David R. Caruso’s research while affiliated with Yale University and other places

The ability model of emotional intelligence (EI) specifies that four related abilities are involved: perceiving emotions, facilitating thought using emotions, understanding emotions, and managing them. Several performance-based assessments have been developed to measure those four abilities. Although some researchers find empirical support for the four abilities, others have argued that emotional intelligence divides into three abilities, two or even a single, unitary ability (Legree et al., 2014; Palmer, Gignac, Manocha, & Stough, 2005). We reanalyzed archival data from four ability tests of emotional intelligence, Ns = 503, 5000, 1000, and 2000, conducting item-level exploratory factor models of all four assessments for the first time. Based on those analyses, we suggest possible revisions of the 4-factor model to guide future research and assessment.

Personal intelligence (PI) refers to the capacity to accurately reason about personality in oneself and other people. We hypothesize that people who are higher in personal intelligence differ from others in their relationships and behaviors. We conducted a series of theoretically-guided studies to examine how PI is associated with a person’s self-reported activities, interactions, situations, and group memberships: their lifespace. In two archival and three new studies of college students (Ns = 385, 358, 1186, 416, 696, respectively) we first identified 15 short, factor-based scales describing aspects of college students’ lifespace that are potentially relevant to personal intelligence. Students who scored higher in PI indicated, for example, more positive social interactions including on Interpersonal Communication (e.g., “Listened to a distressed friend”); those who scored lower described more agonistic interactions such as Overt Conflict (e.g., “Got into a fight”). These and additional findings collectively improve our understanding of personal intelligence and of its relationship with the lifespace.

We examined the dimensions people use when estimating their ability to understand personality—an ability we refer to as personal intelligence. In the first two studies (Ns = 434 and 393), a four-factor model fit people's self-estimates reasonably, with scales of the “Explained Self”, “Self-Understanding”, “Understanding Others,” and “Goals and Planning”. In Study 2 and in Study 3 (N = 482) we examined whether any of the specific self-estimated abilities more accurately indexed actual ability-based personal intelligence relative to overall estimates, and if not, what other personality traits they correlated with. To find out, the four factor-based scales of self-estimated abilities were correlated with the objective Test of Personal Intelligence and traits of the Big Five. None of the specific, self-estimated abilities correlated with actual ability any higher than earlier-used experimenter-provided global self-estimated scales; the participants' self-estimates were determined chiefly by dimensions of the Big Five relative to ability, at a ratio of “variance explained” of six to one. The studies provide new insights into how people view their skills at understanding personality, and the possible origins of such beliefs.

Objective We explore accurate self‐knowledge versus overconfidence in personal intelligence—a “broad” intelligence about personality. The theory of personal intelligence proposes that people vary in their ability to understand the traits, goals, plans, and actions of themselves and others. We wondered who accurately knew that they were higher in personal intelligence and who did not, and whether individuals with more accurate estimates were distinguishable from others in their psychological characteristics. Method Three archival data sets were identified that included both self‐estimates and objective measures of personal intelligence: The measures were the Self‐Estimated Personal Intelligence scale (SEPI) and the Test of Personal Intelligence (TOPI). Results People who were over‐confident—overestimating their ability‐level of personal intelligence—were positive in their outlook and more sociable. People who provided the most accurate self‐estimates were higher in verbal and personal intelligences, more open, and more conscientious than others. Conclusions People who were accurate about themselves have not been studied before in this context but may, for example, serve as the monitors and thinkers who help keep themselves and others reasonable and on track.

People use their personal intelligence (PI) to understand the personality in themselves and others. In Studies 1 and 2 (Ns = 961 and 548), individuals completed the Test of Personal Intelligence, Version 5 (TOPI 5), which is introduced here. The TOPI 5 is an ability assessment with a broader range of content and more challenging items than the earlier test versions. In past research, the factor analyses indicated that people employ two distinct, but highly correlated, abilities to problem-solve in this area. Our two-factor models, however, exhibited instabilities and limited applicability between the TOPI 4 and 5 (a matter we examine more closely in the Supplementary Materials). In Study 3, we successfully test the one-factor models of the TOPI with the present data and archival data sets (Narchival = 19,627). We then use the one-factor models to develop a pair of new test forms: one that is compatible with all the TOPI test versions and another, TOPI 5E, that is better at distinguishing among people scoring in the higher range of performance relative to previous measures.

Personal intelligence (PI) involves the ability to recognize, reason, and use information about personality to understand oneself and other people. Employees in two studies (Ns = 394, 482) completed the Test of Personal Intelligence (TOPI; e.g., Mayer, Panter, & Caruso, 2017a) and assessments of workplace perception and behavior. Higher PI was associated with higher perceived workplace support and lower counterproductive work behavior. These relationships continued to hold after controlling for other key variables. The results indicate the TOPI, although still in research trials, shows promise as a screening device for selecting employees and targeting individuals for training.

Personal intelligence involves the capacity to reason about personality and personality-related information. Studying ability-based measures of personal intelligence creates a virtuous cycle of better measurement and better theoretical understanding. In Study 1 (N = 10,318), we conduct an item-level analysis of the Test of Personal Intelligence (TOPI) to explore people's problem-solving abilities in the area. Personal intelligence divided into a Consistency-Congruency factor that concerned understanding traits and their associated behaviors, and a Dynamic-Analytic factor that involved understanding personality processes and goals. The finding cross-validated in Study 2 (N = 8,459). In Study 3 (N = 384), we examined correlates of the two factors. Understanding the abilities involved in personal intelligence may help us to educate people about how to better solve problems about personality.

Our “Principles and Updates” article in this issue discussed the nature of emotional intelligence and its place in the overall intelligence pantheon. We welcome the comments by Schlegel and by Legree, Mullins, and Psotka, who describe their current research in the area and how it further informs our understanding of ability-based emotional intelligence.

This article presents seven principles that have guided our thinking about emotional intelligence, some of them new. We have reformulated our original ability model here guided by these principles, clarified earlier statements of the model that were unclear, and revised portions of it in response to current research. In this revision, we also positioned emotional intelligence amidst other hot intelligences including personal and social intelligences, and examined the implications of the changes to the model. We discuss the present and future of the concept of emotional intelligence as a mental ability.