


































Advances in Business Research 2010 Volume 1.pdf


133

Advances in Business Research

 !"#$%""&'()*$+,)-"(#"$./0&",/#1$23!/4!,(5$+,/"5546",)"7

Barbara Burgess-Wilkerson, Winthrop University

Keith Benson, Winthrop University

Steven Frankforter, Winthrop University

 !"#$#%&'($")*+#%",-%+#$%!+$+.%+)%$%/$0!"1!$+2/%"/)-3$")%+33",+)1+$1-)$4+$#&11+##5&33($'+*+3/6+'$%!7/&,!$-$#+2+#%+78

3/),$13-##7//2$")%+7*+)%"/)$-)'$#+358'"7+1%+'$3+-7)"),$67/1+##$-2/),$#%&'+)%#$")$-$1/33+,+$/5$4&#")+##$-'2")"#%7-%"/)9$

We found that with emotional intelligence training, all students experienced improvement between the administrations 

/5$ 67+8%+#%#$ -)'$ 6/#%8%+#%#9$  !"#$ 7+#&3%$ -3#/$ !+3'$ 7+,-7'3+##$ /5$2-%&7"%($ 3+*+3$ :&)'+7,7-'&-%+$ /7$ ,7-'&-%+$ #%&'+)%$

#%-%&#;<$/7$,+)'+79

 !"#$!%&#!'#&()#*+%&#,)-&."/0#&()#1-&)2213)-,)#4.!&1)-&#5678#&)%&#9+%#&()#*"1$+"/#$)&(!:#&!#3+.3)#1-&)2213)-,)#

and was often used as a predictor for success in the corporate world. Many human resource managers correlated 

3"+:)#*!1-&#+;)"+3)#91&(#670#9(1,(#)<*2+1-%#9(/#3"+:)#*!1-&#+;)"+3)#9+%#!'&)-#+#")4.1")$)-&#1-#&()#=!>#+**21,+&1!-#

process. However, research in the 1980’s found that cognitive ability, as demonstrated on IQ tests, did not represent 

+# ,!$*")()-%1;)# *1,&.")# !'# (.$+-# 1-&)22),&?#  !"# )<+$*2)0#@.-&)"# +-:#@.-&)"# 5ABCD8# '!.-:# &(+&# 67# +,,!.-&%# '!"#

+**"!<1$+&)2/#!-2/#EF#*)",)-&#!'#&()#;+"1+-,)#1-#,+"))"#%.,,)%%0#9(12)#G&)"->)"3#5ABBH8#*!1-&):#!.&#&(+&#%&.:1)%#;+"/#

+-:#&(+&#67#$+/#+,,!.-&#'!"#!-2/#+>!.&#AI#*)",)-&#!'#&()#;+"1+-,)#1-#,+"))"#%.,,)%%?#J()#4.)%&1!-#&()-#+"!%)K#1'#67#1%#

-!&#+#;)"/#")21+>2)#*"):1,&!"#'!"#,+"))"#%.,,)%%0#&()-#9(+&#1%L

G+2!;)/#+-:#M+/)"N%# 5ABBI8# %&.:/#!'# %!,1+2# 5-!-O,!3-1&1;)8# 1-&)2213)-,)#*")%)-&):#+# '"+$)9!"P# '!"#)$!&1!-+2#

1-&)2213)-,)# 5Q680# 9(1,(# 9+%# >+%):# !-# &()# +>121&/# &!# ")3.2+&)# !-)N%# )$!&1!-# +-:# +,,."+&)2/# $!-1&!"1-3# !&()"N%#

)$!&1!-%?# R!2)$+-# 5ABBF8# )<+$1-):# &()# ")2+&1!-%(1*# >)&9))-# &"+:1&1!-+2# ,!3-1&1;)# 67# &)%&%# +-:# %.,,)%%# 1-# &()#

9!"P*2+,)0#S-:1-3# &(+&# 67#>/# 1&%)2'#9+%#-!&#+#3!!:#*"):1,&!"#!'# =!>#*)"'!"$+-,)?#T()"-1%%# 5EIII8# '!.-:# &(+&#Q6#

is critical for effective work performance. A national survey found four in ten workers were not able to work 

,!!*)"+&1;)2/#91&(#')22!9O)$*2!/))%#+-:#!-2/#AB#*)",)-&#!'#)-&"/O2);)2#+**21,+-&%#(+;)#%.'S,1)-&#%)2'O:1%,1*21-)#1-#

9!"P#(+>1&%#5@+""1%#Q:.,+&1!-#U)%)+",(#T!.-,120#ABBA8?#T!-%1:)"1-3#%.,(#S-:1-3%0#*)"(+*%#>.%1-)%%#%,(!!2%#%(!.2:#

consider incorporating emotional intelligence development into their curriculums. In this study, we examine whether 

emotional intelligence feedback can increase students’ emotional intelligence.

829+2:$;%$<+=28>=?82

J(!"-:1P)#+-:#G&)1-#5ABVW8#%&+&):#&(+&#%!,1+2#1-&)2213)-,)#1%#&()#+>121&/#&!#.-:)"%&+-:#!&()"%#+-:#+,&#91%)2/#1-#

(.$+-#")2+&1!-%?#Q$!&1!-+2#1-&)2213)-,)#>.12:%#!-#&(1%#,!-,)*&?#X,,!":1-3#&!#G+2!;)/#+-:#M+/)"#5ABBI8#Q$!&1!-+2#

intelligence is “a form of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s own and other’s feelings and 

)$!&1!-%0#&!#:1%,"1$1-+&)#+$!-3#&()$0#+-:#&!#.%)#&(1%#1-'!"$+&1!-#&!#3.1:)#!-)N%#&(1-P1-3#+-:#+,&1!-Y#5ABBIKACF8?#

R!2)$+-# 5ABBF8# '!.-:# &(+&# )$!&1!-+2# 1-&)2213)-,)# 1%# +#$!")# 1$*!"&+-&#:)&)"$1-+-&#!'#$+-+3)$)-&# %.,,)%%# &(+-#

technical expertise or cognitive ability. There is recognition among researchers and practitioners that emotions play 

a large role in organizational life. For example, emotional intelligence is a key area to help accountants perform better 

5XP)"%#Z#[!"&)"0#EIIV8?#X::1&1!-+22/0#R!2)$+-0#\!/+&]1%0#+-:#M,^))#5EIIE8#'!.-:#&(+&#*+"&-)"%#1-#+#2+"3)#*.>21,#

+,,!.-&1-3#S"$#91&(# %&"!-3# %)2'O$+-+3)$)-&# +-:# %!,1+2# %P122%# +,(1);):#+#VBI#*)",)-&# 1-,")$)-&+2# +--.+2#*"!S&#

versus a 50 percent increase for partners with strong analytical skills.

## 6-#+#%&.:/#!'#M\X#%&.:)-&%0#\!/+&]1%0#G&.>>%0#+-:#J+/2!"0#5EIIE8#,!-,2.:):#&(+&#M\X#*"!3"+$%#%(!.2:#*.&#

forth a concerted effort to integrate emotional intelligence training using a more non-traditional holistic approach to 

positively impact employment outcomes. Research indicates a positive correlation between emotional intelligence 

+-:# ,!3-1&1;)O>+%):#*)"'!"$+-,)# +$!-3#,!22)3)# %&.:)-&%?#_+$#+-:#^1">/# 5EIIE8# +%,)"&+1-):# &()# 2);)2# &!#9(1,(#

emotional intelligence accounts for increases in individual cognitive-based performance above the level attributable 

to general intelligence. They found a positive correlation existed in three of the four emotional intelligence subscales; 

overall EI, perceiving emotions, and regulating emotions.

X#%.";)/#!'#)$*2!/)"%#,!-:.,&):#>/#&()#`+&1!-+2#X%%!,1+&1!-#!'#T!22)3)%#+-:#Q$*2!/)"%#'!.-:#&(+&#)$*2!/)"%#

"+&):#1-&)"*)"%!-+2#%P122%#+%#&()#$!%&#:)%1"):#%P122#!'#"),)-&#3"+:.+&)%#5G(1;*."1#Z#̂ 1$0#EIID8?#6-#+#%&.:/#!'#+,,!.-&1-3#

%&.:)-&%0#\+/#+-:#M,^)+3)#5EIIH8#'!.-:#&()#+;)"+3)#+,,!.-&1-3#%&.:)-&%#:1:#-!&#(+;)#+#(13(#2);)2#!'#)$!&1!-+2#

intelligence, and given the critical role of emotional intelligence in career success, those students were ill-prepared 

2010, Vol. 1, No. 1, 133-141

Burgess-Wilkerson, Benson & Frankforter



134

Advances in Business Research

for their futures. They argue that emotional intelligence has relevance for accountants in the areas of decision-making 

and also suggests that emotional intelligence is a variable that may explain the gap between ethical understanding 

and ethical behavior in the workplace. While graduates of business programs may be technically prepared for their 

disciplines, they are not necessarily prepared for the emotional aspects of work. Esmond-Kiger, Tucker, and Yost 

5EIIH8#");)+2):#&(+&#+2&(!.3(#+,,!.-&1-3#%&.:)-&%#!-#+;)"+3)#(+;)#(13()"#R[X%#&(+-#-!-O+,,!.-&1-3#,!.-&)"*+"&%0#

they reported lower levels of emotional intelligence. They recommend the incorporation of emotional intelligence 

training into the accounting.

J()#X$)"1,+-#T!22)3)#[)"%!--)2#X%%!,1+&1!-#,+22):#'!"#+#")%*!-%)#&!#&()#$!.-&1-3#);1:)-,)#!'#&()#1$*!"&+-,)#!'#

emotional intelligence in academic and career success and advocated the promotion of  a student development model 

of learning that incorporates emotional intelligence competencies, through engagement in applied research efforts 

to promote holistic learning through an integrated learning community commonly referred to as  Student Learning 

6$*)"+&1;)0#9(1,(#*2+,)%#%&.:)-&#:);)2!*$)-&#!-#*+"#91&(#%&.:)-&#2)+"-1-3#5_!90#_!$+<0#a+,P%!-#Z#`)2%!-0#EIID8?

@AB!/C"#"#

Business schools are creatively infusing emotional intelligence into the business curriculum as a holistic approach 

to promote student professional development. In one instance emotional intelligence theory was infused into a school’s 

business communication curriculum as a strategy for developing interpersonal and intrapersonal communications 

$!")#)''),&1;)2/#5M/)"%#Z#J.,P)"0#EIIF8?#b+-:)";!!"&#5EIIH8#+:;!,+&)%#1$*"!;1-3#%&.:)-&#)$!&1!-+2#1-&)2213)-,)#

>),+.%)# &(!%)# 91&(# (13()"# %)2'OP-!92):3)# &)-:# &!# $+P)# >)&&)"# ,+"))"# ,(!1,)%0# (+;)# 2)%%# >)(+;1!"+2c)$!&1!-+2#

problems, and have higher scores on standardized achievement tests.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the extent to which emotional intelligence can be developed through 

+#%)$)%&)"O2!-3#,2+%%"!!$#1-&)";)-&1!-#+-:#%)2'O:1"),&):#2)+"-1-3#*"!,)%%#+$!-3#%)2),&):#%&.:)-&%#1-#+#T!22)3)#!'#

Business Administration. We predict that emotional intelligence feedback will increase student scores on EI tests. We 

also predict that both graduate and undergraduate students will improve their EI scores. Finally, we predict that both 

$+2)#+-:#')$+2)#%&.:)-&%#9122#1$*"!;)#&()1"#Q6#%,!")%?#X,,!":1-32/0#9)#!'')"#&()#'!22!91-3#(/*!&()%)%K

@AK## Q$!&1!-+2#1-&)2213)-,)#')):>+,P#9122#")%.2&#1-#1-,")+%)%#1-#%&.:)-&#)$!&1!-+2#1-&)2213)-,)#%,!")%?

@EK# Q$!&1!-+2# 1-&)2213)-,)# ')):>+,P#9122# ")%.2&# 1-# 1-,")+%)%# '!"# >!&(# 3"+:.+&)# +-:# .-:)"3"+:.+&)# %&.:)-&#

emotional intelligence scores.

@VK## Q$!&1!-+2# 1-&)2213)-,)# ')):>+,P# 9122# ")%.2&# 1-# 1-,")+%)%# '!"# >!&(# $+2)# +-:# ')$+2)# %&.:)-&# )$!&1!-+2#

intelligence scores.

 2.+DE$;%$=@2$.=? F

Participants and Assessment Tool

Students in two graduate and one undergraduate course at a university in the southeastern United States during 

the fall semester of 2009 were informed of the opportunity to participate in an emotional intellegence project. The 

study included 121 students. There were 77 undergraduate and 44 graduate students, whose age ranged from 19 to 47, 

with an average age of 23. All undergraduate students were either juniors or seniors. Sixty-two students were female 

+-:#FB#9)")#$+2)?#[+"&1,1*+-&%#&!!P#&()#Q$!&1!-+2#6-&)2213)-,)#7.!&1)-&#@13()"#Q:.,+&1!-#Q:1&1!-#5Q76@):8#!-21-)#

self-assessment before intervention as a pre-test and then near the end of the semester, after intervention as a post-

&)%&?#J()#Q76@):#1%#+#%)2'O")*!"&1-3#1-%&".$)-&#:);)2!*):#>/#\+"Od-#5EIII8#&!#$)+%.")#+-#+""+/#!'#-!-O,!3-1&1;)#

capabilities, competencies and skills based on the construct model of social and emotional intelligence. 

J()#+%%)%%$)-&#&!!2#1%#:1;1:):#1-&!#S;)#3)-)"+2#,!$*!-)-&%#+2!-3#91&(#%);)"+2#%.>,!$*!-)-&%?#J()#S"%&#3)-)"+2#

component, intrapersonal, included measures of self-regard, emotional self-awareness, assertiveness, independence, 

and self-actualization. The second, interpersonal, included empathy, social responsibility, and interpersonal 

relationship. The third, stress management, included stress tolerance, and impulse control. The fourth, adaptability, 

1-,2.:):#")+21&/#&)%&1-30#e)<1>121&/0#+-:#*"!>2)$O%!2;1-3?# 1-+22/0#3)-)"+2#$!!:0#1-,2.:):#!*&1$1%$#+-:#(+**1-)%%#

5M+/)"0#T+".%!#Z#G+2!;)/0#EIII8?#J+>2)#A#>)2!9#%(!9%#&()#;+"1+>2)#:)S-1&1!-%#'!"#&()#Q76@):#")*!"&#'"!$#\+"d-#

Emotional Intelligence Quotient Technical Manual. 

f)# ");1)9):# &()# M@G# &)%&1-3# 1-%&".,&1!-%# +-:# 6-&)"-+2# U);1)9# \!+":# 56U\8# ,!-%)-&# *!21,1)%# '!"# !*&1$+2#

.-:)"%&+-:1-3#!'#*+"&1,1*+&1!-# ")4.1")$)-&%#+-:#,!-S:)-&1+2&/?#Q+,(#%&.:)-&#*+"&1,1*+-&# "),)1;):#+#*+%%,!:)#+-:#

instructions for accessing the EQiHed protocol through the MHS website. There was no time limit for completion of 

the EQIHed assessment, though the average time was 15 minutes. When the duration of the assessment was under 

2010, Vol. 1, No. 1, 133-141

Burgess-Wilkerson, Benson & Frankforter



135

Advances in Business Research

AI#$1-.&)%# 1&#9+%#e+33):#1-# &()#%,!"1-3#!"3+-1])"#'!"#'!22!9O.*#91&(# &()#%&.:)-&?#J("))#*!%%1>2)#%!.",)%#!'#>1+%#

were controlled for.  First, a positive impression score, to detect the feigning of enhanced emotional functioning. 

Next, a negative impression score, to detect imulation or malingering. And last, an inconsistency index, to identify 

respondents who contradict themselves or respond randomly. In no case did any respondents in this study have bias 

scores that exceeded the critical values set forth by the BarOn Emotional Intelligence Quotient Technical Manual.

=('5"$GH$9(-4('5"$ "I,4/4!,#

Intervention

[+"&1,1*+-&%#9)")#*"!;1:):#+#,!*/#!'#&()#Q$!&1!-+2#T!$*)&)-,)# "+$)9!"P#'"!$#&()#T!-%!"&1.$#'!"#U)%)+",(#

on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations as part of a group discussion to fully comprehend the scope of emotional 

itelligence. Assessment instructions and passcodes were emailed to participants with a deadline of one week for 

pre-test completion. After completing the initial assessment, students received a Student Summary Reports, which 

included a four page summary of the three highest and two lowest scores. Afer one week, participants received 

+#G&.:)-&#T!$*")()-%1;)#U)*!"&# ,!-&+1-1-3# +-# ACO*+3)# ")*!"&# !'# +22# %,+2)# +-:# %.>%,+2)# ")%.2&%0# 1-%&".,&1!-%# '!"#

interpretation, and instructions for the in-class coaching session.

J()#,!+,(1-3#%)%%1!-#9+%#:)%13-):#&!#+,(1);)#&()#'!22!91-3#3!+2%K#&!#.-:)"%&+-:#&()#$)+-1-3#!'#&()#Q6#%,+2)%#+-:#

sub-scales and releated scores, to receive assistance in identifying strengths and growth areas for future development, 

and to develop a 30 day plan for self-improvement. In-class discussions addressed the impact of emotional 

intelligence in academic and career success, relationships, family life, and overall emotional well-being. Proposed 

self-improvement plans were reviewed to ensure feasibility, measurability, and appropriateness on a set limit of two 

intervention areas. Individuals were also provided an opportunity for individual counseling and coaching to address 

anxieties or concerns regarding any aspect of the report.

Throughout the semester, on-going classroom discussions empasized the relevance of emotional intelligence in 

the academic, professional and social realms. At the end of the semester, the EQIHed test was re-administered online. 

Participants were instructed to conduct a comparative analysis of pre- and post-test scores to ascertain the extent to 

which EI scored increased, decreased or remained unchanged. Students were assigned to write a self-analysis paper 

&(+&#1-,2.):):#&()#!.&,!$)%#!'#&()#VI#:+/#*2+-K#&()1"#*")O#+-:#*!%&O&)%&#%,!")%0#&()#:)&+12%#!'#&()#VIO:+/#1-&)";)-&1!-0#

$)+%."+>2)#+-:#4.+21&+&1;)#!.&,!$)%0#+-:#'.&.")#*2+-%?#

Results

We computed descriptive statistics for the pre-test and the post-test for the population of 121 students. Table 2 

shows the pre-test descriptive statistics and Table 3 shows the post-test descriptive statistics.

 
Variable Variable Name Variable Definition 

T Total Emotional Intelligence A general indication of a respondent’s level of emotional intelligent.  

INTRA Intrapersonal It determines how in touch with your feelings you are, how good you feel about yourself and about what 
you’re doing in life. 

REG Self Regard The ability to respect and accept oneself as basically good. 

AW Emotional self-awareness The ability to recognize one's feelings. 

ASS Assertiveness The ability to express feelings, beliefs and thoughts and defend one's rights in a non-destructive manner. 

IND Independence The ability to be self-directed and self-controlled. 

ACT Self-Actualization  The ability to realize one potential capacities. 

INTER Interpersonal Concerns what are known as people skills. 

EMP Empathy The ability to be aware of, understand, and appreciate the feelings of others. 

SOC Social responsiblity The ability to demonstrate oneself as a cooperative, contributing, and constructive member of one’s social 

group. 

INTREL Interpersonal  

relationship 

The ability to establish and maintain mutually satisfying relationships that are characterized by intimacy and 

by giving and receiving affection. 

SMGMT Stress managment Concerns the ability to withstand stress without caving in, falling apart, or losing control. 

STOL Stress tolerance The ability to withstand adverse events and stressful situations by actively and positively coping with stress. 

IMP Impulse control The ability to resist or delay an impulse, drive, or temptation to act. 

ADA Adaptability Concerns the ability to size up and respond to a wide range of difficult situations. 

REAL Reality testing The ability to assess the correspondence between what is expected and what objectively exists. 

FLEX Flexibility The ability to adjust one’s emotions, thoughts, and behaviors to changing situations and conditions. 

PRSOL Problem solving The ability to identify and define problems as well as to generate and implement potentially effective 

solutions. 

MOOD General mood Concerns your overall outlook on life, your ability to enjoy yourself and others and your overall feelings of 

contentment or dissatisfaction 

OPT Optimism  The ability to look at the brighter side of life. 

HAP Happiness The ability to feel satisfied with one’s life, to enjoy oneself and others, and to have fun. 

 

2010, Vol. 1, No. 1, 133-141

Burgess-Wilkerson, Benson & Frankforter



136

Advances in Business Research

=('5"$JH$K-"L="#/$ "#)-4B/4M"$./(/4#/4)#

=('5"$NH$K!#/L="#/$ "#)-4B/4M"$./(/4#/4)#

We analyzed student pre-test and post-test scores using a paired sample t-test. Table 4 reports EI difference 

&O%&+&1%&1,%# +-:# %&+&1%&1,+2# %13-1S,+-,)# 2);)2%# '!"# +22# AEA# %&.:)-&%?#X# -)3+&1;)# &O%&+&1%&1,# %(!9%# 1$*"!;)$)-&# '"!$#

the pre-test to the post-test assessment, while a positive t-statistic would show decline from the pre-test to the post-

&)%&?#`1-)&))-#!'#&()#EI#Q6#%.>%,!")%#%(!9):#%&+&1%&1,+22/#%13-1S,+-,)#1-,")+%)%#!'#+&#2)+%&#[#g#?IF#'!"#%&.:)-&%#'"!$#

the pre-test to the post-test. The only variable not showing improvement was impulse control. The EI total score 

1$*"!;):#>/#[#g#?IIA?#J()%)#")%.2&%#,!-S"$#@A0#&(+&#1-&)";)-&1!-#:!)%#1-,")+%)#+#%&.:)-&%N#)$!&1!-+2#1-&)2213)-,)?

J()#%&.:/#&()-#'!,.%):#!-#9()&()"#$+&."1&/#2);)20#+%#:)$!-%&"+&):#>/#%&.:)-&#%&+&.%#5.-:)"3"+:.+&)#!"#3"+:.+&)80#

1-e.)-,):#Q6#:);)2!*$)-&?#J+>2)#F#")*!"&%#Q6#:1'')")-,)#&O%&+&1%&1,%#+-:#%&+&1%&1,+2#%13-1S,+-,)#'!"#.-:)"3"+:.+&)#

%&.:)-&%?#J()#&!&+2#Q6#%,!")#+-:#AH#!'#&()#EI#Q6#%.>%,!")%#%(!9):#%&+&1%&1,+22/#%13-1S,+-,)#1-,")+%)%#!'#+&#2)+%&#[#

g# ?IF#'!"#.-:)"3"+:.+&)#%&.:)-&%# '"!$#&()#*")O&)%&# &!# &()#*!%&O&)%&?#J()#;+"1+>2)%#-!&#%(!91-3# 1$*"!;)$)-&#9)")#

1-:)*)-:)-,)0#%!,1+2#")%*!-%1>121&/0#1$*.2%)#,!-&"!20#+-:#e)<1>121&/?

Variable n Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation 

T1 121 62 131 102.81 11.921 

INTRA1 121 58 130 102.99 13.158 

REG1 121 58 127 105.39 11.982 

AW1 121 61 129 102.12 14.284 

ASS1 121 62 130 102.21 14.134 

IND1 121 52 126 99.64 14.605 

ACT1 121 40 126 102.20 13.910 

INTER1 121 67 127 101.73 12.774 

EMP1 121 66 123 98.81 14.069 

SOC1 121 63 120 99.74 13.958 

INTREL1 121 66 127 104.14 12.691 

SMGMT1 121 67 128 102.79 12.430 

STOL1 121 57 130 98.92 14.216 

IMP1 121 58 129 105.88 13.042 

ADA1 121 64 133 102.01 12.397 

REAL1 121 63 130 101.4 13.063 

FLEX1 121 55 131 102.99 12.238 

PRSOL1 121 63 126 100.83 13.188 

MOOD1 121 62 125 103.75 10.988 

OPT1 121 59 124 100.30 12.333 

HAP1 121 72 123 106.48 10.708 

121 77 134 110.74 11.153 

 121 74 132 110.67 10.815 

121 80 129 110.07 10.446 

121 67 132 109.73 13.702 

121 68 130 108.96 11.825 

121 62 126 104.14 13.160 

121 68 124 108.43 10.774 

 121 60 127 107.12 12.840 

121 48 123 104.53 14.663 

121 52 123 103.00 13.729 

INTREL2 121 73 128 109.34 11.246 

SMGMT2 121 76 132 108.17 11.039 

121 67 133 107.04 13.207 

121 76 129 107.24 11.505 

121 82 139 109.95 11.912 

121 75 132 107.08 12.088 

121 74 136 108.17 13.170 

 121 70 130 109.75 11.727 

 121 63 132 110.29 10.403 

121 55 128 108.08 12.781 

121 70 128 111.18 9.335 

T2 121 77 134 110.74 11.153 

INTRA2 121 74 132 110.67 10.815 

REG2 121 80 129 110.07 10.446 

AW2 121 67 132 109.73 13.702 

ASS2 121 68 130 108.96 11.825 

IND2 121 62 126 104.14 13.160 

ACT2 121 68 124 108.43 10.774 

INTER2 121 60 127 107.12 12.840 

EMP2 121 48 123 104.53 14.663 

SOC2 121 52 123 103.00 13.729 

INTREL2 121 73 128 109.34 11.246 

SMGMT2 121 76 132 108.17 11.039 

STOL2 121 67 133 107.04 13.207 

IMP2 121 76 129 107.24 11.505 

ADA2 121 82 139 109.95 11.912 

REAL2 121 75 132 107.08 12.088 

FLEX2 121 74 136 108.17 13.170 

PRSOL2 121 70 130 109.75 11.727 

MOOD2 121 63 132 110.29 10.403 

OPT2 121 55 128 108.08 12.781 

HAP2 121 70 128 111.18 9.335 

2010, Vol. 1, No. 1, 133-141

Burgess-Wilkerson, Benson & Frankforter



137

Advances in Business Research

 !"#$%&'%()%*+,,$-$./$% 012!2+32+/3%!.4%12!2+32+/!#%1+5.+6/!./$%7$8$#3%,9-%:##%;<;%12=4$.23

 !"#$%>'%()%*+,,$-$./$% 012!2+32+/3%:.4%12!2+32+/!#%1+5.+6/!./$%7$8$#3%?9-%@.4$-5-!4=!2$%12=4$.23

 

  Paired Differences 

t df Sig. 

   95% Confidence Interval of the Difference 

  Mean Diff. Std. Dev Std. Error Mean Lower Upper 

Pair 1 T1 – T2 -7.926 11.130 1.012 -9.929 -5.922 -7.833 120 .000 

Pair 2 Intra1 - Intra2 -7.678 10.871 .988 -9.634 -5.721 -7.769 120 .000 

Pair 3 Reg1 - Reg2 -4.678 9.416 .856 -6.372 -2.983 -5.465 120 .000 

Pair 4 Aw1 - Aw2 -7.612 13.577 1.234 -10.055 -5.168 -6.167 120 .000 

Pair 5 Ass1 - Ass2 -6.744 12.389 1.126 -8.974 -4.514 -5.988 120 .000 

Pair 6 Ind1 - Ind2 -4.504 11.693 1.063 -6.609 -2.399 -4.237 120 .000 

Pair 7 Act1 - Act2 -6.231 12.327 1.121 -8.450 -4.013 -5.560 120 .000 

Pair 8 Inter1 - Inter2 -5.397 11.731 1.066 -7.508 -3.285 -5.061 120 .000 

Pair 9 Emp1 - Emp2 -5.719 13.091 1.190 -8.075 -3.363 -4.806 120 .000 

Pair 10 Soc1 - Soc2 -3.256 12.253 1.114 -5.462 -1.051 -2.923 120 .004 

Pair 11 Intrel1 - Inter2 -2.983 13.317 1.211 -5.380 -.586 -2.464 120 .015 

Pair 12 Smgmt1 - Smgmt2 -5.372 10.304 .937 -7.227 -3.517 -5.735 120 .000 

Pair 13 Stol1 - Stol2 -8.124 11.196 1.018 -10.139 -6.109 -7.982 120 .000 

Pair 14 Imp1 - Imp2 -1.364 10.773 .979 -3.303 .576 -1.392 120 .166 

Pair 15 Ada1 - Ada2 -7.942 12.267 1.115 -10.150 -5.734 -7.122 120 .000 

Pair 16 Real1 - Real2 -5.678 12.658 1.151 -7.956 -3.399 -4.934 120 .000 

Pair 17 Flex1 - Flex2 -5.174 12.911 1.174 -7.497 -2.850 -4.408 120 .000 

Pair 18 Prsol1 - Prsol2 -8.926 13.212 1.201 -11.304 -6.547 -7.431 120 .000 

Pair 19 Mood1 - Mood2 -6.537 10.174 .925 -8.368 -4.706 -7.068 120 .000 

Pair 20 Opt1 - Opt2 -7.785 11.703 1.064 -9.892 -5.679 -7.317 120 .000 

Pair 21 Hap1 - Hap2 -4.702 10.133 .921 -6.526 -2.879 -5.105 120 .000 

 

Difference 

Mean Std. Dev Error Mean Lower 

Pair 1 5.584 10.992 8.079 4.458 76 .000 

Pair 2 5.571 10.717 8.004 4.562 76 .000 

Pair 3 3.091 8.768 5.081 3.093 76 .003 

Pair 4 4.701 13.726 7.817 3.006 76 .004 

Pair 5 5.312 11.374 7.893 4.098 76 .000 

Pair 6 2.286 11.042 4.792 1.816 76 .073 

Pair 7 5.987 13.948 9.153 3.767 76 .000 

ir 8 2.948 12.276 5.734 2.107 76 .038 

Pair 9 3.286 13.763 6.410 2.095 76 .040 

ir 10 1.403 13.455 4.456 .915 76 .363 

Pair 11 2.649 11.414 5.240 2.037 76 .045 

Pair 12 Smgmt2 3.091 9.852 5.327 2.753 76 .007 

Pair 13 6.221 11.260 8.776 4.848 76 .000 

Pair 14 .662 9.104 1.404 .638 76 .525 

Pair 15 5.896 12.178 8.660 4.248 76 .000 

Pair 16 3.610 12.998 6.561 2.437 76 .017 

Pair 17 2.636 12.514 5.477 1.849 76 .068 

Pair 18 8.468 13.409 11.511 5.541 76 .000 

Pair 19  5.883 10.162 8.190 5.080 76 .000 

Pair 20 7.299 12.440 10.122 5.148 76 .000 

Pair 21 3.844 9.919 6.096 3.401 76 .001 

 

  Paired Differences 

t df Sig. 

   95 % Confidence Interval of the Difference 

  Mean Std. Dev Std. Error Mean Lower Upper 

Pair 1 T1 – T2 -5.584 10.992 1.253 -8.079 -3.090 -4.458 76 .000 

Pair 2 Intra1 - Intra2 -5.571 10.717 1.221 -8.004 -3.139 -4.562 76 .000 

Pair 3 Reg1 - Reg2 -3.091 8.768 .999 -5.081 -1.101 -3.093 76 .003 

Pair 4 Aw1 - Aw2 -4.701 13.726 1.564 -7.817 -1.586 -3.006 76 .004 

Pair 5 Ass1 - Ass2 -5.312 11.374 1.296 -7.893 -2.730 -4.098 76 .000 

Pair 6 Ind1 - Ind2 -2.286 11.042 1.258 -4.792 .220 -1.816 76 .073 

Pair 7 Act1 - Act2 -5.987 13.948 1.589 -9.153 -2.821 -3.767 76 .000 

Pair 8 Inter1 - Inter2 -2.948 12.276 1.399 -5.734 -.162 -2.107 76 .038 

Pair 9 Emp1 - Emp2 -3.286 13.763 1.568 -6.410 -.162 -2.095 76 .040 

Pair 10 Soc1 - Soc2 -1.403 13.455 1.533 -4.456 1.651 -.915 76 .363 

Pair 11 Intrel1 - Inter2 -2.649 11.414 1.301 -5.240 -.059 -2.037 76 .045 

Pair 12 Smgmt1 - Smgmt2 -3.091 9.852 1.123 -5.327 -.855 -2.753 76 .007 

Pair 13 Stol1 - Stol2 -6.221 11.260 1.283 -8.776 -3.665 -4.848 76 .000 

Pair 14 Imp1 - Imp2 .662 9.104 1.038 -1.404 2.729 .638 76 .525 

Pair 15 Ada1 - Ada2 -5.896 12.178 1.388 -8.660 -3.132 -4.248 76 .000 

Pair 16 Real1 - Real2 -3.610 12.998 1.481 -6.561 -.660 -2.437 76 .017 

Pair 17 Flex1 - Flex2 -2.636 12.514 1.426 -5.477 .204 -1.849 76 .068 

Pair 18 Prsol1 - Prsol2 -8.468 13.409 1.528 -11.511 -5.424 -5.541 76 .000 

Pair 19 Mood1 - Mood2 -5.883 10.162 1.158 -8.190 -3.577 -5.080 76 .000 

Pair 20 Opt1 - Opt2 -7.299 12.440 1.418 -10.122 -4.475 -5.148 76 .000 

Pair 21 Hap1 - Hap2 -3.844 9.919 1.130 -6.096 -1.593 -3.401 76 .001 

2010, Vol. 1, No. 1, 133-141

Burgess-Wilkerson, Benson & Frankforter



138

Advances in Business Research

 !"#$%&%'$()'*+%,-%./00$'$12$%*3+*!*/+*/2+%!1.%+*!*/+*/2!#%+/41/52!12$%#$6$#+%0)'%4'!.7!*$%+*7.$1*+8% 9$%*)*!#%,-%+2)'$%

!1.%!##%:;%,-%+7"+2)'$+%+9)<$.%+*!*/+*/2!##=%+/41/52!12$%/12'$!+$+%)0%>%?%8;@%0)'%4'!.7!*$%+*7.$1*+%0')A%*9$%('$3*$+*%

to the post-test. While the results for undergraduates were not as uniform as for graduate student participants, both 

4')7(+%*)*!#%+2)'$+%/A(')6$.%"=%!*%#$!+*%>%?%8;;B8%C9/#$%'$+7#*+%!'$%+)A$<9!*%2)1+/+*$1*%</*9%('$6/)7+%'$+$!'29%*9!*%

+744$+*+%*9!*%)#.$'%2)9)'*+%*$1.%*)%+2!#$%9/49$'%*)%+2)'$%9/49$'%)1%,-%*9!1%=)714$'%2)9)'*+%DC$""E%:;;FGE%<$%2)12#7.$%

that there is support for H2 because total EI scores improved for both undergraduate and graduate students.

 !"#$%A'%()%*+,,$-$./$% 012!2+32+/3%!.4%12!2+32+/!#%1+5.+6/!./$%7$8$#3%,9-%B-!4=!2$%12=4$.23

 9$%+*7.=%*9$1%0)27+$.%)1%<9$*9$'%4$1.$'%/1H7$12$.%,-%.$6$#)(A$1*8% !"#$%I%'$()'*+%,-%./00$'$12$%*3+*!*/+*/2+%

!1.%+*!*/+*/2!#%+/41/52!12$%0)'%0$A!#$%+*7.$1*+8% 9$%*)*!#%,-%+2)'$%!1.%BJ%)0%*9$%:;%,-%+7"+2)'$+%+9)<$.%+*!*/+*/2!##=%

+/41/52!12$% /12'$!+$+%)0%!*% #$!+*%>%?% 8;@% 0)'% 0$A!#$% +*7.$1*+% 0')A% *9$%('$3*$+*% *)% *9$%()+*3*$+*8% 9$%6!'/!"#$+%1)*%

showing improvement were social responsibility and impulse control.

 !"#$%J%'$()'*+%,-%./00$'$12$%*3+*!*/+*/2+%!1.%+*!*/+*/2!#%+/41/52!12$%#$6$#+%0)'%A!#$%+*7.$1*+8% 9$%*)*!#%,-%+2)'$%!1.%

BJ%)0%*9$%:;%,-%+7"+2)'$+%+9)<$.%+*!*/+*/2!##=%+/41/52!12$%/12'$!+$+%)0%>%?%8;@%0)'%A!#$%+*7.$1*+%0')A%*9$%('$3*$+*%*)%

the post-test. The variables not showing improvement were interpersonal relationship and impulse control. While the 

'$+7#*+%0)'%0$A!#$%!1.%A!#$%+*7.$1*+%<$'$%1)*%2)A(#$*$#=%/.$1*/2!#E%")*9%4')7(+K%*)*!#%+2)'$+%/A(')6$.%"=%!*%#$!+*%>%?%

.001. Therefore, we conclude that there is support for H3 because total EI scores improved for both female and male 

students. 

 

  Paired Differences 

t df Sig. 

   95 % Confidence Interval of the Difference 

  Mean Std. Dev Std. Error Mean Lower Upper 

Pair 1 T1 – T2 -12.023 10.254 1.546 -15.140 -8.905 -7.778 43 .000 

Pair 2 Intra1 - Intra2 -11.364 10.244 1.544 -14.478 -8.249 -7.358 43 .000 

Pair 3 Reg1 - Reg2 -7.455 9.957 1.501 -10.482 -4.427 -4.966 43 .000 

Pair 4 Aw1 - Aw2 -12.705 11.820 1.782 -16.298 -9.111 -7.130 43 .000 

Pair 5 Ass1 - Ass2 -9.250 13.769 2.076 -13.436 -5.064 -4.456 43 .000 

Pair 6 Ind1 - Ind2 -8.386 11.911 1.796 -12.008 -4.765 -4.670 43 .000 

Pair 7 Act1 - Act2 -6.659 8.942 1.348 -9.378 -3.941 -4.940 43 .000 

Pair 8 Inter1 - Inter2 -9.682 9.388 1.415 -12.569 -6.828 -6.841 43 .000 

Pair 9 Emp1 - Emp2 -9.977 10.691 1.612 -13.228 -6.727 -6.190 43 .000 

Pair 10 Soc1 - Soc2 -6.500 9.062 1.366 -9.255 -3.745 -4.758 43 .000 

Pair 11 Intrel1 - Intrel2 -9.659 9.753 1.470 -12.624 -6.694 -6.570 43 .000 

Pair 12 Smgmt1 - Smgmt2 -9.364 9.956 1.501 -12.391 -6.337 -6.239 43 .000 

Pair 13 Stol1 - Stol2 -11.455 10.387 1.566 -14.612 -8.297 -7.315 43 .000 

Pair 14 Imp1 - Imp2 -4.909 12.538 1.890 -8.721 -1.097 -2.597 43 .013 

Pair 15 Ada1 - Ada2 -11.523 11.715 1.766 -15.084 -7.961 -6.525 43 .000 

Pair 16 Real1 - Real2 -9.295 11.292 1.702 -12.729 -5.862 -5.460 43 .000 

Pair 17 Flex1 - Flex2 -9.614 12.518 1.887 -13.420 -5.808 -5.094 43 .000 

Pair 18 Prsol1 - Prsol2 -9.727 12.975 1.956 -13.672 -5.783 -4.973 43 .000 

Pair 19 Mood1 - Mood2 -7.682 10.209 1.539 -10.786 -4.578 -4.991 43 .000 

Pair 20 Opt1 - Opt2 -8.636 10.370 1.563 -11.789 -5.484 -5.524 43 .000 

Pair 21 Hap1 - Hap2 -6.205 10.440 1.574 -9.379 -3.030 -3.942 43 .000 

 

2010, Vol. 1, No. 1, 133-141

Burgess-Wilkerson, Benson & Frankforter



139

Advances in Business Research

 !"#$%&'%()%*+,,$-$./$% 012!2+32+/3%!.4%12!2+32+/!#%1+5.+6/!./$%7$8$#3%,9-%:$;!#$%12<4$.23

 !"#$%='%()%*+,,$-$./$% 012!2+32+/3%!.4%12!2+32+/!#%1+5.+6/!./$%7$8$#3%,9-%>!#$%12<4$.23

 

  Paired Differences 

t df Sig. 

   95 % Confidence Interval of the Difference 

  Mean Std. Dev Std. Error Mean Lower Upper 

Pair 1 T1 – T2 -6.758 11.719 1.488 -9.734 -3.782 -4.541 61 .000 

Pair 2 Intra1 - Intra2 -6.581 11.793 1.498 -9.575 -3.586 -4.394 61 .000 

Pair 3 Reg1 - Reg2 -4.161 8.679 1.102 -6.365 -1.957 -3.776 61 .000 

Pair 4 Aw1 - Aw2 -4.806 14.077 1.788 -8.381 -1.232 -2.689 61 .009 

Pair 5 Ass1 - Ass2 -7.032 13.080 1.661 -10.354 -3.711 -4.233 61 .000 

Pair 6 Ind1 - Ind2 -3.758 12.999 1.651 -7.059 -.457 -2.276 61 .026 

Pair 7 Act1 - Act2 -5.968 13.377 1.699 -9.365 -2.571 -3.513 61 .001 

Pair 8 Inter1 - Inter2 -4.194 10.635 1.651 -6.894 -1.493 -3.105 61 .003 

Pair 9 Emp1 - Emp2 -4.500 10.773 1.368 -7.236 -1.764 -3.289 61 .002 

Pair 10 Soc1 - Soc2 -2.355 10.416 1.323 -5.000 .290 -1.780 61 .080 

Pair 11 Intrel1 - Intrel2 -4.065 11.443 1.453 -6.971 -1.158 -2.797 61 .007 

Pair 12 Smgmt1 - Smgmt2 -4.903 10.368 1.317 -7.536 -2.270 -3.724 61 .000 

Pair 13 Stol1 - Stol2 -7.839 12.467 1.583 -11.005 -4.673 -4.951 61 .000 

Pair 14 Imp1 - Imp2 -.758 8.702 1.105 -2.968 1.452 -.686 61 .495 

Pair 15 Ada1 - Ada2 -6.387 12.607 1.601 -9.589 -3.186 -3.989 61 .000 

Pair 16 Real1 - Real2 -3.903 12.520 1.590 -7.083 -.724 -2.455 61 .017 

Pair 17 Flex1 - Flex2 -4.194 13.254 1.683 -7.559 -.828 -2.491 61 .015 

Pair 18 Prsol1 - Prsol2 -8.016 12.381 1.572 -11.160 -4.872 -5.098 61 .000 

Pair 19 Mood1 - Mood2 -6.742 9.554 1.213 -9.168 -4.316 -5.556 61 .000 

Pair 20 Opt1 - Opt2 -8.403 10.836 1.376 -11.155 -5.651 -6.106 61 .000 

Pair 21 Hap1 - Hap2 -4.419 9.382 1.191 -6.802 -2.037 -3.709 61 .000 

 

Confidence Interval of the Difference 

Mean S.D. S.E. Lower 

Pair 1 9.153 10.433 1.358 11.781 6.738 58 .000 

Pair 2 8.831 9.777 1.273 11.378 6.937 58 .000 

Pair 3 5.220 10.180 1.325 7.873 3.939 58 .000 

Pair 4 10.559 12.478 1.624 13.811 6.500 58 .000 

Pair 5 6.441 11.724 1.526 9.496 4.220 58 .000 

Pair 6 5.288 10.196 1.327 7.945 3.984 58 .000 

Pair 7 6.508 11.227 1.462 9.434 4.453 58 .000 

Pair 8 6.661 12.750 1.660 9.984 4.013 58 .000 

Pair 9 7.000 15.141 1.971 10.946 3.551 58 .001 

Pair 10 4.203 13.955 1.817 7.840 2.314 58 .024 

Pair 11 3.407 13.787 1.795 7.000 1.898 58 .063 

Pair 12 Smgmt2 5.864 10.301 1.341 8.549 4.373 58 .000 

Pair 13 8.424 9.782 1.274 10.973 6.614 58 .000 

Pair 14 2.000 12.637 1.645 5.293 1.216 58 .229 

Pair 15 9.576 11.786 1.634 12.648 6.241 58 .000 

Pair 16 7.542 12.640 1.646 10.836 4.583 58 .000 

Pair 17 6.203 12.571 1.637 9.479 3.790 58 .000 

Pair 18 9.881 14.076 1.833 13.550 5.392 58 .000 

Pair 19  6.322 10.865 1.415 9.153 4.469 58 .000 

Pair 20 7.136 12.612 1.642 10.422 4.346 58 .000 

Pair 21 5.000 10.940 1.424 7.851 3.510 58 .001 

  Paired Differences 

t df Sig. 

   95 % Confidence Interval of the Difference 

  Mean S.D. S.E. Lower Upper 

Pair 1 T1 – T2 -9.153 10.433 1.358 -11.781 -6.434 -6.738 58 .000 

Pair 2 Intra1 - Intra2 -8.831 9.777 1.273 -11.378 -6.283 -6.937 58 .000 

Pair 3 Reg1 - Reg2 -5.220 10.180 1.325 -7.873 -2.568 -3.939 58 .000 

Pair 4 Aw1 - Aw2 -10.559 12.478 1.624 -13.811 -7.308 -6.500 58 .000 

Pair 5 Ass1 - Ass2 -6.441 11.724 1.526 -9.496 -3.385 -4.220 58 .000 

Pair 6 Ind1 - Ind2 -5.288 10.196 1.327 -7.945 -2.631 -3.984 58 .000 

Pair 7 Act1 - Act2 -6.508 11.227 1.462 -9.434 -3.583 -4.453 58 .000 

Pair 8 Inter1 - Inter2 -6.661 12.750 1.660 -9.984 -3.338 -4.013 58 .000 

Pair 9 Emp1 - Emp2 -7.000 15.141 1.971 -10.946 -3.054 -3.551 58 .001 

Pair 10 Soc1 - Soc2 -4.203 13.955 1.817 -7.840 -.567 -2.314 58 .024 

Pair 11 Intrel1 - Intrel2 -3.407 13.787 1.795 -7.000 .186 -1.898 58 .063 

Pair 12 Smgmt1 - Smgmt2 -5.864 10.301 1.341 -8.549 -3.180 -4.373 58 .000 

Pair 13 Stol1 - Stol2 -8.424 9.782 1.274 -10.973 -5.874 -6.614 58 .000 

Pair 14 Imp1 - Imp2 -2.000 12.637 1.645 -5.293 1.293 -1.216 58 .229 

Pair 15 Ada1 - Ada2 -9.576 11.786 1.634 -12.648 -6.505 -6.241 58 .000 

Pair 16 Real1 - Real2 -7.542 12.640 1.646 -10.836 -4.248 -4.583 58 .000 

Pair 17 Flex1 - Flex2 -6.203 12.571 1.637 -9.479 -2.927 -3.790 58 .000 

Pair 18 Prsol1 - Prsol2 -9.881 14.076 1.833 -13.550 -6.213 -5.392 58 .000 

Pair 19 Mood1 - Mood2 -6.322 10.865 1.415 -9.153 -3.491 -4.469 58 .000 

Pair 20 Opt1 - Opt2 -7.136 12.612 1.642 -10.422 -3.849 -4.346 58 .000 

Pair 21 Hap1 - Hap2 -5.000 10.940 1.424 -7.851 -2.149 -3.510 58 .001 

2010, Vol. 1, No. 1, 133-141

Burgess-Wilkerson, Benson & Frankforter



140

Advances in Business Research

Conclusion

This research indicates a student development model incorporating emotional intelligence competencies in the 

 !""# !$!%&  '!$(& )**#*+& #,& *+!(-,+& (-.-$'/%-,+0&1,& #%/'"+),+& 2,(#,3& #*& +4)+& 5'+4& !,(-"3")(!)+-& ),(& 3")(!)+-6

$-.-$&*+!(-,+*& ),&5-,-2+&7"'%&+4-&#,+-3")+#',&'7&-%'+#',)$&#,+-$$#3-, -&+")#,#,30&8,&),&#, "-)*#,3$9&*-".# -6'"#-,+-(&

%)":-+/$) -;& #,+-"/-"*',)$;& ),(& #,+")/-"*',)$& *:#$$*&  ),& *#3,#2 ),+$9& #, "-)*-& +4-& /"'5)5#$#+9& '7&  )"--"& *!  -**0&

Therefore, as higher educators we have a responsibility to increase both the theoretical knowledge and the emotional 

intelligence of students.

 !"! !#$!%

 !"#$%&'(%&)&*+#,"#%&-(&.//0(&1+2#&34&$!566$7&-+,&89:,&5,&,:!"$;&Journal of Accountancy%&<=>7&?>@A/(

B:#@CD%&E(&.///(&3F+,5+D:6&:DG&$+H5:6&5D,"665I"DH"7&JD$5I9,$&K#+F&,9"&"F+,5+D:6&L2+,5"D,&5DM"D,+#N(&JD&E(&B:#@CD%&)&

O(&*:#!"#%&P3G$(Q%&&'()*+,-.//0)/1)(2/34/,+5)4,3(5546(,7((&PRR&0?0@0SSQ(&T:D&U#:DH5$H+7&O+$$"N@B:$$(

B:N%&V(%&)&'HW":I"%&W(&.//?(&3F+,5+D:6&5D,"665I"DH"&5D&2DG"#I#:G2:,"&:HH+2D,5DI&$,2G"D,$7&*#"65F5D:#N&:$$"$$F"D,(&

877/9,34,6)!-97+34/,:)8,);,3(<,+34/,+5)=/9<,+5%&<>7&X0=@X>X(

Boyatzis, R., Stubbs, E., & Taylor, S. 2002. Learning cognitive and emotional intelligence competencies through 

graduate management education. 87+-(2>)/1)?+,+6(2(,3)@(+<,4,6)+,-)!-97+34/,%&<7&<>/@<?.(

Y9"#D5$$%&Y(&.///(&T+H5:6&:DG&"F+,5+D:6&H+FR","DH"&5D&,9"&8+#!R6:H"(&JD&E(&B:#@CD&)&O(&*:#!"#%&P3G(Q%&&'()*+,-.//0)

of emotional intelligence(&PRR&X00@X>SQ(&T:D&U#:DH5$H+7&O+$$"N@B:$$(

3$F+DG@W5I"#%& Y(%& Z2H!"#%&'(%& )&1+$,%& Y(& .//?(& 3F+,5+D:6& 5D,"665I"DH"7& U#+F& ,9"& H6:$$#++F& ,+& ,9"& 8+#!R6:H"(&

Management Accounting Quarterly%&A7&0>@X.(

Goleman, D. 1995. !2/34/,+5)4,3(5546(,7(:)A'>)43)2+33(<B)2/<()3'+,);C(&["8&1+#!7&B:D,:F&B++!$(

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. 2002. D<42+5)5(+-(<B'4E:) (+54F4,6)3'()E/G(<)/1)(2/34/,+5)4,3(5546(,7(. 

B+$,+D7&\:#M:#G&B2$5D"$$&TH9++6&*#"$$

\:##5$& 3G2H:,5+D& E"$":#H9& Y+2DH56(& <==<(&An assessment of American education(& ["8& 1+#!7& Y+FF5,,""& K+#&

Economic Development

Hunter, J., & Hunter, R. 1984. Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 

=?7&A.@=S(

]:F%&](%&)&W5#^N%&T(&.//.(&J$&"F+,5+D:6&5D,"665I"DH"&:D&:GM:D,:I";&& D&"_R6+#:,5+D&+K&,9"&5FR:H,&+K&"F+,5+D:6&:DG&

general intelligence on individual performance. The Journal of Social Psychology%&<X.7&<00@<X0(

Low, G., Lomax, A., Jackson, M., & Nelson, D. 2004. !2/34/,+5) 4,3(5546(,7(:)8) ,(G) B39-(,3)2/-(5. A paper 

R#"$"D,"G&:,&,9"&[:,5+D:6&Y+DK"#"DH"&+K&,9"& F"#5H:D&Y+66"I"&*"#$+DD"6& $$+H5:,5+D(&*956:G"6R95:%&*"DD$N6M:D5:
  

':N"#%&O(%&Y:#2$+%&V(%&)&T:6+M"N%&*(&.///(&T"6"H,5DI&:&F":$2#"&+K&"F+,5+D:6&5D,"665I"DH"7&Z9"&H:$"&K+#&:^565,N&$H:6"$(&JD&

E(&B:#@CD&)&O(&*:#!"#&P3G(Q%&The handbook of emotional intelligence(&PRR&0./@0X.Q(&T:D&U#:DH5$H+7&O+$$"N@B:$$(

Myers, L., & Tucker, M. 2005. Increasing awareness of emotional intelligence in a business curriculum. Business 

Communication Quarterly%&?S7&XX@><(

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. 1990. Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality%&=7&<S>@.<<(

T95MR2#5%&T(%&)&W5F&B(&.//X(&V+&"FR6+N"#$&:DG&H+66"I"$&$""&"N"@,+@"N";&Y+66"I"&$,2G"D,&G"M"6+RF"D,&:DG&:$$"$$F"D,(&

#8$!)=/9<,+5%&?>7&0A@XX(

Sternberg, R. 1996. Successful intelligence(&["8&1+#!7&T5F+D&)&TH92$,"#

2010, Vol. 1, No. 1, 133-141

Burgess-Wilkerson, Benson & Frankforter



141

Advances in Business Research

Thorndike, R., & Stein S. 1937. An evaluation of the attempts to measure social intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 

0X7&.A>@.SX(&

Vandervoort, D. 2006. The importance of emotional intelligence in higher education. $9<<(,3) DB>7'/5/6>:)

H(I(5/E2(,3+5J)@(+<,4,6J)D(<B/,+543>J)%/74+5%&.>7&X@A(

"̀^^%&W(&.//=(&̀ 9N&"F+,5+D:6&5D,"665I"DH"&$9+26G&F:,,"#&,+&F:D:I"F"D,7& &$2#M"N&+K&,9"&65,"#:,2#"(&SAM Advanced 

Management Journal%&AX7&0.@X<(

K+<.+<+) K9<6(BBLA450(<B/, is an assistant professor of management and director of student professional 

development at Winthrop University. She received her Ph.D. in Higher Education Administration from the University 

of Pittsburgh. Her current research interests include emotional intelligence as a career development strategy, business 

H+FF2D5H:,5+D$%& :DG& $,2G"D,& R#+K"$$5+D:6& G"M"6+RF"D,(& T9"& 9:$& R2^65$9"G& 5D& ,9"& B2$5D"$$& Y+FF2D5H:,5+D$&

Quarterly. 

Keith Benson is an associate professor in health care management at Winthrop University. He received his Ph.D. 

from Penn State University. His research interests include emotional intelligence in the classroom and the use of 

social media in the classroom.

Steven Frankforter is a professor of management at Winthrop University. He earned his PhD at the University 

of Washington. He has taught business policy, business & society, entrepreneurship, and accounting. His research 

5D,"#"$,$&:#"&5D&$,"8:#G$95R&,9"+#N%&$,:!"9+6G"#&F:D:I"F"D,%&F"#I"#$&:DG&:HL25$5,5+D$%&"F+,5+D:6&5D,"665I"DH"%&:DG&

diversity management.  

2010, Vol. 1, No. 1, 133-141

Burgess-Wilkerson, Benson & Frankforter


