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

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

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

This dimension focuses on the degree a society reinforces individual or collective actions. and are better able to regulate their emotions ( Gross & John . 1989. collectivist) exist across a wide range of emotion-related abilities that essentially comprise the construct of the ability EI. Collectivism typifies societies of a more collective nature. reflecting an orientation toward a collectivistic culture.sagepub. According to Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions. Based on literature on emotions.76 and 0. indicating a society with more individualistic attitudes. the first goal was to examine whether there are cultural differences on the MSCEIT scores across French (individualists) and Pakistani (collectivists) cultures. it was expected that the participants in the French sample would score higher on the MSCEIT than the participants in the Pakistani sample. Facilitating. 2010 . people from individualistic cultures are better at recognizing and understanding emotions (Matsumoto. close ties between individuals. France ranks 71. Downloaded from ccr. & Candia. 2003). Pakistan is a typical representative of the classical Eastern culture. and interpretation of emotions. 2000). while individualistic cultures stress individual goals and independence. and Managing ranged between 0. For example. Understanding. display. Sanchez. The reliability for four branch scores of Perceiving. are more likely to express their emotions (Fernandez. Overview of the Current Study Country Differences on the MSCEIT Individualism-Collectivism is a major dimension of cultural variable postulated by many theorists (e. 1980). French and Pakistani cultures were selected because cross-cultural research predominantly involves the comparison of Eastern and Western cultures. collective goals.55 to a high of 0. Pakistan ranks 14 on individualism which is much lower than the world average of 50. Hofstede.com). and dependence on groups. Carrera.88.g. The individual task reliabilities ranged from a low of 0.. Some research indicates that cultural differences (individualist vs.93 for general and 0.Karim and Weisz 5 MSCEIT.91. Therefore. Paez. The MSCEIT full-test split-half reliability was 0. For this study.geert-hofstede. compared to collectivists.91 for expert consensus scoring. and interpersonal relationships. France is considered as a prototype of the classical Western culture. 1992).com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. achievements. According to Hofstede’s rankings (see www. 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.

(2003) have demonstrated that four-factor models provide good fit to the data. 2006. one of the major objectives of any cross-cultural study is to compare the mean level of a certain construct across cultural groups.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. O’Brien. if equivalence assumptions remain untested. It is argued that the construct of EI needs to be validated in the East (collectivist culture. Interpretation of the mean differences may be problematic unless the underlying constructs are the same or invariant across cultural groups.. 2008)..g. 2010 . 2010.6 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. some have argued that four-factor solution is not preferable due to high correlations between branches perceiving emotions and using emotions (Fan. Further to this. United States. Manocha. Schulze. Gangopadhyay & Mandal.000 participants. 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. Yang. including individuals from both individualistic societies (e. Canada) as well as from collectivistic societies (e. MacCann. In sum. 2009). & Zhang. Rossen. When tests are transported from one culture to another. India. 2008) or between using emotions and managing emotions (Palmer.g. 2007. Logan. Roberts. suggesting that this model provides viable representation of the test’s underlying factor structure. 2009). and Slovenia. The MSCEIT normative sample is based on data collected from more than 5. the MSCEIT should have the same meaning across cultural groups. Jackson. A lack of evidence for measurement invariance across cultures could point toward bias at the construct level (Ekermans. an important research question that has yet to be systematically examined is whether the ability EI construct generalizes across different cultures. & Downloaded from ccr. 2009) and obviates the ability of the measure to be used in comparisons among different cultural groups. Kranzler. Rode et al. Mayer et al. Regarding the factorial validity of the MSCEIT. if the MSCEIT is used to compare mean differences across cultures. United Kingdom.. the practical utility of EI when utilized across different cultural groups may be questionable (Ekermans. & Maul. Reid. 2005). So far. Papadogiannis. For instance. However. Therefore.sagepub. & Stough. Gignac. the comparability of psychological measurements across different cultures should be investigated. the Philippines. & Algina. Tang.

Rode et al. Rode et al. the MSCEIT has shown no relation to Raven’s Progressive Matrices (Raven.. 2009.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. It is expected that ability EI factors are culturally universal and have comparable functions across cultures. 2009). Empirically. O’Connor & Little. e. O’Connor & Little.. 2007. MSCEIT and self-report EI measures. 2010). Livingstone & Day. Farrelly & Austin. mixed EI and ability EI should be regarded distinct (Mayer. MSCEIT and the Big Five. Joseph & Newman. 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. Brackett et al. 2003. 2010. Joseph & Newman. 2003. 2008. i. MSCEIT and Cognitive Intelligence.g.g. 2009).. 2005. placing ability EI closer to crystallized (rather than fluid. Thus one can argue that the structure of the MSCEIT will replicate identical across cultures because of the heterogeneous nature of normative sample. Raven. & Court. 2003) and self-report ability EI measures (Brackett & Mayer.. Roberts et al. Various studies have indicated low to moderate correlations between MSCEIT and measures tapping crystallized intelligence (Gc. 2003. Salovey et al. 2010 . Ciarrochi. 2003.. & Furnham. & Day. 2009). including collectivists and individualists. self-perceived abilities and traits rather than cognitive abilities per se (as in ability EI).sagepub.. Brackett & Mayer. there appears to be sufficient discriminant validity between the MSCEIT and various general intelligence measures (Papadogiannis et al. Raven’s Downloaded from ccr. Chan. 2006. Therefore. 2007). 2007). Gf) intelligence within Gf/Gc theory (for details see Farrelly & Austin.. O’Connor & Little.2008. 2003). thus providing evidence for the discriminant validity of the MSCEIT (e. Since self-report EI measures assess emotion-related... & Caputi.g.. the third goal in the present study was to examine the relationship of scores on the MSCEIT with scores on the TEIQue. Petrides.. 2005. Interestingly.Karim and Weisz 7 Sitarenios. 2000. the SREIT.e. Research has consistently supported this distinction by revealing low correlations between the MSCEIT and various self-report mixed EI measures (e. 2007).g. Fabio & Palazzeschi. Livingstone. Various studies have well-documented a nonsignificance or low correlations between the MSCEIT and the Big Five personality dimensions. Mayer. 2007). e. Farrelly & Austin. 2003.

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

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

“I find it difficult to bond well even with those close to me”). located at the lower levels of personality hierarchies (Petrides & Furnham. inspired. Affectivity. Watson. self-motivation) thought to affect the ways individuals cope with demands of the situation. Psychological distress. representing the ability to regulate one’s impulsions and emotions as well as managing emotional pressures (e. self-control. 2003). (b) self-control.g. This scale measures psychological distress in terms of current nonpsychotic symptoms in the five symptom areas represented by scales of health concerns (“Felt exhausted”) .sagepub. which conceptualizes EI as a personality trait. nervous.g. determined.. “I’m normally able to “get into someone’s shoes” and experience their emotions”).g.g. The 10 negative affective states were distressed. “I usually find it difficult to regulate my emotions”). Affectivity was measured by 20 items Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS. 1988). Clark. The sampling domain of the TEIQue comprises 15 emotion-related behavioral dispositions (e. proud.. excited. guilty. These 15 emotion-related behavioral dispositions (traits) are theoretically arranged into four broader or major conceptual components. 2010 . upset. and active.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. feel strong.. 2007) is predicated on trait EI theory. ashamed. & Tellegen. representing the ability to identify and express feelings and to use these faculties to maintain close relationships with others (e. enthusiastic. Psychological distress was measured by Chan’s (2005) 20-item General Health Questionnaire. 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. happiness... representing how successfully one is able to enjoy life and maintains a positive disposition (e. The 10 positive affective states were motivated.10 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X) Measures TEIQue. representing interpersonal skills and functioning to assert oneself as well as to influence others’ emotions and decisions (e. irritable. “On the whole. alert. and afraid. I’m pleased with my life”). (c) emotionality. hostile. These include (a) well-being.g. sleep Downloaded from ccr. The TEIQue (Petrides et al. The higher scores on both positive affectivity and negative affectivity items indicate the tendency to experience a positive and negative mood. attentive. and (d) sociability. The TEIQue is comprised of 153 items with 7-point scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). PANAS is composed of two 10-item mood scales one to measure positive affectivity and the other to measure negativity affectivity. jittery.. scared.

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

The task in each case is to select from a set of eight alternatives the piece that will complete the pattern correctly. each task correlated mostly highly with its sister subscale with which it combines (e.30).85 for the Pakistani sample.05. Cohen’s d = 0.001. to accommodate for item heterogeneity. the Faces and Pictures subscales Downloaded from ccr. French participants performed better than their Pakistani counterparts on perceiving emotions (t = 2. Factorial Invariance As can be seen in Table 2.82 for the French and Pakistani samples.15. p < .80 for the French sample and from a low of 0. and total ability EI (t = 5. According to Mayer et al.51 and 0.86 for the French and Pakistani samples. The test consists of 48 questions and presents people with a series of patterns. strategic EI (t = 7. 2003) was used to measure cognitive intelligence. The four branch scores of perceiving.92). p < . Cohen’s d = 0.38.50. using. p < 0. area. understanding emotions (t = 6.82 for the Pakistani sample. using emotions (t = 2. p < 0. and r = 0. Cohen’s d = 0.84 for the French sample and 0. The individual task reliabilities ranged from a low of 0. Results Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the MSCEIT and other variables for French and Pakistani participants.05. respectively (see Table 1). 2010 . managing emotions (t = 5. we conducted a series of independent sample t tests on MSCEIT branch..75). and managing ranged between r = 0.86 and 0. experiential EI (t = 2. Cohen’s d = 0.05.35).12 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X) Cognitive intelligence.001.39.45 to a high of 0.com by Jahanvash Karim on September to a high of 0. There were indeed several significant crosscultural differences. p < .37). and total scores. Cohen’s d = 1.88 and 0.g. respectively.63. and branch levels. Cohen’s d = . p < . The two experiential and strategic area score reliabilities were r = 0. Cohen’s d = 0. split-half reliabilities were employed for the total. area..001.24. (2003) suggestions.sagepub.79). The 48-item Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices Test (Raven et al. Country Differences on the MSCEIT To obtain an overall picture of possible cross-cultural differences on the MSCEIT. understanding.87 and 0. MSCEIT full-test split-half reliability was r = 0.74 and 0. p < 0.06). each of which has one part or piece missing.05. This test is designed to measure Spearman’s “g” factor and has now been recognized as one of the purest measures of g available.

05 (0.04 (0.49) .07 5.04 −0.26) 5.15 −1.75 (7.13 .18 (14.98 (0.11 −0.73) −.12 −0.68) −.60 (0.37 (0.68 13 (continued) .07 −0.29 (0.85 2.71 (0.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13.72 .68 −0.14 0.86 .47) −.80 .58) 2.81 1.57 (0.53) .16 0.70 . and Kurtosis for French and Pakistani Samples France M (SD) Downloaded from ccr.19 −0.08 −0.49 (15.62 .83 .23 38.54 −0.57) −.82 (1.06 89.62 3.92 (11.57) 1.34 −0.72) 4.71 .78) −1.40) .14 4.85) S 1.54 (0.80) −.32 4.98 (0.13 0.20 97.32 0.26 0.57 3.51) .35 0.05 0.45 a M (SD) 27.42) 82.12 0.84 .63) .76 .20 −0.80 .90 .75) 4.65 0.07 K Reliabilitya 2.69 (0.83 (0.87 3.39) 0.19 −0.80 .29 0.91 .86 .03 −0.86 .68 .44 (0.15 Reliability .81 (15.55) −.65) −.21 −0. Standard Deviations.42 (4.24 (0.57 (8.60 (1.42 −0.58) 3.71 .70 .06) 3.05 0.13 (0.61 . Skewness.20 0.51 .16 4.74) −.22 (0.53) 3.06 3.51) −.Table 1.48) 95.68) .79 .81 4. 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 30.61) 4.57) 4.64) 5.53 1.60 0.32 −0.05 1.81 .54) −.64 (0.82 .88 Pakistan K 0.15 0.19 1.03 0.99) .69 1.45 −0.62 0.76 .06 (0.08 0.69 (0.82 .22 0.30 0.72) −.32 (0.27 4.25 0.85 (8.28 −1.11 (0.50 −0.46 (0.97 (0.20 −20 0.35 0.37 99.69) 2.19 4.81 .74 0.sagepub.58 (0.82 0.82 .19 (0.65 0.78 .52 0.81 .80 .01 −0.71) 4.51) 99.22 −0.48) 27.19 −0.44 (0.06 (0.47 3.40 5.82 1.72 (0. Means.93 0.80 .04 (0.44 −0.31 (10.28 −0.71) 3.91 0.57 −0.63 (0.85 .22) −.66 1.69 −0.65 (16.75) .68) 4.87 .75 .

62 −0.51 .05 0.40 .68 0.07 −0.001.85 .86 . **p < .34 0.63 79.48) 91.56 .34 (10.01 .67 −0.63 .70 0.14 −0. area.16) .62) 0.50 (15.53 .03) 0.11 0.64) 77.20 −0.50 .34 (10.12 0.50 (13.07 0.68) 84.53 .67 (10.88 (11.74 .84 76.88 .01 −0.51 .38) 85.63) 92.50 (11. 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 87.41 (13. RAPM = Raven’s advanced progressive matrices.92) 79.10 .51 (13.33 0.14 −0. respectively.20 (13.25 .63) 87.33 −0.70) .65 (16.88 (11.11 −0.45 −0.46 .86 .62 1.86 −0.35 (8.41) 87.46 (14.87 −.72 .82 Total ability EI 86.10 −.54) 81. *p < .72 −0.79 (8.01.54 .16) 92.60 .46) 74.80 .16) 97.60 0.62 .33 1.85 Note: N = 111.05 0.24 (14.23 . K = Kurtosis.35) 93.62 (11.02 .14 Table 1 (continued) France Downloaded from ccr.05 0.58 (9.33 0. 81.07 0. .86) 83.04 .88 (13.25 0.48 .39) 90.02) 90.56) 77.20 −0.66 .75 .57 (10.64 −0.sagepub.Split-half reliabilities are reported at the total test.80 .95 0.97) 86. SREIT = Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test.59 0.57 0.45 (15.04) 88.84) 95.18 −0. Coefficient alpha reliabilities are reported at the subtest level due to item homogeneity.01 (11.31 (13.26 0. S = skewness. and branch score levels due to item heterogeneity.50 . a.87 .com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. ***p < .69 (12.05.

15. The chi-square difference test between this M3.1 and Model 2 was not significant (∆χ2(8) = 14. all factor loadings for this model were positive and significant (range = 0. RMSEA = 0. Correlations among the four-factors (perceiving. The results revealed that this constrained model fit the data well.96. p < . This model was significantly better fitting than the twofactor. Thus a four-factor model served as a base line model for subsequent multisample analyses.001 and both three-factor models. understanding.13. First. relaxing constraint on covariance between Downloaded from ccr. Next. Each model had more constraints than the previous one (Table 3).05).91. Subsequent analyses revealed that relaxing constraint on error variance of sensation task yielded a substantial and significant improvement in model fit.89.Table 3 presents goodness-of-fit indices for the models examined with CFA (N =192).02-0. The chi-square difference test between this model and M2 was significant (∆χ2(9) = 17.1 was significant (∆χ2(6) = 13. using. In addition. NFI = 0.92. However.34. p > . χ2(13) = 24. Multisample analysis revealed that this constrained model was acceptable.92.08. CFI = 0. the chi-square difference test between this M4 and M3.05. unique variances of each task were constrained to be equal across the groups (M3).com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. p > 0.sagepub. TLI = 0.05). ∆ χ2(5) = 35. invariance across cultures was tested on four levels of nested models. This showed that French participants and Pakistani participants shared the same MSCEIT underlying factor pattern and that corresponding tasks loaded on the same factors. except for error variance of sensation task. Finally. 2010 .Karim and Weisz 15 which measure Perceiving emotions).06 (0. factor loadings were constrained to be equal across the two groups (M2). p < 0.05 and ∆ χ2(3) = 25.50 to 0.05). Then. p < 0. correlated errors were modeled between sensation and emotion management tasks. p < .84.33. the error variances in this four-factor model did not vary with culture.75. besides the constrained mentioned. a multisample analysis with the unconstrained model (Model 1: configural invariance) showed an acceptable baseline model for both French and Pakistani samples.92). In sum. suggesting that models are not completely invariant once setting equal error variances. in addition to the factor loadings. the four-factor model indicated satisfactory levels of fit. suggesting that factor loadings of both groups were invariant.52 to 0. The chi-square difference test between configural invariant model (M1) and metric invariant model (M2) was not significant (∆ χ2(4) = 2. suggesting that models are not completely invariance once constraining the covariances across cultures. As can be seen. ∆ χ2(3) = 9. and managing) ranged from 0. p < 0. to test the invariance of the factor loadings (metric invariance) across cultures. factor covariances were also constrained to be equal across the two groups (M4).05). respectively.10). Subsequent analyses revealed that. Next. Based on modification indices.

Blends Task 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .38** .19 .72*** .38*** .08 . Understanding Emotion 12.91*** .56*** .61*** .27** .78*** .22* .42*** .25* .34** .13 . Correlations for the French sample are below the diagonal and for the Pakistani sample are above the diagonal.15 .45*** .57*** .01.32** .15 .26** .47*** .01 . Strategic EI .35*** .17 . Intercorrelations Among MSCEIT Scales for French and Pakistani Samples 1 Downloaded from ccr.87*** .29** .11 .73*** .22* .29** .03 .32** .51*** .41*** .22* .46*** .72*** . Perceiving Emotion 10. Facilitation Task 3.60*** .83*** .63*** .41*** .92*** .66*** .30** .09 .22* .44*** .16 Table 2.20* . Experiential EI 14.78*** .01 .65*** .71*** .16 .10 .89*** .28** .27** .39*** .16 .33** .com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13.64*** .32** .37*** 15.47*** .37** .27* .001.77*** .40*** .56*** .23* 8.24* .30** .59*** .68*** .04 .40*** .36*** .45*** .44*** .45*** . Social Management Task 9.15 .30** .75*** .42*** .25** . respectively. 81.64*** .47*** .78*** .33** .23* .21* .25** .29** .29** .26** .86*** .53*** .28** .26* .67*** .52*** .88*** .42*** .78*** .30** .02 .58*** .45*** .89*** .49*** .09 .23* .18 .40*** .82*** .83*** .73*** .07 .60*** .19 .19* .04 .52*** .72*** .77*** .18 . Changes Task 4. **p < .72*** .30** .75*** .15 .20* .50*** .56*** .35*** . Total EI .50*** .40*** .39*** .09 .64*** .17 .50*** .52*** .20* . .05. Pictures Task 6.11 .30** .25** .75*** .89*** .51*** .87*** .56*** . Managing Emotion 13.85*** .33** .75*** .80*** .37** .40*** .41*** .32** .45*** .30** .20 .50*** .36*** . Sensation Task 7.13 .47*** .45*** .23* .45*** .36** .35** .57*** .85*** Note: N = 111.55*** .35** .39*** .30** .80*** .54*** . Using Emotion 11.72*** .21* .48*** .60*** .81*** .59*** . Faces Task 2.33** .10 .60*** .21 . *p < .21* .19 .34** .65*** .92*** .60*** .24* .84*** . 2010 1.34** .82*** .23* .85*** .35** . ***p < .sagepub.20* . Emotion Management Task 5.02 .09 .71*** .22* .38*** .47*** .

com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. Rode et al.00-. . .05 [.007 .75 . NFI.035 .Three-factor oblique model comprising the perceiving and using allowed to load on a single factor (Fan et al. a.05 [.00 .78 .08] uniqueness ∆χ2 M3 vs.08] between understand and managing emotions set free ∆χ2 M4.39 19 .10] Multigroup comparison factor analyses (French sample: N = 111. . 2006.04 [.44 43 .94 .sagepub.96 .21 Note: For both groups correlated errors were modeled between sensation and emotion management tasks. .06 8 . M1 2.01 . 2010 .95 .1 Θsensation. M2 14..92 . Roberts et al.00 .05 [. TLI = Tucker-Lewis index.93 .07] invariance ∆χ2M2 vs.33 13 . 1993).14] Two-factor 59.02 .08] invariance M2 Metric 43.07 [.00 .07] ∆χ2 M3.11 [.. and TLI > .83 .03.45 26 .34 6 .88 18 .028 .08 M4 Invariant 70.58 M3 Invariant 61.88 . 2010. CFI = comparative fit index.94 . 2005).35 38 .01 .78 .91 .02.89 ..92 .22 16 .01-. .1 7..055 .05 [.02-.08] factor covariances ∆χ2 M4 vs.00 .81 . M2 17. .84 4 .90 .21 39 . NFI = normed fit index.84 .08.14] Three-factora 33..I] Confirmatory factor analyses (N = 192) One-factor 69.06 [. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.03-. free 57. 2008. CFA and Multisample Goodness-of-Fit Indices for the MSCEIT Across Cultures χ2 Model df NFI P TLI CFI RMSEA [95%C.91 .17 Karim and Weisz Table 3.08 are considered acceptable (Bentler & Bonett.1 Covariance 64.07.1 13.05 [. Browne & Cudeck.11 [.92 9 . 1980. b. Pakistani sample: N = 81) M1 Configural 40.29 30 .14] Four-factor 24. M3.Three-factor oblique model comprising the using and managing allowed to load on a single factor (Palmer et al. Rossen et al.10 [.01.03 M3.1 vs.09 5 .11] Three-factorb 50. CFI.03 M4. Downloaded from ccr.90 and RMSEA < .80 .69 44 .89 .78 .08. M3. 2008).02-.46 16 .1 vs.

00 and 0. The parameter estimates of complete invariance model (Model 4.Therefore.18 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X) Figure 1.1) Note:Values in parenthesis represent standardized estimates for the Pakistani sample. the hypothesis of partially invariant covariances between cultures was tenable.25 are considered unrelated to minimally related Downloaded from ccr. the factor loadings. unique variances.sagepub. p > .1 was not significant (∆χ2(5) = 7.05). In sum. multisample CFA analyses revealed that. understanding and managing branches yielded a substantial and significant improvement in model fit (M4. those that intercorrelate between r =0.1) are presented in Figure 1. According to Papadogiannis et al. self-report ability EI measure (SREIT). 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). 2010 .09. with few exceptions.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. The chi-square difference test between M4. The parameter estimates of complete invariant model (M4. and personality.1 and Model 3. Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices.1). (2009). and factor covariances were invariant across cultures.

08 .11 .09 −.05 −.01 .12 .17 −.10 .14 .18 −.40** .00 .07 .02 . A = agreeableness.43** −.01 .23* .17 −.10 .19 .16 .03 −.04 .06 −.17 .08 .17 Per Use Und .10 −.20* .04 .29** .04 .29** .22** .07 .41** Total .03 −.11 −.26* .23* .03 .32** .06 .04 .14 .30** .11 .00 .01 .34** .07 .22* .09 −.13 .15 .03 −.10 . PD = psychological distress.08 −.23* −.01 .17 .37** .28 .05 .26** .15 .05 −.04 .08 −.02 .01 .03 −.11 .23* .04 .08 .17 −.33** .07 .13 . **p < . RAPM = Raven’s advanced progressive matrices.24* .20* . C = conscientiousness.02 −.08 .23* −.27* .15 −. PA = positive affect.07 −.02 .36** −.36** 19 Note.33** .04 .01.02 .28** .26* .25* −.17 .11 −.03 −.36** .20* −.10 .14 .01 −.11 .26* −.01 .06 −.40** .15 −.11 .03 .16 .30** −.17 . Man = managing emotions.01 .41** .08 .07 −.03 .16 .13 −. Per = perceiving emotions.13 .11 −.06 .07 .18 .09 .09 .25** −.11 −.17 .25** −.01 −.08 −. ES = emotional stability.22* .12 .00 .25* .01 −.25** . Use = using emotions.28** .21 .02 .09 .31** .16 .12 −.19* .05 .11 −.07 . SWL = satisfaction with life.03 .01 .09 −.18 .12 .11 . Exp = experiential EI.08 .00 −.09 .06 .01 .38** .35** .24* .25* . Und = understanding emotions.05.29** .20* . Zero-Order Correlations Between the MSCEIT and Other Variables in the Study France Branch scores Downloaded from ccr.29** −.08 . E = extraversion.20 .00 −.15 .04 −.36** −.26* .18 .19 . 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 .09 .11 . *p < .10 −.17 .24** −.17 .06 −.21* .27* .11 .14 .15 .10 .34** Area scores Man Exp .05 . Stg = strategic EI.22* Stg .22* .08 .19* .015 .21 −.01 .sagepub.01 .19* -.34** .21 .31** −.22* −.21 .16 .38** .01 . .16 .14 .08 −.Table 4.01 −.28* .17 .11 −.22* .35** −.31** −.03 −.00 .15 −.12 −.00 −.15 .13 .28* .33** −.00 .12 .08 .10 −.20* −.09 −.05 .com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13.12 .19* . TEIQue = Trait emotional intelligence questionnaire.03 .15 −.32** −. NA = negative affect. I = intellect.20 .10 .01 −.40** .38** .02 .04 .14 −.06 −.

the performance-based ability EI in both cultures was found to be independent of the TEIQue.38 (total ability EI).29.40. low to moderate correlations were observed between the Big Five dimensions of agreeableness and intellect and the MSCEIT scores. For participants in the French sample. For the participants in the French sample. and total ability EI (r = 0. whereas correlations between intellect and the MSCEIT scores ranged from 0. and r = 0. For participants in the French sample. Likewise. r = 0.00 indicate that instruments share common themes and arguably assess the same underlying constructs. Nonsignificant correlations were observed between the MSCEIT factors and the SREIT in both cultures.20. 2010 . p < 0. only emotional stability revealed to be a significant correlate of perceiving emotions (r = 0. for participants in the Pakistani sample. for the participants in the Pakistani sample. p < .41.20 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X) with one another.e. Incremental Validity We used the hierarchical multiple regression technique to test for the incremental validity of the MSCEIT. with the greatest correlation found between MSCEIT’s managing emotions branch and TEIQue’s well-being factor (r = 0.05).com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13.29. Correlations between agreeableness and MSCEIT scores ranged from 0. only 4).50 to 0.01). In sum. with the greatest correlation observed between Strategic EI and Raven’s Advances Progressive Matrices (r = 0. MSCEIT and SREIT. r = 0.01). the greatest of correlation was observed between understanding emotions branch of the MSCEIT with the well-being factor of the TEIQue (r = 0.24 (perceiving emotions) to 0.75 indicate moderate to highly related concepts. p < 0. low to moderate significant correlations were observed between the cognitive intelligence and the MSCEIT scores. p < 0. nonsignificant to moderate correlations were observed between the MSCEIT branches and the TEIQue factors.01).sagepub. among the Big Five personality dimensions.14 (perceiving emotions) to 0.25 to 0. The Big Five personality dimensions and the Downloaded from ccr..35 (total ability EI). for the Pakistani sample. MSCEIT and Cognitive Intelligence. experiential EI (r = 0. all correlations between the MSCEIT scores and cognitive intelligence revealed to be nonsignificant. the number of low to moderate significant correlations in the Pakistani sample (13) was higher than that for the French sample (i.01). In contrast.75 to 1. However.50 indicate minimal to moderate overlap. p < 0. MSCEIT and TEIQue. p < 0. However. MSCEIT and the Big Five. (see Table 4).30.01).

PA.08*** (10.12 .19* .10 −.03 −.11 . NA = negative affect.11 Managing Total R2 .sagepub.59*** −. E = extraversion. using emotions. and total MSCEIT. I = intellect.34 .01** (10. NA.05. experiential EI.04 .08 . and total MSCEIT (see Table 7).03 −. **p < 0.14 . 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 . 2010 .02 −. ***p < 0.40*** −.02 −.06 . Known Group validation For the French sample.25** . PA = positive affect.001. 94) 9.21 Karim and Weisz Table 5. PA.33 5. scores on the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices were entered into the equation first (Step 1).24 . NA. females scored higher than males on managing emotions.04 −.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. A = agreeableness.25** .47*** .45*** −.47 Final F (df) 3. Predicting Satisfaction With Life.05 −.06 .30*** . *p < 0.01*** (10.29 .09 −.02 −. Downloaded from ccr. the scores for the MSCEIT four branches were entered.01 .03 .11 . whereas for the Pakistani sample. 99) Psychological distress NA ∆R2 β ∆R2 β ∆R2 .10 −.13 −.14 .09 .11 . ES = emotional stability.43 7.21*** .42 . C = conscientiousness.01 .01.10 . and psychological distress.04 −. As can be seen in Tables 5 and 6. females scored higher than males on perceiving emotions. strategic EI.03 −.02 −.03 −.06 .13 . none of the MSCEIT branches was found to be a significant predictor of satisfaction with life. 99) . 99) Note: RAPM = Raven’s advanced progressive matrices.14 −.56*** (10.07 .00 . At Step 2.

2003.25 .04 −.31*** −. To our knowledge.20 . 2008.01 PA β Psychological distress NA ∆R2 β ∆R2 β ∆R2 .20 . NA. The first objective of this study was to assess the mean differences on the MSCEIT across two cultures. Gross & John.03 −.29 . and regulating emotions (e. NA = negative affect..34 −.09 −.08 . ***p < . PA. This accords well with findings showing that people from individualistic societies are better at perceiving.04 −.07 −..04 . PA = positive affect.05 −.01. 66) 4. French participants had higher scores than their Pakistani counterparts on branch. 1989.04 . The present study attempted to evaluate an ability-based measure of EI (the MSCEIT) cross-culturally. *p < .12 −.g. 2008). expressing. **p < .17 .50 . understanding.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) . this study is the first to provide evidence of the factorial invariance.38 3. This finding suggests that care must be taken when selecting people from Downloaded from ccr.44** −. = standardized regression weights. 1992).07 −.19* .22 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X) Table 6.06 −. area.01 .53*** −.. and total MSCEIT scores. 2010 .com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13.20*** (10. 2000. I = intellect. 66) Note: RAPM = Raven’s advanced progressive matrices. Predicting Satisfaction With Life. Discussion Cross-cultural validity of EI scales is a constant concern in organizational behavior research (Gangopadhyay & Mandal. Palmer et al. A = agreeableness. 66) ∆R2 .15 −.10 −.14 .09 .06 −.22 .03 .02 .45*** .sagepub.05.70*** (10. 66) 6.04 .23 −.05 −. E = extraversion.001. discriminant and incremental validity of the MSCEIT across cultures.26 .04 . Fernandez et al.73 (10.29* −.28** .12 .23 −.16** (10. ES = emotional stability.04 −.18 .46*** .01 −.01 −.02 −. C = conscientiousness. Matsumoto.20 1.

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. ***p < .16 (9.01.62) 94.98) 76.41) 96.73 (13. females = 62 and males = 49 and for the Pakistani sample.41 (13.80) 77.28 (13.93 2.53) 86. d = Cohen’s d.14* .39 .36* 1.25 (13.73 ..70 (12.57) 89.11 0.67) 92.19 Total EI 89.93) 77.16** 0.03) 84.31) 2.80 (14.55 .04 .24 2.55 (11.sagepub.40) 74.Downloaded from ccr.24) 88.29) 2.17 (10.74 (16.com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13.58) 1.78 (13.36 1.03 1.15 (11.80 .91** 2.49) 0.50 Note: For the French sample.18 .34) 92.57 (8.07 .20) 74.20 (10.20 . Values in parentheses represent standard deviations 23 . **p < .48 (15.65 (15.04* 0. 2010 Table 7.24 .19 (9.20* .34 (16.25) 92.56 81.89) 79.05) 87.89 (7.42 (12.68 .90) 82.78) 76.57) 83.99* . *p < .05. females = 29 and males = 52.72 (13.001.40) 83.29 (8.89) 89.29) 95.05 (10.66 (11.31 (12.42 98.51 (13.26 .13 (13.15 3.74) 86.89) 83.55 (10.

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

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

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

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

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

. Revisiting the predictive validity of emotional intelligence: Self-report versus ability-based measures. (2003). R.. D. D. & Salovey. 63. & Little.. Assessing emotional intelligence: Theory. Mayer. Salovey & D. M. H. Current Psychology Research and Reviews. K. 1893-1902. J. & Caruso. Emotional intelligence: Theory. P. Annual Review of Psychology. Personality and Individual Differences. L. An ability model of emotional intelligence: A rationale. & Sitarenios. V.). Salovey. Logan. (2008). G. & Roberts. Shanwal. C. D. J.. D. R.. S. Emotion. 33. Cognition and Emotion. B. I. G. D. European Journal of Personality. P. D. D. 17. & Barsade. Onatario.. Palmer. D. Young. S. & J. P. Ekermans.0.. Gignac.. 285-305. In. Canada: MHS. Salovey. Palmer. Cambridge. & Furnham. J. Intelligence. New York: Springer.. Emotional empathy and associated individual differences. A. Roberts..sagepub. MA: MIT Press. pp. R. and implications. version 2. Mehrabian. J. Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) item booklet.. K.. Downloaded from ccr. findings. 17-38). Trait emotional intelligence: Behavioral validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. A. 21. D. G.0... 59. A. (2003). Salovey. G. A comprehensive framework for emotional intelligence. Stough. Mayer. C. 507-536. R.. P. Petrides. B. S. (2005). & Sitarenios.. Toronto.. P. Emotional Intelligence: Theoretical and Cultural Perspective (pp. Mayer.. Salovey. & Sato. (1988). Saklofske. J. (2008).com by Jahanvash Karim on September 13. 39-57. Mayer. New York: Basic Books. A psychometric evaluation of the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test Version 2.. & Furnham. M. & M. (2002). Zeidner. 2010 . G. A. and application of the Mayer Salovey Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). J. G. K. C.. research. D. Mayer. 221-240. 3-27. 3. Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits? American Psychologist. G. and applications (pp. (2004). Pérez-Gonzalez. R. V.. 26-55. (2008). & Stough. Sluyter (Eds. In R.. 97-105. (2007). P. & Caruso.. What is emotional intelligence? In P. (1997). Mandal (Eds. & Stough. J. (2009). Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Educational Implications. Manocha. D. 259-290). R.. description. R. Emotional intelligence: Science and myth. Mayer.Karim and Weisz 29 Matthews. Emmerling.. Petrides. Papadogiannis. (2003). K.. Gignac. V. D. 197-215. J. Psychological Inquiry. K. D. 503-517. 35. 15. 7. J. A. R. R. & Caruso. D. C. Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2. (2002)..). Parker (Eds). Caruso. D.0. O’Connor. New York: Nova Science. On the criterion and incremental validity of trait emotional intelligence. Human Abilities: Emotional Intelligence.

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

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