PsychologicalRepor~s,2002, 90,361-370.

O Psycholoy~c~l
Reports 2002

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND PROSOCIAL

BEHAVIORS IN ADOLESCENTS '

D A N E L L E CHARBONNEAU A N D ADELHEID A. M. NICOL

Royal Military College of Canada

S~lrnmary.-The relationship between emotional intelligence and prosocial behav-

iors and sex differences in 134 adolescents involved in a 6-wk. training camp run by
the military was investigated. They were asked to evaluate themselves on emotional in-
telligence and randomly chosen peers evaluated them on prosocial behaviors, indi-
cated by organizational citizenship behaviors, a measure used in work organizations.
Ratings of emotional intelligence significantly correlated with scores on two of the five
organizacional citizenship behavior factors: Altruism ( r = .25, p < .01) and Civic virrue
( r = . 2 4 , p<.01). The girls scored somewhat, but not significandy, higher than the
boys o n Emotional Intelligence, Altruism, Conscientiousness, and Civic virrue, an ob-
servation which might be explored further.

Emotional intelhgence is a construct that is s t d evolving, having

emerged in the last two decades. Mayer and Salovey (1997) define emotional
intelhgence as "the abhty to perceive emotions, to access and generate emo-
tions so as to assist thought, to understand emotions and emotional knowl-
edge, and to reflectively regulate emotions so as to promote emotional and
intellectual growth" (p. 5). In other words, emotional intelligence refers to
one's abhty to understand and influence one's own and other's emotions
and to control the emotional content imbedded in various situations. At least
one aspect of emotional intelhgence, namely, the abhty to recognize emo-
tions in others, is closely related to empathy by definition (Salovey & Mayer,
1990; Golernan, 1995). The exact nature of the emotional intelhgence con-
struct is s t d under debate, with some saying it meets traditional standards
for an intelhgence (e.g., Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000; Mayer, Caruso, &
Salovey, 2000) and others who claim it is not an intelhgence (Davies,
Stankov, & Roberts, 1998). Nevertheless, its influence on leadership abhties
(Barhg, Slater, & Kelloway, 2000), on goal orientation, Me satisfaction, and
depression (Martinez-Pons, 1997), and on relationship quahty (Ciarrochi, et
a/., 2000) in adults testifies to its importance. Goleman (1995) claimed that
emotional intelligence develops early in Me, so it may be possible that the
construct could be useful in studies on adolescents. In support of this,

'This study was supported by the Academic Research Program Grant GRCOOOB1607 from the
Royal Mihtary College to Danielle Charbonneau. Address correspondence to Danielle Charbon-
neau, Department of Military Psychology and Leadership, Royal Military Colle e of Canada,
P.O. Box 17000, Station forces, I n g s t o n , Ontario, Canada, K7K 7B4 or e-mail Ycharbonneau-
d@rmc.ca).
3 62 D. CHARBONNEAU & A. A. M. NICOL

Martinez-Pons (1998) found that the emotional intelligence of junior high

school students correlated with self-report measures of task orientation, so-
cial functioning, and depression.
The first objective of the current study was to investigate the relation-
ship between emotional intehgence and prosocial behaviors in adolescents.
There are several reasons to ~ostulatesuch a relationship. First, Roberts and
Strayer (1996) showed a directional h k from emotional insight or the abhty
to recognize one's own emotions, to empathy, and from empathy to proso-
cial behaviors in children in three age groups (5-yr.-olds, 9-yr.-olds, and
13-yr.-olds).Similarly, Trobst, C o h s , and Embree (1994) reported a corre-
lation between empathy and intention to provide social support for a sample
of university students. Thus, because emotional intehgence is conceptually
associated with empathy and because empathy has been h k e d to prosocial
behaviors, it is plausible there may be an association for emotional intelli-
gence with prosocial behaviors. If so, this would add to the importance of
the construct.
Prosocial behaviors have been the focus of many studies with adults in
an organizational context. For instance, emotional intehgence includes the
aspect of self-motivation, through a mechanism involving the regulation of
hope and optimism (Goleman, 1995). Megerian and Sosik (1996) argued
that self-motivation results in setting of higher goals for oneself which, in
turn, may contribute to one's participation in activities outside one's as-
sumed role and in talung initiative. Abraham (1999) postulated that an emo-
tionally intelhgent coworker would be more sensitive to changes in the
moods of colleagues and, therefore, more llkely to notice if someone would
benefit from some assistance (see also Hoffman, 1991). Also, it is reasonable
to assume that someone who is sensitive to others' emotions would be more
likely to treat them with respect and courtesy and to keep them informed of
work-related events. Emotional incelhgence contributes to the ability to fo-
cus on the positive side of one's experiences. Furthermore, Abraham argued
that the ability to empathize, exhibited by emotionally intelligent indviduals,
would lead them to conform more to organizational requirements, including
punctuality and regulations, because they would be more sensitive to the or-
ganizational perspective and requirements. These individuals would be more
likely to keep up with organizational changes and developments as a way to
improve the way they work (Goleman, 1998).
Organizational citizenship behaviors refer to prosocial and pro-organi-
zational activities which are voluntary, in addition to a person's set-role, and
not formally rewarded within an organization (Organ, 1988, 1997). Exam-
ples of such behaviors include performing job-related activities well above
expected levels and contributing to the improvement of some aspects of a
job when such initiative is not required. In particular, someone scoring high
 EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 363

on organizational citizenship behaviors would volunteer to help others in a

work environment (altruism), would show respect and sensitivity towards col-
leagues (courtesy), would refrain from complaining about less than ideal sit-
uations at work (sportsmanship), would be punctual and obey rules and reg-
ulations (conscientiousness), and lastly, would participate in meetings and
keep up with changes at work (civic virtue) (see Niehoff & Moorman, 1993).
While these behaviors are not necessarily primarily prosocial in nature, Abra-
ham (1999) has argued that they would be related to ernocional intelligence.
Participants in this study belonged to a youth organization run by the
military. They were assigned responsibilities that would be similar to those
in a work organization for adults. These responsibilities included teaching
trade techniques and providing guidance to junior members (12 to 13 yr.
old), as well as organizing special events, e.g., canoe trips or concerts. The
adult model of prosocial organizational behaviors was tested in adolescents.
A second objective of the current study was to test for sex differences
with respect to emotional intehgence and organizational citizenship behav-
iors. Mayer, et al. (2000) reported that women scored about 0.5 standard
deviations higher than men did on the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence
Scale. Also, Schutte, Malouff, Hall, Haggerty, Cooper, Golden, and Dorn-
heim (1998) reported that women scored higher than men on the self-report
measure of emotional intehgence they developed for use with adults. There-
fore, we expect adolescent girls to score higher than adolescent boys on the
self-reported measure of emotional intehgence.
Sex ddferences predictions of organizational citizenship behaviors are
less obvious. Saarni (1999) explained that, whereas sex differences have been
reported consistently on sex-report measures of empathy (e.g., Davis &
Franzoi, 1991, for an adolescent sample), sex Merences in prosocial behav-
iors are inconsistent: men and women may express prosocial behaviors ddfer-
ently. For example, men may be more Uely to help strangers in short-term
encounters whereas women would be better helpers in close relationships
(Eagly & Crowley, 1986). Therefore, women may score higher in the aspects
of organizational citizenship behaviors chat involve a one-on-one relationship
with a known individual, i.e., showing altruism and courtesy. In addition,
Eagly and Crowley argue that the lower social status women generally have
in organizations renders women more &ely to help others (see also Mayer,
et al., 2000). Indeed, those having a higher status are more &ely to receive
services, such as aid in achieving job-relevant than to provide them
(Eagly & Crowley, 1986). The rnhtary context of our sample may exacerbate
this power differential between men and women. Hence, we postulate that
women may be better at helping and supporting the organization at large,
i.e., behaving with conscientiousness and civic virtue. Finally, inasmuch as
the absence of complaining fosters a positive organizational atmosphere, we
364 D. CHARBONNEAU & A. A. M. NICOL

predict that women will demonstrate more sportsmanship than men, given
their higher emotional intelligence as reported by Mayer, et al. (2000).

participants
Participants were 150 senior members of a youth organization run by
mihtary officers. After elimination of incomplete data sets, 134 participants
remained. The average age of participants was 15.5 yr. (SD=0.9), range 13
to 18. Of these participants, 72 were boys and 62 were girls. Participants
were involved in a 6-wk. military training camp during which they lived to-
gether in barracks. They were divided by trade into eight groups (two
music, three gunners, and three sailors), each comprising between 15 and 30
members. Participants had the opportunity to observe and evaluate their
peers for 6 wk. within each group. The camp included individuals from dif-
ferent regions in the country. Participants were selected for camp through
their involvement in their hometown organized military activities during the
previous year. Hence, some participants may have known each other prior to
camp if they lived in the same town or had been to camp together in previ-
ous summers.
Materials
A complete data set consisted of a self-report measures on emotional
intehgence and three to four peer ratings on organizational citizenship be-
haviors.
Emotional intelligence.-Schutte, et al. (1998) developed a self-report
measure based on an early model of emotional intehgence by Salovey and
Mayer (1990). This measure contains 33 items. Schutte, et al. reported ac-
ceptable internal consistency ( a = . 9 0 ) , construct validity, and predictive
validity for adult samples, including a sample with an average age of 18.9 yr.
A factor analysis indicated that all items loaded on one factor. Answers were
reported on a >-point rating scale anchored by 1: strongly disagree and 5:
strongly agree. The use of this scale was recommended by Abraham (1999)
because it is brief and has sound psychometric properties.
Organizational citizenship behaviors.-A 20-item organizational citizen-
ship behaviors scale was described by Niehoff and Moorman (1993). The
scale measures agreement with whether one displays certain behaviors (1:
strongly dsagree and 5: strongly agree). The scale contains five factors: Al-
truism (e.g., "helps others who have been absent"), Courtesy (e.g., "informs
me before taking any important actions"), Sportsmanship (e.g., "consumes a
lot of time complaining about trivial mattersu-reverse coded), Conscien-
tiousness (e.g., "is always punctual"), and Civic Virtue (e.g., "attends and
participates in meetings regarding the camp"). This measure was adapted to
 ELMOTIONAL I N T E L L I G E N C E 3 65

the participants' age and the context. For instance, the item for Civic Virtue
"Keeps abreast of changes in the organization" was changed to "Keeps
abreast of changes in the camp."
Procedure
Participants completed the questionnaires during the last week of camp.
Nominal lists of senior members composing each group were obtained
ahead of time so that randomization of peer assessment could be done.
Thus, participants were equally k e l y to be assessed by any of their group
peers, regardless of sex. Individuals who greed to participate signed a con-
sent form and completed the questionna~rcs Participants rated themselves
on emotional intelligence and rated up to four peers on organizational citi-
zenship behaviors.
RESULTS
Participants were rated by 3.64 peers (SD=0.48). Responses from peers
were averaged for each participant. To assess the appropriateness of aggre-
gating peer ratings, within-group agreement indexes, rWg,were con~puted
(James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984) for each participant, on each of che five
factors of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Analysis indicated that the
following percentages of groups had r,", greater than .70: for Altruism 83%,
for Courtesy 80%, for Sportsmanship 71%, for Conscientiousness 7 8 % , and
for Civic Virtue 85%. Because peers had been randomly selected to rate
participants, a certain amount of disagreement was expected amongst raters.
Nevertheless, these results were deemed adequate to justify an aggregation of
scores. Average scores were thought to provide a better representation of
what participants were r e d y Me.
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of all the study variables are
presented in Table 1. Internal consistencies of the variables are acceptable
(a=.69 or greater). Emotional Intelhgence correlated significantly with two
TABLE 1
DUCRIPTTVE
STATISTICS
A N D [N~ERCORREUTIONS ( N =130)
FOR STUDYVARIABLES

Variable M SD r
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Emotional Intelligence 3.77 0.44 .84
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
2. Altruism 3.07 0.67 .25* .88
3. Courtesy 3.15 0.61 .21 35" .83
4 . Sportsmanship 3.05 0.56 .06 .45" .52" .69
5.Conscientiousness 3.10 0.66 .20 .78* .79* 32" .84
6. Civic Virtue 314 0.53 .24* .84* .78* .49* .75* .78
7 . Age 15.49 0.90 .10 -.lo -.09 .09 -.04 -.01
Note.-Numbers in boldface represent measures of internal consistency (Cronbach alpha).
*p<.o1.
3 66 D. CHARBONNEAU & A. A. M. NICOL

of the five factors of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: Altruism ( r = .25,

p < .01) and Civic Virtue ( r = .25, p < .01). Two correlations falling just short
of significance are worthy of mention: Courtesy ( r = .2 1, p = .O2) and Consci-
entiousness (r =.2O, p = .02). Age did not correlate with any of the study
variables.
A significant trend for sex differences was observed (see Table 2). Girls
scored higher than boys on Emotional Intehgence ( t = 2.12, p < ,051, Altru-
ism ( t= 2.24, p < .05), Conscientiousness ( t= 2.13, p < .05), and Civic Virtue
( t = 2.15, p < .05). Given the significant sex differences, we recalculated the
correlations between all study variables while controlling for sex. The pat-
tern of intercorrelations remained unchanged; hence, sex differences do not
account for the relationship between Emotional Intelhgence and Organiza-
tional Citizenship Behaviors.

TABLE 2
FORALLSTUDY VARLABLES
SEX DIFFERENCES

Variable Girls Boys df t P

M SD iM SD
Ernodonal [ntehgence 3.86 0.41 3.69 0.46 129 2.12 .03
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
Altruism 3.21 0.65 2.96 0.67 131 2.24 .03
Courtesy 3.26 0.60 3.05 0.61 131 1.92 ns
Sportsmanship 3.02 0.58 3.07 0.54 130 -0.51 ns
Conscientiousness 3.23 0.57 2.99 0.71 131 2.13 .04
C~vicVirtue 3.24 0.57 3.05 0.49 131 2.15 .03
rlxe 15.47 1.00 15.51 0.81 131 0.25 ns
Nole-Conscientiousness presented unequal variances on the Levene's test for e uality of
variances and, therefore, results are presented for unequal variances, df= 130.7 (rounjed up in
the table).

DISCUSSION
Self-ratings of emotional intelligence correlated significantly with peer-
ratings of nvo factors of organizational citizenship behaviors, thereby provid-
ing partial support for Abraham's theoretical arguments (1999) of a relation-
ship between emotional intehgence and organizational citizenship behaviors.
Indeed, adolescents who reported higher emotional intehgence were rated
by their peers as being more altruistic and having more civic virtue. Further-
more, there was a tendency for peers to rate as more courteous and more
conscientious those who obtained high scores on Emotional Intelhgence.
Contrary to expectation, rated Sportsmanship did not correlate significantly
with Emotional Intelhgence. That is, the abiltty to regulate one's mood and
to remain optimistic in the face of challenge was not correlated with the abil-
ity to foster a positive atmosphere by refraining from complaining and from
 EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 3 67

inflating the severity of problems. Therefore, the extent to which others per-
ceive someone as a complainer and a pessimist does not correlate with how
one views oneself on emotional intelhgence. One possible explanation may
be that items describing Sportsmanship focus on behaviors that may be less
prosocial in nature. For example, one item depicts someone who does not
spend a loc of time complaining about trivial matters. Interestingly, the inter-
correlationships of Sportsmanship with the other dimensions of organiza-
tional citizenship behaviors are the lowest in the matrix.
Four explanations can account, at least in part, for the low to moderate
magnitude of the correlations obtained in this study. The first explanation
concerns the source of information. Self-rating measures of individual char-
acteristics, such as intelligence and personahty, do not typically correlate
highly with ratings of one's behavior by others. The reason this was nonethe-
less used in this study is that participants may not have gotten to know each
other well enough within 6 wk. to rate each other accurately on the items
that compose the emotional intelligence scale. Also, for ~ersonnelselection
purposes, self-report may be the only means of acquiring this kind of infor-
mation.
Second, Martinez-Pons (1998) differentiated between self-oriented and
other-oriented emotional intelhgence
- in adolescents. The first dimension con-
terns the actention to, understanding of, and control of one's emotions and
moods. The other-oriented aspect of emotional intehgence characterizes the
attention to, understanding of, and control of the emotions and moods of
others. Both dimensions were assessed via self-reports using 3-item explora-
tory measures. Using a path analysis, Martinez-Pons found that the other-
oriented aspect had a more direct influence on self-perceptions of social
functioning than the self-oriented aspect, whose effect on self-perceptions of
social functioning was indirect. An examin~c~on of the questionnaire of
Schutte, et a/. (1998) shows a majority of the Items assess different aspects of
one's emotions and mood changes and would assess more the self-oriented
aspect than the other-oriented aspect of emotional intelhgence. As there was
no known psychometrically sound measure of the other-oriented aspect of
emotional intelhgence at the time of data collection, we selected the Schutte,
et al. measure (1998) despite its lower association with social func-
tioning. Although our results may fall on the conservative side, they are
significant. Furthermore, they suggest that further developnlent of the other-
oriented dimension would be worthwhile.
Third, Carson and Carson (1998) found that emotional intelhgence was
positively associated with career commitment which, in turn, was related to
organizational citizenship behaviors in adults (see also Abraham, 1999). A
comparable variable, such as participants' commitment to a future mditary
career, may also medate the relationship between emotional intelligence and
368 D. CHARBONNEAU & A. A. M. NICOL

organizational
- citizenship behaviors in adolescents. The presence of such a
mediator may result in a low correlation between emotional intelligence and
organizational citizenship behaviors. Carson and Carson did not report the
correlations between emotional intelligence and organizational citizenship
behaviors so a direct comparison of results cannot be made.
Finally, correlates of Schutte, et al.'s measure of emotional intelhgence
(1998), such as positive affect, optimism, and lack of depression, may posi-
tively influence prosocial behaviors and, in turn, peer-ratings of participants'
behaviors. Indeed, the contribution of positive mood to helping behavior is
well known in social psychology (see Myers, 1996).
Anocher point is worthy of mention. The average total emotional intelh-
gence score in our sample (M= 127.4 and M = 121.8, for girls and boys,
respectively) is lower than in Schutte, et al.'s (1998) female (M= 130.9) and
maL (M= 124.8). Schutte, et al.'s sample comprised therapists
(assumed high in emotional intelligence), and female prisoners and clients in
a substance abuse treatment program (participants from the latter two groups
assumed to be low in emotional intelligence). Although Schutte, et al.'s adult
sample may not be representative of the average adult population, this lim-
ited information is consistent with Mayer, et al.'s findings (2000) that emo-
tional intelligence increases from early adolescence to young adulthood. It is
noteworthy that age did not correlate significantly with any of the study vari-
ables in the current study, probably because the range of participants' ages
was restricted. Alternatively, indviduals involved in a mhtary environment
may differ somehow in emotional intelligence from those not involved in
such youth organizations.
Consistent with other findings in the literature, the girls scored higher
than boys did on the measure of emotional intelhgence (Schutte, et a/., 1998;
Mayer, et a/., 2000). The results also partly support our predictions of sex
differences on the organizational citizenship behavior factors. As expected,
female participants scored higher than male participants on Altruism, Con-
scientiousness, and Civic virtue but not on Courtesy and Sportsmanship.
However, these results must be interpreted with caution because the use of
multiple t tests increases the chance of making a Type I1 error. This warning
is particularly valid for Altruism, Conscientiousness, and Civic virtue for
which a sex difference is more speculative. Our results highlight the possibil-
~ -

ity that women may be more lkely to volunteer to help others in an organi-
zational environment. This would be consistent with suggestions that women
are more Uely to help individuals whom they know well (Eagly & Crowley,
1986). Furthermore, women may have been more punctual, may have obey-
ed the camp rules more, may have participated more in camp meetings, and
may have kept better informed about new developments in the camp. These
 EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 3 69

behaviors may be conceptuahzed as being prosocial towards the organiza-

tlon.
Some contend that improvements in one's emotional intelligence are
possible (e.g., Goleman, 1995; Weisinger, 1998). For instance, anger man-
agement, one characteristic of emotional intelhgence, can improve following
some cognitive-behavioral interventions (e.g., King, Lancaster, Wynne, Net-
tleton, & Davis, 1999; Redly & Shopshire, 2000). Improvements in emotion-
a1 intelhgence may, in turn, have a positive influence on career commitment
(e.g., Carson & Carson, 1998) and on organizational citizenship behaviors.
The finding of a relationship between emotional intelligence and organiza-
tional citizenship behaviors is important because organizational citizenship
behaviors can benefit an organization. Indeed, organizational citizenship be-
haviors include discretionary actions that increase the overall ~erformanceof
an organization when summed across individuals within that organization
(Organ, 1988). The mditary environment is one that requires commitment,
outstanding efforts, and extreme sacrifices and, thus, is clearly an environ-
ment in which working at the basic minimum requirement is not sufficient.
REFERENCES
ABRAHAM, R. (1999) Emotional intelligence in organizations: a conceptualization. Genetic, So-
cial, and General Psychology Monographs, 135, 209-224.
B ~ R L I N1..
G , SIATER,F., & KELLOWAY, E. K. (2000) Transformational leadership and emotional
in tehgence. Leadership G Organizalion Drvelopme~zlJorrnzal,21, 157- 162.
CARSON. K. D., &CARSON, P. P (1998) Career commitment, competencies, and citizenship. Jour-
nal o j Career Assessment, 6 , 195-208.
CIARROCHI, 1. V., CHAN,A. Y. C., &CMUTI, I? (2000) A critical evaluation of the emotional in-
telligence construct. Personality and lndividtral Differetzces,28, 539-561.
DAVIES,M., STANKOV, L., &ROBERTS, R. D. (1998) Emotional intelligence: in search of an elu-
sive construct. Jorrrnal ofPersonalify and Sonol Psychology, 75, 989-1015.
DAVIS,M. H.. & FRANZOI, S. L. (1991) Stabilily and change in adolescent self-consciousness
and empathy. Jotrmal of Research in Personality, 25, 70-87.
FAGLY,A. H., &CROWN. M (1986) Gender and helping behavior: a meta-analytic review of
the social p ~ y c h o l n ~ literature.
~c~l Psychological Brrlletin, 100, 283-308.
GOLEMAN, D. (1995) E I ) I O I I Oirzfelligence.
II~~ New York: Bantam Books.
GOLEMAN, D. (1998) What makes a leader? Harvard Bzrsirress Review, November-December,
93-102.
HOFFMAN,M. L. (1991) Ernpathy, social co nition, and moral action. In W. M. Kurrines & J.
L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moray behavior and develop~nen!. Vol. 1. Theory. Hills-
dale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 275-301.
JAMES,L. R., DEMAREE. R. G., &WOLF, G. (1984) Estimating within-group interrater reliability
with and without response bias. Jour~zalofApplied Psychology, 69, 85-98.
KING,N., ~ W T E R , N..WYNNE,G., NETIIETON.N., &DAVIS,R. (1999) Cognitive-behavioral
an er management training for adults with mild h>tellectual disability. Scandi~zauianJozrr-
f
na of ~ehaviorTherapy, 28, 19-22.
MARTINEZ-PONS, M. (1997) The relationship of emotional intelligence with selected areas of
personal functioning. Imagitzation, Cognition and Personalify, 17, 3-13.
MARTINEZ-PONS, M. (1998) Parental inducement of emotional intelligence. Imaginatio~z,Cogni-
tion and Per.sonalify, 18, 3-23.
I V ~ Y EJ.R ,D., CARUSO, D., &SALOVEY, P. (2000) Emotional intelligence meets traditional stan-
dards For an intelligence. Intelligence, 27, 267-298.
370 D. CHARBONNEAU & A. A. M. NICOL

MAYER.J . D.. & SALOVEY, P. (1997) What is emotional intelli ence> In P. Salovey & D. J.
Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional developme~z~ and etnofional intel&enc~:edzicafional implicafion~.
New York: Basic Books. Pp. 3-31.
MEGERLAN, L. E.. &SOSIK, 1. 1. (1996) An affair of the heart: emotional intelligence and trans-
formational leadership. Jozrrrzal ofLeadenhip Stzidies, 3, 31-48.
MYERS, D. G. (1996) Social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
NIEHOEF, 8. P., & MOORMAN. R. H. (1993) Justice as a mediator of the relationship benveen
merhods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Managemertf
Jozirnal, 36, 526-556.
ORGAN, D. W. (1988) Or a~~izatioizal citizenship behavior: /he good soldier syndrome. Lexington,
MA: Lexington ~ o o f s .
ORGAN. D. W. (1997) Organizational citizenship behavior: it's construct clean-up time. Hzrmari
Performance, 10, 85-97.
REILLY,P. M.. &SHOPSHIRE, M. S. (2000) Anger management group treatment for cocaine de-
pendence: preliminary outcomes. American Jounzal of Drzrg and Alcohol Abzire, 26, 161-
177.
ROBERTS. W.. &STRAYER, J. (1996) Empathy, emotional expressiveness, and prosocial behavior.
Child Developmenf, 67, 449-470.
SAARNI, C. (1999) The deuelopment ojemotional competence. New York: Guilford.
SALOVEY, P., &MAYER, J. D. (1990) Emotional intelligence. I~nagina~ionz, Cognitiorz and Personal-
ify, 9, 185-211.
SCHURE,N. S., MALOUFF, J. M.. HALL,L. E., HAGGERTY, D. J., COOPER, J. T., GOLDEN, C. I., &
DORNHEIM. L. (1998) Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelli-
gence. Perronalify and lndividzral Dtfirence.r, 25, 167-177.
T ~ o s s r K.
, K., COLLINS, R. L.. & EMBREE. 1. M. (1994) The role of emotion in social sup ort
rovision: gender, empathy and expressions of distress. Jorrrrzal of Social and ~ e r s o r z a r ~ e -
Ltionships, 11, 45-62.
WEISINGER, H. (1998) Emotional intelligence a! work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.