See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265890136

Going Beyond The Ability-Trait Debate: The Three-Level Model of Emotional

Intelligence

Article · January 2010

DOI: 10.7790/ejap.v5i2.175

CITATIONS READS

59 2,037

1 author:

Moïra Mikolajczak
Université Catholique de Louvain - UCLouvain
128 PUBLICATIONS   3,968 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Effect of intranasal oxytocin in humans (the more we search, the less we find...) View project

Emotional intelligence and health View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Moïra Mikolajczak on 17 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Mikolajczak: Going beyond the ability-trait debate. 25

Going Beyond the Ability-Trait Debate:

The Three-Level Model of Emotional Intelligence
Moïra Mikolajczak ([email protected])
Department of Psychology, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium
Place Cardinal Mercier 10, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

Abstract Caruso, 2008). The purpose of this paper is to present a

model that reconciles the ability and trait perspectives.
This paper presents a unifying model that aims to To this aim, the paper will start with a presentation of
reconcile two conflicting conceptions of emotional both perspectives followed by a synthesis and critical
intelligence (EI): the conception of EI as a form of
examination of the main arguments for each. Next, we
intelligence (ability EI) and the conception of EI as a
personality trait (trait EI). The paper starts with a shall propose a unifying model to bring these
synthesis and critical examination of the main arguments conflicting perspectives together. Finally, implications
of each perspective. Based on this review, it is suggested of the model will be drawn for both research and
that both perspectives have contributed to extend practice.
scientific knowledge about emotional skills underlying
processes and outcomes. In order to enable them both to The Protagonists
exist in their own right, a Three-Level Model of EI
(knowledge – abilities – dispositions) is suggested. The
paper is concluded by emphasizing the implications of Ability EI
the model for both research and practice. The term “emotional intelligence” first appeared in a
book by Van Ghent (1961), soon followed by an article
Keywords: Emotional competence; personality; by Leuner (1966). Because the former was unrelated to
individual differences; three-level model of emotional psychology and the latter was published in German, the
intelligence; emotional intelligence knowledge;
emotional intelligence abilities; emotional intelligence
concept remained largely unnoticed. The first English
dispositions occurrence in Psychology was in a doctoral dissertation
by Payne (1985). Surprisingly, none of these authors
Introduction really defined EI. Salovey and Mayer presented the
following seminal definition of emotional intelligence
Although all humans experience emotions, individuals in 1990: EI is “the ability to monitor one’s own and
markedly differ in the extent to which they experience, others’ feelings, to discriminate among them and to use
attend to, identify, understand, regulate, and use their this information to guide one’s thinking and action” (p.
emotions and those of others. The construct of emotional 189). They later refined this definition and broke it
intelligence (EI) has been proposed to account for this down into four related abilities (Mayer & Salovey,
variability (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Research on 1997; Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2004): (1) the ability
emotional intelligence has drastically grown over the past to accurately perceive emotions, (2) the ability to access
decade, and EI has become a hot topic both inside (e.g., and generate emotions to assist thought, (3) the ability
Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005; Mayer, Roberts & Barsade, to understand emotions (i.e., their causes and
2008) and outside academia (e.g., Goleman, 1995). consequences, and the relationships between them), and
Over the last decade, researchers have energetically (4) the ability to reflectively regulate emotions so as to
sought to empirically examine popular claims about EI promote emotional and intellectual growth.
and to provide EI with clear and coherent theoretical The ability EI perspective conceives EI as “the
bases. As research expanded, the field split off into two cooperative combination of intelligence and emotion”
distinct perspectives. While EI was originally conceived (Mayer et al., 2004, pp 197), EI is intelligence operating
as a set of abilities forming a new form of intelligence on emotional information (Mayer et al., 2004) and is
(Mayer & Salovey, 1993), other authors held that EI viewed as “a member of class of intelligences including
was conceptually (inversely) related to the personality the social, practical and personal intelligences” (Mayer
dimensions of neuroticism and alexithymia ― among et al., 2004, p 197). In accordance with these views,
others ― and should therefore be conceived as a set of ability EI has been measured using IQ-like performance
affect-related traits (Petrides & Furnham, 2003). tests (see Salovey & Grewal, 2005).
The EI field has been divided since then by virulent
controversies about its nature (e.g., Locke, 2005;
Matthews, Zeidner & Roberts, 2007; Mayer, Salovey &

Electronic Journal of Applied Psychology. 5(2): 25-31 (2009)

Mikolajczak: Going beyond the ability-trait debate. 26

Trait EI (Schutte et al., 2001) or peer-rated sociability and

Contrary to the ability perspective which was theory popularity (Petrides, Sangareau, Furnham, &
driven and then empirically tested, the trait EI Frederickson, 2006).
perspective was empirically driven and then theorized. The second critique addressed to the trait EI
In order to facilitate EI testing in research, educational perspective is that it correlates too much with existing
and business settings, several authors translated ability personality traits to be useful. According to Gignac
models into self-report instruments (e.g. Schutte et al., (2006), the common practice of comparing EI to the
1998). The high correlations found between self- NEO PI-R is flawed logic, as the NEO is such a big
reported EI scores and personality traits led Petrides construct that it encompasses almost everything and so
and Furnham (2001) to coin the term “trait emotional general that there is redundancy within the NEO itself.
intelligence”. From the trait EI perspective, EI is a The trait EI construct is useful because it organizes
constellation of emotion-related dispositions capturing under a single framework the main individual
the extent to which people attend to, identify, differences in affectivity, which have been up to now
understand, regulate, and utilize their emotions and those scattered across the basic Big Five dimensions
of others. Greater trait EI corresponds to a profile of (neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and
dispositions that leads to greater adaptation. conscientiousness) and other models (Gignac, 2006;
The trait EI perspective views EI as a cluster of lower- Petrides et al., 2007). This critique is also refuted by the
order personality traits (Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, numerous studies showing that trait EI explains
2007). EI therefore encompasses two kinds of variance: additional variance over and above related traits such as
one portion of variance already covered by established alexithymia or the Big Five, to predict criteria as
personality taxonomies (e.g., the Giant Three or the Big diverse as cortisol secretion amidst stress (e.g.,
Five) and one portion of variance that lies outside these Mikolajczak, Roy, Luminet, Fillée, & de Timary,
dimensions (Petrides et al., 2007). In accordance with 2007), academic success (e.g., Van der Zee, Thijs, &
this view, trait EI has been evaluated using personality- Schakel, 2002), and work performance (e.g., Van Rooy,
like questionnaires. & Viswesvaran, 2004), to name but a few.
Proponents of the trait EI perspective criticise the
Synthesis and Critical Examination of ability perspective for measuring abilities that may not
have been put into practice. However, it is not because
Ability and Trait EI Mutual Critiques abilities are not always used that they ought not to be
Proponents of the ability perspective criticize the trait measured. On the contrary, it is extremely useful to
EI perspective for using self-reports, which, according know whether the individuals who behave in a non-
to them, barely reflect self-perceptions and therefore emotionally intelligent manner lack the underlying
constitute unreliable assessments of objective abilities or just do not use their abilities. Remediation
competencies. Although this premise appears perspectives (therapies in clinical settings, trainings in
acceptable in the first instance, this argument proved to organizational settings) would indeed drastically differ
be incorrect as trait EI does relate to objective criteria. depending on the source of the problem. The second
Firstly, trait EI has neurobiological correlates, such as critique addressed to the ability perspective concerns
the level of asymmetry in the resting activation of the psychometrical properties of its measures (i.e.,
frontal cortical areas (i.e., Kemp et al., 2005; scoring method at odds with the theory, low
Mikolajczak, Nelis, Laloyaux, Hansenne, & Bodarwé, reliabilities), which would prove that abilities cannot be
2008) or the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis measured. However, the fact that the tests are not yet
reactivity in stressful situations (Mikolajczak, Roy, optimal does not undermine the quality of the
Luminet, Fillée, & de Timary, 2007; Salovey, Woolery, underlying idea. Moreover, abilities have long been
Stroud & Epel, 2002). Studies on individuals with successfully measured in assessment centres (e.g.,
lesions in key emotion brain areas also revealed that through role plays) or in laboratories (e.g., by asking
these people have lower levels of trait EI than normal people to regulate their emotions and measuring their
controls (Bar-On, Tranel, Denburg, & Bechara, 2003). physiological parameters).
It is noteworthy that the effect sizes in these studies
were not only statistically significant, but that most of An Unifying View: The Three-Level Model
them were large according to Cohen’s norms (1988). of EI
Secondly, trait EI correlates with the speed of emotional
information processing (Austin, 2004, 2005). Thirdly, The foregoing discussion suggests that both
trait EI predicts objective life-outcomes such as work perspectives have merits, and there is no evidence to
performance (e.g., Bradberry & Su, 2007; Law, Wong date suggesting that one should be dismissed in favour
& Song, 2004; Van Rooy, & Viswesvaran, 2004), of the other. Therefore, I propose to gather them in a
income (Petrides & Furnham, 2006), number of school unifying model of EI (see Figure 1). This model
exclusions or unauthorized absences (e.g., Mavroveli, suggests distinguishing between knowledge, abilities
Petrides, Shove, & Whitehead, 2008), cooperation and dispositions. It draws upon prior contributions

Electronic Journal of Applied Psychology. 5(2): 25-31 (2009)

Mikolajczak: Going beyond the ability-trait debate. 27

made by Palmer, Gignac, Ekermans and Stough (2008), The focus here is not on what people can do, but on
and answers the calls of Barrett and Salovey (2002) and what people do. To go on with the aforesaid example,
Matthews, Zeidner and Roberts (2002) to integrate the some individuals may be able to distract themselves
knowledge acquired in other areas of the affective from a situation that makes them angry if explicitly
sciences in EI models (e.g., Lane & Schwartz, 1987). asked to do so (e.g., after a relative said: “Don’t think
According to the Three-Level Model, EI aims to about this anymore, it’s eating you up”), while not
capture individual differences in emotion-related managing to distract themselves of their own volition.
knowledge, abilities and dispositions. It is noteworthy that the individual may not “do” either
because they do not have the ability or because they do
Knowledge not have the knowledge, or for other reasons (e.g.,
The first level refers to the complexity and width of motivational factors).
emotion-related knowledge (i.e., number of
Relationships between levels
differentiated concepts and number of links in the
connected web of multimodal emotion-related As the foregoing illustrations should have made
concepts). The focus here is on the knowledge that the obvious, these three levels of EI-related individual
person has about emotions and how to deal with differences are loosely connected. Empirical evidence
emotion-laden situations. To take the example of the for these loose relationships has been recently provided
regulation branch, this level would cover the person’s by Lumley, Gustavson, Partridge, & Labouvie-Vief
knowledge about the efficiency of various emotion (2005), who showed that there were only weak
regulation strategies. This knowledge may be explicit or correlations between measures of EI operationalized as
implicit. It is noteworthy that such knowledge is more knowledge, abilities and dispositions, respectively. That
complex than a simple list of efficient/inefficient is, knowledge does not always translate into abilities,
strategies. Rather, it integrates both semantic (e.g., what which, in turn, do not always translate into practice
people say one should do in a given emotional (dispositions). One might well know that the best
situation) and episodic knowledge (what I remember strategy before an exam is to reappraise the situation in
from my past experience) in a complex scheme of what a positive manner but, at the same time, being totally
works and what does not in various situations. unable to reappraise one’s own exam session positively.
Although such knowledge may be fairly obvious for In the same vein, one might be capable of reappraising
psychologists (and emotion researchers in particular), a situation positively when asked to do so (e.g., by a
research has shown that there were huge individual friend, a coach or a therapist), while not using this
differences in emotion-related knowledge (Wranik, strategy on a daily basis. Multi-level models of emotion
Feldman-Barrett, & Salovey, 2007). For instance ― (e.g., Leventhal, 1984; Philippot, 2000; Teasdale, 1999)
and as surprising as it may be ― as much as 50¨% of might account for this. To paraphrase Philippot, you
people do not know that positive reappraisal works might well know that a spider is not dangerous
better than suppression (Loewenstein, 2007). (propositional level) and still be totally frightened when
confronted with one (schematic system). The
Abilities dissociation between the levels of emotion certainly
parallels the dissociation exposed above.
The second level refers to emotion-related abilities,
The hierarchical structure of the model implies that
namely, the ability to implement a given strategy in an
knowledge underlies skill, which in turn underlies
emotional situation. So, the focus here is not on what
dispositions. Namely, whereas lower levels do not
people know but on what they can do. For instance,
necessarily entail higher levels, higher levels are
even though research has shown that temporary
supposed to entail lower levels. For instance, the
distraction was a very efficient strategy to turn down
propensity to remain calm in emotional situations
anger (Bushman, 2002; Rusting and Nolen-Hoeksema,
implies the ability to implement functional emotion
1998), and even though the majority of people know
regulation strategies, which in turn implies the
that (Loewenstein, 2007), many individuals are simply
knowledge that some strategies are more functional
not able to distract themselves when angry. In the same
than others in a given situation. This knowledge does
vein, lots of people find it difficult to positively
not need to be explicit or conscious but is supposed to
reappraise stressful situations, even though they would
exist at an implicit level.
like to do so (S. Deconninck, personal communication,
December 14, 2008).

Dispositions
The third level refers to emotion-related dispositions,
namely, the propensity to behave in a certain way in
emotional situations. These dispositions are captured by
all emotion-related traits (e.g., neuroticism facets).

Electronic Journal of Applied Psychology. 5(2): 25-31 (2009)

Mikolajczak: Going beyond the ability-trait debate. 28

confronted with someone having, for instance, emotion

Dispositions
regulation issues, practitioners might be interested to
know whether the problem originates in poor emotion-
related knowledge, in poor emotional abilities or in a
(the propensity to put
one’s abilities into practice,

difficulty in putting knowledge and abilities into

the frequency with which
one uses his/her abilities)

practice. The “treatment”/“training” would indeed

Abilities
greatly differ depending on the source of the problem.
(the ability to apply
knowledge
The foregoing discussion suggests that researchers
to a problem solving
situation and to
and practitioners should not choose one perspective ―
implement a given strategy) or one type of instrument ― over the other(s). Instead,
Knowledge this paper suggests that each type of instrument will fit
(the complexity and width better in a different context. This dovetails with
of
emotion knowledge, the findings of a recent empirical study by Bradberry and
beliefs about emotions)
Su (2006), showing that the effectiveness of a given EI
instrument depended on the purpose for which it was
used.
Figure 1: The Three-Level Model of EI
Future Directions
In the previous section, we have taken stock of the
Implications of the Three-Level Model for current debates in the EI field and proposed a model to
organize and integrate research to date. This model does
Research and Practice not pretend to be “right” but it has been useful to
Such a model appears to be useful to both researchers organise thinking about emotional skills in this manner,
and practitioners. Firstly, it unifies rather than opposes hence the idea to share it. Future studies will have to
existing EI models, and might therefore represent a objectively test it using measures of the three levels,
preliminary step toward the reconciliation of ability and and determine, using factor analysis/structural equation
trait EI perspectives. The internal conflicts between modelling, whether the three-level model best fits the
perspectives have certainly contributed ― in data. Yet, our aim in this paper was less to come up
conjunction with the profusion of EI books and tests with a definite model than to help bridge the gap
that are not evidence-based ― to undermine the between ability and trait EI perspectives.
credibility of the EI field to other fields and make it In addition to highlighting the need to address this
difficult for EI research to be published in high-ranking issue, this paper also opens avenues for future research.
journals. This is unfortunate for at least two reasons. At least two promising new directions are foreseen,
First, emotional skills have significant consequences for which seem likely to broaden and extend the way we
the most important aspects of people’s lives, namely, think about EI. The first direction pertains to the neural
psychological well-being and mental health (e.g., correlates of emotion-related knowledge, abilities and
Ciarrochi, Deane, & Anderson, 2002; Austin, dispositions. Given the weak correlations existing
Saklofske, & Egan, 2005; Schutte, Malouff, Simunek, between these three levels (Lumley et al., 2005), it is
McKenley, & Hollander, 2002), somatic health (see unlikely that individual differences, say, at the
Schutte, Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Bhullar, & Rooke, knowledge level have the same brain correlates than
2007 for a meta-analysis), academic and job individual differences, say, at the disposition level.
performance (see Van Rooy and Viswesvaran, 2004 for Future research will have to document the neural bases
a meta-analysis), and the quality of social relationships of each level, in order to help predicting and
(e.g., Lopes et al., 2004; Schutte et al., 2001). Thus, it is understanding their behavioural correlates. The second
crucial to pursue scientific research on emotional skills. direction concerns to the relationships between levels.
Second, unlike many scientific concepts, EI has been How does knowledge translate into abilities? Why do
met with unprecedented success among lay people. For abilities not always translate into practice? How can we
better and for worse, emotional intelligence has become improve connectivity between levels? It is our hope that
a lucrative phenomenon. This is not that surprising as research will soon find answers to these questions.
the corporate world has become more and more
interested in EI. According to Talentsmart® (2008), Conclusion
about 75% of Fortune 500 companies are now trying to Although there is a general consensus on the fact that
promote EI in their organization. For this reason too, individuals greatly differ regarding their emotional
scientific research on EI must go on, in order to skills, the nature of these individual differences have
distinguish science from myth. been subject to debate. Some view these differences as
In addition to its interest to researchers, the model can a form of intelligence whereas others view them as a
also be of use to therapists and recruiters. Indeed, personality trait. The upholders of each perspective

Electronic Journal of Applied Psychology. 5(2): 25-31 (2009)

Mikolajczak: Going beyond the ability-trait debate. 29

have done an excellent job in showing how important emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual
emotional skills are for life success. However, the Differences, 38, 547-558.
theoretical conflicts about EI’s nature have consumed Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. (2005). Rumors of the
an incredible amount of researchers’ energy, without death of emotional intelligence in organizational
ever managing to put an end to the debate. This paper behavior are vastly exaggerated. Journal of
aimed at proposing a unifying model to reconcile ability Organizational Behavior, 26, 441-452.
and trait EI perspectives. This paper started with a Bar-On, R., Tranel, D., Denburg, N. L., & Bechara, A.
synthesis and critical examination of the main (2003). Exploring the neurological substrate of
arguments of each perspective. Based on this review, it emotional and social intelligence. Brain, 126, 1790-
is suggested that both perspectives have contributed to 1800.
extend scientific knowledge about emotional skills. In Barrett, L. F., & Salovey, P. (Eds.). (2002). The wisdom
order to reconcile them and to enable them both to exist in feeling: Processes underlying emotional
in their own right, a Three-Level Model of EI is intelligence. New York: Guilford.
suggested. The first level targets emotion knowledge, Bradberry, T.R., & Su, L.D. (2007). Ability- versus
the second covers emotional abilities and the third one skill-based assessment ofemotional intelligence.
comprises emotional dispositions. Psichothema, 18, 59-66.
The first aim with this model was to show that each Ciarrochi, J., Deane, F. P., & Anderson, S. (2002).
level captures part of the EI construct; it would Emotional intelligence moderates the relationship
therefore be nonsense to reduce EI to only one of its between stress and mental health. Personality and
levels. For instance, trying to decide whether EI is best Individual Differences, 32, 197-209.
represented as ability or trait amounts to trying to Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the
determine whether EI is more a question of emotion Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum
identification or a question of emotion regulation. Associates.
However, the fact that all dimensions and levels are Critchley, H. D., Melmed, R. N., Featherstone, E.,
necessary to completely represent the construct should Mathias, C. J., & Dolan, R. J. (2001). Brain activity
not prevent researchers or practitioners to target (i.e., during biofeedback relaxation: A functional
study, measure, train) preferably one dimension or one neuroimaging investigation. Brain. 124, 1003-1012.
level, depending on the context. Gignac, G. (2006). Testing jingle-jangle fallacies in a
Our second aim with this model was to stimulate crowded market of over-expansive constructs: The
research on emotional skills, in a way that moves case of emotional intelligence. Paper presented at the
beyond the trait-ability debate. Finally, our last aim was Emotional Intelligence: International symposium
to enable practitioners to determine more accurately the 2005, Melbourne.
nature of deficits in emotional competencies and derive Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New
appropriate training/treatments. York: Bantam Books.
Kemp, A.H., Cooper, N.J., Hermens, G., Goron, E.,
Acknowledgments Bryant, R. & Williams, L.M. (2005). Toward an
This research was supported by the Belgian National integrated profile of emotional intelligence:
Fund for Scientific Research (FNRS-FRS). Introducing a brief measure. Journal of Integrative
Neuroscience, 4, 41-61.
References Lane, R.D. & Schwartz, G.E. (1987). Levels of
emotional awareness: A cognitive-developmental
Bradberry, T., & Su, L. D. (2006). Ability-versus skill-
theory and its application to psychopathology.
based assessment of emotional intelligence.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 133-143.
Psicothema, 18, 59-66.
Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., Song, L.J. The construct and
Bushman, B. J. (2002). Does Venting Anger Feed or
criterions validity of emotional intelligence and its
Extinguish the Flame? Catharsis, Rumination,
potential utility for management studies. Journal of
Distraction, Anger, and Aggressive Responding.
Applied Psychology, 89(3), 483-496.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 724.
Leuner, B. (1966). Emotional intelligence and
Austin, E. J. (2004). An investigation of the relationship
emancipation. A psychodynamic study on women.
between trait emotional intelligence and emotional
Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie,
task performance. Personality and individual
15(Aug-Sept), 193-203.
differences, 36, 1855-1864.
Leventhal, H. (1984). A perceptual-motor theory of
Austin, E. J. (2005). Emotional intelligence and
emotion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.): Advances in
emotional information processing. Personality and
Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 17. New York:
Individual Differences, 39, 403-414.
Academic Press.
Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., & Egan, V. (2005).
Locke, E.A. Why emotional intelligence is an invalid
Personality, well-being and health correlates of trait
concept. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 4,
425-431.

Electronic Journal of Applied Psychology. 5(2): 25-31 (2009)

Mikolajczak: Going beyond the ability-trait debate. 30

Loewenstein, G. (2007). Affective regulation and Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional
affective forecasting. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook intelligence: Behavioural validation in two studies of
of emotion regulation. New York: Guilford Press. emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction.
Lopes, P. N., Brackett, M. A., Nezlek, J. B., Schutz, A., European Journal of Personality, 17, 39-57.
Sellin, I., & Salovey, P. (2004). Emotional Petrides, K.V. & Furnham, A. (2006). The role of trait
Intelligence and Social Interaction. Personality and emotional intelligence I a gender-specific model of
Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1018. organizational variables. Journal of Applied Social
Lumley, M. A., Gustavson, B. J., Partridge, R. T., & Psychology, 36, 552-569.
Labouvie-Vief, G. (2005). Assessing alexithymia and Petrides, K. V., Sangareau, Y., Furnham, A., &
related emotional ability constructs using multiple Frederickson, N. (2006). Trait Emotional Intelligence
methods: Interrelationships among measures. and Children's Peer Relations at School. Social
Emotion, 5, 329-342. Development, 15, 537-547.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). Philippot, P. (2000): Une approche cognitive de la
Emotional intelligence: Science and myth. pathologie des émotions. In M. Van Der Linden, J-M.
Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press. Danion & A. Agniel (Eds.) : La psychopathologie :
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2007). une approche cognitive et neuropsychologique, Solal,
The Science of Emotional Intelligence: Knowns and Marseille.
Unknowns. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rusting, C. L., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1998).
Mavroveli, S., Petrides, K., Shove, C., & Whitehead, A. Regulating responses to anger: effects of rumination
(in press). Investigation of the construct of trait and distraction on angry mood. Journal of Personality
emotional intelligence in children. European Child and Social Psychology, 74, 790-803.
and Adolescent Psychiatry. Salovey, P., & Grewal, D. (2005). The science of
Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). emotional intelligence. Current Directions in
Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual Psychological Science, 14, 281-285.
Review of Psychology, 59, 507-536. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality,
emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17, 433-442. 9, 185-210.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional Salovey, P., Stroud, L. R., Woolery, A., & Epel, E. S.
intelligence. In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), (2002). Perceived Emotional Intelligence, Stress
Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Reactivity, and Symptom Reports: Further
Educational implications. New York: Basic Books. Explorations Using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004). Psychology and Health, 17, 611-627.
Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings, and Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Bobik, C., Coston, T. D.,
implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 197-215. Greeson, C., Jedlicka, C., Rhodes, E. & Wendorf, G.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). (2001). Emotional intelligence and interpersonal
Emotional Intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits? relations. Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 523-536.
American Psychologist, 63, 503-517. Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D.
Mikolajczak, M., Nelis, D., Laloyaux, O., Hansenne, J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J. & Dornheim, L.
M., & Bodarwé, K. (in press). Can frontal EEG (1998). Development and validation of a measure of
asymmetries be considered as a biological marker for emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual
emotional intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177.
Differences, 48, 177-181. Schutte, N., Malouff, J., Simunek., M., McKenley, J., &
Mikolajczak, M., Roy, E., Luminet, O., Fillée, C., & de Hollander, S. (2002). Characteristic emotional
Timary, P. (2007). The moderating impact of intelligence and emotional well-being. Cognition and
emotional intelligence on free cortisol responses to Emotion, 16, 769-785.
stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 32, 1000-1012. Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B.,
Palmer, B., Gignac, G., Ekermans, G., & Stough, C. Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2007). A meta-analytic
(2008). A comprehensive framework for emotional investigation of the relationship between emotional
intelligence. In R. J. Emerling, V. K. Shanwal & M.K. intelligence and health. Personality and Individual
Mandal (Eds.), Emotional Intelligence: Theoretical Differences, 42, 921-933.
and cultural perspectives. New York: Nova Science Teasdale, J.D. (1999). Multi-level theories of cognition-
Publishers. emotion relations. In T. Dalgleish & M.J. Power
Payne, W. L. (1985). A study of emotion: Developing (Eds.): Handbook of cognition and emotion.
emotional intelligence; self-integration; relating to Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
fear, pain and desire. Unpublished dissertation, The Talentsmart®. Who relies on talentsmart? Retrieved
Union for Experimenting Colleges and Universities, November 3 2008 from URL:
United States, Ohio. http://www.talentsmart.com/whoweare/.

Electronic Journal of Applied Psychology. 5(2): 25-31 (2009)

 Mikolajczak: Going beyond the ability-trait debate. 31

Tamir, M., John, O.P., Srivastava, S., & Gross, J.J.

(2007). Implicit theories of emotion: Affective and
social outcomes across a major life transition. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology. 92, 731-744.
Van der Zee, K., Thijs, M., & Schakel, L. (2002). The
relationship of emotional intelligence with academic
intelligence and the Big Five. European Journal of
Personality, 16, 103-125.
Van Ghent, D. (1961). The English Novel: Form and
function. New York: Harper & Row.
Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional
intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation of
predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 65, 71-95.
Wranik, T., Feldman Barrett, L., & Salovey, P. (2007).
Intelligent emotion regulation: Is knowledge power?
In J.J. Gross (Ed.). Handbook of emotion regulation
(pp. 393-407). New York: Guilford.

Correspondence to: Moïra Mikolajczak

Université catholique de Louvain
10 Place Cardinal Mercier
B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
[email protected]

Research Profile
Moïra Mikolajczak is a post-doctoral researcher
teaching Organizational Behavior at the Louvain
School of Management (Belgium). She earned her
Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Louvain
(Belgium) and did her post-doc in the
psychophysiology lab at Stanford University (USA).
Her core research interests are emotions and emotion
management, which she studies from both
psychoneuroendocrinological and organizational
standpoints. In addition to her teachings and research,
she consults on the topic of stress and emotion
management for several Belgian and international
companies. She has recently edited the first French
book on emotional competencies (Dunod, 2009; with
Quoidbach, Kotsou & Nelis).

Electronic Journal of Applied Psychology. 5(2): 25-31 (2009)

View publication stats