2016 lama review 4th qtr final by LAMA

Vol. 28 Issue #04

December 2016

The LAMA

this issue Building the Emotional Intelligence of Groups Emotional Intelligence : Do You Have It? Hotter Heads Prevail Emotional Agility

Emotional Intelligence

8 18 21 23

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

Objectives of the Laboratory Animal Management Association cTo promote the dissemination of ideas, experiences, and knowledge cTo act as a spokesperson cTo encourage continued education cTo actively assist in the training of managers This publication contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance the understanding of ecological, political, economic, scientific, moral, ethical, personnel, and social justice issues. It is believed that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with TItle 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior general interest in receiving similar information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use”, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information concerning the LAMA Review, please contact the Editors in Chief, Jim Cox & Reed George at coxj@janelia.hhmi.org.

Change of address: Attention Members are you moving? To ensure that you receive your next issue of The LAMA Review, please send your change of address to: The LAMA Review Amy Rau Laboratory Animal Management Association 15490 101st Ave N #100 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.235.6488 arau@associationsolutionsinc.com LAMA Review advertising rates and information are available upon request via email, phone, or mail to: Jim Manke, CAE Direct 763.235.6482 LAMA Review 15490 101st Ave N #100 Maple Grove, MN 55369 jrmanke@associationsolutionsinc.com Fax 763.235.6461

Employment opportunity ads are free

4 4

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016 LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

contents

featured

regular From the Editors 05 Presidents Message 06 LAMA Application 52

Building the Emotional Intelligence of Groups

Emotional Intelligence : Do You Have It?

21 23 38

Hotter Heads Prevail Emotional Agility The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Cool and Hot Cognitive Processes: A Systematic Review

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

from the editors

Emotional Intelligence The term “Emo onal Intelligence” first appeared in a paper wri en by Michael Beldoch in 1964, which was published in the book The Communica on of Emoonal Meaning, by Joel Davitz.1 In 1995 Daniel Goldman published his book tled Emo onal Intelligence: Why It Can Ma er More Than IQ, which led to the popularity of the term. Today, this is one of the more important concepts for a manager at any level to understand, due to the impact emo ons have on the way we interact with our teams, our supervisor, and our customers. Emo ons are complex and impacted by a variety of things; including our previous experiences, current circumstances, our mood, and our rela onships. We may encounter a situa on with our supervisor that causes us to respond one way, but when the same situa on occurs with our staff, our response is different. Understanding why our emo ons are different in these two situa ons is key to emo onal intelligence. Emo onal intelligence also deals with the understanding of how those around us may and actually do respond to the situa on. As we prepare for an interac on with someone, we should consider how that individual might respond. The an cipa on of their response is o en first based on our intent, but it is also important to an cipate their response based on how they may perceive the interac on. Balancing the intent versus the percep on of the interac on gets to the heart of emo onal intelligence.

In today’s digital world, many of our interac ons are through wri en communica on: email, blogs, web browsing, etc. Unfortunately, we o en lose cri cal non-verbal context in wri en text and without the use of emojis, which is probably best le out of the business world, readers are le to their own devices to interpret the emo onal intent of the writer. And as readers, we don’t always get the full message. This lack of complete communica on seems to be especially common with email. For more on that, please be sure to see the ar cle en tled “How Emo onal Intelligence Disappears in E-Mail.” In this issue, we have provided a variety of ar cles to help you understand emo onal intelligence. Everything from the basics as outlined in “Emo onal Intelligence: Do You Have It?” to how to u lize emo onal intelligence as an individual in “Emo onal Agility” and develop it in your teams with “Building Emo onal Intelligence of Groups.” We hope you enjoy this issue! 1. Davitz, J., The Communica on of Emo onal Meaning, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964. 2. Goldman, D., Emo onal Intelligence: Why It Can Ma er More Than IQ, Bantam Books, 1995.

The LAMA

2016-2017 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS PRESIDENT Roxanne Fox Sarasota, FL VICE PRESIDENT Leah Curtin Framingham, MA VICE PRESIDENT ELECT Jennifer Volkmann Houston, TX PAST PRESIDENT Wayne DeSantis West Chester, PA SECRETARY/TREASURER Howard Mosher Killingworth, CT DIRECTORS AT LARGE Leah Curtin - Framingham, MA Kendrick Jenkins - Lexington, MA Chris Southern - Houston, TX Jennifer Volkmann - Houston, TX Stephen Baker - Cambridge, MA Jefferson Childs - Cincinnati, OH ATA REPRESENTATIVE Ed Russo - Worcester, MA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Jim Manke - Maple Grove, MN 2016-2017 EDITORIAL STAFF EDITORS IN CHIEF Reed A. George - Ashburn, VA James D. Cox - Ashburn, VA MANAGING EDITOR Evelyn Howard - Lafayette IN

STAFF CONTACTS Jim Manke, CAE Executive Director 763.235.6482 Kathi Schlieff Meeting Manager 763.235.6483 Amy Rau Membership Director 763.235.6488

ADVERTISERS PURINA LAB DIET PHARMACAL VET EQUIP ANCARE

2 31 23 16

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

President’s Message Hello, Membership! I want to wish you all a wonderful and happy Holiday Season. The Na onal AALAS mee ng is over and the LAMA Board mee ng was a success. The Board voted and passed to adopt the revised SLRP. The new goals and objec ve will be refined and put into effect a er our April 2017 mee ng. The Board also voted on the review schedule for the SLRP to change from 2 years to every 3 years. This will allow more me to work on goals and objecves and to accomplish them and not carry them over to future years. The LAMA Program Commi ee and our Execu ve Directors Office are s ll at work on planning and coordina ng our April 25-27, 2017 33rd Annual Mee ng in Sea le, Washington. A call for speakers was extended. Kim Benjamin and her commi ee are pu ng together another great mee ng.

The Allied Trades Associa on (ATA) has graciously provided to our membership a chance to be awarded an $800 scholarship for three ac ve LAMA members to cover costs of a ending their ﬁrst Annual LAMA/ATA Mee ng. Applica ons for this Scholarships are available on our website. Deadline for the applica ons is December 31, 2016. A LAMA panel will evaluate the applica ons and award the scholarships by the middle of February 2017. I want to thank my Board and all the Commi ees for their dedicated me to our outstanding organiza on. Get involved with our commi ees! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Thank you, Roxanne Fox

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

Did you know? In the Laboratory Animal community, publishing in a professional journal is an essential part of advancing your career. Submitting an article to the LAMA Review provides an opportunity to be published in a professional journal. This is a great opportunity to share your research knowledge and accomplishments. Imagine your journal impacting and influencing the laboratory animal management practices! The LAMA Review provides important information on industry’s advancements and developments to those involved in the Laboratory Animal field with emphasis in management. The LAMA Review is published electronically each quarter and combines short columns with longer feature articles. Each issue focuses on significant topics and relevant interest to ensure a well-rounded coverage on laboratory management matters.

Submitting an article Choose an interesting topic that has the potential to beneﬁt the Laboratory Animal Management community. Write the article that you would like to see published in the journal. Be sure to include multiple sources to support your research and accurately cite references. Submit your article to Review via email: coxj@janelia.hhmi.org

Benefits of publishing The LAMA Review is the oﬃcial journal of the Laboratory Animal Management Association, which is committed to publishing high quality, independently peer-reviewed research and review material. The LAMA Review publishes ideas and concepts in an innovative format to provide premium information for laboratory Animal Management in the public and private sectors which include government agencies. A key strength of the LAMA Review is its relationship with the Laboratory Animal management community. By working closely with our members, listening to what they say, and always placing emphasis on quality. The Review is ﬁnding innovative solutions to management’s needs, by providing the necessary resources and tools for managers to succeed.

Article Guidelines Submissions of articles are accepted from LAMA members, professional managers, and administrators of laboratory animal care and use. Submissions should generally range between 2,000 and 5,000 words. All submissions are subject to Editor in Chief’s review and are accepted for the following features of the LAMA Review: o Original Articles o Review Articles o Job Tips o Manager’s Forum o Problem Solving

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

Building the Emotional Intelligence of Groups

by Vanessa Urch Druskat and Steven B. Wolff When managers first started hearing about the concept of emo onal intelligence in the 1990s, scales fell from their eyes. The basic message, that effec veness in organiza ons is at least as much about EQ as IQ, resonated deeply; it was something that people knew in their guts but that had never before been so well ar culated. Most important, the idea held the poten al for posi ve change. Instead of being stuck with the hand they’d been dealt, people could take steps to enhance their emo onal intelligence and make themselves more effec ve in their work and personal lives. Indeed, the concept of emo onal intelligence had real impact. The only problem is that so far emo onal intelligence has been viewed only as an individual competency, when the reality is that most work in organiza ons is done by teams. And if managers have one

pressing need today, it’s to find ways to make teams work be er. It is with real excitement, therefore, that we share these findings from our research: individual emo onal intelligence has a group analog, and it is just as cri cal to groups’ effec veness. Teams can develop greater emo onal intelligence and, in so doing, boost their overall performance.

Why Should Teams Build Their Emo onal Intelligence? No one would dispute the importance of making teams work more eﬀec vely. But most research about how to do so has focused on iden fying the task processes that dis nguish the most successful teams—that is, specifying the need for coopera on, par cipa on, commitment to goals, and so forth. The assump on seems

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

to be that, once iden fied, these processes can simply be imitated by other teams, with similar effect. It’s not true. By analogy, think of it this way: a piano student can be taught to play Minuet in G, but he won’t become a modern-day Bach without knowing music theory and being able to play with heart. Similarly, the real source of a great team’s success lies in the fundamental condi ons that allow effec ve task processes to emerge—and that cause members to engage in them wholeheartedly. Our research tells us that three condi ons are essen al to a group’s effec veness: trust among members, a sense of group iden ty, and a sense of group efficacy. When these condi ons are absent, going through the mo ons of coopera ng and par cipa ng is s ll possible. But the team will not be as effec ve as it could be, because members will choose to hold back rather than fully engage. To be most effec ve, the team needs to create emo onally intelligent norms—the a tudes and behaviors that eventually become habits—that support behaviors for building trust, group iden ty, and group efficacy. The outcome is complete engagement in tasks. (For more on how emo onal intelligence influences these condi ons, see the sidebar “A Model of Team Effec veness.”) Team emo onal intelligence is more complicated than individual emo onal intelligence because teams interact at more levels. To understand the differences, let’s first look at the concept of individual emo onal intelligence as defined by Daniel Goleman. In his defini ve book Emo onal Intelligence, Goleman explains the chief characteris cs of someone with high EI; he or she is aware of emo ons and able to regulate them— and this awareness and regula on are directed both inward, to one’s self, and outward, to others. “Personal competence,” in Goleman’s words, comes from being aware of and regula ng one’s own emoons. “Social competence” is awareness and regulaon of others’ emo ons. A group, however, must attend to yet another level of awareness and regula on. It must be mindful of the emo ons of its members, its own group emo ons or moods, and the emo ons of other groups and individuals outside its boundaries. In this ar cle, we’ll explore how emo onal incompetence at any of these levels can cause dysfunc on. We’ll also show how establishing specific group norms that create awareness and regula on of emo on at

A Model of Team Effec veness Study a er study has shown that teams are more crea ve and produc ve when they can achieve high levels of par cipa on, coopera on, and collaboraon among members. But interac ve behaviors like these aren’t easy to legislate. Our work shows that three basic condi ons need to be present before such behaviors can occur: mutual trust among members, a sense of group iden ty (a feeling among members that they belong to a unique and worthwhile group), and a sense of group efficacy (the belief that the team can perform well and that group members are more effec ve working together than apart). At the heart of these three condi ons are emo ons. Trust, a sense of iden ty, and a feeling of efficacy arise in environments where emo on is well handled, so groups stand to benefit by building their emo onal intelligence. Group emo onal intelligence isn’t a ques on of dealing with a necessary evil —catching emo ons as they bubble up and promptly suppressing them. Far from it. It’s about bringing emo ons deliberately to the surface and understanding how they affect the team’s work. It’s also about behaving in ways that build rela onships both inside and outside the team and that strengthen the team’s ability to face challenges. Emo onal intelligence means exploring, embracing, and ul mately relying on emo on in work that is, at the end of the day, deeply human.

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

these three levels can lead to be er outcomes. First, we’ll focus on the individual level—how emo onally intelligent groups work with their individual members’ emo ons. Next, we’ll focus on the group level. And ﬁnally, we’ll look at the cross-boundary level.

Working with Individuals’ Emo ons Jill Kasper, head of her company’s customer service department, is naturally tapped to join a new cross-funconal team focused on enhancing the customer experience: she has extensive experience in and a real passion for customer service. But her teammates find she brings li le more than a bad a tude to the table. At an early brainstorming session, Jill sits silent, arms crossed, rolling her eyes. Whenever the team starts to get energized about an idea, she launches into a detailed account of how a similar idea went nowhere in the past. The group is confused: this is the customer service star they’ve been hearing about? Li le do they realize she feels insulted by the very forma on of the team. To her, it implies she hasn’t done her job well enough. When a member is not on the same emo onal wavelength as the rest, a team needs to be emo onally intelligent vis-à-vis that individual. In part, that simply means being aware of the problem. Having a norm that encourages interpersonal understanding might facilitate an awareness that Jill is ac ng out of defensiveness. And picking up on this defensiveness is necessary if the team wants to make her understand its desire to amplify her good work, not negate it. Some teams seem to be able to do this naturally. At Hewle -Packard, for instance, we learned of a team that was a emp ng to cross-train its members. The idea was that if each member could pinch hit on everyone else’s job, the team could deploy efforts to whatever task required the most a en on. But one member seemed very uncomfortable with learning new skills and tasks; accustomed to being a top producer in his own job, he hated not knowing how to do a job perfectly. Luckily, his teammates recognized his discomfort, and rather than being annoyed, they redoubled their efforts to support him. This team benefited from a group norm it had established over me emphasizing interpersonal understanding. The norm had grown out of the group’s realiza on that working to accurately hear and under-

stand one another’s feelings and concerns improved member morale and a willingness to cooperate. Many teams build high emo onal intelligence by taking pains to consider ma ers from an individual member’s perspec ve. Think of a situa on where a team of four must reach a decision; three favor one direc on and the fourth favors another. In the interest of expedience, many teams in this situa on would move directly to a majority vote. But a more emo onally intelligent group would pause first to hear out the objec on. It would also ask if everyone were completely behind the decision, even if there appeared to be consensus. Such groups would ask, “Are there any perspec ves we haven’t heard yet or thought through completely?” Perspec ve taking is a team behavior that teamwork experts discuss o en—but not in terms of its emo onal consequence. Many teams are trained to use perspec ve-taking techniques to make decisions or solve problems (a common tool is affinity diagramming). But these techniques may or may not improve a group’s emo onal intelligence. The problem is that many of these techniques consciously a empt to remove emo on from the process by collec ng and combining perspec ves in a mechanical way. A more effec ve approach to perspec ve taking is to ensure that team members see one another making the effort to grapple with perspec ves; that way, the team has a be er chance of crea ng the kind of trust that leads to greater par cipa on among members. An execu ve team at the Hay Group, a consul ng firm, engages in the kind of deep perspec ve taking we’re describing. The team has done role-playing exercises in which members adopt others’ opinions and styles of interac on. It has also used a “storyboarding” technique, in which each member creates a small poster represen ng his or her ideas. As team members will a est, these methods and others have helped the group build trust and increase par cipa on.

Regula ng Individuals’ Emo ons Interpersonal understanding and perspec ve taking are two ways that groups can become more aware of their members’ perspec ves and feelings. But just as important as awareness is the ability to regulate those emo ons—to have a posi ve impact on how they are expressed and even on how individual team members

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

feel. We’re not talking about imposing groupthink or some other form ofmanipula on here—clearly, the goal must be to balance the team’s cohesion with members’ individuality. We’re simply acknowledging that people take their emo onal cues from those around them. Something that seems upse ng ini ally can seem not so bad—or ten mes worse—depending on whether one’s colleagues are inclined to smooth feathers or fan flames. The most construc ve way of regula ng team members’ emo ons is by establishing norms in the group for both confronta on and caring. It may seem illogical to suggest that an emo onally intelligent group must engage in confronta on,but it’s not. Inevitably, a team member will indulge in behavior that crosses the line, and the team must feel comfortable calling the foul. In one manufacturing team we studied, a member told us about the day she selfishly decided to extend her break. Before long, one of her teammates stormed into the break room, saying, “What are you doing in here? Get back out on the floor—your team needs you!” The woman had overstepped the bounds, and she got called on it. There were no hard feelings, because the woman knew the group valued her contribu ons.

Inevitably, a team member will indulge in behavior that crosses the line, and the team must feel comfortable calling the foul. Some teams also find that a li le humor helps when poin ng out errant behavior. Teasing someone who is habitually late for mee ngs, for instance, can make that person aware of how important meliness is to the group. Done right, confronta on can be seen in a posi ve light; it’s a way for the group to say, “We want you in—we need your contribu on.” And it’s especially important when a team must work together on a longterm assignment. Without confronta on, disrup ve behavior can fester and erode a sense of trust in a team. Establishing norms that reinforce caring behavior is o en not very difficult and usually a ma er of concentra ng on li le things. When an individual is upset, for example, it may make all the difference to have group members acknowledge that person’s feelings. We saw this in a mee ng where one team member arrived

angry because the me and place of the mee ng was very inconvenient for him. When another member announced the sacrifice the man had made to be there, and thanked him, the man’s a tude turned around 180 degrees. In general, a caring orienta on includes displaying posi ve regard, apprecia on, and respect for group membersthrough behaviors such as support, valida on, and compassion. Interpersonal understanding, perspec ve taking, confronta on, caring—these norms build trust and a sense of group iden ty among members. And all of them can be established in teams where they don’t arise naturally. You may ask, But is it really worth all the effort? Does it make sense to spend managerial me fostering new norms to accommodate a few prickly personalies? Of course it does. Teams are at the very foundaon of an organiza on, and they won’t work effec vely without mutual trust and a common commitment to goals.

Working with Group Emo ons Chris couldn’t believe it, but he was reques ng a reassignment. The team he was on was doing good work, staying on budget, and hi ng all its deadlines—though not always elegantly. Its leader, Stan Evans, just got a promo on. So why was being on the team such a downer? At the last major status mee ng, they should have been serving champagne—so much had been achieved. Instead, everyone was thoroughly dispirited over a setback they hadn’t foreseen, which turned out later to be no big deal. It seemed no ma er what happened, the group griped. The team even saw Stan’s promo on in a nega ve light: “Oh, so I guess management wants to keep a closer eye on us” and “I hear Stan’s new boss doesn’t back this project.” Chris had a friend on another team who as happy to put in a good word for him. The work was inherently less interes ng—but hey, at least they were having fun. Some teams suﬀer because they aren’t aware of emoons at the group level. Chris’s team, for instance, isn’t aware of all it has achieved, and it doesn’t acknowledge that it has fallen into a malaise. In our study of eﬀec ve teams, we’ve found that having norms for group self-awareness—of emo onal states, strengths and weaknesses, modes of interac on, and task pro-

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

cesses—is a cri cal part of group emo onal intelligence that facilitates group eﬃcacy. Teams gain it both through self evalua on and by solici ng feedback from others. Self-evalua on can take the form of a formal event or a constant ac vity. At Sherwin Williams, a group of managers was star ng a new ini a ve that would require higher levels of teamwork. Group members hired a consultant, but before the consultant arrived, they met to assess their strengths and weaknesses as a team. They found that merely ar cula ng the issues was an important step toward building their capabili es. A far less formal method of raising group emo onal awareness is through the kind of ac vity we saw at the Veterans Health Administra on’s Center for Leadership and Development. Managers there have developed a norm in which they are encouraged to speak up when they feel the group is not being produc ve. For example, if there’s a post-lunch lull and people on the team are low on energy, someone might say, “Don’t we look like a bunch of sad sacks?” With a en on called to it, the group makes an eﬀort to refocus.

Groups are most crea ve when their members collaborate unreservedly. People stop holding back when there is mutual trust, rooted in emoonally intelligent interac ons. Emo onally competent teams don’t wear blinders; they have the emo onal capacity to face poten ally diﬃcult informa on and ac vely seek opinions on their task processes, progress, and performance from the outside. For some teams, feedback may come directly from customers. Others look to colleagues within the company, to suppliers, or to professional peers. A group of designers we studied rou nely posts its work in progress on walls throughout the building, with invitaons to comment and cri que. Similarly, many adversing agencies see annual industry compe ons as a valuable source of feedback on their crea ve teams’ work.

Regula ng Group Emo ons Many teams make conscious eﬀorts to build team spirit. Team-building ou ngs, whether purely social or Outward Bound–style physical challenges, are popular

methods for building this sense of collec ve enthusiasm. What’s going on here is that teams and their leaders recognize they can improve a team’s overall a tude—that is, they are regula ng group-level emoon. And while the focus of a team-building exercise is o en not directly related to a group’s actual work, the benefits are highly relevant: teams come away with higher emo onal capacity and thus a greater ability to respond to emo onal challenges. The most effec ve teams we have studied go far beyond the occasional “ropes and rocks” off-site. They have established norms that strengthen their ability to respond effec vely to the kind of emo onal challenges a group confronts on a daily basis. The norms they favor accomplish three main things: they create resources for working with emo ons, foster an affirma ve environment, and encourage proac ve problem solving. Teams need resources that all members can draw on to deal with group emo ons. One important resource is a common vocabulary. To use an example, a group member at the Veterans Health Administra on picked up on another member’s bad mood and told him that he was just “cranky” today. The “cranky” term stuck and became the group’s gentle way of le ng someone know that their nega vity was having a bad effect on the group. Other resources may include helpful ways to vent frustra ons. One execu ve team leader we interviewed described his team’s prac ce of making me for a “wailing wall”—a few minutes of whining and moaning about some setback. Releasing and acknowledging those nega ve emo ons, the leader says, allows the group to refocus its a en on on the parts of the situa on it can control and channel its energy in a posive direc on. But some mes, ven ng takes more than words. We’ve seen more than one intense workplace ou i ed with toys— like so projec le shooters—that have been used in games of cube warfare. Perhaps the most obvious way to build emo onal capacity through regula ng team-level emo on is simply to create an affirma ve environment. Everyone values a team that, when faced with a challenge, responds with a can-do a tude. Again, it’s a ques on of having the right group norms— in this case, favoring op mism, and posi ve images and interpreta ons over nega ve ones. This doesn’t always come naturally to a team, as

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

one execu ve we interviewed at the Hay Group knows. When external condi ons create a cycle of nega vity among group members, he takes it upon himself to change the atmosphere of the group. He consciously resists the tempta on to join the complaining and blaming and instead tries to reverse the cycle with a posi ve, construc ve note. One of the most powerful norms we have seen for building a group’s ability to respond to emo onally challenging situa ons is an emphasis on proac ve problem solving. We saw a lot of this going on in a manufacturing team we observed at AMP Corporaon. Much of what this team needed to hit its targets was out of its strict control. But rather than sit back and point fingers, the team worked hard to get what it needed from others, and in some cases, took ma ers into its own hands. In one instance, an alignment problem in a key machine was crea ng faulty products. The team studied the problem and approached the engineering group with its own suggested design for a part that might correct the problem. The device worked, and the number of defec ve products decreased significantly. This kind of problem solving is valuable for many reasons. It obviously serves the company by removing one more obstacle to profitability. But, to the point of our work, it also shows a team in control of its own emo ons. It refused to feel powerless and was eager to take charge.

Working with Emo ons Outside the Group Jim sighed. The “Bugs” team was at it again. Didn’t they see that while they were high-fiving one another over their impressive produc vity, the rest of the organiza on was paying for it? This me, in their self-managed wisdom, they’d decided to make a three months’ supply of one component. No changeover meant no machine down me and a record low cost per unit. But now the group downstream was swamped with inventory it didn’t need and worried about shortages of something else. Jim braced himself for his visit to the floor. The Bugs didn’t take cri cism well; they seemed to think they were flawless and that everyone else was just trying to take them down a notch. And what was with that name, anyway? Some kind of inside joke, Jim guessed. Too bad nobody else got it. The last kind of emo onal intelligence any high-per-

forming team should have relates to cross boundary rela onships. Just as individuals should be mindful of their own emo ons and others’, groups should look both inward and outward emo onally. In the case of the Bugs, the team is ac ng like a clique—crea ng close emo onal es within but ignoring the feelings, needs, and concerns of important individuals and teams in the broader organiza on. Some teams have developed norms that are par cularly helpful in making them aware of the broader organiza onal context. One prac ce is to have various team members act as liaisons to important cons tuencies. Many teams are already made up of members drawn from different parts of an organiza on, so a cross-boundary perspec ve comes naturally. Others need to work a li le harder. One team we studied realized it would be important to understand the perspec ve of its labor union. Consequently, a team member from HR went to some lengths to discover the right channels for having a union member appointed to the group. A cross-boundary perspec ve is especially important in situa ons where a team’s work will have significant impact on others in the organiza on—for example, where a team is asked to design an intranet to serve everyone’s needs. We’ve seen many situa ons in which a team is so enamored of its solu on that it is caught completely by surprise when others in the company don’t share its enthusiasm . Some of the most emo onally intelligent teams we have seen are so a uned to their broader organiza onal context that it affects how they frame and communicate their own needs and accomplishments. A team at the chemical-processing company KoSa, for example, felt it needed a new piece of manufacturing equipment, but senior management wasn’t so sure the purchase was a priority. Aware that the decision makers were s ll on the fence, the team decided to emphasize the employee safety benefits of the new machine—just one aspect of its desirability to them, but an issue of paramount importance to management. At a plant safety mee ng a ended by high-level managers, they made the case that the equipment they were seeking would greatly reduce the risk of injury to workers. A few weeks later they got it. Some mes, a team must be par cularly aware of the needs and feelings of another group within the organiza on. We worked with an informa on technology

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

company where the hardware engineers worked separately from the so ware engineers to achieve the same goal—faster processing and fewer crashes. Each could achieve only so much independently. When ﬁnally a hardware team leader went out of his way to build rela onships with the so ware people, the two teams began to cooperate—and together, they achieved 20% to 40% higher performance than had been targeted. This kind of posi ve outcome can be facilitated by norms that encourage a group to recognize the feelings and needs of other groups. We saw eﬀec ve norms for interteam awareness at a division of AMP, where each manufacturing team is responsible for a step in the manufacturing process and they need one another to complete the product on me. Team leaders there meet in the morning to understand the needs, resources, and schedules of each team. If one team is ahead and another is behind, they reallocate resources. Members of the faster team help the team that’s behind and do so in a friendly way that empathizes with their situa on and builds the rela onship.

We’ve seen many situa ons in which a team is so enamored of its solu on that it is caught completely by surprise when others in the company don’t share its enthusiasm. Most of the examples we’ve been ci ng show teams that are not only aware of but also able to inﬂuence outsiders’ needs and perspec ves. This ability to regulate emo on at the cross-boundary level is a group’s version of the “social skills” so cri cal to individual emo onal intelligence. It involves developing external rela onships and gaining the conﬁdence of outsiders, adop ng an ambassadorial role instead of an isola onist one. A manufacturing team we saw at KoSa displayed very high social skills in working with its maintenance team. It recognized that, when problems occurred in the plant, the maintenance team o en had many ac vi es on its plate. All things being equal, what would make the maintenance team consider this par cular manufacturing group a high priority? Knowing a good rela onship would be a factor, the manufacturing team worked hard to build good es with the maintenance people. At one point, for instance, the manufactur-

ing team showed its apprecia on by nomina ng the maintenance team for “Team of the Quarter” recogni on—and then doing all the le er wri ng and behind-the-scenes praising that would ul mately help the maintenance team win. In turn, the manufacturing team’s good rela onship with maintenance helped it become one of the highest producers in the plant.

A Model for Group Emo onal Intelligence We’ve been discussing the need for teams to learn to channel emo on effec vely at the three levels of human interac on important to them: team to individual member, team to itself, and team to outside en es. Together, the norms we’ve been exploring help groups work with emo ons produc vely and intelligently. Often, groups with emo onally intelligent members have norms like these in place, but it’s unlikely any group would unconsciously come up with all the norms we have outlined. In other words, this is a model for group emo onal intelligence that any work team could benefit from by applying it deliberately. What would the ul mate emo onally intelligent team look like? Closest to the ideal are some of the teams we’ve seen at IDEO, the celebrated industrial design firm. IDEO’s crea ve teams are responsible for the look and feel of products like Apple’s first mouse, the Crest toothpaste tube, and the Palm V personal digital assistant. The firm rou nely wins compe ons for the form and func on of its designs and even has a business that teaches crea ve problem-solving techniques to other companies. The nature of IDEO’s work calls for high group emo onal intelligence. Under pressure of client deadlines and budget es mates, the company must deliver innovave, aesthe c solu ons that balance human needs with engineering reali es. It’s a deep philosophical belief at IDEO that great design is best accomplished through the crea ve fric on of diverse teams and not the solitary pursuit of brilliant individuals, so it’s impera ve that the teams at IDEO click. In our study of those teams, we found group norms suppor ng emo onal intelligence at all three levels of our model. First, the teams at IDEO are very aware of individual team members’ emo ons, and they are adept at regula ng them. For example, an IDEO designer became very frustrated because someone from marke ng was

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

insis ng a logo be applied to the designer’s product, which he felt would ruin it visually. At a mee ng about the product, the team’s project leader picked up on the fact thatsomething was wrong. The designer was si ng off by himself, and things “didn’t look right.” Theproject leader looked into the situa on and then ini ated a nego a on that led to a mutual solu on. IDEO team members also confront one another when they break norms. This is common during brainstorming sessions, where the rule is that people must defer judgment and avoid shoo ng down ideas. If someone breaks that norm, the team comes down on him in a playful yet forceful way (imagine being pelted by foam toys). Or if someone is out of line, the norm is to stand up and call her on it immediately. If a client is in the room, the confronta on is subtler—perhaps a kick under the chair. Teams at IDEO also demonstrate strengths in group-focused emo onal intelligence. To ensure they have a high level of self-awareness, teams constantly seek feedback from both inside and outside the organiza on. Most important, they work very closely with customers. If a design is not mee ng customer expecta ons, the team finds out quickly and takes steps to modify it. Regula ng group emo on at IDEO o en means providing outlets for stress. This is a company that believes in playing and having fun. Several hundred finger blasters (a toy that shoots so projec les) have been placed around the building for employees to pick up and start shoo ng when they’re frustrated. Indeed, the design firm’s culture welcomes the expression of emo ons, so it’s not uncommon for someone—whether happy or angry—to stand up and yell. IDEO has even created fun office projects that people can work on if they need a break. For example, they might have a project to design the company holiday card or to design the “tourist stop” displays seen by visitors. Finally, IDEO teams also have norms to ensure they are aware of the needs and concerns of people outside their boundaries and that they use that awareness to develop rela onships with those individuals and groups. On display at IDEO is a curious model: a toy truck with plas c pieces on springs that pop out of the bed of the truck when a bu on is pressed. It turns out the model commemorates an incident that taught a

variety of lessons. The story centers on a design team that had been working for three weeks on a very complex plas c enclosure for a product. Unfortunately, on the Thursday before a Monday client deadline, when an engineer was taking it to be painted, it slipped from his pickup bed and exploded on the road at 70 mph.

A team can have everything going for it—the brightest and most qualiﬁed people, access toresources, a clear mission—but s ll fail because it lacks group emo onal intelligence. The team was willing to work through the weekend to rebuild the part but couldn’t ﬁnish it without the help of the outside fabricator it had used on the original. Because they had taken the me to build a good relaonship with the fabricator, its people were willing to go above and beyond the call of duty. The lighthearted display was a way for teammates to show the engineer that all was forgiven—and a reminder to the rest of the organiza on of how a team in crisis can get by with a li le help from its friends.

Where Do Norms Come From? Not every company is as dependent on teams and their emo onal intelligence as IDEO. But now more than ever, we see companies depending on teams for decisions and tasks that, in another me, would have been the work of individuals. And unfortunately, we also see them discovering that a team can have everything going for it—the brightest and most qualified people, access to resources, a clear mission—but s ll fail because it lacks group emo onal intelligence. Norms that build trust, group iden ty, and group efficacy are the key to making teams click. They allow an otherwise highly skilled and resourced team to fulfill its poten al, and they can help a team faced with substan al challenges achieve surprising victories. So how do norms as powerful as the ones we’ve described in this ar cle come about? In our research, we saw them being introduced from any of five basic direc ons: by formal team leaders, by informal team leaders, by courageous followers, through training, or from the larger organiza onal culture. (For more on how to establish the norms described in this ar cle, see the sidebar “Building Norms for Three Levels of Group Emo onal Intelligence.”)

16 1 6

LAMA L LA AM MA AR REVIEW EVIE EV IEW D DE DECEMBER EC CE EM MB BER BE ER 2016 20 2 0 6

Better Products. Better Science.

ancare.com youtube.com/AncareCorp facebook.com/AncareCorp linkedin.com/companies/Ancare

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

At the Hay Group, for example, it was the deliberate ac on of a team leader that helped one group see the importance of emo ons to the group’s overall effec veness. Because this par cular group was composed of managers from many different cultures, its leader knew he couldn’t assume all the members possessed a high level of interpersonal understanding. To establish that norm, he introduced novel es like having a mee ng without a table, using smaller groups, and conduc ng an inventory of team members’ various learning styles. Interven ons like these can probably be done only by a formal team leader. The ways informal leaders or other team members enhance emo onal intelligence are typically more subtle, though o en just as powerful. Anyone might advance the cause, for example, by speaking up if the group appears to be ignoring an important perspec ve or feeling—or simply by doing his or her part to create an affirma ve environment. Training courses can also go a long way toward increasing emo onal awareness and showing people how to regulate emo ons. We know of many companies that now focus on emo onal issues in leadership development courses, nego a on and communica on workshops, and employee assistance programs like those for stress management. These training programs can sensi ze team members to the importance of establishing emo onally intelligent norms. Finally, perhaps more than anything, a team can be influenced by a broader organiza onal culture that recognizes and celebrates employee emo on. This is clearly the case at IDEO and, we believe, at many of the companies crea ng the greatest value in the new economy. Unfortunately, it’s the most difficult piece of the puzzle to put in place at companies that don’t already have it. For organiza ons with long histories of employees checking their emo ons at the door, change will occur, if at all, one team at a me.

Becoming Intelligent About Emo on The research presented in this ar cle arose from one simple impera ve: in an era of teamwork, it’s essen al to ﬁgure out what makes teams work. Our research shows that, just like individuals, the most eﬀec ve teams are emo onally intelligent ones—and that any team can a ain emo onal intelligence.

Building Norms for Three Levels of Group Emo onal Intelligence Group emo onal intelligence is about the small acts that make a big diﬀerence. It is not about a team member working all night to meet a deadline; it is about saying thank you for doing so. It is not about in-depth discussion of ideas; it is about asking a quiet member for his thoughts. It is not about harmony, lack of tension, and all members liking each other; it is about acknowledging when harmony is false, tension is unexpressed, and trea ng others with respect. The following sidebar outlines some of the small things that groups can do to establish the norms that build group emo onal intelligence.

In this ar cle, we’ve a empted to lay out a model for posi ve change, containing the most important types of norms a group can create to enhance its emo onal intelligence. Teams, like all groups, operate according to such norms. By working to establish norms for emoonal awareness and regula on at all levels of interac on, teams can build the solid founda on of trust, group iden ty, and group eﬃcacy they need for true coopera on and collabora on—and high performance overall. A version of this ar cle appeared in the March 2001 issue of Harvard Business Review. Vanessa Urch Druskat is an assistant professor of organiza onal behavior at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. Steven B. Wolﬀ is an assistant professor of management at the School of Management at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, New York.

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

Emotional Intelligence: Do You Have It? By Marcia Zidle, Smart Moves Coach Marcia@smartmovescoach.com For anyone who wants to advance in their career, emo onal intelligence (EI) is essen al for success. A er all, who is more likely to succeed – a leader who shouts at his team when he’s under stress or a leader who stay in control and calmly assesses the situa on? According to Daniel Goleman, who helped make the idea of EI popular, there are ﬁve main elements of emo onal intelligence. Here are the ﬁrst three. How would you rate yourself?

1. Self-Awareness If you’re self-aware, you usually know how you feel. Most importantly, you know how your emoons and your ac ons can aﬀect the people around you. Being self-aware when you’re in a leadership posi on also means having a clear picture of your strengths and weaknesses. So, what can you do to improve your self-awareness? 

Keep a journal. If you spend just a few minutes each day wri ng down your thoughts, this can move you to a higher degree of self-awareness.



Slow down. When you experience anger or other strong emo ons, slow down to examine why. Remember, no ma er what the situa on, you can always choose how you react to it.

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

2. Self-regulation That means in high charged situa ons, you focus on staying in control of your emo ons. You rarely verbally a ack others, make rushed or emo onal decisions, stereotype people or compromise their values. So, how can you improve your ability to self-regulate? 

Hold yourself accountable. f you tend to blame others when something goes wrong, stop. Make a commitment to admit to your mistakes and face the consequences, whatever they are. You’ll probably sleep be er at night, and you’ll quickly earn the respect of those around you.



Find ways to calm. The next me you’re in a challenging situa on, prac ce deep-breathing exercises to calm yourself. Also, try to write down all of the nega ve things you want to say, and then rip it up and throw it away. Expressing these emo ons on paper is be er than speaking them aloud. What’s more, this helps you challenge your reac ons to make sure that they’re fair!

3. Motivation Self-mo vated leaders consistently work toward their goals. And they have extremely high standards for the quality of their work. How can you improve your mo va on? 

Re-examine where you’re at. It’s easy to forget what you really love about your career. So, take some me to remember why you wanted this job. If you’re unhappy in your role and you’re struggling to remember why you wanted it, ﬁnd the root of the problem and then decide what ac ons to take.



Be hopeful and find something good. Mo vated people are usually op mis c, no ma er what they face. Every me you face a challenge, or even a failure, try to find at least one good thing about the situa on. It might be something small, like a new contact, or something with long-term effects, like an important lesson learned. But there’s almost always something posi ve – you just have to look for it.

Career Success Tip: The be er a leader, manager or professional relates to and works with others, the more successful they will be in their careers. Being competent in these ﬁve emo onal intelligence (EI) elements (self awareness, self regulaon, mo va on, empathy and social skills) will help you excel in the future!

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

4. Empathy This means pu ng yourself in someone else’s situa on. If you want to earn the respect and loyalty of your team, then show them you care. How can you improve your empathy? 

Put yourself in someone else’s posi on. It’s easy to support your own point of view. A er all, it’s yours! But take the me to look at situa ons from other people’s perspec ves.



Pay a en on to body language. Perhaps when you listen to someone, you cross your arms, move your feet back and forth, or bite your lip. This body language tells others how you really feel about a situa on, and the message you’re giving isn’t posi ve! Learning to read body language can be a real asset when you’re in a leadership role because you’ll be be er able to determine how someone truly feels. And this gives you the opportunity to respond appropriately.



Respond to feelings. You ask your assistant to work late – again. And although he agrees, you can hear the disappointment in his voice. So, respond by addressing his feelings. Tell him you appreciate how willing he is to work extra hours and that you’re just as frustrated about working late. If possible, ﬁgure out a way for future late nights to be less of an issue (for example, give him Monday mornings oﬀ).

5. Social skills Those who do well in this element of emo onal intelligence are great communicators. They relate well with most people even those who are different or have different experiences. Because of thier empathy and self awareness are also good at managing change and resolving conflicts diploma cally. Th So, how can you improve your career by building social skills? 

Learn conﬂict resolu on. Everyone – who works with, sells to, leads or helps others, must know how to resolve conﬂicts with their team members, customers, their peers and even bosses. They also need to know how to maneuver the inevitable poli cs within an organiza on.



Improve your communica on skills. How well do you communicate? Our communica on quiz will help you answer this ques on, and it will give useful feedback on what you can do to improve.

Career Success Tip: Emo onal intelligence (EI) is the ability to understand and manage both your own emo ons and those of the people around you. People with a high degree of emo onal intelligence usually know what they’re feeling, what this means and how their emo ons can aﬀect other people.

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

Hotter Heads Prevail by Andrew O’Connell The detached and impassive execu ve may ﬁt the image of the ideal corporate decision maker, but people make be er choices when they’re experiencing intense emo ons, a study suggests. That is, experiencing emo ons but not being led astray by them. The study, by Myeong-Gu Seo of the University of Maryland’s business school and Lisa Feldman Barre of Boston College’s psychology department, found that the most eﬀec ve decision makers were those who had strong feelings while making decisions but were able to prevent their emo ons from impeding their ability to reason. The researchers, whose work appears in a recent issue of the Academy of Management Journal, put about 100 people, drawn from investment clubs, through a four-week online inves ng simula on. Just before they “bought” or “sold” stocks each day on the basis of the latest market data, the par cipants recorded their emo ons and the intensity of their feelings.

Par cipants who happened to be experiencing more intense emo ons at the me they made their stock choices (whether related to the investment or not) did be er on their investments. The findings support the view of researchers who believe that strong emo ons, rather than being harmful in decision making, are beneficial to it because they boost a enon and memory. Accordingly, to improve the quality of decisions, companies should strive to rid themselves of the social constraints against intense emo ons at work, the authors say. At the same me, managers and employees should try to increase their emo onal self-awareness and learn to describe and differen ate their feelings—especially nega ve ones—during decision making. Par cipants with a more refined ability to perceive and describe their feelings, the study also found, were be er at preven ng their emo ons from biasing their decisions. A version of this ar cle appeared in the December 2007 issue of Harvard Business Review.

Controlling for par cipants’ age and investment Andrew O’Connell, an editor with the Harvard experience, the researchers assessed decision Business Review Group, is the author of Stats performance by calcula ng what the returns and Curiosi es from Harvard Business Review. would have been if the par cipants had actually invested. (The par cipants were also rewarded—with real money—for making choices that would have yielded high returns.)

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

Emotional Agility by Susan David and Chris na Congleton

Sixteen thousand—that’s

how many words we speak, on average, each day. So imagine how many unspoken ones course through our minds. Most of them are not facts but evalua ons and judgments entwined with emo ons—some posi ve and helpful (I’ve worked hard and I can ace this presenta on; This issue is worth speaking up about; The new VP seems approachable), others nega ve and less so (He’s purposely ignoring me; I’m going to make a fool of myself; I’m a fake). The prevailing wisdom says that diﬃcult thoughts and feelings have no place at the oﬃce:

Execu ves, and par cularly leaders, should be either stoic or cheerful; they must project conﬁdence and damp down any nega vity bubbling up inside them. But that goes against basic biology. All healthy human beings have an inner stream of thoughts and feelings that include cri cism, doubt, and fear. That’s just our minds doing the job they were designed to do: trying to an cipate and solve problems and avoid poten al pi alls. In our people-strategy consul ng prac ce advising companies around the world, we see leaders stumble not because they have undesirable thoughts and feelings—that’s inevitable—but because they get hooked by them, like ﬁsh caught on a line. This happens

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

in one of two ways. They buy into the thoughts, treating them like facts (It was the same in my last job…I’ve been a failure my whole career), and avoid situa ons that evoke them (I’m not going to take on that new challenge). Or, usually at the behest of their supporters, they challenge the existence of the thoughts and try to ra onalize them away (I shouldn’t have thoughts like this…I know I’m not a total failure), and perhaps force themselves into similar situa ons, even when those go against their core values and goals (Take on that new assignment—you’ve got to get over this). In either case, they are paying too much a en on to their internal cha er and allowing it to sap important cogni ve resources that could be put to be er use. This is a common problem, o en perpetuated by popular self-management strategies. We regularly see execu ves with recurring emo onal challenges at work—anxiety about priori es, jealousy of others’ success, fear of rejec on, distress over perceived slights—who have devised techniques to “ﬁx” them: posi ve aﬃrma ons, priori zed to-do lists, immersion in certain tasks. But when we ask how long the challenges have persisted, the answer might be 10 years, 20 years, or since childhood. Clearly, those techniques don’t work—in fact, ample research shows that a emp ng to minimize or ignore thoughts and emo ons serves only to amplify them. In a famous study led by the late Daniel Wegner, a Harvard professor, par cipants who were told to avoid thinking about white bears had trouble doing so; later, when the ban was li ed, they thought about white

What Are Your Values? This list is drawn from the Personal Values Card Sort (2001), developed by W.R. Miller, J. C’de Baca, D.B. Ma hews, and P.L. Wilbourne, of the University of New Mexico. You can use it to quickly iden fy the values you hold that might inform a challenging situa on at work. When you next make a decision, ask yourself whether it is consistent with these values.

bears much more than the control group did. Anyone who has dreamed of chocolate cake and french fries while following a strict diet understands this phenomenon. Eﬀec ve leaders don’t buy into or try to suppress their inner experiences. Instead they approach them in a mindful, values-driven, and produc ve way—developing what we call emo onal agility. In our complex, fast-changing knowledge economy, this ability to manage one’s thoughts and feeling is essen al to business success. Numerous studies, from the University of London professor Frank Bond and others, show that emo onal agility can help people alleviate stress, reduce errors, become more innova ve, and improve job performances. We’ve worked with leaders in various industries to build this cri cal skill, and here we oﬀer four pracces—adapted from Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), originally developed by the University of Nevada psychologist Steven C. Hayes—that are designed to help you do the same: Recognize your patterns; label your thoughts and emo ons; accept them; and act on your values.

Fish on a Line Let’s start with two case studies. Cynthia is a senior corporate lawyer with two young children. She used to feel intense guilt about missed opportuni es—both at the oﬃce, where her peers worked 80 hours a week while she worked 50, and at home, where she was

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

o en too distracted or red to fully engage with her husband and children. One nagging voice in her head told her she’d have to be a be er employee or risk career failure; another told her to be a be er mother or risk neglec ng her family. Cynthia wished that at least one of the voices would shut up. But neither would, and in response she failed to put up her hand for exci ng new prospects at the office and compulsively checked messages on her phone during family dinners. Jeffrey, a rising-star execu ve at a leading consumer goods company, had a different problem. Intelligent, talented, and ambi ous, he was o en angry—at bosses who disregarded his views, subordinates who didn’t follow orders, or colleagues who didn’t pull their weight. He had lost his temper several mes at work and been warned to get it under control. But when he tried, he felt that he was shu ng off a core part of his personality, and he became even angrier and more upset. These smart, successful leaders were hooked by their nega ve thoughts and emo ons. Cynthia was absorbed by guilt; Jeffrey was exploding with anger. Cynthia told the voices to go away; Jeffrey bo led his frustra on. Both were trying to avoid the discomfort they felt. They were being controlled by their inner experience, a emp ng to control it, or switching between the two.

Getting Unhooked Fortunately, both Cynthia and Jeﬀrey realized that they couldn’t go on—at least not successfully and happily—without more-eﬀec ve inner strategies. We coached them to adopt the four prac ces:

Recognize your patterns. The ﬁrst step in developing emo onal agility is to no ce when you’ve been hooked by your thoughts and feelings. That’s hard to do, but there are certain telltale signs. One is that your thinking becomes rigid and repe ve. For example, Cynthia began to see that her self-recrimina ons played like a broken record, repea ng the same messages over and over again. Another is that the story your mind is telling seems old, like a rerun of some past experience. Jeﬀrey no ced that his a tudetoward certain col-

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

leagues (He’s incompetent; There’s no way I’m le ng anyone speak to me like that) was quite familiar. In fact, he had experienced something similar in his previous

Leaders stumble when they are paying too much a en on to their internal cha er and allowing it to sap important cogni ve resources that could be put to be er use. job—and in the one before that. The source of trouble was not just Jeﬀrey’s environment but his own pa erns of thought and feeling. You have to realize that you’re stuck before you can ini ate change.

Label your thoughts and emotions. When you’re hooked, the a en on you give your thoughts and feelings crowds your mind; there’s no room to examine them. One strategy that may help you consider your situa on more objec vely is the simple act of labeling. Just as you call a spade a spade, call a thought a thought and an emo on an emo on. I’m not doing enough at work or at home becomes I’m having the thought that I’m not doing enough at work or at home. Similarly, My coworker is wrong—he makes me so angry becomes I’m having the thought that my coworker is wrong, and I’m feeling anger. Labeling allows you to see your thoughts and feelings for what they are: transient sources of data that may or may not prove helpful. Humans are psychologically able to take this helicopter view of private experiences, and moun ng scien ﬁc evidence shows that simple, straigh orward mindfulness prac ce like this not only improves behavior and well-being but also promotes beneﬁcial biological changes in the brain and at the cellular level. As Cynthia started to slow down and label her thoughts, the cri cisms that had once pressed in on her like a dense fog became more like clouds passing through a blue sky.

Accept them. The opposite of control is acceptance—not ac ng on every thought or resigning yourself to nega vity but responding to your ideas and emo ons with an open a tude, paying a en on to them and le ng yourself experience them. Take 10 deep breaths and no ce what’s happening in the moment. This can bring relief, but it won’t necessarily make you feel good. In fact, you may realize just how upset you really are. The

Evaluate Your Emotional Agility Exercise Choose a challenging situa on in your work life—for example, “Receiving nega ve feedback from my boss” or “Asking my boss for a raise.” Iden fy a thought that “hooks” you in that situa on, such as “My boss has no conﬁdence in me” or “My contribu on isn’t as valuable as my teammates’.” Ask yourself: “To what extent do I avoid this thought, trying to make it go away?” A lot, somewhat, not at all? “To what extent do I buy into it, le ng it overwhelm me?” Iden fy a feeling that this situa on evokes. Is it anger, sadness, fear, shame, disgust, or something else? Ask yourself: “To what extent do I avoid or try to ignore this feeling?” “To what extent do I buy into it?” Advice If you primarily avoid your thoughts and feelings, try to acknowledge them instead. No ce thoughts as they arise and check your emo onal state several mes a day so that you can iden fy the useful informa on your mind is sending you. If you primarily buy into your thoughts and feelings, ﬁnd your ground. Take 10 deep breaths, no ce your environment, and label—rather than being swept up in— them. If you alternate, learn your pa erns. Pay a en on to which thoughts and feelings you avoid and which you buy into so that you can respond with one of the strategies we describe. The next step is to take ac on that aligns with your values. (For examples, see the sidebar “What Are Your Values?”) Iden fy which ones you want to apply in the context of the challenging situa on you’ve described.

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

important thing is to show yourself (and others) some compassion and examine the reality of the situa on. What’s going on—both internally and externally? When Jeﬀrey acknowledged and made room for his feelings of frustra on and anger rather than rejec ng them, quashing them, or taking them out on others, he began to no ce their energe c quality. They were a signal that something important was at stake and that he needed to take produc ve ac on. Instead of yelling at people, he could make a clear request of a colleague or move swi ly on a pressing issue. The more Jeﬀrey accepted his anger and brought his curiosity to it, the more it seemed to support rather than undermine his leadership.

Act on your values. When you unhook yourself from your difficult thoughts and emo ons, you expand your choices. You can decide to act in a way that aligns with your values. We encourage leaders to focus on the concept of workability: Is your response going to serve you and your organiza on in the long term as well as the short term? Will it help you steer others in a direc on that furthers your collec ve purpose? Are you taking a step toward being the leader you most want to be and living the life you most want to live? The mind’s thought stream flows endlessly, and emo ons change like the weather, but values can be called on at any me, in any situa on. When Cynthia considered her values, she recognized how deeply commi ed she was to both her family and her work; she loved being with her children, but she also cared passionately about the pursuit of jus ce. Unhooked from her distrac ng and discouraging feelings of guilt, she resolved to be guided by her principles. She recognized how important it was to get home for dinner with her family every evening and to resist work interrup ons during that me. But she also undertook to make a number of important business trips, some of which coincided with school events that she would have preferred a end. Confident that her values, not solely her emo ons, were guiding her, Cynthia finally found peace and fulfillment. It’s impossible to block out difficult thoughts and emo ons. Effec ve leaders are mindful of their inner experiences but not caught in them. They know how to free up their internal resources and commit to ac ons that align with their values. Developing emo onal agility is no quick fix—even

those who, like Cynthia and Jeﬀrey, regularly prac ce the steps we’ve outlined here will o en ﬁnd themselves hooked. But over me, leaders who become increasingly adept at it are the ones most likely to thrive. A version of this ar cle appeared in the November 2013 issue of Harvard Business Review.

Susan David is a founder of the Harvard/McLean Ins tute of Coaching and is on faculty at Harvard. She is author of Emoonal Agility (Avery, 2016) based on the concept named by HBR as a Management Idea of the Year. An in-demand speaker and advisor, David has worked with the senior leadership of hundreds of major organiza ons, including the United Na ons, Ernst & Young, and the World Economic Forum. For more informa on, go to www.susandavid.com or @SusanDavid_PhD.

Chris na Congleton is a leadership and change consultant at Axon Coaching, and researches stress and the brain at the University of Denver. She holds a master’s in human development and psychology from Harvard University.

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

Interna onal Business Research; Vol. 9, No. 3; 2016 E-ISSN 1913-9012 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Educa on

ISSN 1913-9004

Beyond the Expected Ac vi es: The Role of Impulsivity between Emo onal Intelligence and Employee Crea vity Ebru Gozukara1 1 T. C. Istanbul Arel University, Turkey Correspondence: Ebru Gozukara, Department of Business Administra on, Faculty of Economic and Administra ve Sciences T. C. Istanbul Arel University, 34537, Turkey. Tel: 90-532-501-9797. E-mail: ebrugozukara@arel.edu.tr Received: January 26, 2016 Accepted: February 16, 2016 Online Published: February 25, 2016 doi: 10.5539/ibr.v9n3p143 URL: h p://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v9n3p143

Abstract Individual crea vity is considered as an individual phenomenon level that provides the produc on of new and extremely valuable ideas for organiza ons. Organiza onal level studies indicate that there are lots of factors examined in individual and group levels within organiza ons like innova on climate effec ng individual crea vity, group communica on, leadership style and crea vity core competences. This study is based on the employees of a company who are affected by the individual impulsivity behavior, providing posi ve increase in the performance of the company by the help of crea vity features of the employees. Accordingly, individuals’ behaviors leading to impulsivity are examined in a number of dimensions such as premedita on, urgency, sensa on seeking and perseverance. These dimensions influence the crea vity of employees. Impulsivity is an important psychological situa on, studied in many individuals and generally in systema c level. In addi on, this study examines the assump on that emo onal intelligence, consis ng self-emo on appraisal, other-emo on appraisal, use of emo on, regula on of emo on dimensions has an influence on the rela on between employee impulsivity behavior and employee crea vity. This study also examines whether the rela onship among the impulsivity behavior, emo onal intelligence and crea vity of an employee changes with respect to gender. Keywords: impulsivity behavior, emo onal intelligence, employee crea vity

Introduc on

Impulsivity is a comprehensive subject due to its mul disciplinary structure and as a result doesn’t have an agreed or collec ve defini on. However it may be defined as the inability to avoid behaviors and acts according to situa ons (Milich & Kramer, 1982) or incita on to act without any plan or thinking with the tendency of impulse (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1977; Schalling, 1978); (Gordon, 1979); (Mar n et al., 1994). Impulsivity is an a ribu on of personality that a person shows unpredictable behavior by the urgency of the moment. Accordingly, it refers to individuals who rush into quick decisions (Nederkoorn et al., 2006). These unpredictable behaviors can reveal crea ve and novel problem solving, opinions, works or behaviors due to the nature conceptualiza on of the crea vity (Amabile, 1996). Emo onal intelligence is one of the factors reported to have an impact on an individual’s work behavior (Groves, McEnrue, & Shen, 2008). This study focuses on the employees with the ability to effec vely manage their emo ons and use of emo onal intelligence that have been found to show be er crea ve performance when affected by the impulsive behavior.

Theore cal Framework and Hypothesis Development

2.1 The Impulsivity and Individual Crea vity of Employees

There are different kinds of defini ons of impulsivity sugges ng that the behaviors occur without any premedita on or conscious assignment. Nearly all the defini ons concerning the characteriza on of the impulsivity include charac-

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

terizing features such as “ac ng on the spur of the moment” and “the difficulty in sufficient planning, focusing on a specific problem” (Moeller et al., 2001, Pa on et al., 1995) Other defini ons involve the sensa on seeking and risk taking dimensions of the variable (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1977), (Evren et al., 2011). In order to measure impulsive behavior self-report ques onnaires and laboratory based tasks may be used while some other aspects can be calculated by using different measurement methods (Aichert et al., 2012; Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2011; Dalley et al., 2008). In self-report ques onnaires impulsivity includes dimensions such as sensa on seeking, risk taking, lack of planning, perseverance, and ac ng on impulses (Whiteside & Lynam, 2001); however, laboratory based tasks relate to dimensions like response inhibi on or interference control, as well as impulsive choice tasks (e.g., delay discoun ng) and me es ma on (Dougherty et al., 2005; Friedman & Miyake, 2004; Nigg, 2000; Robbins et al., 2012). The general impulsive behavior through a me period may be measured by self-reported impulsivity scales. Thus observing an individual’s behavior may cause a stronger trait level in personality (Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2011). Crea vity has been evaluated especially in arts, music, adver sing, psychology, management studies for decades, and now in business where the success factors are studied in detail, crea vity comes to the fore (Koslow et al., 2003, 2006; Sasser & Koslow, 2008; Verbeke et al., 2008b; Zhou & George, 2003). The common characteris c of crea vity is to generate ideas, alterna ves or possibili es to the problems to be solved and to develop new ideas and convert the new and imagina ve concept into reality. Thus organiza ons need highly crea ve employees to survive in the compe ve business environment (Lassk & Shepherd, 2013). Increase in crea vity in workplaces in turn increases the employee performance, job sa sfac on, and progress in business (Dubinsky & Ingram, 1983; Wang & Netemeyer, 2004). Crea vity is the emergence of new ideas (Beesley & Cooper, 2008) to build up a different impression in business environment, thus organiza ons must develop and encourage crea ve behavior among their employees (Nieves et al., 2014). The employee crea vity is shaped by the individual factors and the context of the workplace (Shalley et al., 2004). However the behavior of a leader is very important in producing crea ve and/or innova ve outputs and has effect on employee’s performance (Shalley & Gilson, 2004). For example, a leader’s behavior is the most important factor in the work environment, increasing or decreasing the crea vity among the individuals (Amabile et al., 2004). From this point of view, as impulsivity is recognized as an individual’s behavior it would have an impact on the employee crea vity. This study u lizes both approaches to introduce a comprehensive model to predict the between the employee crea vity and other variables examined. Impulsivity is an unexpectedly performed ac vity which includes a self-referent nature of any kind of behavior instead of being precau ous (Johnson et al., 2013). These unexpected ac vi es which are called impulsive behaviors

have some novelty feelings without regard for rules and regula ons (Cloninger et al., 1993). Crea vity skills usually have been thought to not be governed by any rules (Mumford et al., 1996). Accordingly it is hypothesized that; H1: Premedia on impulsive behavior posi vely related to individual crea vity. H2: Urgency impulsive behavior posi vely related to individual crea vity. H3: Sensa on seeking impulsive behavior posi vely related to individual crea vity. H4: Perseverance impulsive behavior posi vely related to individual crea vity. 2.2 The Modera ng Role of Emo onal Intelligence

Emo ons are thought to be strong psychological forces that can influence employees in a workplace, in par cular their behavior and performance (Kidwell et al., 2011). The term is described as the capability of an individual to “perceive, appreciate, handle, deal with and conceive his/ her own and the others’ feelings” and “to regulate their thoughts successfully in order to cope with the environmental and social difficul es and to achieve the desired responses” (Mayer & Salovey, 2007; Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004; Mayer et al., 2008; Vigoda-Gadot & Meisler, 2010). Studies on Emo onal Intelligence (EI) are conducted in many fields such as management, human resources, organiza onal behavior literature and in performance evalua on of employees in workplaces (O’Boyle Jr. et al., 2011, Wisker & Poulis, 2015). A well-organized rela onship among employees, customers or leaders is a cri cal key for success in performance or crea vity and especially in collabora ve workplace environment. EI helps employee or leaders to create this medium of crea vity (Mathew & Gupta, 2015). EI has been also defined in five constructs related to the individuals in business environment: Knowing and managing one’s emo ons, mo va ng oneself by marshalling emo ons, recognizing emo ons in individuals, and managing emo ons in others so as to handle rela onships in workplace (Mathiew & Gupta, 2015). Mathew et al. (2004) had serious comments on EI since the researches published on this subject does not contain any empirical arguments (Gibbs, 1995; Goleman, 1995, 1998). Nevertheless the concept and context of EI have been accepted in numerous studies as well (Davies et al., 1998; Mayer et al., 2007, 2004; Law et al., 2004; Chrusciel, 2006). Palmer and Stough (2001) stated EI as “an individual’s capacity to perceive, understand, integrate and manage one’s own and other people’s feelings and emo ons and to act upon them in a reflec ve and ra onal manner”. The applica on of these capabili es of an individual or employee will be professional and effec ve in business life or workplace environment. There are four dimensions of the concept of EI suggested by Mayer et al. (2007, 2004): (1) understanding, evalua ng and expressing emo on; (2) using emo on to promote thinking; (3) understanding the temporal course and probable outcome of emo ons;

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

and (4) regula ng emo ons effec vely. Van Rooy and Viswesvaran (2004) also described EI as the emo on required to guide thinking and ac on that can successfully cope with environmental demands and pressures. Furthermore, the level of “emo onal intelligence” in an individual is sensi ve to the environment or its surroundings according to Zeidner et al. (2004). In order to have a net self-evalua on in individuals, high EI is needed. The strength of communica on with employees in a correct manner in business environment, appropriate type of behavior control, changing of working condi ons in a posi ve way are all evaluated as contribu ons to high EI (Ö lçer et al., 2014). EI is a very important factor that enhances the crea vity by generating open-minded, exci ng working environments and mo va ng the workers to produce inspired ideas, which brings success at the end (Rego et al., 2007; Lassk & Shepherd, 2013). Consequently, through the effect of emo onal intelligence on environment and its surroundings, individual crea vity skills can be affected by these emo ons. When emo onal intelligence shows strong existence on individual behaviors the impulsive behaviors could have a stronger impact on individual crea vity. Thus H5 is developed as: H5: Emo onal intelligence shows a modera ng effect between the rela onship of impulsivity and individual crea vity.

Research Design and Measures

To test the above hypotheses, mul -item scales adopted from or developed in prior studies for measurement of the variables were used. Research variables were measured using 5-point Likert scales ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). A summary of the measures is as follows. For impulsivity, the survey items of impulsive behavior scale developed by Whiteside and Lynam (2001) are modified. Consistent with these researchers, eleven items are included to assess the premedia on, twelve items to measure the urgency, ten items for perseverance and twelve items to measure the sensa on seeking. For emo onal intelligence contents (i.e., self_emo on appraisal, other emo on appraisal, use of emo on and regula on of emo on) the ques onnaire items used by Law et al. (2004) are adapted. Individual crea vity was measured using fi een items adapted from a scale developed by Chae et al. (2015). The research’s conceptual model, based on previous studies, is given in Fig. 1, showing the impact of four antecedent factors-premedia on, urgency, sensa on seeking and perseverance-on individual crea vity of employees. Employees’ impulsive behaviors and its dimensions are hypothesized to have a direct influence on individual crea vity of employees. Emo onal intelligence is also hypothesized to moderate the rela onship between impulsivity and individual crea vity.

4. Sampling A er developing the new ques onnaire items in English, two academics from US-based universi es, evaluated the content and significance of the items to establish face validity. They did not note any difficulty in understanding the items or scales. These new and adopted ques onnaire items were first translated into Turkish by one person and then retranslated

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

into English by a second person using the parallel-transla on method. The two translators then jointly reconciled all differences. A dra ques onnaire was developed and then evaluated and revised in discussions with two academics from Turkey having the knowledge of organiza onal behaviors as expert judges. The suitability of the Turkish version of the ques onnaires was then pre-tested by 15 part- me graduate students who are full- me employees working in industrial companies. In addi on employees randomly selected from a diverse cross-sec on of companies located in Istanbul evaluated the content and significance of the items. Respondents did not demonstrate any difficulty in understanding the items or scales. A er confirming the ques onnaire items, the ques onnaires were distributed and collected by the authors. The sampling popula on consisted of 218 employees located in Istanbul, Turkey. Because of data screening, 53 out of 218 surveys were discarded. In this study sample, the respondents were working in departments of machinery and manufacturing (27%), human resources (23%), manufacturing (19%), marke ng (16%), finance (12%), public rela ons (2%), and engineering and design (1%). The mean age of the par cipants was 36.27(s.d. = 5.12) with 51% being female and 52% married. Of the par cipants, 48% had post-graduate degrees.

5. Measure Validity, Reliability and Hypothesis Tes ng Impulsivity, emo onal intelligence and individual crea vity a er the factor analysis applied to the data to test the hypotheses of

the study are given in Table 1. The applica on of the factor analysis to the data to test the hypotheses of the study shows that the impulsivity measure is divided into four factors: Premedia on, urgency, sensa on making and perseverance. Emo onal intelligence measure is divided into four factors as well: self-emo on appraisal, other-emo on appraisal, use of emo on and regula on of emo on. Individual crea vity has been seen as one factor as in the original study. The factor loads of these dimensions are given in Table 1.

Table 1. Factor analysis results Items Premedia on I have a reserved and cau ous a tude toward life My thinking is usually careful and purposeful. I am not one of those people who blurt out things without thinking. I like to stop and think things over before I do them I don’t like to start a project un l I know exactly how to proceed I tend to value and follow a ra onal, ``sensible’’ approach to things. I usually make up my mind through careful reasoning I am a cau ous person. Before I get into a new situa on I like to ﬁnd out what to expect from it. I usually think carefully before doing anything.

Front Loadings 0.793 0.779 0.755 0.747 0.735 0.727 0.685 0.673 0.668 0.667

Urgency I have trouble controlling my impulses. I have trouble resis ng my cravings (for food, cigare es, etc.) I o en get involved in things I later wish I could get out of When I feel bad, I will o en do things I later regret in order to make myself feel be er now. Some mes when I feel bad, I can’t seem to stop what I am doing even though it is making me feel worse. When I am upset I o en act without thinking. It is hard for me to resist ac ng on my feelings. I o en make ma ers worse because I act without thinking when I am upset. In the heat of an argument, I will o en say things that I later regret. I am always able to keep my feelings under control. (R)

0.813 0.763 0.75 0.749 0.732 0.73 0.724 0.687 0.652 0.611

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

Some mes I do things on impulse that I later regret.

0.609

Sensa on Seeking I generally seek new and exci ng experiences and sensa ons. I’ll try anything once. I like sports and games in which you have to choose your next move very quickly. I would enjoy water skiing. I quite enjoy taking risks. I would enjoy parachute jumping. I welcome new and exci ng experiences and sensa ons, even if they are a li le frightening and unconven onal. I would like to learn to ﬂy an airplane. I some mes like doing things that are a bit frightening. I would enjoy the sensa on of skiing very fast down a high mountain slope. I would like to go scuba diving. I would enjoy fast driving.

0.848 0.829 0.829 0.813 0.792 0.748 0.748 0.72 0.609 0.609 0.608 0.607

Perseverance I generally like to see things through to the end. I tend to give up easily. (R) Unﬁnished tasks really bother me.

0.787 0.778 0.77

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

Once I get going on something I hate to stop. I concentrate easily. I ﬁnish what I start. I’m pre y good about pacing myself so as to get things done on me. I am a produc ve person who always gets the job done. Once I start a project, I almost always ﬁnish it. There are so many li le jobs that need to be done that I some mes just ignore them all. (R)

0.698 0.69 0.688 0.64 0.631 0.63 0.628

Self-emo on appraisal I have a good sense of why I have certain feelings most of the I have a good understanding of my own emo ons I really understand what I feel I always know whether or not I am happy

0.804 0.878 0.706 0.699

Other–emo on appraisal I always know what my friends are feeling based on their behavior I am a good observer of others’ emo ons I am sensi ve to the feelings and emo ons of others I have a good understanding of the emo ons of those around me

0.772 0.754 0.753 0.717

Use of Emo on I always set goals for myself and then try my best to achieve them I always tell myself I am a competent person I am a self-mo va ng person I always encourage myself to try my best

0.828 0.813 0.704 0.701

Regula on of Emo on I am able to control my temper so that I can handle diﬃcul es ra onally I am quite capable of controlling my own emo ons I can always calm down quickly a er I get very angry I have a lot of control over my emo ons

0.767 0.731 0.653 0.601

Individual Crea vity Among my team members, I will be the first or nearly the first to try our new idea or method. I usually find new uses for exis ng methods or exis ng equipment I develop adequate plans and schedules for the implementa on of new ideas I suggest new and be er ways to achieve goal or objec ves

0.896 0.746 0.874 0.907

To test research hypotheses, a serious of mul ple linear regression models are conducted. However, before carrying out any analysis, the mean of items (composite scores) is calculated for each variable in the sample of 165 surveys from employees. The Spearman-Brown test of the interclass correla on (ICC) is used to determine the reliability of the aggregated percep ons (James, 1982). The results showed that ICC for all measures ranged from 0.64 to 0.94, well above the 0.60. To test the modera ng role of emo onal intelligence between impulsivity and individual crea vity of employees, a moderated mul ple hierarchical regression analysis was used (Irwin & McCelland, 2001). Because of the possibility of mul collinearity, the impulsivity and emo onal intelligence constructs’ measures were mean-centered before performing the linear regression model as suggested by Aiken and West (1991). Variance inﬂa on factors (VIF) are es mated to examine mul collinearity levels and the results (VIFs, 10) were found to be below a harmful level (Neter et al.,

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

1990). In addi on the R2 regression is compared with and without the cross product to determine if the incremental R2 is significant. Results show that the inclusion of the interac on terms on the hierarchical regression added a significant variance explana on (p < .05) in the models in Table 2. As shown in Table 3, premedia on impacts the individual crea vity (b = .47, p < .01), urgency impacts the individual crea vity (b = .10, p < .05), sensa on seeking impact the individual crea vity (b = .36, p < .01), and perseverance impacts the individual crea vity (b = .35, p < .01). Thus, H1, H2, H3, H4 were supported. However, as shown in Table 3, the coefficients of the interac on terms demonstrate that, with a high level of emo onal intelligence, the dynamics of sensa on seeking have a posi ve associa on with individual crea vity, par ally suppor ng Hypothesis 5. The results also show that the effect of the dynamics of experiencing on impulsivity has an ‘‘ ’’ shape with respect to the emo onal intelligence (for instance, the coefficient of quadra c variable, emo onal intelligence *dyn. of impulsivity is nega vely significant), par ally suppor ng Hypothesis 5.

Table 2. Descrip ve scales and construct correla ons, and reliability es mates Mean

1. Self Emo on Appraisal

3.56

.67

2.Other Emo on Appraisal

3.76

.67

0.585**

3. Use of Emo on

3.57

.64

0.679**

0.460**

4. Regula on of Emo on

3.66

.53

0.679**

0.446**

0.542**

5. Premedia on

3.47

.61

0.571**

0.457**

0.653**

0.470**

6. Urgency

3.44

.60

-0.037

0.036

-0.009

-0.025**

-0.030

7. Sensa on Seeking

2.88

.70

0.305**

0.242**

0.336**

0.204**

0.338**

0.198**

8. Perseverance

3.17

.39

0.582**

0.493**

0.532**

0.401**

0.536**

-0.026

0.452**

9. Individual Crea vity

3.65

.52

0.475**

0.472**

0.557**

0.395**

0.653**

0.098

0.517**

0.572**

Cronbach Alfa

.91

.84

.78

.82

.63

.89

.78

.89

Composite Reliability(CR)

.91

.82

.74

.83

.64

.89

.78

.89

.58

.57

.48

.55

.47

.53

.73

.42

Average Varia on Extracted(AVE)

Note. *p<0.05, **p<0.01.

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

Table 3. Modera ng eﬀect of emo onal intelligence on individual crea vity of employees DV: Individual Crea vity Model 1

Model 2

Main Eﬀects Premedita on

0.47***

0.58**

Urgency

0.10**

0.45

Sensa on Seeking

0.36***

1.28***

Perseverance

0.35***

0.66**

Emo onal Intelligence

0.26

0.39

Interac ons Emo Emo Emo Emo

-0.21 -0.39 -1.22*** -0.53

onal IntelligencexPremedia on onal IntelligencexUrgency onal IntelligencexSensa on Seeking onal IntelligencexPerseverance

R2 Adjusted R2 F value

.052 .062 .019**

.583 .491 .227***

Notes. *p < .1; **p< .05; ***p < .01. Regression coeﬃcients are standardized.

Discussion and Future Research

This study offers a contribu on to the business management literature by empirically inves ga ng the interrela onship among employee impulsivity behavior, emo onal intelligence and individual crea vity of employees. By highligh ng the role of emo onal intelligence in influencing individual crea vity of employees, this study offers a framework for researchers and managers to visualize and understand the rela onship between impulsivity behaviors and crea vity skills of employees, thus enhancing the movement of the business and performance view. First, the role of an employee’s impulsivity on the individual crea vity was empirically inves gated. The results showed that, when an employee shows impulsive behavior in the workplace among premedia on, urgency, sensa on seeking or perseverance behaviors it directly impacts the individual crea vity in a posi ve manner. Employees’ behaviors come from their impulses. When an employee cannot keep his/her feelings under control or enjoy unusual sports or experiences like scuba diving, parachute jumping or fly an airplane, he/she tends to show crea ve thinking or complete tasks in efficient ways. Crea ve products are the outcomes of processes engaged in by crea ve individuals (Kim et al., 2010). This study indicates that individual crea vity is affected by employees’ impulsive behaviors, thus adding new insights to innova on management and organiza onal behavior. The results of this study also show that emo onal intelligence does not mediate the rela onship between employees’ impulsivity and individual crea vity. On the other hand, it was confirmed that emo onal intelligence might be par cularly effec ve on the rela on of sensa on seeking and individual crea vity. Specifically when employees under the condi ons of low or high emo onal intelligence about their emo onal effort or interac on, their sensa on seeking effect on their individual crea vity can be more or less level. It is found that emo onal intelligence impacts individual crea vity with a “ ” shape. This finding shows that when the emo onal intelligence is at moderate level, the effect of sensa on seeking of an employee on their crea vity is weak. However, when an employee has more emo onal intelligence, his/her sensa on seeking behaviors strongly impact individual crea vity. From this research, management can understand the unknown side of impulsivity to increase individual crea vity. Thus, management should focus on impulsivity as premedia on, urgency, sensa on seeking and perseverance dimensions to have more effec ve outcomes of the employee’s crea vity. Emo onal intelligence in par cular, is important to develop crea vity of the employees. Being in the process of enhancing the strategies for the firm; managers should be placed the employees who has abili es of sensa on seeking and emo onal intelligence at crucial posi ons that needs crea vity for the innova ve outcomes. There are some methodological limita ons to this study. First, the sample size was rela vely small. These sample characteris cs may bias the results that would have emerged in a larger and slightly more heterogeneous sample popula on. Second, the data has been obtained from self-completed ques onnaires. Thus, the common method bias could be a problem. To ensure that this problem was not a significant issue in the study, the single-common-method-factor approach was conducted to assess the common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). For the future research, organiza onal culture and innova ve climate variables can be expanded in the research model. The rela onship between the impulsivity and employees crea vity can differ on the modera ng effect of organiza onal culture and innova ve climate.

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

References Aichert, D. S., Williams, S. C. R., Möller, H. J., Kumari, V., & E nger, U. (2012). Func onal neural correlates of psychometric schizotypy: An fMRI study of an saccades. Psychophysiology, 49, 345-356. h p://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01306.x Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Mul ple regression: Tes ng and interpre ng interac ons. Newbury Park: Sage.

of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 3(1), 18-25. Eysenck, S. B., & Eysenck, H. J. (1977). The place of impulsiveness in a dimensional system of personality descrip on. Bri sh Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 16, 57-68. h p://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1977.tb01003.x Evren, C., Durkaya, M., Evren, B., Dalbudak, E., & Ce n, R. (2012). Rela onship of relapse with impulsivity, novelty seeking and craving in male alcohol-dependent inpa ents. Drug and Alcohol Review, 31, 81-90. h p://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14653362.2011.00303.x

Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for crea vity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 5-32.

Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The rela ons among inhibion and interference control func ons: A latent-variable analysis. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 133(1), 101.

Amabile, T. M., Con , R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for crea vity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evalua ng structural equa on models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marke ng Research 18, 39-51.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equa on modeling in prac ce: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulle n, 103, 411-423. h p://dx.doi. org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Fuster, J. M. (2008). The prefrontal cortex. London: Elsevier. Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Condi ons under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Educa on, 1(1), 3-31.

Bechara, A. (2005). Decision making, impulse control and loss of willpower to resist drugs: A neurocogni ve perspec ve. Na ve Neuroscience, 8(11), 1458-1463. h p://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ nn1584

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emo onal intelligence. Bantam.

Beesley, L. G., & Cooper, C. (2008). Deﬁning knowledge management (KM) ac vi es: Towards consensus. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(3), 48-62.

Gordon, M. (1979). The assessment of impulsivity and mediating behaviors in hyperac ve and non-hyperac ve boys. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 7, 317-326. h p://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/BF00916541

Chae, S., Seo, Y., & Lee, K. C. (2015). Effects of task complexity on individual crea vity through knowledge interac on: A comparison of temporary and permanent teams. Computers in Human Behavior, 42, 138-148. h p://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. chb.2013.10.015 Chrusciel, D. (2006). Considera ons of emo onal intelligence (EI) in dealing with change decision management. Management Decision, 44(5), 644-657. h p://dx.doi. org/10.1108/00251740610668897 Cyders, M. A., & Coskunpinar, A. (2011). Measurement of constructs using self-report and behavioral lab tasks: Is there overlap in nomothe c span and construct representa on for impulsivity? Clinical Psychology Review, 31(6), 965-982. h p://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.06.001 Dalley, J. W., Mar, A. C., Economidou, D., & Robbins, T. W. (2008). Neurobehavioral mechanisms of impulsivity: Fronto-striatal systems and func onal neurochemistry. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 90(2), 250-260. Dougherty, D. M., Mathias, C. W., Marsh, D. M., & Jagar, A. A. (2005). Laboratory behavioral measures of impulsivity. Behavior Research Methods, 37(1), 82-90. Dubinsky, A. T., & Ingram, T. N. (1983). Important first-line sales management qualifica ons: What sales execu ves think. Journal

Groves, K. S., McEnrue, M. P., & Shen, W. (2008). Developing and measuring the emo onal intelligence of leaders. Journal of Management Development, 27(2), 225-250. Irwin, J. R., & McClelland, G. H. (2001). Misleading heuris cs and moderated mul ple regression models. Journal of Marke ng Research, 38(1), 100-109. h p://dx.doi.org/0.1509/ jmkr.38.1.100.18835 James, L. R. (1982). Aggrega on bias in es mates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219-29. Johnson, S. L., Carver, C. S., Mule, S., & Joormann, J. (2013). Impulsivity and risk for mania: Towards greater speciﬁcity. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Prac ce, 86, 401-412. h p://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.2012.02078.x Kidwell, B., Hardesty, D. M., Murtha, B. R., & Sheng, S. (2011). Emo onal intelligence in marke ng exchanges. Journal of Marke ng, 75(1), 78-95. h p://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.1.78 Kim, K. H., Cramond, B., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (2010). The relaonship between crea vity and intelligence. In J. C.Kaufman, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of crea vity (pp. 395-412). New York: Cambridge University Press.

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

Koslow, S., Sasser, S. L., & Riordan, E. A. (2003). What is crea ve to whom and why? Percep ons in adver sing agencies. Journal of Adver sing Research, 43(1), 96-110. Koslow, S., & Sasser, S. L. (2008). Desperately seeking adver sing crea vity: Engaging an imagina ve “3Ps” research agenda. Journal of Adver sing, 37(4), 5-20. Lassk, F. G., & Shepherd, C. D. (2013). Exploring the rela onship between emo onal intelligence and salesperson crea vity. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 33(1), 25-37. h p:// dx.doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134330103 Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of emorional intelligence and its poten al u lity for management studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 483496. h p://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.483 Mathew, M., & Gupta, K. S. (2015).Transforma onal Leadership: Emo onal Intelligence. SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 11(2).75-89. Ma hews, G., Roberts, R. D., & Zeidner, M. (2004). Seven myths about emo onal intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 179-196. Mar n, C. S., Earlywine, M., Blackson, T. C., Vanyukov, M. M., Moss, H. B., & Tarter, R. E. (1994). Aggressivity, ina en on, hyperac vity, and impulsivity in boys at high and low risk for substance abuse. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 22(2), 177-203. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004). Emo onal intelligence: Theory, ﬁndings, and implica ons. Psychological Inquiry, 197-215. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (2007). Mayer-Salovery-Caruso Emoonal Intelligence Test. Mul -Health Systems Incorporated. h p://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2012.09.013 Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emo onal intelligence: New ability or eclec c traits? American Psychologist, 63(6), 503. Milich, R., & Kramer, J. (1982). Socializa on and peer rela ons in hyperac ve children. In K. Gadow, & I. Bialer (Eds.), Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabili es (pp. 283-339). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. h p://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002221948401700911

Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. (1990). Applied hnear stahs cal models (2nd ed). Richard E. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, IL. Nigg, J. T. (2000). On inhibi on/disinhibi on in developmental psychopathology: Views from cogni ve and personality psychology and a working inhibi on taxonomy. Psychological Bulle n, 126(2), 220. h p://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.220 O’Boyle, J. E. H., & Williams, L. J. (2011). Decomposing model fit: Measurement vs. theory in organiza onal research using latent variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 1. Ö lçer, F., Florescu, M. S., & Năstase, M. (2014). The Effects of Transforma onal Leadership and Emo onal Intelligence of Managers on Organiza onal Ci zenship Behaviors of Employees. Review of Interna onal Compara ve Management, 15(4), 385-401. Palmer, B., & Stough, C. (2001). Workplace SUEIT: Swinburne University Emo onal Intelligence Test-Descrip ve Report. Organisaonal Psychology Research Unit, Swinburne University, AU. Pa on, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barra , E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barra Impulsiveness Scale. J Clin Psychol, 51, 68-74. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A cri cal review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879. h p://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00219010.88.5.879 Rego, A., Sousa, F., Pina, C. M., Correia, A., & Saur-Amaral, I. (2007). Leader Self Reported Emo onal Intelligence and Perceived Employee Crea vity: An Exploratory Study. Crea vity and Innova on Management, 16(3), 250-264. h p://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00435.x Robbins, T. W., Gillan, C. M., Smith, D. G., Wit, S., & Ersche, K. D. (2012). Neurocogni ve endophenotypes of impulsivity and compulsivity: Towards dimensional psychiatry. Trends in cogni ve sciences, 16(1), 81-91. h p://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. cs.2011.11.009 Schalling, D. (1978). Psychopathy-related personality variables and the psychophysiology of socializa on. In R. D.Hare, & D. Schalling (Eds.), Psychopathic Behaviour: Approaches to Research (pp. 85-105). New York: Wiley.

Moeller, F. G., Barra , F. S., Dougherty, D. M., Schmitz, J. M., & Swann, A. C. (2001). Psychiatric aspects of impulsivity. Am J Psychiatry, 158, 1783-1793.

Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The eﬀects of personal and contextual characteris cs on crea vity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 933-958. h p://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.007

Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Threlfall, K. V., Supinski, E. P., & Costanza, D. P. (1996). Process-based measures of crea ve problem-solving skills: I. Problem construc on. Crea vity Research Journal, 9, 63-76.

Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder crea vity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 33-53. h p://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.004

Nederkoorn, C., Smulders, F. T., Havermans, R. C., Roefs, A., & Jansen, A. (2006). Impulsivity in obese women.

Van, R. D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emo onal intelligence: A meta-analy c inves ga on of predic ve validity and nomological net. Journal of Voca onal Behavior, 65(1), 71-95. h p://dx.doi. org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00076-9

Appe te, 47(2), 253-256. h p://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2006.05.008

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

Vigoda, G. E., & Meisler, G. (2010). Emo ons in management and the management of emo ons: The impact of emo onal intelligence and organiza onal poli cs on public sector employees. Public Administra on Review, 70(1), 72-86. Wang, G., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2004). Salesperson crea ve performance: Conceptualiza on, measurement, and nomological validity. Journal of Business Research, 57(8), 805-812. h p://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00483-6 Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The five factor model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(4), 669-689. h p://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S01918869(00)00064-7 Wisker, Z. L., & Poulis, A. (2015). Emo onal Intelligence and Sales Performance. A Myth or Reality? Interna onal Journal of Business and Society, 16(2), 185. Zeidner, M., Ma hews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emo onal intelligence in the workplace: A cri cal review. Applied Psychology, 53(3), 371-399. h p://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00176.x Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2003). Awakening employee crea vity: The role of leader emo onal intelligence. The leadership quarterly, 14(4), 545-568. Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Thornquist, M., & Kiers, H. (1991). Five (or three) robust ques onnaire scale factors of personality without culture. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 929-941.

Copyrights Copyright for this ar cle is retained by the author(s), with ﬁrst publica on rights granted to the journal. This is an open-access ar cle distributed under the terms and condi ons of the Crea ve Commons A ribu on license (h p:// crea vecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

“What really matters for success, character, happiness and life long achievements is a definite set of emotional skills – your EQ — not just purely cognitive abilities that are measured by conventional IQ tests.” — Daniel Goleman

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Cool and Hot Cognitive Processes: A Systematic Review María José Gu érrez-Cobo 1, Rosario Cabello 2 and Pablo Fernández-Berrocal 1* 1 Department of Basic Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Málaga, Malaga, Spain, 2 Department of Developmental and Educa onal Psychology, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

Edited by: Ma hias Brand, University Duisburg-Essen, Germany Reviewed by: Elisa Canzoneri, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland Vinod Tiwari, The Johns Hopkins University, USA Elke Kalbe, University Clinic Cologne, Germany *Correspondence: Pablo Fernández-Berrocalberrocal@uma.es

Although emo on and cogni on were considered to be separate aspects of the psyche in the past, researchers today have demonstrated the existence of an interplay between the two processes. Emo onal intelligence (EI), or the ability to perceive, use, understand, and regulate emo ons, is a rela vely young concept that a empts to connect both emo on and cogni on. While EI has been demonstrated to be posi vely related to well-being, mental and physical health, and non-aggressive behaviors, li le is known about its underlying cogni ve processes. The aim of the present study was to systema cally review available evidence about the rela onship between EI and cogni ve processes as measured through “cool” (i.e., not emo onally laden) and “hot” (i.e., emo onally laden) laboratory tasks. We searched Scopus and Medline to find relevant ar cles in Spanish and English, and divided the studies following two variables: cogni ve processes (hot vs. cool) and EI instruments used (performance-based ability test, self-report ability test, and self-report mixed test). We iden fied 26 eligible studies. The results provide a fair amount of evidence that performance-based ability EI (but not self-report EI tests) is posi vely related with efficiency in hot cogni ve tasks. EI, however, does not appear to be related with cool cogni ve tasks: neither through self-repor ng nor through performance-based ability instruments. These findings suggest that performance-based ability EI could improve individuals’ emo onal informa on processing abili es. Keywords: emo onal intelligence, cogni ve processes, hot tasks, cool tasks INTRODUCTION

Received: 15 January 2016 Accepted: 11 May 2016 Published: 27 May 2016 Cita on: Gu érrez-Cobo MJ, Cabello R and Fernández-Berrocal P (2016) The Rela onship between Emo onal Intelligence and Cool and Hot Cogni ve Processes: A Systema c Review.Front. Behav. Neurosci. 10:101. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00101

Despite the crucial role that emo ons play in our lives, their mechanics are s ll not properly understood. What is accepted in the research community is that emo ons imply physiological, cogni ve, and behavioral changes (Lewis et al., 2008), as well as that they have both posi ve and nega ve valences. Thus, if we imagine someone going into her office and seeing a snake on her desk, unless she is a lover of snakes, she will feel frightened (nega ve valence). She will then express fear at three levels: the physiological (e.g., an increase in heart rate), cogni ve (e.g., thoughts about danger), and behavioral (e.g., the urge to run away) levels. Emo ons and cogni on have been understood to be different, and even incompa ble, aspects of the human psyche in the past. Nonetheless, today the scien fic evidence shows that emo ons have an important influence on our cogni ve processing, and that a balance between cogni on and emo on could be the best strategy for correct environmental and social adapta on

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

(Ekman, 1989; Lazarus, 1991; Damasio, 1994; LeDoux, 1996; Keltner and Haidt, 2001; Barre , 2013). Emo onal Intelligence (EI) is a rela vely new concept that try to connect the emo on and cogni on concepts since 25 years ago (Salovey and Mayer, 1990). Mayer and Salovey (1997, pp. 3–31) have deﬁned this construct as: . . . the ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emo on; the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emo on and emo onal knowledge; and the ability to regulate emo ons to promote emo onal and intellectual growth. Researchers have tradi onally conceptualized EI following two theore cal approaches: mixed and ability models (Mayer et al., 2008). Joseph and Newman (2010) have recently proposed a new division: the authors suggest theore cally classifying the EI construct into three perspecves, paying a en on to the kind of instrument that is employed for measuring the construct: performance-based ability EI, self-report ability EI, and self-report mixed EI. Performance-Based Ability Models assess EI through performance tests, and they conceive EI as a narrow cogni ve concept, as well as a kind of intelligence that is based on a set of emo onal ap tudes (Mayer et al., 2000). In such measures, par cipants must solve emo onal problems in which there are be er and worse responses. The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emo onal Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer et al., 2002) is the most important performance test of EI; it is based on a hierarchical ability EI model (Mayer and Salovey, 1997). Self-Report Mixed Models aim for a broader construct; they are measured through self-report instruments, which include mental abili es, personality factors, mo va ons, interpersonal and intrapersonal abili es, and other facets. One of the most representa ve self-report mixed scales is the Bar-On Emo onal Quo ent Inventory (EQ-i; Bar-On, 2004). Finally, Self-Report Ability Models, although they also assess EI through self-repor ng, are based on the ability EI model. The Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS; Salovey et al., 1995) is a well-known instrument for this group. Both self-report mixed and self-report ability scales evaluate the subjec ve percep on that par cipants have about their own EI. In such scales, there are no correct or incorrect responses. Researchers have related EI measured through mixed and ability self-repor ng and performance-based ability models to a wide range of outcomes. Scholars have found evidence of the rela on between EI in mental and physical health (e.g., Schu e et al., 2007; Mar ns et al., 2010; Zeidner et al., 2012); with less aggressive behavior (García-Sancho et al., 2014), with substance abuse (Kun and Demetrovics, 2010); and with academic (Hansenne and Legrand, 2012; Dolores et al., 2013) and job performance (Joseph and Newman, 2010; Côté, 2014), among other factors. A longitudinal study, using a cogni ve Go/No-Go task with hot and cool s muli as well as brain measures (Casey et al., 2011), has shown how impulsive children appear to have lower

emo on regula on and lower self-control abili es in their mid-for es as compared with low impulsive children. As opposed to this broad background, less is known about the cogni ve processes underlying EI. EI could favor to manage, in a more proper way, our cogni ve resources. For instance, training EI abili es may help to diminish the nega ve bias of depressed people towards neutral s muli (Baddeley, 2007) and of non-depressed people a er a nega ve mood inducon (Baddeley et al., 2012) by perceiving emo ons and situa ons in a more posi ve way. Besides, EI training could improvethe individual’s cogni ve capacity by reducing the interference that anxiety may exert in their performance by improving the emo onal regulatory strategies (Derakshan and Eysenck, 1998) as well as by increasing the low threshold that anxious people have for detec ng a threat (Mogg and Bradley, 1998, 2005). In spite of the previous evidence of studies that connect the EI construct with a large number of daily outcomes, researchers have largely cri cized these efforts. Some argue that EI is a conglomera on of old concepts that have already been studied; some also argue that it cannot be understood as a form of intelligence (Locke, 2005). In order to address this cri cism, several researchers have a empted to prove that EI is a form of intelligence by analyzing its rela onship with conven onal psychometric intelligence measures (e.g., Roberts et al., 2001; O’Connor and Li le, 2003; MacCann et al., 2004). These studies show a posive correla on between performance based ability measures of EI and conven onal intelligence, without endangering its singularity (Kong, 2014). One way to take a step forward in the conceptualiza on of EI in the intelligence domain (and to achieve a be er theore cal understanding of the nature of the construct) would be to look for evidence of the rela onship of EI to cogni ve processes that have been evaluated by using laboratory tasks, instead of using tradi onal tests. It would also be important to know that cogni ve tasks could be divided (depending on the kind of s muli that are used), as well as the kinds of consequences that par cipants undergo when performing hot and cool tasks. Thus, we refer to tasks as being ‘‘hot’’ when they contain affec ve or emo onal s muli, or when the outcome can be a reward or a punishment, and to tasks as being ‘‘cool’’ when the s muli are emo onally neutral (Denham et al., 2012; Allan and Lonigan, 2014). THE PRESENT STUDY The aim of the present study is to systema cally review the exis ng evidence about the rela onship between the EI construct and different cogni ve processes, measured by computer laboratory tasks such as (for instance) the Iowa gambling task (IGT; Lin et al., 2013). We expect that, if EI is a form of intelligence, those with higher skills in this domain should perform be er in the different cogni ve tasks compared with low-EI individuals when EI is measured through an objec ve measure, as is the case with performance-based ability models. We also expect to find this advantage for higher-EI individuals in the case of hot tasks,

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

given the emo onal nature of the EI construct.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Literature Search and Inclusion Criteria The MEDLINE and Scopus databases were carefully searched for suitable ar cles to use. We selected relevant ar cles when they contained ‘‘EI’’ as a keyword or as a term in the abstract, together with one or more of the following terms: ‘‘behavioral measure,’’ ‘‘abstract thinking,’’ ‘‘atten on,’’ ‘‘cogni ve ability,’’ ‘‘cogni ve flexibility,’’ ‘‘cogni ve processes,’’ ‘‘decision making,’’ ‘‘execu ve func on,’’ ‘‘go-nogo task,’’ ‘‘IGT,’’‘‘priming,’’ ‘‘reac on me (RT),’’ ‘‘reasoning,’’ ‘‘Stroop,’’ and ‘‘working memory.’’ In order to be included in the present systema c review, ar cles first had to measure EI through a performancebased ability test, a self-report mixed model, or a selfreport ability model. Second, cogni ve processes had to be assessed through laboratory tasks, and not by tradi onal tes ng. Third, par cipants could not suffer from mental problems; finally, the language of the studies had to be in English or Spanish. Ar cles were excluded if any of these criteria were not met.

EI Instruments Performance-based Ability Models The aforemen oned MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002) is a 141item test that assesses the four branches of EI (confirmed through factor analysis; Mayer et al., 2003): iden fying, facilita ng, understanding, and managing emo ons. It presents a test- retest reliability of r(60) = 0.86 (Bracke and Mayer, 2001) and a full-test split-half reliability of r(1985) = 0.93 and 0.91 for general and expert scoring, respec vely (Mayer et al., 2003). The Test of Emo onal Intelligence (TEMINT; Schmidt-Atzert and Bühner, 2002) is a 12-situa on test, with a Cronbach’s α of 0.77, where understanding of emo ons is evaluated. Not to be confused with the TEMINT, the Emoonal Intelligence Test (TIE, from the Polish Test Inteligencji Emocjonalnej,B84) is a 21-item test that measures the four branches of EI grouped as follow due to confirmatory factor analyses (Smieja et al., 2014): first, the percep on and understanding of emo ons, and second, the facilita on and management of emo ons. The overall reliability of this test is r = 0.88 with a Cronbach’s α of 0.88 for the first part and 0.78 for the second one. The Situa onal Judgement Test (SJT; Roberts, 2009) and the SJT of emo onal abili es (SJTEA; Roberts et al., 2013) consists of 16 short video clips with one par cular scenario that is emo onally laden. This instrument measures emo on management and its internal consistency and its test-retest reliability is 0.61 and 0.54, respec vely (Mac-

Cann et al., 2015). Ovsyannikova and Lyusin (2009) video test consists of seven short videos that measure emo on recogni on using a set of 15 scales of emo on categories per video. This test is made up of an accuracy and a sensi vity index with a Cronbach’s α of 0.74 and 0.93, respec vely, and a test-retest reliability of 0.55 for accuracy and of 0.86 for sensi vity. Self-report Mixed Models The EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) is a 133-item instrument that is comprised of five scales obtained through a factorial valida on method: intrapersonal, interpersonal, adaptability, stress management, and general mood. The overall internal consistency coefficient is 0.97 and the test-retest reliability is 0.79. The Shortened Emo onal Quo ent Inventory (EQ-i:S; Bar-On, 2002) is a shortened version of the EQ-i (with 51 items) that measures total EI with an internal consistency of 0.70, as well as the same five scales of the longer version. Cooper and Sawaf (1998) EQtmMap includes=259 items that describe five central zones of EI: surround (α = 0.87), emo onal awareness (α = 0.85), dexterity (α = 0.89), EQ values and beliefs (α = 0.84) and results (α = 0.92). The Trait Emo onal Intelligence Ques onnaire (TEIQue; Petrides and Furnham, 2003) includes 153 items with a Cronbach’s α of 0.89 and with a factor analyses that offer four factors: well-being, self-control, emo onality, and sociability. Kemp et al. (2005) Brain Resource Inventory for Emo onal Intelligence Factor (BRIEF) is a 14-item ques onnaire composed of three factors: intui on and empathy, social skills and rela onship management, and self-concept. Its internal consistency is r = 0.68–0.81 and its test-retest reliability is r = 0.92.

Self-report Ability Models The Schu e Emo onal Intelligence Scale (EIS; Schu e et al., 1998) includes 33 items of one-factor solu on with three categories: perceiving and expressing emo ons, regula ng emo ons, and u lizing emo ons when solving problems. Its Cronbach’s α is 0.90 and its test-retest reliability 0.78. Salovey et al.’s (1995); Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS) is a 30-item scale =that assesses three subscales based on factor analyses: atten on to feelings (α 0.86) clarity of feelings (α 0.87) and mood repair (α 0.82). The Self-Rated Emo onal Intelligence Scale (SREIS; Bracke et al., 2006) includes 19 items whose factor analyses oﬀer a four factor solu on: percep on, management, use, and understanding emo ons. Its Cronbach’s α is 0.77. Finally, Lyusin (2006) Emo onal Intelligence Inventory (EmIn) uses ﬁve basic scales: recogni on of others’ emo ons, management of others’ emo ons, emo onal self-awareness, management of one’s own emo ons, and control of emo onal expression. Its internal consistency is 0.76 and its retest reliability 0.84.

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

RESULTS Our research iden fied 26 studies that measured EI a total of 44 mes, using 13 different scales; we no ced that the majority of the studies analyzed EI by more than one instrument. Seventeen of these 44 mes in which EI was assessed were conducted via performance tests, 16 mes through self-report ability tests, and 11 through self-report mixed tests. Eighteen different cogni ve tasks were used in the 26 studies; 3 of the 18 tasks were classified as ‘‘cool, ’’ and the remaining 15 as ‘‘hot.’’ In order to present the results that we reviewed, we will separately consider the studies that were conducted using TABLE 1 | Studies using self-report ability emo onal intelligence (EI), tests and hot cogni ve tasks. Study Austin (2004)

EI scale EIS

Cognitive task

Sample

Principal results

Sad and happy IT tasks

35 department members

Positive correlation between the appraisal of emotion

and 57 undergraduate

and the emotional IT task

students (71 females) Austin (2005)

EIS

Happy and sad IT tasks

95 adults (71 females)

Positive correlation between the EIS interpersonal scale and the sum of the happy and sad IT and facial recognition task scores

Farrelly and Austin (2007)

EIS

Sad and happy IT tasks

99 university students

No relationship between EI and IT tasks

(70 females) DeBusk and Austin (2011)

EIS

Happy, angry, and sad

87 participants

No relationship between EI and IT tasks

IT tasks Brabec et al. (2012)

Demaree et al. (2010)

TMMS

IGT

103 undergraduate student

No association between EI and the total, nor the

(76 females)

block scores on the behavioral task

net

EIS

IGT

68 undergraduate students

No association between EI and the total, nor the

net

Webb et al. (2014)

SREIS

IGT

65 participants (32 females)

No relationship between EI and IGT task

Fallon et al. (2014)

TMMS

Simulated arctic rescue

169 participants

No association between EI and the

scenario

(110 females)

decision-making task

Emotional and a

129 undergraduate

Those with high attention to emotions (measured with

neutral-word Stroop task

students (58% female)

TMMS, and also with two other scales related to

block scores on the behavioral task

Coﬀey et al. (2003)

TMMS

alexithymia) displayed longer reaction times in the task Fisher et al. (2010)

TMMS

Emotional and a

88 psychology students

A trend for “attention to emotion” was found to be

neutral-word Stroop task

(53% female)

negatively correlated with the neutral and negative

Emotional sensitivity task

277 high school and college

Negative correlation between an RT index related

students (181 females)

to the correct responses for the “No” responses

conditions of an emotion-word Stroop task Dodonova and Dodonov (2010)

EmIn

and three subscales of EI (management of others’ emotions, emotional self-awareness, and management of one’s own emotions) and the two interpersonal and intrapersonal higher-level scales of EI Dodonova and Dodonov (2012)

EmIn

Emotional sensitivity task

87 undergraduate students

Negative correlation between an RT index related to the correct responses for the “No” responses and three subscales of EI (management of others’ emotions, emotional self-awareness, and management of one’s own emotions) and the two interpersonal and intrapersonal higher-level scales of EI

Fellner et al. (2012)

TMMS

Discrimination learning task

180 psychology students

Attention to emotions was found to be a signiﬁcant

(111 females)

predictor of higher error rates in the ﬁrst blocks; the block learning eﬀect was moderated by the “clarity of emotions” subfactor

Abbrevia ons: EIS, Schu e Emo onal Intelligence Scale (Schu e et al., 1998); EmIn, Emo onal Intelligence Scale (Lyusin, 2006); IGT, Iowa gambling task; IT, inspec on me; RT, reac on me; SREIS, Self-Rated Emo onal Intelligence Scale (Bracke et al., 2006); TMMS, Trait Meta-Mood Scale (Salovey et al., 1995).

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

hot and cool cogni ve tasks. Apart from that division, we will also discuss the different studies depending on the kind of EI measure that they employed. The reader will thus find the results classified following two criteria: the EI scale (self-report ability test, self-report mixed test, or performance test) and the emo onal load of the cogni ve task (hot or cool).

Hot Cogni ve Tasks Self-report Ability Tests We iden fied 13 studies where EI was measured through self-report ability tests at the same me that EI was related with hot cogni ve processes (Table 1). First, Aus n (2004) used an emo onal inspec on me (IT) task for measuring emo onal informa on processing; this is a discrimina on task that includes emo onal faces. The dura on of the presenta on of the face s muli varies across blocks; the IT performance is assessed as the shortest dura on that par cipants require for processing the given s muli, and thus properly discrimina ng it. EI was measured through the aforemen oned Schu e EIS. The results showed a posi ve correla on between the ‘‘appraisal of emo on’’ subfactor of the EIS and the emo onal IT task (sad and happy faces). Again using an IT task, Aus n (2005) also found a significant and posi ve correla on between the EIS interpersonal scale and an overall emo onal performance score (obtained by combining scores on the happy IT, sad IT, and a facial expression recogni on task); however, neither Farrelly and Aus n (2007), first experiment nor DeBusk and Aus n (2011) found any correla on between EI assessed with the same test and the emo onal IT task. Another cogni ve task that has been used (and which is related to decision-making processes) is the well-known IGT. Here, par cipants have to select one hundred different cards from four decks. The four decks contain unequal monetary punishments and rewards; the goal is to obtain as much money as possible. Brabec et al.’s (2012) study, using the IGT and the TMMS for EI, did not find any associa on between EI and the total scores (nor for the net block scores) on the behavioral task. Demaree et al. (2010) found the same outcomes using the EIS. In the same way, using the SREIS, Webb et al. (2014) did not find any correla on. Fallon et al. (2014) also did not find any rela onship between the TMMS and the decisionmaking task called the ‘‘simulated arc c rescue scenario,’’ where par cipants had to choose the op mal route in a virtual environment. With a Stroop task (which measure a en onal processes), in which par cipants have to name the ink color of different s muli with emo onal or neutral valence, Coffey et al. (2003) found that those with higher a en on to emoons (measured not only with the TMMS, but also with two other scales related to alexithymia) paid more a en on to the emo onal content of this cogni ve task, as was displayed by their longer RTs. Fisher et al. (2010), however, only

found a trend for ‘‘a en on to emo on’’ in the TMMS to be nega vely correlated with neutral and nega ve condi ons of the same a en onal task. Another cogni ve task is the ‘‘emo onal sensi vity’’ task. This task measure memory processes and par cipants have to recognize if a neutral or emo onal target face has appeared before during the course of a trial. Using this memory instrument, Dodonova and Dodonov (2012) found a nega ve correla on between a RT index (the difference between the RT to the emo onal faces recogni on task vs. a neutral face recogni on task) related to the correct responses for the ‘‘No’’ responses (trials where the target had not been presented previously) and three subscales of the EmIn ques onnaire (management of others’ emoons, emo onal self-awareness, and management of one’s own emo ons), as well as the two interpersonal and intrapersonal higher-level scales of the same EI instrument. The same authors had found similar results in a previous study (Dodonova and Dodonov, 2010). Finally, Fellner et al. (2012) had their par cipants work on a discrimina on learning task with happy, sad, and neutral faces, and found a few correla ons with some of the subscales of the TMMS. Specifically, the authors found ‘‘atten on to emo ons’’ to be a significant predictor of higher error rates in the first blocks, and that the block learning effect was moderated by the ‘‘clarity of emo ons’’ subfactor.

Self-report Mixed Tests Focusing on self-report mixed instruments, we iden fied eight studies that used this kind of measure (Table 2). Ausn (2005) and Farrelly and Aus n (2007), in their second experiment, examined the rela onship between the EQ-i:S and a neutral and a sad IT task, and did not find any correla on between the two. Petrides and Furnham (2003), using a series of videos with neutral faces that culminated in one of the six basic emo ons, found that par cipants who were higher in EI (as assessed by the EQ-i) were faster and required fewer phases for the correct iden fica on of facial emo ons. They also found that those with higher EI recognized expressions that registered happiness and surprise faster than low-EI par cipants. In contrast, using the IGT as a cogni ve task, Webb et al. (2014) did not find any correla on with the EQi:S; indeed, Pilárik and Sarmány-Schuller (2009), using a sample of female social work students, found a posi ve associa on between EI measured with the EQtmMap and the IGT, as well as with the scores in the subscale of ‘‘awareness’’ in the ‘‘EQ value and belief’’ scale, and a weak and posi ve rela on on the ‘‘dexterity’’ subscale; they also found a nega ve rela on with the ‘‘surround’’ scale. Telle et al. (2011) used a computerized gambling task where par cipants had to make several financial decisions a er the appearance of an emo onal face (happy, neutral,

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

or fearful). The authors used the TEIQue as the EI ques onnaire, and found a rela onship between EI and decision making: higher-EI par cipants (in par cular, in the factors of sociability, social awareness, and the capability of fostering interpersonal rela onships) performed signiďŹ cantly be er than lower-EI par cipants. In another decision-making task, where par cipants had to decide (in an airport security situa on) which emo onal facial expressions could represent a possible terrorist, Alkozei et al. (2015) did not ďŹ nd any correla on between the EQ-i and acuity in the airport tasks.

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

TABLE 3 | Studies using performance EI tests and hot cogni ve tasks. Study Farrelly and Austin (2007)

EI scale

Cognitive task

Sample

Principal results

Study 1

MSCEIT

Sad and happy

99 university students

No relationship between EI and IT tasks

IT tasks

(70 females)

Study 2

MSCEIT

Sad IT task

199 university students

Positive correlation between MSCEIT scores

(137 females)

(except for the “managing” branch) and the sad

87 participants

No relationship between EI and IT tasks

210 participants

EI positively related with processing of emotional

IT task DeBusk and Austin (2011)

TEMINT

Happy, angry, and sad

Wojciechowski et al. (2014)

TIE

Face-decoding test

Jacob et al. (2013)

MSCEIT

Verbal and nonverbal emotional tasks

IT tasks

(50% female)

expressions in all subscales of the FDT

40 participants (20 females)

Negative correlation between the RT and the

“using

emotions”

branch;

negative

correlation among the RT diﬀerences between the emotionally incongruent and congruent conditions

and

the

total

score, the

“understanding emotions” branch, and the faces task of the “perceiving emotions” branch Reis et al. (2007)

MSCEIT

Watson card selection

48 under-graduate

Those with higher EI had faster RT in

task: social exchange

students

exchange problems

social

65 (32

Positive correlation between the IGT and the

problems Webb et al. (2014)

MSCEIT

IGT

participants

females)

MSCEIT total scores and the “facilitating” and “understanding” branches; EI did not signiﬁcantly predict variances of the decisionmaking task beyond IQ scores

Fallon et al. (2013)

Fallon et al. (2014)

SJT

SJTEA

Simulated arctic rescue

172 participants

No diﬀerences in EI and route choice, nor in the

scenario

(133 females)

easy or diﬃcult trials

Simulated arctic rescue

169 participants

No diﬀerences in EI and the route choice, nor

scenario

(110 females)

in the easy or diﬃcult trials; tendency of EI to correlate with accuracy

Alkozei et al. (2015)

MSCEIT

Airport task

62 participants

Higher-EI participants performed better than

(50% female)

lower-EI participants

Martin and Thomas (2011)

MSCEIT

Emotional and neutral

87 under-graduate

Negative correlation between the RT in the

word Stroop tasks

students

cognitive task and the EI test; EI accounted for

85 participants

No relationship between EI and cognitive tasks

incremental variance above a traditional IQ test Fiori and Antonakis (2012)

MSCEIT

Aﬀective and semantic priming tasks

(55% female)

Dodonova and Dodonov (2010)

Video test

Emotional sensitivity

87 under-graduate

Negative correlation between an RT index

task

students

related to the correct responses for the “No” responses and three subscales of EI (management of others’ emotions, emotional self-awareness, and management of one’s own emotions) and the video test

Fernández-Berrocal et al. (2014)

MSCEIT

PDG

232 psychology

Those with higher EI punctuation had

students (190 females)

tendency to score higher on the PDG

the

Abbrevia ons: IGT, Iowa gambling task; IT, inspec on me; MSCEIT, Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emo onal Intelligence Test (Mayer et al., 2002); PDG, prisoner’s dilemma game; SJT, Situa onal Judgement Test (Roberts, 2009); SJTEA, Situa onal Judgement Test of Emo onal Abili es (Roberts et al., 2013); TEMINT, Test of Emo onal Intelligence (Schmidt-Atzert and Bühner, 2002); TIE, Emo onal Intelligence Test (Test Inteligencji Emocjonalnej; Smieja et al., 2007).

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

Finally, Mikolajczak et al. (2009) employed an a enonal word dot probe task; in this task, par cipants were required to respond as quickly as possible to a visual probe that appeared in the loca on of a neutral or emo onal s mulus that had been presented previously. They employed the TEIQue, and found slower responses in the a en onal task for those with high punctuaons in the ‘‘self-control’’ factor.

Performance Tests Our search iden fied 14 studies that employed performance tests for evalua ng EI (Table 3). While Farrelly and Aus n (2007) found no rela onship between EI measured through the MSCEIT and the emo onal IT task in their first experiment, in their second experiment, they found a posi ve, significant correla on between the MSCEIT scores (except in the ‘‘managing’’ branch) and the sad IT task. DeBusk and Aus n (2011), on the other hand, using the TEMINT, found that TEMINT was not a significant predictor of performance in the emo onal IT task. In addi on, Wojciechowski et al. (2014) a empted to assess the emo onal informa on processing of inconsistent signals through a facial-verbal decoding task (FDT). In these tasks, par cipants had to indicate if individuals who demonstrated a specific facial expression on the computer could have truthfully said par cular sentences; par cipants were presented with congruent and incongruent trials. The authors used the TIE for measuring EI. They did not find any correla on between EI and the FDT RT, although they did find that EI as a whole was posi vely related with the processing of emo onal expressions in all of the subscales of the FDT (congruent and incongruent trials). They found the same outcomes for the ‘‘percep on’’ branch of the EI test, but only with congruent trials. In another study, Jacob et al. (2013) used the German-language version of the MSCEIT (Steinmayr et al., 2011) and a laboratory task using verbal and nonverbal emo onal cues (again with congruent and incongruent trials) for measuring perceptual emo onal informa on processing, where par cipants had to indicate their impressions about the emo onal states of speaker; they found a significant nega ve correla on between the individual mean RT and the ‘‘facilita ng emo ons’’ branch of the MSCEIT, as well as a significant nega ve correla on among the RT differences between the emo onally incongruent and congruent condi ons and the total EI scores, the ‘‘understanding emo ons’’ branch, and the faces task of the ‘‘perceiving emo ons’’ branch. Using a decision-making task called the Watson card selec on task, Reis et al. (2007) found that those with higher EI (measured by the MSCEIT) exhibited faster RT in the social exchange problems of the cogni ve task. Webb et al. (2014) also found a posi ve correla on between the IGT and MSCEIT total scores and the ‘‘facilita ng’’ and ‘‘understanding’’ branches, although they found that EI did not significantly predict the variance of the decision-making task beyond the IQ (cogni ve intelligence) scores. In two other studies (which used the simulated arc c rescue scenario

and the SJT), Fallon et al. (2013, 2014) did not find any differences between high- and low-EI par cipants in their cogni ve performance, although Fallon et al. (2014) discovered a tendency for EI to correlate with accuracy. Alkozei et al. (2015), using the airport decision-making task men oned previously, found that higher EI (measured by the MSCEIT) achieved be er performance than lower EI in the cogni ve task, especially those with higher scores in the ‘‘understanding’’ and ‘‘facilita ng’’ branches. Mar n and Thomas (2011) found a nega ve correla on between RT in a nega ve-emo onal and a neutral-word Stroop task and the MSCEIT, which also accounted for incremental variance beyond a tradi onal intelligence test. Fiori and Antonakis (2012) did not find any rela onship between the MSCEIT and an affec ve and seman c ‘‘priming’’ task, in which par cipants had to pay a en on to one of two faces (while ignoring the other face), and then categorizing different words that were congruent with either the target or the distractor, or neither of the two. Dodonova and Dodonov (2010) found a nega ve correla on between an RT index (the difference between the RT to the emo onal face recogni on task and the neutral face recogni on task) related to the correct responses for the ‘‘No’’ responses in trials where the targets had not yet been presented and three subscales of EI (management of others’ emo ons, emo onal self-awareness, and management of one’s own emo ons) and the video test instrument for EI. Finally, Fernández-Berrocal et al. (2014) found that those with higher EI (measured via the MSCEIT) had a tendency to score higher in the prisoner’s dilemma game (PDG; a decision making task), where par cipants demonstrate their tendencies to cooperate or compete with other par cipants. Discussion If we examine the results related to hot cogni ve tasks displayed in Figure 1 in a general way, we can see that, using performance tests, EI seems to be more related with posi ve results. That is, in 64.28% of the studies that used performance tests, par cipants with be er scores in EI obtained be er performances in cogni ve tasks. When using self-report ability instruments, the results show that higher- EI par cipants performed be er in the cogni ve task only in a 30.77% of the studies, followed by 37.5% of posi ve results with self-report mixed tests. Thus, the percentage of studies finding posi ve rela ons between EI and cogni ve performance was higher for performance-based ability test than for self-report ability test, Z = 15.22, p < 0.001, d = 0.76, 95% CI [0.68, 0.84], and for self-report mixed text, Z = 10.96, p < 0.001, d 0.59, 95% CI [0.49, 0.68]. No differences were found between the percentage of posi ve results between self-report mixed test and self- report ability tests, Z = 1.64, p = 0.10, d = 0.17, 95% CI [0.07, 0.27]. Nega ve results, in contrast—understood to be worse performances in the cogni ve task for higher-EI individuals—were obtained in 15.38% and 12.5%

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

of studies, respec vely, via self-report ability tests and mixed tests, and no nega ve scores were obtained with performance tests. Finally, the studies found no rela on between EI and cogni ve tasks among 35.71%, 53.85%, and 50% of par cipants using performance, self-report ability, and mixed tests, respec vely.

TABLE 4 | Studies using self-report ability EI tests and cool cogni ve tasks.

Self-report Mixed Tests We iden ﬁed three studies that measured EI via self-report mixed instruments (Table 5). Aus n (2005) and Farrelly and Aus n (2007), in their second experiment, found no rela onship between EI assessed via the EQ-i:S and the symbol IT cogni ve task. Craig et al. (2009) found a nega ve correla on between par cipant performance on a memory task called ‘‘digit span’’ and the BRIEF inventory for EI.

Study

EI scale

Cognitive task

Sample

Principal results

Austin (2004)

EIS

Symbol IT task

35 department members and

No relationship between EI and IT task

57 undergraduate students (71 females) Austin (2005) Farrelly and Austin (2007)

EIS EIS

Symbol IT task Symbol IT task

95 adults (71 females)

No relationship between EI and IT task

99 university students (70 females)

No relationship between EI and IT task

Abbrevia ons: EIS, Schu e Emo onal Intelligence Scale (Schu e et al., 1998); IT, inspec on me.

Cool Cogni ve Tasks Self-report Ability Tests We iden ﬁed three studies that used self-report ability tests for measuring EI and cool tasks for the analysis of cogni ve processes (Table 4). Aus n (2004, 2005) and Farrelly and Aus n (2007), in their ﬁrst experiment, measured the par cipants’ EI via the EIS, as well as informa on processing speed via a symbol IT that was similar to the emoonal task men oned previously, but with neutral s muli. Their results showed no correla on between EI and the symbol IT tasks.

Performance Tests Three experiments were iden fied for this sec on (Table 6). In their first study, Farrelly and Aus n (2007) found a nega ve associa on between a symbol IT task and the ‘‘perceiving’’ branch in the MSCEIT scale, while in their second experiment they did not find any rela on between these two. Reis et al. (2007) did not find any correla on between the same EI scale and the descrip ve problems of the Watson card task. Discussion The overall results from using cool cogni ve tasks are displayed in Figure 2; these results demonstrate that no posi ve rela ons were found between EI through any

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

of the three perspec ves or the tasks. This means that be er cogni ve performance was not found for higher-EI par cipants in any of the studies, given that none of the results signal rela on between either process. Thus, 100% of the results from the self-report ability tests, and 66.66% of the results from the self-report mixed and performance tests, displayed no rela onship with cogni ve dimensions. Finally, higher-EI individuals performed worse than lower-EI individuals in those tasks in 33.33% of the self-report mixed and performance tests. TABLE 5 | Studies using self-report mixed EI tests and cool cogni ve tasks. Study

EI scale

Cognitive task

Sample

Principal results

Austin (2005)

EQ:i-S

Farrelly and Austin (2007)

EQ:i-S

Symbol IT task

95 adults (71 females)

No relationship between EI and IT task

Symbol IT task

99 university students (70 females)

No relationship between EI and IT task

Craig et al. (2009)

BRIEF

Digit span task

856 participants (446 females)

Negative correlation between performance on the digit span task and the BRIEF

Abbrevia ons: BRIEF, Brain Resource Inventory for Emo onal Intelligence Factor (Kemp et al., 2005); EQ-i:S, Emo onal Quo ent Inventory (Bar-On, 2002); IT, inspec on me.

TABLE 6 | Studies using performance EI tests and cool cogni ve tasks. Study Farrelly and Austin (2007)

Farrelly and Austin (2007)

Study 1

Study 2

Reis et al. (2007)

EI scale

Cognitive task

Sample

Principal results

MSCEIT

Symbol IT task

99 university students

Negative association between the symbol

(70 females)

task and the “perceiving” branch in MSCEIT

Discrimination learning

180 psychology students

No relationship between EI and

task

(111 females)

IT task

Watson card selection

48 undergraduates

No relationship between EI and the Watson card

task: descriptive problems

students

selection task

MSCEIT

Abbrevia ons: IT, inspec on me; MSCEIT, Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emo onal Intelligence Test (Mayer et al., 2002).

GENERAL DISCUSSION The present systema c review analyzed the literature on the rela onship between EI and cool and hot cogni ve processes measured via laboratory tasks rather than tradi onal tests. We found 26 suitable studies; these used performance EI tests 17 mes, self-report ability tests 16 mes, and self-report mixed tests 11 mes. The 26 studies employed a total of 18 different cogni ve tasks, three of which were classified as ‘‘cool’’ and the remaining fi een as ‘‘hot.’’ The results of analyzing the hot cogni ve tasks showed, as expected, that higher-EI individuals measured via performance tests tended to perform be er in these cogni ve tasks, while the results were different when using self-report instruments (ability or mixed tests): half of the results point to no rela on between either variable. Because ‘‘trait EI’’ is

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

closer to the personality factor, and ‘‘performance-based ability EI’’ to the cogni ve process (Webb et al., 2013), it makes sensethat we would find rela ons between EI and cogni ve tasks mainly through performance tests, and not with self-report instruments. Specifically, 64% of the results of EI measured with performance tests and cogni ve processes were posi ve, showing an intermediate effect size when compared with self- report measure percentages for posi ve results. No posi ve rela ons were found for cool cogni ve tasks with any EI instrument. The majority of the results showed no rela on between EI and cogni ve tasks with no emo onal content; some results even exhibited worse performance for those with higher EI. These results may reflect the situa on that EI favors cogni ve performance only when it has emo onal informa on to go on. It is important to note, however, that only nine studies employed cool tasks, in comparison with the 35 instances where hot tasks were used. Thus, future research could be necessary in order to verify this absence of rela on. Although the results related to performance tests and hot cogni ve tasks are promising, it is important to note a few limita ons of the present study. First, some of the cogni ve tasks may have methodological problems from being newly designed instruments whose reliability has not yet been probed; one example is the FDT (Wojciechowski et al., 2014). Second, we observed an enormous variety of instruments that were employed for measuring different aspects of cogni on; specifically, 11 different hot cogni ve tasks were related with EI performance tests. These measures evaluate dis nct cogni ve processes such as a en on, decision making, and memory, among others; and even if a cogni ve task evaluates a specific process, it could be related to different aspects of the process. Thus, the Stroop task (Bar-Haim et al., 2007), for instance, is more centered in the conscious facet of the specific process of a en on. All of this variability could affect the results, given that EI could be related to certain cogni ve processes but not to others. Finally, a variety of s muli have been employed; as Bar-Haim et al. (2007) state, the s mulus type is relevant for the results, since faces are more capable of showing bias via threats among anxious people than is the case with fearful words. Apart from these cognive task–related limita ons, five different performance EI tests were employed during the studies we analyzed; these tests are not equally reliable, and they also do not always assess the same dimensions. These factors could have contaminated the results. In order to make progress in the conceptualiza on of the EI construct—specifically in understanding the rela onship that EI has with hot and cool cogni ve processes—it is important to establish future lines of study. Future research should thus be directed toward analyzing the rela onship between EI and cogni ve-specific tasks (such as a en on, memory, and so on). Predic ons could vary depending on the kind of cogni ve processes that are related with EI. For

instance, if we focus on memory processes (and specifically on working memory), we would hope (given the previous literature) that higher-EI individuals would perform better in these cogni ve tasks than lower-EI individuals. That predic on, for example, is drawn from the work of Schweizer et al. (2013), who showed via behavioral and brain measures that training on an emo onal working memory task improved the emo on regula on ability of the par cipants; but will higher EI favor performance in, for instance, an a en onal cogni ve task? Due to the limited number of studies that we would have found by dividing the literature that we reviewed for this study by specific cogni ve processes, it will be necessary to address this aspect in future empirical studies in order to provide more insight into how EI interacts with cogni on in a wider and more specific manner. It would be also interes ng to carry out a future meta-analysis with the data found in order to achieve more precise and robust results. However, given the big variability of dependent variables displayed by the different studies, as well as the few studies of specific cogni ve processes found in the revision, a meta-analysis may not be feasible for the current literature. Another limita on is the absence of studies analyzing the causality of the rela ons between the variables of interest: All the studies are correla onal. It has been shown how EI training can diminish aggressive behavior, nega ve affect, stress, depression, anxiety, sense of incapacity, as well as promote empathy, wellbeing, health and work performance (Slaski and Cartwright, 2003; Jahangard et al., 2012; Ruiz- Aranda et al., 2012; Cas llo et al., 2013). However, can the EI training improve the individual cogni ve processing? Get into the answer to this ques on could favor the implementa on of the EI training for covering a wider range of outcomes as the previously men oned as well as others as the reduc on of the age-related cogni ve and emo onal decline (Cabello et al., 2014) or the a en onal, working memory and decision making biases of clinical and non-clinical popula on (Damasio, 1998; Derakshan and Eysenck, 1998; Mogg and Bradley, 1998; Baddeley, 2007, 2013; Baddeley et al., 2012). In conclusion, this systema c review contributes to the growing literature on EI and its underlying cogni ve processing by sugges ng that individuals with higher-EI ability measured through performance tests have advantages in hot cogni ve tasks when compared with lower-EI individuals. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS MJG-C: substan al contribu ons to the design of the work and interpreta on of data for the work; Dra ing the work cri cally for important intellectual conten; Final approval of the version to be published and Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that ques ons related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately inves gated and resolved. RC: substan al contribu ons to the concep on of the

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

work and interpreta on of data for the work; Revising the work cri cally for important intellectual conten; Final approval of the version to be published and Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that ques ons related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately inves gated and resolved. PF-B: substan al contribu ons to the concep on of the work and interpreta on of data for the work; Revising the work cri cally for important intellectual conten; Final approval of the version to be published and Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that ques ons related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately inves gated and resolved. FUNDING This research was financed by the Spanish Ministry of Economy (PSI2012-37490) and the Innova on and Development Agency of Andalusia, Spain (SEJ-07325). REFERENCES Alkozei, A., Schwab, Z. J., and Killgore, W. D. S. (2015). The role of emo onal intelligence during an emo onally difficult decision-making task. J. Nonverbal Behav. 40, 39–54. doi: 10.1007/s10919-015-0218-4 Allan, N. P., and Lonigan, C. J. (2014). Exploring dimensionality of effor ul control using hot and cool tasks in a sample of preschool children. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 122, 33–47. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2013.11.013 Aus n, E. J. (2004). An inves ga on of the rela onship between trait emo onal intelligence and emo onal task performance. Pers. Individ. Dif. 36, 1855–1864. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2003.07.006 Aus n, E. J. (2005). Emo onal intelligence and emo onal informa on processing. Pers. Individ. Dif. 39, 403–414. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.017

J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 34, 887–894. doi: 10. 1080/13803395.2012.698599 Bracke , M., and Mayer, J. D. (2001). ‘‘Comparing measures of emo onal intelligence,’’ in Paper presented at the Third Posi ve Psychology Summit (Washington, DC). Bracke , M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., and Salovey, P. (2006). Rela ng emo onal abili es to social func oning: a comparison of self-report and performance measures of emo onal intelligence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 91, 780–795. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.780 Cabello, R., Navarro Bravo, B., Latorre, J. M., and Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2014). Ability of university-level educa on to prevent-age-related decline in emo onal intelligence. Front. Aging Neurosci. 6:37. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2014. 00037 Casey, B. J., Somerville, L. H., Gotlib, I. H., Ayduk, O., Franklin, N. T., Askren, M. K., et al. (2011). Behavioral and neural correlates of delay of gra fica on 40 years later. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 108, 14998–15003. doi: 10.1073/pnas. 1108561108 Cas llo, R., Salguero, J. M., Fernández-Berrocal, P., and Balluerka, N. (2013). Effects of an emo onal intelligence interven on on aggression and empathy among adolescents. J. Adolesc. 36, 883–892. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2013. 07.001 Coffey, E., Berenbaum, H., and Kerns, J. (2003). The dimensions of emo onal intelligence, alexithymia and mood awareness: associa ons with personalityand performance on an emo onal Stroop task. Cogn. Emot. 17, 671–679. doi: 10.1080/02699930302304 Cooper, R. K., and Sawaf, A. (1998). Execu ve EQ: Emo onal Intelligence in Leadership and Organiza ons. New York, NY: Perigge Book. Côté, S. (2014). Emo onal intelligence in organiza ons. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 1, 459–488. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413- 091233 Craig, A., Tran, Y., Hermens, G., Williams, L. M., Kemp, A., Morris, C., et al. (2009). Psychological and neural correlates of emo onal intelligence in a large sample of adult males and females. Pers. Individ. Dif. 46, 111–115. doi: 10. 1016/j. paid.2008.09.011 Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ Error: Emo on, Reason and the Human Brain. New York, NY: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.

Baddeley, A. D. (2007). Working Memory, Thought and Ac on. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Damasio, A. R. (1998). ‘‘The soma c marker hypothesis and the possible func ons of prefrontal cortex,’’ in The Prefrontal Cortex, eds A. C. Roberts, T. W. Robbins and L. Weiskrantz (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 36–50.

Baddeley, A. D. (2013). Working memory and emo on: rumina ons on a theory of depression. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 17, 20–27.doi: 10.1037/a0030029

DeBusk, K. P. A., and Aus n, E. J. (2011). Emo onal intelligence and social percep on. Pers. Individ. Dif. 51, 764–768. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011. 06.026

Baddeley, A. D., Banse, R., Huang, Y., and Page, M. (2012). Working memory and emo on: detec ng the hedonic detector. J. Cogn. Psychol. 24, 6–16. doi: 10. 1080/20445911.2011.613820

Demaree, H. A., Burns, K. J., and DeDonno, M. A. (2010). Intelligence, but not emo onal intelligence, predicts Iowa gambling task performance. Intelligence 38, 249–254. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2009.12.004

Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D., Pergamin, L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., and van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2007). Threat-related a en onal bias in anxious and nonanxious individuals: a meta-analy c study. Psychol. Bull. 133, 1–24. doi: 10. 1037/00332909.133.1.1

Denham, S. A., Basse , H. H., Thayer, S. K., Mincic, M. S., Sirotkin, Y. S., and Zinsser, K. (2012). Observing preschoolers’ social-emo onal behavior: structure, founda ons and predic on of early school success. J. Genet. Psychol. 173, 246–278. doi: 10.1080/00221325.2011.597457

Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On Emo onal Quo ent Inventory: Technical Manual. Toronto: Mul -HealthSystems.

Derakshan, N., and Eysenck, M. W. (1998). Working memory capacity in high trait-anxious and repressor groups. Cogn. Emot. 12, 697–713.doi: 10. 1080/026999398379501

Bar-On, R. (2002). Bar-On EQ-i:S Technical Manual. Toronto: Mul -Health Systems. Bar-On, R. (2004). ‘‘The bar-on emo onal quo ent inventory (EQ-i): ra onale, descrip on and summary of psychometric proper es,’’ in Measuring Emo onal Intelligence: Common Ground and Controversy, ed. G. Geher (Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers), 115–145. Barre , L. F. (2013). Psychological construc on: the darwinian approach to the science of emo on. Emot. Rev. 5, 379–389. doi: 10.1177/1754073913 489753

Dodonova, Y. A., and Dodonov, Y. S. (2010). Emo onal sensi vity measurement in cogni ve tasks with emo onal s muli. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 5, 1596–1600. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.331 Dodonova, Y. A., and Dodonov, Y. S. (2012). Speed of emo onal informa on processing and emo onal intelligence. Int. J. Psychol. 47, 429–437. doi: 10. 1080/00207594.2012.656131 Dolores, M. D. L., Sierra, V., África, M., Romero, N. R., Villegas, K., and Lorenzo,

Brabec, C. M., Gfeller, J. D., and Ross, M. J. (2012). An explora on of rela onships among measures of social cogni on, decision making and emo onal intelligence.

M. (2013). Emo onal intelligence and its rela onship with gender, academic

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

performance and intellectual abili es of undergraduates. Electron. J. Res. Educ. Psychol. 11, 395–412. doi: 10.14204/ejrep.30.12204

Ekman, P. (1989). ‘‘The argument and evidence about universals in facial expressions of emo on,’’ in Handbook of Social Psychophysiology, eds H. Wagner and A. Manstead (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons), 143–164. Fallon, C. K., Ma hews, G., Panganiban, A. R., Wohleber, R., and Roberts, R. D. (2013). Emo onal Intelligence and decision making under stress. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 57, 873–877. doi: 10.1177/1541931213571189 Fallon, C. K., Panganiban, A. R., Wohleber, R., Ma hews, G., Kustubayeva, A. M., and Roberts, R. (2014). Emo onal intelligence, cogni ve ability and informa on search in tac cal decision-making. Pers. Individ. Dif. 65, 24–29. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.029 Farrelly, D., and Aus n, E. J. (2007). Ability EI as an intelligence? Associa ons of the MSCEIT with performance on emo on processing and social tasks and with cogni ve ability. Cogn. Emot. 21, 1043–1063. doi: 10.1080/02699930601069404 Fellner, A. N., Ma hews, G., Shockley, K. D., Warm, J. S., Zeidner, M., Karlov, L., et al. (2012). Using emo onal cues in a discrimina on learning task: detec ng the hedonic detector. J. Res. Pers. 46, 239–247. doi: 10.1016/j. jrp.2012.01.004 Fernández-Berrocal, P., Extremera, N., Lopes, P. N., and Ruiz-Aranda, D. (2014). When to cooperate and when to compete: emo onal intelligence in interpersonal decision-making. J. Res. Pers. 49, 21–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2013. 12.005 Fiori, M., and Antonakis, J. (2012). Selec ve a en on to emo onal s muli: what IQ and openness do and emo onal intelligence does not. Intelligence 40, 245–254. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2012.02.004 Fisher, J. E., Sass, S. M., Heller, W., Silton, R. L., Edgar, J. C., Stewart, J. L., et al. (2010). Time course of processing emo onal s muli as a func on of perceived emo onal intelligence, anxiety and depression. Emo on 15, 1203–1214. doi: 10. 1037/ a0018691 García-Sancho, E., Salguero, J. M., and Fernandez-Berrocal, P. (2014). Rela onship between emo onal intelligence and aggression: a systema c review. Aggress. Violent Behav. 19, 584–591. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2014. 07.007 Hansenne, M., and Legrand, J. (2012). Crea vity, emo onal intelligence and school performance in children. Int. J. Educ. Res. 53, 264–268. doi: 10.1016/j. ijer.2012.03.015 Jacob, H., Kreifelts, B., Brück, C., Nizielski, S., Schütz, A., and Wildgruber, D. (2013). Nonverbal signals speak up: associa on between perceptual nonverbal dominance and emo onal intelligence. Cogn. Emot. 27, 783–799. doi: 10. 1080/02699931.2012.739999 Jahangard, L., Haghighi, M., Bajoghli, H., Ahmadpanah, M., Ghaleiha, A., Zarrabian, M. K., et al. (2012). Training emo onal intelligence improves both emoonal intelligence and depressive symptoms in inpa ents with borderline personality disorder and depression. Int. J. Psychiatry Clin. Pract. 16, 197–204. doi: 10.3109/13651501.2012.687454 Joseph, D. L., and Newman, D. A. (2010). Emo onal intelligence: an integra ve meta-analysis and cascading model. J. Appl. Psychol. 95, 54–78. doi: 10. 1037/ a0017286 Keltner, D., and Haidt, J. (2001). ‘‘Social func ons of emo ons,’’ in Emo ons: Current Issues and Future Direc ons, eds T. Mayne and G. A. Bonanno (New York, NY: Guilford Press), 192–213. Kemp, A. H., Cooper, N. J., Hermens, G., Gordon, E., Bryant, R., and Williams, L. M. (2005). Toward an integrated proﬁle of emo onal intelligence: introducing a brief measure. J. Integr. Neurosci. 4, 41–61. doi: 10. 1142/s0219635205000677 Kong, D. T. (2014). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emo onal Intelligence Test (MSCEIT/ MEIS) and overall, verbal and nonverbal intelligence: meta- analy c evidence and cri cal con ngencies. Pers. Individ. Dif. 66, 171–175. doi: 10.1016/j. paid.2014.03.028

Kun, B., and Demetrovics, Z. (2010). Emo onal intelligence and addicons: a systema c review. Subst. Use Misuse 45, 1131–1160. doi: 10. 3109/10826080903567855 Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cogni ve-mo va onal-rela onal theory of emo on. Am. Psychol. 46, 819–834. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.46. 8.819 LeDoux, J. (1996). The Emo onal Brain. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Lewis, M., Haviland- Jones, M., and Barre , L. F. (2008). Handbook of Emo ons. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Lin, C. H., Song, T. J., Chen, Y. Y., Lee, W. K., and Chiu, Y. C. (2013). Re-examining the validity and reliability of the clinical version of the Iowa gambling task: evidence from a normal subject group. Front. Psychol. 4:220. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00220 Locke, E. A. (2005). Why emo onal intelligence is an invalid concept. J. Organ. Behav. 26, 425–431. doi: 10.1002/job.318 Lyusin, D. B. (2006). Emo onal intelligence as a mixed construct: its rela on to personality and gender. J. Russ. East Eur. Psychol. 44, 54–68. doi: 10. 2753/ rpo1061-0405440604 MacCann, C., Lievens, F., Libbrecht, N., and Roberts, R. D. (2015). Diﬀerences between mul media and text-based assessments of emo on management: an explora on with the mul media emo on management assessment (MEMA). Cogn. Emot. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2015.1061482 [Epub ahead of print]. MacCann, C., Roberts, R. D., Ma hews, G., and Zeidner, M. (2004). Consensus scoring and empirical op on weigh ng of performance-based emo onal intelligence (EI) tests. Pers. Individ. Dif. 36, 645–662. doi: 10.1016/s01918869(03)00123-5 Mar ns, A., Ramalho, N., and Morin, E. (2010). A comprehensive meta-analysis of the rela onship between emo onal intelligence and health. Pers. Individ. Dif. 49, 554–564. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.029 Mar n, S. L., and Thomas, J. (2011). Emo onal intelligence: examining construct validity using the emo onal stroop. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2, 209–215. Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., and Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abili es: emo onal intelligence. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59, 507–536. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59. 103006.093646 Mayer, J. D., and Salovey, P. (1997). ‘‘What is emo onal intelligence?,’’ in Emoonal Development and Emo onal Intelligence: Implica ons for Educators, eds P. Salovey and D. Sluyter (New York, NY: Basic Books), 3–31. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., and Caruso, D. (2000). ‘‘Models of emo onal intelligence,’’ in Handbook of Intelligence, ed. J. Sternberg (New York, NY: Basic Books), 396–420. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., and Caruso, D. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emo onal Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) User’s Manual. Toronto: MHS. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., and Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emo onal intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emo on 3, 97–105. doi: 10. 1037/1528-3542.3.1.97 Mikolajczak, M., Roy, E., Verstrynge, V., and Luminet, O. (2009). An explora on of the modera ng eﬀect of trait emo onal intelligence on memory and a enon in neutral and stressful condi ons. Br. J. Psychol. 100, 699–715. doi: 10.1348/000712608x395522 Mogg, K., and Bradley, B. P. (1998). A cogni ve-mo va onal analyses of anxiety. Behav. Res. Ther. 36, 809–848. doi: 10.1016/s0005-7967(98) 00063-1 Mogg, K., and Bradley, B. P. (2005). A en onal bias in generalized anxiety disorder versus depressive disorder. Cogn. Ther. Res. 29, 29–45. doi: 10. 1007/ s10608-005-1646-y O’Connor, R. M., and Li le, L. S. (2003). Revisi ng the predic ve validity of emo onal intelligence: self-report versus ability-based measures. Pers. Individ. Dif. 35, 1893–1902. doi: 10.1016/s0191-8869(03) 00038-2

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016 Ovsyannikova, V., and Lyusin, D. (2009). ‘‘Are there different emo onal intelligences?,’’ in Book of Abstracts of the 10th European Conference on Psychological Assessment, eds J. R. J. Fontaine and M. Schi eka e (Ghent: Ghent University), 123. Petrides, K. V., and Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emo onal intelligence: behavioural valida on in two studies of emo on recogni on and reac vity to mood inducon. Eur. J. Pers. 17, 39–57. doi: 10.1002/per.466 Pilárik, L., and Sarmány-Schuller, I. (2009). Emo onal intelligence and decisionmaking of female students of social work in the Iowa gambling task. Stud. Psychol. (Bra sl) 51, 319–328. Reis, D. L., Bracke , M. A., Shamosh, N. A., Kiehl, K. A., Salovey, P., and Gray, J. R. (2007). Emo onal intelligence predicts individual differences in social exchange reasoning. Neuroimage 35, 1385–1391. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage. 2006.12.045 Roberts, R. D. (2009). ‘‘Mul media assessment of emo onal abili es: framework, findings and future direc ons,’’ in Keynote Address: The 10th European Conference on Psychological Assessment. University of Ghent (Ghent, Belgium). Roberts, R. D., Betancourt, A. C., Burrus, J., Holtzman, S., Libbrecht, N., MacCann, C., et al. (2013). Mul media Assessment of Emo onal Abili es: Development and Valida on Army Research Ins tute Report Series. Arlington, VA: ARI. Roberts, R. D., Zeidner, M., and Ma hews, G. (2001). Does emo onal intelligence meet tradi onal standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions. Emo on 1, 196–231. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.1.3.196 Ruiz-Aranda, D., Ca llo, R., Salguero, J. M., Cabello, R., Fernández-Berrocal, P., and Balluerka, N. (2012). Short- and midterm effects of emo onal intelligence training on adolescent mental health. J. Adolesc. Health 51, 462–467. doi: 10. 1016/j.jadohealth.2012.02.003 Salovey, P., and Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emo onal intelligence. Imagin. Cogn. Pers. 9, 185–211. doi: 10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S. L., Turvey, C., and Palfai, T. P. (1995). ‘‘Emoonal a en on, clarity and repair: exploring emo onal intelligence using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale,’’ in Emo on, Disclosure and Health, ed. W. Pennebaker (Washington, DC: American Psychological Associa on), 125–154. Schmidt-Atzert, L., and Bühner, M. (2002). ‘‘Development of a performance measure of emo onal intelligence,’’ in Paper presented at the 43rd congress of the German Psychological Society, Humboldt-University, Berlin, Germany. Schu e, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., et al. (1998). Development and valida on of a measure of emo onal intelligence. Pers. Individ. Dif. 25, 167–177. doi: 10.1016/s0191-8869(98) 00001-4 Schu e, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Bhullar, N., and Rooke, S. E. (2007). A meta-analy c inves ga on of the rela onship between emo onal intelligence and health. Pers. Individ. Dif. 42, 921–933. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006. 09.003 Schweizer, S., Grahn, J., Hampshire, A., Mobbs, D., and Dalgleish, T. (2013). Training the emo onal brain: improving affec ve control through emo onal working memory training. J. Neurosci. 33, 5301–5311. doi: 10. 1523/JNEUROSCI.2593-12.2013 Slaski, M., and Cartwright, S. (2003). Emo onal Intelligence training and its implica ons for stress, health and performance. Stress Health 19, 233–239.doi: 10.1002/smi.979 Smieja, M., Orzechowski, J., and Beauvale, A. (2007). TIE—test inteligencji emocjonalnej. Stud. Psychologiczne 54, 80–99. Smieja, M., Orzechowski, J., and Stolarski, M. S. (2014). TIE: an ability test of emoonal intelligence. PLoS One 9:e103484. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone. 0103484 Steinmayr, R., Schütz, A., Hertel, J., and Schröder-Abé, M. (2011). MSCEIT—Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Test zur Emo onalen Intelligenz [Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emo onal Intelligence Test]. Bern: Huber.

Telle, N. T., Senior, C., and Butler, M. (2011). Trait emo onal intelligence facilitates responses to a social gambling task. Pers. Individ. Dif. 50, 523–526. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.11.010 Webb, C. A., DelDonno, S., and Killgore, W. D. S. (2014). The role of cogni ve versus emo onal intelligence in Iowa gambling task performance: what’s emo on got to do with it? Intelligence 44, 112–119. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2014. 03.008 Webb, C. A., Schwab, Z. J., Weber, M., DelDonno, S., Kipman, M., Weiner, M. R., et al. (2013). Convergent and divergent validity of integra ve versus mixed model measures of emo onal intelligence. Intelligence 41, 149–156. doi: 10. 1016/j.intell.2013.01.004 Wojciechowski, J., Stolarski, M., and Ma hews, G. (2014). Emo onal intelligence and mismatching expressive and verbal messages: a contribu on to detec on of decep on. PLoS One 9:e92570. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092570 Zeidner, M., Ma hews, G., and Roberts, R. D. (2012). The emo onal intelligence, health and well-being nexus: what have we learned and what have we missed? Appl. Psychol. Health Well Being 4, 1–30. doi: 10.1111/j.17580854.2011. 01062.x

Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial rela onships that could be construed as a poten al conflict of interest. Copyright © 2016 Gu érrez-Cobo, Cabello and Fernández-Berrocal. This is an open- access ar cle distributed under the terms of the Crea ve Commons A ribu on License (CC BY). The use, distribu on and reproduc on in other forums is permi ed, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publica on in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic prac ce. No use, distribu on or reproduc on is permi ed which does not comply with these terms.

LAMA REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

Membership Application Name

Courtesy Title Ms. Mr.

Academic Degree

Dr.

None

Professional Designation/Certification

Title

Organizational Contact Primary Alternate

Company Address1 Address 2 City, State, Zipcode Organization Phone Number

Organization Fax Number

Individual Phone Number

Individual Fax Number

Website

Email address of person requiring confirmation if other than applicant

Membership Type $100 Individual Member (Domestic) $120 Individual Member (International) $325 Institutional Member Institutional Members may add up to three additional individuals at no additional charge, after that there is a $100 charge per individual, please attach separate membership forms with contact information for each individual. LAMA Foundation Friend: $ (The LAMA Foundation provides scholarship funding for managers pursuing professional managerial education and training)

Payment Information Checks must be in U.S. dollars and drawn on a U.S. bank and made payable to the LAMA. Please remit to:

LAMA 15490 101st Ave N #100 Maple Grove, MN 55369 Phone: 763.235.6484 Fax: 763.235.6461 www.lama-online.org

Check Card Number

Credit Card Type:

Cardholder Billing Address

LAMA TIN#: 52-1828124 AMEX

Visa Discover Expiration Date

Card Code

City, State, Zip

To submit this form via our Secure Data Upload website Log in with user name lama and password lam321 (password is case sensitive) Skip directly to Step 3! Click the Browse button to locate your completed registration on your computer, then click the Upload button to submit your completed form.