0 downloads 0 Views 202KB Size
ABILITY EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE VERSUS TRAIT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT Azlina bt Mohd Kosnin Jenne Lee Ling Huey Faculty of Education Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Abstract: Emotional intelligence, EI has been popularly discussed over the past decades. It is the ability of an individual in self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management (Goleman, 2001). The term “emotional intelligence” is derived from social intelligence which was discovered by E. L. Thorndike (Bharwaney, 2006), who described social intelligence as the ability to get along with other people. Later, it provoked the research on multiple intelligences done by Howard Gardner, who suggested “intrapersonal intelligence” and “interpersonal intelligence” as two types of intelligences. Daniel Goleman then popularized EI by publishing his best-seller book named “Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ?” (Bharwaney, 2006) that mentioned on “personal competence” and “social competence” in his book, which are similar to the concepts of intrapersonal intelligence and intrapersonal intelligence stated by Gardner where VanderVoort (2006) stated that intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences are incorporated in the EI. The relationship between EI and academic achievement had been studied in many countries. However, the influences of both ability EI and trait EI towards academic achievement remained an interesting topic under investigation. The comparison between ability EI and trait EI become a concern to improve students’ academic achievement. Keywords: Ability, Trait, Emotional Intelligence, Academic Achievement

Emotional Intelligence Emotional intelligence, EI is comprised of two words, which are “emotion” and “intelligence”. Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2000) referred “emotions” to the feelings a person has in a relationship while “intelligence” referred to the ability to reason with something. Hence, they referred EI to the capacity to reason with emotions and emotional signals, and to the capacity of emotion to enhance thought. EI involves the ability to understand emotions in one-self and others, related to peers and family members, and adapt emotionally to changing environment concerns and demands. The terminology of “emotional intelligence” was coined by John Mayer and Peter Salovey (Bharwaney, 2006; Elias, Arnold, & Hussey, 2003; Mayer & Salovey, 1997) stated that EI is the ability to perceive emotions, to access and generate emotions to assist thought, to understand emotions and emotional knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions so they promote emotional and intellectual growth. EI plays role as an important aspect to predict important life criteria, including predict one’s academic achievement (Goleman, 1995). Emotional knowledge can be taught, thus EI might improve or deteriorate with changing factors in the one’s life (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002). One may develop his EI through the life experiences and knowledge gained. EI is originated from social intelligence which had been introduced by Thorndike in 1920s. According to Thorndike, social intelligence is one’s emotional skill to get along well with other people in surrounding and it is a part of general intelligence (Bharwaney, 2006). It is an ability to understand others and to manage people as well as to act wisely in human

relationships. The works of Thorndike had aware others to study on intelligence. Howard Gardner later founded a theory of multiple intelligences in 1983 supposed there are a total of eight intelligences where interpersonal and intrapersonal are two intelligence in his theory (Wookfolk, 2010). He mentioned that intelligence is a biological and psychological potential to solve problems and to create outcomes that are valued by culture. Gardner believes an individual’s overall intelligence can be measured not only by cognitive intelligence but also by other intelligences. He defined intrapersonal intelligence as the ability to understand and use one’s thoughts, feelings, preferences, and interests while interpersonal intelligence is the ability to understand and interact well with other people (Moran, Kornhaber, & Gardner, 2006). Both of intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences involve understanding of emotions in one-self as well as in other people which are closely related to EI. A clinical psychologist, Reuven Bar-On started to measure EI with his instrument, the Emotional Quotient Inventory (BarOn EQ-i)in 1980s. He coined the terminology of “emotional quotient” (EQ) in 1985 after he carried out research in over fifteen different countries. His works in determining one’s EI level by using the BarOn EQ-i which was published in 1997 had made the inventory became the first scientific instrument to measure EI (Bharwaney, 2006). John Mayer and Peter Salovey published their first research paper in 1990 on their studies in EI had made them coined the terminology of “emotional intelligence” (Salovey & Mayer, 1997). They defined EI in detail and provided the first scientific measure of ability EI which is the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS) in 1997. They defined EI as the ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emotions; the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth (Bharwaney, 2006). Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso then worked cooperatively in producing Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) to measure one’s ability EI to replace the lengthy MEIS. The MSCEIT had become the most popular instrument to measure one’s ability EI nowadays with its well established validity and reliability with variety populations done in many countries. The terminology of EI was popularized by Daniel Goleman, an author who had published his bestselling book of EI entitled “Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ?” in 1995. This had made EI became a popular topic for discussion thereafter. He published an article in TIME magazine asking the question “What’s your EQ?” by discussing EI to promote the recognition of EI as well as cognitive intelligence (Bharwaney, 2006). Goleman (1995) stated that self-awareness and impulses of control, persistence, zeal and motivation, empathy and social deftness are included in EI. He popularized EI to public by stating that one’s EQ may be the best predictor of success in life. Hence, the awareness on EI is elevated in public instead of academic studies done only among researcher and educator who are studying in the related fields. Bradberry and Greaves (2005) stated that EI consists of four branches, which are selfawareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management where each branch represents different abilities associated with emotions. According to them, selfawareness is the ability to accurately perceive emotions of an individual and to understand the tendencies across the situations at that moment while self-management is the ability to use the awareness created by the emotions to stay flexible and to direct the behaviours positively. Managing emotions in the context of self-management means managing the

emotional reactions towards the situations and people wisely. Meanwhile, social awareness is the ability to accurately pick up emotions of other people and to understand what is really going on with them while relationship management is the ability to use the awareness raised by emotions of both individual and others to manage interactions successfully. Social awareness and relationship management therefore are helpful in managing interpersonal relationships. They categorized those four EI branches into two competencies, which are personal competencies and social competencies. Personal competencies inclusive of selfawareness and self-management which discussed about one’s abilities to stay aware of personal emotions thus enable one to manage his personal behaviours and tendencies. Social competencies consist of social awareness and relationship management which discussed about one’s ability to understand other persons’ behaviours and motives thus one is able to manage intrapersonal interactions successfully. Hence, personal competencies are similar to intrapersonal intelligence while social competencies are resembled to interpersonal intelligence as mentioned by Gardner in his theories of multiple intelligences. However, there are two types of EI proposed by Petrides and Furnham, which are ability EI and trait EI (Bharwaney, 2006; Petrides, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004). Ability EI and trait EI are two different theories measuring different EI aspects of a person by using different instrumentations. Ability EI and trait EI are two theories with different constructs where the procedures used in their operational definition are fundamentally different. They are different in measuring approaches even though their theoretical domains might overlap. Petrides (2009) mentioned the operationalization of EI through maximum performance tests in ability EI will not produce the same findings as its operationalization through self-report inventories in trait EI. Ability Emotional Intelligence Ability EI, also known as cognitive-emotional ability, refers to one’s actual ability to recognize, process, and utilize emotion-laden information (Petrides, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004). Ability EI can be classified into four branches, which are ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emotions; the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotions and emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth (Rode et al., 2008). Ability EI is one’s actual ability in performing his behaviour based on one’s EI in daily life and it can be assessed by maximal performance method rather than self-report method (Warwick & Nettelbeck, 2004). Ability EI can be measured through the application of maximum-performance tests where each items in the test have correct and incorrect answers. This is related to the realm of cognitive ability of one-self. However, it is a challenging task to measure one’s ability EI because all relevant items can be objectively scored as correct and incorrect according to Petrides, Frederickson, and Furnham (2004). This indicated the same answer of a particular item in a test might be perceived as a correct answer for a person but perceived as an incorrect answer for another person. It is important for an individual to know his own ability EI level to perform the best he is able in the daily life. Ability EI can be measured through variety of inventory and questionnaires. However, it is most widely measured by using Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) created by Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso because it had been established for

years with validity and reliability tested in most of the studies (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002). One’s EI level can change over time either improve or deteriorate with changing factors in one’s life because EI is a part of personality aspects which are partly inherited and partly learned. One might develop his ability EI through EI’s developmental courses or life experiences gained. Knowledge obtained from reading materials might increase one’s ability EI level. Teaching knowledge on ability EI may be an effective way of compensating for those with lower levels of EI (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002). Trait Emotional Intelligence Trait EI, also known as emotional self-efficacy, refers to a constellation of behavioural dispositions and self-perceptions concerning one’s ability to recognize, process, and utilize emotion-laden information (Petrides, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004). It is a constellation of emotion-related self-perceptions located at the lower levels of personality hierarchies (Petrides, 2009), which related to typical performance and it is mostly assessed by using self-report method (Warwick & Nettelbeck, 2004). According to Bar-On (1997), there are five composite scales in trait EI, which are Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Adaptability, Stress Management, and General Mood. However, Petrides (2009) suggested there are 15 subscales, also known as Facet variables, which can be clustered into five Factor variables to provide interpretational and developmental focus. The trait EI’s index provides an overall snapshot of an individual’s general emotional functions which are showed in the Figure 1. It is an index of self-perceived ability of trait EI to understand process and utilize emotionrelated information in the daily life (Petrides, 2009).

Figure 1: The 15 Facets of the TEIQue Positioned with Reference to their Corresponding Factor. Petrides, K. V. (2009). Technical Manual for the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaires (TEIQue) (1st Edition, 4th Printing). London: London Psychometric Laboratory, p63. Trait EI is one’s cognitive ability on emotions to deal with daily environmental demands and pressures (Bar-On, 2006). Hence, trait EI will be a predictor of many different variables in many different situations and contexts (Petrides, 2009). A person can think of

kinds of behaviours which are most wisely to be applied in one situation through the cognitive process. However, the cognitive ability which someone had possessed is not necessary equivalent to his actual behaviours performed or reacted towards the real situations. One’s trait EI can be measured by using self-report questionnaires which include straightforward tasks to be solved because it is mostly related to one’s personality (Petrides, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004). There are a few of established instruments available to measure one’s trait EI but it is mostly assessed by using the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) created by Petrides and Furnham because it is a scientific instrument based exclusively on trait EI theory which had been proposed by Petrides in the year of 2001. Petrides (2008) claimed that TEIQue had overcome the limitations faced by the Bar-On EQ-i such as structure problem, inadequate coverage of the construct, lacking of safeguards against dissimulation and socially desirable responding, and scoring irregularities. In addition, TEIQue is available in multi language and it can be accessed free of charge for academic purposes. Hence, it is a reliable and valid instrument to measure one’s trait EI. Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) is a performance test of EI created by John Mayer, Peter Salovey and David Caruso to measure one’s ability EI to identify, use, understand and manage emotions (Bharwaney, 2006). MSCEIT requires one to solve problems about emotions, or problems that require the use of emotions (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002). The MSCEIT is running under the publisher of Multi-Health Systems (MHS), which is based in Toronto. MSCEIT is claimed as ability based assessment of EI (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002). It is a self-report instrument with 141 items to measure how well one in performing tasks and solving emotional problems. MSCEIT is suitable for respondents ages 17 and older where 30 to 45 minutes of administration time is needed to assess one’s actual abilities to solve emotional problems. The scores summary from the MSCEIT are relatively unaffected by self-concept, response set, emotional state and other confounds (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002). It includes a variety of interesting and creative tasks to measure one’s capacity for reasoning with emotional information. The ability EI level measured by MSCEIT can be roughly described by a single overall performance level yet it can be divided into subareas of Experiential EI and Strategic EI. MSCEIT’s subareas are linked to the FourBranch Model of EI, which are Perceiving Emotion, Facilitating Thought, Understanding Emotion, and Managing Emotion. Table 1: Structure and Levels in MSCEIT Area

Branch Perceiving Emotions

Experiential EI Facilitating Thought EI Understanding Emotions Strategic EI Managing Emotions

Task Faces Pictures Sensations Facilitation Blends Changes Emotional Management Emotional Relationships

There are two types of answer scoring for MSCEIT, which are general consensus scoring and expert consensus scoring where both scoring methods yield very similar results (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002; Caruso, 2008). General consensus scoring is based upon the scoring of thousands of people to converge upon better or worse answers. It is working because emotions communicate information about people. According to Mayor, Salovey, and Caruso (2002), the general consensus scoring is based on normative data collected from over 50 research sites from diverse geographic locations with majority of the data came from United States. Several other countries also participated in data collection including Australia, Canada, India, Israel, France, Philippines, Scotland, Slovenia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. All of the data collection sites administered the test in English to English speaking respondents. Hence, MSCEIT is claimed to have cross-cultural applicability and utility. On the other hand, the expert consensus scoring is based upon the answers of a panel of emotion experts where those experts on emotions were asked for their answers to the same question. The expert sample was drawn from members of the International Society for Research in Emotions (ISRE) attending a meeting in 2000. The 21 experts consisted of 10 men and 11 women aged 30 to 52 with a mean age of 39.4 (SD = 6.4) (Mayer, Salovery, & Caruso, 2002). It had been remarked by the publisher that scoring of MSCEIT is based on North America data where people from emerging non-Western nations and non-native English language speakers should be alert to the fact that cultural variation can lower scores on the MSCEIT. The results from MSCEIT can easily indentify one’s EI developmental needs because they are specific and simple to understand. MSCEIT has a full scale reliability of r = .91, with Area reliabilities of r = .90 for Experiential EI and r = .86 for Strategic EI (Mayor, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002b). Besides, Branch score reliabilities of MSCEIT range from r = .77 to r = .90. As a result, MSCEIT is a highly reliable test at the Branch, Area, and Overall scale levels. Besides reliability, good validities also been reported on MSCEIT (Warwick & Nettelbeck, 2004). MSCEIT at a Full-Scale level, two Area levels, four Branch levels, and eight Task levels reported to possess good face validity, good content validity, good structural validity, and excellent construct validity (Mayor, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002). Hence, MSCEIT is the most popular instrument in measuring one’s ability EI. Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) was developed by K. V. Petrides and Adrian Furnham. It is a scientific measurement instrument based exclusively on trait EI theory which is developed in the context of the trait EI research programme. The TEIQue is a psychometrically validated measure of trait EI which is supported by a worldclass research programme based at University College London. It is available in multiple languages and the data base is United Kingdom normed (Petrides, 2008). It provides several conceptual advantages over early trait EI measures and it is available free of charge for academic research purposes (Petrides, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004). The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) is a 153-item questionnaire measuring one’s trait EIs which is founded by Petrides (2009b). The TEIQue measures 15 Facet variables, which is also known as subscales or traits by using seven-point rating scale from 1=“completely disagree” to 7=“completely agree” which needs administration time of approximately 20 minutes. These Facet variables are clustered into four Factor of trait EI variables to be focused where those main Factor variables aid to indicate an individual’s key strengths and developmental needs (Petrides, 2009). The structure of the TEIQue is 15-4-1,

with the lowest level at which the test should be analyzed is the Facet, but not the item level as mentioned in the Technical Manual (Petrides, 2009). Table 2 shows the TEIQue Factors and Facets with brief explanations in overall. Table 2: TEIQue Factors and Facets with brief explanations Factors Well-Being

Facets Trait Optimism Trait Happiness



Self-Esteem Emotion Management Assertiveness Social Awareness Trait Empathy Emotion Perception Emotion Expression Relationships


Emotion Regulation Impulsiveness (low) Stress Management Adaptability Self-Motivation

High scorers perceive themselves as… Confidence and likelihood to “look on the bright side” of life. Pleasant emotional states, primarily directed towards the present rather than the past or future. Personal success and self-confident. The influencing of other people’s feelings. Forthright, frank, and willing to stand up for their rights. Ability to network and social skills. Acknowledging and taking in someone else’s perspective. Insightful and clear about the feelings of others. Communication of one’s feelings to others. Capability to have fulfilling personal relationships. Short, medium and long term control of one’s own feelings and emotional states. How reflective and the likelihood of giving-in to urges. Capability to withstand pressure and regulate stress. Flexibility and willingness to adapt to new conditions. Drive and endurance in the face of adversity.

The TEIQue have a high test-retest reliability of r = .78 and validity checks for social desirability, honesty, and random responding (Petrides, 2008). The descriptive for the TEIQue Facets, Factors and Global scales with N=352 had been displayed in the Table 3. The scoring assessed from the TEIQue is comparable to the normative sample provided by the Technical Manual for the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaires (TEIQue) (2009) which comprised of 1721 individuals (912 female, 764 male, 61 unreported) with mean age of the sample is 29.65 years (SD = 11.94 years; range 15.7 – 77 years). It is stated in the manual that most of participants in the normative sample are of White UK origin (58%), followed by White European (19.2%), Indian (6.6%), African and Caribbean (5.7%), and East Asian (5.1%) while 5.4% of sample reported as “others” where they are native English speakers. However, the Global Trait EI scoring is United Kingdom normed therefore might not be generalized to Malaysian population. TEIQue is available in 20 languages where the

emotion-related self-perceptions examined in TEIQue are implicated in academic performance (Petrides, 2009). Table 3: Descriptive for the TEIQue Facets, Factors and Global scales (N=352). Freudenthaler, H. H., Neubauer, A. C., Gabler, P., Scherl, W. G., & Rindermann, H. (2008). Testing and validating the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire (TEIQue) in a Germanspeaking sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 673-678. Facets Adaptability Assertiveness Emotion Expression Emotion Management Emotion Perception Emotion Regulation Impulsivity (low) Relationships Self-Esteem Self-Motivation Social Awareness Stress Management Trait Empathy Trait Happiness Trait Optimism Factors Well-Being Self-Control Emotionality Sociability Global Trait EI

Cronbach’s α .81 .72 .92 .71 .77 .81 .68 .60 .84 .63 .79 .73 .72 .92 .86 Cronbach’s α .94 .86 .90 .88 .96

No. of items 9 9 10 9 10 12 9 9 11 10 11 10 9 8 8 No. of items 27 31 38 29 -

Previous Studies on the Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Academic Achievement with Academic Achievement There were studies done in recent years to investigate the relationship between EI and academic achievement with academic achievement. Rode et al. (2008) mentioned that EI is related to academic achievement because “Managing Emotions” is one of the EI branches which contributing in academic learning. This implies that emotionally intelligent students can cope better with external pressures thus perform better in their studies in the academic world. Students who managed to convert their negative emotions into positive emotions are able to motivate themselves to achieve better results. Students who are able to regulate one’s and others emotions hence are able to achieve better academic achievements. A research done by Di Fabio and Palazzeschi (2009) stated there are significance attributions of both ability EI and trait EI towards academic achievement. The research was done in Tuscan province of Italy with a total of 124 students who studied in the last two years of high-school schooling system. There were 34 male students and 90 female students in the study which were in the age range from 16 to 20 years. The GPA with normal distribution and reliability (α = .81) was used to measure one’s academic performance. MSCEIT in

Italian version was used to measure students’ ability EI while Bar-On EQ-i (Short version) was used to measure students’ trait EI. Results of the study supported that both ability EI and trait EI are leading to success in scholastic. The outcomes of the study added that ability EI had a greater percentage in contributing to academic success as compared to the trait EI. This was explained by the subscale of “Managing Emotions” in ability EI, which is the best predictor of academic performance in demonstrating how the ability EI in regulating emotions and facilitate emotional and intellectual growth that leading students to perform in academic field. Barchard (2001) studied a group of college students (male = 93, female = 210) with age range from 17 – 48 (mean = 20.3, SD = 3.6) where participants identified themselves as Asian (49%) or White (38%) who rated themselves as very comfortable in reading and writing English. Results of the study had showed that EI variables were significantly related to academic success. However, none of variables in the study was a significant predictor in the regression model to predict the academic success. The correlations of EI with academic success were in negative values for two variables of EI which indicating the higher scores on those measures predict lower grades in academic. The conclusion drawn from the study had stated that the maximum-performance measures of EI appear to be better predictors than selfreport measures in predicting one’s success in academic. EI is significantly contributing in explaining the academic performances and social interactions with peers. Two studies done by Song et al. (2010) at Shanghai, China found that EI had an incremental power to predict academic achievement and social performance of students after controlling several variables, such as general mental ability. However, this study stated its limitations in the construct of social interactions. Meanwhile, the study was done in Shanghai and Hong Kong, China where most of the respondents are Chinese students. Therefore, they proposed that there is a need to diverse the sample for the generalizability of findings even though there is no prove that EI is culturally bound. However, results of the study from Rode et al. (2008) had showed that academic result is not predicted by the overall EI. The study was done by using online questionnaires with samples of business students from the Midwestern University in America. The outcome of the study had stated that academic result is mostly dependent on cognitive intelligence (IQ) level rather than EI level. The research done by Amelang and Steinmayr (2006) found that neither ability EI nor trait EI can predict academic achievement. Two studies were done to investigate the prediction of EI towards academic achievement. One group with samples of 227 students (88 males, 145 females) and another group with samples of 207 working adults (101 males, 106 females), which the samples are in the age range from 27 to 43 years were tested their trait EI by using German version of the Trait-Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS). Meanwhile, the respondents’ ability EI was tested by using TEMINT, an ability EI test. The result of the study had stated that academic achievement cannot be predicted neither by ability EI or trait EI. Several analyses were conducted by the publisher of Multi-Health Systems (MHS) to investigate the age differences on ability EI level by using MSCEIT as the measure instrument. The results analyzed indicated that the age differences were localized, where young adults with age less than 25 years old had scoring significantly lower than older group (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002). This implies that ability EI increase with age.

A study with sample of 650 pupils in British secondary education done by Petrides, Frederickson, and Furnham (2004) found that the trait EI has relationship with academic performance. Academic achievement is significantly related to trait EI where students with high trait EI can overcome their anxiety, stress, and emotional deficits during the period of undertaking examinations and producing assignments. This is inversely found on those students with low EI because they are more likely to feel difficult in overcoming the negative emotions as they are easily under pressure. The result of the study indicates those students with high trait EI scores had performed considerably better at school compared to their peers with low trait EI scores. Some studies were done to investigate the associations between trait EI and academic performance in adolescent samples as stated in the Technical Manual of TEIQue (Petrides, 2009). Results from the studies had showed that trait EI was not significantly affected the regressions of trait EI with the mathematics and sciences composite in representing academic performance. This implied that trait EI was not a significant predictor towards academic performances of Mathematics and Science. Another study was carried out to investigate the moderating role of trait EI in academic performance. Findings of the study had showed that those with high trait EI are better to deal with the resultant stress and have larger social networks where both of them help to reduce the negative impact of one’s anxiety on academic performance. Those with low trait EI find it difficult to deal with stress and are more likely to experience deficits in social support that might compounds the negative impact of anxiety on performance. Hence, trait EI might not a significant predictor towards academic performances but it is significantly for a person to perform better in the academic world through stress and anxiety management. Siu (2009) carried out a study to assess trait EI of 325 secondary school students of Chinese in Hong Kong, with 168 males and 158 females in five regular schools which were chosen based on convenience. The trait EI was measured by using a 33-item self-report Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS) with 5-point scale ranged from 1=“strongly disagree” to 5= “strongly agree” which is developed by Schutte and her colleagues. The EIS used in the study was reported to have high internal consistency (α = .87) and high test-retest reliability (r = .78). The EIS had been translated into Chinese language as it is the first language of all the participants of the study. The study found that students with poor use of emotions may lead to greater depression, stress, and aggression while students with high self-management of emotions may lead to less anxiety. This had showed that individuals with high trait EI may regulate their emotions better as compared to those students with poorer EI. Students therefore need high trait EI to manage their emotions especially to regulate their emotions of anxiety, depression, and stress which may affect their daily life including in their learning. Siu (2009) added that there were possible discrepancies between the Hong Kong and the United Kingdom based data because there are differences in cultural practices which involves the expression of emotions. Hong Kong, an Eastern-country is practicing collectivistic culture where people are expected to practice harmony by controlling their own emotions while attending to those emotions of others. On the other hand, United Kingdom is a Western-country which is practicing individualistic culture which is encouraging the expression of one’s emotions. This stated the possible differences in data collection when come across-culture.

Conclusion Previous studies were done by researchers worldwide to study on the relationship between EI and academic achievement. The earliest research started from the 1990s until today with various EI instruments applied in respective studies. It is clearly stated in the previous studies that possible relationships existed between EI and academic achievement. However, research in the field of EI is still at a relatively early stage although significant progress has been achieved since the early models were introduced (Davey, 2005). Furthermore, investigation on the relationship between EI and academic achievement inclusive of both ability EI and trait EI as two variables in a single study within Malaysia context is remained as unknown. This is because most of the studies were based in Western countries which might possess differences in data collection when come across-culture. Moreover, most of the studies were investigating the relationship between academic achievement with either ability EI or trait ability EI but not both of the EI in a single study. Therefore, there is a need to study the relationship between EI and academic achievement in Malaysia by using both ability EI and trait EI as two variables of EI in a single study. The following chapter will explain the methodology applied in this study. References Amelang, M. & Steinmayr, R. (2006). Is there a validity increment for tests of emotional intelligence in explaining the variance of performance criteria? Intelligence, 34, 459-468. Barchard, K. A. (2001). The Relation of Emotional Intelligence to Academic Success. Canada, Vancouver: University of British Columbia. Bar-On, R. (1997). BarOn EQ-i®: BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory™ [Brochure]. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. Bar-On, R. (2006). BarOn Emotional Quotient-Inventory (BarOn EQ-i®). United States: High Performing Systems, Inc. Bharwaney, G. (2006). Emotionally Intelligent Living : Strategies for increasing your EQ. Williston, VT :Crown House Publishing. Bradberry, T. & Greaves, J. (2005). The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book: Everything You Need To Know To Put Your EQ To Work. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Caruso, D. R. (2008). A Practical Guide to the MSCEIT [Brochure]. Canada: Multi-Health Systems Inc. Davey, G. (Ed.) (2005). Arnold, 306-308.

Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Psychology.

London: Hodder

Di Fabio, A. & Palazzeschi, L. (2009). An in-depth look at scholastic success: Fluid intelligence, personality traits or emotional intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 581-585.

Elias, M. J., Arnold, H., & Hussey, C. S. (2003). EQ, IQ, and Effective Learning and Citizenship. In Elias, M. J., Arnold, H., and Hussey, C. S (Eds). EQ + IQ = Best Leadership Practices for Caring and Successful Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Freudenthaler, H. H., Neubauer, A. C., Gabler, P., Scherl, W. G., & Rindermann, H. (2008). Testing and validating the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire (TEIQue) in a German-speaking sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 673-678. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. New York: Bantam. Goleman, D. (2001). An EI-Based Theory of Performance. In Cherniss, C. and Goleman, D. (Eds.) The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace: How to select for, measure, and improve emotional intelligence in individuals, groups, and organizations, p 27-44. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mayer, J. D. & Salovey, P. (1997). What is Emotional Intelligence? In P. Salovey and D. Sluyter (Eds), Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Implications for Educators , 3-31. New York: Basic Books. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Models of Emotional Intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed), Handbook of Intelligence, 396-420. Cambridge, England: Canbridge Universiti Press. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) User’s Manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems Inc. Moran, S., Kornhaber, M., & Gardner, H. (2006). Orchestrating Multiple Intelligences. Educational Leadership, 64 (1), 22-29. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Petrides, K. V. (2008). Limitations of the Bar-On EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997). Webnote#3. http://www.psychometriclab.com/Default.aspx?Content=Page&id=18. Petrides, K. V. (2009). Technical Manual for the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaires (TEIQue) (1st Edition, 4th Printing). London: London Psychometric Laboratory. Petrides, K. V., Frederickson, N., & Furnham, A. (2004). The role of trait emotional intelligence in academic performance and deviant behavior at school. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 277-293. Rode, J. C., Mooney, C. H., Arthaud-day, M. L., Near, J. P., Rubin, R. S., Baldwin, T. T., & Boomer, W. H. (2008). An examination of the structural, discriminant, nomological, and incremental predictive validity of the MSCEIT© V2.0. Intelligence, 36, 350-366. Siu, F. Y. (2009). Trait emotional intelligence and its relationships with problem behavior

in Hong Kong adolescents. Personality and individual differences, 47, 553-557. Song, L. J., Huang, G. H., Peng, K. Z., Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Chen, Z. (2010). The differential effects of general mental ability and emotional intelligence on academic performance and social interactions. Intelligence, 38, 137-143. Vandervoort, D. R. (2006). The Importance of Emotional Intelligence in Higher Education. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 25(1), 4-7. London: SpringerLink. Warwick, J. & Nettelbeck, T. (2004). Emotional Intelligence is …? Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1091-1100. Woolfolk, A. (2010). Educational Psychology (11th ed). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.