Intelligence 38 (2010) 137143

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Intelligence

The differential effects of general mental ability and emotional intelligence

on academic performance and social interactions
Lynda Jiwen Song a, Guo-hua Huang b, Kelly Z. Peng c, Kenneth S. Law d,
Chi-Sum Wong d,, Zhijun Chen e
a
b
c
d
e

School of Business, Renmin University of China, China

Department of Management, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong
Department of Business Administration, Hong Kong Shue Yan University, North Point, Hong Kong
Department of Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Department of Management of Organizations, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 25 January 2007
Received in revised form 5 May 2009
Accepted 4 September 2009
Available online 25 September 2009
Keywords:
Emotional intelligence
General mental ability
Academic performance
Social interaction

a b s t r a c t
This study considers the debate about whether emotional intelligence (EI) has incremental
validity over and above traditional intelligence dimensions. We propose that EI and general
mental abilities (GMA) differ in predicting academic performance and the quality of social
interactions among college students. Using two college student samples, we nd support for
the notion that EI and GMA each have a unique power to predict academic performance, and
that GMA is the stronger predictor. However, the results also show that EI, but not GMA, is
related to the quality of social interactions with peers. The theoretical contributions and
implications of the study and some recommendations for future studies are discussed.
2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Over the past two decades, the construct of emotional
intelligence (EI) has received much research attention, but it
has also been one of the most controversial concepts in both the
lay and academic elds of psychology and management (Mayer,
Salovey, & Caruso, 2000). The debate on EI has focused on its
nature and validity as a psychological construct, and one of the
most contentious issues is whether it should be classied as one
of the facets of intelligence (e.g., Mayer, Salovey et al., 2000;
Roberts, Zeidner, & Matthews, 2001). If EI is intelligence in

The work described in this paper was supported by a grant from the
Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
(Project No. CUHK4038/00H).
Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 2609 7794; fax: +852 2603 6840.
E-mail addresses: songjiwen@gmail.com (L.J. Song),
mnhgh@hkbu.edu.hk (G. Huang), kelly.z.peng@gmail.com,
zmpeng@hksyu.edu (K.Z. Peng), mnlaw@cuhk.edu.hk (K.S. Law),
cswong@baf.msmail.cuhk.edu.hk (C.-S. Wong), mnczj@ust.hk (Z. Chen).
0160-2896/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.intell.2009.09.003

nature, then the next crucial question is whether it has an

incremental validity over and above traditional intelligence
dimensions.
In this study, we have sought to provide some answers to
the second question because there is limited empirical evidence
reported in the literature. By adopting the widely accepted
denition of EI as 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: 10), we test whether EI has incremental validity over GMA in predicting academic performance and
the quality of social interactions of students over and beyond
general mental abilities (GMA).
We organize this paper as follows. We begin with a
discussion of the theoretical reasons for the differences
between EI and GMA in predicting the academic performance
of students and the quality of their social interactions, and
then we develop some hypotheses. We then describe two

138

L.J. Song et al. / Intelligence 38 (2010) 137143

studies that we conducted to test the hypotheses on the

incremental predictive validity of EI. Finally, we discuss the
contributions and limitations of the study as a whole.
2. EI, GMA, academic performance, and social interactions
GMA, which is also known as general cognitive ability,
general intelligence, or the g-factor, is a well-researched
construct with impressive supporting evidence for its
capacity to predict important outcomes such as job performance and career success across jobs, settings, and careers
(e.g., Ferris, Witt & Hochwarter, 2001; O'Reilly & Chatman,
1994). In their review of 85 years of research ndings on the
validity of selection methods in personnel psychology,
Schmidt and Hunter (1998) conrmed that the evidence of
the validity of GMA measures in predicting job performance is
stronger than for any other method. Other researchers have
concluded that g is the single most useful worker attribute
for predicting job performance, as a valid predictor in all types
of jobs (Gottfredson, 1986: 330). As g is closely related to
learning abilities, there is also relatively strong evidence of its
predictive power on students' academic performance (e.g.,
Petrides, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004).
Although it is clear that GMA is a valid and important
predictor of human performance, we echo the recent view that
there remains a large amount of variance in performance that
can only be explained by other factors (e.g., Gardner, 1993;
Mayer & Salovey, 1997). EI is a possible factor that may make an
incremental contribution in predicting performance over and
above GMA. First of all, most human performance models argue
that in addition to analytic and reasoning abilities and specic
knowledge, abilities that are related to social interactions are
also important determinants of performance (e.g., Campbell,
1990; Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993). However,
GMA predicts job performance across jobs and settings
primarily by predicting learning and the acquisition of job
knowledge, rather than by predicting the quality of social
interactions (Kuncel, Hezlett, & Ones, 2004; Schmidt & Hunter,
1993; Schmidt, Hunter, & Outerbridge, 1986).
Second, there is evidence that different components and
mechanisms of the brain may be involved in cognitive abilities
and emotional abilities related to social interactions (Hilgard,
1980; Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Neuroscientists are gradually
discovering the biological and physiological details of human
emotions. For example, the amygdala, which is a primitive
system in the brain, has been found to act as an emotional
sentinel without which humans are unable to gauge the
emotional signicance of events (Ekman & Davidson, 1994).
This indicates that some specic brain systems have evolved to
handle emotionally signicant stimuli. Similar to other forms of
human performance, students may need both cognitive
abilities, such as language and reasoning, and emotional
abilities, such as being able to stay calm before and during
examinations in order to perform well academically. Thus, both
GMA and EI should have unique effects on academic performance. In this study, our focus is on the effect of EI, and we
therefore propose the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1. Emotional intelligence has an incremental
power to predict academic performance above and beyond the
effect of general mental abilities.

Furthermore, as EI is more closely related to social interactions, we expect it to have a much greater effect than GMA on the
part of student performance that is related to social interactions.
There is some preliminary evidence in the literature to support
this argument. For example, Lopes, Salovey, Ct, and Beers
(2005) found that the ability to regulate emotions, as measured
by a test of EI, was able to explain the quality of the social
interactions of individuals with their peers, and that the
explanatory power of EI was above and beyond that of the Big
Five personality traits and verbal and uid intelligence. However,
Lopes et al. only used one facet of EI, emotional regulation
abilities, and did not investigate overall EI. In a school setting, one
of the most important types of social interaction among students
is that which occurs with their peers, which leads us to
hypothesize the following.
Hypothesis 2. Emotional intelligence has an incremental
power to predict the quality of the social interactions of students
with their peers above and beyond the effect of general mental
abilities.
3. Study one
3.1. Sample and procedure
Through the student counseling ofce, we approached 506
freshman and sophomore undergraduate students who were
residing in the dormitory of a large university in Shanghai, China.
The students voluntarily participated in a test that measured their
GMA and afterwards completed a questionnaire measuring the
Big Five personality dimensions and demographic variables. After
completing the questionnaire, the student participants were
asked to take two questionnaires to two of their roommates. One
of the roommates was asked to evaluate the degree to which they
liked the focal student participant, and the other was asked to
evaluate the EI of the student participant. The two roommates
were asked to complete the questionnaires and send them back
to the researchers directly. All participants were assured of the
condentiality of their responses. As some of the roommates did
not return their questionnaires, the nal sample size was 222. The
mean age of the participants was 21, and 53% were male. We
obtained details of the academic performance of the participants
from the university three months after the survey.
3.2. Variables and measures
3.2.1. Emotional intelligence
The 16-item Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale
(WLEIS; Wong & Law, 2002) was used by one set of roommates
to evaluate the EI level of the focal student participants. The
scale had been used in China previously (e.g., Wong & Law,
2002; Law, Wong, & Song, 2004). Each of the ability dimensions
under the EI denition was measured using four items with a
ve-point Likert-type response format. The coefcient alphas
for the four dimensions and the total scale were .89, .93, .85, .94,
and .89, respectively. Details of the items and rigorous tests of
the construct validity of the scale were presented by Wong and
Law (2002) and Law, Wong and Song (2004). A recent study
also showed that the scale is more appropriate for Chinese
respondents than Western-developed EI scales (Law, Wong,
Huang & Li, 2008).

L.J. Song et al. / Intelligence 38 (2010) 137143

3.2.2. General mental abilities

We measured GMA using the English version Wonderlic
Personnel Test (WPT; Wonderlic Inc, 1999). This test has been
used worldwide for more than 60 years and has widely
accepted reliability and validity (Geisinger, 2001; Pesta &
Poznanski, 2008). According to the Wonderlic User's Manual,
the average score for high school graduates is about 18.7 and
that for college graduates is around 25.8. The mean score of
our sample was 20.6 with a standard deviation of 6.6.
3.2.3. Academic performance
The formal grade point average (GPA) of the students was
used to represent their academic performance. In the
university from which the sample was taken, a scale of 0 to
100 was used to represent the students' overall academic
performance.
3.2.4. Peer's liking
In this study, we used peer's liking as an indicator of the
quality of the social interaction of the participants. We asked
each selected peer the extent to which they liked the focal
student. This was measured by the 4-item Liking for Subordinates Scale developed by Wayne and Ferris (1990). We
adopted a systematic translation and back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1970) for this scale. We then adjusted the
wording of the items so that they could be used for students'
ratings of their liking for a peer. A sample item was I like this
roommate very much. The ratings were given on a seven-point
Likert-type scale. The coefcient alpha for the sample was .92.
3.2.5. Personality traits
There is evidence suggesting that emotional intelligence is
related to but distinct from the Big Five personality traits (Law,
Wong and Song, 2004). We therefore controlled for the Big Five
traits of personality, as measured by the 80-item adjective scale
developed by McCrae and Costa (1987). The coefcient alphas
of the ve dimensions (neuroticism, extraversion, openness,
agreeableness, and conscientiousness) in this study ranged
from .87 to .92. Law, Wong and Song (2004) used this scale in
the Chinese context.

139

3.2.6. Demographic variables

We controlled for three demographic variables: age, gender,
and the hometown of the students. Age was measured by the
actual number of years of age. We controlled age because it may
inuence the GMA and EI level, according to the developmental
criterion of intelligence (Mayer, Caruso et al., 2000, Mayer,
Salovey et al., 2000; Wong, Foo, Wang & Wong, 2007). Gender
was treated as a dummy variable (1 for male, 2 for female). The
hometown variable indicated whether or not the participants
came from the Shanghai area (0 for students from Shanghai, 1
for students from other areas). This may be an important
variable because of the university admissions policy in China, in
which a greater quota of university places is apportioned to
students from the local area.
3.3. Results
The descriptive statistics, correlations, and coefcient
alphas are shown in Table 1. The results show that most of
the measures had acceptable reliability estimates. The EI scores
did not correlate strongly with the Big Five personality traits,
suggesting that unlike other measures of EI, the WLEIS is only
weakly related to personality. The relationships between GMA
and EI and the outcome variables were as expected.
To test the incremental effect of EI over GMA on the two
dependent variables, we ran two hierarchical regressions. In
the rst and second steps of these regressions, we added the
demographic variables and the Big Five personality dimensions, respectively. In the next step, we added GMA, and then
added the EI scores in the nal step. The results are shown in
Table 2. GMA has a signicant effect on academic performance ( = .27, p < .01), but no effect on peer-rated liking
( = .01, n.s.). EI has an incremental power to predict
academic performance after controlling for GMA and several
other variables ( = .17, R2 = .03, p < .01). Hypothesis 1 is
thus supported. EI also has an effect on peer's liking after
controlling for GMA and several other variables ( = .15,
R2 = .02, p < .05). Hypothesis 2 is thus supported.
Supplementary analyses showed that GMA has some
power to predict academic performance after controlling for

Table 1
Descriptive statistics, reliability coefcients, and correlations a for Study 1.

Age
Gender (1 = male)
Local (0 = local)
Neuroticism
Openness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
GMA
WLEIS
GPA
Peer's liking
a

Mean

S.D.

21.30
1.47
.47
3.32
4.75
4.47
5.30
5.38
20.63
3.52
78.47
3.86

1.00
.50
.50
.93
.96
.91
.73
.78
6.55
.61
5.69
.88

.10
.06
.08
.02
.06
.01
.07
.12
.01
.34
.07

.20
.03
.04
.09
.13
.04
.27
.00
.40
.05

.03
.06
.08
.13
.12
.16
.01
.08
.02

.04
.34
.43

(.87)
.44
.39
.30

(.88)
.37
.14

(.89)
.57

.03
.15
.06
.09

.07
.03
.13
.03

.05
.09
.03
.01

.05
.04
.08
.07

(.87)
.21

n = 222. The internal consistency reliability coefcients (alphas) appear on the diagonal.
p < .05.
p < .01.

10

11

12

(.92)
.01
.13
.18
.06

.14
.41
.03

(.89)
.22
.12

.14

(.92)

140

L.J. Song et al. / Intelligence 38 (2010) 137143

Table 2
Results of the hierarchical multiple regression a on Study 1.
DV = GPA

DV = Liking

Independent variables

Model 1

Model 2

Model 1

Model 2

Age
Gender
Local
Neuroticism
Openness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
GMA
WLEIS
R2
F change
R2
Adjusted model R2

.29
.28
.02
.11
.13
.05
.01
.28
.27

.29
.29
.02
.13
.14
.03
.01
.26
.25
.17
.03
9.66
.43
.40

.05
.01
.02
.11
.02
.07
.20
.11
.02

.05
.02
.02
.13
.02
.06
.21
.12
.01
.15
.02
4.56
.06
.01

.07
23.83
.40
.38

.00
.06
.04
.00

n = 222, p < .05, p < .01. R2 of Model 1 is compared with the model
in which GMA is not included as an independent variable. The coefcients
reported are beta values.

EI. That is, GMA explains some of the variance in academic

performance that cannot be explained by EI. This strengthens
the argument that GMA and EI make unique contributions in
explaining academic performance.
4. Study two
4.1. Purpose
In Study one, we used peer's liking as the indicator of the
quality of social interactions. However, as our participants had
been dormitory mates for almost a year, factors other than
emotional intelligence may have strongly inuenced their
peer's liking ratings. The small amount of variance in peer's
liking explained by EI in Study one may be an indicator of this
problem, and thus the evidence from Study one in support of
Hypothesis 2 is quite weak and may not be convincing. To
create a stronger test of Hypothesis 2, it appears necessary to
have better control over other factors affecting the quality of
social interactions between the student participants, and it was
with this purpose in mind that we designed Study two. In Study
two, we randomly paired college students who were not
familiar with each other to perform a task in a negotiation
context, and we reasoned that the quality of the social
interaction would be well reected in the partner's evaluation
after the interactive negotiation task.
4.2. Sample and procedure
We invited business students from two major universities in
China, 35 from Beijing and 89 from Hong Kong, to participate in
the study. All of the students were taking a human resources
management course. Among the participants, 60.5% were
female. The study involved the following steps. First, we
administered the Eysenck IQ test (Eysenck, 1994), which lasted
for 30 min. Second, the participants completed a questionnaire
that evaluated their own emotional intelligence, positive
affectivity, and personality, which took about 20min. Third,
the students were randomly assigned into pairs. Fourth, they
spent 10 min reading the description of the negotiation task,

which was modied from the Ugli orange exercise (Hall,

Bowen, Lewick & Hall, 1975). In the exercise, the students had
to convince their opponents to give up bidding for the Ugli
orange, which was in limited supply, because they needed the
oranges themselves to save thousands of lives. However, the
truth was that one of the students in the pair needed the juice
whereas the other needed the rind. If they were able to discover
this, then they could cooperate, rather than compete. If they
could not discover this, then they were obliged to go on bidding,
and only one of them obtained the oranges. Fifth, the students
carried out the negotiation task for 20 min. Sixth, after the
negotiation task, the students completed a two-page evaluation
of the negotiation results and of their perception of their
negotiation partner. Finally, we held a debrieng session for the
students.
4.3. Variables and measures
4.3.1. Emotional intelligence
The 16-item WLEIS was used by each participant to
evaluate their own EI level. The coefcient alphas for the four
dimensions and the total scale were .87, .78, .70, .90, and .81,
respectively.
4.3.2. General mental abilities
We measured the GMA of the students using the English
version Eysenck IQ Test (1994). This test provides culture-fair
items that do not require much previous knowledge or a
specic cultural background (Eysenck, 1994, 2006).
4.3.3. Academic performance
The students' grades for the human resources management course were used to indicate their academic performance, and they were collected after the end of the semester
in which the study was conducted. As the students were from
three classes in two universities, we calculated the standardized Z scores to represent their academic performance.
4.3.4. Quality of social interactions
Interpersonal competence is a concept that is often
subsumed in functional adaptation (Cohen, 2003), and we
thus used it as an indicator of the quality of social interactions.
According to Semple, Patterson, Shaw, Grant, Moscona and
Jeste (1999: 127), interpersonal competence refers to the
individual's ability or capacity to solve life problems and to
achieve effective human interactions. Buhrmester, Furman,
Wittenberg and Reis (1988) came up with an Interpersonal
Competence Questionnaire (ICQ) and identied ve domains
of interpersonal competence that include initiation of social
interaction, negative assertion, disclosure, emotional support,
and conict management. Among these domains, those of
emotional support and conict management are the most
relevant to assessing interpersonal competence in dealing with
the conicts and emotions involved in negotiation. Items in
both of these scales are appropriate for others' ratings. A sample
item in the emotional support scale is Being able to show
genuine empathetic concern even when a companion's
problem is uninteresting to you. A sample item in the conict
management scale is Being able to work through a specic
problem with a companion without resorting to global
accusations. We adopted a systematic translation and back-

L.J. Song et al. / Intelligence 38 (2010) 137143

141

Table 3
Descriptive statistics, reliability coefcients, and correlations a for Study 2.

Neuroticism
Openness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Positive Affectivity
Result of Negotiation
GMA
WLEIS
Z-score: Course Grade
Emotional Support
Conict Management

Mean

S.D.

3.65
4.40
4.31
4.88
4.84
3.37
.51
16.96
3.58
.00
3.70
3.71

.88
.99
.88
.71
.82
.56
.50
4.63
.46
.99
.49
.52

(.83)
.20
.04
.47
.48
.28
.02
.03
.45
.19
.11
.10

(.89)
.41
.25
.15+
.26
.02
.18
.40
.00
.10
.07

(.86)
.23
.16+
.38
.05
.02
.16+
.01
.26
.15+

10

11

12

(.87)
.42
.12
.06
.02
.29
.09
.04
.05

(.92)
.42
.06
.11
.55
.31
.13
.24

(.79)
.09
.24
.39
.28
.16+
.11

1.00
.00
.01
.02
.15
.20

1.00
.15+
.22
.11
.11

(.81)
.31
.22
.26

1.00
.00
.02

(.85)
.72

(.86)

+p < .10, p < .05, p < .01.

a
n ranges from 118 to 124. The internal consistency reliability coefcients (alphas) appear on the diagonal.

translation procedure (Brislin, 1970) to render the scales

appropriate for use in a Chinese context.
4.3.5. Control variables
We controlled for personality traits, positive affectivity, and
success in negotiation. The Big Five personality traits were
measured using the same 80-item scale used in Study one. The
coefcient alphas of the ve dimensions in Study two ranged
from .83 to .92. Positive affectivity was measured by the 10item scale of Watson and Clark (1988), and it achieved a
coefcient alpha of .79 for the sample. We included this as a
control variable, because students may give different evaluations of their negotiation opponents simply because they differ
in mood. As for success in negotiation, the negotiation materials
were designed in such a way that the two parties were not
actually in conict. Thus, the success of the negotiation was
reected by whether the pair of students reached this no
conict situation. We coded success in nding out that there
was no real conict as 1 and not being able to detect that point
as 0. This needs to be controlled because the students may have
evaluated their opponents more favorably because the end
result was good. We also tried to control for age and gender, but

found no signicant differences in the results and conclusions.

For simplicity's sake, we do not include these control variables
in reporting the results.
4.4. Results
The descriptive statistics and correlations are presented in
Table 3. The results show that EI was positively related to
academic performance (Course Grade; r = .31, p < .01), and it
was signicantly correlated with the partner's evaluation of
social interactions, including interpersonal support and dealing
with conict (r = .22, p < .05, and r = .26, p < .01, respectively).
These results are consistent with our predictions.
We used hierarchical regression analysis to test our hypotheses, and we presented the results in Table 4. We entered the Big
Five personality traits and GMA as control variables in the rst
block. We then entered EI in the second block. Model 2 shows
that EI has an incremental power to predict academic performance after controlling for GMA and several other variables
( =.24, R2 =.03, p<.05). Hypothesis 1 is thus supported.
Model 4 shows that EI is a marginally signicant predictor of
emotional support after controlling for GMA and several other

Table 4
Results of the hierarchical multiple regression a on Study 2.
DV = Z-score: course grade

DV = emotional support

DV = conict management

Independent variables

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 5

Model 6

Neuroticism
Openness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Positive affectivity
GMA
Negotiation result
WLEIS
R2
F change
R2
Adjusted model R2

.08
.08
.02
.03
.28

.03
.15
.01
.02
.17

.12
.04
.30
.08
.06
.03
.11
.16+

.08
.11
.32
.08
.03
.06
.10
.17+
.23+
.03+
3.64+
.15
.08

.04
.02
.18
.09
.25
.10
.10
.20

.00
.09
.20+
.08
.16
.13
.10
.21
.24
.03
4.06
.16
.09

.20

.19

.14
3.07
.14
.10

.24
.03
4.56
.17
.12

n = 124, + p < .10, p < .05, p < .01. The coefcients reported are beta values.

.12+
1.78+
.12+
.05+

.13+
1.90+
.13+
.06+

142

L.J. Song et al. / Intelligence 38 (2010) 137143

variables (=.23, R2 =.03, p<.10). Model 6 shows that EI has

an incremental power to predict conict management after
controlling for GMA and several other variables ( = .24,
R2 =.03, p<.05). Hypothesis 2 is thus also supported.
5. Discussion
Over the past decade or so, we have observed a rapidly
growing interest in EI both in the popular media and among
researchers in various areas. However, the validity of EI as a
psychological construct is still far from established. There is
limited evidence concerning its incremental contribution over
and above traditional cognitive intelligence in explaining human
performance. In this study, we attempt to provide some evidence
for the incremental contribution of EI in predicting students'
academic and social performance. Our ndings show that EI has a
unique power to predict the academic performance of students
and the quality of their social interactions with peers, after
controlling for GMA and personality traits.
Despite its contribution of providing empirical evidence
about the incremental validity of EI, this study has three
limitations that should be noted and overcome in future
research. First, in Study one, we found very small effects for all
of the independent variables on peer's liking. Although Study
two provides stronger support for the effect of EI on the
quality of social interactions, its conclusions may not be
generalizable to other social situations because we created a
negotiation task for students who were not familiar with each
other. Future research could attempt to investigate additional
indicators of the quality of social interactions in a variety of
social situations to overcome this problem.
Second, our samples are composed of university students,
whose GMA and probably EI may be higher than those of the
overall student population, which includes high school students who cannot get into universities. This range restriction
may have lowered the correlations and subsequent effects of
GMA and EI on the dependent variables. When applied to other
student samples, such as primary and secondary students, the
effects of GMA and EI may even be larger, and it may be
worthwhile for future research to investigate this possibility.
Third, the samples used in the two studies were composed
of Chinese college students. Although there is no evidence to
show that the EI construct and its effects are culturally bound, it
may be worthwhile for future research to use more diverse
samples to strengthen the generalizability of our ndings. For
example, the question of whether EI will become more or less
important if the interacting partner is from another culture is an
interesting topic for future study.
To conclude, we have found support that EI has a unique
power to predict the academic performance of college
students and the quality of their social interactions with
peers. We call for further validation of the construct,
particularly the differing effects of EI and other traditional
intelligence dimensions as proposed in this study.
References
Brislin, R. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 1, 185216.
Buhrmester, D., Furman, W., Wittenberg, M., & Reis, H. (1988). Five domains
of interpersonal competence in peer relationships. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 55, 9911008.

Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in

industrial and organizational psychology. In L. M. Hough (Ed.), Handbook
of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 1 (2nd ed (pp. 687732).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Opper, S. H., & Sager, C. E. 1993. A theory of
performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, & Associates (Eds.). Personnel
selection in organizations: 35-70.
Cohen, C. I. (2003). Schizophrenia into later life: Treatment, research and policy.
Washington, DC: APA Publishing.
Ekman, P., & Davidson, R. J. (Eds.). (1994). The nature of emotion: Fundamental
questions New York: Oxford University Press.
Eysenck, H. (1994). Test Your IQ. Toronto: Penguin Books.
Eysenck, H. (2006). The structure and measurement of intelligence. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publisher.
Ferris, G. R., Witt, L. A., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2001). Interaction of social skill
and the general mental ability on job performance and salary. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86(6), 10751082.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. NY: BasicBooks.
Geisinger, K. (2001). Review of the Wonderlic Personnel Test and scholastic
level exam. In B. S. Plake, & J. C. Impara (Eds.), The fourteenth mental
measurements yearbook (pp. 13601363). Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute
of Mental Measurements.
Gottfredson, L. S. (1986). Societal consequences of the g factor in
employment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 379410.
Hall, D. T., Bowen, D. D., Lewick, R. J., & Hall, F. S. (1975). Experiences in
management and organizational behavior. Chicago: St. Clair Press.
Hilgard, E. R. (1980). The trilogy of mind: Cognition, affection, and conation.
Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 16, 107117.
Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2004). Academic performance,
career potential, creativity, and job performance: Can one construct
predict them all? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86,
148161.
Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct validity of emotional
intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89(3), 483496.
Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., Huang, G. H., & Li, X. (2008). The effects of emotional
intelligence on job performance and life satisfaction for the research and
development scientists in China. Asia Pacic Journal of Management, 25(1),
5169.
Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., Ct, S., & Beers, M. (2005). Emotion regulation
ability and the quality of social interaction. Emotion, 5, 113118.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In D. J.
Sluyter (Ed.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 331).
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2000). Emotional intelligence meets
traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27(4), 267298.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Emotional intelligence as
zeitgeist, as personality and as a mental ability. In R. Bar-On, & J. D. A.
Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 92117). New York:
Jossey-Bass.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation of the Five-Factor Model of
personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52(1), 8190.
O'Reilly, C. A., III, & Chatman, J. A. (1994). Working Smarter and Harder: A
longitudinal study of managerial success. Administrative Science Quarterly,
39, 603627.
Petrides, K. V., Frederickson, N., & Furnham, A. (2004). The role of trait
emotional intelligence in academic performance and deviant behavior at
school. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 277293.
Pesta, B. J., & Poznanski, P. J. (2008). Black-white differences on IQ and grades:
The mediating role of elementary cognitive tasks. Intelligence, 36,
323329.
Roberts, R. D., Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2001). Does emotional
intelligence meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new
data and conclusions. Emotion, 1, 196231.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1993). Tacit knowledge, practical intelligence,
general mental ability and job knowledge. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 2, 89.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical
implications of 85 years of research ndings. Psychological Bulletin, 124,
262274.
Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., & Outerbridge, A. H. (1986). Impact of job
experience and ability on job knowledge, work sample performance, and
supervisory ratings of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,
432439.
Semple, S. J., Patterson, T. L., Shaw, W. S., Grant, I., Moscona, S., & Jeste, D. V.
(1999). Self-perceived interpersonal competence in older schizophrenia
patients: the role of patient characteristics and psychosocial factors. Acta
Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 100, 126135.

L.J. Song et al. / Intelligence 38 (2010) 137143

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 10631070.
Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Inuence tactics, affect, and exchange
quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment
and eld study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487499.
Wonderlic Inc. (1999). Wonderlic Personnel Test and Scholastic Level Exam
User's Manual.

143

Wong, C. S., Foo, M. D., Wang, C. W., & Wong, P. M. (2007). The feasibility of
training and development of EI: An exploratory study in Singapore, Hong
Kong and Taiwan. Intelligence, 35, 141150.
Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional
intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. Leadership
Quarterly, 13, 243274.