Personality and Individual Differences 54 (2013) 850855

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

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

Resilience and affect balance as mediators between trait emotional intelligence

and life satisfaction
Ya Liu, Zhenhong Wang , Wei L
School of Psychology, Shaanxi Normal University, 199 South Changan Road, Xian 710062, China

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 12 November 2012
Received in revised form 17 December 2012
Accepted 23 December 2012
Available online 27 January 2013
Keywords:
Trait emotional intelligence
Subjective well-being
Resilience
Affect balance
Life satisfaction

a b s t r a c t
The current study aimed to analyze the importance of trait emotional intelligence in life satisfaction and
to extend the previous literature by investigating the potential mediating effects of resilience and affect
balance in this relationship. To test the study hypotheses, self-report measures of trait emotional intelligence, resilience, positive and negative affect, and life satisfaction were administrated to 263 undergraduates. Correlation analysis indicated that trait emotional intelligence was positively correlated
with life satisfaction. Mediational analyses showed that trait emotional intelligence exerted its indirect
effect on life satisfaction through the simple mediating effect of affect balance and the three-path mediating effect of resilienceaffect balance. In addition, resilience played as a partial mediator between trait
emotional intelligence and affect balance. Furthermore, multi-group analyses showed that the mediational model was not moderated by gender. Therefore, this study makes a contribution to the complex
nature of the association between trait emotional intelligence and subjective well-being.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Currently, there are two main approaches to conceptualizing
and measuring emotional intelligence (EI): trait EI (or trait emotional self-efcacy) and ability EI (or cognitive-emotional ability;
Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008; Petrides & Furnham, 2001; Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Trait EI is
dened as a constellation of emotion-related self-perceptions and
dispositions located at the lower levels of personality hierarchies
(Petrides, Furnham, & Mavroveli, 2007; Petrides, Pita et al., 2007),
whereas ability EI is dened as a type of intelligence concerning actual emotion-related cognitive abilities (Mayer et al., 2008). Trait EI
is typically assessed via self-report questionnaires (Petrides, Furnham et al., 2007; Petrides, Pita et al., 2007), whereas ability EI is
best measured through maximum-performance tests (Mayer
et al., 2008). Although they are two different constructs conceptually, methodologically and empirically, trait and ability EI are two
complementary rather than oppositional constructs (see Petrides,
2011 for a recent review). In the present study, we followed the
trait approach and used a self-report measure to assess EI.

whole (Diener, Oishi, & Lucas, 2003; Schimmack, 2008). It is an

important indicator of a broad range of positive personal, psychological, social, interpersonal, and intrapersonal outcomes (see Proctor, Linley, & Maltby, 2009 for a review). Thus, life satisfaction is
often used to evaluate the quality of peoples lives and is regarded
as an important component of subjective well-being (SWB; Diener
et al., 2003; Schimmack, 2008). Various studies have shown moderate positive correlations between EI and life satisfaction (Kong &
Zhao, 2013; Kong, Zhao, & You, 2012; Palmer, Donaldson, & Stough,
2002), even after controlling the Giant Three and (or) Big Five personality dimensions (Gallagher & Vella-Brodrick, 2008; Gannon &
Ranzijn, 2005; Law, Wong, & Song, 2004; Petrides, Pita et al.,
2007). Recently, Koydemir and Schtz (2012) and Koydemir, Simsek, Schtz, and Tipandjan (in press) found that EI is linked to life
satisfaction in both individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Thus,
the purposes of the current study were to replicate the relation between EI and life satisfaction and to expand previous literature by
investigating the potential mediational mechanism underlying this
relationship.
1.2. Resilience and affect balance as mediators

1.1. Trait EI and life satisfaction

Life satisfaction (cognitive well-being) refers to peoples global
cognitive evaluation of the satisfaction with their own lives as a
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +86 29 85303312.
E-mail address: wangzhenhong@snnu.edu.cn (Z. Wang).
0191-8869/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.12.010

Recently, a large body of research has investigated the potential

mediators between EI and life satisfaction (for a review, see Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2012). Affect balance (affective wellbeing), for example, was assumed to be a potential mediator in
the relation between EI and life satisfaction in some previous research (Kong & Zhao, 2013; Koydemir et al., in press). As a key

851

Y. Liu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 54 (2013) 850855

component of SWB, affect balance refers to a balance between positive and negative affect (Schimmack, 2008). Affective well-being
has been found to be particularly important in forming peoples life
satisfaction judgments (Kuppens, Realo, & Diener, 2008; Schimmack, 2008). Considering the robust relation between EI and affective well-being and the role of affective well-being in life
satisfaction, it is reasonable to assume that affect balance mediates
the relation between EI and life satisfaction. Consistent with this
line of reasoning, empirical research has supported this assumption (Kong & Zhao, 2013; Koydemir et al., in press). Thus, this study
hypothesized that affect balance functioned as a mediator between
EI and life satisfaction.
Furthermore, resilience was assumed to be another potential
intervening variable between EI and life satisfaction as well as affect balance. As an important psychological resource, resilience
generally represents the capacity to bounce back from stress
effectively, adapt exibly and even grow positively in response to
the adversity settings (Block & Kremen, 1996; Bonanno, 2004).
There is compelling evidence in support of the associations between resilience and both EI (Armstrong, Galligan, & Critchley,
2011; Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002) and SWB (Liu, Wang,
& Li, 2012; Mak, Ng, & Wong, 2011; Yu & Zhang, 2007).
With respect to the relation between EI and resilience, Matthews
et al. (2002) indicated that EI is antecedent to resilience. Armstrong
et al. (2011)s study revealed that vulnerable individuals have lower
EI scores, whereas resilient individuals have higher EI scores. Moreover, the ability to effectively regulate ones own emotions, a core facet of EI, was found to promote individuals resilience (New et al.,
2009; Tugade & Fredrickson, 2007). Thus, Armstrong et al. (2011) argued that EI may well be directly connected to resilience.
As regards the link between resilience and SWB, there is strong
evidence that resilience is of considerable benets to peoples SWB.
Specically, resilience is rmly found to be positively correlated
with life satisfaction and positive affect, and inversely related to
negative affect (Liu et al., 2012; Mak et al., 2011; Yu & Zhang,
2007). In consideration of the associations between EI, resilience
and two components of SWB, this study hypothesized that resilience exerted as a mediator between EI and both life satisfaction
and affect balance.
1.3. The present study
Based on the preceding rationale and the available literature
showing that EI is antecedent to resilience (Armstrong et al., 2011;
Matthews et al., 2002) and resilience could exert an indirect effect
on life satisfaction via affective well-being (Liu et al., 2012), it was
hypothesized that EI exerts a signicant indirect effect on life satisfaction through the three-path mediating effect of resilience and affect balance (for more details about the three-path mediational
model, see Taylor, MacKinnon, & Tein, 2008). Specically, individuals with higher EI have greater resilience, which, in turn, serves to enhance their levels of affective well-being, and thereby increasing
their life satisfaction. The detailed hypothesized model concerning
the mediator role of resilience and affect balance in the relationship
between EI and life satisfaction is presented in Fig. 1.
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedure
The sample consisted of 263 undergraduates (119 men, 144 women), aged 1825 years (M = 22.61, SD = 1.41). The majority (over
97%) of the participants are the Han nationality.
All participants were briey instructed as to the purpose of the
study and then signed a written consent form. Participants were

Resilience

Life
Satisfaction

Emotional
Intelligence

Affect
Balance
Fig. 1. The hypothesized model concerning the mediator role of resilience and
affect balance in the relationship of trait emotional intelligence with life
satisfaction.

administered a packet of paper-and-pencil questionnaires measuring EI, resilience, affect balance and life satisfaction. The measures
were conducted in the classroom environment by a trained research assistant, who was always available to answer any queries
raised by the participants and to ensure their condential and
independent responding.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Trait EI
Trait EI was measured using the widely-used 16-item Wong
and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS; Wong & Law,
2002). The WLEIS scale contains four dimensions: (a) self emotional appraisal (SEA; e.g., I really understand what I feel.), (b)
others emotional appraisals (OEA; I am a good observer of others
emotions.), (c) regulation of emotion in ones self (ROE; e.g., I am
able to control my temper and handle difculties rationally.), and
(d) use of emotion to facilitate performance (UOE; e.g., I always
set goals for myself and then try my best to achieve them.). Each
of the four dimensions was measured using four items with a seven-point Likert-type response format, ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). The WLEIS scale demonstrated clear
factor structure and good internal consistency reliability (Law
et al., 2004; Wong & Law, 2002).
2.2.2. Resilience
The ConnorDavidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC; Connor &
Davidson, 2003) which comprises of 25 statements (e.g., able to
adapt to change, best effort no matter what, and strong sense
of purpose) was used to assess resilience. For each statement participants were asked to rate how they generally feel on a ve-point
Likert scale that ranges from 0 (not at all) to 4 (true nearly all of the
time). The Chinese version of the CD-RISC, translated by Yu and
Zhang (2007), was demonstrated to be a reliable and valid measurement in assessing resilience for the Chinese population (Yu &
Zhang, 2007).
2.2.3. Affect balance
The balance between positive and negative affect was assessed
using the Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS;
Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). This scale consists of 10 affective
adjective words for positive affect (e.g., active, alert, attentive) and negative affect (e.g., afraid, ashamed, distressed),
respectively. Participants were asked to indicate how they generally feel on a ve-point Likert scale (1 = very slightly to 5 = extremely). Both Positive Affect and Negative Affect subscales of
the PANAS have demonstrated high reliability, and also excellent

852

Y. Liu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 54 (2013) 850855

formed three item parcels for both resilience and affect balance
constructs. Life satisfaction latent variable was dened using the
items of the SWLS because it consisted of only ve items. The results of CFA analysis indicated that the measurement model provided a good t to the observed data: v2 (84, N = 263) = 154.81
(P < 0.001), v2/df ratio = 1.84, SRMR = 0.055, RMSEA = 0.057 (90%
CI = 0.0420.070), P = 0.21; CFI = 0.954, TLI = 0.952.

psychometric properties in college samples (Watson et al., 1988).

In the current study, following Koydemir and Schtz (2012) and
Koydemir et al. (in press)s method, the affect balance score, as
indicator of affective well-being, was computed by subtracting
the negative affect score from the positive affect score.
2.2.4. Life satisfaction
The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) developed by Diener,
Emmons, Larsen, and Grifn (1985) was used to evaluate individuals global life satisfaction. The SWLS consists of ve items (e.g., I
am satised with my life). Each item is responded to by using a
seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). This scale has been shown to have excellent psychometric properties (Diener et al., 1985).

3.2.2. Structural model

SEM procedure was conducted to test the proposed structural
relationships among study variables (see Fig. 1). The results indicated that the hypothesized mediational model t the data well,
v2 (84, N = 263) = 154.81 (P < 0.001), v2/df ratio = 1.84,
SRMR = 0.055, RMSEA = 0.057 (90% CI = 0.0420.070), P = 0.21;
CFI = 0.954, TLI = 0.952. According to the modication index, the
error terms of SEA and OEA were then allowed to be correlated.
The results indicated that the mediational model with the above
two correlated error terms t the data well (v2 (83,
N = 263) = 142.82 (P < 0.001), v2/df ratio = 1.72, SRMR = 0.052,
RMSEA = 0.052 (90% CI = 0.0370.067), P = 0.38; CFI = 0.961,
TLI = 0.954.) and improved the model t (4v2 (1,
N = 263) = 11.99, P < 0.001). Allowing these two error terms to be
correlated is plausible because SEA and OEA both assess ones emotional appraisal ability, such that there are some content overlaps
or similarities between them. Further examination of parameter
estimates indicated that all the direct path coefcients were significant in the proposed directions, except for the two paths from EI
(b = 0.03, t = 0.25, P = 0.81) and resilience (b = 0.02, t = 0.18,
P = 0.85) to life satisfaction. These results suggested that resilience
and affect balance may play a full mediating role in the relation between EI and life satisfaction.

3. Results
3.1. Preliminary analyses
Descriptive statistics, reliability estimates (Cronbachs alpha
coefcients), and bivariate zero-order correlations for all the study
variables are presented in Table 1.
3.2. Mediational analyses
We used structural equation modeling (SEM) procedures to
examine the main research hypotheses regarding the mediating effects of resilience and affect balance on the relation between EI and
life satisfaction. The SEM analyses were conducted in Mplus v6
using maximum likelihood estimation (Muthn & Muthn, 1998
2010). To evaluate the overall t of the model to the data, several
indices recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999) and Kline (2011)
were calculated in the current study: chi-square statistic (v2),
v2/df ratio, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), Root
Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI). According to Hu and Bentler (1999) and Kline (2011), goodness-of-t criteria were used in
the current study that acknowledged the potential for acceptable
(v2/df ratio < 3, CFI and TLI > 0.90, SRMR < 0.10, RMSEA < 0.08)
and excellent t (v2/df ratio < 2, CFI and TLI > 0.95, SRMR < 0.08,
RMSEA < 0.06).

3.2.3. Full versus partial mediation

To test the potential full mediational model, the results of the
two following mediational models was compared: (a) partial mediation model with the direct paths from EI and resilience to life satisfaction not constrained; and (b) full mediational model with the
direct paths from EI and resilience to life satisfaction constrained
to zero. Similar to the partial mediation model, the full mediation
model t the data well: v2 (85, N = 263) = 143.02 (P < 0.001), v2/df
ratio = 1.68, SRMR = 0.053, RMSEA = 0.051 (90% CI = 0.0360.065),
P = 0.44; CFI = 0.963, TLI = 0.955. Moreover, the partial mediation
model did not provide a signicantly better t to the data than
the full mediation model (4v2 (2, N = 263) = 0.20, P = 0.90). Consequently, the full mediation model regarding the relation between
EI and life satisfaction was supported. Standardized path coefcients of the nal mediational model, see Fig. 2.

3.2.1. Measurement model

Following the two-step procedure outlined by Anderson and
Gerbing (1988), conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test
the measurement model before testing the structural relationships.
The measurement model consisted of four interrelated latent variables including EI, resilience, affect balance, and life satisfaction. EI
latent variable was created by using its four indicators: SEA, OEA,
UOE and ROE. In order to control for inated measurement errors
and improve the psychometric properties of the variables, we

3.2.4. Assessment of mediation

The Bootstrapping procedure in Mplus v6 was used to test the
signicance of the mediating effects of resilience and affect balance. Specically, 1000 bootstrap samples were generated using

Table 1
Means, standard deviations (SD), reliabilities and intercorrelations among study variables (N = 263).

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Trait EI
SEA
OEA
ROE
UOE
Resilience
AB
LS

Mean

SD

82.17
21.37
20.97
20.69
19.14
62.27
9.49
18.37

11.81
3.67
3.77
3.90
4.52
10.73
7.82
6.03

0.85
0.66
0.72
0.73
0.81
0.87
0.80
0.77

0.78**
0.63**
0.75**
0.80**
0.42**
0.40**
0.21**

0.38**
0.44**
0.53**
0.28**
0.34**
0.21**

0.27**
0.28**
0.14*
0.03
0.09

0.51**
0.51**
0.43**
0.12*

0.32**
0.38**
0.20**

0.41**
0.20**

0.33**

Note: AB: affect balance; PA: positive affect; NA: negative affect; LS: life satisfaction. a, Cronbachs Alpha.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.

853

Y. Liu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 54 (2013) 850855

R2

R1
0.71

R3

0.87

0.73

Resilience

LS1

SEA

0.61

0.63

0.24

0.61
OEA

0.32
0.77

UOE

0.23

Emotional
Intelligence

0.70

Life
Satisfaction

0.45

0.42

ROE

0.61
0.69

AB1

0.77

LS3

0.65
0.62

Affect
Balance
0.66

LS2

LS4

LS5
0.89

AB2

AB3

Fig. 2. The Structural Equation Model regarding the mediating effects of resilience and affect balance on the relation between trait emotional intelligence and life satisfaction.
Note: R: resilience; AB: affect balance; LS: life satisfaction. Dashed lines indicated insignicant paths. The path coefcients of nal mediational model with eliminating the
insignicant paths are presented in the above model. The path coefcients for the originally hypothesized mediational model are similar to the nal mediational model, and
thus the detailed results are not reported in the above model.

Table 2
Bootstrapping indirect effects and 95% condence intervals (CI) for the nal mediational model.
Model pathways

Trait EI ? Resilience ? Affect balance

Trait EI ? Affect balance ? Life satisfaction
Resilience ? Affect balance ? Life satisfaction
Trait EI ? Resilience ? Affect balance ? Life satisfaction

Point estimate

0.141
0.190
0.098
0.060

95% CI
Lower

Upper

0.018
0.084
0.001
0.004

0.265
0.296
0.194
0.116

random sampling with replacement from the data set (N = 263).

The mediating effects of resilience and affect balance and their
associated 95% condence intervals were displayed in Table 2.
According to the results, EI exerted its indirect effect on life satisfaction through the simple mediating effect of affect balance and
the three-path mediating effect of resilienceaffect balance. EI exerted its effect on affect balance through both the direct path and
the indirect path via resilience. In addition, resilience did not have
a direct inuence on life satisfaction, but exerted an indirect effect
via affect balance.

the association between resilience and affect balance was stronger

for female than for male students and that resilience did not have a
signicant direct effect on affect balance for male students. The
model with all constrained parameters except the direct path from
resilience to affect balance (freely estimated) suggested only minimal improvement (4v2 (1, N = 263) = 3.61, P = 0.06). These results
provided a preliminary support for the robustness of the nal
mediational model.

3.3. Gender differences

The current study analyzed the importance of trait EI in life satisfaction and extended the previous literature by investigating the
potential mediating effects of resilience and affect balance. In
accordance with previous literature (Gallagher & Vella-Brodrick,
2008; Koydemir & Schtz, 2012; Schutte & Malouff, 2011), EI
was found to correlate positively with both life satisfaction and affect balance. The promotion role of EI in SWB may be due to a variety of ways. Emotionally intelligent individuals tend to experience
lower levels of distress and negative affect, but to experience positive affect more frequently (Koydemir & Schtz, 2012; Salovey &
Mayer, 1990), possess more social support (Law et al., 2004; Wong
& Law, 2002), and are better at making use of their emotions by
directing them towards constructive activities and personal performance (Law et al., 2004; Wong & Law, 2002). All these advantages
promote emotionally intelligent individuals levels of SWB.
Although some research has examined the potential mediators
between EI and life satisfaction (Kong & Zhao, 2013; Kong et al.,

Multiple group analyses were conducted to further examine

whether any of the depicted associations in the mediational model
(see Fig. 2) differed by gender. The following two models were
compared, one allowing all the paths to be freely estimated in male
and female groups (congurable model) and the other constraining
them to be equal (constrained model). The results showed that the
constrained model was not signicantly different from the congurable model (4v2 (4, N = 263) = 6.85, P = 0.14), suggesting no signicant gender differences. Inspection of each path coefcient in
separate multiple group analyses further conrmed that all the
associations were similar in magnitude for male and female
groups, with one exception being the signicant difference (4v2
(1, N = 263) = 4.16, P < 0.05) observed for the association between
resilience and affect balance (b = 0.005, P = 0.98, for the male
group; b = 0.36, P < 0.001, for the female group), suggesting that

4. Discussion

854

Y. Liu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 54 (2013) 850855

2012; Koydemir et al., in press), there is little research that has

investigated the possible mediator between EI and affective wellbeing. The current study rstly examined resilience as a mediator
between EI and life satisfaction as well as affect balance. Consistent
with hypotheses, resilience was revealed to partially mediate the
relationship between EI and affect balance. Armstrong et al.
(2011) proposed that EI is antecedent to resilience and further
found that intrapersonal EI (e.g., Emotional Self-Awareness and
Emotional Self-Management) has a signicant predictive role in
resilience. Concurring with Armstrong et al. (2011)s research,
the current study demonstrated that EI has a signicant positive
effect on resilience. Regarding the relation between resilience
and affective well-being, a growing body of research has demonstrated that individuals with higher levels of resilience have more
positive affect and less negative affect (Liu et al., 2012; Mak et al.,
2011). The considerable benets of resilience on affective wellbeing may be because resilient individuals have optimistic, zestful,
and energetic approaches to life, are curious and open to new experiences, and tend to have high positive emotionality (Block & Kremen, 1996; Bonanno, 2004). Based on these previous ndings, it is
reasonable to infer that resilience plays a mediating role in the
relation between EI and affect balance. This study provided rst
support for this assumption. However, it is noteworthy to mention
that the association between resilience and affect balance was surprisingly not signicant for male students and stronger among female than among male students. This may be because male
students, regardless of being resilient or vulnerable, are expected
or required to be more rational and less affective than females,
especially in the Chinese culture.
In the current study, resilience was found to not simply mediate
the link between EI and life satisfaction. This may be because resilience did not have a signicant direct inuence on life satisfaction,
but exerted a signicant positive indirect effect via affect balance.
This result is in line with Liu et al. (2012)s research, showing that
affective well-being fully mediated between resilience and life satisfaction. Based on the prior literature showing that EI is antecedent to resilience (Armstrong et al., 2011; Matthews et al., 2002),
and the association between resilience and affective well-being
(Liu et al., 2012) as well as the role of affective well-being in life
satisfaction (Kuppens et al., 2008; Schimmack, 2008), it is plausible
to hypothesize that EI exerts an indirect inuence on life satisfaction through the sequential mediating effect of the resilienceaffect balance. The present study rstly conrmed this hypothesis.
In addition, consistent with Koydemir et al. (in press)s research, affect balance was found to simply mediate the relation between EI
and life satisfaction. These results highlight the importance of the
affective component of SWB in the relation between EI and life
satisfaction.
Although we believe that these results contribute to a better
understanding of the mediational mechanism in the association
between EI and life satisfaction, we also acknowledge that there
are several limitations of the present study that should be considered. Firstly, the SEA reliability was relatively low (a = 0.66), thereby, we should interpret results with caution although the overall EI
scales reliability was acceptable to good (a = 0.85). Secondly, it
needs to be pointed out that the present study was a cross-sectional design in nature. Thus, the ndings reported here reect
associations and predictions, but not causeeffect relations between the variables in question. Therefore, further studies that utilize prospective and longitudinal approaches to determine the
causal relationships between study variables are warranted.
Thirdly, the study relied on a college student sample so it remains
to be seen whether the current ndings can be generalized to other
age groups, considering the evident differences between student
and adult as well as elderly samples. Finally, the data in this study
were collected only through self-report scales. Future studies

should integrate multiple assessment methods to further strengthen the validity of the ndings.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by Nature Science Foundation of China
(30970912).
References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice. A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103,
411423.
Armstrong, A. R., Galligan, R. F., & Critchley, C. R. (2011). Emotional intelligence and
psychological resilience to negative life events. Personality and Individual
Differences, 51, 331336.
Block, J., & Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: Conceptual and empirical
connections and separateness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
349361.
Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience. American Psychologist,
59, 2028.
Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The
ConnorDavidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18, 7682.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. S., Larsen, R. J., & Grifn, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life
scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 7175.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective wellbeing: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology,
54, 403425.
Gallagher, E. N., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2008). Social support and emotional
intelligence as predictors of subjective well-being. Personality and Individual
Differences, 44, 15511561.
Gannon, N., & Ranzijn, R. (2005). Does emotional intelligence predict unique
variance in life satisfaction beyond IQ and personality? Personality and
Individual Differences, 38, 13531364.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for t indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 155.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kong, F., & Zhao, J. (2013). Affective mediators of the relationship between trait
emotional intelligence and life satisfaction in young adults. Personality and
Individual Differences, 54, 197201.
Kong, F., Zhao, J., & You, X. (2012). Emotional intelligence and life satisfaction in
Chinese university students: The mediating role of self-esteem and social
support. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 10391043.
Koydemir, S., Simsek, . F., Schtz, A., & Tipandjan, A. (in press). Differences in how
trait emotional intelligence predicts life satisfaction: The role of affect balance
versus social support in India and Germany. Journal of Happiness Studies. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-011-9315-1.
Koydemir, S., & Schtz, A. (2012). Emotional intelligence predicts components of
subjective well-being beyond personality: A two-country study using self- and
informant reports. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7, 107118.
Kuppens, P., Realo, A., & Diener, E. (2008). The role of positive and negative
emotions in life satisfaction judgment across nations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 95, 6675.
Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of
emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 89, 483496.
Liu, Y., Wang, Z. H., & Li, Z. G. (2012). Affective mediators of the inuence of
neuroticism and resilience on life satisfaction. Personality and Individual
Differences, 52, 833838.
Mak, W. W. S., Ng, I. S. W., & Wong, C. C. Y. (2011). Resilience: Enhancing well-being
through the positive cognitive triad. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58,
610617.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). Emotional intelligence: Science and
myth. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional
intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 507536.
Muthn, L. K., & Muthn, B. O. (19982010). Mplus users guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles,
CA: Muthn & Muthn.
New, A. S., Fan, J., Murrough, J. W., Liu, X., Liebman, R. E., Guise, K. G., et al. (2009). A
functional magnetic resonance imaging study of deliberate emotion regulation
in resilience and posttraumatic stress disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 6, 656664.
Palmer, B., Donaldson, C., & Stough, C. (2002). Emotional intelligence and life
satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 10911100.
Petrides, K. V. (2011). Ability and trait emotional intelligence. In T. ChamorroPremuzic, A. Furnham, & S. von Stumm (Eds.), The Blackwell-Wiley handbook of
individual differences. New York: Wiley.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric
investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of
Personality, 15, 425448.
Petrides, K. V., Furnham, A., & Mavroveli, S. (2007). Trait emotional intelligence:
Moving forward in the eld of EI. In G. Matthews, M. Zeidner, & R. Roberts

Y. Liu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 54 (2013) 850855

(Eds.), Emotional intelligence: Knowns and unknowns (Series in Affective Science).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional
intelligence in personality factor space. British Journal of Psychology, 98,
273289.
Proctor, C. L., Linley, P. A., & Maltby, J. (2009). Youth life satisfaction: A review of the
literature. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 583630.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and
Personality, 9, 185211.
Schimmack, U. (2008). The structure of subjective wellbeing. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen
(Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (pp. 97123). New York: Guilford.
Schutte, N. S., & Malouff, J. M. (2011). Emotional intelligence mediates the
relationship between mindfulness and subjective well-being. Personality and
Individual Differences, 50, 11161119.
Taylor, A. B., MacKinnon, D. P., & Tein, J. Y. (2008). Tests of the three-path mediated
effect. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 241269.

855

Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2007). Regulation of positive emotions: Emotion

regulation strategies that promote resilience. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8,
311333.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & 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.
Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional
intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership
Quarterly, 13, 243274.
Yu, X., & Zhang, J. (2007). Factor analysis and psychometric evaluation of the
ConnorDavidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) in Chinese people. Social Behavior
and Personality, 35, 1930.
Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2012). The emotional intelligence,
health, and well-being nexus: What have we learned and what have we
missed? Applied Psychology: Health and Well-being, 4, 130.