Resilience as a mediator between emotional intelligence (EI) and perceived stress among young adults in Malaysia

Abstract

Stress encompasses a complex interplay of physical, mental, and emotional responses triggered by demanding or challenging circumstances. Perceived stress refers to the subjective assessment of stress levels by an individual. As existing research indicates, this subjective experience of stress is intricately connected to emotional intelligence (EI) and resilience. Aligned with this knowledge, the present study aims to contribute to the existing body of knowledge by exploring the mediating role of resilience in the relationship between EI and perceived stress levels. A cross-sectional online study was conducted involving 207 young adults from Malaysia (152 females and 55 males). Sex (gender) differences in perceived stress levels were evaluated using t-tests, revealing that females reported higher levels of perceived stress. Interestingly, EI did not exhibit an age-related increase. Results confirmed the predictive relationships among EI, resilience, and perceived stress. Mediational analyses uncovered a full mediation model, illustrating that resilience is pivotal in mediating the relationship between EI and perceived stress. The findings strongly indicate that individuals with elevated EI levels are more likely to possess higher resilience, resulting in lower perceived stress levels. These results underscore the importance of interventions targeting EI and resilience enhancement, as such interventions hold promise for positively impacting the mental well-being of young adults.

Introduction

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has transitioned to an endemic stage, its long-term effects on daily life persist, with many individuals still facing new personal and professional challenges [38]. Ongoing uncertainty has kept stress levels elevated, exacerbating mental health issues globally. Chronic stress remains a serious concern across all age groups and cultures. The American Psychological Association’s Stress in America 2023 survey revealed a marked increase in stress-related health problems since the pandemic, particularly in those aged 35–44, where chronic illness rates rose from 48% in 2019 to 58% in 2023. Mental health diagnoses in this group also spiked, climbing from 31% in 2019 to 45% in 2023, with adults aged 18 to 34 reporting the highest overall prevalence at 50%. Similar trends have been observed in other countries, such as the United Kingdom and China, where chronic stress has contributed to the rise in conditions like depression [30, 53]. Research indicates that better mental health strengthens resilience [48], and resilience, in turn, can buffer the effects of stress, promoting a more positive mental state [18].

Stress represents an individual's natural physical, mental, or emotional response to challenging circumstances encountered in daily life [23]. These stressors can include adverse life events like demanding work or losing a loved one, which introduces uncertainty for individuals. When stress becomes chronic or overwhelming, it harms an individual's physical and mental well-being. Previous research has highlighted a range of negative consequences associated with long-term stress, including mental disorders like anxiety and depression, increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviours, elevated vulnerability to physical illnesses, impaired social judgment, and reduced academic or work performance [38].

Sex (gender) and perceived stress

Not every individual sees stress in the same manner. Perceived stress refers to how an individual perceives a situation to be stressful and how they react to it rather than the frequency of stressful events [1]. For instance, the same incident could be viewed as an "opportunity" from one person's perspective but as a "hassle" from another's. One of the factors influencing an individual's self-reported stress level is sex. Studies have found that females tend to report higher levels of perceived stress [1, 37] and are more prone to feelings of loneliness or anxiety, making them more likely than their male counterparts to develop depression [16]. This argument is also supported by feminist theory, which highlights that violence against women is a result from gender inequality at the societal level. When applied to the concept of stress, feminist theory reveals how stress is often influenced by systemic factors such as patriarchy, rigid gender roles, and socioeconomic disparities. Researchers have suggested that this disparity may be due to females heightened inherent physiological reactivity to stress and pain, which renders them more sensitive to the repercussions of daily stressors [1].

Emotional intelligence (EI) and stress

Besides sex disparities, research has unveiled another crucial factor that significantly affects an individual's perception of stress—emotional intelligence (EI). Currently, there are two major, distinct types of EI theories and measurement tools. Specifically, EI can be viewed from two perspectives: as a trait or an ability. When EI is viewed as a dispositional trait, it reflects a consistent behavioural pattern over time, in contrast to a skill or ability that can be enhanced through practice and training. Conversely, when conceptualising EI as a skill or ability, it taps into an individual's cognitive abilities that affect how individuals perceive and manage their own emotions as well as the emotions of others [36]. EI was first introduced by Salovey and Mayer [42] in their pioneering work as an ‘ability’ to monitor one’s own and others' emotions, distinguish between them, and use this understanding to guide thinking and behaviour. According to their four-branch model, EI encompasses four domains: (i) identifying emotions, (ii) using emotions to facilitate thoughts, (iii) understanding emotions, and (iv) managing emotions [29]. The first domain of EI, perceiving emotions, refers to the ability to accurately identify one’s own and others’ emotions, as well as correctly display one’s emotions according to the situation. The second domain, using emotions, refers to the ability to use emotions to facilitate perceptual or cognitive processes and act accordingly. The third domain, understanding emotions, taps into individual’s capacity to comprehend the meaning behind emotions. The last domain, managing emotions, refers to an individual’s ability to manage and modify their emotional responses accurately. Later, Petrides and Furnham introduced the trait model, defining it as a consistent behavioural pattern over time, as opposed to a skill that can improve through practice and training [35]. This model is linked to dispositional tendencies, personality traits, and self-efficacy beliefs.

When assessing EI as a trait, it is typically measured through self-reported assessments, where individuals choose responses that best reflect their typical behaviour. In contrast, if EI is conceptualised as an ability, individuals are evaluated through performance-related tasks with clear correct and incorrect answers. For example, participants may be shown various facial expressions and asked to identify the extent to which a specific emotion is being displayed. Although ability EI is typically measured through performance tasks, some researchers have developed self-reported scales for it, such as the Self-Rated Emotional Intelligence Scale (SREIS) [4]. In our study, we adopt the ability EI perspective, as proposed by Mayer and Salovey, because we consider EI a skill that can be developed and refined, rather than a fixed personality trait. We also opted for self-reported questionnaires over performance-based tests, as our aim is to explore participants' self-assessments of their emotion-related cognitive abilities rather than measuring these abilities through performance tasks.

Existing literature shows a negative relationship between EI and perceived stress. For example, correlational studies have found negative associations between the two variables [13, 41]. Longitudinal research also discovered that EI negatively predicts self-reported stress across different time periods [17, 31]. As perceived stress is linked to various life outcomes, higher EI generally leads to improved outcomes such as decreased levels of depression, anxiety, burnout by reducing perceived stress levels.

Emotional intelligence (EI) and age

Similar with personality traits, Goleman [15] suggested that EI changes over time as it is linked with maturity. Indeed, increases in EI levels have been found with aging [46]. Research has suggested that EI is a malleable ability that can be trained and developed. In Nelis et al.’s experiment, participants that undergone EI training sessions consisting of short lectures, roleplays, readings, and interpersonal activities shown a significant increase in EI levels compared to the control group [33]. Participants’ increased EI levels were largely maintained in follow-up studies, and even increased slightly across time.

The mediating role of resilience

While several studies have investigated the relationship between EI and self-reported stress, further research is needed to fully understand the mechanisms underlying this connection. Scholars have proposed that EI is positively associated with resilience, suggesting that individuals with higher EI exhibit adaptive behaviour in challenging situations [2]. The reasoning behind this assertion is that individuals with greater EI are more aware of their negative emotions, thus enhancing their capacity to navigate and overcome them effectively. Previous literature has consistently demonstrated a strong positive connection between EI and resilience [2, 44].

Resilience refers to an individual's ability to recover from adversity [55]. It is believed that individuals with higher levels of resilience are better equipped to cope with challenging situations [21, 54]. Similar to the relationship between EI and perceived stress, researchers have found a negative association between resilience and perceived stress levels. Like EI, resilience has been extensively studied in many studies due to its positive effects on mental and physical well-being [55]. For example, resilience is positively linked to improved mental health, life satisfaction, and physical well-being [55]. Resilience also increases the likelihood of individuals engaging in adaptive stress-coping strategies, promoting a positive outlook on stress, and yielding improved health outcomes.

Like EI, resilience is a malleable ability that can be developed through training. Resilience training has shown to increase participant resilience levels. A systematic review by Robertson et al. revealed significant improvements in resilience levels following training, alongside enhancements in other aspects of life success, such as well-being, psychosocial factors, physical health, and performance [40]. Researchers, including Matthews et al. and Armstrong et al., have suggested that EI is an antecedent factor of resilience [2, 28]. Similarly, Wilson and Saklofske also confirmed the role of EI in facilitating resilience in their study [52].

In the past two decades, studies have also discovered the potential role of resilience as a mediator between EI and other psychological factors such as life satisfaction [39], life-event distress [2], and academic burnout [12]. Despite these findings, limited research has explored the mediating role of resilience between EI and stress. Sarrionandia et al. conducted a study that addressed this gap by involving undergraduate students from two universities in the United States and the Basque country in Northern Spain [43]. The researchers found that resilience fully mediated the association between EI and perceived stress. However, it remains uncertain whether this finding can be replicated in the South-East Asian context, such as Malaysia.

Drawing from the earlier discussion, we put forward the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 (H1)

Females will have higher perceived stress levels compared to males.

Hypothesis 2 (H2)

Emotional intelligence (EI) is a negative predictor of perceived stress.

Hypothesis 3 (H3)

Emotional intelligence (EI) will increase with age.

Hypothesis 4 (H4)

Emotional intelligence (EI) is a positive predictor of resilience.

Hypothesis 5 (H5)

Resilience is a negative predictor of perceived stress.

Hypothesis 6 (H6)

Resilience will mediate the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and perceived stress.

The present study

In addition to exploring sex differences in perceived stress and the potential increase of EI with age, the main objective of the present study is to deepen our understanding of the complex interplay among three variables: EI, resilience, and perceived stress. Based on previous literature on EI, resilience, and perceived stress, the current study explores whether resilience mediates the relationship between EI and perceived stress among undergraduate students in Malaysia. Additionally, the study seeks to provide practical implications for positive psychology by offering valuable insights into strategies for preventing stress. Figure 1 presents the mediation model that illustrates the relationship between resilience, EI, and perceived stress.

Fig. 1.

The proposed mediation model

Methods

Study design

This study utilised an online quantitative survey method with a cross-sectional design to explore whether resilience has a mediating effect on the relationship between EI and stress. The variables of this study are perceived stress, EI, and resilience.

Participants and procedure

This study utilised a convenience sampling method, recruiting participants through advertisements posted on multiple social media platforms. Specifically, participants were recruited through online networks, including Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and LinkedIn. To qualify for the study, participants had to meet the following criteria: (a) be between 18 and 30 years of age, and (b) be currently enrolled in a local university or college. Exclusion criteria included incomplete or irrelevant data, such as participants over 35 years old or those engaging in straight-lining, where respondents provided repetitive responses without attention. The minimum sample size was determined using G*Power software. A medium effect size (f² = 0.15) was selected, factoring in two predictors, and a power level of 0.80 was established for the analysis. The calculation indicated that a minimum of 68 participants was required.

Participants were informed of the voluntary nature of their involvement and provided informed consent before filling out the questionnaires. A total of 266 questionnaires were collected, but after data screening, 207 valid responses were retained for analysis. The data collection process involved administering two demographic questions, along with three standardised measures: the 10-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10), the 19-item Self-Rated Emotional Intelligence Scale-Revised (SREIS-R), and the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10). All participants completed these instruments, and after completing them, they were thanked for their participation.

Ethical aspects

The ethics of this study align with the standards outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and the guidelines set forth by the American Psychological Association in 2017 regarding requirements for human research, which were approved including respect for the autonomy and confidentiality of individuals throughout the study process. The Institutional Ethics Committee of Heriot-Watt University approved this study [2022-3044-6940] prior to commencement of data collection. Written informed consent was obtained from the study participants included in the study.

Materials

10-Item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10)

The 10-Item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) is a widely utilised self-report questionnaire designed to assess an individual's perceived stress over the past month [50]. The questionnaire captures the individual's thoughts and feelings concerning events during this period. For instance, one question asks, "How often have you been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly?" Responses are recorded on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 to 4 (0 denoting "Never" and 4 indicating "Very Often"). Of the 10 items, 6 (Items 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 10) are phrased in a negative manner, whilst the remaining 4 (Items 4, 5, 7, and 8) are stated positively. The sum of scores from all questions provides a total score, where higher scores indicate higher levels of perceived stress. The possible score range is from 0 to 40, with lower scores indicating lower perceived stress and higher scores indicating higher perceived stress. Previous research has consistently demonstrated the internal consistency of the PSS-10, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.75 to 0.91 [7, 47]. In the current study, Cronbach's alpha for the PSS-10 was 0.770. The validity of the PSS-10 has been supported by various correlations with other stress measures, health-service measures, smoking status, and help-seeking behaviour [24].

Self-Rated Emotional Intelligence Scale-Revised (SREIS-R)

The Self-Rated Emotional Intelligence Scale-Revised (SREIS-R) is a 19-item self-report questionnaire that assesses ability emotional intelligence [5]. The questionnaire aligns with Mayer and Salovey’s four-branch model of emotional intelligence, with 4 items focusing on perceiving emotions (e.g., “I am aware of the nonverbal messages other people send”), 3 items on the use of emotions (e.g., “When making decisions, I listen to my feelings to see if the decision feels right”), 4 items on understanding emotions (e.g., “I have a rich vocabulary to describe my emotions”), and 8 items on managing emotions (e.g., “I can handle stressful situations without getting too nervous”). Participants are required to rate the accuracy of each statement on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Very Inaccurate) to 5 (Very Accurate). Four questions are reverse-coded (items 2, 4, 15, and 16; e.g., “I have problems dealing with my feelings of anger”). Scores from all items are summed, resulting in a total score that ranges from a minimum of 19 (indicating low EI) to a maximum of 95 (indicating high EI). The SREIS-R has demonstrated good psychometric properties, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranging from 0.66 to 0.84 [4]. In the present study, Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the SREIS-R was 0.682. Its validity has been established through its derivation from other relevant EI scales, such as Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test V2.0 [29].

10-Item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale 10-Item (CD-RISC-10)

The 10-Item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10) is a generalised questionnaire used to measure the resilience level that an individual possesses [6]. It is an abbreviated version of the original Connor-Davidson Scale, the first self-rated biopsychosocial model of resilience [8]. The CD-RISC-10 is easy to understand and is suitable for individuals aged 18 and above [6]. The questionnaire consists of 10 questions that asks an individual to rate how true the statement is for them across a five-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (Not true at all) to 4 (True nearly all the time). Items consist of statements that ask about the individual’s feelings during the past month. A sample item is “I am able to adapt when changes occur.” Scores were summed up to produce a total resilience score and the higher the score, the more resilient the person is. Participants could score the lowest possible score of 0 and the highest possible score of 40. The internal consistency of the CD-RISC-10 was high, yielding a Cronbach’s alpha value between 0.76 to 0.91 [51]. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.867. The CD-RISC-10 also possesses validity as it correlates with other resilience measures and other scales such as the General Self-Efficacy Scale [45]. The CD-RISC-10 is a universal scale that has been translated and tested for reliability and validity across over 90 countries.

Results

Descriptive statistics and relationships between variables

Table 1 shows the demographic information of the participants. The sex distribution of the remaining 207 participants consisted of 152 females (73.4%) and 55 males (26.6%). Their age range were all in between 18 to 35 (M = 23.31 years, SD = 3.26).

Table 1.

Demographic profile of participants

Profile	Frequency	Percentage	Mean	SD
Sex
Male	55	26.6.%
Female	152	73.4%
Age			23.31	3.26

Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests confirmed that there were no outliers, and the data was normally distributed for the variables emotional intelligence (p = 0.200) and resilience (p = 0.200). However, the data distribution for stress was not normal (p = 0.031). Other measures (i.e., skewness, kurtosis, and Q-Q plots) were implemented to double-check if stress met the assumption of normality. The skewness and kurtosis suggested the stress data as normal (skewness = 0.01, kurtosis = 0.09). The Q–Q plot also suggests a linear relationship in the data distribution. Therefore, parametric tests were used in the analysis.

Table 2 displays the correlation coefficients, descriptive statistics, and Cronbach alphas of the study variables. The mean of the PSS-10 in the study sample (M_PSS-10 = 19.87) which indicates a moderate level of stress [7]. Means of the scoring for the SREIS-R and CD-RISC-10 were also above the scale midpoint (M_SREIS-R = 62.98, M_CD-RISC-10 = 25.81). As indicated, the Cronbach alphas of all questionnaires were above 0.60, which is considered an acceptable index for reliability. To determine the relationships between the three study variables, correlations between variables were estimated. Results showed that stress has significant negative correlations with both EI (r = − 0.16, p = 0.019) and resilience (r = − 0.34, p < 0.001), while EI was significantly positively correlated with resilience (r = 0.54, p < 0.001).

Table 2.

Correlation coefficients and descriptive statistics of the variables

Variable	(1)	(2)	(3)
(1) Stress	1	− 0.16*	− 0.34***
(2) EI		1	0.54***
(3) Resilience			1
Mean	19.87	62.98	25.81
SD	5.56	7.48	6.15
Range	4–36	40–83	10–40
Cronbach alpha	0.77	0.68	0.87

SD standard deviation

Significant at *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

Sex differences in stress levels

With regard to the first hypothesis, the sex differences in stress levels were examined. An independent t-test indicated that stress levels were significantly greater for females (M = 20.80, SD = 5.59) than for males (M = 17.33, SD = 4.66), t (113.99) = −  4.48, p < 0.001. Therefore, H1 was supported. To test the third hypothesis (H3) that EI would increase with age, a Pearson’s correlation test was used. Pearson’s correlation found a positive but non-significant relationship between the two variables, r (205) = 0.12, p = 0.097, R² = 0.01. Therefore, H3 was rejected.

Mediational analyses

Mediation analyses using PROCESS Macro model four were initiated [19]. In the mediation model, EI was entered as the independent variable, resilience as the mediating variable, and perceived stress as the dependent variable. Firstly, the mediation process showed that the regression of EI on resilience (path a) is significant, (b = 0.47, t = 10.01, p < 0.001), which supported that EI is a positive predictor of resilience (H4). Secondly, the regression of the mediator (resilience) on perceived stress, controlling for EI (path b), was significant (b = − 0.36, t = − 5.49, p < 0.001), which supported that resilience is a negative predictor of perceived stress (H5). Thirdly, the direct effect of EI on stress controlling for resilience (path c′) was not significant (b = 0.05, t = 0.80, p = 0.425). Fourthly, results also showed that the total effect of EI on stress (path c) was significant (b = − 0.12, t = − 2.36, p = 0.019), which supported that EI is a negative predictor of perceived stress (H2). Finally, EI had a significant indirect effect on perceived stress through resilience (b = − 0.17, t = − 4.42, p < 0.001) and it was found that resilience fully mediated the relationship between EI and stress. A Sobel test was also conducted and found confirmed the mediating effect in the model (b = − 0.17, t = − 4.42, z = − 4.42, p < 0.001) with a lower limit of − 0.24 and an upper limit of − 0.09 at the 95% confidence interval level. Therefore, H6 was supported. Unstandardised direct and indirect effects of emotional and resilience on perceived stress are summarised in Table 3. Unstandardised path coefficients for the final mediation model are shown in Fig. 2.

Table 3.

Results of mediation analysis

Pathway	b	SE	B	t	p	95% CI
						LL	UL
a: EI → R	0.47	0.05	0.57	10.01	< 0.001***	0.38	0.56
b: R → S	− 0.36	0.07	− 0.40	− 4.96	< 0.001***	− 0.50	− 0.22
c′: EI → S Direct effect	0.05	0.06	0.06	0.80	0.425	− 0.07	0.16
c: EI → S Total effect	− 0.12	0.05	− 0.16	− 2.36	0.019*	− 0.22	− 0.02
a × b: EI → R Indirect effect	− 0.17	0.04	− 0.23	− 4.42	< 0.001***	− 0.24	− 0.09

(1) b = Unstandardised coefficient, (2) SE = standard error, (3) B = standardised beta, (4) EI = emotional intelligence, (5) R = resilience; S = perceived stress; CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit

Significant at *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

Fig. 2.

Final model with path coefficients

Discussion

The primary objective of this study is to gain a deeper understanding of the connection between EI, resilience, and perceived stress. The present study put forth six hypotheses. The first hypothesis posited that females would experience higher levels of perceived stress than males. As expected, young females adult exhibited elevated stress levels compared to their male counterparts. This discovery aligns with previous research findings [37, 49]. One possible explanation for this phenomenon is that females have been observed to be more physiologically susceptible and responsive to the impact of stress, displaying more significant emotional reactions in their bodily responses to such experiences. As a result, females may perceive the same experience as more stressful when compared to males [1]. Another explanation for this finding could be attributed to the influence of traditional notions of masculinity and femininity on individuals' perceptions of daily experiences [14]. For instance, masculinity is associated with qualities like assertiveness, while femininity is linked to traits such as empathy. These divergent sex expectations may lead to conflicting internalization or externalization issues.

The second hypothesis posited that EI would negatively predict perceived stress. Consistent with this hypothesis, the results indicated a negative impact of EI on perceived stress. Similarly, previous research has also identified EI as a crucial factor in reducing perceived stress levels [31]. This finding emphasises the role of EI as an internal protective factor that helps individuals mitigate the effects of stress. Individuals with a higher ability to perceive, understand, use, and regulate emotions are better equipped to handle environmental pressures. Based on these results, it is possible to establish risk assessments for stress by examining an individual's levels of EI before implementing stress management interventions.

The third hypothesis proposed that EI would improve as individuals mature. Contrary to expectations, there was no significant enhancement in EI with age. Our findings contradict previous research that demonstrated significant advancements in EI as individuals grew older [22, 46]. One possible explanation for this contradictory finding was the specific age range of participants included in this study. Interestingly, a common trend in studies that showed significant improvements in EI involved participants spanning a wide age range, from adolescence to older adulthood [22, 46] whereas those that did not find significant increases are mostly studies focused on a certain age group (e.g., young adults, university students, middle-adulthood) [3, 10]. In our study, the majority of participants were in their 'early adulthood' phase (mean age = 23.31), which might restrict the ability to observe any significant associations between age and EI.

The fourth hypothesis suggested that EI would positively predict resilience. Consistent with this hypothesis, the data indicated a strong positive impact of EI on resilience levels. These results align with previous studies by Armstrong et al. and Schneider et al. [2, 44]. The findings underscore the significant role played by an individual's ability to accurately perceive, comprehend, facilitate, and manage their own emotions, as well as the emotions of others, in predicting their capacity to cope effectively with and recover from adversity or trauma. One possible explanation for this phenomenon is that emotionally intelligent individual possesses a heightened sense of self-assurance in their abilities, fostering the belief that they can triumph over challenging experiences [32]. Another factor contributing to this relationship is the enhanced capability of individuals with high EI to cultivate supportive social networks that provide crucial assistance during times of hardship, facilitating resilience and the ability to overcome distressing circumstances [20]. These findings suggest that EI training holds the potential to strengthen resilience by equipping individuals with the necessary skills to navigate and thrive in challenging situations.

The fifth hypothesis suggested that resilience would negatively predict perceived stress levels. As expected, perceived stress levels were forecasted by the individual’s resilience level. The results echo those in previous literature. Resilient individuals still experience negative emotions such as anger or sadness, but they recognise these feelings as temporary and manageable [20]. Resilience is seen as a resource that individuals may draw on to cope positively with stress and recover from the face of adversity and stress [9]. An individual’s ability to cope effectively with stress also reduces its negative effects on individuals such as poor dietary behaviours, burnout, and fatigue [9]. Consequently, resilience levels can also be used as an indicator of an individual’s risk of maladjustment to the outcomes of stress.

The final hypothesis suggested that resilience could act as a mediator between EI and perceived stress. Through mediational analyses, it was discovered that resilience fully mediated the relationship between EI and perceived stress, as the direct impact of EI on perceived stress was not statistically significant. These results aligned with the research conducted by Sarrionandia et al. [43], which also demonstrated the indirect role of EI in protecting individuals from stress through their possession of resilient qualities. EI may enhance an individual's resilience, indicating that resilience goes beyond merely a counterpart to psychological readjustment, as highlighted by Ong et al. [34]. It is likely that when individuals possess the ability to utilise their personal resources, they have a higher likelihood of overcoming stressful experiences and returning to their initial state of well-being. In essence, these findings suggest that resilience should not only be considered a subcomponent of psychological readjustment but something more significant [34].

Implications

This study has shed light on several aspects. Firstly, our findings have unveiled a discrepancy between sexes in the perception of stress, where females tend to experience a higher stress level than their counterparts. Given this, it is vital for future research to identify stressors that contribute to females' heightened vulnerability to stressful situations. Such research can provide valuable insights for policymakers when developing efficacious stress management initiatives that support females in dealing with stress. Secondly, our contradictory findings regarding the connection between age and EI further suggest that EI is likely to vary across stages of human development. Therefore, it is recommended that future research includes participants spanning a wide age range (e.g., from adolescence to early adulthood) when examining the relationship between age and EI.

Our study confirmed that EI and resilience are significant predictors of stress, establishing the initial groundwork for practical research aimed at developing treatment or prevention programs targeting perceived stress [11]. However, further mediation analyses have revealed that the effect of EI on stress is likely solely explained by resilience, indicating that resilience acts as a complete mediator between EI and perceived stress. In light of this finding, intervention programs should prioritise incorporating resilience skill training alongside support to enhance EI. These programs can be integrated within university settings and workplace environments. In university setting, resilience training is currently primarily offered in healthcare or medical programs due to the recognised stressfulness of these fields [9]. In light of this, universities should consider integrating resilience-promoting initiatives into a broader range of academic curricula while introducing EI training courses to enhance students' emotional competencies. By expanding the availability of resilience and EI training programmes, universities can equip students from various disciplines with valuable skills to effectively navigate challenges and improve their overall well-being. In the workplace context, it would be advantageous for companies to provide resilience and EI programmes so that their employees are more ‘resilient’. Lastly, our study has contributed to understanding by offering insights into the South-East Asian context, allowing for generalizations about the mediating role of resilience in the relationship between EI and perceived stress.

Limitations and future directions

It is crucial to acknowledge and address several limitations in this study while proposing avenues for further investigation. Firstly, there exists an imbalance in the sample concerning sex, with females outnumbering males by approximately threefold (152 vs 55). In future studies, efforts should be made to achieve a more balanced sample for sex-specific analyses, allowing for a more accurate representation of the effects observed. Secondly, it is crucial to note that while EI and resilience demonstrated a negative association with perceived stress, these relationships were assessed solely at a single time point, thereby limiting our ability to establish causality. To overcome this limitation, researchers should consider employing longitudinal studies that span extended periods, enabling the examination of predictive patterns over time and providing valuable insights into the dynamic nature of these relationships. Lastly, future studies should explore potential moderators of the relationship between EI, resilience, and perceived stress. Factors such as age, sex, and cultural influences may moderate these relationships, necessitating further exploration.

Conclusion

The relationship between EI, resilience, and perceived stress is intricate and multifaceted. The present study explored these interconnections among young adults in Malaysia while also assessing demographic differences in EI and stress levels. The data analysis supported all the proposed hypotheses except for the second hypothesis. The findings suggest that developing EI and resilience can assist individuals in altering their perspectives on stress and effectively managing their stress levels. Dismissing the impact of perceived stress can have severe consequences for individuals, affecting their physical and mental well-being. In summary, this study's results indicate that EI and resilience have a predictive effect on perceived stress, with resilience as the underlying mechanism explaining the relationship between EI and perceived stress. Confirming the full mediating role of resilience in reducing perceived stress suggests that future intervention programs should prioritise enhancing resilience levels, leading to significant benefits for the health of young adults.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Idea of the article: Jia Wei Gey, Chia Keat Yap, Kenneth Leow, Yueh Yea Lo; Literature Search: Jia Wei Gey, Yueh Yea Lo; Data Analysis: Jia Wei Gey, Kenneth Leow; Writing – original draft preparation: Jia Wei Gey, Chia Keat Yap, Kenneth Leow, Yueh Yea Lo; Writing – review and editing: Chia Keat Yap, Kenneth Leow, Yueh Yea Lo. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organisation for the submitted work.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the authors upon reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The ethics of this study align with the standards outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and the guidelines set forth by the American Psychological Association in 2017 regarding requirements for human research, which were approved including respect for the autonomy and confidentiality of individuals throughout the study process. The Institutional Ethics Committee of Heriot-Watt University approved this study [2022-3044-6940] prior to commencement of data collection. Written informed consent was obtained from the study participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

The authors affirm that the human research participant provided informed consent for publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.