability

except that the self-awareness dimension was slightly low (a = .69). Correlations between the

five dimensions ranged from .04 to .42.

For the MBA sample in Study 2, emotional intelligence was positively related to

proactive personality and personal control and was negatively correlated with irritability/verbal

hostility and emotional exhaustion. The age-emotional intelligence relationship was not

significant for the MBA group (r = .16, ns), nor was gender-emotional intelligence relationship (r

= -.07, ns). However, post-hoc analyses of data from the undergraduate students in Study 1

yielded linkages between two relevant demographic variables and the overall measure suggested:

(a) increasing levels of emotional intelligence as one ages, and (b) possible underlying

dimensional differences in emotional intelligence between male and female undergraduate

students. Older individuals reported higher levels of emotional intelligence than younger

individuals (r = .23, p < .01), primarily due to the self-awareness and interpersonal skills

dimensions (r = .23, p < .01; r = .17, p < .01, respectively). Women did not report higher levels

of emotional intelligence than men in this sample (r = -.09, ns). However, using one-way

analysis-of-variance, women were found to perceive themselves as having better interpersonal

skills (F = 3.92, p < .05) and more self-awareness (F = 14.88, p < .01) than men. Men reported

better regulation of moods than women at a marginal level of significance (F = 2.80, p < .10), but

there was no difference between the two groups on internal motivation (F = .22, ns) or

empathetic response (F = 1.84, ns). Because of the mixed and weak results, the relationships

between emotional intelligence and its dimensions with demographic variables seem to be

inconclusive.

While there is some variation among the results reported, these two studies appear to be

instrumental in providing initial information on the psychometric properties and construct

validity of a 30-item emotional intelligence measure. This measure should prove useful to

consultants and practitioners who want to tap employees' perceptions of their emotional

intelligence. Having this information can be of value as it appears that skills associated

emotional intelligence can be learned (Goleman, 1995, 1998b). However, it should be noted that

this is a self-reported measure of emotional intelligence. Therefore, some social issues (such as

impression management) or personality types (such as the narcissists) may influence the

respondents= answers. In addition, this instrument needs further external validation in

organizations where there are wide variations in emotional intelligence.

Increasing emotional intelligence in the workplace through training and development

efforts could help organizations in several ways. For example, workers with high emotional

intelligence will provide customers with more empathetic and respectful service (O'Brien, 1996).

In addition, the performance of teams would be facilitated (Gibbs, 1995; Martinez, 1997).

Further, high emotional intelligence would translate into better collaborative relationships across

cultures (cf. Brown, 1994) and better leadership skills (Goleman, 1998a).

Once the trainer has successfully raised the emotional intelligence of employees,

managers may have to consider different control mechanisms. The exploratory studies examined

here generally suggest that those high on emotional intelligence do not like being given orders.

Further, the extant literature suggests that they prefer to be involved in establishing their own

objectives. They want to be creative and flexible, emphasizing goals that are both good for them

as individuals and good for others. Because those high on emotional intelligence are adaptable,

they would avoid being controlled through continuance organizational commitment, becoming

entrapped because of economic and sunk-cost issues. Further, they would likely become

affectively committed to an organization only if there was true reciprocity in the exchange.

Individuals high in emotional intelligence are self-starters with insight into their personal

decision-making processes. They are good at networking. These types of skills suggest that they

would be more committed to their careers rather than to their organizations (Carson & Carson,

1998). Because workers can no longer count on their organizations for long-term employment,

individuals with high emotional intelligence will likely have the appropriate skills to survive in

today's fluid business environment. They are capable of weighing their own options and

deciding on a career direction (Farnham, 1996; Koonce, 1996). Thus, emotional intelligence

appears to be an important construct for researchers interested in loyalty and career issues.

Emotional intelligence seems to be an emerging area of study for management

researchers, because it meets two important criteria. First, it is rational and, second, it is

progressive (Abrahamson, 1996). It is rational in that organizational performance can be

improved when workers' emotional intelligence is heightened. It is progressive in that it is a

somewhat optimistic and spiritual view of human nature that is grounded in science (cf. Brandt,

1996). By using the 30-item measure developed these study, researchers have an opportunity to

be on the forefront in this area of study, and trainers have the ability to assess the effectiveness of

their interventions.

References

Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21,

254-285.

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational

behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103-

118.

Bates, S. (1999). Your emotional skills can make or break you. Nation=s Business, 87(4),

17.

Brandt, E. (1996). Workplace trends: Corporate pioneers explore spirituality. HR

Magazine (Internet download), 1-5.

Brown, T. L. (1994, April 4). Conquering complexity. Industry Week, 19.

Carson, K. D., & Carson P. P. (1998). Career commitment, competencies, and

citizenship. Journal of Career Assessment, 6, 195-208.

Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing

constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64-73.

Epstein, R. (1999). The key to our emotions. Psychology Today, 32(4), 20.

Farnham, A. (1996, January 15). Are you smart enough to keep your job? Fortune, 133,

34-40.

Fernandez-Araoz, C. (1999, July-August). Emotional intelligence. Harvard Business

Review, 77(4), 108-124.

Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work:

Differences between East and West Germany. Academy of Management Journal,

39, 37-63.

Gibbs, N. (1995, October 2). The EQ factor. Time, 60-67.

Goleman, D. (1998a, November-December). What makes a leader? Harvard Business

Review, 93-102.

Goleman, D. (1998b). Working with emotional intelligence. Bantam Books, New York.

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

Hall, J. A. (1987). On explaining gender differences: The case of nonverbal

communication. In P. Shaver & C. Hendrick (eds.), Sex and gender, volume 7:

Review of Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 177-200). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Hair, J. G., Jr., Anderson, R E., & Tatham, R. L. (1987). Multivariate data analysis (2nd

ed.). New York: Macmillan.

House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo

vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 409-473.

Huy, Q. N. (1999). Emotional capacity, emotional intelligence, and radical change.

Academy of Management, 24, 325-345.

Koonce, R. (1996, February). Emotional IQ, a new secret of success? Training &

Development, 50, 19.

Layman, E. J., & Guyden, J. A. (2000). Renewal versus burnout: A career blueprint. The

Health Care Manager, 18(3), 52-62.

Martinez, M. N. (1997, November). The smarts that count. HRMagazine, 72-78.

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1984). Patterns of burnout among a national example of

public contract workers. Journal of Health and Human Resources Management,

Spring, 189-212.

Mayer, J. D., DiPaolo, M., & Salovey, P. (1990). Perceiving affective content in

ambiguous visual stimuli: A component of emotional intelligence. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 54, 772-781.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1995). Emotional intelligence and the construction and

regulation of feelings. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 4, 197-208.

Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

O'Brien, M. (1996, April). Developing your `EQ'. HRFocus, 3.

Ree, M. J., & Earles, J. A. (1993). g is to psychology what carbon is to chemistry: A

reply to Sternberg and Wagner, McClelland and Calfeee. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 1, 11-12.

Reich, R., & Goleman, D. (1999). Point-counterpoint. Training, 53(4), 26-31.

Richins, M. L. (1983). An analysis of consumer interaction styles in the marketplace.

Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 73-82.

Ross, C. E., & Wright, M. P. (1998). Women’s work, men’s work, and the sense of

control. Work and Occupations, 25, 333-355.

Rummel, R. J. (1970). Applied factor analysis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern U.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1989-1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition

and Personality, 9(3), 185-211.

Scarpello, V. & Vandenberg, R. J. (1987). The satisfaction with my supervisor scale: Its

utility for research and practical applications. Journal of Management, 13, 447-

466.

Schutte, N., Toppinen, S., Kalimo, R., & Schaufeli, W. (2000). The factorial validity of

the Maslach burnout inventory--general survey (MBI-GS) across occupational

groups and nations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73,

53-66.

Sosik, J. J., & Megerian, L. E. (1999). Understanding leader emotional intelligence and

performance: The role of self-other agreement on transformational leadership

perceptions. Group & Organization Management, 24, 367-390.

Staw, B. M, Bell, N. E., & Clausen, J. A. (1986). The dispositional approach to job

attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 56-

77.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Managerial intelligence: Why IQ isn't enough. Journal of

Management, 23, 475-493.

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of intelligence. New York:

Viking-Penguin.

Tossman, D. (1999). EQ--vogue or value? New Zealand Management, 46(5), 34-36.

Trobst, K. K., Collins, R. L., & Embree, J. M. (1994). The role of emotion in social

support provision: Gender, empathy and expressions of distress. Journal of Social

and Personal Relationships, 11, 45-62.