The Influence of Emotional Intelligence on Coping Skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The relevance of the study is determined by the interest in studying the influence of emotional intelligence (EI) on stress resistance, which is of great importance in view of numerous stress factors. Objective: The aim of the study is to determine the influence of EI on coping skills and the choice of coping strategies. Methods: The study employs a test method (Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT), Holmes-Rahe Stress Inventory). The Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ) was also used. The results were processed using statistical methods (mean, range, mode and median, the Mann-Whitney U test, Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC)). The factor analysis was carried out. Results: More pronounced emotion regulation (weight 0.53) have been found in men, while women better recognize emotions (weight 0.45). The correlation between the level of EI and adaptive strategies is confirmed: high EI reduces the negative cumulative effect of stress (M = 55 in a group with high EI). High EI is related to active stress strategies, such as planning and seeking social support, confirming its role as a protective factor. Conclusion: It can be argued that the high EI significantly reduces the frequency, intensity of stress and its impact, facilitating adaptive strategies for overcoming it. Further studies may focus on the influence of EI on stress resistance in different age and cultural groups, as well as on long-term effects in the context of professional stress.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".