Academic resilience

Resilience refers to the capacity of an individual, community, or system to withstand,

recover, and adapt in the face of adversity, trauma, or stress. It involves the ability to: Absorb and
cope with difficult circumstances. Rebound and return to a state of equilibrium. Adapt and learn
from experiences. Grow and develop despite challenges. Resilience is not the absence of
difficulties, but the ability to navigate and overcome them. It involves a combination of skills,
attitudes, and abilities, such as: Positive thinking and optimism. Emotional regulation and
management. Problem-solving and adaptability. Social support and connections. Self-awareness
and self-care. Learning from failure and setbacks. Coping with stress and anxiety. Finding
meaning and purpose. Resilience can be developed and strengthened through experiences,
training, and practice. It is essential for navigating life’s challenges, achieving personal growth,
and building strong relationships. The ability to bounce back from adversity, frustration, and
misfortune “Ledesma, 2014, p.1“the developable capacity to rebound or bounce back from
adversity, conflict, and failure or even positive events, progress, and increased responsibility”
Luthans, 2002a, p. 702“a stable trajectory of healthy functioning after a highly adverse event”
Bonanno, 2004; Bonanno, Westphal, & Mancini, 2011“the capacity of a dynamic system to adapt
successfully”

Masten, 2014; Southwick, Bonanno, Masten, Panter-Brick, & Yehuda, 2014 When a
panel discussion asked researchers to debate the nature of resilience, all agreed that resilience is
complex. As a construct, it can have a different meaning between people, companies, cultures,
and society. They also agreed that people could be more resilient at one point in their lives and
less during another, and that they may be more resilient in some aspects of their lives than others
(Southwick et al., 2014) .in case you’re interested, the table below from Greene, Galambos, and
Lee (2004) shows even more ways resilience has been described.

The American Psychological Association (2014) defines resilience as “the process of

adapting we are in the face of adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats or even significant sources of
stress.” While this definition is useful, it does not reflect the complex nature of resilience
(Southwick, et al., 2014). Resilience may change over time as a function of development and
one’s interaction with the environment (Kim-Cohen et al., 2012). For example, a high degree of
maternal care and protection may be resilience-enhancing during infancy, but may interfere with
individuation during adolescence or young adulthood. In addition, response to stress and trauma
takes place in the context of interactions with other human beings, available resources, specific
cultures and religions, organizations, communities and societies (Sherried, et al., 2010). Each of
these contexts may be more or less resilient in their own right and therefore, more or less capable
of supporting the individual (Walsh, 2006). The more people learn about resilience, the more
potential there is for integrating salient concepts of resilience into relevant fields of medicine,
social adjustment and science. The now widely-used concept of resilience, derived from both the
social and health sciences (tugade et al., 2004) has often been criticized (lamers, et al., 2012) due
to ambiguities in both definitions and Terminology, heterogeneity in the level and type (personal
meaning’) of risk or stress experienced for someone to be termed resilient “and in the
competence required by individuals in order to be qualified as such. Together these criticisms
have cast doubt on the utility of resilience as a theoretical construct.

Resilience theory

Resilience theory is the conceptual framework for understanding how some individuals
can bounce back in life after experiencing an adverse situation in a strength-focused
approach.The deficit-focused approach in developmental research was replaced by a strength-
focused approach when resilience researchers started looking into the positive variables that
contributed to good outcomes in at-risk children. The Resilience Theory was a paradigm shift
that explains what and how these primitive factors work to help children overcome the negative
impacts of risk exposure Some researchers have investigated resilience (or resiliency) as an
individual trait or an epiphenomenon of adaptive temperament (Walsh,2006). In some studies,
(Fredrickson, et al., 2003) habitual effective coping as a durable personal resource is considered
to constitute a facet of trait resilience, which functions as a reserve that can be drawn on as a
buffer against a wide range of future adversities.

Positive emotions are seen as active ingredients within trait resilience, which reduce the
risk of depression and promote thriving (Fredrickson et al., 2003). In other studies, emotional
resilience has been used as a concept to imply the flexible use of emotional resources for
adapting to adversity or as the process linking resources (adaptive capacities) to outcomes.
Researchers using this concept view resilience as a process or force that drives a person to grow
through adversity and disruption. The resilience may vary according to age, (Rothermund et al,
2002), with modifications occurring throughout the lifespan at both individual and cultural
levels. Overall, these definitions are ambiguous and difficult to operationalize for measurement
purposes.

Seligman’s 3Ps Model of Resilience

The best-known positive psychology framework for resilience is Seligman’s 3Ps model.
These three Ps – personalization, pervasiveness, and permanence – refer to three emotional
reactions that we tend to have to adversity. By addressing these three, often automatic, responses,
we can build resilience and grow, developing our adaptability and learning to cope better with

Seligman’s (1990) 3Ps are

Personalization – a cognitive distortion that’s best described as the internalization of

problems or failure. When we hold ourselves accountable for bad things that happen, we put a lot
of unnecessary blame on ourselves and make it harder to bounce back. Pervasiveness – assuming
negative situations spread across different areas of our life; for example, losing a contest and
assuming that all is doom and gloom in general. By acknowledging that bad feelings don’t
impact every life domain, we can move forward toward a better life. Permanence – believing that
bad experiences or events last forever, rather than being transient or one-off events. Permanence
prevents us from putting effort into improving our situation, often making us feel overwhelmed
and as though we can’t recover. These three perspectives help us understand how our thoughts,
mindset, and beliefs affect our experiences. By recognizing their role in our ability to adapt
positively, we can start becoming more resilient and learn to bounce back from life’s challenges.

Psychological Factors in Resilience

Contribute to resilience. These qualities also interact with biological factors to enhance
adaptation in the face and aftermath of traumatic crents, and confer resilience (Charncy, 2004)

Individual Characteristics and Behaviors

Characteristics stich as high level of intellectual functioning, efficient self-regulation,

active coping styles, optimistic, and secure attachment were observed in youth who had fand
adverse situations and settings, yet did not succumb to the adverse impact of extreme stress
(Richardson, 2002) Optimism Posi tree affect has been found to be protective in the face of stress
in numerous studies. In addition to decreasing autonomic arousal upon stress exposure (Folkman
and Moskowitz, 2000), positive affect is also associated with quicker recovery times and better
overall physical health (Schrier et al., 1989, Warner et al., 2012). Similarly, optimism, herein
defined as the expectation for good outcome, has been consistently associated with the
employment of active coping strategies, subjective well-being, physical health, and larger and
more fulfilling social networks and connections (Stewart and Yuen, 2011, Galatzer Levy and
Bonanno, 2012; Gonzales-Herero and Garcia-Martin, 2012; Colby and Shifren, 2013). Unlike
pessimists, optimists reported less hopelessness and helplessness and are less likely to use
avoidance as a coping mechanism when under dares (e.g., among breast cancer patients) (Carver
et al., 2010).

Cognitive Reappraisal

Strongly associated with resilience is the ability to monitor and assess negative thoughts and
replace them with more positive uses, of cognitive reappraisal (McRae et al., 2012). Known as
cognitive flexibility or cognitive reframing, this emotion regulation strategy involves changing
the way views events or situations. Consciously reassessing adverse or traumatic events to find
the silver lining is associated with resilience (Gross, 2002), Viktor Frankl, the author of Men’s
Search for Meaning and the founder of logotherapy, attributed his psychological endurance and
survival of concentration camps mainly to “meaning finding,” the belief that the striving to find a
meaning in one’s life in the most important, powerful motivating and driving force to continue
living (Frankl, 2006). In a study examining cognitive protective factors in the face of strew,
women with high cognitive reappraisal ability cohabited less depressive symptoms than their
cohorts with low cognitive reappraisal ability (Troy et al., 2010). Attachment style may also play
a role in reappraisal ability and resilience.

In a study of t32 men and women, researchers found that secure attachment was
associated with higher cognitive reappraisal and resilience and that these two factors partially
mediated individuals’ well-being (Karreman and Vingerhoets, 2012). Securely attached
participants were more likely to dream situations as less a notional and leas Lind to suppress
emotional expression. As expected, preoccupied attachment was inversely related to well-being
due to less utilization of Cognitive reappraisal. A possible gender difference in emotional
regulation/cognitive reappraisal is of note. Neural data suggest that Significant research has been
done on the psychosocial Factors of stress tolerance and resilience building (Duryra et al. 1990
Chemiob et al., 1997; Pietrzak et al. 2010), Cognitive processes personality traits, and active
coping mechanisms, among others. Employ positive emotions to help them regulate their
emotions to a larger extent than men, it is possible that in men, use of emotion regulation is more
automatic (McRae et al., 2008).

Utilizing a randomized control design, an intervention study in Israeli citizens under

ongoing war stress found that gender. Might act as a moderator in the development of resilience
and reduction of helplessness (Farchi and Gidron, 2010). While the psychological in occultation
intervention was expected to incur coping self-efficacy and to improve mental resilience more 30
than ventilation, the intervention’s efficacy differed by sex psychological inoculation, possibly
augmenting self-efficacy and hope, appeared to decrease helplines in men, while the ventilation
intervention appeared to decrease helplessness in women. The ventilation intervention may have
had calming effects and lent a sense of connectedness that was helpful to women. Active coping,
using behavioral or psychological techniques utilized to reduce or overcome stress, has been
linked to resilience in individual’s (Feder et al., 2000) and is coming to be recognized for its
Intervention potential (Taylor and Stanton, 2007). The literature Distinguishes between active
coping, involving behavioral and/or psychological strategies to change qualities of the stressor,
the stressor its, or how the stressor is perceived, and avoidant coping, involving activities and
mental processes that are employed in lieu of dealing directly with the stressful trigger (Chesney
et al., 2000) Emotional or behavioral withdrawal, alcohol use. And other substance uses basic
crumples of avoidant coping behavior (Lavier et al., 2005). While individuals when primarily
exercise avoidant coping are at risk of psychological distrust and subsequent negative responses,
active coping has consistently been associated with adaptability and psychological resilience
(Holahan and Moos, 1987; Mons and Schaefer, 1993).

Among chronic pain patients, passive coping strategies were correlated with
psychological distress and depression, while active coping strategies were Inverary correlated
with psychological distress (Snow-Turck et al., 1996). In a study examining two groups of laradi
veterans and former POWs, Solexmon and colleagues found that high sensation seeking and low
sensation seeking POWs significantly differed in their subjective assessments of suffering, use of
coping methods, and emotional states while in prison (Solomon et al., 1955). Low sensation
seeking former POW reported more symptoms of PTSD and other psychiatric symptoms. Further
distinguishing coping styles, tank-oriented coping was positively correlated with resilience while
emotion-oriented coping was related to low resilience among undergraduate students (Campbell-
Sills et al., 2006), Drawing a relationship with personality, resilience among these young adults
was Inverary related with neuroticism but positively so with extraversion and conscientiousness.

Even among sport performers, individuals with high hardiness or resilience tend to
employ active coping strategies during stressful (competitive) situations compared with low
hardiness groups (Hanton et al., 2013). Social support Both the presence of social support and
the behavior of seeking social support have been associated with psychological hardiness and
flourishing in the face of major adverse life events (Osbay et al., 2008). The inverse also appears
to be true; poorer social support has been linked to psychiatric disorders including PTSD (Tsai et
al., 2012). Research with cancer patients Sound depression to be correlated with poor social
support and higher external locus of control (Grassi et al. 1997). Depressed patients consistently
reputed weak or a lack of support from family. Friends, and other social contacts (such as
neighbors, colleagues, and less intimate relatives). Sach patients were also often chat esterized by
early maladjustment to their diagnose of cancer (Grasi et al. 1897).

Humor and Resilience

Humor has been identified as a form of active coping contributing to resilience not way
for its capability for alleviating tension und but also for its ability to attract social support
(Vaillant. 19921. Humor is widely used by veterans, repatriates, terminally ill patients, and youth
alike and has been shown to be protective against stars (Southwick and Chancy, 2012). Cameron
and colleagues employed an ecological research method to examine the type and role of humor
in resilient adolescents daily social functioning and found that humor served various
socioemotional functions and was a buffer in Ziska situations (Cameron et al. 2010). In a study
of 215 sojourn students from Mainland China studying at a Hong Kong university, humor was
seen as a to students’ ability to adjust to the new culture and thrive in the face of acculturative
stress (Cheung and Yue. 2012). In fact, humor increased with an increase in frequency of
acculturative hassles

Physical exercise and Resilience

Physical exercise has positive effects on psychological well-being well as mood, clinical
depression, and self-esteem. Physical exercise has been shown to affect neurobiological factors
of resilience in animal (Fleshner et al, 2011) and human studies (Wittert et al., 1996, Winter et al,
2007). In a 10-year study of 424 deprived adult patients. Harzis and colleagues combined the
relationship between physical activity, exercise coping and depression at 1-year. 4-year, and 10-
year follow-up points (Harris et al., 2006). While no significant relationship between physical
activity and subsequent depression was found, physical activity was negatively correlated with
concurrent depression. In other words, physical activity may be beneficial in those currently
depressed or facing major stressors. Moreover, in a rat model of depression, voluntary running
had antidepressant like effects in behavioral tests and in parallel enhanced NPY expression and
neurogenesis

(ljnenebelk et al., 2005, 2006),

Prosocial behavior Altruism has also been associated with resilience in both adults and children
(Southwick et al. 21003, Leontopoulou, 2010), Staub and Vallhardt examined case studies and
qualitative studies where individuals’ victimization and suffering bred prosocial behavior,
ultimately promoting recovery from trauma, post-traumatic growth, and resilience, and suggested
that post-traumatic inter venations may promote “altruism born of suffering” (Staub and
Vollhardt, 2008, A study y of 132 elementary school children in Showed that higher altruism
resulted in lower classroom competitive Neu and was associated with higher empathy and
resilience (Leontopoulou, 2010). Studies also show the birth of prosocial behavior and action
from trauma enduring during times of civil conflict and unrest as a byproduct of personal healing
(Hernández Wolfe, 2010).

Trait mindfulness

it is another psychological factor associated with resilience. Originated as a Buddhist meditation

practice, mindfulness concentrates on moment-to-moment awareness of boldly activities,
feelings, emotions, sensations, wittily purposely perceiving and discarding any distracting
thoughts that come into awareness (Thompson et al., 2011). Studies on trait mind- fulness
suggest that strong pretrains mindfulness skills may help prevent ruminative, dipsogenic
thinking, thereby contracting the development of depression and PTSD symptoms following
trauma (Thompson et al., 2011). A study of 124 fire- fighters showed that trait mindfulness was
negatively related to depressive and PTSD symptoms, physical symptoms, and alcohol problems,
suggesting that trait mindfulness may radiance avoidant coping in response to stress and
contribute to recliner (Smith et al. 20111

MORAL COMPASS

The existence of a moral compounds or an internal belief system guiding values and ethics is
commonly shared among resilient individuals (Southwick et al., 2005), Though religion or
spirituality is often a facet in moral compass, the concept of a moral compassing grounded in a
more innately human belief in morality. A study of 121 outpatients diagnosed with depression
and/or an anxiety disorder showed that a low or lack of purpose in life and less frequent physical
exercise were correlated with love resilience, but low spirituality prevailed as a leading predictor
of low resilience (Min et al. 2012). Similarly, purpose in life wav key factor linked to resilience
in a study of 299 primary cate patients with a history of events (Alim et al. 2008). Exposure to a
range of severer traumatic events (Alim et al. 2008).

Resilience is a complex multidimensional construct and the study of its neurobiology is a

relatively young area of scientific investigation (Southwick and Charney, 2012). Multiple
interacting factors including genetic, epigenetics developmental environment, psychosocial
factors, neurochemicals, and functional neutral circuitry, play critical roles in developing and
mutilating resilience in an integrated way. For instance, genetic and epigenetic factors interact
with each other and determine the biological characteristic and regulation of neurochemicals and
receptors. Environmental factors influence these characteristics and regulation processes through
gene and environment interactions throughout development, contributing to adaptive changes in
gene regulation, plasticity in the growth and modulation of neu so circuits, and the shaping of
psychological factors and behavioral that underlie the manifestation of resilience Endpoints Our
growing understanding of the neurobiology of resilience has significant implications for the
prevention and treatment of stress related psychiatric disorders. Pharmacological interventions
targeting the neurochemical systems involving NPY, BDNE CRH, and HPA axis, among others,
are being investigated as potential treatments for depression and PTSD. For instance,
pharmacological agents targeting the hyperactivity and malfunction of HPA anis and CRH can
possibly reduce the likelihood of pathological response to stress. Abo, for individuals with
altered NFYergic system, enhancing NPY levels and function may help to improve stress and
anxiety regulation and to minimize the anxiogenic effects of CRH (Southwick and Charney.
20121. Behavioral training targeting psychosocial risk factors and related neural pathways is also
likely to increase resilience to stress (Karatsusreos and McEwen, 2011). Practice and training on
enhancing stress-protective factors can lead to augmented plasticity and regulation of neural
circuits that modulate reward and motivation, fear response, learning memory, emotion
regulation attention, cognitive executive function, adaptive social behavior, and cognitive
reappraisal, thereby result ult in in improved adaptation to stress and trauma, incased spread of
recovery frown adversities, and decreased susceptibility to stress related psychopathology
throughout life (Southwick and Charney. 2012).

Furthermore, maintaining a supportive environment and pro viding resilience-building

classes for child rearing can be particularly beneficial, in that children can learn how to master
life challenges and acquire “reinoculation” while growing up enabling them to adaptive lyre act
to and master future challenges and stressors, thereby reducing susceptibility stress-related
Psychopathology. How to apply what we currently know about resilience to further the
promotion of resilience and the prevention and treatment of stress-related psychopathology is
one of the most critical questions for future studies. In addition, multidisciplinary research on the
neurobiology of resilience should help to fur their identify risk and protective factors as well as
their complex interactions and thereby facilitate the development of evidence-based interventions
for enhancing resilience and navigating risk for stress related psychiatric disorders. Resilience is
a complex multidimensional construct and the study of its neurobiology is a relatively young
area of scientific investigation Multiple interacting factors including genetic, epigenetics,
developmental environment, psychosocial factors, neurochemicals, and functional neutral
circuitry, play critical roles in developing and modulating resilience in an integrated way. For
instance, genetic and epigenetic factors interact with each other and determine the biological
characteristics and regulation of neurochemicals and receptors.

Environmental factors influence these characteristics and regulation processes through

gene and environment interactions throughout development, contributing to adaptive changes in
gene regulation, plasticity in the growth and modulation of neurocircuits, and the shaping of
psychological factors and behavioral Endpoints that underlie the manifestation of resilience. Our
growing understanding of the neurobiology of resilience Has significant implications for the
prevention and treatment of stress-related psychiatric disorders. Pharmacological interventions
targeting the neurochemical systems involving NPY, BDNF, CRH, and HPA axis, among others,
are being investigated as potential treatments for depression and PTSD.
For instance, pharmacological agents targeting the hyperactivity and malfunction of HPA axis
and CRH can possibly reduce the likelihood of pathological response to stress. Also, for
individuals with altered NFYergic system, enhancing NPY levels and function may help the
amygdala, hippocampus, medial PFC, nucleus accumbens, ventromedial hypothalamus, and a
number of brain stem nuclei (Davis, 2006, Maren, 2008). These regions play key roles in fear
processing including the fear learning/conditioning, perception of threat, execution of efferent
com- ponents of fear response, and modulation of fear memories through potentiation,
consolidation, reconsolidation, and extinction (Shin and Liberson, 2010), Patients with PTSD
showed hyperactivation in the amygdala and hypoactivation in the ventromedial PFC and
anterior hippocampus, which may indicate reduced top-down inhibition of the amygdala and
account for exaggerated fear responses (Etkin and Wager, 2007). Other brain regions such as the
dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and insular cortex have also been implicated in the maladaptive
regulation of fear responses in PTSD, with some studies showing hypertension savviness and
some showing hyperresponsiveness of these regions (Shin and Liberzon, 2010).

Compared to trauma victims without PTSD, individuals with PTSD demonstrated

behavioral sensitization to stress, overgeneralization of the conditioned stimulus (CS)-
unconditioned stimulus (US) response, impaired CS-US pairings and impaired fear inhibitory
learning, all of which are thought to be characteristic of dysregulated fear responses and can
result in the core symptoms seen in PTSD, such as intrusive memories and flashbacks, enhanced
avoidance of reminders, and autonomic hyperarousal (Mahan and Ressler, 2012). One study
found higher potentiation of the startle response to safety cues in patients with PTSD compared
to traumatized controls, and that this impaired fear inhibition may be associated with altered
HPA-axis functioning in PTSD (Jovanovic et al., 2010).

Animal studies have shown that proper fear conditioning and extinction learning require
synaptic plasticity, and thus impaired synaptic plasticity may underlie impaired fear and
extinction processes in PTSD (Mahan and Ressler, 2012). The BDNF-TrkB signaling pathway, a
ligand-receptor system involved in synaptic plasticity, has been shown to be necessary for
sustaining nor mal functioning of fear conditioning, extinction, and inhibitory learning in three
brain regions, the amygdala, hippocampus, and medial PFC, all of which are associated with
PTSD (Mahan and Resaler, 2012). Consolidation of fear conditioning and extinction was
impaired when BDNF signaling was inhibited in the amygdala (Rattiner et al., 2004; Chhatwal et
al., 2006). Heterogeneous BDNF knockout mice (BDNF+) demonstrated malfunctioning
contextual fear conditioning, which can be partially reversed with recombinant BDNF infusion
into the hippocampus (Liu et al 2004). Altered BDNF expression in the prelimbic and infralimbic
areas of the medial PFC can also lead to functional changes in fear consolidation and expression,
suggesting a role of BDNF as a key mediator of neural plasticity in these regions (Choi et al.
2010; Peters et al. 2010), Glutamatergic and GABAergic signaling pathways have also been
implicated in the regulation of fear consolidation, expression and extinction (Mahan and Ressler,
2012). For instance, disrupting NMDA and AMPA receptor functioning impaired the extinction
of fear conditioning (Dalton et al., 2008; Liu et al, 2009, Zimmerman and Maren, 2010), Other
ligand-receptor signaling systems such as those involving norepinephrine, nitric oxide,
endocannabinoids, dopamine and Acetylcholine have also been shown to play a modulatory role
in to improve stress and anxiety regulation and to minimize the anxiogenic effects of CRH
(Southwick and Charney, 2011).Behavioral training targeting psychosocial risk factors and
related neural pathways is also likely to increase resilience to stress (Karatioreos and McEwen,
2011).

Practice and training on enhancing stress-protective factors can lead to augmented

plasticity and regulation of neural circuits that modulate reward and motivation, fear response,
learning memory, emotion regulation, attention, cognitive executive function, adaptive social
behavior, and cognitive reappraisal, thereby result in improved adaptation to stress and trauma,
increased speed of recovery from adversities, and decreased susceptibility to stress-related
psychopathology throughout life (Southwick and Charney, 2012), Furthermore, maintaining a
supportive environment and pro- viding resilience-building classes for child rearing can be
particularly beneficial, in that children can learn how to master life challenges and acquire
“stress inoculation” while growing up enabling them to adaptively react to and master future
challenges and stressors, thereby reducing susceptibility to stress-related psychopathology.
 How to apply what we currently know about resilience to further the promotion of
resilience and the prevention and treatment of stress-related psychopathology is one of the most
critical questions for future studies. In addition, multidisciplinary research on the neurobiology
of resilience should help to further identify risk and protective factors as well as their complex
interactions and thereby facilitate the development of evidence- hosed interventions for
enhancing resilience and mitigating risk for stress-related psychiatric disorders. Mindfulness is
another psychological factor associated with Resilience. Originated as a Buddhist meditation
practice, mind- fulness concentrates on moment-to-moment awareness of bodily activities,
feelings, emotions, or sensations, while purposely perceiving and discarding any distracting
thoughts that come into awareness (Thompson et al., 2011). Studies on trait mind- fulness
suggest that strong pre-trauma mindfulness skills may help prevent ruminative, depress genic
thinking, thereby counteracting the development of depression and PTSD symptoms following
trauma (Thompson et al., 2011). A study of 124 fire- fighters showed that trait mindfulness was
negatively related to depressive and PTSD symptoms, physical symptoms, and alcohol problems,
suggesting that trait mindfulness may reduce avoidant coping in response to stress and contribute
to resilience. The existence of a moral compass or an internal belief system guiding values and
ethics is commonly shared among resilient individuals (Southwick et al., 2005). Though religion
or spirituality is often a facet in one’s metal compass, the concept of a moral compass is
grounded in a more innately human belief in morality. A study of 121 outpatients diagnosed with
depression and/or an anxiety disorder showed that a low or lack of purpose in life and less
frequent physical exercise were correlated with low resilience, but low spirituality prevailed as a
leading predictor of low resilience (Min et al., 2012). Similarly, purpose in life was a key factor
linked to resilience in a study of 259 primary care patients with a history of exposure to a range
of severe traumatic events.
Emotional Intelligence

A clear and scientifically useful definition of emotional intelligence, however, is

recognizable because it takes the terms emotion and intelligence. The meaning of emotional
intelligence has something specific to do with the intelligent intersection of the emotions and
thoughts. Emotional intelligence represents an ability to validly reason with emotions and to use
emotions to enhance thought. Emotion refers to a feeling state (including physiological responses
and cognitions) that conveys information about relationships. For example, happiness is a feeling
state that also conveys information about relationships – typically, that one would like to join
with others. Similarly, fear is a feeling state that corresponds to a relationship the urge to flee
others. Intelligence refers to the capacity to reason validly about information. This use of the
term emotional intelligence in this fashion is consistent with scientific literature in the fields of
intelligence, personality psychology, and emotions.

Example. Verbal intelligence concerns the mental ability to reason with and about verbal
information, and of verbal knowledge to enhance thought. Spatial intelligence concerns the
mental ability to reason with and about spatial information (i.e., the shape of objects and their
orientation In space), and of spatial knowledge to enhance thought. A clear and scientifically
useful definition of emotional intelligence, however, is recognizable because it takes the terms
emotion and intelligence. The meaning of emotional intelligence has something specific to do
with the intelligent intersection of the emotions and thoughts. Emotional intelligence represents
an ability to validly reason with emotions and to use emotions to enhance thought. We define El
as the capacity to reason about emotions, and of emotions to enhance thinking. It includes the
abilities to accurately perceive emotions, to access and generate emotions so as to assist thought,
to understand emotions and emotional knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions so as to
promote emotional and intellectual growth (Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000).
p.197) Emotional intelligence refers to an ability to recognize the meanings of emotion and their
relationships and to reason and problem-solve on the basis of them.

Emotional intelligence is involved in the capacity to perceive emotions, assimilate

emotion-related feelings, understand the information of those emotions, and manage them.
(Mayer. J. D. Caruso, D., & Salovey. P. (1999) p. 267). Emotional intelligence is the capability of
individuals to recognize their own, and other people’s emotions, to discern between different
feelings and label them appropriately, to use emotional information to guide thinking and
behavior, and to manage and/or adjust emotions to adapt environments or achieve one’s goal(s)
(Coleman, Andrew, 2008). Although the term first appeared in a 1964 paper by Michael Beldoch,
it gained popularity in the 1995 book by that title, written by the author, psychologist, and
science journalist Daniel Goleman. Since this time, Goleman’s 1995 analysis of El has been
criticized within the scientific community (Harvard Business Review, 9 January 2017 accessed
30 January 2017) despite prolific reports of its usefulness in the popular press (Huffington Post
20 July 2016, accessed 30 January 2017) (psychcentral.com, 30 October 2015 accessed 30
January 2017) (thehindu.com” 6 December 2015 accessed 30 January 2017) (Goleman, Daniel,
1998).There are currently several models of El. Goleman’s original model may now be
considered a mixed model that combines what have subsequently been modeled separately as
ability El and trait El. Goleman defined El as the array of skills and characteristics that drive
leadership performance (Petrides, Konstantin, Furnham, Adria 2001). The trait model was
developed by Konstantin Vasily Petrides in 2001. It “encompasses behavioral dispositions and
self-perceived abilities and is measured through self-report (Salovey, Peter, Mayer, John. Caruso,
David, 2004). The ability model, developed by Peter Salovey and John Mayer in 2004, focuses
on the individual’s ability to process emotional information and use it to navigate the social
environment (Goleman, D, 1998).

Studies have shown that people with high El have greater mental health, job
performance, and leadership skills although no causal relationships have been shown and such
findings are likely to be attributable to general intelligence and specific personality traits rather
than emotional intelligence as a construct. For example, Goleman indicated that El accounted for
67% of the abilities deemed necessary for superior performance in leaders, and mattered twice as
much as technical expertise or IQ (Cavazotte, Flavia, Moreno, Valter; Hickmann, Mateus, 2012).
Other research finds that the effect of El on leadership (Barbey, Aron K, Colom. Roberto,
Grafman, Jordan, 2012) and managerial performance is non-significant when ability and
personality are controlled for (Atwater, Leanne, Yam Marinol. Francis, 1993) and that general
intelligence correlates very closely with leadership (Markers of El and methods of developing it
have become more widely coveted in the past decade. In addition, studies have begun to provide
evidence to help characterize the neural mechanisms of emotional intelligence (Yates, Diana)
(US News and World Report 2013-01-28) (Harms, P. D. Credé, M, 2010).

The Four-Branch Ability El Model

The main characteristic of the ability approach is that El is conceived as a form of

intelligence. It specifies that cognitive processing is implicated in emotions, is related to general
intelligence, and therefore ought to be assessed through performance measures that require
respondents to perform discrete tasks and solve specific problems (Freeland. Terry, & Rodgers,
2008, Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2016, Mayer & Salovey, 1997). The mainstream model of El as
an ability is the four- branch in odal introduced by Mayer and Salovey (1997), which has
received wide acknowledgment and use and has been foundational in the development of other
El models and measures. The four-branch model identifies El as being comprised of a number of
mental abilities that allow for the appraisal, expression, and regulation of emotion, as well the
integration of these emotion processes with cognitive processes used to promote growth and
achievement (Salovey & Grewal, 2005, Salovey & Mayer, 1990). The model is comprised of
four hierarchically linked ability areas, or branches perceiving emotions, facilitating thought
using emotions, understanding emotions, and managing emotions (see Fig 2.1). Perceiving
emotions (Branch 1) refers to the ability to identify emotions accurately through the attendance,
detection, and deciphering of emotional signals in faces, pictures, or voices (Papadogiannis,
Logan, & Sitarenios, 2009). This ability involves identifying emotions in one’s own physical and
psychological states, as well as an awareness of, and sensitivity to, the emotions of others
(Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999, Papadogiannis et al., 2009).

thought using emotions (Branch 2) involves the integration of emotions to facilitate

thought. This occurs through the analysis of, attendance to, or reflection emotional information,
which in turn assists higher-order cognitive activities such as reasoning, problem-solving,
decision-making, and consideration of the perspectives of others (Mayer & Salovey, 1997,
Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002, Papadogiannis et al., 2009). Individuals with a strong ability to
use emotions would be able to select and prioritize cognitive activities that are most conducive to
their current mood state, as well as change their mood to fit the given situation in a way that
would foster better contextual adaptation Understanding emotions (Branch 3) comprises the
ability to comprehend the connections between different emotions and how emotions change
over time and situations (Rivers, Brackett, Salovey, & Mayer, 2007). This would involve
knowledge of emotion language and its utilization to identify slight variations in emotion and
describe different combinations of feelings.

Individuals stronger in this domain understand the complex and transitional relationships
between emotions and can recognize emotional cues learned from previous experiences, thus
allowing them to predict expressions in others in the future (Papadogiannis et al., 2009). For
example, an understanding that a colleague is getting frustrated, through subtle changes in tone
or expression, can improve individuals’ communication in relationships and their personal and
professional performances. Finally, managing emotions (Branch 4) refers to the ability to
regulate one’s own and others’ emotions successfully. Such ability would entail the capacity to
maintain, shift, and cater emotional responses, either positive or negative, to a given situation
(Rivers et al., 2007). This could be reflected in the maintenance of a positive mood in a
challenging situation or curbing elation at a time in which an important decision must be made.
Recovering quickly from being angry or generating motivation or encouragement for a friend
prior to an important activity are illustrations of high-level emotion management (Papadogiannis
et al., 2009).The four El branches are theorized to be hierarchically organized, with the last two
abilities understanding and management), which involve higher-order (strategic) cognitive
processes, building on the first two abilities (perception and facilitation), which involve rapid
(experiential) processing of emotion information (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Salovey & Grewal,
2005) It should be noted that the pro- posed hierarchical structure of the model, as well as its
four distinctive branches have been contradicted. First, developmental evidence suggests that
abilities in different El domains (e.g., perceiving, managing) are acquired in parallel rather than
sequentially, through a complex learning process involving a wide range of biological and
environmental influences (Zeidner et al., 2003). Though this conceptualization supports the
notion that lower-level competencies aid in the development of more sophisticated skills, it also
identifies ways in which the four El branches are sometimes developed simultaneously, with
lower-level abilities of perceiving, facilitating, understanding, and managing emotions at the
same time leading to their later improvement

The four-branch model has also been challenged through factor analysis in several cases,
which did not support a hierarchical model with one underlying global El factor (Fiori &
Antonakis, 2011, Rossen, Kranzler, & Algina, 2008). Moreover, facilitating thought using
emotions (Branch 2) did not emerge as a separate factor and was found to be empirically
redundant with the other branches (Fan, Jackson, Yang, Tang, & Zhang, 2010 Fiori et al., 2014,
Fiori & Antonakis, 2011, Gignac, 2005, Palmer, Gignac, Manocha, & Stough. 2005), leading
scholars to adopt a revised three-branch model of ability El, comprised of emotion recognition,
emo tion understanding, and emotion management (Joseph & Newman, 2010, MacCann, Joseph.
Newman. & Roberts, 2014). Nevertheless, the four branches remain the foundation for current
ability El models, and their description aids in the theoretical understanding of the content
domains covered by ability-based perspectives on El(Mayer et al., 2016)

Theoretical background

History of emotional intelligence. The term “emotional intelligence” seems first to have
appeared in a 1964 paper by Michael Beldoch (Michael, Argyle) (Leuner.B.1966) and in the
1966 paper by B. Leuner entitled Emotional intelligence and emancipation which appeared in the
psychotherapeutic journal: Practice of child psychology and child psychiatry (Gardner. H.1983).
In 1983, Howard Gardner’s Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (Smith.M.K.
2002) introduced the idea that traditional types of intelligence, such as IQ. Fail to fully explain
cognitive ability. He introduced the idea of multiple intelligences which included both
interpersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations and desires of
other people) and intrapersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate
one’s feelings, fears and motivations (Payne, W,L,1983/1986).The term subsequently appeared in
Wayne Payne’s doctoral thesis, A Study of Emotion: Developing Emotional Intelligence from
1985 (Beasley, K, 1987).The first published use of the term ‘EQ’ (Emotional Quotient) is an
article by Keith Beasley in 1987 in the British Mensa magazine (Salovey, P, Mayer, J,D,1989).In
1989 Stanley Greenspan put forward a model to describe El, followed by another by Peter
Salovey and John Mayer published in the same year (Goleman,D, 1995).However, the term
became widely known with the publication of Goleman’s book:

Emotional Intelligence Why it can matter more than IQ (Dan Goleman, 2014-03-
07(1995). It is to this book’s best-selling status that the term can attribute its popularity (Dan
Schawbel,2014-03-07). Goleman has followed up with several further popular publications of a
similar theme that reinforce use of the term (Goleman, D,2006) (Lantieri. L. and Goleman,
D,2008) (Goleman, D, 2011) (Goleman, D.2011) (Web.archive.org. 2012-02-13). To date, tests
measuring El have not replaced IQ tests as a standard metric of intelligence. Emotional
Intelligence has also received criticism on its role in leadership and business success (Petrides.K.
V. Furnham A. 2000). The distinction between trait emotional intelligence and ability emotional
Intelligence was introduced in 2000 (Mayer. John. D. 2008).

Emotional intelligence Models. Emotional intelligence can also be defined as the ability to
monitor one’s own and other people’s emotions, to discriminate between different emotions and
label them appropriately and to use emotional information to guide thinking and behavior
(Coleman, Andrew, 2008). Emotional intelligence also reflects abilities to join intelligence,
empathy and emotions to enhance thought and understanding of interpersonal dynamics
(Kluemper, D.H, 2008). However, substantial disagreement exists regarding the definition of EI,
with respect to both terminology and operationalizations. Currently, there are three main models
of El: Ability model, Mixed model (usually subsumed under trait EI) (Martins, A, Ramalho, N.
Morin. E, 2010), Trait model Different models of El have led to the development of various
instruments for the assessment of the construct. While some of these measures may overlap,
most researchers agree that they tap different constructs. Specific ability models address the
ways in which emotions facilitate thought and understanding. For example, emotions may
interact with thinking and allow people to be better decision makers (Lyubomirsky et al. 2005)
(Kluemper. D.H. 2008). A person who is more responsive emotionally to crucial issues will
attend to the more crucial aspects of his or her life (Kluemper. D.H. 2008). Aspects of emotional
facilitation factor is to also know how to include or exclude emotions from thought depending on
context and situation (Kluemper. D.H. 2008). This is also related to emotional reasoning and
understanding in response to the people, environment and circumstances one encounters in his or
her day-to-day life (Kluemper, D.H, 2008).

Ability model. Salovey and Mayer’s conception of El strives to define El within the confines of
the standard criteria for a new intelligence (MacCann, C. Joseph, D.L., Newman, D.A., Roberts,
R.D, 2014) (Mayer, J.D. & Salovey, P. 1997). Following their continuing research, their initial
definition of El was revised to “The ability to perceive emotion, integrate emotion to facilitate
thought, understand emotions and to regulate emotions to promote personal growth.” However,
after pursuing further research. Their definition of El evolved into “the capacity to reason about
emotions, and of emotions, to enhance thinking. It includes the abilities to accurately perceive
emotions, to access and generate emotions so as to assist thought, to understand emotions and
emotional knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions so as to promote emotional and
intellectual growth (Goleman, D, 1998). The ability-based model views emotions as useful
sources of information that help one to make sense of and navigate the social environment
(Salovey, P. Grewal. D.2005) (Bradberry. T. Su, L,2003). The model proposes that individuals
vary in their ability to process information of an emotional nature and in their ability to relate
emotional processing to a wider cognition. This ability is seen to manifest itself in certain
adaptive behaviors. The model claims that El includes four types of abilities Perceiving emotions
the ability to detect and decipher emotions in faces. Pictures, voices, and cultural artifacts-
including the ability to identify one’s own emotions.

Perceiving emotions represents a basic aspect of emotional intelligence, as it makes all

other processing of emotional information possible Using emotions the ability to harness
emotions to facilitate various cognitive activities, such as thinking and problem solving. The
emotionally intelligent person can capitalize fully upon his or her changing moods in order to
best fit the task at hand. Understanding emotions the ability to comprehend emotion language
and to appreciate complicated relationships among emotions. For example, understanding
emotions encompasses the ability to be sensitive to slight variations between emotions, and the
ability to recognize and describe how emotions evolve over time. Managing emotions the ability
to regulate emotions in both ourselves and in others. Therefore, the emotionally intelligent
person can harness emotions, even negative ones, and manage them to achieve intended goals.
The ability El model has been criticized in the research for lacking face and predictive validity in
the workplace (Brackett M.A. & J.D. Mayer, M.A. & J.D. 2003). However, in terms of construct
validity. Ability El tests have great advantage over self- report scales of El because they compare
individual maximal performance to standard in a study by Føllesdal (Goleman, D. 1998) The
MSCEIT test results of 111 business leaders were compared with how their employees described
their leader. It was found that there were no correlations between a leader’s test results and how
he or she was rated by the employees, with regard to empathy, ability to motivate, and leader
effectiveness. Føllesdal also criticized the Canadian company Multi-Health Systems. Which
administers the MSCEIT test. The test contains 141 questions but it was found after publishing
the test that 19 of these did not give the expected answers. This has led Multi-Health Systems to
remove answers to these 19 questions before scoring but without stating this officially.

Mixed model: The model introduced by Daniel Goleman (Boyatzis, R., Goleman, D., & Rhee,
K, 2000). Focuses on El as a wide array of competencies or skills that drive leadership
performance. Goleman’s model outlines five main El constructs (for more details see “What
Makes A Leader” by Daniel Goleman, best of Harvard Business Review 1998): Self-awareness
the ability to know one’s emotions, strengths, weaknesses, drives, values and goals and recognize
their impact on others while using gut feelings to guide decisions. Self-regulation involves
controlling or redirecting one’s disruptive emotions. And impulses and adapting to changing
circumstances. Social skill-managing relationships to move people in the desired direction
Empathy considering other people’s feelings especially when making decisions Motivation being
driven to achieve for the sake of achievement. Goleman includes a set of emotional
competencies within each construct of El. Emotional competencies are not innate talents, but
rather learned capabilities that must be worked on and can be developed to achieve outstanding
performance.
 Goleman posits that individuals are born with a general emotional intelligence that
determines their potential for learning emotional competencies (Bradberry. Travis and Greaves,
Jean. 2009). Goleman’s model of El has been criticized in the research literature as mere “pop
psychology” (Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008). Two tools are based on the Goleman model
The Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI), which was created in 1999, and the Emotional and
Social Competency Inventory (ESCI), a newer edition of the ECI was developed in 2007. The
Emotional and Social Competency – University Edition (ESCI-U) is also available. These tools
developed by Goleman and Boyatzis provide a behavioral measure of the Emotional and Social
competencies. The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal, which was created in 2001 and which can
be taken as a self-report or 360-degree assessment (Petrides, K.V, Pita, R. Kokkinaki, F, 2007).

Trait model. Konstantinos Vasilis Petrides (“K. V. Petrides”) proposed a conceptual distinction
between the ability-based model and a trait-based model of El and has been developing the latter
over many years in numerous publications (Mayer John D. 2008; (Petrides, K.V, Furnham, A,
2001). Trait El is a constellation of emotional self- perceptions located at the lower levels of
personality (Petrides, K.V, Furnham. A, 2001) In lay terms, trait El refers to an individual’s self-
perceptions of their emotional abilities. This definition of El encompasses behavioral
dispositions and self-perceived abilities and is measured by self-report, as opposed to the ability-
based model which refers to actual abilities, which have proven highly resistant to (Pérez, J.C,
Petrides, K.V. & Furnham. A 2005). Scientific measurement. Trait El should be investigated
within a personality framework (An alternative label for the same construct is trait emotional
self-efficacy. The trait El model Is general and subsumes the Goleman model discussed above.

The conceptualization of El as a personality trait leads to a construct that lies outside the
taxonomy of human cognitive ability. This is an important distinction in as much as it bears
directly on the operationalization of the construct and the theories and hypotheses that are
formulated about it (Mayer. John D. 2008). There are many self-report tools of EI (Pérez, J.C,
Petrides, K.V. & Furnham, A, 2005) including the EQ-I the Swinburne University Emotional
Intelligence Test (SUEIT), and the Schutte El model. None of these assess intelligence, abilities,
or skills (as their authors often claim), but rather, they are limited measures of trait emotional
intelligence (Petrides, K.V. Furnham. A. 2001). The most widely used and widely researched
measure of self-report or self-schema (as it is currently referred to) emotional intelligence is the
EQ-I 2.0. Originally known as the Baron EQ-I, it was the first self- report measure of emotional
intelligence available, the only measure predating Goleman’s best-selling book. There are over
200 studies that have used the EQ-I or EQ-I 2.0. It has the best norms, reliability, and validity of
any self-report instrument and was the first one reviewed in Buros Mental Measures Book. The
EQ-I 2.10 is available in many different languages as it is used worldwide. The Technique
provides an operationalization for the model of Petrides and colleagues that conceptualizes El in
terms of personality (Mikolajczak, Luminet, Leroy. Roy, 2007).

The test encompasses 15 subscales organized under four factors: well-being.

Emotionality, and sociability The psychometric properties of the TEIQue were investigated in a
study on a French-speaking population, where it was reported that TEIQue scores were globally
normally distributed and reliable (Vernon, P.A, Petrides, K.V, Bratko. D, Schermer, J.A., 2008).
The researchers also found TEIQue scores were unrelated to nonverbal reasoning (Raven’s
matrices), which they interpreted as support for the personality trait view of El (as opposed to a
form of intelligence). As expected, TEIQue scores were positively related to some of the Big
Five personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness) as well as
inversely related to others (alexithymia, neuroticism). A number of quantitative genetic studies
have been carried out within the trait El model, which have revealed significant genetic effects
and heritability’s for all trait El scores (Gardner, J. K., Qualter, P.2010). Two recent studies (one
a meta-analysis) involving direct comparisons of multiple El tests yielded very favorable results
for the TEIQue (Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D.L., Sitarenios, G. (2001) (Eysenck. H.J.,
2000).

Interactions with other phenomena Bullying is abusive social interaction between peers which
can include aggression, harassment, and violence. Bullying is typically repetitive and enacted by
those who are in a position of power over the victim. A growing body of research illustrates a
significant relationship between bullying and emotional intelligence (Kokkinos, Constantinos M,
Kipritsi, Eirini, 2011-07-26) (Lomas, Justine, Stough, Con, Hansen, Karen, Downey, Luke
A.,2012-02-01) (Mayer, J.D., Roberts, R.D, Barasade. S.G. 2008). Emotional intelligence (EI) is
a set of abilities related to the understanding. Use and management of emotion as it relates to
one’s self and others. Mayer et al., (2008) defines the dimensions of overall El as: “accurately
perceiving emotion, using emotions to facilitate thought, understanding emotion, and managing
emotion (Tolegenova, A.A, Yakupov, S.M., Cheung Chung, Man, Saduova, S, Yakupov, M.S,
2012). The concept combines emotional and intellectual processes (Mckenna, J, Webb, J., 2013)
Lower emotional intelligence appears to be related to involvement in bullying, as the bully
and/or the victim of bullying. El seems to play an important role in both bullying behavior and
victimization in bullying; given that El is illustrated to be malleable, El education could greatly
improve bullying prevention and intervention initiatives (Cote, S., Miners, C.T.H., 2006).

Job performance. Research of El and job performance shows mixed results: a positive relation
has been found in some of the studies, while in others there was no relation or an inconsistent
one (Nitkin, Ralph, December 2-3, 2004). This led researchers Cote and Miners (2006) (Relojo,
D., Pilao, S.J. Dela Rosa, R..2015) to offer a compensatory model between El and IQ, that posits
that the association between El and job performance becomes more positive as cognitive
intelligence decreases, an idea first proposed in the context of academic performance (Petrides,
Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004). The results of the former study supported the compensatory
model: employees with low IQ get higher task performance and organizational citizenship
behavior directed at the organization, the higher their EI. It has also been observed that there is
no significant link between emotional intelligence and work attitude behavior (Farh, C. C., Seo,
Tesluk. March 5, 2012). A more recent study suggests that El is not necessarily a universally
positive trait (Ahmetoglu, Gorkan, December, 2011). They found a negative correlation between
El and managerial work demands; while under low levels of managerial work demands, they
found a negative relationship between El and teamwork effectiveness. An explanation for this
may suggest gender differences in El, as women tend to score higher levels than men (Newman,
D. A, Joseph, D. L, MacCann, C, 2010). This furthers the idea that job context plays a role in the
relationships between El, teamwork effectiveness, and job performance. Another interesting find
was discussed in a study that assessed a possible link between El and entrepreneurial behaviors
and success (Joseph, Dana L. Jin, Jing. Newman, Daniel A., O’Boyle. Ernest H).

Health. A 2007 meta-analysis of 44 effect sizes by Schutte found that emotional intelligence was
associated with better mental and physical health. Particularly, trait El had the stronger
association with mental and physical health (Alexandra Martins. 1 October, 2010). This was
replicated again in 2010 by researcher Alexandra Martin who found trait El as a strong predictor
th (Pack. Ellen, 2006) Another study in 2010 examined whether or not low levels of El had a
relationship with the degree of drug and alcohol addiction (Brown, Chiu, Chiu, Edmond, Neill,
Lloyd, Tobin, Juliet, Reid, John, 16 Jan, 2012). In the assessment of 103 residents in a drug
rehabilitation center, they examined their El along with other psychosocial factors in a one-
month interval of treatment. They found that participants’ El scores improved as their levels of
addiction lessened as part of their treatment.

Optimism
 Optimism is a cognitive construct (expectancies regarding future outcomes) that also
relates to motivation: optimistic people exert effort, whereas pessimistic people disengage from
effort. Study of optimism began largely in health contexts, finding positive associations between
optimism and markers of better psychological and physical health. Physical health effects likely
occur through differences in both health-promoting behaviors and physiological concomitants of
coping. Recently, the scientific study of optimism has extended to the realm of social relations:
new evidence indicates that optimists have better social connections, partly because they work
harder at them. In this review, we examine the myriad ways this trait can benefit an individual,
and our current understanding of the biological basis of optimism. Optimism is an attitude
characterized by hope, according to the American Psychological Association (APA).

When you’re optimistic, you feel like positive things will happen and that things can
change for the better. It can apply to how you see the future or how you make sense of the world.
Charles Carver and Michael Scheier coined the term ‘dispositional optimism’ to describe their
approach – the global expectation that good things will be plentiful in the future and bad things
scarce. They argued that optimism is associated with, and leads to, securing positive outcomes
whereas pessimism is associated with greater negative outcomes (Scheier and Carver 1992,
Scheier, Carver and Bridges 2001). For example, in studies of young adults, optimism has been
found to be associated with greater life satisfaction (Chang, Maydeu-Olivares & D’Zurilla, 1997)
whereas pessimism has been found to be associated with greater depressive symptoms (Chang et
al 1997). Carver and Scheier see optimism as dispositional. They have found that optimists
report fewer physical symptoms, better health habits and better coping strategies.

Even among a group who had experienced the bad outcome of being diagnosed
with breast cancer (Carver et al 1997) found that optimistic personality types experienced
less distress, engaged in more active coping and were less likely to engage in avoidance
or denial strategies. Explanatory Style Arising from Seligman’s famous “learned
helplessness” research in the 70s and 80s, i.e. the reaction of giving up when faced with
the belief that whatever you do does not matter, was the related concept of “explanatory
style”. This was developed from the analysis and patterns of how people explained events
that happened to them. Seligman developed this analysis into the field of optimism with
several other colleagues. He authored the books Learned Optimism and later The
 Optimistic Child to highlight the relationship between optimism and pessimism and
certain styles of explanatory style. Seligman claimed in the former book,

“An optimistic explanatory style stops helplessness, whereas pessimistic explanatory style
spreads helplessness” (p. 15). Seligman developed attributional retraining to help people “learn
optimism”. According to this perspective, those who explain away bad events with internal
(caused by themselves), stable (will continue to occur) and global (will happen in other spheres
of life) causes are described as pessimistic whilst those who favor external, unstable and specific
causes are described as optimistic. (Buchanan &Seligman, 1995). The theory was devised in the
context of learned helplessness and, as such, it may rely too heavily on the notion that the
absence of pessimism creates optimism. The application of “learned optimism” focuses on
reducing helplessness/depression through the cognitive therapy models developed by Beck
(1967, 1979) and Ellis (Ellis and Harper, 1975). The Pendulum Swings the Other Way With so
many positive correlates, questions abounded with the corollary raft of research which
challenged the notion of the ubiquity of optimism benefits. These largely fall into three key
areas;

The main areas of challenge and qualification were as follows: -Questioning the
“demonization” of pessimism Challenging the notion rising from explanatory style that optimism
can’t be learned Highlighting the underbelly or dark side of optimism. Taking these in detail let
us look at each area in turn: The “Demonization” of Pessimism” Pessimism is an entrenched
habit of mind that has sweeping and disastrous consequences: depressed mood, resignation,
underachievement and even unexpectedly poor physical health.” Seligman states in his 1995
book The Optimistic Child. A tranche of studies sought to highlight the fact that pessimism had
been somewhat demonized as the opposite end of optimism. These fall mainly into 3 camps;
Showing that pessimism is not uni-dimensional with optimism but a separate construct, and as
such does not always have the negative outcomes that juxtapose it with optimism’s positive
results. Bromberger and Matthews (1996) found that although pessimism seemed to be
associated with greater depressive symptoms and greater negative affectivity in middle aged
women, pessimism was not a significant statistical predictor of later depressive symptoms once
they had controlled for certain variables. Studies looking at lung cancer patients (Schofield, Ball,
Smith, Barland, O’Brien, Davis et al., 2004) and HIV patients (Tomakowsky et al., 2001, Reed et
al., 1994) show no difference between optimistic and pessimistic recovery rates.

Some research highlighted that pessimism was actually more of a predictor for certain
outcomes than optimism. Peterson and Chang raise the point that upon closer look at many
studies the more exact conclusion is that pessimism is associated with undesirable
characteristics, not that optimism is associated with positive ones. Chang (1998) has found that it
may be the decreased use of passive and ineffective coping strategies rather than the increased
use of active coping efforts that distinguishes dispositional optimism and pessimism. Some
studies have even proven that indeed there are times when pessimism paid off. Norem and
Cantor (1989) highlight defensive pessimism as a coping style, which focuses around a specific
context. They looked at academic performance. The defensive pessimist in this context is one
who anticipates and worries about a poor result despite a prior good track record. This is
perceived as self-protective and thus defensive in two ways, either acting as a buffer if it turns
out to be right, or acting as a spur into action. The result is that defensive pessimists tend to
perform as well as academic optimists. Interestingly however, this is not true over the long term.
After 3 years the defensive pessimists were no longer performing as well as the optimists, and
moreover were reporting less life satisfaction and more psychopathological symptoms.

Optimism Theory

Research on the dynamics of optimism has fascinated psychologists and mental health
workers for a long time. There are two fundamental models or approaches that explain optimistic
personality: the dispositional model and the explanatory model.

The dispositional theory of optimismThe dispositional model of optimism was the first wave
of research that explored the impact of hopefulness on a better lifestyle and mental health.
Psychologists following this approach highlighted optimism as a crucial aspect of humans’
success in evolution (Segerstrom, 2005).Carver and Scheier (1987) introduced the term
“dispositional optimism.” They argued that it is the presence of positive traits that increases the
chances of something good happening to us. The dispositional theory of optimism suggests that
optimism leads to positive consequences in life, and pessimism leads to stressful outcomes and
increased dissatisfaction (Scheier & Carver 1987, Scheier et al., 2001).The basic tenets of the
dispositional theory of optimism are (Chang, 2001):Optimism is a built-in trait or personality
disposition.Optimism is directly associated with reduced depression, anxiety, and
stress.Optimistic individuals are overall healthy – both physically and emotionally.Optimism
calls for increased resilience and coping strategies.A positive outlook helps people to accept
themselves unconditionally. Optimistic individuals are less likely to engage in denial or
avoidance defense mechanisms.Engage in denial or avoidance defense mechanisms.

The explanatory model of optimism.

Martin Seligman derived the explanatory model of optimism from his famous concept of
“learned helplessness.” This approach explains optimism as the way people perceive and
interpret events more than their built-in personal traits.According to the explanatory theory of
optimism, people who perceive failure or stressful life events as personal shortcomings are
pessimists. Optimism, as Seligman explained, is the cognitive ability to understand the current
situation as it is and work to change things in our favor (Buchanan & Seligman, 1995).The
concepts of optimism and pessimism concern people’s expectations for the future. These
concepts have ties to centuries of folk wisdom and also to a class of psychological theories of
motivation, called expectancy-value theories. Such theories suggest a logical basis for some of
the ways in which optimism and pessimism influence people’s behavior and Or stressful life
events as personal shortcomings are pessimists. Optimism, as Seligman explained, is the
cognitive ability to understand the current situation as it is and work to change things in our
favor (Buchanan & Seligman, 1995).emotions.Expectancy-value models begin with the idea that
behavior is aimed at attaining desired goals (Carver & Scheier, 1998).

Goals are actions, end-states, or values that people see as being either desirable or
undesirable. People try to fit their behavior to what they see as desirable. They try to stay away
from what they see as undesirable. According to this theoretical orientation, unless there is a
valued goal, no action occurs. The other core concept is expectancies: a sense of confidence or
doubt about attaining the goal. If a person lacks confidence, again there is no action. Only if they
have enough confidence do people engage (and remain engaged) in goal-directed effort. These
ideas apply to specific values and focused confidence; they also apply to optimism and
pessimism (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 2001). In the latter case, the sense of ”confidence”
versus doubt is simply broader in its focus.From these principles come many predictions about
optimists and pessimists. When confronting a challenge, optimists should be confident and
persistent, even if progress is difficult and slow.

Pessimists should be more doubtful and hesitant. Adversity should even exaggerate this
difference. Optimists believe adversity can be handled successfully, pessimists expect disaster.
This can lead to differences in such domains as actions relating to health risks, taking precautions
in risky circumstances, and persistence in trying to overcome health threats. It can also lead to
differences in what coping responses people deploy when confronting a threat such as a cancer
diagnosis (Carver et al., 1993; Stanton & Snider, 1993).Behavioral responses are important, but
behavior is not the only response when people confront adversity. People also experience
emotions in such situations. Difficulties elicit many feelings, feelings reflecting both distress and
challenge. The balance among such feelings differs between optimists and pessimists. Because
optimists expect good outcomes, they are likely to experience a more positive mix of feelings.
Because pessimists expect bad outcomes, they should experience more negative feelings-anxiety,
sadness, and despair. A good deal of research has found evidence of such emotional differences
(see Scheier et al., 2001).There is even evidence linking pessimism to cancer survival (Schulz et
al., 1996). Though the reason for the association is far from clear. Patients diagnosed with
recurrent cancer were followed for 8 months, by which time approximately one-third had died.
Earlier all had completed a measure of pessimism. Controlling for site of cancer and symptoms
at baseline, persons with a pessimistic orientation were less likely to be alive at the 8-month
follow-up.

Related constructs One methodological issue concerning optimism is that several other
constructs exist that relate to optimism but are not quite the same as optimism. Two that are
closely related to each other are the sense of control (e.g., Thompson, 2002) and the sense of
personal efficacy (e.g., Bandura, 1997). These concepts have strong overtones of expecting
desired outcomes, as does optimism. However, there is a difference in the assumptions made (or
not made) about how the desired outcomes are expected to occur. Self-efficacy is a concept in
which the self as a causal agent is paramount. If people have high self-efficacy expectancies,
they presumably believe that their personal efforts (or personal skills) are what will determine
the outcome. If, for example, you believe you have the personal fortitude to overcome the side-
effects of chemotherapy, you are more likely to struggle harder to do so. The same is true of the
concept of control. When people see themselves as being in control, they believe that the desired
outcome will occur through their own personal efforts.In contrast to this emphasis, optimism
takes a broader view of the potential causal forces assumed to be at work. People can be
optimistic because they are immensely talented, because they are hard-working, because they are
blessed, because they are lucky, because they have friends in the right places, or any combination
of these or other factors that produce good outcomes (. For example, a person could be optimistic
about being able to overcome side effects of chemotherapy either because of her personal
fortitude or because her oncologist has a useful bag of tricks for dealing with side-effects. The
latter would be optimistic but not because of the role of self as the agent of the outcome.Without
question there are some circumstances in which personal efficacy is the

Key determinant of a desired outcome. There are also cases in which the goal is explicitly
to do something yourself. In the latter case, only a personally determined success is the desired
end-point, so personal control is critical. However, there are also many cases in which the causal
determinant of the outcome is far less important than the occurrence of the outcome (for broader
discussion see Carver, Harris, et al., 2000). Those cases are also included within the optimism
construct.Another construct that resembles optimism, and which has its own substantial
literature, is hope (Snyder, 1994, 2002). Hope is said to have two parts. One part is the person’s
perception of the existence of pathways that are needed for the person to reach his or her goals.
The second is the person’s level of confidence of being able to use those pathways to reach the
goals. Thus, hope has been characterized (e.g., Snyder et al., 1991) as reflecting both the will
(confidence) and the ways (pathways). The confidence dimension is similar to optimism, though
with more overtones of personal agency. The pathway component is a quality that the optimism
concept doesn’t address. You can see, though, that a person who sees many pathways to a
particular desired outcome may be especially likely to remain persistent if one particular
pathway is blocked.Finally, it has also been noted that pessimism has a considerable resemblance
to the construct of neuroticism (Smith, Pope, Rhodewalt, & Poulton, 1989). Neuroticism (or
emotional instability) is defined by a tendency to worry, to experience unpleasant emotions, and
to be pessimistic.

Smith et al. (1989) found that a commonly used measure of optimism related strongly to
a measure of neuroticism, a finding also reported by Marshall and Lang (1990). Smith et al. also
found that correlations between optimism. And several outcome variables were sharply reduced
when neuroticism was controlled.Scheier, Carver, and Bridges (1994) later found that the overlap
between constructs was more limited, but noted that the existence of a relationship was
unsurprising, inasmuch as part of neuroticism is a sense of pessimism. Bipolar or Dual Unipolar?
A second issue concerns the fact that measures of optimism versus pessimism sometimes
separate into two factors, one defined by positively framed items (e.g., “I’m always optimistic
about my future”), the other defined by negatively framed items (e.g., “I hardly ever expect
things to go my way”). It has been shown that the two subscales have somewhat different
personality correlates (Marshall, Wortman, Kusulas, Hervig, & Vickers, 1992).

Some studies (though not others) have found that one subscale is more important than
the other in the prediction of relevant outcomes (Robinson-Whelen, Kim, MacCallum, &
Kiecolt-Glaser, 1997), though which subscale is more important varies from study to study.The
question Is what to make of this difference between the two subsets of items. Is this purely a
methodological artifact, caused by the reverse phrasing of half the items, together with the
general tendency toward agreeing in responding? Or does one item set provide a more valid
measure of the underlying construct? When the item subsets have differed in their prediction, it
generally (though not always) has been the negative items that predicted better. A summary
recommendation is often that the subsets be examined separately, with results reported separately
only if the two subsets of items behave differently. Optimists are people who expect good things
to happen to them; pessimists are people who expect bad things to happen to them. Folk
psychology has long held that these differences among people are important. Research over the
past two and a half decades suggests that the folk wisdom is right (at least in this case). This
rather simple difference—anticipating good versus anticipating bad—is linked to core processes
that underlie behavior. The ways in which optimists and pessimists differ in their approach to the
world have substantial impact on their lives. These people differ in how they confront problems;
they differ in how well they cope with adversity; they also differ in their resources, both social
and socioeconomic.Individual differences in optimism are relevant to clinical psychology
because this dimension is associated, both directly and indirectly, and at both an individual and a
social level, with risk for psychopathology. At the most basic level, optimism by definition is
inversely related to hopelessness, a risk factor for depressive disorders (Alloy et al., 2006).
Further, optimism appears to confer resilience to stressful life events, which are associated with
risk for both onset and relapse of psychopathology (e.g., Ellicott et al., 1990, Finlay-Jones &
Brown, 1981). Finally, at the broadest levels, optimism clusters with other factors such as
socioeconomic status and social integration, which as a group have protective effects for both
mental and physical health (House et al., 1988, Kawachi & Berkman, 2001, Lorant et al., 2003).

In sum, the trait of optimism may provide cognitive, coping, and contextual resources
that promote better mental health. Indeed, the pattern of associations that optimism has with
various behavioral and cognitive tendencies may give us broader hints about the nature of
optimal living.Scientific definitions of optimism and pessimism focus on expectancies for the
future. This links these ideas to a long history of expectancy-value models of motivation.
Expectancy-value theories assume that behavior reflects the pursuit of goals: desired states or
actions. The more important a given goal is to the person, the greater its value (see Austin &
Vancouver, 1996, Carver & Scheier, 1998, Higgins, 2006). The other facet of this motivational
model is expectancy—confidence that the goal can be attained. If people doubt they can reach a
goal, they may withdraw effort toward it. They may stop prematurely, or the action may never
really start. People who are confident about eventually reaching an outcome will persevere even
in the face of great adversity.The expectancy construct has a wide range of applicability.
Confidence and doubt can pertain to narrow contexts (e.g., the ability to go to a grocery store to
obtain food), to moderately broad contexts (e.g., the ability to prepare an elegant meal), and to
even broader contexts (e.g., the ability to develop a reputation as an exceptional host).

Optimism and pessimism are broad, generalized versions of confidence and doubt; they
are confidence and doubt pertaining to life, rather than to just a specific context (Scheier &
Carver, 1992). Thus, optimists should tend to be confident and persistent in the face of diverse
life challenges (even when progress is difficult or slow). Pessimists should be doubtful and
hesitant in the same situations. Such differences in how people confront adversity have
implications for success in completing goal-directed behavior. They also have implications for
the manner in which people cope with stress.There are at least two ways to think about
generalized expectancies and how to measure them. One is to measure them directly, asking
people whether they expect outcomes in their lives to be good or bad (Scheier & Carver, 1992).
This approach is reflected in the Life Orientation Test (LOT) and its successor the Life
Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994). This is the measure we
have used in our own work on this topic. It consists of a set of statements (e.g., “I’m always
optimistic about my future,” “I rarely count on good things happening to me” [reversed]) to
which people indicate their agreement or disagreement on a multi-point scale (other measures of
this trait have also been created with a similar structure, e.g., Dember, Martin, Hummer, Howe,
& Melton, 1989).A different approach to measuring optimism rests on the idea that people’s
expectancies for the future stem from their interpretations of the past (Peterson & Seligman,
1984). If past failures are seen as reflecting stable causes, more failure will be expected, because
the cause (which is relatively permanent) is likely to remain in force.

If past failures are seen as reflecting unstable causes, the outlook for the future may be
brighter, because the cause may no longer be present. In line with this reasoning, some assess
optimism and pessimism as patterns of attributions about the causes of events (e.g., Peterson &
Seligman, 1984), and infer that the attributions ultimately yield expectancies.It turns out,
however, that stable attributions for negative events are only modestly associated with measures
of generalized expectancies (Ahrens & Haaga, 1993, Peterson & Vaidya, 2001). Thus, despite the
fact that the two measures relate to conceptually similar outcomes, they cannot be considered
interchangeable. A preference for one approach to assessment versus the other may depend on
whether one views attributions or expectancies as the more fundamental or crucial element, or
the element that is more susceptible to therapeutic change.Each measurement approach yields a
continuous distribution of scores. It is common to refer to optimists and pessimists as though
they were distinct categories of people, but this is a verbal convenience. Almost never is a line
drawn and people placed in one group or the other.

People range from very optimistic to very pessimistic, with most being somewhere
between.On the other hand, it is possible to identify people who are optimistic in an absolute
sense, because they agree with optimistic items (e.g., “In uncertain times, I usually expect the
best”) and disagree with pessimistic items (e.g., “If something can go wrong for me, it will”). In
the same way it is also possible to identify people who are pessimists in an absolute sense. Doing
this reveals that pessimists are a minority. Most people are optimistic, but to varying degrees
(Segerstrom, 2006a), and the literature should be interpreted in this light. Put differently, we
know more about people who are less optimistic than we know about people who are truly
pessimists.Pattern that is quite common in measures with that structure) reflects method variance
or substantive variance. The jury is still out on that issue. However, it remains an important
clinical as well as theoretical question, in that some have argued that interventions should be
targeted to address optimistic as well as pessimistic cognition (Riskind, Sarampote, & Mercier,
1996). Whether one side or the other is more important, if indeed there are two sides at all, needs
further empirical clarification.For the sake of simplicity, in this article we treat optimism–
pessimism as one dimension. It should be kept in mind, however, that in some studies what
mattered most was the extent to which people endorse versus reject a pessimistic outlook; in
other studies what matters most was the extent to which people endorse versus reject an
optimistic outlook. In yet other studies, this issue did not matter at all.In the next sections we
describe some ways in which individual differences in optimism versus pessimism, measured as
expectations for one’s future, relate to other aspects of life (see also Segerstrom, 2006a).
Manifestations of optimism are grouped here into five sections, dealing with subjective well-
being, coping, fostering and interfering with well-being, physical health, and socioeconomic and
social resources.

The studies done vary in complexity and what they are able to show. Some of the work is
cross-sectional, showing that lower optimism relates to reports of more distress in some difficult
situation. What those studies cannot show is whether less optimistic people had more distress
even prior to the adversity. Other studies assess people at multiple time points. These studies give
a better picture of how distress shifts over time and circumstances, and allow researchers to
control for initial levels of distress. We focus here on this sort of research.A very early study of
optimism and emotional well-being examined the development of depressed feelings after
childbirth (Carver & Gaines, 1987). Women completed the LOT and a depression scale in the
last third of their pregnancy. They completed the depression scale again three weeks after
delivery. Optimism related to lower depression symptoms at initial assessment and also predicted
lower depression postpartum, controlling for initial levels. Thus optimism appeared to confer
resistance to postpartum depressive symptoms.

Methods

Population and sample.

Population of this research consist of students in Punjab. Inclusion criteria for this population is
all the students of universities and colleges in Punjab in both government and private sector. The
sample consisted of 150 students, which include males and females. Those people are included
in the study that showed willingness to participate in the study. The confidentiality was assured
to the students so that they would participate with full honesty.

Research design .

Correlational research design (Galton, 1988) is utilized in research, in order to explore the
connection amid variables Emotional Intelligence, optimism and academic resilience.
Correlational design is chosen for this work. It allows to inspect the relationships between
variables deprived of manipulating them. In the situation of investigating Emotional Intelligence,
among students, correlational research allows researchers to assess the extent to which changes
in Emotional Intelligence or Personality Traitsare associated with changes in Optimisim and
academic resilience.

Instruments.

Three instruments were used in this research.

Brief Emotional Intelligence Scale

Original 33-items Emotional Intelligence scale (Schutte, 1998) is converted into Brief Emotional
Intelligence Scale developed by Kevin et al. (2010) in a 10-items short form. This 10 items
measure consist of 10 questions with 5-point format fluctuating as 1 Strongly Disagree,2-
disagree,3- neutral ,4-agree and 5- Strongly Agree. Entire score for this measure is intended by
taking sum of all scores for all items, scores range from 10 to 50. Higher the cut-point more is
Emotional Intelligence.

Brief Resilience Scale….

Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The brief
resilience scale: assessing the ability to bounce back. International journal of behavioral
medicine, 15(3), 194-200.

Revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R).

The revised scale was constructed in order to eliminate two items from the original scale, which
dealt more with coping style than with positive expectations for future outcomes. The correlation
between the revised scale and the original scale is 95.Scheier, M.F., Carver C.S., and Bridges,
M.W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and
self-esteem): A re-evaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67, 1063- 1078.

Procedure

The study was conducted to relationship Between optimism,Emotional intelligence and academic
resilience among students, for this purpose, first of all students was selected as a sample and the
sample was consisted of 150 students. After briefing the questionare including scale was
administered to the respondent individually. In the beginning reasonable amount of time was
spent on rapport development. The questionare send to students and they were told they could
ask any statement which seems difficult to understand. They were informed that they should try
to answer the questions as honestly as possible. At the start of the form, the participants were
asked to fill demographic sheet which contains age, gender and qualification.Respondents were
requested to mark just one option of every statement. Respondents were asked to read carefully
each items of the scale one by one and give the answer, which they think would most
appropriately describe their feelings. It was made clear that the information gathered would be
kept strictly confidential and will be used only for research purpose. They were requested not to
leave any question unanswered or to take any omission. After tacking back these questionnaires,
they were rechecked so that no items should remain unanswered. The score was calculated at the
end.

Objective

The purpose of study is to investigate the relationship between emotional intelligence, optimism
and academic resilience.

The aim of study emotional intelligence impact on academic resilience and optimism.

To investigate the role of optimism in the relationship of emotional intelligence and academic
resilience.
Hypothesis

There will a significant relationship between emotional intelligence, optimism and academic
resilience.

Emotional intelligence significantly predict the academic resilience.

Optimism will significantly mediate the relationship between emotional intelligence and
academic resilience.