Emotional intelligence research in Australia: Past contributions and future directions

Abstract

Emotional intelligence (EI) is an intriguing and popular area of research, focusing as it does on individual differences in qualities at the intersection of intelligence and emotion. Research to date has focused on three key questions: (a) How to define EI? (b) How to measure EI? and (c) What is EI good for? This review describes the key contributions of Australian researchers to these questions before outlining the current focus and future directions of EI research in Australia. Australian research teams have been instrumental in clarifying the definition of EI, developing innovative measures of EI and examining the life domains EI influences. We suggest that with the contributions of Australian research to the earlier definitional and measurement questions, Australian researchers are now able to address questions about the processes and mechanisms by which EI translates into positive outcomes in diverse life domains.

Key words:

• academic achievement
• emotional intelligence
• experience sampling
• test development
• wellbeing

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC?

• Emotional intelligence can be defined as either a set of abilities or a set of personality traits.

• Valid assessments based on both these definitions of emotional intelligence have been developed.

• Emotional intelligence predicts a range of valuable outcomes.

WHAT THIS MANUSCRIPT ADDS?

• This review summarises Australian contributions to emotional intelligence research.

• Current developments in this field of research are outlined.

• A future research agenda is suggested, where by future research should refine the conceptual model of emotional intelligence, and examine the underlying emotional processes.

INTRODUCTION

The concept of emotional intelligence (EI) was first defined in a 1990 journal article (Salovey & Mayer, 1990), and there was little interest from either academics or the general public for the next 5 years. This changed dramatically when Daniel Goleman made “emotional intelligence” a household name in his 1995 book Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Suddenly, EI was everywhere—on the cover of TIME magazine, on Oprah's book club, and in business and HR circles (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002). The popularity of EI has scarcely waned since then, and Australian academics have contributed to every stage of EI's research history. In the paragraphs that follow, we focus on three key issues that have defined different stages in the history of EI research, discussing the contributions of Australian research at every stage. These key issues are: (a) defining EI, (b) measuring EI, and (c) the relationship of EI to valued outcomes. To guide our decision on which articles to focus on in this review, we used Google Scholar to identify the top‐10 most cited articles on EI that were led by an Australian researcher. To make sure we also included recent research, we also identified the top‐10 most cited EI articles published in the last 10 years (again, led by an Australian author).¹

HOW CAN RESEARCHERS DEFINE EI?

The rapid rise of EI from obscurity to massive popularity meant that different research teams started from the ground up and worked largely in parallel, each coming up with new definitions of EI. This led to a confusion of contradictory results and findings, as different measures and theories of EI were so dissimilar from each other that they seemed to be covering different constructs—an example of the jangle fallacy where concepts with the same name are actually referring to very different things. In the case of EI, there were several different constructs masquerading as one. The first defines EI as a set of abilities, specifically the four abilities of: (a) accurately perceiving emotions in tone‐of‐voice, facial expressions, and other stimuli (perception), (b) using one's emotions to facilitate task performance or complete personal goals (facilitation); (c) understanding the antecedents of emotions, the time‐course of emotions, and the complex blends of emotions (understanding); and (d) knowing how to regulate emotion in oneself and others (managing emotions) (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2016). This is known as the four‐branch model of EI. The second defines EI as the emotion‐relevant personality traits, abilities and motivational variables needed for higher levels of social and emotional functioning (e.g., Bar‐On, 1997; Goleman, 1995). While there is a single generally‐agreed‐upon ability definition, there are many different definitions of this latter type. One of the earliest was Bar‐On's (1997) social and emotional intelligence model, which proposed five broad domains underlying EI (intrapersonal, interpersonal, stress management, adaptability, and general mood). A later model broadened the definition of EI still further, including some of the Bar‐On content, the four ability concepts, and some additional constructs to create 15 possible content areas that formed “trait EI.” These 15 content areas form four clusters representing emotionality, self‐control, sociability, and well‐being (Petrides, 2009).

As well as these two different theoretical definitions of EI, two different measurement techniques are used: (a) ability tasks, where test‐takers must process emotional information and provide an answer (e.g., deciding how much sadness is present in a facial expression); versus (b) rating scales, where test‐takers rate how much they agree with different statements (e.g., “I like to share my emotions with others”). The issue of how to define EI was further confused when rating scales as well as ability tasks were used to measure abilities.

Australian‐led research team Ashkanasy and Daus (2005) created the taxonomy now widely used to classify different types of EI. They distinguished between three streams of EI: (a) Ability EI—maximum performance tests of EI, where EI is both defined and measured as a type of cognitive ability (similar to mathematical or verbal ability, except that the content domain is emotional information rather than numbers or words); (b) Self‐rated EI—self‐ratings of one's own abilities (sometimes referred to as “emotional self‐efficacy”); and (c) Mixed EI—self‐ratings of the broad array of emotion‐relevant constructs that may lead to good social and emotional functioning (often referred to as “trait EI” after one of the most commonly used assessments). Understanding that the label “emotional intelligence” in fact refers to three different things, which are both theoretically and empirically distinct, is critical for making any sense of EI research. This article by Ashkanasy and Daus represented a breakthrough for EI research.

As well as the jangle fallacy (where several different concepts all exist under the same “emotional intelligence” label), some have argued that EI may also represent a jingle fallacy, where there are different names for what is essentially the same concept (e.g., Landy, 2005; Locke, 2005). Specifically, there were early concerns that self‐report measures of EI were simply big five personality re‐branded (i.e., that EI rating scales measured existing personality traits rather than a new concept) and that ability measures of EI were intelligence rebranded. That is, researchers have argued that the concept of EI shows poor discriminant validity and is not distinct from existing constructs.

Australian‐led research teams were at the forefront of this debate. Davies, Stankov, and Roberts (1998) were among the first in the world to critically evaluate this issue. Their research concluded that the self‐report measures of EI showed poor discriminant validity with respect to the five major domains of personality. The ability tests of EI, while showing some measurement problems, were distinct from other constructs, and Davies et al. concluded that these may constitute a new form of human intelligence. Other early research from Australian‐led teams came to similar conclusions. Ciarrochi, Chan, and Caputi (2000) found that ability measures of EI showed incremental prediction of emotional outcomes even after controlling for intelligence and big five personality. Roberts, Zeidner, and Matthews (2001) again showed that the ability tests of EI showed good evidence of validity, but still suffered from measurement problems (chiefly low reliability). More recent research has generally supported these conclusions. For example, a recent meta‐analysis showed a correlation of .85 between trait EI and the general factor of personality (van der Linden et al., 2017). A recent article from an Australian‐led research team has also demonstrated that ability EI is distinct from other major forms of intelligence and may in fact be considered an additional type of intelligence that IQ testing kits should include (MacCann, Joseph, Newman, & Roberts, 2014).

HOW DO RESEARCHERS MEASURE EI?

Australian researchers are at the forefront of EI assessment development and have produced major instruments representing each of the three streams defined by Ashkanasy and Daus (2005). We outline the major instruments from Streams 1, 2 and 3 below, high‐lighting the contributions of Australian researchers.

Ability EI assessments (Stream 1)

MSCEIT and MEIS

Most of the Stream 1 research has been conducted using the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003) which is the only commercially available test of ability EI. The MSCEIT has eight sub‐tests, two for each of the four branches of perception, facilitation, understanding, and management of emotions.

Australian‐led research teams have made important contributions to the psychometric evaluation of both the MSCEIT (Palmer, Gignac, Manocha, & Stough, 2005; Roberts et al., 2006) and its predecessor, the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS; Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999) (Ciarrochi et al., 2000; Roberts et al., 2001). Early critiques of the MEIS contributed to the development of the MSCEIT, which focused on increasing the quality of the scoring, reliability and factor structure (Palmer et al., 2005). While Palmer et al. found that reliability of the MSCEIT was now acceptable, they found no support for the purported four‐factor structure of EI. This result has since been supported meta‐analytically by a research collaboration between Chinese and Australian universities (Fan, Jackson, Yang, Tang, & Zhang, 2010). That is, the theoretical model of four branches representing emotion perception, facilitation of thought, understanding, and management is not supported. The major issue is the lack of support for the “emotion facilitation of thought” branch.

STEU and STEM

An Australian research team have developed alternative ability EI tests (MacCann & Roberts, 2008). MacCann and Roberts (2008) developed measures of two of the four EI abilities: the ability to understand emotion (Situational Test of Emotion Understanding [STEU]) and the ability to regulate one's emotions (Situational Test of Emotion Management [STEM]). One major limitation MacCann and Roberts (2008) sought to address was that the emotional ‘understanding’ subscale of the MSCEIT relies on an expert‐based scoring system, rather than theory or logic for determining the correct answer. The authors developed items for the STEU with reference to Roseman's (2001) appraisal theory of emotions such that answers are correct or incorrect according to proven theory. This is important for construct validity as well as legal defensibility in practical applications.

The validity of the STEM and the STEU is evidenced by their correlation with other EI tests such as the MSCEIT (Austin, 2010), social‐cognitive knowledge (Ferguson & Austin, 2010), psychological wellbeing and daily positive and negative affect (Burrus et al., 2012). Performance on the STEM and the STEU also relates to academic performance in university courses with interpersonal content such as psychology (MacCann & Roberts, 2008) and interpersonal academic performance in medical students (Libbrecht, Lievens, Carette, & Cote, 2014).

Self‐rated EI assessments (Stream 2)

Schutte self‐report scale

Australian‐led team, Schutte et al. (1998) developed the first Stream 2 measure of EI. This is a very influential article and was the fourth most‐cited article on EI in the world at the time of writing. Schutte et al.’s (1998) scale was developed to reflect the three groups of abilities in Salovey and Mayer's (1990) original model. These three abilities include: (a) appraisal and expression of emotion, (b) regulation of emotion, and (c) using emotions in solving problems (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). The scale shows evidence of validity from its correlation with theoretically related constructs such as alexithymia and intelligence as indicated by first‐year college grades (Schutte et al., 1998). Another Australian team (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Bajgar, 2001) demonstrated that this scale reliably measures EI in adolescents (13–15‐year old) and that higher scores on the scale were associated with the ability to recognise facial expressions and regulate one's mood. They also found scores on this scale related to self‐ratings of perceived social support and parental warmth.

Other Stream 2 assessments

Other major Stream 2 assessments include the Wong‐Law EI Scale (WLEIS; (Law, Wong, & Song, 2004) and Brackett et al.’s (2006) Self‐Report EI scale (SREIS). The WLEIS is 16 items long and assesses four constructs (appraisal of own emotions, appraisal of others’ emotions, using emotions in problem solving, and regulating emotions). Like Schutte et al.’s (1998) scale, it was based on an earlier definition of EI abilities that preceded the four‐branch model. The scale shows high reliability, and is distinct from the five major domains of personality (Law et al., 2004). The SREIS is 19 items long and is based on the four‐branch model, assessing perceiving emotion, using emotion, understanding emotion, managing one's own emotions and managing others’ emotions. The SREIS predicts psychological wellbeing and subjective wellbeing and is similarly relatively distinct from the five major domains of personality (Brackett & Mayer, 2003). Another Australian scale assessing Stream 2 EI is the Genos (Palmer, Stough, Harmer, & Gignac, 2009), which assesses five EI domains—the four constructs from the four‐branch model (emotion perception, emotions facilitate thought, emotion understanding, and emotion management) and the additional concept of emotional control. Recent research using ability tasks is now being undertaken on emotion attentional control, with the suggestion that this should be added to the four‐branch model as an additional capacity (Elfenbein, Jang, Sharma, & Sanchez‐Burks, 2017).

Workgroup emotional intelligence profile

Australian researcher team, Jordan, Ashkanasy, Härtel, and Hooper (2002) developed another Stream 2 scale to measure the EI of teams in the workplace. The WEIP measures awareness and management of one's own and other's emotions within a team context. Jordan and Troth (2004) found the average EI of team members related to team performance in a problem‐solving exercise. Showing that team EI is important for workplace performance is one of the unique insights of Australian EI research and has attracted great interest.

Mixed EI assessments (Stream 3)

The major Stream 3 EI scales are Bar‐On's (1997) Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ‐i) and the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) (Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007). The EQ‐i consists of 15 narrow facets that are grouped into five broad domains (interpersonal, intrapersonal, adaptability, stress management, and general mood). For example, the adaptability domain involves the three facets of problem solving, reality testing, and flexibility. EQ‐i scores have shown strong relationships with personality domains (e.g., r = .72 with neuroticism; Dawda & Hart, 2000), with some authors suggesting that the construct measured by this test might best be conceptualised as a lower‐order trait underlying neuroticism (Matthews, Roberts, & Zeidner, 2004). The TEIQue consists of 16 narrow facets grouped into four broad domains. Like the EQ‐i, the TEIQue shows strong correlations with the five broad domains of personality (particularly extraversion and neuroticism) and may represent an aggregate of the five broad personality domains rather than a distinct emotional ability (van der Linden et al., 2017).

WHAT DOES EI RELATE TO?

Academic performance

EI is positively related to academic performance. An Australian research team (Downey, Mountstephen, Lloyd, Hansen, & Stough, 2008) found that self‐rated EI was positively associated with school grades in a sample of 209 secondary school students (r = .15). Another Australian team Perera and DiGiacomo (2013) have now established this finding using meta‐analysis. In the first large‐scale meta‐analysis of academic achievement and self‐rated EI, they found an EI/performance correlation of r = .20 across 48 studies. This association was stronger at younger ages and for earlier stages of education. Perera and DiGiacomo (2013) posit two reasons for this: (a) educational environments encourage more self‐directed learning in the later years of education and place less emphasis on developing the ability to work collaboratively; and (b) increasing restriction of range of academic ability at higher levels of education (i.e., the university admissions process is based on prior academic achievement, which causes restriction of range on performance).

Australian‐led teams Downey, Johnston, Hansen, Birney and Stough (2010) and MacCann, Fogarty, Zeidner, and Roberts (2011) demonstrated that the way students cope with stress mediates the link between EI and academic outcomes. That is, one of the reasons EI results in higher performance may be that students with high EI are better able to cope with the stress of academic life. Downey et al. (2010) found that self‐ratings of emotion management and emotion control abilities predicted internalising problem behaviours through an indirect pathway—students who rated themselves as low on management and control used more maladaptive coping strategies, which is turn related to greater problem behaviours. MacCann et al. (2011) examined three types of coping: problem‐focused coping (focusing on solving the problem that causes the stress); emotion‐focused coping (focusing on the stressful feelings themselves); and avoidant coping (avoiding the stressor). Ability‐based EI showed positive associations with problem‐focused coping and negative associations with emotion‐focused and avoidant coping. Problem‐focused coping significantly mediated the relationship between emotion management ability and academic performance in two samples (one secondary, one tertiary). These findings have important implications for educational policy and the development of emotional learning interventions. MacCann et al. (2011) argue that coping behaviours are modifiable and that interventions should encourage problem‐focused coping as this may be beneficial for academic performance.

Leadership

A series of early articles by Australian research teams have linked EI with leadership styles and leadership outcomes (Downey, Papageorgiou, & Stough, 2006; Gardner & Stough, 2002). Across the three articles, these authors show that self‐rated EI (based on Stream 2 measures) predicts transformational leadership styles but has inconsistent or non‐significant relationships with other leadership styles (such as laissez‐faire leadership or transactional leadership). While these three studies were subject to common method variance (all variables were measured with self‐ratings of Likert‐type items), they highlight the importance of self‐beliefs about one's abilities in determining leadership styles. A further Australian study addressed these common method bias issues in examining EI and leadership. Rosete and Ciarrochi (2005) found ability EI (MSCEIT scores) significantly predicted supervisor ratings of achieving leadership outcomes (r = .382). This association between ability EI and leadership outcomes remained significant after controlling for executives’ big five personality traits and intelligence scores. This research demonstrates that the link between ability EI and leadership performance is not due to common method variance, nor to the overlap of ability EI with big five personality and intelligence. In a debate about the relevance of EI in leadership, it was an Australian‐led research team Ashkanasy and Dasborough, who insisted on the continuing relevance of EI despite problems with its measurement (Antonakis, Ashkanasy, & Dasborough, 2009).

Relationships

There is ample evidence to show that people with higher EI experience more positive interpersonal relationships. Australian‐led research team Schutte et al. (2001) provided one of the earliest articles on this topic, providing a range of evidence across seven studies. They report that higher EI is associated both with better relationships (e.g., marital satisfaction and close, affectionate relationships) as well as some of the skills involved in maintaining positive relationships (e.g., empathic perspective taking, social skills, cooperative responses towards partners). This article demonstrates the importance of EI for personal life. Later research verified that the effects of EI on more positive relationships also hold for ability EI (Brackett, Warner, & Bosco, 2005; Lopes et al., 2004; Lopes, Salovey, & Straus, 2003; Zeidner & Kaluda, 2008). An Australian team found a similar effect for mixed EI (Smith, Heaven, & Ciarrochi, 2008).

EI is also important for the quality of relationships in the workplace (Jordan & Troth, 2011). Australian team Jordan and Troth (2011) found that an employee's self‐perceived emotional awareness and ability to manage emotions predicts exchanges between leaders and employees of greater perceived quality (Jordan & Troth, 2011). This in turn, appears to lead to greater job satisfaction and lower intention to leave one's workplace. This article emphasises the importance of EI in the workplace because of the influence it has on the quality of workplace interactions.

Health

The first meta‐analysis on EI and health was conducted by an Australian team (Schutte, Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Bhullar, & Rooke, 2007). Across 44 effect sizes, this article reports positive associations of EI with mental health (r = .29), psychosomatic health (r = .31), and physical health (r = .22). Schutte et al. (2007) suggest that the poor psychosocial functioning of low‐EI people may make them more susceptible to psychosomatic symptoms, and that managing emotions (a component of most definitions of EI) may be important for reducing or preventing these symptoms. The strongest associations with health outcomes occurred for mixed EI and the weakest associations for ability EI. However, this may be due to common method variance, as health outcomes in research studies are frequently measured with self‐report rating scales. An earlier article by Australian research team, Ciarrochi, Deane, and Anderson (2002), suggests that EI may interact with other factors to predict mental health outcomes. Self‐ratings of emotion management buffered the effect of stress on suicidal ideation (i.e., the stress/suicidal ideation association was stronger for low than high EI). However, for ability EI (measured only as emotion perception ability in this study) the opposite was true. Rather than buffering the effect of stress, relationships of stress with depression, hopelessness, and suicidal ideation were stronger for those with high emotion perception ability. This study illustrates that high EI is not always beneficial. An inability to see mild expressions of anger or disgust (as would be the case for low EI people) may in fact make life far more pleasant, and be protective in terms of mental health outcomes.

To understand how we can maintain high levels of wellbeing, Australian team Schutte and Malouff (2011) explored whether self‐rated EI mediates the relationship between trait mindfulness and subjective well‐being. They found that practicing mindfulness (frequently attending non‐judgementally to current experience) was associated with greater self‐rated EI. In turn, EI predicted greater life satisfaction and positive affect but less negative affect.

EI in the medical profession

There is current research occurring on EI and burnout in doctors and nurses (e.g., Lewis, Neville, & Ashkanasy, 2017), with longitudinal studies being conducted to examine the ways that EI affects the stress and coping processes in these highly stressful occupations (a collaboration of Sydney and Macquarie University academics). Another Australian research team is looking at the effect of work placements on EI in occupational therapy students (Gribble, Ladyshewsky, & Parsons, 2018). EI has proven important for health, job performance, academic performance, and leadership outcomes. Examining the importance of EI in the medical profession is another important life context where emotional capacities may critically influence important life outcomes.

WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW? CURRENT EFFORTS IN AUSTRALIAN EI RESEARCH

While the outcomes of EI are now relatively clear, the mechanisms by which high EI people achieve those outcomes are not. The most recent stage of EI research is largely focused on uncovering the mechanisms by which high EI confers benefits to those who possess it. Much of this research examines the strategies that emotionally intelligent people use to cope with stress.

EI and coping with task‐induced stress

Australian research team, O'Connor, Nguyen, and Anglim (2017), examined the different strategies that people used to cope with a stressful task (the Tower of Hanoi problem), and found that higher mixed EI was associated with less emotion‐focused coping (which includes components of self‐blame and rumination). They found that emotion‐focused coping significantly mediated the relationship between EI and negative affect. Australian researcher MacCann (2018) and her team are also examining whether ability EI plays a role in the way that people cope with task‐induced stress. In an in‐lab arithmetic stress task (the Montreal Imaging Stress Task; Dedovic et al., 2005), higher ability EI was associated with lower avoidant coping (but was not related to emotion‐focused coping) and was also associated with greater feelings of anger after the stressful task. A similar study is being undertaken with the Trier Social Stress Task (an in‐lab stress paradigm), including the collection of physiological indices of stress such as blood cortisol and heart‐rate variability as indicators of stress (Johnson, Nguyen, MacCann, Fielden, Roy & Ferron, 2018).

EI and day‐to‐day processes

Australian researchers are now using experience sampling to measure coping processes in everyday life, and the effect of EI on these processes. Experience sampling allows individuals to report their experiences in the moment by responding to short surveys, sent to them repeatedly over a period of time (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1987). This method has superior ecological validity to cross‐sectional research involving self‐report rating scales, as it avoids memory biases and allows for more accurate reporting (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1987).

Bucich and MacCann (2019) used experience sampling to measure average levels of five emotion regulation strategies (situation modification, distraction, rumination, reappraisal and social sharing) across 5 days. Emotion regulation strategies are conceptually similar to the coping strategies investigated in the stress and coping literature. However, Gross (1998) sought to identify strategies used to influence a wide range of emotions, not only stress. In this study, ability EI was unrelated to daily emotion regulation processes, but self‐rated EI (Stream 2) was associated with greater social sharing, situation modification, and positive reappraisal over the 5 days. These findings suggest that it is self‐beliefs about emotional abilities (or emotional self‐efficacy), rather than knowledge of effective regulation strategies, that underlies emotion regulation behaviours.

Transactional models of coping and stress highlight the critical role of appraisals in determining the type of coping that is used (e.g., Lazarus, 1999). Given that individual differences in EI correspond to differences in coping strategies, it is possible that the EI/coping association is premised on the different appraisals that high EI people make. Recent Australian research has started to test these propositions. MacCann (2018) found that appraisals of control mediated the relationship between ability EI and task‐focused coping in two experience sampling studies. Those with higher ability EI appraised their day to day situations as more controllable and used more task‐focused coping.

Until very recently, the mechanisms underlying the positive relationship between ability EI and job performance have not been well understood (Joseph & Newman, 2010; O'Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, & Story, 2011). Australian‐led team Minbashian, Beckmann, and Wood (2017) conducted an experience sampling study to explore the way that high EI workers used their emotions to motivate conscientious behaviour in response to high task demands. Their findings suggest that when set a demanding task, emotionally intelligent individuals generate and use affect to help themselves work conscientiously on the task. The authors argue that ability EI affords individuals knowledge of the motivational benefits of affect and how to use it appropriately. They propose that this knowledge is not necessarily drawn on consciously, but that using affect in response to demanding tasks may become automatized with practice. Experience sampling has enabled evidence of a possible mechanism underlying the relationship between EI and job performance. It is hoped that research in the field continue down this path to further elaborate on what leads emotionally intelligent people to success in a range of life domains.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN AUSTRALIAN EI RESEARCH

We suggest that there are two major themes that will guide the future of EI research in Australia and internationally: (a) expanding and revising the major conceptual framework for EI; and (b) examining the emotional processes that underlie EI. We describe these below.

Much of the earlier conceptual work on EI was highly focused on measurement, and the distinction between rating scales and ability tasks. It is now clear that: (a) rating scales and ability tasks assess different concepts, (b) rating scales may assess the emotion‐relevant components of personality; and (c) ability scales assess the emotion‐relevant components of intelligence. Partly because a focus on discriminant validity has dominated the research agenda (showing that self‐rated EI was distinct from the five major domains of personality; and ability EI was distinct from known cognitive abilities), there has been little focus on the conceptual underpinnings of the components of EI. The four‐branch model of EI has been unchanged and unexamined since the 1990s, and there are now calls to expand and revise this theoretical model (Elfenbein & MacCann, 2017).

Australian researchers are examining new constructs that may be added to a revised theoretical model as underlying facets of EI. These include (but are not limited to) emotional creativity, attentional processing of emotional versus non‐emotional information, emotion expression ability, speed of emotional processing and interpersonal emotion management (the ability to manage others emotions). Emotional creativity focuses on the generative processes involved in emotion‐related behaviours (e.g., thinking of multiple solutions for managing an emotional situation), and speed of emotional processing is akin to mental speed but in the content area of emotion. Both these abilities are logically critical for real‐world emotional situations and interactions. Real‐world emotional situations unfold in real time, and require the individual to generate a solution and to do it quickly (e.g., it is not useful to think of the perfect response 10 min after an angry co‐worker has left the room).

Interpersonal emotion regulation is similarly important for real‐world functioning. While many of the rating scale assessments of EI include interpersonal elements (e.g., managing other's emotions), these interpersonal skills are not included in the four‐branch ability model (the dominant conceptual model). This is starkly at odds with the general public's consensus of what EI is, where many people use the term “emotional intelligence” to refer to social skills for getting on with others. There is thus a disconnect between what employers and communities believe emotional intelligence to be (emotional skills dealing with other people such as clients, customers, colleagues, partners, and families) and what academics study (emotional skills relating to oneself). Explicitly including interpersonal elements as part of the conceptual model of EI would bridge this gap, and we believe this will be an important future direction for EI research in Australia and internationally.

The second future direction for EI in Australia is the focus on integrating EI research with research with emotional processes. The best known process model of emotion is Gross’ (1998) process model of emotion regulation. Emotion regulation describes the processes by which people control “which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experience and express them” (Gross, 1998, p. 271). Research shows that some processes are more effective for than others for regulating emotions—rumination is the least effective and perspective taking is the most effective (Brans, Koval, Verduyn, Lim, & Kuppens, 2013; Silk, Steinberg, & Morris, 2003; Webb, Miles, & Sheeran, 2012). While emotion regulation is conceptualised as a set of processes (things that people do), EI is conceptualised as a set of capacities (skills or characteristics that people possess). However, these are likely to be linked—people with a higher capabilities are likely to use different types of processes (presumably the more effective ones). Thus, research linking person‐characteristics (EI) with processes (emotion regulation) is important for understanding how EI benefits those who possess it. Several Australian EI researchers are commencing work on emotion regulation. This research is important as it promises to identify the processes and mechanisms by which EI influences people's emotions, which is critically important information for developing evidence‐based interventions.

While EI may influence both the emotion regulation processes that people engage in, it may also influence other emotion processes. One of the major new areas for EI is thus to examining the way that person characteristics (EI) influence emotions as a process that unfolds over time. These include emotion dynamics (the way that emotions change over time), emotion complexity (the extent to which emotion appraisals and emotions themselves have a complex rather than simple structure within an individual), and mixed emotions (experiencing positive and negative affect at the same time). While past research on EI has focused on measurement and outcome prediction, we believe that future research on EI will focus on the way that EI influences emotional experiences.

CONCLUSION

Australian researchers have made crucial theoretical distinctions between different EI constructs and have importantly increased diversity in EI measurement. More than this, Australian researchers are advancing the field of EI in their investigation of the underlying mechanisms that lead emotionally intelligent individuals to positive life outcomes. It is through such investigation that the practical utility of EI research will develop, providing evidence on which to base interventions to increase EI and the associated positive outcomes.

Notes

1. We thank an anonymous reviewer and the Associate Editor for the suggestion to include this metrics‐based approach.