See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230757398

Emotional Intelligence and Personality as Predictors of

Psychological Well-Being

Article  in  Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment · June 2012

DOI: 10.1177/0734282912449448

CITATIONS READS

33 2,469

3 authors, including:

Colin James Miles Bore

Australian National University University of Newcastle
31 PUBLICATIONS   288 CITATIONS    87 PUBLICATIONS   1,249 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Integrating adaptive and pathological traits: The role of the Dark Triad View project

Academic Integrity Standards Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Colin James on 05 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

449448
of Psychoeducational Assessment
2012
JPAXXX10.1177/0734282912449448James et al.Journal

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Emotional Intelligence and 30(4) 425­–438

© 2012 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission:
Personality as Predictors of sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734282912449448

Psychological Well-Being
http://jpa.sagepub.com

Colin James1, Miles Bore1, and Susanna Zito1

Abstract
Research studies have reported elevated rates of psychological distress (e.g., depression) in
practicing lawyers yet little research has examined predictors of such problems in law stu-
dents. Specific personality traits have been shown to be predictors of a range of psychologi-
cal problems. We administered a battery of tests to a cohort of 1st-year law students (n =
150) and measured the Big Five personality traits and emotional intelligence (EI) to examine
their relationships to psychological well-being as indicated by coping styles, satisfaction with life,
performance-based self-esteem (PBSE), Global Severity Index (GSI) scores from the Brief Symp-
tom Inventory (BSI), depression, and alcohol use. We found that whereas EI was significantly
related to three of the five well-being variables, the Big Five personality factor of neuroticism
was found to be a stronger predictor of well-being.The findings suggest that EI does not account
for additional variance in well-being over personality.

Keywords
emotional intelligence, five factor personality, well-being

Emotional intelligence (EI) has attracted significant research in the past two decades and most
theoretical approaches can be grouped into one of three models emphasizing ability, traits, and
capacities (Ramo, 2009). Mayer and Salovey (1997) proposed an ability model, which focuses
on the relation between cognition and emotion (Brackett & Salovey, 2006; Mayer & Salovey,
1997). The Bar-On (Bar-On, 1997; Bar-On & Parker, 2000) trait model proposes an emotional
quotient (EQ) to parallel IQ and explains emotions as adaptive in helping to reduce tensions and
improve well-being (Auerback & Dolan, 1997). The capacity model is often associated with
Goleman (1998) who defines EI in terms of skills, abilities, and competencies that can be learned
and developed with appropriately structured programs (Boyatzis, 1982; Boyatzis, Smith, &
Blaize, 2006; Goleman, 1998; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002).
Despite the popularity of EI, a split developed with science-focused literature struggling with
definitions and measurement, and practitioner-based publications discussing whether EI inter-
ventions actually work (Ashkanasy, Zerbe, & Hartel, 2002). The different definitions of EI have
resulted in a range of research instruments, with different measures and formats. Self-report

1
University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia

Corresponding Author:
Dr Colin James, University of Newcastle, Legal Centre Level 2, 300 King St, Newcastle, 2300, Australia
Email: Colin.James@newcastle.edu.au
426 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 30(4)

scales (e.g., Bar-On’s EQ-1) tend to correlate with personality dimensions, whereas ability-based
EI measures (e.g., Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso’s MEIS and MSCEIT) are less correlated with
personality and are more associated with crystallized intelligence (Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade,
2008).
Following a critical review that found significant overlap between extant measures of EI and
the Big Five personality traits (Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998), Wong and Law (2002) used
exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to develop a scale of EI they claimed was distinct
from personality dimensions. In their later article, Law, Wong, and Song (2004) reported testing
their EI measure with a study of 202 undergraduate students, incorporating parents’ reports and
peer reports to supplement self-reports, and found that despite correlations between their mea-
sure of EI and Big Five personality traits the constructs were distinct.

Emotional Intelligence and Well-Being

EI can be understood either as a measure of a person’s perception of their own emotions, and
how they use, understand, and manage their emotions to enhance their personal growth and
social relations (Mayer, Salovey, Caruson, & Sitarenios, 2001) or as a measure of a person’s
capacities for self-awareness, social awareness, and social skills (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee,
2002). Despite skepticism by some about the construct validity of EI (Antonakis, Ashkanasy, &
Dasborough, 2009; Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000), a number of studies have supported the
construct of EI in the context of leadership and workplace performance. One meta-analysis
(Joseph & Newman, 2010) examined several projects that tested the incremental validity of EI
measures to explain job performance over and above cognitive ability and the “Big Five” per-
sonality traits. They concluded that most types of EI do have incremental validity above both
personality and cognitive ability, especially in jobs that are high in emotional demands. Another
meta-analysis (Walter, Cole, & Humphrey, 2011) also supported the concept and concluded that
“published evidence contradicts extreme claims that EI has no value for leadership theory and
practice” (p. 52).
Other studies have examined the research on relationships between EI and well-being, spe-
cifically measuring physical, mental, and social-emotional criteria. Zeidner, Matthews, and
Roberts (2012) provided a review of the literature in this area in which measures of EI were
generally found to correlate positively with measures of psychological well-being and negatively
with affective disorders such as anxiety and depression. Although Zeidner et al. highlight some
problems in the literature they reviewed, such as the validity of self-reports and other measure-
ment issues, they conclude that EI does appear to be related to a substantial number of health
outcomes.
The focus of our research was to examine the relationship between EI and psychological
health in law students. Knowing more about the EI of law students may help us to understand
their apparent high incidence of depression, which has been reported extensively in the United
States and more recently in Australia. The evidence from the United States shows that law stu-
dents experience a significant deterioration in their mental health status during law school,
whereas the Australian research confirms law students have higher rates of psychological dis-
tress and depression than community members of similar age and sex and that the deterioration
in mental health may begin in the 1st year of study (Kelk, Luscombe, Medlow, & Hickie, 2009;
Peterson & Peterson, 2008; Sheldon & Krieger, 2007; Tani & Vines, 2009; Townes O’Brien,
Tang, & Hall, 2011).

Personality and Well-Being

As with EI, many studies have considered the role of personality in well-being, as well as in
leadership and job performance. The “Big Five” (Goldberg, 1990) has emerged as the dominant
James et al. 427

theory of personality and it describes five domains as extroversion, agreeableness, conscien-

tiousness, openness, and neuroticism. An early meta-analysis (Barrick & Mount, 1991) sup-
ported the five factor model as a way of analyzing and communicating empirical findings on
personality differences. It also found that only one dimension, conscientiousness, correlated
with job performance across all occupational groups. Another analysis of three intergenerational
studies (Judge, Higgins, Thorensen, & Barrick, 1999) also found conscientiousness of particular
value as it alone predicted both intrinsic success (job satisfaction) and extrinsic success (income
and occupational status). More recent studies have not confirmed conscientiousness as the main
predictor of success or well-being. A study of 236 nursing professionals found the personality
factors of extraversion and neuroticism to be most predictive of subjective well-being (Gutierrez,
Jimenez, Hernandex, & Puente, 2005). Another study of 496 employees in diverse occupations
found extraversion predicted career satisfaction (Seibert & Kraimer, 2001). Attempting to dif-
ferentiate EI and personality, other research has distinguished “positive emotion dispositions” to
be differentially associated with self- and peer-ratings of all five personality factors (Shiota,
Keltner, & John, 2006).
Looking specifically at well-being, the personality factor of neuroticism has been well estab-
lished as a correlate and predictor of psychological well-being and distress (e.g.,Ozer & Benet-
Martinez, 2006; Cloninger, Syrakic&Przybeck, 2006). Research by Bore, Ashley-Brown,
Gallagher, and Powis (2008) revealed that neuroticism was significantly and strongly related to
the prevalence of psychiatric symptoms in undergraduate medicine and psychology students. An
interesting study of 896 law students at four universities from 1963 to 1964, predating the five-
factor model, combined Junging theory with Myers-Briggs type indicator categories to predict
law school dropouts (Miller, 1966). Among the findings were that dropouts were not predicted
by “academic promise” and that students categorized as “feeling” types were significantly more
likely to drop out than were “thinking” types.
With regard to the present study, little research has considered the interaction between person-
ality and EI specifically in law students. One study of 88 recent Australian law graduates found
a significant negative correlation between neuroticism and EI (James, 2008). Other research with
Israeli university students has found law students to have significantly higher scores of neuroti-
cism than natural science students and lower scores of agreeableness than all other groups of
students tested, although without analysis of covariation with EI (Rubinstein, 2005).

Aims and Hypotheses

This study aimed to identify the relationships between EI, personality, and an array of indicators
of psychological well-being among law students as a way to better understand their propensity
for poor mental health indicators such as depression. We used measures of coping styles, satis-
faction with life, performance-based self-esteem (PBSE), alcohol use, and the prevalence of
psychiatric symptoms as indicators of psychological health. We hypothesized that EI would be
correlated with these psychological health indicators based on the research reviewed above. In
addition, we hypothesized that personality traits (e.g., Big Five) would be related to psycho-
logical health indicators and that EI would account for additional variance in psychological
health indicators over the variance accounted for by the Big Five.

Method
Participants

Sixty-one students from a cohort enrolled in their 1st year of a law degree at an Australian uni-
versity completed the study in February 2008 (commencement of the academic year). The same
428 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 30(4)

cohort of 1st-year students were again invited to participate in October 2008 and data were
obtained from 72 students. In October 2009, the cohort, now in their 2nd year of law, were again
asked to volunteer to complete the test battery, which was completed by 63 participants. Across
these three test administrations, only 43 students completed the tests twice and only 3 completed
all three administrations. Given such low retention rates, longitudinal analysis was not viable
and so retest data were not included in the data set analyzed and reported here. The sample
(N = 150) had a mean age of 21.2 years (SD = 6.6) with 79 being female.

Instruments
EI. EI was measured using the 16-item questionnaire developed by Wong and Law (2002),
which is designed to capture four aspects of EI: appraisal of own emotions, appraisal of emotions
in others, use of emotion, and regulation of emotion. The items are all positively worded and
direct in the content (e.g., “I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of others”). Participants
respond using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree. Responses are summed to give an overall score with higher scores indicating higher EI.
Wong and Law (2002) report acceptable internal reliability and some evidence of construct
validity.
Personality. Goldberg’s international personality item pool (IPIP; Goldberg, 1990, 1992) was
used to measure personality traits. Participants are asked to respond to each of the 100 items (i.e.,
“I have a good word for everyone”) using a 4-point Likert-type scale (F = definitely false, f = false
on the whole, t = true on the whole, T = definitely true). The IPIP measures the five domains of the
five-factor model as described by Costa and McCrae (1992): openness, conscientiousness, extra-
version, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients have been reported by
Buchanan (2001); openness = .74; conscientiousness = .84; extraversion = .88; agreeableness = .76;
neuroticism = .83.
Coping. The Coping Responses Inventory (CRI; Moos, 1990) is a 48-item inventory designed
to measure coping responses and coping skills that apply to specific stressful situations. The CRI
measures two different coping domains: approach and avoidance. Acceptable internal reliability
has been established (Moos, 1993) and the stability of the CRI scores for a sample of 624 people
retested after a 1-year period suggests consistency over time of coping responses, despite varia-
tions in stressors. Respondents are asked to think about the most important problem or stressful
situation they experienced in the past 12 months and answer questions (e.g., “Did you try not to
think about the problem?” “Did you make a plan of action and follow it?”) by indicating defi-
nitely no, mainly no, mainly yes, or definitely yes. Respondents are then asked to respond to
another set of 21 questions asking how often they engaged in that behavior in connection with
the problem and to respond no, once, sometimes, and often.
Self-esteem. The Performance Based Self-Esteem (PBSE; Hallsten, 2005) scale consists of
four items (e.g., “I think that sometimes I try to prove my worth by being competent”) rated on
a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = fully disagree; 5 = fully agree) to measure the level of one’s
PBSE. The PBSE scale has demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties (Hallsten, 2005).
Psychological well-being. The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) provides an overview of psychi-
atric symptoms and their intensity at a specific point in time (Derogatis & Spencer, 1982). The
BSI measures nine primary symptom dimensions: somatization, obsessive-compulsive, interper-
sonal sensitivity, depression, anxiety, hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation, and psychoti-
cism. Respondents are asked to state how much a symptom, such as nervousness or shakiness
inside, has bothered them in the past 7 days. Participants respond to each of 53 items using a
5-point Likert-type scale (0 = not at all, 1 = a little bit, 2 = moderately, 3 = quite a bit, 4 =
extremely).
James et al. 429

Scores for each of the nine dimensions are calculated by summing the responses for the items
included in each dimension and then dividing by the number of items. A global index of distress,
the General Severity Index (GSI) is calculated as the mean item response over all 53 items (i.e.,
a number between 0 and 4 being the average Likert-type scale response over all items). The BSI
scales have demonstrated acceptable internal and temporal stability (Derogatis & Spencer, 1982).
Alcohol use. The Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT; Babor, Higgins-Biddle,
Saundes, & Monteiro, 2001) is a brief screening scale developed to identify alcohol dependence
and abuse as well as hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption in the past 12 months period.
The 10-item scale consists of questions on alcohol intake such as “How often do you have a drink
containing alcohol?” dependence symptoms such as “How often during the past year have you
failed to do what was normally expected of you because of drinking” and adverse drinking con-
sequences such as “Have you or someone else been injured because of your drinking.” A score
of 20 or more indicates high risk, harmful drinking behavior, and possible alcohol dependency.
Life satisfaction. The Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; Pavot & Diener, 1993) is a short,
five-item self-report instrument designed to measure global cognitive judgments of one’s satis-
faction with life. The SWLS uses a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree)
and has shown strong internal reliability, good convergent validity with other scales and with
other types of assessments of subjective well-being (Pavot & Diener, 1993).

Procedure
On each of the three testing sessions the questionnaire battery was handed to volunteer partici-
pants at the end of one of their lectures by research assistants and collected the following day.
Participants were paid US$10 for completing the questionnaires on each occasion in 2008 and
US$15 in 2009. The research protocol was reviewed and approved by the University of
Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee.

Results
Descriptive Statistics

Each test was scored by reverse scoring negatively worded items and then summing the items
of each construct measured. Alpha reliabilities and descriptive statistics were examined for all
measures (see Table 1). All measures were found to have acceptable internal consistency, which
ranged from .75 (self-esteem) to .96 (Global Severity Index of the BSI). Mean scores for males
and females were examined and tested for significant (p < .05) gender differences. Females
(M = 58.51, SD = 7.60) were found to be generally more agreeable than males (M = 54.10,
SD = 6.80), t(147) = –3.75, p < .001, d = .59). Females (M = 59.82, SD = 7.82) were also sig-
nificantly more open to new experiences than males (M = 57.15, SD = 8.25), t(144) = –2.02,
p = .045, d = .33, as has been found elsewhere (e.g., Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001;
Schmitt, Realo, Voracek, & Allik, 2008) although the gender difference in neuroticism did not
reach significance. Females (M = 7.58, SD = 5.99) were found to drink less alcohol compared
with males (M = 10.09, SD = 6.02), t(144) = 2.54, p = .012, d = .41. We found no other signifi-
cant gender differences.

Correlations
Pearson correlations were run and the relationships between variables examined (see Table 2).
EI was significantly moderately correlated with all of the Big Five personality traits with the
430 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 30(4)

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Gender Differences

Male Female
(n = 71) (n = 79) All

Range
Variable M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) min-max Alpha
Emotional intelligence 58.9 (9.1) 58.9 (10.0) 58.9 (9.1) 24-80 .87
Agreeableness 54.1* (6.8) 58.5 (7.6) 56.4 (7.5) 34-75 .84
Conscientiousness 52.2 (7.4) 53.1 (9.2) 52.7 (8.4) 30-77 .88
Extraversion 56.1 (7.2) 55.9 (8.7) 56.0 (8.0) 26-77 .89
Neuroticism 46.5 (8.9) 49.0 (8.9) 48.0 (9.0) 28-73 .90
Openness 57.1* (8.2) 59.8 (7.9) 58.6 (8.1) 36-77 .87
Psychiatric symptoms (GSI) 0.81 (0.6) 0.90 (0.7) 0.85 (0.62) 0.0-2.9 .96
Approach coping style 53.2 (15.3) 56.0 (17.4) 54.7 (16.4) 12-96 .86
Avoidance copying style 47.1 (15.5) 48.6 (16.0) 47.9 (15.7) 9-93 .80
Satisfaction with life 24.5 (5.6) 25.7 (6.3) 25.1 (9.0) 5-35 .86
Self-esteem 14.9 (3.6) 14.5 (4.1) 14.7 (3.9) 4-20 .80
Alcohol use 10.1* (6.0) 7.6 (56.0) 8.8 (6.1) 0-31 .83

Note: Differences between male and female mean scores.

*Significantly different at p < .05.

exception of openness: Participants who were high on EI tended to be more agreeable (r = .37),
conscientious (r = .51), and extraverted (r = .37), and less neurotic (r = –.52). Participants high
in EI were also more satisfied with life (r = .43) and had lower alcohol use (r = –.21).
Neuroticism had stronger relationships with the psychological health indicator scores of the BSI
(r = .69), satisfaction with life (r = –.48) and PBSE (r = .34) compared with EI and the other
four traits of the Big Five, whereas agreeableness had the strongest relationship with avoidance
coping (r = –.26).
The relationships between EI, the Big Five and the nine subscales of the BSI were also exam-
ined (see Table 3). EI was significantly and negatively related to all nine subscale scores and
most strongly with depression (r = –.39) and psychoticism (r = –.40). Many significant relation-
ships were observed between the Big Five and the BSI subscales with openness being the excep-
tion. Agreeableness was most strongly related to hostility (r = –.40), conscientiousness most
strongly related to obsessive-compulsive symptoms (r = –.33) and extraversion with interper-
sonal sensitivity (r = –.41). Neuroticism was moderately to strongly related to all nine subscores
of the BSI.

Regression Analysis
To examine incremental prediction of EI over and above personality and gender a series of
hierarchical regressions were undertaken. As shown in Table 4, for each of the six criteria, in
Step 1 gender and the Big Five personality scores were entered as predictors and the standard-
ized beta coefficients and the variance accounted for (R2 and adjusted R2) recorded. In Step 2,
EI scores were included as a predictor and the change in R2 noted. Neuroticism was found to be
the only significant predictor of Global Severity Index (GSI) scores from the BSI, conscientious-
ness the only significant predictor of an approach coping style, and conscientiousness and
agreeableness significant predictors of an avoidance coping style. Conscientiousness, extraver-
sion, and neuroticism predicted PBSE, and conscientiousness and extraversion predicted alcohol
 Table 2. Correlations Between Emotional Intelligence, Personality, and Psychological Health Indicators

EI A C E N O GSI Approach Avoid SWL PBSE

A .37***  
C .51*** .33***  
E .37*** .39*** .30***  
N −.52*** −.41*** −.36*** −.45***  
O .07 .25*** .01 .10 .14  
GSI −.41*** −.38*** −.33*** −.32*** .69*** .06  
Approach .20 .03 .26** −.05 .01 .05 .09  
Avoid −.01 −.26** −.04 −.12* .22** .03 .34*** .67***  
SWL .43*** .34*** .33*** .30*** −.48*** −.16* −.47*** .06 −.15  
PBSE −.02 −.19* .11 −.27** .34*** .13 .25*** .13 .25** −.10  
Alcohol use −.21*** −.19* −.35*** .10 .07 −.03 .18* −.17* .02 −.28** −.16

Note: EI = emotional intelligence; A = agreeableness; C = conscientiousness; E = extraversion; O = openness; GSI = Global Severity Index; SWL = satisfaction with life; PBSE =
performance-based self-esteem.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

431
432 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 30(4)

Table 3. Correlations Between Emotional Intelligence, Personality Traits, and Nine Subscales of the Brief
Symptom Inventory

EI A C E N O
Somatization −.17* −.20** −.15 −.09 .41*** .07
Obsessive-compulsive −.33*** −.22** −.42*** −.23** .61*** .07
Interpersonal −.33*** −.35*** −.26** −.41*** .63*** .06
sensitivity
Depression −.39*** −.31*** −.22** −.37*** .61*** .16*
Anxiety −.29*** −.16* −.16* −.20* .58*** .11
Hostility −.35*** −.40*** −.32*** −.12 .54*** −.07
Phobic anxiety −.33*** −.33*** −.22** −.30*** .47*** −.03
Paranoid ideation −.38*** −.48*** −.18* −.29*** .54*** −.07
Psychoticism −.40*** −.32*** −.30*** −.37*** .54*** .07

Note: EI = emotional intelligence; A = agreeableness; C = conscientiousness; E = extraversion; O = openness.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 4. Hierarchical Regression Models for Psychological Well-Being Criteria

Criterion Predictors entered by step β1 β2 R2 Adjusted R2 ∆R2

GSI Step 1 .49 .47 —
    Gender .03 .02  
    Agreeableness −.11 −.12  
    Conscientiousness −.07 −.07  
    Extraversion .02 .01  
    Neuroticism .62*** .59***  
    Openness −.01 −.01  
  Step 2  
    EI −.02 .50 .48 .01
Approach Step 1
coping    Gender .09 .09 .09 .05 — 
    Agreeableness −.13 −.15  
    Conscientiousness .30** .24**  
    Extraversion .02 −.01  
    Neuroticism .03 .06  
    Openness .06 .04  
  Step 2  
    EI .15 .10 .06 .01
Avoidance Step 1 .12 .08 —
coping    Gender .10 .01  
    Agreeableness −.31** −.32**  
    Conscientiousness .17* −.13  
    Extraversion .01 −.01  
    Neuroticism .13 .17  
    Openness .08 .07  
  Step 2  
    EI .12 .13 .09 .01

(continued)
James et al. 433

Table 4. (continued)

Criterion Predictors entered by step β1 β2 R2 Adjusted R2 ∆R2

Satisfaction Step 1 .31 .28 —
with life    Gender .13 .13  
    Agreeableness .13 .11  
    Conscientiousness .13 .06  
    Extraversion .09 .06  
    Neuroticism −.33*** −.27**  
    Openness −.18* −.20**  
  Step 2  
    EI .21** .34 .31 .03
PB self-esteem Step 1 .24 .21 —
    Gender −.11 −.11  
    Agreeableness −.08 −.09  
    Conscientiousness .32*** .25**  
    Extraversion −.20* −.22**  
    Neuroticism .33** .39***  
    Openness .14 .12  
  Step 2  
    EI .21* .26 .22 .02
Alcohol use Step 1 .21 .18 —
    Gender −.16 −.15  
    Agreeableness −.10 −.09  
    Conscientiousness −.37*** −.34***  
    Extraversion −.27** −.28**  
    Neuroticism .03 .02  
    Openness −.01 −.01  
  Step 2  
    EI −.09 .22 .18 .01

Note: GSI = Global Severity Index from the Brief Symptom Inventory; PB self-esteem = performance-based self-
esteem; EI = emotional intelligence.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

use. It was only in the prediction of satisfaction with life that EI reached significance in Step 2
with neuroticism and openness also reaching significance. None of the observed changes in R2
were significant indicating that EI did not demonstrate significant incremental validity over the
Big Five personality variables.
Last, the same hierarchical regression procedures were also undertaken with each of the nine
subscale scores of the BSI as the criterion variable in each model. EI was not found to be a sig-
nificant predictor over and above the Big Five for any of the nine subscales of the BSI.

Discussion
Our expectations regarding the relationships between EI and indicators of psychological well-
being were largely supported in that our results showed that EI was significantly related to three
of the six variables we chose to represent psychological health. EI was negatively related to the
434 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 30(4)

presence and severity of psychiatric symptoms as measured by the GSI of the BSI, negatively
related to the use of alcohol and positively related to satisfaction with life. However, EI was not
significantly related to avoidance or approach coping styles or PBSE. Using regression analysis
EI did not significantly account for any additional variance in psychological well-being over and
above that accounted for by the Big Five personality traits.

Emotional Intelligence and Psychological Health

Although we found no relationship between EI and coping style, Campbell and Ntobedzi (2007)
did find a relationship although using different measures and testing a different cohort (adoles-
cents). Other measures of emotion based coping, rather than the more cognitive view of coping,
could be considered for inclusion in future EI research.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the relationship between PBSE
and EI, although Dahlin, Joneborg, and Runeson (2007) did examine PBSE and emotional
exhaustion. Although we found no relationship between EI and PBSE our study supports the
results of Whitney (2010) who in a study of 259 college students found a negative correlation
between EI and alcohol use, and a positive correlation between EI and satisfaction with life
scores.
EI has been found to be related to various indicators of psychological health (Zeidner,
Matthews, & Roberts, 2012). We did observe a moderate negative relationship between EI and
the GSI and with each of the nine subscales of the BSI. However, two issues bear on this finding:
All the measures administered were self-report, and there was a degree of item similarity between
the two measures. Both concerns are also raised in the review by Zeidner et al. (2012). In addi-
tion, as also noted by Zeidner et al. there is considerable overlap between EI and measures of
personality.

Personality and Psychological Health

We found significant and negative correlations between four of the Big Five personality fac-
tors—agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism—and the nine symptom
clusters of psychological health indicated by the BSI (openness only correlated very weakly
with one symptom cluster). Our hierarchical regression analysis found neuroticism was the only
significant predictor of BSI Global Severity Index scores. Other studies with undergraduate
students (e.g., Bore, Ashley-Brown, Gallagher, & Powis, 2008) have measured personality
alongside the BSI and reported similar findings to the present study. More broadly, meta-analytic
research has confirmed that personality traits such as agreeableness, conscientiousness, extra-
version, and neuroticism are related to consequential outcomes including psychological health
(e.g., Ozer & Martinez, 2006).

Emotional Intelligence, Personality, and Psychological Health

Our hypothesis that EI would account for additional variance in psychological health indicators
over variance accounted for by personality was not supported. Although we found EI to be a
significant predictor in two of the six outcome measures the additional proportion of variance
accounted for was minimal. EI did not display any incremental validity over the Big Five per-
sonality traits as has been found elsewhere (Zeidner et al., 2012).
However, EI has been found to account for additional variance over personality traits in out-
come variables other than psychological health. Law et al. (2004) found that after controlling for
personality EI accounted for more than 10% of the variance in job performance. Although we
James et al. 435

found personality and gender, and not EI, were significant predictors of alcohol use Rossen and
Kranzler (2009) found EI to explain a significant amount of unique variance for alcohol use
(although without testing for gender). Brackett, Mayer, and Warner (2004) and Trinidad and
Johnson (2002) also found that lower EI in males, but not females, was associated with alcohol use.
Although EI has been found to be related to a number of outcome variables, our results ques-
tion the usefulness of EI as a construct with regard to psychological health. Whatever role EI
might play in our daily lives it would seem from our results that personality subsumes any affect
of EI on our well-being.

Conclusions and Future Directions

Given the apparent vulnerability of law students to depression and other mental health problems,
and the continuation of those problems for many as they transition into legal practice (Kelk,
Luscombe, Medlow, & Hickie, 2009), the need for further research appears important. Perhaps
more important is the need for longitudinal research rather than just replication of the cross-
sectional study reported here. Ideally, such research would involve peer and other reports
together with self-report measures. In the meantime, law (and other) schools should be moti-
vated to develop programs that effectively engage and help law students to become aware of the
risk factors for poor psychological health, including dispositional factors, and to provide skills
training in how to take responsibility for their psychological well-being within the demands of
their studies.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2009). Does leadership need emotional intelli-
gence? Leadership Quarterly, 20, 247-261.
Ashkanasy, N. A., Zerbe W., & Hartel, C. (2002). Managing emotions in a changing workplace. In N. A.
Ashkanasy, W. Zerbe, & C. Hartel (Eds.), Managing emotions in the workplace (pp. 3-22). New York,
NY: M. E. Sharp.
Auerback, A. J., & Dolan, S. L. (1997). Fundamentals of organizational behavior: The Canadian context.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada: International Thomson.
Babor, T., Higgins-Biddle, J. C., Saunders, J., & Monteiro, M. G. (2001). The Alcohol Use Disorders
Identification Test (AUDIT): Guidelines for use in primary care. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health
Organization, Department of Mental Health and Substance Dependence.
Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): A test of emotional intelligence. Toronto,
Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Bar-On, R., & Parker, J. D. A. (2000). Handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assess-
ment and application at home, school and in the workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions in job performance, Person-
nel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Bore, M., Ashley-Brown, G., Gallagher, E., & Powis, D. (2008). Personality and the prevalence of psy-
chiatric symptoms in medicine and psychology students. In S. Boag (Ed.), Personality down under:
Perspectives from Australia (pp. 167-176). New York, NY: Nova Science.
436 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 30(4)

Boyatzis, R. (1982). The competent manager: A model of effective performance. New York, NY: Wiley.
Boyatzis, R., Smith, M., & Blaize, N. (2006). Developing sustainable leaders through coaching and com-
passion. Academy of Management Journal on Learning and Education, 5, 8-24.
Brackett, M. A., & Salovey, P. S. (2006). Measuring emotional intelligence with the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso
Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). Psichothema, 18(Suppl.), 34-41.
Brackett, M. A., Mayer, J. D., & Warner, R. M. (2004). Emotional intelligence and its relation to everyday
behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1387-1402.
Buchanan, T. (2001). Online personality assessment. In U.-D. Reips & M. Bosnjak (Eds.), Dimensions of
Internet science (pp. 57-74). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science.
Campbell, A., & Ntobedzi, A. (2007). Emotional intelligence, coping and psychological distress: A partial
least squares approach to developing a predictive model. Electronic Journal of Applied Psychology, 3,
39-54.
Ciarrochi, J. V., Chan, A. Y. C., & Caputi, P. (2000). A critical evaluation of the emotional intelligence
construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 539-561.
Cloninger, C. R., Syrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (2006). Can personality assessment predict future
depression? A twelve-month follow-up of 631 subjects. Journal of Affective Disorders, 92, 35-44.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across
cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322-331.
Dahlin, M., Joneborg, N., & Runeson, B. (2007). Performance-based self-esteem and burnout in a cross-
sectional study of medical students. Medical Teacher, 29, 43-48.
Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of an elusive construct.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 989-1015.
Derogatis, L. R., & Spencer, M. S. (1982). The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) administration, scoring,
and procedures manual-I. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Clinical
Psychometrics Research Unit.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big Five factor structure. Psychological
Assessment, 4, 26-42.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2002). Leadership and emotional intelligence. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Gutierrez, J. L. G., Jimenez, B. M., Hernandez, E. G., & Puente, C. P. (2005). Personality and subjective
well-being: Big Five correlates and demographic variables. Personality and Individual Differences, 38,
1561-1569.
Hallsten L. (2005). Burnout and wornout: Concepts and data from a national survey. In A. S. G. Antonio
& C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research companion to organizational health psychology (pp. 516-536). Chel-
tenham, UK: Elgar.
James, C. (2008). Lawyer dissatisfaction, emotional intelligence and clinical legal education. Legal Educa-
tion Review, 18, 123-137.
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integratice meta-analysis and cascad-
ing model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 54-78.
Judge, T. A., Higgins C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The Big Five personality traits, gen-
eral mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621-652.
Kelk, N. K., Luscombe, G., Medlow, S., & Hickie, I. (2009). Courting the blues: Attitudes towards depres-
sion in Australian law students and legal practitioners. Sydney, Australia: Brain and Mind Institute.
James et al. 437

Kelk, N. K., Medlow, S., & Hickie, I. (2010). Distress and depression among Australian law students: Inci-
dence, attitudes and the role of universities. Sydney Law Review, 32, 113-122.
Law, K. S. L., Wong, C., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence
and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 483-496.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.),
Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators (pp. 3-31). New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual
Review of Psychology, 59, 507-536.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2001). Emotional intelligence as a standard intel-
ligence, Emotion, 1, 232-242.
Miller, P. V. R. (1966). Personality differences and student survival in law school. Journal of Legal Educa-
tion, 19, 460-468.
Moos, R. (1990). Coping Responses Inventory manual. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Moos, R. (1993). Coping Responses Inventory: CRI—Adult professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychologi-
cal Assessment Resources.
Ozer, D. J., & Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual
Review of Psychology, 57, 401-421.
Pavot, W. P., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction With Life Scale. Psychological Assessment,
5, 164-172.
Peterson, T. D., & Peterson, E. W. (2008). Stemming the tide of law student depression: What Law schools
need to learn from the science of positive psychology. Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law & Ethics, 9,
357-434.
Ramo, L. G. (2009). How can we make sense of emotional and social competencies within organizational
settings? In C. E. J. Härtel, N. M. Ashkanasy, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Research on emotion in organiza-
tions: Emotions in groups, organizations and cultures (Vol. 5, pp. 1-21). Bradford, UK: Emerald Group.
Rossen, E., & Kranzler, J. H. (2009). Incremental validity of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intel-
ligence Test version 2.0 (MSCEIT) after controlling for personality and intelligence. Journal of Per-
sonality, 43, 60-65.
Rubinstein, R. (2005). The Big Five among male and female students of different faculties. Personality and
Individual Differences, 14, 190-197.
Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex
differences in Big 5 personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
94, 168-182.
Seibert, S. E., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). The five-factor model of personality and career success. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 58, 1-21.
Sheldon, K. M., & Krieger, L. S. (2007). Understanding the negative effects of legal education on law
students: A longitudinal test of self-determination theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
33, 883-897.
Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., & John, O. P. (2006). Positive emotion dispositions differentially associated with
Big Five personality and attachment style. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 61-71.
Tani, M., & Vines, P. (2009). Law students attitudes to education: A pointer to depression in the legal acad-
emy and the profession? Legal Education Review, 19, 3-39.
Townes O’Brien, M., Tang, S., & Hall, K. (2011). No time to lose: Negative impact on law student wellbe-
ing may begin in year one. International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 2, 49-60.
Trinidad, D. R., & Johnson, A. C. (2002). The association between emotional intelligence and early adoles-
cent tobacco and alcohol use. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 95-105.
Walter, F., Cole, M. S., & Humphrey, R. H. (2011). Emotional intelligence: Sine qua non of leadership or
folderol. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25, 45-59.
438 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 30(4)

Whitney, C. (2010). Social supports among college students and measures of alcohol use, perceived stress,
satisfaction with life, emotional intelligence and coping. Journal of Student Wellbeing, 4, 49-67.
Wong, W. C., & Law, K. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance
and attitude: An exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 133, 243-274.
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, 1-30.

Bios
Colin James is a senior lecturer and researcher in the areas of clinical legal education, positive psychology,
academic integrity and professional ethics at the Newcastle Law School at the University of Newcastle
Australia. He is also solicitor at the University of Newcastle Legal Centre.

Miles Bore is a researcher and a senior lecturer at the School of Psychology at the University of Newcastle
Australia.

Susanna Zito completed her Professional Doctorate in Clinical Psychology in 2009 at the University of
Newcastle and currently works as a Clinical Psychologist at the North Coast Area Health Service in NSW,
Australia.

View publication stats