This research was conducted to find predicting role of resilience for
Emotional Intelligence and psychological well-being. Data were collected from
200 Hostelite students in order to find individual differences Emotional
Intelligence, psychological well-being and resilience. Results depicts significant
positive relationships between Emotional intelligence, Psychological Well-being
and resilience. Findings would be beneficial for Hostelite students they tend
to learn different strategies to tackle stressful events.
Emotional intelligence seems to be very important in human lives,
as no one is free from emotion. Emotional Intelligence meant for awareness and
Control of emotions as well as to track social relationships on right way. More
emotional intelligence higher will be the person’s ability to tackle stressful
“Psychological well-being is about lives going
well. It is the combination of feeling good and functioning effectively.”
Individuals with psychological well-being are more happy, satisfied and
energetic. Huppert’s (2009) research states, psychological well-being leads
towards sound mental health, more brain activation and mental strength.
A sound mental
Health means for psychological well-being. (Edwards, 2005). It has been proven
through 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 and
consciousness and decreases with neuroticism (Keyes et al., 2002)
In relevance to
gender there is not accountable difference between men and women on
psychological well-being. (Roothman, Kirsten & Wissing, 2003). With the
passage of time there are a lots of variation in definition of psychological
well-being. (Wissing & Van Eeden, 1998
factors which modify, ameliorate or alter a person’s response to some
environmental hazard that predisposes to a maladaptive outcome” (Rutter, 1987,
”The process of, capacity
for, or outcome of successful adaptation despite challenging or threatening
circumstances” (Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990, p. 426).
”A dynamic 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).
relationships can be explained by good emotional intelligence. Salovey and Mayer
(1990) have found that the more emotional intelligence leads towards more
At present emotional
intelligence 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) have
explain that psychological well-being has positive relation with emotions.
Argyle (1987), Landa et al, (2010) explain that mental health is assured by the
high emotional intelligence.
Armstrong, Galligan, and Critchley (2011), Emotional intelligence is directly
related to resilience. Salovey, Bedell, Detweiler and Mayer (1999) theorized
that who have higher emotional intelligence they are more able to handle
difficult situation. “Accurately perceive and appraise their emotions, know how
and when to express their feelings, and can effectively regulate their mood
states” (p. 161).
always in relation with psychological wellbeing and mental health. (Avey et
al., 2010). For instance, He, Cao, Feng, and Peng (2013) had investigated
relationship between resilience and psychological well-being, which was
positive relationship. Participants with high resilience had also more
psychological well-being on the other hand participants with low resilience had
less psychological wellbeing and mental strength. Similarly, McDermott, Cobham,
Barry, and Stallman (2010) had discover positive relationship between
resilience and psychological well-being. More mental illness in participants
depicts low level of resilience. And those with less mental illness score high
on resilience. Lee, Sudom, and Zamorski (2013) and significant variance was
reported by resilience in psychological well-being.
only explain simple relationship between psychological well-being with other
variables. So there is need of study which can explain the mediating role of
resilience between emotional intelligence and psychological well-being. Thus
this study is aimed at finding the mediating role of resilience between
emotional intelligence and psychological well-being.
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
Hypotheses. In this research following hypothesis have been
There will be positive relationship between
emotional intelligence, psychological well-being and Resilience among Hostelite
Emotional intelligence, predicts the psychological well-being.
Resilience is the positive predictor of psychological well-being.
4. 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.
definition of variables. The proposed study will use three variables; emotional
intelligence, psychological well-being and Resilience. The operational
definitions of these variables are given below:
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.
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= Standard Deviation
These are descriptive findings of all three
Pearson co-relation between Criterion and predicted
**.Correlation is significant at 0.01level
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 of this study was that, sample was only Hostelite (university) students. And other social Groups were neglected. References 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. 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 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 Fredrickson BL, Joiner T. Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being. Psychol Sci. 2002;13(2):172–5. 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 Implications of resilience concepts for scientific understanding. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1094, 1–12. doi: 10.1196/annals.1376.002 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 Masten AS. Global perspectives 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.56.3.227 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., & 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 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., 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 Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316–331. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1987.tb03541.x 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). Ryff CD, Keyes CL. The structure of psychological well-being revisited. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995;69(4):719–27. 27. 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. 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