Relationship between prejudice and some personal variables among secondary schools students in state of kuwait

Theoretical Part



1. Psychological Perspective of the Variable of Present Study

1.1 Prejudice

1.1.1 Psychological Perspective of Prejudice

The concept of prejudice as a subject of social psychological inquiry emerged around the 1920s (Samelson, 1978). Research on the topic grew slowly during the 1930s and early 1940s, and it was only after World War II that interest escalated dramatically (Fairchild & Gurin, 1978). Nevertheless, when Gordon Allport classic, The Nature of Prejudice, was published in 1954, a substantial body of research already existed. This was sufficient to indicate the enormous breadth and complexity of the phenomenon.

The causes of prejudice had been sought in all of the following: intrapsychic conflicts deep inside the personality, psychological inadequacies and maladjustment, chronic frustrations, ignorance, low intelligence, styles of thinking, social learning and cultural influences, conforming to social norms and traditions, contact experiences with out-group members, the actual characteristics of out-group members, conflicts of interest among social groups, the justification of exploitation, the need for scapegoats, economic insecurity, the projection of one's own unacceptable impulses, fear of strangers, dislike of dissimilarity, religiosity, anxiety, aggression, sex, and guilt. This is not even a complete list, merely a sampling of the topics discussed by Allport. Today, over fifty years later, despite a substantial accumulation of research and some important theoretical advances, the study of prejudice, discrimination, and inter-group relations still presents one of the most difficult and complex knots of problems which we confront in our times (Tajfel, 1982).

As a social scientific construct, the very idea of prejudice is not an entirely unambiguous one. A large number of definitions have been proposed which raise some extremely complex and difficult issues.

A number of definitions have been used by social scientists to describe and understand inter group relations and inter group conflict. These include ethnocentrism, tolerance, stereotype, social distance, racism, discrimination, and prejudice. Although the cognitive perspective in psychology has resulted in an emphasis on the concept of stereotype in recent years (Hamilton, 1981; Messick &Mackie,1989;Miller,1982), in general, social psychologists, and often sociologists as well (Lever,1978;Simpson&Yinger,1985) have accorded primacy to the concept of prejudice. Prejudice comes from the word judging. "Pre" is a prefix or a part of a word that means "before." For example: the Preamble to the Constitution is a statement before the actual constitution itself. So, if you're prejudiced, you're prejudging without knowing the facts. You can be prejudiced aboutanything: member of a group, places, an things. You can be prejudiced about a whole race of people, ethnic or religious groups, or countries. You can be prejudiced against food. For example you can say, "I hate broccoli," without even tasting it. Prejudice is a negative feeling, you think negatively about whatever you feel prejudice for. An intelligent person learns the facts before making judgments (Parnes, 2005).

This involves the assumption that, from a psychological perspective at least, the feelings and attitudes involved in inter group hostility and conflict is particularly crucial for its understanding. Prejudice, however, is a complex construct, and its definition involves several awkward problems. As a result, a large number of different definitions have been proposed.

Allport (1954) summarizes his discussion about the characteristics of prejudice
with the following definition: prejudice is an antipathy based upon
a faulty and inflexible generalization. It may be felt or expressed. It may be
directed toward a group as a whole or toward an individual because he is a member of that group. A more recent book on prejudice, Ehrlich’s (1973) the Social Psychology of Prejudice provided an excellent discussion of the definition of prejudice. He quotes 16 definitions of prejudice from works published between 1950 and 1966 of highly regarded sociologists and social psychologists. Nearly all the definitions have the following in a particular group.

Howard (2007) asserted that prejudice is the prejudging of people on the basis of ascribed characteristic is ubiquitous modern societies differ from one another only in the degree to which certain groups are set apart from the social mainstream and consequently suffer equality of opportunity and inequity of condition, the behavioral dimension of attitudes refer to the extent to which one's beliefs are linked with intentions to behave in particular ways. Some beliefs only directly relate to behavior.

The effective dimension of attitudes is basically how a person feels about emotionally reacts to the object of their attitudes. One pole of these feeling is love, liking, attraction, and other is hate, disliking, repulsion. People maybe strongly attracted to other they evaluate as bad, and conversely maybe repulsed by someone, they evaluate as good with prejudice, negative beliefs are usually accompanied by negative feelings (Ryan, 2005).

Milner (1981) has suggested that there are almost as many definitions of the term as writers who employ it. Ashmore (1970) identified four basic points of agreement common to most definitions. These are:

	- Prejudice is an inter group phenomenon.
	- Prejudice is a negative orientation.
	- Prejudice is bad.
	- Prejudice is an attitude.

These four elements, Ashmore argued, could be combined to give a consensually acceptable definition of prejudice. On this basis, prejudice could be defined as a negative inter group attitude which is bad, unjustified, or irrational in some way or other (Duckitt, 1992).

The present research defined the prejudice as “negative attitudes, emotions, and behaviors which are side effects of Prejudgments against of situations, individuals, subjects...etc, that are results of group pressures, social factors, the interaction in the group and it types, unequal class and position between the groups, leadership supporting.

1.1.2 Causes of Prejudice

Efforts to reduce prejudice necessarily have to be built on an understanding of the causes of prejudice. Many authors have noted that the causes of prejudice and discrimination are multiple and elaborately intertwined. For instance, Hamilton and Trolier (1986) mentioned that any particular form of stereotyping or prejudice, such as racism, is in all likelihood multiply determined by cognitive, motivational, and social learning processes. Therefore, any attempt to understand such phenomena as a product of one process alone is probably misguided:

- Genetic and evolutionary predispositions.

-Societal, organizational, and inter-group patterns of contact and norms for inter-group relations…e.g., laws, regulations, and norms of segregation or unequal access, which maintain the power of dominant groups over subordinate ones.

-Mechanisms of social influence that operate in group and interpersonal interactions...e.g., influences from the mass media, the educational system, and the structure and functioning of work organizations.

-Personal differences in susceptibility prejudiced attitudes and behaviors, and in acceptance of specific inter-group attitudes.

Generally we can classify the causes of prejudice to the main categories of factors that contribute to the development of prejudice:
1.1.2.1 Social factors: these refer to such variables that have a social nature and identify the groups that will be a target for prejudice. They provide circumstances that conserve and enhance prejudice against these groups. Some of these factors are:

1.1.2.1.1 The pressure of the group: prejudice rises from the individual’s compliance with the norms of the group that has a given prejudice against an outside group. This group looks at commitment to its norms as the base for its coherence. This gives prejudice a normative sense that all members share. Every member expects the others to adhere to these norms. Many studies revealed that the individuals who comply with intolerant groups are more prone to be intolerant against other groups (Russell, 1985).

1.1.2.1.2 The interaction within groups: certain models of interaction arise in intolerant groups, which enhance the status quo, “especially in times of crises that relate to prejudice. This is a kind of the group’s authority through members’ compliance” (Farouk, 1993, p. 30). This explains the event that the white voters who showed flexibility and tolerance towards the black voted to a less popular candidate, discarding a more acceptable white candidate (Paul, 1995).

1.1.2.1.3 Fast unbalanced changes: fast unbalanced changes in different fields of life overload individuals and cause such phenomena as prejudice. Some African societies, for instance, witness drastic changes some of which are adjustable and others are not, e.g., changes in the distribution of wealth, the alternation of authority, reduction of participation, and the existence of conflicting trends in education. All these focus wealth among rich categories of the population, whereas the other categories live in abject poverty. As a result, a kind of variation occurred in education, gratification and future expectation which has become a challenge to the youth who look forward to effective participation. Furthermore, there has been a kind of frustration that leads to withdrawal or aggression. The latter is more dangerous (Safwat, 1993).

1.1.2.1.4 The disproportional status of groups: prejudice arises when the rights and privileges of the groups in the society are not equivalent. Certain groups in the society can take most privileges and do just some duties. Others can take some privileges and do most duties. The privileged groups see themselves worthy of this preference and when there is a pressure to reduce some of their privileges, a kind of conflict arises between the two types of groups. Gains and privileges enhance the sense of belongingness in members of the privileged groups. Hence, whenever there is a call for equality, they feel that some privileges will be taken from them and given to others who do not deserve them. Here, the determinants of the group play a significant role to strengthen the sense of excellence in its members and convince them that the privileges they take should not in any case be renounced. They inculcate in them the sense that others exist only to serve them. This creates stereotypes to justify this superiority (Hassan, 2002).

1.1.2.1.5 Leaders’ supports: the appearance of leaders who support prejudice and discrimination plays a very significant role in enhancing prejudice, especially when these leaders promise the public to conserve the gains they have attained. On the other hand, the people who have no such prejudice are seldom elected. Thus, leaders exert great efforts to keep the status quo in order to acquire more authority (Adel, 2006).

1.1.2.1.6 Socialization media: the society uses it media to bring up the young in a way that meets its aims and aspirations. Of course, privileged groups seek to enhance this type of education and bring up their young according to it, making use of mass media, popular leaders, teachers, and recreational activities. Paul (1995, p. 67) found that the proportion of the appearance of whites and the blacks on the TV was 1 to 5, and that the appearance of black was of a nature that undervalued them and underestimated their role. The researcher himself found that "some white parents refused their children’s joining multicultural schools and preferred schools taking them to the schools that addressed the culture and history of the white".

1.1.2.2 Individual factors: individual factors contribute to the emergence of prejudice. Experiences with the members of out-groups may create adverse feelings. By generalization, such feelings are extended to all the members of these groups. Besides, certain personality traits, e.g., compliance enhance the development of prejudice. As mentioned above, complying individuals are likely to be intolerant if they belong to intolerant groups. Domination, inflexibility and fear of ambiguity are also of the personal traits that fuel prejudice.

We can conclude, from the previous analysis of the varied causal factors in prejudice that psychologists might try to develop interventions to reduce prejudice using the following different approaches:

-Laws, regulations, and widespread norms the most powerful method.

-Mass influence processes either normative or informational, either passive or interactive.

-Group and interpersonal influence processes, either normative or informational, either passive or interactive.

-Psychotherapeutic approaches to modify personality characteristics (Stuart, 2000).

The same should be mention about attempts to reduce prejudice, they need to consider and combat the multiple causes of prejudice. In analyzing the causes of prejudice and discrimination, Duckitt (1994) proposed a four level model of possible factors, he also mentioned further suggested that efforts to reduce prejudice and discrimination need to work different approaches are needed in order to counteract these different causes of prejudice. At level (1) genetic and evolutionary predispositions, we may conclude that relatively little can be done on a short term or intermediate term basis to change patterns of human interaction that have this kind of built in biological foundation. However, interventions at the later levels may gradually change humans' evolutionary inheritance of prejudice in the direction of greater acceptance of out-groups. Thus level (2) laws and widespread norms becomes the most powerful arena for changing patterns of human interaction. As psychologists, we tend to operate mostly at levels (3) and (4) group influence and interpersonal interactions but we should keep strongly in mind the importance of efforts toward interventions at level (2).

Still at level (3), the distinction between normative and informational social influence should be useful in helping to classify and structure influence attempts (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). The previous examples of media portrayals and work organization standards illustrate normative social influence, whereas informational programs aim to instill cognitive knowledge. Educational programs are mostly informational, though teacher influence processes can certainly also set normative standards. At the small group and interpersonal sublevel of influence, psychologist's efforts to reduce prejudice often use both normative and informational pressures.

Another useful distinction is between influence attempts where the recipients are passive, as in listening to a speech or movie, and ones where they are active. Research has found that active participation generally produces stronger and longer lasting attitude and behavior change than does passive participation (Oskamp, 1991). The active interventions in prejudice reduction programs very often involve interactions with out-group members.

Examples of actual programs may help to clarify the above categories. Examples of informational approaches include programs of multicultural education in school settings (Banks, 2007) and training programs about diversity, usually in industrial settings (Ellis & Sonnenfield, 1994; Tan, Morris, & Romero, 1996). Both informational and normative approaches may be passive (as in exposure to TV or other normative presentations) or active experiences (as in interacting with out-group members). Examples of interactive interventions include programs of cooperative learning in the schools (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1994) and inter-group dialogue programs, usually in college or community settings (Gurin, Peng, Lopez, & Nagda, 1999).

1. 1. 3 Theories of Prejudice

Many theories have been proposed to explain the causation of prejudice especially that was discussed by Allport in 1954. A great deal of research has been done and there have been several important theoretical developments since that date. New theories have emerged (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), and older ones have been elaborated (Altemeyer, 1981). Unfortunately, these developments have not brought much clarification to the overall question of the causation of prejudice. The differences of the directions between the sociological and psychological trends and schools, the list of possible causes, and the complexity of the problem, seem to have increased rather than decreased. As a result, one of the best established conclusions in the literature is that prejudice is a complex phenomenon which is determined by many factors (Ashmore, 1970; Condor & Brown, 1988; Simpson & Yinger, 1985; Tajfel, 1982). Most theories focus on only one aspect or manifestation of prejudice. Allport (1954) for example, pointed out that "as a rule most 'theories' are advanced by their authors to call attention to some one important causal factor, without implying that no other factors are operating". Consequently, each theory tends to illuminate only a limited set or subset of causal processes and rarely attempts to provide a complete explanation of prejudice. One response to this by reviewers has been to simply construct a long list of 'causes' and treat them all some-what uncritically, assuming that each theory is valid under certain circumstances or to a certain extent (Ashmore, 1970, p. 260). A much better approach, Ashmore suggested, is to try and classify or "categorize the explanations so we can ascertain how they fit together. Many reviewers have proposed classifications that attempt to simplify

and systematize the area in this way. These classifications have usually been according to level of analysis".

For example, Allport's (1954) classification identified six different causes of prejudice: the historical, socio-cultural, situational, psychodynamic, phenomenological, and earned reputation causes. Although this is one of the most extensive classifications that have been suggested, it has rarely been used by other authors perhaps precisely because it may have seemed too extensive and rather cumbersome. Most other reviewers have used fewer categories. In fact, many have suggested that only two basic kinds of theory or levels of analysis are needed society sociological theories on the one hand, and individual level psychological theories on the other (Ashmore, op cit; Babad, Birnbaum, & Benne, 1983; Ehrlich, 1973).

Simpson and Yinger (op cit) provided a tripartite classification in terms of cultural, group, and individual factors, which has been often cited and used (Nieuwoudt & Nel, 1975). Cultural factors and theories typically involve the idea of prejudice as a cultural tradition or norm and focus on processes such as conformity and socialization. Group influences concern the political and economic functions that prejudice may serve for macro social groups, particularly in the context of struggles for power, prestige, and wealth. Finally, individual sources of prejudice include theories and approaches in terms of frustration, projection, status needs, authoritarian personality structures, and so forth.

Classifications in terms of level of analysis assume that theories and approaches at different levels are basically complementary. However, these classifications have been essentially descriptive, merely grouping together those theories that appear to be operating at a similar level. As such, they do not show how theories and approaches at different levels might actually fit together to give a coherent and integrated explanation of prejudice.

Based of the previous framework among the theories of prejudice, the present researcher will present two theories of prejudice with some sociological and psychological aspects.

1.1.3.1 Perspectives Theory of Prejudice:

Ashmore and DelBoca (1981) took a somewhat different approach. Instead of organizing theories by level of analysis, they emphasized the existence of different theoretical perspectives, each of which subsumes more specific theories and approaches. Although their discussion focused specifically on stereotyping, it is equally relevant to prejudice. They suggested that three distinct perspectives can be identified the socio-cultural, the psychodynamic, and the cognitive. These perspectives are seen as analogous to Kuhn's (1962) concept of disciplinary matrices, or paradigms. Thus, each perspective provides a distinctive frame of reference that guides the conduct of research, and each involves quite different underlying models and assumptions about the nature of man and the phenomenon of stereotyping (and, by extension, prejudice).

Two of these perspectives, the socio-cultural and the psychodynamic, correspond broadly with Simpson and Yinger's (1985) cultural and individual categories. The socio-cultural perspective, according to Ashmore and Delboca (1981), rests on a conceptualization of prejudice as a socio-cultural norm. It is assumed that people are basically motivated to seek approval, and so to conform to norms and traditions. The psychodynamic perspective, on the other hand, emphasizes unconscious drives that conflict with societal constraints. Prejudice is therefore viewed as an expression of inner conflicts. Finally, the cognitive perspective sees humans as limited-capacity information processors striving to make sense out of a complex environment, through processes such as categorization. When categorization occurs in a social context it leads to stereotyping, inter group bias, and prejudice. Stereotypes and prejudice thus serve a knowledge function by reducing the complexity of the world and making it more manageable.

Classifications in terms of levels of analysis see theories at each level as basically complementary to those at other levels. Ashmore and DelBoca (1981, p. 9) on the other hand, stressed the differences between their three perspectives, along with the incompatibility of their underlying models and assumptions. They suggested that these three perspectives are competing rather than complementary paradigms for the explanation of prejudice. Nevertheless, they conceded that none of the three produces a complete explanation of prejudice. Consequently, they accepted that "it is necessary to seek connections between these perspectives and ultimately to integrate the socio-cultural, psychodynamic, and cognitive viewpoints into a more complete picture of stereotypes and inter group relations".

1.1.3.2 Integrated Theory of Prejudice:

Allport (1966) cautioned us that the law of multiple causation is at play in all social phenomena, especially for prejudice and discrimination. That is, there are nearly always several causes underlying the development and expression of prejudice and discrimination. Allport (1954) identified six major "causes" or theories of prejudice. It should be noted that the six causes are oriented toward understanding ethnic prejudice. The most transitory and individualistic of the six is called the phenomenological emphasis. In this view, the person's current beliefs, perceptions, and the verbal labels he uses regarding any particular group determine how he will react to the situation he is confronted with. There is immediacy about these reactions, including prejudiced ones, which may be quite different on subsequent occasions.

A more enduring individualistic cause is the psychodynamic emphasis. In this view, people develop more or less stable personality characteristics that they bring to all social situations. These characteristics predispose the individual to react in prejudiced ways. Allport (1954) noted three types of these characteristics: conflict resolution, frustration reactions, and character structure. Conflict resolution refers to the persistent attempts of some people to gain power or status over others. Frustration reactions, also known as scapegoating, refers to the persistent attempts to direct hostile impulses toward minority groups in order to discharge feelings of frustration and deprivation experienced in daily life. Character structure primarily refers to insecure and anxious personalities who take the authoritarian and exclusionist way of life rather than the relaxed trusting democratic way. In the next section, we present an extensive discussion of this type.

The third cause is the situational emphasis. In this view, prejudice is seen as arising out of conformity to the current social forces operating in a culture. The focus here is socio-psychological, as opposed to purely individualistic or purely cultural, historical.

The fourth cause, socio-cultural emphasis, is the principal type of explanation of prejudice offered by sociologists and anthropologists. The total social context is examined with the view of identifying those traditions and conditions that produce conflict among different groups, for example, job and housing competition, and opportunities for upward social mobility. These lead to increased uncertainty about one's values and customs, which in turn leads to prejudice against the groups of people with which one is in conflict.

The fifth cause, historical emphasis, recognizes that there is nearly always a long history involved with conflict and discrimination between particular groups in a given culture. This history serves to both justify the prejudices held by dominant groups and to perpetuate them. Many historians believe that economic exploitation is at the heart of the matter. If Blacks, Asians, or Jews are historically seen as morally or "racially" inferior, then negative treatment of them by the economically dominant groups is sanctioned.

The sixth cause, emphasis on earned reputation is not on the individualistic cultural/historical dimension. This cause asserts that there are perceived differences between groups, and that these differences stimulate dislike and hostility.

The notion of earned reputation acknowledges that at least some of the perceived differences are based on objective reality. Indeed, in our previous discussion of stereotypes, we implicitly stated that there is often a reasonable basis for the existence of particular stereotypes. From the previous introduction and multi-dimensions of prejudice we can make relations and links with other variables regarding of the title of this study by presenting and spot light of some dimensions and back ground of these variables which are: creative activities, emotional intelligence, and linguistic intelligence, finally presenting and analyzing the developing thinking styles as an approach to modify and change prejudice. Generally we can read the formulation of the topic of this study by the dimensions of the variables of this study as it's mentioned in its parts.

<sup>1.2 Creative Activities

1.2.1 Psychological Perspective of Creative Activities

Interest in creativity research began in 1950 when Guilford gave a speech in this respect in the American Society of Psychology asserted that since then, countless researches have been conducted (Millword & Freeman, 2002) . Since the early sixties, U.S.A has witnessed a hidden revolution against aims and methods of education concerning creative problem solving and creative expression. This led to changes in the aims of education (Mansy,1981) . Creative activities refer to a set of beforehand planned and carefully studied activities that have the potential to attract creative individuals and effectively enhance their creative abilities, which reflects on their behavior and thinking. They enable those who perform them to confront the various contradictory situations and life problems in a distinctively logical and creative manner. Guilford (1971) mentioned that creative activities as a set of student centered activities that accord with students psychological, physical and mental dispositions, abilities and characteristics, so they can develop in them the components of the creativity construct: fluency, flexibility and originality. He adds that creative abilities are the other face of the school curriculum or the academic curriculum that no educational institution can provide as a result of the congestion and pressure of the curriculum and the subject matters. And as an alternative, institutions can offer creative abilities for creative individuals.</sup>

Educators as well as psychologists tend to view creativity as a gift from God, nature, genetic heritage, or some other source over which one has no control (Robert, 2002) An alternative view of creativity, however, is that it is, in large part, a decision (Sternberg, 2000). According to an investment theory of creativity, individuals who are creative are those who decide to interact with ideas in the same way good investors interact with stocks . They buy low and sell high (Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). In other words, creative individuals generate ideas that are unusual and that defy the crowd and often are viewed as bizarre by their colleagues. This process is analogous to researching and then buying stocks selling at a low price-to-earnings ratio. The creative individuals then try to convince people of the value of their ideas. They then sell high, meaning that once some people have been convinced that the ideas do indeed have value. The creative individuals move on to their next unusual idea. They do not just stick with the same idea forever. This process is analogous to selling stock at a profit rather than holding on to it indefinitely. Urban (2006) classified creative activities into three components: the cognitive aspect, personality, and the environmental condition. The cognitive aspect includes divergent thinking, general knowledge, domain-specific knowledge and skills. Many researchers agree with threshold theory, which explains that creativity and intelligence are separate constructs , that is, more intelligence does not necessarily mean greater creativity. Threshold theory assumes that, below a critical IQ level, which is usually said to be about 120, there is some correlation between IQ and creative potential, while above it there is not (Barron, 1961; Getzels & Jackson, 1962; MacKinnon,1962) .Guilford (1956, 1959) considered creative thinking as involving divergent thinking, which emphasizes fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration .

<sup>Torrance (1969) mentioned that if we want to develop creativity we must to renew a curricula, techniques of evaluating the mental and affective development, and scholastic achievement, as well as methods of teaching and supervision. Some researcher as Al-Abdellah (1991) maintained that creativity means developing what is familiar, enlarging its scope, maturing its potentials and solving its contradictions. The creative process is not a matter of individual geniuses, or is it a matter of inspiration. Rather, it is a material and social event. Research proved that creative thinking abilities exist in all people, but people differ in their creative abilities and the way they express these abilities.Creativity is considered by some to be any ability which leads to a new idea or fresh insight. Mansour (1989) found that the issue of creativity can be viewed from different perspectives since it is a multifaceted phenomenon, it can be viewed as the process in which the creative production occurs. Also, it can be viewed as creative abilities, i.e., the existence of aptitude and certain characteristics that make the person likely to think creatively. Hence, it is difficult to identify the nature of creative thinking as a distinctive mental process unless the nature of creativity and the creative person are taken into consideration.



Creative thinking relates closely to the psychology of creativity as a whole, viewing it as a compound psychological phenomenon.Until this century, creativity as a mental entity was thought of as divine given and, therefore, unapproachable. Abdel-Ghafar (1979) asserted that the British scientist Spearman was the first to present a scientifically acceptable interpretation of the creative process, that interpretation is based on intelligence. Yet, most researchers have not given Spearman’s view the due attention. They followed the steps of Guilford who presented a new theory about mental composition where he identified 120 mental performances. Guilford (1967) stated that mental factors that contribute to creativity are included in the set of the mental factors included in absolute thinking, he refers to the existence of non-mental elements, e.g., perceptive and affective elements that contribute to the success of creativity. One’s interests and attitudes function like motivation features. They make the individual inclined to given types of activities. Some researchers as Zidan (2006) view creativity as the outcome of several mental and psychological processes that include sensitivity to problems, and setting and testing hypotheses, which is preceded by comprehensive perception of the core of the problem or the problematic situation. Guilford (1957) found creative production as Schemata of a number of simple mental abilities. These schemata differ according to the field of creativity ,among these abilities are verbal fluency, the ability to quickly produce words that meet given conditions, ideational fluency and the ability to produce a number of ideas that meet given criteria in a given situation.



Torrance (1974) maintained in this way that novelty and originality become controversial. Some researchers prefer relating novelty and originality to the uniqueness of production. Others relate them to innovation of production in one’s environment. Torrance maintains that creativity depends on the creative person’s abilities and features and that they depend in their emergence and development on the facilitating environmental conditions and factors.
Socialization plays a crucial role in detecting and enhancing the skills and abilities of creative performance in individuals in different ages. Qandil (1990) mentioned that the society and the culture are viewed as influential determinants of one’s behavior, and socialization is viewed as learning social roles. Regarding to the effect of the environment among the creative individuals, Al-Deriny (1975) found that the social, psychological and material reality surrounding the family plays a paramount role in the emergence of the person’s creative abilities and dispositions and enhances them according to various educational and psychological techniques. Al-Alosy (1985)emphazised that other social institution that complements the family is the school. It plays a significant role in detecting and developing creativity in students. Considering the individual differences and providing the students with opportunities to learn and think according to their potentials and aptitude entail adapting the educational environments that can help the student to attain the utmost of his potential. What is also of paramount importance is the use of techniques and activities with all students without isolating those students whose creative thinking abilities are low?.

Kiely (1993) mentioned that developing creativity in students entails paying considerable attention to curricula, teaching methods, additional programs and contents.
Research has long attempted to investigate the characteristics of the creative individual, so the creative individuals can be identified easily. Approaches and views varied and so did the results. This controversy is, to the researcher’s knowledge, still unsettled. The 1960s witnessed a concern with the research exploring the individual differences phenomenon through what is known as cognitive styles. According to the reflection of other psychological variables on the creativity, Al-Hamouly (1996) asserted that these researches rested upon the postulate that differences among individuals in cognitive styles can reflect individual differences in many psychological and social aspects. Sen and Khanam (1998) mentioned that the most powerful resource on earth today and the most tremendous source of energy is within the individuals.
So individual differences in different areas of human activity have always been recognized and valued. In this respect, Torrance (1988) confirms that the modern age represents the peak of technological development. This development represents the essence of creative minds. Hence, should care for creativity and creative people if we wish the whole world to achieve a better development and nourishment in different fields. No wonder, then, that there has been an increasing need for knowing more about the various creative abilities.
The study of creativity cannot be done in isolation from the psychological variables around people in general and creative individuals in particular. Such variables have several negative or positive reflections on creative people. Thus, if we wish to develop creative abilities in creative individuals, we should identify which of the surrounding variables have positive or negative correlation, and which have no correlation with creativity. Such relationships are predictors and indices of the sound method to deal with psychological and educational applications of any curriculum, technique or program on creativity. Herbert (1993) mentioned that once a great writer was asked to give a piece of advice to young writers, he said his advice to them is not to follow anyone’s advice. This answer means that pieces of advice and directions cannot do in the creative process. The creative process is a complex chemistry that interacts and shapes in the depth of one’s spirit. It requires several subjective and objective components, conditions and factors than cannot be diminished.</sup>
Through the previous threoretical back goround, we can realize that the sociological, psychological, and educational environments among a dults can plays important and big role to support and enhance the creative abilities in the sociaty whenever and wherever available the currect base of our educational plans and sterategies .
^{After giving a general introduction to creativity with it difinitions , the theories of creativity will be discussed in this section .}

2. 
   ^{Psychological Theories of Creativity}
   

<sup>It is of paramount importance to study creativity in the light of the different psychological theories. This study can help with the explanation of the ambiguous and overlapping aspects of creativity. Scientific research cannot be fruitful unless it springs from a theoretical framework, the key to knowing the dimensions of the target phenomenon. Thus, psychological theories and schools have tackled creativity according to the theoretical, methodological and experimental interests and trends. De-Bono(1998) emphasized that creativity is the outcome of two main dimensions: inherited creative abilities or skills that can be developed with various programs and techniques.
In the following section, the most important perspectives of some of the psychological theories on creativity will be presented.
1.2.2.1 Creativity in the Associative Theory

Associative theory considers one of the theories that studied the creativity from individual differences and its effect of the creative process. Taha (1993) mentioned that association is the functional relationship that relates psychological phenomena, which form through personal experience. The pioneers of this school attempted to attribute all mental processes to the association process alone. They even attributed inferential creative processes to the association process, which differs in strength according to the frequency, strength and clarity of the personal experience that helped its formation. This way, association was extended to cover all types of compounds.
Roshka (1989, p. 49) maintained that "one of the most reputed supporters of the associative theory in the 20th century is Maltzman and Mednick who see creativity as organizing the associated elements in new structures that match the special requirements or represent a given utility. The more the new elements included in the combination are far from each other, the more creative the solution". Al-Hefni (2002) asserted that the pioneers of the associative theory saw that mental processes are based on sensory stimulation and that mental movement resembles sensory movement and is stimulated in the form of ideas that leave neurotic muscular vibrations and accompanying mental images. They attributed all mental processes to associations. Abdel-Ghafar (1976) asserted that Mednick presented some factors that underlie the individual differences in the ability to perform the creative processes:
- The need to associative elements that are necessary for the new combinations needed for creative production.

- Organizing the associations that affect the likelihood and the speed with which the individual reaches the creative solution.

- The number of associations. The more the associations, the more likely that the individual reaches the creative production .
Kamel (1994) defined some points about this school when he mentioned that Concurring with Ebinghouse, Thorandike confirms the importance of frequency in his law of exercise that states association strengthen by use and practice and weaken by negligence. Kamel maintained that Thorandike’s theory underwent three main stages. These stages are as follows:
- Presenting of the association hypothesis and the interpretation of learning on the basis of the effect and the practice laws.

- Refuting the practice law and modifying the effect law.

- Presenting the dispersion and prevalence hypothesis.
Despite the new contributions that the associative theories made in modern psychology in general and in creativity in particular, they have been criticized for many considerations.The stimulus-response association law developed by Gathrie was refuted by many researchers. Besides, several aspects in Mednick’s theory and the tests he developed were criticized.</sup>

2. 
   ^{Creativity in the Factorial Theory}
   

<sup>Abdel-Ghafar (1976) asserted that the factorial theory is a theory through which a given phenomenon can be interpreted in the light of few factors. The factor can be a mental ability, trait or motive according to the way it is used. The supporters of the factorial theory use a statistical method to analyze and interpret data. This is called factor analysis. This method seeks to reveal the factors that affect any number of phenomena. It ends with reducing the factors affecting the phenomena into a few factors. Thus, Al-Sayed (1996) defined that, factor analysis is a statistical method by which the data obtained from the administration of psychological and educational tests are analyzed in order to detect the factors affecting the phenomenon under investigation. In other words, the aim of factor analysis is interpreting and translating the components of the phenomena and the factors affecting it into a simple statistical numerical language. As for the attempts of factorial theories to interpret creativity, several scientific efforts, like those by Guilford and Spearman, were exerted. These attempts will be discussed in the following sections.


Spearman’s Interpretation

Abo-Hatab (1996) maintained that Spearman contends that all the techniques of mental functioning (Spearman did not identify them clearly) share one function, which is the general factor that he called intelligence. In addition, every technique has its own specific factor. Spearman’s research and the researches conducted by his students confirmed the existence of a number of maximum performance tests that correlate in a way that justifies attributing their correlation coefficients to the general factor, intelligence . Abdel-Gafar (1976) investigated these aspects when he found that Spearman, fifty years ago, presented an interpretation to creativity, which is based on three bases to explain the individual’s mental activity. These bases are:



- Recognizing the things or the experiences the individual encounters.

-Realizing the different relationships among the things in one’s field of onsciousness.

-Realizing the associations. If the individual realized something and its relation, the brain can reach another realization that has the same relation.
Thus, the three bases that Spearman proposed to explain creativity are mainly based on the individual’s realization of himself first and the surroundings second. The order here is mainly physiological and psychological. What supports this is that the individual cannot realize what surrounds him unless he first realizes himself. Atia (2006) studied these points when he wrote that Spearman added other laws to explain creativity, which he called the quantitative laws. These laws are:
- The span law.

- The retaintivity law.

- The fatigue law.

- The primordial potencies law .
Spearman’s model is better than the other models proposed to interpret creativity since it covers mental factors overlooked in the other models. Spearman’s model was unique in his time. It contains fixed main dimensions of the mental process that relate to creative performance. The model is, therefore valuable even though it is criticized for focusing only on one general aim that affects in creativity process which is intelligence and overlooking other specific factors, which supports the presence of a kind of disturbance in the model.
1.2.2.3 Creativity in the Two-Factor Theory
The developer of this theory McMullan (1977) believes that many researchers still have a clear vision of how and when they can enhance creativity. He maintains that enhancing learners’ creativity cannot be based only on a clear concept of what creativity is. This theory focuses on two main factors, so ideas and products can be considered creative:
- The idea or its actual production should be a new creation.

- The idea should be feasible and useful.
One can derive the rules that should underlie a sound definition of creativity. The ideas characterized with creativity will be unexpected and may arouse astonishment in listeners. Making available an instrument of the actual feasibility of the idea stirs other problems. Some specialists think that the two main factors of this theory are considered setting and testing of hypotheses. De-Bono (1995) comprehensively analyzed creative performance and concluded that it emerges through different situations and facets, which should emphasize not only finding solution but also the importance of finding innovative original solutions as well.
The present researcher sees that the developer of the two-factor theory did not identify the degree to which the idea or the product itself should be original and creative. Should the idea or the product be absolutely new, new for the individual himself, or for his society? This point is still under controversy in many studies on creativity. For this reason, Al-Khalifey (1989) metioned that the behavior is considered original if it is new provided that it suits the aim or the contribution it will make in the creative product. Other researchers as Khiar-Allah (1981) thinks of originality as one’s ability to produce an original response, i.e., a response which is of low frequency in the community where the individual lives. That is, the less common the idea, the more it is original. The developer of the two-factor theory follows a logical manner in eliciting the factors of his theory. He identified two stages for creative performance. They can be discriminated in the following ways:</sup>

Table (1)

The Stages of Creative Performance

Stage A	Stage B
visualization creative thinking hypothesis setting the realization of the right hemisphere dissipative production and transformation abilities the main creative process channels for the outlet of ideas	evaluation mental logic hypothesis testing the realization of the left hemisphere convergent production the dual creative process controlling the outlet of ideas

These stages of creative activities can be explained as following figure 1.

Figure (1)

Creative Processes
^{In figure 1, the term “formulation” refers to the first stage (A) of the creative process and the term “elaboration” refers to the second stage (B). Thus, the formulation is the stage that leads to creativity, whereas elaboration is the stage that leads to the actual application. The present research refers here to the importance of this theory in shedding light on some theoretical and practical facets of creative performance through giving a general idea about the originality and the feasibility of creative ideas and products. Yet, this theory presented a new idea relating to the feasibility of creative ideas. Should the creative idea that is not feasible be considered uncreative based on the assumption of this theory? Or can it be considered a creative idea in its theoretical and mental status?This, in fact, is a controversial point that researchers did not converge on.}

2. 
   ^{Creativity in the Three-Dimension Theory}
   

<sup>Koastler (1978) the developer of this theory, based his theory on understanding and analyzing social relations and values that should be taken as the open-ended development and the continuity of the human life. Ideas that encompass the social relation will be seen as functional ideas in the aesthetic or spiritual sense unless they are observed in the material context. The conveyance and reception of ideas take place through various social media and channels within varied and rich social interactions. He also stresses that his theory added the social relation to the explanation of creativity. That is:
- Creative ideas are those that are novel with a future vision.

- Creative ideas are those that are feasible in terms of expression or formulation in an external context, i.e., making mathematical equations.

- Creative ideas are those that achieve the social relation.
This way, creativity becomes measurable and the more the performance level is measurable, the more likely it is to identify and measure the social relation. Thus, ideas need to be described as creative for the individual himself. They also need to be feasible and effective on the individual’s life. Such ideas can be said to be creative. Creative ideas can be described through the following figure 2.


Figure 2.

Description of Creative Ideas

From the above figure 2, we can classify creative ideas into germinate and creative ideas. Any other ideas rather than these two types are trivial. The present researcher believes that the contribution of this theory is the emphasis it places on the social interactions among the different categories and sectors of the society in order to generate various ideas and reach the peak of creativity. The generated ideas are communicated through various channels and media and they are evaluated and develop in order to attain a high level of creative performance. The social values and relations are, therefore, taken as a base for the continuity of the human life on one part and for the generation, continuity and development of creative ideas on the other. This theory is to a large extent similar to the humanitarian theory that appeared in 1960s, which assumed that all individuals have creative abilities and that the emergence of these abilities depends in the nature of the social atmosphere. Irosevski (1980) one of the representative of humanitarian psychology school, maintained that sociology is included in the human nature or the anthropology of man’s social characteristics.</sup>

2. 
   ^{Creativity in the Psychoanalytic Theory}
   

^{Psychoanalysis is a method of psychological therapy that is based on detecting the subject’s ideas, memories and dreams. The ideas and memories are personal in the sense that they belong to the person under psychoanalysis. The person associates his ideas and memories and the psychoanalyst examines them to treat the him. Bert (2002) mentioned that free association is the method of psychoanalysis. Through it, the person expresses his ideas and feelings freely without any preservation regardless of whether or not what he says is meaningful, logical, socially acceptable, or consistent. That is, the person speaks spontaneously without any pretense. Abdel-Ghafar (1976) maintained that proponents of this theory including its developer, Freud, see the ID as the pure psychological truth in man’s personality. They claim that the ID with its sexual drives and aggressive instincts is what urges the individual to perform the different activities. However, the ID cannot achieve real gratification because it is far from reality. Thus, a part of it had to be distinctive and develop making what Freud called the ego, the system that saves man’s personality. The conflict between the ID and the ego in their contact with the reality is what explains man’s various activities. In order to defend itself, the ego resort to unconscious defense mechanisms. These mechanisms help to settle the conflict. Creativity springs from the conflict that begins with man’s early years. It is considered a defense mechanism to counterpart the libido that the society rejects it in case it is released. Al-Hefni (2002) referes that the libido is the sensual or life energy that makes the being to seek and conserve life, and breed, This energy is distributed on all the organs of the body. Freud (1923) asserted that the psychoanalytis school presents a cautious definition depending on the degree to which the ibido is consistent. He divided the personality into three systems that together compose the psychological system. These systems work in cooperative and harmony.The more they are harmonious, the more intact the behavior. These systems are the ID, the ego and the super ego .
Abdel-Ghafar (1976) asserted that creativity in the viewpoint of the developer of psychoanalysis is a defense mechanism called sublimation. The individual uses this unconscious defense mechanism to express his sexual and aggressive energies in a way that is acceptable to the society. Anna Freud (1962) mentioned that psychoanalysis should be confined to the study of suppressed instinctive drives, emotions and fancies. The other problems like the child’s adaptation with the outside world and the moral concepts like health and sickness should not, at any rate, be attended to by psychoanalysis. The present researcher thinks that there are many vague, immature and unexplained points in the explanation of creativity offered by the proponents of the psychoanalysis school. As creativity in Freud’s point of view results from the conflict between the ID and the ego and the social requirements to combat the libido, we deduce that all creative individuals should undergo internal conflicts, so their mental and psychomotor competencies are revealed in the form of creative products. Thus, should all creative people resort to sublimation to express their sexual desires and energies in a way that is acceptable to the society?
Taking Freud’s explanation for granted, societies can use various techniques and strategies to stimulate and enhance sexual and aggressive conflicts in their children, so they become creative. Meanwhile, Freud and his colleagues forgot the role of the psychological processes, abilities and motives, and emotions in the shaping of creative ideas and products. Although there are many shortcomings in the explanation of creativity from the psychoanalysis perspective, there are still many advantages. Many researchers benefited from the compound role of the ego, which led to paying attention to all the aspects of the personality.
Another advantage is the examination of several psychological concepts that relate to creativity and its processes. In our schools today we can facing many kinds of prejudice and it manifestasions by exploit kinds of creative scholastic activities, but the question regarding to our education system in Kuwait or other country, that is there a time and strategies for such as these scholastic activities?}

1.3 Emotional Intelligence

1.3.1 Psychological Perspective of Emotional Intelligence

Goleman (1996) asserted that most IQ contributes about 20% to the factor that determine success - leaving 80% to other factors. These other factors make up what is called emotional intelligence or EQ. Emotional intelligence consists of affective abilities such as getting along with others (cooperation, resolving conflict), self – motivation, persistence, empathizing (expressing feelings, appreciating diversity), controlling impulses and regulating one's mood.

Our society faces a number of economic, health-related, ethnic-racial, cultural, geopolitical and environmental challenges. Most agree that solutions to society's most vexing problems will require citizens to possess not only well-developed intellectual abilities, but also equally impressive social and emotional skills. It is this recognition of the importance of save interpersonal skills and the ability to get along effectively with others that has helped fuel the growing interest in the concept of emotional intelligence (EQ) (Steven, 2001).
A second reason for the growing interest in the concept of EI has to do with recent theories embracing more broad conceptualizations of intelligence (Gardner, 1983; Sternberg, 1988). Over the past hundred years, most theories of intelligence (Binet & Simon, 1916; Thurstone, 1938; Wechsler, 1958; Spearman, 1923) have posited the preeminence of one general ability, g, at the apex of a hierarchical model (Brody, 1992). This general factor, g, represents what many psychometric researchers feel is the primary mental ability, underlying what all different kinds of intelligence tests have in common (Keith, 1994) .

Emotional intelligence is the innate potential to feel, use, communicate, recognize, remember, learn from, manage, understand and explain emotions. The word 'describe' also includes describing emotions to oneself, in order to better understand them, etc., and not merely communication or explanation of emotions to others. The description of an emotion really comprises the use of metaphors and analogies, including comparison with other, similar emotions, and all manner of other analogous things, in order to better incorporate an emotion into one's verbal and intellectual understanding, so that it can be really focused on as a matter of concentration (Goleman, 2003).

The description of feelings using metaphors form part of the basis of human language.  It helps refine our understanding of feelings by comparing feelings to concrete things and already extant mental concepts. EQ is an abbreviation for "emotional quotient," the measure of emotional intelligence, and it means being smart with feelings. Some people just know how to get along with others; some people are more self-confident, and others are great at inspiring others. All these come from a set of skills called emotional intelligence, or EQ. Some other EQ skills are identifying and changing emotions, motivating you, and empathizing with another person. Emotional intelligence is a set of measurable and learnable skills essential for success in school, work, and life (Kathy, 2001).

Successively more specific mental abilities constitute the lower strata or levels of generality, depending upon the particular theory. Fluid and crystallized intelligence is one example (Horn, 1976) and verbal-comprehension and nonverbal-perceptual-spatial abilities are another (Wechsler, 1991). These traditional theories of intelligence, although quite varied, share a small number of consensual attributes. They all agree that intelligence is goal-directed mental activity that is marked by efficient problem solving, critical thinking, and effective abstract reasoning (Sternberg, 1986).

Traditionally, the study of intelligence or human abilities has largely focused on cognitive abilities and their adaptive uses (Piaget, 1950). In recent years, more encompassing approaches to the study of intelligence have gradually gained widespread acceptance through the works of many theorists, including, among others, Gardner (1983, 1999a), and Sternberg (1988, 1996). Along this line, it is believed that the notion of intelligence should be expanded to include not only cognitive abilities but also the experience and expression of emotions (Barrett& Gross, 2001; Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000; Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999)
The intrigue of why some people become successful while others fail despite natural talents, gifts, or intelligence has provoked inquiry into qualities that determine success. While some people possess varying degrees of ability, oftentimes the most talented are not always the most successful, happy, or wealthy, which goes against our rational way of thinking. Although it is premature to conclude that emotional intelligence plays a key role in determining life success, it is proposed that there may be a significant relationship.
Emotional intelligence is very important in every educational, sociological, economical organizations and environments, because organizations today continually need to undergo rapid change to maintain their competitive edge. That rapid change requires an organization that has employees and leaders who are adaptive, work effectively, constantly improve systems and processes, are customer focused, and who share the need to make a profit (Lisa, 2007). The continuous environment of turmoil and change has been coined the permanent white waters of modern life (Vaill, 1996). A key element in driving and managing these “white waters” in an organization is believed by many to be leadership. Great leaders move us. They ignite our passion and inspire the best in us. When we try to explain why they are so effective, we speak of strategy, vision, or powerful ideas. But the reality is much more primal: Great leadership works through the emotions (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002).
Recently, there have been a number of articles in the popular press espousing the benefits of emotional intelligence to organizations, leaders and individual contributors. This has contributed to a significant influx of popular books and seminars on the topic and consultants training’ individuals to become more emotionally intelligent. Though there exists large amounts of research on leadership (Yukl, 1998; Yukl & VanFleet, 1992), there is comparatively little for emotional intelligence. And though the popular press speaks to the importance of emotional intelligence and leadership, there is little researched support for their premise.
Primarily two perspectives of emotional intelligence have emerged over the past decade: one that is based more on a mixed perspective, which defines emotional intelligence largely through personality characteristics; the second perspective is an ability perspective, which defines emotional intelligence as a set of distinct abilities. Since there has been more research in the area of personality characteristics and leadership. The ability model of emotional intelligence is framed as a type of intelligence, hence it is intended to co-exist with, supplement, and clarify existing models of leadership – not replace them. Though the model is too new to have extensive data in support of its predictive validity, it is believed that it will make significant contributions to our understanding of leadership (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2002). Leadership, which embraces the emotional side of directing organizations, pumps life and meaning into management structures, bringing them to full life (Barach & Eckhardt, 2007).
As example the leaders , directors , headmasters in any organization if they wants to be a way of any kind of prejudice, they can follow the strategies of emotional intelligence to avoid the conflictions between his employers specially if there are many nationalities, races working with them, so by training , workshops in the field of emotional intelligence, any organization can be secured of side effects of prejudice.
Emotional intelligence isn’t a new concept in psychology. One can find related ideas in work done over 60 years ago (Cary, 2002). For instance, Robert Thorndike wrote about "social intelligence" in the late thirties. He defined social intelligence as "the ability to understand and manage men and women, boys and girls to act wisely in human relations." (Thorndike & Stein, 1937, p. 280). In addition, David Weschsler recognized non-cognitive features of intelligence as necessary for adaptation and achievement.
In the early 1940's, Weschler presented the idea of "non-intellective" and "intellective" factors. He also proposed that the "non-intellective" factors, such as effective, personal, and social factors, were necessary for predicting a person's aptitude for accomplishment (John & Lori, 2005).
Then in the early 1980s, the idea of emotional intelligence resurfaced. Howard Gardner suggested that all human beings posses a number of intelligences, each of which appears to be housed in a different part of the brain. Gardner's ideas came to be known as the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Within his concept of multiple intelligences, he proposed the "interpersonal" and "intrapersonal" intelligence are as important as cognitive elements of intelligence. Interpersonal intelligence, or people smart, affords those who have a gift of understanding, appreciating, and getting along well with others. Intrapersonal intelligence, on the other hand, is the ability to understand yourself, knowing who and what you are, and how you fit into the greater scheme of the universe (Gardner, 2000).

In 1990, Salovey and his colleagues published a paper in which they used the term "emotional intelligence" for the first time. They defined EI as, the ability to perceive and express emotions, to understand and use them, and to manage emotions in oneself and other people (Salovey, Bedell, Detweiler, & Mayer, 1999). During the next few years they did a number of laboratory and field-based studies of this "new" concept (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1998).

Finally, the emotional intelligence concept was popularized in (1990) by the publication of Daniel Goleman's book, Emotional Intelligence. Goleman's ideas of emotional intelligence include Howard Gardner's interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences, as well as other necessary facilities (Goleman, 1990).
An elegant definition of intelligence that provides a useful theoretical framework for considering the EI construct was recently proposed by Sternberg (1997): Intelligence comprises the mental abilities necessary for adaptation to, as well as shaping and selection of, any environmental contents. According to this definition, individuals act intelligently not only when they successfully adapt or react to the environment, but also when they shape and change their existing environment to meet their needs. Sternberg posits that intelligence has a common core of mental processes, irrespective of culture or environmental context.
Consistent with Baron (1982) and Dewey's (1933) earlier conceptions of reflective thinking, Sternberg (1999) writes: Among the core mental processes that may be key in any culture or other environmental context are (a) recognizing the existence of the problem, (b) defining the nature of the problem, (c) constructing a strategy to solve the problem, (d) mentally representing information about the problem, (e) allocating mental resources in solving the problem, (f) monitoring one's solution to the problem, and (g) evaluating one's solution to the problem. Gardner (1999b) asserted that emotional intelligence includes self-discipline and the ability to control impulses. The characteristics of emotional intelligence include those qualities that are predictors for successful functioning in society. These characteristics are described as being self-assured and interested; knowing what kind of behavior is expected and how to control the impulse to misbehave, and being able to wait and delay gratification, to follow directions, to turn to teachers for help, and to express needs while getting along with peers (Kathy, 2001).