Stability and Change in Emotional Intelligence: Exploring the Transition to Young Adulthood (original) (raw)

Stability and Change in Emotional Intelligence: Exploring the Transition to Young Adulthood

James D.A. Parker 1{ }^{1}, Donald H. Saklofske 2{ }^{2}, Laura M. Wood 1{ }^{1}, Jennifer M. Eastabrook 1{ }^{1}, and Robyn N. Taylor 1{ }^{1}
1{ }^{1} Emotion and Health Research Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Trent University, Peterborough, Canada
2{ }^{2} Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education, University of Saskatchewan, Canada

Abstract

The concept of emotional intelligence (EI) has attracted growing interest from researchers working in various fields. The present study examined the long-term stability ( 32 months) of EI-related abilities over the course of a major life transition (the transition from high school to university). During the first week of full-time study, a large group of undergraduates completed the EQ-i:Short; 32 months later a random subset of these students (N=238)(N=238), who had started their postsecondary education within 24 months of graduating from high school, completed the measures for a second time. The study found EI scores to be relatively stable over the 32 -month time period. EI scores were also found to be significantly higher at Time 2; the overall pattern of change in EI-levels was more than can be attributed to the increased age of the participants.

Keywords: emotional intelligence, life-transition, postsecondary education

The publication of Goleman’s book on “emotional intelligence” (EI; Goleman, 1995) in the mid-1990s created considerable popular interest in the construct. One idea that also emerged from the publicity around this book was the idea that EI contributes to academic success in various educational contexts (Elias, Bruene-Butler, Blum, & Schuyler, 1997; Pasi, 1997). A variety of “new” intervention programs quickly appeared for promoting or improving EI-related abilities (e.g., Bodine & Crawford, 1999; Freedman, Jensen, Rideout, & Freedman, 1998; Lewkowicz, 1998; Schilling & Palomares, 1996, 1999). Unfortunately, as other writers have pointed out (Matthews, Roberts, & Zeidner, 2003; Mayer & Cobb, 2000; Zeidner, Roberts, & Matthews, 2002), there is little empirical information available to indicate that interventions for “teaching” EI actually work.

The lack of psychometrically appropriate assessment tools for EI obviously contributed to the lack of relevant empirical work on interventions linked with the construct (Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2001). Since the late 1990s several new measures have appeared that assess various aspects of the EI construct. Although these EI measures use conceptual models that share an over-
lapping set of emotional and social competencies (Parker, Taylor, & Bagby, 2001), test developers have typically used two distinct measurement approaches (Petrides, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004). The first approach takes a cognitive view of EI, which suggests that its measurement should conform to ability models. Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey (1999), for example, developed an ability-based measure of EI that asks respondents to solve a variety of different emotion-related problems (Multi-Factor Emotional Intelligence Scale; MEIS). Proponents of ability-based assessment tools for EI contend that these measures are more objective than self-report strategies (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2000). Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2002) have since revised the MEIS (now called the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test; MSCEIT) and started the task of modifying the instrument for use with adolescents (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, in press). The MSCEIT was created using an EI model (Mayer et al., 2000) that identifies four core abilities: the ability to perceive, appraise, and express emotion; the ability to understand and utilize emotional knowledge; the ability to use emotions to facilitate thinking and behavior; and the ability to regulate emotions.

Test developers like Bar-On (1997,2000)(1997,2000), on the other hand, take a second approach that suggests that EI is primarily a dispositional construct (i.e., representing a cross-section of cognitive, personality, motivational, and affective attributes) that can be assessed using a self-report format. Bar-On (1997,2000)(1997,2000) has proposed a fourfactor model for EI that has considerable overlap with the model developed by Mayer et al. (2000, 2002): Intrapersonal, consisting of related abilities like recognizing and labeling one’s feelings; Interpersonal, consisting of abilities such as identifying emotions in others or empathy; Adaptability, consisting of abilities such as being able to adjust one’s emotions and behaviors to changing situations; and Stress management, consisting of various affect-regulating abilities. This four-factor model was used to help guide the development of the BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997) - a selfreport instrument that assesses the four EI dimensions associated with the model.

As new measures have begun to appear, so too has empirical support for the idea that EI is associated with academic achievement, as long as special care is taken in the way these variables are operationalized (Parker, Summerfeldt, Hogan, & Majeski, 2004). For example, Newsome, Day, and Catano (2000) found no association between EI and postsecondary academic achievement when the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) was used to assess EI. However, these authors compromised the interpretability of their data by combining full- and part-time students, young adults and mature students, and students in different years of study (e.g., first-year students vs. students about to graduate). Full- and part-time students face unique challenges and stressors while coping with their academic careers, as do students at different stages of their postsecondary programs (Gall, Evans, & Bellerose, 2000). Since EI-levels appear to increase from early adulthood to middle age (Bar-On, 1997), combining students recently graduated from high school with older students is a serious confound in the study of EI and academic success.

In a longitudinal study examining the transition from high school to university in a very homogeneous sample, Parker et al. (2004) found that various EI dimensions were good predictors of academic success in full-time undergraduates (who had all graduated from high school within 24 months of the start of their undergraduate program). At the start of the academic year, a large sample of first-year full-time students completed the short form of the EQ-i:Short (Bar-On, 2002). At the end of the academic year the EI data were matched with the academic records. Consistent with expectations, successful students (first-year Grade Point Average [GPA] of 80%80 \% or better) scored higher than less successful students (GPA of 59%59 \% or lower) on several EI dimensions. These find-
ings have since been replicated using first-year student samples from a diverse range of postsecondary institutions (Parker, Duffy, Wood, Bond, & Hogan, in press) as well as in high-school students (Parker, Creque, Barnhart, Harris, Majeski, Wood, Bond, & Hogan, 2004).

One limitation of the Parker et al. (2004) study is that academic success was assessed for only a single academic year. It is unclear whether EI-levels assessed at the beginning of the first year will continue to predict academic performance in subsequent years. Individuals who have developed EI measures (like the EQ-i and MSCEIT) have been somewhat vague about the longterm stability of the constructs assessed by their instruments (Bar-On, 1997, 2000; Mayer et al., 2000, 2002). To date, the temporal stability of these measures has been explored over just a few weeks or months. Although this stability is reported to be quite high, the test developers also report empirical evidence from their normative data that EI scores increase with age. This information is subsequently used to support the idea that EI develops over time and is likely improved through training and remedial programs (Bar-On, 1997; Mayer et al., 2002).

When studying the long-term impact of EI on academic achievement, however, the overall stability of the construct becomes an important consideration. Whether implicit or explicit, most postsecondary institutions strive to foster and develop in their students a variety of interpersonal and intrapersonal skills (Berger & Milem, 1999; Tinto, 1993). If universities fulfill this goal, one would expect EI-levels to change for the better over the course of a student’s postsecondary career. Students who persevere in a postsecondary program are likely to have higher levels of EI at the end of their program when compared to levels at the start of their program.

The present study sought to explore several issues surrounding the stability of the EI construct during a major life-transition (the transition from high school to university). This transition is a particularly stressful situation for most young adults (Gall et al., 2000; Kanoy & Bruhn, 1996; McLaughlin, Brozovsky, & McLaughlin, 1998; Perry, Hladkyj, Pekrun, & Pelletier, 2001; Ross, Niebling, & Heckert, 1999). Students face a variety of stressors while making this transition: modifying existing relationships with family and friends, making new relationships, and learning study habits for a new academic environment. They must also learn to function as independent adults (e.g., budgeting money as well as time). The failure to master these types of tasks and challenges are the most common reasons reported by postsecondary students for withdrawing from their institutions (Blanc, DeBuhr, & Martin, 1983; Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994). An important indicator of the stress of this transition is the common observation in North America that the majority of high-school students who go on to postsecond-

ary institutions withdraw before graduation (Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994; Pancer, Hunsberger, Pratt, & Alisat, 2000).

The first goal of the present study was to examine the long-term stability of EI-related abilities over several years - something that has yet to be reported in the literature. A second goal was to examine the impact of a major life-transition (the transition from high school to university) on EI-levels.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 238 young adults ( 47 men and 191 women) attending a small Ontario university. All of the students had graduated from high school within the previous 2 years before enrolling for their first year of study at the particular university; all had started the term registered as full-time students. The mean age of participants was 19.17 years (SD=0.65)(S D=0.65) at the start of the study (Note: At the time the study was conducted Ontario students could graduate from high school after Grade 12 or Grade 13). Most of the participants ( 93%93 \% ) identified themselves as white, 1%1 \% as black, 2%2 \% as Asian, 1%1 \% as Native American, and 3% did not indicate their race. This sample is part of a larger set of data collected at the same university with incoming first year students: September 2000(N=870)2000(N=870) and September 2001(N=944)2001(N=944). The proportion of men and women in the sample ( 20%20 \% vs. 80%80 \% ) is representative of students remaining at the institution at the end of their third year of study.

Measures

The 51-item EQ-i:Short (Bar-On, 2002) includes a 10item Intrapersonal subscale, a 10-item Interpersonal subscale, a 10-item Stress management subscale, a 7-item Adaptability subscale, and a total EI scale (the sum of the four subscales). A high score on any individual ability subscale (or the total EQ-i score) reflects a high level of social and emotional competency (Bar-On, 2002). Using data collected at Time 1, internal reliability coefficients for the various scales were all adequate: Interpersonal == 0.74 , Intrapersonal =0.84=0.84, Adaptability =0.82=0.82, Stress management =0.84=0.84, and total EI=0.88\mathrm{EI}=0.88. The scales on the short form (EQ-i:Short) correlate highly with their corresponding measures on the long form. Bar-On (2002) reports correlations between long and short versions of the scales and subscales ranging from 0.73 to 0.96 for men (n=1543)(n=1543) and from 0.75 to 0.97 for women (n=1631)(n=1631). Bar-On (2002) also presents preliminary construct validity data to suggest that the instrument assesses four moderately intercorrelated EI dimensions as well as dimensions that are relatively distinct from basic personality dimensions. A number of researchers have expressed concerns about possible overlap between basic personality and EI dimensions, especially when selfreport measures are used to assess EI (Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998; Roberts, Zeidner, & Matthews, 2001). Parker, Hogan, Majeski, and Bond (2005) have examined the overlap between the five personality dimensions assessed by the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992) and the EQ-i:Short in a sample of adults. In a series of multiple regression analyses Parker et al. (2005) found evidence that these personality dimensions account for relatively modest amounts of variability in EQ-i:Short scores: R2R^{2} was 0.19 for the Interpersonal scale, 0.29 for Intrapersonal, 0.16 for Adaptability, and 0.28 for Stress management.

Procedure

All of the participants were recruited during the “introductory week” at the university and asked to participate in a study on “personality and academic success” ( N=N= 870 in 2000 and 944 in 2001). Students completed the EQ-i:Short while working in small groups. Approximately 32 months later 200 students from each cohort (who were still enrolled at the university) were contacted at random by e-mail and asked to volunteer for a followup study on “personality and academic success.” This is a particularly important time for the students; the vast majority will have completed requirements for a 3-year general degree (approximately 60%60 \% of the students will return to the university in September to complete requirements for a 4-year honors degree). The 127 students from the 2000 cohort and the 111 students from the 2001 cohort who came forward completed the EQ-i:Short for a second time while working in small groups. There were no significant differences in Time 1 EQ-i:Short scores between the students who completed the instrument twice and the students who did not (p>.05)(p>.05); there were also no significant differences between EQ-i: Short scores (Time 1 or Time 2) for students from the two cohorts who participated in the present study.

Statistical Procedure

To explore the hypothesis that EI-levels increased during the 32 -month period, a time by gender by type of EI dimension (Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Adaptability, and Stress management) ANOVA was conducted with overall ability as the dependent variable. Previous re-

search with the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997, 2002) has reported that EI-levels increase with age. Therefore, one of the problems with interpreting the results from the first ANOVA will be determining whether improved EI-levels are related to 3 years of postsecondary education or the result of increased age. In the absence of an obvious control group, the normative data for the EQ-i:Short (Bar-On, 2002) provides an appropriate source for estimating the impact of age on EI scores. Based on data from the 1,209 cases in the youngest normative age group (under 30 years of age), Stein and Parker (1999) calculated the following coefficient of determination values (R2)\left(R^{2}\right) for the relationship between EI and age: Interpersonal =0.013=0.013, Intrapersonal =0.022=0.022, Adaptability 0.034 , Stress management =0.007=0.007, and total EI=0.040\mathrm{EI}=0.040.

Results

Table 1 presents 32-month test-retest correlations for the EQ-i:Short scales (for the total sample as well as separately for men and women). Overall, the test-retest correlation for the total EI scale was moderate ( r=0.56r=0.56 in the total sample). For the subscales, however, correlations ranged from moderate ( r=0.43r=0.43 in the total sample for Adaptability) to high ( r=0.75r=0.75 in the total sample for Stress management).

Table 2 presents means and standard deviations for the various EQ-i:Short scales at both testing sessions (for the total sample as well as separately for men and women). To examine the data for possible changes in mean EI scores over the 3 year period, a time by gender by type

Table 1. Test-retest correlations (32 months).

Note: N=238N=238, males =47=47, females =191,∗p<.05=191, * p<.05
of EI dimension (Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Adaptability, and Stress management) ANOVA was conducted with overall ability as the dependent variable. The main effect for type of EI dimension was significant, F(3,708)=103.47,p<.001,η2=0.305F(3,708)=103.47, p<.001, \eta^{2}=0.305; separate univariate analyses revealed that all dimensions were significantly different from each other except adaptability and stress management. The main effect for time was also significant, F(1,236)=146.90,p<.001,η2=0.384F(1,236)=146.90, p<.001, \eta^{2}=0.384, revealing that the sample’s overall EI level increased during the 32-month period. Separate univariate analyses revealed that Interpersonal scores were not significantly different, F(1,236)=2.01,p=.157,η2=0.008F(1,236)=2.01, p=.157, \eta^{2}=0.008. However, Time 2 scores were significantly higher on the Intrapersonal: F(1,236)=20.98,p<.001,η2=0.082F(1,236)=20.98, p<.001, \eta^{2}=0.082; Adaptability: F(1,236)=216.25,p<.001,η2=0.478F(1,236)=216.25, p<.001, \eta^{2}=0.478; and the Stress management scales: F(1,236)=89.73,p<.001F(1,236)=89.73, p<.001, η2=0.275\eta^{2}=0.275. Not surprisingly, given this pattern of mean differences, the interaction of time and type was significant, F(3,708)=55.60,p<.001,η2=0.200F(3,708)=55.60, p<.001, \eta^{2}=0.200. The time by gender interaction, the type by gender interaction, and the 3-way interaction were not significant.

To better understand the magnitude of the change in EI scores between Time 1 and Time 2 a series of chisquare analyses were conducted to compare the coefficient of determination coefficients (η2)\left(\eta^{2}\right) for the effects of time (Interpersonal =0.008=0.008, Intrapersonal =0.082=0.082, Adaptability =0.478=0.478, Stress management =0.275=0.275, and total EI=0.384\mathrm{EI}=0.384 ) with the coefficients for the effects of age provided by Stein and Parker (1999; Interpersonal = 0.013 , Intrapersonal =0.022=0.022, Adaptability =0.034=0.034, Stress management =0.007=0.007, and total EI=0.040\mathrm{EI}=0.040 ). The coefficients for Intrapersonal, Adaptability, Stress management, and total EI were all significantly different ( p<p< .05).

Discussion

The present study found EQ-i:Short scores to be relatively stable over 32 months, although test-retest correlations were lower than previously reported using shorter

Table 2. Means and standard deviations for the EQ-i:Short scales.

Note: N=238N=238, males =47=47, females =191=191.

time periods. Bar-On (1997) reported that 1-month testretest correlations for the EQ-i scales averaged 0.85 in a sample of 44 respondents; the mean dropped to 0.75 for 4-month test-retest correlations in a smaller sample of 27 respondents. Six-month test-retest correlations for the EQ-i:Short scales (Bar-On, 2002) were slightly lower in a sample of 352 undergraduates (correlations averaged 0.68 for males and 0.70 for females). The test-retest correlations in the present study were only slightly lower, at levels quite consistent with test-retest correlations reported for basic personality variables over similar time periods (e.g., NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992).

Mean scores on all but one of the EQ-i:Short scales (Interpersonal abilities) increased significantly from Time 1 to Time 2. Previous research with the EQ-i and EQ-i:Short (Bar-On, 1997, 2002) has reported that EIlevels increased with advanced age. Therefore, one of the problems in interpreting the change in EI-levels in the present sample is determining if the improvement is related to the increased age of the sample or situational factors (navigating through 3 years of postsecondary study). To help interpret the present data, comparisons were made between the effects of age and the effects of time of assessment (beginning or end of an undergraduate education) on EQ-i:Short scores. The overall pattern of results suggests that the improvement in EI-levels in the present study was more than can be attributed to increased age.

Without more data it is difficult to understand the lack of a time-effect for the Interpersonal dimension. It should be noted, however, that previous research using respondents from the same postsecondary institution found the Interpersonal scale to be the only EQ-i:Short scale that did not predict first-year GPA (Parker et al., 2004) or retention (Parker, et al., 2005) in students making the transition from high school to university. Thus, it is possible that the type of emotional and social competency assessed by the Interpersonal scale may be less relevant to a postsecondary environment. It is also possible, however, that the small, primarily liberal arts university used in the present study attracts students with above average levels of interpersonal ability. Respondents were significantly higher on the Interpersonal scale than any other EI dimension at both testing sessions.

Test developers for the more widely available EI measures have all reported that EI-levels in their normative samples increase with age (Bar-On, 1997, 2002; Mayer et al., 1999, 2002). The presence of age effects has been identified, in fact, as an important requirement in the validation of assessment tools for the EI construct (Mayer et al., 2000). Unfortunately, given the cross-sectional nature of most normative data, we know very little about the factors responsible for this general trend.

It is unclear, for example, whether the documented change in EI is part of a gradual maturational process that occurs in most adults, or a statistical artifact of collapsing data from various cohorts at different stages of important life-transitions. The results of the present study indicate that a common life-transition (moving from high school to university) has the capability to change several different EI-related abilities in a positive direction. This finding is consist with an emerging body of work documenting the noncognitive benefits of a postsecondary education (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Future research should examine the impact of other important life-transitions (e.g., becoming a parent for the first time, death of a spouse or other family member, sudden unemployment, etc.) on EI.

The present study also needs to be extended by including a “true” longitudinal comparison group (e.g., young adults who do not go on to college or university or students who drop out of university during their first year but are followed over several years). The study also needs to be replicated with individuals with more diverse ethnic and sociodemographic backgrounds (the current sample was predominately white) and include a larger proportion of males to allow for separate analyses by gender. It would also be useful to examine the relationship between EI and choice of major or program of study. Petrides et al. (2004), for example, found that EI was differentially associated with success in different educational subjects (e.g., EI was better for predicting success in English than for Math or Science courses).

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by research grants to the first author from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), the Ontario Government’s Premier’s Research Excellence Award program, and the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI), as well as an Ontario Graduate Scholarship (OGS) to the third author. The authors would like to thank Barbara Bond, Terri Collin, Cheryl Foster, Marjorie Hogan, Sarah Majeski, and Amber Oke for their help with collecting the data used in this study.

References

Bar-On, R. (1997). BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory: Technical manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i). In R. Bar-On & J.D.A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 363-388). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bar-On, R. (2002). BarOn Emotional Quotient Short Form (EQi:Short): Technical manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Berger, J.B., & Milem, J.F. (1999). The role of student involvement and perceptions of integration in a causal model of student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 40, 641-664.
Blanc, R., DeBuhr, L., & Martin, D. (1983). Breaking the attrition cycle: The effects of supplemental instruction on undergraduate performance and attrition. Journal of Higher Education, 54, 80-90.
Bodine, R.J., & Crawford, D.K. (1999). Developing emotional intelligence: A guide to behavior management and conflict resolution in schools. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEOFFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R.D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 989-1015.
Elias, M.J., Bruene-Butler, L., Blum, L., & Schuyler, T. (1997). How to launch a social and emotional learning program. Educational Leadership, 54, 15-19.
Freedman, J.M., Jensen, A.L., Rideout, M.C., & Freedman, P.E. (1998). Handle with care: Emotional intelligence activity book. San Mateo, CA: Six Seconds.
Gall, T.L., Evans, D.R., & Bellerose, S. (2000). Transition to firstyear university: Patterns of change in adjustment across life domains and time. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 544-567.
Gerdes, H., & Mallinckrodt, B. (1994). Emotional, social, and academic adjustment of college students: A longitudinal study of retention. Journal of Counseling & Development, 72, 281-288.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Lewkowicz, A.B. (1998). Teaching emotional intelligence. Arlington Heights, IL: SkyLight Training and Publishing.
Kanoy, K.W., & Bruhn, J.W. (1996). Effects of a first-year living and learning residence hall on retention and academic performance. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience & Students in Transition, 8, 7-23.
Matthews, G., Roberts, R.D., & Zeidner, M. (2003). Development of emotional intelligence: A skeptical - but not dismissive perspective. Human Development, 46, 109-114.
Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets standards for a traditional intelligence. Intelligence, 27, 267-298.
Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R., & Salovey, P. (2000). Selecting a measure of emotional intelligence: The case for ability scales. In R. Bar-On & J.D.A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 320-342). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mayer, J.D., & Cobb, C.D. (2000). Educational policy on emotional intelligence: Does it make sense? Educational Psychology Review, 12, 163-183.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D.R. (2002). Mayer-Salo-vey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) user’s manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D.R. (in press). Mayer-Salo-
vey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test: Youth version. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
McLaughlin, G.W., Brozovsky, P.V., & McLaughlin, J.S. (1998). Changing perspectives on student retention: A role for institutional research. Research in Higher Education, 39, 1-17.
Newsome, S., Day, A.L., & Catano, V.M. (2000). Assessing the predictive validity of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1005-1016.
Pancer, S.M., Hunsberger, B., Pratt, M.W., & Alisat, S. (2000). Cognitive complexity of expectations and adjustment to university in the first year. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 38-57.
Parker, J.D.A., Creque, R.E., Barnhart, D.L., Harris, J., Majeski, S.A., Wood, L.M., Bond, B.J., & Hogan, M.J. (2004). Academic achievement in high school: Does emotional intelligence matter? Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1321−13301321-1330.
Parker. J.D.A., Duffy, J., Wood, L.M., Bond, B.J., & Hogan, M.J. (in press). Academic achievement and emotional intelligence: Predicting the successful transition from high school to university. Journal of the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Parker, J.D.A., Hogan, M., Majeski, S.A., & Bond, B. (2005). Assessing emotional intelligence: Reliability and validity of the short form for the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i:Short). Manuscript submitted for publication.
Parker, J.D.A., Summerfeldt, L.J., Hogan, M.J., & Majeski, S. (2004). Emotional intelligence and academic success: Examining the transition from high school to university. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 163-172.
Parker, J.D.A., Taylor, G.J., & Bagby, R.M. (2001). The relationship between emotional intelligence and alexithymia. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 107-115.
Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. New York: Wiley.
Pasi, R.J. (1997) Success in high school and beyond. Educational Leadership, 54, 40-42.
Perry, R.P., Hladkyj, S., Pekrun, R.H., & Pelletier, S.T. (2001). Academic control and action control in the achievement of college students: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 776-789.
Petrides, K.V., Frederickson, N., & Furnham, A. (2004). The role of trait emotional intelligence in academic performance and deviant behavior at school. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 277-293.
Roberts, R.D., Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2001). Does emotional intelligence meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions. Emotion, 1, 196-231.
Ross, S.E., Niebling, B.C., & Heckert, T.M. (1999). Sources of stress among college students. College Student Journal, 32, 312−317312-317.
Schilling, D., & Palomares, S. (1996). 50 activities for teaching emotional intelligence: Level 1, grades 1-5 elementary school. Torrance, CA: Innerchoice Publishing.
Schilling, D., & Palomares, S. (1999). 50 activities for teaching emotional intelligence: Level 3, grades 9-12 high school. Torrance, CA: Innerchoice Publishing.
Stein, S., & Parker, J.D.A. (1999). Assessment of emotional intel-

ligence in children and adolescents. Workshop presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, Las Vegas, Nevada, April,1999.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R.D. (2001). Slow down, you move too fast: Emotional intelligence remains an “elusive” intelligence. Emotion, 1, 265-275.
Zeidner, M., Roberts, R.D., & Matthews, G. (2002). Can emotional intelligence be schooled? A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 37, 215-231.

Address for correspondence:

James D.A. Parker
Department of Psychology
Trent University
Peterborough, Ontario
Canada, K9J 7B8
Tel. +1705 748-1011 (Ext. 1283)
Fax +1705 748-1580
E-mail jparker@trentu.ca