3 new ways to gauge emotional intelligence
You are undoubtedly familiar with the idea of emotional intelligence, a concept so embedded in the popular imagination that its abbreviation, “EQ” (as a take on “IQ”) is part of everyday speech. You might say something unintentionally rude to someone, only to be accused of having a low EQ.
Even if the statement is made as a joke, it might hurt a bit, but also beg the question of whether your accuser maybe is lacking in emotional smarts as well.
Despite all of the attention given to emotional intelligence in academic psychology, it still remains an elusive quality. In part, this is because of some conceptual fuzziness surrounding it. Perhaps as a result, or as a function of this lack of clarity, it has remained a challenge to quantify.
A New Look at Emotional Intelligence and Its Measurement
In a new paper, Washington University’s Hillary Elfenbein (2025) uses the broad definition of this quality as “effectiveness when engaging with emotion”. Simple enough, or so it would seem. However, EI further breaks down into six branches, including accurately perceiving emotions of others, using emotions to improve quality of thought, understanding the meaning of emotions, regulating your own emotions and those of others, and paying attention to the expression of emotions. Her main focus was on EI testing in personnel selection, but her framework provides a useful tool to help you organize your own thoughts as you try to decide who’s high on the EI scale and who could use a booster session. By contrasting the strengths and weaknesses of each measurement approach, you can take away some handy guides to use yourself.
3 Approaches to EI, and Which Work Best
When you think about the logical possibilities for measuring EI, three should come to mind almost automatically. You can ask people to report on their EI skills, you can give them an “ability” test, and you can ask observers to rate the EI of people being evaluated. Each of these have their own research tradition depending on why and how they were developed. See which you believe makes the most sense after reading Elfenbein’s analysis:
1. Self-reported EI
The time-honored tradition of asking people to report on their own qualities, personality or otherwise, applies to the field of EI, where people rate their abilities and traits. Existing EI measures seem to waver on exactly what qualities to include in such self-assessments. Some of these assessments might fit the definition of “emotional self-efficacy,” or how confident you feel in your EI. Unfortunately, this can result in a “kitchen sink” approach, in which EI becomes equated with personality, doing little to advance an understanding of what makes EI unique.
The biggest problem with this approach is the fact that there is little evidence that individuals can judge their own emotional abilities accurately”. Not only do people try deliberately to look good, but they may have blind spots to their weaknesses. Indeed, the lower your EI, the less you should have insight about your EI. You might also be motivated to lie on self-report tests when something (like a job) is at stake. Be wary, then, of pop-psych tests that allow you to measure your EI, or the scores that other people share with you about their own EI.
2. Ability-Tested EI
There are four approaches to ability testing, all of which use behavioral measures:
- See how well people can disguise their emotions through their facial expressions.
- Have people describe the emotions represented in a piece of art.
- Use the “Reading the Mind Through the Eyes,” a test where you identify someone’s emotions from a photo of their eyes.
- Present people with scenarios of emotionally laden situations and see how they respond.
This is an interesting angle, but it’s limited in practicality. Who knows what emotion truly is being represented in a work of art? Even if all the signs point to sadness, this can never be determined for sure (is the Mona Lisa smiling or not?). Add in cultural variability, and you definitely would have problems in asserting that you indeed tested someone’s skills.
3. Observer-Rated EI
This is the form of EI you’re probably most used to relying on in your own life. You watch how someone behaves (as in the example with your friend) and decide whether they’re EI-strong or weak. As it turns out, people do tend to agree when rating the EI of others, at least based on validational studies. As Elfenbein notes: “the evidence shows that observer-rated EI is not merely personality repackaged and that it corresponds moderate amounts with both ability tests and self-reports”. The only downside is that personal bias can get in the way. If you like someone, you’ll give them a couple of brownie points toward their score.
Can EI Measures Ever be Trusted?
Having proposed and then dismissed all venues for the measurement of EI, Elfenbein doesn’t quite give up on the enterprise. In fact, she recommends a judicious combination of all of the above.
Using a similar logic as “the punishment must fit the crime” (my words), the Wash. U. author suggests that the approach you use depends on the purpose of your assessment. You wouldn’t give a diagnostic test when making an informal judgment of a potential romantic partner. But you might try your best to remove the rosy glasses of the early days of a relationship to see how this person responds in a variety of situations. See how they act around your friends and family. If you get a chance, you might also see how their own friends react to them. You can also use the ability test of EI by seeing how they do when judging someone else’s emotions, such as the lead character in a film or TV show.
To sum up, EI is a valuable quality and one that’s usually considered desirable, whether at work or in your personal life. Knowing what to look for in others and yourself could help you develop the fulfillment of emotionally satisfying relationships.