The University of Notre Dame Australia

ResearchOnline@ND

Sciences Book Chapters School of Sciences

2009

The role of emotional intelligence and personality in moral reasoning

V Sagar Athota
University of Notre Dame Australia, [email protected]

Peter J. O'connor
University of Notre Dame Australia, [email protected]

C Jackson
University of New South Wales

Follow this and additional works at: https://researchonline.nd.edu.au/sci_chapters

Recommended Citation
Athota, V. S., O’Connor, P. J., & Jackson, C. (2009). The role of emotional intelligence and personality in moral reasoning. In R. E.
Hicks (ed.), Personality and individual differences: Current directions. Bowen Hills, QLD, Australian Academic Press.

This Book Chapter is brought to you by the School of Sciences at

ResearchOnline@ND. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Sciences Book Chapters by an authorized administrator of
ResearchOnline@ND. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
Morals and Emotional Intelligence

Running Header: Morals and Emotional Intelligence

The Role of Emotional Intelligence and Personality in Moral Reasoning

V. S. Athota,
University of New South Wales
Australia

Peter J. O’Connor
The University of Notre Dame Australia
Australia

C.Jackson
University of New South Wales
Australia

Word Count: 2933

Key words: Emotional Intelligence, Moral Reasoning, personality,

Abstract
Morals and Emotional Intelligence

In this study we investigated the potential role of Emotional Intelligence (EI) in Moral

Reasoning (MR). A sample of 131undergraduate students completed a battery of

psychological tests, which included measures of Emotional Intelligence, Moral

Reasoning and the Big Five dimensions of personality. Results demonstrated support for

a proposed model of the relationship between Emotional Intelligence, personality and

Moral Reasoning. Specifically, Emotional Intelligence was found to be a significant

predictor of four of the Big Five personality dimensions (Extraversion, Openness,

Neuroticism, Agreeableness), which in turn were significant predictors of Moral

Reasoning. These results have important implications in regards to our current

understanding of the relationships between Emotional Intelligence, Moral Reasoning and

personality. We emphasize the need to incorporate the constructs of Emotional

Intelligence and Moral Reasoning into a broader, explanatory personality framework.

2
Morals and Emotional Intelligence

The Role of Emotional Intelligence and personality in Moral Judgment

The aim of this paper is to investigate the relationships between Emotional

Intelligence, personality and Moral Reasoning. In the following literature review, we

outline relevant existing research focusing on these constructs, and also highlight

conceptual links between them. Emotional Intelligence can be defined as “the ability to

perceive emotions, to access and generate emotions so as to assist thought, to understand

emotions and emotion knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions so as to promote

emotional and intellectual growth” (Salovey & Mayer, 1995, p.5). Thus, in this research

we conceptualize Emotional Intelligence as an ability as opposed to a dispositional trait.

Substantial research has been conducted on the various relationships between

personality traits and Emotional Intelligence. All of the Big Five personality traits

(Agreeableness, Openness, Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Conscientiousness) have been

found to correlate at least moderately with Emotional Intelligence (McCrae, 2000). In

particular, Emotional Intelligence measures have generally been found to have at least

moderate significant correlations with Extraversion (positive direction) and Neuroticism

(negative direction), and smaller significant positive correlations with openness,

agreeableness and conscientiousness (Matthews et al., 2006). Conceptually, such

relationships make sense as both personality and Emotional Intelligence are comprised of

both cognitive and emotional components (see, Mayer and Salovey, 1995; also see

Shulman & Hemenover 2006). Indeed, it can be argued that Emotional Intelligence,

which is conceptualized as ability, influences the development of personality. Regardless

3
Morals and Emotional Intelligence

of the direction however, it is clear that a relationship exists between Emotional

Intelligence and personality.

There have been different views expressed about the moral dimension of

Emotional Intelligence in the work of influential EI researchers. Specifically, Goleman

(1995) suggests that there is a moral dimension to Emotional Intelligence, whereas Mayer

and Cobb (2000) argue that there is not. Consistent with Goleman, (1995), we argue that

there is considerable conceptual overlap between the two constructs. As mentioned

previously, Emotional Intelligence involves the ability to perceive and regulate emotions.

Similarly, Moral Reasoning is defined as the ability to “frame socio-moral problems

using one’s standards and values in order to judge the proper course of action” (Rest,

1979; p.198). Thus, while Emotional Intelligence involves using one’s understanding of

emotions (both of self and other) to guide decision making, Moral Reasoning involves

using one’s standards and values to guide decision making. Theoretically, it follows that

one’s ‘standards and values’ will depend largely on one’s ability to accurately perceive

both their own and others emotion, and regulate their own emotions effectively. Overall

however, there has been little empirical research investigating how Emotional

Intelligence affects Moral Reasoning.

One difference between Emotional Intelligence and Moral Reasoning is their

levels of specificity. Emotional Intelligence tends to refer to a generalized ability to

regulate one’s emotions, which theoretically influences most of our behaviours at some

level. Emotional Intelligence is best thought of as a generalized distal ability. Moral

Reasoning on the other hand is only relevant to specific situations (e.g. moral dilemma’s)

4
Morals and Emotional Intelligence

and is best regarded as a specific proximal ability. We argue therefore argue that

Emotional Intelligence has a distal influence on Moral Reasoning.

Some research has also focused on the relationship between personality and

Moral Reasoning (e.g. Mudrack 2006). For example, Curtis, Billingslea and

Wilson (1998) found significant associations between Moral Maturity and the two traits

empathy (similar to agreeableness) and socialization (extraversion). Conceptually, this

relationship also makes sense; the Big Five personality dimensions which represent the

primary behavioral and cognitive dimensions upon which people differ, should predict

specific behavioural and cognitive strategies people engage in when faced with moral

dilemmas. There is however, a lack of informative research in this area.

As noted above, the relationship between Emotional Intelligence and personality

is well established, and there has also been some research on the relationship between

personality and Moral Reasoning. There has been little research on the various

relationships between Emotional Intelligence, personality and Moral Reasoning. The

purpose of this paper is to test a model of the relationship between Emotional Intelligence

and Moral Reasoning, where personality traits are modeled as mediators. Thus it is

hypothesized that Emotional Intelligence is an indirect predictor of Moral Reasoning via

personality. The specific model test in this paper is illustrated in figure 1.

Within this model, a number of specific hypotheses are examined. First,

consistent with previous research on personality and Emotional Intelligence, it is

hypothesized that self-reported EI and Big-Five personality factors positively correlate

with each other. Specifically, Emotional Intelligence is modeled as a precursor to

personality factors, as it represents an ability (Salovey & Mayer, 1995) which is different

5
Morals and Emotional Intelligence

to personality, but likely influences personality development. Second, it is hypothesized

the Big Five personality dimensions will significantly predict Moral Reasoning. Third, it

is hypothesized that EI will significantly predict Moral Reasoning, via its effect on

personality.

Extraversion

Agreeableness

Emotional Intelligence Conscientiousness Moral Reasoning

Openness

Neuroticism

Figure 1. A model of the relationships between Emotional Intelligence, Personality and

Moral Reasoning.

Method

Participants

The participants comprised 131 psychology students from the University of

Wollongong who volunteered to take part in this study. Fifty-four participants (41.22%)

were male and 77 (58.79%) were female (2 people did not indicate their gender).

Participants’ ages ranged from 17-73, with mean age 22.63 years and SD =7.86 years.

Measures

6
Morals and Emotional Intelligence

The International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) (Goldberg et al., 2006).

Participants completed the IPIP, a 50-item scale targeting the Big-Five personality

factors. The scale has 10 items assessing each of the dimensions of Neuroticism (N),

Extraversion (E), Openness (O), Agreeableness (A), and Conscientiousness (C). The

items are based on one’s behaviors and reactions answered on a 5-point scale, ranging

from 1 ‘Very Accurate’ to 5 ‘Very Inaccurate’. Sixteen items are reverse-scored.

Goldberg (1999) points out that there has been only one comparative validity study

conducted on the psychometric properties of the IPIP scale. Goldberg (2006) (cited on

the IPIP website) reported the following alpha reliability for the IPIP scale: Extroversion,

.87; Agreeableness, .82; Conscientiousness, .79; Neuroticism, .86; and Openness to

Experience, .84. According to Goldberg (1999) the scores on these scales have relatively

high reliability and also have convergent validity with other measures of personality.

Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SREIT) Schutte, et al., (1998) wrote the

SREIT based on Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) early model of EI. It was used as a self-

report measure of Emotional Intelligence scored on a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree,

6 = strongly disagree). This 33-item scale was developed to assess participants’ ability to

perceive, understand, regulate and express emotions. According to Bracket and Mayer

(2003) the SREIT has good internal consistency and test-retest reliability

Machiavellian IV scale (Mach IV) (Christie & Geis, 1970). The MACH-IV Scale,

developed by Christie (1970b), was classified into the three categories: Interpersonal

Tactics, Cynical View of Human Nature, and Disregard for Conventional Morality. In

this study, people who score high on MACH IV were regarded as having high levels of

Moral Reasoning. The Mach IV is made up of 20 items, 10 indicating high Moral

7
Morals and Emotional Intelligence

Reasoning and 10 indicating the opposite (low Moral Reasoning). The items reflect ways

of thinking and opinions about people and things. Participants were requested to rate the

extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statements on a 5-point scale. In the

MACH IV, ‘tactics’ are defined as the nature of an individual’s interpersonal tactics,

‘views’ are defined as the views of human nature and ‘morality’ is regarded as the

abstract or generalized morality. Subscales were summed to give a total score of ‘Moral

Reasoning’ in this study.

Procedure

The scales containing the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP), the Self-

Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SREIT), the Machiavellian IV scale (Mach IV) were

administered to participants. The participants were tested individually. The participants

were asked to read the instructions carefully before proceeding with the survey. They

were given about 30 minutes to complete the survey. Biographic data were also collected

from the participants at the beginning of the session. Participants were thanked for their

participation and given a debriefing.

Results

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics along with the alpha reliabilities for the

Moral Reasoning scale, Emotional Intelligence scale, and the five factors of personality.

Table 2 shows the correlations between intelligence, Moral Reasoning, personality and

moral judgement variables.

8
Morals and Emotional Intelligence

Table 1

Mean, standard deviations and alpha for Emotional Intelligence, Moral Reasoning,

personality and moral judgment variables (N = 131)

Mean SD Alpha EI E A C N O
Emotional Intelligence (EI) 133.29 12.44 0.89
Extraversion (E) 32.94 7.13 0.88 0.35**
Agreeableness (A) 40.83 5.41 0.81 0.42** 0.30**
Conscientiousness (C) 34.56 5.83 0.76 0.01 -0.05 0.01
Neuroticism 30.00 8.05 0.89 0.47** 0.41** 0.07 0.05
** ** *
Openness (O) 36.38 5.44 0.79 0.33 0.26 0.22 0.15 0.20*
Moral Reasoning (MR) 56.7 8.65 0.75 0.23** 0.28** 0.41** -0.11 0.21* -0.08

**Indicates significance at the p<0.01 level; *Indicates significance at the p<0.05 level

The model illustrated in figure 1 was tested using path analysis (Amos version

17). Standardised estimates for hypothesized relationships between Emotional

Intelligence, Personality and Moral Reasoning are included in table 2. As can be seen in

this table, strong support was received for hypotheses 1 and 3. Specifically, Emotional

Intelligence was found to significantly predict 4 of the Big 5 personality traits

(Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and Openness). Three of the Big 5

personality traits (Agreeableness, Neuroticism and Openness) were found to significantly,

uniquely predict Moral Reasoning. Parametric bootstrapping was used to test the

hypothesis that Emotional Intelligence indirectly predicts Moral Reasoning via

personality (See Kline, 1998 for a discussion on indirect effects). Consistent with this

hypothesis the indirect effect of Emotional Intelligence on Moral Reasoning was

9
Morals and Emotional Intelligence

significant (Beta = 0.23, p = 0.002). This indicates that individuals with high levels of

Emotional Intelligence tend to have high levels of Moral Reasoning.

Table 2

Parameter estimates and levels of significance for the proposed relationships between

Emotional Intelligence, Personality and Moral Reasoning. Only significant coefficients

are reported.

To

From Extraversion A N O Moral Reasoning

Emotional Intelligence (EI) 0.35** 0.42** 0.47** 0.32**

Agreeableness (A) 0.40**

Neuroticism (N) 0.17*

Openness (O) 0.23**

**Indicates significance at the p<0.01 level; *Indicates significance at the p<0.05 level

Discussion

The study described in this paper provides the first attempt to test and explain the

various relationships between Emotional Intelligence, the Big Five Dimensions of

personality, and Moral Reasoning. A model of the relationship between these variables

was tested, and it was hypothesized that Emotional Intelligence would predict personality

traits, and that these personality traits would then predict Moral Reasoning. Importantly,

it was hypothesized that Emotional Intelligence would indirectly predict Moral

Reasoning, via its relationship with personality traits. All three hypotheses were

supported.

10
Morals and Emotional Intelligence

Consistent with McCrae (2000) and Matthews (2006) we found a strong

relationship between personality and Emotional Intelligence. In contrast to such authors

however, we do not interpret this relationship to indicate that Emotional Intelligence is

simply an aspect of personality, or even synonymous with personality (Shulman &

Hemenover 2006). Instead we argue that since Emotional Intelligence represents an

ability, rather than a disposition, it influences the development of adult personality, and

can therefore be modeled as a distal precursor to personality. This line of reasoning is

consistent with explanatory models of personality which view surface dimensions of

personality having a distal basis in emotional control (e.g. Cloninger, Svrakic &

Przybeck, 1993).

Only limited research has explored the relationship between Moral Reasoning

and Personality, and one aim of this study was to add to this research. In this study, we

found that several dimensions of personality were significant, direct predictors of Moral

Reasoning. Specifically, Agreeableness, Neuroticism and Openness were found to be

positive, unique predictors of Moral Reasoning. Agreeableness was the strongest

predictor of Moral Reasoning. This relationship makes conceptual sense; those with high

levels of empathy and concern for others, are more likely to thoroughly approach

situations where Moral Reasoning is required.

As discussed earlier, the literature provides conflicting views about the

relationships between Emotional Intelligence and Moral Reasoning. Goleman’s (1995)

understanding of the moral view of Emotional Intelligence is different to Mayer and

Pizzaro’s (2000) moral view of Emotional Intelligence. Mayer and Pizzarro’s (2000). In

this paper, consistent with Goleman (1995), we suggested that there is a relationship

between Emotional Intelligence and Moral Reasoning. Specifically, we suggested that

11
Morals and Emotional Intelligence

personality traits (in combination) mediate the relationship between Emotional

Intelligence and Moral Reasoning. Our results are consistent with this suggestion.

It is very timely to expand the scholarship in relation to Emotional Intelligence

and Moral Reasoning. Based on the established importance of the ethical connection

between Emotional Intelligence and Moral Reasoning, further investigation can be done

in the areas of stem cell research, health care settings, the leadership arena, and cross-

cultural and academic settings. The present moral failures in corporate organizations,

academic institutions and other organizational settings, challenge us to do more research

about why this occurs. The clear importance between Moral Reasoning and Emotional

Intelligence is now crucial, this research can result in meaningful interventions among

business leaders, students, cross-cultural settings and other related fields, to study

whether interventions improve Moral Reasoning and Emotional Intelligence.

A limitation of this study is that, having tested our proposition among university

students, the results of this study may not generalize to other subject groups. A further

limitation of this research is the cross-sectional nature of the design. Future research

should attempt to replicate our findings using a longitudinal design.

REFERENCES

Brackett, M.A. & Mayer, D.J. (2003). Convergent, Discriminant, and Incremental

12
Morals and Emotional Intelligence

Validity of Competing Measures of Emotional Intelligence, The Society for

Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. PSPB, Vol.29 No. X.

Burger, J.M. (1990). Personality (2nd ed). California, Wadsworth Publishing

Company.

Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970) Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.

Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of

temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975-990.

Curtis, J., Billingslea, R., & Wilson, J. (1988). Personality correlates of Moral Reasoning

and attitudes toward authority. Psychological Reports, 63(3), 947-954.

Goldberg, L.R., Johnson, J.A., Eber, H.W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M.C., Cloninger, CR., et

al. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-

domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96.

Goldberg, L.R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory

measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In1. Mervielde, I.

Deary, F.De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol.

7, pp. 1-28). Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why it can Matter more than IQ London:

Bloomsbury Publishing.

Hoffman, M.K. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and

justice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kyte, R. (1996). Moral Reasoning as Perception: A reading of Carol Gilligan, Academic

Research Library, 11, 3, 97.

Lind, G. (2008). The meaning and measurement of moral judgment competence revisited

13
Morals and Emotional Intelligence

- A dual-aspect model. In: D. Fasko & W. Willis, Eds., Contemporary

Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives on Moral Development and

Education, pp. 185 - 220.

Matthews, G., Emo, A.K., Funke, G., Zeidner, M., Roberts, R.D., Costa, Jr,

P.T. Schulze, R. (2006). Emotional Intelligence, personality and task-induced

stress. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12(2), 96-107.

Mayer, J.D. & Cobb, C.D. (2000). Educational policy on Emotional Intelligence: Does it

make sense? Education Policy Review, 12, 163-183.

McCrae, R., (2000). Emotional Intelligence from the perspective of the Five-Factor

Model. In R. Bar-On & J.D.A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of Emotional

Intelligence (pp.263-276) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Mudrack, P. (2006, June). Moral Reasoning and personality traits. Psychological Reports,

98(3), 689-698.

Pizarro, D.A., & Salovey, P.(2002). Being and becoming a good person: The role of

Emotional Intelligence in moral development and behavior. In J. Aronson(ed.).

Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education.

New York: Academic Press.

Raine, A. & Yang, Y. (2006). Neural foundations to Moral Reasoning and antisocial

behavior, Oxford university press, 1, 2003-213.

Rest, J. (1979). Development in Judging Moral Issues, University of Minnesota Press,

Minnesota, USA.

Salovey, P. & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional Intelligence, Imagination, Cognition, &

Personality, 9, 185-211.

Schutte, N.S., & Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E., Haggerty, D.J., Cooper, J.T. Golden, C.J., et

14
Morals and Emotional Intelligence

al. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of Emotional Intelligence.

Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177.

Shulman, E.T., & Hemenover, S. H. (2006). Is Dispositioal Emotional Intelligence

Synonymous with Personality? Self and Identity, 5,147-171.

15