Ability EI is generally considered to be the “gold standard” model of the construct (Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005; Murphy, 2006) because: (a) it has a relatively clear theoretical definition and (b) it is typically measured with performance-based (i.e., multiple-choice, correct/incorrect) assessments, which are arguably less susceptible to social desirability biases than are self-reports of EI.Recent evidence supports the construct validity (i.e., the extent to which a measure captures its intended construct) of ability EI measures, indicating that ability EI is indeed a facet of intelligence, as the construct label emotional implies (Mac Cann, Joseph, Newman, & Roberts, 2014; also see Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999).Tags: Write Research PaperU Of I Application Essay PromptsWriting An Essay About A Special PersonI Am Joaquin Poem EssayHow To Do A Simple Business PlanEmily Bronte EssayLeadership Definition EssayEssay Film PostersDefine Term PaperAccounting And Finance Dissertation Topics
If mixed EI measures do indeed borrow content from a laundry list of other well-known constructs (e.g., neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness, self-rated performance, self-efficacy), then one important question is, “How much of mixed EI represents = .068 = 7%; O’Boyle et al., 2011).
That is, mixed EI strongly and uniquely predicts job performance.
Although the incremental validity of ability EI is slightly larger in jobs that require emotional labor (ΔR= .015 = 1.5%; Joseph & Newman, 2010; that is, emotional intelligence can predict emotional job performance), and meta-analytic evidence has identified emotion regulation ability as the key driver of the relationship between ability EI and emotional job performance (i.e., Cascading Model of EI; Joseph & Newman, 2010), it appears that empirical evidence does indeed support the long-standing criticism of EI as having questionable incremental validity for predicting overall job performance beyond well-established general intelligence and personality constructs.
It follows that the claims about the predictive power of EI with respect to job performance that are common in the popular press are substantially overstated; we currently have no consistent scientific evidence that scoring high on ability EI tests predicts how strong your job performance will be, beyond smarts and personality traits (in particular, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, and Extraversion).
Despite this criticism, it should be noted that the incremental validity of ability EI for predicting other work-related outcomes, besides job performance, is an open question.
As suggested by Landy (2005), ability EI might end up predicting job satisfaction, leader emergence, or the size of one’s social network much better than it predicts job performance. Ability EI: How Many Facets (or Branches) are There?
Our own viewpoint follows from Fan et al.’s (2010) meta-analysis of ability EI dimensions and suggests there is consensus on three of the four facets of the Mayer-Salovey model: ability to perceive, ability to understand, and ability to regulate emotion.
Mixed EI: What is it, and Why Does it Predict Job Performance?
Meta-analytic evidence indicates there is little-to-no incremental validity of ability EI in predicting job performance, above and beyond Big Five personality and general mental ability/intelligence (ΔR= .004 = 0.4%; O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, & Story, 2011).
In other words, ability EI does almost nothing to predict overall job performance, after one has accounted for personality and general intelligence.