On Personality Measures and Their Data: A Classification of Measurement Approaches and Their Recommended Uses.

We employ a new approach for classifying methods of personality measurement such as self-judgment, mental ability, and lifespace measures and the data they produce. We divide these measures into two fundamental groups: personal-source data, which arise from the target person's own reports, and external-source data, which derive from the areas surrounding the person. These two broad classes are then further divided according to what they target and the response processes that produce them. We use the model to organize roughly a dozen kinds of data currently employed in the field. With this classification system in hand, we describe how much we might expect two types of measures of the same attribute to converge-and explain why methods often yield somewhat different results. Given that each measurement method has its own strengths and weaknesses, we examine the pros and cons of selecting a given type of measure to assess a specific area of personality.

Personal Intelligence Is Evident in the Sophistication of People's Narratives about Personality.

Personal intelligence concerns the ability to understand personality in oneself and others-including the understanding of motives, socioemotional traits, and abilities. We examined if people's scores on the ability-based Test of Personal Intelligence (TOPI) would be reflected in their narratives about someone whose personality they had learned about. In a Preliminary Study (N = 220), we collected narratives and open-ended descriptions about their learning. In Study 1 (N = 212), experts rated the respondents' open-ended narratives for their sophistication about personality, defined as their knowledge and complexity of thought around the topic. Respondents also filled out checklists concerning what they learned and their relationship outcomes. Study 2 (N = 299) was a replication and extension in which we added the TOPI. Participants who scored higher on the TOPI produced narratives higher in Sophistication, even after statistical controls for Word Count and Vocabulary (the measures also were largely independent of the Big Five). The findings here may have applications for both testing and training.

Are People-Centered Intelligences Psychometrically Distinct from Thing-Centered Intelligences? A Meta-Analysis.

The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) or three-stratum model of intelligence envisions human intelligence as a hierarchy. General intelligence (g) is situated at the top, under which are a group of broad intelligences such as verbal, visuospatial processing, and quantitative knowledge that pertain to more specific areas of reasoning. Some broad intelligences are people-centered, including personal, emotional, and social intelligences; others concern reasoning about things more generally, such as visuospatial and quantitative knowledge. In the present research, we conducted a meta-analysis of 87 studies, including 2322 effect sizes, to examine the average correlation between people-to-people intelligences relative to the average correlation between people-to-thing-centered intelligences (and similar comparisons). Results clearly support the psychometric distinction between people-centered and thing-centered mental abilities. Coupled with evidence for incremental predictions from people-centered intelligences, our findings provide a secure foundation for continued research focused on people-centered mental abilities.

When people estimate their personal intelligence who is overconfident? Who is accurate?

OBJECTIVE: We explore accurate self-knowledge versus overconfidence in personal intelligence-a "broad" intelligence about personality. The theory of personal intelligence proposes that people vary in their ability to understand the traits, goals, plans, and actions of themselves and others. We wondered who accurately knew that they were higher in personal intelligence and who did not, and whether individuals with more accurate estimates were distinguishable from others in their psychological characteristics. METHOD: Three archival data sets were identified that included both self-estimates and objective measures of personal intelligence: The measures were the Self-Estimated Personal Intelligence scale and the Test of Personal Intelligence. RESULTS: People who were over-confident-overestimating their ability-level of personal intelligence-were positive in their outlook and more sociable. People who provided the most accurate self-estimates were higher in verbal and personal intelligences, more open, and more conscientious than others. CONCLUSIONS: People who were accurate about themselves have not been studied before in this context but may, for example, serve as the monitors and thinkers who help keep themselves and others reasonable and on track.

An Integrated Approach to Personality Assessment Based on the Personality Systems Framework.

Psychologists who carry out personality assessments must be conversant in diverse technical languages to describe their clients' social contexts and inner personality function. The clinician needs to understand a person's family, gender role, ethnic identity, religious beliefs, and similar qualities, and also a client's inner personality functioning, including the workings of motives, emotions, cognition, and self-control: These can be characterized by relevant psychiatric symptoms, personality traits, and individual test scores such as those on the MMPI-2-RF and Rorschach-Performance Assessment System. The Personality Systems Framework for Assessment (PSF-A) can support the assessment process by organizing information about both an individual's context and personality function, freeing professionals to optimally focus on characterizing their clients.

Advancing the Measurement of Personal Intelligence with the Test of Personal Intelligence, Version 5 (TOPI 5).

People use their personal intelligence (PI) to understand personality in themselves and others. In Studies 1 and 2 (Ns = 961 and 548), individuals completed the Test of Personal Intelligence, Version 5 (TOPI 5), which is introduced here. The TOPI 5 is an ability assessment with a broader range of content and more challenging items than earlier test versions. In past research, factor analyses indicated that people employ two distinct but highly correlated abilities to problem-solve in this area. These two-factor models, however, exhibited instabilities and limited applicability between the TOPI 4 and 5 in this research (and as reported in the Supplementary Materials). In Study 3, we successfully test the one-factor models of the TOPI with the present data and archival data sets (Narchival = 19,627). We then use the one-factor models to develop a pair of new test forms: one that is compatible with all the TOPI test versions and another, TOPI 5E, that is better at distinguishing among people scoring in the higher range of performance relative to previous measures.

Employees High in Personal Intelligence Differ From Their Colleagues in Workplace Perceptions and Behavior.

Personal intelligence (PI) involves the ability to recognize, reason, and use information about personality to understand oneself and other people. Employees in two studies (Ns = 394, 482) completed the Test of Personal Intelligence (TOPI; e.g., Mayer, Panter, & Caruso, 2017a) and assessments of workplace perception and behavior. Higher PI was associated with higher perceived workplace support and lower counterproductive work behavior. These relationships continued to hold after controlling for other key variables. The results indicate the TOPI, although still in research trials, shows promise as a screening device for selecting employees and targeting individuals for training.

The growing significance of hot intelligences.

Comments on the original article, "Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments," by R. E. Nisbett, J. Aronson, C. Blair, W. Dickens, J. Flynn, D. F. Halpern, and E. Turkheimer (see record 2011-30298-001). The present authors note that Nisbett et al's review focuses on intelligences that have been topics of research through the 20th century. Since then, however, attention to a new group of intelligences that the present authors refer to as "hot intelligences" has been growing (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004). Although Nisbett et al (2012) mentioned potential newcomers to the group of intelligences, such as practical intelligence, the present authors feel that future reviews should consider the burgeoning research in new conceptions of intelligence. Here the authors express a rationale for including a consideration of these newly described intelligences.

Does personal intelligence exist? Evidence from a new ability-based measure.

Personal intelligence has been defined as the ability to reason about personality and personality-relevant information and to use that information to guide one's actions and more generally, one's life. We constructed an initial version of an ability-based measure to test whether personal intelligence can be measured and whether it exists as a unitary intelligence. In 3 studies (N = 241, 308, and 385), we administered this Test of Personal Intelligence (TOPI), composed of 4 sections, to undergraduates along with criterion measures. Results suggested that a personal intelligence can be measured, that it might exist as a unified area of mental abilities, and that it represents psychological qualities that have intriguing predictive aspects.

Emotional intelligence: new ability or eclectic traits?

Some individuals have a greater capacity than others to carry out sophisticated information processing about emotions and emotion-relevant stimuli and to use this information as a guide to thinking and behavior. The authors have termed this set of abilities emotional intelligence (EI). Since the introduction of the concept, however, a schism has developed in which some researchers focus on EI as a distinct group of mental abilities, and other researchers instead study an eclectic mix of positive traits such as happiness, self-esteem, and optimism. Clarifying what EI is and is not can help the field by better distinguishing research that is truly pertinent to EI from research that is not. EI--conceptualized as an ability--is an important variable both conceptually and empirically, and it shows incremental validity for predicting socially relevant outcomes.

Human abilities: emotional intelligence.

Emotional intelligence (EI) involves the ability to carry out accurate reasoning about emotions and the ability to use emotions and emotional knowledge to enhance thought. We discuss the origins of the EI concept, define EI, and describe the scope of the field today. We review three approaches taken to date from both a theoretical and methodological perspective. We find that Specific-Ability and Integrative-Model approaches adequately conceptualize and measure EI. Pivotal in this review are those studies that address the relation between EI measures and meaningful criteria including social outcomes, performance, and psychological and physical well-being. The Discussion section is followed by a list of summary points and recommended issues for future research.

Emotional intelligence and emotional creativity.

Three studies examined the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and emotional creativity (EC) and whether each construct was predictive of creative behavior. It was hypothesized that the relationship between EI and EC corresponds to the relationship between cognitive intelligence and creative ability. Therefore, EI and EC were expected to be two distinct sets of abilities. Intercorrelations and confirmatory factor analyses supported the hypothesis. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that EC, but not EI, would correlate with behavioral creativity. Self-report measures of EC significantly correlated with laboratory and self-reported creativity measures in both studies, while ability measures of EC only correlated with self-reported artistic activity. EI was uncorrelated with creative behavior.

A tale of two visions: can a new view of personality help integrate psychology?

Personality psychology studies how psychological systems work together. Consequently, the field can act as a unifying resource for the broader discipline of psychology. Yet personality's current fieldwide organization promotes a fragmented view of the person, seen through such competing theories as the psychodynamic, trait, and humanistic. There exists an alternative--a systems framework for personality--that focuses on 4 topics: identifying personality, personality's parts, its organization, and its development. This new framework and its view of personality are described. The framework is applied to such issues as personality measurement, psychotherapy outcome research, and education. The new framework may better organize the field of personality and help with its mission of addressing how major psychological systems interrelate.

How does psychotherapy influence personality? A theoretical integration.

A given type of psychotherapy (e.g., psychodynamic) is associated with a set of specific change techniques (e.g., interpreting defenses, identifying relationship themes). Different change techniques can be conceived of as influencing different parts of personality (e.g., interpreting defense increases conscious awareness). An integrated model of personality is presented. Then, change techniques from different theoretical perspectives are assigned by judges to areas of personality the techniques are believed to influence. The results suggest that specific change techniques can be reliably sorted into the areas of personality. Thinking across theoretical perspectives leads to important new opportunities for assessment, therapy outcome research, and communication with patients concerning personality change.

Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0.

Does a recently introduced ability scale adequately measure emotional intelligence (EI) skills? Using the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; J. D. Mayer, P. Salovey, & D. R. Caruso, 2002b), the authors examined (a) whether members of a general standardization sample and emotions experts identified the same test answers as correct, (b) the test's reliability, and (c) the possible factor structures of EI. Twenty-one emotions experts endorsed many of the same answers, as did 2,112 members of the standardization sample, and exhibited superior agreement, particularly when research provides clearer answers to test questions (e.g., emotional perception in faces). The MSCEIT achieved reasonable reliability, and confirmatory factor analysis supported theoretical models of EI. These findings help clarify issues raised in earlier articles published in Emotion.

Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence.

This study investigated the convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of one ability test of emotional intelligence (EI)--the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso-Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT)--and two self-report measures of EI--the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) and the self-report EI test (SREIT). The MSCEIT showed minimal relations to the EQ-i and SREIT, whereas the latter two measures were moderately interrelated. Among EI measures, the MSCEIT was discriminable from well-studied personality and well-being measures, whereas the EQ-i and SREIT shared considerable variance with these measures. After personality and verbal intelligence were held constant, the MSCEIT was predictive of social deviance, the EQ-i was predictive of alcohol use, and the SREIT was inversely related to academic achievement. In general, results showed that ability EI and self-report EI are weakly related and yield different measurements of the same person.

Relation of an ability measure of emotional intelligence to personality.

Is emotional intelligence simply a naive theory of personality, or is it a form of intelligence? If emotional intelligence is to be of value, it must measure something unique and distinct from standard personality traits. To explore this question, this study examined an ability test of emotional intelligence and its relationship to personality test variables to determine the extent to which these constructs overlap. A sample of 183 men and women took the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999), an ability measure of emotional intelligence as well as measures of career interests, personality, and social behavior. Emotional intelligence was measured reliably and was relatively independent of traditionally defined personality traits, supporting the discriminant validity of the emotional intelligence construct.