Avances en el estudio de la Inteligencia Emocional

Variables no cognitivas y predicción del rendimiento académico
(Dunn & Dunn, 1981) were administered to 11
adolescents (M = 15.7) to measure ability EI and verbal
fluency, respectively. The objective was to assess
the independent contribution of both types of intelligence
to the adolescent’s response to a difficult
social situation. In summary, the authors showed
that students with a high emotional intelligence
demonstrate better and greater emotional organisation
than those with low scores.
Woitaszewski and Aalsman (2004) found that
EI (measured by MEIS-A; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso,
1997), was independent of the social and academic
success (measured by the Test of Cognitive Skills;
TCS/2, 1993), in a sample of thirty-nine G&T adolescents
(M = 16 years, 6 months). Also, all the students
showed average levels of EI. In summary, for
future studies the authors pointed out the need to use
complementary models of EI (trait EI and ability EI;
e.g., Baron, 2006; Goleman, 1995; Mayer & Salovey,
1997, Petrides, Pérez-González & Furnham, 2007),
and also the importance of developing this kind of
research in a natural context in order to identify
specific constructs that contribute to successful outcomes
in this population.
Trait model and G&T student
Chan (2003) conducted a research measuring the
259 gifted adolescents’ trait EI (M = 13.66; SD =
1.34). This study had a double aim. Firstly, to study
the nature and dimensions of EI based on the responses
of a sample of gifted students. To do this,
a factor analysis on the Emotional Intelligence Scale
(EIS; Schutte et al., 1998) was carried out. Results
showed a four-factor gifted trait EI structure with
the dimensions: social skills, self-management of
emotions, empathy and utilization of emotions.
This structure was different to the three-factor
structure reported by the authors of the instrument.
Also, gifted students scored higher on the
first two factors, and lower in the two second ones.
Secondly, the study aimed to investigate the
relation between different EI components and specific
social coping strategies. To do this, the Social
Coping Questionnaire (SCQ; Swiatek, 1995) was
applied. Results suggested certain links between
specific components of trait EI and specific social
coping strategies, especially with Valuing peer acceptance
and Involvement in activities with peers.
These strategies were, at the same time, the most often
employed strategies to cope with being gifted.
Ferrando (2006) studied the differences in
trait EI among different groups using the EQi: i
YV: 1) high ability vs. average ability, 2) gifted vs.
average ability, 3) talented vs. average ability, and 4)
gifted vs. talented students. Results showed that all
the groups participating (average students, gifted,
and talented), scored high for mood, while scores
were low for interpersonal dimensions; b) the gifted
students scored higher that their peers in all areas in
EI. The differences were significant with respect to
non-gifted students in mood, adaptability and
overall EI; c) the talented group scored statistically
higher than those average ability students in stress
management, intrapersonal relations, and overall
EI; d) no statistically significant differences were
found between gifted vs. talented students.
Schewean, Saklofske, Widdifield-Konkin,
Parker, and Kloosterman (2006) studied the socioemotional
competences of gifted (N = 169) and
non-gifted (N = 1200) students (M = 11.45; SD =
1.10), and the congruence between self-ratings and
ratings by parents and teachers. When the EQ-i: YV
(Bar-On & Parker, 2000) was administered, gifted
students showed a higher self-perception about
their emotional competences than their non-gifted
counterparts, especially in terms of the intrapersonal
and adaptability dimensions. However, non-gifted
scored higher than gifted in the interpersonal
dimension. Also, gifted students’ parents perceived
their children as being more emotionally intelligent
than non-gifted students’ parents did for their
children, especially in adaptability, stress
management and total scores.
Regarding the congruence between self-ratings
and ratings by parents and teachers in the gifted
sample, all the ratings were inter-correlated across the
same dimension (i.e., intrapersonal dimension
between students’ and parents’ ratings; interpersonal
dimensions between parents’ and teacher’s ratings,
and so on). Even so, the correlation was not as high
as was expected by the authors (p < .05, for all the
cases). Also, gifted students have shown a lower selfperception
about their socio-emotional skills than
their parents and teachers had indicated in all the
dimensions and the global score. Schewean et al.,
(2006) found that self-ratings were slightly lower
than those given by both parents and teachers in all
the cases (i.e., ratings by teachers and parents on the
interpersonal scale were significantly higher than
self-report ratings on this scale)
470