-
v
Major Contribu.ons • The MSCEIT is valid. The MSCEIT
contributed addi.onal predic.ve validity a;er controlling for other predictors, providing compelling evidence for the validity of this scale and for the construct of emo.onal intelligence.
• The IA construct demonstrates convergent validity.
• Possible gender difference. Males might
rely more heavily on intelligence for interpersonal judgments than females.
Limita.ons Although this study was the largest study to assess par.cipants on three measures of intelligence, three measures of IA, and the MSCEIT, one could argue that an N = 181 is insufficient for confident conclusions deriving from our moderated mul.ple regression analyses. Replica.ons will be needed.
Future Direc.ons Future studies should take into considera.on the role of gender differences in IA, especially with respect to intelligence and trait empathy. More data regarding the predic.ve validity of the MSCEIT and the construct validity of Emo.onal Intelligence as it relates to performance measures (e.g., IA) are needed. References [1] Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. (2001). Nonverbal recep.vity: The Diagnos.c Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy (DANVA). In J. Hall, F. J. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensi.vity: Theory and measurement (pp. 183-‐198). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers [2] Chris.ansen, N. D., Wolco`-‐Burnam, S., Janovics, J. E., Burns, G. N., & Quirk, S. W. (2005). The good judge revisited: Individual differences in the accuracy of personality judgments. Human Performance, 18(2), 123-‐149. [3] Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: a realis.c approach. Psychological review, 102(4), 652-‐670. [4] Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a mul.dimensional approach. Journal of personality and social psychology, 44(1), 113-‐126. [5] Snyder, M. (1974). Self-‐monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 30(4), 526-‐537. [6] Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of consul.ng and clinical psychology, 33(3), 307-‐316. [7] Raven, J., Raven, J.C., & Court, J.H. (2000). Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales, Sec;on 3: The Standard Progressive Matrices. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corpora.on. [8] O.s, A. S. (1954). Manual of direc.ons for gamma test, forms Am and Bm and new edi.on: Forms Em and Fm. Yonkers-‐on-‐Hudson, NY: World Book Company. [9] Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emo.onal intelligence with the MSCEIT V2. 0. Emo.on, 3(1), 97-‐105.
Predictors of interpersonal accuracy: MSCEIT, empathy, intelligence, and sex Stacy Y. Sim1, Jill A. Brown2, Ph.D., & Frank J. Bernieri3, Ph.D. 1Bowling Green State University, 2University of Toledo, 3Oregon State University
School of Psychological Science
Background The ability to make accurate interpersonal judgments (i.e, interpersonal accuracy; IA) is associated with many posi.ve outcomes, such as social sa.sfac.on and psychological health [1]. These findings have prompted researchers to determine predictors of IA. Although several a`ributes have been iden.fied (e.g., intelligence), a comprehensive examina.on of theore.cally relevant predictors has not been conducted [2,3].
Current Study We examined the construct validity of IA by assessing its convergent validity with four hypothesized predictors: (a) Sex; (b) Empathy; (c) Intelligence; and (d) Emo.onal intelligence.
IA = Sex + Empathy + Intelligence + EIQ . IA was opera.onalized as a composite of three methodologically different tests, each of which having extensive valida.on: (a) The DANVA2 assesses the accuracy of iden.fying emo.onal affect displays; (b) The PONS assesses the accuracy of placing brief nonverbal behavioral displays into their correct social context; and (c) The IPT-‐30 assesses the accuracy of iden.fying true social rela.ons from full video (audio+visual) thin slice s.muli. Four predictors of IA were examined: 1. Sex 2. Trait empathy -‐ Davis IRI EC and PT [4],
Snyder Self-‐Monitoring scale [5], Hogan Empathy scale [6]
3. Intelligence – Raven’s [7], Vocabulary, O.s [8] 4. EmoPonal intelligence -‐ MSCEIT V2.0 [9]
Method N = 181 undergraduates (68 males, 113 females) with a mean age of 22 years old completed the above measures over 10 weeks.
Results
A mul.ple regression analysis (below) suggested that intelligence may be a stronger predictor of IA for men than women (Figure right).
The incremental predic.ve validity of the MSCEIT on IA was significant when entered a;er empathy, intelligence, and sex (Table 3). The MSCEIT is thus a unique and valid predictor of IA over and above sex, intelligence and empathy.
Gender Effect. Further exploratory media.on analyses indicated that intelligence was a par.al mediator for the rela.onship between MSCEIT and IA for men (β = .04, BCa CI [.01, .11], but not women (β = .02, BCa CI [-‐.00, .05].
Interpersonal Accuracy = Sex + Empathy + Intelligence + EmoPonal Intelligence