The Contribution of Emotional Intelligence to Decisional Styles Among Italian High School Students

Considerable scholarly work has focused on defining and assessing career decision making (Driver, 1979; Driver, Brousseau, & Hunsaker, 1990; Friedman & Mann, 1993; Harren, 1979; Janis & Mann, 1977; Radford, Mann, Ohta, & Nakane, 1993; Scott & Bruce, 1995). Although the rational aspects of career decision making have long been recognized, the role of emotions in decision making is gaining increased attention, with scholars now criticizing models that focus exclusively on rational processes (Caruso & Wolfe, 2001; Di Fabio & Blustein, 2010; Emmerling & Cherniss, 2003). Rational models may offer limited understanding of decision making for students and young workers who expect to face multiple career transitions in an uncertain and unpredictable global economy (Krieshok, Black, & McKay, 2009; Savickas, 2000; Van Vianen, Pater, & Preened, 2009). Given the need to choose between one’s needs and desires and the realities of an ever-changing labor market, emotions inevitably impact the decision-making process (Brown, George-Curran, & Smith, 2003). As a result, personal characteristics, such as adaptability, knowledge of self and the external world, and the ability to cope effectively with ambivalence, uncertainty, and conflict may be increasingly vital in managing the numerous decisions and transitions that now characterize the typical work or career trajectory (Fouad & Bynner, 2008; Krieshok et al., 2009).

In efforts to better understand how emotional factors impact decision making, research in the United States and Italian contexts has begun to examine the relationship of emotional intelligence (EI) with career decision making (Brown et al., 2003; Di Fabio & Blustein, 2010; Di Fabio & Kenny, 2011). EI has been prevalent in the popular press since the publication of Goleman’s best selling book in 1995 (Goleman, 1995). Since that time, scholars (e.g., Bar-On, 1997; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002, 2008) have sought to enhance the conceptualization and scientific validity of the construct, with some debate concerning the extent to which EI overlaps with personality factors or should be conceptualized and assessed exclusively as a set of abilities. The Bar-On (1997, 2002) model, also referred to as the mixed model, conceptualizes EI as a mixture of personality and social–emotional abilities and is assessed through a self-report measure. The intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions of EI in the Bar-On mixed model relate to self-awareness of emotions and awareness of and the ability to respond to the feelings of others. The stress management, adaptability or flexibility in dealing with daily problems, and general mood dimensions of the Bar-On mixed model reflect a mixture of social–emotional skills and personality factors.

Mayer and colleagues (Mayer et al., 2002; Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008) are critics of the mixed-model conceptualization of EI, and advocate for an exclusively ability-based model. The model specifies four sets of skills related to the perception, understanding and management of emotions, and the use of emotions to enhance thinking, which are assessed through objective performance tests. Mayer et al.’s model strives to identify and assess social–emotional abilities as distinct from self-reported personality and is emerging as the prototype for EI training. Despite debate concerning the definition and measurement of EI, research developed from both models has established significant relationships between EI and psychological well-being, effective social relationships, productive work relationships, and academic competence (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008).

Existing research within the Italian context (e.g., Di Fabio & Blustein, 2010; Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2008a, 2009b) has examined the relationships between varied models of decision making and components of EI as assessed through the Bar-On mixed model (1997, 2002). Intrapersonal and interpersonal awareness, adaptability, and stress management as defined by Bar-On logically relate to the social–emotional skills specified in recent conceptualizations of decision making. As in other Western contexts, Italy is experiencing high levels of job instability, complicating the process of career decision making for young people. Research with Italian high school students and young workers engaged in paid professional training reveals hypothesized associations between components of EI as assessed by the Bar-On mixed-model scale and difficulties in career decision making (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2008a, 2009b). EI as conceptualized by Bar-On has also been associated with effectiveness in dealing with decisional conflicts among Italian high school students and apprentices in training (Di Fabio & Blustein, 2010; Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2007). The findings across these studies reveal, furthermore, that varied personality and social–emotional competencies as assessed by components of the Bar-On are related with different decision-making assets and limitations.

Di Fabio and Palazzeschi (2008a), for example, found that the intrapersonal dimension of EI was a consistent inverse predictor of the three dimensions of career decision difficulty (Gati, Krausz, & Osipow, 1996), including lack of readiness, lack of information, and inconsistent information. In addition, the interpersonal and adaptability dimensions were negatively related to inconsistent information, and stress management was negatively related to lack of readiness. With regard to research on style in managing decisional conflicts (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2007; Di Fabio & Blustein, 2010), the Bar-On Intrapersonal scale was inversely related to maladaptive styles of responding to decisional conflict, including avoidance, procrastination, and hypervigilance. Procrastination in decision making was also negatively associated with self-reported interpersonal or social awareness as assessed by the Bar-On scale. The adaptability scale of the Bar-On, reflecting self-reported ability to deal with daily problems in a flexible manner, was positively related with the vigilant style, an adaptive response to decisional conflict involving careful and precise consideration of options. This research suggests that a lack of awareness of one’s own emotions contributes to a variety of difficulties in making decisions and dealing effectively with decisional conflicts, with interpersonal or social awareness, adaptability, and stress management also contributing to the explanation of decision-making difficulties and conflicts.

The concept of decisional style, proposed in the literature by Harren (1979) and developed in further research by Scott and Bruce (1995), has gained recent interest as a way of understanding the value of varied approaches to decision making as a function of the decision-making context. Scott and Bruce (1995) define decisional style as “the learned habitual response pattern exhibited by an individual when confronted with a decision situation. It is not a personality trait, but a habit-based propensity to react in a certain way in a specific decision context” (p. 820). Individuals often use a combination of styles in making important decisions, and the style preferred in one decision-making situation may shift in another. Scott and Bruce (1995) developed the General Decision-Making Style (GDMS) questionnaire based upon four styles (rational, intuitive, dependent, and intuitive) specified by Harren (1979), with a fifth style (spontaneous) emerging in their research.

The relationship between decisional style using the GDMS (Scott & Bruce, 1995) and self-reported EI with the Bar-On model (1997, 2002) has also been examined in the Italian context in a study of university students (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2008b). The adaptability dimension of EI was related to the rational style, suggesting that the ability to dealing flexibly in solving problems is related to a decisional style characterized by a careful and systematic evaluation of alternatives. The interpersonal dimension of EI, involving social awareness and a recognition of the feelings and needs of others, was significantly related with the intuitive style, characterized by confidence in one’s own intuitions and feelings. The Intrapersonal dimension of EI, related to awareness of one’s own feelings, was inversely related to the dependent style, suggesting that a limited awareness of one’s own feelings may lead to seeking advice from others. Intrapersonal EI was also a significant negative predictor of the Avoidant decisional style, suggesting that low awareness of one’s own feelings may contribute to an avoidance of decision making. Adaptability or flexibility in decision making was inversely related to the spontaneous decisional style, suggesting that a lack of flexibility may contribute to a tendency to make decisions immediately and instinctively. That study did not include ability-based assessment of EI.

The current study seeks to further advance the investigation of EI and decisional styles. First of all, we seek to replicate the relationships between the dimensions of mixed-model EI and decisional style identified by Di Fabio & Palazzeschi (2008b). Because decisional style is a promising construct in understanding adaptive career decision making, further evidence regarding the validity of the relationships observed in prior research is warranted. Second, given that EI training as part of the high school curriculum has been shown to enhance EI as assessed through both mixed-model and ability-based measures (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2011), we have chosen to study high school students. Studying high school students is compelling additionally because some of the first critical career decisions, such as choice of high school and higher education, take place before or during secondary school. Finally, given the increased attention to the Mayer et al.’s (2002, 2008) ability-based model as the prototype for EI training, we were interested in whether the ability-based dimensions of EI would contribute to a more complete understanding of the emotional skills related to decisional style.

The relationship between ability-based models of EI and decisional style has not been explored in prior research. Mayer et al. (2008) argue that ability-based conceptions of EI are important in distinguishing the construct as a unique ability, beyond personality characteristics. Consistent with the Mayer et al.’s (2008) position, research in the Italian context has shown ability-based EI, especially skills in managing emotions (ME), to predict scholastic aptitude (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2009a), beyond the effects of a mixture of personality and self-report social–emotional skills assessed by mixed-model EI (Bar-On, 1997, 2002). Decision-making style reflects a habit-based propensity, which although not a personality trait, may be impacted by personal characteristics of the decision maker as well as the decision-making context (Scott & Bruce, 1995; Thunholm, 2004). For these reasons, we were interested in examining the contributions of both self-report and ability-based conceptualizations of EI with decision-making style.

Following from our review of the literature, this study was designed to assess among a sample of Italian high school students the relationships of decision-making style with (1) self-report mixed-model EI and (2) ability-based EI. In addition, we explored whether ability-based EI adds to the explanation of decision-making style beyond the effects of mixed-model measures. We expected that self-report EI based upon the mixed model would be related to career decision-making style among high school students similar to the findings for college students (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2008b). We also expected that ability-based EI would be related to career decisional-making style and, consistent with research on scholastic success (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2009a), would add to the explanation of decisional style beyond self-reported mixed-model assessment.

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations among all study scales are presented in Table 1. Two sets of regression analyses were completed first to assess (1) the contribution of five dimensions of self-reported EI to each of the five decision-making styles and (2) the contribution of four dimensions of ability-based EI to each of the five decision-making styles. Given that each set of regressions included five analyses, we set the significance level at .01 (.05/5) to guard against Type-1 error.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Standard Deviations and Correlations Relative to General Decision-Making Style (GDMS), Bar-On EQ, and Mayer Salovey Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT)

	M	DS	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. GDMS F1	17.02	3.14	—
2. GDMS F2	16.63	2.98	.07	—
3. GDMS F3	15.43	3.83	.05	−.14	—
4. GDMS F4	12.45	4.21	−.18*	.11	.21**	—
5. GDMS F5	13.56	3.54	−.23**	.42**	−.23**	.18	—
6. Bar-On Intra	72.52	11.67	.15*	.07	−.24**	−.43**	−.02	—
7. Bar-On Inter	75.41	11.05	.17*	.22**	.14*	−.11	−.03	.24**	—
8. Bar-On Stress man	53.89	11.71	.25**	−.16*	.03	−.25**	−.27**	.30**	.14*	—
9. Bar-On Adapt	49.46	8.01	.60**	.01	.00	−.21**	−.28**	.15*	.22**	.24**	—
10. Bar-On Gen mood	46.51	12.49	.06	.06	−.04	−.12	.16*	.48**	.14*	.22**	.11	—
11. MSCEIT PE	46.60	9.05	.06	−.04	.02	−.25**	−.14*	.19*	.27**	.02	.02	.87**	—
12. MSCEIT FT	37.71	7,36	.07	−.02	−.04	−.31**	−.17*	.24**	.28**	.09	.10	.87**	.73**	—
13. MSCEIT UE	39.25	6.99	.07	.02	.00	−.18*	−.23**	.11	.24**	.07	.06	.82**	.59**	.62**	—
14. MSCEIT ME	29.94	5.53	.19**	−.05	.06	−.25**	−.23**	.14*	.36**	.14*	.23**	.79**	.52**	.64**	.62	—

Note. N = 206

GDMS F1 = Rational; GDMS F2 = Intuitive; GDMS F3 = Dependent; GDMS F4 = Avoidant; GDMS F5 = Spontaneous; Bar-On Intra = Intrapersonal; Bar-On Inter = Bar-On Interpersonal; Bar-On Stress man = Bar-On Stress management; Bar-On Adapt = Bar-On Adaptability; Bar-On Gen mood = Bar-On General mood; MSCEIT PE = Perceiving emotions; MSCEIT FT = Facilitating thought; MSCEIT UE = Understanding Emotions; MSCEIT ME = Managing emotions.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

The results of the analyses with mixed-model EI (Table 2) reveal that adaptability was a significant positive predictor of rational decision making, intrapersonal intelligence was a negative predictor of the dependent and avoidant styles, and stress management and adaptability were negatively related to the spontaneous style.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Regression. The Contributions of Bar-On EQ Dimensions to Decision-Making Style (N = 206)

	Rational	Intuitive	Dependent	Avoidant	Spontaneous
Style	β	β	β	β	β
Bar-On intrapersonal	.03	−.02	−.31***	−.39***	−.09
Bar-On interpersonal	.02	.21**	.12	.02	−.00
Bar-On stress management	.10	−.15	.11	−.11	−.31***
Bar-On adaptability	.56***	−.03	−.02	−.13	−.28***
Bar-On general mood	.02	.10	−.02	.01	.15
R 2 total	.37***	.12***	.11***	.22***	.21***

Note. **p <.01. ***p < .001.

For the ability-based dimensions (Table 3), the four scales as a set explained significant variance for avoidant and spontaneous decision making. Among the subscales, FT contributed negatively and significantly to the Avoidant style. None of the other individual subscales were significant at the .01 level. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were completed next to determine whether ability-based dimensions contributed to the explanation of decision-making styles beyond the contribution of mixed-model dimensions (Table 4). The ability-based dimensions did not add significant variance either individually or as a set over the variance explained by the mixed-model scales.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Regression. The Contributions of the Mayer Salovey Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) Dimensions to Decision-Making Style (N = 206)

	Rational	Intuitive	Dependent	Avoidant	Spontaneous
Style	β	β	β	β	β
MSCEIT Perceiving emotions	.00	−.07	.09	−.06	.03
MSCEIT Facilitating thought	−.06	.03	−.19	−.24**	.03
MSCEIT Understanding emotions	−.08	.10	−.04	.07	−.17
MSCEIT Managing emotions	.06	−.09	.16	−.10	−.19
R 2 total	.04	.01	.02	.10***	.08**

Note. **p <.01. ***p < .001.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Hierarchical Regression. The Contributions of Bar-On EQ Dimensions and Mayer Salovey Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) Dimensions to Decision-Making Style (N = 206)

	Rational	Intuitive	Dependent	Avoidant	Spontaneous
Style	β	β	β	β	β
Step 1
Bar-On Intrapersonal	.06	.08	−.35***	−.38***	.00
Bar-On Interpersonal	.01	.28***	.19	.08	.09
Bar-On Stress management	.11	−.22**	.10	−.12	−.25***
Bar-On Adaptability	.56***	.01	−.03	−.12	−.25***
Bar-On General mood	−.06	.02	.08	.08	.22**
Step 2
MSCEIT Perceiving emotions	.09	−.13	.10	−.08	−.07
MSCEIT Facilitating thought	−.10	.02	−.12	−.14	.04
MSCEIT Understanding emotions	−.03	.11	−.05	.04	−.16
MSCEIT Managing emotions	.06	−.15	.10	−.07	−.05
R 2 total	.39***	.12***	.12***	.27***	.22***
ΔR 2 step 2	.01	.03	.01	.04	.04

Note. **p < .01. ***p < .001.