1
THE ROLE PLAYED BY EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE SELFEFFICACY OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS FROM DIVERSE STREAMS:
A COMPARITIVE STUDY.
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
In
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY
By
MONIK MAGIYA
2215322030008
Under the supervision of
Dr. Vijendra Nath Pathak
APRIL 2025
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
PARUL INSTITUTE OF LIBERAL
ARTS
PARUL UNIVERSITY
P.O. Limda – 391 760, GUJARAT,
INDIA
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am deeply grateful to my dissertation advisor, Dr. Vijendra Nath Pathak, for his critical
guidance, constructive feedback, patience, and support throughout the entire research
process. His expertise and mentorship have been instrumental in shaping the direction of
this dissertation and navigating its challenges. I am truly fortunate to have had his
supervision during the crucial stages of my dissertation.
I extend my sincerest appreciation to the participants who generously volunteered their
time and shared their experiences for this study. Their willingness to participate has
greatly enriched the depth and quality of this research. I am thankful to all my friends
and mentors who have provided invaluable assistance, encouragement, and inspiration
throughout this journey. Their words of encouragement and unconditional support have
made a significant difference and have helped me stay calm and focused.
Extending heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Megha Taragi, who helped me choose the topic for
research wisely. Her practical suggestions and inputs helped me shape my mettle for an
exhaustive research study, and I am forever grateful for her presence and support in my
academic life.
In the end, I also extend my deepest gratitude to everyone who has played a part, no
matter how big or small, in realizing this dissertation. Their contributions have been
instrumental in bringing this project to fruition, and for that, I am eternally thankful.
3
PLAGIARISM REPORT
4
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the dissertation entitled, “A Role Played by Emotional Intelligence in
the Self-Efficacy of Undergraduate Students from Diverse Streams: A Comparitive
Study.”, submitted by Monik Magiya, 2215322030008 in partial -fulfilment of the
requirement for the award of the degree of Masters in Clinical Psychology of Parul
University, is a record of bonafide and original research work carried out by him under my
guidance and supervision and the dissertation has not previously formed the basis for the
award of any degree diploma or other similar title. The materials that are obtained and used
from other sources have been acknowledged in the dissertation.
Place: Vadodara
Date:
Dr. Vijendra Nath Pathak
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Psychology
Faculty Supervisor
Dr. Piyush Trivedi
Associate Professor
Dept. of Psychology
HoD, Dept Psychology
Dr. Digvijay Pandya
Professor and Dean, PILA
5
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that research work embodied in this dissertation thesis entitled THE ROLE
PLAYED BY EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE SELF-EFFICACY OF
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS FROM DIVERSE STREAMS:
A COMPARITIVE STUDY carried out by Mr. MONIK MAGIYA, (2215322030008) at
Parul Institute of Liberal Arts is approved for the degree of Master of Arts with
specialization in Clinical Psychology by Parul University.
Date:
Place:
Sign and Name:
6
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 2
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. 9
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ 9
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................. 9
1.
2.
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 12
1.1.
Emotional Intelligence ........................................................................................................... 12
1.1.1.
Contributions by Salovey and Mayer................................................................................ 12
1.1.2.
Contributions by Daniel Goleman. ................................................................................... 15
1.1.3.
Assessing Emotional Intelligence. .................................................................................... 19
1.2.
Self-Efficacy .......................................................................................................................... 24
1.2.1.
Academic Self-efficacy ..................................................................................................... 25
1.2.2.
Social Self-efficacy ........................................................................................................... 26
1.2.3.
Interaction between academic and social self-efficacy ..................................................... 27
1.2.4.
Self-efficacy and human functioning ................................................................................ 28
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................................................ 30
2.1.
The Ability-Based Model of Emotional Intelligence.............................................................. 30
2.2.
Goleman’s Applied Model of Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace. ............................... 31
2.3.
Emotional Intelligence and Self-Concept in Academic Performance. .................................... 34
2.4.
Emotional Intelligence and Academic Self-Concept Among Undergraduate Students. ....... 37
2.5.
Bandura’s Concept of Self-Efficacy and its Role in Human Functioning. ........................... 39
2.6.
Bandura’s Framework for Developing Self-Efficacy Scales. ............................................... 41
2.6.1.
Domain-Specificity of Self-Efficacy................................................................................. 42
2.6.2.
Contextual Specificity of Self-Efficacy ............................................................................ 42
2.6.3.
General Self-Efficacy........................................................................................................ 42
2.6.4.
Social Self-Efficacy .......................................................................................................... 43
2.7.
Emotional Intelligence and Academic Stream as factors influencing Self-Esteem. ............. 44
2.8.
The Influence of Emotional Intelligence and Social Skills on Self-Efficacy: Examining
Gender Differences. .......................................................................................................................... 45
2.9.
Effects of Emotional intelligence and Self-Efficacy on Entrepreneurial Intention: A study on
undergraduate students...................................................................................................................... 46
2.10.
Emotional intelligence and self-efficacy: A comparative study between primary and
secondary school teachers. ................................................................................................................ 47
7
2.11.
Emotional intelligence as a Predictor of Self-Efficacy among students with different
levels of Academic Achievement. .................................................................................................... 48
3.
4.
5.
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 50
3.1.
Rationale of the study ........................................................................................................... 50
3.2.
Research Objectives .............................................................................................................. 51
3.3.
Hypothesis............................................................................................................................. 52
3.4.
Variables ............................................................................................................................... 52
3.5.
Sample................................................................................................................................... 52
3.5.1.
Sample Structure ............................................................................................................... 53
3.6.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria ........................................................................................... 53
3.7.
Procedure for Data Collection............................................................................................... 54
3.8.
Tools ..................................................................................................................................... 55
3.8.1.
Selecting the appropriate emotional intelligence scale. .................................................... 55
3.8.2.
Constructing a self-efficacy scale ..................................................................................... 56
3.8.3.
General Self-Efficacy Scale. ............................................................................................. 58
3.9.
Statistical Techniques ........................................................................................................... 59
3.9.1.
Reliability and Validity Tests. .......................................................................................... 60
3.9.1.1.
Reliability Analysis ....................................................................................................... 60
3.9.1.2.
Validity Analysis........................................................................................................... 60
RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 62
4.1.
Gender Differences in Emotional Intelligence. ..................................................................... 62
4.2.
Gender Differences in Self-Efficacy ..................................................................................... 62
4.3.
Differences in Emotional Intelligence across Academic Streams. ....................................... 63
4.4.
Differences in Self-Efficacy across Academic Streams........................................................ 64
4.5.
Differences in Self-Efficacy across Year of Study. .............................................................. 65
4.6.
Correlation between Emotional Intelligence and Self-Efficacy............................................ 65
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................... 67
5.1.
Emotional Intelligence Differences across Gender ............................................................... 67
5.2.
Self-Efficacy Differences across Gender. ............................................................................. 67
5.3.
Emotional Intelligence across Academic Streams. ............................................................... 68
5.4.
Self-Efficacy across Academic Streams. .............................................................................. 68
5.5.
Self-Efficacy across Years of Study ..................................................................................... 68
8
5.6.
Correlation between Emotional Intelligence and Self-Efficacy............................................ 69
5.7.
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 69
5.8.
Limitations of the research .................................................................................................... 70
5.9.
Scope for future research ...................................................................................................... 71
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 74
Appendix A. Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS) ................................................. 77
Appendix B. General Self-Efficacy Scale............................................................................................. 79
9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Independent Samples t-test for Gender and Emotional Intelligence ..................................... 62
Table 2: Independent Samples t-test for Gender and Self-Efficacy ...................................................... 63
Table 3: Welch's ANOVA for Emotional Intelligence across Academic Streams .............................. 63
Table 4: Group-Wise Differences in Emotional Intelligence ............................................................... 64
Table 5: Welch's ANOVA for Self-Efficacy across Academic Streams .............................................. 64
Table 6: Group-Wise Differences in Self-Efficacy............................................................................... 64
Table 7: Welch's ANOVA for Self-Efficacy across Year of Study ..................................................... 65
Table 8: Year-Wise Differences in Self-Efficacy ................................................................................. 65
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Correlation between Emotional Intelligence and Self-Efficacy .......................................... 66
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
EI
Emotional Intelligence.
IQ
Intelligence Quotient
EQ
Emotional Quotient
MSCEIT
Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
TEIQue
Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire
SEIS
Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale
SE
Self-Efficacy
GPA
Grade Point Average
GSE
General Self-Efficacy
WLEIS
Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale
GSES
General Self-Efficacy Scale
10
JASP
Jeffrey’s Amazing Statistics Program
SD
Standard Deviation
M
Mean
p
Probability Value
r
Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient
df
Degrees of Freedom
ANOVA
Analysis of Variance
11
ABSTRACT
This research investigates the relationship between emotional intelligence and self-efficacy
among undergraduate students enrolled in three distinct academic streams: Commerce,
Science, and Arts. Emotional intelligence—often conceptualized as the ability to recognize,
manage, and apply emotions adaptively—was analyzed in this study as a potential
influencing factor on self-efficacy levels. ‘Self-Efficacy’ here refers to the individual's
internal belief system regarding their ability to complete tasks and navigate difficulties,
consistent within psychologist Albert Bandura’s framework. A purposive convenience-based
sample of 270 undergraduate students from Mumbai and Vadodara was selected. Quantitative
data were collected via self-report measures. Emotional intelligence was measured using the
Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS), and self-efficacy was assessed
through the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES). Results indicated statistically significant
differences in emotional intelligence and self-efficacy across academic streams, with Arts
students scoring higher on both dimensions. Self-efficacy levels also differed significantly by
year of study, peaking among second-year students. However, no significant gender-based
differences were found in either emotional intelligence or self-efficacy. Findings revealed a
moderate positive correlation between emotional intelligence and self-efficacy, hinting that
students with higher emotional competence are more confident in handling academic and
interpersonal challenges. The present research adds to existing scholarship on emotional and
cognitive factors in higher education by highlighting how emotional intelligence may
influence belief structures essential to students’ academic and psychosocial adjustment. The
findings also highlight the importance of interventions and suggest future research pathways
involving cultural variables, longitudinal tracking, and targeted educational programs.
Keywords: Emotional Intelligence, Self-Efficacy, undergraduate students, academic streams,
psychological assessment, higher education.
12
1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter throws light on the fundamental concepts measured and discussed in this study.
Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Self-Efficacy (SE) are the foundational parameters in the
context of this study.
1.1. Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence (EI) is broadly understood as the capacity to identify, comprehend,
and manage one’s own emotions as well as those of others. While traditional intelligence (IQ)
has long been associated with problem-solving and analytical thinking, scholars have
emphasized that emotional processes are equally important in navigating complex social
environments and interpersonal situations (Salovey & Mayer, 1990; Goleman, 1995). The
Emotional aspects of intelligence had been explored before in concepts such as Social
intelligence by Thorndike (1920), but emotional intelligence as a distinct concept had not
been fully articulated.
1.1.1. Contributions by Salovey and Mayer.
Salovey and Mayer (1990) originally coined the term “Emotional Intelligence” (EI). In their
foundational work, they described emotions as complex, organized responses that involve
multiple psychological systems, including physiological, cognitive, and motivational
processes. According to them, emotions are elicited by internal or external events that carry
personal meaning, and these emotional responses influence how individuals perceive and
respond to their environments. They established and emphasized that Emotions ought to be
distinguished from the closely related concept of Mood in that emotions are shorter, more
intense and adaptive in response. Salovey and Mayer defined emotional intelligence as the
ability to recognize one’s own emotions as well as those of others, to distinguish between
them, and to use emotional information to guide thinking and behavior effectively (Salovey
13
& Mayer, 1990). This definition emphasized the cognitive processing of emotional
information and the capacity to manage emotional responses effectively. Their original model
of emotional intelligence comprises of four distinct but related components. These four
abilities, often referred to as the Four-Branch Model, represent the hierarchical structure of
emotional intelligence, ranging from basic emotional processes like perception, to more
complex and conscious regulation of emotions.
1) Perceiving Emotions: The first and most fundamental aspect of emotional intelligence
is the ability to accurately perceive and recognize emotions in oneself and others. This
includes recognizing emotional expressions in the face, voice, body language, and
other non-verbal cues. Salovey and Mayer (1990) assert that emotional perception
also includes the capacity to discern subtle emotional states and to discern between
real and fake emotions. Perceiving emotions is critical because it forms the basis for
all other emotional intelligence abilities. In the absence of accurate perception,
individuals find it more challenging to regulate their own emotions or to respond
suitably to others.
2) Using Emotions to Facilitate Thought: This second element focuses on "using
emotions to enhance cognitive activities," which include decision-making, thinking,
and problem-solving. Emotions are “more than just reactions to things that happen”;
they also include important information that might direct one's thoughts and general
cognitive processes. For instance, while some emotions, like anger or annoyance, can
help one focus and make analytical work easier, others, like happiness or enthusiasm,
can foster creative thinking. This skill highlights how emotions and cognition
interact. Instead of letting emotions interfere with or disturb their ability to think,
people with high emotional intelligence are able to control their emotional states in
ways that enhance cognitive functions. (Salovey & Mayer, 1990).
14
3) Understanding Emotions: The third branch is the ability to ‘comprehend emotional
information’, including how emotions evolve over time and how they relate to one
another. This involves recognizing complex emotions, such as when someone feels
ambivalent or experiences multiple emotions simultaneously. It also necessitates
identifying patterns in emotional reactions and comprehending the origins and effects
of emotions. Salovey and Mayer (1990) emphasized the importance of having a
nuanced understanding of emotional experiences. Individuals possessing elevated
emotional intelligence can precisely identify emotions and anticipate how various
events may provoke particular emotional reactions.
4) Managing Emotions: The final and most advanced component is the ability to regulate
emotions in oneself and others. This involves being aware of emotions and using
strategies to manage emotional reactions effectively, even in challenging situations.
Emotionally intelligent individuals are skilled at enhancing positive emotions and
managing negative ones, ensuring that their emotions remain appropriate to the
context. Managing emotions also extends to influencing the emotional states of
others. For example, a person high in emotional intelligence can help calm a
distressed friend or encourage a team to stay motivated. This ability is crucial for
maintaining emotional well-being and fostering positive social interactions.
This model of emotional intelligence was groundbreaking because it established a scientific
and measurable framework for understanding how emotions interact with cognition. Unlike
earlier ideas of social intelligence, Mayer-Salovey’s approach suggested a set of separate
abilities that were scientifically verified and assessed, laying the groundwork for later
assessment tools such as the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT)
(Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002). The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
(MSCEIT) was developed to assess emotional abilities through performance-based tasks. It
15
evaluates individuals on how they perceive, understand, and manage emotions. However,
some critics argue that its scoring system—based on consensus or expert norms—may lack
objectivity, as the “correct” responses can be culturally or contextually influenced (Matthews
et al., 2012).
While Salovey and Mayer laid a robust scientific foundation for the study of emotional
intelligence, critics argue that the Salovey and Mayer model may be too narrow in scope,
emphasizing internal cognitive processing over social and behavioral dimensions.
Additionally, emotional intelligence as defined by their model appears to overlap with traits
such as empathy or extraversion, raising concerns over its distinction from personality and
cognitive intelligence. Rather than being a distinct concept, some scholars contend that
emotional intelligence is a blend of general intellect and innate personality traits. (Locke,
2005; Matthews et al., 2012).
Another critique of Salovey and Mayer's model is that it is "too theoretical." It pays little
attention to how emotional intelligence manifests itself in daily life or in particular contexts,
such as schools or workplaces. Their methodology is extremely scientific and rigorous, but it
lacks the direct link to real-world applications that many companies and individuals look for
in leadership, education, or personal growth.
1.1.2. Contributions by Daniel Goleman.
Daniel Goleman’s approach to emotional intelligence broadened the definition beyond the
initial framework provided by Salovey and Mayer. In his book, Goleman’s central argument
was that emotional intelligence could often outweigh IQ in determining life success,
especially in environments where collaboration, empathy, and interpersonal communication
are critical (Goleman, 1995). His theory emphasized the real-world applications of emotional
intelligence, particularly in leadership and management, where success depends on both self-
16
regulation and the ability to understand and influence the emotions of others. Goleman
expanded the original four-branch model proposed by Salovey and Mayer by introducing a
framework that breaks emotional intelligence into five key components:

Self-awareness: Self-awareness is the capacity to identify and comprehend one's own
feelings, as well as how they impact one's thoughts and actions. This involves being
well aware of one's values, shortcomings, and strengths. Goleman asserts that selfaware people are better able to make decisions because they are able to correctly
interpret their feelings and comprehend how those feelings affect their behaviour.
Additionally, self-awareness promotes self-confidence and a realistic self-evaluation,
both of which are essential for personal development.

Self-regulation: This element describes the capacity to control one's emotions,
maintain composure, and respond properly to emotional circumstances. It is having
the ability to control tension, worry, and anger by using coping mechanisms and
pausing to consider a situation before acting. According to Goleman, emotionally
intelligent people and successful leaders have high degrees of self-regulation. They
can control their impulses, remain composed under duress, and bounce back fast after
failures.

Motivation: Goleman identified motivation as an important component of emotional
intelligence, defining it as a “love for work that transcends external incentives such as
money or status”. Emotionally intelligent people are motivated by internal goals,
determination, and a strong desire for personal fulfillment. Highly motivated
individuals are more likely to take the initiative, remain positive in the face of
adversity, and stick to long-term goals.

Empathy: This refers to the ability to detect and understand the feelings of others. It
is more than just identifying emotions; it is also about applying this information to
17
interact with people in a compassionate and mindful manner. Empathy in the
workplace is essential for developing solid connections, managing teams, and
effectively resolving issues. It enables people to detect others' needs, comprehend
how emotional cues influence relationships, and respond in a supportive manner.

Social Skills: Goleman's approach concludes with social skills, which include, the
capacity to successfully manage relationships. This calls for effective communication,
attentive listening, handling conflict, and the capacity to lead and work with others.
People with strong social skills are excellent at networking, team building, and
negotiating. They are frequently successful leaders because they understand how to
build relationships, encourage teamwork, and motivate people to work toward a
common objective.
Daniel Goleman’s model of emotional intelligence addressed many of these concerns raised
in the Salovey and Mayer model by broadening the scope of EI to include:

Social competencies: In Salovey and Mayer's original model, emotional intelligence
was developed based on intrapersonal skills, such as understanding and regulating
one's own emotions. While their model did mention aspects of perceiving emotions in
others, it was less focused on the broader social competencies needed for effective
interaction within group dynamics. However, Goleman (1998) placed more of an
emphasis on interpersonal skills and other social competences that are necessary for
succeeding in both professional and social settings. Success in academic and
professional settings now depends on social skills and empathy. Leaders frequently
employ these social skills to uplift and motivate teams, settle conflicts, and foster a
friendly environment. Thus, the extension of emotional intelligence from an
individual-centered perspective to a more relational and societal framework was made
possible by Goleman's inclusion of social competencies.
18

Real-world applications: Goleman’s model was instrumental in bringing emotional
intelligence into the real world, showing how EI can be applied to various domains
such as:
o Education: Goleman’s work laid the groundwork for the development of
Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) programs in schools. These programs
teach students emotional awareness, self-regulation, and interpersonal skills,
helping them navigate academic challenges and social interactions. By
embedding Emotional Intelligence into the educational curriculum, this model
provided students with tools to manage stress in a better and healthier way,
work collaboratively, and build positive relationships, leading to better
academic outcomes.
o Workplace and Leadership: One of Goleman’s most significant contributions
was applying emotional intelligence to the workplace. In his book Working
with Emotional Intelligence (1998), Goleman argued that EQ is a key factor in
career success, often more so than IQ or technical skills. He introduced the
idea that emotionally intelligent leaders are better at inspiring and motivating
teams, managing conflicts, and fostering a positive organizational culture. This
application has led to widespread adoption of emotional intelligence in
leadership training, performance evaluations, and organizational development
strategies.
o Personal Relationships: Goleman also applied emotional intelligence to
personal relationships, suggesting that empathy, self-regulation, and social
skills are critical for maintaining healthy interpersonal connections. Whether
in friendships, romantic partnerships, or family dynamics, emotional
19
intelligence allows individuals to communicate more effectively, resolve
conflicts constructively, and support others emotionally.

Practical Behavior-Based approach to assessment: Salovey and Mayer’s model did
not provide clear methods for assessing emotional intelligence in a way that linked
directly to observable behaviors and performance outcomes. It was less concerned
with the Practical Expression of emotional intelligence. To address the limitations of
earlier models, Goleman proposed a behavior-based framework that assesses
emotional intelligence through observable actions. This includes conflict resolution,
team motivation, and adaptability in stressful situations, providing practical avenues
for emotional skill development.
Goleman’s work, particularly in organizational contexts, made emotional intelligence a
mainstream concept, emphasizing its importance in leadership, motivation, and interpersonal
relationships. The complementary nature of Salovey and Mayer’s cognitive model and
Goleman’s behavior-focused framework has greatly contributed to the field. While the former
emphasizes internal emotional processing, the latter expands EI into practical skills
applicable to leadership and interpersonal effectiveness.
1.1.3. Assessing Emotional Intelligence.
The measurement of emotional intelligence (EI) has evolved significantly since Salovey and
Mayer first conceptualized it in 1990. Early models emphasized cognitive aspects of
emotional processing, but subsequent frameworks—most notably Daniel Goleman’s—shifted
focus towards social competencies and behaviour-based assessments. Over time, various
tools were designed to assess emotional intelligence, each reflecting different theoretical
perspectives and advancements in psychometric research. In this sub-chapter, the researcher
aims to provide a brief overview of the assessment tools developed with time.
20
1) The Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS) – 1999:
Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS) was one of the first formal attempts
to measure emotional intelligence based on the ability model proposed by Salovey
and Mayer. The MEIS measures emotional intelligence as a set of four cognitive
abilities:
i) Perceiving emotions: The ability to recognize and interpret emotions in oneself
and others.
ii) Facilitating thought: The ability to use emotions to enhance cognitive processes
and decision-making.
iii) Understanding emotions: The ability to analyse emotions, understand their causes,
and predict emotional responses.
iv) Managing emotions: The ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and
intellectual growth.
The test consists of objective tasks where participants are asked to identify emotions in
faces, art, and music, describe emotional experiences, and predict emotional outcomes in
various scenarios. While groundbreaking, the MEIS was criticised for its length (it took
over an hour to complete) and psychometric weaknesses in scoring, particularly around
the subjectivity of “correct” emotional responses as also mentioned before.
2) The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) – 2002: The
MSCEIT improved upon the MEIS by refining the ability-based model of EI. It
remains one of the most widely used tests for assessing emotional intelligence from a
cognitive-ability perspective. It measures the same four branches of emotional
intelligence outlined in the MEIS, but the scoring and test design were refined to
provide more reliable and valid results. The subjectivity of self-perception was hardly
a factor since the participants are asked to complete tasks related to perceiving, using,
21
understanding, and managing emotions. For instance, in the ‘Perceiving emotions’
section, participants view images of faces and describe the emotions being expressed.
In the ‘Using emotions’ section, they rate how emotions could influence problemsolving or thinking in hypothetical situations. The over reliance on consensus-based
scoring is still a limitation since the practical and behavioural aspects of emotional
intelligence may not be accurately captured.
3) The Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) – 1999: The ECI were developed and
designed in line with Daniel Goleman’s behavioural model of emotional intelligence,
which emphasizes the emotional competencies that can be observed in the workplace
and other real-world environments. The ECI measures 18 competencies across four
main clusters:
(1) Self-awareness: Emotional self-awareness, accurate self-assessment, selfconfidence.
(2) Self-management: Emotional self-control, adaptability, initiative, and
achievement orientation.
(3) Social awareness: Empathy, organizational awareness, service orientation.
(4) Relationship management: Leadership, influence, communication, conflict
management, teamwork, and collaboration.
The ECI uses a 360-degree feedback approach, where the assessments are not only
completed by the participants, but also by their peers, supervisors, and subordinates.
This provides a more comprehensive picture of how emotional competencies are
expressed in practice. It mainly allows for an external perspective on a person’s
emotional intelligence, making it less prone to self-report biases and encourages
behaviour-based responses. However, the 360-degree feedback process is very time-
22
consuming and requires the cooperation of all the raters (peers, supervisors etc.)
which can limit its use in some contexts.
4) The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEI Que) – 2001: This measures
Trait Emotional Intelligence, which focuses on self-perceived emotional abilities and
behaviours. Unlike the MSCEIT or ECI, which emphasize abilities or competencies,
the TEI Que is based on the Trait Model of Emotional Intelligence, assessing
emotional intelligence as a personality trait, distinguishing it from ability-based
models like the MSCEIT. It consists of 153 items, divided into four main dimensions:
(1) Well-being: Self-esteem, happiness, and optimism.
(2) Self-control: Emotional regulation and stress management.
(3) Emotionality: Empathy, emotional perception, and relationship skills.
(4) Sociability: Social awareness and social influence.
Although TEI Que may offer insight into long-term emotional functioning, it fails to
measure the dynamic aspects of emotional intelligence, such as how emotions are
processed in real-time. It relies heavily on self-reporting which might not provide
reliable results.
5) Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS) – 2002: This scale was
developed by Wong and Law (2002), is a widely used, psychometrically validated
self-report measure for assessing Emotional Intelligence (EI). The scale is grounded
in the four-dimensional ability-based model originally proposed by Mayer and
Salovey (1997), which views emotional intelligence as a set of interrelated skills that
influence an individual’s ability to perceive, understand, manage, and utilize emotions
in oneself and in others. The WLEIS consists of 16 items divided across four distinct
dimensions:
23
1) Self-Emotion Appraisal (SEA) – The ability to understand and express one’s
own emotions.
2) Others’ Emotion Appraisal (OEA) – The ability to perceive and understand
the emotions of others.
3) Use of Emotion (UOE) – The ability to use emotions to facilitate performance
and goal achievement.
4) Regulation of Emotion (ROE) – The ability to regulate one’s own emotions
effectively.
Each item is rated on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree), making it brief yet effective for capturing multi-dimensional
emotional intelligence without causing fatigue in respondents.
6) The Genos Emotional Intelligence Inventory – 2008: This is another behaviour-based
tool designed for real-world application, focusing on ‘workplace emotional
intelligence’. This tool is specifically designed for assessing emotional intelligence in
professional environments, providing insights that are particularly useful for
leadership development and organizational performance. The Genos model assesses
emotional intelligence through six core competencies:
i) Self-awareness: Recognizing one's own emotions.
ii) Awareness of others: Perceiving emotions in others.
iii) Authenticity: Expressing emotions honestly and consistently.
iv) Emotional reasoning: Using emotional information to make decisions.
v) Self-management: Regulating one's emotions.
vi) Positive influence: Managing the emotions of others.
The evolution of emotional intelligence assessments reflects an increasing shift from abilitybased models that emphasize cognitive processes to competency-based and trait-based
24
models that focus on practical, real-world behaviours. Early tools like the MSCEIT were
focused on objectively measuring cognitive abilities related to emotions, while later tools
such as the ECI, and Genos Inventory emphasized emotional and social competencies that are
crucial for success in interpersonal relationships, academic settings, and workplaces.
As emotional intelligence became more widely applied in fields such as education,
leadership, and psychology, tools evolved to capture a broader range of emotional and social
behaviours, moving beyond purely cognitive tasks to measure how emotional intelligence
manifests in everyday interactions. This shift has made emotional intelligence assessments
more relevant for real-world applications, while also increasing the range of tools available to
researchers, educators, and professionals seeking to understand and develop emotional
competencies.
1.2. Self-Efficacy
For the following comparative study, the researcher has used a psychosocial parameter, SelfEfficacy, which was introduced by renowned Canadian-American psychologist Albert
Bandura, as a measure of academic success and social adjustment. However, more than
immediate and measurable success in these domains, According to Bandura (1977), selfefficacy is the belief in one’s capacity to manage and succeed in specific tasks or situations.
This personal belief greatly influences how people think, feel emotionally, and behave in the
face of challenges. He emphasized that “self-efficacy is not about the skills a person
possesses, but rather their belief in what they can do with those skills under different
conditions”. It shapes how people approach goals, tasks, and challenges, affecting their
resilience in the face of adversity and their willingness to take on challenging endeavors. For
students in particular, Bandura distinguished between Academic Self-efficacy and Social
Self-efficacy, both of which are crucial for navigating the challenges of higher education.
25
1.2.1. Academic Self-efficacy
Academic self-efficacy refers to the confidence of students in their ability to perform tasks
related to their academic life. According to Bandura, students with high academic selfefficacy believe they can effectively manage their learning processes, understand course
materials, and succeed in exams. This belief plays a central role in motivating students to set
and achieve academic goals. The key aspects of academic self-efficacy include:

Task Mastery: Students with high academic self-efficacy believe they can understand
and master the subject matter, whether it be writing essays, solving math issues, or
carrying out scientific experiments.

Effort and Persistence: Because they believe their efforts will lead to achievement,
these students are more likely to continue when faced with academic challenges.
When presented with obstacles, they are less likely to give up.

Establishing and Reaching Goals: Students who have greater academic self-efficacy
are more likely to establish difficult objectives and put forth constant effort to meet
them. Instead than seeing academic difficulties as barriers to overcome, they see
them as chances to improve.

Learning Techniques: They also frequently use time management, self-control, and
planning as successful learning techniques.
Bandura emphasized that academic self-efficacy strongly influences a student’s performance.
Students who believe they can succeed are more likely to take proactive steps to ensure that
success, such as seeking help when needed, participating in class discussions, and preparing
well for exams. In contrast, students with low academic self-efficacy may experience anxiety,
procrastinate, or avoid challenging academic tasks, which can negatively affect their
performance.
26
1.2.2. Social Self-efficacy
Social self-efficacy is the belief in one’s ability to successfully interact and form meaningful
relationships with others in social situations. For undergraduate university students, who are
often in new and diverse social environments, social self-efficacy plays a crucial role in their
overall well-being and social integration. The key aspects of social self-efficacy include:

Social Interactions: Students with high social self-efficacy believe that they can form
friendships, engage in group-work, and maintain effective communication with peers,
professors, and other figures of authority.

Confidence in Social Settings: These students feel comfortable participating in social
events, asking questions in class, or joining clubs and organizations. They are
confident in their ability to navigate both formal and informal social situations.

Handling Social Challenges: Social self-efficacy also involves the ability to manage
conflict, assert oneself in group-situations, and provide or receive support from others.
Students with high social self-efficacy can effectively resolve interpersonal conflicts
and collaborate well with others.

Building Networks: Social self-efficacy contributes to the development of a
supportive social network, which is vital for emotional support and academic success.
Such networks can include friends, mentors, and faculty members who help students
navigate the challenges of college life.
According to Bandura, students with high social self-efficacy are more likely to participate in
campus activities, form close friendships, and seek out social support when needed. These
social connections provide emotional security, reduce feelings of loneliness or isolation, and
can even contribute to academic success by providing a support system. On the other hand,
students with low social self-efficacy might struggle to make friends, participate in group-
27
projects, or engage with the college community, which could lead to feelings of isolation and
negatively affect their academic performance.
1.2.3. Interaction between academic and social self-efficacy
According to Bandura (1997), students' academic and social self-efficacy are mutually
reinforcing; social success often contributes to academic confidence, and academic
achievements can elevate social functioning. Conversely, academic success can boost social
self-efficacy by giving students confidence in their abilities and fostering positive social
interactions. For example, students who perform well in group-projects may feel more
confident about their social skills, and students who have a strong social network may feel
more supported and motivated in their academic endeavours. Bandura (1997) identified four
primary sources from which self-efficacy beliefs arise, each of which contributes uniquely to
the development of these beliefs:
1. Mastery Experiences: The best method for creating a strong sense of efficacy is
through mastery experiences. While failure weakens a strong belief in one's own
efficacy, particularly if it happens before a sense of efficacy is solidly established,
success strengthens it. Repeated success can boost self-efficacy, whereas repeated
failures can erode it, particularly when no aid or direction is available.
2. Vicarious Experiences: Observing other individuals who are similar to oneself,
accomplish through consistent effort might boost the individual’s confidence in their
own skills to do similar tasks. On the other hand, seeing someone fail while putting
forth a lot of effort might diminish self-efficacy. This technique is particularly
effective when the observer identifies strongly with the person being observed, as it
reinforces the assumption that similar efforts can yield comparable results (Bandura,
1997).
28
3. Verbal Persuasion: People can be convinced to believe in their ability to accomplish.
Positive encouragement and verbal persuasion from others can help people overcome
self-doubt and concentrate on their goals. However, this type of persuasion has
limited influence unless it is accompanied by opportunities for mastery and
performance accomplishments (Bandura, 1997).
4. Emotional and physiological states: Stress, anxiety, and enthusiasm can impact selfefficacy beliefs. Individuals react to emotional stimulation in ways that either increase
or decrease their sense of personal efficacy. A calm emotional state, for example, may
increase efficacy beliefs, but severe stress or weariness may decrease them (Bandura,
1997).
Bandura's concept of academic and social self-efficacy offers a complete framework for
understanding how students deal with the various demands of college life. Students who have
high self-efficacy in both academic and social areas are more likely to excel academically,
have meaningful relationships, and sustain emotional well-being. College environments can
help students develop self-efficacy by giving mastery experiences, supportive feedback, and
chances for social and intellectual engagement.
1.2.4. Self-efficacy and human functioning
Bandura (1997) emphasized how self-efficacy is a critical determinant in holistic human
functioning and, in accordance with his Social Cognitive Theory (1986), he identified the
internal processes influenced by self-efficacy:
1. Cognitive Processes: Self-efficacy beliefs influence goal-setting, commitment, and
persistence in the face of adversity. Individuals who possess high self-efficacy set
higher goals, perceive tough tasks as challenges rather than threats, and are more
likely to persevere until their objectives are met.
29
2. Motivational Processes: Self-efficacy influences decision-making, effort, and
persistence in the face of failures. Individuals with high self-efficacy are more driven
to take on tough activities and persevere in the face of adversity, whereas those with
low self-efficacy are more prone to avoid demanding situations and give up easily.
3. Affective Processes: Self-efficacy beliefs significantly impact people's perceptions of
themselves and their situations. Individuals possessing an enhanced sense of selfefficacy report decreased levels of anxiety, despair, and helplessness, even under
stressful conditions. They are better able to control their emotions and remain
composed in the face of adversity.
4. Selection Processes: Self-efficacy beliefs influence which locations and activities
people pick. Individuals are more prone to participate in things they believe they can
master, while avoiding circumstances they regard to be beyond their abilities. This has
an impact on the development of skills, interests, and connections across time,
influencing future behaviour and opportunities (Bandura, 1997).
The researcher intends to use Albert Bandura’s Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales) as
an instructive reference to select the tool to measure self-efficacy. Numerical responses can
be obtained using a Likert Scale such that quantitative data comparison and analysis can be
done alongside Emotional Intelligence (EQ).
30
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In this chapter, existing studies have been reviewed thoroughly to assess the extent to which
the variables and parameters in this research study are measured and correlated in the past.
Primarily, the gaps and limitations present in the evaluation of academic and social selfefficacy were identified as an outcome of this review.
2.1. The Ability-Based Model of Emotional Intelligence.
In their pioneering 1990 paper, Peter Salovey and John D. Mayer, introduced the concept of
Emotional Intelligence (EI). This foundational work, published in journal Imagination,
Cognition and Personality, established a framework for understanding how emotions interact
with cognitive processes, including problem-solving and social functioning. In the previous
chapter, the researcher showed how these professors described emotional intelligence as “the
ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them,
and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions” highlighting four major
abilities; perceiving emotions, using emotions to facilitate thinking, understanding emotions
and finally, managing emotions. During that time, this framework established a new
perspective on the interaction between emotion and cognition, emphasizing that emotions are
not simply reactions but tools that can be leveraged for Adaptive Decision-Making and
Behaviour. They argued that while IQ measures cognitive abilities such as logical reasoning
and problem solving, EI represents a distinct set of abilities related to emotional functioning.
(Salovey and Mayer, 1990).
This distinction was a significant theoretical advance because it acknowledged that emotional
and social competencies contribute to personal success in complementary to IQ and in many
ways, emotional intelligence contributed to prosperity much more than cognitive intelligence
alone. According to their model, individuals with high EI can use emotional cues to guide
31
reasoning and problem solving more effectively. People with higher emotional intelligence
are more adept at interpreting emotional signals and integrating emotional knowledge into
their cognitive processes. For example, in the Emotional Facilitation of thinking, emotions
can prioritize information, making certain cognitive tasks easier or more efficient. Positive
emotions, for example, might enhance creative thinking, while negative emotions may
improve focus and detail orientation. This link between emotion and cognition highlighted
the adaptive functions of emotions, challenging the older view that emotions disrupt rational
thought. Individuals who can accurately perceive and regulate emotions are better able to
build healthy relationships, manage stress, and solve interpersonal problems. Salovey and
Mayer presented a conceptual framework and proposed methods for measuring emotional
intelligence. They suggested the development of ability-based tests, distinguishing emotional
intelligence from personality traits and self-reported measures of emotional competencies.
Their work laid the foundation for the development of empirical measures of emotional
intelligence, such as the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT),
which assesses EI through tasks that require the individual to perceive, use, understand, and
manage emotions in various scenarios. This measurement approach was crucial in
establishing EI as a scientifically valid construct and differentiating it from subjective selfperceptions of emotional abilities. The criticisms and challenges with this model have been
extensively discussed in the previous chapter along with the evolution and refinement of
emotional intelligence over the years.
2.2. Goleman’s Applied Model of Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace.
Daniel Goleman’s 1998 book, Working with Emotional Intelligence, significantly expanded
on his earlier work, Emotional Intelligence (1995), by applying the concept of emotional
intelligence (EI) to the workplace. His work, which popularized the concept, has had a
profound influence on organizational psychology, management practices, and leadership
32
development. Goleman defines Emotional Intelligence as a set of emotional and social
competencies that impact how individuals manage themselves and their relationships.
(Goleman, 1995) He presents EI as encompassing five main components, many of which
expand upon the earlier work of Salovey and Mayer:
1. Self-awareness: The ability to recognize and understand one's emotions and how
these affect the behaviour and performance of individuals.
2. Self-regulation: The capacity to control or redirect disruptive emotions and impulses
and to think before acting.
3. Motivation: A passion for work that goes beyond money or status, driven by an
internal desire to achieve goals.
4. Empathy: The ability to understand the emotions of others and to treat them according
to their emotional reactions.
2. Social skills: Proficiency in managing relationships, building networks, and finding
common ground with others.
Goleman emphasizes that these competencies are crucial for success in professional
environments, where interpersonal relationships, leadership abilities, and team collaboration
are paramount. Goleman conducted extensive interviews with executives and reviewed a
range of organizational studies to support his claims. He found that high levels of emotional
intelligence correlate with better job performance, particularly in roles that require leadership,
communication, and team collaboration. For instance, leaders with strong emotional
intelligence are better equipped to handle stress, navigate conflict, and inspire their teams
toward shared goals. Goleman’s research points to a strong connection between emotional
intelligence and transformational leadership. Leaders who demonstrate high levels of EI are
more likely to inspire and motivate their employees, fostering a culture of trust and
collaboration (Goleman, 1998). Conversely, He also explores the cost of low emotional
33
intelligence in the workplace, noting that employees who lack emotional competencies may
struggle with managing stress, collaborating with colleagues, and providing effective
customer service. These deficiencies can result in lower job satisfaction, decreased
performance, and increased absenteeism. He argues that while some individuals may be
naturally more emotionally intelligent than the rest, it can be cultivated through training and
development. Goleman emphasizes the importance of:

Self-reflection: Encouraging individuals to regularly assess their emotions, reactions,
and behaviours in the workplace.

Mentorship and coaching: Creating opportunities for feedback and guidance from
emotionally intelligent leaders and peers.

Emotional intelligence training programs: Goleman advocates for organizational
interventions designed to teach emotional intelligence skills, including stress
management, empathy, and communication skills.
He also stresses the importance of organizational culture in promoting emotional intelligence.
Leaders must model emotionally intelligent behaviours and create a work environment that
values emotional awareness, collaboration, and open communication. This aligns with
Goleman’s broader argument that emotional intelligence is essential not just for individual
success but for the overall effectiveness of organizations.
While Goleman’s work has been widely praised for its accessibility and practical
applications, it has also faced several criticisms. One of the primary criticisms is related to
the definition and measurement of emotional intelligence. It was argued that Goleman’s
broad definition of emotional intelligence includes competencies, such as motivation and
social skills, which overlap with other constructs like personality traits and leadership skills.
Despite these criticisms, Goleman’s book has had a lasting impact on organizational
psychology and management practices. His work popularized the concept of emotional
34
intelligence, making it a mainstream topic in both academic research and corporate training
programs. Goleman’s focus on the practical applications of EI has led to widespread use of
emotional intelligence assessments in hiring, leadership development, and employee training
initiatives.
2.3. Emotional Intelligence and Self-Concept in Academic Performance.
Quílez-Robres et al. (2023), in their systematic review and meta-analysis published in
Thinking Skills and Creativity, provide an in-depth evaluation of how emotional intelligence
(EI) correlates with academic outcomes across diverse educational levels. Through systematic
review and meta-analysis of existing research, this paper evaluates the strength of the
association between EI and educational outcomes, providing an updated synthesis of the
empirical evidence. The article aimed to assess the extent to which emotional intelligence
influences academic performance across a range of educational contexts.
The review covers studies from multiple educational levels, including primary, secondary,
and higher education, in diverse cultural and geographic settings. The authors also analysed
different dimensions of emotional intelligence, such as emotional regulation, emotional
awareness, and emotional facilitation, to understand how each aspect relates to academic
success. In synthesizing these studies, the article sought to address conflicting results found
in previous literature. While some studies have suggested a strong, positive relationship
between EI and academic outcomes, others have found weaker or no associations. By
applying meta-analytic techniques, the authors provide a more nuanced and statistically
robust analysis of these variations. A review protocol is followed, which includes identifying,
screening, and synthesizing relevant research studies on emotional intelligence and academic
performance. The review analysed data from both:

Quantitative studies (with a focus on correlational analyses) and

Longitudinal studies (to assess the impact of EI over time).
35
The meta-analysis included over 200 studies, covering diverse populations of students across
multiple countries and educational levels. Each study was assessed for quality, and the results
were categorized based on different dimensions of EI and specific academic performance
indicators, such as grades, test scores, and self-reported academic success. The meta-analysis
revealed a moderate positive relationship between emotional intelligence and academic
performance (Quílez-Robres et al., 2023).
The correlation was stronger in some subcomponents of Emotional Intelligence. Among the
subcomponents, emotional regulation emerged as the most impactful on academic outcomes,
suggesting that students who can manage their emotions effectively often experience
improved academic results. Although the effect size was smaller than that of emotional
control, academic achievement was also positively correlated with emotional awareness, or
the capacity to identify and comprehend one's own feelings. Students who are more
emotionally aware, according to the authors, would be better able to identify how their
emotional states influence their learning behaviours. Results from emotional facilitation—
the use of emotions to improve cognitive functions—were not entirely consistent. Although
it had a favourable correlation with creative and problem-solving activities, it had less of an
effect on more conventional measures of academic achievement, such as grades. The results
indicate that emotional intelligence, particularly the ability to regulate emotions, plays a
critical role in educational success. This finding supports earlier theoretical models, such as
Salovey and Mayer’s four-branch model, which implies that emotional competencies are
essential for navigating complex social and cognitive environments like academic settings.
The authors also took into consideration certain moderating factors that are relevant for this
comparative study as well:

Age and educational level: The relationship between EI and academic performance
was stronger in younger students, particularly in elementary and secondary school.
36
This suggests that emotional intelligence may play a more foundational role in
learning during early education, while other factors (e.g., cognitive ability, technical
skills) may have greater importance in higher education.

Cultural background: Research from collectivist societies (like East Asia) revealed a
higher correlation between academic achievement and emotional intelligence than
from individualist cultures (like Western Europe and North America). The authors
postulated that the significance of emotional competences in academic settings may
be heightened by collectivist societies' emphasis on social harmony and emotional
control.

Gender: Emotional intelligence (EI) ratings were generally higher among female
students, and there was a marginally larger correlation between EI and academic
achievement. The authors did point out that rather than being a result of innate
differences in emotional competences, gender differences in emotional intelligence
could also be a reflection of socialized emotional expressiveness (Quílez-Robres et
al., 2023).
These findings highlight the complexity of the EI–academic performance relationship and
suggest that emotional intelligence’s role may differ depending on age, culture, and gender.
Given the moderate positive relationship between emotional intelligence and academic
performance, the authors advocate for the inclusion of Emotional Intelligence Training in
school curricula. Programs that teach students how to recognize, regulate, and use emotions
constructively could enhance not only their emotional well-being but also their academic
outcomes. The study recommends integrating emotional intelligence into education through
SEL initiatives, awareness-building exercises, and stress-reduction strategies to enhance both
academic and emotional well-being. Furthermore, the study suggests that educational
psychologists and counsellors consider assessing emotional intelligence as part of their
37
evaluations of student well-being and academic potential. Since EI can be developed and
strengthened over time, providing targeted emotional intelligence interventions to students
struggling with stress or emotional regulation could enhance their academic success.
However, Self-report measures were used in many of the included studies, raising concerns
about the subjectivity and potential biases in the data. The authors suggested that future
research could benefit from using more objective measures, such as the ability-based EI
assessments that were discussed in the previous chapter. It was also noted that, while the
meta-analysis shows a correlation between Emotional Intelligence and academic
performance, the causal relationship remains unclear. It is possible that students with higher
academic achievement develop better emotional intelligence due to their success, rather than
emotional intelligence driving academic performance. The authors call for further
longitudinal studies and more robust experimental designs to clarify the direction of the
relationship and to better understand how specific interventions using emotional intelligence
can improve academic outcomes. In comparison to earlier works, such as those of Salovey
and Mayer (1990) and Goleman (1998), which laid the theoretical foundation for emotional
intelligence research, this 2023 article provides robust empirical evidence to support the
practical application of EI in educational settings. The findings are particularly relevant for
educators, policymakers, and researchers interested in developing holistic approaches to
education that consider emotional as well as cognitive development.
2.4. Emotional Intelligence and Academic Self-Concept Among Undergraduate
Students.
Ubago-Jimenez et al. (2024), in their recent Heliyon study, examined how emotional
intelligence and academic self-concept jointly and individually predict academic achievement
in undergraduate students. This study contributes to the growing body of research
investigating the non-cognitive factors that influence academic success, with a specific focus
38
on undergraduates in educational sciences. Along with Emotional Intelligence, this study uses
another psychological construct Academic Self-concept and tries to examine how these two
jointly and independently affect the academic performance of students pursuing educational
sciences. The researchers employed a Quantitative correlational research design to investigate
the relationships between the three variables:

Emotional Intelligence.

Academic Self-concept.

Academic Performance.
The sample consisted of undergraduate students enrolled in educational sciences programs
across several universities. Data was collected using standardized self-report questionnaires
to measure emotional intelligence and academic self-concept, and academic performance was
assessed through students' grade point averages (GPA). The study employed multiple
regression analysis to test the predictive power of EI and academic self-concept on academic
performance. Additionally, the researchers examined potential interactions between these
variables to explore whether academic self-concept plays a mediating role between emotional
intelligence and academic performance. Emotional intelligence was found to have a
significant positive relationship with academic performance. (Ubago-Jimenez et al., 2024)
Students with higher levels of emotional intelligence tended to have better GPAs. This
finding aligns with many previous researches suggesting that emotionally intelligent students
can better regulate their emotions, manage stress, and stay motivated, all of which contribute
to academic success. The findings indicated that students who held stronger academic selfperceptions tended to earn better grades, reinforcing the influence of self-beliefs on
performance outcomes. This supports the idea that students’ self-beliefs about their
competence play a crucial role in shaping their motivation, effort, and perseverance in
academic contexts. More importantly, the study found evidence that academic self-concept
39
mediates the relationship between emotional intelligence and academic performance. This
suggests that students with higher emotional intelligence may develop a stronger academic
self-concept, which in turn leads to improved academic performance. Emotional intelligence
likely helps students build confidence in their academic abilities by enabling them to handle
academic challenges and setbacks more effectively. While many prior research works had
explored the direct effects of these variables on academic performance, this article adds to the
literature by emphasizing the mediating role of self-concept. This insight has important
implications for both theory and practice. It is essential to note that the relationship between
EI and academic performance did not significantly differ between genders, indicating that the
positive impact of emotional intelligence on academic outcomes is relatively stable across
male and female students. Students studying in their senior years displayed stronger
associations between EI and academic performance compared to their juniors. This suggests
that as the students progress through their academic careers, the importance of emotional
intelligence in managing academic demands becomes more pronounced. By focusing on
undergraduate students in educational sciences, the study also provides valuable insights into
how these relationships manifest in a specific academic discipline, which may have
implications for tailored interventions in similar fields like commerce and arts.
2.5. Bandura’s Concept of Self-Efficacy and its Role in Human Functioning.
Albert Bandura’s Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control (1997) is a landmark book in
psychology that provides a comprehensive theory on self-efficacy and its role in human
behaviour, motivation, and psychological functioning. Bandura’s self-efficacy theory has
been widely applied in various fields, from education to health and organizational
psychology. As described by Bandura (1997), self-efficacy refers to the confidence in one's
ability to initiate and sustain actions toward managing future challenges. In essence, it refers
to an individual’s confidence in their ability to exert control over their own behaviour and
40
environment to achieve desired outcomes. Self-efficacy is central to Bandura’s Social
Cognitive Theory, (1986) which emphasizes the dynamic and reciprocal interaction between
personal factors, behaviour, and environmental influences in determining human functioning.
Bandura (1997) proposed that self-efficacy influences cognitive, emotional, and behavioural
processes. High self-efficacy leads individuals to set challenging goals and persist through
difficulties, while lower self-efficacy can result in withdrawal or discouragement.
Conversely, those with low self-efficacy are more likely to avoid difficult tasks, give up
easily, and experience heightened stress and depression when facing challenges. In the
previous chapter, the four sources of self-efficacy were discussed (Mastery experiences,
vicarious experience, verbal persuasion and, the emotional and physiological states) along
with the internal processes (Cognitive, motivational, affective and selection processes) that
are essential for human functioning across various domains. A significant enhancement in
this book is Bandura’s detailed analysis of self-efficacy as a mechanism of control. Rather
than being a passive mindset, self-efficacy reflects an individual’s proactive ability to
influence their circumstances. Bandura described this as the ‘agentic’ capacity to initiate
actions aligned with desired goals (Bandura, 1997).
This agentic function of self-efficacy is particularly prominent in Bandura’s discussions of:

Health behavior: Individuals with high self-efficacy are more likely to adopt and
maintain healthy behaviors, resist harmful habits, and recover from illness more
quickly.

Academic achievement: There is evidence that students’ self-efficacy beliefs
influence their academic motivation, persistence, and performance. Self-efficacy acts
as a buffer against stress and fosters resilience in the face of academic challenges.

Workplace performance: In organizational settings, self-efficacy contributes to
employee productivity, leadership effectiveness, and the ability to manage
41
organizational change. Bandura demonstrates that employees who believe in their
capabilities are more likely to take initiative, innovate, and tackle difficult tasks.

Emotional regulation: In clinical settings, self-efficacy plays a key role in managing
emotional health. Individuals with high self-efficacy are more effective at regulating
their emotions, managing stress, and coping with mental health issues like anxiety and
depression.
In addition to his Social cognitive theory, Bandura introduces new constructs that extend the
concept of self-efficacy beyond the individual. Proxy efficacy is the assumption that others
can act on your behalf to obtain desired outcomes. Bandura argues how, in complicated
situations (e.g., workplaces or healthcare), people frequently rely on experts or intermediaries
to exercise influence in areas where they lack direct authority. Collective efficacy refers to a
group's belief in their ability to complete activities and goals. Bandura believes that collective
efficacy is critical to the success of organizations, communities, and social movements.
Groups with strong collective efficacy are more likely to overcome problems, coordinate
efforts, and achieve common goals. Researchers have even developed measures for the proxy
and collective efficacy, rebuilding on Bandura’s foundational ideas. While Bandura’s selfefficacy theory has been widely praised for its explanatory power, it has also faced some
criticisms and alternate perspectives. Although widely accepted, Bandura’s theory of selfefficacy has been critiqued for overlapping with constructs like locus of control, which relates
to perceived sources of outcome control. Additionally, scholars have noted that Bandura’s
framework may underrepresent collectivist cultural perspectives, where interdependence is
emphasized over personal agency.
2.6. Bandura’s Framework for Developing Self-Efficacy Scales.
In his 2006 publication, Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales, Bandura aimed to
provide a systematic framework for developing reliable and context-specific self-efficacy
42
measurement tools. This guide addresses the need for domain-specific instruments and offers
a step-by-step approach to constructing, validating, and refining self-efficacy scales.
2.6.1. Domain-Specificity of Self-Efficacy
One of the central principles of Bandura's guide is the domain-specific nature of selfefficacy. Unlike global personality traits, self-efficacy beliefs are task and contextspecific. Bandura emphasizes that:

Self-efficacy is not a generalized trait (Bandura, 2006) but varies significantly across
different domains of functioning (e.g., academic, social, health, work).

Self-efficacy scales should be constructed to assess individuals’ confidence in their
abilities to perform particular tasks within specific situations.
For instance, an academic self-efficacy scale would focus on tasks like problem-solving,
managing time, or preparing for exams, whereas a health-related self-efficacy scale might
measure beliefs related to maintaining a healthy diet, exercising, or adhering to medical
treatment. Bandura’s guide outlines a five-step process for constructing a valid and
reliable self-efficacy scale, which shall be discussed in detail in the next chapter of
Methodology.
2.6.2. Contextual Specificity of Self-Efficacy
Another essential feature of Bandura’s guide is the emphasis on contextual specificity. He
argues that self-efficacy is sensitive to changes in context, and the same individual may
exhibit different levels of efficacy in different situations. Thus, when constructing a scale,
it is important to account for the environmental factors that may influence self-efficacy
beliefs, such as the presence of support systems, availability of resources, and situational
challenges.
2.6.3. General Self-Efficacy
43
While Bandura consistently argued for the importance of domain-specific self-efficacy,
there has been considerable interest in the concept of General Self-efficacy (GSE), which
refers to an individual’s “overall belief in their ability to handle a broad range of
challenges across multiple domains”. Bandura was somewhat sceptical of global
measures like GSE, as they could potentially overlook the Situational Variability of selfefficacy. He argued that while general self-efficacy measures might provide insight into
an individual’s overall sense of competence, they lack the precision needed to predict
specific behaviors in particular contexts. For instance, a person may have high GSE but
low self-efficacy when it comes to academic tasks, leading to inaccurate predictions about
their academic performance Nonetheless, the concept of GSE is popular in fields such as
health psychology, organizational behavior, and positive psychology, where researchers
are interested in understanding the overarching belief systems that govern behavior across
life domains. The process of developing this scale, will also be looked upon in the next
chapter.
2.6.4. Social Self-Efficacy
Another critical extension of Bandura’s work is the notion of Social self-efficacy, which
refers to an individual’s belief in their ability to effectively navigate and manage social
interactions. Social self-efficacy pertains to a person’s confidence in their ability to
engage in social behaviors such as initiating conversations, forming friendships, resolving
conflicts, and asserting themselves in group settings. It is particularly relevant in
understanding behaviors in social anxiety, communication competence, and leadership.
Bandura’s earlier work on Observational Learning and Modelling in his Social Cognitive
Theory (SCT) laid the groundwork for the development of social self-efficacy. According
to Bandura, individuals develop social efficacy beliefs by observing others engage in
social interactions, noting the consequences of their behaviors, and practicing these
44
behaviors themselves. For example, a child who observes a peer successfully resolving a
conflict may develop higher social self-efficacy when it comes to handling disagreements.
High levels of social self-efficacy have been linked to positive outcomes in various life
domains, including:

Academic achievement: Socially efficacious students are better able to collaborate
with peers and communicate with teachers, leading to better academic
performance.

Career success: Individuals with high social self-efficacy are often more effective
in networking, negotiating, and leading, which contributes to career advancement.

Mental health: Low social self-efficacy has been associated with social anxiety,
loneliness, and depression. Conversely, higher social efficacy leads to greater
well-being and more fulfilling relationships.
2.7. Emotional Intelligence and Academic Stream as factors influencing Self-Esteem.
Begum (2020) conducted a comparative and quantitative study that sought to investigate the
impact of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and academic stream on the self-esteem levels of
college-going students. Although self-esteem was the primary psychological variable of
interest in this study, its association with emotional intelligence and academic stream
provides crucial inferential value for research concerning Self-Efficacy (SE), which, like selfesteem, is a self-referential judgment involving personal capacity and worth.
Begum (2020) utilized a 2×3 factorial design, assessing how gender and academic stream
interact to influence emotional intelligence and self-esteem among college students. A sample
of 180 students aged between 18 and 21 years was selected using stratified sampling,
comprising 30 males and 30 females from each stream. Standardized tools—the Emotional
Intelligence Scale by Mangal and Mangal (2004) and the Self-Esteem Inventory by
Coopersmith (1981)—were used to collect data. The findings revealed significant main
45
effects of emotional intelligence and academic stream on self-esteem. The results showed that
students in science and commerce scored higher in both emotional intelligence and selfesteem compared to arts students, suggesting academic stream may influence emotional
development. Gender differences were also reported, with males scoring slightly higher in
self-esteem, though EI levels were comparable across gender. These results suggest that
academic disciplines may foster or restrict emotional and self-perceptual development
through differences in teaching related demands, learning environments, and student
expectations. While self-esteem and self-efficacy are not interchangeable constructs, they are
closely related in the literature. Self-efficacy pertains more specifically to confidence in one’s
ability to execute tasks, whereas self-esteem is more global. Therefore, Begum’s (2020)
findings contribute substantially to the rationale that academic background influences
emotional and self-evaluative variables, supporting the inclusion of academic stream as a
comparative dimension in studies involving Emotional Intelligence and Self-Efficacy.
2.8. The Influence of Emotional Intelligence and Social Skills on Self-Efficacy:
Examining Gender Differences.
In this study, Salavera et al. (2017) aimed to examine the predictive power of emotional
intelligence and social skills on self-efficacy among adolescents, and to investigate whether
gender differences existed in these relationships. Grounded in Bandura’s social cognitive
theory, Salavera et al. (2017) explored how emotional intelligence and interpersonal
competence predict self-efficacy in adolescents, considering gender differences.
The sample included 661 Spanish secondary school students (aged 12–18), selected through
stratified cluster sampling. The instruments used were the Emotional Quotient Inventory:
Youth Version (EQ-i: YV), the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS), and the General SelfEfficacy Scale (GSE). This robust combination allowed the researchers to explore how
affective and interpersonal competencies correlate with an individual's belief in their personal
46
capabilities. Statistical analyses revealed a significant positive correlation between emotional
intelligence and self-efficacy, with social skills functioning as a mediating variable.
Moreover, gender differences emerged: while females scored higher on emotional perception
and empathy, males reported greater self-efficacy, especially in domains related to academic
and task-specific confidence. Emotional regulation and interpersonal management were
found to be the strongest predictors of self-efficacy across both genders. This study is pivotal
because it situates emotional intelligence as a precursor to self-efficacy, and underscores the
influence of gender in moderating these relationships. While the sample includes adolescents
rather than university students, the developmental proximity to early adulthood makes the
results highly applicable to undergraduate populations. The study validates the inclusion of
gender as an analytical variable and strengthens the conceptual link between emotional and
cognitive-behavioural components of academic functioning.
2.9. Effects of Emotional intelligence and Self-Efficacy on Entrepreneurial Intention: A
study on undergraduate students
Bayraktar et al. (2023) conducted an empirical study to explore the influence of emotional
intelligence and self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intention among undergraduate students. The
investigation is particularly relevant for educational psychology as it links emotional and
cognitive constructs with behavioral intentions, thereby bridging affective traits with
vocational and career-related decision-making.
The researchers employed a cross-sectional correlational design, sampling 235 undergraduate
students across various faculties. Participants were administered three instruments: the
Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SSEIT), the General Self-Efficacy Scale
(GSE), and a customized Entrepreneurial Intention Scale. Regression analysis and structural
equation modeling (SEM) were employed to determine both direct and indirect relationships
between the variables. Results indicated that both Emotional Intelligence and Self-Efficacy
47
had statistically significant direct effects on entrepreneurial intention. Notably, self-efficacy
emerged as a partial mediator between emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial intention,
implying that emotional competencies affect decision-making indirectly by boosting personal
belief in one’s ability to act. Among the dimensions of Emotional Intelligence, emotional
regulation and social competence were the most robust predictors. This study is of particular
importance to the research, as it empirically validates the interdependent nature of Emotional
Intelligence and Self-Efficacy. Despite the domain-specific outcome variable (entrepreneurial
intention), the constructs of emotional intelligence and self-efficacy were treated as
generalizable psychological traits, highlighting their broad applicability across life domains,
including academics. The study also strengthens the argument for simultaneous assessment of
Emotional Intelligence and Self-Efficacy when attempting to understand motivation,
discipline-wise differences, and adaptive behaviour among students.
2.10. Emotional intelligence and self-efficacy: A comparative study between primary
and secondary school teachers.
Jindal and Dutt (2023) undertook a comparative study to examine how emotional intelligence
and self-efficacy differ between primary and secondary school teachers, and whether a
relationship exists between these two constructs. The population included 240 teachers (120
from each group) working in government and private schools across northern India. This
study provides insight into emotional-cognitive linkages within educational professionals and
how these may vary based on experience, role complexity, and job demands. The instruments
used included the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue-SF) and the Teachers’
Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES). Results showed that secondary school teachers scored
significantly higher on both emotional intelligence and self-efficacy, especially in areas
related to classroom management, student engagement, and instructional strategies.
Furthermore, a positive and significant correlation was observed between overall emotional
48
intelligence and teaching self-efficacy. Although the sample consisted of professionals rather
than students, the findings are relevant to educational settings as they reinforce the idea that
emotional competencies contribute directly to an individual’s confidence and performance
across task-specific domains. The comparison between primary and secondary educators
further emphasizes the influence of contextual and task complexity on the development of
Emotional Intelligence and Self-Efficacy. This study indirectly supports the research
hypothesis (explained in the Methodology chapter) by extending the Emotional Intelligence Self-Efficacy relationship into the realm of educational functionality, reinforcing the need to
investigate such relationships within other educational populations, such as undergraduate
students.
2.11. Emotional intelligence as a Predictor of Self-Efficacy among students with
different levels of Academic Achievement.
Zarezadeh and Karami (2015) conducted a targeted investigation to evaluate whether
emotional intelligence can predict self-efficacy among students with differing academic
achievement levels. The study involved medical students from Kermanshah University of
Medical Sciences in Iran and aimed to discern how cognitive-emotional traits contribute to
self-perceptions of competence in a high-pressure academic context. In a study conducted on
medical students in Iran, participants were grouped by academic achievement and assessed
using the Bar-On EQ-i and the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Results suggested stronger links
between emotional intelligence and self-efficacy among high-achieving students (Zarezadeh
and Karami, 2015). Results demonstrated that emotional intelligence was a significant
predictor of self-efficacy in both groups, but its predictive power was stronger in highachieving students. This suggests that students who already perform well academically may
also be more adept at regulating emotions and translating those emotional skills into beliefs
about competence. Importantly, the subscales of emotional intelligence such as interpersonal
49
relationships, stress management, and adaptability showed the highest correlation with selfefficacy. These findings are particularly relevant to your research as they highlight the
differential impact of EI on SE based on academic performance, suggesting that academic
achievement itself may act as a moderator. Although the context is limited to medical
students, the implications are far-reaching, especially for interdisciplinary comparisons of
student populations. This supports the inclusion of academic stream as a key variable in this
particular research study, where differences between Arts, Commerce, and Science students
might mirror the academic variability examined in this study.
50
3. METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, the appropriate research methodology for data collection and the necessary
statistical analysis is employed, to investigate the possible correlations between measured
Emotional Intelligence (EI) and the General Self-efficacy (SE) of undergraduate students
studying primarily in three diverse academic streams namely – Science, Commerce or Arts.
The researcher has excluded students pursuing any kind of dual degree or unconventional
major from the research sample. The reasoning for the same is addressed in the exclusion
criteria covered ahead. The subsequent sections of this chapter include- rationale of the study,
objectives, hypotheses, variables, sample structure, etc. The latter half of this chapter directs
attention towards the meticulous assessment scales adopted for data collection, the analytical
methods employed, and the transparent acknowledgment of any inherent limitations.
This study aims to investigate the relationship between Emotional Intelligence (EI) and SelfEfficacy (SE), analyze variations in EI and SE across academic disciplines and gender, and
evaluate whether EI is a major predictor of SE.
3.1.Rationale of the study
Emotional Intelligence is a key determinant of an individual’s success and overall sense of
fulfillment in life. However, little to no emphasis is given to EQ in the crucial phases of the
individual’s education and career; especially in a collectivistic Indian society. Students who
have freshly finished their schooling often need to select a career path and make critical
decisions that will shape the contours of their future life. It is an emotionally and mentally
challenging crossroad in every individual’s life. Irrespective of whether a student chooses to a
pursue a certain educational degree by their own accord or under the influence of external
pressures like familial expectations or financial rewards, there is an inherent expectation from
the student to make the best out of their university experience. Some students aim to
strengthen their core competency by securing an extraordinary GPA (Grade Point Average)
51
while some students prioritize building a reliable social network that can help them in future
and enhance the quality of life in college. An individual is required to adapt academically
and/or socially depending on how effectively they understand and manage their own
emotions. The purpose of this research lies in establishing a notable correlation between the
“richness of a student’s overall experience” and their emotional intelligence.
3.2. Research Objectives
Existing studies often focus on either Emotional Intelligence or Self-Efficacy but rarely
explore their interaction. There is a lack of comparative research examining EI and SelfEfficacy differences among Commerce, Science, and Arts students. The impact of academic
stream-specific challenges on EI and Self-Efficacy remains underexplored. This research
aims to fill this gap by conducting a comparative analysis among undergraduate students
from diverse fields. This study aims to:

To measure the Emotional Quotient (EQ) of undergraduate students.

To assess the General Self-Efficacy of those undergraduate students.

To have an updated comparison of Emotional Intelligence between male and females
students.

To examine any distinction in self-efficacy levels of male and female students.
(Gender Diversity)

To explore differences in the Emotional Intelligence and Self-efficacy levels
observed across different streams of study. (Commerce, Science and Arts)

To explore differences in the Emotional Intelligence and Self-efficacy levels
observed across year of study. (1st year, 2nd year and 3rd and/or final year)

To evaluate the strength of the general correlation between Emotional Intelligence
and Self-efficacy observed in these students.
52
3.3. Hypothesis

Higher Emotional Intelligence positively influences Self-Efficacy among
undergraduate students, with variations observed across different academic streams.

There is a significant difference in Emotional Intelligence and/or Self-Efficacy scores
across the Commerce, Science, and Arts streams.

Self-Efficacy levels differ significantly across 1st-year, 2nd-year, and 3rd-year
students.

Female Students display higher Emotional Intelligence (EQ) levels.

Male Students display higher Self-efficacy (SE) levels.
3.4. Variables
Independent Variables (IVs):

Academic Stream (Commerce, Science, Arts)

Year of Study (First, Second, Third/Final)

Gender (Male, Female, Other)
Mediator:

Emotional Intelligence (EQ) – DV against the mentioned IVs and IV in the case of
Self-efficacy as DV
Dependent Variables (DVs):

Emotional Intelligence (EI) (Measured via WLEIS scale)

Self-Efficacy (SE) (Measured via GSES scale)
3.5. Sample
The present study utilizes a quantitative survey-based approach to assess the relationship
between Emotional Intelligence and Self-Efficacy across undergraduate students from
different academic streams. The sample consists of students from three distinct disciplines—
53
Commerce, Science, and Arts, drawn with informed consent from individuals and multiple
institutions. The study employs a non-probability purposive sampling technique, with
participants selected from these streams only.
3.5.1. Sample Structure
The researcher selected a total of 270 undergraduate students with an intended
distribution of 90 students per stream. He further restructured the sample to include
students from all three years of undergraduate study, ensuring representation from
different academic levels. While efforts were put to maintain an equal distribution of
participants across year levels (30 per year per stream), natural variations in student
availability resulted in some imbalances. The participants were selected based on the
feasibility and accessibility. While the selection adhered to the structured sampling
framework, participation was voluntary, introducing an element of convenience sampling
within the broader purposive approach.
3.6. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Inclusion
The study included participants who met the following conditions:

Enrolled in an undergraduate program

Currently pursuing their studies at the time of data collection.

Basic proficiency in English Language, as the questionnaire administered in
English.

Voluntary participation, ensuring informed consent obtained.
Exclusion
Participants were excluded from the study if they met any of the following conditions:

Postgraduate students or individuals who have completed their undergraduate
degree were excluded to maintain the undergraduate sample frame.
54

Students pursuing a dual degree (B. Tech + MBA, B. Com +LLB etc.) or an
unconventional major (interdisciplinary fields that do not belong to strictly one
stream).

Responses with inconsistent answers (e.g., selecting the same option throughout
or contradictory responses).
The inclusion and exclusion criteria ensured that the sample was academically relevant,
maintained data integrity, and aligned with the study’s objectives.
3.7. Procedure for Data Collection
The data collection process was strategically planned to ensure maximum participation from
undergraduate students across three distinct academic streams: Arts, Commerce, and Science.
The objective was to assess the interplay between Emotional Intelligence and Self-Efficacy
across a diverse student population. The study initially planned for in-person administration
of questionnaires in structured classroom settings. However, logistical challenges
necessitated a shift to a hybrid approach, combining physical distribution with online forms,
to ensure optimal response rates (adapted from standard practices in survey-based research).
Data was ultimately collected using a hybrid approach — a combination of in-person
administration and digitally distributed forms (via Google Forms). The necessary permission
was sought and obtained from the college authorities, and the participants were informed
about the voluntary nature of their participation. Respondents were encouraged to complete
the form in one sitting. The researcher provided clear instructions at the beginning of the
survey assessment, and no time limits were imposed, allowing students to respond
comfortably and thoughtfully. The survey contained three components:
1) Basic Details (including stream, gender, and year of study),
2) Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS),
3) General Self-Efficacy scale (GSES).
55
To encourage honest and independent responses, anonymity was ensured and no identifying
information (such as names or roll numbers) was collected. The researcher remained
available during the in-person sessions and through online channels to clarify any doubts the
participants might have had regarding the form.
While the researcher followed a structured sampling framework for initial planning, practical
challenges necessitated flexibility, introducing elements of convenience sampling. In spite of
these inevitable constraints, the data gathered is robust and aligned well with the research
objectives.
3.8. Tools
3.8.1. Selecting the appropriate emotional intelligence scale.
Multiple emotional intelligence scales were considered during the design of this study,
including:

The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) by Petrides,

The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT), and

The Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale (SEIS).
While each of these tools has strengths, the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale
(WLEIS) was preferred for this study owing to several key reasons:

Conciseness and Efficiency: Compared to other established emotional intelligence
measures such as TEIQue or MSCEIT, the WLEIS offers practical advantages. It
is brief, requiring less than 10 minutes to complete, making it particularly suited
for large-sample academic studies (Law, Wong, & Song, 2004).
56

Adaptable for Indian students: The WLEIS is successfully validated in diverse
cultural contexts, including Asian and Western populations, showing strong crosscultural psychometric reliability.

High Internal Consistency: The four-factor structure of the WLEIS has
consistently demonstrated good internal consistency and factorial validity across
samples (Law, Wong, & Song, 2004).

Theoretical Coherence: It is rooted in Mayer and Salovey's ability model while
being simplified for self-report usage, allowing it to retain theoretical rigor
without sacrificing feasibility.

Prior Research Use: It has been widely used in research exploring EI’s
relationship with academic performance, leadership, and interpersonal functioning
— making it a reliable tool for comparative analysis.
After considering these factors and calculating the costs, the WLEIS was rated as the
most appropriate instrument for this study's objectives and context. However, the
researcher realised instantly that a 7-point Likert scale which includes vague and
potentially confusing statements – somewhat agree and somewhat disagree, might be
frustrating and time-consuming for the responders. Therefore, after careful and thoughtful
consideration, the research chose to use a 5-point Likert Scale for the all items in WLEIS,
removing the ‘somewhat’ ambiguity entirely. This simplification is permitted for this
scale.
3.8.2. Constructing a self-efficacy scale
57
Bandura (2006) emphasized that for a self-efficacy scale to be valid and useful, it must be
context-specific, theoretically aligned, and grounded in the target population’s lived
experience. These principles were applied to the current study’s choice of instruments.
Although the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) developed by Schwarzer and Jerusalem
(1995), is frequently used in research, its structure closely adheres to Bandura’s guidelines.
The five-step process followed for scale development is explained in detail below:
1. Clearly Defining the Domain of Functioning: According to Bandura, self-efficacy
measures need to be customized for certain contexts or domains. In this instance, the
General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) focuses on an individual's broad and stable sense
of personal competence to deal effectively with a variety of stressful and challenging
situations (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). The domain of functioning was thus,
defined as general coping ability across life situations rather than task-specific
scenarios.
2. Development of Items: The items created to reflect various levels of difficulty in
handling challenges, making decisions, solving problems, and managing stress. The
GSES consists of 10 items that capture a range of demanding life circumstances,
thereby maintaining content validity. Each item avoids vague or overly general
wording and instead focuses on personal agency, such as: “I can always manage to
solve difficult problems if I try hard enough.”
3. Ensuring Relevance to the Target Population: The scale’s items were constructed in a
manner that is understandable and applicable to a wide demographic, including
adolescents and adults across cultures. During the scale construction and validation
phase, item wordings were reviewed for linguistic simplicity and cultural adaptability,
ensuring that the scale could be reliably translated and applied in multiple contexts.
58
4. Using a Suitable Response Format: Responses on the GSES range from "Not at all
true" to "Exactly true," using a 4-point Likert scale. This way, one can steer clear of
the extremes of a dichotomous (yes/no) format and allows for individual variation in
degree of belief, which is crucial for self-efficacy assessments. A Likert-type scale
helps quantify the strength of self-efficacy beliefs, which is a core requirement in
Bandura's model.
5. Pilot Test and Validate Psychometric Properties: Before finalizing the scale,
preliminary versions of the GSES were pilot-tested across multiple samples to ensure
reliability and validity. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha,
which typically ranges between 0.76 and 0.90 in various language versions (Scholz et
al., 2002). Construct validity was established through correlations with related
psychological constructs such as optimism, self-regulation, and resilience. The scale
has been validated in over 30 countries, showing robust cross-cultural reliability and
factorial validity.
3.8.3. General Self-Efficacy Scale.
The General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), originally developed by Schwarzer and
Jerusalem (1995), is a 10-item psychometric tool designed to assess an individual’s
overall sense of perceived self-efficacy — that is, their belief in their ability to handle
various challenging situations effectively. The GSES items are assessed using a 4-point
Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Not at all True) to 4 (Exactly True). The total score provides
a general measure of an individual's self-efficacy beliefs rather than domain-specific
abilities. Grounded in Bandura’s (1997) Social Cognitive Theory, the General SelfEfficacy Scale (GSES) assesses individuals’ perceived capacity to handle various life
challenges. It reflects the core idea that belief in one’s capabilities significantly affects
behaviour and motivation. According to Bandura, high self-efficacy enhances human
59
accomplishment and personal well-being in many ways, including goal-setting,
persistence, and resilience under adversity.

Global Relevance: It is applicable across various domains and is not restricted to
academic self-efficacy alone.

Cross-Cultural Reliability: The scale has been translated to over 30 languages and is
validated in numerous countries, including India.

Simplicity and Clarity: The items are brief, clear, and easily understood by
undergraduate participants, increasing the reliability of responses.

Theoretical Alignment: The development of GSES followed Bandura’s (2006) guide
to constructing self-efficacy measures, ensuring that it captures the construct’s core
features while remaining practical for field research.
Together, the WLEIS and GSES serve as a comprehensive toolkit for measuring the two
psychological constructs central to this research: Emotional Intelligence and Self-Efficacy.
3.9. Statistical Techniques
The present research employed both descriptive and inferential statistical techniques to
examine the relationships between emotional intelligence, academic self-efficacy across
undergraduate students from three academic streams: Science, Commerce and Arts. The
statistical analysis was conducted using Google Sheets and JASP, an open-source statistical
analysis software that provides an intuitive interface for conducting complex analyses. The
major tools and concepts used in this study include:

Mean and Standard Deviation: These were calculated for Emotional Intelligence and
Self-Efficacy to better understand the central tendency and dispersion across the three
groups.

Independent Samples t-test: Applied to compare mean scores between male and
female students across each psychological construct.
60

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA): Used to compare the three academic streams and
determine if there were statistically significant differences in Emotional Intelligence,
Self-Efficacy.

Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient (r): Employed to assess the strength and direction of
the linear relationships among the variables.
3.9.1. Reliability and Validity Tests.
To ensure Consistency and Accuracy of the standardized tools used in this research,
Internal Reliability and Convergent Validity tests were conducted using JASP, an opensource statistical analysis software.
3.9.1.1. Reliability Analysis
Cronbach's alpha was calculated for both the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence
Scale (WLEIS) and the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) to assess internal
consistency. Reliability analysis showed strong internal consistency for both scales
used in this study: WLEIS (α = .84) and GSES (α = .79), aligning with previously
reported psychometric findings (Law et al., 2004; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995).
These results suggest that both scales reliably measured the intended psychological
constructs in the sampled population.
3.9.1.2. Validity Analysis
To examine the convergent validity between Emotional Intelligence and SelfEfficacy, a Pearson’s product–moment correlation was computed between total scores
on the WLEIS and GSES. The correlation was found to be moderate and statistically
significant, Pearson’s r = 0.481, p < .001, indicating that higher Emotional
Intelligence scores were associated with higher Self-Efficacy scores. This provides
support for the convergent validity of the constructs measured.
61
The WLEIS and GSES are provided in the Appendices at the end for further reference and
study.
62
4. RESULTS
This chapter presents the statistical findings of the study, in accordance to the research
objectives and hypothesis. The analysis was performed using Google Sheets and JASP, an
open-source statistical analysis software that provides an intuitive interface for conducting
complex analyses.
4.1. Gender Differences in Emotional Intelligence.
Self-Efficacy scores for male and female undergraduate students were compared using an
independent samples t-test. Descriptive statistics indicated that female students (M = 3.82, SD
= 0.59, n = 111) and male students (M = 3.84, SD = 0.43, n = 161) had similar Emotional
Intelligence scores. The Brown-Forsythe test indicated a violation of the assumption of equal
variances and therefore the Welch's t-test was employed.
Table 1: Independent Samples t-test for Gender and Emotional Intelligence
N
Mean
SD
Standard Error
Male
161
3.84
0.43
0.03
Female
111
3.82
0.59
0.06
t-value
p
0.397
0.691
Group
The results revealed no statistically significant difference in Emotional Intelligence scores
between the two genders, t (270) = 0.397, p = .691.
4.2. Gender Differences in Self-Efficacy
An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare Self-Efficacy scores between male
and female undergraduate students. Female students (M = 2.93, SD = 0.52, n = 111) and male
students (M = 2.97, SD = 0.47, n = 161) showed minimal difference in scores. Welch’s
63
correction was applied due to a significant Brown-Forsythe test. The result was not
statistically significant, t(270) = 0.745, p = .457,
Table 1: Independent Samples t-test for Gender and Self-Efficacy
N
Mean
SD
Standard Error
Male
161
2.98
0.51
0.04
Female
111
2.94
0.31
0.03
t-value
p
0.745
0.457
Group
4.3. Differences in Emotional Intelligence across Academic Streams.
Welch’s ANOVA was performed to check if the WLEIS scores differed across students from
Commerce, Science, and Arts streams. The findings demonstrated that there was a
statistically significant difference. Group-wise comparisons showed that the students from the
Arts stream scored higher on Emotional Intelligence compared to those from Commerce and
Science streams. Students studying science and commerce did not, however, differ
significantly.
Table 2: Welch's ANOVA for Emotional Intelligence across Academic Streams
N
Mean
SD
Arts
90
4.013
0.530
Commerce
88
3.729
0.374
Science
94
3.759
0.527
F-value
p
Effect Size (η²)
9.056
< .001
0.065
Academic Stream
64
Table 3: Group-Wise Differences in Emotional Intelligence
Comparison
Mean Difference
p-value
Arts – Commerce
0.284
< .001
Arts – Science
0.253
.004
Commerce – Science
- 0.031
.893
4.4. Differences in Self-Efficacy across Academic Streams.
Welch’s ANOVA was performed to check if the GSES scores differed across students from
Commerce, Science, and Arts streams. The results indicated that the difference was
statistically significant. Group-wise comparisons showed that students from the Arts stream
had higher Self-Efficacy than those in the Commerce stream. The differences between Arts
and Science, and Commerce and Science were however, not significant.
Table 4: Welch's ANOVA for Self-Efficacy across Academic Streams
N
Mean
SD
Arts
90
3.082
0.398
Commerce
88
2.852
0.283
Science
94
2.967
0.554
F-value
p
Effect Size (η²)
10.023
< .001
0.045
Academic Stream
Table 5: Group-Wise Differences in Self-Efficacy
Comparison
Mean Difference
p-value
Arts – Commerce
0.230
< .001
Arts – Science
0.115
0.239
Commerce – Science
−0.115
0.182
65
4.5. Differences in Self-Efficacy across Year of Study.
Welch’s ANOVA was performed to assess variations in GSES scores across First, Second
and Third/Final year students. Results showed a significant effect of year of study, F(2,
158.27) = 5.17, p = .007, η² = .041. Second year students showed higher Self-Efficacy than
both First year and Third/Final year students. No significant difference was found between
the First and Third/Final year students.
Table 6: Welch's ANOVA for Self-Efficacy across Year of Study
N
Mean
SD
First Year
79
28.658
5.531
Second Year
93
30.839
4.241
Third/Final Year
100
29.410
3.095
F-value
p
Effect Size (η²)
5.171
0.007
0.041
Year of Study
Table 7: Year-Wise Differences in Self-Efficacy
Comparison
Mean Difference
p-value
First - Second Year
−2.180
0.013
First - Third /Final Year
−0.752
0.527
Second - Third/Final Year
1.429
0.023
4.6. Correlation between Emotional Intelligence and Self-Efficacy.
To assess convergent validity, a Pearson product–moment correlation was conducted between
Emotional Intelligence and Self-Efficacy scores. The analysis showed a moderate positive
correlation, r (270) = .481, p < .001. This supports the convergent validity between the two
constructs.
66
Self-Efficacy vs Emotional Intelligence
40
R² = 0.2313
Self-Efficacy
35
30
25
20
15
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
Emotional Intelligence
Figure 1: Correlation between Emotional Intelligence and Self-Efficacy
R2 = (0.481)2 = 0.231. This indicates that emotional intelligence accounts for roughly 23.1%
of the variation in self-efficacy, which is a moderate relationship: a weak positive correlation.
In the next chapter, the significance and interpretation of the obtained results is discussed in
detail.
67
5. DISCUSSION
The results of statistical analysis are interpreted in this chapter and compared to the goals and
theories (discussed in Chapter 3). In this chapter, the goal is to evaluate how Emotional
Intelligence (EI) and Self-Efficacy (SE) manifest across gender, academic streams, and year
of study, and whether a meaningful correlation exists between the two constructs.
5.1. Emotional Intelligence Differences across Gender
The data revealed no significant gender-based differences in Emotional Intelligence (EI)
among undergraduate students. The results from Table 1. shows a very low t-value. Although
previous studies, such as those by Salavera et al. (2017), suggest that females typically score
higher in emotional perception and empathy, the present findings do not support a consistent
gender disparity in overall EI. In fact, the mean values showed the male students to display
slightly better emotional intelligence. Effectively, undergraduate males and females in the
sampled population have relatively equal capacity for emotional understanding, regulation,
and expression—skills that may have equalized due to similar academic pressures or
socialization patterns in contemporary educational settings. Therefore, the hypothesis that
female students display higher Emotional Intelligence levels is not supported.
5.2. Self-Efficacy Differences across Gender.
Similar to Emotional Intelligence, Self-Efficacy (SE) levels did not significantly differ. The
161 male students who participated in this research along with the 111 female students, did
not display a remarkably higher GSE score. This challenges prior evidence that suggested
males exhibit significantly higher self-efficacy in academic or task-oriented domains
(Salavera et al., 2017). It is possible that the gender convergence in Self-Efficacy among
Indian undergraduates reflects increased gender parity in educational aspirations and
performance expectations. Therefore, the hypothesis that male students display higher SelfEfficacy levels is only partially supported.
68
5.3. Emotional Intelligence across Academic Streams.
The analysis found a significant difference in EI across academic streams, with students from
the Arts stream scoring significantly higher than their counterparts in Commerce and Science.
This supports the notion that Arts education, with its emphasis on subjective interpretation,
creativity, and interpersonal interaction, may cultivate emotional competencies more deeply.
These results align with prior research (e.g., Begum, 2020) which suggest that Emotional
Intelligence is influenced contextually by academic environments and curriculum design.
Undoubtedly, there is a significant difference in EI scores across the academic streams. The
hypothesis is supported.
5.4. Self-Efficacy across Academic Streams.
Self-Efficacy also significantly varied by academic stream, with Arts students showing higher
SE than Commerce students, although other group-wise differences (Arts-Science,
Commerce-Science) were not statistically significant. The elevated self-efficacy levels in Arts
students may stem from higher self-direction and subjective grading norms that foster
personal confidence. Conversely, the relatively structured and competitive nature of Science
and Commerce may constrain the development of academic and social self-efficacy unless
accompanied by consistent academic success. There is a significant difference in SE scores
across the academic streams. This hypothesis is partially supported.
5.5. Self-Efficacy across Years of Study
Students in the second year of study exhibited significantly higher SE than both first-year and
final-year students. This can be interpreted as a peak in confidence during the middle
academic phase—when students have adjusted to university life but are not yet burdened by
the pressures of graduation. This finding resonates with Bandura’s (1997) view that selfefficacy is dynamic and contextually influenced. In any way, Self-Efficacy is shown to differ
significantly across year of study, supporting the hypothesis.
69
5.6.Correlation between Emotional Intelligence and Self-Efficacy
A moderate positive correlation was found between EI and SE (r = .481, p < .001),
confirming the central hypothesis of this study: that Emotional Intelligence positively
influences Self-Efficacy. This correlation validates previous empirical work (e.g., Zarezadeh
& Karami, 2015) and strengthens evidence supporting the theoretical link between emotional
regulation and belief in one’s capabilities, as originally conceptualized in Albert Bandura’s
Social Cognitive Theory. Notably, approximately 23% of the variance in self-efficacy was
explained by the WLEIS scores. Not only does this indicates a substantial relationship, but
also implies the presence of other contributing factors that influence Self-Efficacy (e.g.,
personality traits, past academic experiences, peer influence).
5.7. Conclusion
This research aimed to investigate Emotional Intelligence and Self-Efficacy in undergraduate
students, with a focus on how these traits varied across gender, academic streams, and year of
study, and how they were interrelated. The findings support the idea that Emotional
Intelligence is an important predictor of Self-Efficacy among students, particularly within the
context of their educational discipline.

No gender-based differences affecting Emotional Intelligence or Self-Efficacy were
found, suggesting parity in these competencies.

Arts students showed higher EI and SE than Commerce students, highlighting the
influence of stream-specific pedagogical culture.

Self-Efficacy peaked in the second year, suggesting temporal variations in student
confidence.

The moderate positive correlation between EI and SE affirms their psychological and
practical interconnectedness.
70
These results contribute to the growing literature advocating for greater emotional and
psychological training within undergraduate programs. Educational interventions aimed at
strengthening Emotional Intelligence may not only benefit personal and social adjustment,
but also enhance students' confidence in their academic and life pursuits.
5.8. Limitations of the research

Convenience Sampling Bias: Although a purposive sampling frame was initially
planned, elements of convenience sampling were introduced during participant
recruitment. This may reduce the generalizability of findings beyond the sampled
population.

Geographical Limitation: Participants were selected from colleges located only in
Mumbai and Vadodara, which may not represent the broader population of
undergraduate students across India or other regions with differing educational
systems, cultures, and stressors.

Disproportionate Representation across Years of Study: While efforts were made to
ensure equal representation across academic streams and years of study, natural
imbalances occurred. Only 79 First year students participated compared to the 100
Third/Final year students. This may affect the internal validity of comparisons.

Cultural Homogeneity: Most participants belonged to urban, middle-class, Englishspeaking academic settings. Cultural norms in these environments may influence
emotional expression and self-perception differently than in rural or vernacularlanguage settings.

Self-Report Measures: Both the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale
(WLEIS) and the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) are self-report instruments,
71
which may be susceptible to social desirability bias, acquiescence bias, response set
tendencies, and subjective misinterpretation of test items.

Lack of Longitudinal Data: The study adopted a cross-sectional design, capturing a
snapshot of Emotional Intelligence and Self-Efficacy at one point in time. This limits
the ability to draw causal conclusions or observe changes over time.

Limited Scope of Academic Contexts: Only full-time undergraduate students were
included, excluding dual-degree students or those in distance education programs.
This could limit the findings' relevance to different academic settings or real-world
circumstances.

Exclusion of Confounding Variables: Variables such as academic performance (e.g.,
GPA), mental health status, personality traits, or social support networks were not
included in the analysis. These could be relevant moderators or mediators of the EI–
SE relationship.

Lack of Qualitative Insights: The research used only quantitative tools. Including
interviews or open-ended responses could have provided deeper contextual
understanding of how Emotional Intelligence and Self-Efficacy manifest in students'
lives.
5.9. Scope for future research

Wider Geographical Representation: Future studies should expand data collection to
include students from a broader range of Indian states, rural institutions, and culturally
diverse regions to improve the generalizability and ecological validity of findings.

Cross-Cultural Comparisons: Given the influence of cultural norms on emotional
expression and self-belief, cross-cultural research—comparing students from
collectivist and individualist societies—could offer insights into how Emotional
Intelligence and Self-Efficacy vary across cultures.
72

Inclusion of Additional Psychological Constructs: Future work may incorporate other
psychological variables such as resilience, academic motivation, mental health
indicators (e.g., anxiety, depression), or personality traits (e.g., conscientiousness,
extraversion) to build more holistic models of student functioning.

Longitudinal Research Designs: Long-term studies could track changes in Emotional
Intelligence and Self-Efficacy over the course of an undergraduate program. This
would help identify causal pathways and determine how these traits evolve with
academic and social experience.

Mixed Methods Approach: Adding a qualitative component—such as student
interviews or focus groups—would allow researchers to explore the how and why
behind students' emotional and efficacy beliefs, offering richer interpretive depth than
numbers alone.

Intervention-Based Studies: Future research can design and assess emotional
intelligence training programs, self-efficacy enhancement workshops, or psychosocial
interventions, to examine their practical impact on students’ wellbeing and academic
functioning.

Academic Performance as a Mediator or Moderator: Although academic performance
was not measured in this study, future research could explore it as a mediator (linking
EI to SE) or moderator (influencing the strength of their relationship).

Technology and Emotional Intelligence: With the rise of online learning and digital
platforms, future studies may examine how Emotional Intelligence is expressed and
developed in virtual environments—especially during online group work, feedback
interactions, and remote peer collaboration.

Discipline-Specific Studies: Comparative analysis can be extended to other academic
fields (e.g., Law, Medicine, Engineering, Fine Arts) or vocational programs to explore
73
whether Emotional Intelligence and Self-Efficacy operate differently in highly
technical vs. expressive domains.

Exploration of Proxy and Collective Efficacy: As outlined by Bandura, concepts like
proxy efficacy (belief in others acting on one's behalf) and collective efficacy (groupbased confidence) remain largely unexplored among student populations and could be
valuable additions to this line of inquiry.

Impact of Institutional Environment: Future research could assess how institutional
factors such as classroom climate, faculty mentoring, campus support systems, or peer
influence shape the development of Emotional Intelligence and Self-Efficacy.
74
REFERENCES
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harper's Magazine, 140, 227–235.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. Bantam Books.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 9(3), 185-211. https://doi.org/10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional
Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). Multi-Health Systems Inc.
Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence
on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(3), 243–
274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00099-1
Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of
emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(3), 483–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.483
Mangal, S. K., & Mangal, S. (2004). Emotional intelligence inventory. National
Psychological Corporation.
Coopersmith, S. (1981). Self-esteem inventories. Consulting Psychologists Press.
Locke, E. A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, 26(4), 425-431. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.318
Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D., & Matthews, G. (2008). The science of emotional intelligence:
Current consensus and controversies. European Psychologist, 13(1), 64-78.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.13.1.64
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2012). Emotional intelligence: A critique of the
concept and implications for education. Educational Psychology, 27(2), 215-242.
75
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change.
Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S.
Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and
control beliefs (pp. 35–37). NFER-Nelson.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman and Company.
Scholz, U., Dona, B. G., Sud, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2002). Is general self-efficacy a universal
construct? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18(3), 242-251.
https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.18.3.242
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan
(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Information Age Publishing.
Zarezadeh, Y., & Karami, J. (2015). Emotional intelligence as a predictor of self-efficacy
among students with different levels of academic achievement at Kermanshah University of
Medical Sciences. Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism, 3(2), 50–
55.
Salavera, C., Usán, P., & Jarie, L. (2017). Emotional intelligence and social skills on selfefficacy in secondary education students: Are there gender differences? Journal of
Adolescence, 60, 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.07.009
Begum, A. (2020). Effect of emotional intelligence and academic streams on self-esteem of
college students. International Journal of Indian Psychology, 8(3), 1356–1362.
https://doi.org/10.25215/0803.140
76
Bayraktar, Ü., Erat, S., & Balcıoğlu, Y. S. (2023). The effects of emotional intelligence and
self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intention: A study on undergraduate students. SSD Journal,
8(39), 264–279. https://doi.org/10.31567/ssd.1016
Jindal, S., & Dutt, S. (2023). Emotional intelligence and self-efficacy: A comparative study
between primary and secondary school teachers. International Journal of Indian Psychology,
11(3), 1216–1233. https://doi.org/10.25215/1103.117
Quílez-Robres, A., Usán, P., Lozano-Blasco, R., & Salavera, C. (2023). Emotional
intelligence and academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Thinking
Skills and Creativity, 49, 101355.
Ubago-Jimenez, J. L., Zurita-Ortega, F., Ortega-Martin, J. L., & Melguizo-Ibañez, E. (2024).
Impact of emotional intelligence and academic self-concept on the academic performance of
educational sciences undergraduates. Heliyon, 10 (8).
77
Appendix A. Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS)
Please rate the following statements using the 7-point scale below:
1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Slightly disagree
4 = Neutral
5 = Slightly agree
6 = Agree
7 = Strongly agree
Self-Emotion Appraisal (SEA):
1. I have a good sense of why I have certain feelings most of the time.
2. I have good understanding of my own emotions.
3. I really understand what I feel.
4. I always know whether or not I am happy.
Others’ Emotion Appraisal (OEA):
5. I always know my friends’ emotions from their behavior.
6. I am a good observer of others’ emotions.
7. I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of others.
8. I have good understanding of the emotions of people around me.
Use of Emotion (UOE):
9. I always set goals for myself and then try my best to achieve them.
10. I always tell myself I am a competent person.
11. I am a self-motivating person.
12. I would always encourage myself to try my best.
78
Regulation of Emotion (ROE):
13. I am able to control my temper and handle difficulties rationally.
14. I am quite capable of controlling my own emotions.
15. I can always calm down quickly when I am very angry.
16. I have good control of my own emotions.
Scoring Instructions:

Each subscale has 4 items. There are no reverse-scored items.

SEA Score = Sum of Items 1–4

OEA Score = Sum of Items 5–8

UOE Score = Sum of Items 9–12

ROE Score = Sum of Items 13–16

Total EI Score = Sum of all 16 items

Higher scores indicate higher emotional intelligence.
79
Appendix B. General Self-Efficacy Scale.
Please indicate the extent to which each statement applies to you using the 4-point scale
below:
1 = Not at all true
2 = Hardly true
3 = Moderately true
4 = Exactly true
1. I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough.
2. If someone opposes me, I can find the means and ways to get what I want.
3. It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals.
4. I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events.
5. Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen situations.
6. I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort.
7. I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities.
8. When I am confronted with a problem, I can usually find several solutions.
9. If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution.
10. I can usually handle whatever comes my way.
Scoring Instructions:

Each item is scored from 1 to 4. There are no reverse-scored items.

Total GSES Score = Sum of all 10 items

Higher scores reflect stronger self-efficacy.