Objectives. In proposed
study following objectives are formulated:
To investigate the relationship of emotional
intelligence and psychological well-being and Resilience.
To find out the
demographic differences (gender) of Hostelite students on emotional
intelligence, Psychological well-being and Resilience.
Hypotheses. In this research following hypothesis have been formulated:
There will be
positive relationship between emotional intelligence, psychological
well-being and Resilience among Hostelite students.
Emotional intelligence, predicts the psychological well-being.
Resilience is the positive predictor of psychological well-being.
Resilience has the mediating role in the relationship between emotional
intelligence and psychological well-being.
Sample. The sample for proposed study will
consist N= 200 participants. Men (n=100) and women (n =100). After taking the permission from Head of Department the
sample will be drawn from the University of Sargodha.
Operational definition of variables. The
proposed study will use three variables; emotional intelligence, psychological
well-being and Resilience. The operational definitions of these variables are
Goleman describes emotional
intelligence the ability, capacity, skill, or self-perceived ability to
identify, assess, and manage the emotions of one’s self, of others, and of
groups. People who possess a high degree of emotional intelligence know
themselves very well and are also able to sense the emotions of others (as
cited in Serrat, 2009). It is
operationalized on the scores of individual on (SRMEI) scale.
Psychological well-being. Individual meaningful
engagement in life, self- satisfaction, optimal psychological functioning and
development at one’s true highest potential. It has six dimensions that are
autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relationship with
other, purpose in life and self-acceptance of individuals (Ryff, 1989).
Resilience. Resilience can
be considered as a process of adaptation to adversity and stress. Resilient
individuals tend to recover from setbacks or trauma and portray a common set of
characteristics that help them cope with challenges in life (McAllister &
McKinnon, 2009; Herrman et al., 2011).
Instrument. According to nature of study, following three scales will be selected,
named self –Report measure of emotional
intelligence scale (SRMEI) , Psychological-Well-Being-Scales-(PWB)
and Brief Cope Scale. The
detailed description of these scales are given below:
Self –report measure of emotional
intelligence scale (SRMEI). Self –Report measure of emotional
intelligence scale (SRMEI) will be used to access
the emotional intelligence. This scale consists of 33items with scoring answers
on five-point scale (5= strongly agree, 4= agree, 3= neither disagree nor
agree, 2= Disagree and 1= strongly disagree). Reliability
of SRMEI scale is .91.
The Psychological Well-Being scale (PWB) consists of eight items
describing important aspects of human functioning ranging from positive
relationships, to feelings of competence, to having meaning and purpose in
life. Response format is from 1-7(strongly disagree to strongly Agree). Add up all the items high scorer will depict high psychological
well-being. Test-retest reliability
coefficient ranged between .78 and .97.
The Brief Resilience Scale. There are six items of the brief resilience scale (BRS). Item no 1,
3 an5 are having positive wording while 2, 4, and 6 are reverse coded items.
The BRS can be scored by reversing item number 2, 4 and 6 and then by taking
mean of all 6 items. That is five point Likert scale. 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 =
neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.”
Reliability analysis using Cronbach’s Alpha was .93, indicating that the
scale has good reliability.
i.e. age. Gender
Procedure. For proposed study N=200
participants will be approached. Men (n=100)
and women (n =100). After taking the informed consent form, the
participants will complete the three questionnaires used in proposed study;
SRMEI, PWB and BRS scales. The
demographic information questionnaire will be also used. Participants will be
given approximately 40 minutes to complete set of questionnaires.
Proposed analysis .After collecting data; Suitable statistical analysis will be done
by using SPSS for testing the objectives and hypotheses.
Ethical consideration. I will not physically harm any person .I will make sure
that the respondents have been willingly participated in the research. Any
deception regarding objective of research will be avoided. The participants
will be assured that their privacy shall be kept confidence.
Number of Participants, Mean Scores, and Standard
Deviations for Emotional Intelligence
Psychological Well-being, and Resilience.
Note: N= Number of Participants, M= Mean Score, SD=
These are descriptive findings of all three variables.
Pearson co-relation between Criterion and predicted
**.Correlation is significant at 0.01level (2-tailed)
As shown in Table 2 there is significant positive
relationship of emotional intelligence with resilience (r =1.27, P < 0.01) and psychological well-being (r = 47.88, P < 0.01). And there exists a significant positive relationship between resilience and psychological well-being. (r = 4.16, P < 0.01). Table 3 Regression Table for the Emotional Intelligence and psychological well-being. Predictor Variable Criterion Variable F R R Square Adjusted R² ? T p Emotional Intelligence Psychological Well-being 181.66 .692 .478 .476 .692 13.47 .000 Table 3 shows that, emotional Intelligence had significant positive effect on psychological well-being of students (F = 181.6, P < 0.01). Note: ?=Coefficient of Regression; F=F-test; t=t-test; P=Significant Level; R=Coefficient of Correlation; R2=Coefficient of Determination. Table 4 Regression based on Effect of resilience on psychological Well-being. Predictor Variable Criterion Variable F R R Square Adjusted R² ? T p Resilience Psychological Well-being 8.603 .204 .042 .037 .204 2.93 .004 Table 4 shows that, Resilience had significant positive effect on psychological well-being (F = 8.603, P < 0.05) Note: ?=Coefficient of Regression; F=F-test; t=t-test; P=Significant Level; R=Coefficient of Correlation; R2=Coefficient of Determination. Table 5. Regression of Psychological Well-Being based on resilience by controlling the dimensions of Emotional Intelligence. Predictor Variable Criterion Variable F P R R2 ? T P Psychological Well being 96.38 0.01 .703 .495 Emotional Intelligence .677 13.28 .000 Resilience .128 2.504 0.01 Table No. 5 depicts that, Emotional Intelligence and Resilience had significant positive effect on psychological well-being. (P < 0.01, F = 96.38). Also, Results depicts that emotional intelligence (P < 0.01, ? = .677) is positive predictor of psychological well-being. And resilience is also significant positive predictor of psychological well-being (P < 0.01, ? = .128). Note: ?=Coefficient of Regression; F=F-test; t=t-test; P=Significant Level; R=Coefficient of Correlation; R2=Coefficient of Determination. Suggestions and Limitations Studies which are going to be conducted in future should also consider other related variables like spiritual intelligence, self-control and psychological adjustment. Limitation Limitation of this study was that, sample was only Hostelite (university) students. And other social Groups were neglected. References Cherry, K. (2012). Emotional intelligence: what is emotional intelligence? The New York Company. Retrieved from http://psychology.about.com/od/personalitydevelopment/a/emotionalintell.htm Stys, Y., & Brown, S. L. (2004). A Review of the Emotional Intelligence Literature and Implications for Corrections. Retrieved from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r150/r150_e.pdf Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonic, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 1–11. Doi: 10.1007/s10902-006-9018-1 Huppert, F. A. (2009). Psychological well-being: Evidence regarding its causes and consequences. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 1, 137–164. doi:10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01008.x Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316–331. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1987.tb03541.x Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227–238. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227 Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, M. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425–444. doi: 10.1017/S0954579400005812 Luthar, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 857–885. doi: 10.1017/S0954579400004156 Ryff CD, Keyes CL. The structure of psychological well-being revisited. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995;69(4):719–27. 27. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6):1173–82. 28. Carver CS, Scheier MF, Segerstrom SC. Optimism. Clin Psychol Rev. 2010;30(7):879–89 Masten AS. Global perspectives on resilience in children and youth. Child Dev. 2014;85(1):6–20. 22. Ryff CD. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989;57(6):1069–81. 7. Ryff CD. Psychological well-being revisited: advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychother Psychosom. 2014;83(1):10–28. 16. Bar-on R. The emotional quotient inventory (EQI), a measure of emotional intelligence.Toronto, Canada: Multi-health systems; 1997. 13. Schutte NS, Malouff JM, Thorsteinsson EB. Increasing emotional intelligence through training: Current status and future directions. Int J Emot Educ. 2013;5(1):56–72. Fredrickson BL, Joiner T. Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being. Psychol Sci. 2002;13(2):172–5. Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227–238. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227 Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, M. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425–444. doi: 10.1017/S0954579400005812 Masten, A. S., & Obradovic ´, J. (2006). Competence and resilience in development. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1094, 13–27. doi: 10.1196/annals.1376.003 Rutter, M. (1990). Competence under stress: Risk and protective factors. In J. Rolf, A. S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Nuechterlin, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 181– 214). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Rutter, M. (2006). Implications of resilience concepts for scientific understanding. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1094, 1–12. doi: 10.1196/annals.1376.002