Emotional Intelligence and Personality as Predictors of Psychological Well-Being

Abstract

Research studies have reported elevated rates of psychological distress (e.g., depression) in practicing lawyers yet little research has examined predictors of such problems in law students. Specific personality traits have been shown to be predictors of a range of psychological problems. We administered a battery of tests to a cohort of 1st-year law students (n = 150) and measured the Big Five personality traits and emotional intelligence (EI) to examine their relationships to psychological well-being as indicated by coping styles, satisfaction with life, performance-based self-esteem (PBSE), Global Severity Index (GSI) scores from the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), depression, and alcohol use. We found that whereas EI was significantly related to three of the five well-being variables, the Big Five personality factor of neuroticism was found to be a stronger predictor of well-being. The findings suggest that EI does not account for additional variance in well-being over personality.

Keywords

emotional intelligence five factor personality well-being

Emotional intelligence (EI) has attracted significant research in the past two decades and most theoretical approaches can be grouped into one of three models emphasizing ability, traits, and capacities (Ramo, 2009). Mayer and Salovey (1997) proposed an ability model, which focuses on the relation between cognition and emotion (Brackett & Salovey, 2006; Mayer & Salovey, 1997). The Bar-On (Bar-On, 1997; Bar-On & Parker, 2000) trait model proposes an emotional quotient (EQ) to parallel IQ and explains emotions as adaptive in helping to reduce tensions and improve well-being (Auerback & Dolan, 1997). The capacity model is often associated with Goleman (1998) who defines EI in terms of skills, abilities, and competencies that can be learned and developed with appropriately structured programs (Boyatzis, 1982; Boyatzis, Smith, & Blaize, 2006; Goleman, 1998; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002).

Despite the popularity of EI, a split developed with science-focused literature struggling with definitions and measurement, and practitioner-based publications discussing whether EI interventions actually work (Ashkanasy, Zerbe, & Hartel, 2002). The different definitions of EI have resulted in a range of research instruments, with different measures and formats. Self-report scales (e.g., Bar-On’s EQ-1) tend to correlate with personality dimensions, whereas ability-based EI measures (e.g., Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso’s MEIS and MSCEIT) are less correlated with personality and are more associated with crystallized intelligence (Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008).

Following a critical review that found significant overlap between extant measures of EI and the Big Five personality traits (Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998), Wong and Law (2002) used exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to develop a scale of EI they claimed was distinct from personality dimensions. In their later article, Law, Wong, and Song (2004) reported testing their EI measure with a study of 202 undergraduate students, incorporating parents’ reports and peer reports to supplement self-reports, and found that despite correlations between their measure of EI and Big Five personality traits the constructs were distinct.

Emotional Intelligence and Well-Being

EI can be understood either as a measure of a person’s perception of their own emotions, and how they use, understand, and manage their emotions to enhance their personal growth and social relations (Mayer, Salovey, Caruson, & Sitarenios, 2001) or as a measure of a person’s capacities for self-awareness, social awareness, and social skills (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). Despite skepticism by some about the construct validity of EI (Antonakis, Ashkanasy, & Dasborough, 2009; Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000), a number of studies have supported the construct of EI in the context of leadership and workplace performance. One meta-analysis (Joseph & Newman, 2010) examined several projects that tested the incremental validity of EI measures to explain job performance over and above cognitive ability and the “Big Five” personality traits. They concluded that most types of EI do have incremental validity above both personality and cognitive ability, especially in jobs that are high in emotional demands. Another meta-analysis (Walter, Cole, & Humphrey, 2011) also supported the concept and concluded that “published evidence contradicts extreme claims that EI has no value for leadership theory and practice” (p. 52).

Other studies have examined the research on relationships between EI and well-being, specifically measuring physical, mental, and social-emotional criteria. Zeidner, Matthews, and Roberts (2012) provided a review of the literature in this area in which measures of EI were generally found to correlate positively with measures of psychological well-being and negatively with affective disorders such as anxiety and depression. Although Zeidner et al. highlight some problems in the literature they reviewed, such as the validity of self-reports and other measurement issues, they conclude that EI does appear to be related to a substantial number of health outcomes.

The focus of our research was to examine the relationship between EI and psychological health in law students. Knowing more about the EI of law students may help us to understand their apparent high incidence of depression, which has been reported extensively in the United States and more recently in Australia. The evidence from the United States shows that law students experience a significant deterioration in their mental health status during law school, whereas the Australian research confirms law students have higher rates of psychological distress and depression than community members of similar age and sex and that the deterioration in mental health may begin in the 1st year of study (Kelk, Luscombe, Medlow, & Hickie, 2009; Peterson & Peterson, 2008; Sheldon & Krieger, 2007; Tani & Vines, 2009; Townes O’Brien, Tang, & Hall, 2011).

Personality and Well-Being

As with EI, many studies have considered the role of personality in well-being, as well as in leadership and job performance. The “Big Five” (Goldberg, 1990) has emerged as the dominant theory of personality and it describes five domains as extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness, and neuroticism. An early meta-analysis (Barrick & Mount, 1991) supported the five factor model as a way of analyzing and communicating empirical findings on personality differences. It also found that only one dimension, conscientiousness, correlated with job performance across all occupational groups. Another analysis of three intergenerational studies (Judge, Higgins, Thorensen, & Barrick, 1999) also found conscientiousness of particular value as it alone predicted both intrinsic success (job satisfaction) and extrinsic success (income and occupational status). More recent studies have not confirmed conscientiousness as the main predictor of success or well-being. A study of 236 nursing professionals found the personality factors of extraversion and neuroticism to be most predictive of subjective well-being (Gutierrez, Jimenez, Hernandex, & Puente, 2005). Another study of 496 employees in diverse occupations found extraversion predicted career satisfaction (Seibert & Kraimer, 2001). Attempting to differentiate EI and personality, other research has distinguished “positive emotion dispositions” to be differentially associated with self- and peer-ratings of all five personality factors (Shiota, Keltner, & John, 2006).

Looking specifically at well-being, the personality factor of neuroticism has been well established as a correlate and predictor of psychological well-being and distress (e.g.,Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006; Cloninger, Syrakic&Przybeck, 2006). Research by Bore, Ashley-Brown, Gallagher, and Powis (2008) revealed that neuroticism was significantly and strongly related to the prevalence of psychiatric symptoms in undergraduate medicine and psychology students. An interesting study of 896 law students at four universities from 1963 to 1964, predating the five-factor model, combined Junging theory with Myers-Briggs type indicator categories to predict law school dropouts (Miller, 1966). Among the findings were that dropouts were not predicted by “academic promise” and that students categorized as “feeling” types were significantly more likely to drop out than were “thinking” types.

With regard to the present study, little research has considered the interaction between personality and EI specifically in law students. One study of 88 recent Australian law graduates found a significant negative correlation between neuroticism and EI (James, 2008). Other research with Israeli university students has found law students to have significantly higher scores of neuroticism than natural science students and lower scores of agreeableness than all other groups of students tested, although without analysis of covariation with EI (Rubinstein, 2005).

Aims and Hypotheses

This study aimed to identify the relationships between EI, personality, and an array of indicators of psychological well-being among law students as a way to better understand their propensity for poor mental health indicators such as depression. We used measures of coping styles, satisfaction with life, performance-based self-esteem (PBSE), alcohol use, and the prevalence of psychiatric symptoms as indicators of psychological health. We hypothesized that EI would be correlated with these psychological health indicators based on the research reviewed above. In addition, we hypothesized that personality traits (e.g., Big Five) would be related to psychological health indicators and that EI would account for additional variance in psychological health indicators over the variance accounted for by the Big Five.

Method

Participants

Sixty-one students from a cohort enrolled in their 1st year of a law degree at an Australian university completed the study in February 2008 (commencement of the academic year). The same cohort of 1st-year students were again invited to participate in October 2008 and data were obtained from 72 students. In October 2009, the cohort, now in their 2nd year of law, were again asked to volunteer to complete the test battery, which was completed by 63 participants. Across these three test administrations, only 43 students completed the tests twice and only 3 completed all three administrations. Given such low retention rates, longitudinal analysis was not viable and so retest data were not included in the data set analyzed and reported here. The sample (N = 150) had a mean age of 21.2 years (SD = 6.6) with 79 being female.

Instruments

EI

EI was measured using the 16-item questionnaire developed by Wong and Law (2002), which is designed to capture four aspects of EI: appraisal of own emotions, appraisal of emotions in others, use of emotion, and regulation of emotion. The items are all positively worded and direct in the content (e.g., “I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of others”). Participants respond using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Responses are summed to give an overall score with higher scores indicating higher EI. Wong and Law (2002) report acceptable internal reliability and some evidence of construct validity.

Personality

Goldberg’s international personality item pool (IPIP; Goldberg, 1990, 1992) was used to measure personality traits. Participants are asked to respond to each of the 100 items (i.e., “I have a good word for everyone”) using a 4-point Likert-type scale (F = definitely false, f = false on the whole, t = true on the whole, T = definitely true). The IPIP measures the five domains of the five-factor model as described by Costa and McCrae (1992): openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients have been reported by Buchanan (2001); openness = .74; conscientiousness = .84; extraversion = .88; agreeableness = .76; neuroticism = .83.

Coping

The Coping Responses Inventory (CRI; Moos, 1990) is a 48-item inventory designed to measure coping responses and coping skills that apply to specific stressful situations. The CRI measures two different coping domains: approach and avoidance. Acceptable internal reliability has been established (Moos, 1993) and the stability of the CRI scores for a sample of 624 people retested after a 1-year period suggests consistency over time of coping responses, despite variations in stressors. Respondents are asked to think about the most important problem or stressful situation they experienced in the past 12 months and answer questions (e.g., “Did you try not to think about the problem?” “Did you make a plan of action and follow it?”) by indicating definitely no, mainly no, mainly yes, or definitely yes. Respondents are then asked to respond to another set of 21 questions asking how often they engaged in that behavior in connection with the problem and to respond no, once, sometimes, and often.

Self-esteem

The Performance Based Self-Esteem (PBSE; Hallsten, 2005) scale consists of four items (e.g., “I think that sometimes I try to prove my worth by being competent”) rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = fully disagree; 5 = fully agree) to measure the level of one’s PBSE. The PBSE scale has demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties (Hallsten, 2005).

Psychological well-being

The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) provides an overview of psychiatric symptoms and their intensity at a specific point in time (Derogatis & Spencer, 1982). The BSI measures nine primary symptom dimensions: somatization, obsessive-compulsive, interpersonal sensitivity, depression, anxiety, hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation, and psychoticism. Respondents are asked to state how much a symptom, such as nervousness or shakiness inside, has bothered them in the past 7 days. Participants respond to each of 53 items using a 5-point Likert-type scale (0 = not at all, 1 = a little bit, 2 = moderately, 3 = quite a bit, 4 = extremely).

Scores for each of the nine dimensions are calculated by summing the responses for the items included in each dimension and then dividing by the number of items. A global index of distress, the General Severity Index (GSI) is calculated as the mean item response over all 53 items (i.e., a number between 0 and 4 being the average Likert-type scale response over all items). The BSI scales have demonstrated acceptable internal and temporal stability (Derogatis & Spencer, 1982).

Alcohol use

The Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT; Babor, Higgins-Biddle, Saundes, & Monteiro, 2001) is a brief screening scale developed to identify alcohol dependence and abuse as well as hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption in the past 12 months period. The 10-item scale consists of questions on alcohol intake such as “How often do you have a drink containing alcohol?” dependence symptoms such as “How often during the past year have you failed to do what was normally expected of you because of drinking” and adverse drinking consequences such as “Have you or someone else been injured because of your drinking.” A score of 20 or more indicates high risk, harmful drinking behavior, and possible alcohol dependency.

Life satisfaction

The Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; Pavot & Diener, 1993) is a short, five-item self-report instrument designed to measure global cognitive judgments of one’s satisfaction with life. The SWLS uses a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree) and has shown strong internal reliability, good convergent validity with other scales and with other types of assessments of subjective well-being (Pavot & Diener, 1993).

Procedure

On each of the three testing sessions the questionnaire battery was handed to volunteer participants at the end of one of their lectures by research assistants and collected the following day. Participants were paid US$10 for completing the questionnaires on each occasion in 2008 and US$15 in 2009. The research protocol was reviewed and approved by the University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Each test was scored by reverse scoring negatively worded items and then summing the items of each construct measured. Alpha reliabilities and descriptive statistics were examined for all measures (see Table 1). All measures were found to have acceptable internal consistency, which ranged from .75 (self-esteem) to .96 (Global Severity Index of the BSI). Mean scores for males and females were examined and tested for significant (p < .05) gender differences. Females (M = 58.51, SD = 7.60) were found to be generally more agreeable than males (M = 54.10, SD = 6.80), t(147) = −3.75, p < .001, d = .59). Females (M = 59.82, SD = 7.82) were also significantly more open to new experiences than males (M = 57.15, SD = 8.25), t(144) = −2.02, p = .045, d = .33, as has been found elsewhere (e.g., Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001; Schmitt, Realo, Voracek, & Allik, 2008) although the gender difference in neuroticism did not reach significance. Females (M = 7.58, SD = 5.99) were found to drink less alcohol compared with males (M = 10.09, SD = 6.02), t(144) = 2.54, p = .012, d = .41. We found no other significant gender differences.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Gender Differences

	Male (n = 71)	Female (n = 79)	All
Variable	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	Range min-max	Alpha
Emotional intelligence	58.9 (9.1)	58.9 (10.0)	58.9 (9.1)	24-80	.87
Agreeableness	54.1* (6.8)	58.5 (7.6)	56.4 (7.5)	34-75	.84
Conscientiousness	52.2 (7.4)	53.1 (9.2)	52.7 (8.4)	30-77	.88
Extraversion	56.1 (7.2)	55.9 (8.7)	56.0 (8.0)	26-77	.89
Neuroticism	46.5 (8.9)	49.0 (8.9)	48.0 (9.0)	28-73	.90
Openness	57.1* (8.2)	59.8 (7.9)	58.6 (8.1)	36-77	.87
Psychiatric symptoms (GSI)	0.81 (0.6)	0.90 (0.7)	0.85 (0.62)	0.0-2.9	.96
Approach coping style	53.2 (15.3)	56.0 (17.4)	54.7 (16.4)	12-96	.86
Avoidance copying style	47.1 (15.5)	48.6 (16.0)	47.9 (15.7)	9-93	.80
Satisfaction with life	24.5 (5.6)	25.7 (6.3)	25.1 (9.0)	5-35	.86
Self-esteem	14.9 (3.6)	14.5 (4.1)	14.7 (3.9)	4-20	.80
Alcohol use	10.1* (6.0)	7.6 (56.0)	8.8 (6.1)	0-31	.83

Note: Differences between male and female mean scores.

Significantly different at p < .05.

Correlations

Pearson correlations were run and the relationships between variables examined (see Table 2). EI was significantly moderately correlated with all of the Big Five personality traits with the exception of openness: Participants who were high on EI tended to be more agreeable (r = .37), conscientious (r = .51), and extraverted (r = .37), and less neurotic (r = −.52). Participants high in EI were also more satisfied with life (r = .43) and had lower alcohol use (r = −.21). Neuroticism had stronger relationships with the psychological health indicator scores of the BSI (r = .69), satisfaction with life (r = −.48) and PBSE (r = .34) compared with EI and the other four traits of the Big Five, whereas agreeableness had the strongest relationship with avoidance coping (r = −.26).

Table 2.

Correlations Between Emotional Intelligence, Personality, and Psychological Health Indicators

	EI	A	C	E	N	O	GSI	Approach	Avoid	SWL	PBSE
A	.37***
C	.51***	.33***
E	.37***	.39***	.30***
N	−.52***	−.41***	−.36***	−.45***
O	.07	.25***	.01	.10	.14
GSI	−.41***	−.38***	−.33***	−.32***	.69***	.06
Approach	.20	.03	.26**	−.05	.01	.05	.09
Avoid	−.01	−.26**	−.04	−.12*	.22**	.03	.34***	.67***
SWL	.43***	.34***	.33***	.30***	−.48***	−.16*	−.47***	.06	−.15
PBSE	−.02	−.19*	.11	−.27**	.34***	.13	.25***	.13	.25**	−.10
Alcohol use	−.21***	−.19*	−.35***	.10	.07	−.03	.18*	−.17*	.02	−.28**	−.16

Note: EI = emotional intelligence; A = agreeableness; C = conscientiousness; E = extraversion; O = openness; GSI = Global Severity Index; SWL = satisfaction with life; PBSE = performance-based self-esteem.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The relationships between EI, the Big Five and the nine subscales of the BSI were also examined (see Table 3). EI was significantly and negatively related to all nine subscale scores and most strongly with depression (r = −.39) and psychoticism (r = −.40). Many significant relationships were observed between the Big Five and the BSI subscales with openness being the exception. Agreeableness was most strongly related to hostility (r = −.40), conscientiousness most strongly related to obsessive-compulsive symptoms (r = −.33) and extraversion with interpersonal sensitivity (r = −.41). Neuroticism was moderately to strongly related to all nine subscores of the BSI.

Table 3.

Correlations Between Emotional Intelligence, Personality Traits, and Nine Subscales of the Brief Symptom Inventory

	EI	A	C	E	N	O
Somatization	−.17*	−.20**	−.15	−.09	.41***	.07
Obsessive-compulsive	−.33***	−.22**	−.42***	−.23**	.61***	.07
Interpersonal sensitivity	−.33***	−.35***	−.26**	−.41***	.63***	.06
Depression	−.39***	−.31***	−.22**	−.37***	.61***	.16*
Anxiety	−.29***	−.16*	−.16*	−.20*	.58***	.11
Hostility	−.35***	−.40***	−.32***	−.12	.54***	−.07
Phobic anxiety	−.33***	−.33***	−.22**	−.30***	.47***	−.03
Paranoid ideation	−.38***	−.48***	−.18*	−.29***	.54***	−.07
Psychoticism	−.40***	−.32***	−.30***	−.37***	.54***	.07

Note: EI = emotional intelligence; A = agreeableness; C = conscientiousness; E = extraversion; O = openness.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Regression Analysis

To examine incremental prediction of EI over and above personality and gender a series of hierarchical regressions were undertaken. As shown in Table 4, for each of the six criteria, in Step 1 gender and the Big Five personality scores were entered as predictors and the standardized beta coefficients and the variance accounted for (R² and adjusted R²) recorded. In Step 2, EI scores were included as a predictor and the change in R² noted. Neuroticism was found to be the only significant predictor of Global Severity Index (GSI) scores from the BSI, conscientiousness the only significant predictor of an approach coping style, and conscientiousness and agreeableness significant predictors of an avoidance coping style. Conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism predicted PBSE, and conscientiousness and extraversion predicted alcohol use. It was only in the prediction of satisfaction with life that EI reached significance in Step 2 with neuroticism and openness also reaching significance. None of the observed changes in R² were significant indicating that EI did not demonstrate significant incremental validity over the Big Five personality variables.

Table 4.

Hierarchical Regression Models for Psychological Well-Being Criteria

Criterion	Predictors entered by step	β1	β2	R ²	Adjusted R²	ΔR²
GSI	Step 1			.49	.47	—
	Gender	.03	.02
	Agreeableness	−.11	−.12
	Conscientiousness	−.07	−.07
	Extraversion	.02	.01
	Neuroticism	.62***	.59***
	Openness	−.01	−.01
	Step 2
	EI		−.02	.50	.48	.01
Approach coping	Step 1
	Gender	.09	.09	.09	.05	—
	Agreeableness	−.13	−.15
	Conscientiousness	.30**	.24**
	Extraversion	.02	−.01
	Neuroticism	.03	.06
	Openness	.06	.04
	Step 2
	EI		.15	.10	.06	.01
Avoidance coping	Step 1			.12	.08	—
	Gender	.10	.01
	Agreeableness	−.31**	−.32**
	Conscientiousness	.17*	−.13
	Extraversion	.01	−.01
	Neuroticism	.13	.17
	Openness	.08	.07
	Step 2
	EI		.12	.13	.09	.01
Satisfaction with life	Step 1			.31	.28	—
	Gender	.13	.13
	Agreeableness	.13	.11
	Conscientiousness	.13	.06
	Extraversion	.09	.06
	Neuroticism	−.33***	−.27**
	Openness	−.18*	−.20**
	Step 2
	EI		.21**	.34	.31	.03
PB self-esteem	Step 1			.24	.21	—
	Gender	−.11	−.11
	Agreeableness	−.08	−.09
	Conscientiousness	.32***	.25**
	Extraversion	−.20*	−.22**
	Neuroticism	.33**	.39***
	Openness	.14	.12
	Step 2
	EI		.21*	.26	.22	.02
Alcohol use	Step 1			.21	.18	—
	Gender	−.16	−.15
	Agreeableness	−.10	−.09
	Conscientiousness	−.37***	−.34***
	Extraversion	−.27**	−.28**
	Neuroticism	.03	.02
	Openness	−.01	−.01
	Step 2
	EI		−.09	.22	.18	.01

Note: GSI = Global Severity Index from the Brief Symptom Inventory; PB self-esteem = performance-based self-esteem; EI = emotional intelligence.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Last, the same hierarchical regression procedures were also undertaken with each of the nine subscale scores of the BSI as the criterion variable in each model. EI was not found to be a significant predictor over and above the Big Five for any of the nine subscales of the BSI.

Discussion

Our expectations regarding the relationships between EI and indicators of psychological well-being were largely supported in that our results showed that EI was significantly related to three of the six variables we chose to represent psychological health. EI was negatively related to the presence and severity of psychiatric symptoms as measured by the GSI of the BSI, negatively related to the use of alcohol and positively related to satisfaction with life. However, EI was not significantly related to avoidance or approach coping styles or PBSE. Using regression analysis EI did not significantly account for any additional variance in psychological well-being over and above that accounted for by the Big Five personality traits.

Emotional Intelligence and Psychological Health

Although we found no relationship between EI and coping style, Campbell and Ntobedzi (2007) did find a relationship although using different measures and testing a different cohort (adolescents). Other measures of emotion based coping, rather than the more cognitive view of coping, could be considered for inclusion in future EI research.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the relationship between PBSE and EI, although Dahlin, Joneborg, and Runeson (2007) did examine PBSE and emotional exhaustion. Although we found no relationship between EI and PBSE our study supports the results of Whitney (2010) who in a study of 259 college students found a negative correlation between EI and alcohol use, and a positive correlation between EI and satisfaction with life scores.

EI has been found to be related to various indicators of psychological health (Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2012). We did observe a moderate negative relationship between EI and the GSI and with each of the nine subscales of the BSI. However, two issues bear on this finding: All the measures administered were self-report, and there was a degree of item similarity between the two measures. Both concerns are also raised in the review by Zeidner et al. (2012). In addition, as also noted by Zeidner et al. there is considerable overlap between EI and measures of personality.

Personality and Psychological Health

We found significant and negative correlations between four of the Big Five personality factors—agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism—and the nine symptom clusters of psychological health indicated by the BSI (openness only correlated very weakly with one symptom cluster). Our hierarchical regression analysis found neuroticism was the only significant predictor of BSI Global Severity Index scores. Other studies with undergraduate students (e.g., Bore, Ashley-Brown, Gallagher, & Powis, 2008) have measured personality alongside the BSI and reported similar findings to the present study. More broadly, meta-analytic research has confirmed that personality traits such as agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism are related to consequential outcomes including psychological health (e.g., Ozer & Martinez, 2006).

Emotional Intelligence, Personality, and Psychological Health

Our hypothesis that EI would account for additional variance in psychological health indicators over variance accounted for by personality was not supported. Although we found EI to be a significant predictor in two of the six outcome measures the additional proportion of variance accounted for was minimal. EI did not display any incremental validity over the Big Five personality traits as has been found elsewhere (Zeidner et al., 2012).

However, EI has been found to account for additional variance over personality traits in outcome variables other than psychological health. Law et al. (2004) found that after controlling for personality EI accounted for more than 10% of the variance in job performance. Although we found personality and gender, and not EI, were significant predictors of alcohol use Rossen and Kranzler (2009) found EI to explain a significant amount of unique variance for alcohol use (although without testing for gender). Brackett, Mayer, and Warner (2004) and Trinidad and Johnson (2002) also found that lower EI in males, but not females, was associated with alcohol use.

Although EI has been found to be related to a number of outcome variables, our results question the usefulness of EI as a construct with regard to psychological health. Whatever role EI might play in our daily lives it would seem from our results that personality subsumes any affect of EI on our well-being.

Conclusions and Future Directions

Given the apparent vulnerability of law students to depression and other mental health problems, and the continuation of those problems for many as they transition into legal practice (Kelk, Luscombe, Medlow, & Hickie, 2009), the need for further research appears important. Perhaps more important is the need for longitudinal research rather than just replication of the cross-sectional study reported here. Ideally, such research would involve peer and other reports together with self-report measures. In the meantime, law (and other) schools should be motivated to develop programs that effectively engage and help law students to become aware of the risk factors for poor psychological health, including dispositional factors, and to provide skills training in how to take responsibility for their psychological well-being within the demands of their studies.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Bios

Colin James is a senior lecturer and researcher in the areas of clinical legal education, positive psychology, academic integrity and professional ethics at the Newcastle Law School at the University of Newcastle Australia. He is also solicitor at the University of Newcastle Legal Centre.

Miles Bore is a researcher and a senior lecturer at the School of Psychology at the University of Newcastle Australia.

Susanna Zito completed her Professional Doctorate in Clinical Psychology in 2009 at the University of Newcastle and currently works as a Clinical Psychologist at the North Coast Area Health Service in NSW, Australia.

References

Antonakis

Ashkanasy

N. M.

Dasborough

M. T.

(2009). Does leadership need emotional intelligence? Leadership Quarterly, 20, 247-261.

Ashkanasy

N. A.

Zerbe

Hartel

(2002). Managing emotions in a changing workplace. In Ashkanasy

N. A.

Zerbe

Hartel

(Eds.), Managing emotions in the workplace (pp. 3-22). New York, NY: M. E. Sharp.

Auerback

A. J.

Dolan

S. L.

(1997). Fundamentals of organizational behavior: The Canadian context. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: International Thomson.

Babor

Higgins-Biddle

J. C.

Saunders

Monteiro

M. G.

(2001). The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): Guidelines for use in primary care. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, Department of Mental Health and Substance Dependence.

Bar-On

(1997). The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): A test of emotional intelligence. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Bar-On

Parker

J. D. A.

(2000). Handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment and application at home, school and in the workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Barrick

M. R.

Mount

M. K.

(1991). The Big Five personality dimensions in job performance, Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Bore

Ashley-Brown

Gallagher

Powis

(2008). Personality and the prevalence of psychiatric symptoms in medicine and psychology students. In Boag

(Ed.), Personality down under: Perspectives from Australia (pp. 167-176). New York, NY: Nova Science.

Boyatzis

(1982). The competent manager: A model of effective performance. New York, NY: Wiley.

10.

Boyatzis

Smith

Blaize

(2006). Developing sustainable leaders through coaching and compassion. Academy of Management Journal on Learning and Education, 5, 8-24.

11.

Brackett

M. A.

Salovey

P. S.

(2006). Measuring emotional intelligence with the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). Psichothema, 18(Suppl.), 34-41.

12.

Brackett

M. A.

Mayer

J. D.

Warner

R. M.

(2004). Emotional intelligence and its relation to everyday behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1387-1402.

13.

Buchanan

(2001). Online personality assessment. In Reips

U.-D.

Bosnjak

(Eds.), Dimensions of Internet science (pp. 57-74). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science.

14.

Campbell

Ntobedzi

(2007). Emotional intelligence, coping and psychological distress: A partial least squares approach to developing a predictive model. Electronic Journal of Applied Psychology, 3, 39-54.

15.

Ciarrochi

J. V.

Chan

A. Y. C.

Caputi

(2000). A critical evaluation of the emotional intelligence construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 539-561.

16.

Cloninger

C. R.

Syrakic

D. M.

Przybeck

T. R.

(2006). Can personality assessment predict future depression? A twelve-month follow-up of 631 subjects. Journal of Affective Disorders, 92, 35-44.

17.

Costa

P. T.

Jr. McCrae

R. R.

(1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

18.

Costa

P. T.

Jr. Terracciano

McCrae

R. R.

(2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322-331.

19.

Dahlin

Joneborg

Runeson

(2007). Performance-based self-esteem and burnout in a cross-sectional study of medical students. Medical Teacher, 29, 43-48.

20.

Davies

Stankov

Roberts

R. D.

(1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 989-1015.

21.

Derogatis

L. R.

Spencer

M. S.

(1982). The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) administration, scoring, and procedures manual-I. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Clinical Psychometrics Research Unit.

22.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.

23.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1992). The development of markers for the Big Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.

24.

Goleman

(1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam.

25.

Goleman

Boyatzis

R. E.

McKee

(2002). Leadership and emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

26.

Gutierrez

J. L. G.

Jimenez

B. M.

Hernandez

E. G.

Puente

C. P.

(2005). Personality and subjective well-being: Big Five correlates and demographic variables. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1561-1569.

27.

Hallsten

(2005). Burnout and wornout: Concepts and data from a national survey. In Antonio

A. S. G.

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Research companion to organizational health psychology (pp. 516-536). Cheltenham, UK: Elgar.

28.

James

(2008). Lawyer dissatisfaction, emotional intelligence and clinical legal education. Legal Education Review, 18, 123-137.

29.

Joseph

D. L.

Newman

D. A.

(2010). Emotional intelligence: An integratice meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 54-78.

30.

Judge

T. A.

Higgins

C. A.

Thoresen

C. J.

Barrick

M. R.

(1999). The Big Five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621-652.

31.

Kelk

N. K.

Luscombe

Medlow

Hickie

(2009). Courting the blues: Attitudes towards depression in Australian law students and legal practitioners. Sydney, Australia: Brain and Mind Institute.

32.

Kelk

N. K.

Medlow

Hickie

(2010). Distress and depression among Australian law students: Incidence, attitudes and the role of universities. Sydney Law Review, 32, 113-122.

33.

Law

K. S. L.

Wong

Song

L. J.

(2004). The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 483-496.

34.

Mayer

J. D.

Salovey

(1997). What is emotional intelligence? In Salovey

Sluyter

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

35.

Mayer

J. D.

Roberts

R. D.

Barsade

S. G.

(2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 507-536.

36.

Mayer

J. D.

Salovey

Caruso

D. R.

Sitarenios

(2001). Emotional intelligence as a standard intelligence, Emotion, 1, 232-242.

37.

Miller

P. V. R.

(1966). Personality differences and student survival in law school. Journal of Legal Education, 19, 460-468.

38.

Moos

(1990). Coping Responses Inventory manual. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

39.

Moos

(1993). Coping Responses Inventory: CRI—Adult professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

40.

Ozer

D. J.

Martinez

(2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401-421.

41.

Pavot

W. P.

Diener

(1993). Review of the Satisfaction With Life Scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 164-172.

42.

Peterson

T. D.

Peterson

E. W.

(2008). Stemming the tide of law student depression: What Law schools need to learn from the science of positive psychology. Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law & Ethics, 9, 357-434.

43.

Ramo

L. G.

(2009). How can we make sense of emotional and social competencies within organizational settings? In Härtel

C. E. J.

Ashkanasy

N. M.

Zerbe

W. J.

(Eds.), Research on emotion in organizations: Emotions in groups, organizations and cultures (Vol. 5, pp. 1-21). Bradford, UK: Emerald Group.

44.

Rossen

Kranzler

J. H.

(2009). Incremental validity of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test version 2.0 (MSCEIT) after controlling for personality and intelligence. Journal of Personality, 43, 60-65.

45.

Rubinstein

(2005). The Big Five among male and female students of different faculties. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 190-197.

46.

Schmitt

D. P.

Realo

Voracek

Allik

(2008). Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big 5 personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 168-182.

47.

Seibert

S. E.

Kraimer

M. L.

(2001). The five-factor model of personality and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 1-21.

48.

Sheldon

K. M.

Krieger

L. S.

(2007). Understanding the negative effects of legal education on law students: A longitudinal test of self-determination theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 883-897.

49.

Shiota

M. N.

Keltner

John

O. P.

(2006). Positive emotion dispositions differentially associated with Big Five personality and attachment style. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 61-71.

50.

Tani

Vines

(2009). Law students attitudes to education: A pointer to depression in the legal academy and the profession? Legal Education Review, 19, 3-39.

51.

Townes O’Brien

Tang

Hall

(2011). No time to lose: Negative impact on law student wellbeing may begin in year one. International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 2, 49-60.

52.

Trinidad

D. R.

Johnson

A. C.

(2002). The association between emotional intelligence and early adolescent tobacco and alcohol use. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 95-105.

53.

Walter

Cole

M. S.

Humphrey

R. H.

(2011). Emotional intelligence: Sine qua non of leadership or folderol. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25, 45-59.

54.

Whitney

(2010). Social supports among college students and measures of alcohol use, perceived stress, satisfaction with life, emotional intelligence and coping. Journal of Student Wellbeing, 4, 49-67.

55.

Wong

W. C.

Law

(2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 133, 243-274.

56.

Zeidner

Matthews

Roberts

R. D.

(2012). The emotional intelligence, health, and well-being nexus: What have we learned and what have we missed? Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 4, 1-30.