RESPONSE Emotional Intelligence : New Insights and Further Clarifications

The commentaries on my target article expand on it in many useful and enlightening ways, and some provide a glimpse at important new research. The commentaries also point to a few issues raised in the original article that require clarification or elaboration. In this response, I begin by recalling the ‘‘big idea’’ that initially led to interest in emotional intelligence (EI) as a concept, which is that success in life and work depends on more than just the basic cognitive abilities measured by IQ tests. I then clarify what I mean by emotional and social competence (ESC): It is not a single, unitary psychological construct but rather a very broad label for a large set of constructs. After considering whether we really need the ESC concept, I discuss whether the single, comprehensive definition of EI that I proposed in the target article is the best one in light of alternatives suggested in some of the commentaries. Next, I return to the issue of measurement and note new ideas and suggestions that emerge in the commentaries. I conclude by considering the question of how much EI or ESC adds conceptually or predictively to IQ or personality. Both good science and good practice depend on lively debate and criticism. So I was pleased that this journal provided an opportunity for both proponents and critics to exchange views on the topic of emotional intelligence (EI). However, I must confess that I approached the task of writing the target article with some trepidation. As Spector and Johnson (2006, p. 325) noted, ‘‘There is perhaps no construct in the social sciences that has produced more controversy in recent years than emotional intelligence. ’’ I now see that I did not need to worry. The commentaries provide the healthiest kind of debate and criticism. Taken as a whole, the commentaries expand on the target article in many Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Cary Cherniss. E-mail: Cherniss@rutgers.edu Address: GSAPP, Rutgers University, 152 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854 The author would like to thank Graham L. Staines for his helpful feedback and suggestions. useful ways. Two of the commentaries (Harms & Credé, 2010; Newman, Joseph, & MacCann, 2010) provide insights based on new meta-analyses that had not appeared in print when I wrote my target article. They make it clear that there is a growing body of research that will continue to modify our understanding of EI in the years to come. Every commentary makes interesting points, some of which I agree with and others with which I take issue. However, given the space limitations, I cannot discuss each commentary separately and in detail. Instead, I will discuss a few themes and issues that several different authors raised. First, I address the misunderstanding found in some of the commentaries concerning the meaning of the term ‘‘emotional and social competence. ’’ After clarifying what I mean by emotional and social competence (ESC), I consider whether we really need such a concept. Then I discuss whether the single, comprehensive definition of EI that I proposed in the target article is the