Last year I announced here that I was involved in this research. Thanks for everyone who participated!
Here is the resulting paper…
Emotional Intelligence Mediates the Relationship between Mindfulness and Positive and Negative Affect
Adrian Webber
University of New England
Abstract
Mindfulness and emotional intelligence have been associated in the literature with increased positive adjustment, improved ability to manage negative emotion, and improved life satisfaction. A wide body of research has explored the connections between the participation of individuals in mindfulness practice and positive outcomes, such as enhanced feelings of self-efficacy and sense of control. The present study aimed to add to the steadily growing interest and examined whether emotional intelligence mediates the relationship between mindfulness and positive and negative affect. Three hundred and forty two participants completed an online questionnaire incorporating measures of constructs expected to be related to mindfulness, emotional intelligence, and positive and negative affect scales. Higher levels of mindfulness were found to be associated with increased emotional intelligence and increased positive affect, and with decreased negative affect. In addition, higher levels of emotional intelligence were found to be associated with higher positive affect and lower negative affect. Emotional intelligence mediated between mindfulness and positive affect, and between mindfulness and negative affect. The results of the present study suggest that there is great promise for wider clinical and research applications of these constructs.
Keywords: Mindfulness, emotional intelligence, affect, emotion
In recent years, the focus on mindfulness has steadily grown, and has been rigorously tested across population groups in order to provide evidence for mindfulness-based treatment programs, most notably Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (Kabat-Zinn, 1990), which has become a well established evidence based treatment program. More broadly, mindfulness has been integrated into therapeutic orientations including the acceptance based treatments such as Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (Linehan, 1993) and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999). A common theme across the acceptance based approaches include ‘detangling’ from negative thoughts, increasing awareness of the self via a process of emotional exposure, and becoming more open to one’s surrounding environment in the present moment (Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999). In line with the aims of this study, a wide body of research has explored the connections between the participation of individuals in mindfulness practice and positive outcomes, such as enhanced feelings of self-efficacy and sense of control (Astin, 1997), stress reduction, improved health, attentional control, situational awareness, and positive adjustment (Heydenfeldt, Herkenhoff & Coe, 2011). Non-attachment, decreased rumination, and improved ability to manage negative emotion are additional benefits, according to Coffey and Hartman (2008). Additionally, the well documented relationship between mindfulness and trait emotional intelligence was further supported by Schutte and Malouff (2011), who found that more positive affect, more life satisfaction, and less negative affect were all significantly associated with increased mindfulness. Additionally, emotional intelligence partially mediated the relationship between mindfulness and positive affect, and the relationship between mindfulness and negative affect was fully mediated by emotional intelligence (Schutte & Malouff).
The focus of mindfulness in the literature as it relates to this study has been directed across a range of life domains, including life satisfaction (Gannon, & Ranzijn, 2005; Austin, Saklofske, & Egan, 2005; Schutte & Malouff, 2011), positive and negative affect (Schutte & Malouff, 2011; Coffey & Hartman, 2008; Landa, Lopez-Zafra, de Antonana, & Pulido, 2006; Mikolajczak, Nelis, Hansenne, & Quiodbach, 2008), and mental health (Conklin, Bradley & Westen, 2006; Gardner and Qualter, 2009; Peter et al. 2013; Summerfeldt, Kloosterman, Antony, Mccabe, & Parker, 2011). More broadly, links have been made between the participation in mindfulness and positive outcomes, such as enhanced feelings of self-efficacy and sense of control (Astin, 1997), wellbeing enhancement (Ryan & Deci, 2000), stress reduction, improved health, attentional control, situational awareness, and positive adjustment (Heydenfeldt, Herkenhoff & Coe, 2011). In a mindful eating study conducted by LeBel & Dube (2001) where participants were required to focus their attention wholly on the sensory experience of eating chocolate, those that did so reported increased feelings of pleasure and positive affect than those given a distraction task while eating.
When an individual is in a less mindful state, emotions may occur in a defensive process that leaves the person in a position of making behavioural decisions prior to clearly considering the consequences, according to Brown and Ryan (2013), a position that has been described as mindlessness which occurs in the absence of mindfulness. In a study involving 193 undergraduate students, Hurley and Kwon (2012) employed the PANAS (Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988) to explore positive and negative affect, and the Beck Depression Inventory-II (Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996) to test the hypotheses that teaching savouring the moment exercises would result in a decrease of negative affect. As predicted, the results indicated a significant reduction in negative affect following the application of the savouring the moment exercises, as well as a positive association with satisfaction with life, subjective happiness, and positive affect, as compared to those in the control group.
The literature traditionally comprises of two distinct construct models of emotional intelligence; an ability model and a mixed traits model (Bar-On, 1997; Joseph & Newman, 2010). Ability models should naturally overlap with cognitive ability, according to its proponents, of which Mayer, Roberts and Barsade (2008), put forward as “the ability to carry out accurate reasoning about emotions and the ability to use emotions and emotional knowledge to enhance thought” (p. 577), providing rationale for focusing upon this model in the current research.
Common factors across most models of emotional intelligence as described in the literature are the perception, understanding and management of emotions in the self and others in the individual’s social interactions (Schutte & Malouff, in press), and has been described as involving a perceptual clarity in relation to an individuals’ emotional states (Brown & Ryan, 2003). It is generally considered that there are three main mediating aspects of emotional intelligence; ability, emotional self-efficacy, and characteristic (trait) emotional intelligence (Schutte & Malouff). Emotional Intelligence, according to Mayer, Salovey and Caruso (2008) can be defined as the capacity to ‘carry out sophisticated information processing about emotions and emotion-relevant stimuli and to use this information as a guide to thinking and behaviour’ (p503). This capacity varies from individual to individual, and it is this variability that is evident in the range of approaches found in the literature from a distinct group of cognitive abilities somewhat analogous to standard intelligence, to a broad range of positive traits that include self-esteem, happiness and optimism (Mayer, Salovey & Caruso). The adaptive purpose of emotional intelligence is thus the result of an ability in the individual to use sophisticated information processing about their own and others’ emotions to guide their own thinking and behaviour, and to discount the view that emotional intelligence is akin to standard intelligence can serve only to undermine emotional intelligence as a superior human capacity (Mayor, Salovey & Caruso).
The current study focused upon spanning the dimensions of trait emotional intelligence and whether it operates as a potential mediating effect between the antecedent of mindfulness and increased positive and reduced negative affect, and seeks to expand upon limited existing research into the mediating effects of emotional intelligence (Schutte & Malouff, 2011).
A recently developed dimensional model of emotional intelligence (Schutte et al., in press) that aims to measure the antecedents, aspects (ability, self-efficacy, and trait), and consequences of emotional intelligence was employed in the current study. A potential association between mindfulness and positive and negative affect was explored, as well as the potential mediating effects, if any, of emotional intelligence ability, emotional intelligence self-efficacy, trait emotional intelligence (aspects of emotional intelligence) between mindfulness and positive and negative affect.
While remaining faithful to the ability model of emotional intelligence, MacCann and Roberts (2008) developed the Situational Test of Emotional Understanding (STEU) and the Situational Test of Emotional Management (STEM) as alternatives to the Mayor-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayor, Salovey & Caruso, 2008), partly in response to the limitations implicit on relying upon the MSCEIT as the single standard measure due to concerns that test effects were to remain enmeshed with construct effects unless an alternative measure was to be introduced. Short forms of both the STEU and the STEM are employed in the current study to measure ability emotional intelligence.
Also employed in the current study is the emotional self-efficacy scale (Kirk, Schutte & Hine, 2008) based on the emotional intelligence ability model (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayor, Salovey & Caruso (2004). The scale combines empirical research in the fields of emotional intelligence and self-efficacy and provides a measure of emotional self-efficacy. While emotional self-efficacy significantly overlaps with trait emotional intelligence (Kirk, Schutte & Hine), it is distinct in that it accounts for variance in affect that is not evident in analysis of trait and ability measures.
The third construct of emotional intelligence explored in the current study is the aspect of characteristic, or trait, emotional intelligence. Trait emotional intelligence has been used to describe individual, typical characteristics involving the perception, processing regulation and utilisation of emotional information, according to Mikolajczak, Nelis, Hansenne, and Quoidbach (2008), who found that an increased awareness of joyful experiences, and conversely a decreased experiencing of fear, anger, sadness, envy, shame and disgust were associated with higher trait emotional intelligence. Individuals possessing higher trait emotional intelligence were more likely to ‘look for the silver lining’ (Mikolajczak, Nelis, Hansenne, & Quoidbach, p. 1364) and were less likely to blame themselves or allow their problems to grow out of proportion. Positive affect was found to be a consequence of trait emotional intelligence, particularly in relation to the propensity to experience joy, in a study of 203 university students conducted by Mikolajczak, Nelis, Hansenne, and Quoidbach (2008). In contrast, negative affects including fear, anger, sadness, envy, shame and disgust were found to have a negative association. Adaptive coping, rather than maladaptive coping styles, were found to be associated with higher trait emotional intelligence. Being able to see situations in a more positive light when faced with difficulties, as opposed to catastrophising and rumination were found to be further reflections of the relationship between trait emotional intelligence and positive and negative affect.
The current study sets out to replicate previous findings, including some of those reviewed here, and seeks to enhance the current literature regarding the connections between mindfulness and subjective wellbeing, mindfulness and emotional intelligence, and emotional intelligence and subjective wellbeing. Subjective wellbeing is generally considered to be underpinned by increased positive affect and lower negative affect, and the current study continues to employ these affective states as indicators of subjective wellbeing. The following hypotheses were tested; in regards to direct correlations, higher mindfulness scores would correlate positively with higher positive affect, and that lower mindfulness scores would correlate with higher negative affect. Further, that higher mindfulness scores would correlate with higher emotional intelligence. In regards to the relationship between emotional intelligence and life satisfaction, higher emotional intelligence would correlate with higher positive affect and lower negative affect. To explore for mediating effects the following two hypotheses were tested; that emotional intelligence would mediate between mindfulness and positive affect, and that emotional intelligence would mediate between mindfulness and negative affect.
Method
Participants
The study consisted of three hundred and forty two participants of which 92 (26.9%) were male and 250 (73.1%) were female. When taken in to consideration that one participant chose not to report their age, the age range across the study was 18-81 years (M = 39.83, SD = 14.97). The average number of years of education was 14.99. The participants came from a diverse background including professionals (e.g. school teachers, accountants, childcare workers, employees of the human services industry) as well as both undergraduate and postgraduate university students, and family friends.
Procedure
Twenty university students enrolled in the Postgraduate Diploma of Psychology at an Australian university were required to recruit participants over the age of 18 for the study. Prior to conducting data collection, the research proposal was approved by the university’s human research and ethics committee (see Appendix A). All participants anonymously completed online scales, all of which were previously developed and validated. The students pooled their data in order to achieve the final number of participants, and reported upon those scales that related to each student’s participation requirements. Versions of the scales of which results are found in this report were the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory, short form versions of the Situational Test of Emotional Understanding and the Situational Test on Emotional Management, the Emotional Self-efficacy Scale, the Assessing Emotions Scale, and the Positive and Negative Affect Scales. Participation in the surveys was anonymous, and most participants were sourced via social networking websites, personal and professional email contacts and attaching the link to the survey in workplace newsletters, were where the majority of students sourced their participants.
Measures
The Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory was constructed by Walach, Bucheld, Buttenmuller, Kleinknecht and Schmidt (2005) as a response to the need to adequately measure mindfulness either as a trait, a moderating variable or even as a variable of clinical interventions. Both a full, 30-item and a 14-item (FMI-14) short form version were developed. Based closely upon developmental input of specialists in the field of Buddhist psychology, the 30-item FMI is considered to require that the participants being tested possess some prior knowledge and/or have experience in the practice of Eastern forms of mediation. Hence, the latter is recommended for use in the general, non-mindfulness practicing population, according to Koels, Sauer, and Walach (2009), and has therefore been employed in the current study. The ability of the individual to focus on the present in a non-judgmental way is the focus of the inventory, and participants are required to indicate their mindfulness experiences in a spontaneous approach. Items are scored across a four point scale ranging from ‘rarely’ to ‘almost always’, and include such statements as ‘I am open to the experience of the present moment’, and ‘I watch my feelings without getting lost in them’. The psychometric qualities of the short form version are sound (alpha = .86), according to Walach, Bucheld, Buttenmuller, Kleinknecht and Schmidt. In the present study the internal validity was found to be strong, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .87.
In order to assess for emotional intelligence ability, MacCann and Roberts (2008) developed the Situational Test of Emotional Understanding (STEU) and the Situational Test of Emotional Management (STEM) as alternatives in response to the limitations implicit on relying upon the MSCEIT as the single standard measure. The purpose of the original 42-item STEU is to determine the capacity of individuals to understand emotions, such as being able to typically predict the changes in the emotions of actors in a set of scenarios they will experience in response to specific events. Items are categorised across the three contexts of context-reduced, personal life context, and workplace context, each of which is constructed of 14 items exploring fourteen emotions. An example of a personal life context item is ‘an irritating neighbour of Eve’s moves to another state. Eve is most likely to feel? (a) regret, (b), hope, (c) relief, (d) sadness, (e) joy’, where ‘relief’ is the correct answer. The workplace-context equivalent used was ‘a supervisor who is unpleasant to work for leaves Alfonso’s work. Alfonso is most likely to feel? (a) joy, (b) hope, (c) regret, (d) relief, (e) sadness?’ The means of all item scores are calculated in order to achieve the total scores. The 25 item Short-Form of the Situational Test of Emotional Intelligence employed in the current study was developed by MacCann & Roberts (2008) in order to address request for a briefer instrument to measure emotional intelligence. Following analysis of comparison samples, a Cronbach’s alpha was reported to be .81 in the first study and .68 in the second.
The original 44-item STEM (MacCann & Roberts, 2008) was designed to assess emotion management, and consists of two alternative response formats of multiple choice and rate-the extent. A short form measure consisting of twenty of the original items (MacCann & Roberts) is employed in the current study. In line with the STEU short form, reliability for the STEM short form was compared across two samples, with a resulting Cronbach’s alpha of .75 in the first sample and .83 for the second. The capacity of individuals to regulate their emotions, effectively curb negative emotion and foster positive emotions are the key assessment goals of the STEM (MacCann & Roberts, 2008).
According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy is the belief in ones’ capabilities to attain a desired goal via the organisation, and execution of the actions required, and in turn should be measured as an individuals’ perceptions of what they can do in certain situations and not in terms of what they did do; i.e. participants should be directed to consider the present belief about task achievement rather than what they did in the past (Kirk, Schutte & Hine, 2008). The Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale developed by Kirk, Schutte and Hine focuses on confidence in using emotional abilities, and consists of 32 items representing the four branches of the four-factor model of emotional intelligence developed by Salovey and Mayor (1997) and Salovey, Mayor and Caruso (2004). Respondents to the scale are required, along a five point scale from ‘not at all confident’ to ‘very confident’ to indicate their ability to carry out functions as described by each of the items (Kirk, Schutte & Hine). The scale was found in the current study to have strong internal validity, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .95.
The Assessing Emotions Scale (Schutte, Malouff, & Bhullar, 2009) is a self-report scale that focuses on assessing trait emotional intelligence and how this may present in daily life, and has sound internal consistency. The construct of emotional intelligence consists of appraisal of emotion in the self and others, an understanding of emotions in self and others, regulation of emotion in the self and others, and utilisation of emotion in solving problems (Schutte, Malouff & Bhullar , 2009; Kirk, Schutte & Hine, 2008). Based on Salovey & Mayer’s (1990) ability model of emotional intelligence, the Assessing Emotions Scale (Shutte, Malouff, & Bhullar) is a 33-item self-report inventory that aims to assess characteristic, or trait, emotional intelligence across a five point scale where participants are required to determine whether a statement is generally true for them, ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ through to ‘strongly agree’ (e.g. I know when to speak about my personal problems to others). Total scores range from 33 to 165, with more characteristic emotional intelligence indicated at the higher end. The Assessing Emotions Scale has been found to have sound psychometric properties, with internal consistency across a range of samples by Cronbach’s alpha, ranging from .87 to .90 (Schutte et al., 1998), with evidence of concurrent, predictive and discriminate validity, and a two-week test-retest reliability of .78 (Schutte et al., 1998). Scores on the inventory have been found, as may be expected, to be associated with outcomes related to emotional intelligence. Scores on the Assessing Emotions Scale have been connected with greater optimism, greater impulse control, and reduced depressed affect (Schutte et al., 1998). In the present sample, Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .87.
Typical outcomes, or consequences, of emotional intelligence have included better satisfaction with life, and increased positive affect and reduced negative affect (Austin, Saklofske, & Egan, 2005). Positive affect can be defined by the degree to which an individual feels enthusiastic, active and alert (Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988). States of higher energy, concentration, and pleasurable engagement rest in the domain of higher positive affect, whereas lower positive affect can be associated with sadness and lethargy, as explained by Watson, Clark & Tellegen. Conversely, negative affect and unpleasurable engagement as experienced as a range of aversive mood states that include anger, contempt, disgust, guilt, fear, and nervousness, and at the lower end, of calmness and serenity. The Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988) consists of 20 items, ten designed to measure positive affect and ten to measure negative affect. The Positive Affect Scales consist of the ten descriptive terms of attentive, interested, alert, excited, enthusiastic, inspired, proud, determined, strong, and active. The remaining ten items designed to measure negative affect, consist of the terms distressed, upset, hostile, irritable, scared, afraid, ashamed, guilty, nervous, and jittery. The inter-correlations and internal consistency of the PANAS was found to be strong in the present sample, with the positive affect scales attracting a Cronbach’s alpha of .88. The negative affect scales were found to have a Cronbach’s alpha of .84. A high level of stability was also found over a two-month period, thus exhibiting trait-like stability over the longer term (Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988). See Appendix B for complete copies of all scales used in the study).
Results
Spearman’s rho analysis found that greater mindfulness was significantly associated with increased positive affect and decreased negative affect. Additionally, higher mindfulness scores were associated with higher emotional intelligence, and higher emotional intelligence associated with higher positive affect and lower negative affect (see Table 1).
Table 1
Results of Spearman’s rho correlational analyses
Note. *p = .001
Note. **p < .001.
During assumption testing the assumption of normality was found to be violated. To address this, Spearman’s correlation was employed in the testing of all hypotheses. For the first hypothesis, Spearman’s rho indicated the presence of a strong positive correlation between mindfulness and positive affect, rs = .44, p < .001, two tailed, N = 297. For the second hypothesis, there was a moderate negative correlation between mindfulness and negative affect, rs = .27, p < .001, two-tailed, N = 298. In regards to the relationship between emotional intelligence and life satisfaction, Spearman’s rho indicated that there was a strong
correlation between emotional intelligence and positive affect, rs = .41, p < .001, N = 317. Additionally, a significant, weak correlation was found between emotional intelligence and negative affect, rs = -.18, p < .01, N = 318. In regards to the relationship between mindfulness and emotional intelligence, Spearman’s rho indicated a strong correlation, rs = .49, p < .001.
Mediation in statistical analysis refers to when the relationship that occurs between any one predictor variable and a proposed outcome variable is explained by their relationship to a third variable (Field, 2013). The test for mediation recommended by Hayes (2013) using the process method, examined whether emotional intelligence was a significant mediator between mindfulness and positive affect, and between mindfulness and negative affect. The regression coefficient for each direct relationship is provided in figure1 and figure 2 below. According to the confidence interval method of determining mediation significance recommended by Hayes, emotional intelligence was found to be a significant mediator between mindfulness and positive affect, b = 0.100, BCa CI [0.056, 0.157]. This represents a medium effect, k2 = .119, 95% BCa CI [.066, .183]. Additionally, there was a significant indirect effect of mindfulness on negative affect through emotional intelligence, b = – 0.055, BCa CI [- 0.100, - 0.018]. This represents a relatively small effect, k2 = .077, 95% BCa CI [.025, .136].
For this study, two mediation models were tested, each including mindfulness as the predictor and emotional intelligence as the mediator. For the two tests, the dependant variable was, firstly, positive affect, and secondly, negative affect. Emotional intelligence partly mediated the relationship between increased mindfulness and more positive affect. Emotional intelligence partly mediated the relationship between increased mindfulness and less negative affect.
Discussion
The current study found that increased levels of mindfulness were associated with higher emotional intelligence, higher positive affect and lower negative affect. These results are consistent with existing research that has focused on the relationship between mindfulness and emotional intelligence (Schutte & Malouff, 2011; Astin, 1997; Brown & Ryan, 2003; Heydenfeldt, Herkenhoff, & Coe, 2011) and subjective wellbeing (Heydenfeldt, Herkenhoff & Coe, 2011; Coffey and Hartman, 2008; Schutte & Malouff, 2011; Hurley & Kwon, 2012). The study also found that there were associations between higher levels of emotional intelligence and increased positive affect and decreased levels of negative affect, consistent with previous research into the association between emotional intelligence and positive and negative affect (Brown & Ryan, 2003), often reported as important factors in determining life satisfaction (Heydenfeldt, Herkenhoff & Coe, 2011; Coffey and Hartman, 2008; Schutte & Malouff, 2011; Hurley & Kwon, 2012).
While several hypotheses were tested, a central hypothesis of which was the principal aim of the study, was to establish whether emotional intelligence mediates the relationship between mindfulness and subjective wellbeing. This hypothesis was confirmed: emotional intelligence was found to significantly mediate between mindfulness and increased positive
affect, and reduced negative affect, often considered definitive underlying factors of subjective wellbeing.
The sample population used in the study composed of a broader career background and age range than previous studies that have tended to focus upon undergraduate university students (Schutte & Malouff, 2011; Coffey & Hartman, 2008; Austin, Saklofske & Egan, 2005), in part addressing prior methodological limitations.
The findings in this study in turn provide evidence of the already solid body of research confirming the links between mindfulness and emotional intelligence, mindfulness and subjective wellbeing, and emotional intelligence and subjective wellbeing, adding to the already known benefits of mindfulness across a broad range of life domains. In addition, a tentative inference that can be made from the present study is that training in mindfulness may indeed increase emotional intelligence, challenging the fixed nature of the ability models of emotional intelligence. Future research incorporating mindfulness training in longitudinal designs may bring light to this suggestion. Still, caution must be taken, even in the face of the current findings, not to assume that the correlational effects indicate a causal relationship. Additionally, as positive and negative affect have been considered as end-points in both previous studies and the current study, upon which inferences are made about the links between these experiences and positive life outcomes, a potential focus for future research may be in determining precisely how these experiences actually filter into better life satisfaction across the general population. In conclusion, the results of the present study suggest that there is great promise for wider clinical and research applications of these constructs.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Astin (1997). Stress reduction through mindfulness meditation: Effects on psychological symptomatology, sense of control, and spiritual experiences. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 66, 97-106.
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.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company
Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Technical Manual. Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health Systems.
Beck, A.T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Brown, K.W., & Ryan, R.M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822–848.
Coffey, K., & Hartman, M. (2008). Mechanisms of action in the inverse relationship between mindfulness and psychological distress. Complementary Health Practice Review, 13, 79-91.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). London: SAGE
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.
Gardner, K., & Qualter, P. (2009). Emotional intelligence and Borderline personality disorder. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 94–98.
Hayes, S., Strosahl, K., & Wilson, K. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. New York: Guilford.
Heydenfeldt, J. A., Herkenhoff, L., & Coe, M. (2011). Cultivating mind fitness through mindfulness training: Applied neuroscience. Performance Improvement, 50, 21-27.
Hurley, D. B., & Kwon, P. (2012). Results of a study to increase savoring the moment: Differential impact on positive and negative outcomes. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 579-588.
Joseph, D., & Newman, D. (2010). Emotional Intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of applied psychology, 95, 54-78.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain and illness. New York: Delacorte.
Kirk, B., Schutte, N., & Hine, D. (2008). Development and preliminary validation of an emotional self-efficacy scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 432–436.
Koels, N., Sauer, S., & Walach, H. (2009). Facets of mindfulness – Results of an online study investigating the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 224-230.
LeBel, J. L., & Dube´, L. (2001, June). The impact of sensory knowledge and attentional focus on pleasure and on behavioral responses to hedonic stimuli. Paper presented at the 13th annual American Psychological Society Convention, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Landa, J., Lopez-Zafra, E., de Antonana, R., & Pulido, M. (2006). Perceived emotional intelligence and life satisfaction among university teachers. Psichothema, 18, 152-157.
Linehan, M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. New York: Guilford.
MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2008). New paradigms for assessing emotional intelligence: Theory and data. Emotion, 8, 540-551.
Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 507-536.
Mayer, J.D., & Salovey, P (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds), Emotional development and emotional intelligence (pp. 3-31). New York: Basic Books.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 197-215.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits? The American Psychologist, 63, 503-517.
Mikolajczak, M., Nelis, D., Hansenne, M., & Quoidbach, J. (2008). If you can regulate sadness, you can probably regulate shame: Associations between trait emotional intelligence, emotion regulation and coping efficiency across discrete emotions. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1356-1368.
Peter, M., Schuurmans, H., Vingerhoets, J., Smeets, G., Verkoeijen, P., & Arntz, A. (2013). Borderline Personality disorder and emotional intelligence. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease. 201, 99-104.
Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2008). Asymptomatic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior research methods, 40, 879-891.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. (1990). Emotional Intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and personality, 9, 185-211.
Schutte, N., Malouff, J., Hall, L., Haggerty, D., Cooper, J., Golden, C., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177.
Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., & Bhullar, N. (2009). The assessing emotions scale. In C. Stough, D. Saklofske, & J. Parker (Eds), Assessing emotional intelligence: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 119-134). New York, NY: Springer.
Schutte, N.S., & Malouff, J.M. (2011). Emotional intelligence mediates the relationship between mindfulness and subjective wellbeing. Personality and individual differences, 50, 1116-1119.
Schutte, N.S., & Malouff, J.M (in press). Adaptive emotional functioning: A comprehensive model of emotional intelligence. In C. Mohiyeddini (Ed), Psychology of Emotions. Hauppauge, New York: Novia Science Publishers.
Summerfeldt, L. J., Kloosterman, P. H., Antony, M. M., Mccabe, R. E., & Parker, J. D. (2011). Emotional intelligence in social phobia and other anxiety disorders. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 33, 69-78.
Walach, H., Buchheld, N., Buttenmüller, V., Kleinknecht, N., & Schmidt, S. (2006). Measuring mindfulness—the Freiburg mindfulness inventory (FMI). Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1543-1555.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
