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
GMA x experience x job performance
murphy’s theory (maintenance stages)
based on Ackerman’s theory - advanced a theory that predicts declining validity over time for GMA in predicting job perf
posits maintenance stages, during which job tasks are well learned and can be performed with minimal mental effort (automatic info processing) → resulting in low or zero GMA validities
has been disconfirmed
traits & variables that affect job performance
personality & job performance
research supports conclusion that personality is less important than GMA in both job perf & determining ultimate occupational level
* conscientiousness - by far the most important personality variable
* neuroticism - appears to have little impact
* extraversion and agreeableness - are sporadically valid: predict perf on certain kinds of jobs under certain conditions but are not related for most jobs
* intergrity tests shown to be valid (but not more than GMA)
O’Boyle et al (2011)
aim/purpose
(meta-analysis - EI vs FFM in predicting job perf)
test whether EI accounts for unique variance in predicting job perf above and beyond the Five Factor Model (FFM) and cognitive ability
+ to compare how the different methods of measuring and conceptualizing EI predict job perf
+ to investigate whether EI measures predict job perf when measures of personality and cognitive intelligence are also included as predictors
O’Boyle et al (2011)
3 streams of EI research
(meta-analysis - EI vs FFM in predicting job perf)
reviewed data on EI & classified the research into 3 streams:
1. a four-branch abilities test based on the model of EI defined by Mayer & Salovey
2. self-report instruments based on the Mayer-Salovey model
3. commercially available tests that go beyond the Mayer-Salovey definition - aka the mixed model
many of the criticisms (e.g. overlaps between EI measures and other personality traits) are inappropriately directed at all three streams of research
* argued that these overlaps occur primarily within the 3rd stream of research
some overlap is reasonable and could be a sign of construct validity because EI should relate to personality variables such as emotional stability → problem would be if the correlations were high enough to indicate that EI was measuring the same underlying traits as the FFM
O’Boyle et al (2011)
hypotheses and results
(meta-analysis - EI vs FFM in predicting job perf)
1a: collectively, all 3 EI streams are significantly and positively correlated with job perf - SUPPORTED
* overall relation between EI and job perf is pos and sig
1b: Individually, each EI stream is significantly and positively correlated with job perf - SUPPORTED
* all 3 streams predicted job perf at roughly equivalent levels
2: EI is positively related to extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness & cog ability BUT negatively related to neuroticism - SUPPORTED
3a: stream 1 measures of EI are more strongly related to cog ability relative to stream 2 and stream 3 measures - SUPPORTED
3b: stream 1 measures will show the lowest relationships with personality measures, stream 2 measures the next lowest, and stream 3 measures the highest relationships with personality measures - SUPPORTED
4: in the presence of the FFM and cog ability, each EI stream exhibits validity and relative importance in predicting job perf
O’Boyle et al (2011)
conclusions
(meta-analysis - EI vs FFM in predicting job perf)
found that all three streams of EI correlated with job perf
* stream 1 ability measures are more closely related to cog intelligence - supports the conceptualization of these measures as a type of intelligence test
* stream 3 researchers now define their measures in terms of traits, competencies, and skills instead of intelligences - results are again consistent with how these measures are defined
* stream 2 measures are significantly different from stream 3 measures for two personality traits - supports the conceptualization of stream 2 as distinct from stream 3 measures
EI yields predictive validity above and beyond the FFM and cognitive ability
EI and leadership
leadership is intrinsically an emotional process
* EI is a key factor in an individual’s ability to be socially effective + is viewed as a key determinant of effective leadership
* high level of EI enables a leader to be better able to monitor how work group members are feeling, and take the appropriate action
Kerr et al (2006)
aim & method
(EI & leadership study)
aim: determine the relationship between supervisory EI and a rating of supervisor effectiveness
measured EI using MSCEIT (based on 4 branch model) - generates 2 domain scores:
1. experiential emotional intelligence (EEI)- assess ability to experience emotion (cumulative score of perceiving and using emotions)
2. reasoning emotional intelligence (REI) - assess ability to strategize about emotion (cumulative score of understanding and managing emotions)
leadership effectiveness measured using survey
Kerr et al (2006)
results
(EI & leadership study)
overall result: the total EI score displayed a strong pos correlation with supervisor ratings
EEI score was highly correlated with supervisor rating
* perceiving - high pos correlation
* using - high pos correlation
REI score showed no sig correlation with supervisor rating
* understanding - non-sig pos correlation
* managing - no sig correlations
Kerr et al (2006)
conclusions
(EI & leadership study)
overall results indicate that an individual’s EI may indeed be a key determinant of effective leadership
* employee perceptions of supervisor effectiveness are strongly related to the EI of the supervisor
* results suggest that half of the MSCEIT scores may act as significantly large predictors of supervisor ratings
