problem 2 - intelligence Flashcards
what is the compensatory model of EI, CI & job perf
proposes that CI moderates the association between EI and job perf, so that the association becomes more positive as CI decreases
compensatory model of EI, CI & job perf
emotional intelligence
(4 branch model by Salovey & Mayer)
is conceptualized as a type of intelligence and as a set of abilities pertaining to emotions
4 subsets of abilities:
1. perceive emotions
2. use emotions to facilitate performance
3. understand emotions and emotional knowledge
4. regulate emotions
compensatory model of EI, CI & job perf
EI & the developmental criteria of an intelligence
conceptual criterion: a construct must reflect abilities rather than tendencies to act in certain ways; based on an important distinction between abilities and personality traits
correlational criterion: a construct must correlate with, yet be different from, other intelligences
* correlations between EI and cognitive and verbal intelligence have been found
developmental criterion: a construct must have the potential to improve over time
* EI can be trained & improved e.g. by learning strategies to manage emotions
compensatory model of EI, CI & job perf
emotional x cognitive intelligence
relationship
EI and CI are separate broad sets of abilities that are sub categorized under general intelligence in the hierarchical model = they should be pos associated
* research shows that people w high CI have high EI (& vice versa)
however, EI and CI do not correspond perfectly
* influence of the familial env explains partially why EI and CI do not correspond perfectly
* ppl may have high EI despite having low CI - could also have low EI despite having high CI
compensatory model of EI, CI & job perf
EI x CI x job performance
relationship
CI is positively related to the dimensions of job perf; task perf and OCB
* CI enhances task perf through task knoweldge
* CI enhances OCB through contextual knowledge
job perf that is not attained through CI may be attained through EI via multiple complementary mechanisms:
1. expertise at identifying and understanding the emotions of other individuals
2. regulating emotion influences the quality of social relationships:
3. effects of emotions on how people think and act
= EI may pos relate to the job perf of organization members with low CI and, as such, compensate for low CI
* EI, however, should become less pos associated with job perf as CI increases
* individuals with high CI are expected to exhibit high job perf = leave little room for correction and improvement
cote & miners (2006)
hypothesis & method
(review - EI & CI on job perf)
hypothesis 1: the association between EI and task perf becomes more pos as CI decreases
hypothesis 2: the association between EI and OCB becomes more pos as CI decreases
method
* controlled for lead-member exchange to rule out an alternative explanation of results
* controlled for big 5 traits - may act as confounding 3rd variables
* controlled for education level, number of hours worked per week & occupation
cote & miners (2006)
results
(review - EI & CI on job perf)
hypothesis 1 - SUPPORTED: interaction between EI & CI predicted task perf
hypothesis 2 - PARTIALLY SUPPORTED:
* interaction between EI & CI predicts OCBO - consistent w hypothesis
* interaction is not related to OCBI
cote & miners (2006)
conclusions
(review - EI & CI on job perf)
EI and Ci are compensatory with respect to task perf and OCBO (but not OCBI)
* EI becomes a stronger predictor of task perf and OCBO as CI decreases
employees with low CI perform tasks correctly and engage in OCBO frequently if they are emotionally intelligent
GMA & attainment of occupational level
results from cross sectional studies
- mean GMA scores clearly increase with occupational level
- although lower level occupations can and do contain very high-scoring individuals, individuals with low GMA scores find it hard to enter higher level occupations
GMA & attainment of occupational level
results from longitudinal studies
- GMA predicted movement in the job hierarchy - those w higher scores moved up & those w lower GMA moved down
- if GMA exceeded the complexity level of their job, they were likely to move into a higher complexity job (& vice-versa)
- GMA predicted later income
GMA & job performance
- GMA is important for academic perf but has little to do with real-world performances after schooling is over
- found that GMA had little relation to performance on the job
- GMA predicts perf on higher level jobs better that it does for lower level jobs
traits & variables that affect job performance
specific aptitude theory
hypothesizes that perf on different jobs requires different cognitive aptitudes
* research has strongly disconfirmed this theory
explanation: specific aptitude tests measure GMA + each measures something specific to that aptitude
* the GMA component appears to be responsible for the prediction of job and training perf
* the factors specific to the aptitudes appear to contribute little or nothing to prediction
GMA x experience x job performance
experience provides medium for learning: more experience = more opportunity to learn
* but individual diffs also imp - some learn faster than others = even w the same amount of experience, one may be at a higher level than another
* it is GMA that turns experience into increased job knowledge and hence higher perf
GMA x experience x job performance
ability differences over time
study: found large diffs between high & low GMA groups at all levels of experience for job knowledge & perf
* also found definite though smaller diffs between the two groups at all levels of experience for perf ratings
* the size of the diff was the same after 5 years as after 1 year of experience
study: found that as level of experience increases, the predictive validity does not decrease → suggests an increase in the validity of GMA for predicting perf ratings as level of worker experience increases
findings indicate that the predictive validity of GMA is at least stable over time and does not decrease
GMA x experience x job performance
ackerman’s theory: consistent vs inconsistent tasks
consistent tasks: simple/noncog → their perf can be automated = draw minimally on cog resources and perf comes over time to show a low correlation with GMA (e.g. riding a bike)
inconsistent tasks: complex → no matter how long they are performed, they continue to draw on cog resources = continue to show a large correlation with GMA over time