A meta-synthesis of emotional intelligence research: Methodological rigour and linguistic hype in systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Across three decades of Emotional Intelligence (EI) research, the number of EI-focused systematic reviews and meta-analyses has grown. Regarded as rigorous evidence syntheses, these reviews can be used by academics and non-academics to inform interventions, yet their quality has not been critically examined. We attempt such evaluation using a mixed-method meta-synthesis methodology. We first apply the SIGN quality appraisal tool to assess the methodological rigour of 73 reviews published up to April 2024. This is followed by a deductively oriented thematic analysis of each Discussion section, where we examine use of linguistic hype - a form of misrepresentation in scientific reporting in which language is incongruent with the underlying evidence. Findings show most reviews (n = 59; 81%) are of ‘low’ or ‘unacceptable’ quality yet highly cited. Thematic analysis developed three themes that describe linguistic hype across the full sample: 97% of Discussion sections contained claims positioning EI as prestigious, asserting causal reach and applied necessity beyond what the evidence supports; 95% used language that exaggerates the evidentiary basis, typically by stating caveats then overridden by confident claims; and 88% framed methodological weaknesses as redeemable artefacts of researcher decisions rather than as signals about the construct itself. Linguistic hype was present across all SIGN quality levels, though its frequency and form were attenuated in higher quality reviews. We conclude that linguistic hype in EI review writing may obscure unresolved conceptual and empirical concerns, posing a barrier to the field's critical self-evaluation.