10.1177/0146167203254596 ARTICLE PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN Brackett, Mayer / MEASURES OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE Convergent, Discriminant, and Incremental Validity of Competing Measures of Emotional Intelligence Marc A. Brackett John D. Mayer University of New Hampshire This study investigated the convergent, discriminant, and incre- mental validity of one ability test of emotional intelligence (EI)—the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso-Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT)—and two self-report measures of EI—the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) and the self-report EI test (SREIT). The MSCEIT showed minimal relations to the EQ-i and SREIT, whereas the latter two measures were moderately interrelated. Among EI measures, the MSCEIT was discriminable from well- studied personality and well-being measures, whereas the EQ-i and SREIT shared considerable variance with these measures. After personality and verbal intelligence were held constant, the MSCEIT was predictive of social deviance, the EQ-i was predic- tive of alcohol use, and the SREIT was inversely related to aca- demic achievement. In general, results showed that ability EI and self-report EI are weakly related and yield different measure- ments of the same person. Keywords: emotional intelligence; personality; behavior; emotions; va- lidity Research on emotional intelligence (EI) has expanded over the last decade and today there are a vari- ety of tests to assess it. The three best-known tests are the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002a), the Emo- tional Quotient Inventory (EQ-I) (Bar-On, 1997a), and Schutte et al.’s (1998) self-report EI test (SREIT). There is a controversy, however, about what these tests actually measure, what they predict, and whether the tests are dis- tinguishable from other abilities and personality attrib- utes (Hedlund & Sternberg, 2000; McCrae, 2000; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000). Consider theories of EI. Mayer et al.’s (2000) original performance-based model of EI pertains to an individ- ual’s capacity to process and reason about emotions. These researchers distinguish their ability model from other “mixed” models of EI. They assert that the term EI has become “unmoored” from both emotion and intelli- gence because so-called mixed models combine mental abilities (e.g., ability to perceive emotion) with self- reported qualities such as optimism and well-being that are clearly distinct from their mental ability approach (Mayer et al., 2000; Roberts, Zeidner, & Matthews, 2002; Salovey, Mayer, Caruso, & Lopes, 2001). Each approach to measuring EI can influence the validity of the construct. For example, in intelligence research, performance scales are standard because they are based on the capacity to solve mental tasks (Carroll, 1993). Self-report scales of intelligence, on the other hand, are based on people’s endorsements of descriptive statements about themselves. If a person’s self-concept is accurate, then self-report data serve as an accurate mea- sure. However, most people are inaccurate reporters of their own abilities. Correlations between ability and self- report measures of intelligence, for instance, are gener- ally low (r = .00 to .35) (Paulhus, Lysy, & Yik, 1998). Therefore, with respect to EI, it is likely that ability and self-report models will yield different representations of the same person. In the present study, one ability-based and two self- report tests of EI are employed. The MSCEIT is designed to measure EI as a mental ability. In this conception, EI is 1 Authors’ Note: The preparation of this article was facilitated by a grant from the National Science Foundation (Sigma Xi), a Research En- hancement Award from the University of New Hampshire, and a Sum- mer Fellowship awarded from the University of New Hampshire to the first author. We thank our colleagues Zorana Ivcevic, Paulo Lopes, and Dr. Rebecca Warner from the University of New Hampshire for their comments on earlier versions of this article. The article also benefited a great deal from the helpful comments of three anonymous reviewers and Paula Niedenthal. Please address correspondence to Marc A. Brackett, Department of Psychology, Yale University, P.O. Box 208205, New Haven, CT 06520; e-mail: marc.brackett@yale.edu. PSPB, Vol. 29 No. X, Month 2003 1- DOI: 10.1177/0146167203254596 © 2003 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.