Discussion: Emotional Intelligence & Social Psychologists

Journal of Applied Psychology 2004, Vol. 89, No. 3, 483– 496 Copyright 2004 by the American Psychological Association 0021-9010/04/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.483 The Construct and Criterion Validity of Emotional Intelligence and Its Potential Utility for Management Studies Kenneth S. Law Chi-Sum Wong Hong Kong University of Science and Technology The Chinese University of Hong Kong Lynda J. Song 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. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology In this study, the authors reviewed the definition of emotional intelligence (EI) and argued that EI is conceptually distinct from personality.

.

In Study 1, the authors showed that EI was related to yet distinct from personality dimensions and that it had incremental predictive power on life satisfaction. The authors examined the construct validity of self-reports and others’ ratings of EI using two samples in Study 2. In a student sample, parents’ ratings explained additional variance in the students’ life satisfaction and feelings of powerlessness after controlling for the Big Five personality dimensions. In the work sample, peer ratings were found to be significant predictors of job performance ratings provided by supervisors after controlling for the Big Five personality dimensions. Other implications for future research on EI are discussed. views of EI, some researchers continue to develop new and revised EI measures (see, e.g., Salovey, Mayer, Caruso, & Lopes, in press; Schutte et al., 1998; Stough & Palmer, 2002), whereas others continue to take a conservative position and question the usefulness of EI for serious scientific research (see, e.g., Petrides & Furnham, 2000). The major purposes of this study are threefold. First, we review the definition and domain of the EI construct and argue that when EI is properly defined, it is conceptually distinct from personality dimensions. Discussion: Emotional Intelligence & Social Psychologists

.

Second, we examine a newly developed EI scale under the generally agreed EI definition and demonstrate empirically that as measured by this new scale, EI is distinct from personality dimensions. Third, in addition to conceptual and empirical distinctiveness, we also try to establish the predictive validity of EI in social and organizational settings. We use self- and others’ ratings of EI to investigate its construct validity using multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) analyses. Furthermore, we illustrate the incremental predictive power of others’ ratings of EI on psychological and work outcomes, over and above personality dimensions, using a series of hierarchical regression analyses. Emotional intelligence (EI) has been an emerging topic among social and organizational psychologists in recent years (see, e.g., Fineman, 1993; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Schutte et al., 2001). There have been serious academic discussions on whether EI is an elusive construct (Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998) on its dimensions (Salovey & Mayer, 1990), and on whether it should be considered as an intelligence dimension (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2000a; Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Proponents of the EI construct have argued that it is distinct from traditional personality traits and general mental ability and that it is a meaningful construct that can be used to explain various psychological and managerial phenomena. These proponents have developed various EI-related scales to measure the construct.

.

However, some scholars have voiced strong reservations concerning the reliability and validity of these scales. For example, Davies et al. (1988) reviewed all of the existing EI-related scales and demonstrated, through exploratory factor analyses, that most of the scales had salient cross-loadings on personality dimensions. However, Wong and Law (2002) reexamined the definition and domain of the EI construct and developed a new EI scale. Using this new EI scale, they showed that on top of general mental abilities (GMAs), EI was a good predictor of job performance. Given these opposing Definition and Domain of EI Psychology and management researchers were interested in studying human emotions long before the construct of EI was proposed. Salovey and Mayer (1990) were among the earliest to suggest the name emotional intelligence to refer to the ability of a person to deal with his or her emotions. They defined EI as “the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (p. 189). Despite this early definition of EI, there has been confusion regarding the exact meaning and domain of this construct. During the early stage of the development of the EI Kenneth S. Law and Lynda J. Song, Department of Management of Organizations, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong; Chi-Sum Wong, Department of Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. The work described in this article was supported by a Grant CUHK4038/00H from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Project No. CUHK4038/00H). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kenneth S. Law, Department of Management of Organizations, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay Road, Hong Kong. E-mail: mnlaw@ust.hk 483 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. 484 LAW, WONG, AND SONG construct, different researchers used slightly different definitions of EI, which has led to some variations in the domain of the construct. As Mayer et al. (2000a) commented, some of “these alternative conceptions of emotional intelligence [italics added] include not only emotion and intelligence per se, but also motivation, non-ability dispositions and traits, and global personal and social functioning” (p. 268). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi; Bar-On, 1997) is a well-known EI scale that belongs to this category. Among various academics who have contributed to the development of the EI construct, two groups of scholars have been of prime importance. They are Davies et al. (1998) and Salovey and Mayer (1990). In 1998, Davies et al. qualitatively summarized the EI literature and developed from it a four-dimensional definition of EI. However, they did not develop any measure of EI. Instead, they used earlier work on EI and a group of EI-related measures to show that these measures loaded on the same factors as the Big Five personality dimensions. On the basis of these cross-loadings in a series of exploratory factors analyses, Davies et al. concluded that EI was elusive as a construct. Ironically, while building up the foundation of EI by drawing a four-dimensional definition of EI from the literature, they used early EI scales that were not based on this four-dimensional definition and concluded that EI was an elusive construct. Two years later, Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey (2000b) used a slightly different definition of EI and developed the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale. Discussion: Emotional Intelligence & Social Psychologists

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CUSTOM PAPERS

Mayer et al. followed the conceptualization developed by Salovey and Mayer (1990; Mayer & Salovey, 1997) and defined EI as a set of interrelated skills that can be classified within the following four dimensions: the ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emotion; the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth. (Mayer & Salovey, 1997, p. 10) Although the definitions of EI used by Davies et al. (1998) and Mayer et al. (2000b) were not identical, the differences in the definitions were minor. As Ciarrochi, Chan, and Caputi (2000) commented in a review of the EI literature, “while the definitions of EI are often varied for different researchers, they nevertheless tend to be complementary rather than contradictory” (p. 540). They further pointed out that “in general, the various measures (of EI) cover [italics added] . . . four distinct areas: emotion perception, regulation, understanding, and utilization” (p. 540). In this study, we use the four-dimensional definition of EI developed by Davies et al. (1998). These four EI dimensions are as follows: 1. Appraisal and expression of emotion in oneself. This relates to an individual’s ability to understand his or her deep emotions and to be able to express emotions naturally. People who have good ability in this area will sense and acknowledge their emotions better than most people. 2. Appraisal and recognition of emotion in others. This relates to an individual’s ability to perceive and understand the emotions of the people around them.

.

People who rate highly in this ability will be very sensitive to the emotions of others as well as able to predict others’ emotional responses. 3. Regulation of emotion in oneself. This relates to the ability of a person to regulate his or her emotions, enabling a more rapid recovery from psychological distress. A person with high ability in this area would be able to return quickly to normal psychological states after rejoicing or being upset. Such a person would also have better control of his or her emotions and would be less likely to lose his or her temper. 4. Use of emotion to facilitate performance. This relates to the ability of a person to make use of his or her emotions by directing them toward constructive activities and personal performance. A person who is highly capable in this dimension would be able to encourage him- or herself to do better continuously. He or she would also be able to direct his or her emotions in positive and productive directions. We use Davies et al.’s (1998) definition of EI because it is more representative of the entire EI literature. Davies et al.’s review considered Mayer and Salovey’s (1997; Salovey & Mayer, 1990) definition of EI. In addition, Davies et al.’s definition of EI is, in fact, quite similar to that of Mayer and Salovey and also matches well with Ciarrochi et al.’s (2000) summary of the four basic areas of EI. Davies et al.’s definition of the dimensions of EI allows us to focus on the nature and characteristics of the EI construct. Nature of EI EI has its roots in the concept of social intelligence first identified by Thorndike in 1920.

.

Thorndike (1920) defined social intelligence as “the ability to understand and manage men and women, boys and girls—to act wisely in human relations” (p. 228). Following Thorndike’s ideas, Gardner (1993) included interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences in his theory of multiple intelligences. According to Gardner, social intelligence, which is one among seven intelligence domains, comprises an individual’s interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences. Intrapersonal intelligence relates to one’s ability to deal with oneself and to “symbolize complex and highly differentiated sets of feelings” (p. 239) within the self. Interpersonal intelligence relates to one’s ability to deal with others and to “notice and make distinctions among other individuals and, in particular, among their moods, temperaments, motivations and intentions” (p. 239). EI can be viewed as a combination of the intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligence of an individual. Given its roots in social intelligence, Mayer et al. (2000a) argued that the conceptual background of EI met traditional standards for intelligence measures. They highlighted three criteria that qualify EI as a facet of intelligence. These are conceptual, correlational, and developmental criteria. The conceptual criterion requires that EI reflect mental abilities instead of preferred ways of behaving. Intelligence refers to the ability of a person. Gardner (1993) defined intelligence as “the ability [italics added] to solve problems, or to fashion products, that are valued in one or more cultural or community settings” (p. 7).

.

To fulfill the conceptual criterion and label EI as an intelligence facet, one must provide evidence that EI is not a personality trait or a preferred way of behaving but is itself a set of abilities. We argue conceptually that EI is defined as a set of abilities on the basis of its theoretical definition. We also cite empirical evidence that EI has been shown to be distinct from personality dimensions as follows. As defined earlier, EI consists of a set of abilities that a person uses to understand, regulate, and make use of his or her emotions. Emotional understanding, regulation, and utilization reflect the capability of a person to manage his or her emotions. Some people 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. CONSTRUCT AND CRITERION VALIDITY OF EI have higher competence to do so; some have less competence. As a particular type of competence, EI is different from personality traits that reflect tendencies to think, feel, and behave in certain ways. In this competence sense, the four-dimensional definition qualifies EI as abilities and, therefore, as one possible facet of intelligence (see, e.g., Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer et al., (2000a); Salovey & Mayer, 1990). There is also empirical evidence that EI abilities are distinct from personality traits. When developing the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale, Mayer and Salovey (1997) provided some preliminary data to show that EI was different from personality traits. Wong and Law (2002) also showed in multiple samples that EI as measured under Davies et al.’s (1998) four-dimensional definition, was empirically distinct from the Big Five personality dimensions. Mayer et al.’s (2000a) second criterion is the correlational criterion. Discussion: Emotional Intelligence & Social Psychologists

.

If EI is an intelligence facet, it “should represent a set of correlated abilities that are similar to, but distinct from, mental abilities” (p. 270). In other words, if EI is an intelligence facet, it should correlate with other intelligence facets, such as GMAs. These correlations cannot be too high (discriminant validity), nor can they be too low (convergent validity). Both Mayer et al. and Wong and Law (2002) showed empirically that the dimensions of EI were moderately correlated among themselves but only mildly correlated with general mental abilities. There is, therefore, some empirical evidence that EI meets the correlational criterion of an intelligence facet. Mayer et al.’s (2000a) third argument that EI could be conceptualized as an intelligence facet is that intelligence should be developmental in nature. The verbal ability of a person, for example, should increase as one becomes more mature. Wong, Wong, and Law (2002) found that EI is positively correlated with age among incumbents of six different types of jobs. Mayer et al. also showed with a series of studies, that EI increased with age and experience, which qualifies it as an ability rather than a personality trait. Discriminant and Predictive Validity of EI On the basis of the above discussion, it is clear that the definition and domain of EI have been gradually established. It also seems clear, however, that further and stronger evidence that EI possesses the three basic characteristics of an intelligence facet as suggested by Mayer et al. (2000a) is needed. To establish the construct validity of EI, we need to “demonstrate its partial (or complete) independence from other, seemingly analogous, concepts” (Davies et al., 1998, p. 989). As mentioned earlier, Davies et al. (1998) factor analyzed some existing EI-related scales and personality measures in multiple samples and concluded that EI was elusive.

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CUSTOM PAPERS

One possible reason for Davies et al.’s (1998) finding is that the EI-related scales used in their investigations were early scales related to EI. During that time, a definition of EI had not been systematically developed. Davies et al. also admitted that the scales they identified were only EI-related scales. These scales were not developed according to the four-dimensional view then proposed by Davies et al. In fact, some earlier scales had not even been identified as EI scales by their developers. The use of these scales in identifying EI may, therefore, be questionable and unfair. In response to the findings by Davies et al., Wong and Law (2002) developed a new EI scale (labeled as the Wong and Law EI Scale, 485 or WLEIS1 for easy reference) following the four-dimensional definition of EI as introduced by Davies et al. Wong and Law used both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) in the scale development and validation process to show that EI as measured by the WLEIS, was distinct from the Big Five personality dimensions. To examine the overall usefulness of the EI construct, we used CFA in this study to compare the distinctiveness of the WLEIS and various EI-related scales included in the Davies et al. study from the Big Five personality dimensions. On the basis of the data collected, we found that the WLEIS was distinct from the Big Five personality dimensions, although they were moderately correlated because of conceptual overlaps. Because EI is conceptualized as an intelligence facet, it is an ability measure instead of a personality measure.

.

This leads to our first hypothesis, which is the core focus of Study 1: Hypothesis 1: EI is distinct from, but correlated with, the Big Five personality dimensions. The construct validity of the WLEIS was further investigated by the MTMM method with self- and others’ ratings of EI. In Study 2, we deliberately chose two criterion variables from the EI literature, life satisfaction and powerlessness, which should have positive and negative correlations with EI, respectively. Life satisfaction was used as a criterion variable because proponents of EI have argued that theoretically, life satisfaction should be positively related to EI. Intrapersonal emotional recognition and management helps an individual deal with his or her emotions. A person with high EI should be able to recognize his or her emotions, to regulate those emotions, and to use them to facilitate performance. As a result, this person should be happier as a whole in life. Several empirical studies have provided evidence of this positive relationship (e.g., Wong & Law, 2002; Wong et al., 2002). Powerlessness refers to the extent to which one regards one’s experiences as being fatalistically determined, in contrast with their being under one’s control (Pearlin & Schooler, 1978). Specifically, powerlessness is similar to a temporal variable showing one’s state of mind toward one’s control over life problems and experiences. A person with high EI would be less affected by his or her emotions, be able to direct emotions in a positive direction, and have lower chances of feeling depressed. EI also includes a dimension of understaning others’ emotions. A person with high EI would also be able to interpret others’ moods correctly and therefore have a higher chance of forming close relationships and getting social support in general. As a result, this person should be less likely to feel powerless. There is some evidence in the literature that feelings of powerlessness are related to negative emotions such as sadness and fear (e.g., Roseman, Dhawan, Rettek, & Naidu, 1995). These ideas lead to our second and third hypotheses: Hypothesis 2: EI is positively associated with life satisfaction. Hyp … Discussion: Emotional Intelligence & Social Psychologists.