Journal of Marital and Family Therapy

doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2011.00233.x
July 2012, Vol. 38, No. 3, 502–514

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE

EMOTIONAL SELF-AWARENESS QUESTIONNAIRE:
A MEASURE OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
Kyle D. Killian
York University

This study examined the psychometric characteristics of the Emotional Self-Awareness

Questionnaire (ESQ), a self-report measure of emotional intelligence. The ESQ, Emo-
tional Intelligence Scale, and measures of alexithymia, positive negative affect, personal-
ity, cognitive ability, life satisfaction, and leadership aspirations were administered to
1,406 undergraduate psychology students. The ESQ was reduced from 118 to 60 items
via factor and reliability analyses, retaining 11 subscales and a normal score distribution
with a reliability of .92. The ESQ had significant positive correlations with the Emotional
Intelligence Test and positive affect, significant negative correlations with alexithymia and
negative affect, and an insignificant correlation with cognitive ability. The ESQ accounted
for 35% of the variance in life satisfaction over and above the Big Five, cognitive ability,
and self-esteem, and demonstrated incremental validity in explaining GPA and leadership
aspirations. The significance of emotional intelligence as a unique contributor to psycho-
logical well-being and performance, and applications for the ESQ in assessment and out-
come research in couple and family therapy are discussed.

Emotional intelligence (EI) refers to the ability to perceive and identify emotions in self and
other, and to manage one’s own affective states to enhance well-being and the quality of one’s
personal and professional relationships. Emotional competencies have been found to contribute
to outcomes such as life satisfaction (Palmer, Donaldson, & Stough, 2002; Extremera, Duran,
& Rey, 2007; Gannon & Ranzijn, 2005), general health (Jain & Sinha, 2005; Tsaousis & Niko-
laou, 2005), marital satisfaction (Vennum, 2006), work and academic performance (Lyons &
Schneider, 2005; Slaski & Cartwright, 2002), and leadership potential (Charbonneau & Nicol,
2002; Dries & Pepermans, 2007). EI has become a topic of burgeoning interest in family ther-
apy, psychology, counseling, and nursing because emotional awareness is a crucial concept in
human relational systems (e.g., in couples, between helping professionals and their clients, and
in organizations). In addition, EI continues to spark controversy in the fields of individual dif-
ferences and psychometrics regarding its construct validity and differentiation from fundamental
personality factors. This study addresses some of the conceptual and measurement issues that
swirl around the elusive construct of EI, and assesses reliability and convergent and discrimi-
nant validity of a new measure, the Emotional Self-Awareness Questionnaire (ESQ). It also
examines the ESQ’s incremental validity over and above cognitive ability and personality in
accounting for variance in life satisfaction, grade point average, and leadership aspirations.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Emotional Intelligence as a Concept: From Thorndike to Goleman

Historically, research on intelligence has found that a person’s success in life both person-
ally and professionally depends not only on his or her cognitive abilities or general intelligence

Kyle D. Killian, PhD, LMFT, is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Health at York University and is
Research Faculty at the Centre for Refugee Studies.
The author wishes to acknowledge David Baptiste for his invaluable comments and suggestions on an earlier
version of this article.
Address correspondence to Kyle D. Killian, PhD, HNES 310, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON M3J 1P3;
E-mail: killian@yorku.ca

502 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY July 2012

but also on emotional and social traits (Thorndike, 1920; Wechsler, 1940). Accordingly, some
theorists (e.g., Wechsler, Gardner) hypothesized that cognitive intelligence as measured by IQ
tests did not encompass intelligence in its entirety and held that additional factors contributed
to an individual’s ability to succeed in life (Derksen, Kramer, & Katzko, 2002). Thorndike
(1920) posited the importance of another human factor: social intelligence, which referred to a
person’s ability to understand and regulate his or her relationships with others (Newsome, Day,
& Catano, 2000). Although an interesting concept, establishment of construct validity and con-
sistent measurement of social intelligence has proven elusive, and the research was abandoned
(Thorndike & Stein, 1937).
In the 1940s and 1950s, Wechsler expanded his model of intelligence to include aspects of
EI, which operates on ‘‘hot cognitions or information processing that involve matters of
personal and emotional importance to individuals and relationships’’ (Brackett, Rivers, Shiff-
man, Lerner, & Salovey, 2006). Gardner (1983) also questioned the idea of intelligence as a uni-
tary entity and proposed the existence of a multitude of intelligences independent of one
another and possessing their own strengths and constraints. In his book Frames of Mind, Gard-
ner (1983) proposed that individuals possess the following aptitudes: verbal, mathematical, spe-
cial, musical, movement oriented, interpersonal (i.e., understanding other people), and
intrapersonal (i.e., understanding the self).
These latter two aptitudes—interpersonal and intrapersonal—paved the way to later explo-
ration of EI, first introduced to the public by Salovey and Mayer in 1990. In his bestseller
Emotional Intelligence (1995), Daniel Goleman captured the public imagination with his asser-
tion that EI is a more important predictor of job performance and life success than intelligence
quotient (IQ). Goleman’s famous assertion was perceived to be overreaching, but its exposure
as front-page news imbued EI with a celebrity status and legitimized it as a subject worthy of
research. Various theorists have proposed differing conceptualizations of the EI construct, but
some (e.g., Chernis & Goleman, 2001) suggested four major dimensions of EI: Self-Awareness,
Social Awareness, Self-Management, and Relationship Management. Fundamentally, EI refers
to the abilities to (a) perceive and identify emotions, in self and other, and (b) manage one’s own
affective states to enhance personal well-being (the intrapersonal dimension) and the quality of
one’s intimate and professional relationships (the interpersonal dimension; Bar-On, 1997;
Goleman, 1995; McEnrue & Groves, 2006).
The importance of emotional awareness in satisfying relationships, and emotions as a natu-
ral part of human systems, has been addressed extensively in emotionally focused therapy
(Greenberg & Johnson, 1986; Johnson, 1998; MacIntosh & Johnson, 2008), and Hill (2001)
discussed the relationship between emotional intelligence, empathy, and forgiveness in relation-
ship systems. However, only a handful of research studies has been published in the area of
emotional awareness or emotional intelligence in the field of couple and family therapy. In a
study of 56 heterosexual couples who completed a measure of relationship satisfaction and two
measures of emotional awareness, Croyle and Waltz (2002) reported that women were more
emotionally aware than men in response to couples’ situations. Further, higher levels of
emotional awareness, particularly emotions such as anger, were associated with decreased
relationship satisfaction for women, and partner discrepancy in levels of awareness was related
to lower dyadic satisfaction for both men and women. Atkinson (2005) discussed the
application of emotional intelligence and neurobiology to his PET-C model of couples therapy.
Drawing from neurobiological research on the ‘‘emotional brain,’’ Atkinson viewed couples as
quite active at an emotional level, with each partner shifting in and out of seven emotional
states. Measuring emotional intelligence via an early version of the Emotional Self-Awareness
Questionnaire (ESQ), Vennum (2006) found that the ESQ accounted for 17% of the variance
in 103 couples’ dyadic adjustment over and above the variables of sexual satisfaction and social
desirability. Finally, Killian (2008) found that emotional self-awareness was significantly
and negatively correlated with symptoms of compassion fatigue in clinicians working with
trauma survivors. Based on these studies, it appears that further exploration of the role of
emotional self-awareness in relationships, therapeutic practice, and professional self-care may
be warranted.

July 2012 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 503

Of Measurement and Methodology
Researchers in the past decade have attempted to demonstrate that emotional competencies,
theoretically distinguishable from the constructs of intelligence and personality, contribute to
outcomes including work performance, life satisfaction, marital satisfaction, and psychological
health. But established measures of EI (e.g., Emotional Quotient Inventory and the Emotional
Intelligence Scale) have been critiqued for their lack of distinctness from both cognitive ability
(IQ) and the Big Five personality dimensions (Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion,
Neuroticism, and Openness; Austin, Saklofske, & Egan, 2005; Dawda & Hart, 2000; Van der
Zee & Wabeke, 2004). Many investigators have failed to include cognitive ability and personality
factors in their research designs, pointing to the ‘‘significant contributions’’ of EI without dem-
onstrating that such contributions are unique (see Murphy, 2006; Petrides & Furnham, 2001).
There are two distinct perspectives on the measurement of EI: Ability and Mixed Model.
Initially proposed by Salovey and Mayer (1990), the Ability Model looks at EI as a crystallized
intelligence that involves the accurate processing of emotion-relevant information, such as facial
expressions, and the ability to use emotions when processing information and finding solutions.
In this regard, a 141-item performance test, the Mayer-Salovey Caruso Emotional Intelligence
Test (MSCEIT Version 2; Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999), measures individual abilities of
perception of emotion, knowledge of emotions, and management of emotions using specific
tasks such as examining pictures, drawing parallels between emotion and physical sensation,
and describing how emotions change and the way people manage their own and others’ emo-
tions. The challenge in measuring Ability EI is that emotional experiences are inherently subjec-
tive and therefore are not amenable to objective scoring criteria or the use of consensual
solutions to conclude what is a ‘‘correct response’’ (Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Keele & Bell,
2008). In addition, Conte (2005) and Matthews, Zeidner, and Roberts (2002) concluded that
while internal consistency for the total scale was adequate (.75), the reliabilities of its four
branch scores fell short, given that the MSCEIT V.2 is an ability measure. Palmer et al. (2005)
‘‘identified fundamental limitations of the MSCEIT V2.0 with respect to the inadequate number
of subscales theorized to measure each branch level factor’’ (p. 286). Further, Barchard (2003)
found that many EI measures, including the MSCEIT, failed to demonstrate incremental valid-
ity for predicting academic success over IQ and personality. The MSCEIT, while more distinct
from the Big Five factors, is much more correlated with cognitive ability (.30–.40) than self-
report measures (Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004).
In contrast, the Mixed Model or Trait EI approach conceptualizes EI as a dispositional
tendency that can be assessed via a questionnaire rather then by performance tasks. One of the
better established self-report measures is Bar-On’s (1997) Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i),
which is composed of 133 items. Bar-On’s definition includes dimensions that may not relate
directly to EI (i.e., happiness, problem solving, social responsibility, and the long-researched
construct of optimism). In his model, Bar-On outlines five components of emotional intelligence:
Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Adaptability, Stress Management, and General Mood. Bar-On
posits that emotional intelligence develops with time and that it can be improved through train-
ing and counseling (Bar-On, 2000). The EQ-i has been criticized for adopting a ‘‘kitchen sink’’
approach, including separate personality constructs (e.g., optimism) under an ever-expanding
conceptual umbrella of EI (Murphy, 2006). Many scales in the EQ-i seem to measure products
of EI, such as working cooperatively and establishing satisfying relationships, not EI per se
(McEnrue & Groves, 2006). Matthews, Zeidner, and Roberts (2002) noted the vague nature of
the measure’s underlying theory, and many of Bar-On’s claims for the measure have yet to be
validated. For example, Bar-On concluded that EI is a significant predictor of academic success,
but Newsome et al. (2000) found that the EQ-i total score had a correlation of .01 with student
grade point average (GPA) in a sample of 160 Canadian students, and none of the five compos-
ite scores was significantly correlated with GPA. In a study of leadership and social influence,
Brown, Bryant, and Reilly (2006) found no support for hypothesized relationships between the
EQ-i and either desirable organizational outcomes or transformational leadership. Studies also
suggest substantial overlap between what the EQ-i measures and personality dimensions (Brack-
ett & Mayer, 2003; Dawda & Hart, 2000; Newsome et al., 2000). O’Connor and Little (2003)
reported that the EQ-i basically measures personality traits, and Grubb and McDaniel (2007)

504 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY July 2012

reported that the Big Five accounted for 79% of its variance and stated that the EQ-i Short
Form ‘‘can be viewed as an aggregation of the Big Five constructs’’ (p. 43). Thus, while the
EQ-i shows adequate reliability, it lacks evidence of discriminant or incremental validity
(Newsome et al., 2000).
Because established measures of EI have been critiqued for their lack of distinctness
from cognitive ability and the Big Five personality dimensions, the development of a mea-
sure of EI demonstrating convergent and discriminant validity would help determine EI’s
unique contributions to psychological well-being. In light of the persisting critical questions
regarding EI’s conceptualization and validation (Conte, 2005; Landy & Conte, 2004; Mur-
phy, 2006), this study investigates the psychometric characteristics of a new measure of EI,
the Emotional Self-Awareness Questionnaire (ESQ), and assesses its unique contributions to
life satisfaction, GPA, and leadership aspirations. There are three hypotheses: (a) the ESQ
will correlate strongly and positively with the Emotional Intelligence Scale and positive
affect, and correlate strongly and negatively with alexithymia (i.e., difficulty identifying and
expressing feelings) and negative affect; (b) the ESQ will not correlate significantly with cog-
nitive ability; and (c) the ESQ will demonstrate incremental validity beyond personality and
cognitive ability in explaining variance in satisfaction with life, grade point average, and
leadership aspirations.

METHOD

Sample
Research participants were 1,406 (857 women, 549 men) undergraduate psychology stu-
dents recruited via a participant pool at a large, public university in Ontario, Canada. Partici-
pants ranged in age from 18 to 56 years, with a mean age of 23.4 (SD = 4.85). The median
family income in the sample was $65,000. Forty-one percent of participants reported being
White, 16% South Asian, 15% East Asian, 10.7% African or Caribbean, 5% Persian, 4.2%
Arabic, 2.1% Latin American, and 6% reported their origin as multiethnic.

Procedure
Participants were administered an online questionnaire as one unit of participation in
experiments for credit in an undergraduate psychology course. In addition to a brief demo-
graphic questionnaire that inquired about age, income, and grade point average, the partici-
pants were administered 10 instruments, discussed elsewhere.
The Emotional Self-Awareness Inventory (ESQ). The version used in this study comprised
118 items that assessed 11 aspects of emotional intelligence organized into four clusters: (a)
Self-Awareness (Identifying Emotions, Self-Reflection), (b) Social Awareness (Empathy), (c)
Self-Management (Managing Emotions, Adaptability, Motivation, Self-Regard, Self-Efficacy),
and (d) Social Skills (Networking, Mentoring, and Influence). The 118 items were written over
a 4-year period to tap the previously identified facets of EI; their face validity and intelligibility
were tested through repeated administration to undergraduate students at universities in the
United States and Canada. Nine additional items were written for the purpose of constructing
a validity subscale. The ESQ comprised 60 positively worded and 58 negatively worded state-
ments and asked participants to rate how frequently each statement was true for them on a
5-point Likert scale from never or rarely to most or all of the time. The negatively worded items
are reverse-keyed, with the total score reflecting participants’ overall EI. Reliability coefficients
of an earlier version of the ESQ were very good, with an alpha coefficient of .92 overall, and
subscale reliabilities ranging from .74 to .87.
Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS). The 41-item revised version of the scale (Schutte et al.,
1998) was used in this study. This scale has 20 forward-keyed and 21 reverse-keyed items and
was derived using a three-component model of EI: appraisal and expression of emotions, regu-
lation of emotion, and utilization of emotions. Alpha coefficient for the EIS was .91 in this
study. Detailed information about the construction and properties of this scale is available
elsewhere (Austin, Saklofske, Huang, & McKenney, 2004).

July 2012 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 505

 Wonderlic Personnel Test (http://www.wonderlic.com). To reduce response burden, a 15-
item version of the Wonderlic Personnel Test (now referred to as the Wonderlic Classic
Cognitive Ability Test) was used in this study to measure general mental ability. The WPT
includes word and number comparisons and story problems that require mathematical and
logical solutions. The WPT is highly correlated with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
(.92) and is a reliable and valid measure of cognitive ability and general intelligence (Haw-
kins, Faraone, Pepple, Seidman, & Tsuang, 1990). The alpha coefficient in this study was
.68.
The Big Five Inventory (John & Srivastava, 1999). The 44-item Big Five Inventory taps
the major personality dimensions of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,
Neuroticism, and Openness. Participants are asked to rate their level of agreement or disagree-
ment with all 44 statements (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Alpha coefficients
for the five subscales were .82, .75, .77, .82, and .81, respectively.
Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20; Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1994). The TAS is a 20-
item self-report measure that is rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to
5 = strongly agree). A factor analysis by Bagby et al. (1994) identified three subscales:
Difficulty Identifying Feelings, Difficulty Describing Feelings, and Externally Oriented Think-
ing. The TAS-20 has demonstrated high internal consistency, and is considered to be a valid
and reliable measure of alexithymia, a condition that could be seen as the diametric opposite
construct from emotional self-awareness, or EI.
Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen,
1988). The PANAS comprises 20 items that ask participants to indicate how much during
the past month they have experienced positive and negative emotions on a 7-point scale
(1 = never to 7 = always). Scores on the 10 positive emotion items are summed to indicate
a person’s general level of positive affect, while scores on the 10 negative emotion items are
summed to indicate a participant’s general level of negative affect. The PANAS has been
reported to demonstrate high internal consistency and to provide a valid index of what it
intends to measure (Watson et al., 1988). The alpha coefficients were .87 and .88 in this
study.
Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). The
SWLS consists of a series of statements relating to global life satisfaction to which participants
respond on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Diener et al.
(1985) reported evidence of discriminant and convergent validity for the SWLS, and high inter-
nal consistency. The alpha coefficient for this scale was .88.
Leadership Aspirations (O’Brien, Gray, Tourajdi, & Eigenbrode, 1996). This variable was
measured by adapting 4 items from the Leadership Aspirations subscale of the Career Aspira-
tion Scale (CAS; O’Brien et al., 1996). The Leadership subscale consists of items that measure
‘‘intentions to obtain promotions, manage and train others, and be recognized as a leader in
one’s field’’ (p. 8). Sample items include ‘‘I hope to become a leader in my career or organiza-
tion’’ and ‘‘When I am established in my career, I would like to manage other employees.’’
Responses to subscale items were measured with a Likert-like scale ranging from 0 (not at all
true of me) to 5 (very true of me), with a total of 20 points denoting the highest level of leader-
ship aspirations. The alpha coefficient was .82.
Social Desirability Scale (Stober, 2001). This 16-item scale is a modern update of the item
content of previous measures of social desirability and was included as a check of participants’
tendency to indicate higher levels of emotional self-awareness in their responses to the items on
the ESQ. A sample item was ‘‘I take out my bad moods on others now and then,’’ and the
alpha in this study was .90.
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). Long used as a reliable and valid measure
of self-esteem, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale possesses 10 items. This study employed a
6-point response scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree, and the measure demonstrated an
alpha coefficient of .89.
Factor analyses, reliability analyses, Pearson’s r correlations, and multiple regressions
analyzed the data using SPSS 16.

506 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY July 2012

 RESULTS

Factor Analysis and Internal Consistency

An exploratory factor analysis of the ESQ (Kaiser-Meyer Olkin Measure of Sampling Ade-
quacy = .94, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, p < .001) was performed using the maximum likeli-
hood method of extraction. Maximum likelihood was the best choice of extraction method
because the data met the assumption of being relatively normally distributed (Costello &
Osborne, 2005; Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCullum, & Strahan, 1999). Factor analysis identified 11
factors that explained 52.3% of the total variance, and these factors corresponded to the 11
emotional dispositions or competencies tapped by the instrument. The 118-item ESQ was
reduced to 60 items by two processes. First, items were removed if their factor loading failed to
reach .40, or if an item loaded on more than one factor and the difference in loading was less
than 0.10. In the three instances in which an item loaded on more than one factor, and the
difference was .10 or greater, the item was assigned to the factor with the higher loading.
Second, reliability analyses indicated which items could be deleted to increase the Cronbach’s
alpha for each subscale, and items were removed until the alpha coefficient for each subscale
achieved its highest value.
The Identifying Emotions subscale has four items and an alpha coefficient of .85 (sample
item: ‘‘When I’m experiencing a mix of emotions, it’s difficult to identify them and describe
them to others’’); the Self-Reflection subscale has four items and a = .79 (sample item: ‘‘I
really like contemplating or reflecting on the nature or meaning of things’’); the Empathy sub-
scale has seven items and a = .83 (sample item: ‘‘Friends or co-workers say I quickly pick up
on what they are thinking or feeling’’); the Managing Emotions subscale has six items and
a = .79 (sample item: ‘‘When I am under a lot of stress, I say or do things without thinking
them through’’); the Adaptability subscale has six items and a = .80 (sample item: ‘‘When
things go wrong, I stay positive and think pleasant thoughts’’); Motivation has seven items and
a = .77 (sample item: ‘‘Obstacles and challenges keep me from achieving what I want in life’’);
Self-Regard has four items and a = .85 (sample item: ‘‘I find myself wishing I had more respect
for myself’’); Self-Efficacy has five items and a = .84 (sample item: ‘‘When confronted with a
difficult problem, I can find several solutions’’); the Networking subscale has five items and
a = .80 (sample item: ‘‘I put a lot of time and energy into networking with others at work or
school’’); the Influence subscale has four items and a = .78 (sample item: ‘‘Friends and ⁄ or co-
workers take seriously my suggestions or perspectives’’); and Mentoring has five items and
a = .88 (sample item: I devote special time to supporting the professional or academic goals of
others’’).
In addition, a five-item validity scale was constructed to check for socially desirable
responding (i.e., faking good; a = .78, sample item: ‘‘Sometimes when I am not feeling well, I
can be irritable’’). Higher scores on the validity subscale indicated participants’ lack of willing-
ness to agree with rather reasonable statements about their fallibility as human beings. Scores
on the validity scale show that 51% of the sample scored 4 or less, so scores in this range are
normal and acceptable. A score of 5 ranked at the 67th percentile, 6 at the 79th percentile, 7 at
the 87th, 8 at the 92nd, 9 at the 95th, and scores of 10 to 15 at the 98th to 99.8th percentiles.
Thus, scores of 5 and above on the validity scale are indicators of socially desirable responding.
The alpha coefficient for the total scale is .92, with a split-half reliability of .88. The distribu-
tion curve is near normal in appearance, with the three measures of central tendency close
together (the mean, median, and mode are 124.9, 123, and 116, respectively) and skewness
(.131) at a satisfactory level.

Criterion-Related Validity
A Pearson’s r correlation procedure was run to find evidence of convergent validity for the
60-item version of the ESQ (see Table 1).
It was hypothesized that the ESQ would be significantly and positively correlated with the
Emotional Intelligence Scale and positive affect as measured by the PANAS, and that the ESQ
would be significantly and negatively correlated with alexithymia (difficulty identifying and
communicating one’s emotions), as measured by the TAS-20, and negative affect, as measured

July 2012 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 507

 Table 1
Pearson’s r Correlations Among the ESQ, the Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS),
Positive Affect (PANAS +), Alexithymia (TAS-20), and Negative Affect (PANAS ))

ESQ EIS PANAS + TAS-20 PANAS )

ESQ 1
EIS .657* 1
PANAS + .593* .496* 1
TAS-20 ).558* ).582* ).332* 1
PANAS ) ).513* ).413* ).320* .435* 1

Note. *p < .01 (two-tailed).

by the PANAS. The ESQ was very highly correlated with all four variables, especially the EIS
and positive affect.
Next, a Pearson’s r correlation procedure was run to find evidence of discriminant validity,
pairing the ESQ with measures of cognitive ability, social desirability, and the Big Five (see
Table 2).
The ESQ was not significantly correlated with cognitive ability as measured by the Won-
derlic Personnel Test (r = .05, p = .07) and had a weak correlation with social desirability.
The ESQ was moderately correlated with Agreeableness, Openness, and Extraversion and
highly correlated with Conscientiousness and Neuroticism.
A series of multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine the incremental valid-
ity of the 60-item version of the ESQ. Analyses were run on the dependent variables of life
satisfaction, GPA, and leadership aspirations with the independent variables of the Big Five
personality factors, cognitive ability (the Wonderlic Personnel Test), self-esteem, and the ESQ
block entered in a hierarchical manner into each equation. Self-esteem was included as a check
that the ESQ, which includes a subscale of Self-Regard, was tapping a construct distinct from
Rosenberg’s conceptualization (i.e., participants’ positive orientation to themselves, feelings of
self-worth, and ⁄ or feelings of self-regard). In the first regression analysis (F = 50.44,
p < .001), 41% (adjusted R2) of the variance in the dependent variable of satisfaction with life
was accounted for by three independent variables: ESQ, self-esteem, and Conscientiousness.
The Emotional Self-Awareness Questionnaire accounted for 35% of satisfaction with life (stan-
dardized Beta coefficient = .34), self-esteem accounted for 4.2% (b = .25), and Conscientious-
ness 1.9% (b = .17).
In the second regression analysis (F = 8.34, p < .001), three independent variables
accounted for 10% of the variance in GPA: 4.2% by Conscientiousness (b = .20), 2.7% by
Extraversion (b = ).26), and 2.3% by the ESQ (b = .21). Because initial correlations had
shown that some ESQ subscales had much stronger associations with GPA than others, and
each ESQ subscale taps a different aspect of EI, the ESQ subscales were entered into the regres-
sion equation in a follow-up analysis. In the third regression equation (F = 8.45, p < .001),
four independent variables accounted for 12.3% of the variance (adjusted R2) in GPA: 4.2% by
Conscientiousness (b = .21), 2.7% by Extraversion (b = ).30), 3.9% by the Identifying
Emotions subscale of the ESQ (b = .24), and 1.3% by the Networking subscale (b = .14).
Cognitive ability approached but failed to achieve significance in the equation (p = .068).
In the fourth regression analysis, the ESQ subscales were again entered into the equation
because some subscales were significantly associated with leadership aspirations and others had
near zero correlations. The results (F = 21.53, p < .001) showed that four independent vari-
ables accounted for 27.7% (adjusted R2) of the variance in leadership aspirations: 16% was
accounted for by the Big Five’s Openness (b = .27), 7% by the Big Five’s Extraversion
(b = .18), 2.8% by the ESQ’s Influence subscale (b = .17), and 1.9% by the ESQ’s

508 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY July 2012

 July 2012
Table 2
Pearson’s r Correlations Among ESQ, Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT), Social Desirability (SDS), Agreeableness, Openness, Extraversion,
Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism

ESQ WPT SDS Agreeableness Openness Extraversion Conscientiousness Neuroticism

ESQ 1
WPT .05 1
SDS .13* ).07* 1
Agreeableness .39** .03 .31** 1
Openness .42** .12* .10* .24** 1
Extraversion .44** ).02 .07* .17** .25** 1
Conscientiousness .50** .00 .28** .39** .20** .26** 1
Neuroticism ).56** ).03 ).22** ).34** ).10* ).28** ).32** 1

Note.*p < .05 (two-tailed). **p < .01 (two-tailed).

JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY

509
Networking subscale (b = .16). The Self-Reflection subscale and the variable of self-esteem
approached but failed to achieve significance, respectively (p = .09, p = .10).
Finally, a regression analysis was run with the ESQ as the dependent variable and the Big
Five, cognitive ability, and social desirability as the independent variables. The Big Five
accounted for 52% of the variance in the ESQ, with cognitive ability and social desirability fail-
ing to achieve significance.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to establish the reliability and validity of a new measure of
EI and to provide further evidence that this construct accounts for individual differences in life
satisfaction, grade point average, and leadership aspirations. Studies suggest that there is a
degree of controversy regarding the appropriate measurement of emotional intelligence (Furn-
ham & Petrides, 2003) and that there is a need for measures that demonstrate convergent and
discriminant validity and incremental validity over and above the factors of cognitive ability
and the Big Five.
Regarding evidence for convergent validity, the ESQ’s correlations with the EIS and positive
affect were high and positive. These results suggest that the ESQ is tapping dimensions related
to both positive affect and EI as measured by another established measure. In addition, high
negative correlations were found between the ESQ and alexithymia, as found in previous studies
(Parker, Taylor, & Bagby, 2001; Saklofske, Austin, & Minski, 2003), and the ESQ and negative
affect. As expected, the ESQ measures a construct that is significantly and inversely related to
both strongly experienced negative affect and the inability to identify one’s own emotional states.
Taken together, these correlations provide evidence of convergent validity for the ESQ.
Regarding discriminant validity, a nonsignificant correlation was found between ESQ and
cognitive ability, and a low correlation was found between ESQ and social desirability. This
demonstrates that the ESQ is measuring a construct different from general mental ability and is
not unduly influenced by socially desirable responding. Strong associations between the ESQ
and the Big Five dimensions of personality were also found, especially Neuroticism and Consci-
entiousness. There has been much debate in the literature about the discriminant validity of
emotional intelligence over personality. In their study of incremental validity of trait EI,
Petrides et al. (2007) held that
Few personality and social psychology variables would retain much predictive validity
following the removal of all of the variance they have in common with the Giant
Three or the Big Five. Indeed, most constructs can be expressed as mixtures of the
basic personality dimensions (Paunonen, 1998). . .. [T]he notion of discriminant valid-
ity concerns what the construct is not expected to predict, rather than whether it can
be discriminated from the major personality dimensions. (pp. 48, 49)

The results of this study are consistent with previous research (e.g., Brackett & Mayer,
2003; Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998; Matthews et al., 2006), which found that self-report
scales measuring EI abilities have shown strong associations with personality traits. It is not
surprising that the ESQ, a measure of emotional intelligence and regulation, significantly and
negatively correlates with a measure of emotional instability and reactivity (Neuroticism). Fur-
ther, is it a fundamental problem that we observe overlap in variance between the ESQ
subscales of Motivation and Adaptability with Conscientiousness, or that ESQ subscales such
as Mentoring, Networking, Influence, and Empathy correlate highly with Extraversion? What
matters most is whether EI as measured by the ESQ makes unique contributions to regression
equations that include the Big Five factors and cognitive ability. To answer this question, step-
wise multiple regressions were conducted that included the Big Five, social desirability, cogni-
tive ability, and the ESQ. The ESQ accounted for over one-third of the variance in life
satisfaction over and above self-esteem (4%) or the Big Five (2%), with only Conscientiousness
achieving significance. This finding is consistent with other studies (e.g., Ciarrochi, Chan, &
Caputi, 2000; Mayer, Caruso, et al., 1999; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 1999; Palmer et al.,

510 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY July 2012

2002; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006). And, after the contributions of Conscientiousness and
Extraversion to GPA, another 5.2% of the variance was contributed by two ESQ subscales,
Identifying Emotions and Networking. The fact that both the personality dimension Extraver-
sion and the ESQ subscale of Networking achieved significance in the equation is another indi-
cation that the ESQ and its subscales are tapping a construct distinct from the Big Five.
Finally, the results of the third regression analysis showed that after substantial contributions
by Openness and Extraversion, the two ESQ subscales of Influence and Networking contrib-
uted an additional 4.7% to the variance in leadership aspirations. This finding resonates with
that of Charbonneau and Nicol (2002), who found that aspects of EI are associated with lead-
ership in adolescents.
Lastly, the final regression analysis showed that nearly half of the ESQ’s variance was not
accounted for by the Big Five, cognitive ability, or social desirability combined. This is in con-
trast to the EQ-i Short Form, which shared 79% of its variance with the Big Five factors
(Grubb & McDaniel, 2007). So, while historically emotional intelligence has been an elusive
construct, difficult to define, and difficult to measure, this study shows that EI, as measured by
the ESQ, is a valid construct deserving further investigation.

CONCLUSION

The ESQ possesses discriminant and convergent validity and makes unique contributions to
the variance in life satisfaction, grade point average, and leadership aspirations. It is highly cor-
related in the expected directions with the Emotional Intelligence Scale, alexithymia, and positive
and negative affect. While the ESQ was correlated with the Big Five dimensions, most notably
Neuroticism, this should come as no surprise as the Big Five personality factors account for a
large amount of variance in most personality constructs (O’Connor, 2002; Petrides, Perez-
Gonzalez, & Furnham, 2007). Approximately half of the variance of the ESQ is not explained
by the Big Five, social desirability, or cognitive ability, suggesting the ESQ is measuring a
distinct construct. Regarding limitations to the present study, shared method variance (i.e., the
use of self-report to measure the study’s variables) may have contributed to the strong associ-
ations observed between scales of the ESQ and the EIS, the Big Five, and the PANAS.
Regarding selection criteria for EI instruments, therapists and researchers can first consider
whether an instrument is composed of subscales guided by psychological and systemic theory
regarding emotional intelligence, which the ESQ is, or if it takes a more global, ‘‘kitchen sink’’
approach to the overall EI concept (e.g., EQ-i), including a vast array of interesting but distally
related constructs (e.g., optimism). If the measure possesses construct validity and seems theo-
retically sound, a second criterion is how large of a unique contribution that an EI instrument
makes in explaining variance in other variables of interest to MFTs, marriage and family
researchers, and other helping professionals (e.g., marital adjustment and life satisfaction). The
ESQ fulfills this second criterion as well.
With regard to clinical implications and applications, Croyle and Waltz (2002) found that
‘‘discrepancy between partners’ levels of emotional awareness may be a valid therapeutic target
because of its impact on relationship satisfaction for both men and women’’ (p. 443). The pres-
ent study has demonstrated that the ESQ is a reliable and valid measure of emotional aware-
ness, and previous research (Vennum, 2006) has indicated the ESQ’s value in predicting
couples’ relationship satisfaction. Therefore, the ESQ could be used as an assessment tool to
identify emotional ‘‘growth edges’’ in couple relationships and to measure progress in individ-
ual, couple, and family therapies. The ESQ can be administered in approximately 9 min, and a
discussion of ESQ subscale scores could lead to a deepening of the therapeutic conversation
about the importance of becoming aware of one’s own emotional states and stating or articulat-
ing them in constructive ways in intimate relationships.
Studies are being conducted currently to explore the ESQ’s ability to account for therapy
outcomes in couples receiving emotionally focused therapy (EFT), the ESQ’s ability to explain
job satisfaction and resilience in healthcare professionals, the ESQ’s ability to measure increases
in emotional intelligence in youth who have completed an intervention for bullying behavior,
and the relationship between EI, mindfulness, and students’ experience of boredom. In

July 2012 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 511

addition, recent research has pointed to a link between EI and workplace performance (Cart-
wright & Pappas, 2008; Druskat, Sala, & Mount, 2006; Usha & Chandrani, 2006), the role EI
can play in organizations (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005), and the advantages of EI frameworks in
work milieus changing at a rapid pace because of globalization (Tori, Nauriyal, & Bhalla,
2006). As this study’s results suggest that the ESQ makes unique contributions to the variance
on life satisfaction, GPA, and leadership aspirations, and other studies have indicated that the
ESQ accounts for dyadic adjustment in couples and resilience in clinicians, further research is
recommended. It is hoped that inclusion of the ESQ in research studies will aid our attempts to
‘‘listen to the music’’ of emotion and capture its crucial role in human relational systems.

REFERENCES

Ashkanasy, N., & Daus, C. (2005). Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior are
vastly exaggerated. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 441–452.
Atkinson, B. (2005). Emotional intelligence in couples therapy: Advances in neurobiology and the science of intimate
relationships. New York: W. W. Norton.
Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., & Egan, V. (2005). Personality, well-being and health correlates of trait emotional
intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 547–558.
Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., Huang, S. H. S., & McKenney, D. (2004). Measurement of trait emotional intelli-
gence: Testing and cross-validating a modified version of the Schutte et al. (1998) measure. Personality and
Individual Differences, 36, 555–562.
Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D. A., & Taylor, G. J. (1994). The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale: Item selec-
tion and cross-validation of the factor structure. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38, 23–32.
Barchard, K. A. (2003). Does emotional intelligence assist in the prediction of academic success? Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 63, 840–858.
Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Technical manual. Toronto, Canada: 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.
Brackett, M., & Mayer, J. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of competing measures of
emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1147–1158.
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, 780–795.
Brown, F. W., Bryant, S. E., & Reilly, M. D. (2006). Does emotional intelligence—as measured by the
EQi—influence transformational leadership and ⁄ or desirable outcomes? Leadership & Organization Develop-
ment Journal, 27, 330–351.
Cartwright, S., & Pappas, C. (2008). Emotional intelligence, its measurement, and implications for the workplace.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 10, 149–171.
Charbonneau, D., & Nicol, A. A. M. (2002). Emotional intelligence and leadership in adolescents. Personality
and Individual Differences, 33, 1101–1113.
Chernis, G., & Goleman, D. (2001). The emotionally intelligent workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ciarrochi, J. V., Chan, A. Y. C., & Caputi, P. (2000). A critical evaluation of the emotional intelligence con-
struct. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 539–561.
Conte, J. M. (2005). A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
26, 433–440.
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for
getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.
Croyle, K. L., & Waltz, J. (2002). Emotional awareness and couples’ relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marital
and Family Therapy, 28, 435–444.
Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of an elusive construct. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 989–1015.
Dawda, D., & Hart, S. (2000). Assessing emotional intelligence: Reliability and validity of the Bar-On Emotional
Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) in university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 797–812.
Derksen, J., Kramer, I., & Katzko, M. (2002). Does a self-report measure of emotional intelligence assess some-
thing different than general intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 37–48.
Diener, F. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.

512 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY July 2012

Dries, N., & Pepermans, R. (2007). Using emotional intelligence to identify high potential: A metacompetency
perspective. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28, 749–770.
Druskat, V. U., Sala, F., & Mount, G. (Eds). (2006). Linking emotional intelligence and performance at work:
Current research evidence with individuals and groups. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Extremera, N., Duran, A., & Rey, L. (2007). Perceived emotional intelligence and dispositional optimism-pessi-
mism: Analyzing their role in predicting psychological adjustment among adolescents. Personality and Indi-
vidual Differences, 42, 1069–1079.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCullum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory
factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299.
Furnham, A., & Petrides, K. V. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence and happiness. Social Behavior and Personal-
ity, 8, 815–824.
Gannon, N., & Ranzijn, R. (2005). Does emotional intelligence predict unique variance in life satisfaction beyond
IQ and personality? Psychology of Individual Differences, 38, 1353–1364.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Greenberg, L. S., & Johnson, S. M. (1986). Affect in marital therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 12,
1–10.
Grubb, W. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2007). The fakability of Bar-On’s Emotional Quotient Inventory Short
Form: Catch me if you can. Human Performance, 20, 43–59.
Hawkins, K. A., Faraone, S. V., Pepple, J. R., Seidman, L. J., & Tsuang, M. T. (1990). WAIS-R validation of
the Wonderlic Personnel Test as a brief intelligence measure in a psychiatric sample. Psychological Assess-
ment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 198–201.
Hill, E. W. (2001). Understanding forgiveness as discovery: Implications for marital and family therapy. Contem-
porary Family Therapy, 23, 369–384.
Jain, A. K., & Sinha, A. K. (2005). General health in organizations: Relative relevance of emotional intelligence,
trust, and organizational support. Journal of Stress Management, 12, 257–273.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical
perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed.,
pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford Press.
Johnson, S. M. (1998). Listening to the music: Emotion as a natural part of systems. Journal of Systemic Thera-
pies: Special Edition on the Use of Emotion in Couples and Family Therapy, 17, 1–17.
Keele, S. M., & Bell, R. C. (2008). The factorial validity of emotional intelligence: An unresolved issue. Person-
ality and Individual Differences, 44, 487–500.
Killian, K. D. (2008). Helping till it hurts? A multi-method study of burnout, compassion fatigue and resilience
in clinicians working with trauma survivors. Traumatology, 14, 31–44.
Landy, F. J., & Conte, J. M. (2004). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and organizational
psychology. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Lyons, J. B., & Schneider, T. R. (2005). The influence of emotional intelligence on performance. Personality and
Individual Differences, 39, 693–703.
MacIntosh, H. B., & Johnson, S. (2008). Emotionally focused therapy for couples and childhood sexual abuse.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34, 298–315.
Matthews, G., Emo, A. K., Funke, G., Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D., Costa, P. T., et al. (2006). Emotional intelli-
gence, personality, and task-induced stress. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 96–107.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an
intelligence. Intelligence, 27, 267–298.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (1999). The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
(MSCEIT V.2., research version). Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
McEnrue, M. P., & Groves, K.. (2006). Choosing among tests of emotional intelligence: What is the evidence?
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17, 9–43.
Murphy, K. R. (2006). A critique of emotional intelligence: What are the problems and how can they be fixed?
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Newsome, S., Day, A., & Catano, V. (2000). Assessing the predictive validity of emotional intelligence. Personal-
ity and Individual Differences, 29, 1005–1016.
O’Brien, K. M., Gray, M. P., Tourajdi, P. P., & Eigenbrode, S. P. (1996). The operationalization of women’s
career choices: The Career Aspiration Scale (CAS). Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psycho-
logical Association, Toronto, Canada.
O’Connor, B. P. (2002). A quantitative review of the comprehensiveness of the five-factor model in relation to
popular personality inventories. Assessment, 9, 188–203.

July 2012 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 513

O’Connor, R., & Little, I. (2003). Revisiting the predictive validity of emotional intelligence: Self-report versus
ability-based measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1893–1902.
Palmer, B., Donaldson, C., & Stough, C. (2002). Emotional intelligence and life satisfaction. Personality and Indi-
vidual Differences, 33, 1091–1100.
Palmer, B., Gignac, G., Manocha, R., & Stough, C. (2005). A psychometric evaluation of the Mayer-Salovey-
Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test version 2.0. Intelligence, 33, 285–305.
Parker, J. D. A., Taylor, G. J., & Bagby, R. M. (2001). The relationship between emotional intelligence and alex-
ithymia. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 107–115.
Paunonen, S. V. (1998). Hierarchical organization of personality and prediction of behavior. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 74, 538–556.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to
established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425–448.
Petrides, K. V., Perez-Gonzalez, J. C., & Furnham, A. (2007). On the criterion and incremental validity of trait
emotional intelligence. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 26–55.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Saklofske, D. H., Austin, E. J., & Minski, P. S. (2003). Factor structure and validity of a trait emotional intelli-
gence measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 707–721.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185–211.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., et al. (1998). Develop-
ment and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167–
177.
Shulman, T., & Hemenover, S. (2006). Is dispositional emotional intelligence synonymous with personality? Self
and Identity, 5, 147–171.
Slaski, M., & Cartwright, S. (2002). Health, performance, and emotional intelligence: An exploratory study of
retail managers. Stress and Health, 18, 63–68.
Stober, J. (2001). The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17): Convergent validity, discriminant validity, and rela-
tionship with age. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 222–232.
Thorndike, R. L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harpers Magazine, 140, 227–235.
Thorndike, R. L., & Stein, S. (1937). An evaluation of the attempts to measure social intelligence. Psychological
Bulletin, 34, 275–285.
Tori, C., Nauriyal, D. K., & Bhalla, S. (2006). Emotional intelligence: A defining parameter of professional suc-
cess. Psychological Studies, 51, 245–260.
Tsaousis, I., & Nikolaou, I. (2005). Exploring the relationship of emotional intelligence with physical and psycho-
logical health functioning. Stress and Health, 21, 77–86.
Usha, K., & Chandrani, S. (2006). Subjective well-being in relation to emotional intelligence and locus of control
among executives. Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 32, 129–134.
Van der Zee, K., & Wabeke, R. (2004). Is trait emotional intelligence simply or more than just a trait? European
Journal of Personality, 18, 243–263.
Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation of predictive
validity and nomological net. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 71–95.
Vennum, A. (2006, January). The relationship between partner emotional intelligence and dyadic adjustment: A
multimethod study. Invited poster presentation at the annual meeting of the Texas Association for Marriage
and Family Therapy, Houston, TX.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and
negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Wechsler, D. (1940). Nonintellective factors in general intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 37, 444–445.

514 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY July 2012