MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W228903214

Development of Emotional Intelligence in First-Year Undergraduate Students in a Frontier State.

2012· article· en· W228903214 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gail Leedy, James E. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueCollege student journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotional Intelligence and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmotional intelligencePsychologyNormativeSocial psychologyThe Emotional Intelligence AppraisalSocial intelligenceDevelopmental psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emotional Intelligence (EI) has been defined as knowing the emotional state of self and others. Its relevance for college student development is only beginning to be researched. In the present research, the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory was administered to college students at the beginning and end of a semester-long course designed specifically for first-semester undergraduates at a public university in a sparsely populated state. At the beginning of the semester, student EI scores were significantly lower than the normative mean in several areas, but were generally within the normative range. Over the course of the semester, women made significant gains in total EI and three composite scores. In contrast, the scores for the men were stable across time. We are encouraged by the growth made by the women in this short time frame. Additional research is necessary to determine whether men can also achieve this surge in EI. Key Words: Emotional Intelligence, First year college experience, rural, Social-Emotional Learning ********** Emotional Intelligence (EI) has been defined as a set of emotional reasoning abilities composed not only of knowing one's own emotional state but also the emotional state of others (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Research has been conducted on the role EI plays in performance within educational and management settings (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). Importantly, it has been found that people with higher EI scores show more cooperation with others, better social skills, increased perspective-taking of others, and even higher levels of marital satisfaction (Schutte, et al., 2001). While there is evidence that EI increases with age (Bar-On & Parker, 2000), it is not clear whether EI can be trained or facilitated (Zeidner, Roberts, & Matthews, 2002). Reuven Bar-On (1997) conceptualized EI as consisting of five dimensions: intrapersonal, interpersonal, adaptability, stress management, and general mood. From these, Bar-On developed the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) (Multi-Health Systems). According to Baron (2006) the EQ-i was validated using data collected in Canada and the United States. Small differences in EI were found across age groups, with scores peaking for people in their forties. Additionally, small differences were found based on gender with women having higher scores than men on the Interpersonal dimension and men having higher scores in areas related to managing their emotions and adaptability. No ethnic differences were found. Dawda and Hart (2000) determined that the EQ-i has good reliability and validity with college students. Although they did not detect differences between the scores of college women and college men, they concluded that further research on gender differences should be conducted. The relationship between EQ-i scores and academic success in college has been explored. While some researchers found no correlation (Newsome, Day, & Catano, 2000) or only weak correlations (O'Connor & Little, 2003) between grade point average and EQ-i, Parker and colleagues (Parker, Summerfeldt, Hogan, & Majeski, 2004) have reported that academic success for first-year full-time college students was associated with specific subscales. In addition, a relationship between EQ-i and student retention has been reported (Parker, Hogan, Eastabrook, Oke, & Wood, 2006). Both Dawda and Hart (2000) and O'Connor and Little (2003) found lower than expected EQ-i scores for college students, leading to the possibility that students entering college do not have sufficient life experiences for mature emotional intelligence. Changes in EQ-i scores for undergraduates have been found over the course of 32 months of college (Parker, Saklofske, Wood, Eastabrook, & Taylor, 2005). These researchers determined that student scores increased in EQ-i Total and in all composite scales except the Interpersonal. Students transitioning from high school to college face a series of critical experiences across multiple life domains (Gall, Evans & Bellerose, 2000). …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollege student journalSame topicEmotional Intelligence and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207