How Emotional Intelligence Might Get You the Job: The Relationship Between Trait Emotional Intelligence and Faking on Personality Tests

Figures & data

Table 1. Job Profiles for Faking Scenarios.

File Clerk
Positive facets	Cooperation (A), Orderliness (C), Dutifulness (C), Self-discipline (C)
Negative facets	Gregariousness (E), Assertiveness (E), Activity (E), Excitement seeking (E), Adventurousness (O)
Neutral facets	Trust (A), Morality (A), Lack of Self-consciousness (ES), Emotionality (O)
Lawyer
Positive facets	Orderliness (C), Self-discipline (C), Gregariousness (E), Assertiveness (E), Activity (E), Lack of Self-consciousness (ES)
Negative facets	Trust (A), Morality (A), Cooperation (A)
Neutral facets	Dutifulness (C), Excitement seeking (E), Emotionality (O), Adventurousness (O)

Note. Self-consciousness is keyed in the positive direction. O = Openness to Experience; C = Conscientiousness; E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; ES = Emotional Stability. Positive and negative facets based on Raymark et al. (2004).

Table 2. Mean Facet Scores in Honest Condition and Faking Scenarios.

	Honest			File Clerk								Lawyer
Facet	α	M	SD	M	SD	ΔM	t	d	H	α	rdd	M	SD	ΔM	t	d	H	α	rdd
Trust (A)	.71	16.96	3.00	18.43	3.04	1.47	−4.22	−0.48	NH	.76	—	13.04	3.46	−3.92	10.54	1.21	—	.72	.66
Morality (A)	.72	19.32	2.72	22.38	2.19	3.06	−10.63	−1.24	NH	.68	—	15.37	3.60	−3.95	10.79	1.23	—	.66	.63
Cooperation (A)	.63	17.53	2.83	20.81	2.37	3.28	−12.56	−1.25	+	.51	.36	12.93	3.38	−4.60	12.71	1.47	—	.71	.63
Orderliness (C)	.77	16.41	3.54	23.98	1.72	7.57	−23.12	−2.68	+	.79	.75	20.01	3.10	3.60	−8.65	−1.08	+	.73	.75
Dutifulness (C)	.64	19.88	2.37	23.36	2.05	3.48	−13.45	−1.57	+	.78	.66	20.07	3.51	0.19	−0.53	−0.06	NH	.76	—
Self-discipline (C)	.80	16.25	3.34	23.05	2.09	6.80	−19.49	−2.44	+	.63	.75	23.36	2.07	7.12	−20.06	−2.57	+	.77	.80
Gregariousness (E)	.68	17.25	3.21	13.33	3.20	−3.92	9.73	1.22	—	.70	.69	19.28	2.11	2.03	−6.13	−0.75	+	.29	.54
Assertiveness (E)	.67	15.49	3.00	15.45	3.10	−0.04	0.11	0.01	—	.70	.60	21.28	2.33	5.79	−16.71	−2.16	+	.47	.63
Activity (E)	.66	15.58	2.72	19.39	2.56	3.81	−12.03	−1.44	—	.50	.55	19.82	2.20	4.24	−13.87	−1.72	+	.19	.47
Excitement seeking (E)	.78	15.93	3.41	11.81	3.08	−4.12	9.83	1.27	—	.70	.76	19.89	2.70	3.96	−11.53	−1.28	NH	.63	—
Self-consciousness (ES)	.66	16.12	3.06	18.30	3.83	2.18	−5.18	−0.63	NH	.79	—	23.09	2.11	6.97	−21.35	−2.65	+	.70	.67
Emotionality (O)	.78	14.11	3.64	9.26	2.57	−4.85	12.57	1.54	NH	.67	—	8.22	2.06	−5.89	15.68	2.00	NH	.46	—
Adventurousness (O)	.61	14.76	2.70	12.52	3.05	−2.24	5.81	0.78	—	.56	.64	17.93	2.28	3.17	−10.53	−1.27	NH	.42	—

Note. All mean differences are significant (p < .01), except those in bold. Possible range of 5–25. Reliabilities of the difference scores were calculated using the formula: r_dd = (σ²_d- σ²_ed)/σ²_d where σ²_ed = σ²_h (1-r_hh) + σ²_f (1-r_ff) and h refers to the honest condition and f to the faking condition (McFarland & Ryan, 2006). O = Openness to Experience; C = Conscientiousness; E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; ES = Emotional Stability; H = hypothesized relationship; + = positive, — = negative; NH = no hypothesized relationship.

Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability Coefficients, and Intercorrelations Between Variables.

Table 4. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting the Ability to Fake.

Table 5. Results From Polynomial Regression Analyses Predicting Trait Emotional Intelligence.

	File Clerk						Lawyer
Model	b	SE	β	R^2	ΔR^2	ΔF	b	SE	β	R^2	ΔR^2	ΔF
Step 1				.13**		9.60**				.23**		18.31**
Faking score	.39	.19	.17*				.38	.17	.17*
Honest score	−.71	.18	−.33**				1.02	.18	.45**
Step 2				.14**	.01	.39				.28**	.05*	2.83*
Faking score	.41	.20	.18*				.49	.18	.22**
Honest score	−.73	.18	−.34**				1.06	.18	.47**
Faking score squared	.23	.45	.04				.50	.38	.11
Honest score squared	−.39	.44	−.08				−1.16	.48	−.19*
Faking × Honest score	.14	.68	.02				−.48	.64	−.06

*p < .05. **p < .01, two-sided.

Table 6. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting the Ability to Fake on the Facet Level.

		File Clerk							Lawyer
Dependent Variable	Independent Variable	b	SE	β	rxy.z	R^2	ΔR^2	F	b	SE	β	rxy.z	R^2	ΔR^2	F
Ability to fake
Lack of self-consciousness	OTF – Lack of self-consciousness								1.08	.07	.89**	.81	.69	.01*	139.28**
	TEI								.78	.34	.13*	.20
Morality	OTF – Morality								.79	.11	.52**	.53	.30	.03*	26.96**
	TEI								1.16	.49	.18**	.21
Cooperation	OTF – Cooperation	.69	.07	.66**	.67	.46	.02*	53.73**	.86	.11	.59**	.59	.35	.01*	34.35**
	TEI	.60	.31	.13*	.17				.78	.47	.12^†	.15
Gregariousness	OTF – Gregariousness	.95	.10	.66**	.66	.52	.01*	69.20**
	TEI	.92	.49	.13*	.17
Excitement seeking	OTF – Excitement seeking	1.01	.09	.72**	.73	.59	.01*	92.34**
	TEI	.84	.46	.11*	.16

Note. OTF = opportunity to fake; TEI = trait emotional intelligence; r_xy.z = partial correlation controlling for other variable in the model.

^† p = .05, one-sided. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Raymark, P. H., Shilobod, T. L., & Steffensmeier, J. (April, 2004). An examination of job-relevant pattern faking. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.

 Google Scholar

McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2006). Toward an integrated model of applicant faking behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 979–1016. doi:10.1111/jasp.2006.36.issue-4

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar