Abstract
The associations among emotional intelligence (EI), coping, personality and exam-related stress in a group of 475 Canadian undergraduate students were examined. Stress was measured at the start of the semester and again in the pre-exam period. Higher levels of stress were associated with lower scores on EI components, and higher scores on emotion-focused coping and neuroticism. A scale-level factor analysis of the EI and coping subscales produced three composite factors, which each had high loadings from at least one EI and one coping subscale. The associations of the Emotion Regulation factor (high loadings of several EI components and emotion-focused coping) and the Task Focus factor (high loadings of Adaptability EI and task-focused coping) with personality, stress and subjective wellbeing (SWB) were examined using structural equation modelling. The results showed that these factors mediated the effect of personality on stress and SWB.
Stress in university students is associated with psychological distress (e.g., Morrison & O'Connor, Citation2005) and can also adversely affect academic performance (Pritchard & Wilson, Citation2003). The existence of these associations means that understanding the psychological characteristics of students who are vulnerable to stress is important. In addition, there is considerable evidence that the associations of personality, coping style and other individual difference variables with stress are similar across contexts (e.g., occupational, educational), meaning that studies of student stress also provide data that are relevant to other populations. In this paper the findings from a study of personality, emotional intelligence (EI), coping style and stress in Canadian students are reported. The associations of these measures with stress in student and other populations, and the interrelationships among personality, coping and EI will first be briefly reviewed.
Personality, coping and stress
The most robust findings on the associations between personality and stress relate to the trait of Neuroticism (N), which has consistently been found to be associated with stress symptoms, with individuals scoring higher on N reporting higher stress levels (Matthews, Deary, & Whiteman, Citation2003). Evidence has also been found for negative associations of stress with Extraversion (E) and Conscientiousness (C) (e.g., Deary et al., Citation1996; Vollrath, Citation2000). The consideration of coping styles and their relationships with personality gives further insight into these associations. Key findings are of associations of emotion-focused coping with distress and worry (Matthews, Schwean, Campbell, Saklofske, & Mohamed, 2000) and of N with emotion-focused coping and more generally with coping strategies that are classified as problematic or ineffective. By contrast E and C have been found to be associated with task-focused coping and with more generally adaptive coping strategies (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, Citation2007; Hewitt & Flett, 1996).
Emotional intelligence
In this study we focus on trait EI. Trait EI is assessed by self-report, covers emotion-related self-perceptions, and has overlap with the personality domain (Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, Citation2007). Models of trait EI include components that are clearly linked to coping. In particular, intrapersonal EI would be expected to be associated with better emotion regulation and stress management, while interpersonal EI would be expected to be linked to a greater tendency to use coping strategies involving seeking support from others. Previous studies, and also results reported elsewhere in this special issue, have found that trait EI is associated with better emotion regulation and with adaptive coping (Downey, Johnston, Hansen, Birney, & Stough, Citation2010; Mikolajczak, Nelis, Hansenne, & Quoidbach, Citation2007; Petrides, Pérez-González, & Furnham, Citation2007; Petrides, Pita et al., Citation2007; Saklofske, Austin, Galloway, & Davidson, Citation2007), and with lower levels of stress and burnout (Mikolajczak, Luminet, & Menil, Citation2006; Mikolajczak, Menil, & Luminet, Citation2007; Pau et al., Citation2007; Slaski & Cartwright, Citation2002). In students, trait EI is positively associated with retention and with academic performance during the period of transition from school to higher education (Parker, Hogan, Eastabrook, Oke, & Wood, Citation2006; Parker, Summerfeldt, Hogan, & Majeski, Citation2004).
A study reported by Saklofske et al. (2007) examined the associations of trait EI with coping using a factor-analytic and structural equation modelling (SEM) approach. Factor analysis showed that trait EI and rational coping loaded positively on a higher-order factor, while emotion coping loaded negatively, and SEM showed that this composite factor acted as a mediator between personality and health behaviours. The scope of this investigation of EI/coping associations was, however, limited by the use of a short trait EI scale, meaning that the associations of EI subcomponents with coping were not investigated. In the present study the short form of the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) (Bar-On, Citation2002) was used, allowing the associations of the five EI subcomponents measured by this scale with coping to be examined. Coping was assessed using the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS) (Endler & Parker, Citation1999), which has subscales measuring task-focused, emotion-focused, distraction and social diversion coping. In view of the content of the EQ-i subscales, the following associations were hypothesised: (a) the Intrapersonal, Stress Management and General Mood components will be negatively correlated with emotion-focused coping, (b) the Adaptability component, which covers problem-solving and flexibility in the emotional domain, will be positively correlated with task-focused coping, and (c) the Interpersonal EI component will be positively correlated with social diversion coping. In addition it was expected that (a) a scale-level factor analysis of the EI and coping scales will give meaningful higher order factors, and (b) one or more of these factors will mediate the associations between personality and stress.
The second of these predictions follows from previous findings (e.g., Deary et al., Citation1996) showing that coping style mediates the relationship between personality and stress, and the findings of Saklofske et al. (Citation2007) that showed that a composite EI/coping factor played a similar role in mediating the relationship between personality and health behaviours.
Method
Participants
The participants who completed the initial survey were 475 undergraduate students at the University of Calgary (143 male, 332 female); the mean age of the sample was 20.56 years (SD = 4.47 years). A subgroup of 350 of these respondents (98 male, 252 female) also completed a follow-up survey.
Materials
EQ-i: Short
The EQ-i: Short (Bar-On, Citation2002) is a 51-item scale that provides a measure of total EI and five subcomponents: Intrapersonal (associated with awareness of one's own feelings and positivity), Interpersonal (interpersonal/social skills), Adaptability (ability to cope flexibly with everyday problems), Stress Management, and General Mood (happiness and optimism). Each item consists of a short statement, to which participants are asked to indicate how closely they identify using a 5-point scale.
Personality Mini-Markers
This 40-item scale of trait-descriptive adjectives provides a measure of personality based on five dimensions: E, Agreeableness (A), C, N and Openness (O) (Saucier, Citation1994). Participants are presented with a list of traits (e.g., bashful, moody, talkative) and asked to describe how accurately each trait describes them on a nine-point scale.
Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations–Revised
The CISS–Revised (CISS-Adult) (Endler & Parker, Citation1999) is a 48-item scale that provides a measure of three major coping styles: Task-Oriented, Emotion-Oriented, and Avoidance-Oriented Coping. Scores can also be obtained for two types of avoidance patterns: distraction and social diversion. For each item, participants are asked to indicate on a 5-point scale how often they have engaged in that activity when they encounter difficult or stressful situations.
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, Citation1988) provides a measure of positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA). Participants are presented with a list of 20 affect-descriptive adjectives (10 positive, 10 negative), and for each, asked to indicate to what extent they have felt that way within a specified period of time (1 week in the present study) using a 5-point scale.
Perceived Stress Scale
The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelsetein, 1983) is a 14-item scale providing a measure of the degree to which situations in one's life are appraised as stressful, and can be used as an outcome measure of experienced levels of stress. On each item participants are asked to indicate how often they have felt that way using a 5-point scale. The PSS was completed twice at each testing point, using “in the last week” and “in the last year” as the specified time periods.
Satisfaction with Life Scale
The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, Citation1985) is a five-item scale that provides a measure of global life satisfaction, and has been shown to have satisfactory psychometric properties. On each item participants are asked to indicate their agreement using a 7-point scale.
Course-related items
Feelings about the courses being taken were examined using the following items, each of which was responded to on a 5-point scale: overall, I enjoyed my courses this semester; overall, my courses this semester were hard/difficult and required considerable time and effort; overall, I learned a lot from my courses this semester; I am happy with the courses I chose this semester; I feel prepared for my final exams. Respondents were also asked to indicate their expected average grade.
Procedure
Participants were recruited through scheduled classes. An investigator attended the class and described the study. Participants completed a consent form and were subsequently emailed a link that allowed them to access the survey website. The initial survey contained the measures listed above, apart from the course-related items, and was completed at the start of the semester. An option was included to provide a contact email address for participation in a follow-up study. Participants who indicated willingness to take part in this were contacted by email approximately 2 weeks before the end of semester exams and given the link to the second survey. This contained the PSS (last year and last week versions), PANAS, SWLS, and the course-related items.
Results
Descriptive statistics for all measures are shown in , and the correlations among them in . Considering the correlations among the EI and coping scales, it can be seen that the Intrapersonal, Stress Management and General Mood components are associated strongly and negatively with emotion-focused coping, while the Adaptability component is strongly associated with task-focused coping. The stress measures show particularly strong associations with EQ-i Stress Management and General Mood, emotion-focused coping and N.
Table I. Descriptive statistics
Table II. Correlations among the study variables
For the measures that were taken both at the start of the study (T1) and immediately before exams (T2), the values at the two time points were compared using paired-samples t tests. The results showed that at T2 levels of PA and life satisfaction were significantly lower, while NA and stress in the past week were significantly higher. The t (349) values were 11.34 (PA), 5.19 (NA), 9.20 (stress) all p < .001, and 2.11 (life satisfaction) p = .036. Reported levels of stress over the past year were not significantly different at the two time-points. These results indicate that the measure of stress over the past year can be viewed as a stable trait measure of tendency to report stress, while the measure of stress over the past week is (as expected) a state measure that increased in response to the more stressful situation (proximity of exams) at T2. There were also parallel changes in levels of PA, NA and life satisfaction.
Because the age distribution of the sample was non-normal, with a preponderance of younger students, mean scores were compared for younger students aged under 24 (N = 415 at T1, N = 303 at T2) and older students, aged ≥24 (N = 60 at T1, N = 42 at T2). Scores on the EI components were compared for the two groups because EI is expected to increase with age (Petrides, Furnham, & Mavroveli, 2007), and the stress scores were also compared. The results, shown in , indicate higher levels of EI and lower levels of stress in the older group, with significant effects for total EI score and the Adaptability component, stress over the last week at T1 and over the last year at T2. The results of t tests examining sex differences in personality, coping style, EI and stress are shown in . The main findings of interest are that female respondents reported higher stress levels than male respondents, higher levels of N, and more use of emotion-focused, distraction and social diversion coping.
Table III. Results of tests for age differences in EI, coping and stress
Table IV. Results of tests for sex differences
Examination of the course-related items from the follow-up questionnaire to determine whether they could be combined to produce a course attitude scale indicated that the item relating to perceived difficulty of courses was not strongly correlated with the other items and was therefore omitted. The internal reliability of the resulting scale was found to be improved by also dropping the item prepared for exams; for the remaining three items internal reliability was .86. Correlations of this scale (for which higher scores indicate more positive feelings about the courses taken), the other two items, and expected course grade with the other study measures are shown in .
In order to examine the possibility that the coping and EI scales formed higher order composites, a scale-level factor analysis of the coping and EQ-i subscales was performed. Examination of the scree diagram and parallel analysis both indicated the extraction of three factors, explaining 66% of the variance, which are shown in . The first factor (labelled Emotion Regulation) can be seen to have high loadings from the EQ-i General Mood, Intrapersonal and Stress Management components, together with a negative loading of emotion-focused coping. The high loadings on the second factor (labelled Avoidance) are social diversion and distraction coping, and EQ-i Interpersonal, while Adaptability and Task-focused coping load on the third factor (labelled Task Focus). Thus each coping style from the CISS-Adult was found to load on a factor together with one or more EI components. shows the correlations of the factor scores with other study variables. It can be seen that stress is most strongly negatively associated with the Emotion Regulation factor. Negative associations with the other factors are moderate for Task Focus and weak for Avoidance.
Table V. Scale-level factor analysis for EI and coping scales
Table VI. Correlations of factor scores with other measures
As in previous work (Saklofske et al., Citation2007) a model in which the composite factors derived from the coping and EI scales mediate the relationship between personality and stress was examined; because sex and age were associated with stress levels these were also included in the model as antecedent variables. The initial conceptual form of the model is shown in and the final model in . It was assumed that stress over the last year (a trait variable) would be antecedent to stress over the last week (a state variable), which would be causally linked to stress over the last week measured at follow-up. In view of the weak correlations of the Avoidance factor with stress, only scores for the Emotion Regulation and Task Focus factors were included in the model. Openness, which was weakly associated with the other relevant variables, was also excluded, so initial modelling included the personality traits N, E, A and C. The results indicated that a more parsimonious model could be obtained by focusing on N and C only, because these had much larger path coefficients connecting them to one of the coping factors compared to those for E and A. The final model is shown in ; all paths were significant. The model is consistent with the structure outlined in , but with additional direct paths from N and C to state stress at T1. The effects of sex on stress levels are accounted for indirectly via relationships of sex with N and with the Emotion Regulation factor. Age group is directly negatively related to state stress at T1 (i.e., older students are less stressed), and positively related to Emotion Regulation. Examination of the path coefficients shows that, as would be expected both from theoretical considerations and from the correlations in , the strongest paths linking personality to the coping factors are those between N and Emotion Regulation, and C and Task Focus. The path from the Emotion Regulation factor to trait stress is stronger than that from the Task Focus factor. The model thus indicates that the two composite coping factors mediate the effects of personality on trait stress, which in turn influences state stress levels, but that state stress is also directly related to C and N. The fit statistics for the final model were normed fit index = .94, non-normed fit index = .93, comparative fit index = .96, standardised root mean square residual (RMR) = .053, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .079.
A similar modelling exercise was carried out for subjective wellbeing (SWB), calculated as a composite of life satisfaction, PA and NA (Lucas, Diener, & Suh, Citation1996). Theoretical considerations and examination of the correlation matrix indicated the inclusion of E, N (the traits most strongly theoretically linked to SWB) (Diener, Citation2000), sex, and the Emotion Regulation composite factor in this model; age group was initially included but was found not to have any significant model paths. This model, shown in , is similar to the stress model, with Emotion Regulation partially mediating the association between personality and SWB. The fit statistics for this model were normed fit index = .98, non-normed fit index = .97, comparative fit index = .98, standardised RMR = .032, RMSEA = .072.
Figure 1. Conceptual form of the model for associations of personality and composite emotional intelligence/coping factors with stress.
Figure 2. Structural equation modelling model for stress. For clarity some correlations included in the model are not shown in the diagram. These were correlations among the personality traits, and between the two composite factors. The values for these correlations from the model were: C/E = .22, N/E = −.27, N/C = −.34, factor correlation = .35. C = Conscientiousness; E = Extraversion; Emreg = Emotion Regulation factor; N = Neuroticism; StressW1, StressW2 = stress over past week at T1 (start of study), T2 (immediately before exames), respectively; StressY = stress over past year; Task = Task Focus factor.
Figure 3. Structural equation modelling model for SWB. A correlation between N and E was included in the model; its value was −.27. E = Extraversion; Emreg = Emotion Regulation factor; N = Neuroticism; SWB1, SWB2 = subjective wellbeing at T1 (start of study), T2 (immediately before exams), respectively.
Discussion
This study examined the associations among EI, coping and personality and their relationships with both baseline stress levels reported by students and stress experienced in the immediate pre-exam period. The expected correlation pattern of EI and coping components emerged, with emotion-focused coping negatively associated with the Intrapersonal, General Mood and Stress Management EI subscales, while task-focused coping was positively associated with Adaptability, and social diversion coping with Interpersonal EI. There were in addition a number of coping/EI associations not specifically predicted, in particular task-focused coping was significantly correlated with all EI components, suggesting that high EI is globally associated with a greater tendency to adopt a task-focused approach. A scale-level factor analysis of the coping and EI components gave interpretable composite factors with a structure that was in accordance with the correlational hypotheses. Emotion-focused coping loaded on a factor (Emotion Regulation) with General Mood, Intrapersonal and Stress Management, while social diversion (and also distraction) coping loaded on a factor (Avoidance) with Interpersonal EI, and task-focused coping on a factor (Task Focus) with Adaptability. The Emotion Regulation factor was strongly negatively related to stress; associations for the Task Focus factor were also negative but less strong, while those for the Avoidance factor were weak.
Using SEM it was found that coping factors mediated the associations between personality and both stress and SWB. These results extend those of Saklofske et al. (2007), who examined the role of one general coping/EI factor as a mediator of the effect of personality on health behaviours, by examining the role of two distinct coping/EI composite factors (Emotion Regulation and Task Focus). The structure of these models closely parallels those for personality, coping and burnout derived by Deary et al. (Citation1996); in that work emotion-focused coping was found to mediate the effect of N on components of burnout, with task-focused coping playing the same role with respect to C. The results presented here and elsewhere, extending this approach by including EI as well as coping in such models, provide growing evidence that dispositional differences derived from combining components of coping and EI, in particular those related to emotion regulation, play a key role in the dynamics of the relationships of personality with health and wellbeing. The model for SWB also parallels the findings of Schutte et al. (2010), who report EI as playing a similar mediating role in the relationship between processing style and SWB.
In terms of student stress vulnerability, the associations found among EI, stress and coping confirmed previous findings that stress is positively associated with N and emotion-focused coping, and negatively associated with task-focused coping, EI, C, E and A. Consistent with previous studies in which sex differences in student stress were examined (e.g., Darling, McWey, Howard, & Olmstead, Citation2007; Pau et al., Citation2007; Tyssen et al., Citation2007), reported stress was higher in female students. In the present study older students were found to experience less stress and the model shown in indicates that this is partly accounted for by higher scores on the Emotion Regulation factor. The associations of student stress with academic success were not directly examined in this study, but reported stress immediately before exams was found to be negatively correlated with predicted grade, and also with feelings of being prepared for the exams and with a positive view of courses taken.
Limitations of the study include reliance on self-report measures. The use of more objective physiological measure of stress such as hormone levels and cardiovascular responses (e.g., Loft et al., Citation2007) and examination of the associations of such measures with personality, coping and EI would be of considerable interest, as would the inclusion of objective exam performance data as an outcome measure. Because there are a wide range of coping and EI measures available that are based on somewhat different theoretical conceptualisations, it is also important to extend the study of EI/coping interrelationships by examining these using a range of measures for both constructs, and to examine issues of predictive validity across a range of instruments (Gardner & Qualter, Citation2010).
Within the context of research on trait EI, this study has provided additional support for the communalities among components of trait EI and coping, with evidence being found for intrapersonal EI being particularly salient to the process of coping with exam stress. These results, and similar findings on the key contribution of specific EI subcomponents to adaptive outcomes reported in this issue (Downey et al., Citation2010; Hogan et al., Citation2010) suggest individual characteristics that could be addressed when designing personal development interventions to support vulnerable students. The results of Sánchez-Ruiz, Pérez-González, and Petrides (Citation2010) also suggest the possibility of tailoring interventions at group level, in order to make use of differences in EI profiles across students in different faculties. Whereas personality traits are relatively stable, meaning that programs targeting the underlying stress-related trait of Neuroticism would be unlikely to engender change, the variables that are “downstream” from personality in the model shown in are likely to be more malleable, and development of EI and emotion regulation skills could be addressed in such programs.
Acknowledgements
This research was partially supported by grant 766-2008-0322 from the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada, accorded to the third author. The authors would also like to thank the many participants that took part in this study.
References
- Bar-On, R., 2002. Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Short. Technical manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems; 2002.
- Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., and Mermelstein, R., 1983. A global measure of perceived stress, Journal of Health and Social Behavior 24 (1983), pp. 385–396.
- Connor-Smith, J. K., and Flachsbart, C., 2007. Relations between personality and coping: A meta-analysis, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93 (2007), pp. 1080–1107.
- Deary, I. J., Blenkin, H., Agius, R. M., Endler, N. S., Zealley, H., and Wood, R., 1996. Models of job-related stress and personal achievement among consultant doctors, British Journal of Psychology 87 (1996), pp. 3–29.
- Darling, C. A., McWey, L. M., Howard, S. N., and Olmstead, S. B., 2007. College student stress: The influence of interpersonal relationships on sense of coherence, Stress and Health 23 (2007), pp. 215–229.
- Diener, E., 2000. Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index, American Psychologist 55 (2000), pp. 34–43.
- Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., and Griffin, S., 1985. The Satisfaction With Life Scale, Journal of Personality Assessment 49 (1985), pp. 71–75.
- Downey, L. A., Johnston, P. J., Hansen, K., Birney, J., and Stough, C., 2010. Investigating the mediating effects of emotional intelligence and coping on problem behaviours in adolescents, Australian Journal of Psychology 62 (2010), pp. 20–29.
- Endler, N. S., and Parker, J. D. A., 1999. Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS): Manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems; 1999.
- Gardner, K. J., and Qualter, P., 2010. Concurrent and incremental validity of three trait emotional intelligence measures, Australian Journal of Psychology 62 (2010), pp. 5–13.
- Hewitt, P. L., and Flett, G. L., 1996. "Personality traits and the coping process". In: Zeidner, M., and Endler, N. S., eds. Handbook of coping. New York: Wiley; 1996. pp. 410–433.
- Hogan, M. J., Parker, J. D. A., Wiener, J., Watters, C., Wood, L. M., and Oke, A., 2010. Academic success in in adolescence: Relationships among verbal IQ, social support and emotional intelligence, Australian Journal of Psychology 62 (2010), pp. 30–41.
- Loft, P., Thoma, M. G., Petrie, K. J., Booth, R. J., Miles, J., and Vedhara, K., 2007. Examination stress results in altered cardiovascular responses to acute challenge and lower cortisol, Psychoneoroendrocrinology 32 (2007), pp. 367–375.
- Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., and Suh, E., 1996. Discriminant validity of well-being measures, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71 (1996), pp. 616–628.
- Matthews, G., Schwean, V. L., Campbell, S. E., Saklofske, D. H., and Mohamed, A. A. R., 2000. "Personality, self-regulation and adaptation". In: Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., and Zeidner, M., eds. Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego: Academic Press; 2000. pp. 171–207.
- Matthews, G., Deary, I. J., and Whiteman, M. C., 2003. Personality traits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
- Mikolajczak, M., Luminet, O., and Menil, C., 2006. Predicting resistance to stress; Incremental validity of trait emotional intelligence over alexithymia and optimism, Psicothema 18 (2006), pp. 79–88.
- Mikolajczak, M., Menil, C., and Luminet, O., 2007. Explaining the protective effect of trait emotional intelligence regarding occupational stress: Exploration of the emotional labour processes, Journal of Research in Personality 41 (2007), pp. 1107–1117.
- Mikolajczak, M., Nelis, D., Hansenne, M., and Quoidbach, J., 2007. If you can regulate sadness, you can probably regulate shame: Associations between trait emotional intelligence, emotion regulation and coping efficiency across discrete emotions, Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2007), pp. 1356–1368.
- Morrison, R., and O'Connor, R. C., 2005. Predicting psychological distress in college students: The role of rumination and stress, Journal of Clinical Psychology 61 (2005), pp. 447–460.
- Parker, J. D. A., Hogan, M. J., Eastabrook, J. M., Oke, A., and Wood, L. M., 2006. Emotional intelligence and student retention: Predicting the successful transition from high school to university, Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006), pp. 1329–1336.
- Parker, J. D. A., Summerfeldt, L. J., Hogan, M. J., and Majeski, S. A., 2004. Emotional intelligence and academic success: Examining the transition from high school to university, Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004), pp. 163–172.
- Pau, A., Rowland, M. L., Naidoo, S., Abdulkadir, R., Makrynika, E., Moraru, R., et al., 2007. Emotional intelligence and perceived stress in dental undergraduates: A multinational survey, Journal of Dental Education 71 (2007), pp. 197–204.
- Petrides, K. V., Furnham, A., and Mavroveli, S., 2007. "Trait emotional intelligence". In: Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., and Roberts, R. D., eds. Emotional intelligence. Knowns and unknowns. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007. pp. 151–166.
- Petrides, K. V., Pérez-González, J. C., and Furnham, A., 2007. On the criterion and incremental validity of trait emotional intelligence, Cognition and Emotion 21 (2007), pp. 26–55.
- Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., and Kokkinaki, F., 2007. The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space, British Journal of Psychology 98 (2007), pp. 273–289.
- Pritchard, M. E., and Wilson, G. S., 2003. Using social and emotional factors to predict student success, Journal of College Student Development 44 (2003), pp. 18–28.
- Saklofske, D. H., Austin, E. J., Galloway, J., and Davidson, K., 2007. Individual difference correlates of health-related behaviours: Preliminary evidence for links between emotional intelligence and coping, Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007), pp. 491–502.
- Sánchez-Ruiz, M. J., Pérez-González, J. C., and Petrides, K. V., 2010. Trait emotional intelligence profiles of students from different university faculties, Australian Journal of Psychology 62 (2010), pp. 51–57.
- Saucier, G., 1994. Mini-markers. A brief version of Goldberg unipolar Big Five markers, Journal of Personality Assessment 63 (1994), pp. 506–516.
- Schutte, N. S., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Hine, D. W., Foster, R., Cauchi, A., and Binns, C., 2010. Experiential and rational processing styles, emotional intelligence and wellbeing, Australian Journal of Psychology 62 (2010), pp. 14–19.
- Slaski, M., and Cartwright, S., 2002. Health, performance and emotional intelligence: An exploratory study of retail managers, Stress and Health 18 (2002), pp. 63–68.
- Tyssen, F., Dolatowski, F. C., Røvik, J. O., Thorkildsen, R. F., Ekeberg, O., Hem, E., et al., 2007. Personality traits and types predict medical school stress: A six-year longitudinal study, Medical Education 41 (2007), pp. 781–787.
- Vollrath, M., 2000. Personality and hassles among university students: A three-year longitudinal study, European Journal of Personality 14 (2000), pp. 199–215.
- Watson, D., Clark, L. A., and Tellegen, A., 1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54 (1988), pp. 1063–1070.