Emotional intelligence and job satisfaction: Testing the

mediatory role of positive and negative aect at work

Konstantinos Kafetsios
a,
*
, Leonidas A. Zampetakis
b
a
Department of Psychology, University of Crete, Rethimnon 74100, Crete, Greece
b
Department of Production Engineering and Management, Technical University of Crete, Crete 73100, Greece
Received 25 June 2007; received in revised form 21 September 2007; accepted 3 October 2007
Available online 14 November 2007
Abstract
The study tested the extent to which positive and negative aect at work mediate personality eects (Emo-
tional Intelligence) on job satisfaction. Participants were 523 educators who completed the Wong Law Emo-
tional Intelligence Scale, a version of the Job Aect Scale and the General Index of Job Satisfaction. Results
using structural equation modelling indicated that positive and negative aect at work substantially mediate
the relationship between EI and job satisfaction with positive aect exerting a stronger inuence. In males,
aect at work fully mediated the EI eect on job satisfaction. Among the four EI dimensions, use of emotion
and emotion regulation were signicant independent predictors of aect at work. The results conrm expec-
tations deriving from Aective Events Theory regarding the role of work aectivity as an interface between
personality and work attitudes and extend the literature on EI eects in organizational settings.
2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Emotional intelligence; Aect at work; Job satisfaction
1. Introduction
In the context of the emerging aective revolution in social and organizational psychology
(Barsade & Gibson, 2007) Emotional intelligence (EI) is proposed as an important predictor of
0191-8869/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.004
*
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +30 28310 77534.
E-mail address: k.kafetsios@psy.soc.uoc.gr (K. Kafetsios).
www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Personality and Individual Dierences 44 (2008) 712722
key organizational outcomes including job satisfaction (Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005; Van Rooy &
Viswesvaran, 2004). There is accumulating evidence that EI abilities and traits inuence job sat-
isfaction (e.g., Carmeli, 2003; Sy, Tram, & OHara, 2006) but to our knowledge, there is no study
testing the extent to which aective components of the work experience may mediate such a
connection. Theories of emotion in organizations (i.e., Aective Events Theory, Weiss & Cro-
panzano, 1996) suggest that aective states at work are key vehicles of personality and organiza-
tional inuences on job satisfaction and performance. Moreover, it has been pointed out that
there is little research examining dispositional factors of job satisfaction (especially aect-related;
Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000). Emotional intelligence thus can constitute a link between trait
level aectivity, work aect and job satisfaction and the present study tested such a model using
a structural equations modeling approach.
1.1. Dening EI
At a theoretical level EI reects the extent to which a person attends to, processes, and acts
upon information of an emotional nature intra-personally and inter-personally. However, there
are ensuing debates at the operational level mainly, that have led to two distinct approaches:
the ability and trait Emotional Intelligence. The ability approach uses maximum performance
measures such as the Mayer, Salovey & Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (Mayer, Salovey,
& Caruso, 2002) to assess individual dierences in the interface of emotion with cognitive pro-
cesses (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Trait EI on the other hand incorporates EI abilities within a more
general framework of individual self-perceived emotionality and emotion ecacy (e.g., Petrides &
Furnham, 2000). Nevertheless, some trait EI approaches and corresponding measures (e.g., EQi,
Bar-On, 1997) diverge from the conceptualization of EI described in the beginning of this section
in that they focus on individual dierences in adaptation to environmental demands.
1.2. EI and job satisfaction
There are several reasons why workers EI may inuence job satisfaction. Interpersonally, emo-
tion awareness and regulatory processes associated with EI are expected to benet peoples social
relationships hence aecting the experience of emotion and stress at work. Intrapersonally, use of
emotion and being aware of ones own emotions can lead to regulating stress and negative emo-
tion so that one can perform better at work.
Research that has empirically examined relationships between EI and job satisfaction has re-
turned mixed ndings. A number of studies have observed weak to modest relationships between
trait EI measures (i.e., EQi, Carmeli, 2003; Kafetsios & Loumakou, 2007; a Greek trait EI scale,
Vacola, Tsaousis, & Nikolaou, 2003) and job satisfaction. A recent study of food service workers
and their managers (Sy et al., 2006) observed a positive association between an ability based EI
scale (Wong Law Emotional Intelligence Scale, WLEIS; Wong & Law, 2002) and job satisfaction
in employees and their managers. Finally, a study of a group of managers Lopes, Grewal, Kadis,
Gall, and Salovey (2006) found links between EI abilities and aective proxies of job satisfaction
measured via self and supervisor reports.
Like in Sy et al.s (2006) study we used a self-report measure of EI (WLEIS) that conceptually
subscribes to the ability approach and has shown to have good discriminant and predictive
K. Kafetsios, L.A. Zampetakis / Personality and Individual Dierences 44 (2008) 712722 713
validity in organizational settings. Research has shown that the scale is distinct from the Big Five
personality factors and has convergent validity with other EI measures such as the Trait Meta-
mood scale (Law, Wong, & Song, 2004). The WLEIS has proven to be a predictor of job satis-
faction in dierent organizational levels (Law et al., 2004; Sy et al., 2006).
1.3. The role of positive and negative aect
Work aect is an important aspect of the work experience. Aective Events Theory (Weiss &
Cropanzano, 1996) proposes that cumulative aective experiences in the work environment to-
gether with other factors (including personality) shape workers job related attitudes. Aect at
work cannot be equated to job satisfaction since work attitudes also reect cognitive evaluations
and beliefs (Weiss, 2002). Aect is a subjective feeling state with a positive and negative hedonic
tone and should be distinguished from discrete emotions and moods in that it has a specic con-
textual element but not a particular target or elicitor (Frijda, 1986). There are debates over
whether the dimensions that underlie positive and negative aectivity are best described in terms
of activation (e.g., Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) or valence (Barrett & Russell, 1998). Based
on evidence that hedonic tone and not activation is a signicant correlate of job satisfaction
(Weiss, Nicholas, & Daus, 1999) the present study distinguished primarily between positive and
negative aectivity. Positive and negative aect as dierent but correlated dimensions (Russell &
Carroll, 1999).
1.4. Overview of the studys aims and hypotheses
The study aimed rstly to determine whether, and the extent to which, EI is associated with
aect at work and job satisfaction. Based on recent ndings (Lopes et al., 2006; Sy et al., 2006)
we expected that self-reported EI abilities will be associated with positive aect and job satisfac-
tion and inversely related to negative aect at work. Moreover, we wanted to examine which EI
dimensions may be related to positive and negative aect and job satisfaction. Secondly, we aimed
to test whether, and the extent to which, positive and negative aect at work mediate EI eects on
job satisfaction. Based on Aective Events Theory, we expected that work aect would at least
partially mediate EI eects on job satisfaction; we did not have any hypotheses with regards to
the relative strength of positive and negative aect in this relationship. We applied a Structural
Equations Modelling approach in order to clearly distinguish the mediatory power of positive
and negative aect while controlling for common variance between positive and negative aect.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants were 523 teachers, working in primary and secondary education from various re-
gions in Greece. The sample included 155 males and 368 females aged 2559 years (M = 38.48
years, SD = 8.02). The average length of service as an educator was 12 years (SD = 8.48). Half
of the participants (51%) were involved in teaching in primary education. Administration of
714 K. Kafetsios, L.A. Zampetakis / Personality and Individual Dierences 44 (2008) 712722
the questionnaires was carried out by trained post-graduate students who acted as research assis-
tants and no monetary incentive was provided.
2.2. Measures
All scales were translated into Greek (by the rst author), blindly back-translated by a Greek
graduate student with some items modied to enhance the naturalism of the translations (Van de
Vijver & Leung, 1997).
2.2.1. Job satisfaction
We adapted into Greek the General Index of Job Satisfaction (Brayeld & Rothe, 1951). The
scale comprises of 18 items (Cronbachs a = .92). Based on the results of an exploratory factor
analysis we created four parcels of this construct. We assigned items to indicators on the relative
size of their factor loadings in order to evenly distribute items across indicators. Coecient alphas
for the four scales were: Job1 .81; Job2 .81; Job3 .80; Job4 .79.
2.2.2. Emotional intelligence
We used the self-report Wong Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS, Wong & Law, 2002).
The scale consists of four dimensions that are consistent with Mayer and Saloveys (1997) deni-
tion of EI. The Self-Emotion Appraisal (SEA) dimension assesses an individuals self-perceived
ability to understand their emotions. The Others Emotion Appraisal (OEA) dimension assesses
a persons tendency to be able to perceive other peoples emotions. The Use of Emotion (UOE)
dimension concerns the self-perceived tendency to motivate one self to enhance performance. The
Regulation of Emotion (ROE) dimension concerns individuals perceived ability to regulate their
own emotions. Coecients alphas for the four elements were: SEA: .83; OEA: .77; ROE: .83;
UOE: .79.
We used conrmatory factor analysis (AMOS 7.0; Arbuckle, 2006) to evaluate the factorial
structure of the Greek version of the WLEIS. We compared 2 alternative models: Model 1 spec-
ied a single factor behind all the 16 items, while Model 2 specied the four correlated dimensions
from their respective items and then a second-order factor behind the four EI dimensions. Model
2 tted the data better [v
2
(100, N = 523) = 423.43, p = 0.000; RMSEA = 0.079 (90% CI: 0.071
0.084); GFI = 0.915; CFI = 0.932; and AIC = 495.43] than Model 1 [v
2
(104, N = 523) = 1084.16,
p = 0.000; RMSEA = 0.134 (90% CI: 0.1270.142); GFI = 0.770; CFI = 0.744 and
AIC = 1148.84]. These results are in line with previous studies (Law et al., 2004; Wong & Law,
2002) and indicate that items for EI measurement can serve as a reasonable estimate of their
dimensions, and that the dimensions in turn can represent an underlying multidimensional EI
construct. The internal consistency for all 16 items was a = .90.
2.2.3. Positive and negative aect at work
To assess aect at work we used 12 items of the Job Aect Scale (Brief, Burke, George,
Robinson, & Webster, 1988) that assesses participants experience of positive and negative af-
fect at work during the previous week on a 5-point scale. The six positive items (JAS-PA)
were: enthusiastic, elated, active, strong, happy, and excited. The six negative aective states
(JAS-NA) were: hostile, scornfull, fearful, sleepy, placid, and sad. The positive and negative
K. Kafetsios, L.A. Zampetakis / Personality and Individual Dierences 44 (2008) 712722 715
aect parts of the scale had good internal consistency (Alphas .89 and .78, respectively). We
followed the same procedure as with the job satisfaction construct and we created two indi-
cators for both positive and negative parts. Alphas for the scales were: PA1 .82; PA2
.81; NA1 .68; NA2 .61.
2.3. Analytic strategy
In the present study we tested whether positive and negative aectivity at work mediated
fully or partially the relationship between trait EI and job satisfaction in the context of Struc-
tural Equation Modelling using maximum likelihood estimation method. Prior to the analysis
data screening was performed and data were tested for deviation from normality. Following
Hall, Snell, and Foust (1999) we formed item parcels on the basis of factor analysis in order
to control for inated measurement errors and improve the psychometric properties of the
variables. We used a two-stage analytic procedure: in stage 1 the four-factor model was tted
to the data and then a measurement model specifying perfect correlation among all four latent
variables was assessed to test overall discriminability. The one-factor model also provides a
test for common method bias. We used the sequential v
2
dierential test (SCDT) to assess
nested model comparisons. We employed several model t statistics (RMSEA: Root Mean
Square Error Approximation; CFI: Comparative Fit Index; GFI: Goodness of Fit Index;
RMR: Root Mean Square Residual; AIC: Akaike Information Criterion; Shook, Ketchen,
Hult, & Kacmar, 2004). In order to select among the competing structural models we applied
model selection for SEM (Raftery, 1993). We employed a stepwise strategy in model selection,
which included forward selection and backward elimination features. We used Steigers Power
Analysis (StatSoft, 2001) to estimate SEM model-level power. Finally, we used bootstrapping
procedures (resampled 1000 times and used the percentile method to create 95% condence
intervals).
3. Results
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations and variable intercorrelations. Trait EI was signif-
icantly related to job satisfaction, positive aect and negative aect. Table 1 also revealed that job
satisfaction was positively and signicantly related to positive aect and negatively related to neg-
ative aect.
3.1. Assessment of measurement model
Table 2 displays the t statistics for the measurement model. Overall, the hypothesized mea-
surement model t the data quite well when evaluated in terms of the recommended cutos or
the combination cut o approach (Shook et al., 2004). The hypothesized measurement model
t the data better than a single factor model, both in terms of the t statistics and when directly
contrasted with a change in v
2
test and AIC. In summary, the results suggest that the proposed
factor structure presents a statistically adequate and sucient t to the data, indicating the ab-
sence of severe common method variance.
716 K. Kafetsios, L.A. Zampetakis / Personality and Individual Dierences 44 (2008) 712722
3.2. Assessment of structural models
The next step was to consider comparative models specifying total eects (direct and indirect),
complete mediation and partial mediation. Results of the model selection procedure indicated that
there was 97.9% probability (in terms of Akaike weights) that the best model is the one presented
in Fig. 1. We considered the error terms of positive and negative aect correlated in line with pre-
vious research (Barrett & Russell, 1998).
This model revealed a good t to the data: v
2
(48, N = 523) = 230.16, p = 0.000;
RMSEA = 0.085 (90% CI: 0.0740.096); GFI = 0.926; CFI = 0.948; RMR = 0.032 and
AIC = 290.16. The model postulated that the eects of trait EI on job satisfaction were partially
mediated by positive and negative aect (see Table 3). Power analysis (e1 = 0.08, a = 0.05,
N = 523, df = 48) suggested a very low probability to reject the model (.5%). The standardized
direct eect of EI on job satisfaction was 0.14 (p < 0.01). EI had direct eects on positive aect
(0.49, p < 0.01) and negative aect (0.36, p = 0.002) along with indirect eects on job satisfac-
tion (0.24, p < 0.01). In sum, the standardized total eect of EI on job satisfaction was 0.49
(95% percentile condence interval: 0.400.58, p < 0.01).
Positive aect had a statistically signicant direct eect on job satisfaction (0.56, 95% percentile
condence interval (CI): 0.430.66, p < 0.01) Negative aect had a direct negative eect on job
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for total sample
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Gender
a

2. Age 38.48 8.02 0.13

**

3. Years in service 11.90 8.47 0.03 0.66

**

4. Trait EI 5.28 0.81 0.04 0.00 0.03 (0.90)

5. Job satisfaction 3.88 0.65 0.01
*
0.06 0.02 0.43
**
(0.92)
6. Positive aect 3.46 0.80 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.42
**
0.64
**
(0.89)
7. Negative aect 1.41 0.55 0.03 0.14
**
0.13
**
0.27
**
0.44
**
0.36
**
(0.78)
Note: N = 523. Internal reliabilities are in parenthesis.
a
Gender is coded 1 = male 2 = female.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
Table 2
Measurement models t statistics
Model v
2
df Dv
2
RMSEA GFI CFI RMR AIC
Hypothesized four
factor measurement
model
230.16
**
48 0.085 (90% CI: 0.0740.096) 0.926 0.948 0.032 290.16
One factor
measurement model
706.83
**
52 545.47
**
0.115 (90% CI: 0.1450.166) 0.812 0.814 0.171 758.83
Note: v
2
: chi-square statistic.
**
p < 0.001.
K. Kafetsios, L.A. Zampetakis / Personality and Individual Dierences 44 (2008) 712722 717
satisfaction (0.19, 95% CI: (0.30)(0.075), p < 0.01). The correlation between the error terms
of positive and negative eect was signicant (0.36, p < 0.01, 95% CI: (0.50)(0.22),
p < 0.01). The proportion of variance in job satisfaction explained by the collective set of predic-
tors was 57%.
Fig. 1. Standardized results of the structural model assessment.
Table 3
Standardized direct and indirect eects and the associated 95% condence intervals
Predictor Outcome
Positive aect Negative aect Job satisfaction
Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect
Trait EI 0.49
*
[0.390.58]
0.36
*
[(0.47)(0.26)] 0.14
*
(0.040.25) 0.24
*
(0.180.32)
Positive aect 0.56
*
(0.430.66)
Negative aect 0.19
*
[(0.30)(0.075)]
Note: The upper and lower bounds of the 95% condence interval (shown in parentheses) were based on the ndings
from a bootstrapping analysis using the percentile method.
*
p < 0.01.
718 K. Kafetsios, L.A. Zampetakis / Personality and Individual Dierences 44 (2008) 712722
3.3. Gender dierences
We found no statistically signicant gender dierences in EI and work aect but women scored
higher than men on job satisfaction at a statistically signicant level. Interestingly, job satisfaction
development followed dierent patterns between genders. For male teachers the most probable
model in terms of Akaike weights (92% probability) was the one where positive and negative aect
fully mediate trait EI eects on job satisfaction. The standardized direct eect of trait EI on po-
sitive aect was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.430.77, p < 0.01), and on negative eect was (0.40), (95% CI:
(0.56)(0.21), p < 0.01). Positive aect had a strong direct eect on job satisfaction 0.77, (95%
CI: 0.560.98, p < 0.01), while the direct eect of negative aect on job satisfaction was not sig-
nicantly dierent from zero 0.17, (95% CI: (0.39)0.02, p = 0.09). The correlation between
the error terms of positive and negative aect were not signicantly dierent from zero at the
0.05 level: 0.24, (95% CI: (0.5)0.002, p = 0.053). The aforementioned relationships among vari-
ables explained 71% of the variance in job satisfaction.
On the other hand, for females the most likely model (99%) was one where trait EI had a
direct and indirect eect on job satisfaction, that is to say, the relationship between EI and job
satisfaction is partially mediated by positive and negative aect. The standardized direct eect
of trait EI on job satisfaction was 0.13, (95% CI: 0.060.23, p = 0.002); on positive aect was
0.35 (95% CI: 0.240.46, p = 0.002), and on negative aect was (0.19), (95% CI: (0.32)
(0.09), p = 0.002). There was a strong direct eect from positive aect to job satisfaction
0.40, (95% CI: 0.270.55, p = 0.002), while the direct eect of negative aect on job satisfac-
tion is 0.24, [95% CI: (0.39)(0.03), p = 0.007]. The total standardized eect of trait EI on
job satisfaction was 0.47, (95% CI: 0.350.57, p = 0.002). The correlation between the error
terms of positive and negative aect was signicantly dierent from zero at the 0.05 level:
0.42, (95% CI: (0.58)(0.23), p = 0.02). The aforementioned relationships among variables
explained 51% of the variance in job satisfaction.
3.4. Separating the eects of the EI dimensions
Finally we performed three multiple regression analyses in order to determine the relative eects
of the four EI branches on aect at work and job satisfaction. The four EI branches explained
21% in the positive emotion variance and this model was signicant (F(4, 518) = 33.96,
p < .001). Among the four EI branches only use of emotion and regulation of emotion were sig-
nicant predictors of positive aect at work (b = .14, p < .01 and b = .36, p < .001, respectively).
The four EI branches explained 8% in the negative emotion variance (F(4, 518) = 17.7, p < .001)
and again, use of emotion and emotion regulation were signicant independent predictors
(b = .12, p < .01) and (b = .21, p < .001, respectively). Finally, three of the four EI branches
were signicant independent predictors of job satisfaction (other appraisal of emotion, b = .13,
p < .05, use of emotion, b = .16, p < .01, regulation of emotion, b = .28, p < .001, R
2
= 20%,
F(4, 518) = 32.03, p < .001). Entering positive and negative aect in a second step rendered the
partial correlations of emotion and regulation of emotion with job satisfaction non-signicant.
Understanding of emotion however, retained a signicant unique prediction on job satisfaction
(b = .09, p < .05), suggesting that direct eects from trait EI on job satisfaction may owe this
to the EI dimension.
K. Kafetsios, L.A. Zampetakis / Personality and Individual Dierences 44 (2008) 712722 719
4. Discussion
The present study extends an emerging body of research on aectivity in the workplace by test-
ing for links between trait level emotionality (EI), aect at work and job satisfaction. The results
underline the important role of positive and negative aect at work in this relationship.
In keeping with recent studies (Lopes et al., 2006; Sy et al., 2006) the results demonstrated con-
vincingly that EI is an important personality-level predictor of work aectivity and job satisfac-
tion. Subsequent regression analyses indicated that use of emotion and emotion regulation are
two EI dimensions predictive of positive and negative aect at work and perceiving others emo-
tions was uniquely associated with job satisfaction a nding that primarily concerned women.
Notably, these ndings are at odds with studies showing weak relationships between some trait
EI measures (i.e., Kafetsios & Loumakou, 2007) and job satisfaction. Given that some of this re-
search evidence concerned the same population as in this study one may exclude organizational
level variables as possible moderators and focus on the measurement instruments being used
(Brackett & Mayer, 2003). In the present study, we used a self-report measure of EI (WLEIS) that
adheres to the ability model of EI and conrmed its psychometric properties and utility for a non-
English speaking culture.
The results from the SEM suggested that in absolute terms the direct eect of EI is stronger for
positive aect compared to negative aect. This is an important nding supporting accumulating
evidence for the primacy of positive over negative aect as a predictor of work outcomes (Tho-
resen, Kaplan, Barsky, & de Chermont, 2003). Positive aect is a source of human strength (Isen,
2003) and positive aect predisposes people to cognitions, feelings and actions that promote the
building of personal and social resources (Fredrickson, 2001; Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener,
2005). Persons high on EI seem to be best suited to follow these broadening and build strategies
also in the work environment.
There were some gender dierences in the pattern of results. Male workers positive and negative
aect at work fully mediated EI eects on job satisfaction whereas in female workers some direct ef-
fects were observed at a level comparable with the nal model presented in Fig. 1. The results from
subsequent regression analyses indicated that when controlling for positive and negative aect at
work perceiving others emotion was uniquely associated with job satisfaction a nding that may re-
ect female work related gender role-characteristics (Petrides & Furnham, 2006).
Importantly, the results from the current conrmatory model support key assumptions of
Aective Events Theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) regarding the role of positive and negative
aect at work. The theory promotes a multifaceted view of job satisfaction incorporating aective,
cognitive and personality elements (Weiss, 2002). Clearly, positive and negative aectivity at work
explained a signicant part in job satisfaction variance as expected by AET suggesting that events
taking place at work inuence employees attitudes towards their work. The results point to the
personality antecedents to aect at work and further research could strive to distinguish those ef-
fects from organizational level variables (e.g., organizational climate, managerial structure, etc.).
4.1. Limitations and further research
One of the limitations of the current study was the adherence to a dimensional model of work
emotionality and future research could test whether dierent facets of EI are associated with
720 K. Kafetsios, L.A. Zampetakis / Personality and Individual Dierences 44 (2008) 712722
discrete emotions at work. Furthermore, the study used a retrospective measure of work aectiv-
ity and future research should expand the study of aective phenomena at work using measures of
on-line aect such event sampling methodologies or observational methods. Finally, in line with
AET, future research could identify the work events that give rise to positive and negative emo-
tion at work and for which EI acts as a moderator. It would also be interesting to examine the
extent to which EI and aect at work interface to inuence work attitudes in occupations with
job characteristics dierent than educators.
References
Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). AMOS 7.0. User guide. Chicago: SmallWaters Corporation.
Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-on emotional quotient inventory technical manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Barrett, L., & Russell, J. A. (1998). Independence and bipolarity in the structure of current aect. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74, 967984.
Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does aect matter in organizations? Academy of Management Perspectives,
21(1), 3657.
Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of competing measures of
emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 11471158.
Brayeld, A., & Rothe, H. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 301311.
Brief, A. P., Burke, M. J., George, J. M., Robinson, B. S., & Webster, J. (1988). Should negative aectivity remain an
unmeasured variable in the study of job stress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 193198.
Carmeli, A. (2003). The relationship between emotional intelligence and work attitudes, behavior and outcomes.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 788813.
Connolly, J. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The role of aectivity in job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Personality and
Individual Dierences, 29, 265281.
Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). The case for the ability-based model of emotional intelligence in
organizational behaviour. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 453466.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of
positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218226.
Frijda, N. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, R. J., Snell, A. F., & Foust, M. S. (1999). Item parceling strategies in SEM: Investigating the subtle eects of
unmodeled secondary constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 2(3), 233256.
Isen, A. (2003). Positive aect as a source of human strength. In L. Aspinwall & U. Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of
human strength (pp. 179195). Washington, DC: APA.
Kafetsios, K., & Loumakou, M. (2007). A comparative evaluation of the eects of trait emotional intelligence and
emotion regulation on aect at work and job satisfaction. International Journal of Work Organization and Emotion,
2(1), 7187.
Law, K. S., Wong, C., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its
potential utility for management studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 483496.
Lopes, P. N., Grewal, D., Kadis, J., Gall, M., & Salovey, P. (2006). Evidence that emotional intelligence is related to job
performance and aect and attitudes at work. Psicothema, 18(1), 132138.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benets of frequent positive aect: Does happiness lead to success?
Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803855.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is an emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional
development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators. New York: Basic Books.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). MSCEIT users manual. Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health Systems
Inc.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence. Personality and
Individual Dierences, 29, 313320.
K. Kafetsios, L.A. Zampetakis / Personality and Individual Dierences 44 (2008) 712722 721
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2006). The role of trait emotional intelligence in a gender-specic model of
organizational variables. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(2), 552569.
Raftery, A. E. (1993). Bayesian model selection in structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.),
Testing structural equation models (pp. 163180). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Russell, J. A., & Carroll, J. M. (1999). On the bipolarity of positive and negative aect. Psychological Bulletin, 125,
330.
Shook, C. L., Ketchen, D. J. J., Hult, G. T. M., & Kacmar, K. M. (2004). An assessment of the use of structural
equation models in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 397404.
StatSoft, (2001). Statistica for Windows v. 6.0: Data analysis software system. Tulsa, OK: USA.
Sy, T., Tram, S., & OHara, L. A. (2006). Relation of employee and manager emotional intelligence to job satisfaction
and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 461473.
Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., & de Chermont, K. (2003). The aective underpinningas of job
perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129(6), 914945.
Vacola, M., Tsaousis, I., & Nikolaou, I. (2003). The role of emotional intelligence and personality variables on attitudes
toward organizational change. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(2), 88110.
Van de Vijver, V., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation of predictive validity
and nomological net. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 7195.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative
aect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 10631070.
Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and aective experiences. Human
Resource Management Review, 12, 173194.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Aective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and
consequences of aective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.). Research in organizational
behavior (Vol. 19, pp. 174). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Weiss, H. M., Nicholas, J. P., & Daus, C. S. (1999). An examination of the joint eects of aective experiences and job
beliefs on job satisfaction and variations in aective experiences over time. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 78(1), 24.
Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The eects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and
attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 243274.
722 K. Kafetsios, L.A. Zampetakis / Personality and Individual Dierences 44 (2008) 712722