Faking emotional intelligence (EI): comparing response distortion on ability and trait‐based EI measures

126 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The impact of salesperson customer orientation on the evaluation of a salesperson’s ethical treatment, trust in the salesperson, and intentions to purchase (2015, background): “Specifically, measures relying on salesperson self-reports are prone to faking and may not be valid for the direct assessment of customer perception (Day and Carroll 2008; Mayer, Roberts, and Barsade 2008).”
Emotional Intelligence in Organizations (2014, background): “By contrast, participants could not increase their scores on performance-basedmeasures of EI under any instructions (Day & Carroll 2008), as one cannot pretend to know the correct solutions to problems that one ignores.”
Effects of perceived employee emotional competence on customer satisfaction and loyalty: The mediating role of rapport (2013, methodology): “First, these studies use employee-reported (Giardini and Frese, 2008) or supervisor-reported measures of EEC (Weng, 2008)—sources subject to biases, such as social desirability, faking, and distortion (Day and Carroll, 2008).”
Emotional Intelligence and Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analysis (2010, background): “Moreover, concerns have been raised about the susceptibility of trait-based EI measures to faking under high-stakes conditions (Day & Carroll, 2008).”