People with higher levels of emotional intelligence (EI: adaptive emotional traits, skills, and abilities) typically achieve more positive life outcomes, such as psychological wellbeing, educational attainment, and job-related success. Although the underpinning mechanisms linking EI with those outcomes are largely unknown, it has been suggested that EI may work as a “stress buffer.” Theoretically, when faced with a stressful situation, emotionally intelligent individuals should show a more adaptive response than those with low EI, such as reduced reactivity (less mood deterioration, less physiological arousal), and faster recovery once the threat has passed. A growing number of studies have begun to investigate that hypothesis in respect to EI measured as both an ability (AEI) and trait (TEI), but results are unclear. To test the “stress-buffering” function of EI, we systematically reviewed experimental studies that explored the relationship between both types of EI and acute stress reactivity or recovery. By searching four databases, we identified 45 eligible studies. Results indicated that EI was only adaptive in certain contexts, and that findings differed according to stressor type, and how EI was measured. In terms of stress reactivity, TEI related to less mood deterioration during sports-based stressors (e.g., competitions), physical discomfort (e.g., dental procedure), and cognitive stressors (e.g., memory tasks), but did not appear as helpful in other contexts (e.g., public speaking). Furthermore, effects of TEI on physiological stress responses, such as heart rate, were inconsistent. Effects of AEI on subjective and objective stress reactivity were often non-significant, with high levels detrimental in some cases. However, data suggest that both higher AEI and TEI relate to faster recovery from acute stress. In conclusion, results provide mixed support for the stress-buffering effect of EI. Limitations and quality of studies are also discussed. Findings could have implications for EI training programmes.

No abstract

This study examined the effect of regional accent on the attribution of guilt. One hundred and nineteen participants listened to a recorded exchange between a British male criminal suspect and a male policeman. Employing the “matched-guise” technique, this exchange was varied to produce a 2 (accent type: Birmingham/standard) 2 (race of suspect: Black/White) 2 (crime type: blue collar/white collar) independent-groups design. The results suggested that the suspect was rated as significantly more guilty when he employed a Birmingham rather than a standard accent and that attributions of guilt were significantly associated with the suspect’s perceived superiority and social attractiveness.

The authors investigated the effect of accent evaluation, evidence, and crime type on participants' perceptions of guilt and criminality. British student raters (n = 199) listened to a tape-recorded exchange between a male criminal suspect and a male policeman. The authors manipulated this exchange to produce a 2 (accent type: English regional or standard) x 2 (evidence type: strong or weak) x 2 (crime type: blue collar or white collar) factorial design. Dependent measures consisted of participants' ratings of the suspect's guilt and criminality. Contrary to previous research, accent did not significantly influence attributions of guilt either as a main effect or in interaction with the contextual variables. However, independent of evidence presented and crime type, the regional-accented suspect was evaluated as more typically criminal and more likely to be reaccused of a crime than the standard-accented suspect.

Anaphylaxis is a serious, rare condition increasing in prevalence. This study explored the psychological experience of adult-onset anaphylaxis from patient, family and staff perspectives. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 participants. Two global themes emerged from thematic analysis: ‘controllability’ (‘an unknown and distressing experience’, ‘the importance of control over triggers’ and ‘responsibility but no control: the impact on others’) and ‘conflict’ (‘rejecting illness identity’, ‘minimisation of risk’, ‘accessing specialist care: running in slow motion’ and ‘patient-centred versus service-centred care’). Findings highlight the importance of perceived control and emphasise the presence of conflict in the experience of this complex, episodic condition.