The Myth of Emotional Intelligence: An Empty Term Created for Marketing Purposes
Despite widespread use in corporate environments and HR training programs, the term "Emotional Intelligence" (EI) remains scientifically dubious. The concept, which suggests that individuals can possess an intelligence related to emotions separate from cognitive intelligence (IQ), has failed to gain empirical support in psychological research. While EI has been marketed as a critical success factor in business and leadership, its validity as a standalone intelligence remains highly questionable. In this article, we outline why EI is an empty concept from a scientific perspective, explain why it lacks quantifiability, and discuss how its purported functions are better explained by existing personality models and cognitive ability.
What Is "Emotional Intelligence," and Where Did It Originate?
The term "Emotional Intelligence" (EI) gained traction in the 1990s, largely due to Daniel Goleman’s bestselling book Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ (1995). However, the academic foundation of EI was first introduced by Peter Salovey and John D. Mayer (1990), who defined it as the ability to perceive, understand, manage, and regulate emotions in oneself and others.
Despite its initial appeal, EI has never been consistently defined or tested using empirical standards comparable to IQ tests (Landy, 2005). Unlike intelligence, which is measurable, stable, and predictive of real-world outcomes, EI remains an ambiguous concept with multiple overlapping definitions.
No Testing Methodology, No Standards, No System
Unlike General Mental Ability (GMA), which has been extensively validated as the best predictor of job performance (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), EI has no standardized testing system and no replicable measurement criteria.
The fundamental issue is that EI is too vague to be refuted — it is an umbrella term encompassing personality traits, social skills, and learned behaviors. If a term is not clearly defined, it is scientifically unfalsifiable and thus meaningless in empirical research (Popper, 1959).
Psychometricians have repeatedly failed to establish a reliable way to measure EI as a distinct intelligence. Unlike IQ, which has objective testing methods (e.g., Wechsler Intelligence Scale, Raven’s Matrices), EI assessments are self-reported, leading to social desirability bias and poor reliability (Conte, 2005).
Additionally, meta-analyses (Harms & Credé, 2010; Joseph & Newman, 2010) have found no consistent predictive power for EI beyond traditional personality factors such as Conscientiousness or Extraversion (McCrae & Costa, 1987).
Intelligence vs. Emotional Intelligence: A False Comparison
Traditional intelligence research focuses on General Mental Ability (GMA), which is defined as an individual’s capacity for problem-solving, abstract reasoning, and cognitive processing speed (Gottfredson, 1997). This stands in contrast to EI, which is not intelligence in any meaningful sense—it is a collection of social skills and personality traits.
Many of the attributes claimed by EI proponents are already well-explored under established psychological models. Specifically:
Self-awareness → Neuroticism (Big Five)
Self-regulation → Conscientiousness (Big Five)
Empathy → Agreeableness (Big Five)
Social skills → Extraversion (Big Five)
If EI were truly a distinct form of intelligence, it would need to demonstrate predictive power beyond what the Big Five and GMA already explain. Yet, research shows it does not (Antonakis et al., 2009).
Does Higher "EQ" Correlate with Better Use of IQ?
Proponents of EI claim that it enhances an individual's ability to utilize their IQ effectively. However, no solid scientific evidence supports this claim. Studies examining the relationship between EI and cognitive performance have found at best weak and inconsistent correlations (Harms & Credé, 2010).
In contrast, IQ remains the most reliable predictor of academic achievement, professional success, and complex problem-solving ability (Schmidt et al., 2016). If EI truly enhanced cognitive functioning, we would expect to see consistent high correlations between EI and IQ — yet no such pattern exists.
A Real Correlation: Lower IQ Predicts Stronger Belief in the Power of Emotional Intelligence
The widespread belief that a so-called “higher Emotional Intelligence (EI)” enhances cognitive abilities and enables individuals to make better use of their Intelligence Quotient (IQ) may itself correlate with lower IQ. This correlation could be explained by a tendency among individuals with lower cognitive abilities to embrace intuitive yet scientifically unsubstantiated concepts. Research has shown that EI is an ill-defined construct, encompassing various learned skills and personality traits rather than a measurable form of intelligence (Locke, 2005; Maul, 2012).
Despite this, many still perceive EI as a cognitive enhancer, a belief that persists largely due to its appealing but oversimplified narrative. Landy (2005) highlights that claims about EI’s predictive power often lack empirical support, suggesting that its popularity may stem from a preference for non-cognitive explanations of success. Individuals with lower IQ may be more susceptible to such reasoning errors, as they are less likely to critically evaluate the conceptual and methodological flaws in EI research. This aligns with the broader psychological phenomenon where those with lower cognitive ability exhibit a higher likelihood of endorsing unfounded or pseudoscientific claims. Thus, rather than EI improving IQ utilization, the belief in this notion may itself be indicative of lower analytical reasoning and a reduced ability to distinguish between robust scientific findings and popular psychological myths.
What Does "Emotional IQ" Actually Measure?
Despite its misleading name, "Emotional IQ" is not a type of intelligence. It is a mix of learned behaviors and personality traits, as seen in the following breakdown:
Self-awareness → Related to Neuroticism (Big Five)
Self-regulation → Overlaps with Emotional Stability
Motivation → A general psychological construct, not intelligence
Empathy → A personality trait, not cognitive ability
Social skills → Acquired behavior, not an innate intelligence
We’ll break it down next in a bit more detail
Self-awareness. The ability to recognize and understand one’s emotions. However, this overlaps significantly with introspection and certain dimensions of the Big Five personality traits, particularly Neuroticism.
Self-regulation. Managing one’s emotions in response to different situations. Again, this is closely related to personality traits such as Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability.
Motivation. A drive to achieve goals, often presented as an indicator of high EI. However, motivation is an independent factor influenced by numerous variables, including temperament and life circumstances.
Empathy. The ability to understand and share the feelings of others. While this is a valuable social trait, it is not a cognitive function or a form of intelligence.
Social Skills. Interpersonal effectiveness in communication and leadership. While these skills can be learned and developed, they do not reflect raw cognitive ability.
If we were to dissect EI into its individual components, we would find that none of them represent intelligence in the traditional sense (Gottfredson, 1997).
Why Emotional Intelligence Persists: Marketing and Corporate Training
The widespread acceptance of EI is not based on scientific validity but rather on marketing success. Daniel Goleman’s work and the corporate leadership industry have made EI a profitable product. Organizations spend billions on EI training programs, despite no empirical evidence that these programs lead to measurable improvements in job performance (Antonakis, 2015).
The very reason EI has gained popularity is its buzzword-friendly nature — combining "emotional" (a concept people value) with "intelligence" (a desirable trait). However, coining a term does not make it scientifically legitimate.
SelfFusion's Approach: Real Intelligence, Not Buzzwords
At SelfFusion, we reject EI as a valid scientific construct but acknowledge that social competence is a useful skill. Instead of treating it as intelligence, we quantify it as the horizontal spread of abilities within an individual's GMA channel.
Key differences between SelfFusion’s approach and EI:
We do not use self-reported questionnaires but analyze behavior based on actions over time.
We acknowledge the role of personality traits rather than pretending social skills represent intelligence.
We use hierarchical value structures (SIVH, CVA) to define decision-making rather than vague "emotional awareness" concepts.
Conclusion: Emotional Intelligence is an Illusion
EI fails as a scientific concept for several reasons:
It lacks quantifiability—there is no standardized measure.
It overlaps with existing personality traits—making it redundant.
It does not predict job performance better than GMA or Big Five traits.
It is self-reported and subject to bias.
It is more of a marketing tool than a psychological construct.
Rather than investing in EI-based training, companies and individuals should focus on cognitive ability, structured value hierarchies, and quantifiable competencies. Intelligence, as traditionally defined, remains the best predictor of performance, adaptability, and decision-making.
Some of the References Used for the Article
1. Antonakis, J. (2015). “Predicting leadership: The forgotten cause in leadership research.” Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 250-263.
2. Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2009). “Does leadership need emotional intelligence?” The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 247-261.
3. Conte, J. M. (2005). “A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 433-440.
4. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Bantam Books.
5. Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). “Mainstream science on intelligence.” Intelligence, 24(1), 13-23.
6. 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.
7. Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). “Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54-78.
8. Landy, F. J. (2005). “Some historical and scientific issues related to research on emotional intelligence.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 411-424. Critiques the scientific basis of EI, arguing that it lacks empirical support and is often overstated in applied settings.
9. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). “Validation of the Five-Factor Model of Personality across instruments and observers.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81-90.
10. Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I. S., & Shaffer, J. A. (2016). “The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 100 years of research findings.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 1-32.
11. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). “The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings.” Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.
12. Locke, E. A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 425-431. Argues that EI is a misleading concept that conflates personality traits and learned skills rather than constituting a distinct form of intelligence.
13. 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. Highlights methodological flaws in EI measurement, particularly issues with consensus-based scoring.
14. 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. Found that EI’s predictive power on job performance significantly diminishes when controlling for IQ and personality traits, indicating that EI is not a unique predictor of cognitive performance.
