Analysis of

Emotional
Intelligence and
Correlation with
Creativity in Field
of Medicine

Bhvya Mehta (09HR-008)

Nidhi Verma (09IT-015)
Manish Kumar (09IT-012)
Prakhar Srivastava (09HR-016)
Vaibhav Ratra (09IT-028)
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to express our gratitude and hearty appreciation to Dr. Bindu Gupta, Institute
of Management Technology, Ghaziabad for her encouragement and valuable guidance in the
successful completion of our project work. She helped us to visualize things from perspectives
that we had never thought of and to appreciate knowledge of organizational behaviour and its
implementation and application in the most logical and optimal manner.

We would also like to thank our batch mates for their critical comments and valuable
suggestions given to us from time to time which helped us to recognize the flaws and involve
a further new dimension to our thought process.

We further extend our thanks and appreciation to all the respondents of our survey, friends
and family members for their comments and interest shown in our learning process by filling
up the questionnaire which helped us in successful completion of the project.
 OBJECTIVE

To study the relation between Emotional Intelligence

(EI) and Creativity of doctors in the medical industry.
Contents
Why Emotional Intelligence...................................................................................5

Origin of Emotional Intelligence.............................................................................6

What Is Emotional Intelligence?.............................................................................7

The ability-based model.....................................................................................8

Mixed models of EI......................................................................................... .....9

The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI).................................10

The Trait EI model............................................................................. ................11

Alexithymia and EI............................................................................... .............12

Creativity.................................................................................... .........................16

Creativity quotient...............................................................................................16

Psychometric approach....................................................................................17

Social-personality approach..............................................................................18

Other approaches to measurement..................................................................18

Creativity and Emotions at Work..........................................................................18

Methodology.................................................................................... ....................19

Analysis Data and Result.....................................................................................20

Apollo Hospital.......................................................................................... ........20

Gangaram Hospital............................................................................. ..............21

Bhandari Hospital.............................................................................................22

Analysis Inferences..............................................................................................22

Apollo Hospital Result Inferences:.....................................................................22

Gangaram Hospital Result Inferences:..............................................................23

Bhandari Hospital Result Inferences:................................................................24

Relevance of Emotional Intelligence....................................................................24

Appendix A1: Questionnaire................................................................................25

References........................................................................................... ................29
Why Emotional Intelligence
Since he has been on Earth, Man has had to face a dangerous environment. As
population increased, the need arose to share knowledge and organize resources.
Language and conceptual thinking developed in sophistication, with specialized
brain centers becoming adapted for the task. Teaching of young people concentrated
on this rational aspect of intellect, which is a left brain activity, and right brain
functions (including intuitive and emotional processing) were no longer part of the
masculine stereotype. But this limited form of intelligence has its problems.

The Middle East conflict and many other events preceding and inevitably to follow,
show that something is missing. The Western world is full of IQ teaching oriented to
the left brain - rational and irrational focused thought processes, but not a single
school for EQ (Emotional Intelligence) which fully encompasses and integrates right
brain activity - non-verbal, holistic thought processes including emotions based on
perception of real experience and holistic understanding and the resulting intuitive
feelings.

Intelligence of the heart is lacking in our culture, so that all too often, instead of
acting with integrated reason and feelings, we react with the emotional maturity of
spoilt children. Instead of being recognized and understood consciously, emotions
are supressed or resisted, giving them subconscious power. They then drive our
behavior, and we use our rational intelligence to justify such behavior. Instead of
conscious persons who understand why they feel and consequently behave as they
do, we have become subconsciously driven and susceptible to cultural conditioning -
even hypnosis and brainwashing. Our unempathetic and unethical behavior - and
the corresponding lies and rationalizations that result - destroy our spiritual
integrity.

There is clearly a great need for an increased understanding and practice of

Emotional Intelligence in our culture. In the world of business, factors that are really
important to succeed in an ethical manner are dependent on EQ: the cooperation of
employees, creativity and open-mindedness, understanding of another's point of
view, ability to use empathy in negotiations, the quality of leadership and
communication.

These factors are equally important in the running of schools, health services, local
government and politics. Thus the need to study and understand emotional
intelligence.
Origin of Emotional Intelligence

The most distant roots of Emotional intelligence can be traced back to Darwin’s early
work on the importance of emotional expression for survival and second adaptation.
In the 1900s, even though traditional definitions of intelligence emphasized cognitive
aspects such as memory and problem-solving, several influential researchers in the
intelligence field of study had begun to recognize the importance of the non-
cognitive aspects. For instance, as early as 1920, E. L. Thorndike used the term social
intelligence to describe the skill of understanding and managing other people.

Similarly, in 1940 David Wechsler described the influence of non-intellective factors

on intelligent behaviour, and further argued that our models of intelligence would
not be complete until we can adequately describe these factors. In 1983, Howard
Gardner's Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences introduced the idea of
Multiple Intelligences which included both Interpersonal intelligence (the capacity to
understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people) and Intrapersonal
intelligence (the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one's feelings, fears and
motivations). In Gardner's view, traditional types of intelligence, such as IQ, fail to
fully explain cognitive ability. Thus, even though the names given to the concept
varied, there was a common belief that traditional definitions of intelligence are
lacking in ability to fully explain performance outcomes.

The first use of the term "Emotional Intelligence" is usually attributed to Wayne
Payne's doctoral thesis, A study of emotion: Developing emotional intelligence from 1985.
However, prior to this, the term "emotional intelligence" had appeared in Leuner
(1966). Greenspan (1989) also put forward an EI model, followed by Salovey and
Mayer (1990), and Goleman (1995).

As a result of the growing acknowledgement of professionals for the importance and

relevance of emotions to work outcomes, the research on the topic continued to gain
momentum, but it wasn’t until the publication of Daniel Goldman’s best seller
Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ that the term became widely
popularized. Nancy Gibbs' 1995 Time magazine article highlighted Goldman’s book
and was the first in a string of mainstream media interest in EI. Thereafter, articles
on EI began to appear with increasing frequency across a wide range of academic
and popular outlets.
What Is Emotional Intelligence?
As per Jack Meyer and Peter Salovey “Emotional intelligence is the innate potential
to feel, use, communicate, recognize, remember, describe, identify, learn from,
manage, understand and explain emotions.”

In other words, each baby is born with a specific and unique potential for these
components of emotioqnal intelligence:

1. Emotional sensitivity

2. Emotional memory

3. Emotional processing ability

4. Emotional learning ability

Because the definition offered here is based on an innate potential, it makes a very
important distinction between this inborn potential and what actually happens to
that potential over a person's life.

Here is one example, if we ask a person how they feel and they tell us they feel
uncomfortable with something, but they cannot tell us why, it could be more because
they lack innate emotional intelligence or because they were never taught to
understand their feelings, to label their feelings and to analyze the cause and effect
relationship between events and their feelings.

There’s a distinction between a person's inborn emotional potential versus their

actual emotional skills and use of emotional intelligence later in life. The term
"emotional intelligence" should be used only for a person's inborn, innate emotional
potential. When we want to talk about their actual emotional skills and emotional
management as we see by their behavior, the term "EQ" should be used

Jack Mayer and Peter Salovey have been the leading researchers in emotional
intelligence since 1990. In that year they suggested that emotional intelligence is a
true form of intelligence which had not been scientifically measured until they began
their research work. Here is how they defined emotional intelligence in 1990.We
define emotional intelligence as the subset of social intelligence that involves the
ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate
among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions.
However their current definition given above is the one that is much more widely
accepted and used.
Up to the present day, there are three main models of EI:

• Ability-based EI models
• Mixed models of EI
• Trait EI model

The ability-based model

Peter Salovey and John D. Mayer's conception of EI strives to define EI within the
confines of the standard criteria for a new intelligence. Following their continuing
research, their initial definition of EI was revised to: "The ability to perceive emotion,
integrate emotion to facilitate thought, understand emotions, and to regulate
emotions to promote personal growth."

The ability based model views emotions as useful sources of information that help
one to make sense of and navigate the social environment. The model proposes that
individuals vary in their ability to process information of an emotional nature and in
their ability to relate emotional processing to a wider cognition. This ability is seen to
manifest itself in certain adaptive behaviours. The model proposes that EI includes 4
types of abilities:

Perceiving emotions — the ability to detect and decipher emotions in faces, pictures,
voices, and cultural artefacts- including the ability to identify one’s own emotions.
Perceiving emotions represents a basic aspect of emotional intelligence, as it makes
all other processing of emotional information possible.

Using emotions — the ability to harness emotions to facilitate various cognitive

activities, such as thinking and problem solving. The emotionally intelligent person
can capitalize fully upon his or her changing moods in order to best fit the task at
hand.

Understanding emotions — the ability to comprehend emotion language and to

appreciate complicated relationships among emotions. For example, understanding
emotions encompasses the ability to be sensitive to slight variations between
emotions, and the ability to recognize and describe how emotions evolve over time.

Managing emotions — the ability to regulate emotions in both ourselves and in

others. Therefore, the emotionally intelligent person can harness emotions, even
negative ones, and manage them to achieve intended goals.

Measurement of the ability-based model

Different models of EI have led to the development of various instruments for the
assessment of the construct. While some of these measures may overlap, most
researchers agree that they tap slightly different constructs. The current measure of
Mayer and Salovey’s model of EI, the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence
Test (MSCEIT) is based on a series of emotion-based problem-solving items.
Consistent with the model's claim of EI as a type of intelligence, the test is modelled
on ability-based IQ tests. By testing a person’s abilities on each of the four branches
of emotional intelligence, it generates scores for each of the branches as well as a
total score.

Central to the four-branch model is the idea that EI requires attunement to social
norms. Therefore, the MSCEIT is scored in a consensus fashion, with higher scores
indicating higher overlap between an individual’s answers and those provided by a
worldwide sample of respondents. The MSCEIT can also be expert-scored, so that
the amount of overlap is calculated between an individual’s answers and those
provided by a group of 21 emotion researchers.

Although promoted as an ability test, the MSCEIT is most unlike standard IQ tests in
that its items do not have objectively correct responses. Among other problems, the
consensus scoring criterion means that it is impossible to create items (questions)
that only a minority of respondents can solve, because, by definition, responses are
deemed emotionally 'intelligent' only if the majority of the sample has endorsed
them. This and other similar problems have led cognitive ability experts to question
the definition of EI as a genuine intelligence.

Mixed models of EI

The Emotional Competencies (Goleman) model

The EI model introduced by Daniel Goleman focuses on EI as a wide array of

competencies and skills that drive leadership performance. Goleman's model
outlines four main EI constructs:

Self-awareness — the ability to read one's emotions and recognize their impact while
using gut feelings to guide decisions.

Self-management — involves controlling one's emotions and impulses and adapting

to changing circumstances.

Social awareness — the ability to sense, understand, and react to other's emotions
while comprehending networking.

Relationship management - the ability to inspire, influence, and develop others

while managing conflict.
Goleman includes a set of emotional competencies within each construct of EI.
Emotional competencies are not innate talents, but rather learned capabilities that
must be worked on and developed to achieve outstanding performance. Goleman
posits that individuals are born with a general emotional intelligence that
determines their potential for learning emotional competencies. Goleman's model of
EI has been criticized in the research literature as mere pop-psychology (Mayer,
Roberts, & Barsade, 2008).

Measurement of the Emotional Competencies (Goleman) model

Two measurement tools are based on the Goleman model:

1) The Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI) was created in 1999 and the
Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI), which was created in 2007.

2) The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal, created in 2001, which can be taken as a

self-report or 360-degree assessment (Bradberry and Greaves, 2005, The Emotional
Intelligence Quick Book, Simon & Schuster).

The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI)

Reuven Bar-On (2006) developed one of the first measures of EI that used the term
"Emotion Quotient". He defines emotional intelligence as being concerned with
effectively understanding oneself and others, relating well to people, and adapting
to and coping with the immediate surroundings to be more successful in dealing
with environmental demands. Bar-On posits that EI develops over time and that it
can be improved through training, programming, and therapy. Bar-On hypothesizes
that those individuals with higher than average E.Q.’s are in general more successful
in meeting environmental demands and pressures. He also notes that a deficiency in
EI can mean a lack of success and the existence of emotional problems. Problems in
coping with one’s environment are thought, by Bar-On, to be especially common
among those individuals lacking in the subscales of reality testing, problem solving,
stress tolerance, and impulse control. In general, Bar-On considers emotional
intelligence and cognitive intelligence to contribute equally to a person’s general
intelligence, which then offers an indication of one’s potential to succeed in life.

Serious doubts have been expressed about this model in the research literature (in
particular about the validity of self-report as an index of emotional intelligence) and
in scientific settings (see, e.g., Kluemper, 2008) it is being abandoned for the trait
emotional intelligence (trait EI) model discussed below.

Measurement of the ESI Model

The Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQ-I), is a self-report measure of EI
developed as a measure of emotionally and socially competent behaviour that
provides an estimate of one's emotional and social intelligence. The EQ-i is not
meant to measure personality traits or cognitive capacity, but rather the mental
ability to be successful in dealing with environmental demands and pressures. One
hundred and thirty three items (questions or factors) are used to obtain a Total EQ
(Total Emotion Quotient) and to produce five composite scale scores, corresponding
to the five main components of the Bar-On model. A limitation of this model is that it
claims to measure some kind of ability through self-report items (see trait EI model).

The Trait EI model

Petrides et al. (2000a, 2004, 2007) proposed a conceptual distinction between the
ability based model and a trait based model of EI. Trait EI (or ‘trait 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". This definition of EI encompasses behavioural dispositions and self
perceived abilities and is measured by self report, as opposed to the ability based
model which refers to actual abilities as they express themselves in performance
based measures. Trait EI should be investigated within a personality framework.

The trait EI model is general and subsumes the Goleman and Bar-On models
discussed above. Petrides et al. are major critics of the ability-based model and the
MSCEIT arguing that they are based on "psychometrically meaningless" scoring
procedures (e.g., Petrides, Furnham, & Mavroveli, 2007).

The conceptualization of EI as a personality trait leads to a construct that lies outside

the taxonomy of human cognitive ability. This is an important distinction in as much
as it bears directly on the operationalization of the construct and the theories and
hypotheses that are formulated about it.

Measurement of the Trait EI model

There are many self-report measures of EI, including the EQi, the Swinburne
University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT), the Six Seconds Emotional
Intelligence Assessment (SEI), the Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test
(SSEIT), a test by Tett, Fox, and Wang. (2005) from the perspective of the trait EI
model, none of these assess intelligence, abilities, or skills (as their authors often
claim), but rather, they are limited measures of trait emotional self-efficacy (Petrides,
Furnham, & Mavroveli, 2007). The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire
(TEIQue) is an open-access measure that was specifically designed to measure the
construct comprehensively and is currently available in 15 languages.

The TEIQue provides an operationalization for Petrides and colleagues' model that
conceptualizes EI in terms of personality. The test encompasses 15 subscales
organized under four factors: Well-Being, Self-Control, Emotionality, and Sociability.
The psychometric properties of the TEIQue were investigated in a recent study on a
French-Speaking Population, where it was reported that TEIQue scores were
globally normally distributed and reliable.

The researchers also found TEIQue scores were unrelated to nonverbal reasoning
(Raven’s matrices), which they interpreted as support for the personality trait view
of EI (as opposed to a form of intelligence). As expected, TEIQue scores were
positively related to some of the Big Five personality traits (extraversion,
agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness) as well as inversely related to others
(alexithymia, neuroticism).

Alexithymia and EI

Alexithymia from the Greek words λέξις and θυμός (literally "lack of words for
emotions") is a term coined by Peter Sifneos in 1973 to describe people who
appeared to have deficiencies in understanding, processing, or describing their
emotions. Viewed as a spectrum between high and low EI, the alexithymia construct
is strongly inversely related to EI, representing its lower range. The individual's level
of alexithymia can be measured with self-scored questionnaires such as the Toronto
Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) or the Bermond-Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire
(BVAQ) or by observer rated measures such as the Observer Alexithymia Scale
(OAS).

Criticism of the theoretical foundation of EI

EI is too broadly defined and the definitions are unstable

One of the arguments against the theoretical soundness of the concept suggests that
the constant changing and broadening of its definition- which has come to
encompass many unrelated elements — had rendered it an unintelligible concept:

"What is the common or integrating element in a concept that includes: introspection

about emotions, Emotional expression, non-verbal communication with others,
empathy, self-regulation, planning, creative thinking and the direction of attention?
There is none."
Other critics mention that without some stabilization of the concepts and the
measurement instruments, meta-analyses are difficult to implement, and the theory
coherence is likely to be adversely impacted by this instability.

EI cannot be recognized as a form of intelligence

Goleman's early work has been criticized for assuming from the beginning that EI is
a type of intelligence. Eysenck (2000) writes that Goleman's description of EI
contains unsubstantiated assumptions about intelligence in general, and that it even
runs contrary to what researchers have come to expect when studying types of
intelligence:

"Goleman exemplifies more clearly than most the fundamental absurdity of the
tendency to class almost any type of behaviour as an 'intelligence'... If these five
'abilities' define 'emotional intelligence', we would expect some evidence that they
are highly correlated; Goleman admits that they might be quite uncorrelated, and in
any case if we cannot measure them, how do we know they are related? So the
whole theory is built on quicksand: there is no sound scientific basis".

Similarly, Locke (2005) claims that the concept of EI in itself is a misinterpretation of

the intelligence construct, and he offers an alternative interpretation: it is not another
form or type of intelligence, but intelligence--the ability to grasp abstractions--
applied to a particular life domain: emotions. He suggests the concept should be re-
labelled and referred to as a skill.

EI has no substantial predictive value

Landy (2005) has claimed that the few incremental validity studies conducted on EI
have demonstrated that it adds little or nothing to the explanation or prediction of
some common outcomes (most notably academic and work success). Landy
proposes that the reason some studies have found a small increase in predictive
validity is in fact a methodological fallacy — incomplete consideration of alternative
explanations:

"EI is compared and contrasted with a measure of abstract intelligence but not with a
personality measure, or with a personality measure but not with a measure of
academic intelligence." Landy (2005)

In accordance with this suggestion, other researchers have raised concerns with the
extent to which self-report EI measures correlate with established personality
dimensions. Generally, self-report EI measures and personality measures have been
said to converge because they both purport to measure traits, and because they are
both measured in the self-report form. Specifically, there appear to be two
dimensions of the Big Five that stand out as most related to self-report EI –
neuroticism and extraversion. In particular, neuroticism has been said to relate to
negative emotionality and anxiety. Intuitively, individuals scoring high on
neuroticism are likely to score low on self-report EI measures.

The interpretations of the correlations between self-report EI and personality have

been varied and inconsistent. Some researchers have asserted that correlations in the
.40 range constitute outright construct redundancy, while others have suggested that
self-report EI is a personality trait in itself.

Criticism on measurement issues

• Ability based measures are measuring conformity, not ability

One criticism of the works of Mayer and Salovey comes from a study by Roberts’s
et.al. (2001), which suggests that the EI, as measured by the MSCEIT, may only be
measuring conformity. This argument is rooted in the MSCEIT's use of consensus-
based assessment, and in the fact that scores on the MSCEIT are negatively
distributed (meaning that its scores differentiate between people with low EI better
than people with high EI)....

• Ability based measures are measuring knowledge (not actual ability)

Further criticism has been offered by Brody (2004), who claimed that unlike tests of
cognitive ability, the MSCEIT "tests knowledge of emotions but not necessarily the
ability to perform tasks that are related to the knowledge that is assessed". The main
argument is that even though someone knows how he should behave in an
emotionally laden situation, it doesn’t necessarily follow that he could actually carry
out the reported behaviour.

• Self report measures are susceptible to faking good

More formally termed socially desirable responding (SDR), faking good is defined as
a response pattern in which test-takers systematically represent themselves with an
excessive positive bias (Paulhus, 2002). This bias has long been known to
contaminate responses on personality inventories (Holtgraves, 2004; McFarland &
Ryan, 2000; Peebles & Moore, 1998; Nichols & Greene, 1997; Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987),
acting as a mediator of the relationships between self-report measures (Nichols &
Greene, 1997; Ganster et al., 1983).

It has been suggested that responding in a desirable way is a response set, which is a
situational and temporary response pattern (Pauls & Crost, 2004; Paulhus, 1991).
This is contrasted with a response style, which is a more long-term trait-like quality.
Considering the contexts some self-report EI inventories are used in (e.g.,
employment settings), the problems of response sets in high-stakes scenarios become
clear (Paulhus & Reid, 2001).

There are a few methods to prevent socially desirable responding on behaviour

inventories. Some researchers believe it is necessary to warn test-takers not to fake
good before taking a personality test (e.g., McFarland, 2003). Some inventories use
validity scales in order to determine the likelihood or consistency of the responses
across all items.

• Claims for the predictive power of EI are too extreme

Landy distinguishes between the 'commercial wing' and 'the academic wing' of the
EI movement, basing this distinction on the alleged predictive power of EI as seen by
the two currents. According to Landy, the former makes expansive claims on the
applied value of EI, while the later is trying to warn users against these claims. As an
example. Goleman (1998) asserts that "the most effective leaders are alike in one
crucial way: they all have a high degree of what has come to be known as emotional
intelligence. ...emotional intelligence is the sine qua non of leadership". In contrast,
Mayer (1999) cautions "the popular literature’s implication—that highly emotionally
intelligent people possess an unqualified advantage in life—appears overly
enthusiastic at present and unsubstantiated by reasonable scientific standards."

Landy further reinforces this argument by noting that the data upon which these
claims are based are held in ‘proprietary databases', which means they are
unavailable to independent researchers for reanalysis, replication, or verification.
Thus, the credibility of the findings cannot be substantiated in a scientific manner,
unless those datasets are made public and available for independent analysis.

Corporate uses and misuses of EI testing

Whenever a new assessment tool is proposed for hiring purposes, the concern arises
that it might lead to unfair job discrimination. The use of EI tests, whose validity has
not been established, may lead to arbitrary discrimination practices.
Creativity
People often talk about creativity in terms of artistic expression, and while this is an
important manifestation of creativity, it is not the whole picture. For most people,
most creativity comes from solving the zillions of problems we all encounter every
day.

Ironically, when we most need creativity, we tend to be in an emotional state where

creativity is least accessible. Fear and distress activate the limbic system at the base
of our brains. This shuts off the cerebral cortex, where creativity and problem-
solving live. Love is the antidote to fear and the wellspring of creativity.

Creativity is not so much making something new as it is recombining the old.

Creativity requires informality because its essence is "breaking rules." The result is
that creativity is sometimes tied to strong emotions which both give it power and
make it challenging.

As we strive to make sense of our world, there is a great deal that fits in neither
words nor logic. Creativity allows us to tap the seed of human experience and
express that ineffable blossom.

Creativity is a mental and social process involving the generation of new ideas or
concepts, or new associations of the creative mind between existing ideas or
concepts. Creativity is fueled by the process of either conscious or unconscious
insight. An alternative conception of creativeness is that it is simply the act of
making something new.

Although popularly associated with art and literature, it is also an essential part of
innovation and invention and is important in professions such as business,
economics, architecture, industrial design, graphic design, advertising, mathematics,
music, science and engineering, and teaching.

Another adequate definition of creativity is that it is an "assumptions-breaking

process." Creative ideas are often generated when one discards preconceived
assumptions and attempts a new approach or method that might seem to others
unthinkable.

Creativity quotient
Several attempts have been made to develop a creativity quotient of an individual
similar to the Intelligence quotient (IQ), however these have been unsuccessful.[43]
Most measures of creativity are dependent on the personal judgement of the tester,
so a standardized measure is difficult, if not impossible, to develop.

Psychometric approach
J. P. Guilford's group,[12] which pioneered the modern psychometric study of
creativity, constructed several tests to measure creativity in 1967:

Plot Titles, where participants are given the plot of a story and asked to write
original titles.

Quick Responses is a word-association test scored for uncommonness.

Figure Concepts, where participants were given simple drawings of objects and
individuals and asked to find qualities or features that are common by two or more
drawings; these were scored for uncommonness.

Unusual Uses is finding unusual uses for common everyday objects such as bricks.

Remote Associations, where participants are asked to find a word between two given
words (e.g. Hand _____ Call)

Remote Consequences, where participants are asked to generate a list of

consequences of unexpected events (e.g. loss of gravity)

Building on Guilford's work, Torrance[44] developed the Torrance Tests of Creative

Thinking in 1966. They involved simple tests of divergent thinking and other
problem-solving skills, which were scored on:

• Fluency. The total number of interpretable, meaningful, and relevant ideas

generated in response to the stimulus.

• Originality. The statistical rarity of the responses among the test subjects.

• Elaboration. The amount of detail in the responses.

The Creativity Achievement Questionnaire, a self-report test that measures creative

achievement across 10 domains, was described in 2005 and shown to be reliable and
valid when compared to other measures of creativity and to independent evaluation
of creative output.
Social-personality approach
Some researchers have taken a social-personality approach to the measurement of
creativity. In these studies, personality traits such as independence of judgement,
self-confidence, attraction to complexity, aesthetic orientation and risk-taking are
used as measures of the creativity of individuals.[7] Other researchers[46] have
related creativity to the trait, openness to experience.

Other approaches to measurement

Genrich Altshuller in the 1950s introduced approaching creativity as an exact science
with TRIZ and a Level-of-Invention measure.

The creativity of thousands of Japanese, expressed in terms of their problem-solving

and problem-recognizing capabilities, has been measured in Japanese firms.[47]

Howard Gruber insisted on a case-study approach that expresses the existential and
unique quality of the creator. Creativity to Gruber was the product of purposeful
work and this work could be described only as a confluence of forces in the specifics
of the case.

Creativity and Emotions at Work

Three patterns may exist between affect and creativity at work: positive (or negative)
mood, or change in mood, predictably precedes creativity; creativity predictably
precedes mood; and whether affect and creativity occur simultaneously.

It was found that not only might affect precede creativity, but creative outcomes
might provoke affect as well. At its simplest level, the experience of creativity is itself
a work event, and like other events in the organizational context, it could evoke
emotion. Qualitative research and anecdotal accounts of creative achievement in the
arts and sciences suggest that creative insight is often followed by feelings of elation.
For example, Albert Einstein called his 1907 general theory of relativity “the happiest
thought of my life.” Empirical evidence on this matter is still very tentative.

In contrast to the possible incubation effects of affective state on subsequent

creativity, the affective consequences of creativity are likely to be more direct and
immediate. In general, affective events provoke immediate and relatively-fleeting
emotional reactions. Thus, if creative performance at work is an affective event for
the individual doing the creative work, such an effect would likely be evident only in
same-day data.

Another longitudinal research found several insights regarding the relations

between creativity and emotion at work. First - a positive relationship between
positive affect and creativity, and no evidence of a negative relationship. The more
positive a person’s affect on a given day, the more creative thinking they evidenced
that day and the next day – even controlling for that next day’s mood. There was
even some evidence of an effect two days later

In addition, the researchers found no evidence that people were more creative when
they experienced both positive and negative affect on the same day. The weight of
evidence supports a purely linear form of the affect-creativity relationship, at least
over the range of affect and creativity covered in our study: the more positive a
person’s affect, the higher their creativity in a work setting.

Finally, they found four patterns of affect and creativity affect can operate as an
antecedent to creativity; as a direct consequence of creativity; as an indirect
consequence of creativity; and affect can occur simultaneously with creative activity.
Thus, it appears that people’s feelings and creative cognitions are interwoven in
several distinct ways within the complex fabric of their daily work lives.

Methodology
• Sample statistics:

o Doctors from 3 different hospitals.

• Sample size:

We surveyed around 90 respondents from doctors working in Apollo Hospital

(Sarita Vihar), Gangaram Hospital and Bhandari Hospital (Dehradoon)

• Survey type:

A questionnaire of 51 standard questions – 33 relating to Emotional

Intelligence and 18 pertaining to Creativity was sent through mail to all the
prospective respondents. Personal Information regarding age, gender,
educational qualification and designation etc., were also asked but not the
name to preserve the anonymity of the respondent.
 • Survey methods:

EI Survey

The respondent was asked to rate the answer to each question on a scale of 1
to 5 where :

1: if he/ she strongly disagrees.

2: if he/she disagrees.

3: if he/she is undecided.

4: if he/she agrees.

5: if he/she strongly agrees.

• Creativity Survey

The respondent was asked to rate the answer to each question on a scale of 1
to 9 on the similar pattern as above.

• Sources of Information:

1) Questionnaires.

2) Analysis of questionnaires.

3) Internet.

4) Information gathered through various research papers on EQ and

Creativity.

• Tools Used:

o Microsoft Excel for organizing the data collected.

Analysis Data and Result

Apollo Hospital
SUMMARY
OUTPUT
 Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.9618101
R Square 0.925078668
Adjusted R Square 0.850157336
Standard Error 0.019009599
Observations 25

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 12 0.053542711 0.004461893 12.34733348 5.8692E-05
Residual 12 0.004336378 0.000361365
Total 24 0.057879089

Gangaram Hospital
SUMMARY
OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.720378677
R Square 0.518945439
Adjusted R Square 0.256552042
Standard Error 0.010467299
Observations 35

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 12 0.002600275 0.00021669 1.977738176 0.079836671
Residual 22 0.002410416 0.000109564
Total 34 0.005010691
Bhandari Hospital

SUMMARY
OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.740668157
R Square 0.548589319
Adjusted R Square 0.229946485
Standard Error 1.854131098
Observations 30

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 12 71.02403049 5.918669208 1.72164336 0.148746755
Residual 17 58.44263617 3.437802128
Total 29 129.4666667

Analysis Inferences
Apollo Hospital Result Inferences:

Pearson’s correlation = 0.9618101

92.5% of the variation in Creativity can be explained by the variation in Emotional
stability, Empathy, Extroversion, Sensitivity, Expressiveness, Communication,
Liveliness, Optimism, Self motivation, Self awareness, Social Skills and Self
Management.

The remaining 7.5% can be explained by other factors.

The individual EI contribution to Creativity is given in the following table:

Emotional stability 77.1469807

Empathy 27.0701161
Extroversion 83.1482495
Sensitivity 17.4380545
Expressiveness 33.0588979
Communication 23.3120542
Liveliness 18.8003707
Optimism 25.4211082
Self motivation 13.0592851
Self awareness 48.5162324
Social Skills 09.7142232
Self Management 88.2470154

Gangaram Hospital Result Inferences:

Pearson’s correlation = 0.720378677

51.89% of the variation in Creativity can be explained by the variation in Emotional

stability, Empathy, Extroversion, Sensitivity, Expressiveness, Communication,
Liveliness, Optimism, Self motivation, Self awareness, Social Skills and Self
Management.

The remaining 48.11% can be explained by other factors.

The individual EI contribution to Creativity is given in the following table:

Emotional stability 0.997480277

Empathy 0.713410067
Extroversion 0.400334465
Sensitivity 0.035999436
Expressiveness 0.611853614
Communication 0.37655346
Liveliness 0.709191598
Optimism 0.002385426
Self motivation 0.273745046
Self awareness 0.013784089
Social Skills 0.920245985
Self Management 0.534247746

Bhandari Hospital Result Inferences:

Pearson’s correlation = 0.734237519

53.9% of the variation in Creativity can be explained by the variation in Emotional

stability, Empathy, Extroversion, Sensitivity, Expressiveness, Communication,
Liveliness, Optimism, Self motivation, Self awareness, Social Skills and Self
Management.

The remaining 36.1% can be explained by other factors.

The individual EI contribution to Creativity is given in the following table:

Emotional stability 0.720196767

Empathy 0.914986168
Extroversion 0.409883943
Sensitivity 0.025394425
Expressiveness 0.046203355
Communication 0.428012373
Liveliness 0.158046959
Optimism 0.972398325
Self motivation 0.942794004
Self awareness 0.160251019
Social Skills 0.693170765
Self Management 0.144054282

Relevance of Emotional Intelligence

• Emotional intelligence and work performance: Emotional intelligence may

contribute to work performance (as reflected in salary, salary increase, and
company rank) by enabling people to nurture positive relationships at work,
work effectively in teams, and build social capital. Work performance often
depends on the support, advice, and other resources provided by others
(Seibert, Kraimer & Liden, 2001). Emotional intelligence may also contribute
to work performance by enabling people to regulate their emotions so as to
cope effectively with stress, perform well under pressure, and adjust to
organizational change.
 • Emotional intelligence and interpersonal facilitation: Interpersonal
facilitation pertains to «interpersonally oriented behaviors that contribute to
organizational goal accomplishment» (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996, p. 526).
Emotional intelligence may contribute to the quality of people’s relationships
at work because emotions serve communicative and social functions,
conveying information about thoughts and intentions, and helping to
coordinate social encounters (Keltner & Haidt, 2001). Emotion-related abilities
should help people choose the best course of action when navigating social
encounters. For example, the ability to decode facial expressions of emotion
can help one to evaluate how other people respond to one’s words and
actions, yielding important information for adjusting one’s behavior (Nowicki
& Duke, 2001). The ability to use emotions to guide thinking can help one to
consider both emotions and technical information when evaluating an
interpersonal problem. The ability to manage emotions should help
individuals experience and express emotions that contribute to favorable
social encounters, in part through emotional contagion (Hatfield, Cacioppo, &
Rapson, 1994).
• Emotional intelligence, affect, and attitudes: Despite important exceptions
(Parrott, 1993), people are usually motivated to seek pleasant feelings and
avoid unpleasant emotions. The ability to manage emotions can help people
nurture positive affect, avoid being overwhelmed by negative affect, and cope
with stress (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Other emotional abilities, such as
perceiving and understanding emotions, also contribute indirectly to the
quality of emotional experience by helping people to identify and interpret
cues that inform self-regulatory action. Therefore emotional intelligence
should contribute to positive affect and attitudes at work.

Appendix A1: Questionnaire

Personal Information

Age: Gender:
Educational Qualification:

Designation: Length of Service in the

Profession (in Years):

Number of Promotion/s in the Profession:

 FORM A

Instruction
In your day-to-day life you interact with lot many people around. Such an interaction
leads to experience of emotions. Below are some statements that talk about how you
feel while interacting with others. There is no correct or incorrect answer to these
statements. Below are the response keys that you can use for registering your
opinion in the blank space to the left of every statement. Please try to give your true
response as this exercise is only for the academic purpose.

Write 1 If you strongly disagree to it.

Write 2 If you disagree to it.

Write 3 If you somewhat agree or disagree to it.

Write 4 If you agree to it

Write 5 If you strongly agree to it.

1. I know when to speak about my personal problems to others

2. When I am faced with obstacles, I remember times I faced similar obstacles and
overcame them
3. I expect that I will do well on most things I try
4. Other people find it easy to talk to me
5. I find it hard to understand the non verbal messages of other people*
6. Some of the major events of my life have led me to re-evaluate what is important and
not important
7. When my mood changes, I see new possibilities
8. Emotions are one of the things that make my life worth living
9. I am aware of my emotions as I experience them
10. I expect good things to happen
11. I like to share my emotions with others
12. When I experience a positive emotion I know how to make it last
13. I arrange events others enjoy
14. I seek out activities that make me happy
15. I am aware of the non verbal messages I send to others
 16. I present myself in a way that makes a good impression on others
17. When I am in a positive mood, solving problems is easy for me
18. By looking at their facial expressions, I recognize the emotions people are
experiencing
19. I know when my emotions change
20. When I am in a positive mood, I am able to come up with new ideas
21. I have control over my emotions
22. I easily recognize my emotions as I experience them
23. I motivate myself by imagining a good outcome to tasks I take on
24. I compliment others when they have done something well
25. I am aware of the non verbal messages other people send
26. When another person tells me about an important event in his or her life, I almost feel
as though I have experienced this event myself
27. When I feel a change in emotions, I tend to come up with new ideas
28. When I am faced with a challenge, I give up because I believe I will fail *
29. I know what other people are feeling just by looking at them
30. I help other people feel better when they are down
31. I use good moods to help myself keep trying in the face of obstacles
32. I can tell how people are feeling by listening to the tone of their voice
33. It is difficult for me to understand why people feel the way they do*

FORM B

Instruction
Please answer the following based upon the way in which you naturally and
comfortably present yourself to others at work

Difficult Easy

In presenting an image of myself to others, consistently 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Over a long period of time, I find it easy or difficult to:

1. Come up with many ideas to solve a problem 1 2 3 4 5 6 789

2. Come up with ideas are original 1 2 3 4 5 6 789

3. Be stimulating 1 2 3 4 5 6 789

4. Come up with a solution when stuck 1 2 3 4 5 6 789

5. Create, rather than improve 1 2 3 4 5 6 789

6. Deal with several new ideas or changes at the same time1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

7. Risk doing things differently 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

8. Be thorough and meticulous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

9. Master all details painstakingly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10. Be methodical and systematic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

11. Enjoy detailed work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

12. Steadily keep at the job until is done 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

13. Fit into the system easily 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

14. Conform to the way things are done 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

15. Abide by the rules 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

16. Agree easily with the team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

17. Act only with proper authority 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

18. Appreciate the protection of precise instructions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

References
1.Bradberry, Travis and Greaves, Jean. (2009). "Emotional Intelligence 2.0". San
Francisco: Publishers Group West. (ISBN: 9780974320625)

2.Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. & Caruso, D.R. (2008). Emotional Intelligence: New ability
or eclectic traits, American Psychologist, 63, 6, 503-517.

3.Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI).

Psicothema, 18 , supl., 13-25.

4.Thorndike, R.K. (1920). "Intelligence and Its Uses", Harper's Magazine 140, 227-335.
5.Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.

6.Smith, M. K. (2002) "Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences", the encyclopedia

of informal education, Downloaded from
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm on October 31, 2005.

7.Payne, W.L. (1983/1986). A study of emotion: developing emotional intelligence;

self integration; relating to fear, pain and desire. Dissertation Abstracts International,
47, p. 203A. (University microfilms No. AAC 8605928)

8.Feldman-Barrett, L., & Salovey, P. (eds.). (2002). The wisdom in feeling:

psychological processes in emotional intelligence. New York: Guilford Press.

9.Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books

10.Gibbs, Nancy (1995, October 2). The EQ Factor. Time magazine. Web reference at
http://www.time.com/time/classroom/psych/unit5_article1.html accessed January 2,
2006.

11.Salovey P and Grewal D (2005) The Science of Emotional Intelligence. Current

directions in psychological science, Volume14 -6

12.Bradberry, T. and Su, L. (2003). Ability-versus skill-based assessment of emotional

intelligence, Psicothema, Vol. 18, supl.,

13.http://www.psykologi.uio.no/studier/drpsych/disputaser/follesdal_summary.html
Hallvard Føllesdal - 'Emotional Intelligence as Ability: Assessing the Construct
Validity of Scores from the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
(MSCEIT)' Phd Thesis and accompanying papers, University of Oslo 2008

14.Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam

Books

15.Boyatzis, R., Goleman, D., & Rhee, K. (2000). Clustering competence in emotional
intelligence: insights from the emotional competence inventory (ECI). In R. Bar-On &
J.D.A. Parker (eds.): Handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 343-362). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.