Some authors have claimed that emotional intelligence predicts success at work, at school, and in relationships, as well as or better than IQ. Little research exists to support or refute this claim at present. In this study, the ability of emotional intelligence to predict academic achievement was examined in a sample of undergraduate psychology students, using year-end grades as the criterion. The predictive validity of emotional intelligence was compared with the predictive validity of traditional cognitive abilities and the Big Five dimensions of personality. In addition, the incremental predictive validity of each of these three domains was assessed. In this setting, only some measures of Emotional Intelligence predicted academic success, and none of these measures showed incremental predictive validity for academic success over and above cognitive and personality variables. It may be that the overlap between many emotional intelligence measures and traditional measures of intelligence and personality limits their incremental predictive validity in this context.

These findings suggest that the recent trend toward conceptualizing the latent structure of negative symptoms as 2 distinct dimensions does not adequately capture the complexity of the construct. The latent structure of negative symptoms is best conceptualized in relation to the 5 consensus domains. Implications for identifying pathophysiological mechanisms and targeted treatments are discussed.

Objective The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991, 2003) is often used to assess risk of violence, perhaps based on the assumption that it captures emotionally detached individuals who are driven to prey upon others. This study is designed to assess the relation between (a) core interpersonal and affective traits of psychopathy and impulsive antisociality on the one hand, and (b) the risk of future violence, and patterns of motivation for past violence, on the other. Method A research team reliably assessed a sample of 158 male offenders for psychopathy, using both the interview-based PCL-R and the self-report Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI: Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996). Then, a second, independent research team assessed offenders' lifetime patterns of violence and its motivation. After these baseline assessments, offenders were followed in prison and/or the community for up to one year to assess their involvement in three different forms of violence. Baseline and follow-up assessments included both interviews and reviews of official records. Results First, the PPI manifested incremental validity in predicting future violence over the PCL-R (but not vice versa) – and most of its predictive power derived solely from impulsive antisociality. Second, impulsive antisociality – not interpersonal and affective traits specific to psychopathy – were uniquely associated with instrumental lifetime patterns of past violence. The latter psychopathic traits are narrowly associated with deficits in motivation for violence (e.g., lack of fear; lack of provocation). Conclusion These findings and their consistency with some past research advise against broad generalizations about the relation between psychopathy and violence.

No abstract

Dimensions of Emotional Intelligence (EI) were derived, and their place with respect to the cognitive ability and personality domains was examined. A factor analysis of 24 maximum-performance and self-report EI measures administered to an undergraduate sample ( N= 176) yielded five factors: Emotional Congruence, Emotional Independence, Social Perceptiveness, Alexithymia, and Social Confidence. Emotional Congruence had lowcorrelations with four cognitive ability factors and Big Five personality factors, indicating that it may represent either a new psychological construct or a method factor. Social Perceptiveness correlated significantly with cognitive abilities, indicating its place in this domain. The remaining three factors had moderate correlations with various personality dimensions and low correlations with cognitive abilities, indicating that they fall outside the latter domain. On the basis of the present results, only maximum-performance and not self-report measures of EI can be seen as tapping the cognitive ability domain.