Faking Good on Self-Reports Versus Informant-Reports of Emotional Intelligence.

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
ACS Applied Electronic Materials Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-14 DOI:10.1177/10731911231203960
Sarah A Walker, Carolyn MacCann
{"title":"Faking Good on Self-Reports Versus Informant-Reports of Emotional Intelligence.","authors":"Sarah A Walker, Carolyn MacCann","doi":"10.1177/10731911231203960","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research demonstrates that people can fake on self-rated emotional intelligence scales. As yet, no studies have investigated whether informants (where a knowledgeable informant rates a target's emotional intelligence) can also fake on emotional intelligence inventories. This study compares mean score differences for a simulated job selection versus a standard instructed set for both self-ratings and informant-ratings on the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Short Form (TEIQue-SF). In a 2 × 2 between-person design, participants (<i>N</i> = 81 community volunteers, 151 university students) completed the TEIQue-SF as either self-report or informant-report in one of two instruction conditions (answer honestly, job simulation). Both self-reports (<i>d</i> = 1.47) and informant-reports (<i>d</i> = 1.56) were significantly higher for job simulation than \"answer honestly\" instructions, indicating substantial faking. We conclude that people can fake emotional intelligence for both themselves (self-report) and on behalf of someone else (informant-report). We discuss the relevance of our findings for self- and informant-report assessment in applied contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11134977/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911231203960","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research demonstrates that people can fake on self-rated emotional intelligence scales. As yet, no studies have investigated whether informants (where a knowledgeable informant rates a target's emotional intelligence) can also fake on emotional intelligence inventories. This study compares mean score differences for a simulated job selection versus a standard instructed set for both self-ratings and informant-ratings on the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Short Form (TEIQue-SF). In a 2 × 2 between-person design, participants (N = 81 community volunteers, 151 university students) completed the TEIQue-SF as either self-report or informant-report in one of two instruction conditions (answer honestly, job simulation). Both self-reports (d = 1.47) and informant-reports (d = 1.56) were significantly higher for job simulation than "answer honestly" instructions, indicating substantial faking. We conclude that people can fake emotional intelligence for both themselves (self-report) and on behalf of someone else (informant-report). We discuss the relevance of our findings for self- and informant-report assessment in applied contexts.

虚假的自我报告与情商的告密者报告。
研究表明,人们可以在自我评定的情绪智力量表上造假。到目前为止,还没有研究调查线人(知识渊博的线人对目标的情商进行评分)是否也会伪造情商清单。这项研究比较了模拟工作选择的平均分差异与特质情商问卷简表(TEIQue SF)上自我评分和举报人评分的标准指示集。在2×2的人与人之间设计中,参与者(N=81名社区志愿者,151名大学生)在两种教学条件之一(诚实回答,工作模拟)下完成了TEIQue SF,作为自我报告或线人报告。工作模拟的自我报告(d=1.47)和举报人报告(d=1.56)都显著高于“诚实回答”指示,这表明存在大量造假行为。我们得出的结论是,人们可以为自己(自我报告)和他人(线人报告)伪造情商。我们讨论了我们的研究结果在应用背景下对自我和举报人报告评估的相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信