Theoretical Framework

In the 1990s, three theories arose in the literature to explain the construct of Emotional

Intelligence (EI). This study utilizes Mayer et al.’s (1997) ability theory of EI, Goleman’s (1995)

competence 16 theory of EI, and Bar-On’s (1997) trait theory of EI. The principles of the self-

science curriculum are based on the theoretical approach of Mayor et al. to EI as a separate

and distinct intelligence, as well as the model of EI competencies by Goleman. Rather than an

intelligence, Bar On’s model views EI as a group of traits. The Self-Science approach views EI

as an intelligence that underpins competency development, thus is based on theoretical

method of Goleman and Mayer et al.

“Emotional Intelligence involves the ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express

emotion and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth

(Mayer & Salovey, 2004, p. 35)”. Initially, Salovey and Mayer (1990) developed an emotional

intelligence theory that investigated EI as a separate and different intellectual capacity from IQ.

Salovey and Mayer (1990) divided EI skills into five major fields. Knowing one’s emotions

include acknowledging one’s self awareness as it occurs. Mayer and Salovey suggested that

an emotional failure to notice leaves people at the mercy of those emotions. Managing

emotions relates to the capacity to manage emotions, sooth oneself and cope with adverse

emotions. Individuals who show this ability bounce back much faster from the difficulties of life.

Motivating oneself is to use emotions to pay attention, delay gratification and attain mastery.

Recognizing emotions in others, an ability that is often marked as empathy, creates emotional

self-consciousness. Recognizing the emotions of others is the first step towards healthy

interactions with others and involves active listening to others and understanding the view

point and feelings of others. Finally, the last stage in this theoretical approach to EI expertise,
handling relationships, includes managing emotions in others. This capacity for EI is often

referred to as social skills.

Mayer, Salovey and Caruso (2002) refined their strategy to EI theory to create a

conceptualization that describes it as a standard intelligence. From a theoretical point of view,

EI is viewed as an intelligence that benefits from and process emotions. Their research has

resulted Mayer et al. to describe EI as “composed of mental abilities, skills or capacities” since

2000. Mayer and Salovey’s (2004) emotional intelligence model regarded EI as a generally

functioning as a unitary system, but divided into four sections. EI’s first branch, emotional

perception, includes attending, registering and decoding outside world emotional messages.

Emotion and cognition are not integrated by individuals who lack this fundamental branch of

EI. Emotional integration, the second branch of EI, focuses on how emotion enters the

cognitive system and changes cognition to support thinking. When an individual feels happy,

emotions can alter thoughts, making them positive and negative when sad. Emotional

understanding, the third branch of EI, enables the person to acknowledge and label emotions.

Together with their interactive and temporal applications, the consequences of feelings are

regarded. The fourth branch of EI, emotional management is based on the concept that

perception must start with emotional leadership. A person can only make use of mood

changes with good emotional perceptions and comprehend emotions. Because interactions

are unpredictable with others, emotional leadership includes the capacity to consider and

make decisions among different emotional routes. Mayer and 19 Salovey (2004) indicated that

emotional intelligence is a unitary intelligence, conceptualize as a cognitive capacity and

evaluated with objective functions.

Bar-On (2000) developed an EI conceptual model that explored the characteristics of

EI. In the early 1980’s, Bar-On began to develop the Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On-
EQ-i) as a tool designed to investigate social and emotional intelligence in various populations

around the world. Bar-On argued that a measuring instrument of emotionally and socially

skilled conduct would disclose data on the underlying social and emotional intelligence

structure. Research by Bar-On disclosed similarities in social and emotional traits among

varied communities around the globe.

Bar-On created the Bar-On Emotional Quotient in 1997, a self-report test of adult

emotional intelligence. Using the Bar-On EQI, he studied the emotional intelligence of over

15,000 people in a dozen countries on four continents, ranging from adolescents to individuals

in their 50s. His findings indicate same pattern of strengths and weakness in emotional

intelligence for people globally (Bar-On, 1997). He also discovered small, but substantial,

increases in EI as people age, indicating that EI is improving through life experience.

Goleman (1995) examined the data available on the effects of EI in his book, Emotional

Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Goleman publicized the concept of EI and, in

doing so, disordered the theoretical understanding of EI. Goleman’s inceptive work was

misconceived to propose that EI accounts for much of the 80% of the variance in success in

life that IQ does not account for. In more recent books, Goleman has sought to explain EI

competencies as they interconnected to success in the workplace (Goleman, 1998). Recently,

he has enlarged the range of emotional competencies in applying his theory to the workplace

(Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). EI, in this theoretical model, is explained as

competencies in four broad areas: self-awareness, selfmanagement, awareness of others and

empathy, and management of social relationships. Goleman’s research has focused on using

EI to enhance leadership and productivity in organizations. Many critics suppose that in

Goleman’s model EI competencies are 18 correlated highly with personality characteristics,

rendering them different from personality theory.