Introduction
There is wide consensus on the importance of learners as individuals and their characteristics which significantly impact their learning (Brown, 2000). The Intelligence quotient (IQ) as a reflection of an individual’s mental ability has traditionally been known as one of the determining psychological factors affecting learning. Many studies in psychology and psycholinguistics have proposed the presence of factors other than IQ affecting learning, and emphasized the crucial role of Emotional Intelligence (EI) in the learning process (Charbonneau & Nicol, 2002; Fatemi et al., 2014; Lopes, et al., 2004; Petrides et al., 2004; Saklofske et al., 2003; Zarafshan & Ardeshiri, 2012).
Furthermore, the concepts of linguistic competence, incentives facilitating, and obstacles hindering performance have long been controversial issues in Foreign Language Learning (FLL) studies (Cameron, 2013; Rouhani, 2008; Shah Hosseini, 2011; Tousi & Khalaji, 2014). Scholars have mentioned various sociolinguistic, psychological, situational, and individual causes of controversy, among which psychological traces can be noticed and are of determining significance. Among others, the effect of motivation on learners’ achievement (Dörnyei, 2005), the role of learners’ instrumental and integrative motivation types, and the effects of sociolinguistic context and social interaction on learners’ internalization (Vygotsky, 1978) can be cited as examples. The increasing attention paid to psychological aspects in general and EI in particular in FLL studies is proof of this claim (Hashimoto, 2002; Motallebzadeh & Azizi, 2012). Since EI is a psychological element related to the mind of learners, it can affect one’s performance and communication (Bora, 2012; Khooei, 2014; MacIntyre, 2007; Parker et al., 2006; Soodmand Afshar & Rahimi, 2014). Therefore, it is particularly important to investigate how and to what degree EI in general, and its components in particular, affect learners’ performance in L2.
Emotional intelligence
EI, or emotional quotient (EQ) (Zarafshan & Ardeshiri, 2012), as a well-framed concept in the modern sense, was proposed and theorized by Salovey and Mayer (1990), taking both inter and intrapersonal ends of the continuum into consideration (Bar-On, 2006). They strongly emphasized the individual’s ability in perceiving and analyzing emotional understanding in a way that they can employ it in intellectual activities in external contexts. In fact, they assumed individuals as possessing the capability to adjust and moderate emotions according to inner and outer circumstances.
Like other psychological concepts which have influenced language learning and teaching, soon after EI as a novel line of thought was developed, language researchers began to investigate its dimensions in education in general (Allen et al., 2014; MacCann, et al., 2011; Parker et al., 2006) and in learning a foreign language (Ahmadi Safa, 2013; Ghanadi & Ketabi 2014; Nadafian et al., 2015; Zarei & Taheri, 2013). EI has been defined as an ability to manage emotion (Barchard & Hakstian, 2004), and according to Mayer and Salovey (1995), EI is a combination of skills contributing to control and repression of emotions to elevate motivation that results in accomplishing our goals. Although various definitions have been proposed regarding EI so far, the most comprehensive one seems to belong to Bar-On (2000), in which EI is non-cognitive and influences a person’s capabilities when he or she is faced with pressure imposed by the environment. Also, Bar-On (1997; 2000) is of the opinion that EI is important for perceiving emotions because interpersonal relationships are affected.
Several studies have tested the correlation between EI and academic achievement. Pishghadam (2009), for example, conducted a study on 508 English as a foreign language (EFL) university students to assess the correlation between their EI and language achievement on the four main skills. Findings indicated a profoundly close relationship between EI and language achievement. MacCann et al. (2011) also confirmed the beneficial effect of EI on the academic achievement of 293 middle school learners and 159 college students who participated in their study. In another study, Mohammadi (2012) examined the correlation between EI and English language learning among 191 students. The findings indicated the two variables correlated significantly. Abdolmanafi Rokni, et al., (2014) also tested EI and its impact on language achievement among 86 teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) and non-TEFL university students. EI was confirmed to have a paramount impact on students’ language achievement. Thus, it can be concluded that EI could positively affect learning in general and achievement of educational goals in particular.
Some studies, on the other hand, found no positive impact of EI on academic achievement. Newsome et al. (2000), for instance, reported no significant impact of EI nor its components on language achievement among 180 students who participated in their study. Meshkat (2011) also reported no positive impact of EI on 187 Iranian students’ academic success. In her quest to uncover any possible effect(s) that EI might have on language learning and achievement of 65 EFL learners, Khalili (2013) similarly reported no correlation between EI, language learning and the total marks of the learners on an exam. The aforementioned studies show that students’ inner feelings and thoughts are not always effective in their academic achievements.
A number of studies have tried to test a possible correlation between EI and willingness to communicate (WTC). Birjandi and Tabataba’ian (2012), for example, conducted a study on 88 Iranian English language learners to test a possible correlation between EI, foreign language anxiety, and WTC. To this end, they adopted Bar-On’s EQ-i, foreign language anxiety and WTC questionnaires. Their study revealed a strong connection between EI, foreign language anxiety and WTC. Tabatabaei and Jamshidifar (2014) scrutinized the correlation between EI and WTC among 60 Iranian EFL learners, employing WTC and EI questionnaires and they found a strong correlation. Ketabdar et al. (2014) also conducted a broader study on 130 EFL learners using McCroskey’s (1992) WTC and EI Samouei’s (2002) EI questionnaires. The results similarly revealed a positive correlation between EI and WTC. In another study, Rahbar et al. (2016) tested the correlation between EI and WTC among 60 Iranian intermediate EFL learners, employing WTC and EI questionnaires and they found a strong correlation. In a large scale study, Mehrpoor and Soleimani (2018) focused on the relationship among 340 EFL learners’ communication-related variables, including WTC with their EI and EI was found to be positively and significantly correlated with WTC. Additionally, Mirzapour and Chamani’s study (2020) indicated that students with higher degrees of EI were more eager to communicate with others. Thus, it could be concluded that EI can facilitate students’ WTC.
Willingness to communicate
Human beings commonly wish and need to share knowledge and seek information exchange. In fact, the primary goal associated with linguistic activities is communication. MacIntyre (2007) names language learning success as the ultimate end of all language programs that can be rightly guaranteed through applying WTC initiatives because it persuades learners to take an active part in linguistic communications both inside and outside the classroom. To him, elements facilitating and impeding WTC lie in both personal traits and context-related grounds.
Having personal traits in mind, Yashima et al. (2004) based their study on WTC as influenced by attitudes of 160 students. They claimed that WTC is enhanced by international posture, which is an attitudinal construct. Furthermore, in their article, Yu et al. (2011) tested personality-based variables in relation to WTC. This study illustrated a discussion on the correlation between WTC and psychological issues such as self-esteem, emotional stability, neuroticism, introversion, and extraversion. Beatty et al. (1998) claimed an intense correlation existing between communication apprehension and introversion and neuroticism. In another study, examining the relationship between international posture and WTC in the Iranian EFL context, Mahmoodi at el. (2013) tested the different components of attitude including international vocation/activities (IVA), intercultural friendship orientation in learning English (IFO), interest in foreign affairs (IFA) and intergroup approach avoidance tendency (IAAT), in relation to WTC. Five surveys were utilized to gather the data from 150 English language teaching (ELT) students. They found these components to be highly effective in WTC. Riasati and Rahimi’s (2018) study found personality-related factors, perceived speaking ability, fear of negative evaluation and speech correctness to be the main individual factors influencing willingness to speak English.
Turning to context-related features affecting WTC, Barjesteh et al. (2012), for instance, examined WTC in relation to four context-types and three receiver-types utilizing a questionnaire consisting of 20 items. Results indicated that two context-types (Group Discussion and Meetings) and one receiver-type (Friend) strongly affect WTC whereas others failed to prove effective The researchers claimed that Iranian EFL learners have not had the opportunity to be in communicative situations other than class interactions. It was further stated that Iranian EFL learners were not keen on speaking in unfamiliar circumstances, hypothesizing familiarity with context and receiver-types as determining factors in building a communication. Ghonsooly et al. (2013) also examined WTC among 243 learners. Findings demonstrated a positive correlation between WTC and classroom environment and perceived communicative competence. A negative correlation was detected for WTC and communication anxiety. Additionally, Riasati and Rahimi’s study (2018) found seating location, teacher, classroom atmosphere, task type, topic, and interlocutor effects as crucial situational or environmental factors.
There are also a number of studies which link WTC to foreign language learning. Nagy and Nikolov (2007), for instance, examined 64 Hungarian students’ WTC in English to identify the elements which make students most unwilling to communicate. The results revealed that students were most willing to speak English outside the class, whereas they felt most unwilling to speak in learning contexts. Amongst the reasons expressed, students’ self-perception about their linguistic proficiency was the most conspicuous. Anxiety and apprehension were also identified as sources of unwillingness to communicate. In another study, Fu et al. (2012) investigated WTC as influenced by various factors in a Chinese EFL context. Including 100 Chinese participants, the researchers tracked their level of WTC as influencing class participation. According to the results demonstrated, the subscales of motivation, personality factors, self-confidence, and interest affect the Chinese students’ class participation, while traditional Chinese culture hinders class participation. Additionally, Alemi (2012) explored WTC among 45 Iranian EFL engineering students. Results indicated low WTC among these students in and out of the classroom because there is no crucial need for these students to communicate in English. Moreover, in a large-scale study, Moazzam (2014) compared 232 EFL learners’ WTC with that of 131 English for academic purposes (EAP) learners. He found that EFL learners were more interested in communicating with native speakers of English than with nonnative speakers, while for EAP learners converse results were reported.
Significance of the Study and Statement of the Problem
Language instructors commonly dream about their students taking part in class discussions and strive to arouse their WTC and lead them into verbal and written activities in one way or another. To this end, instructors have to possess knowledge about their students’ inner thoughts and feelings to see which particular psychological dimension(s) has to be punctuated and emphasized to ensure learners’ WTC in a foreign language context. Language researchers have well understood the significance of psychological dimensions in FLL studies and several studies have been conducted on EI in relation to EFL/ESL learning (e.g., Ahmadi, 2014; Alavinia & Agha Alikhani, 2014; Birjandi & Tabataba’ian, 2012; Ketabdar et al., 2013; Tabatabaei & Jamshidifar 2013). However, the aforementioned studies and other similar ones have taken EI as a whole, not decomposing and specifying its underlying subcomponents, which might be related to and/or influence EFL issues in general and WTC in particular. Hence, EI, as a psychological index consisting of multidimensional components, should be studied to find the relationship between different dimensions of EI and WTC, and explore which particular EI component(s) best predict(s) WTC in EFL. Therefore, this study addressed the following questions:
1. Is there a significant correlation between EI and EFL learners’ WTC?
2. Which EI component(s) best predict(s) WTC in EFL learning processes?
Method
Participants
A total number of 67 EFL learners (25 male and 42 female), aged 18 to 32, constituted the research population. They were all senior BA students of English language and literature and had all passed basic general English credit courses. They were all upper intermediate and advanced language learners and had a thorough understanding of the issues under discussion. This study was conducted in a private university (Islamic Azad University in Sanandaj, Iran). The curriculum adopted for the English classes was based on the needs and demands in an EFL context such as Iran, where maximum exposure to linguistic input and interpersonal communication was of primary importance because there is almost no exposure to English outside of classes, and language exposure is only limited to the language classrooms. Students were found to be motivated and interested to participate in communicative exchanges, as is the case with any language learning context. In other words, participation in English classes was voluntary, and no students attended English classes out of a compulsory orientation. Therefore, the range and level of WTC of the participants was similar in the context of the study.
Instruments
Two adopted questionnaires, EI questionnaire and WTC in a Foreign Language questionnaire (WTC-FLQ), were utilized in this study. A detailed description of each is presented below.
Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (EIQ)
Bar-On’s (1997) 133-item EI questionnaire, also called EQ-i, is widely utilized in Second language acquisition (SLA) and EFL-related studies. However, EIQ developed by Hall et al. (1998), consisting of only 33 items was adopted in the present study. With so many items in Bar-On’s questionnaire, we would lose participants; therefore, to prevent attrition the latter questionnaire was selected. This test is a self-report of social and emotional behavior to provide a numerical description of an individual’s EI. The test covers the following six main components: Appraisal of Emotion in the Self (AES), Appraisal of Emotion in Others (AEO), Emotional Expression (EE), Emotional Regulation of the Self (ERS), Emotional Regulation of Others (ERO), and Utilization of Emotions in Problem Solving (UEPS). These components roughly comply with Bar-On’s five main sub-scales of intrapersonal, interpersonal, adaptability, stress management, and general mood. In Hall et al. (1998) two items are allocated to AES, seven items to AEO, two items to EE, eight items to ERS, five items to ERO, four items to UEPS, and five items are uncategorized. Responses are provided on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. To check the validity of the EIQ, it was piloted with 60 EFL learners. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index for this questionnaire was 0.8 which is considered adequate (Vogt & Johnson, 2015). Bartlett’s sphericity test was also run and the result was p<=.001, showing that there was enough correlation between the items. Furthermore, using Cronbach’s Alpha, the reliability of the questionnaire was determined at .82, which is considered adequate (Ary et al., 2018).
WTC in a Foreign Language Questionnaire (WTC-FLQ)
The original and widely known version of the WTC questionnaire was first published by McCroskey and Daly (1987). It is a psycholinguistic questionnaire assessing the possibility of initiation and maintenance of a verbal communication. Covered items fall in two domains: a) context-type, and b) receiver-type. The context-type category holds items covering issues such as group discussion, meeting, interpersonal, and public speaking. The receiver-type category, on the other hand, deals with the sources of feedback, who are either strangers, acquaintances, or friends.
These items reflect situations one might encounter in which they might choose to communicate or not, without taking into account psychological factors and the complexity of the processes present in foreign language learners’ minds. One of the crucial differences is the strategies foreign language learners use in their interlocutions. Learners’ conception of error making, interlanguage, and individual differences has to be mentioned as well (Ellis, 2010).
Taking this into account, the researchers adopted a multidimensional version of the questionnaire under the name of WTC-FLQ (Baghaei, 2011), which best meets the demands of the present study as an FLL-related one. The aforementioned test is parallel to McCroskey and Richmond’s (1987) original questionnaire tackling foreign language learners’ engagement in native and non-native communicative activities. The version adopted in this study is made up of 20 items reflecting various situations foreign language learners might encounter. Receiver types are native speakers of English (items 1-6), non-native speakers of English (items 7-12), and pedagogical interlocutors (items 13-20). Context types vary from group and face-to-face to public. Responses are provided on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. To check the validity of the WTC-FLQ, it was piloted with 60 EFL learners. The result of KMO was 0.8, which is considered adequate (Vogt & Johnson, 2015). Bartlett’s sphericity test was also performed and the result was p<=.001, indicating that there was enough correlation between the items. In addition, using Cronbach’s Alpha, the questionnaire was shown to be reliable as its reliability index was .79, which is considered adequate (Ary et al., 2018).
Procedure
Two adopted questionnaires (EIQ and WTC-FLQ) were completed by the participants in three sessions (one single session for each of the three classes). Considering the number of items to be answered, 30-40 minutes were allocated for answering both questionnaires. However, there were no time limitations. They were provided with an explanation and clarification whenever needed.
Results
The descriptive statistics of the scores of 67 EFL learners who completed EI and WTC questionnaires are displayed in Table 1.
Table 1: Descriptive statistics for the EI components and WTC
According to Hatch and Lazaraton (1991), one of the assumptions of parametric tests is the normality of distribution of the data under investigation. In order to see whether this assumption is met in our sample, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test of normality of distribution was run for both WTC and EI variables. As the K-S results were .810 and .704 for EI and WTC, respectively and p values were .528 and .705, both variables could exceed a level of significance of 0.05. Hence, they meet the normality condition.
To examine the first research question, Pearson product-moment correlation was carried out between the EI and WTC. The obtained p-value for this analysis was 0.01, which proves significant (p < 0.05). Thus, it can be argued that the two instruments are inter-related. In other words, the degree of WTC of Iranian EFL learners correlates with their level of EI, and vice versa. Also, R2 for the two instruments was 42%, which indicates a relatively good correlation.
In order to determine whether there is a relationship between the two variables, the correlation between each component of EI and WTC was probed. Table 2 illustrates the findings.
p<0.05
Table 2: Correlation between WTC and EI components
The results of correlation analysis showed that there are significant correlations between EI components (UEPS, ERO, ERS, EE, AEO and AEs) and WTC. The level of significance was determined at 0.01.
To answer the second research question as to what extent EI components can predict the degree of WTC among EFL learners, a multiple regression analysis was run.
Table 3: Model summary for EI components in predicting WTC
In Table 3, the model summary of regression analysis for EI components' total score in predicting WTC is presented. According to the results shown in Table 3, the correlation coefficient between the total score of dependent and independent variables is 0.69 and R2 is 0.48, which indicates the prediction degree of variance and the degree of changes in WTC by EI.
In Table 4, the result of the ANOVA test to examine the regression model in predicting WTC by EI components variables is indicated.
Table 4: ANOVA results for the prediction of WTC by EI
As shown in Table 4, F-value is 7.9 (p < 0.01) which is significant at α = 0.01. According to the results presented in Table 3, the accuracy of the regression model is substantiated and based on the results given in Table 4, it is revealed that EI components could strongly predict the degree of WTC. Therefore, the second research question is adequately addressed. Table 5 shows the results of multiple regression analysis for predicting the degree of WTC by EI components.
a. Dependent Variable: WTC
Table 5: Multiple correlations investigating the prediction of WTC by the components of EI
As indicated by standardized beta coefficients in Table 5, among all the components of EI, the two components of UEPS (β=0.28, p=0.03); ERO (β=0.32, p=0.04) could strongly predict the degree of WTC. Regarding t values of each variable which are significant at α = 0.05, it can be concluded that these two components could strongly predict the degree of EFL learners’ WTC. Beta coefficients also show the relationship between each component and EFL learners’ WTC. The beta values indicate comparison of the contribution of each independent variable. In this case, the larger beta coefficients are β=0.32 for ERO and β=0.28 for UEPS. This means that these two variables make the stronger unique contribution to explaining the dependent variable, which is EFL learners’ WTC. On the other hand, the beta values for ERS (β=0.12), EE (β=0.12), AEO (β= - 0.11), and AES (β=0.08) were significantly lower, indicating that they made less of a contribution, though still hold a Pearson correlation.
Discussion
This study aimed to investigate the correlation between EI and WTC and to explore the extent to which each of the different components of EI would predict the WTC in an EFL context. The results obtained in this study provide a positive answer to the first research question, which addressed the correlation between EI and WTC. They also indicate that UEPS and ERO, as two components of EI, are the main predictors of the EFL learners’ WTC.
These findings could generally be interpreted in the light of other similar studies that have provided support for the impact of EI on general performance, second language learning, and most specifically, WTC (e.g., Hashimoto, 2002; MacIntyre, 2007; Motallebzadeh & Azizi, 2012; Zarafshan & Ardeshiri, 2012). As such, this study endorses the assumption that EI constitutes a crucial factor facilitating performance in general, and the learning of and communicating in a second language, in particular. More specifically, with reference to the elements influencing the process and success in learning a foreign language, the congruence between the findings of this study and other similar ones (e.g., Alavinai & Agha AliKhani, 2014; Birjandi & Tabataba’ian, 2012; Ketabdar et al., 2013; Mehrpoor and Soleimani, 2018; Oz, 2015; Tabatabaei & Jamshidifar, 2013) could be interpreted as evidence supporting the role of EI as a significant predictor of the extent to which the L2 learner would be willing to engage in L2-mediated interpersonal communication.
Although this is a valuable finding to be considered in its own right, the study further pinpointed the nature of the relationship between EI and WTC to yield a fine-grained account of the contribution of each of the different components of EI in encouraging WTC in a foreign language. It provides the insight that, instead of relying on the correlation between WTC and EI as a unitary construct, we would better expect differential degrees of correlation between WTC and the sub-components of EI. That is, out of the six components of EI, four relating to interpersonal dimensions of EI and two associated with intrapersonal dimensions, the UEPS component and the ERO component were the first and second components accounting for most of the covariance between WTC and EI, respectively. Statistically speaking, this could mean that one interpersonal EI component (ERO) out of two interpersonal components and one intrapersonal EI component (UEPS) out of four intrapersonal components proved highly capable of predicting WTC. In other words, half of the interpersonal EI components claimed the highest predictive power of WTC while this portion was only one fourth for the intrapersonal side, indicating the significant role of interpersonal skills in engaging in and maintaining communication. This, in itself, highlights the importance of Bar-On’s interpersonal and adaptabilitysubscales of EI and reflects Cummins’ (1979, 1980) notion of ‘basic interpersonal communicative skills’, which represent the interactional and communicative functions of language as opposed to ‘cognitive/academic language proficiency’, which relate to knowledge about language forms.
Another interpretation of this finding could be that one component of each of the two dimensions of EI, namely interpersonal and intrapersonal dimensions, proved to be predictors of WTC in this study. In other words, it could be argued that WTC is a function of both intrapersonal and interpersonal skills and strategies. That is, every act of communication is co-constructed (Kramsch, 1986) in the sense that both intrapersonal strategic competences and interpersonal interactional capabilities are required for maintaining successful communicative exchanges. Therefore, if WTC partly predicts success in maintaining interpersonal communicative exchanges, EI, in turn, seems to predict WTC itself, hence indirectly contributing to success in communication. Generally, all the components of EI seem to be correlated with WTC, with the highest correlation indexes belonging to UEPS and ERO.
Conclusion and Pedagogical Implications
The paramount role that the psychological factors play in the foreign language learning processes is accepted by theorists, researchers, and practitioners. EI is undoubtedly one of the most significant concepts playing a crucial role in these processes as reaffirmed in this study. The findings of the present study will be of significance to EFL teachers. They, at the outset, bear witness to the attested role of affective factors in driving L2 learners’ inter-language development. They can also encourage active engagement in L2-mediated communicative exchanges as well as helping L2 learners regulate their own affective and psychological conditions. They will also provide language teachers and language assessment experts with the insight that active participation in communication is a matter of both intrinsic individual characteristics within L2 learners and the ability to create interpersonal rapport and adaptability. Therefore, they should be considered effective design features in both teaching and testing situations.
This study, however, suffered from some limitations as follows. On the one hand, the number of participants was not as high as needed because it was conducted in an EFL setting where English is only of limited use relegated to the confines of the classroom. Naturally, not many new learners enroll each semester and it is usually not easy to find the required number of participants for empirical studies. The fact that a small number of participants were included in this study is likely to weaken any generalizations of the findings. On the other hand, another limitation relates to the sampling method, which was based on convenience sampling. Moreover, the current study made use of questionnaires that have the inevitable shortcoming attached to self-report measures. In other words, participants were asked to show their perception in response to items that might not be in perfect match with real behaviors.
Acknowledgements
We are deeply indebted to the participants of this study, senior BA students of English language and literature, who kindly dedicated their time to us and completed the questionnaires. Also, we would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their excellent feedback. In addition, style editors and their meticulous reading in preparing this study to be published deserves a special thanks. However, we alone, are responsible for all remaining errors.
References
Abdolmanafi Rokni, S. J., Hamidi, H., & Gorgani, T. (2014). Investigating the relationship between emotional intelligence and language achievement: A case of TEFL and non-TEFL university students. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 5(3), 117-127.
Ahmadi, J. (2014). A quantitative analysis of the relationship between emotional intelligence and Iranian EFL learners’ speaking proficiency. Projournal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(2), 71-83.
Ahmadi Safa, M. (2013). Emotional intelligence and SLA: The case of interlanguage pragmatic competence. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 1-24. https://ijal.khu.ac.ir/article-1-1586-en.pdf
Alavinia, P., & Agha Alikhani, M. (2014). Willingness to communicate reappraised in the light of emotional intelligence and gender differences. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 143-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.400
Alemi, M. (2012). Willingness to communicate in English among Iranian EFL engineering students. Teaching of English Language and Literature Journal (TELL), 6(1), 103-119.
Allen, V., MacCann, C., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2014). Emotional intelligence in education. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.),. International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 162-182). Routledge.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Irvine, C. K. S., & Walker, D. (2018). Introduction to research in education. Cengage.
Baghaei, P. (2011). Validation of a multidimensional scale of willingness to communicate. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Methodology and Evaluation Section of the German Association of Psychology. Sep, 21-23, Bamberg, Germany.
Barchard, K. A., & Hakstian, A. R. (2004). The nature and measurement of emotional intelligence abilities: Basic dimensions and their relationships with other cognitive ability and personality variables. Educational and psychological measurement, 64(3), 437-462. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013164403261762
Barjesteh, H., Vaseghi, R., & Neissi, S. (2012). Iranian EFL learners' willingness to communicate across different context- and receiver-types. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(1), 47-54. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v2n1p47
Bar-On, R. (1997). BarOn emotional quotient inventory. Multi-health systems.
Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Intelligence Inventory (EQ-I). In R. Bar-On & D. A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and applications at home, school, and in the workplace (pp. 363-388). Jossey-Bass.
Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). Psicothema, 18(sup. 1), 13-25.
Beatty, M. J., McCroskey, J. C., & Heisel, A. D. (1998). Communication apprehension as temperamental expression: A communibiological paradigm. Communications Monographs, 65(3), 197-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759809376448
Birjandi, P., & Tabataba’ian, M. S. (2012). The interrelationships among emotional intelligence, foreign language anxiety, and willingness to communicate. Journal of American Science, 8(8), 725-730. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.7537/marsjas080812.110
Bora, F. D. (2012). The impact of emotional intelligence on developing speaking skills: from brain-based perspective. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 2094–2098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.434
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). Longman.
Cameron, D. (2013). Willingness to communicate in English as a second language as a stable trait or context-influenced variable: Case studies of Iranian migrants to New Zealand. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 36(2), 177-196. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.36.2.04cam
Charbonneau, D., & Nicol, A. A. M. (2002). Emotional intelligence and leadership in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(7), 1101-1113. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00216-1
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121-129. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED184334.pdf
Cummins, J. (1980). Psychological assessment of immigrant children: Logic or intuition? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1(2), 97-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1980.9994005
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Routledge.
Ellis, R. (2010). Second language acquisition, teacher education and language pedagogy. Language teaching, 43(2), 182-201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444809990139
Fatemi, M. A., Alimirzaei, H., Ghaffari, S., & Izadi, M. (2014). The relationship between EFL teachers' emotional intelligence and their autonomy, intelligence and job burnout, and autonomy and their job burnout. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 7(4), 307-314.
Fu, L., Wang, X., & Wang Y. (2012). The research on willingness to communicate in Chinese students’ EFL study. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(1), 112-117. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.1.112-117
Ghanadi, Z., & Ketabi, S. (2014). The relationship between emotional intelligence and learners’ belief about language learning: Iranian advanced EFL learners in focus. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(3), 518-523. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.3.518-523
Ghonsooly, B., Hosseini Fatemi, A., & Khajavy, G. H., (2013). Examining the relationships between willingness to communicate in English, communication confidence, and classroom environment. International Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology, 3(1), 63-71. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrset.2013.392
Hashimoto, Y. (2002). Motivation and willingness to communicate as predicators of reported L2 use: The Japanese ESL context. Second Language Studies, 20(2), 29-70. http://www.hawaii.edu/sls/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Hashimoto.pdf
Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). Design and statistics for applied linguistics: The research manuals. Newbury House.
Ketabdar, Z., Yazdani, S., & Yarahmadi, M. (2014). The relationship between emotional intelligence and willingness to communicate among Iranian EFL learners. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 3(3), 630-650. https://european-science.com/eojnss/article/view/1327/pdf
Khalili, S. (2013). Any effects of emotional intelligence on learning English language at Amir Bahador English language institute-Tehran. Switzerland Research Park Journal, 102(10), 998-1010.
Khooei, S. (2014). Emotional intelligence and its relation to oral task fluency, accuracy, and complexity among Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 6(2), 76–93.
Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366-372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05291.x
Lopes, P. N., Brackett, M. A., Nezlek, J. B., Schütz, A., Sellin, I., & Salovey, P. (2004). Emotional intelligence and social interaction. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 30(8), 1018-1034. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167204264762
MacCann, C., Fogarty, G. J., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2011). Coping mediates the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and academic achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.11.002
MacIntyre, P. D. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the second language: Understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 564-576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00623.x
Mahmoodi, N., Ghafoori, N., & Amini, D. (2013). Exploring the relationship between international posture and willingness to communicate in Iranian EFL context. Life Science Journal, 10(spec.issue 6), 466-471. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.7537/marslsj1006s13.71
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1995). Emotional intelligence and the construction and regulation of feelings. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 4(3), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-1849(05)80058-7
McCroskey, J. C., & Daly, J. A. (Eds.). (1987). Personality and interpersonal communication. SAGE.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to communicate. In J. C. McCroskey, & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 129-156). SAGE.
McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Reliability and validity of the willingness to communicate scale. Communication Quarterly, 40(1), 16-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379209369817
Mehrpoor, S., & Soleimani, N. (2018). On the relationships among EFL learners' willingness to communicate, communication apprehension, self-perceived competence and emotional intelligence. Khazar Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 21(3), 5-20. https://jhss-khazar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/1.Neda-Soleimani.1.pdf
Meshkat, M. (2011). The relationship between emotional intelligence and academic success. Journal of Technology of Education, 5(2), 201–204. https://dx.doi.org/10.22061/tej.2011.284
Mirzapour, F., & Chamani, P. S. (2020). The relationship between Iranian EFL learners’ emotional intelligence and their foreign language anxiety and willingness to communicate. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Research, 8(1), 38-43.
Moazzam, I. (2014). A comparison of willingness to communicate (WTC) between Iranian EFL and EAP learners. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 3(7), 57-72. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2014.813
Mohammadi, M. (2012). The role of emotional intelligence on English learning as a second language. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 3(9), 1953-1956. https://www.irjabs.com/files_site/paperlist/r_141_120929151944.pdf
Motallebzadeh, K., & Azizi, V. (2012). The relationship between Iranian EFL learners' emotional intelligence and their performance on TOEFL/PBT. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(1), 46-55. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v4i1.1382
Nadafian, M., Gholami Mehrdad, A., & Mahmoodi, M. H. (2015). The relationship between teachers’ gender and their interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 2(2), 24-30. http://www.ijeionline.com/attachments/article/36/IJEIonline_Vol.2_No.2_2015-2-03.pdf
Nagy, B., & Nikolov, M. (2007). A qualitative inquiry into Hungarian English majors’ willingness to communicate in English: Classroom perspectives. In J. Horváth & M. Nikolov (Eds.), UPRT 2007: Empirical studies in English (pp. 149-168). Lingua Franca Csoport.
Newsome, S., Day, A. L., & Catano, V. M. (2000). Assessing the predictive validity of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(6), 1005–1016. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00250-0
Oz, H. (2015). Emotional intelligence as a predictor of L2 communication. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 424 – 430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.117
Parker, J. D. A., Hogan, M. J., Eastabrook, J. M., Oke, A., & Wood, L. M. (2006). Emotional intelligence and student retention: Predicting the successful transition from high school to university. Personality and Individual differences, 41(7), 1329-1336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.04.022
Petrides, K. V., Frederickson, N., & Furnham, A. (2004). The role of trait emotional intelligence in academic performance and deviant behavior at school. Personality and individual differences, 36(2), 277-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00084-9
Pishghadam, R. (2009). A quantitative analysis of the relationship between emotional intelligence and foreign language learning. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6(1), 31-41. https://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/v6n12009/pishghadam.pdf
Rahbar, B., Suzani, M., & Sajadi, Z. (2016). The relationship between emotional intelligence and willingness to communicate among Iranian intermediate EFL learners. Journal of language teaching: Theory and practice, 2(3), 10-17.
Riasati, M. J., & Rahimi, F. (2018). Situational and individual factors engendering willingness to speak English in foreign language classrooms. Cogent Education, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1513313
Rouhani, A. (2008). An investigation into emotional intelligence, foreign language anxiety and empathy through a cognitive-affective course in an EFL context. Liguistik Online, 34(2), 40-57. https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.34.526
Saklofske, D. H., Austin, E. J., & Minski, P. S. (2003). Factor structure and validity of a trait emotional intelligence measure. Personality and Individual differences, 34(4), 707-721. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00056-9
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9(3), 185-211. https://doi.org/10.2190%2FDUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG
Samouei, R. (2002). Interpreting and analyzing Bar-On EQ inventory. Journal of Sina Research Center, 6(2), 1-10.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and individual differences, 25(2), 167-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00001-4
Shah Hosseini, S. (2011). The relationship between Iranian EFL learners' emotional intelligence and their speaking strategy. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Islamic Azad University.
Soodmand Afshar, H., & Rahimi, M. (2014). The relationship among emotional intelligence, critical thinking, and speaking ability of Iranian EFL learners. Teaching English Language, 8(1), 31–59. https://dx.doi.org/10.22132/tel.2014.54564
Tabatabaei, O., & Jamshidifar, M. (2014).The relationship between emotional intelligence and willingness to communicate among EFL learners. International Journal of English Language Education, 2(1), 90-99. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijele.v2i1.4650
Tousi, S. M., & Khalaji, H. (2014). The impact of willingness to communicate on Iranian EFL learners speaking ability. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences 8(11), 1866-1869. https://www.irjabs.com/files_site/paperlist/r_2391_141118221038.pdf
Vogt, W. P., & Johnson, R. B. (2015). The SAGE dictionary of statistics & methodology: A nontechnical guide for the social sciences. SAGE.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Socio-cultural theory. Mind in society, 6, 52-58.
Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishde, L., & Shimizu, K. (2004). The influence of attitudes and affect on willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning, 54(1), 119-152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00250.x
Yu, H., Li, H., & Gou, X. (2011). The personality-based variables and their correlations underlying willingness to communicate. Asian Social Science, 7(3), 253-257. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v7n3p253
Zarafshan, Z., & Ardeshiri, M. (2012). The relationship between emotional intelligence, language learning strategies, and English proficiency among Iranian EFL university students. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 2(3), 105-114.
Zarei, A., & Taheri, S. (2013). Multiple intelligences as predictors of self efficacy. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 4(1), 125-136.
