Personality and Individual Differences 145 (2019) 75–81

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

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

Differentiating the contributions of emotional intelligence and resilience on T

adolescent male scholastic performance
Kat Dropperta, Luke Downeya, Justine Lomasa, Emily R. Bunnetta, Nathan Simmonsb,
⁎
Andrew Wheatonb, Chris Nieldb, Con Stougha,
a
Emotional Intelligence Research Unit, Swinburne University, Australia
b
Anglican Church Grammar School, Brisbane, Australia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Recent research is indicating predictive validity for emotional intelligence (EI) in a range of important scholastic
Emotional intelligence variables including bullying, well-being and mental health. There have been some suggestions that emotional
Resiliency intelligence and resiliency in school children are also related, however, there is little research on these variables.
Scholastic performance Therefore, the present study attempted to bridge this gap by examining the relationship between EI, resiliency
and scholastic performance. Specifically, the study examined whether resiliency mediated the relationship be-
tween EI and scholastic performance. One hundred and fifty-three year-10 males completed the Adolescent
Swinburne Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT-A) and the Resiliency Scale for Children and Adolescents (RSCA).
In addition, current academic achievement was collected for all school subjects. Regression Analyses revealed
that several dimensions of the SUEIT-A and the RSCA predicted individual subject grades. Reactivity, a subscale
of Resiliency, mediated the relationship between the EI subscales, Understand Emotions of Others and Emotions
Direct Cognition, and two measures of scholastic performance (i.e., GPA and Science grades). Given these results,
future research should examine whether improving emotional intelligence and resiliency leads to improvements
in scholastic performance.

1. Introduction (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002).

Research has sought to understand the underlying psychological
mechanisms that contribute to scholastic performance, as scholastic
success has been shown to predict a number of important life outcomes
including, higher employment rates (Hunter & Schmidt, 1996), en-
gagement in further tertiary studies (Lizzio, Wilson, & Simons, 2002),
greater mental health (Shiner, Masten, & Roberts, 2003), and life suc-
cess (Finn, Fish, & Scott, 2008). Scholastic performance has been linked
to factors such as supportive networks, stress management, achieve-
ment motivation (McMillan & Reed, 1994) and mood management
(Ciarrochi, Chan, & Bajgar, 2001). These factors are conceptually re-
lated to resiliency, which characterizes an individual's ability to adapt
and recover quickly from challenging circumstances, changes in cir-
cumstances or misfortune (Connor & Davidson, 2003; Pulley, 2001) and
emotional intelligence (EI; Billings, Downey, Lomas, Lloyd, & Stough,
2014; Downey, Mountstephen, Lloyd, Hansen, & Stough, 2008;
Downey, Lomas, Billings, Hansen, & Stough, 2014; Gumora & Arsenio,
2002). EI has been defined as a set of abilities regarding identification,
discrimination, regulation, management, control and use of emotions
Inconsistent research findings have been reported on whether re-
siliency predicts scholastic performance (Ayyash-Abdo, Sanchez-Ruiz,
& Barbari, 2016; Mavroveli & Sánchez-Ruiz, 2011). Additionally, there
have only been a few studies examining the predictive validity of in-
dividual components of EI on subject grades (e.g., Downey et al., 2008).
2. Emotional Intelligence (EI)
EI has been modeled as either a distinct group of mental abilities,
that is, as a specific intelligence (Ability EI) or as a combination of
positive traits (trait EI), such as, self-esteem, optimism and hapiness
(Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008; Petrides & Furnham, 2001). The
current study employs a self-report scale based on the four branch
Ability EI model originally posited by Salovey and Mayer (1990), the
Adolescent Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT-A;
Luebbers, Downey, & Stough, 2007). The scale used has been shown
repeatedly to provide reliable and valid measurements in adolescents,
predicting several key scholastic outcomes in adolescents previously
(such as scholastic success, coping and bullying behaviours (Downey

⁎
Corresponding author at: Swinburne University, PO Box 218 Hawthorn, Victoria 3122, Australia.
E-mail address: cstough@swin.edu.au (C. Stough).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.03.023
Received 22 November 2018; Received in revised form 13 March 2019; Accepted 18 March 2019
0191-8869/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Droppert, et al.
et al., 2008; Downey et al., 2014; Downey, Johnston, Hansen, Birney, &
Stough, 2010; Lomas, Stough, Hansen, & Downey, 2012; Luebbers
et al., 2007). This model conceptualizes EI as a complete, integrated set
of abilities that develop hierarchically (Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade,
2008).
Adolescents with higher EI report greater awareness and manage-
ment of their own emotions (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004, 2008),
mood management skills, and satisfaction with social support
(Ciarrochi et al., 2001). They also experience lower rates of bullying
(Lomas et al., 2012) and depression (Mavroveli, Petrides, Rieffe, &
Bakker, 2007). Several models of EI have effectively predicted scho-
lastic performance in youth (Billings et al., 2014; Petrides,
Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004). For instance, Parker et al. (2004)
found that students who obtained better grades also reported higher EI.
In particular, EI dimensions that measure managing and controlling
emotions have been shown to make a unique and significant con-
tribution to scholastic performance, over and above the influence of
cognitive contributors (Gumora & Arsenio, 2002). There is also little
agreement in the literature about the influence of EI on specific aca-
demic subjects, however, this may reflect differences in course content
across schools and countries. Australian students with higher scores on
the emotional management and control scale (EMC) produced higher
Mathematics and Science grades (Downey et al., 2008). The authors
suggested that this may be caused by the ability of students higher in
EMC to manage anxiety and other negative emotions which may disrupt
working memory- a key process involved in performing mathematical
skills. In contrast, Petrides et al. (2004) found that EI predicted English
but not Mathematics or Science grades in British students. Several
theoretical models may be proposed in attempt to explain the re-
lationship between EI and scholastic performance. For instance, support
networks, which are enhanced through superior EI, can positively in-
fluence scholastic performance (Ciarrochi et al., 2001; Gumora &
Arsenio, 2002). Additionally, dimensions of EI involving emotional self-
awareness and emotional management can reduce the negative impact
of stress on cognition (Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2009). As scholastic
performance and learning can directly and indirectly be negatively in-
fluenced by stress or anxiety (Boekaerts, 1993) yet be enhanced by
positive emotions (Fredrickson, 1998) and relationships (Gumora &
Arsenio, 2002), an understanding of how EI abilities can directly and
indirectly reduce stress is important.
In addition, there are a range of other plausible mechanisms relating
EI and scholastic performance. Positive engagement with peers and
teachers offers an explanation of how EI and scholastic performance
may be related (Gumora & Arsenio, 2002). Students with poor ability to
recognise and express their own emotions, are more likely to feel
withdrawn and excluded, increasing the likelihood of poor school
performance resulting in classroom disengagement (Izard, 1989;
Petrides et al., 2004). Recognising and managing one's own and others'
emotions, have been shown to improve educational support networks
(Gumora & Arsenio). Furthermore, it has been suggested that analytical
skills are more important than intuition on performance in exams.
Benjamin, Cavell, and Shallenberger (1984), found students who com-
pleted a multiple choice answer on an exam that used logic, rather than
‘trusting their gut’, performed better academically. The extent to which
logic or emotions are used to problem-solve is measured on many
measures of EI. It has been suggested that decision making based on
more factual information rather than gut-feelings or emotions may lead
to better performance in mathematics and some science-based subjects.
These results may explain why Science grades are associated with in-
dividual differences in EI (Downey et al., 2008).
3. Resiliency
Resiliency refers to a person's ability to adapt and recover quickly
from change, hardship or misfortune (Pulley, 2001) and to confront
significant adversity in life (Campbell-Sills, Cohan, & Stein, 2006).
76
Personality and Individual Differences 145 (2019) 75–81
From an interactionalist framework, Resiliency is considered to be
complex and reflects the interplay between an individual and their
environment (Prince-Embury, Saklofske, & Vesely, 2015). It has been
posited that utilising internal and external protective factors relating to
Resiliency (Miller & Daniel, 2007) can result in a more successful out-
come under high-risk conditions (Egeland, Carlson, & Sroufe, 1993).
External protective factors, such as, social support, can reduce the im-
pact of negative effects of the individual's misfortune (Miller & Daniel,
2007), through decreasing the perceived salience of the stressor and
increasing one's perceived ability to cope with the situation (Pressman
& Cohen, 2005). Internal factors including positive self-esteem (Miller &
Daniel, 2007), strong motivation to achieve, belief in an internal locus
of control (Rouse, 2001), optimism (Pressman & Cohen, 2005), and
stress tolerance (Hartley, 2011) have also been associated with lower
perceived stress and greater ability to cope. Consequently, the devel-
opment of these skills is seen as an integral component to improving
resiliency.
A distinction between resiliency, resilience and resilient outcomes is
required to ensure that these terms are not used interchangeably in the
literature which have often been the case (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker,
2000). Resilience refers to the interplay between a person and their
environment that results in a resilient outcome, whereas, resiliency
refers to a set of personal qualities that influence their ability to ex-
perience a resilient outcome. Based on developmental theory by Masten
(2001), the Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents.
(RSCA) was developed by integrating empirically relevant traits to
measure the core constructs underlying resiliency in adolescents and
children (Prince-Embury & Courville, 2008). The scale encompasses the
three related global concepts of adolescent resiliency, which collec-
tively comprise 10 more specific facets; Sense of Mastery (optimism,
self-efficacy and ability), Sense of Relatedness (comfort, support, trust
and tolerance) and Reactivity (sensitivity, recovery and impairment).
High resiliency is characterised by high Mastery and Relatedness, and
low Reactivity.
A moderate correlation between EI and resiliency has been pre-
viously observed (Connor & Slear, 2009). It has been theorised that
individuals with greater emotional self-awareness and emotional
management are able to adapt to emotional demands of stressful en-
counters and buffer the effects of aversive events (Salovey, Bedell,
Detweiler, & Mayer, 1999). Previous assessment of resiliency or theo-
retically related constructs to resiliency have suggested some overlap
between the abilities encompassed by EI and resiliency exist (Salovey,
Stroud, Woolery, & Epel, 2002). Ciarrochi et al. (2001) observed that
participants with higher EI were better able to induce positive moods in
themselves, manage their moods more effectively, and were happier in
both positive and negative circumstances. Additionally, emotional
management was associated with more frequent use of adaptive beha-
viours such as problem–solving and self-pep talks (Salovey et al., 2002).
These skills may be necessary for developing concepts relating to re-
siliency including optimism, self-efficacy and adaptability. Those who
can manage their moods have greater access to social support
(Ciarrochi et al., 2001), and are more willing to seek help when feeling
overwhelmed (Ciarrochi & Deane, 2001) which may improve related-
ness. Studies have also observed that higher resiliency and higher
academic test scores are positively related (Ayyash-Abdo et al., 2016;
Kotzé & Kleynhans, 2013; Putwain, Nicholson, Connors, & Woods,
2013). Resiliency has been found to predict scholastic performance
even when controlling for gender, age and hope (Ayyash-Abdo et al.,
2016). The negative influence of Reactivity on cognitive capacity may
offer a theoretical explanation as to why resiliency and scholastic per-
formance could be related. Hyper-Reactivity to environmental stimuli
have been associated with poorer scholastic performance (Krupic &
Corr, 2014), higher evaluative pressure, greater cognitive impairment,
and lower GPA (Putwain et al., 2013). Scholastic performance may be
negatively impacted if attention is diverted away from the educational
materials or the task (Pekrun et al., 2009). High reactivity is considered
K. Droppert, et al.
a risk factor for poor scholastic performance as intense emotional re-
actions have been shown to impair cognitive functioning (Putwain
et al., 2013) and supportive relationships influential to better scholastic
performance (Valiente, Swanson, & Eisenberg, 2012).
Given the theoretical overlap between resiliency and emotional
intelligence, it is somewhat surprising that there is no research directly
comparing the relationship between EI, resiliency and scholastic per-
formance. Several studies have measured EI and attempted to connect
individual differences in EI with processes related to resiliency. For
instance, Petrides et al. (2004) found that students with poorer emo-
tional skills were more likely to feel excluded and not connected to
others (similar to the construct of relatedness measured by resiliency
scales such as the RSCA), which increased the likelihood of poorer
scholastic performance. Superior emotional management is an im-
portant predictor of scholastic and social engagement, even in the
presence of constructs relating to reactivity. Valiente et al. (2012) found
that students with good emotional control were more motivated to
perform, engage in learning activities, and were able to develop strong
relationships with others, even when experiencing moderate levels of
negative emotionality. Both of these studies attempt to at least a the-
oretical level, connect EI, resiliency (relatedness) and scholastic per-
formance.
The present study will examine the relationship between EI, re-
siliency and scholastic performance in an adolescent population. We
aim to provide further clarity as to how EI and resiliency subscales are
correlated using two tests with established reliability, predictive and
construct validity (Luebbers et al., 2007; Prince-Embury et al., 2015). It
is hypothesised that: 1) higher EI scores will be associated with higher
GPA and subject grades; 2) higher Mastery and Relatedness scores will
predict better GPA and subject grades and lower Reactivity will be
associated with high GPA and subject grades; 3) EI woll predict re-
siliency, with higher EI subscale scores correlating positively with
Mastery and Relatedness scores and negatively with Reactivity scores;
and 4) resiliency will partially mediate the relationship between EI and
scholastic performance (partial mediation is hypothesised given that EI
and resiliency are expected to share some but not all of the variance
with scholastic performance).
4. Methods
4.1. Participants
The sample consisted of 153 Year 10 students from the Anglican
Church Grammar School which is an Australian boys' school located in
Brisbane, Australia. Ages ranged from 14 to 16 years (M = 14.64,
SD = 0.56). All participants provided written informed consent. Full
written information about the study was sent home for each parent in
advance of their child's participation. All parents were afforded the
opportunity to exclude their child from participation. The study was
approved by the institutional human research ethics committee.
Resiliency
‘a’path
Emotional
Intelligence
C’ Path (C Path)
Direct Effect (Total Effect)
Indirect Effect, 95% CI
Fig. 1. Proposed mediation model.
77
Personality and Individual Differences 145 (2019) 75–81
4.2. Procedure
All parents and participants provided informed consent prior to
participation and the study was approved by the institutional ethics
committee. Participants completed the questionnaire during class.
Students' overall GPA for the academic year was obtained.
4.3. Measures
4.3.1. Emotional intelligence and resiliency
The 57-item SUEIT-A (Luebbers et al., 2007) was employed to assess
four EI subscales.
The 64-item, self-report RSCA was used to measure the three un-
derlying systems of Resiliency to gain a greater understanding of spe-
cific strengths and vulnerabilities the participant faces in the afore-
mentioned three global and ten specific scales. The RSCA displays
strong internal reliability, convergent and concurrent validity (see
Prince-Embury et al., 2015 for more details).
4.3.2. Grade Point Average (GPA)
Unfortunately, there has not been a consistent approach to mea-
suring AP in previous research. This makes comparisons between stu-
dies difficult. AP has been quantified using a wide range of measures
including: Grade Point Averages (GPA; Ayyash-Abdo et al., 2016);
scores on American College entrance exams such as the Stanford
Achievement Test (SAT; Peters, Kranzler & Rossen, 2009); final sec-
ondary education scores such as the General Certificate of Secondary
Education (GSCE; Petrides et al., 2004); and individual subject grades.
To add further confusion, some individual subject grades reflect student
performance in final year exams (Petrides et al., 2004) whilst other
subject grades are calculated over several assessment types and periods
of time (Kotzé & Kleynhans, 2013). Therefore, there is no gold standard
to use when assessing the relationship between AP and other variables,
which makes comparison between research difficult. In this study GPA
was measured as the average of four individual subjects that were
available at the time of this study (Science, English, Religious Education
and History). We also included performance in each subject to examine
whether some subjects were differentially related to the main psycho-
logical variables.
4.4. Statistical analysis
A mediation analysis was used to investigate whether EI enhanced
scholastic performance accounting for resiliency. Fig. 1 depicts the
mediation model that was tested.
The Bootstrapping Method, developed by Preacher and Hayes
(2008), was used in this study to measure the mediation effects of re-
siliency on EI and scholastic performance. This model tests the sig-
nificance of the indirect effect (mediator) on the dependent and in-
dependent variables. If zero does not appear between the intervals, it
can be understood that mediation has occurred.
‘b’ path
GPA
K. Droppert, et al. Personality and Individual Differences 145 (2019) 75–81

Table 1 scholastic performance measure, this hypothesis was only partially

Means, standard deviations and reliability statistics of variables. supported. Similarly, EMC, UOE and ERE were observed to significantly
Variable M SD α predict variance in all global subscales of resiliency. Nevertheless, EDC
predicted variance in Reactivity only. Hence, hypothesis three was
Emotional Management & Control 61.97 10.56 0.88 partially supported.
Emotions Direct Cognition 28.27 5.15 0.77
Understanding Emotions of Others 75.26 9.19 0.88
Emotional Recognition & Expression 34.60 5.34 0.72 5.3. Resiliency as a mediator
Mastery 79.66 10.60 0.92
Reactivity 40.28 11.07 0.92
Reactivity partially or fully significantly mediated the relationship
Relatedness 80.14 10.94 0.95
GPA 10.90 1.57
between four models: UEO and GPA, UEO and Science, EDC and GPA,
English 10.39 1.60 EDC and Science. Consequently, the hypothesis that resiliency would
History 11.06 1.80 mediate the relationship between EI and scholastic performance was
Religious Education 11.22 1.74 partially supported because only reactivity mediated this relationship.
Science 10.58 1.91
As demonstrated in Fig. 2, UEO significantly predicted Reactivity and
N = 153. Reactivity in turn significantly predicted GPA and Science grades. Re-
sults indicated UEO was no longer a significant predictor of GPA or
5. Results Science after controlling for Reactivity, consistent with full mediation.
Approximately 6.8% of the variation in GPA, and 6.4% of variation in
5.1. Descriptive statistics and correlations Science was accounted for by the predictors UEO and Reactivity. The
indirect coefficient was significant in both analyses. UEO was asso-
The SUEIT-A mean scores appear slightly higher than those pre- ciated with approximately 0.012 points higher GPA scores and 0.017
viously published, however, this may be expected, given the greater points higher Science scores as mediated by Reactivity. EDC was a
mean age of the current study (Downey et al., 2010; Lomas et al., significant predictor of Reactivity, and Reactivity was a significant
2012). The mean scores for the RSCA were in the normal range (Prince- predictor of GPA and Science (see Fig. 2). EDC was no longer a sig-
Embury, 2006). Reliability was considered acceptable as all Cronbach's nificant predictor of GPA after controlling for Reactivity, consistent
alphas were above 0.7 (Tabacknick & Fidell, 2007). The relevant with full mediation. In comparison, EDC was still a significant predictor
means, standard deviations, and internal reliabilities are presented in of Science when controlling for Reactivity, indicating partial mediation
Table 1. occurred. Approximately 7.1% of the variation in GPA, and 8.7% of
variation in Science was accounted for by EDC and Reactivity. EDC was
associated with 0.012 points lower GPA scores and 0.015 points lower
5.2. Correlations and regression analyses Science scores as mediated by Reactivity.

Inter-correlations between resiliency, EI and academic grades are 6. Discussion

displayed in Table 2. As all three variables are required to be correlated
for mediation to occur, Emotional Recognition and Expression (ERE)
was not included in further analysis as it was not correlated with any
academic measures. Grade Point Average (GPA) was only correlated
with Emotional Management and Control (EMC), Understanding Emo-
tions of Others (UOE) and Reactivity. A series of independent standard
multiple regression analyses were subsequently run to test hypotheses
one to three.
GPA was only significantly correlated with EDC, UEO and EMC
(Table 3). The direction of the effect was positive suggesting that an
increase in levels of Emotions Direct Cognition (EDC), UEO and EMC
predicted higher GPAs. As three of the four EI subscales predicted some
variance in GPA, hypothesis one was partially supported. Reactivity
predicted variance in all subjects and GPA. Mastery predicted variance
in Science. However, as Relatedness did not predict performance in any
The current study examined the inter-relationships between EI, re-
siliency, and scholastic performance in adolescent males. EI sig-
nificantly predicted some subscales of resiliency (measured by the
RSCA). These results support previous research evidencing a relation-
ship between EI and resiliency (Armstrong, Galligan, & Critchley, 2011;
Connor & Slear, 2009; Magnano, Craparo, & Paolillo, 2016). Armstrong
et al., (2011) found that participants with higher EMC and emotional
expression displayed higher resiliency. However, the ability to manage
other's emotions did not predict resiliency. ERE, EMC, UEO predicted
Reactivity. However, EMC was observed to predict between two and ten
times the amount of variance in Reactivity scores than did the other EI
subscales. This finding may be expected given that EMC encompasses
the ability to manage and control intense emotions and hence reduce
the frequency and duration of strong, cognitively impairing emotional

Table 2
Pearson correlations.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. ERE 1
2. EDC 0.11 1
3. UEO 0.58⁎⁎ −0.07 1
4. EMC 0.49⁎⁎ −0.15 0.60⁎⁎ 1
5. Mastery 0.47⁎⁎ −0.12 0.49⁎⁎ 0.64⁎⁎ 1
6. Reactivity −0.33⁎⁎ 0.19⁎ −0.40⁎⁎ −0.65⁎⁎ −0.62⁎⁎ 1
7. Relatedness 0.52⁎⁎ −0.05 0.45⁎⁎ 0.51⁎⁎ 0.81⁎⁎ −0.47⁎⁎ 1
8. General GPA 0.06 −0.17⁎ 0.20⁎ 0.29⁎⁎ 0.15 −0.23⁎⁎ 0.05
9. English 0.12 −0.12 0.26⁎⁎ 0.23⁎⁎ 0.15 −0.26⁎⁎ 0.08
10. History 0.01 −0.07 0.16⁎ 0.24⁎⁎ 0.12 −0.20⁎ 0.03
11. RE 0.02 −0.03 0.13 0.25⁎⁎ 0.04 −0.17⁎ 00
12. Science 0.04 −0.21⁎⁎ 0.17⁎ 0.26⁎⁎ 0.17⁎ −0.24⁎⁎ 0.03

⁎
p < .05.
⁎⁎
p < .01.

78
K. Droppert, et al. Personality and Individual Differences 145 (2019) 75–81

Table 3
Variance in scholastic performance and resiliency explained by EI (*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001).
ERE EDC UEO EMC Mastery Reactivity Relatedness

GPA * 2.9% 4.1% 8.4% * 5.5% *

English * * 6.9% 5.3% * 6.6% *
History * * 2.7% 5.9% * 3.8% *
RE * * * 6.5% * 2.7% *
Science * 4.6% 3.0% 6.9% 2.9% 5.8% *
Mastery 22.3% * 24.4% 39.5% – – –
Reactivity 10.9% 3.7% 16.3% 42.5% – – –
Relatedness 26.8% * 19.9% 26.5% – – –

N = 153, * = no significant variance explained, − = no comparison made.

Significant Mediation
Reactivity
Reactivity
-.03* .-.49*** -.04*
-.49***

UOE GPA UEO Science

.02 (.03)* .02 (.04*)

Indirect effect, b =. 01 95% CI (.01, .03) Indirect effect, b =.02 95% CI (.01, .03)

Reactivity Reactivity

.41* -.03* .41* -.04*

EDC GPA EDC Science

-.04 (-.05*) -.07* (-.08**)

Indirect effect, b =-.01 95% CI (-.03, -.04) Indirect effect, b =-.01 95% CI (-.03, -.005)

Fig. 2. Mediation models of the effects of resiliency on EI and scholastic performance.

responses, as those depicted by the Reactivity scale. Additionally, et al., 2014).

adolescents who scored higher on EDC were more likely to have long
and intense emotional responses. The relationship between ERE and
Reactivity supports previous research (Salovey et al., 1999).
Relatedness and Mastery were significantly predicted by ERE, UEO
and EMC. This suggests emotional awareness and management can
increase feeling supported by, trusting of, comfortable with and ac-
cepting of others, as well as feelings of self-efficacy, optimism and
adaptability. This finding supports previous research that has demon-
strated that UEO and EMC are associated with supportive relationships
with peers, teachers and family (Ciarrochi et al., 2001; Gumora &
Arsenio, 2002). Furthermore, previous research has demonstrated that
greater ERE is related to feeling socially connected (Izard, 1989). Fur-
thermore, EDC, UEO and EMC were related to GPA scores. Performance
across English, History, RE and Science were also predicted by specific
EI subscales. These findings replicate those of Downey et al. (2008) and
Downey et al. (2014). Although the exact reasons why EI and scholastic
performance are related are not fully known, there are a number of
plausible theoretical mechanisms. For instance, some authors have
suggested that EI contributes to the development and maintenance of
support networks (Ciarrochi et al., 2001; Gumora & Arsenio, 2002),
which in turn reduces the cognitively impairing effects of stress on
scholastic performance (Boekaerts, 1993; Pressman & Cohen, 2005).
Subjects, such as Science, which demand greater working memory ca-
pacity and concentration (Owens, Stevenson & Hadwin, 2012), can be
influenced by emotions that enhance or detract from problem-solving
capabilities (Valiente et al., 2012). Conversely, adolescents who more
frequently used emotions to guide decision-making, received lower
GPAs and Science grades. This supports the abovementioned findings of
Benjamin et al. (1984). However, it is inconsistent with previous studies
that did not observe a relationship between EDC and scholastic per-
formance in year seven to ten students (Downey et al., 2008; Downey
Reactivity was negatively associated with poorer scholastic perfor-
mance across all domains and Mastery was associated with higher
Science grades, suggesting that adolescents who are more easily upset,
took longer to recover from being upset and who felt that they made
more mistakes when upset, performed worse academically. Conversely,
adolescents who were more optimistic, willing to learn from mistakes
and have greater belief in their ability to problem-solve, received higher
Science grades. Reactivity was the most consistent Resiliency predictor
of academic success in the current study. One reason may be that stu-
dents who experience intense and enduring emotional states more
frequently perform worse academically as their attention and cognitive
resources are diverted away from learning and problem-solving pro-
cesses (Pekrun et al., 2009). Alternatively, students who are less re-
active may receive greater support (Gumora & Arsenio, 2002). Mastery
only predicted performance in Science grades, despite previous re-
search having observed a significant relationship between Mastery and
other academic domains (e.g., Ayyash-Abdo et al., 2016; Pekrun et al.,
2009; Phan, 2010). These results may reflect the use of varied opera-
tional definitions of Mastery.
Despite numerous studies discussing how perception of support
from others can act as a buffer against stress (Ciarrochi & Deane, 2001;
McDowell & Serovich, 2007; Pressman & Cohen, 2005) and improve
scholastic performance (Gumora & Arsenio, 2002), Relatedness was not
correlated with any subject grades. However, our results support the
research by Ayyash-Abdo et al., (2016) who did not observe a re-
lationship between Relatedness and GPA.
6.1. Resiliency as a mediator
Reactivity mediated the relationship between some EI subscales and
performance on some subjects, suggesting that sensitivity for, recovery

79
K. Droppert, et al.
from and impairment by emotional reactivity, is an underlying me-
chanism between some EI components and performance in Science and
GPA. Overall, students with a greater ability to manage and control
their own and others emotions and use logic rather than emotions to
problem-solve, are less likely to be reactive and in turn, perform better
overall (GPA) and specifically in Science subjects.
The relations between UEO and GPA, and UEO and Science were
fully mediated by Reactivity in the current study, indicating that ado-
lescent males who report a greater ability to understand other's emo-
tions, are less likely to experience or be impaired by intense emotional
reactions, which may lead to greater performance in Science and GPA.
Furthermore, the relationship between understanding the emotions of
others and higher performance in Science and overall grades, is ex-
plained by Reactivity. This could reflect previous studies that showed
that those who have a greater ability to understand other's emotions
receive greater emotional or academic support from friends, family, and
teachers (Ciarrochi et al., 2001; Gumora & Arsenio, 2002) which in turn
improves scholastic performance. The quality of these relationships
may be improved by a reduced tendency to respond to a situation in a
heightened state (Valiente et al., 2012). Reactivity only predicted a
small amount of variation in the current study which may suggest that
the relationship is significantly influenced by other mediating factors,
such as support received from others, that are related to but also dis-
tinct from Reactivity.
The relationships between EDC and GPA and Science, were fully and
partially mediated by Reactivity, respectively. Perhaps adolescent
males who more frequently use emotional knowledge or trust their
emotional instincts to problem-solve, are more influenced by their
emotions and are more susceptible to intense emotional reactions
leading to poorer scholastic performance (Pekrun et al., 2009). Re-
activity did not significantly mediate the relationship between EMC and
scholastic performance, suggesting that regardless of the tendency to
experience and be impacted by intense emotional responses, higher
scholastic performance is a consequence of higher EMC. These results
support the observation by Valiente et al. (2012) that an ability to
control emotions positively influences engagement in academic activ-
ities, even in the presence of negative emotional responses. As EMC
explains over 40% of observed variance in Reactivity, there is some
evidence to suggest that the constructs are measuring similar concepts.
6.2. Limitations
Clearly the results of the current study are based on only adolescent
males. Whilst males comprise an important cohort of school aged
children they do have their own issues which may be difficult to gen-
eralize to female adolescents. It is currently unknown if self-reported EI
and resiliency differ between genders (Ciarrochi et al., 2001; Mavroveli
et al., 2007; McGloin & Widom, 2001), and so caution must be taken to
ensure that these findings are only generalized to male adolescents.
Similarly, the results can only be generalized to adolescents within the
age range sampled. Adolescence is a time of significant physical, neu-
rological and emotional changes (Greenberg & Snell, 1997). Future
research should investigate if different results are obtained with dif-
ferent age group. Finally, common method variance can sometimes be
observed in studies that utilize similar responding formats in psycho-
logical questionnaires. Future studies could replicate our results using
different methods for example the use of an ability based EI measure or
rater versions of the questionnaires.
6.3. Implications and future research
An interest in the influence of social-emotional capabilities on a
range of personal, social and academic outcomes has led to a range of EI
and Resiliency intervention strategies being developed and im-
plemented in schools. The results from the current study could be ef-
fectively utilised to inform academic intervention strategies.
80
Personality and Individual Differences 145 (2019) 75–81
Importantly, developing EI skills and resiliency could be incorporated
into individual or group intervention programs, given the current
findings and those of previous research that evidence advantages of
having advanced skills in these areas. For example, no one factor solely
influences performance in scholastic environments, and the complex
interaction between internal and external factors needs to be con-
sidered. As academic achievement has been associated with a range of
short and long-term life outcomes (Finn et al., 2008; Hunter & Schmidt,
1996; Lizzio et al., 2002), the need for developing efficacious academic
intervention strategies that incorporate a range of relevant internal and
external factors is important.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Anglican Church Grammar School,
Brisbane, Australia.
References
Armstrong, A., Galligan, R., & Critchley, C. R. (2011). Emotional intelligence and psy-
chological resilience to negative life events. Personality and Individual Differences,
51(3), 331–336.
Ayyash-Abdo, H., Sanchez-Ruiz, M. J., & Barbari, M. L. (2016). Resiliency predicts aca-
demic performance of Lebanese adolescents over demographic variables and hope.
Learning and Individual Differences, 48, 9–16.
Benjamin, L. T., Cavell, T. A., & Shallenberger, W. R. (1984). Staying with initial answers
on objective tests: Is it a myth? Teaching of Psychology, 11, 133–141.
Billings, C. E. W., Downey, L. A., Lomas, J. E., Lloyd, J., & Stough, C. (2014). Emotional
intelligence and scholastic achievement in pre- adolescent children. Personality and
Individual Differences, 65, 14–18.
Boekaerts, M. (1993). Being concerned with well-being and with learning. Educational
Psychologist, 28(2), 149–167.
Campbell-Sills, L., Cohan, S. L., & Stein, M. B. (2006). Relationship of resilience to per-
sonality, coping, and psychiatric symptoms in young adults. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 44(4), 585–599.
Ciarrochi, J., Chan, A. Y. C., & Bajgar, J. (2001). Measuring emotional intelligence in
adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(7), 1105–1119.
Ciarrochi, J. V., & Deane, F. P. (2001). Emotional competence and willingness to seek
help from professional and nonprofessional sources. British Journal of Guidance and
Counselling, 29(2), 232–246.
Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The
Connor‐Davidson Resilience Scale (CD‐RISC). Depression & Anxiety, 18, 76–82.
https://doi.org/10.1002/da.10113.
Connor, B., & Slear, S. (2009). Emotional intelligence and anxiety; emotional intelligence
and resiliency. International Journal of Learning, 16(1), 249–260.
Downey, L., Johnston, P., Hansen, K., Birney, J., & Stough, C. (2010). Investigating the
mediating effects of emotional intelligence and coping on problem behaviours in
adolescents. Australian Journal of Psychology, 62(1), 20–29.
Downey, L., Mountstephen, J., Lloyd, J., Hansen, K., & Stough, C. (2008). Emotional
intelligence and scholastic achievement in Australian adolescents. Australian Journal
of Psychology, 60(1), 10–17.
Downey, L. A., Lomas, J., Billings, C., Hansen, K., & Stough, C. (2014). Scholastic success.
Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 29(1), 40–53.
Egeland, B., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1993). Resilience as process. Development and
Psychopathology, 5(4), 517–528.
Finn, J. D., Fish, R. M., & Scott, L. A. (2008). Educational sequelae of high school mis-
behavior. The Journal of Educational Research, 101, 259–274.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology,
2(3), 300–319.
Greenberg, M. T., & Snell, J. L. (1997). Brain development and emotional development:
The role of teaching in organising the frontal lobe. In P. Salovey, & D. J. Sluyter
(Eds.). Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications. New
York: Basic Books.
Gumora, G., & Arsenio, W. F. (2002). Emotionally, emotion regulation, and school per-
formance in middle school children. Journal of School Psychology, 40(5), 395–413.
Hartley, M. (2011). Examining the relationships between resilience, mental health, and
academic persistence in undergraduate college students. Journal of American College
Health, 59(7), 596–604.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Intelligence and job performance: Economic and
social implications. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 447–472.
Izard, C. E. (1989). The structure and functions of emotions: Implications for cognition,
motivation, and personality. In I. S. Cohen (Ed.). The G. Stanley Hall lecture series (pp.
39–73). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kotzé, M., & Kleynhans, R. (2013). Psychological well-being and resilience as predictors
of first-year students' academic performance. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 23(1),
51–59.
Krupic, D., & Corr, P. (2014). Individual differences in emotional elicitation in university
examinations: A quasi-experimental study. Personality and Individual Differences, 71,
176–180.
Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students' perceptions of the
K. Droppert, et al.
learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice.
Studies in Higher Education, 27, 27–52.
Lomas, J., Stough, C., Hansen, K., & Downey, L. (2012). Brief report: Emotional in-
telligence, victimisation and bullying in adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 35(1),
207–211.
Luebbers, S., Downey, L. A., & Stough, C. (2007). The development of an adolescent
measure of EI. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(6), 999–1009.
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical
evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543–562.
Magnano, P., Craparo, G., & Paolillo, A. (2016). Resilience and emotional intelligence:
Which role in achievement motivation. International Journal of Psychological Research,
9(1), 9–20.
Masten, A. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American
Psychologist, 56, 227–238.
Mavroveli, S., Petrides, K. V., Rieffe, C., & Bakker, F. (2007). Trait emotional intelligence,
psychological well-being and peer-rated social competence in adolescence. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25(2), 263–275.
Mavroveli, S., & Sánchez-Ruiz, M. J. (2011). Trait emotional intelligence influences on
academic achievement and school behaviour. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 81(1), 112–134.
Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional in-
telligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 507.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional
Intelligence Test: MSCEIT. Item booklet. MHS.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings,
and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 197–215.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or
eclectic traits? The American Psychologist, 63(6), 503.
McDowell, T. L., & Serovich, J. M. (2007). The effect of perceived and actual social
support on the mental health of HIV-positive persons. AIDS Care - Psychological and
Socio-Medical Aspects of AIDS/HIV, 19(10), 1223–1229.
McGloin, J. M., & Widom, C. S. (2001). Resilience among abused and neglected children
grown up. Development and Psychopathology, 13(4), 1021–1038.
McMillan, J. H., & Reed, D. F. (1994). At-risk students and resiliency: Factors contributing
to academic success. The Clearing House, 67(3), 137.
Miller, D., & Daniel, B. (2007). Competent to cope, worthy of happiness?: How the duality
of self-esteem can inform a resilience-based classroom environment. School
Psychology International, 28(5), 605–622.
Owens, M., Stevenson, J., Hadwin, J. A., & Norgate, R. (2012). Anxiety and depression in
academic performance: An exploration of the mediating factors of worry and working
memory. School Psychology International, 33(4), 433–449..
Parker, J. D. A., Creque, R. E., Barnhart, D. L., Harris, J. I., Majeski, S. A., Wood, L. M., &
Hogan, M. J. (2004). Academic achievement in high school: Does emotional in-
telligence matter? Personality and Individual Differences, 37(7), 1321–1330.
Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2009). Achievement goals and achievement
emotions: Testing a model of their joint relations with academic performance. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 115–135.
81
Personality and Individual Differences 145 (2019) 75–81
Peters, C., Kranzler, J. H., & Rossen, E. (2009). Validity of the Mayer—Salovey— Caruso
Emotional Intelligence Test: Youth Version—Research Edition. Canadian Journal of
School Psychology, 24(1), 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573508329822.
Petrides, K., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric in-
vestigation with reference to establish trait taxonomies. European Journal of
Personality, 15, 425–488.
Petrides, K. V., Frederickson, N., & Furnham, A. (2004). The role of trait emotional in-
telligence in academic performance and deviant behavior at school. Personality and
Individual Differences, 36(2), 277–293.
Phan, H. P. (2010). Empirical model and analysis of mastery and performance-approach
goals: A developmental approach. Educational Psychology, 30(5), 547–564.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behaviour Research
Methods, 40, 879–891.
Pressman, S. D., & Cohen, S. (2005). Does positive affect influence health? Psychological
Bulletin, 131(6), 925–971.
Prince-Embury, S. (2006). Resiliency scales for adolescents: Profiles of personal strengths. San
Antonio, TX: Harcourt.
Prince-Embury, S., & Courville, T. (2008). Comparison of one-, two-, and three-factor
models of personal resiliency using the resiliency scales for children and adolescents.
Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 23(1), 11–25.
Prince-Embury, S., Saklofske, D., & Vesely, A. (2015). Measuring constructs. In G. Boyle,
D. Saklofske, & G. Matthews (Eds.). Measuring constructs. Book measures of personality
and social psychological construct. San Diego: Elsevier.
Pulley, M. L. (2001). Building resiliency how to thrive in times of change. Greensboro, N.C.:
Greensboro, N.C: Center for Creative Leadership.
Putwain, D. W., Nicholson, L. J., Connors, L., & Woods, K. (2013). Resilient children are
less test anxious and perform better in tests at the end of primary schooling. Learning
and Individual Differences, 28, 41–46.
Rouse, K. A. G. (2001). Resilient students' goals and motivation. Journal of Adolescence,
24(4), 461–472.
Salovey, P., Bedell, B. T., Detweiler, J. B., & Mayer, J. D. (1999). Coping intelligently:
Emotional intelligence and the coping process. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.). Coping: The
psychology of what works (pp. 141–164). New York: Oxford University Press.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 9(3), 185–211.
Salovey, P., Stroud, L., Woolery, A., & Epel, E. (2002). Perceived emotional intelligence,
stress reactivity, and symptom reports: Further explorations using the trait meta-
mood scale. Psychology & Health, 17(5), 611–627.
Shiner, R. L., Masten, A. S., & Roberts, J. M. (2003). Childhood personality foreshadows
adult personality and life outcomes two decades later. Journal of Personality, 71,
1145–1170.
Tabacknick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
Valiente, C., Swanson, J., & Eisenberg, N. (2012). Linking students' emotions and aca-
demic achievement: When and why emotions matter. Child Development Perspectives,
6(2), 129–135.