Trait emotional intelligence and the cognitive appraisal of stressful events: An exploratory study

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.12.012Get rights and content

Abstract

The construct of trait emotional intelligence [trait EI] refers to the individual differences in the perception, processing, regulation, and utilization of emotional information. Several studies have found that trait EI was a significant moderator of both subjective and neuroendocrine responses to stress. The present study explores whether trait EI also influences the anticipation of stressful events and, more specifically, how these events are appraised. Study 1 examines self-efficacy, and Study 2 considers both self-efficacy and challenge/threat appraisals. The results indicate that high trait EI individuals (1) exhibit greater self-efficacy to cope and (2) appraise the situation as a challenge rather than a threat. Several directions for future research are outlined.

Introduction

Although emotions are common to all human beings, individuals markedly differ in the extent to which they attend to, process, and utilize affect-laden information of an intra-personal (e.g., managing one’s own emotions) or interpersonal (e.g., managing others’ emotions) nature (Petrides & Furnham, 2003). The construct of “emotional intelligence” (EI) provides a scientific framework to this idea. EI research has drastically expanded over the last years and has split off into two distinct perspectives. On the one hand, ability EI (e.g., Mayer & Salovey, 1997), which conceives EI as an ability that must be assessed through maximum performance tests. On the other hand, trait EI (e.g., Petrides & Furnham, 2003), which conceives EI as a constellation of emotion-related dispositions that must be assessed through self-report questionnaires. Tests of ability capture maximal performance, whereas tests of personality capture typical performance (Petrides & Furnham, 2001). The present study focuses on the second perspective.

Research to date has found trait EI scores to be strong predictors of the impact of stressful events, both in real life (e.g., Ciarrochi et al., 2002, Mikolajczak et al., 2006, Mikolajczak et al., 2007, Slaski and Cartwright, 2002) and experimental settings (Mikolajczak et al., 2007, Mikolajczak et al., submitted for publication). This moderating effect is not only manifest at the subjective level but also at the neuroendocrine one (Mikolajczak, Roy, Luminet, Fillée, & de Timary, 2007). Nevertheless, research efforts have been mainly descriptive, with the result that the processes underlying trait EI’s effects have been largely overlooked. This study aims to contribute to the specification of the cognitive processes that support such increased resistance to stress.

The present study focuses on the cognitive appraisals of stressful events. Indeed, one particularly powerful stress regulation strategy involves “changing the way we think in order to change the way we feel” (Ochsner & Gross, 2004, p. 229). The way we appraise or interpret a potentially stressful situation shapes the way we respond to it (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Two parallel literatures have addressed the issue of the appraisal of stressful events. The first one concerns self-efficacy, and the second one concerns challenge/threat appraisals. Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in his/her ability to organize and execute the required course of action to achieve a desired result (Bandura, 1997). Four decades of research have shown that higher levels of self-efficacy lead to both lower subjective stress and increased cellular immunity (e.g., Wiedenfield et al., 1990). The second literature deals with challenge and threat appraisals (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Threat is thought to occur when an individual appraises a given situation as exceeding his or her resources (and thus containing a potential loss), whereas challenge occurs when the situation is appraised as taxing resources but containing also a potential gain (Tomaka, Blascovich, Kibler, & Ernst, 1997). The distinction between challenge and threat is not only conceptual as they have different psychological and physiological correlates: challenge appraisals lead to less subjective stress and less hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis activation than threat appraisals (e.g., Gaab et al., 2005, Tomaka et al., 1993).

In summary, these literatures (1) attest the importance of the appraisal of the situation and of one’s resources in the shaping of the subsequent emotional response and (2) clearly posit self-efficacy and challenge/threat appraisals as potential candidates to explain the moderating effect of trait EI on stress reactivity.

Mikolajczak and colleagues (2006) have provided preliminary evidence that trait EI might influence the cognitive appraisal of a stressor (i.e., exams session). That is, they found higher trait EI scores associated with less threatening appraisals and higher self-efficacy to pass academic exams. However, it was unclear from their study whether trait EI directly influenced appraisals or whether this relationship was the result of confounding variables. For instance, it is conceivable that, for whatever reasons, higher trait EI individuals studied more during the year or received more social support, thereby decreasing the threat of the exams and increasing one’s self-efficacy to succeed. It was thus necessary to explore whether trait EI would be associated with self-efficacy and/or challenge/threat appraisals in standardized controlled conditions (i.e., laboratory settings). Accordingly, Study 1 examines self-efficacy and Study 2 considers both self-efficacy and challenge/threat appraisals. We hypothesize that high trait EI individuals will exhibit greater self-efficacy and appraise the situation as a challenge rather than a threat.

Section snippets

Participants and procedure

Sixty undergraduate students (88% females; mean age: 19.6, SD: 1.81) participated in this study in exchange for course credit. The participants were randomly assigned to the neutral (N = 28) or stressful (N = 32) condition. The mean trait EI level did not vary significantly across conditions. The alleged task (i.e., no participant actually performed it) consisted in a psychological case study (analysis of the psychological profile of a movie character) to be performed under either neutral or

Participants and procedure

Thirty-two students (75% females; mean age: 18.7, SD: 0.85) participated in this study in exchange for course credit. The participants were randomly assigned to the neutral (N = 17) or stressful (N = 15) condition, and were told that they would have to perform an arithmetical task (no participants actually performed the task). In the stressful condition, instructions emphasized the importance of performing the task “as quickly and accurately as possible” and highlighted that “responses would be

Acknowledgments

Preparation of this paper was facilitated by a post-doctoral Grant from the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research (FNRS) and a FSR travel grant from the Université catholique de Louvain accorded to the first author, and Grants 1.5.123.04 and 1.5.175.06 from the Belgian National Fund for scientific Research accorded to the second author.

References (27)

  • N. Sevdalis et al.

    Trait emotional intelligence and decision-related emotions

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (2007)
  • A. Bandura

    Self-efficacy

    (1997)
  • A. Bandura

    Guide for creating self-efficacy scales

  • Cited by (169)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text