-
http://ccr.sagepub.com/
Cross-Cultural Research
http://ccr.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/07/27/1069397110377603The
online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1069397110377603 published online 2 August
2010Cross-Cultural Research
Jahanvash Karim and Robert WeiszMayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional
Intelligence Test (MSCEIT)Cross-Cultural Research on the
Reliability and Validity of the
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Society for Cross-Cultural Research
can be found at:Cross-Cultural ResearchAdditional services and
information for
http://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://ccr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Cross-Cultural Research
XX(X) 1 31
2010 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1069397110377603
http://ccr.sagepub.com
377603 CCR
Universit de Paul Czane, France
Corresponding Author:
Jahanvash Karim, CERGAM, IAE dAix en Provence, Universit de Paul
Czane, France, Clos
Guiot PuyricardBP 30063, Aix-en-Provence Cedex 2 13089,
France
Email: [email protected]
Cross-Cultural Research
on the Reliability and
Validity of the Mayer-
Salovey-Caruso Emotional
Intelligence Test (MSCEIT)
Jahanvash Karim and Robert Weisz
Abstract
Despite the rather large literature concerning emotional
intelligence, the
vast majority of studies concerning development and validation
of emotional
intelligence scales have been done in the Western countries.
Hence, a major
limitation in this literature is its decidedly Western focus.
The aim of this
research was to assess the psychometric properties of the
Mayer-Salovey-
Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) in a cross-cultural
comparative
context involving the collectivist Pakistani (Eastern culture)
and the individualist
French (Western culture) students. With the exception of
significant mean
differences on the MSCEIT scores between two cultures, the
results concerning
the validity of the MSCEIT generalized nicely across both
cultures. The results
from multisample analysis revealed that the MSCEIT has the
property of factorial
invariance across both cultures, including invariance of factor
loadings, unique
variances, and factor variance. For both Pakistani and French
students, the
MSCEIT scores were distinguishable from the Big Five personality
dimensions,
self-report emotional intelligence measures, and cognitive
intelligence.
Furthermore, in both cultures, the MSCEIT scores failed to
demonstrate
incremental validity against well-being measures, after
controlling for cognitive
intelligence and the Big Five personality dimensions. Finally,
within each sample,
females significantly scored higher than males on the MSCEIT
total scores.
Keywords
Emotional intelligence; validity
doi:10.1177/1069397110377603Cross-Cultural Research OnlineFirst,
published on August 2, 2010 as
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
2 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X)
Emotional intelligence (EI) exists and has significant impacts
on individual
and organizational outcomes, ranging from individual
performance, health,
and psychological well-being, to customer satisfaction and
organizational
performance (Joseph & Newman, 2010; Schutte, Malouff,
Thorsteinsson,
Bhullar, & Rooke, 2007). Indeed, Few fields of psychological
investigation
appear to have touched so many disparate areas of human
endeavor,
since its inception, as has emotional intelligence (Matthews,
Zeidner, &
Roberts, 2004, p. 4). However, despite notable advances in the
field, the
psychometric properties of EI instruments have seldom been
examined with
demand and rigor across cultures, often leaving open questions
of structural
and measurement equivalence. If an EI measure fails to show
comparable
psychometric properties across different cultures, then its
utility as a
psychological construct is questionable (Ekermans, 2009;
Gangopadhyay &
Mandal, 2008; Palmer, Gignac, Ekermans, & Stough, 2008). The
current study
sought to address this concern by simultaneously assessing the
psychometric
properties of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence
Test
(MSCEIT: Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002) in two distinct
cultural groups:
the collectivist Pakistani and the individualist French. The
collectivists tend
to view themselves as members of an extended family (or
organization), and
place group interests ahead of individual needs. In contrast,
Individualists
tend to believe that personal goals and interests are more
important than
group interests (Hofstede, 1980).
A cross-cultural design is an answer to the call made by various
research-
ers (e.g., Ekermans, 2009; Gangopadhyay & Mandal, 2008) for
more system-
atically investigating cultural differences to determine whether
the structure
of EI replicates across distinct cultures and whether correlates
of EI are cul-
ture-specific or they cut across cultural boundaries. More
specifically, the
current study had five main objectives. First, we compared
participants EI
levels across both cultures. Second, we evaluated the structural
equivalence
of the MSCEIT across both cultures. Third, we assessed the
discriminant
validity of the MSCEIT vis--vis cognitive intelligence (the
Ravens
Advanced Progressive Matrices), self-report or mixed model EI
measures
(the SREIT and the TEIQue), and the Big Five personality
measures. Fourth,
we assessed whether MSCEIT accounts for incremental variance in
subjec-
tive well-being (i.e., positive affect, negative affect, and
satisfaction with life)
and psychological distress above and beyond Big Five and
cognitive intelli-
gence in both cultures. Finally, we examined whether there are
gender differ-
ences on the MSCEIT within each culture.
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Karim and Weisz 3
Approaches to EI
Two complementary conceptualizations of EIthat is, mixed model
frame-
work and ability model frameworkexist side by side in the
literature. The
proponents of ability EI framework view EI as a traditional
intelligence,
resembling other standard intelligences (e.g., verbal,
numerical, figural), com-
prising of a set of skills that combines emotions with cognition
measured
through objective tests akin to IQ tests ([MSCEIT: Mayer et al.,
2002).
Proponents of mixed models, by contrast, view EI as an eclectic
mix (Mayer,
Salovey, &Caruso, 2008) of traits, many dispositional, such
as self-esteem,
happiness, impulsiveness, self-management, and optimism, rather
than as abil-
ity based. For example, Petrides and Furnham (2003) defined the
construct as
a constellation of behavioral dispositions and self-perceptions
concerning
ones ability to recognize, process, and utilize emotion-laden
information. It
encompasses empathy, impulsivity, and assertiveness as well as
elements of
social intelligence and personal intelligence (p. 278). Thus,
within these mod-
els, a large number of traits are amassed and mixed in with a
few socioemo-
tional abilities (Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008; Mayer,
Salovey et al.,
2008). Researchers in the mixed model framework have typically
used self-
report measures to assess EI (e.g., Self-report Emotional
Intelligence Test
[SREIT]: Schutte et al., 1998; Trait Emotional Intelligence
Questionnaire
[TEIQue]: Petrides, Prez-Gonzalez, & Furnham, 2007).
Furthermore, mixed
model measures of EI can typically be organized into one of two
complemen-
tary types: self-report ability EI or self-report mixed EI
(Joseph & Newman,
2010). The former includes self-report EI measures that are
based on ability EI
model (e.g., Self-Rated Emotional Intelligence Scale [SREIS]:
Brackett,
Rivers, Shiffman, Lerner, & Salovey, 2006; Self-report
Emotional Intelligence
Test [SREIT]: Schutte et al., 1998). The latter includes
measures which focus
on noncognitive factors such as social skills, self-esteem, and
personality
dimensions (e.g., TEIQue: Petrides et al., 2007). In sum,
currently we have
three distinct construct-method pairings of EI:
performance-based ability EI,
self-report ability EI, and self-report mixed EI.
Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence
Test (MSCEIT: Mayer et al., 2002)
One of the more widely known ability EI models was developed by
Mayer
and Salovey (1997), who defined EI as the ability to perceive
emotions,
to access and generate emotions so as to assist thought, to
understand emo-
tions and emotional knowledge and to reflectively regulate
emotions so as to
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
4 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X)
promote emotional and intellectual growth (p. 10). In line with
this opera-
tional definition, the structure of Mayer and Saloveys model is
mutifacto-
rial, comprising four conceptually related abilities arranged
hierarchically
from the most basic to more psychologically complex. These
include (a)
Perceiving Emotions, or the ability to identify emotions in
oneself and oth-
ers; (b) Using Emotions, or the ability to use emotions to
impact cognitive
processes. This requires the ability to mobilize the appropriate
emotions and
feelings to assist in certain cognitive activities such as
reasoning, problem-
solving, and decision making; (c) Understanding Emotions, or the
ability to
comprehend how emotions combine and how emotions progress by
transi-
tioning from one emotion to another; and (d) Managing Emotions,
or the
ability to reflectively regulate emotions and emotional
relationships.
The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test Version
2.0
(MSCEIT; Mayer et al., 2002) is the direct operationalization of
Mayer and
Saloveys (1997) ability EI model. In line with ability EI
conceptualization,
the MSCEIT measures ones capacity to reason with emotional
content and to
use the emotional content to enhance thought. The MSCEIT differs
from the
mixed model or trait measures of EI (self-reporting EI measures)
as a result of
the nature and style of the assessment. Respondents are asked to
solve emo-
tional problems (e.g., how to resolve a conflict with a spouse)
rather than
being asked to self-perceive and rate the extent to which their
emotional skills
are being used (e.g., rating oneself on 7-point Likert-type
scale).
The MSCEIT includes two tasks as measures of each branch:
Perceiving
Emotions (faces and pictures); Using Emotions (sensations and
facilitation);
Understanding Emotions (blends and changes); and Managing
Emotions
(emotion management and emotional relationships). The four
branches may
be further grouped into two EI areas: Experiential EI
(Perceiving Emotions
and Using Emotions) and Strategic EI (Understanding Emotions
and
Managing Emotions).
Scores on the MSCEIT can be obtained through consensus and
expert
scoring methods. Consensus scores reflect the proportion of
respondents in a
large normative sample who endorsed each MSCEIT response. A
score for an
individual is computed by comparing his or her responses to that
of the nor-
mative sample. In contrast, expert scores reflect the proportion
of 21 emotion
experts who endorsed each response. It is worth to mention that
the scoring
methods of the MSCEIT have been the subject of debate and
controversy
(e.g., Matthews et al., 2002; Matthews, Roberts, & Zeidner,
2004). Both con-
sensus and expert norms correlate highly (Mayer, Salovey,
Caruso, &
Sitarenios, 2003). Mayer et al. (2003) reported acceptable
reliabilities for the
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Karim and Weisz 5
MSCEIT. The MSCEIT full-test split-half reliability was 0.93 for
general and
0.91 for expert consensus scoring. The reliability for four
branch scores of
Perceiving, Facilitating, Understanding, and Managing ranged
between 0.76
and 0.91. The individual task reliabilities ranged from a low of
0.55 to a high
of 0.88.
Overview of the Current Study
Country Differences on the MSCEIT
Individualism-Collectivism is a major dimension of cultural
variable postu-
lated by many theorists (e.g., Hofstede, 1980). This dimension
focuses on the
degree a society reinforces individual or collective actions,
achievements,
and interpersonal relationships. Collectivism typifies societies
of a more col-
lective nature, close ties between individuals, collective
goals, and depen-
dence on groups; while individualistic cultures stress
individual goals and
independence. For this study, French and Pakistani cultures were
selected
because cross-cultural research predominantly involves the
comparison of
Eastern and Western cultures. According to Hofstedes (1980)
cultural
dimensions, Pakistan is a typical representative of the
classical Eastern cul-
ture. France is considered as a prototype of the classical
Western culture.
According to Hofstedes rankings (see www.geert-hofstede.com),
Pakistan
ranks 14 on individualism which is much lower than the world
average of 50,
reflecting an orientation toward a collectivistic culture.
France ranks 71,
indicating a society with more individualistic attitudes.
Some research indicates that cultural differences (individualist
vs. collec-
tivist) exist across a wide range of emotion-related abilities
that essentially
comprise the construct of the ability EI. For example, compared
to collectiv-
ists, people from individualistic cultures are better at
recognizing and under-
standing emotions (Matsumoto, 1989; 1992), are more likely to
express their
emotions (Fernandez, Carrera, Sanchez, Paez, & Candia,
2000), and are bet-
ter able to regulate their emotions ( Gross & John , 2003).
Thus the processes
underlying the ability EI factors and their manifestations may
differ across
cultures as a consequence of the role culture plays in the
development, dis-
play, and interpretation of emotions. Therefore, the first goal
was to examine
whether there are cultural differences on the MSCEIT scores
across French
(individualists) and Pakistani (collectivists) cultures. Based
on literature on
emotions, it was expected that the participants in the French
sample would
score higher on the MSCEIT than the participants in the
Pakistani sample.
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
6 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X)
Structural Equivalence
The evidence for structural equivalence can be established by
replicating the
factor structure of the MSCEIT and demonstrating that the MSCEIT
pos-
sesses robust internal reliability across cultures (Ekermans,
2009).
Regarding the factorial validity of the MSCEIT, Mayer et al.
(2003) have
demonstrated that four-factor models provide good fit to the
data, suggesting
that this model provides viable representation of the tests
underlying factor
structure. However, some have argued that four-factor solution
is not prefer-
able due to high correlations between branches perceiving
emotions and
using emotions (Fan, Jackson, Yang, Tang, & Zhang, 2010;
Roberts, Schulze,
OBrien, MacCann, Reid, & Maul, 2006; Rode et al., 2007;
Rossen, Kranzler,
& Algina, 2008) or between using emotions and managing
emotions (Palmer,
Gignac, Manocha, & Stough, 2005).
Further to this, an important research question that has yet to
be systemati-
cally examined is whether the ability EI construct generalizes
across different
cultures. So far, all factor structures of the MSCEIT have
evolved only on the
basis of studies done in Western (predominantly individualistic)
cultures and
none has assessed the factor structure of the MSCEIT in Eastern
(primarily
collectivistic) cultures. It is argued that the construct of EI
needs to be vali-
dated in the East (collectivist culture; Gangopadhyay &
Mandal, 2008).
When tests are transported from one culture to another, the
comparability of
psychological measurements across different cultures should be
investigated.
A lack of evidence for measurement invariance across cultures
could point
toward bias at the construct level (Ekermans, 2009) and obviates
the ability
of the measure to be used in comparisons among different
cultural groups.
For instance, one of the major objectives of any cross-cultural
study is to
compare the mean level of a certain construct across cultural
groups.
Interpretation of the mean differences may be problematic unless
the under-
lying constructs are the same or invariant across cultural
groups. Therefore,
if the MSCEIT is used to compare mean differences across
cultures, the
MSCEIT should have the same meaning across cultural groups. In
sum, if
equivalence assumptions remain untested, the practical utility
of EI when
utilized across different cultural groups may be questionable
(Ekermans,
2009).
The MSCEIT normative sample is based on data collected from more
than
5,000 participants, including individuals from both
individualistic societies
(e.g., United States, United Kingdom, Canada) as well as from
collectivistic
societies (e.g., the Philippines, India, and Slovenia;
Papadogiannis, Logan, &
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Karim and Weisz 7
Sitarenios, 2009). Thus one can argue that the structure of the
MSCEIT will
replicate identical across cultures because of the heterogeneous
nature of nor-
mative sample, including collectivists and individualists. It is
expected that
ability EI factors are culturally universal and have comparable
functions
across cultures.
Discriminant Validity
Discriminant validity is observed when the scores from an EI
inventory are
found not to correlate with an inventory that is theoretically
postulated to be
unrelated to EI (Gignac, 2009).
MSCEIT and self-report EI measures. Since self-report EI
measures assess
emotion-related, self-perceived abilities and traits rather than
cognitive abili-
ties per se (as in ability EI), mixed EI and ability EI should
be regarded dis-
tinct (Mayer, Roberts et al.,2008; Mayer, Salovey et al., 2008;
Petrides, &
Furnham, 2003). Research has consistently supported this
distinction by
revealing low correlations between the MSCEIT and various
self-report
mixed EI measures (e.g., Brackett & Mayer, 2003;
Livingstone, & Day, 2005;
OConnor & Little, 2003) and self-report ability EI measures
(Brackett &
Mayer, 2003; Brackett et al., 2006; Joseph & Newman,
2010).
MSCEIT and Cognitive Intelligence. Empirically, there appears to
be suffi-
cient discriminant validity between the MSCEIT and various
general intelli-
gence measures (Papadogiannis et al., 2009). Various studies
have indicated
low to moderate correlations between MSCEIT and measures tapping
crys-
tallized intelligence (Gc; e.g., Farrelly & Austin, 2007;
Livingstone & Day,
2005; OConnor & Little, 2003; Rode et al., 2007).
Interestingly, the MSCEIT
has shown no relation to Ravens Progressive Matrices (Raven,
Raven, &
Court, 2003; e.g., Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000; Fabio
& Palazzeschi,
2009; Farrelly & Austin, 2007), placing ability EI closer to
crystallized
(rather than fluid, i.e., Gf) intelligence within Gf/Gc theory
(for details see
Farrelly & Austin, 2007).
MSCEIT and the Big Five. Various studies have well-documented a
nonsig-
nificance or low correlations between the MSCEIT and the Big
Five person-
ality dimensions, thus providing evidence for the discriminant
validity of the
MSCEIT (e.g., Joseph & Newman, 2010; OConnor & Little,
2003; Rode
et al., 2007).
Therefore, the third goal in the present study was to examine
the relation-
ship of scores on the MSCEIT with scores on the TEIQue, the
SREIT, Ravens
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
8 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X)
Progressive Advance Matrices, and the Big Five personality
dimensions. It
was expected that the scores on the MSCEIT would be unrelated to
the scores
on the SREIT, TEIQue, Ravens Progressive Matrices, and the Big
Five per-
sonality dimensions.
Incremental Validity
There are many reasons to believe that EI plays an important
role in predict-
ing ones subjective sense of well-being and positive mental
health. For
example, emotionally intelligent individuals (a) are better able
to draw on
positive emotions, which help them to handle anxiety and
tolerate distress
even when faced with episodes of negative emotional experiences
(Tugade
& Fredrickson, 2001); (b) are more likely to use strategies
such as eliciting
social support and disclosure of feelings, in place of
maladaptive coping
strategies, such as rumination (Matthews, Emo, Funke, Zeidner,
Roberts, &
Costa, 2006); (c) are more likely to retrieve positive memories
during mood
induction as an aid to mood regulation (Ciarrochi et al., 2000);
(d) have an
advantage in terms of greater social competence, richer social
networks, and
more effective coping strategies (Salovey, Bedell, Detweiler,
& Mayer,
2000); and (e) are better able to identify and interpret cues
that inform self-
regulatory actions to nurture positive affect and avoid negative
affect (Mayer
& Salovey, 1997). In a study conducted on undergraduate
students, Brackett
et al. (2006) found positive relationship between the MSCEIT and
psycho-
logical well-being and life satisfaction.
The fourth goal of this study was to examine whether scores on
the
MSCEIT predict scores on measures assessing subjective
well-being (posi-
tive affect, negative affect, and life satisfaction) and
psychological distress
after controlling for the influence of personality and cognitive
intelligence.
As discussed above, MSCEIT is unrelated to fluid intelligence
(Gf) and Big
Five personality dimensions; it is expected that MSCEIT will
exhibit signifi-
cant incremental validity over Big Five personality traits and
cognitive intel-
ligence (i.e., Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices).
Known Group Validation
Gender differences have been reported consistently in emotions
research. For
example, compared with men, women are more accurate in judging
the emo-
tional meaning from nonverbal cues (Hall & Matsumoto, 2004),
have more
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Karim and Weisz 9
complex knowledge (Ciarrochi, Hynes, & Crittenden, 2005),
use more emo-
tion regulation strategies (Garnefski, Teerds, Kraaij,
Legerstee, & Van den
Kommer, 2004), experience their emotions more intensely (Gross,
& John,
1998), show greater emotional awareness (Barrett, Lane,
Sechrest, &
Schwartz, 2000), and tend to be more empathic than men
(Mehrabian,
Young, & Sato, 1988). More important, the MSCEIT manual
(Mayer et al.,
2002) and a recent meta-analytic study by Joseph and Newman
(2010) sug-
gest that women score higher on the MSCEIT four factors than men
do.
Therefore, the fifth and final research goal was to examine
whether there are
gender differences on scores on the MSCEIT. Based on the
literature review,
it was expected that women would score higher on the MSCEIT than
men
would.
Method
Participants
Participants of this study included 192 students from two
nonnative English
speaking national cultures: 111 from a university in
Aix-en-Provence, France
(49 males, 62 females), and 81 from a large university in the
province of
Balochistan, Pakistan (52 males and 29 females). To attain
sample equiva-
lency, participants in both cultures were recruited from the
management
sciences subject pool fully conversant with English language and
were
enrolled in programs where the medium of instruction was
English. As all
students (in both cultures) indicated that they had good command
of English
and were able to complete the instruments in the English
language, they
completed the English versions of all instruments. Participants
received class
credit for their participation. The average age of the
participants was
29.46 (SD= 8.46). The French sample included 60% students from
regular
master programs and 40% from executive programs. The Pakistani
sample
included 73.5% from regular master programs and the rest were
from execu-
tive programs.
All participants took the MSCEIT and other tests in two testing
sessions,
each lasting 90 min. Eight classes participated in the study.
The number of
students for each group was between 20 and 40. The
questionnaires were
presented in the same order in all groups. All participants were
treated in
accordance with the Ethical principles of Psychologists and Code
of
Conduct (American Psychological Association, 2002).
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
10 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X)
Measures
TEIQue. The TEIQue (Petrides et al., 2007) is predicated on
trait EI theory,
which conceptualizes EI as a personality trait, located at the
lower levels of
personality hierarchies (Petrides & Furnham, 2003). The
sampling domain of
the TEIQue comprises 15 emotion-related behavioral dispositions
(e.g., hap-
piness, self-control, self-motivation) thought to affect the
ways individuals
cope with demands of the situation. These 15 emotion-related
behavioral dis-
positions (traits) are theoretically arranged into four broader
or major con-
ceptual components. These include (a) well-being, representing
how
successfully one is able to enjoy life and maintains a positive
disposition
(e.g., On the whole, Im pleased with my life); (b) self-control,
represent-
ing the ability to regulate ones impulsions and emotions as well
as managing
emotional pressures (e.g., I usually find it difficult to
regulate my emo-
tions); (c) emotionality, representing the ability to identify
and express feel-
ings and to use these faculties to maintain close relationships
with others
(e.g., Im normally able to get into someones shoes and
experience their
emotions); and (d) sociability, representing interpersonal
skills and func-
tioning to assert oneself as well as to influence others
emotions and decisions
(e.g., I find it difficult to bond well even with those close to
me). The
TEIQue is comprised of 153 items with 7-point scale (strongly
disagree to
strongly agree).
Affectivity. Affectivity was measured by 20 items Positive and
Negative
Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988).
PANAS is
composed of two 10-item mood scales one to measure positive
affectivity
and the other to measure negativity affectivity. The higher
scores on both
positive affectivity and negative affectivity items indicate the
tendency to
experience a positive and negative mood. The 10 positive
affective states
were motivated, excited, feel strong, enthusiastic, proud,
alert, inspired,
determined, attentive, and active. The 10 negative affective
states were dis-
tressed, upset, guilty, scared, hostile, irritable, ashamed,
nervous, jittery, and
afraid. Respondents were requested to rate the statement on a
5-point scale
(not at all to extremely) by comparing themselves during the
past 2 weeks
with their usual selves.
Psychological distress. Psychological distress was measured by
Chans
(2005) 20-item General Health Questionnaire. This scale measures
psycho-
logical distress in terms of current nonpsychotic symptoms in
the five symp-
tom areas represented by scales of health concerns (Felt
exhausted) , sleep
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Karim and Weisz 11
problems ( Early awakening), anxiety (Afraid of everything),
dysphoria
(Not enjoying activities), and suicidal ideas (Thoughts of
ending life).
Respondents were requested to rate each symptom statement on a
5-point
scale (not at all to extremely) by comparing themselves during
the past 2
weeks with their usual selves.
Personality. The 50-item version of the International
Personality Item Pool
(IPIP; Goldberg et al., 2006), Big-Five Factor markers, was used
to assess
personality. The scale contains 10 items for each of the
Big-Five personality
factors: Extraversion (E; I am the life of the party),
Agreeableness (A;Take
time out for others), Conscientiousness (C; Pay attention to
details), Emo-
tional Stability (ES; Seldom feel blue), and Intellect (I; Spend
time reflect-
ing on things). Participants were requested to read the 50 items
comprising
the IPIP questionnaire and to mark each one according to how
much they
believed it described them on a 5-point scale from very
inaccurate to very
accurate.
Self-report emotional intelligence test (SREIT). The 33-item
emotional intel-
ligence scale (SREIT; Schutte et al. 1998) is a unidimensional
self-report
measure of EI based on Salovey and Mayers (1990) ability model
of EI. It
has previously demonstrated good reliability and has been shown
to be pre-
dictive of various outcomes (Schutte et al. 1998). Respondents
indicate their
level of agreement with each of 33 statements on a 7-point
scale. Examples
of items are I am aware of the non-verbal messages I send to
others, When
I am in a positive mood, I am able to come up with new ideas,
and I help
other people feel better when they are down.
Life satisfaction. The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS;
Diener, Emmons,
Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) is a subjective self-report measure
of life satisfac-
tion. Respondents indicate their level of agreement with each of
five state-
ments on a 7-point scale. Examples of items are In most ways my
life is
close to my ideal and I am satisfied with my life.
Ability EI. Emotional intelligence ability was measured with the
MSCEIT
(Mayer et al., 2002). The MSCEIT is a 141-item test that
measures how well
people perform tasks and solve emotional problems on eight tasks
that are
divided into four classes or branches of abilities, including
(a) perceiving
emotions, (b) facilitating thought, (c) understanding emotions,
and (d) man-
aging emotions. For current study, expert scores for the MSCEIT
were
requested from the test publisher. Analysis of the data by the
test publisher
provides 15 scores, including one for each task, one for each
branch, one for
each area, and one for total EI.
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
12 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X)
Cognitive intelligence. The 48-item Ravens Standard Progressive
Matrices
Test (Raven et al., 2003) was used to measure cognitive
intelligence. This test
is designed to measure Spearmans g factor and has now been
recognized
as one of the purest measures of g available. The test consists
of 48 questions
and presents people with a series of patterns, each of which has
one part or
piece missing. The task in each case is to select from a set of
eight alterna-
tives the piece that will complete the pattern correctly.
Results
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the MSCEIT and other
variables for
French and Pakistani participants. According to Mayer et al.
(2003) sugges-
tions, to accommodate for item heterogeneity, split-half
reliabilities were
employed for the total, area, and branch levels. MSCEIT
full-test split-half
reliability was r = 0.84 for the French sample and 0.85 for the
Pakistani
sample. The two experiential and strategic area score
reliabilities were r =
0.86 and 0.63, and r = 0.88 and 0.82 for the French and
Pakistani samples,
respectively. The four branch scores of perceiving, using,
understanding, and
managing ranged between r = 0.51 and 0.87 and 0.74 and 0.86 for
the French
and Pakistani samples, respectively (see Table 1). The
individual task reli-
abilities ranged from a low of 0.45 to a high of 0.80 for the
French sample
and from a low of 0.50 to a high of 0.82 for the Pakistani
sample.
Country Differences on the MSCEIT
To obtain an overall picture of possible cross-cultural
differences on the
MSCEIT, we conducted a series of independent sample t tests on
MSCEIT
branch, area, and total scores. There were indeed several
significant cross-
cultural differences. French participants performed better than
their Pakistani
counterparts on perceiving emotions (t = 2.39, p < .05,
Cohens d = .35),
using emotions (t = 2.06, p < 0.05, Cohens d = 0.30),
understanding emo-
tions (t = 6.24, p < .001, Cohens d = 0.92), managing
emotions (t = 5.05,
p < .001, Cohens d = 0.75), experiential EI (t = 2.50, p <
0.05, Cohens d =
0.37), strategic EI (t = 7.15, p < 0.001, Cohens d = 1.06),
and total ability EI
(t = 5.38, p < .001, Cohens d = 0.79).
Factorial Invariance
As can be seen in Table 2, each task correlated mostly highly
with its sister
subscale with which it combines (e.g., the Faces and Pictures
subscales
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Skewness, and Kurtosis for
French and Pakistani Samples
France Pakistan
M (SD) S K Reliabilitya M (SD) S K Reliabilitya
Age 30.75 (7.99) .82 0.28 27.85 (8.39) 1.19 2.15
Gender 0.44 (0.49) .23 1.19 0.63 (0.48) 0.57 1.15
RAPM 38.42 (4.80) .87 1.20 27.57 (8.06) 0.93 0.54
Extraversion 3.44 (0.74) .27 0.62 .87 3.29 (0.72) 0.04 0.16
.80
Agreeableness 4.06 (0.51) .62 0.65 .80 4.06 (0.58) 0.69 0.34
.81
Conscientiousness 3.37 (0.72) .57 0.20 .84 3.57 (0.58) 0.07 0.42
.72
Emotional stability 3.19 (0.68) .06 20 .79 2.98 (0.71) 0.22 0.30
.81
Intellect 3.69 (0.57) .47 0.82 .80 3.46 (0.53) 0.03 0.65 .71
Positive affect 3.60 (0.55) .85 1.50 .78 3.54 (0.57) 0.35 0.32
.76
Negative affect 2.11 (0.63) .53 0.08 .81 1.98 (0.69) 0.81 0.66
.82
Psychological distress 1.83 (0.53) .81 0.03 .86 2.04 (0.75) 1.12
1.19 .91
Life satisfaction 4.60 (1.22) .40 0.08 .86 4.82 (1.26) 0.45 0.29
.80
SREIT 5.04 (0.54) .07 0.05 .85 5.32 (0.64) 0.28 0.60 .90
Well-being (TEIQue) 5.22 (0.78) 1.19 1.21 .83 5.05 (0.71) 0.35
0.22 .75
Self-control (TEIQue) 4.13 (0.73) .14 0.19 .70 4.24 (0.61) 0.26
0.91 .68
Emotionality (TEIQue) 4.72 (0.68) .16 0.74 .71 4.64 (0.57) 0.11
0.01 .62
Sociability (TEIQue) 4.71 (0.65) .32 0.12 .70 4.97 (0.68) 0.25
0.05 .76
Total TEIQue 4.69 (0.47) .37 0.68 .82 4.58 (0.48) 0.44 0.20
.86
Faces 99.18 (14.75) .20 0.14 .80 95.49 (15.51) 0.13 0.52 .82
Facilitation 97.81 (15.51) .06 0.69 .51 99.65 (16.42) 0.05 0.32
.61
Changes 89.31 (10.40) .88 1.15 .45 82.92 (11.85) 0.07 0.13
.68
(continued)
13
by Jahanvash Karim on Septem
ber 13, 2010ccr.sagepub.com
Dow
nloaded from
-
France Pakistan
M (SD) S K Reliabilitya M (SD) S K Reliabilitya
Emotion management 87.35 (8.84) .72 0.68 .53 79.67 (10.16) 0.57
0.60 .62
Pictures 95.50 (11.02) .53 0.95 .75 92.20 (13.86) 0.70 0.86
.85
Sensation 90.24 (14.39) .87 0.64 .50 83.50 (13.92) 0.33 0.11
.66
Blends 90.01 (11.63) .10 0.59 .46 79.88 (11.54) 0.07 0.05
.50
Social management 87.34 (10.16) .10 0.34 .48 81.46 (14.63) 0.62
0.72 .63
Perceiving emotions 97.31 (13.48) .33 0.62 .87 92.51 (13.97)
0.26 0.45 .86
Using emotions 91.45 (15.41) 1.01 1.12 .56 86.65 (16.64) 0.18
0.20 .80
Understanding emotions 87.57 (10.38) .51 0.11 .60 77.62 (11.56)
0.33 0.20 .74
Managing emotions 85.58 (9.35) .23 0.67 .51 77.41 (13.04) 0.33
0.14 .80
Experiential EI 93.69 (12.68) .25 0.07 .86 88.50 (15.46) 0.25
0.14 .88
Strategic EI 84.79 (8.16) .05 0.54 .63 74.88 (11.03) 0.05 0.02
.82
Total ability EI 86.34 (10.70) .07 0.04 .84 76.88 (13.62) 0.01
0.40 .85
Note: N = 111, 81, respectively. S = skewness; K = Kurtosis;
SREIT = Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test; RAPM = Ravens
advanced progressive matrices.a.Split-half reliabilities are
reported at the total test, area, and branch score levels due to
item heterogeneity. Coefficient alpha reliabilities are re-ported
at the subtest level due to item homogeneity.*p < .05. **p <
.01. ***p < .001.
Table 1 (continued)
14
by Jahanvash Karim on Septem
ber 13, 2010ccr.sagepub.com
Dow
nloaded from
-
Karim and Weisz 15
which measure Perceiving emotions).Table 3 presents
goodness-of-fit indi-
ces for the models examined with CFA (N =192). Based on
modification
indices, correlated errors were modeled between sensation and
emotion man-
agement tasks. As can be seen, the four-factor model indicated
satisfactory
levels of fit, 2(13) = 24.33; NFI = 0.92; TLI = 0.91; CFI =
0.96; RMSEA =
0.06 (0.02-0.10). This model was significantly better fitting
than the two-
factor, 2(5) = 35.15, p < .001 and both three-factor models,
2(3) = 9.13,
p < 0.05 and 2(3) = 25.89, p < 0.05, respectively. In
addition, all factor
loadings for this model were positive and significant (range =
0.50 to 0.92).
Correlations among the four-factors (perceiving, using,
understanding, and
managing) ranged from 0.52 to 0.75. Thus a four-factor model
served as a
base line model for subsequent multisample analyses.
Next, invariance across cultures was tested on four levels of
nested mod-
els. Each model had more constraints than the previous one
(Table 3). First, a
multisample analysis with the unconstrained model (Model 1:
configural
invariance) showed an acceptable baseline model for both French
and
Pakistani samples. This showed that French participants and
Pakistani par-
ticipants shared the same MSCEIT underlying factor pattern and
that corre-
sponding tasks loaded on the same factors. Then, to test the
invariance of the
factor loadings (metric invariance) across cultures, factor
loadings were con-
strained to be equal across the two groups (M2). The results
revealed that this
constrained model fit the data well. The chi-square difference
test between
configural invariant model (M1) and metric invariant model (M2)
was not
significant ( 2(4) = 2.84, p > 0.05), suggesting that factor
loadings of both
groups were invariant. Next, in addition to the factor loadings,
unique vari-
ances of each task were constrained to be equal across the
groups (M3).
The chi-square difference test between this model and M2 was
significant
(2(9) = 17.92, p < 0.05), suggesting that models are not
completely invari-
ant once setting equal error variances. Subsequent analyses
revealed that
relaxing constraint on error variance of sensation task yielded
a substantial
and significant improvement in model fit. The chi-square
difference test
between this M3.1 and Model 2 was not significant (2(8) = 14.08,
p > .05).
In sum, except for error variance of sensation task, the error
variances in this
four-factor model did not vary with culture. Finally, besides
the constrained
mentioned, factor covariances were also constrained to be equal
across the
two groups (M4). Multisample analysis revealed that this
constrained model
was acceptable. However, the chi-square difference test between
this M4 and
M3.1 was significant (2(6) = 13.34, p < .05), suggesting that
models are not
completely invariance once constraining the covariances across
cultures.
Subsequent analyses revealed that, relaxing constraint on
covariance between
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
16 Table 2. Intercorrelations Among MSCEIT Scales for French and
Pakistani Samples
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1. Faces Task .27** .37** .19 .25* .44*** .19 .30** .87***
.45*** .34** .30** .82*** .35** .65***
2. Facilitation Task .23* .39*** .10 .37** .45*** .40*** .30**
.38** .72*** .47*** .27* .59*** .45*** .57***
3. Changes Task .15 .16 .41*** .30** .50*** .45*** .50*** .40***
.52*** .84*** .52*** .52*** .78*** .75***
4. Emotion
Management
Task
.01 .22* .08 .16 .39*** .30** .56*** .23* .33** .42*** .81***
.32** .67*** .57***
5. Pictures Task .45*** .25** .22* .02 .21 .02 .41*** .64***
.26* .19 .36** .56*** .32** .49***
6. Sensation Task .01 .23* .33** .23* .20 .40*** .35** .44***
.92*** .54*** .41*** .72*** .56*** .72***
7. Blends Task .09 .17 .35*** .07 .04 .04 .30** .15 .45***
.85*** .35** .32** .73*** .58***
8. Social
Management
Task
.22* .24* .13 .40*** .36*** .21* .20* .42*** .38*** .47***
.92*** .46*** .77*** .71***
9. Perceiving
Emotion
.89*** .29** .22* .03 .78*** .09 .10 .35*** .47*** .33** .39***
.91*** .40*** .73***
10. Using Emotion .11 .66*** .30** .29** .29** .85*** .09 .27**
.21* .59*** .42*** .78*** .60*** .77***
11. Understanding
Emotion
.15 .20* .80*** .09 .17 .22* .83*** .21* .20* .23* .51*** .50***
.89*** .78***
12. Managing
Emotion
.15 .28** .13 .75*** .25** .25** .18 .89*** .24* .33** .19*
.47*** .83*** .75***
13. Experiential EI .75*** .53*** .32** .18 .72*** .50*** .11
.38*** .86*** .64*** .26** .34** .55*** .87***
14. Strategic EI .20* .29** .64*** .45*** .26** .30** .71***
.65*** .28** .34** .82*** .68*** .37*** .88***
15. Total EI .60*** .51*** .56*** .36*** .61*** .48*** .47***
.60*** .72*** .60*** .63*** .60*** .85*** .80***
Note: N = 111, 81, respectively. Correlations for the French
sample are below the diagonal and for the Pakistani sample are
above the diagonal.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
by Jahanvash Karim on Septem
ber 13, 2010ccr.sagepub.com
Dow
nloaded from
-
Karim and Weisz 17
Table 3. CFA and Multisample Goodness-of-Fit Indices for the
MSCEIT Across Cultures
Model 2 df P NFI TLI CFIRMSEA
[95%C.I]
Confirmatory factor analyses (N = 192)
One-factor 69.39 19 .00 .78 .75 .83 .11 [.08, .14]
Two-factor 59.88 18 .00 .81 .78 .78 .11 [.08, .14]
Three-factora 33.46 16 .00 .89 .89 .94 .07 [.03, .11]
Three-factorb 50.22 16 .00 .84 .80 .88 .10 [.07, .14]
Four-factor 24.33 13 .028 .92 .91 .96 .06 [.02, .10]
Multigroup comparison factor analyses (French sample: N = 111;
Pakistani sample: N = 81)
M1 Configural
invariance
40.45 26 .035 .94 .05 [.01, .08]
M2 Metric
invariance
43.29 30 .055 .95 .04 [.00-.07]
2M2 vs. M1 2.84 4 .58 M3 Invariant
uniqueness
61.21 39 .01 .91 .05 [.02-.08]
2 M3 vs. M2 17.92 9 .03 M3.1
sensation, free 57.35 38 .02 .93 .05 [.02-.07]
2 M3.1 vs. M2 14.06 8 .08 M4 Invariant
factor
covariances
70.69 44 .007 .90 .05 [.03-.08]
2 M4 vs. M3.1 13.34 6 .03 M4.1 Covariance
between
understand
and managing
emotions set
free
64.44 43 .01 .92 .05 [.01-.08]
2 M4.1 vs. M3.1 7.09 5 .21
Note: For both groups correlated errors were modeled between
sensation and emotion man-agement tasks. NFI = normed fit index;
TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root
mean square error of approximation. NFI, CFI, and TLI > .90 and
RMSEA < .08 are considered acceptable (Bentler & Bonett,
1980; Browne & Cudeck, 1993).a.Three-factor oblique model
comprising the perceiving and using allowed to load on a single
factor (Fan et al., 2010; Roberts et al., 2006; Rode et al., 2008;
Rossen et al., 2008).b.Three-factor oblique model comprising the
using and managing allowed to load on a single factor (Palmer et
al., 2005).
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
18 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X)
understanding and managing branches yielded a substantial and
significant
improvement in model fit (M4.1). The chi-square difference test
between
M4.1 and Model 3.1 was not significant (2(5) = 7.09, p >
.05).Therefore,
the hypothesis of partially invariant covariances between
cultures was tena-
ble. In sum, multisample CFA analyses revealed that, with few
exceptions,
the factor loadings, unique variances, and factor covariances
were invariant
across cultures. The parameter estimates of complete invariant
model (M4.1)
are presented in Figure 1.
Discriminant Validity
MSCEITs discriminant validity was examined by assessing the
correlations
between scores obtained on the MSCEIT and scores obtained for
the mea-
sures assessing self-report mixed model measure (TEIQue),
self-report abil-
ity EI measure (SREIT), Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices,
and
personality. According to Papadogiannis et al. (2009), those
that intercorre-
late between r =0.00 and 0.25 are considered unrelated to
minimally related
Figure 1. The parameter estimates of complete invariance model
(Model 4.1)Note: Values in parenthesis represent standardized
estimates for the Pakistani sample.
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Table 4. Zero-Order Correlations Between the MSCEIT and Other
Variables in the Study
France Pakistan
Branch scores Area scores Branch scores Area scores
Per Use Und Man Exp Stg Total Per Use Und Man Exp Stg Total
Age .03 .03 .15 .06 .01 .11 .06 .26* .12 .11 .18 .22* .15
.22*
Gender .03 .09 .11 .19* .08 .20* .18 .31** .25* .12 .01 .33**
.09 .23*
RAPM .06 .00 .11 .06 .04 .10 .03 .22* .27* .43** .29** .26*
.41** .36**
E .01 .01 .11 .14 .00 .00 .00 .04 .01 .01 .11 .03 .05 .01
A .03 .16 .10 .13 .10 .14 .14 .24* .34** .28* .25* .33** .30**
.35**
C .10 .13 .00 .08 .12 .05 .10 .11 .08 .08 .06 .11 .09 .11
ES .29** .08 .09 .14 .30** .01 .20* .01 .01 .19 .17 .01 .20
.11
I .17 .11 .04 .04 .08 .07 .07 .14 .40** .31** .31** .28** .37**
.38**
PA .01 .08 .17 .20* .03 .02 .01 .02 .07 .17 .06 .02 .15 .11
NA .25** .10 .08 .15 .24** .12 .23* .15 .05 .21 .35** .13 .29**
.26*
PD .19* .10 .07 .12 .20* .12 .21* .10 .03 .26* .36** .09 .32**
.24*
SWL .17 .14 .06 .22* .23* .19* .25** .09 .03 .02 .01 .08 .015
.07
SREIT .08 .11 .05 .02 .01 -.03 .02 .09 .07 .18 .16 .09 .20
.15
TEIQue
Well-being .17 .23* .00 .29** .26** .17 .25** .13 .25* .40**
.28** .21 .38** .33**
Self-control .17 .05 .04 .15 .16 .03 .11 .04 .04 .16 .23* .04
.22** .16
Emotionality .00 .13 .12 .00 .07 .08 .09 .17 .15 .28* .38** .19
.36** .32**
Sociability .04 .08 .10 .02 .05 .07 .01 .17 .21 .16 .34** .21
.28 .27*Global trait EI .15 .17 .01 .19* .20* .08 .17 .18 .22*
.34** .40** .22* .41** .36**
Note. Per = perceiving emotions; Use = using emotions; Und =
understanding emotions; Man = managing emotions; Exp = experiential
EI; Stg = strategic EI; RAPM = Ravens advanced progressive
matrices; E = extraversion; A = agreeableness; C =
conscientiousness; ES = emotional stability; I = intellect; PA =
posi-tive affect; NA = negative affect; PD = psychological
distress. SWL = satisfaction with life; TEIQue = Trait emotional
intelligence questionnaire.*p < .05. **p < .01.
19
by Jahanvash Karim on Septem
ber 13, 2010ccr.sagepub.com
Dow
nloaded from
-
20 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X)
with one another; r = 0.25 to 0.50 indicate minimal to moderate
overlap; r =
0.50 to 0.75 indicate moderate to highly related concepts; and r
= 0.75 to
1.00 indicate that instruments share common themes and arguably
assess the
same underlying constructs.
MSCEIT and TEIQue. For the participants in the French sample,
nonsignifi-
cant to moderate correlations were observed between the MSCEIT
branches
and the TEIQue factors, with the greatest correlation found
between
MSCEITs managing emotions branch and TEIQues well-being factor
(r =
0.29, p < 0.01). Likewise, for the participants in the
Pakistani sample, the
greatest of correlation was observed between understanding
emotions branch
of the MSCEIT with the well-being factor of the TEIQue (r =
0.40, p < 0.01).
However, the number of low to moderate significant correlations
in the Paki-
stani sample (13) was higher than that for the French sample
(i.e., only 4). In
sum, the performance-based ability EI in both cultures was found
to be inde-
pendent of the TEIQue. (see Table 4).
MSCEIT and SREIT. Nonsignificant correlations were observed
between
the MSCEIT factors and the SREIT in both cultures.
MSCEIT and Cognitive Intelligence. For participants in the
French sample, all
correlations between the MSCEIT scores and cognitive
intelligence revealed
to be nonsignificant. However, for the Pakistani sample, low to
moderate
significant correlations were observed between the cognitive
intelligence and
the MSCEIT scores, with the greatest correlation observed
between Strategic
EI and Ravens Advances Progressive Matrices (r = 0.41, p <
.01).
MSCEIT and the Big Five. For participants in the French sample,
among the
Big Five personality dimensions, only emotional stability
revealed to be a
significant correlate of perceiving emotions (r = 0.29, p <
0.01), experiential
EI (r = 0.30, p < 0.01), and total ability EI (r = 0.20, p
< 0.05). In contrast, for
participants in the Pakistani sample, low to moderate
correlations were
observed between the Big Five dimensions of agreeableness and
intellect and
the MSCEIT scores. Correlations between agreeableness and MSCEIT
scores
ranged from 0.24 (perceiving emotions) to 0.35 (total ability
EI), whereas
correlations between intellect and the MSCEIT scores ranged from
0.14 (per-
ceiving emotions) to 0.38 (total ability EI).
Incremental Validity
We used the hierarchical multiple regression technique to test
for the incre-
mental validity of the MSCEIT. The Big Five personality
dimensions and the
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Karim and Weisz 21
scores on the Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices were entered
into the
equation first (Step 1). At Step 2, the scores for the MSCEIT
four branches
were entered. As can be seen in Tables 5 and 6, none of the
MSCEIT
branches was found to be a significant predictor of satisfaction
with life, PA,
NA, and psychological distress.
Known Group validation
For the French sample, females scored higher than males on
managing emo-
tions, strategic EI, and total MSCEIT, whereas for the Pakistani
sample,
females scored higher than males on perceiving emotions, using
emotions,
experiential EI, and total MSCEIT (see Table 7).
Table 5. Predicting Satisfaction With Life, PA, NA, and
Psychological Distress: Results for French Sample
Life satisfaction PA NA
Psychological distress
Step R2 R2 R2 R2
1 E .11 .21*** .34 .45*** .09 .40*** .14 .30***
A .14 .06 .04 .14
C .19* .42 .10 .03
ES .25** .11 .59*** .47***
I .07 .29 .03 .02
RAPM .25** .01 .05 .13
2 Perceiving .10 .02 .01 .02 .06 .03 .11 .03
Using .04 .04 .03 .09
Understanding .02 .11 .13 .10
Managing .08 .12 .00 .06
Total R2 .24 .47 .43 .33
Final F (df) 3.01** (10, 94)
9.01*** (10, 99)
7.56*** (10, 99)
5.08*** (10, 99)
Note: RAPM = Ravens advanced progressive matrices; E =
extraversion; A = agreeableness; C = conscientiousness; ES =
emotional stability; I = intellect; PA = positive affect; NA =
negative affect.*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
22 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X)
Discussion
Cross-cultural validity of EI scales is a constant concern in
organizational
behavior research (Gangopadhyay & Mandal, 2008; Palmer et
al., 2008). The
present study attempted to evaluate an ability-based measure of
EI (the
MSCEIT) cross-culturally. To our knowledge, this study is the
first to pro-
vide evidence of the factorial invariance, discriminant and
incremental valid-
ity of the MSCEIT across cultures.
The first objective of this study was to assess the mean
differences on the
MSCEIT across two cultures. French participants had higher
scores than their
Pakistani counterparts on branch, area, and total MSCEIT scores.
This
accords well with findings showing that people from
individualistic societies
are better at perceiving, understanding, expressing, and
regulating emotions
(e.g., Fernandez et al., 2000; Gross & John, 2003;
Matsumoto, 1989; 1992).
This finding suggests that care must be taken when selecting
people from
Table 6. Predicting Satisfaction With Life, PA, NA, and
Psychological Distress: Results for Pakistani Sample
Life satisfaction PA NA
Psychological distress
Step R2 R2 R2 R2
1 E .06 .19* .08 .28** .04 .45*** .01 .31***
A .02 .02 .23 .17
C .20 .44** .15 .07
ES .12 .01 .53*** .46***
I .34 .29* .10 .05
RAPM .25 .05 .01 .06
2 Perceiving .12 .01 .03 .04 .04 .05 .04 .07
Using .04 .20 .18 .14
Understanding .04 .26 .04 .09
Managing .09 .03 .23 .29
Total R2 .20 .22 .50 .38
Final F (df) 1.73 (10, 66)
3.16** (10, 66)
6.70*** (10, 66)
4.20*** (10, 66)
Note: RAPM = Ravens advanced progressive matrices; E =
extraversion; A = agreeableness; C = conscientiousness; ES =
emotional stability; I = intellect; PA = positive affect; NA =
negative affect. = standardized regression weights.*p < .05. **p
< .01. ***p < .001.
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Table 7. Mean Differences Across Genders Within Each Sample
France Pakistan
Females Males t d Females Males t d
Perceiving 97.73 (13.25) 96.78 (13.89) 0.36 .07 98.31 (12.34)
89.28 (13.89) 2.91** .68
Using 92.80 (14.24) 89.74 (16.74) 1.03 .20 92.34 (16.89) 83.48
(15.78) 2.36* .55
Understanding 88.66 (11.05) 86.19 (9.40) 1.24 .24 79.55 (10.80)
76.55 (11.93) 1.11 .26
Managing 87.16 (9.62) 83.57 (8.67) 2.04* .39 77.72 (13.29) 77.25
(13.03) 0.15 .04
Experiential EI 94.70 (12.53) 92.42 (12.90) 0.93 .18 95.41
(13.98) 84.65 (15.20) 3.16** .73
Strategic EI 86.29 (8.41) 82.89 (7.49) 2.20* .42 76.20 (10.57)
74.15 (11.31) 0.80 .19
Total EI 89.05 (10.57) 83.17 (10.58) 1.99* .56 81.13 (13.40)
74.51 (13.29) 2.14* .50
Note: For the French sample, females = 62 and males = 49 and for
the Pakistani sample, females = 29 and males = 52. d = Cohens d.*p
< .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.; Values in parentheses
represent standard deviations
23
by Jahanvash Karim on Septem
ber 13, 2010ccr.sagepub.com
Dow
nloaded from
-
24 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X)
pool of individuals from diverse cultures because results may be
biased
toward individuals from individualistic societies.
The second objective of this study was to investigate whether
the MSCEIT
measures the same construct in both cultures. Multigroup CFA
analyses
revealed that the MSCEIT has the same theoretical latent
structure, the same
strength of the relationships among factors and tasks, and the
same reliability
of tasks regardless of the country. Therefore, the MSCEIT across
both cul-
tures can be interpreted in the same way. Significant mean
differences and
multigroup CFA analyses across both cultures provide support for
the asser-
tion made by Palmer et al. (2008) that, EI factors are
culturally universal and
have comparable functions across cultures. However, the
processes underly-
ing these factors and their manifestation may differ across
cultures as a con-
sequence of the role culture plays in the development, display,
and
interpretation of emotions (p. 35). It is worth mentioning that
the similarities
in the factor structure across both cultures can be attributed
to the shift in
cultural values of Pakistan. Pakistani youth (present study
sample-university
students) are much different from previous generations. They
have been
raised differently. This youth is the best educated and most
culturally diverse
generation. A combination of Western-style of education (mostly
American
and U.K.-based curriculum), widespread use of Internet, and
currently vibrant
print and electronic media in the country has made this
generation exceed-
ingly tolerant and open-minded toward western lifestyles.
The third objective of this study was to assess the discriminant
validity of
the MSCEIT vis--vis cognitive intelligence (the Ravens
Advanced
Matrices), self-report EI measures (the SREIT and TEIQue), and
the Big Five
personality measures. Consistent with past research relating
self-report EI
with ability EI measures (e.g., Brackett & Mayer, 2003;
Livingstone, & Day,
2005; Joseph & Newman, 2010; OConnor & Little, 2003), in
both cultures,
the MSCEIT demonstrated a lack of convergence with the TEIQue
and the
SREIT. This important finding suggests that the
performance-based ability EI
measure (i.e., MSCEIT) and self-report measures are assessing
different con-
structs. These findings support Petrides and Furnhams (2003)
assertion that
the tendency to validate ability EI measure against another
self-report mea-
sure is problematic given the obvious differences between
measurement
methods. Low to moderate correlations were found between the
MSCEIT
factors and cognitive intelligence in the Pakistani sample,
whereas nonsig-
nificant correlations were observed in the French sample. These
findings sup-
port Mayer, Salovey, and Carusos (2004) assertion that EI is
different from
other intelligences (p. 203). Finally, as predicted, this study
revealed that
MSCEIT was mostly distinguishable from the Big Five
personality
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Karim and Weisz 25
dimensions in both cultures. The correlations of the MSCEIT
branches with
Big Five were mostly nonsignificant or low to moderate in both
cultures.
These results were consistent with previous findings (Brackett
& Mayer,
2003; OConnor, and Little, 2003; Rode et al., 2007) and provide
support for
the assertion that the MSCEIT includes abilities to perceive,
integrate, under-
stand, and regulate emotions (Mayer & Salovey, 1997);
therefore, it is
unlikely to be related to personality traits (Mayer, Roberts et
al.,2008; Mayer,
Salovey et al., 2008).
The fourth objective of this study was to assess the incremental
validity of
the MSCEIT. In line with previous studies (Livingstone &
Day, 2005; Rode
et al., 2007; Rossen & Kranzler, 2009; Zeidner &
Olnick-Shemesh, 2010),
the results indicated that the MSCEIT scales did not add to the
prediction of
PA, NA, satisfaction with life, and psychological distress after
controlling for
personality and cognitive intelligence in either of the sample.
The lack of
incremental validity when explaining NA, PA, satisfaction with
life, and psy-
chological distress suggests that the MSCEIT may not increase
our under-
standing of subjective well-being, after controlling for
cognitive intelligence
and personality variables in the same analyses. Thus the results
of this study
further highlight the serious problem associated with the
predictive validity
of the MSCEIT (for further review please see Zeidner &
Olnick-Shemesh,
2010) .
Finally, the fifth objective of this study was to obtain an
overall picture of
possible gender differences on the MSCEIT within each sample. In
the
French sample, women outperformed men on managing and total EI,
whereas
in the Pakistani sample, women scored higher on perceiving,
using, and total
EI. These findings support past research showing that women tend
to be bet-
ter at emotion-related abilities than men (Barrett et al., 2000;
Ciarrochi et al.,
2005; Hall & Matsumoto, 2004; Garnefski et al., 2004; Gross
& John, 1998;
Mayer et al., 2002; Joseph & Newman, 2010; Mehrabian, Young,
& Sato,
1988; Palmer et al., 2005). This finding suggests gender bias in
the MSCEIT;
therefore, according to some researchers, the MSCEIT should not
be used for
personnel selection, unless research demonstrates that gender
differences in
test performance reflect gender differences in job performance
(Day &
Carroll, 2004).
Limitations and Future Directions
First, there is a possibility that individualism/collectivism
along with other
cultural factors will vary within cultures because of
demographic, regional,
class, and other differences within cultures. This leads to a
limitation found
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
26 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X)
in much cross-cultural researchthat of generalizing across all
cultural
groups or subcultures. The sample at a single university may not
reflect the
culture of a heterogeneous nation. Therefore, results collected
in big cities
could likely be different from those collected in small cities
or villages. This,
of course, points to the need for future research to examine
samples across
various subcultures.
Second, and most important, student samples do not represent the
culture
as much as do more or less representative samples. Students may
experience
different levels of EI, from a general working adult population
(Day, Therrien,
& Carroll, 2005). The use of students limits the external
validity of the results
(Wintre, North, & Sugar, 2001). Students are more
internationally similar
than unselected members of a culture. This may have fostered
similarities in
the results across both cultures. Therefore, it is important to
examine the
validity of the MSCEIT using a larger sample that is more
representative of
the general population.
Third, all participants responded to the MSCEIT in English.
However, as
noted by one anonymous reviewer, even for the students taking
courses in
English (or fully conversant with English as a second language),
the vocabu-
lary associated with emotion concepts may be somewhat obscure
and/or such
students do not always possess the necessary emotion
terminology. This may
have influenced the pattern of responses in the current study.
For example,
participants in both cultures scored low on understanding and
managing,
which are language-intensive. This, of course, points to the
need for future
research to examine samples across native languages.
Finally, researchers have consistently expressed concerns about
the
absence of scientific standards for determining the accuracy of
consensus and
expert scores for the MSCEIT (for details see Matthews et al.,
2002).
Moreover, American norm group scoring may not work well in other
cultures
(Zeidner & Olnick-Shemesh, 2010). Therefore, future
cross-cultural research,
instead of using American based scoring, should use proportion
consensus-
scores with consensus weights determined from the local
samples.
References
American Psychological Association .(2002). Ethical principles
of psychologists and
codes of conduct. Washington, DC: APA.
Barrett, L. F., Lane, R. D., Sechrest, L., & Schwartz, G. E.
(2000). Sex differences in
emotional awareness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
26, 1027-1035.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests
and goodness-of-fit in the
analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88,
588-606.
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Karim and Weisz 27
Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent,
discriminant, and incremental
validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence.
Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1147-1158.
Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., &
Salovey, P. (2006). Relating
emotional intelligence abilities to social functioning: A
comparison of self-report
and performance measures of emotional intelligence. Journal of
Personality and
Social Psychology, 91 (4), 780-795.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of
assessing model fit. In K.
A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation
models (pp. 136-162).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Chan, D. W. (2005). Emotional Intelligence, social coping, and
psychological dis-
tress among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. High Ability
Studies, 16(2),
163-178.
Ciarrochi, J., Haynes, K., & Crittenden, N. (2005). Can men
do better if they try
harder? Sex and motivational effects on emotional awareness.
Cognition and
Emotion, 19, 133-141.
Ciarrochi, J. V., Chan, A. Y., & Caputi, P. (2000). A
critical evaluation of the emo-
tional intelligence construct. Personality and Individual
Differences, 28, 539-561.
Day, A. L., & Carroll, S. A. (2004). Using an ability-based
measure of emotional intel-
ligence to predict individual performance, group performance,
and group citizen-
ship behaviors. Personality and Individual differences, 36,
1443-1458.
Day, A. L., Therrien, D. L., & Carroll, S. A. (2005).
Predicting psychological health:
Assessing the incremental validity of emotional intelligence
beyond personality,
Type A behaviour, and daily hassles. European Journal of
Personality, 19,
519-536.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S.
(1985). The Satisfaction with
Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.
Ekermans, G. (2009). Emotional intelligence across cultures:
Theoretical and meth-
odological considerations. In, C. Stough, D. H. Saklofske, &
J. D. A. Parker (Eds),
Assessing emotional intelligence: Theory, research, and
applications (pp. 259-
290). New York: Springer.
Fabio, A. Di., & Palazzeschi, L. (2009). An in-depth look at
scholastic success: Fluid
intelligence, personality traits or emotional intelligence?
Personality and Indi-
vidual Differences, 46, 581-585.
Fan, H., Jackson, T., Yang, X., Tang, W., & Zhang, J.
(2010). The factor structure
of the Mayer-Salvoey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test V 2.0
(MSCEIT): A
meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach. Personality
and Individual
Differences, 48, 781-785.
Farrelly, D., & Austin, E. J. (2007). Ability EI as an
intelligence? Associations of
the MSCEIT with performance on emotion processing and social
tasks and with
cognitive ability. Cognition and Emotion, 21 (5), 1043-1063.
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
28 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X)
Fernandez, I., Carrera, P., Sanchez, F., Paez, D., & Candia,
L. (2000). Differences
between cultures in emotional verbal and non-verbal reactions.
Psicothema, 12,
83-92.
Gangopadhyay, M., & Mandal, M. K. (2008). Emotional
Intelligence-A universal or
culture-specific construct? In R. J. Emmerling, V. K. Shanwal,
& M. K. Mandal
(Eds.), Emotional intelligence: Theoretical and cultural
perspective (pp. 115-
134). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Garnefski, N., Teerds, J., Kraaij, V., Legerstee, J., & Van
den Kommer, T. (2004).
Cognitive emotion regulation strategies and depressive symptoms:
Differences
between males and females. Personality and Individual
differences, 36, 267-276.
Gignac, G. E. (2009). Psychometric and the measurement of
emotional intelligence.
In, C. Stough, D. H. Saklofske, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds),
Assessing emotional
intelligence: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 9-40). New
York: Springer.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton,
M. C., Cloninger,
C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality
Item Pool and the
future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of
Research in Personality,
40, 84-96.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences
in two emotion regulation
processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and
wellbeing. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 85, 348-362.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (1998). Mapping the domain of
expressivity: Multimethod
evidence for a hierarchical model. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,
74, 170-191.
Hall, J. A. & Matsumoto, D. (2004). Gender differences in
judgments of multiple
emotions from facial expressions. Emotion, 4 (2), 201-206.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International
differences in work-
related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional
intelligence: An integrative meta-
analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95
(1), 54-78.
Livingstone, H. A., & Day, A. L. (2005). Comparing the
construct and criterion-
related validity of ability-based and mixed-model measures of
emotional intel-
ligence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65(5),
757-779).
Matsumoto, D. (1989). Cultural influences on the perception of
emotion. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 92-105.
Matsumoto, D. (1992). American-Japanese cultural differences in
the recognition of
universal facial expressions. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 23 (1), 72-84.
Matthews, G., Emo, A. K., Funke, G., Zeidner, M., Roberts, R.
D., & Costa, P. T.
(2006). Emotional intelligence, personality, and task-induced
stress. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 12 (2), 96-107.
Matthews, G., Roberts, R. D., & Zeidner, M. (2004). Seven
myths about emotional
intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 179-196.
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Karim and Weisz 29
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002).
Emotional intelligence: Science
and myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human
Abilities: Emotional
Intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 507-536.
Mayer, J. D. & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional
intelligence? In P. Salovey &
D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional Development and Emotional
Intelligence: Educa-
tional Implications. New York: Basic Books, pp. 3-27.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002).
Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional
Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) item booklet, version 2.0. Toronto,
Onatario, Canada:
MHS.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004). Emotional
intelligence: Theory,
findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15,
197-215.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional
intelligence: New ability
or eclectic traits? American Psychologist, 63, 503-517.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D., & Sitarenios, G.
(2003). Measuring emotional
intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3, 97-105.
Mehrabian, A., Young, A. L., & Sato, S. (1988). Emotional
empathy and associated
individual differences. Current Psychology Research and Reviews,
7, 221-240.
OConnor, R. M., & Little, I. S. (2003). Revisiting the
predictive validity of emotional
intelligence: Self-report versus ability-based measures.
Personality and Individ-
ual Differences, 35, 1893-1902.
Palmer, B. R., Gignac, G., Manocha, R., & Stough, C. (2005).
A psychometric evalua-
tion of the MayerSaloveyCaruso Emotional Intelligence Test
Version 2.0. Intel-
ligence, 33, 285-305.
Palmer, B. R., Gignac, G., Ekermans, G., & Stough, C.
(2008). A comprehensive
framework for emotional intelligence. In R. J. Emmerling, V. K.
Shanwal, & M.
K. Mandal (Eds.), Emotional Intelligence: Theoretical and
Cultural Perspective
(pp. 17-38), New York: Nova Science.
Papadogiannis, P. K., Logan, D., & Sitarenios, G. (2009). An
ability model of emo-
tional intelligence: A rationale, description, and application
of the Mayer Salovey
Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). In, C. Stough, D.
H. Saklofske,
& J. D. A. Parker (Eds), Assessing emotional intelligence:
Theory, research, and
applications (pp. 259-290). New York: Springer.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional
intelligence: Behavioral vali-
dation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to
mood induction.
European Journal of Personality, 17, 39-57.
Petrides, K. V., Prez-Gonzalez, J. C., & Furnham, A. (2007).
On the criterion and
incremental validity of trait emotional intelligence. Cognition
and Emotion, 21,
26-55.
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
30 Cross-Cultural Research XX(X)
Raven, J., Raven, J.C., & Court, J.H. (2003). Manual for
Ravens Progressive Matri-
ces and Vocabulary Scales. Section 1: General Overview. San
Antonio, TX: Har-
court Assessment.
Roberts, R. D., Schulze, R., OBrien, K., MacCann, C., Reid, J.,
& Maul, A. (2006).
Exploring the validity of the MayerSaloveyCaruso Emotional
Intelligence Test
(MSCEIT) with established emotions measures. Emotion, 6,
663-669.
Rode, J. C., Mooney, C. H., Arthaud-day, M. L., Near, J. P.,
Rubin, R. S., Baldwin,
T. T., & Bommer, W. H. (2007). An examination of the
structural, discriminant,
nomological, and incremental predictive validity of the MSCEIT
V2.0. Intel-
ligence, 36(4), 350-366.
Rossen, E., & Kranzler, J. H. (2009). Incremental validity
of Mayer-Salovey-Caruso
Emotional Intelligence Test version 2.0 (MSCEIT) after
controlling for personal-
ity and intelligence. Journal of Research in Personality, 43,
60-65.
Rossen, E., Kranzler, J. H., & Algina, J. (2008).
Confirmatory factor analysis of the
Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test V 2.0 (MSCEIT).
Personality
and Individual Differences, 44, 1258-1269.
Salovey, P., Bedell, R. T., Detweiler, J., & Mayer, J.
(2000). Current directions in emo-
tional intelligence research. In M. Lewis & J. M.
Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Hand-
book of emotions (pp. 504-520). New York: Guilford.
Salovey, P. & Mayer, J. D. (1990) Emotional intelligence.
Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 9,185-211.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J.,
Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J.,
et al. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of
emotional intelligence.
Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177.
Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Thorsteinsson, E.B., Bhullar, N.,
& Rooke, S.E. (2007).
A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between
emotional intelligence
and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 42,
921-933.
Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2002). Positive
emotions and emotional intel-
ligence. In L. Feldman Barrett & P. Salovey (Eds.), The
wisdom of feelings (pp.
319-340). New York: Guilford.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development
and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.
Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Wintre, M. G., North, C., & Sugar, L. A. (2001).
Psychologists response to criticisms
about research based on undergradute participants: A
developmental perspective.
Canadian Psychology, 42(3), 216-225.
Zeidner, M., & Olnick-Shemesh, D. (2010). Emotional
intelligence and subjective
well-being revisited. Personality and Individual Differences,
48, 431-435.
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Karim and Weisz 31
Bios
Jahanvash Karim is a PhD student studying emotional intelligence
at the
IAE dAix-en-Provence, Universit de Paul Czane, Aix-en-Provence,
France. His
research includes cross-cultural analyses of emotional
intelligence measures.
Robert Weisz is full professeur, specialist in organizational
behavior & organiza-
tional development, at the IAE dAix-en-Provence, Universit de
Paul Czane, Aix-
en-Provence, France. He is adjunct professor at the HEC (Paris)
for the international
programs. He also teaches at other well-known business schools
such as Monash BS
(Melbourne), WHU (Koblenz), and Steinbeis (Berlin).
by Jahanvash Karim on September 13,
2010ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from