Gender Differences in Emotional Intelligence

© 2006 National Academy of Psychology, India Vol. 51, No. 4, 261-268 Gender Differences in Emotional Intelligence Bindu, P. Immanuel Thomas The stud...
Author: Calvin Stokes
0 downloads 0 Views 123KB Size
© 2006 National Academy of Psychology, India Vol. 51, No. 4, 261-268

Gender Differences in Emotional Intelligence Bindu, P. Immanuel Thomas

The study investigated the nature and extent of the relationships that exist among two cognitive variables, viz., intelligence and creativity, and two non-cognitive variables, viz., emotional intelligence and maladjustment among a sample of young adults (n = 90). The results revealed that the two gender groups differed significantly in the mean scores on the variables and also in their intercorrelations. Maladjustment was identified as the most important predictor of all the other variables, in the case of the male sample. Emotional intelligence played a significant role in determining overall creativity and maladjustment in the female sample. The relationship between intelligence and creativity was found to be stronger in the female group than in the male group. The findings have been discussed in the light of available theoretical and empirical literature. KEY WORDS: Creativity, Emotional Intelligence, Gender Differences, IQ, Maladjustment, Multivariate Relationships.

T

here is a growing realization that much more than cognitive ability is involved in determining one's level of functioning and ensuring overall success in life. This explains why we often find that people with the same level of IQ and academic credentials differ greatly in their professional abilities and effectiveness (Bhalla & Nauriyal, 2004). In addition to one's intellectual capacity, a multitude of personality and temperamental characteristics have been identified as playing a crucial role in determining one's performance. These include motivation, confidence, emotional stability, adjustment, and the ability to work with and relate to other people in a group. These findings have led to significant changes in the traditional concepts regarding the nature of intellectual potentialities in man. Important among the new developments is the theory of multiple intelligences put forward by Gardner (1983) and the theory of emotional intelligence (EI) originally proposed by Salovey and Mayer (1990) and later popularised by Goleman (1995). Other developments in the field implicit theories of intelligence (Dwek, Chiu, & Hong, 1995) and the PASS theory (Das, Naglieri, & Kirby, 1994). October 2006 • Psychological Studies

University of Calicut, Kerala University of Kerala, Kariavattom, Kerala

Gardner (1983, 1999) has tried to widen the notion of intelligence and has incorporated many significant faculties that have traditionally been beyond its scope. According to him, intelligence is "the biopsychological potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve problems or create products that are of value in a culture". It is for this reason that the performance on standardized psychometric tests fail to be valid indicators of success in later life. The theory of emotional intelligence (EI) first proposed by Mayer and Salovey (1997) and later elaboration of it by Mayer, Salovey and Caruso (1998) portrayed EI as a cognitive ability. Accordingly, EI consists of four tiers of abilities ranging from basic psychological processes to more complex processes integrating emotion and cognition. Bar-On (1998) placed EI in the context of personality theory and Goleman (1998) formulated it in terms of a theory of performance. Goleman (2001) has noted that the common thread underlying all the different models of EI is an ability to regulate emotions in oneself and others. Accordingly, in a modified version of Mayer and Salovey's theory, he has suggested that the most parsimonious definition of EI involves four major domains, viz., self-awareness, social awareness, self management, and relationship management. In yet another popular formulation, Bar-On (2005) defines emotional-social intelligence (ESI) as "a crosssection of interrelated emotional and social competencies, skills and facilitators that determine how effectively we understand and express ourselves, understand others and relate with them, and cope with daily demands". Further, Bar-On points out that these competencies and skills are teachable and learnable. The popularity of the concept of EI and the voluminous research output generated in recent years have Address correspondence to Bindu, P., Department of Psychology, University of Calicut, Calicut, Kerala. Immanuel Thomas, Department of Psychology, University of Kerala, Kariavattom, Kerala, Trivandrum-695581. E-mail: [email protected]

261

led to the mistaken notion that high EI always ensures success in life. However, pioneers in the field themselves have questioned this assumption (e.g., Goleman, 1998; Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 1998). They point out that the level of performance and success of a person depends upon a variety of competencies and personality characteristics including intellectual competency, emotional competency, creativity, social support, and maladjustment patterns. Surprisingly, very little research has been carried out to explore the nature of inter-relationships and interactions among these determining factors. It is notable that certain personality correlates of creativity like flexibility, spontaneity, intellectual courage, and self-willed independence are also the identifying characteristics of an emotionally mature person. Similarly, adjustment, which is a measure of the extent to which one is in harmony with one's inner self and the outside world, may be expected to have a significant bearing on one's emotional intelligence, and the general level of performance. Opinions differ regarding the nature of the relationship between creativity and intelligence. While Haenshy and Reynolds (1989) argue that creativity and intelligence should be viewed as a "unitary phenomenon" or a "conjoint set", a number of other investigators (e.g., Getzels & Jackson, 1962; Torrance, 1972; Wallach & Kogan, 1965) have taken the view that creativity and intelligence are "disjoint" sets. It has been pointed out that creativity is associated with high intelligence, but intelligence alone does not identify people with creativity. Much of the studies on EI conducted in India have focussed on the relevance and prevalence of EI in the Indian corporate setting (e.g., Bhalla & Nauriyal, 2004; Sinha & Jain, 2004; Srivastava & Bharamanaikar, 2004) or on the development of EI in the Indian socio-cultural context (Sibia, Misra, & Srivastava, 2004). A study on the factor structure of EI in the Indian context has also been undertaken (Bhattacharya, Dutta & Mandal, 2004). In a study conducted among a sample of 432 college level educated Keralites, Sushama (2003) found that creativity, general maladjustment, education, and age were significant predictors of EI. Her findings have added credence to the view that a multifactorial approach is needed to understand the general level of functioning and success in life of an individual. As noted earlier, very few studies have been conducted in India or elsewhere on the multivariate relationships among the correlates of EL The present study is conceived in this context. The theoretical framework, the validity of which the present study tries to examine, is that cognitive and non-cognitive aspects of the personality of an individual interact in complex ways in determining the performance of an individual in any sphere of activity. In view of this, the study intends to find out how a set of 262

two variables from the cognitive domain, viz., intelligence and creativity and two variables from the non-cognitive domain, viz., EI and maladjustment, interact together and help predict each other. It may be noted that traditionally, these two domains of personality are considered as two distinct entities, which are more or less independent of each other. The cognitive domain is believed to be part of one's biological endowment, while the non-cognitive domain is considered to be more under the control of one's environmental and social background. The nature of interaction between these two domains has not been well understood or explored in detail. This accounts for attempts at enhancing one's cognitive skills in relative isolation of one's non-cognitive skills like adjustment, emotional efficacy, etc., in the traditional academic curriculum. It is expected that the present study, which focuses on both the cognitive and non-cognitive domains of personality, may be helpful in throwing some light on the multivariate relationships among these variables. Another important point that should be kept in mind in this context is that gender of a person may have significant impact on his/her personality as well as behavioural characteristics. Thus, it is imperative that in any study involving personality characteristics, one look into the possibility that systematic differences exist along gender lines. Springer and Deutsch (1998) commenting on the sex differences in certain human abilities like verbal and spatial skills, point out that males tend to be more lateralized for verbal and spatial functions, whereas females show greater bilateral representation for both types of functions. Extending the relationship of lateralization and ability, they postulate that in men only the left hemisphere is involved in language, leaving visuo-spatial functions intact in the right, whereas in women, language is established in both the hemispheres, crowding visuo-spatial ability. This is believed to explain the superiority of females in language functions (Halpern, 1992) and males in visuo-spatial functions (Schaie, 1994). However, it may also be possible to explain the gender differences observed in terms of differences in education and socialization. As noted by Lezak (2004), the nature-nurture issue remains unsettled in questions of sex differences in cognitive abilities. In view of these considerations, the present study explored the gender differences in EI and its correlates.

Method Participants

The sample consisted of 90 post-graduate students from among the various Arts (21), Science (11), Humanities (27), and Management (31) departments of the University of Kerala. There were 27 males and 63 October 2006 • Psychological Studies

females in the sample. Difference in the size of the two gender groups reflected the difference in the proportion of male and female students getting registered annually in the various departments. This is age ranged from 21 to 24 years. Measures Mathew Test of Mental Abilities: Non-Verbal (Mathew, 1973). The test gives a measure of 3 major mental abilities, viz., numerical, spatial, and observational. A measure of the overall IQ can also be derived using one or more of the subtests. The re-test reliabilities of the three subscales are found to be 0.79, 0.68, and 0.42, in the case of males and 0.77, 0.67, and 0.47 in the case of females. Regarding validity, the spatial and observational tests are found to correlate .623 with the Bhatia's battery of performance Test of Intelligence, and 0.619 with SPM. Emotional Intelligence Inventory (Thomas & Sushama, 2003). This is a 50 item self-rating scale, which gives a measure of overall emotional intelligence and 3 of its factors, viz., personal efficacy, interpersonal efficacy, and intrapersonal efficacy. The first factor relates to qualities like self confidence, independence, determination, etc., and the second factor to one's ability to develop and maintain effective and rewarding personal and social relations. The third factor is a measure of the extent to which one is free from mental conflicts and tensions. The tool has high internal consistency (Chronbach alpha = 0.88; N = 432) and factorial validity. The concurrent validity of the tool has also been estimated using a sociometric rating method (r = 0.58; N = 192).

Mathew Maladjustment Inventory (Mathew, 1975). This inventory measures five major aspects of maladjustment, viz., anxiety, depression, mania, inferiority, and paranoia. It also gives an index of general maladjustment. The split-half reliability of the scale is found to be 0.88 for males and .93 for females. The validity of the test is evidenced by the fact that it correlates 0.68 with the Neuroticism scale of a Malayalam adaptation of the EPI A New Test of Creativity (Pal, 1986). This test gives a measure of 3 different dimensions of creativity, viz., fluency, flexibility, and originality. The test-retest reliability for the total creativity score is reported to be 0.94 and split half reliability, 0.95. The validity coefficient for the total creativity scores is found to be significant at 0.01 level. Procedure The participants completed the measures in group setting. Instructions printed on the test booklets were read out by the investigator and doubts were cleared before the start of each test. The size of the group varied from 15 to 35 subjects. The test administration took about 4 hours, which was completed in two sessions of 2 hours duration.

Results Table 1 indicates that significant gender difference exist in 9 of the 13 variables considered. In six of these variables, viz., numerical IQ, spatial IQ, overall IQ, interpersonal efficacy, intrapersonal efficacy, and overall EIQ, the mean scores of the male group was higher than that of the female

Table 1 Gender Differences in Performance on Various Measures Male (n = 27) Mean Numerical IQ Spatial IQ Observational IQ Overall IQ Personal Efficacy Interpersonal Efficacy Intrapersonal Efficacy Overall EIQ Maladjustment Fluency Flexibility Originality Overall Creativity *p