The aim of this study was to
explore the role of resilience in predicting the emotional intelligence and psychological
wellbeing in Hostelite students. A sample of 200 Hostelite students completed
questionnaires that measured individual differences in Emotional Intelligence,
psychological well-being and resilience, and. Findings revealed significant
positive relationships between Psychological Well-being and resilience.
Findings from this study show support for developing programs for university
students that target cultivating resilience and psychological well-being to
increase their ability to effectively manage the complex challenges and
competing demands of university life.
Emotional intelligence has importance in human life; because no one
is free from emotions and its expression in every moment of life. Emotional
Intelligence focus on how person aware and control his emotion and recognize
others emotion and maintain social relationship. If person has good level of
emotional intelligence he can cope with stresses in life; emotional
intelligence tell the way of effective coping.
intelligence (EI) refers to the ability to perceive, control and evaluate
emotions and ability to understand his or her own emotions and the emotions of
others and most commonly incorporates concepts of emotional expression and
regulation, self-awareness, and empathy.(Cherry, 2012; Doyle, 2012; Romanelli, Cain, & Smith, 2006 ).
Emotional intelligence the ability, capacity, skill, or self-perceived ability
to identify, assess, and manage the emotions of one’s self, of others, and of
groups. People who possess a high degree of emotional intelligence know
themselves very well and are also able to sense the emotions of others (as
cited in Serrat, 2009). There are three models of Emotional intelligence: 1)
Mayer and Salovey model of emotional, 2) Bar-On’s model of emotional
intelligence, and 3) Goleman’s Mix model of emotional intelligence. The propose
study will focus on Goleman Mix model of emotional intelligence.
model of emotional intelligence outlines four main emotional intelligence
constructs. The first, self-awareness, is the ability to read one’s emotions
and recognize their impact. Self-management, the second construct, involves
controlling one’s emotions and impulses and adapting to changing circumstances.
The third construct, social awareness, includes the ability to sense,
understand, and react to other’s emotions while comprehending social networks.
Finally, relationship management, the fourth construct, entails the ability to
inspire, influence, and develop others while managing conflict (as cited in Stys & Brown, 2004).
well-being is usually conceptualised as some combination of positive affective
states such as happiness (the hedonic perspective) and functioning with optimal
effectiveness in individual and social life (Deci & Ryan 2008). As
summarised by Huppert (2009, p.137): “Psychological well-being is about lives
going well. It is the combination of feeling good and functioning effectively.”
By definition therefore, people with high PW report feeling happy, capable,
well supported, satisfied with life, and so on; Huppert’s (2009) review also
claims the consequences of PW to include better physical health, mediated
possibly by brain activation patterns, neurochemical effects and genetic
(1)A person with mental health enjoys features such as
purpose in life, a sense of mastery over the environment, developed social
relationships and a sense of independence (2). Although well-being as a complex
and multifaceted construct (3) lacks a single definition (4), it can be defined
by two main approaches. The hedonism approach considers the welfare as hedonic
pleasure. According to this approach, welfare means maximizing the pleasure and
minimizing pain. On the other hand, virtue based approach believes that the fulfilment
of desires does not always lead to well-being.
well-being refers to positive mental health (Edwards, 2005). Research has shown
that psychological well-being is a diverse multidimensional concept (MacLeod
& Moore, 2000; Ryff, 1989b; Wissing & Van Eeden, 2002), which develops
through a combination of emotional regulation, personality characteristics,
identity and life experience (Helson & Srivastava, 2001). Psychological
well-being can increase with age, education, extraversion and consciousness and
decreases with neuroticism (Keyes et al., 2002)
In terms of
gender, research has suggested that there is no significant difference between
men and women on measures of psychological well-being (Roothman, Kirsten &
Wissing, 2003). Furthermore, the perception of physical health and spirituality
can mediate the relationship between context and psychological wellbeing
(Temane & Wissing, 2006a, 2006b).
well-being has undergone extensive empirical review and theoretical evaluation
(Wissing & Van Eeden, 1998). There is currently no single consensual
conceptual understanding of psychological well-being. Bradburn’s (1969) initial
understanding of psychological well-being provided a depiction of the
difference between positive and negative affect. Preliminary research was
mainly concerned with the experiences of positive and negative affect,
subjective well-being and life satisfaction that were formed around the Greek
word ‘eudemonia’, which was translated as ‘happiness’ (Ryff, 1989b). Happiness
was described as the equilibrium between positive and negative affect. Many
early scales, such as Diener, Emmons, Larsen & Griffen’s (1985)
Satisfaction with Life Scale on which a vast amount of research was conducted,
used this initial subjective conception of well-being (Conway & Macleod,
2002; Diener et al., 1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale requires
participants to indicate a cognitive rather than affective response in relation
to global satisfaction with their quality of life.
”Protective factors which modify, ameliorate or alter a person’s
response to some environmental hazard that predisposes to a maladaptive
outcome” (Rutter, 1987, p. 316).
”The process of,
capacity for, or outcome of successful adaptation despite challenging or
threatening circumstances” (Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990, p. 426).
process encompassing positive adaptation within the context of significant
adversity” (Luthar et al., 2000, p. 543).
”A class of phenomena characterized by good
outcomes in spite of serious threats to adaptation or development” (Masten,
2001, p. 228).
”The personal qualities that enables one to thrive in the face of
adversity” (Connor & Davidson, 2003, p. 76).
”The ability of adults in otherwise normal circumstances
who are exposed to an isolated and potentially highly disruptive event such as
the death of a close relation or a violent or life-threatening situation to
maintain relatively stable, healthy levels of psychological and physical
functioning, as well as the capacity for generative experiences and positive
emotions” (Bonanno, 2004, pp. 20–21).
level refers to one’s capability to overcome and cope with the problems, and
the communicational level relates to the family structure and indicates how a
family copes with disruptive and stressful experiences and how it prepares its
members for a long-term adaptation. By definition, the resilience is the
ability to overcome events with high stress load and maintain mental health and
psychological vitality in the face of exposure to unpleasant events and
represent the capacity of a dynamic system to successfully adapt to life
threatening disorders or developmental processes. In this connection the resilient
individuals will have favourable growth despite their compatibility to existing
intelligence is one of the major determinants of the quality of their
interpersonal relationships. Salovey and Mayer (1990) have identified that higher
levels of emotional intelligence result in better psychological and physical
intelligence of adult students has become a topic of interest (Bhattacharyya et
al., 2008). It increasingly has been expanding in education, personal life,
work and business (Pellitteri, 2002). According to Landa et al (2010), Diener
and Suh (2001) have identified emotions as good predictors of psychological
wellbeing. Argyle (1987), Landa et al, (2010) further emphasize that
satisfaction and psychological well-being can be characterized as indicators of
good mental functioning. Carmeli et al., (2009) have also identified a positive
relationship between emotional intelligence and psychological well-being.
Armstrong, Galligan, and Critchley (2011), EI may well be directly connected to
resilience, such that emotionally intelligent behavior in stressful
circumstances is adaptive. Salovey, Bedell, Detweiler and Mayer (1999) theorize
that persons with higher EI cope better with the emotional demands of stressful
encounters because they are able to “accurately perceive and appraise their
emotions, know how and when to express their feelings, and can effectively
regulate their mood states” (p. 161).
associated with psychological functioning and reports of wellbeing over time
(Avey et al., 2010). For instance, He, Cao, Feng, and Peng (2013) found a
positive correlation between psychological resilience and well-being.
Participants with high 23 resilience were less likely to report significant
psychological distress and were able to recover more quickly compared to those
with lower reports of resilience. Similarly, McDermott, Cobham, Barry, and
Stallman (2010) found evidence for a relationship between resilience and
psychological well-being. Youth with past or current mental illness were more
likely to have low scores on a measure of resilience, suggesting that lower
levels of resilience are related to increased psychological distress and mental
illness across time. Lee, Sudom, and Zamorski (2013) also found that resilience
predicted significant amounts of variance in reports of psychological
well-being and mental health.
about the factors affecting the psychological well-being indicates a simple
relationship between one or more variables and mental well-being. Therefore,
variables are needed to mediate between emotional intelligence and
psychological well-being in students. Thus the present study attempted to
investigate the important role of resilience as mediator between emotional
intelligence and psychological well-being of students.
Objectives. In proposed
study following objectives are formulated:
To investigate the relationship of emotional
intelligence and psychological well-being and Resilience.
To find out the
demographic differences (gender) of Hostelite students on emotional
intelligence, Psychological well-being and Resilience.
Hypotheses. In this research following hypothesis have been formulated:
There will be
positive relationship between emotional intelligence, psychological
well-being and Resilience among Hostelite students.
Emotional intelligence, predicts the psychological well-being.
Resilience is the positive predictor of psychological well-being.
Resilience has the mediating role in the relationship between emotional
intelligence and psychological well-being.
Sample. The sample for proposed study will
consist N= 200 participants. Men (n=100) and women (n =100). After taking the permission from Head of Department the
sample will be drawn from the University of Sargodha.
Operational definition of variables. The
proposed study will use three variables; emotional intelligence, psychological
well-being and Resilience. The operational definitions of these variables are
Goleman describes emotional
intelligence the ability, capacity, skill, or self-perceived ability to
identify, assess, and manage the emotions of one’s self, of others, and of
groups. People who possess a high degree of emotional intelligence know
themselves very well and are also able to sense the emotions of others (as
cited in Serrat, 2009). It is
operationalized on the scores of individual on (SRMEI) scale.
Psychological well-being. Individual meaningful
engagement in life, self- satisfaction, optimal psychological functioning and
development at one’s true highest potential. It has six dimensions that are
autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relationship with
other, purpose in life and self-acceptance of individuals (Ryff, 1989).
Resilience. Resilience can
be considered as a process of adaptation to adversity and stress. Resilient
individuals tend to recover from setbacks or trauma and portray a common set of
characteristics that help them cope with challenges in life (McAllister &
McKinnon, 2009; Herrman et al., 2011).
Instrument. According to nature of study, following three scales will be selected,
named self –Report measure of emotional
intelligence scale (SRMEI) , Psychological-Well-Being-Scales-(PWB)
and Brief Cope Scale. The
detailed description of these scales are given below:
Self –report measure of emotional
intelligence scale (SRMEI). Self –Report measure of emotional
intelligence scale (SRMEI) will be used to access
the emotional intelligence. This scale consists of 33items with scoring answers
on five-point scale (5= strongly agree, 4= agree, 3= neither disagree nor
agree, 2= Disagree and 1= strongly disagree). Reliability
of SRMEI scale is .91.
The Psychological Well-Being scale (PWB) consists of eight items
describing important aspects of human functioning ranging from positive
relationships, to feelings of competence, to having meaning and purpose in
life. Response format is from 1-7(strongly disagree to strongly Agree). Add up all the items high scorer will depict high psychological
well-being. Test-retest reliability
coefficient ranged between .78 and .97.
The Brief Resilience Scale. There are six items of the brief resilience scale (BRS). Item no 1,
3 an5 are having positive wording while 2, 4, and 6 are reverse coded items.
The BRS can be scored by reversing item number 2, 4 and 6 and then by taking
mean of all 6 items. That is five point Likert scale. 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 =
neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.”
Reliability analysis using Cronbach’s Alpha was .93, indicating that the
scale has good reliability.
i.e. age. Gender
Procedure. For proposed study N=200
participants will be approached. Men (n=100)
and women (n =100). After taking the informed consent form, the
participants will complete the three questionnaires used in proposed study;
SRMEI, PWB and BRS scales. The
demographic information questionnaire will be also used. Participants will be
given approximately 40 minutes to complete set of questionnaires.
Proposed analysis .After collecting data; Suitable statistical analysis will be done
by using SPSS for testing the objectives and hypotheses.
Ethical consideration. I will not physically harm any person .I will make sure
that the respondents have been willingly participated in the research. Any
deception regarding objective of research will be avoided. The participants
will be assured that their privacy shall be kept confidence.
Number of Participants, Mean Scores, and Standard
Deviations for Emotional Intelligence
Psychological Well-being, and Resilience.
Note: N= Number of Participants, M= Mean Score, SD=
These are descriptive findings of all three variables.
Pearson co-relation between Criterion and predicted
**.Correlation is significant at 0.01level (2-tailed)
As shown in Table 2 there is significant positive
relationship of emotional intelligence with resilience (r =1.27, P < 0.01) and psychological well-being (r = 47.88, P < 0.01). And there exists a significant positive relationship between resilience and psychological well-being. (r = 4.16, P < 0.01). Table 3 Regression Table for the Emotional Intelligence and psychological well-being. Predictor Variable Criterion Variable F R R Square Adjusted R² ? T p Emotional Intelligence Psychological Well-being 181.66 .692 .478 .476 .692 13.47 .000 Table 3 shows that, emotional Intelligence had significant positive effect on psychological well-being of students (F = 181.6, P < 0.01). Note: ?=Coefficient of Regression; F=F-test; t=t-test; P=Significant Level; R=Coefficient of Correlation; R2=Coefficient of Determination. Table 4 Regression based on Effect of resilience on psychological Well-being. Predictor Variable Criterion Variable F R R Square Adjusted R² ? T p Resilience Psychological Well-being 8.603 .204 .042 .037 .204 2.93 .004 Table 4 shows that, Resilience had significant positive effect on psychological well-being (F = 8.603, P < 0.05) Note: ?=Coefficient of Regression; F=F-test; t=t-test; P=Significant Level; R=Coefficient of Correlation; R2=Coefficient of Determination. Table 5. Regression of Psychological Well-Being based on resilience by controlling the dimensions of Emotional Intelligence. Predictor Variable Criterion Variable F P R R2 ? T P Psychological Well being 96.38 0.01 .703 .495 Emotional Intelligence .677 13.28 .000 Resilience .128 2.504 0.01 Table No. 5 depicts that, Emotional Intelligence and Resilience had significant positive effect on psychological well-being. (P < 0.01, F = 96.38). Also, Results depicts that emotional intelligence (P < 0.01, ? = .677) is positive predictor of psychological well-being. And resilience is also significant positive predictor of psychological well-being (P < 0.01, ? = .128). Note: ?=Coefficient of Regression; F=F-test; t=t-test; P=Significant Level; R=Coefficient of Correlation; R2=Coefficient of Determination. Suggestions and Limitations Studies which are going to be conducted in future should also consider other related variables like spiritual intelligence, self-control and psychological adjustment. Limitation Limitation of this study was that, sample was only Hostelite (university) students. And other social Groups were neglected. References Cherry, K. (2012). Emotional intelligence: what is emotional intelligence? The New York Company. Retrieved from http://psychology.about.com/od/personalitydevelopment/a/emotionalintell.htm Stys, Y., & Brown, S. L. (2004). A Review of the Emotional Intelligence Literature and Implications for Corrections. Retrieved from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r150/r150_e.pdf Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonic, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 1–11. Doi: 10.1007/s10902-006-9018-1 Huppert, F. A. (2009). Psychological well-being: Evidence regarding its causes and consequences. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 1, 137–164. doi:10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01008.x Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316–331. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1987.tb03541.x Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227–238. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227 Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, M. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425–444. doi: 10.1017/S0954579400005812 Luthar, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 857–885. doi: 10.1017/S0954579400004156 Ryff CD, Keyes CL. The structure of psychological well-being revisited. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995;69(4):719–27. 27. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6):1173–82. 28. Carver CS, Scheier MF, Segerstrom SC. Optimism. Clin Psychol Rev. 2010;30(7):879–89 Masten AS. Global perspectives on resilience in children and youth. Child Dev. 2014;85(1):6–20. 22. Ryff CD. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989;57(6):1069–81. 7. Ryff CD. Psychological well-being revisited: advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychother Psychosom. 2014;83(1):10–28. 16. Bar-on R. The emotional quotient inventory (EQI), a measure of emotional intelligence.Toronto, Canada: Multi-health systems; 1997. 13. Schutte NS, Malouff JM, Thorsteinsson EB. Increasing emotional intelligence through training: Current status and future directions. Int J Emot Educ. 2013;5(1):56–72. Fredrickson BL, Joiner T. Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being. Psychol Sci. 2002;13(2):172–5. Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227–238. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227 Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, M. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425–444. doi: 10.1017/S0954579400005812 Masten, A. S., & Obradovic ´, J. (2006). Competence and resilience in development. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1094, 13–27. doi: 10.1196/annals.1376.003 Rutter, M. (1990). Competence under stress: Risk and protective factors. In J. Rolf, A. S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Nuechterlin, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 181– 214). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Rutter, M. (2006). Implications of resilience concepts for scientific understanding. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1094, 1–12. doi: 10.1196/annals.1376.002