The dominant conceptions of emotional intelligence can be categorized into “ability” models and “mixed” models. Ability models view emotional intelligence as a construct related to other intelligences and consisting of a set of mental abilities whereas mixed models view emotional intelligence as a blend of standard personality traits and various abilities. In this chapter, we review these models of emotional intelligence, including the measures associated with each, and provide a brief summary of the debate between ability models and mixed models. Narrowing in on the ability conception of emotional intelligence, we then discuss its behavioral and neural correlates, development, and malleability, as well as a school-based intervention designed to promote these skills. We conclude with an exploration of possibilities for the emotional intelligence research landscape in the next thirty years.

ABSTRACT

The starting point for the idea that there could be an emotional intelligence is that, rather than “hijacking” one's thoughts and behaviors (Goleman, 1995, p. 13), emotions often serve adaptive, purposeful, and helpful functions (Leeper, 1948). It is the emotional system, in this view, that focuses attention, organizes memory, helps us to interpret social situations, and motivates relevant behavior. Accordingly, it makes little sense to place emotions in opposition to reason and rationality (de Sousa, 1987). The concept of emotional intelligence, which elsewhere (e.g., Mayer & Salovey, 1997) we have defined as the ability to perceive, understand, manage, and use emotional information, simply takes this functionalist perspective one step further by calling attention to the need for research on individual differences in the ability to reason about emotions and to use emotions in reasoning.

COMPETING MODELS OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

Studies of emotional intelligence initially appeared in academic articles beginning in the early 1990s. By middecade, the concept had attracted considerable popular attention, and powerful claims were made concerning its importance for predicting success. Emotional intelligence is the set of abilities that accounts for how people's emotional reports vary in their accuracy and how the more accurate understanding of emotion leads to better problem solving in an individual's emotional life. More formally, we define emotional intelligence as the ability to perceive and express emotion, assimilate emotion in thought, understand and reason with emotion, and regulate emotion in the self and others (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). As of now, the academic concept has been developed over several theoretical articles (e.g., Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Salovey & Mayer, 1990) and is based on a growing body of relevant research (e.g., Averill & Nunley, 1992; Buck, 1984; Lane, Sechrest, Reidel et al., 1996; Mayer, DiPaolo, & Salovey, 1990; Mayer & Geher, 1996; Mayer & Stevens, 1994; Rosenthal, Hall, DiMatteo, Rogers, & Archer, 1979; Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey, & Palfai, 1995; see also, Salovey & Sluyter, 1997).

Shortly after the academic work began, a popular book on the subject appeared (Goleman, 1995a). The book covered much of the literature reviewed in the aforementioned articles as well as considerable additional research on emotions and the brain, emotions and social behavior, and school-based programs designed to help children develop emotional and social skills.

Social movements are involved in struggles over meaning as they attempt to influence public policy. An essential task in these struggles is to frame social problems and injustices in a way that convinces a wide and diverse audience of the necessity for and utility of collective attempts to redress them. Movement frames typically embody two essential components: the diagnostic element, or the definition of the problem and its source; and the prognostic element, the identification of an appropriate strategy for redressing the problem (Snow and Benford 1988). Movements usually lack the political and/or material resources necessary for routine access to political decision-makers and therefore must rely primarily on “outsider” strategies to draw the attention of publics and policymakers to the problems they wish to have resolved. Lipsky (1968) identified a fundamental logic of movement strategy as a conscious attempt to draw third parties into the conflict in order to raise the stakes in the conflict and bring favorable pressure to bear on the policy process. While movements' ultimate targets are typically policymakers, movements must mobilize people and resources within the wider society in order to influence this authoritative elite. These third parties include both the mass public and the reference elites, the people with whom the authoritative elite interacts and consults. A major tool in this process is the mass media, which can reach a much larger audience than social movement actors can reach directly.