An Examination of the Personality Structural Foundations of Facets of Emotional Intelligence

An Examination of the Personality Structural Foundations of Facets of Emotional Intelligence | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article An Examination of the Personality Structural Foundations of Facets of Emotional Intelligence Jolyon Maddocks, Dan Hughes, Steph Noble, Stephen Woods This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8277771/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 7 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Previous research has examined the relationship between trait emotional intelligence (EI) and the Big Five factors of personality but until now trait EI has not been mapped empirically to the Abridged Big Five-Dimensional Circumplex (AB5C), a more refined model that represents blends of the Big Five factors. Following the methodology applied by Woods and Anderson in 2016 to construct the Periodic Table of Personality, 26 facets of trait EI were mapped empirically to the AB5C framework (N = 231). The aims of this study were to specify the personality foundations of trait EI more precisely and to explore the conceptual relationship between facets of trait EI and blends of the Big Five personality factors as represented by the AB5C framework. Results indicate that trait EI facets map most closely to the primary factors of Emotional Stability (r = .38 to .74) and Agreeableness (r = .33 to .67), in contrast to previous broader meta-analytic studies that indicate global trait EI maps more strongly to Extraversion than Agreeableness. Several sectors of the personality framework were more heavily populated by trait EI facets, notably the blend of Emotional Stability and Conscientiousness. Some sectors of the framework under-represented by personality inventories, such as the blend of Agreeableness and Openness, were mapped by trait EI facets. More broadly, our findings contribute to the literature on the conceptual and criterion utility of trait EI alongside broad personality dimensions, and act as a template and catalyst for future similar studies and cross-comparison with other trait EI measures. trait emotional intelligence AB5C circumplex framework Big Five factors of personality Periodic Table of Personality Introduction Trait emotional intelligence (EI) is generally presumed to represent a group or cluster of emotion-related behavioural, perceptual, and affective dispositions (Petrides & Furnham, 2001 ; De Raad, 2005 ; Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007 ; Petrides & Mavroveli, 2018 ). Trait EI is measured using rating scales (i.e., self-report or external ratings from others), and is distinguished from ‘ability’ EI (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2007 ). The dispositional foundations of the concept of trait EI have logically given rise to questions about how aspects of the construct relate to broader personality traits, for example from the Big Five model (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Openness) (Siegling, Furnham, & Petrides, 2015 ), resulting in four published meta-analyses (Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004 ; Joseph & Newman, 2010 ; O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, & Story, 2011 ; Van der Linden et al., 2017 ). In the present study, we argue that whilst these studies provide a broad picture of the relations of these two trait domains, there remain gaps in our understanding of the specific trait structural foundations of the facets and constructs captured in trait EI. The absence of this understanding in the literature hinders the accurate integration of research findings of the effects of trait EI with the broader personality literature, creating potential imprecision in theory building and in combining study results. To address this gap, we apply circumplex modelling (the AB5C: Hofstee, De Raad, & Goldberg, 1992 ) following the methodology used by Woods and Anderson ( 2016 ) to construct the Periodic Table of Personality. The title, inspired by chemistry, reflects the aspiration of its authors to create a similar framework for personality. The Periodic Table of Personality was developed to provide a coherent independent framework against which different personality inventory scales could be classified, reflecting benefits of the periodic table of elements in chemistry. This approach enables us to map facets of trait EI (measured in the Emotional Intelligence Profile; EIP3; Maddocks & Hughes, 2017 ) to the AB5C circumplex framework. Our study makes two important contributions to the literature on trait EI and personality. Firstly, we report a more detailed and precise specification of the personality foundations of trait EI facets by locating them on the circumplex framework (conceptualising them as blends of the Big Five). Secondly, by replicating the methodology of Woods and Anderson ( 2016 ), our data enable trait EI facets to be linked to a broader framework of traits representing multiple measures and constructs. Trait Emotional Intelligence and The Big Five Personality Factors Trait EI differs conceptually from the broad-bandwidth general models of personality such as the Big Five by focusing more comprehensively on operationalising affect-related constructs (Vernon, Villani, Schermer, & Petrides, 2008 ). Petrides, Pita, and Kokkinaki, ( 2007 ) argue that a conceptual advantage of trait EI is that it organises the main individual differences in affective personality under a single framework, which have otherwise been scattered across the Big Five personality dimensions and other factorial models. Nevertheless, the conceptual overlap of dispositional variables represented in different ways in trait EI and the Big Five has created a significant volume of literature jointly examining these models, accordingly, building theory and accumulating empirical data (e.g., Joseph & Newman, 2010 ; O’Boyle et al., 2011 ). Although four meta-analytic studies have examined the relationship between EI and the Big Five, three of these are especially salient for the present study because findings are reported specifically for trait-based EI (Joseph & Newman, 2010 ; O’Boyle et al., 2011 ; Van der Linden et al., 2017 ). In all three studies, Emotional Stability (or low Neuroticism) consistently emerged as having the strongest association with trait EI (respectively for Joseph & Newman 2010 ; O’Boyle et al., 2011 ; Van der Linden et al., 2017 : r = .53, .54, .58). However, meaningful associations were observed with all Big Five dimensions, with Extraversion (r = .46, .49, .47), typically emerging as next strongest followed by Agreeableness (r = .43, .32, .37) and/or Conscientiousness (r = .38, .32, .40), and lastly Openness (r = .29, .33, .31). A feature of meta-analytic studies is inclusion of multiple instruments. Instruments vary in their theoretical structure and breadth of measurement, with some being more focussed on the Mayer and Salovey ( 1993 ) four stage model of EI, others more aligned to mixed models of EI (Boyatzis & Sala, 2004 ) that incorporate a wide range of social and emotional competencies, and others drawn directly from personality trait theory (Furnham & Petrides, 2003 ). Indeed, within the meta-analytic studies there are clear differences in associations between EI and the Big Five factors depending on which method of assessment has been employed and even between trait EI instruments (Van der Linden et al., 2017 ). It has further been suggested that some facets of trait EI, such as self awareness, have closer relevance to emotional intelligence and a higher ontological status than other facets (Maddocks, 2023 ). Compounding these issues are concerns in the EI literature regarding construct proliferation, scale redundancy (Matthews et al., 2012 ), and jingle-jangle fallacies (Olderbak & Wilhelm, 2020 ) in which competing measures of EI have different labels for similar constructs or the same label for different constructs. Such concerns have raised questions about the relationship of trait EI with broader personality structure (Dasborough et al., 2021 ). In response, researchers have endeavoured to integrate trait EI within the mainstream structural models of personality including the Big Five, Big Two and Big One frameworks, indicating that trait EI is a broad personality trait integrated into multi-level personality hierarchies (Petrides et al., 2007 ; Pérez-González & Sánchez-Ruiz, 2014 ; Alegre, Pérez-Escoda & López-Cassá, 2019 ). This raises a secondary concern that trait EI maybe considered ‘redundant’ as a construct if subsumed within these hierarchies. Critics have argued against the conceptualisation of EI as a personality trait if it overlaps considerably with the higher order personality dimensions (Antonakis, 2004 ; Conte, 2005 ; Harms & Crede, 2010 ; Schulte, Ree, & Carretta, 2004 ). In recognition of these concerns, research has focussed on demonstrating divergent as well as convergent validity of trait EI with the Big Five personality factors. Studies have shown overall trait EI to share 50–60% of variance with the Big Five (Petrides et al., 2010 ; Pérez-González & Sánchez-Ruiz, 2014 ), although the evidence for a distinct factor for trait EI that differentiates from the Big Five is mixed. Of two substantive studies, one demonstrated a unique factor for trait EI (Pérez-González & Sánchez-Ruiz, 2014 ) and the other subsumed trait EI within existing personality factors (Alegre et al., 2019 ). A further line of analyses has examined the association of trait EI with higher-order factors of personality, most notably with the General Factor of Personality (GFP). Van der Linden et al, ( 2017 ) reported an overall meta-analytic correlation of .85 between trait EI and the GFP. Despite these observed results, there appears to be consistency in the finding that trait EI adds incremental variance beyond higher order personality dimensions in explaining different areas of functioning (including happiness, emotional labour, perceived stress, life satisfaction, anxiety, leadership roles, career-outcomes and well-being; e.g. Andrei, Seigling, Aloe, Baldaro, & Petrides, 2016 ; Miao., Humphrey, & Qian, 2017). In summary, evidence points to the potential utility of the trait EI construct, against the context of substantive overlap with broad personality constructs. Given this background of evidence, a logical next step for research is to clarify the structural associations between trait EI and personality traits more generally. For example, the three meta-analytic studies discussed aggregate trait EI into a single score or a few broad domains, rather than examine shared facets of trait EI. Whilst examination of associations between higher-order constructs of personality is important and informative, there is an inevitable trade-off with precision of analyses of relations between constructs. For example, simple meta-analytic associations between the Big Five and trait EI do not enable examination of the unique associations of the five factors (i.e. controlling for the shared variance between the Big Five). Further, the broad trait EI construct is often a higher-order level of more detailed facet models that represent the main elements of EI, and which are measured in psychometric scales (e.g., the 15 facets of the TEIQue; Petrides, 2009 ). Likewise, the Big Five may be represented as narrower personality facets providing greater precision in the definition of trait constructs in measurement (e.g., Hough & Ones, 2001 ; Woods & Anderson, 2016 ). In particular, recent research in the area of personality facet structure has moved towards defining replicable methodology and facet structures (e.g. Woods & Anderson, 2016 ; Schwaba, Rhemtulla, Hopwood, & Bleidorn, 2020 ; Hughes, Tokarev, & Booth 2023 ). A consequent question is how to apply these advances to examine associations of trait EI and broader personality traits more precisely with a greater degree of specificity? Woods and Anderson ( 2016 ) addressed a similar question in respect of general personality trait constructs and proposed a methodology to permit the mapping of facets to a coherent conceptual framework represented in the Abridged Big Five-Dimensional Circumplex (AB5C) model of personality (Hofstee, de Raad & Goldberg, 1992 ,). The AB5C model captures otherwise unmeasured predictor space between the Big Five factors by conceptualising the five factors as orthogonal paired axes around which circumplexes can be constructed (resulting in ten such circumplexes; see Woods and Anderson, 2016 ). By modelling personality constructs as blends of the Big Five dimensions, trait structural properties can be more precisely specified by locating each within the AB5C model. To do this, associations of traits with all the Big Five factors are examined and an AB5C sector location defined based on the primary and secondary loadings. For example, a trait that correlates positively and most strongly with Extraversion, followed by Agreeableness as the next strongest correlation (also positive) would be defined as E + A + in the AB5C model. The AB5C model consists of 90 possible combinations for the primary and secondary loadings on each of the Big Five factors. Opposite pairs (positive/negative) are logically framed as bipolar constructs of the same dimension in the AB5C facet model (e.g., E + A-/E-A+) producing a combined total of 45 facets (see also Hofstee et al., 1992 ). This approach enables tighter structural definition (Woods & Anderson, 2016 ) as well as yielding potential benefits for understanding criterion validities (Gonzalez-Mulé, DeGeest & Mount, 2013 ). Woods and Anderson ( 2016 ) applied this methodology to examine ten established personality inventories (PIs), defining a ‘Periodic Table of Personality’. The comparison with periodic table of chemical elements was drawn partly based on the utility of the methodology to simultaneously classify different traits, and organise and define the personality domain space. This is an advantage that is utilised in the present study in understanding the trait structural associations of facets of trait EI. This proposed method and model presented a further benefit of enabling replication with different PIs and trait constructs mapped to this same framework. Notably, Woods and Anderson ( 2016 ) observed substantial gaps in the measurement domain covered by the inventories they analysed. Examination of alternative trait concepts such as trait EI may therefore simultaneously contribute to understanding trait structural foundations of EI facets, as well as potentially understanding gaps in the conceptual space covered by general PIs. One previous study (De Raad, 2005 ) has examined the conceptual relationship between EI and the AB5C. However, the methodology employed in that study gives rise to limitations in its implications for understanding the empirical structural relations of trait EI and the AB5C. In De Raad’s study, psychologists were asked to classify questionnaire items from various EI measures, and general Big Five questionnaire items judged as relevant for EI against the AB5C sectors. Coverage of the AB5C sectors was then compared within the model. Across these two approaches, items were most frequently classified in the ES+, ES- (Emotional Stability) and A+, A- (Agreeableness) sectors, suggesting that these were the most clearly conceptually related to EI. Whilst informative, these findings do not provide empirical evidence of the associations of trait EI and personality within participant ratings. Our study therefore addresses this limitation and provides a logical extension of the De Raad ( 2005 ) analyses by empirically examining the structural foundations of trait EI in the context of the AB5C model. In summary, applying the methodology of Woods and Anderson ( 2016 ) enables our study to contribute to the literature on the structural associations of the Big Five and trait EI in three important ways. Firstly, the methodology enables independent examination of the pattern of associations between EI facets and the Big Five. A key feature of the analytic approach described by Woods and Anderson ( 2016 ) involves the extraction of orthogonal factors from the trait marker scales for the lexical Big Five of Goldberg ( 1992 ). This means that the associations of trait EI facets with the Big Five are independent, and not affected by the correlations between the Big Five observed in conventional scale scoring. Secondly, we are able to report the classification of trait EI constructs to the AB5C facet model of the Big Five. This permits greater granularity of examination than previous studies. Thirdly, by replicating the Woods and Anderson ( 2016 ) methodology, our findings are comparable to their original findings. This allows researchers to cross-reference our findings against classification of general personality facets in their original study. The Present Study In the present study, we examine the associations between facets of trait EI with marker traits of the Big Five model in a sample of UK working adults. We apply the methodology developed by Woods and Anderson ( 2016 ) to position these EI facets within the AB5C model, thereby enabling an examination of their structural properties in the context of the Periodic Table of Personality . While prior research does not warrant the formulation of specific hypotheses, accumulated evidence in meta-analyses (Joseph & Newman, 2010 ; O’Boyle et al., 2011 ; Van der Linden et al., 2017 ; De Raad, 2005 ) lead us to expect that Emotional Stability will feature most prominently, followed by Agreeableness and Extraversion in the primary associations of trait EI with the Big Five. Grounded in our review of the evidence from the research literature on personality structural foundations of trait EI, the specific aims of the present study that frame our analyses and findings are: To specify the personality foundations of trait EI more precisely, by mapping facets of trait EI to AB5C blends of the Big Five, and to represent these within the Periodic Table of Personality framework. To apply these analyses to interpret and explore the conceptual relationship between trait EI and broader Big Five personality structure as represented by the AB5C framework. Methodology Participants and Procedure We obtained a sample of UK working adults from a diverse range of occupations and managerial levels. The study sample was a convenience field sample recruited through an online market research panel, who volunteered to take part in the study and were paid for their participation. Eligibility criteria for the study were that participants must be over 18 and currently working in the UK in either full-time or part-time employment. Valid and informed consent was obtained from Participants in accordance with the British Psychological Society Code of Human Research Ethics (2021). This included such information as a description of what the study would involve, the estimated completion time, the option to withdraw at any time in the process, and how data would be stored. Participants were screened before beginning the survey to confirm they met the eligibility criteria. Participants completed all measures at the same time within a single online survey and responses were anonymous, so participants could not be personally identified. An initial sample of 268 volunteers completed the online survey. Participant responses were first screened to check for inattentive responding and for extreme outliers on one or more scales included in the study. This resulted in the removal of 37 participants from the sample. The final study sample therefore consisted of 231 participants, drawn from a wide range of occupational sectors and managerial levels within the UK. Participants comprised a broadly even gender split (51.9% female, 48.1% male), were predominantly aged over 40 years (77.9% aged 40+, 22.1% aged 20 to 39), reflected a mix of job levels (43.7% managerial roles, 56.3% non-managerial roles), and were mainly UK nationals (93.5%). The most represented occupational sectors in the sample were administrative and support services (15.2%), professional services (13.9%), financial services (8.7%), retail and customer service (7.4%), and health and social care (7.4%). Measures Participants completed two self-report measures for this study; a measure of trait EI alongside the same measure of the Big Five personality dimensions (Goldberg, 1992 ) used in the original Periodic Table of Personality study by Woods and Anderson ( 2016 ). A full correlation matrix of the scales included in both measures is presented in a supplement to this article. Trait Emotional Intelligence The Emotional Intelligence Profile (EIP3) consists of 158 self-report items measuring 26 facet scales of trait EI (Maddocks & Hughes 2017 ). Items are rated on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). These facets are listed in Table 1 and were defined based on content reviews of the literature on trait EI (Maddocks, 2018 ). Sixteen of the facets are keyed towards the positive or optimal expression of trait EI (e.g., Assertiveness) and ten are keyed towards negative or sub-optimal expression (e.g., Aggressive). Reliability and validity of this measure have been previously established and set out by Maddocks and Hughes ( 2017 ). The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for EIP3 facets range from .71 to .86 (median .80). Validity evidence reported by Maddocks & Hughes ( 2017 ) includes convergence with an existing measure of trait EI as well as correlations with job performance ratings and measures of work attitudes (work engagement and subjective well-being). The alpha coefficients for the EIP3 facets for the study sample ranged from .66 to .87 (median .78) and are also included within the supplement to this article. Big Five Personality Factors Goldberg’s ( 1992 ) list of 100 marker traits descriptive adjectives for the Big Five (TDA-100) was specifically selected to be consistent with Woods and Anderson ( 2016 ). The TDA-100 consists of 100 adjectives designed to be marker scales for the lexical Big Five. In the present study, these are used to locate the Big Five factors as axes around which circumplex structures can be examined (following the methodology of Woods and Anderson, 2016 ). Individuals rated the extent to which each marker trait was an accurate description of them on a 9-point scale (1 = highly inaccurate; 9 = highly accurate). Analysis Analyses followed the methodological steps outlined by Woods and Anderson ( 2016 ) to ensure consistency of interpretation with their original study. A Principal Components Analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was conducted on the TDA-100 scores, specifying a five-factor solution. Regression-based orthogonal scores for each of the Big Five factors were then calculated based on this solution. Each score thus reflected the unique variance attributable to its respective factor, independent of the variance shared with the other Big Five dimensions. Consequently, the factor scores were uncorrelated, owing to their orthogonal structure EIP3 scale scores were correlated with the regression-based orthogonal Big Five factor scores. Each EIP3 scale was classified into primary and secondary loadings, based on the strength of the correlation within each Big Five factor score, and mapped onto the AB5C model. For example, an EIP3 scale that has its strongest correlation positively associated with Extraversion and its second strongest correlation negatively associated with Agreeableness would be classified as E + A-. If the strongest correlation was 3.73 times larger than the second strongest, this was classified as factor pure, denoted by matched letters (e.g., E + E+; following Woods & Anderson, 2016 ). To provide an indication of the loading by each EIP3 scale on each sector, vector lengths were computed (calculated as the square root of the sums of squares of the primary and secondary correlations). Results As a first step, the PCA solution was compared to Goldberg’s TDA-100 factor structure to confirm sensible emergence of the Big Five factors. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was .86 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was statistically significant (χ 2 = 18688.17, p < 0.001), confirming that the data was suitable for factor analysis. The total variance explained by this five-factor solution was 48.53%, and the variance explained by each rotated factor was 13.86%, 10.76%, 9.20%, 8.65%, and 6.03% respectively. Out of 100 TDA personality items, 79 loaded onto their expected primary Big Five factor, with an additional ten having their second strongest loading on their expected factor. Although slightly lower than the mapping results found in the samples from Woods and Anderson ( 2016 ), this was considered a sufficiently acceptable representation of the Big Five for the purposes of this study and therefore the regression-based orthogonal Big Five factor scores were calculated for this dataset. Correlations between the 26 EIP3 trait EI facets and the Big Five factors (E, A, C, ES, O) are shown in Table 1 . These are listed vertically by their primary and secondary factor blends. As expected, EI facets load most frequently and strongly on primary blends of Emotional Stability, followed by blends of Agreeableness. There are a similar number of trait EI facets loading on primary blends of Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Openness, with stronger association being found for Extraversion, than for Conscientiousness or Openness. These findings are consistent with the only previous study that examined the conceptual relationship between EI and the AB5C (De Raad, 2005 ), yet differ from previous meta-analytic studies between EI and the Big Five factors that placed Extraversion ahead of Agreeableness (Joseph & Newman, 2010 ; O’Boyle et al., 2011 ; Van der Linden et al., 2017 ) and in one case Conscientiousness ahead of Agreeableness (Van der Linden et al., 2017 ). Although not directly comparable, it is notable that correlation coefficients between primary factors and trait EI facets tend to exceed overall correlations reported in previous meta-analytic research. Nine trait EI facets map onto Emotional Stability as a primary factor with correlations ranging from .38 to .74, seven being above .50, three of which are .70 or above. Emotional Stability blends with Extraversion (ES + E+), Conscientiousness (ES + C+/ES-C-), and Openness (ES + O+). It is notable that five trait EI facets map on the Socialization sector (ES + C+/ES-C-). Seven trait EI facets map onto Agreeableness as a primary factor with correlations ranging from .33 to .67, with three being above .55. Here, Agreeableness blends with Extraversion (A-E+, A-E-), Agreeableness (A + A+, i.e., as a pure factor), Conscientiousness (A-C+), Emotional Stability (A-ES-), and Openness (A + O+). The strongest relationships are with three trait EI facets: Aggressive with A-E+, Regard for Others with A + A+, and Awareness of Others with A + O+. Three trait EI facets map onto Extraversion as a primary factor with correlations of .31, .45, and .59. Extraversion blends with Agreeableness (E + A+), Conscientiousness (E + C+), and Emotional Stability (E-ES-). The strongest relationship is between the trait EI facet Connecting with Others and the factor blend E + A+ (Affiliation). Three trait EI facets map onto Conscientiousness as a primary factor with correlations of .34, .42, and .44. For these scales, Conscientiousness blends with Extraversion (C + E+) and Emotional Stability (C-ES-). Four trait EI facets map onto Openness as a primary factor with correlations from .29 to .38. Openness blends with Extraversion (O + E+), Agreeableness (O + A+), and Emotional Stability (O + ES+). Table 2 shows the position of the 26 trait EI facets within the Periodic Table of Personality, in terms of the number of trait EI facets mapped to each personality sector. Trait EI facets are spread widely across 17 of the 45 sectors of the Periodic table of Personality. It is notable that none of the trait EI facets map onto blends of Conscientiousness and Openness (e.g., C + O+/C-O-). There are also some unexpected omissions, where some emotional and social sectors of the Periodic Table are not represented by trait EI facets, such as Expressiveness (E + ES-/E-ES+). Furthermore, it is observed that nine of the trait EI facets map on sectors that are unlabelled, indicating they were assessed infrequently by the ten PIs used in the original study by Woods and Anderson ( 2016 ). To assist in visualising these associations, Table 2 presents the original configuration of the Periodic Table of Personality with the trait EI facets measured in the current study included in their respective sector locations. Discussion The purpose of this study was to enhance our understanding of the trait structural foundations of emotional intelligence by locating facets of a trait EI measured on the AB5C model, in the context of the Periodic Table of Personality proposed by Woods and Anderson ( 2016 ). This permitted us to examine associations of trait EI and broader personality traits more precisely than previous studies, as well as potentially understand gaps in the conceptual space covered by general PIs. The first aim of our research was to more precisely specify the personality foundations of trait EI, by mapping facets of trait EI to AB5C blends of the Big Five, and to represent these within the Periodic Table of Personality framework. Our results have achieved this aim and specify the precise location of the trait EI facets we analysed within the AB5C circumplex structures. Table 2 clearly identifies where these trait EI facets were located in the Periodic Table of Personality framework. The second aim was to apply these analyses to interpret and explore the conceptual relationship between trait EI and broader Big Five personality structure as represented by the AB5C framework. In the following discussion, we explore the implications of the findings for enriching conceptual understanding of the personality foundations of trait EI. In this discussion, we refer to the facet labels used by Woods and Anderson ( 2016 ) from the Periodic Table of Personality to clarify these implications (see also Table 2 ). Given that trait EI was found to have the closest association with Emotional Stability and Agreeableness, these factors will be discussed first, followed by Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Openness. As expected from previous studies of the Big Five and trait EI, Emotional Stability had the strongest association with trait EI, with nine of the 26 EIP3 trait EI facets loading on this primary factor. The majority of correlations are above .50, with three being .70 or larger, for comparison, meta-analytic associations reported in past studies range from .53 to .58. Closer examination of the specific facets of trait EI enable exploration of the implications of these findings. Five trait EI facets load on the same factor blend, Socialization (ES + C+/ES-C-), described as “social adjustment and conformity to social norms”. Emotional Intelligence is widely regarded as a social and adaptive quality (Keefer, Parker, & Saklofske, 2018 ), as reflected by the classification of several facets within the sector of the Periodic Table of Personality labelled Socialization. On the ES + C + side, Personal Power and Authenticity reflect being self-determined rather than conforming to social norms, suggesting a somewhat different emphasis to this sector description. The other three trait EI facets map to the negative side (ES-C-) of Socialization, most strongly with Emotionally Under Controlled, reflecting volatile and unpredictable behaviour, the antithesis of Socialization. Another notable sector blends Emotional Stability and Extraversion (ES + E+; Positive Emotionality) showing a strong association with two trait EI facets, Self Regard and Emotional Resilience. This pattern is consistent with broader research linking Emotional Stability and Extraversion with subjective well-being (Anglim & Grant, 2016 ) and resilience (Oshio, Taku, Hirano, & Saeed, 2018 ). The subtle integration of Extraversion with Emotional Stability provides a nuanced lens through which to understand how these two trait EI facets map onto the Big Five factors. Given their close conceptual and statistical alignment, it is unsurprising that Self Regard and Emotional Resilience coalesce within the same sector. A key strength of the Periodic Table of Personality is its ability to recognise where similar trait EI concepts may be represented by different scale labels. However, differentiation emerges through their respective tertiary association: Conscientiousness for Self Regard and Openness for Emotional Resilience. One other blend with Emotional Stability is Openness (ES + O+), an unlabelled sector in the Periodic Table of Personality, mapped by two trait EI facets. One of these facets is Flexibility, which reflects both Emotional Stability, i.e., feeling comfortable with moving outside of one’s comfort zones, and Openness, i.e., being open-minded towards change. Again, this illustrates how blends of both primary and secondary factors may enhance our understanding of how trait EI facets relate to the Big Five structure of personality. Agreeableness was the second most closely related factor to trait EI with seven trait EI facets loading on this primary factor. This contrasts with previous meta-analytic studies which place Extraversion above Agreeableness in relation to trait EI. However, it is consistent with findings from the only other study that maps trait EI to the AB5C model (De Raad, 2005 ), indicating that a more refined analysis of primary and secondary factors places greater emphasis on Agreeableness than Extraversion in relation to trait EI. Correlations between trait EI facets and Agreeableness as a primary factor were mostly above .40 with three being above .50, in comparison with previous meta-analytic research where overall effects range from .32 to .43. An initial observation is that Agreeableness has secondary blends across all the other Big Five factors, suggesting a wide variability in its relationship to trait EI. For example, the trait EI facet Regard for Others maps to A + A+, and Awareness of Others maps to A + O+. It may be expected that an individual who has high Regard for Others is also likely to have a high Awareness of Others, and that both reflect more agreeable personality dispositions. However, Regard for Others places greater emphasis on Agreeableness, whilst Awareness of Others combines Agreeableness with Openness (i.e., to the feelings of others). The two blends (A + A+, A + O+) illustrate how two closely related facets of trait EI map to the same primary factors but are differentiated through secondary blends of the Big Five. It is also interesting to observe that A + A + is a pure factor, i.e., it does not blend with any other factor. Agreeableness has previously been defined as “a willingness to forgo one’s personal needs for the benefit of others” (Buss, 1991 , p.471) and includes trait terms such as altruism, trust, and morality (Costa & McCrae, 1992 ). These themes correspond closely with the Rogerian concept of Regard for Others and unconditional value and acceptance towards others (Rogers, 1957 ). Five of the seven trait EI facets that load on factor blends of Agreeableness are unlabelled sectors on the Periodic Table, indicating that they are rarely measured by broader PIs. For example, Awareness of Others (being in touch with the feelings of others), a key underpinning facet of trait EI (Ioannidou & Konstantikaki, 2008 ) maps to the unlabelled sector of A + O+. In Woods and Anderson ( 2016 ), this sector had only one PI facet, NEO PI-R Feelings (an individual who experiences their feelings strongly), mapped to it on the Periodic Table. Clearly, both the PI and trait EI facets here share a common theme of emotional awareness but differ in terms of their focus being on either self-awareness (Feelings) or other-awareness (Awareness of Others). This distinction in the focus of EI is identified and discussed in the literature (see Pekaar et al., 2018 ). Conceptually there are evident differences in these forms of EI and their foundations, which are reflected in our findings. In this respect, trait EI facets may contribute towards a better understanding and definition of unlabelled sectors. Only three facets of trait EI load on Extraversion as a primary factor. Correlations range from .31 to .59, broadly similar to meta-analytic global correlations of between .46 and .49. Although Extraversion is relegated below Agreeableness in this study, there are a few mitigating considerations. Extraversion is a secondary factor for six trait EI facets, while Agreeableness was secondary to only three. Second, two of the secondary loadings (A-E- and O + E+) have equal correlations as the primary factor (within two decimal places). Third, the three trait EI facets that load primarily on Extraversion (Connecting with Others, Self Awareness, and Emotionally Over Controlled) may be considered prominent aspects of trait EI. Connecting with Others, has a particularly strong association and shares a close conceptual relationship with the sector label Affiliation (E + A) i.e., breadth of connection (Extraversion) and depth of connection (Agreeableness) with others. Also, Extraversion (E+) and Agreeableness (A+) are widely recognised as the most interpersonal of the Big Five factors (McCrae & Costa, 1989 ) and may therefore be expected to have close relevance to trait EI. Despite these considerations Agreeableness still demonstrates closer association with facets of trait EI than Extraversion for this study. Primary correlations of trait EI facets with Conscientiousness range from .34 to .44, which compare to meta-analytic overall correlations of .32 to .40. Previous meta-analytic studies on the Big Five and trait EI tend to give Conscientiousness higher overall status, although differentiating between primary and secondary blends of Conscientiousness may provide greater clarity on its relative importance and relationship to trait EI. Conscientiousness appears to have greater prominence as a secondary factor, for seven facets, than as a primary factor, where it is represented in only three trait EI facets. For example, Conscientiousness plays an important secondary role in the Socialization sector (ES + C+/ES-C-) blending with Emotional Stability on five trait EI facets. The strongest correlation with Conscientiousness is the trait EI facet Goal Directedness which loads on the unlabelled sector C + E+. The PI facets that load on this sector tend to emphasise achievement striving, whilst Goal Directedness also reflects emotional impulse control, a feature that may be more specific to trait EI and could inform future definition of this sector. As a primary factor, Openness has the lowest correlations with facets of trait EI, ranging from .29 to .38, again compared with meta-analytic effects in previous studies of .29 to .33, confirming its relatively lower status as a marker of trait EI. Despite slightly lower correlations, Openness is the primary factor for four trait EI facets, all of which have secondary blends with Big Five traits that are more consistently associated with trait EI (i.e., O + ES+, O + A+, and O + E+). There are some unexpected omissions where certain emotional and social sectors of the Periodic Table were not represented by trait EI facets. These include Expressiveness (E + ES-/E-ES+), Emotional Control (ES + E+/ES-E-), and Emotional Sensitivity (A + ES-/A-ES+). However, the three facets that are conceptually closest to these sectors (Emotionally Over Controlled, Emotionally Under Controlled, and Awareness of Others) load on sectors with equivalent relevance: Social Poise (E + ES+/E-ES-), Socialization (ES + C+/ES-C-), and an unlabelled sector (A + O+/A-O-). A limitation of using a single measure of trait EI is in the breadth of coverage this affords. Additional measures of trait EI may help expand the content coverage of the trait EI across blends of the Big Five factors. Summary of Implications In summary, the results of this study have addressed its aims in two main ways. First, findings demonstrated how facets of trait EI map onto blends of the Big Five AB5C model through the lens of the Periodic Table of Personality. This may act as a template and catalyst for future similar studies and cross-comparison of other trait EI measures. More broadly, our findings enable improved understanding of the personality structural foundations of trait EI. This can assist with integrating findings from studies of EI with studies of broader personality dimensions such as the Big Five, conducted using different PIs. Our findings thereby contribute to the literature on the conceptual and criterion utility of trait EI alongside broad personality dimensions. Furthermore, as highlighted by Woods and Anderson ( 2016 ), building understanding of the conceptual underpinning of trait constructs (including trait EI facets), assists in theory building. Better specification of the conceptual nature of trait EI facets can facilitate building propositions and hypotheses in future research. In respect of this latter implication, our second main contribution is to expand the conceptual descriptions of facets of trait EI. Here, our analyses underline the importance of Emotional Stability and Agreeableness as key components as both primary and secondary constituents in the AB5C sector classifications of the trait EI scales. This reflects a wider observation that most sectors mapped by trait EI have emotional and social labels, such as Socialization (ES + C+/ES-C-), Affiliation (E + A+/E-A-), and Positive Emotionality (ES + E+/ES-E-). In contrast there are no trait EI facets that map onto blends of Conscientiousness and Openness, which have more intellectual and functional labels such as Orderliness (C + C+/C-C-), Intellect (O + O+/O-O-), and Industriousness (C + O+/C-O-). Our analysis replicates findings from the only previous study that maps trait EI facets to the AB5C model (De Raad, 2005 ), showing that trait EI maps most closely to Emotional Stability and Agreeableness as primary factors. This contrasts with meta-analytic studies that indicate global trait EI maps more strongly to Extraversion than Agreeableness. The more nuanced interpretation on the relationship between trait EI facets and blends of the Big Five in the present study, compared to meta-analyses of global trait EI and the Big Five factors, highlight specific areas where Extraversion may play a secondary role alongside primary associations with other Big Five factors. A further noteworthy observation concerns the distribution of trait EI facets across sectors of the Periodic Table of Personality. Certain sectors, such as ES + C+/ES-C-, are densely populated by trait EI facets, while others, underrepresented by personality inventory scales in the Woods and Anderson ( 2016 ) study, are here shown to be represented by trait EI scales (e.g., A + O+/A-O-). Given trait EI’s emphasis on the affective dimensions of personality, it is anticipated that replicating this study with other trait EI measures will help illuminate these underexplored sectors and contribute to defining those sectors that are often left unmeasured by personality trait inventories. Our study has broader implications for research on trait EI and personality traits by offering a novel approach to examining their structural and conceptual relationships. We have noted previously that the analytic methodology we applied permits inspection of the independent associations of trait EI and the Big Five modelled as orthogonal factors. We are therefore able to interpret these associations without confounding influences of the intercorrelations of the Big Five that may otherwise affect the observed patterns of correlations. Moreover, this approach also addresses potential concerns around the proliferation of trait EI facets that are strongly correlated. For example, where facets might overlap substantially (i.e. at r > 0.70), and be classified in the same sector of the Periodic Table of Personality, it is tempting to conclude that they may effectively be equivalent from a measurement perspective (the jingle-jangle problem). Yet our complete account of the Big Five correlates of the facets allows more granular examination of the tertiary or quaternary associations to provide a more informed view of facet uniqueness. For example, tertiary associations might signal that facets are differentiated conceptually even if their primary and secondary associations with the Big Five are similar. Alongside this, our findings might also highlight where the Big Five domain space might not adequately represent facets of the Big Five. For example, in our study, Reflective Learning exhibit modest vector loading indicating unique variance not shared with blends of the Big Five factors. Finally, our study does allow direct comparison with the findings of Woods and Anderson ( 2016 ) compiled from broad-bandwidth personality inventories. The advantage of this possibility is to enable more precise comparison of the alignment of classification of trait EI facets and more general personality facets. For example, Woods and Anderson report the sector locations of the domain and facets of the NEO-PIR, one of the most widely applied measures of the five-factor model representation of the Big Five. Examination of these two models (FFM and trait EI) against the common framework of the Periodic Table of Personality might inform depth of understanding and interpretation of the implications of studies of the constructs that have utilised the NEO-PIR alongside EI measures. Building a more complete picture of the personality structural foundations of trait EI could accordingly be achieved through future research extending our study with diverse trait EI measures. Practical Implications Our findings have practical implications for the use of assessments of trait EI in, for example, work and organisational settings. In these settings, assessments of trait EI are often administered to support learning and development, as well as employee and executive coaching. Assessments generally aim to facilitate building self-awareness and exploration of personal development objectives and activities. Understanding the foundations of facets of trait EI in broader personality structure is informative in these activities. This can be framed in two ways. Firstly, where a measure of trait EI is used as a sole assessment, practitioners interpreting the participant or client profile can reflect on the likely personality trait associates of the trait EI dimensions. In particular, insights regarding Emotional Stability and Agreeableness are likely to be relevant to the profile and could assist practitioners in understanding the behavioural implications of trait EI dimensions. Secondly, building on this approach, more detailed and coherent interpretations could be achieved through combining measures of trait EI with broad-bandwidth PIs. The analyses we report in our study would be valuable to practitioners in considering the joint implications of client profiles across different measures. For example, understanding of personality traits related to Emotional Stability and Agreeableness could be enriched by examining trait EI facets that are mapped to sectors of the AB5C for which these Big Five factors are primary or secondary loadings. In summary, our approach advances the practical debate about the utility of measures of trait EI to specifically understand how different measures can be effectively used together. Limitations and Future Research There are two limitations to note in respect of the current study. Firstly, the sample of participants was a convenience field sample principally from the employed UK adult population. Whilst data from adult and occupational samples is helpful in providing external validity to study findings (e.g., in contrast to student samples), future studies could seek to cross-validate our results in samples drawn from other countries. This would also enable analyses of the stability of the sector assignments of the trait EI facets across different sample groups. Confidence in the stability of the assignment of scales and facets to the AB5C using the methodology from our study can be drawn from Woods and Anderson ( 2016 ), who compared results across two samples. However, follow-up studies could seek to examine this issue in multiple samples. Secondly, whilst we report results from a trait EI instrument that comprises detailed facets and thus is especially relevant for our study, we acknowledge that alternative measures may represent the trait EI domain differently. Examining a wider range of measures in future research could enable a rationalisation of trait EI constructs by recognising common facets between instruments, identifying trait EI facets of higher ontological status, and potential removal of idiosyncratic or redundant facets. A practical benefit of this would be to help practitioners compare between measures of trait EI and to identify complementary personality and trait EI instruments, as previously highlighted. Therefore, building on the novel approach we report in this study, future research could replicate the research with other EI measures to develop a fuller picture of the associations of the Big Five and trait EI. To this end, our findings represent an important first step. Declarations Competing Interests Two authors, Dan Hughes and Steph Noble, are employed by an organisation that distributes the EIP3 questionnaire used in this study. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Funding: No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript. Conflict of Interest/Competing interests: Two authors, Dan Hughes and Steph Noble, are employed by an organisation that distributes the EIP3 questionnaire used in this study. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Ethics approval and consent to participate: The research was given ethical approval by the Research and Development division of Talogy, overseen by the Scientific Advisory board (SAB), and in accordance with the BPS Code Of Human Research Ethics (2021). The authors are members of the British Psychological Society (BPS) and gained freely-given informed consent from participants in accordance with the BPS Code Of Human Research Ethics (2021). All responses were anonymous, so participants could not be personally identified. Data availability: All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its Supplementary Information. Clinical trial number: not applicable Consent to Publish declaration: not applicable Author Contribution All authors made equal contribution to the manuscript. References Alegre A, Pérez-Escoda N, López-Cassá E. The relationship between trait emotional intelligence and personality. Is trait EI really anchored within the big five, big two and big one frameworks? Front Psychol. 2019;10:866. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00866 . Andrei F, Seigling AB, Aloe AM, Baldaro B, Petrides KV. The incremental validity of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue): a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pers Assess. 2016;98(3):261–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1084630 . Anglim J, Grant S. Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from personality: Incremental prediction from 30 facets over the Big 5. J Happiness Stud. 2016;17:59–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9583-7 . Antonakis J. On why emotional intelligence will not predict leadership effectiveness beyond IQ or the big five: An extension and rejoinder. Organizational Anal. 2004;12(2):171–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb028991 . Boyatzis RE, Sala F. The emotional competence inventory (ECI). In: Geher G, editor. Measuring emotional intelligence: Common ground and controversy. Nova Science; 2004. pp. 147–80. British Psychological Society. (2021). BPS code of human research ethics. https://www.bps.org.uk/guideline/bps-code-human-research-ethics Buss DM. Evolutionary personality psychology. Ann Rev Psychol. 1991;42:459–91. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.42.020191.002331 . Conte JM. A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures. J Organizational Behav. 2005;26:433–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.319 . Costa PT Jr., McCrae RR. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1992. Dasborough MT, Ashkanasy NM, Humphrey RH, Harms PD, Credé M, Wood D. Does leadership still not need emotional intelligence? Continuing The Great EI Debate. Leadership Quarterly. 2021;33(6):101539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101539 . De Raad B. The trait-coverage of emotional intelligence. Pers Indiv Differ. 2005;38(3):673–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.022 . Furnham A, Petrides KV. Trait emotional intelligence and happiness. Social Behav Personality: Int J. 2003;31(8):815–23. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2003.31.8.815 . Goldberg LR. The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychol Assess. 1992;4(1):26–42. Gonzalez-Mulé E, DeGeest D, Mount MK. Power of the Circumplex: Incremental validity of intersection traits in predicting counterproductive work behaviors. Int J Selection Assess. 2013;21(3):322–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12041 . Harms PD, Crede M. Remaining issues in emotional intelligence research: Construct overlap, method artifacts, and lack of incremental validity. Industrial Organizational Psychol. 2010;3(2):154–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01217.x . Hofstee WKB, De Raad B, Goldberg LR. Integration of the big five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1992;63(1):146–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.1.146 . Hough LM, Ones DS. The structure, measurement, validity, and use of personality variables in industrial, work, and organizational psychology. In: Anderson N, Ones DS, Sinangil HK, Viswesvaran C, editors. Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology - Volume 1: Personnel Psychology. Sage; 2001. pp. 233–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848608320.n13 . Hughes DJ, Tokarev A, Booth T. Towards a taxonomy of personality facets. Eur J Pers. 2023;0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070231200919 . Ioannidou F, Konstantikaki V. Empathy and emotional intelligence: What is it really about? Int J caring Sci. 2008;1(3):118–23. Joseph DL, Newman DA. Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. J Appl Psychol. 2010;95(1):54–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017286 . Keefer KV, Parker JDA, Saklofske DH. Three decades of emotional intelligence research: Perennial issues, emerging trends, and lessons learned in education: Introduction to emotional intelligence in education. In: Keefer KV, Parker JDA, Saklofske DH, editors. Emotional intelligence in education: Integrating research with practice. Cham: Springer; 2018. pp. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90633-1_1 . Maddocks J. Emotional Intelligence at Work. How to make change stick. 2nd ed. Spa House Publishing; 2018. Maddocks J, Hughes D. The Emotional Intelligence Profile (EIP3) technical manual. Talogy; 2017. Maddocks J. (2023) Introducing an attitude-based approach to emotional intelligence. Frontiers in Psychology , 13 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1006411 Matthews G, Zeidner M, Roberts RD. Measuring emotional intelligence: Promises, pitfalls, solutions? In: Ong AD, Van Dulmen M, editors. Handbook of methods in positive psychology. Oxford University Press; 2007. pp. 189–204. Matthews G, Zeidner M, Roberts RD. Emotional intelligence: A promise unfulfilled? Jpn Psychol Res. 2012;54(2):105–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5884.2011.00502.x . Mayer JD, Salovey P. The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence. 1993;17(4):433–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(93)90010-3 . McCrae RR, Costa PT Jr.. The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggin's circumplex and the five-factor model. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1989;56(4):586–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.4.586 . Miao C, Humphrey RH, Qian S. (2017). A meta-analysis of emotional. intelligence and work attitudes. J Occup Organ Psychol, 90 (2), 177–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12167 O’Boyle EH, Humphrey RH, Pollack JM, Hawver TH, Story PA. The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: a meta-analysis. J Organizational Behav. 2011;32(5):788–818. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.714 . Olderbak S, Wilhelm O. Overarching Principles for the Organization of Socioemotional Constructs. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2020;29(1):63–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419884317 . Oshio A, Taku K, Hirano M, Saeed G. Resilience and Big Five personality traits: A meta-analysis. Pers Indiv Differ. 2018;127:54–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.048 . Pekaar KA, Bakker AB, van der Linden D, Born MP. Self-and other-focused emotional intelligence: Development and validation of the Rotterdam Emotional Intelligence Scale (REIS). Pers Indiv Differ. 2018;120:222–33. Pérez-González JC, Sánchez-Ruiz MJ. (2014). Trait emotional intelligence. anchored within the big. five, big two and big one frameworks. Pers Indiv Differ, 65 , 53–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.021 Petrides KV. (2009). Psychometric Properties of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue). In J. Parker, D. Saklofske, & C. Stough, editors Assessing Emotional Intelligence: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 85–101). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-88370-0_5 Petrides KV, Furnham A. Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. Eur J Pers. 2001;15(6):425–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.416 . Petrides KV, Mavroveli S. (2018). Theory and Applications of Trait Emotional Intelligence. Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society , 23 (1), 24–36. https://doi.org/10.12681/psy_hps.23016 Petrides KV, Pita R, Kokkinaki F. The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. Br J Psychol. 2007;98(2):273–89. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712606X120618 . Petrides KV, Vernon PA, Schermer JA, Ligthart L, Boomsma DI, Veselka L. Relationships between trait emotional intelligence and the Big Five in the Netherlands. Pers Indiv Differ. 2010;48:906–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.019 . Rogers CR. The necessary and sufficient conditions of the therapeutic personality change. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1957;21(2):95–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045357 . Schulte MJ, Ree MJ, Carretta TR. Emotional intelligence: Not much more than g and personality. Pers Indiv Differ. 2004;37(5):1059–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.11.014 . Schwaba T, Rhemtulla M, Hopwood CJ, Bleidorn W. A facet atlas: Visualizing networks that describe the blends, cores, and peripheries of personality structure. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236893 . Siegling AB, Furnham A, Petrides KV. Trait emotional intelligence and personality: Gender-invariant linkages across different measures of the Big Five. J psychoeducational Assess. 2015;33(1):57–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282914550385 . Van der Linden D, Dunkel C, Pekaar A, Pekaar K, Petrides KV, Schermer J, Vernon P. Overlap Between the General Factor of Personality and Emotional Intelligence: A Meta-Analysis. Psychol Bull. 2017;143(1):36–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000078 . Van Rooy DL, Viswesvaran C. Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation of predictive validity and nomological net. J Vocat Behav. 2004;65:71–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00076-9 . Vernon PA, Villani VC, Schermer JA, Petrides KV. Phenotypic and genetic associations between the B5 and trait emotional intelligence. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2008;11(5):524–30. https://doi.org/10.1375/twin.11.5.524 . Woods SA, Anderson NR. Toward a Periodic Table of Personality: Mapping Personality Scales Between the Five-Factor Model and the Circumplex Model. J Appl Psychol. 2016;101(4):582–604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000062 Tables Table 1 and 2 are available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations Competing interest reported. Two authors, Dan Hughes and Steph Noble, are employed by an organisation that distributes the EIP3 questionnaire used in this study. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Supplementary Files Supplement1EIP3andTDA100intercorrelationsR.xlsx Table12.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 12 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 15 Dec, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 12 Dec, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 12 Dec, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 10 Dec, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 09 Dec, 2025 First submitted to journal 09 Dec, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8277771","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":560414027,"identity":"17025b8e-87cd-4c1c-b27e-244ceb164f55","order_by":0,"name":"Jolyon Maddocks","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Leicester","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jolyon","middleName":"","lastName":"Maddocks","suffix":""},{"id":560414028,"identity":"4e6ac003-f195-4901-ba64-7d9f526e8af0","order_by":1,"name":"Dan Hughes","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Talogy Limited","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dan","middleName":"","lastName":"Hughes","suffix":""},{"id":560414029,"identity":"e4863786-68cd-4e95-89cf-828d930c7b60","order_by":2,"name":"Steph Noble","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Talogy Limited","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Steph","middleName":"","lastName":"Noble","suffix":""},{"id":560414030,"identity":"51753848-3d7c-485a-bb66-c02df1f81601","order_by":3,"name":"Stephen Woods","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Surrey","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Stephen","middleName":"","lastName":"Woods","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-12-04 10:08:20","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8277771/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8277771/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":98381322,"identity":"88caa3d6-6860-4427-970f-721abfc217ef","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-17 07:52:49","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":133162,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"PersonalitystructuralfoundationsoftraitEI.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8277771/v1/fe4c7a9b7ef46e7d7a4396de.docx"},{"id":98381320,"identity":"4dbd692a-1ede-4992-90ec-a8a70cfe209f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-17 07:52:49","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":6107,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"4223fecf6d154dfbae5e59289ab96d79.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8277771/v1/e6a36ffad168dd11aa88ed7b.json"},{"id":98381324,"identity":"66c6fc86-f7ec-49dc-b2e6-b1a16a429be3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-17 07:52:49","extension":"xlsx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":28707,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplement1EIP3andTDA100intercorrelationsR.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8277771/v1/4e0899999e49bd721807ac42.xlsx"},{"id":98381326,"identity":"4f06d548-0959-44d9-a917-adc4d9649275","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-17 07:52:49","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":163615,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"4223fecf6d154dfbae5e59289ab96d791enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8277771/v1/0722da70155f02eca8d4a39c.xml"},{"id":98381328,"identity":"9dbe1e4f-805d-4589-b279-8a5c8ee57d05","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-17 07:52:49","extension":"xml","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":160397,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"4223fecf6d154dfbae5e59289ab96d791structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8277771/v1/dc593da1a56ed67aa5ddabb1.xml"},{"id":98381327,"identity":"58de0977-1698-4c8a-b34b-c0def20737d9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-17 07:52:49","extension":"html","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":171077,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8277771/v1/f960e40ec0ee0b3e0f8fc6ad.html"},{"id":98441139,"identity":"1a5b7e5c-2967-4375-a99e-405aed83062f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-17 17:04:57","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":548783,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8277771/v1/e11290f9-ae58-499a-a8e0-ea0f883efba9.pdf"},{"id":98381323,"identity":"a6a88136-036f-43ee-aa83-ba88dec4bee5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-17 07:52:49","extension":"xlsx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":28707,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplement1EIP3andTDA100intercorrelationsR.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8277771/v1/6f63f9622a06aa22a2ee306a.xlsx"},{"id":98381321,"identity":"4b3a9b17-568e-40c2-bc73-9824df2bef48","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-17 07:52:49","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":25360,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table12.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8277771/v1/1420f6648e14699753e5706e.docx"}],"financialInterests":"Competing interest reported. Two authors, Dan Hughes and Steph Noble, are employed by an organisation that distributes the EIP3 questionnaire used in this study. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.","formattedTitle":"An Examination of the Personality Structural Foundations of Facets of Emotional Intelligence","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eTrait emotional intelligence (EI) is generally presumed to represent a group or cluster of emotion-related behavioural, perceptual, and affective dispositions (Petrides \u0026amp; Furnham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; De Raad, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Petrides, Pita, \u0026amp; Kokkinaki, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Petrides \u0026amp; Mavroveli, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Trait EI is measured using rating scales (i.e., self-report or external ratings from others), and is distinguished from \u0026lsquo;ability\u0026rsquo; EI (Matthews, Zeidner, \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). The dispositional foundations of the concept of trait EI have logically given rise to questions about how aspects of the construct relate to broader personality traits, for example from the Big Five model (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Openness) (Siegling, Furnham, \u0026amp; Petrides, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), resulting in four published meta-analyses (Van Rooy \u0026amp; Viswesvaran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Joseph \u0026amp; Newman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; O\u0026rsquo;Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, \u0026amp; Story, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Van der Linden et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the present study, we argue that whilst these studies provide a broad picture of the relations of these two trait domains, there remain gaps in our understanding of the specific trait structural foundations of the facets and constructs captured in trait EI. The absence of this understanding in the literature hinders the accurate integration of research findings of the effects of trait EI with the broader personality literature, creating potential imprecision in theory building and in combining study results.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address this gap, we apply circumplex modelling (the AB5C: Hofstee, De Raad, \u0026amp; Goldberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e) following the methodology used by Woods and Anderson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) to construct the \u003cem\u003ePeriodic Table of Personality.\u003c/em\u003e The title, inspired by chemistry, reflects the aspiration of its authors to create a similar framework for personality. The Periodic Table of Personality was developed to provide a coherent independent framework against which different personality inventory scales could be classified, reflecting benefits of the periodic table of elements in chemistry. This approach enables us to map facets of trait EI (measured in the Emotional Intelligence Profile; EIP3; Maddocks \u0026amp; Hughes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) to the AB5C circumplex framework. Our study makes two important contributions to the literature on trait EI and personality. Firstly, we report a more detailed and precise specification of the personality foundations of trait EI facets by locating them on the circumplex framework (conceptualising them as blends of the Big Five). Secondly, by replicating the methodology of Woods and Anderson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), our data enable trait EI facets to be linked to a broader framework of traits representing multiple measures and constructs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTrait Emotional Intelligence and The Big Five Personality Factors\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTrait EI differs conceptually from the broad-bandwidth general models of personality such as the Big Five by focusing more comprehensively on operationalising affect-related constructs (Vernon, Villani, Schermer, \u0026amp; Petrides, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Petrides, Pita, and Kokkinaki, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) argue that a conceptual advantage of trait EI is that it organises the main individual differences in affective personality under a single framework, which have otherwise been scattered across the Big Five personality dimensions and other factorial models. Nevertheless, the conceptual overlap of dispositional variables represented in different ways in trait EI and the Big Five has created a significant volume of literature jointly examining these models, accordingly, building theory and accumulating empirical data (e.g., Joseph \u0026amp; Newman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; O\u0026rsquo;Boyle et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough four meta-analytic studies have examined the relationship between EI and the Big Five, three of these are especially salient for the present study because findings are reported specifically for trait-based EI (Joseph \u0026amp; Newman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; O\u0026rsquo;Boyle et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Van der Linden et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). In all three studies, Emotional Stability (or low Neuroticism) consistently emerged as having the strongest association with trait EI (respectively for Joseph \u0026amp; Newman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; O\u0026rsquo;Boyle et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Van der Linden et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e: r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.53, .54, .58). However, meaningful associations were observed with all Big Five dimensions, with Extraversion (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.46, .49, .47), typically emerging as next strongest followed by Agreeableness (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.43, .32, .37) and/or Conscientiousness (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.38, .32, .40), and lastly Openness (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.29, .33, .31).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA feature of meta-analytic studies is inclusion of multiple instruments. Instruments vary in their theoretical structure and breadth of measurement, with some being more focussed on the Mayer and Salovey (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e) four stage model of EI, others more aligned to mixed models of EI (Boyatzis \u0026amp; Sala, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) that incorporate a wide range of social and emotional competencies, and others drawn directly from personality trait theory (Furnham \u0026amp; Petrides, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Indeed, within the meta-analytic studies there are clear differences in associations between EI and the Big Five factors depending on which method of assessment has been employed and even between trait EI instruments (Van der Linden et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). It has further been suggested that some facets of trait EI, such as self awareness, have closer relevance to emotional intelligence and a higher ontological status than other facets (Maddocks, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Compounding these issues are concerns in the EI literature regarding construct proliferation, scale redundancy (Matthews et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), and jingle-jangle fallacies (Olderbak \u0026amp; Wilhelm, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) in which competing measures of EI have different labels for similar constructs or the same label for different constructs. Such concerns have raised questions about the relationship of trait EI with broader personality structure (Dasborough et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn response, researchers have endeavoured to integrate trait EI within the mainstream structural models of personality including the Big Five, Big Two and Big One frameworks, indicating that trait EI is a broad personality trait integrated into multi-level personality hierarchies (Petrides et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; P\u0026eacute;rez-Gonz\u0026aacute;lez \u0026amp; S\u0026aacute;nchez-Ruiz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Alegre, P\u0026eacute;rez-Escoda \u0026amp; L\u0026oacute;pez-Cass\u0026aacute;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This raises a secondary concern that trait EI maybe considered \u0026lsquo;redundant\u0026rsquo; as a construct if subsumed within these hierarchies. Critics have argued against the conceptualisation of EI as a personality trait if it overlaps considerably with the higher order personality dimensions (Antonakis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Conte, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Harms \u0026amp; Crede, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Schulte, Ree, \u0026amp; Carretta, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). In recognition of these concerns, research has focussed on demonstrating divergent as well as convergent validity of trait EI with the Big Five personality factors. Studies have shown overall trait EI to share 50\u0026ndash;60% of variance with the Big Five (Petrides et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; P\u0026eacute;rez-Gonz\u0026aacute;lez \u0026amp; S\u0026aacute;nchez-Ruiz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), although the evidence for a distinct factor for trait EI that differentiates from the Big Five is mixed. Of two substantive studies, one demonstrated a unique factor for trait EI (P\u0026eacute;rez-Gonz\u0026aacute;lez \u0026amp; S\u0026aacute;nchez-Ruiz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) and the other subsumed trait EI within existing personality factors (Alegre et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). A further line of analyses has examined the association of trait EI with higher-order factors of personality, most notably with the General Factor of Personality (GFP). Van der Linden et al, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) reported an overall meta-analytic correlation of .85 between trait EI and the GFP.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite these observed results, there appears to be consistency in the finding that trait EI adds incremental variance beyond higher order personality dimensions in explaining different areas of functioning (including happiness, emotional labour, perceived stress, life satisfaction, anxiety, leadership roles, career-outcomes and well-being; e.g. Andrei, Seigling, Aloe, Baldaro, \u0026amp; Petrides, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Miao., Humphrey, \u0026amp; Qian, 2017).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, evidence points to the potential utility of the trait EI construct, against the context of substantive overlap with broad personality constructs. Given this background of evidence, a logical next step for research is to clarify the structural associations between trait EI and personality traits more generally. For example, the three meta-analytic studies discussed aggregate trait EI into a single score or a few broad domains, rather than examine shared facets of trait EI. Whilst examination of associations between higher-order constructs of personality is important and informative, there is an inevitable trade-off with precision of analyses of relations between constructs. For example, simple meta-analytic associations between the Big Five and trait EI do not enable examination of the unique associations of the five factors (i.e. controlling for the shared variance between the Big Five). Further, the broad trait EI construct is often a higher-order level of more detailed facet models that represent the main elements of EI, and which are measured in psychometric scales (e.g., the 15 facets of the TEIQue; Petrides, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Likewise, the Big Five may be represented as narrower personality facets providing greater precision in the definition of trait constructs in measurement (e.g., Hough \u0026amp; Ones, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Woods \u0026amp; Anderson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). In particular, recent research in the area of personality facet structure has moved towards defining replicable methodology and facet structures (e.g. Woods \u0026amp; Anderson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Schwaba, Rhemtulla, Hopwood, \u0026amp; Bleidorn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Hughes, Tokarev, \u0026amp; Booth \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). A consequent question is how to apply these advances to examine associations of trait EI and broader personality traits more precisely with a greater degree of specificity?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWoods and Anderson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) addressed a similar question in respect of general personality trait constructs and proposed a methodology to permit the mapping of facets to a coherent conceptual framework represented in the Abridged Big Five-Dimensional Circumplex (AB5C) model of personality (Hofstee, de Raad \u0026amp; Goldberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e,). The AB5C model captures otherwise unmeasured predictor space between the Big Five factors by conceptualising the five factors as orthogonal paired axes around which circumplexes can be constructed (resulting in ten such circumplexes; see Woods and Anderson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). By modelling personality constructs as blends of the Big Five dimensions, trait structural properties can be more precisely specified by locating each within the AB5C model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo do this, associations of traits with all the Big Five factors are examined and an AB5C sector location defined based on the primary and secondary loadings. For example, a trait that correlates positively and most strongly with Extraversion, followed by Agreeableness as the next strongest correlation (also positive) would be defined as \u003cem\u003eE\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;A\u0026thinsp;+\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;in the AB5C model. The AB5C model consists of 90 possible combinations for the primary and secondary loadings on each of the Big Five factors. Opposite pairs (positive/negative) are logically framed as bipolar constructs of the same dimension in the AB5C facet model (e.g., E\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;A-/E-A+) producing a combined total of 45 facets (see also Hofstee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis approach enables tighter structural definition (Woods \u0026amp; Anderson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) as well as yielding potential benefits for understanding criterion validities (Gonzalez-Mul\u0026eacute;, DeGeest \u0026amp; Mount, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Woods and Anderson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) applied this methodology to examine ten established personality inventories (PIs), defining a \u0026lsquo;Periodic Table of Personality\u0026rsquo;. The comparison with periodic table of chemical elements was drawn partly based on the utility of the methodology to simultaneously classify different traits, and organise and define the personality domain space. This is an advantage that is utilised in the present study in understanding the trait structural associations of facets of trait EI.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis proposed method and model presented a further benefit of enabling replication with different PIs and trait constructs mapped to this same framework. Notably, Woods and Anderson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) observed substantial gaps in the measurement domain covered by the inventories they analysed. Examination of alternative trait concepts such as trait EI may therefore simultaneously contribute to understanding trait structural foundations of EI facets, as well as potentially understanding gaps in the conceptual space covered by general PIs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne previous study (De Raad, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) has examined the conceptual relationship between EI and the AB5C. However, the methodology employed in that study gives rise to limitations in its implications for understanding the empirical structural relations of trait EI and the AB5C. In De Raad\u0026rsquo;s study, psychologists were asked to classify questionnaire items from various EI measures, and general Big Five questionnaire items judged as relevant for EI against the AB5C sectors. Coverage of the AB5C sectors was then compared within the model. Across these two approaches, items were most frequently classified in the ES+, ES- (Emotional Stability) and A+, A- (Agreeableness) sectors, suggesting that these were the most clearly conceptually related to EI. Whilst informative, these findings do not provide empirical evidence of the associations of trait EI and personality within participant ratings. Our study therefore addresses this limitation and provides a logical extension of the De Raad (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) analyses by empirically examining the structural foundations of trait EI in the context of the AB5C model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, applying the methodology of Woods and Anderson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) enables our study to contribute to the literature on the structural associations of the Big Five and trait EI in three important ways. Firstly, the methodology enables independent examination of the pattern of associations between EI facets and the Big Five. A key feature of the analytic approach described by Woods and Anderson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) involves the extraction of orthogonal factors from the trait marker scales for the lexical Big Five of Goldberg (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e). This means that the associations of trait EI facets with the Big Five are independent, and not affected by the correlations between the Big Five observed in conventional scale scoring. Secondly, we are able to report the classification of trait EI constructs to the AB5C facet model of the Big Five. This permits greater granularity of examination than previous studies. Thirdly, by replicating the Woods and Anderson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) methodology, our findings are comparable to their original findings. This allows researchers to cross-reference our findings against classification of general personality facets in their original study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe Present Study\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the present study, we examine the associations between facets of trait EI with marker traits of the Big Five model in a sample of UK working adults. We apply the methodology developed by Woods and Anderson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) to position these EI facets within the AB5C model, thereby enabling an examination of their structural properties in the context of the \u003cem\u003ePeriodic Table of Personality\u003c/em\u003e. While prior research does not warrant the formulation of specific hypotheses, accumulated evidence in meta-analyses (Joseph \u0026amp; Newman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; O\u0026rsquo;Boyle et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Van der Linden et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; De Raad, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) lead us to expect that Emotional Stability will feature most prominently, followed by Agreeableness and Extraversion in the primary associations of trait EI with the Big Five. Grounded in our review of the evidence from the research literature on personality structural foundations of trait EI, the specific aims of the present study that frame our analyses and findings are:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo specify the personality foundations of trait EI more precisely, by mapping facets of trait EI to AB5C blends of the Big Five, and to represent these within the Periodic Table of Personality framework.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo apply these analyses to interpret and explore the conceptual relationship between trait EI and broader Big Five personality structure as represented by the AB5C framework.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants and Procedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe obtained a sample of UK working adults from a diverse range of occupations and managerial levels. The study sample was a convenience field sample recruited through an online market research panel, who volunteered to take part in the study and were paid for their participation. Eligibility criteria for the study were that participants must be over 18 and currently working in the UK in either full-time or part-time employment. Valid and informed consent was obtained from Participants in accordance with the British Psychological Society Code of Human Research Ethics (2021). This included such information as a description of what the study would involve, the estimated completion time, the option to withdraw at any time in the process, and how data would be stored. Participants were screened before beginning the survey to confirm they met the eligibility criteria. Participants completed all measures at the same time within a single online survey and responses were anonymous, so participants could not be personally identified.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn initial sample of 268 volunteers completed the online survey. Participant responses were first screened to check for inattentive responding and for extreme outliers on one or more scales included in the study. This resulted in the removal of 37 participants from the sample. The final study sample therefore consisted of 231 participants, drawn from a wide range of occupational sectors and managerial levels within the UK. Participants comprised a broadly even gender split (51.9% female, 48.1% male), were predominantly aged over 40 years (77.9% aged 40+, 22.1% aged 20 to 39), reflected a mix of job levels (43.7% managerial roles, 56.3% non-managerial roles), and were mainly UK nationals (93.5%). The most represented occupational sectors in the sample were administrative and support services (15.2%), professional services (13.9%), financial services (8.7%), retail and customer service (7.4%), and health and social care (7.4%).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMeasures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants completed two self-report measures for this study; a measure of trait EI alongside the same measure of the Big Five personality dimensions (Goldberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e) used in the original Periodic Table of Personality study by Woods and Anderson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). A full correlation matrix of the scales included in both measures is presented in a supplement to this article.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eTrait Emotional Intelligence\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Emotional Intelligence Profile (EIP3) consists of 158 self-report items measuring 26 facet scales of trait EI (Maddocks \u0026amp; Hughes \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Items are rated on a 5-point scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree; 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree). These facets are listed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and were defined based on content reviews of the literature on trait EI (Maddocks, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Sixteen of the facets are keyed towards the positive or optimal expression of trait EI (e.g., Assertiveness) and ten are keyed towards negative or sub-optimal expression (e.g., Aggressive). Reliability and validity of this measure have been previously established and set out by Maddocks and Hughes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). The internal consistency (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha) for EIP3 facets range from .71 to .86 (median .80). Validity evidence reported by Maddocks \u0026amp; Hughes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) includes convergence with an existing measure of trait EI as well as correlations with job performance ratings and measures of work attitudes (work engagement and subjective well-being). The alpha coefficients for the EIP3 facets for the study sample ranged from .66 to .87 (median .78) and are also included within the supplement to this article.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eBig Five Personality Factors\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eGoldberg\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e) list of 100 marker traits descriptive adjectives for the Big Five (TDA-100) was specifically selected to be consistent with Woods and Anderson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The TDA-100 consists of 100 adjectives designed to be marker scales for the lexical Big Five. In the present study, these are used to locate the Big Five factors as axes around which circumplex structures can be examined (following the methodology of Woods and Anderson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Individuals rated the extent to which each marker trait was an accurate description of them on a 9-point scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;highly inaccurate; 9\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;highly accurate).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAnalysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnalyses followed the methodological steps outlined by Woods and Anderson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) to ensure consistency of interpretation with their original study. A Principal Components Analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was conducted on the TDA-100 scores, specifying a five-factor solution. Regression-based orthogonal scores for each of the Big Five factors were then calculated based on this solution. Each score thus reflected the unique variance attributable to its respective factor, independent of the variance shared with the other Big Five dimensions. Consequently, the factor scores were uncorrelated, owing to their orthogonal structure\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEIP3 scale scores were correlated with the regression-based orthogonal Big Five factor scores. Each EIP3 scale was classified into primary and secondary loadings, based on the strength of the correlation within each Big Five factor score, and mapped onto the AB5C model. For example, an EIP3 scale that has its strongest correlation positively associated with Extraversion and its second strongest correlation negatively associated with Agreeableness would be classified as E\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;A-. If the strongest correlation was 3.73 times larger than the second strongest, this was classified as factor pure, denoted by matched letters (e.g., E\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;E+; following Woods \u0026amp; Anderson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). To provide an indication of the loading by each EIP3 scale on each sector, vector lengths were computed (calculated as the square root of the sums of squares of the primary and secondary correlations).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eAs a first step, the PCA solution was compared to Goldberg\u0026rsquo;s TDA-100 factor structure to confirm sensible emergence of the Big Five factors. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was .86 and Bartlett\u0026rsquo;s Test of Sphericity was statistically significant (χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;18688.17, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), confirming that the data was suitable for factor analysis. The total variance explained by this five-factor solution was 48.53%, and the variance explained by each rotated factor was 13.86%, 10.76%, 9.20%, 8.65%, and 6.03% respectively. Out of 100 TDA personality items, 79 loaded onto their expected primary Big Five factor, with an additional ten having their second strongest loading on their expected factor. Although slightly lower than the mapping results found in the samples from Woods and Anderson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), this was considered a sufficiently acceptable representation of the Big Five for the purposes of this study and therefore the regression-based orthogonal Big Five factor scores were calculated for this dataset.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorrelations between the 26 EIP3 trait EI facets and the Big Five factors (E, A, C, ES, O) are shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. These are listed vertically by their primary and secondary factor blends. As expected, EI facets load most frequently and strongly on primary blends of Emotional Stability, followed by blends of Agreeableness. There are a similar number of trait EI facets loading on primary blends of Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Openness, with stronger association being found for Extraversion, than for Conscientiousness or Openness. These findings are consistent with the only previous study that examined the conceptual relationship between EI and the AB5C (De Raad, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), yet differ from previous meta-analytic studies between EI and the Big Five factors that placed Extraversion ahead of Agreeableness (Joseph \u0026amp; Newman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; O\u0026rsquo;Boyle et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Van der Linden et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) and in one case Conscientiousness ahead of Agreeableness (Van der Linden et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Although not directly comparable, it is notable that correlation coefficients between primary factors and trait EI facets tend to exceed overall correlations reported in previous meta-analytic research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNine trait EI facets map onto Emotional Stability as a primary factor with correlations ranging from .38 to .74, seven being above .50, three of which are .70 or above. Emotional Stability blends with Extraversion (ES\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;E+), Conscientiousness (ES\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;C+/ES-C-), and Openness (ES\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;O+). It is notable that five trait EI facets map on the Socialization sector (ES\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;C+/ES-C-).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeven trait EI facets map onto Agreeableness as a primary factor with correlations ranging from .33 to .67, with three being above .55. Here, Agreeableness blends with Extraversion (A-E+, A-E-), Agreeableness (A\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;A+, i.e., as a pure factor), Conscientiousness (A-C+), Emotional Stability (A-ES-), and Openness (A\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;O+). The strongest relationships are with three trait EI facets: Aggressive with A-E+, Regard for Others with A\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;A+, and Awareness of Others with A\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;O+.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThree trait EI facets map onto Extraversion as a primary factor with correlations of .31, .45, and .59. Extraversion blends with Agreeableness (E\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;A+), Conscientiousness (E\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;C+), and Emotional Stability (E-ES-). The strongest relationship is between the trait EI facet Connecting with Others and the factor blend E\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;A+ (Affiliation).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThree trait EI facets map onto Conscientiousness as a primary factor with correlations of .34, .42, and .44. For these scales, Conscientiousness blends with Extraversion (C\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;E+) and Emotional Stability (C-ES-).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFour trait EI facets map onto Openness as a primary factor with correlations from .29 to .38. Openness blends with Extraversion (O\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;E+), Agreeableness (O\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;A+), and Emotional Stability (O\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;ES+).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e shows the position of the 26 trait EI facets within the Periodic Table of Personality, in terms of the number of trait EI facets mapped to each personality sector. Trait EI facets are spread widely across 17 of the 45 sectors of the Periodic table of Personality. It is notable that none of the trait EI facets map onto blends of Conscientiousness and Openness (e.g., C\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;O+/C-O-). There are also some unexpected omissions, where some emotional and social sectors of the Periodic Table are not represented by trait EI facets, such as Expressiveness (E\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;ES-/E-ES+). Furthermore, it is observed that nine of the trait EI facets map on sectors that are unlabelled, indicating they were assessed infrequently by the ten PIs used in the original study by Woods and Anderson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). To assist in visualising these associations, Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e presents the original configuration of the Periodic Table of Personality with the trait EI facets measured in the current study included in their respective sector locations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe purpose of this study was to enhance our understanding of the trait structural foundations of emotional intelligence by locating facets of a trait EI measured on the AB5C model, in the context of the Periodic Table of Personality proposed by Woods and Anderson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). This permitted us to examine associations of trait EI and broader personality traits more precisely than previous studies, as well as potentially understand gaps in the conceptual space covered by general PIs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe first aim of our research was to more precisely specify the personality foundations of trait EI, by mapping facets of trait EI to AB5C blends of the Big Five, and to represent these within the Periodic Table of Personality framework. Our results have achieved this aim and specify the precise location of the trait EI facets we analysed within the AB5C circumplex structures. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e clearly identifies where these trait EI facets were located in the Periodic Table of Personality framework.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second aim was to apply these analyses to interpret and explore the conceptual relationship between trait EI and broader Big Five personality structure as represented by the AB5C framework. In the following discussion, we explore the implications of the findings for enriching conceptual understanding of the personality foundations of trait EI. In this discussion, we refer to the facet labels used by Woods and Anderson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) from the Periodic Table of Personality to clarify these implications (see also Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven that trait EI was found to have the closest association with Emotional Stability and Agreeableness, these factors will be discussed first, followed by Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Openness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs expected from previous studies of the Big Five and trait EI, Emotional Stability had the strongest association with trait EI, with nine of the 26 EIP3 trait EI facets loading on this primary factor. The majority of correlations are above .50, with three being .70 or larger, for comparison, meta-analytic associations reported in past studies range from .53 to .58. Closer examination of the specific facets of trait EI enable exploration of the implications of these findings. Five trait EI facets load on the same factor blend, Socialization (ES\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;C+/ES-C-), described as \u0026ldquo;social adjustment and conformity to social norms\u0026rdquo;. Emotional Intelligence is widely regarded as a social and adaptive quality (Keefer, Parker, \u0026amp; Saklofske, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), as reflected by the classification of several facets within the sector of the Periodic Table of Personality labelled Socialization. On the ES\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;C\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;side, Personal Power and Authenticity reflect being self-determined rather than conforming to social norms, suggesting a somewhat different emphasis to this sector description. The other three trait EI facets map to the negative side (ES-C-) of Socialization, most strongly with Emotionally Under Controlled, reflecting volatile and unpredictable behaviour, the antithesis of Socialization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother notable sector blends Emotional Stability and Extraversion (ES\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;E+; Positive Emotionality) showing a strong association with two trait EI facets, Self Regard and Emotional Resilience. This pattern is consistent with broader research linking Emotional Stability and Extraversion with subjective well-being (Anglim \u0026amp; Grant, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) and resilience (Oshio, Taku, Hirano, \u0026amp; Saeed, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The subtle integration of Extraversion with Emotional Stability provides a nuanced lens through which to understand how these two trait EI facets map onto the Big Five factors. Given their close conceptual and statistical alignment, it is unsurprising that Self Regard and Emotional Resilience coalesce within the same sector. A key strength of the Periodic Table of Personality is its ability to recognise where similar trait EI concepts may be represented by different scale labels. However, differentiation emerges through their respective tertiary association: Conscientiousness for Self Regard and Openness for Emotional Resilience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne other blend with Emotional Stability is Openness (ES\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;O+), an unlabelled sector in the Periodic Table of Personality, mapped by two trait EI facets. One of these facets is Flexibility, which reflects both Emotional Stability, i.e., feeling comfortable with moving outside of one\u0026rsquo;s comfort zones, and Openness, i.e., being open-minded towards change. Again, this illustrates how blends of both primary and secondary factors may enhance our understanding of how trait EI facets relate to the Big Five structure of personality.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgreeableness was the second most closely related factor to trait EI with seven trait EI facets loading on this primary factor. This contrasts with previous meta-analytic studies which place Extraversion above Agreeableness in relation to trait EI. However, it is consistent with findings from the only other study that maps trait EI to the AB5C model (De Raad, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), indicating that a more refined analysis of primary and secondary factors places greater emphasis on Agreeableness than Extraversion in relation to trait EI. Correlations between trait EI facets and Agreeableness as a primary factor were mostly above .40 with three being above .50, in comparison with previous meta-analytic research where overall effects range from .32 to .43.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn initial observation is that Agreeableness has secondary blends across all the other Big Five factors, suggesting a wide variability in its relationship to trait EI. For example, the trait EI facet Regard for Others maps to A\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;A+, and Awareness of Others maps to A\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;O+. It may be expected that an individual who has high Regard for Others is also likely to have a high Awareness of Others, and that both reflect more agreeable personality dispositions. However, Regard for Others places greater emphasis on Agreeableness, whilst Awareness of Others combines Agreeableness with Openness (i.e., to the feelings of others). The two blends (A\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;A+, A\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;O+) illustrate how two closely related facets of trait EI map to the same primary factors but are differentiated through secondary blends of the Big Five. It is also interesting to observe that A\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;A\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;is a pure factor, i.e., it does not blend with any other factor. Agreeableness has previously been defined as \u0026ldquo;a willingness to forgo one\u0026rsquo;s personal needs for the benefit of others\u0026rdquo; (Buss, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e, p.471) and includes trait terms such as altruism, trust, and morality (Costa \u0026amp; McCrae, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e). These themes correspond closely with the Rogerian concept of Regard for Others and unconditional value and acceptance towards others (Rogers, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1957\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFive of the seven trait EI facets that load on factor blends of Agreeableness are unlabelled sectors on the Periodic Table, indicating that they are rarely measured by broader PIs. For example, Awareness of Others (being in touch with the feelings of others), a key underpinning facet of trait EI (Ioannidou \u0026amp; Konstantikaki, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) maps to the unlabelled sector of A\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;O+. In Woods and Anderson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), this sector had only one PI facet, NEO PI-R Feelings (an individual who experiences their feelings strongly), mapped to it on the Periodic Table. Clearly, both the PI and trait EI facets here share a common theme of emotional awareness but differ in terms of their focus being on either self-awareness (Feelings) or other-awareness (Awareness of Others). This distinction in the focus of EI is identified and discussed in the literature (see Pekaar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Conceptually there are evident differences in these forms of EI and their foundations, which are reflected in our findings. In this respect, trait EI facets may contribute towards a better understanding and definition of unlabelled sectors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOnly three facets of trait EI load on Extraversion as a primary factor. Correlations range from .31 to .59, broadly similar to meta-analytic global correlations of between .46 and .49. Although Extraversion is relegated below Agreeableness in this study, there are a few mitigating considerations. Extraversion is a secondary factor for six trait EI facets, while Agreeableness was secondary to only three. Second, two of the secondary loadings (A-E- and O\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;E+) have equal correlations as the primary factor (within two decimal places). Third, the three trait EI facets that load primarily on Extraversion (Connecting with Others, Self Awareness, and Emotionally Over Controlled) may be considered prominent aspects of trait EI. Connecting with Others, has a particularly strong association and shares a close conceptual relationship with the sector label Affiliation (E\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;A) i.e., breadth of connection (Extraversion) and depth of connection (Agreeableness) with others. Also, Extraversion (E+) and Agreeableness (A+) are widely recognised as the most interpersonal of the Big Five factors (McCrae \u0026amp; Costa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e) and may therefore be expected to have close relevance to trait EI. Despite these considerations Agreeableness still demonstrates closer association with facets of trait EI than Extraversion for this study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrimary correlations of trait EI facets with Conscientiousness range from .34 to .44, which compare to meta-analytic overall correlations of .32 to .40. Previous meta-analytic studies on the Big Five and trait EI tend to give Conscientiousness higher overall status, although differentiating between primary and secondary blends of Conscientiousness may provide greater clarity on its relative importance and relationship to trait EI.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConscientiousness appears to have greater prominence as a secondary factor, for seven facets, than as a primary factor, where it is represented in only three trait EI facets. For example, Conscientiousness plays an important secondary role in the Socialization sector (ES\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;C+/ES-C-) blending with Emotional Stability on five trait EI facets. The strongest correlation with Conscientiousness is the trait EI facet Goal Directedness which loads on the unlabelled sector C\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;E+. The PI facets that load on this sector tend to emphasise achievement striving, whilst Goal Directedness also reflects emotional impulse control, a feature that may be more specific to trait EI and could inform future definition of this sector.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs a primary factor, Openness has the lowest correlations with facets of trait EI, ranging from .29 to .38, again compared with meta-analytic effects in previous studies of .29 to .33, confirming its relatively lower status as a marker of trait EI. Despite slightly lower correlations, Openness is the primary factor for four trait EI facets, all of which have secondary blends with Big Five traits that are more consistently associated with trait EI (i.e., O\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;ES+, O\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;A+, and O\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;E+).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere are some unexpected omissions where certain emotional and social sectors of the Periodic Table were not represented by trait EI facets. These include Expressiveness (E\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;ES-/E-ES+), Emotional Control (ES\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;E+/ES-E-), and Emotional Sensitivity (A\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;ES-/A-ES+). However, the three facets that are conceptually closest to these sectors (Emotionally Over Controlled, Emotionally Under Controlled, and Awareness of Others) load on sectors with equivalent relevance: Social Poise (E\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;ES+/E-ES-), Socialization (ES\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;C+/ES-C-), and an unlabelled sector (A\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;O+/A-O-). A limitation of using a single measure of trait EI is in the breadth of coverage this affords. Additional measures of trait EI may help expand the content coverage of the trait EI across blends of the Big Five factors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSummary of Implications\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, the results of this study have addressed its aims in two main ways. First, findings demonstrated how facets of trait EI map onto blends of the Big Five AB5C model through the lens of the Periodic Table of Personality. This may act as a template and catalyst for future similar studies and cross-comparison of other trait EI measures. More broadly, our findings enable improved understanding of the personality structural foundations of trait EI. This can assist with integrating findings from studies of EI with studies of broader personality dimensions such as the Big Five, conducted using different PIs. Our findings thereby contribute to the literature on the conceptual and criterion utility of trait EI alongside broad personality dimensions. Furthermore, as highlighted by Woods and Anderson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), building understanding of the conceptual underpinning of trait constructs (including trait EI facets), assists in theory building. Better specification of the conceptual nature of trait EI facets can facilitate building propositions and hypotheses in future research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn respect of this latter implication, our second main contribution is to expand the conceptual descriptions of facets of trait EI. Here, our analyses underline the importance of Emotional Stability and Agreeableness as key components as both primary and secondary constituents in the AB5C sector classifications of the trait EI scales. This reflects a wider observation that most sectors mapped by trait EI have emotional and social labels, such as Socialization (ES\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;C+/ES-C-), Affiliation (E\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;A+/E-A-), and Positive Emotionality (ES\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;E+/ES-E-). In contrast there are no trait EI facets that map onto blends of Conscientiousness and Openness, which have more intellectual and functional labels such as Orderliness (C\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;C+/C-C-), Intellect (O\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;O+/O-O-), and Industriousness (C\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;O+/C-O-). Our analysis replicates findings from the only previous study that maps trait EI facets to the AB5C model (De Raad, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), showing that trait EI maps most closely to Emotional Stability and Agreeableness as primary factors. This contrasts with meta-analytic studies that indicate global trait EI maps more strongly to Extraversion than Agreeableness. The more nuanced interpretation on the relationship between trait EI facets and blends of the Big Five in the present study, compared to meta-analyses of global trait EI and the Big Five factors, highlight specific areas where Extraversion may play a secondary role alongside primary associations with other Big Five factors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA further noteworthy observation concerns the distribution of trait EI facets across sectors of the Periodic Table of Personality. Certain sectors, such as ES\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;C+/ES-C-, are densely populated by trait EI facets, while others, underrepresented by personality inventory scales in the Woods and Anderson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) study, are here shown to be represented by trait EI scales (e.g., A\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;O+/A-O-). Given trait EI\u0026rsquo;s emphasis on the affective dimensions of personality, it is anticipated that replicating this study with other trait EI measures will help illuminate these underexplored sectors and contribute to defining those sectors that are often left unmeasured by personality trait inventories.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur study has broader implications for research on trait EI and personality traits by offering a novel approach to examining their structural and conceptual relationships. We have noted previously that the analytic methodology we applied permits inspection of the independent associations of trait EI and the Big Five modelled as orthogonal factors. We are therefore able to interpret these associations without confounding influences of the intercorrelations of the Big Five that may otherwise affect the observed patterns of correlations. Moreover, this approach also addresses potential concerns around the proliferation of trait EI facets that are strongly correlated. For example, where facets might overlap substantially (i.e. at r\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.70), and be classified in the same sector of the Periodic Table of Personality, it is tempting to conclude that they may effectively be equivalent from a measurement perspective (the jingle-jangle problem). Yet our complete account of the Big Five correlates of the facets allows more granular examination of the tertiary or quaternary associations to provide a more informed view of facet uniqueness. For example, tertiary associations might signal that facets are differentiated conceptually even if their primary and secondary associations with the Big Five are similar. Alongside this, our findings might also highlight where the Big Five domain space might not adequately represent facets of the Big Five. For example, in our study, Reflective Learning exhibit modest vector loading indicating unique variance not shared with blends of the Big Five factors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, our study does allow direct comparison with the findings of Woods and Anderson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) compiled from broad-bandwidth personality inventories. The advantage of this possibility is to enable more precise comparison of the alignment of classification of trait EI facets and more general personality facets. For example, Woods and Anderson report the sector locations of the domain and facets of the NEO-PIR, one of the most widely applied measures of the \u003cem\u003efive-factor model\u003c/em\u003e representation of the Big Five. Examination of these two models (FFM and trait EI) against the common framework of the Periodic Table of Personality might inform depth of understanding and interpretation of the implications of studies of the constructs that have utilised the NEO-PIR alongside EI measures. Building a more complete picture of the personality structural foundations of trait EI could accordingly be achieved through future research extending our study with diverse trait EI measures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003ePractical Implications\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur findings have practical implications for the use of assessments of trait EI in, for example, work and organisational settings. In these settings, assessments of trait EI are often administered to support learning and development, as well as employee and executive coaching. Assessments generally aim to facilitate building self-awareness and exploration of personal development objectives and activities. Understanding the foundations of facets of trait EI in broader personality structure is informative in these activities. This can be framed in two ways. Firstly, where a measure of trait EI is used as a sole assessment, practitioners interpreting the participant or client profile can reflect on the likely personality trait associates of the trait EI dimensions. In particular, insights regarding Emotional Stability and Agreeableness are likely to be relevant to the profile and could assist practitioners in understanding the behavioural implications of trait EI dimensions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecondly, building on this approach, more detailed and coherent interpretations could be achieved through combining measures of trait EI with broad-bandwidth PIs. The analyses we report in our study would be valuable to practitioners in considering the joint implications of client profiles across different measures. For example, understanding of personality traits related to Emotional Stability and Agreeableness could be enriched by examining trait EI facets that are mapped to sectors of the AB5C for which these Big Five factors are primary or secondary loadings. In summary, our approach advances the practical debate about the utility of measures of trait EI to specifically understand how different measures can be effectively used together.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations and Future Research\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere are two limitations to note in respect of the current study. Firstly, the sample of participants was a convenience field sample principally from the employed UK adult population. Whilst data from adult and occupational samples is helpful in providing external validity to study findings (e.g., in contrast to student samples), future studies could seek to cross-validate our results in samples drawn from other countries. This would also enable analyses of the stability of the sector assignments of the trait EI facets across different sample groups. Confidence in the stability of the assignment of scales and facets to the AB5C using the methodology from our study can be drawn from Woods and Anderson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), who compared results across two samples. However, follow-up studies could seek to examine this issue in multiple samples.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecondly, whilst we report results from a trait EI instrument that comprises detailed facets and thus is especially relevant for our study, we acknowledge that alternative measures may represent the trait EI domain differently. Examining a wider range of measures in future research could enable a rationalisation of trait EI constructs by recognising common facets between instruments, identifying trait EI facets of higher ontological status, and potential removal of idiosyncratic or redundant facets. A practical benefit of this would be to help practitioners compare between measures of trait EI and to identify complementary personality and trait EI instruments, as previously highlighted. Therefore, building on the novel approach we report in this study, future research could replicate the research with other EI measures to develop a fuller picture of the associations of the Big Five and trait EI. To this end, our findings represent an important first step.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eTwo authors, Dan Hughes and Steph Noble, are employed by an organisation that distributes the EIP3 questionnaire used in this study. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConflict of Interest/Competing interests:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwo authors, Dan Hughes and Steph Noble, are employed by an organisation that distributes the EIP3 questionnaire used in this study. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e The research was given ethical approval by the Research and Development division of Talogy, overseen by the Scientific Advisory board (SAB), and in accordance with the BPS Code Of Human Research Ethics (2021). The authors are members of the British Psychological Society (BPS) and gained freely-given informed consent from participants in accordance with the BPS Code Of Human Research Ethics (2021). All responses were anonymous, so participants could not be personally identified.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eData availability:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its Supplementary Information.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eClinical trial number:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003enot applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsent to Publish declaration:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003enot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll authors made equal contribution to the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlegre A, P\u0026eacute;rez-Escoda N, L\u0026oacute;pez-Cass\u0026aacute; E. The relationship between trait emotional intelligence and personality. Is trait EI really anchored within the big five, big two and big one frameworks? Front Psychol. 2019;10:866. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00866\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndrei F, Seigling AB, Aloe AM, Baldaro B, Petrides KV. The incremental validity of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue): a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pers Assess. 2016;98(3):261\u0026ndash;76. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1084630\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnglim J, Grant S. Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from personality: Incremental prediction from 30 facets over the Big 5. J Happiness Stud. 2016;17:59\u0026ndash;80. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9583-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAntonakis J. On why emotional intelligence will not predict leadership effectiveness beyond IQ or the big five: An extension and rejoinder. Organizational Anal. 2004;12(2):171\u0026ndash;82. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/eb028991\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoyatzis RE, Sala F. The emotional competence inventory (ECI). In: Geher G, editor. Measuring emotional intelligence: Common ground and controversy. Nova Science; 2004. pp. 147\u0026ndash;80.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBritish Psychological Society. (2021). BPS code of human research ethics. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.bps.org.uk/guideline/bps-code-human-research-ethics\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBuss DM. Evolutionary personality psychology. Ann Rev Psychol. 1991;42:459\u0026ndash;91. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.42.020191.002331\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eConte JM. A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures. J Organizational Behav. 2005;26:433\u0026ndash;40. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/job.319\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCosta PT Jr., McCrae RR. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1992.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDasborough MT, Ashkanasy NM, Humphrey RH, Harms PD, Cred\u0026eacute; M, Wood D. Does leadership still not need emotional intelligence? Continuing The Great EI Debate. Leadership Quarterly. 2021;33(6):101539. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101539\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDe Raad B. The trait-coverage of emotional intelligence. Pers Indiv Differ. 2005;38(3):673\u0026ndash;87. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.022\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFurnham A, Petrides KV. Trait emotional intelligence and happiness. Social Behav Personality: Int J. 2003;31(8):815\u0026ndash;23. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2003.31.8.815\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGoldberg LR. The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychol Assess. 1992;4(1):26\u0026ndash;42.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGonzalez-Mul\u0026eacute; E, DeGeest D, Mount MK. Power of the Circumplex: Incremental validity of intersection traits in predicting counterproductive work behaviors. Int J Selection Assess. 2013;21(3):322\u0026ndash;7. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12041\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarms PD, Crede M. Remaining issues in emotional intelligence research: Construct overlap, method artifacts, and lack of incremental validity. Industrial Organizational Psychol. 2010;3(2):154\u0026ndash;8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01217.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHofstee WKB, De Raad B, Goldberg LR. Integration of the big five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1992;63(1):146\u0026ndash;63. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.1.146\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHough LM, Ones DS. The structure, measurement, validity, and use of personality variables in industrial, work, and organizational psychology. In: Anderson N, Ones DS, Sinangil HK, Viswesvaran C, editors. Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology - Volume 1: Personnel Psychology. Sage; 2001. pp. 233\u0026ndash;77. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848608320.n13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHughes DJ, Tokarev A, Booth T. Towards a taxonomy of personality facets. Eur J Pers. 2023;0(0). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/08902070231200919\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIoannidou F, Konstantikaki V. Empathy and emotional intelligence: What is it really about? Int J caring Sci. 2008;1(3):118\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJoseph DL, Newman DA. Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. J Appl Psychol. 2010;95(1):54\u0026ndash;78. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/a0017286\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKeefer KV, Parker JDA, Saklofske DH. Three decades of emotional intelligence research: Perennial issues, emerging trends, and lessons learned in education: Introduction to emotional intelligence in education. In: Keefer KV, Parker JDA, Saklofske DH, editors. Emotional intelligence in education: Integrating research with practice. Cham: Springer; 2018. pp. 1\u0026ndash;19. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90633-1_1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaddocks J. Emotional Intelligence at Work. How to make change stick. 2nd ed. Spa House Publishing; 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaddocks J, Hughes D. The Emotional Intelligence Profile (EIP3) technical manual. Talogy; 2017.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaddocks J. (2023) Introducing an attitude-based approach to emotional intelligence. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1006411\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMatthews G, Zeidner M, Roberts RD. Measuring emotional intelligence: Promises, pitfalls, solutions? In: Ong AD, Van Dulmen M, editors. Handbook of methods in positive psychology. Oxford University Press; 2007. pp. 189\u0026ndash;204.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMatthews G, Zeidner M, Roberts RD. Emotional intelligence: A promise unfulfilled? Jpn Psychol Res. 2012;54(2):105\u0026ndash;27. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5884.2011.00502.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMayer JD, Salovey P. The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence. 1993;17(4):433\u0026ndash;42. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(93)90010-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcCrae RR, Costa PT Jr.. The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggin\u0026apos;s circumplex and the five-factor model. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1989;56(4):586\u0026ndash;95. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.4.586\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiao C, Humphrey RH, Qian S. (2017). A meta-analysis of emotional.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eintelligence and work attitudes. J Occup Organ Psychol, \u003cem\u003e90\u003c/em\u003e(2), 177\u0026ndash;202. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12167\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Boyle EH, Humphrey RH, Pollack JM, Hawver TH, Story PA. The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: a meta-analysis. J Organizational Behav. 2011;32(5):788\u0026ndash;818. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/job.714\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOlderbak S, Wilhelm O. Overarching Principles for the Organization of Socioemotional Constructs. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2020;29(1):63\u0026ndash;70. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419884317\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOshio A, Taku K, Hirano M, Saeed G. Resilience and Big Five personality traits: A meta-analysis. Pers Indiv Differ. 2018;127:54\u0026ndash;60. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.048\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePekaar KA, Bakker AB, van der Linden D, Born MP. Self-and other-focused emotional intelligence: Development and validation of the Rotterdam Emotional Intelligence Scale (REIS). Pers Indiv Differ. 2018;120:222\u0026ndash;33.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eP\u0026eacute;rez-Gonz\u0026aacute;lez JC, S\u0026aacute;nchez-Ruiz MJ. (2014). Trait emotional intelligence.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eanchored within the big. five, big two and big one frameworks. Pers Indiv Differ, \u003cem\u003e65\u003c/em\u003e, 53\u0026ndash;8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.021\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePetrides KV. (2009). Psychometric Properties of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue). In J. Parker, D. Saklofske, \u0026amp; C. Stough, editors \u003cem\u003eAssessing Emotional Intelligence: Theory, research, and applications\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 85\u0026ndash;101). Springer. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-88370-0_5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePetrides KV, Furnham A. Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. Eur J Pers. 2001;15(6):425\u0026ndash;48. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/per.416\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePetrides KV, Mavroveli S. (2018). Theory and Applications of Trait Emotional Intelligence. Psychology: \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(1), 24\u0026ndash;36. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.12681/psy_hps.23016\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePetrides KV, Pita R, Kokkinaki F. The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. Br J Psychol. 2007;98(2):273\u0026ndash;89. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1348/000712606X120618\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePetrides KV, Vernon PA, Schermer JA, Ligthart L, Boomsma DI, Veselka L. Relationships between trait emotional intelligence and the Big Five in the Netherlands. Pers Indiv Differ. 2010;48:906\u0026ndash;10. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.019\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRogers CR. The necessary and sufficient conditions of the therapeutic personality change. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1957;21(2):95\u0026ndash;103. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/h0045357\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchulte MJ, Ree MJ, Carretta TR. Emotional intelligence: Not much more than g and personality. Pers Indiv Differ. 2004;37(5):1059\u0026ndash;68. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.11.014\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchwaba T, Rhemtulla M, Hopwood CJ, Bleidorn W. A facet atlas: Visualizing networks that describe the blends, cores, and peripheries of personality structure. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(7). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236893\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSiegling AB, Furnham A, Petrides KV. Trait emotional intelligence and personality: Gender-invariant linkages across different measures of the Big Five. J psychoeducational Assess. 2015;33(1):57\u0026ndash;67. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0734282914550385\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan der Linden D, Dunkel C, Pekaar A, Pekaar K, Petrides KV, Schermer J, Vernon P. Overlap Between the General Factor of Personality and Emotional Intelligence: A Meta-Analysis. Psychol Bull. 2017;143(1):36\u0026ndash;52. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000078\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Rooy DL, Viswesvaran C. Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation of predictive validity and nomological net. J Vocat Behav. 2004;65:71\u0026ndash;95. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00076-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVernon PA, Villani VC, Schermer JA, Petrides KV. Phenotypic and genetic associations between the B5 and trait emotional intelligence. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2008;11(5):524\u0026ndash;30. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1375/twin.11.5.524\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWoods SA, Anderson NR. Toward a Periodic Table of Personality: Mapping Personality Scales Between the Five-Factor Model and the Circumplex Model. J Appl Psychol. 2016;101(4):582\u0026ndash;604.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000062\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1 and 2 are available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"discpsy","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Psychology](https://www.springer.com/44202)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Discover Psychology","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"trait emotional intelligence, AB5C circumplex framework, Big Five factors of personality, Periodic Table of Personality","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8277771/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8277771/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003ePrevious research has examined the relationship between trait emotional intelligence (EI) and the Big Five factors of personality but until now trait EI has not been mapped empirically to the Abridged Big Five-Dimensional Circumplex (AB5C), a more refined model that represents blends of the Big Five factors. Following the methodology applied by Woods and Anderson in 2016 to construct the Periodic Table of Personality, 26 facets of trait EI were mapped empirically to the AB5C framework (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;231). The aims of this study were to specify the personality foundations of trait EI more precisely and to explore the conceptual relationship between facets of trait EI and blends of the Big Five personality factors as represented by the AB5C framework. Results indicate that trait EI facets map most closely to the primary factors of Emotional Stability (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.38 to .74) and Agreeableness (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.33 to .67), in contrast to previous broader meta-analytic studies that indicate global trait EI maps more strongly to Extraversion than Agreeableness. Several sectors of the personality framework were more heavily populated by trait EI facets, notably the blend of Emotional Stability and Conscientiousness. Some sectors of the framework under-represented by personality inventories, such as the blend of Agreeableness and Openness, were mapped by trait EI facets. More broadly, our findings contribute to the literature on the conceptual and criterion utility of trait EI alongside broad personality dimensions, and act as a template and catalyst for future similar studies and cross-comparison with other trait EI measures.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"An Examination of the Personality Structural Foundations of Facets of Emotional Intelligence","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-12-17 07:52:44","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8277771/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-01-12T08:13:51+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-12-15T09:08:19+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"334099550682075696512067144429856454861","date":"2025-12-12T12:06:19+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-12-12T06:13:19+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-12-10T09:37:32+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-12-09T14:16:56+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Psychology","date":"2025-12-09T13:59:10+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"discpsy","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Psychology](https://www.springer.com/44202)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Discover Psychology","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"86519fdd-01d0-4411-9f16-32cbc3bd90a8","owner":[],"postedDate":"December 17th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-13T09:25:50+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-12-17 07:52:44","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8277771","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8277771","identity":"rs-8277771","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}