Emotional intelligence and well-being: Associations and sex- and age-effects during adolescence

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Several studies have suggested that trait and ability-based measures of emotional intelligence (EI) contribute to the promotion of well-being in adults. However, this relationship has not been sufficiently explored among adolescents.

OBJECTIVE:

The present study aims to: i) investigate the associations between EI dimensions and well-being indicators (self-esteem, life satisfaction and social anxiety) in adolescents; and ii) analyze the effect of sex and age on dimensions of EI.

METHODS:

The sample consisted of 1066 adolescents (57.9%girls and 42.1%boys), aged between 11 and 18 years (M = 14.36; SD = 1.58). Participants completed sociodemographic and validated psychosocial measures.

RESULTS:

Correlation analysis indicated that EI dimensions (self-emotion appraisal, use of emotions and regulation of emotions) were positively and moderately correlated with self-esteem and life satisfaction, whereas associations between EI and social anxiety dimensions were small and negative. Boys reported higher levels of self-emotion appraisal, use of emotions and regulation of emotions, whereas girls showed higher levels of other-emotions appraisal. Age was negatively associated with the use of the emotions dimension and positively correlated with the emotional appraisal of others, although both correlation coefficients were small.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our study findings suggest the need and importance of implementing emotional education practices during adolescence.

Keywords

Emotional intelligence well-being sociodemographic factors adolescents

1 Introduction

The concept of Emotional Intelligence (EI) has generated expanding interest, discussion and research during the last three decades. In a broader sense, both lay people and scientific researchers have been interested in knowing and understanding how people’s emotional acknowledgment and effective regulation may influence their well-being and performance in different life domains, such as work, education, family, sport, leisure and health [1 –3]. This rapid and proliferating interest on this concept without a sound theoretical and conceptual base has originated distinct, but complementary, research approaches/models based on different conceptualizations, assessment methods/instruments and, consequently, operationalisations of the EI construct. The ability (or cognitive-emotional) model of EI defines it as a set of interrelated mental abilities that include the accurate perception, appraisal, understanding, expression and regulation of emotions to facilitate thought and promote emotional and intellectual growth [4], which are ought to be measured through maximum-performance tests. The trait (or emotional self-efficacy) EI model concerns a constellation of emotion-related self-perceptions and dispositions (i.e., a personality trait), located at the lower levels of personality hierarchies [5], and that should be operationalised via self-report measures. Finally, the mixed model considers EI not as form of intelligence but rather as a wider construct that combines mental and social abilities with personality traits [6], using self-report questionnaires to measure this broader set of emotion- and social-related competencies and dispositions [7].

In the present study, we choose to use a self-report ability measure of EI, namely the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS, [8]). Although this scale was initially developed on the basis of the revised four-dimension ability EI model suggested by Mayer and Salovey [4], several studies have identified and used the WLEIS as a self-report measure of trait EI [9, 10]. Despite this controversy, the WLEIS scale was selected based on the evidence of its reliability and validity across different populations and cultures [11, 12], its measurement equivalence across gender and age groups [10], and its good psychometric properties on our study’s population [13]. Moreover, this scale’s multidimensional nature alongside its brevity contributes, in our opinion, to a better and more practical knowledge and understanding of the EI dynamics and effects among adolescents, which are known to be more resistant and noncompliant to large-scale surveys.

Due to the widespread interest in this area, a growing body of research findings has indicated some beneficial effects and/or outcomes of EI on different health domains/indicators (physical, psychosomatic and mental), throughout the lifespan (e.g., [14 –16]). However, meta-analytic studies have demonstrated that the magnitude of the associations of EI dimensions with distinct health and well-being dimensions vary according to the EI measure/model chosen [14, 17], supporting the differential roles that ability and trait EI dimensions may have on coping-mental health relations [18, 19].

Specifically among adolescents, available empirical evidence suggests that self-reported EI is negatively related to depression and anxiety [20 –22] and positively associated to self-esteem and life satisfaction [23]. On the other hand, some studies have documented non-significant and/or negligible relationships between ability EI and affective and cognitive measures of well-being among adolescents [24]. Nonetheless, it is notorious that the role of EI on positive and negative psychosocial outcomes during adolescence is an understudied research area, but of great potential and significance to the youth’s positive development. Therefore, the present study aims to fill this gap by examining the differential effects of the four-branches/domains of EI (namely, 1) perception, appraisal, and expression of emotion, 2) emotional facilitation of thinking, 3) understanding and analyzing emotions, and employing emotional knowledge, and 4) reflective regulation of emotion) on multiple positive and negative psychosocial functioning outcomes in adolescents.

With regards to the sociodemographic characteristics selected in this study (i.e., sex and age), prior studies have provided mixed and inconsistent results. The study by Davis and Humphrey [18] indicated that sex differences in trait EI scores were not significant, while other studies documented different conclusions. Results from other studies shown that girls reported higher scores on a global EI dimension [25], scored higher on the intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) [26] or reported significantly higher levels on the attention subscale of the Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS) than boys, at all adolescence age groups [27]. Conversely, other researches indicated that boys scored significantly higher on the adaptability subscale of the EQ-i [26] or that mid-adolescent boys reported lower perceived attention to emotions, but higher ability to clearly perceive their emotions and repair negative emotional states [22]. Analyses of age differences during adolescence also lead to contradictory findings. The study by Harrod and Scheer [25] documented no significant changes in youth’s EI scores across age groups, neither a significant relationship between these two variables. One other study [28] found that only one of the four EQ-i dimensions, namely the stress management scale, showed significant decreases during adolescence, but only in girls. On the other hand, the study by Salguero et al. [27] indicated that all dimensions of the TMMS differed by age groups, showing an increase throughout adolescence. One other relevant study by Keefer et al. [26] documented a complex pattern of changes during the different phases of adolescence. Two of the EQ-i dimensions, namely the interpersonal and adaptability domains, showed significant increases between middle and late adolescence, whereas the intrapersonal and adaptability domains showed significant declines from late childhood to late adolescence. Taken together, these mixed findings suggest the need for further studies, since very little empirical research has reported on sex- and age-based subgroup differences in EI dimensions [29], especially during adolescence.

As such, the aims of the present cross-sectional study are twofold: i) to investigate the associations between EI dimensions and well-being indicators (self-esteem, life satisfaction and social anxiety) in adolescents; and ii) to analyze the effect of sex and age on dimensions of EI.

2 Method

2.1 Participants

A total of 1066 adolescents, both males (n = 449, 42.1%) and females (n = 617, 57.9%), aged between 11 and 18 years (M = 14.36, SD = 1.58), volunteered to participate in the study. The age distribution was as follows: early (n = 352, 33.0%), middle (n = 438, 41.1%) and late adolescents (n = 276, 25.9%). Participants were enrolled between the 7th and 12 grades and belonged to public schools located in four of the country’s central region districts of Portugal.

2.2 Materials

2.2.1 Sociodemographic characteristics

Sex and age were obtained via self-report. Age groups during adolescence (i.e., early, middle and late) were determined according to the recommendations of Breinbauer and Maddaleno [30].

2.2.2 Emotional intelligence

Emotional intelligence was measured by using the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale [8]. This self-report instrument has 16 items divided into four dimensions: 1) self-emotional appraisal (SEA, 4 items), 2) others’ emotion appraisal (OEA, 4 items), 3) use of emotions (UOE, 4 items), and 4) regulation of emotions (ROE, 4 items). The total score of these dimensions is calculated as the sum of scores of the items included. Responses were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Portuguese version of this scale has shown good psychometric properties in adolescents, as previously reported [13].

2.2.3 Self-esteem

Self-esteem was assessed by using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale [31]. This scale is a self-report measure comprising 10 items, rated on a 4-point Lik-ert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Five of the items are positively worded, whereas the remaining five are negatively worded. The total score of the scale is computed through the sum of the scores of all items after rev-erse-coding the negative items. This scale has shown good reliability, validity and measurement invariance properties in Portuguese youth, as reported elsewhere [32].

2.2.4 Life satisfaction

Life satisfaction was assessed by the Satisfaction with Life Scale [33]. This self-report instrument includes 5 items, rated on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The total score of the scale is calculated by summing the scores of all items. The Portuguese version has demonstrated adequate reliability and validity in adolescents [34].

2.2.5 Social anxiety

Social anxiety was measured by using the Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents (SAS-A) [35]. This scale is a self-report instrument comprising 22 items (four of which are filler statements) divided into three dimensions: 1) fear of negative evaluation (FNE, 8 items), social avoidance and distress specific to new situations or unfamiliar peers (SAD-New, 6 items), and social avoidance and distress that is experienced more generally in the company of peers (SAD-General, 4 items). The total score of these dimensions is calculated as being the sum of scores of the items included. Responses were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Portuguese version of this scale has shown good measurement invariance and psychometric properties in youth [36].

2.3 Procedure

The selection of the sample was conducted using multi-stage sampling. At a first phase, public schools were purposively chosen in each district, followed by a random selection of classes from 7th to 12th grades (corresponding to the 3rd cycle of the elementary school and high school) in each determined school.

All study’s phases were carried out in accord-ance with the recommendations and approval of the ethics committee of the Portuguese Directorate-General for Education (Study Registration N° 0395700001/MIME).

Before carrying out the data collection, we obta-ined written consent from the schools’ boards and from the adolescents’ parents/guardians. Subseque-ntly, the participants were verbally informed about the procedure, the instructions to complete the questionnaires and that the obtained data were anonymous and confidential. The administration of the questionnaire was performed individually in quiet classroom conditions.

2.4 Data analysis

Descriptive statistics are reported as M±SD. Skewness and kurtosis values were computed in order to examine the univariate normality of the data. The internal consistency of the (sub)scales was tested by computing Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the total sample. We conducted separate 2 (boys and girls)×3 (early, middle and late) ANOVAs in order to examine the effects of sex and age groups on the EI scores, and subsequent follow-up comparisons (one way ANOVAs and Scheffe’s post hoc tests) were performed, as necessary. Estimates of effect size (partial eta squared: η²) were used to interpret the magnitude of the differences between groups, as follows: small (η²>0.01), medium (η²>0.06) or large (η²>0.14) [37]. We also computed Pearson correlations to investigate the associations between the EI and the different well-being scores, and between age and EI domains. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS (version 17.0).

3 Results

3.1 Descriptive analysis

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, univariate normality indices and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the study variables.

Table 1
Descriptive analyses of the study variables

Variables M±SD Skewness Kurtosis Cronbach’s Alpha

Self-emotion appraisal 15.53±2.46 –0.44 0.69 0.72

Others’ emotional appraisal 15.47±2.41 –0.02 –0.01 0.73

Use of emotions 15.33±2.79 –0.48 0.48 0.80

Regulation of emotions 13.46±3.19 –0.27 0.07 0.80

Self-Esteem 30.94±4.61 –0.33 0.26 0.84

Social Anxiety - SAD-N 18.54±4.91 –0.14 –0.22 0.81

Social Anxiety - FNE 23.64±6.96 0.00 –0.38 0.88

Social Anxiety - SAD-G 9.10±3.62 0.67 0.18 0.83

Satisfaction with Life 27.76±5.49 –1.25 1.72 0.82

Variables	M±SD	Skewness	Kurtosis	Cronbach’s Alpha
Self-emotion appraisal	15.53±2.46	–0.44	0.69	0.72
Others’ emotional appraisal	15.47±2.41	–0.02	–0.01	0.73
Use of emotions	15.33±2.79	–0.48	0.48	0.80
Regulation of emotions	13.46±3.19	–0.27	0.07	0.80
Self-Esteem	30.94±4.61	–0.33	0.26	0.84
Social Anxiety - SAD-N	18.54±4.91	–0.14	–0.22	0.81
Social Anxiety - FNE	23.64±6.96	0.00	–0.38	0.88
Social Anxiety - SAD-G	9.10±3.62	0.67	0.18	0.83
Satisfaction with Life	27.76±5.49	–1.25	1.72	0.82

Note: Social Avoidance and Distress-New (SAD-N); Fear of Negative Evaluation (FNE); Social Avoidance and Distress-General (SAD-G).

All scales presented acceptable values of skewness and kurtosis (between –1.25 and 1.72) and adequate reliability indices (Cronbach’s alphas > 0.70).

Scores on three of the four WLEIS scales (self-emotion appraisal, others’ emotional appraisal and use of emotions) were similar and somehow higher when compared to the remaining domain (regulation of emotions).

3.2 Correlational analyses

Table 2 contains the bivariate correlations between the EI dimensions and the well-being indicators.

Table 2
Pearson correlations between study variables

Variables Self-Esteem Social Anxiety Satisfaction with Life

SAD-N FNE SAD-G

Self-emotion appraisal 0.42^** –0.11^* –0.10^* –0.15^* 0.32^**

Others’ emotional appraisal 0.06 0.06 0.08^* 0.06 0.08^*

Use of emotions 0.57^ –0.18^ –0.16^ –0.16^ 0.41^

Regulation of emotions 0.31^ –0.08^* –0.07^* –0.02 0.30^**

Variables	Self-Esteem	Social Anxiety	Satisfaction with Life
Self-emotion appraisal	0.42^**	–0.11^*	–0.10^*	–0.15^*	0.32^**
Others’ emotional appraisal	0.06	0.06	0.08^*	0.06	0.08^*
Use of emotions	0.57^**	–0.18^**	–0.16^**	–0.16^**	0.41^**
Regulation of emotions	0.31^**	–0.08^*	–0.07^*	–0.02	0.30^**

Note: Social Avoidance and Distress-New (SAD-N); Fear of Negative Evaluation (FNE); Social Avoidance and Distress-General (SAD-G); ^* p < 0.05; ^** p < 0.01.

Correlation analysis indicated that the self-emotion appraisal, use of emotions and regulation of emotions dimensions were positively and moderately correlated (r_s between 0.30 and 0.57, p < 0.01) with self-esteem and life satisfaction, whereas the associations among these three EI domains and social anxiety dimensions were small and negative (r_s between –0.19 and –0.07, p < 0.05). On the other hand, small and positive correlations (r_s = 0.08, p = 0.01) were observed between the others’ emotional appraisal EI dimension, satisfaction with life, and fear of negative evaluation by others. Further separate correlations for boys and girls confirmed the same pattern of results, except the fear of negative evaluation (social anxiety) associations with the EI domains. More precisely, the significant negative correlations between fear of negative evaluation and the self-emotion appraisal, use of emotions and regulation of emotions domains only hold for girls, whereas the significant positive association between fear of negative evaluation and others’ emotional appraisal EI domains was only observed among boys.

We also computed correlation coefficients between age and the EI domains, which indicated that age was negatively associated with the use of emotions (r =–0.10, p = 0.01) and positively correlated with the emotional appraisal of others (r = 0.08, p = 0.01), although both correlation coefficients were small. No other significant associations were observed.

3.3 Sex and age effects on EI domains

The 2 (sex)×3 (age groups) ANOVAs indicated no significant (p > 0.05) interaction effects on the EI domains’ scores. Therefore, we subsequently analyzed the main effects of sex and age on EI scores separately.

Table 3 presents the comparative analyses of the EI domains by sex.

Table 3
Comparative analyses of the EI dimensions by sex

Variables Girls Boys F p

M±SD M±SD

Self-emotion appraisal 15.15±2.64 16.06±2.08 36.69 <0.001

Others’ emotional appraisal 15.89±2.34 14.89±2.38 46.56 <0.001

Use of emotions 14.92±2.84 15.90±2.61 32.89 <0.001

Regulation of emotions 12.79±3.15 14.39±3.02 69.66 <0.001

Variables	Girls	Boys	F	p
Self-emotion appraisal	15.15±2.64	16.06±2.08	36.69	<0.001
Others’ emotional appraisal	15.89±2.34	14.89±2.38	46.56	<0.001
Use of emotions	14.92±2.84	15.90±2.61	32.89	<0.001
Regulation of emotions	12.79±3.15	14.39±3.02	69.66	<0.001

Our results showed small to medium significant effects of sex in all EI dimensions. Boys reported higher levels of self-emotion appraisal (η²= 0.03), use of emotions (η²= 0.04) and regulation of emotions (η²= 0.03), whereas girls showed higher levels of other-emotion appraisal (η²= 0.06).

Table 4 presents the comparative analyses of the EI domains by age groups.

Table 4

Comparative analyses of the EI dimensions by age groups

Variables	Early adolescents	Middle adolescents	Late adolescents	F	p
	M±SD	M±SD	M±SD
Self-emotion appraisal	15.62±2.43	15.67±2.45	15.21±2.46	3.34	0.04
Others’ emotional appraisal	15.05±2.46	15.61±2.38	15.79±2.30	8.62	<0.001
Use of emotions	15.48±2.79	15.50±2.80	14.88±2.71	5.02	<0.01
Regulation of emotions	13.58±3.13	13.51±3.23	13.25±3.20	0.92	0.40

Our results showed small significant effects (η²= 0.02) of age groups in three of the EI domains. However, Scheffe’s post hoc tests only indicated differences in two of these dimensions. In the first case, the early adolescents scored lower (p < 0.01) in the other’s emotion appraisal domain than the remaining groups (middle and late adolescents). In the second case, the late adolescents reported lower levels (p < 0.01) of use of emotions than the early and middle adolescents.

4 Discussion

This study endorses the understanding of EI as a dynamic construct that develops and/or changes during adolescence differently according to sex, as well as a multidimensional set of emotion-related self-perceptions and dispositions that has distinct effects on positive and negative indicators of youth’s psychosocial functioning.

Regarding the first aim of this study, our results showed that the self-emotion appraisal, use of emotions and regulation of emotions domains of EI were only substantively related to positive affective and cognitive facets of well-being. Taken together, this finding replicates previous results in both adolescents and adults, using ability or trait EI measures [14–19 , 23], and provides support among adolescents to EI theories and models that consider this construct as integral and central to psychological growth and positive well-being [4 –7]. A possible explanatory mechanism to these associations suggests that higher and successful emotional abilities (appraisal, use and regulation) may contribute to superior feelings of accomplishments, an elicited sense of personal and environmental mastery and more positive self-acceptance, which in turn contributes to enhance their well-being levels [15 , 38]. Moreover, our study also advances the literature by suggesting that the associations between EI domains and positive and negative facets of well-being appear to function independently during adolescence. Furthermore, the negligible or modest relationships observed between the EI domains and social anxiety dimensions is a somehow unexpected finding, since previous studies examining both constructs have shown moderate to high associations [39 –41]. Nevertheless, most of these significant correlations are negative and, therefore, corroborate previous studies [39 –41]. However, our most surprising finding relates to the positive (but small) correlation between the EI domain of others’ emotional appraisal and the fear of negative evaluation which was only observed among boys. This result should be interpreted with caution given its negligible effect size and the large size of the sample. On the other hand, the non-significant correlations between fear of negative evaluations by others and the remaining EI domains among boys appears to suggest that the development and successful use of EI abilities and/or competencies in male adolescents occurs independently of the socio-evaluative fear, unlike girls. This may be explained by the fact that adolescent girls are more emotionally responsive and concerned with own and others’ emotions, while adolescent boys tend to show less empathic concern for others and a greater tendency to inhibit emotional states of fear and social evaluation [26 , 42]. Nonetheless, more research is warranted on sex-differences in emotional perception, reasoning and regulation across the life span, since the few available findings and conclusions tend to differ according to the nature, model and assessment of EI.

With respect to the second aim of our study, our results support previous evidence that indicated that EI is a multidimensional and dynamic construct during adolescence, with sex differences emerging during this life period [25 –28]. More precisely, boys presented higher EI levels of self-emotion appraisal, use of emotions and regulation of emotions, whereas girls exhibited higher levels of other-emotion appraisal. Taken together, this evidence suggests that the female adolescents in our sample are less (cap)able to understand, use and regulate emotions, which in turn may lead to lower levels of well-being and greater vulnerability to emotional disorders in adolescent girls. Previous studies have provided some empirical support regarding this sex-specific evidence [22 , 43], which again suggests for the need of developing and implement programmes and interventions separately for girls and boys. In regards to the age effects, we did not observe significant sex-by-age interactions in the levels of the EI domains, which suggests that the effect of age on these emotion-related dimensions does not differ between male and female adolescents. Both comparison and correlation results indicated that early and late adolescents reported lower levels of other’s emotion appraisal and of use of emotions, respectively. The first finding among early adolescents corroborates previous studies [26, 27], and is in line with the emotional maturity hypothesis which suggests that emotional abilities are expected to improve progressively with a cumulative impact of life experiences and cognitive and social maturation [44], allowing for adolescents to become more self- and socially-conscious as they compare themselves to peers [45]. Consequently, it is not surprising that older adolescents tend to perceive a lower use of emotions than their younger counterparts, as shown by our results. This result is partially in accordance with those of previous studies [26, 28], and may be explained by the previous stated heightened emotional awareness during pubertal growth which in turn may contribute to an undermining of their confidence to use correctly and effectively their emotions in face of the emotionally laden life dilemmas and new expectations they face throughout this period of life [22 , 43], leading adolescents to engage in emotional avoidance or less use of emotion. However, and since our study is cross-sectional in design, more longitudinal research is required regarding the analyses of the developmental and sex trajectories of multiple EI domains throughout adolescence.

Although the present study presents some important contributions to previous literature, some research limitations should be acknowledged, such as the sole use of self-report instruments to collect data, the sample composition which is restricted to public schools in a specific region in Portugal and the cross-sectional nature of this study.

5 Conclusions

Our findings suggest that emotion-related self-perceptions and dispositions are of great significance during adolescence, based on its associations with both positive and negative facets of well-being. More specifically, our study showed that the effects of EI domains on the fear of negative evaluation (social anxiety) are sex-dependent. In addition, our results also indicated that the levels in the EI domains exhibited sex-specific differences, with boys reporting more self-appraisal, use and regulation of emotions, whereas girls showed higher scores in the other-emotion appraisal dimension. Moreover, both comparison and correlation results showed that age was negatively associated with the use of emotions dimension and positively related with the emotional appraisal of others. These findings taken together have important implications for school-based or other emotional education practices and programmes among youth, suggesting that more effective interventions should align with these sex- and age-differentiated patterns of psychosocial functioning.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

References

Fernández-Berrocal

, Extremera

. Special issue on emotional intelligence: An overview. Psicothema. 2006;18:1–6.

Maghsoudipour

, Shabani

, Najafabadi

, Bakhshi

, Coh

. The relationship between emotional intelligence, reaction time, aerobic capacity and performance in female track and field athletes at the Universities of Tehran. Work. 2018;61(2):173–9. doi: 10.3233/WOR-182790

Zoupanou

, Rydstedt

. The mediating and moderating role of affective rumination between work interruptions and well-being. Work. 2019;62(4):553–61. doi: 10.3233/WOR-192890

Mayer

, Salovey

, editors. Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Educational Implications. New York: Basic Books; 1997. pp. 3–31.

Petrides

, Furnham

. Trait emotional intelligence: psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. Eur J Pers. 2001;15(6):425–48.

Mayer

, Salovey

, Caruso

. Models of emotional intelligence. In: RJ Sternberg, editor. The handbook of intelligence. New York: Cambridge University; 2000. pp. 396–420.

O’Connor

, Hill

, Kaya

, Martin

. The measurement of emotional intelligence: A critical review of the literature and recommendations for researchers and practitioners. Front. Psychol. 2019;10:1116. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01116

Wong

, Law

. The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: an exploratory study. Lead Q. 2002;13(3):243–73.

Pérez

, Petrides

, Furnham

. Measuring trait emotional intelligence. In R Schulze, RD Roberts, editors. Emotional intelligence: An international handbook. Ashland: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers; 2005. pp. 181–201.

10.

Kong

. The validity of the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale in a Chinese sample: Tests of measurement invariance and latent mean differences across gender and age. Pers Individ Dif. 2017;116:29–31.

11.

LaPalme

, Wang

, Joseph

, Saklofske

, Yan

. Measurement equivalence of the Wong and Law emotional intelligence scale across cultures: An item response theory approach. Pers Individ Dif. 2016;90:190–8.

12.

Libbrecht

, Beuckelaer

, Lievens

, Rockstuhl

. Measurement invariance of the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale scores: Does the measurement structure hold across far Eastern and European countries? Appl Psychol. 2014;63(2):223–37.

13.

Costa

, Fernandes

. Psychometric properties of the Wong and LawEmotional Intelligence Scale in adolescents. M Veiga Branco, C Pais, editors. Proceedings of the 3rd International Seminar on Emotional Intelligence. Bragança: IPB; 2019.

14.

Martins

, Ramalho

, Morin

. A comprehensive meta-analysis of the relationship between Emotional Intelligence and health. Pers Individ Dif. 2010;49:554–64.

15.

Extremera

, Ruiz-Aranda

, Pineda-Galán

, Salguero

. Emotional intelligence and its relation with hedonic and eudaimonic well-being: A prospective study. Pers Individ Dif. 2011;51(1):11–6.

16.

Bar-on

. The impact of emotional intelligence on health and wellbeing. In: Di Fabio A, editor. Emotional intelligence: New perspectives and applications. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech; 2012. pp. 29–50.

17.

Schutte

, Malouff

, Thorsteinsson

, Bhullar

, Rooke

. A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health. Pers Individ Dif. 2007;42(6):921–33.

18.

Davis

, Humphrey

. The influence of emotional intelligence (EI) on coping and mental health in adolescence: Divergent roles for trait and ability EI. J Adolesc. 2012;35(5):1369–79.

19.

Davis

, Humphrey

. Emotional intelligence as a moderator of stressor-mental health relations in adolescence: Evidence for specificity. Pers Individ Dif. 2012;52(1):100–5.

20.

Fernandez-Berrocal

, Alcaide

, Extremera

, Pizarro

. The role of emotional intelligence in anxiety and depression among adolescents. Individ Dif Res. 2006;4:16–27.

21.

Antinienė

, Lekavičienė

. Psychological and physical well-being of Lithuanian youth: Relation to emotional intelligence. Medicina (Kaunas). 2017;53(4):277–84.

22.

Gómez-Baya

, Mendoza

, Paíno

, Matos

. Perceived emotional intelligence as a predictor of depressive symptoms during mid-adolescence: A two-year longitudinal study on gender differences. Pers Individ Dif. 2017;104:303–12.

23.

Rey

, Extremera

, Pena

. Perceived emotional intelligence, self-esteem and life satisfaction in adolescents. Psychosoc Interv. 2011;20:227–34.

24.

Zeidner

, Olnick-Shemesh

. Emotional intelligence and subjective well-being revisited. Pers Individ Dif. 2010;48(4):431–5.

25.

Harrod

, Scheer

. An exploration of adolescent emotional intelligence in relation to demographic characteristics. Adolescence. 2005;40(159):503–12.

26.

Keefer

, Holden

, Parker

JDA

. Longitudinal assessment of trait emotional intelligence: Measurement invariance and construct continuity from late childhood to adolescence. Psychol Assess. 2013;25(4):1255–72.

27.

Salguero

, Fernandez-Berrocal

, Balluerka

, Aritzeta

. Measuring perceived emotional intelligence in the adolescent population: Psychometric properties of the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. Soc Behav Pers. 2010;38:1197–210.

28.

Esnaola

, Revuelta

, Ros

, Sarasa

. The development of emotional intelligence in adolescence. An Psicol Spain. 2017;33(2):327–33.

29.

Joseph

, Newman

. Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. J Appl Psychol. 2010;95(1):54–78.

30.

Breinbauer

, Maddaleno

. Youth: Choices and change - Promoting healthy behaviors in adolescents. Washington, DC: Pan American Health Organization; 2005.

31.

Rosenberg

. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1965.

32.

Vasconcelos-Raposo

, Fernandes

, Teixeira

, Bertelli

. Factorial validity and invariance of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale among Portuguese youngsters. Soc Indic Res. 2012;105(3):483–98.

33.

Diener

, Emmons

, Larsen

, Griffin

. The Satisfaction with Life Scale. J Pers Assess. 1985;49:71–5.

34.

Neto

. Satisfaction with life scale: Psychometric properties in an adolescent sample. J Youth Adolesc. 1993;22(2):125–34.

35.

Greca AM

, Lopez

. Social anxiety among adolescents: Linkages with peer relations and friendships. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1998;26(2):83–94.

36.

Pechorro

, Ayala-Nunes

, Nunes

, Marôco

, Gonçalves

. The Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents: Measurement invariance and psychometric properties among a school sample of Portuguese youths. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2016;47(6):975–84.

37.

Cohen

. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge Academic; 1988.

38.

Shulman

, Hemenover

. Is dispositional emotional intelligence synonymous with personality? Self Identity. 2006;5(2):147–71.

39.

Summerfeldt

, Kloosterman

, Antony

, Parker

. Social anxiety, emotional intelligence, and interpersonal adjustment. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2006;28:57–68.

40.

Nolidin

, Downey

, Hansen

, Schweitzer

, Stough

. Associations between social anxiety and emotional intelligence within clinically depressed patients. Psychiatr Q. 2013;84(4):513–21.

41.

Cejudo

, Rodrigo-Ruiz

, López-Delgado

, Losada

. Emotional intelligence and its relationship with levels of social anxiety and stress in adolescents. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(6):E1073.

42.

Sabatier

, Cervantes

, Torres

, De los Rios

, Sañudo

. Emotion Regulation in Children and Adolescents: concepts, processes and influences. Psicol Caribe. 2017;34(1):75–90.

43.

Gómez-Baya

, Mendoza

. Trait emotional intelligence as a predictor of adaptive responses to positive and negative affect during adolescence. Front Psychol. 2018;9:2525.

44.

Mayer

, Caruso

, Salovey

. Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence. 1999;27:267–98.

45.

Harter

. The construction of the self: Developmental and sociocultural foundations. 2nd edition. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press; 2012.