People who rate themselves as having high emotional intelligence tend to overestimate their ability to detect deception in others. They were overconfident in assessing the sincerity of others.
Although emotional intelligence, in general, was not associated with being better or worse at discriminating between truths and lies, people with a higher ability to perceive and express emotion (a component of emotional intelligence) were not so good at spotting when people were telling lies.
"Taken together, these findings suggest that features of emotional intelligence, and the decision-making processes they lead to, may have the paradoxical effect of impairing people's ability to detect deceit," study researcher Stephen Porter, of the University of British Columbia, Canada, said in a statement. "This finding is important because emotional intelligence is a well-accepted concept and is used in a variety of domains, including the workplace."
The study was published today, May 18, in the journal Legal and Criminological Psychology.
The researchers used a standard questionnaire to measure the emotional intelligence of 116 participants. These participants were then asked to view 20 videos from around the world of people pleading for the safe return of a missing family member. In half the videos the person making the plea was responsible for the missing person's disappearance or murder.
The participants were asked to judge whether the pleas were honest or deceptive, say how much confidence they had in their judgments, report the cues they had used to make those judgments and rate their emotional response to each plea.
Professor Porter found that higher emotional intelligence was associated with overconfidence in assessing the sincerity of the pleas and sympathetic feelings of the people in the video.
SOTT
SIGNS
OF THE
TIMES
OF THE
TIMES
Welcome to Sott.net
The World for People who Think
First it states that 'People who rate themselves...'
Great let's start off the first line with an apparent mistake, as it later says that 'researchers' were the one's doing the 'rating' based on a questionnaire. So it's the researchers 'standard questionnaire' that could be the first victim for analysis, if that is even done these days anymore. The next victim could be these 'emotionally intelligent people', but then if we have a bad Q&A, we really cannot assess whether they are in fact 'emotionally intelligent' or not.
I won't mention the rather obvious fact that any 'good liar' should have no trouble fooling most people most of the time, as that is what they do, otherwise they wouldn't be any good at their chosen profession and would be called a 'bad liar', which nearly anyone can spot, thus the reason for their classification as 'bad liars'.
Perhaps Professor Porter is bad at his profession? Or is he just like his research subjects and suffering from the same problem of 'overconfidence'? Now if he's a psychopath himself, he might find this survey quite unnecessary unless necessary for further applications for research grants.
Or perhaps this has just been another test of the 'spot the psycho' science study? Do I win a prize or am I too 'overconfident'?