Dr.Alpna an important role in many areas

                                                                                       Dr.Alpna Aggrawal*, Madhu Bala**, Anita Moral***                    Thepaper examines the effect of occupation, gender and aggression on emotionalintelligence.

In order to pursue the above objective aggression scale andemotional intelligence scale was used to collect the data. The sample consistedof 300 subjects selected by stratified randomization from various cities. Theselected subjects were divided into equal sub groups according to occupation.There were 100 executives (50 male and 50 female),100 educationist (50 male and50 female) and 100 technocrat ( 50 male and 50 female).The sample of male andfemale related  to each occupationconsisted equal numbers of high aggressive and low aggressive subjects. Datawere analyzed by using 3x2x2 ANOVA.Findings of the study revealed thatoccupation affect significantly emotional intelligence. Female have betteremotional intelligence than males.

Low aggressive occupationists are higher onemotional intelligence as compared to high aggressive occupationist.Key words:-occupation(Executive, Educationist & Technocrat), Gender, Aggression, Emotionalintelligence.                         Emotional intelligence is a combination of competencies .

These skillscontributes to person’s ability to manage and monitor his or her own emotions,to correctly gauge the emotional stage of others and to influence opinions(Caurdon, 1999., Goleman, 1998a).Yate (1977) found that different jobs require differentlevels of emotional intelligence .It is now recognized that emotionalintelligence plays an important role in many areas of life, including work.Rohini, Einstein (2002), Agut, Grau & Peiro (2003), investigated executive,managers and teachers and found that each job required a different level ofcompetency in dealing with others. In a study Schutte et al. (1998); Mehrabian(2000) and Davis et al. (200o) found that significant gender differenceappeared among most of the predictor variables, including the traitsforgiveness, emotional empathy, emotional intelligence and degree of macho.

Asexpected, the degree of anger and jealousy did not differ by gender. Andersonand Anderson (2006) found that anger management increases the level ofemotional intelligence .In his studies he found that a client used theassertive communication, rather than passive-aggressive or aggressivecommunication and was able to see constructive change in his relationship withothers. As well some changes were also noticed in self esteem.                *Lecturer,Deparment of Psychology, C.

C.S.U.Campus, Meerut.                                                            **Lecturer,Deparment of Psychology,R.

B.S.College,Agra                                                                          ***Lecturer, Deparment ofPsychology,S.V.S.College,Aligarh.

                                                                                                                                         Method Purpose:-To studythe effect of occupation, gender, and aggression on emotional intelligence. 1.      There will be no significant effect ofoccupation on emotional intelligence.2.      There will be no significant effect of gender onemotional intelligence.  3.      There will be no significant effect ofaggression on emotional intelligence.4.

      There will be no significant interaction effectbetween occupation and gender on emotional intelligence.5.      There will be no significant interaction effectbetween occupation and aggression on emotional intelligence.6.

      There will be no significant interaction effectbetween gender and aggression on emotional intelligence.7.      There will be no significant interaction effectamong occupation, gender and aggression on emotional intelligence.Sample:-Initiallyaggression scale was administered on 600 subjects. Out of which 300 subjectswere selected for this study.

The selected subjects were divided into threeequal sub groups according to occupation .There were 100 executive (50 male and50 female), 100 educationists (50 male and female) and 100 technocrat (50 maleand 50 female).In each group there were 25 high aggressive and 25 lowaggressive subjects.Tools:-Thefollowing tests were used in this study. 1.

      Aggression scale constructed by Prof.S.N.Rai.  2.      Emotional Intelligence scale constructed byAnukool Hyde, Sanjyot Pathe and Upinder Dhar.     Above two measuresare reliable and valid measures.

Scoring procedure and norms are given in themanual of the tests. StatisticalAnalysis:-The obtained score data were analyzed by using Mean, 3×2 x2 ANOVAand Newman keuls test.                                                                                        RESULT    The obtained dataafter tabulation were statistically analyzed with the help of Mean, Analysis ofVariance (ANOVA) and Newman keuls test. The obtained data result are interpretedand shown in the following tables. ANOVA is shown in table -1; Mean scores areshown in table -2 and Newman keuls test also shown in table-3.

    Table-1: Summary of (3x2x2) ANOVA for Emotional Intelligence scores (N=300) Source of variance Ss df MS F A(occupation) 20551.327 2 10275.6635 69.92**         B(Gender) 13187.071 1 13187.071 89.

73** C(Aggression) 20254.084 1 20254.084 137.82** AxB 13082.419 2 6541.2095 44.51** AxC 4351.286 2 2175.

643 14.80** BxC 8184.962 1 8184.962 55.69** AxBxC 8955.208 2 4477.

604 30.47** Within treatment error 42325.68 288 146.

964   Total 130892.037 299     **Denotes significantat 0.01 level of confidence Table-2: Mean scores Emotional Intelligence Variables Levels of Variables Mean Scores Occupation Executive 142.76 Educationist 125.03 Technocrat 125.38 Gender Male 124.

43 Female 137.69 Aggression High Aggression 122.84 Low Aggression 138.27                                                                                           Table-3: Summary of Newman Keuls comparison test for main effect ofoccupation on Emotional Intelligence Ordered Mean Ordered Mean                    A2              125.03          A3 125.38       A1 142.76 A2 125.03   0.

35 17.73** A3 125.38     17.38** **Denotes significantat 0.01 level of confidence.                                  Discussion: – Thepurpose of the present research to study the effect of occupation, gender, andaggression on emotional intelligence. The obtained results are showing veryinteresting pattern of the effect of occupation, gender, and aggression onemotional intelligence. In this study first independent variable   wasoccupation is designated as factor “A”, second independent variable was genderdesignated as factor “B” and third independent variable was aggressiondesignated as factor “C”.

Factor A  hasthree  levels  Executive ,Educationist andTechnocrate,factor B  has two levels  male and female, factor C also has two levelshigh aggression and low aggression. A close look of table of ANOVA clearlyreveals that F value of factor A is 69.92 that exceed the critical value at0.01 levels. This significant F ratio indicates that occupation significantlyaffect the emotional intelligence of the subjects .The mean values of emotionalintelligence  scores of Executives is142.76,Educationist is 125.

03 and Technocrat is 125.38.Which reveals the factthat executives have highest degree of emotional intelligence ,whileeducationist has lowest degree of emotional intelligence and technocrats are inthe middle range.

Emotional intelligence is the capacity of an individualdefines his/he own emotions, and become sensitive to those, that he/sheperceives from the environment and the circle of people, he/she is interactingwith. It may also be said that emotional intelligence is the use of knowledgeof these emotions to control situations and create plans and decision based onthe perceived emotions .The executives has to take many challenging decisionsand tasks, which enables him/her to believe in his/her own abilities andapproach to tasks and problems. Sometimes he/she is required   to take momentary decisions, while reallyhelp the person to be mature with high emotional intelligence. Secondlytechnocrats have scored higher than educationist in terms of emotionalintelligence. The technical field is very close to public dealing. So thesepeople have the ability to impact and influence people.

So they easily   learn the art to influencing peopleeffectively at the workplace. Educationist is lower than executives and technocrats.Because educationist have to deal with a small and limited group of students.Each and every day a teacher will face to same group of students. So, there isno need to enhance   more emotionalcompetencies day by day due to certainty of same people for a long time (yearor months). On the basis of these facts, it may be concluded that the higherposition in an organization requires more emotional intelligence. A close look of the table of ANOVA clearly reveals that Fvalue for factor B is 89.73 that exceed that critical value at 0.

01 level. Thissignificant F ratio indicates that gender significantly affects the emotionalintelligence. The mean value of emotional intelligence score of male 124.43 andfemale is 137.

69.Brackett; Mayer and Warner (2004) also support these findings.They found that women have higher emotional intelligence as compared to men. Itwas found that males have low emotional intelligence with the inability toperceive emotions and facilitate thought, which was associated with negativeoutcomes, including use of illegal drugs and alcohol, deviant behavior and poorrelationship with friends.

Many research studies have been conducted towardsincrease in organizations philosophy towards gender equality, that has come inthe form, that today women are expected to” look like a lady and act like aman.”These findings lead us to conclude, that women are more capable ofhandling the people and recognizing their needs as compared to men.   A close look of the table of ANOVA clearly reveals that Fvalue for factor C is 137.82 that exceeds the critical value at 0.01 level.

This significant F ratio indicates that aggression significantly affects thedegree of emotional intelligence. The mean value of emotional intelligencescore of high aggressive subjects is 122.84 and low aggressive subjects are138.

27. Which reveal the fact that low aggressive subjects have betteremotional intelligence as compared to high aggressive subjects .The person whohave high aggression, are often ladled as impulsive ,short tempered, takemomentary decisions, bullying behavior and so forth. At the workplace, angerhas an adverse impact on performance .It makes you ‘reactoholic’, that is,reacting to other people’s ‘push buttons’; it makes one a powerful reactorrather than a powerful actor; like you being a television, you hand over itsremote control in other hand.

So it may be concluded that low aggressiveoccupationist are higher on emotional intelligence as compared to highaggressive occupationist.F value for AxB is 44.51 that exceeds the critical value at0.01.This significant F ratio indicates that emotional intelligence issignificantly affected by an interaction effect of occupation and gender. F value for AxC is 14.80 that exceeds the critical value at0.

01 level. This significant F ratio indicates that emotional intelligence is significantlyaffected by an interaction effect of occupation and aggression.F value for Bxcis 55.69 that exceeds the critical value at0.01 level. This  significantly affected by an interaction  effect of gender and aggression .F valuefor  AxBxC is 30.

47 that exceeds  the critical value  of 0.01 level .This significant F ratio  indicates that emotional intelligence  is significantly affected by an interactioneffect of occupation ,gender and aggression. In the light of the findings it can   be concluded that executive have the highestdegree of emotional intelligence, while educationist has lowest degree ofemotional intelligence and technocrats are in the middle range.

The female occupationistshave better emotional intelligence as compared to male occupationist .Eemotional intelligence in low aggressive subjects is greater than that in highaggressive subjects.                                                                         References 1.       Agut,S.,Grau,R.,&Peiro,J.M.

(2003).Competence need among managers  from Spanish  Hotels and restaurants and  their training demands. InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management, 22(3).281-295. 2.

       Andersonand Anderson (2006).EmotionalIntelligence for Casino workers.Retrived July 15, 2006 fromhttp://www.anderson service .

com/Anderson & Anderson news and article .htm. 3.      Brackett,M.A.

,Mayer,J.D.,&Warner,R.M(2004).EmotionalIntelligence and its relation to everyday behavior.Personality and Individual Differences,36,(6)1387-1402.

4.      Caurdon, S. (1999).

What Emotional Intelligence.Is and Is not.Workforce.78, 62. 5.       Davis,K.E.

, Ace, A., & Andra, M. (2000).Stalking Perpetrators and Psychologicalmaltreatment of Partners: Attachment, insecurity, need for control, and breakupcontext. Violence and Victims,15,407-425. 6.      Einstien, A.

J. (2002).Study of Emotion Competence and Reactivity of Teachers.Unupublishedproject report (M.phil in Psychology) submitted to university of Madras.

7.      Goleman, D. (1998a).Working with Emotional Intelligence .New York, NY: Bantam Books. 8.

      Mehrabian, A. (2000).Manual for the Balance Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES).

Availablefrom Albert Mehrabian, 1130.Alta Mesa Road, Monterey, CA93940. 9.      Rohini (2002) The Emotional Intelligence among middle level executive of governmentand private organization. Unpublished M.

sc thesis in Psychology Sumitted tothe university Madras. 10.   Schutte,N.S.

,Malouff,J.M.,Hall,L.E.,Hyggerty,D.

J.,Cooper,J.T.,Golden,C.

J. &Dornheim,L.(1998).Development  andvalidation of a measure of emotional intelligence  Personalityand Individual Differences,25,(2),167-177.

11.  Yate, M. (1977).Career smarts, Jobs with a future.New York: Ballantine Books.