Why does self-reported emotional intelligence predict job performance? A meta-analytic investigation of mixed EI.

Journal of Applied Psychology 2015, Vol. 100, No. 2, 298 –342

© 2014 American Psychological Association 0021-9010/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037681

Why Does Self-Reported Emotional Intelligence Predict Job Performance? A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Mixed EI Dana L. Joseph

Jing Jin and Daniel A. Newman

University of Central Florida

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Ernest H. O’Boyle This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

The University of Iowa Recent empirical reviews have claimed a surprisingly strong relationship between job performance and self-reported emotional intelligence (also commonly called trait EI or mixed EI), suggesting selfreported/mixed EI is one of the best known predictors of job performance (e.g., ␳ˆ ⫽ .47; Joseph & Newman, 2010b). Results further suggest mixed EI can robustly predict job performance beyond cognitive ability and Big Five personality traits (Joseph & Newman, 2010b; O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, & Story, 2011). These criterion-related validity results are problematic, given the paucity of evidence and the questionable construct validity of mixed EI measures themselves. In the current research, we update and reevaluate existing evidence for mixed EI, in light of prior work regarding the content of mixed EI measures. Results of the current meta-analysis demonstrate that (a) the content of mixed EI measures strongly overlaps with a set of well-known psychological constructs (i.e., ability EI, self-efficacy, and self-rated performance, in addition to Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, Extraversion, and general mental ability; multiple R ⫽ .79), (b) an updated estimate of the meta-analytic correlation between mixed EI and supervisor-rated job performance is ␳ˆ ⫽ .29, and (c) the mixed EI–job performance relationship becomes nil (␤ ⫽ –.02) after controlling for the set of covariates listed above. Findings help to establish the construct validity of mixed EI measures and further support an intuitive theoretical explanation for the uncommonly high association between mixed EI and job performance—mixed EI instruments assess a combination of ability EI and self-perceptions, in addition to personality and cognitive ability. Keywords: emotional intelligence, job performance, heterogeneous domain sampling, personality, self-efficacy

larity of Goleman’s work, a search of consulting firm websites indicates more than 150 consulting firms offer EI-related products and services (including two of the largest industrial/organizational psychology consulting firms, Development Dimensions International and Personnel Decisions International). Indeed, EI services have become a multimillion-dollar consulting industry (Grewal & Salovey, 2005), with some estimates suggesting that 75% of Fortune 500 companies have adopted EI-related products and services (Bradberry & Greaves, 2009). Despite the commercial expansion of the concept, some scholars from the organizational sciences have been skeptical about it, given the lack of consensus with regard to its definition, measurement, and validity (Landy, 2005; Murphy, 2006). For instance, one definitional ambiguity stems from the “emotional intelligence” label having been historically applied to two, relatively distinct theoretical constructs. The first sort of EI construct has been defined as “the ability to carry out accurate reasoning about emotions and the ability to use emotions and emotional knowledge to enhance thought” (Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008, p. 511), which emphasizes EI as an actual ability, or facet of intelligence (Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005; MacCann, Joseph, Newman, & Roberts, 2014). The second definition of EI uses the EI label as an umbrella term that encompasses a constellation of personality traits, affect, and self-perceived abilities,

Propelled by the New York Times bestseller of Daniel Goleman (1995), the concept of emotional intelligence (EI) has gained a great amount of public popularity and business attention in the past two decades; EI is currently considered a widely accepted practitioner tool for hiring, training, leadership development, and team building by the business community. As evidence of this, Goleman’s (1995) book has been touted as one of the 25 most influential business management books of all time by Time magazine (Sachs, 2011), and Goleman’s (1998) article published in Harvard Business Review has become the most requested reprint from this journal in the last four decades (Sardo, 2004). Beyond the popu-

This article was published Online First September 22, 2014. Dana L. Joseph, Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida; Jing Jin, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign; Daniel A. Newman, Department of Psychology and School of Labor and Employment Relations, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Ernest H. O’Boyle, Tippie College of Business, The University of Iowa. Jing Jin is now at Development Dimensions International, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dana L. Joseph, Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Boulevard, Orlando, FL 32816. E-mail: [email protected] 298

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

SELF-REPORTED EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

rather than actual aptitude (Bar-On, 1997; Goleman, 1995; Petrides & Furnham, 2001). These two definitions have come to be called ability EI and mixed EI, respectively. Meta-analytic results have demonstrated that mixed EI measures and ability EI measures intercorrelate only moderately (␳ˆ ⫽ .26, Joseph & Newman, 2010b; ␳ˆ ⫽ .14, van Rooy, Viswesvaran, & Pluta, 2005), and they exhibit distinctive patterns of relationships with job performance. For example, Joseph and Newman (2010b) found that mixed EI measures exhibited a strong criterion-related validity coefficient of ␳ˆ ⫽ .47, whereas ability EI measures exhibited markedly lower validity for predicting job performance (␳ˆ ⫽ .18). Results of recent meta-analyses further suggest that mixed EI measures can robustly predict job performance beyond cognitive ability and Big Five personality traits (⌬R2 ⫽ .142 ⫽ 14%; Joseph & Newman, 2010b; ⌬R2 ⫽ .068 ⫽ 7%; O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, & Story, 2011), whereas ability EI measures exhibit near-zero incremental validity (⌬R2 ⫽ .002 ⫽ 0.2%; Joseph & Newman, 2010b; ⌬R2 ⫽ .004 ⫽ 0.4%; O’Boyle et al., 2011). Joseph and Newman (2010b) described this combination of results as “an ugly state of affairs” (p. 72) because many have considered ability EI (i.e., the weaker predictor of job performance) to be based upon a stronger theoretical model (Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005; Matthews, Roberts, & Zeidner, 2004; Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002; Murphy, 2006), whereas mixed EI (i.e., the stronger predictor of job performance) has been at the center of controversy due to theoretical underdevelopment (Murphy, 2006). The lack of theoretical consensus surrounding what mixed EI is, combined with its superior predictive power, has created a paradox that we believe deserves additional clarification. Thus, in responding to previous calls for a theoretical understanding of the substantive content of mixed EI (Joseph & Newman, 2010b; Locke, 2005), we sought in the current study to answer two questions: “What do mixed EI instruments measure?” and “Why are mixed EI instruments related to job performance?” In the current article, we thus propose to make two contributions to the study of mixed EI and job performance. First, we shed light into the black box of mixed EI construct validity, to metaanalytically test past conceptualizations of what content mixed EI instruments actually measure. Second, in an attempt to explain why mixed EI is so strongly related to job performance, we illuminate common covariates of mixed EI and job performance and assess the extent to which mixed EI demonstrates incremental validity above and beyond these common covariates.

What Do Mixed EI Instruments Measure? In order to understand what might be in the black box of mixed EI instruments, we note that prior authors who have questioned the construct validity of mixed EI have done so primarily because many mixed EI items appear to capture well-established constructs other than emotional intelligence (Joseph & Newman, 2010b; Mayer et al., 2008; Murphy, 2006). In other words, it appears that authors of mixed EI measures may have (unknowingly) engaged in domain sampling (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955; Ghiselli, Campbell, & Zedeck, 1981; Nunnally, 1967), whereby mixed EI measures were constructed to sample from various well-known content domains in the field of psychology. Although domain sampling typically refers to the process of sampling items from a homogeneous content domain (e.g., developing a Conscientiousness scale

299

by drawing items from the Conscientiousness domain), the development of mixed EI measures appears to have involved heterogeneous domain sampling, or the sampling of items from a diverse set of content domains. Whereas heterogeneous domain sampling may illuminate why these measures appear to capture a “grab bag” of content domains, the question still remains: What exactly are these content domains that constitute “mixed EI”? In the following, we draw on prior theory and content analysis of popular mixed EI measures to hypothesize that these measures likely capture the following content domains: Conscientiousness, Extraversion, selfrelated qualities (i.e., general self-efficacy and self-rated performance), ability EI, Emotional Stability, and cognitive ability. We begin by noting that several EI scholars have recently offered suggestions regarding the content captured by mixed EI measures in an attempt to clear up the muddied waters of the construct. Specifically, Mayer et al. (2008) have summarized that mixed EI covers four content areas: (a) achievement motivation (which is similar to the industriousness facet of Conscientiousness; Roberts, Chernyshenko, Stark, & Goldberg, 2005), (b) controlrelated qualities such as impulse control and flexibility (which theoretically overlap with the self-control facet of Conscientiousness; Roberts et al., 2005), (c) gregariousness and assertiveness (which are two facets of Extraversion; Costa & McCrae, 1992), and (d) self-related qualities (e.g., positive self-appraisals, such as general self-efficacy). Thus, Mayer et al. (2008) appear to have suggested that mixed EI overlaps with Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and self-related qualities such as general self-efficacy. We will discuss each of these potential overlaps below. Before we do, we would like to point out that prior theoretical work on the construct of mixed EI is scant. As a result, when discussing the construct of mixed EI, we often discuss the measures of mixed EI rather than the construct (i.e., because it is not clear what the construct of mixed EI actually is, we tend— by necessity—to confound the construct with the measure; cf. Arthur & Villado, 2008). This is a natural result of a theoretically underdeveloped construct, and indeed in the current article, we attempt to help remedy this very issue by developing an understanding of which constructs are subsumed by mixed EI.

Conscientiousness and Mixed EI As previously mentioned, prior theoretical work suggests that mixed EI taps attributes like achievement-motivation and controlrelated qualities such as low impulsiveness (Mayer et al., 2008; Petrides & Furnham, 2001; Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2004), which fall into the personality domain of trait Conscientiousness. For example, Bar-On’s (1997) mixed EI model includes subfacets of self-actualization, or striving to achieve one’s personal goals, and impulse control, or effectively controlling one’s emotions— which are similar to the industriousness and self-control facets of Conscientiousness, respectively (Roberts et al., 2005). Similarly, Goleman’s mixed EI model (Wolff, 2006) includes initiative (i.e., “readiness to act on opportunities,” p. 3) and achievement (i.e., “striving to improve or meeting a standard of excellence,” p. 3), which theoretically overlap with Conscientiousness facets. In addition to the content overlap between Conscientiousness and mixed EI, a secondary reason that one might expect a positive relationship between the two constructs is because Conscientiousness has been characterized as a tendency to follow socially


300

JOSEPH, JIN, NEWMAN, AND O’BOYLE

prescribed norms (John & Srivastava, 1999), and this dutifulness in adhering to norms likely carries over into emotional roles as well. So conscientious individuals may exert extra effort in adhering to emotion-related norms (i.e., Conscientiousness gives rise to a motivational state that induces one to be meticulous in his or her task performance [Emmons, 1989], including emotional tasks such as perceiving one’s emotion, perceiving others’ emotion, displaying appropriate emotions, and so forth). We propose that emotional skills and abilities develop naturally as a result of increased effort in adhering to emotion-related norms (e.g., the more one exerts effort in displaying appropriate emotions, the better one becomes at doing so). Thus, we expected Conscientiousness to be positively related to mixed EI, which is supported by prior meta-analytic estimates indicating a strong relationship between Conscientiousness and mixed EI (␳ˆ ⫽ .38 in both Joseph & Newman, 2010b, and O’Boyle et al., 2011).

Extraversion and Mixed EI Extraversion, a dimension of the Big Five, includes two components: social vitality and social dominance (Helson & Kwan, 2000). Some have argued that the social vitality component reflects an underlying need or desire for social contact that often results in a greater number of social relationships for extraverted individuals (Hotard, McFatter, McWhirter, & Stegall, 1989). In the process of establishing an extravert’s expansive social network, he or she likely develops a set of emotion-related skills (e.g., the ability to display positive affect) that are used to build social bonds. Many of the emotion-related skills that are likely developed as a result of an extravert’s desire to form social relationships are dimensions of mixed EI, including relationship skills, social competence (Petrides & Furnham, 2001), interpersonal relationships, and happiness (Bar-On, 1997). Some mixed models of EI also explicitly include assertiveness (Bar-On, 1997; Petrides & Furnham, 2003), which directly reflects the social dominance facet of Extraversion (and the assertiveness facet of Extraversion in the revised NEO Personality Inventory [NEO–PI–R]; Costa & McCrae, 1992), reiterating the overlap between Extraversion and mixed EI due to common elements of both constructs. The strong empirical relationship between Extraversion and mixed EI has also been well documented (␳ˆ ⫽ .46, Joseph & Newman, 2010b; ␳ˆ ⫽ .49, O’Boyle et al., 2011), supporting the notion that mixed EI is positively related to Extraversion because (a) extraverts’ inclination to establish social bonds results in enhanced emotional and social skills and (b) the social dominance component of Extraversion explicitly overlaps with dimensions of mixed EI (e.g., assertiveness; Bar-On, 1997).

Self-Related Qualities and Mixed EI The third content area that Mayer et al. (2008) suggested is captured by mixed EI measures is self-related qualities. The idea that self-related qualities may account for the relationship between mixed EI and job performance has been similarly articulated by Newman, Joseph, and MacCann (2010), who theorized that mixed EI measures capture self-efficacy and self-assessments of past job performance. First, general/generalized self-efficacy represents one’s perception of his or her ability to cope with life challenges and task demands across a variety of different situations (e.g., Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001; Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997; Sherer et al., 1982). Self-consistency

theory suggests that individuals have a desire to behave in a way that is consistent with their own image (Korman, 1970). When considering emotional and social behavior, it is likely that individuals who have a desire to maintain a positive self-image (i.e., individuals with high general self-efficacy) have cultivated emotional and social skills that allow them to display appropriate social behaviors to maintain their self-image. We propose that these emotional and social skills are represented in the construct of mixed EI; for example, the display of appropriate social behaviors requires dimensions of mixed EI such as social responsibility (i.e., the ability to cooperate with others), empathy (i.e., the ability to understand and appreciate the feelings of others), and interpersonal relationships (i.e., the ability to establish and maintain relationships; Bar-On, 1997). Therefore, individuals high in general self-efficacy likely have high mixed EI in order to display social behaviors that are consistent with their self-views, whereas those low in general self-efficacy may shy away from social relationships because doing so is consistent with their self-views (and as a result, these individuals fail to develop emotional skills and abilities for maintaining social relationships). In addition, an examination of the content of mixed EI measures reveals overlap between the constructs of general self-efficacy and mixed EI, including the self-regard facet of Bar-On’s Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997), which represents the propensity to regard oneself as generally competent, and Goleman’s (1998) self-confidence dimension, which also represents one’s sense of self-worth (Wolff, 2006). Thus, we expected general self-efficacy to be positively related to mixed EI because mixed EI is one avenue through which an individual can maintain his or her self-image and because of the content overlap between general self-efficacy and mixed EI. Second, from looking at the content of mixed EI scales, it also appears that these mixed EI instruments tap into something akin to self-rated performance. Unfortunately, these mixed EI measures are largely proprietary (thus, the mixed EI items cannot be presented here in any way), or else a few example items might easily support the notion that mixed EI scales capture self-rated performance. These types of items are similar to the items “I feel I can produce a lot of good work,” “I perform well in teams,” “I have accomplished many things in the last year,” and “I have performed well under pressure” (although these are not actual items on any mixed EI measure, they are very similar). We note that these items (and their original counterparts present in actual mixed EI measures) are conceptually closer to self-ratings of general performance rather than self-ratings of job performance per se (e.g., a respondent may evaluate his or her performance as a member of a sports team when answering the item “I perform well in teams”). In the current article, we argue that self-ratings of job performance are a component of mixed EI because they are a key aspect of one’s perceptions of performance in general (e.g., perceived excellence in public speaking at work would likely lead to perceived strength in public speaking in any context). This is because: (a) self-ratings of general performance are likely estimated via a process where one’s broad perceptions of performance are formed as a mental average of his or her specific performance across various life domains, and (b) as a mental average of performance across all life domains, self-ratings of performance likely oversample from the work domain because work plays a central role in most individuals’ lives (e.g., Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2009; Wanberg, 2012). Therefore, we argue that self-perceptions of job performance are an indicator of the domain of self-perceived


general performance, and as such, we expect self-rated job performance to be positively related to mixed EI.


Ability EI and Mixed EI Beyond the conceptual overlaps between mixed EI and Conscientiousness/Extraversion/self-rated qualities that were proposed by Mayer et al. (2008), an additional variable that may add insight into the construct validity of mixed EI is ability EI itself. Although prior work has shown only a modest relationship between ability EI and mixed EI (␳ˆ ⫽ .26; Joseph & Newman, 2010b), this is likely due to the content breadth of mixed EI (i.e., emotional abilities only constitute a fraction of mixed EI content). Self-perception theory would suggest that one’s self-perceptions are inferred from one’s behavior (Bern, 1972), and given that mixed EI involves one’s selfperceptions of his or her emotional abilities, we would expect these self-perceptions to be drawn from one’s actual emotional abilities (i.e., ability EI, which includes behaviors such as emotion expression, voice inflection, and emotion-related gestures; Salovey & Mayer, 1990; see also, Brackett, Rivers, Shiffman, Lerner, & Salovey, 2006). It has been claimed in prior work that mixed EI includes selfperceived emotional abilities (Petrides & Furnham, 2001), and a perusal of items from the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997), for example, shows that some of these items clearly reflect self-ascribed emotion regulation and emotion perception abilities. In particular, the emotional self-awareness and empathy facets of Bar-On’s EQ-i appear to address emotion perception ability and emotion understanding (two facets of ability EI; Salovey & Mayer, 1990), and the emotional awareness and emotional self-control facets of Goleman’s (1998) model appear to capture emotion perception ability and emotion regulation ability (also facets of ability EI; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Therefore, it is likely that actual emotional ability (i.e., ability EI) is part of the content that is sampled within mixed EI measures.

Emotional Stability and Mixed EI Popular markers of Emotional Stability include low levels of trait negative affect (Gross, Sutton, & Ketelaar, 1998) and dampened emotional reactions to daily stressors (Marco & Suls, 1993; Suls, Green, & Hillis, 1998). These characteristics of emotionally stable individuals likely reflect an enhanced ability to manage emotions and use effective emotion regulation strategies (e.g., reappraisal; Gross & John, 2003). Therefore, we expected Emotional Stability to be positively related to mixed EI because Emotional Stability involves the use of emotion regulation skills that mixed EI comprises (e.g., stress tolerance; Bar-On, 1997). In addition, De Raad (2005) has conducted empirical analyses on the content validity of several mixed EI measures and shown that for six mixed EI measures, 42% of the items were classified by content experts as direct measures of Emotional Stability. This content validity evidence is consistent with the large meta-analytic relationship between Emotional Stability and mixed EI instruments (␳ˆ ⫽ .53, Joseph & Newman, 2010b; ␳ˆ ⫽ .54, O’Boyle et al., 2011), and the conceptual overlap between several facets of mixed EI scales and Emotional Stability (e.g., stress tolerance, BarOn, 1997; optimism, Goleman, 1998). Thus, it appears that part of the content “mix” in mixed EI measurement is the well-known concept of Emotional Stability.

301

Cognitive Ability and Mixed EI At this point, we note that any attempt by us to consider cognitive ability as a content domain that is captured in measures of mixed EI would be largely antithetical to the philosophy upon which many mixed EI measures were founded. That is, cognitive ability is explicitly excluded from most mixed models of EI. For example, Bar-On’s (1997) mixed model of EI is said to include “an array of noncognitive capabilities, competencies, and skills that influence one’s ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands and pressures” (italics added, p. 14). Interestingly, however, this very model also includes facets of apparent cognitive ability components such as problem solving and reality testing (Bar-On, 1997). In addition, cognitive ability is theorized to promote individual adaptability, primarily due to the additional information processing that is required in novel situations (LePine, Colquitt, & Erez, 2000). Because adaptability is a component of mixed EI (i.e., flexibility, or one’s ability to adapt to unfamiliar and dynamic circumstances; Bar-On, 1997), we expected cognitive ability to be related to mixed EI—that is, individuals high in cognitive ability can handle the additional information processing demands of unfamiliar situations. Because it appears that mixed models of EI may actually include cognitive ability components (i.e., some mixed models are theorized to include abilities as part of the mixture of constructs; Boyatzis, 2009; Mayer et al., 2008; Petrides & Furnham, 2001) and because mixed EI models involve adaptability, which is related to cognitive ability via improved information processing in novel situations (LePine et al., 2000), we expected to find empirical overlap between measures of general mental ability and measures of mixed EI. In sum, we have proposed that mixed EI measures have sampled from several well-established construct domains, including Conscientiousness, Extraversion, general self-efficacy, self-rated performance, ability EI, Emotional Stability, and cognitive ability. Because mixed EI measures appear to sample so heavily from these seven construct domains, we expected that individual variation in mixed EI will be largely accounted for by these seven components.

Why Are Mixed EI Instruments Related to Job Performance? Previous meta-analyses of mixed EI suggest a strong relationship between mixed EI and job performance (Joseph & Newman, 2010b; O’Boyle et al., 2011), with estimated criterion validities as strong as, or stronger than, any other personality trait. To illuminate why mixed EI has such a robust relationship with job performance, we demonstrate that the proposed content domains from which mixed EI measures are sampled (see previous section) are also related to job performance. In other words, mixed EI taps into a mix of constructs that have well-established relationships with job performance, which explains why mixed EI predicts job performance.

Why the Seven Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and Other Characteristics (KSAOs) Relate to Job Performance For example, Conscientiousness (a proposed construct domain from which mixed EI measures are sampled) has a known positive relationship with job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Bar-


302


rick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; a link theoretically due to Conscientious employees’ accomplishment striving, status striving [Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002] and goal setting [Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1993]). Similarly, evidence suggests Extraversion can have reasonable predictive validity for job performance, especially for success in management and sales jobs (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Vinchur, Schippmann, Switzer, & Roth, 1998; due in part to status striving; Barrick et al., 2002), and Emotional Stability also has an established positive relationship with job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick et al., 2001; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; a relationship explained by the fact that Neurotic individuals exhibit poorer emotional coping skills; Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007; Joseph & Newman, 2010b). Thus, these three Big Five variables help explain the relationship between mixed EI and job performance, because they are common antecedents to both constructs. In addition to these Big Five personality constructs, general self-efficacy is thought to predict work performance by way of motivation, goal-setting (Erez & Judge, 2001), and job engagement (Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010). In other words, individuals with high general self-efficacy should maintain both direction and persistence of effort toward the job at hand. Therefore, if mixed EI measures are sampled from the general self-efficacy domain, then self-efficacy should partly explain the mixed EI–job performance relationship. Further, because past performance is the best predictor of future performance (see meta-analysis by Sturman, Cheramie, & Cashen, 2005; as well as seminal discussions by Corballis, 1965; Humphreys, 1960; Jones, 1962; and Wernimont & Campbell, 1968), we propose that another key mechanism by which mixed EI scales predict job performance is that mixed EI measures ask respondents to report, in part, how well they have generally performed on projects in the past. Accordingly, we expect self-rated performance to be considered a common covariate of both mixed EI and supervisor-rated job performance.

Finally, cognitive ability appears to contribute to mixed EI measures, and it is a fundamental antecedent of job performance (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), largely due to the tendency for high-ability employees to acquire job knowledge (Schmidt, Hunter, & Outerbridge, 1986). Moreover, ability EI has been theorized to relate to job performance via enhanced social interactions, advanced understanding of the emotional demands on the situation (O’Boyle et al., 2011), and increased attentional resources (because emotion regulation skill can slow cognitive resource depletion; Joseph & Newman, 2010b). The relationship between ability EI and job performance has been supported via meta-analytic evidence (Joseph & Newman, 2010b; O’Boyle et al., 2011), and thus, it appears that cognitive ability and ability EI are common antecedents to both mixed EI measures and job performance, aiding in the explanation of why mixed EI and job performance are strongly related.

Heterogeneous Domain Sampling Model In summary of our arguments, the various constructs tapped by self-report mixed EI measures (i.e., Conscientiousness, Extraversion, general self-efficacy, self-rated performance, ability EI, Emotional Stability, and cognitive ability) also appear to be antecedents of job performance. Therefore, these seven constructs should explain the relationship between mixed EI and job performance. One consequence of this state of affairs is that the incremental validity of mixed EI for predicting job performance should be quite limited once these constructs are controlled. In other words, we are advancing a theoretical model of the mixed EI–job performance relationship that we refer to as the heterogeneous domain sampling model (see Figure 1, Model A; Cronbach & Meehl, 1955; Nunnally, 1967). According to our hypothesized model, mixed EI measures will fail to account for incremental validity in job performance after we have controlled for Conscientiousness, Extraversion, general self-efficacy, self-rated performance, ability EI, Emotional Stability, and cognitive ability. In

Figure 1. Model A. Heterogeneous Domain Sampling Model (no incremental validity, no mediation). This is our hypothesized model. Standardized estimates. All predictors were allowed to intercorrelate. ⴱ p ⬍ .05; ␹2(df ⫽ 1) ⫽ 0.19 (p ⬎ .05), root-mean-square error of approximation ⫽ .00, comparative fit index ⫽ 1.00, Tucker–Lewis index ⫽ 1.00, standardized root-mean-square residual ⫽ .001 (model fit is good). Perf ⫽ performance.



other words, we believe these seven KSAOs represent all the essential constructs that constitute the “mix” in mixed EI that is responsible for the large observed criterion-related validity of mixed EI. An expert reviewer pointed out that our hypothesized heterogeneous domain sampling model can be thought of as one model, in a set of alternative models, that can each explain why mixed EI relates to job performance. This set of alternative models includes (a) our heterogeneous domain sampling model (Figure 1, Model A), which is a no mediation model, in which mixed EI exhibits no incremental validity beyond the seven KSAOs, and there is no mediation of the KSAOs by mixed EI, (b) a partial mediation model, labeled the “incremental validity model” (Figure 2, Model B), in which mixed EI predicts job performance partly because it transmits the effects of the seven KSAOs and partly because mixed EI represents some additional content that relates to job performance beyond the seven KSAOs, and (c) a full mediation model (Figure 3, Model C), in which mixed EI fully captures all of the generative mechanisms by which the seven KSAOs relate to job performance. As stated previously, in the current study, we are hypothesizing the first model (Figure 1, Model A), which offers a simple heterogeneous domain sampling explanation for why mixed EI relates to job performance. We tested this model (Figure 1, Model A) by comparing it against the two alternative models suggested by the expert reviewer (cf. incremental validity [partial mediation] model [Figure 2, Model B], and full mediation model [Figure 3, Model C]). If our heterogeneous domain sampling model is accurate, then it implies that a combination of traits—Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Conscientiousness, general self-efficacy, self-rated performance, cognitive ability, and ability EI—together explain why mixed EI measures predict job performance so well. To expand upon this point, individuals who possess these traits should have motivational tendencies and goals characterized by high status

303

striving and accomplishment striving (i.e., Extraversion and Conscientiousness; Barrick et al., 2002), as well as elevated performance expectations (i.e., high self-rated performance and general self-efficacy). These individuals should further be equipped to attain these goals and motivational agendas via their heightened emotional coping skills, emotion regulation skills, and emotional understanding (low Neuroticism, Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007; high Ability EI, Joseph & Newman, 2010b), as well as their ability to more quickly absorb job knowledge (cognitive ability; Schmidt et al., 1986). Mixed EI thus offers a high-utility mixture of individual traits to predict job performance.

Defining Job Performance Before we move on to describe the methods used in the current study, we first briefly expound on our definition of the criterion, job performance. Indeed, past discrepancies in criterion definition have led to some inconsistency in prior meta-analytic estimates of the relationship between mixed EI and job performance (i.e., ␳ˆ ⫽ .47, Joseph & Newman, 2010b; ␳ˆ ⫽ .28, O’Boyle et al., 2011). That is, in past meta-analyses, O’Boyle and colleagues used an inclusive definition of job performance that incorporated both subjective ratings and objective results performance measures (in addition to student academic performance and self-rated job performance measures), whereas Joseph and Newman used a narrower definition of the criterion to include only supervisor-rated job performance (see Table 1). As such, it remains unclear how the mixed EI-job performance relationship might change across different criterion measures. With regard to the distinction between subjective ratings versus objective results measures (e.g., sales, number of widgets produced) of the criterion, researchers have long lamented that objective measures of performance tend to be contaminated by factors external to

Figure 2. Model B. Incremental Validity Model (partial mediation). Standardized estimates. All predictors were allowed to intercorrelate. Model is saturated (df ⫽ 0), so model fit cannot be estimated (i.e., fit is perfect, by design).



304

Figure 3. Model C. Full Mediation Model. Standardized estimates. All predictors were allowed to intercorrelate. ⴱ p ⬍ .05; ␹2(df ⫽ 7) ⫽ 232.84 (p ⬍ .05), root-mean-square error of approximation ⫽ .22, comparative fit index ⫽ .88, Tucker–Lewis index ⫽ .37, standardized root-mean-square residual ⫽ .07 (model fit is poor).

the individual (e.g., sales markets, sick leave policies, and equipment malfunctions; Campbell, 1990; Landy & Farr, 1983; Murphy & Cleveland, 1995; Smith, 1976), suggesting that objective results measures reflect both employee performance behavior and environmental factors that constitute a psychometric nuisance. We here have adopted Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, and Sager’s (1993) definition of job performance as employee behavior, and we focused on supervisor ratings of performance as our primary measure of job performance behavior (see J. W. Johnson, 2001; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). For our own theoretical view on how subjective performance ratings and objective criterion measures, respectively, relate to mixed EI, we have borrowed from Aguinis (2013, p. 95) and Grote (1996, p. 37), who specified that employee KSAOs/traits (e.g., mixed EI) give rise to employee job performance behaviors, which in turn give rise to objective results measures of productivity (i.e., a mediation model). As such, we propose that the effects of mixed EI on results (e.g., sales, productivity) are downstream from (and explained by) the effects of mixed EI on rated employee performance behaviors. Therefore, we predicted that the effect of mixed EI on objective results criteria is mediated by supervisor ratings of job performance. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of available primary studies connecting objective results to several of the KSAOs, which precludes us from testing the complete multistep mediation model (KSAOs ¡ Mixed EI ¡ Subjective job performance ¡ Objective results). Therefore, we can only test the final three steps of this mediation sequence in the current study (i.e., Mixed EI ¡ Subjective job performance ¡ Objective results; see Figure 4).

Method To test our hypothesized models, we first updated the correlations of both mixed EI and ability EI with job performance. Table 1 lists the primary studies that were originally coded in the meta-analyses of Joseph and Newman (2010b) and O’Boyle et al. (2011), as well as the primary studies uniquely included in

the current analysis. We also conducted 16 original metaanalyses, estimating the bivariate relationships of both general self-efficacy and self-rated job performance with mixed EI, ability EI, Emotional Stability, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and cognitive ability (shown in Table 2). Then, by combining published meta-analyses with our original meta-analyses, we formed a meta-analytic correlation matrix (Table 3). We used this meta-analytic correlation matrix as the basis for a series of structural models to test (a) the amount of variance in mixed EI measures captured by a set of seven predictors and (b) the effect of these predictors on the mixed EI–job performance relationship (see Figures 1, 2, and 3). Although some scholars have advocated the combination of meta-analysis with structural equation modeling (Shadish, 1996; Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995), others have pointed out potential limitations of the approach because this process (a) uses a pooled correlation matrix instead of a covariance matrix, (b) lacks a definitive sample size for the meta-analytic correlation matrix, (c) assumes the elements in the meta-analytic correlation matrix represent a common population, and (d) ignores second-order sampling error (see Cheung & Chan, 2005; Landis, 2013; Newman, Jacobs, & Bartram, 2007). Unfortunately, the only alternative procedure for testing a structural model with metaanalytic data (i.e., two-stage structural equation modeling, or TSSEM; Cheung & Chan, 2005) requires at least one primary study to measure all of the constructs included in the model, and because no primary study in the current meta-analytic database met this requirement, we instead used meta-analytic SEM. In doing so, we followed Landis’s (2013) set of recommendations (i.e., we drew the elements in the matrix that were not estimated as part of the current study from published meta-analyses rather than conducting mini-meta-analyses, and we warn the reader that causal inferences cannot be drawn from these analyses). As for the problem of failing to specify a particular target popu-

24 — 129 46 289

Goldsmith (2008) Government Accounting Office (1998) Hader (2007) Hanna (2008)

Higgs (2004)

40 147 152 79 209 103 — 35

Jennings & Palmer (2007)

Kostman (2004)

Lii & Wong (2008)

Perlini & Halverson (2006) Prati (2004) Rozell, Pettijoh, & Parker (2004) Sardo (2005) Schumacher (2005)

30 (Female)

75 (Male)

53 59

Dulewicz, Higgs, & Slaski (2003) Gabel, Dolan, & Cerdin (2005)

Hopkins & Bilimoria (2008)

40

ECI (Boyatzis & Goleman, 2001, composite of other ratings) ECI (Boyatzis & Goleman, 2001, composite of other ratings) 360-degree Genos Emotional Intelligence Inventory (Gignac, 2010) Bedwell Emotional Judgment Inventory (Bedwell, 2002) Emotional Intelligence Quotient Inventory (based on Salovey & Mayer, 1990) EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) Schutte et al. (1998) Schutte et al. (1998) — ECI-U (Boyatzis & Sala, 2004)

EIQ-G (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000)

EIQ (Dulewicz & Higgs, 1999, 2000) EQ-i Spanish version (Ugarriza, 2001) EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) — EQI (Rahim et al., 2002) ECI (Sala, 2002)

Schutte et al. (1998) Schutte et al. (1998) EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) Success Tendencies Indicator (STI; (Taccarino & Leonard, 1999) EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997)

98 215 73 120

Drew (2007)

ECI (2nd ed.; Wolff, 2006)

161

Byrne, Dominick, Smither, & Reilly (2007) Carmeli (2003) Carmeli & Josman (2006) Cavins (2005) Chipain (2003)

EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) — ECI (Sala, 2002)

EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) ECI (2nd ed.; Wolff, 2006)

36 32 95 — 325

Austin, Saklofske, Huang, & McKenney (2004)

EI Measure

154

Sample size

F. W. Brown, Bryant, & Reilly (2006) Budnik (2003) Byrne (2003)

Mixed EI and job performance Austin, Evans, Goldwater, & Potter (2005) Bachman, Stein, Campbell, & Sitarenios (2000) Brizz (2004)

Study

Hockey player performance Supervisor-rated job performance Self-rated sales performance — Supervisor-rated performance

Self-rated oversea adjustment

Supervisor-rated job performance

Supervisor-rated workplace performance — Supervisor-rated job performance Supervisor-rated residence hall assistants job performance Performance assessment by the personnel department Supervisor-rated success (annual performance plus annual potential) Supervisor-rated success (annual performance plus annual potential) Objective performance

Student teacher performance (mixture of other-rating and self-rating) Supervisor-rated management performance Supervisor-rated job performance

Success in debt collection Parishioner support (sacramental support plus financial support) Subordinate-rated leader effectiveness — Supervisor-rated performance based on Managerial Skills Questionnaire (Smither & Seltzer, 2001) Coworker (e.g., peers, supervisors, subordinates) rating of managerial skills Self-rated job performance Supervisor-rated task performance Director-rated student leader performance Objective sales performance

Academic performance

Performance measure

⫺.16 .15 .20 — .35

.18

.31

.43

.27

.23

.22

.20 — .29 .21

.32 .06

.31

.32 .47 .29 (original F ⫽ 6.287) .42

.27

⫺.02 — .27

.30 (original t ⫽ 1.848) .12

.22

Effect size

B C B B A, C (table continues)

B

A, C

B

B

B

B

A, C B A, C A, C

A, B, C C

B

B A, B, C B B

B

B B A, C

B B

B

Meta-analysisa

Table 1 Primary Studies of the Relationships of Mixed EI and Ability EI With Job Performance (Comparing Current Meta-Analysis to Joseph & Newman, 2010b, and O’Boyle et al., 2011)



305

66 102 85 102 80 41

Kluemper (2006) Kluemper, DeGroot, & Choi (2013)

MSCEIT MSCEIT MSCEIT MSCEIT MSCEIT MSCEIT

(Mayer (Mayer (Mayer (Mayer (Mayer (Mayer

et et et et et et

al., al., al., al., al., al.,

2002) 2002) 2002) 1999) 2002) 2002)

MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002) MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2000)

MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002) TEMINT (Schmidt-Atzert & Bühner, 2002) MSCEIT (Mayer & Salovey, 1997) DANVA2 (Nowicki, 2000) MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2000) MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002) MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2000) MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002) MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002) MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002) EKT (short version of MEIS; Mayer & Salovey, 1997) MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 1999) MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002)

Schutte et al. (1998)

EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) Leadership competency inventory designed to measure Goleman’s (1995) EI competencies EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997

SUEIT (Palmer & Stough, 2001) ECI (Sala, 2002) EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997)

EI Measure

Performance in simulated activities Supervisor-rated residence hall assistants job performance Transformational Leadership Practices Subordinates’ rating of supervisory leadership effectiveness Supervisor-rated job performance Supervisor-rated task performance Supervisor-rated task performance Objective performance measures Supervisor-rated job performance Supervisor-rated job performance

Objective sales performance Supervisor-rated managerial performance Supervisor-rated job performance Supervisor-rated job performance Multirater feedback of executive success Supervisor-rated job performance Supervisor-rated job performance Supervisor-rated job performance Performance in simulated activities

Overall course assessment Supervisor-rated overall performance

Overall self-rated resident advisor performance Objective baseball performance

Supervisor-rated job performance Supervisor-rated job performance Supervisor-rated management performance Supervisor-rated task-oriented leadership abilities Objective performance Supervisor-rated job performance

Performance measure

.25 .22 .22 ⫺.13 ⫺.01 .20

.05 .39

.24 ⫺.12

⫺.09 .22 .21 .18 ⫺.08 .32 .08 .11 .10

.20 .15

.34 .01

.35

.28 ⫺.07

.25 ␹2 ⫽ 34.27 .22 .14

Effect size

A, B, C C C A A,C A, B, C

B B

A A,C

B B, C C A, C B A, B, C C A, C A

B C

B B

B

B C

A, C B C B, C

Meta-analysisa

Note. In column headed “Source,” A ⫽ studies included in Joseph & Newman (2010b); B ⫽ studies included in O’Boyle et al. (2011); C ⫽ studies included in the current article. DANVA2 ⫽ Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy-2; ECI ⫽ Emotion-Competence Inventory; ECI–U ⫽ Emotional Competence Inventory–University Version; EKT ⫽ Emotion Knowledge Test; EQ-i ⫽ Emotional Quotient Inventory; EQI ⫽ Emotional Quotient Index; EIQ-G ⫽ Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire–General; MEIS ⫽ Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale; MSCEIT ⫽ Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test; SUEIT ⫽ Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test; TEMINT ⫽ Test of Emotional Intelligence.

Law, Wong, Huang, & Li (2008) Muniz & Primi (2007) Rosete & Ciarrochi (2005)

138 38

69 46

62 58 69 119 52 175 212 24 150

119 210

21 pitchers 40 hitters

Herbst, Maree, & Sibanda (2006) Kerr, Garvin, Heaton, & Boyle (2006)

Hanna (2008)

Bryant (2005) Byron (2007) Christiansen, Janovics, & Siers (2010) Cobêro, Primi, & Muniz (2006) Collins (2002) Côté & Miners (2006) Farh, Seo, & Tesluk (2012) Goldsmith (2008 Graves (1999)

Ability EI and job performance Ashkanasy & Dasborough (2003) Blickle et al. (2009)

Zizzi, Deaner, & Hirschhorn (2003)

36

60 145

Tombs (2005) Vieira (2008)

M. B. Wu (2008)

136 134 224 383

Sample size

Semadar, Robins, & Ferris (2006) Sergio (2001) Slaski & Cartwright (2002) Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005)

Study

Table 1 (continued)


306 JOSEPH, JIN, NEWMAN, AND O’BOYLE


307

Figure 4. Mediation model for objective results criteria. Estimates were standardized: N ⫽ 1,846, ␹2(1) ⫽ 7.69 (p ⬍ .05), root-mean-square error of approximation ⫽ .060, comparative fit index ⫽ .99, Tucker–Lewis Index ⫽ .96, standardized root-mean-square residual ⫽ .02. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. EI ⫽ emotional intelligence.


lation to which the correlation matrix corresponds—this appears to be a ubiquitous limitation that plagues the vast majority of studies in organizational research and is not unique to meta-analytic SEM.

Literature Search In order to estimate the structural models, we compiled a correlation matrix based on meta-analytic estimates from 20 published meta-analytic correlations plus 16 original meta-analyses. If multiple meta-analyses had been published on a particular bivariate relationship, we used the most recent (which was also the most comprehensive) one. The 16 original meta-analyses included updates of the relationships of both mixed EI and ability EI with supervisor-rated job performance, as well as the relationships of both general self-efficacy and self-rated job performance with cognitive ability, personality traits, and EI. Several strategies were used to locate primary studies included in the original metaanalyses. First, we conducted a literature search in the databases PsycINFO, ERIC, Social Science Citation Index, Google Scholar, and Dissertation Abstracts International for published and unpublished studies, using combinations and variations of the following keywords: emotional intelligence, cognitive ability, self-efficacy, and self-rated job performance. Second, we also cross-checked

reference lists from previous meta-analyses and reviews on similar topics as well as studies that cited the original scale development articles for general/generalized self-efficacy (Chen et al., 2001; Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2002; Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998; Schwarzer, Bassler, Kwiatek, Schröder, & Zhang, 1997; Sherer et al., 1982). In accordance with our a priori construct definitions and research interests, several rules were established for the inclusion of primary studies. First, the analysis was limited to adult participants (ages 16 –70 years, excluding young adolescents and institutionalized populations). Second, any studies that did not operationalize general self-efficacy in a manner consistent with the definition of general self-efficacy from Sherer et al. (1982), as a trait-like construct that represents global mastery expectancies, were excluded (e.g., measures of task-specific or state self-efficacy were excluded, mimicking the procedures of Judge & Bono, 2001). Composite measures of confidence in performing tasks across several, specific domains (e.g., Bernard, Hutchison, Lavin, & Pennington, 1996), or self-efficacy measures that were specific to a particular setting (e.g., Jones, 1986) were also excluded. In addition, measures that claimed to assess general self-efficacy but appeared to represent another construct (e.g., the personal mastery measure from Pearlin &

Table 2 Results From Original Meta-Analyses 95% CI Variable Job performance (supervisor-rated) Mixed EI Ability EI General self-efficacy Self-rated job performance Mixed EI Ability EI Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability Cognitive ability General self-efficacy General self-efficacy Mixed EI Ability EI Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability Cognitive ability

80% CI

k

N

r

␳ˆ

SD␳

15 13 13

2,168 1,287 2,703

.23 .17 .10

.29 .20 .13

.13 .03 .00

.21 .13 .09

.38 .26 .18

.13 .15 .13

.46 .24 .13

10 3 8 8 8 4 3

1,601 219 2,621 2,621 2,621 3,298 686

.36 .00 .25 .19 .22 .03 .41

.41 .00 .31 .23 .26 .04 .51

.09 .09 .09 .06 .13 .05 .11

.34 ⫺.19 .23 .16 .16 ⫺.03 .36

.49 .20 .39 .29 .37 .10 .66

.29 ⫺.12 .19 .14 .09 ⫺.02 .37

.54 .12 .43 .31 .43 .10 .65

9 5 30 23 46 13

1,847 709 10,027 8,479 12,510 4,085

.37 .30 .45 .42 .48 .07

.45 .36 .54 .51 .56 .09

.13 .40 .26 .20 .12 .06

.35 ⫺.01 .44 .42 .52 .04

.54 .72 .63 .59 .59 .13

.28 ⫺.15 .21 .25 .40 .01

.61 .87 .87 .76 .71 .16

LL

UL

LL

UL

Note. k ⫽ number of effect sizes in the meta-analysis; N ⫽ total sample size in the meta-analysis; r ⫽ sample-size weighted mean correlation; ␳ˆ ⫽ correlation corrected for attenuation in predictor and criterion; SD␳ ⫽ standard deviation of corrected correlation; mixed emotional intelligence (EI) and ability EI correlations with supervisor-rated job performance are also corrected for range restriction; 95% CI ⫽ 95% confidence interval; 80% CI ⫽ 80% credibility interval; LL ⫽ lower limit; UL ⫽ upper limit.

— .34g (115/37752) — .51b (3/686) .13b (13/2703) — .09b (13/4085) .04b (4/3298) .44f (425/32124) — .09d (61/21404) .56b (46/12510) .26b (8/2621) .11e (53/9184) — .19c (710/440440) d .02 (61/21602) .51b (23/8479) .23b (8/2621) .09e (56/9664) — .00c (632/683001) .26c (587/490296) ⫺.04d (56/15429) .54b (30/10027) .31b (8/2621) .21e (64/12434) — .26a (10/1572) .38a (31/5591) .46a (30/5552) .53a (30/5386) .11a (19/2880) .45b (9/1847) .41b (10/1602) .29b (15/2168) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Mixed emotional intelligence Ability emotional intelligence Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability Cognitive ability General self-efficacy Self-rated job performance Job performance (supervisor-rated)

— .13a (21/4155) .18a (23/4269) .20a (22/4401) .25a (28/5538) .36b (5/709) .00b (3/219) .20b (13/1287)

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Variable

Table 3 Correlation Table From Meta-Analytic Results


Note. Each cell contains the correlation corrected for attenuation in the predictor and criterion, followed by k number of effect sizes and N sample size. Correlations of supervisor-rated job performance with mixed emotional intelligence (EI), ability EI, Big Five traits, and cognitive ability were also corrected for range restriction. a Joseph & Newman (2010b). b Original meta-analyses from current study. c Ones (1993). d Judge, Jackson, Shaw, Scott, & Rich (2007). e Joseph & Newman (2010b), updated from Hurtz & Donovan (2000). f Hunter & Hunter (1984; see Joseph & Newman, 2010b, p. 63). g Heidemeier & Moser (2009).


308

Schooler, 1978) were also excluded. The only exception to this inclusion rule was in regard to self-efficacy’s correlation with ability EI. Because there were no general self-efficacy primary studies available to estimate this effect, we used primary studies of specific self-efficacy for this particular cell in the correlation matrix. Third, with regard to job performance measures, we invoked a set of conservative standards: (a) only the job performance of employed individuals was included; performance of specific cognitive or noncognitive tasks, lab experiments, assessment center ratings, and training performance were excluded; (b) student academic performance and grade point averages (GPAs) were excluded; (c) studies measuring only contextual performance or organizational citizenship behavior were excluded; and (d) studies that provided objective measures or third-party evaluations of job performance were excluded because, to be consistent with other meta-analyses in our correlation matrix, we were only interested in supervisor ratings of job performance. Primary studies of self-rated job performance were selected according to the same inclusion rules, with one exception. In order to obtain an adequate sample size for the relationships between personality/cognitive ability and selfrated job performance, we chose to include two studies (Oswald, Schmitt, Kim, Ramsay, & Gillespie, 2004; Schmitt et al., 2007) that used behaviorally anchored rating scales across 12 dimensions of college performance (these studies were included in effect size estimates for the relationships between personality/cognitive ability and self-rated performance). Results with and without these two studies were very similar; removing these studies did not change the relationships by more than .03. Fourth, any performance-based (e.g., multiple-choice/right– wrong) measure of EI based on Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) ability model was coded as ability EI, and all self-report measures of EI (excluding self-report measures of ability EI; e.g., Wong & Law, 2002) were coded as measures of mixed EI. (Note: We classified the Schutte et al. [1998] measure of EI as a self-report mixed EI measure; although the original measure is purportedly based on Salovey and Mayer’s [1990] model, the dimensions of this self-report scale— empathy, self-management of emotions, utilization of emotions, and management of others’ emotions [Chan, 2003]— do not align with the dimensions of Salovey and Mayer’s ability EI model, and the items on the scale appear to capture content much broader than ability EI [e.g., the item “I expect that I will do well on most things I try” appears to measure general self-efficacy]). Fifth, studies that used student GPA or ACT scores to represent cognitive ability were excluded. We also deleted studies that did not measure Emotional Stability directly but instead measured a related trait such as the Sensitivity facet from the California Personality Inventory (e.g., Baker, 2007) or negative affectivity. Finally, studies that did not provide enough information to calculate the hypothesized correlations or did not provide sample sizes were excluded. All primary studies that were identified as part of the original search, but subsequently excluded for any of the above reasons, are listed in Appendix A.

Data Analysis Following Hunter and Schmidt (2004), we calculated samplesize-weighted mean correlations, with all effect sizes corrected for unreliability in both the predictor and criterion. For longitudinal



studies that contained multiple measurements, only the effect size from the initial measure was kept. For a sample with multiple, facet-level effect sizes of one relationship, we computed a composite correlation according to the formula provided by Nunnally (1978), or if inadequate information was available to calculate a composite, we calculated a simple average. In cases where no reliability information was provided, we adopted estimates from Viswesvaran and Ones (2000, p. 231) for reliability of Big Five personality or imputed the average reliability from all available studies (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004) for non–Big Five measures. For estimating the reliability of single-item measures of job performance, we followed previous approaches (McKay & McDaniel, 2006; Roth, Huffcutt, & Bobko, 2003) using the Spearman–Brown formula to downwardly correct the average reliability reported across other primary studies. Following Hunter and Schmidt (2004), when the standard deviation of the population estimates (␳) was smaller than zero, we used zero instead. Also, to maintain consistency with other job performance meta-analyses in Table 3, we based range restriction corrections for the relationships between ability EI/mixed EI and supervisor-rated job performance upon average ratios of restricted to unrestricted standard deviations (i.e., .95 for mixed EI and .99 for ability EI, which suggest range restriction was very minor for the studies included in the current EI meta-analyses). Duval and Tweedie (2000) trim-and-fill publication bias analyses were also conducted (no bias was found; results are available upon request). Based upon the meta-analytic correlation matrix in Table 3, we then conducted multiple regression analyses, with mixed EI as the dependent variable, to test the extent to which mixed EI measures are sampling the content domains of Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Emotional Stability, ability EI, cognitive ability, and selfrated qualities. (We also included ability EI as a second dependent variable, in response to a reviewer comment.) We also conducted relative importance analyses (J. W. Johnson, 2000; J. W. Johnson & LeBreton, 2004) to determine which constructs (e.g., Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Emotional Stability, ability EI, cognitive ability, general self-efficacy, or self-rated job performance) contributed the most variance to mixed EI. Next, we estimated three structural equation models to test the effects of the KSAOs (common covariates) of mixed EI and job performance (see Figures 1, 2, and 3; note that Figure 2, Model B, is mathematically equivalent to estimating two multiple regression models in this case). Model A is our hypothesized heterogeneous domain sampling model (no-mediation model; Figure 1, Model A), which specifies no path from mixed EI to supervisor ratings of job performance. Model B is a fully saturated model (partialmediation model; Figure 2, Model B) in which Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Emotional Stability, ability EI, cognitive ability, and self-rated qualities predict mixed EI and supervisor ratings of job performance, and mixed EI also incrementally predicts job performance. Model C is a fully-mediated model (Figure 3, Model C) that is similar to Model B, except the direct effects of all seven KSAOs are removed so that mixed EI transmits all the KSAO effects onto supervisor ratings of job performance. Finally, the fourth model estimates a mediation model from mixed EI to supervisor ratings of job performance, which in turn lead to objective results criteria (Figure 4).

309 Results

Results of the original meta-analyses conducted in the current study are presented in Table 2 (primary studies included in these original meta-analyses are presented in Table 4). Regarding the relationship between mixed EI and job performance, several major adjustments were made to improve upon the statistical validity and construct validity of previous meta-analyses. In particular, seven primary studies were added beyond Joseph and Newman’s (2010b) meta-analysis, 11 primary studies were added beyond O’Boyle et al.’s (2011) metaanalysis, and 24 primary studies were removed from O’Boyle et al.’s (2011) analysis (see list of primary studies in Table 1). This update and refinement resulted in a corrected mean mixed EI-job performance correlation of .29, which is considerably smaller than what Joseph and Newman (2010b) reported (␳ˆ ⫽ .47), and closer to the estimate reported by O’Boyle et al. (2011; ␳ˆ ⫽ .28). The relationship between ability EI and job performance was also updated, with a mean corrected correlation of .20. This is larger than the estimate from Joseph and Newman (2010b; ␳ˆ ⫽ .18) but smaller than the O’Boyle et al. (2011) estimate (␳ˆ ⫽ .24). The estimated population correlation between general self-efficacy and job performance was only .13, which is smaller than that reported in a previous meta-analysis (Judge & Bono, 2001, ␳ˆ ⫽ .23), although this newer estimate is based on more than twice as much data. For self-rated job performance, there was a high correlation with general self-efficacy (␳ˆ ⫽ .51) and mixed EI (␳ˆ ⫽ .41), but near-zero relationships with both cognitive ability (␳ˆ ⫽ .04) and ability EI (␳ˆ ⫽ .004). With regard to general self-efficacy, results showed that it is highly correlated with all three personality traits: ␳ˆ ⫽ .56 with Emotional Stability, ␳ˆ ⫽ .54 with Conscientiousness, and ␳ˆ ⫽ .51 with Extraversion, and it strongly relates to mixed EI (␳ˆ ⫽ .45), whereas it has only a small relationship with cognitive ability (␳ˆ ⫽ .09). After combining the original meta-analyses we have described above with the 20 previously published meta-analyses, we created the final meta-analytic correlation matrix, which we present in Table 3. On the basis of this correlation matrix, we estimated the multiple regression models presented in Table 5. Results indicate 62% of the variance in mixed EI is captured by Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Emotional Stability, ability EI, cognitive ability, general self-efficacy, and self-rated job performance, suggesting that a majority of the mix in mixed EI covers content from well-established psychological concepts (in contrast, only 23% of the variance in ability EI is captured by these constructs). As an aside, we note that general self-efficacy has a strong negative regression coefficient for mixed EI (and for job performance, as we show later), due to a suppression effect (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003; Tzelgov & Henik, 1991) coming from high multicollinearity of general self-efficacy with the three Big Five factors and self-rated job performance. Results from the relative importance analysis, which partitions R2 and assigns percentages of R2 contributed by each predictor (displayed in Table 6), indicate that the most important predictors of mixed EI, in order, are Emotional Stability (29.5%), Extraversion (26.5%), Conscientiousness (16.1%), self-rated performance (14.2%), general selfefficacy (6.8%), and ability EI (5.5%). Thus, the answer to our research question—What proportion of the variance in mixed EI is accounted for by Conscientiousness, Extraversion, general selfefficacy, self-rated job performance, ability EI, Emotional stability,

Adeyemo & Ogunyemi (2005) Best (2002) Bledow & Frese (2009) Blickle et al. (2009) Boyar & Mosley (2007) Boyce, Zaccaro, & Wisecarver (2010) Boyce, Zaccaro, & Wisecarver (2010) R. F. Brown & Schutte (2006) T. J. Brown, Mowen, Donavan, & Licata (2002) T. J. Brown, Mowen, Donavan, & Licata (2002) T. J. Brown, Mowen, Donavan, & Licata (2002) Bryan (2007) Burke, Matthiesen, & Pallesen (2006) Burke, Matthiesen, & Pallesen (2006) Burke, Matthiesen, & Pallesen (2006) Byrne (2003) Byron (2007) Byron, Terranova, & Nowicki (2007) Byron, Terranova, & Nowicki (2007) Carmeli (2003) Carmeli & Josman (2006) Chan (2004) Chang (2008) Chang (2008) Chang (2008) G. Chen, Gully, & Eden (2004) G. Chen, Gully, & Eden (2004) G. Chen, Gully, & Eden (2004) G. Chen, Gully, & Eden (2004) G. Chen, Gully, Whiteman, & Kilcullen (2000) G. Chen, Gully, Whiteman, & Kilcullen (2000) G. Chen & Klimoski (2003) S. X. Chen & Carey (2009) S. X. Chen & Carey (2009) S. X. Chen & Carey (2009) Christiansen, Janovics, & Siers (2010) Chu (2007) Chu (2007) Clemmons (2008) Clemmons (2008) Clemmons (2008) Cobêro, Primi & Muniz (2006) Converse, Steinhauser, & Pathak (2010) Côté & Miners (2006) DeRue & Morgeson (2007) Devonish & Greenidge (2010) Dulewicz, Higgs & Slaski (2003) Durán et al. (2006)

Study

Table 4 Primary Studies Included in the 16 Original Meta-Analyses

300 819 77 210 123 327 327 167 249 249 249 57 460 460 460 325 58 109 51 98 215 158 874 874 874 267 267 148 148 158 127 70 113 113 113 69 666 666 231 231 231 119 90 175 143 175 53 373

N General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy Ability EI General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy Mixed EI Ability EI Ability EI Ability EI Mixed EI Mixed EI General Self-Efficacy Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy Ability EI General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy Ability EI General Self-Efficacy Ability EI General Self-Efficacy Mixed EI Mixed EI General Self-Efficacy

Predictor measure .82 .85 .79 .81 .88 .95 .95 .86 .73 .86 .88 .67 .85 .85 .85 .92 .70 .77 .76 .90 .83 .80 .78 .78 .78 .86 .86 .82 .82 .88 .86 .88 .91 .91 .91 .78 .84 .84 .86 .86 .86 .78 .84 .92 .92 .85 .77 .86

rxx Mixed EI Emotional Stability Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Emotional Stability Conscientiousness Cognitive Ability Mixed EI Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Mixed EI Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Job performance (supervisor-rated) Mixed EI Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Job performance (supervisor-rated) Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability Job performance (supervisor-rated) Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability Job performance (supervisor-rated) Conscientiousness Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Mixed EI

Criterion measure


.76 .92 .96 .84 .79 .85 .88 .85 .82 .82 .82 .95 .71 .70 .82 .73 .91 .80 .80 .87 .85 .61 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .73 .69 .90 .90 .99 .83 .76 .86 .92 .78 .78 .78 .78 .78 .89 .78 .91 .95 .92 .58 .89

ryy

.32 .56 .28 .15 .22 .49 ⫺.05 .58 .18 .12 .14 .55 .25 .36 .43 .27 .22 .12 ⫺.23 .32 .47 .33 .20 .19 .35 .29 .41 .46 .42 .05 .08 ⫺.01 .27 .41 .37 .21 .47 .30 .34 .28 .29 .18 .31 .32 .13 ⫺.03 .32 .25

r


General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy Negotiation Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy Ability EI General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy Mixed EI General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy Mixed EI Ability EI Mixed EI General Self-Efficacy Mixed EI Ability EI Social Self-Efficacy Cognitive Ability Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy

3215 3215 3215 178 149 124 124 124 473 112 255 212 513 268 81 123 80 405 59 127 145 230 24 24 129 151 46 46 240 77 77 77 77 175 175 175 129 138 223 170 140 132 135 183 348 702 702 270 270

Ebstrup, Eplov, Pisinger, & Jorgensen (2011) Ebstrup, Eplov, Pisinger, & Jorgensen (2011) Ebstrup, Eplov, Pisinger, & Jorgensen (2011) Eissa & Khalifa (2008) Elfenbein, Curhan, Eisenkraft, Shirako, & Baccaro (2008) Erez & Judge (2001) Erez & Judge (2001) Erez & Judge (2001) Erez & Judge (2001) Erez & Judge (2001) Fan, Meng, Billings, Litchfield, & Kaplang (2008) Farh, Seo, & Tesluk (2012) Feng, Lu, & Xiao (2008) Fortunato & Goldblatt (2006) Foti & Hauenstein (2007) Frese et al. (2007) Frese et al. (2007) Fuller et al. (2011) Gabel, Dolan, & Cerdin (2005) García-lzquierdo, García-lzquierdo, & Ramos-Villagrasa (2007) Gardner & Pierce (1998) Gardner & Pierce (2010) Goldsmith (2008) Goldsmith (2008) Hader (2007) Hadley (2003) Hanna (2008) Hanna (2008) Heggestad & Morrison (2008) D. M. Higgins (2009) D. M. Higgins, Peterson, Pihl, & Lee (2007) D. M. Higgins, Peterson, Pihl, & Lee (2007) D. M. Higgins, Peterson, Pihl, & Lee (2007) H. R. Higgins (2001) H. R. Higgins (2001) H. R. Higgins (2001) R. E. Johnson, Rosen & Djurdjevic (2011) R. E. Johnson, Rosen & Djurdjevic (2011) R. E. Johnson, Rosen & Djurdjevic (2011) R. E. Johnson, Rosen & Djurdjevic (2011) R. E. Johnson, Rosen & Djurdjevic (2011) R. E. Johnson, Rosen & Djurdjevic (2011) R. E. Johnson, Rosen & Djurdjevic (2011) Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke (2005) Judge, Bono, & Locke (2002) Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (2002) Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (2002) Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (2002) Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (2002)

Predictor measure

N

Study

Table 4 (continued)

.81 .86 .93 .78 .63 .68 .84 .82 .87 .74 .83 .81 .88 .84 .82 .82 .82 .84 .82 .83 .85 .82 .84 .84 .85 .86 .94 .94 .88 .88

.90 .90 .90 .82 .80 .78 .78 .78 .90 .80 .88 .88 .88 .90 .85 .88 .79 .89 .77

rxx

Mixed EI Job performance (supervisor-rated) Emotional Stability Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Extraversion Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Ability EI Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Conscientiousness Extraversion Conscientiousness Extraversion

Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability Mixed EI Ability EI Job performance (supervisor-rated) Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Cognitive Ability Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Conscientiousness Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Extraversion Job performance (supervisor-rated)

Criterion measure


.48 .51 .51 .32 ⫺.03 .22 .52 .69 .33 .47 .10 .08 .09 .54 .12 .31 .02 .24 .06

r

.90 .45 .94 .11 .81 .17 .79 .20 .88 .11 .58 .29 .78 .14 .83 .21 .83 ⫺.12 .88 .10 .97 .36 .97 .28 .97 .28 .97 .20 .84 .56 .81 .29 .90 .43 .84 .59 .85 .52 .89 .51 .86 .64 .84 .53 .87 .48 .88 .27 .89 .49 .90 .60 .74 .32 .72 .29 .91 .49 .88 .53 (table continues)

.79 .82 .85 .91 .88 .61 .80 .79 .88 .89 .78 .88 .78 .84 .90 .69 .67 .81 .86

ryy


311

Study

Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (2002) Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (2002) Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (2002) Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (2002) Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (2002) Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (2002) Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (2002) Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (2002) Judge, LePine, & Rich (2006) Judge, LePine, & Rich (2006) Judge, LePine, & Rich (2006) Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger (1998) Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger (1998) Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger (1998) Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne (1999) Kirk, Schutte, & Hine (2008) Kluemper (2006) Kluemper, DeGroot, & Choi (2013) Kluemper, DeGroot, & Choi (2013) Kostman (2004) Ladebo & Awotunde (2007) Langendörfer (2008) Langendörfer (2008) Langendörfer (2008) Law (2003) Lee, Stettler, & Antonakis (2011) Lee, Stettler, & Antonakis (2011) Lee, Stettler, & Antonakis (2011) Lee, Stettler, & Antonakis (2011) Lee, Stettler, & Antonakis (2011) Lindley (2001) Lu, Chang, & Lai (2011) Lu, Chang, & Lai (2011) Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman (2007) Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman (2007) Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman (2007) McElroy, Hendrickson, Townsend, & DeMarie (2007) McElroy, Hendrickson, Townsend, & DeMarie (2007) McElroy, Hendrickson, Townsend, & DeMarie (2007) McKinney (2003) McKinney (2003) McNatt & Judge (2004) Meier, Semmer, Elfering, & Jacobshagen (2008) Mirsaleh, Rezai, Kivi, & Ghorbani (2010) Mirsaleh, Rezai, Kivi, & Ghorbani (2010) Mirsaleh, Rezai, Kivi, & Ghorbani (2010) Muniz & Primi (2007) Oh & Berry (2009) Oh & Berry (2009) Oh & Berry (2009)

Table 4 (continued)

124 124 72 72 440 440 277 277 131 131 131 164 122 122 514 92 66 102 85 147 156 122 122 122 88 460 460 460 460 460 301 310 220 404 404 404 153 153 153 306 114 57 96 127 127 127 80 239 239 239

N General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy Emotional Self-Efficacy Ability EI Ability EI Ability EI Mixed EI General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy Ability EI Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability

Predictor measure .88 .88 .87 .87 .80 .80 .85 .85 .80 .85 .81 .90 .83 .81 .75 .85 .77 .78 .78 .79 .81 .88 .88 .88 .83 .84 .84 .84 .84 .84 .87 .93 .77 .78 .78 .78 .80 .80 .80 .88 .88 .84 .80 .85 .85 .85 .78 .92 .95 .93

rxx Conscientiousness Extraversion Conscientiousness Extraversion Conscientiousness Extraversion Conscientiousness Extraversion Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Job performance (supervisor-rated) Ability EI Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Self-rated job performance Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Job performance (supervisor-rated) Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability Cognitive Ability Mixed EI Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Extraversion Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Job performance (supervisor-rated) Emotional Stability Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability Job performance (supervisor-rated) Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance

Criterion measure


.90 .75 .90 .75 .84 .79 .87 .78 .83 .83 .83 .93 .86 .85 .61 .91 .90 .86 .90 .80 .76 .85 .80 .85 .85 .81 .78 .78 .78 .90 .90 .81 .74 .82 .82 .82 .90 .93 .91 .91 .91 .93 .77 .61 .76 .79 .81 .88 .88 .88

ryy .46 .35 .12 .29 .58 .48 .45 .42 .60 .22 .21 .67 .49 .33 .08 .34 .25 .22 .22 .31 .22 .35 .46 .67 .21 .12 .45 .39 .55 .1 .54 .48 .46 .20 .05 .01 .59 .52 .36 .46 .39 ⫺.06 .51 .54 .39 .52 ⫺.01 .27 .32 .28

r


2488 35 136 69 100 45 224 160 206 110 110 383 412 180 180 180 180 199 199 199 119 119

Schimtt et al. (2007) Schumacher (2005) Semadar, Robins, & Ferris (2006 Sevinc (2001) Shahzad, Sarmad, Abbas, & Khan (2011) Sjoberg, Littorin, & Engelberg (2005) Slaski & Cartwright (2002) Smith & Foti (1998) Sovern (2008) Stewart, Palmer, Wilkin, & Kerrin (2008) Stewart, Palmer, Wilkin, & Kerrin (2008) Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005) Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005) Strobel, Tumasjan, & Sporrle (2011) Strobel, Tumasjan, & Sporrle (2011) Strobel, Tumasjan, & Sporrle (2011) Strobel, Tumasjan, & Sporrle (2011) Stumpp, Muck, Hulsheger, Judge, & Maier (2010) Stumpp, Muck, Hulsheger, Judge, & Maier (2010) Stumpp, Muck, Hulsheger, Judge, & Maier (2010) Sturman (2011) Sturman (2011)

N 180 38 134 134 134 611 611 611 611 104 103 58 87 80 271 98 98 98 97 209 204 150 160 59 41 103 48

Study

Okech (2004) Ono, Sachau, Deal, Englert, & Taylor (2011) Oreg (2003) Oreg (2003) Oreg (2003) Oswald et al. (2004) Oswald et al. (2004) Oswald et al. (2004) Oswald et al. (2004) Owens (2009) Owens (2009) Parker (2007) Petrides & Furnham (2006) Petrides & Furnham (2006) Piccolo, Judge, Takahashi, Watanabe, & Locke (2005) Pierro (1997) Pierro (1997) Pierro (1997) Platt (2010) Prati (2004) Ramassini (2000) Reece (2007) Robinson (2009) Rode et al. (2008) Rosete & Ciarrochi (2005) Rozell, Pettijohn, & Parker (2004) Schendel (2010)

Table 4 (continued)

Teaching Self-Efficacy Mixed EI General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability Cognitive Ability General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy Mixed EI Mixed EI General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy Mixed EI General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy Ability EI Ability EI Mixed EI Counselor Activity SelfEfficacy Cognitive Ability Mixed EI Mixed EI Mixed EI Mixed EI Mixed EI Mixed EI General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy Mixed EI Mixed EI General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy

Predictor measure

.83 .68 .94 .80 .82 .76 .79 .88 .73 .86 .86 .79 .93 .85 .85 .85 .85 .87 .87 .87 .84 .84

.77 .79 .93 .93 .93 .83 .88 .84 .83 .84 .84 .69 .84 .89 .80 .84 .84 .84 .84 .89 .84 .96 .78 .88 .78 .83 .95

rxx

Self-rated job performance Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Job performance (supervisor-rated) Cognitive Ability Emotional Stability Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Job performance (supervisor-rated) Self-rated job performance Job performance (supervisor-rated) Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability Conscientiousness Extraversion

Ability EI Job performance (supervisor-rated) Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Conscientiousness Cognitive Ability Job performance (supervisor-rated) Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Emotional Stability Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Cognitive Ability Self-rated job performance Job performance (supervisor-rated) Self-rated job performance Ability EI

Criterion measure


.87 .45 .36 .49 .21 .30 .24 .15 ⫺.01 .40 .29 .05 .33 .03 .41 .58 .48 .20 ⫺.10 .15 .49 .55 .08 ⫺.01 .20 .20 .10

r

.74 .03 .74 .35 .92 .25 .80 .20 .73 .43 .80 .25 .80 .22 .90 .06 .89 .44 .81 .41 .88 .64 .89 .39 .83 .37 .77 .15 .81 .37 .75 .43 .86 .54 .83 .51 .80 .45 .82 .61 .78 .54 .78 .34 (table continues)

.90 .95 .84 .87 .79 .80 .80 .80 .80 .78 .90 .61 .80 .80 .86 .86 .82 .79 .98 .94 .78 .91 .90 .80 .89 .85 .82

ryy


313

Study 119 265 265 293 122 145 186 36 36 36 36 571 1786 252 252 252

N General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy Cognitive Ability Mixed EI General Self-Efficacy Mixed EI Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability Mixed EI General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy General Self-Efficacy

Predictor measure .84 .81 .81 .78 .83 .58 .82 .93 .82 .72 .82 .88 .89 .88 .88 .88

rxx

Emotional Stability Job performance (supervisor-rated) Cognitive Ability Emotional Stability Self-rated job performance Job performance (supervisor-rated) Mixed EI Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Cognitive Ability Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability

Criterion measure

.78 .77 .90 .84 .82 .46 .76 .96 .96 .96 .96 .86 .90 .81 .77 .86

ryy

.60 .15 .06 .54 .05 ⫺.07 .23 .35 .46 .23 .42 .44 .06 .58 .43 .35

r

Note. When reliability information was not available in the primary study, the average reliability of all available measures included in the original meta-analyses was substituted. EI ⫽ emotional intelligence; rxx ⫽ reliability of the predictor; ryy ⫽ reliability of the criterion.

Sturman (2011) Tews, Michel, & Noe (2011) Tews, Michel, & Noe (2011) Timmerman (2008) van Hooft, van der Flier, & Minne (2006) Vieira (2008) Wang (2002) M. B. Wu (2008) M. B. Wu (2008) M. B. Wu (2008) M. B. Wu (2008) Y. Wu (2011) Xie, Roy, & Chen (2006) Yamkovenko & Holton (2010) Yamkovenko & Holton (2010) Yamkovenko & Holton (2010)

Table 4 (continued)




315

Table 5 Meta-Analytic Regression Predicting Mixed EI, Ability EI, and Job Performance


Dependent variable Predictor

Mixed EI

Ability EI

Ability EI Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability Cognitive ability General self-efficacy Self-rated performance Mixed EI

.20ⴱ .45ⴱ .56ⴱ .52ⴱ .06ⴱ ⫺.61ⴱ .31ⴱ —

— ⫺.07ⴱ ⫺.04 ⫺.03 .21ⴱ .54ⴱ ⫺.25ⴱ —

.62ⴱ .61ⴱ

.23ⴱ .20ⴱ

R2 Adjusted R2 ⌬R2

Job performance .18ⴱ .33ⴱ .20ⴱ .09ⴱ .43ⴱ ⫺.52ⴱ .41ⴱ — .3948ⴱ .3928ⴱ

Job performance .19ⴱ .34ⴱ .21ⴱ .11ⴱ .42ⴱ ⫺.53ⴱ .42ⴱ ⫺.02 .3950ⴱ .3927ⴱ .0002

Note. Standardized regression coefficients. For mixed emotional intelligence (EI), harmonic mean N ⫽ 2,127; for ability EI, harmonic mean N ⫽ 2,006; for job performance, N ⫽ 2,168 (i.e., the sample size for the mixed EI–job performance bivariate relationship). ⴱ p ⬍ .05.

and cognitive ability?—is that a majority of variance in mixed EI (62%; multiple R ⫽ .79) is accounted for by these constructs, and the most important predictors of mixed EI are personality traits and self-perceptions. Next, we estimated the models in Figures 1, 2, and 3. The sample size for these models was set at 2,168, which is the sample size for the mixed EI–job performance bivariate relationship. When no common covariates were taken into consideration, there was a statistically significant direct effect (␤ ⫽ .29; standardized coefficient) from mixed EI to job performance (i.e., the bivariate correlation). When the theorized antecedents (ability EI, Emotional Stability, cognitive ability, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, general self-efficacy, and self-rated job performance) were specified as common covariates of both mixed EI and job performance (Figure 2, Model B), the mixed EI effect on job performance dropped from ␤ ⫽ .29 to near zero (␤ ⫽ –.02, ns). Indeed, our hypothesized model, which specified no incremental validity for mixed EI in the presence of the seven KSAOs (i.e., the heterogeneous domain sampling model; Figure 1, Model A), displayed nearly perfect model fit indices [␹2(df ⫽ 1) ⫽ 0.19 (p ⬎ .05), RMSEA ⫽ .00, CFI ⫽ 1.00, TLI ⫽ 1.01, SRMR ⫽ .001]. These results support our expectation that mixed EI fails to exhibit Table 6 Relative Importance Analysis Mixed emotional intelligence Variable

Raw relative weights

Ability EI Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability Cognitive Ability General self-efficacy Self-rated performance R2

.034 .100 .166 .183 .007 .042 .088 .62

Note. EI ⫽ emotional intelligence.

% of R2 5.5 16.1 26.5 29.5 1.1 6.8 14.2

incremental validity when a set of common causes of mixed EI and job performance are controlled. Consistent with these results, the full mediation model (Figure 3, Model C) yielded poor model fit [␹2(df ⫽ 7) ⫽ 232.84 (p ⬍ .05), RMSEA ⫽ .22, CFI ⫽ .88, TLI ⫽ .37, SRMR ⫽ .07]. Note that Model B is saturated (df ⫽ 0), and thus, the fit indices are meaningless (all fit indices take their maximum values, by design). Finally, a meta-analysis of the relationship between mixed EI and objective results measures of performance was conducted (see Appendix B), in order to compare the bivariate mixed EI-performance relationship across different criteria (i.e., supervisor ratings of performance vs. objective results criteria). The meta-analytic relationship between mixed EI and objective results performance measures was ␳ˆ ⫽ .17 (k ⫽ 11, N ⫽ 1,846), which is smaller than the estimated relationship between mixed EI and subjective supervisor ratings of job performance (␳ˆ ⫽ .29, k ⫽ 15, N ⫽ 2,168). This finding was consistent with our theoretical expectation that mixed EI (as an employee KSAO/trait) would affect objective/results performance by way of supervisor-rated job performance behavior (see Figure 4). To test this assertion, we entered the previously described meta-analytic correlations into a mediation model (for the correlation between objective results and subjective performance ratings, we used Bommer, Johnson, Rich, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie’s [1995] meta-analytic estimate of ␳ˆ ⫽ .39). The practical fit of this mediation model [␹2(df ⫽ 1) ⫽ 7.69 (p ⬍ .05), N ⫽ 1,846, RMSEA ⫽ .060, CFI ⫽ .99, TLI ⫽ .96, SRMR ⫽ .02] was deemed adequate, and the indirect effect of mixed EI on objective results performance was statistically significant (95% Monte Carlo confidence interval [.09, .13]; Preacher & Selig, 2012; see Figure 2). If we had additionally estimated the direct effect from mixed EI to objective results performance (df ⫽ 0; saturated model), the direct path coefficient would have been small (␤ ⫽ .06; p ⬍ .05), and the path from supervisor-rated job performance to objective results would have fallen a negligible amount, from ␤ ⫽ .39 to ␤ ⫽ .37. Altogether, these results support our assertion that mixed EI primarily relates to objective results criteria by way of its relationship with supervisorrated job performance (Figure 4).


316


Discussion The link between emotional intelligence and work outcomes such as job performance has been an area of major controversy (Cherniss, 2010; Murphy, 2006). Despite ever-growing attention from both the public and academia, and despite the well-known hyperclaims regarding the criterion-related validity of mixed EI in predicting workplace success (e.g., Goleman, 1995), it has heretofore been unclear what mixed EI instruments measure, and why these instruments predict job performance so well. The current study contributed to the existing literature in two ways. First, we opened the black box of mixed EI construct validity by examining the extent to which mixed EI measures capture content from the following constructs: Conscientiousness, Extraversion, general self-efficacy, self-rated performance, ability EI, Emotional Stability, and cognitive ability. Results demonstrate that a majority of the variance in mixed EI measures is captured by these constructs (i.e., 62%; multiple R ⫽ .79), suggesting these measures tend to sample content from various well-established construct domains in psychology. Second, based on a combination of original and published metaanalytic results, we estimated the extent to which mixed EI demonstrates incremental validity over the seven well-established constructs (Figure 1) in hopes of answering the question, “Why does mixed EI strongly predict job performance?” Our results indicated that after controlling for these constructs, the relationship between mixed EI and job performance dropped to near zero (␤ ⫽ ⫺.02; ns). Based upon these findings, the current study offers the unique insight that the predictive merit of mixed EI can be almost fully explained after one considers ability EI, self-perceptions (i.e., general self-efficacy and self-rated job performance), personality, and cognitive ability. This result differs from the results of previous analyses (Joseph & Newman, 2010b; O’Boyle et al., 2011), which demonstrated sizeable incremental validity for mixed EI beyond the Big Five and cognitive ability but which did not control for self-perceptions or for ability EI. En route to the previously stated result (i.e., answering why mixed EI predicts job performance), we also updated the meta-analytic correlation of mixed EI with job performance by including more studies than previous meta-analyses and by applying a strict operational definition of job performance that focused only on supervisor ratings of performance. Our result (␳ˆ ⫽ .29) was notably smaller than the .47 estimate reported by Joseph and Newman (2010b) but quite similar to the effect size (␳ˆ ⫽ .28) reported by O’Boyle et al. (2011). However, we note that O’Boyle et al. (2011) had defined job performance very broadly, to include academic performance, sports performance, self-rated performance, work adjustment, and other criterion content (see Table 1). Thus, although the current effect size is similar, the construct relationship being estimated here is quite different from that of O’Boyle et al.

Theoretical Implications We now have a theoretical explanation for why mixed EI predicts job performance—and it turns out to be largely a psychometric explanation. Mixed EI measures reflect a heterogeneous combination of traits that have long been known to predict job performance. That is, mixed EI measures appear to have been developed (perhaps unintentionally) through a process of heterogeneous domain sampling from seven well-established content domains. One implication of the heterogeneous domain sampling model of mixed EI is that mixed EI researchers can now borrow substan-

tive theory from the constituent constructs of mixed EI. To elaborate, because we now know what mixed EI is, we can use theory from the nomological networks of the seven constituent construct domains to explain additional outcomes of mixed EI beyond job performance. For example, the large portion of Emotional Stability, Extroversion, and Conscientiousness content in mixed EI could help explain why mixed EI would be a robust predictor of job satisfaction (see Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002) and leadership (Harms & Credé, 2010; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). Another theoretical implication raised by our study involves the standards for construct validity itself and the general question of whether heterogeneous domain sampling should be considered a legitimate method for establishing “new” constructs. On the one hand, some critics might raise the objection that discriminant validity is a cornerstone of construct validity (Campbell & Fiske, 1959), and heterogeneous domain sampling prevents discriminant validity, by definition (i.e., if mixed EI directly reflects its constituent constructs, then it cannot be considered distinct from them). As one example of this, heterogeneous domain sampling might help explain why the discriminant validity of EI ratings from Big Five personality domains is sometimes weak (see multitrait–multimethod evidence from Joseph & Newman, 2010a)— because EI ratings explicitly contain some Big Five content. On the other hand, proponents of heterogeneous domain sampling might contend that creating novel composites of established constructs is itself a meaningful contribution. Macey and Schneider (2008) made this sort of argument when they characterized the employee engagement construct as, “a new blend of old wines” (p. 10), despite the fact that employee engagement was rather clearly developed via heterogeneous domain sampling by borrowing content from job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job involvement, and job affect (Newman & Harrison, 2008; Newman, Joseph, & Hulin, 2010). The question of whether heterogeneous domain sampling can be considered a legitimate new method for scale development is a major theoretical conundrum that emerges from the current article, but this question is, as yet, unanswered. As an aside, we note that proprietary measurement—which is a useful way to protect intellectual property and recoup the costs of measurement research and development—is nonetheless a barrier to scientific progress here, because proprietary measurement hides the survey items and thereby can hide the fact that a measure was derived via heterogeneous domain sampling. This practice gives short shrift to the long-established constituent constructs, which are the predictive workhorses in newer compound concepts like mixed EI but which are forced into anonymity by measurement copyrights. Finally, another natural consequence of the heterogeneous domain sampling model is the need to ensure more valid construct labeling. For mixed EI, the question is whether this composite construct should really be called “emotional intelligence,” or even “emotional competence” (cf. Cherniss, 2010). Although we do not feel authorized to supplant the widely adopted “emotional intelligence” label, the implication of the current study for conceptual construct labeling is that mixed EI measures reflect mixed competence traits (i.e., “mixed EI” describes individuals who are emotionally stable, outgoing, conscientious, with a high estimation of their own past and future performance, and [to a lesser extent] emotionally intelligent).



Limitations and Future Research The current research is also vulnerable to certain limitations, which leaves room for additional corresponding future research. One particular Big Five trait that deserves further discussion here is Agreeableness. Ample research evidence has supported the overlap between Agreeableness and mixed EI (e.g., De Raad, 2005; Joseph & Newman, 2010b; Petrides & Furnham, 2001); however, we did not include Agreeableness in our model (Figures 1, 2, and 3), primarily because this is a model of the theorized common causes of mixed EI and job performance. Agreeableness has a negligible relationship with job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991), and it has been noted that qualities such as empathy and interpersonal sensitivity might even impair job performance when the work situation demands ruthlessness and toughness (Zeidner et al., 2004). However, we recommend that future researchers who investigate the links between mixed EI and contextual performance (Ilies, Fulmer, Spitzmuller, & Johnson, 2009), counterproductive work behavior (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007), or team performance (Bell, 2007) consider the role of Agreeableness as a common cause. We should also note that whereas the current study controlled for some broad Big Five traits (e.g., Extraversion, Conscientiousness), Mayer et al. (2008) specifically described mixed EI content in terms of narrower facets of these traits (e.g., gregariousness, assertiveness, impulse control). Future researchers should attend to whether these particular personality subfacets can more parsimoniously explain the mixed EI–job performance relationship. As suggested by some researchers (Cherniss, 2010; Jordan, Dasborough, Daus, & Ashkanasy, 2010), future studies could also explore the influence of the work context on EI. Depending on the type of job, specific situation, or various kinds of people involved, different profiles inside the mixed EI “grab bag” may potentially have different effects. As a meta-analysis, the current study only speaks to average effects that were obtained across jobs. It is also worth noting that whereas the current study focused on how mixed EI appears to demonstrate a lack of incremental validity after controlling for a linear combination of personality, self-perceptions, ability EI, and cognitive ability; some proponents of mixed EI might argue that mixed EI is actually a profile of various psychological constructs, rather than a simple linear combination, and this profile could demonstrate incremental validity in predicting job performance. Although this may be the case, the current study focused on how mixed EI is currently measured (i.e., as a linear combination), and additional research would be necessary to investigate the issue of mixed EI profiles. As another issue, we mention that EI need not have uniformly positive effects. There could also be a dark side of EI, in which emotionally intelligent individuals are capable of deviant behavior when motivated (Côté, DeCelles, McCarthy, Van Kleef, & Hideg, 2011; Kilduff, Chiaburu, & Menges, 2010). As one final direction for future research, we note that the relationship between mixed EI and job performance may vary across dimensions of mixed EI. Based on a reviewer’s suggestion, we metaanalyzed the relationships of mixed EI facets with both job performance and the covariates shown in Figure 1 (see Appendix C; note that no primary study correlations were available between general self-efficacy and mixed EI facets, therefore specific self-efficacy was used as a substitute here). Although we could only estimate our structural models using the facets of Bar-On’s EQ-i (due to a lack of

317

facet-level data for other mixed EI measures; e.g., see Tables A and B), Table C shows that the covariates explain between 35% and 56% of the variance in each mixed EI facet; and Table C2 demonstrates that after including the covariates, no mixed EI facet retains positive incremental validity for job performance (although some EI facets exhibit incremental validity with a negative regression coefficient, due to suppressor effects). In essence, these facet-level examinations largely replicate the results found for overall mixed EI: the covariates explain much of the mixed EI variance (helping to answer the question of what mixed EI is), and the covariates also explain the relationship between mixed EI and job performance (helping to answer the question of why mixed EI predicts job performance; although we caution these EI facet-level results are based on a relatively small amount of data).

Practical Implications In addition to the currently proposed theoretical enhancement to our understanding of the mixed EI construct (i.e., our new explanation for what mixed EI is and why mixed EI predicts job performance), the findings of the current article have several practical implications. First, our findings reiterate previous meta-analytic conclusions that suggested mixed EI predicts supervisor ratings of job performance rather well—at least as strongly as any other personality construct (Joseph & Newman, 2010b; O’Boyle et al., 2011; cf. Barrick et al., 2001). Thus, for practitioners who have little concern about the overlap between mixed EI and other, well-established psychological constructs, these results suggest that mixed EI measures may be used as part of a selection system because they tap into a diffuse, compound construct of personality and self-perceptions that exhibits reasonable criterion-related validity. This conclusion is markedly different from Joseph and Newman’s (2010b) admonition to, “exercise extreme caution when using mixed EI measures” because it was “not clear why” mixed EI predicts job performance (p. 72). In other words, despite the fact that mixed EI does not appear to increase scientific parsimony in the construct space of the organizational sciences, the current meta-analytic results suggest that practitioners could use a single mixed EI measure to capture a portion of the criterion-related validity that could otherwise be captured by using a battery of seven KSAOs. However, we note that the criterion-related validity of mixed EI (r2 ⫽ .292 ⫽ .08) falls notably short of the criterion-related validity for the composite of seven KSAOs (R2 ⫽ 39; see Table 5)—revealing that although mixed EI offers no incremental prediction beyond the seven KSAOs, the seven KSAOs do offer considerable incremental prediction beyond mixed EI. As such, and given that the majority of mixed EI measures are proprietary and require fees to administer, practitioners will likely be faced with a choice between a shorter, more expensive mixed EI measure with lower criterion-related validity versus a much longer battery of personality, cognitive ability, and self-concept measures with notably higher criterion-related validity. Managing this tradeoff will depend upon practitioners’ judgments about applicants’ time, willingness, and capability to complete a lengthy battery of seven KSAOs. Another practical implication of the current article is that it illustrates a difficult decision practitioners must make once they have determined they want to assess EI. Practitioners must choose between ability EI measures, which show a weaker relationship with job performance but more precisely capture the notion of EI as an intelligence (MacCann et al., 2014), versus mixed


318

EI measures, which show a stronger relationship with job performance but broadly measure many constructs in addition to emotional competencies.


Conclusion The current study attempted to help unravel the mix of what mixed EI actually is. According to current results, the active ingredients in mixed EI—which make it one of the strongest known personality-based predictors of job performance—include Conscientiousness, self-efficacy, self-rated performance, and Extraversion (confirming the conjectures of Mayer et al., 2008, and Newman et al., 2010), in addition to ability EI, Emotional Stability, and cognitive ability. These results illustrate that developers of mixed EI measures may have engaged in heterogeneous domain sampling (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955; Ghiselli et al., 1981; Nunnally, 1967), whereby mixed EI measures were constructed to sample from various well-known psychological content domains. Armed with new knowledge of which psychological fundaments constitute mixed EI measures, the current article aids in the process of establishing the construct validity of mixed EI. In answer to the work that questioned whether mixed EI measures should be used in personnel selection because it was not clear why mixed EI predicted job performance (Joseph & Newman, 2010b), the current results suggest that practitioners might be using measures of mixed EI as a practical, shorthand alternative to a lengthy battery of several more traditional KSAOs.

References Adeyemo, D. A. (2007). Moderating influence of emotional intelligence on the link between academic self-efficacy and achievement of university students. Psychology and Developing Societies, 19, 199 –213. doi: 10.1177/097133360701900204 ⴱ Adeyemo, D. A., & Ogunyemi, B. (2005). Emotional intelligence and self-efficacy as predictors of occupational stress among academic staff in a Nigerian university. E-Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership, 4. No. 1. Retrieved from http://www.leadingtoday.org/ weleadinlearning/da05.htm Aguinis, H. (2013). Performance management (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson–Prentice Hall. Ahmetoglu, G., Leutner, F., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). EQ-nomics: Understanding the relationship between individual differences in Trait Emotional Intelligence and entrepreneurship. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 1028 –1033. Aremu, A. O., & Lawal, G. A. (2009). A path model investigating the influence of some personal-psychological factors on the career aspirations of police trainees: A perspective from Oyo State, Nigeria. Police Practice & Research, 10, 239 –254. doi:10.1080/15614260802381059 Arthur, W., Jr., & Villado, A. J. (2008). The importance of distinguishing between constructs and methods when comparing predictors in personnel selection research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 435– 442. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.435 Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2003). Emotional awareness and emotional intelligence in leadership teaching. Journal of Education for Business, 79, 18 –22. doi:10.1080/08832320309599082 Austin, E. J., Evans, P., Goldwater, R., & Potter, V. (2005). A preliminary study of emotional intelligence, empathy, and exam performance in first year medical students. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1395– 1405. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.04.014 Austin, E. J., Farrelly, D., Black, C., & Moore, H. (2007). Emotional intelligence, Machiavellianism and emotional manipulation: Does EI have a dark side? Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 179 –189.

Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., & Egan, V. (2005). Personality, well-being and health correlates of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 547–558. Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., Huang, S. H. S., & McKenney, D. (2004). Measurement of trait emotional intelligence: Testing and crossvalidating a modified version of Schutte et al.’s (1998) measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 555–562. doi:10.1016/S01918869(03)00114-4 Avery, D. R. (2003). Personality as a predictor of the value of voice. Journal of Psychology, 137, 435– 446. doi:10.1080/00223980309600626 Bachman, J., Stein, S., Campbell, K., & Sitarenios, G. (2000). Emotional intelligence in the collection of debt. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 176 –182. Baker, B. A. (2007). Maximizing multisource feedback: The use of goal setting to facilitate performance improvement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). North Carolina State University, Raleigh. Barchard. (2003). Does emotional intelligence assist in the prediction of academic success? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 840 – 858. Barfoot, D. S. (2007). Antecedents of leader–follower trust in a Christian church organization (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA. Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Technical manual. Toronto, ON, Canada: Multihealth Systems. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9 –30. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00160 Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 715–722. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.715 Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 43–51. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.43 Bedwell, S. (2003). Emotional Judgment Inventory (EJI): Administration and technical manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 595– 615. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595 Bellamy, A., Gore, D., & Sturgis, J. (2005). Examining the relevance of emotional intelligence within educational programs for the gifted and talented. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 6, 53–78. Bern, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1– 62). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Bernard, L. C., Hutchison, S., Lavin, A., & Pennington, P. (1996). Egostrength, hardiness, self-esteem, self-efficacy, optimism, and maladjustment: Health-related personality constructs and the “Big Five” model of personality. Assessment, 3, 115–131. Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410 – 424. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.410 ⴱ Best, R. G. (2002). Are self-evaluations at the core of job burnout? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kansas State University, Manhattan.


SELF-REPORTED EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE Bishop, K., & Johnson, D. E. (2011). The effects of ability, perceptions of ability, and task characteristics on proximal and distal performance outcomes over time. Human Performance, 24, 173–188. doi:10.1080/ 08959285.2011.554136 ⴱ Bledow, R., & Frese, M. (2009). A situational judgment test of personal initiative and its relationship to performance. Personnel Psychology, 62, 229 –258. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01137.x ⴱ Blickle, G., Momm, T. S., Kramer J., Mierke, J., Liu, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (2009). Construct and criterion-related validation of a measure of emotional reasoning skills: A two-study investigation. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17, 101–118. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389 .2009.00455.x Bommer, W. H., Johnson, J. L., Rich, G. A., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1995). On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 48, 587– 605. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995 .tb01772.x ⴱ Boyar, S. L., & Mosley, D. C. (2007). The relationship between core self-evaluations and work and family satisfaction: The mediating role of work–family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 265–281. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.06.001 Boyatzis, R. E. (2006). Using tipping points of emotional intelligence and cognitive competencies to predict financial performance of leaders. Psicothema, 18, 124 –131. Boyatzis, R. E. (2009). Competencies as a behavioral approach to emotional intelligence. Journal of Management Development, 28, 749 –770. doi:10.1108/02621710910987647 Boyatzis, R. E., & Goleman, D. (2001). Emotional Competence Inventory. Boston, MA: Hay Group. Boyatzis, R. E., & Sala, F. (2004). The Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI). In G. Geher (Ed.), Measuring emotional intelligence: Common ground and controversy (pp. 147–180). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science. ⴱ Boyce, L. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Wisecarver, M. Z. (2010). Propensity for self-development of leadership attributes: Understanding, predicting, and supporting performance of leader self-development. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 159 –178. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.012 Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1147–1158. doi: 10.1177/0146167203254596 Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., & Salovey, P. (2006). Relating emotional abilities to social functioning: A comparison of self-report and performance measures of emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 780 –795. doi:10.1037/ 0022-3514.91.4.780 Bradberry, T., & Greaves, J. (2009). Emotional intelligence 2.0. San Diego, CA: TalentSmart. Breland, B. T., & Donovan, J. J. (2005). The role of state goal orientation in the goal establishment process. Human Performance, 18, 23–53. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1801_2 Brizz, T. (2004). Parish vibrancy: A reflection of pastoral leadership on parishioner support and parishioner satisfaction. Unpublished manuscript, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH. Brown, C., George-Curran, R., & Smith, M. L. (2003). The role of emotional intelligence in the career commitment and decision-making process. Journal of Career Assessment, 11, 379 –392. doi:10.1177/ 1069072703255834 Brown, F. W., Bryant, S. E., & Reilly, M. D. (2006). Does emotional intelligence—as measured by the EQI—influence transformational leadership and/or desirable outcomes? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27, 330 –351. doi:10.1108/01437730610677954 ⴱ Brown, R. F., & Schutte, N. S. (2006). Direct and indirect relationships between emotional intelligence and subjective fatigue in university

319

students. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 60, 585–593. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2006.05.001 ⴱ Brown, T. J., Mowen, J. C., Donavan, D. T., & Licata, J. W. (2002). The customer orientation of service workers: Personality trait effects on selfand supervisor performance ratings. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 110 –119. doi:10.1509/jmkr.39.1.110.18928 ⴱ Bryan, S. A. (2007). Emotional intelligence and self-efficacy in mental health nurses (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA. Bryant, D. (2005). The components of emotional intelligence and the relationship to sales performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). George Washington University, Washington, DC. Budnik, M. F. (2003). Emotional intelligence and burnout: Influence on the intent of staff nurses to leave nursing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ. ⴱ Burke, R. J., Matthiesen, S. B., & Pallesen, S. (2006). Personality correlates of workaholism. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1223– 1233. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.10.017 ⴱ Byrne, J. C. (2003). The role of emotional intelligence in predicting leadership and related work behavior (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ. Byrne, J. C., Dominick, P. G., Smither, J. W., & Reilly, R. R. (2007). Examination of the discriminant, convergent, and criterion-related validity of self-ratings on the Emotional Competence Inventory. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 341–353. doi:10.1111/ j.1468-2389.2007.00393.x ⴱ Byron, K. (2007). Male and female managers’ ability to read emotions: Relationships with supervisor’s performance ratings and subordinates’ satisfaction ratings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 713–733. doi:10.1348/096317907X174349 ⴱ Byron, K., Terranova, S., & Nowicki, S. (2007). Nonverbal emotion recognition and salespersons: Linking ability to perceived and actual success. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 2600 –2619. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00272.x Calloway, J. D. A. (2010). Performance implications of emotional intelligence and transformational leadership: Toward the development of a self-efficacious military leader (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Capella University. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait–multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105. doi:10.1037/h0046016 Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 687–732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35–70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. ⴱ Carmeli, A. (2003). The relationship between emotional intelligence and work attitudes, behavior and outcomes: An examination among senior managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 788 – 813. doi: 10.1108/02683940310511881 Carmeli, A., & Josman, Z. E. (2006). The relationship among emotional intelligence, task performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Human Performance, 19, 403– 419. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1904_5 Cavins, B. J. (2005). The relationship between emotional-social intelligence and leadership practices among college student leaders (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH. Chan, D. W. (2003). Dimensions of emotional intelligence and their relationships with social coping among gifted adolescents in Hong Kong. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 409 – 418. doi:10.1023/A: 1025982217398

320


ⴱ


Chan, D. W. (2004). Perceived emotional intelligence and self-efficacy among Chinese secondary school teachers in Hong Kong. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1781–1795. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.07 .007 Chan, D. W. (2008). Emotional intelligence, self-efficacy, and coping among Chinese prospective and in-service teachers in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology, 28, 397– 408. doi:10.1080/01443410701668372 Chan, K.-Y. (1999). Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. ⴱ Chang, E. S. (2008). The role of dispositional optimism and personality in predicting law school and lawyering performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley. Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62– 83. doi: 10.1177/109442810141004 ⴱ Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2004). General self-efficacy and self-esteem: Toward theoretical and empirical distinction between correlated self-evaluations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 375– 395. doi:10.1002/job.251 ⴱ Chen, G., Gully, S. M., Whiteman, J. A., & Kilcullen, R. N. (2000). Examination of relationships among trait-like individual differences, state-like individual differences, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 835– 847. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.835 ⴱ Chen, G., & Klimoski, R. J. (2003). The impact of expectations on newcomer performance in teams as mediated by work characteristics, social exchanges, and empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 591– 607. doi:10.2307/30040651 ⴱ Chen, S. X., & Carey, T. P. (2009). Assessing citizenship behavior in educational contexts: The role of personality, motivation, and culture. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27, 125–137. doi:10.1177/ 0734282908325146 Cherniss, C. (2010). Emotional intelligence: Toward clarification of a concept. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 110 –126. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01231.x Cheung, M. W. L., & Chan, W. (2005). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling: A two-stage approach. Psychological Methods, 10, 40 – 64. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.10.1.40 Chipain, G. C. (2003). Emotional intelligence and its relation to sales performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). DePaul University, Chicago, IL. ⴱ Christiansen, N. D., Janovics, J. E., & Siers, B. P. (2010). Emotional intelligence in selection contexts: Measurement method, criterionrelated validity, and vulnerability to response distortion. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18, 87–101. doi:10.1111/j.14682389.2010.00491.x ⴱ Chu, T. (2007). Individual traits, strain, and job satisfaction in Taiwan. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nova Southeastern University, Davie, FL. Cikanek, K. L. (2006). Emotional intelligence and coping skills as predictors of counselor self-efficacy with genetic counseling graduate students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. ⴱ Clemmons, A. B. (2008). Values as determinants of motivation to lead (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA. ⴱ Cobêro, C., Primi, R., & Muniz, M. (2006). Emotional intelligence and job performance: A study with MSCEIT, BPR-5 and 16PF. Paideia (Ribeirão Preto), 16, 337–348. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Collins, V. L. (2002). Emotional intelligence and leadership success (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between personality and coping: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1080 –1107. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1080 ⴱ Converse, P. D., Steinhauser, E., & Pathak, J. (2010). Individual differences in reactions to goal-performance discrepancies over time. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 138 –143. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009 .09.010 Corballis, M. C. (1965). Practice and the simplex. Psychological Review, 72, 399 – 406. doi:10.1037/h0022234 Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Côté, S., DeCelles, K. A., McCarthy, J. M., Van Kleef, G. A., & Hideg, I. (2011). The Jekyll and Hyde of emotional intelligence: Emotionalregulation knowledge facilitates both prosocial and interpersonally deviant behavior. Psychological Science, 22, 1073–1080. doi:10.1177/ 0956797611416251 ⴱ Côté, S., & Miners, C. T. H. (2006). Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 1–28. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302. doi:10.1037/h0040957 Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). The case for the ability-based model of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 453– 466. doi:10.1002/job.321 Dawda, D., & Hart, S. D. (2000). Assessing emotional intelligence: Reliability and validity of the BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-I) in university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 797– 812. Day, A. L., Therrien, D. L., & Carroll, S. A. (2005). Predicting psychological health: Assessing the incremental validity of emotional intelligence beyond personality, Type A behaviour and daily hassles. European Journal of Personality, 19, 519 –536. De Raad, B. (2005). The trait-coverage of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 673– 687. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004 .05.022 Derksen, J., Kramer, I., & Katzko, M. (2002). Does a self-report measure for emotional intelligence assess something different than general intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 37– 48. ⴱ DeRue, D. S., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Stability and change in personteam and person-role fit over time: The effects of growth satisfaction, performance, and general self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1242–1253. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1242 Devaraj, S., Easley, R. F., & Grant, J. M. (2008). How does personality matter? Relating the five-factor model to technology acceptance and use. Information Systems Research, 19, 93–105. doi:10.1287/isre.1070.0153 ⴱ Devonish, D., & Greenidge, D. (2010). The effect of organizational justice on contextual performance, counterproductive work behaviors, and task performance: Investigating the moderating role of ability-based emotional intelligence. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18, 75– 86. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00490.x Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2008). Career decision difficulties and emotional intelligence: Some empirical facts on a sample of Italian apprentices. Pratiques Psychologiques, 14, 213–222. Downey, L. A., Lee, B., & Stough, C. (2011). Recruitment consultant revenue: Relationships with IQ, personality, and emotional intelligence. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19, 280 –286. Drew, T. L. (2007). The relationship between emotional intelligence and student teacher performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (1999). Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire: User guide. Berkshire, England: NFER-Nelson.


SELF-REPORTED EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2000). Emotional intelligence: A review and evaluation study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 341–372. doi:10.1108/02683940010330993 ⴱ Dulewicz, V., Higgs, M., & Slaski, M. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence: Content, construct and criterion-related validity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 405– 420. doi:10.1108/ 02683940310484017 ⴱ Durán, A., Extremera, N., Rey, L., Fernandez-Berrocal, P., & Montalban, F. M. (2006). Predicting academic burnout and engagement in educational settings: Assessing the incremental validity of perceived emotional intelligence beyond perceived stress and general self-efficacy. Psicothema, 18, 158 –164. Duval, S. J., & Tweedie, R. L. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plotbased method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in metaanalysis. Biometrics, 56, 455– 463. doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000 .00455.x Easton, C. J. (2004). The relationship between emotional intelligence and counseling self-efficacy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff. ⴱ Ebstrup, J. F., Eplov, L. F., Pisinger, C., & Jorgensen, T. (2011). Association between the Five Factor personality traits and perceived stress: Is the effect mediated by general self-efficacy? Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 24, 407– 419. doi:10.1080/10615806.2010.540012 Edwards, J. F. (1998). Several nonintellective variables and the “big five” personality factors as predictors of academic performance by first-year college students (Unpublished master thesis). Mississippi State University, Mississippi State. ⴱ Eissa, M., & Khalifa, W. (2008). Emotional intelligence and self-efficacy as predictors of job stress among elementary school teachers in Egypt. In J. Cassady & M. Eissa (Eds.), Emotional intelligence: Perspectives on educational and positive psychology (pp. 77– 89). New York, NY: Lang. ⴱ Elfenbein, H. A., Curhan, J. R., Eisenkraft, N., Shirako, A., & Baccaro, L. (2008). Are some negotiators better than others? Individual differences in bargaining outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1463– 1475. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.06.010 Emmons, R. A. (1989). The personal strivings approach to personality. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social psychology (pp. 87–117). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Enhelder, M. (2011). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to financial advisor sales performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Capella University, Minneapolis, MN. ⴱ Erez, A., & Judge, A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1270 –1279. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1270 ⴱ Fan, J., Meng, H., Billings, R. S., Litchfield, R. C., & Kaplan, I. (2008). On the role of goal orientation traits and self-efficacy in the goal-setting process: Distinctions that make a difference. Human Performance, 21, 354 –382. doi:10.1080/08959280802347122 ⴱ Farh, C. I. C. C., Seo, M. G., & Tesluk, P. E. (2012). Emotional intelligence, teamwork effectiveness, and job performance: The moderating role of job context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 890 –900. doi: 10.1037/a0027377 Farrelly, D., & Austin, E. J. (2007). Ability EI as an intelligence? Associations of the MSCEIT with performance on emotion processing and social tasks and with cognitive ability. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 1043–1063. Felfe, J., & Schyns, B. (2006). Personality and the perception of transformational leadership: The impact of extraversion, neuroticism, personal need for structure, and occupational self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 708 –739. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006 .00026.x ⴱ Feng, D., Lu, C., & Xiao, O. (2008). Job Insecurity, well-being, and job performance: The role of general self-efficacy. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 40, 448 – 455. doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2008.00448

321

Fillion, F. (2001). The construct validation of two measures of emotional intelligence. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. ⴱ Fortunato, V. J., & Goldblatt, A. M. (2006). An examination of goal orientation profiles using cluster analysis and their relationships with dispositional characteristics and motivational response patterns. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 2150 –2183. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029 .2006.00099.x ⴱ Foti, R. J., & Hauenstein, M. A. (2007). Pattern and variable approaches in leadership emergence and effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 347–355. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.347 ⴱ Frese, M., Krauss, S. I., Keith, N., Escher, S., Grabarkiewicz, R., Luneng, S. T., . . . Friedrich, C. (2007). Business owners’ action planning and its relationship to business success in three African countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1481–1498. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1481 ⴱ Fuller, B., Simmering, M. J., Marler, L. E., Cox, S. S., Bennett, R. J., & Cheramie, R. A. (2011). Exploring touch as a positive workplace behavior. Human Relations, 64, 231–256. doi:10.1177/0018726710377931 Furnham, A., & Petrides, K. V. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence and happiness. Social Behavior and Personality, 31, 815– 823. doi:10.2224/ sbp.2003.31.8.815 ⴱ Gabel, R. S., Dolan, S. L., & Cerdin, J. L. (2005). Emotional intelligence as predictor of cultural adjustment for success in global assignments. Career Development International, 10, 375–395. doi:10.1108/ 13620430510615300 ⴱ García-lzquierdo, A., García-lzquierdo, M., & Ramos-Villagrasa, P. J. (2007). Emotional intelligence and self-efficacy in personnel selection contexts. Anales de Psicologia, 23, 231–239. ⴱ Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational context: An empirical examination. Group & Organization Management, 23, 48 –70. doi:10.1177/1059601198231004 ⴱ Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. L. (2010). The Core Self-Evaluation Scale: Further construct validation evidence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 291–304. doi:10.1177/0013164409344505 Gerhardt, M. W., Rode, J. C., & Peterson, S. J. (2007). Exploring mechanisms in the personality-performance relationship: Mediating roles of self-management and situational constraints. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1344 –1355. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.001 Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences. San Francisco, CA: Freeman. Gignac, G. E. (2010). Genos Emotional Intelligence Inventory technical manual (2nd ed.). Sydney, Waterloo, Australia: Genos. ⴱ Goldsmith, T. B. (2008). Relationships between emotional intelligence and individual workplace performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lynn University, Boca Raton, FL. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam. Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 76, 93–102. Gordon-Handler, L. (2009). The relationship between emotional intelligence and clinical performance in an occupational therapy training program (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northcentral University, Prescott Valley, AZ. Government Accounting Office. (1998). Military recruiting: The Department of Defense could improve its recruiter selection and incentive systems (NSIAD-98-58). Retrieved August 20, 2014, from http://www .gao.gov/products/NSIAD-98-58 Graves, J. G. (1999). Emotional intelligence and cognitive ability: Predicting performance in job simulated activities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). California School of Professional Psychology, San Diego, CA. Grewal, D. D., & Salovey, P. (2005). Feeling smart: The science of emotional intelligence. American Scientist, 93, 330 –339. doi:10.1511/ 2005.54.969


322


Griffin, C. (2006). Investigating the effects of stable personality traits on computer self-efficacy with repeated training (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Gross, J. J., & John, O. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348 –362. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348 Gross, J. J., Sutton, S. K., & Ketelaar, T. (1998). Relations between affect and personality: Supper for the affect-level and affective-reactivity views. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 279 –288. doi: 10.1177/0146167298243005 Grote, D. (1996). The complete guide to performance appraisal, New York, NY: American Management Association. Grubb, W. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2007). The fakability of Bar-On’s Emotional Quotient Inventory Short Form: Catch me if you can. Human Performance, 20, 43–59. Hader, E. M. (2006). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to cognitive and social task requirements (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Alliant International University, San Diego, CA. ⴱ Hadley, J. G. (2003). A test of Bandura’s theory: Generalized self-efficacy and the personality traits of introversion and extroversion as measures of job performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center, San Francisco, CA. Hammond, M. S., Lockman, J. D., & Boling, T. (2010). A test of the tripartite model of career indecision of Brown and Krane for African Americans incorporating emotional intelligence and positive affect. Journal of Career Assessment, 18, 161–176. doi:10.1177/ 1069072709354201 ⴱ Hanna, M. E. (2008). Emotional intelligence: Comparisons of criterionrelated validity across conceptual and methodological variants of measurement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Clemson University, Clemson, SC. Harms, P. D., & Credé, M. (2010). Emotional intelligence and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17, 5–17. doi:10.1177/ 1548051809350894 Hartman, R. O. (2006). The five-factor model and career self-efficacy: General and domain-specific relationships (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus. Hartsfield, M. (2003). The internal dynamics of transformational leadership: Effects of spirituality, emotional intelligence, and self-efficacy. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA. ⴱ Heggestad, E. D., & Morrison, M. J. (2008). An inductive exploration of the social effectiveness construct space. Journal of Personality, 76, 839 – 874. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00506.x Heidemeier, H., & Moser, K. (2009). Self– other agreement in job performance ratings: A meta-analytic test of a process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 353–370. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.94.2.353 Helson, R., & Kwan, V. S. Y. (2000). Personality development in adulthood: The broad picture and processes in one longitudinal sample. In S. Hampson (Eds.), Advances in personality psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 77– 106). London, England: Routledge. Hendricks, J. W., & Payne, S. C. (2007). Beyond the big five: Leader goal orientation as a predictor of leadership effectiveness. Human Performance, 20, 317–343. Herbst, H. H., Maree, J. G., & Sibanda, E. (2006). Emotional intelligence and leadership abilities. South African Journal of Higher Education, 20, 592– 612. ⴱ Higgins, D. M. (2009). The roles of psychometric intelligence and prefrontal cognitive ability in the prediction of academic and job performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

ⴱ

Higgins, D. M., Peterson, J. B., Pihl, R. O., & Lee, A. G. M. (2007). Prefrontal cognitive ability, intelligence, Big Five personality, and the prediction of advanced academic and workplace performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 298 –319. doi:10.1037/00223514.93.2.298 ⴱ Higgins, H. R. (2001). Construct validity of general self-efficacy: Investigation of overlap in general self-efficacy, domain-specific self-efficacy, and personality (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Georgia, Athens. Higgs, M. (2004). A study of the relationship between emotional intelligence and performance in United Kingdom call centres. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 442– 454. doi:10.1108/ 02683940410537972 Higgs, M., & Aitken, P. (2003). An exploration of the relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership potential. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 814 – 823. doi:10.1108/02683940310511890 Hirschi, A. (2008). Personality complexes in adolescence: Traits, interests, work values, and self-evaluations. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 716 –721. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.018 Hopkins, M. M., & Bilimoria, D. (2008). Social and emotional competencies predicting success for male and female executives. Journal of Management Development, 27, 13–35. doi:10.1108/ 02621710810840749 Hotard, S. R., McFatter, R. M., McWhirter, R. M., & Stegall, M. E. (1989). Interactive effects of extraversion, neuroticism, and social relationships on subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 321–331. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.321 Huang, X., Chan, S. C. H., Lam, W., & Nan, X. (2010). The joint effect of leader-member exchange and emotional intelligence on burnout and work performance in call centers in China. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, 1124 –1144. doi:10.1080/ 09585191003783553 Humphreys, L. G. (1960). Investigations of the simplex. Psychometrika, 25, 313–323. doi:10.1007/BF02289750 Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.96.1.72 Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869 – 879. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.869 Ilies, R., Fulmer, I. S., Spitzmuller, M., & Johnson, M. D. (2009). Personality and citizenship behavior: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 945–959. doi:10.1037/a0013329 Jennings, S., & Palmer, B. R. (2007). Enhancing sales performance through emotional intelligence development. Organisations and People, 14, 55– 61. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–139). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 1–19. doi:10.1207/S15327906MBR3501_1 Johnson, J. W. (2001). The relative importance of task and contextual performance dimensions to supervisor judgments of overall performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 984 –996. doi:10.1037/00219010.86.5.984 Johnson, J. W., & LeBreton, J. M. (2004). History and use of relative importance indices in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 238 –257. doi:10.1177/1094428104266510



ⴱ

Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Djurdjevic, E. (2011). Assessing the impact of common method variance on higher order multidimensional constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 744 –761. doi:10.1037/ a0021504 Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262–279. doi:10.2307/256188 Jones, M. B. (1962). Practice as a process of simplification. Psychological Review, 69, 274 –294. doi:10.1037/h0045169 Jordan, P. J., Dasborough, M. T., Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2010). A call to context. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 145– 148. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01215.x Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010a). Discriminant validity of selfreported emotional intelligence: A multitrait–multisource study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 672– 694. doi:10.1177/ 0013164409355700 Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010b). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 54 –78. doi:10.1037/a0017286 Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80 –92. doi:10.1037/00219010.86.1.80 ⴱ Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of selfconcordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 257–268. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.257 Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765–780. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765 ⴱ Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 237–249. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.237 ⴱ Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 693–710. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.3 .693 Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530 –541. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530 Judge, T. A., Jackson, C. L., Shaw, J. C., Scott, B. A., & Rich, B. L. (2007). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: The integral role of individual differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 107–127. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.107 ⴱ Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly: Relationship of the narcissistic personality to self- and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 762–776. doi:10.1037/ 0021-9010.91.4.762 Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151–188. ⴱ Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 17–34. doi:10.1037/ 0021-9010.83.1.17 ⴱ Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107–122. doi:10.1037/00219010.84.1.107 Kämpfe, N., & Mitte, K. (2010). Tell me who you are, and I will tell you how you feel? European Journal of Personality, 24, 291–308.

323

Kaur, I., Schutte, N. S., & Thorsteinsson, E. B. (2006). Gambling control self-efficacy as a mediator of the effects of low emotional intelligence on problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 22, 405– 411. doi: 10.1007/s10899-006-9029-1 Kepes, S. (2008). Sales self-efficacy: Scale development and nomological validation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Arkansas, Little Rock. Kerr, R., Garvin, J., Heaton, N., & Boyle, E. (2006). Emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27, 265–279. doi:10.1108/01437730610666028 Kilduff, M., Chiaburu, D. S., & Menges, J. I. (2010). Strategic use of emotional intelligence in organizational settings: Exploring the dark side. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 129 –152. doi:10.1016/ j.riob.2010.10.002 Kilic-Bebek, E. (2009). Explaining match achievement: Personality, motivation, and trust (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cleveland State University, OH. Kim, T.-Y., Cable, D. M., Kim, S.-P., & Wang, J. (2009). Emotional competence and work performance: The mediating effect of proactivity and the moderating effect of job autonomy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 983–1000. doi:10.1002/job.610 ⴱ Kirk, B. A., Schutte, N. S., & Hine, D. W. (2008). Development and preliminary validation of an emotional self-efficacy scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 432– 436. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.06 .010 ⴱ Kluemper, D. H. (2006). An examination of ability-based emotional intelligence in the structured employment interview (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. ⴱ Kluemper, D. H., DeGroot, T., & Choi, S. (2013). Emotion management ability: Predicting task performance, citizenship, and deviance. Journal of Management, 39, 878 –905. doi:10.1177/0149206311407326 Kohan, A. (2002). Emotional intelligence: An investigation of discriminant and concurrent validity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada. Korman, A. K. (1970). Toward an hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 31– 41. doi:10.1037/h0028656 ⴱ Kostman, J. T. (2004). Multi-dimensional performance requires multidimensional predictors: Predicting complex job performance using cognitive ability, personality and emotional intelligence assessment instruments as combinatorial predictors (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). City University of New York, NY. Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2009). Balancing borders and bridges: Negotiating the work– home interface via boundary work tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 704 –730. doi:10.5465/ AMJ.2009.43669916 ⴱ Ladebo, O. J., & Awotunde, J. M. (2007). Emotional and behavioral reactions to work overload: Self-efficacy as a moderator. Current Research in Social Psychology, 13, 86 –100. Landis, R. S. (2013). Successfully combining meta-analysis and structural equation modeling: Recommendations and strategies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28, 251–261. doi:10.1007/s10869-013-9285-x Landy, F. J. (2005). Some historical and scientific issues related to research on emotional intelligence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 411– 424. doi:10.1002/job.317 Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. (1983). The measurement of work performance: Methods, theory, and applications. New York, NY: Academic Press. ⴱ Langendörfer, F. (2008). Personality differences among orchestra instrumental groups: Just a stereotype? Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 610 – 620. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.027 Langhorn, S. (2004). How emotional intelligence can improve management performance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16, 220 –230. doi:10.1108/09596110410537379

324


ⴱ


Law, D. W. (2003). An examination of personality traits as moderating factors of exhaustion in public accounting (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., Huang, G. H., & Li, X. (2008). The effects of emotional intelligence on job performance and life satisfaction for the research and development scientists in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25, 51– 69. doi:10.1007/s10490-007-9062-3 Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 483– 496. ⴱ Lee, Y., Stettler, A., & Antonakis, J. (2011). Incremental validity and indirect effect of ethical development on work performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 1110 –1115. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.01 .036 LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing task contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel Psychology, 53, 563–593. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00214.x Lii, S. Y., & Wong, S. Y. (2008). The antecedents of overseas adjustment and commitment of expatriates. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 296 –313. doi:10.1080/09585190701799861 ⴱ Lindley, L. D. (2001). Personality, other dispositional variables, and human adaptability (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Iowa State University, Ames. Livingstone, H. A., & Day, A. L. (2005). Comparing the construct- and criterion-related validity of ability-based and mixed-model measures of emotional intelligence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 767–779. Locke, E. A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 425– 431. doi:10.1002/job.318 Löckenhoff, C. E., Duberstein, P. R., Friedman, B., & Costa, P. T. (2011). Five-Factor personality traits and subjective health among caregivers: The role of caregiver strain and self-efficacy. Psychology and Aging, 26, 592– 604. doi:10.1037/a0022209 Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., Cote, S., & Beers, M. (2005). Emotion regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. Emotion, 5, 113–118. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.113 ⴱ Lu, L., Chang, Y., & Lai, Y. (2011). What differentiates success from strain: The moderating effects of self-efficacy. International Journal of Stress Management, 18, 396 – 412. doi:10.1037/a0025122 Lui, M. M. (2009). Can I succeed as an adolescent mother? Examining the role of emotional intelligence in predicting self-efficacy, academic achievement, and school attendance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Temple University, Philadelphia, PA. ⴱ Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, 541–572. doi:10.1111/j .1744-6570.2007.00083.x MacCann, C., Joseph, D. L., Newman, D. A., & Roberts, R. D. (2014). Emotional intelligence is a second-stratum factor of intelligence: Evidence from hierarchical and bifactor models. Emotion, 14, 358 –374. doi:10.1037/a0034755 Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 3–30. doi:10.1111/ j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x Mak, A. S., & Tran, C. (2001). Big five personality and cultural relocation factors in Vietnamese Australian students’ intercultural social selfefficacy. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, 181–201. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(00)00050-X Marco, C. A., & Suls, J. (1993). Daily stress and the trajectory of mood: Spillover, response assimilation, contrast, and chronic negative affectivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 1053–1063. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.1053

Márquez, P., Martin, R., & Brackett, M. A. (2006). Relating emotional intelligence to social competence and academic achievement in high school student. Psicothema, 18, 118 –123. Martin, J. H. (2002). Motivational processes and performance: The role of global and facet personality traits (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Martin, W. E., Easton, C., Wilson, S., Takemoto, M. & Sullivan, S. (2004). Salience of emotional intelligence as a core characteristic of being a counselor. Counselor Education and Supervision, 44, 17–30. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6978.2004.tb01857.x Martini, P. H. (2008). Toward an integrated model of visionary leadership: A multilevel study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA. Matthews, G., Roberts, R. D., & Zeidner, M. (2004). Seven myths about emotional intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 179 –196. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli1503_01 Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27, 267–298. Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2000). Selecting a measure of emotional intelligence: The case for ability scales. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 320 –324). New York, NY: Jossey-Bass. Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 507–536. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093646 Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. S. D. Sluyter (Ed.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators (pp. 3–34). New York, NY: Basic Books. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) item booklet. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: MHS. ⴱ McElroy, J. C., Hendrickson, A. R., Townsend, A. M., & DeMarie, S. M. (2007). Dispositional factors in Internet use: Personality versus cognitive style. MIS Quarterly, 31, 809 – 820. McKay, P. F., & McDaniel, M. A. (2006). A reexamination of Black– White mean differences in work performance: More data, more moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 538 –554. doi:10.1037/00219010.91.3.538 ⴱ McKinney, A. P. (2003). Goal orientation: A test of competing models (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg. ⴱ McNatt, D. B., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Boundary conditions of the Galatea effect: A field experiment and constructive replication. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 550 –565. doi:10.2307/20159601 ⴱ Meier, L. L., Semmer, N. K., Elfering, A., & Jacobshagen, N. (2008). The double meaning of control: Three-way interactions between internal resources, job control, and stressors at work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 244 –258. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.13.3.244 Mikolajczak, M., Luminet, O., Leroy, C., & Roy, E. (2007). Psychometric properties of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire: Factor structure, reliability, construct, and incremental validity in a Frenchspeaking population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 338 –353. Mikolajczak, M., Luminet, O., & Menil, C. (2006). Predicting resistance to stress: Incremental validity of trait emotional intelligence over alexithymia and optimism. Psicothema, 18, 79 – 88. ⴱ Mirsaleh, Y. R., Rezai, H., Kivi, S. R., & Ghorbani, R. (2010). The role of religiosity, coping strategies, self-efficacy, and personality dimensions in the prediction of Iranian undergraduate rehabilitation interns’ satisfaction with their clinical experience. Clinical Rehabilitation, 24, 1136 –1143. doi:10.1177/0269215510375907


SELF-REPORTED EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE Moafian, F., & Ghanizadeh, A. (2009). The relationship between Iranian EFL teachers’ emotional intelligence and their self-efficacy in language institutes. System, 37, 708 –718. ⴱ Muniz, M., & Primi, R. (2007). Emotional intelligence and job performance in policemen: Criterion validity for the MSCEIT. Aletheia, 25, 66 – 81. Murensky, C. L. (2000). The relationship between emotional intelligence, personality, critical thinking ability, and organizational leadership performance at upper levels of management (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). George Mason University, Fairfax, VA. Murphy, K. (Ed.). (2006). A critique of emotional intelligence: What are the problems and how can they be fixed? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Murphy, K., & Cleveland, J. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-oriented perspectives. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Nel, H. (2001). An industrial psychological investigation into the relationship between emotional intelligence and performance in the call centre environment (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Stellenbosch, South Africa. Nelson, D., & Low, G. (1999). Exploring and developing emotional intelligence skills. Corpus Christi, TX: Emotional Learning Systems. Newman, D. A., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Been there, bottled that: Are state and behavioral work engagement new and useful construct ‘wines’? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 31–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.00003.x Newman, D. A., Jacobs, R. R., & Bartram, D. (2007). Choosing the best method for local validity estimation: Relative accuracy of meta-analysis versus a local validity study versus Bayes analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1394 –1413. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1394 Newman, D. A., Joseph, D. L., & Hulin, C. L. (2010). Job attitudes and employee engagement: Considering the attitude “A-factor”. In S. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement (pp. 43– 61). Northampton, MA: Elgar. doi:10.4337/9781849806374.00010 Newman, D. A., Joseph, D. L., & MacCann, C. (2010). Emotional intelligence and job performance: The importance of emotion regulation and emotional labor context. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 159 –164. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01218.x Newsome, S., Day, A. L., & Catano, V. M. (2000). Assessing the predictive validity of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1005–1016. Nguyen, H. D. (2003). Constructing a new theoretical framework for test wiseness and developing the knowledge of test-taking strategies (KOTTS) measure (Unpublished master’s thesis). Michigan State University, East Lansing. Norris, G. W. (2002). Using measures of personality and self-efficacy to predict work performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus. Nowicki, S., Jr. (2000). Manual for the receptive tests of the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy 2. Atlanta, GA: Emory University, Department of Psychology. Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory (1st ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. O’Boyle, E. H., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011). The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 788 – 818. doi:10.1002/job.714 O’Connor, R. M., Jr., & Little, I. S. (2003). Revisiting the predictive validity of emotional intelligence: Self-report versus ability-based measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1893–1902. ⴱ Oh, I. S., & Berry, C. M. (2009). The Five-Factor model of personality and managerial performance: Validity gains through the use of 360

325

degree performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1498 – 1513. doi:10.1037/a0017221 ⴱ Okech, A. P. (2004). An exploratory examination of the relationships among emotional intelligence, elementary school science teacher selfefficacy, length of teaching experience, race/ethnicity, gender, and age (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University, College Station. Ones, D. S. (1993). The construct validity of integrity tests (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. ⴱ Ono, M., Sachau, D. A., Deal, W. P., Englert, D. R., & Taylor, M. D. (2011). Cognitive ability, emotional intelligence, and the Big Five personality dimensions as predictors of criminal investigator performance. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 471– 491. doi:10.1177/ 0093854811399406 ⴱ Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 680 – 693. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.680 ⴱ Oswald, F. L., Schmitt, N., Kim, B. H., Ramsay, L. J., & Gillespie, M. A. (2004). Developing a biodata measures and situational judgment inventory as predictors of college student performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 187–207. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.187 ⴱ Owens, B. P. (2009). Humility in organizational leadership (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle. Page, J., Bruch, M. A., & Haase, R. F. (2008). Role of perfectionism and five-factor model traits in career indecision. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 811– 815. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.08.013 Palmer, B. R., & Stough, S. (2001). Workplace SUIET: Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test–Interim technical manual. Melbourne, VI, Australia: Swinburne University of Technology, Organisational Psychology Research Unit. ⴱ Parker, S. K. (2007). “That is my job”: How employees’ role orientation affects their job performance. Human Relations, 60, 403– 434. doi: 10.1177/0018726707076684 Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 2–21. doi:10.2307/2136319 Penrose, A., Perry, C., & Ball, I. (2007). Emotional intelligence and teacher self-efficacy: The contribution of teacher status and length of experience. Issues in Educational Research, 17, 107–126. Perlini, A. H., & Halverson, T. R. (2006). Emotional intelligence in the National Hockey League. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/ Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 38, 109 –119. doi: 10.1037/cjbs2006001 Perry, C., Ball, I., & Stacey, E. (2004). Emotional intelligence and teaching situations: Development of a new measure. Issues in Educational Research, 14, 29 – 43. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425– 448. doi:10.1002/per .416 ⴱ Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2006). The role of trait emotional intelligence in a gender-specific model of organizational variables. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 552–569. doi:10.1111/j.00219029.2006.00019.x ⴱ Piccolo, R. F., Judge, T. A., Takahashi, K., Watanabe, N., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations in Japan: Relative effects on job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and happiness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 965–984. doi:10.1002/job.358 ⴱ Pierro, A. (1997). Caratteristiche strutturali della scala di General SelfEfficacy [Structural characteristics of the General Self-Efficacy Scale]. Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata, 221, 29 –38. ⴱ Platt, S. D. (2010). The development of a leadership self-efficacy measure (Unpublished master’s thesis). Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH.

326


ⴱ


Prati, L. M. (2004). Emotional intelligence as a facilitator of the emotional labor process (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida State University, Tallahassee. Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 6, 77–98. doi:10.1080/19312458.2012.679848 Rahim, M. A., Psenicka, C., Polychroniou, P., Zhao, J. H., Yu, C. S., Chan, K. A., . . . van Wyk, R. (2002). A model of emotional intelligence and conflict management strategies: A study in seven countries. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10, 302–326. doi:10.1108/ eb028955 ⴱ Ramassini, K. K. (2000). Parenting self-efficacy: A validity study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Georgia, Athens. Rastegar, M., & Memarpour, S. (2009). The relationship between emotional intelligence and self-efficacy among Iranian EFL teachers. System, 37, 700 –707. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.09.013 ⴱ Reece, N. A. (2007). The role of insecurity, external locus of control, neuroticism, low self-efficacy, and low self-esteem in romantic jealousy (Unpublished master’s thesis). California State University, Long Beach. Ribadeneira, A. M. (2006). Familial, individual, social-cognitive, and contextual predictors of career decision self-efficacy: An ecological perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Florida, Gainesville. Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617– 635. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468988 Roberts, B. W., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., & Goldberg, L. R. (2005). The structure of conscientiousness: An empirical investigation based on seven major personality questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 58, 103– 139. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00301.x ⴱ Robinson, G. N. (2003). The application of social cognitive theory to the prediction of expatriate success (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). State University of New York, Albany. Robinson, R. P. (2009). The effect of individual differences on training process variables in a multistage computer-based training context (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Akron, OH. ⴱ Rode, J. C., Arthaud-Day, M. L., Mooney, C. H., Near, J. P., & Baldwin, T. T. (2008). Ability and personality predictors of salary, perceived job success, and perceived career success in the initial career stage. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 292–299. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00435.x ⴱ Rosete, D., & Ciarrochi, J. (2005). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to workplace performance outcomes of leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26, 388 –399. doi: 10.1108/01437730510607871 Roth, P. L., Huffcutt, A. I., & Bobko, P. (2003). Ethnic group differences in measures of job performance: A new meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 694 –706. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.694 Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66 – 80. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.66 ⴱ Rozell, E. J., Pettijohn, C. E., & Parker, R. S. (2004). Customer-oriented selling: Exploring the roles of emotional intelligence and organizational commitment. Psychology & Marketing, 21, 405– 424. doi:10.1002/mar .20011 Sachs, A. (2011, August 9). Emotional intelligence (1995), by Daniel Goleman [Book review]. Retrieved August 19, 2014, from the Time website: http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/ 0,28804,2086680_2086683_2087663,00.html Sala, F.. (2002). Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) technical manual (1st ed.). Boston, MA: Hay Group. Saleem, H., Beaudry, A., & Croteau, A. (2011). Antecedents of computer self-efficacy: A study of the role of personality traits and gender.

Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1922–1936. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011 .04.017 Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185–211. doi:10.2190/DUGG-P24E52WK-6CDG Sardo, D. P. (2005, February). Making connections: The link between emotional intelligence and sales performance. Training and development in Australia. Paper presented at Persona Conference, San Francisco, CA. Sardo, S. (2004). Learning to display emotional intelligence. Business Strategy Review, 15, 14 –17. doi:10.1111/j.0955-6419.2004.00295.x ⴱ Schendel, C. L. (2010). Trainees’ ability to manage countertransference: An exploration of emotional intelligence and counselor self-efficacy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262 Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., & Outerbridge, A. N. (1986). Impact of job experience and ability on job knowledge, work sample performance, and supervisory ratings of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 432– 439. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.432 Schmidt-Atzert, L., & Bühner, M. (2002, September). Development of a performance measure of emotional intelligence. Paper presented at the 43rd annual congress of the German Psychological Society. HumboldtUniversity, Berlin, Germany. ⴱ Schmitt, N., Oswald, F. L., Kim, B. H., Imus, A., Merritt, S., Friede, A., & Shivpuri, S. (2007). The use of background and ability profiles to predict college student outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 165–179. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.165 ⴱ Schumacher, L. A. (2005). The relationship between supply managers’ emotional intelligence and their performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH. 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, 167–177. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00001-4 Schwarzer, R., Bassler, J., Kwiatek, P., Schröder, K., & Zhang, J. X. (1997). The assessment of optimistic self-beliefs: Comparison of the German, Spanish, and Chinese versions of the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Applied Psychology, 46, 69 – 88. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997 .tb01096.x Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The effect of commitment to a learning goal, self-efficacy, and the interaction between learning goal difficulty and commitment on performance in a business simulation. Human Performance, 24, 189 –204. doi:10.1080/08959285.2011.580807 ⴱ Semadar, A., Robins, G., & Ferris, G. R. (2006). Comparing the validity of multiple social effectiveness constructs in the prediction of managerial job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 443– 461. doi:10.1002/job.385 Sergio, R. P. (2001). Emotional intelligence and mental ability as determinants of job performance among plant supervisors in selected manufacturing firm (Unpublished master‘s thesis). De La Salle University, Dasmariñas. Philippines. ⴱ Sevinc, L. (2001). The effect of emotional intelligence on career success: Research on the 1990 graduates of business administration faculty of Istanbul University (Unpublished master’s thesis). Istanbul University, Turkey. Shadel, W. G., Cervone, D., Niaura, R., & Abrams, D. B. (2004). Investigating the big five personality factors and smoking: Implications for assessment. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26, 185–191. doi:10.1023/B:JOBA.0000022111.13381.0c


SELF-REPORTED EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE Shadish, W. R. (1996). Meta-analysis and the exploration of causal mediating processes: A primer of examples, methods, and issues. Psychological Methods, 1, 47– 65. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.47 ⴱ Shahzad, K., Sarmad, M., Abbas, M., & Khan, M. A. (2011). Impact of Emotional Intelligence (EI) on employee’s performance in telecom sector of Pakistan. African Journal of Business Management, 5, 1225– 1231. Shaikh, A. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Is it intelligence or a personality trait? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663– 671. doi:10.2466/pr0.1982 .51.2.663 ⴱ Sjoberg, L., Littorin, P., & Engelberg, E. (2005). Personality and emotional intelligence as factors in sales performance. Organisational Theory and Practice, 2, 21–37. ⴱ Slaski, M., & Cartwright, S. (2002). Health, performance, and emotional intelligence: An exploratory study of retail managers. Stress and Health, 18, 63– 68. doi:10.1002/smi.926 ⴱ Smith, J. A., & Foti, R. J. (1998). A pattern approach to the study of leader emergence. The Leadership Quarterly, 9, 147–160. doi:10.1016/S10489843(98)90002-9 Smith, P. C. (1976). Behavior, results, and organizational effectiveness: The problem of criteria. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 745–775). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Smither, J., & Seltzer, J. (2001). Managerial Skills Questionnaire. Philadelphia, PA: La Salle University Press. ⴱ Sovern, H. S. (2008). Examining the relationships among core selfevaluations, pay preferences, and job satisfaction in an occupational environment (Unpublished master’s thesis). Kansas State University, Manhattan. Spurk, D., & Abele, A. E. (2011). Who earns more and why? A multiple mediation model from personality to salary. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 87–103. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9184-3 Stanley, M. A., Novy, D. M., Hopko, D. R., Beck, G., Averill, P. M., & Swann, A. C. (2002). Measures of self-efficacy and optimism in older adults with generalized anxiety. Assessment, 9, 70 – 81. doi:10.1177/ 1073191102009001009 ⴱ Stewart, L. J., Palmer, S., Wilkin, H., & Kerrin, M. (2008). The influence of character: Does personality impact coaching success? International Journal of Evidence-Based Coaching and Mentoring, 6, 32– 42. Stone, H., Parker, J. D. A., & Wood, L. M. (2005, February). OPC leadership study: Exploring the relationship between school leadership and emotional intelligence. Presented at the Ontario Principals’ Council executive meeting, Toronto, ON, Canada. ⴱ Strobel, M., Tumasjan, M., & Sporrle, M. (2011). Be yourself, believe in yourself, and be happy: Self-efficacy as a mediator between personality factors and subjective well-being. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52, 43– 48. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2010.00826.x ⴱ Stumpp, T., Muck, P. M., Hulsheger, U. R., Judge, T. A., & Maier, G. W. (2010). Core self-evaluations in Germany: Validation of a German measure and its relationships with career success. Applied Psychology, 59, 674 –700. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00422.x ⴱ Sturman, E. D. (2011). Involuntary subordination and its relation to personality, mood, and submissive behavior. Psychological Assessment, 23, 262–276. doi:10.1037/a0021499 Sturman, M. C., Cheramie, R. A., & Cashen, L. H. (2005). The impact of job complexity and performance measurement on the temporal consistency, stability, and test–retest reliability of employee job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 269 –283. doi:10.1037/00219010.90.2.269

327

Suls, J., Green, P. J., & Hillis, S. (1998). Emotional reactivity to everyday problems, affective inertia, and neuroticism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 127–136. doi:10.1177/0146167298242002 Taccarino, J. R., & Leonard, M. A (1999). Manual for the Success Tendencies Indicator. Chicago, IL: Taccarino. Tapia, M. (2001). Measuring emotional intelligence. Psychological Reports, 88, 353–364. Tapia, M., & Burry-Stock, J. (1998). Emotional Intelligence Inventory. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. ⴱ Tews, M. J., Michel, J. W., & Noe, R. A. (2011). Beyond objectivity: The performance impact of the perceived ability to learn and solve problems. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 484 – 495. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010 .11.005 Thoms, P., Moore, K. S., & Scott, K. S. (1996). The relationship between self-efficacy for participating in self-managed work groups and the big five personality dimensions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 349 –362. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199607)17:4⬍349::AIDJOB756⬎3.0.CO;2-3 ⴱ Timmerman, P. D. (2008). The impact of individual resiliency and leader trustworthiness on employees’ voluntary turnover intentions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Tombs, S. (2005). Challenging the bell curve: An assessment of the role of emotional intelligence in career placement and performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of York, Heslington, United Kingdom. Trevelyan, R. (2011). Self-efficacy and effort in new venture development. Journal of Management & Organization, 17, 2–16. doi:10.5172/jmo .2011.17.1.2 Tzelgov, J., & Henik, A. (1991). Suppression situations in psychological research: Definitions, implications, and applications. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 524 –536. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.3.524 Ugarriza, N. (2001). La evaluacion de la inteligencia emocional a través de inventario de BarOn (I–CE) en una muestra de Lima metropolitan [The evaluation of emotional intelligence through the BarOn Inventory in a sample of metropolitan Lima]. Persona, 4, 129 –160. van den Berg, P., & Feij, J. A. (2003). Complex relationships among personality traits, job characteristics, and work behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 326 –339. doi:10.1111/j.0965075X.2003.00255.x ⴱ van Hooft, E. A. J., van der Flier, H., & Minne, M. R. (2006). Construct validity of multi-source performance ratings: An examination of the relationship of self-, supervisor-, and peer-ratings with cognitive and personality measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 67– 81. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00334.x van Rooy, D. L., Viswesvaran, C., & Pluta, P. (2005). An evaluation of construct validity: What is this thing called emotional intelligence? Human Performance, 18, 445– 462. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1804_9 Vecchione, M., & Caprara, G. V. (2009). Personality determinants of political participation: The contribution of traits and self-efficacy beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 487– 492. doi:10.1016/j.paid .2008.11.021 ⴱ Vieira, R. M. (2008). Exploring the relationship between emotional competence and leadership performance in corporate managers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ. Villanueva, J. J., & Sanchez, J. C. (2007). Trait emotional intelligence and leadership self-efficacy: Their relationship with collective efficacy. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10, 349 –357. doi:10.1017/ S1138741600006612 Vinchur, A. J., Schippmann, J. S., Switzer, F. S., & Roth, P. L. (1998). A meta-analytic review of predictors of job performance for salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 586 –597. doi:10.1037/0021-9010 .83.4.586


328


Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equation modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48, 865– 885. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01784.x Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Measurement error in “Big Five factors” personality assessment: Reliability generalization across studies and measures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 224 – 235. doi:10.1177/00131640021970475 Wanberg, C. R. (2012). The individual experience of unemployment. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 369 –396. doi:10.1146/annurevpsych-120710-100500 ⴱ Wang, C. (2002). Emotional intelligence, general self-efficacy, and coping style of juvenile delinquents. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 16, 566 –567. Wee, S. G. H. (2010). Compromises in career-related decisions: Hypothetical choices, individual differences, and actual outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Wernimont, P. F., & Campbell, J. P. (1968). Signs, samples, and criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 372–376. doi:10.1037/h0026244 Wilson-Soga, N. (2009). Personality traits, self-efficacy of job performance, and susceptibility to stress as predictions of academic performance in nurse education programs (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Walden University, Minneapolis, MN. Wolff, S. B. (2006). Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) technical manual (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Hay Group. Wong, C., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 243–274. doi:10.1016/S10489843(02)00099-1

Wong, C.-H., Law, K. S., & Wong, P.-M. (2004). Development and validation of a forced choice emotional intelligence measure for Chinese respondents in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21, 535–559. doi:10.1023/B:APJM.0000048717.31261.d0 ⴱ Wu, M. B. (2008). Resident advisor general intelligence, emotional intelligence, personality dimensions, and internal belief characteristics as predictors of rated performance (Unpublished thesis). Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT. ⴱ Wu, Y. (2011). Job stress and job performance among employees in the Taiwanese finance sector: The role of emotional intelligence. Social Behavior and Personality, 39, 21–31. doi:10.2224/sbp.2011.39 .1.21 ⴱ Xie, J. L., Roy, J., & Chen, Z. (2006). Cultural and individual differences in self-rating behavior: An extension and refinement of the cultural relativity hypothesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 341–364. doi:10.1002/job.375 ⴱ Yamkovenko, B., & Holton, E. (2010). Toward a theoretical model of dispositional influences on transfer of learning: A test of a structural model. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21, 381– 410. doi: 10.1002/hrdq.20054 Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: A critical review. Applied Psychology, 53, 371–399. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00176.x Zizzi, S. J., Deaner, H. R., & Hirschhorn, D. K. (2003). The relationship between emotional intelligence and performance among college basketball players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 262–269. doi: 10.1080/10413200305390


329

Appendix A Studies Excluded From Original Meta-Analyses Study


Adeyemo (2007) Aremu & Lawal (2009) Ashkanasy & Dasborough (2003) Austin, Evans, Goldwater, & Potter (2005) Avery (2003) Bachman, Stein, Campbell, & Sitarenios (2000) Baker (2007) Barchard (2003) Barfoot (2007) Bellamy, Gore, & Sturgis (2005) Bernard, Hutchison, Lavin, & Pennington (1996) Bishop & Johnson (2011) Boyatzis (2006) Brackett & Mayer (2003) Breland & Donovan (2005) Brizz (2004)

Predictor measure

Criterion measure

Reason for exclusion

Mixed EI (EIS; Schutte et al., 1998) Mixed EI (SREIT; Schutte et al., 1998) Ability EI (MSCEIT; Mayer et al., 2002) Mixed EI (Austin, Saklofske, Huang, & McKenney, 2004) Specific self-efficacy EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997)

Academic self-efficacy Police-specific self-efficacy Overall course assessment

Not general self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy Not job performance

Academic performance

Not job performance

Big Five personality traits Success in debt collection

Not general self-efficacy Not job performance

Emotional Stability

— Ability EI (MSCEIT; Mayer et al., 1999) Self-rated ability EI (Wong & Law, 2002) Mixed EI (Tapia & Burry-Stock, 1998)

Year-end grades

Sensitivity used as a measure of Emotional Stability Not job performance

General self-efficacy

Self-rated ability EI

Specific self-efficacy

Not general self-efficacy

Composite self-efficacy across domains Cognitive ability (GPA)

Big Five personality traits Self-efficacy in earing course grades

Mixed EI (developed in this study) Mixed EI (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997; SREIT; Schutte et al., 1998) Task-specific self-efficacy

Financial performance High school rank & college GPA Test performance in class

Not general self-efficacy GPA as a measure of cognitive ability, not general self-efficacy. Not self-rated mixed EI Not job performance

Mixed EI (ECI–2.0; Boyatzis & Goleman, 2001) Mixed EI (Tapia, 2001)

Parishioner support

C. Brown, George-Curran, & Smith (2003) F. W. Brown, Bryant, & Reilly (2006)

Mixed EI (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997)

Byrne, Dominick, Smither, & Reilly (2007)

Mixed EI (ECI–2.0; Boyatzis & Goleman, 2001)

Calloway (2010) Cavins (2005)

Self-rated ability EI (Wong & Law, 2002) Mixed EI (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997)

D. W. Chan (2008)

Mixed EI (EIS; Schutte et al., 1998)

K.-Y. Chan (1999) Cikanek (2006)

Leadership self-efficacy Mixed EI (ESAP; Nelson & Low, 1999) Ability EI (MSCEIT; Mayer et al., 2000) General self-efficacy

Collins (2002) DeRue & Morgeson (2007) Devaraj, Easley, & Grant (2008) Devonish & Greenidge (2010) Drew (2007)

Computer self-efficacy Self-rated ability EI (Wong & Law, 2002) Mixed EI (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997)

Easton (2004) Edwards (1998)

Mixed EI (BEIS; Bedwell, 2001) Health self-efficacy

(Appendices continue)

Career decision-making self-efficacy Subordinate-rated leader effectiveness Coworker (e.g., peers, supervisors, subordinates) rating of managerial skills General self-efficacy Director-rated student leader performance General teacher selfefficacy Big Five personality traits Counseling self-efficacy Multi-rater feedback of executive success Supervisor-rated overall performance Big Five personality traits Supervisor-rated task performance Student teacher performance Counseling self-efficacy Big Five personality traits

Not general self-efficacy; not job performance Not job performance Not general self-efficacy Not supervisor-rated job performance Not supervisor-rated job performance Self-rated ability EI Not job performance Not general self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy Not supervisor-rated job performance Not in real work situation Not general self-efficacy Self-rated ability EI Mixture of other-rating and self-rating Not general self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy


330 Appendix A (continued) Study Elfenbein, Curhan, Eisenkraft, Shirako, & Baccaro (2008) Felfe & Schyns (2006) Gerhardt, Rode, & Peterson (2007) Gordon-Handler (2009)

Ability EI (MSCEIT; Mayer et al., 2002) Occupational self-efficacy Academic self-efficacy Mixed EI (ECI–2.0; Wolff, 2006)

Graves (1999)

Ability EI (MSCEIT; Mayer et al., 1999) Computer self-efficacy Mixed EI (EIS; Schutte et al., 1998)

Griffin (2006) Hammond, Lockman, & Boling (2010) This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Predictor measure

Hartman (2006) Hartsfield (2003) Heggestad & Morrison (2008) Hendricks & Payne (2007) Herbst, Marre, & Sibanda (2006) Higgs (2004) Higgs & Aitken (2003) Hirschi (2008)

Career decision-making self-efficacy Self-rated ability EI (Wong & Law, 2002) Ability EI (MSCEIT; Mayer et al., 2002) Leadership self-efficacy Ability EI (MSCEIT; Mayer et al., 2002) Mixed EI (EIQ-G; Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000) Mixed EI (EIQ–Managerial; Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000) General self-efficacy

Hopkins & Bilimoria (2007)

Mixed EI (ECI; Boyatzis & Goleman, 2001)

Huang, Chan, Lam, & Nan (2010)

Self-rated ability EI (Wong & Law, 2002)

Jennings & Palmer (2007)

Mixed EI (360-degree Genos Emotional Intelligence Inventory; Gignac, 2010) Self-efficacy in affect regulation Mixed EI (Schutte et al., 1998) Sales self-efficacy Ability EI (MSCEIT; Mayer et al., 2000)

Kämpfe & Mitte (2010) Kaur, Schutte, & Thorsteinsson (2006) Kepes (2008) Kerr, Garvin, Heaton, & Boyle (2006) Kilic-Bebek (2009) Kim, Cable, Kim, & Wang (2009) Langhorn (2004) Lii & Wong (2008) Löckenhoff, Duberstein, Friedman, & Costa (2011) Lopes, Salovey, Cote, Beers, & Petty (2005) Mak & Tran (2001) Márquez, Martin, & Brackett (2006) Martin (2002)

Specific self-efficacy Self-rated ability EI (Law, Wong, & Song, 2004) Mixed EI (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997) Mixed EI (Emotional Intelligence Quotient Inventory; based on Salovey & Mayer, 1990) Multidomain self-efficacy Ability EI (MSCEIT; Mayer et al., 2002) Social self-efficacy Ability EI (MSCEIT; Mayer et al., 2002) Specific self-efficacy


Criterion measure

Reason for exclusion

Negotiation self-efficacy


Big Five personality traits Big Five personality traits Supervisor-rated graduate student therapy fieldwork performance Performance in simulated activities Big Five personality traits Career decision-making self-efficacy Big Five personality traits General self-efficacy

Not general self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy Not job performance Not job performance Not general self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy Self-rated ability EI

Social self-efficacy


Big Five personality traits Transformational leadership practices Performance assessment by the personnel department Assessment center ratings of leadership potential Big Five personality traits


Supervisor-rated success (annual performance plus annual potential) Performance assessed by immediate supervisors, colleagues, customers, and trainers on a daily basis Objective performance Big Five personality traits Teaching self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Subordinates’ rating of supervisory leadership effectiveness Big Five personality traits Supervisor-rated task effectiveness Overall management performance Self-rated oversea adjustment

Not supervisor-rated job performance Not job performance Adolescent sample (mean age less than 16) Not self-rated mixed EI Self-rated ability EI; Not supervisor-rated or self-rated job performance. Not self-rated mixed EI Not general self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy Not supervisor-rated job performance Not general self-efficacy Self-rated ability EI Effect size not available Not job performance

Big Five personality traits SAT & GPA


Big Five personality traits GPA


Big Five personality traits



331

Appendix A (continued) Study Martin, Easton, Wilson, Takemoto, & Sullivan (2004) Martini (2008)


Mikolajczak, Luminet, & Menil (2006) Nel (2001)

Nguyen (2003) Norris (2002) Okech (2004) Page, Bruch, & Haase (2008) Pearlin & Schooler (1978) Penrose, Perry, & Ball (2007) Rastegar & Memarpour (2009) Ribadeneira (2006) G. N. Robinson (2003) Saleem, Beaudry, & Croteau (2011) Seijts & Latham (2011) Semadar, Robins & Ferris (2006)

Predictor measure Mixed EI (EJI; Bedwell, 2003) Self-rated ability EI (Wong & Law, 2002) Mixed EI (French TEIQue–LF; Mikolajczak et al., 2007) Mixed EI (ECI–2.0; Wolff, 2006)

Test-taking self-efficacy Self-efficacy for nursing work Ability EI (MEIS; Salovey & Mayer, 1990) Career decision-making self-efficacy Personal mastery measure Mixed EI (RTS; Perry et al., 2004) Mixed EI (EIS; Schutte et al., 1998) Career decision self-efficacy Cross-cultural adjustment efficacy Computer self-efficacy Task-specific self-efficacy

Criterion measure Counseling self-efficacy Leader self-efficacy Self-efficacy to pass exam

Reason for exclusion Not general self-efficacy Self-rated ability EI; Not general self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy

Organization-provided overall performance rating (partly subjective and partly objective) Big Five personality traits Big Five personality traits Teaching self-efficacy

Not supervisor-rated or self-rated job performance

Big Five personality traits Big Five personality traits Teaching self-efficacy Teaching self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Big Five personality traits Big Five personality traits Task performance in an experiment

Not general self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy; Not job performance Not general self-efficacy

Not general self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy

Leadership self-efficacy

Sergio (2001)

Mixed EI (SUEIT; Palmer & Stough, 2001) Mixed EI (ECI; Sala, 2002)

Supervisor-rated job performance

Effect size not available

Shadel, Cervone, Niaura, & Abrams (2004) Sjoberg, Littorin, & Engelberg (2005)

Self-efficacy to quit smoking Ability EI (developed in this study)

Big Five personality traits Organizational citizenship behavior Big Five personality traits Big Five personality traits

Not general self-efficacy Not task performance

Spurk & Abele (2011) Stanley, Novy, Hopko, Beck, Averill, & Swann (2002)

Occupational self-efficacy General self-efficacy

Thoms, Moore, & Scott (1996) Trevelyan (2011) van den Berg & Feij (2003) Vecchione & Caprara (2009) Villanueva & Sanchez (2007)

Specific self-efficacy Entrepreneurial self-efficacy Work self-efficacy Political self-efficacy Mixed EI (adapted from SSRI; Schutte et al., 1998) Occupational self-efficacy Nurse practice self-efficacy Self-rated ability EI (NEI, developed in this study; WLEIS, Wong & Law, 2002) Mixed EI (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997)

Wee (2010) Wilson-Soga (2009) Wong, Law, & Wong (2004) M. B. Wu (2008)

Big Five personality traits Objective job performance Big Five personality traits Big Five personality traits Leadership self-efficacy

Not general self-efficacy A sample of older adults with generalized anxiety disorder Not general self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy

Big Five personality traits Big Five personality traits Supervisor-rated sales performance

Not general self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy Self-rated ability EI

Self-rated resident advisor performance

Not job performance

Note. BEIS ⫽ Bedwell Emotional Intelligence Scales; ECI ⫽ Emotional Competence Inventory; EI ⫽ emotional intelligence; EIS ⫽ Emotional Intelligence Scale; SREIT ⫽ Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test; EJI ⫽ Emotional Judgment Inventory; ESAP ⫽ Emotional Skills Assessment Process; EQ-i ⫽ Emotional Quotient Inventory; GPA ⫽ grade point average; MEIS ⫽ Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale; MSCEIT ⫽ MayerSalovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test; EIQ-G ⫽ Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire–General; NEI ⫽ New Emotional Intelligence Scale; RTS ⫽ Reactions to Teaching Situations; SUEIT ⫽ Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test; SSRI ⫽ Schutte Self-Report Inventory; TEIQue–LF ⫽ Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire–Long Form; WLEIS ⫽ Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale.



332

Appendix B Primary Studies Relating Mixed Emotional Intelligence and Objective Results Criteria


Study

N

Predictor measure

Predictor reliability

Objective results measure

Ahmetoglu, Leutner, & Chamorro-Premuzic (2011)

528

.89

120

Objective measure of entrepreneurial success (i.e., no. of businesses started & income) Objective sales performance

.14

Chipain (2003) Downey, Lee, & Stough (2011)

100 717

Perlini & Halverson (2006)

79

EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997), 133-item

.79a

Sala (2002)

90

ECI 1.0

.79a

25

ECI 1.0

.79a

Sevinc (2001)

66

ECI

.79a

Tombs (2005)

60

EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997), 133-item

.79a

Zizzi, Deaner, & Hirschhorn (2003)

21

Schutte et al. (1998)

.79a

Objective job performance (i.e., the annual revenue a consultant generates) Objective sales performance (i.e., an average of the previous 4 months gross commission and what was expected by the financial services firm) Objective hockey player performance Objective performance (i.e., student retention rate) Objective performance (i.e., student academic achievement) Objective career success (i.e., salary, position level, and no. of promotions) Objective performance (i.e., commissions, measured in thousands of dollars, transformed using a square root function) Objective baseball performance (i.e., averaged from earned runs, walks, hits, strikeouts, and wild pitches [pitcher]) Objective baseball performance (i.e., averaged from earned runs, walks, hits, strikeouts, and wild pitches [pitcher])

.27

Enhelder (2011)

TEIQue–SF (Petrides & Furnham, 2006), 30-item, 7-point Likert STI (Taccarino & Leonard, 1999) SUEIT–Workplace (Palmer & Stough, 2001), 64-item, 5point scale EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997)

40

.79a .82 .88

.79a

r (uncorrected)

.42

.14

⫺.16 .18 .20 .14 .28

.34

.01

Note. The mixed emotional intelligence (EI)– objective results correlation is meta-analytically estimated to be ␳ˆ ⫽ .17 (k ⫽ 11, N ⫽ 1,846). Reliability of objective results measures was assumed to be 1.00. ECI ⫽ Emotional Competence Inventory; EQ-i ⫽ Emotional Quotient Inventory; STI ⫽ Success Tendencies Indicator; SUEIT–Workplace ⫽ Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test–Workplace; TEIQue–SF ⫽ Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire–Short Form. a Reliability of the mixed EI measure was not available; therefore, we substituted the average reliability of all mixed EI measures included in the original meta-analyses.



333

Appendix C Facet-Level Mixed Emotional Intelligence (EI) Results


Table C1 Primary Studies Included in the Facet-Level Mixed EI Meta-Analyses Study

N

Predictor measure (facet)

rxx

Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) Brackett & Mayer (2003) Brackett & Mayer (2003) Brackett & Mayer (2003) Brackett & Mayer (2003) Brackett & Mayer (2003) Byrne (2003)

198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 174 174 174 174 174 174 174 174 174 174 174 174 174 174 174 188 188 188 188 188 325

Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Self-Awareness

.82 .80 .76 .80 .89 .82 .80 .76 .80 .89 .82 .80 .76 .80 .89 .78 .79 .79 .79 .83 .78 .79 .79 .79 .83 .78 .79 .79 .79 .83 .94 .88 .81 .84 .88 .67

Byrne (2003)

325

Self-Management

.83

Byrne (2003)

325

Social Awareness

.82

Byrne (2003)

325

Relationship Management

.86

Smither, & Reilly

161

Self-Awareness

Smither, & Reilly

161

Smither, & Reilly

Byrne, Dominick, (2007) Byrne, Dominick, (2007) Byrne, Dominick, (2007) Byrne, Dominick, (2007) Byrne, Dominick, (2007) Byrne, Dominick, (2007) Byrne, Dominick, (2007)

ryy

r

.78 .78 .78 .78 .78 .89 .89 .89 .89 .89 .86 .86 .86 .86 .86 .80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .83 .83 .83 .83 .83 .86 .86 .86 .86 .86 .87 .87 .87 .87 .87 .80

.14 .11 .37 .17 .10 .51 .41 .03 ⫺.05 .45 .34 .17 .28 .46 .64 .17 .23 .30 .28 .16 .36 .50 .04 .05 .41 .28 .35 .22 .58 .47 .07 .28 .16 .15 .08 .11

.80

.17

.80

.29

.80

.28

.52

Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Ability EI Ability EI Ability EI Ability EI Ability EI Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Conscientiousness

.81

.25

Self-Management

.83

Conscientiousness

.81

.26

161

Social Awareness

.70

Conscientiousness

.81

.37

Smither, & Reilly

161


.87

Conscientiousness

.81

.26

Smither, & Reilly

161

Self-Awareness

.52

Extraversion

.76

.38

Smither, & Reilly

161

Self-Management

.83

Extraversion

.76

.47

Smither, & Reilly

161

Social Awareness

.70

Extraversion

.76

.38


Criterion measure


334 Table C1 (continued)


Study Byrne, Dominick, Smither, & Reilly (2007) Byrne, Dominick, Smither, & Reilly (2007) Byrne, Dominick, Smither, & Reilly (2007) Byrne, Dominick, Smither, & Reilly (2007) Byrne, Dominick, Smither, & Reilly (2007) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Dawda & Hart (2000) Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) Derksen, Kramer, & Katzko (2002) Derksen, Kramer, & Katzko (2002) Derksen, Kramer, & Katzko (2002) Derksen, Kramer, & Katzko (2002) Derksen, Kramer, & Katzko (2002) Di Fabio & Palazzeschi (2008) Di Fabio & Palazzeschi (2008) Di Fabio & Palazzeschi (2008) Di Fabio & Palazzeschi (2008)

N


rxx

161


.87

161

Self-Awareness

161

ryy

r

Extraversion

.76

.57

.52

Emotional Stability

.84

.37

Self-Management

.83

Emotional Stability

.84

.47

161

Social Awareness

.70

Emotional Stability

.84

.39

161


.87

Emotional Stability

.84

.42

118 118 118 118 118 124 124 124 124 124 118 118 118 118 118 124 124 124 124 124 118 118 118 118 118 124 124 124 124 124 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 873 873 873 873 873 169 169 169 169

Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management

.93 .86 .87 .86 .91 .94 .85 .86 .81 .90 .93 .86 .87 .86 .91 .94 .85 .86 .81 .90 .93 .86 .87 .86 .91 .94 .85 .86 .81 .90 .95 .90 .89 .85 .89 .95 .90 .89 .85 .89 .95 .90 .89 .85 .89 .92 .85 .80 .84 .87 .79 .79 .78 .84

Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy

.80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .83 .83 .83 .83 .83 .80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .83 .83 .83 .83 .83 .87 .87 .87 .87 .87 .89 .89 .89 .89 .89 .81 .81 .81 .81 .81 .78 .78 .78 .78 .78 .86 .86 .86 .86 .86 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .94 .94 .94 .94

.54 .34 .45 .32 .40 .33 .21 .37 .16 .17 .48 .55 .32 .18 .61 .51 .51 .40 .22 .64 .59 .21 .53 .54 .69 .70 .23 .58 .58 .77 .44 .37 .50 .38 .33 .51 .47 .36 .27 .36 .63 .12 .61 .68 .67 .08 ⫺.04 .11 .13 .11 .47 .19 .25 .11


Criterion measure


335

Table C1 (continued)


Study

N


rxx

Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal

.94 .88 .81 .84 .88 .94 .89 .78 .82 .88 .94 .89 .76 .82 .88 .83

Farrelly & Austin (2007) Farrelly & Austin (2007) Farrelly & Austin (2007) Farrelly & Austin (2007) Farrelly & Austin (2007) Fillion (2001) Fillion (2001) Fillion (2001) Fillion (2001) Fillion (2001) Fillion (2001) Fillion (2001) Fillion (2001) Fillion (2001) Fillion (2001) Gabel, Dolan, & Cerdin (2005)

199 199 199 199 199 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 59

Gabel, Dolan, & Cerdin (2005)

59

Interpersonal

.78


59

Adaptability

.67


59

Stress Management

.79


59

General Mood

.70

Goldsmith (2008)

24

Intrapersonal

.82

Goldsmith (2008)

24

Interpersonal

.56

Goldsmith (2008)

24

Adaptability

.85

Goldsmith (2008)

24

Stress Management

.89

Goldsmith (2008)

24

General Mood

.88

Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood

.88 .80 .76 .84 .85 .88 .80 .76 .84 .85 .88 .80 .76 .84 .85 .88 .80 .76 .84 .85

Grubb Grubb Grubb Grubb Grubb Grubb Grubb Grubb Grubb Grubb Grubb Grubb Grubb Grubb Grubb Grubb Grubb Grubb Grubb Grubb

& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &

McDaniel McDaniel McDaniel McDaniel McDaniel McDaniel McDaniel McDaniel McDaniel McDaniel McDaniel McDaniel McDaniel McDaniel McDaniel McDaniel McDaniel McDaniel McDaniel McDaniel

(2007) (2007) (2007) (2007) (2007) (2007) (2007) (2007) (2007) (2007) (2007) (2007) (2007) (2007) (2007) (2007) (2007) (2007) (2007) (2007)

229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229


Criterion measure Ability EI Ability EI Ability EI Ability EI Ability EI Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Ability EI Ability EI Ability EI Ability EI Ability EI Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability

ryy

r

.87 .87 .87 .87 .87 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .87 .87 .87 .87 .87 .86

.14 .22 .18 .17 .16 ⫺.01 ⫺.04 ⫺.05 ⫺.01 ⫺.07 .09 .16 .14 .14 .11 .15

.86

.07

.86

⫺.02

.86

⫺.10

.86

.06

.88

.13

.88

.33

.88

.12

.88

⫺.15

.88

.10

.84 .84 .84 .84 .84 .91 .91 .91 .91 .91 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90

.41 .10 .43 .10 .31 .45 .30 ⫺.02 .01 .36 .35 .07 .18 .67 .56 .01 ⫺.02 .01 .02 .18




Study

N


rxx

Hanna (2008)

46

Self-Awareness

.67

Hanna (2008)

46

Self-Management

.83

Hanna (2008)

46

Social Awareness

.82

Hanna (2008)

46


.86

Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood

.83 .93 .87 .78 .83 .83 .93 .87 .78 .83 .83 .93 .87 .78 .83 .93 .87 .85 .86 .88 .93 .87 .85 .86 .88 .93 .87 .85 .86 .88 .93 .87 .85 .86 .88 .93 .87 .85 .86 .88 .77 .81 .80 .84 .81 .80 .80 .80 .80 .80

Kohan (2002) Kohan (2002) Kohan (2002) Kohan (2002) Kohan (2002) Kohan (2002) Kohan (2002) Kohan (2002) Kohan (2002) Kohan (2002) Kohan (2002) Kohan (2002) Kohan (2002) Kohan (2002) Kohan (2002) Livingstone & Day (2005) Livingstone & Day (2005) Livingstone & Day (2005) Livingstone & Day (2005) Livingstone & Day (2005) Livingstone & Day (2005) Livingstone & Day (2005) Livingstone & Day (2005) Livingstone & Day (2005) Livingstone & Day (2005) Livingstone & Day (2005) Livingstone & Day (2005) Livingstone & Day (2005) Livingstone & Day (2005) Livingstone & Day (2005) Livingstone & Day (2005) Livingstone & Day (2005) Livingstone & Day (2005) Livingstone & Day (2005) Livingstone & Day (2005) Livingstone & Day (2005) Livingstone & Day (2005) Livingstone & Day (2005) Livingstone & Day (2005) Livingstone & Day (2005) Lui (2009) Lui (2009) Lui (2009) Lui (2009) Lui (2009) Moafian & Ghanizadeh (2009) Moafian & Ghanizadeh (2009) Moafian & Ghanizadeh (2009) Moafian & Ghanizadeh (2009) Moafian & Ghanizadeh (2009)

399 399 399 399 399 399 399 399 399 399 399 399 399 399 399 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 108 108 108 108 108 89 89 89 89 89


Criterion measure Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Ability EI Ability EI Ability EI Ability EI Ability EI Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy

ryy

r

.83

⫺.16

.83

.25

.83

.08

.83

.32

.73 .73 .73 .73 .73 .74 .74 .74 .74 .74 .80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .83 .83 .83 .83 .83 .86 .86 .86 .86 .86 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .87 .87 .87 .87 .87 .93 .93 .93 .93 .93 .91 .91 .91 .91 .91

.35 .48 .60 .49 .47 .54 .44 .29 .66 .53 ⫺.23 ⫺.67 ⫺.64 ⫺.68 ⫺.69 .41 .34 .57 .45 .36 .56 .36 .23 .15 .52 .63 .32 .56 .66 .57 ⫺.11 ⫺.24 ⫺.05 .07 .01 .26 .34 .40 .28 .41 .37 .38 .33 .33 .38 .31 .33 .38 .43 .48


337



Study

N


rxx

Criterion measure

ryy

90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 137 137 137 137 137 90 90 90 90 90 35

Self-Awareness Self-Management Social Awareness Relationship Management Self-Awareness Self-Management Social Awareness Relationship Management Self-Awareness Self-Management Social Awareness Relationship Management Self-Awareness Self-Management Social Awareness Relationship Management Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Self-Awareness

.52 .83 .70 .87 .52 .83 .70 .87 .52 .83 .70 .87 .52 .83 .70 .87 .92 .85 .80 .84 .87 .94 .88 .81 .84 .88 .67

.73 .73 .73 .73 .79 .79 .79 .79 .79 .79 .79 .79 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .87 .87 .87 .87 .87 .74

.30 .33 .21 .39 .47 .24 .24 .49 .07 .20 .10 .11 ⫺.09 ⫺.10 ⫺.16 ⫺.22 .04 ⫺.12 .09 .12 ⫺.02 .35 .21 .22 .21 .36 .29

Schumacher (2005) Schumacher (2005)

212 35

Self-Awareness Self-Management

.67 .83

.80 .74

.12 .36


212 35

Self-Management Social Awareness

.83 .82

.80 .74

⫺.05 .34


212 35

Social Awareness Relationship Management

.82 .86

.80 .74

.03 .43

Schumacher (2005) Sevinc (2001) Sevinc (2001) Sevinc (2001) Sevinc (2001) Shahzad, Sarmad, Abbas, (2011) Shahzad, Sarmad, Abbas, (2011) Shahzad, Sarmad, Abbas, (2011) Shahzad, Sarmad, Abbas, (2011) Shaikh (2004) Shaikh (2004) Shaikh (2004) Shaikh (2004) Shaikh (2004) Shaikh (2004) Shaikh (2004)

& Khan

212 71 71 71 71 100

Relationship Management Self-Awareness Self-Management Social Awareness Social Skills Self-Awareness

.86 .67 .83 .82 .86 .82

Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Ability EI Ability EI Ability EI Ability EI Ability EI Job performance (supervisor-rated) Self-rated job performance Job performance (supervisor-rated) Self-rated job performance Job performance (supervisor-rated) Self-rated job performance Job performance (supervisor-rated) Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance

.80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .73

.17 .23 .25 .19 .31 .22

& Khan

100

Self-Management

.84

Self-rated job performance

.73

.26

& Khan

100

Social Awareness

.81


.73

.39

& Khan

100


.82


.73

.34

116 116 116 116 116 116 116

Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal

.88 .85 .83 .82 .87 .88 .85

Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Extraversion Extraversion

.80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .83 .83

.13 ⫺.07 .42 .47 ⫺.20 ⫺.11 .08

Murensky (2000) Murensky (2000) Murensky (2000) Murensky (2000) Murensky (2000) Murensky (2000) Murensky (2000) Murensky (2000) Murensky (2000) Murensky (2000) Murensky (2000) Murensky (2000) Murensky (2000) Murensky (2000) Murensky (2000) Murensky (2000) Newsome, Day, & Catano Newsome, Day, & Catano Newsome, Day, & Catano Newsome, Day, & Catano Newsome, Day, & Catano O’Connor & Little (2003) O’Connor & Little (2003) O’Connor & Little (2003) O’Connor & Little (2003) O’Connor & Little (2003) Schumacher (2005)

(2000) (2000) (2000) (2000) (2000)


r




Study

N


rxx

Criterion measure

ryy

Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Cognitive Ability Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Job performance (supervisor-rated) Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion

.83 .83 .83 .86 .86 .86 .86 .86 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .80

.06 .02 .23 .16 ⫺.04 .33 .52 .33 ⫺.04 .04 .03 .07 .02 .23

.80

.01

.80

.18

.80

.15

.80

.23

.88

.14

.88

.18

.88

.08

.88

.10

.88

.12

.83 .83 .83 .83 .83 .80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .83 .83 .83 .83 .83

.37 .26 .32 .24 .29 .43 .45 .46 .32 .25 .17 .15 .20 ⫺.07 .05 .37 .30 .47 .25 .30 .22 .25 .05 ⫺.08 .29

Shaikh (2004) Shaikh (2004) Shaikh (2004) Shaikh (2004) Shaikh (2004) Shaikh (2004) Shaikh (2004) Shaikh (2004) Shaikh (2004) Shaikh (2004) Shaikh (2004) Shaikh (2004) Shaikh (2004) Slaski & Cartwright (2002)

116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 221

Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal

.83 .82 .87 .88 .85 .83 .82 .87 .92 .85 .80 .84 .87 .81

Slaski & Cartwright (2002)

221

Interpersonal

.73


221

Adaptability

.77


221

Stress Management

.84


221

General mood

.83

Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005)

383

Intrapersonal

.81


383

Interpersonal

.73


383

Adaptability

.77


383

Stress Management

.84


383

General Mood

.83

Stone, Parker, & Stone, Parker, & Stone, Parker, & Stone, Parker, & Stone, Parker, & Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004)

412 412 412 412 412 75 75 75 75 75 32 32 32 32 32 60 60 60 60 60 75 75 75 75 75

Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood

.81 .73 .77 .84 .83 .88 .85 .83 .82 .87 .88 .85 .83 .82 .87 .88 .85 .83 .82 .87 .88 .85 .83 .82 .87

Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood

(2005) (2005) (2005) (2005) (2005)


r


339



Study Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) Tombs (2004) M. B. Wu (2008) M. B. Wu (2008) M. B. Wu (2008) M. B. Wu (2008) M. B. Wu (2008)

N


rxx

Criterion measure

ryy

32 32 32 32 32 60 60 60 60 60 75 75 75 75 75 32 32 32 32 32 60 60 60 60 60 36 36 36 36 36

Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood

.88 .85 .83 .82 .87 .88 .85 .83 .82 .87 .88 .85 .83 .82 .87 .88 .85 .83 .82 .87 .88 .85 .83 .82 .87 .82 .83 .79 .82 .83

Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Extraversion Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance Self-rated job performance

.83 .83 .83 .83 .83 .83 .83 .83 .83 .83 .86 .86 .86 .86 .86 .86 .86 .86 .86 .86 .86 .86 .86 .86 .86 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96

r .58 .35 .05 ⫺.40 .24 .64 .48 .41 ⫺.03 .62 .39 .17 .37 .60 .53 .34 .01 .52 .51 .65 .53 .40 .58 .57 .49 .41 .19 .01 .37 .20

Note. rxx refers to reliability of the predictor. ryy refers to reliability of the criterion. When reliability information was not available in the primary study, the average reliability of all available measures included in the original meta-analyses was substituted. Self-Awareness, Self-Management, Social Awareness, and Relationship Management are dimensions of the Emotional Competence Inventory/Emotional and Social Competence Inventory. Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Adaptability, Stress Management, and General Mood are dimensions of the Emotional Quotient Inventory.



340

Table C2 Results From Facet-Level Mixed EI Meta-Analyses


95% CI

Conscientiousness ECI Self-Awareness Self-Management Social Awareness Relationship Management EQ-i Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General State of Mood Extraversion ECI Self-Awareness Self-Management Social Awareness Relationship Management EQ-i Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General State of Mood Emotional Stability ECI Self-Awareness Self-Management Social Awareness Relationship Management EQ-i Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General State of Mood Ability EI ECI Self-Awareness Self-Management Social Awareness Relationship Management EQ-i Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General State of Mood Cognitive Ability ECI Self-Awareness Self-Management Social Awareness Relationship Management

80% CI

k

N

r

␳ˆ

SD␳

2 2 2 2

251 251 251 251

.27 .29 .31 .31

.42 .36 .42 .37

.00 .00 .00 .00

.23 .24 .21 .22

.30 .33 .42 .39

.42 .36 .42 .37

.42 .36 .42 .37

12 12 12 12 12

1,869 1,869 1,869 1,869 1,869

.33 .27 .46 .31 .27

.39 .33 .57 .40 .33

.11 .17 .10 .16 .19

.26 .18 .40 .23 .17

.40 .37 .52 .40 .37

.25 .11 .45 .19 .09

.54 .56 .70 .61 .57

2 2 2 2

251 251 251 251

.41 .39 .33 .54

.65 .49 .45 .66

.00 .10 .00 .00

.35 .23 .24 .49

.47 .54 .42 .59

.65 .36 .45 .66

.65 .61 .45 .66

12 12 12 12 12

1,869 1,869 1,869 1,869 1,869

.45 .40 .18 .19 .46

.54 .48 .22 .25 .55

.18 .10 .15 .31 .11

.36 .34 .10 .04 .39

.55 .46 .27 .35 .52

.31 .35 .03 ⫺.14 .41

.77 .61 .42 .64 .69

2 2 2 2

251 251 251 251

.26 .37 .29 .31

.40 .45 .37 .36

.18 .13 .15 .15

.06 .19 .09 .10

.46 .55 .48 .51

.17 .29 .19 .17

.63 .61 .56 .55

12 12 12 12 12

1,869 1,869 1,869 1,869 1,869

.30 .01 .18 .32 .31

.34 .01 .20 .36 .34

.35 .42 .52 .62 .59

.13 ⫺.20 ⫺.08 .02 .12

.48 .22 .43 .62 .50

⫺.11 ⫺.53 ⫺.47 ⫺.43 ⫺.42

.79 .55 .87 1.00 1.00

5 5 5 5 5

783 783 783 783 783

.17 .26 .23 .20 .23

.19 .30 .28 .23 .26

.06 .00 .08 .00 .13

.09 .20 .14 .15 .10

.26 .31 .32 .24 .35

.11 .30 .17 .23 .09

.28 .30 .38 .23 .43

1 1 1 1

90 90 90 90

⫺.09 ⫺.10 ⫺.16 ⫺.22

⫺.13 ⫺.12 ⫺.20 ⫺.25

.00 .00 .00 .00

⫺.09 ⫺.10 ⫺.16 ⫺.22

⫺.09 ⫺.10 ⫺.16 ⫺.22

⫺.13 ⫺.12 ⫺.20 ⫺.25

⫺.13 ⫺.12 ⫺.20 ⫺.25

LL

UL

LL

UL

0 0 0 0



341



95% CI

EQ-i Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General State of Mood Self-Efficacya ECI Self-Awareness Self-Management Social Awareness Relationship Management EQ-i Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General State of Mood Self-Rated Job Performance ECI Self-Awareness Self-Management Social Awareness Relationship Management EQ-i Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General State of Mood Job Performance (SupervisorRated) ECI Self-Awareness Self-Management Social Awareness Relationship Management EQ-i Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General State of Mood

80% CI

k

N

r

␳ˆ

SD␳

LL

UL

LL

UL

6 6 6 6 6

1,661 1,661 1,661 1,661 1,661

.03 ⫺.07 .06 .10 .08

.03 ⫺.07 .07 .11 .09

.03 .05 .01 .00 .04

⫺.02 ⫺.13 .01 .06 .02

.08 ⫺.01 .11 .14 .13

⫺.02 ⫺.14 .05 .11 .04

.07 ⫺.01 .08 .11 .14

3 3 3 3 2

366 366 366 366 197

.40 .28 .31 .25 .42

.47 .33 .36 .29 .49

.00 .00 .00 .01 .00

.32 .18 .24 .10 .35

.48 .38 .37 .41 .49

.47 .30 .36 .13 .49

.47 .36 .36 .45 .49

2 2 2 2

283 283 283 283

.15 .03 .07 .21

.20 .03 .08 .25

.00 .14 .00 .00

.11 ⫺.19 ⫺.04 .15

.29 .26 .21 .35

.20 ⫺.14 .08 .25

.20 .21 .08 .25

2 2 2 2 2

448 448 448 448 448

.37 .25 .30 .25 .28

.45 .32 .37 .30 .34

.00 .00 .07 .00 .00

.43 .29 .22 .24 .30

.47 .36 .52 .36 .38

.45 .32 .28 .30 .34

.45 .32 .46 .30 .34

3 3 3 3

406 406 406 406

.10 .20 .27 .30

.14 .26 .35 .38

.08 .00 .00 .00

⫺.03 .18 .25 .32

.31 .34 .45 .44

.04 .26 .35 .38

.24 .26 .35 .38

4 4 4 4 4

687 687 687 687 687

.17 .12 .11 .09 .15

.22 .16 .14 .11 .19

.00 .06 .00 .03 .00

.15 .03 .05 .00 .11

.28 .29 .23 .23 .27

.22 .09 .14 .08 .19

.22 .23 .14 .15 .19

0 0 0 0

Note. k ⫽ no. of effect sizes in the meta-analysis; N ⫽ total sample size in the meta-analysis; r ⫽ sample-size-weighted mean correlation; ␳ˆ ⫽ correlation corrected for attenuation in predictor and criterion; SD␳ ⫽ standard deviation of corrected correlation; correlations with supervisor-rated job performance are also corrected for range restriction using the average ratio of restricted to unrestricted standard deviations for mixed emotional intelligence (EI; i.e., .95). 95% CI ⫽ 95% confidence interval; 80% CI ⫽ 80% credibility interval; LL ⫽ lower limit; UL ⫽ upper limit; EQ-i ⫽ Emotional Quotient Inventory; ECI ⫽ Emotional Competence Inventory. a No primary studies were available regarding the relationship between mixed EI facets and general self-efficacy; therefore, primary studies involving the relationship between specific self-efficacy and mixed EI facets were substituted for these meta-analytic effect sizes.



342

Table C3 Meta-Analytic Regression Predicting Facet-Level Mixed Emotional Intelligence


Dependent variable Predictor

Intrapersonala

Interpersonala

Adaptabilitya

Stress Managementa

General Moodb

Ability EI Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability Cognitive Ability General Self-Efficacy Self-Rated Performance

.13ⴱ .44ⴱ .62ⴱ .24ⴱ .01 ⫺.43ⴱ .33ⴱ

.33ⴱ .43ⴱ .57ⴱ ⫺.13ⴱ ⫺.11ⴱ ⫺.38ⴱ .28ⴱ

.28ⴱ .68ⴱ .33ⴱ .10ⴱ .04ⴱ ⫺.49ⴱ .31ⴱ

.22ⴱ .54ⴱ .40ⴱ .38ⴱ .08ⴱ ⫺.65ⴱ .27ⴱ

.14ⴱ .17ⴱ .37ⴱ .12ⴱ .04 .01 .17ⴱ

.56ⴱ .55ⴱ

.49ⴱ .49ⴱ

.50ⴱ .50ⴱ

.41ⴱ .41ⴱ

.35ⴱ .35ⴱ

R2 Adjusted R2

Note. Standardized regression coefficients. EI ⫽ emotional intelligence. a Harmonic mean N ⫽ 1,480. b Harmonic mean N ⫽ 1,317. Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Adaptability, Stress Management, and General Mood are facets of the Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On, 1997). ⴱ p ⬍ .05.

Table C4 Meta-Analytic Regression Predicting Job Performance From Facet-Level Mixed Emotional Intelligence Dependent variable: Job performance Predictor

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 5

Model 6

Ability emotional intelligence Conscientiousness Extraversion Emotional Stability Cognitive Ability General Self-Efficacy Self-Rated Performance Mixed emotional intelligence facets Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress Management General Mood

.18ⴱ .33ⴱ .20ⴱ .09ⴱ .43ⴱ ⫺.52ⴱ .42ⴱ

.19ⴱ .37ⴱ .25ⴱ .11ⴱ .43ⴱ ⫺.56ⴱ .44ⴱ

.20ⴱ .36ⴱ .24ⴱ .09ⴱ .42ⴱ ⫺.54ⴱ .43ⴱ

.27ⴱ .54ⴱ .30ⴱ .12ⴱ .44ⴱ ⫺.67ⴱ .51ⴱ

.25ⴱ .48ⴱ .31ⴱ .20ⴱ .45ⴱ ⫺.70ⴱ .49ⴱ

.18ⴱ .33ⴱ .20ⴱ .09ⴱ .42ⴱ ⫺.52ⴱ .41ⴱ

R2 Change in R2

⫺.09ⴱ

⫺.06

⫺.32ⴱ

⫺.28ⴱ .01

.395ⴱ

.398ⴱ .003ⴱ

.397ⴱ .002

.445ⴱ .050ⴱ

.443ⴱ .048ⴱ

.395ⴱ .000

Note. Standardized regression coefficients. N ⫽ 687, which is the sample size for the emotional intelligence facet–job performance relationship. Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Adaptability, Stress Management, and General Mood are facets of the Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On, 1997). ⴱ p ⬍ .05.

Received April 25, 2012 Revision received June 18, 2014 Accepted July 9, 2014 䡲

Emotional Intelligence (EI) of Patients with Multiple Sclerosis (MS).

Does IQ Really Predict Job Performance?

Does emotional intelligence predict breaking bad news skills in pediatric interns? A pilot study.

The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Perception of Job Performance among Nurses in North West of Iran.

EI competencies as a related but different characteristic than intelligence.

Why do spatial abilities predict mathematical performance?

Job characteristics and burnout: The moderating roles of emotional intelligence, motivation and pay among bank employees.

The relationship between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction among nurses in Accra.

Does Emotional Intelligence have a "Dark" Side? A Review of the Literature.

The Positive Effects of Trait Emotional Intelligence during a Performance Review Discussion - A Psychophysiological Study.

The importance of emotional intelligence.

Psychopathy, intelligence and emotional responding in a non-forensic sample: an experimental investigation.

Performance-based ability emotional intelligence benefits working memory capacity during performance on hot tasks.

Emotional intelligence and depressive symptoms in Spanish institutionalized elders: does emotional self-efficacy act as a mediator?

Hospital quality: does past performance predict future performance?

Emotional intelligence: convinced or lulled?

The relationship between emotional intelligence and job stress in the faculty of medicine in Isfahan University of Medical Sciences.

TIE: an ability test of emotional intelligence.

Does Personality Have a Different Impact on Self-Rated Distraction, Job Satisfaction, and Job Performance in Different Office Types?

Emotional intelligence is a second-stratum factor of intelligence: evidence from hierarchical and bifactor models.

If A-B does not predict heart disease, why bother with it? A clinician's view.

Emotional intelligence in orthopedic surgery residents.

Coronary Heart Disease and Emotional Intelligence.

Editorial: Emotional Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities.