Assessing emotional intelligence: academic performance & overall personality development.

Devi, S. Anitha

Introduction

Emotional Intelligence is now being recognized as an important differentiator in the workplace with regard to personal and organizational success. Emotional Intelligence (EI), often measured as an Emotional Intelligence Quotient (EQ), describes the ability, capacity, or skill to perceive, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups. It is a relatively new area of psychological research. The definition of EI is constantly changing. Researchers observed that emotions always work together with cognition and motivation to help the person act appropriately in relation to the social context, or self-regulate. An acceptable definition of emotion is that it is an organized mental response to an event that includes physiological, experiential, and cognitive aspects among others, for which context of relationship, within which expression of emotional intelligence takes place, is important (Lazarus, 1991). Mayer and Salovey (1997) have defined emotional intelligence as "the ability to regulate emotions and intellectual growth".

Just because someone is deemed 'intellectually' intelligent, it does not necessarily follow they are emotionally intelligent. Having a good memory, or good problem solving abilities, does not mean one is capable of dealing with emotions or motivating oneself. Highly intelligent people may lack the social skills that are associated with high emotional intelligence. Savants, who show incredible intellectual abilities in narrow fields, are an extreme example of this: a mathematical genius may be unable to relate to people socially. However,

Emotional intelligence is the capacity to create positive outcomes in one's relationships with others and with oneself. Positive outcomes include joy, optimism, and success in work, school, and life. Today, the rules of the workplace are rapidly changing; a new yardstick is being used to judge people. It is often said that a high IQ may assure you a top position, but it may not make you a top person. This does not measure how smart you are or what your academic qualifications are or even what your expertise is. Instead, it measures how well you are able to handle yourself and others. This yardstick is increasingly applied in deciding who will be hired and who will not, who will be dismissed and who will be retained, who will be ignored and who will be promoted. These new rules predict who is most likely to be successful and who is most likely to fail. Regardless of the field you are currently working in, you are being judged for emotional traits that are crucial to your marketability for future jobs or new assignments. Possibly, em-ployees of large organizations may be evaluated in terms of such abilities, even though they may not be aware of it. If you are applying for a job, you are likely to be assessed in terms of these emotional abilities, though no one will tell you so explicitly.

Whatever the job, understanding how to cultivate these abilities is essential for a successful career. These emotional traits have little to do with what you were told was important in school, college or other institutions; academic abilities are largely irrelevant to these new standards. Today, it is taken for granted that you have adequate IQ that is, the intellectual ability and the technical know-how to do your job. The focus, instead, is on your EQ:-personal qualities such as initiative, empathy, motivation and leadership. The purpose of this study is to see whether there is a relationship between emotional intelligence, personality development and academic success of post graduate students.

Review of Literature

In academic articles authorized by John. D. Mayer and Peter Salovey the term Emotional Intelligence appeared in a series in 1990, 1993, 1995. Daniel Goleman (1995) has given the mainstream of Emotional Intelligence in the year 1995. He argues in his book that IQ con tributes only about 20% to success in life, and other forces contribute the rest. We can infer that Emotional Intelligence, luck and social class are among those other factors. In 1996, Reuven Bar-on explained Emotional Intelligence as our ability to deal successfully with other people and with our feelings. Finnegan (1998) argues that schools should help students learn the abilities underlying emotional intelligence. Possessing those abilities or even some of them "can lead to achievement from the formal education years of the child and adolescent to the adult's competency in being effective in the workplace and in society". Goleman (1995) suggested that EI can predict academic success better than traditional measures of intelligence. However, Zeidner, et al. (2002) correctly pointed out that there has been insufficient research conducted to fully understand the impact that EI may (or may not) have on academic success. Most students who do not complete college withdraw from the university within their first two years (Parker et. al, 2006). Lauer and Evans (1930) were among the first researchers to suggest that Emotional Stability may be related to academic success. For example, Ridgell and Lounsbury (2002) found that emotional stability accounted for 29% of the variance in college freshmen GPA. Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2003) also observed a positive correlation between academic success and Emotional Stability. Studies by Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey (1999), and more recently Mandell and Pherwani (2003) have found that women are more likely to score higher on measures of EI than men, both in professional and personal settings. Petrides et al. (2004) examined the role of trait EI on academic performance (as measured by GPA) in individuals with low IQ relative to individuals with high IQ. Wagerman and Funder (2007) found that Conscientiousness was able to successfully predict GPA among college seniors above and beyond the more traditional measures associated with academic achievement

Objectives & Methodology

The major objectives of the present study are as follows:

* To measure the overall Emotional Intelligence level of post graduate (PG) students

* To make a comparative study of Emotional Intelligence scores of PG students belonging to eight different streams i.e. Physical Sciences (Maths, Physics and Chemistry), Biological Sciences (Botany & Zoology, Microbiology and Biotechnology), Master of Business Administration (MBA) and Master of Computer Applications (MCA).

* To correlate the Emotional Intelligence of post graduate students based upon their Age, Gender, Personality Development and Academic Success.

* To define Emotional Intelligence dimensions through Factor Analytic approach.

Sample

The population for the study consisted of all post graduate students belonging to 8 different streams i.e., Physical Sciences (Maths, Physics and Chemistry), Biological Sciences (Botany&Zoology, Microbiology & Biotechnology), Master of Business Administration (MBA) and Master of Computer Applications (MCA) in Krishna, Guntur & Prakasham districts of Andhra Pradesh. The sample was selected from 18 colleges (universities & private) in these three districts. The study was undertaken during March 2010--November 2010.

The sample was first stratified on the basis of geographical regions. The sample consists of 600 post graduate students belonging to 8 different streams. A sample of 300 students from both Physical sciences (Maths, Physics and Chemistry) & Biological sciences (Botany & Zoology, Microbiology and Biotechnology) (50 students from each group) and 300 students from M B A & M C A groups (150 students from each group) were chosen on a random basis for the study. So, stratified simple random sampling method was used for the study.

Data Collection &Analysis

Using the framework of Goleman (1998) who had delineated a set of defining features of EI and also banking upon the conceptualizations of others such as Mayer, Salovey and Caruso (2000), a comprehensive EI inventory was developed. The present scale consists of 60 questions divided into ten constructs of Emotional Intelligence. Reliability Coefficient r = 0.759 (Cronbach's alfa) indicated that questionnaire was highly reliable. The study period was from March 2010 to November 2010.

The ten constructs include Managing Emotionality and Impulsiveness, Self-Acceptance, Problem Solving Orientation, Self Awareness, Self-confidence, Decisiveness and Independence, Personal Fulfillment, Empathy, Managing Anxiety and Stress and Assertiveness. The statements were on a 5 point rating scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher score represented higher EI, whereas lower score represented poor EI.

Factor Analytical approach was used to define various EI dimensions. The item responses were subjected to Principal Axis factoring method with Kaiser--Meyer--Oklin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (MSA). Bartlett's test of sphericity was computed to find out whether the sample for application of factor analysis was statistically significant or not. Several attempts were made to arrive at a factor structure that classifies items into minimum number of factors, explaining maximum possible variance. After making a series of attempts for a better and acceptable solution, 10 factor solution was adjudged as more meaningful.

Findings & Discussion

The following are the major findings of the present study:

* Majority of the post graduate students (62%) fall under high EI levels (Table 1). 62% of the total sample possess high EI and 38% of them experienced low EI (Table 2).

* 73% of MBA students, 62% of MCA students, 62% of Maths students, 46% of Physics students, 48% of Chemistry students, 42% of Botany & Zoology students, 76% of the Biotechnology students and 64% of Microbiology students have high EI (Table 3).

* Among the various dimensions of emotional constructs, the mean values of Personal Fulfillment, Empathy, Emotionality & Impulsiveness, Self-Confidence & Decisiveness and Independence were high which shows that they were the major constructs causing dimensions for the total sample. The mean values for Self-Awareness, Assertiveness, Problem solving orientation, Self-Acceptance were the least emotion causing dimensions (Table 4).

* There is a positive correlation between Male (r = 0.52) and Female (r = 0.6) EI levels (Table 6).

* Correlation value between Education Qualification and EI is found to be statistically significant (r = 0.6) indicating that the EI is dependent on the education qualification of the individual(Table 7).

* The Chi-square value between EI and Personality Development is found to be statistically significant ([x.sup.2] = 96.86) indicating that the personality development of an individual is dependent on their EI scores i.e. students with high EI scores showed greater personality development (Table 8).

* The Chi-square value between EI & Academic Success was found to be statistically significant ([x.sup.2] = 329.14) indicating that academic success of an individual is dependent on their EI scores (Table 9).

* The EI scores of MBA, MCA, Maths and Microbiology streams were high indicating that they had high EI & the EI scores of Chemistry, Physics, Botany & Zoology, Biotechnology groups were low indicating that they had low EI (Table 10).

* ANOVA results have shown that the eight post graduate groups differ significantly with respect to EI levels experienced by them, as the F value (F=16.001,p<0.05 level), is found to be highly significant (Table 11).

* Ten EI Dimensions were defined through Factor Analytic approach. The factors were computed with the total explained variance.

The adequacy of data for applying factor analysis has been checked beforehand by using the following measures.

* The correlation matrix was computed. The mean correlation is 0.2975 varying from 0.01 to 0.585 with a range of 0.575. The correlation matrix stated that variables are enough correlated for applying factor analysis.

* Appropriateness of the data for factor analysis is also checked by Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy (MSA). Test value of 0.639 indicated that the sample is statistically significant for factor analysis (Table 12)

* Bartlett's Test of Sphericity is computed. The computed test value x = 14851.034, is highly significant (p A 0.000) indicating that the sample for application of factor analysis is significant statistically (Table 12).

* Application of Anti-image correlation matrix showed low partial correlations implying existence of real factors in the data.

Hence, the authenticity of adequacy of data for factor analysis is proved by applying above tests. Data subjected to factor analysis, brought out ten factors. The factors are computed with the total explained variance.

Emotionality and Impulsiveness is the most important factor accounting for 7.35% of variance. Item loadings ranged from 0.653 to 0.219. There were 11 statements in this factor. Mean scores of factor indicated that students responded neutral to the statements related to emotionality & impulsiveness (Mean 2.99). Factor 1 consisted of several such items like 'I panic when I have to face someone who is angry ', 'I have a problem in controlling my anger' etc. These items indicated one's emotionality through expression of anger or exploding one's anger apparently without much control over it. Emotions serve like rigid barriers for the individual who is not able to break and continue to follow such rigidities. Getting upset fast and not able to make use of one's abilities to be effective, appeared to be a hallmark of such persons.

The second factor named 'Self-acceptance' is another important factor accounting for 7.014 % of variance. Item loadings ranged from 0.739 to 0.290. There were 10 statements in this factor. Mean scores of factor indicated that the responses are also more inclined towards 'neutral' (Mean 2.80). A person who has greater self--acceptance is more likely to be happy than a person who has not accepted himself well. The feeling of happiness is a natural appendage to positive self-concept. Such persons who have positive self concept accept themselves even if they have certain weaknesses or shortcomings, and their emphasis is more on maximizing their gains by way of keeping a balance in their life. Hence, self-acceptance tends to create easy situation for individuals to exploit it to their advantage.

Problem solving orientation being the third factor recorded 5.458 % of variance. Item loadings ranged from 0.381 to 0.293. There were 2 statements in this factor. Mean scores of factor indicated that the responses are also more inclined towards 'neutral' (Mean 2.87). This factor is characteristic of individual's willingness to be problem centric and easily orient himself to solve various problems that are personal in nature and have also arisen in a context of situation. Therefore, problem-solving is always related in a situational context. For example, 'when trying to solve a problem, I look at each possibility and then decide the best way' or 'I like to get an overview of a problem before trying to solve it' are representative of situational context. In addition, this dimension also suggests that such persons are planning oriented; they see meaning in their life. The inner urge is to come out of a delicate personal or situational con text by way of logical thinking and through a prob1em solving oriented approach.

Self-awareness is the fourth factor accounting for 5.397 % of variance. Item loadings ranged from 0.598 to 0.319. There were 6 statements in this factor. Mean scores of factor indicated that the students strongly disagreed with the statements (Mean 2.33).The lowest mean showed that the response of the students to the factor is low. The degree of self-awareness creates a self-monitoring orientation within an individual resulting in the habit of constantly checking where he stands in the circumstances he is embedded in. Self awareness seems to enhance one's capability to explore and introspect for oneself and size up others and promptly act on the situation so as to exploit best possible from the situation. Since self awareness adds to one's insight into problem solving, this factor should also correlate with problem solving orientation of individuals, a few representative items are 'I am bored', 'I am skilled at reading people', etc.

Fifth factor named 'Self-confidence' accounted for 3.580 % of variance. Item loadings ranged from 0.710 to 0.325. There were 5 statements in this factor. Mean scores of factor indicated that the responses were 'neutral' (Mean 2.98) to the statements. This factor signifies individual's ability to conduct himself with greater self-efficacy. This gives him a feeling that what he is doing personally is in line with his sense of confidence. Such individuals have strong premium on self--respect that tends to propel them forcefully in the path of managing themselves well. The main focus of this factor is on such personal processes that indicate an inner glow for beaming up with "I can do it". For instance, the statement 'I have confidence in my abilities', 'I do my best even if there is nobody around to see it ' etc. signifies individual's joyful nature and level of self-confidence even in circumstances where others have doubts about the expected results.

Decisiveness and Independence is the sixth factor which accounted for 3.337% of variance. Item loadings ranged from 0.366 to 0.188. The factor mean of 2.98 showed that students' response was neutral for the statements. The factor seems to color one's temperament or personal disposition. As a factor having 6 items together, this factor appeared to share commonality of meanings underlying the indecisiveness and dependency. For instance, the statements 'I am more a follower, than a leader', 'I prefer others to make decisions for me,' 'It is hard for me to take decisions on my own,' 'It is hard for me to say no' etc. clearly communicate a meaning that such individuals have difficulty in choosing alternatives for decision making and perhaps due to this inadequacy they tend to be dependent on others.

The seventh factor 'Personal Fulfillment' accounted for 2.795 % of variance. Item loadings ranged from 0.512 to 0.366. The factor mean of 3.03 showed that students' response was neutral for the statements. The highest mean showed that the response of the students to this factor is high. This factor has 5 statements and they signify lower threshold for tolerating emotional upsets, resulting in more inner suffering, apathy, disappointments and less enjoyment in day to day living. The statements 'It is hard for me to enjoy life,' 'It is hard for me to smile' and also 'Everything I try to do ultimately ends in failure' are all suggestive of depressive tendency of individual and indicate poor sense of fulfillment.

The eighth factor 'Empathy' accounted for 2.491% of variance. Item loadings ranged from 0.756 to 0.349. There were 5 statements in this factor. The factor mean of 3.00 showed that students' response was neutral for the statements. This factor is found with the second best response. This factor suggests individual's ability to feel and understand others' sentiments, moods and reactions with some intensity so that he is able to share feelings and/or build connections with others. In fact, such individuals being sensitive to others' feelings anticipate what is going on in minds of others. This allows people to build bridges among themselves and network in a more effective manner. Some of the statements included in this factor are 'It is hard for me to see people suffer', 'I avoid hurting other people's feelings', ' when someone I care about is sad, I feel sad too ' etc.

Anxiety and Stress is the least important factor accounting for 2.294 % of variance. Item loadings ranged from 0.774 to 0.275. The factor mean of 2.88 showed that students' response was neutral for the statements. This factor classified such items that typify anxiety or stress related processes within an individual. If such deeply personal processes are understood well and handled deftly by the individual it would be indicative of his capability to manage anxiety ridden emotions. There were 6 statements in this factor. Perhaps individual feels that due to the effect of overbearing stress or anxiety he is not able to adjust in general. The other statements, for example, '1 feel that it is hard for me to control my anxiety', '1 have got a bad temper', 'I get depressed easily', 'I do not do well under stress' 'I get anxious' etc. are well within the limit of the definition" of anxiety and stress.

Assertiveness is the least important factor accounting for 2.022 % of variance. Item loadings ranged from 0.423 to 0.274. The factor mean of 2.95 showed that students' response was neutral for the statements. This factor was labeled as assertiveness due to emphasis of statements on individual's ability to direct things the way he likes it. There were 4 statements under this dimension that suggested one's personal forcefulness. For example, statements '1 can handle stress 'without getting too nervous', 'I know how to deal with upsetting problems', all seem to imply some degree of direction which the individual is serious to exercise.

Conclusion

The modern concept of EI is in itself a youthful one. Much work has yet to be done to discover exactly what EI encompasses and how it would be most effectively applied. More research is needed to determine the exact connection of EI and personality constructs. Considering the debate regarding the validity and applicability of IQ tests, additional research is required to establish if EI (as proposed by Mayer & Salovey) is best modeled after standard intelligence. As evidence exists both for and against the ability for EI competencies to be developed, it is important that future research determines the extent to which EI can be taught.

References:

Chamorro-Premuzic, T. & Furnham, A. (2003), "Personality Traits and Academic Examination Performance", European Journal of Personality, 17: 237-50

Goleman, D. (1995), Emotional Intelligence, New York, Bantam Books. Heaven

Goleman, Daniel (1996), Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ, New York: Bantam Books

Goleman, Daniel (1998), Working with Emotional Intelligence, New York: Bantam Books

Lauer, A. R. & Evans, J. E. (1930), "Note on the Influence of a So-called Emotional Factor on Academic Success", Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 25: 57-59

Lounsbury, J. W., Sundstrom, E., Loveland, J. L. & Gibson, L. W. (2002), "Broad versus Narrow Personality Traits in Predicting Academic Performance of Adolescents", Learning and Individual Differences, 14: 65-75.

Parker, J. D. A., Hogan, M. J., Eastabrook, J. M., Oke, A. & Wood, L. M. (2006), "Emotional Intelligence and Student Retention: Predicting the Successful Transition from High School to University", Personality and Individual Differences,41:1329-36.

Parker, J. D. A., Summerfeldt, L. J., Hogan, M. J. & Majeski, S. A. (2004), "Emotional Intelligence and Academic Success: Examining the Transition from High School to University", Personality and Individual Differences, 36:163-72.

Peterson, C. H., Casillas, A. & Robbins, S. B. (2006), "The Student Readiness Inventory and the Big Five: Examining Social Desirability and College Academic Success", Personality and Individual Differences, 41: 663-73.

P. C. L., Ciarrochi, J. & Vialle, W. (2007), "Concientiousness and Eyesenckian Psychoticism as Predictors of School Grades: A One Year Longitudinal Study", Personality and Individual Differences, 42: 535-46.

Petrides, K. V., Frederickson, N. & Furnham, A. (2004)," The Role of Trait Emotional Intelligence in Academic Performance and Deviant Behavior at School", Personality and Individual Differences, 36: 277-93.

Petrides, K. V. & Furnham, A. (2000), "Gender Differences in Measured and Self-estimated Trait Emotional Intelligence", Sex Roles, 42: 449-61.

Salovey, Peter & John Mayer (1990), "Emotional Intelligence", Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9: 185-211.

Salovey. P & DJ. Sluyter (1997), "What Is Emotional Intelligence?", in Salovey. P & DJ. Sluyter (Eds), Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence, Basic Books: New York.

Wagerman, S. A. & Funder, D. C. (2007), "Acquaintance Reports of Personality and Academic Achievement: A Case for Conscientiousness", Journal of Research in Personality, 41: 221-29.

Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D. & Matthews, G. (2002), "Can Emotional Intelligence Be Schooled? A Critical Review", Educational Psychologist, 37: 215-31.

S. Anitha Devi is Associate Professor &Head, Dept.of Mgt.Studies, TJPS College, Guntur. E-mail: [email protected]

Table 1 Distribution of Total Sample on
Emotional Intelligence Scale

Sample Size   Emotional Intelligence
              Score

600           189.5

Table 2 Distribution of Total Sample on High
& Low Emotional Intelligence Scores

Emotional      Low EI      High EI

Intelligence   (60-180     (180-300
               points)     Points)
Sample Size    228         372
Percentage     38%         62%

Table 3 Distribution of the Total Sample on the Emotional
Intelligence Scale (High & Low) for all the Eight Groups.

Sample Size   MBA   MCA   Maths   Chem   phy

Low            40    57      19     26    27
  (60-180)
High          110    93      31     24    23
  (181-300)
Total         150   150      50     50    50

Sample Size   Bot&Zoo   Biotech   Microbiology

Low                29        18             12
  (60-180)
High               21        32             38
  (181-300)
Total              50        50             50

Table 4 Means & Standard Deviations of Ten
Emotional Constructs for Overall
Sample.

Emotional constructs   Means   Standard
Deviations

Emotionality and
Impulsiveness           2.99   0.086463
Self-Acceptance         2.80   0.192008
Problem solving
  orientation           2.87   0.071219
Self-Awareness          2.33   0.138792
Self-confidence         2.98   0.166963
Decisiveness and
  Independence          2.98   0.107027
Personal Fulfillment    3.03   0.268328
Empathy                 3.00   0.163577
Anxiety and Stress      2.88   0.133823
Assertiveness           2.95   0.149259

It was found that there is a positive
correlation (r = 0.66) between Age
and EI(Table 5).

Table 5 Correlation between Age & Emotional
Intelligence

Variable    Correlation value

Age Vs EI   0.66 *

* Significant at 0.05 level.

Table 6 Correlation between Gender &
Emotional Intelligence.

Variable       Correlation value

Male Vs EI     0.526 *
Female Vs EI   0.601 *

* Significant at 0.05 Level.

Table 7 Correlation between Emotional Intelligence
& Education Qualifications.

Education Qualification   Correlation Value

Post-Graduates            0.559 *

* Significant at 0.05 level

Table 8  Chi-square between Emotional Intelligence &
Personality Development.

Variable                    Chi-square Value

Personality Development
Vs Emotional Intelligence   96.86 *

* Significant at 0.05 level

Table 9  Chi-square between Emotional Intelligence &
Academic Success.

Variable                 Chi-square
Value

Academic Success Vs
Emotional Intelligence   329.14 *

* Significant at 0.05 level

Table 10 Distribution of the Total Sample
on Emotional Intelligence Scale for
all Eight Groups.

Groups          EI Scores

MBA             213.72
MCA             193.48
Maths           211.3
Chemistry       177.02
Physics         177.04
Bot & Zoology   176.74
Biotech         177.66
Microbiology    189.1

Table 11 Analysis of Variance between Various Branches on Emotional
Intelligence.

Source of        Sum of       Degrees of   Mean Square   F-value
Variance         Squares      freedom

Between Groups   131,555.37   7            18,793.62     16.001
Within Groups    695,303.19   593          1,174.50
Total            826,858.56   600

Table 12 KMO & Bartlett s Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure
of Sampling Adequacy.                                 .639

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity    Approx. Chi-Square   14851.034

                                 Df                   1770
                                 Sig.                 .000

Table 13 Factor Transformation Matrix

Factor     1       2       3       4       5

1         .666   -.354    .433    .259   -.184
2         .588    .553   -.194   -.368   -.199
3        -.286    .491    .518   -.106    .114
4         .254    .393   -.097    .514    .612
5        -.165    .335    .119    .453   -.469
6        -.044   -.004   -.522    .486   -.183
7        -.033   -.142   -.322   -.140    .050
8         .086   -.109   -.089   -.123    .495
9         .016   -.152    .306    .186    .183
10        .164    .085   -.076   -.110   -.071

Factor     6       7       8       9      10

1         .236   -.272   -.071    .018   -.088
2         .126    .271    .158   -.139   -.051
3         .419   -.359    .242    .120   -.081
4        -.145    .016   -.224    .221   -.118
5         .112    .160   -.408   -.254    .391
6         .262   -.247    .563   -.070   -.073
7         .694    .122   -.366    .462    .096
8         .266   -.183   -.039   -.651    .428
9         .132    .672    .475    .137    .320
10       -.283   -.370    .133    .438    .718

Factor 1 Emotionality & Impulsiveness

Questions                               Factor     Mean     Standard
                                        Loadings   Scores   Deviation

I panic when I have to face someone
  who is angry.                         .653       3.02     1.356
I have difficulty saying things like
  "I love you," even when I really
  feel those emotions.                  .644       3.02     1.262
It is better to remain neutral and
  detached towards a person until you
  really get to know him or her.        .624       3.01     1.291
When I've been humiliated, I still
  feel ashamed or embarrassed weeks
  after the incident                    .564       3.05     1.311
I am Impulsive                          .523       2.80     1.213
I tend to explode with anger easily.    .487       2.96     1.369
I have a problem in controlling my
  anger.                                .484       3.16     1.268
I am not happy with my life.            .415       2.98     1.348
It is generally hard for me to make
  changes in my daily life.             .376       2.95     1.364
When I do not get expected result I
  get terribly upset.                   .266       2.96     1.319
I really do not know what I am good
  at.                                   .219       2.95     1.270

Note: Eigen value = 4.410

Percentage of variance = 7.350

Factor 2 Self-Acceptance

Questions                               Factor     Mean     Standard
                                        Loadings   Scores   Deviation

Some people make me feel bad about
  myself, no matter what I do.          .739       2.58     1.327
Even when I do my best, I feel guilty
  about the things that were not done
  perfectly.                            .691       2.72     1.282
I know exactly what to say to make
  someone feel better                   .678       2.55     1.294
I need a push from someone in order
  to be motivated.                      .576       2.81     1.286
I do not keep in touch with my
  friends.                              .513       2.72     1.320
Some people make me feel bad about
  myself, no matter what I do.          .468       2.62     1.151
I say things that I later regret.       .408       2.98     1.316
I am fairly cheerful person.            .382       3.03     1.369
It is fairly easy for me to express
  my feelings.                          .295       2.87     1.368
I think it is important to be a Law
  abiding citizen.                      .290       3.09     1.405

Note: Eigen value = 4.208

Percentage of variance = 7.014

Factor 3 Problem Solving Orientation

Questions                               Factor     Mean     Standard
                                        Loadings   Scores   Deviation
When trying to solve a problem, I
  look at each possibility and then
  decide on the best way.               .381       2.82     1.329
I like to get an overview of a
  problem before trying to solve it.    .293       2.92     1.313

Note: Eigen value = 3.275

Percentage of variance = 5.458

Factor 4 Self-Awareness

Questions                               Factor     Mean     Standard
                                        Loadings   Scores   Deviation

I am bored.                             .598       3.01     1.395
When I see someone I know, I am able
  to pick up on what he or she is
  feeling right away                    .518       2.67     1.073
There are so many things wrong with
  me that I simply cannot like
  myself.                               .566       2.76     1.422
I am skilled at reading people.         .497       2.74     1.334
I do strange things.                    .442       2.99     1.366
I try to continue to develop those
  things that I enjoy.                  .319       2.85     1.376

Note: Eigen value = 3.238

Percentage of variance = 5.397

Factor 5 Self-Confidence

Questions                              Factor     Mean     Standard
                                       Loadings   Scores   Deviation

No matter how much I accomplish, I
  feel like I should be doing more.    .710       2.76     1.414
I do my best even if there is nobody
  around to see it.                    .626       3.20     1.257
When I see something that I want, I
  can hardly think of anything else
  until I obtain it.                   .537       2.94     1.359
I have confidence in my abilities.     .444       3.08     1.373
I have good self respect.              .325       2.91     1.303

Note: Eigen value = 2.148

Percentage of variance = 3.580

Factor 6 Decisiveness & Independence

Questions                               Factor     Mean     Standard
                                        Loadings   Scores   Deviation
When I have a major personal problem,
  I cannot think about anything else.   .366       2.98     1.304
I am easily discouraged by others.      .364       3.14     1.311
It is hard for me to face unpleasant
  things.                               .295       3.06     1.373
I am more follower than Leader.         .263       2.95     1.284
I prefer others to make decision for
  me.                                   .215       2.85     1.238
It is hard for me to make decision on
  my own.                               .188       2.89     1.302

Note: Eigen value = 2.002

Percentage of variance = 3.337

Factor 7 Personal Fulfillment

Questions                             Factor     Mean     Standard
                                      Loadings   Scores   Deviation

I feel uneasy in situations where I
  am expected to display affection.   .512       3.18     1.352
I will do whatever I can to keep
  myself from crying.                 .510       3.20     1.314
Everything I try to do ultimately
  ends in failure.                    .533       2.58     1.299
I am not satisfied with my work
  unless someone else praises it.     .376       2.99     1.389
It is hard for me to smile.           .366       3.20     1.337

Note: Eigen value = 1.677

Percentage of variance = 2.795

Factor 8 Empathy

Questions                                Factor     Mean     Standard
                                         Loadings   Scores   Deviation

I feel like I worry about things that
  other people don't even think about.   .756       3.10     1.392
I feel uncomfortable when I am
  expected to console others.            .633       3.14     1.250
When someone I care about is sad, I
  feel sad too.                          .622       3.13     1.459
It is hard for me to see people
  suffer.                                .402       2.83     1.258
I avoid hurting other people's
  feelings.                              .349       2.82     1.339

Note: Eigen value = 1.495

Percentage of variance = 2.491

Factor 9 Anxiety & Stress

Questions                          Factor     Mean     Standard
                                   Loadings   Scores   Deviation

I get distressed without really
  knowing who or what exactly is
  bothering me.                    .774       2.66     1.210
I overreact to minor problems.     .608       2.90     1.189
I do not do well under stress.     .402       2.79     1.321
I feel that it is hard for me to
  control my anxiety.              .386       3.04     1.438
I have got a bad temper.           .358       2.91     1.321
I get depressed easily.            .275       2.97     1.404

Note: Eigen value = 1.377

Percentage of variance = 2.294

Factor 10 Assertiveness

Questions                              Factor     Mean     Standard
                                       Loadings   Scores   Deviation
When people close to me experience a
  setback, I can easily come up with
  ways to help them overcome their
  distress.                            .423       2.75     1.341
I run into obstacles that keep me
  from reaching my goals.              .366       3.10     1.349
I can handle stress without getting
  too nervous.                         .286       3.02     1.355
I know how to deal with upsetting
  problems.                            .274       2.94     1.334

Note: Eigen value = 1.213

Percentage of variance = 2.022