The term emotional intelligence, rendered popular by Goleman (1995), was first used by Salovey and Mayer (1990) to describe the capacity individuals have for monitoring their feelings and those of others, discriminating between various types of emotions and using this information to channel thoughts and actions. Subsequently, Mayer and Salovey (1997) extended the definition to include the capacity for perceiving emotions, comparing emotions and feelings, understanding information caused by emotion and being able to handle such emotions. According to the theoretical model of Bar-On (1997, 2000), emotional intelligence is defined as a sum of emotional and social competences that determine the modalities with which a persona relates to both him/herself and to others in order to cope with environmental pressure and requests. Emotional intelligence is thus, in this model, an important factor in determining success in life and, more generically, influences the well-being of individuals. Emotional intelligence develops over time, changes in the course of life, and can be increased by means of training programs.

There has been an increasing interest in the construct of emotional intelligence within a school context. Although some studies in the field of education have been focused on the emotional intelligence of students and on the role that this plays with respect to academic achievement, demonstrating that students with higher emotional intelligence had more success at school (Di Fabio, Giorgi, & Palazzeschi, 2005; Parker et al., 2004; Parker, Summerfeldt, Hogan, & Majeski, 2002), other studies have demonstrated that teachers who promote emotional intelligence skills emphasize the value of individual differences, enhance group work and problem-solving ability, and channel students to develop adequate social competences (Kaufhold & Johnson, 2005). These social competences increase the relationship among pupils, their reciprocal respect and involvement in class activities (Obiakor, 2001).

To encourage emotional intelligence in students, it is necessary to sustain them by means of didactic activities and guidance that entail the use of emotional intelligence in relation to empathy and other sociointerpersonal areas (Chan & Hui, 1998). Teachers frequently express a concern of being inadequately prepared to lead such interventions and feel reluctant to take on such a role (Chan, 1992). Although the basic idea of teacher efficacy may be tied to professional formation, it could also be proposed that teachers who possess low self-efficacy also have lower emotional intelligence (Chan, 2004). With reference to the connection between emotional intelligence and teacher self-efficacy, Chan (2004) used the Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS; Schutte et al., 1998) to measure emotional intelligence. Chan demonstrated that teachers obtain a higher score in the positive utilization dimension, which refers to positive exploitation of emotions, and the emotional appraisal dimension, which expresses the level of awareness of emotional evaluation, followed by the empathic sensitivity dimension, empathy or general sensitivity to the emotional expressions of others, and lastly, by the positive regulation dimension, the positive handling of emotions. The author, using the four dimensions of emotional intelligence as predictors of self-efficacy beliefs among teachers, reveals that positive regulation is the best predictor of general self-efficacy, while empathic sensitivity emerges as the best predictor of self-efficacy toward helping others. The results of this study do not show any significant difference in emotional intelligence according to gender, age, or the subject taught. Differences in emotional intelligence based on gender and age were, instead, found in studies using student samples (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Bajgar, 2001; Parker et al., 2004; Van Rooy, Alonso, & Viswensvaran, 2005). Bar-On (2002), in the normative sample of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Short, demonstrated differences in emotional intelligence based on gender and age. In particular, for the total and for the stress management and adaptability subscales, participants in younger age groups obtained lower scores in comparison to those in higher age groups. Moreover, males scored significantly higher than females on the intrapersonal subscale, while females obtained more points than males on the interpersonal.

The self-efficacy concept was defined and examined in terms of both the global and general constructs of personality (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2004; Schwarzer, 1998; Shelton, 1990), and of the specific variables for a particular ambit (Schwarzer & Fuchs, 1995) or for a specific task with the aim of being able to predict a circumscribed behavior (Bandura, 1977; Pajares, 1996). In the attempt to overcome this dichotomy in a scholastic context, Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy (2001) constructed a new instrument related to the teacher self-efficacy construct, characterized by a search of balance between specificity and generalizability. This means that the items are specifically attributed to teacher self-efficacy, and enable study of a vast range of skills that teachers consider important in order to teach well, without, however, being too specific and thus rendering it impossible to compare teachers that belong to different contexts, scholastic levels or school subjects (Chacón, 2005; Woolfolk-Hoy & Spero, 2005).

In contrast to the study by Chan (2004), in which a general self-efficacy scale was used, the authors of the present study intended to analyze the relationship between emotional intelligence and teacher self-efficacy by using a scale specific to demonstrating teacher self-efficacy. The aim in this study was therefore to verify the construct of emotional intelligence and its relation to occupational self-efficacy beliefs in Italian high school teachers. In particular, it was anticipated that this study would be able to demonstrate whether or not differences in emotional intelligence exist in relation to the gender and/or age of teachers and the typology of the school and, more generally, to evaluate the relationship between emotional intelligence and teacher self-efficacy. It was expected that, also with regard to the most targeted construct of teacher self-efficacy, the impact of several dimensions of emotional intelligence would emerge. Studying this relationship in an Italian context can, furthermore, draw attention to the existence of these links in a different cultural context.

One hundred and sixty-nine teachers from high schools located in Tuscany participated anonymously in the study; 111 subjects were females (65.7%) and 58 were male (34.3%). The ages of the participants ranged from 26 to 64 with a mean of 46.99 and a standard deviation of 7.95. As to the types of schools examined, 39 teachers worked in a scientific grammar school (23.1%), 21 in a standard grammar school (12.4%), 58 in a commercial technical high school (34.3%) and 51 in a professional high school (30.2 %).

Concerning the existence of significant differences in emotional intelligence in relation to gender and/or age, teachers who were younger than 49 years (M = 138.61, SD = 14.05) differed significantly in the total emotional intelligence score from those from the older age group (M = 134.68, SD = 11.22; F_{(1, 165)} = 4.91, p < .05, eta squared = .05). The main effect of the gender variable (F_{(1, 165)} = 1.51, p = .22) and the effect of interaction (F_{(1, 165)} = .25, p = .62) did not reach significance for total emotional intelligence. On the intrapersonal subscale, males (M = 40.10, SD = 4.99) obtained significantly higher scores than females (M = 37.53, SD = 5.80; F_{(1, 165)} = 9.11, p < .05, eta squared = .07), while the main effect of the age group variable (F_{(1, 165)} = 1.18, p = .28) and the effect of interaction (F_{(1, 165)} = .12, p = .73) were not significant. On the interpersonal subscale, females (M = 41.75, SD = 4.12) obtained significantly higher scores than males (M = 39.78, SD = 4.37; F_{(1, 165)} = 6.88, p < .05, eta squared = .06), while the main effect of the age group variable (F_{(1, 165)} = 2.02, p = .16) and the interactive effect (F_{(1, 165)} = 3.31, p = .07) were not significant. For both the stress management and adaptability subscales, no significant differences emerged on the basis of gender, age group or the effect of the two variables interacting. There were no significant differences among the three school typology groups (grammar, technical, professional) relative to either total emotional intelligence or to its dimensions. Table 1 reports the results of correlations between the Bar-On EQ-I:S and the OSTES scores.

Table 2 shows the results of the multiple regressions indicating the impact of the emotional intelligence dimension on teacher self-efficacy. The model of regression demonstrates that teacher self-efficacy is best explained by the intrapersonal variable, with a regression coefficient of β = .44. Even the adaptability dimension explains teacher self-efficacy, with a regression coefficient of β = .15.

Relative to the impact of the emotional intelligence dimension on each of the three teacher self-efficacy dimensions (efficacy in classroom management, efficacy in student engagement, efficacy in instructional strategies), the results of the multiple regressions are shown in Tables 3, 4 and 5.

In particular, relative to the impact of the intrapersonal and adaptability subscales on the OSTES efficacy in classroom management subscale, the regression model (see Table 3) shows that efficacy in classroom management is explained by the intrapersonal variables with a regression coefficient of β = .39. Relative to the impact of the intrapersonal and interpersonal scales on the OSTES efficacy in student engagement subscale, the regression model (see Table 4) shows that efficacy in student engagement is best explained by the intrapersonal variable with a regression coefficient of β = .38 and secondarily by the interpersonal variable with a regression coefficient of β = .14.

Relative to the impact of the intrapersonal and adaptability subscales on the OSTES efficacy in instructional strategies dimension, the regression model (see Table 5) shows that efficacy in classroom management is best explained by the intrapersonal variable with a regression coefficient of β = .39 and secondarily by the adaptability variable with a regression coefficient of β = .17.

In this study the construct of emotional intelligence was examined in a sample of Italian high school teachers. Unlike what Chan (2004) evinced, this study revealed some significant differences in emotional intelligence and its dimensions relative to the age and gender of the participants. In particular, it showed that younger teachers have a higher level of emotional intelligence than older ones. Moreover, they seem to possess greater emotional and social competences, which allow them to keep in contact with themselves and with others more effectively and to use emotions in order to handle pressure and problems that may occur in the classroom. As to gender, male teachers who obtained higher points in the intrapersonal dimension appear to be more aware of their own emotions and describe themselves as more capable of expressing their feelings and communicating their needs. Female teachers who obtained higher scores in the interpersonal dimension find it easier to establish cooperative, satisfying and constructive interpersonal relationships and describe themselves as good listeners who understand other people’s feelings.

No indication emerged that supports the existence of differences in terms of levels of emotional intelligence in teachers with respect to the kind of school they work in. This aspect may indicate a need for further research.

The analysis of correlations revealed the presence of a number of significant and positive relationships between emotional intelligence and teacher self-efficacy, both globally and in its three dimensions (efficacy in instructional strategies, efficacy in classroom management, and efficacy in student engagement). Higher emotional intelligence was linked to higher teacher self-efficacy in the capacity to manage the classroom, motivate and involve students, and use appropriate teaching strategies. The dimensions of emotional intelligence that appear linked to teacher self-efficacy, efficacy in classroom management and efficacy in instructional strategies are intrapersonal and, to a lesser extent, adaptability, that is the components relative to the awareness of one’s emotions and the capacity of exploiting emotions as efficacious problem-solving strategies. Efficacy in student engagement is also related to the intrapersonal dimension, but seems to have no links to adaptability. Instead, efficacy in student engagement has a modest relationship to the interpersonal dimension, evincing the role played by the ability to construct satisfactory relationships based on cooperation and on understanding the feelings and emotions of students. Finally, teacher self- efficacy can best be predicted by the intrapersonal dimension and, to a lesser extent, by adaptability. In the study carried out by Chan (2004), general self- efficacy is largely accounted for by the dimension of positive regulation, which refers to a sort of positive attitude, and to a lesser extent to the dimension of positive utilization, which implies the use of emotions to solve problems and is in some way similar to adaptability in the Bar-On EQ-I:S. According to Bandura (1997), human capacities are mostly heterogeneous. For this reason, Bandura does not consider the system of self-efficacy beliefs as a general trait, but as a differentiated sum of self-convictions linked to distinct functional spheres. From this perspective, teacher self-efficacy is a type of specific self-efficacy, completely different from Chan’s (2004) general construct. The results of this study sustained this specificity: occupational self-efficacy in teachers, even if predicted to a lesser extent by adaptability in a manner similar to general self-efficacy, can be explained primarily by the intrapersonal dimension relative to the awareness of one’s emotions, and not to positive utilization. The self-efficacy beliefs in teachers thus seem specifically linked to accurate self-awareness and to the capacity of being in touch with one’s inner world. Also, the three dimensions of teacher self-efficacy are shown as being better explained by the intrapersonal variable, underlining the prevalent role of this dimension of emotional intelligence. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the efficacy in student engagement, different from the other two dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and the construct considered overall, are secondarily explained by the interpersonal variable, emphasizing the role of relational aspects.

The results of this study suggest a link between emotional intelligence and self-efficacy beliefs in teachers, but possible bidirectional influences remain an important area for more in-depth future studies. As suggested by Chan (2004), it could be hypothesized that emotional intelligence might increase the self- efficacy beliefs of the teachers and that teacher self-efficacy might promote the development of emotional intelligence; therefore, in order to examine this model of cause and effect, it may be opportune to consider the possible variables that are called into play and to plan longitudinal studies.

This study is limited due to the use of self-report measures to assess both emotional intelligence and teacher self-efficacy. An ability measure could have been used for emotional intelligence, and for teacher self-efficacy the self-report measure could be used in conjunction with objective indicators of performance. Another limitation is the difficulty of generalizing on the basis of data obtained from a specific sample of teachers from high schools located in Tuscany. It would thus be useful in future studies to investigate emotional intelligence and its relationship with teacher self-efficacy on a more representative sample of the Italian population, at a high school level and at a primary and lower secondary (middle) school level. This would enable identification of differences in the two constructs relative to the competences required by teachers working with different age groups. Another aspect that should be further examined concerns the differences among teachers of different subjects. It would also be beneficial to consider the teachers’ training and years of teaching as possible variables tied to the dimensions investigated in the present study. Despite these limitations, this study has enabled us to study more in-depth, in an Italian context and with a specific target, some concepts on the emotional intelligence construct and its relationship with the occupational self-efficacy beliefs of teachers, giving weight to teacher self-efficacy and to its main link with one of the dimensions - intrapersonal - which constitutes emotional intelligence.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Intelligence Inventory (EQ-I): Technical Manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-I). In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 363-388). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bar-On, R. (2002). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Short Technical Manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Borgogni, L., Petitta, L., & Steca, P. (2001). Efficacia personale e collettiva nei contesti organizzativi [Personal and collective efficacy in organizational contexts]. In G. V. Caprara (Ed.), La valutazione dell’autoefficacia (pp. 157-171). Trento: Erickson.

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Borgogni, L. (1993). BFQ: Big Five Questionnaire. Manuale [BFQ: Big Five Questionnaire. Manual] (2nd ed.). Firenze: O.S. Organizzazioni Speciali.

Chacón, C. T. (2005). Teachers’ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language teachers in middle schools in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 257-272.

Chan, D. W. (1992). Teachers as clinicians: Inadequacies in teacher education. Education Journal, 20, 37-42.

Chan, D. W. (2004). Perceived emotional intelligence and self-efficacy among Chinese secondary school teachers in Hong Kong. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1781-1795.

Chan, D. W., & Hui, E. K. P. (1998). Stress, support, and psychological symptoms among guidance and non-guidance secondary school teachers in Hong Kong. School Psychology International, 19, 169-178.

Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2004). General self-efficacy and self-esteem: Toward theoretical and empirical distinction between correlated self-evaluations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25 (3), 375-395.

Ciarrochi, J., Chan, A. Y., & Bajgar, J. (2001). Measuring emotional intelligence in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1105-1119.

Di Fabio, A., Giorgi, G., & Palazzeschi, L. (2005, November). Intelligenza emotiva e successo scolastico [Emotional intelligence and academic achievement]. Paper presented at 7th Congresso Nazionale Orientamento alla scelta: Ricerche formazione, applicazioni, Padova.

Di Fabio, A., & Taralla, B. (2006). Misurare la teacher self-efficacy: Proprietà psicometriche del Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale (OSTES) [Assessing teacher self-efficacy: Psychometric properties of the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale]. Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata, 150, 31-42.

Giorgi, G., & Di Fabio, A. (2005, November). Adattamento italiano del Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Short (Bar-On EQ-i:S): Risultati preliminari in un campione di studenti di scuola superiore [Italian adaptation of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Short (Bar-On EQ-i: S): Preliminary results in a sample of high school students]. Paper presented at 7th Congresso Nazionale Orientamento alla scelta: Ricerche formazione, applicazioni, Padova.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

Kaufhold, J. A., & Johnson, L. R. (2005). The analysis of the emotional intelligence skills and potential problem areas of elementary educators. Education, 125 (4), 615-626.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence (pp. 3-31). New York: Basic Books.

Obiakor, F. E. (2001). Developing emotional intelligence in learners with behavioral problems: Refocusing special education. Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders, 26 (4), 321-330. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543-578.

Parker, J. D. A., Creque, R. E., Barnhart, D. L., Harris, J. I., Majeski S., Wood, L. M., et al. (2004). Academic achievement in high school: Does emotional intelligence matter? Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1321-1330.

Parker, J. D. A., Summerfeldt, L. J., Hogan, M. J., & Majeski, S. (2002). Emotional intelligence and academic success: Examining the transition from high school to university. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 163-172.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185-211.

Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177.

Schwarzer, R. (1998). General perceived self-efficacy in 14 cultures. Prepint, Germany: Freie Universität Berlin.

Schwarzer, R., & Fuchs, R. (1995). Changing risk behaviors and adopting health behaviors: The role of self-efficacy beliefs. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 259-288). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Shelton, S. H. (1990). Developing the construct of general self-efficacy. Psychological Reports, 66, 987-994.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 738-805.

Van Rooy, D. L., Alonso, A., & Viswensvaran, C. (2005). Group differences in emotional intelligence scores: Theoretical and practical implications. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 689-700.

Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343-356.