Emotional intelligence according to the abilities model, the personality traits model, and the mixed model, among adults with intellectual disability with a non-specific etiology, compared to adults with typical development (Hebrew)

Reference to the term “emotional intelligence” has increased in recent years (Iliev, 2022), with the understanding that emotional intelligence plays an important functional and adaptive role in diverse life domains: interpersonal, social, academic, occupational, as well as in the context of the sense of happiness and general well-being (Drigas & Papoutsi, 2018). Salovey and Mayer (1990) defined emotional intelligence as “the ability to recognize, understand and manage our emotions and those of others”. Studies that tested fields related to emotional intelligence among people with developmental intellectual disability (hereinafter: DID) found that this population may experience difficulties in processes of coping with understanding, structuring and managing social-emotional life situations, such as difficulties in regulation and mood swings (Noel, 2018), low socialization and coping skills (Littlewood et al., 2018), as well as difficulties in understanding the norms of communication and social discourse (Patel et al., 2020; Smith et all., 2020). On the other hand, an international study (Umucu et al., 2022) on strengths of people with disabilities reported points of emotional strength among people with intellectual disability: love of learning, honesty, fairness, judgementalism, and appreciation of beauty and excellence. These studies show that to date, fields related to emotional intelligence, such as social-emotional skills, emotional and emotional knowledge skills, have been investigated.

The main aim of the present study was to evaluate emotional intelligence among adults (CA: 22-40) with DID with a non-specific etiology, compared to adults with typical development with an identical chronological age. The uniqueness of this study lies in testing emotional intelligence according to the three models of emotional intelligence found in the research literature: the Abilities model, the Personality Traits model and the Mixed model.

The operative goals of the study were to assess:

A. Whether differences will be found in emotional intelligence scores (according to the three models) between the two research groups. The Abilities model (Mayer & Salovey, 1997) and the Mixed model (Bar-On, 1997) are cognitive in nature. We therefore hypothesized that in these models, the emotional intelligence scores of the participants with typical behavior will be higher than the emotional intelligence scores of the participants with DID. In contradistinction, the Traits model is emotional in nature (Petrides & Furnham, 2006), as it is based on the individual’s emotional tendencies, is more emotion-oriented and includes self-perceptions and behavioral tendencies. Adults with DID presented emotional arguments for connecting to religion, similarly to adults with typical development (Lifshitz

& Katz, 2009), and the same emotional reasons for being single (Lifshitz & Haguel, 2020). We therefore hypothesized that no differences in the level of emotional intelligence will be found between the two research populations according to the Traits model.

B. Whether correlations will be found between the different measures of the three models of emotional intelligence and between these measures and measures of crystallized and fluid intelligence. The Abilities model (Mayer & Salovey, 1997) and the Mixed model (Bar-On, 1997) refer to emotional intelligence as a type of talent or skill, which requires cognitive processing of emotions and understanding skills. We therefore hypothesized that correlations will be found between the measures of these two models. Correlations will also be found between these measures and the measures of crystallized intelligence (Vocabulary and Similarities) and fluid intelligence (Block Design and the Raven test) among the two research populations. In contradistinction, the Traits model, as mentioned, is essentially emotional (Maroveli et al., 2009), and tends more toward perceptions and emotional tendencies of the self versus the other (Alegre et al., 2019). Because of a paucity of studies that could justify making hypotheses as to the relation between the Traits model and the Abilities and the Mixed models, we preferred to formulate research questions: Will a correlation be found between the measures of emotional intelligence of this model, and the emotional intelligence measures of the Abilities and the Mixed models? Will a correlation be found between this model and crystallized and fluid intelligence among the two research groups?

C. What is the contribution of the demographic characteristics (gender) and the cognitive variables (crystallized and fluid intelligence level) to the explained variance of the emotional intelligence level in each model and for each group separately. Gender: Recent studies (Treglown & Furnham, 2023) claim that in the population with typical development, men have a higher ability to manage emotions and women have higher empathy and ability to express emotions. However, studies on the population with DID (Haguel, 2020; Lifshitz-Vahav et al., 2015) found that women have higher emotional abilities than men and include, inter alia, verbal intimacy and sharing of feelings. Crystallized intelligence: The contribution of crystallized intelligence to cognitive abilities in the population with DID was found in different studies (Chen et al., 2017; Lifshitz et al., 2021) that proved that this population relies on prior verbal knowledge or semantic connections to remember information. Fluid intelligence: The Compensatory model (Côté & Miners, 2006; Nguyen et al., 2019), as well as current literature (Cuppello et al., 2023a, 2023b) claim that emotional intelligence and fluid skills are not necessarily negatively correlated, since emotional intelligence is related more to emotional tendencies, self-perceptions and behavioral traits, that sometimes compensate for the cognitive abilities. We therefore hypothesized that differences would be found in the contribution of gender and crystallized and fluid intelligence to the explained variance of the emotional intelligence level in each of the three models, between the two research groups.

D. The question of whether differences will be found between the two research groups in the crystallized and fluid intelligence scores is not relevant, since intellectual disability is defined as an IQ that is two standard deviations below the mean of the population with typical development (Schalock et al., 2021). We therefore tested whether differences will be found in the nature of the answers to the crystallized and fluid intelligence testes between the two groups, with the aim of testing fundamental differences and classification of the answers between the two groups. Such an analysis of answers was performed for the first time in the present study, which is thus unique.

Research method

Participants: 30 participants (49.2%) who have DID with a non-specific etiology (IQ=40-70) and 31 participants (50.8%) with typical development (IQ=85-115) aged 22-40.

Instruments: Three sub-tests of the Wechsler test for adults (Wechsler, 2001, WAIS HEB III) and the Raven Matrices (Raven et al., 1977) were administered for testing crystallized and fluid intelligence. Emotional intelligence was tested using five questionnaires, which were abbreviated and adapted to the population with DID according to the three models: For the Abilities model, the Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Scale (Schutte et al., 1998, SSEIS) and the Trait Meta Mood Scale (Salovey et al., 1995; TMMS) were administered. For the Traits model, the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire – Short Form (Petrides, 2009; TEIQue-SF) and the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire – Short Form for peer (Petrides, 2009, TEIQue-SF 360º) were administered. For the Mixed model, the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On, 1997, EQ-I) was administered. A brief demographic questionnaire was also used.

The main findings of the research with reference to the research goals and hypotheses are presented below.

A. Emotional intelligence: Contrary to the hypothesis, the scores of the participants with DID in the Abilities model and in the Mixed model were higher than those of the participants

with typical development. Two types of answers may explain this finding: non-realistic answers, such as idealization of reality, social desirability and screening, and realistic answers, such as participation in self-advocacy programs of the Ministry of Welfare and Social Security, empowerment activities for strengthening self-confidence and self-image carried out by a supportive professional staff, all of which may have contributed to a higher sense of efficacy as expressed in their higher scores on the research questionnaires.

B. Correlations between the three models: As hypothesized, Pearson correlations indicated positive correlations among the two research groups between the Abilities model and the Mixed model, since the nature of these two models is based on cognitive-thinking processes. Correlations were also found between the Abilities and the Mixed models and the Traits model (in self measures), indicating that although the latter model is basically emotional, it is not possible to separate the cognitive and the emotional aspects of emotional intelligence. This finding also supports the study of O’Connor et al. (2019) who found correlations between the three models, claiming that they are apparently based on core components and conceptual similarities that are common to the questionnaires (such as regulation of emotions and managing problem solving).

Correlations were also found between the three models and cognitive intelligence. The research hypothesis was therefore partially confirmed. Surprisingly, negative correlations were found in fluid intelligence among both research groups. The higher the fluid intelligence level, the lower the measures of emotional intelligence in the Abilities model (participants with DID) and in the Traits model (participants with typical development). These findings are explained by the Compensatory model theory (Côté & Miners, 2006; Nguyen et al., 2019) which claims that it is people with low cognitive abilities who compensate for this by a higher emotional intelligence, since they are usually more conscientious in their emotional attitude toward the organization in which they are employed. Thus, they are committed in their organization abilities, their thoroughness and their persistence as compensation for their low intelligence. Furthermore, several studies (Treglown & Furnham, 2023; Wood & Englert, 2009) claim a correlation between high fluid intelligence and low social skills, where intelligent people may be more analytical and less verbal and intuitive, such that their lack of communication with the environment makes practice of social interactions difficult for them, and they are perceived as having low emotional intelligence (Ackerman et al., 2009; Moutafi et al., 2004).

With reference to crystallized intelligence, positive correlations were found only among the population with DID. The higher the crystallized intelligence (Similarities), the higher the emotional intelligence in the Mixed model. These correlations support the research of Treglown and Furnham (2023) which posits that people with low cognition use emotional intelligence to compensate for their abilities, which rely on higher verbal skills, with the aim of receiving help, expressing emotions and creating social relations.

C. The contribution of the demographic variables (gender) and the cognitive variables (crystallized and fluid intelligence) to the explained variance of the emotional intelligence level was found mainly among participants with DID, such that the hypothesis was partially confirmed. Gender: An 18.7% contribution of gender to emotional intelligence was found as measured in the Abilities model, which tends to be higher among women compared to men. Studies (Lifshitz & Haguel, 2020; Lifshitz-Vahav, 2015) reported that women with DID have an increased tendency toward verbal intimacy, ability of personal exposure and sharing of feelings. Contribution of crystallized intelligence: A contribution of 21.6% was found for Similarities. Similarly to other studies (Chen et al., 2017; Lifshitz et al., 2021), it was found that people with DID rely more on crystallized skills and prior verbal knowledge. A negative contribution of fluid intelligence (Raven) to the explained variance in the emotional intelligence level (in the Traits model – the measure of the other) was found among participants with DID as well as among participants with typical development (14.4% and 45.9%, respectively). This finding is anchored in current studies (Cuppello et al., 2023a, 2023b) claiming that emotional intelligence and fluid intelligence, as mentioned, are not necessarily related, since emotional intelligence is related more to the individual’s emotional tendencies and self-perceptions.

D. With reference to difference in crystallized and fluid intelligence between the two research groups: As hypothesized, the scores of the participants with typical development were higher than the scores of the participants with DID, since intellectual disability is defined as two standard deviations below the mean IQ of the population with typical development (Schalock et al., 2021). A qualitative analysis of the differences between the raw scores was performed for each test: Vocabulary, Similarities, Block Design and Raven. The differences referred to the number of correct answers and type of answers. In general, participants with DID were able to correctly solve about one-third of the questions in each test. Although none of the participants with DID succeeded in solving all parts of the test, individual differences were found. Some succeeded in more complex tasks such as defining words of a high linguistic genre (Vocabulary), recognizing thematic similarities (Similarities) and performance tasks with a more difficult cognitive load, while others

exhibited difficulty in simpler tasks. It is thus possible that the complexity level of the task comprises a crucial factor for the cognitive gaps between the two populations.

The present study’s theoretical contribution lies in expanding the understanding of the abilities of adults with DID and in identifying diversity among this population. The high scores of the adults with DID in the emotional intelligence measures support the Compensation Age Theory (Lifshitz-Vahav, 2015). It is also possible that they stem from empowerment activities and the Supportive Environment program of the Ministry of Welfare for accompaniment and guidance of adults with DID who live in out-of-home settings. The correlations found between the three models indicate common core components based on cognitive and emotional aspects of emotional intelligence. The negative correlations between fluid abilities and emotional intelligence among both research populations and their connection to the Compensatory model is speculative. However, it may shed light on the nature of the relationship between emotional-personality tendencies and perceptions and emotional skills.

The applicable educational contribution of the study refers to continued development, training and implementation of learning programs and interventions for the population with DID, beginning in early childhood and continuing into adulthood, with a focus on both cognitive and emotional abilities. The findings reflect an optimistic view, a potential for improving abilities which may enable a high and optimal quality of life for this population.