This research applies to most human-machine systems that require human monitoring, particularly those involving automated subsystems.

Subjective state constructs are defined within the traditional domains of affect, motivation, and cognition. Currently, there is no overarching state model that interrelates constructs within the different domains. This article reports 3 studies that provide converging evidence for 3 fundamental state dimensions labeled task engagement, distress, and worry that integrate constructs across the traditional domains. Study 1 differentiated the state dimensions by factor analysis of the scales of the Dundee Stress State Questionnaire (G. Matthews et al., 1999). Study 2 showed differential state response to performance of tasks making different cognitive demands. Study 3 showed that states are correlated with differing patterns of appraisal and coping. The 3 stress state dimensions provide a general descriptive framework consistent with transactional accounts of stress and performance.

This second edition of the bestselling textbook Personality Traits is an essential text for students doing courses in personality psychology and individual differences. The authors have updated the volume throughout, incorporating the latest research in the field, and added three new chapters on personality across the lifespan, health and applications of personality assessment. Personality research has been transformed by recent advances in our understanding of personality traits. This book reviews the origins of traits in biological and social processes, and their consequences for cognition, stress, and physical and mental health. Contrary to the traditional view of personality research as a collection of disconnected theories, Personality Traits provides an integrated account, linking theory-driven research with applications in clinical and occupational psychology. The new format of the book, including many additional features, makes it even more accessible and reader friendly.

Cet article est une revue critique des théories et résultats empiriques favorables à l’intelligence émotionelle (I.E.) et à son prétendu rôle dans l’environnement professionnel. On s’intéresse au statut supposé de l’I.E. dans la performance au travail, la satisfaction et l’évaluation de la carrière et des compétences (surtout dans la domaine de la sélection et de l’orientation). Globalement, cette revue de questions prouve que les recherches récentes ont fait de grands pas dans la comprehénsion de l’utilité de l’I.E. au travail. Les preuves strictement scientifiques sont cependant insuffisantes, la littérature accordant une confiance excessive aux avis d’experts, aux anecdotes, aux études de cas et aux enquêtes privées non publiées. On propose, à la fin de l’article, quelques directives pratiques pour favoriser le développement et l’utilisation de mesures de l’I.E. dans les situations professionnelles. This paper critically reviews conceptualisations and empirical evidence in support of emotional intelligence (EI) and its claimed role in the occupational environment. Consideration is given to the purported status of EI in occupational and career assessment (with particular emphasis on personnel selection and placement), job performance, and satisfaction. Overall, this review demonstrates that recent research has made important strides towards understanding the usefulness of EI in the workplace. However, the ratio of hyperbole to hard evidence is high, with over‐reliance in the literature on expert opinion, anecdote, case studies, and unpublished proprietary surveys. The review concludes by providing a number of practical guidelines for the development and implementation of EI measures within occupational settings.

Performance-based measures of emotional intelligence (EI) are more likely than measures based on self-report to assess EI as a construct distinct from personality. A multivariate investigation was conducted with the performance-based, Multi-Factor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS; J. D. Mayer, D. Caruso, & P. Salovey, 1999). Participants (N ‫ס‬ 704) also completed the Trait Self-Description Inventory (TSDI, a measure of the Big Five personality factors; Christal, 1994; R. D. Roberts et al.), and the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB, a measure of intelligence). Results were equivocal. Although the MEIS showed convergent validity (correlating moderately with the ASVAB) and divergent validity (correlating minimally with the TSDI), different scoring protocols (i.e., expert and consensus) yielded contradictory findings. Analyses of factor structure and subscale reliability identified further measurement problems. Overall, it is questionable whether the MEIS operationalizes EI as a reliable and valid construct.