Journal of Applied Psychology © 2014 American Psychological Association

2015, Vol. 100, No. 2, 298 –342 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
The University of Iowa
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Recent empirical reviews have claimed a surprisingly strong relationship between job performance and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

self-reported emotional intelligence (also commonly called trait EI or mixed EI), suggesting self-
reported/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 Stabil-
ity, 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

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 practi-
tioner tool for hiring, training, leadership development, and team
building by the business community. As evidence of this, Gole-
man’s (1995) book has been touted as one of the 25 most influ-
ential 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 Urbana-
Champaign; Daniel A. Newman, Department of Psychology and School of
Labor and Employment Relations, University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham-
paign; 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 Cen-
tral Florida Boulevard, Orlando, FL 32816. E-mail: dana.joseph@ucf.edu
298
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 Interna-
tional and Personnel Decisions International). Indeed, EI services
have become a multimillion-dollar consulting industry (Grewal &
Salovey, 2005), with some estimates suggesting that 75% of For-
tune 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 “emo-
tional intelligence” label having been historically applied to two,
relatively distinct theoretical constructs. The first sort of EI con-
struct has been defined as “the ability to carry out accurate rea-
soning about emotions and the ability to use emotions and emo-
tional 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 constel-
lation of personality traits, affect, and self-perceived abilities,
 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
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
personality traits (⌬R2 ⫽ .142 ⫽ 14%; Joseph & Newman, 2010b;
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
⌬R2 ⫽ .068 ⫽ 7%; O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, &
Story, 2011), whereas ability EI measures exhibit near-zero incre-
mental 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 per-
formance) has been at the center of controversy due to theoretical
underdevelopment (Murphy, 2006). The lack of theoretical con-
sensus 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 meta-
analytically 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 homoge-
neous content domain (e.g., developing a Conscientiousness scale
299
by drawing items from the Conscientiousness domain), the devel-
opment of mixed EI measures appears to have involved heteroge-
neous 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 follow-
ing, 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, self-
related qualities (i.e., general self-efficacy and self-rated perfor-
mance), 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) control-
related qualities such as impulse control and flexibility (which
theoretically overlap with the self-control facet of Conscientious-
ness; 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, Extra-
version, 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 control-
related 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 Conscientious-
ness 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 adher-
ing 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, display-
ing 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
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
estimates indicating a strong relationship between Conscientious-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ness 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 compo-
nents: 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 & Furn-
ham, 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 posi-
tively 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 cap-
tured 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 consider-
ing 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), empa-
thy (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 exami-
nation 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 dimen-
sion, 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 individ-
ual 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 pre-
sented here in any way), or else a few example items might easily
support the notion that mixed EI scales capture self-rated perfor-
mance. 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 mea-
sures) are conceptually closer to self-ratings of general perfor-
mance 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 ex-
cellence 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 over-
sample 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
 SELF-REPORTED EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
general performance, and as such, we expect self-rated job perfor-
mance 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 pro-
posed 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
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
would suggest that one’s self-perceptions are inferred from one’s
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
behavior (Bern, 1972), and given that mixed EI involves one’s self-
perceptions 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 self-
perceived 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 regula-
tion and emotion perception abilities. In particular, the emotional
self-awareness and empathy facets of Bar-On’s EQ-i appear to ad-
dress 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 posi-
tively 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 mea-
sures 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, Bar-
On, 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, how-
ever, 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 pro-
mote individual adaptability, primarily due to the additional infor-
mation 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 Conscien-
tiousness, 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 relation-
ship 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 illumi-
nate why mixed EI has such a robust relationship with job perfor-
mance, 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 per-
formance.
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 JOSEPH, JIN, NEWMAN, AND O’BOYLE

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, evi-
dence suggests Extraversion can have reasonable predictive valid-
ity for job performance, especially for success in management and
sales jobs (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Vinchur, Schippmann, Swit-
zer, & 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; Bar-
rick 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 & New-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Finally, cognitive ability appears to contribute to mixed EI mea-
sures, and it is a fundamental antecedent of job performance (Schmidt
& Hunter, 1998), largely due to the tendency for high-ability employ-
ees to acquire job knowledge (Schmidt, Hunter, & Outerbridge,
1986). Moreover, ability EI has been theorized to relate to job per-
formance 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 sup-
ported 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

man, 2010b). Thus, these three Big Five variables help explain the performance, aiding in the explanation of why mixed EI and job
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

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 engage-
ment (Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010). In other words, individ-
uals 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 Stur-
man, 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 covari-
ate of both mixed EI and supervisor-rated job performance.
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 conse-
quence 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 theo-
retical 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 per-
formance, 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.
 SELF-REPORTED EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
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 heteroge-
neous 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
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
seven KSAOs and partly because mixed EI represents some addi-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tional 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 explana-
tion 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 Sta-
bility, Conscientiousness, general self-efficacy, self-rated perfor-
mance, 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
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).
303
striving and accomplishment striving (i.e., Extraversion and Con-
scientiousness; Barrick et al., 2002), as well as elevated perfor-
mance 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 defi-
nition 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 mea-
sures of performance tend to be contaminated by factors external to
 304 JOSEPH, JIN, NEWMAN, AND O’BOYLE
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Figure 3. Model C. Full Mediation Model. Standardized estimates. All predictors were allowed to intercor-
relate. 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 mea-
sures 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 ¡ Sub-
jective 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 corre-
lations 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 meta-
analyses, estimating the bivariate relationships of both general
self-efficacy and self-rated job performance with mixed EI,
ability EI, Emotional Stability, Conscientiousness, Extraver-
sion, and cognitive ability (shown in Table 2). Then, by com-
bining 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 relation-
ship (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) as-
sumes 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 meta-
analytic 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-
 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.

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)

Study Sample size EI Measure Performance measure Effect size Meta-analysisa

Mixed EI and job performance

Austin, Evans, Goldwater, & Potter 154 Austin, Saklofske, Huang, & Academic performance .22 B
(2005) McKenney (2004)
Bachman, Stein, Campbell, &
Sitarenios (2000) 36 EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) Success in debt collection .30 (original t ⫽ 1.848) B
Brizz (2004) 32 ECI (2nd ed.; Wolff, 2006) Parishioner support (sacramental support .12 B
plus financial support)
F. W. Brown, Bryant, & Reilly (2006) 95 EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) Subordinate-rated leader effectiveness ⫺.02 B
Budnik (2003) — — — — B
Byrne (2003) 325 ECI (Sala, 2002) Supervisor-rated performance based on .27 A, C
Managerial Skills Questionnaire
(Smither & Seltzer, 2001)
Byrne, Dominick, Smither, & Reilly 161 ECI (2nd ed.; Wolff, 2006) Coworker (e.g., peers, supervisors, .27 B
(2007) subordinates) rating of managerial skills
Carmeli (2003) 98 Schutte et al. (1998) Self-rated job performance .32 B
Carmeli & Josman (2006) 215 Schutte et al. (1998) Supervisor-rated task performance .47 A, B, C
Cavins (2005) 73 EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) Director-rated student leader performance .29 (original F ⫽ 6.287) B
Chipain (2003) 120 Success Tendencies Indicator (STI; Objective sales performance .42 B
(Taccarino & Leonard, 1999)
Drew (2007) 40 EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) Student teacher performance (mixture of .31 B
other-rating and self-rating)
Dulewicz, Higgs, & Slaski (2003) 53 EIQ (Dulewicz & Higgs, 1999, 2000) Supervisor-rated management performance .32 A, B, C
Gabel, Dolan, & Cerdin (2005) 59 EQ-i Spanish version (Ugarriza, Supervisor-rated job performance .06 C
2001)
Goldsmith (2008) 24 EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) Supervisor-rated workplace performance .20 A, C
Government Accounting Office (1998) — — — — B
Hader (2007) 129 EQI (Rahim et al., 2002) Supervisor-rated job performance .29 A, C
Hanna (2008) 46 ECI (Sala, 2002) Supervisor-rated residence hall assistants .21 A, C
job performance
Higgs (2004) 289 EIQ-G (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000) Performance assessment by the personnel .22 B
SELF-REPORTED EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

department
Hopkins & Bilimoria (2008) 75 (Male) ECI (Boyatzis & Goleman, 2001, Supervisor-rated success (annual .23 B
composite of other ratings) performance plus annual potential)
30 (Female) ECI (Boyatzis & Goleman, 2001, Supervisor-rated success (annual .27 B
composite of other ratings) performance plus annual potential)
Jennings & Palmer (2007) 40 360-degree Genos Emotional Objective performance .43 B
Intelligence Inventory (Gignac,
2010)
Kostman (2004) 147 Bedwell Emotional Judgment Supervisor-rated job performance .31 A, C
Inventory (Bedwell, 2002)
Lii & Wong (2008) 152 Emotional Intelligence Quotient Self-rated oversea adjustment .18 B
Inventory (based on Salovey &
Mayer, 1990)
Perlini & Halverson (2006) 79 EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) Hockey player performance ⫺.16 B
Prati (2004) 209 Schutte et al. (1998) Supervisor-rated job performance .15 C
Rozell, Pettijoh, & Parker (2004) 103 Schutte et al. (1998) Self-rated sales performance .20 B
Sardo (2005) — — — — B
Schumacher (2005) 35 ECI-U (Boyatzis & Sala, 2004) Supervisor-rated performance .35 A, C
305

(table continues)
 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.

306

Table 1 (continued)

Study Sample size EI Measure Performance measure Effect size Meta-analysisa

Semadar, Robins, & Ferris (2006) 136 SUEIT (Palmer & Stough, 2001) Supervisor-rated job performance .25 A, C
Sergio (2001) 134 ECI (Sala, 2002) Supervisor-rated job performance ␹2 ⫽ 34.27 B
Slaski & Cartwright (2002) 224 EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) Supervisor-rated management performance .22 C
Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005) 383 EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) Supervisor-rated task-oriented leadership .14 B, C
abilities
Tombs (2005) 60 EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) Objective performance .28 B
Vieira (2008) 145 Leadership competency inventory Supervisor-rated job performance ⫺.07 C
designed to measure Goleman’s
(1995) EI competencies
M. B. Wu (2008) 36 EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997 Overall self-rated resident advisor .35 B
performance
Zizzi, Deaner, & Hirschhorn (2003) 21 pitchers Schutte et al. (1998) Objective baseball performance .34 B
40 hitters .01 B
Ability EI and job performance
Ashkanasy & Dasborough (2003) 119 MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002) Overall course assessment .20 B
Blickle et al. (2009) 210 TEMINT (Schmidt-Atzert & Bühner, Supervisor-rated overall performance .15 C
2002)
Bryant (2005) 62 MSCEIT (Mayer & Salovey, 1997) Objective sales performance ⫺.09 B
Byron (2007) 58 DANVA2 (Nowicki, 2000) Supervisor-rated managerial performance .22 B, C
Christiansen, Janovics, & Siers (2010) 69 MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2000) Supervisor-rated job performance .21 C
Cobêro, Primi, & Muniz (2006) 119 MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002) Supervisor-rated job performance .18 A, C
Collins (2002) 52 MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2000) Multirater feedback of executive success ⫺.08 B
Côté & Miners (2006) 175 MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002) Supervisor-rated job performance .32 A, B, C
Farh, Seo, & Tesluk (2012) 212 MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002) Supervisor-rated job performance .08 C
Goldsmith (2008 24 MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002) Supervisor-rated job performance .11 A, C
Graves (1999) 150 EKT (short version of MEIS; Mayer Performance in simulated activities .10 A
& Salovey, 1997)
69 MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 1999) Performance in simulated activities .24 A
JOSEPH, JIN, NEWMAN, AND O’BOYLE

Hanna (2008) 46 MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002) Supervisor-rated residence hall assistants ⫺.12 A,C
job performance
Herbst, Maree, & Sibanda (2006) 138 MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002) Transformational Leadership Practices .05 B
Kerr, Garvin, Heaton, & Boyle (2006) 38 MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2000) Subordinates’ rating of supervisory .39 B
leadership effectiveness
Kluemper (2006) 66 MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002) Supervisor-rated job performance .25 A, B, C
Kluemper, DeGroot, & Choi (2013) 102 MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002) Supervisor-rated task performance .22 C
85 MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002) Supervisor-rated task performance .22 C
Law, Wong, Huang, & Li (2008) 102 MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 1999) Objective performance measures ⫺.13 A
Muniz & Primi (2007) 80 MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002) Supervisor-rated job performance ⫺.01 A,C
Rosete & Ciarrochi (2005) 41 MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002) Supervisor-rated job performance .20 A, B, C
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.
 SELF-REPORTED EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 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 ap-
pears to be a ubiquitous limitation that plagues the vast majority
of studies in organizational research and is not unique to
meta-analytic SEM.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
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,

Literature Search 1997; Sherer et al., 1982).

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

In accordance with our a priori construct definitions and

In order to estimate the structural models, we compiled a cor-
relation matrix based on meta-analytic estimates from 20 pub-
lished meta-analytic correlations plus 16 original meta-analyses. If
multiple meta-analyses had been published on a particular bivari-
ate relationship, we used the most recent (which was also the most
comprehensive) one. The 16 original meta-analyses included up-
dates 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 meta-
analyses. First, we conducted a literature search in the databases
PsycINFO, ERIC, Social Science Citation Index, Google Scholar,
and Dissertation Abstracts International for published and unpub-
lished 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
research interests, several rules were established for the inclu-
sion 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., Ber-
nard, 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 80% CI
Variable k N r ␳ˆ SD␳ LL UL LL UL

Job performance (supervisor-rated)

Mixed EI 15 2,168 .23 .29 .13 .21 .38 .13 .46
Ability EI 13 1,287 .17 .20 .03 .13 .26 .15 .24
General self-efficacy 13 2,703 .10 .13 .00 .09 .18 .13 .13
Self-rated job performance
Mixed EI 10 1,601 .36 .41 .09 .34 .49 .29 .54
Ability EI 3 219 .00 .00 .09 ⫺.19 .20 ⫺.12 .12
Conscientiousness 8 2,621 .25 .31 .09 .23 .39 .19 .43
Extraversion 8 2,621 .19 .23 .06 .16 .29 .14 .31
Emotional Stability 8 2,621 .22 .26 .13 .16 .37 .09 .43
Cognitive ability 4 3,298 .03 .04 .05 ⫺.03 .10 ⫺.02 .10
General self-efficacy 3 686 .41 .51 .11 .36 .66 .37 .65
General self-efficacy
Mixed EI 9 1,847 .37 .45 .13 .35 .54 .28 .61
Ability EI 5 709 .30 .36 .40 ⫺.01 .72 ⫺.15 .87
Conscientiousness 30 10,027 .45 .54 .26 .44 .63 .21 .87
Extraversion 23 8,479 .42 .51 .20 .42 .59 .25 .76
Emotional Stability 46 12,510 .48 .56 .12 .52 .59 .40 .71
Cognitive ability 13 4,085 .07 .09 .06 .04 .13 .01 .16
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.
 308 JOSEPH, JIN, NEWMAN, AND O’BOYLE

Schooler, 1978) were also excluded. The only exception to this

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 &
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
.34g (115/37752)
inclusion rule was in regard to self-efficacy’s correlation with
ability EI. Because there were no general self-efficacy primary

—
8
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 per-

.13b (13/2703)
.51b (3/686)
formance of employed individuals was included; performance

—
of specific cognitive or noncognitive tasks, lab experiments,
7

assessment center ratings, and training performance were ex-

cluded; (b) student academic performance and grade point
averages (GPAs) were excluded; (c) studies measuring only
.44f (425/32124)
contextual performance or organizational citizenship behavior
.09b (13/4085)
.04b (4/3298)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

were excluded; and (d) studies that provided objective measures

—
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

or third-party evaluations of job performance were excluded

because, to be consistent with other meta-analyses in our cor-
relation matrix, we were only interested in supervisor ratings of
job performance. Primary studies of self-rated job performance
.09d (61/21404)
.56b (46/12510)

.11e (53/9184)

were selected according to the same inclusion rules, with one

.26b (8/2621)

exception. In order to obtain an adequate sample size for the

—
5

relationships between personality/cognitive ability and self-

with mixed emotional intelligence (EI), ability EI, Big Five traits, and cognitive ability were also corrected for range restriction.

rated job performance, we chose to include two studies (Os-

wald, Schmitt, Kim, Ramsay, & Gillespie, 2004; Schmitt et al.,
2007) that used behaviorally anchored rating scales across 12
.19c (710/440440)

Donovan (2000). f Hunter & Hunter (1984; see Joseph & Newman, 2010b, p. 63). g Heidemeier & Moser (2009).
.02 (61/21602)

dimensions of college performance (these studies were included

.51b (23/8479)

.09e (56/9664)
.23b (8/2621)

in effect size estimates for the relationships between personal-

—
4

ity/cognitive ability and self-rated performance). Results with

and without these two studies were very similar; removing these
d

studies did not change the relationships by more than .03.

Fourth, any performance-based (e.g., multiple-choice/right–
.00c (632/683001)
.26c (587/490296)

wrong) measure of EI based on Salovey and Mayer’s (1990)

⫺.04d (56/15429)
.54b (30/10027)

.21e (64/12434)

ability model was coded as ability EI, and all self-report mea-
.31b (8/2621)

sures of EI (excluding self-report measures of ability EI; e.g.,

—
3

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 pur-
portedly based on Salovey and Mayer’s [1990] model, the dimensions
.13a (21/4155)
.18a (23/4269)
.20a (22/4401)
.25a (28/5538)

.20b (13/1287)

of this self-report scale— empathy, self-management of emotions,

.36b (5/709)
.00b (3/219)

utilization of emotions, and management of others’ emotions [Chan,

—
2

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]).
.26a (10/1572)
.38a (31/5591)
.46a (30/5552)
.53a (30/5386)
.11a (19/2880)

.41b (10/1602)
.29b (15/2168)
.45b (9/1847)
Correlation Table From Meta-Analytic Results

Fifth, studies that used student GPA or ACT scores to represent

—
1

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
Job performance (supervisor-rated)

that did not provide enough information to calculate the hypothesized

Ability emotional intelligence

correlations or did not provide sample sizes were excluded. All

Mixed emotional intelligence

Self-rated job performance

primary studies that were identified as part of the original search, but
subsequently excluded for any of the above reasons, are listed in
General self-efficacy
Variable

Appendix A.
Emotional Stability
Conscientiousness

Cognitive ability
Extraversion

Data Analysis
Following Hunter and Schmidt (2004), we calculated sample-
Table 3

size-weighted mean correlations, with all effect sizes corrected for

unreliability in both the predictor and criterion. For longitudinal
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

a
 SELF-REPORTED EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
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 com-
posite 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 perfor-
mance, we followed previous approaches (McKay & McDaniel,
2006; Roth, Huffcutt, & Bobko, 2003) using the Spearman–Brown
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
formula to downwardly correct the average reliability reported
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
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 be-
tween 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 publica-
tion 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, Extraver-
sion, Emotional Stability, ability EI, cognitive ability, and self-
rated 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., Consci-
entiousness, Extraversion, Emotional Stability, ability EI, cogni-
tive 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 (partial-
mediation 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 perfor-
mance. 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 stud-
ies were added beyond Joseph and Newman’s (2010b) meta-analysis,
11 primary studies were added beyond O’Boyle et al.’s (2011) meta-
analysis, 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 perfor-
mance 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 mul-
ticollinearity of general self-efficacy with the three Big Five fac-
tors 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%), Conscien-
tiousness (16.1%), self-rated performance (14.2%), general self-
efficacy (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 self-
efficacy, self-rated job performance, ability EI, Emotional stability,
 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.

Table 4 310
Primary Studies Included in the 16 Original Meta-Analyses

Study N Predictor measure rxx Criterion measure ryy r

Adeyemo & Ogunyemi (2005) 300 General Self-Efficacy .82 Mixed EI .76 .32
Best (2002) 819 General Self-Efficacy .85 Emotional Stability .92 .56
Bledow & Frese (2009) 77 General Self-Efficacy .79 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .96 .28
Blickle et al. (2009) 210 Ability EI .81 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .84 .15
Boyar & Mosley (2007) 123 General Self-Efficacy .88 Emotional Stability .79 .22
Boyce, Zaccaro, & Wisecarver (2010) 327 General Self-Efficacy .95 Conscientiousness .85 .49
Boyce, Zaccaro, & Wisecarver (2010) 327 General Self-Efficacy .95 Cognitive Ability .88 ⫺.05
R. F. Brown & Schutte (2006) 167 General Self-Efficacy .86 Mixed EI .85 .58
T. J. Brown, Mowen, Donavan, & Licata (2002) 249 Conscientiousness .73 Self-rated job performance .82 .18
T. J. Brown, Mowen, Donavan, & Licata (2002) 249 Extraversion .86 Self-rated job performance .82 .12
T. J. Brown, Mowen, Donavan, & Licata (2002) 249 Emotional Stability .88 Self-rated job performance .82 .14
Bryan (2007) 57 General Self-Efficacy .67 Mixed EI .95 .55
Burke, Matthiesen, & Pallesen (2006) 460 General Self-Efficacy .85 Conscientiousness .71 .25
Burke, Matthiesen, & Pallesen (2006) 460 General Self-Efficacy .85 Extraversion .70 .36
Burke, Matthiesen, & Pallesen (2006) 460 General Self-Efficacy .85 Emotional Stability .82 .43
Byrne (2003) 325 Mixed EI .92 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .73 .27
Byron (2007) 58 Ability EI .70 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .91 .22
Byron, Terranova, & Nowicki (2007) 109 Ability EI .77 Self-rated job performance .80 .12
Byron, Terranova, & Nowicki (2007) 51 Ability EI .76 Self-rated job performance .80 ⫺.23
Carmeli (2003) 98 Mixed EI .90 Self-rated job performance .87 .32
Carmeli & Josman (2006) 215 Mixed EI .83 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .85 .47
Chan (2004) 158 General Self-Efficacy .80 Mixed EI .61 .33
Chang (2008) 874 Conscientiousness .78 Self-rated job performance .82 .20
Chang (2008) 874 Extraversion .78 Self-rated job performance .82 .19
Chang (2008) 874 Emotional Stability .78 Self-rated job performance .82 .35
G. Chen, Gully, & Eden (2004) 267 General Self-Efficacy .86 Conscientiousness .82 .29
G. Chen, Gully, & Eden (2004) 267 General Self-Efficacy .86 Emotional Stability .82 .41
G. Chen, Gully, & Eden (2004) 148 General Self-Efficacy .82 Conscientiousness .73 .46
G. Chen, Gully, & Eden (2004) 148 General Self-Efficacy .82 Emotional Stability .69 .42
G. Chen, Gully, Whiteman, & Kilcullen (2000) 158 General Self-Efficacy .88 Cognitive Ability .90 .05
JOSEPH, JIN, NEWMAN, AND O’BOYLE

G. Chen, Gully, Whiteman, & Kilcullen (2000) 127 General Self-Efficacy .86 Cognitive Ability .90 .08
G. Chen & Klimoski (2003) 70 General Self-Efficacy .88 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .99 ⫺.01
S. X. Chen & Carey (2009) 113 General Self-Efficacy .91 Conscientiousness .83 .27
S. X. Chen & Carey (2009) 113 General Self-Efficacy .91 Extraversion .76 .41
S. X. Chen & Carey (2009) 113 General Self-Efficacy .91 Emotional Stability .86 .37
Christiansen, Janovics, & Siers (2010) 69 Ability EI .78 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .92 .21
Chu (2007) 666 General Self-Efficacy .84 Conscientiousness .78 .47
Chu (2007) 666 General Self-Efficacy .84 Emotional Stability .78 .30
Clemmons (2008) 231 General Self-Efficacy .86 Conscientiousness .78 .34
Clemmons (2008) 231 General Self-Efficacy .86 Extraversion .78 .28
Clemmons (2008) 231 General Self-Efficacy .86 Emotional Stability .78 .29
Cobêro, Primi & Muniz (2006) 119 Ability EI .78 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .89 .18
Converse, Steinhauser, & Pathak (2010) 90 General Self-Efficacy .84 Conscientiousness .78 .31
Côté & Miners (2006) 175 Ability EI .92 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .91 .32
DeRue & Morgeson (2007) 143 General Self-Efficacy .92 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .95 .13
Devonish & Greenidge (2010) 175 Mixed EI .85 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .92 ⫺.03
Dulewicz, Higgs & Slaski (2003) 53 Mixed EI .77 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .58 .32
Durán et al. (2006) 373 General Self-Efficacy .86 Mixed EI .89 .25
 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.

Table 4 (continued)

Study N Predictor measure rxx Criterion measure ryy r

Ebstrup, Eplov, Pisinger, & Jorgensen (2011) 3215 General Self-Efficacy .90 Conscientiousness .79 .48
Ebstrup, Eplov, Pisinger, & Jorgensen (2011) 3215 General Self-Efficacy .90 Extraversion .82 .51
Ebstrup, Eplov, Pisinger, & Jorgensen (2011) 3215 General Self-Efficacy .90 Emotional Stability .85 .51
Eissa & Khalifa (2008) 178 General Self-Efficacy .82 Mixed EI .91 .32
Elfenbein, Curhan, Eisenkraft, Shirako, & Baccaro (2008) 149 Negotiation Self-Efficacy .80 Ability EI .88 ⫺.03
Erez & Judge (2001) 124 General Self-Efficacy .78 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .61 .22
Erez & Judge (2001) 124 General Self-Efficacy .78 Conscientiousness .80 .52
Erez & Judge (2001) 124 General Self-Efficacy .78 Emotional Stability .79 .69
Erez & Judge (2001) 473 General Self-Efficacy .90 Emotional Stability .88 .33
Erez & Judge (2001) 112 General Self-Efficacy .80 Emotional Stability .89 .47
Fan, Meng, Billings, Litchfield, & Kaplang (2008) 255 General Self-Efficacy .88 Cognitive Ability .78 .10
Farh, Seo, & Tesluk (2012) 212 Ability EI .88 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .88 .08
Feng, Lu, & Xiao (2008) 513 General Self-Efficacy .88 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .78 .09
Fortunato & Goldblatt (2006) 268 General Self-Efficacy .90 Conscientiousness .84 .54
Foti & Hauenstein (2007) 81 General Self-Efficacy .85 Cognitive Ability .90 .12
Frese et al. (2007) 123 General Self-Efficacy .88 Cognitive Ability .69 .31
Frese et al. (2007) 80 General Self-Efficacy .79 Cognitive Ability .67 .02
Fuller et al. (2011) 405 General Self-Efficacy .89 Extraversion .81 .24
Gabel, Dolan, & Cerdin (2005) 59 Mixed EI .77 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .86 .06
García-lzquierdo, García-lzquierdo, & Ramos-Villagrasa
(2007) 127 General Self-Efficacy .81 Mixed EI .90 .45
Gardner & Pierce (1998) 145 General Self-Efficacy .86 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .94 .11
Gardner & Pierce (2010) 230 General Self-Efficacy .93 Emotional Stability .81 .17
Goldsmith (2008) 24 Mixed EI .78 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .79 .20
Goldsmith (2008) 24 Ability EI .63 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .88 .11
Hader (2007) 129 Mixed EI .68 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .58 .29
Hadley (2003) 151 General Self-Efficacy .84 Extraversion .78 .14
Hanna (2008) 46 Mixed EI .82 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .83 .21
Hanna (2008) 46 Ability EI .87 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .83 ⫺.12
Heggestad & Morrison (2008) 240 Social Self-Efficacy .74 Ability EI .88 .10
D. M. Higgins (2009) 77 Cognitive Ability .83 Self-rated job performance .97 .36
D. M. Higgins, Peterson, Pihl, & Lee (2007) 77 Conscientiousness .81 Self-rated job performance .97 .28
D. M. Higgins, Peterson, Pihl, & Lee (2007) 77 Extraversion .88 Self-rated job performance .97 .28
SELF-REPORTED EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

D. M. Higgins, Peterson, Pihl, & Lee (2007) 77 Emotional Stability .84 Self-rated job performance .97 .20
H. R. Higgins (2001) 175 General Self-Efficacy .82 Conscientiousness .84 .56
H. R. Higgins (2001) 175 General Self-Efficacy .82 Extraversion .81 .29
H. R. Higgins (2001) 175 General Self-Efficacy .82 Emotional Stability .90 .43
R. E. Johnson, Rosen & Djurdjevic (2011) 129 General Self-Efficacy .84 Emotional Stability .84 .59
R. E. Johnson, Rosen & Djurdjevic (2011) 138 General Self-Efficacy .82 Emotional Stability .85 .52
R. E. Johnson, Rosen & Djurdjevic (2011) 223 General Self-Efficacy .83 Emotional Stability .89 .51
R. E. Johnson, Rosen & Djurdjevic (2011) 170 General Self-Efficacy .85 Emotional Stability .86 .64
R. E. Johnson, Rosen & Djurdjevic (2011) 140 General Self-Efficacy .82 Emotional Stability .84 .53
R. E. Johnson, Rosen & Djurdjevic (2011) 132 General Self-Efficacy .84 Emotional Stability .87 .48
R. E. Johnson, Rosen & Djurdjevic (2011) 135 General Self-Efficacy .84 Emotional Stability .88 .27
Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke (2005) 183 General Self-Efficacy .85 Emotional Stability .89 .49
Judge, Bono, & Locke (2002) 348 General Self-Efficacy .86 Emotional Stability .90 .60
Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (2002) 702 General Self-Efficacy .94 Conscientiousness .74 .32
Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (2002) 702 General Self-Efficacy .94 Extraversion .72 .29
Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (2002) 270 General Self-Efficacy .88 Conscientiousness .91 .49
Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (2002) 270 General Self-Efficacy .88 Extraversion .88 .53
(table continues)
311
 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.

Table 4 (continued) 312

Study N Predictor measure rxx Criterion measure ryy r

Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (2002) 124 General Self-Efficacy .88 Conscientiousness .90 .46
Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (2002) 124 General Self-Efficacy .88 Extraversion .75 .35
Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (2002) 72 General Self-Efficacy .87 Conscientiousness .90 .12
Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (2002) 72 General Self-Efficacy .87 Extraversion .75 .29
Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (2002) 440 General Self-Efficacy .80 Conscientiousness .84 .58
Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (2002) 440 General Self-Efficacy .80 Extraversion .79 .48
Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (2002) 277 General Self-Efficacy .85 Conscientiousness .87 .45
Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (2002) 277 General Self-Efficacy .85 Extraversion .78 .42
Judge, LePine, & Rich (2006) 131 Conscientiousness .80 Self-rated job performance .83 .60
Judge, LePine, & Rich (2006) 131 Extraversion .85 Self-rated job performance .83 .22
Judge, LePine, & Rich (2006) 131 Emotional Stability .81 Self-rated job performance .83 .21
Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger (1998) 164 General Self-Efficacy .90 Emotional Stability .93 .67
Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger (1998) 122 General Self-Efficacy .83 Emotional Stability .86 .49
Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger (1998) 122 General Self-Efficacy .81 Emotional Stability .85 .33
Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne (1999) 514 General Self-Efficacy .75 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .61 .08
Kirk, Schutte, & Hine (2008) 92 Emotional Self-Efficacy .85 Ability EI .91 .34
Kluemper (2006) 66 Ability EI .77 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .90 .25
Kluemper, DeGroot, & Choi (2013) 102 Ability EI .78 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .86 .22
Kluemper, DeGroot, & Choi (2013) 85 Ability EI .78 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .90 .22
Kostman (2004) 147 Mixed EI .79 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .80 .31
Ladebo & Awotunde (2007) 156 General Self-Efficacy .81 Self-rated job performance .76 .22
Langendörfer (2008) 122 General Self-Efficacy .88 Conscientiousness .85 .35
Langendörfer (2008) 122 General Self-Efficacy .88 Extraversion .80 .46
Langendörfer (2008) 122 General Self-Efficacy .88 Emotional Stability .85 .67
Law (2003) 88 General Self-Efficacy .83 Emotional Stability .85 .21
Lee, Stettler, & Antonakis (2011) 460 General Self-Efficacy .84 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .81 .12
Lee, Stettler, & Antonakis (2011) 460 General Self-Efficacy .84 Conscientiousness .78 .45
Lee, Stettler, & Antonakis (2011) 460 General Self-Efficacy .84 Extraversion .78 .39
Lee, Stettler, & Antonakis (2011) 460 General Self-Efficacy .84 Emotional Stability .78 .55
Lee, Stettler, & Antonakis (2011) 460 General Self-Efficacy .84 Cognitive Ability .90 .1
Lindley (2001) 301 General Self-Efficacy .87 Mixed EI .90 .54
JOSEPH, JIN, NEWMAN, AND O’BOYLE

Lu, Chang, & Lai (2011) 310 General Self-Efficacy .93 Self-rated job performance .81 .48
Lu, Chang, & Lai (2011) 220 General Self-Efficacy .77 Self-rated job performance .74 .46
Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman (2007) 404 Conscientiousness .78 Self-rated job performance .82 .20
Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman (2007) 404 Extraversion .78 Self-rated job performance .82 .05
Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman (2007) 404 Emotional Stability .78 Self-rated job performance .82 .01
McElroy, Hendrickson, Townsend, & DeMarie (2007) 153 General Self-Efficacy .80 Conscientiousness .90 .59
McElroy, Hendrickson, Townsend, & DeMarie (2007) 153 General Self-Efficacy .80 Emotional Stability .93 .52
McElroy, Hendrickson, Townsend, & DeMarie (2007) 153 General Self-Efficacy .80 Extraversion .91 .36
McKinney (2003) 306 General Self-Efficacy .88 Emotional Stability .91 .46
McKinney (2003) 114 General Self-Efficacy .88 Emotional Stability .91 .39
McNatt & Judge (2004) 57 General Self-Efficacy .84 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .93 ⫺.06
Meier, Semmer, Elfering, & Jacobshagen (2008) 96 General Self-Efficacy .80 Emotional Stability .77 .51
Mirsaleh, Rezai, Kivi, & Ghorbani (2010) 127 General Self-Efficacy .85 Conscientiousness .61 .54
Mirsaleh, Rezai, Kivi, & Ghorbani (2010) 127 General Self-Efficacy .85 Extraversion .76 .39
Mirsaleh, Rezai, Kivi, & Ghorbani (2010) 127 General Self-Efficacy .85 Emotional Stability .79 .52
Muniz & Primi (2007) 80 Ability EI .78 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .81 ⫺.01
Oh & Berry (2009) 239 Conscientiousness .92 Self-rated job performance .88 .27
Oh & Berry (2009) 239 Extraversion .95 Self-rated job performance .88 .32
Oh & Berry (2009) 239 Emotional Stability .93 Self-rated job performance .88 .28
 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.

Table 4 (continued)

Study N Predictor measure rxx Criterion measure ryy r

Okech (2004) 180 Teaching Self-Efficacy .77 Ability EI .90 .87

Ono, Sachau, Deal, Englert, & Taylor (2011) 38 Mixed EI .79 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .95 .45
Oreg (2003) 134 General Self-Efficacy .93 Conscientiousness .84 .36
Oreg (2003) 134 General Self-Efficacy .93 Extraversion .87 .49
Oreg (2003) 134 General Self-Efficacy .93 Emotional Stability .79 .21
Oswald et al. (2004) 611 Conscientiousness .83 Self-rated job performance .80 .30
Oswald et al. (2004) 611 Extraversion .88 Self-rated job performance .80 .24
Oswald et al. (2004) 611 Emotional Stability .84 Self-rated job performance .80 .15
Oswald et al. (2004) 611 Cognitive Ability .83 Self-rated job performance .80 ⫺.01
Owens (2009) 104 General Self-Efficacy .84 Conscientiousness .78 .40
Owens (2009) 103 General Self-Efficacy .84 Cognitive Ability .90 .29
Parker (2007) 58 General Self-Efficacy .69 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .61 .05
Petrides & Furnham (2006) 87 Mixed EI .84 Self-rated job performance .80 .33
Petrides & Furnham (2006) 80 Mixed EI .89 Self-rated job performance .80 .03
Piccolo, Judge, Takahashi, Watanabe, & Locke (2005) 271 General Self-Efficacy .80 Emotional Stability .86 .41
Pierro (1997) 98 General Self-Efficacy .84 Conscientiousness .86 .58
Pierro (1997) 98 General Self-Efficacy .84 Extraversion .82 .48
Pierro (1997) 98 General Self-Efficacy .84 Emotional Stability .79 .20
Platt (2010) 97 General Self-Efficacy .84 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .98 ⫺.10
Prati (2004) 209 Mixed EI .89 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .94 .15
Ramassini (2000) 204 General Self-Efficacy .84 Emotional Stability .78 .49
Reece (2007) 150 General Self-Efficacy .96 Emotional Stability .91 .55
Robinson (2009) 160 General Self-Efficacy .78 Cognitive Ability .90 .08
Rode et al. (2008) 59 Ability EI .88 Self-rated job performance .80 ⫺.01
Rosete & Ciarrochi (2005) 41 Ability EI .78 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .89 .20
Rozell, Pettijohn, & Parker (2004) 103 Mixed EI .83 Self-rated job performance .85 .20
Schendel (2010) 48 Counselor Activity Self- .95 Ability EI .82 .10
Efficacy
Schimtt et al. (2007) 2488 Cognitive Ability .83 Self-rated job performance .74 .03
Schumacher (2005) 35 Mixed EI .68 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .74 .35
Semadar, Robins, & Ferris (2006 136 Mixed EI .94 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .92 .25
Sevinc (2001) 69 Mixed EI .80 Self-rated job performance .80 .20
Shahzad, Sarmad, Abbas, & Khan (2011) 100 Mixed EI .82 Self-rated job performance .73 .43
SELF-REPORTED EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

Sjoberg, Littorin, & Engelberg (2005) 45 Mixed EI .76 Self-rated job performance .80 .25
Slaski & Cartwright (2002) 224 Mixed EI .79 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .80 .22
Smith & Foti (1998) 160 General Self-Efficacy .88 Cognitive Ability .90 .06
Sovern (2008) 206 General Self-Efficacy .73 Emotional Stability .89 .44
Stewart, Palmer, Wilkin, & Kerrin (2008) 110 General Self-Efficacy .86 Conscientiousness .81 .41
Stewart, Palmer, Wilkin, & Kerrin (2008) 110 General Self-Efficacy .86 Emotional Stability .88 .64
Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005) 383 Mixed EI .79 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .89 .39
Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005) 412 Mixed EI .93 Self-rated job performance .83 .37
Strobel, Tumasjan, & Sporrle (2011) 180 General Self-Efficacy .85 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .77 .15
Strobel, Tumasjan, & Sporrle (2011) 180 General Self-Efficacy .85 Conscientiousness .81 .37
Strobel, Tumasjan, & Sporrle (2011) 180 General Self-Efficacy .85 Extraversion .75 .43
Strobel, Tumasjan, & Sporrle (2011) 180 General Self-Efficacy .85 Emotional Stability .86 .54
Stumpp, Muck, Hulsheger, Judge, & Maier (2010) 199 General Self-Efficacy .87 Conscientiousness .83 .51
Stumpp, Muck, Hulsheger, Judge, & Maier (2010) 199 General Self-Efficacy .87 Extraversion .80 .45
Stumpp, Muck, Hulsheger, Judge, & Maier (2010) 199 General Self-Efficacy .87 Emotional Stability .82 .61
Sturman (2011) 119 General Self-Efficacy .84 Conscientiousness .78 .54
Sturman (2011) 119 General Self-Efficacy .84 Extraversion .78 .34
(table continues)
313
 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.

314

Table 4 (continued)

Study N Predictor measure rxx Criterion measure ryy r

Sturman (2011) 119 General Self-Efficacy .84 Emotional Stability .78 .60
Tews, Michel, & Noe (2011) 265 General Self-Efficacy .81 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .77 .15
Tews, Michel, & Noe (2011) 265 General Self-Efficacy .81 Cognitive Ability .90 .06
Timmerman (2008) 293 General Self-Efficacy .78 Emotional Stability .84 .54
van Hooft, van der Flier, & Minne (2006) 122 Cognitive Ability .83 Self-rated job performance .82 .05
Vieira (2008) 145 Mixed EI .58 Job performance (supervisor-rated) .46 ⫺.07
Wang (2002) 186 General Self-Efficacy .82 Mixed EI .76 .23
M. B. Wu (2008) 36 Mixed EI .93 Self-rated job performance .96 .35
M. B. Wu (2008) 36 Conscientiousness .82 Self-rated job performance .96 .46
M. B. Wu (2008) 36 Extraversion .72 Self-rated job performance .96 .23
M. B. Wu (2008) 36 Emotional Stability .82 Self-rated job performance .96 .42
Y. Wu (2011) 571 Mixed EI .88 Self-rated job performance .86 .44
Xie, Roy, & Chen (2006) 1786 General Self-Efficacy .89 Cognitive Ability .90 .06
Yamkovenko & Holton (2010) 252 General Self-Efficacy .88 Conscientiousness .81 .58
Yamkovenko & Holton (2010) 252 General Self-Efficacy .88 Extraversion .77 .43
JOSEPH, JIN, NEWMAN, AND O’BOYLE

Yamkovenko & Holton (2010) 252 General Self-Efficacy .88 Emotional Stability .86 .35
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.
 SELF-REPORTED EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 315

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

Dependent variable
Predictor Mixed EI Ability EI Job performance Job performance

Ability EI .20ⴱ — .18ⴱ .19ⴱ

Conscientiousness .45ⴱ ⫺.07ⴱ .33ⴱ .34ⴱ
Extraversion .56ⴱ ⫺.04 .20ⴱ .21ⴱ
Emotional Stability .52ⴱ ⫺.03 .09ⴱ .11ⴱ
Cognitive ability .06ⴱ .21ⴱ .43ⴱ .42ⴱ
General self-efficacy ⫺.61ⴱ .54ⴱ ⫺.52ⴱ ⫺.53ⴱ
Self-rated performance .31ⴱ ⫺.25ⴱ .41ⴱ .42ⴱ
Mixed EI — — — ⫺.02
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

R2 .62ⴱ .23ⴱ .3948ⴱ .3950ⴱ

Adjusted R2 .61ⴱ .20ⴱ .3928ⴱ .3927ⴱ
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

⌬R2 .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 incremental validity when a set of common causes of mixed EI and
(62%; multiple R ⫽ .79) is accounted for by these constructs, and job performance are controlled. Consistent with these results, the
the most important predictors of mixed EI are personality traits and full mediation model (Figure 3, Model C) yielded poor model fit
self-perceptions. [␹2(df ⫽ 7) ⫽ 232.84 (p ⬍ .05), RMSEA ⫽ .22, CFI ⫽ .88, TLI ⫽
Next, we estimated the models in Figures 1, 2, and 3. The .37, SRMR ⫽ .07]. Note that Model B is saturated (df ⫽ 0), and
sample size for these models was set at 2,168, which is the sample thus, the fit indices are meaningless (all fit indices take their
size for the mixed EI–job performance bivariate relationship. maximum values, by design).
When no common covariates were taken into consideration, there Finally, a meta-analysis of the relationship between mixed EI and
was a statistically significant direct effect (␤ ⫽ .29; standardized objective results measures of performance was conducted (see Ap-
coefficient) from mixed EI to job performance (i.e., the bivariate pendix B), in order to compare the bivariate mixed EI-performance
correlation). When the theorized antecedents (ability EI, Emo- relationship across different criteria (i.e., supervisor ratings of perfor-
tional Stability, cognitive ability, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, mance vs. objective results criteria). The meta-analytic relationship
general self-efficacy, and self-rated job performance) were speci- between mixed EI and objective results performance measures was
fied as common covariates of both mixed EI and job performance ␳ˆ ⫽ .17 (k ⫽ 11, N ⫽ 1,846), which is smaller than the estimated
(Figure 2, Model B), the mixed EI effect on job performance relationship between mixed EI and subjective supervisor ratings of
dropped from ␤ ⫽ .29 to near zero (␤ ⫽ –.02, ns). Indeed, our
job performance (␳ˆ ⫽ .29, k ⫽ 15, N ⫽ 2,168). This finding was
hypothesized model, which specified no incremental validity for
consistent with our theoretical expectation that mixed EI (as an
mixed EI in the presence of the seven KSAOs (i.e., the heteroge-
employee KSAO/trait) would affect objective/results performance by
neous domain sampling model; Figure 1, Model A), displayed
way of supervisor-rated job performance behavior (see Figure 4). To
nearly perfect model fit indices [␹2(df ⫽ 1) ⫽ 0.19 (p ⬎ .05),
test this assertion, we entered the previously described meta-analytic
RMSEA ⫽ .00, CFI ⫽ 1.00, TLI ⫽ 1.01, SRMR ⫽ .001]. These
correlations into a mediation model (for the correlation between
results support our expectation that mixed EI fails to exhibit
objective results and subjective performance ratings, we used Bom-
mer, Johnson, Rich, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie’s [1995] meta-analytic
Table 6 estimate of ␳ˆ ⫽ .39). The practical fit of this mediation model
Relative Importance Analysis [␹2(df ⫽ 1) ⫽ 7.69 (p ⬍ .05), N ⫽ 1,846, RMSEA ⫽ .060, CFI ⫽
.99, TLI ⫽ .96, SRMR ⫽ .02] was deemed adequate, and the indirect
Mixed emotional intelligence effect of mixed EI on objective results performance was statistically
Raw relative significant (95% Monte Carlo confidence interval [.09, .13]; Preacher
Variable weights % of R2
& Selig, 2012; see Figure 2). If we had additionally estimated the
Ability EI .034 5.5 direct effect from mixed EI to objective results performance (df ⫽ 0;
Conscientiousness .100 16.1 saturated model), the direct path coefficient would have been
Extraversion .166 26.5 small (␤ ⫽ .06; p ⬍ .05), and the path from supervisor-rated job
Emotional Stability .183 29.5
Cognitive Ability .007 1.1 performance to objective results would have fallen a negligible
General self-efficacy .042 6.8 amount, from ␤ ⫽ .39 to ␤ ⫽ .37. Altogether, these results
Self-rated performance .088 14.2 support our assertion that mixed EI primarily relates to objec-
R2 .62 tive results criteria by way of its relationship with supervisor-
Note. EI ⫽ emotional intelligence. rated job performance (Figure 4).
 316 JOSEPH, JIN, NEWMAN, AND O’BOYLE
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 regard-
ing 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 mea-
sures capture content from the following constructs: Conscientious-
ness, Extraversion, general self-efficacy, self-rated performance, abil-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ity EI, Emotional Stability, and cognitive ability. Results demonstrate
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
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 con-
struct domains in psychology.
Second, based on a combination of original and published meta-
analytic results, we estimated the extent to which mixed EI demon-
strates 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 & New-
man, 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 opera-
tional 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 perfor-
mance very broadly, to include academic performance, sports perfor-
mance, 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 unin-
tentionally) 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 elab-
orate, 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 Stabil-
ity, 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 ques-
tion of whether heterogeneous domain sampling should be
considered a legitimate method for establishing “new” con-
structs. 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, heter-
ogeneous domain sampling might help explain why the discrim-
inant validity of EI ratings from Big Five personality domains
is sometimes weak (see multitrait–multimethod evidence from
Joseph & Newman, 2010a)— because EI ratings explicitly con-
tain 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 meaning-
ful 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 compe-
tence” (cf. Cherniss, 2010). Although we do not feel authorized to
supplant the widely adopted “emotional intelligence” label, the im-
plication 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, conscien-
tious, with a high estimation of their own past and future performance,
and [to a lesser extent] emotionally intelligent).
 SELF-REPORTED EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
Limitations and Future Research
The current research is also vulnerable to certain limitations, which
leaves room for additional corresponding future research. One partic-
ular Big Five trait that deserves further discussion here is Agreeable-
ness. Ample research evidence has supported the overlap between
Agreeableness and mixed EI (e.g., De Raad, 2005; Joseph & New-
man, 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
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
impair job performance when the work situation demands ruthless-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ness 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 Agree-
ableness as a common cause. We should also note that whereas the
current study controlled for some broad Big Five traits (e.g., Extra-
version, Conscientiousness), Mayer et al. (2008) specifically de-
scribed mixed EI content in terms of narrower facets of these traits
(e.g., gregariousness, assertiveness, impulse control). Future research-
ers should attend to whether these particular personality subfacets can
more parsimoniously explain the mixed EI–job performance relation-
ship.
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 va-
lidity 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 com-
bination, 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 neces-
sary 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, Chia-
buru, & Menges, 2010).
As one final direction for future research, we note that the relation-
ship between mixed EI and job performance may vary across dimen-
sions of mixed EI. Based on a reviewer’s suggestion, we meta-
analyzed 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 gen-
eral 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 ques-
tion of what mixed EI is), and the covariates also explain the rela-
tionship 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, com-
pound construct of personality and self-perceptions that exhibits rea-
sonable criterion-related validity. This conclusion is markedly differ-
ent 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 valid-
ity 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 JOSEPH, JIN, NEWMAN, AND O’BOYLE
EI measures, which show a stronger relationship with job perfor-
mance 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 Ex-
traversion (confirming the conjectures of Mayer et al., 2008, and
Newman et al., 2010), in addition to ability EI, Emotional Stabil-
ity, and cognitive ability. These results illustrate that developers of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
mixed EI measures may have engaged in heterogeneous domain
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
sampling (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955; Ghiselli et al., 1981; Nun-
nally, 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 aspira-
tions 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 person-
nel 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 cross-
validating a modified version of Schutte et al.’s (1998) measure. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 36, 555–562. doi:10.1016/S0191-
8869(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 Uni-
versity, Virginia Beach, VA.
Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Technical man-
ual. Toronto, ON, Canada: Multihealth Systems.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimen-
sions 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). Ego-
strength, hardiness, self-esteem, self-efficacy, optimism, and maladjust-
ment: 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, Manhat-
tan.
 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 emo-
tional 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
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
subjective measures of employee performance: A meta-analysis. Per-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
sonnel 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 emo-
tional 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 recognition and salespersons: Linking ability to perceived and actual
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. Jour-
nal 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 manu-
script, 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 lead-
ership and/or desirable outcomes? Leadership & Organization Develop-
ment 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 self-
and 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 disser-
tation). University of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ.
ⴱ
Burke, R. J., Matthiesen, S. B., & Pallesen, S. (2006). Personality corre-
lates 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 disserta-
tion). 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 va-
lidity of self-ratings on the Emotional Competence Inventory. Interna-
tional 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 Psy-
chology, 80, 713–733. doi:10.1348/096317907X174349
ⴱ
Byron, K., Terranova, S., & Nowicki, S. (2007). Nonverbal emotion
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 intelli-
gence 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 intelli-
gence and leadership practices among college student leaders (Unpub-
lished 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 JOSEPH, JIN, NEWMAN, AND O’BOYLE
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 lead-
ership: 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 doc-
toral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62– 83. doi:
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
10.1177/109442810141004
ⴱ viant behavior. Psychological Science, 22, 1073–1080. doi:10.1177/
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2004). General self-efficacy and
self-esteem: Toward theoretical and empirical distinction between cor-
related 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 model of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior. Journal of
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 university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 797–
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, criterion-
related validity, and vulnerability to response distortion. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18, 87–101. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
2389.2010.00491.x
ⴱ matter? Relating the five-factor model to technology acceptance and use.
Chu, T. (2007). Individual traits, strain, and job satisfaction in Taiwan.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nova Southeastern University, Da-
vie, FL.
Cikanek, K. L. (2006). Emotional intelligence and coping skills as predic-
tors of counselor self-efficacy with genetic counseling graduate students
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneap-
olis.
ⴱ
Clemmons, A. B. (2008). Values as determinants of motivation to lead
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Regent University, Virginia Beach,
VA.
ⴱ Downey, L. A., Lee, B., & Stough, C. (2011). Recruitment consultant
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 (Un-
published doctoral dissertation). University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between person-
ality 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 differ-
ences in reactions to goal-performance discrepancies over time. Person-
ality 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) pro-
fessional 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: Emotional-
regulation knowledge facilitates both prosocial and interpersonally de-
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
Organizational Behavior, 26, 453– 466. doi:10.1002/job.321
Dawda, D., & Hart, S. D. (2000). Assessing emotional intelligence: Reli-
ability and validity of the BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-I) in
812.
Day, A. L., Therrien, D. L., & Carroll, S. A. (2005). Predicting psycho-
logical health: Assessing the incremental validity of emotional intelli-
gence beyond personality, Type A behaviour and daily hassles. Euro-
pean Journal of Personality, 19, 519 –536.
De Raad, B. (2005). The trait-coverage of emotional intelligence. Person-
ality 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 intel-
ligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 37– 48.
ⴱ
DeRue, D. S., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Stability and change in person-
team 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
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 emo-
tional 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.
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). Uni-
versity 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 ⴱ
Dulewicz, V., Higgs, M., & Slaski, M. (2003). Measuring emotional
intelligence: Content, construct and criterion-related validity. Jour-
nal 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 educa-
tional settings: Assessing the incremental validity of perceived emo-
tional 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-plot-
based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455– 463. doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
.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). Asso-
ciation 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 Univer-
sity, 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 Organization Management, 23, 48 –70. doi:10.1177/1059601198231004
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 finan-
cial 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 93–102.
Farh, C. I. C. C., Seo, M. G., & Tesluk, P. E. (2012). Emotional intelli-
gence, 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? Asso-
ciations 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 transfor-
mational 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 Si-
nica, 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.
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 Psychol-
ogy, 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 be-
havior. 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 &
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 mech-
anisms 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 disserta-
tion). 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,
Gordon-Handler, L. (2009). The relationship between emotional intelli-
gence and clinical performance in an occupational therapy training
program (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northcentral University,
Prescott Valley, AZ.
Government Accounting Office. (1998). Military recruiting: The Depart-
ment 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: Pre-
dicting 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 JOSEPH, JIN, NEWMAN, AND O’BOYLE
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 well-
being. 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
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Emotional Quotient Inventory Short Form: Catch me if you can. Human
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Performance, 20, 43–59.
Hader, E. M. (2006). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to cog-
nitive 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 Grad-
uate 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 criterion-
related validity across conceptual and methodological variants of mea-
surement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Clemson University,
Clemson, SC.
Harms, P. D., & Credé, M. (2010). Emotional intelligence and trans-
formational 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 dis-
sertation). Ohio State University, Columbus.
Hartsfield, M. (2003). The internal dynamics of transformational leader-
ship: 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 perfor-
mance 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 adult-
hood: 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 Perfor-
mance, 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 pre-
frontal cognitive ability in the prediction of academic and job perfor-
mance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Harvard University, Cam-
bridge, 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:10.1037/0022-
3514.93.2.298
ⴱ
Higgins, H. R. (2001). Construct validity of general self-efficacy: Inves-
tigation 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. Jour-
nal 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 Differ-
ences, 45, 716 –721. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.018
Hopkins, M. M., & Bilimoria, D. (2008). Social and emotional com-
petencies 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: Cor-
recting 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). Person-
ality 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 Be-
havioral 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 perfor-
mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 984 –996. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.86.5.984
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
 SELF-REPORTED EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
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 self-
reported emotional intelligence: A multitrait–multisource study. Educa-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tional and Psychological Measurement, 70, 672– 694. doi:10.1177/
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
0013164409355700
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010b). Emotional intelligence: An
integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 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 emo-
tional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80 –92. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.86.1.80
ⴱ and Individual Differences, 45, 432– 436. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.06
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core
self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self-
concordance 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 Person-
ality 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 indi-
vidual differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 107–127. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.107
ⴱ AMJ.2009.43669916
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 ⴱ
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999).
Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspec-
tive. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107–122. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.84.1.107
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, mo-
tivation, 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
.010
ⴱ
Kluemper, D. H. (2006). An examination of ability-based emotional
intelligence in the structured employment interview (Unpublished doc-
toral 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 multi-
dimensional predictors: Predicting complex job performance using cog-
nitive ability, personality and emotional intelligence assessment instru-
ments 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/
ⴱ
Ladebo, O. J., & Awotunde, J. M. (2007). Emotional and behavioral
reactions to work overload: Self-efficacy as a moderator. Current Re-
search in Social Psychology, 13, 86 –100.
Landis, R. S. (2013). Successfully combining meta-analysis and structural
equation modeling: Recommendations and strategies. Journal of Busi-
ness 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.
Langendörfer, F. (2008). Personality differences among orchestra instru-
mental groups: Just a stereotype? Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 44, 610 – 620. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.027
Langhorn, S. (2004). How emotional intelligence can improve manage-
ment performance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 16, 220 –230. doi:10.1108/09596110410537379
 324 JOSEPH, JIN, NEWMAN, AND O’BOYLE
ⴱ
Law, D. W. (2003). An examination of personality traits as moderating
factors of exhaustion in public accounting (Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation). 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 manage-
ment 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
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
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 Re-
source 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 Uni-
versity, 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 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: Evi-
dence from hierarchical and bifactor models. Emotion, 14, 358 –374.
doi:10.1037/a0034755
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engage-
ment. 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 self-
efficacy. 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 affectiv-
ity. 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 Univer-
sity, 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 intelli-
gence: 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 intelli-
gence: 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 moder-
ators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 538 –554. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.91.3.538
ⴱ
McKinney, A. P. (2003). Goal orientation: A test of competing models
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, Blacksburg.
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 French-
speaking 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 alexithy-
mia 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 dimen-
sions 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 perfor-
mance 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 per-
formance at upper levels of management (Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation). 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 ap-
praisal: Social, organizational, and goal-oriented perspectives. New-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
bury Park, CA: Sage.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Nel, H. (2001). An industrial psychological investigation into the relation-
ship 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. Al-
brecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement (pp. 43– 61). Northam-
pton, MA: Elgar. doi:10.4337/9781849806374.00010
Newman, D. A., Joseph, D. L., & MacCann, C. (2010). Emotional intel-
ligence 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 predic-
tive validity of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences, 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 Uni-
versity, 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 mea-
sures. 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 self-
efficacy, 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 per-
sonality 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 differ-
ences 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 inven-
tory 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 Uni-
versity Emotional Intelligence Test–Interim technical manual. Mel-
bourne, VI, Australia: Swinburne University of Technology, Organisa-
tional 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 experi-
ence. 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 Re-
search, 14, 29 – 43.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence:
Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxono-
mies. 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. Jour-
nal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 552–569. doi:10.1111/j.0021-
9029.2006.00019.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 satisfac-
tion, life satisfaction, and happiness. Journal of Organizational Behav-
ior, 26, 965–984. doi:10.1002/job.358
ⴱ
Pierro, A. (1997). Caratteristiche strutturali della scala di General Self-
Efficacy [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 JOSEPH, JIN, NEWMAN, AND O’BOYLE
ⴱ
Prati, L. M. (2004). Emotional intelligence as a facilitator of the emo-
tional labor process (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida State
University, Tallahassee.
Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confi-
dence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Mea-
sures, 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. Interna-
tional Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10, 302–326. doi:10.1108/
eb028955
ⴱ ⴱ
Ramassini, K. K. (2000). Parenting self-efficacy: A validity study (Un-
published doctoral dissertation). University of Georgia, Athens.
Rastegar, M., & Memarpour, S. (2009). The relationship between emo-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tional intelligence and self-efficacy among Iranian EFL teachers. Sys-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tem, 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 predict college student outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
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 (Un-
published doctoral dissertation). University of Akron, OH.
ⴱ Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a
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. Inter-
national 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 rela-
tionship 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 Psychol-
ogy, 87, 66 – 80. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.66
ⴱ Sergio, R. P. (2001). Emotional intelligence and mental ability as deter-
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-P24E-
52WK-6CDG
Sardo, D. P. (2005, February). Making connections: The link between
emotional intelligence and sales performance. Training and develop-
ment in Australia. Paper presented at Persona Conference, San Fran-
cisco, CA.
Sardo, S. (2004). Learning to display emotional intelligence. Business
Strategy Review, 15, 14 –17. doi:10.1111/j.0955-6419.2004.00295.x
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. Humboldt-
University, 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
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.,
measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 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 manage-
rial job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 443– 461.
doi:10.1002/job.385
minants of job performance among plant supervisors in selected man-
ufacturing 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). Inves-
tigating 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 medi-
ating processes: A primer of examples, methods, and issues. Psycholog-
ical 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 person-
ality 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
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ⴱ
Sjoberg, L., Littorin, P., & Engelberg, E. (2005). Personality and emo-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tional intelligence as factors in sales performance. Organisational The-
ory 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/S1048-
9843(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 Mc-
Nally.
Smither, J., & Seltzer, J. (2001). Managerial Skills Questionnaire. Phila-
delphia, PA: La Salle University Press.
ⴱ Tzelgov, J., & Henik, A. (1991). Suppression situations in psychological
Sovern, H. S. (2008). Examining the relationships among core self-
evaluations, 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 .2008.11.021
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 Villanueva, J. J., & Sanchez, J. C. (2007). Trait emotional intelligence and
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 consis-
tency, stability, and test–retest reliability of employee job performance
ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 269 –283. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.90.2.269
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 Re-
ports, 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::AID-
JOB756⬎3.0.CO;2-3
ⴱ
Timmerman, P. D. (2008). The impact of individual resiliency and leader
trustworthiness on employees’ voluntary turnover intentions (Unpub-
lished 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 (Unpub-
lished 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
research: Definitions, implications, and applications. Psychological Bul-
letin, 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.0965-
075X.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 Assess-
ment, 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
ⴱ
Vieira, R. M. (2008). Exploring the relationship between emotional com-
petence and leadership performance in corporate managers (Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation). Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ.
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 JOSEPH, JIN, NEWMAN, AND O’BOYLE
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psy-
chometric 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/annurev-
psych-120710-100500
ⴱ
Wang, C. (2002). Emotional intelligence, general self-efficacy, and cop-
ing style of juvenile delinquents. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 16,
566 –567.
Wee, S. G. H. (2010). Compromises in career-related decisions: Hypothetical
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
choices, individual differences, and actual outcomes (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
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 perfor-
mance, and susceptibility to stress as predictions of academic perfor-
mance 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/S1048-
9843(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 in-
telligence, personality dimensions, and internal belief characteristics as
predictors of rated performance (Unpublished thesis). Wesleyan Uni-
versity, 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 intelli-
gence 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 basket-
ball players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 262–269. doi:
10.1080/10413200305390
 SELF-REPORTED EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 329

Appendix A
Studies Excluded From Original Meta-Analyses

Study Predictor measure Criterion measure Reason for exclusion

Adeyemo (2007)
Aremu & Lawal (2009)
Ashkanasy & Dasborough (2003)
Austin, Evans, Goldwater, & Potter
(2005)
Avery (2003)
Bachman, Stein, Campbell, &
Sitarenios (2000)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
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
Academic performance
Big Five personality traits
Success in debt collection
Not general self-efficacy
Not general self-efficacy
Not job performance
Not job performance
Not general self-efficacy
Not job performance

Baker (2007) — Emotional Stability Sensitivity used as a

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Barchard (2003) Ability EI (MSCEIT; Mayer et al.,
1999)
Barfoot (2007) Self-rated ability EI (Wong & Law,
2002)
Bellamy, Gore, & Sturgis (2005) Mixed EI (Tapia & Burry-Stock, 1998)
Bernard, Hutchison, Lavin, &
Pennington (1996) Composite self-efficacy across domains
Bishop & Johnson (2011) Cognitive ability (GPA)
Boyatzis (2006) Mixed EI (developed in this study)
Brackett & Mayer (2003) Mixed EI (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997;
SREIT; Schutte et al., 1998)
Breland & Donovan (2005) Task-specific self-efficacy
Brizz (2004) Mixed EI (ECI–2.0; Boyatzis &
Goleman, 2001)
C. Brown, George-Curran, & Smith Mixed EI (Tapia, 2001)
(2003)
F. W. Brown, Bryant, & Reilly (2006) Mixed EI (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997)
Byrne, Dominick, Smither, & Reilly Mixed EI (ECI–2.0; Boyatzis &
(2007) Goleman, 2001)
Calloway (2010) Self-rated ability EI (Wong & Law,
2002)
Cavins (2005) Mixed EI (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997)
D. W. Chan (2008) Mixed EI (EIS; Schutte et al., 1998)
K.-Y. Chan (1999) Leadership self-efficacy
Cikanek (2006) Mixed EI (ESAP; Nelson & Low,
1999)
Collins (2002) Ability EI (MSCEIT; Mayer et al.,
2000)
DeRue & Morgeson (2007) General self-efficacy
Devaraj, Easley, & Grant (2008) Computer self-efficacy
Devonish & Greenidge (2010) Self-rated ability EI (Wong & Law,
2002)
Drew (2007) Mixed EI (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997)
Easton (2004) Mixed EI (BEIS; Bedwell, 2001)
Edwards (1998) Health self-efficacy
Year-end grades
General self-efficacy
Specific self-efficacy
Big Five personality traits
Self-efficacy in earing
course grades
Financial performance
High school rank & college
GPA
Test performance in class
Parishioner support
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 self-
efficacy
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
measure of Emotional
Stability
Not job performance
Self-rated ability EI
Not general self-efficacy
Not general self-efficacy
GPA as a measure of
cognitive ability, not
general self-efficacy.
Not self-rated mixed EI
Not job performance
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

(Appendices continue)
 330
Appendix A (continued)
Study
Elfenbein, Curhan, Eisenkraft,
Shirako, & Baccaro (2008)
Felfe & Schyns (2006)
Gerhardt, Rode, & Peterson (2007)
Gordon-Handler (2009)
Graves (1999)
Griffin (2006)
Hammond, Lockman, & Boling (2010)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Hartman (2006)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Hartsfield (2003)
Heggestad & Morrison (2008)
Hendricks & Payne (2007)
Herbst, Marre, & Sibanda (2006)
Higgs (2004)
Higgs & Aitken (2003)
Hirschi (2008)
Hopkins & Bilimoria (2007)
Huang, Chan, Lam, & Nan (2010)
Jennings & Palmer (2007)
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)
JOSEPH, JIN, NEWMAN, AND O’BOYLE
Predictor measure
Ability EI (MSCEIT; Mayer et al.,
2002)
Occupational self-efficacy
Academic self-efficacy
Mixed EI (ECI–2.0; Wolff, 2006)
Ability EI (MSCEIT; Mayer et al.,
1999)
Computer self-efficacy
Mixed EI (EIS; Schutte et al., 1998)
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
Mixed EI (ECI; Boyatzis & Goleman,
2001)
Self-rated ability EI (Wong & Law,
2002)
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)
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
(Appendices continue)
Criterion measure
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
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
Big Five personality traits
SAT & GPA
Big Five personality traits
GPA
Big Five personality traits
Reason for exclusion
Not 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
Not general self-efficacy
Not general self-efficacy
Not job performance
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
Not general self-efficacy
Not job performance
Not general self-efficacy
Not job performance
Not general self-efficacy
 SELF-REPORTED EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 331

Appendix A (continued)

Study Predictor measure Criterion measure Reason for exclusion

Martin, Easton, Wilson, Takemoto, &

Sullivan (2004) Mixed EI (EJI; Bedwell, 2003) Counseling self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy
Martini (2008) Self-rated ability EI (Wong & Law, Leader self-efficacy Self-rated ability EI; Not
2002) general self-efficacy
Mikolajczak, Luminet, & Menil Mixed EI (French TEIQue–LF; Self-efficacy to pass exam Not general self-efficacy
(2006) Mikolajczak et al., 2007)
Nel (2001) Mixed EI (ECI–2.0; Wolff, 2006) Organization-provided Not supervisor-rated or
overall performance self-rated job
rating (partly subjective performance
and partly objective)
Nguyen (2003) Test-taking self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacy
Norris (2002) Self-efficacy for nursing work Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacy
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Okech (2004) Ability EI (MEIS; Salovey & Mayer, Teaching self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

1990)
Page, Bruch, & Haase (2008) Career decision-making self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacy
Pearlin & Schooler (1978) Personal mastery measure Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacy
Penrose, Perry, & Ball (2007) Mixed EI (RTS; Perry et al., 2004) Teaching self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy
Rastegar & Memarpour (2009) Mixed EI (EIS; Schutte et al., 1998) Teaching self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy
Ribadeneira (2006) Career decision self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacy
G. N. Robinson (2003) Cross-cultural adjustment efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacy
Saleem, Beaudry, & Croteau (2011) Computer self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacy
Seijts & Latham (2011) Task-specific self-efficacy Task performance in an Not general
experiment self-efficacy; Not job
performance
Semadar, Robins & Ferris (2006) Mixed EI (SUEIT; Palmer & Stough, Leadership self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy
2001)
Sergio (2001) Mixed EI (ECI; Sala, 2002) Supervisor-rated job Effect size not available
performance
Shadel, Cervone, Niaura, & Abrams
(2004) Self-efficacy to quit smoking Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacy
Sjoberg, Littorin, & Engelberg (2005) Ability EI (developed in this study) Organizational citizenship Not task performance
behavior
Spurk & Abele (2011) Occupational self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacy
Stanley, Novy, Hopko, Beck, Averill, General self-efficacy Big Five personality traits A sample of older adults
& Swann (2002) with generalized
anxiety disorder
Thoms, Moore, & Scott (1996) Specific self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacy
Trevelyan (2011) Entrepreneurial self-efficacy Objective job performance Not general self-efficacy
van den Berg & Feij (2003) Work self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacy
Vecchione & Caprara (2009) Political self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacy
Villanueva & Sanchez (2007) Mixed EI (adapted from SSRI; Schutte Leadership self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy
et al., 1998)
Wee (2010) Occupational self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacy
Wilson-Soga (2009) Nurse practice self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacy
Wong, Law, & Wong (2004) Self-rated ability EI (NEI, developed in Supervisor-rated sales Self-rated ability EI
this study; WLEIS, Wong & Law, performance
2002)
M. B. Wu (2008) Mixed EI (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997) Self-rated resident advisor Not job performance
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 ⫽ Mayer-
Salovey-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.

(Appendices continue)
 332 JOSEPH, JIN, NEWMAN, AND O’BOYLE

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

Study N Predictor measure Predictor reliability Objective results measure r (uncorrected)

Ahmetoglu, Leutner, & 528 TEIQue–SF (Petrides & .89 Objective measure of entrepreneurial .14
Chamorro-Premuzic (2011) Furnham, 2006), 30-item, success (i.e., no. of businesses
7-point Likert started & income)
Chipain (2003) 120 STI (Taccarino & Leonard, .79a Objective sales performance .42
1999)
Downey, Lee, & Stough (2011) 100 SUEIT–Workplace (Palmer & .82 Objective job performance (i.e., the .27
Stough, 2001), 64-item, 5- annual revenue a consultant
point scale generates)
Enhelder (2011) 717 EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) .88 Objective sales performance (i.e., an .14
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

average of the previous 4 months

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

gross commission and what was

expected by the financial services
firm)
Perlini & Halverson (2006) 79 EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997), 133-item .79a Objective hockey player ⫺.16
performance
Sala (2002) 90 ECI 1.0 .79a Objective performance (i.e., student .18
retention rate)
25 ECI 1.0 .79a Objective performance (i.e., student .20
academic achievement)
Sevinc (2001) 66 ECI .79a Objective career success (i.e., salary, .14
position level, and no. of
promotions)
Tombs (2005) 60 EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997), 133-item .79a Objective performance (i.e., .28
commissions, measured in
thousands of dollars, transformed
using a square root function)
Zizzi, Deaner, & Hirschhorn 21 Schutte et al. (1998) .79a Objective baseball performance (i.e., .34
(2003) averaged from earned runs, walks,
hits, strikeouts, and wild pitches
[pitcher])
40 .79a Objective baseball performance (i.e., .01
averaged from earned runs, walks,
hits, strikeouts, and wild pitches
[pitcher])
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.

(Appendices continue)
 SELF-REPORTED EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 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 Criterion measure ryy r

Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 Intrapersonal .82 Conscientiousness .78 .14
Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 Interpersonal .80 Conscientiousness .78 .11
Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 Adaptability .76 Conscientiousness .78 .37
Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 Stress Management .80 Conscientiousness .78 .17
Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 General Mood .89 Conscientiousness .78 .10
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 Intrapersonal .82 Extraversion .89 .51
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 Interpersonal .80 Extraversion .89 .41
Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 Adaptability .76 Extraversion .89 .03
Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 Stress Management .80 Extraversion .89 ⫺.05
Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 General Mood .89 Extraversion .89 .45
Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 Intrapersonal .82 Emotional Stability .86 .34
Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 Interpersonal .80 Emotional Stability .86 .17
Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 Adaptability .76 Emotional Stability .86 .28
Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 Stress Management .80 Emotional Stability .86 .46
Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 198 General Mood .89 Emotional Stability .86 .64
Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 Intrapersonal .78 Conscientiousness .80 .17
Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 Interpersonal .79 Conscientiousness .80 .23
Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 Adaptability .79 Conscientiousness .80 .30
Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 Stress Management .79 Conscientiousness .80 .28
Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 General Mood .83 Conscientiousness .80 .16
Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 Intrapersonal .78 Extraversion .83 .36
Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 Interpersonal .79 Extraversion .83 .50
Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 Adaptability .79 Extraversion .83 .04
Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 Stress Management .79 Extraversion .83 .05
Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 General Mood .83 Extraversion .83 .41
Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 Intrapersonal .78 Emotional Stability .86 .28
Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 Interpersonal .79 Emotional Stability .86 .35
Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 Adaptability .79 Emotional Stability .86 .22
Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 Stress Management .79 Emotional Stability .86 .58
Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 General Mood .83 Emotional Stability .86 .47
Brackett & Mayer (2003) 188 Intrapersonal .94 Ability EI .87 .07
Brackett & Mayer (2003) 188 Interpersonal .88 Ability EI .87 .28
Brackett & Mayer (2003) 188 Adaptability .81 Ability EI .87 .16
Brackett & Mayer (2003) 188 Stress Management .84 Ability EI .87 .15
Brackett & Mayer (2003) 188 General Mood .88 Ability EI .87 .08
Byrne (2003) 325 Self-Awareness .67 Job performance .80 .11
(supervisor-rated)
Byrne (2003) 325 Self-Management .83 Job performance .80 .17
(supervisor-rated)
Byrne (2003) 325 Social Awareness .82 Job performance .80 .29
(supervisor-rated)
Byrne (2003) 325 Relationship Management .86 Job performance .80 .28
(supervisor-rated)
Byrne, Dominick, Smither, & Reilly 161 Self-Awareness .52 Conscientiousness .81 .25
(2007)
Byrne, Dominick, Smither, & Reilly 161 Self-Management .83 Conscientiousness .81 .26
(2007)
Byrne, Dominick, Smither, & Reilly 161 Social Awareness .70 Conscientiousness .81 .37
(2007)
Byrne, Dominick, Smither, & Reilly 161 Relationship Management .87 Conscientiousness .81 .26
(2007)
Byrne, Dominick, Smither, & Reilly 161 Self-Awareness .52 Extraversion .76 .38
(2007)
Byrne, Dominick, Smither, & Reilly 161 Self-Management .83 Extraversion .76 .47
(2007)
Byrne, Dominick, Smither, & Reilly 161 Social Awareness .70 Extraversion .76 .38
(2007)

(Appendices continue)
 334 JOSEPH, JIN, NEWMAN, AND O’BOYLE

Table C1 (continued)

Study N Predictor measure (facet) rxx Criterion measure ryy r

Byrne, Dominick, Smither, & Reilly 161 Relationship Management .87 Extraversion .76 .57
(2007)
Byrne, Dominick, Smither, & Reilly 161 Self-Awareness .52 Emotional Stability .84 .37
(2007)
Byrne, Dominick, Smither, & Reilly 161 Self-Management .83 Emotional Stability .84 .47
(2007)
Byrne, Dominick, Smither, & Reilly 161 Social Awareness .70 Emotional Stability .84 .39
(2007)
Byrne, Dominick, Smither, & Reilly 161 Relationship Management .87 Emotional Stability .84 .42
(2007)
Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 Intrapersonal .93 Conscientiousness .80 .54
Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 Interpersonal .86 Conscientiousness .80 .34
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 Adaptability .87 Conscientiousness .80 .45
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 Stress Management .86 Conscientiousness .80 .32
Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 General Mood .91 Conscientiousness .80 .40
Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 Intrapersonal .94 Conscientiousness .83 .33
Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 Interpersonal .85 Conscientiousness .83 .21
Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 Adaptability .86 Conscientiousness .83 .37
Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 Stress Management .81 Conscientiousness .83 .16
Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 General Mood .90 Conscientiousness .83 .17
Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 Intrapersonal .93 Extraversion .80 .48
Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 Interpersonal .86 Extraversion .80 .55
Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 Adaptability .87 Extraversion .80 .32
Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 Stress Management .86 Extraversion .80 .18
Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 General Mood .91 Extraversion .80 .61
Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 Intrapersonal .94 Extraversion .83 .51
Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 Interpersonal .85 Extraversion .83 .51
Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 Adaptability .86 Extraversion .83 .40
Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 Stress Management .81 Extraversion .83 .22
Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 General Mood .90 Extraversion .83 .64
Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 Intrapersonal .93 Emotional Stability .87 .59
Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 Interpersonal .86 Emotional Stability .87 .21
Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 Adaptability .87 Emotional Stability .87 .53
Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 Stress Management .86 Emotional Stability .87 .54
Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 General Mood .91 Emotional Stability .87 .69
Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 Intrapersonal .94 Emotional Stability .89 .70
Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 Interpersonal .85 Emotional Stability .89 .23
Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 Adaptability .86 Emotional Stability .89 .58
Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 Stress Management .81 Emotional Stability .89 .58
Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 General Mood .90 Emotional Stability .89 .77
Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 Intrapersonal .95 Conscientiousness .81 .44
Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 Interpersonal .90 Conscientiousness .81 .37
Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 Adaptability .89 Conscientiousness .81 .50
Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 Stress Management .85 Conscientiousness .81 .38
Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 General Mood .89 Conscientiousness .81 .33
Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 Intrapersonal .95 Extraversion .78 .51
Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 Interpersonal .90 Extraversion .78 .47
Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 Adaptability .89 Extraversion .78 .36
Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 Stress Management .85 Extraversion .78 .27
Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 General Mood .89 Extraversion .78 .36
Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 Intrapersonal .95 Emotional Stability .86 .63
Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 Interpersonal .90 Emotional Stability .86 .12
Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 Adaptability .89 Emotional Stability .86 .61
Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 Stress Management .85 Emotional Stability .86 .68
Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 General Mood .89 Emotional Stability .86 .67
Derksen, Kramer, & Katzko (2002) 873 Intrapersonal .92 Cognitive Ability .90 .08
Derksen, Kramer, & Katzko (2002) 873 Interpersonal .85 Cognitive Ability .90 ⫺.04
Derksen, Kramer, & Katzko (2002) 873 Adaptability .80 Cognitive Ability .90 .11
Derksen, Kramer, & Katzko (2002) 873 Stress Management .84 Cognitive Ability .90 .13
Derksen, Kramer, & Katzko (2002) 873 General Mood .87 Cognitive Ability .90 .11
Di Fabio & Palazzeschi (2008) 169 Intrapersonal .79 Self-Efficacy .94 .47
Di Fabio & Palazzeschi (2008) 169 Interpersonal .79 Self-Efficacy .94 .19
Di Fabio & Palazzeschi (2008) 169 Adaptability .78 Self-Efficacy .94 .25
Di Fabio & Palazzeschi (2008) 169 Stress Management .84 Self-Efficacy .94 .11

(Appendices continue)
 SELF-REPORTED EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 335

Table C1 (continued)

Study N Predictor measure (facet) rxx Criterion measure ryy r

Farrelly & Austin (2007) 199 Intrapersonal .94 Ability EI .87 .14
Farrelly & Austin (2007) 199 Interpersonal .88 Ability EI .87 .22
Farrelly & Austin (2007) 199 Adaptability .81 Ability EI .87 .18
Farrelly & Austin (2007) 199 Stress Management .84 Ability EI .87 .17
Farrelly & Austin (2007) 199 General Mood .88 Ability EI .87 .16
Fillion (2001) 95 Intrapersonal .94 Cognitive Ability .90 ⫺.01
Fillion (2001) 95 Interpersonal .89 Cognitive Ability .90 ⫺.04
Fillion (2001) 95 Adaptability .78 Cognitive Ability .90 ⫺.05
Fillion (2001) 95 Stress Management .82 Cognitive Ability .90 ⫺.01
Fillion (2001) 95 General Mood .88 Cognitive Ability .90 ⫺.07
Fillion (2001) 95 Intrapersonal .94 Ability EI .87 .09
Fillion (2001) 95 Interpersonal .89 Ability EI .87 .16
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Fillion (2001) 95 Adaptability .76 Ability EI .87 .14

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Fillion (2001) 95 Stress Management .82 Ability EI .87 .14

Fillion (2001) 95 General Mood .88 Ability EI .87 .11
Gabel, Dolan, & Cerdin (2005) 59 Intrapersonal .83 Job performance .86 .15
(supervisor-rated)
Gabel, Dolan, & Cerdin (2005) 59 Interpersonal .78 Job performance .86 .07
(supervisor-rated)
Gabel, Dolan, & Cerdin (2005) 59 Adaptability .67 Job performance .86 ⫺.02
(supervisor-rated)
Gabel, Dolan, & Cerdin (2005) 59 Stress Management .79 Job performance .86 ⫺.10
(supervisor-rated)
Gabel, Dolan, & Cerdin (2005) 59 General Mood .70 Job performance .86 .06
(supervisor-rated)
Goldsmith (2008) 24 Intrapersonal .82 Job performance .88 .13
(supervisor-rated)
Goldsmith (2008) 24 Interpersonal .56 Job performance .88 .33
(supervisor-rated)
Goldsmith (2008) 24 Adaptability .85 Job performance .88 .12
(supervisor-rated)
Goldsmith (2008) 24 Stress Management .89 Job performance .88 ⫺.15
(supervisor-rated)
Goldsmith (2008) 24 General Mood .88 Job performance .88 .10
(supervisor-rated)
Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Intrapersonal .88 Conscientiousness .84 .41
Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Interpersonal .80 Conscientiousness .84 .10
Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Adaptability .76 Conscientiousness .84 .43
Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Stress Management .84 Conscientiousness .84 .10
Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 General Mood .85 Conscientiousness .84 .31
Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Intrapersonal .88 Extraversion .91 .45
Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Interpersonal .80 Extraversion .91 .30
Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Adaptability .76 Extraversion .91 ⫺.02
Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Stress Management .84 Extraversion .91 .01
Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 General Mood .85 Extraversion .91 .36
Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Intrapersonal .88 Emotional Stability .90 .35
Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Interpersonal .80 Emotional Stability .90 .07
Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Adaptability .76 Emotional Stability .90 .18
Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Stress Management .84 Emotional Stability .90 .67
Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 General Mood .85 Emotional Stability .90 .56
Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Intrapersonal .88 Cognitive Ability .90 .01
Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Interpersonal .80 Cognitive Ability .90 ⫺.02
Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Adaptability .76 Cognitive Ability .90 .01
Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Stress Management .84 Cognitive Ability .90 .02
Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 General Mood .85 Cognitive Ability .90 .18

(Appendices continue)
 336 JOSEPH, JIN, NEWMAN, AND O’BOYLE

Table C1 (continued)

Study N Predictor measure (facet) rxx Criterion measure ryy r

Hanna (2008) 46 Self-Awareness .67 Job performance .83 ⫺.16

(supervisor-rated)
Hanna (2008) 46 Self-Management .83 Job performance .83 .25
(supervisor-rated)
Hanna (2008) 46 Social Awareness .82 Job performance .83 .08
(supervisor-rated)
Hanna (2008) 46 Relationship Management .86 Job performance .83 .32
(supervisor-rated)
Kohan (2002) 399 Intrapersonal .83 Conscientiousness .73 .35
Kohan (2002) 399 Interpersonal .93 Conscientiousness .73 .48
Kohan (2002) 399 Adaptability .87 Conscientiousness .73 .60
Kohan (2002) 399 Stress Management .78 Conscientiousness .73 .49
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Kohan (2002) 399 General Mood .83 Conscientiousness .73 .47

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Kohan (2002) 399 Intrapersonal .83 Extraversion .74 .54

Kohan (2002) 399 Interpersonal .93 Extraversion .74 .44
Kohan (2002) 399 Adaptability .87 Extraversion .74 .29
Kohan (2002) 399 Stress Management .78 Extraversion .74 .66
Kohan (2002) 399 General Mood .83 Extraversion .74 .53
Kohan (2002) 399 Intrapersonal .83 Emotional Stability .80 ⫺.23
Kohan (2002) 399 Interpersonal .93 Emotional Stability .80 ⫺.67
Kohan (2002) 399 Adaptability .87 Emotional Stability .80 ⫺.64
Kohan (2002) 399 Stress Management .78 Emotional Stability .80 ⫺.68
Kohan (2002) 399 General Mood .83 Emotional Stability .80 ⫺.69
Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Intrapersonal .93 Conscientiousness .80 .41
Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Interpersonal .87 Conscientiousness .80 .34
Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Adaptability .85 Conscientiousness .80 .57
Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Stress Management .86 Conscientiousness .80 .45
Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 General Mood .88 Conscientiousness .80 .36
Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Intrapersonal .93 Extraversion .83 .56
Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Interpersonal .87 Extraversion .83 .36
Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Adaptability .85 Extraversion .83 .23
Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Stress Management .86 Extraversion .83 .15
Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 General Mood .88 Extraversion .83 .52
Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Intrapersonal .93 Emotional Stability .86 .63
Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Interpersonal .87 Emotional Stability .86 .32
Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Adaptability .85 Emotional Stability .86 .56
Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Stress Management .86 Emotional Stability .86 .66
Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 General Mood .88 Emotional Stability .86 .57
Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Intrapersonal .93 Cognitive Ability .90 ⫺.11
Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Interpersonal .87 Cognitive Ability .90 ⫺.24
Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Adaptability .85 Cognitive Ability .90 ⫺.05
Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Stress Management .86 Cognitive Ability .90 .07
Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 General Mood .88 Cognitive Ability .90 .01
Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Intrapersonal .93 Ability EI .87 .26
Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Interpersonal .87 Ability EI .87 .34
Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Adaptability .85 Ability EI .87 .40
Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Stress Management .86 Ability EI .87 .28
Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 General Mood .88 Ability EI .87 .41
Lui (2009) 108 Intrapersonal .77 Self-Efficacy .93 .37
Lui (2009) 108 Interpersonal .81 Self-Efficacy .93 .38
Lui (2009) 108 Adaptability .80 Self-Efficacy .93 .33
Lui (2009) 108 Stress Management .84 Self-Efficacy .93 .33
Lui (2009) 108 General Mood .81 Self-Efficacy .93 .38
Moafian & Ghanizadeh (2009) 89 Intrapersonal .80 Self-Efficacy .91 .31
Moafian & Ghanizadeh (2009) 89 Interpersonal .80 Self-Efficacy .91 .33
Moafian & Ghanizadeh (2009) 89 Adaptability .80 Self-Efficacy .91 .38
Moafian & Ghanizadeh (2009) 89 Stress Management .80 Self-Efficacy .91 .43
Moafian & Ghanizadeh (2009) 89 General Mood .80 Self-Efficacy .91 .48

(Appendices continue)
 SELF-REPORTED EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 337

Table C1 (continued)

Study N Predictor measure (facet) rxx Criterion measure ryy r

Murensky (2000) 90 Self-Awareness .52 Conscientiousness .73 .30

Murensky (2000) 90 Self-Management .83 Conscientiousness .73 .33
Murensky (2000) 90 Social Awareness .70 Conscientiousness .73 .21
Murensky (2000) 90 Relationship Management .87 Conscientiousness .73 .39
Murensky (2000) 90 Self-Awareness .52 Extraversion .79 .47
Murensky (2000) 90 Self-Management .83 Extraversion .79 .24
Murensky (2000) 90 Social Awareness .70 Extraversion .79 .24
Murensky (2000) 90 Relationship Management .87 Extraversion .79 .49
Murensky (2000) 90 Self-Awareness .52 Emotional Stability .79 .07
Murensky (2000) 90 Self-Management .83 Emotional Stability .79 .20
Murensky (2000) 90 Social Awareness .70 Emotional Stability .79 .10
Murensky (2000) 90 Relationship Management .87 Emotional Stability .79 .11
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Murensky (2000) 90 Self-Awareness .52 Cognitive Ability .90 ⫺.09

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Murensky (2000) 90 Self-Management .83 Cognitive Ability .90 ⫺.10

Murensky (2000) 90 Social Awareness .70 Cognitive Ability .90 ⫺.16
Murensky (2000) 90 Relationship Management .87 Cognitive Ability .90 ⫺.22
Newsome, Day, & Catano (2000) 137 Intrapersonal .92 Cognitive Ability .90 .04
Newsome, Day, & Catano (2000) 137 Interpersonal .85 Cognitive Ability .90 ⫺.12
Newsome, Day, & Catano (2000) 137 Adaptability .80 Cognitive Ability .90 .09
Newsome, Day, & Catano (2000) 137 Stress Management .84 Cognitive Ability .90 .12
Newsome, Day, & Catano (2000) 137 General Mood .87 Cognitive Ability .90 ⫺.02
O’Connor & Little (2003) 90 Intrapersonal .94 Ability EI .87 .35
O’Connor & Little (2003) 90 Interpersonal .88 Ability EI .87 .21
O’Connor & Little (2003) 90 Adaptability .81 Ability EI .87 .22
O’Connor & Little (2003) 90 Stress Management .84 Ability EI .87 .21
O’Connor & Little (2003) 90 General Mood .88 Ability EI .87 .36
Schumacher (2005) 35 Self-Awareness .67 Job performance .74 .29
(supervisor-rated)
Schumacher (2005) 212 Self-Awareness .67 Self-rated job performance .80 .12
Schumacher (2005) 35 Self-Management .83 Job performance .74 .36
(supervisor-rated)
Schumacher (2005) 212 Self-Management .83 Self-rated job performance .80 ⫺.05
Schumacher (2005) 35 Social Awareness .82 Job performance .74 .34
(supervisor-rated)
Schumacher (2005) 212 Social Awareness .82 Self-rated job performance .80 .03
Schumacher (2005) 35 Relationship Management .86 Job performance .74 .43
(supervisor-rated)
Schumacher (2005) 212 Relationship Management .86 Self-rated job performance .80 .17
Sevinc (2001) 71 Self-Awareness .67 Self-rated job performance .80 .23
Sevinc (2001) 71 Self-Management .83 Self-rated job performance .80 .25
Sevinc (2001) 71 Social Awareness .82 Self-rated job performance .80 .19
Sevinc (2001) 71 Social Skills .86 Self-rated job performance .80 .31
Shahzad, Sarmad, Abbas, & Khan 100 Self-Awareness .82 Self-rated job performance .73 .22
(2011)
Shahzad, Sarmad, Abbas, & Khan 100 Self-Management .84 Self-rated job performance .73 .26
(2011)
Shahzad, Sarmad, Abbas, & Khan 100 Social Awareness .81 Self-rated job performance .73 .39
(2011)
Shahzad, Sarmad, Abbas, & Khan 100 Relationship Management .82 Self-rated job performance .73 .34
(2011)
Shaikh (2004) 116 Intrapersonal .88 Conscientiousness .80 .13
Shaikh (2004) 116 Interpersonal .85 Conscientiousness .80 ⫺.07
Shaikh (2004) 116 Adaptability .83 Conscientiousness .80 .42
Shaikh (2004) 116 Stress Management .82 Conscientiousness .80 .47
Shaikh (2004) 116 General Mood .87 Conscientiousness .80 ⫺.20
Shaikh (2004) 116 Intrapersonal .88 Extraversion .83 ⫺.11
Shaikh (2004) 116 Interpersonal .85 Extraversion .83 .08

(Appendices continue)
 338 JOSEPH, JIN, NEWMAN, AND O’BOYLE

Table C1 (continued)

Study N Predictor measure (facet) rxx Criterion measure ryy r

Shaikh (2004) 116 Adaptability .83 Extraversion .83 .06

Shaikh (2004) 116 Stress Management .82 Extraversion .83 .02
Shaikh (2004) 116 General Mood .87 Extraversion .83 .23
Shaikh (2004) 116 Intrapersonal .88 Emotional Stability .86 .16
Shaikh (2004) 116 Interpersonal .85 Emotional Stability .86 ⫺.04
Shaikh (2004) 116 Adaptability .83 Emotional Stability .86 .33
Shaikh (2004) 116 Stress Management .82 Emotional Stability .86 .52
Shaikh (2004) 116 General Mood .87 Emotional Stability .86 .33
Shaikh (2004) 116 Intrapersonal .92 Cognitive Ability .90 ⫺.04
Shaikh (2004) 116 Interpersonal .85 Cognitive Ability .90 .04
Shaikh (2004) 116 Adaptability .80 Cognitive Ability .90 .03
Shaikh (2004) 116 Stress Management .84 Cognitive Ability .90 .07
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Shaikh (2004) 116 General Mood .87 Cognitive Ability .90 .02
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Slaski & Cartwright (2002) 221 Intrapersonal .81 Job performance .80 .23
(supervisor-rated)
Slaski & Cartwright (2002) 221 Interpersonal .73 Job performance .80 .01
(supervisor-rated)
Slaski & Cartwright (2002) 221 Adaptability .77 Job performance .80 .18
(supervisor-rated)
Slaski & Cartwright (2002) 221 Stress Management .84 Job performance .80 .15
(supervisor-rated)
Slaski & Cartwright (2002) 221 General mood .83 Job performance .80 .23
(supervisor-rated)
Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005) 383 Intrapersonal .81 Job performance .88 .14
(supervisor-rated)
Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005) 383 Interpersonal .73 Job performance .88 .18
(supervisor-rated)
Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005) 383 Adaptability .77 Job performance .88 .08
(supervisor-rated)
Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005) 383 Stress Management .84 Job performance .88 .10
(supervisor-rated)
Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005) 383 General Mood .83 Job performance .88 .12
(supervisor-rated)
Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005) 412 Intrapersonal .81 Self-rated job performance .83 .37
Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005) 412 Interpersonal .73 Self-rated job performance .83 .26
Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005) 412 Adaptability .77 Self-rated job performance .83 .32
Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005) 412 Stress Management .84 Self-rated job performance .83 .24
Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005) 412 General Mood .83 Self-rated job performance .83 .29
Tombs (2004) 75 Intrapersonal .88 Conscientiousness .80 .43
Tombs (2004) 75 Interpersonal .85 Conscientiousness .80 .45
Tombs (2004) 75 Adaptability .83 Conscientiousness .80 .46
Tombs (2004) 75 Stress Management .82 Conscientiousness .80 .32
Tombs (2004) 75 General Mood .87 Conscientiousness .80 .25
Tombs (2004) 32 Intrapersonal .88 Conscientiousness .80 .17
Tombs (2004) 32 Interpersonal .85 Conscientiousness .80 .15
Tombs (2004) 32 Adaptability .83 Conscientiousness .80 .20
Tombs (2004) 32 Stress Management .82 Conscientiousness .80 ⫺.07
Tombs (2004) 32 General Mood .87 Conscientiousness .80 .05
Tombs (2004) 60 Intrapersonal .88 Conscientiousness .80 .37
Tombs (2004) 60 Interpersonal .85 Conscientiousness .80 .30
Tombs (2004) 60 Adaptability .83 Conscientiousness .80 .47
Tombs (2004) 60 Stress Management .82 Conscientiousness .80 .25
Tombs (2004) 60 General Mood .87 Conscientiousness .80 .30
Tombs (2004) 75 Intrapersonal .88 Extraversion .83 .22
Tombs (2004) 75 Interpersonal .85 Extraversion .83 .25
Tombs (2004) 75 Adaptability .83 Extraversion .83 .05
Tombs (2004) 75 Stress Management .82 Extraversion .83 ⫺.08
Tombs (2004) 75 General Mood .87 Extraversion .83 .29

(Appendices continue)
 SELF-REPORTED EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 339

Table C1 (continued)

Study N Predictor measure (facet) rxx Criterion measure ryy r

Tombs (2004) 32 Intrapersonal .88 Extraversion .83 .58

Tombs (2004) 32 Interpersonal .85 Extraversion .83 .35
Tombs (2004) 32 Adaptability .83 Extraversion .83 .05
Tombs (2004) 32 Stress Management .82 Extraversion .83 ⫺.40
Tombs (2004) 32 General Mood .87 Extraversion .83 .24
Tombs (2004) 60 Intrapersonal .88 Extraversion .83 .64
Tombs (2004) 60 Interpersonal .85 Extraversion .83 .48
Tombs (2004) 60 Adaptability .83 Extraversion .83 .41
Tombs (2004) 60 Stress Management .82 Extraversion .83 ⫺.03
Tombs (2004) 60 General Mood .87 Extraversion .83 .62
Tombs (2004) 75 Intrapersonal .88 Emotional Stability .86 .39
Tombs (2004) 75 Interpersonal .85 Emotional Stability .86 .17
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Tombs (2004) 75 Adaptability .83 Emotional Stability .86 .37

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Tombs (2004) 75 Stress Management .82 Emotional Stability .86 .60

Tombs (2004) 75 General Mood .87 Emotional Stability .86 .53
Tombs (2004) 32 Intrapersonal .88 Emotional Stability .86 .34
Tombs (2004) 32 Interpersonal .85 Emotional Stability .86 .01
Tombs (2004) 32 Adaptability .83 Emotional Stability .86 .52
Tombs (2004) 32 Stress Management .82 Emotional Stability .86 .51
Tombs (2004) 32 General Mood .87 Emotional Stability .86 .65
Tombs (2004) 60 Intrapersonal .88 Emotional Stability .86 .53
Tombs (2004) 60 Interpersonal .85 Emotional Stability .86 .40
Tombs (2004) 60 Adaptability .83 Emotional Stability .86 .58
Tombs (2004) 60 Stress Management .82 Emotional Stability .86 .57
Tombs (2004) 60 General Mood .87 Emotional Stability .86 .49
M. B. Wu (2008) 36 Intrapersonal .82 Self-rated job performance .96 .41
M. B. Wu (2008) 36 Interpersonal .83 Self-rated job performance .96 .19
M. B. Wu (2008) 36 Adaptability .79 Self-rated job performance .96 .01
M. B. Wu (2008) 36 Stress Management .82 Self-rated job performance .96 .37
M. B. Wu (2008) 36 General Mood .83 Self-rated job performance .96 .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.

(Appendices continue)
 340 JOSEPH, JIN, NEWMAN, AND O’BOYLE

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

95% CI 80% CI
k N r ␳ˆ SD␳ LL UL LL UL

Conscientiousness
ECI
Self-Awareness 2 251 .27 .42 .00 .23 .30 .42 .42
Self-Management 2 251 .29 .36 .00 .24 .33 .36 .36
Social Awareness 2 251 .31 .42 .00 .21 .42 .42 .42
Relationship Management 2 251 .31 .37 .00 .22 .39 .37 .37
EQ-i
Intrapersonal 12 1,869 .33 .39 .11 .26 .40 .25 .54
Interpersonal 12 1,869 .27 .33 .17 .18 .37 .11 .56
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Adaptability 12 1,869 .46 .57 .10 .40 .52 .45 .70

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Stress Management 12 1,869 .31 .40 .16 .23 .40 .19 .61
General State of Mood 12 1,869 .27 .33 .19 .17 .37 .09 .57
Extraversion
ECI
Self-Awareness 2 251 .41 .65 .00 .35 .47 .65 .65
Self-Management 2 251 .39 .49 .10 .23 .54 .36 .61
Social Awareness 2 251 .33 .45 .00 .24 .42 .45 .45
Relationship Management 2 251 .54 .66 .00 .49 .59 .66 .66
EQ-i
Intrapersonal 12 1,869 .45 .54 .18 .36 .55 .31 .77
Interpersonal 12 1,869 .40 .48 .10 .34 .46 .35 .61
Adaptability 12 1,869 .18 .22 .15 .10 .27 .03 .42
Stress Management 12 1,869 .19 .25 .31 .04 .35 ⫺.14 .64
General State of Mood 12 1,869 .46 .55 .11 .39 .52 .41 .69
Emotional Stability
ECI
Self-Awareness 2 251 .26 .40 .18 .06 .46 .17 .63
Self-Management 2 251 .37 .45 .13 .19 .55 .29 .61
Social Awareness 2 251 .29 .37 .15 .09 .48 .19 .56
Relationship Management 2 251 .31 .36 .15 .10 .51 .17 .55
EQ-i
Intrapersonal 12 1,869 .30 .34 .35 .13 .48 ⫺.11 .79
Interpersonal 12 1,869 .01 .01 .42 ⫺.20 .22 ⫺.53 .55
Adaptability 12 1,869 .18 .20 .52 ⫺.08 .43 ⫺.47 .87
Stress Management 12 1,869 .32 .36 .62 .02 .62 ⫺.43 1.00
General State of Mood 12 1,869 .31 .34 .59 .12 .50 ⫺.42 1.00
Ability EI
ECI
Self-Awareness 0
Self-Management 0
Social Awareness 0
Relationship Management 0
EQ-i
Intrapersonal 5 783 .17 .19 .06 .09 .26 .11 .28
Interpersonal 5 783 .26 .30 .00 .20 .31 .30 .30
Adaptability 5 783 .23 .28 .08 .14 .32 .17 .38
Stress Management 5 783 .20 .23 .00 .15 .24 .23 .23
General State of Mood 5 783 .23 .26 .13 .10 .35 .09 .43
Cognitive Ability
ECI
Self-Awareness 1 90 ⫺.09 ⫺.13 .00 ⫺.09 ⫺.09 ⫺.13 ⫺.13
Self-Management 1 90 ⫺.10 ⫺.12 .00 ⫺.10 ⫺.10 ⫺.12 ⫺.12
Social Awareness 1 90 ⫺.16 ⫺.20 .00 ⫺.16 ⫺.16 ⫺.20 ⫺.20
Relationship Management 1 90 ⫺.22 ⫺.25 .00 ⫺.22 ⫺.22 ⫺.25 ⫺.25

(Appendices continue)
 SELF-REPORTED EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 341

Table C2 (continued)

95% CI 80% CI
k N r ␳ˆ SD␳ LL UL LL UL

EQ-i
Intrapersonal 6 1,661 .03 .03 .03 ⫺.02 .08 ⫺.02 .07
Interpersonal 6 1,661 ⫺.07 ⫺.07 .05 ⫺.13 ⫺.01 ⫺.14 ⫺.01
Adaptability 6 1,661 .06 .07 .01 .01 .11 .05 .08
Stress Management 6 1,661 .10 .11 .00 .06 .14 .11 .11
General State of Mood 6 1,661 .08 .09 .04 .02 .13 .04 .14
Self-Efficacya
ECI
Self-Awareness 0
Self-Management 0
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Social Awareness 0
Relationship Management 0
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

EQ-i
Intrapersonal 3 366 .40 .47 .00 .32 .48 .47 .47
Interpersonal 3 366 .28 .33 .00 .18 .38 .30 .36
Adaptability 3 366 .31 .36 .00 .24 .37 .36 .36
Stress Management 3 366 .25 .29 .01 .10 .41 .13 .45
General State of Mood 2 197 .42 .49 .00 .35 .49 .49 .49
Self-Rated Job Performance
ECI
Self-Awareness 2 283 .15 .20 .00 .11 .29 .20 .20
Self-Management 2 283 .03 .03 .14 ⫺.19 .26 ⫺.14 .21
Social Awareness 2 283 .07 .08 .00 ⫺.04 .21 .08 .08
Relationship Management 2 283 .21 .25 .00 .15 .35 .25 .25
EQ-i
Intrapersonal 2 448 .37 .45 .00 .43 .47 .45 .45
Interpersonal 2 448 .25 .32 .00 .29 .36 .32 .32
Adaptability 2 448 .30 .37 .07 .22 .52 .28 .46
Stress Management 2 448 .25 .30 .00 .24 .36 .30 .30
General State of Mood 2 448 .28 .34 .00 .30 .38 .34 .34
Job Performance (Supervisor-
Rated)
ECI
Self-Awareness 3 406 .10 .14 .08 ⫺.03 .31 .04 .24
Self-Management 3 406 .20 .26 .00 .18 .34 .26 .26
Social Awareness 3 406 .27 .35 .00 .25 .45 .35 .35
Relationship Management 3 406 .30 .38 .00 .32 .44 .38 .38
EQ-i
Intrapersonal 4 687 .17 .22 .00 .15 .28 .22 .22
Interpersonal 4 687 .12 .16 .06 .03 .29 .09 .23
Adaptability 4 687 .11 .14 .00 .05 .23 .14 .14
Stress Management 4 687 .09 .11 .03 .00 .23 .08 .15
General State of Mood 4 687 .15 .19 .00 .11 .27 .19 .19
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.

(Appendices continue)
 342 JOSEPH, JIN, NEWMAN, AND O’BOYLE

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

Dependent variable
Predictor Intrapersonala Interpersonala Adaptabilitya Stress Managementa General Moodb

Ability EI .13ⴱ .33ⴱ .28ⴱ .22ⴱ .14ⴱ

Conscientiousness .44ⴱ .43ⴱ .68ⴱ .54ⴱ .17ⴱ
Extraversion .62ⴱ .57ⴱ .33ⴱ .40ⴱ .37ⴱ
Emotional Stability .24ⴱ ⫺.13ⴱ .10ⴱ .38ⴱ .12ⴱ
Cognitive Ability .01 ⫺.11ⴱ .04ⴱ .08ⴱ .04
General Self-Efficacy ⫺.43ⴱ ⫺.38ⴱ ⫺.49ⴱ ⫺.65ⴱ .01
Self-Rated Performance .33ⴱ .28ⴱ .31ⴱ .27ⴱ .17ⴱ

R2 .56ⴱ .49ⴱ .50ⴱ .41ⴱ .35ⴱ

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Adjusted R2 .55ⴱ .49ⴱ .50ⴱ .41ⴱ .35ⴱ

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

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 .18ⴱ .19ⴱ .20ⴱ .27ⴱ .25ⴱ .18ⴱ

Conscientiousness .33ⴱ .37ⴱ .36ⴱ .54ⴱ .48ⴱ .33ⴱ
Extraversion .20ⴱ .25ⴱ .24ⴱ .30ⴱ .31ⴱ .20ⴱ
Emotional Stability .09ⴱ .11ⴱ .09ⴱ .12ⴱ .20ⴱ .09ⴱ
Cognitive Ability .43ⴱ .43ⴱ .42ⴱ .44ⴱ .45ⴱ .42ⴱ
General Self-Efficacy ⫺.52ⴱ ⫺.56ⴱ ⫺.54ⴱ ⫺.67ⴱ ⫺.70ⴱ ⫺.52ⴱ
Self-Rated Performance .42ⴱ .44ⴱ .43ⴱ .51ⴱ .49ⴱ .41ⴱ
Mixed emotional intelligence facets
Intrapersonal ⫺.09ⴱ
Interpersonal ⫺.06
Adaptability ⫺.32ⴱ
Stress Management ⫺.28ⴱ
General Mood .01

R2 .395ⴱ .398ⴱ .397ⴱ .445ⴱ .443ⴱ .395ⴱ

Change in R2 .003ⴱ .002 .050ⴱ .048ⴱ .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