Page 2 of 2

Forward into the past: Emotional Intelligence turns 30

30 September 2021 / admin / 0 Comments

30 Balloon — Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash

Emotional intelligence (EI) enjoyed its 30^th birthday last year and is fast becoming middle-aged, that is, if we take the writings of Peter Salovey & John (Jack) Mayer (1990) as the starting point for modern research into EI. This anniversary gives us much to reflect on – certainly for me personally, as a researcher who has spent over a decade investigating EI (a third of its life) – but also for those of us interested in psychology more broadly and the study of individual differences.

I began my EI adventure in 2008. At that time EI was everywhere, and it had become a catch-all buzzword for improving society’s ills – take, for example, David Cameron’s infamous speech about emotion and compassion being at the core of understanding the causes of youth crime, which became known as the ‘hug a hoodie’ campaign. Self-help books were springing up regularly, telling us how to be more emotionally smart and how this was the ticket to solving all of our interpersonal problems. This explosion of interest hadn’t escaped the attention of the UK government, who invested significant resources in school-based social and emotional learning programmes in an effort to train EI in young people. But we actually had very little scientific evidence about what EI was, whether training this was possible, and whether this made a tangible difference to young people in terms of academic success and mental wellbeing.

In the academic world, EI was viewed as either representing a collection of specialist skills for perceiving, understanding, and managing emotions in ourselves and others, or as a collection of emotion-related personal qualities and competencies. This seemed to split opinion amongst researchers; some suggested EI was too ill-defined to be meaningful, others argued it was nothing new, and we were just measuring things we already knew a good deal about, like personality or intelligence, and cautioned against falling into the “jingle” or “jangle” fallacy trap. Yet there were others still, who wholeheartedly embraced this as a new form of intelligence that could predict success in all areas of life – here is a detailed summary of the main arguments for those that want to delve more deeply.

As a newly minted PhD researcher, all of this debate and uncertainty meant there was plenty for me to explore. I set about examining the ‘what’, ‘when’, ‘why’, and ‘how’ of EI, starting with finding out whether EI was actually useful for young people who were experiencing a range of different (everyday) stressors, but I found that this wasn’t clear-cut – if we measured EI through self-reports (as emotional self-efficacy), higher levels were useful for maintaining lower levels of symptoms in young people experiencing family dysfunction. But if we measured EI as an ability (or skill set through IQ style testing), very high levels were counter-productive for those young people experiencing socio-economic adversity.

With colleagues, we then went on to find other interesting (and potentially counter-intuitive) things. We confirmed that the way that you measure EI matters because this predicts different ways of coping and engaging with emotion (here and here), but that universally ‘high’ levels of EI may not always be beneficial in all contexts – here is an open access review we wrote on this.

So emotional skills and self-efficacy are different sides of the EI coin, but doubt remains over whether we are actually capturing an ‘intelligence’ and whether this is always a good thing.

Fast forward to 2020, and some of our most recent work has, in a sense, gone forward into the past to try to answer some of these questions. One of the core tenets of EI theory is that emotionally intelligent individuals should be adept at recognising emotional expressions in others to facilitate effective social interactions.

We tested 92 people in the lab, to see whether those with high scores on measures of EI could recognise dynamic emotional expressions at an earlier, more subtle stage of presentation than those with lower scores. Using the Emotion Recognition Task, we showed people a set of video clips of faces morphing from neutral expressions into different emotions, from subtle through to intense levels, and found that: 1) emotional self-efficacy (self-reported EI) was not associated with recognition performance, 2) higher skill in emotional understanding did relate to better performance of emotion cues (subtle through to intense and particularly negative emotion) but that, 3) fluid cognitive ability was a better predictor of performance. In a separate study with young people, we found EI skills did not predict accurate recognition of emotion in voices.

So, this continues to raise questions about whether existing measures of EI are sensitive enough to represent individual differences in socially relevant aspects of emotion recognition, and also the validity of EI as a discrete, and meaningful, individual differences factor.

What can we say about all of this?

Three decades on, and it seems we are still grappling with key questions from the past. Many researchers picked EI up and ‘ran with it’, without us really knowing what makes someone emotionally intelligent, or us being able to measure EI ‘in action’. I don’t doubt that for most researchers, this urgency came from a good place, and a desire to make a difference to people’s lives through intervention. However, a critical eye is needed.

I believe there is room for further high-quality scientific work which could still lead us to make progress with EI measurement. But we will only succeed if we better integrate with the work going on in Emotion sciences more broadly. For instance, the constructed theory of emotion tells us that rather than being ‘triggered’ in situations, our emotional experience arises from brain-based predictions, created from prior experiences that are specific to our culture and upbringing. So, developing rich and informative (early) experiences seems to be pivotal to train our system to learn about, and learn from, socio-emotional interactions. Similarly, this suggests that our current methods of testing EI are way off the mark (e.g., identifying posed emotional expressions; multiple choice questions about effective emotion management strategies, etc). We may find the future lies in technological solutions (such as virtual reality) and we could look to allied fields of study for clues e.g., recent developments in the gamification of cognitive testing. Until we are better able to capture authentic EI ‘in action’ I fear we will continue to chase our tails.

The future

This is far from being just another ‘academic’ debate – emotional intelligence is being readily embraced by companies interested in developing artificial intelligence systems for reading emotions in humans, which has far-reaching implications for us all…just how reliable are facial movements for judging how someone is actually feeling? What are the implications of using emotion AI for decision-making (e.g., screening for criminal intent; an angry student at school; suitability of a job applicant)? As we surge further ahead into the technological epoch, this it is something we should all care about.

Dr Sarah Davis

Sarah is a Senior Lecturer in Psychology & the Interpersonal Relationships & Wellbeing Research Group Lead. She is currently writing a new critical primer on EI for Oxford University Press with Dr Bérénice Mahoney.

The Vital Role of Bystander Intervention in Tackling Violence & Abuse

30 September 2021 / admin / 1 Comment

On the 28^th March 1960, a fire tore across the Cheapside whiskey bond in Glasgow, causing the walls of the building to explode outwards onto the police and firefighters below. As everyone fled, a young policeman, William Gribben, spotted a firefighter buried up to his chest in the rubble and calling for help. In that moment Gribben’s first instinct must have been to turn and run – that would certainly have been the safer course of action – but instead he chose to stop and free the injured firefighter from the rubble, dragging him to safety just moments before flames engulfed the area. Ultimately, 19 firefighters lost their lives at Cheapside Street that night, but alongside that enormous loss, we can also remember the actions of William Gribben. He could have run away and not got involved, but he chose to stop and help. He chose to be an active bystander, and in doing so he saved the life of Firefighter Charles Biggerstaff, my grandfather. Despite more than 60 years passing since that night, active bystanders continue to play a vital role in our society, and in recent years, have proven to play a particularly valuable part in tackling violence and abuse.

What is a bystander?

A bystander is someone who sees a situation but isn’t actually involved in it. They’re simply a witness, someone who happens to be there. The very nature of being a bystander means that you don’t have to get involved at all. You can choose to walk away from a problematic situation with no repercussions for you. Or you could take the second option – decide that you’re going to get involved and be an active bystander. Active bystanders are a particularly valuable resource in the fight against violence and abuse. By noticing what’s happening around them and speaking out when they see problematic behaviour, active bystanders can send a clear message that violence and abuse will not be tolerated or overlooked. At Stanford University in 2015, two cyclists famously noticed a male acting suspiciously in an alley and went to investigate. Their actions interrupted Brock Turner’s attempt to rape his victim, and ultimately led to him being caught and prosecuted. These two cyclists could just have carried on with their bike ride that night. They didn’t have to stop – after all, they were just bystanders and the problematic behaviour wasn’t affecting them. But like William Gribben, they chose to stop and get involved. We continue to hear stories in the media of active bystanders who have spotted a potential problem and intervened, from the waitress in Orlando who recognised that a child may be in danger and slipped him a note asking if he needed help, to the woman walking home in London who spotted a situation that just ‘didn’t look right’ and by intervening, she prevented a child from being abducted or the bartender who recognised that a customer was being harassed and chose to do something.

What does ‘getting involved’ actually involve?

There’s a common misconception that being an active bystander means running headfirst into problematic situations and taking direct action. This can put lots of people off, especially if they don’t feel comfortable with confrontation. However, there are lots of ways to be an active bystander without ever having to directly confront someone. Yes, an active bystander will take action when they encounter problematic behavior, but that action can take lots of different forms, depending on the situation or what they feel comfortable doing. It might mean stepping outside and calling the police, creating a distraction, texting someone to see if they’re okay, or not laughing when someone tells a misogynistic joke. It can also mean noticing when a friend has bruises on their arm, offering to go to the police with them to make a report, or staying with them while they call a domestic violence helpline. Being an active bystander can be all of these things and much more. It’s about noticing when there’s potentially a problem and choosing to do SOMETHING.

The UW Bystander Intervention Programme

The University of Worcester’s Bystander Intervention programme has been running since 2016. The programme is aimed at training UW students to recognise problematic situations related to violence and abuse, and to feel confident and able to intervene. The programme takes eight hours and covers bystander theory, gender, domestic violence, sexual violence, as consent as well as developing strategies to intervene in a safe and effective way. Victim blaming myths are discussed and dispelled, and students are trained in how to best respond to someone making a disclosure. Students are taught how to spot potentially problematic behaviours, and do something to help, from supporting victims to make a report to having a conversation with a friend whose behaviour they are uncomfortable with. By offering this programme to all UW students, we aim to develop a safe a positive campus community where there is a clear message that violence and abuse will not be tolerated.

A two-year evaluation was carried out to determine the effectiveness of the UW Bystander Intervention Programme (Harrop & Taylor-Dunn, 2021). 123 students completed pre- and post-training questionnaires to measure their attitudes towards violence and abuse, and their confidence and willingness to intervene in problematic situations before and after the training. Results showed that after completing the programme, participants had a significant reduction in both hostile and benevolent sexism. There was also a significant reduction in the agreement with rape myths across four key areas (‘she asked for it’, he didn’t mean to’, ‘it wasn’t really rape’ and ‘she lied’). Participants reported that they were significantly more likely to intervene in problematic situations post-programme and had significantly reduced agreement with problematic statements. Participants also experienced a significant reduction in pluralistic ignorance post-programme, meaning that they were less likely to think that their peers condoned violence and abuse. This is an important finding as people are often more likely to intervene if they believe that the people around them will agree that there’s a problem and support their intervention.

It is extremely encouraging to see the positive impact that the UW Bystander Intervention programme has already. The programme will continue to run in the 2021-22 academic year, and there are lots of exciting developments in progress, including creating a shortened version of the programme for high school pupils and work on the role of bystander intervention in gaming. A comparison of the effectiveness of online vs face-to-face delivery of the programme will also be released later in 2021.

If you would like to hear more about the UW Bystander Programme, please feel free to contact Gill g.harrop@worc.ac.uk. You can also watch a webinar recorded earlier this year where Gill discusses the programme in more detail and her evaluation:

Dr Gillian Harrop

Gill is a senior lecturer in forensic psychology. She came to the University of Worcester from the University of Lincoln, and previously taught on both the MSc in Forensic Psychology at Liverpool University, and the BSc in Psychology at the University of East London. Prior to this, she worked for Lincolnshire Police as an Intelligence Analyst in the Force Intelligence Bureau and Major Crime Unit.

Keen to be Seen to be Green

30 September 2021 / admin / 0 Comments

As we look to our and our children’s futures, one concern that looms over us is the damage continuing to be done to our environment, but to the most part our societies are united in wanting to fix the world we live in. As a result we are encouraged and motivated to engage in Pro-Environmental Behaviours (PEB) in every aspect of our lives, such as by reducing waste and recycling, making environmentally friendly product choices, minimizing our carbon footprints and making sustainable lifestyle choices when it comes to our diets. Anyone who has paid the slightest bit of attention will know quite clearly what they need to do.

However, too often, we don’t do these things. Why not?

This is why I think the question of how we can protect our environment is best dealt with by a psychological answer, but this answer will no doubt be a complicated one with many aspects to it. Fortunately this is something psychology has begun conducting a great deal of research into revealing this answer one layer at a time. These layers include understanding the role of personality differences (e.g. why do some people engage more in PEB than others?), how people understand their own roles in helping the planet, and the process by which people make important decisions around PEB.

Recycling and Mate Choice

My particular interest is how social influence can affect people’s motivations to engage in PEB’s. This is because my background is in evolutionary approaches to psychology, in particular I am interested in why people incur the costs to help others (e.g. altruistic behaviour) and I’ve explored how being altruistic can be valuable in mate choice, as it is a desirable trait in long term partners for men and women. This is because it acts as a reliable signal of that partner’s abilities and characteristics that will make them bot a good partner and parent – vital traits in humans who benefit from having investment from both parents in raising any children.

As part of this research, I am interested in how different forms of prosocial behaviour play a role in mate choice (e.g. kindness, charity, heroism, trustworthiness), and PEB is one particular application of prosocial behaviour that I wanted to explore. This is because PEB’s are costly to perform (e.g. sorting out recycling, purchasing organic produce) but they do benefit others. That’s what led to me and my colleague Manpal Bhogal to conduct research recently published in Personality and Individual Differences that explore whether people who display PEB are more desirable partners (experiment 1) and if people report engaging in more PEB in the presence of potential partners (experiment 2). Both of the experiments we conducted took place online, and were mainly psychology students and other members of the public.

For experiment 1, participants were presented with a series of descriptions of members of the opposite sex that varied in how pro-environmental they were, with either them being described as high (e.g. “Person A always sorts through their household/everyday waste so that it can be recycled and re-used (metal, plastic, cardboard etc). Even though it is time consuming, they believe it is a useful thing to do”) or low (e.g. “When buying drinks, Person B always buys disposable coffee cups, and bottles of water which they do not re-use. (Low pro-environmental behaviour.”)

They then rated each on how desirable they would be for either a short-term relationship (e.g. brief affair, one-night stand) or long-term relationship (e.g. a committed long-term romantic relationship). We found that both men and women found individuals high in pro-environmentalism to be more desirable overall, and this effect was mainly for long-term relationships (i.e. individuals high in pro-environmentalism were highly desired for long-term relationships

In experiment 2, participants were presented with hypothetical scenarios where they were asked by a researcher about their pro-environmental behaviour (e.g. how much they recycle, use reusable coffee cups/water bottles, purchase environmentally-friendly products). Each time participants were shown a picture of the hypothetical ‘researcher’ which was either a highly attractive member of the opposite sex or the same sex (we used images that had previously been rated for physical attractiveness).

We found that both men and women reported engaging in more pro-environmental behaviour when the researcher ‘asking’ them was an attractive member of the opposite sex than when asked by an attractive member of the same sex.

These results show that as with other forms of prosocial behaviours such as altruism and heroism, pro-environmentalism can act as a signal to others of important characteristics that an environmentally-friendly individual possesses. These characteristics are viewed in a positive light, and in particular here can signal characteristics (such as kindness, potential to be a good partner and parent) we find important in relationships, in particular more longer term, committed ones.

As such, it can help guide how we think about how to promote PEB, by not just highlighting its value directly from helping the planet but also indirectly by how it can enhance our reputation. This is important I think, because the direct benefits of pro-environmentalism are difficult to observe, quantify or comprehend. For example, how can you see an individual decision to reduce one’s carbon footprint by changes such as using energy-efficient lightbulbs in global figures around climate change? The answer is you clearly cannot, which is a key reason why we don’t engage in sustainable behaviours – there’s no direct benefit that can be observed. This is why findings such as this where we can show that there are clear and immediate indirect benefits to being green (in this case, increased desirability as a romantic partner) are helpful, as they can be used to promote and shape these positive behaviours overall.

Another key reason for this is the fact that it is costly to engage in, which seems counterintuitive but shows that an environmentally-friendly person is willing to incur the costs (in terms of time, effort and/or money) to take part in these behaviours (e.g. sorting through their rubbish for recycling, spending more money on greener products, eating a more sustainable diet). By doing so, they make honest displays of their prosocial character, and others recognise and value this. In fact there is evidence that environmentally-friendly products are often considered ugly, but that ugliness acts as a reliable signal of its green credentials and thus making it more desirable!

Finally, it’s important now to follow up this research by looking at actual PEB to see if the mating motivations we found do translate to real world behaviour. This then will highlight how important psychological research and interventions can be in shaping positive behaviours in the world around us, and how psychology in general can make a difference.

Dr Daniel Farrelly

Daniel is a Principal lecturer in psychology. He obtained his BSc (hons) in psychology from Liverpool University in 1999, followed by an MSc in evolutionary psychology from Liverpool University in 2000. He gained his PhD in Psychology, studying the evolution of human cooperation, from Newcastle University in 2005.

Interpersonal Relationships and Wellbeing Research Group