Children from culturally diverse backgrounds can be placed at risk when their cultural context is neglected in assessment of their socioemotional functioning. In the above vignette, were issues of language and acculturation related to Danny’s expressive style of communication considered in assessment? What efforts were made to establish collaboration with his immigrant parents in order to help Danny find ways to cope with his stresses at school? How would placing him on the ED track be the most appropriate intervention? Questions like these invariably challenge school psychologists in their effort to understand and assess the emotional abilities of culturally diverse children in school settings.

This article discusses emotional intelligence, the subject of great fascination in the field of psychology as well as the popular media since its inception a decade ago. A construct introduced by Salovey and Mayer (1990) and popularized by Goleman (1995), emotional intelligence, or "EQ," has virtually become a part of everyday lingo in society. Emotional intelligence is "the ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emotion; the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth" (Mayer & Salovey, 1997, p.10).

While emotional intelligence has been associated with variables such as empathy, emotional openness, goal orientation, and life satisfaction (Martinez-Pons, 1997; Mayer & Gehr, 1996), research pertaining to emotional intelligence has not been linked to multicultural contexts. This article highlights the literature on culture and emotion and discusses implications for research and assessment in the area of emotional intelligence that impact racial and ethnic minority populations in the United States.

What is known about emotions? There is evidence for both cultural universality and relativity in emotions (Mesquita, Frijda, & Scherer, 1997). Recent reviews of cross-cultural research on emotion have indicated that basic emotions, such as happiness, surprise, fear, anger, disgust, and sadness are universally expressed and recognized (see Russell, 1994). The universality argument in part stems out of the work by Ekman and his colleagues who showed facial photos portraying emotions to people in preliterate, visually isolated cultures in New Guinea, and found that they recognized the same basic emotions (Ekman, Friesen, & Ellsworth, 1972). Simultaneously, cultural variations have also been documented for a wide range of emotion processes, including judgments of the level of emotional intensity (Ekman, et al., 1987), categorization of emotions (Russell, 1991), appraisal propensities, emotional behavior repertoires, and emotion regulation processes (Mesquita & Frijda, 1992). Regarding the influence of culture on emotion, Mesquita, Frijda, and Scherer (1997) noted, "Even where universal patterns of appraisal and response exist, these universal cores may be submerged in the culturally determined contexts of experience, meaning, and social interaction" (p. 288).

In contrast to the plethora of research on emotion conducted cross-nationally, there exists a limited body of research on subcultural populations — i. e., racial and ethnic groups within a society. In the United States, cultural differences have been found in the intensity of emotional experience and expressions among Japanese Americans, Filipino Americans, and European Americans (Aune & Aune, 1996), and in moderation of emotions in an interpersonal context among Chinese Americans and European Americans (Tsai & Levenson, 1997). A study investigating guilt and shame emotions among Asian, Latin, African, and European Americans found racial group differences for shame-proneness, with Asian Americans claiming to be more susceptible to shame than the other three groups (Lutwak, Razzino, & Ferrari, 1998). Thus, variations in emotional processes exist both at the international level and within a pluralistic society such as the United States.

There is also evidence to suggest cultural variations in emotion-related skills or abilities that essentially comprise the construct of emotional intelligence. The majority of cross-cultural studies on emotional abilities have compared different cultural groups’ perceptions of emotion by having participants make judgments of photographs of facial expressions (e.g., Ekman et al., 1987; Matsumoto, 1993). It is noted that the ability to recognize emotions in facial expressions is but one of many components of emotional intelligence (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Empirical data indicate cultural differences in this area among U.S. samples. Matsumoto (1993) asked American-born college students of Caucasian, African, Asian, and Hispanic descents to label the emotions they perceived in photos, rate the intensity of each emotional expression, and rate the appropriateness of the emotions in different social situations. Significant differences among racial groups were found in emotion judgments, display rules, and self-reported emotional expressions (Matsumoto, 1993).

Similarly; Nowicki, Glanville, and Demertzis (1998) investigated the ability to recognize emotion in facial expressions among African Americans and European Americans. The results showed that African Americans were more accurate in reading emotions in European American facial expressions than European American participants were in reading emotions in African American facial expressions. The researchers reasoned that "for members of minority groups to participate effectively in the affairs of the majority population, they must be more versed in recognizing the meaning of the communication of members of the majority population than vice versa" (Nowicki et al., 1998, p.337). Among ethnic minorities, less acculturated individuals may be less accurate in their interpretation of the nonverbal behavior of majority group members than more acculturated individuals (Bailey, Nowicki, & Cole, 1998). These studies may have far reaching clinical implications and suggest that important differences in emotional abilities may exist as a function of culture. Future studies are needed to test all key aspects of emotional intelligence, including the ability to understand and regulate emotions (Mayer & Salovey, 1997), with culturally diverse populations.

Researchers have argued that all tests in existence are to some extent based upon aspects of the culture in which they were developed (Greenfield, 1997; Suzuki & Kugler, 1995). Accordingly, measures of emotional intelligence are likely to reflect the dominant cultural values of the society of their origin. Despite this important implication, however, cultural loading, or the degree of cultural specificity present in a particular test (Suzuki & Kugler, 1995), with regard to current emotional intelligence measures and their testing procedures has yet to be addressed in the literature.

In a recent review of the literature on socioemotional intelligence assessment, approximately 30 measures of social and emotional abilities were examined for their multicultural applicability (Vraniak et al., 1998). Only a small proportion of the measures indicated adequate racial/ethnic representation in their standardization samples (Vraniak et al., 1998). Among the instruments reviewed, only eight provided information regarding racial/ethnic representation, and 10 were utilized in multicultural research (Vraniak et al., 1998). In addition, current instruments of socioemotional skills differ widely in content and tasks involved, reflecting the lack of consensus in definitions of the theoretical construct (e.g., Bar-On, 1996; Goleman, 1995; Mayer & Salovey, 1997). The BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory is a self-report composed of 133 statements and employs a 5-point response format ranging from "Not true of me" to "True of me" (Bar-On, 1997). Test items such as, "I’m fun to be with," or "I’m in touch with my emotions," assess individuals’ beliefs about their ability to assess their own and other’s feelings. Self-concept approaches, as exemplified by the EQI, have been criticized for tapping into people’s beliefs about their abilities as opposed to their actual abilities (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, in press).

A more performance-based test of emotional intelligence, the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS) consists of 12 tasks, which are divided into four branches of abilities: (a) perceiving, (b) assimilating, (c) understanding, and (d) managing emotion (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, in press; Mayer & Salovey, 1997). A range of various stimuli is present in the tasks of each branch. For example, tasks involving the perceiving of emotions include rating the emotional content of original pieces of music, computer-generated graphic designs, and short stories. Tasks related to managing emotions include evaluating possible courses of action to vignettes portraying emotional dilemmas. While the multi-task nature of the MEIS may yield a more comprehensive picture of an individual’s emotional intelligence functioning, the instrument and the theory from which it is based have yet to account for the role of cultural framework in the manifestations of emotional intelligence. The utility of the MEIS in enhancing our understanding of the relationship between emotional intelligence and individual cultural variables, therefore, remains to be demonstrated with future studies.

There are three major implications for "working with culture" for clinicians and researchers interested in the domain of emotional intelligence. First, a culturally relevant approach to assessment would obtain a profile of socioemotional abilities to ensure a more comprehensive look into the child’s functioning in various areas. A multidimensional, abilities-oriented approach, in conjunction with a culturally sensitive assessment procedure (e.g., consideration of the level of acculturation of the test-taker), would be beneficial in numerous contexts. For instance, such an approach would have relevance to school psychologists working to combat "emotional illiteracy" (Goleman, 1995) in children from culturally diverse backgrounds identified as being socially withdrawn, emotionally disturbed, or delinquent. Once identified, these children’s behaviors need to be understood within their cultural framework. A child who is perceived as functioning well socially in one context can be perceived differently in another where different behavioral norms are emphasized. Thus, incorporating culture as an essential component of the assessment process (Armour-Thomas & Gopaul-McNicol, 1998) would allow clinicians to identify areas of weaknesses and strengths and provide culturally appropriate interventions.

Second, acculturation is an important variable to explore through research in this area. Empirical data indicate that level of acculturation may impact the ability to interpret nonverbal emotional expressions (Bailey, Nowicki, & Cole, 1998). Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that emotional intelligence may be a predictor of successful acculturation among immigrant populations (Bar-On, 1997). Given these initial findings, the role of acculturation in the development and manifestations of emotional intelligence is worthy of further investigation.

Finally, as discussed throughout, research in the area of emotions has paid little attention to major subcultural variables, such as age, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity within nations (Mesquita, Frijda, & Scherer, 1997). The concept of "culture," therefore, needs to be clarified and expanded. Given the documented variations in emotional abilities, future research endeavors in the area of emotional intelligence need to examine both intergroup and intragroup differences and factors that may account for those differences. How complex forces of culture—including values, norms, and opportunities—influence the practice of emotional abilities in social settings needs to be elucidated. That emotional abilities are contextually anchored in culture has been suggested (Lazarus, 1991; Saarni, 1999). What is clearly needed now is further research to articulate the ways in which cultural variables affect emotional intelligence.

The 21^st century will undoubtedly witness a burgeoning movement toward nontraditional domains of intelligence. In this respect, the study of emotional intelligence will be at the forefront. Touted as a significant contributor to life success and psychological well-being, emotional intelligence carries numerous implications (Goleman, 1995). School psychologists are challenged to look to the direction of "working with culture"—i.e., incorporating and investigating cultural variables in research and assessment—in order to advance our understanding of the rich tapestry of emotional intelligence.