Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Emotional Intelligence In
G&T: A Pilot Study
By:
Mercedes Ferrando
mferran@um.es
(Murcia University, Spain)
Richard Bailey
R.Bailey@roehampton.ac.uk
(Roehampton University)
LITERATURE REVIEW
Aims
Methodology
Sample
Instrument
Procedure
Data analysis
Conclusions
2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Results:
The students with high emotional intelligence showed a better and
more completely organize emotions material about peer
relationships when compared to those lower in EI
High EI resembles not only to emotional giftedness but also to the
related concept of positive maladjustment (Dabrowsi 1970)
What EI theory added to the concept of emotional giftedness is the
operative measure
LITERATURE REVIEW
EI in gifted and non-gifted: Zeidner et al. (2005)
Aim examined and compared the scores of academically gifted and nongifted
Sample: gifted (N =83) and non-gifted (N =125) Procedure: quantitative
(SSRI, MSCEIT, IQ)
Instruments: MSCEIT (Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence
Test), SSRI (Schuttle Self Report Inventory)
Procedure: G&T were taken form gifted classes, whereas non-gifted were
taken from regular ones.
Results: Scores on EI are measure dependent (gifted score higher on
MSCEIT, but lower on SSRI)
LITERATURE REVIEW
Results: from highest to lowest gifted scores were: social skills; selfmanagement of emotions, empathy, and utilization of emotions. With an
overall score on SSRI of 130.96
Aims
To explore the emotional intelligence components in a sample of G&T pupils.
Specifically:
Sample distribution
Instrument
Intrapersonal scale
EQ-i:YV
Interpersonal scale
Descriptive Statistics
RESULTS
Gifted N= 16
Raw scores
Non-gifted N=63
Z scores
Raw scores
Z scores
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
Intrapersonal
15,00
4,42
,31
1,16
13,48
3,57
-,08
,943
Interpersonal
41,75
4,29
,46
,99
39,18
4,19
-,12
,971
34
6,36
,19
,97
32,44
6,62
-,04
1,009
Adaptability
32,12
4,33
1,03
,89
25,70
4,03
-,28
,829
Mood
42,25
8,82
-,03
1,46
42,52
5,14
,009
,852
Positive
Impression
13,31
2,72
-,09
,56
13,88
5,29
,02
1,091
EQ
60,18
6,01
,73
,95
54,26
5,80
-,20
,920
Stress
Gifted
Non-gifted
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Intrapersonal Interpersonal
StressAdaptability
management
Mood
Possitive
Impression
EI all
10
RESULTS
ANCOVAs
Non significant group-by gender interaction effect when controlling age for
each components of emotional intelligence:
Intrapersonal F(1, 64)=1.747, p=.191; interpersonal F(1, 64)= .011, p=.918; stress F(1,
64)=.890, p=.349; adaptability F(1, 64)=.460, p=.500; mood F(1, 64)=.558, p=.458; positiveimpression F(1, 64)=.003, p=.956; and EQ all F(1, 64)=.749, p=.390.
The results showed only significance effects for interpersonal abilities [F(1,
64)=5.683, p=.020, partial 2=.082]. Girls scored higher than boys.
11
Conclusions
The comparisons between both profiles suggested that gifted scored higher
than non-gifted.
Statistically significant differences depending on group (gifted non-gifted) were
found, favouring to gifted, on adaptability and in the total EQ.
The high scores obtained by gifted on adaptability means superiority in the
following abilities: a) reality testing or skills to validate ones emotions; b)
flexibility or skill to adjust ones emotions, thoughts, and behaviour to changing
situations and conditions and c) problem solving or ability to identify and define
problems as well as to generate and implement potentially effective solutions.
These results are non surprising if we take into account the different authors
contributions which pointed out that gifted show open mind, flexibility, tolerance
to ambiguity, risk taking, problem finding and the fact that these students are
better at proposing new and valid solutions to problems.
No statistically significant differences were founded between girls and boys, but
for interpersonal component favouring girls
12
13
15