Special Offer!Pay less for your papers
Get 15% off your first order
|← Emotions in Sports||Athletic Performance →|
This research study concludes by offering some main points on the most crucial questions that are yet to be answered, and which scientists must dedicate to resolve within the next decade. Among the category of hot scientific intelligences, emotional intelligence particularly in sports shows the most excellent and biggest creation of models for the evaluation of the emotional intelligence concept. This is especially revealed if emotional intelligence is compared with other “hot intelligences” for instance, the Multiple Intelligences Theory (MI, Gardner, 1983-1993) that has a broad theoretical advancement and extensive consequences in academic practice and the entire intellectual field. McMahon, Rose and Parks (2004) point out that the small number of instruments created for the evaluation of multiple intelligences do not give the principles for dependability and constancy measures, showing for instance, extremely low alphas for interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences items (alphas .39 and .22, in the respective order).
Nevertheless, the increase and growth of different models to measure emotional intelligence, using the self-report and performance founded measures poses difficulties to quite a number of authors since it makes easy comparisons amongst difficult research studies, and it hardens meta-analyses (Landy, 2005). Even though the statement is true, perhaps the Darwinist vibrant competition amongst the models will stop thereby determining those to carry on and might be utilized later on in the future. Nevertheless, this trend is expected to continue, and numerous study groups will come up with new measures of emotional intelligence. Conversely, the analysis of the dissimilarities between self report and performance founded emotional intelligence measures would be interesting as the measures are feebly related for instance the TMMS and the MSCEIT. The difference between performance based emotional intelligence measure and self-report method can be reinforced by showing differential criteria focused legitimacy (Lumley, Gustavson, Partridge, & Labouvie-Vief, 2005). According to Extremera, Fernández-Berrocal, and Salovey (2006), if such problems are to be solved, knowledge acquired would enable individuals to find solutions to several paradoxes present in the literature (Zeidner, Shani-Zinovich, Matthews, & Roberts, 2005). A good example is the paradox that exists between gifted students or the one between females and males where a research with the gifted students sample revealed that whether gifted or non-gifted individuals are different in emotional intelligence relies on the emotional intelligence measurement employed (MSCEIT; Zeidner et al., 2005). The same results were achieved with regards to gender differences thereby if performance-based measurements are employed as the MSCEIT; females achieve higher scores than males (Extremera et al., 2006). On the other hand, if self-report methodologies such as the TMMS are employed, males more often than not perceive themselves as being more stable and emotionally intelligent compared to the females (Extremera & Fernández- Berrocal, 2005). This paper is of the view that the most essential suggestion of the previous researches on emotional intelligence is that self-report and performance based measures of EI should not be compared rather, scientists and researchers should concentrate on bridging gaps within the available literature and questions arising from the studies. Locke (2005) feels that the different models or approaches to measuring emotional intelligence do not achieve good results as it would have been if the measures were standardized.
In actual fact, additional classical but especially productive subjects for entity diversity research for instance cognitive intelligence or individuality acquire an upper hand from the ongoing discussion and from the continuation of the many approaches, measurements and theories in a bid to give an explanation on human conduct or personal accomplishment (Carver & Scheier, 2000; Pervin & John, 2001; Sternberg, 2004). It is therefore quite clear that the concept of emotional intelligence requires a lot of modification, scrutiny and improvements. A lot of questions lay unanswered and scientists should embark on verifying the pending issues and queries. In addition to that, the quick rise, growth and development of this sector in the last decade are quite commendable. This development is reinforced by the thorough and cautious efforts of researchers aiming to prove the legitimacy of the models and to understand the real involvement of emotional intelligence on the life of individuals. Among the major prospects of academics and human resources professionals concerning emotional intelligence is its training potential, development, and learning. Goleman (1995) put forward that emotional intelligence is the most crucial variable and a major causative to certified and individual accomplishment. The expression was founded on the fact that intelligence quotient explains almost about the 20% of the achievement in an individual’s life, whereas the remaining 80% may be conferred to emotional intelligence.
Such optimistic points of view and their circulation to the mass media lead to the proposal of determined education courses for institutions of learning and companies created by instructive and consulting bodies, issuing blown up pledges of humanizing performance and proficient accomplishment. Nevertheless, pragmatic back-ups for these suggestions, statements and proposals are up to now, discrete. Prospective examinations ought to resolve unmistakably, using sufficient investigational methods, which ones among the 4 subdivisions of emotional intelligence (emotional perception, emotional facilitation of thoughts and feelings, understanding of the emotions, and management of feelings and emotions) are most appropriate for developing and teaching, determining the duration, and the satisfactory agees for carrying this out (Jordan et al., 2002; Greenberg et al., 2003; Zins et al., 2004; Ashkanasy and Daus, 2005). According to the statements, there exists a need for further educational research study in the future so as to mark out the constituents of societal and emotional learning programmes are most crucial and efficient (Lopes and Salovey, 2004). In particular, they support the fact that there are 2 essential issues to deal with the question as to what kind of abilities students should be taught. The first recommendation is that social emotional learning programmes should be modified to sportsmen’s suggestions and the issues they deal with every day in their sporting carriers. Secondly, there needs to be a concentration on abilities that are most probably useful in all domains and are crucial for the growth, development or improvement of other abilities. Therefore, research study in the future ought to investigate on the workability of the two approaches, their efficiency and productivity. Moreover, it is quite essential to find out if it is the programmes above mentioned that lead to advancement or excellence performance, interest, and incentive to achieve among sportsmen and trainers who convey the programmes on social emotional learning.
In conclusion, additional fruitful line of future research study is the cross-cultural validity of emotional intelligence. On one hand, it is improbable that varying cultures for instance African, European, American and Asian cultures employ similar emotional intelligence skills in organized activities such as sports. Due to this matter, accurate answers for models such as the MSCEIT ought to be modified putting into consideration the cultural diversity wherever emotional intelligence skills are employed. Additionally, it will be essential to find out the way in which cultural realms interact with the person’s capacity to understand, attend to, and control their emotions and the exact burden that each of the measurement variables contain in its influence and power over an individual’s emotional and social alteration (Fernández-Berrocal et al., 2005). Therefore, qualitative analysis and quantitative measures of emotional intelligence create a good depiction of the past decade of research and study where emotional intelligence has become an integrative and rational approach to the connection between emotions and decision calculation particularly in sporting activities where a small decision may affect the whole outcome in a competition or a friendly tournament. Tremendous efforts to create and develop emotional intelligence concepts and evaluation instruments were made during the early 90’s and in a bid to establish the varying theoretical approaches, current study begins with an outburst of empirical researches to verify the involvement of emotional capacities to a person’s activity or even their life. Without a doubt, the rapid increase in the number of research studies is a good indication of the essentiality of other forms of intelligence, bringing to light a new underlying potential in people particularly in sports. This new field of practical research study paves way for other upcoming or established social scientists that have a role to play in the determination of an exact value emotional intelligence has in people’s livelihood and sporting activities and the best methods to employ when measuring EI with legitimacy. Emotional intelligence therefore plays a very vital role in sports as it determines a sportsman’s attitude, composure and general performance thereby affects overall team performance. A strong emotional intelligent person makes a good performer in sports.