SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2010, 38(6), 783-794 © Society for Personality Research (Inc.) DOI 10.2224/sbp.2010.38.6.783
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND PERSONALITY TRAITS AS PREDICTORS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING IN SPANISH UNDERGRADUATES Jose M. Augusto Landa, Manuel Pulido Martos, and Esther López-Zafra University of Jaén, Spain The relationships were analyzed among emotional intelligence (EI), personality traits, and psychological well-being in undergraduates. In addition, the predictive capacity of EI and personality traits was analyzed. Results showed that low scores in neuroticism and high scores in extraversion are the dimensions of personality most related to all the psychological well-being scales, and also the best predictors of psychological well-being. Furthermore, high scores in clarity and emotional repair were found to be two consistent predictors for all the scales of psychological well-being, after controlling for personality factors. These results confirm the prognostic significance for EI on psychological well-being. Keywords: emotional intelligence, personality traits, psychological well-being.
Satisfaction and psychological well-being can be characterized as indicators of good mental functioning (Argyle, 1987). Individuals are in a state of psychological well-being if they have a high degree of satisfaction with themselves, if their mood is good (positive affect), and if they only occasionally experience unpleasant emotions (Fierro, 2006) such as sadness, anger, and inhibitions (negative affect). The perception of psychological well-being can be considered
Jose M. Augusto Landa, PhD, Associate Professor, Manuel Pulido Martos, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Social Psychology, and Esther López-Zafra, PhD, Professor, Department of Social Psychology and Vice-Chancellor of Institutional Relations, University of Jaén, Spain. Appreciation is due to reviewers including: M. Engin Deniz, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Education, Faculty of Technical Education, Selcuk University, Campus Konya 42075, Konya, Turkey, Email:
[email protected] Please address correspondence and reprint requests to: Esther López-Zafra, Campus Las Lagunillas, Department of Psychology, University of Jaén, Edif. D-2 23071, Jaén, Spain. Phone: +34 953 211990; Fax: +34 953 211881; Email:
[email protected]
783
784
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING
as the cognitive component of life satisfaction as it involves assessments of how people are leading their lives (Diener & Suh, 2001). The analysis of the factors associated with psychological well-being provides a means to understand precisely what it is. As Diener and Suh (2001) suggest, emotions are good predictors of psychological well-being. The purpose in this study was to examine the subjective perception that undergraduates have of psychological well-being on the basis of proposals from Ryff and Keyes (1995). The best-known instrument to measure psychological well-being is Ryff’s (1989) Psychological Well-being Scale which measures six positive attributes of psychological well-being (self-acceptance and a positive attitude toward oneself, personal growth or development, purpose of life, control or domination of media, positive relations with others, and autonomy or ability to be independent). Ryff established these items on the basis of theoretical discussion about the needs, motives, and attributes that characterize a person with good mental health. The concept of emotional intelligence (EI) has aroused great interest among researchers and professionals working in the field of mental health. Mayer and Salovey (1997) define emotional intelligence as the ability to recognize the meanings of emotions, reason and solve problems based on them, thus pursuing a cognitive character. EI offered a new perspective in the study of emotions, which have gone from being considered distractions in human cognitive processes to being perceived as vital factors that provide useful information for solving everyday problems. Following this approach, the management of our emotions is now considered vital for health and psychological adaptation. According to the model developed by Mayer and Salovey (1997), emotional intelligence can be conceived as a pyramid with four basic skills: ability to 1) perceive, appraise, and express emotions accurately, 2) access and/or generate feelings that facilitate thought, 3) understand emotions and emotional knowledge, 4) regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth (see Mayer & Salovey, p. 5). One of the most common self-report instruments used to measure EI is the Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS) developed by Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey, and Palfai (1995) which measures perceived emotional intelligence (PEI), that is, the knowledge that individuals have about their own emotional skills and that does not always match their actual capacity (Salovey, Stroud, Woolery, & Epel, 2002). This measure is still widely used, and is thought to be the most frequently used EI instrument in psychological research and education in both Spain and Latin America (Extremera & Fernández-Berrocal, 2005). Researchers who have linked PEI with psychological well-being have measured psychological well-being according to levels of health, depression, and anxiety (Augusto, López-Zafra, Berrios, & Aguilar, 2008; Extremera & Fernández-Berrocal, 2006; Gohm & Clore, 2002). Results of these studies have shown that high scores in
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING
785
emotional attention are related to poor health, whereas high scores in emotional clarity and repair are related to good health. Moreover, the results of these studies confirm the predictive character of the three components of EI in areas related to anxiety, depression, and health (mental, social, and physical). In other studies the relationship between EI and psychological well-being has been confirmed by using other tests. Thus, Higgs and Dulewicz (2008), using a combination of scales of job satisfaction and psychological well-being, as well as a scale of emotional intelligence and the Big Five Scale, found positive relationships between the three scales, and in addition emotional intelligence was established as the most consistent predictor of variance of general welfare. Carmeli, Yitzhak-Halevy, and Weisberg (2009) found a positive association between EI and the components of psychological well-being (self-esteem, life satisfaction, and self-acceptance). In a study with undergraduates, Brackett and Mayer (2003) also found positive relationships between the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2001; a performance test to measure EI), the Big Five, and Ryff’s psychological well-being scale. The theoretical data reported above suggest that emotionally intelligent people are likely to experience a higher level of psychological well-being than do people who are not emotionally intelligent. The aim in this study was to examine the relationship between components of emotional intelligence, personality traits, and six attributes of psychological well-being (self-acceptance and positive attitude toward oneself, personal growth or development, purpose of life, environmental control or domination, positive relations with others, and autonomy or ability to be independent) based on Ryff’s model. Taking into account the data given above, we proposed the following hypotheses about the impact of emotional intelligence on psychological well being: H1a. Perceived emotional intelligence components (clarity and repair) would be positively related to all dimensions of psychological well-being, whereas emotional attention would be negatively related to dimensions of psychological well-being. H1b. High emotional clarity and repair would be the main predictors for psychological well-being dimensions, when personality traits are controlled. H1c. High emotional clarity and emotional repair would be the main predictors of EI over psychological well-being scales, once sociodemographic variables and personality traits are controlled. With regard to the impact of personality traits on psychological well-being, we proposed the following hypotheses: H2a. The greatest relationship of personality traits with psychological wellbeing scales would be neuroticism (negatively) and extraversion (positively). H2b. The personality traits of neuroticism and extraversion would be the main predictors for the psychological well-being scales.
786
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING
Method Participants and Procedure Undergraduates (217 women and 42 men)1 from two different degree courses at the University of Jaén (psychology and work sciences) were asked to participate voluntarily in a study about happiness and complete a questionnaire (see instruments below). Three surveyors asked every third person of apparent student age sitting alone in public campus locations to participate. Age of participants ranged from 18 to 28 years (M = 20.70; SD = 2.19). Instruments Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS; Fernández-Berrocal, Extremera, & Ramos, 2004). The TMMS is a Spanish adaptation of a scale developed by Salovey and colleagues (1995) which measures perceived emotional intelligence (PEI) or the knowledge that individuals have of their own emotional abilities. On 5-point scales, participants filled in a 24-item questionnaire that evaluated their emotional intelligence identifying three interpersonal factors: emotional clarity (α = .90), emotional regulation (α = .86), and emotional attention (α = .86). NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Personality is a set of psychological qualities or dispositions that may affect individual behavior (Zimbardo, Weber, & Johnson, 2000). A well-known classification about personality is the five factors known as the Big Five. Each of the dimensions included in the Big Five can be measured independently using the NEO-Five Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The Spanish version of the NEO-FFI by Sanz, Silva, and Avia (1999) is made up of 60 items measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (totally disagree) to 4 (totally agree) for five personality traits: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and responsibility. Cronbach’s alpha ranges from 0.89 to 0.91 Psychological Well-being Scale The Spanish version of the scale (Díaz et al., 2006) was adapted from van Dierendonck’s (2004) version of Ryff’s (1989) PWB scale. It is made up of 29 items that cover six subscales rated on a 6-point Likert scale: self-acceptance (4 items): feeling good about oneself, though aware of one’s limitations; positive relationships with others (5 items): the individual’s need for friends to rely on, and for stable relationships; autonomy (6 items): independent behavior in different social contexts; environmental mastery (5
1
The surveys were carried out in a School of Humanities and women were more accessible to surveyors. In Spain in 2008-2009, the percentage of women students in humanities degrees was 73.7% (MICINN, 2009).
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING
787
items): personal ability to choose or create favorable environments to meet one’s own needs or desires; purpose in life (5 items): the need to have goals, to define objectives to give sense to one’s life and personal growth (4 items): commitment to continue to grow as a person and to maximize one’s capabilities. Cronbach’s alpha ranges from .70 to .84 for the Spanish version. Results Results in Table 1 show that, for perceived emotional intelligence dimensions, positive relationships were found between emotional attention and neuroticism, and negative relationships with openness and autonomy. Emotional clarity was related negatively to neuroticism and positively to extraversion. Also, emotional clarity was positively correlated with all the dimensions of psychological wellbeing. Finally, emotional repair was correlated negatively to neuroticism and positively to extraversion and it was positively related to all the dimensions of psychological well-being. For personality dimensions, neuroticism showed negative relationships with all the dimensions of psychological well-being, whereas extraversion yielded positive relationships with all the psychological well-being dimensions. Openness showed a negative relationship with environmental mastery. Agreeableness did not show relationships with any of the psychological well-being dimensions. Finally, responsibility was positively related to environmental mastery and purpose in life. To examine the predictive capability of PEI for psychological well-being beyond the explanation of personality traits, we carried out step-by-step regression analyses for each of the psychological well-being dimensions (H1b). In the first step, age and sex were introduced as covariates. In the second phase the personality variables of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and responsibility were introduced. Finally, in the third step we introduced perceived emotional intelligence (attention, clarity, and repair) as predictors (see Table 2). For self-acceptance as a dependent variable, the global model was significant (R2 = 0.397, F = (10, 224) = 14.07 ≤ .00) with five variables accounting for 39.7% of self-acceptance. Specifically, sex, neuroticism, extraversion, emotional clarity, and emotional repair predicted self-acceptance. For positive relationships with others, the global model was significant (R2 = 0.256, F = (10, 224) = 7.347 ≤ .00), with three variables – neuroticism, extraversion, and emotional clarity – accounting for 25.6% of the variance. The regression model was also significant when autonomy was introduced as a dependent variable (R2 = 0.379, F = (10, 224) = 13.06 ≤ .00), with six variables – sex, neuroticism, extraversion, attention to emotions, emotional clarity, and optimism – accounting for 37.9%
26.04 27.84 27.79 21.74 30.21 22.79 27.34 26.47 18.81 24.53 25.57 22.51 23.51 20.22
M
6.64 7.60 6.42 4.38 3.68 3.07 3.48 2.78 2.88 4.34 4.78 3.66 3.43 2.62
SD
.90 .94 .86 .60 .65 .70 .62 .61 .74 .81 .73 .62 .66 .71
α
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
- .03 - .11 .38** - .19** -.35** -.33** - .02 .15* .25** -.18* - -.20** -.07 -.07 .07 -.13* - -.02 .09 .10 -.05 .01 -.03 - .11 .07 .15* .05 .20** .01 .04 - -.11 .47** .39** -.47** .28** .01 .05 .10 - -.09 .30** .23** -.29** .41** -.07 .11 .07 .42** - -.16* .48** .38** -.45** .28** -.05 .12 .05 .50** .28** - -.11 .47** .35** -.45** .29** -.15* .04 .15* .63** .48** .49** - .06 .44** .42** -.35** .28** -.08 .02 .23** .61** .29** .38** .65** .04 .10 .50** .30** .43** .53** .08 .35** .34** -.35** .23** -.04
1
.45**
13
Note: * p ≤ 0.05, ** p < 0.01; N for all analyses = 228. 1 TMMS = Attention; 2 TMMS = Clarity; 3 TMMS = Regulation; 4 NEO-FFI = Neuroticism; 5 NEO-FFI = Extraversion; 6 NEO-FFI = Openness; 7 NEO-FFI = Agreeability; 8 NEO-FFI = Responsibility; 9 PWBS = Self-acceptance; 10 PWBS = Positive relationships; 11 PWBS = Autonomy; 12 PWBS = Enviroment mastery; 13 PWBS = Purpose in life; 14 PWBS = Personal Growth.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients, and Correlations Between Study Variables
788 EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING
789
of the variance. For environmental mastery the model was significant R2 = 0.381, F = (10, 224) = 13.18 ≤ .00), accounting for 38.1% of the variance. Five variables predicted this dependent variable. Scores low in neuroticism; high in extraversion; high in responsibility; low in emotional attention; and high in emotional clarity all predict a greater ability to create positive environments. The regression model for life purpose was also significant R2 = 0.372, F = (10, 224) = 12.68 ≤ .00), accounting for 37.2% of the variance predicted by five variables – neuroticism, extraversion, responsibility, emotional clarity, and repair. Results for personal growth as a dependent variable yielded a significant model (R2 = 0.244, F = (10, 224) = 37.74 ≤ .00), accounting for 24.4% of the variance. The dimensions predicting personal growth were sex, neuroticism, extraversion, emotional clarity, and optimism, in this order. Table 2 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Psychological Well-Being
R2
F
Β
p
Criterion: Self-acceptance Step 1: Covariant 0.02 2.45 Sex -0.13 0.04* Age -0.08 0.22 Step 2: Personality 0.28 12.12 Neuroticism -0.44 0.00** Extraversion 0.19 0.00** Openness 0.07 0.22 Agreeableness 0.01 0.77 Responsibility 0.08 0.13 Step 3: Emotional intelligence 0.40 14.07 Attention -0.09 0.08 Clarity 0.30 0.00** Repair 0.15 0.01** Criterion: Positive relationships with others Step 1: Covariant 0.00 0.46 Sex -0.02 0.76 Age -0.06 0.34 Step 2: Personality 0.22 8.64 Neuroticism -0.22 0.00** Extraversion 0.35 0.00** Openness -0.00 0.90 Agreeableness 0.09 0.10 Responsibility 0.01 0.85 Step 3: Emotional intelligence 0.26 7.34 Attention -0.08 0.17 Clarity 0.19 0.00** Repair 0.02 0.70
∆R2 0.01
0.27
0.12
0.01
0.21
0.04
790
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING
Table 2 continued
R2
F
Β
p
Criterion: Autonomy Step 1: Covariant 0.02 2.50 Sex -0.15 0.02* Age -0.16 0.81 Step 2: Personality 0.25 10.31 Neuroticism -0.38 0.00** Extraversion 0.20 0.00** Openness -0.00 0.99 Agreeableness 0.08 0.15 Responsibility 0.03 0.51 Step 3: Emotional intelligence 0.38 13.06 Attention -0.15 0.00** Clarity 0.31 0.00** Repair 0.14 0.02* Criterion: Environmental mastery Step 1: Covariant 0.00 0.07 Sex -0.02 0.75 Age 0.01 0.86 Step 2: Personality 0.27 11.28 Neuroticism -0.41 0.00** Extraversion 0.17 0.00** Openness -0.09 0.10 Agreeableness 0.02 0.72 Responsibility 0.14 0.01** Step 3: Emotional intelligence 0.38 13.18 Attention -0.11 0.04* Clarity 0.31 0.00** Repair 0.11 0.06 Criterion: Life purpose Step 1: Covariant 0.01 0.67 Sex 0.07 0.27 Age 0.03 0.59 Step 2: Personality 0.23 9.03 Neuroticism -0.33 0.00** Extraversion 0.17 0.00** Openness -0.02 0.63 Agreeableness 0.00 0.88 Responsibility 0.21 0.00** Step 3: Emotional intelligence 0.37 12.68 Attention 0.06 0.26 Clarity 0.29 0.00** Repair 0.21 0.00**
∆R2 0.01
0.24
0.13
0.01
0.26
0.11
0.01
0.22
0.14
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING
791
Table 2 continued
R2
F
Β
p
Criterion: Personal growth Step 1: Covariant 0.02 2.41 Sex -0.13 0.05* Age 0.04 0.48 Step 2: Personality 0.17 6.31 Neuroticism -0.30 0.00** Extraversion 0.15 0.01** Openness -0.00 0.96 Agreeableness 0.03 0.59 Responsibility 0.09 0.14 Step 3: Emotional intelligence 0.24 6.89 Attention 0.11 0.06 Clarity 0.18 0.00** Repair 0.13 0.05*
∆R2 0.01
0.16
0.07
Note: ** p < 0.01, * p ≤ 0.05
Discussion In this research, the relationships between EI, personality, and psychological well-being were studied. The predictive capability of personality traits and EI on psychological well-being was also analyzed. Our hypotheses were supported. As predicted in H1a, perceived emotional intelligence components (clarity and repair) were positively related to all dimensions of psychological well-being. However, we found that emotional attention showed only negative relationships to the autonomy subscale of psychological well-being. Also confirmed were H1b and H1c, as emotional clarity and repair were the main predictors for psychological well-being dimensions, when sociodemographic and personality traits were controlled. Specifically, emotional clarity and repair accounted for 12% of the variance for self-acceptation, 14% of life purpose, and 7% of the variance for personal growth. Thus, individuals with a high differentiation of their emotional experience (clarity) and who are able to maintain or enhance the intensity of positive emotions and reduce or eliminate negative emotions (repair) report high self-acceptance, life purpose, and personal growth. Emotional clarity was also the main predictor for positive relationships with others (7%). Finally, 13% of the variance for autonomy was accounted for by high negative emotional attention and high clarity and repair. Thus, the negative predictability of emotional attention may indicate low autonomy, that is, prediction of negative emotional consequences more than of well-being. However, individuals who are aware of what they are feeling would exhibit
792
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING
abilities to manage emotional problems and to maintain or enhance the intensity of positive emotions and to reduce or eliminate negative emotions, thereby experiencing emotional well-being. This would result in the independence of the individual and his/her capacity to resist social pressure. Regarding our hypothesis about the impact of personality traits on psychological well-being, H2a was totally supported, as neuroticism was negatively related and extraversion positively related to all the psychological well-being scales. These results concur with those of Furnham and Petrides (2003) who found that neuroticism, in a negative sense, and extraversion and openness, in a positive sense, were positively related to happiness. H2b was confirmed to a large degree, as self-acceptance, positive relationships with others, autonomy, and personal growth were accounted for by neuroticism (negatively) and extraversion (positively). Environmental mastery and life purpose were also predicted negatively by neuroticism and positively by extraversion and responsibility. These results underline the importance of PEI, and especially of emotional clarity and repair for psychological well-being. Of special interest would be training in emotional skills for students in order to improve subjective and psychological well-being. Finally, the main limitation of this study was that the composition of the sample was mainly female. For future studies, we should ensure that the sample has both men and women in order to analyze gender differences. In addition, ability instruments for EI measurement (e.g., the MayerSalovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test; Mayer et al., 2003; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003), would be of interest to confirm the validity of the results in showing the usefulness of EI in psychological well-being. References Argyle, M. (1987). The psychology of happiness. London: Methuen. Augusto, J. M., López-Zafra, E., Berrios, M. P., & Aguilar, M. C. (2008). The relationship between emotional intelligence, occupational stress and health in nurses: A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45(6), 888-901. Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(9), 1147-1158. Carmeli, A., Yitzhak-Halevy, M., & Weisberg, J. (2009). The relationship between emotional intelligence and psychological well-being. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(1), 66-78. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5-13. Díaz, D., Rodríguez-Carvajal, R., Blanco, A., Moreno Jiménez B., Gallardo, I., Valle, C., et al. (2006). Spanish adaptation of the Psychological Well-Being Scales (PWBS). Psicothema, 18(3), 572-577. Diener, E., & Suh, E. (2001). Culture and subjective well-being. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING
793
Extremera, N., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2005). Perceived emotional intelligence and life satisfaction: Predictive and Incremental validity using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 937-948. Extremera, N., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2006). Emotional intelligence as predictor of mental, social and physical health in university students. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 9(1), 45-51. Fernández-Berrocal, P., Extremera, N., & Ramos, N. (2004). Validity and reliability of the Spanish modified version of the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. Psychological Reports, 94(1), 751-755. Fierro, A. (2006). Emotional intelligence, does associate to happiness? A province outline. Ansiedad y Estres, 12(2-3), 241-249. Furnham, A., & Petrides, K. V. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence and happiness. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 31(8), 815-824. Gohm, C. L., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Four latent traits of emotional experience and their involvement in well-being, coping, and attributional style. Cognition and Emotion, 16(4), 495-518. Higgs, M., & Dulewicz, V. (2008). Emotional intelligence, well-being and personality: An empirical study of their interrelationship. Southampton, University of Southampton (Discussion Papers in Management). (Working Paper Series-Management, M-08-08). Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators (pp. 3-31). New York: Basic Books. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2001). Technical manual for the MSCEIT v. 2.0. Toronto, Canada: MHS Publishers. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with the MISCEIT v. 2.0. Emotion, 3, 97-105. MICINN. (2009). Datos y cifras del sistema universitario español (curso 2008-2009) [Data and figures from the Spanish university system (academic year 2008-2009)]. Retrieved May 5, 2009 from http://www.oei.es/salactsi/Informe2008-2009.pdf Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069-1081. Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719-727. Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S. L., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. P. (1995). Emotional attention, clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. In J. W. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure and health (pp. 125-154). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Salovey, P., Stroud, L., Woolery, A., & Epel, E. S. (2002). Perceived emotional intelligence, stress reactivity and symptom reports: Furthers explorations using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. Psychology and Health, 17(5), 611-627. Sanz, J., Silva, F., & Avia, M. D. (1999). La evaluación de Personalidad desde el modelo de los “Cinco Grades”, El Inventario de Cinco- Factores NEO (NEO-FFI) de Costa y McGrae [The evaluation of personality from the model of the Big Five: Costa and McCrae’s Five Factors Inventory]. In F. Silva (Ed.), Avances en evaluación psicológica. Valencia: Promolibro. van Dierendonck, D. (2004). The construct validity of Ryff’s Scales of Psychological well-being and its extension with spiritual well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 629-644. Zimbardo, P., Weber, A. L., & Johnson, R. L. (2000). Psychology: Core concepts (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
794
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING
