Content uploaded by Annamaria Di Fabio
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Annamaria Di Fabio on Jul 25, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://jca.sagepub.com/
Journal of Career Assessment
http://jca.sagepub.com/content/19/1/21
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1069072710382530
2011 19: 21 originally published online 13 September 2010Journal of Career Assessment
Annamaria Di Fabio and Maureen E. Kenny
School Students
Promoting Emotional Intelligence and Career Decision Making Among Italian High
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:Journal of Career AssessmentAdditional services and information for
http://jca.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://jca.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://jca.sagepub.com/content/19/1/21.refs.htmlCitations:
by Annamaria Di Fabio on February 16, 2011jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Promoting Emotional
Intelligence and Career
Decision Making Among
Italian High School Students
Annamaria Di Fabio
1
and Maureen E. Kenny
2
Abstract
This article evaluates the efficacy of a training program focused on increasing emotional intelligence
(EI), which was developed for Italian high school students. The training was constructed using an
ability-based model of EI. It was hypothesized that specific training would increase both ability and
self-reported EI and reduce levels of indecisiveness and career decision difficulties. This article out-
lines relevant literature and provides a description of the intervention, an evaluation of its efficacy,
and a presentation of the results with regard to decisional problems.
Keywords
emotional intelligence, training program, indecisiveness, career decision difficulties
This study responds to a call for counseling psychologists to develop school-based prevention and
intervention programs that promote social and emotional growth and support academic and career
development (Walsh, Galassi, Murphy, & Park-Taylor, 2002). Consistent with the developmental
contextual framework, interventions intended to promote growth across multiple domains of human
functioning recognize the interdependence of cognitive, affective, and social development and are
often best implemented by an interdisciplinary professional team (Brabeck, Walsh, Kenny &
Comilang, 1997; Walsh et al., 2002). Counselors, teachers, and mental health professionals can col-
laborate within the school environment in the design and delivery of interventions to foster academic
skills, emotional competence, cognitive processes such as problem solving, divergent thinking and
decision making, and preparation for the world of work (Bar-On, 1997; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso,
2002; Schutte et al., 1998; Solberg, Howard, Blustein, & Close, 2002).
Given the interrelation of these dimensions, interventions that simultaneously address academic,
social, emotional, and career skills are most powerful and cost-effective (Hage et al., 2007; Walsh
et al., 2002). The importance of developing interventions that support the career development and
career decision-making capacities of young people is highlighted by research documenting links
1
Department of Psychology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
2
Lynch School of Education, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Maureen E. Kenny, Lynch School of Education, Boston College, Campion Hall 101,Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, USA
Email: kennym@bc.edu
Journal of Career Assessment
19(1) 21-34
ª2011 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1069072710382530
http://jca.sagepub.com
21
by Annamaria Di Fabio on February 16, 2011jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from
between career decision difficulties, psychological distress, low levels of psychological well-being,
and academic problems among college students (American College Health Association, 2004;
Fouad et al., 2006; Multon, Heppner, Gysbers, Zook, & Ellis-Kalton, 2001). This study assesses the
use of an intervention to teach emotional intelligence (EI) as a means of increasing EI and for reduc-
ing indecisiveness and career decision difficulties.
EI has emerged in recent literature as a cognitive-affective characteristic with the potential to
explain adaptive development across social, academic, and career domains (Zeidner, Matthews,
& Roberts, 2004). Although the first publications regarding EI appeared in the early 20th century
(Thorndike, 1921), the term EI only became a topic of major interest following publication of
Goleman’s best-selling book in 1995 (Goleman, 1995; Mayer et al., 2002). Despite the popularity
and attention to EI in applied psychology, education, and human resources since that time, the
empirical basis for the construct and research documenting the effectiveness of efforts to improve
EI have been limited (Clarke, 2006; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008).
Mayer and Salovey (1997) sought to strengthen the scientific foundation for EI through careful
definition and measurement of the construct. These authors critique personality (Cherniss &
Goleman, 2001; Goleman, 1995) and mixed models of EI (Bar-On, 1997), which include both
personality factors and social–emotional competencies, related to lack of clarity as to whether EI
is a type of ability or personality trait (Clarke, 2006). Bar-On (1997) has produced the most complete
work in the mixed-model domain and developed a self-report measure to assess EI. Mayer and
colleagues (Mayer et al., 2000, 2008; Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008; Mayer & Salovey, 1997)
advocate for an ability-based conceptualization of EI and developed a Four-Branch Model that
assesses and measures four sets of skills that relate to the perception, understanding and management
of emotions, and the use of emotions to enhance thinking. The Four-Branch Model is now being used
as a prototype for the development of school-based social and emotional learning programs in the
United States (Brackett & Katulak, 2007).
Concerns about the validity of EI as a construct are central to questions about the content of EI
training and how growth in EI should be assessed (Clarke, 2006). Although a number of authors
maintain, for example, that EI can be learned and increased through specific training (Bar-On,
1997; Cobb & Mayer, 2000; Salovey & Sluyter, 1997), many different programs exist and relatively
few provide empirical evidence regarding their efficacy through rigorous evaluation (Clarke, 2006;
Groves, McEnrue, & Shen, 2008). Evaluation research of EI training that includes a comparison
group and uses psychometrically sound measures of EI is sparse (Groves et al., 2008). Very limited
research has examined the training of emotional perception and understanding across cultures or has
assessed how EI training affects relevant life skills (Clarke, 2006; Elfenbein, 2006). The process of
identifying an efficacious intervention program should be grounded in a clear understanding of con-
ceptual models with outcome research focusing on both basic EI process and relevant personal out-
comes over time (Clarke, 2006; Cobb & Mayer, 2000; Kornacki & Caruso, 2007, Wong, Foo, Wang,
& Wong, 2007).
An emerging body of theory and research suggest that interventions that are effective in fostering
EI may offer promise for supporting career progress (Ellis & Ryan, 2005). Although the role of rea-
son is often highlighted in career decision making, the importance of emotional awareness and the
capacity to manage emotions has gained recognition in career development literature (Brown,
George, & Smith, 2003; Di Fabio & Blustein, 2010; Emmerling & Cherniss, 2003; Kidd, 1998).
Limitations of rational models of career decision making have been acknowledged by scholars who
highlight the growing importance of emotional awareness and adaptability in the global economy,
where career development involves multiple transitions in an uncertain and unpredictable vocational
environment (Krieshok, Black, & McKay, 2009; Savickas, 2000; Van Vianen, Pater, & Preened,
2009). Career decision making inevitably includes a consideration of emotionally laden factors, with
choices between one’s passions, the realities of the marketplace, and the needs and desires of loved
22 Journal of Career Assessment 19(1)
22
by Annamaria Di Fabio on February 16, 2011jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from
ones often being involved (Brown et al., 2003). Since complex emotions, priorities, and conflicts
may need to be resolved in decision making (Brown et al., 2003; Di Fabio & Blustein, 2010), persons
who possess high EI, characterized by the ability to effectively process and integrate emotion with
reason, may be less likely to be overwhelmed and paralyzed with indecisiveness and career decisio-
nal problems. Difficulties in career decision making are often accompanied by psychological dis-
tress and low levels of well-being (Fouad et al., 2006). Research in the United States has found
EI to be positively related to career decision making, including trust in one’s capacity to confront
career decision-making tasks (Brown et al., 2003) and greater capacity to manage one’s own emo-
tional response to the career decision-making process (Emmerling & Cherniss, 2003). Following
from this evidence, interventions that teach EI can also be expected to improve career decision mak-
ing and reduce indecisiveness.
Recent research suggests that the EI construct is also conceptually relevant and consistently asso-
ciated with career decision making and scholastic success for Italian populations. In a study of young
Italian workers engaged in paid professional training (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2008), low EI, char-
acterized by low levels of emotional self-awareness and difficulty in emotional regulation, was asso-
ciated with difficulty in career decision making. For a similar population (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi,
2007, 2010), EI was found to be related to adaptive decision making, characterized by a careful and
rational approach to searching through relevant information and consideration of all options. More-
over, EI was also found to explain career decision difficulties beyond the variance explained by per-
sonality characteristics (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2009b). For a sample of Italian high school
students, Di Fabio and Blustein (2010) also found that EI based on the Bar-On (1997) model had
an inverse relationship with maladaptive decision-making styles and a positive relationship with the
vigilant adaptive style of decision making. Although the above studies did not use the ability-based
model of EI, other research (D’Amico & Curci, in press; Di Fabio, Giannini, & Palazzeschi, 2008)
has found the ability-based model to have construct validity with Italian samples. Moreover, among
Italian high school students, Di Fabio and Palazzeschi (2009a) found that EI defined according to the
ability-based model explained scholastic success beyond the effects of fluid intelligence and
personality.
Although the importance of incorporating social and emotional learning in school settings is
broadly advocated (Cobb & Mayer, 2000; Greenberg et al., 2003; Zins, Weissberg, Wang, &
Walberg, 2004), systematic evaluation of ability-based models of EI for school-aged adolescents,
especially across cultural contexts, remains limited (Mayer et al., 2008). No research, to our knowl-
edge, has assessed the impact of EI training on indices of career decision making. Considering the
relationship of EI to adaptive social, emotional, and career development, the development and eva-
luation of a theoretically based and culturally specific training program designed to enhance EI and
decision making of Italian adolescents offer significant promise. From a prevention and positive
psychology perspective (Kenny, Horne, Orpinas & Reese, 2009; Snyder & Lopez, 2000), EI may
offer a foundation for success and thriving across school, work, and social contexts. The develop-
ment and evaluation of a culturally specific program also responds to the call for further research
attending to the cultural dimensions of EI (Mayer et al., 2008).
Drawing from the theoretical model of Mayer and Salovey (1997), Di Fabio (2010) developed a
program to improve EI among students attending a network of schools in Tuscany, Italy. The pro-
gram was intended to serve as a preventive strengths-based intervention to enhance ability-based EI
(Mayer et al., 2008). Related to concerns that EI training demonstrates both a direct impact on EI
abilities, and contextually relevant behaviors important for school and work success (Kornacki &
Caruso, 2007), the program was expected to result in EI gains as well as decreases in indecisiveness
and career decision difficulties. To provide convergent evidence that training enhanced EI, we
assessed levels of EI using both performance-based and self-report measures. The aim of this study
is to first verify whether the EI training, specifically created for Italian high school students (Di
Di Fabio et al. 23
23
by Annamaria Di Fabio on February 16, 2011jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Fabio, 2010), increases EI as assessed through both performance (Hypothesis 1; Mayer et al., 2002)
and self-reported emotional measures (Hypothesis 2; Schutte et al., 1998). A second aim of the study
is to evaluate whether, following the training program, the participants show a reduction in indeci-
siveness (Hypothesis 3) and in career decision difficulties (Hypothesis 4). The latter hypothesis fol-
lows from prior research documenting relationships between EI and career decision-making across
U.S. and Italian contexts (Brown et al., 2003; Di Fabio & Blustein, 2010; Di Fabio & Palazzeschi,
2008, 2009b; Emmerling & Cherniss, 2003).
Method
Participants
In the preliminary phase of intervention, four classes (91 participants) were randomly selected from
those classes completing their final year of high school in a school system located in the province of
Florence. Questionnaires were administered and scored for students in those four classes. The two
classes that showed no significant differences on mean scores on the study variables were selected
for this study. The two selected classes were randomly assigned to either experimental group status
(23 subjects) or control group status (25 subjects). In the experimental group, 13 of the students were
male (56.52%) and 10 were female (43.44%), with a mean age of 18.26 and a standard deviation of
.45. In the control group, 14 of the students were male (56.00%) and 11 were female (44.00%), with
a mean age of 18.20 and a standard deviation of .41. With regard to social status, the vast majority of
the students across both classes were European (i.e., White Italians) and are primarily from middle-
class backgrounds.
Measures
The Italian version (D’Amico & Curci, in press) of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelli-
gence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer et al., 2002) was used to evaluate ability-based EI. The instrument
is composed of 141 items, with the response format varying based on the specific function measured
by each item. It is not a timed test but generally requires 30–45 min to complete. The measure pro-
vides a total score, scores for two specific areas (Experiential Emotional Intelligence [EEIQ] and
Strategic Emotional Intelligence [SEIQ]), and four Branch scores: Perceiving Emotions (PEIQ;
Branch 1), that is, the ability to perceive emotions in oneself and others, as well as in objects, art,
stories, music, and other similar stimuli; Facilitating Thought (FEIQ; Branch 2), that is, the ability
to generate, use, and feel emotions to communicate feelings or use them in other cognitive pro-
cesses; Understanding Emotions (UEIQ; Branch 3), that is, the ability to understand emotional infor-
mation, how emotions combine and progress through relationship transitions, and to appreciate such
emotional meanings; and Managing Emotions (MEIQ; Branch 4), that is, the ability to be open to
feelings and to modulate them in oneself and others so as to promote personal understanding and
growth. The Perceiving Emotions Branch and the Facilitating Thought Branch are part of EEIQ,
whereas the Understanding Emotions Branch and Managing Emotions Branch are part of SEIQ. The
area scores, EEIQ and SEIQ, total to provide the global EI score referred to as the Emotional Intel-
ligence Quotient (EIQ). With regard to construct validity, factor analyses support the four-branch
structure of the model, with the following correlations supporting divergent validity for the Total
EIQ: r¼.23 (p< .05) with Openness and r¼.25 (p< .05) with Conscientiousness of the NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO PI), from r¼.14 (p< .05) to r¼.22 (p< .01) for the subscales of
16PF, r¼.16 (p<.05) for the Enterprising Career of the Self-Directed Search by Holland
(1979). Cronbach’s alphas of the scales have varied from .64 to .93: with the lowest reliability
obtained for the FEIQ and the highest associated with the Total EIQ (D’Amico & Curci, in press).
For the current study, Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .79 to .85.
24 Journal of Career Assessment 19(1)
24
by Annamaria Di Fabio on February 16, 2011jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from
The Italian version (Di Fabio, Giannini, & Palazzeschi, 2008) of the Emotional Intelligence Scale
(EIS, Schutte et al., 1998) was used to evaluate EI abilities through a self-report format. The scale,
based on the Salovey and Mayer (1990) model of EI, is composed of 22 items, with response options
on a 5-point Likert-type scale format ranging from 1 ¼strongly disagree to 5 ¼strongly agree. The
EIS yields a total emotional intelligence score (EIS TOT) and scores for three subscales. The three
scales, derived from factor analysis, are consistent with the model of Salovey and Mayer. The first
factor (Eigenvalue ¼7.35; 33.41%of variance) was named ‘‘Appraisal and expression of emo-
tions;’’ the second factor (Eigenvalue ¼1.76; 7.98%of variance) was named ‘‘Regulation of emo-
tions;’’ and the third factor (Eigenvalue ¼1.61; 7.33%of variance) was named ‘‘Utilization of
emotions in solving problems.’’ Examples of items for each of the three subscales are ‘‘I can tell
how people are feeling by listening to the tone of their voice’’ [Appraisal and expression of emotions
(EIS F1)], ‘‘I have control over my emotions’’ [Regulation of emotions (EISF2)], ‘‘When I am in a
positive mood, I am able to come up with new ideas’’ [Utilization of emotions in solving problems
(EIS F3)]. With regard to reliability, Cronbach’s alpha was .90 for the EIS total score; .84 for EISF1;
.82 for EISF2; and .79 for EISF3. Moreover, confirmatory factor analysis highlighted the goodness
of fit of the emerging factorial structure for the Italian version (Di Fabio et al., 2008). The scale also
has acceptable concurrent validity (Di Fabio et al., 2008), as evidenced by positive correlations
between the EIS and the Life Orientation Test–revised (r¼.43; LOT-r; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges,
1994), the Italian version (Prezza, Trombaccia, & Armento, 1997) of the Self-Esteem Scale
(Rosenberg, 1965; r¼.47) and the Bar-On EQ-I:S (r¼.46; Bar-On, 2002), and negative correla-
tions (r¼.30) with the Italian version (Bressi et al., 1996) of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS
20; Taylor, Ryan, & Bagby, 1985).
To evaluate indecisiveness, the Italian version (Di Fabio & Ciardi, 2007) of the Indecisiveness
Scale (IS, Frost & Gross, 1993) was used. This scale measures indecisiveness using a 5-point Likert
scale-type format, which ranges from 1 ¼strongly disagree to 5 ¼strongly agree. Factor analysis
revealed a unidimensional structure, explaining 32.73%of the total variance (Di Fabio & Ciardi,
2007). The scale possesses good internal coherence (a¼.85), concurrent validity (ranging from
r¼.44 to r¼.68) with dimensions of the Italian version (Nota & Soresi, 2000) of the Melbourne
Decision Making Questionnaire (MDMQ) (Mann, Burnet, Radford, & Ford, 1997) and divergent
validity (ranging from r¼.52 to r¼.53) with decisional self-efficacy as assessed by the Quanta
fiducia ho in me? (How much confidence do I have in myself?) Scale (Soresi & Nota, 2003) and the
Decisiveness and Confidence in one’s own Academic-Career future scale of the Ideas and Attitudes
on Academic-Career Future Questionnaire (Ferrari, Nota, & Soresi, 2002).
To evaluate the perception of decisional difficulty in choosing a career, the Italian version
(Savadori, Vicenzi, & Rumiati, 2000) of the Career Decision Difficulties Questionnaire (CDDQ,
Gati, Krausz, & Osipow, 1996) was used. This instrument is composed of 44 items with responses
on a 5-point Likert-type scale format, ranging from 1 ¼strongly disagree to 5 ¼strongly agree. The
questionnaire consists of three scales: (a) Lack of Readiness (Lack of Motivation: ‘‘I know that
I have to choose a career but I don’t have the motivation to make the decision now;’’ Indecisiveness:
‘‘It is usually difficult for me to make decisions;’’ Dysfunctional Myths: ‘‘I believe there is an ideal
career which can fulfill all my aspirations’’); (b) Lack of Information, which includes lack of infor-
mation on the career decision-making process (e.g., ‘‘I find it difficult to make a career decision
because I don’t know how to combine the information I have about myself and about the different
careers’’), Lack of Information about the Self (e.g., ‘‘I find it difficult to make a career decision
because I do not have enough information about my abilities’’), Lack of Information about the occu-
pations (e.g., ‘‘I find it difficult to make a career decision because I do not have enough information
about the variety of careers or training programs there are’’), and Lack of information about the ways
of obtaining information (e.g., ‘‘I find it difficult to make a career decision because I do not have
enough information about how to obtain additional information about myself’’); and (c) Inconsistent
Di Fabio et al. 25
25
by Annamaria Di Fabio on February 16, 2011jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Information, including Unreliable Information (e.g., ‘‘I find it difficult to make a career decision
because I constantly change my mind about the careers that interest me’’), Internal Conflicts
(e.g., ‘‘I find it difficult to make a career decision because I am not willing to compromise and give
up my ambition to find an ideal career’’) and External Conflicts (e.g., ‘‘I find it difficult to make a
career decision because people who are important to me (such as parents or friends) do not agree
with the career options I am considering’’). All three scales of the CDDQ evidence adequate relia-
bility (Lack of Readiness: a¼.70; Lack of Information: a¼.85; and Inconsistent Information: a¼
.73). For concurrent validity, the three CDDQ dimensions correlated with Factor 1 (Decisiveness
and Confidence) of the Ideas and Attitudes on Academic-Career Future Questionnaire (Ferrari
et al., 2002). More specifically, Lack of Readiness demonstrated a correlation of .29, Lack of
Information had a correlation of .76, and Inconsistent Information was .38.
Procedure
Following the processes described earlier for selection of classes depicted as experimental and con-
trol groups, the experimental group took part in a training program aimed specifically at potentiating
EI (Di Fabio, 2010). The instruments (T1 and T2) were administered collectively in the classrooms,
at a time agreed on by the school, by specialized personnel, and with respect to the law on privacy.
The T1 measure was administered to students in four classes as part of the process of selecting the
experimental and control group classes. One month following completion of training, the experi-
mental and control group classes were again administered the initial instrument (T2).
Intervention Program
The training to potentiate EI, based on the MSCEIT model (Mayer et al., 2002), was subdivided into
four sessions of 2 hr and 30 min each, weekly. Each session focuses on one of the four branches of
the MSCEIT and is subdivided into two units. For each session, the following objectives were
specified:
the first session, which draws on Branch 1 of the MSCEIT, Perceiving Emotions, focuses on the
ability to perceive emotions in oneself and others, as well as in objects, art, stories, music, and
other similar stimuli;
the second session, which draws on Branch 2 of the MSCEIT, Facilitating Thought, seeks to
develop the ability to generate, use and feel emotion to communicate feelings, or use them in
other cognitive processes;
the third session, which draws on Branch 3 of the MSCEIT, Understanding Emotions, focuses on
developing the ability to understand emotional information, how emotions combine and progress
through relationship transitions, and to appreciate emotional meanings of this type;
the fourth session, which draws on Branch 4 of the MSCEIT, Managing Emotions, focuses on
the ability to be open to feelings and the capacity to modulate them in oneself and others so
as to promote personal understanding and growth.
Results
Analysis of variance completed at pretest with the 48 students that took part in the research revealed
no significant differences between the experimental and control groups with regard to all of the study
variables: MSCEIT EIQ, F(1, 46) ¼2.48, p¼.123; EIS Total Score, F(1, 46) ¼.22, p¼.645; Inde-
cisiveness Scale, F(1, 46) ¼.36, p¼.554; CDDQ Lack of Readiness, F(1, 46) ¼2.93, p¼.094;
26 Journal of Career Assessment 19(1)
26
by Annamaria Di Fabio on February 16, 2011jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from
CDDQ Lack of Information, F(1, 46) ¼3.77, p¼.058; and CDDQ Inconsistent Information,
F(1, 46) ¼.61, p¼.440.
Repeated measures analysis of variance with one between-subjects independent variable (experi-
mental group/control group) and one within-subjects variable (time: T1/T2) were completed to
assess group changes over time. The four dependent variables were ability-based EI (MSCEIT EIQ),
the self-report measure of EI (EIS Total), indecisiveness (IS), and the four career decision difficul-
ties (CDDQ).
Statistically significant differences between the pretest and posttest for the experimental group
emerged across all four analyses as revealed by the group by time interaction: MSCEIT EIQ,
F(3, 44) ¼14.80; p< .001; Z
2
¼.24; see Table 1), EIS Total Score, F(3, 44) ¼12.29; p< .001;
Z
2
¼.21; see Table 2), Indecisiveness Scale, F(3, 44) ¼4.16; p< .05; Z
2
¼.08; see Table 3), and
CDDQ Lack of Information, F(3, 44) ¼4.71; p< .05; Z
2
¼.09; see Table 4).
More specifically, differences emerged for the experimental group between the pretest and postt-
est relative to all four Branches of Ability-based Emotional Intelligence and the two areas Experi-
ential EI and Strategic EI, in addition to the MSCEIT EIQ (see Table 1), and relative to the Appraisal
and Expression of Emotions, in addition to the EIS Total Score for self-report (see Table 2).
Discussion and Conclusion
The current study sought to document the effectiveness of an EI training program, specifically cre-
ated by Di Fabio (2010) and inspired by the Mayer and Salovey (1997) model. Consistent with the
Mayer and Salovey model (1997) and prior research (Brown et al., 2003; Di Fabio & Blustein, 2010;
Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2008, 2009b; Emmerling & Cherniss, 2003), we hypothesized that the pro-
gram participants would demonstrate an increase in EI and a decrease in indecisiveness and career
decisional problems. We assessed EI through both the Italian version (D’Amico & Curci, in press) of
a performance measure of EI, developed by Mayer et al. (2002), and a self-report measure of EI
based on the model of Salovey and Mayer (1990). The inclusion of a self-report measure of EI pro-
vided information on whether students perceived changes in their own EI. By assessing indecisive-
ness and career decision difficulties, the importance of EI training and its potential relevance to a
contextually and developmentally relevant career development task could also be assessed.
The findings lend support to our hypotheses and suggest that the intervention contributes to the
hypothesized effects, with students participating in the training demonstrating increases in both
ability-based and self-reported EI. The gains in ability-based intelligence are consistent with the
Mayer and Salovey (1997) model and previous findings (Mayer et al., 2002). More specifically, the
students who participated in the training showed a significant increase in all of the EI abilities that
were targeted in the intervention and evaluated by the MSCEIT. Moreover, these data contribute
further evidence that EI can be increased through specific training (Bar-On, 1997; Cobb & Mayer,
2000; Mayer et al., 2002; Salovey & Sluyter, 1997). In particular, it seems that brief training (of only
10 hr for this program) can improve ability-based EI.
Moreover, the training also demonstrated increases in self-reported EI, particularly with regard to
the appraisal and expression of emotions dimension in the EIS Total Score. Although the assessment
of EI programs should not rely on self-report measures, which are often limited by accurate self
awareness (Mayer et al., 2008), our findings suggest that students are aware of some gains in their
own EI following training. EI training can thus provide an immediate, perceived benefit in enhan-
cing understanding of others’ emotions and one’s capacity to accurately express emotions. It is note-
worthy that the training program was followed by gains in the regulation of emotions and use of
emotions in problem solving as assessed by ability measures but not by self-report measures. It is
not clear whether participants overestimated their abilities in these domains prior to the intervention
or whether they did not accurately perceive the gains they had achieved.
Di Fabio et al. 27
27
by Annamaria Di Fabio on February 16, 2011jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Table 1. MSCEIT: Means and Standard Deviations Relative to the Experimental Group (Pretest and Posttest) and the Control Group (Pretest and Posttest)
Experimental Group Control Group
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
MSDMSDMSD M SD Wilk’s LF(3, 44) Z
2
p
Perceiving emotions 60.26 7.32 64.08 2.93 57.44 5.98 57.36 5.80
Time .91 4.69 .09 .036
Time Group .90 5.10 .10 .029
Facilitating thought 48.39 4.69 55.43 6.70 45.96 5.19 46.00 5.36
Time .55 37.78 .45 .001
Time Group .56 36.93 .45 .001
Understanding emotions 57.21 4.94 61.60 3.02 56.24 5.70 56.24 5.79
Time .76 14.38 .24 .001
Time Group .77 13.87 .23 .001
Managing emotions 39.65 5.03 43.91 4.99 40.28 4.68 40.20 4.89
Time .78 13.05 .22 .001
Time Group .77 14.06 .23 .001
Experiential Emotional
Intelligence
54.56 5.34 58.95 3.52 51.76 4.78 51.56 4.64
Time .78 13.16 .22 .001
Time Group .74 15.79 .26 .001
Strategic Emotional
Intelligence
48.73 4.15 51.39 4.17 48.44 4.44 48.40 4.43
Time .86 7.61 .14 .008
Time Group .85 8.08 .15 .007
Emotional Intelligence
Quotient
51.95 3.54 55.00 2.62 50.20 4.13 50.16 4.27
Time .77 14.05 .23 .001
Time Group .76 14.80 .24 .001
Note. MSCEIT ¼Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test. Experimental group: n¼23; Control group: n¼25.
28 Journal of Career Assessment 19(1)
28
by Annamaria Di Fabio on February 16, 2011jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from
In addition to the effect generated directly on EI, the training used in the current study seems to
also influence decision making. Students who completed the training showed a decrease in per-
ceived indecisiveness and in career decisional problems related to lack of information. The latter
finding is consistent with the research of Di Fabio and Palazzeschi (2008, 2009b), which documen-
ted a relationship between EI and access to relevant information about one’s self and the world.
It thus appears that EI may facilitate decision making, and this may be related to the ability to access
and use information relevant to career decision making, occupation, and self in the process.
Although these effects are small and further research is needed to replicate the results, EI training
may have potential as a component of interventions for promoting career progress.
The current study is limited by use of a small sample, which may not be representative of this
region of Italy, the nation as a whole, or of the varied types of high schools that exist in the Italian
context. Although appropriate for a pilot study, it is important to replicate the training with a larger
Table 2. EIS: Means and Standard Deviations Relative to the Experimental Group (Pretest and Posttest) and
the Control Group (Pretest and Posttest)
Experimental Group Control Group
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
MSDMSDMSDMSDWilk’s LF(3, 44) Z
2
p
EIS F1 18.09 1.83 19.22 1.78 18.72 1.43 18.60 1.29
Time .83 9.50 .17 .003
Time Group .76 14.54 .24 .001
EIS F2 12.22 2.21 12.83 2.25 12.12 1.83 12.08 1.73
Time .95 2.68 .06 .108
Time Group .93 3.49 .07 .068
EIS F3 11.34 1.93 12.04 1.11 11.32 1.93 11.44 1.89
Time .94 3.12 .06 .084
Time Group .97 1.55 .03 .219
EIS TOT 41.65 3.51 44.09 3.42 42.16 4.03 42.12 3.87
Time .80 11.51 .20 .001
Time Group .79 12.29 .21 .001
Note. EIS ¼Emotional Intelligence Scale. Experimental group: n¼23; Control group: n¼25. EIS F1 ¼Appraisal and
expression of emotions; EIS F2 ¼Regulation of emotions; EIS F3 ¼Utilization of emotions in solving problems; EIS
TOT ¼Emotional Intelligence Scale Total Score.
Table 3. IS: Means and Standard Deviations Relative to the Experimental Group (Pretest and Posttest) and the
Control Group (Pretest and Posttest)
Experimental Group Control group
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
MSDMSDMSDMSDWilk’s LF(3, 44) Z
2
p
Indecisiveness
scale
40.21 9.24 38.08 9.00 38.80 7.18 38.68 6.84
Time .898 5.214 .102 .027
Time Group .917 4.161 .083 .047
Note.IS¼Indecisiveness scale. Experimental group: n¼23; Control group: n¼25.
Di Fabio et al. 29
29
by Annamaria Di Fabio on February 16, 2011jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from
and more varied group of students who fully represent the current Italian context and the various
existing courses of study. Research in other national contexts is also needed. An additional limitation
of the current study is the brevity of the follow-up assessment, conducted only at 1 month following
the intervention. Follow-up at 6–12 months following the intervention and longer is needed to con-
firm the stability of the improved abilities and the possible need for additional training (Hughes &
Sullivan, 1988). Future prospective studies should not only assess the effects of the training
with other students but also assess the effects of training over time on other factors theoretically
linked, but not identical, with EI, such as empathy, self-esteem, locus of control, decision making
self-efficacy, perceived social support, and academic achievement. Evidence that EI affects a broad
range of adaptive cognitive, affective, career development and social factors would contribute to its
value as a universal primary preventive intervention (Kenny & Di Fabio, 2009).
Despite these limitations and the need for further research, this study addresses a number of lim-
itations described in the EI literature. This study improves on prior research using a research-based
definition of EI and a training program to develop that construct. Furthermore, to assess whether the
intervention has a direct effect on EI, we use measures of EI that are aligned with the definition of EI
on which the training is based. To assess whether training generalizes to a broader array of related
capacities, we also demonstrate change in indecisiveness and use of information in career decision
making. Additionally, the students were assigned to the intervention and nonintervention groups and
thus did not self-select into training, which has been a limitation of the evaluation of EI training in
school and business settings (Clarke, 2006). By including both ability-based and self-report mea-
sures, we gain some initial insight into how participants experience change, although further
research is needed to explore areas of inconsistency that emerged across the two measures. The
study, furthermore, addresses the need (Mayer et al., 2008) to extend the study and training of EI
across cultures. Our findings support EI as a valid and mutable construct in an Italian context, as
the studies of Mayer et al. (2008) and Bar-On (1997) demonstrated in other cultural contexts.
In conclusion, the EI intervention seems to have stimulated a process of change for Italian ado-
lescents who participated in EI training. If these results are confirmed and sustained over time, the
intervention may be important in supporting and facilitating the development of EI and fostering
Table 4. CDDQ: Means and Standard Deviations Relative to the Experimental Group (Pretest and Posttest)
and the Control Group (Pretest and Posttest)
Experimental Group Control Group
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
CDDQ MSDMSDMSDMSDWilks’ LF(3, 44) Z
2
p
Lack of
readiness
26.91 4.15 27.47 4.38 28.84 3.64 28.80 3.73
Time .988 .562 .012 .457
Time Group .984 .746 .016 .392
Lack of
information
44.47 7.47 42.17 7.80 48.36 6.36 48.28 6.31
Time .895 5.413 .105 .024
Time Group .907 4.711 .093 .035
Inconsistent
information
39.82 6.14 39.43 6.61 41.28 6.74 41.36 6.86
Time .999 .051 .001 .823
Time Group .997 .116 .003 .735
Note. CDDQ ¼Career Decision Difficulties Questionnaire. Experimental group: n¼23; Control group: n¼25.
30 Journal of Career Assessment 19(1)
30
by Annamaria Di Fabio on February 16, 2011jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from
career decision making. This study adds to prior research establishing a relationship between
decision making and EI (Brown et al., 2003; Di Fabio & Blustein, 2010; Di Fabio & Palazzeschi,
2008, 2009b; Emmerling & Cherniss, 2003) by demonstrating that perceived indecisiveness and
career decision difficulties decreases following EI training. Assessment of EI may have a role in
career assessment when problems of indecisiveness and career decision difficulties are apparent.
Evidence that EI is malleable and that EI, indecisiveness and career decision difficulties can be
affected has implications for career development intervention. The intervention used in this study
is focused at a primary prevention level (Hage et al., 2007), with the aim of preparing individuals
to deal adaptively with environmental requests and increasing their capacities to thrive in life. As
such, EI training may have the potential to improve career decision-making ability along with other
cognitive-affective abilities. Preventive services and interventions supporting career development
are important in terms of preventing dysfunction and containing social costs tied to career indecision
and psychological stress (Fouad et al., 2006). Costs associated with the design and delivery of effec-
tive preventive interventions can ultimately reduce the request for future, more expensive, social and
health services (Swisher, Scherer, & Yin, 2004).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of
this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.
References
American College Health Association. (2004). Healthy Campus 2010. Retrieved February 22, 2010, from
http://www.acha.org/info_resources/hc2010.cfm
Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Intelligent Inventory (EQ-I): Technical manual. Toronto, Canada:
Multi-Health Systems.
Bar-On, R. (2002). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Short technical manual. Toronto, Canada:
Multi-Health Systems.
Brabeck, M., Walsh, M. E., Kenny, M. E., & Comilang, K. (1997). Interprofessional collaboration for children
and families. The Counseling Psychologist,25, 615–636.
Brackett, M. A., & Katulak, N. A. (2007). Emotional Intelligence in the Classroom: Skill-based training for
teachers and students. In J. Ciarrochi & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Applying emotional intelligence: A practitioner’s
guide (pp. 1-27). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Bressi, C., Taylor, G. J., Parker, J. D. A., Bressi, S., Brambilla, V., Aguglia, E., ... Invernizzi, G. (1996). Cross
validation of the factor structure of the 20-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale: An Italian multicenter study.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research,41, 551–559.
Brown, C., George, C. R., & Smith, M. L. (2003). The role of Emotional Intelligence in the career commitment
and decision-making process. JournalofCareerAssessment,11, 379–392. doi:10.1177/1069072703255834.
Cherniss, C., & Goleman, D. (2001). Training for emotional intelligence: A model. In C. Cherniss &
D. Goleman (Eds.), The emotionally intelligent workplace (pp. 209-233). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Clarke, N. (2006). Emotional intelligence training: A case of caveat emptor. Human Resource Development
Review,5, 422–441. doi:10.1177/1534484306293844.
Cobb, C. D., & Mayer, J. D. (2000). Emotional intelligence: What the research says. Educational Leadership,
58, 14–18.
D’Amico, A., & Curci, A. (IN PRESS). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). Fire-
nze, Italy: Organizzazioni Speciali.
Di Fabio et al. 31
31
by Annamaria Di Fabio on February 16, 2011jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Di Fabio, A. (2010). Potenziare l’intelligenza emotiva in classe. Linee guida per il training [Improving
emotional intelligence in class. Guidelines for training]. Firenze, Italy: Giunti-Organizzazioni Speciali.
Di Fabio, A., & Blustein, D. (2010). Emotional intelligence and decisional conflict styles: Some empirical
evidence among Italian high school students. Journal of Career Assessment,18, 71–81.
Di Fabio, A., & Ciardi, F. (2007, September). Indecisiveness Scale: Un contributo alla validazione italiana
[Indecisiveness Scale: A contribution to Italian validation]. Poster presented at the International Conference
IAEVG, Padova, Italy.
Di Fabio, A., Giannini, M., & Palazzeschi, L. (2008). Intelligenza emotiva: Proprieta` psicometriche della
versione italiana della Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS) [Emotional Intelligence: Psychometric properties
of the Italian version of Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS)]. Counseling. Giornale italiano di Ricerca e
Applicazioni,1, 61–72.
Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2007). Intelligenza emotiva, tratti di personalita` e stili decisionali: Alcune
evidenze empiriche in un campione italiano di apprendisti [Emotional intelligence, personality traits and
decisional styles: Some empirical evidence in an Italian sample of apprentices]. Risorsa Uomo. Rivista di
Psicologia del Lavoro e dell’Organizzazione,13, 469–486.
Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2008). Indecision vocationelle et intelligence e´motionnelle: quelques donne´es
empiriques sur un e´chantillon d’apprentis italiens [Career decision difficulties and emotional intelligence:
Some empirical facts on a sample of Italian apprentices]. Pratiques Psychologiques,14, 213–222.
Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2009a). An in-depth look at scholastic success: Fluid intelligence, personality
traits and emotional intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences,46, 581–585.
Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2009b). Emotional intelligence, personality traits and career decision
difficulties. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance,9, 135–146. doi:10.1007/
s10775-009-9162-3.
Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2010). Stili decisionali e intelligenza emotiva: Alcune evidenze empiriche in
un campione italiano di apprendisti [Decisional styles and emotional intelligence: Some empirical evidence
in an Italian sample of interns]. In L. Nota & S. Soresi (Eds.), Sfide e nuovi orizzonti per l’orientamento.
Metodologie e nuove pratiche (pp. 225-236). Firenze, Italy: Giunti O. S.
Elfenbein, H. A. (2006). Learning in emotion judgments: Training and the cross-cultural understanding of facial
expressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,30, 21–36. . doi:10.1007/s10919-005-0002-y.
Ellis, R., & Ryan, J. A. (2005). Emotional intelligence and positive psychology: therapist tools for training/
coaching clients to move beyond emotional relief. Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association,8,
42–43.
Emmerling, R. J., & Cherniss, G. (2003). Emotional Intelligence and the Career Choice Process. Journal of
Career Assessment,11, 153–167. doi: 10.1177/1069072703011002003.
Ferrari, L., Nota, L., & Soresi, S. (2002). Idee ed atteggiamenti sul futuro scolastico-professionale: uno stru-
mento per l’analisi dei livelli di indecisione di persone di eta` compresa fra i 15 e i 19 anni [Ideas and atti-
tudes on the academic-career future: An instrument for assessing the indecision levels of people with an age
ranged between 15 and 19 years]. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia dell’Orientamento,3, 20–31.
Fouad, N. A., Guillen, A., Harris-Hodge, E., Henry, C., Novakovic, A., Terry, S., Kantamneni, N. (2006).
Need, awareness, and use of career services for college students. Journal of Career Assessment, 14,
407–420. doi: 10.1177/1069072706288928.
Frost, R. O., & Gross, R. C. (1993). The hoarding of possessions. Behaviour Research and Therapy,31,
367–381.
Gati, I., Krausz, M., & Osipow, S. H. (1996). A taxonomy of difficulties in career decision making. Journal of
Counseling Psychology,43, 510–526.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam.
Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brian, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnick, H., Elias, M. J. (2003,
June/July). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emo-
tional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58, 461–473.
32 Journal of Career Assessment 19(1)
32
by Annamaria Di Fabio on February 16, 2011jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Groves, K. S., McEnrue, M. P., & Shen, W. (2008). Developing and measuring the emotional intelligence of
leaders. Journal of Management Development,27, 225–250. doi:10.1108/02621710810849353.
Hage, S. M., Romano, J. L., Conayne, R. K., Kenny, M., Mattews, C., Schwartz, J. P., ... Waldo, M. (2007).
Best practice guidelines on prevention practice, research, training, and social advocacy for psychologists.
The Counseling Psychologist,35, 493–566.
Holland, J. L. (1979). The Self-Directed Search: Professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist
Press.
Hughes, J. N., & Sullivan, K. A. (1988). Outcome assessment in social skills training with children. Journal of
School Psychology,26, 167–183.
Kenny, M. E., & Di Fabio, A. (2009). Prevention and career development [Prevenzione e career development.].
Risorsa Uomo: Rivista di Psicologia del Lavoro e dell’ Organizzazione,15, 361–374.
Kenny, M. E., Horne, A. M., Orpinas, P., & Reese, L. E. (2009). Social justice and the challenge of preventive
interventions: An introduction. In M. E. Kenny, A. M. Horne, P. Orpinas, & L. E. Reese (Eds.), Realizing
social justice: The challenge of preventive interventions (pp. 3-14). Washington, DC: American Psycholo-
gical Association.
Kidd, J. M. (1998). Emotion: An absent presence in career theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior,52,
275–288.
Kornacki, S. A., & Caruso, D. R. (2007). A theory-based, practical approach to Emotional Intelligence
Training: Ten ways to increase emotional skills. In J. Ciarrochi & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Applying emotional
intelligence: A practitioner’s guide (pp. 53-88). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Krieshok, T., Black, M., & McKay, R. (2009). Career decision making: The limits of rationality and the abun-
dance of non-conscious processes. Journal of Vocational Behavior,75, 275–290. doi:10.1016/
j.jvb.2009.04.006.
Mann, L., Burnett, P., Radford, M., & Ford, S. (1997). The Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire: An
instrument for measuring patterns for coping with decisional conflict. Journal of Behavioral Decision Mak-
ing,10, 1–19.
Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. C., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual Review
of Psychology,59, 507–536. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093646.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emo-
tional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3-31). New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Selecting a measure of emotional intelligence: The case of
ability scales. In R. Bar-On & J. D. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 320-342). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
(MSCEIT): User’s manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence. New ability or eclectic traits?
American Psychologist,63, 503–517. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.6.503.
Multon, K. D., Heppner, M. J., Gysbers, N. C., Zook, C., & Ellis-Kalton, C. A. (2001). Client psychological
distress: An important factor in career counseling. Career Development Quarterly,49, 324–335.
Nota, L., & Soresi, S. (2000). Adattamento italiano del Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire [Italian
adaptation of the Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire]. GIPO Giornale Italiano di Psicologia
dell’Orientamento,1, 38–52.
Prezza, M., Trombaccia, F. R., & Armento, L. (1997). La scala dell’autostima di Rosenberg: Traduzione e vali-
dazione italiana [Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale: Italian transletion and validation]. Bollettino di Psicologia
Applicata,223, 35–44.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescence self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Savickas, M. L. (2000). Renovating the psychology of careers for the 21st century. In A. Collins & R.A. Young
(Eds.), The future of career (pp. 53-68). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Di Fabio et al. 33
33
by Annamaria Di Fabio on February 16, 2011jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality,9,
185–211.
Salovey, P., & Sluyter, D. (1997). Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implica-
tions. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Savadori, L., Vicenzi, G., & Rumiati, R. (2000). Competenze decisionali e fiducia nelle proprie capacita`
decisionali: Le difficolta` nella scelta della carriera scolastico-professionale [Decisional competences and
confidence in decisional abilities: The career decision difficulties]. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia
dell’Orientamento,2, 23–32.
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait
anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A re-evaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,67, 1063–1078.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., ... Dornheim, L.
(1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences,25, 167–177.
Snyder,C.R.,&Lopez,S.J.(Eds.).(2002).Handbook of positive psychology. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Solberg, V. S., Howard, K., Blustein, D. L., & Close, W. (2002). Career development in the schools: Connect-
ing school-to-work-to-life. The Counseling Psychologist,30, 705–725. . doi:10.1177/0011000002305003
2002.
Soresi, S., & Nota, L. (2003). Quanta fiducia ho in me? [How much confidence do I have in myself?] Firenze,
Italy: Iter-Organizzazioni Speciali.
Swisher, J. D., Scherer, J., & Yin, R. K. (2004). Cost-benefit estimates in prevention research. The Journal of
Primary Prevention,25, 137–148.
Taylor, G. J., Ryan, D., & Bagby, R. M. (1985). Toward the development of a new self-report alexithymia scale.
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics,44, 195–199.
Thorndike, E. L. (1921). Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium. Journal of Educational Psychology,
12, 123–147.
Van Vianen, A., De Pater, I., & Preened, P. (2009). Adaptable careers: Maximizing less and exploring more.
The Career Development Quarterly,57, 298–309.
Walsh, M. E., Galassi, J. P., Murphy, J. A., & Park-Taylor, J. (2002). A conceptual frame work for counseling
psychologists in schools. The Counseling Psychologist,30, 682–704. . doi:10.1177/0011000002305002.
Wong, C., Foo, M.-D., Wang, C. W., & Wong, P.-M. (2007). The feasibility of training and development of EI:
An exploratory study in Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Intelligence,35, 141–150. . doi:10.1016/
j.intell.2006.04.008.
Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: A critical review.
Applied Psychology: An International Review,53, 371–399.
Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. L., & Walberg, H. (2004). Building academic success on social and
emotional learning: What does the research say? New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
34 Journal of Career Assessment 19(1)
34
by Annamaria Di Fabio on February 16, 2011jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from
