Personality and Individual Differences 151 (2019) 109278

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

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

Resources for enhancing employee and organizational well-being beyond T

personality traits: The promise of Emotional Intelligence and Positive
Relational Management
Annamaria Di Fabioa,⁎, Maureen E. Kennyb
a
Department of Education, Languages, Intercultures, Literatures and Psychology (Psychology Section), University of Florence, Italy
b
Lynch School of Education, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The two studies presented in this article examine individual psychological resources that might be fostered to
Trait emotional intelligence promote individual and organizational well-being. More specifically, study 1 study assessed with a sample of 524
Positive Relational Management Italian University students the relationship between trait emotional intelligence (EI) and both hedonic and
Hedonic well-being, eudaimonic well-being eudaimonic well-being, controlling for the effects of personality traits. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed
Positive psychology
that trait EI explained a percentage of incremental variance beyond that accounted for by personality traits in
Primary prevention
relation to both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Study 2 assessed the contribution of Positive Relational
Management (PRM) to hedonic and eudaimonic well-being with a sample of 252 university students. Analyses
showed that PRM accounted for significant incremental variance beyond that accounted for by personality traits
in relation to both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. The findings suggest that both trait EI and PRM represent
promising resources for promoting well-being, although variations were identified with regard to the con-
tributions of specific dimensions of both sets of resources.

1. Introduction Saklofske, 2014; Vakola et al., 2004).

The 21st century is characterized by a rapidly changing world
where challenges and transitions are ever more frequent with regard to
the workplace and society overall (Blustein, 2006; Duffy, Blustein,
Diemer, & Austin, 2016). In this context, the well-being of individuals
and organizations is under threat (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2016b). Work
organizations are simultaneously challenged to compete successfully in
a rapidly changing economy, while also striving to offer a healthy
workplace where their employees can thrive (Vakola, Tsaousis, &
Nikolaou, 2004). In efforts to be nimble in responding to change, or-
ganizations seek to hire employees who can do well in a changing
context and contribute to organizational productivity and well-being
(Vakola et al., 2004). Economic insecurity, and unstable and shifting
work opportunities pose significant challenges to emotional and rela-
tional well-being for many young people as they enter the workforce
and organizational life (Di Fabio, Kenny, & Claudius, 2016; Masten,
2014). With concern for these challenges, organizations are interested
in identifying critical psychological resources that might be strength-
ened to foster employee and organizational health (Di Fabio &
In conceptualizing the psychological resources important for the
enhancement of individual and organizational well-being, we draw
upon the perspectives of positive psychology (Seligman, 2002) and
primary prevention (Di Fabio, 2014; Hage et al., 2007). Positive psy-
chology (Seligman, 2002) recognizes that healthy organizations must
promote health at four interrelated levels: the individual, the group, the
organization, and inter-organizational processes (Henry, 2005). While
individual and organizational health are interrelated and a product of
individual and contextual characteristics, the research presented here
focuses on the individual characteristics that are related to employee
well-being and organizational health. While organizations need to
consider systems and structures that foster well-being, organizational
well-being also depends on the presence of employees who possess the
emotional and interpersonal resources to contribute to a healthy or-
ganizational climate (Vakola et al., 2004). Our research seeks to add to
the emerging knowledge identifying personal resources, beyond the
presence of stable personality attributes, that enable individuals to re-
spond effectively to change and contribute to personal and organiza-
tional well-being (Choi & Lee, 2014; Di Fabio et al., 2016; Di Fabio,

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Education, Languages, Intercultures, Literatures and Psychology (Psychology Section), University of Florence, via di San
Salvi, 12, Complesso di San Salvi, Padiglione 26, 50135 Firenze, Italy.
E-mail address: adifabio@psico.unifi.it (A. Di Fabio).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.02.022
Received 7 September 2018; Received in revised form 14 February 2019; Accepted 15 February 2019
Available online 26 February 2019
0191-8869/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
A. Di Fabio and M.E. Kenny
Palazzeschi, & Bucci, 2017).
Primary prevention (Hage et al., 2007) emphasizes the importance
for promoting individual and contextual resources prior to the onset of
difficulties in order to enhance well-being over the life course. Ac-
cordingly, interventions that build individual resources for effective
coping in the workplace are optimally implemented prior to workforce
entry. Although much attention has been placed on the need for aca-
demic and technological expertise in a rapidly shifting work context
(Brendish, 2017), research also highlights the importance of emotional
and relational competencies for health and success in school and work
settings (Cullinane & Montacute, 2017). Emotional and relational
competencies are central to stress resilience and well-being across the
lifespan (Di Fabio, Kenny, & Minor, 2014) and are increasingly sought
by employers for their contribution to organizational effectiveness in a
rapidly changing global workplace (Lippman, Ryberg, Carney, &
Moore, 2015). In this paper, we adopt a primary prevention perspective
in the study of individual resources with a focus on university students
as future workers and with implications for individual and organiza-
tional well-being.
Our interest in employee well-being builds on a significant body of
research indicating that the well-being of employees has positive effects
for the organizations in which they are employed (Taris & Schaufeli,
2015; Wright & Cropanzano, 2000). Our study of well-being embraces
the important distinction between two kinds of well-being: hedonic
well-being (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) and eudaimonic well-
being (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Hedonic well-being entails affective eva-
luation in terms of positive and negative affect (Watson et al., 1988)
and the cognitive evaluation of life satisfaction (Diener, Emmons,
Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). Eudaimonic well-being goes beyond the cog-
nitive evaluation of life satisfaction and affective well-being, with an
emphasis on optimal functioning and self-realization (Ryan & Deci,
2001), life meaning (Morgan & Farsides, 2009), purposefulness
(Waterman et al., 2010), and flourishing (Diener et al., 2010). With
concern for the realization of meaning and purpose that goes beyond
one's affective state, eudaimonic well-being is particularly relevant to a
consideration of work organizations as sites for maximizing and sus-
taining health and well-being. Existing research (Hahn, Frese,
Binnewies, & Schmitt, 2012), suggests that eudaimonic well-being
among business owners is associated with personal initiative and a re-
cognition of the importance of relationships in the work initiatives.
This paper reports on two studies that add to the understanding of
individual emotional and relational resources that could be cultivated
prior to work entry to promote individual and organizational well-
being. Related to the increased importance of emotional and relational
competencies in the 21st century workplace (Reich & Herschcovis,
2011), we focus in this research on Emotional Intelligence (EI) and
Positive Relational Management (PRM). In so doing, we recognize the
need to extend existing research on psychological resources associated
with varied aspects of employee functioning by examining multiple
dimensions of those constructs with multiple dimensions of well-being
(Taris & Schaufeli, 2015). We first study trait Emotional Intelligence
(EI) and then examine the contributions of a promising new relational
construct, Positive Relational Management (PRM), which has been as-
sociated with trait EI (Di Fabio & Saklofske, 2019) and has significant
relevance for organizational well-being (Di Fabio, 2016a, 2016b).
2. Study 1
Trait Emotional Intelligence (EI) has emerged as one promising
psychological resource that can be developed through early interven-
tion and primary prevention (Nelis et al., 2011; Vesely, Saklofske, &
Nordstokke, 2014) and is important for individual and organizational
health. Existing research reveals, for example, that employees with
higher trait EI are more open to change in their organizations (Vakola
et al., 2004), are more resilient in demonstrating a sense of mastery,
relatedness and emotional recovery in response to stress (Di Fabio &
2
Personality and Individual Differences 151 (2019) 109278
Saklofske, 2018), and contribute to a positive relational workplace
environment (Di Fabio & Saklofske, 2019). In contrast to personality
traits that are considered substantially stable (Costa & McCrae, 1992),
trait EI is also modifiable across the life course, yet relatively stable
during adulthood (Petrides, 2011), highlighting the value of cultivating
these dispositions prior to workforce entry.
Theory and research distinguish between two different models of EI
(Stough, Saklofske, & Parker, 2009): ability-based models (Mayer &
Salovey, 1997) and self-report EI models (Bar-On, 1997; Petrides &
Furnham, 2001). Ability-based models focus on the cognitive dimen-
sions of EI, as for example, the abilities required to accurately interpret
emotional information (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000). Self-report EI
models focus on the subjective experience of emotion and the self-
evaluation of one's own emotional and social skills (Bar-On, 1997;
Petrides & Furnham, 2001). The Bar-On (1997) self-report model of EI
assesses one's self-perception of the emotional and social competencies
that influence how individuals understand themselves, interact with
other people, and cope with environmental challenges. A comprehen-
sive self-report model, adopted in the current study, was developed by
Petrides and Furnham (2001) and extends beyond the dimensions of the
Bar-On (1997). This comprehensive model is known as trait EI or trait
emotional self-efficacy, and encompasses fifteen varied aspects or di-
mensions of EI, such as emotional expression, emotional regulation, and
self-motivation, that were identified through a content analysis of
dominant models of EI (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2015; Petrides &
Furnham, 2001). Trait EI according to the model developed by Petrides
and colleagues (Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007) represents a con-
stellation of interrelated self-perceived emotion related dispositions and
competencies that are assessed through questionnaires and rating
scales. Further research has found that the items comprising thirteen of
the fifteen facets of trait EI load on four oblique factors, Well-Being,
Self-Control, Emotionality, and Sociability (Andrei, Siegling, Aloe,
Baldaro, & Petrides, 2016).
With regard to employee well-being, an emerging body of research
has assessed the relationships between trait EI and both hedonic and
eudaimonic well-being, although this body of research remains limited
both in terms of the number of studies and the use of measures derived
from varied theoretical models (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2016b). For hedonic
well-being, significant and positive relationships have been identified
across varied studies with university students and adults (Gallagher &
Vella-Brodrick, 2008; Gannon & Ranzijn, 2005; Gignac, 2006; Palmer,
Donaldson, & Stough, 2002), but only a few studies (Di Fabio &
Saklofske, 2014; Petrides, Pérez-González, & Furnham, 2007; Saklofske,
Austin, & Minski, 2003) employed the comprehensive TEIQue model.
Di Fabio and Saklofske (2014) found that the TEIQue added incre-
mental variance in explaining hedonic well-being as assessed by life
satisfaction beyond the contributions of personality factors, ability
based EI, and the Bar-On measure.
Several studies have documented a relationship between EI and
eudaimonic well-being (e.g. Raina & Bakhshi, 2013; Tennant et al.,
2007), but did not examine the TEIQue model. One existing study of
Italian high school students found that both the TEIQue and the Bar-On
model, assessed in separate analyses, explained incremental variance
beyond the effects of personality in explaining eudaimonic well-being
as defined by meaning in life (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2016b). Further re-
search is needed to confirm the relationships between trait EI and well-
being in varied samples and to more fully understand the contributions
of the specific components of trait EI with varied dimensions of eu-
daimonic well-being. Since the above studies and most research with
the TEIQue have focused on the global construct rather than the factors
(Andrei et al., 2016), a refined understanding of the components of the
TEIQue model and dimensions of eudaimonic well-being could add to
the knowledge base to inform prevention efforts designed to prepare
young people as healthy individuals who can contribute to productive
and healthy organizations.
A. Di Fabio and M.E. Kenny
2.1. Aim and hypotheses
The aim of the current study was to examine the relationships be-
tween trait EI and both hedonic well-being (positive affect, negative
affect, and life satisfaction) and eudaimonic well-being (meaning in life
and flourishing), controlling for the effects of personality traits. The
current study builds on the growing body of research on EI and well-
being by adopting the comprehesive measure of EI developed by
Petrides and Furnham (2001), examining specific components of this
model, and examining an expanded assessment of eudaimonic well-
being. We assess the relationships between trait EI and flourishing and
the specific dimensions of meaning in life, in addition to the global life
meaning measure, which was assessed in prior research. Given that
university students will soon be entering the workforce, examining
these relationships with university students has potential implications
from a prevention perspective for both individual and organizational
well-being.
The following hypotheses were formulated.
H1. A positive relationship will emerge between components of trait EI
and positive affect, controlling for the effects of personality traits.
H2. An inverse relationship will emerge between components of trait EI
and negative affect, controlling for the effects of personality traits.
H3. A positive relationship will emerge between components of trait EI
and life satisfaction, controlling for the effects of personality traits.
H4. A positive relationship will emerge between components of trait EI
and meaning in life, controlling for the effects of personality traits.
H5. A positive relationship will emerge between components of trait EI
and flourishing, controlling for the effects of personality traits.
3. Material and methods
3.1. Participants
Five hundred twenty-four Italian university students at a University
in the center of Italy participated in the study. Regarding gender,
31.10% of the participants were men and the 68.89% were women. The
participants ranged in age from 19 to 34 years (M = 23.02, SD = 2.49).
3.2. Measures
3.2.1. Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ)
To evaluate personality traits, the Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ;
Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Borgogni, 1993) was used. The BFQ consists of
132 items with a 5-point Likert scale response format ranging from
1 = Absolutely false to 5 = Absolutely true. The questionnaire measures
five personality traits. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients were 0.81 for
Extraversion (example of item: “I think that I am an active and vigorous
person”), 0.73 for Agreeableness (example of item: “I understand when
people need my help”), 0.81 for Conscientiousness (example of item: “I
tend to be very thoughtful”), 0.90 for Emotional stability (example of
item: “I do not often feel tense”), and 0.75 for Openness (example of
item: “I am always informed about what is happening in the world”).
3.2.2. Trait EI Questionnaire Short Form (TEIQue-SF, Petrides, 2009a,
2009b)
To evaluate trait EI, the Trait EI Questionnaire Short Form in the
Italian version by Di Fabio and Palazzeschi (2011) was used. This 30-
item form includes two items from each of the 15 aspects or facets of EI
assessed by the TEIQue. Items were selected primarily on the basis of
their correlations with the corresponding total facet scores, which en-
sured broad coverage of the sampling domain of the construct (Petrides
& Furnham, 2006). All items are responded to with a 7-point Likert
scale response format (1 = Completely disagree to 7 = Completely agree).
3
Personality and Individual Differences 151 (2019) 109278
The short form contains four factor subscales, Well-Being (e.g., I believe
I'm full of personal strengths), Self-control (e.g., I'm usually able to find
ways to control my emotions when I want to), Emotionality (e.g., Ex-
pressing my emotions with words is not a problem for me), and
Sociability (e.g., I can deal effectively with people), that were also
identified in the long form of the TEIQue. We used the short version of
the TEIQue since it is faster to administer and still assesses the four
factor dimensions of the original scale, which have been used in various
studies (Andrei et al., 2016). The TEIQue short form has been validated
both for its original version (Petrides & Furnham, 2006) and for its
Italian version (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2011). For this study, we
decided to use only the Self-Control, Emotionality, and Sociability
subcales of the TEIQue, thus eliminating concern for overlap between
the TIEQue Well-Being scale and external criteria of well-being (Andrei
et al., 2016). The Cronbach alpha is 0.81 for the total score and 0.80 for
Self-control, 0.81 for Emotionality, and 0.82 for Sociability.
3.2.3. Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)
To evaluate positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) as com-
ponents of hedonic well-being, the Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule (PANAS, Watson et al., 1988) in the Italian version by
Terraciano, McCrae, and Costa Jr (2003) was used. The PANAS is
composed of 20 adjectives of which 10 refer to Positive Affect (PA; e.g.,
enthusiastic, interested, determined) and 10 to Negative Affect (NA;
e.g., afraid, upset, distressed). The participant indicates how they
generally feel on average on a Likert scale from 1 = Very slightly or not
at all to 5 = Extremely. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients were: 0.72 for
Positive Affect and 0.83 for Negative Affect.
3.2.4. Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS)
The Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS, Diener et al., 1985) in the
Italian version by Di Fabio and Gori (2016) was used to evaluate life
satisfaction as a component of hedonic well-being. The scale consists of
five items (e.g. “I am satisfied with my life”, “The conditions of my life
are excellent”) on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = Strongly dis-
agree to 7 = Strongly agree. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.85.
3.2.5. Meaning in Life Measure (MLM)
The Italian version (Di Fabio, 2014) of the Meaningful Life Measure
(MLM, Morgan & Farsides, 2009) was utilized to assess meaning in life
as an aspect of eudaimonic well-being. The questionnaire consists of 23
items on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to
7 = strongly agree. The MLM includes five dimensions: Exciting life
(e.g., “Life to me seems always exciting”), Accomplished life (e.g., “So
far, I am pleased with what I have achieved in life”), Principled life
(e.g., “I have a personal value system that makes my life worthwhile”),
Purposeful life (e.g., “I have a clear idea of what my future goals and
aims are”), and Valued life (e.g., “My life is significant”). The Cron-
bach's alpha coefficients were 0.85 for Exciting life; 0.87 for Accom-
plished life; 0.86 for Principled life, 0.85 for Purposeful life; and 0.84
for Valued life. The alpha value for the total score was 0.85.
3.2.6. Flourishing Scale (FS)
The Flourishing Scale (FS, Diener et al., 2010) in the Italian version
by Di Fabio (2016a) was used to evaluate flourishing as an additional
aspect of eudaimonic well-being. The FS consists of eight items with
response options on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly
disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). Examples of items include: “My social
relationships are supportive and rewarding”, “I lead a purposeful and
meaningful life”, “I am optimistic about my future”. The FS showed a
unidimensional structure with good reliability: α = 0.88.
3.3. Procedure and data analysis
The questionnaires were administered to university students in a
group session by trained psychologists according to the requirements of
A. Di Fabio and M.E. Kenny Personality and Individual Differences 151 (2019) 109278

Note. N = 524. BFQ = Big Five Questionnaire; TEIQue = Trait EI Questionnaire; PANAS PA = PANAS Positive Affects; PANAS NA = PANAS Negative affects; SWLS = Satisfaction With Life Scale; MLM = Meaning in
Table 2
18

–
Hierarchical regression. The contributions of personality traits (first step) and
trait EI (second step) to positive affect (PA), negative affect (NA), life sa-

0.52⁎⁎
–
tisfaction (SWLS), meaning in life (MLM) and flourishing (FS).
17

PA NA SWLS MLM FS

0.43⁎⁎
0.51⁎⁎
–
16

β β β β β

0.45⁎⁎
0.63⁎⁎
0.40⁎⁎
Step 1

–
BFQ Extraversion 0.53⁎⁎⁎ −0.05 0.32⁎⁎⁎ 0.36⁎⁎⁎ 0.34⁎⁎⁎
15

BFQ Agreeableness 0.10⁎ −0.21⁎⁎⁎ 0.24⁎⁎⁎ 0.01 0.09⁎

BFQ Conscientiousness 0.16⁎⁎⁎ −0.13⁎⁎ 0.01 0.16⁎⁎⁎ 0.11⁎⁎

0.56⁎⁎
0.61⁎⁎
0.63⁎⁎
0.51⁎⁎
–
BFQ Emotional stability 0.09⁎ −0.31⁎⁎⁎ 0.13⁎⁎ 0.18⁎⁎⁎ 0.16⁎⁎⁎
14

BFQ Openness 0.19⁎⁎⁎ −0.05 0.09⁎ 0.30⁎⁎⁎ 0.21⁎⁎⁎

Step 2
0.65⁎⁎
0.57⁎⁎
0.44⁎⁎
0.56⁎⁎
0.64⁎⁎
TEIQue-SF Self-Control 0.18⁎⁎ −0.17⁎ 0.20⁎⁎ 0.36⁎⁎⁎ 0.15⁎⁎
–
13

TEIQue-SF Emotionality 0.21⁎⁎⁎ −0.14⁎ 0.25⁎⁎⁎ 0.19⁎⁎ 0.38⁎⁎⁎

TEIQue-SF Sociability 0.01 −0.05 0.01 0.07 0.41⁎⁎⁎
0.78⁎⁎
0.86⁎⁎
0.78⁎⁎
0.74⁎⁎
0.79⁎⁎
0.78⁎⁎
R2 step 1 0.42⁎⁎⁎ 0.24⁎⁎⁎ 0.21⁎⁎⁎ 0.40⁎⁎⁎ 0.34⁎⁎⁎
–
12

∆R2 step 2 0.07⁎⁎⁎ 0.04⁎⁎⁎ 0.09⁎⁎⁎ 0.13⁎⁎⁎ 0.30⁎⁎⁎

R2 total 0.49⁎⁎⁎ 0.28⁎⁎ 0.30⁎⁎ 0.53⁎⁎⁎ 0.64⁎⁎⁎
0.64⁎⁎
0.47⁎⁎
0.67⁎⁎
0.44⁎⁎
0.43⁎⁎
0.53⁎⁎
0.60⁎⁎
–
Means, standard deviations, and correlations between BFQ, TEIQue-SF (dimensions), PANAS PA, PANAS NA, SWLS, MLM (total and dimensions), and FS.

Note. N = 524. BFQ = Big Five Questionnaire; TEIQue = Trait EI

11

Questionnaire; PANAS PA = PANAS Positive Affects; PANAS NA = PANAS

−0.36⁎⁎
−0.39⁎⁎
−0.30⁎⁎
−0.25⁎⁎
−0.24⁎⁎
−0.31⁎⁎
−0.39⁎⁎
−0.33⁎⁎

Negative affects; SWLS = Satisfaction With Life Scale; MLM = Meaning in Life
–

Measure; FS = Flourishing Scale.

10

⁎
p < .05.
⁎⁎
p < .01.
−0.18⁎⁎
0.46⁎⁎
0.66⁎⁎
0.54⁎⁎
0.55⁎⁎
0.56⁎⁎
0.54⁎⁎
0.44⁎⁎
0.60⁎⁎

⁎⁎⁎
p < .001.
–
9

privacy and informed consent of Italian law (Law Decree DL-196/

−0.41⁎⁎

2003). The order of administration was counterbalanced to control for

0.59⁎⁎

0.55⁎⁎
0.52⁎⁎
0.34⁎⁎
0.31⁎⁎
0.30⁎⁎
0.17⁎⁎
0.36⁎⁎
0.65⁎⁎
–

order effects.
8

Descriptive statistics, Pearson's r correlations and hierarchical re-

gressions were calculated.
−0.22⁎⁎
0.26⁎⁎
0.34⁎⁎

0.38⁎⁎
0.42⁎⁎
0.25⁎⁎
0.35⁎⁎
0.30⁎⁎
0.20⁎⁎
0.38⁎⁎
0.55⁎⁎
–
7

4. Results
−0.37⁎⁎
0.31⁎⁎
0.45⁎⁎
0.35⁎⁎

0.38⁎⁎
0.31⁎⁎
0.44⁎⁎
0.45⁎⁎
0.36⁎⁎
0.44⁎⁎
0.43⁎⁎
0.49⁎⁎
–

Table 1 shows means, standard deviations and correlations.

6

Table 2 shows the results of five different hierarchical regression

−0.22⁎⁎

models, with positive affect, negative affect, life satisfaction, meaning

0.26⁎⁎
0.24⁎⁎
0.28⁎⁎
0.32⁎⁎

0.15⁎⁎
0.46⁎⁎
0.42⁎⁎
0.32⁎⁎
0.40⁎⁎
0.33⁎⁎
0.28⁎⁎
0.40⁎⁎
–

in life total scale and flourishing as the criterion measure in separate

5

regressions and with BFQ at the first step and the three scales of trait EI
at the second step. Table 3 presents the results of analyses with the
−0.43⁎⁎
0.23⁎⁎
0.47⁎⁎

0.42⁎⁎
0.16⁎⁎

0.26⁎⁎
0.29⁎⁎
0.26⁎⁎
0.32⁎⁎
0.20⁎⁎
0.29⁎⁎
0.19⁎⁎
0.28⁎⁎
0.06

subscales of the meaning in life measure as predictor measures.

–

With regard to positive affect, personality traits accounted for 42%

4

of the variance at step one (F(5, 518) = 75.55; p < .001). At the second
0.16⁎⁎
0.15⁎⁎

0.19⁎⁎

0.24⁎⁎
0.13⁎⁎

0.23⁎⁎

0.27⁎⁎

0.27⁎⁎

0.18⁎⁎
0.14⁎
0.04

0.06

0.11

0.13

0.09

step, the three subscales of trait EI added 7% to the incremental var-

–
3

iance, accounting overall for 49% of the variance (F(8, 515) = 53.70;
−0.34⁎⁎

p < .001).
0.14⁎⁎
0.39⁎⁎
0.52⁎⁎
0.34⁎⁎
0.44⁎⁎
0.26⁎⁎
0.15⁎⁎

0.30⁎⁎
0.32⁎⁎
0.39⁎⁎
0.27⁎⁎
0.23⁎⁎
0.17⁎⁎
0.18⁎⁎
0.34⁎⁎
–

With regard to negative affect, personality traits accounted for 24%

2

of the variance at step one (F(5, 518) = 31.97; p < .001). At the second
step, the three subscales of trait EI added 4% incremental variance,
−0.14⁎⁎
0.18⁎⁎
0.14⁎⁎
0.18⁎⁎
0.26⁎⁎
0.21⁎⁎
0.20⁎⁎
0.46⁎⁎
0.60⁎⁎

0.37⁎⁎
0.49⁎⁎
0.44⁎⁎
0.43⁎⁎
0.30⁎⁎
0.40⁎⁎
0.38⁎⁎
0.46⁎⁎

accounting overall for 28% of the variance (F(8, 515) = 20.98; p < .001).
–

With regard to life satisfaction, personality traits accounted for 21%

1

of the variance at step one (F(5, 518) = 27.66; p < .001). At the second
12.09

18.20
8.94
8.62
9.75

9.62
4.68
6.44
5.97
5.28
7.45
6.64

4.38
4.27
5.67
4.98
4.79
7.95

step, the three subscales of trait EI added 9% incremental variance,

DS

accounting for 30% of the variance overall (F(8, 515) = 17.34; p < .001).
Life Measure; FS = Flourishing Scale.
116.60

For the total meaning in life scale, personality traits accounted for
76.31
81.10
82.23
69.25
83.67
28.43
35.36
29.40
35.31
21.23
23.50

24.47
23.82
22.74
22.99
24.57
42.61

40% of the variance at step one (F(5, 518) = 70.59; p < .001). At the
M

second step, the three subscales of trait EI added 13% incremental

14. MLM Accomplished life

variance, accounting overall for 53% of the variance (F(8, 515) = 48.27;
7. TEIQue-SF Emotionality
4. BFQ Emotional stability
3. BFQ Conscientiousness

6. TEIQue-SF Self-control

8. TEIQue-SF Sociability

16. MLM Purposeful life

15. MLM Principled life

p < .001).
13. MLM Exciting life
2. BFQ Agreeableness

17. MLM Valued life

1. BFQ Extraversion

With regard to flourishing, personality traits accounted for 34% of

5. BFQ Openness

the variance F(5, 518) = 52.55; p < .001). At the second step, the three
10. PANAS NA
9. PANAS PA

p < .01.

subscales of trait EI added 30% incremental variance, accounting

p < .05.
11. SWLS
12. MLM

overall for 64% of the variance (F(8, 515) = 36.59; p < .001).
Table 1

18. FS

For the specific dimensions of meaning of life, personality traits

⁎⁎
⁎

accounted for 33% of the variance F(5, 518) = 50.41; p < .001) with

4
A. Di Fabio and M.E. Kenny Personality and Individual Differences 151 (2019) 109278

Table 3
Hierarchical regression. The contributions of personality traits (first step) and trait EI (second step) to meaning in life (MLM) scales.
Exciting life Accomplished life Principled life Purposeful life Valued life

β β β β β

Step 1
BFQ Extraversion 0.27⁎⁎⁎ 0.22⁎⁎⁎ 0.21⁎⁎⁎ 0.28⁎⁎⁎ 0.31⁎⁎⁎
BFQ Agreeableness 0.18⁎ 0.06 0.03 0.12 0.01
BFQ Conscientiousness 0.05 0.22⁎⁎⁎ 0.08 0.24⁎⁎⁎ 0.07
BFQ Emotional stability 0.07 0.11 0.05 0.24⁎⁎⁎ 0.13⁎
BFQ Openness 0.14⁎ 0.08 0.34⁎⁎⁎ 0.25⁎⁎⁎ 0.18⁎
Step 2
TEIQue-SF Self-Control 0.30⁎⁎⁎ 0.27⁎⁎⁎ 0.22⁎⁎ 0.38⁎⁎⁎ 0.29⁎⁎⁎
TEIQue-SF Emotionality 0.03 0.22⁎⁎⁎ 0.17⁎ 0.09 0.28⁎⁎⁎
TEIQue-SF Sociability 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.23⁎⁎ 0.01
R2 step 1 0.33⁎⁎⁎ 0.32⁎⁎⁎ 0.21⁎⁎⁎ 0.30⁎⁎⁎ 0.21⁎⁎⁎
∆R2 step 2 0.06⁎⁎⁎ 0.09⁎⁎⁎ 0.07⁎⁎⁎ 0.10⁎⁎⁎ 0.15⁎⁎⁎
R2 total 0.39⁎⁎⁎ 0.41⁎⁎⁎ 0.28⁎⁎⁎ 0.40⁎⁎⁎ 0.36⁎⁎⁎

Note. N = 524. BFQ = Big Five Questionnaire; TEIQue = Trait EI Questionnaire; PANAS PA = PANAS Positive Affects; PANAS NA = PANAS Negative affects;
SWLS = Satisfaction With Life Scale; MLM = Meaning in Life Measure; FS = Flourishing Scale.
⁎
p < .05.
⁎⁎
p < .01.
⁎⁎⁎
p < .001.

regard to Exciting life. At the second step, the three subscales of trait EI
added 6% incremental variance, accounting overall for 39% of the
variance (F(8, 515) = 35.18; p < .001).
With regard to accomplished life, personality traits accounted for
32% of the variance F(5, 518) = 48.27; p < .001). At the second step, the
three subscales of trait EI added 9% incremental variance, accounting
overall for 41% of the variance (F(8, 515) = 30.54; p < .001).
With regard to principled life, personality traits accounted for 21%
of the variance F(5, 518) = 25.77; p < .001). At the second step, the
three subscales of trait EI added 7% incremental variance, accounting
overall for 28% of the variance (F(8, 515) = 20.05; p < .001).
With regard to purposeful life, personality traits accounted for 30%
of the variance F(5, 518) = 46.19; p < .001). At the second step, the
three subscales of trait EI added 10% incremental variance, accounting
overall for 40% of the variance (F(8, 515) = 33.48; p < .001).
With regard to valued life, personality traits accounted for 21% of
the variance F(5, 518) = 27.53; p < .001). At the second step, the three
subscales of trait EI added 15% incremental variance, accounting
overall for 36% of the variance (F(8, 515) = 18.56; p < .001).
5. Discussion
The aim of the present study was to examine among university
students who will be future workers the relationship between trait EI
and both hedonic well-being (positive affect, negative affect and life
satisfaction) and eudaimonic well-being (meaning in life and flour-
ishing), controlling for the effects of personality traits. Given the im-
portance of employee well-being for the well-being and effectiveness of
work organizations, understanding factors that contribute to the well-
being of future workers is vital.
The findings serve to confirm and extend previous research on trait
EI across varied populations. At a broad level, the findings add to the
substantive literature documenting the incremental validity of trait EI
in explaining varied domains of adaptive functioning, beyond the var-
iance explained by higher order personality traits (Andrei et al., 2016;
Choi & Lee, 2014; Petrides, Pérez-González, & Furnham, 2007; Siegling,
Vesely, Petrides, & Saklofske, 2015). By assessing the contributions of
the factor components of trait EI, omitting the Well-Being component,
the current findings reveal that the association of trait EI with well-
being cannot be explained simply by construct overlap. With regard to
hedonic well-being, the results confirm with university students the
contribution of trait EI previously documented among high school
students (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2016b). This result suggests that higher
levels of trait EI are associated with higher levels of hedonic well-being
in terms of positive emotional activation (Watson et al., 1988) and
global satisfaction with one's one life (Diener et al., 1985), even after
controlling for personality traits, and are inversely associated with
negative emotional activation (Watson et al., 1988).
With regard to eudaimonic well-being, the findings for the total
meaning in life measure also confirm existing findings with high school
students (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2016a, 2016b), showing that higher levels
of trait EI are associated with higher levels of meaning in life among
university students. The current study extends previous research by
examining the relationship of trait EI with flourishing, revealing a po-
sitive relationship between trait EI and flourishing among university
students. The overall findings suggest that trait EI contributes positively
not only to the perceived realization of one's authentic meaning and the
pursuit of meaningful life goals (Morgan & Farsides, 2009) found in
previous research, but also to flourishing in terms of social and psy-
chological prosperity in relationships, self-esteem, presence of purpose,
and optimism (Diener et al., 2010).
A more nuanced understanding of the contributions of EI to well-
being is revealed by examining the dimensions of trait EI. With regard
to the three dimensions of trait intelligence, the hierarchical analyses
reveal a relationship between perceived self-control, encompassing
emotional regulation, low impulsivity, and stress management, and
perceived emotionality, encompassing empathy, emotion perception,
emotion expression, and relationships, with indices of both hedonic and
eudaimonic well-being, after controlling for personality traits. The self-
control component, moreover, was related to all five dimensions of the
meaningful life measure, with emotionality related to three dimensions,
valued life, accomplished life and principled life. The component of
sociability, however, was significantly associated only with the flour-
ishing index of eudaimonic well-being. The significant relationship of
sociability with flourishing may reflect the inclusion of supportive and
rewarding social relationships as an aspect of flourishing, suggesting
that higher levels of EI sociability, encompassing social awareness,
emotion management, and assertiveness, may contribute to the per-
ception of one's social relationships as positive.
Our findings with regard to the trait EI factors are consistent with
findings of a meta-analytic review of TEIQue research where the Well-
Being and Self-Control scales were the most predictive of adaptive
outcomes (Andrei et al., 2016). Andrei et al. (2016) note the overlap
between the Well-being factor and some outcomes in the studies re-
viewed and suggest that sociability and emotionality may have more
predictive power when explaining social outcomes, which were less

5
A. Di Fabio and M.E. Kenny
often assessed in the studies they reviewed.
In general, our findings reveal a significant and robust relationship
for trait EI, especially self-control, with eudaimonic well-being. The
contribution of perceived self-control highlights other research doc-
umenting the importance of self-regulation for social and emotional
well-being and accomplishment in life and work (Di Fabio et al., 2017;
Freund & Baltes, 1998). The generally broad contribution of emotion-
ality makes sense psychologically. The aspects of trait EI that focus on
emotional expression and the emotional reading of contexts would lo-
gically contribute to many facets of well-being, including rewarding
relationships. The current findings suggest that self-control and emo-
tionality might be a particularly beneficial focus in cultivating EI
among future workers.
All three components of trait EI contributed to flourishing, which
encompasses success in relationships, purpose and future optimism.
Indeed, the explanatory power of trait EI with flourishing was fairly
robust, based on the magnitude of the beta weights, which may reflect
the variety of emotional dispositions that are drawn on to achieve this
higher level of well-being, beyond affective state or mood alone. Given
the importance of relationships to well-being, to workplace success and
satisfaction, and to organizational effectiveness (Blustein, 2006, 2011;
Reich & Hershcovis, 2011), it is somewhat surprising that sociability
did not contribute more broadly to personal well-being. For this study,
the intrapersonal dimensions of EI explained well-being more broadly
more than the interpersonal dimensions. Prior research, using the trait
EI total scale, has found trait EI to be related to positive workplace
relationships, characterized by respect, caring and feelings of connec-
tion among employees in the workplace (Di Fabio & Saklofske, 2019).
Workplace relational civility has also been found to contribute to em-
ployee acceptance of change, life satisfaction, and meaning in life (Di
Fabio, Giannini, et al., 2016). Given the importance of relationships for
the well-being of employees and the workplace (Reich & Hershcovis,
2011), we sought next to investigate the contribution of an innovative
and more differentiated model of relationality that has relevance for the
workplace to varied dimensions of well-being.
6. Study 2
Among the psychological variables connected to well-being, rela-
tional quality and social support have a well-established and funda-
mental role in healthy functioning for organizations and for individuals
across the life course (Blustein, 2006, 2011; Ferguson & Goodwin,
2010; Gallagher & Vella-Brodrick, 2008). The devel-
opmental–contextual (Walsh, Galassi, Murphy, & Park-Taylor, 2002)
model highlights the contributions of healthy social relationships across
family, school, community and work contexts for academic success and
productive contributions in work and society. Positive workplace re-
lationships have been associated with numerous positive effects, in-
cluding employee communication, motivation, physical health, work
performance, team cohesion, effective communication and organiza-
tional commitment (Reich & Hershcovis, 2011). Positive workplace
relationships can serve, furthermore, as a mechanism of stress reduction
for workers, whereas conflictual relationships add distress, interfere
with productivity and undermine well-being (Reich & Hershcovis,
2011). From a primary prevention perspective (Hage et al., 2007), in-
terventions that enhance and foster positive relationships can promote
the well-being of individuals, as well as healthy organizations and
workplaces. Accordingly, organizations should recognize the im-
portance of relationships (Blustein, 2011; Di Fabio, 2017) for individual
and organizational well-being and embrace practices that promote
healthy relationships.
In consideration of the importance of healthy relationships, the
construct of Positive Relational Management (PRM) has been in-
troduced to incorporate the notions of respect and caring for the self
and others and the relationships between people (Blustein, 2011; Di
Fabio, 2016b). This innovative construct draws from relational theories
6
Personality and Individual Differences 151 (2019) 109278
of working (Blustein, 2011; Kenny, Blustein, & Meerkins, 2018), which
recognize the interrelation of the interpersonal and work spheres of life
across the lifespan and the importance of work as a site for meeting
human needs for social connection. The relational perspectives view
human growth as rooted in needs for human connection and for au-
tonomy and for the importance of balancing and integrating efforts to
meet one's own needs and the needs of others.
PRM emphasizes the importance of relationality, respect, and caring
toward oneself and others in the relationships (Blustein, 2011; Di Fabio,
2016b) and includes three aspects: respect (my respect for others, the
respect of others for me, my respect for myself), caring (my care for
others, the care of others for me, my care for myself), and connected-
ness (my connectedness with family members, with friends, with sig-
nificant others, and their perceived connectedness with me). These
dimensions represent the dialect of self in relationship and are hy-
pothesized to be important for adaptive relational functioning while
meeting life challenges. In comparison with other conceptualizations of
interpersonal relatedness, PRM emphasizes a need for balance and
mutuality in relationships where one receives respect, caring and con-
nection from others, while also offering these dimensions of relational
support to others and providing care and respect for oneself. Although
PRM shares with existing measures, such as the Interpersonal Relat-
edness of Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2; Cheung,
Fan, & To, 2008) a concern for balance and harmony in relationships,
PRM focuses on the balance of individual and relational needs in three
specific dimensions, seeking to modify the individualistic focus of self
that has dominated Western culture.
As a unique construct, PRM goes beyond the conceptualization of
the value of relationships through mechanisms of social support with an
emphasis on balancing the needs of self and others in relationship. PRM
is moderately related to social support, with correlations ranging from
0.41 to 0.46 (Di Fabio, 2016b), suggesting that they are overlapping but
also unique constructs. PRM is also moderately related to EI (Di Fabio &
Saklofske, 2019). With regard to the adaptive value of PRM, existing
research has established positive relationships with acceptance of
change, relational civility in the workplace and academic settings, and
perceived employability among workers and university students in Italy
(Di Fabio, 2016a, 2016b), highlighting its promise as work-relevant
construct.
According to prevention research and practice (Di Fabio & Kenny,
2016a; Hage et al., 2007), the development of psychological resources
has maximal benefit for the promotion of well-being when developed
prior to the emergence of difficulties. According to this understanding,
PRM might be enhanced to develop positive aspects of self in re-
lationship as a preventive psychological resource fundamental for in-
dividual and organizational well-being. In this study, we adopt a pri-
mary prevention perspective and focus on the role of PRM as a
preventive asset among university students who will enter the work-
force of the future.
6.1. Aim and hypotheses
The aim of the study was to examine the relationship between PRM
and both hedonic well-being (positive affect, negative affect and life
satisfaction) and eudaimonic well-being (meaning in life and flour-
ishing), controlling for the effects of personality traits. As in study 1, we
examine meaning in life both as a total scale and its specific dimensions.
We examine the contributions of the three separate dimensions of PRM,
although we do not have specific hypotheses with regard to the di-
mensions.
The following hypotheses were formulated.
H1. A positive relationship will emerge between PRM and positive
affect, controlling for the effects of personality traits.
H2. An inverse relationship will emerge between PRM and negative
affect, controlling for the effects of personality traits.
A. Di Fabio and M.E. Kenny Personality and Individual Differences 151 (2019) 109278

Note. N = 252. BFQ = Big Five Questionnaire; PRMS = PRM Scale; PANAS PA = PANAS Positive Affects; PANAS NA = PANAS Negative affects; SWLS = Satisfaction With Life Scale; MLM = Meaning in Life Measure;
H3. A positive relationship will emerge between PRM and life
18

–
satisfaction, controlling for the effect of personality traits.

0.77⁎⁎
H4. A positive relationship will emerge between PRM and meaning in

–
17

life, controlling for the effect of personality traits.

0.40⁎⁎
0.54⁎⁎
H5. A positive relationship will emerge between PRM and flourishing,

–
16

controlling for the effect of personality traits.

0.43⁎⁎
0.61⁎⁎
0.53⁎⁎
–
15

7. Material and methods

0.54⁎⁎
0.59⁎⁎
0.60⁎⁎
0.42⁎⁎
–
7.1. Participants
14

0.67⁎⁎
0.55⁎⁎
0.41⁎⁎
0.54⁎⁎
0.53⁎⁎
Two hundred and fifty two Italian university students at a university
–
13

in the center of Italy participated in the study. With regard to gender,

20.24% of the participants were men and 79.76% were women. The
0.80⁎⁎
0.87⁎⁎
0.81⁎⁎
0.72⁎⁎
0.80⁎⁎
0.66⁎⁎ participants' ages ranged from 19 to 30 years (M = 22.62, SD = 1.64).
–
12

0.66⁎⁎
0.49⁎⁎
0.69⁎⁎
0.46⁎⁎
0.46⁎⁎
0.55⁎⁎
0.62⁎⁎

7.2. Measures
–
11

7.2.1. Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ)

−0.37⁎⁎
−0.39⁎⁎
−0.32⁎⁎

−0.22⁎⁎
−0.33⁎⁎
−0.41⁎⁎
−0.33⁎⁎
−0.28

To evaluate personality traits, the Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ;

–
10

Caprara et al., 1993) was used as in study 1.

−0.18⁎⁎
0.48⁎⁎
0.68⁎⁎
0.55⁎⁎
0.58⁎⁎
0.57⁎⁎
0.56⁎⁎
0.47⁎⁎
0.62⁎⁎
Means, standard deviations, and correlations between BFQ, PRMS, PANAS PA, PANAS NA, SWLS, MLM (total and dimensions), and FS.

7.2.2. PRM Scale (PRMS)

9

The PRMS (Di Fabio, 2016b) consists of 12 items on a 5-point Likert

scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The PRMS
−0.23⁎⁎
0.34⁎⁎

0.49⁎⁎
0.42⁎⁎
0.33⁎⁎
0.40⁎⁎
0.26⁎⁎
0.30⁎⁎
0.42⁎⁎
0.61⁎⁎

assesses three dimensions of relationships (respect, caring, connection)

–

and yields three subscale scores and a total score (e.g., Respect: “I keep
8

a balance between respect toward others and toward myself”; Caring: “I

−0.33⁎⁎
0.68⁎⁎
0.50⁎⁎

0.46⁎⁎
0.59⁎⁎
0.46⁎⁎
0.45⁎⁎
0.52⁎⁎
0.49⁎⁎
0.57⁎⁎
0.68⁎⁎

often take care of others”; Connection: “I have good relationships with

–

my family”). The Cronbach's alpha values for the three dimensions and
7

total score are: respect = 0.82; caring = 0.80; connection = 0.81;

−0.30⁎⁎
0.65⁎⁎
0.57⁎⁎
0.33⁎⁎

0.44⁎⁎
0.52⁎⁎
0.43⁎⁎
0.42⁎⁎
0.44⁎⁎
0.25⁎⁎
0.53⁎⁎
0.61⁎⁎

PRMS total = 0.85). For this study, the three dimensions were used.
–
6

7.2.3. Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)

−0.22⁎⁎
0.41⁎⁎
0.41⁎⁎
0.18⁎⁎
0.34⁎⁎

0.46⁎⁎
0.43⁎⁎
0.35⁎⁎
0.41⁎⁎
0.35⁎⁎
0.29⁎⁎
0.41⁎⁎
0.15⁎

To evaluate positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA), the

–

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS, Watson et al., 1988) in

5

the Italian version by Terraciano et al. (2003) was used as in study 1.

−0.43⁎⁎
0.23⁎⁎
0.19⁎⁎
0.17⁎⁎
0.20⁎⁎
0.16⁎⁎

0.27⁎⁎
0.30⁎⁎
0.25⁎⁎
0.30⁎⁎
0.18⁎⁎
0.26⁎⁎
0.21⁎⁎
0.29⁎⁎
–

7.2.4. Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS)

4

The Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS, Diener et al., 1985) in the
−0.16⁎
0.18⁎⁎

0.24⁎⁎

0.21⁎⁎

0.23⁎⁎

0.26⁎⁎

0.17⁎⁎
0.13⁎
0.01
0.04
0.06

0.05

0.12

0.11

0.11

Italian version by Di Fabio and Gori (2016) was used to evaluate life
–

satisfaction (See study 1).

3

−0.34⁎⁎
0.39⁎⁎
0.51⁎⁎
0.37⁎⁎
0.29⁎⁎
0.22⁎⁎

0.31⁎⁎
0.31⁎⁎
0.37⁎⁎
0.26⁎⁎
0.22⁎⁎
0.18⁎⁎
0.19⁎⁎
0.34⁎⁎
0.13⁎

0.15⁎

7.2.5. Meaning in Life Measure

–

The Italian version (Di Fabio, 2014) of the Meaningful Life Measure
2

(MLM, Morgan & Farsides, 2009) was utilized to assess meaning in life
−0.14⁎
0.18⁎⁎

0.18⁎⁎
0.26⁎⁎
0.17⁎⁎
0.39⁎⁎
0.24⁎⁎
0.61⁎⁎

0.38⁎⁎
0.49⁎⁎
0.45⁎⁎
0.42⁎⁎
0.32⁎⁎
0.41⁎⁎
0.39⁎⁎
0.46⁎⁎
0.14⁎

as eudaimonic well-being (See study 1).

–
1

12.12

18.17

7.2.6. Flourishing Scale (FS)

8.95
8.62
9.66

9.56
2.48
2.49
2.66
5.21
7.47
6.71

4.43
4.75
5.06
4.30
4.14
7.94
DS

The Flourishing Scale (FS, Diener et al., 2010) in the Italian version
by Di Fabio (2016a) was used to evaluate flourishing (see study 1).
116.64
76.28
81.12
82.26
69.28
83.71
15.79
14.80
16.12
35.15
21.19
23.52

23.44
24.85
24.72
21.00
22.62
42.88
M

7.3. Procedure and data analysis

14. MLM Accomplished life
4. BFQ Emotional stability
3. BFQ Conscientiousness

16. MLM Purposeful life

FS = Flourishing Scale.
8. PRMS Connectedness

15. MLM Principled life

The questionnaires were administered to university students in a

13. MLM Exciting life
2. BFQ Agreeableness

17. MLM Valued life

1. BFQ Extraversion

group setting by a trained psychologist, adhering to the requirements of

5. BFQ Openness
6. PRMS Respect

privacy and informed consent of Italian law (Law Decree DL-196/

7. PRMS Caring

10. PANAS NA
9. PANAS PA

p < .01.

2003). The order of administration was counterbalanced to control for

p < .05.
11. SWLS
12. MLM

effects of presentation.
Table 4

18. FS

Descriptive statistics, Pearson's r correlations and hierarchical re-

⁎⁎
⁎

gressions were computed.

7
A. Di Fabio and M.E. Kenny Personality and Individual Differences 151 (2019) 109278

Table 5 accounted for 24% of the variance at the first step (F(5, 246) = 15.50;
Hierarchical regression. The contributions of personality traits (first step) and p < .001). At the second step, PRM added 5% incremental variance,
PRM (second step) to positive affect (PA), negative affect (NA), life satisfaction with the model overall accounting for 29% of the variance (F(8,
(SWLS), meaning in life (MLM), and flourishing (FS).
243) = 12.19; p < .001).
PA NA SWLS MLM FS For the third model explaining life satisfaction, personality traits
accounted for 22% of the variance at the first step (F(5, 246) = 14.04;
β β β β β p < .001). At the second step, PRM added 19% incremental variance.
Step 1
The model overall accounted for 41% of the variance (F(8, 243) = 19.12;
BFQ Extraversion 0.54⁎⁎⁎ −0.05 0.33⁎⁎⁎ 0.36⁎⁎⁎ 0.34⁎⁎⁎ p < .001).
BFQ Agreeableness 0.11 −0.20⁎⁎ 0.24⁎⁎ 0.01 0.08 For the fourth model explaining meaning in life, personality traits
BFQ Conscientiousness 0.16⁎⁎ −0.14⁎ 0.01 0.15⁎⁎ 0.11⁎ accounted for 40% of the variance at the first step (F(5, 246) = 33.33;
BFQ Emotional stability 0.10 −0.30⁎⁎⁎ 0.14⁎ 0.20⁎⁎ 0.16⁎⁎
p < .001). At the second step, PRM added 15% incremental variance.
BFQ Openness 0.21⁎⁎⁎ −0.06 0.09 0.31⁎⁎⁎ 0.23⁎⁎⁎
Step 2 The model overall accounted for 55% of the variance (F(8, 243) = 37.44;
PRMS Respect 0.11 −0.07 0.17⁎ 0.24⁎⁎⁎ 0.24⁎⁎⁎ p < .001).
PRMS Caring 0.22⁎⁎⁎ −0.24⁎⁎⁎ 0.11 0.28⁎⁎⁎ 0.28⁎⁎⁎ For the fifth model explaining flourishing, personality traits ac-
PRMS Connectedness 0.01 −0.07 0.29⁎⁎⁎ 0.02 0.20⁎⁎⁎
counted for 34% of the variance at the first step (F(5, 246) = 25.40;
R2 step 1 0.44⁎⁎⁎ 0.24⁎⁎⁎ 0.22⁎⁎⁎ 0.40⁎⁎⁎ 0.34⁎⁎⁎
∆R2 step 2 0.07⁎⁎⁎ 0.05⁎⁎ 0.19⁎⁎⁎ 0.15⁎⁎⁎ 0.30⁎⁎⁎
p < .001). At the second step, PRM added 30% incremental variance.
R2 total 0.51⁎⁎⁎ 0.29⁎⁎⁎ 0.41⁎⁎⁎ 0.55⁎⁎⁎ 0.64⁎⁎⁎ The model overall accounted for 64% of the variance (F(8, 243) = 67.01;
p < .001).
Note. N = 252. With regard to the analyses for the meaningful in life dimensions,
⁎
p < .05. personality traits accounted for 34% of the variance (F(5, 246) = 25.21;
⁎⁎
p < .01. p < .001) with regard to Exciting life. At the second step, the three
⁎⁎⁎
p < .001.
subscales of PRM added 5% incremental variance, accounting overall
for 39% of the variance (F(8, 243) = 19.77; p < .001).
8. Results
With regard to accomplished life, personality traits accounted for
31% of the variance F(5, 246) = 22.60; p < .001). At the second step, the
Means, standard deviations, and correlations between the BFQ,
three subscales of PRM added 10% incremental variance, accounting
PRMS, PANAS PA, PANAS NA, SWLS, MLM and FS are shown in
overall for 41% of the variance (F(8, 243) = 21.12; p < .001).
Table 4.
With regard to principled life, personality traits accounted for 22%
Table 5 shows the results of five different hierarchical regression
of the variance F(5, 246) = 13.79; p < .001). At the second step, the
models, with positive affect, negative affect, life satisfaction, meaning
three subscales of PRM added 15% incremental variance, accounting
in life and flourishing serving as the criterion measures in separate
overall for 37% of the variance (F(8, 243) = 17.62; p < .001).
analyses and with personality traits at the first step and PRM at the
With regard to purposeful life, personality traits accounted for 31%
second step. Table 6 shows the results of the analyses with the separate
of the variance F(5, 246) = 21.70; p < .001). At the second step, the
dimensions of meaning in life.
three subscales of PRM added 4% incremental variance, accounting
Below the results of the five regressions model are presented.
overall for 35% of the variance (F(8, 243) = 13.12; p < .001).
For the first model explaining positive affect, personality traits ac-
With regard to valued life, personality traits accounted for 20% of
counted for 44% of the variance at the first step (F(5, 246) = 38.45;
the variance F(5, 246) = 12.61; p < .001). At the second step, the three
p < .001). At the second step, PRM added 7% incremental variance,
subscales of PRM added 23% incremental variance, accounting overall
with the overall model accounting for 51% of the variance (F(8,
for 43% of the variance (F(8, 243) = 33.25; p < .001).
243) = 30.80; p < .001).
For the second model explaining negative affect, personality traits

Table 6
Hierarchical regression. The contributions of personality traits (first step) and PRM (second step) to meaning in life (MLM) scales.
Exciting life Accomplished life Principled life Purposeful life Valued life

β β β β β

Step 1
BFQ Extraversion 0.29⁎⁎⁎ 0.24⁎⁎⁎ 0.11 0.22⁎⁎⁎ 0.20⁎
BFQ Agreeableness 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.14⁎ 0.11
BFQ Conscientiousness 0.06 0.23⁎⁎⁎ 0.10 0.25⁎⁎ 0.12⁎
BFQ Emotional stability 0.08 0.24⁎⁎⁎ 0.11 0.23⁎⁎ 0.14⁎
BFQ Openness 0.16⁎ 0.11 0.17⁎ 0.20⁎ 0.01
Step 2
PRMS Respect 0.19⁎⁎ 0.21⁎⁎ 0.23⁎⁎ 0.01 0.34⁎⁎⁎
PRMS Caring 0.10 0.08 0.41⁎⁎⁎ 0.19⁎ 0.31⁎⁎⁎
PRMS Connectedness 0.01 0.11 0.21⁎⁎ 0.06 0.04
R2 step 1 0.34⁎⁎⁎ 0.31⁎⁎⁎ 0.22⁎⁎⁎ 0.31⁎⁎⁎ 0.20⁎⁎⁎
∆R2 step 2 0.05⁎⁎⁎ 0.10⁎⁎⁎ 0.15⁎⁎⁎ 0.04⁎⁎ 0.23⁎⁎⁎
R2 total 0.39⁎⁎⁎ 0.41⁎⁎⁎ 0.37⁎⁎⁎ 0.35⁎⁎⁎ 0.43⁎⁎⁎

Note. N = 252.
BFQ = Big Five Questionnaire; PRMS = PRM Scale; PANAS PA = PANAS Positive Affects; PANAS NA = PANAS Negative affects; SWLS = Satisfaction With Life
Scale; MLM = Meaning in Life Measure; FS = Flourishing Scale.
⁎
p < .05.
⁎⁎
p < .01.
⁎⁎⁎
p < .001.

8
A. Di Fabio and M.E. Kenny
9. Discussion
The aim of the present study was to examine among university
students the relationship between PRM and both hedonic well-being
(positive affect, negative affect and life satisfaction) and eudaimonic
well-being (meaning in life and flourishing), controlling for the effects
of personality traits.
The overall findings support the study hypotheses. That is, PRM
added significantly to the explanation of all indices of hedonic and
eudaimonic well-being after controlling for personality traits. Moreover
PRM contributed significantly in explaining all dimensions of the eu-
daimonic construct of meaning in life. These findings add to the
emerging body of research documenting the contribution of the rela-
tional environment (Di Fabio, Giannini, et al., 2016) and PRM (Di
Fabio, 2016b; Di Fabio & Kenny, 2016a) to well-being. In so doing, the
findings strengthen evidence for PRM as a promising construct for ex-
plaining and assessing specific characteristics of relationships that
contribute to well-being across multiple contexts and across the life
span. The value of PRM documented for university students in this
study supports the notion that PRM might be cultivated to benefit
students at the university level and thereby equip them with relational
resources that are important to well-being in the workplace and beyond
(Di Fabio, 2016b).
Beyond the overall findings, examination of the beta weights with
regard to the contributions of the specific PRM dimensions reveal some
interesting patterns. With regard to eudaimonic well-being, for ex-
ample, all three subscales significantly added to the explanation of
flourishing, with respect and caring explaining meaning in life. When
examining the specific dimensions of meaning in life, respect was the
most robust predictor, explaining all dimensions. Caring contributed
significantly to explaining variance for principled, purposeful and va-
lued life, with connectedness only explaining principled life. While
these analyses are exploratory and warrant confirmation in further re-
search, they suggest that relationships as assessed by PRM are less likely
to contribute to a sense of life as exciting or one of personal accom-
plishment, and more likely to support the perspective of one's life as
having value, meaning, and purpose. To the extent to which meaning,
purpose, and value extend beyond the self, the contribution of re-
lationships to these dimensions of life meaning makes sense and are
consistent with the relational theory of working (Blustein, 2011), which
emphasizes relationality as a key component that makes work a source
of meaning and fulfillment. While the robust relationships between
PRM and flourishing might raise concerns about some overlap in these
constructs, the findings might also be interpreted to suggest that re-
spect, care and connection for oneself and others are central to the
experience of human flourishing, as defined by a sense of optimism and
purpose and rewarding social relationships. Moreover, although the
correlations between PRM and flourishing are strong, they are not
considered very strong (Evans, 1996), with each construct having un-
ique variance.
The findings for hedonic well-being are also of interest. For positive
and negative affect, caring emerged as the only significant dimension,
suggesting that giving and receiving care from others relates to the
activation of a positive or negative affective state (Watson et al., 1988).
Respect and connectedness, however, were associated with the cogni-
tive evaluation of one's life as satisfying. Given that the hedonic com-
ponents of well-being focus on the affective state and well-being of the
individual, it make sense that the dimensions of PRM were more per-
vasively and robustly associated with the higher level construct of eu-
daimonic well-being, as it entails a sense of meaning, purpose, and
principle beyond the self.
Overall, the findings of this study show a strong positive relation-
ship between PRM and well-being, with the association being particu-
larly robust for flourishing as an indicator of eudaimonic well-being.
That is, PRM is associated with well-being in ways that go beyond
merely feeling happy or sad. For hedonic well-being, it may be that the
9
Personality and Individual Differences 151 (2019) 109278
recognition and realization of respect, caring, and connection in re-
lationship elicits more of a cognitive rather than affective appraisal of
one's sense of well-being. Beyond life satisfaction, PRM appears to
contribute to an assessment of one's life as having meaning and flour-
ishing. This is based not only on support received from others, but also
through showing respect, care and connection for others, while also
being attentive to one's own needs. Persons who are able to express care
and connection to others in a context of mutual respect appear likely to
have a sense of life as satisfying, meaningful, and flourishing.
10. General discussion
The current studies offer evidence for the potential value of trait EI
and PRM as individual resources that might be cultivated to promote
well-being, especially eudaimonic well-being, with potentially bene-
ficial effects for organizational health and effectiveness. Given the
theoretical importance of eudaimonic well-being to positive psychology
and positive organizational practices (Hahn et al., 2012), the con-
tributions of trait EI and PRM to eudaimonic well-being, beyond the
effects of personality traits, are promising. In this regard, these findings
add to the growing literature on trait EI and other individual capacities
and resources that explain individual well-being beyond the effects of
personality traits and might be cultivated to enhance organizational
health (Choi & Lee, 2014; Di Fabio & Saklofske, 2018, 2019; Vakola
et al., 2004). This promise is supported additionally by evidence that
both trait EI (e.g., Nelis et al., 2011; Vesely et al., 2014) and PRM (Di
Fabio, 2016b) have been augmented through psychosocial intervention.
If these emotional and relational resources can be cultivated among
young people who will be future workers and current employees in
organizations in ways that enhance their well-being, they may not only
flourish as individuals, but may be able to contribute to more healthy
organizations. Evidence that emotional and relational resources are
increasingly vital and important for employee and organizational well-
being makes attention to these resources particularly compelling
(Harter, Schmidt, & Keyes, 2003; Vakola et al., 2004). Multiple di-
mensions of EI and PRM emerged as differentially relevant to varied
aspects of well-being in our findings, suggesting that while efforts to
cultivate these broad sets of dispositions might be most beneficial as an
overall prevention strategy, that training might also be tailored to meet
some organizational priorities.
Organizations need leaders who recognize the importance of re-
lationships for the healthy functioning of individuals and their orga-
nizations and are willing and able to cultivate these dispositions for
themselves and for their employees (Di Fabio, 2017; Harter et al.,
2003). Although emotional and relational dispositions may not be
equally important for all work roles or organizational contexts
(Petrides, 2011), employers with a focus on organizational well-being
may seek to hire individuals, especially in leadership positions, who not
only have the technical competencies for the job, but also possess the
emotional and relational dispositions to contribute to organizational
well-being and thrive in the workplace for their own benefit and the
well-being of the organization as a whole. From a primary prevention
perspective, it is not sufficient to expect organizations to cultivate skills
in EI and PRM in their employees. The prospect for healthy organiza-
tions is augmented, if these capacities are developed prior to work entry
at the university level and hopefully earlier. Accordingly universities
need to adapt a holistic perspective on student preparation (Harvard,
2016) encompassing emotional and relational development, and so-
cieties need to value and take responsibility broadly for cultivating
these skills.
Despite the promise of these studies, limitations should be noted.
The participants were a sample of Italian university students from a
university in the center of Italy and thus they are not representative of
all Italian university students. Future research should therefore extend
the study of the relationship between these variables to participants
from different geographical regions in Italy. The participants in this
A. Di Fabio and M.E. Kenny
research were predominantly female, such that future research should
seek to recruit more men and to assess whether gender variations exist
in the pattern of relationships between well-being and emotional and
relational resources. Whereas prior research has found gender differ-
ences in global trait EI to be small or non-existant (Petrides, Furnham, &
Martin, 2004) and relationships with personality to be gender invariant
(Siegling, Furnham, & Petrides, 2015), research is needed to examine
gender variations in patterns of trait EI, PRM and eudaimonic well-
being. This study could be also replicated in other countries. Future
research could also investigate trait EI and PRM with respect to addi-
tional aspects of eudaimonic well-being, such as the subjective experi-
ence of eudaimonia (Waterman et al., 2010), existential fulfillment
(Längle, Orgler, & Kundi, 2003), and authenticity (Wood, Linley,
Maltby, Baliousis, & Joseph, 2008).
In the two studies reported in this article, we first examined EI and
then, based on the need for better understanding of the contribution of
relational dispositions, we next examined the contribution of PRM.
Further research might examine the relative benefits and joint con-
tribution of both of these and other individual resources in explaining
well-being. In efforts to clarify the psychological mechanisms through
which EI contributes to well-being, the potential role of PRM as a
mediator of the relationship between trait EI and well-being might be
assessed. Evidence indicates that trait EI contributes to one's capacity to
be mutually respectful, caring and connected in relationships (Di Fabio
& Saklofske, 2019), but the specific aspects of trait EI that are most
related to dimensions of PRM and individual and organizational well-
being have not been examined. It is important to recognize that cor-
relational findings as reported in the current studies are not evidence
for causality. Future research should assess longitudinal changes in
these and other psychological resources and well-being, and also de-
termine whether interventions that increase trait EI and PRM actually
increase well-being and have a positive impact on organizational well-
being.
While we are hopeful that increasing these psychological resources
among individuals can have long-term positive effectives on organiza-
tional culture, we recognize that this requires further study. Future
research would need to consider the organizational structures and po-
licies that would allow individuals with high trait EI and PRM to
flourish in and transform organizational settings to promote well-being
for all. Organizations need to provide a culture, climate, and practices
that foster employee security and well-being as well as organizational
effectiveness (Lowe, 2010). Although further research is needed on a
systemic level, it is important to recognize that organizations are made
up to people. Organizations should thus seek to attract and reward
employees who will foster a healthy culture, climate and well-being. In
essence, organizations need to work to simultaneously strengthen the
worker, the team, and the organization (Di Fabio, 2017).
Despite these limitations and the need for further research, these
studies add to the literature documenting the contributions of trait EI
and PRM to both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, especially the
flourishing dimension of eudaimonic well-being (Di Fabio & Kenny,
2016b). If the results of the present studies are confirmed in future
research, the design, delivery and evaluation of preventive interven-
tions to enhance trait EI and PRM should be expanded. Consistent with
a primary prevention perspective, these interventions could foster
psychological resources that will support the promotion of well-being
among young adults prior to work entry and among employed workers
and equip them with psychological strengths to foster healthy organi-
zations in the context of the complex challenges of the 21st century.
References
Andrei, F., Siegling, A. B., Aloe, A. M., Baldaro, B., & Petrides, K. V. (2016). The incre-
mental validity of the Trait EI Questionnaire (TEIQue): A systematic review and
meta-analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98, 261–276.
Bar-On, R. (1997). The EI Inventory (EQ-i): Technical manual. Toronto, ON, Canada: Multi-
10
Personality and Individual Differences 151 (2019) 109278
Health Systems.
Blustein, D. L. (2006). The psychology of working: A new perspective for counseling, career
development, and public policy. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Blustein, D. L. (2011). A relational theory of working. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
79(1), 1–17.
Brendish, L. (2017, July 13). The secret to youth unemployment. OZY: The Daily Dose.
Retrieved from: http://www.ozy.com/acumen/the-secret-to-eradicating-youth-
unemployment/79278.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Borgogni, L. (1993). BFQ: Big Five questionnaire (2nd
ed.). Firenze, Italy: Giunti O.S.
Cheung, F., Fan, W., & To, C. (2008). The Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory as a
culturally relevant personality measure in applied settings. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 2(1), 74–89.
Choi, Y., & Lee, D. (2014). Psychological capital, Big Five traits, and employee outcomes.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(2), 122–140.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cullinane, C., & Montacute, R. (2017). Life lessons: Improving essential life skills for young
people. London: Sutton Trust.
Di Fabio, A. (2014). Meaningful life measure: Primo contributo alla validazione della
versione italiana [Meaningful life measure: First contribution to the validation of the
Italian version]. Giornale Italiano Ricerca Applicazioni: . 7. Counsel (pp. 307–315).
Di Fabio, A. (2016a). Fluorishing Scale: Primo contributo alla validazione della versione
italiana. [Fluorishing Scale: First contribution to the validation of the Italian version].
Giornale Italiano di Ricerca e Applicazioni: . 9(1).
Di Fabio, A. (2016b). PRM for healthy organizations: Psychometric properties of a new
scale for prevention for workers. In G. Giorgi, M. Shoss, & A. Di Fabio (Vol. Eds.),
From organizational welfare to business success: Higher performance in healthy organi-
zational environments. research topic in frontiers in psychology. Organizational
Psychology. 7. From organizational welfare to business success: Higher performance in
healthy organizational environments. research topic in frontiers in psychology.
Organizational Psychology (pp. 1523–). . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01523.
Di Fabio, A. (2017). The psychology of sustainability and sustainable development for
well-being in organizations. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1534. https://doi.org/10.
33891/psyg.2017.01534.
Di Fabio, A., Giannini, M., Loscalzo, Y., Palazzeschi, L., Bucci, O., Guazzini, A., & Gori, A.
(2016). The challenge of fostering healthy organizations: An empirical study on the
role of workplace relational civility in acceptance of change, and well-being. In G.
Giorgi, M. Shoss, & A. Di Fabio (Vol. Eds.), Research topic in frontiers in psychology.
Organizational psychology: . 7. From organizational welfare to business success: Higher
performance in healthy organizational environments (pp. 1748–). . https://doi.org/10.
3389/fpsyg.2016.01748.
Di Fabio, A., & Gori, A. (2016). Measuring adolescent life satisfaction: Psychometric
properties of the Satisfaction With Life Scale in a sample of Italian adolescents and
young adults. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(5), 501–506.
Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, E. M. (2016a). From decent work to decent lives: Positive Self and
Relational Management (PS&RM) in the twenty-first century. In A. Di Fabio, & D. L.
Blustein (Vol. Eds.), From meaning of working to meaningful lives: The challenges of
expanding decent work. Research topic in frontiers in psychology. Section organizational
psychology. 7. From meaning of working to meaningful lives: The challenges of expanding
decent work. Research topic in frontiers in psychology. Section organizational psychology
(pp. 361–). . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00361.
Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. E. (2016b). Promoting well-being: The contribution of EI. In G.
Giorgi, M. Shoss, & A. Di Fabio (Vol. Eds.), From organizational welfare to business
success: Higher performance in healthy organizational environments. Research topic in
frontiers in psychology. Organizational psychology. 7. From organizational welfare to
business success: Higher performance in healthy organizational environments. Research
topic in frontiers in psychology. Organizational psychology (pp. 1182–). . https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01182.
Di Fabio, A., Kenny, M. E., & Claudius, M. (2016). Preventing distress and promoting
psychological well-being in uncertain times through career management interven-
tion. In M. Israelashvili, & J. L. Romano (Eds.). The Cambridge handbook of interna-
tional prevention science (pp. 233–254). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Di Fabio, A., Kenny, M. E., & Minor, K. (2014). School-based research and practice in
Italy. In M. J. Furlong, R. Gilman, & E. S. Huebner (Eds.). Handbook of positive psy-
chology in the schools (pp. 450–464). (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge, Taylor and
Francis.
Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2011). Proprietà psicometriche del Trait EI Questionnaire
Short Form (TEIQue-SF) nel contesto italiano [Psychometric properties of the Trait EI
Questionnaire Short Form (TEIQue-SF) in the Italian context]. Counseling. Giornale
Italiano di Ricerca e Applicazioni. 4, 327–336.
Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2015). Hedonic and eudaimonic well-being: The role of
resilience beyond fluid intelligence and personality traits. Frontiers in Psychology, 6,
1367. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01367.
Di Fabio, A., Palazzeschi, L., & Bucci, O. (2017). In an unpredictable and changing en-
vironment: Intrapreneurial Self-Capital as a key resource for life satisfaction and
flourishing. In G. Arcangeli, G. Giorgi, N. Mucci, J.-L. Bernaud, & A. Di Fabio (Vol.
Eds.), Emerging and re-emerging organizational features, work transitions and occupa-
tional risk factors: The good, the bad, the right. An interdisciplinary perspective. Research
topic in frontiers in psychology. Organizational psychology. 8. Emerging and re-emerging
organizational features, work transitions and occupational risk factors: The good, the bad,
the right. An interdisciplinary perspective. Research topic in frontiers in psychology.
Organizational psychology (pp. 1819–). . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01819.
Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. (2014). Promoting individual resources: The challenge of
trait EI. Personality and Individual Differences, 65, 19–23.
Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. (2018). The contributions of personality and emotional
A. Di Fabio and M.E. Kenny
intelligence to resiliency. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 140–144. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.012.
Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. (2019). Positive relational management for sustainable
development: Beyond personality traits - The contribution of emotional intelligence.
In A. Di Fabio (Vol. Ed.), Psychology of sustainability and sustainable development.
Special issue in sustainability MDPI. 11(2). Psychology of sustainability and sustainable
development. Special issue in sustainability MDPI (pp. 330–). . https://doi.org/10.3390/
su11020330.
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R.
(2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and
negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life
scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.
Duffy, R. D., Blustein, D. L., Diemer, M. A., & Austin, K. L. (2016). The psychology of
working theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63, 127–148.
Evans, J. D. (1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Ferguson, S. J., & Goodwin, A. D. (2010). Optimism and well-being in older adults: The
mediating role of social support and perceived control. International Journal of Aging
& Human Development, 71(1), 43–68.
Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (1998). Selection, optimization, and compensation as
strategies of life management: Correlations with subjective indicators of successful
aging. Psychology and Aging, 13(4), 531–543.
Gallagher, E. N., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2008). Social support and EI as predictors of
subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1551–1561.
Gannon, N., & Ranzijn, R. (2005). Does EI predict unique variance in life satisfaction
beyond IQ and personality? Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1353–1364.
Gignac, G. E. (2006). Self-reported EI and life satisfaction: Testing incremental predictive
validity hypotheses via structural equation modeling (SEM) in a small sample.
Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1569–1577.
Hage, S. M., Romano, J. L., Conyne, R. K., Kenny, M., Matthews, C., Schwartz, J. P., &
Waldo, M. (2007). Best practice guidelines on prevention practice, research, training,
and social advocacy for psychologists. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 493–566.
Hahn, V. C., Frese, M., Binnewies, C., & Schmitt, A. (2012). Happy and proactive? The
role of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being in business owners' personal initiative.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(1), 97–114.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. (2003). Well-being in the workplace and its
relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. In C. L. Keys, & J.
Haidt (Eds.). Flourishing: The positive person and the good life (pp. 205–224).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Harvard, D. (2016). Well-being and higher education: A strategy for change and the realization
of education's greater purpose. Washington, DC: Bringing Theory to Practice/AAC&U.
Henry, J. (2005). The healthy organization. In A.-S. G. Antoniou, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.).
Research companion to organizational health psychology (pp. 382–391). Cheltenham,
UK: Edward Elgar.
Kenny, M. E., Blustein, D. L., & Meerkins, T. (2018). Integrating relational perspectives in
counseling. Career Development Quarterly, 66, 135–138.
Längle, A., Orgler, C., & Kundi, M. (2003). The Existence Scale: A new approach to assess
the ability to find personal meaning in life and to reach existential fulfillment.
European Psychotherapy, 4(1), 135–146.
Lippman, L. H., Ryberg, R., Carney, R., & Moore, K. A. (2015). Key “Soft Skills” that foster
youth workforce success: Workforce connections: Toward a consensus across fields.
Child trends. Retrieved from http://www.fhi360.org/sites/default/files/media/
documents/workforce-connections-soft-skills-small.pdf.
Lowe, G. (2010). Healthy organizations: How vibrant workplaces inspire employees to achieve
sustainable success. Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Masten, A. (2014). Global perspectives on resilience in children and youth. Child
Development, 85, 6–20.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is EI? In P. Salovey, & D. Sluyter (Eds.).
Emotional development and EI: Educational implications (pp. 3–31). New York: Basic
Books.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Selecting a measure of emotional in-
telligence: The case of ability scales. In R. Bar-On, & J. D. Parker (Eds.). The handbook
of emotional intelligence (pp. 320–342). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Morgan, J., & Farsides, T. (2009). Measuring meaning in life. Journal of Happiness Studies,
10(2), 197–214.
Nelis, D., Kotsou, I., Quoidbach, J., Hansenne, M., Weytens, F., Dupuis, P., & Mikolajczak,
M. (2011). Increasing emotional competence improves psychological and physical
well-being, social relationships, and employability. Emotion, 11, 354–366.
Palmer, B., Donaldson, C., & Stough, C. (2002). EI and life satisfaction. Personality and
Individual Differences, 33, 1091–1100.
Petrides, K. V. (2009a). Technical manual for the Trait EI Questionnaires (TEIQue). London:
11
Personality and Individual Differences 151 (2019) 109278
London Psychometric Laboratory.
Petrides, K. V. (2009b). Psychometric properties of the Trait EI Questionnaire. In C.
Stough, D. H. Saklofske, & J. D. Parker (Eds.). Advances in the assessment of EINew
York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-88370-0_5.
Petrides, K. V. (2011). Ability and trait EI. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, A. Furnham, & S.
von Stumm (Eds.). The Blackwell-Wiley handbook of individual differences. New York:
Wiley.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait EI: Psychometric investigation with reference
to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425–428.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2006). Technical manual of the Trait Emotional Intelligence
Questionnaire (TEIQue). London, England: Institute of Education, University of
London.
Petrides, K. V., Furnham, A., & Martin, G. N. (2004). Estimates of emotional and psy-
chometric intelligence: Evidence for gender-based stereotypes. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 144(2), 149–162.
Petrides, K. V., Pérez-González, J.-C., & Furnham, A. (2007). On the criterion and in-
cremental validity of trait EI. Cognition & Emotion, 21, 26–55.
Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait EI in personality
factor space. British Journal of Psychology, 98(2), 273–289.
Raina, M., & Bakhshi, A. (2013). EI predicts eudaimonic well being. IOSR Journal of
Humanities and Social Science, 11, 42–47.
Reich, T. C., & Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). Interpersonal relationships at work. In S. Zedeck
(Vol. Ed.), Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization: . Vol. 3. APA
handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 233–248). United States:
American Psychological Association.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). To be happy or to be self-fulfilled: A review of research
on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. In S. Fiske (Vol. Ed.), Annual review of psy-
chology. Vol. 52. Annual review of psychology (pp. 141–166). Palo Alto, CA: Annual
Reviews.
Saklofske, D., Austin, E. J., & Minski, P. S. (2003). Factor structure and validity of a trait
EI measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 707–721.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Positive psychology, positive prevention, and positive therapy.
In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.). Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 3–9). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Siegling, A. B., Furnham, A., & Petrides, K. V. (2015). Trait EI and personality: Gender-
invariant linkages across different measures of the Big Five. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 33, 57–67.
Siegling, A. B., Vesely, A. K., Petrides, K. V., & Saklofske, D. H. (2015). Incremental va-
lidity of the Trait EI Questionnaire–Short Form (TEIQue–SF). Journal of Personality
Assessment, 97, 525–535.
Stough, C., Saklofske, D., & Parker, J. (2009). Assessing EI: Theory, research, and applica-
tions. New York: Springer.
Taris, T. W., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2015). Individual well-being and performance at work: A
conceptual and theoretical overview. In M. van Veldhoven, & R. Peccei (Eds.).
Wellbeing and performance at work: The role of context (pp. 15–34). London, United
Kingdom: Psychology Press.
Tennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., Weich, S., et al. (2007). The
Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): Development and UK va-
lidation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 1–13.
Terraciano, A., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2003). Factorial and construct validity of
the Italian Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 19(2), 131–141.
Vakola, M., Tsaousis, I., & Nikolaou, I. (2004). The role of emotional intelligence and
personality variables on attitudes toward organisational change. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 19(2), 88–110.
Vesely, A. K., Saklofske, D. H., & Nordstokke, D. (2014). EI training and pre-service
teacher wellbeing. Personality and Individual Differences, 65, 81–85.
Walsh, M. E., Galassi, J. P., Murphy, J. A., & Park-Taylor, J. (2002). A conceptual frame
work for counseling psychologists in schools. The Counseling Psychologist, 30(5),
682–704.
Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Ravert, R. D., Williams, M. K., Bede
Agocha, V., et al. (2010). The Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-Being:
Psychometric properties, demographic comparisons, and evidence of validity. The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 41–61.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.
Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic
personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of
the Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3), 385–399.
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as
predictors of job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 84–94.