Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

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

Promoting individual resources: The challenge of trait emotional

intelligence
Annamaria Di Fabio a,⇑, Donald H. Saklofske b
a
Department of Education and Psychology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
b
Department of Psychology, University of Western University, London, ON, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study investigated the role of fluid intelligence, personality traits and different models of emotional
Available online xxxx intelligence in relation to core self-evaluation, resilience and life satisfaction. The Advanced Progressive
Matrices (APM), the Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ), the Mayer Salovey Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
Keywords: (MSCEIT), the Bar-On Emotional Intelligence Inventory (Bar-On EQ-i), the Trait Emotional Intelligence
Fluid intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue), the Core Self-Evaluation Scale (CSES), the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale
Personality traits (CD-RISC), and the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) were administered to 164 Italian high school stu-
Self-reported emotional intelligence
dents. These results highlighted the role of emotional intelligence and in particular of trait emotional
Ability-based emotional intelligence
Individual resources
intelligence in promoting individual resources and offering new research and intervention opportunities.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction located at the lower levels of personality (Petrides & Furnham,

The importance of both a proactive and preventive perspective
relative to psychological health and wellness has recently been de-
scribed by the American Psychological Association (APA) (Hage
et al., 2007). These proposed guidelines support the dual process
of actions necessary to decrease problems on the one hand, and
on the other, strengthening those factors that lead to positive
development and outcomes (Kenny & Hage, 2009). Within this
framework, emotional intelligence (EI) appears a promising vari-
able because it can be increased through specific training (Di Fabio
& Kenny, 2011; Vesely, Saklofske, & Nordstokke, 2014).
The current literature (Stough, Saklofske, & Parker, 2009) de-
scribes two principal models of emotional intelligence: ability EI
(Mayer & Salovey, 1997) and trait (self-reported) EI (Bar-On,
1997; Petrides & Furnham, 2000, 2001). Ability-based models are
related to abilities in processing emotional information and thus
have a strong cognitive component (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso,
2000) in contrast to trait EI which refers to individual self-percep-
tion of emotional intelligence (Bar-On, 1997; Petrides & Furnham,
2000, 2001). One self-report EI model describes trait emotional
intelligence as a constellation of emotion-related self-perceptions
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Dipartimento di Scienze della Formazione e
Psicologia (Sezione di Psicologia), Università degli Studi di Firenze, via di San Salvi,
12, Complesso di San Salvi, Padiglione 26, 50135 Firenze, Italy. Tel.: +39 (0)55
2055850; fax: +39 (0)55 6236047.
E-mail address: adifabio@psico.unifi.it (A. Di Fabio).
2000, 2001). Ability-based emotional intelligence and self-reported
emotional intelligence are not correlated (e.g., Saklofske, Austin, &
Minski, 2003); however different models of self-reported emo-
tional intelligence are correlated (Bracken & Mayer, 2003) indicat-
ing that they are describing similar but not identical constructs
(Freudenthaler, Neubauer, Gabler, Scherl, & Rindermann, 2008).
Thus it should be noted that, like intelligence tests, self-report trait
EI scales are not identical. While they are based on a common
theme of EI, the scales vary in the number of EI facets included
and the depth that they are measured (Ferrándiz, Hernández,
Bermejo, Ferrando, & Sáinz, 2012; Freudenthaler et al., 2008). Pet-
rides and Furnham (2000, 2001) published the first of their scales
after the Bar-On model (1997) to further expand the emotional
intelligence construct. An examination of the facets comprising
both the EQ-i and TEIQue suggest that while there is certainly com-
monality in the models such that the total scores do correlate mod-
erately, there is also considerable uniqueness in how EI is
operationally defined and thus assessed by these two scales. Thus,
it could expected that Trait EI scales may add additional or incre-
mental variance when two or more scales are employed, the oper-
ational definition and description of EI are not identical and the
correlation between then is moderate.
A growing research literature on EI, in particular trait EI intelli-
gence, is linked to many ‘positive psychology’ variables including
such individual resources as core self-evaluation (Ahmetoglu, Leut-
ner, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011; Kluemper, 2008), resilience

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.026
0191-8869/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. Promoting individual resources: The challenge of trait emotional intelligence. Personality
and Individual Differences (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.026
2 A. Di Fabio, D.H. Saklofske / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
(Armstrong, Galligan, & Critchley, 2011; Saklofske et al., 2013;
Schneider, Lyons, & Khazon, 2013), health (Austin, Saklofske, &
Egan, 2005) and life satisfaction (Extremera & Fernández-Berrocal,
2005; Gannon & Ranzijn, 2005). EI has also shown a relationship
with decision-making processes (Di Fabio & Blustein, 2010; Di Fa-
bio & Kenny, 2012a; Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2008b, 2009a; Di Fabio,
Palazzeschi, Asulin-Peretz, & Gati, 2013; Di Fabio, Palazzeschi, &
Bar-On, 2012), self-efficacy (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2008a), social
support (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2012b), and scholastic success (Di Fabio
& Palazzeschi, 2009b).
The present study focuses on the role of both ability and trait EI
models in relation to core self-evaluation, resilience, and life satis-
faction, in relation to enhancing the promotion of individual re-
sources in a preventive perspective.
The core self-evaluation construct is a fundamental part of self-
evaluated values, efficacy and abilities (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thore-
sen, 2003). It includes self-esteem, self-efficacy, internal locus of
control and absence of pessimism. Studies have further linked core
self-evaluation to emotional intelligence (Ahmetoglu et al., 2011;
Kluemper, 2008).
Resilience is the ability to deal with negative experiences (Grot-
berg, 1995), to cope and continue to withstand adversity in an
adaptive way (Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007) and to implement
adaptive strategies to deal with the discomfort and adversity (Tu-
gade & Fredrickson, 2004). Resilience appears to be correlated with
emotional intelligence (Armstrong et al., 2011; Saklofske et al.,
2013; Schneider et al., 2013).
Life satisfaction is a component of subjective well-being and is a
comprehensive cognitive judgment about a person’s life (Diener,
Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). It is the average of an individual’s
satisfaction considering key and meaningful life areas (Diener
et al., 1985). Also life satisfaction has been positively linked to
emotional intelligence (Extremera & Fernández-Berrocal, 2005;
Gannon & Ranzijn, 2005).
Although there is some research support for the role of self-re-
ported emotional intelligence in relation to core self-evaluation
(Ahmetoglu et al., 2011; Kluemper, 2008), resilience (Armstrong
et al., 2011) and life satisfaction (Extremera & Fernández-Berrocal,
2005; Gannon & Ranzijn, 2005), this study will simultaneously
analyse the role of ability-based emotional intelligence and of
trait/self-reported emotional intelligence.
1.1. Aims and hypotheses
The present study examined the role of fluid intelligence, per-
sonality traits and three models of emotional intelligence; abil-
ity-based emotional intelligence (Mayer & Salovey, 1997) and
trait emotional intelligence assessed with the Bar-On Emotional
Quotient Inventory (EQ-i, Bar-On, 1997) and the Trait Emotional
Intelligence Scale (TEIQue, Petrides & Furnham, 2000, 2001), in
predicting core self-evaluation, resilience, and life satisfaction
among Italian high school students. The hypotheses were:
(H1) Trait emotional intelligence assessed by the EQ-i will add
significant incremental variance beyond that accounted for by fluid
intelligence, personality traits and ability-based emotional intelli-
gence in predicting core self-evaluation, resilience and life satisfac-
tion.(H2) Trait emotional intelligence using the TEIQue (Petrides &
Furnham, 2004) will add significant incremental variance beyond
that accounted for by fluid intelligence, personality traits and abil-
ity-based emotional intelligence in relation to core self-evaluation,
resilience and life satisfaction.(H3) Each of the trait scales together
will add additional variance beyond the variance accounted for by
fluid intelligence, personality traits and ability-based emotional
intelligence in relation to core self-evaluation, resilience and life
satisfaction.
Please cite this article in press as: Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. Promoting individual resources: The challenge of trait emotional intelligence. Personality
and Individual Differences (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.026
2. Method
2.1. Participants
One hundred and sixty-four students in the fourth (penulti-
mate) year attending a Tuscan high school volunteered to partici-
pate in this study. There were 72 (43.90%) males and 92 (56.10%)
females ranging in age from 16 to 19 years (M = 17.46, SD = .78).
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM)
Fluid intelligence was evaluated with the Advanced Progressive
Matrices (APM; Raven, 1962) using the Italian version (Di Fabio &
Clarotti, 2007). The test has two series of items consisting respec-
tively of 12 (Series I) items and 36 (Series II) items from which the
participants choose the correct response from among eight possi-
ble alternatives. The Cronbach alpha coefficient was .91.
2.2.2. Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ)
Personality traits were assessed with the Big Five Questionnaire
(BFQ, Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Borgogni, 1993). The questionnaire
has 132 items answered with a-point Likert scale format from
1 = absolutely false to 5 = absolutely true. Cronbach’s alpha reliabil-
ity coefficients for the five factors were: .81 for Extraversion, .73
for Agreeableness, .81 for Conscientiousness, .90 for Emotional Sta-
bility, .75 for Openness.
2.2.3. Mayer Salovey Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT)
Ability-based emotional intelligence was measured with the
Mayer Salovey Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT, Mayer,
Salovey, & Caruso, 2002) Italian version (D’Amico & Curci, 2010).
The 141 items provide a total score and four branch scores: per-
ceiving emotions (PE), facilitating thought (FT), understanding
emotions (UE), managing emotions (ME). Split half reliabilities
were: .90 for PE, .77 for FT, .75 for UE, .72 for ME (D’Amico & Curci,
2010).
2.2.4. Bar-On Emotional Intelligence Inventory (Bar-On EQ-i)
Self-report trait emotional intelligence, was assessed with the
Bar-On Emotional Intelligence Inventory (EQ-i, Bar-On, 1997) in
the Italian version (Franco & Tappatà, 2009) . The questionnaire
has 133 items with response options on a 5-point Likert scale for-
mat ranging from 1 = not at all true of me to 5 = absolutely true for
me. The questionnaire provides a total score and scores for five
principal dimensions. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were .91 for
Intrapersonal, .84 for Interpersonal, .81 for Adaptability, .87 for
Stress Management, .83 for General Mood, and .95 for the Emo-
tional Quotient (QE) (Franco & Tappatà, 2009).
2.2.5. Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue)
The second self-report measure of trait emotional intelligence
used here was the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEI-
Que, Petrides & Furnham, 2004) employing the Italian version (Di
Fabio, 2013).The questionnaire has 153 items with response op-
tions in a 7-point Likert scale format ranging from 1 = completely
disagree to 7 = completely agree. The questionnaire provides a total
score, and scores for four principal dimensions: Well-being, Self-
Control, Emotionality, Sociability. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients
for the Italian version were: .91 for Well-being, .84 for Self-control,
.87 for Emotionality, .86 for Sociability, .93 for the total score.
2.2.6. Core Self-Evaluation Scale (CSES)
The Core Self-Evaluation Scale (CSES, Judge et al., 2003), again
using the Italian version (Di Fabio & Busoni, 2009b), has 12 items
 A. Di Fabio, D.H. Saklofske / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 3

rated on a 5-point Likert scale format ranging from 1 = strongly dis- Table 2
agree to 5 = strongly agree. The reliability coefficient was: a = .84. Hierarchical regression. The contributions of fluid intelligence (first step), personality
traits (second step), ability-based emotional intelligence (third step), self-reported
emotional intelligence according to Bar-On model (fourth step) and trait emotional
2.2.7. Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) Intelligence (fifth step) to core self-evaluation (CSES), resilience (CD-RISC), life
The Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC, Campbell-Sills satisfaction (SWLS) (N = 164).
& Stein, 2007) Italian version (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2012) was CSES CD-RISC SWLS
employed to assess resiliency. The CD-RISC has 10 items with re- b b b
sponse options presented in a 5-point Likert scale format ranging Step 1
from 0 = not true at all to 4 = true nearly all the time. The Cronbach’s APM – fluid intelligence .06 .15 .23
alpha coefficient was .89. Step 2
Extraversion .28 36* .19
Agreeableness .29* .08 .05
2.2.8. Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) Conscientiousness 30* .16 .36*
The Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS, Diener et al., 1985) using Emotional Stability .38** .29* .17
the Italian version (Di Fabio & Busoni, 2009a) was completed by all Openness .03 .18 .01
participants.. The 5 items are answered on a 7-point Likert scale Step 3
Ability-based emotional intelligence .12 .16 .03
that ranges from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The Step 4
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .88. Self-report emotional intelligence .26 *
.35 *
.41**
according to Bar-On model
2.3. Procedure and Data Analysis Step 5
Trait emotional intelligence .57** .49** .52**

The Questionnaires were administered to the 164 students col- R2 step 1 .00 .02 .05
DR2 step 2 .47** .46** .33**
lectively in their classrooms by trained research assistants and in DR2 step 3 .01 .02 .00
accordance with Italian Privacy Law. The order of administration DR2 step 4 .05* .04* .09*
was counterbalanced to control the effects of presentation. DR2 step 5 .08** .06** .13**
Data were examined using descriptive statistics, Pearson corre- R2 total .61*** .60*** .60***
lations and hierarchical regression analyses. The order of entry in *
p < .05.
the regression analyses was the APM, BFQ, MSCEIT, EQ-i and TEI- **
p < .01.
***
Que. The rationale for the order of presentation was that both p < .001.
intelligence and personality have been most traditionally used to
predict life outcome factors and the MSCEIT is more related to cog- further variance but self-reported emotional intelligence using
nitive intelligence that either the EQ-i or TEIQue which are more the EQ-i added at the fourth step accounted for 5% greater variance
related to personality. and trait emotional intelligence using the TEIQue added at the fifth
step accounted for and additional 8% of the variance.
3. Results For resilience, the pattern of results was similar to that for core
self-evaluation. Fluid intelligence did not account of any of the var-
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations and correlations iance; personality traits accounted for the 46% of the variance; the
between APM, BFQ, MSCEIT, Bar-On EQ-i, TEIQue, CSES, CD-RISC, MSCEIT added at the third step did not account for further vari-
SWLS. ance; and the EQ-i accounted for a further 4% and the TEIQue
Table 2 shows the results for the three different hierarchical added last accounted for a further 6% of the variance.
regression models, alternatively with core self-evaluation, resil- For life satisfaction, again fluid intelligence didn’t account any
ience, and life satisfaction as the criterion measures and with fluid of the variance; personality traits accounted for 33% of the vari-
intelligence at the first step, personality traits at the second step, ance; ability-based emotional intelligence did not add to the vari-
ability-based emotional intelligence at the third step, self-reported ance accounted for variance; but the EQ-i accounted for 9% of the
trait emotional intelligence at the fourth and fifth step. variance; and finally trait emotional intelligence accounted for a
For core self-evaluation, fluid intelligence did not account for further 13% of the variance.
any variance. However personality traits added at the second step Given that the above regression analyses could mask problems
accounted for the 47% of the variance. Ability-based emotional of multicollinearity between self-reported emotional intelligence
intelligence using the MSCEIT added at the third step did not add using both the EQ-i and TEIQue, another series of regressions

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations and correlations relative to APM, BFQ, MSCEIT, Bar-On EQ-i, TEIQue, CSES, CD-RISC, SWLS.

M DS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. APM 22.37 5.00
2. Extraversion 76.81 11.54 .03
3. Agreeableness 79.36 8.99 .10 .15
4. Conscientiousness 81.17 11.42 .10 .35** .28**
5. Emotional Stability 64.27 15.37 .15 .14 .33** .14
6. Openness 83.51 9.64 .12 .42** .37** .37** .17
7. MSCEIT 41.09 7.05 .19 .01 .12 .01 .17 .09
8. Bar-On EQ-i 325.56 33.89 .08 .49** .23** .34** .54** .31** .22**
9. TEIQue 542.10 74.16 .04 .37** .18* .28** .38** .42** .07 .74**
10 CSES 37.68 6.39 .03 .39** .01 .25** .50** .18* .02 .44** .67**
11. CD-RISC 24.80 6.17 .05 .37** .18* .28** .38** .42** .07 .39** .67** .61**
12. SWLS 23.13 6.58 .01 .16* .22** .17* .26** .07 .03 .43** .57** .58** .43**

Note: N = 164.
*
p < .05
**
p < .01.

Please cite this article in press as: Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. Promoting individual resources: The challenge of trait emotional intelligence. Personality
and Individual Differences (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.026
4 A. Di Fabio, D.H. Saklofske / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Table 3 The results are in line with those obtained in the first series of
Hierarchical regression. The contributions of fluid intelligence (First step), Personality regressions in which both the EQ-i and TEIQue were entered in
traits (Second step), Ability-based Emotional Intelligence (Third step) and Self-report
Emotional Intelligence according to Bar-On model (Fourth step) to core self-
the same regression model. In relation to the three criterion mea-
evaluation (CSES), resilience (CD-RISC), life satisfaction (SWLS) (N = 164). sures, the EQ-i contributed additional variance beyond the vari-
ance accounted for by ability-based emotional intelligence but
CSES CD-RISC SWLS
b b b
the TEIQue added greater variance.

Step 1
APM – fluid intelligence .06 .15 .23
Step 2 4. Discussion and conclusions
Extraversion .28 36* .19
Agreeableness .29* .08 .05 The present study examined whether different models of self-
Conscientiousness 30* .16 .36*
reported trait emotional intelligence contributed both beyond
Emotional Stability .38** .29* .17
Openness .03 .18 .01 and differently to fluid intelligence, personality traits and ability-
Step 3 based emotional intelligence in the prediction of core self-evalua-
Ability-based emotional intelligence .12 .16 .03 tion, resilience, and life satisfaction.
Step 4 The results of the present study confirmed the first and the sec-
Self-report emotional intelligence .26* .35* .41**
ond hypotheses as both self-reported emotional intelligence scales
according to Bar-On model
added significant variance beyond that accounted for by other
R2 step 1 .00 .02 .05
well-established measures of intelligence and personality in the
DR2 step 2 .47*** .46** .33**
DR2 step 3 .01 .02 .00 prediction of the criterion variables. Neither fluid intelligence or
DR2 step 4 .05* .04* .09* ability EI factored into any of the prediction equations whereas
R2 total .53*** .54** .47** personality traits contributed the greatest variance as expected, gi-
*
p < .05. ven the criterion variables selected for this study. The results of the
**
p < .01. present study confirmed previous findings of the relationships be-
***
p < .001. tween self-reported emotional intelligence and core self-evalua-
tion (Ahmetoglu et al., 2011; Kluemper, 2008), resilience
(Armstrong et al., 2011), life satisfaction (Extremera & Fernán-
Table 4 dez-Berrocal, 2005; Gannon & Ranzijn, 2005; Saklofske et al.,
Hierarchical regression. The contributions of fluid intelligence (First step), personality 2003).
traits (Second step), ability-based emotional intelligence (Third step) and trait
emotional Intelligence (Fourth step) to core self-evaluation (CSES), resilience (CD-
The combination of the Big 5 personality factors followed by
RISC), life satisfaction (SWLS) (N = 164). self-reported emotional intelligence (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2012a)
were clearly the most powerful predictors of self evaluation, resil-
CSES CD-RISC SWLS
b b b
ience, and life satisfaction. Persons with higher trait emotional
intelligence have a more positive self-concept in terms of self-es-
Step 1
APM – fluid intelligence .06 .15 .23
teem, self-efficacy, internal locus of control and absence of pessi-
Step 2 mism, that are all ‘psychological strengths’ for individuals
Extraversion .28 36 *
.19 (Ahmetoglu et al., 2011; Kluemper, 2008). Furthermore people
Agreeableness .29* .08 .05 with higher self-reported emotional intelligence perceive them-
Conscientiousness 30* .16 .36*
selves as more able to deal with negative experiences (Grotberg,
Emotional Stability .38** .29* .17
Openness .03 .18 .01 1995) and to cope adaptively with adversity (Campbell-Sills &
Step 3 Stein, 2007). Higher self-reported emotional intelligence is also re-
Ability-based emotional intelligence .12 .16 .03 lated to having more resources for promoting a greater sense of life
Step 4 satisfaction (Extremera & Fernández-Berrocal, 2005; Gannon &
Trait emotional intelligence .57** .56** .59***
Ranzijn, 2005).
R2 step 1 .00 .02 .05 The result of the present study also confirmed that the various
DR2 step 2 .47*** .46** .33**
scales and underlying descriptions of EI also contribute differently
DR2 step 3 .01 .02 .00
DR2 step 4 .08** .08** .17** to the prediction of the criterion variables examined in this study.
R2 total .56*** .58*** .55*** While ability EI did not contribute to the prediction of any of the
* three criterion variables, the TEIQue added a greater percentage
p < .05.
**
p < .01. of incremental variance in comparison to the EQ-i. These results
***
p < .001. underscore the diversity in the models and measures describing
trait EI and that both the scales used in this study, although among
was conducted in which each of the trait emotional intelligence the more comprehensive EI descriptions, are not completely over-
measures were entered separately at the fourth step in two regres- lapping (Ferrándiz et al., 2012; Freudenthaler et al., 2008). Trait
sion analyses. For the three criterion measures, hierarchical regres- emotional intelligence is a complex construct and an examination
sions were conducted with fluid intelligence entered at the first of the facets comprising both the EQ-i and TEIQue suggest that
step, personality traits at the second step, ability-based emotional while there is certainly commonality in the models such that the
intelligence at the third step, and at the fourth step, alternatively total scores do correlate moderately, there is also considerable
the EQ-i (see Table 3) and TEIQue see (Table 4). uniqueness in how EI is operationally defined.
For core self-evaluation, at the fourth step, the EQ-i accounted In summary, the results of the present study continue to show
for an additional 5%, and trait emotional intelligence accounted support for the role of trait emotional intelligence in predicting
for an additional 8% of the variance. For resilience, the EQ-i ac- such important psychological factors as core self-evaluation, resil-
counted for an additional 4%, and the TEIQue an additional 8% of ience and life satisfaction. However this study was limited to using
the variance. Finally for life satisfaction, the EQ-i accounted for only Italian high school students who cannot be considered repre-
an additional 9%, and the TEIQue entered last accounted for an sentative of Italian students or youth and adults in general. If the
additional 17% of the variance. results of the present study are confirmed in future research, this

Please cite this article in press as: Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. Promoting individual resources: The challenge of trait emotional intelligence. Personality
and Individual Differences (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.026
 A. Di Fabio, D.H. Saklofske / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
would add further support to the development of prevention and
intervention programs given that EI appears to be amenable to
training (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2011; Saklofske et al., 2014). In a pre-
ventive perspective (e.g., Hage et al., 2007; Kenny & Hage, 2009), it
is possible to design interventions at different levels for promoting
individual resources and positive development including emo-
tional education (primary prevention); screening and interven-
tions for early specific training particularly in trait emotional
intelligence (secondary prevention); and counseling interventions
(tertiary prevention) (Di Fabio & Bernaud, 2008; Di Fabio & Kenny,
2011). The data presented here add to the literature that has sup-
ported the important role of trait emotional intelligence in a
description of individual resources related to the development of
protective factors and positive outcomes.
References
Ahmetoglu, G., Leutner, F., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). EQ-nomics:
Understanding the relationship between individual differences in trait
emotional intelligence and entrepreneurship. Personality and Individual
Differences, 51, 1028–1033.
Armstrong, A. R., Galligan, R. F., & Critchley, C. R. (2011). Emotional intelligence and
psychological resilience to negative life events. Personality and Individual
Differences, 51, 331–336.
Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., & Egan, V. (2005). Personality, well-being and health
correlates of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences,
38, 547–558.
Bar-On, R. (1997). The emotional intelligence inventory (EQ-i): Technical manual.
Toronto, ON, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Bracken, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant and incremental
validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 29(1), 147–158.
Campbell-Sills, L., & Stein, M. B. (2007). Psychometric analysis and refinement of the
Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC): Validation of a 10-item measure of
resilience. Journal of traumatic stress, 20(6), 1019–1028.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Borgogni, L. (1993). BFQ: Big five questionnaire (2nd
ed.). Firenze, Italy: Giunti O.S.
D’Amico, A., & Curci, A. (2010). Mayer–Salovey–Caruso emotional intelligence test
(MSCEIT). Firenze, Italy: Giunti O.S.
Di Fabio, A. (2013). Trait emotional intelligence questionnaire (TEIQue): Un
contributo alla validazione della versione italiana. Counseling. Giornale Italiano
di Ricerca e Applicazioni, 6, 351–362.
Di Fabio, A., & Bernaud, J. (2008). The help-seeking in career counseling. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 72(1), 60–66.
Di Fabio, A., & Blustein, D. L. (2010). Emotional intelligence and decisional conflict
styles: Some empirical evidence among Italian high school students. Journal of
Career Assessment, 18(1), 71–81.
Di Fabio, A., & Busoni, L. (2009a). Proprietà psicometriche della versione italiana
della satisfaction with life scale (SWLS) con studenti universitari. Counseling
Giornale Italiano di Ricerca e Applicazioni, 2, 201–211.
Di Fabio, A., & Busoni, L. (2009b). Proprietà psicometriche della versione italiana
della core self-evaluation scale (CSES) con studenti di scuola secondaria.
Counseling Giornale Italiano di Ricerca e Applicazioni, 2, 73–83.
Di Fabio, A., & Clarotti, S. (2007). Matrici progressive di Raven. Adattamento Italiano.
Firenze, Italy: Giunti O.S.
Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. E. (2011). Promoting emotional intelligence and career
decision making among Italian high school students. Journal of Career
Assessment, 19, 21–34.
Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. E. (2012a). The contribution of emotional intelligence to
decisional styles among Italian high school students. Journal of Career
Assessment, 20, 404–414.
Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. E. (2012b). Emotional intelligence and perceived social
support among Italian high school students. Journal of Career Development, 39,
461–475.
Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2008a). Emotional intelligence and self-efficacy in a
sample of Italian high school teacher. Social Behavior and Personality, 36(3),
315–326.
Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2008b). Indécision vocationnelle et intelligence
émotionnelle: Quelques données empiriques sur un échantillon d’apprentis
italiens. Pratiques Psychologiques, 14(4), 213–222.
Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2009a). Emotional intelligence, personality traits and
career decision difficulties. International Journal for Educational and Vocational
Guidance, 9(2), 135–146.
Please cite this article in press as: Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. Promoting individual resources: The challenge of trait emotional intelligence. Personality
and Individual Differences (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.026
5
Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2009b). An in-depht look at scholastic success: Fluid
intelligence, personality traits or emotional intelligence? Personality and
Individual Differences, 46, 581–585.
Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2012). Connor–Davidson resilience scale: Proprietà
psicometriche della versione italiana. Counseling. Giornale Italiano di Ricerca e
Applicazioni, 5, 101–110.
Di Fabio, A., Palazzeschi, L., Asulin-Peretz, L., & Gati, I. (2013). Career indecision
versus indecisiveness: Associations with personality traits and emotional
intelligence. Journal of Career Assessment, 21, 42–56.
Di Fabio, A., Palazzeschi, L., & Bar-On, R. (2012). The role of personality traits, core
self-evaluation and emotional intelligence in career decision-making
difficulties. Journal of Employment Counseling, 49, 118–129.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life
scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.
Extremera, N., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2005). Perceived emotional intelligence
and life satisfaction: Predictive and incremental validity using the trait meta-
mood scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 937–948.
Ferrándiz, C., Hernández, D., Bermejo, R., Ferrando, M., & Sáinz, M. (2012). Social and
emotional intelligence in childhood and adolescence: Spanish validation of a
measurement instrument. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 17(2), 309–338.
Franco, M., & Tappatà, L. (2009). EQ-i™ emotional quotient inventory. Validazione
italiana. Firenze, Italy: Giunti O. S.
Freudenthaler, H. H., Neubauer, A. C., Gabler, P., Scherl, W. G., & Rindermann, H.
(2008). Testing and validating the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire
(TEIQue) in German-speaking sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 45,
673–678.
Gannon, N., & Ranzijn, R. (2005). Does emotional intelligence predict unique
variance in life satisfaction beyond IQ and personality? Personality and
Individual Differences, 38, 1353–1364.
Grotberg, E. (1995). A guide to promoting resilience in children: Strengthening the
human spirit, Early Childhood Development: Practice and Reflections, 8.
Netherlands: Bernard van Leer Foundation.
Hage, S. M., Romano, J. L., Conyne, R. K., Kenny, M., Matthews, C., Schwartz, J. P., et al.
(2007). Best practice guidelines on prevention practice, research, training, and
social advocacy for psychologists. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 493–566.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluations
scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 303–331.
Kenny, M. E., & Hage, S. M. (2009). The next frontier: Prevention as an instrument of
social justice. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 30, 1–10.
Kluemper, D. H. (2008). Trait emotional intelligence: The impact of core-self
evaluations and social desirability. Personality and Individual Differences, 44,
1402–1412.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer–Salovey–Caruso emotional
intelligence test (MSCEIT): User’s manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health
Systems.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Selecting a measure of emotional
intelligence: 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.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D.
Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational
implications (pp. 3–31). New York: Basic Books.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional
intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 313–320.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric
investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of
Personality, 15, 425–428.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2004). Technical manual of the trait emotional
intelligence questionnaire (TEIQue). London: University of London, Institute of
Education.
Raven, J. C. (1962). Advanced progressive matrices. Firenze, Italy: Organizzazioni
Speciali.
Saklofske, D. H., Austin, E. J., & Minski, P. (2003). Factor structure and validity of a
trait emotional intelligence measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 34,
707–721.
Saklofske, D. H., Nordstokke, D., Prince-Embury, S., Crumpler, T., Nugent, S., Vesely,
A., et al. (2013). Assessing personal resiliency in young adults: The resiliency
scale for children and adolescents. In S. Prince-Embury & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.),
Resiliency in children, youth and adults: Translating research into practice (pp.
189–198.). New York: Springer.
Schneider, T. R., Lyons, J. B., & Khazon, S. (2013). Emotional intelligence and
resilience. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 909–914.
Stough, C., Saklofske, D., & Parker, J. (2009). Assessing emotional intelligence: Theory,
research, and applications. New York: Springer.
Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotion
to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 86, 320–333.
Vesely, A. K., Saklofske, D. H., & Nordstokke, D. (2014). EI training and pre-service
teacher wellbeing. Personality and Individual Differences, in press, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.052..