See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/302412864

Ethical Sensitivity Scale

Chapter · January 2011

DOI: 10.1007/978-94-6091-758-5_4

CITATIONS READS

8 7,374

2 authors:

Kirsi Tirri Petri Nokelainen

University of Helsinki Tampere University
245 PUBLICATIONS 5,837 CITATIONS 178 PUBLICATIONS 3,632 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Petri Nokelainen on 10 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

MEASURING MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES AND MORAL
SENSITIVITIES IN EDUCATION
Measuring Multiple Intelligences and
Moral Sensitivities in Education

Kirsi Tirri
University of Helsinki, Finland

Petri Nokelainen

University of Tampere, Finland

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction: Holistic Human Development in Life-long Learning vii

1. Multiple Intelligences Profiling Questionnaire 1

2. Spiritual Sensitivity Scale 15

3. Environmental Sensitivity Scale 37

4. Ethical Sensitivity Scale 59

5. Emotional Leadership Questionnaire 77

6. Intercultural and Interreligious Sensitivity Scales 101

Kristiina Holm, Petri Nokelainen and Kirsi Tirri

Assessing and Developing Multiple Intelligences Purposefully 123

Seana Moran

Author Information 137

Index 139

v
vi
INTRODUCTION: HOLISTIC HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
IN LIFE-LONG LEARNING

The current educational philosophy all over the world emphasizes the importance
of life-long learning. Holistic approach to teaching and learning includes the whole
learning profile of the learner with his or her multiple intelligences and personality.
In many European countries, such as Finland, education aims to support the
development of the whole person rather than merely the cognitive domain (Finnish
National Board of Education, 2003). This kind of education acknowledges the
importance of social and affective domains in student development, including their
emotional and spiritual concerns.
The aim of education is to help the teachers and their students to grow as
learners and human beings. An important part of this process is self-assessment of
one‘s strengths and weaknesses. To help this educational goal we have made an
effort to create self-assessment tools that would help all the learners to identify
their strengths and weaknesses in multiple areas. The self-evaluated data would
give the student an idea of ―What kind of person am I and what kind of persons are
those with whom I am studying?‖ We have adopted Gardner‘s view on multiple
intelligences as a theory guiding our instrument building (Gardner 1993).
Intelligence is ―a nightmare‖ as a target for self-evaluation. In addition to
measurement issues related to reliability and validity, the creators need to define
what they mean with the concept ―intelligence‖. In our work, we argue that
students‘ perceptions of and beliefs about themselves as learners, together with
their intertwined affective experiences of self in relation to all areas of the seven
intelligences presented in Gardner‘s theory, are the primary dynamical aspects in
their personal learning processes. According to Malmivuori (2001), beliefs and
perceptions of self constitute the most central cognitive feature or determinant
behind students‘ personal understandings, interpretations, and self-regulation.
Hence, we claim that self-evaluated intelligence, that concerns students‘ own
perceptions of and beliefs about themselves as learners, can serve as an
empowering tool in their studies. Self-evaluation is shown to be less threatening
than the evaluation done by the teacher or somebody else (Tirri, 1993).
Furthermore, self-evaluation is a viable starting point in the process of learning
new things. Self-evaluation can be viewed as a form of evaluation that suits an
autonomous, reflective student in helping him/her to continuous growth and
development. It is easy to implement because it doesn‘t require large personnel or
financial resources. In the context of virtual teaching and learning, self-assessment
can provide some of the guidance and feedback that students and teachers need in
the teaching-studying-learning process.

GARDNER‘S THEORY OF MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES

Gardner‘s theory of multiple intelligences builds on a concept of an ―intelligence",

which he defines as ―the ability to solve problems, or to create products, that are

vii
valued within one or more cultural settings‖ (Gardner, 1993, x). Considering this
definition, Gardner lists seven intelligences that meet his criteria for intelligence.
These intelligences are: Linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily
kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal (Gardner, 1993).
In a broad sense, Gardner views his theory as a contribution to the tradition
advocated by Thurstone (1960) and Guildford (1967) because all these theories
argue for the existence of a number of factors, or components, of intelligence. All
these theories also view intelligence as being wider and more multidimensional
than a single, general capacity for conceptualization and problem solving. Gardner
differs from the other pluralists in his attempt to base his MI theory upon
neurological, evolutionary, and cross-cultural evidence (Gardner, 1993). In the first
edition of his MI theory, almost twenty years ago, Gardner adopted a very
individualistic point of view in exploring various intelligences (Gardner, 1983). In
his newest edition of the MI theory, Gardner emphasizes more cultural and
contextual factors in the development of the seven intelligences (Gardner, 1993).
Gardner has retained the original seven intelligences presented earlier, but he
acknowledges the possibility of adding new intelligences to the list. He has worked
on an eighth intelligence, the intelligence of the naturalist, to be included in his list
of multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1995).
Sternberg identifies Gardner‘s theory of multiple intelligences as a systems
approach similar to his own triarchic theory. Although he likes Gardner‘s
assessments at a theoretical level, he believes them to be a psychometric
nightmare. The biggest challenge for advocates of Gardner‘s approach is to
demonstrate the psychometric soundness of their instrument. Sternberg is calling
for hard data that would show that the theory works operationally in a way that will
satisfy scientists as well as teachers. Sternberg‘s own theory promises the broader
measurement implied by the triarchic theory (Sternberg, 1985). His theory provides
process scores for componential processing, coping with novelty, automatization,
and practical-contextual intelligence, and content scores for the verbalization, and
quantitative and figural content domains (Sternberg, 1991).
Sternberg‘s observations on Gardner‘s theory should be kept in mind in
attempts to create tests based on his theory. However, in the educational setting his
theory can be used as a framework in planning a program that would meet the
needs of different learners (Tirri, 1997). Gardner has shown a special interest in the
school‘s possibilities and limitations to encourage different talents in students
(Gardner, 1991). Gardner‘s theory has been applied in educational settings and in
schools (see, e.g., Armstrong, 1993). Gardner warns against using his theory as the
only educational approach. There is no single way to adapt his theory, but he has
given some guidelines for the possible uses of his theory in schools (Gardner,
1995).
In our instrument development work, Gardner‘s theory is used as a guiding
theory to build tools for students‘ self-evaluation. Self-evaluated intelligence is
closely related to a person‘s self-concept (SC). According to leading researchers,
self-concept has a two-factor structure: general self-concept and academic self-
concept (Shavelson, Hubner & Stanton, 1976). Byrne & Gavin (1996) argue that
SC is a multidimensional construct, which in their study comprised the four facets
of general, academic, English, and mathematics self-concepts. Self-evaluated
intelligence can reflect both general and academic components of a person‘s self-

viii
concept. Furthermore, self-evaluated intelligence is closely related to a person‘s
self-esteem and self-confidence. The concept of self-efficacy needs to be
acknowledged in the context of self-evaluation. According to Bandura (1978), self-
efficacy is specific to a particular activity or situation, in contrast to global beliefs
like self-concept. In our study, we concentrate on the self-evaluated intelligence
within the Gardnerian framework. We assume that students reflect both general
and academic self-concepts in their self-assessments of their strengths and
weaknesses.

MORAL SENSITIVITIES

According to earlier empirical research we know that intelligence tends to correlate

with high levels of moral reasoning (Narvaez, 1993; Räsänen, Tirri & Nokelainen,
2006). However, the relationship between intelligence and morality is a very
complex one and needs more detailed studies (Tirri & Pehkonen, 2002; Tirri &
Nokelainen, 2007; Tirri, Nokelainen & Mahkonen, 2009). According to Bebeau,
Rest and Narvaez (1999), morality is built upon four basic component processes.
These processes include moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation and
moral character. The components of moral sensitivity, moral motivation and moral
character have been less studied than the component of moral judgment.
Tirri (2011) argues that skills in moral judgment and especially in moral
sensitivity are necessary in combining excellence with ethics. High ability students
have shown to be superior in moral judgment when compared to average ability
students. However, high academic ability does not always predict high moral
judgment (Narvaez, 1993). Moreover, morality includes other components as well,
such as sensitivity, motivation and character. According to Muriel Bebeau and her
colleagues (1999), moral sensitivity is about the awareness of how our actions
affect other people. Thus, without moral sensitivity it is difficult to see what kind
of moral issues are involved in everyday life. However, to respond to a situation in
a moral way, a person must be able to perceive and interpret events in a ways that
leads to ethical action. Morally sensitive person notes various situational cues and
is able to visualize several alternative actions in response to that situation. He or
she draws on many aspects skills, techniques and components of interpersonal
sensitivity. These include taking the perspective of others (role taking), cultivating
empathy for a sense of connection to others, and interpreting a situation based on
imagining what might happen and who might be affected. Moral sensitivity is
closely related to a new suggested intelligence type, social intelligence, which can
be defined as the ability to get along well with others and get them to cooperate
with you (Albrecht, 2006; Goleman, 2006).

CHAPTERS OF THE BOOK

In this book, we introduce several sensitivity measures in educational contexts that

can be used in research, education and self-evaluations. In Chapter 1 we discuss the
framework of Gardner‘s theory and introduce our Multiple Intelligence Profiling
Questionnaire MIPQ VII. We present the psychometrical qualities of the
instrument with empirical data sets of children, youth and adults. In Chapter 2 the
Spiritual Sensitivity Scale is introduced with the theoretical framework it is

ix
connected to. The existence of spiritual intelligence has been a widely debated
issue and not everybody is ready to call advanced thinking in religious or spiritual
domains as intelligence. This has guided us to use the term sensitivity, which is
easier to justify than intelligence in these areas of human behavior. In Chapter 3 we
introduce the Environmental Sensitivity Scale, which is quite close to the possible
intelligence of naturalist suggested by Gardner. In Chapter 4 Ethical Sensitivity
Scale is introduced followed by Emotional Leadership Questionnaire in Chapter 5.
All these scales have a solid theoretical framework and earlier empirical work to
support the instrument building. Chapter 6 introduces Intercultural and
Interreligious Sensitivity Scales with their theoretical frameworks and earlier
empirical work.
A commentary by Dr. Seana Moran compliments the book and challenges the
readers to further reflect the meaning of education in supporting holistic
development of learners in their life-long journey. We have authored this book to
contribute to this goal and hope it will be used in the hands of researchers, teachers
and students in their mutual effort to grow and to learn new things in life.

REFERENCES
Albrecht, K. (2006). Social intelligence. The new science of success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Armstrong, T. (1993). 7 kinds of smart. New York: A Blume Book.
Bandura, A. (1978). Reflections on self-efficacy. Advances in Behavior Research Therapy, 1, 237-269.
Bebeau, M., Rest, J., & Narvaez, D. (1999). Beyond the promise: a perspective on research in moral
education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 18-26.
Byrne, B., & Gavin, D. (1996). The Shavelson model revisited: Testing for the structure of academic
self-concept across pre-, early, and late adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 215-
228.
Finnish National Board of Education (2003). National Core Curriculum for Upper Secondary School.
Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind. London: Fontana Press.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1995). Reflections on multiple intelligences. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(3), 200-208.
Goleman, D. (2006). Social Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Guildford, J. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: Mc Graw-Hill.
Malmivuori, M. (2001). The dynamics of affect, cognition, and social environment in the regulation of
personal learning processes: The case of mathematics. Research report 172. Department of
Education. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
Narvaez, D. (1993). High achieving students and moral judgment. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 16(3), 268-279.
Räsänen, A., Tirri, K., & Nokelainen, P. (2007). Religious Thinking and Giftedness. In K. Tirri, & M.
Ubani (Eds.), Holistic Education and Giftedness (pp. 91-108). Helsinki: Department of Practical
Theology, University of Helsinki.
Shavelson, R., Hubner, J., & Stanton, G. (1996). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations.
Review of Educational Research, 46, 407-441.
Sternberg, R. (1985). Beyond IQ: a triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Sternberg, R. (1991). Death, taxes, and bad intelligence tests. Editorial. Intelligence, 15(3), 257-269.
Thurstone, L. (1960). The nature of intelligence. Littlefield: Adams.
Tirri, K. (1993). Evaluating teacher effectiveness by self-assessment: a cross-cultural study. Research
report 122. Department of Teacher Education. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.
Tirri, K. (1997). How Finland meets the needs of gifted and talented pupils. High Ability Studies, 8(2),
213-222.
Tirri, K., & Nokelainen, P. (2007). Comparison of Academically Average and Gifted Students' Self-
Rated Ethical Sensitivity. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(6), 587-601.

x
Tirri, K. (2011). Combining excellence and ethics: Implications for moral education for the gifted.
Roeper Review, 33(1), 59-64.
Tirri, K., Nokelainen, P., & Mahkonen, M. (2009). How Morality and Religiosity Relate to Intelligence:
A Case Study of Mathematically Gifted Adolescents. Journal of Empirical Theology, 22(1), 70-87.
Tirri, K., & Pehkonen, L. (2002). The moral reasoning and scientific argumentation of gifted
adolescents. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 13(3), 120-129.

xi
xii
 CHAPTER 1

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES PROFILING

QUESTIONNAIRE

INTRODUCTION

The Multiple Intelligences Profiling Questionnaire VII (MIPQ VII, see Tirri &
Komulainen, 2002; Tirri, Nokelainen & Ubani, 2006; Tirri & Nokelainen, 2007) is
a five-point Likert scale (Likert, 1932) self-rating questionnaire that is based on
Howard Gardner‘s Multiple Intelligences (MI) theory (1983, 1991, 1995, 1999,
2000, 2006). The MIPQ VII aim to assist both learners in their self-reflection and
teachers to understand their students‘ strengths. This version of MIPQ (Tirri, K.,
Komulainen, Nokelainen & Tirri, H., 2002, 2003) operationalizes seven MI
dimensions with 28 items: (1) Linguistic, (2) Logical-mathematical, (3) Musical,
(4) Spatial, (5) Bodily-kinesthetic, (6) Interpersonal and (7) Intrapersonal
intelligence. The following two chapters present MIPQ versions VIII (with
spiritual dimension) and IX (with spiritual and environmental dimensions).
Sternberg (1991) identifies Gardner‘s MI theory as a systemic approach similar
to his own triarchic theory (1985). Although he appreciates Gardner‘s assessments
on a theoretical level, he finds them to be a psychometric nightmare (Sternberg,
1991): the greatest challenge for advocates of Gardner‘s approach is to demonstrate
the psychometric soundness of the instrument. Sternberg call for hard data showing
that the theory works operationally in a way that will satisfy researchers as well as
teachers.
The main goals of this chapter are, firstly, to present the seven dimension
version of the Multiple Intelligences Profiling Questionnaire (MIPQ VII) and
secondly, to test the psychometric properties of the MIPQ VII with empirical
samples.
The chapter is organized as follows: First, we present the theoretical structure
of the MIPQ VII. Second, we test the psychometric properties of the MIPQ VII‘s
seven dimensions with two sub-samples consisting of Finnish preadolescents and
adults (N = 410). Finally, we discuss the properties and possible uses of the
instrument.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Gardner‘s theory of multiple intelligences builds upon a concept of an

―intelligence‖, which he defines as ―the ability to solve problems, or to create
products, that are valued within one or more cultural settings‖ (Gardner, 1993, p.
x). In his latest work Howard Gardner (2006, p. 50) also views intelligences as

Kirsi Tirri & Petri Nokelainen. Measuring Multiple Intelligences and Moral Sensitivities in Education,
© 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES PROFILING QUESTIONNAIRE

―raw, biological potentials, which can be seen in pure form only in individuals who
are, in the technical sense, freaks‖. He lists seven intelligences (IQ) that meet his
criteria for intelligence. These intelligences are (1) Linguistic, (2) Logical-
mathematical, (3) Musical, (4) Spatial, (5), Bodily-kinesthetic, (6) Interpersonal
and (7) Intrapersonal (Gardner, 1983, p. xi). Operationalization and prevalidation
of these dimensions was first carried out with an empirical sample (N = 256) of
Finnish university students (Tirri et al., 2002, 2003).
Tirri and Komulainen (2002) operationalized the Linguistic intelligence
dimension to include both verbal and written expressions. People whose
intelligence profile includes a strong linguistic component would presumably give
themselves high ratings on learning and entertaining themselves with words and
verbal games. The factor score weights revealed that linguistic intelligence consists
of two different components. The first, ―Academic verbalness‖, measured self-
perception in verbal learning (―Metaphors and vivid verbal expressions help me
learn efficiently‖ and ―At school, studies in my native language or social studies
were easier for me than mathematics, physics and chemistry‖). The other
component of linguistic intelligence consisted of items that measured ―Everyday
verbalness‖. The highest loading variables included the following items ―I am
good at entertaining myself and others with wordplay and jokes‖ and ―It is easy for
me to play with word games, such as crossword puzzles‖). The reliability of the
scale was satisfactory ( = .64).
Logical-mathematical intelligence consisted of items that measured a person‘s
perceptions of both their mathematical ability and logical thinking skills (Tirri &
Komulainen, 2002). This intelligence also had two components. The highest
loading items, ―At school I was good at mathematics, physics or chemistry‖,
―Mental arithmetic is easy for me‖, and ―I am good at games and problem solving
which require logical thinking‖, measured problem solving in academic contexts.
The component was named ―Academic problem solving‖. The other component,
―Systematic and logical thinking‖, included items that measured analytical, logical
and systematic thinking in general. The highest loading variables included the
following items: ―I tend to look for consistency, models and logical series in
things‖, ―I can easily measure, classify, analyze or calculate things‖, ―I want to
present things as logically as possible and to give reasons for them‖ and ―I easily
notice lapses of logic in other people‘s everyday speech or actions‖. The reliability
of the scale was good ( = .76). (Tirri & Komulainen, 2002; Tirri et al., 2002,
2003.)
According to Tirri and her colleagues (2002, 2003), Musical intelligence was
the most reliable and homogeneous of all the Gardnerian scales (Alpha .93). The
ten items of the scale measured one‘s musical ability to hear and produce music.
The highest loading variables were the items ―When listening to music, I am able
to discern instruments or recognize melodies‖ and ―I notice immediately if a
melody is out of tune‖.
Spatial intelligence measured a person‘s views of his or her abilities to
visualize and work with multidimensional objects. This intelligence consisted of
two components: one dealt with visual imaging and the other with spatial
perception. The highest factor score weights on the component measuring visual
imaging included the following items: ―When I think, I can see clear visual images
in my mind‖, ―I am able to see objects or events that I would like to document on

2
 MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES PROFILING QUESTIONNAIRE

camera or video‖, and ―I‘m good at drawing and designing various kinds of
figures‖. The highest factor score weights measuring spatial perception included
the items: ―It is easy for me to conceptualize complex and multidimensional
patterns‖, ―I can easily imagine how a landscape looks from a bird‘s-eye view‖,
and ―At school, geometry and various kinds of assignments involving spatial
perception were easier for me than solving equations‖. The reliability of the scale
was satisfactory ( = .73). (Tirri & Komulainen, 2002.)
Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence was operationalized to include items measuring
people‘s views of their abilities to work with hands and coordinating their bodies.
This scale also consisted of two components. The ―Handyman‖ component
included the following items: ―I am handy‖, ―I was good at handicrafts at school‖
and ―I can easily do something concrete with my hands (e.g. knitting and
woodwork)‖. The other component was named ―Body coordination‖, because it
included items related to coordination skills. The following items had high scores
on this component: ―I am very good at tasks that require good coordination‖ and ―I
have good coordination‖. The reliability of the scale was satisfactory ( = .74).
(Tirri & Komulainen, 2002.)
Interpersonal intelligence was the second most homogeneous of the Gardnerian
scales (Alpha .82). The items measured a persons‘ perception of his or her ability
in social relations. The highest factor weights were on the items ―I make contact
easily with other people‖ and ―I get along easily with different types of people‖.
(Tirri & Komulainen, 2002.)
Intrapersonal intelligence consisted of two components. The ―Self-reflection‖
component measured people‘s views of their ability to reflect on important issues
in life as well as deep psychological and philosophical issues. The highest scoring
factor weights were on items ―I regularly spend time reflecting on the important
issues of life‖, ―I like to read psychological or philosophical literature to increase
my self-knowledge‖ and ―I keep a diary or note down the events of my inner life‖.
The other component ―Self-knowledge‖, dealt with issues concerning individuals‘
ability to analyze themselves and the courage to express their own opinions. The
highest scoring items were, ―I am able to analyze my own motives and ways of
action‖, ―I have opinions of my own and dare to disagree with others‖, and ―I can
handle the emotions caused by serious setbacks‖. The reliability of the scale was
satisfactory ( = .70). (Tirri & Komulainen, 2002.)
Gardner founds his MI theory upon neurological, evolutionary, and cross-
cultural evidence (Gardner, 1983). In the first edition of his MI theory published
nearly thirty years ago, Gardner adopted a very individualistic point of view in
exploring various intelligences. In the latest edition of his MI theory, Gardner
emphasizes more cultural and contextual factors in the development of the seven
intelligences (Gardner, 1999). Gardner has retained the original seven intelligences
presented earlier, but he acknowledges the possibility of adding new intelligences
to the list. He has worked to include naturalistic, spiritual and existential
intelligences in his list of multiple intelligences. The next following two chapters
further discuss these additional intelligences and their operationalization into the
MIPQ VIII and IX.

3
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES PROFILING QUESTIONNAIRE

METHOD

Sample

The non-probability sample was collected with the 28 –item MIPQ VII in 2002-
2003. The theoretical structure of the questionnaire was analyzed with a sample (N
= 410) that consists of Finnish preadolescents (n = 183) and adults (n = 227). The
youngest respondents were 183 Finnish elementary school 5th and 6th grade
students. One hundred and four (56 %) were girls and 79 (44 %) were boys. Their
age median was 12 years. The second group (n =227) represents Finnish adults,
including 200 males and 24 females (gender information was missing from three
respondents), with the age median of 26 years.

Multiple Intelligences Profiling Questionnaire VII (MIPQ VII)

The MIPQ VII measures seven dimensions of Gardner‘s MI theory: (1) Linguistic,
(2) Logical-mathematical, (3) Musical, (4) Spatial, (5) Bodily-kinesthetic, (6)
Interpersonal, and (7) Intrapersonal intelligence. The instrument consists of 28
items on a Likert scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). The
psychometric properties of the dimensions were prevalidated in our earlier studies
(Tirri & Komulainen, 2002; Tirri, K., Komulainen, Nokelainen & Tirri, H., 2002,
2003; Tirri, Nokelainen & Ubani, 2006; Tirri & Nokelainen, 2007). The total
number of items was reduced from 70 to 28 items. (Table 1.)

Procedure

The sample was collected with a non-probability sampling. Each respondent was
personally invited to complete a paper and pencil version of the questionnaire.
Preadolescents and adults answered the questions with the same wordings.
Participants were asked to use the Likert scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 5
(totally agree) to evaluate their attitude towards the statements measuring multiple
intelligences.
Total population in Finland is 5.2 million. The country consists of five
culturally and economically equal provinces: 1) Lapland (N = 187,777, 4 %), 2)
Oulu (N = 457,345, 9 %), 3) Western Finland (N = 1,843,225, 35 %), 4) Eastern
Finland (N = 584,974, 11 %) and 5) Southern Finland (N = 2,106,117, 41 %). The
preadolescent sample (n = 183) was collected from two provinces, Western and
Southern Finland in 2002-2003. The adult sample (n = 227) represented all the
provinces and was collected in 2003.

Statistical Analyses

Statistical analyses were conducted in four phases. First, internal consistency of the
MIPQ VII was tested with Cronbach's alpha (1970). In this study, we consider
alpha levels of the reliability analysis against Nunnally's (1978, pp. 245-246)
statement: ―increasing reliabilities much beyond .80 is often wasteful of time and
funds with the exception of applied settings where important decisions are made
with respect to specific test scores.‖ Second, correlations between the seven MIPQ

4
 MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES PROFILING QUESTIONNAIRE

VII dimensions were analyzed with Spearman rho. The fixed level of Type I error
was determined in advance to be = .05 in both second and third phases of the
analyses. Kubinger, Rasch & Simeckova (2007) suggest that when testing a
correlation coefficient's significance it is preferable to use H0: 0 < < instead of
H0: = 0. In this study, we set the = .3. Further, according to Kubinger and his
colleagues (id.), the magnitude of the dependency between two random variables
can be interpreted by using the coefficient of determination (r2), which represents
"the per centage of the variance of one of two random variables which can be
explained by a linear regression on the other variable" (id., p. 76). Thirth, the
external validity of the nine MI scales was initially studied with confirmatory
factor analysis for categorical indicators.

RESULTS

Reliability Analysis of the MIPQ VII

The first phase of the analysis investigates psychometric properties of the 28 -

item MIPQ VII. Table 2 presents the factor structure and alpha loadings for the
seven MI scales. The results were in parallel with the findings of our previous
studies (Tirri & Komulainen, 2002; Tirri et al., 2002, 2003; Tirri, Nokelainen &
Ubani, 2006): Musical and Interpersonal scales had the highest reliabilities ( = .88
- .89), and Linguistic and Spatial scales had the lowest reliabilities ( = .53 - .62).
As discussed earlier, alpha depends on the dimensionality of the scale (one-
dimensional vs. multidimensional); higher reliability is achieved with one-
dimensional constructs. The second issue affecting reliability is that when the
abstraction level of the concept increases, like with the spiritual intelligence, the
invention on unambiguous propositions becomes more difficult.

5
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES PROFILING QUESTIONNAIRE

Table 1. Linguistic, Logical-mathematical, Spatial, Bodily-kinesthetic, Musical,

Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Intelligence Items in the MIPQ VII

Preadol. Adults
(n = 183) (n = 227)
Item Label M (SD) M (SD)
lingu_1 Writing is a natural way for me to express myself. 3.36(0.96) 2.72(1.15)
lingu_2 At school, studies in native language were easy for me. 3.10(1.23) 3.21(1.19)
lingu_3 I have recently written something that I am especially 2.93(1.29) 2.00(1.21)
proud of, or for which I have received recognition.
lingu_4 Metaphors and vivid verbal expressions help me learn 3.25(0.94) 3.52(1.01)
efficiently.
logic_1 At school, I was good at mathematics, physics or 2.71(1.33) 2.72(1.13)
chemistry.
logic_2 I can work with and solve complex problems. 3.08(1.18) 3.54(0.89)
logic_3 Mental arithmetic is easy for me. 3.79(1.07) 3.51(1.01)
logic_4 I am good at games and problem solving, which require 3.43(1.19) 3.41(0.94)
logical thinking.
spati_1 At school, geometry and various kinds of assignments 2.88(1.13) 2.98(1.24)
involving spatial perception were easy for me.
spati_2 It is easy for me to conceptualize complex and 3.28(0.98) 3.45(0.86)
multidimensional patterns.
spati_3 I can easily imagine how a landscape looks from a bird‘s- 3.50(1.04) 3.35(1.00)
eye view.
spati_4 When I read, I form illustrative pictures or designs in my 3.78(1.06) 3.52(1.08)
mind.
bodki_1 I am handy. 3.49(0.96) 3.92(0.93)
bodki_2 I can easily do something concrete with my hands (e.g. 3.99(1.04) 4.03(1.04)
knitting and woodwork).
bodki_3 I am good at showing how to do something in practice. 3.28(0.89) 3.88(0.77)
bodki_4 I was good at handicrafts at school. 3.90(1.14) 4.04(1.00)
music_1 After hearing a tune once or twice I am able to sing or 3.28(1.23) 2.92(1.32)
whistle it quite accurately.
music_2 When listening to music, I am able to discern instruments 3.34(1.15) 3.29(1.35)
or recognize melodies.
music_3 I can easily keep the rhythm when drumming a melody. 3.29(1.06) 3.20(1.28)
music_4 I notice immediately if a melody is out of tune. 3.16(1.19) 3.08(1.29)
inter_1 Even in strange company, I easily find someone to talk to. 3.30(1.14) 3.84(0.89)
inter_2 I get alone easily with different types of people. 3.58(1.01) 4.26(0.75)
inter_3 I make contact easily with other people. 3.30(0.98) 3.84(0.77)
inter_4 In negotiations and group work, I am able to support the 3.26(0.85) 3.72(0.74)
group to find a consensus.
intra_1 I am able to analyze my own motives and ways of action. 3.25(0.83) 3.86(0.77)
intra_2 I often think about my own feelings and sentiments and 3.39(1.10) 3.43(1.08)
seek reasons for them.
intra_3 I spend time regularly reflecting on the important issues in 3.01(1.20) 2.88(1.12)
life.
intra_4 I like to read psychological or philosophical literature to 2.23(1.11) 2.33(1.15)
increase my self-knowledge.

6
 MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES PROFILING QUESTIONNAIRE

Table 2. Factor Structure and Alpha Loadings of the MIPQ VII

Preadolescents Adults
(n = 183) (n = 227)
Dimension Items
1. Linguistic lingu_1, lingu_2, lingu_3, lingu_4 .62 .59
2. Logical- logic_1, logic_2, logic_3, logic_4 .76 .63
mathematical
3. Musical music_1, music_2, music_3, .83 .89
music_4
4. Spatial spati_1, spati_2, spati_3, spati_4 .53 .54
5. Bodily- bodki_1, bodki_2, bodki_3, .71 .84
kinesthetic bodki_4
6. Interpersonal inter_1, inter_2, inter_3, inter_4 .81 .80
7. Intrapersonal intra_1, intra_2, intra_3, intra_4 .72 .76

Correlational Analysis of the MIPQ VII

The second step in the analysis is to calculate Spearman non-parametric

correlations between the seven MI dimensions with the preadolescent (n = 183)
and adult (n = 227) samples (Table 3). The results show that Logical-mathematical
intelligence is statistically related to the Spatial intelligence in both samples,
rS(183) = .48, p < .01, r2 = .23 and rS(227) = .39, p < .01, r2 = .15 as both variables
share 23 and 15 per cent mutual variance, respectively. Further, in both samples the
Linguistic intelligence is more strongly related to Intrapersonal than Interpersonal
intelligence, rS(183) = .49, p < .01, r2 = .25 and rS(227) = .52, p < .01, r2 = .27.
However, both aforementioned dimensions correlate positively in both samples,
rS(183) = .42, p < .01, r2 = .18 and rS(227) = .36, p < .01, r2 = .13.
We also investigated correlations between age, gender and the MI dimensions
in the preadolescent sample. Results considering the MI scales showed that boys
rated their Logical-mathematical intelligence higher than girls, rS(183) = .39, p <
.01, r2 = .15. This result was also weakly present in our earlier study with the
university students (Tirri & Komulainen, 2002), rS(256) = .27, p < .001, r2 = .07.
Females tended to rate their linguistic abilities higher than the males in both
current, rS(183) = -.18, p < .01, r2 = .03 and the past study (Tirri, et al., 2002),
rS(256) = -.49, p < .001, r2 = .25.

7
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES PROFILING QUESTIONNAIRE

Table 3. Correlations between the MIPQ VII Dimensions

Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Preadolescents (n = 183)

1. Linguistic — .15 .39 .45 .36 .34 .49

2. Logical-mathematical — .12 .48 .15 .26 .31
3. Musical — .39 .41 .50 .36
4. Spatial — .32 .31 .40
5. Bodily-kinesthetic — .44 .16
6. Interpersonal — .42
7. Intrapersonal —

Adults (n = 227)

1. Linguistic — .11 .15 .22 -.03 .28 .52

2. Logical-mathematical — .10 .39 .19 .04 .19
3. Musical — .27 .11 .24 .16
4. Spatial — .28 .21 .31
5. Bodily-kinesthetic — .11 -.09
6. Interpersonal — .36
7. Intrapersonal —

Our earlier study (Tirri et al., 2002) validated the MI scales with various
controlling variables. The results showed that those students who had received
good grades in mathematics in their matriculation examination rated their
Interpersonal skills to be lower than their colleagues who had received lower
grades, r(256) = -.22, p < .001, r2 = .05. Results also indicated that good grades in
mother tongue in the matriculation examination explain students‘ high ratings in
the Linguistic intelligence component, r(256) = .34, p < .001, r2 = .12. In addition,
we found that Linguistic intelligence seems to increase with age, r(256) = .22, p <
2
.001, r = .05, as the older students rated this component significantly higher than
their younger colleagues. Results showed that the females tended to rate
themselves higher than the males in both interpersonal, r(256) = .29, p < .001, r2 =
.08, and intrapersonal intelligence, r(256) = .45, p < .001, r2 = .20. The first finding
was repeated in the current study, but with a weak correlation, r(183) = -.18, p <
.05, r2 = .03.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The last phase of the statistical analysis was to evaluate the goodness-of-fit of the
MIPQ VII model with both preadolescent and adult samples (Table 4). In addition,
the model fit to the combined sample was investigated. The RMSEA estimate, as
well as the upper bound of 90 per cent confidence interval, were in both samples

8
 MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES PROFILING QUESTIONNAIRE

within the fair fit level of .05 – .08 (Hair et al., 1995). Incremental fit measures
(TLI and CFI) were in both samples above the recommended level of .90 (Tucker
& Lewis, 1973). Results of the combined sample (N = 378) also indicated good
generalizability of the model.

Table 4. Goodness-of-fit Values of the MIPQ VII

Preadolescents Adults Combined

(n = 183) (n = 227) (N = 410)

Absolute Fit Measures

2
636.91 721.50 990.40
Df 329 329 329
p <.001 <.001 <.001
RMSEA .072 .073 .070
90 per cent C.I. .063 .080 .065 .080 .065 .075
Incremental Fit Measures
CFI .977 .975 .977
TLI .972 .969 .972
Note. RMSEA= Root Mean Square Error of Approximation with 90 per cent confidence
interval. TLI = Tucker-Lewis coefficient. CFI = Comparative Fit Index.

We did not do any model modifications during the analysis as, according to Hu
and Bentler (1995, p. 99), ―… when procedures are used that empirically modify a
model to make it look as good as possible in a particular sample, all of the model
fit indexes will appear unduly optimistic about the quality of the model.‖ However,
we probed the model with two simple procedures. First, we randomly assigned the
28 items to the seven MI dimensions and calculated the fit indices for the
combined data (N = 410). Results showed a dramatic change in goodness-of-fit
measures. For example, CFI and TLI values dropped to .452 and .358, respectively.
This is a theoretically justifiable finding as all the items are allowed to interact with
each other and, thus, produce a high overall correlation. Second, we inputted a
random data (within the original MIPQ VII value range from 1 to 5 into the CFA
model. The analysis did not converge at all as the maximum number of iterations
(first n = 1000 and then n = 10000) was exceeded.

CONCLUSIONS

In this chapter, we presented the seven dimension version of the Multiple

Intelligences Profiling Questionnaire (MIPQ VII) that is based on Gardner's MI
theory (e.g., 2006). Operationalization of the seven MI dimensions was tested with
an empirical sample of Finnish preadolescents and adults (N = 410): Firstly,
internal consistency of the MIPQ VII was tested; Secondly, correlations between
the seven MIPQ VII dimensions were studied; Thirdly, correlations between the
seven MIPQ VII dimensions and the background variables (age, gender) were

9
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES PROFILING QUESTIONNAIRE

analyzed; Fourthly, the external validity of the seven MI dimensions was studied
with a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
Results of the internal consistency analysis showed that the seven MIPQ VII
dimensions had satisfactory reliability coefficients with both sub samples. The
results of CFA showed good generalizability characteristics of the MIPQ VII
scales. Combined sample (N = 410) did fit to the model better than the two sub
samples, indicating good generalizability of the model.
Results of the MIPQ VII inter-scale correlation analysis showed that Logical-
mathematical intelligence correlated positively with Spatial intelligence in both
samples and Linguistic correlated positively with Intrapersonal intelligence.
Results of the correlation analysis between the gender, age and MIPQ VII
scales showed that boys in the preadolescent sample rated their Logical-
mathematical intelligence higher than girls. This finding is in accord with earlier
studies concerning gender differences among gifted students. A study by Siegle
and Reis (1998) found that adolescent male gifted students indicated they had
higher ability than females in mathematics, science, and social studies. Females
tended to rate their linguistic abilities higher than the males. The similar results
have been reported with our earlier studies using this instrument with gifted
preadolescents (Tirri & Ubani, 2007).
Earlier research on gender differences in mathematical achievement has shown
that gifted girls tend to underestimate their abilities in this area and this trend could
have influenced the self-rated behavior of the girls in our sample as well. Kerr
(1994) and Reis (1998) have identified external barriers to gifted women to excel
as including the attitudes of parents and school, environmental options and possible
discrimination or harassment at school or at work. The possible internal barriers
among gifted females included self-doubt, self-criticism, and too low expectations.
According to Siegle and Reis (1998), gifted girls tend to underestimate their
abilities, especially in mathematics, social studies and science.

DISCUSSION

Our major motivation, when operationalizing Gardner‘s MI theory into the MIPQ
VII, is to provide both learners and their supervisors‘ practical tools for meaningful
self-reflection regarding each one‘s potentials. Perceptions of individual strengths
are also connected to self-concept (e.g., Shavelson, Hubner & Stanton, 1996) and
attribution theory (e.g., Heider, 1958; Weiner, 1974).
In addition, we are interested in the outcome aspect that is strongly present in
the MI theory suggesting that academic intelligence alone is not enough. We need
to recognize that success in life and career depends also on social, practical and
emotional intelligences (Albrecht, 2006; Goleman, 2006).
Our findings give important information to teachers and educators on how
gender influences the self-perception of students‘ abilities. The educators and
counsellors should be aware of the main trends of girls to rate themselves lower in
logical-mathematical dimension than in the other ones. The girls should be
encouraged to see their whole potential in that dimension as well.

10
 MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES PROFILING QUESTIONNAIRE

REFERENCES
Albrecht, K. (2006). Social intelligence. The new science of success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing. Third edition. New York: Harper & Row.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind. London: Fontana Press.
Gardner, H. (1995). Reflections on multiple intelligences. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(3), 200-208.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic
Books.
Gardner, H. (2000). A case against spiritual intelligence. International Journal for the Psychology of
Religion, 10, 27-34.
Gardner, H. (2006). Development and education of the mind. The selected works of Howard Gardner.
London: Routledge.
Goleman, D. (2006). Social Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis. Fourth
edition. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relationships. New York: Wiley.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling:
Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kerr, B. (1994). Smart girls: A new psychology of girls, women and giftedness. Revised edition.
Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press.
Kubinger, K. D., Rasch, D., & Simeckova, M. (2007). Testing a correlation coefficient's significance:
Using H0: 0 < < is preferable to H0: = 0. Psychology Science, 49(2), 74-87.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 44-53.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Reis, S. (1998). Work left undone. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Shavelson, R., Hubner, J., & Stanton, G. (1996). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations.
Review of Educational Research, 46, 407-441.
Siegle, D., & Reis, S. (1998). Gender differences in teacher and student perceptions of gifted students‘
ability and effort. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(1), 39-47.
Sternberg, R. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Sternberg, R. (1991). Death, taxes, and bad intelligence tests. Intelligence, 15(3), 257-269.
Tirri, K., & Komulainen, E. (2002). Modeling a self-rated intelligence-profile for virtual university. In
H. Niemi & P. Ruohotie (Eds.), Theoretical understandings for learning in virtual university (pp.
139-168). Hämeenlinna: RCVE.
Tirri, K., Komulainen, E., Nokelainen, P., & Tirri, H. (2002). Conceptual Modeling of Self-Rated
Intelligence Profile. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Self-Concept Research Conference.
Sydney: University of Western Sydney.
Tirri, K., Komulainen, E., Nokelainen, P., & Tirri, H. (2003, April). Gardner's Theory Applied to Model
a Self-Rated Intelligence Profile. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Multiple Intelligences SIG, Chicago, USA.
Tirri, K., & Nokelainen, P. (2007, August). Empirical Investigation of the Multiple Intelligences
Profiling Questionnaire's Environmental Sensitivity Scale. Paper presented at the 12th biennal
conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Budapest,
Hungary.
Tirri, K., Nokelainen, P., & Ubani, M. (2006). Conceptual Definition and Empirical Validation of the
Spiritual Sensitivity Scale. Journal of Empirical Theology, 19(1), 37-62.
Tirri, K., & Ubani, M. (2007). The differences in the intelligence profiles of Finnish 12-13-year old
academically gifted girls and boys. In K. Tirri & M. Ubani (Eds.), Holistic education and
Giftedness (pp. 8-15). Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
Tucker, T. L., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis.
Psychometrica, 38, 1-10.
Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation and attribution theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning
Press.

11
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES PROFILING QUESTIONNAIRE

Multiple Intelligences Profiling Questionnaire VII

TOTALLY TOTALLY
DISAGREE AGREE

Writing is a natural way for me to express myself. 1 2 3 4 5

At school, studies in English or social studies were

1 2 3 4 5
easier for me than mathematics, physics and chemistry.
I have recently written something that I am especially
1 2 3 4 5
proud of, or for which I have received recognition.
Metaphors and vivid verbal expressions help me learn
1 2 3 4 5
efficiently.
At school, I was good at mathematics, physics or
1 2 3 4 5
chemistry.

I can work with and solve complex problems. 1 2 3 4 5

Mental arithmetic is easy for me. 1 2 3 4 5

I am good at games and problem solving, which require

1 2 3 4 5
logical thinking.
At school, geometry and other subjects involving spatial
1 2 3 4 5
perception were easier for me than solving equations.
It is easy for me to conceptualize complex and
1 2 3 4 5
multidimensional patterns.
I can easily imagine how a landscape looks from a
1 2 3 4 5
bird's-eye view.
When I read, I form pictures or visual images in my
1 2 3 4 5
mind.

I am handy. 1 2 3 4 5

I can easily do something concrete with my hands (e.g.

1 2 3 4 5
knitting and woodwork).
I am good at showing someone how to do something in
1 2 3 4 5
practice.
I was good at handicrafts (e.g. woodwork; textiles) at
1 2 3 4 5
school.
After hearing a tune once or twice I am able to sing or
1 2 3 4 5
whistle it quite accurately.
When listening to music, I am able to pick out
1 2 3 4 5
individual instruments and recognize melodies.

12
 MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES PROFILING QUESTIONNAIRE

TOTALLY TOTALLY
DISAGREE AGREE

I can easily keep the rhythm when drumming a melody. 1 2 3 4 5

I notice immediately if a melody is out of tune. 1 2 3 4 5

Even in strange company, I can easily find someone to

1 2 3 4 5
talk to.

I get along easily with different types of people. 1 2 3 4 5

I make contact easily with other people. 1 2 3 4 5

In negotiations and group work, I am able to support the

1 2 3 4 5
group to find a consensus.
I am able to analyze my own motives and ways of
1 2 3 4 5
action.
I often think about my own feelings and sentiments and
1 2 3 4 5
seek reasons for them.
I regularly spend time reflecting on the important issues
1 2 3 4 5
of life.
I like to read psychological or philosophical literature to
1 2 3 4 5
increase my self-knowledge.

13
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES PROFILING QUESTIONNAIRE

SPSS Syntax to Compute MIPQ VII Factors

/* Variable names in this syntax refer to Table 1 in this chapter

COMPUTE MIPQVII_LINGU = MEAN(lingu_1, lingu_2, lingu_3, lingu_4).

COMPUTE MIPQVII_LOGIC = MEAN(logic_1, logic_2, logic_3, logic_4).
COMPUTE MIPQVII_MUSIC = MEAN(music_1, music_2, music_3, music_4).
COMPUTE MIPQVII_SPATI = MEAN(spati_1, spati_2, spati_3, spati_4).
COMPUTE MIPQVII_BODKI = MEAN(bodki_1, bodki_2, bodki_3, bodki_4).
COMPUTE MIPQVII_INTER = MEAN(inter_1, inter_2, inter_3, inter_4).
COMPUTE MIPQVII_INTRA = MEAN(intra_1, intra_2, intra_3, intra_4).
EXECUTE.

VARIABLE LABELS
MIPQVII_LINGU "1. Linguistic"
MIPQVII_LOGIC "2. Mathematical-logical"
MIPQVII_MUSIC "3. Musical"
MIPQVII_SPATI "4. Spatial"
MIPQVII_BODKI "5. Bodily-Kinesthetic"
MIPQVII_INTER "6. Interpersonal"
MIPQVII_INTRA "7. Intrapersonal".

14
 CHAPTER 2

SPIRITUAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

INTRODUCTION

In the previous chapter, we operationalized Howard Gardner‘s theory of Multiple

Intelligences (1983, 1991, 1995, 1999) into the MIPQ VII. This basic version of
the instrument contains the following seven intelligences: (1) Linguistic, (2)
Logical-mathematical, (3) Musical, (4) Spatial, (5) Bodily-kinesthetic, (6)
Interpersonal, and (7) Intrapersonal intelligence. In this chapter, we present an
instrument to measure spiritual sensitivity and extend the Multiple Intelligences
Profiling Questionnaire VII (MIPQ VII) to include the spiritual intelligence
dimension (MIPQ VIII).
The eighth dimension in the MIPQ VIII, spiritual intelligence, is based on
Hay‘s (1998) and Bradford‘s (1995) definitions of spirituality. This spiritual
dimension is based on the Spiritual Sensitivity Scale (SSS), which consists of the
following four dimensions: (1) Awareness sensing, (2) Mystery sensing, (3) Value
sensing and (4) Community sensing.
Sternberg (1991) identifies Gardner‘s MI theory as a systems approach similar
to his own triarchic theory (Sternberg, 1985). Although he appreciates Gardner‘s
assessments on a theoretical level, he finds them to be a psychometric nightmare
(Sternberg, 1991). The greatest challenge for advocates of Gardner‘s approach is to
demonstrate the psychometric soundness of the instrument. Sternberg calls for hard
data demonstrating that the theory works operationally in a way that will satisfy
scientists as well as teachers. The psychometric properties of the MIPQ VII have
been presented in the previous chapter.
In this chapter, we use an empirical sample of Finnish preadolescents,
adolescents and adults (N = 496) to evaluate whether the operationalization of the
spiritual dimension reflects the categories of spiritual sensitivity based on the
empirical studies of Hay (1998) and Bradford (1995). In addition, we reduce the
number of items measuring spiritual sensitivity from twenty to four, in order to
construct the Spiritual intelligence dimension (SpI) of the MIPQ VIII.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Religion and Spirituality

The meanings given to the concepts of religion and spirituality have evolved over
the centuries. William James (1902, p. 32) defined religion as ―the feelings, acts
and experiences of individual men in their solitude‖. Since the time of James, few
psychologists have seriously looked at religious institutions and the roles they play

Kirsi Tirri & Petri Nokelainen. Measuring Multiple Intelligences and Moral Sensitivities in Education,
© 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
SPIRITUAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

in shaping character. Today, the terms ‗religion‘ and ‗spirituality‘ are applied
interchangeably to add linguistic variety to the terminology. However, many
researchers define spirituality in contrast to religion. These definitions usually
define religion as the organizational, the ritual, and the ideological. The spiritual
then refers to the personal, the affective, the experiential, and the thoughtful. The
idea that an individual can be spiritual without being religious or religious without
being spiritual, has become a standard part of many papers on spirituality
(Pargament, 1999). Clearly then, spirituality ought to be seen as a wider concept
than religion. Such an understanding of these concepts indicates that religion and
spirituality not only share some common areas but also have their own areas of
interests (Stifoss-Hanssen, 1999).

Emotional and Spiritual Intelligence

More recent concepts that merit discussion in the context of multiple intelligences
include emotional and spiritual intelligence. Daniel Goleman (1995) has suggested
that emotional intelligence (EQ) gives us awareness of our own and other people‘s
feelings. EQ provides us with empathy, compassion, motivation and the ability to
respond appropriately to pain or pleasure. Goleman has pointed out that EQ is a
basic requirement for the effective use of IQ. If the brain areas with which we feel
are damaged, we think less effectively (Goleman, 1995).
Zohar and Marshall (2000) have applied the concept of spiritual intelligence
(SQ) to the discussion concerning IQ and EQ. According to them, SQ helps us to
assess the most meaningful course of action. With SQ, we address and solve
problems of meaning and value. The authors claim that SQ is the necessary
foundation for the effective functioning of both IQ and EQ. SQ is our ultimate
intelligence (Zohar & Marshall, 2000). The difference between EQ and SQ deals
with the concrete situation in which they are used. Emotional intelligence allows us
to judge what situation we are in and then to behave appropriately within it. This
entails working within the boundaries of a given situation, allowing the situation to
guide us. Spiritual intelligence allows us to ask whether we want to be in this
particular situation in the first place. Would we rather change the situation and
create a better one? This involves working with the boundaries of our situation and
allowing us to guide the situation. Similarly, Robert Emmons (1999, p. 176), who
has also studied the idea of spiritual intelligence, describes spiritual intelligence as
―the adaptive use of spiritual information to facilitate everyday problem solving
and goal attainment‖.
Gardner (1999, pp. 54-58) has identified three domains of spiritual intelligence.
First, he attributes ―concern with cosmic or existential issues‖ to the sphere of
spiritual intelligence. In fact, Gardner has pondered whether it would be more
appropriate to consider spiritual intelligence as a form of existential intelligence.
Second, he emphasizes the ―spiritual as achievement of a state of being‖ which
represents the psychological states and phenomenal experiences that we call
spiritual. The third domain is the ―spiritual as an effect on others‖, a social aspect
which also coincides with the term charisma and is vital in conveying other people
towards the fulfillment of the first two domains in their lives.

16
 SPIRITUAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Measuring Spiritual Intelligence

Spiritual intelligence and its measurability have been a widely debated topic (see
Emmons, 2000; Gardner, 2000; Mayer, 2000). Empirical studies on spirituality by
Hay (1998) and Bradford (1995) have guided the development work of the
Spiritual sensitivity scale represented in this article. The Spiritual sensitivity scale
consists of the following four dimensions: (1) Awareness sensing, (2) Mystery
sensing, (3) Value sensing and (4) Community sensing.
Hay (1998) has identified three dimensions of spiritual sensitivity. Awareness
sensing refers to an experience on a deeper level of consciousness when we choose
to be aware by ―paying attention‖ to what is happening around us. This category
coincides with Gardner‘s (1999) notion of the ―spiritual as achievement of a state
of being‖. According to Hay (1998, p. 60) this kind of awareness refers to a
reflexive process of being attentive towards one‘s attention or ―being aware of
one‘s awareness‖.
The second dimension of spiritual sensitivity is mystery sensing which is
connected to our capacity to transcend everyday experience and to use our
imagination. For instance, appreciating the beauty and wonder of sunrise and
sunset involves a sense of mystery, even after scientific explanations are presented.
Imagination is essential to religious activity through the metaphors, symbols,
stories and liturgies which respond to the otherwise unrepresentable experience of
the sacred. This category relates to both Gardner‘s (1999) understanding of
spiritual intelligence as the ―achievement of a state of being‖ and the ―concern with
cosmic or existential issues‖, while emphasizing the mysterious nature of such
experiences.
The third dimension of spiritual sensitivity is value sensing. This category
emphasizes the importance of feelings as a measure of what we value. Among such
things are the issues that touch our existential questions and desire for meaning.
(Hay, 1998.) This category resembles Gardner‘s (1999) definition of spiritual
intelligence as ―concern with cosmic or existential issues‖.
In this study, we added a social dimension to Hay‘s three categories of spiritual
sensitivity. Gardner (1999) has also proposed a social aspect of spirituality. The
fourth dimension of spiritual sensitivity is called community sensing and is based
on the work of Bradford (1995). Bradford has identified three types of spirituality.
Human spirituality refers to the human need for care, love, security and
responsibility which we all seek to fulfill. Devotional spirituality builds upon this
human spirituality and is expressed within a certain religious tradition, culture and
language. The third type of spirituality is practical spirituality in which both other
types of spiritualities merge. Practical spirituality infuses our everyday lives
providing us direction and influencing our social responsibilities and concerns
(Bradford, 1995). Bradford's definitions represent the social aspect of the domains
of spiritual intelligence (Gardner, 1999) and include the practical problem solving
applications suggested by Zohar and Marshall (2000) and Emmons (1999).

17
SPIRITUAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

METHOD

Sample

The data was collected with the 28 –item MIPQ VII and 20 –item SSS in 2003.
The theoretical structure of the questionnaire was analyzed with a sample (N =
496) that consists of following three sub groups: (1) preadolescents (n = 183), (2)
adolescents (n = 86) and (3) adults (n = 227). The youngest respondents were 183
Finnish elementary school 5th and 6th grade students. One-hundred and four (56
%) were girls and 79 (44 %) were boys. Their age median was 12 years. The
second group consists of Finnish university students (n = 86) who represent
adolescents in this study. Sixty-five (76 %) of the adolescents were females and
twenty-one (24 %) were males. Their age median was 25 years. The third group (n
=227) represents Finnish adults, including 200 males and 24 females (gender
information was missing from three respondents), with the age median of 26 years.

Multiple Intelligences Profiling Questionnaire and SSS

As presented in the first chapter of this book, the MIPQ VII measures the seven
dimensions of Gardner‘s MI theory: (1) Linguistic, (2) Logical-mathematical, (3)
Musical, (4) Spatial, (5) Bodily-kinesthetic, (6) Interpersonal and (7) Intrapersonal.
The instrument consists of 28 items on a Likert scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 5
(totally agree). The psychometric properties of the seven dimensions are discussed
in the preceding chapter. The Spiritual Sensitivity Scale (SSS) can be used as a
self-assessment tool to evaluate one‘s spiritual sensitivity. The twenty items of the
Spiritual sensitivity scale are presented in Table 1.
The Spiritual sensitivity scale items were designed in the way that they apply to
people from different religious backgrounds and cultures. This allows us to use the
instrument in a multicultural society and in cross-cultural studies. The statements
described the issues and values that the respondent finds important for him or her.
They were operationalized from the three categories of spiritual sensitivity
identified by Hay (1998). Every category was presented in the questionnaire with
five statements. For example, the category of awareness sensing was measured by
the statement: sp1_5 ―I try to listen to my body when I study and work.‖ An
example item measuring mystery sensing was: sp2_10 ―The use of imagination
makes life more enjoyable.‖ The category of value sensing was measured, for
example, with the statement: sp3_15 ―I am searching for goodness in life.‖ The
categories of spiritual sensitivity by Hay do not explicitly express the aspects of
social dimension. Hence we added some statements measuring the social
dimension of spirituality identified by Bradford (1995) and named the fourth
dimension as Community sensing. These statements included items such as sp4_20
―I want to find a community where I can grow spiritually.‖ (Table 1.)

Procedure

The sample was collected with non-probability sampling. Each respondent was
personally invited to complete a paper and pencil version of the questionnaire. The
children, adolescents and adults answered the questions with the same wordings.

18
 SPIRITUAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Participants were asked to use the Likert scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 5
(totally agree) to evaluate their attitude towards the statements measuring multiple
intelligences.
Total population in Finland is 5.2 million. The country consists of five
culturally and economically equal provinces: 1) Lapland (N = 187,777, 4 %), 2)
Oulu (N = 457,345, 9 %), 3) Western Finland (N = 1,843,225, 35 %), 4) Eastern
Finland (N = 584,974, 11 %) and 5) Southern Finland (N = 2,106,117, 41 %). The
preadolescent sample (n = 183) was collected from two provinces, Western and
Southern Finland in 2002-2003. The adolescent sample (n = 86) was collected from
one province, Southern Finland in 2003. The adult sample (n = 227) represented all
the provinces and was collected in 2003.

Statistical Analyses

Statistical analyses were conducted in three phases. First, we analyzed twenty

items of the Spiritual sensitivity scale and reduced the total number of items from
20 to 11. Second, we created, on the basis of the results of the first phase, the
eighth four item dimension measuring spiritual intelligence (SpI) for the MIPQ
VIII. Third, we validated the two scales developed in this study.
Phase one started with the investigation of non-parametric inter-item
correlations (Spearman rho) between twenty Spiritual intelligence items. Second,
the structure of the items was analyzed with exploratory factor analysis (EFA). A
parametric method was applied on ordinal data as the critical assumptions
underlying EFA are more conceptual than statistical by nature. The departures
from normality, homoscedasticity, and linearity apply only to the extent that they
diminish the observed correlations (Hair et al., 1995). Third, the reliability of the
indicators for the Spiritual sensitivity scale was analyzed with Cronbach‘s alpha
(1970, 160-161). Fourth, the dimensionality of the Spiritual sensitivity scale was
investigated with principal component analysis (PCA). The last stage in phase one
was the correlational analysis of the Spiritual sensitivity scales derived from the
earlier stages.
The second phase started with reliability analysis and continued with
correlational analysis of the MI dimensions. The last stage was the investigation of
the correlations between age, gender and the MI dimensions. In the third phase, we
performed confirmatory factor analysis to the Spiritual sensitivity scale and to the
MIPQ VIII.

19
SPIRITUAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Table 1. The Spiritual Sensitivity Scale

Preadol. Adol. Adults

(n = 188) (n = 86) (n = 227)
Item Label M(SD) M(SD) M(SD)
Awareness sensing
sp1_1 In midst of busy everyday life I find it 3.13(1.07) 4.41(0.74) 3.50(1.15)
important to contemplate.
sp1_5 I try to listen to my body when I study and 2.88(1.00) 3.67(0.98) 3.12(0.96)
work.
sp1_13 When I concentrate on some activity with all 3.62(1.02) 3.70(1.03) 3.66(1.02)
my heart, I may forget the things around me.
sp1_17 When I look at a painting I have seen before, 3.17(1.10) 3.81(0.87) 2.99(1.26)
I might see it in a different way.
sp1_9 I believe that different kinds of meditation 2.32(1.12) 2.77(1.07) 2.78(1.21)
help us to know ourselves.
Mystery sensing
sp2_2 I admire the beauty of nature, for example, 3.83(0.99) 4.52(0.64) 4.27(0.82)
the sunset.
sp2_6 Science cannot explain all the phenomena in 4.02(1.12) 4.64(0.73) 3.91(1.25)
the world.
sp2_10 The use of imagination makes life more 4.22(0.86) 4.71(0.50) 4.39(0.78)
enjoyable.
sp2_14 Narratives and symbols are important things 3.12(1.10) 3.95(0.85) 3.16(1.12)
for me in life.
sp2_18 Even ordinary every-day life is full of 3.91(1.07) 4.38(0.78) 3.76(0.99)
miraculous things.
Value sensing
sp3_3 I often reflect on the meaning of life. 3.17(1.23) 4.17(0.85) 3.13(1.16)
sp3_7 It is important to me to find my own mission 3.47(1.07) 4.43(0.74) 3.65(1.03)
in the world.
sp3_11 I feel anxious about the evil things in the 2.78(1.15) 3.03(1.04) 2.27(1.07)
world.
sp3_15 I am searching for goodness in life. 3.34(1.05) 4.09(0.84) 3.54(0.89)
sp3_19 I endeavor to rejoice in the beauty of life 3.48(1.05) 4.31(0.69) 3.89(0.92)
wherever possible.
Community sensing
sp4_4 It is important to me to find a community 3.52(1.03) 4.10(0.86) 3.52(1.00)
where to belong.
sp4_8 I want to advance peace with my own 3.32(0.98) 4.23(0.73) 4.06(0.85)
actions.
sp4_12 I want to help those people who are in the 3.48(0.95) 4.20(0.79) 3.72(0.84)
need.
sp4_16 It is important to me to share a quiet moment 2.41(1.02) 3.02(1.27) 2.29(1.08)
with others.
sp4_20 I want to find a community where I can grow 2.88(0.99) 3.26(1.28) 2.59(1.08)
spiritually.
Note. Items in italics were not accepted for the final model.

20
 SPIRITUAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

RESULTS

Correlation Analysis of the Spiritual Sensitivity Scale

The first phase of the analysis aims to investigate psychometric properties of the
Spiritual sensitivity scale items. Inter-item correlations between the 20 items
measuring spiritual intelligence were investigated for three samples with the
nonparametric correlation coefficient (Spearman rho). The four dimensions are
measured by 20 items producing 190 inter-item correlations when diagonal and
double-presentations are omitted (Ni-i corr = (Nitems (Nitems - 1)) / 2).
The correlations in the preadolescent sample (n = 183) range from .09 to .54 (M
= .32, SD = .10). Five correlations were above |.50| and thus considered large
according to Cohen (1988). They share over 25 per cent of their variance (.5 2 =
.25). On the average items share 10 per cent of their variance with other items (.32 2
= .10).
The correlations in the adolescent sample (n = 86) range from -.15 to .58 (M =
.18, SD = .13). Four correlations were above |.50| sharing over 25 per cent of their
variance. On the average items share only 3 per cent of their variance with other
items (.182 = .03).
The correlations in the adult sample (n = 227) range from .02 to .57 (M = .31,
SD = .11). Nine correlations were above |.50| sharing over 25 per cent of their
variance. On the average items share 10 per cent of their variance with other items
(.312 = .10).
The result of inter-item correlation analysis shows that the items measuring
spiritual intelligence share enough common variance in the preadolescent and adult
samples to proceed to exploratory factor analysis.

Factor Structure and Reliabilities of the Spiritual Sensitivity Scale

The 20 items of the Spiritual Sensitivity Scale were subject to exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) using Maximum likelihood extraction with Varimax rotation. Prior
to performing EFA the suitability of data for factor analysis was assessed. The
measurement scale applied in this study is nonmetric (ordinal) as opposite to metric
that is required by EFA. However, we will proceed to the exploratory factor
analysis as the underlying phenomena, multiple intelligences, are continuous by
nature (Marini, Li & Fan, 1996). Johnson and Creech (1983) have studied with
simulation studies the categorization error that occurs when continuous variables
are measured by indicators with only a few categories. The results indicated that
while categorization error does produce distortions in multiple indicator models,
under most conditions explored the bias was not sufficient to alter substantive
interpretations. However, authors warranted caution in the use of two-, three- or
four-category ordinal indicators, particularly when the sample size is small.
As depicted in detail in the previous section, the inspection of the correlation
matrices for all three samples revealed that most of the coefficients were .30 and
above indicating that factor analysis was appropriate method.
The Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy approaches 1,
if partial correlations are small, that is a desirable feature (Kaiser, 1974).
According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2001, p. 589), values .60 and above are

21
SPIRITUAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

required for good EFA. All the KMO values exceeded the recommended value of
.60: the preadolescent sample KMO = .89, the adolescent sample KMO = .65, and
the adult sample KMO = .89.
In the preadolescent sample EFA revealed the presence of three factors with
Eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 36.7 per cent, 6.9 per cent and 5.6 per cent of
the variance respectively. Initial communalities varied between .266 and .549. Two
items with the lowest communalities were: sp1_9 ―I believe that different kinds of
meditation and joga practices help us to know ourselves.― and sp2_6 ―Science
cannot explain all the phenomena in the world.― Varimax rotated solution revealed
the presence of four factor solution explaining 45.5 per cent of the variance. The
result of the analysis supports the use of items measuring Awareness sensing,
Mystery sensing, Value sensing and Community sensing in separate dimensions.
Factor structure and alpha loadings for the Spiritual sensitivity scale are presented
in Table 2. The reliabilities ranged from .55 to .76 in the preadolescent sample.
In the adolescent sample, EFA revealed the presence of seven factors with
Eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 23.3 per cent, 11.8 per cent, 7.4 per cent, 6.5
per cent, 6.1 per cent, 5.5 per cent and 5.3 per cent of the variance respectively.
Initial communalities varied between .223 and .673. Two items with the lowest
communalities were: sp1_13 ―When I concentrate on some activity with all my
heart I may forget the things around me.― and sp1_17 ―When I listen to familiar
music or look at a painting I have seen before I might hear or see them in a
different way.― Varimax rotated solution revealed the presence of four factor
solution explaining only 37.2 per cent of the variance. Although the variance
explained was low, we retained to the four factor solution depicted earlier, as the
small sample size was obviously biasing the results. The reliabilities ranged from
.40 to .68 in the adolescent sample. (Table 2.)
In the adult sample EFA revealed the presence of five factors with Eigenvalues
exceeding 1, explaining 35.5 per cent, 8.4 per cent, 6.0 per cent, 5.6 per cent and
5.2 per cent of the variance respectively. Initial communalities varied between .278
and .574. Two items with the lowest communalities were: sp2_6 ―Science cannot
explain all the phenomena in the world.― and sp3_11 ―I feel anxious about the evil
things in the world.― Varimax rotated solution revealed the presence of four factor
solution explaining 45.8 per cent of the variance. The result of the analysis support
the use of items measuring Awareness sensing, Mystery sensing, Value sensing
and Community sensing as separate dimensions. The reliabilities ranged from .58
to .73 in the adult sample. (Table 2.)

22
 SPIRITUAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Table 2. Factor Structure and Alpha Loadings of the Spiritual Sensitivity Scale

Preadol. Adol. Adults

(n = 188) (n = 86) (n = 227)
Dimension Items

Awareness sensing sp1_1, sp1_5 .55 .40 .60

Mystery sensing sp2_18, sp2_10, sp2_14 .61 .48 .58
Value sensing sp3_3, sp3_7, sp3_15 .76 .45 .73
Community sensing sp4_16, sp4_4, sp4_20 .63 .68 .71
Note. Italicized items were selected to represent spiritual intelligence dimension in the
MIPQ VIII.

Dimensionality of the Spiritual Sensitivity Scale

The correlational analysis showed that all the four Spiritual sensitivity dimensions
are strongly correlated. However, at this point we do not know whether they are
one-dimensional or multidimensional structures. Unfortunately, Cronbach‘s alpha
does not ensure unidimensionality, but assumes it exists (Hair et al., 1995). Next
we conduct principal component analysis (PCA) for each spiritual sensitivity
dimension. We plot the regression scores of the first two components for each
dimension to visually study the dimensionalities. Results presented in Figure 1
show that all the dimensions except Community sensing are one-dimensional as
only one out of five variables is on the second component. In Community sensing
dimension two items, sp4_8 and sp4_12, measure concrete actions to help other
people and are located on the second component axis. The other three items,
namely sp4_4, sp4_16 and sp4_20, are more related to community sensing and are
located on the first component axis.
On the basis of exploratory factor analysis and visual examination of
component plots, we selected 11 items out of 20 to represent the Spiritual
Sensitivity Scale. The items are presented in Table 2. Further, we selected four
items to represent spiritual intelligence dimension in the MIPQ VIII (see Table 3).

Correlational Analysis of the Spiritual Sensitivity Scale

Intercorrelations between the four Spiritual sensitivity scales were investigated for
three samples with Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. The results are
presented in Table 3. As expected, the correlations were the strongest among
preadolescents, rS(183) = .46 – .63 (Mr = .54, SDr = .07) and adults rS(227) = .35 –
.67 (Mr = .55, SDr = .12). All the correlations in two samples were statistically
significant (p < .001, two-tailed), but the result is strongly influenced by the sample
size that leads to increased statistical power (Hair et al., 1995, 22). The adolescent
sample showed strong correlations among the Spiritual sensitivity scales r(86) =
.33 – .53 (Mr = .40, SDr = .08).

23
SPIRITUAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Awareness Sensing
Mystery Sensing

1,0
sp1_13 1,0
sp2_6

0,5
0,5 sp2_14
sp1_17
sp2_2
Component 2

Component 2
sp1_1 sp2_18
0,0 sp1_5 0,0

sp1_9 sp2_10

-0,5 -0,5

-1,0 -1,0

-1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0
Component 1 Component 1

Value Sensing Community Sensing

1,0 sp3_11 1,0

sp4_8
sp4_12

0,5 0,5

sp3_3
Component 2
Component 2

sp3_7
sp4_4 sp4_20
0,0
sp3_15 0,0 sp4_16

sp3_19

-0,5 -0,5

-1,0 -1,0

-1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0
Component 1 Component 1

Figure 1. Dimensionality of the Spiritual Sensitivity Scales Represented with Component

Plots.
The strongest statistical dependency in both the preadolescent, rS(183) = .63, p
< .001, and adult, rS(227) = .67, p < .001, sample was between Value sensing and
Community sensing. This result has scientific significance as two dimensions have
40 per cent shared variance. The finding is theoretically plausible as value sensing
is based on self-reflection of important issues (sp3_3) that are naturally shared with
a community of congenial souls (sp4_20) or kept inside in a quiet moment with
other people (sp4_16). Awareness sensing was strongly correlated in all the three
samples to Community sensing [preadolescents, rS(183) = .58, p < .001;
adolescents, rS(86) = .53, p < .001; adults, rS(227) = .59, p < .001], as in this
instrument both are more or less related to self-reflection and contemplating.

24
 SPIRITUAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Table 3. Correlations between the Spiritual Sensitivity Dimensions

Dimension 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4

Preadolescents (n = 183)
8.1 Awareness sensing — .46 .50 .58
8.2 Mystery sensing — .59 .46
8.3 Value sensing — .63
8.4 Community sensing —

Adolescents (n = 86)
8.1 Awareness sensing — .33 .35 .53
8.2 Mystery sensing — .36 .47
8.3 Value sensing — .36
8.4 Community sensing —

Adults (n = 227)
8.1 Awareness sensing — .49 .66 .59
8.2 Mystery sensing — .53 .35
8.3 Value sensing — .67
8.4 Community sensing —

Reliability Analysis of the MIPQ VIII

The second phase of the analysis aims to investigate psychometric properties of the
MIPQ VIII items. All the dimensions in the instrument are operationalized with
four items, making the total number of items to 28 (7 4). In order to add equally
balanced dimension to represent spiritual intelligence, a new composite variable
was computed as an average of the four strongest loading variables (see italicized
items in Table 2). Table 4 presents the factor structure and alpha loadings for the
eight MIPQ VIII scales. Reliability values of the first seven MI scales are not
calculated for the adolescents, as their questionnaire contained only items
measuring spiritual intelligence.
The results were in parallel with our earlier findings (Tirri et al., 2002): Musical
and Interpersonal scales had the highest reliabilities ( = .80 - .89) while Linguistic
and Spatial scales had the lowest reliabilities ( = .53 - .62). The reliability
estimates for the Spiritual intelligence four item composite variable ranged from
.64 to .76.
As discussed earlier, internal consistency index alpha depends on the
dimensionality of the scale (one-dimensional vs. multidimensional). Higher
reliability is achieved with one-dimensional constructs. The second issue affecting
reliability is that an intelligence that is at a high level of abstraction, such as
spiritual, is difficult to operationalize into intuitive items.

25
SPIRITUAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Table 4. Factor Structure and Alpha Loadings of the MIPQ VIII

Preadol. Adol.a Adults

(n = 188) (n = 86) (n = 227)
Scale Items

1. Linguistic lingu_1, lingu_2, lingu_3, .62 — .59

lingu_4
2. Logical- logic_1, logic_2, logic_3, .76 — .63
mathematical logic_4
3. Musical music_1, music_2, music_3, .83 — .89
music_4
4. Spatial spati_1, spati_2, spati_3, .53 — .54
spati_4
5. Bodily- bodki_1, bodki_2, bodki_3, .71 — .84
kinesthetic bodki_4
6. Interpersonal inter_1, inter_2, inter_3, .80 — .80
inter_4
7. Intrapersonal intra_1, intra_2, intra_3, .72 — .76
intra_4
8. Spiritual sp1_1, sp2_18, sp3_3, sp4_16 .70 .64 .76
a
Adolescents, n = 86, did not respond to the first seven scales of the MIPQ VIII.

Correlational Analysis of the MIPQ VIII

The next step in the analysis was to calculate Pearson product-moment correlations
between the spiritual and other seven dimensions with preadolescent (n = 183) and
adult (n = 227) samples (Table 5). The results show that in both samples
Linguistic, rS(183) = .48, p < .001 and rS(227) = .34, p < .001, and Intrapersonal,
rS(183) = .59, p < .001 and rS(227) = .61, p < .001, scales are strongly related to the
Spiritual scale. We reanalyzed the dependency between intrapersonal and spiritual
intelligences by controlling for Linguistic intelligence. The result of partial
correlation with preadolescent sample show that Intrapersonal and Spiritual scales
have 22 per cent shared variance, rS(183) = .47, p < .001. The result of partial
correlation with the adult sample show that Intrapersonal and Spiritual scales have
29 per cent shared variance, rS(227) = .54, p < .001. Logical-mathematical, Bodily-
kinesthetic and Interpersonal scales had the weakest correlations with the Spiritual
scale in both samples. The weak connection between mathematics and spirituality
is perhaps related to the fact that spiritual issues are usually not easily explained
out with scientific reasoning. Like item sp2_6 says: ―Science cannot explain all the
phenomena in the world.‖

26
 SPIRITUAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Table 5. Correlations between the MIPQ VIII Dimensions

Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Preadolescents (n = 183)

1. Linguistic — .15 .39 .45 .36 .34 .49 .48

2. Logical-mathematical — .12 .48 .15 .26 .31 .27
3. Musical — .39 .41 .50 .36 .32
4. Spatial — .32 .31 .40 .39
5. Bodily-kinesthetic — .44 .16 .29
6. Interpersonal — .42 .28
7. Intrapersonal — .59
8. Spiritual —

Adults (n = 227)

1. Linguistic — .11 .15 .22 -.03 .28 .52 .34

2. Logical-mathematical — .10 .39 .19 .04 .19 .22
3. Musical — .27 .11 .24 .16 .26
4. Spatial — .28 .21 .31 .20
5. Bodily-kinesthetic — .11 -.09 .10
6. Interpersonal — .36 .23
7. Intrapersonal — .61
8. Spiritual —
Note. Adolescents, n = 86, did not respond to the first seven scales of the MIPQ VIII.

Correlations between the Background Variables and the MIPQ VIII

We investigated correlations between age, gender and the MIPQ VIII (Table 6).
Unfortunately age and gender information were present only in the preadolescent
sample for all the MI dimensions. Results considering the first seven MI
dimensions are discussed in the previous chapter. Analysis of the Spiritual
intelligence scale showed negative correlation with the adolescent and positive
correlation with adult participants concerning gender.

27
SPIRITUAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Table 6. Correlations between Gender, Age and the MIPQ VIII Spiritual Intelligence
Dimension

Preadolescents Adolescents Adultsa

(n = 188) (n = 86) (n = 32)
Scale Gender Age Gender Age Gender Age

8. Spiritual -.04 .06 -.27 .11 .30 .19

a
Only part of the adult sample was available.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The final phase of statistical analyses was to validate the two models developed in
this study. First, we performed confirmatory factor analysis to the Spiritual
sensitivity scale separately for each sample. The results are presented in Table 7.
First section in the table presents measures of absolute fit that determine the
degree to which the model predicts the observed correlation matrix (Hair et al.,
1995). The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is designed to
evaluate the approximate fit of the model in the population (Kaplan, 2000). The
estimate was in all three samples slightly above the fair fit level of .05 – .08 (Hair
et al., 1995), indicating mediocre fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Unfortunately, the
upper limit of the 90 per cent confidence interval was above the cut off value in all
three samples. The standardized root mean square residuals (SRMR) help the
investigator to examine how well the aspects of the data are captured by the model
(Loehlin, 2004). SRMRs were in all three samples below a cut-off value of .08 (Hu
& Bentler, 1999).

Table 7. Goodness-of-fit Values of the Spiritual Sensitivity Scale

Preadol. Adol. Adults Combined

(n = 188) (n = 86) (n = 227) (N = 496)
Absolute Fit Measures
2
96.16 63.52 106.89 17.73
Df 38 38 38 38
2
/ df 2.53 1.67 2.81 4.49
p .000 .000 .000 .000
RMSEA .093 .089 .090 .085
90 per cent C.I. .070 .117 .048 .126 .070 .110 .072 .098
SRMR .059 .080 .066 .049
Incremental Fit Measures
CFI .901 .864 .914 .926
TLI .857 .803 .876 .892
Note. RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation with 90 per cent confidence
interval. SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual. TLI = Tucker-Lewis
coefficient. CFI = Comparative Fit Index.

28
 SPIRITUAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Second section in the Table 7 presents incremental fit measures that compare
the proposed model to a baseline model that all other models should be expected to
exceed (Hair et al., 1995). The Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), a.k.a. the Nonnormed
Fit Index (NNFI), was slightly below the recommended level of .90 (Tucker &
Lewis, 1973) in all three samples. However, a similar measure, the comparative fit
index (CFI) was slightly above the level in preadolescent and adult samples.
Combined sample (N = 496) did fit to the Spiritual sensitivity model better than
three sub samples, which is good news when we think about the generalizability of
the model. A reader should notice that this result is to some extent due to increased
sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

In this chapter, we studied the theoretical dimensions of Howard Gardner‘s

Multiple Intelligences theory (1999) with empirical samples. We presented the
theoretical structure of the spiritual intelligence dimension and analyzed it with an
empirical sample (N = 496) of preadolescent, adolescent and adult respondents.
The result of inter-item correlation analysis showed that the items measuring
spiritual intelligence shared enough common variance in the preadolescent and
adult samples to proceed to exploratory factor analysis. The visual inspection of the
regression scores of the first two components for each dimension revealed that all
the scales except Community sensing were one-dimensional.
On the basis of exploratory factor analysis and visual examination of
component plots, 11 items out of 20 were selected for the Spiritual sensitivity
scale. Further, four items were selected to represent spiritual intelligence
dimension in the MIPQ VIII.
Intercorrelations between the four Spiritual sensitivity scales showed that the
strongest statistical dependency in both the preadolescent and adult sample was
between Value sensing and Community sensing. This is natural, as value sensing is
based on the self-reflection of important issues that are naturally shared with a
community of congenial souls or kept inside in a quiet moment with other people.
Awareness sensing was strongly correlated in all three samples to Community
sensing as in the MIPQ VIII both are more or less related to self-reflection and
contemplating.
The result of reliability analysis was in parallel with the findings of our
previous study (Tirri et al., 2002): Musical and Interpersonal scales had the highest
reliabilities while Linguistic and Spatial scales had the lowest. The reliability
estimates for the Spiritual intelligence four item composite variable for all three
samples ranged from .64 to .76.
The result of partial correlation showed that Intrapersonal and Spiritual scales
have 22 per cent shared variance. Logical-mathematical, Bodily-kinesthetic and
Interpersonal scales had the weakest correlations with the Spiritual scale. The weak
connection between mathematical and spiritual scales is perhaps related to the fact
that spiritual issues are usually not easily explained out with scientific reasoning.
In the next stage we to investigated correlations between age, gender and the
MIPQ dimensions. Analysis of the Spiritual intelligence scale showed negative
correlation with adolescent and positive correlation with adult participants.
Although neither of the correlations reached statistical significance, this result is

29
SPIRITUAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

logical if we believe that younger people are more critical toward spirituality than
older ones.
Finally, we validated the generalizability of the two models, the Spiritual
sensitivity and MIPQ scale, with confirmatory factor analysis. The results showed
that the Spiritual sensitivity scale fits to all three data fairly well. We also analyzed
goodness-of-fit of the non-optimized 20-item version of the scale. The results were
found to be similar enough to those of the 11-item optimized model indicating
success of the optimization process. Fit index analysis of the combined sample
showed that it fitted to the model better than three sub samples. This finding may
indicate good generalizability value of the Spiritual sensitivity scales. Model fit
indices for the MIPQ VIII indicated good fit to both preadolescent and adult data.
Also in this case the combined sample fitted to the model better that the two sub
samples suggesting good generalizability characteristics of the model.
To conclude, the analysis confirmed that the Spiritual sensitivity scale, based
on Hay‘s (1998) and Bradford‘s (1995) definitions of spirituality, consisted of
following four dimensions in all three samples: (1) Awareness sensing, (2) Mystery
sensing, (3) Value sensing and (4) Community sensing. The results of reliability
analysis showed that an 11-item solution was adequate to describe the Spiritual
sensitivity scale. Low reliability (.40 - .68) with the adolescent sample was partly
due to small sample size (n = 86). When all three samples were combined (N =
496), the reliabilities range from .62 to .75.

DISCUSSION

In the Finnish Academy research project ―Actualizing Finnish giftedness‖, spiritual

intelligence was studied empirically with numerous samples (Tirri, 2004).
Although some researchers criticize Gardner‘s theory, for example, for the lack of
sociohistorical perspective (Kincheloe, 2004), the theory still has many practical
application areas. However, one should note that non-diverse populations, such as
Finnish population, set a way lower requirements for the flexibility of the
educational system than, for example, in the United States. Second difference
between the these school systems is the ratio of public and private schools: in
Finland there are very few private schools as the educational standards of the
public schools are perceived to be high enough. Third issue is the fact that
education at all levels is free in Finland, enabling low-income families to educate
their children up to their capabilities. In this respect, Howard Gardner‘s MI theory
has an interesting monetary aspect as it is free, unlike most of intelligence
measures. Further, Kornhaber, Fierros and Veenema (2004, 208-209) argue that
U.S. national standard test scores do not yield marked increases in students‘
academic or real-world functioning. For these reasons, researchers all over the
world have developed freely available instruments that operationalize the theory
(e.g., Kornhaber, Fierros & Veenema, 2004; Shearer, 2004, 2005; Tirri et al., 2002,
2003).
Outcome aspect that is also strongly present in MI theory suggests that
academic intelligence alone is not enough. We need to recognize that success in
life and career depends also on social, practical and spiritual intelligence, that is, it
is in a way a hidden curriculum of how to make the best out of one‘s abilities. One

30
 SPIRITUAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

of our major motivations to develop the self-rating instrument for the Spiritual
sensitivity scale was to address such injustice.

REFERENCES
Bradford, J. (1995). Caring for the whole child: a holistic approach to spirituality. London: The
children‘s society.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & S.
Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park: Sage.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Second edition. Hillsdale:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing. Third edition. New York: Harper & Row.
Emmons, R. A. (1999). The psychology of ultimate concerns. Motivation and spirituality in personality.
New York: Guilford.
Emmons, R. A. (2000). Is spirituality an intelligence? Motivation, cognition, and the psychology of
ultimate concern. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10, 3-26.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind. London: Fontana Press.
Gardner, H. (1995). Reflections on multiple intelligences. Phi Delta Kappan 77(3), 200-208.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic
Books.
Gardner, H. (2000). A case against spiritual intelligence. International Journal for the Psychology of
Religion, 10, 27-34.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis. Fourth
edition. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Hay, D. (1998). The spirit of the child. London: Fount.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
James, W. (1902/2003). The varieties of religious experience. New York: Signet Classic.
Johnson, D. R., & Creech, J. C. (1983). Ordinal Measures in Multiple Indicator Models: A Simulation
Study of Categorization Error. American Sociological Review, 48, 398-407.
Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.
Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling. Foundations and extensions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kincheloe, J. (2004). Twenty-first century questions about multiple intelligences. J. Kincheloe (Ed.),
Multiple intelligences reconsidered (pp. 3-28). New York: Peter Lang.
Kornhaber, M., Fierros, E., & Veenema, S. (2004). Multiple Intelligences. Best Ideas from Research
and Practice. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Loehlin, J. C. (2004). Latent variable models. Fourth edition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Marini, M., Li, X., & Fan, P. (1996). Characterizing latent structure: Factor analytic and grade of
membership models. Sociological Methodology, 1, 133-164.
Mayer, J. D. (2000). Spiritual intelligence or spiritual consciousness? International Journal for the
Psychology of Religion, 10, 47-46.
Pargament, K. (1999). The psychology of religion and spirituality? Yes and no. The International
Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 9(1), 3-16.
Shearer, B. (2004). Using a Multiple Intelligences Assessment to Promote Teacher Development and
Student Achievement. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 147-162.
Shearer, B. (2005). Development and validation for the scale for existential thinking. Unpublished paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Americal Educational Research Association, Multiple
Intelligences SIG: Montreal, Canada. April 2005. Retrieved June 6th, 2011, from:
http://www.miresearch.org/files/Existential_Summary_4-05.doc.
Sternberg, R. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Sternberg, R. (1991). Death, taxes, and bad intelligence tests. Intelligence, 15(3), 257-269.
Stifoss-Hanssen, H. (1999). Religion and spirituality: what a European ear hears. The International
Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 9(1), 25-33.
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Fourth edition. New York:
HarperCollins.

31
SPIRITUAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Tirri, K. (2004). Spirituality in Religious Education. In R. Larsson & C. Gustavsson (Eds.), Towards a
European perspective on religious education (pp. 344-352). Biblithea Theologiae Practiae.
Skellefteå, SE: Artos & Norma.
Tirri, K., Komulainen, E., Nokelainen, P., & Tirri, H. (2002). Conceptual Modeling of Self-Rated
Intelligence-Profile. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Self-Concept Research Conference.
Sydney: University of Western Sydney.
Tirri, K., Komulainen, E., Nokelainen, P., & Tirri, H. (2003). Gardner's theory applied to model a self-
rated intelligence profile. Unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of American
Educational Research Association, Multiple Intelligence SIG: Chicago, IL. April 2003.
Tucker, T. L., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis.
Psychometrica, 38, 1-10.
Zohar, D., & Marshall, I. (2000). SQ – Spiritual intelligence the ultimate intelligence. London:
Bloomsbury.

32
 SPIRITUAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Multiple Intelligences Profiling Questionnaire VIII

TOTALLY TOTALLY
DISAGREE AGREE

Writing is a natural way for me to express myself. 1 2 3 4 5

At school, studies in English or social studies were

1 2 3 4 5
easier for me than mathematics, physics and chemistry.
I have recently written something that I am especially
1 2 3 4 5
proud of, or for which I have received recognition.
Metaphors and vivid verbal expressions help me learn
1 2 3 4 5
efficiently.
At school, I was good at mathematics, physics or
1 2 3 4 5
chemistry.

I can work with and solve complex problems. 1 2 3 4 5

Mental arithmetic is easy for me. 1 2 3 4 5

I am good at games and problem solving, which require

1 2 3 4 5
logical thinking.
At school, geometry and other subjects involving spatial
1 2 3 4 5
perception were easier for me than solving equations.
It is easy for me to conceptualize complex and
1 2 3 4 5
multidimensional patterns.
I can easily imagine how a landscape looks from a
1 2 3 4 5
bird's-eye view.
When I read, I form pictures or visual images in my
1 2 3 4 5
mind.

I am handy. 1 2 3 4 5

I can easily do something concrete with my hands (e.g.

1 2 3 4 5
knitting and woodwork).
I am good at showing someone how to do something in
1 2 3 4 5
practice.
I was good at handicrafts (e.g. woodwork; textiles) at
1 2 3 4 5
school.
After hearing a tune once or twice I am able to sing or
1 2 3 4 5
whistle it quite accurately.
When listening to music, I am able to pick out
1 2 3 4 5
individual instruments and recognize melodies.

33
SPIRITUAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

TOTALLY TOTALLY
DISAGREE AGREE

I can easily keep the rhythm when drumming a melody. 1 2 3 4 5

I notice immediately if a melody is out of tune. 1 2 3 4 5

Even in strange company, I can easily find someone to

1 2 3 4 5
talk to.

I get along easily with different types of people. 1 2 3 4 5

I make contact easily with other people. 1 2 3 4 5

In negotiations and group work, I am able to support the

1 2 3 4 5
group to find a consensus.
I am able to analyze my own motives and ways of
1 2 3 4 5
action.
I often think about my own feelings and sentiments and
1 2 3 4 5
seek reasons for them.
I regularly spend time reflecting on the important issues
1 2 3 4 5
of life.
I like to read psychological or philosophical literature to
1 2 3 4 5
increase my self-knowledge.
In midst of busy everyday life I find it important to
1 2 3 4 5
contemplate.

Even ordinary every-day life is full of amazing things. 1 2 3 4 5

I often reflect on the meaning of life. 1 2 3 4 5

It is important to me to share a quiet moment with

1 2 3 4 5
others.

34
 SPIRITUAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Spiritual Sensitivity Scale

TOTALLY TOTALLY
DISAGREE AGREE

In midst of busy everyday life I find it important to

1 2 3 4 5
contemplate.

I try to listen to my body when I study and work. 1 2 3 4 5

The use of imagination makes life more enjoyable. 1 2 3 4 5

Narratives and symbols are important things for me in

1 2 3 4 5
life.
Even ordinary every-day life is full of miraculous
1 2 3 4 5
things.

I often reflect on the meaning of life. 1 2 3 4 5

It is important to me to find my own mission in the

1 2 3 4 5
world.

I am searching for goodness in life. 1 2 3 4 5

It is important to me to find a community where to

1 2 3 4 5
belong.
It is important to me to share a quiet moment with
1 2 3 4 5
others.
I want to find a community where I can grow
1 2 3 4 5
spiritually.

35
SPIRITUAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

SPSS Syntax to Compute MIPQ VIII Factors

/* Variable names in this syntax refer to Table 4 in this chapter

COMPUTE MIPQVIII_LINGU = MEAN(lingu_1, lingu_2, lingu_3, lingu_4).

COMPUTE MIPQVIII_LOGIC = MEAN(logic_1, logic_2, logic_3, logic_4).
COMPUTE MIPQVIII_MUSIC = MEAN(music_1, music_2, music_3, music_4).
COMPUTE MIPQVIII_SPATI = MEAN(spati_1, spati_2, spati_3, spati_4).
COMPUTE MIPQVIII_BODKI = MEAN(bodki_1, bodki_2, bodki_3, bodki_4).
COMPUTE MIPQVIII_INTER = MEAN(inter_1, inter_2, inter_3, inter_4).
COMPUTE MIPQVIII_INTRA = MEAN(intra_1, intra_2, intra_3, intra_4).
COMPUTE MIPQVIII_SP = MEAN(sp1_1, sp2_18, sp3_3, sp4_16).
EXECUTE.

VARIABLE LABELS
MIPQVIII_LINGU "1. Linguistic"
MIPQVIII_LOGIC "2. Mathematical-logical"
MIPQVIII_MUSIC "3. Musical"
MIPQVIII_SPATI "4. Spatial"
MIPQVIII_BODKI "5. Bodily-Kinesthetic"
MIPQVIII_INTER "6. Interpersonal"
MIPQVIII_INTRA "7. Intrapersonal"
MIPQVIII_SP "8. Spiritual".

SPSS Syntax to Compute Spiritual Sensitivity Scale Factors

/* Variable names in this syntax refer to Table 1 in this chapter

COMPUTE SP1_M = MEAN(sp1_1, sp1_5).

COMPUTE SP2_M = MEAN(sp2_2, sp2_14, sp2_18).
COMPUTE SP3_M = MEAN(sp3_3, sp3_15, sp3_19).
COMPUTE SP4_M = MEAN(sp4_8, sp4_12, sp4_16, sp4_20).
EXECUTE .

VARIABLE LABELS
SP1_M "1. Awareness sensing"
SP2_M "2. Mystery sensing"
SP3_M "3. Value sensing"
SP4_M "4. Community sensing".

36
 CHAPTER 3

ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

INTRODUCTION

The Multiple Intelligences Profiling Questionnaire is a five-point Likert scale self-

rating questionnaire that is based on Howard Gardner‘s theory of Multiple
Intelligences (1983, 1991, 1995, 1999, 2000, 2006). The MIPQ aim to help both
learners, in their self-reflection, and teachers to understand their students‘
strengths. The basic version of the instrument, MIPQ VII (see Chapter 1)
operationalizes seven MI dimensions with 28 items: (1) Linguistic, (2) Logical-
mathematical, (3) Musical, (4) Spatial, (5) Bodily-kinesthetic, (6) Interpersonal and
(7) Intrapersonal intelligence. The eighth dimension, spiritual intelligence, was
added to the 32-item version of the instrument, MIPQ VIII (see Chapter 2).
Spiritual intelligence dimension was based on the Spiritual Sensitivity Scale (SSS),
which was influenced by Hay‘s (1998) and Bradford‘s (1995) definitions of
spirituality.
This chapter presents both the nine-item Environmental Sensitivity Scale
(EnSS) and the 35 -item MIPQ IX that contains the ninth dimension,
Environmental Intelligence (EnI). The psychometric properties of both
instruments were tested with empirical samples.
This chapter is organized as follows: First, we present a theoretical structure of
MIPQ IX and EnSS. Second, we test the psychometric properties of EnSS (9 items)
with an empirical sample (N = 496) containing preadolescents (n = 183),
adolescents (n = 86) and adults (n = 227). We select the best items to represent EnI
in the EnSS model. Thirdly, we select the best three EnSS items to represent EnI in
the MIPQ. Fourth, the psychometric properties of the MIPQ‘s nine dimensions
were tested with two sub-samples consisting of preadolescents and adults (N =
378). Next, we will briefly introduce the central concepts of the MI theory, link
them to the evolution of the MIPQ and justify the present operationalization of
environmental intelligence.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Gardner has retained the original seven intelligences, presented in the first chapter
of this book, but he acknowledges the possibility of adding new intelligences to the
list. He has worked on naturalistic, spiritual and existential intelligences to be
included in his list of multiple intelligences. In the previous chapter, we presented
the MIPQ VIII that included spiritual intelligence as its eighth dimension.
According to Gardner (1999), naturalistic intelligence in particular merits
addition to the original list of seven intelligences. He relates this intelligence to the

Kirsi Tirri & Petri Nokelainen. Measuring Multiple Intelligences and Moral Sensitivities in Education,
© 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

ability to understand and work effectively in the natural world — just as biologists,
ornithologists, farmers and even chefs do. Naturalistic intelligence deals with
sensing patterns in and making connections with elements in nature (Wilson,
1998). Naturally intelligent people (or, as Gardner says, ―nature smarts‖) seem to
be aware of their surroundings and even of small changes in their environment.
Since the announcement of this intelligence, both public and other researchers
have identified many problems with Gardner‘s definition of naturalistic
intelligence. Wilson (1998) asks two questions: First, since most of us are more
urban than rural beings, what are our chances — and does it even matter anymore
— of being ‗intelligent‘ on that specific scale? Second, how does naturalistic
intelligence differ from a more expansive intelligence such as cosmic intelligence
or awareness? Morris (2004) carries the second issue further by noting that if
intelligence and ethics are strongly related, naturalists may not always exhibit
intelligence. Her thought is more subtle if we imagine a talented ornithologist
instantly classifying numerous rare species, but the unharmonic relationship
between intelligence and naturalism in the Gardnerian form becomes more evident
in the context of agriculture (animal rights), cooking (animal rights,
environmentally friendly consumption) or hunting sports (animal rights).
According to Morris (2004, p. 163), ―the naturalist is intelligent if and only if
he or she is engaged in nature … in a way that does not perpetuate oppression.‖
She sees that ecological sensibility should be a crucial part of natural intelligence
as it springs from a sensitive, ethical and holistic understanding of where we
humans stand in the ecosphere. With those issues in mind, we call the version of
naturalistic intelligence presented here ―environmental sensitivity‖ and
operationalize it into the Environmental Sensitivity Scale (EnSS), which we later
elaborate in detail.
In this chapter, we use an empirical sample of Finnish preadolescents,
adolescents and adults (N = 496) to evaluate whether the items operationalizing the
EnSS reflect the three dimensions of environmental sensitivity: 1) Love for nature,
2) Nature conservation, and 3) Environment-friendly consumer habits. In addition,
we reduce the number of items measuring environmental sensitivity to three, in
order to build an Environmental Intelligence (EnI) dimension into the MIPQ IX.

38
 ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

METHOD

Sample

The sample was collected with the 32 –item MIPQ VIII and 9 –item EnSS in 2003.
The theoretical structure of the questionnaire was analyzed with a sample (N =
496) that consists of following three sub groups: (1) preadolescents (n = 183), (2)
adolescents (n = 86) and (3) adults (n = 227). The youngest respondents were 183
Finnish elementary school 5th and 6th grade students. One-hundred and four (56
%) were girls and 79 (44 %) were boys. Their age median was 12 years. The
second group consists of Finnish university students (n = 86) who represent
adolescents in this study. Sixty-five (76 %) of the adolescents were females and
twenty-one (24 %) were males. Their age median was 25 years. The third group (n
= 227) represents Finnish adults, including 200 males and 24 females (gender
information was missing from three respondents), with the age median of 26 years.

Measures

Multiple Intelligences Profiling Questionnaire IX (MIPQ IX). The MIPQ IX

measures the nine dimensions of Gardner‘s MI theory: (1) Linguistic, (2) Logical-
mathematical, (3) Musical, (4) Spatial, (5) Bodily-kinesthetic, (6) Interpersonal, (7)
Intrapersonal, (8) Spiritual, and (9) Environmental. The instrument consists of 35
items on a Likert scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). The
psychometric properties of the first eight dimensions are presented in the preceding
chapter. (Table 1.)

39
ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Table 1. Linguistic, Logical-mathematical, Musical, Spatial, Bodily-kinesthetic,

Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Spiritual and Environmental Intelligence Items in the MIPQ
IXa

Preadol. Adults
(n = 183) (n = 227)
Item Label M (SD) M (SD)
lingu_1 Writing is a natural way for me to express 3.36 (0.96) 2.72 (1.15)
myself.
lingu_2 At school studies in native language or 3.10 (1.23) 3.21 (1.19)
social studies were easier for me than
mathematics, physics and chemistry.
lingu_3 I have recently written something that I am 2.93 (1.29) 2.00 (1.21)
especially proud of, or for which I have
received recognition.
lingu_4 Metaphors and vivid verbal expressions 3.25 (0.94) 3.52 (1.01)
help me learn efficiently.
logic_1 At school I was good at mathematics, 2.71 (1.33) 2.72 (1.13)
physics or chemistry.
logic_2 I can work with and solve complex 3.08 (1.18) 3.54 (0.89)
problems.
logic_3 Mental arithmetic is easy for me. 3.79 (1.07) 3.51 (1.01)
logic_4 I am good at games and problem solving, 3.43 (1.19) 3.41 (0.94)
which require logical thinking.
music_1 After hearing a tune once or twice I am 3.28 (1.23) 2.92 (1.32)
able to sing or whistle it quite accurately.
music_2 When listening to music, I am able to 3.34 (1.15) 3.29 (1.35)
discern instruments or recognize melodies.
music_3 I can easily keep the rhythm when 3.29 (1.06) 3.20 (1.28)
drumming a melody.
music_4 I notice immediately if a melody is out of 3.16 (1.19) 3.08 (1.29)
tune.
spati_1 At school, geometry and various kinds of 2.88 (1.13) 2.98 (1.24)
assignments involving spatial perception
were easier for me than solving equations.
spati_2 It is easy for me to conceptualize complex 3.28 (0.98) 3.45 (0.86)
and multidimensional patterns.
spati_3 I can easily imagine how a landscape looks 3.50 (1.04) 3.35 (1.00)
from a bird's-eye view.
spati_4 When I read, I form illustrative pictures or 3.78 (1.06) 3.52 (1.08)
designs in my mind.
bodki_1 I am handy. 3.49 (0.96) 3.92 (0.93)
bodki_2 I can easily do something concrete with 3.99 (1.04) 4.03 (1.04)
my hands (e.g. knitting and woodwork).
bodki_3 I am good at showing how to do 3.28 (0.89) 3.88 (0.77)
something in practice.
bodki_4 I was good at handicrafts at school. 3.90 (1.14) 4.04 (1.00)
a
Adolescents, n = 86, did not respond to the first seven scales of MIPQ IX.

40
 ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Table 1. Linguistic, Logical-mathematical, Musical, Spatial, Bodily-kinesthetic,

Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Spiritual and Environmental Intelligence Items in the MIPQ
IXa(continued)

Preadol. Adults
(n = 183) (n = 227)
Item Label M (SD) M (SD)
inter_1 Even in strange company, I easily find 3.30 (1.14) 3.84 (0.89)
someone to talk to.
inter_2 I get alone easily with different types of 3.58 (1.01) 4.26 (0.75)
people.
inter_3 I make contact easily with other people. 3.30 (0.98) 3.84 (0.77)
inter_4 In negotiations and group work, I am able 3.26 (0.85) 3.72 (0.74)
to support the group to find a consensus.
intra_1 I am able to analyze my own motives and 3.25 (0.83) 3.86 (0.77)
ways of action.
intra_2 I often think about my own feelings and 3.39 (1.10) 3.43 (1.08)
sentiments and seek reasons for them.
intra_3 I spend time regularly reflecting on the 3.01 (1.20) 2.88 (1.12)
important issues in life.
intra_4 I like to read psychological or 2.23 (1.11) 2.33 (1.15)
philosophical literature to increase my
self-knowledge.
sp1_1 In midst of busy everyday life I find it 3.13 (1.07) 3.50 (1.15)
important to contemplate.
sp2_18 Even ordinary every-day life is full of 3.91 (1.07) 3.76 (0.99)
miraculous things.
sp3_3 I often reflect on the meaning of life. 3.17 (1.23) 3.13 (1.16)
sp4_16 It is important to me to share a quiet 2.41 (1.02) 2.29 (1.08)
moment with others.
en1_36 I enjoy the beauty and experiences related 3.98 (1.08) 4.37 (.80)
to nature.
en3_33 Protecting the nature is important to me. 2.81 (1.12) 2.20 (1.06)
en4_23 I pay attention to my consumption habits 2.59 (1.08) 2.73 (1.14)
in order to protect environment.
a
Adolescents, n = 86, did not respond to the first seven scales of MIPQ IX.

Environmental Sensitivity Scale (EnSS). The EnSS has following three dimensions:
1) Love for nature; 2) Nature conservation; 3) Environment-friendly consumer
habits (Table 2).
First category, ‖Love for nature‖, aims to capture our appreciation of being in
the nature, even just like sitting quietly and noticing the subtle differences in the
world of nature, and making observations about natural changes, interconnections
and patterns (Wilson, 1998). It is operationalized with two items: en1_31 ‖I enjoy
walking in the nature‖ and en1_36 ‖ I enjoy the beauty and experiences related to
nature.‖
Second category, ‖Protection of animal rights and nature‖, aims to capture our
love for the animals and passion to know and remember things about them. This

41
ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

category is operationalized with three items: en2_21 ‖Animal rights are important
to me‖, en3_22 ‖ I take part in projects and events related to protection of
environment‖, and en3_33 ―Protecting the nature is important to me.‖
Third category, ‖Environment friendly consumption‖, aims to capture our talent
for ecological sensibility, i.e. understanding the fact that ―human beings and all the
other creatures are interconnected within a complex ecosphere‖ (Morris, 2004, p.
164). Third category is operationalized with four items: en4_23 ‖I pay attention to
my consumption habits in order to protect environment‖, en4_28 ‖I am ready to
pay more for the products that are environmental friendly than for normal
products‖, en6_25 ‖I am active in recycling‖, and en6_30 ‖I sort different trash at
home appropriately.‖

Table 2. The Environmental Sensitivity Scale

Preadol. Adol. Adults

(n = 183) (n = 86) (n = 227)
Item Label M(SD) M(SD) M(SD)
Love for nature
en1_31 I enjoy walking in the nature. 4.07(1.03) 4.69(0.62) 4.52(0.77)
en1_36 I enjoy the beauty and experiences 3.98(1.08) 4.56(0.68) 4.37(0.80)
related to nature.
Nature conservation
en2_21 Animal rights are important to me. 3.86(1.11) 3.27(1.13) 3.08(1.10)
en3_22 I take part in projects and events 2.81(1.12) 2.30(1.02) 2.20(1.06)
related to protection of environment.
en3_33 Protecting the nature is important to 3.08(1.16) 3.44(0.98) 3.34(1.09)
me.
Environment-friendly consumer habits
en4_23 I pay attention to my consumption 2.99(1.10) 3.72(1.11) 3.06(1.13)
habits in order to protect
environment.
en4_28 I am ready to pay more for the 2.65(1.21) 3.69(1.02) 2.88(1.22)
products that are environmental
friendly than for normal products.
en6_25 I am active in recycling. 2.59(1.08) 3.48(1.21) 2.73(1.13)
en6_30 I sort different trash at home 2.90(1.38) 3.88(1.31) 3.28(1.47)
appropriately.

Procedure

The sample was collected with a non-probability sampling. Each respondent was
personally invited to complete a paper and pencil version of the questionnaire. The
children, adolescents and adults answered the questions with the same wordings.
Participants were asked to use the Likert scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 5
(totally agree) to evaluate their attitude towards the statements measuring multiple
intelligences and environmental sensitivity.
Total population in Finland is 5.2 million. The country consists of five
culturally and economically equal provinces: 1) Lapland (N = 187,777, 4 %), 2)
Oulu (N = 457,345, 9 %), 3) Western Finland (N = 1,843,225, 35 %), 4) Eastern

42
 ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Finland (N = 584,974, 11 %) and 5) Southern Finland (N = 2,106,117, 41 %). The

preadolescent sample (n = 183) was collected from two provinces, Western and
Southern Finland in 2002-2003. The adolescent sample (n = 86) was collected from
one province, Southern Finland in 2003. The adult sample (n = 227) represented all
the provinces and was collected in 2003.

Statistical Analyses

Statistical analyses were conducted in eight phases. First, we analyzed the

psychometric properties of the nine EnSS items with correlation (Spearman rho)
and reliability analysis (Cronbach, 1970). Second, variable structure of the scale
was examined with the exploratory factor analysis (EFA). A three-item
environmental intelligence (EnI) sub scale was created for the MIPQ IX on the
basis of EFA. Third, we investigated the dimensionality of the EnSS with principal
component analysis (PCA). Fourth, inter-item correlations between the three EnSS
dimensions were investigated with Spearman rho. Fifth, internal consistency of the
MIPQ IX was tested with Cronbach's alpha. Sixth, correlations between the nine
MIPQ IX scales were analyzed with Spearman rho. Seventh, correlations between
the nine MIPQ IX scales and the background variables (age, gender) were analyzed
with Spearman rho. Eighth, we validated the EnSS and EnI scales with
confirmatory factor analysis for categorical indicators.

RESULTS

Correlation Analysis of the Environmental Sensitivity Scale

The first phase of the analysis investigated psychometric properties of the EnSS
items. Inter-item correlations between the nine items measuring environmental
sensitivity were calculated for three samples with the non-parametric correlation
coefficient (Spearman rho). The three EnSS dimensions are measured by nine
items producing 36 inter-item correlations when diagonal and double-presentations
are omitted (Ni-i corr = (Nitems (Nitems - 1)) / 2).
The correlations in the preadolescent sample (n = 183) ranged from .15 to .70
(M = .41, SD = .13). Seven correlations were above |.50| and thus considered large
according to Cohen (1988). They share over 25 per cent of their variance (.5 2 =
.25). On the average, however, items share 17 per cent of their variance with other
items (.412 = .17).
The correlations in the adolescent sample (n = 86) ranged from .07 to .70 (M =
.39, SD = .18). Eleven correlations were above |.50| sharing over 25 per cent of
their variance. On the average, items share 15 per cent of their variance with other
items (.392 = .15).
The correlations in the adult sample (n = 227) ranged from .13 to .57 (M = .37,
SD = .14). Six correlations were above |.50| sharing over 25 per cent of their
variance. On the average, items share 14 per cent of their variance with other items
(.372 = .14).
To summarize, the results of inter-item correlation analysis show that the items
measuring environmental sensitivity share enough common variance in all the
samples to proceed to EFA.

43
ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Factor Structure and Internal Consistency of the Environmental Sensitivity Scale

The nine items of the EnSS were subject to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using
Maximum likelihood extraction with Varimax rotation. Prior to performing EFA,
the suitability of data for factor analysis was assessed. The measurement scale
applied in this study is nonmetric (ordinal) as opposite to metric (continuous) that
is required by EFA. However, we will proceed to the exploratory factor analysis as
the underlying phenomena, multiple intelligences, are continuous by nature
(Marini, Li & Fan, 1996). Johnson and Creech (1983) have studied with simulation
studies the categorization error that occurs when continuous variables are measured
by indicators with only a few categories. The results indicated that while
categorization error does produce distortions in multiple indicator models, under
most conditions explored the bias was not sufficient to alter substantive
interpretations. However, authors warranted caution in the use of two-, three- or
four-category ordinal indicators, particularly when the sample size is small
(according to them, less than 500 observations).
As depicted earlier, the inspection of the correlation matrices for all three
samples revealed that most of the coefficients were .30 and above indicating that
factor analysis is appropriate.
The Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy approaches 1,
if partial correlations are small, that is a desirable feature (Kaiser, 1974).
According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2001, p. 589), values .60 and above are
required for good EFA. All the KMO values exceeded the recommended value of
.60: the preadolescent sample KMO = .81, the adolescent sample KMO = .83, and
the adult sample KMO = .84.
In the preadolescent sample (n = 183), EFA revealed the presence of three
factors, explaining 62.4 per cent of the variance respectively. Initial communalities
varied between .386 and .551. Varimax rotated solution revealed the presence of a
three factor solution explaining 62.4 per cent of the variance. The reliabilities
ranged from .77 to .80 in the preadolescent sample.
In the adolescent sample (n = 86), EFA revealed the presence of three factors,
explaining 77.8 per cent of the variance respectively. Initial communalities varied
between .442 and .622. Varimax rotated solution revealed the presence of a three
factor solution explaining 66.2 per cent of the variance. The reliabilities ranged
from .80 to .86 in the adolescent sample. (Table 3.)
In the adult sample (n = 227), EFA revealed the presence of three factors,
explaining 70.5 per cent of the variance respectively. Initial communalities varied
between .215 and .576. Varimax rotated solution revealed the presence of a three
factor solution explaining 53.1 per cent of the variance. The reliabilities ranged
from .67 to .76 in the adult sample. (Table 3.)
According to Nunnally (1978), .80 represents reasonably good alpha index. As
seven out of nine reliability indices in the EnSS scales for all three samples are
close to, or above, the .80 level, we are satisfied with the results. To summarize,
the results of EFA support the use of the nine items measuring 1) Love for nature,
2) Nature conservation and 3) Environment-friendly consumer habits as separate
environmental sensitivity scales. Factor structure and alpha loadings for the EnSS
are presented in Table 3.

44
 ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Table 3. Factor Structure and Alpha Loadings of the Environmental Sensitivity Scale

Preadol. Adol. Adults

(n = 183) (n = 86) (n = 227)
Sub scale Items
Love for nature en1_31, en1_36 .80 .86 .67

Nature en2_21, en3_22, .77 .80 .69

conservation en3_33

Environment- en4_23, en4_28, .78 .86 .76

friendly en6_25, en6_30
consumer habits
Note. Italicized items were selected to represent environmental intelligence dimension in the
MIPQ IX.

Dimensionality of the Environmental Sensitivity Scale

The correlational analysis showed that all the three EnSS sub scales are strongly
correlated. However, at this point we need to examine whether they are
unidimensional or multidimensional structures. Unfortunately, Cronbach‘s alpha
does not ensure unidimensionality, but assumes that it exists (Hair et al., 1995).
Next, we conduct the principal component analysis (PCA) to investigate the
dimensionality of EnSS. Figure 1 shows that all three scales are located in different
positions on the three component axes. This finding is in parallel with our
theoretical model of environmental sensitivity.

Figure 1. Dimensionality of the Environmental Sensitivity Scale.

45
ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Correlational Analysis of the Environmental Sensitivity Scale

Inter-item correlations between the three EnSS dimensions were investigated for
the three samples with Spearman non-parametric correlations. The results are
presented in Table 4. Correlation coefficients ranged in the samples as follows: 1)
Preadolescents, rS(183) = .37 – .62 (Mr = .49, SDr = .13); 2) Adolescents, rS(86) =
.31 – .66 (Mr = .44, SDr = .19); 3) Adults rS(227) = .32 – .62 (Mr = .45, SDr = .16).
The strongest statistical dependency in all three samples was between nature
conservation and environment-friendly consumer habits (rS = .62 - .66). The
finding is theoretically plausible as the consumer habits are at least indirect way to
preserve nature. As expected, all the other correlations were positive, too, and
statistically significant (p < .01, two-tailed).

Reliability Analysis of the MIPQ IX

The fifth phase of the analysis investigates psychometric properties of the 35 -item
MIPQ IX. In order to add equally balanced EnI scale to the instrument, a new
composite variable was computed from the three strongest loading EnSS items (see
italicized items in Table 3). Table 5 presents the factor structure and alpha loadings
for the nine MI scales. Reliability values of the first seven MI scales are not
calculated for the adolescents, as their questionnaire contained only items
measuring spiritual and environmental intelligence. The results were in parallel
with the findings of our previous studies (Tirri & Komulainen, 2002; Tirri, et al.,
2002, 2003; Tirri, Nokelainen & Ubani, 2006): Musical and Interpersonal scales
had the highest reliabilities ( = .88 - .89), and Linguistic and Spatial scales had
the lowest reliabilities ( = .53 - .62). The reliability estimates for the EnI three-
item composite variable ranged from .67 to .79. As discussed earlier, alpha
depends on the dimensionality of the scale (unidimensional vs. multidimensional);
higher reliability is achieved with unidimensional constructs. The second issue
affecting reliability is that when the abstraction level of the concept increases, like
with the spiritual intelligence, the invention on unambiguous propositions becomes
more difficult.

46
 ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Table 4. Correlations between the Environmental Sensitivity Dimensions

EnSS scale 9.1 9.2 9.3

Preadolescents (n = 183)
9.1 Love for nature
— .47 .37
9.2 Nature conservation
— .62
9.3 Environment-friendly
consumer habits —
Adolescents (n = 86)
9.1 Love for nature
— .31 .34
9.2 Nature conservation
— .66
9.3 Environment-friendly
consumer habits —
Adults (n = 227)
9.1 Love for nature
— .40 .32
9.2 Nature conservation
— .62
9.3 Environment-friendly
consumer habits —

Correlational Analysis of the MIPQ IX

The next step in the analysis was to calculate Spearman non-parametric

correlations between the environmental and other eight MI dimensions with the
preadolescent (n = 183) and adult (n = 227) samples (Table 6). Linguistic, rS(183)
= .38, p < .01 and rS(227) = .32, p < .01, Intrapersonal, rS(183) = .38, p < .01 and
rS(227) = .30, p < .01 and Spiritual rS(183) = .45, p < .01 and rS(227) = .50, p < .01,
scales shared the strongest (and positive) correlations with the environmental
intelligence scale. However, as their respective determination coefficients show (r2
= .14, r2 = .10, r2 = .14, r2 = .09), statistical dependencies were quite weak.
We reanalyzed the aforementioned dependencies with partial correlation by
controlling the gender. These analyses were conducted only with one sub sample,
the preadolescents (n = 183), as the gender information for the other sample was
not available. The results of the partial correlation with preadolescent sample
showed that gender had a clear non-direct effect on only one dependency:
Correlation between intrapersonal and environmental intelligence decreased from
.38 to .21.

47
ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Table 5. Factor Structure and Alpha Loadings of the MIPQ IX

Preadol. Adol.a Adults

(n = 183) (n = 86) (n = 227)
Scale Items

1. Linguistic lingu_1, lingu_2, lingu_3, .62 — .59

lingu_4
2. Logical- logic_1, logic_2, logic_3, .76 — .63
mathematical logic_4
3. Musical music_1, music_2, .83 — .89
music_3, music_4
4. Spatial spati_1, spati_2, spati_3, .53 — .54
spati_4
5. Bodily- bodki_1, bodki_2, bodki_3, .71 — .84
kinesthetic bodki_4
6. Interpersonal inter_1, inter_2, inter_3, .81 — .80
inter_4
7. Intrapersonal intra_1, intra_2, intra_3, .72 — .76
intra_4
8. Spiritual sp1_1, sp2_18, sp3_3, .70 .64 .76
sp4_16
9. Environmental en1_36, en3_33, en4_23 .67 70 .79
a
Adolescents, n = 86, did not respond to the first seven scales of the MIPQ IX.

Logical-mathematical and interpersonal scales had the weakest correlations

with the environmental scale in both samples. We found earlier that these two
dimensions are not statistically related to the spiritual intelligence (Tirri et al.,
2006). We concluded that the weak connection between mathematics and
spirituality was related to the fact that spiritual issues are usually not easily
addressed with scientific reasoning. Perhaps the same conclusion is valid with
environmental issues that are also strongly based on values and beliefs?

48
 ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Table 6. Correlations between the MIPQ IX Dimensions

Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Preadolescents (n = 183)

1. Linguistic — .15 .39 .45 .36 .34 .49 .48 .38

2. Logical- mathematical — .12 .48 .15 .26 .31 .27 .18
3. Musical — .39 .41 .50 .36 .32 .32
4. Spatial — .32 .31 .40 .39 .34
5. Bodily-kinesthetic — .44 .16 .29 .36
6. Interpersonal — .42 .28 .24
7. Intrapersonal — .59 .38
8. Spiritual — .45
9. Environmental —

Adults (n = 227)

1. Linguistic — .11 .15 .22 -.03 .28 .52 .34 .32

2. Logical- mathematical — .10 .39 .19 .04 .19 .22 .19
3. Musical — .27 .11 .24 .16 .26 .14
4. Spatial — .28 .21 .31 .20 .26
5. Bodily-kinesthetic — .11 -.09 .10 .10
6. Interpersonal — .36 .23 .17
7. Intrapersonal — .61 .30
8. Spiritual — .50
9. Environmental —
Note. Adolescents (n = 86) did not respond to the first seven scales of the MIPQ IX.

Correlations between the Background Variables and the MIPQ IX and EnSS

We investigated correlations between age, gender and the MIPQ scales (Table 7).
Unfortunately, age and gender information were present only in the preadolescent
sample for all the nine MI scales. Results considering the first seven MI scales
showed that boys in the preadolescent sample rated their Logical-mathematical
intelligence higher than girls, r(183) = .39, p < .001. This result was also present in
our earlier study with the university students (Tirri & Komulainen, 2002). Results
also indicated that the girls tended to be slightly more environmentally oriented
than boys, r(183) = -.26, p < .05.
Analysis of the environmental intelligence scale with all three sub samples
showed that female participants tended to be more environmentally oriented than

49
ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

males: Preadolescents: r(183) = -.26, p < .05; Adolescents: r(86) = -.23, p < .05;
Adults: r(227) = -.30, n.s.

Table 7. Correlations between Gender, Age and the MIPQ IX Dimensions

Preadolescents Adolescents Adultsa

(n = 183) (n = 86) (n = 32)
Scale Gender Age Gender Age Gender Age

1. Linguistic -.18 -.04 — — — —

2. Logical-
mathematical .39 -.16 — — — —
3. Musical -.15 -.04 — — — —
4. Spatial .16 -.08 — — — —
5. Bodily-
kinesthetic -.14 -.04 — — — —
6. Interpersonal -.18 .08 — — — —
7. Intrapersonal .00 .02 — — — —
8. Spiritual -.04 .06 -.27 .11 .30 .19
9. Environmental -.26 -.08 -.23 .16 -.30 -.04
a
Only part of the adult sample was available.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The last phase of the statistical analysis was to validate the two environmental
scales presented in this study. First, we performed a CFA separately for each sub
sample to test EnSS's generalizability. First section of the Table 8 presents
measures of absolute fit that determine the degree to which the model predicts the
observed correlation matrix (Hair et al., 1995). The root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) is designed to evaluate the approximate fit of the model
in the population (Kaplan, 2000). The estimate was in all three samples slightly
above the fair fit level of .05 – .08 (Hair et al., 1995), indicating mediocre fit
(Browne & Cudeck, 1993). The upper limit of the 90 per cent confidence interval
was also above the cut off value in all three samples. The standardized root mean
square residuals (SRMR) help the researcher to examine how well the aspects of
the data are captured by the model (Loehlin, 2004). SRMR's were in all three
samples well below the cut-off value of .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

50
 ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Table 8. Goodness-of-fit Values of the Environmental Sensitivity Scale

Preadol. Adolescents Adults Combined

(n = 183) (n = 86) (n = 227) (N = 496)

Absolute Fit Measures

2
80.09 41.93 84.09 178.29
Df 24 24 24 24
p <.001 .013 <.001 <.001
RMSEA .114 .093 .106 .114
90 per cent C.I. .087 .142 .043 .139 .082 .131 .099 .130
SRMR .068 .058 .060 .061
Incremental Fit Measures
CFI .907 .955 .909 .906
TLI .861 .933 .863 .859
Note. RMSEA= Root Mean Square Error of Approximation with 90 per
cent confidence interval. SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square
Residual. TLI = Tucker-Lewis coefficient. CFI = Comparative Fit Index.

Incremental fit measures compare the proposed model to a baseline model that
all the other models should be able to exceed (Hair et al., 1995). The Tucker-Lewis
index (TLI), a.k.a. the Nonnormed Fit Index (NNFI), was slightly below the
recommended level of .90 (Tucker & Lewis, 1973) in all but one sample
(TLIadolescents = .933). However, a similar measure, the comparative fit index (CFI)
was slightly above the recommended level in all three samples. Also the combined
sample (N = 496) did fit to the environmental sensitivity model well enough to
allow us to conclude that the generalizability of the model is satisfactory.
CFA was also performed to evaluate the goodness-of-fit of the MIPQ IX model
with both preadolescent and adult samples. In addition, the model fit to the
combined sample was investigated. The RMSEA estimate, as well as the upper
bound of 90 per cent confidence interval, were in both samples below the fair fit
level of .05 – .08. Residuals exceeded slightly the cut-off value of .08 in all
samples. Incremental fit measures were in both samples below the recommended
level of .90. Results of the combined sample (N = 378) indicated also satisfactory
generalizability of the model.

51
ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Table 9. Goodness-of-fit Values of the MIPQ IX

Preadolescents Adultsa Combined

(n = 183) (n = 195) (N = 378)

Absolute Fit Measures

2
964.25 998.34 1355.00
Df 524 524 524
P <.001 <.001 <.001
RMSEA .071 .068 .066
90 per cent C.I. .064 .078 .062 .075 .062 .071
SRMR .088 .087 .081
Incremental Fit Measures
CFI .772 .817 .807
TLI .741 .793 .781
Note. RMSEA= Root Mean Square Error of Approximation with 90 per
cent confidence interval. SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square
Residual. TLI = Tucker-Lewis coefficient. CFI = Comparative Fit Index.
a
Adult responses to all nine MI dimensions.

We did not do any model modifications during the analysis to avoid over fitting
of the model to the data (for discussion, see Hu and Bentler, 1995).

CONCLUSIONS

In this chapter, we extended the Multiple Intelligences Profiling Questionnaire VIII

(MIPQ VIII) based on Gardner's (1983, 1991, 1995, 1999, 2000, 2006) MI theory
with an Environmental Intelligence (EnI) dimension that is based on the
Environmental Sensitivity Scale (EnSS). The operationalization of both scales was
tested with an empirical sample of Finnish preadolescents, adolescents and adults
(N = 496).
First, we studied with an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) if the EnSS items
reflect the three categories of environmental sensitivity: (1) Love for nature, (2)
Nature conservation and (3) Environment-friendly consumer habits. Second, we
reduced the number of EnSS items from nine to three to create the EnI component
for the MIPQ IX. Third, both EnSS and EnI models were validated with the
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
Results of the reliability analysis showed that the nine item solution
operationalized the EnSS adequately. Results of EFA confirmed that the EnSS
consisted of suggested three dimensions in all three sub samples. Both MIPQ IX
and EnI had satisfactory reliability coefficients with all three sub samples. The
results of CFA showed that the both scales, EnSS and EnI, fitted the data
satisfactorily.

52
 ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

DISCUSSION

When discussing the usefulness of the two scales presented here, EnSS and MIPQ
IX, we need to address the endless debate about the use of self-report measures in
scientific studies. Campbell (1982, p. 692) stated many years ago that " .. one
possible exception [to exercise a professional bias] pertains to the use of a self-
report questionnaire to measure all the variables in a study."
According to Crampton and Wagner (1994), various studies have been
conducted to test the hypothesis that self-report questionnaires, if used as the only
data collection methods, artificially elevate measures of covariation, producing
percept-percept inflation in published correlations. However, when they conducted
a large scale meta-analytic research involving 42,934 correlations published in 581
scientific articles, findings challenged the validity of general condemnations of
self-report methods showing that percept-percept inflation did not had the broad,
comprehensive effects envisioned by critics.
The best way to conduct scientifically valid research with self-report
measures is to collect data with empirically tested instruments that are based on
solid theoretical research, and explicitly report all the study phases.
Our major motivation, when operationalizing Gardner‘s MI theory into the
MIPQ IX, was to provide both learners and their supervisors‘ practical tools for
meaningful self-reflection regarding each one‘s potentials. Perceptions of
individual strengths are also connected to self-concept and attribution theory.
In addition, we are interested in the outcome aspect that is strongly present in
the MI theory suggesting that academic intelligence alone is not enough. We need
to recognize that success in life and career depends also on social, practical and
environmental intelligence. To make the best out of one‘s abilities is to be in the
right place at the right time.
Lastly, we need to understand that the world does not revolve around human
beings. We are not here alone but one of many and, thus, environmental sensitivity
is needed. Our wish is that this study will help to promote discussion around
above-mentioned topics.

53
ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

REFERENCES
Bradford, J. (1995). Caring for the whole child: a holistic approach to spirituality. London: The
children‘s society.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & S.
Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park: Sage.
Campbell, J. P. (1982). Editorial: Some remarks from the outgoing editor. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 67(6), 691-700.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Second edition. Hillsdale:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Crampton, S. M., & Wagner III, J. A. (1994). Percept-Percept Inflation in Microorganizational
Research: An Investigation of Prevalence and Effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), 67-76.
Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing. Third edition. New York: Harper & Row.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind. London: Fontana Press.
Gardner, H. (1995). Reflections on multiple intelligences. Phi Delta Kappan 77(3), 200-208.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic
Books.
Gardner, H. (2000). A case against spiritual intelligence. International Journal for the Psychology of
Religion, 10, 27-34.
Gardner, H. (2006). Development and education of the mind. The selected works of Howard Gardner.
London: Routledge.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis. Fourth
edition. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Hay, D. (1998). The spirit of the child. London: Fount.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling:
Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
Johnson, D. R., & Creech, J. C. (1983). Ordinal Measures in Multiple Indicator Models: A Simulation
Study of Categorization Error. American Sociological Review, 48, 398-407.
Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.
Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling. Foundations and extensions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Loehlin, J. C. (2004). Latent variable models. Fourth edition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Marini, M., Li, X., & Fan, P. (1996). Characterizing latent structure: Factor analytic and grade of
membership models. Sociological Methodology, 1, 133-164.
Morris, M. (2004). The Eight One: Naturalistic Intelligence. In J. Kincheloe (Ed.), Multiple
intelligences reconsidered (pp. 3-28). New York: Peter Lang.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Fourth edition. New York:
HarperCollins.
Tirri, K., & Komulainen, E. (2002). Modeling a self-rated intelligence-profile for virtual university. In
H. Niemi & P. Ruohotie (Eds.), Theoretical understandings for learning in virtual university (pp.
139-168). Hämeenlinna: RCVE.
Tirri, K., Komulainen, E., Nokelainen, P., & Tirri, H. (2002). Conceptual Modeling of Self-Rated
Intelligence Profile. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Self-Concept Research Conference.
Sydney: University of Western Sydney.
Tirri, K., Komulainen, E., Nokelainen, P., & Tirri, H. (2003, April). Gardner's Theory Applied to Model
a Self-Rated Intelligence Profile. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Multiple Intelligences SIG, Chicago, USA.
Tirri, K., Nokelainen, P., & Ubani, M. (2006). Conceptual Definition and Empirical Validation of the
Spiritual Sensitivity Scale. Journal of Empirical Theology, 19(1), 37-62.
Tucker, T. L., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis.
Psychometrica, 38, 1-10.
Wilson, L. O. (1998). Journeys: Inside out, outside in. Tucson, AZ: Zephyr Press.

54
 ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Multiple Intelligences Profiling Questionnaire IX

TOTALLY TOTALLY
DISAGREE AGREE

Writing is a natural way for me to express myself. 1 2 3 4 5

At school, studies in English or social studies were

1 2 3 4 5
easier for me than mathematics, physics and chemistry.
I have recently written something that I am especially
1 2 3 4 5
proud of, or for which I have received recognition.
Metaphors and vivid verbal expressions help me learn
1 2 3 4 5
efficiently.
At school, I was good at mathematics, physics or
1 2 3 4 5
chemistry.

I can work with and solve complex problems. 1 2 3 4 5

Mental arithmetic is easy for me. 1 2 3 4 5

I am good at games and problem solving, which require

1 2 3 4 5
logical thinking.
At school, geometry and other subjects involving spatial
1 2 3 4 5
perception were easier for me than solving equations.
It is easy for me to conceptualize complex and
1 2 3 4 5
multidimensional patterns.
I can easily imagine how a landscape looks from a
1 2 3 4 5
bird's-eye view.
When I read, I form pictures or visual images in my
1 2 3 4 5
mind.

I am handy. 1 2 3 4 5

I can easily do something concrete with my hands (e.g.

1 2 3 4 5
knitting and woodwork).
I am good at showing someone how to do something in
1 2 3 4 5
practice.
I was good at handicrafts (e.g. woodwork; textiles) at
1 2 3 4 5
school.
After hearing a tune once or twice I am able to sing or
1 2 3 4 5
whistle it quite accurately.
When listening to music, I am able to pick out
1 2 3 4 5
individual instruments and recognize melodies.

55
ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

TOTALLY TOTALLY
DISAGREE AGREE

I can easily keep the rhythm when drumming a melody. 1 2 3 4 5

I notice immediately if a melody is out of tune. 1 2 3 4 5

Even in strange company, I can easily find someone to

1 2 3 4 5
talk to.

I get along easily with different types of people. 1 2 3 4 5

I make contact easily with other people. 1 2 3 4 5

In negotiations and group work, I am able to support the

1 2 3 4 5
group to find a consensus.
I am able to analyze my own motives and ways of
1 2 3 4 5
action.
I often think about my own feelings and sentiments and
1 2 3 4 5
seek reasons for them.
I regularly spend time reflecting on the important issues
1 2 3 4 5
of life.
I like to read psychological or philosophical literature to
1 2 3 4 5
increase my self-knowledge.
In my busy everyday life I find it important to take time
1 2 3 4 5
to think and reflect.

Even ordinary every-day life is full of amazing things. 1 2 3 4 5

I often reflect on the meaning of life. 1 2 3 4 5

It is important to me to share a quiet moment with

1 2 3 4 5
others.

I enjoy the beauty and experiences related to nature. 1 2 3 4 5

Protecting the environment is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5

I pay attention to what I consume in order to protect the

1 2 3 4 5
environment.

56
 ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Environmental Sensitivity Scale

TOTALLY TOTALLY
DISAGREE AGREE

I enjoy walking in the nature. 1 2 3 4 5

I enjoy the beauty and experiences related to nature. 1 2 3 4 5

Animal rights are important to me. 1 2 3 4 5

I take part in projects and events related to protection of

1 2 3 4 5
environment.

Protecting the nature is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5

I pay attention to my consumption habits in order to

1 2 3 4 5
protect environment.
I am ready to pay more for the products that are
1 2 3 4 5
environmental friendly than for normal products.

I am active in recycling. 1 2 3 4 5

I sort different trash at home appropriately. 1 2 3 4 5

57
ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

SPSS Syntax to Compute MIPQ IX Factors

/* Variable names in this syntax refer to Table 1 in this chapter

COMPUTE MIPQIX_LINGU = MEAN(lingu_1, lingu_2, lingu_3, lingu_4).

COMPUTE MIPQIX_LOGIC = MEAN(logic_1, logic_2, logic_3, logic_4).
COMPUTE MIPQIX_MUSIC = MEAN(music_1, music_2, music_3, music_4).
COMPUTE MIPQIX_SPATI = MEAN(spati_1, spati_2, spati_3, spati_4).
COMPUTE MIPQIX_BODKI = MEAN(bodki_1, bodki_2, bodki_3, bodki_4).
COMPUTE MIPQIX_INTER = MEAN(inter_1, inter_2, inter_3, inter_4).
COMPUTE MIPQIX_INTRA = MEAN(intra_1, intra_2, intra_3, intra_4).
COMPUTE MIPQIX_SP = MEAN(sp1_1, sp2_18, sp3_3, sp4_16).
COMPUTE MIPQIX_EN = MEAN(en1_36, en3_33, en4_23).
EXECUTE.

VARIABLE LABELS
MIPQIX_LINGU "1. Linguistic"
MIPQIX_LOGIC "2. Mathematical-logical"
MIPQIX_MUSIC "3. Musical"
MIPQIX_SPATI "4. Spatial"
MIPQIX_BODKI "5. Bodily-Kinesthetic"
MIPQIX_INTER "6. Interpersonal"
MIPQIX_INTRA "7. Intrapersonal"
MIPQIX_SP "8. Spiritual"
MIPQIX_EN "9. Environmental".

SPSS Syntax to Compute Environmental Sensitivity Scale Factors

/* Variable names in this syntax refer to Table 2 in this chapter

COMPUTE EN1_M = MEAN(en1_31, en1_36).

COMPUTE EN2_M = MEAN(en2_21, en3_22, en3_33).
COMPUTE EN3_M = MEAN(en4_23, en4_28, en6_25, en6_30).
EXECUTE .

VARIABLE LABELS
EN1_M "1. Love for nature"
EN2_M "2. Protection of animal rights and nature"
EN3_M "3. Environment friendly consumption".

58
 CHAPTER 4

ETHICAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

INTRODUCTION

According to Muriel Bebeau and her colleagues (1999), moral sensitivity is about
the awareness of how our actions affect other people. Thus, without moral
sensitivity it is difficult to see what kind of moral issues are involved in everyday
life. However, to respond to a situation in a moral way, a person must be able to
perceive and interpret events in a ways that leads to ethical action. Ethically
sensitive person notes various situational cues and is able to visualize several
alternative actions in response to that situation. He or she draws on many aspects
skills, techniques and components of interpersonal sensitivity. These include taking
the perspective of others (role taking), cultivating empathy for a sense of
connection to others, and interpreting a situation based on imagining what might
happen and who might be affected.
Numerous tests of ethical sensitivity have been developed over the years, but
most of them are very context-specific, for example, relating to medicine and
dental education (Bebeau, Rest & Yamoor, 1985) or to the racial and gender
intolerance (Brabeck et al., 2000).
Darcia Narvaez (2001; Narvaez, Endicott & Bock, 2002) has operationalized
ethical sensitivity to include seven sets of skills that operate in more general level:
(1) Reading and expressing emotions, (2) Taking the perspectives of others, (3)
Caring by connecting to others, (4) Working with interpersonal and group
differences, (5) Preventing social bias, (6) Generating interpretations and options,
and (7) Identifying the consequences of actions and options. Those ethical skills
guided development work of Ethical Sensitivity Scale (ESS) that is presented in
this chapter.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

According to Bebeau, Rest and Narvaez (1999), morality is built upon four basic
component processes. These processes include moral sensitivity, moral judgment,
moral motivation and moral character. The components of moral sensitivity, moral
motivation and moral character have been studied less than the component of
moral judgment.
Most of the studies in the area of moral development have based their theory on
the cognitive-developmental theory of Lawrence Kohlberg (e.g., 1969). The
Defining Issues Test (DIT) is a well-documented measure of moral judgment that
has been used all over the world (Rest, 1986). The index most frequently used is
the ―P score‖, which reflects the principled reasoning (Stages 5 and 6 in

Kirsi Tirri & Petri Nokelainen. Measuring Multiple Intelligences and Moral Sensitivities in Education,
© 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
ETHICAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Kohlberg‘s theory) of a person. Kohlberg‘s procedures have been criticized for

lack of diversity in the moral dilemmas that have been used in the interviews
(Yussen, 1977). The hypothetical dilemmas can also be seen as being too abstract
and removed from the daily experiences of most people (Straughan, 1975).
Recognition of these aspects of hypothetical dilemmas has led educational
researchers to study real-life moral problems identified by people (Walker, de
Vries & Trevethan, 1987). The research conducted in this area shows that the
adolescents formulate dilemmas, which are very different from the hypothetical
dilemmas used by Kohlberg and his colleagues to assess moral reasoning (Yussen,
1977; Binfet, 1995). Most of the dilemmas formulated by Kohlberg focus on issues
of ownership, public welfare and life-and-death. In Yussen‘s (1977) study, the
moral dilemma themes, formulated by adolescents, focused most frequently on
interpersonal relations. Colangelo (1982) and Tirri (1996) found the same tendency
with gifted adolescents.
Andreani and Pagnin provided a comprehensive review of the literature in their
article (1993). According to these authors, the gifted students are presumed to have
a privileged position in the maturation of moral thinking because of their
precocious intellectual growth. Terman‘s (1925) sample of gifted children showed
superior maturity in moral development in choosing socially constructive activities
and in rating misbehaviour.
Karnes and Brown (1981) have made an initial investigation on the relationship
between moral development and giftedness using Rest‘s DIT. Their sample
included 233 gifted students (9-15 years of age) who were selected for a gifted
programme. The results of the DIT were compared to the students‘ results in a test
that measured their intellectual ability (WISC-R). The empirical results of the
study showed positive correlation between the two tests. According to the
researchers, intellectually gifted children appear to reach a relatively high stage of
moral reasoning earlier than their chronological peers. (Karnes & Brown, 1981.)
Ikonen-Varila (2000) reported DIT P indexes of Finnish 9th graders (N =
1631). According to her, the proportion of post-conventional moral reasoning was
22.6 per cent. Ikonen-Varila found a positive connection between academic
competence and moral reasoning. The school success classified into three groups
(satisfactory, moderate, and excellent) produced the average DIT P indexes of 15.4,
24.2 and 29.7, respectively. She concluded that because cognitive factors regulate
moral reasoning in childhood and adolescence, it is natural that school success is
one of the main background factors explaining moral reasoning abilities. Her
results support the connection between giftedness and moral reasoning: the more
gifted, the more capable of doing principled moral reasoning.
Tirri and Pehkonen (2002) explored the moral reasoning and scientific
argumentation of Finnish adolescents who are gifted in science. These 16 girls and
15 boys (14 – 15 years of age) participated in a gifted program at the University of
Helsinki. The design contained the following research instruments and procedures:
(1) Raven‘s Standard Progressive Matrix (SPM) was used to provide a test for
comparing students‘ capacities for observation and clear thinking; (2) the moral
reasoning was measured with DIT; (3) students were asked to write essays on
scientific moral dilemmas; (4) researchers interviewed the students. The results
show that the average DIT P index was 41, representing the average score for a
heterogeneous group of 18-year-olds. Scores ranged from 7 to 78, indicating quite

60
 ETHICAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

high variance (SD = 15.8); some students really represented post conventional
moral reasoning, some did not at all. An interesting finding was that the correlation
between DIT and SPM was near zero. (Tirri & Pehkonen, 2002.)
Other studies of moral judgment using DIT scores have shown that gifted
adolescents scored higher than their peers as a group (Tan-Willman & Gutteridge,
1981; Janos & Robinson, 1985; Narvaez, 1993). However, the data with high-
achieving adolescents has indicated that the relationship between apparent
academic talent and moral judgment scores is more complex. According to
Narvaez‘s study, high academic competence is necessary for an unusually high P
score, but it does not necessarily predict it. The high achievers may have average to
high moral judgment scores, whereas low achievers cannot be high scorers in
moral judgment (Narvaez, 1993).
Morality includes other components besides moral judgment, as measured by
DIT scores. Real-life moral dilemmas also require moral sensitivity and moral
motivation (Narvaez, 1993). Before an individual can make responsible moral
judgments, he or she needs to identify real-life moral dilemmas in different
contexts. A broad conception of morality requires more than just skill in abstract
reasoning. Affective and social factors play a vital role in moral conduct.
The few empirical studies available have contradictory results on the
relationships between general intelligence, social competence, and altruism
(Abroms, 1985). Earlier studies on deviant behaviour and crime among the gifted
have also shown that there is no necessary relationship between morality and
intelligence (Brooks, 1985; Gath, Tennenth & Pidduck, 1970). Furthermore, earlier
studies show that there are qualitative differences in the moral reasoning of gifted
adolescents (Tirri & Pehkonen, 2002).
According to Muriel Bebeau and her colleagues (1999, p. 22), moral sensitivity
...is the awareness of how our actions affect other people. It involves being
aware of the different possible lines of action and how each line of action
could affect the parties involved (including oneself). Moral sensitivity
involves imaginatively constructing possible scenarios (often from limited
cues and partial information), knowing cause-consequent chains of events in
the real world, and having empathy and role taking skills. Moral sensitivity is
necessary to become aware that a moral issue is involved in a situation.
Like we said earlier in this chapter, to respond to a situation in a moral way, a
person must be able to perceive and interpret events in ways that lead to ethical
action. The person must be sensitive to situational cues and must be able to
visualize various alternative actions in response to that situation. Ethical sensitivity
is closely related to a new suggested intelligence type, social intelligence, which
can be defined as the ability to get along well with others and get them to cooperate
with you (Albrecht, 2006; Goleman, 2006).
We acknowledge that numerous tests of ethical sensitivity exist, but most of
them are very context-specific, for example, relating to medicine and dental
education (Bebeau, Rest & Yamoor, 1985) or to racial and gender intolerance
(Brabeck et al., 2000). Narvaez‘s (2001) seven sets of ethical sensitivity skills
operate on a more general level: Reading and expressing emotions, taking the
perspectives of others, caring by connecting to others, working with interpersonal
and group differences, preventing social bias, generating interpretations and
options, and identifying the consequences of actions and options. Those ethical

61
ETHICAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

skills have guided our Ethical Sensitivity Scale (ESS) instrument development
work.
In this chapter, we present the Ethical Sensitivity Scale (ESS) and probe it with
the following three questions: Are there any differences in the self-reported ethical
sensitivity between (1) Lutheran non-confirmed and confirmed students; (2) female
and male students; and (3) academically average and above average students?

METHOD

Sample

The non-probability sample (N = 249) was collected with the Ethical Sensitivity
Scale (ESS) during the autumn semester 2006, from two secondary schools in
Finland. One of the schools was located in Helsinki (Southern Finland, capital of
Finland with about 560,000 inhabitants) and the other one was located in Jyväskylä
(Central Finland, about 165,000 inhabitants). Each respondent was personally
invited to complete a paper and pencil version of the questionnaire. Participants
were asked to evaluate their attitude towards the statements measuring ethical
sensitivity.
The sample consists of seventh (n = 85, 34%), eighth (n = 81, 33%) and ninth
(n = 82, 33%) grade students of which 132 (53 %) are females and 116 (47 %) are
males. The age median in the sample is 14 years. The ninth-grade students in the
sample had been confirmed in the Lutheran Church. The students were further
classified into two groups: Academically (1) average (n = 114, 46.7 %, self-
reported grade point average 6.4 < GPA < 8.5) and (2) above average (n = 130,
53.3 %, 8.5 GPA 10.0) students.

Ethical Sensitivity Scale

The Ethical Sensitivity Scale (ESS) is based on Narvaez‘s operationalization of

ethical sensitivity (2001). Its main purpose is to scale the pupils‘ orientations on
ethical issues. The ESS measures the following seven dimensions of ethical
sensitivity: (1) Reading and expressing emotions, (2) taking the perspectives of
others, (3) caring by connecting to others, (4) working with interpersonal and
group differences, (5) preventing social bias, (6) generating interpretations and
options and (7) identifying the consequences of actions and options. The
instrument consists of 28 items on a Likert scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 5
(totally agree) (Table 1.).

62
 ETHICAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Table 1. Factor Structure and Alpha Loadings of the Ethical Sensitivity Scale

Dimension Factor Items M (SD)

1 Reading and ESS_1 es1_1, es1_2, es1_3, es1_4 3.9 (0.6) .54
expressing emotions

2 Taking the ESS_2 es2_5, es2_6, es2_7, es2_8 3.9 (0.7) .78
perspectives of others

3 Caring by connecting ESS_3 es3_9, es3_10, es3_11, es3_12 3.7 (0.7) .71
to others

4 Working with ESS_4 es4_13, es4_14, es4_15, es4_16 3.4 (0.7) .75
interpersonal and group
differences

5 Preventing social bias ESS_5 es5_17, es5_18, es5_19, es5_20 3.5 (0.5) .50

6 Generating ESS_6 es6_21, es6_22, es6_23, es6_24 3.6 (0.6) .69

interpretations and
options

7 Identifying the ESS_7 es7_25, es7_26, es7_27, es7_28 3.3 (0.6) .65
consequences of actions
and options

The ESS items were designed to apply to people from different backgrounds
and cultures. This allows us to use the instrument in a multicultural society and in
cross-cultural studies. The statements described the issues and values that the
respondent considered important for him or her. Each of the seven dimensions was
operationalized in the questionnaire with four statements. For example, the first
category, Reading and expressing emotions, was measured with the item ess1_1
―In conflict situations, I am able to identify other persons' feelings.‖ All the items,
with means and standard deviations, are listed in Table 2.

Statistical Analyses

The first stage of the analysis describes the psychometric properties of the seven
dimensions of the ESS. The analysis techniques we apply here are non-parametric
Spearman rank order correlations to study statistical dependencies between the
indicators and parametric Cronbach‘s alpha values that estimate how well the items
co-operate within each dimension.
The second stage of the analysis answers the three research questions with a
nonparametric Mann-Whitney U–test. The first research question, ―Are there any
differences in the ethical sensitivity between Lutheran non-confirmed and
confirmed students?‖, was addressed with the confirmation status (confirmed/non-
confirmed) as a grouping variable. The second research question, ―Are there any

63
ETHICAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

differences in the ethical sensitivity between female and male students?‖, was
addressed with gender (male/female) as a grouping variable. The third research
question, ―Are there any differences in the ethical sensitivity between academically
average and above average students?‖, was addressed with average school grade
(average school success: 6.5 - 8.4; and above average school success: 8.5 – 10.0) as
a grouping variable.

RESULTS

Psychometric Properties of the ESS

The first task of the statistical analysis was to investigate the psychometric
properties of the Ethical Sensitivity Scale items. Inter-item correlations between
the items were investigated for the sample with the nonparametric correlation
coefficient (Spearman rho). The seven dimensions are measured by 28 items,
producing 378 inter-item correlations when diagonal and double-presentations are
omitted (Ni-i corr = (Nitems (Nitems - 1)) / 2). The absolute value correlations in the
sample (n = 249) range from .001 to .55 (M = .22, SD = .10). Three correlations
were above |.50| and thus considered large, according to Cohen (1988), as they
share more than 25 per cent of their variance (.5 2 = .25). On the average, the items
share only five per cent of their variance with other items (.22 2 = .05). The result of
an inter-item correlation analysis shows that the items measuring ethical sensitivity
do not share enough common variance in the sample to proceed to an exploratory
factor analysis.
Psychometric properties of the ESS items were further studied with reliability
analysis (Cronbach, 1970). The results are presented in Table 1. "2 Taking the
perspectives of others" and "4 Working with interpersonal and group differences"
scales had the highest reliabilities ( = .78; = .75) while "1 Reading and
expressing emotions" and "5 Preventing social bias" scales had the lowest
reliabilities ( = .54; = .50). Alpha values depend heavily on the dimensionality
of the scale. Higher inter-item reliability is achieved with one-dimensional
constructs. The second issue affecting reliability negatively is the fact that high
abstraction level concepts are more difficult to operationalize into intuitive items.

64
 ETHICAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Table 2. The Ethical Sensitivity Scale

Item Label M (SD)

1 Reading and expressing emotions

es1_1 In conflict situations, I am able to identify other persons‘ feelings. 3.8 (0.7)
es1_2 I am able to express my different feelings to other people. 3.9 (0.9)
es1_3 I notice if someone working with me is offended by me. 4.0 (0.9)
es1_4 I am able to express to other people if I am offended or hurt because of 3.7 (1.0)
them.

2 Taking the perspectives of others

es2_5 I am able to cooperate with people who do not share my opinions on what 3.8 (0.9)
is right and what is wrong.
es2_6 I tolerate different ethical views in my surroundings. 3.9 (0.9)
es2_7 I think it is good that my closest friends think in different ways. 4.1 (0.9)
es2_8 I also get along with people who do not agree with me. 3.9 (0.8)

3 Caring by connecting to others

es3_9 I am concerned about the wellbeing of my partners. 3.3 (0.9)

es3_10 I take care of the wellbeing of others and try to improve it. 3.7 (0.9)
es3_11 In conflict situations, I do my best to take actions that aim at maintaining 3.9 (0.9)
good personal relationships.
es3_12 I try to have good contact with all the people I am working with. 4.0 (0.9)

4 Working with interpersonal and group differences

es4_13 I take other peoples‘ points of view into account before making any 3.5 (1.0)
important decisions in my life.
es4_14 I try to consider another person's position when I face a conflict situation. 3.2 (1.0)
es4_15 When I am working on ethical problems, I consider the impact of my 3.3 (0.9)
decisions on other people.
es4_16 I try to consider other peoples‘ needs, even in situations concerning my 3.5 (0.9)
own benefits.

65
 ETHICAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Table 2. The Ethical Sensitivity Scale (continued)

Item Label M (SD)

5 Preventing social bias

es5_17 I recognize my own bias when I take a stand on ethical issues. 3.3 (0.8)
es5_18 I realize that I am tied to certain prejudices when I assess ethical issues. 3.6 (0.9)
es5_19 I try to control my own prejudices when making ethical evaluations. 3.7 (0.9)
es5_20 When I am resolving ethical problems, I try to take a position evolving out 3.2 (0.8)
of my own social status.
6 Generating interpretations and options
es6_21 I contemplate on the consequences of my actions when making ethical 3.6 (0.9)
decisions.
es6_22 I ponder on different alternatives when aiming at the best possible solution 3.6 (0.9)
to an ethically problematic situation.
es6_23 I am able to create many alternative ways to act when I face ethical 3.5 (0.8)
problems in my life.
es6_24 I believe there are several right solutions to ethical problems. 3.8 (0.9)
7 Identifying the consequences of actions and options
es7_25 I notice that there are ethical issues involved in human interaction. 3.6 (0.9)
es7_26 I see a lot of ethical problems around me. 3.3 (1.0)
es7_27 I am aware of the ethical issues I face at school. 3.6 (0.9)
es7_28 I am better than other people in recognizing new and current ethical 2.9 (0.9)
problems.

Ethical Sensitivity Related Differences between Lutheran Non-confirmed and Confirmed

Students

First we wanted to probe the instrument by analyzing if students‘ responses to the

ESS items are statistically dependent on their Lutheran confirmation experience.
We used a dichotomous variable ―confirmation‖ with values (1 = confirmed, 2 =
non-confirmed) as the grouping variable in a non-parametric group mean rank
difference test (Mann-Whitney U). The first group members, non-confirmed
students, came from classes seven and eight (n = 166). The second group includes
ninth-grade students (n = 82) who have been confirmed in the Lutheran church.
Group differences are comparable, as both females and males were equally
represented in the two sub groups. Using confirmation, as a grouping factor is as
equal as using a 15-year-old cut-off point (Finnish church law defines 15 years as
the earliest age for confirmation).
According to the first research question, we aim to explain the differences
between the two groups, with religious teaching available for those who are
confirmed. However, we fully acknowledge that some error enters into the
analysis, as the highly abstract ESS items are more demanding for the younger
students. We have analyzed this error source by comparing the standard deviations

66
 ETHICAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

of all three age groups‘ answers to single items. Results did not show any
significant differences between the younger and older students‘ response
tendencies to 28 ESS items. Figure 1 show firstly that the unanimity in response
tendency is not related to the grade, as all three lines are close to each other in most
items. Secondly, items related to the fifth (Preventing social bias) dimension of the
ESS have the lowest standard deviations, indicating the smallest disagreement
among the students.

Figure 1. Comparison of Disagreement (measured with SD, values close to zero indicate
smaller disagreement) between the Three Age Groups on the ESS dimensions.

Overall results presented in Table 3 show that those students who have had
more religious education at school, and also were confirmed in the Lutheran
church, self-reported higher ethical skills than their younger and non-confirmed
peers. On a more detailed level, we see that confirmed students (M = 3.9, SD = 0.6)
report statistically significantly higher skills on caring by connecting to others than
non-confirmed students (M = 3.7, SD = 0.7), Z(1, n = 248)= -2.382, p = .017. For
the other six scales, the group mean ranks do not differ statistically significantly,
indicating that there is at least a 5 per cent or higher possibility to have similar or
larger difference between the two groups‘ responses, if we assume that they come
from the same population (i.e., null hypothesis is true).
However, when we examine the results presented in Table 3 on a more detailed
level, we learn that in six scales out of seven those students who have confirmed in
the Lutheran church have higher self-reported ethical skills than their non-
confirmed peers.

Table 3. Comparison of Non-confirmed and Confirmed Students’ Responses to the

ESS

67
 ETHICAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Confirmed Non-confirmed
(n = 82) (n = 166)
Scale M (SD) M (SD) Z (p)

1 Reading and expressing -1.622

3.9 (0.6) 3.8 (0.6)
emotions (.105)

2 Taking the perspectives -0.756

4.0 (0.7) 3.9 (0.7)
of others (.450)

3 Caring by connecting to -2.382

3.9 (0.6) 3.7 (0.7)
others (.017)

4 Working with
-1.931
interpersonal and group 3.5 (0.7) 3.3 (0.7)
(.053)
differences
-1.500
5 Preventing social bias 3.5 (0.4) 3.4 (0.6)
(.134)
6 Generating
-1.857
interpretations and 3.7 (0.6) 3.6 (0.6)
(.063)
options
7 Identifying the
-0.294
consequences of actions 3.3 (0.7) 3.3 (0.6)
(.769)
and options

Gender Related Differences in Ethical Sensitivity

To answer the second research question, we compared female and male students‘
self-reported ethical sensitivity skills. A non-parametric group mean rank
difference test (Mann-Whitney U) was applied to a dichotomous grouping variable,
―gender‖ (1 = female, 2 = male). Group differences are comparable, as both
genders were equally represented in the sample (female n = 132, 53.2 % and male
n = 116, 46.8 %) (Table 4).
Overall results show clearly that on all but one dimension (―Identifying the
consequences of actions and options‖) female participants estimated their ethical
skills higher than males. Female students were more likely to read and express
emotions (M = 4.0, SD = 0.5) than their male peers (M = 3.7, SD = 0.6), Z(1, n =
248)= -3.138, p = .002. Female students were more likely to take the perspectives
of others (M = 4.1, SD = 0.6) than male students (M = 3.7, SD = 0.7), Z(1, n =
248)= -4.270, p < .001. Female students were also more caring, by connecting to
others (M = 3.9, SD = 0.6), than male students (M = 3.5, SD = 0.6), Z(1, n = 248)=
-4.514, p < .001. Females in this sample self-reported themselves as more effective
workers with interpersonal and group differences (M = 3.5, SD = 0.6) than males
(M = 3.2, SD = 0.7), Z(1, n = 248)= -4.348, p < .001. Table 4 shows that the
difference between female and male respondents was smallest in dimensions five
(Preventing social bias) and seven (Identifying the consequences of actions and
options).

68
 ETHICAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Table 4. Gender-related Differences in Students’ Responses to ESS

Female Male
(n = 132) (n = 116)
Scale M (SD) M (SD) Z (p)

1 Reading and expressing

4.0 (0.5) 3.7 (0.6) -3.138 (.002)
emotions

2 Taking the perspectives of

4.1 (0.6) 3.7 (0.7) -4.270 (<.001)
others

3 Caring by connecting to
3.9 (0.6) 3.5 (0.6) -4.514 (<.001)
others

4 Working with interpersonal

3.5 (0.7) 3.2 (0.7) -4.348 (<.001)
and group differences

5 Preventing social bias 3.5 (0.6) 3.4 (0.5) -2.115 (.034)

6 Generating interpretations
3.7 (0.6) 3.5 (0.7) -2.683 (.007)
and options

7 Identifying the
consequences of actions and 3.3 (0.6) 3.3 (0.7) -0.125 (.900)
options

Academic Giftedness Related Differences in Ethical Sensitivity

The last research task was to compare academically average and above average
students‘ responses to ethical sensitivity scales. Respondents were asked to report
their grade point average (GPA) on the following six point scale: (1) = 4.0 – 5.4 (n
= 1, .4 %); (2) = 5.5 – 6.4 (n = 3, 1.2 %); (3) = 6.5 – 7.4 (n = 23, 9.3 %); (4) = 7.5 –
8.4 (n = 91, 36.7 %); (5) = 8.5 – 9.4 (n = 119, 48.0 %); (6) = 9.5 – 10.0 (n = 11, 4.4
%). As the research task was to analyze differences between average and above
average students, we recoded a new two-class variable with a cut-off point of 8.5,
and left out the analysis the two lowest GPA classes 1 and 2 (containing only four
students, 1.6 % of all responses). The new ―GPA2class‖ variable (1 ―averageGPA‖
= 6.4 < GPA < 8.5, n = 114, 46.7 %; 2 ―highGPA‖ = 8.5 GPA 10.0, n = 130,
53.3 %) was the grouping variable in a non-parametric group mean rank difference
test (Mann-Whitney U). Group differences were related to gender to some extent as
female students were slightly over represented in the ―highGPA‖ group (nfemale_total
= 132, 53.2%; nfemale_highGPA = 72, 64.3%) and male students were over represented
in the ―averageGPA‖ group (nmale_total = 116, 46.8 %; nmale_averageGPA = 90, 68.2 %).
However, the bias is not too large (about ten per cent) to prevent further
comparison of the two groups. (Table 5.)

Table 5. Academic Achievement (GPA) Related Differences in Students’ Responses to ESS

69
ETHICAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Above average
Average academic
academic
achievement
achievement
(n = 114)
(n = 130)
Scale M (SD) M (SD) Z (p)

1 Reading and -0.397

3.9 (0.5) 3.9 (0.6)
expressing emotions (.691)

2 Taking the -1.994

3.9 (0.7) 4.0 (0.7)
perspectives of others (.046)

3 Caring by connecting -3.715

3.6 (0.6) 3.9 (0.6)
to others (<.001)

4 Working with
-0.953
interpersonal and group 3.3 (0.6) 3.4 (0.8)
(.341)
differences
-1.429
5 Preventing social bias 3.4 (0.5) 3.5 (0.6)
(.153)
6 Generating
-3.668
interpretations and 3.5 (0.6) 3.8 (0.6)
(<.001)
options
7 Identifying the
-1.290
consequences of actions 3.3 (0.6) 3.4 (0.7)
(.197)
and options

Overall results regarding the third question showed that more academically
gifted students estimated their ethical skills higher than average ability students.
Those students who reported high GPA (M = 3.9, SD = 0.6) were clearly more
likely to be caring by connecting to others than average GPA students (M = 3.6, SD
= 0.6). This result was statistically significant, Z(1, n = 244)= -3.715, p < .001.
High GPA students also felt that they were more skilful in generating
interpretations and options (M = 3.8, SD = 0.6) than their average GPA peers (M =
3.5, SD = 0.6), Z(1, n = 244)= -3.668, p < .001. Average GPA students self-
reported slightly weaker skills in taking the perspectives of others (M = 3.9, SD =
0.7) than their above average GPA peers (M = 4.0, SD = 0.7). The difference was
statistically small, but significant, Z(1, n = 244)= -1.994, p = .046.

CONCLUSIONS

In this chapter, we presented a 28 –item Ethical Sensitivity Scale (ESS) and tested
its psychometric properties with a sample consisting of 249 Finnish Lutheran urban
schools‘ 7th - 9th grade students. We discussed theoretical issues related to ethical
sensitivity as an important component in morality and presented a definition and
operationalization of the ethical sensitivity.
The ESS is based on the work of Narvaez (2001) and its main purpose is to
scale the pupils‘ orientations on ethical issues. The ESS measures the following

70
 ETHICAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

seven dimensions of ethical sensitivity: (1) Reading and expressing emotions, (2)
considering the perspectives of others, (3) caring by connecting to others, (4)
working with interpersonal and group differences, (5) preventing social bias, (6)
generating interpretations and options, and (7) identifying the consequences of
actions and options.
We probed the instrument with three research questions: Are there any
differences in the self-reported ethical sensitivity between (1) Lutheran non-
confirmed and confirmed students; (2) female and male students; and (3)
academically average and above average students?
Results regarding the first question showed that those students who have had
more religious education at school and also were confirmed in the Lutheran church,
self-reported higher ethical skills than their younger and non-confirmed peers. This
finding supports our initial hypothesis that ninth graders, who have had more
religious education at school and also were confirmed, assess themselves more as
ethically sensitive than their younger and less educated peers.
Results regarding the second question showed clearly that female students
estimated their ethical skills higher than their male peers. This tendency can be
explained by the types of items measuring ethical sensitivity skills. The majority of
them measure caring ethics with emotional and social intelligence. In earlier
Finnish studies, both 6th and 9th grade girls were shown to be more care-oriented in
their moral orientation than their same age male peers who were clearly justice-
oriented (Tirri, 2003).
Results regarding the third question showed that more academically gifted
students estimated their ethical skills as higher than the opinions of average ability
students. This finding supports other researchers‘ notion that gifted students have a
privileged position in the maturation of moral thinking because of their precocious
intellectual growth (Andreani & Pagnin, 1993; Karnes & Brown, 1981; Terman,
1925).
Results regarding the psychometric properties of the ESS showed that it is a
promising ethical sensitivity measurement instrument that can be applied to various
learning contexts both in traditional face-to-face and online learning environments.
It can also be used together with previously presented Spiritual Sensitivity Scale
(SSS, see Chapter 4).

71
ETHICAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

REFERENCES
Abroms, K. (1985). Social giftedness and its relationship with intellectual giftedness. In J. Freeman
(Ed.), The psychology of gifted children (pp. 201-218). Chichester: Wiley & Sons.
Albrecht, K. (2006). Social intelligence. The new science of success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Andreani, O., & Pagnin, A. (1993). Nurturing the moral development of the gifted. In K. Heller, F.
Mönks, & H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and
talent (pp. 539-553). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Bebeau, M., Rest, J., & Yamoor, C. (1985). Measuring dental students‘ ethical sensitivity. Journal of
Dental Education, 49(4), 225-235.
Bebeau, M., Rest, J., & Narvaez, D. (1999). Beyond the promise: a perspective on research in moral
education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 18-26.
Binfet, J. (1995). Identifying the themes in student-generated moral dilemmas. A paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 18th, 1995, San
Francisco, CA.
Brabeck, M., Rogers, L., Sirin, S., Handerson, J., Ting, K., & Benvenuto, M. (2000). Increasing ethical
sensitivity to racial and gender intolerance in schools: Development of the racial ethical sensitivity
test (REST). Ethics and Behavior,10(2), 119-137.
Brooks, R. (1985). Delinquency among gifted children. In J. Freeman (Ed.), The psychology of gifted
children (pp. 297-308). London: Wiley.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Second edition. Hillsdale:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Colangelo, N. (1982). Characteristics of moral problems as formulated by gifted adolescents. Journal of
Moral Education, 11(4), 219-232.
Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing. Third edition. New York: Harper & Row.
Gath, D., Tennent, G., & Pidduck, R. (1970). Psychiatric and social characteristics of bright delinquents.
British Journal of Psychology, 116, 515-516.
Goleman, D. (2006). Social Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Ikonen-Varila, M. (2000). Moraalipäättelyn kehittyneisyys, normisosialisaatio ja toimintastrategiat
[Development of ethics, norm-sosialization and strategic plans]. In J. Hautamäki, P. Arinen, A.
Hautamäki, M. Ikonen-Varila, S. Kupiainen, B. Lindholm, M. Niemivirta, P. Rantanen, M. Ruuth,
& P. Scheinin (Eds.), Oppimaan oppiminen yläasteella. Oppimistulosten arviointi 7/2000 (pp. 215–
238). Helsinki: Opetushallitus.
Janos, P., & Robinson, N. (1985). Psychosocial development in intellectually gifted children. In F.
Horowitz, & M. O‘Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 149-
195). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Karnes, F., & Brown, K. (1981) Moral development and the gifted: An initial investigation. Roper
Review, 3, 8-10.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D.
A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347-480). Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Narvaez, D. (1993). High achieving students and moral judgment. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 16(3), 268-279.
Narvaez, D. (2001). Ethical Sensitivity. Activity Booklet 1. Retrieved March 2 2007 from
http://www.nd.edu/~dnarvaez/
Narvaez, D., Endicott, L., & Bock, T. (2002). Constructing Ethical Expertise: A Skills-Based Approach
To Moral Education. Paper submitted and under revision.
Rest, J. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.
Straughan, R. (1975). Hypothetical moral situations. Journal of Moral Education, 4(3), 183-189.
Tan-Willman, C., & Gutteridge, D. (1981). Creative thinking and moral reasoning in academically
gifted secondary school adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25(4), 149-153.
Terman, L. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 1. Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted
children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Tirri, K. (1996). The themes of moral dilemmas formulated by preadolescents. Resources in Education
ED 399046.
Tirri, K. (2003). The moral concerns and orientations of sixth- and ninth-grade students. Educational
Research and Evaluation, 9(1), 93-108.

72
 ETHICAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Tirri, K., & Pehkonen, L. (2002). The moral reasoning and scientific argumentation of gifted
adolescents. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 13(3), 120-129.
Walker, L., de Vries, B., & Trevethan, S. (1987). Moral stages and moral orientations in real-life and
hypothetical dilemmas. Child Development, 58, 842-858.
Yussen, S. (1977). Characteristics of moral dilemmas written by adolescents. Developmental
Psychology, 13(2), 162-163.

73
ETHICAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Ethical Sensitivity Scale

TOTALLY TOTALLY
DISAGREE AGREE

In conflict situations, I am able to identify other

1 2 3 4 5
persons' feelings.
I am able to express my different feelings to other
1 2 3 4 5
people.

I notice if someone working with me is offended by me. 1 2 3 4 5

I am able to express to other people if I am offended or

1 2 3 4 5
hurt because of them.
I am able to cooperate with people who do not share my
1 2 3 4 5
opinions on what is right and what is wrong.

I tolerate different ethical views in my surroundings. 1 2 3 4 5

I think it is good that my closest friends think in

1 2 3 4 5
different ways.

I also get along with people who do not agree with me. 1 2 3 4 5

I am concerned about the wellbeing of my partners. 1 2 3 4 5

I take care of the wellbeing of others and try to improve

1 2 3 4 5
it.
In conflict situations, I do my best to take actions that
1 2 3 4 5
aim at maintaining good personal relationships.
I try to have good contact with all the people I am
1 2 3 4 5
working with.
I take other peoples' points of view into account before
1 2 3 4 5
making any important decisions in my life.
I try to consider another person's position when I face a
1 2 3 4 5
conflict situation.
When I am working on ethical problems, I consider the
1 2 3 4 5
impact of my decisions on other people.
I try to consider other peoples' needs, even in situations
1 2 3 4 5
concerning my own benefits.
I recognize my own bias when I take a stand on ethical
1 2 3 4 5
issues.
I realize that I am tied to certain prejudices when I
1 2 3 4 5
assess ethical issues.

74
 ETHICAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

TOTALLY TOTALLY
DISAGREE AGREE

I try to control my own prejudices when making ethical

1 2 3 4 5
evaluations.
When I am resolving ethical problems, I try to take a
1 2 3 4 5
position evolving out of my own social status.
I contemplate on the consequences of my actions when
1 2 3 4 5
making ethical decisions.
I ponder on different alternatives when aiming at the
best possible solution to an ethically problematic 1 2 3 4 5
situation.
I am able to create many alternative ways to act when I
1 2 3 4 5
face ethical problems in my life.
I believe there are several right solutions to ethical
1 2 3 4 5
problems.
I notice that there are ethical issues involved in human
1 2 3 4 5
interaction.

I see a lot of ethical problems around me. 1 2 3 4 5

I am aware of the ethical issues I face at school. 1 2 3 4 5

I am better than other people in recognizing new and

1 2 3 4 5
current ethical problems.

75
ETHICAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

SPSS Syntax to Compute Ethical Sensitivity Scale Factors

/* Variable names in this syntax refer to Table 2 in this chapter

COMPUTE ES1_M = MEAN(es1_1,es1_2,es1_3,es1_4).

COMPUTE ES2_M = MEAN(es2_5,es2_6,es2_7,es2_8).
COMPUTE ES3_M = MEAN(es3_9,es3_10,es3_11,es3_12).
COMPUTE ES4_M = MEAN(es4_13,es4_14,es4_15,es4_16).
COMPUTE ES5_M = MEAN(es5_17,es5_18,es5_19,es5_20).
COMPUTE ES6_M = MEAN(es6_21,es6_22,es6_23,es6_24).
COMPUTE ES7_M = MEAN(es7_25,es7_26,es7_27,es7_28).
EXECUTE.

VARIABLE LABELS
ES1_M "1. Reading and expressing emotions"
ES2_M "2. Taking the perspectives of others"
ES3_M "3. Caring by connecting to others"
ES4_M "4. Working with interpersonal and group differences"
ES5_M "5. Preventing social bias"
ES6_M "6. Generating interpretations and options"
ES7_M "7. Identifying the consequences of actions and options".

76
 CHAPTER 5

EMOTIONAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

INTRODUCTION

For decades, school leadership has been and remains one of the most widely
studied and published topics (see, e.g., Day, 2004; Leithwood, 2003). However,
leadership as a social process affecting both end products and personal emotions
has seldom been studied (Nokelainen & Ruohotie, 2006). In this sense, one
interesting topic for examination is the research in Emotional Intelligence (EI),
which has in recent years become one of the most important constructs in modern
psychological research. EI refers to one‘s competence to identify, express and
understand emotions, to assimilate emotions into thought, and to regulate both
positive and negative emotions in oneself and others (Matthews, Zeidner &
Roberts, 2002).
In this chapter, we use the term Emotional Leadership (EL) to describe leaders‘
EI capabilities. We study an empirical sample (N = 806) to show how Finnish adult
workers evaluate their leaders‘ EL competencies. The sample consists of
elementary and upper secondary school teachers, teachers in vocational institutions
and polytechnic institutions of higher education, and public administration and
industrial automation workers.
The chapter is organised as follows: First, we discuss the central concepts of the
body of EI research. Second, we present the Emotional Leadership Questionnaire
(ELQ), a self-reported instrument that operationalizes the four domains of EI
(Goleman, Boyazis & McKee, 2002). Third, we use an empirical sample (N = 806)
to study the construct validity of the ELQ with the following three stages: 1)
comparison of the mean values and standard deviations of the ELQ items
measuring employees‘ evaluations of their leaders‘ EL competencies, 2)
examination of the variable structure of ELQ to test it against the theoretical EI
model, and 3) reliability analysis of the eighteen EL characteristics. Finally, we
conclude the results, discuss the limitations of this study, and suggest guidelines
for future study.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Emotional Intelligence

Howard Gardner‘s theory of multiple intelligences (MI) builds on a concept of

‗intelligence‘, which he defines as ―the ability to solve problems or to create
products that are valued within one or more cultural settings‖ (Gardner, 1983, p. x).
He lists seven intelligences that meet these criteria: (1) Linguistic, (2) Logical-

Kirsi Tirri & Petri Nokelainen. Measuring Multiple Intelligences and Moral Sensitivities in Education,
© 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
EMOTIONAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

mathematical, (3) Musical, (4) Spatial, (5) Bodily kinaesthetic, (6) Interpersonal
and (7) Intrapersonal (Gardner, 1983, p. xi). In the newest edition of his MI theory,
Gardner emphasizes more cultural and contextual factors in the development of
these seven intelligences (Gardner, 1999).
In 1998, Reuven Bar-On developed the concept of emotional quotient (EQ) to
evaluate a person‘s emotional intelligence (EI). According to Bar-On (EQ
Symposium, 2004), EI is ―an array of noncognitive capabilities, competencies, and
skills that influence one‘s ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands
and pressures‖. He created the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i), which was
the first test of emotional intelligence to be published by a psychological test
publisher (1996). The EQ-i has five domains: (1) Itrapersonal, (2) Interpersonal,
(3) Adaptability, (4) Stress management and (5) General mood (Bar-On, 1996;
Bar-On, Tranel, Denburg & Bechara, 2003).
Peter Salovey and John Mayer (1990; Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2000)
suggested that a new kind of intelligence – ‗emotional intelligence‘ (EI) – provides
us awareness of our own and other people‘s feelings. According to them (1990),
emotional intelligence is ―a form of social intelligence that involves the ability to
monitor one‘s own and others‘ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them,
and to use this information to guide one‘s thinking and action‖. Their EI model has
five domains: (1) Slf-awareness, (2) Self-management, (3) Motivation, (4)
Empathy and (5) Social skills (Salovey & Mayer, 1990).
Daniel Goleman popularised the term emotional intelligence and claimed that
EI was ―as powerful and at times more powerful than IQ‖ in predicting life success
(1995, 34). He aimed to show in his studies that emotional and social factors are
important (1995; 1998a), but his ―views on EI often went far beyond the evidence
available‖ (Brackett, Lopes, Ivcevic, Pizarro, Mayer & Salovey, 2004). A recent
study showed that most popular EI and ability measures are related only at r < 0.22
(i.e., about 5% of common variance) (Brackett & Mayer, 2003).
Goleman (1995) first agreed with Salovey and Mayer‘s (1990) five domains of
emotional intelligence, but since then his thinking about the dimensions of
emotional intelligence, and their accompanying characteristics, has evolved and
coalesced into four domains with eighteen characteristics. In his four-domain
model, motivation blends with four other domains (Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee,
2002, p. 253-256).
The theory, as formulated by Salovey and Mayer (1990; Mayer & Salovey,
1997), framed EI within a model of intelligence. Goleman‘s model formulates EI
in terms of a theory of performance (1998b). Goleman argues (2001) that an EI-
based theory of performance is directly applicable to the domain of work and
organizational effectiveness, particularly in predicting excellence in jobs of all
kinds, from sales to leadership. Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee further state (2002,
p. 38) that EI characteristics are not innate talents, but learned abilities. According
to them (2002, p. 5), the emotional task of the leader is primal (i.e., both the
original and the most important act of leadership). The true power of emotional
leadership lies in the fact that people rely on connections with other people (an
open limbic system) for their emotional stability; thus, a leader has the power to
sway them towards resonance (to bring out everyone‘s best) or dissonance (to drive
emotions negatively).

78
 EMOTIONAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

When we compare the Goleman et al. (2002) model with Bar-On‘s (1996)
model, we see that self-awareness is related to intrapersonal awareness and that
social awareness is related to interpersonal awareness. The major difference is that
Goleman et al. (2002) have merged Bar-On‘s ―adaptability‖ and ―general mood‖
into a single dimension, namely ―self-management‖. On the other hand, Bar-On‘s
model has no equivalent to the Goleman et al. (2002) model‘s ―relationship
management‖ domain.

Measuring Emotional Intelligence

Gerald Matthews, Moshe Zeidner and Richard Roberts (2002) classify EI

measurement instruments into two main categories: performance-based and self-
reported tests. John Mayer, Peter Salovey, and colleagues (MEIS and MSCEIT, see
e.g., Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2000) develop the most prominent performance-
based tests. However, as this chapter aims to present the ELQ instrument, we focus
instead on the self-reported measures of EI.
Matthews and his colleagues (2002) have carried out a seminal review of both
performance-based and self-reported EI instruments. They state that self-report
measures of EI are abundant, but only a few, including Reuven Bar-On‘s EQ-i, are
built on published empirical studies. However, when a factor analysis was carried
out on the basis of the normative correlations provided by Bar-On (1996),
Matthews and his colleagues noticed that the reliable variance of the EQ-i can be
attributed only to three (instead of ten or fifteen) constructs: self-esteem, empathy
and impulse control. They concluded that ―the close relationships between EQ and
various measures of personality and psychopathology suggest that EI, as assessed
by the EQ-i, has actually been under investigation for decades‖ (2002, p. 213).
Further, referring to the work of Newsome, Day and Catano (2000), Matthews and
his colleagues stated that since neither EQ-i total score nor factor scores predicted
academic achievement or cognitive ability, the evidence is insufficient to justify it
as a valid instrument for personnel selection. Kerr and his colleagues also found in
a recent study (2006, pp. 273-274) that ―the level of supervisory emotional
understanding ... has little bearing on employee perceptions of supervisor
effectiveness.‖ For example, they found a small negative correlation (r = -0.12)
between supervisor ratings and managing emotions (MSCEIT score).
According to Matthews and his colleagues (2002), the lack of research evidence
is also a problem with another popular EI paradigm, the Emotional Competence
Inventory (ECI), developed by Daniel Goleman (see, e.g., Goleman, 1995, 1998a).
They evaluated the ECI model at the conceptual level, as no factor or cluster
analysis supported the derivation of factors cited in the scientific literature. They
concluded that ―the ECI is likely ... (to) have some utility‖ (Matthews et al., 2002,
218). They summarised that self-reported EI measures assess emotional
competence rather than intelligence, as these measures relate to a person‘s
experience of emotion and behaviour in emotionally challenging circumstances.
According to Ellström (1994), competence is the potential capacity of an
individual to successfully complete a certain task according to certain criteria set
by someone else. Next, we more closely examine the concept of ‗competence‘ to
understand why self-reported EI inventories, such as the Emotional Leadership

79
EMOTIONAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

Questionnaire (ELQ) presented in this chapter, actually measure competence rather

than intelligence.

Self-regulation as a System Concept Managing Emotional Leadership Competencies

Barry Zimmerman and Magda Campillo (2003, p. 238) characterise self-regulation

as ―self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions that are planned and cyclically
adapted for the attainment of personal goals‖. According to Pekka Ruohotie
(2000), self-regulation (or conative constructs) mediates between a person‘s
cognitive and affective attributes. He suggests that conative constructs are further
divided into motivation and volition. Sub-components of motivation include
achievement orientations (ego-orientation, task-orientation and the need for
achievement) and self-directed orientations (self-efficacy beliefs, control beliefs,
and self-esteem). Sub-components of volition include activity-related control
strategies (metacognitive skills, critical thinking and the management of resources)
and orientation to others (social ability, empathy and persuasibility).
Gregory Schraw (1998) points out that an interesting activity-related control
strategy, metacognition (referred in the previous paragraph as ‗metacognitive
skills‘), has two components: the knowledge of cognition and the regulation of
cognition. The knowledge of cognition is about one‘s own knowledge and
reasoning ability (‗metaknowledge‘). The regulation of cognition is to understand
the possibilities and limits of one‘s competencies in specific situations
(‗metacompetence‘). Components of metacognition interact with both motivation
and emotion (Ruohotie, 2004). Margarita Limón Luque (2003) uses the terms
‗meta-motivation‘ and ‗meta-emotion‘ to refer to the knowledge and regulation of
one‘s own motivation and emotions.
Marja-Liisa Malmivuori states that within self-system processes, emotions
activate various self-regulatory processes at different levels of self-awareness,
including self-reflection (2006). She contrasts automatic affective regulation (a low
level of control) to active regulation of affective responses (a high level of control).
Both features of affect in the self-regulation process are visible to leaders‘
subordinates as his or her EL competency.
According to Matthews and his colleagues (2002, p. 171), ―emotion may be
seen as both a universal human quality and as an attribute of the individual person,
operationalized through validated self-report measures.‖ Thus, two different
research strands argue whether emotion is essentialist or evaluative in nature. In
this chapter, we view EL dimensions as constructs in their own right which are
identified with subjective feelings.
Marc Brackett and his colleagues (2004) characterize general approaches to EI
in the literature as ability models and mixed models. Ability models view EI as a
standard intelligence and argue that EI meets traditional criteria for intelligence.
Mixed models combine the ability concept of EI with numerous self-reported
attributes such as optimism, self-awareness and self-actualisation. (Brackett et al.,
2004) The Emotional Leadership Questionnaire (ELQ) was developed to measure a
leader‘s EI as perceived by his or her subordinates. On the conceptual level, ELQ
measures a leader‘s competencies instead of his or her ‗intelligences‘ or ‗abilities‘,
as subordinates are expected to be well aware only of their leader‘s explicit,

80
 EMOTIONAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

procedural abilities (metacompetence), and less so of their declarative knowledge

(metaknowledge).
The theoretical framework is summarized in Figure 1. The figure represents
self-regulation (Zimmerman, 1998, 2000) as a system concept (Boekaerts &
Niemivirta, 2000) that managesleadership behaviour through interactive processes
between motivation, volition, emotion, attention, metacognition and action control
systems. As Markku Hannula (2006) points out, self-regulation should be
considered much more than mere metacognition.

Figure 1. Self-regulation as a System Concept Managing Leadership Competence through

Interactive Processes between Different Control Systems. (Adapted from Zimmerman, 2000,
pp. 15-16.)

METHOD

Sample

The total number of participants in this study is 806. The first part of the non-
probability sample consists of 682 adult employees of Finnish companies,
vocational institution, polytechnic institute of higher education and public
administration. The sample was collected from the Southern Finland in 2003 –
2005. Respondents‘ age mean was 40.5 years (SD = 11.7). Three hundred and
twenty-four of the respondents were males (47.5%) and 358 were females (52.5%).
Respondents‘ education level was distributed as follows: ―Academic degree‖ (n =
261, 38.3%), ―non-academic degree‖ (n = 382, 56.0%), and ―no degree‖ (n = 39,
5.7%). Average working experience in the current job was 5.0 years (SD = 5.4).
Total work experience was 13.5 years (SD = 11.2).

81
EMOTIONAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

The second non-probability sample consists of 124 Finnish teachers from four
comprehensive (n = 84) and two upper secondary (n = 40) schools. The sample was
collected in 2006. All the schools were located in Helsinki, capital of Finland
(about 560 000 inhabitants, 9.3 % of the total population of 5 223 442). The
respondents‘ age was classified into four categories: (1) 21 to 30 years old (n = 18,
14.5%); (2) 31 to 40 years old (n = 25, 20.2%); (3) 41 to 50 years old (n = 34,
27.4%); (4) over 50 years old (n = 39, 31.5%). Seventy per cent of the respondents
were females (n = 87, 70.2%), the rest were males (n = 29, 23.4%).
All the respondents in both samples were personally invited to complete a paper
and pencil version of the ELQ. The first sample answered the first version of the
ELQ containing 18 items, and the second sample answered the current version of
the ELQ containing 51 items. Participants were asked to evaluate their attitude
towards the statements measuring their leaders‘ emotional leadership.

Emotional Leadership Questionnaire

ELQ operationalizes Goleman and his colleagues (2002) four domains of

emotional intelligence characteristics: (1) self-awareness, (2) self-management, (3)
social awareness and (4) relationship management. The first version that was
presented to the Finnish industrial and public sector workers contained 18 items,
one item measuring each 18 characteristics. The second version of the ELQ that
was presented to the Finnish schoolteachers contained 51 items (see Appendix for
the item level details).
Respondents‘ task was to assess their superior‘s EL characteristics on four
domains of the ELQ: (1) self-awareness (3 or 8 items), (2) self-management (6 or
20 items), (3) social awareness (3 or 7 items) and (4) relationship management (6
or 16 items). First two dimensions measure how subordinates rank their superior‘s
personal characteristics (i.e., self-management capabilities). Two remaining
dimensions measure leader‘s social skills (i.e., how they manage interpersonal
relationships). Fifty-one ELQ items were evaluated with a five-point Likert scale
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Table 1 shows the four EL
domains and the eighteen associated characteristics.

82
 EMOTIONAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

Table 1. Emotional Leadership Domains and Associated Characteristics (Goleman, Boyatzis

& McKee, 2002, p. 39)

Sample 1a Sample 2b
c
Domains and characteristics M (SD) M (SD)

I Self-awareness
1. Emotional Self-Awareness 3.2 (0.9) — 3.8 (1.0) .88
2. Accurate Self-Assessment 3.3 (1.0) — 3.7 (0.9) .87
3. Self-Confidence 3.7 (0.8) — 3.8 (0.8) .61

II Self-management
4. Emotional Self-Control 3.4 (1.0) — 4.1 (0.9) .88
5. Transparency 3.2 (1.0) — 3.6 (0.9) .62
6. Adaptability 3.5 (0.8) — 3.9 (0.8) .88
7. Achievement 3.3 (0.8) — 3.5 (0.7) .78
8. Initiative 3.5 (0.9) — 3.8 (0.8) .78
9. Optimism 3.5 (0.9) — 3.9 (0.6) .76

III Social awareness

10. Empathy 3.1 (1.0) — 3.8 (1.1) .92
11. Organizational Awareness 3.6 (0.9) — 3.7 (0.9) .79
12. Service 3.6 (0.9) — 3.5 (0.8) .80

IV Relationship management
13. Inspirational Leadership 3.2 (1.1) — 3.4 (1.0) .88
14. Influence 3.4 (0.9) — 3.8 (0.8) .83
15. Developing Others 3.1 (1.0) — 3.7 (1.0) .90
16. Change Catalyst 3.3 (1.0) — 3.7 (0.8) .68
17. Conflict Management 3.0 (1.0) — 3.5 (1.1) .90
18. Teamwork and Collaboration 3.2 (1.1) — 3.4 (1.0) .86
Note. a Sample 1 = 682 adult employees of Finnish companies, vocational institution,
polytechnic institute of higher education and public administration. b Sample 2 = 124 Finnish
teachers from comprehensive and upper secondary schools. c Alpha values were not
calculated for the 18 –item tentative version of the ELQ.

Statistical Analyses

The statistical analyses contained three stages. First, both the 18 and 51 item
versions of the ELQ (see Table 1) measuring employees‘ evaluations on their
leader‘s EL are analysed by mean values and standard deviations. Our motivation
is to compare how subordinates assess their leaders‘ competence on the four

83
EMOTIONAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

different EL domains. Second, the variable structure of both models is examined

with Bayesian Dependency Modeling (BDM, Myllymäki et al., 2002) to see if the
ELQ is able to reproduce the theoretical EI model with both empirical samples.
Third, parametric Cronbach‘s alpha values are calculated to estimate how well the
ELQ items co-operate within each dimension.

RESULTS

Employees’ Evaluations on their Leaders Emotional Leadership Competencies

According to Kerlinger (1986), intrinsic defect of rating scales is their proneness to

constant error. He lists four main sources: Halo effect, error of severity (to rate all
items too low), error of leniency (to rate all items too high) and error of central
tendency (to avoid all extreme judgments). To examine intrinsic defect we
analysed the overall response tendency.
Results regarding the first sample, 682 adult employees of Finnish companies,
vocational institutions, universities of applied science, and public administration,
show that the respondents used the whole scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 5
(totally agree) for all 18 items. Mode frequencies that sum up to the number of
items in the questionnaire were as follows: (1) n = 0, (2) n = 0, (3) n = 10, (4) n =
8, (5) n = 0. This result shows that overall distribution of the modes on a five-point
summative rating scale is unimodal and slightly biased towards positive values.
The average mean for the eighteen EL characteristics was 3.4 (SD = 1.0).
Results regarding the second sample, 124 Finnish school teacher, show that the
respondents used the whole scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree) for
48 items. The scale for three remaining items, namely 25, 28 and 47, ranged from 2
to 5 (see Appendix for the item wordings). Mode frequencies that sum up to the
number of items in the questionnaire were as follows: (1) n = 0, (2) n = 0, (3) n = 8,
(4) n = 42, (5) n = 1. This result shows that overall distribution of the modes on a
five-point summative rating scale is unimodal and biased towards positive values.
The average mean for the eighteen EL characteristics was 3.7 (SD = 0.9).
These results show that respondents had a clear tendency to select high
response values, thus, being prone to error of leniency. Nunnally (1978) notes that
people sometimes reach the erroneous conclusion that reliable test tend to have
smaller standard deviations than unreliable tests when just the reverse is true. We
are happy with the two standard deviations (SD = 1.0 and SD = 0.9) as they are not
approaching the zero value. Further, when calculating the standard error of the
mean for both samples with the formula (1),

n (1)
n
we notice that both estimates of the mean are accurate in the samples (SEsample_1
= .04, thus, M = 3.4 .04; SEsample_2 = .08, thus, M = 3.7 .08).
Next, we examine with descriptive statistics how subordinates‘ evaluated their
superior‘s emotional leadership. Table 1 shows that the industrial and vocational
institute or high school leaders in the first sample had strong self-confidence (M =
3.7, SD = 0.8), but weak emotional and accurate self-awareness (M = 3.2 - 3.3, SD
= 0.8 – 1.0). On the other hand, the school principals were reported to have quite

84
 EMOTIONAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

strong self-awareness (M = 3.7 - 3.8, SD = 0.8 – 1.0). These findings are natural, as
especially self-confidence is an important characteristic of a good leader. On the
other hand, we suspect that this result is partly a self-fulfilling prophecy as the
informants of the study expect to see atypical Finnish mentality characteristics,
such as showing emotions publicly, strongly present in their leaders.
According to results, leaders in both samples were self-confident (3. Self-
Confidence, M = 3.7 / 3.8, SD = 0.8), able to adapt to new challenges (6.
Adaptability, M = 3.5 / 3.9, SD = 0.8), had sense of efficacy (8. Initiative, M = 3.5 /
3.8, SD = 0.9 / 0.8) and could see the upside in the events (9. Optimism, M = 3.5 /
3.9, SD = 0.9 / 0.6).
In the first sample, Finnish workers from various fields recognized two major
qualities in their leaders: High competency in organizational awareness, that is,
ability to detect crucial social networks and read key power relationships (11.
Organizational Awareness, M = 3.6, SD = 0.9) and in customer or client
satisfaction (12. Service, M = 3.6, SD = 0.9).
In the second sample, teachers evaluated that their principals were successful at
keeping their disruptive emotions and impulses under control (4. Emotional self-
Control, M = 4.1, SD = 0.9). The result of high emotional self-control was
expected, as it is a highly respected leader ability in Finnish work culture.
Comprehensive and upper secondary school principals were reported to have
higher level of empathy (M = 3.8, SD = 1.1) than the other leaders in the first
sample (M = 3.1, SD = 1.0).
Table 1 shows that adult employees in the first sample were the most
unsatisfied with their leaders‘ ability to 1) control their emotions (1. Emotional
Self-Awareness, M = 3.2, SD = 0.9), 2) openly admit mistakes or faults, and
confront unethical behaviour in others (5. Transparency, M = 3.2, SD = 1.0), 3)
attune to a wide range of both visible and hidden emotional signals (10. Empathy,
M = 3.1, SD = 1.0), 4) articulate a shared mission in a way that inspires others to
follow (13. Inspirational Leadership, M = 3.2, SD = 1.1), 5) cultivate other people‘s
abilities (15. Developing Others, M = 3.1, SD = 1.0), 6) resolve disagreements (17.
Conflict management, M = 3.0, SD = 1.0), and 7) generate an atmosphere of
friendly collegiality (18. Teamwork and Collaboration, M = 3.2, SD = 1.1).
Teachers in the second sample were the most unsatisfied with their principal‘s
lack of 1) high personal standards that would drive them to constantly seek
improvements in performance (7. Achievement, M = 3.5, SD = 0.7), 2) ability to
monitor parents and students satisfaction carefully to ensure they are getting what
they need (12. Service, M = 3.5, SD = 0.8), 3) skills to resolve disagreements (17.
Conflict management, M = 3.5, SD = 1.1), and 4) ability to generate an atmosphere
of friendly collegiality (18. Teamwork and Collaboration, M = 3.4, SD = 1.0).

Variable Structure of the Emotional Leadership Scale

Bayesian Dependency Modeling (BDM) allows the analysis of ordinal indicators,

and is able to detect both linear and nonlinear dependencies (Congdon, 2001;
Nokelainen & Tirri, 2004). BDM produces a Bayesian Network (BN, see e.g.,
Heckerman, Geiger & Chickering, 1995; Myllymäki et al., 2002) that is a
representation of a probability distribution over the ELQ items.

85
EMOTIONAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

BN consists of a directed acyclic graph (DAG), where the nodes correspond to

ELQ items, and the arcs define a set of independence assumptions that allow the
joint probability distribution for a data vector to be factorised as a product of
simple conditional probabilities. The joint probability distribution of two discrete
random variables X and Y is a function whose domain is the set of ordered pairs (x,
y), where x and y are possible values for X and Y, respectively, and whose range is
the set of probability values corresponding to the ordered pairs in its domain
(Sloman, 2005). A DAG contains two components: (1) observed variables
visualized as ellipses and (2) dependences visualized as lines between nodes.
Variable is considered as independent of all other variables if there is no line
attached to it. Ruohotie and Nokelainen (2000) have shown in the research field of
vocational education that Bayesian networks are useful for the analysis of
statistical dependencies and predictive relationships between observed indicators.
The results of BDM show that the model derived from the first sample (n =
682) is homogeneous, as all the eighteen EL characteristics are selected for the
most probable model (Figure 2). This finding indicates that the theoretical structure
of EI is present in this empirical domain. Further, the strengths of dependencies
between the characteristics were mostly found to be equally strong (dark colour of
the arch), indicating a strong and equally important contribution to the model.

Figure 2. Bayesian Network of Finnish Industrial and Vocational High school Leaders
Emotional Leadership Competencies.

The clustering of eighteen EL characteristics was further studied to see if the

theoretical model of four EI domains (Goleman et al., 2002) is present in this
sample. The visual inspection of the Bayesian network shows that both models are
one-dimensional, as all four EI domains are connected to each other in the model.
(Figures 2 and 3.)

86
 EMOTIONAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

Figure 3. Bayesian Network of Finnish School Principals Emotional Leadership

Competencies.

Figure 3 show that clustering of the EI domains follows the theoretical

assumption in both samples. For example, in the second sample, the first cluster
depicting leaders‘ self-awareness (i) leads to two other clusters of self-management
(ii) and social awareness (iii). Fourth domain, relationship management (iv) is
related to both second and third domains as follows. The predictive model shows
that principal who is able to cut through red tape or even bend the rules
(EL_ii_08_23) is experienced by his or her subordinates as an influential person
(EL_iv_14_40 ―My superior knows how to create a network of support for a new
initiative.‖) who is able to overcome barriers to change (EL_iv_16_45 ―My
superior is a strong advocate for change even in the face of opposition.‖).
Investigation of predictive dependencies shows that empathetic leader with high
intercultural abilities (EL_iii_10_30 ―My superior is able to get along with people
of diverse backgrounds or from other cultures.‖) is able to promote teamwork and
collaboration (EL_iv_18_51 ―My superior draws others into active, enthusiastic
commitment to the collective effort.‖), manage conflict situations effectively
(EL_iv_17_49 ―In conflict situations, my superior is able to draw out all parties
and understand the differing perspectives.‖), and develop others ( EL_iv_15_42
―My superior shows a genuine interest in helping his or her subordinates.‖).
Where domain boundaries are not following the theoretical model, closer
examination reveals theoretically justifiable item-level dependencies in both

87
EMOTIONAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

models (see Figures 2 and 3). For example, predictive model in Figure 3 shows that
principals conflict management competency (item EL_iv_17_49 ―In conflict
situations, my superior is able to draw out all parties and understand the differing
perspectives.‖) is positively connected with his or her level of optimism (items
EL_ii_09_25 ―My superior has an optimistic "glass half full" outlook.‖ and
EL_ii_09_26 ―My superior sees other people in positive rather than in negative
light.‖). It is clear, that successful conflict management benefits from leaders‘
ability to see all parties in positive light.

Reliability Analysis of the Emotional Leadership Scale

Table 1 presents the alpha loadings (Cronbach, 1970) for the eighteen EL
characteristics for the second sample. Reliability estimates vary from .61 (3. Self-
Confidence) to .92 (10. Empathy). Jim Nunnally states in his seminal work (1978,
pp. 245-246) that ―increasing reliabilities much beyond .80 is often wasteful of
time and funds with the exception of applied settings where important decisions are
made with respect to specific test scores.‖ As the average reliability for the ELQ
scales is .81, we are satisfied with the results. This reliability level is not justified
by claiming that our research is not ‗applied‘ or ‗important‘, but we argue against
‗specific test scores‘. ELQ as a self-rating instrument is not an IQ test that selects
students to gifted class or an entrance examination that tells who is being allowed
to start university studies.
One possible reason behind the low reliability values of ―3. Self-Confidence‖
(.61) and ―5. Transparency‖ (.62) is that they contain only two items. According to
Carmines and Zeller, ―…as the average correlation among items increases and as
the number of items increases, the value of alpha increases‖ (1979, p. 45). Formula
2 shows that alpha values tend to get higher as the number of items increases.
kr
(2)
1 r ( k 1)
Further, alpha depends on the dimensionality of the scale (one-dimensional vs.
multidimensional). Thus, higher reliability is achieved with one-dimensional
constructs. The third issue affecting reliability is that a concept of a high level of
abstraction, such as emotional competency, is difficult to operationalize into
intuitive items.

CONCLUSIONS

In this chapter, we studied with two separate empirical samples the construct
validity of the Emotional Leadership Questionnaire (ELQ) that operationalizes
Goleman‘s et al. (2002) four domains of emotional intelligence. Two non-
probability samples represented 682 Finnish workers on various fields (industry,
public service, vocational institution and high school) and 124 Finnish
schoolteachers from six different urban capital area schools. Each participant in the
first sample was presented an 18 –item version (Nokelainen & Ruohotie, 2005,
2006, 2007), and in the second sample, a 51 –item version (Nokelainen, Ruohotie
& Tirri, 2007) of the ELQ.

88
 EMOTIONAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

The construct validity of the ELQ was tested with the following three stages: 1)
Comparison of the mean values and standard deviations of the eighteen ELQ
characteristics measuring employee groups‘ evaluations on their superiors EL
competencies; 2) Examination of the variable structure of the ELQ to test it against
the theoretical EI –model; 3) Reliability analysis of the eighteen EL characteristics.
Results showed that leaders in both samples were 1) self-confident, 2) able to
adapt to new challenges, 3) had a sense of efficacy and 4) able see the upside in the
events.
Finnish workers from various fields reported two major qualities in their
leaders: High competency in detecting crucial social networks and reading key
power relationships, and in customer satisfaction. Especially last finding is explicit
as client satisfaction is one of the most crucial components of successful business
leadership.
Finnish teachers reported that their principals were successful at keeping their
disruptive emotions and impulses under control. The result of high emotional self-
control was expected, as it is a highly respected leader ability in Finnish work
culture.
Workers in the first sample were the most unsatisfied with their leaders ability
to 1) control their emotions, 2) openly admit mistakes or faults and confront
unethical behaviour in others, 3) attune to a wide range of both visible and hidden
emotional signals, 4) articulate a shared mission in a way that inspires others to
follow, 5) cultivate other people‘s abilities, 6) resolve disagreements and 7)
generate an atmosphere of friendly collegiality.
Teachers in the second sample were the most unsatisfied with their principals
lack of 1) high personal standards that would drive them to constantly seek
improvements in performance, 2) ability to monitor parents and students
satisfaction carefully to ensure they are getting what they need, 3) skills to resolve
disagreements, and 4) ability to generate an atmosphere of friendly collegiality.
Dissatisfaction with their leaders‘ low ability to resolve disagreements and
generate good working atmosphere unites the adult workers of both samples.
The results of BDM showed that in both 18 and 51 item ELQ versions, all the
items measuring the eighteen EL characteristics were selected for the most
probable model. This finding indicates that the theoretical structure of EI is present
in these empirical domains.
The alpha loadings for the eighteen EL characteristics were found to range in
the second sample between .61 and .92, the average reliability estimate was .81.
The results of reliability analysis showed that a 51-item solution was adequate to
describe the four Emotional Leadership domains.

DISCUSSION

According to Mayer (1999), there is a gap between the popular and scientific
concepts of emotional intelligence. As we discussed earlier, most of the
correlations between EI and leadership outcomes have been modest at best. For
example, Palmer and his colleagues (2001) found that neither total transformational
(tt) nor total transactional (ttr) leadership ratings demonstrated significant
correlations with either the emotional monitoring (rtt em = 0.26; rttr em = -0.07) or
emotional management (rtt ema = 0.13; rttr ema = -0.13) scales of the modified

89
EMOTIONAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

TMMS (Salovey et al., 1995). Mayer states (1999, p. 50), however, that such
modest findings do not necessarily represent end of the world to the EI researchers
―as emotional intelligence may well predict specific, important life outcomes at
about the level of other important personality variables (e.g., 2 per cent to 25 per
cent of variance explained)‖. In the scientific study of EI, such predictions might
be both useful in practice and impressive in theory. However, the popular approach
to EI claiming ―that highly emotionally intelligent people possess an unqualified
advantage in life appears overly enthusiastic at present and unsubstantiated by
reasonable scientific standards‖ (p. 50).
Matthews, Zeidner and Roberts state that before evaluating distinctiveness of
any EI instrument, researcher needs to ascertain the statistical dependency between
the instrument and existing measures of intelligence, as well as established
personality dimensions, for example, those of the Five Factor Model: neuroticism,
extroversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness (2002). We asked
teacher‘s to evaluate their superiors according to our fixed, person-related
questions. To address this issue in the future, we will add an additional scale
measuring the importance of each question in a five-point Likert scale. This allows
us to compare personal level EL factors to other measures, for example, to the
Multiple Intelligences Profiling Questionnaire (MIPQ IX), an operationalization of
Howard Gardner‘s‘ MI theory, (Tirri, K., Komulainen, Nokelainen & Tirri, H.,
2002). Comparison between EI and MI models makes sense as ―emotional
intelligence — if substantiated — broadens our understanding of what it means to
be smart‖ (Mayer, 1999, p. 50).
Another relevant issue addressed by Hunter, Bedell-Avers and Mumford (2007,
p. 443) is that ―.. a survey-based study that does not include manipulations or
examination of longitudinal effects may result in misattributions of causality.‖
Quite obviously our cross-sectional study setting does not allow any causal
interpretations (for further discussion, see Pearl, 2000), only interpretation of
statistical dependencies. However, our use of Bayesian methods (e.g., Bernardo &
Smith, 2000) at least allow examination of both linear and non-linear dependencies
(for further discussion, see Nokelainen, Silander, Ruohotie & Tirri, 2007).
In addition to longitudinal versus cross-sectional debate, there is a more general
discussion going on about the use of self-report measures in scientific studies. For
example, Campbell (1982, p. 692) states that " .. one possible exception [to
exercise a professional bias] pertains to the use of a self-report questionnaire to
measure all the variables in a study." According to Crampton and Wagner (1994),
various studies have been conducted to test the hypothesis that self-report
questionnaires, if used as the only data collection methods, artificially elevate
measures of covariation, producing percept-percept inflation in published
correlations. However, when they conducted a large scale meta-analytic research
involving 42,934 correlations published in 581 scientific articles, findings
challenged the validity of general condemnations of self-report methods showing
that percept-percept inflation did not had the broad, comprehensive effects
envisioned by critics.
Nokelainen and Ruohotie (2006) analysed with the previous version of ELQ
(containing 18 statements instead of 51) 312 adult employees of a Finnish medium
size industrial automation company. They also found that all four EI dimensions
were present in the model. However, the model included a fifth dimension that was

90
 EMOTIONAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

a mixture of self-awareness (self-confidence) and self-management (achievement

and initiative) domains. This same relation between self-confidence and initiative
is partly present in the current study in both samples. In the first sample, the same
three characteristics are located close to each other (Figure 2). In the second
sample, the items EL_ii_08_21 (―My superior seizes opportunities rather than
simply waits for them to come‖) and EL_i_03_07 (―My superior welcomes
difficult assignments knowing that he or she is able to meet the expectations‖) are
found to be statistically dependent, but outside the boundaries of the expected
model (Figure 3). This finding is a demonstration of Goleman‘s EI models
generalizability over different domains, at least in Finnish organizational culture.

REFERENCES
Bar-On, R. (1996). The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): A test of emotional intelligence. Toronto:
Multi-Health Systems.
Bar-On, R., Tranel, D., Denburg, N. L., & Bechara, A. (2003). Exploring the neurological substrate of
emotional and social intelligence, Brain, 126, 1790-1800.
Bernardo, J., & Smith, A. (2000). Bayesian Theory. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Boekaerts, M., & Niemivirta, M. (2000). Self-regulation in learning: finding a balance between learning
and ego-protective goals. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-
regulation (pp. 417-450). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Brackett, M. A., Lopes, P., Ivcevic, Z., Pizarro, D., Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (2004). Integrating
emotion and cognition: The role of emotional intelligence. In D. Dai, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.),
Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrating perspectives on intellectual functioning (pp. 175-
194). Mahawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of
competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29,
1147-1158.
Campbell, J. P. (1982). Editorial: Some remarks from the outgoing editor. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 67(6), 691-700.
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and Validity. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Congdon, P. (2001). Bayesian Statistical Modelling. London: Wiley.
Crampton, S. M., & Wagner III, J. A. (1994). Percept-Percept Inflation in Micro organizational
Research: An Investigation of Prevalence and Effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), 67-76.
Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing. Third edition. New York: Harper & Row.
Day, C. (2004). The passion of successful leadership. School Leadership and Management, 24(4), 425-
437.
Ellström, P.-E. (1994). Kompetens, lärande och utbildning i arbetslivet. Problem, begrepp och
teoretiska perspektiv. [Skills, learning, and education in working life. Problems, concepts, and
theoretical perspectives]. Stockholm: Publica.
EQ Symposium (2004). About Reuven BarOn’s Involvement in Emotional Intelligence. Retrieved 16
February, 2006, from http://www.cgrowth.com/rb_biolrg.html
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic
Books.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (1998a). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (1998b). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, November-December.
Goleman, D. (2001). Emotional Intelligence: Issues in Paradigm Building. In C. Cherniss, & D.
Goleman (Eds.), The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace (pp. 13-26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional
intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Hannula, M. S. (2006). Motivation in mathematics: Goals reflected in Emotions. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 63(2), 165 – 178.
Heckerman, D., Geiger, D., & Chickering, D. M. (1995). Learning Bayesian networks: The combination
of knowledge and statistical data. Machine Learning, 20, 197–243.

91
EMOTIONAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). The typical leadership study:
Assumptions, implications, and potential remedies. Leadership Quarterly, 18(5), 435-446.
Kerlinger, F. (1986). Foundations of Behavioural Research. Third edition. New York: CBS College
Publishing.
Kerr, R., Garvin, J., Heaton, N., & Boyle, E. (2006). Emotional intelligence and leadership
effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(4), 265-279.
Leithwood, K. (2003). Teacher Leadership: Its Nature, Development, and Impact on Schools and
Students. In M. Brundrett, N. Burton, & R. Smith (Eds.), Leadership in Education (pp. 103 – 117).
London: Sage.
Limón Luque, M. (2003). The role of domain-specific knowledge in intentional conceptual change. In
G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional Conceptual Change (pp. 133-170). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Malmivuori, M-L. (2006). Affect and Self-Regulation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(2), 149-
164.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). Emotional Intelligence: Science and Myth.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mayer, J. D. (1999). Emotional Intelligence: Popular or scientific psychology? APA Monitor, 30(8), 50.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2000). Selecting a measure of emotional intelligence: The
case for ability testing. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence
(pp. 320-342). New York: Jossey-Bass.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.),
Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Implications for Educators (pp. 3-31). New
York: Basic Books.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2000). Competing models of emotional intelligence. In R.J.
Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human intelligence, second edition (pp. 396-420). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Myllymäki, P., Silander, T., Tirri, H., & Uronen, P. (2002). B-Course: A Web-Based Tool for Bayesian
and Causal Data Analysis. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 11(3), 369-387.
Newsome, S., Day, A. L., & Catano, V. M. (2000). Personality & Individual Differences, 29(6), 1005-
1016.
Nokelainen, P., & Ruohotie, P. (2005). Investigating the Construct Validity of the Leadership
Competence and Characteristics Scale. In the electronic Proceedings of International Research on
Work and Learning 2005 Conference. Sydney: University of Technology, Australia.
Nokelainen, P., & Ruohotie, P. (2006, September). Empirical Analysis of the Four-domain Model of
Emotional Leadership. Paper presented at European Conference on Educational Research (ECER),
Geneva, Switzerland.
Nokelainen, P., & Ruohotie, P. (2007, April). Finnish Industrial Worker's Evaluations on their
Superiors Emotional Leadership Abilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association (AERA), Chicago, USA.
Nokelainen, P., Ruohotie, P., & Tirri, K. (2007, August). Measuring Finnish Teachers Evaluations of
their Principals' Emotional Leadership Competencies with ELQ. Paper presented at the 12th
biennal conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI),
Budapest, Hungary.
Nokelainen, P., Silander, T., Ruohotie, P., & Tirri, H. (2007). Investigating the Number of Non-linear
and Multi-modal Relationships between Observed Variables Measuring a Growth-oriented
Atmosphere. Quality & Quantity, 41(6), 869-890.
Nokelainen, P., & Tirri, H. (2004). Bayesian Methods that Optimize Cross-cultural Data Analysis. In J.
R. Campbell, K. Tirri, P. Ruohotie & H. Walberg (Eds.), Cross-cultural Research: Basic Issues,
Dilemmas, and Strategies (pp. 141-158). Hämeenlinna: RCVE.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z., & Stough, C. (2001). Emotional Intelligence and Effective
Leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(1), 5-10.
Pearl, J. (2000). Causality. Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ruohotie, P. (2000). Conative Constructs in Learning. In P. R. Pintrich & P. Ruohotie (Eds.), Conative
Constructs and Self-Regulated Learning (pp. 1-30). Hämeenlinna: RCVE.
Ruohotie, P. (2004). Self-Regulatory Abilities for Professional Learning: A cross-cultural construct. In
J. R. Campbell, K. Tirri, P. Ruohotie, & H. Walberg (Eds.), Cross-cultural Research: Basic Issues,
Dilemmas, and Strategies (pp. 159-184). Hämeenlinna: RCVE.
Ruohotie, P., & Nokelainen, P. (2000). Beyond the Growth-oriented Atmosphere. In B. Beairsto & P.
Ruohotie (Eds.), Empowering Teachers as Lifelong Learners (pp. 147–167). Hämeenlinna: RCVE.

92
 EMOTIONAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9,
185-211.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. (1995). Emotional attention, clarity,
and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. In J. W. Pennebaker
(Ed.), Emotion, disclosure, and health (pp. 125-154). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113 - 125.
Sloman, S. (2005). Causal Models. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tirri, K., Komulainen, E., Nokelainen, P., & Tirri, H. (2002). Conceptual Modeling of Self-Rated
Intelligence-Profile. Proceedings of the 2nd International Self-Concept Research Conference.
Sydney: Sydney: University of Western Sydney.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of
exemplary instructional models. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-Regulated
Learning: From Teaching to Self-Reflective Practice (pp. 1-19). New York: The Guilford Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P.
R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego: Academic
Press.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Campillo, M. (2003). Motivating self-regulated problem solvers. In J. E. Davidson
& R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 233-262). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

93
EMOTIONAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX

Emotional Leadership Questionnaire

EL domains and characteristics M (SD)a

I Self-awareness
1. Emotional Self-Awareness
el1_1 My superior respects work community's commonly accepted values. 4.2 (1.0)
el1_2 My superior is able to see the big picture in a complex situation and 3.5 (1.1)
knows the best ways to react.
el1_3 My superior is candid and authentic being able to speak openly about 3.7 (1.1)
his or her visions and emotions.

2. Accurate Self-Assessment
el2_4 My superior is open to learn new things all the time. 4.1 (0.9)
el2_5 My superior welcomes constructive criticism and feedback. 3.5 (1.1)
el2_6 My superior's good self-knowledge helps him/her to recognize when it 3.4 (1.1)
is time to ask for help.

3. Self-Confidence
el3_7 My superior welcomes difficult assignments knowing that he or she is 4.1 (0.8)
able to meet the expectations.
el3_8 My superior has a self-assurance that lets him/her stand out in a group. 3.5 (1.0)

II Self-management
4. Emotional Self-Control
el4_9 My superior stays calm and clearheaded under high stress or during a 4.0 (1.0)
crisis.
el4_10 My superior remains unflappable when confronted by a trying 4.1 (0.9)
situation.

5. Transparency
el5_11 My superior openly admits his or her mistakes or faults. 3.6 (1.0)
el5_12 My superior confronts unethical behaviour in others rather than turn a 3.6 (1.1)
blind eye.

6. Adaptability
el6_13 My superior is flexible in adapting to new challenges in working life. 3.8 (0.9)
el6_14 My superior is able to juggle demanding situations without losing his 4.0 (1.0)
or her focus or energy.
el6_15 My superior updates him/herself according to the changing demands in 3.8 (0.9)
working life.

94
 EMOTIONAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

Emotional Leadership Questionnaire (continued)

EL domains and characteristics M (SD)a

7. Achievement
el7_16 My superior sets measurable but challenging goals to him/herself. 3.5 (0.9)
el7_17 My superior sets measurable but challenging goals to his or her 3.3 (1.0)
employees.
el7_18 My superior is able to take calculate risks. 3.1 (1.0)
el7_19 My superior has high standards for him/herself. 3.8 (1.0)
el7_20 My superior has high standards for his or her employees. 3.6 (0.8)

8. Initiative
el8_21 My superior seizes opportunities rather than simply waits for them to 3.9 (0.9)
come.
el8_22 My superior creates actively future work possibilities. 3.7 (1.1)
el8_23 My superior does not hesitate to cut through bureaucratic obstacles. 3.6 (0.9)
el8_24 My superior takes responsibility to create work possibilities for the 3.8 (1.2)
future.

9. Optimism
el9_25 My superior has an optimistic ―glass half full‖ outlook. 3.8 (0.7)
el9_26 My superior sees other people in positive rather than in negative light. 3.8 (1.0)
el9_27 My superior expects the best performance of his or her subordinates. 3.9 (0.8)
el9_28 My superior sees an opportunity rather than a threat in a setback. 3.9 (0.8)

III Social awareness

10. Empathy
el10_29 My superior listens attentively and can grasp the other person‘s 3.7 (1.2)
perspective.
el10_30 My superior is able to get along with people of diverse backgrounds 3.8 (1.1)
or from other cultures.

11. Organizational Awareness

el11_31 My superior can understand the political forces at work in his or her 3.6 (1.0)
organization.
el11_32 My superior is able to understand the guiding values and unspoken 3.8 (1.0)
rules that operate among the workers in his or her organization.

12. Service
el12_33 My superior sees that people directly in touch with the customer or 3.7 (1.0)
client (students, parents) will keep the relationship on the right track.
el12_34 My superior monitors customer or client (students, parents) 3.4 (0.9)
satisfaction carefully.
el12_35 My superior ensures that customers or clients (students, parents) are 3.3 (0.9)
getting what they need.

95
EMOTIONAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

Emotional Leadership Questionnaire (continued)

EL domains and characteristics M (SD)a

IV Relationship management
13. Inspirational Leadership
el13_36 My superior offers a sense of common purpose beyond the day-to- 3.2 (1.0)
day tasks, making work exciting.
el13_37 My superior is able to embody what he or she asks of his or her 3.3 (1.1)
subordinates.
el13_38 My superior is able to articulate a shared mission in a way that 3.6 (1.1)
inspires his or her subordinates to follow.

14. Influence
el14_39 My superior finds just the right appeal for a given listener. 3.7 (1.0)
el14_40 My superior knows how to create a network of support for a new 3.7 (0.9)
initiative.
el14_41 My superior is able to speak persuasively for the things he or she sees 3.9 (1.0)
important.
15. Developing Others
el15_42 My superior shows a genuine interest in helping his or her 3.9 (1.0)
subordinates.
el15_43 My superior understands his or her subordinates goals, strengths, and 3.8 (1.1)
weaknesses.
el15_44 My superior is willing to give timely and constructive feedback. 3.3 (1.1)

16. Change Catalyst

el16_45 My superior is a strong advocate for change even in the face of 3.5 (1.1)
opposition.
el16_46 My superior is capable of arguing compellingly for the things he or 3.8 (1.0)
she sees important.
el16_47 My superior is able to find practical ways to overcome barriers to 3.8 (0.8)
change.

17. Conflict Management

el17_48 My superior is able to solve conflicts between his or her subordinates. 3.4 (1.2)
el17_49 In conflict situations, my superior is able to draw out all parties and 3.6 (1.1)
understand the differing perspectives.

18. Teamwork and Collaboration

el18_50 My superior is a team player. 3.4 (1.0)
el18_51 My superior draws others into active, enthusiastic commitment to the 3.4 (1.2)
collective effort.
a
The second sample of 124 Finnish schoolteachers

96
 EMOTIONAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

Emotional Leadership Questionnaire

TOTALLY TOTALLY
DISAGREE AGREE

My superior has a self-assurance that lets him/her stand

1 2 3 4 5
out in a group.
My superior stays calm and clearheaded under high
1 2 3 4 5
stress or during a crisis.
My superior remains unflappable when confronted by a
1 2 3 4 5
trying situation.

My superior openly admits his or her mistakes or faults. 1 2 3 4 5

My superior confronts unethical behaviour in others

1 2 3 4 5
rather than turn a blind eye.
My superior is flexible in adapting to new challenges in
1 2 3 4 5
working life.
My superior is able to juggle demanding situations
1 2 3 4 5
without losing his or her focus or energy.
My superior updates him/herself according to the
1 2 3 4 5
changing demands in working life.
My superior sets measurable but challenging goals to
1 2 3 4 5
him/herself.
My superior sets measurable but challenging goals to
1 2 3 4 5
his or her employees.

My superior is able to take calculate risks. 1 2 3 4 5

My superior has high standards for him/herself. 1 2 3 4 5

My superior has high standards for his or her

1 2 3 4 5
employees.
My superior seizes opportunities rather than simply
1 2 3 4 5
waits for them to come.

My superior creates actively future work possibilities. 1 2 3 4 5

My superior does not hesitate to cut through

1 2 3 4 5
bureaucratic obstacles.
My superior takes responsibility to create work
1 2 3 4 5
possibilities for the future.

My superior has an optimistic "glass half full" outlook. 1 2 3 4 5

97
EMOTIONAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

TOTALLY TOTALLY
DISAGREE AGREE

My superior respects work community's commonly

1 2 3 4 5
accepted values.
My superior is able to see the big picture in a complex
1 2 3 4 5
situation and knows the best ways to react.
My superior is candid and authentic being able to speak
1 2 3 4 5
openly about his or her visions and emotions.

My superior is open to learn new things all the time. 1 2 3 4 5

My superior welcomes constructive criticism and

1 2 3 4 5
feedback.
My superior's good self-knowledge helps him/her to
1 2 3 4 5
recognize when it is time to ask for help.
My superior welcomes difficult assignments knowing
1 2 3 4 5
that he or she is able to meet the expectations.
My superior sees other people in positive rather than in
1 2 3 4 5
negative light.
My superior expects the best performance of his or her
1 2 3 4 5
subordinates.
My superior sees an opportunity rather than a threat in a
1 2 3 4 5
setback.
My superior listens attentively and can grasp the other
1 2 3 4 5
person's perspective.
My superior is able to get along with people of diverse
1 2 3 4 5
backgrounds or from other cultures.
My superior can understand the political forces at work
1 2 3 4 5
in his or her organization.
My superior is able to understand the guiding values
and unspoken rules that operate among the workers in 1 2 3 4 5
his or her organization.
My superior sees that people directly in touch with the
customer or client (students, parents) will keep the 1 2 3 4 5
relationship on the right track.
My superior monitors customer or client (students,
1 2 3 4 5
parents) satisfaction carefully.
My superior ensures that customers or clients (students,
1 2 3 4 5
parents) are getting what they need.
My superior offers a sense of common purpose beyond
1 2 3 4 5
the day-to-day tasks, making work exciting.

98
 EMOTIONAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

TOTALLY TOTALLY
DISAGREE AGREE

My superior is able to embody what he or she asks of

1 2 3 4 5
his or her subordinates.
My superior is able to articulate a shared mission in a
1 2 3 4 5
way that inspires his or her subordinates to follow.
My superior finds just the right appeal for a given
1 2 3 4 5
listener.
My superior knows how to create a network of support
1 2 3 4 5
for a new initiative.
My superior is able to speak persuasively for the things
1 2 3 4 5
he or she sees important.
My superior shows a genuine interest in helping his or
1 2 3 4 5
her subordinates.
My superior understands his or her subordinates goals,
1 2 3 4 5
strengths, and weaknesses.
My superior is willing to give timely and constructive
1 2 3 4 5
feedback.
My superior is a strong advocate for change even in the
1 2 3 4 5
face of opposition.
My superior is capable of arguing compellingly for the
1 2 3 4 5
things he or she sees important.
My superior is able to find practical ways to overcome
1 2 3 4 5
barriers to change.
My superior is able to solve conflicts between his or her
1 2 3 4 5
subordinates.
In conflict situations, my superior is able to draw out all
1 2 3 4 5
parties and understand the differing perspectives.

My superior is a team player. 1 2 3 4 5

My superior draws others into active, enthusiastic

1 2 3 4 5
commitment to the collective effort.

99
EMOTIONAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

SPSS Syntax to Compute Emotional Leadership Questionnaire Factors

/* Variable names in this syntax refer to the table

/* presented in the Appendix of this chapter

COMPUTE EL1_M = MEAN(el1_1, el1_2, el1_3).

COMPUTE EL2_M = MEAN(el2_4, el2_5, el2_6).
COMPUTE EL3_M = MEAN(el3_7, el3_8).
COMPUTE EL4_M = MEAN(el4_9, el4_10).
COMPUTE EL5_M = MEAN(el5_11, el5_12).
COMPUTE EL6_M = MEAN(el6_13, el6_14, el6_15).
COMPUTE EL7_M = MEAN(el7_16, el7_17, el7_18, el7_19, el7_20).
COMPUTE EL8_M = MEAN(el8_21, el8_22, el8_23, el8_24).
COMPUTE EL9_M = MEAN(el9_25, el9_26, el9_27, el9_28).
COMPUTE EL10_M = MEAN(el10_29, el10_30).
COMPUTE EL11_M = MEAN(el11_31, el11_32).
COMPUTE EL12_M = MEAN(el12_33, el12_34, el12_35).
COMPUTE EL13_M = MEAN(el13_36, el13_37, el13_38).
COMPUTE EL14_M = MEAN(el14_39, el14_40, el14_41).
COMPUTE EL15_M = MEAN(el15_42, el15_43, el15_44).
COMPUTE EL16_M = MEAN(el16_45, el16_46, el16_47).
COMPUTE EL17_M = MEAN(el17_48, el17_49).
COMPUTE EL18_M = MEAN(el18_50, el18_51).
EXECUTE.

VARIABLE LABELS
EL1_M "1. Emotional Self-Awareness"
EL2_M "2. Accurate Self-Assessment"
EL3_M "3. Self-Confidence"
EL4_M "4. Emotional Self-Control"
EL5_M "5. Transparency"
EL6_M "6. Adaptability"
EL7_M "7. Achievement"
EL8_M "8. Initiative"
EL9_M "9. Optimism"
EL10_M "10. Empathy"
EL11_M "11. Organizational Awareness"
EL12_M "12. Service"
EL13_M "13. Inspirational Leadership"
EL14_M "14. Influence"
EL15_M "15. Developing Others"
EL16_M "16. Change Catalyst"
EL17_M "17. Conflict Management"
EL18_M "18. Teamwork and Collaboration".

100
 CHAPTER 6

INTERCULTURAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS

SENSITIVITY SCALES

Kristiina Holm, Petri Nokelainen and Kirsi Tirri

INTRODUCTION

The ideal of cosmopolitan citizen with global awareness has been discussed in the
context of citizenship education (Osler & Starkey, 2005; Noddings, 2005).
Cosmopolitanism as a philosophy developed during the Enlightenment, most
notably by Immanuel Kant. Nowadays, the ethics of the world citizen can be seen
as one possible implementation of Kant‘s categorical imperative (Sihvola, 2004).
Osler and Starkey (2005) identify a cosmopolitan citizenship informed by human
rights as a goal of citizenship education. This kind of citizenship is a worldview
that celebrates human diversity. Cosmopolitan citizens are able to act locally,
nationally and globally. They are aware of a shared responsibility for humanity‘s
common future. Peace is a precondition of global citizenship and that is why peace
education should play a vital role in supporting global citizenship (Noddings,
2005). Furthermore, economic and social justice should be fundamental concerns
of good citizens.
Global citizenship cannot be defined from a single point of view. Instead, a
linkage between different perspectives is needed. (Noddings, 2005.) In the US
many scholars argue in favour of teaching of religious pluralism in public schools
as an important part of citizenship education (Nash, 2005; Noddings, 1993, 2005).
Habermas (2001) has introduced the concept of post secular religion that meets
three criteria: (1) the acceptance of pluralism, (2) communicating by reasoning, and
(3) the acknowledgement of fundamental rights. In religious education plurality in
beliefs and values should be acknowledged and approved with an emphasis on
finding common values and principles among different world views. Intercultural
and interreligious sensitivities reflect many skills of an ideal global citizen.
The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS), created and
developed by Milton Bennett (1986, 1993), is a model that incorporates six
orientations towards cultural difference: (1) Denial, (2) Defense, (3) Minimization,
(4) Acceptance, (5) Adaptation, and (6) Integration. Intercultural Development
Inventory (IDI) operationalizes the DMIS (Hammer, Bennett & Wiseman, 2003)
with 52 items and has been carefully developed to measure late adolescents and
adults. Although the instrument is based on thorough psychometrical validation
and international representative samples, a more compact self-measurement test is

Kirsi Tirri & Petri Nokelainen. Measuring Multiple Intelligences and Moral Sensitivities in Education,
© 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
INTERCULTURAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS SENSITIVITY SCALES

needed to measure adolescents‘ intercultural sensitivity. In our development work

we have created and tested an instrument to study intercultural sensitivity of
adolescents and explored the influence of academic achievement to their level of
intercultural sensitivity (Holm, Nokelainen & Tirri, 2009). We found that high
academic achievement was positively correlated with intercultural sensitivity
among adolescence.
Intercultural research and training often neglect religion and the interreligious
settings of cultural identity (Abu-Nimer, 2001). In our previous study (Holm,
Nokelainen & Tirri, 2009), we included the religious dimension into the context of
intercultural sensitivity. We aimed to measure secondary school students‘
intercultural and religious sensitivity with an instrument called the Intercultural and
Religious Sensitivity Scale (IRSS). The first five DMIS orientations were
operationalized into 29 items, but the sixth orientation, Integration, was omitted
from the instrument as it could not be measured in compliance of the model. The
items aimed to measure adolescents‘ (N = 249) orientations in both intercultural
and religious sensitivity.
However, psychometric testing of the instrument (IRSS) showed that the
religiocentric and the religiorelative responses differed from the ethnocentric and
ethnorelative responses. According to Abu-Nimer (2001), religious identity may be
threatened much more easily than cultural identity. The interreligious settings seem
to challenge empathy, moral values, and faith more strongly than do the
intercultural settings. As an outcome, the items of the Intercultural and Religious
Sensitivity Scale Questionnaire (IRSSQ) were separated and revised in order to
develop the two different self-rating instruments presented in this chapter: the
Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ICSS) and the Interreligious Sensitivity Scale
(IRRSS). The ICSS is based on Bennet‘s DMIS (1986, 1993), and the IRRSS is
based on the Developmental Model of Interreligious Sensitivity (Abu-Nimer,
2001), founded on the DMIS.
This chapter presents the revised versions of the Intercultural and Interreligious
Sensitivity Scales (ICSS and IRRSS), and tests their psychometric properties with
an empirical sample of 549 Finnish adolescents.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity

Intercultural sensitivity is not inborn. Ethnocentrism is natural to human beings

since everybody looks at the world from her or his cultural point of view.
Ethnocentrism is a tendency to value one‘s own culture more than others, but does
not necessarily lead to a negative attitude towards otherness. One may simply not
notice cultural difference. However, overemphasizing one‘s ethnic identity leads to
biased views of the behaviour, manners, beliefs, and values of other cultures.
(Bennett, 1993; 1998.) In contrast, an ethnorelative worldview perceives all
behaviour in its own cultural context, accepting and valuing other cultures.
(Bennett, 1993.)
Fortunately, intercultural sensitivity can be learnt, through teaching, one can
improve the skills required in intercultural relations. The Developmental Model of
Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) by Bennett (1986, 1993) has successfully served

102
 INTERCULTURAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS SENSITIVITY SCALES

in intercultural education and training programmes for nearly the past three
decades. Intercultural sensitivity is a conceptual tool for explaining changes in the
structure of an individual‘s worldview. Certain cognitive and behavioural reactions
to cultural difference indicate the state of one‘s worldview. (Bennett, 1993; Bennett
& Bennett, 2004.) Intercultural sensitivity means one‘s ability to notice and
experience cultural differences. Intercultural competence refers to the cognitive
and behavioural skills used when dealing with cultural differences. The DMIS is a
theoretical framework for conceptualizing both intercultural sensitivity and
intercultural competence. The model includes six orientations towards cultural
difference, three of which are ethnocentric and three are ethnorelative. (Hammer et
al., 2003.) The central assumption of the DMIS is that intercultural competence
increases simultaneously with one‘s experiences of cultural difference. Movement
between orientations is not static; rather it requires a change in one‘s patterns of
thought as well as more complex intercultural experiences. However, such
movement is often considered unidirectional, meaning that people seldom regress
in the process. (Hammer et al., 2003.)
The six stages, or orientations as Bennett calls them in his latter studies (see
e.g. Hammer, Bennett & Wiseman, 2003), show a progression that an individual
may go through in developing intercultural sensitivity. The orientations are Denial,
Defense, Minimization, Acceptance, Adaptation, and Integration (Bennett, 1993).

Table 1. Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity, DMIS (Bennett, 1993.)

Ethnocentric orientations Ethnorelative orientations

Denial Defense Minimization Acceptance Adaptation Integration

Denial is an orientation in which one is unable to distinguish between cultures,

or views the rest of the world as ―foreigners‖. Different ways of behaving are
considered as confusing. In Defense, other cultures are perceived as a threat or as
undeveloped. A person may employ various defence mechanisms, such as
denigration and aggressive behaviour. In Minimization, differences between
cultures are recognized, but are ignored since they are considered less deep and
significant, or rather superficial. A person in minimization views other cultures as
fundamentally similar to her or his own. (Bennett, 1993.)
The shift from ethnocentric intercultural sensitivity to ethnorelative
intercultural sensitivity is paradigmatic because it requires a change in one‘s
patterns of thought. In Acceptance, people from other cultures are considered
different, but equal. A person has a tolerant attitude, although no different
behaviour is necessarily adopted. Adaptation occurs when a person has the ability
to view things through someone else‘s eyes. Adaptation enables one to incorporate
different cultural worldviews into one‘s own. Adaptation also requires well
developed intercultural and empathy skills, or the ability to think and act in
culturally appropriate ways. The last orientation of intercultural sensitivity is called
Integration. Integration entails the integration of the concept of different cultures
into a definition of one‘s identity. Such integration refers not to a social integration

103
INTERCULTURAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS SENSITIVITY SCALES

but rather to becoming bi- or multicultural. Integration is sometimes described as

―style switching‖ or becoming a ―world citizen‖.

Developmental Model of Interreligious Sensitivity

Intercultural studies and training, as well as research in conflict and conflict

resolution, often exclude the role of religion. Abu-Nimer (2001, 2004) has
criticized the lack of a religious dimension in intercultural settings. He has studied
interfaith dialogue in the Middle East and especially in the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict. According to Abu-Nimer (2004), religious factors emerge in conflicts in
both formal and informal ways, although formal discussions and attempts toward
peace often neglect them. One should view the role of religion as constructive and
not as negative, and eschew religiocentric worldviews; and groups that engage in
interfaith dialogue should aim for political change. According to Abu-Nimer
(2004), one should not view religious identity as a destructive force, but as a source
of cooperation.
Abu-Nimer (2001, 2003) presents the Developmental Model of Interreligious
Sensitivity, which is based on Bennet‘s Developmental Model of Intercultural
Sensitivity. The data and analysis are grounded on a series of workshops and
interviews with participants from diverse religious backgrounds. The model has
served in, for example, interreligious peace building and conflict resolution
training.

Table 2. Developmental Model of Interreligious Sensitivity (Abu-Nimer, 2001.)

Religiocentric orientations Religiorelative orientations

Denial Defense Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

The Developmental Model of Interreligious Sensitivity explains different kinds

of reactions to other religions. The religiocentric person is unable to recognize
other religions or to respect and accept that the beliefs of other religions are true to
believers. This leads to discriminative and even violent actions towards other
religious groups. (Abu-Nimer, 2004.) In contrast, the religiorelative person is able
to accept the existence of other religions, beliefs and norms. The religiorelative
person is not prone to dehumanize other religious groups or individuals, and is able
to act peacefully with others. (Abu-Nimer, 2004.) The model includes five
orientations that implicate reactions to religious differences. A religiocentric
framework includes Denial, Defense and Minimization, whereas a religiorelative
framework includes Acceptance and Adaptation.
Denial of other religions is a typical mechanism for people who are physically
or socially separated from other religions. According to Abu-Nimer (2004, p. 498),
isolation from others can ―push groups and individuals to attempt violent
elimination of the other religions‖ because they tend to refuse to see and value the
differences that exist in religions, such as beliefs, norms, rituals and practices.
Defense is a reaction in which one considers his or her own faith superior and the
other, inferior. For example, in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, only one‘s own

104
 INTERCULTURAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS SENSITIVITY SCALES

religion is the one that deserves the Holy Land, and the other religions have no
right to these religious sites. People in denial and defense do not accept different
ways of believing. (Abu-Nimer, 2004.) Minimization of religious differences
means that a person notices the differences between religions and contradictions in
beliefs, rituals and practices, but ignores them. Minimization is a phase in which
the similarities of religions are emphasized in order to avoid confrontations. (Abu-
Nimer, 2004.)
Moving from a religiocentric to a religiorelative perspective requires a change
in patterns of thought. Acceptance of other religions is the first type of
religiorelativism. In this phase, a person accepts that religious beliefs are valid for
its holders and refrains from making negative judgements of people who do not
believe in the same way. (Abu-Nimer, 2004.) Religious Adaptation is the second
type of religiorelativism. It appears in three modes: empathy, pluralism and
integration. According to Abu-Nimer (2004, p. 502), religious empathy ―occurs
when the believer is actually ready to experience (temporarily, for an hour, a day,
or a month) another spiritual path and to be able to understand (for a brief period)
the other‘s religious meaning, context, and points of reference‖. Empathetic
practices may be very difficult or even impossible; interfaith dialoguers have
pointed out that one cannot experience certain specific areas without violating
one‘s own faith, such as a Jew violating kashrut in order to experience Christian
dietary freedoms (e.g., eating pork) (Abu-Nimer, 2004). However, empathy is
possible in many other areas and leads to a ―deeper recognition and appreciation of
the other‘s faith‖ (Abu-Nimer, 2004, p. 503). Religious pluralism is the second
mode of adaptation. A pluralist has two religious contexts in which he or she can
operate and experience spirituality. Such a person is also able to criticize both
religions in a constructive manner. For example, a religious pluralist can be a
person with a Catholic religious identity, but who has grown up among Muslims.
Such a person is engaged in both the Catholic Church and Islam. However, many
interfaith dialogue groups view this kind of religious pluralism as the loss of one‘s
authentic religious identity. (Abu-Nimer, 2004.) The last mode of Adaptation is
integration, in which a spiritual person has no affiliation with any specific religion
or faith. She or he accomodates to various rituals and beliefs from different
religions. (Abu-Nimer, 2004.)

METHOD

Sample

The non-probability sample (N = 549) was collected in autumn 2007 from two
Finnish secondary schools. One of the schools is located in the capital of Finland,
Helsinki, with about 570,000 inhabitants and the other in Central Finland in the
town of Jyväskylä with about 130,000 inhabitants.
The adolescent sample consisted of the secondary school students from seventh
(n = 173, 31.5 %), eighth (n = 176, 32.1 %) and ninth (n = 197, 35.9 %) grade.
Grade level information was missing from three participants (0.5 %). Participants
age range was from 12 to 16 years (M = 14.0, SD = .997). Of the sample, 260 (47.4
%) were girls and 281 (51.2 %) were boys. The gender information was missing
from eight participants (1.5 %).

105
INTERCULTURAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS SENSITIVITY SCALES

The participants completed a paper and pencil versions of the Intercultural

Sensitivity Scale (ICSS) and Interreligious Scale (IRRSS) during a lesson. They
were asked to assess their attitude towards the statements measuring the
ethnocentric and ethnorelative orientations as well as religiocentric and
religiorelative orientations. The instruments were designed for students with
different ethnic and religious backgrounds. Eighty-six per cent of the participants
came from diverse religions and 14 per cent of them did not belong to any religious
group.

Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ICSS) and Interreligious Sensitivity Scale (IRRSS)

ICSS consists of 23 items on a Likert scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally

agree). The instrument measures six orientations towards cultural difference: (1)
Denial, (2) Defense, (2r) Reversal, (3) Minimization, (4) Acceptance, and (5)
Adaptation.
IRRSS consists of 15 items on a Likert scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 5
(totally agree). It measures responses to religious differences on five categories:
(1) Denial, (2) Defense, (3) Minimization, (4) Acceptance, and (5) Adaptation.

Procedure

The non-probability sample was collected from two secondary schools which are
located in urban contexts in two Finnish cities: (1) Helsinki and (2) Jyväskylä. The
data was collected with ICSS and IRRSS with the help of teachers during the
lessons. The students were invited to complete a paper and pencil versions of the
two questionnaires. Participants were asked to assess their attitude towards the
statements measuring intercultural sensitivity and interreligious sensitivity.

Statistical Analyses

Statistical analyses were carried out in four phases. First, the psychometric
properties of the ICSS and IRRSS were investigated. Second, the Cronbach‘s alpha
(1970) was used to test the internal consistency of the ICSS and IRRSS. Third, the
correlations between the items of each dimension and the background variables
(age, gender, school success) were analyzed with Spearman rho. Fourth, the
confirmatory factor analysis was conducted.

RESULTS: INTERCULTURAL SENSITIVITY SCALE

Psychometric Properties of ICSS

ICSS items and their descriptive statistics are presented in the Table 3. When the
means of ethnocentric orientations were compared to each other, it was found that
the items measuring Denial and Reversal had the lowest means. The means of
Defense were a bit higher than those of Denial and Reversal. Yet, the standard
deviations of the statements were quite high indicating wide range of opinions. The
items measuring Minimization had the highest means of all the ethnocentric

106
 INTERCULTURAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS SENSITIVITY SCALES

orientations. The students may emphasize the similarity of human beings in which
different people are seen essentially the same as oneself.
Of the ethnorelative orientations, the items measuring Acceptance had higher
means than those of Adaptation. Further, the standard deviations of the items in
Acceptance were the lowest ones.

Table 3. Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ICSS) Items and Descriptive Statistics

Item M (SD)

1 Denial
ic1_1 People of my own culture behave in the only way that makes 2.20 (1.25)
sense.
ic1_7 When I am travelling I often feel that people are rude to me. 2.40 (1.07)
ic1_13 I do not need to care about what happens in other parts of the 2.00 (1.20)
world.
ic1_19 Travelling abroad makes me feel uncomfortable. 1.90 (1.15)

2 Defense
ic2_2 There are lots of people representing other cultures who are 2.70 (1.14)
arrogant.
ic2_8 I divide the students of my school into "our people" and "other 2.50 (1.26)
people".
ic2_14 I hate people who represent certain culture or ethnic group. 2.50 (1.34)
ic2_20 When I am travelling, there are many things about the local 2.80 (1.09)
people that irritate me.

2r Reversal
ic2r_3 I am ashamed of my fellow nationals when I am abroad. 2.10 (1.15)
ic2r_9 I would definitely emigrate in some other country. 2.60 (1.38)
ic2r_15 I do not value the culture of my native country. 1.90 (1.16)

3 Minimization
ic3_4 People all around the world need and want approximately the 3.30 (1.09)
same things.
ic3_10 All people act almost in the same way when they face ethically 3.10 (0.84)
problematic situations.
ic3_16 Conflicts between different nations can be solved by obeying 3.50 (1.08)
the same ethical principles (e.g. the Golden Rule).
ic3_21 There may be some differences between the customs of 3.20 (1.19)
different cultures, but deep down all the people are just like me.

107
INTERCULTURAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS SENSITIVITY SCALES

Table 3. Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ICSS) Items and Descriptive Statistics (continued)

Item M (SD)

4 Acceptance
ic4_5 It may cause misunderstandings that people representing 3.80 (0.94)
different cultures express their feelings in various ways.
ic4_11 Different behaviors make me see things in a new way. 3.60 (0.97)
ic4_17 Cultures are different because different things are considered 4.00 (0.88)
important and valuable.
ic4_22 The more I know about various cultures, the better I recognize 3.90 (0.93)
the differences between them.

5 Adaptation
ic5_6 I am able to put myself in the position of a person from another 3.00 (1.03)
culture.
ic5_12 Many of the immigrants living in our country try their hardest 3.30 (1.14)
to adjust to our life style, and that is why I also want to understand their
way of living.
ic5_18 It is only a good thing that people are different. 3.80 (1.06)
ic5_23 I am able to behave in culturally appropriate ways but still 4.00 (0.95)
adhere to my own values.

Reliability Analyses of the ICSS

The second phase was to test the internal consistency of the ICSS with Cronbach‘s
alpha (1970). The results are presented in Table 4. The second (Defense) and sixth
(Adaptation) dimensions had the highest reliabilities ( = .74 and = .68,
respectively), while the third (Reversal) and fifth (Acceptance) had the lowest ones
( = .60 and = .61, respectively).
These results may be regarded as satisfactory as alpha values above .60 are
usually considered moderate and values above .80 are considered good. According
to Nunnally (1978, pp. 245–246), ―increasing reliabilities much beyond .80 is often
wasteful of time and funds with the exception of applied settings where important
decisions are made with respect to specific test scores.‖ One possible reason for the
moderate alpha values is that they depend on the number of items per dimension.
The alpha value tends to increase together with the number of items.
Our goal was to produce a compact measurement instrument with a minimum
number of statements, and thus, the number of statements per dimension was kept
small, at only three to four statements. The alpha value also depends heavily on the
dimensionality of the scale: higher inter-item reliability is achieved with strictly
one-dimensional constructs.

108
 INTERCULTURAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS SENSITIVITY SCALES

Correlational Analyses of the ICSS

The correlation matrix between the six ICSS dimensions showed theoretically
plausible results: Denial and Defense correlated positively with each other (rS =
.63) and negatively with Acceptance (rS = -.33) and Adaptation (rS = -.43).
Minimization correlated positively with Acceptance (rS =.31) and Adaptation (rS =
.42). Minimization can be seen as a transitional stage between ethnocentric and
ethnorelative orientations. A person in Minimization can have positive attitudes to
cultural difference which may explain the positive correlations with ethnorelative
orientations. However, the tolerant attitudes are based on expecting similarities
(Bennett, 1993). Further, Acceptance and Adaptation correlated strongly positively
with each other (rS = .47). Reversal remained the only problematic dimension since
it showed zero or only small correlations with other dimensions (rS = .01 to .13).
According to Bennett's theory (1993), Reversal is a form of Denial in which one's
own culture becomes the target of criticism and denigration meanwhile another
culture is idealized. It seems that this kind of tendency to consider another culture
as superior as one's own was not presented in this sample.

Table 4. Factor Structure and Alpha Loadings of the ICSS

Dimension Items M (SD)

1 Denial ic1_1, ic1_7, ic1_13, ic1_19 2.20 (0.89) .61

2 Defense ic2_2, ic2_8, ic2_14, ic2_20 2.50 (0.85) .74

2r Reversal ic2r_3, ic2r_9, ic2r_15 2.20 (0.92) .60

3 Minimization ic3_4, ic3_10, ic3_16, ic3_21 3.30 (0.73) .62

4 Acceptance ic4_5, ic4_11, ic4_17, ic4_22 3.80 (0.63) .61

5 Adaptation ic5_6, ic5_12, ic5_18, ic5_23 3.50 (0.75) .68

Correlations between the Background Variables and the ICSS

Results of correlational analyses between the six ICSS dimensions, age and school
success are presented in Table 5. In order to investigate the relations between the
ICSS and school success, students‘ GPA and the average grades in mathematics,
native language and religious education or ethics were asked. Religious education
is a compulsory school subject in Finland. The name of the subject in the
curriculum is ‗Religion‘. The subject for the students who do not attend religious
education in school is called ‗Ethics‘. (Finnish National Board of Education, 2004.)
Ethics education is an alternative subject for religious education which is given for
the students who are not registered members of any denomination.
The respondents‘ age was not statistically related to any of the six ICSS
dimensions. The age span is only three to four years which explains the result.
GPA correlated negatively with the two lowest dimensions (rS = -.26 to -.37) and

109
INTERCULTURAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS SENSITIVITY SCALES

positively with the two highest dimensions (rS = .26 to .31). Further, average grades
in mathematics, native language and religion or ethics correlated negatively with
Denial and Defense (rS = -.27 to -.37). On the other hand, the average grades in
above mentioned subjects correlated positively with Acceptance and Adaptation (rS
= .23 to .31). These findings suggest that the students‘ academic achievement is
related to their self-reported intercultural sensitivity.

Table 5. Inter-item Correlations between the ICSS Dimensions and Background Variables

Nat. Relig. /
Gender Age GPA Math 1 2 2r 3 4 5
lang. Ethics

Gender 1.00
Age -.09 1.00
GPA -.17 -.13 1.00
Math -.05 -.10 .71 1.00
Nat. lang. -.33 -.10 .70 .57 1.00
Relig. / Ethics -.21 .08 .65 .52 .61 1.00
1 Denial .26 .01 -.37 -.29 -.37 -.42 1.00
2 Defense .26 .09 -.26 -.18 -.27 -.27 .63 1.00
2r Reversal -.01 .05 .00 .03 .00 .03 .07 .09 1.00
3 Minimization -.14 -.10 .13 .06 .13 .13 -.14 -.19 .05 1.00
4 Acceptance -.22 .01 .31 .19 .31 .28 -.33 -.18 .01 .31 1.00
5 Adaptation -.25 -.08 .26 .12 .23 .23 -.43 -.44 .13 .42 .47 1.00
Note. The sample consists of 549 Finnish 12 to 16 years old 7th to 9th grade students. GPA =
Grade Point Average from 4 - 10, Math = Average mathematics grade from 4 - 10, Nat.
lang. = Average native language grade from 4 - 10, Relig. / Ethics = Average religion or
ethics grade from 4 - 10.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to analyze how the ICSS model fits to
the data. First section of Table 6 presents measures of absolute fit that determine
the degree to which the model predicts the observed correlation matrix (Hair et al.,
1995). The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is designed to
evaluate the approximate fit of the model in the population (Kaplan, 2000). The
estimate of .056 was clearly within the fair fit level of .05 - .08 (Hair et al., 1995),
indicating moderate fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Both 90 per cent confidence
intervals were also clearly below .08 level.
Incremental fit measures are presented in the second section of Table 6. They
compare the proposed model to a baseline model that all the other models should
be able to exceed (Hair et al., 1995). The Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), a.k.a. the
Nonnormed Fit Index (NNFI), was slightly below the recommended level of .90
(Tucker & Lewis, 1973), as well as the comparative fit index (CFI). Overall, these
results indicate satisfactory generalizability of the model.

110
 INTERCULTURAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS SENSITIVITY SCALES

Table 6. Goodness-of-fit Values of the ICSS

Preadolescents
(N = 549)

Absolute Fit Measures

2
579.999
Df 215
p <.001
RMSEA .056
90 per cent C.I. .050 .061

Incremental Fit Measures

CFI .872
TLI .850
Note. RMSEA= Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
with 90 per cent confidence interval. TLI = Tucker-Lewis
coefficient. CFI = Comparative Fit Index.

RESULTS: INTERRELIGIOUS SENSITIVITY SCALE

Psychometric Properties of IRRSS

IRRSS items and their descriptive statistics are presented in the Table 7. Defense
had the lowest means in all five dimensions meanwhile Acceptance had the highest
means. However, the other ethnorelative dimension, Adaptation, did not have as
high means as Acceptance. Further, the standard deviations in all dimensions were
relatively high which indicates wide range of opinions.

111
INTERCULTURAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS SENSITIVITY SCALES

Table 7. Interreligious Sensitivity Scale (IRRSS) Items and Descriptive Statistics

Item M (SD)

1 Denial
ir1_4 I do not need information about other religions. 2.59 (1.26)
ir1_11 It is nice to meet with new people as long as they are not 2.39 (1.20)
members of different religious groups.
2.31 (1.14)
ir1_12 I have never had contacts with the people of other faiths
because I do not find it important.

2 Defense
1.83 (1.14)
ir2_5 I consider people from other religions as a threat.
ir2_6 God will punish the people from other religions after they are 1.94 (1.20)
dead.
2.54 (1.33)
ir2_13 I think that people of certain religions are so stupid that they
could figuratively ―blow themselves up‖ with their stupidity.

3 Minimization
ir3_2 All people are created by the same god even so they are 3.27 (1.34)
religious or irreligious.
ir3_7 All people believe in the faith. 2.17 (1.26)
ir3_10 All people pray. 2.20 (1.25)

4 Acceptance
3.54 (1.17)
ir4_1 It is only a good thing that there are students from different
religious groups in the school.
ir4_8 People of different faiths have a right to practice their own 3.93 (1.12)
religion also in our country.
3.51 (0.97)
ir4_14 I learn best about the manners and views of different
religions from the believers of those religions.

5 Adaptation
2.85 (1.22)
ir5_3 I can pray with a person of another religion if she or he asks
me to.
ir5_9 I could participate in the service of no matter religion with a 2.79 (1.11)
believer of that religion.
ir5_15 If I lived abroad I could easily see myself practicing the 2.68 (1.15)
religious manners of that country (such as fasting or wearing
religious clothing) and it would not detract my own world view.

112
 INTERCULTURAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS SENSITIVITY SCALES

Reliability Analyses of the IRRSS

Internal consistency of the IRRSS was analyzed with Cronbach‘s alpha (1970), see
Table 8. All but one dimension (Denial, = .56) had reliabilities higher than .60.
Although the values are moderate, they indicate satisfactory reliability for the
measurement instrument.

Table 8. Factor Structure and Alpha Loadings of the IRRSS

Dimension Items M (SD)

1 Denial ir1_4, ir1_11, ir1_12 2.43 (.88) .56

2 Defense ir2_5, ir2_6, ir2_13 2.10 (.95) .69

3 Minimization ir3_2, ir3_7, ir3_10 2.54 (.98) .64

4 Acceptance ir4_1, ir4_8, ir4_14 3.66 (.87) .70

5 Adaptation ir5_3, ir5_9, ir5_15 2.78 (.89) .64

Correlational Analyses of the IRRSS

Analysis of the inter-item correlations were, in parallel with the theory, positive
and quite strong (rS ranged from .26 to .51) within the five IRRSS dimensions.
Correlations between the five dimensions (see Table 9) showed also theoretically
plausible results: Denial and Defense correlated positively with each other (r = .57)
and negatively with Acceptance and Adaptation (rS ranged from -.17 to -.58).
Acceptance and Adaptation correlated positively with each other (rS = .34).
Minimization had only small positive correlations with other dimensions, rS ranged
from .01 to .28.

Correlations between the Background Variables and the IRRSS

Results of correlational analyses between the five IRRSS dimensions, age and
school success (GPA and mathematics, native language and religion or ethics
grades) are presented in the following Table 9. The respondents‘ age did not
correlate to any of the five IRRSS dimensions. As explained earlier, the result is
theoretically plausible since the age span of the sample was merely four years.
GPA correlated negatively with Denial (r S = -.37) and Defense (r S = -.26) and
positively with Acceptance (rS = .31) and Adaptation (rS = .26). Further, the
average grades in mathematics and native language correlated negatively with
Denial (rS = -.29 to -.37). The strongest negative correlation was between Denial
and the average grade in religion or ethics (rS = -.42). There were positive
correlations between the average grades in native language and religion or ethics
and Acceptance (rS = .28 to .31). These results pointed out the relation between
students‘ academic achievement and their self reported interreligious sensitivity.

113
INTERCULTURAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS SENSITIVITY SCALES

Table 9. Inter-item Correlations between the IRRSS Dimensions and Background Variables

Nat. Relig. /
Gender Age GPA Math 1 2 3 4 5
lang. Ethics

Gender 1.00
Age -.09 1.00
GPA -.17 -.13 1.00
Math -.05 -.10 .71 1.00
Nat. lang. -.33 -.10 .70 .57 1.00
Relig. / Ethics -.21 .08 .65 .52 .61 1.00
1 Denial .25 .00 -.30 -.28 -.32 -.34 1.00
2 Defense .34 -.02 -.29 -.18 -.35 -.32 .57 1.00
3 Minimization .10 .01 -.07 -.12 -.13 -.06 .18 .17 1.00
4 Acceptance -.28 .01 .33 .21 .30 .37 -.50 -.58 .01 1.00
5 Adaptation -.08 -.04 .05 .03 -.03 .06 -.17 -.17 .28 .34 1.00
Note. The sample consists of 549 Finnish 12 to 16 years old 7 to 9th grade students. GPA =
th

Grade Point Average from 4 - 10, Math = Average mathematics grade from 4 - 10, Nat.
lang. = Average native language grade from 4 - 10, Relig. / Ethics = Average religion or
ethics grade from 4 - 10.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

We also performed a CFA to the IRRSS dimensions (Table 10). The RMSEA
estimate of .063 was within the fair fit level of .05 - .08, indicating moderate fit.
Both 90 per cent confidence intervals were also clearly below the .08 level.
Incremental fit measures showed that the proposed model exceeds the baseline
model (TLI = .882 and CFI = .910). These results indicate satisfactory
generalizability of the model.

114
 INTERCULTURAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS SENSITIVITY SCALES

Table 10. Goodness-of-fit Values of the IRRSS

Preadolescents
(N = 549)

Absolute Fit Measures

2
254.356
Df 80
p <.001
RMSEA .063
90 per cent C.I. .054 .072

Incremental Fit Measures

CFI .910
TLI .882
Note. RMSEA= Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation with 90 per cent confidence interval. TLI
= Tucker-Lewis coefficient. CFI = Comparative Fit
Index.

CONCLUSIONS

In this chapter, the revised versions of the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ICSS)
and the Interreligious Sensitivity Scale (IRRSS) were presented. ICSS is based on
Bennett‘s (1986, 1993) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS),
and IRRSS is based on Abu-Nimer‘s (2001) Developmental Model of
Interreligious Sensitivity, also founded on Bennett‘s DMIS.
Statistical analyses were carried out in four phases. First, the psychometric
properties of the ICSS and IRRSS were investigated. Second, the Cronbach‘s alpha
(1970) was used to test the internal consistency of the ICSS and IRRSS. Internal
consistency of the ICSS and IRRSS was analyzed with Cronbach‘s alpha (1970).
The values indicated satisfactory reliability for the measurement instrument. Third,
the correlations between the items of each dimension and the background variables
(age, gender, and school success) were analyzed with Spearman rho. There were
neither relations between the students‘ age and the ICSS or IRRSS dimensions.
However, this result is theoretically plausible since the age span of the sample was
only three to four years. Yet, respondents‘ GPA and the average grades in maths,
native language and religion or ethics correlated with both the ICSS and IRRSS
dimensions showing the relation between students‘ academic achievement and
their self evaluated intercultural and interreligious sensitivity. Fourth, the
confirmatory factor analysis was conducted. The results indicated satisfactory
generalizability of the models.
The Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ICSS) and the Interreligious Sensitivity
Scale (IRRSS) are instruments which can be used to explore adolescents‘ self-
evaluated orientations for cultural and religious differences. Both intercultural and
interreligious skills are important in the global world where one meets and

115
INTERCULTURAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS SENSITIVITY SCALES

cooperates with people from different cultures or religions. The value basis of
intercultural education consists of human dignity, human rights, dialogue between
cultures, learning from each other, non-violence, and justice (Räsänen, 2002).
Intercultural and interreligious skills are crucial for a world citizen,
especially in conflict resolution and peace building, whether the conflict is
intercultural or interreligious. The results drawn from the ICSS and IRRSS
instruments can serve for intercultural and religious education as well as for
citizenship education in school.

REFERENCES
Abu-Nimer, M. (2001). Conflict Resolution, Culture, and Religion: Toward a Training Model of
Interreligious Peacebuilding. Journal of Peace Research, 38(6), 685-704.
Abu-Nimer, M. (2004). Religion, Dialogue, and Non-Violent Actions in Palestinian-Israeli Conflict.
International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 17(3), 491-511.
Bennett, M. J. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(2), 179–196.
Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards Ethnorelativism: A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. In
M.R. Paige (Ed.), Education for the Intercultural Experience (pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME:
Intercultural Press.
Bennett, M. J. (1998). Overcoming the Golden Rule: Sympathy and Empathy. In M. J. Bennett (Ed.),
Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communications. Selected Readings (pp. 191-213). Yarmouth,
ME: Intercultural Press.
Bennett, J., & Bennett, M. J. (2004). Developing Intercultural Sensitivity. An Integrative Approach to
Global and Domestic Diversity. In D. Landis, J. Bennett, & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of
Intercultural Training (pp. 147–165). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & S.
Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park: Sage.
Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing. Third edition. New York: Harper & Row.
Finnish National Board of Education (2004). Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education.
Vammala: Finnish National Board of Education.
Habermas, J. (2001). Glauben und Wissen. Frankfurt am main: Suhrkamp.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis. Fourth
edition. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The
intercultural development inventory. Intercultural Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421-
443.
Holm, K., Nokelainen, P., & Tirri, K. (2009). Intercultural and Religious Sensitivity of Finnish
Lutheran 7th - 9th Grade Students. In C. Bakker, H-G. Heimbrock, R. Jackson, G. Skeie, & W.
Weisse (Eds.), Religious Diversity and Education – Nordic Perspectives (pp. 131-144). Münster:
Waxmann.
Holm, K., Nokelainen, P., & Tirri, K. (2009). Relationship of gender and academic achievement to
Finnish students‘ intercultural sensitivity. High Ability Studies, 20(2), 187–200.
Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling. Foundations and extensions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Nash, R. (2005). A letter to secondary school teacher: Teaching about religious pluralism in the public
schools. In N. Noddings (Ed.), Educating citizens for global awareness (pp. 93–106). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Noddings, N. (1993). Educating for intelligent belief or unbelief. New York: Teachers College Press.
Noddings, N. (2005). Educating citizens for global awareness. New York: Teachers College Press.
Räsänen, R. (2002). Interkulttuurisen pedagogiikan olemusta etsimässä. In. R. Räsänen, K. Jokikokko,
M-L. Järvelä, & T. Lamminmäki-Kärkkäinen (Eds.), Interkulttuurinen opettajankoulutus.
Utopiasta todellisuudeksi toimintatutkimuksen avulla (pp. 97–113). [Intercultural teacher
education. From utopia to practice through action research]. Oulu: Department of
Educational Sciences and Teacher Eduction, University of Oulu.
Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2005). Changing citizenship. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.
Sihvola, J. (2004). Maailmankansalaisen etiikka [The ethics of the world citizen]. Helsinki: Otava.

116
 INTERCULTURAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS SENSITIVITY SCALES

Tucker, T. L., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis.
Psychometrica, 38, 1-10.

117
INTERCULTURAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS SENSITIVITY SCALES

Intercultural Sensitivity Scale

TOTALLY TOTALLY
DISAGREE AGREE

People of my own culture behave in the only way that

1 2 3 4 5
makes sense.
When I am travelling I often feel that people are rude to
1 2 3 4 5
me.
I do not need to care about what happens in other parts
1 2 3 4 5
of the world.

Travelling abroad makes me feel uncomfortable. 1 2 3 4 5

There are lots of people representing other cultures who

1 2 3 4 5
are arrogant.
I divide the students of my school into "our people" and
1 2 3 4 5
"other people".
I hate people who represent certain culture or ethnic
1 2 3 4 5
group.
When I am travelling, there are many things about the
1 2 3 4 5
local people that irritate me.

I am ashamed of my fellow nationals when I am abroad. 1 2 3 4 5

I would definitely emigrate in some other country. 1 2 3 4 5

I do not value the culture of my native country. 1 2 3 4 5

People all around the world need and want

1 2 3 4 5
approximately the same things.
All people act almost in the same way when they face
1 2 3 4 5
ethically problematic situations.
Conflicts between different nations can be solved by
obeying the same ethical principles (e.g., the Golden 1 2 3 4 5
Rule).
There may be some differences between the customs of
different cultures, but deep down all the people are just 1 2 3 4 5
like me.

118
 INTERCULTURAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS SENSITIVITY SCALES

TOTALLY TOTALLY
DISAGREE AGREE

It may cause misunderstandings that people

representing different cultures express their feelings in 1 2 3 4 5
various ways.
Different behaviors make me see things in a new way. 1 2 3 4 5

Cultures are different because different things are

1 2 3 4 5
considered important and valuable.
The more I know about various cultures, the better I
1 2 3 4 5
recognize the differences between them.
I am able to put myself in the position of a person from
1 2 3 4 5
another culture.
Many of the immigrants living in our country try their
hardest to adjust to our life style, and that is why I also 1 2 3 4 5
want to understand their way of living.
It is only a good thing that people are different. 1 2 3 4 5

I am able to behave in culturally appropriate ways but

1 2 3 4 5
still adhere to my own values.

119
INTERCULTURAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS SENSITIVITY SCALES

SPSS Syntax to Compute Intercultural Sensitivity Scale Factors

/* Variable names in this syntax refer to the Table 3 in this chapter

COMPUTE ICSS1_M = MEAN(ic1_1, ic1_7, ic1_13, ic1_19).

COMPUTE ICSS2_M = MEAN(ic2_2, ic2_8, ic2_14, ic2_20).
COMPUTE ICSS2r_M = MEAN(ic2r_3, ic2r_9, ic2r_15).
COMPUTE ICSS3_M = MEAN(ic3_4, ic3_10, ic3_16, ic3_21).
COMPUTE ICSS4_M = MEAN(ic4_5, ic4_11, ic4_17, ic4_22).
COMPUTE ICSS5_M = MEAN(ic5_6, ic5_12, ic5_18, ic5_23).
EXECUTE.

VARIABLE LABELS
ICSS1_M "1. Denial"
ICSS2_M "2. Defence"
ICSS2r_M "2r. Reversal"
ICSS3_M "3. Minimization"
ICSS4_M "4. Acceptance"
ICSS5_M "5. Adaptation".

120
 INTERCULTURAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS SENSITIVITY SCALES

Interreligious Sensitivity Scale

TOTALLY TOTALLY
DISAGREE AGREE

I do not need information about other religions. 1 2 3 4 5

It is nice to meet with new people as long as they are

1 2 3 4 5
not members of different religious groups.
I have never had contacts with the people of other faiths
1 2 3 4 5
because I do not find it important.

I consider people from other religions as a threat. 1 2 3 4 5

God will punish the people from other religions after

1 2 3 4 5
they are dead.
I think that people of certain religions are so stupid that
they could figuratively "blow themselves up" with their 1 2 3 4 5
stupidity.
All people are created by the same god even so they are
1 2 3 4 5
religious or irreligious.

All people believe in the faith. 1 2 3 4 5

All people pray. 1 2 3 4 5

It is only a good thing that there are students from

1 2 3 4 5
different religious groups in the school.
People of different faiths have a right to practice their
1 2 3 4 5
own religion also in our country.
I learn best about the manners and views of different
1 2 3 4 5
religions from the believers of those religions.
I can pray with a person of another religion if she or he
1 2 3 4 5
asks me to.
I could participate in the service of no matter religion
1 2 3 4 5
with a believer of that religion.
If I lived abroad I could easily see myself practicing the
religious manners of that country (such as fasting or
1 2 3 4 5
wearing religious clothing) and it would not detract my
own world view.

121
INTERCULTURAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS SENSITIVITY SCALES

SPSS Syntax to Compute Interreligious Sensitivity Scale Factors

/* Variable names in this syntax refer to the Table 7 in this chapter

COMPUTE IRRSS1_M = MEAN(ir1_4, ir1_11, ir1_12).

COMPUTE IRRSS2_M = MEAN(ir2_5, ir2_6, ir2_13).
COMPUTE IRRSS3_M = MEAN(ir3_2, ir3_7, ir3_10).
COMPUTE IRRSS4_M = MEAN(ir4_1, ir4_8, ir4_14).
COMPUTE IRRSS5_M = MEAN(ir5_3, ir5_9, ir5_15).
EXECUTE.

VARIABLE LABELS
IRRSS1_M "1. Denial"
IRRSS2_M "2. Defence"
IRRSS3_M "3. Minimization"
IRRSS4_M "4. Acceptance"
IRRSS5_M "5. Adaptation".

122
 ASSESSING AND DEVELOPING MULTIPLE

INTELLIGENCES PURPOSEFULLY

Seana Moran

Stanford University

The prevailing belief today is that if young people can accumulate enough ―points‖
in the ―game of school‖—test scores, grade point averages, number of Advanced
Placement or honors classes, number of extracurricular activities—then they ―win.‖
Many people emphasize numbers without interpretation. But what do the numbers
mean? What are they for? With all this emphasis on academic achievement for its
own sake, have we lost sight of why children should develop these intellectual
capacities? What‘s the use of these scores in the broader picture of a person‘s life
or a culture‘s well-being?
Instead of labeling students with the scores, perhaps our emphasis should be on
turning the scores into opportunities and actions for young people to contribute to
their communities—and understand how and why they do so. The scales described
in this volume can help achieve this goal because they incorporate sensitivity and
self-evaluation, and because they focus on how the person perceives and
contributes to ethical, cultural, spiritual, social, and physical aspects of the
environment.
I believe we need to go beyond measuring capacities to better understand
intention. People behave for a reason. We are not just responders to various
environmental stimuli. We direct our actions toward a person, an institution, a
belief, an image, a goal, a symbol. We commit ourselves, reflect, and correct to
stay on track. What we do with the resources we have, such as our intelligences,
affects others who share our social and cultural environment.
Unfortunately, several recent books and research programs focus on this
contribution angle from a negative perspective. These authors emphasize the
limitations and errors of intelligence; they describe the many ways that our
intelligences go ―irrationally‖ wrong in decision-making, reasoning, and judgment
(e.g., Ariely, 2009; Stanovich, 2009). I prefer to find ways for people to better self-
regulate their intellectual resources to do right and to do good. In other words, the
end ―game‖—of school or of life—is not what we collect, such as scores or grades,
but what we give to the community with the capacities we develop. This is where
multiple intelligences meets purpose.

Kirsi Tirri & Petri Nokelainen. Measuring Multiple Intelligences and Moral Sensitivities in Education,
© 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES AND PURPOSE

PURPOSE: WHY WE DO WHAT WE DO

Purpose is an internal moral compass, a ―stable and generalized intention to

accomplish something that is at once meaningful to the self and of consequence
beyond the self‖ (Damon, Menon & Bronk, 2003). Purpose integrates engagement
in a meaningful activity, extension of that activity into the future, and an
orientation to have a prosocial impact. Although not all purposes may aspire to
help others (Damon, 2008), I focus on noble purposes that provide a beacon for
people to self-regulate their behavior in culturally valued activities (Zimmerman,
2008) for the good of a wider community (Gestdottir & Lerner, 2007; Larson,
2006). Purpose makes actions—and the intelligences underlying those actions—
matter.
Purpose contributes to moral citizenship by moving control of one‘s behavior
away from reacting to outside stimuli to be more based on an internal reason
(Marken, 1990) while still taking into consideration other people, institutions, and
the future. To use a metaphor: without purpose, a person is like a sailboat, going
whichever way the wind blows. With purpose, a young person is like a powerboat,
moving forward using a controlled power source toward some marker on the
horizon. Educating with purpose in mind, then, suggests that the job of schools
includes supporting the development of this internal compass. Such educational
emphasis helps a young person determine how he or she can best utilize the
knowledge, skills, and intelligences on which schools have more traditionally
focused.
This refocus may be particularly important for urban schools, which bring
together teachers and students from a wider diversity of backgrounds and with a
wider diversity of interests and skill levels (see Tirri, 2008). ―Cookie cutter‖ one-
size-fits-all educational standards and programs do not fit well under these
circumstances. What is called for is a way of thinking about education that
allows—and even encourages—the development of a wide variety of intellectual
and skill profiles. This variety allows for a more complex, nuanced society of
interacting individuals whose differences in contributions are complementary to
each other and perhaps catalyze each other.

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES: INTERACTIONS INCREASE PERFORMANCE

POSSIBILITIES

Multiple intelligence (MI) theory‘s main claim is that it is more fruitful to describe
an individual‘s cognitive ability in terms of several relatively independent but
interacting intelligences rather than a single ―general‖ intelligence (see Gardner,
1983, 2006). An intelligence is a biopsychological potential to process particular
types of information to solve problems or create products that are valued in at least
one culture or community. Intelligences do not work in isolation. Think of Lego
building blocks. If children have only one block to play with, there is a limited
scope of items they could build; mostly they can just ―bang‖ that general
intelligence against problems. Children can accomplish much more nuanced and
complex thinking by having several blocks that can interconnect to make a wide
variety of patterns. That is how the 8-1/2 intelligences work.

124
 MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES AND PURPOSE

Each person has an intelligence profile—a description of his or her relative

strengths and weaknesses among the different intelligences: linguistic intelligence
processes words; logical-mathematical intelligence processes numbers and logical
operations; musical intelligence processes sound and rhythm; spatial intelligence
processes shapes and directions; bodily-kinesthetic intelligence processes
movement and coordination; naturalistic intelligence processes lists and categories;
interpersonal intelligence processes people and social interactions; intrapersonal
intelligence processes the self; and (at least provisionally) existential intelligence
processes profound, hard-to-grasp abstractions.
What makes a multiple intelligences approach so powerful is the focus on
patterns of interactions among the intelligences (Moran & Gardner, 2006b). Most
skills or performances of a task do not isolate one intelligence but rather combine
intelligences to achieve a purpose. Take dance, for example. It combines musical
intelligence to recognize and keep rhythm, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence to
control fluid and expressive movements, spatial intelligence to navigate around the
dance floor or stage and to make visual patterns, plus perhaps logical-mathematical
intelligence to count time and interpersonal intelligence to take into account the
perspective of the audience. Different individual dancers can use different
combinations of these intelligences to produce similar dance performances.
In addition, most performances are not completely done by one person. We
collaborate. People assimilate intellectual tools from books or other artifacts and
from interacting with other individuals (Vygotsky, 1978). Through performances
of tasks, we contribute to each others‘ identities and environment (Moran & John-
Steiner, 2004). That is, we alter the cultural landscape and make available further
resources for others to assimilate.
The opportunity we face, then, is to develop assessments and educational
programs that not only build individual intelligences, but also help those
intelligences—within and across individuals—synergize better. Many educators
assume that a higher score for all intelligences is ideal. But people with such
equipotentiality may have trouble deciding where they can best contribute to
society. Strengths and weaknesses are both important in determining students‘
academic, career, and life development (see Moran, Kornhaber, & Gardner, 2006).
Assessments that can help guide a person, and help him or her increasingly self-
regulate, would be important tools for educators and young people to understand
the potentials they have to contribute to their communities.
Intelligences can interact in three main ways: interfere with each other,
compensate for each other, and catalyze each other (Moran & Gardner, 2006b).
Interference means that one intelligence may get in the way of another intelligence
expressing itself to its fullest ability. A student with good social skills may have
trouble making friends because she cannot speak well. A linguistic intelligence
weakness interferes with an interpersonal strength. Or a student who can‘t regulate
his moods or thoughts can‘t seem to finish his problem sets even though he knows
the material. An intrapersonal intelligence weakness interferes with a logical-
mathematical strength.

125
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES AND PURPOSE

Compensation allows a particular educational standard to be met through

different combinations of strengths. A student may be considered a good speaker in
class presentations because he can effectively use his body posture and gestures
even if his sentence structure is mildly convoluted. His bodily-kinesthetic
intelligence compensates for his linguistic intelligence. Or a student may earn high
marks on a paper for writing well even if her argument is not quite solid. Her
linguistic intelligence compensates for lower logical-mathematical intelligence.
Catalysis means one intelligence amplifies the expression of another. A student
may conceptualize a math problem through drawings and diagrams. Her spatial
intelligence catalyzes her logical-mathematical intelligence. Or a student may
focus his writing on the cadence and rhythm of words. His musical intelligence
catalyzes his linguistic intelligence in a poetic way.
These three interactions show how there may be difficulty in assessing
intelligences solely in a linear fashion. If one intelligence interferes with the others,
then the student‘s overall potential can be lower than the straight sum. This may be
the case with students who don‘t ―test well‖: their linguistic intelligence of reading
and writing may interfere with the expression of whatever content the test is
assessing. If intelligences are compensating or catalyzing one another, the student‘s
overall potential can be higher than the straight sum. This may be why some
students perform well in context—that is, they have ―street smarts‖—whereas they
do not perform well in the decontextualized setting of a school classroom (e.g.,
Sternberg, Nokes, Geissler, Prince, Okiatcha, Bundy, & Grigorenko, 2001).
With multiple intelligences, there can be multiplicative as well as additive
effects of intelligences. The correlations among intelligences scales found by Tirri
and Nokelainen (2008) may indicate these more intricate interactions. Furthermore,
these interactions may not be visible to the individual; they are often easier to see
by others who can observe the individual‘s performance, such as MI-trained
parents, teachers, bosses or coworkers. Thus, MI assessment may call for ―360-
degree‖ performance evaluations that triangulate self-report with reports by
significant others.
Even more importantly, MI assessment calls for contextualization—what the
intelligences are being used for. Without the purpose of the dance performance, the
intelligences of the dancers, choreographer, and technical support personnel are
only abstract potentials. What educators and, later, employers want to know is:
what can this particular person do in particular, relevant situations? To this end,
several types of ecologically valid assessments have been developed, including
portfolios, performance tasks, projects, and observation scales (see Shearer, 2009,
for a review). An extreme version of MI engagement and assessment was
developed by Danfoss Universe‘s Explorama, a children‘s science museum in
Denmark built on multiple intelligence theory principles (see
www.danfossuniverse.dk). Exhibits feature activities in which individuals can
interact with materials, and sometimes with other exhibit visitors, to use different
intelligences toward particular purposes.
Purposes—the intentions toward contributing to something larger than the
self—relate to multiple intelligences on three levels: the school level of purposes to

126
 MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES AND PURPOSE

assess and educate the intelligences themselves, the national level of purposes to
incorporate a multiple intelligences approach into cultural/educational policy and
practice, and the individual/cultural interaction level of purposes to harness the
intelligences of individuals as resources to be contributed to a particular culture. I
address each of these levels in turn.

THE PURPOSES OF INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENT

Intelligence tests have been around for decades (see Moran & Gardner, 2006a, for
review). Early assessments focused on a general thinking capacity called g.
Increasingly, tests were developed for more modular mental functions. Some
modules focused on types of information processed, such as linguistic,
mathematical, and spatial (Gardner, 1983; Wechsler, 1958). Other modules focused
on contexts, such as academic, creative, or practical (Sternberg, 1985). Still other
modules focused on thinking processes, such as fluid versus crystallized
intelligence (Cattell, 1971), or performance versus disposition or sensitivity
(Perkins, Tishman, Ritchhart, Donis, & Andrade, 2000).
Yet, these varied tests seem to have been developed for a similar purpose: to
label and categorize students. Sometimes, this purpose was an end in itself: once a
child was labeled, he or she was constrained by the expectations of that label.
Gifted students performed well in school, and deficient students performed poorly,
regardless of environmental factors. Studies have shown moderate correlations
among I.Q., grades and status of one‘s work field (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994;
Sternberg, 1985; Subotnik & Arnold, 1994). However, this expectation that a high
score on an intelligence test equates with school and life success has been called
into question by findings that suggest people with high scores (1) do not
necessarily ―score‖ higher in the workplace in terms of salary or work satisfaction
(Rode, Arthaud-Day, Mooney, Near & Baldwin, 2008); (2) endure alienation,
frustration, and unhappiness (Hollingworth, 1942; Sears & Barbee, 1977), and (3)
fail to live up to expectations for extraordinary achievements such as leadership
and creativity (Moran & Gardner, 2006a; Terman & Oden, 1947).
More recently, these tests have become a means to a different purpose: the
development of environmental supports. That is, intelligence test scores contribute
to whether a child qualifies for special assistance: gifted programs, special
education programs, additional time during tests, and other individualized
education plan (IEP) supports. From this framework, the purpose of the tests is to
provide a foundation for building scaffolds for performance. Studies show that
scaffolding increases the child‘s performance level compared to doing the task
without such environmental supports as tools, instruction, role-modeling, and the
like (Fischer & Pipp, 1984). There is less emphasis on understanding what
―basket‖ of capacities the person has that he or she can transfer across contexts and
more emphasis on making the person achieves a certain performance level.
These purposes for intelligence tests—to label and to scaffold—continue into
the adult workplace (see Furnham, 2008; Sackett, Borneman, & Connelly, 2008,
for reviews). Many industries use aptitude and intelligence assessments to label
and track employees; determine variability in competences among staff for hiring,

127
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES AND PURPOSE

compensation, and promotion; and build teams with complementary skills.

Furthermore, there has been increasing emphasis on the social and emotional
intelligences that help people work together well. As employers increase their
demand for such skills, more studies and educational opportunities are arising to
scaffold their development, not only among adults (see Zeidner, Roberts, &
Matthews, 2008, for review), but at younger ages as well (e.g., Downey,
Mountstephen, Lloyd, Hansen, & Stough, 2008).
In summary, people use intelligence assessments, in general, to provide a
shorthand description of the test-taker. This description helps test-givers predict
how the person is likely to behave, at least in situations relevant to the intelligence
or skill under examination. Such predictions are important for planning and
placement. They help test-givers (and sometimes test-takers) develop educational
strategies, management strategies, and expectations about the future and the test-
taker‘s place within society. Discerning individual differences in capabilities helps
people select and perhaps modify learning and work environments to their
strengths, and determine an optimum level of complexity they can cognitively
handle (Gottfredson, 2003; Lubinski, 2004). In addition, assessments can help
drive society to hold the capacity tested in higher esteem. As the cliché goes, ―what
gets measured, gets done.‖ Psychological constructs and other phenomena for
which valid and reliable tests are available are often considered more important or
critical than constructs lacking in assessments (Shearer, 2009).

THE PURPOSES OF A MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES APPROACH TO EDUCATION

The purposes of using a multiple intelligences approach in school, including

multiple intelligences assessment, differ from the purpose of intelligence tests in
general. I came to this interest in the intersection of multiple intelligences and
purpose while editing Multiple Intelligences around the World (Chen, Moran &
Gardner, 2009). Thirty chapters from researchers, policymakers, principals, and
teachers who had championed multiple intelligences in their countries describe
their opportunities and obstacles of infusing MI theory into school practices and
policies. What struck me, in reviewing these chapters for overarching patterns, was
that there were two primary purposes, at the country or cultural level, that drove
the use of multiple intelligences: inclusion and creativity (Moran, 2009c). These
culture-level purposes emphasize how education is the development of the young
person‘s potential and capacities to contribute to the greater good in a meaningful
way.
MI theory provides a way of thinking about education that is better than general
intelligence and scores. MIT theory offers a forum for allowing and supporting a
wider variety of talents and skills to be expressed and to contribute to the
community. Education is not about differentiating among individuals, as general
intelligence scores suggest. Rather, education is about how to integrate the
potentials of individuals for cultural progress. As the cliché suggests, ―more heads
are better than one.‖ When many minds are working in complementary fashion to
move a culture or community closer to its goals, multiple intelligences are
supporting cultural purpose. Educators from Colombia, Korea and England
emphasized how MI develops self-awareness and personal meaning, coming to

128
 MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES AND PURPOSE

better understand who we are within a community‘s various ways of being.

Educators from Argentina, Denmark, England and Australia focused on how MI
invites more people from more diverse backgrounds—racial, socioeconomic,
gender, cultural—to become productive contributors to their mainstream cultures.
By celebrating differences, people under these conditions of diversity are allowed
and encouraged to interact and learn from each other.
By allowing a wider variety of self-expressions and interpretations of
experience to interact, MI theory helps drive creativity. Creativity arises from the
interaction of an individual with cultural tools, artifacts and information developed
by previous and contemporary generations. But the appropriation of these cultural
resources is not perfect: individuals make different ―senses‖ of the cultural
meanings available in their environment (see Moran & John-Steiner, 2003). This
variability leads them to use the cultural resources in different ways. Thus, when
they work—when they, in turn, produce cultural products, ideas, or services for
others to consume or use—these differences become manifest. Products or ideas or
services that are both strongly different from conventionally accepted meanings yet
are also accepted by a critical mass of cultural members are considered ―creative‖
and transform the culture (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). People understand some
phenomenon differently after a creative artifact arises than they did before the
creative artifact existed: creativity changes the ―playing field‖ for those who
follow. Thus, creativity is an extraordinary contribution to culture.
In Multiple Intelligences around the World, educators from Japan, China, and
England focused on the role of MI in creativity, both in terms of self-expression
and of creating change in our environment. They emphasized the ―novelty‖ aspect
of creativity—coming up with new ideas based on a particular person‘s sense-
making (see Amabile, 1996). Educators from Denmark, China, Turkey, and the
Philippines discussed making the world a better place by emphasizing harmony
and addressing our societies‘ pressing problems. They focused on the
―appropriateness‖ aspect of creativity—how new ideas must be applied in a context
and accepted as useful by others relevant to that context (Amabile, 1996).

THE PURPOSES OF MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES TO INDIVIDUALS'

CONTRIBUTIONS TO CULTURE

Writing the chapter on the cultural purposes of multiple intelligences for Multiple
Intelligences around the World stimulated my thinking about the interaction of
multiple intelligences and purpose at the personal/cultural interaction level—how
a person comes to understand his or her contribution to the wider culture. In some
ways, this ―level‖ is not a singular level, but rather it emphasizes how individuals
and cultures compose each other (Moran & John-Steiner, 2003). The boundary
between person and culture is an intellectual convenience to help us understand
learning or performance through a ―divide and conquer‖ strategy. For example,
many researchers or practitioners break phenomena down into smaller units to
more easily assimilate them or work with them.
But there is a cost to such reductionism. We lose sight of what emerges when
intelligences and people cooperate (see Sawyer, 2003). This cooperation drives

129
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES AND PURPOSE

both cultural stability and cultural evolution. Thus, perhaps an ―act and interact‖
strategy may be revealing. Each of us has a multiple intelligences profile. That
profile, though, is not an end in itself. That profile is a resource, an asset I have that
I can commit to some purpose. The reason developing that resource is important is
because I can use it, hopefully for the greater good.
One way I‘ve been thinking about this is through a metaphor of a jigsaw
puzzle. If I am going to contribute, I need to know where I fit. The individual
puzzle pieces—each a different shape with a different small image—snap together
to create a bigger picture of the community. When one piece connects to other
pieces in the puzzle, the piece‘s shape and image interact with the shapes and
images of other pieces. An individual‘s intelligence profile is like the puzzle
piece‘s smaller image of colors and shapes that have the potential to interact with
other pieces‘ images if connected. Connected, they create something bigger than
each piece individually. They build the greater good. Purpose is like the puzzle
piece‘s tabs and nooks that give a clue to where the piece might fit. Purpose is
understanding where one aligns with the ―big picture.‖
Research we‘ve been doing at the Stanford Youth Purpose Project (see Malin,
Reilly, Quinn, & Moran, 2011; Moran, 2009a; Moran, 2010; Moran, Malin,
Bundick, & Reilly, 2011) shows that only about a quarter of young people age 12
to 22 have a sense of how they can contribute to the big picture and have ―locked
in‖ and actually engaged in relevant activities. One in 10 understand there is a big
picture but don‘t know where they fit; they have a dream but not a lock-in. Another
quarter are locked-in but don‘t really see the big picture—they are oriented to
general normative goals like college, jobs, and money with an intention to benefit
primarily the self. And, unfortunately, 40% in our sample are drifting, dabbling,
disconnected puzzle pieces—they don‘t know who they are (the image on their
piece) nor how they can contribute (how they connect to other puzzle pieces).
Nonpurposeful youth are found more in younger grades, and the purposeful and
self-oriented life goal students are more prevalent in 12 th grade and college.
However, the age differences also suggest that the normative endpoint, at least in
the United States, may be self-oriented life goal—be successful, make money—not
purpose or making a contribution to the community. Purpose, which takes into
consideration a prosocial dimension, seems to be a form of giftedness in
intrapersonal intelligence (Moran, 2009a). Furthermore, purposes to change the
world for the better in some way—through creativity, for example—are difficult to
sustain (Moran, 2010). Young people who form and sustain a purpose show
exceptional initiative by proactively seeking opportunities and building for
themselves a cohesive system of social supports for their particular purpose (Malin
et al., 2011; Moran et al., 2011).
Perhaps it is that our culture and schools haven‘t yet acknowledged, valued, and
supported purpose and the development of intrapersonal intelligence and self-
understanding. That is, purpose may be seen as gifted because only special
individuals realize it without any supports. With supports, more young people may
develop purpose. How do schools help young people discover how they can
contribute?

130
 MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES AND PURPOSE

This opportunity is where I find the assessments in this volume particularly

valuable. Because they are self-report measures, they provide indicators of not only
the intelligence under assessment, but also of the person‘s perception of that
intelligence. Thus, they filter assessment of the other intelligences through
intrapersonal intelligence. The assessments can be used as tools to help young
people understand and regulate themselves better.
In addition, some of the scales, such as the spirituality scale and environmental
scale, assess how sensitive the person is to opportunities to engage the intelligence,
which is a person/environment interaction. These assessments might be used by
educators, or by young people themselves, as supports for developing their
awareness and sensitivity to their growing selves and how that self impacts the
wider world. Sensitivity has been posited as the ―bottleneck‖ for many young
people‘s failure to perform in certain contexts (Perkins et al., 2000). Young people
simply don‘t see the need.
That is, supports from family and friends need to focus on supporting the
particular purpose or aim of the young person, not just the youth‘s general
development (Malin et al., 2011; Moran et al., 2011). Families who provide
normative direction are associated with young people who have self-oriented life
goals that mostly benefit the self. Families who provide encouragement once a
young person has expressed an interest or spark are associated with purposeful
young people. The family bolsters the youth‘s development but follows the child‘s
lead. The young person initiates, notices and engages, then the family supplies
supporting external resources. These resources may be material, such as books or
tools or driving the child to orchestra practice. Or they may be cognitive, such as
providing insight, or emotional, such as ―keep going, you can do it‖ conversations.
With age, young people draw this type of support less from family and more from
friends, then from social institutions, to continue their purposeful endeavors.
Besides the family, two key supports seem to be (1) opportunities to act and (2)
responses to challenges (Malin et al., 2011; Moran, 2010). What makes these two
supports interesting is that they emphasize the interaction of the young person with
the environment. It is not so much the particular event, role or support in the
environment—a volunteer position or an adult role model—as how the young
person perceives and makes use of it. Thus, personal meaning of an event is more
impactful toward being purposeful than the event itself: it‘s the sensitivity to the
meaning of the opportunity or challenge that spawns the person to see how he or
she could use the event to contribute positively to the community now and in the
future. This may be particularly relevant to creative purposes (Moran, 2009b).
Compared to young people with only dreams or self-oriented goals, youth with
purpose are more likely to talk about seeking out situations to engage their
purpose—they move their puzzle piece around and try different ―fits‖ with various
other pieces—instead of hanging out and expecting the fit to ―just happen.‖ They
also are more likely to talk about how challenges and struggles were opportunities
not barriers. They turned a negative—being teased or bullied at school, lack of jobs
for teens, witnessing a car accident, losing a loved one—into an emotional and
sometimes cognitive support to initiate a kindness campaign, start a high tech
business to give students internships, and be a health volunteer with the aim toward

131
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES AND PURPOSE

a career in cancer research (Malin et al., 2011). All of these supports were filtered
through intrapersonal intelligence that evaluated what the environment had to offer
in terms of the young person’s self-understanding. Rathman (2005) makes a strong
case that the development of intrapersonal intelligence should be the backbone of
education. Without that, young people won‘t know how to develop, make meaning
of, or make use of their other 7-1/2 intelligences without external direction and
motivation.
If schools don‘t include intrapersonal intelligence in standards, curricula, and
assessments, we don‘t ―see‖ it. It‘s an invisible aspect of the individual that we just
take for granted. There are some schools and school districts that make this
intelligence central. The private Hyde School in Maine emphasizes the effect of
one‘s thoughts and behaviors on others and how each student is a critical
component of the aggregate community. New Hampshire schools have a Follow
the Child initiative that tracks individual strengths, weaknesses, and interests from
K through 12. England‘s standards incorporate Personal, Social, Health, Economic
Education and Citizenship Education that places leadership, self-awareness and
making a positive contribution at its core.
But many schools fall short of supporting intrapersonal intelligence and
purpose. Perhaps the best ―testing‖ is real-life, purposeful, problem-solving
contributions. Again, purpose emphasizes how the child can, will, and does
intentionally contribute to the community. It is a step beyond performance and
demonstration of competency, which are more often assessed in educational
practice. Performance and demonstration make learning and capabilities visible;
they show what students can do. But they often do not have an impact on the wider
school, neighborhood, or beyond. These emphases still keep students segregated
from playing a real role in their cultures. As one American principal proclaimed in
his chapter in Multiple Intelligences around the World, what is needed is relevance
(Rizzo, 2009). Two Colombian scholars eloquently described how making a
genuine contribution to their communities affects young people: youth can
―pronounce themselves as people‖ (Barrera & León-Agustí, 2009).
Many young people can and want to contribute, if given the opening. In
Argentina, students created an anthology of written work that was distributed to
community members. In Denmark, young people helped design exhibits in a
science park. In the Philippines, students planted trees and raised money for books
for poorer children. At the New City School in St Louis, different grade levels
focus on providing a service to the wider community: book-making, art framing,
birthday bashes, and an online newspaper (see Chen et al., 2009).

CONCLUSION: HELP YOUNG PEOPLE BE THEMSELVES NOT CONFORM TO AN

ABSTRACT STANDARD

Multiple intelligences are not ends in themselves—a ―performance‖ in a project or

a ―score‖ on an intelligence assessment is only meaningful in the context of a
reason for why the act or score may matter. Should we develop children‘s various
capacities? Absolutely! But we shouldn‘t stop there. We also need to support the
purposes toward which young people will direct those capacities.

132
 MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES AND PURPOSE

Assessments used as developmental tools to help educators understand who

young people are—and, better yet, to help young people understand themselves
better—are an important support. The scales described in this volume are
particularly valuable tools because they incorporate sensitivity and self-evaluation.
Thus, they can be viewed as assessments of intrapersonal intelligence and of the
interaction of the person with cultural, spiritual, and physical aspects of the
environment.
It would be helpful for citizens of all ages to perceive, seek, find, use, evaluate,
and refine cultural resources. Intelligences are cultural resources: developing the
minds of citizens is how culture carries on and develops. Ultimately, those
resources appropriated by individuals should be given back to the culture in the
form of new products and tools for others to use and further develop. We are part
of something larger. Harnessing cultural resources in a thoughtful, proactive
manner is being purposeful.
Intelligence and purpose are not either/or propositions. We don‘t have to
choose between them. Rather intelligences and purpose development are
symbiotic—one catalyzes the other. Stimulating young people to find their
purposes—what their particular profile of intellectual strengths and weaknesses can
contribute—helps each child become more himself or herself, instead of everyone
trying to be cut from the same mold. Each of us matters, not because of scores, but
because of what we can contribute to the ―bigger picture.‖ When our contributions
interact, our cultures and societies become even richer.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you to Kirsi Tirri; Howard Gardner and the GoodWork Project, Harvard
University; Vera John-Steiner, University of New Mexico; and William Damon
and the Youth Purpose Project, Stanford University.

REFERENCES
Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Ariely, D. (2009). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York:
HarperCollins.
Barrera, M. X., & León-Agustí, P. (2009). Personal intelligences and a Colombian experience. In J.
Chen, S. Moran, & H. Gardner (Eds.), Multiple intelligences around the world. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston: HoughtonMifflin.
Chen, J., Moran, S., & Gardner, H. (Eds.) (2009). Multiple intelligences around the world. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J.
Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 325-339). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Damon, W. (2008). The path to purpose: Helping our children find their calling in life. New York: Free
Press.
Damon, W., Menon, J., & Bronk, K. C. (2003). The development of purpose during adolescence.
Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 119-128.
Downey, L. A., Mountstephen, J., Lloyd, J., Hansen, K., & Stough, C. (2008). Emotional intelligence
and scholastic achievement in Australian adolescents. Australian Journal of Psychology, 60(1),
10-17.
Fischer, K. W., & Pipp, S. L. (1984). Processes of cognitive development: Optimal level and skill

133
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES AND PURPOSE

acquisition. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Mechanisms of cognitive development (pp. 45-80). New

York: Freeman.
Furnham, A. (2008). Personality and intelligence at work: Exploring and explaining individual
differences at work. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York: Basic Books.
Gestdottir, S., & Lerner, R. M. (2007). Intentional self-regulation and positive youth development in
early adolescence: Findings from the 4-H study of positive youth development. Developmental
Psychology, 43(2), 508–521.
Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). The challenge and promise of cognitive career assessment. Journal of Career
Assessment, 11, 115–135.
Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve. New York: Free Press.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ. New York: World Book.
Larson, R. (2006). Positive youth development, willful adolescents, and mentoring. Journal of
Community Psychology, 34(6), 677-689.
Lubinski, D. (2004). Introduction to the special section on cognitive abilities: 100 years after
Spearman's (1904) "'General Intelligence,' Objectively Determined and Measured." Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 86(1), 96-111.
Malin, H., Reilly, T. S., Quinn, B., & Moran, S. (2011, under review). Adolescent purpose
development: Exploring empathy, discovering roles, shifting priorities, and creating pathways.
Marken, R.S. (1990). A science of purpose. American Behavioral Scientist, 34(1), 6-13.
Moran, S. (2009a). Purpose: Giftedness in intrapersonal intelligence. High Ability Studies, 20(2), 143-
159.
Moran, S. (2009b). What role does commitment play among writers with different levels of creativity?
Creativity Research Journal, 21(2-3), 243-257.
Moran, S. (2009c). Why multiple intelligences? In J. Chen, S. Moran, & H. Gardner (Eds.), Multiple
intelligences around the world (pp. 365-373). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moran, S. (2010). Changing the world: Tolerance and creativity aspirations among American youth.
High Ability Studies, 21(2), 117-132.
Moran, S., Bundick, M., Malin, H., & Reilly, T. S. (2011, under review). Psychological and social
sources for
youth purpose.
Moran, S., & Gardner, H. (2006a). Extraordinary cognitive achievements: A developmental and systems
analysis. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & D. Kuhn & R.S. Siegler (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol. 2 Cognition, perception, and language (6th ed.; pp. 905-949). New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Moran, S., & Gardner, H. (2006b). Multiple intelligences in the workplace. In H. Gardner, Multiple
intelligences: New horizons (pp. 213-232). New York: Basic Books.
Moran, S., & John-Steiner, V. (2003). Creativity in the making: Vygotsky‘s contribution to the dialectic
of creativity and development. In K. Sawyer et al., Creativity and development (pp. 61-90). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Moran, S., & John-Steiner, V. (2004). How collaboration in creative work impacts identity and
motivation. In D. Miell & K. Littleton (Eds.), Collaborative creativity: Contemporary
perspectives
(pp. 11-25). London: Free Association Books.
Moran, S., Kornhaber, M., & Gardner, H. (2006, September). Orchestrating multiple intelligences.
Educational Leadership, 21-27.
Perkins, D., Tishman, S., Ritchhart, R., Donis, K., & Andrade, A. (2000). Intelligence in the wild: A
dispositional view of intellectual traits. Educational Psychology Review, 12 (3), 269-293.
Rathman, K. (2005). Education, self-knowledge and life-planning: Why schools should help students
decide ―who‖ rather than just ―what‖ they want to be. Unpublished thesis: University of London,
Institute of Education.
Rizzo, V. (2009). The Howard Gardner School for Discovery. In J. Chen, S. Moran, & H. Gardner
(Eds.), Multiple intelligences around the world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rode, J. C., Arthaud-Day, M. L., Mooney, C. H., Near, J. P., & Baldwin, T. T. (2008). Ability and
personality predictors of salary, perceived job success, and perceived career success in the initial
career stage. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16(3), 292-299.
Sackett, P. R., Borneman, M. J., & Connelly, B. S. (2008). High stakes testing in higher education and
employment: Appraising the evidence for validity and fairness. American Psychologist, 63(4),
215-227.

134
 MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES AND PURPOSE

Sawyer, R. K. (2003). Emergence in creativity and development. In K. Sawyer et al., Creativity and
development (pp. 12-60). New York: Oxford University Press.
Sears, P. S., & Barbee, A. H. (1977). Career and life satisfactions among Terman‘s gifted women. In J.
C. Stanley, W. C. George, & C. H. Solano (Eds.), The gifted and the creative: A fifty year
perspective (pp. 28-65). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University.
Shearer, C. B. (2009). The challenges of assessing multiple intelligences around the world. In J. Chen,
S. Moran, & H. Gardner (Eds.), Multiple intelligences around the world. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Stanovich, K. E. (2009). What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of rational thought. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., Nokes, C., Geissler, P. W., Prince, R., Okiatcha, F., Bundy, D. A., & Grigorenko, E. L.
(2001). The relationship between academic and practical intelligence: A case study in Kenya.
Intelligence, 29 (5), 401-418.
Subotnik, R., & Arnold, A. (Eds.). (1994). Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of
giftedness and talent. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Terman, L. W., & Oden, M. H. (1947). The gifted child grows up. (Vol. III of Genetic studies of genius,
L. M. Terman (Ed.)). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Tirri, K. (2008). Introduction. In K. Tirri (Ed.), Educating moral sensibilities in urban schools (pp. ix-
xv). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Tirri, K., & Nokelainen, P. (2008). Identification of multiple intelligences with the Multiple Intelligence
Profiling Questionnaire III. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50(2), 206-221.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole,
V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wechsler, D. (1958). The measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence. Baltimore: Williams &
Wilkins.
Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D., & Matthews, G. (2008). The science of emotional intelligence: Current
consensus and controversies. European Psychologist, 13(1), 64-78.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Goal setting: A key proactive source of academic self-regulation. In D. H.
Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research
and applications (pp. 267-295).

135
136
 AUTHOR INFORMATION

Dr. Kirsi Tirri

University of Helsinki, Finland
E-mail: [email protected]

Kirsi Tirri, PhD, Mth, is Professor of Education at the Department of Teacher Education,
University of Helsinki. She is also a Visiting Scholar at the Center on Adolescence, Stanford
University. She is a President of the European Council for High Ability (ECHA) and
International Studies SIG at the American Educational Research Association (AERA). Dr.
Tirri has published 12 monographs and numerous journal articles in international refereed
journals. Her research interests include teaching and learning, teacher education, gifted
education and moral education. She serves in 10 editorial boards of educational journals.
More information about her research, publications and teaching is available at:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~ktirri.

Dr. Petri Nokelainen

University of Tampere, Finland
E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Nokelainen is Senior Researcher and Adjunct Professor (Vocational Education) at the
University of Tampere, Finland. He is also an Adjunct Professor at the University of
Helsinki, Finland (Methodology) and the Tallinn University, Estonia (Education). His
research interests include investigation of exceptional abilities (gifted and talented),
professional growth and learning, quantitative methods and psychometrics, and educational
technology applications. Nokelainen has over one hundred scientific publications, including
journal articles and book chapters, on these topics. He is the editor of Finnish Journal of
Vocational Education and serves in several editorial boards of educational journals. More
information about his research, publications and teaching is available at:
http://www.uta.fi/u/petri.nokelainen.

137
138
 INDEX

Environment-friendly consumer
Awareness sensing; 17
habits; 41
Bayesian Dependency Modeling; 84
Ethical Sensitivity Scale; 59
Bayesian Network; 85
dimensions; 62
Cognitive-Developmental theory; 59
items; 64
Community sensing; 17
Exploratory Factor Analysis; 21, 23,
Competence; 79 44, 64
Confirmatory Factor Analysis; 28 Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin; 21, 44
CFI; 9, 29, 51, 110, 114 Varimax rotation; 22, 44
goodness-of-fit; 8, 9 Holistic education; vii
RMSEA; 8, 28, 50, 110, 114 Human spirituality; 17
SRMR; 28, 50 Hypothetical dilemmas; 60
TLI; 9, 29, 51, 110, 114 Intelligence; 1, 4, 77, 90
Correlational analysis; 7, 23, 26, 46, bodily-kinesthetic; 1, 2, 3, 4, 6,
47 15, 39
Cronbach's alpha; 63, 113, 115 emotional; 16, 80, 82
Defining Issues Test; 59 environmental; 37
P score; 59 interpersonal; 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 15, 39,
46
Developmental Model of
Intercultural Sensitivity; 101 intrapersonal; 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 15, 39
Devotional spirituality; 17 linguistic; 1, 2, 4, 6, 15, 39, 46
Emotional intelligence; 77 logical-mathematical; 1, 2, 4, 6,
15, 39
Emotional Leadership
Questionnaire; 77 musical; 1, 2, 4, 6, 15, 39, 46
dimensions; 83 naturalistic; 37
items; 94 spatial; 1, 2, 4, 6, 15, 39, 46
Emotional Quotient; 78 spiritual; 15, 16, 17, 21, 27
Environmental Intelligence; 37 Intelligence assessment; 127
Environmental Sensitivity Scale; 37 Intercultural Development
Inventory; 101
dimensions; 41
Intercultural Sensitivity Scale
items; 42
dimensions; 106

139
 items; 107 ELQ; 97
Interreligious Sensitivity Scale EnSS; 57
dimensions; 106 ESS; 74
items; 112 ICSS; 118
Life-long learning; vii IRRSS; 121
Likert scale; 1 MIPQ IX; 55
Love for nature; 41 MIPQ VII; 12
Mann-Whitney U–test; 63 MIPQ VIII; 33
Moral SSS; 35
character; 59 Reliability; 5, 44, 64, 88, 108
judgment; 59 Self-concept; viii
motivation; 59 Spiritual Sensitivity Scale; 15
sensitivity; 59 dimensions; 17
Multiple Intelligences Profiling items; 20
Questionnaire
SPSS syntax
MIPQ IX; 37
ELQ factors; 100
MIPQ VII; 1
EnSS factors; 58
MIPQ VIII; 15
ESS factors; 76
Multiple Intelligences theory; 1, 3, 4,
ICSS factors; 120
15, 37, 39, 77, 90
IRRSS factors; 122
cultural purposes; 129
MIPQ IX factors; 58
purpose; 124
MIPQ VII factors; 14
Mystery sensing; 17
MIPQ VIII factors; 36
Nature conservation; 41
SSS factors; 36
Practical spirituality; 17
Type I error; 5
Principal Component Analysis; 23,
45 Value sensing; 17
Questionnaires

140

View publication stats