Is emotional intelligence real? How accurate EQ tests are and how EQ compares with IQ

The term emotional intelligence first appeared in the scientific literature in 1990 (Fernández-Berrocal & Extremera, 2006). That year Salovey and Mayer presented it as a set of skills hypothesised to contribute to the accurate appraisal and expression of emotion in oneself and others, the effective regulation of emotion, and the use of feelings to motivate and plan (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Today, though, the single label “EQ” covers strands that measure different things. The model’s own authors wrote that a schism has developed between researchers who treat EI as a distinct group of mental abilities and those who study an eclectic mix of positive traits such as happiness, self-esteem and optimism (Mayer et al., 2008). The 1990 and 2008 papers were read as abstracts.

The ability model sees EI as a capacity to carry out sophisticated information processing about emotions and to use that information as a guide to thinking and behaviour (Mayer et al., 2008). The original model divided it into four abilities: perceiving and expressing emotions accurately, accessing and generating feelings when they help thought, understanding emotion, and regulating emotions for the well-being of oneself and others; the revised model places EI as a broad intelligence within the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model of intelligence (Mayer et al., 2025). This description comes from the team that built the ability test.

The trait model sees EI as a constellation of traits and self-perceived abilities (Petrides & Furnham, 2001). “Trait emotional intelligence”, also called trait emotional self-efficacy, covers emotion-related self-perceptions and dispositions, and in one study it appeared as a compound personality trait at the lower levels of personality structure (Petrides et al., 2007). This model’s questionnaire is the TEIQue, and both papers were read as abstracts.

Mixed models combine emotional abilities with traits such as motivation, sociability and happiness. A review notes that the popularised notion of EI included things not captured by Salovey and Mayer’s ability model, such as motivation, empathy, social skills, happiness and achievement orientation (Hughes & Evans, 2018). Bar-On’s EQ-i is a self-report measure of emotionally and socially intelligent behaviour. Bar-On writes that the term “EQ” was coined in 1988, during Bar-On’s doctoral studies, to resemble IQ scores, and that scores are converted to a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 (Bar-On, 2006). According to a 2006 review of EI’s first 15 years, the term reached the public through Daniel Goleman’s 1995 book and his statements about the influence of these abilities on many areas of life. In that first book Goleman named five elements, knowing one’s emotions, managing emotions, motivating oneself, recognising emotions in others and handling relationships, and the same review lists three theoretical approaches then accepted by the scientific community: Mayer and Salovey’s ability model, Bar-On’s model and Goleman’s workplace competency model (Fernández-Berrocal & Extremera, 2006).

mind.io has no EQ test. The empathy & emotion style test is a questionnaire that uses four public scales that may relate to emotional intelligence to look at your empathy warmth and how you deal with feelings; it has no published norms and gives no EQ score.

Ability tests measure emotional abilities with questions that have right answers. Deciding what the right answer to an emotional question is, however, was hard from the start. The original MSCEIT was scored by consensus among experts, each of whom picked what they regarded as correct: if 81% of the experts chose an answer and so did the test-taker, the test-taker received 0.81 on that item (Mayer et al., 2025). The developers reported that 21 emotions experts and 2,112 members of the norm sample endorsed many of the same answers, and that the MSCEIT achieved reasonable reliability (Mayer et al., 2003). In contrast, a study that gave the earlier version (the MEIS) to 704 people found convergent and divergent validity, but expert and consensus scoring yielded contradictory findings, and its authors concluded that it was questionable whether the test measured EI as a reliable and valid construct (Roberts et al., 2001). A critical review, while calling the MSCEIT the flagship test of EI, notes that no study has comprehensively examined the full argument tying differences in test performance to differences in the underlying ability (Maul, 2012). The three papers other than the MSCEIT 2 paper were read as abstracts.

The revised test, the MSCEIT 2 (described in a 2025 paper), uses answers set by a panel of eight PhD psychologists and drops items on which the experts did not agree. It was normed on 3,000 adults in Canada and the US; overall reliability was α = .88, but one of its four parts reached only .56, which its developers describe as less than an ideal measure. The hypothesis that a single general factor would fit was rejected. According to the developers, even a score of 130 carries a 95% interval of about ±15 points, so a professional test’s score is a range, not a point. The paper was written by authors who receive royalties from the test and by the publisher’s staff (Mayer et al., 2025).

Questionnaires ask you how you usually deal with emotions. According to its developer, Bar-On’s EQ-i was normed on 3,831 adults in North America, had an internal consistency of .97 and a six-month retest reliability of .72 to .80, and adjusts scale scores for positive and negative impression management (Bar-On, 2006). The short form of the trait model’s questionnaire (TEIQue-SF) showed very good precision across most of the score range in its developers’ analysis (Cooper & Petrides, 2010). Such figures show how consistently people answer the same questionnaire, though, not how well they actually handle emotions, which has to be checked separately. The TEIQue-SF paper was read as an abstract.

The key point is that the two kinds of test agree poorly. In a meta-analysis, mixed-model questionnaires overlapped heavily with each other at .71 (12 studies, 3,259 people), whereas mixed questionnaires and ability tests correlated only .14 (13 studies, 2,442 people); the abstract does not say whether these correlations were corrected (Van Rooy et al., 2005). In another study, too, self-rated EI and MSCEIT scores were not strongly correlated (Brackett et al., 2006). Across three studies of professional students, those who scored lowest on an EI test had limited insight into their deficits (Sheldon et al., 2014), and in a laboratory study, when asked to answer as job applicants, people inflated the EQ-i more readily than the MSCEIT (Day & Carroll, 2008). All four papers were read as abstracts.

While writing this guide we found no study that tested any particular free online EQ test. If a test does not publish its norms and reliability, you cannot tell whom your score is being compared with. A questionnaire-based EQ result is best read as a summary of how you feel you deal with emotions.

The two strands also overlap with different things. In a meta-analysis, mixed-model questionnaires overlapped more with personality than ability tests did, and ability tests correlated more with cognitive ability than mixed questionnaires did, at .34 against .13; the abstract does not say whether these correlations were corrected (Van Rooy et al., 2005). In one study of 688 college and community college students, a model in which ability EI was a second-stratum factor below general intelligence (g), loading on g at .80, fitted the data adequately, as did an eight-factor model (MacCann et al., 2014). The MSCEIT’s developers expect EI to correlate around .60 with other broad intelligences once adjusted for unreliability within a factor model (Mayer et al., 2025). For what general intelligence is, see the IQ test guide.

Questionnaires overlap heavily with personality. What mixed-EI questionnaires measure overlapped strongly with well-known constructs, namely ability EI, self-efficacy, self-rated performance, conscientiousness, emotional stability, extraversion and general mental ability, with a multiple correlation of R = .79 for all of them together (Joseph et al., 2015). In 316 adult twin pairs, too, trait EI (TEIQue) scores showed many significant correlations with the Big Five, especially neuroticism, extraversion and conscientiousness (Vernon et al., 2008). Even so, in a meta-analysis by the TEIQue’s own group, which reviewed 24 articles with 114 analyses and pooled 18 studies with 105 effect sizes, the TEIQue added a small but meaningful ΔR² = .06 beyond higher-order personality dimensions and other emotion-related variables, mainly through its well-being and self-control factors (Andrei et al., 2016). Except for the MSCEIT 2 paper, the papers in this paragraph and the one before were read as abstracts.

Hence the continuing debate over whether EI is real. One meta-analysis wrote that research and practice had been impeded by a lack of theoretical clarity about EI’s conceptual redundancy with cognitive intelligence and Big Five personality and about the use of one label for two distinct sets of constructs, ability-based and mixed-based EI (Joseph & Newman, 2010). A critique argued that the concept is invalid because EI is not a form of intelligence and is defined so broadly that it has no intelligible meaning (Locke, 2005), and a critical review of multiple intelligences, the Mozart effect and EI found that these theories lack adequate empirical support to be the basis for educational practice (Waterhouse, 2006). These three papers were read as abstracts. A 2018 review, on the other hand, called calls to abandon all EI research misguided, while writing that no aspect of EI is the “magical silver bullet” often claimed (Hughes & Evans, 2018). The ability model’s authors argue that EI conceptualised as an ability is an important variable both conceptually and empirically (Mayer et al., 2008).

Emotional intelligence (EQ) was linked with grades at ρ = .20 (42,529 people) and came third in importance after intelligence and conscientiousness, with no evidence for the direction of cause (MacCann et al., 2020). That ρ was corrected for unreliability in grades and in EI and for range restriction in EI; the uncorrected mean correlation was r = .14. Pooling 1,246 effect sizes from 158 citations, the link was stronger for ability tests (.24) than for self-ratings (.12) or mixed questionnaires (.19), and after intelligence and the Big Five were controlled they explained an additional 1.7%, 0.7% and 2.3% of the variance respectively. The third place is what the authors say their relative importance analysis “suggests”, and they add that the conscientiousness estimate they compared against was not corrected for range restriction, which may underestimate its relative importance. Only three of the citations reported a longitudinal design, so the authors write that the evidence for EI causing later achievement is very weak (MacCann et al., 2020).

Links with work depended on the kind of test and the kind of job. In one meta-analysis, ability EI predicted job performance positively in jobs high in emotional labour and negatively in jobs low in it (Joseph & Newman, 2010). Another reported corrected correlations of .24 to .30 between job performance and all three strands, with the largest incremental validity beyond cognitive ability and personality for questionnaire and mixed measures, though its abstract does not say what was corrected for (O’Boyle et al., 2011). An updated meta-analysis estimated the link between mixed EI and supervisor-rated job performance at ρ = .29, but it became nil (β = -.02) once ability EI, self-efficacy, self-rated performance, conscientiousness, emotional stability, extraversion and general mental ability were controlled; this abstract, too, does not say what ρ was corrected for (Joseph et al., 2015). These three meta-analyses were read as abstracts. In a 2022 exchange of letters, three critics argued that the 2011 meta-analysis included many student studies that did not actually measure job performance and did not control for method effects; the other team replied that it had not included student samples when calculating the EI–job performance relationship, and the two author teams still propose different research agendas (Dasborough et al., 2022).

EI also tends to go with well-being. In a meta-analysis of 25 studies with 77 effect sizes and 8,520 people, the mean correlation between EI and subjective well-being was .32, higher with self-report mixed questionnaires (.38) than with performance-based ability tests (.22) (Sánchez-Álvarez et al., 2016). A meta-analysis of adolescents aged 10 to 19, which reviewed 41 studies and pooled 37, found effect sizes of .35 with affective and .27 with cognitive well-being (Llamas-Díaz et al., 2022). These are correlations, so they do not mean that higher EI makes people happier. Both papers were read as abstracts.

Leadership results depended heavily on who did the rating. In a meta-analysis of 62 independent samples, the validity estimate for EI and leadership behaviours was .59 when the same source rated both, but .12 when different people did, and trait questionnaires tended to show higher validities than ability tests; the abstract does not say what corrections these estimates include (Harms & Credé, 2010). The critics write that such effects can inflate effect sizes by as much as four times (Dasborough et al., 2022). One review sums up that practitioner publications have claimed EI is indispensable to leadership, while academics continue to debate its relevance (Walter et al., 2011). Both papers were read as abstracts. All of these are correlations, so none of them means that high EI makes someone successful or a leader.

Meta-analyses of EI training generally report moderate effects. One of 24 studies with 28 samples of healthy adults reported a moderate change from before to after training that held up at follow-up, but this is a before-and-after change, not a comparison with a control group (Hodzic et al., 2018). Another, of 58 studies, also reported a moderate effect regardless of design, with larger effects in published studies than in dissertations (Mattingly & Kraiger, 2019). Both papers were read as abstracts.

A 2024 meta-analysis of emotional-competence training at work (EI, empathy and emotion regulation) found a before-and-after effect of SMD 0.44 across 50 studies (3,233 people) and an effect of SMD 0.46 against control groups in 27 controlled trials, both moderate and lasting more than three months after training ended. However, the test for funnel-plot asymmetry was significant, the controlled effect fell to 0.40 once one outlier was removed, 18 of the 50 studies were at critical risk of bias, and only seven used ability tests. The authors name high heterogeneity and the low methodological quality of the studies as limitations (Mehler et al., 2024).

In a systematic review of 46 studies, 39 reported a significant result on at least one dimension of EI, but most (80%) of the 29 studies with a control group used inactive control groups; only 5 used an active control group, 10 were randomised and about a third followed people up for six months or more. Results for the nine studies that used ability tests were mixed. In one study, the EI training group improved most in psychological health, but an active control group doing drama improvisation also improved significantly. The authors warn that gains shortly after training may just reflect people’s increased knowledge of EI and may not translate into lasting abilities or behaviour (Kotsou et al., 2019).

There is an inborn part too. In data from 316 adult twin pairs in Canada and the US, recruited mainly through newspaper advertisements, about 45% of the differences in trait EI (TEIQue) scores were accounted for by genetic effects and 55% by unique environmental effects, and the paper reports that an earlier analysis of the same data estimated about 40% (van der Linden et al., 2018). This is an estimate about differences between people in that group, not a statement that 45% of one person’s EQ is genetic, nor that it cannot change. Because the data are questionnaires, the authors also considered that the result may simply reflect a heritable tendency to answer items favourably (van der Linden et al., 2018). While writing this guide we found no twin study of EI measured with an ability test.

Myth 1: EQ matters more than IQ for success. According to the reference list of a 2018 review, the subtitle of Goleman’s 1995 book was “Why it can matter more than IQ” (Hughes & Evans, 2018), but while writing this guide we could not trace the source of popular figures such as “EQ is 80% of success”. In the meta-analysis on grades, EI came after intelligence and conscientiousness and added 0.7% to 2.3% of variance once intelligence and personality were controlled (MacCann et al., 2020). For job performance, a meta-analysis that reported incremental validity beyond cognitive ability and personality (O’Boyle et al., 2011) stands alongside one in which the link with mixed EI vanished once ability EI, self-efficacy, self-rated performance, conscientiousness, emotional stability, extraversion and general mental ability were controlled (Joseph et al., 2015), and the two author teams in a 2022 exchange of letters still disagree (Dasborough et al., 2022).

Myth 2: My EQ test score is my emotional intelligence. Questionnaires and ability tests agree poorly (Van Rooy et al., 2005), in three studies of professional students those who scored lowest on an EI test had limited insight into their deficits (Sheldon et al., 2014), and even on a professional ability test a high score such as 130 has to be read as a range of about ±15 points (Mayer et al., 2025).

Myth 3: Emotional intelligence is inborn and cannot change. The twin figure of about 45%, for trait EI measured by questionnaire (TEIQue) in 316 adult twin pairs, is an estimate about differences between people (van der Linden et al., 2018). Training studies report moderate effects, but study quality is low and active control groups have sometimes improved too, so the effects should not be overstated (Mehler et al., 2024; Kotsou et al., 2019).

Myth 4: Empathy is the same as EQ. The ability model’s four abilities are perceiving, using, understanding and managing emotions (Mayer et al., 2025), and empathy was one of several elements added in the popular notion of EI (Hughes & Evans, 2018). Ways to grow empathy are covered in how to grow empathy.

Myth 5: MBTI Feeling types have higher EQ. One study of 177 managers found no significant relationship between high Feeling scores and EI, and its author noted both that few high-Feeling participants took part and that comparing instruments of different formats has methodological limits (Higgs, 2001). This paper was read as an abstract.

Q. Can I trust a free EQ test result? A. Read it lightly, as a summary of how you feel you deal with emotions. In a meta-analysis, mixed-model questionnaires and ability tests correlated only .14 across 13 studies, and the abstract does not say whether this was corrected (Van Rooy et al., 2005); in a laboratory study, when asked to answer like job applicants, people inflated a questionnaire (the EQ-i) more easily than an ability test (Day & Carroll, 2008). If a test does not publish its norms and reliability, you cannot tell whom your score is being compared with.

Q. How do EQ and IQ differ, and which matters more? A. In one study of 688 college and community college students, a model that treats ability EI as a branch below general intelligence fitted the data (MacCann et al., 2014), and in research on grades EI came after intelligence and conscientiousness (MacCann et al., 2020). There is no evidence that either one decides success. For what an IQ score means, see the IQ test guide.

Q. Is the empathy & emotion style test an EQ test? A. No. It is a questionnaire that uses four of seven public component scales that may relate to emotional intelligence; it has no published norms, gives no EQ score and is not a performance test of empathy.

Q. What are the signs of high EQ? A. In research, emotional intelligence is not the same as an online “signs” list. In the ability model it is the ability to perceive, use, understand and manage emotions (Mayer et al., 2025); in the trait model it is emotion-related self-perceptions and dispositions measured with questionnaires such as the TEIQue. Feeling that you fit many items on such a list is a self-report, and self-reports and ability tests agree poorly (Van Rooy et al., 2005).

Q. Can a child’s EQ be developed? A. A meta-analysis of 213 school-based social and emotional learning programmes involving 270,034 pupils from kindergarten to high school found better social and emotional skills, attitudes, behaviour and academic performance than in control groups, with an 11-percentile-point gain in achievement (Durlak et al., 2011). This is the effect of social and emotional learning programmes, though, not a change in EQ test scores. This paper was read as an abstract.

Q. Did emotional intelligence come from multiple intelligences? A. The framework for emotional intelligence was set out in 1990 by Salovey and Mayer as a hypothesised set of skills about emotion (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Gardner’s view is covered in the multiple intelligences guide.

References: Fernández-Berrocal, P., & Extremera, N. (2006), Emotional intelligence: A theoretical and empirical review of its first 15 years of history, Psicothema, 18(Suppl.), 7-12, https://www.psicothema.com/pdf/3270.pdf; Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990), Emotional intelligence, Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9(3), 185-211, https://doi.org/10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG; Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008), Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits?, American Psychologist, 63(6), 503-517, https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.6.503; Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., Salovey, P., Lin, I. Y., Hansma, B. J., Solomon, J., Sitarenios, G., & Romero Escobar, M. (2025), Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT 2: Theory, rationale, and initial findings, Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1539785, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1539785; Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001), Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies, European Journal of Personality, 15(6), 425-448, https://doi.org/10.1002/per.416; Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007), The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space, British Journal of Psychology, 98(2), 273-289, https://doi.org/10.1348/000712606X120618; Hughes, D. J., & Evans, T. R. (2018), Putting “emotional intelligences” in their place: Introducing the integrated model of affect-related individual differences, Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2155, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02155; Bar-On, R. (2006), The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI), Psicothema, 18(Suppl.), 13-25, https://www.psicothema.com/pdf/3271.pdf; Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003), Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0, Emotion, 3(1), 97-105, https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.97; Roberts, R. D., Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2001), Does emotional intelligence meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions, Emotion, 1(3), 196-231, https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.1.3.196; Maul, A. (2012), The validity of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) as a measure of emotional intelligence, Emotion Review, 4(4), 394-402, https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073912445811; Cooper, A., & Petrides, K. V. (2010), A psychometric analysis of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Short Form (TEIQue-SF) using item response theory, Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(5), 449-457, https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.497426; Van Rooy, D. L., Viswesvaran, C., & Pluta, P. (2005), An evaluation of construct validity: What is this thing called emotional intelligence?, Human Performance, 18(4), 445-462, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1804_9; Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., & Salovey, P. (2006), Relating emotional abilities to social functioning: A comparison of self-report and performance measures of emotional intelligence, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 780-795, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.780; Sheldon, O. J., Dunning, D., & Ames, D. R. (2014), Emotionally unskilled, unaware, and uninterested in learning more: Reactions to feedback about deficits in emotional intelligence, Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1), 125-137, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034138; Day, A. L., & Carroll, S. A. (2008), Faking emotional intelligence (EI): Comparing response distortion on ability and trait-based EI measures, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(6), 761-784, https://doi.org/10.1002/job.485; MacCann, C., Joseph, D. L., Newman, D. A., & Roberts, R. D. (2014), Emotional intelligence is a second-stratum factor of intelligence: Evidence from hierarchical and bifactor models, Emotion, 14(2), 358-374, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034755; Joseph, D. L., Jin, J., Newman, D. A., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2015), Why does self-reported emotional intelligence predict job performance? A meta-analytic investigation of mixed EI, Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 298-342, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037681; Vernon, P. A., Villani, V. C., Schermer, J. A., & Petrides, K. V. (2008), Phenotypic and genetic associations between the Big Five and trait emotional intelligence, Twin Research and Human Genetics, 11(5), 524-530, https://doi.org/10.1375/twin.11.5.524; Andrei, F., Siegling, A. B., Aloe, A. M., Baldaro, B., & Petrides, K. V. (2016), The incremental validity of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue): A systematic review and meta-analysis, Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(3), 261-276, https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1084630; Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010), Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model, Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54-78, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017286; Locke, E. A. (2005), Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 425-431, https://doi.org/10.1002/job.318; Waterhouse, L. (2006), Multiple intelligences, the Mozart effect, and emotional intelligence: A critical review, Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 207-225, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4104_1; MacCann, C., Jiang, Y., Brown, L. E. R., Double, K. S., Bucich, M., & Minbashian, A. (2020), Emotional intelligence predicts academic performance: A meta-analysis, Psychological Bulletin, 146(2), 150-186, https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000219; O’Boyle, E. H., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011), The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(5), 788-818, https://doi.org/10.1002/job.714; Dasborough, M. T., Ashkanasy, N. M., Humphrey, R. H., Harms, P. D., Credé, M., & Wood, D. (2022), Does leadership still not need emotional intelligence? Continuing “The Great EI Debate”, The Leadership Quarterly, 33(6), 101539, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101539; Sánchez-Álvarez, N., Extremera, N., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2016), The relation between emotional intelligence and subjective well-being: A meta-analytic investigation, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(3), 276-285, https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1058968; Llamas-Díaz, D., Cabello, R., Megías-Robles, A., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2022), Systematic review and meta-analysis: The association between emotional intelligence and subjective well-being in adolescents, Journal of Adolescence, 94(7), 925-938, https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12075; Harms, P. D., & Credé, M. (2010), Emotional intelligence and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17(1), 5-17, https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051809350894; Walter, F., Cole, M. S., & Humphrey, R. H. (2011), Emotional intelligence: Sine qua non of leadership or folderol?, Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1), 45-59, https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.25.1.45; Hodzic, S., Scharfen, J., Ripoll, P., Holling, H., & Zenasni, F. (2018), How efficient are emotional intelligence trainings: A meta-analysis, Emotion Review, 10(2), 138-148, https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073917708613; Mattingly, V., & Kraiger, K. (2019), Can emotional intelligence be trained? A meta-analytical investigation, Human Resource Management Review, 29(2), 140-155, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.03.002; Mehler, M., Balint, E., Gralla, M., Pößnecker, T., Gast, M., Hölzer, M., Kösters, M., & Gündel, H. (2024), Training emotional competencies at the workplace: A systematic review and metaanalysis, BMC Psychology, 12, 718, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-02198-3; Kotsou, I., Mikolajczak, M., Heeren, A., Grégoire, J., & Leys, C. (2019), Improving emotional intelligence: A systematic review of existing work and future challenges, Emotion Review, 11(2), 151-165, https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073917735902; van der Linden, D., Schermer, J. A., de Zeeuw, E., Dunkel, C. S., Pekaar, K. A., Bakker, A. B., Vernon, P. A., & Petrides, K. V. (2018), Overlap between the general factor of personality and trait emotional intelligence: A genetic correlation study, Behavior Genetics, 48(2), 147-154, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-017-9885-8; Higgs, M. (2001), Is there a relationship between the Myers-Briggs type indicator and emotional intelligence?, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(7), 509-533, https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006165; Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011), The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions, Child Development, 82(1), 405-432, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x