- Email: [email protected]
Comparing ability and self-report trait emotional intelligence, fluid intelligence, and personality traits in career decision
Personality and Individual Differences 64 (2014) 174–178
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Comparing ability and self-report trait emotional intelligence, fluid intelligence, and personality traits in career decision Annamaria Di Fabio a,⇑, Donald H. Saklofske b a b
Department of Education and Psychology, University of Florence, Italy Department of Psychology, University of Western University, London, ON, Canada
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 12 February 2014 Accepted 13 February 2014 Available online 22 March 2014 Keywords: Fluid intelligence Personality traits Self-reported emotional intelligence Ability-based emotional intelligence Career decision
a b s t r a c t This study investigated the role of ability and trait emotional intelligence (EI), fluid intelligence, and personality traits in career decision-making self-efficacy, career indecision and indecisiveness. The Advanced Progressive Matrices, Big Five Questionnaire, Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, Bar-On Emotional Intelligence Inventory, Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire, Career Decision SelfEfficacy Scale: Short Form, Career Decision-Making Difficulties Questionnaire, and Indecisiveness Scale were administered to 194 Italian high school students. These results highlighted the potentially important role of self-reported EI in career decisions. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The growing interest in emotional intelligence (EI) and its relationship to career decisions (Di Fabio & Blustein, 2010; Di Fabio & Kenny, 2011; Di Fabio & Kenny, 2012a; Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2008b; Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2009a) follows from the suggestion of a possible link between the role of understanding and managing emotions and career decision-making (Emmerling & Cherniss, 2003). Individuals with higher EI are more aware of their emotions and are more able to integrate emotional experiences with thoughts and actions. As a consequence, EI could be an important variable in the process of career exploration and career decisionmaking (Emmerling & Cherniss, 2003). Several recent empirical studies have been conducted regarding the relationship of EI to factors associated with decision making including career indecision (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2008b, 2009a; Di Fabio, Palazzeschi, Asulin-Peretz, & Gati, 2013; Di Fabio, Palazzeschi, & Bar-On, 2012), decisional styles (Di Fabio & Blustein, 2010; Di Fabio & Kenny, 2012a), and indecisiveness (Di Fabio et al., 2013).This research has been extended to explore possible links between EI and various career decision-making processes including career decision-making self-efficacy (Brown, George-Curran,
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Dipartimento di Scienze della Formazione e Psicologia (Sezione di Psicologia), Università degli Studi di Firenze, via di San Salvi, 12, Complesso di San Salvi, Padiglione 26, 50135 Firenze, Italy. Tel.: +39 (0)55 2055850; fax: +39 (0)55 6236047. E-mail address: [email protected]fi.it (A. Di Fabio). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.024 0191-8869/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
& Smith, 2003; Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2008a), social support (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2012b) and scholastic and academic success (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2009b; Kenny, Di Fabio, & Minor, in press). However, just as there are many factors that influence career decisions and choices, EI is not a singular construct. The two major models of EI referred to as ability and trait EI vary further in how they are assessed as well as the facets defining each. The present study focused on the particular role that different EI models might serve, along with fluid intelligence and personality, in career decision self-efficacy, career indecision and indecisiveness. Career decision-making self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one’s ability to successfully complete tasks required in making career decisions (Betz, Klein, & Taylor, 1996). Inverse relationships have been consistently found between career decision-making self-efficacy and career indecision (Betz et al., 1996; Guay, Ratelle, Senecal, Larose, & Deschenes, 2006). Career decision-making self-efficacy is considered an important factor in the process of choosing a career and in career paths construction (Betz et al., 1996), especially during uncertain economic times like the present. Preliminary research data has shown a relationship between career decisionmaking self-efficacy associated with making career decisions and EI (Brown et al., 2003). Career indecision refers to problems that emerge during the career decision-making process (Osipow, 1999). Gati, Krausz, and Osipow (1996) presented a model that differentiates between career decision-making difficulties that may occur before and after the start of the career decision-making process. The first type refers to a lack of readiness in which the person is not able to initiate the
A. Di Fabio, D.H. Saklofske / Personality and Individual Differences 64 (2014) 174–178
decision-making process. The second type can be subdivided into lack of information (the person does not possess the information necessary to make an informed career choice) and inconsistent information (the person perceives inconsistencies in the information used in determining career choice). It is important to underscore that career indecision is generally considered a normal phase of people’s life (Osipow, 1999; Savickas, 2004) in contrast to general indecisiveness that refers to a chronic inability to make decisions in different contexts and situations (Frost & Shows, 1993). More recently, studies have pointed to the promising role of EI in both career decision (Di Fabio & Blustein, 2010; Di Fabio & Kenny, 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2008b, 2009a) and in indecisiveness (Di Fabio et al., 2013). Emotional intelligence has been extensively studied and described (e.g., Stough, Saklofske, & Parker, 2009) and has also certainly been critiqued (e.g., Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2007). While there are many different measures intended to assess EI, they are essentially based on two very different models that distinguish between ability-based EI (Mayer & Salovey, 1997) and self report EI (Bar-On, 1997; Petrides & Furnham, 2000, 2001). Ability EI is more closely related to the cognitive abilities underlying and required in the processing and use of emotional information (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000). Self-reported EI is more akin to personality traits and focuses on the self reported perception and evaluation of emotions and their capacity to manage emotionally based situations. One trait EI model proposed by Petrides and Furnham (2000), Petrides and Furnham (2001) represents a constellation of emotion-related self-perceptions that shows relationships with fundamental personality dimensions (Petrides & Furnham, 2000, 2001) such as the Big Five (Saklofske, Austin, & Minski, 2003). Another well known trait EI description was proposed by Bar-On (1997) that defines EI along the major facets of interpersonal, intrapersonal, stress management, and adaptability. Research has shown that ability and self-reported EI are not correlated with each other. In contrast, the different self-reported EI models show overlap (Bracken & Mayer, 2003) but also some unique variance reflected in their measurement (Ferrándiz, Hernández, Bermejo, Ferrando, & Sáinz, 2012; Freudenthaler, Neubauer, Gabler, Scherl, & Rindermann, 2008). Ability-based and self-reported trait EI appear to have different relationships with decisional styles (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2012a). While both are related to decision-making style, trait EI would appear to have the stronger relationship. On the basis of these findings, it is important to further determine if the same specificity regarding different EI models will emerge in relation to other decisional variables such as those focused on career decisions. 1.1. Aim and hypotheses Following from the framework delineated above, the present study examined the role of both ability and trait EI together with fluid intelligence and personality in relation to career decisionmaking self-efficacy, career indecision and indecisiveness among Italian high school students. Furthermore, there was interest in whether the two self-report trait EI measures accounted for the same or a different percentage of incremental variance in career decision-making self-efficacy, career indecision and indecisiveness. The following hypotheses were accordingly formulated. (H1) Self-reported trait EI according to Bar-On (1997) model will add significant incremental variance beyond that accounted for by fluid intelligence, personality traits and ability-based EI in relation to career decision-making self-efficacy, career indecision and indecisiveness. (H2) Self-reported trait EI assessed by the TEIQue will add significant incremental variance beyond that accounted for by fluid
175
intelligence, personality traits and ability-based EI in relation to career decision-making self-efficacy, career indecision and indecisiveness. 2. Material and methods 2.1. Participants All the students enrolled the last 2 years of high school in the Tuscan school system were invited participated in the study. The final sample (N = 194) ranged in age from 16 to 19 years (M = 18.02, SD = .78); 82 (42.27%) of the participants were boys and 112 (57.73%) were girls. 2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM) The Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM, Raven, 1962), Italian version (Di Fabio & Clarotti, 2007), was used to evaluate fluid intelligence. The test is composed of two series of items consisting respectively of 12 (Series I) items and 36 (Series II) items from which the participants choose the correct response from among eight possible alternatives. The Cronbach reliability was .91. 2.2.2. Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ) The Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ, Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Borgogni, 1993) is composed of 132 items with responses made on a Likert scale format ranging from 1 = Absolutely false to 5 = Absolutely true. In the Italian normative sample, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were: .81 for Extraversion, .73 for Agreeableness, .81 for Conscientiousness, .90 for Emotional Stability, .75 for Openness. 2.2.3. Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) The Italian version (D’Amico & Curci, 2010) of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT, Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002) was used to evaluate ability-based EI. The 141 items provide a total score (EI Quotient) and four branch or dimension scores: Perceiving Emotions (PE), Facilitating Thought (FT), Understanding Emotions (UE), Managing Emotions (ME). Split half reliabilities were .90 for PE, .77 for FT, .75 for UE, .72 for ME (D’Amico & Curci, 2010). 2.2.4. Bar-On Emotional Intelligence Inventory (Bar-On EQ-i) The Italian version (Franco & Tappatà, 2009) of the Bar-On Emotional Intelligence Inventory (Bar-On EQ-i, Bar-On, 1997) evaluated self-reported trait EI. The 133 items are answered on a 5-point Likert scale format ranging from 1 = Not at all true of me to 5 = Absolutely true for me. The total score) and scores for five principal dimensions have the following reliabilities: .91 for Intrapersonal, .84 for Interpersonal, .81 for Adaptability, .87 for Stress Management, .83 for General Mood, and .95 for the Emotional Quotient (EQ) (Franco & Tappatà, 2009). 2.2.5. Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire Short Form (TEIQue) The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue, Petrides & Furnham, 2004) also using the Italian version by Di Fabio (2013) is another often used self report measure of trait EI. The questionnaire is composed of 153 items consisting of response options framed in a 7-point Likert scale format ranging from 1 = Completely disagree to 7 = Completely agree. The questionnaire provides a total score, and scores for four principal dimensions: Well-being, Self-Control, Emotionality, Sociability. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the Italian version were: .91 for Well-being, .84 for Self-control, .87 for Emotionality, .86 for Sociability, .93 for the total score.
176
A. Di Fabio, D.H. Saklofske / Personality and Individual Differences 64 (2014) 174–178
2.2.6. Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale: Short Form (CDSES-SF) The Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale: Short Form (CDSES-SF, Betz et al., 1996), Italian version (Nota, Pace, & Ferrari, 2008), was used to assess career decision-making self-efficacy. It is composed of 12 items consisting of response options in a 5-point Likert scale format ranging from 1 = I have no confidence to 5 = I have complete confidence. The Cronbach alpha reliability for the total CDSES-SF was .74. 2.2.7. Career Decision-making Difficulties Questionnaire The Italian version (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2013) of the 34 item short form of Career Decision-making Difficulties Questionnaire (CDDQ, Gati et al., 1996) was used to evaluate decision-making difficulties. This scale employs a 9-point Likert scale format ranging from 1 = Does not describe me to 9 = Describes me well. Cronbach’s alpha for the total CDDQ was .93. 2.2.8. Indecisiveness Scale (IS) The 15 item Italian version (Di Fabio, Busoni, & Palazzeschi, 2011) of the Indecisiveness Scale (IS, Frost & Shows, 1993) evaluates indecisiveness using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree). The Italian version of the scale has good internal consistency (a = .85). 2.3. Procedure and data analysis The scales were administered in the school classrooms by trained staff who adhered to the requirements of confidentiality and informed consent. The administration order was counterbalanced to control for potential presentation order effects. A ten minute break was given after both the APM and the BFQ to counteract fatigue. Descriptive statistics, Pearson’s r correlation and hierarchical regression analyses were calculated for the data. 3. Results Means, standard deviations and correlations between APM, BFQ, MSCEIT, Bar-On EQ-i, TEIQue, CDSES-SF, CDDQ, and IS are reported in Table 1. Table 2 shows the results of three different hierarchical regression analyses with career decision-making self-efficacy, career decision making difficulties, and indecisiveness as the three alternative criterion measures. The order of entering the predictor measures was fluid intelligence, personality traits, ability EI, and self-reported trait EI assessed by the EQ-i and TEIQue at the fourth step and fifth steps respectively.
Table 2 Hierarchical regression. The contributions of fluid intelligence (first step), personality traits (second step), ability-based emotional intelligence (third step), self-reported emotional intelligence according to Bar-On model (fourth step) and trait emotional Intelligence (fifth step) to career decision-making self-efficacy (CDSES-SF), career indecision (CDDQ), indecisiveness (IS) (N = 194). CDSESSF b
CDDQ
IS
b
b
Step 1 APM – Fluid intelligence Step 2 Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Openness
.35 .18** .13* .54*** .02
.45 .18** .01 .33*** .15*
.25*** .30*** .27*** .30*** .13
Step 3 Ability-based emotional intelligence
.12
.13
.13
.44***
.37***
.40***
.47*** .00 .45*** .01 .05** .06*** .57***
.52*** .01 .20** .02 .04** .06*** .33***
.51*** .02 .31*** .00 .05** .07*** .45***
.13
.13 ***
Step 4 Self-report emotional intelligence according to Bar-On model Step 5 Trait emotional intelligence R2 step 1 DR2 step 2 DR2 step 3 DR2 step 4 DR2 step 5 R2 total
.12
***
Note: * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
For career decision-making self-efficacy, fluid intelligence did not account for any of the variance; but personality traits added at the second step accounted for 45% of the variance. While ability-based EI added at the third step did not add any additional variance the EQ-i added at the fourth step accounted for 5% greater variance and the TEIQue accounted for an additional 6% of the variance. A similar pattern was observed for career indecision. Fluid intelligence did not contribute to the variance accounted but when personality traits were entered, 20% of the variance could be determined. Ability-based EI was added at the third step but again did not add to or increase the variance in career indecision. Finally the EQ-i and TEIQue that accounted for 4% and 6% of the variance respectively.
Table 1 Means, standard deviations and correlations relative to APM, BFQ, MSCEIT, Bar-On EQ-i, TEIQue, CDSES-SF, CDDQ, IS.
1. APM 2. Extraversion 3. Agreeableness 4. Conscientiousness 5. Emotional Stability 6. Openness 7. MSCEIT 8. Bar-On EQ-i 9. TEIQue 10 CDSES-SF 11. CDDQ 12. IS Note: N = 194. p < .05. ** p < .01. *
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
21.86 75.84 78.43 80.57 62.80 81.35 41.71 350.79 551.04 67.69 136.54 43.32
5.31 11.25 8.95 11.18 15.32 9.44 6.51 36.67 71.99 9.11 37.67 8.38
.05 .12 .10 .18* .13 .31** .18* .06 .03 .07 .05
.14 .37** .17 .41** .15 .26** .52** .44** .40** .44**
.28** .29** .38** .15 .43** .31** .25** .32** .51**
.12 .37** .16 .43** .49** .24** .05 .46**
.13 .10 .59** .50** .65** .55** .51**
.13 .36** .40** .08 .25** .06
.23** .09 .23** .23** .22**
.72** .54** .49** .52**
.71** .61** .75**
10
.25** .36**
11
.45**
12
A. Di Fabio, D.H. Saklofske / Personality and Individual Differences 64 (2014) 174–178 Table 3 Hierarchical regression. The contributions of fluid intelligence (First step), personality traits (Second step), Ability-based emotional intelligence (Third step) and self-report emotional intelligence according to Bar-On model (Fourth step) to career decisionmaking self-efficacy (CDSES-SF), career indecision (CDDQ), indecisiveness (IS) (N = 194). CDSES-SF b
CDDQ b
IS b
Step 1 APM – Fluid intelligence
.13
.13
.12
Step 2 Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Openness
.35*** .18** .13* .54*** .02
.45*** .18** .01 .33*** .15*
.25*** .30*** .27*** .30*** .13
.12
.13
.13
.44**
.37***
.40***
Step 3 Ability-based emotional intelligence Step 4 Self-report emotional intelligence according to Bar-On model R2 step 1 DR2 step 2 DR2 step 3 DR2 step 4 R2 total
.00 .45*** .01 .05** .51***
.01 .20** .02 .04** .27***
.02 .31*** .00 .05** .38***
Note: * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Table 4 Hierarchical regression. The contributions of fluid intelligence (First step), personality traits (Second step), ability-based emotional intelligence (Third step) and trait emotional Intelligence (Fourth step) to career decision-making Self-Efficacy (CDSESSF), career indecision (CDDQ), indecisiveness (IS) (N = 194). CDSES-SF b
CDDQ b
IS b
Step 1 APM – Fluid intelligence
.13
.13
.12
Step 2 Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Openness
.35*** .18** .13* .54*** .02
.45*** .18** .01 .33*** .15*
.25*** .30*** .27*** .30*** .13
Step 3 Ability-based emotional intelligence
.12
.13
.13
Step 4 Trait emotional intelligence R2 step 1 DR2 step 2 DR2 step 3 DR2 step 4 R2 total
.58** .00 .45*** .01 .10** .56***
.49*** .01 .20** .02 .09** .32***
.43*** .02 .31*** .00 .08** .41***
Note: * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
For indecisiveness, only personality added at the second step accounted for the 31% of the variance and emotional intelligence assessed by the Bar-On model added at the fourth step accounted for 5% greater variance; and the TEIQue added at the fifth step accounted for an additional 7% of the variance. Given the potential for multicollinearity between the two self-report trait EI scales, another series of regression analyses were conducted in which each trait scale was alternately entered
177
at the fourth step. Results for the EQ-i are shown in Table 3 and TEIQue in Table 4. For career decision-making self-efficacy, the EQ-i entered at the fourth step accounted for an additional 5% but the TEIQue entered separately accounted for an additional 10% of the variance. A similar pattern was found for career indecision where the Bar-On model accounted for an additional 4%, but again the TEIQue accounted for an additional 9% to the model. Finally the EQ-i added an additional 5% to the variance for indecisiveness while the TEIQue accounted for an additional 8%.
4. Discussion and conclusions The aim of the present study was to determine whether EI defined by ability or self-report trait measures would contribute additional variance to that potentially described by cognitive intelligence (fluid ability), and major personality traits (Big 5 personality description) in relation to career decision-making self-efficacy, career indecision and indecisiveness. Previous research (Di Fabio & Saklofske, in press) examining individual resources reflecting psychological well-being such as self-evaluation, resilience, and life satisfaction showed that ability and self report trait EI models as well as different trait scales (i.e., EQ-i and TEIQue) yielded differential predictions. Ability EI (Mayer & Salovey, 1997) did not predict any of the variance in the individual resources measured in contrast to both self-report EI scales. In particular, the TEIQue explained a greater percentage of incremental variance compared to the EQ-i. The results of the present study confirmed the hypotheses that both self-reported EI assessed by the EQ-i and the TEIQue added significant incremental variance beyond that accounted for by personality traits in relation to career decision-making self-efficacy, career indecision and indecisiveness. Of interest is that neither of the more cognitively driven measures of intelligence (fluid intelligence and ability EI) contributed to any of the predictions regarding the career based domains. These findings supported previous studies demonstrating a relationship between self-reported trait EI and career decision-making self-efficacy (Brown et al., 2003), career indecision (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2008b, 2009a; Di Fabio et al., 2012, 2013), and indecisiveness (Di Fabio et al., 2013). Trait EI would appear to play a contributing role in the process of career decision making; persons with higher self reported trait EI may be better able to understand and integrate emotional experiences, thoughts and actions that are related to career issues and the making of career decisions. Another important finding besides the fact that only trait EI measures add to the prediction of career decision factors is that each of the two tested models performed slightly differently. The Petrides and Furnham (2004) model contributed almost twice as much variance to the prediction of the three career factors as did the EQ-i. These results highlight that these two trait EI models and the resulting measures are not completely overlapping (Ferrándiz et al., 2012). An examination of both the EQ-i and TEIQue shows that there certainly is some overlap in the definition of both the broad as well as more narrow facets included in each trait scale. However, the finding that the MSCEIT correlated .23 with the EQ-i and only .09 with the TEIQue while the two trait measures correlated .72. does show that each is measuring some common but also unique features of trait EI and thus may be expected to differentially contribute to the prediction of such key career decision factors as studied here. Notwithstanding the current findings, several limitations should be noted in the present study. Future research should consider participants more representative of the Italian context but also should be replicated in other countries and include high
178
A. Di Fabio, D.H. Saklofske / Personality and Individual Differences 64 (2014) 174–178
school students as well as others who are exploring careers (e.g., university students) and later life career changes. If the results of the present study are confirmed in future research, it will encourage the exploration of EI as factor to be further developed for use in career counseling contexts. As well, research findings suggest that EI can be increased through specific training (e.g., Di Fabio & Kenny, 2011). In particular, consideration could be given to expanding the range of interventions at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels respectively to include EI education programs more attention to screening and early intervention for personal and early career issues and the development of more focused and intense interventions that would incorporate empirically supported EI findings at the level of career counseling (Di Fabio & Bernaud, 2008; Di Fabio & Kenny, 2011). References Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Intelligence Inventory (EQ-i): Technical manual. Toronto, ON, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Betz, N. E., Klein, K. L., & Taylor, K. M. (1996). Evaluation of a short form of the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 47–57. Bracken, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(1), 147–158. Brown, C., George-Curran, R., & Smith, M. L. (2003). The role of emotional intelligence in the career commitment and decision-making process. Journal of Career Assessment, 11(4), 379–392. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Borgogni, L. (1993). BFQ: Big Five Questionnaire (2nd ed.). Firenze, Italy: Giunti O.S. D’Amico, A., & Curci, A. (2010). Mayer–Salovey–Caruso emotional intelligence test (MSCEIT). Firenze, Italy: Giunti O.S. Di Fabio, A. (2013). Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue): Un contributo alla validazione della versione italiana [Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue): A contribution to validation of the Italian version]. Counseling. Giornale Italiano di Ricerca e Applicazioni, 6, 351–362. Di Fabio, A., & Clarotti, S. (2007). Matrici progressive di Raven. Adattamento Italiano [Advanced Progressive Matrices by Raven: Italian adaptation]. Firenze, Italy: Giunti O.S. Di Fabio, A., & Bernaud, J. (2008). The help-seeking in career counseling. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(1), 60–66. Di Fabio, A., & Blustein, D. L. (2010). Emotional intelligence and decisional conflict styles: Some empirical evidence among Italian high school students. Journal of Career Assessment, 18(1), 71–81. Di Fabio, A., Busoni, L., & Palazzeschi, L. (2011). Indecisiveness Scale (IS): Proprietà psicometriche della versione italiana [Indecisiveness Scale (IS): Psychometric properties of the Italian version]. Counseling. Giornale Italiano di Ricerca e Applicazioni, 4, 13–24. Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. E. (2011). Promoting emotional intelligence and career decision making among Italian high school students. Journal of Career Assessment, 19, 21–34. Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. E. (2012a). The contribution of emotional intelligence to decisional styles among Italian high school students. Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 404–414. Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. E. (2012b). Emotional intelligence and perceived social support among Italian high school students. Journal of Career Development, 39, 461–475. Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2008a). Emotional intelligence and self-efficacy in a sample of Italian high school teacher. Social Behavior and Personality, 36(3), 315–326. Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2008b). Indécision vocationnelle et intelligence émotionnelle: Quelques données empiriques sur un échantillon d’apprentis italiens. Pratiques Psychologiques, 14(4), 213–222. Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2009a). Emotional intelligence, personality traits and career decision difficulties. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 9(2), 135–146.
Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2009b). An in-depht look at scholastic success: Fluid intelligence, personality traits or emotional intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 581–585. Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (Eds.). (2013). Italian adaptation of the CDDQ – Career Decision-making Difficulties Questionnaire. Firenze, Italy: Giunti O.S. Di Fabio, A., Palazzeschi, L., Asulin-Peretz, L., & Gati, I. (2013). Career indecision versus indecisiveness: Associations with personality traits and emotional intelligence. Journal of Career Assessment, 21, 42–56. Di Fabio, A., Palazzeschi, L., & Bar-On, R. (2012). The role of personality traits, core self-evaluation and emotional intelligence in career decision-making difficulties. Journal of Employment Counseling, 49, 118–129. Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. (in press). Promoting individual resources: The challenge of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences. Emmerling, R. J., & Cherniss, C. (2003). Emotional intelligence and career choice process. Journal of Career Assessment, 11(2), 153–167. Ferrándiz, C., Hernández, D., Bermejo, R., Ferrando, M., & Sáinz, M. (2012). Social and emotional intelligence in childhood and adolescence: Spanish validation of a measurement instrument. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 17(2), 309–338. Franco, M., & Tappatà, L. (2009). EQ-iTM Emotional Quotient Inventory. Validazione italiana [EQ-iTM Emotional Quotient Inventory. Italian validation]. Firenze, Italy: Giunti O. S. Freudenthaler, H. H., Neubauer, A. C., Gabler, P., Scherl, W. G., & Rindermann, H. (2008). Testing and validating the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire (TEIQue) in German-speaking sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 673–678. Frost, R. O., & Shows, D. L. (1993). The nature and measurement of compulsive indecisiveness. Behavior Research Therapy, 31, 683–692. Gati, I., Krausz, M., & Osipow, S. H. (1996). A taxonomy of difficulties in career decision making. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(4), 510–526. Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., Senecal, C., Larose, S., & Deschenes, A. (2006). Distinguishing developmental from chronic career indecision: Self-efficacy, autonomy, and social support. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 235–255. Kenny, M. E., Di Fabio, A., & Minor, K. (in press). Emotional intelligence and positive psychology in the schools. In M. J. Furlong, R. Gilman, & E. S. Huebner (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in the schools (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis. Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2007). The science of emotional intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. New York: Oxford University Press. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT): User’s manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Selecting a measure of emotional intelligence: The case of ability scales. In R. Bar-On & J. D. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 320–342). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3–31). New York: Basic Books. Nota, L., Pace, F., & Ferrari, L. (2008). Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale – Short Form: Uno studio per l’adattamento italiano [Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale – Short Form: A study for Italian adaptation]. GIPO Giornale Italiano di Psicologia dell’Orientamento, 9(2), 23–35. Osipow, S. H. (1999). Assessing career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 147–154. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 313–320. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425–428. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2004). Technical manual of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue). London: University of London, Institute of Education. Raven, J. C. (1962). Advanced progressive matrices. Firenze, Italy: Organizzazioni Speciali. Saklofske, D. H., Austin, E. J., & Minski, P. S. (2003). Factor structure and validity of a trait emotional intelligence measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 707–721. Savickas, M. L. (2004). Vocational psychology, overview. In C. Spielberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology (pp. 655–667). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Stough, C., Saklofske, D., & Parker, J. (2009). Assessing emotional intelligence: Theory, research, and applications. New York: Springer.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Comparing ability and self-report trait emotional intelligence, fluid intelligence, and personality traits in career decision Annamaria Di Fabio a,⇑, Donald H. Saklofske b a b
Department of Education and Psychology, University of Florence, Italy Department of Psychology, University of Western University, London, ON, Canada
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 12 February 2014 Accepted 13 February 2014 Available online 22 March 2014 Keywords: Fluid intelligence Personality traits Self-reported emotional intelligence Ability-based emotional intelligence Career decision
a b s t r a c t This study investigated the role of ability and trait emotional intelligence (EI), fluid intelligence, and personality traits in career decision-making self-efficacy, career indecision and indecisiveness. The Advanced Progressive Matrices, Big Five Questionnaire, Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, Bar-On Emotional Intelligence Inventory, Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire, Career Decision SelfEfficacy Scale: Short Form, Career Decision-Making Difficulties Questionnaire, and Indecisiveness Scale were administered to 194 Italian high school students. These results highlighted the potentially important role of self-reported EI in career decisions. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The growing interest in emotional intelligence (EI) and its relationship to career decisions (Di Fabio & Blustein, 2010; Di Fabio & Kenny, 2011; Di Fabio & Kenny, 2012a; Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2008b; Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2009a) follows from the suggestion of a possible link between the role of understanding and managing emotions and career decision-making (Emmerling & Cherniss, 2003). Individuals with higher EI are more aware of their emotions and are more able to integrate emotional experiences with thoughts and actions. As a consequence, EI could be an important variable in the process of career exploration and career decisionmaking (Emmerling & Cherniss, 2003). Several recent empirical studies have been conducted regarding the relationship of EI to factors associated with decision making including career indecision (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2008b, 2009a; Di Fabio, Palazzeschi, Asulin-Peretz, & Gati, 2013; Di Fabio, Palazzeschi, & Bar-On, 2012), decisional styles (Di Fabio & Blustein, 2010; Di Fabio & Kenny, 2012a), and indecisiveness (Di Fabio et al., 2013).This research has been extended to explore possible links between EI and various career decision-making processes including career decision-making self-efficacy (Brown, George-Curran,
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Dipartimento di Scienze della Formazione e Psicologia (Sezione di Psicologia), Università degli Studi di Firenze, via di San Salvi, 12, Complesso di San Salvi, Padiglione 26, 50135 Firenze, Italy. Tel.: +39 (0)55 2055850; fax: +39 (0)55 6236047. E-mail address: [email protected]fi.it (A. Di Fabio). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.024 0191-8869/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
& Smith, 2003; Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2008a), social support (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2012b) and scholastic and academic success (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2009b; Kenny, Di Fabio, & Minor, in press). However, just as there are many factors that influence career decisions and choices, EI is not a singular construct. The two major models of EI referred to as ability and trait EI vary further in how they are assessed as well as the facets defining each. The present study focused on the particular role that different EI models might serve, along with fluid intelligence and personality, in career decision self-efficacy, career indecision and indecisiveness. Career decision-making self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one’s ability to successfully complete tasks required in making career decisions (Betz, Klein, & Taylor, 1996). Inverse relationships have been consistently found between career decision-making self-efficacy and career indecision (Betz et al., 1996; Guay, Ratelle, Senecal, Larose, & Deschenes, 2006). Career decision-making self-efficacy is considered an important factor in the process of choosing a career and in career paths construction (Betz et al., 1996), especially during uncertain economic times like the present. Preliminary research data has shown a relationship between career decisionmaking self-efficacy associated with making career decisions and EI (Brown et al., 2003). Career indecision refers to problems that emerge during the career decision-making process (Osipow, 1999). Gati, Krausz, and Osipow (1996) presented a model that differentiates between career decision-making difficulties that may occur before and after the start of the career decision-making process. The first type refers to a lack of readiness in which the person is not able to initiate the
A. Di Fabio, D.H. Saklofske / Personality and Individual Differences 64 (2014) 174–178
decision-making process. The second type can be subdivided into lack of information (the person does not possess the information necessary to make an informed career choice) and inconsistent information (the person perceives inconsistencies in the information used in determining career choice). It is important to underscore that career indecision is generally considered a normal phase of people’s life (Osipow, 1999; Savickas, 2004) in contrast to general indecisiveness that refers to a chronic inability to make decisions in different contexts and situations (Frost & Shows, 1993). More recently, studies have pointed to the promising role of EI in both career decision (Di Fabio & Blustein, 2010; Di Fabio & Kenny, 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2008b, 2009a) and in indecisiveness (Di Fabio et al., 2013). Emotional intelligence has been extensively studied and described (e.g., Stough, Saklofske, & Parker, 2009) and has also certainly been critiqued (e.g., Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2007). While there are many different measures intended to assess EI, they are essentially based on two very different models that distinguish between ability-based EI (Mayer & Salovey, 1997) and self report EI (Bar-On, 1997; Petrides & Furnham, 2000, 2001). Ability EI is more closely related to the cognitive abilities underlying and required in the processing and use of emotional information (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000). Self-reported EI is more akin to personality traits and focuses on the self reported perception and evaluation of emotions and their capacity to manage emotionally based situations. One trait EI model proposed by Petrides and Furnham (2000), Petrides and Furnham (2001) represents a constellation of emotion-related self-perceptions that shows relationships with fundamental personality dimensions (Petrides & Furnham, 2000, 2001) such as the Big Five (Saklofske, Austin, & Minski, 2003). Another well known trait EI description was proposed by Bar-On (1997) that defines EI along the major facets of interpersonal, intrapersonal, stress management, and adaptability. Research has shown that ability and self-reported EI are not correlated with each other. In contrast, the different self-reported EI models show overlap (Bracken & Mayer, 2003) but also some unique variance reflected in their measurement (Ferrándiz, Hernández, Bermejo, Ferrando, & Sáinz, 2012; Freudenthaler, Neubauer, Gabler, Scherl, & Rindermann, 2008). Ability-based and self-reported trait EI appear to have different relationships with decisional styles (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2012a). While both are related to decision-making style, trait EI would appear to have the stronger relationship. On the basis of these findings, it is important to further determine if the same specificity regarding different EI models will emerge in relation to other decisional variables such as those focused on career decisions. 1.1. Aim and hypotheses Following from the framework delineated above, the present study examined the role of both ability and trait EI together with fluid intelligence and personality in relation to career decisionmaking self-efficacy, career indecision and indecisiveness among Italian high school students. Furthermore, there was interest in whether the two self-report trait EI measures accounted for the same or a different percentage of incremental variance in career decision-making self-efficacy, career indecision and indecisiveness. The following hypotheses were accordingly formulated. (H1) Self-reported trait EI according to Bar-On (1997) model will add significant incremental variance beyond that accounted for by fluid intelligence, personality traits and ability-based EI in relation to career decision-making self-efficacy, career indecision and indecisiveness. (H2) Self-reported trait EI assessed by the TEIQue will add significant incremental variance beyond that accounted for by fluid
175
intelligence, personality traits and ability-based EI in relation to career decision-making self-efficacy, career indecision and indecisiveness. 2. Material and methods 2.1. Participants All the students enrolled the last 2 years of high school in the Tuscan school system were invited participated in the study. The final sample (N = 194) ranged in age from 16 to 19 years (M = 18.02, SD = .78); 82 (42.27%) of the participants were boys and 112 (57.73%) were girls. 2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM) The Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM, Raven, 1962), Italian version (Di Fabio & Clarotti, 2007), was used to evaluate fluid intelligence. The test is composed of two series of items consisting respectively of 12 (Series I) items and 36 (Series II) items from which the participants choose the correct response from among eight possible alternatives. The Cronbach reliability was .91. 2.2.2. Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ) The Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ, Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Borgogni, 1993) is composed of 132 items with responses made on a Likert scale format ranging from 1 = Absolutely false to 5 = Absolutely true. In the Italian normative sample, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were: .81 for Extraversion, .73 for Agreeableness, .81 for Conscientiousness, .90 for Emotional Stability, .75 for Openness. 2.2.3. Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) The Italian version (D’Amico & Curci, 2010) of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT, Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002) was used to evaluate ability-based EI. The 141 items provide a total score (EI Quotient) and four branch or dimension scores: Perceiving Emotions (PE), Facilitating Thought (FT), Understanding Emotions (UE), Managing Emotions (ME). Split half reliabilities were .90 for PE, .77 for FT, .75 for UE, .72 for ME (D’Amico & Curci, 2010). 2.2.4. Bar-On Emotional Intelligence Inventory (Bar-On EQ-i) The Italian version (Franco & Tappatà, 2009) of the Bar-On Emotional Intelligence Inventory (Bar-On EQ-i, Bar-On, 1997) evaluated self-reported trait EI. The 133 items are answered on a 5-point Likert scale format ranging from 1 = Not at all true of me to 5 = Absolutely true for me. The total score) and scores for five principal dimensions have the following reliabilities: .91 for Intrapersonal, .84 for Interpersonal, .81 for Adaptability, .87 for Stress Management, .83 for General Mood, and .95 for the Emotional Quotient (EQ) (Franco & Tappatà, 2009). 2.2.5. Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire Short Form (TEIQue) The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue, Petrides & Furnham, 2004) also using the Italian version by Di Fabio (2013) is another often used self report measure of trait EI. The questionnaire is composed of 153 items consisting of response options framed in a 7-point Likert scale format ranging from 1 = Completely disagree to 7 = Completely agree. The questionnaire provides a total score, and scores for four principal dimensions: Well-being, Self-Control, Emotionality, Sociability. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the Italian version were: .91 for Well-being, .84 for Self-control, .87 for Emotionality, .86 for Sociability, .93 for the total score.
176
A. Di Fabio, D.H. Saklofske / Personality and Individual Differences 64 (2014) 174–178
2.2.6. Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale: Short Form (CDSES-SF) The Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale: Short Form (CDSES-SF, Betz et al., 1996), Italian version (Nota, Pace, & Ferrari, 2008), was used to assess career decision-making self-efficacy. It is composed of 12 items consisting of response options in a 5-point Likert scale format ranging from 1 = I have no confidence to 5 = I have complete confidence. The Cronbach alpha reliability for the total CDSES-SF was .74. 2.2.7. Career Decision-making Difficulties Questionnaire The Italian version (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2013) of the 34 item short form of Career Decision-making Difficulties Questionnaire (CDDQ, Gati et al., 1996) was used to evaluate decision-making difficulties. This scale employs a 9-point Likert scale format ranging from 1 = Does not describe me to 9 = Describes me well. Cronbach’s alpha for the total CDDQ was .93. 2.2.8. Indecisiveness Scale (IS) The 15 item Italian version (Di Fabio, Busoni, & Palazzeschi, 2011) of the Indecisiveness Scale (IS, Frost & Shows, 1993) evaluates indecisiveness using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree). The Italian version of the scale has good internal consistency (a = .85). 2.3. Procedure and data analysis The scales were administered in the school classrooms by trained staff who adhered to the requirements of confidentiality and informed consent. The administration order was counterbalanced to control for potential presentation order effects. A ten minute break was given after both the APM and the BFQ to counteract fatigue. Descriptive statistics, Pearson’s r correlation and hierarchical regression analyses were calculated for the data. 3. Results Means, standard deviations and correlations between APM, BFQ, MSCEIT, Bar-On EQ-i, TEIQue, CDSES-SF, CDDQ, and IS are reported in Table 1. Table 2 shows the results of three different hierarchical regression analyses with career decision-making self-efficacy, career decision making difficulties, and indecisiveness as the three alternative criterion measures. The order of entering the predictor measures was fluid intelligence, personality traits, ability EI, and self-reported trait EI assessed by the EQ-i and TEIQue at the fourth step and fifth steps respectively.
Table 2 Hierarchical regression. The contributions of fluid intelligence (first step), personality traits (second step), ability-based emotional intelligence (third step), self-reported emotional intelligence according to Bar-On model (fourth step) and trait emotional Intelligence (fifth step) to career decision-making self-efficacy (CDSES-SF), career indecision (CDDQ), indecisiveness (IS) (N = 194). CDSESSF b
CDDQ
IS
b
b
Step 1 APM – Fluid intelligence Step 2 Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Openness
.35 .18** .13* .54*** .02
.45 .18** .01 .33*** .15*
.25*** .30*** .27*** .30*** .13
Step 3 Ability-based emotional intelligence
.12
.13
.13
.44***
.37***
.40***
.47*** .00 .45*** .01 .05** .06*** .57***
.52*** .01 .20** .02 .04** .06*** .33***
.51*** .02 .31*** .00 .05** .07*** .45***
.13
.13 ***
Step 4 Self-report emotional intelligence according to Bar-On model Step 5 Trait emotional intelligence R2 step 1 DR2 step 2 DR2 step 3 DR2 step 4 DR2 step 5 R2 total
.12
***
Note: * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
For career decision-making self-efficacy, fluid intelligence did not account for any of the variance; but personality traits added at the second step accounted for 45% of the variance. While ability-based EI added at the third step did not add any additional variance the EQ-i added at the fourth step accounted for 5% greater variance and the TEIQue accounted for an additional 6% of the variance. A similar pattern was observed for career indecision. Fluid intelligence did not contribute to the variance accounted but when personality traits were entered, 20% of the variance could be determined. Ability-based EI was added at the third step but again did not add to or increase the variance in career indecision. Finally the EQ-i and TEIQue that accounted for 4% and 6% of the variance respectively.
Table 1 Means, standard deviations and correlations relative to APM, BFQ, MSCEIT, Bar-On EQ-i, TEIQue, CDSES-SF, CDDQ, IS.
1. APM 2. Extraversion 3. Agreeableness 4. Conscientiousness 5. Emotional Stability 6. Openness 7. MSCEIT 8. Bar-On EQ-i 9. TEIQue 10 CDSES-SF 11. CDDQ 12. IS Note: N = 194. p < .05. ** p < .01. *
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
21.86 75.84 78.43 80.57 62.80 81.35 41.71 350.79 551.04 67.69 136.54 43.32
5.31 11.25 8.95 11.18 15.32 9.44 6.51 36.67 71.99 9.11 37.67 8.38
.05 .12 .10 .18* .13 .31** .18* .06 .03 .07 .05
.14 .37** .17 .41** .15 .26** .52** .44** .40** .44**
.28** .29** .38** .15 .43** .31** .25** .32** .51**
.12 .37** .16 .43** .49** .24** .05 .46**
.13 .10 .59** .50** .65** .55** .51**
.13 .36** .40** .08 .25** .06
.23** .09 .23** .23** .22**
.72** .54** .49** .52**
.71** .61** .75**
10
.25** .36**
11
.45**
12
A. Di Fabio, D.H. Saklofske / Personality and Individual Differences 64 (2014) 174–178 Table 3 Hierarchical regression. The contributions of fluid intelligence (First step), personality traits (Second step), Ability-based emotional intelligence (Third step) and self-report emotional intelligence according to Bar-On model (Fourth step) to career decisionmaking self-efficacy (CDSES-SF), career indecision (CDDQ), indecisiveness (IS) (N = 194). CDSES-SF b
CDDQ b
IS b
Step 1 APM – Fluid intelligence
.13
.13
.12
Step 2 Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Openness
.35*** .18** .13* .54*** .02
.45*** .18** .01 .33*** .15*
.25*** .30*** .27*** .30*** .13
.12
.13
.13
.44**
.37***
.40***
Step 3 Ability-based emotional intelligence Step 4 Self-report emotional intelligence according to Bar-On model R2 step 1 DR2 step 2 DR2 step 3 DR2 step 4 R2 total
.00 .45*** .01 .05** .51***
.01 .20** .02 .04** .27***
.02 .31*** .00 .05** .38***
Note: * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Table 4 Hierarchical regression. The contributions of fluid intelligence (First step), personality traits (Second step), ability-based emotional intelligence (Third step) and trait emotional Intelligence (Fourth step) to career decision-making Self-Efficacy (CDSESSF), career indecision (CDDQ), indecisiveness (IS) (N = 194). CDSES-SF b
CDDQ b
IS b
Step 1 APM – Fluid intelligence
.13
.13
.12
Step 2 Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Openness
.35*** .18** .13* .54*** .02
.45*** .18** .01 .33*** .15*
.25*** .30*** .27*** .30*** .13
Step 3 Ability-based emotional intelligence
.12
.13
.13
Step 4 Trait emotional intelligence R2 step 1 DR2 step 2 DR2 step 3 DR2 step 4 R2 total
.58** .00 .45*** .01 .10** .56***
.49*** .01 .20** .02 .09** .32***
.43*** .02 .31*** .00 .08** .41***
Note: * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
For indecisiveness, only personality added at the second step accounted for the 31% of the variance and emotional intelligence assessed by the Bar-On model added at the fourth step accounted for 5% greater variance; and the TEIQue added at the fifth step accounted for an additional 7% of the variance. Given the potential for multicollinearity between the two self-report trait EI scales, another series of regression analyses were conducted in which each trait scale was alternately entered
177
at the fourth step. Results for the EQ-i are shown in Table 3 and TEIQue in Table 4. For career decision-making self-efficacy, the EQ-i entered at the fourth step accounted for an additional 5% but the TEIQue entered separately accounted for an additional 10% of the variance. A similar pattern was found for career indecision where the Bar-On model accounted for an additional 4%, but again the TEIQue accounted for an additional 9% to the model. Finally the EQ-i added an additional 5% to the variance for indecisiveness while the TEIQue accounted for an additional 8%.
4. Discussion and conclusions The aim of the present study was to determine whether EI defined by ability or self-report trait measures would contribute additional variance to that potentially described by cognitive intelligence (fluid ability), and major personality traits (Big 5 personality description) in relation to career decision-making self-efficacy, career indecision and indecisiveness. Previous research (Di Fabio & Saklofske, in press) examining individual resources reflecting psychological well-being such as self-evaluation, resilience, and life satisfaction showed that ability and self report trait EI models as well as different trait scales (i.e., EQ-i and TEIQue) yielded differential predictions. Ability EI (Mayer & Salovey, 1997) did not predict any of the variance in the individual resources measured in contrast to both self-report EI scales. In particular, the TEIQue explained a greater percentage of incremental variance compared to the EQ-i. The results of the present study confirmed the hypotheses that both self-reported EI assessed by the EQ-i and the TEIQue added significant incremental variance beyond that accounted for by personality traits in relation to career decision-making self-efficacy, career indecision and indecisiveness. Of interest is that neither of the more cognitively driven measures of intelligence (fluid intelligence and ability EI) contributed to any of the predictions regarding the career based domains. These findings supported previous studies demonstrating a relationship between self-reported trait EI and career decision-making self-efficacy (Brown et al., 2003), career indecision (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2008b, 2009a; Di Fabio et al., 2012, 2013), and indecisiveness (Di Fabio et al., 2013). Trait EI would appear to play a contributing role in the process of career decision making; persons with higher self reported trait EI may be better able to understand and integrate emotional experiences, thoughts and actions that are related to career issues and the making of career decisions. Another important finding besides the fact that only trait EI measures add to the prediction of career decision factors is that each of the two tested models performed slightly differently. The Petrides and Furnham (2004) model contributed almost twice as much variance to the prediction of the three career factors as did the EQ-i. These results highlight that these two trait EI models and the resulting measures are not completely overlapping (Ferrándiz et al., 2012). An examination of both the EQ-i and TEIQue shows that there certainly is some overlap in the definition of both the broad as well as more narrow facets included in each trait scale. However, the finding that the MSCEIT correlated .23 with the EQ-i and only .09 with the TEIQue while the two trait measures correlated .72. does show that each is measuring some common but also unique features of trait EI and thus may be expected to differentially contribute to the prediction of such key career decision factors as studied here. Notwithstanding the current findings, several limitations should be noted in the present study. Future research should consider participants more representative of the Italian context but also should be replicated in other countries and include high
178
A. Di Fabio, D.H. Saklofske / Personality and Individual Differences 64 (2014) 174–178
school students as well as others who are exploring careers (e.g., university students) and later life career changes. If the results of the present study are confirmed in future research, it will encourage the exploration of EI as factor to be further developed for use in career counseling contexts. As well, research findings suggest that EI can be increased through specific training (e.g., Di Fabio & Kenny, 2011). In particular, consideration could be given to expanding the range of interventions at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels respectively to include EI education programs more attention to screening and early intervention for personal and early career issues and the development of more focused and intense interventions that would incorporate empirically supported EI findings at the level of career counseling (Di Fabio & Bernaud, 2008; Di Fabio & Kenny, 2011). References Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Intelligence Inventory (EQ-i): Technical manual. Toronto, ON, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Betz, N. E., Klein, K. L., & Taylor, K. M. (1996). Evaluation of a short form of the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 47–57. Bracken, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(1), 147–158. Brown, C., George-Curran, R., & Smith, M. L. (2003). The role of emotional intelligence in the career commitment and decision-making process. Journal of Career Assessment, 11(4), 379–392. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Borgogni, L. (1993). BFQ: Big Five Questionnaire (2nd ed.). Firenze, Italy: Giunti O.S. D’Amico, A., & Curci, A. (2010). Mayer–Salovey–Caruso emotional intelligence test (MSCEIT). Firenze, Italy: Giunti O.S. Di Fabio, A. (2013). Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue): Un contributo alla validazione della versione italiana [Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue): A contribution to validation of the Italian version]. Counseling. Giornale Italiano di Ricerca e Applicazioni, 6, 351–362. Di Fabio, A., & Clarotti, S. (2007). Matrici progressive di Raven. Adattamento Italiano [Advanced Progressive Matrices by Raven: Italian adaptation]. Firenze, Italy: Giunti O.S. Di Fabio, A., & Bernaud, J. (2008). The help-seeking in career counseling. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(1), 60–66. Di Fabio, A., & Blustein, D. L. (2010). Emotional intelligence and decisional conflict styles: Some empirical evidence among Italian high school students. Journal of Career Assessment, 18(1), 71–81. Di Fabio, A., Busoni, L., & Palazzeschi, L. (2011). Indecisiveness Scale (IS): Proprietà psicometriche della versione italiana [Indecisiveness Scale (IS): Psychometric properties of the Italian version]. Counseling. Giornale Italiano di Ricerca e Applicazioni, 4, 13–24. Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. E. (2011). Promoting emotional intelligence and career decision making among Italian high school students. Journal of Career Assessment, 19, 21–34. Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. E. (2012a). The contribution of emotional intelligence to decisional styles among Italian high school students. Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 404–414. Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. E. (2012b). Emotional intelligence and perceived social support among Italian high school students. Journal of Career Development, 39, 461–475. Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2008a). Emotional intelligence and self-efficacy in a sample of Italian high school teacher. Social Behavior and Personality, 36(3), 315–326. Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2008b). Indécision vocationnelle et intelligence émotionnelle: Quelques données empiriques sur un échantillon d’apprentis italiens. Pratiques Psychologiques, 14(4), 213–222. Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2009a). Emotional intelligence, personality traits and career decision difficulties. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 9(2), 135–146.
Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2009b). An in-depht look at scholastic success: Fluid intelligence, personality traits or emotional intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 581–585. Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (Eds.). (2013). Italian adaptation of the CDDQ – Career Decision-making Difficulties Questionnaire. Firenze, Italy: Giunti O.S. Di Fabio, A., Palazzeschi, L., Asulin-Peretz, L., & Gati, I. (2013). Career indecision versus indecisiveness: Associations with personality traits and emotional intelligence. Journal of Career Assessment, 21, 42–56. Di Fabio, A., Palazzeschi, L., & Bar-On, R. (2012). The role of personality traits, core self-evaluation and emotional intelligence in career decision-making difficulties. Journal of Employment Counseling, 49, 118–129. Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. (in press). Promoting individual resources: The challenge of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences. Emmerling, R. J., & Cherniss, C. (2003). Emotional intelligence and career choice process. Journal of Career Assessment, 11(2), 153–167. Ferrándiz, C., Hernández, D., Bermejo, R., Ferrando, M., & Sáinz, M. (2012). Social and emotional intelligence in childhood and adolescence: Spanish validation of a measurement instrument. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 17(2), 309–338. Franco, M., & Tappatà, L. (2009). EQ-iTM Emotional Quotient Inventory. Validazione italiana [EQ-iTM Emotional Quotient Inventory. Italian validation]. Firenze, Italy: Giunti O. S. Freudenthaler, H. H., Neubauer, A. C., Gabler, P., Scherl, W. G., & Rindermann, H. (2008). Testing and validating the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire (TEIQue) in German-speaking sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 673–678. Frost, R. O., & Shows, D. L. (1993). The nature and measurement of compulsive indecisiveness. Behavior Research Therapy, 31, 683–692. Gati, I., Krausz, M., & Osipow, S. H. (1996). A taxonomy of difficulties in career decision making. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(4), 510–526. Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., Senecal, C., Larose, S., & Deschenes, A. (2006). Distinguishing developmental from chronic career indecision: Self-efficacy, autonomy, and social support. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 235–255. Kenny, M. E., Di Fabio, A., & Minor, K. (in press). Emotional intelligence and positive psychology in the schools. In M. J. Furlong, R. Gilman, & E. S. Huebner (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in the schools (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis. Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2007). The science of emotional intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. New York: Oxford University Press. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT): User’s manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Selecting a measure of emotional intelligence: The case of ability scales. In R. Bar-On & J. D. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 320–342). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3–31). New York: Basic Books. Nota, L., Pace, F., & Ferrari, L. (2008). Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale – Short Form: Uno studio per l’adattamento italiano [Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale – Short Form: A study for Italian adaptation]. GIPO Giornale Italiano di Psicologia dell’Orientamento, 9(2), 23–35. Osipow, S. H. (1999). Assessing career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 147–154. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 313–320. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425–428. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2004). Technical manual of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue). London: University of London, Institute of Education. Raven, J. C. (1962). Advanced progressive matrices. Firenze, Italy: Organizzazioni Speciali. Saklofske, D. H., Austin, E. J., & Minski, P. S. (2003). Factor structure and validity of a trait emotional intelligence measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 707–721. Savickas, M. L. (2004). Vocational psychology, overview. In C. Spielberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology (pp. 655–667). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Stough, C., Saklofske, D., & Parker, J. (2009). Assessing emotional intelligence: Theory, research, and applications. New York: Springer.