Orion Quin
Movement II

The Power of Emotions · Movement II of V

The intelligence of emotion

How do emotions help or interfere with thinking?

By Orion QuinOctober 19, 2026About 13 minutes

Most of us know someone brilliant who keeps making decisions that undermine their own life. Picture a composite, not a real person: an executive who hits every target for years while sleeping five hours a night, short with her family, unable to stop. By the usual measures her work is effective. The cost appears on no results sheet, and whether she is choosing this life or being driven through it is a question nobody asks. How can someone so capable keep paying that price?

Emotional intelligence is the best-known scientific attempt to explain the puzzle. This movement looks at what the term means, whether it deserves the word intelligence, and what the research shows, then turns to the more specific skills underneath it.

What emotional intelligence is, and is not

Peter Salovey and John Mayer introduced the term into academic psychology in 1990. They defined emotional intelligence as the ability to monitor your own and other people’s feelings, to tell them apart, and to use that information to guide thinking and action.1 They later organized it into four branches, from the most basic to the most complex.2 In a later paper they described it as “the ability to engage in sophisticated information processing about one’s own and others’ emotions and the ability to use this information as a guide to thinking and behavior.”3

The four branches of emotional intelligence Four stacked steps from bottom to top: perceiving emotions, using emotions to help thinking, understanding emotions, managing emotions in oneself and others. Each higher branch builds on those below. 1. Perceiving emotionin faces, voices, your own body, art 2. Using emotion to help thinkingmatching mood to task; feeling as a guide to attention 3. Understanding emotioncauses, blends, how feelings change over time 4. Managing emotionin yourself and others, toward your goals Each branch builds on the ones beneath it
Figure 1. The four-branch ability model of emotional intelligence.2 In the research summarized later, the understanding and managing branches did the most predictive work.

Three different things share the name

Part of the confusion about emotional intelligence is that the phrase covers three different kinds of measure, which correlate only modestly with each other. Researchers sort them in slightly different ways. One common scheme separates ability, self-report and mixed approaches,4 and many writers distinguish ability EI, measured by performance tests, from trait EI, measured by questionnaires.5

Three meanings of “emotional intelligence”
ApproachWhat it treats EI asHow it is measuredMain weakness
AbilityA set of mental abilities, like a kind of intelligenceTests with better and worse answersScoring “correct” emotional answers is hard; items can be too easy6
TraitSelf-perceptions of emotional ability, a part of personality5Self-report questionnairesOverlaps heavily with personality and mood
MixedA broad bundle of emotional, social and motivational qualitiesSelf-report, sometimes 360-degree ratingsSo broad it can mean almost anything7

The popular version arrived in 1995 with Daniel Goleman’s bestseller, subtitled Why It Can Matter More Than IQ.8 Its broad definitions and big claims did a great deal to spread the idea and a great deal to muddy it. Mayer, Salovey and Caruso, who built the ability model, later called such popular claims “misleading and unsupported by research” and described emotional intelligence as “just one variable among many.”3 The evidence later in this piece agrees with them.

So when I use the term in this piece, I mean the ability version unless I say otherwise: the capacity to perceive, use, understand and manage emotion. Where the evidence comes from self-report questionnaires, I say so, because those numbers mean something different.

Just as important is what emotional intelligence is not. It is not being calm. It is not being nice, agreeable or positive. It is not low emotional intensity: a person can feel everything strongly and handle it skillfully. It is not the same as empathy, which is one part of it. And it is not a moral virtue. As we will see, the same skill can serve kindness or manipulation.

Is it really intelligence?

Now to the bigger question. Before asking whether skill with feeling is a kind of intelligence, it is worth asking what we would gain by calling it one. Psychologists have a name for a recurring mistake in their own field: the jingle-jangle fallacy. The jingle is assuming two things are the same because they share a name. The jangle is assuming they differ because their names do.9 “Intelligence” is a magnet for both. Once a word carries prestige, everything wants to wear it.

The best-known attempt to multiply intelligences, Howard Gardner’s, has never been validated, and a critical review was equally skeptical of emotional intelligence.10 Others have argued that emotional intelligence is not a form of intelligence at all, and is defined so broadly it loses meaning.7 Those objections deserve to stand next to the enthusiasm.

Here are the terms as I use them. They are working definitions for this piece, and other writers draw the lines elsewhere.

Working definitions
TermAs used here
Cognitive intelligenceThe general capacity to reason, learn, hold information in mind and solve problems. What IQ tests try to measure.
Adaptive intelligenceRobert Sternberg’s term for intelligence understood as what serves adaptation, whether by changing yourself, shaping your surroundings or choosing new ones.11 A theory, not yet a validated test.
Emotional skillMy plain-language term for the working parts: noticing, naming, interpreting, regulating and acting on feeling. I use it where “intelligence” would claim more than the evidence does.
AgencyThe capacity to act on purpose, to be, in one psychologist’s phrase, a contributor to your life circumstances and not only a product of them.12
Well-beingHow a life is going. Researchers split it into feeling good (hedonic) and living fully and meaningfully (eudaimonic), though the split is drawn inconsistently.13,14

Sternberg’s idea is the one most often borrowed for arguments like mine, so it is worth being careful with it. His 2019 paper is a theory. It proposes measuring creative, practical and wisdom-based skills, and says plainly that the construct validity of those assessments still needs to be demonstrated.11 If I wrote that skill with feeling “is adaptive intelligence,” I would be borrowing a name, not a finding.

So I will hold the word loosely, and keep apart three questions that are often run together. Does a distinct emotional skill exist at all? Does it deserve the name intelligence? And does it predict outcomes that matter, beyond what intelligence and personality already predict? The first gets a reasonably confident yes: people differ reliably in how well they perceive, understand and manage feeling. The second is partly a matter of definition, and the objections above deserve their weight. The third is empirical, and the next sections take it up.

Why being smart is not enough

The simplest way to put the relationship is this: cognitive intelligence sets part of what a person could do, and emotional functioning shapes part of what they actually do with it, especially when the stakes are personal.

Capacity, integration and functioning Three stacked levels. Cognitive capacity sets what can be understood. Emotional integration shapes attention, valuation and appraisal. Adaptive functioning is how the combination plays out in decisions, relationships and learning. Circumstances press on all three. Cognitive capacity what can be understood, learned, solved Emotional integration where attention goes, what seems to matter, whether a feeling is taken as fact or as evidence Adaptive functioning decisions, relationships, learning, over time Circumstances stress, sleep, health, money, safety, other people
Figure 2. A way of picturing the relationship. Conceptual, not a validated model: the arrows are not causal estimates, and influence runs in both directions.

Two lines of evidence give the picture some weight. The first concerns what strong feeling does to the machinery of thinking. Attentional control theory, one of the better-supported accounts of anxiety and cognition, separates effectiveness, the quality of the result, from efficiency, the effort and resources it took to get there. Anxiety tends to hurt efficiency first. People compensate with extra effort, so the result can hold up while the cost rises.15 Pressure can also take away the very resource the most capable people rely on. In a 2005 study, math pressure hurt only people with high working-memory capacity, and only on the problems that demanded the most of it.16

The second line is more uncomfortable. Intelligence does not reliably protect anyone from bias. Keith Stanovich and Richard West found that a range of thinking biases were largely independent of cognitive ability.17 A later study, whose title states its finding, showed that cognitive sophistication does not reduce the bias blind spot, our habit of seeing bias in others more readily than in ourselves.18

And sometimes skill makes motivated reasoning stronger. In one well-known experiment, people good with numbers solved a data problem accurately when it was framed as a skin cream trial. When the same numbers were framed as a gun-control study, answers split along political lines, and the split did not shrink among the most numerate. It grew.19 A later replication on immigration attitudes in a European sample found the motivated reasoning again but not the extra polarization among the most numerate.20 So the strongest form of the finding is unsettled. The weaker form is not: being good at reasoning does not stop us from reasoning toward what we want to be true.

The pattern is easy to recognize once you see it. Here are three constructed sketches, not real people. A scientist so attached to a theory that contrary data feels like an attack, who then uses real brilliance to explain the data away. An executive whose forecasts are excellent and whose read on colleagues is reliably wrong. Someone who can explain attachment theory in detail and still pursues, withdraws or retaliates the moment they feel rejected, then explains it beautifully afterward. None of them lacks intelligence. Each is thinking hard from a premise a feeling chose.

What the emotional intelligence research shows

The third question has two tests. People who score higher should do somewhat better in work, school, health and relationships. And, the test that matters, the scores should predict something beyond what intelligence and personality already predict.

On the first test, the answer is yes, modestly. Across large meta-analyses, emotional intelligence correlates with job and academic performance at roughly .20 to .30,21,22 and with health, well-being and relationship satisfaction at similar levels, higher for self-report measures.23,24,25 The figure below shows the detail.

Emotional intelligence and outcomes: correlations from meta-analyses Academic performance: ability EI .24, mixed models .19, self-rated .12. Job performance across three measurement streams .24 to .30. Health: ability EI .17, trait EI .34. Subjective well-being: performance-based .22, self-report mixed .38. Relationship satisfaction, trait EI, .32 from six studies. 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 Correlation with the outcome Academic performance, ability tests Academic performance, mixed models Academic performance, self-rated Job performance, three streams (corrected) Health, ability tests Health, trait (self-report) Subjective well-being, performance tests Subjective well-being, self-report (mixed) Relationship satisfaction, trait (6 studies)
Figure 3. What emotional intelligence scores go with. Green marks ability or performance-based tests; terracotta marks self-report and mixed measures. The bar is a range across three measurement approaches, not a confidence interval. Correlations, not causes, and the outcomes differ, so compare rows loosely. Sources: academic,22 job,21 health,23 well-being,24 relationships.25

The pattern in the colors is worth noticing. The biggest numbers belong to questionnaires in which people rate their own emotional skill. That fits a worry critics have raised for twenty years: self-report emotional intelligence overlaps heavily with personality and current mood, so a happy, agreeable person may score high on both the questionnaire and the outcome without emotional skill doing the work. The pattern is consistent with that worry. It does not prove it.

On the second test, beyond intelligence and personality, the answer is: a little. In the academic meta-analysis, ability-based emotional intelligence explained an extra 1.7 percent of the variance in performance after intelligence and the Big Five personality traits were accounted for. Within it, the understanding and managing branches did better, at 3.9 and 3.6 percent.22 An earlier meta-analysis found ability emotional intelligence helped predict job performance in jobs with heavy emotional labor and hurt prediction in jobs without it.26

What emotional intelligence adds beyond intelligence and personality Extra variance in academic performance explained after intelligence and Big Five: ability EI 1.7 percent, mixed 2.3 percent, self-rated 0.7 percent; within ability EI, understanding 3.9 percent and managing 3.6 percent. 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% Extra variance explained in academic performance Ability EI, overall Mixed-model EI Self-rated EI Ability EI: understanding emotions Ability EI: managing emotions
Figure 4. The incremental test. Percentage of variance in academic performance explained by emotional intelligence after intelligence and the Big Five were accounted for, from one large meta-analysis.22 Small numbers, and the understanding and managing branches do the most work.

Measurement is the other sore spot. The best-known ability test, the MSCEIT, often scores answers by consensus, crediting whatever most people choose. Critics point out that this may capture common lay theories about emotion rather than skill, and an item-level analysis found many items too easy to separate people at the high end.6

Then there is the question of what the skill is for. In a pair of studies, people who knew more about regulating emotion were more prosocial if they also had a strong moral identity, and more interpersonally deviant at work if they were also Machiavellian.27 Skill with feeling is a capacity, not a virtue. It can soothe a friend or manipulate a colleague. That is worth remembering every time someone treats emotional intelligence as a synonym for goodness.

Taken together: real, modest, best measured by tests rather than self-ratings, and with no guarantee about how the skill will be used. Enough to take seriously; not enough to crown a new intelligence.

The skills under the label

An umbrella term can be weaker than the things it covers. When you look past “emotional intelligence” at the specific skills underneath, some of them have clearer evidence than the umbrella does.

Telling feelings apart

Some people experience a bad day as a single gray mass: stressed, upset, bad. Others can tell disappointment from resentment from fatigue. Psychologists call this emotion differentiation, or granularity. In an early diary study of 53 students, those who drew finer distinctions among their negative feelings reported regulating them more, especially when the feelings were intense.28 Later reviews tied finer distinctions to less binge drinking and less severe anxiety and depression, while noting that the mechanisms still await testing.29

The size of the effect is the honest part. A 2022 meta-analysis of seventeen studies found a correlation of −.15 between negative emotion differentiation and problem behaviors such as binge drinking and self-injury, falling to −.09 once overall negative feeling was taken into account.30 Small, consistent, and correlational. Knowing what you feel seems to help a little, or people who are doing better find it easier to know what they feel, or both.

Putting a feeling into words also seems to soften it. A review of affect labeling describes effects similar to reappraisal, across self-report, body and brain measures, while warning that the mechanisms have not been directly investigated.31 In one imaging study, labeling reduced how unpleasant images felt compared with simply looking at them, but less than deliberate reappraisal did.32 Naming is a start, not the whole job.

What people do with feelings

A large 2010 meta-analysis, 241 effect sizes from 114 studies, asked how habitual ways of handling emotion relate to anxiety, depression, eating and substance problems. Rumination had the largest association. Avoidance and suppression were also strongly linked. Reappraisal and acceptance, the strategies most treatments teach, showed smaller associations, which the authors called surprising.33 The studies were mostly questionnaires at a single time point, so they describe habits that travel with distress, not proof of what causes it.

Suppression deserves a word of its own because it is so often mistaken for composure. Across several samples of students, habitually hiding feelings went with more negative emotion, less positive emotion, lower well-being and less closeness to others.34 Trying not to think about something can also bring it back, although the rebound in controlled studies is small to moderate and depends on what is being suppressed.35 A calm face is not the same as a settled mind.

Flexibility, not one right strategy

The most interesting finding here may be that no single strategy is the right one. George Bonanno calls the belief otherwise the “fallacy of uniform efficacy.” His alternative, regulatory flexibility, has three parts: reading what a situation calls for, having a range of responses available, and noticing whether the chosen response is working.36 He describes the evidence as preliminary.

One study gives the idea real texture. Shortly after the September 11 attacks, 101 New York undergraduates were tested on their ability both to amplify and to hide their emotional expression on cue. Two years later, among the 87 still in the study, those who could do both, rather than only one, had lower distress, even after accounting for how distressed they were at the start.37 The skill was not calm. It was range.

The wider idea of psychological flexibility, staying in contact with the present and acting on your values even when what you feel is unpleasant, has been described as a fundamental aspect of health. Its proponents also note that it is unclear whether inflexibility causes problems or results from them.38 Acceptance and commitment therapy, built around that idea, has been tested widely. A review of twenty meta-analyses, covering 12,477 participants, found it effective across the conditions examined and better than inactive controls and usual care, but not better than cognitive behavioral therapy.39 Its developers note that the evidence for its mechanisms rests mostly on self-report,40 and its main questionnaire may partly measure distress rather than flexibility.41,42

Limited in different ways

One practical consequence follows. “Low emotional intelligence” is not a single deficit. Someone can be finely attuned to other people and still be swept away by their own anger. Someone else can regulate their own feelings coolly and miss everyone else’s. A third can name exactly what is happening and repeat the same behavior anyway. The table below is a way of sorting that, not a diagnostic tool.

Where the difficulty sits, and what might help
Primary difficultyWhat it looks likeA reasonable focus
AwarenessNot noticing a feeling until it has already actedBrief check-ins; noticing the body
Differentiation“Stressed” or “fine” covers everythingSpecific words; asking what else it could be
UnderstandingMisreading what a feeling is aboutAppraisal; perspective-taking
RegulationOne response for every situationA wider repertoire; acceptance; reappraisal where it fits
Social awarenessMissing what others feelListening; asking; feedback
IntegrationKnowing exactly what is happening and doing it anywayPractice under real conditions; small, repeated choices

From functioning to freedom

Everything in this movement concerns functioning: how emotional skill helps or hinders thinking, deciding and getting results. Go back to the executive at the start. On those measures she functions superbly. Her anxiety may even be part of how she does it, since anxiety tends to raise what a result costs before it lowers the result itself.15 What none of these measures can tell us is whether her life is going well, or whether she is choosing it. Even if emotional skill helps people function, does it help them choose a life worth living? That is the question of the next movement.

← Movement I · Complete version · Movement III →

Sources

Numbered in order of first citation on this page. Effect sizes and sample sizes are reported as the sources give them.

  1. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185–211. doi:10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG
  2. Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2016). The ability model of emotional intelligence: principles and updates. Emotion Review, 8(4), 290–300. doi:10.1177/1754073916639667
  3. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: new ability or eclectic traits? American Psychologist, 63(6), 503–517. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.6.503
  4. Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. (2005). Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior are vastly exaggerated. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 441–452. doi:10.1002/job.320
  5. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425–448. doi:10.1002/per.416
  6. Fiori, M., Antonietti, J.-P., Mikolajczak, M., Luminet, O., Hansenne, M., & Rossier, J. (2014). What is the ability emotional intelligence test (MSCEIT) good for? An evaluation using item response theory. PLoS ONE, 9(6), e98827. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0098827
  7. Locke, E. A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 425–431. doi:10.1002/job.318
  8. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.
  9. Marsh, H. W. (1994). Sport motivation orientations: beware of jingle-jangle fallacies. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16(4), 365–380. doi:10.1123/jsep.16.4.365
  10. Waterhouse, L. (2006). Multiple intelligences, the Mozart effect, and emotional intelligence: a critical review. Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 207–225. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4104_1
  11. Sternberg, R. J. (2019). A theory of adaptive intelligence and its relation to general intelligence. Journal of Intelligence, 7(4), 23. doi:10.3390/jintelligence7040023
  12. Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 164–180. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x
  13. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141
  14. Huta, V., & Waterman, A. S. (2014). Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(6), 1425–1456. doi:10.1007/s10902-013-9485-0
  15. Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: attentional control theory. Emotion, 7(2), 336–353. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.336
  16. Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2005). When high-powered people fail: working memory and “choking under pressure” in math. Psychological Science, 16(2), 101–105. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00789.x
  17. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 672–695. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.672
  18. West, R. F., Meserve, R. J., & Stanovich, K. E. (2012). Cognitive sophistication does not attenuate the bias blind spot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 506–519. doi:10.1037/a0028857
  19. Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Cantrell Dawson, E., & Slovic, P. (2017). Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioural Public Policy, 1(1), 54–86. doi:10.1017/bpp.2016.2
  20. Connor, P., Sullivan, E., Alfano, M., & Tintarev, N. (2024). Motivated numeracy and active reasoning in a Western European sample. Behavioural Public Policy, 8(1), 24–46. doi:10.1017/bpp.2020.32
  21. O’Boyle, E. H., Jr., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011). The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(5), 788–818. doi:10.1002/job.714
  22. MacCann, C., Jiang, Y., Brown, L. E. R., Double, K. S., Bucich, M., & Minbashian, A. (2020). Emotional intelligence predicts academic performance: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(2), 150–186. doi:10.1037/bul0000219
  23. Martins, A., Ramalho, N., & Morin, E. (2010). A comprehensive meta-analysis of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(6), 554–564. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.029
  24. Sánchez-Álvarez, N., Extremera, N., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2016). The relation between emotional intelligence and subjective well-being: a meta-analytic investigation. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(3), 276–285. doi:10.1080/17439760.2015.1058968
  25. Malouff, J. M., Schutte, N. S., & Thorsteinsson, E. B. (2014). Trait emotional intelligence and romantic relationship satisfaction: a meta-analysis. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 42(1), 53–66. doi:10.1080/01926187.2012.748549
  26. Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: an integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54–78. doi:10.1037/a0017286
  27. Côté, S., DeCelles, K. A., McCarthy, J. M., Van Kleef, G. A., & Hideg, I. (2011). The Jekyll and Hyde of emotional intelligence: emotion-regulation knowledge facilitates both prosocial and interpersonally deviant behavior. Psychological Science, 22(8), 1073–1080. doi:10.1177/0956797611416251
  28. Barrett, L. F., Gross, J. J., Christensen, T. C., & Benvenuto, M. (2001). Knowing what you’re feeling and knowing what to do about it: mapping the relation between emotion differentiation and emotion regulation. Cognition and Emotion, 15(6), 713–724. doi:10.1080/02699930143000239
  29. Kashdan, T. B., Barrett, L. F., & McKnight, P. E. (2015). Unpacking emotion differentiation: transforming unpleasant experience by perceiving distinctions in negativity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(1), 10–16. doi:10.1177/0963721414550708
  30. Seah, T. H. S., & Coifman, K. G. (2022). Emotion differentiation and behavioral dysregulation in clinical and nonclinical samples: a meta-analysis. Emotion, 22(7), 1686–1697. doi:10.1037/emo0000968
  31. Torre, J. B., & Lieberman, M. D. (2018). Putting feelings into words: affect labeling as implicit emotion regulation. Emotion Review, 10(2), 116–124. doi:10.1177/1754073917742706
  32. Burklund, L. J., Creswell, J. D., Irwin, M. R., & Lieberman, M. D. (2014). The common and distinct neural bases of affect labeling and reappraisal in healthy adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 221. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00221
  33. Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: a meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 217–237. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004
  34. Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
  35. Abramowitz, J. S., Tolin, D. F., & Street, G. P. (2001). Paradoxical effects of thought suppression: a meta-analysis of controlled studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 21(5), 683–703.
  36. Bonanno, G. A., & Burton, C. L. (2013). Regulatory flexibility: an individual differences perspective on coping and emotion regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(6), 591–612. doi:10.1177/1745691613504116
  37. Bonanno, G. A., Papa, A., Lalande, K., Westphal, M., & Coifman, K. (2004). The importance of being flexible: the ability to both enhance and suppress emotional expression predicts long-term adjustment. Psychological Science, 15(7), 482–487.
  38. Kashdan, T. B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010). Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 865–878. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.03.001
  39. Gloster, A. T., Walder, N., Levin, M. E., Twohig, M. P., & Karekla, M. (2020). The empirical status of acceptance and commitment therapy: a review of meta-analyses. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 18, 181–192. doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.09.009
  40. Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy: model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(1), 1–25. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006
  41. Bond, F. W., Hayes, S. C., Baer, R. A., Carpenter, K. M., Guenole, N., Orcutt, H. K., Waltz, T., & Zettle, R. D. (2011). Preliminary psychometric properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire–II: a revised measure of psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance. Behavior Therapy, 42(4), 676–688. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.007
  42. Wolgast, M. (2014). What does the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-II) really measure? Behavior Therapy, 45(6), 831–839. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2014.07.002
Movements ↑