Risky families are characterized by conflict and aggression and by relationships that are cold, unsupportive, and neglectful. These family characteristics create vulnerabilities and/or interact with genetically based vulnerabilities in offspring that produce disruptions in psychosocial functioning (specifically emotion processing and social competence), disruptions in stress-responsive biological regulatory systems, including sympathetic-adrenomedullary and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical functioning, and poor health behaviors, especially substance abuse. This integrated biobehavioral profile leads to consequent accumulating risk for mental health disorders, major chronic diseases, and early mortality. We conclude that childhood family environments represent vital links for understanding mental and physical health across the life span.

/pdf/risky-families-family-social-environments-and-the-mental-and-2ydtsobufc.pdf

Risky Families: Family Social Environments and the Mental and Physical Health of Offspring

(2004). TARGET ARTICLES: 'Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Findings, and Implications' Psychological Inquiry: Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 197-215.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/info/20447229

Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Findings, and Implications

Emotional intelligence (EI) involves the ability to carry out accurate reasoning about emotions and the ability to use emotions and emotional knowledge to enhance thought. We discuss the origins of the EI concept, define EI, and describe the scope of the field today. We review three approaches taken to date from both a theoretical and methodological perspective. We find that Specific-Ability and Integrative-Model approaches adequately conceptualize and measure EI. Pivotal in this review are those studies that address the relation between EI measures and meaningful criteria including social outcomes, performance, and psychological and physical well-being. The Discussion section is followed by a list of summary points and recommended issues for future research.

/pdf/human-abilities-emotional-intelligence-1etti0ngdt.pdf

Human abilities: emotional intelligence.

Does a recently introduced ability scale adequately measure emotional intelligence (EI) skills? Using the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; J. D. Mayer, P. Salovey, & D. R. Caruso, 2002b), the authors examined (a) whether members of a general standardization sample and emotions experts identified the same test answers as correct, (b) the test's reliability, and (c) the possible factor structures of EI. Twenty-one emotions experts endorsed many of the same answers, as did 2,112 members of the standardization sample, and exhibited superior agreement, particularly when research provides clearer answers to test questions (e.g., emotional perception in faces). The MSCEIT achieved reasonable reliability, and confirmatory factor analysis supported theoretical models of EI. These findings help clarify issues raised in earlier articles published in Emotion.

Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0.

Resilience in Development: A Synthesis of Research across Five Decades

The authors have claimed that emotional intelligence (EI) meets traditional standards for an intelligence (J. D. Mayer, D. R. Caruso, & P. Salovey, 1999). R. D. Roberts, M. Zeidner, and G. Matthews (2001) questioned whether that claim was warranted. The central issue raised by Roberts et al. concerning Mayer et al. (1999) is whether there are correct answers to questions on tests purporting to measure EI as a set of abilities. To address this issue (and others), the present authors briefly restate their view of intelligence, emotion, and EI. They then present arguments for the reasonableness of measuring EI as an ability, indicate that correct answers exist, and summarize recent data suggesting that such measures are, indeed, reliable.

https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/emo/1/3/232.pdf

Emotional intelligence as a standard intelligence.

G. E. Gignac (2005) reanalyzed the factor structure of the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) and found results that differed from those the authors obtained initially. The authors tracked down the surprising sources of those discrepancies. G. E. Gignac’s hierarchical model of emotional intelligence appears promising, and the authors anticipate that further investigations of the MSCEIT factor structure may yield additional information.

Gill Sitarenios

Papers

Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0.

Emotional intelligence as a standard intelligence.

REPLY TO COMMENTARY A Discrepancy in Analyses of the MSCEIT—Resolving the Mystery and Understanding Its Implications: A Reply to Gignac (2005)

A discrepancy in analyses of the MSCEIT - Resolving the mystery and understanding its implications: A reply to Gignac (2005)