Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 909914

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Emotional intelligence and resilience

Tamera R. Schneider a,, Joseph B. Lyons b, Steven Khazon a
a
b

Wright State University, 3640 Col. Glenn Hwy., Dayton, OH 45435, United States
Air Force Research Laboratory, 875 N. Randolph St., Arlington, VA, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 30 January 2013
Received in revised form 10 July 2013
Accepted 15 July 2013
Available online 6 August 2013
Keywords:
Emotional intelligence
Appraisal
Affect
Physiology
Positive psychology

a b s t r a c t
This study examined the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and the stress process. Participants (N = 126) completed an ability-based measure of EI and then engaged with two stressors. We
assessed stressor appraisals, emotions, and physiological stress responses over time. We expected that
higher EI would facilitate stress responses in the direction of challenge, rather than threat. As expected,
EI facets were related to lower threat appraisals, more modest declines in positive affect, less negative
affect and challenge physiological responses to stress. However, ndings differed for men and women.
This study provides predictive validity that EI facilitates stress resilience.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Emotional intelligence and resilience

Emotional intelligence (EI), ones ability to perceive, integrate,
understand, and manage emotions, has received a great deal of
attention (Zeidner, Roberts, & Matthews, 2004). Popular literature
promises benets of EI (Goleman, 1995), but these have not been
established (Landy, 2005; Zeidner et al., 2004). Debates over conceptualization and measurement have delayed research (Davies,
Stankov, & Roberts, 1998; Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2007).
Mixed (trait) models describe EI as skills, personality, and wellbeing (Bar-On, 1997; Goleman, 1995), whereas ability-based models describe EI as an intelligence comprising emotional abilities
(Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999, 2000). To be labeled intelligence
a construct must be dened as a set of abilities, related to other
measures of cognitive ability, and develop with age (Carroll,
1993). Trait-based conceptualizations do not meet these criteria
(e.g., Roberts, MacCann, Matthews, & Zeidner, 2010; Schulze, Wilhelm, & Kyllonen, 2007), but ability-based conceptualizations do
(Austin, 2010; Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999). The MSCEIT is
the most validated ability measure (Matthews et al., 2007; Roberts
et al., 2010), and its four-factor framework stems from theory (e.g.,
MacCann & Roberts, 2008). We examined the inuence of abilitybased EI on stress responses appraisals, emotions, and physiology
as the stress process unfolds over time.

Corresponding author. Address: Wright State University, Department of

Psychology, 335 Fawcett, Dayton, OH 45435, United States. Tel.: +1 (937) 775
2391; fax: +1 (937) 775 3347.
E-mail address: tamera.schneider@wright.edu (T.R. Schneider).
0191-8869/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.460

Emotional intelligence comprises a set of four emotional skills

including accurately perceiving emotions, integrating emotions
with cognition, understanding emotional causes and consequences, and managing emotions for personal adjustment (Mayer
& Salovey, 1997; Salovey, Bedell, Detweiler, & Mayer, 1999; Salovey, Kokkonen, Lopes, & Mayer, 2004). These skills build hierarchically, from the ability to perceive emotions up to managing
emotions. Perceiving emotions includes the ability to accurately
identify and express emotions, which helps to discriminate between hospitable and hostile situations. The ability to generate
and use emotions to enhance thinking includes altering emotion
to redirect cognitive processes, obtain new perspectives, and enhance problem-solving or creativity. Emotional understanding includes the ability to understand emotional information, the
manner in which they combine, and their causes and consequences. Emotional management includes the ability to be open
to feelings and modulate them to facilitate growth, even during
duress. People experiencing specic and intense emotional
changes should benet from EI (Barrett, Gross, Christensen, & Benvenuto, 2001), however research on EI and stress outcomes is
lacking.
The stress process begins with evaluations, or appraisals, denoting our interpretation of an impending stressful situation (Lazarus,
1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Primary appraisals are evaluations about the personal relevance of the situation whether it
threatens goals, resources, or values. Secondary appraisals are beliefs about potential resources available for meeting stressor demands. Given an impending stressor, primary and secondary
appraisals interact, resulting in a continuum ranging from challenge to threat. Challenge occurs when adequate resources are

910

T.R. Schneider et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 909914

deemed to meet situational demands, whereas threat results when

situational demands outweigh resources (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984). Challenge and threat appraisals are differently related to
physiological responses, performance (Schneider, 2004; Tomaka,
Blascovich, Kelsey, & Leitten, 1993), and emotions (Schneider,
2004, 2008). Physiologically, both threatened and challenged
groups are mobilized with increased heart rate (HR) and some increase in cardiac output (CO; the amount of blood pumped out of
the heart over time), however the pattern of blood ow differs
(Schneider, 2004, 2008). Challenge appraisals evoke increases in
cardiac reactivity (increased HR and CO) coupled with peripheral
vasodilation (vasculature is more accepting of blood ow) (Schneider, 2004, 2008; Tomaka et al., 1993). Threatened participants have
a smaller increase in cardiac reactivity coupled with enhanced
vasoconstriction (vasculature is less accepting of blood ow). Challenged participants outperform threatened participants on motivated performance, active coping tasks (Schneider, 2004; Tomaka
et al., 1993), and on complex skills training and transfer (Gildea,
Schneider, & Shebilske, 2007). Challenged participants also experience more positive affect and less negative affect than threatened
participants (Schneider, 2004, 2008). Most psychophysiological
stress research focuses on a single stressor, but we investigated
the role of ability-based EI on stress responses over time.
People appraise situations differently, with some more vulnerable to negative stress outcomes (Basic Behavioral Science Task
Force of the National Advisory Mental Health Council Basic Behavioral Science Task Force of the National Advisory Mental Health
Council Basic Behavioral Science Task Force of the National Advisory Mental Health Council Basic Behavioral Science Task Force
of the National Advisory Mental Health Council Basic Behavioral
Science Task Force of the National Advisory Mental Health Council
BBSTFNAMHC, 1996; Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996; Schneider, 2004;
Vollrath & Torgersen, 2000). Appraisals should be inuenced by
dispositions (Lazarus, 1999; Lyons & Schneider, 2005; Schneider
2004). Past research has found that high assertiveness predicts
challenge appraisals of a speech stressor (Tomaka et al., 1993),
and higher just world beliefs (beliefs that the world is just and fair)
predict challenge appraisals of a math stressor (Tomaka & Blascovich, 1994). Although EI has clear implications for emotional responses, it has yet to be examined with these robust stress
outcomes. Emotions play a fundamental role in shaping our reactions to external stimuli and help to focus our attention, aid in
interpreting harms or benets, and motivate us to respond to
anticipated or actual events that are personally relevant (Salovey
et al., 2004; Zajonc, 1998).
Emotional intelligence should confer benets during duress
(Brackett, Palomera, Mojsa-Kaja, Reyes, & Salovey, 2010; Ciarrochi,
Deane, & Anderson, 2002; Matthews & Zeidner, 2000; Nikolaou &
Tsaousis, 2002; Ramos, Fernandez-Berrocal, & Extremera, 2007;
Salovey et al., 1999; Stroud, Salovey, Woolery, & Epel, 2002). Most
EI-stress research has focused on self-reported, trait EI. It has been
linked to actively coping with stressors (Stroud et al., 2002), lower
subjective work stress (Nikolaou & Tsaousis, 2002), and a benecial
moderator of the link between stress and health (EP and EM; Ciarrochi et al., 2002). These studies suggest that EI may foster resilience, although self-reported EI lacks validity (Davies et al., 1998;
Schulze et al., 2007). Examining ability EI, Brackett et al. (2010)
found that emotional regulation predicts burnout and job satisfaction in secondary school teachers. Research examining ability EI
and stress responses is lacking (Salovey et al., 2004). Furthermore,
females outperform males on ability EI measures (Day & Carroll,
2004; Kafetsios, 2004; Lyons & Schneider, 2005). Little is known
about the inuence of ability EI on stress responses, and for men
and women separately.
We examined the role of ability EI on psychophysiological stress
responses. We posited that EI should promote resilient and

adaptive functioning during stressful situations for men and women. Given the paucity of research we did not offer predictions
for specic facets or different genders. Instead, we expected that
men and women who score higher in EI would appraise an
impending stressor as a challenge, experience more positive and
less negative affect, and exhibit challenge physiology (greater cardiac reactivity coupled with vasodilation), compared to those lower in EI who were expected to appraise the stressors with greater
threat, less positive and more negative affect, and threat physiology (modest increase in cardiac reactivity coupled with vasoconstriction). This hypothesis was examined by branch, for men and
women separately because of gender differences in EI (Day & Carroll, 2004; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000) and the primary goal of
this research was to investigate EI and stress resilience, not control
for EI to examine gender differences in stress responses.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Undergraduate psychology students (N = 126) attending a midwestern university participated in exchange for course credit. The
average age was 20 (SD = 4.6). Most were female (60%), freshman
(67%), and Caucasian (70%).
2.2. Stress manipulations
We used two motivated performances, active coping stressors,
where people actively construct responses rather than sit passively
and endure some stimulus (e.g., cold pressor, slide viewing). Both
commonly used tasks are validated psychophysiological stressors
(Kelsey et al., 2000, 1999; Saab, Matthews, Stoney, & McDonald,
1989). The rationale for the use of two stressors was to counteract
psychophysiological habituation responses (Kelsey et al., 1999).
2.2.1. Mental arithmetic task
For three minutes participants were to count backward from a
four-digit number by sevens, aloud, as quickly and accurately as
possible. They were told their responses would be evaluated.
2.2.2. Speech task
In the role of middle manager, participants delivered a videotaped speech (1 min preparation, 2 min delivery) in which they defended themselves against an employees sexual harassment
accusation.
2.3. Materials
2.3.1. Emotional intelligence
The MSCEIT V2.0 is a 141-item, ability-based measure with four
subscales (Mayer et al., 2000). Emotional perception has participants identify emotions in faces and pictures. Facilitating cognition
has participants compare emotions to sensations and discern the
usefulness of emotions in different situations. Emotional understanding has participants reduce numerous emotions down to
one and identify the result of conicting emotions. Emotional management has participants discern the emotions of different characters in stories. Test manual as are .91, .90, .77, and .87,
respectively. The publisher provided branch scores.
2.3.2. Stress appraisals
Two-items assessed appraisals: How threatening do you expect the upcoming task to be (primary)? and How able are you
to handle the burden of the task (secondary)? These were

911

T.R. Schneider et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 909914

combined in a ratio (primary/secondary) where higher scores denote threat (Schneider, 2004).

Table 2
Means (SD) for mens appraisals and affect over time, by EI branch (measured at
baseline).
Baseline

2.3.3. Positive and negative affect

The PANAS assessed positive and negative affect (Watson, Clark,
& Tellegen, 1988). Participants rated their experience of emotions,
at that moment, at baseline and after both tasks. Ten items assessed positive affect (e.g., attentive, excited, inspired; as = .83,
.87, and .91, respectively), and ten assessed negative affect (e.g.,
distressed, hostile, afraid; as = .83, .79, and .84, respectively).
2.3.4. Physiological measures
An impedance cardiograph and continuous blood pressure
monitor provided data to derive cardiac output and total peripheral resistance. Data collection was in accordance with published
standards (Sherwood et al., 1990). Data were reduced ofine with
interactive software. Baseline equivalence of groups was
established.
2.4. Procedure
After obtaining consent, participants completed the MSCEIT online. They were seated in a sound-dampened chamber and physiological sensors were attached, followed by a 10-min physiological
baseline. A baseline PANAS was completed. Random assignment
to task was followed by task instruction. After instruction, appraisals were assessed, the task commenced, and state affect was
assessed. A 2-min recovery separated tasks. Then, task 2 instructions were given, and the sequence repeated. Sensors were
detached and participants debriefed.
3. Results
This study examined stress reactions (appraisals, affect, physiology) over time. Repeated measures ANOVAs were used to test
the hypotheses pertaining to appraisals and affect. Physiological
data were analyzed using a MANOVA. The task order was counterbalanced (math rst or speech rst) and this served as an independent variable in preliminary analysis. With the exception of
descriptive analyses using gender as an IV (see Table 1), analyses
examining the inuence of EI on stress responses were conducted
for men and women separately (using two gender datasets). Lastly,
to maximize power, EI branches were examined as covariates

Appraisals
Low emotional management
High emotional management

Time 1

Time 2

.74 (.50)
.72 (.42)

.94 (.83)
.65 (.34)

Positive affect
Low emotional understanding
High emotional understanding

2.50 (.69)
3.00 (.68)

2.20 (.65)
2.86 (.80)

1.96 (.75)
2.63 (.88)

Negative affect
Low emotional perception
High emotional perception

1.77 (.63)
1.29 (.34)

1.96 (.75)
1.51 (.44)

2.02 (.76)
1.45 (.40)

rather than dichotomized (MacCallum, Zhang, Preacher, & Rucker,

2002). In summary, repeated-measures ANCOVAs or the MANCOVA were conducted with emotional perception (EP), facilitating
cognition (FC), emotional understanding (EU), and emotional management (EM) as covariates and stress reactions (appraisals, affective responses, and physiology) over time as dependent variables,
for men and for women separately.
First, preliminary analyses investigated order effects, using repeated-measures M/ANOVAs with order (math rst or speech rst)
as the independent variable and stress responses as dependent
variables, for each gender. As expected, responses to the stressors
were equivalent, order had no effect on appraisals, emotions, or
physiology for men or women, ns. Subsequent analyses are collapsed across order. Descriptive ndings are in Table 1. Women
scored higher on EI branches than men, signicantly so for EM,
as in past research (Lopes, Salovey, Cote, & Beers, 2005). Thus, we
conducted analyses for men and women separately. Table 1 also
shows that relative to men, women reported signicantly more
threat before and less positive affect after the rst task, more negative affect after both tasks, and had lower cardiac output at
baseline.
Four (EI branch) repeated-measures ANCOVAs were conducted
with EI branch as the covariate and appraisals as the repeated
DV (time 1 and 2), for men and women separately. For both datasets (men, women), there were no main effects of time, or branch
with time interactions, ns. EM had a signicant covariate effect on
appraisals, but only for men. Table 2 shows that men higher in EM
were more challenged than those lower in EM, F(1, 49) = 4.78,

Table 1
Means (SD) for EI facets, appraisals, affect, and physiology, for men and women separately.

Emotional perception
Facilitating cognition
Emotional understanding
Emotional management
Appraisals: time 1
Appraisals: time 2
Positive affect: baseline
Positive affect: time 1
Positive affect: time 2
Negative affect: baseline
Negative affect: time 1
Negative affect: time 2
Cardiac output: baseline
Cardiac output: time 1
Cardiac output: time 2
TPR: baseline
TPR: time 1
TPR: time 2

Overall mean

Females (n = 75)

Males (n = 51)

98.45 (15.46)
95.26 (15.00)
89.32 (8.71)
90.62 (10.37)
.94 (.58)
1.01 (.83)
2.57 (.71)
2.31 (.76)
2.12 (.87)
1.58 (.52)
1.95 (.69)
1.97 (.78)
42.49 (11.74)
47.47 (16.30)
46.81 (16.71)
158.97 (54.54)
146.11 (87.82)
147.73 (86.28)

100.23 (14.80)
97.20 (14.42)
90.47 (8.85)
92.59 (10.04)a
1.09 (.60)a
1.12 (.89)
2.47 (.69)
2.19 (.72)a
2.03 (.88)
1.58 (.49)
2.07 (.68)a
2.10 (.80)a
39.99 (8.96)a
45.27 (11.01)
47.20 (11.69)
161.02 (48.42)
146.84 (70.50)
136.20 (56.31)

95.83 (16.16)
92.41 (15.52)
87.63 (8.30)
87.73 (10.27)b
.73 (.48)b
.86 (.73)
2.71 (.72)
2.47 (.78)b
2.24 (.86)
1.58 (.58)
1.78 (.68)b
1.80 (.72)b
46.11 (14.28)b
52.06 (19.65)
47.72 (20.68)
156.27 (62.45)
149.65 (106.78)
168.56 (112.46)

Note. Different superscripts denote signicant differences, p < .05. TPR = Total Peripheral Resistance. Cardiac output and TPR means are from 77 participants (45 females, 32
males).

912

T.R. Schneider et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 909914

60

4. Discussion

CO (liters/min)

50
High EM
Low EM

40

30

20
Baseline

Time 1

Time 2

200

b
5
TPR (dyne-sec/cm^ )

180

160
High EM
Low EM
140

120

100
Baseline

Time 1

Time 2

Fig. 1. Mean cardiac output (a) and Total Peripheral Resistance (b) over time for
females high or low in emotional management.

p < .05. No EI branches were signicantly related to appraisals for

women.
Four repeated-measures ANCOVAs were conducted with branch
as the covariate, and affective responses as the DV over time (baseline, time 1, time 2), for men and women datasets. Positive and
negative affect are separate dependent variables because they are
orthogonal (Watson et al., 1988). For each DV and dataset, there
were no main effects of time, or branch with time interactions,
ns. Table 2 shows that relative to their low EI counterparts, men
higher in EU reported more positive affect, F(1, 49) = 5.51, p < .05,
and men higher in EP reported less negative affect, F(1,
49) = 5.31, p < .05.
Four repeated-measures MANCOVAs were conducted with EI
covaried, and CO and TRP as the DV over time (baseline, time 1,
time 2), for each dataset. CO and TPR are interdependent physiological responses dictating MANOVA. For each dataset there were
no effects of time, or branch with time interactions, ns. For women
there was a signicant multivariate main effect for EM, Wilks F(2,
38) = 9.02, p < .001. Figure 1a and b shows that relative to those
lower in EM, women higher in EM had challenge physiology: greater CO, F(1, 39) = 12.99, p < .001, coupled with decreased TPR, F(1,
39) = 18.52, p < .0011.

1
Figure 1a displays inated values for cardiac output. Cardiac output is derived
from heart rate and stroke volume. Heart rate values were appropriate, but stroke
volume values were inated. Stroke volume is inuenced by several factors, and
largely by changes in the position of the person (e.g., supine versus seated). Because
all participants were seated for the duration of the experiment, these inated values
are likely consistent across participants.

We expected that the four EI abilities would facilitate resilient

stress responses including challenge appraisals, more positive
and less negative affect, and challenge physiology for men and women. We found that the inuence of EI on stress responses is not
ubiquitous, but generally that EI conferred stress resilience. We
discuss each EI branch in turn.
Emotional perception (EP) facilitated signicantly lower negative affect for men across the course of stressor exposures. Using
a cross-sectional design, EP has been related to self-reported
depression, hopelessness, and suicidal ideation (Ciarrochi et al.,
2002), suggesting that EP enhances negative affectivity during
stress. However, our research shows that men with EP ability have
reduced negative affective stress responses over time. We demonstrated that negative affect remains low during stressful transactions for those higher in EP. Perhaps the ability to recognize
emotional responses brought on by an external stressor evokes a
correction in reports of emotional experience that is sustained over
time.
The facilitating cognition (FC) facet was not related to stress responses in the present study. Negative emotions narrow attention
(Craske, 1999), but positive emotions evoke openness and creativity (Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987). The stressors in this study
were motivated performance tasks with an evaluative component
that may have made them unrelated to FC. Performance metrics
(not obtained in this study) are differently related to stressor
appraisals (Schneider, 2004, 2008; Tomaka et al., 1993), and may
have been related to FC a query for future research.
Emotional understanding (EU) facilitated resilience. Higher EU
in men was associated with more positive affect across the stressors than lower EU. EU should allow for rened identication of and
precise attributions about emotional experiences. Although we
introduced salient causes for emotional change, the higher positive
affect of men higher in EU was sustained over time. These men noticed and reported higher positive affect, and may have attributed
affective changes to the transient stressors. Maintaining mood may
be an active affect control process (Forgas & Ciarrochi, 2002).
Whether EU confers a mood maintenance effect, or reduces the effort to maintain affect is a question for future research.
We expected that higher EI ability would evoke challenge
appraisals. Men higher in EM reported challenge relative to their
low EM counterparts. High EM men had benign stressor appraisals
that remained, whereas low EM men were more threatened that
was sustained. EM is the highest EI ability (Salovey et al., 1999)
and should inuence the integration of responses for situations
involving social interactions (Lopes et al., 2005) and stress adaptation. Examining more than two stressors may have revealed significant effects on appraisals over time. Appraisals set the stress
process in motion (Schneider, 2004; Tomaka et al., 1993) and are
most open to modication. Further investigation could point to
ways in which high EM builds or low EM reduces resilience, suggested by the pattern of appraisals obtained in the present study.
Despite women having higher EM ability than men, they did not
benet from reduced stressor or benecial emotional reactions.
Descriptive analyses (Table 1) revealed that after the rst task
exposure, women were more threatened than men, and reported
lower positive affect initially and higher negative affect across both
tasks, than men. Past research shows that threat appraisals predict
lower positive and higher negative affect (Schneider, 2004). Despite experiencing the stressor more intensely (in terms of appraisals and affect), women higher in EM did experience greater
physiological challenge. It may be that their higher EM ability facilitated a more salubrious physiological response (greater CO coupled with decreased TRP), a physiological challenge response

T.R. Schneider et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 909914

(Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996; Schneider, 2004, 2008; Tomaka et al.,

1993). More differentiated and intense negative affectivity is related to greater emotion regulation efforts (Barrett et al., 2001),
which may have been supported by an active coping physiology
in high EM women. In the present study, men appeared to have
greater variability in vascular resistance which may have precluded our establishing meaningful relationships.
Although our descriptive analyses suggested that women were
more negatively affected by the stressor than men, this did not result in more associations of EI and stress responses for women. The
women in this study were neither homogenous in EI levels, nor restricted in their range of stress responses. However, the type of
stressors used in the present research may be part of the issue. Social stressors evoke greater reactivity among women compared to
men (Stroud et al., 2002). Although women evidenced stress responses to the tasks in the present research, perhaps more socially-oriented stressors, such as a speed-dating type task, would
facilitate their ability to apply EI skills.
Another possible limitation of this study is that we did not control for the inuence of cognitive ability. Researchers have found
that intelligence is related to ability-based EI (e.g., Austin, 2010).
People with high cognitive ability may be better able to cope with
our stressors, thus our ndings might be partly attributed to cognitive ability rather than EI.2 This possibility is mitigated somewhat
by the modest relationship between EI and cognitive ability, but
should be explored in future research.
5.1. Implications
This is among the rst studies to expand on past research by
demonstrating ability-based EI facilitates stress resilience. We
used an ability EI measure rather than self-report, which lacks
validity (Davies et al., 1998), and we examined stress outcomes
over time. Interestingly, we found no interactions of EI branches
and time. The resilience effects of EI appear at stressor onset and
remain over time an area calling for future research. This study
examined women and men, separately because ability (Day & Carroll, 2004; Kafetsios, 2004) and self-report EI (Van Rooy, Alonso, &
Viswesvaran, 2004) consistently nd gender differences. Future research should consider how EI facets may be utilized differently by
men and women in different stressor contexts, and on adapting to
stress at work.
This study demonstrated that aspects of EI confer benets during the stress process by promoting resilient psychological and
physiological responses. The results provide some validation of EI
theory. The facets differently buffer stress responses by promoting
approach-oriented stressor appraisals, emotional experiences, and
physiological engagement. There has been popular speculation
about the promise of EI, and this research demonstrates stress-related benets of ability EI for men and women. We are optimistic
about the future of EI as the questions become more precise and
the ndings more valid.
References
Austin, E. J. (2010). Measurement of ability emotional intelligence: Results for two
new tests. British Journal of Psychology, 101, 563578.
Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): A test of emotional
intelligence. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems, Inc..
Barrett, L., Gross, J., Christensen, T., & Benvenuto, M. (2001). Knowing what youre
feeling and knowing what to do about it: Mapping the relation between
emotion differentiation and emotion regulation. Cognition and Emotion, 15,
713724.
Basic Behavioral Science Task Force of the National Advisory Mental Health Council
BBSTFNAMHC (1996). Basic behavioral science research for mental health:
Vulnerability and resilience. American Psychologist, 51, 2228.
2

We thank an anonymous reviewer for this comment.

913

Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1996). The biopsychosocial model of arousal regulation.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 151.
Brackett, M. A., Palomera, R., Mojsa-Kaja, J., Reyes, M., & Salovey, P. (2010). Emotionregulation ability, burnout, and job satisfaction among British secondary-school
teachers. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 406417.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Ciarrochi, J., Deane, F., & Anderson, S. (2002). Emotional intelligence moderates the
relationship between stress and mental health. Personality and Individual
Differences, 32, 197209.
Craske, M. G. (1999). Anxiety disorders: Psychological approaches to theory and
treatment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of
an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4),
9891015.
Day, A. L., & Carroll, S. A. (2004). Using an ability-based measure of emotional
intelligence to predict individual performance, group performance, and group
citizenship behaviours. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 14431458.
Forgas, J. P., & Ciarrochi, J. V. (2002). On managing moods: Evidence for the role of
homeostatic cognitive strategies in affect regulation. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 336345.
Gildea, K. M., Schneider, T. R., & Shebilske, W. L. (2007). Stress appraisals and
training performance on a complex laboratory task. Human Factors, 49(4),
745758.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY England: Bantam Books,
Inc..
Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates
creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,
11221131.
Kafetsios, K. (2004). Attachment and emotional intelligence abilities across the life
course. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 129145.
Kelsey, R. M., Blascovich, J., Leitten, C. L., Schneider, T. R., Tomaka, J., & Wiens, S.
(2000). Cardiovascular reactivity and adaptation to recurrent psychological
stress: Moderating effects of evaluative observation. Psychophysiology, 37,
748756.
Kelsey, R. M., Blascovich, J., Tomaka, J., Leitten, C. L., Schneider, T. R., & Wiens, S.
(1999). Cardiovascular reactivity and adaptation to recurrent psychological
stress: Effects of prior task exposure. Psychophysiology, 36, 818831.
Landy, F. J. (2005). Some historical and scientic issues related to research on
emotional intelligence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 411424.
Lazarus, R. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New York: Springer
Publishing.
Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer
Publishing.
Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., Cote, S., & Beers, M. (2005). Emotional regulation abilities
and the quality of social interaction. Emotion, 5, 113118.
Lyons, J. B., & Schneider, T. R. (2005). The inuence of emotional intelligence on
performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 693703.
MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of
dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7, 1940.
MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2008). New paradigms for assessing emotional
intelligence: Theory and data. Emotion, 8(4), 540551.
Matthews, G., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Emotional intelligence, adaptation to stressful
encounters, and health outcomes. In R. Bar-On & J. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of
emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment and application at home,
school, and in the workplace (pp. 459489). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/
Pfeiffer.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2007). Emotional intelligence:
Consensus, controversies, and questions. In G. Matthews, M. Zeidner, & R. D.
Roberts (Eds.), The science of emotional intelligence: Knowns and unknowns
(pp. 346). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets
traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27(4), 267298.
Mayer, J., Caruso, D., & Salovey, P. (2000). Selecting a measure of emotional
intelligence: The case for ability scales. In R. Bar-On & J. Parker (Eds.), The
handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment and
application at home, school, and in the workplace (pp. 320342). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Mayer, J., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2000). Manual for the MSCEIT (MayerSalovey
Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test). Toronto, Canada: MHS Publishers.
Mayer, J., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D.
Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational
implications (pp. 331). New York: Basic Books.
Nikolaou, I., & Tsaousis, I. (2002). Emotional intelligence in the workplace:
Exploring its effects on occupational stress and organizational commitment.
The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10, 327342.
Ramos, N. S., Fernandez-Berrocal, P., & Extremera, N. (2007). Perceived emotional
intelligence facilitates cognitive-emotional processes of adaptation to an acute
stressor. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 758772.
Roberts, R. D., MacCann, C., Matthews, G., & Zeidner, M. (2010). Emotional
intelligence: Toward a consensus of models and measures. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 821840.
Saab, P. G., Matthews, K. A., Stoney, C. M., & McDonald, R. H. (1989). Premenopausal
and postmenopausal women differ in their cardiovascular and neuroendocrine
responses to behavioral stressors. Psychophysiology, 26(3), 270280.

914

T.R. Schneider et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 909914

Salovey, P., Bedell, B., Detweiler, J., & Mayer, J. (1999). Coping intelligently:
Emotional intelligence and the coping process. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Coping: The
psychology of what works (pp. 141164). New York: Oxford University Press.
Salovey, P., Kokkonen, M., Lopes, P., & Mayer, J. D. (2004). Emotional intelligence:
What do we know? In A. S. R. Manstead, N. H. Frijda, & A. H. Fischer (Eds.),
Feelings and emotions: The Amsterdam symposium (pp. 319338). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Schneider, T. R. (2004). The role of Neuroticism on psychological and physiological
stress responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 795804.
Schneider, T. R. (2008). Evaluations of stressful transactions: Whats in an
appraisal? Stress and Health, 24, 151158.
Schulze, R., Wilhelm, O., & Kyllonen, P. C. (2007). Approaches to the assessment of
emotional intelligence. In G. Matthews, M. Zeidner, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), The
science of emotional intelligence: Knowns and unknowns (pp. 199229). New
York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.
Sherwood, A., Allen, M. T., Fahrenburg, J., Kelsey, R. M., Lovallo, W. R., & van
Doornen, L. J. P. (1990). Methodological guidelines for impedance cardiography.
Psychophysiology, 27, 123.
Stroud, L., Salovey, P., Woolery, A., & Epel, E. (2002). Perceived emotional
intelligence, stress reactivity, and symptom reports: Further explorations
using the trait meta-mood scale. Psychology and Health, 17, 611627.

Tomaka, J., & Blascovich, J. (1994). Effects of justice beliefs on cognitive appraisal of
and subjective, physiological, and behavioral responses to potential stress.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 440732.
Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J., Kelsey, R., & Leitten, C. (1993). Subjective, physiological,
and behavioral effects of threat and challenge appraisal. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 65, 248260.
Van Rooy, D. L., Alonso, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Group differences in emotional
intelligence scores: Theoretical and practical implications. Personality and
Individual Differences, 38, 689700.
Vollrath, M., & Torgersen, S. (2000). Personality types and coping. Personality and
Individual Differences, 29, 367378.
Watson, D., Clark, L., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 10631070.
Zajonc, R. B. (1998). Emotions. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.). The
handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 591632). New York: McGraw-Hill. 4th
ed..
Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D., & Matthews, G. (2004). The emotional intelligence
bandwagon: Too fast to live, too young to die? Psychological Inquiry, 15,
239248.