Emotional intelligence and its effects on biomarkers of workplace stress

Jemma Bridget King BSc (), BBusMan (Hon 1st Class)

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2019 Business School

Abstract

Workplace stress is an insidious, pervasive, and increasing problem that contributes to psychological, psychosocial, and physiological declines to workers’ health. This thesis focuses on the effect of (EI) as a moderator of workplace stress, measured using biomarkers. EI is beneficial to workers because individuals with higher EI have stronger abilities, engender more , and perform cognitive tasks with less effort, resulting in greater life satisfaction and wellbeing. For these reasons, I argue that EI reduces workplace stress. However, research on EI and stress has long been hindered by subjective measures of both EI and stress. Physiological evidence that EI or EI training moderates the effects of work stress is lacking, and thus I investigate the relationship between EI, measured by the ability-based MSCEIT (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002), and physiological stress, measured using salivary cortisol, in two contexts—in a lab using university students, and in the field with Special military personnel. A common source of workplace stress is incivility. In the two lab studies, I assess the moderating effect of EI on participants who experienced stress during online interactions with supportive or uncivil supervisors (Study 1: N= 328,) and supportive, neutral, or uncivil supervisors (Study 2: N= 350). A 2x2x2 sampling model was developed in which subjects completed a business-like task with support or incivility from an online supervisor. EI and stress were recorded using a Mayer-Salovey-Caruso EI ability test and salivary cortisol. Based on COR theory, I hypothesised that EI associates with reduced stress and increased trust. Participants with high EI had a lower change in cortisol (i.e., less stress) in response to cyber-mediated incivility from supervisors than participants with low EI did. Individuals treated in a supportive, civil manner demonstrated significant reductions in cortisol when supervisors supported them. These results corroborate the proposition that individuals with high EI better moderate stress responses to workplace incivility than low EI individuals do. Using field studies, I tested whether EI training reduces physiological stress and increases cognitive function and behavioural performance in a real-world, extremely physical and emotionally high-risk/high-stress work environment. I expanded investigation to the effectiveness of a tailored EI training program. Research conducted in the Australian Special Forces included two studies (Study 3a: N= 35, Study 3b: N= 43), during which I examined the efficacy of EI training in managing stress during real military training exercises using salivary cortisol and Immunoglobin A (IgA) as objective indicators of stress and burnout in a practice-based, Commando population. Cognitive performance under stress was also

2 measured using behavioural performance activities. Soldiers were tested before, during, and after standard training protocols of rappelling, shoot-no-shoot, self-care under fire, urban precision strike, tolerance, and memory ability during distraction tasks. Results suggested that soldiers who received EI training were more effective at managing stress (i.e., had lower cortisol and protected immune function) and performed better, measured by the indicators of shoot-no-shoot outcomes under cognitive load, memory recall, and pain tolerance. No differences were found between treatment and control groups during the urban- precision-strike-direct-action and recovery-continuum and conduct-after-capture tasks, but results might have been limited by a small sample and insufficient testing times. In addition to biomarkers of stress, I used behavioural measures as indicators of training effectiveness, with results suggesting that EI associates with reduced stress and increased performance in most situations. This study demonstrates that work stress is inhibited by the actions of instructors and by support interventions to develop EI through training. EI has powerful capacities to build trust and improve relationships at work and home, protect physical and psychological wellness, and support leadership in organisations and society. These outcomes are encouraging and will aid expansion of EI study and development of civilian and military workplaces.

Keywords: emotional intelligence, stress, cortisol, workplace-incivility, trust, conservation of resources, EI training, high-risk occupations, allostatic load

3 Figure 1.1 Research Overview of Lab and Field Studies

Declaration by author This thesis is composed of my original work and contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly stated the contribution of others to jointly-authored works that I have included in my thesis. I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional editorial advice, financial support and any other original research work used or reported in my thesis. The content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the commencement of my higher degree by research candidature and does not include a substantial part of work that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated which parts of my thesis, if any, have been submitted to qualify for another award. I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University Library and, subject to the policy and procedures of The University of Queensland, the thesis be made available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 unless a period of embargo has been approved by the Dean of the Graduate School. I acknowledge that the copyright of all material contained in my thesis resides with the copyright holder(s) of that material. Where appropriate I have obtained copyright permission from the copyright holder to reproduce material in this thesis and have sought permission from co-authors for any jointly authored works included in the thesis.

6 Publications included in this thesis No publications included Statement of parts of the thesis submitted to qualify for the award of another degree No works submitted towards another degree have been included in this thesis Submitted manuscripts included in this thesis No additional manuscripts have been submitted for publication. Other publications during candidature Non-peer reviewed publications King. J. B. (2017). Shock and : Surviving stress in the Special Forces. Momentum UQ Business School. https://www.business.uq.edu.au/momentum/surviving-stress-special- forces King. J.B. (2014). Survival skill for stressed-out workers. Momentum UQ Business School. December 2014. https://www.business.uq.edu.au/momentum/survival-skills-stressed- out-workers

Conference abstracts King, J. B., Gillespie, N., Ashkanasy, N. (2017). Bringing physiology back into IO psychology, Professional Practice Forum. 12th Industrial and Organisational Psychology Conference, 2017. Orlando, Florida, USA. 26-29 April 2017. King, J. B. (2017). Examining emotional intelligence benefits for human-machine teaming. United States Office of Scientific Research and Asian Office of Aerospace Research & Development Presentation, UQ. Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 23 February, 2017. King, J. B., Ashkanasy, N. M., Gillespie, N., Gallagher, E. C., Bradley, A. J., Spiers, J. G., Hsiao-Jou, Cortina. Chen. (2016). Emotional intelligence buffers stress caused by supervisors who abuse trust: A cortisol study. 2016 Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, California, USA. 5-9 August, 2016. King, J. B., Ashkanasy, N. M., Gillespie, N., Gallagher, E. C. (2015). Emotional intelligence buffers stress caused by supervisors who abuse trust: A cortisol study. The 28th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, (21-25). 23-25 April, 2015. King, J. B. and Ashkanasy, N. M. (2013). Ability emotional intelligence moderates cortisol stress reactions to cyber-ostracism. In: Allison S. Gabriel and James M. Diefendorff, Novel Approaches to Conducting Research on Workplace : Symposium Forum Abstracts from SIOP 2013. SIOP 2013: The 28th Annual Conference of the Society for

7 Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Houston, Texas, USA, (21-25). 11-13 April, 2013. King, J. B. and Ashkanasy, N. M. (2013). Emotional intelligence moderates stress reactions to cyber-ostracism. In: SPSP 2013: 14th Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and , New Orleans, LA, USA, (177-177). 17-19 January, 2013.

Contributions by others to the thesis This thesis was guided by my supervisors, Professors Neal Ashkanasy and Nicole Gillespie, regarding the research design, methods and, conduct, and it was revised based on their advice and comments. Dr. Adrian J. Bradley advised me on methods regarding collection and analysis of salivary cortisol, and coordinated and participated in laboratory work associated with ELISA measurement and analysis of salivary cortisol. Jeremey Spears and Cortina Lim performed the ELISA assays. Statistical advice was provided by Erin Gallagher, Karen Kusuma, and Trent Henderson, and Amanda Niehaus provided assistance with copyediting. This study was supported by the Australian Army Research Scheme (2015, 2016) and Australian Research Council (DP130102625) funding, awarded to Dr. Sandra Lawrence, Professor Peter Jordan, and Associate Professor Ashlea Troth at Griffith University (2013).

Research Involving Human or Animal Subjects Chapter 2—Emotional Intelligence: An Investigation into the Relationship between Stress as Measured by Cortisol and Emotional Regulation Capabilities was approved by The University of Queensland Behavioural and Social Sciences Ethical Review Committee on the 31st December 2013 (Appendix 2).

Chapter 3—Psychological Edge Training was approved by The University of Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee approved on 2 June 2016 and approval is valid until 26th May 2019 (Appendix 3). This project was also authorised by the Australian Defence Human Research Ethics Committee (#813-15) for three years, beginning 27 May 2016 (Appendix 4).

Data were collected and stored in a manner compliant with the guidelines provided by the University of Queensland Ethical Review Committee and the Australian Defence Human Research Ethics Committee.

8 Financial support This research was supported by the Australian Army Research Scheme (2015, 2016) and in part by an Australian Research Council (DP130102625) funding, awarded to Dr Sandra Lawrence and her team at Griffith University (2013).

Keywords Stress, cortisol, emotional intelligence, incivility, MSCEIT, emotional-intelligence training, human performance, Special Forces

Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classifications (ANZSRC) Provide data that links your thesis to the disciplines and discipline clusters in the Federal Government’s Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) initiative.

ANZSRC code: 910402, Management, 70% ANZSRC code: 910405, Public Sector Productivity, 20% ANZSRC code: 810109, Defence 10%

Fields of Research (FoR) Classification FoR code: 1503, Management, 60% FoR code: 1701, Psychology, 30% FoR code: 8101, Defence 10%

9 Acknowledgements I would like to express my in acknowledging all those who have contributed professionally and personally to help realise the completion of this thesis. Many people have journeyed with me to this point in my career, some of whom are not listed here, but definitely cherished in my heart. I would first like to extend my deepest appreciation to my supervisors, Neal Ashkanasy and Nicole Gillespie, for your invaluable guidance and continued support. I extend a special acknowledgement to Bill von Hippel for your mentorship, strong shoulders, wisdom, inspiration and steadfast belief in me. My gratitude is also extended to my readers, Tyler Okimoto and Yiqiong Li for your professional dedication and insightful comments, enriching the quality of the research undertaken. Thank you also to the chair of the research committee, Stephen Jones, as well as the faculty administrative team. Thank you to my examiners who provided insightful and valuable recommendations to the thesis. I would like to especially thank the dedicated staff members of the 2nd Commando Regiment and the Special Forces Training and Education Centre who were passionate about improving the mental and physical wellbeing of their soldiers, and for permitting me accesses to investigate their world. In particular, Matthew Cardinaels, who without his vision for the Human Performance Wing, his tireless dedication, hard work, persistence and belief in my project, this research would not have been possible. Thank you for being the only person who said “Don’t give up, you can do it” when all others believed the approval process was too hard. My appreciation extends to all those that have contributed by providing friendship and support over the years. Most importantly my gorgeous children, Jack, Lily and Georgie, who experienced many sacrifices, with a Mum whose head was often buried in a laptop over the years. Thank you for being understanding, patient and encouraging. I also wish to thank my family, my wonderful Mum who has been a constant source of support and encouragement throughout my whole University career. She would drop everything to come and help with the kids and was always there for me. To my sister Bec and Dad for your support. To my Aunt Odette, who helped me learn how to write and got me through my honours. To my fellow students at the University of Queensland Business School. To all the colleagues that I had the privilege to work, study, laugh and cry with. Thank you.

Brisbane, October 2019 Jemma King

10

CONTENTS

Abstract ...... 2

Chapter 1 - General Introduction ...... 17

1.1 Thesis focus and motivation ...... 17 1.2 Research Questions...... 23 1.3 Research Approach ...... 23 1.4 Stress: History and Concepts...... 25 1.5 Self-report measures and limitations in stress research ...... 30 1.6 Emotional Intelligence History and Concepts ...... 36 1.7 The Ability Model of EI (MSCEIT) ...... 37 1.8 Emotional Intelligence as a Buffer for Stress...... 38 1.9 Overview of the Thesis ...... 41

Chapter 2. Ability Emotional Intelligence Reduces Stress Caused by Incivility: ‘A Cortisol Study’ ...... 42

2.1 Abstract ...... 42 2.2 Introduction ...... 43 2.3 Rationale for the study ...... 44 2.4 Literature Review ...... 46

2.4.1 Conceptualizing Workplace Incivility ...... 46 2.4.2 Cyber-incivility ...... 48 2.4.3 Stress Caused by Incivility: Conservation of Resources Theory ...... 49 2.4.4 Incivility and Untrustworthiness as a Resource Losses ...... 50 2.4.5 Measuring Stress using Salivary Cortisol ...... 50 2.4.6 Emotional Intelligence and Supervisor Incivility...... 51

2.5 Study 1...... 55 2.6 Method ...... 56

2.6.1 Participants ...... 56 2.6.2 Procedure and Design...... 56 2.6.3 Measures...... 57 2.6.4 Manipulation Checks...... 58

11 2.7 Results ...... 58

2.7.1 Descriptive Statistics ...... 58 2.7.2 Incivility manipulation check ...... 59 2.7.3 Trust manipulation check ...... 59 2.7.4 Effects of Supervisory Style on Change in Cortisol...... 61 2.7.5 Effects of Supervisory Style and EI on Change in Cortisol...... 62

2.8 Study 2...... 63 2.9 Method ...... 63 2.10 Results ...... 64

2.10.1 Effects of Supervisory Style on Cortisol...... 64 2.10.2 Effects of Supervisory Style and Emotional Intelligence (EI) on Change in Cortisol. 65

2.11 Discussion ...... 69

2.11.1 Practical implications ...... 70 2.11.2 Methodological Implications...... 70 2.11.3 Limitations and Future Directions...... 71

2.12 Rationale for Field Study ...... 72

CHAPTER 3- A Pre-emptive Approach to Stress Management in High-Risk Work Contexts: Emotional Intelligence Training and Bio-Measures of Stress- Field Studies ...... 73

3.1 Abstract ...... 73 3.2 Introduction ...... 74 3.3 Background ...... 74 3.4 Stress in high-risk occupations...... 75 3.5 Emotional Intelligence ...... 75 3.6 Workplace Stress in High-Risk Occupations ...... 77 3.7 Rationale for a Field Study among Special Forces Soldiers ...... 80 3.8 Allostatic Load Model and a Bio-Psycho-Social Perspective of Stress ...... 81 3.9 Long-term Influences of Stress ...... 82 3.10 Biological Measures of Stress versus Self Report ...... 83 3.11 Emotional Intelligence: Conceptualisation and Measurement ...... 84 3.12 Developing EI Skills through Training Interventions...... 88 3.13 Conservation of Resources, Stress, and Emotional Intelligence Training ...... 90

12 3.13.1 Stress as a resource loss ...... 91 3.13.2 Impact of Stress on Behaviour ...... 92

3.14 Method ...... 93

3.14.1 Research Context: The Australian Special Forces ...... 93 3.14.2 Psych-Edge Training ...... 94 3.14.3 Solder Buy-In ...... 95

3.15 Research Design ...... 96

3.15.1 Treatment Group Training ...... 96 3.15.2 Control Group Training ...... 96 3.15.3 Recruitment ...... 97 3.15.3 Participants ...... 97 3.15.4 Demographic ...... 97 3.14.5 Procedure and Design...... 98 3.15.6 Measures...... 100 3.15.7 Procedures for Physiological Measurement ...... 102 3.15.8 Saliva testing Protocol ...... 102 3.15.9 Psychological Measures ...... 102 3.15.10 Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test ...... 103 3.15.11 The Combat Exposure Scale ...... 103 3.15.12 Intelligence Quotient Abbreviated Ravens Progressive Matrices ...... 103

3.16 Results ...... 104

3.16.1 Pre-Treatment Differences between Control and Treatment Groups ... 104 3.16.2 Hypothesis Testing ...... 106 3.16.3 Correlations ...... 114

3.17 Discussion ...... 116

3.17.1 Summary and Interpretation of Findings ...... 117 3.17.2 Contributions ...... 118 3.17.3 Limitations and Future Research...... 119 3.17.4 Practical Implications ...... 120

3.17.5 Conclusion ...... 120

CHAPTER 4 - OVERALL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...... 122

4.1 Background to this research ...... 123

13 4.2 Contributions ...... 126 4.3 Methodological Implications...... 129 4.4 Practical implications ...... 130 4.5 Limitations and Future Research...... 134 4.6 Conclusion ...... 136

References ...... 138 APPENDIX A ...... 187 APPENDIX B ...... 190 APPENDIX C ...... 193 APPENDIX D ...... 199 APPENDIX E ...... 200 APPENDIX F...... 201 APPENDIX G ...... 202 APPENDIX H ...... 203 APPENDIX I ...... 204 APPENDIX J ...... 205

APPENDIX K………………………………………………………………………………204 APPENDIX L……………………………………………………………………………….207

14

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Multilevel topology of stress Table 1.2 A List of Laboratory Studies Investigating EI and Stress Using the MSCEIT. Table 2.1 Types of incivility Table 2.2 Descriptive statistics and psychometric properties of measured variables Table 2.3 Correlations among Trust, Civility, and Cortisol Table 2.4 Bivariate correlations among age, gender, and other focal variables Table 2.5 Hierarchal regression analysis for predicting change in cortisol Table 3.1 Emotional factors identified as important for high-functioning SF soldiers Table 3.2 Studies, Samples, and Variables Included in Pre–Post and Treatment–Control Using MSCEIT Table 3.3 Participant demographics Table 3.4 Independent Groups T-test Results for Pre-Treatment Differences

Table 3.5 Correlations Between T1 Cortisol and Behavioural Performance Results

Table 3.6 Correlations Between T2 Cortisol and Behavioural Performance Results Table 3.7 Correlations Between T3 Cortisol and Behavioural Performance Results

15 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Overarching Conceptual Model Figure 2.1 The effect of incivility manipulation on incivility ratings. Error bars represent standard errors Figure 2.2 The effect of incivility manipulation on incivility ratings Figure 2.3 The effect of trust manipulation on trust ratings for the supportive conditions (a) and for the uncivil conditions (b) Figure 2.4 The effect of supervisory style on cortisol levels Figure 2.5 The effect of supervisory style on change in cortisol Figure 3.1 Day-rappel off a 90ft mock helicopter tower Figure 3.2 Stroop shooting T1 Figure 3.3 Stoop shooting T2 Figure 3.4 Conduct after capture Figure 3.5 Urban PSDARC Figure 3.6 Behavioural performance (a) maths questions and (b) Stroop shoot Figure 3.7 Memory recall Figure 3.8 Pain tolerance Figure 3.9 Post training comparison of group average IgA levels Figure 3.10 Comparison of average baseline versus post training IgA levels at three points in time

16 CHAPTER 1 - GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1 Thesis focus and motivation

This thesis investigates moderation of emotional intelligence (EI) on workplace stress and explores the effectiveness of EI training in high-stress, high-risk environments. I examined the relationship between workplace stress and EI using biological measures of the stress hormone cortisol, the burnout immune factor IgA, and the MSCEIT ability test for EI. This study overcame a common in EI studies—subjective measures. I investigated the relationship between EI and physiological stress, as measured by the hormone cortisol, in workers who experienced incivility from supervisors (Chapter 2). I tested whether EI training reduces physiological stress and increases cognitive function and behavioural outcomes during stress for Special Forces soldiers who routinely operate in extreme physical and emotional environments (Chapter 3). This study was motivated by a shortage of empirically based EI, incivility, and stress research that does not use self-reports. Common limitations of self-report survey data created an impetus to investigate workplace stress using objective measures. Emotional Intelligence. Over the past two decades and as part of the affective revolution (Barsade & Gibson, 2007), EI theory and research have generated great expectations (Ashkanasy & Dasborough, 2015). EI is an umbrella construct that captures how people perceive, manage, use, and understand their own and others’ (Zeidner et al., 2009). A substantial body of research focuses on the potential benefits of EI skills for employees, leaders, teams, HR practitioners, and organisations, particularly concerning buffering the influence of workplace stress on EI skill. A growing multi-billion-dollar EI consulting industry is in some cases established on the many hyperbolic claims regarding the practical value that EI and EI training provide at work. EI is a multifaceted construct that encompasses a range of skills, including individual, interpersonal, and intrapersonal abilities at perceiving and understanding emotions, using emotional information, and managing emotions (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). EI is thus an advantageous skill for individuals and those around them when experiencing workplace stress. Many researchers argue that in comparison to low-EI individuals, high-EI individuals experience less distress and occupational burnout, suffer from fewer somatic and negative emotional symptoms, are less likely to be diagnosed with physical and psychiatric illness, and enjoy better wellbeing and health-related quality of life (Keefer, Saklofske & Parker, 2018; Martins, Ramalho, & Morin, 2010; Mikolajczak, Roy,

17 Luminet Fillée & de Timary, 2007; Zeidner, Mathews, & Roberts 2012). Protective effects of high-EI in health and wellbeing are stronger in high-stress conditions, and EI represents a psychological resource that supports stress-coping. It is crucial, however, to bridge the gap between EI workplace stress-connection, pop- psychology claims and academic research, some of which is constrained by low methodological standards, use of single-source, self-report measures, and differing conceptualisations of EI. For example, a large body of research evidences an association between EI and workplace stress (Ashkanasy, Hartel & Daus, 2002; Carrillo et al., 2018; Caruso & Wolfe, 2001; Donaldson-Feilder, & Bond, 2004; Cartwright, & Pappas, 2008; Lu & Kuo, 2016; Mikolajczak, Roy, Luminet Fillée & de Timary, 2007; Nikolaou, & Tsaousis, 2002; Oginska-Bulik, 2005; Sunil & Rooprai, 2009;), but no study demonstrates a correlation between the moderating effect of EI using non-self-reports or ability-based EI measures in combination with objective measures of stress. Much EI research uses non-naturalistic lab settings and student samples, and thus the association between EI and stress is not often examined in a real-world setting with authentic interpersonal dynamics and stress situations that pose real consequences. I explain how this thesis circumvents these limitations and demonstrates the value of EI and EI training in both controlled and realistic environments. Testing the effectiveness of EI in both environments makes this study generalisable to other populations. Stress Definition. The term stress is used to categorise many human experiences, whose definition depends on personal views, experiences, and disciplinary perspectives. For example, a biologist’s definition has different assumptions, boundary conditions, connotations, and consequences than that of a psychologist, an epidemiologist, an economist, or layperson. Stress can be explicated and assessed based on physiological reactivity, endocrinological responses, patterns of neural activities, emotional or affective (i.e., trait and state) ratings, and self-reported appraisals and perceptions, and includes inferential, objective, and proxy measures. Each category of measurement differs in the core principles used to understand, interpret, and extrapolate meaning, though all tap a similar experience—a state of activation that occurs in response to an external stimulus, characterised by cognitive, emotional, behavioural, and physiological reactivity. Many researchers (Ashkanasy, Ashton- James, & Jordan, 2004; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Selye, 1956) concur that stress signals adaptive changes to real or perceived environmental stimuli or demands and is necessary to maintain biological homeostasis and personal wellbeing.

18 Despite the breadth of the topic, most researchers acknowledge that stress affects all dimensions of modern living and is critical to human health, wellbeing, and aging (Cooper & Quick, 2017; Epel et al., 2018). Researchers such as Cohen, Janicki-Deverts, and Miller (2007) demonstrate that stressful events link with psychological health and catalyse many major psychopathologies. Stress associates with an increased risk of diseases, such as infections, cardiovascular heart diseases, and hypertension (Cohen, Janicki-Deverts, & Miller, 2007; de Vente, van Amsterdam, Olff, Kamphuis, & Emmelkamp, 2015). All workers experience stress, and in some forms, such as eustress, it can be advantageous for motivating employees and instigating change within organisations (Brulѐ & Morgan, 2018; Nelson & Simmons, 2011). However, when workers experience persistent, unrelenting stress, with little or no control, and are unable to see any benefit, way out, or end to the state, stress becomes damaging. Stress is a Problem. According to American Psychological Society surveys (APA, 2014), consensus suggests that stress levels are consistently higher than what people deem is a healthy level of stress. Work stress is the primary cause of stress for adults, and its prevalence has escalated over the past few decades (APA, 2016). Stress has even been called the health epidemic of the 21st century by the World Health Organization (WHO) (Fink, 2016, p. 3). The WHO Global Burden of Disease Survey estimated that by 2020, the pervasiveness of and disorders, including stress-related disorders, will be second only to heart disease in terms of influence and debilitation on sufferers. The incidence of stress is also a significant burden on the economy, with WHO estimating that stress will cost American businesses over $300 billion annually. In Australia, a 2015 Australian Psychological Society (APS) survey found that 26% of Australians reported moderate to severe distress related to workplace issues (APS, 2015). One in five of these workers reported that their stress was having a strong to powerful influence on their physical health, and one in seven reported anxiety and depressive symptoms in severe to extremely severe ranges. Significantly higher than those from the previous five years, these figures suggest a progressive, negative trend in workers’ psychological, psychosocial, and physiological wellbeing. Since the average adult spends much of his or her day at work, it is critical that stress, a pervasive workplace issue, receives more (Leiter & Maslach, 2016). Researchers have developed numerous frameworks that explain how environmental and individual pre-conditions (i.e., antecedent events) create, manifest, and influence people (Cotton & Hart, 2003) describe how the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989) encapsulates how stress, irrespective of its source (i.e.,

19 physical, environmental, psychological, real, or imagined) creates a negative spiral, and how EI moderates the relationship. Stress and Conservation of Resources Theory. By conceptualising stress through Hobfoll’s (1989) conservation of resources theory, it is evident that an individuals’ personal resources, such as physiological and psychological safety, wellbeing, and self-esteem, are threatened by frequent exposures to work stress. The theory highlights the value of guarding personal resources, categorised as objects (e.g., material possessions), conditions (e.g., secure employment), energies (e.g., physical stamina, cognitive processing, money, and time) (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001), and individual characteristics (e.g., self-esteem, , and emotional stability) (Gorgievski & Hobfoll, 2008; Sulsky & Smith, 2005). According to the theory, individuals avoid activities that deplete resources unnecessarily and engage in activities that maintain, replenish, and foster resource growth. According to Hobfoll (1989), stress occurs when individuals believe that “resource loss is disproportionately more salient than resource gain” (p. 62). When an individual perceives a situation, such as incivility at work, as threatening (i.e., a potential employment instability), whether real or imagined, an ancient survival, threat-detection mechanism causes people to loss and activates a response to prepare for it (Pryluk, Kfir, Gelbard-Sagiv, Fried, & Paz, 2019). I discuss how COR relates to both EI and sources of stress. Why individuals experience stress differently. When exposed to the same difficult or challenging circumstance, two individuals will not necessarily appraise it the same way or experience the same degree of stress (Luria & Torjman, 2009; Meurs & Perrewé, 2011). Inconsistencies, therefore, exist among the negative repercussions of workplace stress across workers. One factor of influence is individual variations in attitudinal, dispositional processes (Martinko, Harvey, Brees, & Mackey, 2013), and interpretation of ambiguous behaviours. For example, supervisor behaviours such as abrupt language, direct questioning, attention withdrawal, and constructive criticism might be deemed acceptable by more resilient workers, appraising the situation as manageable, innocuous or just what is needed to get the job done, but some workers might appraise such behaviours as unacceptable and uncivil, and thus be more susceptible to experiencing stress. I argue that EI explains such individual variability in responses to stress (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Petrides & Furnham, 2001). Stress & Emotional Intelligence. EI is an individual difference that helps people cope with workplace stress. Research suggests that EI moderates the influence that workplace stressors have on the subjective experience of stress. Schneider, Lyons and Khazon (2013) found that individuals who scored high in ability-based EI measures reported lower threat

20 appraisals, negative emotions, and physiological stress responses over time in relation to cognitive and social stress. Research also suggests that EI training helps people manage workplace stress better, since several researchers argue that emotional intelligence is a skill that correlates with positive outcomes for workers dealing with stress (Duncan et al., 2013; Eack et al., 2010; Martins, Ramalho & Morin, 2010; Miao, Humphrey & Qian, 2017; Zeidner, Hadar, Matthews & Roberts, 2013; Zeidner & Matthews, 2016; Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2012). Ashkanasy and Dorris (2017) and Cotê (2014) argue that EI improves workers’ perceptions of and emotional responses to work stress. I argue that EI skills improve work stress. Mayer and Salovey (1997) defined EI as a set of interrelated abilities that empower individuals to understand and use emotions to make effective decisions. Individuals with high EI can manipulate the emotions of others, separate their emotions from others or situations, and monitor their own thoughts and activities. High EI associates with greater psychological wellbeing (Austin, Saklofske, & Egan, 2005) and coping abilities (Bastian, Burns, & Nettelbeck, 2005). Schutte, Malouff, and Thorsteinsson, (2013) suggest that EI skills and training interventions help workers deal with the stresses they experience, calling for further exploration of the efficacy and utility of new and current EI interventions. EI relates to workplace stress (Slaski & Cartwright, 2003) since EI skills correlate with many critical work-related outcomes such as competent leadership, management skills, work satisfaction, and worker turnover (Clarke, 2010a; Codier, Kamikawa & Kooker, 2011; Meyer, Fletcher & Parker, 2004). Few studies, however, use objective measures to examine this correlation. Many studies record stress in participants by asking them to report how they feel, rather than measuring reactivity or levels of stress hormones (Mikolajczak, et al., 2007; Wilbraham, Qualter, & Roy, 2018). No studies link EI with the physiological indicator of burnout and immune function decrements caused by stress (Dunbar, Armitage, Jehanli, & Browne, 2014), and nor have studies assessed whether EI training interventions reduce workers’ cortisol, in part because the conceptual definition of EI is still unclear and research outcomes depend heavily on which approach is used (Caruso, Salovely, Brackett & Mayer, 2015). Ashkanasy and Daus (2005) categorise the most common theoretical approaches to EI, referring to them as 1) a cluster of traits, 2) an ability, or 3) a mixed model. The trait perspective defines EI as dispositional traits related to emotions that govern the way individuals act during emotional situations (Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinakim, 2007). EI is then conceptually similar to stable personality traits, thus lacking plasticity and is resistant to

21 change (Austin, Saklofske, & Eagan, 2005; Petrides & Furnham, 2007). The mixed model encompasses several self-report instruments that measure various aspects of , personality and affect. In contrast, Mayer and Salovey (1997) defined EI as an ability, using the four-branch model that distinguishes abilities to perceive, facilitate thought, understand, and manage emotions (Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2004). As abilities (Salovey & Mayer, 1990), EI can be taught, fostered, and enhanced, making it amenable to change. Outcomes likely differ greatly between studies by researchers who considered EI a trait (Petrides et al., 2016) versus an ability (Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2004). I demonstrate how EI and EI training relates to workplace stress using the most objective models and methods possible. Allsopp, DeMarie, Alvarez-McHatton, and Doone (2006) argue that there is disconnect between theory and practice, particularly when dealing with organisational and educational interventions. Training interventions are time consuming and expensive and buy-in from participants and stakeholders cannot be guaranteed. The efficacy of interventions is difficult to determine, particularly when content is based on a construct such as EI. Results of interventions might also not be evident immediately, and it is therefore paramount that researchers validate interventions empirically before using them across organisations on a large scale. This thesis serves as a template for future studies and training programs of this kind. Stress caused by incivility at work. Workplace stress is a dynamic condition in which an individual confronts real or perceived constraint, demand, or opportunity that relates directly to something he or she wants to be, do, or have, and during which its attainment is important but uncertain (McGrath, 1976; Schuler, 1980). One pervasive form of stressor is incivility, which is particularly prevalent in workplaces. Nearly all workers experience some form of incivility at work, including sarcasm, inappropriate questioning, unwanted personal discussions, and demeaning remarks. Although incivility is less obvious than bullying, it has powerful, detrimental effects on targets, reducing self-esteem and inciting of that eventuate in increased withdrawal at work. Workplace incivility is exacerbated by increased reliance on cyber communication, which alters communication norms by reducing visual and emotional cues and depersonalising interactions. Incivility is encouraged by anonymity, lack of accountability, and reduced likelihood of direct retribution. Stress caused by uncivil interactions, unpredictability, and dangers at work ties with many negative outcomes for workers (Sliter, Withrow, & Jex, 2015), and ultimately diminishes performance (Park & Haun, 2018). Research suggests that EI moderates perceived psychological consequences of work stress (Slaski & Cartwright, 2007), but few studies used

22 the biological marker of cortisol to assess whether stress is reduced from a physiological perspective (Schilpzand, de Pater, and Erez, 2014). Limitations of EI and stress research. This thesis was motivated by lack of physiological evidence for EI and EI training as moderators of work stress. Many researchers and consultants claim that their EI training interventions have positive influences on health and wellbeing, but such claims rely on self-report or anecdotal evidence (Karimi, Leggat, Bartram, Rada, 2018; Schutte, Malouff & Thorsteinsson, 2013). Although self-report data have been common in formal psychological inquiry since its inception, concerns exist. Reliability of respondents’ answers, retrospective memory, lack of insight, and subjectivity are arguments that challenge the validity of self-report measures. Limitations of self-report and hence the argument to use biological measures of stress are discussed in Section 1.4.

1.2 Research Questions.

The research questions addressed in this thesis are: 1) Does emotional intelligence have a moderating effect on stress? 2) Can emotional intelligence be trained and have a positive effect on stress and performance? To avoid self-report that are common in EI and stress research, I used objective measures for both stress and EI in all studies comprising this thesis. Specifically, I measured stress through salivary cortisol (all 4 studies), and in a field study, burnout was measured using the antibody Immunoglobin A (IgA). In relation to EI, I used the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso EI Test (MSCEIT), a test based on participants’ abilities to perceive, use, manage, and understand emotions (Mayer et al., 2002). I also used several subjective indicators of both stress and EI to examine the correspondence between objective and subjective indicators.

1.3 Research Approach

The research questions address the moderating effect of EI and EI training on stress and behaviour by using a quantitative methodology based on the positivist paradigm, an objective approach that examines and describes relationships among phenomena (Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart, & Lalive, 2010). Positivism assumes that an objective, stable, and predictable reality exists, independent from human consciousness (Dick, 2000), and

23 ascertainable facts and associations between them are revealed through scientific measurement (Hesse, 1980). The choice to use a mixed model (i.e., lab experiments and an intervention field study) was influenced strongly by known limitations of self-reports (Podsakoff & Podsakoff, 2019). An example of these limitations includes individuals’ unwillingness or inability to acknowledge and report their experiences with stress, influenced by many subjective factors (e.g., culture, insight, and impression management) that limit accuracy. An advantage of randomised lab experiments is that investigators can address concerns about endogeneity (Podsakoff & Podsakoff, 2019). A condition necessary for establishing causality is reducing the possibility that some factor other than a manipulated, independent variable is influencing the dependent variable. Random assignment to conditions in experiments creates a context in which an independent variable is uncorrelated with other unmeasured variables, allowing investigators to observe or measure behavioural outcomes directly. Experiments, however, are often criticised due to unrealistic laboratory settings and hence limited real-world applications, and thus care was taken in the design of the experiments to emulate realistic settings that workers experience when communicating virtually. During these experiments, I examined workplace stress between supervisors and subordinates (Chapter 1, Studies 1 and 2) by placing workers in a virtual chat function (Singleton & Straits, 2010). Although participants in the first two studies were students, the scenario emulated the type of virtual communication commonly found in organisations (Wu, Yim, Kwan, & Zhang, 2012). This study was then extended to a real-world, high-stress context. The motivation to conduct an intervention design field study was three-fold. First was to test whether lab findings were generalisable to a real-world context. Second was to provide practitioners and individuals who work in high-stress environments with practical and implementable strategies to help moderate workplace stress. Third, was to assess whether the buffering influence of EI training held when not only psychological stakes were high, but when a physical threat was involved, and the consequences of non-performance were real and important to participants. Field studies (Chapter 3, Study 3a & b) validated applications of this thesis because independent variables were tested in a context that was manipulated, but with stressors as close to real-world scenarios as possible. Field experiments are limited by unaccounted-for, confounding variables that might influence participants in the field, but the present combination of a series of laboratory studies, followed by a field study, strengthened the

24 robustness of results and constructs under investigation. Studies of EI and stress typically use self-report surveys, which are limited by issues such as impression management (Brackett, Rivers, Bertoli, & Salovey, 2016) and self-report biases (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012), and might offer questionable insights into the stress state (Meyerson, 1994; Paulhus, Lysy, & Yik, 1998). I reduced such limitations by using the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso EI Test (MSCEIT) to measure EI (Mayer & Salovey, 1997), a biological marker, cortisol, to measure physiological stress (Schultz, Chen, & Edington, 2009), and Immunoglobulin A to measure burnout objectively.

1.4 Stress: History and Concepts

Stress and its adverse effects have been known for a long time (Fink, 2010). Bernard (1859) was first to document how cells and tissues of multicellular organisms are sheltered from stress, noticing that cells behave in different ways to disparate environmental forces and concluding that cells seek to balance acid/base, gaseous (i.e., and carbon dioxide), and ion , and other biochemical functions. Fifty years later, Cannon (1932) coined and popularised the process described by Bernard with the term homeostasis (from the Greek homios, or similar, and stasis, or position), referring to an organism’s coordination of physiological processes to maintain the most stable, least-vacillated state. Cannon also created the phrase fight or flight to describe an animal’s threat response, proposing that immediate stressors activate the sympathetic nervous system and provide an animal with resources to fight or flee. Cannon described a variety of threats to homeostasis in humans that activate the fight-or-flight response and elicit activation of the adrenal medulla and sympathetic nervous system, including exposure to cold, hypotensive haemorrhage, traumatic pain, insulin-induced hypoglycaemia, and emotional distress. Later, the sympathetic nervous response was recognised as the first stage in Selye’s (1950) stress research of generalised adaptation syndrome (GAS). As a medical student, Selye observed many unspecific symptoms in patients that arose in response to stressful stimuli. Laboratory experiments, coupled with clinical observations, led Selye to suggest that persistent, prolonged exposure to a stress stimulus led to diseases of adaptation (Selye, 1956). His GAS hypothesis predicted that overproduction of stress hormones and chemicals led directly to high blood and gastrointestinal ulcers. Although the GAS hypothesis was subsequently shown to be only partially correct, his research highlighted the influence of stress on the adrenal glands and immune function. In

25 addition to providing the first clear definition of stress, Selye (1973) also identified that homeostasis alone was insufficient to ensure the stability of bodily processes under stress. He coined the term heterostasis (from the Greek heteros, or others) to describe the condition under which the body changes, stimulating adaptive physiological mechanisms. His idea that stability is achieved through change was foundational to allostasis, which was established primarily through neurobiologist Peter Sterling and epidemiologist Joseph Eyer. Sterling and Eyer (1988) used the term to explain how the body maintains homeostasis in changing environments through allocation of metabolic resources, which is conducted with the assistance of the brain and endocrine system in providing regulatory feedback (Cicchetti, 2011). According to McEwan and Stellar (1993), the allostatic load is the price the body pays for maintaining stability during sustained stressors. Juster, McEwan, and Lupien (2010) suggested that chronic dysregulation of interconnected adaptive biological systems causes maladaptive physical conditions and psychological instability. Lupien et al. (2006) described how a general biological process, specifically designed to help the body adapt to stress in the short-term, is the system that incites pathology if left unmanaged or overworked. Accordingly, stress has been called the spice of life and the kiss of death (Cooper & Quick 2017). Many studies define stress using a cognitive perspective, such as the transactional theory advanced by Lazarus and Folkman (1984). In this conceptualisation, stress arises when an individual perceives the demands of an external stimulus to be larger than his or her ability to deal with, mitigate, or change those demands (Lazarus et al, 1985). Brough, O’Driscoll, Kalliath, Cooper, and Poelmans (2009) and Cox, Griffiths and Rial (2010) conceptualised stress using transactional theory in three categories—stress as an external stimulus, stress as a response, and stress as an interaction between an individual and environment. This supported earlier research that suggested that cognitive and phenomenological processes permit individuals to ascribe meaning to their environments, so it is neither the environment nor the individual that produces stress, but a complex interplay between the two (Folkman, 1984; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Transactional theory suggests that an individual’s reaction to stress is determined by three types of cognitive appraisal—primary, secondary, and reappraisal. Primary appraisal is a subjective interpretation of the level of significance, threat, or danger of an event based on a question such as “Does this situation affect me personally?” If the individual appraises the situation and decides it does, and the stressor exceeds the individual’s perception of available resources or the capacity to deal with the event, he or she experiences stress. A secondary

26 appraisal is a judgment concerning the question “What, if anything, can be done about this situation?” (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 31). The individual considers possible actions and evaluates the advantages and consequences of engaging in such actions, given personal goals and perceived constraints. The names of these two types of appraisal (i.e., primary and secondary) suggest that they occur in that order, yet both types of appraisal can occur simultaneously; both types have a bi-directional relationship (i.e., each affects the other) and should, therefore, as Lazarus and Folkman (1984) and Terry, Tonge, and Callan (1995) suggested, still be regarded as different. Finally, a reappraisal is a subsequent evaluation based on new information acquired from the environment and person during the event. There exist many ways to measure, appraise, and feel stress, and many situations and timescales in which it occurs. Table 1.1 shows topological categories of stress and stress aspects, including research references. The categories include the timescale of stress, typical measurement timeframes, attributes of the stressor, and subjective and behavioural responses to stress.

Table 1.1 Multilevel Topology of Stress Type of stress Examples References A.Timescale of stress Short-term or in-the-moment exposure under 1.Acute stressors standardised laboratory conditions or Roos et al. (2017) naturalistic Minor hassles that happen frequently (e.g., Li, Starr, & Hershenberg 2. Daily small arguments, rushing, deadlines, childcare (2017); Falconier et al. events/hassles strains) (2015) Event-based (i.e., episodic and with an identifiable onset such as being involved in an accident, being fired from a job, a partner Brindhamani & 3.Life events ending a relationship, a life-threatening Manichander (2014) diagnosis, a traumatic event in which physical and/or psychological safety is threatened) Stressors identified by third-party observers, Serido, Almeida, & 4.Chronic stressors interviewers, or raters; classified as stressful Wethington (2004) for more than 6 months B.Measurement timeframe Data captured in the moment or self-reports Cohen, Kessler, & 1.Current rating can also be past measures (e.g., the past 5 Gordon, (1997) minutes or hour) Usually given at end of the day or reporting Cohen, Kessler, & 2. Daily rating day Gordon, (1997) 3.Retrospective Periods of more than a day (e.g., week, month, Cohen, Kessler, & period year, lifetime) Gordon, (1997) 4. Proximal A continuous variable, such as the number of Cohen, Kessler, &

27 exposure to hours or years since an event occurred. Applies Gordon, (1997) stressor to objective assessment since subjective retrospective events are more difficult to recall C. Attributes of stressor Captured in units of measurement, such as 1.Duration Hicks & Garcia (1987) seconds, minutes, days, months, or years Measured using a continuous scale, by self or Vagg & Spielberger 2.Severity others, with low to high intensity (1999) Related to a task that is either uncontrollable 3.Controllability (e.g., in-shock test) or controllable (e.g., giving Thoits (2010) a speech) Areas of life in which stress can exist, such as home, work, education, housing, reproductive 4.Life domain health, money, legal issues, intimate Thoits (2010) /friend/parent/child relationships, community, crime, death, or possessions Refers to who or what the stressor targets, 5.Target of including the self, close other (e.g., family or McEwen (1998) stressor friends), work, community acquaintances, non- targeted (e.g., vicarious stress) Refers to qualities inherent in stress, such as 6. Potential , guilt, loss, ostracism, physical Kemeny, Gruenewald, & negative emotional danger/threat, threats to social status, Dickerson (2004) response , entrapment, or role disruption/change 7. Global Cohen, Kamarck, & Often measured with the perceived stress scale subjective distress Mermelstein (1994) Measurement of extent exposure (i.e., frequency or existence of stressor) and subjective ratings of distress the situation 8. Subjective life causes (e.g., discrimination, relationship strain, Pavot & Diener (2009) domain distress , , unemployment, work strain, incivility, financial strain, and neighbourhood environment) D. Subjective and behavioural responses 1.Emotional Negative and positive affect response ratings Watson, Clark, & responses specific to the stressor stimulus Tellegen (1988) Folkman & Lazarus Threat versus challenge responses, loss and 2.Cognitive (1985); Tomaka, gain appraisals, threats to safety, and control responses Blascovich, Kiblerm & appraisals Ernst (1997) Behaviours such as reliance on negative 3.Behavioural substances such as alcohol, smoking, drugs, Sinha & Jastreboff (2013) responses overeating, and positive behaviours such as exercise and support seeking Dickerson & Kemeny, Objective signs of stress. Activation of the (2004); Rohleder, Beulen, 4.Physiological stress response system (HPA axis), physical Chen, Wolf & responses reactions, shaking, heart rate increase, KirscFemhbaum (2007); sweating, freezing, or hormone secretion Taylor (1999)

28 Approach and avoidance tactics that can be 5.Motivational measured by behavioural and subjective Roth & Cohen (1986) responses indicators Folkman & Lazarus 6.Emotional Cognitive reappraisal, response modulations, (1985); Tice, Bratslavsky, regulation emotional down-regulation, -focused & Baumeister (2018) response coping, and emotional laddering

Devynck, Kornacka, 7.Perseverative Private thoughts such as rumination and Baeyens, Serra, Neves, cognition persistent Gaudrat, & Sgard (2017) Note. A modified version of a table from Apel et al. (2018).

Using these topological categories above to describe the lab and field studies in the thesis, I categorise the lab study in this thesis as (A.1) an acute in-the-moment stress. The duration of the stress is brief (B.1). The attributes of the stressor are categorised as having little controllability from the participants’ perspective (C.3). The life domain area, this stress comes under study related, since university students were used, but this investigation emulates a work scenario in which a supervisor targets an employee (C.4). The emotional response evoked relates to perceptions of loss in line with the COR theory. The behavioural responses are captured by physiological measures of stress, using stress hormones as an objective proxy of emotional stress. The field studies similarly investigate the topological categories mentioned in the lab studies, but they extend the duration of investigation to encapsulate the effect of prolonged accumulative stress and its influence on the immune system over several months. The EI training intervention acts primarily on behavioural and emotional regulation responses and teaches regulation strategies. These strategies are based on EI principles, discussed in detail below. Stress hormone: Cortisol. The stress response involves a series of cascading chemical reactions controlled by the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis, and is a highly regulated system triggered by both physical and psychological stimuli. The hypothalamus and pituitary gland in the brain secretes chemicals that trigger the adrenals (i.e., two small glands that sit on top of the kidneys) to release short pulsatile bursts of cortisol, the stress hormone, into the bloodstream, which results in many changes to the body called the flight-or-fight state (Widmer et al., 2005). This response includes pupil dilation, dry mouth, fast , increased heart rate, sweating, and tense muscles, responses that are critical to surviving a threat situation. A negative feedback loop terminates HPA activation once the stressor is resolved, which is where this ancient stress response system can fail a modern human. Due to the recurrent and accumulative nature of modern stress, it is commonly difficult for an individual to appraise the stressor(s) as being resolved. Hence, the negative feedback loop is

29 not initiated, and cortisol continues to be secreted in unfettered pulsatile dumps. Cortisol is a glucocorticoid steroid that has a catabolic (i.e., breaking down of molecules) effect, resulting in oxidative wear and tear and slowing down of major metabolic systems (Golden, Wand, Malhotra, Kamel, & Horton, 2011). When an individual experiences prolonged exposure to work-related stressors, he/she develops a heightened of stress, with an increased trigger-rapid cortisol response, which increases vulnerability to metabolic oxidative stress, compromised immunity, mental health disruption, and accelerated aging (Drabant et al., 2011; O'Donovan et al., 2012; Tomiyama et al., 2012). Chronically stressed individuals are susceptible to burnout. Burnout is a common outcome of and represents a major risk factor for mental disorders (Hakanen & Schaufeli, 2012). Maslach and Jackson (1984) characterised this phenomenon as a cluster of syndromes, such as depressive mood states, , depersonalisation, , a reduction in the sense of personal efficacy, withdrawal, and reduced work performance and sense of fulfilment (Bianchi, Schonfeld, & Laurent, 2015). Psycho-neuro-immunological research demonstrates that prolonged negative emotion and stress influences the immune system and increases susceptibility to disease (Tsujita & Morimoto, 1999). A commonly used biomarker to determine an individual’s vulnerability to burnout is the immune molecule immunoglobulin A (IgA) (Danhof-Pont, van Veen, & Zitman, 2011). As the body of evidence regarding the deleterious effects of workplace stress and burnout continues to grow, there is an increasing need for researchers to construct theoretical frameworks to explain how stress occurs at work and develop strategies to address these problems. According to Cooper (2018), deeper understanding of the ways affects physiology would lead to critical scientific advances and provide a framework for preventative initiatives that are needed to mediate stressors at work.

1.5 Self-report measures and limitations in stress research

The reliability and accuracy of introspective accounts of individual behaviours, thoughts, feelings, emotions, and physical states lie at the root of effective psychological and psycho-social research and practice (Johns & Miraglia, 2015). The objective is to describe and explain what people have felt, feel, or think they will feel. Despite the existence of long- standing concerns, most research on stress, and many areas of psychology, use self-report data. The most commonly used method to assess an individual’s perceived level of stress, that felt previously, or that experienced in the moment are surveys and questionnaires, such as the

30 Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen et al., 1983) or the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988), which are inexpensive and easy to administer. These scales have been extensively validated using numerous health-related outcomes, such as physical and mental health disruption, and in neuroscientific, biological, and aging studies (Cohen et al., 1983; Epel et al., 2004; Gianaros et al., 2007). The popularity of their use is due to their low cost and ease of use, not necessarily their robustness or construct validity, potentially creating false confidence in their correlational accuracy. Over 40 years ago, Nisbett and Wilson (1977) called into question the validity of self- report-data, offering a critical evaluation of the many weaknesses of verbal reports regarding mental process. Their assessment of self-report data encapsulated many types of self-report- methods and provoked questions regarding how these measures should be best used, considering their limitations. Nisbett and Wilson highlighted that factors that drive behaviours are often invisible to the individuals asking to report it. Some suspected that their arguments would diminish use of introspective self-reporting (Baumeister, Vohs & Funder, 2007). However, research that used self-reports continued (Hofmann, Gawronski, Gschwender & Schmitt, 2005; Köllner & Schultheiss 2014). Discussed below are seven of the most common criticisms of self-report measures in stress research. The way self-reported question–items are standardised for them to be measured is problematic (Razavi, 2001) and limits data accuracy in several ways. Standardising responses involves the use of scales. For example, in stress research, surveys typically use pre-defined, Likert-type scales that are limited to linear interval responses that reduce the variance of possible responses, potentially excluding valuable experiential states. Physiological reactions are conversely continuous and non-linear. For example, stress hormones, adrenaline, and cortisol are released through pulsatile cycles of secretion, pausing, and dumping (Dietl, Prast, & Philippu, 1993), which limit the ability to see linear associations with truncated ordinal, self-reports scales. Several researchers (Deng, McCarthy, Piper, Baker, & Bolt, 2018) report a tendency to respond at extremes. For example, when potential responses range from 1 to 5, the respondent might report perceptions using only ones or fives, or cluster responses at the centre. Respondents might be vulnerable to bias (Chen & Spector, 1991), where answers are skewed toward reporting more stress, or a tendency for giving expected responses, where a respondent makes appraisals about what the researcher is investigating and responds accordingly (Kirsch, 1997). Socio-cultural influences heavily influence such

31 responses biases. Johnson, Kulesa, Cho, and Shavitt (2005) document the relationship between culture and response styles using evidence from 19 countries. There is a tendency for neuro-endocrinological influences on memory retrieval (Lupien & McEwen 1997; Wolf, 2003). For example, individuals perceive stress differently if they experienced stressful events recently. Oei et al. (2011) found that after engaging in a common psychosocial stress test, the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST; Kirschbaum, Pirke, & Hellhammer, 1993), participants showed heightened responses in the brain’s fear centre (i.e., the amygdala) when negative stimuli were presented during a subsequent task based on emotional working memory, and therefore appraised the activity as more stressful. Van Marle, Hermans, Qin, and Fernández (2009) showed participants negatively arousing movie clips as a stressor, and after participants engaged in a TSST, the researchers found increased functional connectivity between the amygdala and brain regions that mediate autonomic nervous system activity. These rapid neurological responses to stress suggest that the amygdala initiates an acute autonomic stress response (Van Marle, Hermans, Qin, & Fernández, 2010); an activity immediately following a stressful event is processed by the brain when in a state of heightened fear-centre activation, which colours self-reported perceptions of the event. Stress measured through self-report and physiological indicators often lacks congruence because contrary to assumptions of basic stress models, individuals are not always conscious of all the stress they experience. However, an individual’s meta-cognition regarding a specific emotional state (e.g., , irritation, fear, anxiety, or ) in response to a stressor is assumed to be an accurate representation of that emotion (Mikolajczak et al., 2007). Just as studies systematically show the inaccuracies of people's predictions about how they will react and feel (Wilson & Gilbert, 2003), self-reports recorded after an event are vulnerable to similar backcasting inaccuracies. Perceptions and appraisals about stress might be experienced or reported minutes, hours, weeks, or months later. Walentynowicz, Bogaerts, Van Diest, Raes, and Van den Bergh (2015) argued that humans are poor at accurate retrospective accounting since cortisol-driven biases cloud appraisals during retrieval. Memory is defined by the recall of particular moments rather than the entirety of an event, and it is therefore important to consider inconsistencies of human memory when engaging in stress research that questions historical events. Redelmeier, Katz, and Kahneman (2003) demonstrated that the final impression of an event forms an individual’s lasting and most salient impressions when reflecting on past life experiences. Emotionally arousing content is especially embedded into memory (Buchanan &

32 Lovallo 2001; Cahill, Gorski, & Le, 2003; Kuhlmann & Wolf 2006), suggesting that post- event retrieval of neutral or non-arousing information, that still might be important, is diminished. The purpose of self-report is to ironically assess perceived stress, which is also described as the primary limitation of self-report (Monroe, 2008). The concern is that some personality traits, such as and self‐efficacy, correlate strongly with perceived stress levels (Ebstrup, Eplov, Pisinger, & Jørgensen, 2011), meaning that high scores on stress state measures might reflect aspects of respondents’ personality or personality disorders as much as their stress levels. When both predictors and criterion measures are self-reported, there is a risk that findings might arise due to shared measurement error or contamination rather than true associations (Keefer et al., 2018). Response-shift bias might also be a contaminating factor when respondents’ internal frame of reference of the construct being measured changes between the pre‐ and post‐test due to the influence of the intervention (Howard & Dailey, 1979) One of the most common criticisms of self-reporting is the tendency for respondents to answer in socially desirable ways or engage in impression management (Gittelman et al., 2015). Ryder and Chentsova-Dutton (2012) argued that individuals might be unable or unwilling to report their stress states accurately due to workplace norms or gender stereotypes. This is particularly salient in the sample of Special Forces personnel investigated in the third study of this thesis. Some members might be unwilling to appear fragile, weak, or vulnerable, which drives the disinclination to report stress accurately (Adler, Thomas & Castro, 2005). A lack of conscious perception also interferes with accurate reporting of a stressed state. For example, soldiers are trained in pain-tolerance tactics or are encouraged to ignore physical and psychological negativity (Driskell, Salas, Johnston, & Wollert, 2008). Measures of perceived regarding stress is a process that also occurs iteratively and differs across social and cultural norms. Stress is experientially and culturally imbued (Gross & John, 1995), which has implications for the cultural embeddedness of self- reports. For example, one person’s very stressed state (e.g., a Western university student discussing an exam block) might mean something different from another person’s very stressed state (e.g., a political asylum seeker describing the torture he/she experienced). These factors point to potential inaccuracies in self-reported stress, which threatens the validity of research findings using the methodology. Several investigations failed to demonstrate an association between cortisol and self-reported distress (Kirschbaum, Klauer, Filipp, &

33 Hellhammer, 1995; Marshall et al., 1998; Semple, Gray, Borland, Espie, & Beastall, 1988; Vedhara et al., 2003). Therefore, it is important to replace or supplement self-reported measures of stress with objective biological markers, especially for individuals who have an in reporting inaccurately for the reasons mentioned above. Biological Measures of Stress. Recognising and measuring the different physiological levels involved in the stress response broadens and improves the quality and scope of inquiry considerably. A sharp increase in interest in the psychobiology of stress over the past decade is evident (Dimitrov et al., 2018). Recent advancements in technology and non-invasive measurement techniques becoming more accessible and less costly have driven interest in psycho-biological stress research. This approach provides valuable objective data that uncovers how psychological, physiological, and environmental stresses are biologically mediated, circumventing the subjectivity of self-report measures. Contributions to the understanding of the stress response system stem from basic neuroscience and biology, informed by more diverse disciplines such as anthropology, psychology, epidemiology, and sociology. Since there exists such a broad culmination of multi-disciplinary knowledge that feeds into the understanding of stress research, many approaches and debates over the most appropriate ways to conceptualise and measure human stress have appeared in the literature. Some of these arguments relate to whether bio-markers capture state versus trait measurements of stress, and how biological responses to stress are influenced by moderators such as personality (Soliemanifar, Soleymanifar, & Afrisham, 2018) and individual differences such as EI skill. The stress response is divided into three broad biological categories: 1) nervous system activations, 2) the neuroendocrine axis (i.e., brain/hormone interface), and 3) the endocrine axis (Everly & Lating, 2019). Different tools measure each of these categories: a) neural stress axes can be measured using electro-dermal skin conductance tools, electromyographic measures, and cardiovascular measures such as heartrate, heartrate variability, periphery blood-, and pressure, b) the neuroendocrine stress axis can be measured by testing for adrenal medullary hormones such as adrenaline and noradrenaline, and c) assessment of the endocrine stress axis is most commonly conducted by testing for cortisol, the measure used in this study. Cortisol is tested either through blood, urine, or saliva samples (Everly & Lating, 2019). Salivary cortisol is the most common biomarker of stress since it provides a stress- free, non-invasive, objective measure. Cortisol can be detected in the saliva approximately 15 minutes after exposure to a stressor (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004). There are many practical

34 advantages to using salivary cortisol. Unlike blood-plasma testing, salivary cortisol can be collected by a non-medically trained person, and even participants themselves. Collection can be done using point-of-care methods (e.g., IPRO device), so time-sensitive collections such as first-on waking and before bed samples can be achieved without an investigator being present, thus reducing . Advancements to collection devices means that samples are stable at room for several weeks, and thus can be taken into any (remote) location and mailed to an investigator. Contemporary tests are less sensitive to contamination by food and other oral ingestants, reducing collection error. As a biological measure, there is no opportunity for investigator bias to taint stress appraisals of participants’, unlike the potential for subconscious bias during interviews or observation-based stress measurement (Everly & Lating, 2019). There are some limitations to cortisol testing. Cortisol fluctuates diurnally over a 24- hour period, rising to its highest concentrations 30 minutes after waking and slowly declining to its lowest at night (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004). Therefore, it is important to pay careful attention to circadian rhythms, time since waking, and testing times, and ensuring comparative samples are taken at the same time of day, female menstrual cycles, contraception use, and antibiotic use, particularly when comparing samples between groups (Hayes, Sculthorpe, Cunniffe, & Grace, 2016). Analysing tests requires trained investigators and can be time intensive and expensive. Immunoglobulin A. The second-order effect of the stress response is measured by testing immune function (IgA) through saliva. As a first-line barrier of the immune system, these molecules are produced in mucosal membranes or in the connective tissue of glands, and are essential to the immune system (Jemmott & Locke, 1984). IgA prevents bacteria from forming colonies on mucosal surfaces by neutralising or killing them. They also complement or activate other innate defence mechanisms that prevent viruses from penetrating cells (Tsujita & Morimoto, 1999). Like cortisol, IgA is detectable in saliva and is a useful stress marker because it distinguishes short- and long-term effects of stress. IgA spikes immediately and falls quickly after a stressful event, making it a good immediate stress measure. IgA also measures the delayed effect of long-term chronic stress; its production is disrupted by prolonged cortisol secretion (Segerstrom & Miller, 2004). A propensity to experience burnout can be predicted when IgA levels fall 40% below baseline levels (Dunbar, Armitage, Jehanli, & Browne, 2013. Many first-grade sports teams use this measure as an indicator of preparedness to perform. Low IgA results in poor health, such as recurrent upper and lower- respiratory, gastro, urinary, and skin infections and allergies (Aghamohammadi, et al., 2009).

35 Various psychosocial factors, such as daily hassles (Farne, Boni, Gnugnoli, & Corallo, 1992), negative mood (Evans, Bristow, Hucklebridge, Clow & Walters, 1993), academic exams (Jemmott et al., 1983; Jemmott, & Magloire, 1988), work stressors (Zeier, Brauchli & Joller- Jemelka, 1996), and various techniques have been investigated as possible IgA modifiers (Tsujita & Morimoto, 1999). Penz et al. (2018) report that no reliable bio-marker of burnout exists. They suggest that this might be due to a small number of studies and a wide array of methods employed in other studies. Penz and co-researchers are currently conducting a 12-year longitudinal cohort study (N=10,000) that describes burnout syndrome, with special focus on a search for a reliable biomarker. This includes a range of biomarkers such as hair testing, endocrine markers, epigenetic markers, and heartrate variability, correlated against self-report measures. The most effective method of testing stress is thus to use multi-source methods (Podsakoff & Podsakoff, 2019) of investigation, such as biomarkers, in conjunction with self-report and behavioural measures, to assess individual stress states.

1.6 Emotional Intelligence History and Concepts

EI skills correlate with positive workplace behaviours and reduced stress. I discuss a prominent definition of EI, common methods of measuring EI, including strengths and weaknesses of the measures, a rationale for choosing MSCEIT, and the history and background research on EI. Salovey and Mayer (1990) defined EI as “the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (p. 189). This definition was expanded as a four-branch model that distinguishes abilities to perceive, facilitate thought, understand, and manage emotions (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Their research suggested that emotional facilitation of cognitive processes was a mental ability that could be measured quantitatively, and the predictive and construct validity of EI is widely supported (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005; Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Brackett, Mayer, & Warner, 2004; Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005; Law, Wong, & Song, 2004), though some criticise them (Fiori & Antonakis, 2011; Landy, 2005; Locke, 2005). Researchers, business practitioners, and pop psychology authors continue to debate the terms of EI—how it should be defined, operationalised, and measured—and what predictive and incremental properties it possesses beyond extant personality and intelligence measures (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005; Côté, 2014 Daus & Ashkanasy, 2003; Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2007; Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2016; Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008; Zeidner, Matthews & Roberts, 2012; Zeidner,

36 Roberts, & Matthews, 2004). Despite disparate conceptualisations of EI, a meta-analysis from Miao, Humphrey, & Qian (2017) suggested that consensus has been reached; EI can be categorised into three conceptual streams, differentiated by theory and method (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005). Stream 1 is based on the ability model developed by Mayer and Salovey (1997), which categorises EI into four kinds of abilities: a) perceiving emotion in oneself and others, b) integrating emotion to facilitate thought, c) understanding emotion in oneself and others, and d) regulating and managing emotions. The ability model is measured using MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002), and its use in this thesis is discussed in the measurement section. Stream 2 is also based on Mayer and Salovey’s model, but it incorporates a variety of peer and self- report measures (Jordan, Ashkanasy, Härtel, & Hooper, 2002; Wong & Law, 2002) and can be measured using the Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SSREIT) (Schutte et al., 1998). Stream 3 is a mixed model (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2000), encompassing several self-report instruments that measure various aspects of cognition, personality, and affect. Examples of instruments that use this framework include the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) (Bar-On, 1997), Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI) (Sala, 2002), and Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) (Petrides & Furnham, 2006). Ashkanasy and Daus (2005) argue that most criticisms directed at EI inappropriately encapsulate all three streams, though most problems occur primarily in the third stream of research. Based on mixed and personality-based definitions of EI, Streams 2 and 3 appear reasonable and intuitive, and they are less costly and more efficient to administer (Brackett, Rivers, Shiffman, Lerner, & Salovey, 2006). However, considerable ambiguities and redundancies remain in the way these streams conceptualise EI (McEnrue & Groves, 2006).

1.7 The Ability Model of EI (MSCEIT)

In a comparative assessment of EI models, Mayer et al. (2016) suggested that intelligences are measured best as abilities. Practically, this means constructing problems, asking people to solve them, and examining patterns of correct answers. The authors argued that this problem-focused method yields more accurate data than asking people to rate their own cognitive or emotional intelligence does, which contains biases. Individuals commonly overestimate their own qualities and abilities because of a lack of knowledge of logical reasoning, over-self-confidence, and unsubstantiated frames of reference for success (Brackett et al., 2006; Paulhus et al., 1998). For an example of the superiority bias, or better- than-average effect, see Alicke and Govorun (2005). For this reason, MSCEIT offers greater

37 content and construct validity in comparison to other EI measures (Côté, 2014; Fernández- Berrocal, & Extremera, 2016). Unlike self-report EI instruments, MSCEIT avoids problems of report bias by using performance-based measures that do not require high emotional awareness or self-insight. MSCEIT provides the broadest conceptualisation of EI, without significant overlap with other traits, EI outcomes, and personality characteristics (Côté, 2014; Fernández-Berrocal, & Extremera, 2016), except IQ (Roberts et al., 2006). For example, it has little overlap with the Big Five (Costa & McCrea, 1992) personality construct (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999) and only moderate overlap with other well-known personality constructs, such as positive and negative affectivity (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000; Ciarocco, Sommer, & Baumeister, 2001). Since it satisfies conceptual, psychometric, and correlational criteria in extant intelligence literature, the MSCEIT offers an effective instrument for EI investigations (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005) and hence was used in this thesis.

1.8 Emotional Intelligence as a Buffer for Stress

EI has a substantial influence on several biopsychosocial stress factors. Matthews, Zeidner, and Roberts (2017) argue that measures of EI associate positively with many psychological and physiological outcomes. Table 1.2 lists laboratory studies that investigated EI and stress using MSCEIT. For a comprehensive list of trait and ability studies that test whether EI buffers the effects of acute stress, see Lea, Davis, Mahoney, and Qualter, (2019)

38 Table 1.2 A List of Laboratory Studies Investigating EI and Stress Using the MSCEIT.

Study Sample EI tool Stressor DV Relevant findings Emotion Facilitation and Emotion Understanding 64 university students (50 positively correlated with mood recovery, but were Limonero et females). M = 22.32, SD MSCEIT Viewing images STAI-S; unrelated to reactivity. and al. (2015) = 4.3 Management branches had no effect on reactivity or recovery. Rash & 56 university students (28 The emotion perception scale was positively associated Prkachin females). M = 26.38, SD MSCEIT Personal recall paradigm HR; RSA with cardiac reactivity when re-experiencing sadness, and (2013) = 9.36 promoted recovery. Bechtoldt & 157 university students Basal testosterone Cortisol EI was positively correlated with cortisol reactivity, but Schneider (only male). M = 21.20, MSCEIT TSST secretion; this effect was moderated by basal testosterone levels. (2016) SD = 3.2 Ling et al. 156 adults (all male). M Preparing and delivering a Skin conductance level was positively associated with MSCEIT SCL; HR (2018) = 35.72, SD = 8.61 speech overall EI. Emotion understanding was associated with higher PA and 126 psychology students PANAS; cardiac output; total Schneider et Arithmetic and speech lower NA following the task, but in males only. In (76 females). M= 20, SD MSCEIT peripheral resistance (indicator al. (2013) tasks females, Emotion Management was associated with greater = 4.6 of BP) physiological reactivity. High workload vigilance 200 university students Matthews et task; working memory (132 females). M = 19.7, MSCEIT DSSQ EI was not related to reactivity in any of the tasks. al. (2006) task; impossible anagrams SD = 3.1 task Negative affect; affective pain 67 university students (57 Ruiz-Aranda (unpleasantness of stimulus); EI negatively correlated with NA, sensory pain, and females). M = 21.58, SD MSCEIT Cold pressor task et al. (2011) sensory pain (strength of affective pain. = .76 stimulus) Note. MSCEIT=Mayer-Salovey-Caruso emotional intelligence test. IAPS=International affective picture system. STAI-S=State trait anxiety inventory—short form. POMS= Profile of mood states. DSSQ=Dundee stress state questionnaire. NA=negative affect. Table adapted from Lea et al. (2019).

39 During MSCEIT ability tests, higher EI correlates with greater life satisfaction and psychological wellbeing, stronger coping abilities, better emotions communication ability and reduced stress (Austin et al., 2005; Bastian et al., 2005; Di Fabio, & Saklofske, 2014; Lanciano, & Curci, 2015), and less cognitive effort is required to solve stressful problems (Jaušovec, Jaušovec, & Gerlič, 2001). Socially, higher EI associates with increased social support (Mikolajczak, Luminet, Leroy, & Roy, 2007) and higher-quality social and marital relationships (Malouff, Schutte, & Thorsteinsson, 2014; Schutte et al., 2001; Zeidner & Kloda, 2013). Lower EI correlates with increased worry, maladaptive avoidant coping responses, and greater symptoms (David, 2005; Matthews, et al. 2006). EI associates strongly with psychological symptoms such as depression and anxiety, and high EI links with lower incidences of psychological disorders (Petrides, Pérez-González, & Furnham, 2007), less- severe anxiety in social phobias (Jacobs et al., 2008), and lower levels of anxiety (Fernández- Berrocal, Alcaide, Extremera, & Pizarro, 2006; Mayer, Caruso, & Salovely, 2000; Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey, & Palfai, 1995; Salovey, Stroud, Woolery, & Epel, 2002) and depression (Fernández-Berrocal, Salovey, Extremera, & Ramos, 2005; Salovey et al., 1995; Williams, Fernández-Berrocal, Extremera, Ramos-Díaz, & Joiner, 2004). EI moderates affective reactions to threats or stresses (Jordan, Ashkanasy, & Härtel, 2002; Saklofske, Austin, Galloway, & Davidson, 2007; Salovey et al., 2002). Davis and Humphrey (2012) found that U.S. undergraduates with high EI, measured with the Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS), had lower emotional distress (Shulman & Hemenover, 2006). High EI correlates with constructive conflict management (Schlaerth, Ensari & Christian, 2013). Also using the TMMS, Moradi, Pishva, Ehsan, Hadadi, and Pouladi, (2011) found that EI associates positively with coping strategies such as problem-solving, cognitive evaluation, somatic inhibition, and emotional inhibition. Cognitive ability also correlates positively with EI (Côté & Miners, 2006). In a meta-analysis of EI and performance, O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, and Story (2011) found that EI, measured using MSCEIT, relates closely with cognitive intelligence. This finding provided convergent validity for EI since high cognitive ability also associates with a greater ability to regulate stress (Bastien et al., 2005). Physically, higher EI links with better physical health, as reported subjectively (Martins et al., 2010) and measured objectively (Mikolajczak, Roy, Luminet, Fillée, & de Timary, 2007; Mikolajczak et al., 2015). In two investigations conducted on approximately 10,000 employees of the Belgium Mutual Benefit Society, Mikolajczak et al. (2015) demonstrated that individuals with high EI are less likely to use drugs, visit doctors, and be hospitalised, even when controlling for age, SES, diet, alcohol, cigarette consumption, social support,

40 exercise, and education. Other researchers also reported these relationships (Fernández- Abascal & Martín-Díaz, 2015; Jacobs, Wollny, Sim, & Horsch, 2016; Saklofske et al., 2007), corroborating that EI relates to increased preventive health (e.g., physical activity and healthy eating) and less risk-taking (e.g., traffic violations and substance-taking).

1.9 Overview of the Thesis

The remainder of this thesis comprises four chapters, presented in manuscript style. Chapter 1 is an overview, Chapter 2 describes two experimental studies, Chapter 3 describes two field studies, and Chapter 4 is an integrative conclusion. In Chapter 2, I considered the role of incivility in the context of Hobfoll’s (1989) conservation of resources (COR) theory, in which negative interactions with supervisors (Chapter 2, Studies 1 and 2) cause perceived loss of resources, including energies (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001), self-esteem, confidence, and emotional stability (Gorgievski & Hobfoll, 2008; Sulsky & Smith, 2005), and moderation by EI. In Chapter 3 (Studies 3 and 4), the field study, drawing on a bio-psycho-social (Engel, 1977) allostatic model of stress (McEwan & Stellar, 1993), I developed and tested the effectiveness of an EI training program for reducing stress and burnout in a real-world, high- stress workplace—the Australian Special Forces. Chapter 4 is a summary of the thesis, including theoretical, methodological, and practical contributions to the literature, and future research recommendations. This thesis highlights the negative influence of incivility. I demonstrated that being exposed to uncivil behavioural interactions, those below the threshold for workplace abuse classification, causes stress. I evidenced that ability EI skills buffer that stress. I avoided limitations of self-report measures typical in stress and EI research by using objective/ability-based measures. Knowing the harmful effects of stress, and the significant need for to workplace stress, I investigated moderation by EI training on stress. I demonstrated that EI is a skill that can be taught and that has positive effects on people in high-stress, high-risk environments.

41 CHAPTER 2. ABILITY EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE REDUCES STRESS CAUSED BY INCIVILITY: ‘A CORTISOL STUDY’

2.1 Abstract

Incivility is a major contributor to work stress and is on the rise in contemporary workplaces (Tong, Chong, & Johnson, 2019). Research suggests that EI associates with reduced stress in response to workplace incivility. In this two-part study (Study 1: N=328, Study 2: N=350), I examine moderators of stress in online supervisor/subordinate interactions using physiological measures of stress (i.e., cortisol) and an ability test (i.e., MSCEIT) for EI that eliminate the problems and biases of self-report. Drawing on Hobfoll’s (1989) COR model, I propose that subordinates’ emotional intelligence is a resource, conceptualised as an individual difference that enables them to instigate higher-order perceptual and behavioural tactics, making them more emotionally resilient (Mayer & Salovey, 1997) and less reactive and prone to negative impulsivity (Ashkanasy & Humphrey, 2011). I investigated supervisory style in the context of stress, comparing supportive and uncivil styles with the added dimension of trust. To achieve this, I designed a supervisor/subordinate simulation experiment in which I exposed participants to online interactions with supervisors who varied in their supervisory style and trustworthiness indicators. I avoided self-report biases that limit much stress research by measuring EI using MSCEIT (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002) and stress using salivary cortisol. Relationships between these constructs and moderation by EI have not been examined using cortisol as a biomarker for stress. Results support the proposition that EI moderates the relationship between incivility and stress. Participants with high EI had a lower change in cortisol (i.e., less stress) in response to cyber-mediated incivility from supervisors. Subordinates trained in EI became more adept at managing negative reactions to incivility, and it is thus important for supervisors to employ a supportive style and build both trust (Derks & De Cremer, 2010; Kramer, 1999) and psychological safety (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). This study highlights the effect of incivility on stress physiology. Using a physiological measure of stress removed self-report problems that limit extant incivility and stress research.

42 2.2 Introduction

Incivility is a form of low-intensity, anti-social interpersonal mistreatment characterised by “rudeness and disregard for others in the workplace” and an “ambiguous intent to harm the target” (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 447). At work, incivility violates workplace norms based on mutual respect (Cortina, Magley, Williams, Langhout, & Barling, 2001; Lim, Cortina, & Magley, 2008; Schilpzand, de Pater, & Erez, 2016), and includes making impolite and rude comments and ostracising a target from work or social activities (Lim & Cortina, 2005). It also comes in the form of sarcasm (Ziegele & Jost, 2016) and mockery cloaked in humour (Patton, 2004). An estimated 98% of workers report exposure to some form of direct or vicarious incivility (Porath & Pearson, 2013), and 71% reported direct experiences within a five-year period (Cortina et al., 2001). Despite appearing to be only mildly negative, unlike overt bullying or abuse, incivility has powerful and detrimental effects on targets (Sliter et al., 2015). Targets experience reduced empowerment and self- esteem, feelings of guilt, self-blame (Tong et al., 2019) and increased work withdrawal (Kabat-Farr, Cortina, & Marchiondo, 2018). Incivility at work also has negative influences on personal relationships outside of work, which in turn drives increased propensity to engage in withdrawal behaviours at work (Park & Huan, 2018). Incivility is felt most frequently by subordinates, who are likely to experience it during interactions with supervisors or peers (Reio, 2011). Power distance plays a role (Schipland et al., 2016) in that higher power individuals are less likely to be questioned about ambiguous comments or actions (Estes & Wang, 2008; Hofestede, 2001). Such perpetrators, therefore, use incivility as a form of subversive social control, where targets clearly feel the repercussions but the intent is less clear, so perpetrators are less likely to be questioned or held accountable. Uncivil discourse online is becoming a major concern (Anderson, Brossard, Scheufele, Xenos, & Ladwig, 2014), where negative comments are broadcast more quickly and publicly in comparison to traditional communication (Giumetti et al., 2013). Lack of face-to-face engagement and temporal and geographical distance that online communication provides has the potential to exacerbate uncivil communication. According to Tong et al. (2019), current research portrays targets of incivility as passive recipients of maltreatment who eventually succumb to emotional distress, leading to withdrawal, non-participation during meetings, and increased sick days (Wachs, 2009), or stress-mediated, hostile retaliation and subsequent passing of uncivil behaviours to others (Foulk, Woolumm & Erez, 2015; Gallus, Bunk, Matthews, Barnes-Farrell, Magley, 2014; Rosen, Koopman, Gabriel, & Johnson, 2016). Incivility research commonly links the

43 experience with greater prevalence of stress-related disorders, such as emotional exhaustion, self-blame, anxiety, and depression (Lim et al., 2008). Left unaddressed, continued exposure to incivility results in a negative spiral toward burnout (Oyeleye, Hanson, O’Connor, & Dunn, 2013), where targets exhibit symptoms of emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation, and negative somatic health symptoms (Hershcovis, Ogunfowora, Reich, & Christie, 2017). Not all targets, however, experience negative interactions similarly (Luria & Torjmman, 2009; Meurs & Perrewé, 2011). I argue that appraisals of negative experiences, and how they affect stress levels, relate to EI, specifically emotional stability, skill with emotional perceptions, and understanding of emotional data (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2016; Lopez, Salovey, & Straus, 2003). Research regarding general workplace stress suggests that in a population of English managers (Slaski & Cartwright, 2003), EI associates with reduced stress that improved wellbeing and performance (Ciarrochi, Deane, Anderson, 2002; Mikolajczak et al., 2007; Schutte et al., 1998). Extremer and Rey (2018) argue that high EI influences wellbeing and life satisfaction by altering the degree of negative or positive affect. Low-EI individuals are more likely to engage in fault-finding and dampening of positive emotions and are less likely to engage in, seek, and savour positive emotions (Szczygieł & Mikolajczak, 2017). EI influences peoples’ ability to decipher the emotions they feel (Salovey & Mayer 1990). EI influences the stress process on several levels from perception (i.e., appraisal), understanding (i.e., defining and categorising), and facilitating decision- making, managing responses, and thus individuals have the most explanatory power and framework of understanding concerning workplace stress interventions.

2.3 Rationale for the study

Given the utility of EI discussed above and the knowledge that workplace stress is a significant problem for employees and organisations, finding effective and implementable solutions has become critical. I argue that an empirical investigation into stress moderation by EI is essential. Several studies have examined how ability-based EI influences stress responses, but few have used salivary cortisol in the context of work stress, and in those studies, findings are mixed due partially to the range of EI measures used. Mikolajczak et al. (2007) used a Trier Social Stress Task, finding that individuals with greater trait EI had lower stress responses, as measured by mood and cortisol reactivity. Wilbraham et al. (2018) used a similar intervention based on public speaking, finding that trait EI related only to mood, not cortisol. Use of self-report EI measures in these studies might have contributed to the

44 discrepancies. I discuss the causes of such discrepancies in stress and EI literature, identifying self-report biases as a primary contributor. Most incivility research uses self-report surveys, but since acts of incivility are ambiguous, not overt or easily distinguishable from other behaviours that intend no-harm (e.g., office humour and busy ), inaccurate reporting of incivility is possible. The current study avoids self-report biases by measuring incivility-derived stress using salivary cortisol and assessing EI using an ability model (i.e., MSCEIT; Mayer et al., 2002). I also explore the influence of subordinates’ perceptions of trustworthiness of supervisors. Drawing on Hobfoll’s (1989) COR theory, I propose that individuals with low EI cannot draw on the resource benefits that EI provides, and hence experience more stress in response to cyber- mediated incivility. I examine this proposition under a range of boundary conditions using two lab experiments. In Study 1, I examined stress caused by civil versus uncivil conduct by trustworthy versus untrustworthy supervisors in cyber-mediated relationships. In Study 2, I replicated Study 1 with the addition of a neutral supervisory condition. This study contributes to literature on workplace stress and incivility in three ways. First, it extends extant research by acknowledging incivility as a common source of work stress that has far-reaching consequences to employees’ lives, despite the ostensibly trivial, often-ambiguous nature, of such mistreatment. I demonstrate that experiencing incivility has a significant psychological and physiological influence on targets, and that EI buffers stress in response to incivility. I use cortisol as an explanatory, bio-psychosocial mechanism to show how seemingly innocuous, uncivil interactions can injury deeply and disrupt psychological and physiological functioning (Porath & Pearson, 2013). I present literature that links cortisol to poor health and wellbeing outcomes. Second, I address the debate on whether the moderating effect of EI on stress holds using objective measures. Third, since extant research suggests that EI can be trained/learned (Mayer & Salovey, 1995), this study responds to calls to identify practical solutions to help employees manage stress. During 2018, there were more than 4 billion Internet users (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018), and over 67% of daily communications were conducted virtually (Layng, 2016), demonstrating increasing opportunities for cyber-mediated incivility. I demonstrate that incivility experienced from an unfamiliar person, after only a short interaction, can have negative and substantial influences on targets. I acknowledge significant limitations of self- reported data, particularly during investigations of sensitive constructs such as incivility and stress. This study offers an objective alternative in the form of a biological measure of stress, which reduced vulnerabilities to impression management or poor-insight biases, and use of

45 the ability-based MSCEIT to measure EI. Individuals are typically poor at estimating their EIs (Brackett et al., 2006; Paulhus et al., 1998), so using an ability-based measure improved estimates of EI over self-report scales.

2.4 Literature Review

2.4.1 Conceptualizing Workplace Incivility Three characteristics separate incivility from other forms of workplace mistreatment (Mazuritsky, 2018). Low intensity (Cortina & Magley, 2009) involves ambiguous intentions (Lim, Cortina, & Magley, 2008) and violates organisational norms (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Many workers question their own reactions to incivility asking whether a perpetrator of incivility is trying to provoke the target or whether the target is being overly sensitive. This question lies at the core of what it means to experience workplace incivility, encapsulating behaviours in which although the victim of incivility feels harm, the intent is equivocal. Consequently, incivility is more insidious and more difficult to respond to than overt workplace is (Cortina & Magley, 2009). Workplace incivility causes long-term harm to an organisation that can be challenging to reverse. If an uncivil transgression is rebuked, the target might be accused of being too politically correct, with comments such as “lighten up” or “can't anyone take a joke anymore?” The target subsequently feels double injury by first having a mockable trait or behaviour and then not being able to see humour in the taunt, thus perpetuating feelings of ostracism (Ely, Meyerson, & Davidson, 2016). Uncivil behaviours lack the overt negative mistreatment associated with abuse and bullying, making them more insidious and subversive. Ambiguity regarding the nature, cause, and intent of incivility creates opportunities for targets to attribute questionable meanings to the transgression, including self-blame for provoking the behaviour (Tong et al., 2019). Kabat-Farr et al. (2018) argue that this leads a target to self-reflective questions such as “Was that person rude because I did something wrong?,” “Was it something I said?,” and “What did I do to deserve this?” Such leads a target to experience feelings of anger or guilt, with significant detrimental repercussions. Targets experience a high degree of psychological stress, increased burnout, inhibited cognition, and distraction in response to workplace incivility (Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Lim, Cortina, & Magley, 2008; Oyeleye et al., 2013). Targets of incivility are less able to recall or assimilate new and important information (Porath & Erez, 2007; Rafaeli et al., 2012), are less productive, and have greater absenteeism and turnover intentions (Ghosh,

46 Jacobs, & Reio, 2011; Giumetti et al., 2013; Pearson, Andersson & Porath, 2000; Sliter, Sliter, & Jex, 2012). The experience of incivility also correlates with low job satisfaction, decreased creativity, and increased feelings of disrespect (Cortina et al., 2001), which lead to poor organisational commitment and citizenship behaviours (Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002). Table 2.1 list the most common forms of workplace incivility.

Table 2.1 Types of Incivility Behaviour Examples References Ignoring the target’s presence or contributions in a discussion; Einarsen (2000); Ostracising behaviours inviting everyone but the target to a Williams (2007) social event in front of the target The use of irony to mock, put down, Sarcasm Ziegele & Jost (2016) or hurt another's feelings Talking down to someone; eye Duffy, Ganster, & Condescension rolling; inappropriate smirking; Pagon (2002) snickering Deliberately bringing up sensitive Unwanted personal Leary (2001); Spector topics; revealing confidential discussions & Jex (1998) information behind the target’s back Leading or set-up questions; deliberately asking questions Anderson & Pearson Inappropriate questioning knowing the target has no (1999) knowledge on the topic Making unnecessary noise; speaking Distracting, annoying Blau & Andersson, to someone who is not listening; (2005); Robinson & behaviours talking over someone; yime wasting Bennett (1995) Clark & Kenaley Poor manners Not saying please or thank you (2011) Leaving messes for others Deliberately causing work for Clark & Kenaley to clean up another (2011) Pearson, Andersson, & Making unreasonable demands; Porath (2005) Setting others up for failure withholding valuable information Clark & Kenaley (2011) Making demeaning remarks Undermining the reputation or worth Pearson, Andersson, & about appearance (publicly of a person behind his/her back Porath (2005) or privately) Voicing doubt about the Undermining the ability of a person Pearson, Andersson, & abilities of capable behind his/her back Porath (2005) employees

47 Workplace incivility is pervasive and has profound consequences on individuals and organisations, yet until recently, most research focused on forceful, clear, repeated behaviours such as abusive supervision, workplace bullying, deviance, aggression, undermining, and sexual harassment (Britton, Sliter, & Jex, 2012; Duffy et al., 2002; Kim, Yoo, & Cheon, 2017.; Lim & Cortina, 2005; Schilpzand, de Pater, & Erez, 2016; Schneider, Swan, & Fitzgerald, 1997; Tepper, 2000, 2007; Williams, 2007). The salient nature of these behaviours simplifies their classification as purposeful, deliberate, and with the intent of aggravating or harming a victim. Clear intent makes retribution or speaking out more defensible and admissible, and targets can call on support and official organisational interventions. Broader abuse literature commonly operationalises the source of negativity by its frequency and with a narrowly defined single-source perpetrator such as a supervisor, peer, or customer (Tepper, 2000). In contrast, workplace incivility can come from either single or multiple sources (Porath & Pearson, 2013). Isolated incidents of incivility create significant, measurable stress responses and change the way future interactions are appraised. The term incivility therefore more accurately reflects workplace environments in which ambiguous negativity is experienced from single or multiple sources.

2.4.2 Cyber-incivility Increases in the use of technology have exacerbated incidences of incivility in contemporary workplaces (Giumetti, et al., 2013; Pearson et al., 2000). Rapid propagation of cyber-mediated work interactions, platforms such as e-mail, SMS, messenger, Zoom, Skype, WhatsApp, discussion boards, and remote-conferencing, and other social media forms (Tarafdar, Darcy, Turel, & Gupta, 2015), have transformed the organisational landscape (Park, Fritz, & Jex, 2015) and consequently the stresses employees experience. Despite many advantages of cyber communications, there is growing evidence that incivility at work is heightened by computer-mediated use (Giumetti et al., 2013; Pearson et al., 2000). Norms of civil communication appear to be changing as face-to-face interactions diminish (Filipkowski & Smyth, 2012). Cyber-environments reduce visual and emotional cues, resulting in greater depersonalisation of interactions and an increased propensity for work colleagues to experience negative misattributions (Poon & Chen, 2016) due to several factors. First, the physical separation associated with cyber-communication greatly increases the possibility that innocuous acts such as stepping away from the computer, being distracted by factors in the immediate environment, or technical difficulties are misconstrued as negative provocations (i.e., being ignored and given the silent treatment). Rintel and Pittam (1997) demonstrated that individuals who communicate virtually are more likely to assume they

48 were being ignored rather than attribute non-communication to an alternative explanation. Correspondingly, removal of important social cues (e.g., pitch, tone, rate of speed, facial expressions, and body language) present during face-to-face communication (Giumetti, McKibben, Hatfield, Schroeder, & Kowalski, 2012; Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000) restricts an individual’s ability to attribute accurate explanations. Second, virtual communication modalities diminish politeness (Filipkowski & Smyth, 2012), hinder building of mutual trust (Kasper-Fuehrer & Ashkanasy, 2003), and lessen use of respectful and appropriate language in favour of abbreviations and slang (Wu et al., 2012), thus creating opportunities for impertinence and defensive behaviours (Karlen & Daniels, 2011). Third, virtual communication promotes the disinhibition effect, or a type of cyber- bravado, in which users are less constrained to use inflammatory language than they would if in person (Suler, 2004; Ziegele & Jost, 2016). Lack of accountability, anonymity, and reduced likelihood of direct retribution encourage uncivil behaviours in virtual interactions (Williams, 2011) and create stress conditions that promote greater incivility (Barley, Meyerson, & Grodal, 2011; Barber & Santuzzi, 2015; Mano & Mesch, 2010; Stich, Farley, Cooper, & Tarafdar, 2015). Distress from e-mail incivility at work even spills over to the home, continuing to affect employees the morning after they experience it (Park, Fritz, & Jex, 2015). Frequent cyber interactions place individuals in a state of hyper-vigilance and anticipatory stress (Chan & McAllister, 2014). When face-to-face interactions are limited, workers are more apprehensive about trusting coworkers (Bradley & Vozikis, 2004). Since extant research has evidenced that incivility is worse in cyber-environments, I focus on cyber-incivility.

2.4.3 Stress Caused by Incivility: Conservation of Resources Theory

The relationship between ongoing incivility and stress (Clarke, 2017; Cortina et al., 2001; Kern & Grandey, 2009; Penney & Spector, 2005) can be understood in the context of COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), the premise of which is that individuals have intrinsic motivation to acquire, retain, protect, and maintain valued resources (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001), including objects such as material possessions, conditions such as secure employment, energies such as physical stamina, cognitive processing, money, and time (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001), and individual characteristics such as self-esteem, confidence, and emotional stability (Gorgievskia & Hobfoll, 2008; Sulsky & Smith, 2005). According to Hobfoll (1989). psychological distress occurs when individuals believe that “resource loss is

49 disproportionately more salient than resource gain” (p. 62). The relative importance of these threats and losses is determined by ecological and cultural constructions (Hobfoll, 2011).

2.4.4 Incivility and Untrustworthiness as a Resource Losses Experiencing incivility at work represents a resource threat or loss in the COR framework. High-performing employees seek high-quality relationships, trust, and perceptions of value with peers and supervisors (Ashkanasy, Wilderom, & Peterson, 2000), dedicating time and energy (i.e., resources) with the expectation of subsequent gains. The quality of interpersonal relationships determines the strength of the link between resources and psychological wellbeing (Faragher, Cass, & Cooper, 2005). Thus, gaining respect at work, achieving status, valued, and having trustworthy colleagues increase workers’ feelings of psychological safety (Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Frazier, Fainshmidt, Klinger, Pezeshkan, & Vracheva, 2017), self-efficacy, and self-worth (Hobfoll, 1989). Ignoring or disregarding others is a common form of workplace incivility (Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2005) that, in line with social exclusion theory (Leary, 1990), causes substantial decreases in four fundamental needs (i.e., belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence) (Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007; Smith and Williams, 2004). People are equipped to detect and avoid exclusion such that even the implication of activates negative emotional responses (Kassner et al., 2012).

2.4.5 Measuring Stress using Salivary Cortisol Most research on the effects of incivility uses subjective, self-report measures of stress (Cortina & Magley, 2009; Cortina et al., 2001; Jawahar & Schreurs, 2018; Lim, Cortina, Magley, 2008; Taylor, Bedeian, Cole, & Zhang, 2017). Several biases interfere with results obtained from self-report measures, including acquiescence (Paulhus, 1991), extreme and central tendency responses (Deng et al., 2018), state negative affectivity (Chen & Spector, 1991), and response expectancy, during which a respondent appraises what a researcher is investigating and responds accordingly (Kirsch, 1997). At work, some individuals do not feel comfortable disclosing stress states (APA, 2016), a reluctance due to fear of stigmatisation, particularly in men, or biases of cultural impression management, in which individuals do not feel it is appropriate to report a stress state in public (Kurlansik & Maffei, 2016). Myers (2009) explained how distinct gender, ethnic, socioeconomic, and cultural differences influence the degree to which stress is integrative. Individuals might be unaware of whether or to what degree they are stressed, appraisals of stress are not necessarily conscious (APA, 2016; Nielsen et al., 2006), and symptoms can be felt somatically,

50 originating from stress and anxiety, with a psychogenic rather than medical basis (Varsha, 2017). Women are 50% more likely than men to report somatic stress symptoms such as headaches and stomach pain. Men report much less frequently but are more likely to report somatic stress sexual dysfunction (Kroenke, & Spitzer, 1998; Shidhaye, Mendenhall, Sumathipala, Sumathipala & Patel, 2013). Schilpzand, de Pater, and Erez (2016) argued that physiological measures of stress are needed in studies of incivility, and responding to this gap, I used salivary cortisol to measure stress in a study of workplace incivility. Cortisol is a catabolic hormone secreted by the hypothalamic, pituitary, adrenal (HPA) axis, activated by real or imagined situations characterised as physiologically and psychologically stressful. Events that elicit social-evaluative threats, lack of control, shame, or humiliation consistently and robustly activate the HPA axis (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004; Rohleder et al., 2007; Taylor, 1999). Peak pituitary-adrenal cortical responses occur and can be detected in saliva 10 to 30 minutes after activation (Dickerson and Kemeny, 2004; Kudielka & Kirschbaum, 2005; Pollard & Ice, 2007). Since there is little time between event and reaction, stress measured through cortisol is more accurate than post-event memory recall. I used salivary cortisol rather than expressed communication as a proxy for stress. Salivary cortisol is safe, non-invasive, objective, and reliable, and is the most frequently investigated stress biomarker (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004; Shirtcliff et al., 2015). Cortisol has been important in establishing stress as a basis for many physiologic processes and health outcomes, including neural development and cell death (Uno et al., 1994), immune dysfunction (Segerstrom & Miller, 2004), learning and memory impairment (Heffelfinger & Newcomer, 2001), sleep disruption, (Abell, Shipley, Ferrie, Kivimäki, & Kumari, 2016), changes to and fat distribution (van Rossum, 2017), impediments to growth, development, (Edes, & Crews, 2017), and reproduction (Dunkel Schetter & Tanner, 2012), and accelerated aging (Epel et al., 2006). Cortisol is independent of report bias and is medically quantifiable. Thus:

Hypothesis 1: Individuals who experience incivility from their supervisor experience more stress than those who do not experience incivility, as evidenced by higher cortisol levels.

2.4.6 Emotional Intelligence and Supervisor Incivility Two individuals who experience the same circumstances do not necessarily experience the same degrees of stress (Luria & Torjmman, 2009; Meurs & Perrewé, 2011), such that the negative repercussions of workplace stress are inconsistent across workers.

51 Some individuals appraise a situation as threatening and are more vulnerable to stress, but others are more resilient and appraise the situation as manageable or innocuous. While a range of dispositional, behavioural, and situational antecedents to incivility have been investigated (Cortina et al., 2017) Itzkovich, 2016; Lim & Lee, 2011; Meier & Spector, 2013; Milam, Spitzmueller, & Penney, 2009; Schilpzand et al., 2016; Walsh et al., 2012), the contribution of the individual skills of those targeted by incivility remains largely unexplored (Schilpzand et al., 2016). Specifically, investigating the moderating effect of EI skills and incivility is valuable. The underlying factors of EI (i.e., skill with, emotional perception, understanding, and facilitation and management of emotions) (Mayer & Salovely, 1997) individually and collectively contribute to how an individual experiences, reconciles, attributes, and subsequently manages acts of incivility. When low-EI individuals experience negative events, such as incivility, they might be less likely to understand and make connections to their own emotions and behavioural urges to events. For example, some employees might not realise that after experiencing incivility from a boss, engaging in self- deprecating thoughts, feeling irritated by a co-worker, finding fault in a partner/child, or having the to smoke, eat junk food, or disengage on social media rather than work are potential consequences of experiencing incivility (Cortina & Magley, 2009). A high-EI individual might make the connection and therefore be less vulnerable to succumbing to maladaptive urges. One facet of EI is interoceptive awareness, defined as the ability to identify physiological changes tied to emotions (e.g., a flash of humiliation causes increased heartbeat; Barrett et al., 2004) and understanding their origins. Only a limited number of studies, however, have examined associations between EI and workplace incivility, or EI as either a moderator (Bibi, Karim, & Din, 2013) or (Itzkovich, & Dolev, 2017; Kirk, Schutte, & Hine, 2009). Marchiondo, Marchiondo, and Lasiter (2010) argued that a disinclination to confront others’ uncivil actions might contribute to incivility. Cha, Cichy, and Kim (2008) link reluctance to confront to the absence of EI skills, such as social diplomacy, that are required to navigate delicate conversations. An alternative perspective offered by Kirk et al. (2009) suggested that individuals with low EI are more likely to report instances of workplace incivility. Nonetheless, EI accounts for individual variability in responses to stress (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Petrides & Furnham, 2001) because it influences finer understanding of those around and why some emotions arise and are expressed (Ashkanasy & Dorris, 2017). A perception of incivility forms in the mind-state of subordinate workers (Chan & McAllister, 2014), and individuals differ to the extent to which they identify, understand,

52 regulate, and use emotional information for themselves or others (Mikolajczak, Balon, Ruosi, & Kotsou, 2012). In high-EI individuals, perceptions of reality are more positive, prosocial, and optimistic (Lopes, Grewal, Kadis, Gall, & Salovey, 2006), which conveys advantages in a variety of work situations, particularly when experiencing incivility. Mayer et al. (2008) argue that EI includes “the ability to engage in sophisticated information processing about one’s own and others’ emotions and the ability to use this information as a guide to thinking and behaviour” (p. 503). High-EI individuals pay attention to, use, understand, and manage emotions, and these skills serve adaptive functions that benefit themselves and others. Accumulating evidence to support the EI–incivility link suggests that EI relates closely to affect and attitudes at work in terms of the way employees behave and how they perceive others behaving toward them (Ashkanasy & Dorris, 2017; Brackett et al., 2006; Lopes et al., 2006). EI also relates closely to cognitive functions (Matthews et al., 2006) in ways that benefit workers. Individuals with greater EI are more skilled at emotion management and are therefore inclined to experience less stress (Cooper & Quick, 2017; Côté, Miners & Moon, 2006). Consistent with COR, individuals with high EI experience less stress when exposed to workplace stresses such as incivility. When high-EI individuals experience stress, they are more likely to manage it and focus on adaptive behaviours such as reframing and relationship repair (Crum, Salovey, Achor, 2013; Fernández-Berrocal, & Extremera, 2006). Regarding COR, such resilience represents resource protection and investment behaviours (Gorgievskia & Hobfoll, 2008). I argue that in the context of COR, having high EI represents a resource. EI is a skill that allows people to gather information and establish more nuanced understandings of those around them so that they are better able to respond to them and situations. According to the Oxford Dictionary (Resource, 2019), a resource can be a personal attribute or capability that helps or sustains one in adverse circumstances. Just like the ability to understand a foreign language is a resource for a traveller to a foreign country that allows him/her to understand the language and therefore understand what is happening and make informed decision- making, EI is a resource that allows people to notice emotional language. High-EI individuals can therefore detect cause-and-effect relationships better (Yip & Cotê, 2013). Understanding causality is a valuable resource, particularly in situations with high negative affect, and it enables such individuals to understand, for example, the origin of a supervisor’s discord rather than ruminate on self-deprecating motives that erode self-esteem resources.

53 Supervisors hold immense psychological power over subordinates; they can build up or tear down an employee’s sense of security, value, safety, and for prospects at work. Although supervisor incivility can be accidental or due to an insensitivity (Andersson & Pearson, 1999), it is often used as a supervisory style to transmit information to a target, signals of displeasure to prompt a subordinate to engage in self-adjustment. High-EI individuals might better understand the antecedents of uncivil comments from supervisors. They can take perspective and appreciate the supervisor’s standpoint (i.e., when a supervisor is under pressure from the CEO). Alternatively, they might reconcile that they do not agree or respect that supervisor, and can devalue the relationship to counteract the influence of resource loss through perceived rejection (Hobfoll, 1989). They are adept at managing their own emotional discords (Cotê, 2014) and can direct attention to more advantageous endeavours, rather than taking offence. Individuals with high EI can predict future emotions accurately based on current events, and they use this information to circumvent conflict escalation (MacCann & Roberts, 2008). Using , high-EI individuals evade future uncivil supervisory interactions. I argue that EI is essential to perceptions of, reactions to, and coping strategies in response to incivility. For example, what one individual considers incivility, another perceives as insignificant. Meurs and Perrewé (2011) argue that not all individuals therefore react the same way to stress situations (Luria & Torjmman, 2009), and this is determined by EI skill. High stress, as experienced during uncivil situations, reduces cognitive processing, effective decision-making, learning, and both short-term and working memories (Baratone, Roland, Picano, & Williams, 2008; Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000; Taverniers, Smeets, Van Ruysseveldt, Syroit, & von Grumbkow, 2011; Warr & Downing, 2000). High stress hinders a person's ability to seek stress-moderating resources such as social support and limits his or her effectiveness at work tasks or when seeking alternative actions to avoid more incivility. Sir Francis Bacon (1597) said, “Knowledge is power” EI is a knowledge-gathering and - understanding resource, and hence when an individual has high EI, he/she knows and understands the environment better than a low EI individual does, leading to more personal empowerment, less uncertainty, more feelings of control, and therefore less stress. Thus:

Hypothesis 2: Emotional intelligence moderates stress responses to supervisor incivility, such that supervisor incivility has a stronger influence on the stress in people with low emotional intelligence.

54 Subordinates’ trust in their supervisors is therefore critical to high-quality work relationships and resource-building (Dietz, & Gillespie, 2011; Dirks, & Ferrin, 2002), yet uncivil behaviours from superiors toward subordinates frequently occur, breaking trust. From a subordinate’s perspective, trust is a willingness to take a risk (Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007) and a decision to be vulnerable to others’ actions (Gillespie, 2003; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). According to the reciprocity principle (Falk & Fischbacher, 2006) of social exchange theory (Blau, 1968), individuals have an inherent expectation that positive acts toward another are reciprocated. The assumption that supervisors will act trustworthily is fundamental to the supervisor–subordinate relationship (Galford, & Drapeau, 2003). If these expectations are violated through supervisor incivility, and a subordinate perceives that resource loss is imminent, he or she is likely to evaluate supervisors harshly, and even more harshly than if he or she was betrayed by another person when no reciprocal expectations were held (Burgoon, 1978; Le Poire, 1994). From COR theory, incivility that occurs through supervisor-mediated trust-fracturing or peer-mediated ostracism threatens the perceived social resources of workers and feelings of belonging that underlie the resource of psychological safety (Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Williams, 2007; Wu et al., 2012). Employees typically draw on these resources to buffer other work stressors. Without them, incivility, like social exclusion, reduces motivation (Leung, Wu, Chen, & Young, 2011) and increases withdrawal. If withdrawn, the ability of that individual to access information and resources is influenced negatively, which in turn diminishes job performance and wellbeing (Ren & Zhang, 2015). The perceived trustworthiness of a supervisor is also examined in this thesis to assess interactions between trustworthiness and stress in situations of incivility. Thus:

Hypothesis 3: Trustworthiness has an independent influence on stress beyond the effect of incivility.

2.5 Study 1

Incivility often comes from workers’ superiors (Reio, 2011), and thus I emulated types of incivility behaviours common during virtual supervisory interactions, which are part of contemporary workplaces (Sliter et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2012). Participants engaged in mentored work tasks, orchestrated to induce stress. This study is also an exploratory examination into whether perceptions of supervisor trustworthiness has independent importance beyond incivility. I assessed whether incivility from supervisors affects the stress

55 of subordinates relative to perceptions of supervisor trustworthiness. Supervisory style was a primary variable manipulated in this study.

2.6 Method

2.6.1 Participants I recruited university students (N=328; female 47%, male 53%) between the ages of 18 and 42 (M=19.4, SD=2.3) through a first-year organisational behaviour course. Participation was voluntary and according to the university’s approved ethical protocols. Each participant received a coffee voucher and feedback on their personal EI score.

2.6.2 Procedure and Design Participants were assigned randomly to a computer that was pre-programmed with one of 4 experimental conditions and asked to provide a saliva sample before testing. To explain the saliva sampling, participants were told that the session was being administered in conjunction with researchers who were assessing the effect of online mentoring on alertness and . Experimental stimuli were generated by a computer program that emulated a student–supervisor engagement session, during which supervisors gave advice to participants remotely regarding a series of business case questions where they were required to make a series of decisions about a simulated business model. Participants were not told of the fictitious nature of the study, believing it to be a real supervisory session. I used piloted photographs of eight faces with descriptive vignettes as profiles. Participants (10 post-graduate students were recruited using snowball sampling) in the pilot session were shown eight photographs and descriptive vignettes. They were asked to rate them on a Likert-type scale on how trustworthy they perceived the person to be (1=very untrustworthy, 7=very trustworthy). The photos and vignettes were separated into trustworthy and untrustworthy groups based on these results. Supervisory style (i.e., uncivil versus supportive) was facilitated through a chat function that appeared in the lower right-hand corner of the screen, with the familiar appearance of a Gmail or Skype chat functions (Appendix A). Supervisors advised on nine business case questions, during which a supportive style was characterised as warm, encouraging, and understanding, and an uncivil style was dismissive, sarcastic, and condescending. The definition from Pearson, Andersson, and Porath (2005) informed communication characterised by incivility.

56 The trustworthiness of the supervisor was manipulated in two ways. First, photographs were selected for the appearance of trustworthiness (2 men and 2 women) or untrustworthiness (2 men and 2 women). Second, descriptive vignettes were created that portrayed the supervisor as more or less trustworthy. Trustworthy supervisors were portrayed as having integrity, benevolence, and skill, and untrustworthy supervisors as self-focused, inexperienced, and lacking integrity. The trust-priming components of the supervisor vignettes were informed by definitions of trust from Mayer et al. (1995) and Gillespie (2003, 2012).

2.6.3 Measures Emotional Intelligence. Participants completed the MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002) before the experiment, a 141-item assessment that yielded a total EI score, four-branch scores, and two area scores for experiential (i.e., branches 1 and 2 combined) and strategic (i.e., branches 3 and 4 combined) EI. Consistent with the view of EI as a cognitive ability, scoring of responses followed a correct/incorrect format of an ability-based IQ test, while requiring the individual to be attuned to social norms (Salovey & Grewal, 2005). Correctness of MSCEIT responses were determined in two ways: based on (a) congruence with answers from emotion experts (i.e., expert scoring) and (b) the proportion of the sample that endorsed the same answer (i.e., consensus scoring) (Mayer et al., 2003; Papadogiannis, Logan, & Sitarenios, 2009; Salovey & Grewal, 2005). Mayer et al. (2003) reported high agreement between the two scoring methods in terms of correct answers (r=0.91) and test scores (r=0.98). Stress. I obtained salivary cortisol data by instructing participants to spit saliva into a small plastic vial before (Time 1) and after (Time 2) the experimental interventions. Saliva samples were analysed according to instructions on the ELISA cortisol testing kit from Abacus ALS Laboratories, resulting in a measure of cortisol in nanograms per millilitre (ng/ml). I subtracted baseline cortisol values from Time 1 (pre-intervention) from cortisol values at Time 2 (post-intervention). Higher values indicated greater cortisol changes and higher stress. Cortisol levels decline naturally from awakening to afternoon (Schmidt- Reinwald et al., 1999), so close attention must be paid to the time of day to ensure that diurnal fluctuations are considered. All experimental sessions were held at the same time of day to ensure results were not influenced by such fluctuations (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004; Miller & Maner, 2009; Page-Gould, Mendoza-Denton, & Tropp, 2008).

57 2.6.4 Manipulation Checks Trust manipulation check. To determine perceived trust in the supervisors, participants completed pre- and post-trust surveys. The surveys consisted of 15 items—9 from Mayer and Davis (1999) and 6 from the Behavioural Trust Inventory (3 items measuring ability, benevolence, and integrity; Mayer & Davis, 1999), and trust (BTI; Gillespie, 2003, 2012). Trustworthiness scale responses were rated on a scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree/not willing at all) to 5 (strongly agree/completely willing). Sample items included “Do you agree this supervisor will be concerned about your welfare?” and “To what extent would you depend on this supervisor to back you up in difficult situations?” Incivility manipulation check. The extent to which participants perceived that their supervisors acted with incivility toward them was measured using a 6-item, modified version of the Workplace Incivility Scale (WIS; Cortina et al., 2001). Responses were rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items included “To what extent did you feel ridiculed?” and “To what extent did you think the supervisor made you feel incompetent?” Positive and Negative Affect Scale. A PANAS (Watson et al., 1988) survey was administered online that consisted of 26 survey questions. 2.7 Results

2.7.1 Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, for each manipulation variable appear in Table 2.2. Coefficients for all measures were over the .7 threshold (Nunnally, 1962), ranging from .73 to .95. No effects of trust or incivility emerged on the PANAS, so this measure is not discussed further. Table 2.2 Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients and Descriptive Statistics for Each Variable Cronbach's alpha Cronbach's (standardised alpha items) Items minimum maximum mean Pre-trust 0.881 0.886 6 1.42 5.00 3.693 Post-trust 0.963 0.962 6 1.00 5.00 2.951 Uncivil 0.892 0.898 6 1.00 4.83 2.673 Note. N=369

58 2.7.2 Incivility manipulation check A 2x2 between-groups ANOVA was calculated to examine the effects of supervisory style (i.e., uncivil versus supportive) and trustworthiness (i.e., low versus high) on incivility ratings. Shown in Figure 2.2, participants rated supervisory styles as more uncivil in the uncivil condition in comparison to the supportive condition F(1, 365)=1133.27, p<.001), suggesting that the incivility manipulation was effective. No difference in incivility ratings was found across the trustworthiness manipulation (F(1, 365)=2.67, p=.103), and no interaction was found between supervisory style and trustworthiness (F(1, 365)=1.42, p=.234).

5

4.5

4 3.832 3.861

3.5

3

2.5 Incivility Incivility Ratings 2 1.665 1.474 1.5

1 Uncivil Supportive

Trustworthy Untrustworthy

Figure 2.2. The effect of incivility manipulation on incivility ratings. Error bars represent standard errors.

2.7.3 Trust manipulation check Analysis of the trust ratings revealed differences across the uncivil condition in comparison to the supportive condition (F(1, 365)=1133.27, p<.001), suggesting that the incivility manipulation was effective. No difference in incivility rating was found across the trustworthiness manipulation (F(1, 365)=2.67, p=.103), and no interaction was found between supervisory style and trustworthiness (F(1, 365)=1.42, p=.234). Incivility and time also affected trust; participants with uncivil mentors reported lower trust (F(1, 365)=514.87, p<.001), and participants reported lower trust ratings after the session in comparison with before (F(1, 365)=388.30, p<.001). No interaction was found between supervisory style and trustworthiness (F(1, 365)=0.02, p=.903). There was a significant interaction between trustworthiness and time (F(1, 365)=10.82, p=.001). Shown in Figure 2.3, pre-test trustworthiness was lower in the untrustworthy versus trustworthy condition, but the effect

59 was attenuated by the post-test. There was a significant interaction between supervisory style and time (F(1, 365)=892.60, p<.001). Shown in Figure 2.3, pre-test trustworthiness was equivalent in the civil and uncivil conditions, but post-test trustworthiness increased slightly in the civil condition and dropped substantially in the uncivil condition. No 3-way interaction was found among supervisory trustworthiness, style, and time (F(1, 365)=0.92, p=.339).

Supportive Conditions 5 4.5 4.227 3.926 3.98 4 3.499 3.5 3

2.5 TrustRating 2 1.5 1 Trustworthy Untrustworthy

Pre-test Post-test

a) Ratings in the Supportive Conditions

Uncivil Conditions 5 4.5 3.867 4 3.38 3.5 3

TrustRatings 2.5 1.797 2 1.637 1.5 1 Trustworthy Untrustworthy

Pre-test Post-test

b) Ratings in the Uncivil Conditions

Figure 2.3. The effect of trust manipulation on trust ratings for supportive (a) and uncivil conditions (b). Error bars represent standard errors.

60 2.7.4 Effects of Supervisory Style on Change in Cortisol. To assess Hypothesis 1, the influence of incivility on stress (i.e., cortisol), I used a mixed-model ANOVA with supervisory style as the between-subjects factor and time as the within-subjects factor. The ANOVA revealed main effects for supervisory style (F(1,326)=5.17, p=.024) and time (F(1,326)=44.40, p<.001), and an interaction between supervisory style and time (F(1,326)=83.15, p<.001). In support of H1, stress was higher after the intervention for participants with an uncivil mentor but not for those with a supportive mentor. Simple effects analyses revealed an increase in cortisol in the uncivil condition (F(1,185)=122.72, p<.001), and no change in cortisol in the supportive condition (F(1,185)=3.43, p=.066) (Figure 2.3). There were no significant main effects in cortisol levels between participants exposed to a trustworthy supervisor versus an untrustworthy supervisor, so results are not reported.

10

9

8

7 6.387 6.112

CortisolLevel 6

5

4 Uncivil Supportive

Pre-test Post-test

Figure 2.4. The effect of uncivil and supportive supervisory styles on cortisol levels. Error bars represent standard errors.

61 Shown in Table 2.3, post-intervention cortisol correlated negatively with post-test trust, but positively with incivility, and post-test trust correlated negatively with incivility ratings. Table.2.3Table 2. Correlations6. Correlations among among Trust, Trust, Civility, Civility, and and Cortiso Cortisoll

1 2 3 4 5

1. Pre-intervention cortisol -

2. Post-intervention cortisol .80** -

3. Pre-test trust ratings .05 .01 -

4. Post-test trust ratings .02 -.12* .28** -

5. Incivility ratings .00 .17* -.16** -.83** -

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01.

1 When rounded up to 3 decimal places this number is .002 2.7.5 Effects of Supervisory Style and EI on Change in Cortisol.

I used hierarchical multiple regression to test the relative influence of EI, supervisory styles, and supervisor trustworthiness on stress levels, as measured by postintervention salivary cortisol. By controlling for preintervention cortisol during these analyses, the remaining variance in postintervention cortisol was composed of measurement error and change over time. Thus, to the degree that the manipulations influenced postintervention cortisol when controlling for preintervention cortisol, evidence suggests that the manipulations influenced stress levels. Predictors were entered as participants’ preintervention cortisol score (Step 1), age and gender (Step 2), supervisory style, trustworthiness, and EI (Step 3), and the interaction between EI and supervisory style, and between trustworthiness and supervisory style (Step 4). Preintervention cortisol predicted postintervention cortisol in each step of the model (Table 2.5). At Step 3, supervisor style predicted postintervention cortisol, such that those in the uncivil condition had a greater increase in cortisol than those with supportive supervisors (β=.26, p<.001). EI predicted postintervention cortisol, such that participants with higher EI had lower postintervention cortisol (β=-.17, p<.001). The hypothesised interaction between supervisor style and EI emerged at Step 4 (β=-.11, p<.001). Simple slope analysis of the interaction showed no effect of EI on cortisol in the supportive condition (β=-.069, p=.09), but a negative effect of EI on cortisol in the uncivil condition (β=-.231, p<.001).

62 Trustworthiness did not predict postintervention cortisol on its own or in two- or three-way interactions with other variables, with the exception of an interaction found between trustworthiness and civility (β=.06, p<.04) that did not appear in Study 2 (Appendix C).

2.8 Study 2

In Study 2, I replicated and extended Study 1’s investigation of the influence of EI and supervisor incivility on worker stress, as measured by cortisol. A limitation of study 1 was the absence of a neutral supervisory style condition. Hence, I added a neutral supervisory style, which enabled clarification on whether changes in cortisol were attributed to supervisor incivility, supervisor support, or both, and thus a more robust evaluation of the effect of supervisory style on cortisol change.

2.9 Method

I recruited 350 university students for the study (63% female; ages 17 to 38; M=19.83, SD=3.4) using the same procedures and incentives as in Study 1. The procedure, design, and measures for Study 2 were the same as during Study 1, with two improvements. First was the addition of a neutral supervisory style condition in which feedback was neutral, neither warm nor cold, just factual and pragmatic. Second, performance feedback was consistent across all conditions such that all participants were told they answered 5 questions right and 5 wrong, irrespective of the condition (feedback was on a random schedule). Participants in the neutral condition received feedback such as correct or incorrect, with an impartial description of why the option was correct or incorrect. Unlike the other two conditions in which civil feedback was supportive (“Great try, but that question would have been better choosing option B. It’s OK. I think you're getting this. Let’s keep going”) and uncivil feedback rude (“You got the right answer, but based on your previous poor results, I suspect you may have cheated, looked at the person next to you?”), there were no value judgements or superlatives attached to neutral feedback (“I can see why you chose that answer, however option B was correct because…”). This made it possible to ascertain whether stress was a result of supervisor incivility or whether participants were merely stressed about not choosing the correct answer.

63 2.10 Results

2.10.1 Effects of Supervisory Style on Cortisol. To assess the influence of supervisory style on cortisol, I conducted a mixed-model ANOVA, with trustworthiness and the three supervisory styles (i.e., uncivil, neutral, and supportive) as a between-subjects factor and time as a within-subjects factor. No effects were found for trustworthiness during any analyses, so results are not reported.1 The ANOVA revealed no main effect for supervisory style (F(2,347)=2.68, p=.07) or time (F(1,326)=0.30, p=.586), but did reveal an interaction between supervisory style and time (F(2,347)=25.96, p<.001). Simple effects analyses revealed a decrease to cortisol in the supportive condition (F(1,118)=24.51, p<.001), no change to cortisol in the neutral condition (F(1,58)=1.53, p=.221), and an increase to cortisol in the uncivil condition (F(1,171)=28.05, p<.001; Figure 2.5).

9

8.5 8.09 8 7.591 7.5 7 6.432 6.5 6.283 6.028 6 5.723

CortisolLevel 5.5 5 4.5 4 Supportive Neutral Uncivil

Pre-intervention cortisol Post-intervention cortisol

Figure 2.5. The effect of supportive, neutral, and uncivil supervisory styles on changes to cortisol. Error bars represent standard errors.

Interpretation of results from the supportive condition is marred by the fact that the pre- measured cortisol was higher than cortisol in the other conditions (F(2,347) = 4.26, p < .05), reflecting failure of random assignment in that initial levels of cortisol were expected to be similar across randomly assigned conditions. Analysis of the PANAS revealed a two-way

1 The main effect for trustworthiness: F(1,344) = .94, p = .332; interaction between trustworthiness and supervisory style: F(1,344) = .71, p = .490; interaction between trustworthiness and time: F(1,344) = .62, p = .431; three-way interaction among trustworthiness, supervisory style, and time: F(1,344) = 2.06, p = .129.

64 interaction between supervisory style and mood, F(2,347) = 11.42, p < .001, such that positive mood decreased and negative mood increased in the uncivil supervisor condition. To ensure that the effects of civility on cortisol were not a function of the effects of incivility on affect, the mixed-model ANOVA on cortisol, with the three supervisory styles (i.e., uncivil, neutral, and supportive) as a between-subjects factor and time as a within-subjects factor, was estimated again including the PANAS as a covariate. This ANCOVA revealed that the PANAS was not a significant covariate, and the effects of incivility on changes in cortisol remained significant, F(2,346) = 20.48, p < .001.

2.10.2 Effects of Supervisory Style and Emotional Intelligence (EI) on Change in Cortisol. Prior to conducting regressions, bivariate correlations were calculated across all variables (Table 2.4). Table 2.4 Bivariate Correlations Among Variables Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Pre cortisol 1 2. Post cortisol .60*** 3. Pre trust .02 .05 4. Post trust .12** .01 .06 5. Age -.02 -.02 .10 .07 6. Gender -.30 .05* .05** .06 -.01 7. Trustworthy - supervision -.04 -.06 .63*** -.01 -.05 .04 8. Uncivil supervision .03*** .28*** -.01 -.20 -.05 .08*** .05* 9. Supportive supervision .15 .10 -.05 -.02 .05 .03 .15 .05*** - 10. EI (MSCEIT) .02 .30*** -.10** -.10 -.10 -.07* .08 -.06 -.07 1 Note. N= 36. DV is post-intervention cortisol ng/ml. *p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Hierarchical multiple regression was used to test the relative influences of EI, supervisory styles, and supervisor trustworthiness on stress levels. To separate the analysis of

65 uncivil versus neutral supervisory styles and civil versus neutral supervisory styles, two dummy codes were created. Gender was coded as female = 0, male =1. One dummy code compared uncivil (1) versus neutral (0) and the other compared civil (1) versus neutral (0), enabling both comparisons in a single regression. The predictors were entered as participants’ pre-intervention cortisol score (Step 1), age and gender (Step 2), the two dummy coded supervisory styles, trustworthiness, and EI (Step 3), and the interaction between EI and the two supervisory styles, between EI and trustworthiness, and between trustworthiness and the two supervisory styles (Step 4). As in Study 1, trustworthiness had no main or interaction effects (see Appendix C for full regression results). Pre-intervention cortisol predicted post-intervention cortisol in every step of the model (Table 2.5). At Step 3, supervisor style predicted post-intervention cortisol, such that uncivil supervisors led to a greater increase in cortisol than neutral supervisors did (β=.23, p<.001). EI predicted post-intervention cortisol, such that higher EI associated with lower post-intervention cortisol (β=-.30, p<.001). At Step 4, an interaction was found between uncivil versus neutral supervisor style and EI (Table 2.5). Simple slopes analysis of the interaction showed a significant effect of EI on cortisol in the neutral condition (β=-.116, p=.040), and a stronger negative effect of EI on cortisol in the uncivil condition (β=-.525, p<.001). No other interactions were found, so they are not included in the table (see Appendix B for complete output).

66 Table 2.5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses of Emotional intelligence, Supervisory Styles (Uncivil versus Neutral) and Supervisor Trustworthiness (Untrustworthy versus Trustworthy) on Post-intervention Cortisol Levels B SE p Step 1 Pre-intervention cortisol .61 .04 .001 Step 2 Pre-intervention cortisol .61 .04 .001 Age -.03 .05 .948 Gender .60 .54 .120 R2 Adj. R2 R2 ∆

.37 .36 .00 Step 3 Pre-intervention cortisol .65 .04 .001 Age -.03 .05 .579 Gender .25 .45 .120 Trustworthy supervision .02 .16 .921 Supportive supervision -.50 .50 .307 Uncivil supervision 2.0 .45 .001 EI (MSCEIT) -1.3 .16 .001 R2 Adj. R2 R2 ∆

.60 .52 .08 Step 4 Pre-intervention cortisol .67 .04 .001 Age .00 .04 .932 Gender .17 .31 .588 Trustworthy supervision .50 .36 .177 Supportive supervision -.45 .45 .326

67 Uncivil supervision 2.1 .42 .001 EI (MSCEIT) -.41 .383 .283 Uncivil x EI (MSCEIT) - .44 .001 Supportive x EI (MSCEIT) 2.03 .46 .282 Trustworthy x EI (MSCEIT) .50 .15 .625 Uncivil x Trustworthy -.07 .42 .277 Supportive x Trustworthy -.45 .44 .278 R2 Adj. R2 R2 - .61 .60 .08 .482

68 2.11 Discussion These studies support the proposition that individuals who experience workplace incivility experience more stress than those who do not. Participants demonstrated an increase in stress when treated with incivility by a supervisor. This pattern was evident in individuals with low EI who interacted with supervisors whom they expected to trust. Individuals with high EI were better able to manage stress responses, as evidenced by a smaller change in cortisol. Individuals treated in a supportive, civil manner demonstrated a reduction in cortisol when supported by supervisors. These results corroborate the proposition that individuals with high EI are better able to moderate their stress responses to workplace incivility than low-EI individuals are. Unlike most workplace scenarios, these studies did not involve face-to-face interactions or familiar people, and incivility occurred at only a single occasion, but even under these conditions, incivility was stressful. Individuals exposed to incivility secreted stress hormones that prepared the body for survival in dangerous situations. Stress was incited by low-intensity, ambiguous, subtle, and even imagined situations far below the threat threshold. Stress caused by incivility poses a substantial problem for organisations and their employees since the prevalence and frequency of workplace incivility is at record levels (Porath & Pearson, 2013). Repeatedly experiencing socially evaluative threats or the threat of resource loss influences allostasis, or the ability to maintain physiological stability in response to changing environments (McEwan, 2000). Allostatic systems (e.g., HPA axis) respond to internal and external challenges, such as real or perceived incivility, to facilitate optimal adaptation to an environment. When a perceived threat passes, stress responses must shut off to replenish and clear biological factors (i.e., cortisol) used in the fight-or-flight response. Repeated excitement of the allostatic system over weeks, months, or even years, such as experiencing incivility frequently, disrupts allostasis and accelerates resource depletion, with pathophysiological and psychological consequences (McEwen, 2000). The consequences of recurrent activation of the HPA axis are serious, including immune dysfunction (Segerstrom & Miller, 2004), which relates to absenteeism and creates substantial financial and operational costs for organisations. Frequent, high cortisol might also cause sleep deficits, poor working memory, inability to assimilate complex or novel stimuli, and learning decrements (Abell et al., 2016; Heffelfinger & Newcomer, 2001). Workers might become poor team players, increase risk-taking (e.g., substance abuse) and presenteeism, and be impervious to punishment (Pfattheicher & Keller, 2014). It can be

69 difficult for organisations to identify these issues or attribute them to stress. Instead, supervisors might ascribe poor performance to dispositional traits (Bolino & Turnley, 2005). Results from this chapter contribute to incivility literature and broader stress literature in three ways. The study satisfies a call from Schilpzand, de Pater, and Erez (2016) for more “work on biological and physiological outcomes for experienced and witnessed incivility” (p. 83). Since low concordance between subjective self-report and objective measures is well- established, the current study corroborates that incivility is more insidious and problematic than anticipated. From a biological perspective, cortisol is predictive of long-term negative health consequences, and daily exposure to incivility goes deeper than just being an unpleasant experience of impoliteness. An encouraging finding is the positive physiological effect that supervisor civility and support provides, as demonstrated by a drop in cortisol from pre- (M=7.59, SD= 5.31) to post-intervention (M=6.43, SD= 3.64) for participants in the supportive condition. These results evidence that if supervisors focus on making a subordinate feel supported, the small gesture reaps benefits for the wellbeing of the target, and therefore subsequent benefits for the organisation more generally. Results suggest that high EI affords some protection against stresses such as social evaluative stress and perceived resource-loss stress that incivility causes. Encouraging screening for high EI workers would yield positive results over time, and implementation of EI development training might offer long-term benefits to organisational climates and finances.

2.11.1 Practical implications Findings illustrate the importance for managers to make more of an effort to articulate organisational expectations regarding incivility. In addition, focusing more emphasis on educating employees on the psychological and physiological consequences of unaddressed stress caused by incivility at work. Low-EI individuals are particularly vulnerable to the deleterious effects of stress, and organisations should focus interventions on such employees. Given the protective benefits of EI, coupled with evidence of the negative influence of incivility on stress and the fact that EI can be learned, this study highlights the utility of EI training and development, not only from a financial but an organisational cultural perspective. High-performing employees are commonly afforded extra professional development, but I propose that all employees benefit from EI training.

2.11.2 Methodological Implications Using cortisol as a measure, this study offers a methodology for conducting research on stress. Self-report and psychophysiological measures of stress have little concordance (Gudjonsson, 1981; Kelly, McDonald, & Rushby, 2012), and individuals tend to report in

70 socially desirable ways (Judge, Erez, & Thoresen, 2000; Moorman & Podsakoff, 1992; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986; Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987). Such biases are particularly prevalent and problematic during stress research; individuals are often reluctant to admit to negative emotions, thus confounding results and obscuring relationships between variables (Gudjonsson, 1981). Some individuals might have no insights into or the ability to communicate their stress states accurately, even if they are inclined to report truthfully.

2.11.3 Limitations and Future Directions These studies were conducted using university students, so based on ecological validity, extrapolating results to other groups is limited. However, experiences of incivility and stress are universal. Stress responses are driven by the HPA axis, which is a fundamental biological process found in all humans, unrelated to education, socio-economic status, or culture. I argue that these results apply to all individuals (see Mitchell & Jolley [2012] for a discussion on the underestimated validity of laboratory research). Interactions in these studies occurred over online chats and might appear to lack temporal and face-to-face dimensions that typically characterise trust in supervisor–subordinate relationships (principally benevolence over time, according to Schoorman et al. [2007]). Despite singular and virtual supervisory interactions, findings are valuable because they resemble many real-world work relationships in which individuals have limited personal interactions and are required to interact virtually on work-related tasks frequently. Future research should replicate these studies with the addition of post-experiment, qualitative interviews to uncover coping mechanisms and thought processes. This would provide valuable information on whether high-EI individuals are more impervious to incivility or are better equipped at down-regulating negative emotions after experiencing it. More-frequent cortisol testing throughout an experiment would corroborate self-reported data, confirming that individuals did not feel stress or whether they did at first and then down-regulated it. Positive results that demonstrated EI as an effective stress moderator encourages future research in the direction of EI training. Extant research suggests EI is a skill that can be developed (Slaski & Cartwright, 2003). Political skill may also of interest to investigate as a buffering construct for workplace stress. Political skill represents a type of interpersonal control that allows people to differentially interpret workplace stressors in less aversive ways, and thus cope more effectively, which in turn, reduces strain. Perrewé, Ferris, Frink and Anthony (2000) have demonstrated political skill correlates with EI about .5 (across a number of studies). Predicated on these results, research that tests EI development

71 and stress moderation in a non-laboratory field setting, such as the military, in which communication is characterised as uncivil (Schilpzand et al., 2016), is the next logical step.

2.12 Rationale for Field Study Based on positive findings from the laboratory studies that suggest EI moderates stress, I expanded the study to investigate the effectiveness of a tailored EI training program. This field study was conducted in an environment characterised by high risk and high stress, and it continued and expanded on the theme of avoiding self-report limitations and use of biological measures of stress. I also included burnout as a variable through immune-function testing and used the ability-based EI test MSCEIT. This type of training would lead to greater appreciation of the risks and prevalence of stress injuries, and thus advance pre-emptive, preventative, and effective treatments. Failure to prepare high-risk individuals for the inevitable stressful conditions they face creates greater social, physical, psychological, and financial costs.

72 CHAPTER 3- A PRE-EMPTIVE APPROACH TO STRESS MANAGEMENT IN HIGH-RISK WORK CONTEXTS: EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE TRAINING AND BIO-MEASURES OF STRESS- FIELD STUDIES

3.1 Abstract

Stress is omnipresent in high-risk occupations, and although individuals often self- select into such roles, they are not immune to the negative consequences of frequent and accumulated exposures to stress. I examined the effectiveness of a resilience-based, emotional intelligence (EI) training intervention to pre-emptively reduce stress and enhance trust in a high-risk occupational group. I assigned Special Forces soldiers randomly to treatment (EI training) and control (non-EI training) groups, and then exposed them to stress- inducing serials. Objective biological indicators of stress (i.e., salivary cortisol) and burnout (i.e., IgA) were collected before, during, and after the stress serials. Drawing on conservation of resource theory, I hypothesised that soldiers who received EI training would be more effective at managing their stress, experience less burnout, and perform better than those who received the control group training. Results suggested differences between the groups’ cortisol levels in several of the stress serials. EI-trained soldiers were more effective at managing stress (i.e., had lower cortisol and protected immune function) and performed better (as measured by the indicators of shoot-no-shoot outcomes under cognitive load, memory recall, and pain tolerance) in comparison to non-EI trained soldiers. The implications of these findings are discussed.

73 3.2 Introduction

Positive results from the lab studies encouraged further investigation into the moderating effect of EI in a real-world, extremely physical and emotionally high-risk, high- stress work environment. Research conducted in a Special Forces military context, supported by an Australian Army Research Grant, involved two studies, during which I examined the efficacy of EI training in managing stress during real military training exercises. Along with the biomarkers of stress, salivary cortisol, and immune function marker IgA, I used behavioural measures as indicators of training effectiveness.

3.3 Background

The World Health Organization (2014) identified work-related stress as one of the most significant challenges of the 21st century. Chronic stress is common in all modern workplaces and associates with absenteeism, employment termination, work-accidents, and diminished productivity. Researchers recognise chronic stress as a risk factor for health- related conditions that influence employees’ quality of life adversely, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, sleep disorders, asthma, back pain, exhaustion, anxiety, and depression (Bergström et al., 2017; Frieri, O'Connor, & Nassef, 2015; Gross, 2017; Hallsten, 2017; Hellhammer & Hellhammer, 2016; Konietzny et al., 2018; Lovallo, 2005; Madden, Kidder, Eddleston, Litzky, & Kellermanns, 2017; Palagini, Gronchi, Caccavale, & Mauri, 2015; Wolff, Gay, Wilson, DeJoy, & Vandenberg, 2018). Individuals who work in high-risk occupations that involve a high degree of danger and uncertainty experience elevated fear and anxiety regularly. Examples of high-risk jobs include military, police (Rothberg & Wright, 1999), intelligence agents, war journalists (Feinstein, Owen, & Blair, 2002), firefighters (Del Ben, Scotti, Chen, & Fortson, 2006), paramedics, and emergency department doctors and nurses (Bennett, Williams, Page, Hood, & Woollard, 2004). Such jobs extend to first responders or human service providers who experience emotionally charged interactions with demanding recipients or situations daily (Britt & McFadden, 2012). Adler, et al., (2013) argue that stress casualties are induced by experiences such as a direct threat to one’s life and safety, real or vicarious exposure to human and/or death, perpetration of deliberate or accidental harm on others, continuous high-tempo skills training, deployment unpredictability, lack of perceived control, austere living conditions, and changing sleep conditions.

74 3.4 Stress in high-risk occupations.

Stress is omnipresent in high-risk occupations, and although individuals often self- select into high-risk jobs and display extraordinary tolerances for hazardous risk, they are not immune to the negative consequences of frequent and accumulated exposures to stress. Examining stress through the bio-psycho-social perspective (Engel, 1977) of McEwan and Stellar’s (1993) allostatic load model, it is evident that such groups are prone to stress-related physical problems that have the potential to develop into more serious and enduring mental health problems (Barling, Kelloway, & Frone, 2005; Cooper, C.L., Cooper, C.P., Dewe, & O’Driscoll, 2001). Repeated physiological, psychological, and social stress accumulates to create load that can lead to burnout, a common outcome of chronic stress. Maslach and Jackson (1984) characterised the phenomenon as a cluster of syndromes, such as depressive mood states, emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation, a reduction in the sense of personal efficacy, withdrawal, and lowered work performance and fulfilment (Bianchi et al., 2015). Hoge et al. (2010) argued that such individuals are reluctant to seek help in comparison to individuals in lower-stress occupations. Organisations that expose employees to hazardous environments have greater operating costs in terms of employee training and replacement, healthcare, , insurance costs, and worker's compensation payouts (Deschamps et al., 2003). From 2010 to 2015, Safe Work Australia (SWA) reported that 91% of workers’ compensation claims involving a mental health condition linked to work-related stress or mental stress, with the majority of claims coming from high-risk occupations. As psychological injury costs increase for such organisations, research increasingly calls for practical, implementable, and empirically validated solutions (McFarlane, Hodson, Van Hooff, & Davies, 2011). In view of the deleterious effects of work-related stress in high-risk occupations, researchers have begun to investigate interventions to deal with the problem (Christopher et al., 2016; Jung et al., 2016; Lumb, 2016). One such intervention is resilience-based, emotional intelligence (EI) training.

3.5 Emotional Intelligence

Research suggests that EI helps individuals cope with significant daily stress. This evidence comes from meta-analyses (Martins et al., 2010; Schutte, Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Bhullar, & Rooke, 2007) and research on self-reported wellbeing (Sánchez-Álvarez,

75 Extremera, & Fernández-Berrocal, 2016). High EI relates to positive psychological and physiological outcomes, including positive health outcomes and work performance (Joseph, Jin, Newman, & O’Boyle, 2015). Many researchers (Ashkanasy, Ashton-James, & Jordan, 2003; Bastian et al., 2005; Cotê, 2014; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Schutte et al., 2013) argued that workers with high EI have improved perceptions of and emotional responses to stress, make better decisions, have more and increased coping abilities, and manage their own and others’ emotions better than low-EI individuals do. High-risk occupations are characterised by a need to make decisions during time- sensitive, critical stress events, often with lives in danger. Murray, Jordan, and Ashkanasy (2006) suggest that emotional regulation is a skill that can be developed through specialised training. Despite much research on the topic of EI over the past two decades (Joseph & Newman, 2010; Cotê, 2014), little research has assessed the efficacy of EI training on stress. According to Hodzic, Scharfen, Ripoll, Holling, and Zenasni (2018), the reasons are multifaceted, including a reluctance to publish on EI training because of commercial/intellectual property concerns and difficulties associated with capturing authentic stress responses in the field. Studies of EI and stress typically use self-report surveys, which are limited by impression management and other issues. Ascertaining accurate and authentic stress states is a common problem in stress research, especially when investigating stress in high-risk occupations. Inaccuracies of self-reported stress are well-documented (Epel et al., 2018) and exist for several reasons. First, research participants often lack insights into their true emotional states, particularly if they operate in a work environment that requires them to withstand a high degree of physical discomfort and are trained to ignore pain and suffering in themselves and those around them. Second, temporal separation between stress events and reporting reduces accuracy, with recent or salient events recalled with more emotion than earlier, less-salient events. Third, a reluctance to admit weakness arises from , fear of stigmatisation, and concern regarding the influence disclosure might have on employment. Consistent with a high-risk occupation population is the propensity to push on to a point of burnout (Hoge et al., 2010). Daley (1979) suggested that the process toward a state of burnout can be subtle and gradual, similar to “the frog in boiling water phenomenon” (Gini, 1998, p.12), such that an individual is unaware of the severity of the situation. Given the limitations of self-reported stress, I used biological measures of stress and burnout, including the stress hormone cortisol and the first-line immune function marker Immunoglobulin A (IgA). IgA testing has been used widely as a stress measure and a pre-

76 emptive predictor of burnout, particularly among elite athletes and emergency health workers (Dunbar, Armitage, Jehanli, & Browne, 2013; Eklund, & DeFreese, 2013; Potter, 2006; Tsujita & Morimoto, 1999). This study examined the influence of EI training on biological measures of the stress hormone cortisol and immune function (IgA), which offer objective indicators. I investigated the efficacy of EI based training for reducing stress enhancing performance in high-stress occupations. During training, stress is operationalised through a bio-psycho-social (Engel, 1997) allostatic load model (McEwan & Stellar, 1993) Drawing on Hobfoll’s (1989) Conservation of Resources (COR) framework, I explain why EI training enhances an individual’s ability to regulate stress. Those who receive EI training predictively are more effective at managing their stress, experience less burnout, and perform better throughout a sustained period of exposure to stress. I tested these hypotheses during an experimental field study of Special Forces soldiers. The study involved testing soldiers’ EI, stress levels (using salivary cortisol) and immune function (IgA) before and after a long and arduous selection and training cycle. The soldiers’ cortisol was tested (before- during-after) participating in several stress serials that emulated operational combat activates.

3.6 Workplace Stress in High-Risk Occupations

Every job carries some degree of risk, but some jobs have inherently higher risks. High-risk occupations expose employees to greater-than-average degrees of risk of injury, danger, or death (Saad, 2014). Stanley, Horn, and Joiner (2016) argued that this includes threats of violence, assaults, and fatalities, and risk of causing fatalities in others in the course of their work. Individuals attracted to high-risk employment have a disposition, personality type, or greater tolerance for stress and danger. According to White (2018), such individuals have a need for adrenaline and risk-taking, or are drawn to meaningful career pursuits characterised as high in altruism and concern for others’ safety and welfare. They are often first to volunteer for tasks that others avoid because they are confident in their abilities under pressure. Such individuals are more likely to work well under high stress without getting distracted due to a keen sense of situational awareness and detail orientation. Therefore, they have already developed, knowingly or unknowingly, emotion-regulation strategies. White (2018) further suggested that their comfort with dangerous tasks and the propensity to trust themselves lead to blind spots associated with risk and potential failures. Stergiou-Kita et al. (2015) argued that stoicism and comfort with risk have both favourable and unfavourable consequences; being good at emotion regulation is the reason such individuals have reduced

77 capacity to acknowledge problems when things go bad and feel uncomfortable asking for help when they realise there is a problem. High-risk employee identity in combat soldiers, police officers, ER doctors, paramedics, and firefighters associate with being tough, being dependable, and possessing innate stoicism (Sherman, 2007). However, when stress accumulates and individuals recognise that things are not right, this realisation occurs when stress reaches physical manifestation, rather than an admission of deteriorating mental health. Accumulation of unmanaged stress frequently manifests as an increase in self-destructive behaviours and substance abuse (e.g. drinking, smoking, and legal and illegal drugs) (Hines, Jawahar, Wessely, & Fear, 2013; Hughes & Terrell, 2011; Maguen et al., 2011; Pietrzak, Pullman, Cotea, & Nasveld, 2013), and sleep disorders, gain or loss (Alexander et al., 2016), frequent upper respiratory tract infections, and poor cardiovascular health. Such physical manifestations coexist with or lead to negative psychological outcomes such as anxiety and depression, impaired ethical decision-making (Kligyte, Connelly, Thiel, & Devenport, 2013), disrupted problem-solving (Arslan, 2010), administrative, procedural and tactical errors, increased absenteeism, falling asleep while on call (Rajaratnam et al., 2011), and subsequent maladaptive social outcomes (Maguen et al., 2011). Domestic violence, anger issues, relationship breakdowns, self-harm, and suicide is higher in these populations (MacManus et al., 2012; Svetlicky & Lubin, 2010). Employees in risky occupations have a strong reluctance to seek help and treatment (Britt et al., 2016), making it difficult to gather accurate data on the prevalence of the problem. One area in which the issue has received the greatest focus is in the U.S. military, as a response to an upsurge in military employees suffering mental health problems in connection with combat actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Research suggested that only a minority of military personnel with mental health problems seek treatment. Hoge et al. (2004) found that among active-duty soldiers, 23% reported pursuing treatment for a mental health problem. Kim, Thomas, Wilk, Castro, and Hoge (2010) found that the percentages of American National Guard soldiers who reported seeking treatment were between 13% and 27%. A comprehensive, mandatory follow-up screening program after the U.S.-led Operation Desert Storm revealed that over 30% of military personnel returning from combat reported psychiatric problems (Hoge, Auchterlonie, & Milliken, 2006; Hoge et al., 2004). A large percentage of individuals who suffer from mental health disruptions do not seek help. This creates the case for a pre-emptive approach to stress reduction through EI training, in which individuals are taught to recognise signs of emotional distress early and are educated on

78 strategies to understand and make decisions on how to reduce stress and therefore manage psychological disruption before it becomes a substantial problem. Multiple theories address determinants of avoidant behaviours (Ben-Zeev, Corrigan, Britt, Langford, 2012; Blais & Renshaw, 2013; Blais, Renshaw, & Jakupcak, 2014; Gould et al., 2010; Held & Owens, 2013; Kim et al., 2011; Mittal et al., 2013). Some individuals are unaware that they have a problem. Breitbach, Rabinowitz, and Warner (2018) argued that drinking, drug-taking, and reckless behaviours, a form of self-medication (Bray et al., 2010), have been normalised in some sub-cultures of the military and high-risk occupations, and might mask the psychopathology associated with such behaviours. Cultural norms limit genuine expression of personal emotional experiences (Bakker & Heuven, 2006; Schaible & Six, 2016). For example, soldiers are commonly afraid of stigmatisation, prejudice, and discrimination (Hautzinger & Scandlyn 2017). Momen, Strychacz, and Viirre (2012) reported that many believe that disclosure might result in being labelled ineffectual, not being able to handle combat, looking weak, and letting people down, which threatens their self-respect, self-agency, and identity. Royle, Keenan, and Farrell (2009) suggested that of stigmatisation are endemic across many first responders, in which cognitive separation into them and us, and painful loss of status, is perceived as being branded an outsider (Ben-Zeev et al., 2012). Disclosure or self-admission of issues is problematic in terms of fit-for-duty or Medical Employment Category (MEC) rules surrounding high-responsibility employment. Individuals fear that any deviation from a high-functioning state is career-ending (Blais & Renshaw, 2013), with fear of losing professional accreditation or deployment opportunities (McFarlane et al., 2011). This is prevalent not only in the military, but in other high-risk jobs in which employees have access to ammunition, explosives, sensitive information (e.g., security clearances), and complex technology/machinery, and have lives in their hands (Blais, Renshaw, and Jakupcak, 2014; Kim et al., 2011; Mittal et al., 2013). This is contrary to other lower-tempo employment, in which mental health disruption is no longer a reason for employment cessation, and organisations can accommodate individuals with reduced- capacity duties (Fischer & Riedl, 2019). Unhelpful personal beliefs and attitudes toward illness and care are common (Kim et al., 2011; Vogt, Fox, & Di Leone, 2014). Among high-risk/high-stress employee populations, mental health is viewed as binary—either ‘good-to-go’ or in the ‘nut-bucket’ (Mittal et al., 2013). No system appears to support a middle-ground state. Information and support are essential to individuals who feel not quite right but are not yet categorically unwell (Currier, Holland, & Allen, 2012; Hoge et al., 2004; Jakupcak et al., 2013). Several researchers argued

79 that individuals are likely to see psychological professionals only as an exit strategy when they believe their careers are ending. Among these populations, injunctive norms regarding seeing professionals as an early stop-gap, deterrent, or precursory strategy are absent (McFarlane et al., 2011; Pols and Oak, 2007; Tsan, Zeber, Stock, Sun, & Copeland, 2012; Vogt, 2011). This explains why a pre-emptive approach to stress management is useful. Education needs to be communicated concerning the potentially non-linear, transitory, and impermanent nature of mental health disruption in individuals who experienced high degrees of trauma and stress. The perception that a symptom or diagnosis of a mental health condition means a lifelong prognosis needs to be challenged. Familiarisation with emotions, self- perceptions of emotions (i.e., how to identify early stages of emotional emanations), understanding emotional complexities, understanding that opposite emotions can simultaneously coexist, combining and transmuting, and management of emotions are foundational skills. These abilities fall under EI, and to bridge the divide between psychological states of well versus unwell, EI allows high-functioning individuals to be more effective, rather than a mechanism that makes broken individuals normal.

3.7 Rationale for a Field Study among Special Forces Soldiers

In an experimental field study, I assessed a high-risk employee population of Special Forces (SF) soldiers who were undergoing an extremely stressful selection and training cycle. The environment was ideal to investigating stress since SF preparation involves significant exposure to stress, there are clear humanitarian and operational needs to help SF soldiers manage stress, and it provided a structured process in which to test the efficacy of EI training on several performance outcomes. Once qualified, SF soldiers are required not only to survive, but thrive in environments of extreme stress, ambiguity, complexity, and . The stressors to which they are exposed are not only physical, but cognitive, emotional, and moral (Langford, 2014). The SF soldiers in this study needed to be able to transition seamlessly among the emotional challenges of advising in foreign, culturally-diverse environments, conducting offensive operations, and operating on the home front during continual training. They also needed to maintain healthy relationships in their private lives, in which emotional demands differ dramatically. According to the WHO Mental Health Survey (Koenen et al., 2017) and Mental Health in the Australian Defence Study (McFarlane & Hodson, 2010), institutes are increasingly aware of the consequences of unmanaged stress on mental and physical health if

80 protective soft skills are not learned and fostered. In comparison to civilians, veterans experience greater chronic, complex health conditions such as PTSD, alcohol disorders, and inflammatory responses (Capone, McGrath, Reddy, & Shea, 2013). They are also disinclined to seek help (Currier et al., 2012) and are prone to avoidant behaviours because of fear of stigma and loss of operational opportunities (Hines et al., 2014). Soft-skill requirements, which include inter-personal dexterity, emotional agility, perception, understanding, and management (Table 3.1), fall under EI skills (Côté et al., 2006). Research suggests that high-EI individuals perceive situations as less threatening, experience less anxiety, regulate stress better, are more resilient, make more rational decisions, exhibit greater job performance, have greater propensities to trust, and make better team members and leaders, and EI is a learnable skill (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005; Côté et al., 2006; Matthews, et al., 2006; Rivers, Brackett, Salovey & Mayer, 2007; Yip & Côté, 2013). Such research is important not only to help individuals who work in these occupations, but for all people whose lives are protected and made safer by the contributions and dedication of individuals who risk their lives to keep others safe.

3.8 Allostatic Load Model and a Bio-Psycho-Social Perspective of Stress

The neuroendocrine consequences of prolonged stress from numerous life factors that individuals in high-risk/high-stress jobs experience are well-documented (Lupien & McEwen, 1997). I used a bio-psycho-social perspective (Engle, 1977) based on the allostatic load model of stress. Sterling and Eyer (1988) denote the term allostasis as the process by which an individual maintains physiological homeostasis by responding to internal and environmental demands that disrupt stability. Allostatic load represents the wear and tear, or multitude of accumulative internal and external factors, that influences the physiology, psychology, and social dimensions of an individual when exposed to repeated real or imagined threats to homeostasis. This exposure activates the HPA hypothalamic-pituitary- adrenal axis stress response system (McEwen & Stellar, 1993), resulting in increased catecholamine release (e.g., adrenaline/noradrenaline), which facilitates recruitment of major muscle groups for a physical fight-or-flight response (Ulrich-Lai et al., 2007). This includes the release of cortisol, the primary stress hormone and focal hormone in this study. Prolonged physical and psychological accumulative stress increases susceptibility to diseases such as hypertension (i.e., prolonged vasoconstriction), headaches, insomnia, memory problems, fatigue, ulcers, diabetes mellitus, heart failure (Tamashiro, Sakai, Shively, Karatsoreos, &

81 Reagan, 2011), viral exposure, flareups of existing allergic or autoimmune conditions, arthritis, depression, and PTSD (Björntorp, Holm, & Rosmond, 1999). Accelerated progression of chronic diseases (Tsujita & Morimoto, 1999), such as coronary heart disease and cancer (Sephton et al., 2009), are also common. The soldiers who participated in this study were in a state of extreme allostatic load, and therefore represented an ideal sample with which to investigate the consequences and intervention effectiveness.

3.9 Long-term Influences of Stress

Human response to stress evolved to cope with an entirely different environment than that experienced today. Humankind’s evolutionary ancestors faced many stressors of a physical nature (e.g., predation), which were typically brief. Chronic or failed activation of the stress response can be damaging. HPA activation signals to the body that danger is imminent, and metabolically expensive systems that monopolise most of the body’s resources are suspended to allocate resources for survival—the fight-or-flight response, and suspended systems include immunity (Tsujita, & Morimoto,1999). Immunoglobulin A (IgA) is the body’s first defence, inhibiting viruses, bacteria, and other pathogens from entering the body through the skin or an orifice, and is a primary immune function suspended during stress. IgA is an effective physiological measure to determine an individual’s vulnerability to burnout (Danhof-Pont et al., 2011). Psycho-neuro-immunological research demonstrated that sociopsychological factors such as prolonged negative emotions and stress (i.e., cortisol secretion) influence IgA levels and the immune system as a whole, increasing susceptibility to disease (Tsujita & Morimoto, 1999). Other suspended bodily functions caused by cortisol secretion include digestion, cellular, bone, and muscle regeneration, and cognitive functions such as attentional focus, memory, and consolidation of learning (Kirschbaum, Wolf, May, Wippich, & Hellhammer, 1996). The consequence of HPA activation is that the frontal lobes, or thinking part of the brain, also deactivate; an individual does not need to engage in higher-order cognitive processing when facing a life or death situation (Maier & Watkins, 2010). High stress includes the release of endorphins, which account for pushing through danger pain signals, and are included in various descriptions of heroism, particularly prevalent in a high-risk/high-stress job population in which an individual has a physical injury but reports feeling no pain (Bowirrat et al., 2010). For SF soldiers, stressors are complex—physical, psychological, and social—and often accumulate with no delineated start or end such that the HPA axis is in a frequent state

82 of activation. SF soldiers engage daily in high-stakes, often dangerous training and live-fire drills, during which mistakes can be as costly as those on the battlefield. SF missions can be as short as a number of hours to weeks or even months, commonly called sustained special operations (SUSOPS) (Vrijkotte et al., 2016). Sustained operations affect the homeostasis of an SF soldier, a prolonged state of physical and psychological stress combined with being chronically sleep deprived, malnourished, dehydrated, and caloric deficient, and being under constant behavioural and ethical scrutiny, increasing susceptibility to disease and deteriorating the collectives’ ability to win on the battlefield.

3.10 Biological Measures of Stress versus Self Report

I used non-self-reported measures of stress and burnout because biological measures are more accurate than self-reports. Epel et al. (2018) argued that biological measurements do not have an intervening interpreter (i.e., an individual’s assessment) in the way that self- reports do. The attribution of variance in self-reports is cultural-, gender-, and work-role- oriented (Ryder & Chenstova-Dutton, 2015). Soldiers and other high-risk occupation employees, for example, are trained in pain-tolerance tactics, and are encouraged to ignore physical and psychological negativity (Driskell et al., 2008). Bias might be introduced due to self-reporting being conducted after the fact (Walentynowicz et al., 2015; Redelmeier et al., 2003), and it often agrees with perceived expectations of a researcher (Kirsch, 1997) according to predefined responses (Epel et al., 2018), with some respondents clustering measurements either in the middle or extremes of a scale (Deng et al., 2018). As a physical response to stress, cortisol is generated, high levels of which affect memory and cognition (Lupien, Gillin, & Hauger, 1999; Vedhara, Hyde, Gilchrist, Tytherleigh, & Plummer, 2000). For example, cortisol secretion immediately after intense learning or presentation of novel stimuli enhances memory, transforming what is remembered into what is called flash-bulb memory. Physiological responses are continuous; adrenaline and cortisol are released through pulsatile cycles of secretion, pausing, and dumping (Dietl et al., 1993), and thus biological measurements more accurately signal instantaneous emotional responses to stress that occurs in seconds or milliseconds. Biological stress measurement identifies that an activity immediately following a stressful event will be processed by the brain with heightened fear-centre activation, colouring perceptions of the event (Oei et al., 2011; van Marle et al., 2009). Numerous investigations fail to demonstrate an association between cortisol and self-reported distress (Kirschbaum et al., 1995, Marshall et al., 1998;

83 Semple et al., 1988; Vedhara et al., 2003), and therefore objective biological markers are more conducive to stress measurement, particularly among individuals who have an interest not to report accurately due to expectations of their work, gender, or culture.

3.11 Emotional Intelligence: Conceptualisation and Measurement

Although there exist many conceptualisations of EI, Miao et al. (2017) used a meta- analysis to argue that consensus on EI has been reached. They acknowledged that Ashkanasy and Daus (2005) brought clarity to the topic of EI when they argued that the construct can be categorised into three conceptual streams, each distinguished by theoretical and methodological disparities. Stream 1 is based on the ability model developed by Mayer and Salovey (1997). Ability models categorise EI into four branches of abilities, including perceiving emotion in oneself and others, the ability to integrate emotion to facilitate thought, the ability to understand emotion in oneself and others, and the ability to regulate and manage emotions. I used this model, measured by the MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002). Stream 2 is also based on the Mayer and Salovey model but incorporates a variety of peer- and self-reported measures (Jordan, Ashkanasy, Härtel, & Hooper, 2002; Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test, SSREIT; Schutte et al., 1998; Wong & Law, 2002). Stream 3 is a mixed model (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2000) that encompasses several self-report instruments that assess aspects of cognition, personality, and affect. Instruments in the model include the emotional quotient inventory (EQ-i) (Bar-On, 1997), the emotional competency inventory (ECI) (Sala, 2002), and the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire (TEIQue) (Petrides & Furnham, 2006). Ashkanasy and Daus (2005) argue that most criticism directed at EI inappropriately encapsulates all three streams of EI, emphasising that most problems occur in the third stream. Although mixed and personality-based EI definitions appear reasonable and intuitive, and are less costly and more efficient to administer (Brackett et al., 2006), considerable ambiguity and remain in the way they are conceptualised (McEnrue & Groves, 2006). For example, several studies demonstrated that these models do not provide sufficient incremental validity beyond traditional models of personality and social/organisational behaviour (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005; Matthews et al., 2007). Dawda and Heart (2000) showed that such measures of EI often share considerable conceptual overlap with personality attributes, especially those of the Big Five (Costa & McCrea, 1992). Landy (2005) discussed the ambiguity of EI measures, suggesting the need for parsimony as a

84 foundation of scientific investigation and asking, “Why use three variables to describe behaviour, when two will do just fine?” and “Why replace one variable with another when the replacement is simply cosmetic?” (p. 418). Ashkanasy and Daus (2005) emphasised that parsimony should be considered during EI research, and unless definitions can be differentiated from extant personality traits, researchers risk being accused of dressing up “old wine in new wineskins” (p. 415). In contrast, researchers increasingly concur that Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) ability model reflects a more conceptually sound construct of EI than mixed ability and personality-based models (Anshkanasy & Daus, 2005; Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Ciarrochi et al., 2000; Mayer et al., 2003). According to Matthews et al. (2006), before assuming the status of a legitimate cognitive ability, EI should be shown to possess the same qualities reflected in extant intelligence literature, including content validity, construct validity, reliability, and external validity. In a comparative assessment of EI models, McEnrue and Groves (2006) argued that MSCEIT displays more content and construct validity in comparison to the other measures. Unlike self-reported EI measurement tools, MSCEIT avoids problems of through its use of performance-based measures that do not require high degrees of emotional awareness and self-insight. They argued that the model provides the broadest conceptualisation of EI, without significant overlap with other traits, EI outcomes, or personality characteristics. For example, it demonstrated minimal overlap with the Big Five (Costa & McCrea, 1992) personality construct (Mayer et al., 1999) and small to medium overlap with other personality constructs such as positive and negative affectivity (Ciarrochi et al., 2000; Ciarocco et al., 2001). Thus, by satisfying conceptual, psychometric, and correlational criteria in extant intelligence literature, MSCEIT remains the most promising tool for investigating EI (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005).

85

Table 3.1 Emotional Factors Likely to be Important for High-Risk/High-Stress Employees Behaviour References Stress management Cooper & Quick (2017) Elfenbein, Jang, Sharma, & Sanchez-Burks Adaptive coping (2016) Emotional attention regulation (i.e., tuning into and out of relevant or non- Sanchez-Burks & Huy (2009) relevant non-verbal cues) Understanding cause-and-effect relations Yip & Côté (2013) Dunn, Brackett, Ashton-James, Effective future emotional forecasting Schneiderman, & Salovey (2007) Social competency Côté (2014) The ability to create and maintain positive Lopes, Salovey, & Straus (2003) relationships Experiencing higher sense of wellbeing Rivers et al. (2007) and life satisfaction Processing emotional events intelligently, Ciarrochi et al. (2002) accurately, and constructively Effective coping and emotional regulation Ciarrochi et al. (2002)

In the approach to EI conceived by Mayer and Salovey (1997), ability comprises four sub-factors. Perceiving emotions concerns the ability to recognise how an individual and those around him or her are feeling, and involves the capacity to perceive feelings accurately by paying attention to and decoding emotional signals in facial expressions, tone of voice, and artistic expressions; accurate appraisals of others relate to accurate perceptions of oneself (Zadra & Clore, 2011). An individual must recognise his or her own feelings and emotions so that accurate information about the environment can be incorporated into decision-making, and being aware of others’ emotions is essential to interpersonal and team dynamics. Using emotions is the ability to employ feelings to enhance the cognitive system (i.e., thinking), and consequently, this ability can be harnessed for more effective problem-solving, reasoning, anxiety, and fear, but emotions also prioritise the cognitive system to attend to what is important and focus on what it does best in a given mood. Emotions also change the way people think, creating positive thoughts when a person is happy and negative when unhappy. These changes in viewpoint force people to view things from different perspectives. Such shifting viewpoints foster creative thinking. Individuals in a negative emotional state focus on problems (Zadra & Clore, 2011). Understanding emotions involves acknowledging that

86 emotions are complex and understanding what causes them. Emotions are rich and multifaceted, and this ability concerns how to recognise antecedents and triggers of emotions. It also reflects labelling emotions and reasoning with them on an understandable level. Knowledge of how emotions combine and change over time is important to dealing with other people and enhancing self-understanding. Managing emotions concerns the capacity to manage emotions when appropriate, and remaining open to emotional information at important times and closed when advantageous. Managing and coping with emotions is essential, as is working with feelings judiciously rather than acting on them without thinking. For example, reacting out of anger is effective in the short-term, but anger that is guided and directed is more effective in the long-term. Managing emotions involves participation of emotions in thought, and the ability to allow thought to include emotions. I argue that EI plays a role in the extent to which individuals with high EI have the capacity for emotional management that enables them to engage in self-monitoring (Porath & Bateman, 2006) and general self-regulating that enables them to reduce feelings of worry and apprehension. Empirical evidence suggested that EI buffers negative effects of workplace stress by reducing incidences of anxiety. EI associates strongly with lower depression and anxiety (Fernández-Berrocal et al., 2006; Fernández-Berrocal et al., 2005; Mayer et al., 2000; Petrides, Pérez-González, & Furnham, 2007; Salovey et al. 2002; Salovey et al., 1995; Williams et al., 2004). In contrast, low EI correlates with increased worry, maladaptive avoidant coping responses, and higher incidences of depressive symptoms (David, 2005; Matthews, et al., 2006). EI also moderates affective reactions to threats and stress (Bar-On, 1997; Jordan, Ashkanasy, Härtel, 2002; Saklofske et al., 2007; Salovey et al., 2002). Moradi et al. (2011) showed that EI associates positively with coping strategies such as problem- solving, cognitive evaluations, somatic inhibitions, and emotional inhibitions. As measured by MSCEIT ability tests, EI links to greater life satisfaction and wellbeing, stronger coping abilities, reduced stress (Austin et al., 2005; Bastian et al., 2005; Di Fabio, & Saklofske, 2014), and less cognitive effort required to solve stressful problems (Jaušovec et al., 2001). Higher EI also links with better physical health, as reported subjectively (Martins et al., 2010) and measured objectively (Mikolajczak et al., 2015). Therefore:

Hypothesis 1: Candidates with higher EI experience lower stress (measured by cortisol levels) in response to stress-inducing serials than candidates with lower EI.

87

3.12 Developing EI Skills through Training Interventions.

Empirical literature on EI training is scarce, disjointed, and difficult to conceptualise, and the reasons are many, including debates over the veracity of EI as a construct (Antonakis, Ashkanasy, & Dasborough, 2009; Locke, 2005), conjecture about which model is valid and therefore which frames training, and what constitutes EI training. There is also a problem with what dependent variable is under investigation. For example, does EI training use proxy constructs (e.g., wellbeing) or performance to demonstrate and increase EI, and do they measure improvements to EI directly? There is also a problem with retesting EI due to practice effects (Conte, 2005), lack of retestable versions of EI measures, and whether there is sufficient time between retests (e.g., 2 years with MSCEIT) (Mayer et al., 2002). Reluctance from EI training providers to publish training content specifics due to commercial/intellectual property concerns is also evident. Goldstein and Ford (2002) addressed whether training that increases EI can be answered only with valid EI measures and rigorous research designs, which is problematic in the current commercial context. Despite much EI research conducted over the past two decades, few studies have assessed the efficacy of EI training on reducing existing workplace stress, and no study examines EI training based on MSCEIT as a pre-emptive approach to reducing stress in high-risk occupations using biological measures to test the efficacy of the training (Table 3.2).

88 Table 3.2 Studies, Samples, and Variables Included in Pre–Post and Treatment–Control Using MSCEIT

Publication EI EI Sample Size Study Type Location Participants Measure Focus Pre–Post T-C

Clarke (2010a)

Sample 1 PR UK MBA students MSCEIT Yes 43 120

Sample 2 PR UK MBA students MSCEIT Yes 21 98

Clarke (2010b) PR UK Project managers MSCEIT Yes 57

Crombie, Lombard, & Noakes (2011)

Sample 1 PR SA Cricketers MSCEIT Yes 12 24

Sample 2 PR SA Cricketers MSCEIT Yes 12 24

Gaudet (2010) D CA Pharmacy students MSCEIT Yes 66

Lankisch (2007) D US Not specified MSCEIT Yes 14

Polito (2007) D US Managers MSCEIT Yes 10 37

Potter (2005) D US Undergraduates EDEIS Yes 71 25

Reuben, Sapienza, & Zingales (2009) R US MBA students MSCEIT Yes 37 122

Resident care Stenberg (2004) D CA students MSCEIT Yes 5

Wagstaff, Hanton, & Mixed Fletcher (2013) PR UK occupations MSCEIT Yes 25 49

No study that appears in Table 3.2 used biological measures of stress to test the efficacy of training on participants’ stress levels. There is, however, a small but increasing body of mixed research in which some suggested that EI development programs enhance EI (Herpertz, Schütz, & Nezlek, 2016; Lennick 2007) and subsequently improve other factors such as professional and personal effectiveness (Abraham, 2005; Cherniss & Goleman, 2001; Clarke, 2010), and some reported no changes. Cohen-Katz, Sternlieb, Hansen, and Dostal (2016) found no improvement to wellbeing between EI-educated and non-EI-educated physicians. Slaski and Cartwright (2003) found substantial enhancements in mean total EIs

89 (i.e., 95.6 to 100.8) and in the general physical health and psychological wellbeing of team members. Lennick (2007) found improvements to EI scores (i.e., 94 to 100) and improved economic outcomes in studies of the Financial Advisors in American Express Financial EI education programme. Jdaitawi (2012) found an increase using Emotional Intelligence Appraisal (EIA) among 289 first-year students who were trained in a nine-session EI program over 10 days. According to Pérez-Gonzaléz, Botella, and Mikolajczak (in press), approximately 50 studies have been conducted to assess whether trait EI scores improve after EI training, finding that 90% do. However, most suffered from methodological limitations (e.g., small samples and no control groups), and therefore such claims should be interpreted sceptically. Using few but sound studies, Mikolajczak and Pena-Sarrionanda (2015) found that average EI enhancements, reflected in TEIQue or EQ-i scores, are about 12% (in self- reports) or 6.6%, respectively. Since these studies were conducted using self-reported measures of EI, results should again be interpreted cautiously. Allsopp et al. (2006) argued that there is a divide between theory and practice, particularly when implementing organisational and educational interventions. Training interventions are time-consuming and expensive, and participant buy-is not guaranteed. The effectiveness of an intervention is difficult to ascertain, particularly when the topic is embedded in latent constructs such as emotions, in which results of training might not be immediately evident. Therefore, it is important that researchers validate interventions empirically before implementing them throughout organisations on a large scale. The current study offers guidance for future studies and training programs of this type.

3.13 Conservation of Resources, Stress, and Emotional Intelligence Training

COR highlights the value of protecting personal resources, categorised as objects, such as material possessions, conditions, such as secure employment, energies, such as physical stamina, cognitive processing, money, and time (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001), and individual characteristics, such as self-esteem, confidence, and emotional stability (Gorgievski & Hobfoll, 2008; Sulsky & Smith, 2005). According to the theory, individuals avoid activities that deplete resources unnecessarily and engage in activities that maintain, replenish, and foster resource growth. According to Hobfoll (1989), psychological distress occurs when individuals believe that “resource loss is disproportionately more salient than resource gain” (p. 62). The relative importance of these threats and losses is determined by ecological or cultural constructions (Hobfoll, 2011). Through this theoretical lens, the value

90 of EI and EI skills training in a high-stress context is clear. Many aspects of EI provide skills essential to protecting, fostering, and maintaining resources. In this study, skills provided by EI training are treated as primary resources, those that develop and maintain other protective and direct resources. One example is social support, which has consistently been shown to be one of the most effective natural stress buffers known (see buffering hypothesis, Farmer & Sundberg, 2010; Kossek, Pichler, Bodner & Hammer, 2011). Gallagher and Vella-Brodrick (2008) found that acquiring and maintaining social support is intrinsically intertwined with EI skills.

3.13.1 Stress as a resource loss In many cases, such as among SF soldiers and high-risk employees, avoidance of activities that deplete resources unnecessarily is unachievable. Experiencing prolonged stress threatens personal resources directly. For example, stress depletes vital energy, reduces serotonin (i.e., feel-good hormone), disrupts sleep (Kumari et al., 2009; van Dalfsen & Markus, 2018), reduces physical stamina, compromises immune functions (Tsujita, & Morimoto, 1999), and diminishes overall health and wellbeing (Ryff, Singer, & , 2004). The EI-trained soldiers in this study were informed of the detrimental effects that long-term, unregulated stress, and therefore cortisol secretion, have on the body’s immunity digestive systems, sleep quality, and physical and mental wellbeing, and were taught practical emotional regulation strategies. I argue that people trained in EI skills engage in affective forecasting, have better understanding of when feelings of anxiety and apprehension are mounting, and engage in emotional regulation. Stress increases the propensity for individuals to withdraw socially (Rubin & Burgess, 2001). The relationship between stress and social withdrawal is a self-perpetuating system, in which stress decreases self-esteem (Kesting et al., 2013), social assertiveness (Dalessandro, 2013), increases and therefore withdrawal. Antidotes to stress include social engagement and support. Five meta-analyses that examined the relationship between social support and workplace stress (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Ganster, Fusilier, & Mayes, 1986; Kossek et al., 2011; Viswesvaran, Sanchez, & Fisher, 1999) suggested that seeking, engaging in, and maintaining accessible sources of social support protect against, and are potent mechanisms that alleviate, workplace stress. Using COR, Hobfoll (2001) argued that social support expands available resources, reinforcing or substituting for what the individual lacks. This includes trusted, supportive relationships with co-workers, managers, and instructors, boosting one’s self-esteem, which helps with acquisition of tangible resources such as help with tasks, and a network of friends with which to engage in recreation outside of work.

91 To engage socially and gather support from others, it is paramount to understand one’s own emotional state and needs, communicate them, and have empathic rapport and self-monitoring in social situations (Lopes et al., 2004; Schutte et al., 2001). I conceptualised EI as a personal resource that is necessary to manage high-risk workplace stress through promotion of social support. Empirical evidence supported this view; higher EI is associates with increased social support (Mikolajczak et al., 2007) and better quality social and marital relationships (Malouff et al., 2014; Petrides, Sangareau, Furnham, & Frederickson, 2006; Schutte et al., 2001). I argue that EI-trained soldiers understand the importance of seeking and maintaining social interactions, particularly in high-stress situations, and seek support from other soldiers. Therefore:

Hypothesis 2: EI-trained soldiers better regulate stress, both in-the-moment cortisol and over time, when exposed to stress serials than non-trained soldiers do, as demonstrated by lower cortisol levels in the moment and post-reinforcement cycle.

Hypothesis 3: EI-trained soldiers have better immune functions after exposure to stress serials than non-trained soldiers so, as demonstrated by higher IgA.

3.13.2 Impact of Stress on Behaviour Stress affects cognition and attentional focus in several ways. McEwen and Sapolsky (1995) and Carrigan and Barkus, (2016) demonstrated that hippocampal and pre-frontal cortex brain functions are compromised by cortisol secretion. These regions are responsible for memory, decision-making, and executive functioning (Hanson et al., 2015). High-risk occupations are characterised by needing to make effective decisions, having the ability to recall seamlessly, and having access to tactics, techniques, and procedures in dynamic and time-sensitive, critical stress-events, without or becoming overwhelmed with anxiety. Individuals in high-risk environments who operate in sub-optimal physical and psychological states are therefore prone to making mistakes, threatening the resource of secure employment and resources related to confidence, self-efficacy, and agency. Alkozei et al. (2018) found that individuals with high EI perform better with decision-making tasks. I argue that EI- educated individuals have better understanding of when feelings of anxiety and apprehension begin to cloud their ability to focus on a task. They recalibrate based on strategies taught during training, thus leveraging cognitive skills to circumnavigate deleterious cognitive diminishing effects of stress. I argue that deleterious stress effects on individuals who work in

92 high-risk occupations are moderated by EI training, and skills learned not only reduce stress, but increase performance. Hence:

Hypothesis 4: EI skills improve cognitive performance and memory under stress, and therefore EI-trained soldiers perform better on cognitive, memory, and behavioural activities during stress serials than non-EI trained soldiers do.

3.14 Method

3.14.1 Research Context: The Australian Special Forces

I conducted this study using the Australian Special Forces, a section of the Australian Defence Forces. I conducted the study through the 2nd Commando Human Performance Wing (HPW) and at the Special Operations Training and Education Centre (SOTEC) during selection and training for qualification as an Australian SF Commando, Australia’s national force of last resort. These soldiers are entrusted with no-fail missions for the protection of Australia’s interests, domestic and abroad. A commando’s role is to conduct large-scale offensive, support, and recovery operations beyond the scope and capability of regular Australian Defence units. The unit is a self-contained, rapidly deployable force structured for both domestic counterterrorism, providing the Tactical Assault Group (East) with amphibious and parachute capabilities, and clandestine actions in international special operations (Department of Defence, 2016). Australian SF soldiers are required not only to survive, but thrive in environments of extreme stress, ambiguity, complexity, and confusion. In comparison to conventional Army personnel, SF commando training emphasises technical excellence in weaponry, combined with heightened cultural awareness and political sensitivity, for operations in a variety of highly stressful environments. SF utility across strategic response options includes the need to operate scalable mission profile options that include understanding, shaping, assisting, deterring, and defeating. Missions are as diverse as humanitarian support, train-advise-assist missions, and frontline offensive operations, including domestic counterterrorism. They must be lethal soldier–diplomats (as described by Langford, 2014; Field training manual, p. 13), necessitating the ability to operate without signs of undue stress, panic, or fear in multiple contexts. The nation expects its commandos to function in small- and large-scale autonomous groups, in which high levels of trust are paramount. Fromm (2010) highlighted that commandos must draw on unique skillsets, such

93 as freefall expert or sniper, and must also train these skills unceasingly and meticulously. The soldiers need these skills because they might need to step up at any point to lead a team on a critical operation. Cohesive functionality within the team, with allies, and with regional security partners also demands the need for practised emotion regulation, facial perceptions, trust-building skills, and awareness of each other’s strengths and weaknesses for optimal performance. SF soldiers must be able to transition seamlessly between the emotional challenges of advising in foreign, culturally-diverse environments, conducting offensive operations, and operating on the home front during continual training. They also need to maintain healthy relationships in their private lives, in which emotional demands differ dramatically. These soft-skill requirements, including inter-personal dexterity, emotional agility, perceptions, understanding, and management (Table 3.2), fall under the category of EI skills (Côté et al., 2006).

3.14.2 Psych-Edge Training

A training module was designed by the candidate for this study and grounded in EI and trust-building principles. The content of the program was developed by drawing on operationally relevant information provided by senior experienced Commandos and the latest research from leading EI and trust researchers from top academic institutions. It is based on the EI principles of perceiving, understanding, using, and managing emotions intelligently, the influences of decision-making under pressure, and building team trust. Training was designed to foster constructive attitudes and resilience toward stress events, and develop optimal strategies to regulate emotion and personal endocrine profiles in ways that enhance psychological and physiological performance during prolonged high-intensity periods. The training focused on emotional regulation, during which participants gained control over the body’s physiology. Emotional regulation also develops and improves interpersonal relationships by fostering a team-collective-challenge-state. Candidates learn how to adopt a challenge-versus-threat mindset regarding stress and fear. The objective of the training was therefore to provide strategies to minimise stress when possible, foster a perceptual mindset flip when stress is unavoidable, and reduce stress-inducing uncertainty by reading emotional data in the environment, increasing attentional focus and broadening situational awareness. The goal was thus to improve endocrine profiles and subsequently the operational performance of SF soldiers during SUSOPS. This applies especially to austere environments,

94 in which soldiers are sleep-deprived, calorically deficient, malnourished, and dehydrated, and decision-making is compromised. See Appendix L for a list of some of the topics covered.

3.14.3 Solder Buy-In Initial concerns existed regarding the degree of buy-in from soldiers who participated in the study, especially since research related to stress and emotions suggested that SF soldiers are reluctant to admit to or feel the need to discuss such topics. These concerns were mitigated in several ways. Cultivating buy-in from the soldiers was achieved by interlacing operationally relevant stories and real experiences with science and theory. Mission accounts were delivered by senior SOTEC and HPW instructors, who described real-life scenarios and events, during which EI and trust-management skills, or lack of EI skills, had job-, mission-, and overall life-relevant consequences. The approach achieved significant buy-in from candidates, in which they comprehended real, applicable, and implementable benefits of such training (Appendix C). To enhance understanding and learning, I incorporated practical examples and hands- on activities. Another approach was to educate them about the science underlying the training program. Training began with education about stress-response systems and endocrinological processes that occur during stress from an evolutionary (i.e., hunter–gatherer) perspective. I drew attention to associations with commando operator experiences, discussing that cortisol, the stress hormone, blocks not only immune functions, but also testosterone. Testosterone is the male sex hormone responsible for enhancing muscle growth, bone density, strength, and dominant, competitive, and aggressive behaviours. It also reduces perceptions of fear (Hermans, Putman, Baas, Koppeschaar, & van Honk, 2006). A biological switch exists during stress so energy diverts from pathways that produce sex hormones to those that produce fight-or-flight stress hormones. Soldiers understand that natural testosterone- producing pathways must function optimally for effective outcomes in their work, and that factors that interfere with testosterone production, such as prolonged stress, must be minimised or addressed. I also provided information about the negative effects of cortisol on digestion, immune functions, muscles, bones, cellular growth, repairs, blood sugar regulation, higher executive functions, decision-making, attentional focus, situational awareness, memory, and risk-taking behaviours. I presented the soldiers with a holistic bio-psychosocial perspective on the influence of stress on their performance as commandos in high-stress environments.

95 The soldiers’ positive attitudes toward the training increased once I explained some basic bio- psycho-social principles, the scientific logic behind stress interaction (i.e., cortisol), immune functions, optimal endocrine profiling, and the behavioural influences of high stress. I also taught EI strategies to reduce cortisol and influence performance directly. The soldiers subsequently provided feedback on how they have practically and successfully implemented learned strategies during daily training, during missions, and outside of work (Appendix C).

3.15 Research Design

To test the effectiveness of the Psych-Edge Training program as a pre-emptive approach to managing SF soldiers’ stress levels, a counterbalanced experimental design was used. A treatment group received Psych-Edge Training, and a control group received non-EI training. At the conclusion of the reinforcement cycle and after data collection, the groups were swapped so that all participants received both the Psych-Edge and Control Training. This experimental design was conducted over two iterations, Phase 1, and then during the following year with a different group of candidates during Phase 2. I used a between-subjects intervention model in a quasi-experimental design. The study also incorporated a two-group, naturally occurring pre-/post-test design (Allen, 2017), which involved testing participants before and after a known stress event at work. The design involved random assignment of participants into two groups—Intervention A and Control B. Group A participated in the treatment intervention and Group B in a control intervention that was unrelated to the focal treatment (Mann & Djulbegovic, 2003). Inclusion of the control group eliminated the Hawthorne effect (McCarney et al., 2007) and alternative explanations, and allowed standard comparisons with the intervention group.

3.15.1 Treatment Group Training Treatment group training is described above.

3.15.2 Control Group Training Control group training focused on physical and cognitive skill development, and was equal in terms of training time with the treatment group. The training involved altitude training in a hypoxic environment, functional lifting, RapidRote Learning language app training, a language app designed for military purposes, recovery pre- and post-movement blood-flow protocols, and using vibration therapy. The Human Performance program uses

96 non-clinical, alternative methods to prepare and recover from aerobic and resistance training; the more blood that flows, the more recovery factors flow into muscles, which is ideal for pre-movement activation and assisting with recovery acceleration by moving nutrients and oxygenated blood into micro muscle tears. Niagara therapy equipment (www.niagara.com.au) was installed in the Commando Rapid Recovery and Reconditioning Centre (R3).

3.15.3 Recruitment I used convenience sampling to recruit volunteers for each phase. Explanations of the study were communicated broadly to groups by a senior commando who commanded the SF Regiment Human Performance Wing, of which he had no influence or authority regarding the success of candidates over their 14-month training continuum. Recruitment, participation conditions, and the research design followed Australian Defence Human Research Ethics Committee (ADHEREC) Guidelines and were assessed on three occasions by a 12-person expert panel.

3.15.3 Participants Seventy-eight male Australian Military soldiers involved in a training cycle to become SF commandos (Mean age=26.79, SD=3.37 years) participated in the study. Commando selection was open to female candidates, but none have yet passed selection. Data from two training cycles (Phases 1 and 2) were combined. Phase 1: Treatment Group A (n=18) and Control Group B (n=17), Phase 2: Treatment Group A (n=23) and Control Group B (n=20). There was attrition of 12 participants over the training cycle due to failure to pass selection tasks and hence remain in the training. Efforts were made to ensure that differences between treatment and control groups were minimised by matching subjects on as many demographic dimensions as possible. Soldiers selected for commando training are typically a highly homogenous cohort in terms of fitness, IQ, daily routines, and psychological robustness (2nd Commando, Human Performance Handbook, 2015). Cohorts are similar in that they are selected for commando attributes (Appendix D), assessed during a Commando Selection Course. Detailed demographic information is restricted and cannot be expanded on here. It is insufficient for a candidate to physically endure to the end of the selection course; he must demonstrate psychosocial commando attributes and a high degree of trainability.

3.15.4 Demographic Demographics included age, years of enlistment, combat deployment, exposure to enemy fire, time spent under enemy fire, time spent surrounded by an enemy, time spent on

97 combat patrol, times witnessed firearm injuries, time spent firing at the enemy, and times in danger of injury or death (Table 3).

3.14.5 Procedure and Design Candidates read information sheets and consent forms, and were allowed 24 hours to consider participation in the study. All candidates agreed to participate and were assigned randomly by a computerised number generator to either a treatment or control group. Candidates completed a series of psychological surveys on computers in a supervised room on base. The following day, I took baseline saliva tests of all participants. The treatment group received 3 full days of Psych-Edge Training. The control group received equal time engaged in non-EI training. Six weeks after the treatment and control training sessions, all soldiers participated in five Stress-Serials designed to simulate stressful tasks typically endured by SF soldiers. The 6-week interval between training and stress serials was required since one of the emotional regulation techniques taught required sufficient practice to become part of an unconscious competence and procedural . Candidates were instructed to practice an emotional regulation intervention technique 10 minutes a day, twice a day. Techniques taught to the control group were accessible daily and included advice to practice for the same amount of time as part of their routine during the same period. Candidates conducted Stress Serials 1, 2, and 3, and four weeks later, they received a half-day booster session before Stress Serial 4a (Phase 1) or Stress Serial 4b (Phase 2). One month later, the candidates received a second half-day booster session and then engaged in Stress Serial 5. The difference in Serial 4a and 4b was due to facility and personnel access changes that required modification of a stress serial. The half-day booster sessions for the control group covered the same training modalities as that during the 3-day training serials. They conducted a round-robin of these interventions, for example, 45 minutes of language training, 45 minutes of resistance training, and 45 minutes conducting recovery modalities. During the stress serials, all participants wore full assault-order (20kg of gear, armour, and assault weapons). The serials included:

1) Stress Serial 1 Day-Rappel. Soldiers ran up a 90-foot mock-helicopter tower and rappelled off under time pressure, physically strained, and attached only by self-made tape-harnesses (Appendix E) 2) Stress Serial 2 Stroop-Shooting-Serial. Candidates engaged in reaction-time and target shoot-no-shoot interference tasks, including a pre-shoot cognitive task under stress. Soldiers ran up and down three stories to simulate assault heart rates. Senior commandos

98 then asked a difficult math question in a hostile manner under time and social-evaluative . The soldiers’ levels of and ability to answer the question accurately in one minute were observed. The soldiers then engaged in a shoot-no-shoot Stroop-style target under time pressure (i.e., 7-second exposure) at 15 metres while surrounded by simulated enemy gunfire. I evaluated the soldiers on the number of correct targets hit. The soldiers were briefed using the following instructions: - You will receive a single exposure of 7 seconds where you are to engage targets that are green in colour - You are two fire two rounds only and only one round per target - You will not see the targets prior to the 7-second exposure

There were four Stroop targets, a green rectangle, a red rectangle, the word red in green font, and the word green in red font. Of four possible targets, only two were green. Those who engaged the targets correctly accurately fired one round into the word red in green font and accurately fired one round into the green rectangle. Those who failed to pass the test fired both rounds into the green square, fired both rounds into the word red in green font, fired one round into the green square and one round into the word green in red font, or fired only one round (Appendix F).

3) Stress Serial 3 SCUF Self-Care-Under-Fire scenario. This exercise included a combat information memory recall task. Under simulated enemy gunfire, participants ran three flights of stairs in combat order to raise their physiological stress responses, and were then met with heavy gunfire from a simulated enemy force. They were instructed to administer a tourniquet to stem bleeding from their lower limb, simulated with an artificial limb for safety reasons. Participants were blindfolded when instructed to apply the tourniquet. The outer package of the tourniquet was plastic, covered in a gel to simulate blood and making opening and administering the tourniquet difficult. During this time, simulated enemy gunfire continued and a joint-terminal-attack-controller (JTAC) reported to a higher headquarters element the current atmospherics for the ground force in contact with the enemy by radio. Information communicated included information such as the size and disposition of the enemy force, coordination of the aeromedical evacuation asset (helicopter), and Military Grid Reference System coordinates (e.g., KL346 986) for helicopter landing zones to evacuate casualties. Candidates were assessed on their ability to recall critical information and the accuracy of that information. This included candidates being taken to a separate, closed area and

99 being asked eight questions by a senior commando regarding what they recalled hearing from the JTAC report. The scenario lasted five to six minutes, with an 8-item questionnaire administered directly after the scenario’s conclusion (Appendix G). 4) Stress Serial 4a Urban-Precision-Strike-Direct-Action and Recovery-Continuum (PSDARC) serial. Soldiers were required to interact with a team and engage with actors playing the role of foreign nationals, hostages, and terrorists in a stressful urban warfare environment over four days. These scenarios simulated short- and long-duration missions, ranging from 90 minutes to 6 hours to plan and execute a mission profile. These scenarios and mission sets were designed to test the culmination of martial skills taught throughout the training continuum, in replicated operational scenarios that a commando might experience in a domestic and international operation/conflict, respectively (Appendix H). 5) Stress Serial 4b Conduct after Capture Tasks. Soldiers were exposed to a simulated enemy capture scenario. The scenario replicated the first 72 hours after capture, modelled on historical evidence. The scenario included stresses such as the shock of capture, isolation from the team, interrogation, humiliation, and torture. During this time, participants were exposed to deprivation of sleep, food, water, clothing, and sanitation for up to X hours (the time is classified). Most of the time was spent in a stress-inducing body position, blindfolded, and handcuffed. The soldiers were tested immediately after being released from the simulated capture condition, and 6 hours and 12 hours after. 6) Stress Serial 5 Pain-Tolerance-Activity. Soldiers were timed to see how long they could endure holding their arm in freezing water. The task was designed to test the soldiers’ ability to emotionally regulate and overcome negative painful stimuli. I designed the pain tolerance mental endurance to evaluate the soldiers’ ability to implement taught emotional regulation strategies and trust in their team members’ ability to overcome pain signals for the overall success of the team (Appendix I).

3.15.6 Measures Salivary Cortisol. To assess the influence of stress during the stress serials and make comparisons between the control and treatment groups’ stress levels, I measured soldiers’ cortisol levels before, throughout, and at the end of the training continuum. Cortisol is a stress hormone secreted when something in the environment, real or imagined, is or appears to be a threat. It can be detected in saliva between 3 and 30 minutes after activation of the stress response, and is an objective biological proxy-measure for stress. Cortisol fluctuates naturally throughout the day, rising in the morning and flattening toward evening, but acute and

100 chronic stress dysregulates this natural cycle (Edwards, Evans, Hucklebridge, & Clow, 2001; Saxbe, 2008). (Appendix J).

Burnout Factor (IgA). To investigate whether prolonged exposure to stress made SF soldiers susceptible to burnout, IgA was measured. IgA is a physiological measure to determine an individual’s vulnerability to burnout (Danhof-Pontet al., 2011). Psycho-neuro- immunological research demonstrated that socio-psychological factors, such as prolonged negative emotion and stress, influence the immune system, increasing susceptibility to disease (Tsujita & Morimoto, 1999). IgA molecules are essential to the immune system. Produced in mucosal membranes or in the connective tissue of glands (Jemmott & Locke, 1984), these molecules prevent bacteria from forming colonies on mucosal surfaces by neutralising or killing them. They also complement or activate other innate defence mechanisms that prevent viruses from penetrating cells (Tsujita & Morimoto, 1999). Like cortisol, IgA is detectable in saliva and is a useful stress marker because it distinguishes short- and long-term effects of stress. IgA spikes immediately and falls quickly after a stressful event, making it a good immediate stress measure. IgA also measures the delayed effect of long-term chronic stress; its production is disrupted by prolonged cortisol secretion (Segerstrom & Miller, 2004). A propensity to experience burnout can be predicted when IgA levels fall 40% below baseline levels (Dunbar, Armitage, Jehanli, & Browne, 2013). Many first-grade sports teams use this measure as an indicator of preparedness to perform. Low IgA results in poor health, such as recurrent upper and lower-respiratory, gastro, urinary, and skin infections, and allergies (Aghamohammadi, et al., 2009). Various psychosocial factors, such as daily hassles (Farne et al., 1992), negative mood (Evans et al., 1993), academic exams (Jemmott et al., 1983; Jemmott & Magloire, 1988), work stressors (Zeier et al., 1996), and various relaxation techniques have been investigated as possible IgA modifiers (Tsujita & Morimoto, 1999). The precise mechanism through which psychosocial factors influence IgA production and secretion is not yet fully understood. It is hypothesized, however, that psychological stress creates cortisol, which in turn modulates the number of circulating immune cells (i.e., T and B lymphocytes). A reduction in these cells eventually reduces the production of IgA molecules (Herbert & Cohen, 1993). I measured IgA and cortisol two weeks after the last high-stress training serial to distinguish stress in the moment and longer-term stress that the soldiers experienced.

101 3.15.7 Procedures for Physiological Measurement Physiological baseline cortisol and IgA measurements were taken three times— morning, afternoon, and night—during a stress-free period to ascertain resting hormone levels. After EI training, cortisol measurements were obtained during three stress serials, including the day rappel task, the Stroop shooting task, and the self-care under fire task, taken just before the activity (T1), 1 minute after the activity (T2), and 15 minutes after the start of the activity (T3). Cortisol was also measured morning, afternoon, and night on the day of the Urban Precision Strike, Direct Action and Recovery Continuum (PSDARC) serial, and Conduct After Capture (CAC). Cortisol was measured within a range of 1.5 to 40ug/ml, and IgA was measured within a range of 18.5 to 900ug/ml. After the reinforcement cycle (i.e., two weeks after the last stressful course), cortisol and IgA measurements were taken three times—morning, afternoon, and night.

3.15.8 Saliva testing Protocol I used IPRO Saliva Analysis for cortisol measures, which used mobile lateral flow and RF saliva analysis technologies, allowing in-field testing and therefore no lab facilities, which delays results. The measurement range for the IPRO cortisol test was 0.75 to 15ng/ml (2.0 to 40nM) and for the IgA test 1.6 to 800ug/ml. Candidates were given an IPRO swab (Appendix F) and were instructed to leave the swab in their mouths until a blue line appeared (i.e., 2 to 4 minutes), indicating that sufficient saliva had been captured. They then placed the swab in a small reagent bottle and were instructed to gently agitate them for 2 minutes. On the bottle’s label, they wrote their candidate number and the time and date. They handed the bottle to the principal investigator privately and indicated whether they wanted the sample to be included. This procedure ensured that if a candidate did not want to participate in the study, he could have the sample destroyed and it would not be apparent to SOTEC instructors. All candidates participated. The samples were later analysed according to the IPRO testing manual. After the samples were collected, they were kept in a locked cooling refrigerator on base. The tests were subsequently incinerated according to ADHEREC biological sample handling protocols.

3.15.9 Psychological Measures Candidates completed surveys at the beginning reinforcement cycle in computer labs at SOTEC. Baseline control measures collected determined whether pre-intervention group differences existed between the treatment and control groups (Tables 3 and 4).

102 3.15.10 Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test The MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002) is a 141-item assessment that yields a total EI score, four branch scores, and two area scores for experiential (Branches 1 and 2 combined) and strategic (Branches 3 and 4 combined) EI. Consistent with the view of EI as a cognitive ability, scoring of responses followed a correct/incorrect format of an ability-based IQ test, while requiring the individual to be attuned to social norms (Salovey & Grewal, 2005). Correctness of MSCEIT responses can be determined in two ways: a) based on congruence with answers from emotion experts (i.e., expert scoring) or b) based on the proportion of the sample that endorsed the same answer (i.e., consensus scoring) (Mayer et al., 2003; Papadogiannis et al., 2009; Salovey & Grewal, 2005). Mayer et al. (2003) reported high agreement between the two scoring methods in terms of correct answers (r=0.91) and test scores (r=0.98). The MSCEIT was administered during only pre-intervention since retesting was not recommended (Mayer et al., 2003).

3.15.11 The Combat Exposure Scale I used the Keane et al. (1989) test, which is a 7-item self-report measure that assesses wartime stressors experienced by combatants. Inclusion of a combat exposure measure ensured that there were no statistically significant differences in combat exposure that might influence cortisol levels (Babson, Woodward, Schaer, Sephton, & Kaloupek, 2017). Respondents were asked to reply based on their exposure to various combat situations, such as firing rounds at the enemy and being on dangerous duty. A sample item included “Have you ever been surrounded by the enemy?,” and responses were scored using a 5-point frequency score (1=none, 5=26+ times).

3.15.12 Intelligence Quotient Abbreviated Ravens Progressive Matrices (Bilker et al., 2012). This test measures a G-factor (i.e., general intelligence) and is a distillate of individual non-verbal skills (i.e., fluent conversations, spins of figures, and logical maths ability). IQ measures included avoided conjecture that differences in biological measures can be attributed to a candidate with a higher IQ finding the interventions less stressful since he had a higher mental capacity to deal with complex activities. It consists of 11 exercises to be solved in 30 minutes. The first control measure was cognitive ability, assessed using Raven’s Progressive Matrices. The instrument consisted of 11 items scored dichotomously as correct or incorrect, with the measure during analyses being the total number correct. The time taken to solve each item was also recorded (Table 4).

103 3.16 Results

3.16.1 Pre-Treatment Differences between Control and Treatment Groups To assess pre-treatment differences between the control and treatment groups, baseline scores were compared across combat exposure, the propensity to trust, cognitive ability, EI, cortisol, and IgA at three times—morning (T1), afternoon (T2), and night (T3). Results of independent-group t-tests appear in Table 3.4. No differences were found between the control and treatment groups at the start of the intervention (Tables 3. and 3.). See Appendix B for additional descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations among variables

104 Table 3.3 Participant Demographic Demographic Characteristic Treatment Control Years of enlistment M =5.75 years (SD = M = 6.28 years (SD 3.33 years) = 3.46 years) Percentage deployed to a combat situation 39 %% 44.%

Frequency of those who have been under 43% 42.9% enemy fire

Frequencies for time under enemy fire A few hours Less than a month 1 (3%) 2 (5.8%) 7 or more months 1 (2.8%) 1(2.8%) 1 (2.9%) 0 Number of times surrounded by the enemy M = 1.3 (SD = 1.20) M = 1.6 (SD = .98) on deployment

Number of times gone on combat patrols or M = 58.01 (SD = M = 49.83 (SD = other dangerous duties on deployment 34.75) 28.01)

Number of times seen someone hit by M = 1.3 (SD = 1.83) M = 1.0 (SD = incoming or outgoing rounds on deployment 0.98)

Number of times fired rounds at the enemy M = 4.14 (SD = M = 3.21 (SD = on deployment 5.74) 4.02)

Number of times been in danger of being M = 3.98 (SD = M = 2.22 (SD = injured or killed on deployment 4.51) 2.90)

M= 3.55 (SD= .96) M= 3.86 (SD= .84) NEO-PI-R Trust

M= 106.45(SD= M= 106.55 (SD= EI (MSCEIT) 15.22) 15.92)

105

Table 3.4

Independent Groups T-test Results for Pre-Treatment Differences

Test Mean SD t df p IgA T1 586.88 329.65 .98 77 .334 IgA T2 260.66 154.15 1.54 68.41 .137 IgA T3 338.64 268.46 .60 77 .540 Cortisol T1 23.34 9.47 .62 77 .537 Cortisol T2 14.1 4.66 -.48 77 .637 Cortisol T3 7.56 3.08 -.58 77 .581 Ravens Amount Correct 5.35 1.66 .54 77 .593 Raven’s Average Time 24.62 4.29 .84 77 .406 Completion

3.16.2 Hypothesis Testing Emotional Intelligence (EI). Hypothesis 1 suggests that higher-EI soldiers would exhibit less stress throughout the interventions, as measured by cortisol, than soldiers with lower EI would. I found that high-EI soldiers had lower cortisol after training at both T2 (r(26)=-.54, p=.004) and T3 (r(26)=-.51, p=.007), irrespective of which group the soldiers were in. This suggests that higher EI associates with fewer physical symptoms of stress. I found no differences in the morning, suggesting that EI affects physiological responses when daily stressors tax a soldier’s personal resources. Stress Serials Physiological Results. Hypothesis 2 suggests that EI-trained soldiers are better able to regulate stress-in-the-moment during stress serials and throughout the training cycle better than non-EI trained soldiers are, as demonstrated by lower cortisol levels. I analysed results for cortisol (range=1.5 to 40 ug/ml) for the various serials separately. Day Rappel. I used a 2x3 mixed-model ANOVA to examine the effects of EI training and time of measurement on levels of cortisol 1 minute before (T1), 1 minute after (T2), and 15 minutes after rappelling (T3). I found a main effect of EI training on cortisol levels (F(1, 65)=19.63, p<.001) such that EI-trained soldiers had lower cortisol (M=7.19, SD=3.13) than untrained soldiers had, (M=19.85, SD=9.62). There was also a main effect of time of measurement (F(2, 60)=8.00, p=.001) such that cortisol increased over time. An interaction was found between EI training (i.e., treatment versus control) and time of measurement on cortisol levels (F(2, 60)=3.92, p=.025), suggesting that differences between the treatment and control groups were larger prior to rappelling than after (Figure 3.1).

106 I tested for simple effects of EI training at each cortisol measurement. Soldiers in the treatment group had lower cortisol than those in the control group just before rappelling (F(1, 65)=39.47, p<.001) (treatment M=7.23, control M=21.18) and just after (F(1, 65)=6.81, p<.001) (treatment M=10.75, control M=17.59). This suggested that trained soldiers used strategies to down-regulate fear before and during the rappel. The simple effect of EI training on cortisol levels 15 minutes after the rappel was non-significant (F(1, 65)=3.05, p=.091).

30

) 25 40 ug/ml40 - 20

15

Treatment (range 1.5= Control 10

5 CortisolLevel

0 T1 Cortisol T2 Cortisol T3 Cortisol

Figure 3.1. The effect of EI training (treatment versus control) and time of measurement on cortisol levels measured 1 minute before (T1), 1 minute after (T2), and 15 minutes after rappelling (T3).

Stroop-shoot-no-shoot task. I conducted a 2x3 mixed-model ANOVA to examine the effects of EI training and time of measurement on levels of cortisol 1 minute before, 1 min after, and 15 minutes after the Stroop shooting task. I found a main effect of EI training on cortisol levels (F(1, 65)=14.00, p<.001) such that EI-trained soldiers had lower cortisol than untrained soldiers did (Figure 3.7). There was no main effect of time of measurement on cortisol (F(2, 130)=1.11, p=.331), and no interaction between EI training (i.e., treatment versus control) and time of measurement on cortisol (F(2, 130)=2.13, p=.123). Soldiers in the treatment group had lower cortisol than those in the control group before the task (F(1, 65)=12.26, p=.001). The simple effect of EI training on cortisol levels 1 minute after the Stroop shooting was nearly significant (F(1, 65)=12.26, p=.079). In conjunction with the

107 positive effect of EI training on the shooting task, results suggested that low pre-task stress is advantageous for a soldier’s ability to keep calm, follow instructions, and perform accurately. Lack of a difference for post-task cortisol might be due to the fact that social evaluative and cognitive load increases cortisol (Miller, Chen, & Zhou, 2007).

18

16 )

14 40 ug/ml 40 - 12

10 Treatment

(range1.5 = 8 Control 6

4

Cortisol Level 2

0 T1 Cortisol T2 Cortisol T3 Cortisol

Figure 3.2. The effect of EI training (treatment versus control) on cortisol levels measured 1 minute before (T1), 1 min after (T2), and 15 minutes after the Stroop shooting task (T3). Error bars represent standard errors.

Self-Care-Under-Fire Tasks. I conducted a 2x3 mixed-model ANOVA to examine the effects of EI training and time of measurement on levels of cortisol 1 minute before, 1 minute after, and 15 minutes after enemy gunfire simulation. I found a main effect of EI training on cortisol levels (F(1, 65)=17.55, p<.001) such that EI-trained soldiers had lower cortisol than untrained soldiers did (Figure 3.9). There was also a main effect of time of measurement on cortisol levels (F(2, 130)=5.20, p=.007) such that cortisol decreased over time. There was no interaction between EI training (i.e., treatment versus control) and time of day on cortisol (F(2, 130)=1.11, p=.333). I found that soldiers in the treatment group had lower cortisol than the control group 1 minute before enemy gunfire simulation (treatment M=10.09, control M=15.00; F(1, 65)=5.56, p=.021), 1 minute after (treatment M=11.53, control M=19.53; (F(1, 65)=15.33, p<.001), and 15 minutes after (treatment M=9.62, control M=15.14; (F(1, 65)=10.95, p=.002). Interpreted in conjunction with behavioural data, results suggested that pre-serial emotional regulation strategies used by EI-trained soldiers resulted

108 in lower cortisol, which in turn appear to have influenced soldiers’ ability to stay calm, remain undistracted by gunfire, and remember mission information.

25 )

20

40 ug/ml40 -

15

Treatment (range 1.5= 10 Control

5 CortisolLevel

0 T1 Cortisol T2 Cortisol T3 Cortisol

Figure 3.3. The effect of EI training (treatment versus control) and time of measurement on cortisol levels measured 1 minute before (T1), 1 minute after (T2), and 15 minutes after enemy gunfire simulation (T3). Error bars represent standard errors.

Conduct after Capture Tasks. I conducted a 2x3 mixed-model ANOVA to examine the effects of EI training and time of measurement on levels of cortisol. T1 was post-release from the scenario (i.e., between 10pm and midnight for both groups), T2 was the next morning after waking, and T3 was midday on the day following release. The main effect of EI training on cortisol suggested that EI-trained soldiers had lower cortisol, but the effect was non-significant (F(1, 28)=3.16, p=.086). There was a main effect of time of measurement on cortisol levels (F(2, 56)=15.02, p<.001) such that cortisol decreased over time (Figure 3.9). There was no interaction between EI training (i.e., treatment versus control) and time of day on cortisol (F(2, 56)=2.12, p=.129). The difference in cortisol between the treatment and control groups measured at T1, after the enemy capture simulation, was lower among EI- trained soldiers (F(1, 28)=3.09, p=.06). However, contrary to Hypothesis 2, results suggested no differences between treatment and control group cortisol at T2 and T3, after the enemy capture simulation (F(1, 28)=2.47, p=.127; F(1, 28)=1.01, p=.324).

109 18

16

14 40 40 ug/ml)

- 12

10 Treatment 8 Control 6

4

Cortisol Level Cortisol (rangeLevel 1.5 = 2

0 T1 Cortisol T2 Cortisol T3 Cortisol

Figure 3.4. The effect of EI training (treatment versus control) and time of measurement on cortisol levels measured immediately after (T1), the following morning after (T2), and midday the following day after enemy capture simulation (T3). Error bars represent standard errors.

Urban-Precision-Strike-Direct-Action and Recovery-Continuum Tasks. I conducted a 2x3 mixed-model ANOVA to examine the effects of EI training and time of measurement on cortisol (Figure 3.9). I measured cortisol on the fourth day of a 4-day urban mission scenario. T1 was after waking before the last day of the urban warfare simulation, T2 was at midday, and T3 was after the urban warfare simulation in the afternoon. I found no main effect of EI training on cortisol (F(1, 27)=0.01, p=.923). However, there was a main effect of time of measurement on cortisol (F(2, 54)=15.42, p<.001) such that cortisol decreased over time. Regarding the interaction between EI training (i.e., treatment versus control) and time of day on cortisol, EI-training participants had lower but non-significant cortisol levels (F(2, 54)=2.85, p=.067). I found no differences between treatment and control group cortisol at T1 before the urban warfare simulation (F(1, 27)=0.90, p=.350; F(1, 27)=0.31, p=.580). The cortisol levels of the treatment group were lower but not significantly different to the control group’s (F(1, 27)=3.46 p=.074), meaning Hypothesis 2 was not supported.

110

25 )

20

40 ug/ml40 -

15

Treatment (range 1.5= 10 Control

5 CortisolLevel

0 T1 Cortisol T2 Cortisol T3 Cortisol

Figure 3.5. The effect of time of measurement on cortisol levels measured. (T1) was after waking before the last day of urban warfare simulation, (T2) was at midday, and (T3) was after the urban warfare simulation in the afternoon. Error bars represent standard errors.

Behavioural Performance Results. To test Hypothesis 4, I analysed the influence of training on behavioural performance (Figure 3.3). Extant research suggested that situations that elicit negative social-evaluations, humiliation, and shame consistently spike cortisol responses (Gruenewald, Kemeny, Aziz, & Fahey, 2004). The inability to answer the complex math question asked by a senior commando under pressure was stressful and humiliating for the soldiers. As Hypothesis 4 suggests, EI-trained soldiers are able to implement emotion regulation strategies and focus on behavioural and cognitive tasks. I found that 19 of 34 (56%) EI-trained soldiers could think under pressure and answered correctly, in comparison to 6 of 32 (19%) in the control group (χ2(1, N=66)=9.66, p=.002) (Figure 3.3). EI-trained soldiers also demonstrated advanced ability to recover and divert attention immediately to the next task, as during the Stroop-shoot-no-shoot task. Thirty-two of 34 (94.1%) EI-trained soldiers hit the correct target, in comparison to 17 of 32 (53.1%) from the control group (Figure 3.3). The treatment group hit correct targets more frequently and fewer wrong targets than the control group (χ2(1, N=66)=14.49, p<.001).

111 35

30

25

20

15 Treatment Control 10

5

accurate actions during stress serials 0 Number Number participantsof who performed Math question Stroop Shooting

Figure 3.6. The behavioural performance of treatment (N=34) and control (N=32) groups.

Results also suggested a difference in accurate memory recall of the 8 items vocalised by the Joint Tactical Assault Controller between the treatment (M=5.15, SD=1.52) and control (M=3.00, SD=1.69) conditions, such that EI-trained soldiers recalled more accurate responses (F(1, 64)=29.61, p<.001) (Figure 3.4).

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 Number Number of items recalledoutof eight 0 Treatment Control Figure 3.7. Mean number of items recalled for treatment (N=34) and control (N=32) groups. Error bars represent standard errors.

112

For the pain tolerance task, those in the treatment group lasted longer on average (M=52.6 minutes) than those in the control group did (M=29.2 minutes) (F(1, 71)=68.74, p<.001) (Figure 3.5).

60

50

40

30

freezing freezing water 20

10 Number of minutes Number minutes of was arm held under 0 Treatment Control

Figure 3.8. Mean number of minutes lasted by treatment (N=34) and control (N=32) groups for pain tolerance task. Error bars represent standard errors.

Two-Weeks Post-Stress Serials Physiological Results. Hypothesis 3 suggests that EI- trained soldiers have lower cortisol and therefore have better immune functions, as demonstrated by higher IgA. To test the hypothesis, I measured soldiers’ cortisol and IgA two weeks after the last stressful course to assess whether they were suffering cortisol dysregulation and immune deficiency (i.e., low IgA) due to prolonged stress. I used a 2x2x3 mixed-model ANOVA to examine the effects of EI training, time (i.e., before training started versus two weeks after training), and time of day on cortisol measured in the morning, afternoon, and evening. I found no main effect of EI training on cortisol (F(1, 52)=2.43, p=.125). However, there was a main effect of time on cortisol (F(2, 104)=52.88, p<.001) such that cortisol was lower two weeks after training. There was also a main effect of time of day on cortisol (F(2, 104)=52.88, p<.001) such that cortisol decreased from morning to evening. There was no interaction between EI training (i.e., treatment versus control) and time of day on cortisol (F(2, 104)=2.12, p=.126), and no interaction between EI training and time on cortisol (F(2, 104)=0.02, p=.899). There was no interaction between time and time of day on cortisol (F(2, 104)=0.09, p=.913), and no interaction among EI training, time, and time of day (F(2, 104)=0.06, p=.946).

113 3.16.3 Correlations I calculated correlations between the three cortisol measures for each activity and behavioural performance. Shown in Tables 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7, T1 day rappel cortisol correlated negatively with math question accuracy, Stroop shooting accuracy, and memory recall. T1 and T2 Stroop shooting cortisol correlated negatively with pain tolerance and math question accuracy. T1 self-care-under-fire cortisol correlated negatively with pain tolerance, and T2 self-care-under-fire cortisol correlated negatively with pain tolerance and math question accuracy. T3 self-care-under-fire cortisol correlated negatively with memory recall, and T1 conduct-after-capture cortisol correlated negatively with math question accuracy and Stroop shooting accuracy. T2 conduct-after-capture cortisol correlated negatively with pain tolerance and Stroop shooting accuracy.

Table 3.5

Correlations Between T1 Cortisol and Behavioural Performance Results

Math Stroop Pain question shooting Memory tolerance accuracy accuracy recall Day rappel cortisol -.26 -.36* -.41* -.588** Stroop shooting cortisol -.34* -.45** -.13 -.16 Self-care-under-fire cortisol -.27* -.03 .02 -.14 Conduct after capture cortisol -.23 -.37* -.56* -.21 Note. Math question accuracy was coded 0=wrong answer, 1=correct answer. Stroop shooting accuracy was coded 0=wrong target, 1=correct target. *p<.05. **p<.001.

Table 3.6 Correlations Between T2 Cortisol and Behavioural Performance Results Math Stroop Pain question shooting Memory tolerance accuracy accuracy recall Day rappel cortisol -.25 .02 .11 -.03 Stroop shooting cortisol -.23 -.18 -.01 -.07 Self-care-under-fire cortisol -.36* -.28* -.03 -.18 Conduct after capture cortisol -.39* .02 -.42* -.05 Note. Math question accuracy was coded 0=wrong answer, 1=correct answer. Stroop shooting accuracy was coded 0=wrong target, 1=correct target. *p<.05. **p<.001.

114 Table 3.7 Correlations Between T3 Cortisol and Behavioural Performance Results Math Stroop Pain question shooting Memory tolerance accuracy accuracy recall Day rappel cortisol -.16 -.32 .12 -.29 Stroop shooting cortisol -.10 -.08 -.01 -.28 Self-care-under-fire cortisol -.23* -.16* -.10 -.46 Note. Math question accuracy was coded 0=wrong answer, 1=correct answer. Stroop shooting accuracy was coded 0=wrong target, 1=correct target. *p<.05. **p<.001.

Phase 1 IgA. Prolonged stress decreases immunity. I found a difference in IgA between treatment and control groups at T1 (am: treatment M=549.09, control M=261.04; t(25)=3.57, p=.001), T2 (midday: treatment M=400.24, control M=188.60; t(25)=3.91, p=.001), and T3 (pm: treatment M=394.80, control M=178.10; t(25)=3.64, p=.001). These findings suggested that treatment group soldiers had more robust and higher functioning immune systems in comparison to control group soldiers at each period two weeks after the SF serials (Figure 3.1). Average IgA levels of the treatment group increased by 19% from baseline between the start and end of the SF program, whereas control group soldiers dropped 37.6% from the baseline (Figure 32). These findings suggested that untrained soldiers experience a 40% drop in immune function, signifying increased vulnerability to ill health and burnout. However, due to low participation during Phase 1, these results are speculative since there were no significant differences due to low sample numbers, and should be viewed as an indicator. Phase 2 IgA results are not reported due to equipment error.

115 600

500

400

300

200 IgA IgA Levelsug/ml 100

0 Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment Control Morning Morning Miday Miday Night Tnight

Figure 3.9. Post-training comparison of group average IgA levels (treatment N=18, control N=17).

700

600

500

400 Treatment 300 Control

Average Average IgA ug/ml 200

100

0 Base AM Base Miday Base PM Post AM Post Miday Post PM

Figure 3.10. Post-training comparison of group average IgA levels (treatment N=18, control N=17).

3.17 Discussion

Numerous studies have found that individuals are affected by aversive events that manifest not only by physical characteristics of stimuli but complex cognitive appraisals of event factors and the type of coping available. EI skills fit in this general framework. This study examined the efficacy of EI training as a pre-emptive stress management program, the

116 results of which corroborate that EI is an effective training tool for soldiers engaged in the SF selection and training reinforcement continuum.

3.17.1 Summary and Interpretation of Findings Emotional Intelligence. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, results show that high-EI soldiers had the lowest cortisol in the afternoon and evening two weeks after the stress serials, suggesting that EI training benefitted them most after stressors taxed their resources. However, findings suggested that EI training had no influence on cortisol two weeks after the stress serials. This might mean that the effect of EI training is more prominent immediately before a short-term stressor. Stress Serial Physiological Results. In line with Hypothesis 2, findings suggested that EI-trained soldiers had lower cortisol than soldiers from the control group during the day rappel, Stroop shooting, and self-care-under-fire tasks. Analyses also revealed that EI-trained soldiers had consistently lower cortisol 1 minute before task commencement, suggesting that they managed their emotions better, which led to lower stress. When interpreted in conjunction with behavioural performance results and extant literature (Westman & Eden, 1996), this suggests that EI-trained soldiers performed better due to improved stress regulation. Martial skills require complex, advanced task-switching, and assimilation of spatial, body proprioception, and situational awareness with speed and accuracy. Findings suggested that EI-training soldiers reduced the affective load experienced during such stressors, allowing them to focus on tasks and perform better. During the day rappel task, the effect of EI training was sustained 1 minute after the rappel, and in the self-care-under-fire task, the effect of EI training sustained 1 and 15 minutes after. However, EI-trained soldiers and soldiers in the control condition did not have different cortisol levels during the conduct-after-capture and urban-warfare scenarios, which were simulations of much longer duration rather than comprising a single or series of quick tasks. It is possible that, on average, and across the 3- and 4-day periods of these exercises, EI-trained soldiers had lower cortisol but that cortisol fluctuations throughout the day obscured the effect. Another explanation is that these activities were characterised by high physical load and perceptions of imminent and immense threat over several hours. Secretion of cortisol in these situations represents an adaptive response, a survival hormone that provides resources for the fight-or-flight response. Since stressors during these activities were high and persistent, interpretation of pulsatile secretions over the period was difficult to capture and interpret.

117 Impact of EI training on IgA. As predicted by Hypothesis 3. EI-trained soldiers had consistently higher IgA than soldiers who received the control intervention, as measured in the morning, afternoon, and evening two weeks after the stress serials. EI-trained soldiers had increased IgA after the program, and soldiers in the control group had lower IgA. This suggested that EI-trained soldiers had better immune system functioning throughout the program. Phase 1 results were included in these data, and a larger sample is needed to substantiate the findings. Behavioural Performance Results. In line with Hypothesis 4, EI-trained soldiers performed better than those in the control condition. More soldiers who received EI training could answer the complex math question and shoot the correct targets. EI-trained soldiers were also more accurate at recalling JTAC information in comparison to those in the control group. Trained soldiers also performed better at pain tolerance, suggesting they used emotional regulation strategies learned during training to remain focused and improve endurance.

3.17.2 Contributions Using non-self-report measures of EI and stress, this study examined the efficacy of EI training in high-risk workplaces with a pre-emptive approach to circumvent, reduce, reappraise, and transmute perceptions of stress while reducing burnout and fostering trust. Findings corroborate that EI training has positive influences on the stress experienced by individuals engaged in high-risk occupations, as quantified by objective physiological measures of stress and burnout. This was demonstrated by overall stress levels, measured by cortisol, of EI-trained soldiers being lower than those of non-EI trained soldiers. This study suggested that lower stress levels lead to improved behavioural and therefore performance outcomes on tasks that have importance to high-risk populations, and these can be improved by EI training interventions. The study also provided a methodological framework for investigating stress using objective biological measures in populations in which disclosure of stress states is limited by management impression, insights, and cultural biases, enabling research to circumvent limitations of self-report research. Use of non-self-report EI measures advances stress, burnout, and EI literature by coupling an ability-based EI measure with biological measures, avoiding accumulated influences of self-report on three constructs (i.e., stress, burnout, and EI). Individuals who work in this high-risk population are commonly reluctant to engage in training that is based on emotions (Atwood, 2013). Biological approaches during EI training are new, progressive ways to teach high-risk, often alpha-male (in which talking about feelings and recognising distress are taboo) populations the benefits

118 of emotional regulation, contributing to EI and stress intervention training literature. The positive and population buy-in of this approach was demonstrated by overwhelmingly positive feedback and requests for further engagement (Appendix C). Results suggested that EI training has positive influences on immune functions and burnout avoidance, and therefore the long-term physical health of high-risk employees. However, due to a small sample, this suggestion needs to be investigated further. The implications of the findings are discussed later. Although extant research demonstrated an association between EI and stress, the current study was first to suggest a causal effect of EI training on stress levels. Research on EI training focused on EI only as an outcome, encouraging a new area of research and an approach for dealing with stress. Use of biological measures also improved the intervention’s scientific credibility, thus encouraging soldiers’ cooperation and participation.

3.17.3 Limitations and Future Research Inclusion of a control intervention eliminated the possibility of the Hawthorne effect, but it would have been informative to include another control group that experienced an extant stress intervention. Several differences between control and treatment group cortisol levels suggested that the treatment group’s cortisol was lower but non-significant. However, the small sample was a substantial limitation and might have contributed to conservative results. It is difficult to conduct large training intervention studies with this population using costly biological tests in a tightly controlled and top-secret secure environment. By using a larger sample, additional results might have been significant. The number of participants was too low for a second control group to be included in the study, but future research should assess whether EI training is comparable to other stress interventions regarding cortisol levels and performance. One limitation was the use of a homogeneous sample of healthy, fit, and intelligent young males. This was advantageous to a first study that investigates the efficacy of EI training as a stress intervention, but future studies should expand participant diversity. Gender would be an interesting demographic to consider, since women have higher baseline EI and might benefit differently from EI training (Mattingly & Kraiger, 2018). Future research should also examine EI training in occupations that experience more common stressors. For example, healthcare and service industries, which deal with emotional labour, might benefit even more from EI training. Only three cortisol measurements were taken during the urban-warfare and conduct-after-capture scenarios over 3- and 4-day periods of simulations. More measurements at many different times of the day throughout the scenarios might have allowed capture of pulsatile fluctuations of cortisol and cortisol variability rates

119 during intense and sustained stressors. This would provide a more detailed understanding of how EI training and stress interacts with time of day to affect cortisol.

3.17.4 Practical Implications This study’s homogeneous sample limited generalisability, but it represents an introduction of EI training as a new stress management program. This study suggested that soldiers benefitted from EI training, since they experienced reduced cortisol and improved performance. However, EI training did not affect cortisol levels associated with the urban- warfare and conduct-after-capture stress serials. This might indicate that the current EI training program was more useful for dealing with short, intensive stressors, or global lifespan stressors, rather than prolonged periods of intense, painful, and physically demanding stress events over several days. The program’s efficacy might be improved by expanding the repertoire of emotion regulation strategies, which might deal with sustained periods of stress, or conducting more testing during a period. Future interventions should consider using wearable biometric capture devices that track real-time, sympathetic nervous system activation continuously. This would enable activities to be time-stamped and investigated immediately, and reduce the cost of physiological research substantially. The finding that EI-trained soldiers had improved IgA and thus improved immune functioning and overall physical health is encouraging despite the small sample. EI training might thus be useful in healthcare when regulating stress associated with chronic health problems. EI training might improve symptoms and physical resilience by managing negative affective states that arise from distressing diagnoses.

3.17.5 Conclusion

A pre-emptive approach to the physiological wellbeing and emotional stability of soldiers is of critical importance to the Australian Army, especially considering numerous detrimental outcomes of stress. A reparative, after-the-fact approach does not make strategic or economic sense when the cost of inaction is high. SF soldiers are likely to have above- average resilience due to inherent high IQs, mental fortitudes to excel in arduous environments, and frequent combat training. Nevertheless, results of this study demonstrated that Psych-Edge Training, based on EI principles, better equipped these soldiers to deal with stress and operate at higher levels in comparison to untrained soldiers. This study highlights the value of training SF soldiers to understand the importance of adopting a holistic, bio- psycho-social approach to health, emotional wellbeing, and performance. To overcome

120 resistance to such training, a helpful analogy might be to equate the dollar figure required to train a commando ($1.24 million) to the cost of a high-performance race car. Soldiers could be asked, “If you owned a million-dollar car such as a McLaren P1, would you put just standard fuel in, drive it fast and hard every day, and do nothing more? Would you wait until it broke down before taking it to a mechanic, or would you tune and service it frequently using expert mechanics and best quality fuels and products, and pay close attention to all aspects of the machinery and circuitry?” It is reasonable to expect that most would agree that they would do the latter. Based on observation, contemporary SF soldiers are run on the former model; they are expected to run on standard fuel and rely on post-breakdown servicing, despite multi-million-dollar investment in their training. I argue that to sustain the longevity of SF soldiers’ careers and ensure that they function at optimal performance during no-fail missions, pre-emptive programs and facilities such as 2 Commando-HPW must deliver cutting edge, scientifically validated pre- and post-combat servicing protocols that are accessible and well-funded. Results of this study provided strong, consistent indications that EI training moderates negative effects of in-the-moment-stress, increases awareness of the importance of EI strategies, has a positive influence on immune functions, and increases performance on a number of mission-relevant behavioural dimensions. Results also substantiated the Psych-Edge Training program’s effectiveness and encourages research in other high-intensity environments in the Army and other Defence Force organisations.

121 CHAPTER 4 - OVERALL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This thesis investigated the moderating role of EI on workplace stress to explore the effectiveness of EI training in high-stress, high-risk environments. To achieve these objectives, I conducted two sets of studies. The first was a two-part lab study during which I assessed the moderating effect of EI on stress among participants who completed an online business simulation task and were exposed to interactions with supportive, neutral, or uncivil supervisors. To minimise bias from self-report, participants’ EI was assessed using the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso ability EI test (Mayer et al., 2002), and stress based on salivary cortisol samples. Drawing on COR (Hobfoll, 1989), I hypothesise that EI associates with reduced stress, in that high-EI individuals experience less stress than low-EI individuals do, as demonstrated by less cortisol. In Study 1, I found that having high EI and being a target of uncivil actions is less stressful than having low EI and experiencing incivility, as evidenced by smaller cortisol changes in individuals with high EI versus low EI. I found that participants in the high cyber-mediated incivility condition with high EI experienced less stress, as shown by a smaller change to cortisol, than those with low EI. These results corroborate the hypothesis that individuals with high EI better moderate their stress responses to workplace incivility than low EI individuals do. In the second set of studies, which I conducted in the context of a military training program, I developed a context-specific EI training program based on the Mayer and Salovey (1997) four-part model of EI. I tested whether such training reduces physiological stress, increases cognitive function, and increases behavioural performance in a high-risk, high- stress work context. Research conducted in the Australian SF involved two studies over a period of 16 months (Study 3a: N= 35, Study 3b: N= 43). I examined the efficacy of EI training in enabling soldiers to manage stress and the resulting benefits to behavioural performance and cognitive performance during real military training and selection exercises by using salivary cortisol and Immunoglobin A (IgA) as objective indicators of stress. I divided participants into treatment and control groups and tested their cortisol and IgA at the start and end of the study, and tested their cortisol before, during, and after standard training protocols of rappelling, shoot-no-shoot, self-care under fire, urban precision strike, pain tolerance, and memory ability during distraction tasks. I found that EI-trained soldiers were more effective at managing stress (i.e., had lower cortisol and protected immune function) and performed better on most tasks (as measured by the indicators of shoot-no-shoot

122 outcomes under cognitive load, memory recall, and pain tolerance) in comparison to the control group that received non-EI training. I found no differences between treatment and control groups during urban-precision-strike-direct-action, recovery-continuum, and conduct- after-capture tasks.

4.1 Background to this research

Two factors motivated this thesis. First, the lack of empirical research that links EI and stress using non-self-report measures. Second, although EI-based training is widely conducted in organisations (Schutte et al., 2013), there exists little research on the efficacy of EI training interventions that uses objective measures of efficacy. Here, I discuss the contributions of this thesis to theory, method, and practice, including limitations and future directions for EI, incivility, and stress research. Researchers (Cortina et al., 2013; Hankin & Abela, 2005; Itzkovich, 2016; Lim & Lee, 2011; Meier & Spector, 2013; Milam et al., 2009; Schilpzand et al., 2016; Walsh et al., 2012) have long been interested in identifying psychological factors that reduce vulnerability or act as protective buffers to the way individuals perceive and experience adverse emotions and manage work stress. The stress process is complex and involves multi-factorial networks of biological, physiological, and social determinants, so it is challenging to pinpoint a single factor (Cooper & Quick, 2017). What is clear, however, is that not all individuals experience stress or even appraise stimuli in the same way. Two reliable findings in this regard are: a) significant individual variation exists in the perceptions and attributions of events, and b) individuals respond differently to these stimuli (Martinko et al., 2013). Years of research have uncovered several individual characteristics (e.g., optimistic disposition, positive reframing, and adaptive coping style) and situational variables (e.g., social support networks and perceived sense of control) that explain and predict how, why, when, and which individuals are affected differentially by a potentially stressful situation (Smith, Saklofske, Keefer, & Tremblay, 2016). I argue that EI is an all-encapsulating construct that provides an explanatory framework for such individual characteristics. EI has developed substantially over the last two decades and is an important topic of inquiry among mainstream audiences, organisations, managers, and practitioners (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005; Hughes, & Terrell, 2011). Despite EI still being criticised in academia (Miao et al., 2017), many organisations believe that EI is a critical component of high performance (Harvard Business Review Emotional Intelligence Collection Series, 2017). An expanding body of

123 evidence suggests that EI has implications for success in various domains, including personal (Brackett, Warner, & Bosco, 2005; Casey, Garrett, Brackett, & Rivers, 2007), social (Côté, Lopes, Salovey, & Miners, 2010; Lopes, Salovey, Côté, & Beers, 2005), academic (Brackett, Rivers, Reyes, & Salovey, 2012; Hagelskamp, Brackett, Rivers, & Salovey, 2013), health/clinical (Duncan et al., 2013; Eack et al., 2010; Zeidner & Matthews, 2016), organisational (Parke & Seo, 2013; Rosete & Ciarrochi, 2005) and political domains (Caruso et al., 2015). Interest in EI is partially driven by the necessity of finding solutions to the work-stress epidemic. Modern work-life is an environment of omnipresent daily hassles and accumulative stress (Tremmel, Sonnentag, & Casper, 2018). Some leading causes of chronic illnesses are either caused or exacerbated by stress (Cooper & Quick, 2017). With stress at epidemic levels globally, efforts to investigate potential solutions are more important than ever. If stress is so omnipresent and dangerous, a more useful line of questioning is asking why some individuals appear to manage modern work-stress and others do not and become chronically ill? Conceptually, stress is an ambiguous term, involving a series of processes that are initiated by either external-environmental or self-conjured-imagined causes that trigger the activation of a biological stress response system. The consequences of this stress response and its process can be advantageous in-the-moment, as in eustress, or mobilising an individual to experience post-traumatic growth (Calhoun & Tedeschi, 2014). However, it can also be disadvantageous by creating a range of in-the-moment and long-term detrimental behavioural outcomes, psychological distress, and medical problems. Irrespective of the cause, stress follows a predictable and patterned biological response process (Sterling, 1988). This process is instigated by first an awareness and then an appraisal of the stimulus (Segerstrom & Miller, 2004). This perception initiates the combined action of the nervous and hormonal systems. Selye (1956) made significant contributions to understanding the endocrine system elements of the response. The human stress response is highly functional and adaptive for short-term survival and performance events. A series of cascading biological and endocrinological actions activates the HPA axis and directs resources, such as oxygenated, energy fuelled blood to the brain and large muscle groups, thus activating the fight-or-flight system for heightened survivability. The release of glucose and fatty acids into the bloodstream acts as fuelling agents, and secretion of cortisol, which in turn dampens the immune system, are elements of the stress response process (i.e., allostatic load) that are functional and adaptive in the short-term (Sterling, 1988). Long-term consequences of this survival stress response can be detrimental to the psycho-physiology

124 health of an individual (McEwen, 1998). Carrying allostatic load for prolonged periods has effects that are harmful and even lethal (Cooper & Quick, 2017). The workplace is a good environment for observing how this ancient stress response system negatively influences psycho-biological states. Work is by far the most significant source of stress for working adults (American Institute of Stress Report, 2019), with the prevalence of stress-related disorders progressively escalating over the past few decades. Research consistently places work at the top of the stress-inducing list, not only for the individual but also for families. High levels of job-stress have now become the rule rather than the exception (APA, 2016; American Institute of Stress Report, 2019). Ancient humans had a delineated end of the day, signalled by the setting of the sun, but modern working adults’ work and non-work boundaries are increasingly blurred. Not only do people spend much more time at work, but technology (e.g., e-mail, smartphones, and smart watches) is permitting work to seep into home life, meaning that the amount of uninterrupted downtime and parasympathetic function (i.e., rest, digestion, and repair) is significantly reduced (Wang, Pollock & Hauseman, 2018). Stressful workplace experiences initiate strong negative emotions (e.g., anger, fear, and sadness) that motivate coping behaviours. Many low-EI individuals resort to maladaptive behaviours when dealing with work stress, such as avoidance, procrastination (Senécal, Julien, & Guay, 2003), and substance abuse (e.g., drinking, smoking, and legal and illegal drugs; Hines et al., 2013; Hughes, & Terrell, 2011; Maguen et al., 2011; Pietrzak, Pullman, Cotea, & Nasveld, 2013; Rodríguez- Socarrás et al., 2018). Although such behaviours temporarily relieve accumulated stress, they ultimately exacerbate it (Juster et al., 2010). Workplace incivility is a major source of stress globally (Porath & Pearson, 2013). With modern workers experiencing escalated workloads and job uncertainty (De Cuyper, Baillien, & De Witte, 2009; Shoss, 2018), and an increase in time spent with work colleagues (i.e., people who are not family and friends, with whom individuals would not necessarily choose to spend the majority of time), the incidence of workplace incivility is unsurprisingly rising. Incivility is defined as rude, discourteous, and impolite low-intensity behaviours (Cortina & Magley, 2009), involves ambiguous intentions (Lim et al., 2008), and violates organisational norms (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Targets of incivility experience a high degree of psychological stress, increased burnout, inhibited cognition, and distraction in response to workplace incivility (Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Lim et al., 2008; Oyeleye et al., 2013), and are less able to work effectively than non-targeted employees. Incivility lies in the eye of the recipient (Porath, 2016) and is open to subjective judgement.

125 Individuals in high-risk, high-stress jobs, such as police, military, fire rescue, and first responders, also face intensifying stress (Britt & McFadden, 2012). Examples of the sudden, uncertain, and life threatening situations that place high demands and acute stress on such individuals; the changing nature of warfare to insurgent threats, increasingly fluid notions of nation, state and political identity that enable widespread volatility (Schatz, Fautua, Stodd, & Reitz, 2015), global increases to firearm assaults and shootings (Wang, et al., 2016), intimidation, rising levels of illicit drug psychosis that causes increases to public nuisances (Ghose, 2018), and terrorist threats (van der Velden, Kleber, Grievink, Yzermans, 2010). There are also increasing complexities with new, unfamiliar, and emerging sources of threats through rapid technological advances, increases in information collection, and confusion regarding appropriate modes of response, exaggerating stress (Lin, Xia, Li, Wang, & Humar, 2019). It is thus important to understand how individuals who operate in high-risk, high- stress organisations manage critical stress situations and create effective interventions. Acute stress can seriously hamper performance, particularly when specialists are required to remain calm and perform tasks in line with procedures and rules of engagement (Harris, Hancock, & Harris, 2005). Failure to respond appropriately to stress in-the-moment, and more broadly in life, threatens their ability to act professionally (Luria & Torjmman, 2009). Several researchers (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; Mayer et al., 2000) show that EI skill, particularly emotional management, contributes to individuals’ wellbeing and buffers the influence that situational demands have on physiological and psychological outcomes and burnout (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). I identify EI ability as an explanatory factor for differences observed in the stress responses of targets of workplace stress. EI skills assist individuals with coping with daily stress, such as work-place incivility, and the more serious and substantial stressors experienced in high-risk occupations. Underlying factors of EI (Mayer & Salovey, 1997) individually and collectively influence how individuals experience, reconcile, attribute, and subsequently manages stress. This thesis thus contributes to incivility and broader stress research in several ways.

4.2 Contributions

This thesis evidences that EI buffers stress. Most EI and stress research uses self- report measures, which are limited by long-standing concerns. In a recent systematic review of the stress-buffering effects of EI research, Lea et al. (2019) highlighted these limitations by

126 showing mixed results. Findings suggested that whether EI is useful under acute stress depends greatly on the stress context and how EI is measured. The first strength of this thesis is its objective approach to EI by using an ability-based MSCEIT measure. The benefit for stress research is that measurement is performance-based rather than relying on self-reports (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005). Ability EI is a skill determined by posing a series of constructed emotion-based problems and asking people to solve them. EI is thus a type of intelligence, and therefore Mayer et al. (2016) argued that intelligences are best rated as abilities. This approach yields more accurate data than asking people to rate their own cognitive or emotional intellect, which is vulnerable to biases. For example, individuals frequently overestimate their own abilities because of a lack of knowledge of logical reasoning, over- self-confidence, and unsubstantiated frames of reference for success (Brackett et al., 2006; Paulhus et al., 1998). A second contribution is that this thesis goes beyond the usual mode of stress inquiry, which typically asks individuals to remember historical stress experiences. I created simulated real-world experiences in which stress influences were measured biologically in- the-moment. This is different from typical workplace stress surveys, that might ask respondents to recall stress they experienced over the last six months. Using more realistic scenarios, I was thus able to support the notion that incivility is more detrimental to targets than previously estimated, and show that experience goes deeper than just being an unpleasant experience of impoliteness. From a physiological viewpoint, even one-off exposures had physiological consequences. I therefore extend incivility literature and extrapolate from this finding to argue that frequent exposures to uncivil interactions are harmful and are predictive of long-term negative health consequences of employees. Whereas extant incivility research merely reports that incivility is detrimental to health (Lim et al., 2008), this research explains the why. This is the third contribution of the study. No prior studies investigate workplace incivility using objective markers of cortisol and the ability-based EI measure of MSCEIT. This study is the first to identify cortisol as an explanatory factor that links the theory of incivility as a problematic experience. A fourth contribution is this thesis used objective physiological data to demonstrate positive physiological and psychological influences of supervisor civility and support, demonstrated by stress reduction shown by a drop in cortisol for targets in a supportive condition. These results corroborate the argument that if supervisors focus on making an employee feel supported, the wellbeing of the target is improved and thus provides

127 subsequent benefits for organisational psychological safety levels (Cooper, 2018; Edmondson & Lei, 2014). Researchers (Keefer et al., 2018) often highlight the psychological advantages of EI related to global life factors, including better life choices, maintaining stable employment, leadership emergence (Emery, 2012), pursuing social support (Gallagher & Vella-Brodrick, 2008), maintaining a healthy lifestyle, seeking early diagnoses, and adhering to prescribed treatments, which lead to healthier lifestyles. This thesis suggested that EI ability not only has psychological benefits, but also physiological benefits in-the-moment. Findings suggested that EI skill reduces stress as it is occurring, or reduces the likelihood of perceiving interactions as stressful, and hence reduces present wear and tear of biological systems. Without added cognitive, emotional, and physiological resource strains that cortisol secretion creates (McEwen, 2000), individuals are better equipped to have greater situational awareness, process information (Wickens, 2002), take perspective (Tomovoa, von Dawans, Heinrichs, Silani, & Lamm, 2014), think more abstractly and creatively, and therefore perform better in work environments. The fifth contribution this thesis makes is that results provide supportive biological evidence to the argument that EI skills are important for leaders, managers, and supervisors. In Study 1, I characterised the interaction between participants and a supervisor in the supportive condition as high-EI style communication. The simulated supervisor demonstrated perspective-taking abilities and an understanding of the subordinates’ position (e.g., in making mistakes), and provided feedback that was constructive but not offensive, showing care and consideration for the learning process. Examples of supervisor responses to incorrect business case questions included “Great try! I can see why you would pick that answer, but unfortunately in this case it isn’t correct, I will go over “why” in the debrief, but keep going, you’re getting there.” Crafting such responses requires EI ability to understand how a subordinate feels and choose honest but supportive responses. Acting in an emotionally intelligent manner toward subordinates decreases the likelihood that employees will feel stress and secrete cortisol, and thus has positive health benefits longitudinally. The results of Study 1, which suggested reduction in cortisol in subordinates who experienced high-EI support, is an indicator of this dynamic. Future research should investigate the EI levels of incivility perpetrators and assess whether EI skill is a factor in uncivil supervisory workplace behaviours. No study measures the EI abilities of incivility perpetrators. A sixth contribution to EI literature that this thesis makes is that the training was the first type of intervention grounded in Stream 1, or Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) EI model, that

128 was tailored specially to a SF population. No other EI theory studies pre-emptively educate on and reduce stress rather than take a reparative, after-the-fact education approach. Such ability-based EI training is the first of its kind to use behavioural and biological testing to measure training efficacy in an SF context. This thesis links EI with less stress and, as discussed in Chapter 2, there is extensive literature that similarly suggests a strong link between EI and stress outcomes. Examples include a reduction to student samples (Lyons & Schneider, 2005), perceived stress associated with radical organisational changes (Huy, 1999) and job insecurity (Jordan et al., 2002), and improved coping processes (Salovey, Bedell, Detweiler, & Mayer, 1999). A seventh contribution is that this thesis goes beyond merely linking participant attribute variation variables and individual skills, and instead demonstrates that EI skill can be trained and that the training creates statistically significant, measurable behavioural, cognitive, and physiological outcomes. It thus extends EI from a theoretical construct to a practical, implementable intervention for employee performance enhancement and wellbeing outcomes.

4.3 Methodological Implications

The methodological contributions of these studies are two-fold. First, by using cortisol as a measure of stress, this thesis offers a viable framework for conducting stress research in both laboratories using online experimental interventions and in the field using high-stress populations that improve on the limitations of self-report measures. Research demonstrated the viability of using biological measures of stress, including cortisol and IgA for burnout, and yet most stress research continues to use self-report measures. This study corroborated that biological indicators of stress are a viable way to conduct stress research and showed that this approach is sufficiently sensitive to detect significant effects of EI training. Self-report and psycho-physiological measures of stress have little concordance (Gudjonsson, 1981; Kelly, McDonald, & Rushby, 2012). Biases are particularly prevalent and problematic in stress research, where individuals are inclined to report in socially desirable ways (Judge et al., 2000; Moorman, & Podsakoff, 1992; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986; Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987). Other limitations of self-report measures discussed in this thesis include (Paulhus, 1991), extreme and central tendency responses (Deng et al., 2018), the influence of state negative affectivity (Chen & Spector, 1991), temporal distance between event and stress reporting (Redelmeier et al., 2003; Walentynowicz et al.,

129 2015), response expectancy (Kirsch, 1997), impression management, a reluctance to admit to negative emotions (Gudjonsson, 1981), and poor insights into or the ability to communicate stress states accurately. Objective biological markers are, therefore, more conducive to stress measurement, particularly among individuals who have an interest not to report accurately due to expectations of their work, gender, or culture. Second, during stress research, researchers typically ask participants to recall a historical event (Robinson & Clore, 2002) or participate in stress-inducing interventions not always related to the types of stress experienced in their workplaces (e.g., Trier Social Stress Test; Kirschbaum et al., 1993). In both studies of this thesis, the stress interventions were based on or were simulated stressors that participants were likely to experience at work. Study 1 involved uncivil cyber-communication from a supervisor, during which a large percentage of participants believed that the intervention was real. In Study 1, having participants engage in a simulated business case study meant that the levels of interest and engagement were higher than that during a pencil-and-paper survey study. Study 2 involved real stress activities required to pass SF selection, which was based on real operational actions. Studying stress in-the-moment rather than recalled, or proxy, stress offers researchers a framework to pursue similarly realistic experiments. Findings are thus more reliable and generalisable to populations under investigation. An additional benefit of using operational simulations in Study 2 is that by engaging participants in life-like experiences with real consequences, they were able to put theory-based knowledge into practice in-the-moment during stress serials. A large body of research (see Cook et al., 2013 for a meta-analysis) supports simulation-based learning as superior to classroom-based learning. This is particularly important for kinesthetic individuals whose daily jobs involve much outdoor physical activity, and such individuals might find theory-based classroom education difficult to sit still through and listen for extended periods.

4.4 Practical implications

First, with respect to the lab studies, the findings suggested that stress can be incited by low-intensity, ambiguous, and subtle uncivil interactions that normally are categorised below the abuse threshold (Porath & Pearson, 2013). Stress caused by incivility poses a substantial problem for organisations and their employees since the prevalence and frequency of workplace incivility is at record levels (Porath & Pearson, 2013). This thesis highlighted the importance of ensuring that employees, managers, HR practitioners, and organisations

130 have deeper understanding of the significant emotional, cognitive, and psychological influences of experiencing incivility. Most organisations have a code of conduct, but articulating organisational expectations, such as insisting on respectful, civil communication by employees and particularly in hierarchical relationships by supervisors, should be an organisational imperative. Second, results demonstrated that low-EI individuals are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of stress, and organisations should focus on EI interventions with such employees. Research (Alkozei, Schwab, & Killgore, 2016) suggested that EI interventions, measured using MSCEIT, are more attuned to increasing low EI individuals’ EI skills, rather than making moderately ranked EI individuals better. High-performing employees are commonly afforded extra professional development, but I propose that most employees benefit from EI training. Considering findings from Jordan et al. (2002), who showed that low-EI average teams performed worse than high-EI average teams, pre-emptive screening for low-EI employees during recruitment might be beneficial. Identifying them for subsequent EI-based professional development might prevent potential accusations of victimisation and feelings of low self-efficacy that inhibit performance and thus yield long- term benefits for the individual and organisation. Third, given current findings that EI provides protective benefits, coupled with evidence of the negative influence of incivility on stress and the fact that EI can be learned, this thesis highlighted the utility of EI training and development from an employee wellness perspective. Thus, a major practical finding of this thesis relates to the success of the EI- based training intervention. Although extant research demonstrated an association between EI and stress, the current study was first to suggest a causal effect of ability-based EI training on stress levels and performance outcomes in a military context. These findings have implications for individuals interested in high performance under pressure. Fourth, the findings suggest that EI skill is critical to informing when and when not to trust the role that emotions play in guiding decisions. Extensive evidence suggested that several aspects of decision-making and subordinate influence are influenced strongly by emotional processes (Damasio, 1996). When making difficult decisions under pressure, some individuals are able to pre-empt the emotions they expect to feel. Based on experiences and after making similar choices in the past, they use this information to guide decision-making. Emotional information informs and makes decision-making more efficient. For some, relying on emotions, however, might not always lead to accurate or advantageous decisions, particularly in high-stakes contexts where decisions are made in emotionally charged

131 environments. For example, in the current field study, individuals who failed the cognitive math test but realised their ability to be successful in the subsequent shoot serial were influenced by their ability to manage negative emotions related to the failure and thus outperformed those who ruminated over the previous failure. EI skill should contribute to greater capacities to use emotional information to facilitate effective decision-making. Fallon et al. (2014) found that those with higher EI made more accurate decisions and spent more time weighing the risks and benefits during a challenging emotional decision-making task, and were able to ignore irrelevant cues during a social gambling task more effectively (Telle, Senior, & Butler, 2011). A related practical contribution of this thesis is that one component of EI training was education on how to use emotional information for decision-making and awareness regarding the influence that differing emotional states have on decision outcomes. A practical benefit of this approach is demonstrating that engaging in EI training for individuals working in high- risk, high-stress jobs is beneficial for decision-making under pressure. For example, military effectiveness depends on the ability of leaders to respond to ongoing pressures, make critical decisions, and manage the emotions of others efficiently (Schatz et al., 2015). Fifth, the findings have implications for the historical reluctance researchers and practitioners have regarding investigating and fostering the existence of emotions at work (Antonakis et al., 2009). Until recently, individuals who worked in such high-risk populations, such as military and police forces, have been reluctant to engage in emotion- oriented training because of the belief that emotions compromise or interfere with effective social behaviours, stoicism, and decision-making (Atwood, 2013; Livingstone, Nadjiwon- Foster, & Smithers, 2002; Moriarty, 2016; Schatz et al., 2015). Such populations are often time-poor, resources are strained, and the impetus to engage in professional development is low unless robust, contextual, job-specific benefits are evident. The training developed in this study has direct practical and mission-relevant content. The sixth contribution of this thesis is inclusion of biological measures of stress that increased the visibility of the effect and added scientific credibility to participants. Introducing biological approaches to measuring stress in combination with job-specific EI training is novel and represents an advanced method to educate high-risk, often male- dominated, populations on the benefits of emotional regulation, contributing to EI and stress intervention training literature. A seventh benefit of this thesis is that findings from Study 2 provided a multi-modal benefit in that not only were participants’ stress levels improved, behavioural outcomes

132 specific to their effectiveness as soldiers were also improved. Positive acceptance by participants was demonstrated by overwhelmingly positive feedback and requests for further engagement with this population (Appendix C). Participants exhibited other observable positive responses during engagement. Although not measured formally, personal observations indicated participants: 1) were more comfortable expressing themselves with respect to emotion-based concepts in class, without fear of being judged and ridiculed, 2) appeared to have better understanding of their colleagues’ and family members’ emotional behaviours and reactions, 3) commented that they were better able to interact with colleagues, superiors, and family members, with whom they previously were unable to maintain positive interactions, 4) demonstrated more pro-social behaviours, 5) were better able to recognise and respond constructively to their own and others’ social and emotional needs, and 6) had keener awareness of their own emotions and the importance of attending to them and recognising their contribution to performance. An eighth benefit of this thesis is that results suggested that the EI training has positive influences on immune functions and burnout avoidance, and therefore the long-term physical health of high-risk employees. Although immune function results were based only on the first part of the field study (due to instrument failure during the second part), results were encouraging for SF soldiers. Their stressors are complex—physically, psychologically, and socially—and are often accumulative. Special operations missions can be as short as a few hours to weeks or even months, commonly called SUSOPS (Vrijkotte et al., 2016). Sustained operations affect the endocrinological homeostasis of an SF soldier, so any advantage gained to protect and support the immune function while on missions is of major interest to this population, particularly when a prolonged state of physical and psychological stress, combined with being chronically sleep-deprived, malnourished, dehydrated, and caloric deficient, and being under constant behavioural and ethical scrutiny, increases susceptibility to disease and deteriorates a soldier’s ability to be effective during warfare. Since beginning this thesis, I have found that many organisations have become interested in measuring and educating employees about the detrimental consequences of stress, primarily to improve performance. Individuals are increasingly bombarded with messaging about work-life-balance and stress management, the need to slow down, be mindful, and at the same time perform at a higher rate (Fernández, 2016). There is, however, a large percentage of the population that does not understand how stress constrains performance, or associated risks of high stress for numerous other aspects of their lives, such as health and relationships (Shern, Blanch, & Steverman, 2016). There is growing demand

133 for information, solutions, and interventions, and EI skill is increasingly identified as filling those gaps (Hoskin, 2019). The success of this EI-training field research resulted in continued engagement with several organisations characterised as high-stress, such as the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS), SF, executive management consulting firms, and the broader Australian Defence Force. Leaders in the Australian Special Operations Command Headquarters and the Australian Army Leadership Programme (AALP) have identified EI skill as a pre-requisite for effective soldiering and military leadership, and are working to include these human factors into their officer development curriculum. Such interest encourages expansion of EI study and development in the military and in civilian workplaces. It potentially provides new and important insights into the reasons for and ways in which leaders and subordinates behave, process emotional information, and make critical decisions that influence society.

4.5 Limitations and Future Research

This thesis involved both laboratory and field research experimental designs, and both methods offered their own limitations when implementing a combination of laboratory and field studies. Both methods’ limitations are recognised, and I discuss suggestions for future research. First, laboratory studies are characterised by deductive reasoning, objective independence of the researcher from the subject under investigation, quantitative verification, and a focus on causality, parsimony, internal validity, and reliability (Hughes & Sharrock, 2016). These factors represent strengths or weaknesses, depending on the research purpose, the state of extant literature, and an individual's philosophical viewpoint. Critics of positivism (Brinkmann, 2015) argue that although the approach yields quantifiable and objective results, they might be superficial, neglecting a rich array of contextual and non-quantifiable factors of influence. I argue that use of a positivist, experimental approach was justified given this thesis’ purpose since it allowed assessment of the moderation effect of EI on stress, which is difficult to observe. I further argue that current results are scientifically robust because I strictly controlled extraneous variables, assigned subjects randomly to experimental groups, made causal inferences, and accounted for confounding variables (Singleton & Straits, 2010). Second, I recognise that the field experimental studies were affected by methodological limitations. This type of research is time-consuming, expensive, and vulnerable to organisational change and competing priorities and politics (Burgess, 2002).

134 Examining the effects of EI training in the field made it difficult to isolate the components of training that contributed to the effects produced. Future EI-training studies would benefit from testing individuals on the branches of EI to identify which aspects are most beneficial and implementing adaptive learning approaches to tailor the training program to individual needs. Future research should replicate these studies with the addition of post-experiment, qualitative interviews to assess coping mechanisms and thought processes used. This would provide valuable information on whether high-EI individuals are more impervious to stress or are better equipped at down-regulating negative emotions after experiencing it. A third limitation concerns the idiosyncratic nature of the SF environment. For example, the sample included all males with high IQs and high levels of fitness and risk tolerance. This limits the generalisability of findings. Yet many organisational features in the subjects are not unique to the military. Adherence to professionalism and hierarchy, collectivistic team-dynamics that depend on strong individual commitment, demanding and stressful jobs in which leaders and followers spend most of their time, and the need to work in teams characterise many organisations. Replication in civilian organisations, broader contexts, differing national cultures, larger sample sizes, and with mixed gender, age, and IQ ranges is needed before consensus is reached regarding whether the positive effects of EI training translate into the same multimodal benefits for such working populations and contexts. Each field study was conducted over 8 months. Future research however, should focus on the longitudinal effects of EI training and its influence on other aspects of inter- and intrapersonal functioning, such as trust and team-based psychological safety aspects, the quality of such relationships, psychological wellbeing in and out of work over time, and subsequent improvements to performance. Managers, practitioners, and organisations should not lose sight of the primary intention of EI training—to advance the ability to manage stress and improve work life—be it a second-order effect of reducing conflict or improving culture. Concerns exist that some organisations might capitalise on EI-trained employees’ improved ability to deal with stress, less conflict, and improved productivity and efficiency by increasing their work load and pressure. A fourth limitation is the equipment failure concerning testing the second round of IgA results. A fith drawback of this research was the limited financial resources, which meant that I was unable to retest the IgA samples, and I collected fewer saliva samples than desired during both the lab study and the conduct-after-capture stress serial field study. More frequent saliva testing throughout an experiment would be beneficial to confirming whether

135 individuals did not feel stress or did at first and then down regulated it. Saliva testing is expensive and labour intensive (Malathi, Rajesh, Aravindha Babu, & Jimson, 2016), and thus future research would benefit from application of new biometric capture devices, such as WHOOP. This is a wrist-worn wearable device that is designed to improve training, sleep and lifestyle choices with real-time feedback on the body. This wrist device provides a continuous measure of autonomic nervous system function (e.g., heartrate variability), which is a non- invasive measure of stress, strain, recovery and rest (Whoop.com). It would provide more accurate data on individuals’ stress states at a lower cost and with less interference than saliva testing. This device is already in use with several high-stress populations, such as the Australian Special Forces and Olympic athletes at the Australian Institute of Sport. Another research direction is use of augmented reality during EI training, stress testing, and situation inoculation. Software development kits (SDK) can overlay emotional information into various scenarios, depending on the population and its goal (Mavridou, Perry, Seiss, Kostoulas, & Balaguer-Ballester, 2019), the purpose of which is to develop perceptions, understanding, facilitation of decisions, and management of emotions in vivo. This technology creates multi-dimensional complexity by not only measuring emotional and micro-facial expressions of a participant, but analysing the faces of surrounding individuals. The software then cross-references with emotion databases that analyse facial expressions to identify human emotions. Affectiva is a company that already has emotion-recognition software called Emotion SDK and API that gives rapid feedback regarding how a person in view is feeling. The software would help participants make decisions by considering emotional factors, and would likely assist with development of EI skills. Future research would benefit from placing participants in a range of programmed situations that would allow a researcher to extend EI training. Wearable biomarkers that continuously track sympathetic nervous system responses could be used in conjunction with saliva tests to investigate the efficacy of training and interventions more easily. The training program used in this intervention is proprietary owned by Biopsychanalytics PTY LTD. Details of the program are listed in Appendix L. More information about the training tool and train the trainer versions are available on request from [email protected].

4.6 Conclusion

In this thesis, I demonstrated the effectiveness of EI ability and training on biomarkers of stress (i.e., salivary cortisol and immune function marker IgA) and behavioural

136 performance. Results contribute to extant literature by suggesting that EI is associated with reduced stress and increased performance in most situations. This thesis demonstrated that work stress increases from the actions of uncivil supervisors and decreases from supervisor support. Interventions to develop EI through training are important since organisations are calling for solutions to the increasing workplace stress epidemic, and findings from this thesis aid expansion of EI study and development in diverse organisations.

137 REFERENCES

Abell, J. G., Shipley, M. J., Ferrie, J. E., Kivimäki, M., & Kumari, M. (2016). Recurrent short sleep, chronic insomnia symptoms and salivary cortisol: A 10-year follow-up in the Whitehall II study. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 68, 91–99. Abraham, A. (2006). The need for the integration of emotional intelligence skills in business education. University of Wollongong. Adler, A. B., Bliese, P. D., McGurk, D., Hoge, C. W., & Castro, C. A. (2011). Battlemind debriefing and battlemind training as early interventions with soldiers returning from iraq: Randomization by platoon. Adler, A. B., Thomas, J. L., & Castro, C. A. (2005). Measuring up: Comparing self-reports with unit records for assessing soldier performance. , 17(1), 3–24. Aghamohammadi, A., Cheraghi, T., Gharagozlou, M., Movahedi, M., Rezaei, N., Yeganeh, & Moin, M. (2009). IgA deficiency: Correlation between clinical and immunological phenotypes. Journal of Clinical Immunology, 29(1), 130–136. Alexander, M., Ray, M. A., Hébert, J. R., Youngstedt, S. D., Zhang, H., Steck, S. E, & Burch, J. B. (2016). The national veteran sleep disorder study: Descriptive epidemiology and secular trends, 2000–2010. Sleep, 39(7), 1399–1410. Alicke, M. D., & Govorun, O. (2005). The better-than-average effect. The Self in Social Judgment, 1, 85–106. Alkozei, A., Schwab, Z. J., & Killgore, W. D. (2016). The role of emotional intelligence during an emotionally difficult decision-making task. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 40(1), 39-54. Alkozei, A., Smith, R., Demers, L. A., Weber, M., Berryhill, S. M., & Killgore, W. D. (2018). Increases in emotional intelligence after an online training program are associated with better decision-making on the IOWA gambling task. Psychological Reports, 0033294118771705. Allen, M. (2017). The sage encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1–4). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. doi: 10.4135/9781483381411 Allsopp, D. H., DeMarie, D., Alvarez-McHatton, P., & Doone, E. (2006). Bridging the gap between theory and practice: Connecting courses with field experiences. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(1), 19–35. American Institute of Stress Report. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.stress.org/stress- research

138 American Psychological Association, Center for Organizational Excellence. (2014). Creating a psychologically healthy workplace. Retrieved on 10 th April, 2019 from http://www.apaexcellence.org/resources/creatingahealthyworkplace/. American Psychological Association. (2016). Stress in America. Washington, DC: Author. Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P. (2014). The “nasty effect”: Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 373–387. Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471. Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2009). Does leadership need emotional intelligence? Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 247–261. Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1086–1120. Arslan, C. (2010). An investigation of anger and anger expression in terms of coping with stress and interpersonal problem-solving. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 10(1), 25–43. Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. D. (2015). Reintroducing “emotional intelligence”: What it is and where we stand now. Emotion Researcher,March 1. Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. (2005). Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in organizational behaviour are vastly exaggerated. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 26(4), 441–452. Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. (2016). The challenge of managing emotions in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471. Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dorris, A. D. (2017). Emotions in the workplace. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 67–90. Ashkanasy, N. M., Härtel, C. E., & Daus, C. S. (2002). Diversity and emotion: The new frontiers in organizational behavior research. Journal of Management, 28(3), 307-338. Ashkanasy, N. M., & Humphrey, R. H. (2011). Current emotion research in organizational behavior. Emotion Review, 3(2), 214-224. Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. P., & Peterson, M. F. (2000). Handbook of organizational culture and climate. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Atwood, K. (2013). Families’ in transnational settings: The case of military families. New Global Studies, 7(3), 1–22.

139 Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., & Egan, V. (2005). Personality, well-being and health correlates of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(3), 547–558. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Survey of working arrangements, Australia, 2009– 2012 (No. 6342.0). Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au Australian Psychological Society. (2015). Stress & wellbeing: How Australians are coping with life. The findings of the Australian Psychological Society Stress and Wellbeing in Australia Survey 2015. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Psychological Society. Babson, K. A., Woodward, S. H., Schaer, M., Sephton, S. E., & Kaloupek, D. G. (2017). Salivary cortisol and regional brain volumes among veterans with and without posttraumatic stress disorder. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 2(4), 372–379. Bakker, A. B., & Heuven, E. (2006). Emotional dissonance, burnout, and in-role performance among nurses and police officers. International Journal of Stress Management, 13(4), 423–440. Barber, L. K., & Santuzzi, A. M. (2015). Please respond ASAP: Workplace telepressure and employee recovery. Journal of Occupational , 20(2), 172. Barley, S.R., Meyerson, D.E., & Grodal, S. (2011). E-mail as a source and symbol of stress. Organization Science, 22(4), 887-906. Bar-On, R. (1997). BarOn emotional quotient inventory. Multi-Health Systems. Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & Frone, M. R. (2005). Editors Overviews: special populations. Handbook of work stress, 401-404. Barrett, L. F., Tugade, M. M., & Engle, R. W. (2004). Individual differences in working memory capacity and dual-process theories of the mind. Psychological Bulletin, 130(4), 553. Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affect matter in organizations? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 36–59. Bartone, P. T., Roland, R. R., Picano, J. J., & Williams, T. J. (2008). Psychological hardiness predicts success in US Army Special Forces candidates. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16(1), 78–81. Bastian, V. A., Burns, N. R., & Nettelbeck, T. (2005). Emotional Intelligence predicts life skills, but not as well as personality and cognitive abilities. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1135–1145.

140 Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 589. Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the Science of Self- Reports and Finger Movements: Whatever Happened to Actual Behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 396-403. Bennett, P., Williams, Y., Page, N., Hood, K., & Woollard, M. (2004). Levels of mental health problems among UK emergency ambulance workers. Emergency Medicine Journal, 21, 235–236. doi:10.1136/emj.2003.005645 Ben-Zeev, D., Corrigan, P. W., Britt, T. W., & Langford, L. (2012). Stigma of mental illness and service use in the military. Journal of Mental Health, 21(3) 264–273. Bergström, G., Lohela-Karlsson, M., Kwak, L., Bodin, L., Jensen, I., Torgén, M., & Nybergh, L. (2017). Preventing sickness absenteeism among employees with common mental disorders or stress-related symptoms at work: Design of a cluster randomized controlled trial of a problem-solving based intervention versus care-as-usual conducted at the Occupational Health Services. BMC Public Health, 17(1), 436. Bernard, C. (1859). Bailliere Legons de physiol. experiment. Bechtoldt, M. N., & Schneider, V. K. (2016). Predicting stress from the ability to eavesdrop on feelings: Emotional intelligence and testosterone jointly predict cortisol reactivity. Emotion, 16(6), 815. Bianchi, R., Schonfeld, I. S., & Laurent, E. (2015). Burnout–depression overlap: A review. Review, 36, 28–41. Bibi, Z., Karim, J., & Din, S. (2013). Workplace incivility and counterproductive work behaviour: Moderating role of emotional intelligence. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 28(2), 317–334. Björntorp, P., Holm, G., & Rosmond, R. (1999). Hypothalamic arousal, insulin resistance and Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetic Medicine, 16(5), 373–383. Blais, R. K., & Renshaw, K. D. (2013). Stigma and demographic correlates of help-seeking intentions in returning service members. Journal of Trauma Stress, 26(1), 77–85. Blau, G., & Andersson, L. (2005). Testing a measure of instigated workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(4), 595–614. Blau, P. M. (1968). Social exchange. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 7, 452–457.

141 Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work- family conflict. Journal of , 90(4), 740. Bowirrat, A., JH Chen, T., Blum, K., Madigan, M., A Bailey, J., Lih Chuan Chen, A., ... & Kerner, M. (2010). Neuro-psychopharmacogenetics and neurological antecedents of posttraumatic stress disorder: unlocking the mysteries of resilience and vulnerability. Current Neuropharmacology, 8(4), 335-358. Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim's perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 998. Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(9), 1147–1158. Brackett, M. A., Mayer, J. D., & Warner, R. M. (2004). Emotional intelligence and its relation to everyday behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(6), 1387– 1402. Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Bertoli, M. C., & Salovey, P. (2016). Emotional intelligence. In L. F.Barrett, M. Lewis, & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 513–531). Guilford. Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Reyes, M. R., & Salovey, P. (2012). Enhancing academic performance and social and with the RULER feeling words curriculum. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(2), 218-224. Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., & Salovey, P. (2011). Emotional intelligence: Implications for personal, social, academic, and workplace success. Social and Compass, 5(1), 88–103. Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., & Salovey, P. (2006). Relating emotional abilities to social functioning: A comparison of self-report and performance measures of emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 780. Brackett, M. A., Warner, R. M., & Bosco, J. S. (2005). Emotional intelligence and relationship quality among couples. Personal Relationships, 12(2), 197-212. Bradley, W. E., & Vozikis, G. S. (2004). Trust in virtual teams. In S. Godar, & S. P. Ferris (Eds.), Virtual and collaborative teams: Process, technologies, and practice (pp. 99– 113). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

142 Bray, R. M., Pemberton, M. R., Lane, M. E., Hourani, L. L., Mattiko, M. J., & Babeu, L. A. (2010). Substance use and mental health trends among US military active duty personnel: Key findings from the 2008 DoD Health Behavior Survey. Military Medicine, 175(6), 390–399. Breitbach, J. E., Rabinowitz, Y. G., & Warner, C. H. (2018). Combat and operational stress. In Military and veteran mental health (pp. 245–263). New York, NY: Springer. Brindhamani, M., & Manichander, T. (2014). Life Event Stress. Mangalmay Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 49. Brinkmann, S. (2015). Perils and potentials in qualitative psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49(2), 162–173. Britt, T. W., Jennings, K. S., Cheung, J. H., Pury, C. L., Zinzow, H. M., Raymond, M. A., & McFadden, A. C. (2016). Determinants of mental health treatment seeking among soldiers who recognize their problem: Implications for high-risk occupations. Work & Stress, 30(4), 318–336. Britt, T. W., & McFadden, A. C. (2012). Understanding mental health treatment seeking in high stress occupations. In J. Houdmont, S. Leka, & R. Sinclair (Eds.), Contemporary occupational health psychology: Global perspectives on research and practice (pp. 57–73). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Britton, A. R., Sliter, M. T., & Jex, S. M. (2012). Is the glass really half-full? The reverse- buffering effect of on undermining behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(6), 712–717. Brough, P., O'Driscoll, M., Kalliath, T., Cooper, C. L., & Poelmans, S. A. (2009). Workplace psychological health: Current research and practice. Edward Elgar Publishing. Brulé, G., & Morgan, R. (2018). Working with stress: Can we turn distress into eustress? Journal of & Stress Management, 3, 1–3. Buchanan, T. W., & Lovallo, W. R. (2001). Enhanced memory for emotional material following stress-level cortisol treatment in humans. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 26, 307–317. Burgess, R. G. (2002). In the field: An introduction to field research. Routledge. Burgoon, J. K. (1978). A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an initial test. Human Communication Research, 4(2), 129–142. Cahill, L., Gorski, L., & Le, K. (2003). Enhanced human memory consolidation with post- learning stress: Interaction with the degree of arousal at encoding. Learning & Memory, 10, 270–274.

143 Calhoun, L. G., & Tedeschi, R. G. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of posttraumatic growth: Research and practice. Routledge. Cannon, W. B. (1932). Homeostasis—The wisdom of the body. New York, NY: Norton. Capone, C., McGrath, A. C., Reddy, M. K., & Shea, M. T. (2013). Trauma-related correlates of alcohol use in recently deployed OEF/OIF Veterans. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 26, 354–360. Carrigan, N., & Barkus, E. (2016). A systematic review of cognitive failures in daily life: Healthy populations. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 63, 29–42. Carrillo, E., Freeman, L. L., Morand, D., Ocampo, R., Afegbua-Sabbatt, R., & Clayton, R. (2018). Examining the impact of emotional intelligence on workplace stress. International Journal of Management and Human Resources, 6(1), 64–83. Caruso, D. R., & Wolfe, C. J. (2001). Emotional intelligence in the workplace. Emotional Intelligence in Everyday Life, 150–167. Caruso, D. R., Salovey, P., Brackett, M., & Mayer, J. D. (2015). The ability model of emotional intelligence. in Practice: Promoting Human Flourishing in Work, Health, Education, and Everyday Life, 545–558. Cha, J., Cichy, R. F., & Kim, S. H. (2008). The contribution of emotional intelligence to social skills and stress management skills among automated foodservice industry executives. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 8(1), 15-31. Chan, M. E., & McAllister, D. J. (2014). Abusive supervision through the lens of employee state paranoia. Academy of Management Review, 39(1), 44–66. Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1991). Negative affectivity as the underlying cause of correlations between stressors and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 398– 407. Cherniss, C., & Goleman, D. (2001). The emotionally intelligence workplace. How to select for measure and improve emotional intelligence in individuals, groups and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Christopher, M. S., Goerling, R. J., Rogers, B. S., Hunsinger, M., Baron, G., Bergman, A. L., & Zava, D. T. (2016). A pilot study evaluating the effectiveness of a mindfulness- based intervention on cortisol awakening response and health outcomes among law enforcement officers. Journal of Police & Criminal Psychology, 31(1), 15–28. Ciarocco, N. J., Sommer, K. L., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). Ostracism and ego depletion: The strains of silence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(9), 1156–1163.

144 Ciarrochi, J., Deane, F. P., & Anderson, S. (2002). Emotional intelligence moderates the relationship between stress and mental health. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(2), 197–209. Ciarrochi, J. V., Chan, A. Y., & Caputi, P. (2000). A critical evaluation of the emotional intelligence construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(3), 539–561. Cicchetti, D. (2011). Allostatic load. Development and Psychopathology, 23(3), 723–724. Clarke, A. (2017). Embodied, situated, and distributed cognition. In W. Bechtel, & G. Graham (Eds.), A companion to cognitive science (506–517). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell. Clarke, C.M., & Kenaley, B.L.D. (2011). Faculty empowerment of students to foster civility in nursing education: A merging of two conceptual models. Nursing Outlook, 59(3), 158-165. Clarke, N. (2010a). Developing emotional intelligence abilities through team-based learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(2), 119–138. Clarke, N. (2010b). The impact of a training program designed to target the emotional intelligence abilities of project managers. International Journal of Project Management, 28(5), 461–468. Codier, E., Kamikawa, C., & Kooker, B. M. (2011). The impact of emotional intelligence development on nurse managers. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 270–276. Cohen, S., Janicki-Deverts, D., & Miller, G. E. (2007). Psychological stress and disease. Jama, 298(14), 1685–1687. Cohen, K. J., Hawawini, G. A., Maier, S. F., Schwartz, R. A., & Whitcomb, D. K. (1983). Friction in the trading process and the estimation of systematic risk. Journal of Financial Economics, 12(2), 263-278. Cohen, S., Kessler, R. C., & Gordon, L. U. (Eds.). (1997). Measuring stress: A guide for health and social scientists. Oxford University Press on Demand. Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1994). Perceived stress scale. In S. Cohen, R. C. Kessler, & L. U. Gordon (Eds.), Measuring stress: A guide for health and social scientists (235–283). Cohen-Katz, J., Sternlieb, J. L., Hansen, S. E., & Dostal, J. A. (2016). Developing emotional intelligence in the clinical learning environment: A case study in cultural transformation. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 8(5), 692–698. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310.

145 Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 678. Cook, D. A., Hamstra, S. J., Brydges, R., Zendejas, B., Szostek, J. H., Wang, A. T.,…Hatala, R. (2013). Comparative effectiveness of instructional design features in simulation- based education: systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Teacher, 35(1), e867– e898. Cooper, C. L. (Ed.). (2018). Managerial, occupational and organizational stress research. London, UK: Routledge. Cooper, C. L., Cooper, C. P., Dewe, P. J., O'Driscoll, M. P., & O'Driscoll, M. P. (2001). Organizational stress: A review and critique of theory, research, and applications. Sage. Cooper, C. L., & Quick, J. C. (Eds.). (2017). The handbook of stress and health: A guide to research and practice. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Cotton, P., & Hart, P. M. (2003). Occupational wellbeing and performance: A review of organisational health research. Australian Psychologist, 38(2), 118-127. Cortina, L. M., Kabat-Farr, D., Leskinen, E. A., Huerta, M., & Magley, V. J. (2013). Selective incivility as modern discrimination in organizations: Evidence and impact. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1579-1605. Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2009). Patterns and profiles of response to incivility in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(3), 272. Cortina, L. M., Kabat-Farr, D., Magley, V. J., & Nelson, K. (2017). Researching rudeness: The past, present, and future of the science of incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 299. Cortina, L., Magley, V., Williams, J., Langhout, R., & Barling, J. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64–80. Costa, P. T., & McCrea, R. R. (1992). Revised neo personality inventory (neo pi-r) and neo five-factor inventory (neo-ffi). Psychological Assessment Resources. Côté, S. (2014). Emotional intelligence in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 459–488. Côté, S., & Miners, C. T. (2006). Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(1), 1–28.

146 Côté, S., Miners, C. T., & Moon, S. (2006). Emotional intelligence and wise emotion regulation in the workplace. In N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe, & C. E. J. Härtel (Eds.), Individual and organizational perspectives on emotion management and display (pp. 1–24). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Côté, S., Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Miners, C. T. (2010). Emotional intelligence and leadership emergence in small groups. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 496-508. Crombie, D., Lombard, C., & Noakes, T. (2011). Increasing emotional intelligence in cricketers: An intervention study. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 6(1), 69-86. Crum, A. J., Salovey, P., & Achor, S. (2013). Rethinking stress: The role of mindsets in determining the stress response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 716. Currier, J., Holland, J., & Allen, D. (2012). Attachment and mental health symptoms among U.S. Afghanistan and Iraq veterans seeking health care services. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 25(6), 633–640. Daley, M. R. (1979). ‘Burnout’: Smoldering problem in protective services. Social Work, 24(5), 375–379. Damasio, A. R. (1996). The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 351(1346), 1413–1420. Danhof-Pont, M. B., van Veen, T., & Zitman, F. G. (2011). Biomarkers in burnout: A systematic review. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 70(6), 505–524. Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). Will the real emotional intelligence please stand up. On deconstructing the emotional intelligence “debate.” Industrial–Organizational Psychologist, 41(2), 69–72. Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). The case for the ability‐based model of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 453–466. Dunbar, J., Armitage, M., Jehanli, A., & Browne, A. (2013). Mucosal immunity and self- reported upper respiratory symptoms in a cohort of premier league academy soccer players. In International Journal of Exercise Science: Conference Proceedings (Vol. 10, No. 1, p. 45).

147 David, S. A. (2005). Emotional intelligence: Developmental antecedents, psychological and social outcomes. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Melbourne, Australia. Davidson, R. J. (2000). Affective style, psychopathology, and resilience: Brain mechanisms and plasticity. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1196. Davis, S. K., & Humphrey, N. (2012). The influence of emotional intelligence (EI) on coping and mental health in adolescence: Divergent roles for trait and ability EI. Journal of Adolescence, 35(5), 1369–1379. Dawda, D., & Hart, S. D. (2000). Assessing emotional intelligence: Reliability and validity of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) in university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(4), 797-812. De Cuyper, N., Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2009). Job insecurity, perceived employability and targets' and perpetrators' experiences of workplace bullying. Work & Stress, 23(3), 206–224. De Vente, W., van Amsterdam, J. G., Olff, M., Kamphuis, J. H., & Emmelkamp, P. M. (2015). Burnout is associated with reduced parasympathetic activity and reduced HPA axis responsiveness, predominantly in males. BioMed Research International. Devynck, F., Kornacka, M., Baeyens, C., Serra, É., Neves, J. F. D., Gaudrat, B., ... & Sgard, F. (2017). Perseverative Thinking Questionnaire (PTQ): French validation of a transdiagnostic measure of repetitive negative thinking. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 2159. Del Ben, K. S., Scotti, J. R., Chen, Y. C., & Fortson, B. L. (2006). Prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in firefighters. Work & Stress, 20, 37–48. Dalessandro, R. (2013). Stress, Coping and self-esteem. Deng, S. E., McCarthy, D. E., Piper, M. B., Baker, T., & Bolt, D. M. (2018). Extreme response style and the measurement of intra-individual variability in affect. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53(2), 199–218. Devynck, F., Kornacka, M., Sgard, F., & Douilliez, C. (2017). Repetitive thinking in alcohol- dependent patients. Substance Use & Misuse, 52(1), 108–118. Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. (2014). Comparing ability and self-report trait emotional intelligence, fluid intelligence, and personality traits in career decision. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 174–178.

148 Dick, P. (2000). The social construction of the meaning of acute stressors: A qualitative study of the personal accounts of police officers using a stress counselling service. Work & Stress, 14, 226–244. Dickerson, S., & Kemeny, M. (2004). Acute stressors and cortisol responses: A theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychological Bulletin, 130(3), 355– 391. Dietl, H., Prast, H., & Philippu, A. (1993). Pulsatile release of catecholamines in the hypothalamus of conscious rats. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology, 347(1), 28–33. Dietz, G., & Gillespie, N. (2011). Building and restoring organisational trust. London, UK: Institute of Business Ethics. Dimitrov, A., Demin, K., Fehlner, P., Walter, H., Erk, S., & Veer, I. M. (2018). Differences in neural recovery from acute stress between cortisol responders and non-responders. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 9, 631. Dirks, K. T., & De Cremer, D. (2011). The repair of trust: Insights from organizational behavior and social psychology. In Social psychology and Organizations (pp. 243- 262). Routledge. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611. Donaldson-Feilder, E. J., & Bond, F. W. (2004). The relative importance of psychological acceptance and emotional intelligence to workplace well-being. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 32(2), 187–203. Drabant, E. M., Kuo, J. R., Ramel, W., Blechert, J., Edge, M. D., Cooper, J. R.,…Gross, J. J. (2011). Experiential, autonomic, and neural responses during threat anticipation vary as a function of threat intensity and neuroticism. Neuroimage, 55(1), 401–410. Driskell, J. E., Salas, E., Johnston, J. H., & Wollert, T. N. (2008). Stress exposure training: An event-based approach. Performance Under Stress, 271–286. Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 331–351. Dunbar, J., Armitage, M., Jehanli, A., & Browne, A. (2013). Mucosal immunity and self- reported upper respiratory symptoms in a cohort of premier league academy soccer players. International Journal of Exercise Science: Conference Proceedings, 10(1), 45.

149 Duncan, L. R., Bertoli, M. C., Latimer-Cheung, A. E., Rivers, S. E., Brackett, M. A., & Salovey, P. (2013). Mapping the protective pathway of emotional intelligence in youth: From social cognition to smoking intentions. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(4), 542–544. Dunkel Schetter, C., & Tanner, L. (2012). Anxiety, depression and stress in pregnancy: Implications for mothers, children, research, and practice. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 25, 141–148. Dunn, E. W., Brackett, M. A., Ashton-James, C., Schneiderman, E., & Salovey, P. (2007). On emotionally intelligent time travel: Individual differences in affective forecasting ability. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(1), 85–93. Eack, S. M., Greenwald, D., Hogarty, S., Cooley, S., Di Barry, A. L., & Montrose, D. (2010). Cognitive enhancement therapy for early-course schizophrenia: Effects of a two-year randomized controlled trial. Psychiatric Services, 60, 1468–1476. Ebstrup, J. F., Eplov, L. F., Pisinger, C., & Jørgensen, T. (2011). Association between the Five Factor personality traits and perceived stress: Is the effect mediated by general self‐efficacy? Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 24, 407–419. Edes, A. N., & Crews, D. E. (2017). Allostatic load and biological anthropology. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 162(S63), 44–70. Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23–43. Edwards, S., Evans, P., Hucklebridge, F., & Clow, A. (2001). Association between time of awakening and diurnal cortisol secretory activity. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 26(6), 613–622. Einarsen, S. (2000). Bullying and harassment at work: Unveiling an organizational taboo. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Transcending boundaries: Integrating people, processes and systems (pp. 7–13). Brisbane, Australia: Griffith University. Eisenberger, N. I. (2012). The neural bases of social pain: Evidence for shared representations with physical pain. Psychosomatic Medicine, 74(2), 126. Eklund, R. C., & DeFreese, J. D. (2015). Athlete burnout: What we know, what we could know, and how we can find out more. International Journal of Applied Sports Sciences, 27(2), 63–75.

150 Elfenbein, H. A., Jang, D., Sharma, S., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2016). Validating emotional attention regulation as a component of Emotional Intelligence: A Stroop approach to individual differences in tuning in to and out of nonverbal cues. Emotion, 17(2), 348– 358. Ely, R. J., Meyerson, D. E., & Davidson, M. N. (2016). Rethinking political correctness. Harvard Business Review, 84(9), 78. Emery, C. (2012). Uncovering the role of emotional abilities in leadership emergence. A longitudinal analysis of leadership networks. Social Networks, 34, 429–437. Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science, 196(4286), 129-136. Epel, E. S., Crosswell, A. D., Mayer, S. E., Prather, A. A., Slavich, G. M., Puterman, E., & Mendes, W. B. (2018). More than a feeling: A unified view of stress measurement for population science. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 49, 146–169. Epel, E. S., Lin, J., Wilhelm, F. H., Wolkowitz, O. M., Cawthon, R., Adler, N. E.,…Blackburn, E. H. (2006). Cell aging in relation to stress arousal and cardiovascular disease risk factors. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 31(3), 277–287. Estes, B., & Wang, J. (2008). Integrative literature review: Workplace incivility: Impacts on individual and organizational performance. Human Resource Development Review, 7(2), 218–240. Evans, P., Bristow, M., Hucklebridge, F., Clow, A., & Walters, N. (1993). The relationship between secretory immunity, mood and life‐events. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32(2), 227–236. Everly, G. S., & Lating, J. M. (2019). The anatomy and physiology of the human stress response. In A clinical guide to the treatment of the human stress response (pp. 19- 56). Springer, New York, Extremera, N., & Rey, L. (2016). Ability emotional intelligence and life satisfaction: Positive and negative affect as mediators. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 98– 101. Extremera, N., & Rey, L. (2018). Core self-evaluations are associated with judgments of satisfaction with life via positive but not negative affect. Personality and Individual Differences, 130, 112–116. Extremera, N., Mérida-López, S., Sánchez-Álvarez, N., & Quintana-Orts, C. (2018). How does emotional intelligence make one feel better at work? The mediational role of

151 work engagement. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(9), 1909. Falconier, M. K., Nussbeck, F., Bodenmann, G., Schneider, H., & Bradbury, T. (2015). Stress from daily hassles in couples: Its effects on intradyadic stress, relationship satisfaction, and physical and psychological well‐being. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 41(2), 221–235. Falk, A., & Fischbacher, U. (2006). A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 54(2), 293–315. Fallon, C. K., Panganiban, A. R., Wohleber, R., Matthews, G., Kustubayeva, A. M., & Roberts, R. (2014). Emotional intelligence, cognitive ability and information search in tactical decision-making. Personality and Individual Differences, 65, 24–29. Faragher, E. B., Cass, M., & Cooper, C. L. (2005). The relationship between job satisfaction and health: A meta-analysis. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 62, 105– 112. Farmer, R. F., & Sundberg, N. D. (2010). Buffering hypothesis. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology, 1-1. Farne, M., Boni, P., Gnugnoli, D., & Corallo, A. (1992). The effect of daily hassles on salivary IgA: Experimental evidence. Bollettino della Società Italiana di Biologia Sperimentale, 68(6), 409–412. Feinstein, A., Owen, J., & Blair, N. (2002). A hazardous profession: War, journalists, and psychopathology. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 1570–1575. Fernández, R. (2016). Help your team manage stress, anxiety, and burnout. Harvard Business Review. Fernández-Abascal, E. G., & Martín-Díaz, M. D. (2015). Dimensions of emotional intelligence related to physical and mental health and to health behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 317. Fernández-Berrocal, P., & Extremera, N. (2006). Emotional intelligence and emotional reactivity and recovery in laboratory context. Psicothema, 18, 7–12. Fernández-Berrocal, P., Alcaide, R., Extremera, N., & Pizarro, D. (2006). The role of emotional intelligence in anxiety and depression among adolescents. Individual Differences Research, 4(1), 16–27. Fernández-Berrocal, P., Salovey, P., Vera, A., Extremera, N., & Ramos, N. (2005). Cultural influences on the relation between perceived emotional intelligence and depression. International Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 91–107.

152 Filipkowski, K. B., & Smyth, J. M. (2012). Plugged in but not connected: Individuals’ views of and responses to online and in-person ostracism. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1241–1253. Fink, G. (2010). Stress: definition and history. Stress Science: Neuroendocrinology, 3–9. Fink, G. (2016). Stress, definitions, mechanisms, and effects outlined: Lessons from anxiety. In Stress: Concepts, cognition, emotion, and behavior (pp. 3–11). Academic Press. Fiori, M., & Antonakis, J. (2011). The ability model of emotional intelligence: Searching for valid measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(3), 329–334. Fischer, T., & Riedl, R. (2019). Lifelogging for organizational stress measurement: Theory and Applications. In Lifelogging for Organizational Stress Measurement (pp. 1-37). Springer, Cham. Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping processes: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 839.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(1), 150. Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 55, 745-774. Foulk, T., Woolum, A., & Erez, A. (2015). Catching rudeness is like catching a cold: The contagion effects of low-intensity negative behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 50–67. Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta‐analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. Freedman, J. (2018). Emotional WHAT? Definitions and history of EQ (2017 update). Six Seconds. Retrieved from https://www.6seconds.org/2017/05/28/emotional- intelligence-definition-history/ Frieri, M., O'Connor, M., & Nassef, M. (2015, July). Asthma, stress, and depression in women. Allergy & Asthma Proceedings, 36(4). Fromm, P. D. (2010). Warriors, the army ethos, and the sacred trust of soldiers. Military Review, 90(5), S19. Galford, R. M., & Drapeau, A. S. (2003). The trusted leader. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

153 Gallagher, E. N., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2008). Social support and emotional intelligence as predictors of subjective well-being. Personality and individual differences, 44(7), 1551–1561. Gallus, J. A., Bunk, J. A., Matthews, R. A., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Magley, V. J. (2014). An eye for an eye? Exploring the relationship between workplace incivility experiences and perpetration. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(2), 143–154. Ganster, D. C., Fusilier, M. R., & Mayes, B. T. (1986). Role of social support in the experience of stress at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(1), 102. Gaudet, W. R. (2010). Emotional intelligence and the therapeutic relationship: A randomized controlled educational intervention for pharmacy students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Phoenix). Ghose, S. (2018). Substance-induced psychosis: An indicator of development of primary psychosis?. Ghosh, R., Jacobs, J. L., & Reio, T. G., Jr. (2011). The toxic continuum from incivility to violence: What can HRD do? Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(1), 3–9. Gillespie, N. (2003) Measuring trust in working relationships: The behavioral trust inventory. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Seattle, WA. Gillespie, N. (2012). Measuring trust in organizational context: An overview of survey-based measures. In F. Lyon, G. Möllering, & M. N. K. Saunders (Eds.), Handbook of research methods on trust (pp. 175–188). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Gini, A. L. (1998). Working ourselves to death: Workaholism, stress, and fatigue. Business and Society Review, 100(1), 45–56. Gittelman, S., Lange, V., Cook, W. A., Frede, S. M., Lavrakas, P. J., Pierce, C., & Thomas, R. K. (2015). Accounting for social-desirability bias in survey sampling: A model for predicting and calibrating the direction and magnitude of social-desirability bias. Journal of Advertising Research, 55(3), 242–254. Giumetti, G. W., McKibben, E. S., Hatfield, A. L., Schroeder, A. N., & Kowalski, R. M. (2012). Cyber incivility@ work: The new age of interpersonal deviance. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(3), 148-154. Giumetti, G. W., Hatfield, A. L., Scisco, J. L., Schroeder, A. N., Muth, E. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (2013). What a rude e-mail! Examining the differential effects of incivility versus support on mood, energy, engagement, and performance in an online context. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18, 297–309.

154 Golden, S. H., Wand, G. S., Malhotra, S., Kamel, I., & Horton, K. (2011). Reliability of hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis assessment methods for use in population-based studies. European Journal of Epidemiology, 26(7), 511–525. Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in Organizations: Needs Assessment. Development, and Evaluation, 4th ed., Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. Gonsalkorale, K., & Williams, K. D. (2007). The KKK won't let me play: Ostracism even by a despised outgroup hurts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(6), 1176–1186. Gorgievski, M. J., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2008). Work can burn us out or fire us up: Conservation of resources in burnout and engagement. In J. R. B. Halbesleben (Ed.), Handbook of stress and burnout in health care (pp. 7–22), Nova. Gould, M., Adler, A., Zamorski, M., Castro, C., Hanily, N., Steele, N., ... & Greenberg, N. (2010). Do stigma and other perceived barriers to mental health care differ across Armed Forces?. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 103(4), 148-156. Gross, E. (2017). Work, organization, and stress. Social Stress. (pp. 54-110). Chicago, IL: Aldine. Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (1995). Facets of emotional expressivity: Three self-report factors and their correlates. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(4), 555-568. Gruenewald, T. L., Kemeny, M. E., Aziz, N., & Fahey, J. L. (2004). Acute threat to the social self: Shame, social self-esteem, and cortisol activity. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66(6), 915–924. Gudjonsson, G. H. (1981). Self-reported emotional disturbance and its relation to electrodermal reactivity, defensiveness and trait anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 2(1), 47–52. Hagelskamp, C., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., & Salovey, P. (2013). Improving classroom quality with the ruler approach to social and emotional learning: Proximal and distal outcomes. American Journal of , 51(3-4), 530-543. Hakanen, J. J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). Do burnout and work engagement predict depressive symptoms and life satisfaction? A three-wave seven-year prospective study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 141(2/3), 415–424. Hallsten, L. (2017). Burning out: A framework. In Professional burnout (pp. 95–113). Routledge. Hankin, B. L., & Abela, J. R. (Eds.). (2005). Development of psychopathology: A vulnerability-stress perspective. Sage.

155 Hanson, J. L., Nacewicz, B. M., Sutterer, M. J., Cayo, A. A., Schaefer, S. M., Rudolph, K. D.,…Davidson, R. J. (2015). Behavioral problems after early life stress: Contributions of the hippocampus and amygdala. Biological psychiatry, 77(4), 314–323. Harris, W. C., Hancock, P. A., & Harris, S. C. (2005). Information processing changes following extended stress. Military Psychology, 17(2), 115-128. Hayes, L. D., Sculthorpe, N., Cunniffe, B., & Grace, F. (2016). Salivary testosterone and cortisol measurement in sports medicine: A narrative review and user’s guide for researchers and practitioners. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 37(13), 1007– 1018. Hautzinger, S., & Scandlyn, J. (2017). Military Families: The Long Journey Home. In Reflecting on America (pp. 81-94). Routledge. Heffelfinger, A. K., & Newcomer, J. W. (2001). Glucocorticoid effects on memory function over the human life span. Development and Psychopathology, 13(3), 491–513. Held, P., & Owens, G. P. (2013). Stigmas and attitudes toward seeking mental health treatment in a sample of veterans and active duty service members. Traumatology, 19(2), 136-143. Hellhammer, J., & Hellhammer, D. H. (2016). Stress medicine: From bench to bedside, New directions in organizational psychology and behavioral medicine (pp. 81–94). Routledge. Herbert, T. B., & Cohen, S. (1993). Stress and immunity in humans: A meta-analytic review. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55(4), 364–379. Hermans, E. J., Putman, P., Baas, J. M., Koppeschaar, H. P., & van Honk, J. (2006). A single administration of testosterone reduces fear-potentiated startle in humans. Biological Psychiatry, 59(9), 872–874. Herpertz, S., Schütz, A., & Nezlek, J. (2016). Enhancing emotion perception, a fundamental component of emotional intelligence: Using multiple-group SEM to evaluate a training program. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 11–19. Hershcovis, M. S., Ogunfowora, B., Reich, T. C., & Christie, A. M. (2017). Targeted workplace incivility: The roles of belongingness, , and power. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(7), 1057–1075. Hesse, E. (1980). Revolutions and reconstructions in the philosophy of science. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Hicks, R. A., & Garcia, E. R. (1987). Level of stress and sleep duration. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64(1), 44–46.

156 Hines, L., Jawahar, K., Wessely, S., & Fear, N. T. (2013). Self-harm in the UK military. Occupational Medicine, 63(5), 354–357. Hines, L. A., Goodwin, L., Jones, M., Hull, L., Wessely, S., Fear, N. T. and Rona, R. J. (2014). Factors affecting help seeking for mental health problems after deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. Psychiatric Services, 65(1), 98–105. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513. Hobfoll, S. E. (2011). Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(1), 116–122. Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (2001). Conservation of resources theory: Applications to stress and management in the workplace. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behaviour (pp. 57–80). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker. Hodzic, S., Scharfen, J., Ripoll, P., Holling, H., & Zenasni, F. (2018). How efficient are emotional intelligence trainings: A meta-analysis. Emotion Review, 10(2), 138–148. Hofmann, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwendner, T., Le, H., & Schmitt, M. (2005). A meta- analysis on the correlation between the implicit association test and explicit self-report measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(10), 1369–1385. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture consequences. Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. London, UK: Sage. Hoge, C. W., Auchterlonie, J. L., & Milliken, C. S. (2006). Mental health problems, use of mental health services, and attrition from military service after returning from deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan. Jama, 295(9), 1023–1032. Hoge, C. W., Castro, C. A., Messer, S. C., McGurk, D., Cotting, D. I., & Koffman, R. L. (2004). Combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health problems, and barriers to care. New England Journal of Medicine, 351, 13–22. Hoge, K. P. Y., Thomas, J. L., Wilk, J. E., Castro, C. A., & Hoge, C. W. (2010). Stigma, barriers to care, and use of mental health services among active duty and National Guard soldiers after combat. Psychiatric Services, 61, 572–588. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.61.6.582 Hoskin, R. (2019). Center for Army Leadership Briefing. Canungra, Australia. Howard, G. S., & Dailey, P. R. (1979). Response-shift bias: A source of contamination of self-report measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(2), 144. Hughes, J. A., & Sharrock, W. W. (2016) The philosophy of social research. New York, NY: Routledge.

157 Hughes, M., & Terrell, J. B. (2011). Emotional intelligence in action: Training and coaching activities for leaders, managers, and teams. John Wiley & Sons. Huy, Q. N. (1999). Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change. Academy of Management Review, 24, 325–345. Itzkovich, Y. (2016). The victim perspective of incivility: The role of negative affectivity, hierarchical status and their interaction in explaining victimisation. International Journal of Work Organisation and Emotion, 7(2), 126–142. Itzkovich, Y., & Dolev, N. (2017). The Relationships between Emotional Intelligence and Perceptions of Faculty Incivility in Higher Education. Do Men and Women Differ?. Current Psychology, 36(4), 905-918. Jacobs, M., Snow, J., Geraci, M., Vythilingam, M., Blair, R. J. R., Charney, D. S., ... & Blair, K. S. (2008). Association between level of emotional intelligence and severity of anxiety in generalized social phobia. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22(8), 1487-1495. Jacobs, I., Wollny, A., Sim, C. W., & Horsch, A. (2016). Mindfulness facets, trait emotional intelligence, emotional distress, and multiple health behaviors: A serial two‐mediator model. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 57(3), 207–214. Jakupcak, M., Hoerster, K., Blais, R., Malte, C., Hunt, S., & Seal, K. (2013). Readiness for change predicts VA mental healthcare utilization among Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 26(1), 165–168. Jaušovec, N., Jaušovec, K., & Gerlič, I. (2001). Differences in event-related and induced EEG patterns in the theta and alpha frequency bands related to human emotional intelligence. Neuroscience Letters, 311(2), 93–96. Jawahar, I.M., & Schreurs, B. (2018). Supervisor incivility and how it affects subordinates’ performance: a matter of trust, Personnel Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-01- 2017-0022. Jdaitawi, M. T. (2012). The effect of emotional intelligence training program on social and academic adjustment among first year Jordanian university students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universiti Utara Malaysia. Jemmott, J., III, Borysenko, M., Chapman, R., Borysenko, J., Mcclelland, D., Meyer, D., & Benson, H. (1983). Academic stress, power motivation, and decrease in secretion rate of salivary secretory immunoglobulin A. The Lancet, 321(8339), 1400–1402. Jemmott, J. B., & Magloire, K. (1988). Academic stress, social support, and secretory immunoglobulin A. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(5), 803.

158 Jemmott, J. B., III, & Locke, S.E. (1984). Psychosocial factors, immunologic mediation, and human susceptibility to infectious diseases: How much do we know? Psychological Bulletin, 95, 78–108. Johns, G., & Miraglia, M. (2015). The reliability, validity, and accuracy of self-reported absenteeism from work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(1), 1. Johnson, T., Kulesa, P., Cho, Y. I., & Shavitt, S. (2005). The relation between culture and response styles: Evidence from 19 countries. Journal of Cross-, 36(2), 264–277. Jordan, P. J., Ashton-James, C. E., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2006). Evaluating the claims: Emotional intelligence in the workplace. Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Härtel, C. E. (2002). Emotional intelligence as a moderator of emotional and behavioral reactions to job insecurity. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 361–372. Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., Härtel, C. E., & Hooper, G. S. (2002). Workgroup emotional intelligence: Scale development and relationship to team process effectiveness and goal focus. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 195–214. Jordan, P. J., Murray, J. P., & Lawrence, S. A. (2009). The application of emotional intelligence in industrial and organizational psychology. In C. Stough, D. H. Saklofske, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Assessing emotional intelligence (pp. 171–190). Boston, MA: Springer. Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta- analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54. Joseph, D. L., Jin, J., Newman, D. A., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2015). Why does self-reported emotional intelligence predict job performance? A meta-analytic investigation of mixed EI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 298. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Thoresen, C. J. (2000). Why negative affectivity (and self‐ deception) should be included in job stress research: Bathing the baby with the bath water. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(1), 101–111. Jung, Y. H., Ha, T. M., Oh, C. Y., Lee, U. S., Jang, J. H., Kim, J., & Kang, D. H. (2016). The effects of an online mind-body training program on stress, coping strategies, emotional intelligence, resilience and psychological state. PloS One, 11(8), e0159841.

159 Juster, R. P., McEwen, B. S., & Lupien, S. J. (2010). Allostatic load biomarkers of chronic stress and impact on health and cognition. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(1), 2–16. Kabat-Farr, D., Cortina, L. M., & Marchiondo, L. A. (2018). The emotional aftermath of incivility: Anger, guilt, and the role of organizational commitment. International Journal of Stress Management, 25(2), 109. Karimi, L., Leggat, S. G., Bartram, T., & Rada, J. (2018). The effects of emotional intelligence training on the job performance of Australian aged care workers. Health Care Management Review. Karlen, C. E., & Daniels, J. R. (2011). Cyberostracism and social monitoring: Social anxiety's effects on reactions to exclusion and inclusion online. Honors Projects. Paper 147. Illinois Wesleyan University. Kassner, M. P., Wesselmann, E. D., Law, A. T., & Williams, K. D. (2012). Virtually ostracized: Studying ostracism in immersive virtual environments. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(8), 399-403. Keane, T. M., Fairbank, J. A., Caddell, J. M., Zimering, R. T., Taylor, K. L., & Mora, C. A. (1989). Clinical evaluation of a measure to assess combat exposure. Psychological Assessment, 1(1), 53. Keefer, V. Saklofske, D. H., & Parker, J. D. A. (2018). In L. D. Pool, & P. Qualter (Eds.), An introduction to emotional intelligence (1st ed.) John Wiley & Sons. Kelly, M., McDonald, S., & Rushby, J. (2012). All alone with sweaty palms—Physiological arousal and ostracism. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83(3), 309–314. Kemeny, M. E., Gruenewald, T. L., & Dickerson, S. S. (2004). Shame as the emotional response to threat to the social self: Implications for behavior, physiology, and health. Psychological Inquiry, 15(2), 153–160. Kern, J. H., & Grandey, A. A. (2009). Customer incivility as a social stressor: the role of race and racial identity for service employees. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(1), 46. Kim, M. L., Bredenpohl, M., Klenke, J., Westermann, S., & Lincoln, T. M. (2013). The impact of social stress on self-esteem and paranoid ideation. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 44(1), 122-128. Kim, J. G., Yoo, J. H., & Cheon, E. Y. (2017). Relationship among Incivility, Burnout, Coping and Satisfaction to Clinical Practice experienced by Nursing College Students

160 in Clinical Practice. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society, 18(1), 316-324. Kim, P. Y., Britt, T. W., Klocko, R. P., Riviere, L. A., & Adler, A. B. (2011). Stigma, negative attitudes about treatment, and utilization of mental health care among soldiers. Military Psychology. Kim, P. Y., Thomas, J. L., Wilk, J. E., Castro, C. A., & Hoge, C. W. (2010). Stigma, barriers to care, and use of mental health services among active duty and National Guard soldiers after combat. Psychiatric Services, 61, 572–588. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.61.6.582 King, J. B., Gillespie, N., Ashkanasy, N., Jeppesen. D. (In press). Special forces soldiers training: A pre-emptive approach to stress management using emotional intelligence (EI) and bio-measures of stress. Australian Army Journal. Kirk, B. A., Schutte, N. S., & Hine, D. W. (2009). The role of emotional self efficacy, emotional intelligence and affect in workplace incivility and workplace satisfaction. In C. E. J. Hartel, N. M. Ashkanasy, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Research on emotions in organizations (Vol. 5) (pp. 213–230). Emonet. Kirsch, I. (1997). Response expectancy theory and application: A decennial review. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 6(2), 69–79. Kirschbaum, C., Klauer, T., Filipp, S. H., & Hellhammer, D. H. (1995). Sex-specific effects of social support on cortisol and subjective responses to acute psychological stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 57(1), 23–31. Kirschbaum, C., Pirke, K. M., & Hellhammer, D. H. (1993). The ‘trier social stress test’—A tool for investigating psychobiological stress responses in a laboratory setting. Neuropsychobiology, 28(1/2), 76–81. Kirschbaum, C., Wolf, O. T., May, M., Wippich, W., & Hellhammer, D. H. (1996). Stress- and treatment-induced elevations of cortisol levels associated with impaired declarative memory in healthy adults. Life Sciences, 58(17), 1475–1483. Kligyte, V., Connelly, S., Thiel, C., & Devenport, L. (2013). The influence of anger, fear, and emotion regulation on ethical decision making. Human Performance, 26(4), 297–326. doi: 10.1080/08959285.2013.814655. Koenen, K. C., Ratanatharathorn, A., Ng, L., McLaughlin, K. A., Bromet, E. J., Stein, D. J., …Atwoli, L. (2017). Posttraumatic stress disorder in the world mental health surveys. Psychological Medicine, 47(13), 2260–2274.

161 Köllner, M. G., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2014). Meta-analytic evidence of low convergence between implicit and explicit measures of the needs for achievement, affiliation, and power. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 826. Konietzny, K., Chehadi, O., Streitlein-Böhme, I., Rusche, H., Willburger, R., & Hasenbring, M. I. (2018). Mild depression in low back pain: The interaction of thought suppression and stress plays a role, especially in female patients. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 25(2), 207–214. Kossek, E. E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T., & Hammer, L. B. (2011). Workplace social support and work–family conflict: A meta‐analysis clarifying the influence of general and work–family‐specific supervisor and organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 289–313. Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 569-598. Kroenke, K., & Spitzer, R. L. (1998). Gender differences in the reporting of physical and somatoform symptoms. Psychosomatic Medicine, 60(2), 150–155. Kudielka, B. M., & Kirschbaum, C. (2005). Sex differences in HPA axis responses to stress: A review. Biological Psychology, 69(1), 113–132. Kuhlmann, S., & Wolf, O. T. (2006). Arousal and cortisol interact in modulating memory consolidation in healthy young men. , 120, 217–223. Kumari, V., Barkataki, I., Goswami, S., Flora, S., Das, M., & Taylor, P. (2009). Dysfunctional, but not functional, impulsivity is associated with a history of seriously violent behaviour and reduced orbitofrontal and hippocampal volumes in schizophrenia. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 173(1), 39-44. Kurlansik, S. L., & Maffei, M. S. (2016). Somatic symptom disorder. American Family Physician, 93(1), 49–54. Lanciano, T., & Curci, A. (2015). Does emotions communication ability affect psychological well-being? A study with the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso emotional intelligence test (MSCEIT) v2.0. Health Communication, 30(11), 1112–1121. Landy, F. J. (2005). Some historical and scientific issues related to research on emotional intelligence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 411–424. Langford, I. (2014). Australian special operations: Principles and considerations. Canberra, Australia. Department of Defence.

162 Lankisch, K. M. (2007). The first-generation student in a two-year open access college: Improving emotional intelligence and retention using the Freeze-Frame® technique (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University). Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 483. Layng, T. J. (2016). Converging qualities of personal competencies. In M. Murphy, S. Redding, & J. S. Twyman (Eds.), Handbook on personalized learning for states, districts, and schools (pp. 19–36). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University. Lazarus, R. S., DeLongis, A., Folkman, S., & Gruen, R. (1985). Stress and adaptational outcomes: The problem of confounded measures. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Coping and adaptation. The Handbook of Behavioral Medicine. Le Poire, B. A., & Burgoon, J. K. (1994). Two contrasting explanations of involvement violations: Expectancy violations theory versus discrepancy arousal theory. Human Communication Research, 20(4), 560–591. Lea, R. G., Davis, S. K., Mahoney, B., & Qualter, P. (2019). Does emotional intelligence buffer the effects of acute stress? A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. Leary, M. R. (1990). Responses to social exclusion: Social anxiety, , loneliness, depression, and low self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(2), 221–229. Leary, M. R. (Ed.). (2001). Interpersonal rejection. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2016). Latent burnout profiles: A new approach to understanding the burnout experience. Burnout Research, 3(4), 89-100. Lennick, D. (2007). Emotional competence development and the bottom line: Lessons from American Express financial advisors. In R. Bar-On, J. G. Maree, & M. J. Elias (Eds.), Educating people to be emotionally intelligent (pp. 199–210). Westport, CT: Praeger. Leung, A. S., Wu, L. Z., Chen, Y. Y., & Young, M. N. (2011). The impact of workplace ostracism in service organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(4), 836–844. Li, Y. I., Starr, L. R., & Hershenberg, R. (2017). Responses to positive affect in daily life: Positive rumination and dampening moderate the association between daily events

163 and depressive symptoms. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 39(3), 412–425. Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 483. Lim, S., & Lee, A. (2011). Work and non-work outcomes of workplace incivility: Does family support help? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(1), 95–111. Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 95–107. Limonero, J. T., Fernández-Castro, J., Soler-Oritja, J., & Álvarez-Moleiro, M. (2015). Emotional intelligence and recovering from induced negative emotional state. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 816. Lin, K., Xia, F., Li, C., Wang, D., & Humar, I. (2019). Emotion-aware system design for the battlefield environment. Information Fusion, 47, 102–110. Ling, S., Raine, A., Gao, Y., & Schug, R. (2018). The mediating role of emotional intelligence on the autonomic functioning–psychopathy relationship. Biological Psychology, 136, 136-143. Livingstone, H., Nadjiwon-Foster, M., & Smithers, S. (2002). Emotional intelligence & military leadership. Unpublished manuscript, Tronto, Canada. Locke, E. A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 425–431. Lopes, P. N., Brackett, M. A., Nezlek, J. B., Schütz, A., Sellin, I., & Salovey, P. (2004). Emotional intelligence and social interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(8), 1018–1034. Lopes, P. N., Grewal, D., Kadis, J., Gall, M., & Salovey, P. (2006). Evidence that emotional intelligence is related to job performance and affect and attitudes at work. Psicothema, 18, 132–138. Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., Côté, S., Beers, M., & Petty, R. E. (2005). Emotion regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. Emotion, 5(1), 113. Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Straus, R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, personality, and the perceived quality of social relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(3), 641–658. Lovallo, W. R. (2005). Cardiovascular reactivity: Mechanisms and pathways to cardiovascular disease. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 58(2-3), 119–132.

164 Lu, C.-S., & Kuo, S.-Y. (2016). The effect of job stress on self-reported safety behaviour in container terminal operations: The moderating role of emotional intelligence. Transportation Research Part F: and Behaviour, 37, 10–26. Lumb, R. C. (2016). Strengthening resilience of our police and first responders. Lupien S. J., Gillin, C. J., & Hauger, R. L. (1999). Working memory is more sensitive than declarative memory to the acute effects of corticosteroids: A dose-response study in humans. Behavioral Neuroscience, 113, 420–430. Lupien, S. J., & McEwen, B. S. (1997). The acute effects of corticosteroids on cognition: Integration of animal and human model studies. Brain Research Reviews, 24(1), 1–27. Lupien, S. J., Ouellet-Morin, I., Hupbach, A., Tu, M. T., Buss, C., Walker (2006). Beyond the stress concept: Allostatic load—A developmental biological and cognitive perspective. In D. Cicchetti, & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology (Vol. 2), Developmental Neuroscience (pp. 578–628). New York, NY: Wiley. Luria, G., & Torjman, 2009, A. (2009). Resources and coping with stressful events. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 685–707. Lyons, J. B., & Schneider, T. R. (2005). The influence of emotional intelligence on performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 693–703. MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2008). New paradigms for assessing emotional intelligence: Theory and data. Emotion, 8(4), 540. MacManus, D., Dean, K., Al Bakir, M., Iversen, A. C., Hull, L., Fahy, T., ... & Fear, N. T. (2012). Violent behaviour in UK military personnel returning home after deployment. Psychological Medicine, 42(8), 1663-1673. Madden, L., Kidder, D., Eddleston, K., Litzky, B., & Kellermanns, F. (2017). A conservation of resources study of standard and contingent employees. Personnel Review, 46(3), 644–661. Maguen, S., Luxton, D. D., Skopp, N. A., Gahm, G. A., Reger, M. A., Metzler, T. J., & Marmar, C. R. (2011). Killing in combat, mental health symptoms, and suicidal ideation in Iraq war veterans. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 25(4), 563-567. Maier, S. F., & Watkins, L. R. (2010). Role of the medial prefrontal cortex in coping and resilience. Brain Research, 1355, 52–60. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2010.08.039 Malathi, L., Rajesh, E., Aravindha Babu, N., & Jimson, S. U. D. H. A. (2016). Saliva as a diagnostic tool. Biomedical and Pharmacology Journal, 9(2), 867–870.

165 Malouff, J. M., Schutte, N. S., & Thorsteinsson, E. B. (2014). Trait emotional intelligence and romantic relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Family Therapy, 42(1), 53–66. Mann, H., & Djulbegovic, B. (2003). Choosing a control intervention for a randomised clinical trial. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 3(1), 7. Mano, R. S., & Mesch, G. S. (2010). E-mail characteristics, work performance and distress. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(1), 61–69. Marchiondo, K., Marchiondo, L. A., & Lasiter, S. (2010). Faculty incivility: Effects on program satisfaction of BSN Students. Journal of Nursing Education, 49(11), 608– 614. Marshall, G. D., Jr., Agarwal, S. K., Lloyd, C., Cohen, L., Henninger, E. M., & Morris, G. J. (1998). Cytokine dysregulation associated with exam stress in healthy medical students. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 12(4), 297–307. Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(S1), S120–S137. Martins, A., Ramalho, N., & Morin, E. (2010). A comprehensive meta-analysis of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(6), 554–564. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1984). Burnout in organizational settings. Applied Social Psychology Annual. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397-422. Matthews, G., Emo, A. K., Funke, G., Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D., Costa, P. T., Jr., & Schulze, R. (2006). Emotional intelligence, personality, and task-induced stress. Journal of : Applied, 12(2), 96–107. Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional Intelligence: Science and M yth. MIT press. Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (Eds.). (2007). The science of emotional intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2017). Emotional intelligence, health, and stress. The handbook of stress and health: A guide to research and practice, 312-326. Mattingly, V., & Kraiger, K. (2018). Can emotional intelligence be trained? A meta- analytical investigation. Human Resource Management Review.

166 Mauss, I. B., Levenson, R. W., McCarter, L., Wilhelm, F. H., & Gross, J. J. (2005). The tie that binds? Coherence among emotion experience, behavior, and physiology. Emotion, 5(2), 175. Mavridou, I., Perry, M., Seiss, E., Kostoulas, T., & Balaguer-Ballester, E. (2019, April). Emerging affect detection methodologies in vr and future directions. In Virtual reality international conference proceedings (p. 35). Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey, & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators (pp. 3–31). New York, NY: Basic Books. Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27(4), 267–298. Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2016). The ability model of emotional intelligence: Principles and updates. Emotion Review, 8(4), 290–300. Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 507–536. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso emotional intelligence test: MSCEIT. Item booklet. Toronto, Canada, MHS. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004). Target Articles, Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Findings, and Implications". Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 197-215. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits? American Psychologist, 63(6), 503. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3(1), 97–105. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1995). Emotional intelligence and the construction and regulation of feelings. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 4, 197–208. Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2000). Selecting a measure of emotional intelligence. In R. Bar-On, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and application at home, school, and in the workplace (pp. 320–342). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 123–136. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

167 Mazuritsky, S. (2018). Perceptions of workplace incivility based on personality characteristics: A replication (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Guelph, Canada. McCarney, R., Warner, J., Iliffe, S., Van Haselen, R., Griffin, M., & Fisher, P. (2007). The Hawthorne effect: A randomised, controlled trial. BMC Medical Research methodology, 7(1), 30. McEnrue, M. P., & Groves, K. (2006). Choosing among tests of emotional intelligence: what is the evidence? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17(1), 9–42. McEwen, B. S. (1998). Stress, adaptation, and disease: Allostasis and allostatic load. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 840(1), 33–44. McEwen, B. S. (2000). Allostasis and allostatic load: Implications for neuropsychopharmacology. Neuropsychopharmacology, 22(2), 108–124. McEwen, B. S., & Sapolsky, R. M. (1995). Stress and cognitive function. Neurobiology, 5(2), 205–216. McEwen, B. S., & Stellar, E. (1993). Stress and the individual: Mechanisms leading to disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 153(18), 2093–2101. McFarlane, A., & Hodson, S. (2011). Mental health in the Australian Defence Force: 2010 ADF mental health prevalence and wellbeing study: full report. Canberra, Australia: Department of Defence. McFarlane, A., Hodson, S., Van Hooff, M., & Davies, C. (2011). Mental health in the Australian Defence Force: 2010 ADF mental health and wellbeing study: Full report. Canberra, Australia: Department of Defence. McGrath, J. E. (1976). Stress and behavior in organizations. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1351, 1396. Meier, L. L., & Spector, P. (2013). Reciprocal effects of work stressors and counterproductive work behaviour: A five-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(3), 529–539. Meurs, J. A., & Perrewé, P. L. (2011). Cognitive activation theory of stress: An integrative theoretical approach to work stress. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1043–1068. Myers, H. F. (2009). Ethnicity-and socio-economic status-related stresses in context: an integrative review and conceptual model. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 32(1), 9- 19.

168 Meyer, B. B., Fletcher, T. B., & Parker, S. J. (2004). Enhancing emotional intelligence in the health care environment: An exploratory study. Health Care Manager, 23(3), 225– 234. Meyerson, D. E. (1994). Interpretations of stress in institutions: The cultural production of ambiguity and burnout. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 628–653. Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., & Qian, S. (2017). A meta-analysis of emotional intelligence effects on job satisfaction mediated by job resources, and a test of moderators. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 281–288. Mikolajczak, M., Avalosse, H., Vancorenland, S., Verniest, R., Callens, M., Van Broeck, N., & Mierop, A. (2015). A nationally representative study of emotional competence and health. Emotion, 15(5), 653. Mikolajczak, M., Balon, N., Ruosi, M., & Kotsou, I. (2012). Sensitive but not sentimental: Emotionally intelligent people can put their emotions aside when necessary. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(4), 537–540. Mikolajczak, M., Luminet, O., Leroy, C., & Roy, E. (2007). Psychometric properties of the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire: Factor structure, reliability, construct, and incremental validity in a French-speaking population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88(3), 338–353. Mikolajczak, M., & Pena-Sarrionanda, A. (2015). On the efficiency of emotional intelligence training in adulthood. Emotion Researcher. Milam, A. C., Spitzmueller, C., & Penney, L. M. (2009). Investigating individual differences among targets of workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 58–69. Miller, G. E., Chen, E., & Zhou, E. S. (2007). If it goes up, must it come down? Chronic stress and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis in humans. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 25. Miller, S. L., & Maner, J. K. (2009). Scent of a woman: Men’s testosterone responses to olfactory ovulation cues. Psychological Science, 21, 276–283. Mitchell, M. L., & Jolley, J. M. (2012). Research design explained. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Mittal, D., Drummond, K. L., Blevins, D., Curran, G., Corrigan, P., & Sullivan, G. (2013). Stigma associated with PTSD: Perceptions of treatment seeking combat veterans. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 36(2), 86–92.

169 Momen, N., Strychacz, C. P., & Viirre, E. (2012). Perceived stigma and barriers to mental health care in marines attending the combat operational stress control program. Military Medicine, 177(10), 1143–1148. Monroe, S. M. (2008). Modern approaches to conceptualizing and measuring human life stress. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 33–52. Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38(4), 379. Moorman, R. H., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1992). A meta‐analytic review and empirical test of the potential confounding effects of social desirability response sets in organizational behaviour research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65(2), 131–149. Moradi, A., Pishva, N., Ehsan, H. B., Hadadi, P., & Pouladi, F. (2011). The relationship between coping strategies and emotional intelligence. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 748–751. Moriarty, J. (2016). Leadership in focus—Emotional intelligence, leadership and resilience. Retrieved from https://groundedcuriosity.com/leadership-in-focus-emotional- intelligence-leadership-and-resilience/ Murray, J., Jordan, P., & bosy, N. A. (2006). Increasing emotional intelligence: Presenting the results of a training intervention. Third Brisbane symposium on emotions and worklife: Program and book of abstracts. Brisbane, Queensland.http://hdl.handle.net/10072/9764 Nelson, D. L., & Simmons, B. L. (2011). Savoring eustress while coping with distress: The holistic model of stress. In J. C. Quick, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 55–74). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Nielsen, N. R., Kristensen, T. S., Prescott, E., Larsen, K. S., Schnohr, P., & Grønbaek, M. (2006). Perceived stress and risk of ischemic heart disease: Causation or bias? Epidemiology, 17(4), 391–397. Nikolaou, I., & Tsaousis, I. (2002). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: Exploring its effects on occupational stress and organizational commitment. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10(4), 327–342. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231. Nunnally, J. (1962). The analysis of profile data. Psychological Bulletin, 59(4), 311.

170 O’Donovan, A., Tomiyama, A. J., Lin, J., Puterman, E., Adler, N. E., Kemeny, M.,…Epel, E. S. (2012). Stress appraisals and cellular aging: A key role for anticipatory threat in the relationship between psychological stress and telomere length. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 26(4), 573–579. O'Boyle, E. H., Jr., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011). The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(5), 788–818. Oei, N. Y., Veer, I. M., Wolf, O. T., Spinhoven, P., Rombouts, S. A., & Elzinga, B. M. (2011). Stress shifts brain activation towards ventral ‘affective’ areas during emotional distraction. Social Cognitive and , 7(4), 403–412. Oginska-Bulik, N. (2005). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: Exploring its effects on occupational stress and health outcomes in human service workers. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 18(2), 167–175. Oyeleye, O., Hanson, P., O’Connor, N., & Dunn, D. (2013). Relationship of workplace incivility, stress, and burnout on nurses’ turnover intentions and psychological empowerment. Journal of Nursing Administration, 43(10), 536–542. Page-Gould, E., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). With a little help from my cross-group friend: Reducing anxiety in intergroup contexts through cross-group friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1080–1094. Palagini, L., Gronchi, A., Caccavale, L., & Mauri, M. (2015). Dysfunctional beliefs about sleep are associated with stress-related sleep reactivity in insomnia disorder: Preliminary data. Sleep Medicine, 16, S245. Papadogiannis, P. K., Logan, D., & Sitarenios, G. (2009). An ability model of emotional intelligence: A rationale, description, and application of the Mayer Salovey Caruso emotional intelligence test (MSCEIT). In C. Stough, D. H. Saklofske, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Assessing emotional intelligence: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 9–40). New York, NY: Springer. Park, Y., & Haun, V. C. (2018). The long arm of email incivility: Transmitted stress to the partner and partner work withdrawal. Journal of Organizational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2289. Park, Y., Fritz, C., & Jex, S. M. (2015). Daily cyber incivility and distress: The moderating roles of resources at work and home. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0149206315576796

171 Parke, M. R., & Seo, M. G. (2013). The emotional edge: creativity under job complexity and creativity requirements. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2013, No. 1, p. 12679). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management. Patton, T. O. (2004). In the guise of civility: The complicitous maintenance of inferential forms of sexism and racism in higher education. Women's Studies in Communication, 27(1), 60–87. Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of . In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (Vol. 1), Measures of social psychological attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Paulhus, D. L., Lysy, D. C., & Yik, S. M. (1998). Self-report measures of intelligence: Are they useful as proxy IQ tests? Journal of Personality, 66, 525–554. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2009). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Assessing well- being (pp. 101–117). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005) Assessing and attacking workplace incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29(2), 123–137. Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 777–796. Perrewé, P. L., Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., & Anthony, W. P. (2000). Political skill: An antidote for workplace stressors. Academy of Management Perspectives, 14(3), 115- 123. Petrides, K. V., Furnham, A., & Mavroveli, S. (2007). Trait emotional intelligence: Moving forward in the field of EI. Emotional intelligence: Knowns and unknowns, 151-166. Petrides, K. V., Perez-Gonzalez, J. C., & Furnham, A. (2007). On the criterion and incremental validity of trait emotional intelligence. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 26– 55. Petrides, K. V., Mikolajczak, M., Mavroveli, S., Sanchez-Ruiz, M. J., Furnham, A., & Pérez- González, J. C. (2016). Developments in trait emotional intelligence research. Emotion Review, 8(4), 335-341. Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British Journal of Psychology, 98(2), 273–289.

172 Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15(6), 425–448. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2006). The role of trait emotional intelligence in a gender‐ specific model of organizational variables. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(2), 552–569. Petrides, K. V., Pérez-González, J. C., & Furnham, A. (2007). On the criterion and incremental validity of trait emotional intelligence. Cognition and Emotion, 21(1), 26–55. Petrides, K. V., Sangareau, Y., Furnham, A., & Frederickson, N. (2006). Trait emotional intelligence and children's peer relations at school. Social Development, 15(3), 537– 547. Pfattheicher, S., & Keller, J. (2014). Towards a biopsychological understanding of costly punishment: The role of basal cortisol. PloS One, 9(1), e85691. Pietrzak, E., Pullman, S., Cotea, C., & Nasveld, P. (2013). Effects of deployment on health behaviours in military forces: A review of longitudinal studies. Journal of Military and Veterans’ Health, 21(1), 14–23. Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2019). Experimental designs in management and leadership research: Strengths, limitations, and recommendations for improving publishability. Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 11–33. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544. Pollard, T. M., & Ice, G. H. (2007). Measuring hormonal variation in the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis: Cortisol. In G. H. Ice, & G. D. James (Eds.), Measuring stress in humans: A practical guide for the field (pp. 122–157), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pols, H., & Oak, S. (2007). The US psychiatric response in the 20th century. American Journal of Public Health, 97(12), 2132–2142. Poon, K. T., & Chen, Z. (2016). Assuring a sense of growth: A cognitive strategy to weaken the effect of cyber-ostracism on aggression. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 31– 37.

173 Porath, C. (2016). Managing yourself an antidote to incivility. Harvard Business Review, 94(4), 108-111. Porath, C. L., & Bateman, T. S. (2006). Self-regulation: from goal orientation to job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 185. Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. (2007). Does rudeness really matter? The effects of rudeness on task performance and helpfulness. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1181– 1197. Porath, C., & Pearson, C. (2013). The price of incivility. Harvard Business Review, 91(1/2), 114–121. Potter, C. (2006). To what extent do nurses and physicians working within the emergency department experience burnout: A review of the literature. Australasian Emergency Nursing Journal, 9(2), 57–64. Pryluk, R., Kfir, Y., Gelbard-Sagiv, H., Fried, I., & Paz, R. (2019). A tradeoff in the neural code across regions and species. Cell, 176(3), 597-609. Rafaeli, A., Erez, A., Ravid, S., Derfler-Rozin, R., Treister, D. E., & Scheyer, R. (2012). When customers exhibit verbal aggression, employees pay the cost. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 931–950. Rajaratnam, S. M., Barger, L. K., Lockley, S. W., Shea, S. A., Wang, W., Landrigan, C. P., ... & Epstein, L. J. (2011). Sleep disorders, health, and safety in police officers. Jama, 306(23), 2567-2578. Rash, J. A., & Prkachin, K. M. (2013). Cardiac vagal reactivity during relived sadness is predicted by affect intensity and emotional intelligence. Biological Psychology, 92(2), 106-113. Razavi, T. (2001). Self-report measures: An overview of concerns and limitations of questionnaire use in occupational stress research. Southampton, UK: University of Southampton. Retrieved from https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/35712/ Redelmeier, D. A., Katz, J., & Kahneman, D. (2003). Memories of colonoscopy: A randomized trial. Pain, 104(1/2), 187–194. Reio, T. G., Jr. (2011). Supervisor and coworker incivility: Testing the work - aggression model. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(1), 54–68. Ren, F., & Zhang, J. (2015). Job stressors, organizational innovation climate, and employees’ innovative behavior. Creativity Research Journal, 27(1), 16-23. Resource. (2019). In Oxford Online Dictionary. Retrieved from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/resource

174 Rintel, E. S., & Pittam, J. (1997). Strangers in a strange land interaction management on internet relay chat. Human Communication Research, 23(4), 507-534. Rivers, S. E., Brackett, M. A., Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (2007). Measuring emotional intelligence as a set of mental abilities. In the Science of Emotional Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns (pp. 230–257). Roberts, R. D., Schulze, R., O'Brien, K., MacCann, C., Reid, J., & Maul, A. (2006). Exploring the validity of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso emotional intelligence test (MSCEIT) with established emotions measures. Emotion, 6(4), 663. Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Belief and feeling: Evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 934–960. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572. Rodríguez-Socarrás, M., Vasquez, J. L., Uvin, P., Skjold-Kingo, P., & Gómez, J. R. (2018). Fatigue syndrome: Stress, Burnout and depression in Urology. Archivos Espanoles de Urologia, 71(1), 46-54. Rohleder, N., Beulen, S. E., Chen, E., Wolf, J. M., & KirscFemhbaum, C. (2007). Stress on the dance floor: The cortisol stress response to social-evaluative threat in competitive ballroom dancers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(1), 69–84. Roles of the 2nd Commando Regiment, 2nd Commando Regiment. Department of Defence. Canberra, Australia. Retrieved 20 August 2016. Roos, L. E., Knight, E. L., Beauchamp, K. G., Giuliano, R. J., Fisher, P. A., & Berkman, E. T. (2017). Conceptual precision is key in acute stress research: A commentary on Shields, Sazma, & Yonelinas, 2016. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 83, 140–144. Rosen, C. C., Koopman, J., Gabriel, A. S., & Johnson, R. E. (2016). Who strikes back? A daily investigation of when and why incivility begets incivility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(11), 1620–1634. Rosete, D., & Ciarrochi, J. (2005). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to workplace performance outcomes of leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(5), 388-399. Roth, S., & Cohen, L. J. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. American Psychologist, 41(7), 813.

175 Rothberg, J. M., & Wright, K. (1999). Trauma prevention in the line of duty. In J. M. Violanti, & D. Paton (Eds.), Police trauma: Psychological aftermath of civilian combat (p. 203–213). Royle, L., Keenan, P., & Farrell, D. (2009). Issues of stigma for first responders accessing support for post traumatic stress. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, 11(2), 79–85. Rubin, K. H., & Burgess, K. B. (2001). Social withdrawal and anxiety. The Developmental Psychopathology of Anxiety, 407-434. Ruiz-Aranda, D., Salguero, J. M., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2011). Emotional intelligence and acute pain: the mediating effect of negative affect. The Journal of Pain, 12(11), 1190-1196. Ryder, A. G., & Chentsova-Dutton, Y. E. (2012). Depression in cultural context:“Chinese somatization,” revisited. Psychiatric Clinics of North America. Saad, A. (2014). Occupational safety and health management. Penerbit USM. Ryff, C. D., Singer, B. H., & Dienberg Love, G. (2004). Positive health: connecting well– being with biology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1383-1394. Saklofske, D. H., Austin, E. J., Galloway, J., & Davidson, K. (2007). Individual difference correlates of health-related behaviours: Preliminary evidence for links between emotional intelligence and coping. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(3), 491–502. Sala, F. (2002). Emotional competence inventory: Technical manual. Philadelphia, PA: McClelland Center for Research. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9(3), 185–211. Salovey, P., Bedell, B., Detweiler, J. B., & Mayer, J. D. (1999). Coping intelligently: Emotional intelligence and the coping process. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Coping: The psychology of what works (pp. 141–164). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Salovey, P., & Grewal, D. (2005). The science of emotional intelligence. Current directions in Psychological Science, 14(6), 281-285. Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S. L., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. P. (1995). Emotional attention, clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the trait meta- mood scale. In J. W. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure, & health (pp. 125–154). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

176 Salovey, P., Stroud, L. R., Woolery, A., & Epel, E. S. (2002). Perceived emotional intelligence, stress reactivity, and symptom reports: Further explorations using the trait meta-mood scale. Psychology and Health, 17(5), 611–627. Sánchez-Álvarez, N., Extremera, N., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2016). The relation between emotional intelligence and subjective well-being: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(3), 276–285. Sanchez-Burks, J., & Huy, Q. N. (2009). and strategic change: The accurate recognition of collective emotions. Organization Science, 20(1), 22–34. Saxbe, D. E. (2008). A field (researcher's) guide to cortisol: Tracking HPA axis functioning in everyday life. Health Psychology Review, 2(2), 163–190. Schaible, L. M., & Six, M. (2016). Emotional strategies of police and their varying consequences for burnout. Police Quarterly, 19(1), 3-31. Schatz, S., Fautua, D., Stodd, J., & Reitz, E. (2015, The changing face of military learning. Proceedings of the I/ITSEC. Schaible, L. M., & Six, M. (2016). Emotional strategies of police and their varying consequences for burnout. Police Quarterly, 19(1), 3-31. Schilpzand, P., de Pater, I. E., & Erez, A. (2016). Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, S57–S88. Schlaerth, A., Ensari, N., & Christian, J. (2013). A meta-analytical review of the relationship between emotional intelligence and leaders’ constructive conflict management. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(1), 126–136. Schmidt-Reinwald, A., Pruessner, J. C., Hellhammer, D. H., Federenko, I., Rohleder, N., Schürmeyer, T. H., and Kirschbaum, C. (1999) The cortisol response to awakening in relation to different challenge tests and a 12-hour cortisol rhythm. Life Science. 64: 1653-60. Schneider, K. T., Swan, S., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Job-related and psychological effects of sexual harassment in the workplace: Empirical evidence from two organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 401. Schneider, T. R., Lyons, J. B., & Khazon, S. (2013). Emotional intelligence and resilience. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(8), 909–914. Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344–354.

177 Schuler, R. S. (1980). Definition and conceptualization of stress in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25(2), 184–215. Schultz, A. B., Chen, C. Y., & Edington, D. W. (2009). The cost and impact of health conditions on presenteeism to employers: A review of the literature. Pharmaco Economics, 27, 365–378. Schultz, E. W. (1980). Teaching coping skills for stress and anxiety. Teaching Exceptional Children, 13(1), 12–15. Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2007). A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(6), 921-933. Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., & Thorsteinsson, E. B. (2013). Increasing emotional intelligence through training: Current status and future directions. International Journal of Emotional Education, 5, 56–72. Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Bobik, C., Coston, T. D., Greeson, C., Jedlicka, C.,…Wendorf, G. (2001). Emotional intelligence and interpersonal relations. Journal of Social Psychology, 141(4), 523–536. Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(2), 167–177. Seaward, B.L. (2017). Managing stress. Burlington, Jones & Bartlett Learning. Segerstrom, S. C., & Miller, G. E. (2004). Psychological stress and the human immune system: a meta-analytic study of 30 years of inquiry. Psychological Bulletin, 130(4), 601. Selye, H. (1950). Stress and the general adaptation syndrome. British Medical Journal, 1(4667), 1383. Selye, H. (1956). The stress of life. Selye, H. (1973). The evolution of the stress concept: The originator of the concept traces its development from the discovery in 1936 of the alarm reaction to modern therapeutic applications of syntoxic and catatoxic hormones. American Scientist, 61(6), 692–699. Semple, C. G., Gray, C. E., Borland, W., Espie, C. A., & Beastall, G. H. (1988). Endocrine effects of examination stress. Clinical Science, 74(3), 255–259. Senécal, C., Julien, E., & Guay, F. (2003). Role conflict and academic procrastination: A self‐determination perspective. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 135- 145.

178 Sephton, S. E., Dhabhar, F. S., Keuroghlian, A. S., Giese-Davis, J., McEwen, B. S., Ionan, A.C., & Spiegel, D., (2009). Depression, cortisol, and suppressed cell-mediated immunity in metastatic breast cancer. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 23(8), 1148– 1155. Serido, J., Almeida, D. M., & Wethington, E. (2004). Chronic stressors and daily hassles: Unique and interactive relationships with psychological distress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45(1), 17–33. Sgt. C. (2017). Human performance wing training protocols. 2nd Commando Regiment. Defence Force Publishing Service. Sgt. C. (2015). Human performance handbook. 2nd Commando Regiment Defence Force Publishing Service. Sherman, N. (2007). Stoic warriors: The ancient philosophy behind the military mind. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Shern, D. L., Blanch, A. K., & Steverman, S. M. (2016). Toxic stress, behavioral health, and the next major era in public health. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 86(2), 109. Shidhaye, R., Mendenhall, E., Sumathipala, K., Sumathipala, A., & Patel, V. (2013). Association of somatoform disorders with anxiety and depression in women in low and middle income countries: A systematic review. International Review in Psychiatry, 25, 65–76. Shirtcliff, E. A., Buck, R. L., Laughlin, M. J., Hart, T., Cole, C. R., & Slowey, P. D. (2015). Salivary cortisol results obtainable within minutes of sample collection correspond with traditional immunoassays. Clinical Therapeutics, 37(3), 505–514. Shoss, M. K. (2018). Addressing job insecurity in the 21st Century. Shulman, T. E., & Hemenover, S. H. (2006). Is dispositional emotional intelligence synonymous with personality? Self and Identity, 5(2), 147–171. Singleton, R. A. J., & Straits, B. C. (2010). Approaches to social research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Sinha, R., & Jastreboff, A. M. (2013). Stress as a common risk factor for obesity and addiction. Biological Psychiatry, 73(9), 827–835. Slaski, M., & Cartwright, S. (2003). Emotional intelligence training and its implications for stress, health and performance. Stress and Health, 19(4), 233–239. Sliter, M., Sliter, K., & Jex, S. (2012). The employee as a punching bag: The effect of multiple sources of incivility on employee withdrawal behavior and sales performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 121–139.

179 Sliter, M., Withrow, S., & Jex, S. M. (2015). It happened, or you thought it happened? Examining the perception of workplace incivility based on personality characteristics. International Journal of Stress Management, 22(1), 24–45. Smith, A., & Williams, K. D. (2004). RU there? Ostracism by cell phone text messages. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8(4), 291–301. Smith, M. M., Saklofske, D. H., Keefer, K. V., & Tremblay, P. F. (2016). Coping strategies and psychological outcomes: The moderating effects of personal resiliency. Journal of Psychology, 150(3), 318–332. Soliemanifar, O., Soleymanifar, A., & Afrisham, R. (2018). Relationship between personality and biological reactivity to stress: A review. Psychiatry Investigation, 15(12), 1100. Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(4), 356. Stanley, I. H., Horn, M. A., & Joiner, T. E. (2016). A systematic review of suicidal thoughts and behaviors among police officers, firefighters, EMTs, and paramedics. Clinical Psychology Review, 44, 25–44. Sterling, P. (1988). Allostasis: A new paradigm to explain arousal pathology. In Handbook of life stress, cognition and health. Sterling, P., & Eyer, J. (1988). Allostasis: a new paradigm to explain arousal pathology. In ‘Handbook of life stress, cognition and health’ (Eds S Fisher, J Reason) pp. 629–649. Stewart-Brown, S., & Janmohamed, K. (2008). Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale. User guide version, 1. Stich, J. F., Farley, S., Cooper, C., & Tarafdar, M. (2015). Information and communication technology demands: Outcomes and interventions. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 2(4), 327–345. Strauss, V. (2017, December 20). The surprising thing Google learned about its employees and what it means for todays-students. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/12/20/the-surprising- thing-google-learned-about-its-employees-and-what-it-means-for-todays-students Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326. Sulsky, L., & Smith, C. S. (2005). Work stress. Chicago, IL: Wadsworth Publishing. Sunil, K., & Rooprai, K. Y. (2009). Role of emotional intelligence in managing stress and anxiety at workplace. Proceedings of ASBBS, 16(1), 163–172.

180 Svetlicky, V., & Lubin, G. (2010). Combat exposure, posttraumatic stress symptoms and risk-taking behavior in veterans of the Second Lebanon War. The Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 47(4), 276. Szczygieł, D., & Mikolajczak, M. (2017). Why are people high in emotional intelligence happier? They make the most of their positive emotions. Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 177–181. Tamashiro, K. L., Sakai, R. R., Shively, C. A., Karatsoreos, I. N., & Reagan, L. P. (2011). Chronic stress, metabolism, and metabolic syndrome. Stress, 14, 468–474. Tarafdar, M., Darcy, J., Turel, O., & Gupta, A. (2015). The dark side of information technology. MIT Sloan Management Review, 56(2), 61. Taverniers, J., Smeets, T., Van Ruysseveldt, J., Syroit, J., & von Grumbkow, J. (2011). The risk of being shot at: Stress, cortisol secretion, and their impact on memory and perceived learning during reality-based practice for armed officers. International Journal of Stress Management, 18(2), 113. Taylor, S. E. (1999). Health psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Taylor, S. G., Bedeian, A. G., Cole, M. S., & Zhang, Z. (2017). Developing and testing a dynamic model of workplace incivility change. Journal of Management, 43(3), 645– 670. Teicher, M. H., Andersen, S. L., Polcari, A., Anderson, C. M., & Navalta, C. P. (2002). Developmental neurobiology of childhood stress and trauma. Psychiatric Clinics of North America. Telle, N. T., Senior, C., & Butler, M. (2011). Trait emotional intelligence facilitates responses to a social gambling task. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(4), 523-526. Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190. Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261–289. Terry, D. J., Tonge, L., & Callan, V. J. (1995). Employee adjustment to stress: The role of coping resources, situational factors, and coping responses. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 8(1), 1–24. Thoits, P. A. (2010). Stress and health: Major findings and policy implications. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(1 suppl.), S41–S53.

181 Tice, D. M., Bratslavsky, E., & Baumeister, R. F. (2018). Emotional distress regulation takes precedence over impulse control: If you feel bad, do it! In Self-Regulation and Self- Control (pp. 275–306). Routledge. Tomiyama, A. J., Hunger, J. M., Nguyen-Cuu, J., & Wells, C. (2016). Misclassification of cardiometabolic health when using body mass index categories in NHANES 2005– 2012. International Journal of Obesity, 40(5), 883. Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J., Kibler, J., & Ernst, J. M. (1997). Cognitive and physiological antecedents of threat and challenge appraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 63. Tomova, L., von Dawans, B., Heinrichs, M., Silani, G., & Lamm, C. (2014). Is stress affecting our ability to tune into others? Evidence for gender differences in the effects of stress on self-other distinction. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 43, 95–104. Tong, J., Chong, S., & Johnson, R. E. The indirect relations of workplace incivility with emotional exhaustion and supportive behaviors via self‐blame: The moderating roles of observed incivility and trait emotional control. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Tremmel, S., Sonnentag, S., & Casper, A. (2018). How was work today? Interpersonal work experiences, work-related conversations during after-work hours, and daily affect. Work & Stress, 1–21. Tsan, J., Zeber, J., Stock, E., Sun, F., & Copeland, L. (2012). Primary care-mental health integration and treatment retention among Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. Psychological Services, 9(4), 336–348. Tsujita, S., & Morimoto, K. (1999). Secretory IgA in saliva can be a useful stress marker. Environmental Health and Preventative Medicine, 4(1), 1–8. Ulrich-Lai, Y. M., Ostrander, M. M., Thomas, I. M., Packard, B. A., Furay, A. R., Dolgas, C. (2007). Daily limited access to sweetened drink attenuates hypothalamic-pituitary- adrenocortical axis stress responses. Endocrinology, 148, 1823–1834. Uno, H., Eisele, S., Sakai, A., Shelton, S., Baker, E., DeJesus, O., & Holden, J. (1994). Neurotoxicity of glucocorticoids in the primate brain. Hormones and Behavior, 28(4), 336–348. Vagg, P. R., & Spielberger, C. D. (1999). The job stress survey: Assessing perceived severity and frequency of occurrence of generic sources of stress in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4(3), 288–292.

182 Van Dalfsen, J. H., & Markus, C. R. (2018). The influence of sleep on human hypothalamic– pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis reactivity: A systematic review. Sleep Medicine reviews, 39, 187-194. Van der Velden, P. G., Kleber, R. J., Grievink, L., & Yzermans, J. C. (2010). Confrontations with aggression and mental health problems in police officers: The role of organizational stressors, life-events and previous mental health problems. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 2(2), 135. Van Marle, H. J., Hermans, E. J., Qin, S., & Fernández, G. (2009). From specificity to sensitivity: How acute stress affects amygdala processing of biologically salient stimuli. Biological Psychiatry, 66(7), 649–655. Van Marle, H. J., Hermans, E. J., Qin, S., & Fernández, G. (2010). Enhanced resting-state connectivity of amygdala in the immediate aftermath of acute psychological stress. Neuroimage, 53(1), 348–354. Van Rossum, E. F. (2017). Obesity and cortisol: New perspectives on an old theme. Obesity, 25(3), 500–501. Varsha, V. (2017). Approach to medically unexplained somatic symptoms. Clinical Proceedings, 13(3), 15–17. Vedhara, K., Hyde, J., Gilchrist, I. D., Tytherleigh, M., & Plummer, S. (2000). Acute stress, memory, attention and cortisol. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 25(6), 535–549. Vedhara, K., Miles, J., Bennett, P., Plummer, S., Tallon, D., Brooks, E.,…Lightman, S. (2003). An investigation into the relationship between salivary cortisol, stress, anxiety and depression. Biological Psychology, 62(2), 89–96. Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social support in the process of work stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(2), 314–334. Vogt, D. (2011). Mental health-related beliefs as a barrier to service use for military personnel and veterans: a review. Psychiatric Services, 62(2), 135–142. Vogt, D., Fox, A. B., & Di Leone, B. A. (2014). Mental health beliefs and their relationship with treatment seeking among US OEF/OIF veterans. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 27(3), 307-313. Vrijkotte, T. G., Van Doornen, L. J., & De Geus, E. J. (2000). Effects of work stress on ambulatory blood pressure, heart rate, and heart rate variability. Hypertension, 35(4), 880-886. Wachs, J. (2009). Workplace incivility, bullying, and mobbing. AAOHN Journal, 57(2), 88– 89.

183 Walentynowicz, M., Bogaerts, K., Van Diest, I., Raes, F., & Van den Bergh, O. (2015). Was it so bad? The role of retrospective memory in symptom reporting. Health Psychology, 34(12), 1166. Walsh, B. M., Magley, V. J., Reeves, D. W., Davies-Schrils, K. A., Marmet, M. D., & Gallus, J. A. (2012). Assessing workgroup norms for civility: The development of the civility norms questionnaire-brief. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(4), 407–420. Wang, H., Naghavi, M., Allen, C., Barber, R. M., Bhutta, Z. A., Carter, A., ... & Coggeshall, M. (2016). Global, regional, and national life expectancy, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific mortality for 249 causes of death, 1980–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. The Lancet, 388(10053), 1459-1544. Wang, F., Pollock, K. E., & Hauseman, C. (2018). School Principals’ Job Satisfaction: The Effects of Work Intensification. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 185, 73. Warr, P., & Downing, J. (2000). Learning strategies, learning anxiety and knowledge acquisition. British Journal of Psychology, 91(3), 311–333. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063. Westman, M., & Eden, D. (1996). The inverted-U relationship between stress and performance: A field study. Work & Stress, 10(2), 165–173. White, C. (2018). Why do some people choose to work dangerous jobs? Retrieved from http://www.selectinternational.com/safety-blog/why-do-some-people-choose-to-work- dangerous-jobs Whoop. 9 September, (2019). Retrieved from URL.www.whoop.com Widmer, I. E., Puder, J. J., König, C., Pargger, H., Zerkowski, H. R., Girard, J., & Müller, B. (2005). Cortisol response in relation to the severity of stress and illness. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 90(8), 4579–4586. Wilbraham, S. J., Qualter, P., & Roy, M. P. (2018). Emotional intelligence and cortisol responses: Can laboratory findings be replicated in classrooms and using other EI measures? Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 58–64. Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58. Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 748.

184 Williams, F. M., Fernández-Berrocal, P., Extremera, N., Ramos-Díaz, N., & Joiner, T. E. (2004). Mood regulation skill and the symptoms of endogenous and hopelessness depression in Spanish high school students. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26(4), 233–240. Williams, K. D., Forgas, J. P., & Von Hippel, W. (2013). The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying. Psychology Press. Williams, K. D., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). Social ostracism by coworkers: Does rejection lead to loafing or compensation?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(7), 693-706. Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(3), 131-134. Wolf, O. T. (2003). HPA axis and memory. Best Practice Research in Clinical Endocrinology Metabolism, 17, 287–299. Wolff, M. B., Gay, J. L., Wilson, M. G., DeJoy, D. M., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2018). Does organizational and coworker support moderate diabetes risk and job stress among employees? American Journal of Health Promotion, 32(4), 959–962. Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 13(3), 243– 274. World Health Organization. (2014). Social determinants of mental health. Wu, L.-Z., Yim, F. H.-k., Kwan, H. K., & Zhang, X. (2012). Coping with workplace ostracism: The roles of ingratiation and political skill in employee psychological distress. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 178–199. Yip, J., & Côté, S. (2013). The emotionally intelligent decision-maker: Emotion understanding ability reduces the effect of incidental anxiety on risk-taking. Psychological Science, 24, 48–55. Zadra, J. R., & Clore, G. L. (2011). Emotion and perception: The role of affective information. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(6), 676-685. Zeidner, M., Hadar, D., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2013). Personal factors related to fatigue in health professionals. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 26(6), 595–609. Zeidner, M., & Kloda, I. (2013). Emotional intelligence (EI), conflict resolution patterns, and relationship satisfaction: Actor and partner effects revisited. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(2), 278-283. Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. (2009). The primer of emotional intelligence.

185 Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2012). What we know about emotional intelligence: How it affects learning, work, relationships, and our mental health. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2016). Ability emotional intelligence and mental health: Social support as a mediator. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 196-199.mma Zeier, H., Brauchli, P., & Joller-Jemelka, H. I. (1996). Effects of work demands on immunoglobulin A and cortisol in air traffic controllers. Biological Psychology, 42(3), 413–423. Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates' organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1068– 1076. Zerbe, W. J., & Paulhus, D. L. (1987). Socially desirable responding in organizational behavior: A reconception. Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 250–264. Ziegele, M., & Jost, P. B. (2016). Not funny? The effects of factual versus sarcastic journalistic responses to uncivil user comments. Communication Research.

186 APPENDIX A

Study 1 Vignettes and Communication Tools

Trustworthy Mentor Profiles

187

Untrustworthy Mentor Profiles

Untrustworthy Mentor Profiles

188

APPENDIX B

Statistics Study 1 Correlations and Regression Results

190

191

192 APPENDIX C

Special Operations Training Centre Psych-Edge Treatment Group Feedback

193

194 Feedback from candidates who completed the Treatment Training

Thank you for the training you have conducted within the Regiment. One of the main ways in which your training has helped me within my role was to understand the relationship between the endocrine system, emotions and human performance/longevity. Performance and longevity are particularly important to me because the consequences (both on the mission and on the lives of the operators on that mission) are particularly high within the Special Forces environment. The longevity aspect of the training is also invaluable as the 'corporate knowledge' within SF (Special Forces) is often hard earned through combat experience and cannot be replicated through training alone. Having an increased awareness of the role of hormones like cortisol has changed some of the thought processes and behaviours I take into training and day to day life. Because of the training Jemma provided on the sympathetic nervous system and its interaction with cortisol, and how we can manipulate/interdict this through (intervention 1) and the (Intervention 2) has helped me to focus on (Intervention 1) as a tool to 'unlock' higher/complex thought processes when intuitively my body/mind wants to remain in a 'fight or flight' survival state. Although this state is important and often life saving in our employment, sometimes the task requires deeper reasoning beyond that of the primitive parts of our brain. Some of the interventions explained by Jemma have helped me transition from these states effectively in order to respond to a situation effectively (real life parachuting example available if required). Beyond the 'combat' applications of Jemma's training, I have used some of the tools to 'wind down' and transition back into life outside of my employment (family/relationships/finances ect) more effectively, which in turn aids in my performance and longevity when I am back on the job.

Thank you for your assistance and I look forward to continued interaction with our Regiment. JC

The training and education from Ms King has helped me develop stress regulation and understand my bodies physiological responses. The use of (intervention 1) to control emotions and prepare to perform continues to help me operate and optimise mindset. Additionally the training around situational perspective and mindset changing has been extremely beneficial. SW

195

The major things I found that helped me throughout the course were the (intervention 1) and (intervention 2) training. Basically what I attempted was the very first time I learned a new skill or was exposed to something I’d use the (intervention 2) to calm myself as best as possible. Once I had an understanding of the drill or skill, using (intervention 1) I’d visualise myself going through the motions and walking through the steps in my head prior to conducting it again. Any mistakes made I’d try to imagine the correct method and lessons learnt. For me that was a great help. If you have any questions or need clarity on anything else please email me I’m happy to help and give you feedback.

Thanks Jemma TF

I just wanted to reach out and say how profoundly helpful the work and effort you put it to our psychological welfare package. Having the theory and vocabulary to self-diagnose in terms of balance in my life really helps to identify what it is I can tweak to achieve the most efficient and constructive frame of mind. Really appreciate it all the work.

Thanks again, ZC I have been using the Whoop device (bio-metric capture device) to log my civilian free fall descents as activities. I have done this by commencing an activity once I board the aircraft, and stop the activity once I land on the Drop Zone. Activity difficulty is rated in regards to how complex the exit is, and what I am required to conduct in terms of formations. My performance is rated by my ability to stick the exit, hit the relevant formation points, and generally how I performed cognitively during free fall and in flight. I have logged close to 15 jumps (I would have to look up the exact amount), using no intervention up to using all interventions. Overall cognitive recall of the jumps was good with specific periods of high heart rate, and presumably cortisol release, where I experienced degradation in memory recall. Recovery from these periods is usually quick.

With no interventions: Cognitively I performed adequately to poorly depending on the jump difficulty. Exits were sloppy, particularly during the setup, when my heart rate was increasing under the stress. On a number of occasions I would simply the setup and exit because I felt I was taking too long to get ready. On the initial exit I would typically have my focus and vision go macro for a few seconds, where I was not registering much in terms of specific detail. The exits were typically flawed, which I would recover from quickly, but my subsequent performance in hitting the points was passable.

196

With intervention 1 only: I employed intervention 1 from boarding the aircraft all the way to height. This typically allowed for a better setup during the exit phase, and slightly more cognition during the peak heart rate, exit period. Exits were better, but still not great. General performance in free fall improved.

With intervention 1, and intervention 2 : During these descents I would conduct intervention 1 from the boarding of the airframe, and employ intervention 2 for my key activities during the climb to height. Intervention 2 would start with emergency procedures, followed by the exit, and formations of the free fall. Finally just before the exit I would visual moving into my exit position either inside, or outside the airframe, and how I was going to setup. This had the overall effect of improving my exits massively and getting myself positioned for the free fall component much quicker. Overall performance on exits were hugely improved with cognitive ability much better, and the overall focus being improved across the board.

With intervention 1, intervention 2, and intervention 3 : during these jumps I incorporated all of the above with intervention 3 just prior to setting up for the exit. These jumps were a massive improvement across the board. During the last jump in particular I was cognitively focused on the exit, recalling the exit and the air frame as I fell away. Specifically, I was aware of individual panels and rivets, the tail and wing numbers which I have not previously noticed. Reading the data for these jumps the Whoop device indicated that the last couple of jumps using these techniques resulted in a lower peak heart rate level for the logged tactical flying operations activities.

Letter from MAJ G, Officer in Command, Special Operations Training Centre (SOTEC)

Commando Selection involves an initial 3.2km run wearing full combat gear, 8kg pack weapon and boots to be completed in under 16 minutes.

During 2016 Selection there were 21 candidates from our Direct Entry Scheme, these are normal civilians off the street with no prior Military training that are permitted to attempt Selection.

197 In that year only 9 passed the 3.2K run, this is despite the candidates having attempted and successfully passing the run 6 weeks prior.

This demonstrates that the failure to pass was not due to physical ability but rather their psychological ability to regulate stress in the moment. In 2017 SOTEC engaged Jemma King to teach the Psych-Edge (now called PRETEC) course to Candidates prior to selection. Out of the 33 candidates who received the training, all 33 candidates passed the 3.2k run. The strategies taught in the training helped the candidates down regulate their stress and pass successfully.

198 APPENDIX D

Commando Attributes

199 APPENDIX E

Pictures of Stress Serials: Tower Rappel

200 APPENDIX F

Stress Serials Self Care Under Fire

201 APPENDIX G

Stress Serials Stroop Shoot

202 APPENDIX H

Stress Serial Urban-Precision-Strike-Direct-Action and Recovery-Continuum

203 APPENDIX I

Stress Serial Pain Tolerance (Picture Blurred Deliberately)

204 APPENDIX J

Saliva Testing

205 APPENDIX K Study 1, 2 3a & 3b

206

207

208

209 APPENDIX L. Example of Intervention Training Topics

Example of Topics Taught in the Intervention Condition (non-exhaustive list) Stress / Arousal Education and Basic education on the human Amygdala Hijack - the Neuro- Management stress response system from a biology of the Stress Response bio-evolutionary perspective System. Selection Stress & Soldier Allostatic Load & Stress Stress Hormones and the Stress Tolerance Consequences for Physical & Behavioural Performance What is your Stress Mindset? The Science of Stress and Strategies for Stress Heart Rate Variability and Management Resonant Breathing for Stress Management Emotional Regulation and Formula for a Resilient Life Understanding your emotions Management What is Emotional Intelligence Emotional Perception Emotional Understanding (EI) Using Emotions for Decision Emotional Management Fatigue Management Making Sleep and Performance Impact of Emotions on Understanding your wants and Motivation whys? Commando Attributes Values and Performance Long-term Goal Visualisation Asking for help activity Impact of Emotions on Team Mindfulness motivation & performance Present moment awareness Attentional focus for Decision making under PMA performance pressure Mind-Body Relationship Mental rehearsal and Impact of Emotions on task visualisation for optimising performance The science of trust and The relationship between Impact of illness and injury on impact on team performance physical state and cognitive performance function Strategies to aid in return to Pain Tolerance Education Characteristics of a Successful high performance after illness Special Forces Soldier and injury

210