Tags: Open Ended Thesis StatementsCritical Essays On Thoreau WaldenCambodia Introduction EssayHistory Department ThesisMla Essay EssayHonoring Veterans EssaysNo Other Book Selected EssaysEntrance Essay To CollegeHomework 4th Grade
For example, although the MSCEIT was designed to assess all dimensions of Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) model of EI, some have noticed that the MSCEIT fails to assess various dimensions of this model such as the ability to express emotion, the ability to perceive emotions in oneself, and the ability regulate emotion in oneself (Maul 2012).The MSCEIT may also unintentionally assess abilities other than EI (i.e., the MSCEIT exhibits construct-irrelevant variance) such as the ability to match emotions to colors and tastes (i.e., the Sensations measure of the MSCEIT; Maul, 2012).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.
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.
Newman, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign March 2015 – The past quarter century has seen impressive growth of emotional intelligence (EI) as a topic of interest in the fields of psychology and management (Grandey, 2000; Law, Wong, & Song, 2004; Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002; Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008), likely fueled in part by claims that EI predicts job performance better than general intelligence does (Goleman, 1995).
Claims regarding the strong relationship between EI and work performance have also stimulated interest among consultants and practitioners, who have made EI a widely used tool for personnel hiring and training (Fineman, 2004).
Specifically, modern conceptualizations of intelligence such as the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of mental abilities (Mc Grew, 2009) suggest that intelligence consists of various specific abilities including verbal ability, quantitative reasoning, visual processing, and retrieval ability. (2014) showed that the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003), a popular measure of ability EI, can be represented in the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of intelligence as an additional specific ability, which formalizes ability EI as an aspect of intelligence characterized by the ability to process information in the emotion domain.
It should be noted, however, that the MSCEIT has been criticized for its potential underrepresentation of the entire domain of EI and for construct-irrelevant variance.Despite the impressive commercial success of emotional intelligence (EI), scholars have levied the following criticisms against the construct: (a) EI has definitional ambiguities, (b) there is considerable overlap between EI and related constructs of personality and general mental ability/intelligence (Landy, 2005; Locke, 2005; Murphy, 2006; Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2004), and (c) many EI measures are proprietary and expensive to administer, which makes it unnecessarily difficult for researchers to build a strong scientific foundation for the EI construct.Below we discuss each of these issues in the hope of clarifying recent progress in EI research, while pointing out a few remaining difficulties associated with the concept. Mixed EI The definitional ambiguity surrounding EI stems from a jingle fallacy (i.e., an assumption that two concepts are the same because they share the same name; Kelley, 1927), wherein the label “emotional intelligence” has been used to refer to two separate constructs: of personality traits and abilities (Petrides & Furnham, 2001).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?Given that a majority of items from mixed EI measures seem to borrow from the content domains of other, well-established constructs, it appears that mixed EI measures might have been developed via a process that we call (Joseph, Jin, Newman, & O’Boyle, 2015).That is, the developers of mixed EI measures have sampled items from a broad set of well-established content domains, and then simply pooled these items under the umbrella construct label that is mixed EI.In addition to the limited incremental validity of ability EI, recent theoretical and measurement-related developments involving ability EI have raised new questions about the facet structure of ability EI.Specifically, although the original four-branch Mayer and Salovey (1997) model of ability EI included four dimensions (i.e., the ability to perceive, understand, use, and regulate emotion), recent work has called for the use of three, rather than four, dimensions of ability EI (i.e., by removing the ability to use emotion facet, or by combining it with the ability to perceive emotion facet; Fan, Jackson, Yang, Tang, & Zhang, 2010; Joseph & Newman, 2010).To restore access and understand how to better interact with our site to avoid this in the future, please have your system administrator contact [email protected] Joseph, Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida & Daniel A.