Mayer's Ability Model of Emotional Intelligence. Comparison Goleman
The Ability Model of Mayer of Emotional Intelligence (EI) versus Goleman.
Mayer has been the first who defined the concept of EI. After that, many contributors including Goleman have developed different definitions of EI and used different approaches to define and measure it. Because Mayer and Goleman have both been important contributors, it is interesting to see in what way their approches to EI are different.
1.The Competence-based Approach of Goleman
: Although both theories/models do have overlaps, Goleman developed a different definition of EI that existed of the Four Domains of EI described in the summary
. In short, these are:
1.3. Social awareness
1.4. Relationship management
These four clusters together form seventies EI competencies that are all categorized in one of the four domains.
2. The Ability model of Mayer
: Mayer developed the so-called ability model of EI, in which EI exists of 4 cognitive abilities containing the ability to identify, explain and use emotions. The 4 cognitive abilities are:
2.1. Perceiving emotions
2.2. Integrating emotions so as to simplify thought
2.3. Comprehending emotions
2.4. Managing emotions.
Besides the obvious difference in domains, the 2 most important additional differences between the 2 models are the following:
1. Narrow definition
: Mayer’s model was the first model describing EI. This might be the reason that the Ability Model of Mayer is far more narrow in its description of EI. The model only exist of four cognitive abilities, whereas Goleman’s includes seventeen EI-competencies.
: The ability model of Mayers is hierarchical constructed; each ability is dependent on the abilities below. For example, Managing emotions can only be effective if one is able to understand, integrate and perceive emotions. Goleman’s compentence-based approach is non-hierarchical.
Are there any more differences?
Source: Clark, N. (2010) “Emotional Intelligence and its Relationships with Team Processes” Team Performance Management Vol. Vol. 16 Iss.1/2 pp. 6-32