AbstractThis research was conducted to find predicting role of resilience forEmotional Intelligence and psychological well-being. Data were collected from200 Hostelite students in order to find individual differences EmotionalIntelligence, psychological well-being and resilience. Results depicts significantpositive relationships between Emotional intelligence, Psychological Well-beingand resilience. Findings would be beneficial for Hostelite students they tendto learn different strategies to tackle stressful events. IntroductionEmotional intelligence seems to be very important in human lives,as no one is free from emotion. Emotional Intelligence meant for awareness andControl of emotions as well as to track social relationships on right way.
Moreemotional intelligence higher will be the person’s ability to tackle stressfulsituations. Goleman describesEmotional intelligence the ability, capacity, skill, or self-perceived abilityto identify, assess, and manage the emotions of one’s self, of others, and ofgroups. People who possess a high degree of emotional intelligence knowthemselves very well and are also able to sense the emotions of others (ascited in Serrat, 2009).
“Psychologicalwell-being is about lives going well. It is the combination of feeling good andfunctioning effectively.” Individuals with psychological well-being are morehappy, satisfied and energetic. Huppert’s (2009) research states, psychologicalwell-being leads towards sound mental health, more brain activation and mentalstrength. People who have high level of emotional intelligence knowthemselves very well and are also able to sense emotions of others (as cited inSerrat, 2009). There are three models of Emotional intelligence: 1) Mayer andSalovey model of emotional, 2) Bar-On’s model of emotional intelligence, and 3)Goleman’s Mix model of emotional intelligence.
In this study the main focuswill on Goleman Mix model of emotional intelligence. A sound mentalHealth means for psychological well-being. (Edwards, 2005).
It has been proventhrough researches that psychological well-being had a lot of dimensions(MacLeod & Moore, 2000; Ryff, 1989b; Wissing & Van Eeden, 2002).Psychological well-being can increase with age, education, extraversion andconsciousness and decreases with neuroticism (Keyes et al., 2002) In relevance togender there is not accountable difference between men and women onpsychological well-being. (Roothman, Kirsten & Wissing, 2003). With thepassage of time there are a lots of variation in definition of psychologicalwell-being. (Wissing & Van Eeden, 1998 ”Protectivefactors which modify, ameliorate or alter a person’s response to someenvironmental hazard that predisposes to a maladaptive outcome” (Rutter, 1987,p. 316).
”The process of, capacityfor, or outcome of successful adaptation despite challenging or threateningcircumstances” (Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990, p. 426). ”A dynamic process encompassing positive adaptation within thecontext of significant adversity” (Luthar et al., 2000, p. 543).
”A class of phenomena characterized by good outcomes in spite ofserious threats to adaptation or development” (Masten, 2001, p. 228). ”The personal qualities that enables one to thrive in the face ofadversity” (Connor & Davidson, 2003, p. 76). Interpersonalrelationships can be explained by good emotional intelligence. Salovey and Mayer(1990) have found that the more emotional intelligence leads towards morepsychological well-being. At present emotionalintelligence tend to be topic of interest for students (Bhattacharyya et al.
, 2008).And is widely spreading in every field of life like (school, work places. etc.)(Pellitteri, 2002). According to Landa et al (2010), Diener and Suh (2001) haveexplain that psychological well-being has positive relation with emotions.Argyle (1987), Landa et al, (2010) explain that mental health is assured by thehigh emotional intelligence. According toArmstrong, Galligan, and Critchley (2011), Emotional intelligence is directlyrelated to resilience. Salovey, Bedell, Detweiler and Mayer (1999) theorizedthat who have higher emotional intelligence they are more able to handledifficult situation.
“Accurately perceive and appraise their emotions, know howand when to express their feelings, and can effectively regulate their moodstates” (p. 161). Resilience isalways in relation with psychological wellbeing and mental health. (Avey etal., 2010). For instance, He, Cao, Feng, and Peng (2013) had investigatedrelationship between resilience and psychological well-being, which waspositive relationship. Participants with high resilience had also morepsychological well-being on the other hand participants with low resilience hadless psychological wellbeing and mental strength. Similarly, McDermott, Cobham,Barry, and Stallman (2010) had discover positive relationship betweenresilience and psychological well-being.
More mental illness in participantsdepicts low level of resilience. And those with less mental illness score highon resilience. Lee, Sudom, and Zamorski (2013) and significant variance wasreported by resilience in psychological well-being.
Past researchesonly explain simple relationship between psychological well-being with othervariables. So there is need of study which can explain the mediating role ofresilience between emotional intelligence and psychological well-being. Thusthis study is aimed at finding the mediating role of resilience betweenemotional intelligence and psychological well-being.MethodObjectives.
In proposedstudy following objectives are formulated: 1. To investigate the relationship of emotionalintelligence and psychological well-being and Resilience.2. To find out the demographic differences (gender)of Hostelite students on emotional intelligence, Psychological well-being andResilience.Hypotheses. In this research following hypothesis have beenformulated:1.
There will be positive relationship betweenemotional intelligence, psychological well-being and Resilience among Hostelitestudents.2. Emotional intelligence, predicts the psychological well-being. 3. Resilience is the positive predictor of psychological well-being. 4. Resilience has the mediating role in therelationship between emotional intelligence and psychological well-being.
Sample. The sample for proposed study willconsist N= 200 participants. Men (n=100) and women (n =100). After taking the permission from Head of Department thesample will be drawn from the University of Sargodha.Operationaldefinition of variables. The proposed study will use three variables; emotionalintelligence, psychological well-being and Resilience.
The operationaldefinitions of these variables are given below:Emotional intelligence. Goleman describes emotionalintelligence the ability, capacity, skill, or self-perceived ability toidentify, assess, and manage the emotions of one’s self, of others, and ofgroups. People who possess a high degree of emotional intelligence knowthemselves very well and are also able to sense the emotions of others (ascited in Serrat, 2009). It isoperationalized 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’strue highest potential. It has six dimensions that are autonomy, environmentalmastery, personal growth, positive relationship with other, purpose in life andself-acceptance of individuals (Ryff, 1989).
Resilience. Resilience canbe considered as a process of adaptation to adversity and stress. Resilientindividuals tend to recover from setbacks or trauma and portray a common set ofcharacteristics 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 emotionalintelligence scale (SRMEI) , Psychological-Well-Being-Scales-(PWB)and Brief Cope Scale. Thedetailed description of these scales are given below: Self –report measure of emotionalintelligence scale (SRMEI).
Self –Report measure of emotionalintelligence scale (SRMEI) will be used to accessthe emotional intelligence. This scale consists of 33items with scoring answerson five-point scale (5= strongly agree, 4= agree, 3= neither disagree noragree, 2= Disagree and 1= strongly disagree). Reliabilityof SRMEI scale is .91. Psychological-Well-Being-Scales-(PWB).
The Psychological Well-Being scale (PWB) consists of eight itemsdescribing important aspects of human functioning ranging from positiverelationships, to feelings of competence, to having meaning and purpose inlife. Response format is from 1-7(strongly disagree to strongly Agree). Add up all the items high scorer will depict high psychologicalwell-being. Test-retest reliabilitycoefficient ranged between .
78 and .97. The BriefResilience 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 takingmean 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 thescale has good reliability. Demographics. Demographicsi.e. age. Gender Procedure. For proposed study N=200participants will be approached.
Men (n=100)and women (n =100). After taking the informed consent form, theparticipants will complete the three questionnaires used in proposed study;SRMEI, PWB and BRS scales. Thedemographic information questionnaire will be also used. Participants will begiven approximately 40 minutes to complete set of questionnaires. Proposed analysis .After collecting data; Suitable statistical analysis will be doneby using SPSS for testing the objectives and hypotheses. Ethical consideration.
I will not physically harm any person .I will make surethat the respondents have been willingly participated in the research. Anydeception regarding objective of research will be avoided. The participants willbe assured that their privacy shall be kept confidence.ResultsTable 1Number of Participants, Mean Scores, andStandard Deviations for Emotional Intelligence Psychological Well-being, and Resilience.
N M SD Emotional Intelligence 200 110.96 19.85 Psychological Well-being 200 35.83 10.93 Resilience 200 2.96 0.44 Note: N= Number of Participants, M= MeanScore, SD= Standard DeviationThese are descriptive findings of all threevariables.Table 2 Pearson co-relation between Criterion and predictedvariables.
Emotional Intelligence Psychological Well-being Psychological Well-being .692** 1 Resilience .113 .204** **.Correlation is significant at 0.
01level(2-tailed)As shown in Table 2 there is significantpositive 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 positiverelationship between resilience and psychological well-being. (r = 4.16, P <0.01).
Table 3 Regression Table for the EmotionalIntelligence 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 Intelligencehad 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 resilienceon 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 hadsignificant 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=Coefficientof Determination.
Table 5. Regression of Psychological Well-Being basedon 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, EmotionalIntelligence and Resilience had significant positive effect on psychologicalwell-being. (P < 0.
01, F = 96.38). Also, Results depicts that emotionalintelligence (P < 0.
01, ? = .677) is positive predictor of psychologicalwell-being. And resilience is also significant positive predictor ofpsychological well-being (P < 0.
01, ? = .128).Note: ?=Coefficient of Regression;F=F-test; t=t-test; P=Significant Level; R=Coefficient of Correlation; R2=Coefficientof Determination.
Suggestions and LimitationsStudies which are going to be conducted infuture should also consider other related variables like spiritualintelligence, self-control and psychological adjustment. Limitation of this study was that, samplewas only Hostelite (university) students. And other social Groups were neglected. ReferencesBar-on R. The emotional quotient inventory (EQI), a measure ofemotional intelligence.Toronto,Canada: Multi-health systems; 1997.
13. Schutte NS, Malouff JM, ThorsteinssonEB. Increasing emotional intelligence through training: Current status andfuture directions.
Int J Emot Educ. 2013;5(1):56–72. Baron RM, Kenny DA. Themoderator-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):879–89Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008).
Hedonic, eudaimonia, andwell-being: An introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 1–11. Doi:10.1007/s10902-006-9018-1Fredrickson BL, Joiner T. Positive emotions trigger upward spiralstoward emotional well-being.
Psychol Sci. 2002;13(2):172–5.Huppert, F. A. (2009).
Psychological well-being: Evidence regardingits causes and consequences. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 1,137–164. doi:10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01008.x Implications of resilienceconcepts for scientific understanding.
Annals of the New York Academy ofSciences, 1094, 1–12. doi: 10.1196/annals.
1376.002Luthar, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct ofresilience: Implications for interventions and social policies.
Development andPsychopathology, 12, 857–885. doi: 10.1017/S0954579400004156 Masten AS. Globalperspectives on resilience in children and youth. Child Dev. 2014;85(1):6–20.22. Masten, A.
S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development.American Psychologist, 56, 227–238. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.
3.227Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes indevelopment.
American Psychologist, 56, 227–238. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.
227 Masten, A. S., ´, J. (2006). Competence and resilience in development. Annals of theNew York Academy of Sciences, 1094, 13–27. doi: 10.
1196/annals.1376.003 Masten, A. S., Best, K. M.,& Garmezy, M.
(1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from thestudy of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2,425–444. doi: 10.
1017/S0954579400005812 Masten, A. S., Best, K.
M.,& Garmezy, M. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from thestudy of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2,425–444. doi: 10.1017/S0954579400005812Rutter, M.
(1987). Psychosocial resilience and protectivemechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316–331. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.
1987.tb03541.xRutter, M. (1990). Competence under stress: Risk and protectivefactors. In J. Rolf, A. S.
Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Nuechterlin, & S.Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the development ofpsychopathology (pp.
181– 214). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Rutter,M. (2006). Ryff CD, Keyes CL. Thestructure of psychological well-being revisited. J Pers Soc Psychol.
1995;69(4):719–27. 27. Ryff CD. Happiness iseverything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being.J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989;57(6):1069–81.
7. Ryff CD. Psychologicalwell-being revisited: advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia.Psychother Psychosom. 2014;83(1):10–28. 16.
Stys, Y., & Brown, S. L.(2004). A Review of the EmotionalIntelligence Literature and Implications for Corrections.Retrieved from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r150/r150_e.pdf