How do Stream 1 researchers conceptualize and measure emotional intelligence?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Ashkanasy and Daus (2005) classify the types of emotional intelligence measures that
organizations can use to select leaders into three streams. The first two streams use the same definition of emotional intelligence but use different ways to measure and assess emotional
intelligence. The third stream uses a somewhat broader definition of emotional competencies that
includes related social skills in addition to the ability to perceive and regulate emotions. Because
of this broader range, some advocates of this tradition have switched from using the term
emotional intelligence to using the broader term emotional competencies.
Stream 1: Ability-Based Emotional Intelligence Measures
The first stream uses Salovey and Mayer’s theoretical model of emotional intelligence and their
ability-based method to measure emotional intelligence. Salovey and Mayer (1990) were the first
to use the term emotional intelligence in its modern and most widely used form today. Their
definition of emotional intelligence emphasized the ability to perceive and understand emotions
and to regulate emotions, both with regards to oneself and others. In their original model, (p.
194) they also emphasized how empathy was a crucial part of emotional intelligence: ‘‘Empathy
may be a central characteristic of emotionally intelligent behavior,’’ and they defined empathy
as ‘‘the ability to comprehend another’s feelings and to re-experience them oneself’’ [boldface
and italics added]. Their latest measure of emotional intelligence is the MSCEIT V2.0 (Mayer,
Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenous, 2003), which is an updated version of the
Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso,
2002). The MSCEIT V2.0 divides emotional intelligence into four branches (Mayer, Salovey,
Caruso, & Sitarenous, 2003, p. 97):
a. perceiving emotion accurately—assesses the ability to decode emotions in facial expressions,
vocal tones, and even artistic expressions
b. using emotion to facilitate thought—assesses the ability to use feelings to aid decision
making, problem solving and creative thinking
c. understanding emotion—this further measures the ability to label emotions and to match
appropriate emotions to the situation
d. managing emotion—this dimension concerns the ability to regulate emotions, to think about
one’s feelings, and to assess the effect different emotions would have on others
The MSCEIT uses items that can be scored as either right or wrong—just like a traditional
cognitive intelligence test. For example, test takers are shown pictures of facial expressions, and
they have to rate on a 5 point scale how much a particular emotion is being expressed. The
researchers determined which answers are correct by using consensus scoring. In other words, if
the majority of people think the facial expression shows a 4 on anger, then 4 would be counted as
a right answer. The researchers have also used a panel of experts to judge the correct answers;
the expert and consensus scores are very highly correlated. The advantage of the ability-based
approach to measuring emotional intelligence is that it doesn’t require people to self-rate
themselves on emotional intelligence. Thus, it could help diagnose whether someone does in fact
have a problem with recognizing emotions, which could be useful in psychological counseling
and in giving feedback to people. It also helps in selection and hiring where people might be
tempted to give inflated self-ratings of their personality traits and strengths. In order to do well
on the MSCEIT, people actually have to have the ability to read facial expressions and perform
the other tasks on the MSCEIT.