RESEARCH QUESTION
Can trait emotional intelligence (i.e., a set of behavioural dispositions related to the ability to process emotion-laden information) facilitate decision making on a social gambling task?

 PURPOSE
The suggestion that trait emotional intelligence facilitates decisions in social situations is supported by dual-process theories of decision making which propose the existence of two distinct but interacting cognitive systems. System 1 is intuitive and unreflecting, mediating innate and instinctive behaviours. System 2 is responsible for thorough, logical reasoning and analytical cognitions. In System 1, immediate cognitions and behaviours would be facilitated by trait emotional intelligence because of the speed of System 1 processes and the innate character of core emotions which are thought to have increased the chance of survival in our evolutionary past. In any given situation, social cues are provided through the mere presence of other people. The present study used facial expressions of emotion as salient social cues as part of a computerised card gambling task to trigger System 1 processes. System 1 promotes specific behaviours by linking external cues to behavioural schema based on learned or inherent associations. System 2 re-evaluates these internal cues and overrules the initial System 1 promoted behaviours if necessary (based on a more analytical conclusion). The purpose of the present study was to examine facilitative effects of trait emotional intelligence on decision making in a socially moderated, financial context. 

HYPOTHESIS
Trait emotional intelligence would affect emotional cue processing and subsequent social decision making performance.  

PARTICIPANTS
Participants were 100 volunteers (average age = 25 years; 43% males) recruited from a European university student/staff population.  

PROCEDURE
Participants completed an emotional intelligence questionnaire a computer based gambling task which required the player to make sequential financial decisions when also presented with a picture of facial affect.  

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE
The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire assessed 15 facets and four factors (i.e., well-being, self-control, emotionality, and sociability) of trait emotional intelligence, and provided a global trait emotional intelligence score. Decision making performance was assessed via a computerized card game in which the participant was instructed that the goal was to maximize their winnings. The game’s card deck consisted of 30 cards. In each round, the player was randomly presented a card on the computer screen, showing a monetary value between £1 and £30. The player was informed that the computer would also randomly be assigned a card from the same card deck which would not be seen. Immediately prior to the player’s card being shown on the screen, a facial expression that displayed either a happy, neutral, or fearful emotion was presented for 600 ms. The player was then asked to decide whether the computer’s card was higher or lower than the card displayed. During the game the player did not receive any feedback about the win or loss of a hand, about the cumulative earnings/losses, or when the game would finish. Each card randomly occurred three times during the game, but each time in combination with a different of the three emotional cues. Thus, each player made 90 decisions in total. There was no time limit for participants to make a decision.  

KEY RESULTS
Participants’ trait emotional intelligence scores were classified as high or low using a median split; card values were classified as low (£1–£10), middle (£11–£20) and high (£21–£30). Participants who scored high on sociability, social awareness, and capability to foster interpersonal relationships performed better than low scorers in the various card value and affective cue conditions of the gambling task. The hypothesis that trait emotional intelligence would affect emotional cue processing and subsequent social decision making performance was supported. Also, the findings were consistent with the interplay of Systems 1 and 2 in dual-process theories of cognition. 

LIMITATIONS
The ecological validity of the findings was low due to the highly controlled setting. Moreover, the facial expressions were caricatured affective stimuli used showed extremely intense emotions which would seldom be observed in real life. Finally, the type of decisions made was very basic and did not necessarily reflect every day decisions (which are generally more complex, encompassing manifold variables with unknown probabilities).

 CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the present research suggests that individuals high in trait emotional intelligence process affective cues differently than do individuals low in trait emotional intelligence. This resulted in less distraction and enhanced decisions in the social gambling task. Future research should aim to replicate the findings, making them applicable to a wider range of contexts.