Intelligence, Practical Intelligence, Emotional Intelligence: In Search of Better Constructs

by T. R. Lin

Note: The ideas behind the write-up of this brief article are, in small part, attributed to my own recent reading and observations; moreover, in large part, intrigued by the 1995 PTC/SC Fall conference--specifically speakers Drs. Richard Arvey, Wayne Cascio, Diane Halpern and Malcolm Ree. I do not yet claim to fully understand the usefulness of these psychological constructs. Nevertheless, I do encourage you to pursue this line of discussion and research as it has the possibility of impacting future selection practice.

Intelligence

Since the 1994 publication of Herrnstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve, discussion surrounding the concept of intelligence, including the meaning of test scores, as well as individual and ethnic group differences, has received increased attention, in both social and academical circles. Psychometrically, tests of intelligence have come in many different forms. In conventional forms intelligence test scores are converted to a scale in which the mean is 100 and the standard deviation is 15. The term “IQ” has historically been used to describe scores on tests of intelligence.

IQ has been referred interchangeably with other conceptually similar concepts such as general intelligence factor (g), and cognitive mental ability. Hunter and his colleagues (e.g., Schmidt & Hunter, 1993; Ree & Earles, 1993) repeatedly report that scores on various intelligence tests predict a wide variety of job performance measures, with the mean of corrected correlations as high as .54. It is no wonder those of us who believe in the usefulness of high “g” loaded cognitive ability tests, would refer to these tests as the “best available predictor” of job success.

The APA task force on Intelligence recently issued a report acknowledging that not only can people have many ways to be intelligent, but there are also many conceptualizations of intelligence (see Neisser, et al, 1996). Although the psychometrically sound IQ tests--the ones with which we are most familiar--have since accumulated a substantial body of knowledge and received solid empirical support in predicting job performance, there are other forms of intelligence that standardized tests can not easily access: wisdom, creativity, critical thinking, practical knowledge, social skill, interpersonal effectiveness--to name just a few. Cascio (1995) echoed this and challenged I/O Psychologists to assist managers to identify and develop these skills.

Practical Intelligence

Some psychologists argue that mental ability has several important aspects and is not based on one form of intelligence test alone (see Neisser, et al, 1996). Sternberg, for example, suggests the need to balance between academic intelligence (book smarts, or what is previously referred to as “g” or cognitive mental ability above) on one hand, and creativity and especially practical intelligence (street smarts or common sense) on the other.

The tasks for academic intelligence tests usually are (1) formulated by others, (2) have little or no intrinsic interest, (3) have all needed information available from the beginning, (4) are disembedded from an individual’s ordinary experience, (5) are well-defined, have but one correct answer, and (6) have just one method of obtaining the correct solution. In direct contrast, the tasks for practical, real life work problems often (1) are unformulated or in need of reformation, (2) are of personal interest, (3) are lacking in information necessary for solution, (4) are related to everyday experience, (5) are poorly defined, (6) have multiple “correct” solutions, and (7) have multiple methods for picking a problem solution (cf. Sternberg, Wagner, Williams, & Horvath, 1995, p.913).

Sternberg and his associates demonstrated in a series of studies that performance on measures of practical intelligence predict real life criteria such as job performance, but is relatively unrelated to performance on intelligence tests and other common selection measures. They proposed to supplement existing cognitive ability tests in predicting job performance with additional measures based on this new construct, practical intelligence (PQ?). This new PQ construct may shed some light in explaining why highly job-related tests such as Assessment Centers work well in predicting job success.

Emotional Intelligence

“IQ gets you hired, but EQ gets you promoted” is the new slogan mentioned in the recent TIME magazine cover story on The EQ Factor (TIME, 1995). What is EQ, or emotional intelligence? According to Salvey (as cited in Goleman's 1995 book, Emotional Intelligence), it includes the following five domains: the ability to identify your emotion, the ability to manage your feeling, persistence and optimism despite setbacks, empathy, and social skills. Understanding one's own feeling, empathy for the feeling of others, and managing emotion in a way to enhance living are important qualities for both personal and work life. This sense of self-awareness and of being smart about what we feel has probably cornerstoned the importance of EQ.

According to Golemanˆs thesis, EQ is not the opposite of IQ (maybe EQ and PQ are different too?), how they complement each other is what we need to look into. To illustrate, the ability to handle work stress would very likely affect the ability to concentrate and put intelligence to work. Due to its complex nature, Goleman noted that it may not be possible to design a valid paper-and-pencil measurement of EQ.

On the other hand, Arvey, Renz and Driskill (1996) proposed a model that could lead to the assessment of individual differences in emotionality in order to improve current selection procedures. They indicated that there are individual differences in terms of the particular content or type of emotion displayed, the amplitude of emotion, and the duration of emotion triggered by particular stimuli in working settings, which, if properly measured, could add incremental validity in predicting relevant job behavior and outcomes over other measures.

In Search of Better Predictor Constructs

To search for and promote the use of alternative and better predictors are two of the missions of PTC/SC. Looking back throughout history of PTC/SC conferences, we are always covering the frontier topics such as measuring the g factor and beyond in 1986 and 1988, defining and measuring personal characteristics and beyond in 1991 and 1992, and the emotionality concept in 1995.

While we are pleased that individual differences in typical intelligence tests correlate .54 with job performance as reported in Schmidt and Hunter’s meta-analysis (i.e., up to 29% of the variance is accounted for), there is at least 71% of the variance in job performance that has not yet been accounted for by individual difference in intelligence test scores. Some well-constructed personality measures have been proposed in recent years which show promising incremental results in predicting job performance (e.g., Hogan, Hogan & Roberts, 1996). What is the relationship between these personality measures with constructs such as PQ or EQ? We need to explore alternative predictor constructs, such as practical intelligence and emotional intelligence. Maybe this is another chance to optimize our predictive power in assessing job performance.

References

Arvey, R.D., Renz, G., & Driskill, W. (1996). Feasibility of using individual difference in emotions as predictors of job performance. Technical report submitted to AL/HRMJ, Brooks ARF, TX 78235-5352.

Cascio, W.F. (1995). Whither industrial and organizational psychology in a changing world of work? American Psychologist, 50, 928-939.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam.

Herrnstein, R.J. & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Free Press.

Hogan, R., Hogan, J. & Roberts, B.W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment decisions: Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51, 469-477.

Neisser, U., Boodoo,G., Bouchard, T., Boykin, A.W., Brody, N., Ceci, S.J., Halpern, D.F., Loehlin, J.C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R.J., & Urbina,S. (1996). Intelligence: Known and unknown. American Psychologist, 51, 77-101.

Ree, M.J., & Earles, J.A. (1993). g is to psychology what carbon is to chemistry: A reply to Sternberg and Wagner, McClelland, and Calfee. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 11-12.

Schmidt, F.L. & Hunter, J.E. (1993). Tacit knowledge, practical intelligence, general mental ability, and job knowledge. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 8-9.

Sternberg, R.J., Wagner, R.K., Williams, W.M., & Horvath, J.A. (1995). Testing common sense. American Psychologist, 50, 912-927.

The EQ factor. (1995, October 2), Time, 60-66, 68.

This is a reprint of an article which appeared in the Personnel Testing Council of Southern California's monthly newsletter, Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 6, June 1996, p 5-6. The author, Dr. T.R. Lin, is Supervisor of Recruitment and Selection for the Personnel Commission of the Los Angeles Unified School District. T.R. is an active IPMAAC member serving as this year and next year's University Liaison and Student Paper Competition chair. T.R. is also a past President, Executive Director and current member of the board of directors of PTC/SC. He may be reached at (213) 743-3532 or trlin@aol.com.