Notes

Literature review
There are various studies in the past which have focused on “Emotional intelligence”. Emotional intelligence was described formally by Salovey and Mayer (1990). They defined it as ‘the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions. Historically, ‘emotion’ and ‘intelligence’ were viewed as being in opposition to one another (Lloyd, 1979). How can one be emotionally intelligent t the same time not deviate from their goal. However, the theory of emotional intelligence suggested that emotions make cognitive process adaptive and individuals can think rationally about their emotions. Emotional intelligence is the development of two areas of psychological research that emerged almost forty years ago. The first area is , cognition and effect, showing how cognitive and emotional processes interact to enhance thinking (Bower, 1981; Isen, Shalker, Clark, & Karp, 1978; Zajonc, 1980). Emotions like anger, happiness, sadness, fear as well as mood shape in the path in which a certain individual would behave to a given situation, what decision the individual would take. The second was an evolution in the model of intelligence . Rather than narrowing down intelligence to just memory, reasoning, judgement, or any abstract idea, the theorists started viewing intelligence from a broader perspective of mental abilities; including ability to assess one’s own emotion, and the ability to judge and sense other’s emotions and mood. Goleman described the construct as an array of positive attributes including political awareness, self-confidence, conscientiousness, and achievement motives rather than focusing only on an intelligence that could help individuals solve problems effectively (Brackett & Geher, 2006). In recent times , there are two scientific approaches to emotional intelligence. They can be characterized as the ability model and mixed models (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2000). The ability model views emotional intelligence as a standard intelligence and argues that the construct meets traditional criteria for an intelligence (Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008b; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008a). Proponents of the ability model measure emotional intelligence as a mental ability with performance assessments that have a criterion of correctness (i.e., there are better and worse answers, which are determined using complex scoring algorithms). Mixed models are so called because they mix the ability conception with personality traits and competencies such as optimism, self-esteem, and emotional self-efficacy (see Cherniss, 2010, for a review). There has been a debate about an ideal method to measure emotional intelligence. On the surface, self-report scales are most desirable as they cost effective, can be easily administered, also they are less time taking than performance tests. However, it is well known that self-report measures are problematic because respondents can provide socially desirable responses rather than truthful ones, or respondents may not actually know how good they are at emotion-based tasks – to whom do they compare themselves (e.g., DeNisi & Shaw, 1977; Paulhus, Lysy, & Yik, 1998)? As they apply to emotional intelligence, selfreport measures are related weakly to performance assessments and lack discriminant validity from existing measures of personality (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Brackett et al., 2006).
There are many contributing factors that relate to theist and atheist. A brief review of current literature indicates a recurring theme in support of the negative relationship between religiosity and intelligence. These studies show that higher Intelligence Quotient’s (IQ) correlate with lower religious belief and atheism. The first relationship between religiosity and emotional intelligence appeared in 1928, in the University of Iowa Studies series, Studies in Character (Howells, 1928; Sinclair, 1928). These studies correlated the motor, sensory, and cognitive senses to belief in god. However, both Howells (1928) and Sinclair (1928) found that lower level of belief in religion were related to higher level of intelligence. Argyle (1958) concluded that “intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs, and rather less likely to have pro-religious attitudes”. Argyle also noted that as of 1958 all the evidences available was based on children or college samples. However later , the research studies given were opposite to the argyle studies. According to Kosa and Schommer, “social environment regulates the relationship of mental abilities and religious attitudes by channeling the intelligence into certain approved directions: a secular-oriented environment may direct it toward scepticism , a church-oriented environment may direct it toward increased religious interest”. As an example the students of the catholic college participated in the religious activities really actively and had knowledge about the same, indicating religiosity. Unfortunately, these measures of religious beliefs were not used. Hoge (1969) concluded that “no organic or psychic relationship exists between intelligence and religious attitudes and . . . the relationships found by researchers are either due to educational influences or biases in the intelligence tests”. Seventeen years forth, Argyle and Beit-Hallahmi (1975) reviewed the literature on the relation between intelligence and atheism again. Beit-Hallahmi and Argyle (1997) suggested that “there are no great differences in intelligence between the religious and non-religious, though fundamentalists score a little lower”. Francis, 1979 showed no relation, posing a clear challenge to “the research consensus formulated in the late 1950s by Argyle (1958)”.