On the construct of subjective risk intelligence: relationships with personality, emotional intelligence and coping strategies. A comparison between adolescents and adults.

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2984756/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

On the construct of subjective risk intelligence: relationships with personality, emotional intelligence and coping strategies. A comparison between adolescents and adults.

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2984756/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

The complexity of today's scenario has made it necessary to investigate the need for individuals to make choices that entail increasing exposure to risk and uncertainty. Among the individual resources that could help people to cope with situations of uncertainty, the new construct of subjective risk intelligence, known as a person's ability to effectively weigh the pros and cons of a decision in situations where not all outcomes are foreseen, would seem to play a prominent role. Considering that personality and coping strategies have been shown to be significantly related in previous research, the present study investigates the relationship between subjective risk intelligence, emotional intelligence, personality traits and coping strategies in both adults and adolescents.

Methods

The cross sectional study was conducted on 1390 Italian people, divided into two subsamples: 641 adolescents and 749 adults.

Results

The results showed that subjective risk intelligence mediates the role that personality traits and emotional intelligence have on coping strategies, thus influencing the choice of effective or ineffective strategies in both adults and adolescents, highlighting several differences between the two groups.

Conclusion

Subjective risk intelligence could be activated in order to deal with uncertain and risky situations. Suggestions for future research and interventions were given.

Big Five

coping

emotional intelligence

risk intelligence

adolescents

adults

personality

The contextual complexity of today's scenario has led several scholars to identify the psychological resources that individuals should improve to be able to face the increasing unpredictability in various life’s contexts (1, 2).

In fact, according to Beck (3, 4), the prominent characteristic of today’s society – defined by the author himself as a 'risk society' – is the omnipresence of risks. This omnipresence has led to growing exposure to new, unpredictable, unknown and unprecedented risks that require a necessary reconfiguration not only of the subjective perception of risk, but also of the inter-subjective communication of risk and the social experience of living in a risky environment.

Moreover, coping with such an uncertain environment represents a transgenerational challenge. Adults who grew up in eras characterised by greater linearity and certainty now are requested to reconfigure their traditional approach to life circumstances. Adolescents are called to face not only the typical challenges for their life stage but also the disorientation dictated by the complexity and sudden changes in the surrounding social and economic context. Individual and contextual resources are involved in such processes and a number of studies have attempted to explain the relationship between certain personality characteristics and the coping strategies implemented by individuals to cope with stressful situations. The results of these investigations are controversial to the extent that variables, such as stress-exposure, stress-reactivity, and situational demands, linked to the context or the individual, may play an important role in this relationship (5). Similar results of studies highlighting both direct (6) and indirect effects, mediated, for example, by personal variables such as self-efficacy (7) or contextual variables such as social support (8), have shed light on possible relationships between emotional intelligence (EI) and coping strategies. Among the individual resources a new construct has been recently proposed by Craparo et al. (1), that is defined as subjective risk intelligence (SRI), “the capacity of a person to effectively assess the pros and cons of a decision in situations in which not all outcomes are totally expected” (1, p. 968). It consists of four sub-dimensions: 1) imaginative capability, individual’s ability to produce new and original ideas in relation to the objective; 2) problem solving self-efficacy, the belief to handle situations and make decisions effectively; 3) stress management, capacity to modulate adaptively emotional responses in stressful situations; 4) positive attitude towards uncertainty, attribution of positive meaning to uncertainty.

This study aims to investigate how personality, EI and the potential mediator effect of SRI could act with respect to more or less adaptive coping responses, for both adults and adolescents.

SRI, personality and EI

As the construct of subjective risk intelligence (SRI) has been recently operationalized and the literature including this new conceptualization is limited, we have focused the literature review on the relationships between SRI, personality and EI on its four constitutive dimensions.

Imaginative capability is a kind of creativity that can make people exceed their past experience and create meaningful and complete conceptual possibilities from organising fragmented situations. It is an important factor to stimulate potential and inspire creativity; hence, imaginative capability is regarded as the foundation for cultivating creative thinking (9, 10). Over the years a large number of studies have investigated personality correlates of creativity (11). Numerous researchers – using the Big Five model – have found that creativity is linked to high openness, low agreeableness, low conscientiousness and high neuroticism (12). Similar results have been found by Karwowski, Lebuda, Wisniewska and Gralewski (13), in the relationships between Big Five personality traits and creativity self-efficacy and creative personal identity. The same patterns of relationships have been shown by studies conducted with adolescents. In a review of studies concerning the development of creativity during adolescence van der Zanden, Meijer and Beghetto (14) found that in some studies introversion was positively related to creativity. Openness to experience can be considered as a key correlate of creativity though Hong, Peng and O’Neil (15) reported different results according to the diverse creative domains. The findings related to the influence of neuroticism and extraversion on creative personality suggest that affect-related processes may play an important role in creativity (16), but with respect to the relationship between EI and creativity, the studies provided mixed findings. Sànchez-Ruiz et al. (16), using the Trait EI model, found correlations between EI and creative personality but not with divergent thinking. Also in adolescents, controversial results were found in several studies (17, 18).

Regarding the second component of SRI, problem solving self-efficacy, the results of several studies (19, 20, 21) indicate that personality traits and general self-efficacy are correlated. Zakiei, Vafapoor, Alikhani, Farnia and Radmher (22) found that the higher neuroticism trait is accompanied with the lower general self-efficacy. Additionally, the more the features of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience are increased, the higher the general self-efficacy will be. On the relationship between EI and self-efficacy, some studies reported a positive influence of EI on self-efficacy (23, 24, 25, 26); according this study highly emotionally intelligent individuals, feeling confident in their ability to adapt to new conditions and capable of dealing with pressure and regulating stress, are expected to have a high sense of personal efficacy.

On the third dimension of SRI, several studies linked the likelihood of experience stressful situations and to appraisal of an event as stressful to personality traits (27, 28). Individuals high in neuroticism experience more stressful events, whereas individuals high in extraversion experience both more stressful and more pleasurable events (29, 30). In a study conducted with university students, Vollarath and Torgersen (30) found that the combination of low neuroticism with high conscientiousness leads to less than average stress and favourable affectivity; conversely, the combination of high neuroticism with low conscientiousness, was related to high stress vulnerability and unfavourable affectivity. According to several studies, individuals with higher EI cope better with the emotional demands of stressful encounters because they are able to accurately perceive their emotions and can effectively regulate their mood states (31, 32).

The fourth dimension of SRI, positive attitude toward uncertainty, is comparable to the tolerance of uncertainty, a personality trait underlying the ability to accept uncertainty and act confidently in unstable life situations (33, 34). Uncertainty tolerance can be considered as an individual trait, as a psychological attitude of the person, and as an emotional reaction to the unknown (35). Borracci, Ciambrone and Arribalzaga (36), in a study found that conscientiousness, extraversion and openness were associated with lower tolerance for complexity, risk and ambiguity; conversely, the agreeableness trait was related to higher tolerance for risk. The results of a study conducted with adolescents (34) revealed that uncertainty tolerance as a personality trait is manifested through sensitivity, flexibility and openness to new experiences, confidence and activity in familiar and unfamiliar situations. With regard to the relationship between EI and tolerance of uncertainty, Vahedi and Fatemi (37) found no correlations between these two constructs.

Personality, EI and coping in adults and adolescents

The construct of coping refers to the way in which people try to manage traumatic events or stressful everyday situations. Coping strategies are used to regulate disturbing emotions and to generate solutions to manage and resolve the cause of stress (38). Personality and coping play both independent and interactive roles in influencing physical and mental health, therefore it is not surprising that research on the relationship between coping and personality is very broad.

As part of the research that studied the relationship between the personality dimensions measured by the Big Five and coping, several type of studies, cross-sectional, longitudinal and meta-analytic, tend to confirm that neuroticism is associated to passive and maladaptive strategies (30), or disengagement coping (39); extraversion, and conscientiousness are strongly related to active strategies (39; 40); contrasting results have found about openness to experience and agreeableness, which, according to some authors, are less correlated with coping strategies (41), while in other studies (39) are positively linked to engagement coping (openness) and negatively to disengagement coping (agreeableness).

The relationships between five-factor traits and emotion-focused coping also suggest the importance of distinguishing between types of emotion-focused coping (5). Emotion regulation scales focused on relaxation and controlled expression of emotion were essentially unrelated to five-factor traits. Conversely, scales assessing the expression of negative emotions are related positively (and strongly) to neuroticism and negatively to conscientiousness and agreeableness.

Regarding the relationship between personality factors and the use of coping strategies in adolescence, the research is not very extensive. Fickovà (42) examining coping behavior of adolescents in relation to personality dimensions showed that neuroticism facilitates the preference of maladaptive or ineffective strategies used in coping with stress. Extraversion is in closer relationship with searching for social support and positive reinterpretation. Openness and agreeableness are in a weak relationship with coping strategies, conscientiousness seems to be the strongest predictor of coping behavior: persons high in conscientiousness have the tendency to prefer the strategies focused on the problem itself, and individuals with low conscientiousness score prefer maladaptive strategies. Overall, it has been shown that adolescents use multiple maladaptive coping strategies to cope with common stressful situations and, not surprisingly, constitute a population at high risk for the development of psychological and behavioral problems (43, 44). A meta-analysis by Connor-Smith and Flachsbart (5) shows that personality better predicted coping in younger samples, assuming on the one hand that responses to stress are driven more strongly by temperament in younger individuals, on the other hand that age related personality changes (45), may also have an impact.

As known, some other factors besides personality factors are involved in adopting coping strategies. A relevant body of empirical evidence suggests that EI correlates robustly with coping, particularly rational/problem focused coping (46, 47). In a study Noorbakhsh et al. (48) showed that EI was positively associated with problem-focused and positive emotion-focused coping strategies, and negatively associated with negative emotion-focused coping strategies. Moradi et al. (49) showed that EI has a positive relationship with problem-solving coping strategies, social support, cognitive appraisal and emotional inhibition (negative with emotion-focused) coping strategies. These findings, except the last, are consistent with findings of most of the studies showing a positive relationship between EI and effective coping strategies and negative relationship of EI and non-effective coping strategies (50, 51).

Regarding adolescence, the relationship between EI and coping is less clear, as the empirical studies report very different results. The study conducted by Mohammadi et al., (52), showed that students with higher EI use both effective and non-effective coping strategies while encountering stressful situations though they use effective coping strategies more than non-effective ones. MacCann, Fogarty, Zeidner and Roberts (53) showed that EI was positively related to academic problem-focused coping, negatively related to emotion-focused coping and no related to avoidant coping. However, the strongest relationship between EI and coping was for problem-focused coping. In one between more large-N studies available, Davis and Humphrey (54) reported significant correlations between ability and trait EI and active coping, in a sample of 748 British adolescents, and a near zero negative correlation between trait EI and avoidance coping. Furthermore, results indicated that whilst ability EI influences mental health via flexible selection of coping strategies, trait EI modifies coping effectiveness; specifically, high levels of trait EI amplify the beneficial effects of active coping and minimise the effects of avoidant coping to reduce symptomatology. In a study by Zeidner, Matthews and Shemesh (55), however, no significant correlations were found between EI and problem-focused coping, emotion-focused coping or avoidant coping. However, Shemesh (56) found that EI is exclusively negatively correlated with the use of avoidant coping strategies such as behavioural disengagement, denial and addictive substance use.

SRI and coping.

According to Rohrmann (57), different risk-taking or risk-avoidance tendencies result from ways of feeling, thinking and behaving that can be learned or socially developed. This in turn can influence the sense of agency, coping, self-efficacy and decision-making in adaptive or maladaptive ways, depending on the flexibility of individuals.

Important links are shown between SRI and coping strategies. In particular, as regards the four dimensions of the construct, imaginative capability had stronger relationships with both perceived problem-solving self-efficacy and problem-focused coping (1, 2). Furthermore, adaptive coping strategies seem to be associated with dimensions similar to imaginative capacity such as creativity. For example it has been shown that in adolescence, a period characterised by a more risky attitude and behaviour, not all risk-taking is negative but rather can give rise to socially approved behaviour, such as creativity (58, 59).

Regarding the ability to manage adaptively with stress some studies, starting from the consideration that some high-risk individuals do not show clear signs of psychological distress, have shown that resilient adolescents also exhibit high levels in problem-solving-centred coping strategies (60).

With respect to more or less positive attitudes and tolerance towards uncertainty, the advent of Covid-19 pandemic has provided fertile ground for the study of these dimensions and the effects they may have on mental health. Rettie and Daniels (61), for example, investigated some factors that influenced mental health during the pandemic, highlighting the mediating role of maladaptive coping responses in the predictive relationship between uncertainty intolerance and psychological distress. Moreover, even before the pandemic, less recent studies had highlighted the effects of uncertainty on coping. An experiment with 180 undergraduate students for example showed that participants in emotional states of uncertainty were more oriented towards problem-focused coping than participants in states of emotional certainty engaged in more emotion-focused coping (62).

Finally, regarding the dimension of problem-solving self-efficacy, the role of the resources that individuals adopt to cope with stressful situations have long been an area of great interest for psychology (63). In this area of study, high self-efficacy has been associated with active or adaptive coping and low self-efficacy with passive or maladaptive coping (64, 65, 66).

Rationale of the study

Stressing events are recurrent in life span; they are often associated with transition periods, and changes in significant contexts during life, representing development and growth opportunities, if adequately faced. Among personal resources, SRI could be useful to deal with challenging situations; SRI has been found to be related to the big five personality traits and the trait EI (1). Moreover, coping strategies enable on one hand, a range of adaptive responses that achieve their intended purpose and, on the other, maladaptive responses that are not finalised to overcome the perceived threat (67). Therefore, we hypothesise that SRI could strengthen coping strategies in achieving goals. This could affect positive coping strategies reinforcing their adaptively effect in the troubled individual’s relationship with a stressful environment (68); and negative coping strategies mitigating their maladaptive effect in stressful situations, which impede adjustment (69). Then, considering that SRI is involved in facing one’s psychological challenges, especially in uncertain and risky conditions, and that personality characteristics, including EI, may play a role in coping strategies (70), we hypothesise that SRI is a mediator of this relationship, playing a role in individuals’ choices of coping strategies. As highlighted in the literature review, given the developmental nature of these complex patterns of relationships, it is reasonable to expect that several differences could occur among adolescents and adults, due to the development of cognitive and emotional dimensions.

Given the extent of support among these links, Figure 1 serves as a conceptual model in our study on the relationships between personality, EI, SRI, and coping strategies.

We assume, then, that the model produces the following answers:

The personality traits and EI are antecedents of SRI because they can promote or impede an intelligent risk perception and evaluation that give the necessary push to action.
Individuals assess their ability to cope with the stressful situations effectively or ineffectively, and this may be mediated by the person’s resources and then by the successful assessment and SRI drives the person to perform the action.
This pattern is applicable to adolescents and adults, even though some differences are expected due to the different cognitive and emotional development of adolescence with respect to the adult stage.

Aims

Following the rationale of the study, we hypothesise that:

Adolescents and adults have differences in SRI, due to the different degree of development of psychological resources.
Personality traits and EI are antecedents of coping strategies.
SRI plays a mediational role in the relationship at point 2.
The mediational role of SRI could be different in adolescents and adults due to the point 1.

An a priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power software, version 3.1 (71, 72), to evaluate the minimum sample size to predict coping strategies with six predictor variables. The parameters indicated in the literature were maintained to carry out this analysis: a medium effect size of 0.15 (Effect size f² = 0.15) with alpha = 0.05 and minimum Power (1 - beta) = 0.95 (73). The analysis revealed that a minimum total sample size of 146 participants was necessary.

The research project was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and received the approval of the Internal Review Board of the University involved (UKE-IRBPSY-10.15.01.). This study is part of a larger research project, aimed at validating the construct of subjective risk intelligence and its related scale on adolescents and adults; other results, obtained from the same samples have been already published (1, 2).

Participants

Sample 1. Is composed of 641 Italian adolescents (males = 278; females = 363), aged between 13 and 18 (M = 15.78; SD = 1.48), attending the different classes of various high schools’ courses of study (20.6% first year; 20.1% second year; 20.3% third year; 23.2% fourth year; 15.8% fifth year) recruited on a voluntary basis. The schools were recruited through a convenience sampling; the administration of the survey took place in presence, during the school activities. The students have filled the questionnaire according to these instructions: “The following questionnaire aims to analyse behaviors and feelings in facing situations of uncertainty or difficulty. You will find below a series of statements describing common situations or behaviors, to which we ask you to indicate how much they correspond to what you do or feel, using the scale provided. There are no right or wrong answers; we ask that you answer all questions as sincerely as possible […]”. The informed consent of the students’ parents was managed by the schools. The students filled the questionnaire during the lesson’s hours, with the consent of their teachers.

Sample 2. Is composed of 749 Italian adults (males = 275; females = 474), aged between 19 and 79 (M = 30.93; SD = 12.45). They were recruited through convenience sampling, from the general population. More than half of them have graduated high school (60.2%), 11.9% have a middle-school diploma, and the others have a university degree (11.6% bachelor's degree, 12.1% five-year university degree, 4% post-graduate degree). The participants have completed the questionnaires according to the following instructions: “The following questionnaire aims to analyse behaviours and feelings in facing uncertainty or difficulty. You will find a series of statements that describe common situations or behaviours, to which we ask you to indicate on the expected range, how much they correspond to what you do, or you feel […]”. The participation was completely voluntary. We administered the tests individually and anonymously.

Measures

Big Five Inventory. The Big Five Inventory (74,75) is composed of 10 items assessing the Big Five dimensions on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items include “I see myself as a person who is outgoing, sociable” and “I see myself as a person who gets nervous easily.”

Subjective Risk Intelligence Scale. The Subjective Risk Intelligence Scale (SRIS; 1) is a self-report scale composed of 21 items with 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). The SRIS has been created and validated for the Italian population and is composed of twenty-one items that describe behaviours or moods. The items are grouped in four dimensions: (1) emotional stress management (3 items, sample item: “My mental state affects my work/school performance”) measures the capacity to modulate emotional responses in stressful situations; (2) positive attitude toward uncertainty (5 items, sample item: “I am afraid of change”) refers to the ability to perceive uncertainty as an opportunity rather than a threat, attributing positive significance to it; (3) imaginative capability (7 items, sample item: “With a new project, I look for non-traditional approaches”) refers to the generation of novel and potentially useful ideas, emphasising the attributes of initiative‐taking and originality; this dimension includes an individual’s ability to explore the unknown; (4) problem‐solving self‐efficacy (6 items, sample item: “I feel able to do all right, even in unexpected circumstances”) comprises both self‐confidence and beliefs in one’s capacity to handle situations, including the ability to make decisions. For the study’s purposes, we have used the SRIS total score (Cronbach’s alpha and McDonalds’ omega = .89).

The Subjective Risk Intelligence Scale for Adolescents (SRIS-A; 2) was used to measure SRI in sample 1. It derives from the adults’ version and is composed of nineteen items grouped in the same four dimensions (3 items for emotional stress management, 5 items for positive attitude toward uncertainty, 6 items for imaginative capability, and 5 items for problem-solving self-efficacy). For the study’s purposes, we have used the SRIS total score (Cronbach’s alpha and McDonalds’ omega = .83).

Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test. The Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SREIT; 51); Italian adaptation (76), is composed of 33 items answered on a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). The EI total score was calculated on 30 items, excluding item 5, 28 and 33 as indicated in the Italian validation study (76). The scale assesses how effectively respondents typically identify, understand, regulate, and harness emotions in themselves and others. Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega, calculated on the samples of the study, are good (sample 1: Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega = .85; sample 2: Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega = .92). A sample item is ‘I know why my emotions change’.

Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced. The Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced test (COPE; 70, 38) is a self-report scale composed of 60 items that evaluates the use of skills and strategies adopted to face stressful and difficult events in adults. For the purpose of this study, the five dimensions are grouped into two typical coping strategies (77): self-directed coping (having a positive attitude and problem-solving, 24 items in total) and self-avoidant coping (using avoidance strategies and having a transcendent orientation, 24 items in total). The dimension of social support was not considered in this study, to align the dimensions to adolescents scale. For self-directed coping: sample item “I make a plan of action”; Cronbach’s alpha was 0.79 and McDonald’s omega was 0.80; for self-avoidant coping: sample item “I give up the attempt to get what I want”; Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86 and McDonald’s omega was 0.87

Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations – Adolescent version. The Italian adaptation of Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS) – adolescents’ version (78; 79) has been used to measure coping strategies in adolescents. It is composed of 48 items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “not at all” to “very much” that evaluate three types of coping strategies, task-oriented (16 items, sample item: “I try to understand the situation”; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83; McDonald’s omega = 0.84), emotion-oriented (16 items, sample item: “I focus on my inadequacies”; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84; McDonald’s omega = 0.85), and avoidance-oriented (16 items, sample item: “I buy something”; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84; McDonald’s omega = 0.84).

In the present study, following the literature review, we have considered both self-directed and task-oriented as adaptive or effective strategies; on the other hand, self-avoidant, avoidance oriented and emotion-oriented coping (as the items included in the CISS are referred to negative emotions) are considered as maladaptive or ineffective strategies. Even though the emotion-oriented strategies are not included in the COPE for adults, we have taken them into account in the data analysis due to their relevance for adolescents.

Data Analysis

We analysed the survey data (Dataset, 2023) using path analysis in Jamovi 2.3.21. (80), to test the mediation model shown in Figure 1. The indirect effect was tested using a bootstrap estimation approach with 5000 samples and 95% bias-corrected percentile method (81).

We also implemented other well-known analytical tools, such as t-test for independent samples and its effect size, and correlations, using SPSS 25.0 (82).

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Table 1a and 1b present means, standard deviation, and correlations between the variables included in the study, in the two different subsamples (sample 1: adolescents; sample 2: adults). As shown in Table 1a and 1b, in sample 1, the emotion-oriented coping is not correlated with any of the personality traits, EI, or SRI; task-oriented coping has similar patterns in adolescents and adults samples: task-oriented coping and self-directed coping – that are overlapping strategies – are positively associated, in both samples, to conscientiousness, openness, EI and SRI; in older participants task-oriented coping is also positively associated to emotional stability. Avoidance coping is related to EI in both samples, but in a different way: the relationship has positive direction in adolescents and negative direction in adults; in younger participants avoidance coping is also positively associated with extraversion, in adults it is negatively correlated with conscientiousness, emotional stability and SRI. The variables were also checked for normal distribution, computing skewness and kurtosis and considering normally distributed all the dimensions with values into the range -1/+1. Responses were approximately normally distributed, with skewness ranging from -0.37 to 0.18 in sample 1, from -0.39 to 0.85 in sample 2; and kurtosis values ranging from -0.60 to 0.29 in sample 1; from -0.68 to 0.55 in sample 2.

Table 1a. Descriptives and correlations in sample 1

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Agreeableness	3.12	0.83	—
2. Conscientiousness	3.37	0.88	0.12^**	—
3. Emotional Stability	2.69	1.03	0.21^***	0.17^***	—
4. Extraversion	3.31	0.93	0.15^***	0.06	0.11^**	—
5. Openness	3.40	0.97	-0.05	0.06	-0.08	-0.02	—
6. Emotional Intelligence	3.71	0.43	0.10^*	0.23^***	0.07	0.24^***	0.19^***	—
7. Subjective risk intelligence	3.09	0.54	0.04	0.24^***	0.40^***	0.18^***	0.11^**	0.30^***	—
8. Task-oriented	3.60	0.54	0.004	0.33^***	0.07	0.01	0.11^**	0.53^***	0.38^***	—
9. Emotion-oriented	3.23	0.67	-0.14	-0.18	-0.43	-0.17	0.03	0.01	-0.53	-0.01	—
10. Avoidance-oriented	3.24	0.70	0.06	-0.03	-0.06	0.20^***	-0.002	0.33^***	-0.03	0.17^***	0.23^***	—
Note. * p < .05, p < .01, * p < .001

Table 1b. Descriptives and correlations in sample 2

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Agreeableness	3.11	0.85	—
2. Conscientiousness	3.81	0.87	0.01	—
3. Emotional Stability	2.85	1.05	0.25^***	0.12^**	—
4. Extraversion	3.30	0.88	0.08^*	0.12^**	0.08^*	—
5. Openness	3.54	0.91	0.01	-0.02	0.001	0.02	—
6. Emotional Intelligence	3.70	0.50	0.08^*	0.22^***	0.13^***	0.23^***	0.11^**	—
7. Subjective risk intelligence	3.39	0.54	0.12^***	0.28^***	0.43^***	0.22^***	0.05	0.57^***	—
8. Self-directed	2.78	0.39	-0.02	0.15^***	0.18^***	0.04	0.12^**	0.25^***	0.18^***	—
9. Avoidance	1.86	0.48	-0.04	-0.20^***	-0.13^***	-0.02	-0.03	-0.23^***	-0.35^***	0.09^*	—
Note. * p < .05, p < .01, * p < .001

Differences in SRI between adolescents and adults

With the aim to compare the levels of SRI and its components in the two samples of adolescents and adults, we have used Student’s t-test (p < .05) for independent samples, and Cohen’s d to calculate the effect size. The results are reported in Table 2. The differences between adolescents and adults are all statistically significant, with a medium effect size for both the single dimensions and the total score.

Table 2. Subsamples’ differences for each subscale and total scale

	Sample 1: Adolescents (N = 641)		Sample 2: Adults (N = 749)		t	p
	M	SD	M	SD
Imaginative capability	3.39	0.71	3.55	0.55	4.58	< .001
Positive attitude toward uncertainty	3.15	0.87	3.43	0.96	5.71	< .001
Problem Solving Self-efficacy	3.42	0.67	3.80	.58	11.20	< .001
Stress management	2.41	0.95	2.78	1.00	7.03	< .001
SRIS total score	3.09	0.54	3.39	.54	10.12	< .001

Path analysis and mediation model

To verify the research hypotheses, we tested our conceptual model (see Figure 1) on the two subsamples. Even though the two models tested – one on adolescents and one on adults – are conceptually identical, but use different or slightly different measures and indicators, we cannot use statistical indexes for their comparison, but we will explain the results through a theoretical reflection.

The path analysis and the mediation model tested on sample 1 (adolescents) show excellent fit indexes: CFI = 1.00, so the data are adequate to explain the hypothesized model; R²values are reported in Table 3. The mediation model shows the following results: the path from agreeableness to SRI is significant (β = –0.08, p = .02), as was the path from SRI to task-oriented coping (β = 0.25, p < .001). Moreover, the indirect effect (I.E.) is also significant (as reported in Table 5), confirming the full mediation of SRI in the relationship between agreeableness and task-oriented coping, as the direct effect of agreeableness on task-oriented coping was not found. Similarly, the path from SRI to emotion-oriented coping is significant (β = –0.48, p < .001), as well as the path from agreeableness to emotion-oriented coping (β = –0.07, p = 0.03); as the direct effect of agreeableness on emotion-oriented coping is confirmed, we found a partial mediation of SRI in the relationship between agreeableness and emotion-oriented coping. Then, the path from conscientiousness to SRI is significant (β = 0.12, p < .001) as well as the path from risk intelligence to task-oriented coping (previously reported), emotion-oriented coping (previously reported), and avoidance-oriented coping (β = –0.12, p = 0.004). The indirect effects are also significant, as well as the direct effects (Table 5), confirming the partial mediation. Third, the path from emotional stability to SRI is significant (β = 0.37, p < .001) as well as the paths from SRI to the three coping strategies, as previously reported. The indirect effects, reported in Table 5 are all significant, while the direct effect is not found in the relationship between emotional stability and avoidance-oriented coping, confirming the full mediation. Moreover, the path from extraversion to SRI is significant (β = 0.10, p = 0.01) as well as the paths from SRI to the three coping strategies, as previously reported. The indirect and the direct effects, reported in Table 5 are all significant, confirming the partial mediation. Furthermore, the path from openness to SRI is significant (β = 0.09, p = 0.01) as well as the paths from task-oriented and emotion-oriented coping, as previously reported. The indirect effects, reported in Table 5 are all significant, while the direct ones are not significant, confirming the full mediation. Lastly, the path from EI to SRI is significant (β = 0.22, p < .001) as well as the paths from SRI to the three coping strategies, as previously reported. The indirect and the direct effects, reported in Table 5 are all significant, confirming the partial mediation.

The path analysis and the mediation model tested on sample 2 (adults) show excellent fit indexes: CFI = 1.00, so the data are adequate to explain the hypothesized model; R²values are reported in Table 4. The mediation model shows the following results: the path from agreeableness to SRI is not significant (β = –0.009, p = .78), as is the path from SRI to self-directed coping (β = –0.04, p = .36). Therefore, agreeableness has only a direct effect on self-directed coping, SRI does not play any mediation role either in this relationship or in the relationship between agreeableness and avoidance coping, as well as any direct effect of agreeableness on avoidance is found (see Table 6 for direct and indirect effects). The same path is shown in the relationship between openness and coping strategies: only a direct effect is found between openness and self-directed coping, no mediation role of SRI, and no direct effect on avoidance coping. Third, the path from conscientiousness to SRI is significant (β = 0.12, p < .001) as well as the path from SRI to avoidance coping (β = –0.33, p < .001). The indirect effect is also significant, as well as the direct effect (Table 6), confirming the partial mediation. Then, the path from emotional stability to SRI is significant (β = 0.35, p < .001) as well as the path from SRI to avoidance coping, as previously reported. The indirect effect, reported in Table 6, is significant, while the direct effect is not found in the relationship between emotional stability and avoidance coping, confirming the full mediation. Moreover, as the path from extraversion to SRI is significant (β = 0.06, p = .023), as well as the path from SRI to avoidance coping, as previously reported, the indirect effect is significant. Lastly, the path from EI to SRI is significant (β = 0.49, p < .001) as well as the path from SRI to avoidance coping, as previously reported. The indirect effect, reported in Table 6 is significant, while the direct effect is not significant, confirming the full mediation.

Table 3. R-squared of the model for sample 1

		95% C.I.
Variable	R²	Lower
Subjective risk intelligence	0.27	0.21
Task-oriented coping	0.39	0.33
Emotion-oriented coping	0.39	0.33
Avoidance-oriented coping	0.16	0.11

Table 4. R-squared of the model for sample 2

		95% C.I.
Variables	R²	Lower
Subjective risk intelligence	0.48	0.42
Self-directed coping	0.11	0.07
Avoidance coping	0.14	0.10

Table 5. Effects of the personality traits and emotional intelligence on coping strategies through the mediation of SRI (sample 1)

Paths	Indirect effects				Direct effects
	β	95% C.I.		p	β	95% C.I.
Agreeableness-SRI-Task-oriented	-0.02	-0.41	-0.03	0.025	-0.04	-1.08	0.25
Agreeableness-SRI-Emotion-oriented	0.04	0.08	0.95	0.020	-0.07	-1.74	-0.09
Agreeableness-SRI-Avoidance-oriented	0.01	-0.01	0.28	0.067	0.02	-0.74	1.25
Conscientiousness-SRI-Task-oriented	0.03	0.12	0.50	0.002	0.19	1.26	2.52
Conscientiousness-SRI-Emotion-oriented	-0.06	-1.14	-0.31	< .001	-0.07	-1.63	-0.06
Conscientiousness-SRI-Avoidance-oriented	-0.02	-0.36	-0.02	0.025	-0.09	-2.06	-0.17
Emotional stability-SRI-Task-oriented	0.01	0.53	1.07	< .001	-0.07	-1.19	-0.04
Emotional stability-SRI-Emotion-oriented	-0.18	-2.31	-1.43	< .001	-0.21	-2.94	-1.51
Emotional stability-SRI- Avoidance-oriented	-0.05	-0.84	-0.15	0.005	-0.05	-1.40	0.33
Extraversion-SRI-Task-oriented	0.02	0.05	0.40	0.011	-0.14	-1.88	-0.70
Extraversion-SRI-Emotion-oriented	-0.05	-0.92	-0.14	0.008	-0.09	-1.79	-0.32
Extraversion-SRI-Avoidance-oriented	-0.01	-0.28	-0.002	0.047	0.15	0.85	2.62
Openness-SRI-Task-oriented	0.02	0.03	0.36	0.019	-0.03	-0.79	0.33
Openness -SRI-Emotion-oriented	-0.04	-0.83	-0.09	0.014	0.03	-0.39	0.10
Openness -SRI-Avoidance-oriented	-0.01	-0.25	0.004	0.059	-0.05	-1.45	0.23
Emotional intelligence-SRI-Task-oriented	0.06	0.63	1.58	< .001	0.45	7.77	10.46
Emotional intelligence -SRI-Emotion-oriented	-0.10	-3.497	-1.639	< .001	0.21	3.51	6.85
Emotional intelligence -SRI-Avoidance-oriented	-0.03	-1.192	-0.169	0.009	0.37	7.41	11.44

Table 6. Effects of the personality traits and emotional intelligence on coping strategies through the mediation of SRI (sample 2)

Paths	Indirect effects				Direct effects
	β	95% C.I.		p	β		95% C.I.
Agreeableness-SRI-Self-directed	0.000	-0.026	0.034	0.781	-0.072	-1.527		-0.062
Agreeableness-SRI-Avoidance-directed	0.003	-0.219	0.297	0.767	-0.0047	-1.006		0.881
Conscientiousness-SRI-Self-directed	-0.005	-0.179	0.067	0.375	0.0906	0.220		1.723
Conscientiousness-SRI-Avoidance-directed	-0.039	-0.779	-0.237	< .001	-0.113	-2.402		-0.544
Emotional stability-SRI-Self-directed	-0.015	-0.429	0.159	0.368	0.173	0.831		2.247
Emotional stability-SRI-Avoidance-directed	-0.011	-1.649	-0.813	<.001	0.019	-0.584		0.999
Extraversion-SRI- Self-directed	-0.003	-0.096	0.037	0.386	-0.026	-1.090		0.537
Extraversion-SRI-Avoidance-directed	-0.021	-0.514	-0.025	0.031	0.072	0.037		1.838
Openness-SRI- Self-directed	0.000	-0.023	0.025	0.957	0.099	0.311		1.712
Openness -SRI-Avoidance-directed	0.000	-0.213	0.226	0.957	-0.012	-1.017		0.708
Emotional intelligence-SRI-Self-directed	-0.021	-1.263	0.467	0.367	0.233	2.674		5.987
Emotional intelligence -SRI-Avoidance-directed	-0.160	-4.707	-2.554	< .001	-0.033	-2.838		1.357

This study presents some relevant results. As we hypothesized, SRI can be considered a mediator between personality and EI on one hand, and coping strategies on the other, both in adolescents and in adults. For the greater clarity of exposition, detailed discussions of the results will be provided here first with reference to adolescents sample, then with reference to adults sample.

In the adolescents’ sample, the mediating role of SRI has been found for all the antecedents analyzed in the study on almost all the coping strategies detected. In detail, SRI is a partial mediator in the following relationships: EI, conscientiousness, and extraversion with all the coping strategies (task-oriented, emotion-oriented, avoidance-oriented); agreeableness with emotion-oriented coping; emotional stability with task-oriented and emotion-oriented coping. Moreover, SRI plays a full mediational role in the following relationships: agreeableness with task-oriented coping; emotional stability with avoidance-oriented coping; openness with task-oriented and emotion-oriented coping. Finally, SRI has not any mediational role in the relationships between agreeableness and openness with avoidance-oriented coping.

In detail, regarding the role of SRI in the partial mediation between EI and coping strategies, the results can be referred to the literature on EI: people high in EI are thought to be better equipped to deal with stressful events. Their ability to accurately perceive, understand and manage their own and other peoples’ emotions should result in better coping skills (83). In our model, EI has a positive relationship with SRI; the latter has a positive relationship with task-oriented coping and a negative relationship with emotion-oriented and avoidance-oriented coping; the indirect effects of SRI on coping strategies have the same direction as the single paths. Therefore, EI, characterised by appraisal and expression of emotion in the self and others, regulation of emotion in the self and others, and utilisation of emotions in solving problems, enhances SRI as a personal resource that integrates emotions and cognitions in approaching risky and uncertain situations. It is interesting to note that EI, without the mediation of SRI, has a positive relationship with emotion and avoidance-focused coping. Probably, in adolescents, EI, improving the expression of both positive and negative emotions, without the mediation of SRI, would favour maladaptive (emotional and avoidance) coping. So, SRI can be considered a protective factor in the activation of emotional coping – that is mostly centred on self-criticism and negative emotional states – and of avoidance coping – that, according to the scale used, is focused mostly on venting the emotions on others.

Extraversion, grounded in an approach temperament, involves sensitivity to reward, positive emotions, sociability, assertiveness, and high energy (84, 85, 86). Strong approach tendencies and assertiveness should provide the energy required to initiate and persist in problem solving (87, 88); positive affect should facilitate cognitive restructuring; and an orientation toward others and access to a social network should facilitate social support coping. According to our results, extraversion, has a positive relationship with SRI; the latter, in its mediational role between extraversion and coping strategies, affects positively task-oriented coping and negatively emotion and avoidance-oriented coping. Extraversion, which features are energy and dynamism, strengthens SRI which, in turn, allows individuals to deal with uncertain situations with an effective attitude; thus, adolescents higher in SRI tend to use active coping strategies more frequently than passive coping strategies. However, interestingly, extroverted adolescents, without the mediation of SRI, tend to use more avoidance than active coping. This pattern can be explained by the characteristic of avoidance coping in the scale used, which is essentially social distraction. Therefore, SRI could act as a protective factor that leads energy and dynamism toward a more effective coping strategy, rather than social distraction.

The dimension of emotional stability is debated in literature through its opposite, neuroticism (89), and is grounded in an avoidance temperament, reflecting tendencies to experience fear, sadness, distress, and physiological arousal (85, 90, 86). Given this vulnerability to distress, neuroticism should lead to emotion-focused coping and disengagement from threats (87). Regarding our results, emotional stability has a positive relationship with SRI; SRI, as mediator between emotional stability and coping strategies, has a positive indirect effect on task-oriented coping strategy and a negative one on emotion and avoidance-oriented strategies. Emotional stability, characterized by effective emotions’ management, enhances SRI as a resource that comprises emotional stress management (1, 2) in risky and uncertain situations, so that adolescents with higher risk intelligence, being less vulnerable to emotional stress, more likely use active coping strategies than ineffective ones. Similarly to what discussed for extraversion, but surprisingly, the adolescents emotionally stable, without the mediation of SRI, tend to use task-oriented coping less likely; probably, some developmental features could affect this relationship, i.e. some scholars have demonstrated that cognitive and emotional immaturity, characterised by less awareness of the positive expected outcomes, could inhibit the use of task-oriented coping strategies (91)

Openness to experience involves the tendency to be imaginative, creative, curious, flexible, attuned to inner feelings, and inclined toward new activities and ideas (92, 85). These tendencies may facilitate engagement coping strategies that require considering new perspectives, such as cognitive restructuring and problem solving, but may also facilitate the use of disengagement strategies such as wishful thinking (93, 94). Openness, in our model, has a positive relationship with SRI, which, playing a mediational role between openness and coping, positively affects task-oriented coping, negatively affects emotion-oriented coping, and has no effect on avoidance-oriented coping. Openness, characterised by curiosity towards novelty, improves SRI as a resource that enables individuals to face risk and uncertainty with a positive attitude and imaginative capability (1, 2), inducing active coping strategies.

Agreeableness involves high levels of trust, altruism, compliance, and concern for others (84, 85). Agreeable people get less angry over others’ transgressions than do less agreeable people (95), and are able to inhibit their negative feelings (96). Agreeableness is often characterized as being broadly concerned with the maintaining of relationships (97). Accordingly, agreeableness plays a limited role in the stress process, so it should be unrelated to most engagement and disengagement strategies (5). In our model, agreeableness has a negative relationship with SRI; the indirect effect of agreeableness on task-oriented coping, through the mediation of SRI is negative; conversely, the indirect effect of agreeableness on emotion-oriented coping, through the mediation of SRI is positive, while no effect was found on avoidance-oriented coping. So, in adolescents agreeableness, that is an orientation toward the others, implying trust, empathy, cooperation, distracts from the use of personal resources, as SRI, representing a risk factor that limits the activation of effective coping, enhancing the emotion-oriented strategies. On the contrary, without SRI’s mediation, agreeableness has not any effect on active coping and on avoidance, limiting emotional coping.

Finally, conscientiousness implies persistence, self-discipline, organisation, achievement orientation, and a deliberative approach (84, 85). The strong attention-regulation capacity underpinning conscientiousness (98) should predict success at cognitive restructuring, which requires a capacity to disengage from powerful negative thoughts. The results concerning conscientiousness show that the path from conscientiousness to SRI is positive, the mediational role played by SRI on one hand strengthens the relationship between conscientiousness and task-oriented coping, on the other weakens the relationship between conscientiousness and emotion and avoidance-oriented coping. Conscientious adolescents, as they are determined and persistent in dealing with stressful situations, are more likely to positively evaluate even the most challenging situations, so that SRI promotes active coping and reduces emotional and avoidance coping.

Conversely, in the adults’ sample, the mediational role of SRI is found only in avoidance coping, while self-directed coping is directly affected by agreeableness (with a negative relation), openness, emotional stability, conscientiousness, and EI (in a positive direction).

In detail, results show the partial mediation of SRI in the relationship between conscientiousness and extraversion with avoidance coping; the full mediation in the relationship between emotional stability and EI with avoidance coping.

In our model, conscientiousness has a positive relationship with SRI, which, in turn, has a negative relationship with avoidance-oriented coping, determining a negative indirect effect in the mediation. Adults high in conscientiousness, as they are determined and persistent in dealing with situations, are inclined to evaluate positively also difficult situations, leading to a less use of maladaptive coping thanks to SRI.

The same pattern is shown for extraversion; as underlined discussing the results on adolescents, extraversion enhances the positive attitude towards uncertainty, included in SRI construct, reducing the probability of activating maladaptive coping strategies. Similarly to what we have found in adolescents, extroverted adults, without the mediation of SRI, tend to use more avoidance than active coping. Subsequently, SRI, represents a protective factor in this relationship, thanks to which energy and dynamism of the extrovert are diverted by avoidance strategies which in this case concern distraction (e.g., I dedicate myself to work or other activities so as not to think about what worries me) or substance use.

Also emotional stability and EI show the same pattern as conscientiousness and extraversion (positive relationship with SRI, negative indirect effects). A similar explanation proposed for adolescents can be applied to adults: emotional stability, characterised by effective emotions’ management, enhances SRI as a resource that comprises emotional stress management (1, 2) in risky and uncertain situations, so that adults with higher SRI, similarly to adolescents, are less vulnerable to emotional stress, less likely to use ineffective coping strategies. EI, characterised by appraisal and expression of emotion in the self and others, regulation of emotion in the self and others, and utilisation of emotions in solving problems, similarly to what happens in adolescents, improves SRI as a resource that integrates emotions and cognition in approaching risky and uncertainty situations, reducing the probability to adopt maladaptive coping strategies.

The results of our study suggest that SRI plays a different role in the relationship between personality, EI, and coping styles strategies in adolescents and adults. After all, demographic analyses suggest that age, together with gender and culture, influence the relations between personality and coping (5). Personality better predicted coping in younger samples, perhaps because responses to stress are driven more strongly by temperament in younger individuals, who have had fewer opportunities to develop a range of strategies and become adept at matching them to situations (99). Age related to personality changes, including decreases in neuroticism, extraversion, and openness and increases in agreeableness and conscientiousness (45), may also have an impact. As neuroticism decreases, individuals may be less distressed and less motivated to cope, and as conscientiousness increases, they may be more likely to problem solve, leading to less coping variability and attenuated correlations in older samples (39). More generally, the minor role played by RI in the relationship between personality, including emotional intelligence, and coping may have to do with the relationship between coping and development. We can consider coping as a fundamental adaptive process that has evolutionary value in allowing people to detect, manage, and learn from potentially dangerous encounters (100). In this perspective it is possible to hypothesize that adults have consolidated strategies less based on individual factors such as personality, emotional intelligence, SRI, but more based on the interaction between these dimensions and other individual factors (emotional, motivational, cognitive and metacognitive) and environmental feedback deriving from having had, as adults, many opportunities to implement coping strategies in different contexts and domains.

The research presented has some limitations that lead to suggestions for future works. First, the cross-sectional nature of the study does not allow us to infere causal relationships between the variables, as it cannot capture how these relationships may change over time. Future research, conducted through a longitudinal research design will allow us to better understand the causal relationships between personality, emotional intelligence, risk intelligence, and coping strategies. Second, we cannot consider the study’s sample to be representative, as we used a convenience sample, reducing the generalizability of the results to all populations. Future studies involving participants belonging to other cultural contexts could widen the knowledge on these relationships in different populations. Third, the use of self-report measures implies the possibility of some bias, as social desirability or inaccuracies in self-perception. Including different types of measures, as behavioural ones, may overcome this limitation in future studies. Finally, the lack of control variables, such as socioeconomic status, cultural background, or life experiences, that could be taken into account in further research, to better isolate the unique effects of the focal constructs.

Despite these limitations, however, the results lead to important suggestions about future research and interventions.

Notwithstanding, despite the little research on the construct of SRI, that has been operationalized only recently, it can represent an important psychological resource – encompassing cognition and emotions – that could be activated in facing uncertain and risky situations. In a risky society (as defined by Beck; 4), risk, uncertainty and frequent changes are prominent features. Thus, individuals – both adolescents and adults – are called to deal with an unpredictable world by developing new psychological resources that can help them to manage the increasing uncertainty; SRI can be one of these psychological resources. We have found that SRI mediates the role that personality traits and EI have on coping strategies, thus influencing the choice of effective or ineffective strategies.

These findings have important implications for both educational and therapeutic interventions. Developing and implementing SRI could benefit both adolescents and adults. Among personal resources, SRI could protect the individual from the harmful effects of stress; in fact, given that stressful events are often associated with the need for change in some salient aspect of life, people with a high level of SRI believe that change is a component of life and that this represents an opportunity for growth. Therefore, acting as a mediator, the SRI, particularly in adolescence, could intervene in the way that personality traits would affect the adoption of certain coping st by influencing the cognitive evaluation of events (101). Also for adults, SRI - regardless of its mediational role - imply less negative perceptions of change; these perceptions could guide their choices and planning behaviours towards the use of coping strategies aimed at facing or modifying difficult situations rather than escaping them.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. The research project was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and received the approval of the Internal Review Board of the University involved (UKE-IRBPSY-10.15.01.). Informed consent was obtained from all students’ parents.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Availability of data and material

The data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Authors' contributions

Conceptualization, P.M. and M.G.; methodology, P.M.; data curation, P.M. and R.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, M.G., P.M., R.Z.and S.L.B.; writing—review and editing,G.M., P.M., R.Z. and S. L. B. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Craparo, G., Magnano, P., Paolillo, A., & Costantino, V. (2018). The Subjective Risk Intelligence Scale. The Development of a New Scale to Measure a New Construct. Current Psychology, 37(4), 966–981. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9673-x
Magnano, P., Guarnera, M., Buccheri, S. L., Zarbo, R., & Craparo, G. (2023). Adaptation and Validation of the Subjective Risk Intelligence Scale for Italian Adolescents (SRIS-A). Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 54(3), 722-735.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
Beck, U. (1999). World risk society. Cambridge: Polity.
Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between personality and coping: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1080–1107.
Park, H. S., Ha, J. H., Lee, M. H., & Lee, H. J. (2014). The relationship between emotional intelligence and stress coping of nurses. Journal of Korean Academy of Fundamentals of Nursing, 21(4), 466-474.
Wang, Y., Xie, G., & Cui, X. (2016). Effects of emotional intelligence and selfleadership on students' coping with stress. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 44(5), 853-864.
Perera, H. N., & Di Giacomo, M. (2015). The role of trait emotional intelligence in academic performance during the university transition: An integrative model of mediation via social support, coping, and adjustment. Personality and individual differences, 83, 208-213.
Chiu, F. C. (2015). Improving your creative potential without awareness: Overinclusive thinking training. Thinking Skills Creativity, 15,1–12.
Lin, P. H., Huang, Y. M., & Chen, C. C. (2018). Exploring imaginative capability and learning motivation difference through picture. E-book. IEEE Access, 6, 63416-63425.
Gelade, G. A. (2002). Creative style, personality, and artistic endeavor. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 128(3), 213.
Batey, M. D. (2007). A psychometric investigation of everyday creativity. University of London, University College London (United Kingdom).
Karwowski, Maciej & Lebuda, Izabela & Wisniewska, Ewa & Gralewski, Jacek. (2013). Big Five Personality Traits as the Predictors of Creative Self-Efficacy and Creative Personal Identity: Does Gender Matter?. The Journal of creative behavior. 47. 215-232. 10.1002/jocb.32.
van der Zanden, P. J., Meijer, P. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2020). A review study about creativity in adolescence: Where is the social context?. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 38, 100702.
Hong, E., Peng, Y., & O’Neil, H. F., Jr. (2014). Activities and accomplishments in various domains: Relationships with creative personality and creative motivation in adolescence. Roeper Review, 36, 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2014.884199.
Sànchez-Ruiz, M. J., Pérez-Gonzalez, J. C., & Petrides, K. V. (2010). Trait emotional intelligence profiles of students from different university faculties. Australian Journal of Psychology, 62, 51–57.
Bermejo, R., Prieto, M., Fernández, M., Soto, G., & Sainz, M. (2013). A cognitive-creative profile of emotional talent. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research (NAER Journal), 2(1).
Şahin, F. (2016). General intelligence, emotional intelligence and academic knowledge as predictors of creativity domains: A study of gifted students. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1218315.
Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2005). Affective and social self-regulatory efficacy beliefs as determinants of positive thinking and happiness. European psychologist, 10(4), 275-286.
McGeown, S. P., Putwain, D., Simpson, E. G., Boffey, E., Markham, J., & Vince, A. (2014). Predictors of adolescents' academic motivation: Personality, self-efficacy and adolescents' characteristics. Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 278-286.
Strobel, M., Tumasjan, A., & Spörrle, M. (2011). Be yourself, believe in yourself, and be happy: Self‐efficacy as a mediator between personality factors and subjective well‐being. Scandinavian Journal of psychology, 52(1), 43-48.
Zakiei, A., Vafapoor, H., Alikhani, M., Farnia, V., & Radmehr, F. (2020). The relationship between family function and personality traits with general self-efficacy (parallel samples studies). BMC psychology, 8(1), 1-11.
Chan, D. W. (2004). Perceived emotional intelligence and self-efficacy among Chinese secondary school teachers in Hong Kong. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(8), 1781-1795.
Penrose, A., Perry, C., & Ball, I. (2007). Emotional intelligence and teacher self efficacy: the contribution of teacher status and length of experience. Issues in educational research, 17(1), 107-126.
Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British journal of psychology, 98(2), 273-289.
Sommaruga, M., Casu, G., Giaquinto, F., & Gremigni, P. (2017). Self-perceived provision of patient centered care by healthcare professionals: The role of emotional intelligence and general self-efficacy. Patient education and counseling, 100(5), 974-980.
Besser, A., & Shackelford, T. K. (2007). Mediation of the effects of the big five personality dimensions on negative mood and confirmed affective expectations by perceived situational stress: A quasi-field study of vacationers. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(7), 1333-1346.
Gunthert, K. C., Cohen, L. H. & Armeli, S. (1999). The role of neuroticism in daily stress and coping. Journal of personality and social psychology, 77(5), 1087.
Suls, J., Green, P., & Hillis, S. (1998). Emotional reactivity to everyday problems, affective inertia, and neuroticism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(2), 127-136.
Vollrath, M., & Torgersen, S. (2000). Personality types and coping. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 367–378.
Armstrong, A. R., Galligan, R. F., & Critchley, C. R. (2011). Emotional intelligence and psychological resilience to negative life events. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(3), 331-336.
Salovey, P., Bedell, B. T., Detweiler, J. B., & Mayer, J. D. (1999). Coping intelligently. Coping: The psychology of what works, 141-164.
Koerner, N., & Dugas, M.J. (2008). An investigation of appraisals in individuals vulnerable to excessive worry: The role of intolerance of uncertainty. In Cognitive Therapy and Research, 32(5), 619–638. DOI: 10.1007/s10608–007–9125–2.
Andronnikova, O.O. (2021). On the relationship between uncertainty tolerance and hardiness in adolescents. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanity & Social Sciences, 14(3), 320–326. DOI: 10.17516/1997–1370–0723.
Mirimanova, M.S., Obukhov, A.S. (2001). Vospitanie tolerantnosti cherez sotsiokul’turnoe vzaimodeystvie [Education of tolerance through socio-cultural interaction]. In Razvitie issledovatel’skoy deiatel’nosti uchashchikhsia [Development of research activities of students], 88–98. Available at: http://psylib.org. ua/books/leona01/.
Borracci, R. A., Ciambrone, G., & Arribalzaga, E. B. (2021). Tolerance for uncertainty, personality traits and specialty choice among medical students. Journal of Surgical Education, 78(6), 1885-1895.
Vahedi, V. S., & Fatemi, A. H. (2016). The role of emotional intelligence and tolerance of ambiguity in academic Iranian EFL learners' willingness to communicate. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7(1), 178.
Sica, C., Magni, C., Ghisi, M., Altoè, G., Sighinolfi, C., Chiri, L. R., & Franceschini, S. (2008). Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced-Nuova Versione Italiana (COPE-NVI): uno strumento per la misura degli stili di coping. Psicoterapia cognitiva e comportamentale, 14(1), 27-53.
Carver, C. S., & Connor-Smith, J. (2010). Personality and coping. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 679–704. doi:10.1146/ annurev.psych.093008.100352.
Somerfield, M. R., & McCrae, R. (2000). Stress and coping research: Methodological challenges, theoretical advances, and clinical applications. American Psychologist, 55(6), 620–625.
Watson, D., & Hubbard, B. (1996). Adaptational style and dispositional structure: Coping in the context of the Five-Factor model. Journal of Personality, 64, 737–774.
Ficková, E. (2001). Personality regulators of coping behavior in adolescents. Studia Psychologica, 43(4), 321–329.
Hampel, P., & Petermann, F. (2005). Age and gender effects on coping on children and adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 73–83.
Wilson G.S., Pritchard M.E., Revalee B. (2005). Individual differences in adolescent health symptoms: the effects of gender and coping. Journal of Adolescence 28(3), 369-79.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hrebickova, M., Avia, M. D., et al., (2000). Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 173–186.
Saklofske, D. H., Austin, E. J., Galloway, J., & Davidson, K. (2007). Individual difference correlates of health-related behaviours: Preliminary evidence for links between emotional intelligence and coping. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 491–502.
Fteiha M. & Awwad N. (2020). Emotional intelligence and its relationship with stress coping style Health Psychology Open 1–9.
Noorbakhsh S.N., Besharat M.A. & Zarei J. (2010). Emotional intelligence and coping styles with stress. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 818–822. DOI: 10.1016/j. Sbspro.2010.07.191.
Moradi A, Pishva N, Ehsan HB, et al. (2011) The relationship between coping strategies and emotional intelligence. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 30: 748–751. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.146.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., & Caruso, D. (2002). The positive psychology of emotional intelligence. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), handbook of positive psychology (pp. 159-171). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. (2007). A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 921–933.
Mohammadi, D., Torabi, S., & Gharaei, B. (2008). The relationship between coping styles and emotional intelligence in students. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology, 14(2), 176-183.
MacCann, C., Fogarty, G. J., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2011). Coping mediates the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and academic achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 60–70.
Davis, S. K., & Humphrey, N. (2012). The influence of emotional intelligence (EI) on coping and mental health in adolescence: Divergent roles for trait and ability EI. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1369–1379. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.08.004. Epub 2005 Jan 21. PMID: 15925688.
Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Shemesh, D. O. (2016). Cognitive-social sources of wellbeing: Differentiating the roles of coping style, social support and emotional intelligence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(6), 2481-2501.
Shemesh, D. O. (2017). Youth emotional intelligence as related to adaptive coping with stress encounters. Psychology, 7(1), 1-9.
Rohrmann, B. (2005). Risk Attitude Scales: Concepts, Questionnaires, Utilizations. Project Report: University of Melbourne.
Chassin L, Presson CC, Sherman S (1989) Constructive vs destructive deviance in adolescent health-related behaviours. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 18(3), 245–262.
Moore, S., & Gullone, E. (1996). Predicting adolescent risk behavior using a personalized cost-benefit analysis. Journal of youth and adolescence, 25(3), 343-359.
Dumont, M., Provost, M.A. Resilience in Adolescents: ProtectiveRole of Social Support, Coping Strategies, Self-Esteem, and Social Activities on Experience of Stress and Depression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,28, 343–363 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021637011732.
Rettie, H., & Daniels, J. (2021). Coping and tolerance of uncertainty: Predictors and mediators of mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Psychologist, 76(3), 427.
Cheng, Y. H., Kuan, F. Y., Li, C. I., & Ken, Y. (2010). A comparison between the effect of emotional certainty and uncertainty on coping strategies. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 38(1), 53-60.
Lazarus, R. S., Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer publishing company, New York.
Dwyer A, Cummings AL (2001) Stress, self-efficacy, social support, and coping strategies in university students. Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy 35(3), 208–220.
Zhao, F. F., Lei, X. L., He, W., Gu, Y. H., & Li, D. W. (2015). The study of perceived stress, coping strategy and self‐efficacy of Chinese undergraduate nursing students in clinical practice. International journal of nursing practice, 21(4), 401-409.
Crego, A., Carrillo-Diaz, M., Armfield, J. M., & Romero, M. (2016). Stress and academic performance in dental students: the role of coping strategies and examination‐related self‐efficacy. Journal of dental education, 80(2), 165-172.
Moos RH, Schaefer JA. (1993). Coping resources and processes: Current concepts and measures. In: L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz (eds.). Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects. 2. (pp. 234–257). New York: Free Press.
Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Why we should think of stress as a subset of emotion? In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress: Theoretical and empirical aspects (2nd ed., pp. 21–39). New York: The Free Press.
Felton, B.J., Revenson, T.A., & Hinrichsen, G.A. (1984). Stress and coping in the explanation of psychological adjustment among chronically ill adults. Social Science and Medicine, 18(10), 889-98.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 267–83. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2926629
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instrum. Comput., 28, 1–11.
Rammstedt, B., & John, O.P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001.
Guido, G., Peluso, A., Capestro, M., & Miglietta, M. (2015). An Italian version of the 10-item Big Five Inventory: An application to hedonic and utilitarian shopping values. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 135–140. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.
Craparo G., Magnano P., Faraci P. (2014). Psychometric Properties of the Italian Version of the Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SREIT). TPM. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 21, 121-133, ISSN: 1972-6325, doi: 10.4473/TPM21.2.1
Magnano, P., Paolillo, A., Platania, S., & Santisi, G. (2017). Courage as a potential mediator between personality and coping. Personality and Individual Differences, 111, 13-18.
Sirigatti S, Stefanile C (2009). CISS—Coping Inventory for Stressful Situation. Standardizzazione e validazione italiana. Giunti O.S. Organizzazioni Speciali, Firenze.
Endler NS, Parker JDA (1999) Coping inventory for stressful situations (CISS): Manual, 2nd edn. Multi-Health Systems, Toronto.
The Jamovi project (2022). Jamovi (Version 2.3) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org
Hayes, A. F. & Scharkow, M. (2013). The Relative Trustworthiness of Inferential Tests of the Indirect Effect in Statistical Mediation Analysis, Psychological Science, 24(10), pp. 1918 – 1927.
82. IBM Corp. Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Salovey, P., Bedell, B., Detweiler, J. B., & Mayer, J. D. (2000). Current Directions in Emotional Intelligence Research. In M. Lewis, & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of Emotions (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 56, 453-484.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x
Rothbart, M. K., & Hwang, J. (2005). Temperament and the development of competence and motivation. In A.J. Elliott & G.S. Dweck, Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 167-184). New York, London: The Guilford Press.
Lengua, L. J., Sandler, I. N., West, S. G., Wolchik, S. A., & Curran, P. J. (1999). Emotionality and self-regulation, threat appraisal, and coping in children of divorce. Development and Psychopathology, 11(1), 15-37.
Vollrath, M. (2001). Personality and stress. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42(4), 335-347.
Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2001). Emotional stability as a major dimension of happiness. Personality and individual differences, 31(8), 1357-1364.
Wolfradt, U., Hempel, S., & Miles, J. N. V. (2003). Perceived parenting styles, depersonalisation, anxiety and coping behavior in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(3), 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00092-2
Nicholls, A. R., Levy, A. R., & Perry, J. L. (2015). Emotional maturity, dispositional coping, and coping effectiveness among adolescent athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 17, 32-39.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102–138). Guilford Press.
Afshar, H., Roohafza, H. R., Keshteli, A. H., Mazaheri, M., Feizi, A., & Adibi, P. (2015). The association of personality traits and coping styles according to stress level. Journal of research in medical sciences: the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, 20(4), 353.
Agbaria, Q., & Mokh, A. A. (2022). Coping with stress during the coronavirus outbreak: The contribution of big five personality traits and social support. International journal of mental health and addiction, 20(3), 1854-1872.
Meier, B. P., & Robinson, M. D. (2004). Why the sunny side is up: Associations between affect and vertical position. Psychological science, 15(4), 243-247.
Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795-824). Academic Press.
Jensen‐Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of personality, 69(2), 323-362.
Derryberry, D., Reed, M. A., & Pilkenton-Taylor, C. (2003). Temperament and coping: Advantages of an individual differences perspective. Development and psychopathology, 15(4), 1049-1066.
Asghari, A., Kadir, R. A., Elias, H., & Baba, M. (2012). Conceptualization Personality and Coping in Adolescents. Education Sciences and Psychology, (3), 55-61.
White, R. W. (1974). Strategies for adaptation: An attempt at systematic description. In G. V Coelho, D. A. Hamburg, & J. E. Adams (Eds.), Coping and adaptation (pp. 47–68). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Magnus, K., Diener, E., Fujita, F., & Pavot, W. (1993). Extraversion and neuroticism as predictors of objective life events: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 65(5), 1046.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

On the construct of subjective risk intelligence: relationships with personality, emotional intelligence and coping strategies. A comparison between adolescents and adults.

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Literature review

Methods

Results

Overall discussion

Conclusions and Limitations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1