CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
3.1 CONCLUSION
There were five specific objectives of the study. Firstly, the author aimed to determine whether EI can be conceptualised with regards to emotion and culture in a literature review. Secondly, the research aimed to establish whether the Greek Emotional Intelligence Scale (GEIS) is a reliable EI measure when measuring West-Germanic (English and Afrikaans) and Sotho (Northern Sotho, Southern Sotho, and Setswana) language groups. Thirdly, it aimed to understand if the Greek Emotional Intelligence Scale is an equivalent measuring instrument when measuring West-Germanic (English and Afrikaans) and Sotho (Northern Sotho, Southern Sotho, and Setswana) languages. Fourthly, it investigated whether the items of the GEIS are unbiased when measuring West-Germanic (English and Afrikaans) and Sotho (Northern Sotho, Southern Sotho, and Setswana) language groups. Finally, it aimed to make future recommendations with regards to EI, emotion, and culture studies. These shall be discussed below.
Specific objective 1: To determine whether EI can be conceptualised with regards to emotion and culture in a literature review
EI has become a popular research concept over the past decade, and many have realised the important advantages EI pose within organisations (Ashkanasy, 2003; Joseph & Newman, 2010;
Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004). With this, the importance of measuring EI accurately has also increased tremendously (Akerjordet, 2009; Jonker, 2002; Sedmar, Robbins, & Ferris, 2006).
Even though the measuring of EI has become increasingly important, research literature has not yet focussed on the extent to which EI is a culturally relevant topic (Shipper, Rontondo, &
Hoffman, 2003). Botma (2009) adds that insufficient research has been conducted in terms of validations studies with regards to EI and culture. Many researchers have recognised that emotions may differ across cultures, and that the accurate measurement thereof becomes a necessity (Matsumoto, Angua-Wong, & Martinez, 2008). When measuring across cultures, Libbrecht, Lievens, and Schollaert (2010) note that equivalence becomes extremely important if one want to make accurate interpretations and recommendations.
Second objective: To determine whether the Greek Emotional Intelligence scale is reliable when measuring West-Germanic (English and Afrikaans) and Sotho (Northern Sotho, Southern Sotho, and Setswana) language groups
The Cronbach alphas were tested in the combined model, as well as both the language groups.
The scores varied between with the lowest being the “Use of Emotion to Facilitate Thinking‟
(0.62) and “Caring and Empathy‟ (0.63) for the West-Germanic group. According to the literature, the way in which emotions are recognised and expressed has been known to differ across language groups of specific cultures (Bar-On, 2000; Matsumoto, 2002; Matsumoto et al.
2008). Due to the low alphas and the low regression weights on the Expression and Recognition of Emotion scale produced by the four factor model for the West-Germanic group, it was decided to further investigate and test a three-factor model for the West-Germanic language group. The Alphas showed values of above between 0.7 and 0.8, and according to Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) this is satisfactory. This showed good internal consistency, and thus it could be determined that the GEIS is reliable and equivalent amongst the groups. A reason for this might be the fact that the GEIS was developed in Greece. According to Pouliasi and Verkuyten (2012), Greece is a collectivistic culture by nature. People in collectivistic cultures do not spend a lot of time or energy understanding their own or others’ feelings, and emotions are often viewed as secondary reactions. In contrast to the latter, people from individualistic cultures tend to devote a substantial amount of time and effort in understanding both others’ and their own emotions (Bagozzi et al., 1999).
Furthermore, the conclusion can be drawn that the internal consistency for the combined total sample as well as the Sotho language group were equivalent. Possible reasons for this might be that the GEIS comprises of most of the factors originally conceptualised by Mayer and Salovey (1997) with regards to EI. Furthermore, a lot of emotions are experienced universally. According to Boyatzis and Sala (2004), cultural universalism suggests that certain emotions like anger, happiness and sadness, irrespective of the cultural background, will be experienced, expressed, and displayed in the same manner across cultures. Another reason may be that the GEIS questionnaire is closely related to the literature concerning EI. Tsaousis (2008) initially focused on creating a questionnaire (GEIS) that comprised of the dimensions from the original model proposed by Mayer and Salovey (1997), and generated 250 items forming the pool of emotions captured in EI.
Third objective: To establish if the Greek Emotional Intelligence Scale is an equivalent measuring instrument when measuring West-Germanic (English and Afrikaans) and Sotho (Northern Sotho, Southern Sotho, and Setswana) language groups
The goodness-of-fit was tested on the total population, as well as the two language family groups. The model indices were satisfactory on the total population (GMI= 0.8, AFI=0.8, and RMSEA=0.08), as well as the Sotho group (CMIN/DF= 1.47, GFI= 0.90, IFI= 9.3, and the RMSEA below the guideline of > 0.05), but there were problems noted when testing the goodness-of-fit of the West-Germanic language group. The regression weights loading on the factor “Expression and Recognition of Emotions‟ were all non-significant, and it was decided to further investigate the model with a three factor model, excluding “Expression and Recognition of Emotions‟. This was considered, as it has been known that the expression, recognition, and comprehension of emotions are bound to differ across cultures (Matsumoto et al., 2008 & Mayer et al., 2000). When considering the failure of the factor “Expression and Recognition of Emotions‟ in the West-Germanic group, the reason might therefore be this difference amongst cultures, as pointed out by the literature.
The meaning grid instrument is an instrument developed by Fontaine et al. (2007) and is used to test the underlying structure of emotions. In this grid four dimensions were developed namely
evaluation-pleasantness, potency control, activation-arousal and unpredictability. The researchers conducted the research on European languages, such as French and English. A similar study was conducted on an Afrikaans speaking population by van de Merwe (2009), and once again the four dimensions were found. This is an indication that both the languages used in this study (English and Afrikaans) have the same emotional structure.
When the grid was tested on a Sotho-speaking group, only two of the four dimensions were found (Mojaki, 2011), namely Evaluation-pleasantness and Potency control were the only two dimensions, while the other two weren’t applicable in this study. The results may suggest that the language groups interpret emotional information differently as mentioned in the literature. This is supported by the literature referring to individualistic and collectivistic cultures and the different way in which they interpret emotions. The GEIS was developed in Greece, a highly collectivistic culture (Pouliasi and Verkuyten, 2012), similarly the Sotho group. This is in contrast to the West-Germanic language group, which is predominantly an individualistic culture.
Once again, the interpretations of emotions across cultures and the way in which emotions are understood, captured, and expressed are bound to differ across cultures (Dube, Cervallen, & Han, 2003; Williams & Aaker, 2002). South Africa is viewed and portrayed to the world as the
“rainbow nation” because of her cultural and language diversity. Census 2011 (Statistics South Africa, 2003) revealed that South Africa has 11 official language groups and cultures, implying a highly diverse country. According to Nel et al. (2001), this creates differences in emotional interpretation. A final reason for the failure of the factor could possibly be that the items did not measure what they were set out to measure, the items were vaguely worded, or the level of difficulty in interpreting the items (Botma, 2009). It can therefore be construed that the four factor model was not suitable for the West-Germanic language group. It was therefore decided that the three factor model could be applicable.
Fourth objective: To investigate whether the items of the Greek Emotional Intelligence Scale are unbiased when measuring West-Germanic (English and Afrikaans) and Sotho (Northern Sotho, Southern Sotho and Setswana) languages.
Firstly, ANOVAS were produced to determine the mean differences between the groups. There were very few practical significant differences. However, certain items like item 36 ( “I make others feel comfortable around me”), did differ for the Sotho group. According to Matsomoto (2002), collectivistic cultures tend to care more about feelings, emotions, and the well-being of their people than individualistic cultures typically do. This is apparent in the results of the mean differences between the groups and a possible interpretation of the differences detected between the language groups.
After this the uniform and non-uniform biasness was tested by means of OLR to assess DIF.
According to Park (2006), DIF occurs when examinees of equal ability, but from different group membership, have unequal probability to have the same success on the items. The majority of the items did not have both uniform and non-uniform biasness. The only items that in fact did prove to have both were items 41, 37, 14 and 36 from the “Caring and Empathy‟ factor. For example item 37 (“I am not interested in the problems of others”). Caring for others and the ability to and express emotions have been known to differ between cultures due to the intrinsic make-up of the culture (i.e. individualistic versus collectivistic nature of the culture) (Williams & Aaker, 2002).
People from collectivistic culture tend to care much less about their own emotions that people from individualistic cultures. Botma (2009) mentions that items from the particular factor may possibly be more indicative of how certain people from cultural groups semantically order their own emotions, instead of how they subjectively express them. Therefore “Caring and Empathy‟
had certain items that proved to be biased.
The other item that did prove to have both uniform and non-uniform biasness was item 18 (“I believe that few people understand my emotions”). Potter (1988) conducted a study in which respondents from China (a collectivistic culture) mentioned that they don’t feel as though their emotions mattered. This is supported by the findings for item 18, because certain cultures tend to speak more freely about their emotions. Oster et al., (1998) conducted a study on infants from three different cultures namely Chinese, Japanese, and European Americans. The results indicated that the expression of feelings and emotions of the Chinese babies (from the collectivistic culture) were less expressive than from the other two cultures.
The fifth objective will be discussed in the recommendations section in 3.3