Cognitive Ability, Emotional Intelligence, and the Big Five Personality Dimensions as Predictors of Criminal Investigator Performance

• Date: 01 May 2011
• Published date: 01 May 2011
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854811399406
• Subject Matter: Articles

471

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 38 No. 5, May 2011 471-491

DOI: 10.1177/0093854811399406

© 2011 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

AUTHORS’ NOTE: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Masakatsu Ono, School

of Behavioral & Organizational Sciences, Claremont Graduate University, 123 E. 8th Street, Claremont, CA

91711; email: masakatsu.ono@cgu.edu.

COGNITIVE ABILITY, EMOTIONAL

INTELLIGENCE, AND THE BIG

FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS

AS PREDICTORS OF CRIMINAL

INVESTIGATOR PERFORMANCE

MASAKATSU ONO

DANIEL A. SACHAU

Minnesota State University

WILLIAM P. DEAL

Missouri State University

DAVID R. ENGLERT

United States Air Force

MICHAEL D. TAYLOR

Minnesota State University

This study examines the extent to which cognitive ability, the Big Five factor personality dimensions, and emotional intel-

ligence are related to training and job performance of U.S. federal criminal investigators. Training performance measures

were collected during a 17-week training program. Job performance measures were collected 1 year after the investigators

completed the training program. Conscientiousness was modestly related to training performance. Cognitive ability and

emotional intelligence were positively correlated with job performance. Neuroticism was negatively correlated with job

performance. The relative benefits of using emotional intelligence and the five-factor model to select law enforcement agents

are discussed.

Keywords: cognitive ability; emotional intelligence; Big Five; criminal investigators

For nearly 100 years, researchers have investigated the cognitive, social, and personality

variables that predict the success of law enforcement agents (Caillouet, Boccaccini,

Varela, Davis, & Rostow, 2010). What they have found is the criminal investigator’s job

requires substantial cognitive and social ability (Aamodt, 2004a, 2004b; Beutler, Storm,

Kirkish, Scogin, & Gaines, 1985; Hirsh, Northrop, & Schmidt, 1986). Consider the duties

of federal investigators. Federal agents investigate organized crime, public corruption,

financial crime, civil rights violations, bank robbery, extortion, and kidnapping. In so

doing, investigators search for evidence, examine records, develop chains of evidence, and

prepare detailed investigative reports. Investigators also interview witnesses, victims, and

suspects. They collaborate with other offices and agencies to exchange information and

coordinate activities. Finally, investigators testify before juries concerning criminal activity

investigations (O*NET, 2010).

472 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

Most law enforcement organizations employ rigorous screening processes to select

qualified personnel (Aamodt, 2004b; Beutler et al., 1985; Pynes, 2001; Varela, Boccaccini,

Scogin, Stump, & Caputo, 2004). Law enforcement organizations need to screen out candi-

dates who are unable to deal with stressful situations, who are prone to violent outbursts, or

who are likely to abuse drugs and alcohol (Varela et al., 2004). The initial screening process

typically includes civil service testing, background investigation, criminal history investi-

gations, and interviews (Varela et al., 2004).

After initial screening, applicants for law enforcement positions are usually asked to com-

plete psychological assessments including cognitive ability and personality tests (Caillouet

et al., 2010; Pynes, 2001; Varela et al., 2004). Traditional tests of cognitive ability assess

“mathematical, verbal, and intellectual skills along with the applicant’s general knowledge

of the legal system, government ordinances, and police officer duties” (Beutler et al., 1985,

p. 324). Common personality measures include the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality

Inventory–2 (MMPI-2; Graham, 1990; Sellbom, Fischler, & Ben-Porath, 2007) and the

Inwald Personality Inventory (IPI; Inwald, Knatz, & Shusman, 1982; Varela et al., 2004).

The MMPI and the IPI were designed to measure psychopathologic tendencies, abnor-

mal personality traits, and maladaptive behavior. Over the past half century, researchers

have increasingly focused on measures of normal personality traits. One such measure of

normal or healthy personality is the Big Five personality taxonomy (Goldberg, 1992) or

five-factor model (FFM; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Digman, 1990). Measures based on FFM

are well established as selection devices for various occupational groups (Barrick &

Mount, 1991; Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; Oswald & Hough, 2011; Salgado, 1997,

2003) and have recently received attention in law enforcement organizations (Black, 2000;

Detrick & Chibnall, 2006; Detrick, Chibnall, & Luebbert, 2004; Forero, Gallardo-Pujol,

Maydeu-Olivares, & Andrés-Pueyo, 2009).

Another measure that has recently received attention is emotional intelligence (EI; Goleman,

1995, 1998; Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). EI is a measure

of a person’s ability to interact with others and understand one’s own emotions as well as

those of others. In their review articles, Pynes (2001) and Daniel (2001) suggested that

measures of EI be used to select law enforcement personnel. Van Rooy and Viswesvaran

(2004) identified 57 studies that examined EI measures; however, none of the studies

involved law enforcement participants. As for the FFM personality traits, there needs to be

more research on the validity of EI as a predictor of law enforcement officer performance.

With this in mind, we investigated the degree to which cognitive ability, the five personality

dimensions, and EI are related to the performance of federal law enforcement agents. The

study examined performance measures collected during a 17-week training program and

job performance measures collected 1 year after the investigators completed the training

program. We further tested the extent to which the FFM and EI could augment the validity

of cognitive ability tests as predictors of investigator performance.

COGNITIVE ABILITY

Cognitive ability is one of the most effective predictors of employee performance across

a wide variety of occupations, with validity coefficients ranging from .31 to .67 (Goldstein,

Zedeck, & Goldstein, 2002; Guion, 1991; Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Lubinski & Dawis, 1992;

Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, & Salgado, 2009; Schmidt & Hunter, 2004; Scogin, Schumacher,