Attention to Student Needs Mediates the Relationship Between Teacher Emotional Intelligence and Student Misconduct in the Classroom

Abstract

Understanding the relationship between teacher Emotional intelligence (EI) and student misconduct was the goal of this research. We hypothesized that teachers high in EI tend to establish good working relationships with students by being attentive to their students’ needs. In a sample of 300 Syrian teachers, EI was assessed with the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence scale (WLEIS; Wong & Law, 2002). Results showed that teachers’ perceived EI was negatively related to student misconduct and that this relationship was mediated by teachers’ attention to student needs. Our findings highlight the role of teachers’ EI in shaping social interactions in the classroom and lead to some practical implications for teacher selection and training.

Keywords

emotional intelligence job performance interpersonal behavior teaching

There is a large body of evidence that suggests that emotional intelligence (EI) is related to job performance (for a review, see Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008). But some workplace settings more than others include social interactions that elicit emotions (Mossholder, Settoon, Armenakis, & Harris, 2000). Hence, it is not surprising that in recent studies, EI did not consistently predict job performance. Joseph and Newman (2010) conducted a meta-analysis and identified an important moderator of the EI-job-performance relationship: Emotional labor. They found a stronger relationship between emotion regulation and job performance for high emotional labor jobs (e.g., call center employee) than for low emotional labor jobs (e.g., cigarette factory worker).

Emotional labor is an important part of the demands made of teachers. Teaching involves continuous and sometimes conflict-prone interactions with students (Gregoriadis & Tsigilis, 2008). Poor student motivation or misconduct, for example, constitute serious challenges that can provoke anger in teachers (Abel & Sewell, 2001; Cowie, 2011; Jacobsson, Pousette, & Thylefors, 2001), but expressing anger openly is often considered unprofessional (McPherson, Kearney, & Plax, 2003). Emotion regulation is also required because emotional outbursts can damage the teacher-student relationship. By contrast, positive affective states are thought to contribute to better outcomes (George, 1991; Isen & Reeve, 2005). Teachers, in contrast to most (service) personnel, however, are not invariably expected to show positive emotions. In fact, showing negative emotions can be relevant for successful task performance: At times they have to clearly show that they are dissatisfied with students’ conduct and possibly take disciplinary action. In sum, apart from the pure transmission of knowledge, teachers are often required to accurately appraise and appropriately regulate their own emotions as well as those of their students. Teachers are educators and role models who both increase student knowledge and shape student conduct in the classroom.

Previous research has pointed to the importance of teacher EI in the school setting as EI seems to promote adaptive reactions in emotionally charged situations. Sutton’s (2004) qualitative study suggested that it is essential for teachers to be able to regulate their own emotions and those of students. Additional data showed that teachers’ self-perceived EI is related to perceived efficacy in responding to students and managing the classroom (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2008), and that teachers who scored high on EI tests dealt more constructively with negative situations and were more likely to look for positive solutions (Perry & Ball, 2007).

The Present Study

In this study, we examined the relationship between perceived teacher EI and student misconduct, which is an important outcome in education and can be viewed as a negative indicator of teachers’ job performance. We reasoned that teacher EI should be more closely linked to students’ behavior in the classroom than to students’ academic achievement.

We based our investigation on the ability model of EI proposed by Mayer and Salovey (1997), which is well grounded in theory and supported by research (e.g., Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003). According to Mayer and Salovey (1997), EI encompasses interrelated skills involved in processing emotional information, including perceiving emotions, using emotions to facilitate thinking, understanding emotions, and regulating one’s own emotions and those of others. We regarded emotion appraisal as well as regulation of emotion as the most relevant facets. The ability to appraise emotions requires the perception of emotions (Gross & Thompson, 2007) and enables teachers to evaluate their own emotions as well as those of their students. Regulation of emotion is often regarded as a key dimension of EI, and meta-analytic evidence suggests that it is a crucial antecedent of job performance (Joseph & Newman, 2010). This specific ability is likely to be particularly important for managing behavior and constructively handling difficult and emotionally charged situations (Lopes et al., 2011).

Both self-report scales and problem-based tests can be used to measure the four-dimensional construct of EI proposed by Mayer and Salovey (1997). Although both types of measures have predictive and incremental validity (O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, & Story, 2011), they are only weakly intercorrelated (Joseph & Newman, 2010), which suggests that they tap into different aspects of a broad construct. One limitation of existing problem-based tests of EI is that they assess knowledge of emotions and the capacity to identify effective emotion regulation strategies, but not people’s actual tendency to use this knowledge and to implement these strategies effectively in everyday, emotionally arousing interactions. Although EI self-reports may be somewhat distorted by self-enhancement and other biases, they are likely to reflect a global assessment of one’s tendency to accurately identify, understand, use, and regulate emotions in real life. Because we were interested in teachers’ actual behaviors in the emotionally challenging context of the classroom, we examined perceived EI in real-life situations by using a retrospective self-report measure. This approach is useful in providing insight into an individual’s subjective experience of past performance across a variety of everyday situations.

Hypotheses

Because emotional labor is a central characteristic of the teaching profession, we assumed that EI helps teachers to do a better job. As research has shown that a person’s EI can predict the behavior of others (e.g., Wong & Law, 2002), we expected teacher EI to be negatively related to student misconduct (Hypothesis 1). Effects were presumed with respect to emotion appraisal and specifically to the regulation of emotion, as well as with respect to perceived EI as an overall construct.¹

Moreover, we examined a mechanism that might explain the relationship between teacher EI and student misconduct. As student and teacher behavior are closely intertwined (Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, & Yanthopoulou, 2007; Leflot et al., 2010), we expected teacher EI to affect the way teachers attend to students, which would again affect student conduct. Specifically, we considered that attention to student needs would help teachers manage student misconduct because it would convey the teachers’ concerns and thereby foster empathy and effective communication with students and establish an appropriate emotional climate and an atmosphere of caring and collaboration. In addition, attention to students’ needs can help teachers consider students’ motivations to find effective ways to influence them.

We expected three dimensions of EI to contribute to the attention that teachers pay to students’ needs. Teachers who are skilled at identifying and understanding their own emotions effectively may be better able to attend to students’ needs insofar as the teachers divert less attention and cognitive resources to make sense of their own feelings and concerns. The ability to identify and understand others’ emotions should also help teachers to attend and respond to students’ needs, interests, and concerns because it provides emotional information, and this information can focus teachers’ attention. Finally, the ability to regulate emotions may help teachers to focus on students’ needs and to maintain a constructive engagement during emotionally arousing situations, rather than to focus on their own frustration and concerns and consequently to disengage from the interaction. Therefore, we expected that both emotion appraisal and regulation of emotion would be positively related to attention to student needs (Hypothesis 2).

We also hypothesized that teachers’ attention to student needs would help teachers to regulate their own behavior so as to influence students effectively and thereby prevent misconduct, rather than to disengage or act in ways that might antagonize students or provoke an escalation of student misconduct. Teacher and student behavior in the classroom are closely linked (Leflot, van Lier, Onghena, & Colpin, 2010), and Mainhard, Brekelmans, and Wubbels (2011) found supportive teacher behavior to be significantly related to a positive social climate in the classroom. Consequently, education that goes beyond solely equipping students with knowledge but includes attention to students’ needs should be inversely related to inappropriate student conduct in the classroom. If teachers attend to students’ needs, students should less frequently disrupt the class, quarrel with one another, or show disrespect toward the teacher. Accordingly, we hypothesized a negative relationship between attention to student needs and student misconduct (Hypothesis 3). Thus, we tested attention to student needs as a possible mechanism underlying the relationship between teacher EI and student misconduct. In other words, we expected that attention to student needs would mediate the negative teacher-EI-student-misconduct association (Hypothesis 4).

Method

Subjects

Three hundred fully qualified Syrian teachers (205 women and 95 men) from 13 schools in one geographic area (i.e., Lattakia) participated voluntarily in the study. They worked at integrated schools (i.e., a combination of elementary, secondary, and high school) and their students’ ages varied between 10 and 18 years. Teachers’ mean age was 40.37 years (SD = 7.77). Each teacher was specialized in one field (e.g., Arabic, history, mathematics, chemistry) and had taught that subject for a mean of 15.37 years (SD = 7.94).

Procedure

We invited approximately 400 teachers to participate in a study concerning emotions at school. Those who agreed to take part received brief oral instructions and were assured that their responses would be treated confidentially. The teachers completed a set of questionnaires and returned them in sealed envelopes. All scales had been translated into Arabic and then back-translated into the original language to ensure that the contents were equivalent.

Measurement

Emotional intelligence

We used the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS; Wong & Law, 2002) to measure perceived EI. This self-report measure is based on the definition of EI proposed by Salovey and Mayer (1990) and consists of four dimensions: self-emotion appraisal, other-emotion appraisal, use of emotion, and regulation of emotion. Self-emotion appraisal assesses a person’s ability to identify and understand his or her own emotions. Other-emotion appraisal concerns the ability to identify and understand others’ emotions. Use of emotion involves the ability to employ emotions to facilitate performance. Finally, regulation of emotion encompasses the ability to monitor and control one’s own emotions. Each subscale consists of four items with a 7-point response format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). For example, the regulation of emotion subscale includes items such as “I can always calm down quickly when I am angry.” Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the four dimensions ranged from .76 to .84.

Attention to student needs

As there was no suitable measure of teachers’ attention to student needs, an exploratory measure was created. We reviewed the literature on supportive teacher behavior, which provided the basis of the 15 items formulated. We conducted an exploratory factor analysis with these items using Promax rotation. Five items were deleted because of low loadings and communalities. Considering the eigenvalues, scree plot, and interpretability, a single factor was extracted, accounting for 42.34% of the total variance. The retained items tap teachers’ interpersonal behaviors such as providing explanations, discussing ideas, or giving advice. A sample item is “I listen to my students when they want to share doubts and concerns.” Teachers were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree with each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Internal consistency of the scale was .82.

Student misconduct

We obtained teacher ratings of student misbehavior using a shortened version of the disrespect subscale of the Pupil Behavior Patterns (PBP) scale (Friedman, 1995). The scale that we used consists of eight items regarding typical negative student behavior patterns at the class level, such as showing little respect toward the teacher, disrupting the class, or quarreling with each other. Responses were made on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). A sample item is “They all talk at the same time.” Cronbach’s alpha was .84.

Demographics

Teachers reported age, gender, level of education, and teaching experience.

Results

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics for the main variables. Teacher EI (K-S-Z = 1.60, p < .05) and attention to student needs (K-S-Z = 1.76, p < .05) were significantly skewed, revealing the typical positivity bias. Age, gender, level of education, and teaching experience were unrelated to EI, attention to student needs, and student misconduct. Other-emotion appraisal increased with teaching experience (r_s = .15, p < .01). Teaching experience was not associated with attention to student needs or with student misconduct. To test for sex differences in EI, we used the Mann-Whitney-U-test. No significant differences were found between women and men (U = 9555.50, p > .05).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics

	M	SD	α
Self-emotion appraisal	5.98	0.77	.83
Other-emotion appraisal	5.57	0.92	.84
Regulation of emotion	5.77	0.99	.84
Emotional intelligence	5.81	0.65	.88
Attention to student needs	4.32	0.44	.82
Student misconduct	2.41	0.79	.84

Spearman rank-order correlations among the variables of interest are presented in Table 2. Teacher EI as well as self-emotion appraisal and regulation of emotion were negatively related to student misconduct, supporting Hypothesis 1. In line with Hypothesis 2, EI, self-emotion appraisal, other-emotion appraisal, and regulation of emotion were positively related to attention to student needs. Attention to student needs was negatively related to student misconduct, supporting Hypothesis 3.

Table 2.

Spearman Correlations between Variables in the Study

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
(1) Self-emotion appraisal	1	0.45**	0.45**	0.73**	0.31**	−0.16**
(2) Other-emotion appraisal		1	0.32**	0.68**	0.24**	−0.07
(3) Regulation of emotion			1	0.78**	0.30**	−0.30**
(4) Emotional intelligence				1	0.41**	−0.24**
(5) Attention to student needs					1	−0.17**
(6) Student misconduct						1

p < .01, two-tailed.

Mediation Analyses

The preconditions for mediation were met insofar as we found significant associations between teacher EI and attention to student needs, between teacher EI and student misconduct, as well as between attention to student needs and student misconduct. These conditions held for self-emotion appraisal, regulation of emotion, and total EI scores, but not for other-emotion appraisal, which was unrelated to student misconduct. Therefore, we examined whether teachers’ attention to student needs mediates relationships between these three indicators of teacher EI and student misconduct. We tested indirect effects using the nonparametric bootstrapping procedure suggested by Preacher and Hayes (2004). Bootstrapped estimates (1,000 bootstrap resamples, bias-corrected means) lent support for Hypothesis 4. Teacher EI exerted an indirect effect on student misconduct through attention to student needs (γ = –.08, SE = .04, 95% CI [–.16, –.02[please change the minus signs here and elsewhere in the article]], p < .05, two-tailed). Controlling for attention to student needs, the direct effect of teacher EI on student misconduct became nonsignificant (see Figure 1). Following our hypotheses, we also examined the indirect effects of self-emotion appraisal and regulation of emotion on student misconduct through attention to student needs. The indirect effect of self-emotion appraisal on student misconduct was significant (γ = –.07, SE = .03, 95% CI [–.12, –.02], p < .05, two-tailed). Controlling for attention to student needs, the direct effect of self-emotion appraisal on student misconduct became nonsignificant. Regulation of emotion had a significant indirect effect on student misconduct through attention to student needs (γ = –.06, 95% CI [–.09, –.02], p < .05, two-tailed). Controlling for attention to student needs, the direct effect of regulation of emotion on student misconduct became smaller but remained significant.

Figure 1.

Illustration of Mediation. Perceived Teacher Emotional Intelligence (EI) Exerted an Indirect Effect on Student Misconduct Through Attention to Student Needs.

Discussion

This study extended prior research on the EI-job-performance relationship and supported past findings on the importance of EI for employees in high emotional labor jobs. Teachers’ perceived EI was negatively related to student misconduct, which can be seen as an indicator of job performance and as an important educational outcome in its own right. By examining not only the overall construct of EI but also specific dimensions of EI, we showed that self-emotion appraisal and regulation of emotion were negatively related to student misconduct. Our interpretation of these findings is that the ability to appraise one’s own emotions helps teachers to monitor their emotional state effectively, contributing to self-regulation and effective allocation of attentional resources, and the ability to regulate emotions facilitates the expression and communication of emotions in ways that positively influence encounters with students.

Contrary to our expectations, the self-perceived ability to appraise others’ emotions was not significantly related to student misconduct, although it was positively related to attention to student needs. One possible explanation for this unexpected finding is that high scores on the ability to perceive and understand others’ emotions, as measured by the WLEIS, might reflect an excessive preoccupation with others and hypersensitivity to others’ feelings, which could disrupt a teacher’s capacity to be assertive and enforce appropriate discipline in the classroom, and thereby undermine the positive effect of attending to student needs. This is an issue that calls for further research.

To our knowledge, this study is one of the first attempts to investigate interpersonal processes underlying the relationship between EI and job performance. We examined attention to student needs as one possible mechanism underlying the teacher-EI-student-misconduct relationship. Similar to Perry and Ball (2007), we found that teachers with low versus high levels of EI differ in their reported behavior toward students: Based on their accounts, teachers high in perceived EI were more attentive to their students’ needs. First, we reason that teachers who are emotionally skilled have more resources for attending to their students and can more clearly see what their students need. Positive emotions typically broaden behavioral repertoires and increase the scope of attention (Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005). Nonetheless, expressing effectively regulated negative emotions can be adaptive in certain situations, for example, when teachers want to clearly signal that they are dissatisfied with students’ conduct in the classroom. Second, the regulation of emotion can allow teachers to induce and sustain appropriate internal affective states, which may help them to focus on their students’ needs. As positive affect promotes intrinsic motivation (Isen & Reeve, 2005), it is not surprising that teachers high in EI do not solely impart knowledge but also establish good working relationships with students. In addition, attention to student needs seems to have an important role in the management of students’ disruptive and oppositional behaviors, as it is negatively associated with student misconduct. It is plausible that students who feel well attended to are less inclined to act out. Thus, we argue that one of the processes through which teachers’ emotional abilities are negatively linked to student misconduct is the sincere focus on students and their specific desires, problems, resources, and weaknesses. In sum, attention to student needs has been shown to account for the relationship between teacher EI and student misconduct. More generally, our results indicate that EI predicts the job performance of employees in high emotional labor jobs through interpersonal processes.

Limitations and Future Directions

Some limitations of this study should be noted. First, because of the cross-sectional study design, we cannot infer causality. Thus, the indirect effect of teacher EI on student misconduct through attention to student needs cannot be seen as a causal chain. We consider EI to be the more stable variable and consequently assume teacher EI to more strongly affect attention to student needs as well as student misconduct, rather than the other way round. High EI may help teachers to focus on their students’ needs. And in turn, students who are well attended to may work more constructively. Nonetheless, it is conceivable that focusing on students’ needs may contribute to the development of teachers’ emotional abilities. In addition, it may be easier for teachers to attend to students who do not misbehave. However, our data did not support the reverse causal mechanism: The indirect effect of attention to student needs on teacher EI through student misconduct was not significant.

Second, teachers reported on their emotional abilities, their attention to student needs, as well as on their students’ misconduct. Self-reports may be limited by self-enhancement, social desirability bias, and lack of accurate self-knowledge. As Hastings and Bham (2003) have pointed out, teacher ratings of student misconduct do not always accurately reflect actual student behavior in the classroom. Future studies with independent measurement are needed to address problems of a common source and common method bias. Such research could assess teacher EI using a performance test, student misconduct by field observation, and teacher interpersonal behavior by students’ ratings.

Third, student conduct in the classroom is influenced by a lot of factors. Thus, teacher EI can be considered just one explanatory variable among many others. This may be a plausible reason for the modest relationship between teacher EI and student misconduct found in this study.

Last but not least, the relationship between teacher EI and student misconduct may vary across cultural contexts, depending on collectivism, power distance, and other factors. Syria is a high-contact and collectivistic culture. It is not clear whether results would be similar in more individualistic cultures. Further research on the relationship between teacher EI and student misconduct in different cultures is needed.

Conclusions and Practical Implications

Despite these limitations, the present study provides a better understanding of the teacher-EI-student-misconduct relationship by examining attention to student needs as the underlying mechanism. The negative teacher-EI-student-misconduct relationship supports and extends previous findings on the importance of EI in shaping and improving social relationships (e.g., Lopes, Salovey, Côté, & Beers, 2005). Although we cannot infer causality, student misconduct in the classroom was linked to poor emotional abilities of teachers. Teachers’ difficulties in interacting with students may often result from their inability to appraise and regulate their own emotions to attend to what their students need. By contrast, EI might enable teachers to establish good working relationships with students. Adequate behavior management techniques may reduce disruptive and oppositional classroom behaviors. In conclusion, emotionally intelligent teachers seem to indirectly influence student conduct in the classroom by creating a supportive classroom atmosphere and an effective context for learning.

Those findings have some practical implications with respect to the selection and training of teachers. Emotionally intelligent persons are often assumed to be desirable employees, especially in working environments that involve emotional labor (Engelberg & Sjöberg, 2005). Wong and Law (2002) suggested matching employees’ levels of EI to specific job requirements. As teaching involves emotional labor, teacher selection and training should more strongly include a focus on emotional abilities. Teacher selection that comprises emotional abilities as one criterion may entail benefits for both teachers’ job performance and students’ conduct. As there is evidence that emotional skills can be developed (e.g., Dulewicz & Higgs, 2004; Eack, Hogarty, Greenwald, Hogarty, & Keshavan, 2007), we furthermore suggest improving teacher training programs by helping teachers to develop emotional abilities in ways that help them to focus on students’ needs.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Suhair Hallum received a scholarship from Tishreen University in Syria to conduct this research.

Notes

Bios

Sophia Nizielski is a PhD candidate and research associate in the Department of Psychology at Chemnitz University of Technology in Germany. Her research focuses on the relevance of emotional intelligence in the workplace and the assessment of emotional abilities in applicant selection.

Suhair Hallum is a doctoral student at Chemnitz University of Technology in Germany. She holds a bachelor in pedagogy from Tishreen University and diploma in counseling psychology from Damascus University in Syria. She does research on the relevance of emotional intelligence in the teaching profession.

Paulo N. Lopes is Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Católica-Lisbon School of Business and Economics in Portugal. His research interests encompass emotional intelligence, emotion regulation, interpersonal interaction, and leadership.

Astrid Schütz is a professor of psychology at Bamberg University in Germany. er research covers stress, self-presentation, self-esteem, and emotional intelligence.

References

Abel

M. H.

Sewell

(2001). Stress and burnout in rural and urban secondary school teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 287-293. doi:10.1080/0022067990959760810.1080/00220679909597608

Bakker

A. B.

Hakanen

J. J.

Demerouti

Yanthopoulou

(2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 274-284. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.27410.1037/0022-0663.99.2.274

Cowie

(2011). Emotions that experienced English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers feel about their students, their colleagues and their work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 235-242. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.00610.1016/j.tate.2010.08.006

Di Fabio

Palazzeschi

(2008). Emotional intelligence and self-efficacy in a sample of Italian high school teachers. Social Behavior and Personality, 36, 315-326. doi:10.2224/sbp.2008.36.3.31510.2224/sbp.2008.36.3.315

Dulewicz

Higgs

(2004). Can emotional intelligence be developed? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15, 95-111. doi:10.1080/095851903200015736610.1080/0958519032000157366

Eack

S. M.

Hogarty

G. E.

Greenwald

D. P.

Hogarty

S. S.

Keshavan

S. M.

(2007). Cognitive enhancement therapy improves emotional intelligence in early course schizophrenia: Preliminary effects. Schizophrenia Research, 89, 308-311. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2006.08.01810.1016/j.schres.2006.08.018

Engelberg

Sjöberg

(2005). Emotionale intelligenz und interpersonale Fähigkeiten. In Schulze

Freund

P. A.

Roberts

R. D.

(Eds.), Emotionale intelligenz: Ein internationales Handbuch (pp. 291-309). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.

Fredrickson

B. L.

Branigan

(2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 313-332. doi:10.1080/0269993044100023810.1080/02699930441000238

Friedman

I. A.

(1995). Student behavior patterns contributing to teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 281-289.

10.

George

J. M.

(1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 299-307. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.2.29910.1037/0021-9010.76.2.299

11.

Gregoriadis

Tsigilis

(2008). Applicability of the student-teacher relationship scale (STRS) in the Greek educational setting. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26, 108-120. doi:10.1177/073428290730689410.1177/0734282907306894

12.

Gross

J. J.

Thompson

R. A.

(2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. In Gross

James J.

(Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (3-24). New York, NY: Guilford.

13.

Hastings

R. P.

Bham

M. S.

(2003). The relationship between student behaviour patterns and teacher burnout. School Psychology International, 24, 115-127. doi:10.1177/014303430302400190510.1177/0143034303024001905

14.

Isen

A. M.

Reeve

(2005). The influence of positive affect on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Facilitating enjoyment of play, responsible work behavior, and self-control. Motivation and Emotion, 29, 297-325. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9019-810.1007/s11031-006-9019-8

15.

Jacobsson

Pousette

Thylefors

(2001). Managing stress and feelings of mastery among Swedish comprehensive school teachers. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45, 37-53. doi:10.1080/0031383002002338410.1080/00313830020023384

16.

Joseph

D. L.

Newman

D. A.

(2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 54-78. doi:10.1037/a001728610.1037/a0017286

17.

Leflot

van Lier

P. A. C.

Onghena

Colpin

(2010). The role of teacher behavior management in the development of disruptive behaviors: An intervention study with the good behavior game. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 869-882. doi:10.1007/s10802-010-9411-410.1007/s10802-010-9411-4

18.

Lopes

P. N.

Nezlek

J. B.

Extremera

Hertel

Fernández-Berrocal

Schütz

Salovey

(2011). Emotion regulation and the quality of social interaction: Does the ability to evaluate emotional situations and identify effective responses matter? Journal of Personality, 79, 429-467. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00689.x10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00689.x

19.

Lopes

P. N.

Salovey

Côté

Beers

(2005). Emotion regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. Emotion, 5, 113-118. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.11310.1037/1528-3542.5.1.113

20.

Mainhard

Brekelmans

Wubbels

(2011). Coercive and supportive teacher behaviour: Within- and across-lesson associations with the classroom social climate. Learning and Instruction, 21, 345-354. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.03.00310.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.03.003

21.

Mayer

J. D.

Salovey

(1997). What is emotional intelligence? In Salovey

Sluyter

D. J.

(Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3-31). New York, NY: Basic Books.

22.

Mayer

J. D.

Salovey

Caruso

D. R.

(2008). Emotional intelligence. New ability or eclectic traits? American Psychologist, 63, 503-517. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.6.50310.1037/0003-066X.63.6.503

23.

Mayer

J. D.

Salovey

Caruso

D. R.

Sitarenios

(2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3, 97-105. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.9710.1037/1528-3542.3.1.97

24.

McPherson

M. B.

Kearney

Plax

T. G.

(2003). The dark side of instruction: Teacher anger as classroom norm violations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31, 76-90. doi:10.1080/0090988030537610.1080/00909880305376

25.

Mossholder

W. K.

Settoon

R. P.

Armenakis

A. A.

Harris

S. G.

(2000). Emotion during organizational transformations: An interactive model of survivor reactions. Group & Organization Management, 25, 220-243. doi:10.1177/105960110025300210.1177/1059601100253002

26.

O’Boyle

E. H.

Jr. Humphrey

R. H.

Pollack

J. M.

Hawver

T. H.

Story

P. A.

(2011). The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 788-818. doi:10.1002/job.71410.1002/job.714

27.

Perry

Ball

(2007). Dealing constructively with negatively evaluated emotional situations: The key to understanding the different reactions of teachers with high and low levels of emotional intelligence. Social Psychology of Education, 10, 443-454. doi:10.1007/s11218-007-9025-z10.1007/s11218-007-9025-z

28.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731.

29.

Salovey

Mayer

J. D.

(1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185-211.

30.

Sutton

R. E.

(2004). Emotional regulation goals and strategies of teachers. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 379-398. doi:10.1007/s11218-004-4229-y10.1007/s11218-004-4229-y

31.

Wong

C.-S.

Law

K. S.

(2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 243-274. doi:10.1016/10.1016/ S1048-9843(02)00099-1