Science

Research on emotional intelligence runs from Salovey & Mayer (1990) through later critiques. Mechanisms are interacting systems.

Evidence percentages below are relative judgements for this atlas, not fabricated precise statistics. Named studies keep their published bands.

Findings

• 1990 · Salovey & Mayer — Four-branch ability Perceive, use, understand, regulate — the tight construct.
• 1995 · Daniel Goleman — Public vocabulary A cultural fact; a looser scientific one.
• 1997 · Reuven Bar-On — Mixed EQ-i Widely sold; overlaps personality.
• 1994 · Antonio Damasio — Emotion in decision Somatic-marker hypothesis — lab and clinic, not an HR stamp.
• 2017 · Lisa Feldman Barrett — Emotions as constructed A challenge to simple expression-to-label tests.
• 2010s · SEL reviews — Some programmes move some outcomes Modest, fidelity-sensitive — not a second g.

Mechanisms

• Perception of cues — Face, voice, body — culturally trained, test-fragile (Barrett).
• Labelling — Words that make regulation possible — a teachable lever.
• Regulation strategies — Reappraisal, pausing — trainable, not a soul.
• Use in thinking — Mood as information (the “use” branch) — easy to overclaim in business slides.

Evidence

Debates

• Ability versus mixed/trait — MSCEIT versus EQ-i. They should not be treated as one thermometer.
• Universal faces versus construction — Ekman-type traditions versus Barrett. Identification tools inherit the fight.
• Workplace magic versus modest d — HR slides versus the size of school SEL effects.

Emotional intelligence: size the claim to the study. Interaction, not a 50/50 slogan, is the default model.

OriginsScienceSignsDevelopPracticeExemplarsMyths