1. Multiple intelligences and emotional intelligence
KV Petrides
Lecture 5
Multiple intelligences and emotional intelligence
Dr. KV Petrides

2. Multiple ‘intelligences’ I
KV Petrides
Multiple ‘intelligences’ I
Gardner (1983) placed emphasis on the idea that the traditional understanding of intelligence that relies on IQ testing is too limited. Instead, he claimed that there exist eight different types of intelligence:
Logical/Mathematical
logical thinking, detecting patterns, scientific reasoning and deduction; analyse problems, perform mathematical calculations, understands relationship between cause and effect towards a tangible outcome or result
Linguistic
words and language, written and spoken; retention, interpretation and explanation of ideas and information via language, understands relationship between communication and meaning
Musical
musical ability, awareness, appreciation and use of sound; recognition of tonal and rhythmic patterns, understands relationship between sound and feeling
Spatial
visual and spatial perception; interpretation and creation of visual images; pictorial imagination and expression; understands relationship between images and meanings, and between space and effect
Bodily-Kinaesthetic
body movement control, manual dexterity, physical agility and balance; eye and body coordination
AND EVERYONE THOUGHT THEY WERE OPERATIONALIZING THE SAME CONSTRUCT 2

3. Multiple ‘intelligences’ II
KV Petrides
Multiple ‘intelligences’ II
Naturalistic
recognize and distinguish between plants and animals; categorizing them; sensitivity to nature and one’s place within it
Intrapersonal
self-awareness, personal cognisance, personal objectivity, the capability to understand oneself, one's relationship to others and the world, and one's own need for, and reaction to change
Interpersonal
perception of other people's feelings; ability to relate to others; interpretation of behaviour and communications; understands the relationships between people and their situations, including other people
The notion of MI has been influential in educational settings, but rejected from mainstream psychological science. Some important limitations include:
Arbitrary redefinition of talents and abilities as intelligences
Arbitrary criteria for including and excluding ‘intelligences’
Lack of empirical support (e.g., Visser, Ashton, & Vernon, 2008).
See also Chen (2004), Waterhouse (2006), and White (2008).
AND EVERYONE THOUGHT THEY WERE OPERATIONALIZING THE SAME CONSTRUCT 3

4. Background & milestones
KV Petrides
Thornike’s (1920) ‘social intelligence’.
Gardner’s (1983) ‘multiple intelligences’.
Intrapersonal intelligence
Interpersonal intelligence
‘Emotional intelligence’ as a term appears in Greenspan (1989), Leuner (1966), Payne (1986).
Salovey & Mayer (1990)
Goleman (1995)
Petrides and colleagues (2000-)
Trait EI versus Ability EI
Trait emotional intelligence research programme 4

5. Operationalization of EI
KV Petrides
Operationalization of EI
Two crucial issues are involved in the operationalization of EI (and of any other construct):
What is the sampling domain of the construct?
How do we measure the various components of the sampling domain?
Until recently – and even now – the first question was resolved by having as many sampling domains and EI definitions as researchers in the field.
Until recently – and even now – the second question was not even considered, with researchers assuming that the use of self-report or maximum-performance tests has no implications for operationalization.
AND EVERYONE THOUGHT THEY WERE OPERATIONALIZING THE SAME CONSTRUCT

6. Trait EI vs ability EI I
KV Petrides
Ability EI (or ‘cognitive-emotional ability’) comprises actual emotion-related cognitive abilities and should be measured via maximum-performance tests.
Trait EI (or ‘trait emotional self-efficacy’) comprises emotion-related self-perceptions and dispositions and should be measured via self-report questionnaires.

7. Trait EI vs ability EI II
KV Petrides
Trait EI vs ability EI II

8. Veridical scoring in IQ tests
KV Petrides
Veridical scoring in IQ tests
Nonverbal analogies
Raven’s matrices
The existence of single, invariant, and objectively derived correct response is a defining characteristic of intelligence testing.

9. Operationalization of ability EI
KV Petrides
Operationalization of ability EI
If ability EI is a new cognitive ability, then items or tasks with emotional content must be developed such that they can be scored according to truly veridical criteria.
In other words, the construct in its entirety ought to be assessed through items that can be responded to correctly or incorrectly.
Is it possible to develop EI items along cognitive ability lines?
NO: emotional experiences are inherently subjective (Brody, 2004; Pérez, Petrides, & Furnham, 2005; Roberts, Zeidner, & Matthews, 2001; Emotion).
OBJECTIFY
SO WE ARE ABANDONING THE ABILITY EI CONSTRUCT AND FOCUSING ON:

10. KV Petrides
Measures of ability EI
Pérez, Petrides, & Furnham, 2005

11. Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) I
KV Petrides
Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) I

12. KV Petrides
MSCEIT II
It should be obvious that items like the foregoing are not amenable to truly veridical scoring criteria (Brody, 2004; Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998; Roberts, Zeidner, & Matthews, 2001; Petrides & Furnham, 2001).
To identify correct and incorrect responses, Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey (1999) used two scoring methods previously employed to score items in failed social intelligence tests.

13. KV Petrides
Consensus scoring I
Consensus scoring: Introduces ‘degrees of correctness,’ with each response weighted by the percentage of participants in the sample who have endorsed it.
E.g., if 55% of the sample believe that a given design expresses ‘happiness,’ one gets .55 points for agreeing with them.
If 13% of the sample believe that the same design expresses ‘sadness’, then the endorsement of the sadness option is considered less correct and earns only .13 points.

14. KV Petrides
Consensus scoring II
Consensus scoring is problematic for the following reasons:
Likely to lead to noninvariant or sample-specific ‘correct’ responses.
Contradicts the foremost function of tests, which is to discriminate between test-takers.
Impossible to incorporate difficult items in the test, since the ‘correctness’ of a response is a function of the number of participants who will ultimately endorse it.

15. KV Petrides
Expert scoring
Expert scoring: A group of experts examines the items/stimuli and decides which of the alternative responses should be deemed correct.
Some limitations of expert scoring include:
In many cases (intrapersonal EI), it assumes that experts have more insight into normal adults’ emotional states than the adults themselves.
Who is an EI expert (therapists, researchers, psychiatrists, psychologists)?

16. Validity of ability EI I
KV Petrides
Validity of ability EI I
Empirical evidence does not provide solid support for the construct validity of ability EI:
Consensus and expert scoring methods tend to produce divergent findings (Davies et al., 1998; Roberts et al. 2001).
Many ability EI subfactors do not correlate with IQ (Roberts et al., 2001). Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi (2001) found a zero correlation between ability EI and Raven’s matrices.
Correlations with external criteria are frequently the result of severe confounding with crystallized IQ (esp. vocabulary size; Wilhelm, 2005).

17. Validity of ability EI II
KV Petrides
Validity of ability EI II
Reliability problems.
Factor structure problems.
Inconsistent/nonreplicable results.
Frequent use of odd and atheoretical criteria (number of self-help books read, academic performance marks from a quarterly term in a single year at high-school, etc.).
Low correlations and low incremental validity.

18. Validity of ability EI II
KV Petrides
Brody, N. (2004). What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not. Psychological Inquiry, 15,
Conte, J. M. (2005). A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26,
Keele, S. M. & Bell, R. C. (2008). The factorial validity of emotional intelligence: An unresolved issue. Personality and individual differences, 44,
Ortony, A., Revelle, W., & Zinbarg, R. (2007). Why emotional intelligence needs a fluid component. In G. Matthews, M. Zeidner, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), The science of emotional intelligence. Knowns and unknowns - Series in Affective Science (pp ). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O’Sullivan, M., & Ekman, P. (2005). Facial expression recognition and emotional intelligence. In G. Geher, (Ed.). Measuring emotional intelligence: Common ground and controversy. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishing.
Rossen, E., Kranzler, J. H., & Algina, J. (2008). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test V2.0 (MSCEIT). Personality and Individual Differences, 44,
Wilhelm, O. (2005). Measures of emotional intelligence: practice and standards. In R. Schulze, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), International handbook of emotional intelligence (pp ). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber. 18

19. KV Petrides
Trait EI
Trait emotional intelligence is defined as a constellation of emotional self-perceptions located at the lower levels of personality hierarchies (Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007).
Trait emotional self-efficacy is an alternative label for the same construct.

20. The sampling domain of trait EI
KV Petrides
Petrides & Furnham (2001; EJP): 20

21. KV Petrides
Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue , TEIQue-SF, TEIQue-ASF, TEIQue-CF,TEIQue 360o)
TEIQue translations
Greek
French
Spanish
Chinese
Portuguese
Dutch
Norwegian
Croatian
Serbian
Italian
TEIQue-SF
30 items, global trait EI score
Adolescent TEIQue-ASF
TEIQue 360o
153 items, 15 subscales, 4 factors, global trait EI score.
Theory-based
Research-based
Peer-reviewed
Open-access 21

22. Trait EI factor structure
KV Petrides 22

23. Location of trait EI in personality factor space
Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007; BJP
KV Petrides
Location of trait EI in personality factor space
TEIQue Raw English data; N = 371
TEIQue Raw Spanish data; N = 538

24. Gender differences in trait EI
KV Petrides
Overall, small or non-existent gender differences in global trait EI scores.
TEIQue data; N = 351; p = ns
Modified EQ-i data; N = 166; p < .01
Petrides, Furnham, & Martin (2004); N = 224; JSP
TEIQue-SF data; N = 668; p < .01
Schutte et al. scale data; N = 260; p = ns 24

25. KV Petrides
Estimates of EI I
Typically, when males are asked to estimate their IQ, they provide higher estimates than females .
What is the case for EI estimates?
Petrides, Furnham, & Martin (2004); N = 224; JSP
Furnham & Petrides (2004); N = 239; AJP

26. KV Petrides
Estimates of EI II
Typically, participants tend to estimate their father’s IQ as higher than their mother’s.
What is the case for EI estimates?
Petrides, Furnham, & Martin (2004); N = 224; JSP

27. The trait emotional intelligence research programme
KV Petrides
The trait emotional intelligence research programme
Research divisions
Psychometric
Educational
Industrial/Organizational
Child/Human Development
Behavioural Genetic
International links
UK, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain.
Current & past funding bodies
ESRC
Nuffield Foundation
British Academy
University of London
Students
PhD: E. Cole
BA, BSc, MA, MSc, MPhil
www
Google: trait EI 27