1. Emotional Intelligence in Youth: Age and Gender Differences

1.1 Evolution of the Concept

The recognition that cognitive abilities alone do not determine human functioning and life success has gained traction over time, becoming a central focus in psychological studies. Even individuals with high intellectual capacities do not always achieve greater success or satisfaction (Goleman, 1995)^[1]. This realization has shifted the approach to intelligence from a monolithic construct to a broader view that values other human abilities. Edward Thorndike’s early 20th-century work on “Social Intelligence” highlighted the role of emotions in intelligence, marking a critical shift that would later contribute to the emergence of Emotional Intelligence (EI) (Silva & Duarte, 2012). Thorndike’s research laid the groundwork for tools that measure socially competent behavior in children, like the one by Edgar Doll in 1935.

Decades of research in social intelligence influenced the evolution of EI, culminating in significant contributions from Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983), which introduced emotional and interpersonal intelligences as distinct areas vital for human development (Furnham et al., 2009). t. Gardner’s multifaceted view supports a positive model for learning, adaptable for educational use, where teachers can engage students emotionally to enhance performance (Goleman, 1995)^[1]. Robert Sternberg’s triarchic model of intelligence (1985) added further dimensions, focusing on analytical, creative, and practical intelligence as components for flexible adaptation to the environment (Furnham et al., 2009).

Building on these frameworks, Waine Leon Payne introduced EI in a philosophical sense in 1985, and Mayer and Salovey (1990) gave the first psychological and empirical definition, describing it as a subset of social intelligence encompassing the ability to monitor and manage emotions in oneself and others (Brackett et al^[2]., 2013). The Mayer-Salovey model evolved to identify four EI branches: perception of emotion, use of emotion to facilitate thinking, understanding of emotions, and management of emotions to promote personal growth (Mayer & Salovey, 1997)^[3].

Daniel Goleman popularized EI with his book Emotional Intelligence (1995), where he posited EI as critical for life success, introducing characteristics like self-motivation, impulse control, and empathy as teachable skills (Brackett et al^[4]., 2013). Goleman’s work extended into the workplace, where he identified EI competencies as more crucial than IQ for job performance (Goleman, 1998)^[1].

1.2 EI Models and Assessment Tools

EI models are categorized into three types: ability models, trait models, and mixed models ^[4](Brackett et al., 2013). Ability models, such as the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT), require individuals to solve emotion-related problems, assessing their understanding of emotions. This model emphasizes performance-based evaluations of EI rather than personality traits (O’Connor et al., 2019). The MSCEIT measures emotion perception, assimilation, understanding, and management (Fernández-Berrocal & Extremera, 2006)^[5].

The trait model views EI as encompassing personality traits, as seen in Petrides’ Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue), which includes self-reported scales assessing well-being, self-control, emotionality, and sociability (Petrides et al., 2018). Mixed models, including Bar-On’s and Goleman’s, integrate cognitive abilities with social and emotional competencies assessed through self-report, such as Bar-On’s Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) (Bar-On, 1997; Goleman et al^[6]., 2007). The EQ-i measures EI dimensions across interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, stress management, adaptability, and general mood, highlighting competencies crucial for social adjustment and well-being.

1.3 Trait and Mixed EI Models: The Paradox

While ability and trait models of EI offer distinct measurement approaches, Petrides and Furnham (2000) argued for categorizing EI by its measurement methods. Ability models use performance tasks, while trait models assess behavior in emotion-relevant situations. Mixed models like Bar-On’s EQ-i combine self-reports with traits and skills associated with EI (O’Connor et al., 2019). Studies have shown mixed EI models, with self-report methods, are useful predictors of real-world outcomes, despite concerns of bias in self-assessment (Stys & Brown, 2004; Brackett & Mayer, 2003).

2 Emotional Intelligence in Childhood and Adolescence

Early emotional competencies develop through family and peer interactions, influencing social navigation skills. The brain’s maturation during childhood and adolescence underpins emotional growth, linking brain function with emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995)^[1]. These stages, including adolescence’s unique social pressures, require developing EI skills for effective decision-making, as failure can lead to lifelong repercussions like academic disengagement (Eccles, 1999). Studies confirm EI’s critical role in psychological adjustment and adaptive decision-making during adolescence (Gómez-Baya & Mendoza, 2018; Li et al^[7]., 2020).

2.1 Age Effects

Research on emotional intelligence (EI) across different ages highlights that EI development is not linear, showing varied patterns across childhood and adolescence. A common finding in the literature is that as individuals mature, they develop more complex emotional understanding and regulation skills, likely influenced by cognitive and neurological development. Studies like those of Fariselli et al. (2006) observed a slight positive correlation between age and EI, suggesting that as children grow older, their ability to manage emotions and understand social cues may improve, though this correlation is often weak.

However, research has also shown conflicting results, especially in adolescence, where several studies have documented a decline in self-perceived EI. For instance, Férrandiz^[8] et al. (2012) found that older Spanish adolescents scored lower on several EI dimensions except for interpersonal skills, which remained stable or increased. This finding suggests that while social awareness may remain robust, the self-regulation and emotional stability aspects of EI may be challenged during the teenage years. Adolescence is marked by heightened emotional intensity, social comparison, and significant biological changes, which may influence adolescents’ self-perception of their EI abilities, often resulting in lower reported scores.

Additionally, the transitional nature of adolescence—marked by new social dynamics, increased independence, and identity formation—could explain why EI scores may fluctuate or decrease. Adolescents face complex emotional situations and are often still developing the cognitive frameworks to manage these effectively. This can lead to a gap between perceived and actual EI abilities, as younger children might rate their EI higher due to a lack of self-reflection, while adolescents, grappling with self-doubt and heightened sensitivity, might report lower scores (Férrandiz et al^[8][9]., 2012; Kaniz, 2005). Given these mixed findings, age-related EI development remains an area that requires further exploration to fully understand how EI skills evolve and stabilize into adulthood.

2.2 Gender Differences

Gender differences in EI are widely recognized, with several studies suggesting that females often score higher on aspects such as empathy, social skills, and emotional awareness, whereas males tend to show higher adaptability and stress management abilities (Bar-On, 2006; Herrera et al^[10][11]., 2020). This division may reflect both biological predispositions and socialization patterns. For example, cognitive neuroscience studies, such as those by Bar-On and Cohen (2002), have found that structural differences in the male and female brains may lead to distinct emotional processing. Females are reported to have more bilateral brain representation for language and emotional tasks, which might facilitate empathic understanding and emotional expression. Conversely, males tend to demonstrate greater lateralization, potentially enhancing spatial abilities and problem-solving skills that align with adaptability in emotional contexts (Bindu & Thomas, 2006)^[12].

Beyond biology, socialization also plays a critical role. From an early age, girls are often encouraged to express emotions openly and develop verbal skills, which may lead to greater EI in areas like interpersonal sensitivity and empathy (Sacharfe, 2000)^[13]. In contrast, boys may be socialized to suppress emotional displays, especially those deemed vulnerable, and instead cultivate emotional resilience and stress tolerance (Savio, 2014). These early socialization practices likely contribute to the observed gender patterns in EI that extend into adolescence and adulthood.

Empirical studies further support these gendered differences in EI subscales. For instance, research by Ferrándiz^[14] et al. (2012) found that adolescent girls scored significantly higher in the Interpersonal subscale, which assesses empathy and social responsibility, while boys scored higher in Adaptability, reflecting their greater capacity to handle change and problem-solving. These findings align with the results of Herrera et al. (2020)^[15], who, in a study with Colombian primary school students, found that girls outperformed boys in empathy and social skills, while boys excelled in stress tolerance and flexibility.

Another important consideration is how these gender differences impact academic and personal outcomes. For example, research has shown that higher EI levels in females often correlate with better social relationships and a greater focus on collaborative learning, which can enhance academic performance (Cabello et al^[16]., 2016). Meanwhile, boys’ strengths in adaptability and stress management may contribute to more effective coping strategies in challenging or high-stress academic environments. However, studies in later stages of development, such as those conducted with university students, show that gender differences in overall EI scores may diminish, though subscale variations persist (Meshkat & Nejati, 2017).

Overall, while both genders display unique EI strengths, the complex interplay of biological, social, and cultural factors likely contributes to these patterns. These insights highlight the importance of incorporating gender-sensitive approaches in educational and developmental programs that support emotional and social competencies, enabling tailored interventions that harness the strengths of each group while addressing areas for growth.