In the 1920s, the concept of social intelligence was first proposed by Thorndike involving the “ability to understand and manage people” (Crowne, 2009, p. 151).

Later, Peter Salovey and John Mayer (1990) were credited with helping coin the term Emotional Intelligence (EI). Goleman (1995a) proposed that our success is dictated by how intelligently we act, which is driven by our capacity for both rational and emotional intelligence – two sets of mental activity that act as partners. In 1994, a gathering was held at the Fetzer Institute to discuss strategies to support students’ social and emotional capacities, as well as their academic performance where the term, Social and Emotional Learning was established. 

There are two kinds of emotional intelligence that are measured by researchers – ability EI – which includes one’s theoretical understanding of emotion and their cognitive capacities for perceiving and using emotional information, and trait EI – which involves subjective, self-perception, and normal behaviors in social situations where emotion is relevant (Kilgore, et al, 2017; O’Connor et al., 2019).

READ MORE

Emotional intelligence involves activation of several neural networks that are involved in emotion, perception, regulation, and decision-making, many of which are also engaged through mindfulness practice (Bishop et al., 2004; Dahl et al., 2015; Davis & Hayes, 2011; Hölzel et al., 2011b; Isbel & Summers, 2019; Kilgore et al., 2017; Luberto et al., 2019; Ludvik & Eberhart, 2018). One of the capacities of emotional intelligence is empathy. Empathy usually involves three mechanism: (a) perceiving and mirroring another person’s emotions, (b) perspective-taking and making meaning of those emotions through the awareness of self and other, and (c) taking empathic action based on that information (Gerdes & Segal, 2009; Segal, 2011).

Segal (2011) posits that empathy alone is not enough to guarantee moral action. But a deeper understanding of the context and personal experiences are necessary to catalyze social responsibility and action towards social justice (Segal, 2011). Because we are more likely to identify with those who are like us, empathy requires a foundation of strong personal values and a social justice lens to help overcome stereotyping and blaming of outgroups (Segal, 2011). As such, the framework for social empathy also has a three-part mechanism: (a) experiencing empathy, (b) gaining insight and knowledge about inequality and disparity, and (c) embracing and acting towards social justice (Segal, 2011). 

In terms of social-emotional learning, there are five competence domains that are developed through SEL programs (CASEL website, 2020):

1. Self-awareness: This includes accurately assessing one’s strengths and limitations and possessing a well-grounded sense of confidence and optimism.

2. Self-management: The ability to regulate one’s emotions, thoughts, and behaviors effectively in different situations.

3. Social awareness: The ability to take the perspective of and empathize with others. This includes pro-social behavior, empathy, compassion and gratitude.  

4. Relationship skills: The ability to establish and maintain healthy and rewarding relationships with diverse individuals and groups.

5. Responsible decision making: The ability to make constructive and respectful choices about personal behavior and social interactions and contributing to the wellbeing of self and community.

SEL involves the concept of fluid intelligence, which cultivates cognitive flexibility (considering another’s perspective or solving problems in multiple ways), working memory (recalling information and applying it meaningfully), and inhibitory control (redirecting attention after a distraction or impulse) (Ludvig & Eberhart, 2018). This process is basically identical to capacities cultivated by mindfulness practice.

Overall, there is a lack of scientifically-objective measures of emotional intelligence (Pfeiffer, 2001). Some challenges include:

• Self-report instruments are not easily validated, lack consistency with test developer’s intentions, and are prone to social desirability bias (Brackett et al., 2006; Kilgore et al., 2017; Pfeiffer, 2001; Salovey, et al., 2009).

• Further, like in the self-report measures of mindfulness, a person’s level of emotional intelligence may also distort their ability to assess their own EI (Brackett et al., 2006).  

• In terms of SEL programs, there is no consensus on what activities these should entail, how long they should be utilized, and how to measure the impact (Ludvig & Eberhart, 2018).

Social and emotional intelligence may be a capacity that supports movement towards social change.

If the development of emotional intelligence is based on self-awareness, emotion regulation, perspective-taking, and appraisal, (Gerdes & Segal, 2009; Goleman, 1995a; Goleman & Boyatzis, 2008; Salovey & Mayer, 1990), then one way that emotional intelligence can be fostered is likely through mindfulness practice, given mindfulness also cultivates these same capacities (Bishop et al., 2004; Dahl et al., 2015; Davis & Hayes, 2011; Hölzel et al., 2011b; Isbel & Summers, 2019; Luberto et al., 2019).  We know that mindfulness and emotional intelligence both contribute to empathy and compassion, which in turn leads to prosocial behavior (Goleman & Boyatzis, 2008; Segal, 2011; Weissberg et al., 2015). But more sustained helping behavior and a more fully-developed social justice orientation also requires (a) an understanding of the context of social inequity and (b) strong, internalized values towards beneficial action (Segal, 2011; Weissberg et al., 2015; Wilhelm & Bekkers, 2010).  

Dispositional empathetic concern is fostered early on by a moral, internalized orientation towards helping others (Wilhelm & Bekkers, 2010). These internalized values are the determinant of whether people help beyond being confronted by a spontaneous need or beyond ways that feed the ego (Wilhelm and Bekkers, 2010). SEL programs that foster social awareness, connectedness, gratitude, active listening, cooperation, ethical choices, empathy, and responsible action, especially during adolescence when such internalized values are established, can then be significant in driving prosocial behavior (CASEL, 2020; Weissberg et al., 2015; Wilhelm & Bekkers, 2010). When combined with an understanding of structural inequity, this can lead to action that can benefit positive social change (Segal, 2011). To foster a greater level of global citizenship, this requires a sense of belonging with greater humanity, which is also built upon empathy, respect for diversity, and social responsibility (Ludvig & Eberhart, 2018).