International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 51 (2020) 101789

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

Personality, trait EI and coping with COVID 19 measures

Catherine Prentice a, *, Susan Zeidan b, Xuequn Wang c
a
Griffith Business School, Griffith Institute for Tourism Studies, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
b
College of Business, Zayed University, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
c
School of Engineering and Information TechnologyMurdoch University Perth, Perth, WA, 6150, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The study views the preventive measures undertaken by government to combat COVID 19 as stressor for in­
COVID 19 dividuals, and examines how individuals’ personal traits including emotional intelligence and personality factors
Preventive measures influence their coping strategies. The concept of trait EI is used in this study to understand its relationship with
Personality
personality factors and their respective effects on the opted outcomes. Coping strategies in this study are cat­
Emotional intelligence
Stress
egorised into task, emotion and avoidance-oriented coping. The results show that emotional intelligence is
Coping strategies significantly related to all coping strategies whereas only certain personality factors make unique variances.
When both emotional intelligence and personality are in the same equation, with the latter being controlled, the
former shows incremental variance and the influence of personality factors is reduced. Detailed discussion of
these findings and implications for policy makers and researchers are highlighted and conclude the paper.

1. Introduction
Covid 19 is a respiratory infection and recurrent disease that has
been determined as a pandemic in March 2020. Every country takes
similar curative and preventive measures to prevent the spread of Covid
19 infections and protect lives. The former includes developing vacci­
nations and other medical means. The latter primarily refers to gov­
ernment interventions including imposing lockdown, curfew, and social
distancing. The preventive measures are crucial to reduce the chances of
infection and the spreading of diseases. This pandemic has a very taxing
detrimental impact on people in particular and society at large, affecting
almost every aspect for individuals, businesses, industries, and
countries.
The pandemic not only endangers human life but also encumbers
their daily life. The severity of a pandemic and its associated uncertainty
become a stressor that affects individuals’ mental health (Fiorillo and
Gorwood, 2020; Holmes et al., 2020; Pfefferbaum and North, 2020).
When dealing with stressors from the external environment such as
disease outbreaks or natural disasters, each individual undertakes
different coping strategies and behavioural response (Taha et al., 2014).
Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) provides a helpful context for
apprehending how individuals will react to health hazards such as
pandemics and suggests that individuals’ drive to defend themselves
from a health risk by assessing the risk and undertaking protective
behaviours [1]. Numerous studies have examined how individuals cope
with health-related stress (e.g., Carr and Umberson, 2013; Folkman,
2011; Krueger and Chang, 2008) and what measures may be effective to
prevent the health risk. Government interventions are imperative pre­
ventive measures to control the spread of the virus. These measures are
widely and intensively broadcasted in the media with the intention to
reinforce the importance of behavioural compliance by individuals [2].
However, such extension and intensity also become the major source of
stressors leading to anxiety and exorbitant distress for individuals
(Wheaton et al., 2012). How well individuals cope with such stress has a
significant impact on their mental health and wellbeing [3]. Very
limited research has attended to understand how these preventive
measures are perceived as stressors and how individuals cope and
respond to these stressors rather than the pandemic per se.
Coping denotes efforts to either ease the individual emotional anxi­
ety provoked by the stressor or modify the source of environmental
anxiety (Duangdao and Roesch, 2008). Personality traits affect how one
perceives external stressors, including health crises, thereby contrib­
uting to the diverse responses to outbreaks (Hill, Turiano, Hurd, Mroc­
zek, and Roberts, 2011). Personality traits determine the individual
differences in cognitive, emotional, and behavioural performance (e.g.
Ref. [4–6], and hence can influence personal responses to health-related
stress (e.g., pandemics). Previous research such as Jokela et al. (2013),
Kern and Friedman (2011), and Turiano, Chapman, and Mroczek (2015)

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: cathyjournalarticles@gmail.com (C. Prentice), susanzeidan@hotmail.com (S. Zeidan), xuequnwang1600@gmail.com (X. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101789
Received 8 July 2020; Received in revised form 24 July 2020; Accepted 26 July 2020
Available online 11 August 2020
2212-4209/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Prentice et al.
indicates that individual personality traits are associated with health
status, and are antecedents of health behaviours. Gaygısız. et al. (2012)
reveal that general activity, interest levels, and impulsiveness can result
in behavioural changes regarding the later stages in the A/H1N1 virus
outbreak. Impulsiveness might be linked to both positive and negative
behaviours’ as impulsive people are less likely to plan their actions. Also,
tourists who are resistant to external crises such as terrorism and
influenza pandemics score significantly higher extraversion (Hajibaba
et al., 2015). Nevertheless, a research void is evident that no studies
have examined how personality may influence individuals’ coping
strategies for government interventions.
Since coping is an emotion-driven effort to manage stress, in­
dividuals’ emotional abilities manifested in emotional intelligence (EI)
may shape the coping outcome. EI refers to an individual’s ability to
perceive, understand, use, and manage emotions of oneself and others
and has been reported to influence stress coping (e.g., Ref. [7]. Since its
official incept into the psychology domain in the early 1990s, EI has
been extensively discussed and debated in the relevant literature over
the last three decades. The debate is centred on whether this construct
should be conceptualised as a personality trait or an intelligence [8–10].
Petrides and his colleagues (2001; 2007; 2016) proposed a via media
approach and introduced trait and ability EI concepts based on how this
construct is measured to boost sporadic pessimism in EI research.
Prentice [9] has provided a thorough review of this approach and any­
thing relating to EI, including, inter alia, conceptualisation, modelling,
measurement, and construct validities. In sum, trait EI is related to
personality, and measured by self-reporting, whereas ability EI is sub­
sumed into the intelligence domain and assessed by objective mea­
surement. For the purpose of this study, trait EI is opted for discussion.
Consistent with the foregoing discussion, this research examines how
individuals’ personality and EI are related to coping strategies for
COVID19-related preventive measures. The study views these measures
as a stressor and understands how individuals cope with this stressor and
how their personality and emotional ability affect their coping strate­
gies. This examination provides insights into stress management and the
effectiveness of government intervention. The following section reviews
the relevant literature and presents hypotheses for the proposed re­
lationships. The methodology of testing these hypotheses will be out­
lined, followed by presenting data analysis and results. The paper is
concluded with discussion and implications of the research findings.
2. Literature review
2.1. Coping strategies
Lazarus and Folkman [11] defined coping strategies as continuously
varying cognitive and behavioural attempts to handle certain stresses
that go past the current resources of an individual. This definition im­
plies coping strategies comprise efforts required to handle new situa­
tions and occurrences that are likely to be demanding and threatening.
Lazarus [12] reasoned that stress contains several processes, including
the process of perceiving a threat, thinking of a potential response to the
threat, and coping by executing that response. This conceptual analysis
of coping and stress formed a starting point for this research. Consistent
with this conceptualisation, this study views government interventions
manifested in preventive measures (e.g., lockdown, social distancing) as
the stressors that entail deliberate effort to manage (coping) in order to
minimise the health-associated risk and cope with living a restricted life.
According to Morales-Rodriguez and Perez-Marmol (2019, p. 2),
coping strategies are “efforts to regulate emotions, behaviours, cogni­
tions, psychophysiology, and environmental aspects in response to the
stress of everyday events”. As such, the extent to which a specific
strategy is effective or not depends on whether an individual identifies
the situation as threatening [13]. People who are more positive tend to
utilize more effective strategies; yet, in unmanageable circumstances,
they are inclined to employ ineffective strategies such as submission to
2
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 51 (2020) 101789
the challenge [14]. Folkman and Lazarus [15] and Lazarus and Folkman
[11] differentiated among two types of coping: problem-focused and
emotion-focused coping. The former is focused on solving a problem or
changing the cause of the stress, e.g., problem solving, information
searching, and problem-focused assistance. The latter is exemplified by
individuals’ attempting to normalize negative emotions accompanied
with a stressor by participating in certain activities such as seeking
social-emotional support, self-blame, denial, and wishful thinking.
In an effort to classify the different coping strategies, other re­
searchers have used terms such as ‘approach’ and ‘avoidant’ strategies
(e.g., Ref. [16]. Approach strategies are strategies that tackle a problem
by handling the stressor (e.g., seeking advice and social support)’
whereas, avoidant strategies try to diminish the undesirable emotions by
avoiding the stressor (e.g., withdrawal, wishful thinking). According to
Smith et al. [17] and Cohan, Jang, and Stein [18]; of the several coping
strategies exploited to process and manage stress, three have been highly
researched, including task-oriented coping, emotion-oriented coping,
and avoidance-oriented coping. This study opted for this classification.
In the case of COVID 19, the virus itself as a health stressor entails
people to take up medical and non-medical measures (e.g., washing
hands, wearing masks) as individual mandatory tasks to minimise
infection. Whilst they can be effective preventive measures, the gov­
ernment interventions impose limitations and restrictions on people’s
daily lives (e.g., shopping, exercising, socialising, entertaining), which
may elicit individuals’ different types of coping. Some may perceive
these measures as indications of uncertainty towards length and scale of
such restrictions, as interruptions to their daily routines, which may
result in emotion-oriented coping. Others may view these measures as
an opportunity for them to spend more time with family and on them­
selves, hence opt for more task-oriented coping. The option of a coping
strategy is largely dependent on personal traits and individuals’
emotional abilities (aka, EI) [7,19].
2.2. Personality and coping strategies
Personality traits have been widely recognized as determinants of
individual differences in cognitive, emotional, and behavioural perfor­
mance (e.g., Ref. [4–6]. The Five-factor model of personality, often
dubbed as the Big Five [20], namely, extraversion, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, openness to experience, and neuroticism, can be used
to express the most prominent features of personality, and has been
validated and used across different cultures and different settings for
decades [21]. Research shows that some personality characteristics are
associated with the proneness to undergo undesirable and pessimistic
emotions as a reaction to distresses [22]. For example, Zanini and Forns
[23] showed a strong relationship between avoidance coping and anx­
iety trait while examining the impact coping on personality and
behavioural problems of 558 adolescents from Spain. Personality traits
can also be a noteworthy predictor of coping style and post-traumatic
stress disorder signs [24–26]. Although the big-five model has become
widely accepted worldwide, a comparatively limited number of re­
searchers have explored the function of these five personality traits in
coping, especially in coping with pandemics.
Openness to Experience (O). People high on O are viewed as
curious, original, intellectual, imaginative, artistic, creative, innovative,
and flexible (curious, intellectual, imaginative, creative, innovative, and
flexible). McCrae and Costa [27] established that individuals high on O
are more likely to employ persistence, positive thinking, retraction and
escaping, and emotional articulation as a way of coping with stressors.
Hooker et al. [28]; on the other hand, found no relationship between O
and coping. Hooker et al.‘s study explored the impact of O on coping for
individuals giving care to their spouses that have dementia. O’Brien and
Delongis [29] argue that this could have been due to the fact that var­
iances between people high on O and those low on O are not influenced
by such a confined group of stressors. Folkman et al. [30] argue that
since people high on O are highly inventive and resourceful, they might
C. Prentice et al.
be projected to be better copers. This is in line with Williams et al.‘s
(2009) study findings, in which they investigated the relationship be­
tween O and stress exposure and recovery. They observed that in­
dividuals that were high on O had lower blood pressure reactivity. They
further established that life stress was linked to reduced sleep levels for
individuals low on O, but not for those high on O.
Conscientiousness (C). Individuals high on C have been are
considered to have the propensity to be careful, responsible and
dependable, organized, efficient, hard-working, and achievement-
oriented [21,31]. Hooker et al. [28] observed that individuals who
were high on this trait utilize more problem-focused coping strategies as
opposed to emotion-focused strategies. Best and Both [32] confirm that
support-seeking coping was expected from individuals high on C. Car­
valho, Pianowski, and Gonçalvez [33] also found conscientiousness to
be linked with engagement with handwashing and social distancing.
Extraversion (E). Extraverts need stimulation. Researchers state
that extroverts are very energetic, ambitious, talkative, optimistic,
confident, outgoing, and reward-seeking (e.g., Ref. [22,34]. Carvalho,
Pianowski, and Gonçalvez [33] research findings indicate that extro­
version affects a person’s engagement with advised Covid-19 quarantine
procedures. Studies have shown that individuals higher on E are more
prone to using problem-focused coping than individuals who are lower
on E [27,28]. They are also inclined to engage in less avoidance; rather,
they are more likely to employ support seeking and positive thinking.
Agreeableness (A). People high on this trait are helpful, good-
natured, courteous, cooperative, sympathetic, trusting, and forgiving.
A study by Hooker et al. [28] investigated the role of A on coping and
found those high on this trait usually cope through pursuing support
from others, instead of adopting other forms of emotion-focused coping
strategies such as self-blame and wishful thinking. Best and Both [32]
examined the relationship between personality and coping styles and
collected data from 271 females and 96 males and found that individuals
low on A used support-seeking coping. Yildiz et al. [35] also examined
the relationship between personality traits and coping strategies of pa­
tients with Hashimoto’s Thyroids and found higher agreeableness to be
predictive of emotion-focused coping styles.
Neuroticism (N). Individuals who are high on N are typically
neurotic, nervous, insecure, fearful, and anxious [21,36]. Eichel et al.
[37] investigated the impact of personality traits on psychological af­
termaths of COVID-19 using a sample of 23,137 people from six Euro­
pean countries. They found that N was strongly linked to stress and
isolation, affirming the need for necessary interferences for individuals
high in N by offering them appropriate coping methods. Kroencke et al.
[38]; using a German sample of 1609, reported that those high in N
underwent greater negative influence and distress in their daily lives
throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. Fauerbach, Lawrence, and Scmidt
[39] found that disaster survivors with neurotic personalities had more
negative emotions following the disaster. A study of a Dutch sample by
Murakami and Murakami [40] established a substantial negative rela­
tionship between N and job-related pressures and stresses. Several re­
searchers maintained that individuals that are high on N have a lower
probability of taking part in problem-focused coping, and are more
likely to engage in emotion-focused comping like avoidance and
blaming themselves [28,41]. In agreement, Boyes and French [42] also
found participants of their study that were high on N to be more
involved in emotion-focused coping. Moreover, Pearson et al.‘s [43]
results also imply individuals high on N that experience psychological
distress experienced as a consequence of a racist incident is correlated
with engaging in avoidant and self-critical coping strategies. Consistent
with the foregoing discussion, the following hypotheses are offered:
H1 The five-factor personality is significantly related to coping
strategies, and each personality factor (O, C, E, A, N) has a
different effect on coping strategies.
3
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 51 (2020) 101789
2.3. EI and coping strategies
EI denotes the ‘ability to monitor one’s own and other’s feelings and
emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to
guide one’s thinking and actions’ [44]; 189). Salovey and Mayer [44]
identify four main dimensions of EI: the ability to appraise and express
of one’s own emotion (self-emotional appraisal); the ability to under­
stand and recognise others’ emotions (others’ emotional appraisal); the
ability to regulate one’s own emotion which enables quick recovery
from psychological distress (regulation of emotion); and, the ability to
make use of emotions to improve performance (use of emotion) [45].
The four domains are related and function hierarchically [9].
Research at large has established that persons with high EI are more
competent of achieving progress on a variety of results such as higher
engagement, higher organizational commitment, job and service per­
formance, venture and organizational performance, and academic per­
formance, lower levels of burnout and cynicism, lower turnover
intentions, and improved psychological health (e.g., Ref. [46,47];
Prentice and King, 2010; [48–51]. EI is specifically relevant to the
context of health-related crises, which often lead to very emotionally
aggravating issues relevant to affected families [52,53].
Previous research has suggested links between EI and coping.
Matthew and Zeidner [54] advocate that effective handling of stressful
situations is fundamental to EI. Taylor [55] argued that individuals who
have higher levels of EI are better capable of controlling their emotions
and dealing with challenges they face more successfully. Bar-On [56]
found positive correlations between EI and task-oriented coping. Austin
et al. [57] also showed that both emotion and task-focused coping are
associated with EI. Researchers revealed that people with higher EI
utilize approach-oriented coping strategies, and individuals low on EI
employ avoidance oriented coping strategies [58].
Given that EI has four ability domains. Each may have a different
effect on how individuals cope with stress. Research has shown that self
and other-emotion appraisal is significantly related to proactive coping
[59,60]. Other researchers argue that coping is more related to the
regulation of emotions (Compas et al., 2014; [61]. Ong and Thompson
[62] observed that an individual’s ability to regulate his or her emotion
by reevaluating the situation is a useful method of coping with cir­
cumstances that are considered stressors. Use of emotion is also believed
to affect coping strategies used. In a study directed by Lazarus and
Folkman [11]; Pelletier [63] observed that family members of organ
donors felt several different emotions and utilized different coping
strategies. Ke and Barlas [64] investigated the relationship between trait
emotional intelligence, early maladaptive schemas, and coping styles
and they observed that lower levels of trait emotional intelligence were
linked with a higher possibility for maladaptive coping in response to
early maladaptive schemas. Consistent with the above discussion, the
following hypothesis is offered:
H2 EI is significantly related to coping strategies, and each EI
dimension (self-emotion appraisal, other-emotion appraisal,
regulation of emotion, use of emotion) has a different effect on
coping strategies.
2.4. Personality, EI and coping strategies
EI has been extensively discussed in the literature. This concept has
been conceptualised as an intelligence (Salovey and Mayer, 1997), a
personality trait, or a mix of the two (Bar-On, 1998; Goleman, 1995;
1998). The three models are predominant in the relevant literature and
also cause confusion as what EI exactly is. This confusion leads to the
birth of ability EI and trait EI suggested by Petrides and Furnham [65].
Furnham et al. (2016) proposed that EI through self-report measure
should be operationalised as a personality trait, embedded within the
personality framework, referred to as trait EI, while the measurement
through performance tests as a cognitive ability, referred to as ability EI.
C. Prentice et al.
They further stated that trait and ability EI should be distinguished on
the assessment methods, not on the elements of the conceptual model.
For instance, the emotional intelligence scale (EIS) developed by Schutte
and her colleagues in 1998 is a self-report measure, hence classified as
trait EI, albeit based on the ability model developed by Salovey and
Mayer [44]. Moreover, Furnham et al. (2016) found Trait EI to be
generally significantly related to personality factors and proposed that
individual disparities in trait EI are a constant forecaster of an in­
dividual’s behaviour through the life span. The authors also stressed on
the importance of trait EI training as it has several benefits including
improved mental well-being, enhanced life satisfaction, more happiness,
an improved quality of life, a reduction in psychological problems,
better physical health and is even likely to enrich the quality of both
marital and social relationships.
Subsumed under the personality domain, trait EI should not only
explain variance in outcome variables that have been accounted for by
personality, but also demonstrate incremental validity in these out­
comes (see Brackett and Mayer, 2003; [7]. Studies have shown that trait
EI indeed explained additional variance over and above the personality
measure in some criterion variables such as support, leadership (Van
Dan Zee et al., 2004), and attitudes towards organizational change
(Vakola, Tsaousis, and Nikolau, 2003), service performance [8,10],
loneliness and social stress (Chapman and Hayslip, 2005), as well as
coping [66,67]; Ke and Barlas, 2020). For example, O’Connor et al. [67]
examined the validity of the short form trait EI questionnaire in
task-stimulated stress setting with a sample of 225 volunteers and found
that the trait EI projected low negative affect and elevated task perfor­
mance using more emotion focused coping. They further stated that trait
EI improves performance in circumstances and conditions that are
perceived as stressful by regulating and controlling negative emotions.
These results are consistent with Siegling et al.‘s [68] findings, which
showed that trait EI had consistent incremental effects beyond the Big
Five and coping strategies. Consistent with these studies, the study offers
the following hypothesis:
H3 EI has a significant incremental variance in coping strategies over
and above personality factors.
3. Methods
3.1. Sample
Since the COVID 19 was originated in China where government in­
terventions (lockdown and social distancing) were enforced to control
the spread of the virus. This was our pilot study to understand in­
dividuals’ coping strategies and their influencing factors. The data were
collected with Chinese residents who were aged 18 and lived in different
provinces, and who understood the impact of COVID 19 and the gov­
ernment interventions. The survey was posted on the most popular
Chinese social media platform -WeChat. A snowball sampling was
deployed to reach beyond the researchers’ social network with an
intention to access a larger sample.
3.2. Instruments
EI was measured by Law, Wong, and Song’s (2004) self-report EI
scale (WEIS) that is based on the ability EI model (see Brackett and
Mayer, 2003). This scale has been widely used and cited in the literature
with great reliability and validity. The original WEIS contains 16 items
(statements), and four dimensions. These four dimensions are labelled as
self-emotion appraisal (SEA), other-emotion appraisal (OEA), use of
emotion (UOE), and regulation of emotion (ROE). Each dimension has
four items. The dimension SEA includes items, “I have a good sense of
why I have certain feelings most of the time” and “I have a good un­
derstanding of my own emotions”. The dimension OEA items include, “I
always know my friends’ emotions from their behaviour”. Items such as
4
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 51 (2020) 101789
“I always set goals for myself and then try my best to achieve them” are
included in the UOE dimension. The dimension ROE items include “I am
able to control my temper so that I can handle difficulties rationally.”
Items were measured on a five-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating
strongly disagree, and 5 strongly agree. The reliabilities were 0.93 for
SEA, 0.93 for OEA, 0.94 for UOE, and 0.95 for ROE.
Coping strategies were measured by adapting Carver, Scherier, and
Weintraub’s [13] multidimensional scale to understand how re­
spondents cope with the government’s preventive measures for COVID
19. Specific coping strategies include active coping (e.g., I take addi­
tional action to try to get rid of the problem), planning (e.g., I try to come
up with a strategy about what to do), seeking social support for instru­
mental reasons (e.g., I try to get advice from someone about what to do),
seeking social support for emotional reasons (e.g., I talk to someone
about how I feel), positive reinterpretation & growth (e.g., I look for
something good in what is happening), behavioural disengagement (e.
g., I give up the attempt to get what I want), mental disengagement (e.g.,
I turn to work or other substitute activities to take my mind off things),
and alcohol-drug disengagement (e.g., I drink alcohol, in order to think
about it less). Consistent with the suggestion by Ref. [17] and Cohan,
Jang and Stein [18]; we grouped these coping strategies into three
categories: task-oriented coping (i.e., active coping, and planning),
emotion-oriented coping (i.e., seeking social support for instrumental
reasons, seeking social support for emotional reasons, and positive
reinterpretation and growth), and avoidance-oriented coping (i.e.,
behavioural disengagement, mental disengagement, and alcohol drug
disengagement). Items were measured on a five-point Likert scale, with
1 indicating strongly disagree, and 5 strongly agree. Please note that we
have also collected individuals’ coping strategies with the pandemic.
Their measures also had good validity, and the results of hypotheses
testing for coping strategies with the pandemic were quite similar to
those for coping strategies with the government’s preventive measures .
Personality was measured by ten items from Gosling et al. (2003) (i.
e., two items for each of the five dimensions of personality). Items
including “is outgoing, sociable” and “is reserved” (reversed) for extra­
version, “is generally trusting” and “tends to find fault with others”
(reversed) for agreeableness, “does a thorough job” and “tends to be
lazy” (reversed) for conscientiousness, “has an active imagination” and
“has few artistic interests” (reversed) for openness, and “gets nervous
easily” and “is relaxed, handles stress well” (reversed) for neuroticism.
Items were measured on a five-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating
strongly disagree, and 5 strongly agree.
3.3. Data collection procedure
A pilot study with 30 Chinese residents was undertaken prior to
distributing the formal survey. The pilot study was to assess the timing,
appropriateness, and clarity of the questionnaires. The formal survey
was conducted online through WeChat. WeChat has more than one
billion users monthly in China for messaging, one-stop shopping, and
playing games. This platform can reach the target population in various
regions and locations. In total, 468 complete responses were received
and deemed to be sufficient sample size to conduct meaningful statistical
analysis for the research hypotheses. Participants’ demographic infor­
mation is shown in Table 1. Participants had different levels of age and
education. The majority of them were single, and about three-fourths of
them had annual incomes below 80,000 RMB.
3.4. Common method variance
Both ex-ante and ex-post remedies were implemented to minimise
response errors and examine common method variance (Lindell and
Whitney, 2001; Podsakoff et al., 2003). First, validated scales were used
and thoroughly checked with the relevant researchers and experts in the
field. Second, participants were informed that there were no right or
wrong answers. Third, to minimise response bias, items measuring
C. Prentice et al. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 51 (2020) 101789

Table 1 constructs on the average scores of their first-order constructs. The

Participants’ demographic information. model fit was χ2 = 167.86, d.f. = 17; CFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.90; RMSEA =
Category Percentage (N = 468) 0.08. All the path coefficients were significant at the 0.05 level. These
results support modelling three coping strategies as second-order con­
Gender
structs. Loading, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, and average
Female 53.7% variance extracted (AVE) are shown in Table 2. The correlations among
Male 46.1%
Age
the proposed variables are present in Table 3.
18 - 25 40.7%
26 - 35 19.6% 4.2. Hypotheses testing
36 - 45 14.3%
46 - 55 11.3%
Previous research shows that some demographic variables (i.e., age,
56 or above 13.9%
Education gender, and education) are related to individuals’ coping strategies
Elementary school 30.9% [69–73]. In this study, these variables are controlled to understand how
High school 24.5% personality and EI influence the outcome variables. We first assessed
Some college 27.1%
how coping strategies differ across these demographic variables. To
Bachelor degree 17.3%
Marital status
facilitate analysis, we first code participants into different groups. For
Single 52.7% gender, male was coded as 0, and female was coded as 1. For age, we
Married without children 7.2% coded those between 18 and 35 as 0 (the young group), those between
Married with children 39.9% 36 and 55 as 1 (the middle group), and those above 56 as 2 (the old
Annual income (RMB)
group). For education, university education was coded as 1, while the
Less than 80,000 75.5%
80,000–150,000 17.5% rest were coded as 0. One-way ANOVA and t-test were conducted. The
150,000–300,000 4.9% results in Table 4 show that the overall coping strategies and the three
More than 300,000 1.9% coping strategies were scored higher for older group. However, the male
counterparts were more inclined to take avoidance-oriented coping than
the female. Individuals with university education were less likely to
certain constructs were distributed in different sections to avoid iden­
engage in avoidance-oriented coping. The results show that people at
tical responses. Harman’s single factor test was performed first to assess
different demographic groups rated coping strategies differently. It is
common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The results showed that
plausible to control their potential variance in the proposed outcome
eight factors were present, and the first factor explains 38.37% of the
variables (coping strategies).
variance. Second, confirmation factor analysis (CFA) procedure was
H1 proposes that the five-factor personality is significantly related to
conducted to check the model fit for one-factor and multiple-factor
coping strategies, and each personality factor (O, C, E, A, N) has a
models (Iverson and Maguire, 2000). The one-factor model (χ2 (989)
different effect on coping strategies. The results (Table 5) show that
= 15841.16, p < .001, CFI = 0.43; TLI = 0.40; RMSEA = 0.18) has a very
openness had a significant positive effect on task-oriented and emotion-
poor model fit compared to the 12 factors model (χ2 (923) = 2714.05, p
oriented coping while negatively related to avoidance-oriented coping.
< .001, CFI = 0.93; TLI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.06). The last procedure was
Conscientiousness is positively related to emotion-oriented coping and
to control for the effect of an unmeasured latent factor and to compare
negatively to avoidance-oriented coping. On the other hand, neuroti­
the item loadings with and without adding an unmeasured latent
cism is positively related to avoidance-oriented coping.
methods factor (Podsakoff et al., 2003). No great differences between
H2 proposes that EI is significantly related to coping strategies, and
two sets of loadings (all less than 0.01) were identified.
each EI dimension (self-emotion appraisal, other-emotion appraisal,
regulation of emotion, use of emotion) has a different effect on coping
4. Data analysis and results
strategies. The results show that overall, EI has a positive effect on task-
oriented coping and emotion-oriented coping (Table 6), surprisingly,
4.1. Confirmatory factor analysis
also on avoidance-oriented coping. When testing the relationship be­
tween each EI dimension and coping strategies, self, other-emotion
EI has been viewed as a first-order [9] as well as a second-order
appraisal, and use of emotion are significantly related to task-oriented
factor (Law et al., 2004). For this study, we opted for both for hypoth­
and emotion-oriented coping strategies. Surprisingly, other-emotion
esis testing with the first-order factor for understanding the relationship
appraisal is positively related to avoidance-oriented coping. Neverthe­
between each dimension and coping strategies, and with second-order
less, regulation of emotion is not related to any of coping strategies,
factor for testing incremental variance testing [10]. Both factor struc­
contradicting to what has been reported in previous studies.
tures in this study have acceptable model fit indices. The first-order
H3 proposes EI explains incremental variance over and above per­
model has good model fit: χ2 = 319.23, d.f. = 98; CFI = 0.97; TLI =
sonality factors. Consistent with the approach to testing the incremental
0.97; RMSEA = 0.07. The path coefficients between the indicators and
validity of EI in Prentice and King [10]; both personality factors and EI
their respective first-order factors were significant at the 0.05 level. We
were entered in the regression equation in a hierarchical order with
also examined the second-order factor structure by conducting a
personality being the first. For comparison, the results for this hypoth­
one-factor CFA on the average scores of the four first-order constructs.
esis testing are also present in Table 5. The testing shows that EI did
The model fit was χ2 = 36.17, d.f. = 2; CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.91; RMSEA =
explain significant incremental variance manifested in significant R
0.08. All the path coefficients were significant at the 0.05 level. These
square change values. Interestingly, Openness and Conscientiousness
results show that EI has good construct validity.
were no longer significantly related to task and emotion-oriented coping
We then assessed the validity of coping strategies with government
strategies when EI was in the equation. Neuroticism was still negatively
interventions. The second-order CFA, including 3 s-order constructs, has
related to avoidance-oriented coping. H3 was supported.
acceptable model fit: χ2 = 1865.50, d.f. = 397; CFI = 0.91; TLI = 0.90;
RMSEA = 0.08. The path coefficients between the indicators and their
5. Discussion
respective first-order factors were significant at the 0.05 level. In addi­
tion, all the path coefficients between the second-order construct and its
This study views government interventions manifested in mandatory
three dimensions were significant at the 0.05 level. We also examined
preventive measures for controlling the spread of COVID 19 as a stressor
the second-order factor structure by conducting a CFA, including three
and examines whether individuals’ personality and EI influence their

5
C. Prentice et al. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 51 (2020) 101789

Table 2 Table 2 (continued )

Confirmatory factor analyses results. Items Loading Alpha CR AVE
Items Loading Alpha CR AVE
Task-oriented coping
Task-oriented coping
I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of .87
Active coping .89 .90 .68 others.
AC1: I take additional action to try to get rid of .80 I have good understanding of the emotions of .87
the problem. people around me.
AC2: I concentrate my efforts on doing .84 Use of emotion .94 .94 .80
something about it. I always set goals for myself and then try my .88
AC3: I do what has be done, one step at a time. .79 best to achieve them.
AC4: I take direct action to get around the .87 I always tell myself I am a competent person. .86
problem. I am a self-motivated person. .93
Planning .95 .95 .82 I would always encourage myself to try my best. .91
P1: I try to come up with a strategy about what .89 Regulation of emotion .95 .95 .84
to do. I am able to control my temper and handle .93
P2: I make a plan of action. .90 difficulties rationally.
P3: I think hard about what steps to take. .94 I am quite capable of controlling my own .95
P4: I think about how I might best handle the .89 emotions.
problem. I can always calm down quickly when I am very .87
Emotion-oriented coping angry.
Seeking social support for instrumental .93 .93 .82 I have good control of my own emotions. .92
reasons
SSI1: I try to get advice from someone about .90
what to do. coping strategies for these measures, and whether EI provides incre­
SSI2: I talk to someone to find out more about .94 mental variance in these strategies over and above personality factors.
the situation.
Demographic factors, including gender, age and education, are included
SSI3: I talk to someone who could do something .88
concrete about the problem. as control variables in the proposed relationships. This study classifies
Seeking social support for emotional reasons .93 .94 .84 coping strategies into task, emotion, and avoidance-oriented coping.
SSE1: I talk to someone about how I feel. .85 Age, gender, and education exert various effects on the coping strate­
SSE2: I try to get emotional support from friends .95 gies. The results show that EI is significantly related to different coping
or relatives. I discuss my feelings with
someone.
strategies, whereas only certain EI dimensions and personality factors
SSE3: I get sympathy and understanding from .94 made unique variances in coping strategies. EI did provide incremental
someone. variance in the outcome variables. Detailed discussions of these findings
Positive reinterpretation & growth .96 .96 .87 are as follows.
PR1: I look for something good in what is .88
happening.
PR2: I try to see it in a different light, to make it .92
seem more positive.
5.1. Personality, EI and coping strategies
PR3: I learn something from the experience. .97
PR4: I try to grow as a person as a result of the .95 To understand the influence of personality and EI on coping strate­
experience. gies, age, gender, and education were controlled in the analysis. How­
Avoidance-oriented coping
ever, mean comparisons did show that older people tend to opt for
Behavioural disengagement .94 .94 .80
BD1: I give up the attempt to get what I want. .85 proactive coping such as task and emotion-oriented strategies. Both
BD2: I just give up trying to reach my goal. .91 males and females can be task oriented. However, females are more
BD3: I admit to myself that I can’t deal with it, .90 inclined to seek emotional support, and males are more avoidant prone
and quit trying.
or engaging in drinking and hedonistic behaviours. These findings are
BD4: I reduce the amount of effort I’m putting .92
into solving the problem
not consistent with those in prior research reporting the senior and fe­
Mental disengagement .87 .88 .64 male are more likely to take precautious and protective behaviours.
MD1: I turn to work or other substitute .73 Older people may see them have more responsibilities to protect their
activities to take my mind off things. families. Similarly, females are perceived to be more nurturing and
MD2: I go to movies or watch TV, to think about .86
caring, and naturally would take a more positive approach to deal with
it less.
MD3: I daydream about things other than this .84 preventive measures. Whilst education does not make different in the
MD4: I sleep more than usual. .76 task and emotion-oriented coping, less educated people tend to take
Alcohol-drug disengagement .98 .98 .94 avoidance approach, and engage in drinking and other hedonistic be­
AD1: I drink alcohol, in order to think about it .94 haviours to cope with the lockdown and other preventive measures, as
less.
AD2: I drink more alcohol, in order to think .95
shown in this study.
about it less. Among the five personality factors, only openness was significantly
AD3: I smoke in order to think about it less. .99 related to three categories of coping strategies. Openness is reflective of
AD4: I smoke more in order to think about it .99 being creative, adventurous, and innovative. Its significant variance in
less.
proactive coping is plausible. The pandemic status quo and its preven­
EI
Self-emotion appraisal .93 .94 .78 tive measures may be unique. People with open mind may view these as
I have a good sense of why I have certain .81 new challenges and proactively seek remedies (e.g., new hobbies,
feelings most of the time. beneficial activities) to enrich their life experience. These people tend to
I have good understanding of my own emotions. .91 be less likely to take avoidance approach by engaging in alcohol and
I really understand what I feel. .94
I always know whether or not I am happy. .87
hedonistic behaviours as this study shows that openness is negatively
Others’ emotion appraisal .93 .93 .78 related to avoidance-oriented coping. This finding is consistent with that
I always know my friends’ emotions from their .87 in Williams et al. [74]. Conscientiousness in this study is positively
behaviours. related to emotion-oriented coping but negative to avoidance coping.
I am a good observer of others’ emotions. .91
Since conscientiousness is reflective of traits associated with being
hardworking and achievement oriented, people with a high level of

6
C. Prentice et al. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 51 (2020) 101789

Table 3
Correlations and squared root of AVEs.
AC P SSI SSE PR BD MD AD SEA OEA UOE ROE O C E A N

AC .82
P .74** .91
SSI .62** .74** .91
SSE .60** .70** .79** .92
PR .59** .78** .72** .69** .93
BD .35** .31** .31** .31** .25** .89
MD .40** .46** .49** .47** .46** .60** .80
AD .19** .11* .10* .15** -.04 .52** .38** .97
SEA .41** .54** .50** .56** .63** .26** .37** .07 .88
OEA .41** .53** .52** .57** .59** .25** .37** .13** .74** .88
UOE .43** .53** .49** .53** .62** .24** .28** .05 .71** .64** .89
ROE .36** .44** .39** .44** .50** .19** .25** .07 .68** .61** .73** .92
O .17** .20** .13** .13** .24** -.10* -.08 -.16** .25** .20** .23** .20** –
C .15** .18** .12* .14** .23** -.15** -.15** -.24** .29** .19** .35** .33** .32** –
E .05 .04 -.01 -.02 -.01 -.02 -.03 .10* .03 .10* .08 .06 .26** .12** –
A -.12* -.14** -.09* -.06 -.11* -.06 -.03 -.07 -.11* -.20** -.15** -.12** -.33** -.14** -.36** –
N .08 .03 .06 .07 .02 .08 .13** .07 .02 .08 -.00 -.09 .02 .07 -.17** -.07 –

Note: AC = Active coping, P = Planning, SSI = Seeking social support for instrumental reasons, SSE = Seeking social support for emotional reasons, PR = Positive
reinterpretation & growth, BD = Behavioural disengagement, MD = Mental disengagement, AD = Alcohol-drug disengagement, SEA = Self-emotion appraisal, OEA =
Others’ emotion appraisal, UOE = Use of emotion, ROE = Regulation of emotion, O = Openness, C = Conscientiousness, E = Extroversion, A = Agreeableness, N =
Neuroticism.
*p < .05, **p < .01.

conscientiousness appreciate the uncertainty and stress relating to this

Table 4
pandemic and the compulsory preventive measures. Rather than being
The effect of demographic variables on coping strategies.
passively reacting or indulging in binge drinking, they stay active and
Task-oriented Emotion-oriented Avoidance-oriented engage in learning and growth during the lockdown and seek support
coping coping coping

Age
Table 6
Young: 3.76 3.85 3.08
18–35
EI and coping strategies with government interventions.
Middle: 3.93 3.90 3.13 Task-oriented Emotion-oriented Avoidance-oriented
36–55 coping coping coping
Old: 56 4.05 3.99 3.32
above EI .55*** .66*** .27***
ANOVA F = 5.26, p < .01, F = 1.31, p < .05, F = 2.23, p > .05, Control variable
ƞ2 = .02 ƞ2 = .01 ƞ2 = .01 Gender -.00 .09* -.09
Gender Age .01 .00 .05
Male 3.85 3.82 3.21 Education -.02 .02 -.08
Female 3.84 3.94 3.05 R2 .32 .45 .09
T-test t = .18, p > .05, t = − 2.05, p < .05, t = 2.24, p < .05, EI dimensions
Cohen’s d = .01 Cohen’s d = .18 Cohen’s d = .20 SEA .17* .24*** .13
Education OEA .23*** .29*** .21***
Below 3.85 3.85 3.20 UOE .25*** .28*** .01
Bachelor ROE -.02 -.06 -.04
Bachelor 3.83 3.92 3.03 Control variable
above Gender -.01 .08* -.09*
T-test t = .30, p > .05, t = -1.15, p > .05, t = 2.10, p < .05, Age .02 .01 .05
Cohen’s d = .03 Cohen’s d = .11 Cohen’s d = .20 Education -.02 .01 -.08
2
R .33 .47 .11

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

Table 5
Personality and coping strategies with government measures.
Task-oriented coping Emotion-oriented coping Avoidance-oriented coping

Personality

Openness .05 .14** .07 .13* .04 -.12* -.17***

Conscientiousness -.04 .09 -.06 .14** -.06 -.26*** -.38***
Extroversion -.01 -.02 -.01 -.07 -.05 .06 .07
Agreeableness -.10 -.08 -.02 -.06 .01 -.10* -.06
Neuroticism .09 .05 .06 .04 .06 .13** .14**
EI .55*** .67*** .41***
Control variable
Gender -.01 .00 -.01 .09* .08* -.09* -.10*
Age .13** .06 .02 .06 .00 .07 .04
Education -.00 .01 -.01 .05 .02 -.05 -.07
R2 .04 .07 .33 .07 .45 .13 .27
Δ R2 .25*** .38*** .15**

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

7
C. Prentice et al.
from family and relatives and. This finding is contrasting to those in
Hooker et al. [28]; who reported that conscientious individuals are less
prone to engage in emotion-oriented coping. People with a high level of
neuroticism tend to be nervous and anxious. The level of being neurotic
can be exasperated by external stress, such as the pandemic. Since
vaccination has not been successfully developed, there is no time limit
for implementation of the preventive measures, which are perceived as
restrictions to people’s daily life. Neurotic individuals can be pessimistic
about the development of the situation. The best approach to dealing
with such uncertainty for them is to avoid and indulge in hedonistic
behaviours reflected in avoidance coping.
EI is significantly related to all three coping strategies. EI in this
study was measured by four dimensions, namely, self-emotion appraisal
(SEA), other-emotion appraisal (OEA), utilisation of emotions (UOE),
and regulation of emotions (ROE) based on the ability model. When
analysing how each dimension made unique variance in coping strate­
gies, the results show that the first three dimensions were significantly
related to task and emotion-oriented coping. Task-oriented coping refers
to how individuals’ proactively plan and seek to engage in positive
conducts. Emotion-oriented coping is reflective of seeking support from
family and friends. The preventive measures undertaken in this
pandemic may be unprecedented for most people, especially if there is
no definite time of easing lockdown measure. Such uncertainty can
cause fear and anxiety. Those with a high level of SEA and OEA which
indicate perceiving emotions of oneself and others tend to appreciate
this situation and identify suitable tasks to cope with the lockdown, as
shown in this study. Lockdown and social distancing also limit social
activities. Family and relatives can be a good source of dealing with such
restrictions as reflected in emotion-oriented coping. UOE is also
important as this dimension indicates that individuals with a high level
of UOE are more goal-oriented and confident in what they opt to do.
They may view these preventive measures as an opportunity to engage
in hobbies that they were unable to in normal situations and spending
more time with family.
In the case of avoidance coping, only OEA explains a significant
variance. Avoidance coping is reflective of a passive approach to a
stressful situation, and avoiding the stress by engaging in drinking. In­
dividuals with a high level of OEA manifest in understanding the emo­
tions of others who may express distress and other negative emotions
towards these preventive measures. Emotions are contagious. The
appraiser may be affected by such emotions and mimic others’ attitudes
and behaviours such as passive coping and drinking. Interestingly ROE is
not significantly related to any coping strategies. This dimension in­
dicates the ability of managing one’s own emotions. Coping strategies
refer to actions taken to cope with pandemic combating measures. This
finding may indicate that managing emotions is simply reflective of
maintaining internal peace without engaging in any activities.
5.2. Incremental variance
When EI and personality variables were entered in the same
regression, surprisingly, openness and conscientiousness are not signif­
icantly related to task and emotion-oriented coping strategies. This
finding can be interpreted as that the two personality factors are highly
correlated with EI. This interpretation was supported as the correlation
values between these variables in Table 3 were significant. The measure
that was opted for this study to assess EI is reflective of individuals’
personality traits rather than emotional abilities. EI is classified as in­
telligence that should be distinguished from personality traits and
measured by objective indicators. However, the EI studies are inundated
with self-reporting EI in the relevant literature. This conundrum has
been resolved by induction of trait and ability EI proposed by Petrides
and his colleagues (e.g., 2001; 2016). The key difference between the
two is that the former is more related to personality traits, which can be
self-reported, whereas the latter is associated with the intelligence
domain, and can only be assessed objectively. The finding in this study
8
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 51 (2020) 101789
confirmed the concept of trait EI that is more related to personality traits
though based on an ability model (e.g. Ref. [65,66,75]). The significant
incremental variance explained by trait EI conforms to what has been
reported in Ref. [8,10] albeit the criterion variable is different.
6. Implications
The study is intended to understand how people cope with preven­
tive measures undertaken to combat the pandemic COVID 19 and
examine whether their EI and personality may influence their coping
strategies. The preventive measures in this study indicate government
interventions, including lockdown and social distancing, for controlling
the spread of the virus. This study integrates government policing, crisis
management, and psychology and hence contributes to these disciplines.
Whilst these government preventive measures are intended for man­
aging the virus, these restrictions affect people’s daily lives and their
mental wellbeing. How they cope and what they do to cope with these
restrictions have implications for public policy research and crisis
management literature.
The study shows that personal factors are important in their coping
strategies and behaviours. In particular, EI has a most significant impact
on individuals’ positive and proactive coping strategies (i.e., task and
emotion-oriented coping). Only certain personality factors are signifi­
cantly related to coping strategies. These findings provide a fresh
perspective on how personality and individual traits can be incorporated
into shape public policy and crisis management research. Managing a
severe crisis like a pandemic may not be attributed to government policy
and regulation per se. Individuals play a significant role in the effec­
tiveness of implementing these policies. On the other hand, prior
research on EI and personality primarily focus on their impact on indi­
vidual performance, success, and wellbeing. Although some studies have
examined their relationship with coping (e.g., Montes-Bergres and
Augusto, 2007; [7,76], the contexts were mostly limited to the work
context. This study extends to crisis management literature, and reveals
how EI and personality can shape individuals’ coping strategies towards
government policies.
The findings that personality factors have little influence on coping
strategies when entering in the same regression equation with EI
confirm the trait EI concept proposed by Ref. [65,66]. The EI measure
opted for this study was based on an ability model, nevertheless tested
by self-reporting. Hence, the self-assessed ability measure is more
related to personality traits and are highly correlated to personality
factors. Given the coping strategies are emotionally connotated, EI is
deemed to account for more of these strategies and associated behav­
iours. The values of significant R square change indicate that EI explains
incremental variance than personality factors. This result confirms that
EI is different from personality and provides incremental validity as an
independent psychological construct. This finding is consistent with that
in Petrides, Perez-Gonzales, and Furnham [66]; and Prentice and King
[8,10].
The study also has several practical implications for policymakers
and relevant practitioners. Since personality factors and demographic
variables are significantly related to coping with the pandemic in­
terventions, the government and authorities should segment citizens
based on these characteristics and implement these interventions pro­
gressively to minimise side effects and potential damages to the public.
As numerous reports show that these measures affect people’s mental
wellbeing, and mental health can affect how they behave, for instance,
engaging in abnormal behaviours or criminal conduct, it is imperative
for the policymakers and the relevant authorities to identify appropriate
means to enhance the public’s mental wellbeing. Since EI has a signifi­
cant impact on positive coping strategies and is proved to be trainable,
training can be provided to residents who have difficulty coping with
these restrictions and interventions to prevent further damage to
themselves or the local communities. On the other hand, age, gender,
and education play important roles in their coping. The relevant
C. Prentice et al.
authorities should reinforce the influence of role models and find
appropriate means to reward those who play significant roles in
enhancing the safety of local communities.
7. Limitations and future research
A few limitations must be acknowledged in this research. First,
although popular, self-reporting EI is never ideal or well-recognized in
EI research. We understood this limitation yet opted for such a measure
as no funding was generated for this research. Ability EI measure can be
costly with a large sample cohort. This assessment is also lengthy and
might generate a low response rate. Such consideration determined the
use of a self-reporting measure. The scale used in this study may not
represent the trait EI domain. The findings should be interpreted with
cautions. Second, the personality measure opted for this study is a short
version of the original scale. This option may limit the finding of indi­
vidual differences on coping strategies. Third, the data was only
collected in China. The coping mechanism for Chinese may be different
from other races and ethnicities. The findings cannot be generalised
without caution. Comparative studies from different countries and cul­
tures would provide more insights. Finally, snowball sampling was
deployed. This method has certain merits but also some limitations on
generating a sample cohort that is reflected in the researchers’ social
network. Random sampling would provide a better understanding of the
proposed relationships in this study.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] J.E. Maddux, R.W. Rogers, Protection motivation theory and self-efflcacy: a revised
theory of fear appeals and attitude change, J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 19 (1983)
469–479.
[2] S.A. Abdulkareem, E.-W. Augustijn, T. Filatova, K. Musial, Y.T. Mustafa, Risk
perception and behavioral change during epidemics: comparing models of
individual and collective learning, PloS One 15 (1) (2020), e0226483, https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226483.
[3] R. Hewett, A. Liefooghe, G. Visockaite, S. Roongrerngsuke, Bullying at work:
cognitive appraisal of negative acts, coping, wellbeing, and performance, J. Occup.
Health Psychol. 23 (1) (2018) 71.
[4] P.T. Costa Jr., A. Terracciano, R.R. McCrae, Gender differences in personality traits
across cultures: robust and surprising findings, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81 (2) (2001)
322–331, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322.
[5] R.R. McCrae, P.T. Costa Jr., Personality trait structure as a human universal, Am.
Psychol. 52 (5) (1997) 509–516, https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.509.
[6] R.R. McCrae, A. Terracciano, 78 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures
Project, Universal features of personality traits from the observer’s perspective:
data from 50 cultures, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 88 (3) (2005) 547–561, https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.547.
[7] M. Zeidner, G. Matthews, R.D. Roberts, EI, coping with stress, and adaptation, EI
Everyday Life (2006) 100–125.
[8] C. Prentice, B.E. King, Impacts of personality, emotional intelligence and
adaptiveness on service performance of casino hosts: a hierarchical approach,
J. Bus. Res. 66 (9) (2013) 1637–1643.
[9] C. Prentice, Managing service encounters with emotional intelligence, J. Retailing
Consum. Serv. 51 (2019) 344–351.
[10] C. Prentice, B. King, The influence of emotional intelligence on the service
performance of casino frontline employees, Tourism Hospit. Res. 11 (1) (2011)
49–66.
[11] R. Lazarus, S. Folkman, Stress, Appraisal, & Coping, Springer Publishing Company,
New York, NY, 1984.
[12] R.S. Lazarus, Psychological Stress and the Coping Process, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1966.
[13] C.S. Carver, M.F. Scheier, J.K. Weintraub, Assessing coping strategies: a
theoretically based approach, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 56 (2) (1989) 267.
[14] M.F. Scheier, J.K. Weintraub, C.S. Carver, Coping with stress: divergent strategies
of optimists and pessimists, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51 (1986) 1257–1264.
[15] S. Folkman, R.S. Lazarus, An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community
sample, J. Health Soc. Behav. 21 (3) (1980) 219–239.
[16] M. Rosario, S. Salzinger, R.S. Feldman, D.S. Ng-Mak, Community violence exposure
and delinquent behaviors among youth: the moderating role of coping,
J. Community Psychol. 31 (2003) 489–512.
9
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 51 (2020) 101789
[17] M.M. Smith, D.H. Saklofske, K.V. Keefer, P.F. Tremblay, Coping strategies and
psychological outcomes: the Moderating effects of personal resiliency, J. Psychol.
150 (3) (2016) 318–332.
[18] S. Cohan, K. Jang, M. Stein, Confirmatory factor analysis of a short form of the
coping inventory for stressful situations, J. Clin. Psychol. 62 (3) (2006) 273–283.
[19] C.S. Carver, J. Connor-Smith, Personality and coping, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 61
(2010) 679–704.
[20] L.R. Goldberg, An alternative “description of personality”: the Big-Five factor
structure, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 59 (1990) 1216–1229.
[21] R.R. McCrae, O.P. John, An introduction to the five-factor model and its
applications, J. Pers. 2 (1992) 175–215.
[22] S. Taylor, The Psychology of Pandemics: Preparing for the Next Global Outbreak of
Infectious Disease, Cambridge Scholar Publishing, UK, 2019.
[23] D.S. Zanini, M. Forns, Does coping mediate personality and behavioural problems
relationship? Psychology 5 (2014) 1111–1119, https://doi.org/10.4236/
psych.2014.59123.
[24] E. Mattson, L. James, B. Engdahl, Personality factors and their impact on PTSD and
post-traumatic growth is mediated by coping style among OIF/OEF veterans, in:
Military Medicine, 00, 0/0. Published by Oxford University Press on Behalf of the
Association of Military Surgeons of the United States 2018, 2018.
[25] Y.-h. Xiang, X. Chi, Y.-q. Jiang, R.-f. Wang, L. Mo, Psychosomatic status,
personality traits, and coping styles of bereaved and non bereaved survivors of the
2008 wenchuan earthquake, China, Front. Psychiatr. 7 (2016) 17, https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00017.
[26] Y. Zhang, F.C. Kong, L. Wang, H. Chen, X. Gao, Mental health and coping styles of
children and adolescent survivors one year after the 2008 Chinese earthquake,
Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 32 (2010) 1403–1409, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
childyouth.2010.06.009.
[27] R.R. McCrae, P.T. Costa Jr., Personality, coping, and coping effectiveness in an
adult sample, J. Pers. 54 (1986) 385–405.
[28] K. Hooker, L.D. Frazier, D.J. Monahan, Personality and coping among caregivers of
spouses with dementia, Gerontol. 34 (1994) 386–392.
[29] T.B. O’Brien, A. DeLongis, The interactional context of problem-emotion-, and
relationship-focused coping: the role of the big five personality factors, J. Pers. 64
(4) (1996) 775–813.
[30] S. Folkman, R.S. Lazarus, C. Dunkel-Schetter, A. DeLongis, R.J. Gruen, Dynamics of
a stressful encounter: cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes, J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 50 (1986) 992–1003.
[31] R.R. McCrae, P.T. Costa Jr., Validation of the five-factor model of personality
across instruments and observers, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54 (1987) 81–90.
[32] L.A. Best, L.E. Both, Coping Style as Predicted by Personality and Attachment.
European Congress on Psychology, Millan, Italy, 2015.
[33] L.F. Carvalho, G. Pianowski, A.P. Gonçalvez, Personality differences and COVID-
19: are extroversion and conscientiousness personality traits associated with
engagement with containment measures? Trends Psychiat. Psychother (2020)
https://doi.org/10.1590/2237-6089-20200029, 2020;00(0):000-000.
[34] P.T. Costa Jr., R.R. McCrae, NEO-PI-R: Professional Manual, Psychological
Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL, 1992.
[35] M. Yıldız, Ş. Şahin, S. Batmaz, E. Songur, F. Kutlutürk, The relationship between
depression, anxiety, personality traits and coping strategies of patients with
euthyroid Hashimoto’s Thyroiditis, Eur. J. Psychiatr. 31 (3) (2017) 113–118,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpsy.2017.06.001.
[36] R.R. McCrae, P.T. Costa Jr., The five-factor theory of personality, in: O.P. John, R.
W. Robins, L.A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, third
ed., Guilford Press, New York, NY, 2008, pp. 159–180.
[37] K. Eichel, F. Turk, S. Chrona, A. Lieberoth, D. Pankowski, Stress and loneliness
during the COVID-19 pandemic: the role of personality traits, Soc. Psychol.
Personal. Sci. (2020).
[38] L. Kroencke, K. Geukes, T. Utesch, N. Kuner, M. Back, Neuroticism and emotional
risk during the Covid-19 pandemic, Preprint (2020), https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.
io/8c6nh.
[39] J.A. Fauerbach, J.W. Lawrence, C.W. Schmidt, Personality predictors of injury
related posttraumatic stress disorder, J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 188 (2000) 510–517,
https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-200008000-00006.
[40] Y. Murakami, C. Murakami, The standardization of a Big Five personality inventory
for separate generations, Jpn. J. Pers. 8 (1999) 32–42.
[41] D.J. Terry, Determinants of coping: the role of stable and situational factors,
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 66 (1994) 895–910.
[42] M.E. Boyes, D.J. French, Having a Cyberball: using a ball-throwing game as an
experimental social stressor to examine the relationship between neuroticism and
coping, Pers. Indiv. Differ. 47 (5) (2009) 396–401, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2009.04.005.
[43] M.R. Pearson, V.J. Derlega, J.M. Henson, K.Y. Holmes, R.A. Ferrer, S.B. Harriso,
Role of neuroticism and coping strategies in psychological reactions to a racist
incident among african American university student, J. Black Psychol. 40 (1)
(2014) 81–111, https://doi.org/10.1177/009579841247168.
[44] P. Salovey, J.D. Mayer, ‘EI,’ imagination, Cognit. Personal. 9 (1990) 185–211.
[45] C.-S. Wong, K.S. Law, The effects of leader and follower EI on performance and
attitude: an exploratory study, Leader. Q. 13 (2002) 243–274, https://doi.org/
10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00099-1.
[46] Y. Brunetto, S.T.T. Teo, K. Shacklock, R. Farr-Wharton, EI, job satisfaction, well-
being and engagement: explaining organisational commitment and turnover
intentions in policing, Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 22 (2) (2012) 428–441.
[47] L. Karimi, S.G. Leggat, L. Donohue, G. Farrell, G.E. Couper, Emotional rescue: the
role of EI and emotional labour on well-being and job-stress among community
nurses, J. Adv. Nurs. 70 (1) (2014) 176–186.
C. Prentice et al.
[48] H.N. Perera, The role of trait emotional intelligence in academic performance:
theoretical overview and empirical update, J. Psychol. 150 (2) (2015) 229–251,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2015.1079161.
[49] A. Ingram, W.O. Peake, W. Stewart, W. Watson, EI and venture performance,
J. Small Bus. Manag. 57 (3) (2019) 780–800.
[50] C. MacCann, Y. Jiang, L.E.R. Brown, K.S. Double, M. Bucich, A. Minbashian, EI
predicts academic performance: a meta-analysis, Psychol. Bull. 146 (2) (2020)
150–186.
[51] S. Zeidan, Empirical investigation of the relationship between EI, organizational
commitment, and turnover intentions, J. Inf. Knowl. Manag. 19 (2) (2020) 1–13.
[52] E. Engleberg, L. Sjoberg, EI, affect intensity and Social adjustment, Pers. Indiv.
Differ. 37 (2003) 533–542.
[53] N.S. Schutte, J.M. Malouff, E.B. Thorsteinsson, N. Bhullar, S. Rooke, A meta-
analytic investigation of the relationship between EI and health, Pers. Indiv. Differ.
42 (2007) 921–933.
[54] G. Matthew, M. Zeidner, EI, adaptation to stressful encounters & health outcomes,
in: R. Bar-On, J.D.A. Parker (Eds.), The Handbook of EI, Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, San
Francisco, CA, 2001.
[55] G.J. Taylor, Low EI and mental health, in: J. Ciarrochi, J. Forgas, J. Mayer (Eds.),
EI in Everyday Life: A Scientific Inquiry, Psychology Press, Philadelphia, 2001,
pp. 67–81.
[56] R. Bar-On, EQ-i Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory, Multi-Health Systems,
Toronto, 1997.
[57] E.J. Austin, D.H. Saklofske, S.M. Mastoras, EI, coping and exam-related stress in
Canadian undergraduate students, Aust. J. Psychol. 62 (2010) 42–50.
[58] M. Perković Kovačević, I. Požgain, P. Filaković, I. Grujčić, Relationship between
coping strategies and EI among patients with schizophrenia, Psychiatr. Danub. 30
(3) (2018) 299–304, https://doi.org/10.24869/psyd.2018.299.
[59] A.C. Baum, M.A. King, Creating a climate of self-awareness in early childhood
teacher preparation programs, Early Child. Educ. J. 33 (2006) 217–222, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10643-005-0050-2.
[60] S. Nizielski, S. Hallum, A. Schütz, P.N. Lopes, A Note on Emotion appraisal and
burnout: the mediating role of antecedent-focused coping strategies, J. Occup.
Health Psychol. 18 (3) (2013) 363–369.
[61] E.A. Skinner, M.J. Zimmer-Gembeck, The development of coping, Annu. Rev.
Psychol. 58 (2007) 119–144.
[62] E. Ong, C. Thompson, The Importance of Coping and Emotion Regulation in the
Occurrence of Suicidal Behavior, Psychological Reports, 2018, 003329411878185.
[63] Maryse Pelletier, Emotions Experienced and Coping Strategies Used by Family
Members of Organ Donors, Canadian Journal of Nursing Research Archive, 1993
[S.l.], ISSN 1705-7051.
10
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 51 (2020) 101789
[64] T. Ke, J. Barlas, Thinking about feeling: using trait emotional intelligence in
understanding the associations between early maladaptive schemas and coping
styles, Psychol. Psychother. Theor. Res. Pract. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1111/
papt.12202.
[65] K.V. Petrides, A. Furnham, Trait EI: psychometric investigation with reference to
established trait taxonomies, Eur. J. Pers. 15 (6) (2001) 425–448.
[66] K.V. Petrides, J.C. Pérez-González, A. Furnham, On the criterion and incremental
validity of trait EI, Cognit. Emot. 21 (1) (2007) 26–55.
[67] P. O’Connor, J. Nguyen, J. Anglim, Effectively coping with task stress: a study of
the validity of the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire–short form
(TEIQue–SF), J. Pers. Assess. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1080/
00223891.2016.1226175.
[68] A.B. Siegling, Ashley K. Vesely, K.V. Petrides, Donald H. Saklofske, Incremental
validity of the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire–short form (TEIQue–SF),
J. Pers. Assess. 97 (5) (2015) 525–535, https://doi.org/10.1080/
00223891.2015.1013219.
[69] M. Barr, B. Raphael, M. Taylor, G. Stevens, L. Jorm, M. Giffin, S. Lujic, Pandemic
influenza in Australia: using telephone surveys to measure perceptions of threat
and willingness to comply, BMC Infect. Dis. 8 (2008) 117, https://doi.org/
10.1186/1471-2334-8-117.
[70] H. Marshall, P. Ryan, D. Roberton, J. Street, M. Watson, Pandemic influenza and
community preparedness, Am. J. Publ. Health 99 (2009) S365–S371.
[71] R.J. Blendon, L.M. Koonin, J.M. Benson, M.S. Cetron, W.E. Pollard, E.W. Mitchell,
M.J. Herrmann, Public response to community mitigation measures for pandemic
influenza, Emerg. Infect. Dis. 14 (5) (2008) 778–786.
[72] H. Seale, J. Leask, K. Po, C.R. MacIntyre, “Will they just pack up and leave?” –
attitudes and intended behaviour of hospital health care workers during an
influenza pandemic, BMC Health Serv. Res. 9 (2009) 30, https://doi.org/10.1186/
1472-6963-9-30.
[73] M. Singh, P. Sarkhel, G. Kang, et al., Impact of demographic disparities in social
distancing and vaccination on influenza epidemics in urban and rural regions of the
United States, BMC Infect. Dis. 19 (2019) 221, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-
019-3703-2.
[74] P.G. Williams, H.K. Rau, M.R. Cribbet, H.E. Gunn, Openness to Experience and
stress regulation, J. Res. Pers. 43 (5) (2009) 777–784, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrp.2009.06.003.
[75] K.V. Petrides, M. Mikolajczak, S. Mavroveli, M.-J. Sanchez-Ruiz, A. Furnham, J.-
C. Pérez-González, Developments in trait emotional intelligence research, Emot.
Rev. 8 (4) (2016) 335–341, https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073916650493.
[76] C.H. Reynolds, L.M. O’Dwyer, Examining the relationships among EI, coping
mechanisms for stress, and leadership effectiveness for middle school principals,
J. Sch. Leader. 18 (5) (2008) 472–500.