Content uploaded by David Tuck
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Tuck on Jul 10, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=upil20
Journal of Loss and Trauma
International Perspectives on Stress & Coping
ISSN: 1532-5024 (Print) 1532-5032 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/upil20
The Relationship Between Traumatic Stress,
Emotional Intelligence, and Posttraumatic Growth
David Tuck & Lefteris Patlamazoglou
To cite this article: David Tuck & Lefteris Patlamazoglou (2019) The Relationship Between
Traumatic Stress, Emotional Intelligence, and Posttraumatic Growth, Journal of Loss and Trauma,
24:8, 721-735, DOI: 10.1080/15325024.2019.1621543
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2019.1621543
Published online: 13 Jun 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 472
View related articles
View Crossmark data
The Relationship Between Traumatic Stress, Emotional
Intelligence, and Posttraumatic Growth
David Tuck and Lefteris Patlamazoglou
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
ABSTRACT
This study explores the relationship between emotional intelli-
gence and posttraumatic growth. It was hypothesized that
emotional intelligence increases after a traumatic event, simi-
larly to the way that posttraumatic growth occurs, and that
the level of emotional intelligence at the time of the traumatic
event influences subsequent growth. It was also hypothesized
that posttraumatic growth is correlated with increases in emo-
tional intelligence. Only individuals with low levels of emo-
tional intelligence at the time of the traumatic event showed
an increase in emotional intelligence in the aftermath of the
event. A moderate correlation was found between posttrau-
matic growth and emotional intelligence.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 24 February 2019
Accepted 16 May 2019
KEYWORDS
Traumatic Stress; emotional
Intelligence; posttraumatic
Growth; coping;
psychological resilience
The phenomenon of posttraumatic growth (PTG) has attracted an increas-
ing amount of research attention due to its relationship with psychological
resilience in relation to further traumatic events (Morrill et al., 2008).
Although beneficence may not intuitively be associated with trauma, the
idea that positive outcomes can arise from negative events has long been
discussed in Western philosophy, for example, Nietzsche’s famous state-
ment: “From life’s school of war: What does not kill me makes me stron-
ger”(Nietzsche, 1998, p. 5). PTG involves a transformation that ultimately
serves to increase adaptation and fitness as a result of the traumatic experi-
ence (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). PTG is typically referred to as both a
process and an outcome whereby individuals undergo a change in func-
tioning that surpasses effective coping after experiencing a distressing event
(Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).
PTG is associated with increases in three broad areas of positive func-
tioning—firstly, the appreciation of interpersonal relationships whereby
people feel that they have been improved in some way. Secondly, PTG is
associated with a more positive self-view. This involves feelings of personal
resilience, wisdom, strength, and personal acceptance of vulnerabilities and
CONTACT Lefteris Patlamazoglou Lefteris.patlamazoglou@monash.edu Monash University, Melbourne,
Victoria, Australia.
ß2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
JOURNAL OF LOSS AND TRAUMA
2019, VOL. 24, NO. 8, 721–735
https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2019.1621543
limitations. Finally, PTG is related to positive changes in life philosophy
such as a greater appreciation for life and the reevaluation of personal goals
and values (Calhoun & Tedeschi, 2006). These three areas of growth cap-
ture the five subfactors that make up the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory
(PTGI), namely relating to others, new possibilities, personal strength, spir-
itual change, and appreciation of life (Calhoun & Tedeschi, 2006).
Traumatic stress and posttraumatic growth
Trauma often results in a wide range of pathogenic reactions, the most
common of which is posttraumatic stress disorder (Breslau, Davis,
Andreski, & Peterson, 1991). However, Morrill and colleagues (2008) found
that high levels of PTG were related to low levels of posttraumatic stress
and increased quality of life in a sample of breast cancer survivors. This
may be because PTG is associated with the use of positive coping strategies
following a traumatic event (Jayawickreme & Blackie, 2014). Increases in
well-being measures similar to those contained in the PTGI are related to
faster return to baseline cortisol levels after stressful experiences (Epel,
McEwen, & Ickovics, 1998), slower CD4 T-cell decline and lower mortality
levels in HIV-positive men (Bower, Kemeny, Taylor, & Fahey, 1998), and
lower mortality rates in survivors of heart attack (Affleck, Tennen, Croog,
& Levine, 1987).
Previous investigations into the relationship between traumatic stress and
PTG have produced mixed findings (Cordova, Cunningham, Carlson, &
Andrykowski, 2001; Powell, Rosner, Butollo, Tedeschi, & Calhoun, 2003).
More recently, Barskova and Oesterreich’s(2009) systematic review of 68
empirical studies explained this ambiguity by showing a curvilinear rela-
tionship between posttraumatic stress and growth. This showed that both
very low and very high levels of distress following a traumatic event are
associated with lower levels of PTG. Kleim and Ehlers’(2009) prospective
study of 180 adult survivors of assault found that very low levels of distress
do not produce the cognitive rumination necessary to produce growth.
Conversely, very high levels of distress were associated with lower PTG
than intermediate levels because they undermine a person’s ability to effect-
ively process traumatic events (Kleim & Ehlers, 2009).
Park, Chmielewski, and Blank (2010) argued that the intrusive thoughts
involved in traumatic stress disorders could be viewed as evidence that a
person is processing a stressful event, and that this processing leads to
PTG. Nalipay, Bernardo, and Mordeno (2016) further showed that individ-
uals who demonstrate higher levels of cognitive complexity are more likely
to report PTG after experiencing a traumatic event. Barskova and
Oesterreich’s(2009) review uncovered two longitudinal studies that showed
722 D. TUCK AND L. PATLAMAZOGLOU
a positive association between reappraisal coping prior to the traumatic
event and PTG thereafter. Coping interventions caused increases in PTG in
both studies, indicating that cognitive reappraisal coping may be the neces-
sary ingredient for stimulating PTG (Barskova & Oesterreich, 2009). Taken
together, research findings suggest a link between cognitive ability, success-
ful coping, and PTG after a traumatic event.
Emotional intelligence (EI)
Brackett, Rivers, and Salovey (2011) state that higher levels of EI promote
better coping and lead to decreases in traumatic stress. EI is a cooperative
combination of the use of intelligence and emotion that involves the cap-
acity to think about emotions and to use emotions in order to help overall
cognition (Brackett et al., 2011). Individuals with higher levels of EI are
able to deal with stress easily and cope successfully with environmental
challenges, changes, and demands (Salovey, Detweiler-Bedell, Detweiler-
Bedell, & Mayer, 2010). Recent studies show that individuals with higher
levels of EI have fewer mental health problems and that individuals with
lower levels of EI are less resilient to mental disorders (Downey et al.,
2008; Hansen, Lloyd, & Stough, 2009). Only one published study has
explored the relationship between EI and posttraumatic stress disorder,
finding that individuals with higher levels of EI tend to show fewer symp-
toms of PTSD than those with lower levels of EI (Stough, Saklofske, &
Parker, 2009).
The relationship between emotional intelligence and
posttraumatic growth
Two studies that purposefully investigated the relationship between EI and
PTG were identified in the existing body of literature. Li, Cao, Cao, and
Liu (2015) made a cross-sectional study of 202 female Chinese vocational
school nursing students, which found that those with higher or lower levels
of EI reported lower levels of PTG than those with intermediate EI levels.
However, a more recent study by Sadeghpour, Heidarzadeh, Naser, and
Nadr-Mohammadi Moghadam (2018) found a direct linear relationship
between EI and PTG (r¼.39). These findings suggest that the ability to
regulate emotions, which is the foundation of EI, is related to PTG.
However, the studies by Li and colleagues (2015) and Sadeghpour and col-
leagues (2018) were conducted with Chinese and Iranian samples respect-
ively, and therefore, their findings may not be generalizable to Western
populations.
Previous findings indicate that traumatic stress reactions produce cogni-
tive rumination and that this is responsible for the negative affect
JOURNAL OF LOSS AND TRAUMA 723
associated with traumatic stress disorders (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). This
rumination subsequently promotes growth as individuals gradually attribute
meaning to their traumatic experience (Park et al., 2010). The relationship
between traumatic stress and growth is curvilinear, with very high and very
low levels of distress producing the least PTG (Kleim & Ehlers, 2009).
Higher levels of EI increase a person’s ability to cope with traumatic stres-
sors (Brackett et al., 2011), and increased ability to manage emotional
information promotes emotional, intellectual, and personal growth (Mayer,
Salovey, & Caruso, 2000). Similarly, PTG promotes psychological resilience
in relation to further traumatic events (Morrill et al., 2008). Previous stud-
ies conducted with non-Western samples have shown that a significant
relationship exists between EI and PTG (Li et al., 2015; Sadeghpour et al.,
2018). However, to date no studies have attempted to investigate this rela-
tionship using a Western sample.
Aim and hypotheses
The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship among traumatic
stress, EI, and PTG. Similarities in the definitions of PTG and EI in exist-
ing literature suggest that emotional regulation may be related to PTG
(Brackett et al., 2011; Jayawickreme & Blackie, 2014). Considering that
higher levels of PTG are related to lower levels of posttraumatic stress and
increased quality of life (Morrill et al., 2008), greater psychological well-
being (Linley et al., 2008), and improvements in objective health markers
(Affleck et al., 1987; Bower et al., 1998; Epel et al., 1998), obtaining a
greater understanding of these two constructs may assist the development
of interventions that facilitate psychological resilience and dealing with
traumatic stress reactions.
It is hypothesized that there will be a significant increase between the
levels of EI at the time of the traumatic event compared to the levels of EI
after recovery from the traumatic event. It is also hypothesized that individ-
uals with low levels of EI at the time of the traumatic event will show sig-
nificantly larger increases in EI after recovering from the traumatic event
than those with high levels of EI at the time of the traumatic event. Finally,
it is hypothesized that significant increases in EI will be positively corre-
lated with PTG.
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited through the Sona Systems online participant
recruitment pool and various trauma-related groups on Facebook.
724 D. TUCK AND L. PATLAMAZOGLOU
A dedicated Facebook profile was set up as an advertisement for the study
that contained an invitation to participate in research and a link to the
Qualtrics survey page.
Participants were asked to complete the survey with reference to a previ-
ous traumatic event that they felt they had learned how to deal with effect-
ively. The event must have occurred more than 12 months prior to
participation in the survey, as according to Tedeschi and Calhoun’s(2004)
suggestion, PTG involves a period of contemplation about the event that
takes time to achieve. A total of 211 participants responded to the survey.
Of these, 153 participants completed both the Time 1 (at the time of the
traumatic event) and Time 2 (present time) applications of the Trait
Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire–Short Form (TEIQue-SF; Cooper &
Petrides, 2010) as well as the PTGI (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). Three par-
ticipants completed both the Time 1 and Time 2 applications of the
TEIQue-SF but not the PTGI, and 55 participants completed only the Time
1 application of the TEIQue-SF. All participants were Australian residents
and the majority of participants in the study were female (74.4%). This
demographic may be representative of the general population, considering
that women are twice as likely as men to be affected by traumatic stress
disorders (Breslau, Davis, Andreski, Peterson, & Schultz, 1997). Participant
demographic data and average number of years since the traumatic event
are shown in Table 1.
Procedure
Ethical approval for the present study was obtained from the Monash
University Human Research Ethics Committee. The survey containing an
explanatory statement and the measures were completed online through
Qualtrics. Firstly, participants were asked to complete the demographic
questions and provide a brief description of the traumatic event.
Participants were then instructed to complete the TEIQue-SF according to
how they would have answered the survey at the time of the traumatic
event (Time 1). This retrospective account was used to measure the level of
EI with which participants were equipped when they dealt with the trau-
matic event. Participants were then asked to fill in the TEIQue-SF
Table 1. Participant demographic data.
Variable Value
Age M(SD) 26.63 (10.14)
Gender N(%)
Female 157 (74.40)
Male 54 (25.60)
Years since event M(SD) 7.59 (8.46)
Note.M: Mean; SD: Standard Deviation; N: Frequency.
JOURNAL OF LOSS AND TRAUMA 725
according to their current level of functioning (Time 2) in order to meas-
ure the current level of EI. Finally, participants were asked to complete the
PTGI in order to measure PTG resulting from their experience.
Measures
A demographic questionnaire was developed to collect data relating to age,
country of residence, gender, and a brief description of the traumatic event.
The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire Short Form (TEIQue–SF)
and the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI) were used to measure lev-
els of EI and PTG respectively.
Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire–Short Form (TEIQue-SF)
The TEIQue-SF (Cooper & Petrides, 2010) was used in order to measure
participants’level of EI at both Time 1 (at the time of the event) and Time
2 (present time). The TEIQue comprises four factors: well-being, self-con-
trol, emotionality, and sociability. The TEIQue-SF consists of 30 items that
measure global trait emotional intelligence (e.g., “I usually find it difficult
to regulate my emotions”;“I’m usually able to influence the way other peo-
ple feel”). Responses were given on a 7-point Likert scale from “completely
disagree”to “completely agree.”The Cronbach’s reliability coefficient for all
30 items is .88, and test–retest reliability is also acceptable at .76 (Deniz,
€
Ozer, & Isik, 2013). Cronbach’s alpha for EI at Time 1 for the current sam-
ple was .91 and at Time 2 was .92.
The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI)
The PTGI (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996) was used to measure participants’
level of posttraumatic growth after the traumatic event. It is a 21-item self-
report questionnaire whereby participants rate the extent to which they
have changed as the result of experiencing a highly stressful life event (e.g.,
“I am better able to accept the way things work out”;“I changed my prior-
ities about what is important in life”). Responses were given using a 6-
point Likert scale from “did not experience this change”to “experienced
this change to a very great degree.”Cronbach’s reliability coefficient for all
21 items is strong at .90, and test–retest reliability is also strong at .90
(Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). Cronbach’s alpha for the current data set
was .94.
Data analysis
The design of this study was nonexperimental because it studied the rela-
tionship between EI and PTG. The PTGI includes a retrospective appraisal
726 D. TUCK AND L. PATLAMAZOGLOU
of PTG at the time of the traumatic event that is used for the measurement
of changes in PTG between the time of the event and the time of comple-
tion. Therefore, the study utilized a retrospective measurement of EI (EI at
Time 1) in order to minimize the measurement error that would be pro-
moted by measuring EI longitudinally and PTG retrospectively. In hypoth-
esis 1, the independent variables are the two measures of EI (Time 1 and
Time 2; dichotomous variables) as measured by the TEIQue-SF, and the
dependent variable is D-EI (difference between Time 1 and Time 2 EI; con-
tinuous variable). In hypothesis 2, the level of EI at Time 1 (high/low;
dichotomous variable) is the independent variable and the dependent vari-
able is level of EI at Time 2. In hypothesis 3, D-EI and PTG are independ-
ent variables due to the correlation analysis.
All data analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS (IBM Corp., 2015).
Data were examined for implausible values; also, 92 responses with sys-
tematic missing values were deleted from the initial data set so that only
participants who completed at least one inventory were included in the
analyses (N¼211; Field, 2013). Twenty-seven missing data points were
identified across the three scales (TEIQue-SF Time 1, TEIQue-SF Time
2, and PTGI) and replaced with the mean score for the corresponding
item (Field, 2013).
Histograms and z-scores were calculated for the main variables to check
for outliers. Based on the central limit theorem, nonnormal distribution of
data does not constitute a problem, as the sample size of the present study
was above 30 (Field, 2013). Independence of observations was assumed, as
participants accessed the survey and reported results independently online.
The numbers of males and females and the mean age of participants that
completed each inventory are shown in Table 2.
Preliminary Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient analyses (p
¼.05) were performed between the demographic variables age, gender,
level of EI at Time 1 (measured by the TEIQue-SF), level of EI at Time 2
(measured by the TEIQue-SF), and PTG to investigate possible confound-
ing relationships between variables due to multicollinearity or singularity
(Skelly, Dettori, & Brodt, 2012). The data for age were positively skewed,
therefore Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation analyses (p¼.05) were used
for all analyses including this variable (Field, 2013).
Table 2. Mean age, range, and gender across the three inventories.
N
Age
Total Male Female Range M(SD)
TEIQue-SF Time 1 211 54 157 18–64 26.63 (10.13)
TEIQue-SF Time 2 156 38 118 18–64 26.38 (10.16)
PTGI 153 37 116 18–64 26.35 (10.17)
Note.M: Mean; SD: Standard Deviation; N: Frequency.
JOURNAL OF LOSS AND TRAUMA 727
Results
There was a weak, significant, positive linear relationship between age and
PTG as measured by the PTGI, N¼153, r¼.115, p¼.041 (two-tailed).
Therefore, as age increased, the level of PTG also increased. There was a
weak, significant, and positive relationship between gender and PTG as
measured by the PTGI, N¼153, r¼.17, p¼.033 (two-tailed), with
females (M¼3.55, SD ¼1.13) showing higher levels of PTG than males
(M¼3.07, SD ¼1.26).
Level of EI before and after the traumatic experience
A paired samples t-test (p¼.05) was conducted to evaluate whether people
who have reportedly recovered from a traumatic event would show a sig-
nificant increase in EI scores stated at the time of the traumatic event com-
pared to EI scores stated after recovery from the traumatic event. A new
variable representing the change in EI between Time 1 and Time 2 meas-
urements (D-EI) as measured by the TEIQue-SF was computed. Based on
the central limit theorem, nonnormal data do not constitute a problem for
a sample size of N¼156 (Field, 2013). There was a nonsignificant increase
in EI scores between Time 1 (M¼4.60, SD ¼0.91) and Time 2 (M¼4.66,
SD ¼0.96) measurements, t(155) ¼0.78, p¼.218 (one-tailed). The mean
increase in EI scores was 0.06 with 95% confidence interval ranging from
0.21 to 0.09. The eta squared statistic (g
2
¼.004) indicated a very small
effect size of the observed difference.
Low EI group and high EI group
An independent samples t-test (p¼.05) was conducted to determine
whether individuals with low levels of EI at the time of the traumatic event
show significantly larger increases in EI after recovering from the traumatic
event than those with high levels of EI at the time of the traumatic event.
Histograms and z-scores were calculated for the main variables to check
for outliers (Field, 2013). The results indicated two univariate outliers for
D-EI that were Winsorized to the next highest z-score that was not an out-
lier (Field, 2013). A Levene’s test was performed to ensure homogeneity of
variance, which showed that the variance was equal across the two different
groups. The EI at Time 1 data were split into low and high EI groups using
the mean value of 4.59. Splitting data at the mean value is appropriate
when data are normally distributed because it allows for an equal distribu-
tion of participants across the two categories of the dichotomized variable
(MacCallum, Zhang, Preacher, & Rucker, 2002). Using the mean value is
also more practical than using the top and bottom third of the data to
728 D. TUCK AND L. PATLAMAZOGLOU
create high and low categories because discounting data from the middle
third would result in reduced statistical power (Altman & Royston, 2006).
There was a significant increase in EI scores for participants with low levels
of EI at Time 1 (n¼74, M¼0.41, SD ¼0.94) compared to those with high
levels of EI at Time 1 (n¼81, M¼0.25, SD ¼0.79; t(154) ¼4.80, p<
.001, one-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the means (M
dif
¼
95% CI; 0.94 to 0.39) indicated a medium effect (d¼.76), therefore
demonstrating a considerable difference between the mean values of the
two groups.
Correlation between D-EI and PTG
The relationship between D-EI and PTGI was investigated using a Pearson
Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (p¼.05) to determine whether
significant increases in EI would be positively correlated with PTG. One
multivariate outlier was identified using a bivariate scatterplot and dropped
from further analyses. There was a medium-strength, significant, positive
linear relationship between the two variables N¼148 r¼.43, p<.001
(one-tailed). Therefore, as D-EI increased, PTG also increased.
Discussion
This study aimed to investigate whether EI increases after a traumatic stress
reaction, and how the level of EI impacts on resilience to traumatic stress.
Contrary to expectations, individuals who have recovered from a traumatic
event did not show a significant increase in EI after recovery from the trau-
matic event. However, as expected, individuals with low levels of EI at the
time of the traumatic event showed significantly larger increases in EI after
recovering from the traumatic event than those with high levels of EI at
the time of the traumatic event. In addition, significant increases in EI
were positively correlated with PTG, as hypothesized.
The finding that individuals who have recovered from a traumatic event
do not show a significant increase in EI scores following the event contra-
dicts the joint findings of previous research in this area. Linley and Joseph
(2004) found that 30–70% of participants reported PTG after a traumatic
experience, and Li and colleagues (2015) showed that increases in EI were
positively correlated with increases in PTG. Taken together, these findings
suggest that there should have been a mean increase in participant EI levels
after recovering from a traumatic event. However, the present study dem-
onstrated that individuals with low levels of EI at the time of the traumatic
event demonstrated significantly larger increases in EI scores after recover-
ing from the traumatic event than those with high levels of EI. This finding
JOURNAL OF LOSS AND TRAUMA 729
was expected because individuals with low levels of EI tend to be less resili-
ent to traumatic stress (Salovey et al., 2010). Therefore, it is possible that
people with lower levels of EI at the time of the event were the only group
that experienced a traumatic stress reaction intense enough to produce
growth. Conversely, it is possible that those with high levels of EI at the
time of the event did not show increases in EI because their EI acted as a
protective factor against developing an intense traumatic stress reaction.
The present study also indicated that, rather than showing an increase in EI,
those with high levels of EI at Time 1 showed a decrease in EI between Time 1
and Time 2. This unexpected finding could be due to the retrospective design
of the current study. According to Tofthagen (2012), people tend to idealize
their former selves when recollecting information from the past. This may have
caused some participants to inflate their level of EI in the retrospective EI
measurement at Time 1. Consequently, the inflation of the level of EI at Time 1
might have affected the results when comparing the Time 1 and Time 2 EI
measurements. This is because the inflation of EI at Time 1 score would
decrease any gains in EI between the Time 1 and Time 2 EI measurements.
Increases in EI between the two time points were significantly positively
correlated with PTG. This finding aligns with previous research by Li and
colleagues (2015) and Sadeghpour and colleagues (2018), who also showed
that EI was positively correlated with PTG. The finding that this relation-
ship was linear corresponds with Sadeghpour and colleagues’(2018) indica-
tion of a linear relationship between these two constructs; however, the
finding contradicts Li and colleagues’(2015) suggestion that the relation-
ship between these constructs is curvilinear.
Overall the findings of this study support the idea that EI and PTG are
conceptually similar, and that this similarity explains the fact that they both
work to promote resilience to traumatic stress. Brackett and colleagues
(2011) stated that higher levels of EI promote better coping and lead to
decreases in traumatic stress. This description of EI resembles the statement
that PTG is related to the use of positive coping strategies, lower levels of
posttraumatic stress, and greater quality of life after a traumatic event
(Jayawickreme & Blackie, 2014). Calhoun and Tedeschi (2006) defined PTG
as any increase in positive functioning that occurs after a traumatic event
and that ultimately serves to increase adaptation and fitness. Therefore, any
increase in EI that occurred after a traumatic event can also be described
as PTG.
Limitations and suggestions for future research
Some methodological limitations apply to this study. As already mentioned,
the use of retrospective accounts might have influenced or motivated the
730 D. TUCK AND L. PATLAMAZOGLOU
participants to overestimate their levels of EI prior to the traumatic event
(Tofthagen, 2012). Therefore, the differences between the two EI measure-
ments could actually be larger than reported and any increase in EI could
be underreported. This may have also affected the results of the second
hypothesis, as its analysis utilized the retrospective estimate of EI at Time 1
in order to calculate the variable D-EI, making it seem smaller than it may
have been in reality. However, as mentioned earlier, the fact that the PTGI
utilizes a retrospective estimate of PTG at the time of the traumatic event
warranted the use of a retrospective study design for the measurement of
EI before and after the traumatic event.
A longitudinal analysis measuring both EI and PTG at Time 1 in real
time rather than retrospectively would provide a more reliable measure of
EI and PTG at the time of the traumatic event than a retrospective design.
Adults who are exposed to a potentially traumatic event tend to recover
quickly from any negative affectivity (Norris, Tracy, & Galea, 2009).
Therefore, a longitudinal research design investigating the relationship
between EI and PTG over the course of one to two years may offer valu-
able insights regarding the relationship between the two constructs.
However, the inability to predetermine who might experience a traumatic
event during the period of the study would necessitate a very large sample
in order to include enough participants who might undergo a traumatic
event during the course of the study. This problem could possibly be over-
come by targeting high-risk groups such as soldiers or emergency ser-
vice personnel.
Finally, while the current study design allowed for the measurement of
both positive and negative fluctuations in EI, the PTGI was designed to
measure only increases in functioning. This may also have affected the
results of the study, which aimed to measure the relationship between the
two variables. In order to improve measurement accuracy, future studies
may use a modified version of the PTGI that includes negative response
values in order to track decreases in functioning that are similar to the way
that the current study design measured both positive and negative changes
in EI across time.
Theoretical and practical implications
The current study supports the idea that, similarly to EI, the resilience to
stress associated with PTG may stem from learning new ways to regulate
emotions. It is possible that the only major conceptual difference between
PTG and EI is the way these two concepts are defined. PTG is by definition
related to traumatic stress, whereas EI is related to the management of all
types of emotions. This idea needs to be further explored by comparing the
JOURNAL OF LOSS AND TRAUMA 731
subfactors of these two constructs and especially looking at which dimen-
sions of EI most closely resemble those of the PTGI. The broader scope of
functioning captured by the TEIQue-SF used in this study means that EI
inventories are also likely to measure dimensions of functioning that are
not exclusively associated with regulating traumatic stress.
While the results of the present study support the linear relationship
between EI and PTG found by Sadeghpour and colleagues (2018), they
contradict the study by Li and colleagues (2015), which showed a curvilin-
ear relationship between these two constructs. Thus, further studies on the
relationship of EI and PTG are warranted in order to determine the nature
of this relationship. However, the current study helps to provide converging
evidence of the existence of the relationship between EI and PTG.
Therefore, the findings expand those of previous research by showing that
EI and PTG are related concepts and that the level of EI at the time of the
traumatic event is related to increases in EI after a traumatic event utilizing
a Western sample. Thus, the present study helps to broaden the under-
standing of the basis of PTG and to generalize the applicability of previous
findings to Western populations.
EI is already a well-studied phenomenon, unlike PTG, which is a rela-
tively recent area of research and consequently has a limited underlying
conceptual framework. Investigations into PTG were originally motivated
by the finding that people who reported and maintained adversarial growth
over time show resilience in the face of new traumatic stressors (Morrill
et al., 2008). Therefore, demonstrating that EI and PTG are related con-
structs should help in the delivery of programs intended to promote psy-
chological resilience and improve coping among those already affected by
traumatic stress disorders. This is because there are currently many inter-
ventions that have been specifically designed to improve EI and their
applicability may be expanded.
Conclusion
The most significant aspect of this study is that EI and PTG are conceptu-
ally related and that the level of EI is linked to distress and growth follow-
ing a traumatic event. This relationship between EI and PTG was observed
despite methodological limitations posed by the use of the PTGI that com-
promised the probability of its identification. This limitation suggests that
the relationship between these two constructs is likely stronger than indi-
cated by the results of the study. The fact that PTG and EI measure similar
dimensions of functioning explains why they are both related to lower lev-
els of posttraumatic stress and greater quality of life after a traumatic event
(Brackett et al., 2011; Jayawickreme & Blackie, 2014). This is likely because
732 D. TUCK AND L. PATLAMAZOGLOU
higher levels of both EI and PTG are associated with the use of positive
coping strategies following a traumatic event (Brackett et al., 2011;
Jayawickreme & Blackie, 2014). Ultimately, the present study indicates that
utilizing interventions designed to improve EI may help to promote psy-
chological resilience as well as recovery from traumatic stress reactions in
the general population.
Notes on contributors
David Tuck worked on this project while completing the Graduate
Diploma of Psychology Advanced at the School of Psychological Sciences,
Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences at Monash University,
Victoria, Australia.
Lefteris Patlamazoglou is a lecturer and psychologist in the Faculty of
Education at Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
References
Affleck, G., Tennen, H., Croog, S., & Levine, S. (1987). Causal attribution, perceived bene-
fits, and morbidity following a heart attack: An eight-year study. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology,55(1), 29–35. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.55.1.29
Altman, D. G., & Royston, P. (2006). The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. BMJ,
332, 1080. doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7549.1080
Barskova, T., & Oesterreich, R. (2009). Post-traumatic growth in people living with a ser-
ious medical condition and its relations to physical and mental health: A systematic
review. Disability & Rehabilitation,31, 1709–1733. doi:10.1080/09638280902738441
Bower, J. E., Kemeny, M. E., Taylor, S. E., & Fahey, J. L. (1998). Cognitive processing, dis-
covery of meaning, CD 4 decline, and AIDS-related mortality among bereaved HIV-sero-
positive men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,66(6), 979–986. doi:10.1037//
0022-006X.66.6.979
Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., & Salovey, P. (2011). Emotional intelligence: Implications for
personal, social, academic, and workplace success. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass,5(1), 88–103. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00334.x
Breslau, N., Davis, G. C., Andreski, P., & Peterson, E. L. (1991). Traumatic events and
post-traumatic stress disorder in an urban population of young adults. Archives of
General Psychiatry,48(3), 216–222.
Breslau, N., Davis, G. C., Andreski, P., Peterson, E. L., & Schultz, L. R. (1997). Sex differen-
ces in post-traumatic stress disorder. Archive of General Psychiatry,54(11), 1044–1048.
Calhoun, L. G., & Tedeschi, R. G. (2006). Handbook of posttraumatic growth: Research and
practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Cooper, A., & Petrides, K. V. (2010). A psychometric analysis of the Trait Emotional
Intelligence Questionnaire-Short Form (TEIQue-SF) using item response theory. Journal
of Personality Assessment,92(5), 449–457. doi:10.1080/00223891.2010.497426
Cordova, M. J., Cunningham, L. L. C., Carlson, C. R., & Andrykowski, M. A. (2001).
Posttraumatic growth following breast cancer: A controlled comparison study. Health
Psychology,20(3), 176–185. doi:10.1037//0278-6133.20.3.176
JOURNAL OF LOSS AND TRAUMA 733
Deniz, M. E.,
€
Ozer, E., & Isik, E. (2013). Trait emotional intelligence questionnaire—short
form validity and reliability studies. Egitim ve Bilim,38(169), 407–419.
Downey, L. A., Johnston, P. J., Hansen, K., Schembri, R., Stough, C., Tuckwell, V., &
Schweitzer, I. (2008). The relationship between emotional intelligence and depression in
a clinical sample. European Journal of Psychiatry,22,93–98. doi:10.4321/S0213-
61632008000200005
Epel, E. S., McEwen, B. S., & Ickovics, J. R. (1998). Embodying psychological thriving:
Physical thriving in response to stress. Journal of Social Issues,54(2), 301–322. doi:
10.1111/0022-4537.671998067
Field, A. P. (2013). Discovering statistics using SPSS: And sex and drugs and rock ‘n’roll.
Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications
Hansen, K., Lloyd, J., & Stough, C. (2009). Emotional Intelligence and Clinical Disorders.
In J. D. A. Parker, D. H. Saklofske, & C. Stough (Eds.), Assessing emotional intelligence:
Theory, research and application (pp. 219–237), Boston, MA: Springer
IBM Corp. (2015). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 23.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Jayawickreme, E., & Blackie, L. E. R. (2014). Post-traumatic growth as positive personality
change: Evidence, controversies and future directions. European Journal of Personality,
28(4), 312–331. doi:10.1002/per.1963
Kleim, B., & Ehlers, A. (2009). Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between posttrau-
matic growth and post-trauma depression and PTSD in assault survivors. Journal of
Traumatic Stress,22(1), 45–52. doi:10.1002/jts.20378
Li, Y., Cao, F., Cao, D., & Liu, J. (2015). Nursing students’post-traumatic growth, emo-
tional intelligence and psychological resilience. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health
Nursing,22(5), 326–332. doi:10.1111/jpm.12192
Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Positive change following trauma and adversity: A
review. Journal of Traumatic Stress,17(1), 11–21. doi:10.1023/B:
JOTS.0000014671.27856.7e
Linley, P. A., Joseph, S., & Goodfellow, B. (2008). Positive changes in outlook following
trauma and their relationship to subsequent posttraumatic stress, depression, and anx-
iety. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,27(8), 877–891. doi:10.1521/
jscp.2008.27.8.877
MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of
dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods,7(1), 19–40. doi:
10.1037//1082-989X.7.1.19
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Models of emotional intelligence. In R. J.
Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence, 396–420. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511807947.019
Morrill, E. F., Brewer, N. T., O’Neill, S. C., Lillie, S. E., Dees, E. C., Carey, L. A., & Rimer,
B. K. (2008). The interaction of post-traumatic growth and post-traumatic stress symp-
toms in predicting depressive symptoms and quality of life. Psycho-Oncology,17(9),
948–953. doi:10.1002/pon.1313
Nalipay, M. J. N., Bernardo, A. B. I., & Mordeno, I. G. (2016). Social complexity beliefs
predict posttraumatic growth in survivors of a natural disaster. Psychological Trauma:
Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy,8(5), 559–567. doi:10.1037/tra0000154
Nietzsche, F. W. (1998). Twilight of the idols, or, how to philosophize with a hammer.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
Norris, F. H., Tracy, M., & Galea, S. (2009). Looking for resilience: Understanding the lon-
gitudinal trajectories of responses to stress. Social Science and Medicine,68(12),
2190–2198. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.03.043
734 D. TUCK AND L. PATLAMAZOGLOU
Park, C. L., Chmielewski, J., & Blank, T. O. (2010). Post-traumatic growth: Finding positive
meaning in cancer survivorship moderates the impact of intrusive thoughts on adjust-
ment in younger adults. Psycho-Oncology,19(11), 1139–1147. doi:10.1002/pon.1680
Powell, S., Rosner, R., Butollo, W., Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2003). Posttraumatic
growth after war: A study with former refugees and displaced people in Sarajevo. Journal
of Clinical Psychology,59(1), 71–83. doi:10.1002/jclp.10117
Sadeghpour, F., Heidarzadeh, M., Naseri, P., & Nadr-Mohammadi Moghadam, M. (2018).
Emotional intelligence as a predictor of posttraumatic growth in patients undergoing
hemodialysis. Illness, Crisis & Loss. doi:10.1177/1054137318788653
Salovey, P., Detweiler-Bedell, B., Detweiler-Bedell, J., & Mayer, J. (2010). Emotional intelli-
gence, coping, and self-regulation. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook
of emotions (3rd ed). New York, NY: Guilford Press
Skelly, A. C., Dettori, J. R., & Brodt, E. D. (2012). Assessing bias: The importance of con-
sidering confounding. Evidence-Based Spine-Care Journal,3,9–12. doi:10.1055/s-0031-
1298595
Stough, C., Saklofske, D., & Parker, J. (2009). Assessing emotional intelligence: Theory,
research, and applications. New York, NY: Springer
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The posttraumatic growth inventory: Measuring
the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress,9(3), 455–471. doi:10.1002/
jts.2490090305
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Target article: “Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual
foundations and empirical evidence”.Psychological Inquiry,15(1), 1–18. doi:10.1207/
s15327965pli1501_01
Tofthagen, C. (2012). Threats to validity in retrospective studies. Journal of the Advanced
Practitioner in Oncology,3(3), 181–183.
JOURNAL OF LOSS AND TRAUMA 735
