On the Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Scale, “using emotion” refers to drawing on feelings as information or motivation when thinking, solving problems, or changing mood. The scale asks respondents to describe their usual tendencies; it does not observe a particular action. Because studies group its items differently, read an emotion-use result as a broad interpretive prompt rather than a sharply bounded capacity.
What does ‘using emotion’ mean on the Schutte scale?
The phrase describes bringing emotional information into thought or action. A feeling might focus attention on what matters, make a problem easier or harder to consider, or prompt someone to shift mood before acting. The original Schutte measure asks respondents to characterize their own tendencies, so it captures a self-description rather than a scored demonstration of emotion problem-solving. Schutte and colleagues developed the 33-item scale from a pool of 62 statements. Their 1998 paper reports that responses from 346 participants informed the factor analysis used to derive it, drawing on Salovey and Mayer’s model. The accessible university repository abstract supports those development details but does not define a distinct emotion-use score. A later critical review describes utilization of emotion among commonly discussed Schutte factors and associates it with strategic use of feelings. Taken together, the evidence supports a general meaning: using emotional information to guide thought, attention, or mood. It does not establish that every version measures an identical, precise skill. [1][2]
In an ordinary setting, someone might notice unease before a difficult choice and use that feeling as a cue to slow down and consider what is at stake. This is an illustration, not a test item or evidence that the scale predicts what they will do. The useful question is about a reported tendency: what role do feelings usually play in this person’s thinking?
Sources: Development and Validation of a Measure of Emotional Intelligence; The Measurement of Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Researchers and Practitioners
Why is the ‘emotion-use’ subscale not a settled boundary?
A factor structure is a map researchers propose for which questionnaire answers tend to cluster together. The 2019 critical review describes four commonly used groupings for the Schutte scale, including utilization, while noting that the instrument was originally designed as an overall emotional-intelligence measure. A named grouping can help summarize responses, but it should not automatically be treated as a distinct natural capacity. [2]
The model choice has varied in empirical work.
Gong and Paulson tested proposed structures using confirmatory factor analyses of an online survey completed by 404 American college students. The Ng et al. two-level model fit that sample best. The study’s result is specific to its college sample, which was predominantly female and White; the accessible publisher abstract does not establish that the same arrangement holds in other groups, translations, or modified forms. [3]
This uncertainty changes how much precision a reader should assign to a subscore. A report may present “emotion use” as a discrete heading, but its boundaries depend partly on the item set and the factor model used. Without evidence for a particular adaptation and population, avoid reading small differences between versions as changes in a stable personal capacity.
Sources: The Measurement of Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Researchers and Practitioners; Validation of the Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Scale With American College Students
How is self-reported use different from an ability test?
The distinction is the kind of evidence collected. A self-report records what a person says they typically do; an ability-based instrument samples answers to defined emotion-related problems under test conditions. The critical review classifies the Schutte questionnaire as self-report and describes the MSCEIT as a maximum-performance measure, with tasks involving perceiving, facilitating, understanding, and managing emotion. [2]
Those formats answer different questions, and neither directly records every everyday exchange. A Schutte response can inform reflection on perceived habits. A performance result indicates how someone responded to the instrument’s structured tasks. It does not, by itself, show what they will do in a particular workplace situation or how another person experienced their actions. The comparison is therefore about method and scope, not which score reveals a person’s complete emotional intelligence. [2]
How can you turn an emotion-use result into something observable?
Choose one recent situation where a feeling influenced a decision. Write down the event, the feeling you noticed, the meaning you assigned to it, and what you did next. Keep the observation separate from the judgment: “I felt tense and asked for time to review the numbers” describes an action; “I used my emotion well” evaluates it. The score can suggest a tendency to examine, but the event supplies the details needed to examine it.
Then check the consequence against the situation. Did the action clarify the work, help you make a considered choice, or leave an important issue unresolved? Where appropriate, compare your account with a concrete example from someone who was there, without asking them to certify a broad trait or score. This keeps interpretation tied to observable behavior while recognizing that a single episode cannot establish a general pattern. If a pattern appears across situations, it can guide what to notice or practice next; if the examples differ, that variation is useful context rather than a contradiction to smooth away. EQ Test’s private 32-item Emotional Skills Profile is a separate reflection on recent emotional behavior and authored scenarios, not the Schutte scale or a normed ability test. The practical consequence is modest but useful: make the next decision from the situation in front of you, with the score as one prompt for attention.
Questions readers ask
Does the Schutte scale’s emotion-use score show how well I handle emotions at work?
No. It reflects self-reported tendencies. It does not directly observe your response in a workplace exchange or establish how effectively you handled a specific situation.
Is Schutte’s emotion-use factor the same as MSCEIT facilitation?
They are related labels for using emotion in thought, but they come from different methods. Schutte asks for self-description; the MSCEIT samples performance on structured emotion tasks. Their scores should not be treated as equivalent.
Sources
- Development and Validation of a Measure of Emotional Intelligence
The original study abstract reports a 62-item pool and a 33-item scale derived from responses of 346 participants.
- The Measurement of Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Researchers and Practitioners
This open critical review describes Schutte utilization as strategic emotion use, outlines commonly discussed factors, and distinguishes self-report from performance-based EI measures.
- Validation of the Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Scale With American College Students
The publisher abstract reports that the Ng et al. two-level factor model fit best in an online sample of 404 American college students.
Apply it to the real situation
Turn an EQ result into one behavior you can notice
From this guide: The Schutte label can suggest a tendency, while your recent work interactions show how that tendency appears in practice.
If you want a private starting point for noticing how you respond to emotional situations, the Emotional Skills Profile offers reflection on recent behavior and authored scenarios. Use it to choose one interaction to observe and one question to consider; it is separate from the Schutte scale and does not provide a normed or demonstrated ability score.