Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 163–172

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Emotional intelligence and academic success: examining the

transition from high school to university
James D.A. Parker*, Laura J. Summerfeldt, Marjorie J. Hogan, Sarah A. Majeski
Department of Psychology, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada K9J 7B8

Received 25 July 2002; received in revised form 31 October 2002; accepted 27 January 2003

Abstract
The transition from high school to university was used as the context for examining the relationship
between emotional intelligence and academic achievement. During the first month of classes 372 first-year
full-time students at a small Ontario university completed the short form of the Emotional Quotient
Inventory (EQ-i:Short). At the end of the academic year the EQ-i:Short data was matched with the stu-
dent’s academic record. Predicting academic success from emotional intelligence variables produced
divergent results depending on how the former variable was operationalized. When EQ-i:Short variables
were compared in groups who had achieved very different levels of academic success (highly successful
students who achieved a first-year university GPA of 80% or better versus relatively unsuccessful students
who received a first-year GPA of 59% or less) academic success was strongly associated with several
dimensions of emotional intelligence. Results are discussed in the context of the importance of emotional
and social competency during the transition from high school to university.
# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Emotional intelligence; Academic success

The transition from high school to university is a particularly stressful situation for most indi-
viduals (Brooks & DuBois, 1995; Cantor, Norem, Niedenthal, Langston, & Brower, 1987;
Cutrona, 1982; Gall, Evans, & Bellerose, 2000; Kanoy & Bruhn, 1996; McLaughlin, Brozovsky,
& McLaughlin, 1998; Perry, Hladkyj, Pekrun, & Pelletier, 2001; Pratt et al., 2000; Ross, Niebling,
& Heckert, 1999; Stewart & Healy, 1985). The majority of high school students who go on to
post-secondary institutions withdraw before graduation (Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994; Pancer,
Hunsberger, Pratt, & Alisat, 2000). First-year university students face a variety of stressors:

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-705-748-1011 x1283; fax: +1-705-748-1580.

E-mail address: jparker@trentu.ca (J.D.A. Parker).

0191-8869/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00076-X
164 J.D.A. Parker et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 163–172

making new relationships, modifying existing relationships with parents and family (e.g. living
apart), and learning study habits for a new academic environment. In addition, they must learn to
function as independent adults (e.g. budgeting time and money). Failure to master these types of
tasks appears to be the most common reason for undergraduate students withdrawing from uni-
versity (see, for example, Blanc, DeBuhr, & Martin, 1983; Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994).
The study of academic success in university and college has generated a sizeable literature (for a
detailed review of the early literature, see Tinto, 1993). Much of the early research on academic
success in post-secondary education focused specifically on the impact of previous school per-
formance (i.e. high-school marks) and/or standardized measures of cognitive abilities. The pre-
dictive utility of this line of research proved to be quite limited, however, as these variables were
found to account for relatively small amounts of variability in grade-point average (GPA) or
student attrition (Berger & Milem, 1999; Johnson, 1997; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Murtaugh,
Burns, & Schuster, 1999; Randsell, 2001). With so much of the variance left unexplained, it is not
surprising that researchers have turned their attention to a broad range of other possible pre-
dictors for academic success. Each of the following variables, for example, have attracted con-
siderable research interest: full- or part-time attendance, employment status, being a member of
an ethnic minority, family obligations, distance from home town, financial concerns, and gender
(for reviews, see, Lichtman, 1989; Smith, 1982).
A relatively small body of work has also sought to examine the relationship between academic
success and emotional and social competencies. To date, this line of research has produced con-
tradictory findings. Wong, Day, Maxwell, and Meara (1995), for example, found that social
perception (the ability to understand the emotional states of other people) was a moderate pre-
dictor of academic performance among university students (using GPA as an indicator of aca-
demic success). Sternberg, Wagner, and Okagaki (1993) report a modest association between
‘‘practical intelligence’’ and academic performance (also assessed using GPA) in students making
the transition from high school to university. More recently, however, Newsome, Day, and Cat-
ano (2000) found little association between academic success and emotional and social compe-
tencies when they used the 133-item BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997).
Participants were 180 volunteers from a first-year psychology course attending an eastern Cana-
dian university. Students ranged in age from 17 to 56 years; full and part-time students were
grouped together, as were students at different years of study (e.g. first-year students were
grouped together with second, third and fourth-year students).
The inconsistent findings from previous research on emotional and social competency and
academic success in post-secondary education may be the result of a number of methodological
problems. Much of the previous research has focused on a narrow range of abilities (e.g. social
perception or practical intelligence) or has assessed academic success over very narrow time-lines.
Although Newsome et al. (2000) attempted to assess a broad range of emotional and social
competencies, they may have compromised the interpretability of their data by combining into a
common data-set full and part-time students, young adults and mature students, and students at
different stages of the transition process (e.g. first-year students versus students about to graduate
from university). Full and part-time students experience unique challenges and stresses while
coping with their academic careers. Students at different stages of their post-secondary programs (e.g.
first-year students vs. graduating students) also experience very different life demands. Archer and
Lamnin (1985) report that younger students are more concerned with grades, studying, and peer
 J.D.A. Parker et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 163–172 165

acceptance, while older students report more concerns about financial stressors. Bar-On (1997,
2000) reports that EI-levels increase significantly from early adulthood to middle age (thus sug-
gesting that EI-levels might be quite different in students recently graduated from high school
compared to older adults attending university as a mature student).
The present study used the transition from high school to university as the context for exam-
ining the relationship between various emotional and social abilities and academic achievement.
To aid in the interpretability of research findings, the present study restricted its focus to full-time
students making the immediate transition from high school to university. This study also exam-
ined a relatively broad range of emotional and social competencies, using a model of emotional
intelligence developed by Bar-On (1997, 2000, 2002) that consists of several dimensions: intra-
personal (comprised of several related abilities like recognizing and understanding one’s feelings),
interpersonal (comprised of several related abilities like empathy), adaptability (consisting of
abilities like being able to adjust one’s emotions and behaviors to changing situations and con-
ditions), and stress management (consisting of abilities like resisting or delaying an impulse).
Although a number of distinct and overlapping conceptual models have been proposed for emo-
tional intelligence (see Bar-On & Parker, 2000), most models include skills like the ability to
accurately appraise and express emotion (or ‘‘intrapersonal’’ abilities), the ability to appraise
emotions in others (or ‘‘interpersonal abilities’’), the ability to effectively regulate emotion, and
the ability to use feelings to guide behaviour (Parker, Taylor, & Bagby, 2001). Individuals who
are described as low in emotional intelligence manifest difficulties in the accurate appraisal and
expression of emotion, in the effective regulation of emotional experiences, and in the ability to
use feelings to guide behaviour (Taylor, Bagby, & Parker, 1997).

1. Method

1.1. Participants

The sample consisted of 372 young adults (78 men and 294 women) attending a small Ontario
university. All of the students had graduated from high school within the past 2 years and were in
their first-year of full-time study at the university. Full-time status was defined as completion of
at least the equivalent of 3.5 full-year courses during the academic year (September to April).
Part-time students, or students who were beyond their first year of study at the university (defined
as completion of more than 7.5 fulltime courses), were excluded from the sample. The mean age
of participants was 19.34 years (S.D.=0.81).1 Ninety-one percent of the participants identified
themselves as White, 1.1% as Black, 3.2% as Asian, 2.7% as Native American, and 3% did not
indicate their race.

1.2. Measures and procedures

Participants were recruited from a large psychology class and asked if they would volunteer to
participate in a study on ‘‘personality and academic success’’. In September, at the start of the

1
At the present time in Ontario students may graduate from high school after grade 12 or grade 13.
166 J.D.A. Parker et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 163–172

academic year, participants completed the short-form of the BarOn Emotional Quotient Inven-
tory (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997).
The EQ-i is a 133 item self-report measure developed to assess four broad dimensions described
earlier: intrapersonal, interpersonal, adaptability, and stress management. The 51-item short form
(EQ-i:Short; Bar-On, 2002) assesses the same four dimensions. The instrument has a 10-item
intrapersonal sub-scale, a 10-item interpersonal sub-scale, a 10-item stress management sub-scale,
and a 7-item adaptability sub-scale. Along with a total EI scale (the sum of the four sub-scales),
the EQ-i:Short also has an 8-item general mood scale and a 6-item positive impression validity
scale. A high score on any individual ability sub-scale (or the total EQ-i score) reflects a high level
of social and emotional competency (BarOn, 2002).
The subscales and scales on the short form (EQ-i:Short) correlate highly with their corre-
sponding measures on the long form. Bar-On (2002) reports correlations between long and short
versions of the scales and subscales ranging from 0.73 to 0.96 for men (n=1543) and from 0.75 to
0.97 for women (n=1631). Bar-On (2002) also presents preliminary construct validity data to
suggest that the instrument assesses four moderately inter-correlated EI dimensions, as well as
dimensions that are relatively distinct from basic personality dimensions. Concerns about possi-
ble overlap between basic personality and EI dimensions, especially when EI is assessed using
self-report measures, has led some researchers to be concerned that instruments like the EQ-i and
EQ-i:Short may simply reassess basic personality (Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998; Roberts,
Zeidner, & Matthews, 2001). Parker, Hogan, Majeski, and Bond (submitted for publication) have
examined the overlap between the EQ-i:Short and the five personality dimensions assessed by the
NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992) in a large sample of adults
(N=615). In a series of standard multiple regression analyses with the five NEO-FFI scales used
to predict separate scales on the EQ-i:Short, Parker et al. (submitted for publication) found
compelling evidence that these personality dimensions account only for relatively modest
amounts of varability in EQ-i:Short scores: the adjusted R2 was 0.19 for the interpersonal scale,
0.29 for intrapersonal, 0.16 for adaptability, and 0.28 for stress management.
Students who completed the EQ-i:Short were informed that the researchers would be tracking
their academic progress at the university. In June, after final marks for the entire academic year
had been processed by the University’s registrar’s office, EQ-i:Short scores were matched with the
student’s academic record (grade-point-average for the academic year).
In order to compare levels of emotional and social competency in successful and less successful
first-year students, academic records from the registrar’s office were used to identify two groups
of students: academically successful students (defined as a grade-point-average for the academic
year above 79%) and academically unsuccessful student (defined as a grade-point-average for the
academic year below 60%). These are not arbitrary criteria. For the students who participated in
the study, these GPA values have important institutional implications: students in the successful
group make the Dean’s Honor roll, an achievement that is listed on their university transcript;
students in the unsuccessful group are ‘‘rusticated’’ and will be asked to withdraw from the uni-
versity if their GPA in the second year is not above 59%. There were 67 students (18% of the
sample) in the successful group (13 men and 54 women) and 64 students (17% of the sample) in
the non-successful group (20 men and 44 women). The two groups were not significantly different
with respect to high school grade-point-average (75.6% for the unsuccessful group and 78.8% for
the successful group), age, course load (4.3 full year courses for the unsuccessful group and 4.5
 J.D.A. Parker et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 163–172 167

for the successful group), or general mood at the time of completing the EQ-i:Short (mean of
30.82 for the unsuccessful group and 29.23 for the successful group on the general mood scale
from the EQ-i:Short).

2. Results

2.1. Total sample

Table 1 presents correlations among EQ-i:Short variables (interpersonal abilities, intrapersonal

abilities, stress management, adaptability, and total EI), high school grade-point-average (GPA),
and first-year university GPA for the total sample, as well as for men and women separately.
With respect to the association between academic success (first-year GPA) and the various EI-
related variables, the patterns of correlations were consistent for men and women. Low or non-
significant correlations were found between first-year GPA and total EI (r=0.19 for men; r=0.21
for women) and interpersonal abilities (r=0.00 for men; r=0.01 for women). Slightly higher

Table 1
Correlations among EQ-i:short variables, high-school GPA, and first-year GPA

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6

Total sample (N=372)

1. Interpersonal –
2. Intrapersonal 0.33* –
3. Adaptability 0.14* 0.42* –
4. Stress Management 0.29* 0.46* 0.39* –
5. Total EQ-i:Short 0.61* 0.80* 0.60* 0.74* –
6. High School GPA 0.08 0.01 0.06 0.09 0.05 –
7. First-Year GPA 0.03 0.27* 0.37* 0.32* 0.20* 0.21*

Men (N=78)
1. Interpersonal –
2. Intrapersonal 0.43* –
3. Adaptability 0.13 0.46* –
4. Stress Management 0.32* 0.44* 0.40* –
5. Total EQ-i:Short 0.69* 0.80* 0.60* 0.71* –
6. High School GPA 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.12 0.01 –
7. First-Year GPA 0.01 0.33* 0.35* 0.32* 0.19 0.21

Women (N=294)
1. Interpersonal –
2. Intrapersonal 0.33* –
3. Adaptability 0.17* 0.41* –
4. Stress Management 0.31* 0.46* 0.39* –
5. Total EQ-i:Short 0.61* 0.81* 0.60* 0.75* –
6. High School GPA 0.12* 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.06 –
7. First-Year GPA 0.00 0.26* 0.39* 0.32* 0.21* 0.21*

* P< 0.05.
168 J.D.A. Parker et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 163–172

correlations were found between first-year GPA and intrapersonal abilities (r=0.33 for men;
r=0.26 for women), stress management (r=0.32 for men; r=0.32 for women), and adaptability
(r=0.35 for men; r=0.39 for women). High school GPA was not found to be associated with any
of the EI-related measures (r was 0.12–0.11 in men and 0.12–0.05 in women.). High school
GPA was also found to be a weak predictor of GPA in the first-year of university (r=0.21 for
men and women).

2.2. Successful vs. unsuccessful students

To further examine the relationship between academic success in the transition from high
school to university and emotional intelligence, a gender by group (successful vs. unsuccessful) by
type of emotional and social competencies (interpersonal, intrapersonal, stress management, vs.
adaptability) analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted with EI level as the dependent vari-
able. Because of an unequal number of items on EQ-i:Short subscales, the ANOVA compared
mean-item scores rather than scale scores. The main effect for gender was not significant, nor was
the interaction of gender and group, gender and type, and the 3-way interaction of gender, group
and type.
The main effect for group was significant, with the successful group scoring higher than the
unsuccessful group on overall EI level [F(1,127)=64.86, P<0.001, eta2=0.34]. Table 2 presents
the means and standard deviations for the EQ-i:Short measure by group. The main effect for type
was also significant [F(3,381)=55.51, P<0.000, eta2=0.30]. Multiple comparisons (Student–
Newman–Keuls procedure) found that students scored significantly higher on interpersonal abil-
ities compared to the other abilities assessed by the EQ-i:Short. Students also scored significantly
higher on adaptability compared to intrapersonal and stress management. The interaction of
group and type was also found to be significant [F(3,381)=18.22, P< 0.001, eta2=0.13].
To understand the main effect for group and the interaction of group and type, separate uni-
variate F-tests were conducted comparing successful and unsuccessful students on each of the
four EQ-i:Short scales. The successful students scored significantly higher than the unsuccessful
students on intrapersonal ability [F(1,127)=30.43, P<0.001, eta2=0.19], stress management
[F(1,127)=32.44, P<0.001, eta2=0.20], and adaptability [F(1,127)=89.45, P<0.001, eta2=0.41].
The two groups did not score significantly different on interpersonal ability.
To further explore the predictive validity of the EQ-i:Short for academic success, a direct dis-
criminant function analysis was performed using emotional intelligence scores as predictors of

Table 2
Means and standard deviations on the EQ-i:Short variables for successful and unsuccessful students

Scales Successful Unsuccessful Combined

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Interpersonal 4.30 0.50 4.22 0.54 4.25 0.52

Intrapersonal 3.77 0.75 3.06 0.54 3.43 0.75
Adaptability 3.88 0.60 2.75 0.53 3.33 0.80
Stress management 3.96 0.53 3.31 0.58 3.64 0.64
Total 3.98 0.42 3.34 0.33 3.66 0.50
 J.D.A. Parker et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 163–172 169

Table 3
Classification results from a discriminant function analysis (successful vs. unsuccessful students) with EQ-i:Short
variables

Actual status n Predicted status % Correct

Unsuccessful Successful

Unsuccessful 64 58 6 91 (Sensitivity)
Successful 67 12 55 82 (Specificity)

Total 131 70 61 86 (Overall rate)

membership in two groups (successful vs. unsuccessful). Discriminant function scores were sub-
sequently used to classify the 131 students into successful and unsuccessful groups. Classification
rates are presented in Table 3. Following the definitions and procedures outlined by Kessel and
Zimmerman (1993), several diagnostic efficiency statistics were calculated from these classification
results: sensitivity was 82%, specificity was 91%, kappa was 0.73, and the overall correct classi-
fication rate was 86%.

3. Discussion

Predicting academic success from emotional intelligence variables produced divergent results
depending on how the former variable was operationalized. When the relationship between
academic success and emotional intelligence was examined using the total sample (n=372), the
pattern of correlations was similar to those reported by Newsome et al. (2000). In both studies
total EQ-i:Short scores were found to be poor predictors of academic success, although the
present study found several subscales (intrapersonal, stress management, and adaptability) to
be significant predictors of academic success (predicting 8–10% of the variability in first-year
GPA). Although these EQ-i:Short subscales were only modest predictors, it is worth noting that
these variables were better predictors of first-year university GPA than high school GPA.
Quite a different level of prediction was produced when EQ-i:Short variables were compared in
groups who had achieved very different levels of academic success: highly successful students who
achieved a first-year university GPA of 80% or better versus relatively unsuccessful students who
received a first-year GPA of 59% or less. Academic success was strongly associated with several
dimensions of emotional intelligence (intrapersonal, adaptability, and stress management abil-
ities) assessed at the start of the academic year. Collectively, these variables were found to be
strong predictors in identifying both academically successful (82% of successful students were
identified) and unsuccessful (91% of unsuccessful students were correctly identified) first-year
students.
Results with the successful and unsuccessful groups are at odds with the findings of Newsome et
al. (2000), who found little association between academic success and emotional intelligence. This
discrepancy is likely due to major methodological differences between the two studies. Newsome et
al. (2000) examined the relationship between emotional intelligence and academic success using a
very heterogeneous group of students: full-time and part-time students were combined; first-year
170 J.D.A. Parker et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 163–172

students and students in more advanced years of study were combined; young adults starting the
transition from high-school to university were also combined with mature students who had
completed high school decades earlier. The present study, on the other hand, focused exclusively
on young adults making the transition from high school to full-time study at university. There is
reason to believe that a more extreme age range, like the one used in the Newsome et al. (2000)
study would be a potential confound in any attempt to disentangle the impact of emotional
intelligence on the transition from high-school to university. For example, Bar-On (1997, 2000)
and Derksen, Kramer, and Katzko (2002) have reported that EQ-i scores typically increase across
the life span from young adulthood to middle age.
Results of the present study suggest quite strongly that intrapersonal, adaptability, and stress
management abilities are important factors in the successful transition from high school to uni-
versity. The intrapersonal dimension involves the ability to distinguish among and label feelings,
as well as the ability to use information about feelings to understand and guide behavior (Bar-On,
1997, 2000, 2002; Taylor et al., 1997). The adaptability dimension involves skills related to change
management. Managing change involves the ability to identify potential problems, as well as the
use of realistic and flexible coping strategies (Bar-On, 1997, 2000, 2002). The stress management
dimension involves the ability to manage stressful situations in a relatively calm and proactive
manner. Individuals who score high on this dimension are rarely impulsive and work well under
pressure (Bar-On, 1997, 2000, 2002).
The association between academic success and these emotional and social competencies is not
surprising, given the type of issues involved in the transition from high school. Graduating from
high school and going on to university is a major life transition (Brooks & DuBois, 1995; Cantor
et al., 1987; Cutrona, 1982; Gall et al., 2000; Kanoy & Bruhn, 1996; McLaughlin et al., 1998;
Pancer et al., 2000; Perry et al., 2001; Pratt et al., 2000; Ross et al., 1999; Stewart & Healy, 1985).
First-year students are confronted with a variety of new personal and interpersonal challenges.
Along with the need to make new relationships (especially if the student attends a university or
college outside of their hometown), they must also modify existing relationships with parents and
friends (e.g. learn to be more independent). They also need to learn study habits for a relatively
new academic environment (one that typically involves more independence than was experienced
in high school). Not surprisingly, the transition from high school to university is perceived by
most students as a particularly stressful situation (Cantor et al., 1987; Cutrona, 1982; Stewart &
Healy, 1985). Students typically report that stress levels in their first-year of study are higher than
in subsequent years (Ross et al., 1999).
One limitation of the present study is that academic success (operationalized as GPA) was
assessed for only a single academic year. Future research needs to examine the long-term effects
of emotional and social competency on academic success. It would also be useful to examine the
incremental predictive power of these variables above the prediction achieved by basic personality
dimensions assessed by measures like the NEO-FFI. Additional research might also want to
investigate a broader range of indicators for academic success than just GPA. Other indicators
might include variables like the number of courses completed, the number of courses dropped or
not completed, and whether a student persists or withdraws from an institution (either to transfer
to another institution or to dropout entirely).
Future research on the long-term effects of emotional and social competency may also want to
re-assess these abilities in subsequent stages of an academic program. Whether implicit or explicit,
 J.D.A. Parker et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 163–172 171

most post-secondary institutions have, as a primary goal, the desire to foster a variety of inter-
personal and intrapersonal skills in their students (Berger & Milem, 1999; Tinto, 1993). Thus, one
might expect emotional and social competencies to change over the course of a student’s post-
secondary career. Students who persevere in university are likely to have different levels of emo-
tional intelligence at the end of their program when compared to levels at the start of their
program.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by research grants to the first author from the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and the Ontario Government’s Premier’s
Research Excellence Award program.

References

Archer, J., & Lamnin, A. (1985). An investigation of personal and academic stressors on college campuses. Journal of
College Student Personnel, 26, 210–215.
Bar-On, R. (1997). BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory: technical manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i). In
R. Bar-On, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bar-On, R. (2002). BarOn Emotional Quotient Short form (EQ-i:Short): technical manual. Toronto: Multi-Health
Systems.
Bar-On, R., & Parker, J. D. A. (2000). The Bar-On EQ-i:YV: technical manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Sys-
tems.
Berger, J. B., & Milem, J. F. (1999). The role of student involvement and perceptions of intergration in a causal model
of student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 40, 641–664.
Blanc, R. A., DeBuhr, L. E., & Martin, D. C. (1983). Breaking the attrition cycle: the effects of supplemental instruc-
tion on undergraduate performance and attrition. Journal of Higher Education, 54, 80–90.
Brooks, J. H., & DuBois, D. L. (1995). Individual and environmental predictors of adjustment during the first year of
college. Journal of College Student Development, 36, 347–360.
Cantor, N., Norem, J. K., Niedenthal, P. M., Langston, C. A., & Brower, A. M. (1987). Life tasks, self-concept ideals,
and cognitive strategies in a life transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1178–1191.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inven-
tory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cutrona, C. E. (1982). Transition to college: loneliness and the process of social adjustment. In L. A. Peplau, &
D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: a sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy (pp. 291–309). New York: Wiley-
Interscience.
Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: in search of an elusive construct. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 989–1015.
Derksen, J., Kramer, I., & Katzko, M. (2002). Does a self-report measure for emotional intelligence assess something
different than general intelligence?. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 37–48.
Gall, T. L., Evans, D. R., & Bellerose, S. (2000). Transition to first-year university: patterns of change in adjustment
across life domains and time. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 544–567.
Gerdes, H., & Mallinckrodt, B. (1994). Emotional, social, and academic adjustment of college students: a longitudinal
study of retention. Journal of Counseling & Development, 72, 281–288.
Johnson, J. L. (1997). Commuter college students: what factors determine who will persist and who will drop out?
College Student Journal, 31, 323–332.
172 J.D.A. Parker et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 163–172

Kanoy, K. W., & Bruhn, J. W. (1996). Effects of a first-year living and learning residence hall on retention and aca-
demic performance. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience & Students in Transition, 8, 7–23.
Kessel, J. B., & Zimmerman, M. (1993). Reporting errors in studies of the diagnostic performance of self-administered
questionnaires: extent of the problem, recommendations for standardized presentation of results, and implications
for the peer review process. Psychological Assessment, 5, 359–399.
Lichtman, C. M. (1989). Differences between black and white students in attrition patterns from an urban commuter
university. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 4–10.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey, & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Emotional
development and emotional intelligence (pp. 3–31). New York: Basic Books.
McLaughlin, G. W., Brozovsky, P. V., & McLaughlin, J. S. (1998). Changing perspectives on student retention: a role
for institutional research. Research in Higher Education, 39, 1–17.
Murtaugh, P. A., Burns, L. D., & Schuster, J. (1999). Predicting the retention of university students. Research in Higher
Education, 40, 355–371.
Newsome, S., Day, A. L., & Catano, V. M. (2000). Assessing the predictive validity of emotional intelligence. Person-
ality and Individual Differences, 29, 1005–1016.
Pancer, S. M., Hunsberger, B., Pratt, M. W., & Alisat, S. (2000). Cognitive complexity of expectations and adjustment
to university in the first year. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 38–57.
Parker, J. D. A., Hogan, M., Majeski, S. A., & Bond, B. Assessing emotional intelligence: reliability and validity of the
short form for the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i:Short) (submitted for publication).
Parker, J. D. A., Taylor, G. J., & Bagby, R. M. (2001). The relationship between emotional intelligence and alex-
ithymia. Personality & Individual Differences, 30, 107–115.
Perry, R. P., Hladkyj, S., Pekrun, R. H., & Pelletier, S. T. (2001). Academic control and action control in the
achievement of college students: a longitudinal field study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 776–789.
Pratt, M. W., Hunsberger, B., Pancer, S. M., Alisat, S., Bowers, C., Mackey, K., Ostaniewicz, A., Rog, E., Terzian, B.,
& Thomas, N. (2000). Facilitating the transition to university: evaluation of a social support discussion intervention
program. College and Student Development, 41, 427–441.
Ransdell, S. (2001). Predicting college success: the importance of ability and non-cognitive variables. International
Journal of Educational Research, 35, 357–364.
Roberts, R. D., Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2001). Does emotional intelligence meet traditional standards for an
intelligence? Some new data and conclusions. Emotion, 1, 196–231.
Ross, S. E., Niebling, B. C., & Heckert, T. M. (1999). Sources of stress among college students. College Student Jour-
nal, 32, 312–317.
Smith, A. D. (1982). Historical perspectives of student attrition at a major university. College Student Journal, 16, 381–
388.
Sternberg, R., Wagner, R., & Okagaki, L. (1993). Practical intelligence: the nature and role of tacit knowledge in work
and at school. In H. Reese, & J. Puckett (Eds.), Advances in lifespan development (pp. 205–227). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Stewart, A. J., & Healy, J. M. (1985). Personality and adaptation to change. In R. Hogan, & W. Jones (Eds.), Per-
ceptives on personality: theory, measurement, and interpersonal dynamics (pp. 117–144). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Taylor, G. J., Bagby, R. M., & Parker, J. D. A. (1997). Disorders of affect regulation: alexithymia in medical and psy-
chiatric illness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Wong, C., Day, J., Maxwell, S., & Meara, N. (1995). A multitrait-multimethod study of academic and social intelli-
gence in college students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 117–133.