This article was downloaded by: [University of Central Lancashire]On: 25 June 2012, At: 02:48Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Assessment & Evaluation in HigherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/caeh20

The influence of emotional intelligenceon academic progress and achievementin UK university studentsDebbie Pope a , Claire Roper b & Pamela Qualter ba Social & Psychological Sciences, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk,UKb Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK

Available online: 15 Jun 2011

To cite this article: Debbie Pope, Claire Roper & Pamela Qualter (2011): The influence ofemotional intelligence on academic progress and achievement in UK university students,Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, DOI:10.1080/02602938.2011.583981

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.583981

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

The influence of emotional intelligence on academic progress andachievement in UK university students

Debbie Popea*, Claire Roperb and Pamela Qualterb

aSocial & Psychological Sciences, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK; bPsychology, Uni-5versity of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK

Previous research has found relationships between higher levels of emotionalintelligence (EI) and academic success in both adolescents and adults.This studyexamines the relationship between overall EI and specific EI competencies in

10135 undergraduate psychology students in the UK. EI was measured at the startof a psychology degree course using the Emotional Competence Inventory-Uni-versity Edition (ECI-U II). Performance was assessed using retention statisticsand students’ final average percentage mark (APM) at the end of their degreecourse. Results showed that there were no differences in overall EI or specific

15EI competencies in those students who graduated compared to those who failedto graduate. Whilst global EI did not significantly predict final APM, specific EIcompetencies (conscientiousness, adaptability, empathy, organisational aware-ness, and building bonds) significantly predicted APM after controlling for gen-der. Recommendations for the implementation of EI training in higher education

20institutions are considered.

Keywords: emotional intelligence; academic progress; academic achievement

Introduction

25Emotional intelligence (EI) is an ‘umbrella’ term, encompassing aspects of previ-ously investigated psychological constructs, such as social cognitive theory and per-sonality trait theory (Qualter, Gardner, and Whiteley 2007). In recent years,consideration of EI as a discrete entity has indicated that higher EI ratings signifi-cantly predict positive life outcomes (e.g. Gannon and Ranzijn 2005; Brackett et al.

302006) and that EI competencies can be developed with the potential to improvefuture life outcomes (Qualter et al. 2007, 2009; Boyatzis and Saatcioglu 2008; Neliset al. 2009).

However, differences and inconsistencies in the definitions and measurement ofEI have led to criticism of the construct and its potential usefulness (see below). To

35counter these criticisms, Perez, Petrides, and Furnham (2005) propose that there aretwo conceptually distinct entities: (1) ability EI, measured using traditional generalability-type measures and (2) trait EI, measured using personality-type self-reportmeasures. This distinction appears to have been supported in the literature (VanRooy, Viswesvaran, and Pluta 2005; Qualter, Gardner, and Whiteley 2007).

40Ability EI adopts an integrative model approach which regards EI as a globalability which joins together specific and individual abilities. For example, the

*Corresponding author. Email: debbie.pope@edgehill.ac.uk

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher EducationAquatic Insects2011, 1–12, iFirst Article

ISSN 0260-2938 print/ISSN 1469-297X online� 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/02602938.2011.583981http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al L

anca

shir

e] a

t 02:

48 2

5 Ju

ne 2

012

Four-Branch Model of EI (Mayer and Salovey 1997) proposes a hierarchy compris-ing four abilities: (1) an ability to accurately perceive emotions in the self and oth-ers; (2) skills required to use emotions to facilitate thinking; (3) the ability to

5 understand emotions, emotional language and the signals conveyed by emotions,and (4) the ability to manage emotions in order to attain specific goals. Ability EImeasures are usually scored against a criterion of correctness defined by expert orconsensus scoring. Ability measures however, have been criticised since there is noabsolute correctness criterion and there is concern that EI cannot be considered as a

10 discrete intelligence as it is impossible to reason with emotions or to use emotionsto facilitate thinking (see, e.g. Locke 2005). In addition, measures of ability EI havebeen viewed as measures of knowledge of emotion management strategies and notactual skill in dealing with emotions (Brody 2004).

Trait EI is more closely allied to the field of personality and adopts a Mixed15 Model approach with broad definitions of EI, combining EI measures such as emo-

tional perception (as with ability EI) with attributes such as assertiveness, happiness,and stress tolerance (Mayer, Roberts, and Barsade 2008). Self-report measures oftrait EI have been found to correlate weakly with measures of general intelligence(Humphrey et al. 2007), but strong relationships are found with personality mea-

20 sures (Bastian, Burns, and Nettelbeck 2005). This is perhaps not surprising, due tothe inclusion of personality traits in measures of trait EI (Gardner and Qualter2010). The use of self-report measures of EI have been criticised due to the stan-dard limitations of such measures, for example social desirability bias, whererespondents choose replies that are deemed to be more idealistic or socially accept-

25 able and therefore, may represent an inaccurate assessment of abilities (Humphreyet al. 2007).

However, whichever model or measure is used, research indicates that EI canimpact on life outcomes. Higher EI is positively related to higher ratings of life sat-isfaction (Gannon and Ranzijn 2005), social competency, pro-social behaviour, opti-

30 mism, and quality of relationships (Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso 2008). Higher EIratings also relate to better career performance, health well-being, and adjustment(Humphrey et al. 2007). Conversely, lower EI ratings are associated with increasedillegal drug and alcohol use, deviant behaviour and depression (Bastian, Burns, andNettelbeck 2005). Links have also been found between EI and academic perfor-

35 mance in high school students (Downey et al. 2008; Di Fabio and Palazzeschi2009; Vidal Rodeiro, Bell, and Emery 2009), with higher EI predicting better per-formance in some, but not all, academic subjects. Gender variations in the patternof results have been found in some (Qualter et al. unpublished) but not all (Downeyet al. 2008) these studies.

40 Studies have also considered the effects of EI on academic success in under-graduate students. Barchard (2003) and Parker and others (2004) found that, whilstbroadly defined total EI ratings do not strongly correlate with academic success (asmeasured by grade point average), specific aspects of EI predict success. Successfulstudents are those with better intra-personal abilities and adaptability, more effective

45 change management skills, are better able to identify potential problems and userealistic and flexible coping mechanisms. Successful students are also those whohave the ability to manage stressful situations in a calm and proactive manner. Pauand others (2004, 2007) confirm these findings; students with higher levels of EIreport less perceived stress, are more likely to appraise emotions in rational and

50 constructive terms, are more able to identify and turn to sources of help in times of

2 D. Pope et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al L

anca

shir

e] a

t 02:

48 2

5 Ju

ne 2

012

stress and are better able to judge that health-damaging behaviours, such as drinkingalcohol, will not alleviate stress. As with high school students, gender differences inthe EI competencies that predict success at university have been noted (Brackett,Mayer, and Warner 2004; Lyons and Schneider 2005).

5In addition to academic success, social integration aspects of EI have beenfound to be mediating factors in students’ decisions to withdraw from university(Parker et al. 2006; Qualter et al. 2009). EI is potentially, therefore, a useful mea-sure that can be used within higher education to identify and support students atrisk of early withdrawal and to improve academic progress and achievement.

10It is interesting to note that results from EI studies have been equivocal whenconsidering gender differences. Many studies report few or no differences in self-reported EI among males and females (e.g. Brackett et al. 2006; Brown and Schutte2006). In other studies, females have been found to be more skilful at understand-ing and dealing with their emotions, whereas males demonstrate better regulation of

15emotions (e.g. Austin et al. 2005; Bindhu and Thomas 2006; Harrod and Scheer2005). Evidence also suggests that women tend to have lower self-perceptions of EIthan their male counterparts, a finding that is not supported in performance tests(Petrides and Furnham 2000; Brackett and Mayer 2003). Results appear to differdepending on the type of assessment tools used (self-report or performance mea-

20sures), the different skills comprising the EI constructs being measured (i.e. theunderlying theoretical model of EI), and the different socio-demographic character-istics of the populations being studied (Sanchez-Nunez et al. 2008).

The present study uses a Mixed Model approach to the measurement of EI, usinga measure designed specifically for use with university students; the Emotional Com-

25petence Inventory-University Edition (ECI-U II) (Boyatzis and Goleman 2005). Toour knowledge, the long-term impact of EI on academic progress and outcome inhigher education in the UK has not previously been reported. This study aims toexplore: (1) whether EI competencies measured at the beginning of a degree coursecan predict academic progress (whether students complete their degree) and final aca-

30demic performance, as defined by academic grade (final average percentage mark)three years later; and (2) whether gender has any mediating effect on this outcome.

Method

Participants

One hundred and thirty-five full-time undergraduate psychology students (38 male35and 97 female) took part in the study (2006 intake). All students were undertaking

a single honours three-year British Psychological Society (BPS) accredited degreecourse and would have been expected to graduate in June 2009.

Measures

Emotional intelligence

40The Emotional Competence Inventory Version 2 (ECI-U II) (Boyatzis and Goleman2005) was used in the current study. This is a self-report measure comprising 21 EIcompetencies organised into four clusters: (1) Self-Awareness comprising three com-petencies; emotional self-awareness, accurate self-assessment, and self-confidence;(2) Social Awareness comprising three competencies: empathy, organisational

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al L

anca

shir

e] a

t 02:

48 2

5 Ju

ne 2

012

5 awareness, and responsiveness to others; (3) Self-Management comprising sevencompetencies: emotional self-control, transparency, conscientiousness, adaptability,optimism, achievement orientation, and initiative; and (4) Relationship Managementcomprising eight competencies: developing others, inspirational leadership, influ-ence, communication, change catalyst, conflict management, building bonds, team-

10 work, and collaboration.The ECI-U II contains 63 items and takes approximately 30 minutes to complete.

Students indicate their agreement with statements such as ‘I help de-escalate con-flicts’ (conflict management), ‘I make activities or projects engaging’ (inspirationalleadership), and ‘I show attention to detail’ (conscientiousness) on a five-point Likert

15 scale from 1 (never) to 5 (consistently). These statements are then scored and totalsgrouped into the four individual clusters according to the authors’ instructions.

The ECI-U II, and tests from which it is derived, the ECI and ECI-2, are sup-ported by good reliability and validity evidence (Boyatzis and Sala 2004; Wolff2005, 9) with the ECI demonstrating a good degree of construct validity; scores sig-

20 nificantly correlating with measures of similar constructs (e.g. Type A and B per-sonality, Myers–Briggs, Big Five personality factors) (Boyatzis and Saatcioglu2008).

Academic performance

Academic performance was measured in two ways: (1) using retention statistics to25 determine which students completed their degrees within the three-year period; and

(2) using the average percentage mark (APM), which comprises marks from a rangeof 12 modules and types of assessment (exams, coursework essays and lab reports,multiple choice questionnaires, etc.) over Years 2 and 3 of the undergraduate degree.

Procedure

30 Following ethical approval for the study, all first-year undergraduate single hon-ours psychology students (n = 200; 2006 intake) completed the ECI-U II measureduring a single group session during the first semester of the academic year. Dur-ing this session, students were informed of the nature of EI as a psychologicalconstruct and permission was requested to compare their ECI-U II scores with aca-

35 demic grades throughout the course; 67.5% (n = 135) of the students gave permis-sion for this comparison. All students then took part in a seminar session oneweek later when individual scored EI profiles were distributed. This session wasnot designed as an intervention, but rather as an awareness-raising session of anindividual’s self-perceptions of EI. With the guidance of staff, each student was

40 provided with the ECI-U II workbook which provides feedback and ‘tips fordevelopment’ of individual competencies. Scores on the ECI-U II were comparedto retention data and overall final APM on the expected date of completion inJune 2009.

Results

45 Data were entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) v17and analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Pearson bivariate correlationand hierarchical regression tests.

4 D. Pope et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al L

anca

shir

e] a

t 02:

48 2

5 Ju

ne 2

012

Table 1 contains the means and standard deviations of the scores for the four EIclusters: Self-Awareness, Self-Management, Social Awareness and Relationship

5Management and APM.

Graduation status

Of the original 135 students, 91 students (67.4%) graduated as expected in June2009 (26 male and 65 female). The EI scores of those students who failed to gradu-ate (n = 44; 12 male, 32 female) were compared to those students who completed

10their course on schedule. A series of between subject 2 (gender) � 2(graduation sta-tus: graduated or not in June 2009) ANOVAs were conducted on each of the fourEI clusters.

Self-Awareness. There was no significant main effect of gender (F(1, 135) = .01,p = .920, g2 < .001), or graduation status (F(1, 135) = .57, p = .410, g2 = .004)

15and no significant interaction effect (F(1, 135) = .001, p = .970, g2 < .001).Self-Management. There was no significant main effect of gender (F (1, 135) =

.18, p = .674, g2 < .001), or graduation status (F(1, 135) = .57, p = .410, g2 =

.004) and no significant interaction effect (F(1, 135) = .001, p = .97, g2 < .001).Social Awareness. A significant main effect of gender was revealed (F(1, 135) =

204.07, p = .460, g2 = .030) with females scoring significantly higher on ratings ofSocial Awareness than males. There was no significant main effect of graduationstatus (F(1, 135) = .11, p = .740, g2 = .001), and no significant interaction effect(F(1, 135) = .01, p = .927, g2 < .001).

Relationship Management. There was no significant main effects of gender (F(1,25135) = 1.70, p = .195, g2 = .013) or graduation status (F(1, 135) = .22, p = .640,

Table 1. Means and standard deviations (in brackets) of the average percentage mark(APM) and the four EI clusters: Self-Awareness, Self-Management, Social Awareness andRelationship Management.

Male Female Total

Average percentagemark (APM)

58.43 (6.80) 61.73 (6.10) 60.79 (6.44)

Self-Awareness Graduated(N = 91; 26 male,65 female)

32.96 (3.03) 32.85 (3.82) 32.88 (3.59)

Not graduated(N = 44; 12 male,32 female)

33.58 (6.53) 33.53 (4.72) 33.55 (5.19)

Total(N = 135; 38 male,97 female)

33.16 (4.35) 33.07 (4.12) 33.10 (4.17)

Self-Management Graduated 71.35 (8.71) 71.82 (7.84) 71.68 (8.05)Not graduated 69.67 (10.58) 70.66 (8.46) 70.39 (8.97)Total 70.82 (9.23) 71.43 (8.03) 71.26 (8.35)

Social Awareness Graduated 32.12 (4.42) 33.77 (3.76) 33.30 (4.01)Not graduated 31.75 (6.34) 33.56 (3.86) 33.07 (4.66)Total 32.00 (5.02) 33.70 (3.78) 33.22 (4.21)

RelationshipManagement

Graduated 81.85 (9.97) 81.94 (9.81) 81.91 (9.80)Not graduated 76.83 (12.98) 84.25 (22.24) 82.23 (20.27)Total 80.26 (11.08) 82.70 (15.00) 82.02 (14.01)

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al L

anca

shir

e] a

t 02:

48 2

5 Ju

ne 2

012

g2 = .002) and no significant interaction effect (F(1, 135) = 1.62, p = .206, g2 =.012).

There were no significant differences between those students who did or did notgraduate in June 2009 for any of the 21 individual EI competencies.

5 Relationship of APM with EI clusters and competencies

Pearson bivariate correlations were conducted on all graduating students (n = 91)comparing relationships with APM, the four EI clusters and each of the individual21 EI competencies. There were no significant relationships with APM and Self-Awareness, Self-Management or Relationship Management. However, there was a

10 significant positive relationship with APM and Social Awareness (r = .217, p =.039). There were positive relationships with APM and conscientiousness (r = .352,p = .001), adaptability (r = .308, p = .003), empathy (r = .246, p = .019), organisa-tional awareness (r = .292, p = .005) and building bonds (r = .221, p = .036).

For males separately (n = 26), there were no significant relationships with APM15 and the four EI clusters. There were positive relationships with APM and conscien-

tiousness (r = .475, p = .014) and change catalyst (r = .416, p = .034). For females(n = 65), there were no significant relationships with APM and the four EI clusters.There were positive relationships with APM and conscientiousness (r = .262,p = .035), adaptability (r = .329, p = .007) and organisational awareness (r = .282,

20 p = .023).

Predictors of average percentage mark (APM)

An initial hierarchical regression analysis was conducted on all students who gradu-ated (n = 91) to determine whether the four initial clusters contributed to the predic-tion of final APM after controlling for gender (Table 2). Gender was entered on the

25 first block, with the four clusters entered on the second block. Gender was signifi-cant in predicting a student’s APM (b = .233, t = 2.26, p = 0.026), accounting for

Table 2. Results of hierarchical multiple regression of Self-Awareness, Self-Management,Social Awareness and Relationship Management clusters on APM controlling for gender.

Variables Beta tSigt R2

Adj.R2

R2

change Sig. change

Block 1Gender .233 2.260 .026 .054 .044 .054 F(1, 89) = 5.10,

p = .026ANOVA:

F(1, 90) = 5.10, p = .026

Block 2Self-Awareness �.029 �.220 .829Self-Management .179 .980 .331Social Awareness .116 .750 .456RelationshipManagement

�.074 �44 .658 .096 .043 .979 F(4, 85) = .979,p = .424

ANOVA: F(5,90) = 1.80, p = .121

6 D. Pope et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al L

anca

shir

e] a

t 02:

48 2

5 Ju

ne 2

012

approximately 5% (R2 = .054) of variance in APM. The four EI clusters did notsignificantly increase prediction of APM over and above gender.

A second hierarchical multiple regression was performed to determine whether5the individual EI competencies found to be significantly correlated with APM (con-

scientiousness, adaptability, empathy, organisational awareness, and building bonds)contributed to the prediction of final APM after controlling for gender (Table 3).

Gender was entered on the first block, with the individual competencies enteredon the second block. Again, gender was found to be a significant predictor of APM

10(b = .233, t = 2.26, p = .026) and explained approximately 5% (R2 = .054) of thevariance. The individual EI competencies entered on the next step together contrib-uted an additional 15% of the variance in APM score when gender had been statis-tically controlled (F(6, 90) = 3.60, p = .003). Further examination showed thatnone of these competencies made a significant individual contribution to the overall

15model (conscientiousness alone was the only competency that approached signifi-cance (b = .702, t = 1.96, p = .053)).

Discussion

Previous studies have indicated that measures of EI could potentially be used withinhigher education to identify students at risk of early withdrawal (Parker et al. 2006;

20Qualter et al. 2009). EI interventions could then help to support students andimprove academic progress and achievement. However, most previous studies havebeen conducted over relatively short time scales. To our knowledge, no UK studiesto date have measured EI competencies at the beginning of a degree course andthen followed students to the end of their course to look at whether early EI mea-

25surements could have predicted final academic outcome. In addition, this studyinvestigated the usefulness of a Mixed Model measure of EI designed specificallyfor use with university students; the Emotional Competence Inventory-UniversityEdition (ECI-U II) (Boyatzis and Goleman 2005), rather than a more generalmeasure of EI.

Table 3. Results of hierarchical multiple regression of conscientiousness, adaptability,empathy, organisational awareness and building bonds on APM controlling for gender.

Variables Beta t Sig t R2Adj.R2

R2

change Sig. change

Block 1Gender .233 2.26 .026 .054 .044 .054 F(1, 89) = 5.96,

p = .026ANOVA: F(1, 90) = 5.10, p = .026

Block 2Conscientiousness .702 1.96 .053Adaptability .137 1.08 .284Empathy �.008 �.07 .946Organisational awareness .146 1.31 .194Building bonds .062 .58 .565 .204 .148 .150 F(5, 84) = 3.17,

p = .011ANOVA: F(6, 90) = 3.60, p = .003

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al L

anca

shir

e] a

t 02:

48 2

5 Ju

ne 2

012

5 Our initial analyses found that there were no differences when comparing thefour EI clusters or the individual EI competencies in those students who graduatedand those who failed to graduate. This is surprising as previous studies haveindicated that EI competencies could be used as potential predictors of withdrawal(Parker et al. 2006; Qualter et al. 2009). However, there are many reasons why stu-

10 dents fail to complete their studies. Whilst some students will have withdrawn foracademic reasons (failure, lack of confidence in abilities, etc.), some students mayhave suspended their studies (e.g. due to family circumstances or financial con-straints) or they may have transferred to a different course or to part-time studies, i.e. these students would be expected to graduate at some point in the future. This

15 more detailed information was not available within this study, but the potentialdiversity of this ‘failed to graduate’ group does mean that our findings should beinterpreted with caution and future studies should seek to clarify specific reasonsfor withdrawal throughout the course.

Females scored significantly higher on the Social Awareness cluster than males.20 This finding is consistent with previous findings that females score more highly on

general measures of EI (Lyons and Schneider 2005; Downey et al. 2008) althoughno gender differences were noted in our study on the Self-Awareness, Self-Manage-ment and Relationship Management clusters. There was a significant, althoughweak, relationship with APM and Social Awareness, indicating that Social Aware-

25 ness is a key skill in academic success. Indeed, Qualter et al. (2009) found that stu-dents who integrate socially are less likely to withdraw from their studies, withhigher EI students being more able to access social support and therefore experienceless stress (Pau et al. 2004). However, there were more females in this study thanmales and, once gender had been controlled, Social Awareness (and the other three

30 EI clusters) did not make unique significant contributions to APM variance, nor didthe four clusters when grouped together.

There were gender differences in relationships with APM and individual compe-tencies. For males separately, there were significant positive relationships with APMand conscientiousness (taking responsibility for your personal performance) and

35 change catalyst (initiating or managing change). For females, there were significantpositive relationships with APM and conscientiousness, adaptability (flexibility inhandling change) and organisational awareness (understanding the ‘power’ relation-ships in one’s own group or organisation). Although these significant relationshipswere weak, the study supports the view that gender needs to be considered in any

40 use of EI measures.Overall, higher final APM was significantly related to higher scores on five indi-

vidual EI competencies: conscientiousness, adaptability, empathy (sensing others’feelings and perspectives), organisational awareness and building bonds (networkingand building/maintaining relationships). Empathy, organisational awareness and

45 building bonds are all competencies related to the Social Awareness cluster of com-petencies, whereas adaptability and conscientiousness are Self-Management compe-tencies. Whilst correlations were again weak (although significant), the resultsprovide some support for previous findings that academic success is related to morespecific measures of EI (Barchard 2003; Parker et al. 2004; Qualter, Gardner, and

50 Whiteley 2007) rather than more general measures of EI. Students that score highlyon these specific competencies are better at negotiating the politics of social situa-tions. Parker et al. (2004) found a similar result with students who score morehighly on their intra-personal dimension measure being more likely to be in the

8 D. Pope et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al L

anca

shir

e] a

t 02:

48 2

5 Ju

ne 2

012

academically successful group. Also, similarly to our study, Parker et al. (2004)5found that adaptability was also higher in their successful students. These students

appear better able to identify potential problems and adapt more realistic and flexi-ble coping strategies, with students rating higher on conscientiousness being morelikely to be organised, to complete assignments on time and to engage in sufficientand well-organised revision.

10The five competencies grouped together significantly predicted APM, accountingfor 15% of variance once gender had been controlled. However, each individualcompetency did not make a significant unique contribution to variance (only consci-entiousness approached significance), indicating that, using this measure of EI, arange of key competencies need to work in partnership to ensure academic success.

15Our study was not without limitations. Due to ethical constraints, the EI resultsof all students in the initial cohort could not be compared to academic grades (i.e.student permission was not received). Whilst this is unlikely to have affected theresults to any great extent, a full picture of all students within the cohort could notbe ascertained. In addition, all the students in the cohort received feedback on their

20individual EI profiles and were given guidance on how to develop competencies forwhich they perceived themselves weaker (ECI-U workbook). Although this feed-back was intended to raise EI awareness, rather than a specific EI intervention, finaloutcomes may have been affected as changes in performance have been noted fol-lowing EI training (Qualter et al. 2009). Future work with a control population

25(who do not receiving any further EI information) would help to verify the currentfindings, although, given our findings, ethical concerns for those scoring low onspecific EI constructs would be a concern.

Mixed Model EI measures, such as that used within our study, have been criti-cised for their failure to identify and measure a unique EI psychological construct

30and in their assessment of self concept rather than actual ability (Mayer, Roberts,and Barsade 2008). Indeed, the results of our current study indicate that overallmeasures of trait EI do not predict academic performance or student withdrawal inthe long term, once gender has been controlled. However, the measurement of indi-vidual key competencies may prove to be better predictors of progression and final

35performance. It may be more beneficial and cost effective, therefore, for educatorsto concentrate on these key competencies (e.g. social awareness skills) rather thanmore general and less easily defined trait EI measures. Global ability EI measuresmay also prove to be better indicators of academic progress and performance.

Since this study began, the ECI-U has been restructured into the Emotional and40Social Competency Inventory-University Edition (ESCI-U) (Boyatzis and Goleman

2007). In this updated measure, building bonds has been integrated into an overallteamwork competency and interestingly, given the results of our study, conscien-tiousness has been removed as an individual competency as it was judged to predictattendance rather than effectiveness (Wolff 2005, 4). It should also be noted that the

45ECI-U was only used as a self-report measure in our study. The ECI-U authors rec-ommend that the same measure be given to an associate (friend or relative) of theparticipating student to provide a comparative view of the individual in order tobuild a more comprehensive and reliable profile (Boyatzis and Goleman 2005).

Our original aims to explore whether EI competencies measured at the begin-50ning of a degree course can predict academic progress and final academic perfor-

mance, and whether gender has any mediating effect on this outcome have beenaddressed above. However, additional positive outcomes of this study emerged from

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al L

anca

shir

e] a

t 02:

48 2

5 Ju

ne 2

012

discussions with teaching staff and students. Regardless of its usefulness in predict-ing academic outcomes, the ECI-U measure proved to be a useful teaching tool to

5 facilitate group interaction and provided useful information for the students’personal development planning (PDP). Students enjoyed producing their own EIprofiles and the useful ‘tips for development’ workbook enabled students to takesome control in their own development of competencies for which they perceivedthemselves to be weak. Completion of the measure also provided a framework

10 around which staff could develop a range of teaching sessions aimed at increasingpersonal skills in order to help future academic progress and subsequent employ-ability. It would be useful for higher education (HE) institutions to introduce cost-effective measures to encourage development in key areas of EI (e.g. social aware-ness skills). This development of EI teaching resources to assist educators in UK

15 HE institutions is ongoing (see, e.g. Dudiak 2009).

Notes on contributorsDebbie Pope is a senior lecturer. Her current research interests include emotional intelligenceand the effects of inattention on learning in both children and adults. Debbie is a committeemember of the BPS Education Section and editor of Psychology of Education Review.

20Claire Roper is a PhD student studying relationships between mental and emotionalunderstanding in the development of social understanding in three-year olds.

Pamela Qualter is a principal lecturer. Her main research interests are childhood loneliness,25 and emotional intelligence. Pamela is an associate and chartered member of the British

Psychological Society, The European Society for Developmental Psychology, TheAssociation for Child Psychology and Psychiatry, The Society for Research in Adolescenceand The Society for Research in Child Development.

References30 Austin, E.J., P. Evans, R. Goldwater, and V. Potter. 2005. A preliminary study of emotional

intelligence, empathy and exam performance in first year medical students. Personalityand Individual Differences 39: 1395–405.

Barchard, K.A. 2003. Does emotional intelligence assist in the prediction of academic suc-cess? Educational and Psychological Measurement 63: 840–58.

35 Bastian, V.A., N.R. Burns, and T. Nettelbeck. 2005. Emotional intelligence predicts lifeskills, but not as well as personality and cognitive abilities. Personality and IndividualDifferences 39: 1135–45.

Bindhu, P., and I. Thomas. 2006. Gender differences in emotional intelligence. PsychologicalStudies 51: 261–68.

40 Boyatzis, R.E., and D. Goleman. 2005. Emotional intelligence inventory. London: HayGroup.

Boyatzis, R.E., and D. Goleman. 2007. Emotional and social competency inventory. London:Hay Group.

Boyatzis, R.E., and A. Saatcioglu. 2008. A 20-year view of trying to develop emotional,45 social and cognitive intelligence competencies in graduate management education. Jour-

nal of Management Development 27: 92–108.Boyatzis, R.E., and F. Sala. 2004. Assessing emotional intelligence competencies In The

measurement of emotional intelligence, ed. G. Geher. Hauppauge, NY: Novas Science.Brackett, M.A., and J.D. Mayer. 2003. Convergent, discriminant and incremental validity of

50 competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-tin 29: 1147–58.

Brackett, M.A., J.D. Mayer, and R.M. Warner. 2004. Emotional intelligence and its relationto everyday behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences 36: 1387–402.

10 D. Pope et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al L

anca

shir

e] a

t 02:

48 2

5 Ju

ne 2

012

Brackett, M.A., S.E. Rivers, S. Shiffman, N. Lerner, and P. Salovey. 2006. Relating emo-5tional abilities to social functioning: A comparison of self-report and performance

Measures of emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91:780–95.

Brody, N. 2004. What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not. Psy-chological Inquiry 15: 234–38.

10Brown, R.F., and N.S. Schutte. 2006. Direct and indirect relationships between emotionalintelligence and subjective fatigue in university students. Journal of PsychosomaticResearch 60: 585–93.

Di Fabio, A., and L. Palazzeschi. 2009. An in-depth look at scholastic success: Fluid intelli-gence, personality traits or emotional intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences

1546: 581–85.Downey, L.A., J. Mountstephen, J. Lloyd, K. Hansen, and C. Stough. 2008. Emotional intel-

ligence and scholastic achievement in Australian adolescents. Australian Journal of Psy-chology 60: 10–7.

Dudiak, H. 2009. The development of emotional intelligence within PDP provision. Higher20Education Academy Psychology Network Mini Project. http://www.psychology.heacade-

my.ac.uk/s.php?p=256&db=89 (accessed March 31, 2011).Gannon, N., and R. Ranzijn. 2005. Does emotional intelligence predict unique variance in

life satisfaction beyond IQ and personality. Personality and Individual Differences 38:1353–64.

25Gardner, K.J., and P. Qualter. 2010. Concurrent and incremental validity of three emotionalintelligence (EI) measures. Special Issue on Emotional Intelligence. Australian Journalof Psychology 62: 5–13.

Harrod, N.R., and S.D. Scheer. 2005. An exploration of adolescent emotional intelligence inrelation to demographic characteristics. Adolescence 40: 503–12.

30Humphrey, N., A. Curran, E. Morris, P. Farrell, and K. Woods. 2007. Emotional intelligenceand education: A critical review. Educational Psychology 27: 235–54.

Locke, E.A. 2005. Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior 26: 425–31.

Lyons, J.B., and T.R. Schneider. 2005. The influence of emotional intelligence on perfor-35mance. Personality and Individual Differences 39: 693–703.

Mayer, J.D., R.D. Roberts, and S.G. Barsade. 2008. Human abilities: Emotional intelligence.Annual Review of Psychology 59: 507–36.

Mayer, J.D., and P. Salovey. 1997. What is emotional intelligence? In Emotional develop-ment and emotional intelligence. Implications for educators, eds. P. Salovey, and D.

40Sluyter. New York, NY: Basic Books.Mayer, J.D., P. Salovey, and D.R. Caruso. 2008. Emotional intelligence: New ability or

eclectic traits? American Psychologist 63: 503–17.Nelis, D., J. Quoidback, M. Mikolajczak, and M. Hansenne. 2009. Increasing emotional

intelligence: (How) is it possible? Personality and Individual Differences 47: 36–41.45Parker, J.D.A., M.J. Hogan, J.M. Eastabrook, A. Oke, and L.M. Wood. 2006. Emotional

intelligence and student retention: Predicting the successful transition from high schoolto university. Personality and Individual Differences 41: 1329–36.

Parker, J.D., L.J. Summerfeldt, M.J. Hogan, and S.A. Majeski. 2004. Emotional intelligenceand academic success: Examining the transition from high school to university. Person-

50ality and Individual Differences 36: 163–72.Pau, A.K., R. Croucher, R. Sohanpal, V. Muirhead, and K. Seymour. 2004. Emotional Intel-

ligence and stress coping in dental undergraduates – a qualitative study. British DentalJournal 197: 205–9.

Pau, A., M.L. Rowland, S. Naidoo, R. Absulkadir, E. Makrvnika, R. Moraru, et al. 2007.55Emotional intelligence and perceived stress in dental undergraduates: A multinational

survey. Journal of Dental Education 71: 197–204.Pérez, J.C., K.V. Petrides, and A. Furnham. 2005. Measuring trait emotional intelligence In

International handbook of emotional intelligence, eds. R. Schulze, and R.D. Roberts.Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe and Huber.

60Petrides, K.V., and A. Furnham. 2000. Gender differences in measured and self-estimatedtrait emotional intelligence. Sex Roles 42: 449–61.

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al L

anca

shir

e] a

t 02:

48 2

5 Ju

ne 2

012

Qualter, P., K.J. Gardner, and H.E. Whiteley. 2007. Emotional intelligence: Review ofresearch and educational implications. Pastoral Care 25: 11–20.

Qualter, P., K.J. Gardner, D. J. Pope, and J.M. Hutchinson. Unpublished. Emotional intelli-5 gence, emotional self-efficacy and academic success in British secondary schools: A lon-

gitudinal study.Qualter, P., H. Whiteley, J.M. Hutchinson, and D.J. Pope. 2007. Supporting the development

of emotional intelligence skills to ease the transition from primary to high school. Edu-cational Psychology in Practice 23: 79–95.

10 Qualter, P., H.E. Whiteley, A.M. Morley, and H. Dudiak. 2009. The role of emotional intelli-gence in the decision to persist with academic studies in HE. Post Compulsory Educa-tion 14: 219–31.

Sanchez-Nunez, M.T., P. Fernandez-Berrocal, J. Montanes, and J.M. Latorre. 2008. Doesemotional intelligence depend on gender? The socialization of emotional competencies

15 in men and women and its implications Electronic Journal of Research in EducationalPsychology 6: 455–74.

Van Rooy, D.L., C. Viswesvaran, and P. Pluta. 2005. An evaluation of construct validity:What is this thing called emotional intelligence? Human Relations 18: 445–62.

Vidal Rodeiro, C.L., J.F. Bell, and J.L. Emery. 2009. Can emotional and social abilities pre-20 dict differences in attainment at secondary school? Research Matters 7: 17–22.

Wolff, B. 2005. Emotional Competence Inventory Technical Manual (Hay Group McClellandCenter for Research and Innovation).

12 D. Pope et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al L

anca

shir

e] a

t 02:

48 2

5 Ju

ne 2

012