Journal of Organizational Behavior J. Organiz. Behav.

21, 203220 (2000)

Relations of emotional intelligence, practical intelligence, general intelligence, and trait aectivity with interview outcomes: it's not all just `G'
SUZY FOX*1 AND PAUL E. SPECTOR2
1 2Department

Institute of Human Resources and Industrial Relations, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL 60611, U.S.A. of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, U.S.A.

Summary

Emotional intelligence was conceptualized as competencies that may enable people to use emotions advantageously to achieve desired outcomes. Measures of three components of emotional intelligence (empathy, self-regulation of mood, and self-presentation) as well as aective traits ( positive and negative aectivity) and general and practical intelligence were related to a major facet of work success, job interview performance. A sample of 116 undergraduates participated in a simulated job selection experience, consisting of paper and pencil tests and a videotaped structured interview. Results partially supported the proposed model. Some but not all of the aect and ability measures were related to interview outcomes, both directly and mediated by the interviewer's aective response ( perceived similarity and liking). In addition to measures of emotional intelligence, measures of general and practical intelligence were associated with interview outcomes, but the orthogonality of IQ and the major emotion variables argue for the unique contributions of emotional intelligence and trait aect to interview success. Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction
Industrial/organizational psychologists have long been interested in the relationship between intelligence and work success. In addition to the kinds of knowledge, skills, and abilities traditionally associated with task performance, success in today's work organizations may require a more personal conguration of competencies, such as self-management, selfpresentation, empathy, and interpersonal sensitivity. This set of competencies, dealing with the recognition, regulation, and expression of moods and emotions, is currently receiving considerable attention in the academic and business literatures. The competencies can arguably be subsumed under the rubric of `Emotional Intelligence', but the label is not central to the
* Correspondence to: Suzy Fox, Institute of Human Resources and Industrial Relations, Loyola University Chicago, 820 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60611, U.S.A. E-Mail: sfox1@luc.edu

CCC 08869383/2000/02020318$17.50 Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

204

S. FOX AND P. E. SPECTOR

argument of this paper. The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship of these competencies and other aect-related variables to work success, in particular to favorable outcomes in that critical career gateway, the job interview. We focus on the interview due to its well-documented sensitivity to subjective intrapersonal and interpersonal processes. The selection literature (Arvey, 1979; Arvey and Campion, 1982; Baron, 1989, 1993; Dipboye and Gaugler, 1993; Forbes and Jackson, 1980; Gilmore and Ferris, 1989; Howard and Ferris, 1996; Isen and Baron, 1991; Keenan, 1977; Parsons and Liden, 1984) provides ample evidence that employment interview outcomes can depend to a large extent on both candidate and interviewer aective experience and manipulation. Much of this literature is concerned with aective processes that reduce rating accuracy and interview validity. In contrast, an emotional intelligence approach investigates the kinds of personal characteristics and competencies which may be associated with more successful interview outcomes for the individual. One key factor may be the candidate's adeptness at manipulating the aective responses of the interviewer (or the observer, in multi-rater interview situations). Successful interviewees will make the interviewers or observers like them and feel good about them, perhaps involving competencies of empathy, self-presentation, and tactical use of non-verbal expression. A separate consideration in the job interview is the candidate's ability to recognize and regulate her or his own moods and feelings. Here the emphasis is on the self-induction and/or maintenance of the candidate's own good mood. Positive mood increases retrieval of a more extensive set of related and positively toned material from memory, more inclusive categorization, and more unusual associations to neutral wordscognitive behaviors associated with problem-solving innovation and creativity (Forgas and Bower, 1987; Isen, 1984; Isen et al., 1987). In a job interview, a candidate in a positive mood may be more likely to recall, construe, and describe incidents of past work performance in a self-enhancing way, may be more likely to project a condent and competent self, and may be more adept at dealing creatively with unexpected questions. In the current study, we investigate relationships among the candidate's aective competencies and traits, the interviewer's aective responses to the candidate, and interview outcomes. Figure 1 depicts a model of the interview process, in which the candidate's competencies associated with emotional intelligence (empathy, self-regulation of mood, and employment of non-verbal behaviors in self-presentation) and aective traits are associated with interview outcomes (ratings of candidate qualication and decision to hire). These relationships are mediated by the interviewer's aective responses toward the candidate ( perceived similarity and liking). The emphasis of this study on emotional intelligence and traits is not intended to deny the importance of either general or practical intelligence. The usefulness of general and practical intelligence in predicting job performance is well-documented (Schmidt and Hunter, 1981; Sternberg and Wagner, 1993). Therefore, the respective contributions of trait aect and three conceptualizations of intelligencegeneral, practical, and emotionalto interview ratings are evaluated and compared.

Emotional intelligence
We begin by considering emotional intelligence as conceptualized by Salovey and Mayer (Mayer and Salovey, 1993, 1995; Salovey and Mayer, 1990) and popularized by Goleman (1995). The notion of emotional intelligence arises out of the search for a set of measurable tendencies and capabilities which, in addition to IQ, may serve as valid predictors of academic, occupational, and life success. Emotional intelligence draws on a research tradition which focuses on intelligent
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 203220 (2000)

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INTERVIEW OUTCOMES

205

behavior in natural situations, or practical intelligence (Neisser et al., 1996; Sternberg and Wagner, 1993; Sternberg et al., 1995; Wagner and Sternberg, 1985). In contrast to abstract academic intelligence, practical intelligence is directed at one's short- and long-range goals, and is employed to solve problems important to one's emotions, well-being, needs, plans, and survival. The notion of emotional intelligence is based on several competencies and tendencies related to the experience of moods and emotions (one's own and those of others) that contribute to successful navigation of our social environments, and as such may be considered a subset of practical intelligence. Salovey and Mayer (1990) justify the designation of `emotional intelligence', because it requires processing of specic emotional information from within the organism, and because some level of competence at these skills is necessary for adequate social functioning. They distinguish three mental processes involving emotional information: (1) appraising and expressing emotions in the self and others; (2) regulating emotion in the self and others; and (3) using emotions adaptively to achieve ones goals. These processes can be linked to three research themes in the psychological and social psychological literature: empathy, self-presentation, and self-regulation of mood.

Empathy
Empathy is a much-studied area of research that roughly corresponds to sensitivity to the emotional cues of others. The term `empathy' has been used to refer to two distinct phenomena, cognitive empathy (role taking) and aective reactivity (Davis, 1996). Cognitive role taking is when one person attempts to understand another by imagining the other's perspective. It is the ability to understand the other person's psychological point of view, including her/his likely reaction to one's own behavior. The ability to manoeuvre through complicated social situations based on one's ability to predict the responses of other social actors is one component of empathy that corresponds to the appraisal component of emotional intelligence (Salovey and Mayer, 1990). In the job interview, eective monitoring of the interviewer's emotional responses may provide the candidate with valuable cues for ne-tuning the interview performance. Aective reactivity, on the other hand, refers to emotional outcomes experienced by the observer in response to (usually distressed) emotional displays by another person. In a stressful job interview situation, aective reactivity may interfere with the desired self-presentation. Consistent with the following review of the role of mood in interview performance, this occurrence may be linked to the reduction of the candidate's positive mood or the induction of negative mood in the interviewer through emotional contagion processes.

Self-presentation
Erving Goman's (1959) classic work, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, crafts a powerful portrayal of self-presentation in the service of strategic goal attainment in interpersonal relationships. In social interactions between two individuals, each partner uses information about the other to help dene the situation and clarify mutual expectations. The problem is that the `true' attitudes, beliefs, and emotions of another individual can be ascertained only indirectly. Non-verbal expressions are generally taken as `authentic' or `ungovernable' representations of true feelings; therefore, the individual who is skillful in controlling these `ungovernable' behaviors is at a distinct advantage in the exchanges that serve to create impressions and dene social situations. Goman further argues that, particularly in situations with potentially
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 203220 (2000)

206

S. FOX AND P. E. SPECTOR

important consequences such as job interviews, the individual will devote considerable preparation and thought to creating a favorable impression and forestalling any unfavorable impression that might be conveyed by ungovernable expressions. Thus the interviewee's skillful management of non-verbal behaviors may be a key factor in the assertive self-presentation strategy (Tedeschi and Norman, 1985) of the successful job candidate.

Regulation of mood
Another link between our concept of emotional intelligence and work success derives from the pervasive inuence of mood, in particular positive mood, on many of the fundamental social, psychological, and intellectual processes at the heart of organizational work (Ashforth and Humphrey, 1995; George and Brief, 1992; Isen and Baron, 1991). Mood has been studied not only in terms of its eect on an organizational actor, but also in terms of an individual's attempts to manipulate mood in others. There is evidence that the emotionally astute employee may be able to reap many signicant benets from inducing positive aect in important others at work (Isen and Baron, 1991). `Such persons are evaluated more favorably in performance appraisals, are more likely to be hired after a job interview, are more likely to obtain concessions from opponents in bargaining contexts, are more likely to obtain needed help from other organization members, and are more likely to develop favorable working relations with their bosses.' ( p. 38). A related competency is the attempt to manipulate mood in oneself. Mayer and Stevens (1994) note that self-regulation may occur at both unconscious and conscious levels, ranging from automatic repression of feelings to highly self-reective regulation of both our mood and our thoughts about that mood (meta-mood).

Trait aect
Watson et al. (1988) examined tendencies to experience particular kinds of aect. They distinguished among high and low levels of positive aect (PA) and negative aect (NA). These `mood dispositional dimensions' can be viewed as pervasive individual dierences in positive and negative emotionality and self-concept (Watson and Clark, 1984) or as personality traits, which predict people's general emotional tendencies (Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996). Note that most of the mood studies cited above involved temporarily and experimentally induced mood. However, since the objective of regulating one's own mood is usually to put oneself in a more positive mood when it is useful to do so, it follows that individuals who generally tend to be in more positive moods may be at an advantage. Staw and Barsade (1993) suggest that dispositional aect, which tends to be stable over time, may be a more useful predictor of organizational performance precisely because it allows for a continual attitudinal and aective inuence on behavior. They argue that this may particularly apply to those components of managerial work that have been shown to be enhanced by positive aect, such as interpersonal persuasion. Thus we propose that positive trait aect, while not a component of emotional intelligence per se, can be expected to contribute to the aective dynamics of interpersonal processes involved in the job interview.
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 203220 (2000)

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INTERVIEW OUTCOMES

207

The job interview

The employment interview is a complex social interaction between candidate and interviewer. Emotions inuence the outcomes of this interaction on many levels, including trait aect, aective responses of both candidate and interviewer, and eorts of each party to manipulate the emotions of the other. Research suggests that positive aect (of the interviewer) tends to elevate evaluations of job applicants, particularly when the applicants' job qualications are ambiguous (Baron, 1993; Isen and Baron, 1991). In interview studies, interviewers recalled more aect-consistent information than aect-inconsistent information. Raters in more positive moods recalled more positive information about the candidates than did raters in less positive moods, which is consistent with mood congruence theory (Blaney, 1986; Isen, 1984). Raters in positive moods reported using more inclusive, integrative decision-making strategies, contributing to increased positive rating error such as generalized halo (Isen and Baron, 1991). Baron (1993) suggests that candidates with ambiguous qualications are most likely to benet from tactics designed to enhance their interviewer's aect, such as impression management, manipulation of non-verbal cues, and establishment of similarity with the interviewer. Keenan (1977) found that interviewers assess candidates more favorably if they hold similar attitudes. Since social psychology research has demonstrated that attitude similarity can lead to interpersonal attraction, Keenen proposed that interviewers tend to personally like candidates whom they perceive to be similar to themselves, and to prefer candidates whom they like personally. Cardy and Dobbins (1986) found liking to have a signicant eect on performance rating accuracy, biasing causal attributions for ratee behaviors and producing leniency or severity eects. Arvey and Campion (1982) summarize studies demonstrating that non-verbal communication such as eye contact, smiling, head moving, posture, interpersonal distance, body orientation, energy level, voice modulation, and speech uency inuence ratings of candidates in job interviews. Howard and Ferris (1996) suggest that applicant impression management behaviors (non-verbal and self-promotion) arouse interviewer aect and perceptions of similarity and competence, which in turn inuence job suitability ratings and acceptance decisions. The current study investigates candidates' use of aective and non-verbal behaviors (such as smiling and nodding), which may serve to present the self in the most favorable light, induce or enhance positive mood in the interviewer, increase aective judgments of similarity and liking, and ultimately contribute to desired interview outcomes.

Hypotheses
The model depicted in Figure 1 represents a subset of the complex intra- and interpersonal processes involved in a selection interview. Based on the model the following hypotheses were tested: 1. Measures of general intelligence, practical intelligence and trait positive aectivity will be positively associated, and negative aectivity will be negatively associated with interview outcomes (decision to hire and qualication of candidate). 2. A measure of applicant self-presentation during the interview will demonstrate signicant associations between interview outcome ratings and non-verbal behaviors.
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 203220 (2000)

208

S. FOX AND P. E. SPECTOR

Figure 1. A model of intelligence, trait aect, and interview outcomes

3. Perspective taking, empathic concern, attention to mood, clarity of mood, mood repair, general intelligence, practical intelligence, and positive aectivity will correlate positively and personal distress and negative aectivity will correlate negatively with interviewer aect (liking and similarity). 4. Interviewer aect (liking and perceived similarity) will be positively associated with interview outcomes (qualication of candidate and decision to hire). 5. Interviewer aect (liking and perceived similarity) will mediate the relationship between the candidate characteristic variables and interview outcomes.

Method
Subjects
Participants were 116 undergraduate students at the University of South Florida, representing a broad spectrum of academic majors, including psychology, biology, chemistry, communications and speech, health sciences, and business. Participants tended to have considerable experience, both as students and in the workplace. Approximately 65 per cent were juniors, seniors, or fthyear students. Work experience averaged 47 months (S.D. 46), with over 70 per cent of the students having worked at least two years.
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 203220 (2000)

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INTERVIEW OUTCOMES

209

Procedure
The interview study was conducted in the university Career Resource Centre, adding to the psychological realism of the simulated interview. The primary researcher introduced each participant to the simulated selection process, and instructed him or her to assume the role of job applicant. The candidate was provided with a job description, which included a brief summary and detailed task listing for an entry-level management position as assistant store manager in a national drug-store chain. The job description emphasized general supervisory and customer service responsibilities, as well as entry into the healthcare/pharmaceutical industry. Next the participant lled out two selection instruments, paper and pencil tests of general and practical intelligence. The candidate proceeded to the interview room, where one of six research assistants, playing the role of company interviewer, conducted a 1015 minute videotaped structured interview. The research assistants were trained to present a neutral facade, but to respond to the com munication styles of the candidates appropriately. For example, the interviewer would not initiate smiling, but would respond to smiles with smiles. All candidates were paired with interviewers of the same gender, to eliminate possible contamination by irtation in the interpersonal dynamics of this young group of participants and research assistants. All research assistants (both interviewers and post-hoc videotape raters) were informed that the study concerned selection interview performance. They were unaware of the focus on aect and emotional intelligence, and were therefore blind to the research hypotheses. Following the interview, the participant completed the Trait Meta-Mood Scale, Interpersonal Reactivity Index and the Positive AectNegative Aect Schedule (PANAS: Watson et al., 1988). Finally, the primary researcher debriefed the participant, provided constructive feedback on the interview performance while viewing the videotape together, and gave the participant a brochure containing interviewing tips.

Measures
The components of emotional intelligence, general and practical intelligence, candidates' trait aect, interviewers' aective responses, and interview outcomes were operationalized with existing, validated measures. General and practical intelligence General intelligence was measured with the Wonderlic Personnel Test (1992)1 Numerous published studies provide evidence of the test's reliability and usefulness in predicting success in training, on-the-job performance, and satisfaction with job demands (Hunter, 1987; Levine, 1997; Wonderlic, 1992). Practical intelligence (also referred to as situational judgment) was measured with Smith and McDaniel's (1998Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX) Work Problems Survey. Applicants are presented with written descriptions of workplace scenarios involving problems with co-workers, problems with the work itself, and problems with the supervisor, and asked to identify how they would behave in the situation. Of ve alternative courses of action, the applicant selects the action he or she would most likely take and the action he or she would least
1

The WPT is a proprietary test and was donated by the Wonderlic Personnel Test, Inc. for use in this research.

Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 203220 (2000)

210

S. FOX AND P. E. SPECTOR

likely take in the situation. The scoring key was developed by Smith and McDaniel (1998poster session), based on subject matter experts' accumulation and evaluation of critical incidents. Points are added to or subtracted from the score for selecting particular alternatives identied in the key.

Trait aect A measure of trait aect was provided by the PANAS. The PANAS can be variably used to assess subjects' feelings within dierent time frames (e.g., right now, today, past week, past year, generally), thus measuring either experienced mood (state aect) or pervasive disposition (trait aect or aectivity) (Chen et al., 1997). Used in the `general' timeframe, the PANAS has become a widely used measure of trait aect in organizational research (see for example Kemery, 1991). We prefaced the 20 PANAS items by asking respondents to indicate the extent to which they have generally felt such ways as interested, excited, nervous, hostile, proud, and afraid, thus tapping the trait aect construct. Response choices ranged from 0 (does not describe me well) to 4 (describes me very well). Scores from the 10 items measuring positive general aect were summed to form a Positive Aectivity (PA) subscale. Scores from the remaining 10 items measuring negative aect formed a Negative Aectivity (NA) subscale.

Emotional intelligence: empathy Empathy is measured with the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI: Davis, 1996), consisting of four separate but related constructs: perspective taking, empathic concern, personal distress, and fantasy. The rst three were used in the current study. Perspective taking (PT) is the reported tendency to spontaneously adopt or attempt to adopt other people's psychological points of view in everyday life. This is part of the process of social role taking, and is often used as a measure of cognitive empathy. Empathic concern (EC) is the tendency to experience feelings of sympathy and compassion for unfortunate others. The EC scale measures the tendency to respond to distress with reactive response of sympathy/compassion, which is considered an aective outcome. Personal distress (PD) is the tendency to experience distress and discomfort in response to extreme distress in other people, or aective reactivity. Like the EC scale, the PD scale assesses aective outcomes, but in this case the emotion is primarily focused on the observer rather than the target. Each scale consists of seven items, which are rated on a ve-point scale ranging from 0 (does not describe me well) to 4 (describes me very well).

Emotional intelligence: self-regulation of mood Self-regulation of mood was measured with the Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS: Salovey et al., 1996). This scale was developed to assess individual dierences in skills in identifying one's own feelings and feelings of others, regulating these feelings, and using information provided by feelings to motivate adaptive social behaviorclosely paralleling Salovey and Mayer's (1990) earlier delineation of mental processes associated with Emotional Intelligence. The TMMS consists of three scales: Attention to Feelings, Clarity of Feelings, and Mood Repair. Each scale consists of 10 items, which are rated on a ve-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 203220 (2000)

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INTERVIEW OUTCOMES

211

Emotional intelligence: non-verbal behavior Goman (1959) considered non-verbal communication to be a particularly powerful component of self-presentation in critical situations such as job interviews, because while it tends to be taken by the observer as an ungovernable representation of the actor's `true' self, a skillful actor may manipulate it strategically to create desired impressions. To the extent to which non-verbal behaviors are employed to manage the interviewer's aective response to the candidate, they may be considered a component of emotional intelligence. Non-verbal behavior of the applicant was assessed at a later date by a dierent research assistant (not the interviewer), who rated a videotape of the interview using a time sampling coding schedule (Forbes and Jackson, 1980). At the conclusion of every time interval, the tape was paused, and the rater coded the behavior of the candidate at that moment on six classes of non-verbal behavior: body position, eye contact, facial expression, body movement, hand movement, and head movement. For each non-verbal class, the rater checked the description that most closely resembled the applicant's behavior. For example, at the time the tape was paused, the rater checked whether the candidate's facial expression was smiling, neutral, or frowning. Forbes and Jackson (1980) reported that four independent judges using this coding scheme were in `almost total agreement' on the ratings, suggesting that the specicity of the behavioral descriptions within each class of non-verbal behaviors minimized subjective bias. Mediator: interviewer aective response The intermediate construct of interviewer aective response to the candidate was operationalized as ratings of similarity and liking. Using two subscales developed by Howard and Ferris (1996), the interviewer evaluated the applicant's similarity to her/himself and the interviewer's own liking of the applicant. Interview outcomes: global judgments The interviewer rated each candidate immediately following the interview. In the Decision to Hire item, the interviewer recommended that the applicant be oered a job, put on a reserve list, or rejected outright. In the Qualication of Candidate item, the candidate was rated on a ve-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all qualied) to 5 (highly qualied). For a second set of outcome variables, at a later date two additional judges viewed and rated the videotaped interviews. Their Hire and Qualication ratings were averaged with the interviewer's ratings to provide mean Hire and Qualication variables. Except where mean ratings are specied, all data analysis used the interviewer-only ratings, reecting our emphasis on interviewers' responses to candidates' aective characteristics.

Results
Descriptive statistics on all study variables are presented in Table 1. Included are sample sizes, means, standard deviations, possible ranges, observed ranges, and coecient alphas. Note that
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 203220 (2000)

212

S. FOX AND P. E. SPECTOR

Table 1. Descriptive statistics on study variables Variable Description n M S.D. Possible range 050 434 1050 1050 028 028 028 630 1365 1155 17 17 13 15 Actual range 736 329 1750 1036 428 1328 021 1530 3565 2655 16.8 2.86.5 13 15 0.87 0.83 0.79 0.73 0.84 0.68 0.76 0.83 0.87 0.76 Coecient alpha

Candidate characteristics IQ Wonderlic personnel test (general intelligence) PI Work problems survey ( practical intelligence) PA Positive aectivity NA Negative aectivity PT Perspective taking EC Empathic concern PD Personal distress REP Mood repair ATT Attention to mood CLA Clarity of mood Interviewer aective responses SIM Perceived similarity LIK Liking Interview outcomes HIRE Decision to hire QUAL Qualication of candidate

116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116

22.8 19.5 39.7 18.9 20.0 22.2 9.3 24.1 51.9 41.4 4.5 5.0 2.2 3.3

5.2 4.7 5.8 5.5 4.7 3.7 5.3 3.8 6.2 6.9 1.2 0.8 0.8 1.3

with the exception of the Mood Repair subscale of the TMMS (alpha 0.68), all alphas fall comfortably above the 0.70 minimum for reliability recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). Alphas for positive and negative aectivity were 0.87 and 0.83; alphas for the empathy variables ( perspective taking, empathic concern, and personal distress) were 0.79, 0.73. and 0.84; alphas for the meta-mood variables (repair, attention and clarity) were 0.68, 0.76 and 0.83; alphas for perceived similarity and liking were 0.87 and 0.76. Means and standard deviations of the candidate characteristic variables for the 116 subjects were as follows: IQ (22.8, S.D. 5.2), practical intelligence (19.5, S.D. 4.7), positive aectivity (39.7, S.D. 5.8), negative aectivity (18.9, S.D. 5.5), perspective taking (20.0, S.D. 4.7), empathic concern (22.2, S.D. 3.7), personal distress (9.3, S.D. 5.3), mood repair (24.1, S.D. 3.8), attention to mood (51.9, S.D. 6.2), and clarity of mood (41.4, S.D. 6.9). Means and standard deviations of the interviewer aective responses and interview outcome variables were: similarity (4.5, S.D. 1.2), liking (5.0, S.D. 0.8), decision to hire (2.2, S.D. 0.8) and qualication of candidate (3.3, S.D. 1.3). Table 2 presents the correlations among the major study variables. Zero-order correlations were performed to analyze the relationships among predictor, intermediate, and outcome variables, with the exception of the non-verbal behaviors. Since the ratings of non-verbal behaviors provided nominal data ( frequency of behaviors in discrete categories), these relationships were evaluated with KruskalWallis tests.

Tests of hypotheses
Hypothesis 1. The signicant predictors of the interviewer's Decision to Hire rating were general intelligence and positive aectivity (r 0.23 and r 0.32). The signicant predictors of the
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 203220 (2000)

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INTERVIEW OUTCOMES

213

Table 2. Correlations among study variables IQ IQ PI NA PA REP CLA ATT PT EC PD SIM LIK HIRE QUAL MEAN HIRE MEAN QUAL PI NA PA REP CLA ATT PT EC PD SIM LIK HIRE QUAL MEAN HIRE

25 12 21 14 24 23 30 35 22 28 15 19 36 39 44 07 15 07 30 21 33 07 38 25 21 24 13 10 06 13 09 13 03 01 28 31 34 25 39 33 32 45 14 36 28 32 19 36 04 04 10 19 17 22 01 37 04 01 13 12 23 16 14 32 12 11 06 10 18 23 09 31 10 09 08 14 33 30 18 39 17 16 15 21 30 40 18 42 21 16 13 26

07 16 19 07 06 15 16

23 10 18 14 19 20

75 75 66 70 68

61 55 56 52

75 83 75

65 81

90

Note. IQ general intelligence; PI practical intelligence; NA negative aectivity; PA positive aectivity; REP repair of mood; CLA clarity of mood; ATT attention to mood; PT perspective taking; EC empathic concern; PD personal distress; SIM similarity; LIK liking; HIRE interviewer rating of decision to hire; QUAL interviewer rating of qualication of candidate. For r 4 j18j, p 5 0.05. For r 4 j23j, p 5 0.01. For r 4 j31j, p 5 0.001.

interviewer's Qualication of Candidate rating were practical intelligence and positive aectivity (r 0.23 and r 0.31). For further analysis (not part of the study hypotheses), two additional interview outcome variables were created using the means of Hire and Qualication ratings by the interviewer and two independent videotape raters. Using the mean Hire and Qualication ratings, signicant relationships with several of the emotional intelligence variables emerged. The signicant predictors of the mean Decision to Hire rating were general intelligence, practical intelligence, positive aectivity, perspective taking, and personal distress (r 0.33, 0.30, 0.39, 0.21, and 0.19, respectively). The signicant predictors of the mean Qualication of Candidate rating were general intelligence, practical intelligence, negative aectivity, positive aectivity, repair of mood, perspective taking, and personal distress (r 0.30, 0.40, 0.18, 0.42, 0.21, 0.26, and 0.20, respectively). This discrepancy between results using interviewer-only versus interviewerand-observer ratings will be considered in the discussion section. Table 2 also highlights the orthogonality of general intelligence (IQ) to the candidate aect variables, negative aectivity, positive aectivity, clarity of mood, attention to mood, perspective taking, and empathic concern (r 0.12, 0.14, 0.15, 0.07, 0.07, and 0.06, all n.s.). Of the aect variables, only mood repair and personal distress are associated with IQ (r .30, p 5 0.01 and r 0.34, p 5 0.001). As might be expected, practical intelligence (PI), a measure of judgment in work situations, appears to be both a cognitive and an aect-laden construct. Noteworthy are the relationships of practical intelligence with IQ (r 0.25, p 5 0.01), negative aectivity (r 0.21, p 5 0.05), positive aectivity (r 0.24, p 5 0.01), mood repair (r 0.35, p 5 0.001), clarity of mood (r 0.19, p 5 0.05), perspective taking (r 0.38, p 5 0.001), and
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 203220 (2000)

214

S. FOX AND P. E. SPECTOR

Table 3. KruskalWallis tests for each non-verbal behavior and hire decision categories: mean number of occurrences (of maximum ve time samples) and chi-squares Reject (n 27) Body position (i) lay back (ii) upright (iii) lay forward Eye contact (i) direct (ii) avoidance gaze (iii) wandering Facial expression (i) smiling (ii) neutral (iii) frowning Body movement (i) shuing/rocking (ii) shoulder shrugging (iii) static Hand movement (i) clasped (ii) scratching/stroking (iii) on knees or legs (iv) gesticulating (v) dgeting Head movement (i) shaking/nodding (ii) general movement (iii) static 0.96 1.67 1.56 2.70 0.93 0.56 1.00 3.00 0.19 0.63 0.56 2.96 1.96 0.19 0.85 0.70 0.48 1.19 0.48 2.52 Reserve (n 35) Accept (n 54) 0.83 2.17 0.86 2.09 0.57 1.20 0.83 2.91 0.11 0.31 0.37 3.14 1.71 0.09 1.00 0.77 0.29 1.69 0.37 1.80 0.67 2.61 1.33 3.63 0.39 0.59 1.59 2.93 0.09 0.46 0.56 3.59 1.91 0.02 0.70 1.63 0.35 2.09 0.56 1.96 Chi-Square (d.f. 2) 0.26 4.41 2.61 19.63} 3.54 2.18 7.17{ 0.13 0.33 2.31 1.01 3.41 0.73 3.31 0.62 14.84} 0.11 5.61* 1.73 3.12

* p 5 0.10; { p 5 0.05; {p 5 0.01; }p 5 0.001.

personal distress (r 0.25, p 5 0.01). Thus, while general and practical intelligence relate to both interviewer aect and interview outcomes, the orthogonality of IQ to several of the key emotion items suggests that aect variables are independent predictors of interview success. Hypothesis 2. The KruskalWallis methodology suggested by Forbes and Jackson (1980) was used to test the eects of non-verbal behavior on interview outcomes. Separate KruskalWallis analyses of variance were performed to evaluate the dierential frequency of behavioral alternatives in each of the six categories of non-verbal behavior, in the three discrete global Decision to Hire groups (reject, reserve, or accept). As shown in Table 3, signicant group dierences were found for eye contact, facial expression, hand movement and head movement. Accepted candidates were most likely to show direct eye contact (Chi-square 19.63, p 5 0.001), smile (Chi-square 7.17, p 5 0.05), use hands to gesticulate (Chi-square 14.84, p 5 0.001), and shake or nod the head (Chi-square 5.61, p 5 0.10). Hypothesis 3. In Table 4 we focus on the relationships of interviewer aect ( perceived similarity and liking) to predictors ( perspective taking, empathic concern, personal distress, positive and negative aectivity, non-verbal behaviors, general intelligence and practical intelligence) and
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 203220 (2000)

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INTERVIEW OUTCOMES

215

Table 4. Relationships of predictors and outcomes to interviewer aect (similarity and liking) Similarity Predictors IQ Practical Intelligence Repair of mood Attention to mood Clarity of mood Perspective taking Empathic concern Personal distress Positive aectivity Negative aectivity Outcomes Decision to Hire Qualication
* p 5 0.05; { p 5 0.01; { p 5 0.001.

Liking 17 22* 04 13 00 12 19* 10 37{ 01 61{ 55{

28{ 32{ 04 10 04 19* 16 23* 36{ 19* 75{ 66{

interview outcomes (decision to hire and qualication of candidate). Of the aect variables, signicant predictors of similarity judgments are perspective taking (r 0.19, p 5 0.05), personal distress (r 0.23, p 5 0.05), positive aectivity (r 0.36, p 5 0.001), and negative aectivity (r 0.19, p 5 0.05). Signicant predictors of liking are empathic concern (r 0.19, p 5 0.05) and positive aectivity (r 0.37, p 5 0.001). IQ predicts similarity (r 0.28, p 5 0.001) but not liking. Hypothesis 4. The relationships between the interviewer's similarity and liking and the interview outcomes range from r 0.55 to 0.75, all at the p 5 0.001 level of signicance. Hypothesis 5. In order to test the mediating role of interviewer aect on each signicant relationship between candidate characteristic and interview outcome, we compared the regression model of the candidate characteristic alone on the interview outcome with the corresponding model of the candidate characteristic and interviewer aect combined on the interview outcome. If the beta of the candidate characteristic variable is signicant in the rst model but not the second, and the beta of the interviewer aect variable in the second model is signicant, we have evidence of mediation. As seen in Tables 5 and 6, results were consistent with both interviewer liking and similarity mediating the relationships of positive aectivity, IQ, and practical intelligence with both outcomes (decision to hire and qualication of candidate). Results also supported similarity mediating the relationship of personal distress with decision to hire.

Discussion
The present study lends support to the basic premise that it takes more than general intelligence to do well in an interview. However, the results concerning the specic role of emotional intelligence are mixed. As predicted, some emotional competencies as well as trait aect appear to be
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 203220 (2000)

216

S. FOX AND P. E. SPECTOR

Table 5. Analysis of mediating role of interviewer aect (similarity) Dependent variable (interview outcome) Hire Hire Hire Hire Qualied Qualied Qualied Independent variable (candidate characteristic) Positive aect Personal distress IQ Practical intelligence Positive aect IQ Practical intelligence Beta of independent variable 0.32} 0.06 0.18* 0.01 0.23{ 0.02 0.16* 0.09 0.31} 0.08 0.18* 0.01 0.23{ 0.03 Beta of similarity 0.73} 0.75} 0.75} 0.78} 0.63} 0.66} 0.65} R2 0.10} 0.57} 0.03* 0.56} 0.05{ 0.56} 0.02* 0.57} 0.10} 0.44} 0.03* 0.43} 0.05{ 0.44} DR2

0.47 0.53 0.51 0.55 0.34 0.40 0.39

Note. Standardized parameter estimates are shown. In columns 3 and 4, for each candidate characteristic by interview outcome combination, the upper beta is for the candidate characteristic alone in the equation, and the lower beta is for both candidate characteristic and interviewer aect in the equation. * p 5 0.10; { p 5 0.05; { p 5 0.01; } p 5 0.001.

Table 6. Analysis of mediating role of interviewer aect (liking) Dependent variable (interview outcome) Hire Hire Hire Hire Qualied Qualied Qualied Independent variable (candidate characteristic) Positive aect Personal distress General intelligence Practical intelligence Positive aect General intelligence Practical intelligence Beta of independent variable 0.32} 0.11 0.18* 0.12* 0.23{ 0.12 0.16* 0.02 0.31} 0.13 0.18* 0.08 0.23{ 0.12 Beta of liking 0.57} 0.60} 0.59} 0.61} 0.50} 0.53} 0.52} R2 0.10} 0.38} 0.03* 0.39} 0.05{ 0.39} 0.02* 0.37} 0.10} 0.31} 0.03* 0.30} 0.05{ 0.31} DR2

0.28 0.36 0.34 0.35 0.21 0.27 0.26

Note. Standardized parameter estimates are shown. In columns 3 and 4, for each candidate characteristic by interview outcome combination, the upper beta is for the candidate characteristic alone in the equation, and the lower beta is for both candidate characteristic and interviewer aect in the equation. * p 5 0.10; { p 5 0.05; { p 5 0.01; } p 5 0.001.

Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 203220 (2000)

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INTERVIEW OUTCOMES

217

related to interview outcomes. The mediation of these relationships (as well as relationships between general and practical intelligence and interview outcomes) by the interviewer's aective response to the candidate (similarity and liking) is supported. The results fail to support relationships between several of the emotion variables and interview outcomes. The direct relationships of interest are those between the candidate's emotional characteristics and the interviewer's decision to hire and qualication judgments. Except for the trait positive aectivity, these relationships are not signicant. When the hire and qualication judgments of the interviewer plus two independent videotape judges are averaged and used in place of the interviewer-only ratings, a number of signicant relationships emerge. Positive aectivity, perspective taking, and personal distress are associated with the mean decision to hire rating; positive aectivity, repair of mood, perspective taking, and personal distress are associated with the mean qualication rating. One possible explanation is the methodological weakness of using single-item measures of interview outcomes. An alternative explanation is that the interviewer in the study was so occupied with carrying out the experimental task or with relating to the candidate, that he/she was not attending to the same kinds of qualication information as were the independent observers. This opens up several theoretical issues, such as the extent to which the candidate's Emotional Intelligence may aect both the candidate's and interviewer's behavior (and thus interview eectiveness) in ways that are evident to outside observers but transparent to the participants themselves. The weakest measure appears to be the Trait Meta-Mood Scale, which was developed to tap people's recognition of and responses to their own mood states. In the present study, the TMMS did not relate to any of the mediating or outcome variables, with the exception of small but signicant relationships between the Mood Repair subscale and qualication rating. In this preliminary stage of emotions research, it is unclear whether the lack of relationship between selfregulation of mood and interview outcomes is due to an inadequate measure of the selfregulation construct, or whether the construct itself is irrelevant to interview performance. The three subscales of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (measuring cognitive empathy, empathic concern, and personal distress), the Howard and Ferris (1996) checklist of non-verbal behaviors, and the positive aectivity scale successfully predicted various aspects of interviewer aective response and interview outcomes, as did measures of general and practical intelligence. Mood itself was predicted to play a key role in the interview process. The self-regulation of mood scales, representing the candidates' responses to their own mood states, failed to predict most interview outcomes. However, since individuals dier in their basic tendencies to experience positive and negative moods (trait aect), it was proposed that a candidate's trait aect would be associated with interview outcomes. In fact, of all the independent variables in the study, positive (but not negative) aectivity was most strongly correlated with both intermediate variables (liking and similarity) and interview outcomes (qualication of candidate and decision to hire). We can speculate that trait aect may inuence interview outcomes in at least four ways: (1) The candidate's positive aectivity may simply make her or him appear more attractive to the interviewer, and therefore induce greater liking and perceptions of similarity; (2) The candidate's positive baseline mood may facilitate the kinds of cognitive processes that result in instrumentally eective candidate interview behaviors; (3) The candidate's positivity may set o emotional contagion processes that induce greater positive mood in the interviewer, resulting in more positive evaluative judgments; and (4) The job for which these candidates interviewed required extensive customer service; therefore raters might have viewed cheerfulness as a job requirement, deliberately choosing candidates who demonstrated positive aectivity. In summary, the results provide substantial evidence of the roles of IQ, practical intelligence, positive aectivity, empathy, non-verbal behavior, and interviewer perceptions of similarity and
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 203220 (2000)

218

S. FOX AND P. E. SPECTOR

liking in interview performance and appraisal. Notably, the orthogonality of IQ to both perspective taking and positive aectivity conrm the independent role of emotional competencies and traits in work success. The current study represents an early, exploratory stage of empirical research on applications of the emotional intelligence concept in the workplace. The most serious weakness in such research is the lack of specic, measurable operationalizations of the various components of this rather vaguely dened notion. Measures such as the trait meta-mood scale and the interpersonal reactivity index assess the extent to which individuals report engaging in mood-regulatory and empathic behaviors, but not the success or accuracy of such behaviors. Measures of successful use of these competencies might be better predictors of performance or evaluation outcomes. An alternative to using existing measures of related constructs (such as empathy) might be to develop or test new measures specically designed to tap the various facets of emotional intelligence (see for example Mayer et al., in press; Schutte et al., 1998). Further research is called for to disentangle the eects of general positive aectivity (trait aect), current positive mood, and immediate positive reactions to ongoing social transactions, both on the part of the candidate and the interviewer. Our informal observations of performances of student participants in the current study suggest that nervousness, lack of selfcondence, and apprehension play a huge role in the interview performance of individuals. Empirical studies are needed to investigate the actual aective states of interviewees, and the relations among actual mood, level of work experience, self-condence, and interview outcomes. Techniques of mood induction, such as viewing amusing or disgusting lms, sharing a waiting room with an engaging or aggravating confederate, or receiving bogus positive or negative feedback on a pre-interview task, might be employed. A study design similar to the current study, only randomly assigning subject-candidates to mood-induction conditions would oer insight into the dierential roles of state and trait aect on interview performance. Obviously, these results need replication in eld settings with real interviewers and real interviews. Finally, crucial questions remain that have not been adequately addressed in the emotional intelligence domain. Can these capabilities and tendencies be trained in order to improve work outcomes? Is emotional intelligence an immutable ability, which might be the subject of selection eorts, or a set of skills to be developed with appropriate experience and/or formal training? How can job candidates apply our ndings to develop more eective interview skills, by enhancing their aect recognition, regulation, and expression competencies? Furthermore, if we can train people to enhance their emotional intelligence will it not only improve interview performance, but job performance as well? The potential value of research in emotional intelligence will be realized only if the insights gained can be applied toward increasing the wellbeing of employees and facilitating success in their work endeavors.

References
Arvey RD. 1979. Unfair discrimination in the employment interview: legal and psychological aspects. Psychological Bulletin 86: 736765. Arvey RD, Campion JE. 1982. The employment interview: a summary and review of recent research. Personnel Psychology 35: 281322. Ashforth BE, Humphrey RH. 1995. Emotion in the workplace: a reappraisal. Human Relations 48: 97125. Baron RA. 1988. Impression management by applicants during employment interviews: the `Too much of a good thing' eect. In The Employment Interview: Theory, Research, and Practice, Eder RW, Ferris GR (eds); Sage: Beverly Hills, CA; 204215. Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 203220 (2000)

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INTERVIEW OUTCOMES

219

Baron RA. 1993. Interviewers' moods and evaluations of job applicants: the role of applicant qualications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23: 253271. Blaney PH. 1986. Aect and memory: a review. Psychological Bulletin 99: 229246. Cardy R, Dobbins GH. 1986. Aect and appraisal accuracy: liking as an integral dimension in evaluating performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 71: 672678. Chen PY, Dai T, Spector PE, Jex SM. 1997. Relation between negative aectivity and positive aectivity: eects of judged desirability of scale items and respondents' social desirability. Journal of Personality Assessment 69: 183198. Davis MH. 1996. Empathy: A Social Psychological Approach. Westview Press: Boulder, CO. Dipboye RL, Gaugler BB. 1993. Cognitive and behavioral processes in the selection interview. In Personnel Selection in Organizations, Schmitt N, Borman WC (eds); Jossey-Bass: San Francisco. Forbes RJ, Jackson PR. 1980. Non-verbal behaviour and the outcome of selection interviews. Journal of Occupational Psychology 53: 6572. Forgas JP, Bower GH. 1987. Aect in social and personal judgments. In Aect, Cognition, and Social Behavior, Fiedler K, Forgas J (eds); Hogrefe International: Toronto. George JM, Brief AP. 1992. Feeling gooddoing good: a conceptual analysis of the mood at work organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin 112: 310329. Gilmore DC, Ferris GR. 1989. The eects of applicant impression management tactics on interviewer judgments. Journal of Management 15: 557564. Goman E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday Anchor Books: Garden City, NJ. Goleman D. 1995. Emotional Intelligence: Why it Can Matter More Than IQ. Bantam Books: New York. Howard JL, Ferris GR. 1996. The employment interview context: social and situational inuences on interviewer decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 26: 112136. Hunter JE. 1989. The Wonderlic Personnel Test as a Predictor of Training Success and Job Performance. Michigan State University, Department of Psychology: East Lansing, Michigan. Isen AM. 1984. Toward understanding the role of aect in cognition. In Handbook of Social Cognition, Vol. 3, Wyer RS Jr, Srull TK (eds); Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ. Isen AM, Baron RA. 1991. Positive aect as a factor in organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior 13: 154. Isen AM, Daubman KA, Nowicki GP. 1987. Positive aect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52: 11221131. Keenan A. 1977. Some relationships between interviewers' personal feelings about candidates and their general evaluation of them. Journal of Occupational Psychology 50: 275283. Kemery ER. 1991. Aective disposition, role stress, and job withdrawal. In Perrewe PL (ed.). Handbook on job stress (special issue). Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 6: 331347. Levine EL. 1997. Review of the Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT). Security Journal 8: 179181. Mayer JD, Salovey P. 1993. The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence 17: 433442. Mayer JD, Salovey P. 1995. Emotional intelligence and the construction and regulation of feelings. Applied and Preventive Psychology 4: 197208. Mayer JD, Salovey P, Caruso DR. (in press). Competing models of emotional intelligence. In Handbook of Human Intelligence, Sternberg R (ed.); Cambridge: New York. Mayer JD, Stevens AA. 1994. An emerging understanding of the reective (meta-) experience of mood. Journal of Research in Personality 28: 351373. Neisser U, Boodoo G, Bourchard TJ, Boykin AW, Brody N, Ceci SJ, Halpern DF, Loehlin JC, Perlo R, Sternberg RJ, Urbina S. 1996. Intelligence: knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist 51: 77101. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. 1994. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill: New York. Parsons CK, Liden RC. 1984. Interviewer perceptions of applicant qualications: a multivariate eld study of demographic characteristics and non-verbal cues. Journal of Applied Psychology 69: 557568. Salovey P, Mayer JD. 1990. Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality 9: 185211. Salovey P, Mayer JD, Goldman SL, Turvey C, Palfai TP. 1995. Emotional attention, clarity, and repair: exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. In Emotion, Disclosure, and Health, Pennebaker J (ed.); American Psychological Association: Washington, DC. Schmidt FL, Hunter JE. 1981. Employment testing: old theories and new research ndings. American Psychologist 36: 11281137. Schutte NS, Malou JM, Hall LE, Haggerty DJ, Cooper JT, Golden CJ, Dornheim L. 1998. Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Dierences 25: 167177. Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 203220 (2000)

220

S. FOX AND P. E. SPECTOR

Staw BM, Barsade SG. 1993. Aect and managerial performance: a test of the sadder-but-wiser vs. happier-and-smarter hypotheses. Administrative Science Quarterly 38: 304328. Sternberg RJ, Wagner RK. 1993. The geocentric view of intelligence and job performance is wrong. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2: 15. Sternberg RJ, Wagner RK, Williams WM, Horvath JA. 1995. Testing common sense. American Psychologist 50: 912927. Tedeschi JT, Norman N. 1985. Social power, self-presentation, and the self. In The Self and Social Life, Schlenker BR (ed.); McGraw-Hill: New York. Wagner RK, Sternberg RJ. 1985. Practical intelligence in real-world pursuits: the role of tacit knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49: 436458. Watson D, Clark LA. 1984. Negative aectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin 96: 465490. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. 1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative aect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54: 10631070. Weiss HM, Cropanzano R. 1996. Aective events theory: a theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of aective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior 18: 174. Wonderlic Personnel Test, Inc. 1992. Wonderlic Personnel Test and Scholastic Level Exam: User's Manual. Wonderlic Personnel Test, Inc: Libertyville, IL.

Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 203220 (2000)