Emotional Intelligence

From the theoretical perspective of cognitive assessment, emotions are the result of personal stimuli that have a specific goal. They are intense and relatively short-lived and involve physiological responses and behavioral tendencies (^{Bagozzi, Gopinath & Nyer, 1999}; ^{Johnson & Stewart, 2005}) ^{Fernández and Extremera (2013)} state that academic intelligence is not enough to achieve professional success, nor does it guarantee success in everyday life or contribute to emotional balance and mental health. Instead, EI includes internal emotions that are important for personal growth and emotional adjustment. The concept of EI has gained importance due to its implications in the upbringing and education of children and, subsequently, it has extended to workplaces focusing on human relationships. Thus, it is assumed that the same capabilities of emotional control that cause a child to be appreciated and considered enthusiastic by others will also help them when interacting at work and in marriage (^{Shapiro & Tiscornia, 1997}).

^{Gardner's (2006)} theory of multiple intelligences defines intrapersonal intelligence as a set of abilities to understand, control and regulate one's own emotions; and interpersonal intelligence as the capacity to understand other people's emotions. ^{Goleman (2011)} states that EI is a set of emotional skills that can be developed and identifies five components: self-awareness, self-regulation, self-motivation, empathy, and social skills. Although all of these skills are part of EI, personal and interpersonal aspects are quite independent and do not necessarily have to be linked (^{Fernández & Extremera, 2013}).

Some studies have shown that self-awareness is related to high rates of behavior based on competence and to lower scores on dependence and aggressive behavior scales (^{Aimaganbetova et al., 2016}.); self-regulation is negatively associated to emotional and behavioral problems in children (^{Eisenberg, Spinrad & Eggum, 2010}); negative emotions lead to self-control failure (^{Chester et al., 2016}) and empathy is negatively associated with bullying behavior (^{Mitsopoulou & Giovazolias, 2015}).

Gender and emotional intelligence

For decades, researchers have emphasized the study of gender from a biological perspective; however, in the last twenty-five years, efforts have been made to understand gender as a cultural phenomenon (^{Conway, Bourque & Scott, 2013}). ^{Parsons and Bales (1956}) believed that gender roles have a biological basis and that the processes of modernization of social structures had managed to justify the establishment of these roles and, therefore, social systems are functional when they are based on complementarity and mutual support between men and women. Variations in functions corresponding to gender are considered as deviations that result in the disappearance of such social systems. In response to the biological conception of gender, ^{Med's (1935)} theoretical proposals that served as a basis for the understanding of gender based on cultural aspects and a greater understanding of the complex functionality of social systems resurfaced. In other words, gender roles present a historical and cultural variation and are understood as cultural representations established by society about appropriate behavior for men and women in which the interaction of diverse economic, social, political and religious institutions fulfills a mediating function (Conway et al., 2013).

Currently, the need for gender studies is in the forefront and continues to gain importance because the role of women in society is not only a subject present in political debates, but also full of social and economic implications, thus raising intellectual problems among academics. It is clear that the understanding of gender and its implications in other aspects of society can be approached from either of the two perspectives, which can be considered complementary rather than exclusive. A biological conception of gender limits its study to concrete and reductionist elements, whereas a cultural conception requires the inclusion of other elements linked to its context, making it more complex.

Even though there is no consensus as to the origin of gender similarities and differences in terms of emotions and behaviors (^{Eagly, Beall & Sternberg, 2004}), there are studies that have demonstrated gender differences in aspects such as empathy and other concepts. ^{Riglin et al., (2016)} indicate that gender differences regarding intelligence are not clearly demonstrated but there are indicators that mental health in women is less affected than in men. For their part, ^{Egger and Angold (2006)} affirm that girls have a lower risk of behavioral problems than boys. Others argue that women are more emotionally expressive than men, more empathetic and perceptive because their understanding and recognition of others' emotions is greater and they have greater ability in certain interpersonal skills (^{Argyle, 1990}; ^{Lafferty, 2004}). However, there is a controversy regarding gender differences in EI, and depending on the type of assessment tool used, such differences may or may not be found (^{Sánchez, Fernández, Montanes & Latorre, 2008}).

Family environment, family structure and emotional

intelligence

The family is considered to be the basic unit of society and as such, it is the fundamental and essential agent of socialization (^{Lekaviciene & Antiniene, 2016}; ^{Povedano, Hendry, Ramos & Varela, 2011}). As an object of study, over the last few decades it has regained the interest of researchers due to the substantive and progressive changes of family behavior that encompass multiple processes, extending from the family constitution to their different ways of life (^{Paredes, 2003}). Currently, there are varieties of family models that have altered the parameters of understanding of family life (^{Valdivia, 2008}) and apparently there is neither a standard nor a model of the contemporary family (^{Jadue, 2003}).

A review of the theory suggests a correlation between some family aspects and the development of emotions in individuals during childhood. In a positive sense, ^{Lekaviciene and Antiniene (2016)} point out that the family plays an important role in the development of personality. According to ^{Gottman (2001)}, parents are the coaches of their children's emotions and they contribute to the understanding and recognition of negative effects, the development of the child's sense of control and optimism or in the effective regulation of emotions. In a negative sense, ^{Davies and Cummings (1994)} believe that family conflicts foster a lack of emotional control in children. ^{Jadue (2003)} considers that marital conflicts and family dysfunction can be predictors of their children's emotional maladjustment. Similarly, ^{Bradley and Corwyn (2002)} argue that adverse situations within the family can predict the emotional and behavioral problems of children.

In this sense, family problems are a risk factor for those who interact within the family and, especially, for children. However, it should be clarified that although there are children exposed to this risk factor, there are also some children who escape their effects (^{Flouri, Midouhas & Joshi, 2015}).

Family structure and emotions

The perspective of the processes of social change, especially regarding industrialization and urbanization, includes the transformations of the family institution. These processes have had an effect on its functions and have opened the possibility of analyzing the family from the prospect of family structures (^{Paredes, 2003}).

The traditional nuclear family model has been losing strength because large proportions of the population have had difficulty in adapting to the expected behavior patterns (^{Furstenberg, 2003}). Concepts such as marriage, divorce and single parenthood acquire new meanings because their contents are different (^{Paredes, 2003}). Although the family composed of both parents continues to be the most frequent family model in Latin America, an increase in single-parent families has also been observed (^{Olhaberry & Farkas, 2012}).

Currently, society assumes that the interaction of family members and the presence of the parents are related to the development of children's emotions. There are those who argue that youngsters who live with both parents have greater overall satisfaction and higher self-esteem (^{Montoya & Landero, 2013}). Others hold that the presence of parental authority in the family makes children maintain certain basic elements for social and emotional growth and, at the same time, provide opportunities for children to develop outside the family (^{Shapiro & Tiscornia, 1997}) or that parenthood, viewed in terms of warmth, especially from the mother, is positively associated with EI, constituting one of the most effective factors in its development (^{Asghari & Besharat, 2011}). Furthermore, others have noted that children are adversely affected by divorce (^{Amato & Keith, 1991}) and that children who live with only one parent are more likely to experience anxiety or show symptoms of emotional stress (^{Jadue, 2003}).

Study design and participants

This study used a quantitative approach with a descriptive-correlational design. Intentional sampling was used and the voluntary participants were 127 adolescents from an educational association from the San Juan de Lurigancho District of Lima, Peru. The average age was 14.2 (± 1.49). Additionally, 52.0% of the participants were women and 48.0% men. 73.2% come from nuclear families and 26.8% from single-parent families (see Table 1).

Instruments

In order to measure FE, a reduction and adaptation of the Family Social Environment Scale by ^{Moos and Trickett (1987)} was carried out. This is a validated instrument which originally consisted of 90 items with dichotomous answer options (true-false) which measures: (1) relationships, which refer to the degree of communication; (2) freedom and possibility of expression at home; (3) development, denoting personal fulfillment of each family member; and (4) stability, which assesses organization and respect for the established rules within the family. The instrument was reduced to 60 items with a Likert-style answer options (1 = never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = almost always, 4 = always). Additionally, reliability analysis was done through ^{Cronbach's alpha coefficient (Cronbach, 1951)} and following the recommendations by ^{Domínguez-Lara (2016)},the confidence intervals (CI) for the data of this study were calculated, corroborating that the 60-item scale presents an adequate internal consistency among the totality of its items (α = .898; IC 95% .858, .927) and among the total of the dimensions such as: relationships (α = .815; IC 95% .747, .866), development (α = .800, IC 95% .727, .855) and stability (α = .788, IC 95% .711, .846). Similar results were reported in other studies (^{AlDosiry et al., 2015}; ^{Extremera & Fernández, 2004}).

EI was assessed through a scale proposed and validated by ^{Chiriboga and Franco (2001)}. The instrument consists of 60 items with Likert-style answer options (1 = never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = almost always, 4 = always) and assesses the five components proposed by ^{Goleman (2012)}: self-awareness, which measures the ability to know oneself, especially the emotions and adequate interpretation of reality that surrounds a person; self-regulation, coherent acts with convictions and personal experiences, and knowing how to adapt to different contexts, innovating without losing personal integrity; self-motivation, the ability to motivate oneself, define objectives, goals, and commitment to achieving them, being aware of the time and effort it may take to reach them; empathy, the ability to recognize others' emotions, adapt to different people without losing personal identity or emotional control; and social skills, control of social relationships as a set of skills that facilitate and allow for adaptation to the group, team collaboration, conflict resolution, and effective communication. In the sample evaluated in this study, reliability analysis for the total EI scale revealed a reliability coefficient showing adequate internal consistency among its elements (α = .860, IC 95% .807, .899).

Procedure

In order to collect the data, authorization was secured from the school administration and from the teachers of each classroom. Each adolescent received a copy of the printed instruments and a pen, and then the guidelines were given on the content, purpose and way of responding to the items of the instruments. The estimated time to answer the questions was 25 minutes.

Ethical considerations

The parents were asked to sign informed consent documents so that the adolescents and their parents would be aware of the purposes of the study and thus, agree to participate voluntarily under the conditions of respect for their privacy and confidentiality of their information, as well as for the required presentation of the individual and collective results, so that the institutional board could make decisions or take actions, based on evidence, that favor the emotional and family well-being of the adolescents. Adolescents who expressed insecurities and fear of providing information about their family did not participate in the study so as to avoid negative emotional effects caused by some remembrances.

Statistical analysis

Before performing the statistical analysis for gender differences and family structure in terms of EI and their respective factors, the data were analyzed for normality through the Shapiro Wilk test. Although the sensitivity of all statistical normality tests depend on the size of the sample, the evidence obtained by simulation studies show that Shapiro Wilk has a better performance in most situations (^{Yap & Sim, 2011}).

The results of the normality analysis indicate that EI and its respective components in the gender categories have a normal distribution (p > .05). Similar results were obtained in terms of the family structure categories (p > .05), except for the family structure categories of nuclear and single-parent type where the data for self-regulation and social skills, respectively, are not distributed in a normal manner (p. <.05).

Based on this normality analysis, the decision was made to conduct further statistical analysis using Student's t-test to analyze the mean difference of the EI components between adolescent women and men and between adolescents from nuclear and single-parent families. In addition, the power of the test was calculated so as to avoid making a type I error, using ^{Cohen's d (1992)} which is a way to measure the magnitude of the relevant effect for a comparative procedure (^{Dominguez-Lara, 2017}). The values range from: insignificant (< .20), small (.20); medium (.50) and large (.80).

The correlation analysis between the EI and FE components was conducted through the Pearson's r statistical test, establishing a significance level of .05 (5%). The r value was, in turn, evaluated as a magnitude of the effect itself (^{Cohen, 1988}), based on the following ranges: insignificant (< .10), small (.10); medium (.30), and large (.50). The statistical analyzes were conducted using the SPSS 22.0 software package. In addition, r values were compared between men and women through the q statistic (Cohen, 1992; ^{Dominguez, Moscoso, Merino, & Navarro, 2016}) and the magnitude of the effect was assessed with the criteria and ranges used in the previous analysis.

Table 2 Normality analysis of emotional intelligence according to gender and family structure 

Note: W = Shapiro-Wilk Test.