We examine the relationship between the general factor of personality (GFP) and emotional intelligence (EI) and specifically test the hypothesis that the GFP is a social effectiveness factor overlapping conceptually with EI. Presented is an extensive meta-analysis in which the associations between the GFP, extracted from the Big Five dimensions, with various EI measures is examined. Based on a total sample of k = 142 data sources (N = 36,268) the 2 major findings from the meta-analysis were (a) a large overlap between the GFP and trait EI (r ≈ .85); and (b) a positive, but more moderate, correlation with ability EI (r ≈ .28). These findings show that high-GFP individuals score higher on trait and ability EI, supporting the notion that the GFP is a social effectiveness factor. The findings also suggest that the GFP is very similar, perhaps even synonymous, to trait EI.
This study presents the first behavioral genetic investigation of the relationships between trait emotional intelligence (trait EI or trait emotional self-efficacy) and the Dark Triad traits of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. In line with trait EI theory, the construct correlated positively with narcissism, but negatively with the other two traits. Generally, the correlations were consistent across the 4 factors and 15 facets of the construct. Cholesky decomposition analysis revealed that the phenotypic associations were primarily due to correlated genetic factors and secondarily due to correlated nonshared environmental factors, with shared environmental factors being nonsignificant in all cases. Results are discussed from the perspective of trait EI theory with particular reference to the issue of adaptive value.
The General Factor of Personality (GFP) is a higher-order factor causing lower-order personality traits to show consistent correlations in a socially desirable direction. The literature on the GFP reveals that there are various scientific interpretations of this construct. One interpretation is that it is a substantive factor reflecting genera l social effectiveness and exerting a broad influence on behavior. Another interpretation is that it merely reflec t s methodological or statistical artifacts and has no further relevance for personality research. We review the empirical literature on the nature of the GFP, its possible links to evolutionary processes, and its relation to other constructs overlapping with social effectiveness. We conclude that the substantive interpretation of the GFP is the most plausible, whereas the notion that it is a psychologically meaningless methodological artifact would be rather difficult to uphold.
T he purpose of the present study was to determine if a general factor of personality (GFP) could be extracted from the six dimensions of the HEXACO model and four factors of trait emotional intelligence. Participants were 1,192 pairs of twins (666 MZ pairs, 526 DZ pairs) between the ages of 19 to 86 years, who completed the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire -Short Form and the HEXACO Personality Inventory -Revised. Principal components analysis yielded a strong GFP accounting for 33% of the variance, on which all variables with the exception of honesty-humility from the HEXACO showed moderate to large loadings. Behavioral genetic (BG) analyses revealed that individual differences in the GFP were entirely attributable to additive genetic and non-shared environmental factors -results that are in accord with previous BG analyses of a GFP. The present study adds to the body of evidence in support of a heritable GFP but an alternative perspective is also discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.