Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2013, 54, 407414

DOI: 10.1111/sjop.12058

Personality and Social Psychology

Are emotional intelligent workers also more empathic?

MAR
IA AUGUSTO
MARIA PILAR BERRIOS MARTOS, ESTHER LOPEZ-ZAFRA, MANUEL PULIDO-MARTOS and JOSE
Department of Psychology, University of Ja
en, Spain

Berrios Martos, M. P., Lopez-Zafra, E., Pulido-Martos, M. & Augusto, J. M. (2013). Are emotional intelligent workers also more empathic?
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 54, 407414.
This paper analyzes whether emotional intelligence and self-monitoring are related to empathy among a sample of workers in both the public and private employment sectors. Two hundred and forty-two employees (42.5% men and 57.5% women) with a mean age of 35.21 years (SD = 10.07, range
1861) completed a questionnaire that measured the variables of interest. The results showed that emotion regulation, a dimension of emotional intelligence, accounts for most of the variance of empathy, followed by the ability to understand emotions and the management of others emotions. Furthermore, gender did not yield any moderator effect on the relations among emotional intelligence, self-monitoring and empathy. We conclude that the
intrapersonal aspects of emotional intelligence, in particular, emotion regulation, help explain the empathy of workers. The implications of these ndings
are discussed herein.
Key words: Emotional intelligence, empathy, gender, self-monitoring, workers.
Maria Pilar Berrios Martos, Department of Psychology, University of Ja
en, Campus Las Lagunillas S/N, edif. D-2, Ja
en, 23071, Spain. E-mail:
pberrios@ujaen.es

INTRODUCTION
The construct of empathy has elicited enormous interest in multiple subelds of psychology (clinical, educational and organizational) due to the important role that it plays in interpersonal
skills as, for example, prosocial behavior (Eisenberg, Morris,
McDaniel & Spinard, 2009), or inhibition of antisocial behaviors
as aggression (Ang & Goh, 2010).
Traditionally, two different approaches have been used to
understand empathy: cognitive and affective-based approaches
(see Davis, 1996 or Gerdes, Segal & Lietz, 2010 for a review).
According to the cognitive approach, empathy refers to cognitive
role taking or taking another individuals perspective. Beginning
in the 1960s, a new approach emerged that put more emphasis on
the affective aspect of empathy rather than the cognitive component. From this approach, empathy is dened as a shared affection
or vicarious feeling (Fern
andez-Pinto, L
opez-P
erez & M
arquez,
2008). Finally, a new paradigm has emerged that integrates these
two competing approaches and provides a multidimensional denition of empathy. This denition includes four components: two
of them highlight the adoption of the cognitive perspective
(perspective taking and fantasy) and the other two highlight the
adoption of the affective perspective (empathic involvement and
personal distress) (Davis, 1980). Specically, perspective taking
refers to the tendency or ability to take the perspective or point of
view of others. Fantasy is dened as the tendency to identify with
characters from lm and literature. In other words, refers to the
imaginative capacity of an individual to engage in ctitious situations. Empathic involvement is the tendency to experience feelings
of compassion and concern for others. Finally, personal distress is
dened as the tendency to experience feelings of discomfort and
anxiety when witnessing other individuals negative experiences.
In this research we focus on the components of empathy that
have provided clear and consistent results regarding their effects
2013 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations

and relationships with other variables, namely, perspective taking

and empathic involvement. Perspective taking has been found to
be the adaptive component of empathy showing clear positive
relationship with mental health, social functioning and selfesteem (Batson, 1991; Davis, 1983; Eisenberg, Shea, Carlo &
Knight, 1991; Fern
andez, Dufey & Kramp, 2011; Ramos,
Fernandez-Berrocal & Extremera, 2007; Schutte, Malouff, Bobik
et al., 2001). Empathic involvement has shown to be positively
related to shyness, anxiety, and emotional burnout (Fern
andez
et al., 2011; Rosen, Gimotty, Shea & Bellini, 2006; William,
1989).
The effects of empathy have been studied in different areas.
In the labor context, empirical evidence shows that empathy is
associated with effective leadership in different organizational
settings (Bell, Hall & Harry, 1954; Caruso & Salovey, 2004;
Humphrey, 2002; Kellet, Humphrey & Sleeth, 2002, 2006;
Mahsud, Yukl & Prussia, 2010), in sports settings (Arce, Torrado,
Andrade & Alzate, 2010; Arce, Torrado, Andrade, Garrido & de
Francisco, 2008), and in settings that require communication. In
addition, empathy is associated with optimal interpersonal relations (Kunyk & Olson, 2001; McCabe, 2004; Nerdrum, 1997),
improved labor climate and teamwork (Sands, Stanley &
Charon, 2007; Singh, 2003; Z
arraga & Bonache, 2005). Thus,
empathy has positive effects. However, results from other studies
indicate that empathy may have negative consequences. For
example, some authors have found that empathy is associated
with neuroticism (Davis, 1996; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1978;
L

opez-P
erez & Fern
andez-Pinto, 2007; Rim, 1974), and others
have found that it is associated with fatigue, particularly among
professionals who care for suffering people (Bride, Radey &
Figley, 2007; Figley 2002). These results suggest that empathy
is not always healthy, especially if it is characterized by emotional over-involvement and associated with emotional burnout
(Rosen et al., 2006; William, 1989). This less-healthy form of

408 M. P. Berrios Martos et al.

empathy is in contrast to the emotionally healthy and adaptive
form of empathy, which is characterized by high levels of
perspective taking. Furthermore, this form of empathy does not
involve aversive experiences, but it is related to an optimal level
of mental health and satisfying social relationships (Batson,
1991; Davis, 1983; Eisenberg et al., 1991; Ramos et al., 2007;
Schutte et al., 2001).

Emotional intelligence and empathy

Emotions are a valuable source of information for adaptation
and wellness. Current theories on emotions posit that emotions
are adaptive processes that promote personal growth and
development, interactions and social problem solving, and the
achievement of goals and objectives (Johnson-Laird & Oatley,
2000). Based on this evolutionary and functionalist conception
of emotions, different models have been proposed to address
individual differences in ones ability to reason about emotions and to use that knowledge to adapt to the environment
and succeed (see Mayer, Roberts & Barsade, 2008a, for a
review).
Mayer and Saloveys (1997) emotional intelligence (EI) model
is the strongest, theoretically grounded model and, out of all the
models proposed, it has received the most empirical support
(Fern
andez-Berrocal & Extremera, 2010; Joseph & Newman,
2010; Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2000). These authors dene EI
as the ability to perceive, assess and express emotions with
accuracy, the ability to access and 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). Therefore, from this approach, EI is a type of intelligence. This is, a hierarchy of mental abilities, which refers to
the ability to reason about owns emotions (intrapersonal abilities)
and others emotions (interpersonal abilities). This ability allows
reacting appropriately and resolving social situations (Lopes,
Nezlek, Extremera et al., 2011; Lopes, Salovey & Straus, 2003;
Song, Huang, Peng, Law, Wong & Chen, 2010).
On the other hand, empathy is considered a fundamental
aspect of social interaction that promotes prosocial behavior and
inhibits aggressive behavior towards others (Gilet, Mella, Studer,
Gr
uhn & Labouvie-Vief, 2013). Specically, Davis (1983, 1994)
denes empathy as the set of cognitive, emotional, motivational
and behavioral responses of an individual observing experiences
of others.
Taking into account both statements we could assert that,
from a theoretical approach, EI is considered a type of intelligence compound of a number of intrapersonal and interpersonal
skills (Mayer et al., 2008a), the latter play a key role in the
establishment and maintenance of social relations, and empathy
is critical to the ability to know what other individual is feeling
and respond compassionately to their distress. Thus, it is appropriate to study empathy from the EI model of Mayer and
Salovey (Extremera & Fern
andez-Berrocal, 2004; Salovey &
Mayer, 1990).
Previous studies relating EI and empathy from this model
obtained results indicating that people scoring higher in EI are also
more empathic (Fitness & Curtis, 2005; Mayer & Salovey, 1997;
2013 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations

Scand J Psychol 54 (2013)

Schutte et al., 2001). Thus, it is possible that empathy is a result

of EI, since, in the same way that organizational / perceptual
intelligence or the ability to reason about visual patterns helps to
respond appropriately and solve space temporal problems, EI, or
the ability to reason about own and others emotions, helps solving
different social situations (Mayer et al., 2008a), as for example to
respond adequately to the experiences of others improving empathy. The positive relationship between EI and empathy have been
found with both self-report measures (Fitness & Curtis, 2005;
Salovey, Strod, Woolery & Epel, 2002; Schutte et al., 2001) and
performance EI tests (e.g. MSCEIT; Ciarrochi, Chan & Caputi,
2000; Mayer, Caruso & Salovey, 1999).
Other studies examine the relationship between EI and empathy more closely by exploring the dimensions that dene both
constructs. The results from these studies suggest that positive
associations exist between attention, emotions, empathic involvement and personal distress (Aguilar-Luz

on & Augusto, 2009;
Extremera and Fern
andezBerrocal, 2004). In other studies,
clarity and emotional repair appear to be positively related to
perspective taking and negatively related to personal distress
(AguilarLuz

on and Augusto, 2009; Extremera and Fern
andez
Berrocal, 2004; Ramos et al., 2007).

Self-monitoring and empathy

Research shows that empathic individuals enjoy social interactions,
possess an in-depth knowledge of others emotions, experience
positive emotions in response to others interests in their feelings,
and have no interest in dramatizing their own problems (Johnson,
Cheek & Smither, 1983). Thus, the main personality characteristics
associated with empathy are sociability, emotionality, impulsivity,
and a sense of humor (Buss & Plomin, 1975; Hogan, 1967; Moreno-Jim
enez, Morante, Hudnall & Sanz, 2007; Moreno-Jim
enez,
Morante, Rodr
guez-Mu~
noz & Rodr
guez-Carvajal, 2006).
One aspect of personality that has attracted considerable attention among social psychologists is self-monitoring (SM), which
is considered essential for interpersonal relationships (Snyder &
Gangestad, 1986; Snyder, Simpson & Gangestad, 1986).
According to Snyder (1974, 1979), this construct is a personality
factor that accounts for interindividual differences in the degree
to which people observe, regulate and control their expressive
behavior and present themselves in social situations. Therefore,
this construct can be operationalized on a continuum with two
poles. One pole represents individuals who are highly motivated
to adapt to different environments and people (high SM). The
other pole represents individuals who have strong convictions,
who are emotionally expressive and who have attitudes that
guide their behavior regardless of the social context (low SM).
Studies examining the role of this construct on individuals
functioning in social contexts have found a signicant negative
correlation between SM and social anxiety (Furnham & Capon,
1983) and between SM and neuroticism (Avia, S
anchezBernardos, Sanz, Carrillo & Rojo, 1998; Briggs, Cheek &
Buss, 1980; Furnham, 1989; Gabrenya & Arkin, 1980). In
addition, studies have found a positive correlation between SM
and a desire to have contact with other people and the number
of relationships established (Avia et al., 1998; Ickes & Barnes,
1977; Ickes, Layden & Barnes, 1978).

Scand J Psychol 54 (2013)

Although this dimension of personality, along with empathy

and EI, is essential for interpersonal relationships, only one
study, using a student sample, has analyzed the relationship
between these three variables. Specically, Schutte et al. (2001)
found a positive relationship between EI, perspective taking
(a cognitive component of empathy) and SM. However, further
analyses are needed in other samples; thus, the current study
focuses on workers or employees.
Finally, as there are gender differences in empathy, EI and
SM we also analyze the impact that gender may have on the
relation among variables. Regarding empathy, studies indicate
that women score higher than men on emotional empathy but
not on cognitive empathy (Davis, 1980; Eisenberg & Lennon,
1983; Hoffman, 1977; Ickes, Gesn & Graham, 2000). However,
a recent study showed that women are more empathetic than
men on both dimensions: cognitive and affective (Mestre,
Samper, Fr
as & Tur, 2009).
As for gender differences in EI, there are also studies
demonstrating that women are more emotionally intelligent than
men (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Ciarrochi et al., 2000;
Extremera, Fern
andez-Berrocal & Salovey, 2006; Kafetsios,
2004; Mayer et al., 1999; Palmer, Gignac, Manocha & Stough,
2005). In their meta-analysis, Joseph & Newman (2010) concluded that women score higher than men in all EI dimensions.
Their effect size ranged from 0.29 to 0.49. However, recent
research has found that for some of the EI-specic abilities
(facilitation, understanding and managing emotions) gender
differences are moderated by age (Fern
andez-Berrocal, Cabello,
Castillo & Extremera, 2012).
Finally, regarding gender differences in SM, there are contradictory results. There are studies showing that men score higher than
women on all aspects of SM (Avia, Carrillo & Rojo, 1990; Sanz &
Gra~
na, 1991), whereas other studies assert that there are no sex
differences (Rosenthal & DePaulo, 1979; Snyder, 1987). According to Sanz and Gra~na (1991) these discrepancies may be due to
the moderating effect of cultural variables on the relationship
between sex and SM. This notion may be supported given that
differences between men and women emerged in the Spanish
sample while they did not emerge in the American sample.
Taken together, the ndings from previous studies suggest that
there is some support for each construct. However, only one
study (Schutte et al., 2001) examines the combined inuence of
these constructs on empathy. Furthermore, the results are derived
from studies of young samples or undergraduate students. Therefore, the main objective of this paper is to analyze whether EI
and SM explain workers empathy level. This overall objective
translates into the following specic objectives: (1) to test the
relation between EI, SM and empathy; (2) to examine whether
EI and SM accounts for the empathic ability; and (3) to analyze
whether gender moderates the relationship between these
variables. Specically we seek to test the following hypotheses:
H1: We expect to nd signicant and positive relationships
between the dimensions of EI and empathy as well as the
dimensions of SM and empathy.
H2: The dimensions of EI and SM will account for the
employees level of empathy.
H3: Gender will moderate the relationship between EI and
empathy and between SM and empathy.
2013 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations

Emotional Intelligence, Self-monitoring and Empathy 409

METHOD
Participants
Two hundred and forty-two employees (42.5% men and 57.5% women)
that comprised 51 teams in different employment settings participated in
this study. The mean age of the sample was 35.21 years (SD = 10.07;
range 1861). Regarding the employment setting, 44.5% of the sample
worked as civil servants, 14.6%, worked as teachers in public or private
schools, 10.9% worked in communitarian or social services, and the rest of
the sample worked in the automobile, legal or renewable energy sectors.

Instruments
Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1980; Spanish version by
P
erez-Alb
eniz, De Paul, Etxebarr
a, Montes & Torres, 2003). This instrument assesses individual differences in empathy from a multidimensional
perspective. On a ve-point Likert scale (1 = not typical of me; 5 =
completely typical of me), participants rate 15 items that comprise four
independent empathy dimensions: (1) perspective taking or the ability of
an individual to take and understand others point of view; and
(2) empathic involvement or the tendency to feel compassion or concern
for others. The Spanish version is similar to the original version and has
appropriated psychometric properties. The alpha coefcients were 0.70
and 0.68, respectively.
Self-monitoring Scale (SM; Snyder, 1974; Spanish version from Avia,
Carrillo & Rojo, 1987). This scale is comprised of 25 true/false items
that assesses three personality dimensions: (1) orientation to others or the
degree to which one is inuenced by the opinions of others; (2) ability
to act or being proactive, taking the initiative and resolution; and
(3) extraversion or tendency to engage in social relations. The Spanish
version has similar psychometric properties (Avia et al., 1987, 1998) to
the original scale with a 0.83 test-retest reliability (Snyder, 1974).
Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Prole (WEIP-S; Jordan, Ashkanasy, Hartel & Hooper, 2002; Spanish version by Lopez-Zafra, PulidoMartos, Berrios & Augusto-Landa, 2012). On seven-point scales, participants evaluated their emotional intelligence. This scale is a 16-item questionnaire that identies four interpersonal factors: (1) awareness of own
emotions or an individuals understanding his/her own emotions and the
causes; (2) management of own emotions or the degree to which the
individual is able to control his/her emotions in emotionally heightened
situations, as well as his/her capacity to re-orient and prioritize thoughts
to change and/or manage his/her emotions adequately; (3) awareness of
others emotions or being emotionally cognizant and in sync with other
individuals emotions; and (4) management of other individuals emotions or the ability to modulate the expression of emotions in interpersonal contexts to achieve personal goals, create good social networks,
motivate colleagues, and give negative feedback. This is performed without hurting others individuals feelings and by solving conicts. The
Spanish version has adequate reliability ranging from 0.71 to 0.92.

Procedure
Participation was voluntary and anonymous. We asked for permission
from the employment organizations and we arranged meetings to explain
the study and what participation entailed. Participants received the questionnaires by mail and they were given a week to complete the questionnaires and return them. During the week, the researchers were available
to address any questions or concerns via e-mail or telephone.

RESULTS
SPSS v.17 (IBM, Armonk, NY) was used to perform descriptive
statistics, correlational analyses and hierarchical regressions,
which uses a successive steps method. See Table 1 for reliabilities and descriptive of the variables.

410 M. P. Berrios Martos et al.

Scand J Psychol 54 (2013)

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, reliability and correlations among variables

Variables
1. OO
2. Ex
3. A
4. AOW
5. MOWE
6. AOE
7. MOE
8. PT
9. EMI
M
DT
a Cronbach

2
0.15*
0.17**
0.01
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.09
0.11
4.56
1.88
0.50

0.31**
0.10
0.00
0.22**
0.25**
0.10
0.04
2.47
1.50
0.60

0.05
0.22**
0.09
0.03
0.13*
0.20**
1.28
1.20
0.55

0.51**
0.44**
0.44**
0.45**
0.35**
18.49
5.61
0.89

0.52**
0.55**
0.52**
0.48**
21.00
4.33
0.76

0.58**
0.41**
0.31**
18.69
4.56
0.85

0.33**
0.29**
20.43
4.45
0.89

0.51**
24.15
4.52
0.70

29.48
4.61
0.60

Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

OO = orientation to others; Ex = extraversion; A = ability to act; AOW = awareness of own emotions; MOWE = management of own emotions;
AOE = awareness of others emotions; MOE = management others emotions; PT = perspective taking; EMI = empathic involvement.

To analyze the possible relations among EI, SM and empathy

dimensions (H1) we conducted correlation analyses. As shown
in Table 1, perspective taking and empathic involvement are signicantly positively correlated with the four EI factors (understanding and regulation of ones emotions, and understanding
and regulation of others emotions). Moreover, in terms of the
relationship between empathy and SM, we found that higher
levels of perspective taking and empathic involvement are related
to a lower performance, whereas orientation towards others and
extraversion are not related to the components of the empathy.
To analyze whether the dimensions of EI and SM account for
empathy (H2), we carried out multiple hierarchical regression
analyses using the method of successive steps. In the rst regression model, the empathy dimension of perspective taking was
introduced as the dependent variable. In step 1, sex and age
were introduced. In step 2, the performance dimension of SM
was introduced, and in step 3, all 3 dimensions of EI (understanding emotions, regulation of emotions, understanding emotions of others and managing the emotions of others) were
entered into the regression model. The results showed that the
model was signicant (R2 = 0.33; F[3, 237] = 39.13; p < 0.001).
The model accounts for the 33% of the variance in perspective
taking. Sex accounts for 3% of that variance. In addition, understanding ones emotions (b = 0.26, p < 0.001) accounted for the
5% of the variance and emotion regulation emotions (b = 0.36,
p < 0.001) accounted for 25%. These results show that subjects
who are able to understand and regulate their own emotions
have the ability to take the perspective or point of view of others
(see Table 2).
In the second regression model, empathic involvement was
introduced as the dependent variable (see Table 3). Sex and age
were introduced in step 1. In step 2, the SM dimension of performance was introduced, and, in step 3, all the EI dimensions
were entered. The results showed that the model was signicant
(R2 = 0.35; F[3, 231] = 42.53; p < 0.001). The model accounts
for 35.7% of the variance in empathic involvement, sex
(b = 0.37, p < 0.001) accounts for 18%, the regulation of emotions (b = 0.31, p < 0.001) accounts for 15.7%, and management of others emotions (b = 0.16, p < 0.01) accounts for 2%.
2013 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations

Table 2. Hierarchical regression for the SM and EI dimensions on perspective taking, controlling for sociodemographic variables
R2
Perspective taking
Model 1
Sex
Model 2
Sex
Management own emotions
Model 3
Sex
Management own emotions
Awareness own emotions

0.03

8.23

0.28

46.49

0.15*
0.07
0.50***
0.33

39.13
0.09
0.36***
0.26***

Note: *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001.

Based on these results, women who are more skilled at regulating their emotions and managing others emotions are more
likely to feel compassion and concern for others.
In summary, the most important factor of EI in predicting
empathy is the regulation of emotions, followed by an understanding of ones emotions and regulating emotions of others.
Moreover, none of the personality factors has predictive
power on perspective taking and empathic involvement of the
participants.
To analyze whether there were differences between men and
women in the variables of the study and to analyze whether relationships between these variables change due to the sex of the
participants (H3), we conducted a series of preliminary analyses
(ANOVA and partial correlations).
The ANOVA showed that there were statistically signicant
differences by gender in perspective taking (F[1, 265] = 12.36;
p 0.001), empathic involvement (F[1, 259] = 55.30; p 0.001),
regulation of own emotions (F[1, 268] = 6.86; p 0.01), understanding the emotions of others (F[1, 266] = 4.92; p 0.05) and
performance (F[1, 273] = 8.19; p 0.01). Moreover, in some
cases the correlations between the variables changed when controlling sex (see Table 4 for relevant changes in italics).

Emotional Intelligence, Self-monitoring and Empathy 411

Scand J Psychol 54 (2013)

(perspective taking) and affective (empathic involvement) dimensions of empathy. However, personality factors do not explain
any of these components.
Our results also demonstrate that understanding and regulating
emotions accounts for the 30% of the variance in perspective
taking. Although emotion regulation explains the largest portion
of the perspective-taking dimension than understanding emotions
(25% versus 5%), these results are consistent with other studies
showing that having a proper understanding and being able to
regulate emotions makes it easier for individuals to adopt the
perspectives of others. Individuals are able to adopt the
perspectives of others when they put apart their own emotions
(Ramos et al., 2007) and demonstrate that it is necessary to
understand one self to understand others (Extremera and
Fern
andezBerrocal, 2004).
Furthermore, we found that sex, emotion regulation and managing others emotions accounted for the 35.7% of the variance
in empathic involvement. Sex and emotion regulation explained
the largest portion of the variance (18% and 15.7% respectively
as compared to 2% of the variance explained by managing others emotions). More specically, women who are able to regulate their emotions and manage others emotion are more likely
to feel compassion and concern for others. This is in agreement
with previous studies that nd that women are more emotionally
intelligent and more concerned about the emotions of others as
compared to men (Davis, 1980; Extremera et al., 2006;
Hoffman, 1977; Joseph & Newman, 2010).
Furthermore, due to their emotion regulation abilities, they
know how to generate feelings of compassion, closeness and
tenderness for others. These results can be explained by the
gender role theory, which suggests that due to the division of
labor between men and women, women continue taking care of
and attending to others and focusing on human interactions and
social support (Berrios & Calvo-Salguero, 2008; Eagly & Wood,
1999; Lopez-Zafra & Garcia-Retamero, 2012). Performing these
tasks not only train and develop social-emotional skills that
facilitate understanding, closeness and compassion for others, but
it also provides expectations for women that encourage empathy
(Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983; Ickes et al., 2000).
Finally, note that sex alone had a signicant power explaining
the empathy dimensions. Although sex lost predictive power
when it was examined with the EI and SM factors, it still

Table 3. Hierarchical regression for the SM and EI dimensions on

empathy, controlling for sociodemographic variables

Empathy
Model 1
Sex
Model 2
Sex
Management own emotions
Model 3
Sex
Management own emotions
Management others emotions

R2

0.18

51.07

0.34

58.87

0.41***
0.34***
0.41***
0.35

42.53
0.37***
0.31***
0.16**

Note: **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Bearing these comments in mind, in order to examine whether

of the effects of EI and SM on the empathy dimensions vary by
gender, we conducted additional hierarchical regressions. In each
regression, sex was entered in step 1. The dimensions of SM
and/or EI that explained relations in previous analyzes were
entered in the model at step 2. Lastly, the interactions between
the above dimensions and sex were entered in the model at step
3 (see Table 3).
When accounting for perspective taking, signicant interactions did not emerge between sex and emotion regulation
(b = 0.08, ns), and understanding ones emotions (b = 0.01,
ns). When explaining empathic involvement, signicant interactions did not emerge between sex and emotion regulation
(b = 0.32, ns), and managing others emotions (b = 0.50, ns).
In sum, these results indicate that sex does not moderate the
effects of EI dimensions (understanding and regulating emotions
and emotional regulation of others) on the dimensions of
empathy.

DISCUSSION
In the scientic literature, EI and personality have been shown
to be strong predictors of empathy in young students; however,
little is known about the relationship between these variables in
the work environment. In the current study, we analyzed the
combined inuence of EI and SM on empathy in a sample of
workers. We found that intrapersonal EI predicts both cognitive

Table 4. Bivariated and partial correlations (controlling sex)

Variables
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

OO
Ex
A
AOW
MOWE
AOE
MOE
PT
Im E

0.15(0.15)
0.17(0.14)
0.01(0.02)
0.05( 0.00.5)
0.06(0.07)
0.05(0.03)
0.09( 0.07)
0.11( 0.06)

0.31(.25)
0.10(0.13)
0.00(0.02)
0.22(0.24)
0.25(0.25)
0.10(0.11)
0.04(0.10)

0.05(0.00)
0.22( 0.17)
0.09(0.13)
0.03(0.01)
0.13( 0.06)
0.20( 0.12)

0.51(0.50)
0.44(0.49)
0.44(0.48)
0.45(0.46)
0.35(0.32)

0.52(0.51)
0.55(0.59)
0.52(0.50)
0.48(0.43)

0.58(0.60)
0.41(0.41)
0.31(0.30)

0.33(0.39)
0.29(0.37)

0.51(0.48)

Note: Partial correlations are shown in brackets. OO = orientation to others; Ex = extraversion; A = ability to act; AOW = awareness of own emotions;
MOWE = management of own emotions; AOE = awareness of others emotions; MOE = management others emotions; PT = perspective taking;
EMI = empathic involvement.
2013 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations

412 M. P. Berrios Martos et al.

explained a considerable proportion of the variance in empathic
involvement (18%). These ndings imply that effects of intrapersonal skills on both the cognitive and affective dimensions of
empathy do not vary by gender. Furthermore, they suggest that
the inuence of the ability to manage others emotions (interpersonal abilities) and SM on the affective dimensions of empathy
do not vary by gender. These ndings provide empirical evidence that advance the current understanding of the relationships
between EI, SM and empathy. Therefore, unlike the study conducted by Schutte et al. (2001), the current study used a larger
sample and addressed sex differences, even though the results
suggest that sex does not moderate the relationship between EI,
SM and empathy.
These results are consistent with other studies that have analyzed the combined inuence of EI and personality in empathy
and/or efcacy of social relations (Brackett, Rivers, Shiffman,
Lerner & Salovey, 2006; Brackett, Warner & Bosco, 2005;
Lopes et al., 2004; Lopes, Salovey, Cote & Beers, 2005; Lopes,
Salovey & Straus, 2003; Rosete, 2007; Rosete & Ciarrochi,
2005). Correlation and regression analysis revealed that a high
EI is associated with effective interpersonal behaviors in the
personal and professional scope, and that EI accounts for a
percentage of variance or empathy that it is not explained by
personality factors. Thus, as indicated by Mayer, Salovey and
Caruso (2008b), EI provides incremental validity to the explanation of social efciency helping to the understanding of success in
social relationships in the workplace.
Our results also show that intrapersonal abilities (understanding and regulation of emotions), are more important than other
EI dimensions in explaining both the cognitive and affective
empathy whereas interpersonal abilities explain only a small part
of the empathic involvement. This supports that EI dimensions
are related and that they are part of a broader construct. However, it is not necessary that they are together and their effects
on the dependent variables may be different (Berrios, Augusto &
Aguilar-Luz
on, 2006; Fern
andez-Berrocal & Ramos, 2009).
According to the EI models that view socio-emotional skills
as a hierarchy or cascade (Joseph & Newman, 2010; Mayer &
Salovey, 1997), our results indicate that the capacity for empathy
begins with intrapersonal emotional abilities (as noted above,
you must understand yourself to understand others). However,
the socio-emotional skills (interpersonal aspect of the EI) have
some predictive power in explaining empathy.
Finally, our results have important practical implications for
the labor context. Indeed, they stress the importance of satisfying
interpersonal relationships in work teams and the importance of
empathy in solidifying these relationships (Kunyk & Olson,
2001; McCabe, 2004; Nerdrum, 1997) and the importance of EI
in improving empathy (Fitness & Curtis, 2005; Mayer &
Salovey, 1997; Schutte et al., 2001).
Thus, taking into account the strength socio-emotional abilities
have shown in explaining empathy, which is in agreement with
studies showing the positive effects of these improved skills in
different domains of personal, social and employment functioning
(Cabello, Fern
andez-Berrocal, Ruiz-Aranda & Extremera, 2006).
It is also in agreement with empirical evidence about the effectiveness of mindfulness in the regulation of emotion (for further
review see Chambers, Gullone & Allen, 2009). It would be
2013 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations

Scand J Psychol 54 (2013)

interesting to use integrated mindfulness programs and EI to

help improve empathy and coping with stressful situations
caused by interpersonal conicts among coworkers through
emotional regulation. In fact, it has been shown that programs
including mindfulness in EI development favor the use of cognitive emotion regulation strategies (Ciarrochi & Godsell, 2006;
Ramos, Hern
andez & White, 2009), which lays the foundation
for a very promising line research.
However, this study has some limitations to be considered in
future research. First, this is a transversal study and no causal
relations may be established. Thus, in the future longitudinal
studies to better know the predictive power of EI or SM on
empathy are needed. Future studies should consider using other
measures of personality that have high predictive validity, and
second, it is necessary to use other measures to assess EI that
allow for a more objective assessment of this construct. Lastly,
multilevel analysis should be conducted in future research.
This research has been supported by the project N R1/12/2010/29 from
the Vice Chancellor of Research at the University of Ja
en (Spain).

REFERENCES
AguilarLuz

on, M. C. & Augusto, J. M. (2009). Relaci

on entre inteligencia emocional percibida, personalidad y capacidad emp
atica en estudiantes de enfermer
a. Behavioral Psychology/Psicolog
a Conductual,
17, 351364.
Ang, R. P. & Goh, D. H. (2010). Cyberbullyng among adolescents: The
role of affective and cognitive empathy, and gender. Child Psychiatry
and Human Development, 41, 387397.
Arce, C., Torrado, J., Andrade, E. & Alzate, M. (2010). Evaluaci

on del
liderazgo informal en equipos deportivos. Revista Latinoamericana
de Psicolog
a, 43, 157165.
Arce, C., Torrado, J., Andrade, E., Garrido, J. & de Francisco, C.
(2008). Elaboraci

on de una escala para la medida de la capacidad
de liderazgo de los deportistas de equipo. Psicothema, 20, 913
917.
Avia, M. D., Carrillo, J. M. & Rojo, N. (1987). Personalidad y diferencias sexuales. Research Report. Instituto de la Mujer, Madrid.
Avia, M. D., Carrillo, J. M. & Rojo, N. (1990). Personalidad y diferencias sexuales: El sexo, la edad y la experiencia. Revista de Psicolog
a
Social, 5, 522.
Avia, M. D., S
anchezBernardos, M. L., Sanz, J., Carrillo, J. & Rojo, N.
(1998). Selfpresentation strategies and the vefactor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 108114.
Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social psychological answer. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bell, G. B., Hall, J. & Harry, E. (1954). The relationship between leadership and empathy. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49,
156157.
Berrios, M. P., Augusto, J. M. & AguilarLuz

on, M. C. (2006). Inteligencia emocional percibida y satisfacci

on laboral en contextos hospitalarios. Un estudio exploratorio con profesionales de enfermer
a.
Index de Enfermer
a, 54, 3034.
Berrios, M. P. & Calvo-Salguero, A. (2008). An
alisis del trabajo desde
una perspectiva de g
enero. In E. L

opez (Ed.), Mujer y l
der: C

omo
encontrar el camino en el laberinto del liderazgo con
exito (pp. 11
37). Ja
en: Del lunar.
Brackett, M. A. & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and
incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 11471158.
Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N. & Salovey, P.
(2006). Relating emotional abilities to social functioning: A comparison
of selfreport and performance measures of emotional intelligence.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 780795.

Scand J Psychol 54 (2013)

Brackett, M. A., Warner, R. M. & Bosco, J. (2005). Emotional intelligence and relationship quality among couples. Personal Relationships, 12, 197212.
Bride, B. E., Radey, M. & Figley, R. (2007). Measuring compassion fatigue. Clinical Social Work Journal, 35, 155163.
Briggs, S., Cheek, J. & Buss, A. (1980). An analysis of the self
monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38,
679686.
Buss, A. H. & Plomin, R. A. (1975). A temperament theory of personality development. New York: John Wiley.
Cabello, R., Fern
andez-Berrocal, P., Ruiz-Aranda, D. & Extremera, N.
(2006). Una aproximaci
on a la integraci
on de diferentes medidas de
regulaci
on emocional. Ansiedad y Estr
es, 12, 155166.
Caruso, D. R. & Salovey, P. (2004). The emotionally intelligent manager: How to develop and use the four key emotional skills of leadership. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Chambers, R., Gullone, E. & Allen, N. B. (2009). Mindful emotion regulation: An integrative review. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 560572.
Ciarrochi, J. V., Chan, A. Y. C. & Caputi, P. (2000). A critical evaluation of the emotional intelligence construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 539561.
Ciarrochi, J. V. & Godsell, C. (2006). Mindfulness-based emotional
intelligence: research and training. In V. Druskat, F. Sala &
G. Mount (Eds.), Linking emotional intelligence and performance at
work: Current research evidence with individuals and groups (pp.
2152). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. Journal Supplemental Abstract Service Catalog of
Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 117.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 44, 113126.
Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Davis, M. H. (1996). Empathy: A social psychological approach (2nd
edn). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Eagly, A. H. & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in
human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American
Psychologist, 54, 408423.
Eisenberg, N. & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and
related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 100131.
Eisenberg, N., Morris, A., McDaniel, B. & Spinrad, T. (2009). Moral
cognitions and prosocial responding in adolescence. In R. Lemer &
L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescence psychology, vol. 1
(pp. 229265). Hoboken N.J: John Wiley & Sons.
Eisenberg, N., Shea, C. L., Carlo, G. & Knight, G. P. (1991). Empathyrelated responding and cognition: A chicken and the egg dilemma.
In W. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior
and development (pp. 6388). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Extremera, N. & Fern
andezBerrocal, P. (2004). Inteligencia emocional,
calidad de las relaciones interpersonales y empat
a en estudiantes universitarios. Cl
nica y Salud, 15, 117137.
Extremera, N., Fern
andezBerrocal, P. & Salovey, P. (2006). Spanish
version of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso emotional intelligence test
(MSCEIT) version 2.0: reliabilities, age, and gender differences.
Psicothema, 18, 4248.
Eysenck, S. B. & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Impulsiveness and venturesomeness: Their position in a dimensional system of personality
description. Psychological Reports, 43, 12471255.
Fern
andez, A. M., Dufey, M. & Kramp, U. (2011). Testing the psychometric properties of the interpersonal reactivity index (IRI) in Chile:
Empathy in a different cultural context. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27, 179185.
Fern
andez-Berrocal, P., Cabello, R., Castillo, R. & Extremera, N. (2012).
Gender differences in emotional intelligence: The mediating effect of
age. Behavioral Psychology/Psicolog
a Conductual, 20, 7789.
Fern
andez-Berrocal, P. & Extremera, N. (2010). M
as Arist
oteles y menos
Prozac: La inteligencia emocional y el estudio de la felicidad. Encuentros en Psicolog
a Social, 5, 4051.

2013 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations

Emotional Intelligence, Self-monitoring and Empathy 413

Fern
andez-Berrocal, P. & Ramos, N. (2009). Desarrolla tu inteligencia
emocional. Barcelona: Kair

os.
Fern
andez-Pinto, I., L

opez-P
erez, B. & M
arquez, M. (2008). Empat
a:
Medidas, teor
as y aplicaciones en revisi

on. Anales de Psicolog
a, 24
(2), 284298.
Figley, C. (2002). Compassion fatigue: Psychotherapists chronic lack of
self care. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 14331441.
Fitness, J. & Curtis, M. (2005). Emotional intelligence and the trait
meta-mood scale: Relationships with empathy, attributional complexity, self-control and response to interpersonal conict. E-Journal of
Applied Psychology: Social section, 1, 5062.
Furnham, A. (1989). Personality correlates of selfmonitoring: The relationship between extroversion, neuroticism, type A behaviour and
Snyders selfmonitoring construct. Personality and Individual
Differences, 10, 3542.
Furnham, A. & Capon, M. (1983). Social skills and selfmonitoring processes. Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 171178.
Gabrenya, Jr., W. K. & Arkin, R. M. (1980). Self-monitoring scale: Factor structure and correlates. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 6, 1322.
Gerdes, K. E., Segal, E. A. & Lietz, C. A. (2010). Conceptualising and
measuring empathy. British Journal of Social Work, 40, 23262343.
Gilet, A.-L., Mella, N., Studer, J., Gr
uhn, D. & Labouvie-Vief, G.
(2013). Assessing dispositional empathy in adults: A French validation of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 45, 4248.
Hoffman, M. L. (1977). Sex differences in empathy and related behaviours. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 712722.
Hogan, R. T. (1967). Moral development: An assessment approach.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.
Humphrey, R. H. (2002). The many faces of emotional leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly, 13, 493504.
Ickes, W. & Barnes, R. D. (1977). The role of sex and self-monitoring
in unstructured dyadic interactions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 35, 315330.
Ickes, W., Gesn, P. R. & Graham, T. (2000). Gender differences in
empathic accuracy: Differential ability or differential motivation?.
Personal Relationships, 7, 95109.
Ickes, W., Layden, M. A. & Barnes, R. D. (1978). Objective selfawareness and individuation: An empirical link. Journal of Personality,
46, 146161.
Johnson, J. A., Cheek, J. M. & Smither, R. (1983). The structure of
empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,
12991312.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. & Oatley, K. (2000). Cognitive and social constructions in emotions. In M. Lewis & J. M. HavilandJones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd edn) (pp. 458475). NewYork: Guilford Press.
Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., Hartel, C. E. J. & Hooper, G. S.
(2002). Workgroup emotional intelligence: Scale development and
relationship to team process effectiveness and goal focus. Human
Resource Management Review, 12, 195214.
Joseph, D. L. & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95, 5478.
Kafetsios, K. (2004). Attachment and emotional intelligence abilities
across the life course. Personality and Individual Differences, 37,
129145.
Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H. & Sleeth, R. G. (2002). Empathy and
complex task performance: Two routes to leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly, 13, 523544.
Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H. & Sleeth, R. G. (2006). Empathy and
the emergence of task and relations leaders. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17, 146162.
Kunyk, D. & Olson, J. K. (2001). Clarication of conceptualizations of
empathy. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 35, 317325.
Lopes, P. N., Brackett, M. A., Nezlek, J. B., Sch
utz, A., Sellin, I. &
Salovey, P. (2004). Emotional intelligence and social interaction.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 10181034.

414 M. P. Berrios Martos et al.

Lopes, P. N., Nezlek, J. B., Extremera, N., Hertel, J., Fernandez
Berrocal, P., Schutz, A. & Salovey, P. (2011). Emotion regulation
and the quality of social interaction: Does the ability to evaluate
emotional situations and identify effective responses matter?. Journal
of Personality, 79, 429467.
Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., C^ot
e, S. & Beers, M. (2005). Emotion regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. Emotion, 5,
113118.
Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P. & Straus, R. (2003). Emotional intelligence,
personality, and the perceived quality of social relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 641658.
L
opez-P
erez, B. & Fern
andez-Pinto, I. (2007). TECA: Test de empat
a
cognitiva y afectiva. In P. Fern
andez-Berrocal, N. Extremera, R.
Palomera, D. Ruiz, J. M. Salguero & R. Cabello (Eds.), Avances en
el estudio de la inteligencia emocional. I congreso internacional de
inteligencia emocional (pp. 7983). Santander: Fundaci
on Marcelino
Bot
n.
Lopez-Zafra, E. & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2012). Do gender stereotypes
change? Journal of Gender Studies, 21, 191205.
Lopez-Zafra, E., Pulido-Martos, M., Berrios, M. P. & Augusto-Landa, J.
M. (2012). Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the
Work Group Emotional Intelligence Prole-Short version. Psicothema, 24, 495502.
Mahsud, R., Yukl, G. & Prussia, G. (2010). Leader empathy, ethical
leadership, and relations-oriented behaviors as antecedents of leadermember exchange quality. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25,
561577.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence
meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27,
267298.
Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D. & Barsade, S. G. (2008a). Human abilities:
Emotional intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 507536.
Mayer, J. D. & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In
P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators (pp. 331). New York:
Basic Books.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P. & Caruso, D. (2000). Models of emotional
intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp.
396420). New York: Cambridge.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P. & Caruso, D. (2008b). Emotional intelligence New Ability or Eclectic Traits?. American Psychologist, 63,
503517.
McCabe, C. (2004). Nurse-patient communication: An exploration of
patients experiences. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 13, 4149.
Mestre, M. V., Samper, P., Fr
as, M. D. & Tur, A. M. (2009). Are
women more empathetic than men? A longitudinal study in adolescence The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12, 7683.
Moreno-Jim
enez, B., Morante, M. E., Hudnall, B. & Sanz, A. I.
(2007). Estr
es traum
atico secundario: Personalidad y sacudida de
creencias. Behavioral Psychology/Psicolog
a Conductual, 15,
427439.
Moreno-Jim
enez, B., Morante, M. E., Rodr
guez-Mu~noz, A. &
Rodr
guez-Carvajal, R. (2006). La inuencia de variables de personalidad en el estr
es traum
atico secundario. Behavioral Psychology/
Psicolog
a Conductual, 14, 201214.
Nerdrum, P. (1997). Maintenance of the effect of training in communication skills: A controlled follow-up study of level of communicated
empathy. British Journal of Social Work, 27, 705722.
Palmer, B. R., Gignac, G., Manocha, R. & Stough, C. (2005). A psychometric evaluation of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso emotional intelligence
test version 2.0. Intelligence, 33, 285305.
P
erez-Alb
eniz, A., De Paul, J., Etxebarr
a, J., Montes, M. P. & Torres,
E. (2003). Adaptaci
on del interpersonal reactivity index (IRI) al
espa~nol. Psicothema, 15, 267272.

2013 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations

Scand J Psychol 54 (2013)

Ramos, N. S., Fernandez-Berrocal, P. & Extremera, N. (2007). Perceived emotional intelligence facilitates cognitiveemotional processes of adaptation to an acute stressor. Cognition and Emotion,
21, 758772.
Ramos, N. S., Hern
andez, S. M. & Blanca, M. J. (2009). Efecto de un
programa integrado de mindfulness e inteligencia emocional sobre las
estrategias cognitivas de regulaci

on emocional. Ansiedad y Estr
es,
15, 207216.
Rim, Y. (1974). Correlates of emotional empathy. Scientia Paedagogica
Experimentalis, 11, 197201.
Rosen, I. M., Gimotty, P. A., Shea, J. A. & Bellini, L. M. (2006). Evolution of sleep quantity, sleep deprivation, mood disturbances, empathy,
and burnout among interns. Academic Medicine, 81, 8285.
Rosenthal, R. & Depaulo, B. M. (1979). Sex differences in accommodation in nonverbal communication. In R. Rosenthal (Ed.), Skill in nonverbal communication: Individual differences (pp. 68103).
Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.
Rosete, D. (2007). Does emotional intelligence play an important role in
leadership effectiveness? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wollongong.
Rosete, D. & Ciarrochi, J. (2005). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to workplace performance of leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26, 388399.
Salovey, P. & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination,
Cognition and Personality, 9, 185211.
Salovey, P., Stroud, L. R., Woolery, A. & Epel, E. S. (2002). Perceived
emotional intelligence, stress reactivity, and symptom reports: Further
explorations using the trait meta-mood scale. Psychology and Health,
17, 611627.
Sands, S. A., Stanley, P. & Charon, R. (2007). Pediatric narrative oncology: Interprofessional training to promote empathy, build teams, and
prevent burnout. Journal Supportive Oncology, 6, 307312.
Sanz, J. & Gra~
na, J. L. (1991). Factores psicosociales y s
ntomas
depresivos: El caso de la auto-observaci

on. Psicothema, 3, 381399.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J., Bobik, C., Coston, T., Greeson, C., Jedlicka,
C. & Wendorf, G. (2001). Emotional intelligence and interpersonal
relations. Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 523536.
Singh, S. (2003). Leadership in high performance organizations. In
S. Bhargava (Ed.), Transformational leadership: Value based management for Indian organizations (pp. 114137). New Delhi: Response.
Snyder, M. (1974). The self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526537.
Snyder, M. (1979). Self-monitoring processes. In L. Berkwitz (Ed.),
Advances and experimental social psychology (pp. 85128). New
York: Academic Press.
Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances/private realities. The psychology
of self-monitoring. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Snyder, M. & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring:
Matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51, 125139.
Snyder, M., Simpson, J. A. & Gangestad, S. (1986). Personality and
sexual relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,
181190.
Song, L. J., Huang, G., Peng, K. Z., Law, K. S., Wong, C. S. & Chen,
Z. (2010). The differential effects of general mental ability and emotional intelligence on academic performance and social interactions.
Intelligence, 38, 137143.
William, C. A. (1989). Empathy and burnout in male and female helping
professionals. Research in Nursing and Health, 12, 169178.
Z
arraga, C. & Bonache, J. (2005). Equipos de trabajo para la gesti

on del
conocimiento: La importancia de un clima adecuado. Cuadernos de
Econom
a y Direcci
on de la Empresa, 22, 2748.
Received 1 October 2012, accepted 4 April 2013