Emotional intelligence, personality, and task-induced stress.

Abstract

Emotional intelligence (EI) may predict stress responses and coping strategies in a variety of applied settings. This study compares EI and the personality factors of the Five Factor Model (FFM) as predictors of task-induced stress responses. Participants (N = 200) were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 task conditions, 3 of which were designed to be stressful. Results confirmed that low EI was related to worry states and avoidance coping, even with the FFM statistically controlled. However, EI was not specifically related to task-induced changes in stress state. Results also confirmed that Neuroticism related to distress, worry, and emotion-focused coping, and Conscientiousness predicted use of task-focused coping. The applied utility of EI and personality measures is discussed.

Coping mediates the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and academic achievement

“…Both Matthews et al (2006) and Peters, Kranzler, and Rossen (2009) found that MSCEIT scores showed a negative relationship with emotion-focused coping (r = -.19 and -.46, respectively) and no relationship with problem-focused coping. Matthews et al also found a small negative relationship with avoidance-focused coping (r = -.16).…”

Emotional intelligence as a moderator of stressor–mental health relations in adolescence: Evidence for specificity

“…Whilst there is some evidence to suggest that 'trait' EI may operate as a protective resource within stress-illness processes (e.g., Mikolajczak, Roy, Luminet, Fillée, & de Timary, 2007), the role of 'ability' EI in this regard appears unclear (e.g., Matthews et al, 2006). Moreover, few studies have simultaneously examined relations between EI, chronic stressors and mental health in adolescents.…”

Demystifying Occupational Stress and Fatigue Through the Creation of an Adaptive End-User Profiling System

“…Medical imaging professionals (e.g., radiologists, technologists) differ in a variety of ways, including clinical experience, education and training, demographics (e.g., age, gender), and specific job requirements. In addition to these more obvious sources of variability, other (often unnoticed) factors contribute to inter-observer variability including technology proclivity, personality [13], intelligence, emotional state, and sensory/motor skills ( Table 1). All of these variables contribute in varying degrees to the collective attributes and characteristics of individual end users and should be considered when attempting to understand and quantify occupational stress and fatigue.…”