Cited by 1,122Emotional Intelligence and PerformancePersonality Traits and PsychologyCognitive Abilities and Testing

The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis

O'Boyle, Ernest H., Humphrey, Ronald H., Pollack, Jeffrey M., Hawver, Thomas H., Story, Paul A.·2011·Journal of Organizational Behavior

Abstract

This meta‐analysis builds upon a previous meta‐analysis by (1) including 65 per cent more studies that have over twice the sample size to estimate the relationships between emotional intelligence (EI) and job performance; (2) using more current meta‐analytical studies for estimates of relationships among personality variables and for cognitive ability and job performance; (3) using the three‐stream approach for classifying EI research; (4) performing tests for differences among streams of EI research and their relationships with personality and cognitive intelligence; (5) using latest statistical procedures such as dominance analysis; and (6) testing for publication bias. We classified EI studies into three streams: (1) ability‐based models that use objective test items; (2) self‐report or peer‐report measures based on the four‐branch model of EI; and (3) “mixed models” of emotional competencies. The three streams have corrected correlations ranging from 0.24 to 0.30 with job performance. The three streams correlated differently with cognitive ability and with neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Streams 2 and 3 have the largest incremental validity beyond cognitive ability and the Five Factor Model (FFM). Dominance analysis demonstrated that all three streams of EI exhibited substantial relative importance in the presence of FFM and intelligence when predicting job performance. Publication bias had negligible influence on observed effect sizes. The results support the overall validity of EI. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Note: Correction added on 22 July 2010 after first publication online on 29 June 2010. The affiliations for Ronald H. Humphrey and Thomas H. Hawver have been corrected in this version of the article.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/job.714

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 213 · Cited by 1,122

Authors
O'Boyle, E. H., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A.
Affiliations
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
  • University of Richmond (US)
  • William & Mary (US)
Venue
Journal of Organizational Behavior
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-06-13
Volume
32
Issue
5
Pages
788-818
ISSN
  • 0894-3796 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1379
OpenAlex
W2069052736
Cited by
1,122
References
213
Citations by year
2026: 62 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 75 · 2023: 83 · 2022: 84 · 2021: 111 · 2020: 90 · 2019: 81 · 2018: 81 · 2017: 63 · 2016: 80 · 2015: 62 · 2014: 70 · 2013: 46 · 2012: 44
FWCI
47.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Organizational Behavior (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotional Intelligence and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
emotional intelligence, employee performance, incremental validity, cognitive ability, Big Five personality traits, personality traits, neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness, publication bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review