This Content Downloaded From 149.200.35.109 On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:56:58 UTC

Relations of Emotional Intelligence, Practical Intelligence, General Intelligence, and
Trait Affectivity with Interview Outcomes: It's Not All Just 'G'
Author(s): Suzy Fox and Paul E. Spector
Source: Journal of Organizational Behavior , Mar., 2000, Vol. 21, No. 2, Special Issue:
Emotions in Organization (Mar., 2000), pp. 203-220
Published by: Wiley
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/3100306
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.com/stable/3100306?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Organizational Behavior
This content downloaded from

149.200.35.109 on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:56:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of Organizational Behavior
J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 203-220 (2000)
Relations of emotional intelligence, practical

intelligence, general intelligence, and trait
affectivity with interview outcomes:
it's not all just 'G'
SUZY FOX*l AND PAUL E. SPECTOR2
Institute of Human Resources and Industrial Relations, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL
60611, U.S.A.
2Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, U.S.A.
Summary Emotional intelligence was conceptualized as competencies that may enable people to
use emotions advantageously to achieve desired outcomes. Measures of three compo-
nents of emotional intelligence (empathy, self-regulation of mood, and self-presentation)
as well as affective traits (positive and negative affectivity) and general and practical
intelligence were related to a major facet of work success, job interview performance. A
sample of 116 undergraduates participated in a simulated job selection experience, con-
sisting of paper and pencil tests and a videotaped structured interview. Results partially
supported the proposed model. Some but not all of the affect and ability measures were
related to interview outcomes, both directly and mediated by the interviewer's affective
response (perceived similarity and liking). In addition to measures of emotional
intelligence, measures of general and practical intelligence were associated with interview
outcomes, but the orthogonality of IQ and the major emotion variables argue for the
unique contributions of emotional intelligence and trait affect to interview success.
Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
Industrial/organizational psychologists have long been interested in the relationship between

intelligence and work success. In addition to the kinds of knowledge, skills, and abilities
traditionally associated with task performance, success in today's work organizations may
require a more personal configuration of competencies, such as self-management, self-
presentation, empathy, and interpersonal sensitivity. This set of competencies, dealing with the
recognition, regulation, and expression of moods and emotions, is currently receiving con-
siderable attention in the academic and business literatures. The competencies can arguably be
subsumed under the rubric of 'Emotional Intelligence', but the label is not central to the
* Correspondence to: Suzy Fox, Institute of Human Resources and Industrial Relations, Loyola University Chicago, 820
N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60611, U.S.A. E-Mail: sfoxl(cvluc.edu
CCC 0886-9383/2000/020203-18$17.50
Copyright ( 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

149.200.35.109 on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:56:58 UTC
204 S. FOX AND P. E. SPECTOR
argument of this paper. The purpose of this study is to explore the relation
petencies and other affect-related variables to work success, in particular to fa
in that critical career gateway, the job interview.
We focus on the interview due to its well-documented sensitivity to subje
and interpersonal processes. The selection literature (Arvey, 1979; Arvey a
Baron, 1989, 1993; Dipboye and Gaugler, 1993; Forbes and Jackson, 1980; G
1989; Howard and Ferris, 1996; Isen and Baron, 1991; Keenan, 1977; Parson
provides ample evidence that employment interview outcomes can depend t
both candidate and interviewer affective experience and manipulation. Much of
concerned with affective processes that reduce rating accuracy and interview v
an emotional intelligence approach investigates the kinds of personal cha
competencies which may be associated with more successful interview ou
individual.
One key factor may be the candidate's adeptness at manipulating the affective responses of the
interviewer (or the observer, in multi-rater interview situations). Successful interviewees will
make the interviewers or observers like them and feel good about them, perhaps involving
competencies of empathy, self-presentation, and tactical use of non-verbal expression. A separate
consideration in the job interview is the candidate's ability to recognize and regulate her or his
own moods and feelings. Here the emphasis is on the self-induction and/or maintenance of the
candidate's own good mood. Positive mood increases retrieval of a more extensive set of related
and positively toned material from memory, more inclusive categorization, and more unusual
associations to neutral words-cognitive behaviors associated with problem-solving innovation
and creativity (Forgas and Bower, 1987; Isen, 1984; Isen et al., 1987). In a job interview, a
candidate in a positive mood may be more likely to recall, construe, and describe incidents of past
work performance in a self-enhancing way, may be more likely to project a confident and
competent self, and may be more adept at dealing creatively with unexpected questions.
In the current study, we investigate relationships among the candidate's affective competencies
and traits, the interviewer's affective responses to the candidate, and interview outcomes. Figure 1
depicts a model of the interview process, in which the candidate's competencies associated with
emotional intelligence (empathy, self-regulation of mood, and employment of non-verbal
behaviors in self-presentation) and affective traits are associated with interview outcomes (ratings
of candidate qualification and decision to hire). These relationships are mediated by the
interviewer's affective responses toward the candidate (perceived similarity and liking).
The emphasis of this study on emotional intelligence and traits is not intended to deny the
importance of either general or practical intelligence. The usefulness of general and practical
intelligence in predicting job performance is well-documented (Schmidt and Hunter, 1981;
Sternberg and Wagner, 1993). Therefore, the respective contributions of trait affect and three
conceptualizations of intelligence-general, practical, and emotional-to interview ratings are
evaluated and compared.
Emotional intelligence
We begin by considering emotional intelligence as conceptualized by Salovey and Mayer (Mayer

and Salovey, 1993, 1995; Salovey and Mayer, 1990) and popularized by Goleman (1995). The
notion of emotional intelligence arises out of the search for a set of measurable tendencies and
capabilities which, in addition to IQ, may serve as valid predictors of academic, occupational,
and life success. Emotional intelligence draws on a research tradition which focuses on intelligent
Copyright ( 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 203-220 (2000)

149.200.35.109 on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:56:58 UTC
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INTERVIEW OUTCOMES 205
behavior in natural situations, or practical intelligence (Neisser et al., 19

Wagner, 1993; Sternberg et al., 1995; Wagner and Sternberg, 1985). In co
academic intelligence, practical intelligence is directed at one's short- and long-
employed to solve problems important to one's emotions, well-being, needs, pla
The notion of emotional intelligence is based on several competencies and t
the experience of moods and emotions (one's own and those of others) th
successful navigation of our social environments, and as such may be cons
practical intelligence.
Salovey and Mayer (1990) justify the designation of 'emotional intelligence', b
processing of specific emotional information from within the organism, and b
of competence at these skills is necessary for adequate social functioning. They
mental processes involving emotional information: (1) appraising and expressing
self and others; (2) regulating emotion in the self and others; and (3) using emo
achieve ones goals. These processes can be linked to three research themes
and social psychological literature: empathy, self-presentation, and self-regulat
Empathy
Empathy is a much-studied area of research that roughly corresponds to sensitivity to the

emotional cues of others. The term 'empathy' has been used to refer to two distinct phenomena,
cognitive empathy (role taking) and affective reactivity (Davis, 1996). Cognitive role taking is
when one person attempts to understand another by imagining the other's perspective. It is the
ability to understand the other person's psychological point of view, including her/his likely
reaction to one's own behavior. The ability to manoeuvre through complicated social situations
based on one's ability to predict the responses of other social actors is one component of empathy
that corresponds to the appraisal component of emotional intelligence (Salovey and Mayer,
1990). In the job interview, effective monitoring of the interviewer's emotional responses may
provide the candidate with valuable cues for fine-tuning the interview performance.
Affective reactivity, on the other hand, refers to emotional outcomes experienced by the
observer in response to (usually distressed) emotional displays by another person. In a stressful
job interview situation, affective reactivity may interfere with the desired self-presentation.
Consistent with the following review of the role of mood in interview performance, this
occurrence may be linked to the reduction of the candidate's positive mood or the induction of
negative mood in the interviewer through emotional contagion processes.
Self-presentation
Erving Goffman's (1959) classic work, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, crafts a powerful
portrayal of self-presentation in the service of strategic goal attainment in interpersonal
relationships. In social interactions between two individuals, each partner uses information about
the other to help define the situation and clarify mutual expectations. The problem is that the
'true' attitudes, beliefs, and emotions of another individual can be ascertained only indirectly.
Non-verbal expressions are generally taken as 'authentic' or 'ungovernable' representations of
true feelings; therefore, the individual who is skillful in controlling these 'ungovernable'
behaviors is at a distinct advantage in the exchanges that serve to create impressions and define
social situations. Goffman further argues that, particularly in situations with potentially
Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 203-220 (2000)

149.200.35.109 on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:56:58 UTC
important consequences such as job interviews, the individual will devote considerable
preparation and thought to creating a favorable impression and forestalling any unfavorable
impression that might be conveyed by ungovernable expressions. Thus the interviewee's skillful
management of non-verbal behaviors may be a key factor in the assertive self-presentation
strategy (Tedeschi and Norman, 1985) of the successful job candidate.
Regulation of mood
Another link between our concept of emotional intelligence and work success derives from the
pervasive influence of mood, in particular positive mood, on many of the fundamental social,
psychological, and intellectual processes at the heart of organizational work (Ashforth and
Humphrey, 1995; George and Brief, 1992; Isen and Baron, 1991). Mood has been studied not
only in terms of its effect on an organizational actor, but also in terms of an individual's attempts
to manipulate mood in others. There is evidence that the emotionally astute employee may be
able to reap many significant benefits from inducing positive affect in important others at work
(Isen and Baron, 1991).
'Such persons are evaluated more favorably in performance appraisals, are more likely to be
hired after a job interview, are more likely to obtain concessions from opponents in bargaining
contexts, are more likely to obtain needed help from other organization members, and are
more likely to develop favorable working relations with their bosses.' (p. 38).
A related competency is the attempt to manipulate mood in oneself. Mayer and Stevens (1994)
note that self-regulation may occur at both unconscious and conscious levels, ranging from
automatic repression of feelings to highly self-reflective regulation of both our mood and our
thoughts about that mood (meta-mood).
Trait affect
Watson et al. (1988) examined tendencies to experience particular kinds of affect. They distin-
guished among high and low levels of positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA). These 'mood
dispositional dimensions' can be viewed as pervasive individual differences in positive and
negative emotionality and self-concept (Watson and Clark, 1984) or as personality traits, which
predict people's general emotional tendencies (Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996).
Note that most of the mood studies cited above involved temporarily and experimentally
induced mood. However, since the objective of regulating one's own mood is usually to put
oneself in a more positive mood when it is useful to do so, it follows that individuals who
generally tend to be in more positive moods may be at an advantage. Staw and Barsade (1993)
suggest that dispositional affect, which tends to be stable over time, may be a more useful
predictor of organizational performance precisely because it allows for a continual attitudinal
and affective influence on behavior. They argue that this may particularly apply to those
components of managerial work that have been shown to be enhanced by positive affect, such as
interpersonal persuasion. Thus we propose that positive trait affect, while not a component of
emotional intelligence per se, can be expected to contribute to the affective dynamics of
interpersonal processes involved in the job interview.

149.200.35.109 on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:56:58 UTC
The job interview
The employment interview is a complex social interaction between candidate

Emotions influence the outcomes of this interaction on many levels, includ
affective responses of both candidate and interviewer, and efforts of each party
emotions of the other.
Research suggests that positive affect (of the interviewer) tends to elevate evaluations of job
applicants, particularly when the applicants' job qualifications are ambiguous (Baron, 1993; Isen
and Baron, 1991). In interview studies, interviewers recalled more affect-consistent information
than affect-inconsistent information. Raters in more positive moods recalled more positive
information about the candidates than did raters in less positive moods, which is consistent with
mood congruence theory (Blaney, 1986; Isen, 1984). Raters in positive moods reported using
more inclusive, integrative decision-making strategies, contributing to increased positive rating
error such as generalized halo (Isen and Baron, 1991). Baron (1993) suggests that candidates with
ambiguous qualifications are most likely to benefit from tactics designed to enhance their
interviewer's affect, such as impression management, manipulation of non-verbal cues, and
establishment of similarity with the interviewer.
Keenan (1977) found that interviewers assess candidates more favorably if they hold similar
attitudes. Since social psychology research has demonstrated that attitude similarity can lead to
interpersonal attraction, Keenen proposed that interviewers tend to personally like candidates
whom they perceive to be similar to themselves, and to prefer candidates whom they like
personally. Cardy and Dobbins (1986) found liking to have a significant effect on performance
rating accuracy, biasing causal attributions for ratee behaviors and producing leniency or severity
effects.
Arvey and Campion (1982) summarize studies demonstrating that non-verbal communication
such as eye contact, smiling, head moving, posture, interpersonal distance, body orientation,
energy level, voice modulation, and speech fluency influence ratings of candidates in job
interviews. Howard and Ferris (1996) suggest that applicant impression management behaviors
(non-verbal and self-promotion) arouse interviewer affect and perceptions of similarity and
competence, which in turn influence job suitability ratings and acceptance decisions.
The current study investigates candidates' use of affective and non-verbal behaviors (such as
smiling and nodding), which may serve to present the self in the most favorable light, induce or
enhance positive mood in the interviewer, increase affective judgments of similarity and liking,
and ultimately contribute to desired interview outcomes.
Hypotheses
The model depicted in Figure 1 represents a subset of the complex intra- and interpersonal
processes involved in a selection interview. Based on the model the following hypotheses were
tested:
1. Measures of general intelligence, practical intelligence and trait positive affectivity will be
positively associated, and negative affectivity will be negatively associated with interview
outcomes (decision to hire and qualification of candidate).
2. A measure of applicant self-presentation during the interview will demonstrate significant
associations between interview outcome ratings and non-verbal behaviors.

149.200.35.109 on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:56:58 UTC
Figure 1. A model of intelligence, trait affect, and interview outcomes
3. Perspective taking, empathic concern, attention to mood, clarity of moo

general intelligence, practical intelligence, and positive affectivity will corre
and personal distress and negative affectivity will correlate negatively with in
(liking and similarity).
4. Interviewer affect (liking and perceived similarity) will be positively
interview outcomes (qualification of candidate and decision to hire).
5. Interviewer affect (liking and perceived similarity) will mediate the relation
candidate characteristic variables and interview outcomes.
Method
Subjects
Participants were 116 undergraduate students atst the University of South Florida, representing a
broad spectrum of academic majors, including psychology, biology, chemistry, communications
and speech, health sciences, and business. Participants tended to have considerable experience,
both as students and in the workplace. Approximately 65 per cent were juniors, seniors, or fifth-
year students. Work experience averaged 47 months (S.D. = 46), with over 70 per cent of the
students having worked at least two years.

149.200.35.109 on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:56:58 UTC
Procedure
The interview study was conducted in the university Career Resource Centre, adding to the
psychological realism of the simulated interview. The primary researcher introduced each
participant to the simulated selection process, and instructed him or her to assume the role of job
applicant. The candidate was provided with a job description, which included a brief summary
and detailed task listing for an entry-level management position as assistant store manager in a
national drug-store chain. The job description emphasized general supervisory and customer
service responsibilities, as well as entry into the healthcare/pharmaceutical industry.
Next the participant filled out two selection instruments, paper and pencil tests of general and
practical intelligence. The candidate proceeded to the interview room, where one of six research
assistants, playing the role of company interviewer, conducted a 10-15 minute videotaped
structured interview.
The research assistants were trained to present a neutral fa9ade, but to respond to the com-
munication styles of the candidates appropriately. For example, the interviewer would not initiate
smiling, but would respond to smiles with smiles. All candidates were paired with interviewers of
the same gender, to eliminate possible contamination by flirtation in the interpersonal dynamics
of this young group of participants and research assistants. All research assistants (both
interviewers and post-hoc videotape raters) were informed that the study concerned selection
interview performance. They were unaware of the focus on affect and emotional intelligence, and
were therefore blind to the research hypotheses.
Following the interview, the participant completed the Trait Meta-Mood Scale, Interpersonal
Reactivity Index and the Positive Affect-Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS: Watson et al.,
1988). Finally, the primary researcher debriefed the participant, provided constructive feedback
on the interview performance while viewing the videotape together, and gave the participant a
brochure containing interviewing tips.
Measures
The components of emotional intelligence, general and practical intelligence, candidates'

affect, interviewers' affective responses, and interview outcomes were operationalized w
existing, validated measures.
General and practical intelligence

General intelligence was measured with the Wonderlic Personnel Test (1992)1 Nume
published studies provide evidence of the test's reliability and usefulness in predicting success
training, on-the-job performance, and satisfaction with job demands (Hunter, 1987; Levi
1997; Wonderlic, 1992). Practical intelligence (also referred to as situational judgment)
measured with Smith and McDaniel's (1998-Poster session presented at the annual meetin
the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX) Work Problems Sur
Applicants are presented with written descriptions of workplace scenarios involving prob
with co-workers, problems with the work itself, and problems with the supervisor, and asked
identify how they would behave in the situation. Of five alternative courses of action
applicant selects the action he or she would most likely take and the action he or she would lea
' The WPT is a proprietary test and was donated by the Wonderlic Personnel Test, Inc. for use in this research.

149.200.35.109 on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:56:58 UTC
likely take in the situation. The scoring key was developed by Smith and McDan
session), based on subject matter experts' accumulation and evaluation of
Points are added to or subtracted from the score for selecting particular altern
the key.
Trait affect
A measure of trait affect was provided by the PANAS. The PANAS can be variably used to assess
subjects' feelings within different time frames (e.g., right now, today, past week, past year,
generally), thus measuring either experienced mood (state affect) or pervasive disposition (trait
affect or affectivity) (Chen et al., 1997). Used in the 'general' timeframe, the PANAS has become
a widely used measure of trait affect in organizational research (see for example Kemery, 1991).
We prefaced the 20 PANAS items by asking respondents to indicate the extent to which they have
generally felt such ways as interested, excited, nervous, hostile, proud, and afraid, thus tapping
the trait affect construct. Response choices ranged from 0 (does not describe me well) to 4
(describes me very well). Scores from the 10 items measuring positive general affect were summed
to form a Positive Affectivity (PA) subscale. Scores from the remaining 10 items measuring
negative affect formed a Negative Affectivity (NA) subscale.
Emotional intelligence: empathy

Empathy is measured with the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI: Davis, 1996), consisting of
four separate but related constructs: perspective taking, empathic concern, personal distress, and
fantasy. The first three were used in the current study. Perspective taking (PT) is the reported
tendency to spontaneously adopt or attempt to adopt other people's psychological points of view
in everyday life. This is part of the process of social role taking, and is often used as a measure of
cognitive empathy. Empathic concern (EC) is the tendency to experience feelings of sympathy
and compassion for unfortunate others. The EC scale measures the tendency to respond to
distress with reactive response of sympathy/compassion, which is considered an affective
outcome. Personal distress (PD) is the tendency to experience distress and discomfort in response
to extreme distress in other people, or affective reactivity. Like the EC scale, the PD scale assesses
affective outcomes, but in this case the emotion is primarily focused on the observer rather than
the target. Each scale consists of seven items, which are rated on a five-point scale ranging from 0
(does not describe me well) to 4 (describes me very well).
Emotional intelligence:
self-regulation of mood
Self-regulation of mood was measured with the Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS: Salovey et al.,
1996). This scale was developed to assess individual differences in skills in identifying one's own
feelings and feelings of others, regulating these feelings, and using information provided by
feelings to motivate adaptive social behavior-closely paralleling Salovey and Mayer's (1990)
earlier delineation of mental processes associated with Emotional Intelligence. The TMMS
consists of three scales: Attention to Feelings, Clarity of Feelings, and Mood Repair. Each scale
consists of 10 items, which are rated on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree).

149.200.35.109 on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:56:58 UTC
Emotional intelligence:
non-verbal behavior
Goffman (1959) considered non-verbal communication to be a particularly powerful component
of self-presentation in critical situations such as job interviews, because while it tends to be taken
by the observer as an ungovernable representation of the actor's 'true' self, a skillful actor may
manipulate it strategically to create desired impressions. To the extent to which non-verbal
behaviors are employed to manage the interviewer's affective response to the candidate, they may
be considered a component of emotional intelligence.
Non-verbal behavior of the applicant was assessed at a later date by a different research
assistant (not the interviewer), who rated a videotape of the interview using a time sampling
coding schedule (Forbes and Jackson, 1980). At the conclusion of every time interval, the tape
was paused, and the rater coded the behavior of the candidate at that moment on six classes of
non-verbal behavior: body position, eye contact, facial expression, body movement, hand
movement, and head movement. For each non-verbal class, the rater checked the description that
most closely resembled the applicant's behavior. For example, at the time the tape was paused,
the rater checked whether the candidate's facial expression was smiling, neutral, or frowning.
Forbes and Jackson (1980) reported that four independent judges using this coding scheme were
in 'almost total agreement' on the ratings, suggesting that the specificity of the behavioral
descriptions within each class of non-verbal behaviors minimized subjective bias.
Mediator:
interviewer affective response
The intermediate construct of interviewer affective response to the candidate was operationalized
as ratings of similarity and liking. Using two subscales developed by Howard and Ferris (1996),
the interviewer evaluated the applicant's similarity to her/himself and the interviewer's own liking
of the applicant.
Interview outcomes:
global judgments
The interviewer rated each candidate immediately following the interview. In the Decision to Hire
item, the interviewer recommended that the applicant be offered a job, put on a reserve list, or
rejected outright. In the Qualification of Candidate item, the candidate was rated on a five-point
scale ranging from 1 (not at all qualified) to 5 (highly qualified). For a second set of outcome
variables, at a later date two additional judges viewed and rated the videotaped interviews. Their
Hire and Qualification ratings were averaged with the interviewer's ratings to provide mean Hire
and Qualification variables. Except where mean ratings are specified, all data analysis used the
interviewer-only ratings, reflecting our emphasis on interviewers' responses to candidates'
affective characteristics.
Results
Descriptive statistics on all study variables are presented in Table 1. Included are sample sizes,
means, standard deviations, possible ranges, observed ranges, and coefficient alphas. Note that

149.200.35.109 on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:56:58 UTC
Table 1. Descriptive statistics on study variables
Variable Description n M S.D. Possible Actual Coefficient

range range alpha
Candidate characteristics
IQ Wonderlic personnel test 116 22.8 5.2 0-50 7-36
(general intelligence)
PI Work problems survey 116 19.5 4.7 -4-34 3-29
(practical intelligence)
PA Positive affectivity 116 39.7 5.8 10-50 17-50 0.87
NA Negative affectivity 116 18.9 5.5 10-50 10-36 0.83
PT Perspective taking 116 20.0 4.7 0-28 4-28 0.79
EC Empathic concern 116 22.2 3.7 0-28 13-28 0.73
PD Personal distress 116 9.3 5.3 0-28 0-21 0.84
REP Mood repair 116 24.1 3.8 6-30 15-30 0.68
ATT Attention to mood 116 51.9 6.2 13-65 35-65 0.76
CLA Clarity of mood 116 41.4 6.9 11-55 26-55 0.83
Interviewer affective responses
SIM Perceived similarity 116 4.5 1.2 1-7 1-6.8 0.87
LIK Liking 116 5.0 0.8 1-7 2.8-6.5 0.76
Interview outcomes
HIRE Decision to hire 116 2.2 0.8 1-3 1-3
QUAL Qualification of candidate 116 3.3 1.3 1-5 1-5
with the exception of the Mood Repair subscale of the TMMS (alph
comfortably above the 0.70 minimum for reliability recommended by
(1994). Alphas for positive and negative affectivity were 0.87 and 0.83
variables (perspective taking, empathic concern, and personal distress) we
alphas for the meta-mood variables (repair, attention and clarity) w
alphas for perceived similarity and liking were 0.87 and 0.76.
Means and standard deviations of the candidate characteristic variab
were as follows: IQ (22.8, S.D. = 5.2), practical intelligence (19.5,
affectivity (39.7, S.D. = 5.8), negative affectivity (18.9, S.D. = 5.5), p
S.D. = 4.7), empathic concern (22.2, S.D. = 3.7), personal distress
repair (24.1, S.D. = 3.8), attention to mood (51.9, S.D. = 6.2), and
S.D. = 6.9). Means and standard deviations of the interviewer affective
outcome variables were: similarity (4.5, S.D. = 1.2), liking (5.0, S.D.
(2.2, S.D. = 0.8) and qualification of candidate (3.3, S.D. = 1.3).
Table 2 presents the correlations among the major study variables.
were performed to analyze the relationships among predictor, inte
variables, with the exception of the non-verbal behaviors. Since the ratin
viors provided nominal data (frequency of behaviors in discrete categ
were evaluated with Kruskal-Wallis tests.
Tests of hypotheses
Hypothesis 1. The significant predictors of the interviewer's Decision to Hire rating were general
intelligence and positive affectivity (r = 0.23 and r = 0.32). The significant predictors of the

149.200.35.109 on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:56:58 UTC
Table 2. Correlations among study variables
IQ PI NA PA REP CLA ATT PT EC PD SIM LIK HIRE QUAL MEAN

HIRE
IQ
PI 25 -
NA -12 -21 -
PA 14 24 -23 -
REP 30 35 -22 28 -
CLA 15 19 -36 39 44 -
ATT 07 15 -07 30 21 33 -
PT 07 38 -25 21 24 13 10 -
EC 06 13 09 13 03 -01 28 31 -
PD -34 -25 39 -33 -32 -45 -14 -36 07 -
SIM 28 32 -19 36 04 04 10 19 16 -23 -
LIK 17 22 -01 37 -04 -01 13 12 19 -10 75 -
HIRE 23 16 -14 32 12 11 06 10 07 -18 75 61
QUAL 18 23-09 31 10 09 08 14 06 -14 66 55 75
MEAN 33 30 -18 39 17 16 15 21 15 -19 70 56 83 65
HIRE
MEAN 30 40 -18 42 21 16 13 26 16 -20 68 52 75 81 90
QUAL
Note. IQ = general intelligence; PI = practical intelligence;

REP = repair of mood; CLA = clarity of mood; ATT = atten
concern; PD = personal distress; SIM = similarity; LIK = l
QUAL = interviewer rating of qualification of candidate.
For r > 1181, p < 0.05.
For r > 1231, p < 0.01.
For r> 1311, p < 0.001.
interviewer's Qualification of Candidate rating were

(r = 0.23 and r = 0.31).
For further analysis (not part of the study hy
variables were created using the means of Hired Qu
two independent videotape raters. Using the me
relationships with several of the emotional int
predictors of the mean Decision to Hire rating w
positive affectivity, perspective taking, and pe
-0.19, respectively). The significant predictors o
were general intelligence, practical intelligence, neg
mood, perspective taking, and personal distress
-0.20, respectively). This discrepancy between result
and-observer ratings will be considered in the dis
Table 2 also highlights the orthogonality of gen
variables, negative affectivity, positive affectivity,
taking, and empathic concern (r = -0.12, 0.14, 0.1
variables, only mood repair and personal distres
r = -0.34, p < 0.001). As might be expected, pract
work situations, appears to be both a cognitive a
the relationships of practical intelligence with
(r = -0.21, p < 0.05), positive affectivity (r =
p < 0.001), clarity of mood (r = 0.19, p < 0.05), p
Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Organiz.

J. Sons, Ltd.
Behav. 21, 2

149.200.35.109 on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:56:58 UTC
Table 3. Kruskal-Wallis tests for each non-verbal behavior and hire decision categori
occurrences (of maximum five time samples) and chi-squares
Reject (n = 27) Reserve (n = 35) Accept (n = 54) Chi-Square (

Body position
(i) lay back 0.96 0.83 0.67 0.26
(ii) upright 1.67 2.17 2.61 4.41
(iii) lay forward 1.56 0.86 1.33 2.61
Eye contact
(i) direct 2.70 2.09 3.63 19.63?
(ii) avoidance gaze 0.93 0.57 0.39 3.54
(iii) wandering 0.56 1.20 0.59 2.18
Facial expression
(i) smiling 1.00 0.83 1.59 7.17t
(ii) neutral 3.00 2.91 2.93 0.13
(iii) frowning 0.19 0.11 0.09 0.33
Body movement
(i) shuffling/rocking 0.63 0.31 0.46 2.31
(ii) shoulder shrugging 0.56 0.37 0.56 1.01
(iii) static 2.96 3.14 3.59 3.41
Hand movement
(i) clasped 1.96 1.71 1.91 0.73
(ii) scratching/stroking 0.19 0.09 0.02 3.31
(iii) on knees or legs 0.85 1.00 0.70 0.62
(iv) gesticulating 0.70 0.77 1.63 14.84?
(v) fidgeting 0.48 0.29 0.35 0.11
Head movement
(i) shaking/nodding 1.19 1.69 2.09 5.61*
(ii) general movement 0.48 0.37 0.56 1.73
(iii) static 2.52 1.80 1.96 3.12
*p < 0.10; tp < 0.05; .p < 0.01; ?p < 0.001.
personal distress (r = -0.25, p < 0.01).

both interviewer affect and interview
emotion items suggests that affect var
Hypothesis 2. The Kruskal-Wallis m

used to test the effects of non-verba
analyses of variance were performe
alternatives in each of the six catego
Decision to Hire groups (reject, rese
differences were found for eye contact
Accepted candidates were most likely t
smile (Chi-square = 7.17, p < 0.05), u
and shake or nod the head (Chi-squa
Hypothesis 3. In Table 4 we focus on th

and liking) to predictors (perspective
negative affectivity, non-verbal beha
Copyright ? 2000 J.Wiley

John Organiz. Behav.
& Sons, Lt

149.200.35.109 on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:56:58 UTC
Table 4. Relationships of predictors and outcomes to interviewer

affect (similarity and liking)
Similarity Liking
Predictors
IQ 281 17
Practical Intelligence 32T 22*
Repair of mood 04 -04
Attention to mood 10 13
Clarity of mood 04 00
Perspective taking 19* 12
Empathic concern 16 19*
Personal distress -23* -10
Positive affectivity 361 371
Negative affectivity -19* -01
Outcomes
Decision to Hire 751 61$
Qualification 66: 551
*p< 0.05; tp < 0.01; lp < 0.001.
interview outcomes (decision to hire and

significant predictors of similarity judg
personal distress (r = -0.23, p < 0.05), po
affectivity (r = -0. 19, p < 0.05). Significant
p < 0.05) and positive affectivity (r =
p < 0.001) but not liking.
Hypothesis 4. The relationships between the

outcomes range from r = 0.55 to 0.75, all
Hypothesis 5. In order to test the media

relationship between candidate characteristi
model of the candidate characteristic alon
model of the candidate characteristic and in
If the beta of the candidate characteristic v
second, and the beta of the interviewer aff
evidence of mediation. As seen in Tables 5
liking and similarity mediating the rela
intelligence with both outcomes (decision
supported similarity mediating the relation
Discussion
The present study lends support to the basic premise that it takes more than general intelligence
to do well in an interview. However, the results concerning the specific role of emotional intel-
ligence are mixed. As predicted, some emotional competencies as well as trait affect appear to be

149.200.35.109 on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:56:58 UTC
Table 5. Analysis of mediating role of interviewer affect (similarity)
Dependent variable Independent variable Beta of independent Beta of R2 AR2

(interview outcome) (candidate characteristic) variable similarity
Hire Positive affect 0.32? 0.10?
0.06 0.73? 0.57? 0.47
Hire Personal distress -0.18* 0.03*

-0.01 0.75? 0.56? 0.53
Hire IQ 0.23t 0.05t

0.02 0.75? 0.56? 0.51
Hire Practical intelligence 0.16* 0.02*

-0.09 0.78? 0.57? 0.55
Qualified Positive affect 0.31? 0.10?

0.08 0.63? 0.44? 0.34
Qualified IQ 0.18* 0.03*

-0.01 0.66? 0.43? 0.40
Qualified Practical intelligence 0.23t 0.05t

0.03 0.65? 0.44? 0.39
Note. Standardized parameter estimates are shown. In column

outcome combination, the upper beta is for the candidate cha
both candidate characteristic and interviewer affect in the equ
*p < 0.10; tp < 0.05; tp < 0.01; ?p < 0.001.
Table 6. Analysis of mediating role of interviewer affect (liking)
Dependent variable Independent variable Beta of independent Beta of R2 AR2

(interview outcome) (candidate characteristic) variable liking
Hire Positive affect 0.32? 0.10?
0.11 0.57? 0.38? 0.28
Hire Personal distress -0.18* 0.03*
-0.12* 0.60? 0.39? 0.36
Hire General intelligence 0.23t 0.05t

0.12 0.59? 0.39? 0.34
Hire Practical intelligence 0.16* 0.02*

0.02 0.61? 0.37? 0.35
Qualified Positive affect 0.31? 0.10?

0.13 0.50? 0.31? 0.21
Qualified General intelligence 0.18* 0.03*

0.08 0.53? 0.30? 0.27
Qualified Practical intelligence 0.23t 0.05f

0.12 0.52? 0.31? 0.26
Note. Standardized parameter estimates are shown. In column

outcome combination, the upper beta is for the candidate cha
both candidate characteristic and interviewer affect in the equ
*p < 0.10; tp < 0.05; lp < 0.01; ?p < 0.001.

149.200.35.109 on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:56:58 UTC
related to interview outcomes. The mediation of these relationships (as wel

between general and practical intelligence and interview outcomes) by the interv
response to the candidate (similarity and liking) is supported.
The results fail to support relationships between several of the emotion variab
outcomes. The direct relationships of interest are those between the cand
characteristics and the interviewer's decision to hire and qualification judgments
trait positive affectivity, these relationships are not significant. When the hire
judgments of the interviewer plus two independent videotape judges are ave
place of the interviewer-only ratings, a number of significant relationship
affectivity, perspective taking, and personal distress are associated with the me
rating; positive affectivity, repair of mood, perspective taking, and pers
associated with the mean qualification rating. One possible explanation is th
weakness of using single-item measures of interview outcomes. An alternative e
the interviewer in the study was so occupied with carrying out the experim
relating to the candidate, that he/she was not attending to the same kind
information as were the independent observers. This opens up several theoretica
the extent to which the candidate's Emotional Intelligence may affect both
interviewer's behavior (and thus interview effectiveness) in ways that are
observers but transparent to the participants themselves.
The weakest measure appears to be the Trait Meta-Mood Scale, which was
people's recognition of and responses to their own mood states. In the present st
did not relate to any of the mediating or outcome variables, with the exce
significant relationships between the Mood Repair subscale and qualificati
preliminary stage of emotions research, it is unclear whether the lack of relation
regulation of mood and interview outcomes is due to an inadequate measu
regulation construct, or whether the construct itself is irrelevant to interview
The three subscales of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (measuring co
empathic concern, and personal distress), the Howard and Ferris (1996) check
behaviors, and the positive affectivity scale successfully predicted various aspect
affective response and interview outcomes, as did measures of general and pract
Mood itself was predicted to play a key role in the interview process. The
mood scales, representing the candidates' responses to their own mood state
most interview outcomes. However, since individuals differ in their basic tenden
positive and negative moods (trait affect), it was proposed that a candidate's trai
associated with interview outcomes. In fact, of all the independent variables in t
(but not negative) affectivity was most strongly correlated with both inte
(liking and similarity) and interview outcomes (qualification of candidate an
We can speculate that trait affect may influence interview outcomes in at least
candidate's positive affectivity may simply make her or him appear mor
interviewer, and therefore induce greater liking and perceptions of similarity;
positive baseline mood may facilitate the kinds of cognitive processes that resul
effective candidate interview behaviors; (3) The candidate's positivity may
contagion processes that induce greater positive mood in the interviewer, r
positive evaluative judgments; and (4) The job for which these candidates int
extensive customer service; therefore raters might have viewed cheerfulness as
deliberately choosing candidates who demonstrated positive affectivity.
In summary, the results provide substantial evidence of the-roles of IQ, practi
positive affectivity, empathy, non-verbal behavior, and interviewer perceptions

149.200.35.109 on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:56:58 UTC
liking in interview performance and appraisal. Notably, the orthogonalit

perspective taking and positive affectivity confirm the independent role
petencies and traits in work success.
The current study represents an early, exploratory stage of empirical researc
of the emotional intelligence concept in the workplace. The most serious
research is the lack of specific, measurable operationalizations of the various co
rather vaguely defined notion. Measures such as the trait meta-mood scale and
reactivity index assess the extent to which individuals report engaging in mood
empathic behaviors, but not the success or accuracy of such behaviors. Measure
of these competencies might be better predictors of performance or evalu
alternative to using existing measures of related constructs (such as empathy) m
or test new measures specifically designed to tap the various facets of emotion
for example Mayer et al., in press; Schutte et al., 1998).
Further research is called for to disentangle the effects of general positive af
affect), current positive mood, and immediate positive reactions to ongoing soc
both on the part of the candidate and the interviewer. Our informal observatio
ances of student participants in the current study suggest that nervousn
confidence, and apprehension play a huge role in the interview performan
Empirical studies are needed to investigate the actual affective states of in
relations among actual mood, level of work experience, self-confidence, and int
Techniques of mood induction, such as viewing amusing or disgusting films, s
room with an engaging or aggravating confederate, or receiving bogus po
feedback on a pre-interview task, might be employed. A study design similar to
only randomly assigning subject-candidates to mood-induction conditions w
into the differential roles of state and trait affect on interview performance.
Obviously, these results need replication in field settings with real inter
interviews. Finally, crucial questions remain that have not been adequately
emotional intelligence domain. Can these capabilities and tendencies be tr
improve work outcomes? Is emotional intelligence an immutable ability, w
subject of selection efforts, or a set of skills to be developed with appropriate
formal training? How can job candidates apply our findings to develop more ef
skills, by enhancing their affect recognition, regulation, and expression compe
more, if we can train people to enhance their emotional intelligence will it
interview performance, but job performance as well? The potential value of res
intelligence will be realized only if the insights gained can be applied toward in
being of employees and facilitating success in their work endeavors.
References
Arvey RD. 1979. Unfair discrimination in the employment interview: legal and psychological aspects.
Psychological Bulletin 86: 736-765.
Arvey RD, Campion JE. 1982. The employment interview: a summary and review of recent research.
Personnel Psychology 35: 281-322.
Ashforth BE, Humphrey RH. 1995. Emotion in the workplace: a reappraisal. Human Relations 48: 97-125.
Baron RA. 1988. Impression management by applicants during employment interviews: the 'Too much of a
good thing' effect. In The Employment Interview: Theory, Research, and Practice, Eder RW, Ferris GR
(eds); Sage: Beverly Hills, CA; 204-215.
Copyright t 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 203-220 (2000)

149.200.35.109 on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:56:58 UTC
Baron RA. 1993. Interviewers' moods and evaluations of job applicants: the role of
tions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23: 253-271.
Blaney PH. 1986. Affect and memory: a review. Psychological Bulletin 99: 229-246.
Cardy R, Dobbins GH. 1986. Affect and appraisal accuracy: liking as an integral dim
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 71: 672-678.
Chen PY, Dai T, Spector PE, Jex SM. 1997. Relation between negative affectivity and p
effects of judged desirability of scale items and respondents' social desirability. Jour
Assessment 69: 183-198.
Davis MH. 1996. Empathy: A Social Psychological Approach. Westview Press: Boulder, CO.
Dipboye RL, Gaugler BB. 1993. Cognitive and behavioral processes in the selection interview. In Personne
Selection in Organizations, Schmitt N, Borman WC (eds); Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Forbes RJ, Jackson PR. 1980. Non-verbal behaviour and the outcome of selection interviews. Journal of
Occupational Psychology 53: 65-72.
Forgas JP, Bower GH. 1987. Affect in social and personal judgments. In Affect, Cognition, and Social
Behavior, Fiedler K, Forgas J (eds); Hogrefe International: Toronto.
George JM, Brief AP. 1992. Feeling good-doing good: a conceptual analysis of the mood at work-
organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin 112: 310-329.
Gilmore DC, Ferris GR. 1989. The effects of applicant impression management tactics on interviewer
judgments. Journal of Management 15: 557-564.
Goffman E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday Anchor Books: Garden City, NJ
Goleman D. 1995. Emotional Intelligence: Why it Can Matter More Than IQ. Bantam Books: New York.
Howard JL, Ferris GR. 1996. The employment interview context: social and situational influences on
interviewer decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 26: 112-136.
Hunter JE. 1989. The Wonderlic Personnel Test as a Predictor of Training Success and Job Performance
Michigan State University, Department of Psychology: East Lansing, Michigan.
Isen AM. 1984. Toward understanding the role of affect in cognition. In Handbook of Social Cognition, Vol.
3, Wyer RS Jr, Srull TK (eds); Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ.
Isen AM, Baron RA. 1991. Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior. Research in Organizational
Behavior 13: 1-54.
Isen AM, Daubman KA, Nowicki GP. 1987. Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journa
Personality and Social Psychology 52: 1122-1131.
Keenan A. 1977. Some relationships between interviewers' personal feelings about candidates and th
general evaluation of them. Journal of Occupational Psychology 50: 275-283.
Kemery ER. 1991. Affective disposition, role stress, and job withdrawal. In Perrewe PL (ed.). Handbook o
job stress (special issue). Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 6: 331-347.
Levine EL. 1997. Review of the Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT). Security Journal 8: 179-181.
Mayer JD, Salovey P. 1993. The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence 17: 433-442.
Mayer JD, Salovey P. 1995. Emotional intelligence and the construction and regulation of feelings. Appli
and Preventive Psychology 4: 197-208.
Mayer JD, Salovey P, Caruso DR. (in press). Competing models of emotional intelligence. In Handbook
Human Intelligence, Sternberg R (ed.); Cambridge: New York.
Mayer JD, Stevens AA. 1994. An emerging understanding of the reflective (meta-) experience of mo
Journal of Research in Personality 28: 351-373.
Neisser U, Boodoo G, Bourchard TJ, Boykin AW, Brody N, Ceci SJ, Halpern DF, Loehlin JC, Perloff
Sternberg RJ, Urbina S. 1996. Intelligence: knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist 51: 77-1
Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. 1994. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill: New York.
Parsons CK, Liden RC. 1984. Interviewer perceptions of applicant qualifications: a multivariate field stud
of demographic characteristics and non-verbal cues. Journal of Applied Psychology 69: 557-568.
Salovey P, Mayer JD. 1990. Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality 9: 185-211
Salovey P, Mayer JD, Goldman SL, Turvey C, Palfai TP. 1995. Emotional attention, clarity, and repa
exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. In Emotion, Disclosure, and Heal
Pennebaker J (ed.); American Psychological Association: Washington, DC.
Schmidt FL, Hunter JE. 1981. Employment testing: old theories and new research findings. Americ
Psychologist 36: 1128-1137.
Schutte NS, Malouff JM, Hall LE, Haggerty DJ, Cooper JT, Golden CJ, Dornheim L. 1998. Developm
and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences 25: 167-1

149.200.35.109 on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:56:58 UTC
Staw BM, Barsade SG. 1993. Affect and managerial performance: a test of the
happier-and-smarter hypotheses. Administrative Science Quarterly 38: 304-328.
Sternberg RJ, Wagner RK. 1993. The geocentric view of intelligence and job per
Current Directions in Psychological Science 2: 1-5.
Sternberg RJ, Wagner RK, Williams WM, Horvath JA. 1995. Testing comm
Psychologist 50: 912-927.
Tedeschi JT, Norman N. 1985. Social power, self-presentation, and the self. In Th
Schlenker BR (ed.); McGraw-Hill: New York.
Wagner RK, Sternberg RJ. 1985. Practical intelligence in real-world pursuits: the ro
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49: 436-458.
Watson D, Clark LA. 1984. Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience ave
Psychological Bulletin 96: 465-490.
Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. 1988. Development and validation of brief meas
negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Weiss HM, Cropanzano R. 1996. Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion o
and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational B
Wonderlic Personnel Test, Inc. 1992. Wonderlic Personnel Test and Scholastic Leve
Wonderlic Personnel Test, Inc: Libertyville, IL.

149.200.35.109 on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:56:58 UTC

This Content Downloaded From 149.200.35.109 On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:56:58 UTC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

This Content Downloaded From 149.200.35.109 On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:56:58 UTC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Relations of Emotional Intelligence, Practical Intelligence, General Intelligence, and

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/3100306

This content downloaded from

Relations of emotional intelligence, practical

Industrial/organizational psychologists have long been interested in the relationship between

This content downloaded from

We begin by considering emotional intelligence as conceptualized by Salovey and Mayer (Mayer

This content downloaded from

behavior in natural situations, or practical intelligence (Neisser et al., 19

Empathy is a much-studied area of research that roughly corresponds to sensitivity to the

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

The job interview

The employment interview is a complex social interaction between candidate

This content downloaded from

Figure 1. A model of intelligence, trait affect, and interview outcomes

3. Perspective taking, empathic concern, attention to mood, clarity of moo

This content downloaded from

The components of emotional intelligence, general and practical intelligence, candidates'

General and practical intelligence

This content downloaded from

Emotional intelligence: empathy

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Table 1. Descriptive statistics on study variables

Variable Description n M S.D. Possible Actual Coefficient

This content downloaded from

Table 2. Correlations among study variables

IQ PI NA PA REP CLA ATT PT EC PD SIM LIK HIRE QUAL MEAN

Note. IQ = general intelligence; PI = practical intelligence;

interviewer's Qualification of Candidate rating were

Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Organiz.

This content downloaded from

Reject (n = 27) Reserve (n = 35) Accept (n = 54) Chi-Square (

personal distress (r = -0.25, p < 0.01).

Hypothesis 2. The Kruskal-Wallis m

Hypothesis 3. In Table 4 we focus on th

Copyright ? 2000 J.Wiley

This content downloaded from

Table 4. Relationships of predictors and outcomes to interviewer

*p< 0.05; tp < 0.01; lp < 0.001.

interview outcomes (decision to hire and

Hypothesis 4. The relationships between the

Hypothesis 5. In order to test the media

This content downloaded from

Table 5. Analysis of mediating role of interviewer affect (similarity)

Dependent variable Independent variable Beta of independent Beta of R2 AR2

Hire Personal distress -0.18* 0.03*

Hire IQ 0.23t 0.05t

Hire Practical intelligence 0.16* 0.02*

Qualified Positive affect 0.31? 0.10?

Qualified IQ 0.18* 0.03*

Qualified Practical intelligence 0.23t 0.05t

Note. Standardized parameter estimates are shown. In column

Table 6. Analysis of mediating role of interviewer affect (liking)

Dependent variable Independent variable Beta of independent Beta of R2 AR2

Hire General intelligence 0.23t 0.05t

Hire Practical intelligence 0.16* 0.02*

Qualified Positive affect 0.31? 0.10?

Qualified General intelligence 0.18* 0.03*

Qualified Practical intelligence 0.23t 0.05f

Note. Standardized parameter estimates are shown. In column

This content downloaded from