Emotional intelligence stands at the nexus between intelligence and emotion disciplines, and we outline how EI research might be better integrated within both theoretical frameworks. From the former discipline, empirical research focused upon whether EI is an intelligence and what type of intelligence it constitutes. It is clear that ability-based tests of EI form a group factor of cognitive abilities that may be integrated into the Cattell–Horn–Carroll framework; less clear is the lower order factor structure of EI. From the latter (...) discipline, research linking EI with theoretical frameworks from emotion research remain relatively sparse. Emotion regulation and appraisal theory may be key to explain how EI may reflect different processes. We propose a research agenda to advance the EI study. (shrink)

In this response to the critiques of Fontaine and Hughes and Evans, we touch on main points of consensus and contention, and offer some suggestions for future programs of research.

This comment responds to Maul’s (2012) article evaluating the validity evidence and argument for the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) as a measure of emotional intelligence (EI). We suggest that Maul’s standards for establishing validity evidence are unrealistically high, and may not be met by other established psychometric tests. As an example, we show that evidence for the validity of Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM) is of a similar standard to the MSCEIT.