Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 32

Cross-Cultural Research


Cross-Cultural Research on the Reliability and Validity of the
Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT)
Jahanvash Karim and Robert Weisz
Cross-Cultural Research published online 2 August 2010
DOI: 10.1177/1069397110377603
The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

On behalf of:
Society for Cross-Cultural Research

Additional services and information for Cross-Cultural Research can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://ccr.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from ccr.sagepub.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13, 2010



Cross-Cultural Research OnlineFirst, published on August 2, 2010 as

Cross-Cultural Research
on the Reliability and
Validity of the MayerSalovey-Caruso Emotional
Intelligence Test (MSCEIT)

Cross-Cultural Research
XX(X) 1–31
© 2010 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission: http://www.
DOI: 10.1177/1069397110377603

Jahanvash Karim and Robert Weisz

Despite the rather large literature concerning emotional intelligence, the
vast majority of studies concerning development and validation of emotional
intelligence scales have been done in the Western countries. Hence, a major
limitation in this literature is its decidedly Western focus. The aim of this
research was to assess the psychometric properties of the Mayer-SaloveyCaruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) in a cross-cultural comparative
context involving the collectivist Pakistani (Eastern culture) and the individualist
French (Western culture) students. With the exception of significant mean
differences on the MSCEIT scores between two cultures, the results concerning
the validity of the MSCEIT generalized nicely across both cultures. The results
from multisample analysis revealed that the MSCEIT has the property of factorial
invariance across both cultures, including invariance of factor loadings, unique
variances, and factor variance. For both Pakistani and French students, the
MSCEIT scores were distinguishable from the Big Five personality dimensions,
self-report emotional intelligence measures, and cognitive intelligence.
Furthermore, in both cultures, the MSCEIT scores failed to demonstrate
incremental validity against well-being measures, after controlling for cognitive
intelligence and the Big Five personality dimensions. Finally, within each sample,
females significantly scored higher than males on the MSCEIT total scores.
Emotional intelligence; validity
Université de Paul Cézane, France
Corresponding Author:
Jahanvash Karim, CERGAM, IAE d’Aix en Provence, Université de Paul Cézane, France, Clos
Guiot Puyricard—BP
30063, Aix-en-Provence Cedex 2 13089, France
Downloaded from ccr.sagepub.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13, 2010
Email: J_vash@hotmail.com


Cross-Cultural Research XX(X)

Emotional intelligence (EI) exists and has significant impacts on individual
and organizational outcomes, ranging from individual performance, health,
and psychological well-being, to customer satisfaction and organizational
performance (Joseph & Newman, 2010; Schutte, Malouff, Thorsteinsson,
Bhullar, & Rooke, 2007). Indeed, “Few fields of psychological investigation
appear to have touched so many disparate areas of human endeavor,
since its inception, as has emotional intelligence” (Matthews, Zeidner, &
Roberts, 2004, p. 4). However, despite notable advances in the field, the
psychometric properties of EI instruments have seldom been examined with
demand and rigor across cultures, often leaving open questions of structural
and measurement equivalence. If an EI measure fails to show comparable
psychometric properties across different cultures, then its utility as a
psychological construct is questionable (Ekermans, 2009; Gangopadhyay &
Mandal, 2008; Palmer, Gignac, Ekermans, & Stough, 2008). The current study
sought to address this concern by simultaneously assessing the psychometric
properties of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
(MSCEIT: Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002) in two distinct cultural groups:
the collectivist Pakistani and the individualist French. The collectivists tend
to view themselves as members of an extended family (or organization), and
place group interests ahead of individual needs. In contrast, Individualists
tend to believe that personal goals and interests are more important than
group interests (Hofstede, 1980).
A cross-cultural design is an answer to the call made by various researchers (e.g., Ekermans, 2009; Gangopadhyay & Mandal, 2008) for more systematically investigating cultural differences to determine whether the structure
of EI replicates across distinct cultures and whether correlates of EI are culture-specific or they cut across cultural boundaries. More specifically, the
current study had five main objectives. First, we compared participants’ EI
levels across both cultures. Second, we evaluated the structural equivalence
of the MSCEIT across both cultures. Third, we assessed the discriminant
validity of the MSCEIT vis-à-vis cognitive intelligence (the Raven’s
Advanced Progressive Matrices), self-report or mixed model EI measures
(the SREIT and the TEIQue), and the Big Five personality measures. Fourth,
we assessed whether MSCEIT accounts for incremental variance in subjective well-being (i.e., positive affect, negative affect, and satisfaction with life)
and psychological distress above and beyond Big Five and cognitive intelligence in both cultures. Finally, we examined whether there are gender differences on the MSCEIT within each culture.

Downloaded from ccr.sagepub.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13, 2010

Thus. a large number of traits are amassed and mixed in with a few socioemotional abilities (Mayer. Lerner.. 2010 .g. figural). and optimism. 2008. 2002) One of the more widely known ability EI models was developed by Mayer and Salovey (1997). Self-report Emotional Intelligence Test [SREIT]: Schutte et al. Pérez-Gonzalez. &Caruso. who defined EI as “the ability to perceive emotions. 2006. process. 2010). Furthermore. 1998). self-report ability EI. and self-report mixed EI. and utilize emotion-laden information. Self-Rated Emotional Intelligence Scale [SREIS]: Brackett. TEIQue: Petrides et al. The former includes self-report EI measures that are based on ability EI model (e. Roberts. self-esteem..g. Mayer. The latter includes measures which focus on “noncognitive” factors such as social skills. 2008) of traits.Karim and Weisz 3 Approaches to EI Two complementary conceptualizations of EI—that is.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13.sagepub. Self-report Emotional Intelligence Test [SREIT]: Schutte et al. 278).g. Salovey et al. 1998. Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire [TEIQue]: Petrides. and assertiveness as well as elements of social intelligence and personal intelligence” (p. happiness. numerical. Salovey.. mixed model framework and ability model framework—exist side by side in the literature. 2008).g. In sum. to access and generate emotions so as to assist thought. & Barsade. verbal. by contrast. Petrides and Furnham (2003) defined the construct as “a constellation of behavioral dispositions and self-perceptions concerning one’s ability to recognize. For example. comprising of a set of skills that combines emotions with cognition measured through objective tests akin to IQ tests ([MSCEIT: Mayer et al.. impulsiveness. mixed model measures of EI can typically be organized into one of two complementary types: self-report ability EI or self-report mixed EI (Joseph & Newman.. Rivers. and personality dimensions (e. It encompasses empathy... to understand emotions and emotional knowledge and to reflectively regulate emotions so as to Downloaded from ccr. 2007). self-management. Shiffman. 2002). Proponents of mixed models. Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT: Mayer et al. within these models.. Researchers in the mixed model framework have typically used selfreport measures to assess EI (e. resembling other standard intelligences (e. rather than as ability based. & Salovey. impulsivity. currently we have three distinct construct-method pairings of EI: performance-based ability EI. & Furnham. such as self-esteem. many dispositional. The proponents of ability EI framework view EI as a traditional intelligence. 2007).. view EI as an eclectic mix (Mayer..

problemsolving. or the ability to reflectively regulate emotions and emotional relationships.. expert scores reflect the proportion of 21 emotion experts who endorsed each response. The MSCEIT includes two tasks as measures of each branch: Perceiving Emotions (faces and pictures). (2003) reported acceptable reliabilities for the Downloaded from ccr. In contrast. Using Emotions (sensations and facilitation). Scores on the MSCEIT can be obtained through consensus and expert scoring methods.. the MSCEIT measures one’s capacity to reason with emotional content and to use the emotional content to enhance thought. or the ability to use emotions to impact cognitive processes. how to resolve a conflict with a spouse) rather than being asked to self-perceive and rate the extent to which their emotional skills are being used (e. & Sitarenios. It is worth to mention that the scoring methods of the MSCEIT have been the subject of debate and controversy (e. 2002.. rating oneself on 7-point Likert-type scale).0 (MSCEIT.. In line with this operational definition. (c) Understanding Emotions. and decision making. 2010 . or the ability to identify emotions in oneself and others. The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test Version 2.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. Both consensus and expert norms correlate highly (Mayer.g. Roberts. 2003). A score for an individual is computed by comparing his or her responses to that of the normative sample. Matthews. This requires the ability to mobilize the appropriate emotions and feelings to assist in certain cognitive activities such as reasoning.g. Mayer et al. and Managing Emotions (emotion management and emotional relationships). Respondents are asked to solve emotional problems (e.g.. Consensus scores reflect the proportion of respondents in a large normative sample who endorsed each MSCEIT response. and (d) Managing Emotions. 10). In line with ability EI conceptualization. The four branches may be further grouped into two EI “areas”: Experiential EI (Perceiving Emotions and Using Emotions) and Strategic EI (Understanding Emotions and Managing Emotions).sagepub. (b) Using Emotions.4 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X) promote emotional and intellectual growth” (p. Mayer et al. or the ability to comprehend how emotions combine and how emotions progress by transitioning from one emotion to another. These include (a) Perceiving Emotions. The MSCEIT differs from the mixed model or trait measures of EI (self-reporting EI measures) as a result of the nature and style of the assessment. Matthews et al. Understanding Emotions (blends and changes). comprising four conceptually related abilities arranged hierarchically from the most basic to more psychologically complex. the structure of Mayer and Salovey’s model is mutifactorial. Caruso. 2002) is the direct operationalization of Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) ability EI model. & Zeidner. 2004). Salovey.

2010 . indicating a society with more individualistic attitudes. Pakistan is a typical representative of the classical Eastern culture. Some research indicates that cultural differences (individualist vs.91 for expert consensus scoring. For example. and interpersonal relationships. The individual task reliabilities ranged from a low of 0. collectivist) exist across a wide range of emotion-related abilities that essentially comprise the construct of the ability EI. 1980). According to Hofstede’s rankings (see www. and dependence on groups. According to Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions. collective goals. and interpretation of emotions.Karim and Weisz 5 MSCEIT. Based on literature on emotions. Hofstede.. The reliability for four branch scores of Perceiving. compared to collectivists.91. Carrera. Facilitating.com). achievements. Downloaded from ccr. and are better able to regulate their emotions ( Gross & John . it was expected that the participants in the French sample would score higher on the MSCEIT than the participants in the Pakistani sample.geert-hofstede. 2003). display. Overview of the Current Study Country Differences on the MSCEIT Individualism-Collectivism is a major dimension of cultural variable postulated by many theorists (e.76 and 0. while individualistic cultures stress individual goals and independence.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. This dimension focuses on the degree a society reinforces individual or collective actions.55 to a high of 0. Understanding. France is considered as a prototype of the classical Western culture. 1992).sagepub. Therefore. 2000). and Managing ranged between 0. Collectivism typifies societies of a more collective nature. French and Pakistani cultures were selected because cross-cultural research predominantly involves the comparison of Eastern and Western cultures. Paez. For this study.93 for general and 0. 1989. Sanchez.g. France ranks 71. reflecting an orientation toward a collectivistic culture. Thus the processes underlying the ability EI factors and their manifestations may differ across cultures as a consequence of the role culture plays in the development. the first goal was to examine whether there are cultural differences on the MSCEIT scores across French (individualists) and Pakistani (collectivists) cultures. close ties between individuals. & Candia. Pakistan ranks 14 on individualism which is much lower than the world average of 50. are more likely to express their emotions (Fernandez. people from individualistic cultures are better at recognizing and understanding emotions (Matsumoto. The MSCEIT full-test split-half reliability was 0.88.

O’Brien. if equivalence assumptions remain untested. Mayer et al.g. Tang. So far. one of the major objectives of any cross-cultural study is to compare the mean level of a certain construct across cultural groups.. 2009) and obviates the ability of the measure to be used in comparisons among different cultural groups.6 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X) Structural Equivalence The evidence for structural equivalence can be established by replicating the factor structure of the MSCEIT and demonstrating that the MSCEIT possesses robust internal reliability across cultures (Ekermans. However. For instance. Rode et al. and Slovenia. the practical utility of EI when utilized across different cultural groups may be questionable (Ekermans. 2005). (2003) have demonstrated that four-factor models provide good fit to the data.000 participants. the Philippines. Therefore. the MSCEIT should have the same meaning across cultural groups. including individuals from both individualistic societies (e. 2008). & Downloaded from ccr. 2006.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. & Zhang. 2010. Canada) as well as from collectivistic societies (e. United Kingdom. Regarding the factorial validity of the MSCEIT.sagepub. Interpretation of the mean differences may be problematic unless the underlying constructs are the same or invariant across cultural groups. Kranzler.g. Logan. the comparability of psychological measurements across different cultures should be investigated. suggesting that this model provides viable representation of the test’s underlying factor structure. 2009). & Stough. In sum. an important research question that has yet to be systematically examined is whether the ability EI construct generalizes across different cultures. A lack of evidence for measurement invariance across cultures could point toward bias at the construct level (Ekermans. United States. Papadogiannis. Jackson.. MacCann. It is argued that the construct of EI needs to be validated in the East (collectivist culture. 2009). Gignac. Gangopadhyay & Mandal. Further to this. Schulze. Reid. & Algina. The MSCEIT normative sample is based on data collected from more than 5. Roberts. if the MSCEIT is used to compare mean differences across cultures. India. 2010 . 2008) or between using emotions and managing emotions (Palmer. & Maul. all factor structures of the MSCEIT have evolved only on the basis of studies done in Western (predominantly individualistic) cultures and none has assessed the factor structure of the MSCEIT in Eastern (primarily collectivistic) cultures. Rossen. Yang. some have argued that four-factor solution is not preferable due to high correlations between branches perceiving emotions and using emotions (Fan.. 2007. Manocha. When tests are transported from one culture to another.

2000. self-perceived abilities and traits rather than cognitive abilities per se (as in ability EI). e. placing ability EI closer to crystallized (rather than fluid. the third goal in the present study was to examine the relationship of scores on the MSCEIT with scores on the TEIQue. Since self-report EI measures assess emotion-related. Interestingly. Livingstone. Farrelly & Austin..g. & Day. 2010.. Mayer. 2007)..2008. MSCEIT and self-report EI measures.Karim and Weisz 7 Sitarenios. Rode et al. 2009).g. 2009). there appears to be sufficient discriminant validity between the MSCEIT and various general intelligence measures (Papadogiannis et al. O’Connor & Little... Roberts et al.. & Furnham. 2008. Farrelly & Austin..sagepub. 2007). & Caputi. 2003. Gf) intelligence within Gf/Gc theory (for details see Farrelly & Austin.g. Petrides.e. 2003. mixed EI and ability EI should be regarded distinct (Mayer. Rode et al.. thus providing evidence for the discriminant validity of the MSCEIT (e. 2007). 2003) and self-report ability EI measures (Brackett & Mayer. Fabio & Palazzeschi. e.. 2005. 2007). 2003. 2003. i. 2003). Various studies have indicated low to moderate correlations between MSCEIT and measures tapping crystallized intelligence (Gc.. 2007. O’Connor & Little.. Empirically. including collectivists and individualists.g. Raven. Thus one can argue that the structure of the MSCEIT will replicate identical across cultures because of the heterogeneous nature of normative sample. 2009). Discriminant Validity Discriminant validity is observed when the scores from an EI inventory are found not to correlate with an inventory that is theoretically postulated to be unrelated to EI (Gignac. & Court. MSCEIT and Cognitive Intelligence. O’Connor & Little. Livingstone & Day. Research has consistently supported this distinction by revealing low correlations between the MSCEIT and various self-report mixed EI measures (e. Chan. the MSCEIT has shown no relation to Raven’s Progressive Matrices (Raven. Brackett & Mayer.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. Ciarrochi. MSCEIT and the Big Five. 2009. 2005. Brackett et al. Therefore. Joseph & Newman. 2010). 2006. Raven’s Downloaded from ccr. Various studies have well-documented a nonsignificance or low correlations between the MSCEIT and the Big Five personality dimensions. 2003. Salovey et al. Joseph & Newman. 2010 . It is expected that ability EI factors are culturally universal and have comparable functions across cultures. the SREIT.

such as rumination (Matthews. and (e) are better able to identify and interpret cues that inform selfregulatory actions to nurture positive affect and avoid negative affect (Mayer & Salovey. it is expected that MSCEIT will exhibit significant incremental validity over Big Five personality traits and cognitive intelligence (i. richer social networks. Zeidner.8 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X) Progressive Advance Matrices. 2004). Bedell. and the Big Five personality dimensions. (2006) found positive relationship between the MSCEIT and psychological well-being and life satisfaction. (d) have an advantage in terms of greater social competence. 2000).sagepub. Brackett et al. compared with men. and more effective coping strategies (Salovey. 2001). MSCEIT is unrelated to fluid intelligence (Gf) and Big Five personality dimensions. 2010 . have more Downloaded from ccr. Funke.e. and the Big Five personality dimensions. Detweiler. Raven’s Progressive Matrices.. In a study conducted on undergraduate students. (b) are more likely to use strategies such as eliciting social support and disclosure of feelings. in place of maladaptive coping strategies. Roberts. & Costa. negative affect. TEIQue. For example. Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices). women are more accurate in judging the emotional meaning from nonverbal cues (Hall & Matsumoto. As discussed above. Known Group Validation Gender differences have been reported consistently in emotions research. Incremental Validity There are many reasons to believe that EI plays an important role in predicting one’s subjective sense of well-being and positive mental health. 1997).. emotionally intelligent individuals (a) are better able to draw on positive emotions. (c) are more likely to retrieve positive memories during mood induction as an aid to mood regulation (Ciarrochi et al. and life satisfaction) and psychological distress after controlling for the influence of personality and cognitive intelligence. The fourth goal of this study was to examine whether scores on the MSCEIT predict scores on measures assessing subjective well-being (positive affect. 2006). Emo.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. 2000). It was expected that the scores on the MSCEIT would be unrelated to the scores on the SREIT. For example. which help them to handle anxiety and tolerate distress even when faced with episodes of negative emotional experiences (Tugade & Fredrickson. & Mayer.

sagepub. Pakistan (52 males and 29 females). Downloaded from ccr. All participants took the MSCEIT and other tests in two testing sessions. Based on the literature review.5% from regular master programs and the rest were from executive programs. 2010 . 2002) and a recent meta-analytic study by Joseph and Newman (2010) suggest that women score higher on the MSCEIT four factors than men do. and 81 from a large university in the province of Balochistan. each lasting 90 min. The questionnaires were presented in the same order in all groups. & Van den Kommer.46 (SD= 8. 62 females). As all students (in both cultures) indicated that they had good command of English and were able to complete the instruments in the English language. All participants were treated in accordance with the “Ethical principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” (American Psychological Association. & Sato. Kraaij. Method Participants Participants of this study included 192 students from two nonnative English speaking national cultures: 111 from a university in Aix-en-Provence..46). and tend to be more empathic than men (Mehrabian. show greater emotional awareness (Barrett. Teerds. it was expected that women would score higher on the MSCEIT than men would. Legerstee. 1998). To attain sample equivalency. Therefore. use more emotion regulation strategies (Garnefski.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. More important. Sechrest. the MSCEIT manual (Mayer et al. participants in both cultures were recruited from the management sciences subject pool fully conversant with English language and were enrolled in programs where the medium of instruction was English. Lane. The Pakistani sample included 73. Eight classes participated in the study. 2005). they completed the English versions of all instruments. 2000). The French sample included 60% students from regular master programs and 40% from executive programs. Participants received class credit for their participation. the fifth and final research goal was to examine whether there are gender differences on scores on the MSCEIT. 1988). experience their emotions more intensely (Gross. Hynes. & Crittenden. & Schwartz. The number of students for each group was between 20 and 40. & John. Young.Karim and Weisz 9 complex knowledge (Ciarrochi. The average age of the participants was 29. 2002). France (49 males. 2004).

ashamed.g. representing interpersonal skills and functioning to assert oneself as well as to influence others’ emotions and decisions (e. upset.g. inspired. happiness.. representing how successfully one is able to enjoy life and maintains a positive disposition (e. representing the ability to identify and express feelings and to use these faculties to maintain close relationships with others (e. (b) self-control. jittery. alert. Psychological distress. Psychological distress was measured by Chan’s (2005) 20-item General Health Questionnaire. excited. hostile. representing the ability to regulate one’s impulsions and emotions as well as managing emotional pressures (e. Watson. and afraid. “I find it difficult to bond well even with those close to me”). “I’m normally able to “get into someone’s shoes” and experience their emotions”). 1988). sleep Downloaded from ccr. which conceptualizes EI as a personality trait. (c) emotionality. guilty.g..... enthusiastic. feel strong. Affectivity.. The TEIQue is comprised of 153 items with 7-point scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). self-motivation) thought to affect the ways individuals cope with demands of the situation.10 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X) Measures TEIQue. and (d) sociability. This scale measures psychological distress in terms of current nonpsychotic symptoms in the five symptom areas represented by scales of health concerns (“Felt exhausted”) . Respondents were requested to rate the statement on a 5-point scale (not at all to extremely) by comparing themselves during the past 2 weeks with their usual selves. Affectivity was measured by 20 items Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS. & Tellegen. self-control. The 10 positive affective states were motivated. The higher scores on both positive affectivity and negative affectivity items indicate the tendency to experience a positive and negative mood. Clark. These 15 emotion-related behavioral dispositions (traits) are theoretically arranged into four broader or major conceptual components.g. These include (a) well-being. proud. 2007) is predicated on trait EI theory. PANAS is composed of two 10-item mood scales one to measure positive affectivity and the other to measure negativity affectivity. “On the whole. determined. nervous. 2003). “I usually find it difficult to regulate my emotions”). 2010 .sagepub. and active. The 10 negative affective states were distressed. The TEIQue (Petrides et al.g. irritable. attentive. The sampling domain of the TEIQue comprises 15 emotion-related behavioral dispositions (e. scared. located at the lower levels of personality hierarchies (Petrides & Furnham. I’m pleased with my life”).com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13.

Emotional Stability (ES. Emmons. The 33-item emotional intelligence scale (SREIT. Agreeableness (A. Respondents were requested to rate each symptom statement on a 5-point scale (not at all to extremely) by comparing themselves during the past 2 weeks with their usual selves. Self-report emotional intelligence test (SREIT). Conscientiousness (C. The MSCEIT is a 141-item test that measures how well people perform tasks and solve emotional problems on eight tasks that are divided into four classes or branches of abilities. Respondents indicate their level of agreement with each of five statements on a 7-point scale. 1985) is a subjective self-report measure of life satisfaction. expert scores for the MSCEIT were requested from the test publisher. (c) understanding emotions. It has previously demonstrated good reliability and has been shown to be predictive of various outcomes (Schutte et al. Participants were requested to read the 50 items comprising the IPIP questionnaire and to mark each one according to how much they believed it described them on a 5-point scale from very inaccurate to very accurate.. Downloaded from ccr. and one for total EI. Schutte et al. one for each area. one for each branch. 2010 .“Take time out for others”). Personality. and suicidal ideas (“Thoughts of ending life”). Examples of items are “In most ways my life is close to my ideal” and “I am satisfied with my life. The 50-item version of the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP. 2002).” Life satisfaction. Goldberg et al.” Ability EI.sagepub. anxiety (“Afraid of everything”).. including (a) perceiving emotions. 2006). Larsen. “Spend time reflecting on things”). & Griffin. including one for each task. Examples of items are “I am aware of the non-verbal messages I send to others. was used to assess personality.” “When I am in a positive mood. and (d) managing emotions. and Intellect (I.Karim and Weisz 11 problems (“ Early awakening”). Analysis of the data by the test publisher provides 15 scores. “I am the life of the party”). Diener. dysphoria (“Not enjoying activities”). The scale contains 10 items for each of the Big-Five personality factors: Extraversion (E.” and “I help other people feel better when they are down. (b) facilitating thought. Respondents indicate their level of agreement with each of 33 statements on a 7-point scale. I am able to come up with new ideas. Big-Five Factor markers. “Seldom feel blue”). 1998). Emotional intelligence ability was measured with the MSCEIT (Mayer et al.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS. “Pay attention to details”). 1998) is a unidimensional self-report measure of EI based on Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) ability model of EI. For current study.

92).05. MSCEIT full-test split-half reliability was r = 0. each of which has one part or piece missing. split-half reliabilities were employed for the total. understanding emotions (t = 6.75).g.50 to a high of 0.001.79). There were indeed several significant crosscultural differences.82 for the French and Pakistani samples.74 and 0. The test consists of 48 questions and presents people with a series of patterns.05. respectively (see Table 1). Cohen’s d = 0.001. p < .50. understanding. p < . Factorial Invariance As can be seen in Table 2. Country Differences on the MSCEIT To obtain an overall picture of possible cross-cultural differences on the MSCEIT.80 for the French sample and from a low of 0. and total ability EI (t = 5.38. This test is designed to measure Spearman’s “g” factor and has now been recognized as one of the purest measures of g available. respectively.12 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X) Cognitive intelligence.35).82 for the Pakistani sample.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. and r = 0. and branch levels. The four branch scores of perceiving. Cohen’s d = 0. Cohen’s d = 1.001. Cohen’s d = 0. experiential EI (t = 2. p < 0. we conducted a series of independent sample t tests on MSCEIT branch.51 and 0. and total scores. and managing ranged between r = 0.05.84 for the French sample and 0. The 48-item Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices Test (Raven et al. The individual task reliabilities ranged from a low of 0.63. the Faces and Pictures subscales Downloaded from ccr.30). each task correlated mostly highly with its sister subscale with which it combines (e. to accommodate for item heterogeneity.sagepub. 2010 . p < 0.. 2003) was used to measure cognitive intelligence. area. French participants performed better than their Pakistani counterparts on perceiving emotions (t = 2.05.86 and 0.39.87 and 0. Cohen’s d = 0. area.86 for the French and Pakistani samples.06.15.45 to a high of 0. Cohen’s d = .001. The task in each case is to select from a set of eight alternatives the piece that will complete the pattern correctly. p < .88 and 0.85 for the Pakistani sample. According to Mayer et al. using emotions (t = 2. The two experiential and strategic area score reliabilities were r = 0. managing emotions (t = 5.06).24. strategic EI (t = 7.37). using. p < . Results Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the MSCEIT and other variables for French and Pakistani participants. Cohen’s d = 0. p < 0. (2003) suggestions..

85) S 1.28 −0.82 0.61 .20 −0.62 .81 .78 .04 (0.72 (0.04 −0.91 0.20 97.88 Pakistan K 0.32 4.04 (0.35 0.32 (0.16 0.15 Reliability .51) .71 .05 0.81 .28 −1.18 (14.29 (0.64) 5.07 −0.13 0.99) .69 (0.58) 3.07 K Reliabilitya 2.42) 82.81 (15.22 −0.80 .68) .40 5.86 .61) 4.60 (0.32 −0.64 (0.29 0.65) −.51) −.37 (0.82 .47) −.81 4.70 .sagepub.06) 3.31 (10.69 1.06 89.53) .49 (15.22 (0.57) 4.03 0.63 (0.48) 95.93 0.82 .65 0.60 (1.86 . and Kurtosis for French and Pakistani Samples France M (SD) Downloaded from ccr.Table 1.05 (0.81 .92 (11.53) 3. Standard Deviations.49) .32 0.68 −0.76 .19 (0. Means.74 0.06 (0.98 (0.57 3.90 .44 (0.19 −0.81 1.01 −0.54) −.40) .73) −.71) 4.19 −0.68 13 (continued) .57) 1.26 0.79 .51 .82 (1.42 −0.71 .83 .51) 99.75) .34 −0.70 .66 1.98 (0.71) 3.15 0.07 5.13 (0.62 3.80) −.80 .37 99.08 0.68) 4.54 −0.57) −.39) 0. Skewness.23 38.75 .19 1.47 3.11 (0.22) −.54 (0.85 (8.35 0.58) 2.69) 2.86 .75) 4.65 (16.72) 4.05 1.85 .63) .71 (0.52 0.19 4.20 0.14 4.06 (0.20 −20 0.42 (4.75 (7.21 −0.12 0.57 (0.72) −.22 0.97 (0.08 −0.14 0.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13.05 0.11 −0.80 .30 0.68) −.82 1.60 0.45 a M (SD) 27.85 2.57 −0.19 −0.87 .16 4.83 (0.50 −0.65 0.27 4.24 (0.46 (0.44 −0.25 0.55) −. 2010 Age Gender RAPM Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional stability Intellect Positive affect Negative affect Psychological distress Life satisfaction SREIT Well-being (TEIQue) Self-control (TEIQue) Emotionality (TEIQue) Sociability (TEIQue) Total TEIQue Faces Facilitation Changes S 30.84 .12 −0.80 .69 (0.62 0.06 3.48) 27.44 (0.68 .26) 5.13 .74) −.69 −0.78) −1.03 −0.45 −0.80 .72 .58 (0.53 1.76 .82 .91 .87 3.57 (8.15 −1.

56 .88 .70) .001.51 .34 (10.38) 85.53 .48) 91.85 .12 0. **p < .33 1.59 0.57 0.72 −0.sagepub.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13.01 −0.75 .86 .39) 90.65 (16.50 (11.41) 87.16) . and branch score levels due to item heterogeneity.67 −0.68) 84. *p < . .58 (9.56) 77.16) 97.05 0.70 0.66 .64) 77.62) 0.33 −0.33 0. SREIT = Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test. K = Kurtosis.07 0.51 (13.10 .57 (10.74 .51 .10 −.67 (10.63) 92. S = skewness.11 −0.63 79. Coefficient alpha reliabilities are reported at the subtest level due to item homogeneity.53 .46 .34 (10.80 .05.97) 86.34 0.02) 90. ***p < .84 76.84) 95.64 −0.41 (13.11 0.86 .05 0. a.62 −0.50 .88 (13.01 .63 .33 0.03) 0.23 .20 −0.07 0.31 (13.45 (15. RAPM = Raven’s advanced progressive matrices.35) 93.40 .46) 74.79 (8.20 −0.18 −0.24 (14.72 . area.62 1.25 . 81.14 −0.16) 92.45 −0.50 (15.60 .05 0.Split-half reliabilities are reported at the total test.82 Total ability EI 86.07 −0.54) 81.50 (13.95 0.46 (14.14 −0.69 (12.26 0.92) 79.63) 87.35 (8.01 (11.86 −0.25 0.62 (11.50 .14 Table 1 (continued) France Downloaded from ccr.04 .85 Note: N = 111.62 .54 . respectively.04) 88.01.02 .60 0.68 0.80 .87 −.87 .20 (13. 2010 M (SD) S Pakistan K Reliabilitya M (SD) S K Reliabilitya Emotion management Pictures Sensation Blends Social management Perceiving emotions Using emotions Understanding emotions Managing emotions Experiential EI Strategic EI 87.48 .88 (11.88 (11.86) 83.

factor loadings were constrained to be equal across the two groups (M2). in addition to the factor loadings. p < 0.10). p < . NFI = 0. Correlations among the four-factors (perceiving. 2010 . ∆ χ2(5) = 35. Subsequent analyses revealed that. Subsequent analyses revealed that relaxing constraint on error variance of sensation task yielded a substantial and significant improvement in model fit. the error variances in this four-factor model did not vary with culture.92. to test the invariance of the factor loadings (metric invariance) across cultures. First. suggesting that models are not completely invariant once setting equal error variances. and managing) ranged from 0.92).05). Based on modification indices. besides the constrained mentioned.91. Thus a four-factor model served as a base line model for subsequent multisample analyses. The chi-square difference test between this model and M2 was significant (∆χ2(9) = 17. the four-factor model indicated satisfactory levels of fit. This showed that French participants and Pakistani participants shared the same MSCEIT underlying factor pattern and that corresponding tasks loaded on the same factors. RMSEA = 0. unique variances of each task were constrained to be equal across the groups (M3). χ2(13) = 24.75. Next.08. suggesting that factor loadings of both groups were invariant. Then. p > .05). However. The chi-square difference test between this M3. respectively.02-0.06 (0. As can be seen. Next. correlated errors were modeled between sensation and emotion management tasks.34.13. TLI = 0. suggesting that models are not completely invariance once constraining the covariances across cultures.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13.Karim and Weisz 15 which measure Perceiving emotions). CFI = 0. Multisample analysis revealed that this constrained model was acceptable. Finally.52 to 0.05 and ∆ χ2(3) = to 0. In sum. Each model had more constraints than the previous one (Table 3).05).92. all factor loadings for this model were positive and significant (range = 0.15. relaxing constraint on covariance between Downloaded from ccr. understanding.1 and Model 2 was not significant (∆χ2(8) = 14. The results revealed that this constrained model fit the data well. The chi-square difference test between configural invariant model (M1) and metric invariant model (M2) was not significant (∆ χ2(4) = 2. invariance across cultures was tested on four levels of nested models. the chi-square difference test between this M4 and M3. p > 0.05. In addition. ∆ χ2(3) = 9.Table 3 presents goodness-of-fit indices for the models examined with CFA (N =192).05).sagepub. a multisample analysis with the unconstrained model (Model 1: configural invariance) showed an acceptable baseline model for both French and Pakistani samples. using. factor covariances were also constrained to be equal across the two groups (M4).001 and both three-factor models.1 was significant (∆χ2(6) = 13. except for error variance of sensation task. p < 0.96. p < 0. This model was significantly better fitting than the twofactor.89. p < .

22* .78*** . Facilitation Task 3.33** .60*** .35** . respectively.29** . 81.19 .68*** .71*** .47*** .50*** .34** .23* .25** .03 .42*** .36*** .45*** . Changes Task 4.75*** .30** .15 . Intercorrelations Among MSCEIT Scales for French and Pakistani Samples 1 Downloaded from ccr.72*** .59*** .45*** .87*** .78*** .22* .46*** .09 .82*** .01 .50*** .21 .38*** .72*** .78*** .40*** .35*** . Sensation Task 7.26** .23* .01.56*** .20* . 2010 1.40*** .72*** .41*** . Perceiving Emotion 10.60*** .47*** .17 . ***p < .37** .36** .77*** .13 . **p < .45*** .85*** .15 .23* .34** .52*** .80*** .39*** .52*** .21* .30** .56*** .92*** .23* 8.60*** .82*** .16 Table 2.65*** .25** .63*** .04 . Blends Task 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .05.86*** .32** .64*** .85*** Note: N = 111.32** .09 .40*** .61*** .33** . Managing Emotion 13.24* .75*** .26* .02 .64*** .28** .85*** .19 .57*** .30** .64*** .21* .73*** .72*** .30** .25** .44*** .53*** .29** .89*** .21* .78*** .83*** .20* .28** .11 . Social Management Task 9.56*** .50*** .75*** .15 . Faces Task 2.20 .54*** .45*** .25* .35** .22* .18 .16 .32** .20* .01 .51*** .41*** .10 .40*** .27** .09 .49*** .19 .45*** .91*** .10 .34** .16 .38*** .20* . Using Emotion 11.22* .13 .41*** .50*** .35*** .56*** .52*** .83*** .39*** .30** . Pictures Task 6.60*** . *p < .44*** .30** .57*** .37*** 15.65*** .81*** .26** .02 .47*** .60*** .42*** . .39*** .33** .92*** . Correlations for the French sample are below the diagonal and for the Pakistani sample are above the diagonal.45*** .87*** .66*** . Emotion Management Task 5.32** .27** .45*** .51*** .09 .27* .80*** .47*** .04 .17 .15 .40*** .24* . Understanding Emotion 12.35** .89*** .58*** .67*** .77*** .001.29** .84*** . Experiential EI 14.48*** .com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13.72*** .30** .30** .89*** .19* . Strategic EI .37** .sagepub.36*** .18 .29** .55*** .11 .75*** .71*** .47*** . Total EI .59*** .88*** .23* .73*** .38** .33** .22* .07 .08 .42*** .

b.14] Three-factora 33. 1993).03-.34 6 .75 .69 44 .028 . M3. M1 2.08 are considered acceptable (Bentler & Bonett.11 [.21 Note: For both groups correlated errors were modeled between sensation and emotion management tasks.03. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation. 2010 . CFI. NFI.11] Three-factorb 50. M2 14.89 .05 [.92 .07] invariance ∆χ2M2 vs.00 .07] ∆χ2 M3.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13.07.17 Karim and Weisz Table 3.01.94 .06 [. 2006.93 .1 Θsensation.92 .1 Covariance 64.80 .01-.04 [. 1980.11 [. free 57.02 .08 M4 Invariant 70. .1 13.95 .. Pakistani sample: N = 81) M1 Configural 40.1 vs.01 .96 .91 ..05 [.sagepub.I] Confirmatory factor analyses (N = 192) One-factor 69. 2010.00 .91 .055 . and TLI > .35 38 .94 . .00 .88 18 .05 [.1 vs.08] between understand and managing emotions set free ∆χ2 M4. Roberts et al. 2008.08. TLI = Tucker-Lewis index.90 .1 7. Rossen et al.84 . Rode et al.Three-factor oblique model comprising the perceiving and using allowed to load on a single factor (Fan et al.00 .00-..90 and RMSEA < ..78 . M2 17.14] Four-factor 24.84 4 . NFI = normed fit index.89 .07 [.08] uniqueness ∆χ2 M3 vs. . .05 [.29 30 .08.78 .09 5 .035 .10] Multigroup comparison factor analyses (French sample: N = 111.007 . CFA and Multisample Goodness-of-Fit Indices for the MSCEIT Across Cultures χ2 Model df NFI P TLI CFI RMSEA [95%C.06 8 .03 M3.81 .46 16 .45 26 . a.02.02-.44 43 .02-. M3. Browne & Cudeck.14] Two-factor 59.88 .01 ..10 [.08] factor covariances ∆χ2 M4 vs.83 .39 19 .58 M3 Invariant 61.33 13 . 2005). .21 39 . 2008). . CFI = comparative fit index.08] invariance M2 Metric 43.22 16 .78 .05 [.Three-factor oblique model comprising the using and managing allowed to load on a single factor (Palmer et al.03 M4.92 9 . Downloaded from ccr.

The parameter estimates of complete invariant model (M4. the hypothesis of partially invariant covariances between cultures was tenable. p > . those that intercorrelate between r =0. 2010 .18 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X) Figure 1. multisample CFA analyses revealed that.Therefore. and personality.1) Note:Values in parenthesis represent standardized estimates for the Pakistani sample.09.25 are considered unrelated to minimally related Downloaded from ccr.1 was not significant (∆χ2(5) = 7. (2009). Discriminant Validity MSCEIT’s discriminant validity was examined by assessing the correlations between scores obtained on the MSCEIT and scores obtained for the measures assessing self-report mixed model measure (TEIQue). Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices. According to Papadogiannis et al.1 and Model 3.1).05). self-report ability EI measure (SREIT).com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. unique variances. and factor covariances were invariant across cultures.sagepub. the factor loadings. The parameter estimates of complete invariance model (Model 4. understanding and managing branches yielded a substantial and significant improvement in model fit (M4.00 and 0.1) are presented in Figure 1. In sum. The chi-square difference test between M4. with few exceptions.

05.31** −.16 .12 −.10 −.10 −.07 .01 −.03 .20* −. Zero-Order Correlations Between the MSCEIT and Other Variables in the Study France Branch scores Downloaded from ccr.36** −.19* -.37** .06 −.08 .09 −.04 .01 −.22* Stg .07 .08 .28** .02 .15 −. TEIQue = Trait emotional intelligence questionnaire.28* .33** −.11 −.00 .26* −.40** .33** .00 .15 −.30** .30** −.09 .00 . ES = emotional stability.32** −.01 .00 .02 . Stg = strategic EI. Und = understanding emotions.05 .41** Total .03 −.08 −.08 .11 .18 .25* .05 −.01 .19* .015 .28 .17 . I = intellect.08 .12 .16 .03 . PD = psychological distress.06 −.22* .02 .33** .06 . Per = perceiving emotions.10 .01 −.13 .07 .29** −.26* .20* .03 .10 −.21* . *p < .08 .20* .19 .11 −.22* .26** .04 .19* .06 .03 −.22* .00 .19* .02 .11 −.08 .12 −.34** Area scores Man Exp .23* .21 −.08 −.06 .17 .01 .17 −.09 −.17 .36** 19 Note.11 −.15 −.10 .11 .38** .17 .36** .17 −. C = conscientiousness.22* .09 .43** −.00 −.09 −.01 −.01 .28* .22** .08 −.10 .04 .26* .04 .06 −.13 .11 .03 −.17 −.20* −.05 .23* . Exp = experiential EI.07 −.10 .03 −.11 .18 .38** .31** −.23* −. Use = using emotions.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. E = extraversion.Table 4.32** .16 . .17 .10 .01 .34** .03 −.38** .16 .14 .18 .01 .14 .34** .12 .08 −.41** .35** .28** .04 .14 .15 .03 .25** .07 .25* −.07 −.21 .17 . SWL = satisfaction with life.29** .17 Per Use Und .15 .09 −.07 .15 .23* .22* −.08 .40** .02 −.25* .36** −.26* .14 .15 −. 2010 Age Gender RAPM E A C ES I PA NA PD SWL SREIT TEIQue Well-being Self-control Emotionality Sociability Global trait EI Pakistan Area scores Branch scores Per Use Und Man Exp Stg Total .14 .01.11 −.09 .20 .21 .04 .08 .11 .05 .02 . **p < .01 .10 .05 −.29** .31** .01 −.03 .20 .04 −.27* .09 .17 .18 −.25** −. NA = negative affect.24** −.09 . A = agreeableness.04 .04 .01 .08 .00 −.13 .23* −.01 .27* .03 −.11 .12 .01 .01 .12 . RAPM = Raven’s advanced progressive matrices.05 .13 .24* .sagepub.16 .00 −.07 .16 .12 .19 .21 .20* .35** −.11 . PA = positive affect.06 −.24* .25** −.11 −.17 .13 −.29** .14 −. Man = managing emotions.11 .01 .02 .40** .15 .15 .

p < . r = 0.40.20 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X) with one another. p < 0. However.29. Nonsignificant correlations were observed between the MSCEIT factors and the SREIT in both cultures.41.75 to 1.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. the number of low to moderate significant correlations in the Pakistani sample (13) was higher than that for the French sample (i.01).. For participants in the French sample. (see Table 4). In contrast.01). experiential EI (r = 0.05). low to moderate correlations were observed between the Big Five dimensions of agreeableness and intellect and the MSCEIT scores. Likewise. for the Pakistani sample. p < 0. the performance-based ability EI in both cultures was found to be independent of the TEIQue. only 4). The Big Five personality dimensions and the Downloaded from ccr. For the participants in the French sample.14 (perceiving emotions) to 0. and r = 0.75 indicate moderate to highly related concepts.20.01).35 (total ability EI). r = 0. MSCEIT and SREIT. whereas correlations between intellect and the MSCEIT scores ranged from 0. 2010 . low to moderate significant correlations were observed between the cognitive intelligence and the MSCEIT scores. for participants in the Pakistani sample. Correlations between agreeableness and MSCEIT scores ranged from 0. nonsignificant to moderate correlations were observed between the MSCEIT branches and the TEIQue factors.25 to 0. with the greatest correlation observed between Strategic EI and Raven’s Advances Progressive Matrices (r = 0.29. However. only emotional stability revealed to be a significant correlate of perceiving emotions (r = 0. the greatest of correlation was observed between understanding emotions branch of the MSCEIT with the well-being factor of the TEIQue (r = 0. MSCEIT and Cognitive Intelligence. For participants in the French sample.24 (perceiving emotions) to 0.30.00 indicate that instruments share common themes and arguably assess the same underlying constructs. p < 0. In sum. and total ability EI (r = 0.sagepub. MSCEIT and TEIQue. for the participants in the Pakistani sample.01).50 indicate minimal to moderate overlap. Incremental Validity We used the hierarchical multiple regression technique to test for the incremental validity of the MSCEIT. MSCEIT and the Big Five.e.01). p < 0.50 to 0.38 (total ability EI). all correlations between the MSCEIT scores and cognitive intelligence revealed to be nonsignificant. p < 0. among the Big Five personality dimensions. with the greatest correlation found between MSCEIT’s managing emotions branch and TEIQue’s well-being factor (r = 0.

2010 . **p < 0.02 −.13 . I = intellect. experiential EI. PA = positive affect. 99) Psychological distress NA ∆R2 β ∆R2 β ∆R2 .11 Managing Total R2 .42 .14 −.06 .21 Karim and Weisz Table 5.08*** (10. and Psychological Distress: Results for French Sample Life satisfaction β Step 1 2 ∆R2 PA β E A C ES I RAPM Perceiving Using Understanding .11 .02 −. 99) Note: RAPM = Raven’s advanced progressive matrices.01 .09 .56*** (10. PA.01 . and total MSCEIT (see Table 7).11 .47*** .25** .29 .08 .06 .00 .13 −. 99) . Predicting Satisfaction With Life. females scored higher than males on perceiving emotions.02 −. none of the MSCEIT branches was found to be a significant predictor of satisfaction with life.10 . NA. 94) 9.30*** .10 −.06 .04 . using emotions. strategic EI.21*** .05 −.11 .05. *p < 0.03 −.19* .24 .com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13.14 .01.59*** −.01** (10.14 . whereas for the Pakistani sample.03 .33 5. A = agreeableness.12 .43 7.001.04 −.03 −. E = extraversion.03 −.10 −. Downloaded from ccr. and total MSCEIT. females scored higher than males on managing emotions.34 . C = conscientiousness. NA.02 −.45*** −.09 −.25** .01*** (10. and psychological distress. ES = emotional stability. the scores for the MSCEIT four branches were entered. ***p < 0.04 −. PA.40*** −. Known Group validation For the French sample.47 Final F (df) 3. scores on the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices were entered into the equation first (Step 1). NA = negative affect.07 .03 −. At Step 2.sagepub. As can be seen in Tables 5 and 6.

2003. 66) 6.04 −.02 .05 −.25 . I = intellect.20 . ***p < . and total MSCEIT scores. and regulating emotions (e. Predicting Satisfaction With Life.20 1. A = agreeableness. Gross & John.22 .73 (10.. ES = emotional stability.04 −. The first objective of this study was to assess the mean differences on the MSCEIT across two cultures. Matsumoto.19* .22 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X) Table 6.45*** . The present study attempted to evaluate an ability-based measure of EI (the MSCEIT) cross-culturally. PA = positive affect. E = extraversion. French participants had higher scores than their Pakistani counterparts on branch.02 −.20 . NA = negative affect.46*** .05 . and Psychological Distress: Results for Pakistani Sample Life satisfaction β Step 1 2 E A C ES I RAPM Perceiving Using Understanding Managing Total R2 Final F (df) . **p < .10 −.01 −. 66) ∆R2 . C = conscientiousness. 2008.07 −. *p < .15 −.26 . 1989. 2008).23 −.06 −.04 . = standardized regression weights. area.14 .31*** −.50 .38 3. PA. 66) Note: RAPM = Raven’s advanced progressive matrices.20*** (10.01 PA β Psychological distress NA ∆R2 β ∆R2 β ∆R2 .44** −.23 −.001.05 −.09 .29 .34 −. To our knowledge.. 2000.12 −.04 −. Fernandez et al. this study is the first to provide evidence of the factorial invariance. 66) 4.53*** −.03 . Discussion Cross-cultural validity of EI scales is a constant concern in organizational behavior research (Gangopadhyay & Mandal. expressing. Palmer et al. 1992).01.70*** (10.06 −.04 .09 −. understanding.17 .04 .18 .com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13.03 −.01 .28** .04 . This accords well with findings showing that people from individualistic societies are better at perceiving.. 2010 . discriminant and incremental validity of the MSCEIT across cultures.g. This finding suggests that care must be taken when selecting people from Downloaded from ccr.08 .12 .sagepub. NA.05.01 −.16** (10.29* −.07 −.

93) 77.62) 94.91** 2.70 (12.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. females = 29 and males = 52.99* .07 .20 (10.25) 92.74) 86.53) 86. d = Cohen’s d.05 (10.68 .05) 87.19 Total EI 89.74 (16.49) 0.Downloaded from ccr.15 3.15 (11.66 (11.50 Note: For the French sample.67) 92.19 (9.42 98.sagepub.29) 2. females = 62 and males = 49 and for the Pakistani sample.34) 92.14* .51 (13.20* .36* 1.80) 77.29 (8..13 (13.24) 88.03 1. 2010 Table 7.001.25 (13.73 .57) 89.55 (11.78) 76.93 2.36 1.17 (10.55 .78 (13. Values in parentheses represent standard deviations 23 .80 .89) 83.80 (14. **p < .04 .89) 79.01.73 (13.04* 0.39 .16** 0.58) 1.89) 89.42 (12.41 (13.24 .55 (10.31 (12.57 (8.20 .11 0.65 (15.40) 83.31) 2.05.57) 83.28 (13.72 (13.16 (9.56 81.26 .20) 74. Mean Differences Across Genders Within Each Sample France Females Pakistan Males t d Females Males t d Perceiving Using Understanding Managing Experiential EI Strategic EI 97.24 2.34 (16.89 (7.90) 82.29) 95.41) 96.48 (15. *p < .18 . ***p < .98) 76.03) 84.40) 74.

203). It is worth mentioning that the similarities in the factor structure across both cultures can be attributed to the shift in cultural values of Pakistan.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. O’Connor & Little. Multigroup CFA analyses revealed that the MSCEIT has the same theoretical latent structure. 35). display. Pakistani youth (present study sample-university students) are much different from previous generations. They have been raised differently. Brackett & Mayer. Finally. 2003. self-report EI measures (the SREIT and TEIQue). Livingstone. as predicted.. A combination of Western-style of education (mostly American and U. whereas nonsignificant correlations were observed in the French sample. and interpretation of emotions” (p. Joseph & Newman.-based curriculum). 2003). the MSCEIT across both cultures can be interpreted in the same way. and currently vibrant print and electronic media in the country has made this generation exceedingly tolerant and open-minded toward western lifestyles. the same strength of the relationships among factors and tasks. This important finding suggests that the performance-based ability EI measure (i.e. & Day. MSCEIT) and self-report measures are assessing different constructs.24 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X) pool of individuals from diverse cultures because results may be biased toward individuals from individualistic societies. This youth is the best educated and most culturally diverse generation. 2010 . Salovey.g. the processes underlying these factors and their manifestation may differ across cultures as a consequence of the role culture plays in the development. These findings support Mayer.. 2005.K. this study revealed that MSCEIT was mostly distinguishable from the Big Five personality Downloaded from ccr. and the same reliability of tasks regardless of the country. However. Significant mean differences and multigroup CFA analyses across both cultures provide support for the assertion made by Palmer et al. “EI factors are culturally universal and have comparable functions across cultures. The second objective of this study was to investigate whether the MSCEIT measures the same construct in both cultures. The third objective of this study was to assess the discriminant validity of the MSCEIT vis-à-vis cognitive intelligence (the Raven’s Advanced Matrices). Therefore. Consistent with past research relating self-report EI with ability EI measures (e. widespread use of Internet. the MSCEIT demonstrated a lack of convergence with the TEIQue and the SREIT. Low to moderate correlations were found between the MSCEIT factors and cognitive intelligence in the Pakistani sample. These findings support Petrides and Furnham’s (2003) assertion that the tendency to validate ability EI measure against another self-report measure is problematic given the obvious differences between measurement methods. 2010. in both cultures. and Caruso’s (2004) assertion that “EI is different from other intelligences” (p. (2008) that. and the Big Five personality measures.sagepub.

1998. Young. and total EI. therefore. 1988. NA. satisfaction with life.sagepub. 2007. The lack of incremental validity when explaining NA. These findings support past research showing that women tend to be better at emotion-related abilities than men (Barrett et al. whereas in the Pakistani sample. satisfaction with life. Mehrabian.. In line with previous studies (Livingstone & Day. and Little. 2003. women scored higher on perceiving.. 2010. Finally.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. & Sato. Rossen & Kranzler. regional. class. using. Limitations and Future Directions First. integrate. according to some researchers. Palmer et al.. 2005. The fourth objective of this study was to assess the incremental validity of the MSCEIT. Salovey et al. Mayer et al. after controlling for cognitive intelligence and personality variables in the same analyses. 2005. it is unlikely to be related to personality traits (Mayer.. PA.. 2003. 2008). This leads to a limitation found Downloaded from ccr. 2010). Joseph & Newman. and psychological distress suggests that the MSCEIT may not increase our understanding of subjective well-being. Mayer. 1997). understand. 2004). 2005). 2002. These results were consistent with previous findings (Brackett & Mayer. the results indicated that the MSCEIT scales did not add to the prediction of PA. Gross & John. 2010 .. Ciarrochi et al.. Thus the results of this study further highlight the serious problem associated with the predictive validity of the MSCEIT (for further review please see Zeidner & Olnick-Shemesh. In the French sample. therefore. This finding suggests gender bias in the MSCEIT. 2007) and provide support for the assertion that the MSCEIT includes abilities to perceive. Roberts et al. the MSCEIT should not be used for personnel selection. and psychological distress after controlling for personality and cognitive intelligence in either of the sample. Zeidner & Olnick-Shemesh. and regulate emotions (Mayer & Salovey. Garnefski et al. Rode et al.. there is a possibility that individualism/collectivism along with other cultural factors will vary within cultures because of demographic. 2010) . Hall & Matsumoto. women outperformed men on managing and total EI. 2009. O’Connor. 2004. 2000.Karim and Weisz 25 dimensions in both cultures.. Rode et al.2008. and other differences within cultures. 2004. the fifth objective of this study was to obtain an overall picture of possible gender differences on the MSCEIT within each sample. The correlations of the MSCEIT branches with Big Five were mostly nonsignificant or low to moderate in both cultures. unless research demonstrates that gender differences in test performance reflect gender differences in job performance (Day & Carroll.

student samples do not represent the culture as much as do more or less representative samples. Lane. even for the students taking courses in English (or fully conversant with English as a second language).com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. This may have influenced the pattern of responses in the current study. Sechrest. 2010). L.sagepub. Ethical principles of psychologists and codes of conduct.. and most important. R. American norm group scoring may not work well in other cultures (Zeidner & Olnick-Shemesh. M. 2002). which are language-intensive. P. The use of students limits the external validity of the results (Wintre. participants in both cultures scored low on understanding and managing. 88. For example. of course. points to the need for future research to examine samples across native languages. However. as noted by one anonymous reviewer. should use proportion consensusscores with consensus weights determined from the local samples. This may have fostered similarities in the results across both cultures. & Schwartz. all participants responded to the MSCEIT in English. Therrien. Therefore. it is important to examine the validity of the MSCEIT using a larger sample that is more representative of the general population. 2005). (2000). points to the need for future research to examine samples across various subcultures.. 2010 . G. the vocabulary associated with emotion concepts may be somewhat obscure and/or such students do not always possess the necessary emotion terminology. The sample at a single university may not reflect the culture of a heterogeneous nation. D. Therefore. Barrett. 1027-1035.(2002). & Bonett. future cross-cultural research. Psychological Bulletin. Second. Third. L. This. & Carroll. North. 2001). References American Psychological Association ... of course. DC: APA. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.26 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X) in much cross-cultural research—that of generalizing across all cultural groups or subcultures. Downloaded from ccr. Finally. G. D. & Sugar. Washington. Therefore. 26. F. 588-606. from a general working adult population (Day. researchers have consistently expressed concerns about the absence of scientific standards for determining the accuracy of consensus and expert scores for the MSCEIT (for details see Matthews et al. E. (1980). Moreover.. Students are more internationally similar than unselected members of a culture. Bentler. instead of using American based scoring. Sex differences in emotional awareness. Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Students may experience different levels of EI. This. results collected in big cities could likely be different from those collected in small cities or villages.

E.. Testing structural equation models (pp. Day. & Caputi. Tang. A.. 91 (4). D. S. (1993). 48. Downloaded from ccr. (2003). & Crittenden. R. and daily hassles. L. Saklofske. (2010). S. An in-depth look at scholastic success: Fluid intelligence. J.). L. & Carroll.. Type A behaviour. Lerner. 581-585. S. Emotional intelligence across cultures: Theoretical and methodological considerations.. M.. P. N. Personality and Individual Differences.. L. 133-141. L. Long (Eds. A. J. Shiffman.. research. M. Newbury Park.. A. Farrelly. (2007).sagepub. Convergent. Bollen & J... N. A. The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Ciarrochi. Di. Ekermans. D.. & Mayer. Brackett. (2005). A. H. 539-561. Rivers. 2010 . and applications (pp. European Journal of Personality. 21 (5). discriminant. A. M.. Chan. 29. 780-795. 1043-1063. & Griffin. W. J. Fabio. 519-536. The factor structure of the Mayer-Salvoey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test V 2. 19. 1443-1458. A. Ciarrochi. Relating emotional intelligence abilities to social functioning: A comparison of self-report and performance measures of emotional intelligence. Y. CA: Sage Publications. Journal of Personality Assessment. and group citizenship behaviors. and psychological distress among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. (2005). W. & Austin. and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. W. & Zhang. 28. 71-75. E. Therrien. A. A critical evaluation of the emotional intelligence construct. Haynes... 136-162).. K. Ability EI as an intelligence? Associations of the MSCEIT with performance on emotion processing and social tasks and with cognitive ability. Chan. New York: Springer. J. A. Cognition and Emotion. Assessing emotional intelligence: Theory. Using an ability-based measure of emotional intelligence to predict individual performance. Personality and Individual differences. Emotional Intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences. P. Day. & J. Parker (Eds). 781-785. D. S.. 36. Cognition and Emotion. (2000). X. S. 19. Larsen. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. T. Alternative ways of assessing model fit..Karim and Weisz 27 Brackett. H. 16(2). 49. Yang. In K. social coping. (2006). 1147-1158. C. & Palazzeschi. (2009).0 (MSCEIT): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach. J. A. Browne. (2009). Diener. High Ability Studies. Stough. Predicting psychological health: Assessing the incremental validity of emotional intelligence beyond personality. (2005). (1985). In. Fan. personality traits or emotional intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences.. D.. R. D. V. E. D. & Salovey. G. Jackson. 46.. A. 259290).. J.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. (2004). S. Can men do better if they try harder? Sex and motivational effects on emotional awareness. Emmons. R. 163-178. group performance. & Cudeck. & Carroll..

C. Emotional Intelligence-A universal or culture-specific construct? In R. (2004). Mandal (Eds. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Hogan. J.. research. E. Joseph. D. J. Goldberg. Matthews. L... 15. Cognitive emotion regulation strategies and depressive symptoms: Differences between males and females. Roberts. 267-276.. Emotion. Newbury Park. V. L. (1998). Seven myths about emotional intelligence. Carrera. M.. A. O. R. G. K.. P. M. Ashton. M.. R. A. J. R. L. Emotional intelligence. D. Gangopadhyay. & Costa. O. 96-107. Parker (Eds).. D.. Emotional intelligence: Theoretical and cultural perspective (pp. D. 23 (1). 2010 . D. Journal of Applied Psychology. Paez. New York: Springer. & Zeidner. 179-196. & Van den Kommer. K. Differences between cultures in emotional verbal and non-verbal reactions. G. V. Cultural influences on the perception of emotion. Roberts. G. D. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Stough. and wellbeing. P. Johnson. The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Inc. J.. Educational and Psychological Measurement. R. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Cloninger. D. Downloaded from ccr.. & Gough. 36. Kraaij. (2003). R. Livingstone. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 20. 4 (2).. 40.. Personality and Individual differences. 9-40). 83-92. D. 84-96. Hall. A. personality. 92-105. (1992). H. (2006). Journal of Research in Personality. H. 201-206. Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect. Garnefski. A. & Matsumoto. A. 170-191. & J. J. P. Sanchez. K. J. M..28 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X) Fernandez.. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. I... Eber. Hofstede. Psychological Inquiry. & Candia. F. (2009). D. relationships. Shanwal. P. 85. (1980). Gross. Teerds. K. Culture’s consequences: International differences in workrelated values. & John. 12. 348-362. T. C. 115134). J. (2004). Emo. Psicothema. & Day. (2006).. H. H. (2005). J. Matsumoto. D. (2010). & Newman. 65(5). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 74. Comparing the construct and criterionrelated validity of ability-based and mixed-model measures of emotional intelligence. (2008).. CA: Sage. G. 757-779). M. Matthews.. and applications (pp. Gross. Matsumoto. Legerstee. N.sagepub. T. and task-induced stress.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13... Emotional intelligence: An integrative metaanalysis and cascading model.. Assessing emotional intelligence: Theory. Saklofske. 72-84. C. C.. Mapping the domain of expressivity: Multimethod evidence for a hierarchical model. & Mandal. In.). & M. Funke.. G. W. 95 (1). 12 (2). Psychometric and the measurement of emotional intelligence. (2004). A. Emmerling. American-Japanese cultural differences in the recognition of universal facial expressions. A. 54-78. L. Gignac. J. (1989). & John. Gender differences in judgments of multiple emotions from facial expressions. (2000). Zeidner..

J. In R.... Parker (Eds). & Furnham. Palmer. Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Educational Implications. R. P. (2003). New York: Nova Science. 503-517..com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. Salovey & D. K. R... 15. (2008). D. 21.0. Cambridge.. R. G. G. G. A. Emotional empathy and associated individual differences. 259-290). J. Canada: MHS. Roberts. Psychological Inquiry. K. and application of the Mayer Salovey Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). 285-305. B. C. Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) item booklet. D. R. Emotional intelligence: Theory. C. J. Mayer.. R. S. Stough. D. Human Abilities: Emotional Intelligence. In. Mayer. & Sitarenios. M. V. Zeidner. O’Connor.. description. Palmer. Sluyter (Eds. J. J. A comprehensive framework for emotional intelligence. P. 3. Petrides. L. Salovey. M. H. J. (2008). R. Mayer. G. K. A. (2004). Intelligence. S. (2007). 221-240. K. 1893-1902. Mayer.. D... K. S. An ability model of emotional intelligence: A rationale. and implications. D. Current Psychology Research and Reviews. V. & Caruso.. P. Salovey. Saklofske. Salovey. R. 17. New York: Springer. Onatario.0. D.. & Salovey. Emotional intelligence: Science and myth..0. A. & Furnham. 63. & Stough. Gignac.. 2010 . Personality and Individual Differences.. (2008). D. (2002). (1997). & Barsade. Mehrabian.. version 2.. (2003). Pérez-Gonzalez. & Sato. 39-57. 35. R. Gignac. (2003).).. I. 17-38). G. Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits? American Psychologist. Assessing emotional intelligence: Theory. Emotional Intelligence: Theoretical and Cultural Perspective (pp. Toronto. 59. G. research. Cognition and Emotion.. D. Young. 97-105. & Caruso. 3-27. D. Caruso. D. J. Petrides. (2002). 7. C. 33. & M. New York: Basic Books. pp. Manocha. C. (2009). European Journal of Personality. A. & Stough.. P. D. Mayer. P. & Caruso. Shanwal. J. MA: MIT Press. B. and applications (pp.. Mayer. (2005). 197-215. What is emotional intelligence? In P. V. & J. Papadogiannis. Salovey. 26-55.). A. Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2. D. D..sagepub. Logan. Revisiting the predictive validity of emotional intelligence: Self-report versus ability-based measures. & Sitarenios. Mandal (Eds. Downloaded from ccr... & Roberts. A psychometric evaluation of the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test Version 2. findings. G. J. D.. Ekermans. D. P. Trait emotional intelligence: Behavioral validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. R. 507-536. Annual Review of Psychology. Emmerling.Karim and Weisz 29 Matthews. Emotion. & Little. (1988). On the criterion and incremental validity of trait emotional intelligence.

San Antonio. & Algina. Malouff. N. (2007).. J. E. L. Emotion. Positive emotions and emotional intelligence. (2000). The wisdom of feelings (pp. 54. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (2006).M. C.B. Salovey. J. P. Personality and Individual Differences. 504-520).A. Emotional intelligence and subjective well-being revisited. Lewis & J. Bedell. (2003). A. M. J. C. Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. D. 167-177. B. 216-225. & Maul. & Kranzler. (2001). Near. 44. C. Feldman Barrett & P. An examination of the structural. & Olnick-Shemesh. TX: Harcourt Assessment. Imagination.C.. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. M. T. J.30 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X) Raven. K.. Journal of Research in Personality..). T... D. (1998). Roberts..E.. 431-435. G. E. New York: Guilford. (1990) Emotional intelligence. H. Hall. Handbook of emotions (pp. (1988). & Mayer. & Court. Golden.. P. North. D.. C. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test V 2.. J. E. M.. T. 1063-1070.. Rossen. L... Rubin. & Rooke. J. J. Psychologists’ response to criticisms about research based on undergradute participants: A developmental perspective.. Personality and Individual Differences. 6. J. 350-366. (2008). & Mayer. Salovey.. D. M.. J. Cognition and Personality.. J. 1258-1269. Detweiler. L. L.. Schutte. Downloaded from ccr... Incremental validity of Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test version 2. 9. J. 36(4). Cooper. and incremental predictive validity of the MSCEIT© V2. Malouff. Reid. nomological. 48. J..). J. N.0. Watson.. (2010). R. Rode. 663-669. Salovey (Eds.. Clark.0 (MSCEIT).com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. D. R. L. M. C. 2010 . J. J.sagepub. MacCann. In L.. W. A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health. Exploring the validity of the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) with established emotions measures. Current directions in emotional intelligence research. S. A. 42. New York: Guilford. & Sugar. E. P. 921-933. Baldwin. H.. Canadian Psychology. S. Bhullar. 319-340). Haggerty. M. & Fredrickson. In M.. 43. R. R. H. J. Kranzler. Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Schulze.. O’Brien.. H. Intelligence. 42(3). (2009)... & Tellegen. 25. Zeidner. A.. S.S. M. 60-65. Tugade. Personality and Individual Differences. (2007). Haviland-Jones (Eds. Section 1: General Overview.0 (MSCEIT) after controlling for personality and intelligence. (2002). & Bommer.185-211. Rossen.H. Thorsteinsson. Arthaud-day. Raven.. discriminant. Mooney. Personality and Individual Differences.. N. T. Wintre. et al. Schutte. J.

Karim and Weisz 31 Bios Jahanvash Karim is a PhD student studying emotional intelligence at the IAE d’Aix-en-Provence. France. Aixen-Provence.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. Downloaded from ccr. Université de Paul Cézane. He also teaches at other well-known business schools such as Monash BS (Melbourne). His research includes cross-cultural analyses of emotional intelligence measures. at the IAE d’Aix-en-Provence. specialist in organizational behavior & organizational development. WHU (Koblenz). 2010 .sagepub. Robert Weisz is full professeur. Aix-en-Provence. He is adjunct professor at the HEC (Paris) for the international programs. and Steinbeis (Berlin). France. Université de Paul Cézane.