EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE:
AN INTEGRATED APPROACH
Laura Guillén Ramo, PhD Candidate
Escuela Superior de Administración y Dirección de Empresas (ESADE)
Avda. Pedralbes, 62
08032, Barcelona (Spain)
Tel.: (34) 932 806 162
Fax: (34) 932 048 105
e-mail: l.guillen.r@esade.edu
Correspondence and Proofs Address of the author
Roger de Flor, 148 Esc. D. At.1
08013, Barcelona (Spain)
Tutor:
Richard E.Boyatzis, PhD
Weatherhead School of Management
Case Western Reserve University
The findings reported in the manuscript have not been previously published and that the manuscript is not
being simultaneously submitted elsewhere.
1
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE: AN INTEGRATED APPROACH
ABSTRACT
The objective of this paper is to review the state of the art of the emotional
intelligence field and to propose an integrated approach for emotional intelligence.
The grounds for this, as Boyatzis and Sala (2003) mentioned, is that "a concept of
emotional intelligence offers more than a convenient framework for describing human
dispositions, it offers a theoretical structure for the organization of personality and
linking it to a theory of action and job performance".
To offer this integrated approach to emotional intelligence, the paper will go through
three major topics. The cycle starts with a review of the theoretical underpinnings of
emotional intelligence, taking into account its neurological basis and the need of a
theory of personality that organizes and structures human energy and, furthermore,
builds a bridge connecting emotions with action and performance. Then, a complete
overview of scene of emotional intelligence will be exposed. Finally, the paper will
expose and discuss conceptual and operational issues that are crucial for
determining the construct validity of emotional intelligence.
Keywords: emotional intelligence, personality, neurology, integrated approach
2
INTRODUCTION
Emotional Intelligence is a field full of controversy. In trying to understand emotional
intelligence as a concept and its implications three important questions need to be
answered: 1) what is emotional intelligence?; 2) can it be measured?; and 3) can it
be developed? (Higgs and Dulewicz, 2002). This paper will put a major emphasis in
the clarification of the first and second issues by conceptualizing emotional
intelligence as a scientific viable construct and analyzing its different possibilities of
operationalization.
There is no consensus about how the construct of emotional intelligence should be
described and measured from a scientific point of view. It is well accepted that
emotional intelligence should go beyond purely cognitive elements, as it should
involve some elements of the affective domain.
Even if rigorous research has been conducted in this area, some authors still claim
that emotional intelligence is only a myth (e.g. Matthews, Zeidner and Roberts, 2002;
Davies, Stankov and Roberts, 1998). It has to be clarified what is going to be
investigated and which is its importance within the theoretical framework that we are
using. The construct validity of emotional intelligence may be damaged because of
two main reasons: (1) theoretical constructs are not well defined and, consequently,
they are not properly operationalized; and (2) the relationships between different
operationalizations of the construct are not empirically examined (Mestre Navas,
Carreras de Alba and Guil Bozal, 2000).
The goal of the present paper is to contribute to place emotional intelligence in the
scientific context with a well-defined theoretical construct, by reviewing the state of
the art of the emotional intelligence field and by proposing an integrated approach of
emotional intelligence.
3
THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
Neurological basis of emotional intelligence.
Some authors claim that emotions constitute a key role in the motivational system of
human behavior (e.g. Izard, 1971; Rolls, 1999; Fridja, 2000). While there is no
agreement on how to define emotions, there is little doubt that they are inherent to
human nature. And, consequently, if we want to understand human nature and
human psychology in a broader sense (personality, motivation, behavior, adaptation,
etc.), it becomes crucial to understand the intricacies of the emotional system.
The starting premise is that emotions are not as intangible or erratic as they might
seem. It is necessary to turn to neurological research in order to find their neural
substrate.
Attention will be concentrated on modern theories of the neuroscience of emotion. To
build a comprehensive conceptual framework, we can classify emotions according to
two different criteria, mentation locus (term proposed by Davidson, Jackson and
Kalin, 2000) and types of studies supporting the theories (following the explanation of
Elster, 2001).
Mentation locus refers to where to search for emotional differentiation. The theories
presented to date share a common characteristic: Periphery plays a key role in
modulating emotional experience. Other modern theories, on the contrary, claim the
importance of the central nervous system as the main factor responsible for
emotional differentiation. Our second variable, types of studies supporting the
theories, is taken from a proposal of Jon Eltser (2001). He claimed that to look for the
basic causal mechanisms of emotions we should focus our attention on four types of
studies, that is, studies on 'normal' individuals, studies of patients with brain lesions,
4
experimental studies on animal behavior and observation of animals living in natural
or semi-natural conditions.
To understand the latest advances in the neuroscience of emotion, we are going to
review the influential theories of Antonio Damasio (1995), Joseph LeDoux (1996,
2002), Edmund T. Rolls (1999) and Richard J. Davidson et al. (2000) (see figure 1).
___________________________________________________________________
Insert Figure 1 about here_______________________________________________
The theories of LeDoux, Davidson et al. and Rolls are conceptually similar. Rolls
(1999) identified the following three main divergences:
First, LeDoux focuses mostly on the amygdala. This is because LeDoux is applying
an experimental study to rodents. There is no doubt that neocortical structures
between rodents and human beings present a huge difference, as in rodents they are
much less developed. This is probably why LeDoux focuses on the amygdala as the
centerpiece of the emotional circuitry. LeDoux did, however, claim that cortical areas
of the brain are important in experiencing emotion (LeDoux, 2002).
Second, LeDoux focuses on one emotion, fear. LeDoux claims that in order to
understand emotions, we have to understand the brain systems involved in each of
them. He may also study fear because it is much easier to induce negative effects in
laboratory experiments than positive effects. However, as Davidson et al. (2000)
noticed, whether or not the amygdala is implicated in all emotions is still an open
question in neuroscience.
Third, Rolls (1999) said that it may be unlikely that the second route of emotion
identified by LeDoux influences behavior via subcortical inputs to the amygdala. He
claims that the amygdala may regulate simple stimuli, such as a simple tone, that are
associated with rewards or punishments. But in the case of human beings, stimulus
5
usually requires associations with an invariant representation of an object. These
associations require higher temporal lobe cortical areas. There is no doubt that
stimulus appraisals are far more complex in human beings than in rodents, but as
Rolls (1999) and Davidson et al. (2000) claimed, plasticity and learning occur in the
amygdala, and associations between stimuli and reinforcers (to use Rolls’
terminology) may constitute a reason why this second route of emotion can be
hypothesized as also valid for human beings.
Both Rolls (1999) and Davidson et al. (2000) claimed that plasticity occurs in the key
brain elements involved in the emotional circuitry, that is, amygdala, prefrontal cortex
and hippocampus.
Summing up the role of these important brain areas that are connected to emotional
brain processes, the amygdala is activated by stimuli and elicits certain forms of
negative affect, particularly fear (LeDoux, 1996). The amygdala is involved in
emotional arousal and projects its outputs to other brain areas, including cortical
areas. Initial learning associations between stimuli and reinforcers occur in this brain
area.
PFC may be more important for the expression of emotion and will be involved in
posterior learning associations of emotional stimuli. It may affect affective style.
The hippocampus and other interconnected structures are important for their
contribution to context-dependent affective responding.
Personality and Performance
“Personality may influence the events one experienced” (Diener and Lucas, 2000).
How people perform themselves in the world must be examined in the context of their
particular personality. Assuming that people have 'flat' personalities creates a fiction
of emptiness within human nature that cannot reflect its real complexity. It is
6
necessary to analyze individual lives, goals and values to understand fully their
emotional life. "There are stable emotional styles of responding to events and
circumstances that are closely linked to personalities" (Diener and Lucas, 2000).
Emotional Intelligence should be circumscribed not only in an area of emotional
arousal, but on how people express these emotions. "Emotional competence can be
defined as the demonstration of self-efficacy in emotion-eliciting social transactions"
(Saarni, 2000). And this emotional self-efficacy should be linked to a theory of
personality and a theory of human action.
It is not the aim of this paper to present an exhaustive review of personality and
action theories that can be integrated within the EI field, but just to highlight the
importance of how human vitality and performance are linked together.
Triangle ‘emotions-cognition-motivation’
Traditionally, the mind has been viewed as a trilogy; consisting of cognition, affect
(emotion) and conation (motivation) (Hilgard, 1980).
The cognitive sphere treats the study of mind and thinking processes; the affective
sphere deals with passions and emotions; and, finally, the connative sphere deals
with goals and motivations. Historically, intelligence has been considered a construct
that characterizes the cognitive sphere, linked with analytical thinking.
Emotions play a key role in this triangle. Izard and Ackerman (2000) claimed that
“emotions motivate and organize perception, cognition and action (behavior) in
particular ways”. Thus, the study of the relationship of emotions with the other
elements may be crucial to understand individual differences.
The mental trilogy, emotions, cognitions and motivation, helps to define who we are.
Human beings have to survive and adapt themselves to the environment they are in.
According to Lewis, Amini and Lannon (2001), cognitive, emotional and motivational
7
resources constitute the integrated system of our metal life and a complete theory of
intelligence should link these three concepts to understand not only human nature,
but also human action. Individual differences can be defined by considering all the
aspects involved in this process, from cognitive abstractions to action. For doing so, it
is not sufficient a purely cognitive view of the mind, because emotions and motivation
play also an important role.
Theoretical framework for Emotional Intelligence
A framework for understanding emotional intelligence combines the different puzzle
pieces just mentioned (figure 2).
___________________________________________________________________
Insert Figure 2 about here_______________________________________________
First, attention has been paid to the neurological basis of emotions. This has
provided with the instruments that support the understanding of the brain mechanism
of human emotional life. It is important to bear in mind that this understanding should
be the roots of any emotional intelligence theory.
But a description of the neurological basis of emotions is not sufficient to understand
the complexity of human emotionality. It is not only 'what' happens in the brain what
needs to be discovered, but also 'why'. With this objective, curiosity expands toward
new paths. It is necessary to understand how the human mind works and which
processes interact in this play. To do so, the trilogy of mind has been considered.
Emotions, cognitions and motivation are the main characters in this theater of human
mind. But this cognitive perspective is still not sufficient to understand why people
behave the way they do. A theory of personality structure, that guides human vitality
in certain ways, is required. A theoretical framework of emotional intelligence should
take into account human personality and its implications. As Saarni (2000) mentioned
8
“it is surprisingly that emotional intelligence has often been defined without reference
to the ethical values of one's ego identity and an individual’s developmental history,
as if the human personality was completely flat”. Finally, manifest behaviors should
be analyzed and a theory of performance is needed in order to understand how
people express emotions in their specific context and situation.
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE SCENE.
Different approaches that illuminate distinct aspects of the construct live together in
the emotional intelligence field. But, to be constructive their views may be integrated
to achieve a deep understanding of what being ‘emotionally intelligent’ means. As
Bar-On (2000) suggested “by comparing and contrasting findings rendered by this
and other approaches to emotional and social intelligence, we will be more effective
in mapping out this construct”. But, what type of attributes conform the procedure to
rank and measure ‘EI’ in people? Emotional intelligence field presents four important
theories of research: Mayer and Salovey (1997), Gardner (1999), Bar-On (2000), and
Goleman (1998) and Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee (2002).
The body of research related to emotional intelligence has came up with different
approaches. All definitions of emotional intelligence represent a combination of
cognitive and emotional abilities (Cherniss, 2001b). All share the common desire to
understand and measure the abilities and traits related to recognizing and regulating
emotions in ourselves and others (Goleman, 2001). Some authors claim that the
different conceptualizations tend to be complementary rather than contradictory. It is
a sign of the increasing interest in the topic, showing an active role of research to
understand it better (Emmerling and Goleman, 2003).
9
On the contrary, other theorists are skeptic, claiming that emotional intelligence may
be like an old wine presented in a new bottle (Matthews, Zeidner and Roberts, 2002).
To clarify the nature of Emotional Intelligence, constructing a scientific paradigm in
this field still represents a mayor challenge. They complain of the way emotional
intelligence is conceptualized, considering that it is defined by exclusion: everything
that is not measured by the IQ is emotional. Another major concern is to assure that
emotional intelligence is a construct that is offering something new to science. They
argue that emotional intelligence may be a myth that is not providing anything new to
psychology (Matthews et al., 2002).
Current Models of Emotional Intelligence
Four models will be presented as they emphasize different psychological aspects and
illuminate the emotional intelligence concept from different perspectives.
First Model: A cognitive approach. The model of Salovey and Mayer is aligned with
the psychometric tradition and frames emotional intelligence within a model of
cognitive abilities of intelligence (Salovey and Mayer, 1990). They advocate the cooperative relationship between emotion and cognition (Salovey, Mayer, 1999). The
authors describe emotional intelligence as "a form of social intelligence that involves
the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate
among them, and to use this information to guide one's thinking and action" (Salovey
and Mayer, 1990).
Second Model: A phenomenological approach. Gardner (1999) advocates a
phenomenological perspective of human intelligence and claims that the
psychometric tradition is too narrow. He defines intelligence as "the biopsychological
potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve
problems or create products that are of value in a culture". Intelligences are
10
potentials, that may or may not be activated. This conceptualization introduces the
problem of relativism, because intelligence is always shaped by the cultural and
social context of the group that is analyzing the concept (Gardner, 1983).
Gardner never used the term emotional intelligence. In contrast, he offered a model
of multiple intelligences, two of which are intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligence,
that share their basic roots with emotional intelligence.
Third Model: A model of well-being (Bar-On, 1997, 2000). The EQ-i was constructed
to examine a concept that Reuven Bar-On began to develop in the early 1980s. The
development of the EQI-i began to examine various factors thought to be key
components of effective emotional and social functioning that lead to psychological
well-being (Bar-On, 2000).
There are five EQ composite scale scores: (1) Intrapersonal EQ, (2) Interpersonal
EQ, (3) Stress Management EQ, (4) Adaptability EQ, and (5) General Mood EQ.
Fourth model: A theory of performance (Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee, 2002). The
roots of his theory are based on the idea that emotional intelligence leads to human
behavior and that to possess a high level of emotional intelligence promotes specific
competencies that distinguish star from average performers in organizations. In this
sense, he defined emotional competence as "a learned capability based on
emotional intelligence that results in outstanding performance at work" (Goleman,
1998).
The current model of competencies reflects four domains that complete the puzzle of
emotional intelligence (Boyatzis, Goleman and Rhee, 2000): Self-Awareness, SelfManagement, Social Awareness and Relationship Management
11
Conceptualization: An Integrated Approach
Once the most influential models have been presented, there is still the open
question with which the section started. Are they complementary or exclusive? How
can we understand the different conceptualization of Emotional Intelligence? Is this a
sign of the impossibility of defining the concept? From my point of view, this is
definitively not the case. The study of the human mind and its implications in behavior
is an extremely complex issue. In addition, different perspectives may co-exist
focusing their attention on different elements.
The emotional intelligence models presented adopted different approaches. The
Mayer and Salovey Model puts an emphasis in the relationship between cognition
and emotion, talking about mental 'abilities' and eliminating human behavior as not
important for their construct. Bar-On Model, on the contrary, focuses its interest in the
relationship between emotions and motivation, thus, defining a model of well-being.
Motivation is linked with the fulfillment of some unsatisfied needs. When emotions
helps to move forward the reduction of internal tensions, satisfaction and well-being
occur as tension is reduced and the need subsides, usually to be replaced by
awareness of another need that requires attention (Auerback and Dolan, 1997).
Finally, Goleman's Model centers its attention to the relationship between emotions
and human behavior. These considerations may lead us to think that the different
approaches of emotional intelligence may coexist together (figure 3).
___________________________________________________________________
Insert Figure 3 about here_______________________________________________
To focus research efforts in different aspects of emotions can help to develop
different theoretical models, all valid. And adding the knowledge of all of them may
help us to understand the construct deeply. "While some argue that the goal of
research should be to identify and define a singular theoretical framework to be
12
labeled as 'correct' version of emotional intelligence, another approach would be to
acknowledge that having multiple theories can often serve to elucidate additional
aspects of complex psychological constructs" (Emmerling and Goleman, 2003).
Within the integrated approach proposed, it seems plausible that the different models
may coexist together as their theoretical bases are complementary. The debates
within the field discussing this possible harmony of the theoretical models are
intensified by Mayer, Salovey and Caruso (2000) that make a distinction between EI
models that are mixed and those that are pure models, or ability models, focusing
exclusively on cognitive attitudes. Mixed models, they argue, contain a “mélange of
abilities, behaviors and general disposition and conflate personality attributes - such
as optimism and persistence - with mental ability”.
But, instead of debating whether emotional intelligence is a disposition or an ability,
"it may be wiser to say that the processing of emotional experience involves both
specific abilities and particular personality traits" (McCrae, 2000).
Operationalization: Measurement proposals.
The theoretical coherence between the different conceptualizations of emotional
intelligence has been established. These differences result in distinct approaches of
operationalizing the construct (Dulewicz, Higgs and Slaski, 2003). The purpose of
this section is to review the coherence between them.
Petrides and Furnham (2000) proposed the establishment of a theoretical distinction
between trait and information-processing emotional intelligence. “Trait EI appertains
to the greater personality realm whereas information-processing EI is an attempt to
chart new territory in the field of human mental ability” (Petrides and Furnham, 2000).
This distinction takes into account the theories and measurement approaches. They
13
proposed that “it is the type of measurement rather than the theory per se that
determines the nature of the model” (Petrides and Furnham, 2001).
The two constructs are not mutually exclusive and therefore may coexist (Petrides
and Furnham, 2000). “Given that intelligence and personality are essentially
independent domains one would expect trait EI to be related to personality, but not to
ability factors. Ability EI should certainly be related to cognitive ability” (Petrides and
Furnham, 2001).
The distinction between trait and information-processing emotional intelligence may
not include the Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee (2002) model, as it is not framed
exclusively in a personality framework nor in a psychometric intelligence structure
one. As mentioned, it is focus in the relationship between emotion and performance.
A new theoretical distinction will be proposed to make sure that the three models in
the field fit in it. There are two main types of measures: self-report and abilities tools.
The theories behind the ‘abilities’ tool reflect, as mentioned, emotional intelligence
within the psychometric tradition. On the contrary, theories behind the ‘self-report’
tools may differ in nature. First, a personality framework that leads to well-being may
be outlined. Second, an action framework that leads to effective performance may be
traced.
Trait-EI needs a broader scope than their concept that leaves aside the theory of
Goleman and Boyatzis’ model. The behavioural component of emotions is crucial
(e.g. Fridja, 2001) and has a critical character in the intelligence conceptualization.
This enrichment of the trait-EI scope is grounded on the contextualized integrated
approach model and reflects the potential roles of emotional intelligence in everyday
life (Ciarrochi, Forgas and Mayer, 2001). Emotional intelligence impacts on three
main components: (1) On how the individual experiences life events, that is closely
linked with the emphasis of the Salovey and Mayer model; (2) On how people adapt
14
to these life events, that is related to wellbeing and therefore, to the Bar-On model;
and, (3) on their life outputs, such as mental health, relationship quality, work
success and physical health, that is located within the theory of performance of the
Goleman and Boyatzis model.
The information processing-EI deals with the cognitive individual processes. And the
trait-EI has two different approaches (even if both use self-report measurement
tools): 1) the ‘adaptation’ branch that is reflected in the proposal from Reuven Bar-On
and deals with the individual adaptation to his/her environment (Bar-On, 1997,
2000); and 2) the ‘action’ branch that is reflected by the proposal by Goleman et al.
(2002) that offers a theory of performance by linking adaptation to life outcomes.
The reader can notice that in this section the model of Howard Gardner has not been
considered. This is because Gardner does not make any measurement proposal and,
consequently, it makes not sense to include his theory in the Operationalization
section.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper reviewed the current state of the art of the emotional intelligence field. The
integrated approach helped to clarify how emotional intelligence can be understood
in its broad conceptualization, which is the cornerstone for conducting rigorous
scientific research. Further research is needed to explore the integrated approach of
emotional intelligence, where different approaches may coexist.
The most serious weakness within the emotional intelligence research is “the lack of
specific, measurable operationalizations of the various components of this rather
vaguely defined notion” (Fox and Spector, 2000). Further research is needed for
understanding how the theoretical constructs are operationalized. In this sense, it is
15
crucial to develop adequate measurement tools to guide and interpret investigation in
the correct way (e.g. Bar-On and Parker, 2000; Boyatzis and Sala, 2003; Petrides
and Furnham, 2000; Dawda and Hart, 2000).
Among other reasons the upsurge in interest in emotional intelligence development is
the claim that it is linked to success in life outcomes (e.g. Goleman, 1995, 1998;
Dulewicz, Higgs and Slaski, 2003). Research is needed to study how can emotional
intelligence be developed (Higgs and Dulewicz, 2002) and how to demonstrate a firm
relationship between emotional intelligence and actual work place performance
outcomes (Sala, 2004), which connection is assumed by most academics and
practitioners but little research has demonstrated this predictive validity.
16
REFERENCES
Auerback, A.J. and Dolan, S.L. 1997. Fundamentals of organizational behavior: the
Canadian context. Ontario: International Thomson Publishing.
Bar-On, R. 1997. Emotional Intelligence Quotient Inventory: A measure of emotional
intelligence. Toronto, Multi-Health Systems, Inc.
Bar-On, R. 2000. Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the emotional
quotient inventory. In R. Bar-On and J.D.A. Parker (Eds.). Handbook of Emotional
Intelligence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bar-On, R. and J. D. A. Parker 2000. Introduction to the The Handbook of Emotional
Intelligence. San Francisco, Josey-Bass.
Boyatzis, R.E.; Goleman, D. and Rhee, K. 2000. Clustering competence in emotional
intelligence: Insights from the emotional competence inventory (ECI). In R. Bar-On
and J.D.A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Boyatzis, R.E. and Sala, F. 2003 unpublished. Assessing emotional intelligence
competencies. To appear in Glenn Geher (ed.), The measurement of emotional
intelligence. Hauppauge, NY: Novas Science Publishers.
Cherniss, C. 2001a. Emotional Intelligence: What it is and Why it Matters. In
Cherniss, C. And Goleman, D (Eds.), The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cherniss, C. 2001b. Emotional intelligence and organizational effectiveness. In C.
Cherniss and D. Goleman (Eds.). The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ciarrochi, J. V., Forgas, J.P. and Mayer, J.D. 2001. Emotional Intelligence in
everyday life: a scientific inquiry. New York, Psychology Press, Inc.
Damasio, A. R. 1995. Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. New
York: Quill.
Davidson, R.J.; Jackson, D.C. and Kalin, N.H. 2000. Emotion, Plasticity, Context and
Regulation: Perspectives from affective neuroscience. Psychological Bulletin. Vol.
126. No. 6, 890-909.
Davies, M.; Stankov, L. and Roberts, R.D. 1998. Emotional Intelligence: In search of
an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 989-1015.
Dawda, D. and Hart, S.D. 2000. "Assessing emotional intelligence: reliability and
validity of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) in university students."
Personality and Individual Differences 28: 797-812.
17
Diener, E. and Lucas, R.E. 2000. Subjective Emotional Well-Being. In Handbook of
Emotions (2nd edition). Lewis & Haviland Jones (Editors). New York: Guilford Press.
Dulewicz, V., Higgs, M. and Slaski, M. 2003. "Measuring emotional intelligence:
content, construct and criterion-related validity." Journal of Managerial Psychology
18(5): 405-420.
Emmerling, R.J. and Goleman, D. 2003. Emotional Intelligence: Issues and Common
Misunderstandings. Website: www.eiconsortium.org.
Elster, J. 2001. Sobre las pasiones. Emoción, adicción y conducta humana.
Barcelona: Ediciones Paidós Ibérica
Fox, S. and Spector, P.E. 2000. "Relations of emotional intelligence, practical
intelligence, general intelligence and trait affectivity with interview outcomes: it's not
all just 'G'." Journal of Organizational Behavior 21: 203-220.
Fridja, N.H. 2000. The Psychologists' Point of View. In Handbook of Emotions (2nd
edition). Lewis & Haviland Jones (Editors). New York: Guilford Press.
Gardner, H. 1983. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:
Basic Books.
Gardner, H. 1999. Intelligence Reframed. New York: Basic Books.
Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. 1998. Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. 2001. Emotional Intelligence: Issues in Paradigm Building. In The
Emotionally Intelligent Workplace. Cherniss, C.; Goleman, D. (editors). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goleman, D.; Boyatzis, R.E. and McKee, A. 2002. Leadership and Emotional
Intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Higgs, M. and Dulewicz, V. 2002. Making sense of emotional intelligence. London,
ASE.
Hilgard, E.R. 1980. The trilogy of mind: Cognition, affection and conation. Journal of
the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 16, 107-17.
Izard, C.E. 1971. The face of emotion. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Izard, C.E. and Ackerman, B.P. 2000. Motivational, organizational and regulatory
functions in discrete emotions. In Handbook of Emotions (2nd edition). Lewis &
Haviland Jones (Editors). New York: Guilford Press.
Lewis, T., Amini, F. and Lannon, R. 2001. Una teoría general del amor. Barcelona,
RBA Libros.
18
LeDoux, J. 2002. Synaptic Self: How our brains become who we are. New York:
Penguin Books.
LeDoux, J. 1996. The Emotional Brain. New York: Touchstone Editions.
Matthews, G.; Zeidner, M. and Roberts, R.D. 2002. Emotional intelligence. Science
and myth. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Mayer, J. D. and Salovey, P. 1997. What is emotional intelligence? Emotional
development and emotional intelligence: implications for educators. P. a. S. Salovey,
D. (Eds.). New York, Basic Books: pp. 3-31.
Mayer, J.D.; Salovey, P. and Caruso, D.R. 2000. Emotional Intelligence as Zeitgeist,
as Personality, and as a Mental Ability. In R. Bar-On and J.D.A. Parker (Eds.).
Handbook of Emotional Intelligence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mayer, J.D.; Salovey, P. and Caruso, D. 1999. Emotional Intelligence meets
traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27(4), 267-298.
McCrae, R.R. 2000. Emotional Intelligence from the perspective of the Five-Factor
Model of personality. In R. Bar-On and J.D.A. Parker (Eds.). Handbook of Emotional
Intelligence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mestre Navas, J.M.; Carreras de Alba, M.R. and Guil Bozal, R. 2000. Una
aproximación a la inteligencia emocional como constructo teórico. Website:
www.capitalemocional.com
Petrides, K. V. and Furnham, A. 2000. "On the dimensional structure of emotional
intelligence." Personality and Individual Differences 29: 313-320.
Petrides, K. V. and Furnham, A. 2001. "Trait Emotional Intelligence: Psychometric
investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies." European Journal of
Psychology 14: 425-448.
Rolls, E. T. 1999. The Brain and Emotion. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Saarni, C. 2000. Emotional Competence. A developmental Perspective. In R. Bar-On
and J.D.A. Parker (Eds.). Handbook of Emotional Intelligence. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Sala, F. 2004, in press. The International Business Case. Emotional Intelligence and
Performance at Work: Current Research Evidence. V. Druskat, Sala, F. and Mount,
G. (eds.). New York, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. 1990. Emotional Intelligence. Imagination, cognition and
personality, 9(3), 185-211.
Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. 1999. Current directions in Emotional Intelligence
Research. In Handbook of Emotions (2nd edition). Lewis & Haviland Jones (Editors).
New York: Guilford Press.
19
Table 1. Classification of modern theories of emotion
Types of study
Mentation
locus
Periphery
Central
Nervous
System
Patients with
brain lessions
Experimental
studies with
animals
Observation
of animals
(neuroimaging)
Damasio
LeDoux
Rolls
Davidson
Figure 1. Classification of modern theories of emotion.
Source: Author.
20
Table 2. Theoretical Framework
Conscious
processes
Key Elements:
Biology
Experience,
culture,
society
BRAIN MIND
Unconscious
processes
Personality
Emotions
Cognitions
Motivation
Action
Figure 2: Theoretical Framework.
Source: Author.
21
Table 3. Theoretical Framework and Theoretical EI Models
Conscious
processes
Key Elements:
Biology
Experience,
culture,
society
BRAIN MIND
Unconscious
processes
Personality
1
Emotions
Cognitions
2
Motivation
3
Action
1. Mayer, Salovey Model
2. Bar-On Model
3. Goleman Model
Figure 3: Theoretical Framework and Theoretical EI models.
Source: Author.
22