Emotional intelligence and student retention: Predicting the successful transition from high school to university

Abstract

Examined the relationship between emotional intelligence and academic retention. Participants were selected from a sample of 1270 young adults (368 men and 902 women) making the transition from high-school to university. Participants were recruited during the first week of classes in their first year at the university and completed a measure of emotional intelligence. Participants’ academic progress was tracked over the course of the year and students were divided into two groups. The first group consisted of students who withdrew from the university before their second year of study (N = 213); the second group consisted of a matched sample (on the basis of age, gender and ethnicity) of students who remained at the university for a second year of study (N = 213). Results revealed that students who persisted in their studies were significantly higher than those who withdrew on a broad range of emotional and social competencies.

Full text

Emotional intelligence and student retention: Predicting
the successful transition from high school to university
James D.A. Parker
a,*
, Marjorie J. Hogan
b
, Jennifer M. Eastabrook
a
,
Amber Oke
a
, Laura M. Wood
a
a
Emotion and Health Research Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Trent University,
Peterborough, Ont., Canada K9J 7B8
b
Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology, University of Toronto, Canada
Received 6 December 2004; accepted 21 April 2006
Available online 3 July 2006
Abstract
Examined the relationship between emotional intelligence and academic retention. Participants were
selected from a sample of 1270 young adults (368 men and 902 women) making the transition from
high-school to university. Participants were recruited during the first week of classes in their first year at
the university and completed a measure of emotional intelligence. Participants’ academic progress was
tracked over the course of the year and students were divided into two groups. The first group consisted
of students who withdrew from the university before their second year of study (N= 213); the second group
consisted of a matched sample (on the basis of age, gender and ethnicity) of students who remained at the
university for a second year of study (N= 213). Results revealed that students who persisted in their studies
were significantly higher than those who withdrew on a broad range of emotional and social competencies.
Ó2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Academic retention; Emotional intelligence; Academic success; School transition
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.04.022
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +705 748 1011x1283; fax: +705 748 1580.
E-mail address: jparker@trentu.ca (J.D.A. Parker).
www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 1329–1336

1. Introduction
The transition from a high school to a post-secondary environment is often a very stressful sit-
uation for many individuals (Brooks & DuBois, 1995; Gall, Evans, & Bellerose, 2000; Perry,
Hladkyj, Pekrun, & Pelletier, 2001). Students entering university or college from high school face
a great variety of stressors. They must make new relationships, modify previous relationships with
family and friends, learn study habits for a relatively new learning environment, and function
independently as adults (e.g., budgeting money or time). Perhaps one of the best indicators that
this is a stressful time for many students is the reality that the majority of high school students
who go to university or college will withdraw from that institution before graduation (Gerdes
& Mallinckrodt, 1994; Pancer, Hunsberger, Pratt, & Alisat, 2000).
The study of academic success in university and college has generated a sizeable literature (see
Tinto, 1993 for a review). Although much of the early work focused on the impact of previous
school performance (i.e., high-school marks) and/or standardized measures of cognitive abilities,
the predictive power of these types of variables were quite limited (Berger & Milem, 1999; Rand-
sell, 2001). Not surprisingly, researchers have turned their attention to a broad range of other pos-
sible predictors for academic success like working while attending school, ethnicity, family
obligations, distance from home, family or personal finances, and engagement with the institution
(for reviews, see, Murtaugh, Burns, & Schuster, 1999; Sandler, 2000).
More recently, several studies have demonstrated a link between emotional intelligence (EI) and
academic achievement in students making the transition from high school to a post-secondary
environment. Parker, Summerfeldt, Hogan, and Majeski (2004) examined a group of first year
students attending a small Ontario university. Participants completed a measure of EI (EQ-
i:Short; Bar-On, 2002) in the first week of classes and gave permission for the researchers to track
their academic progress for the year. At the end of the academic year (May), academically success-
ful students (GPA for first year greater than 79%) were compared with academically unsuccessful
students (GPA less than 60%). Although the two groups did not differ on graduating high school
GPA, age or course load, the academically successful students were significantly higher on most of
the emotional and social competency variables than the unsuccessful students. These results have
been replicated at the same university using a different sample of first year students and a different
measure of emotional and social competency (Parker, Austin, Hogan, Wood, & Bond, 2005). Also
recently, Parker, Duffy, Wood, Bond, and Hogan (2005) examined levels of EI and academic
achievement in several samples of first year students attending four different American post-
secondary institutions. Following an identical procedure to Parker, Summerfeldt et al. (2004),
participants completed the EQ-i:Short at the start of the academic year and gave permission
for their academic records to be matched with EI data at the end of the year (May). Successful
students scored significantly higher than the unsuccessful students on total EI, as well as most
of the subscales on the EQ-i:Short.
The findings reported in the previous paragraph have also be extended to the secondary
school environment. Parker et al. (2004) examined the relationship between EI and academic
achievement in a large sample of American high school students. Students completed a youth
form for the EQ-i (EQ-i:YV; Bar-On & Parker, 2000) during the school year and the scores were
matched with grade-point-averages (GPA) at the end of the year (June). Based on GPA,
1330 J.D.A. Parker et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 1329–1336

students were placed into one of three groups: ‘‘successful’’, ‘‘middle’’, and ‘‘less successful’’.
The study found that the successful group scored significantly higher than the other two groups
on various EI dimensions. A related study (Petrides, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004), using
British high school students and a different self-report measure of EI, found that students with
high EI scores did better in school and had fewer deviant school behaviors (e.g., unauthorized
absences).
It should be noted that the findings reviewed in the previous two paragraphs stand in contrast
to the work reported by Barchard (2003), Newsome, Day, and Catano (2000), and O’Connor and
Little (2003), who include analyses that touch on the relationship between EI and achievement.
Collectively, these researchers have used a cross-section of different measures and formats for
the EI construct, such as self-report instruments like the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) and performance
measures like the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test; (MSCEIT; Mayer, Salo-
vey, & Caruso, 2002), although they found little relationship between EI and academic achieve-
ment. There are several likely explanations for this particular pattern of results. This work has
used EI measures with different theoretical frameworks and measurement models. Petrides and
Furnham (2000) proposed an important conceptual distinction between ability measures of EI
(assessed using performance based measures like the MSCEIT) and trait EI (measured via self-re-
port tools like the EQ-i). They note further that EI measures using either model (or measurement
approach) may predict outcome variables quite differently.
Discrepancies in the EI and academic success literature are also likely the result of differing
sampling procedures and inclusion criteria. Barchard (2003), Newsome et al. (2000) and O’Con-
nor and Little (2003) have compromised the interpretability of their data, to a considerable de-
gree, by combining full and part-time students, students recently graduating from high-school
with mature students, and students in different years of study. Part-time students often face un-
ique challenges while pursuing their studies, as do adults at different stages of their post-secondary
programs of study (Gall et al., 2000). In addition, since EI-levels are conceptualized to increase
from early adulthood to middle age (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2000), combining young adults
with older students is a potential confound.
Regardless of the methodological strengths or weaknesses identified above, it can also be said
that all of the previously cited studies on EI and academic success have limited generalizability
because they have focused exclusively on a narrow indicator of academic achievement – grade-
point-average. This is only one of several possible variables, like retention or drop-out rates, that
can be used to gauge academic success (McLaughlin, Brozovsky, & McLaughlin, 1998). For
researchers studying achievement in a post-secondary environment, retention and persistence
has taken on increased importance, since it has important implications for institutions (Mayo,
Helms, & Codjoe, 2004) and individuals (Tinto, 1993). Research has shown that of students
who start a specific program, more of these students will withdraw than graduate (Gerdes & Mal-
linckrodt, 1994; McLaughlin et al., 1998; Pancer et al., 2000). Furthermore, 75% of those who
drop out will do so in the first two years of the program (Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994). In an
effort to extend the generalizability of the EI construct for predicting academic achievement,
the present study examined the relationship between EI and academic retention. To aid in the
interpretability of research findings, and to be consistent with previous research conducted by
the research team (Parker, Austin et al., 2005; Parker et al., 2004; Parker, Duffy et al., 2005),
J.D.A. Parker et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 1329–1336 1331

the present study restricted its focus to full-time students recently making the transition from high
school to university. Consistent with our previous research on academic success, we expected to
find that EI would be a significant predictor of student retention.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The sample consisted of young adults attending a small Ontario university. All of the students
had graduated from high school within the past 2 years and were in their first year of full-time
study at the university. Full-time status was defined as completion of at least the equivalent of
3.5 full-year courses during the academic year. Part-time students, students who were beyond their
first year of study at the university, or international students were excluded from the sample.
From a total sample of 1270 students (368 men and 902 women), two groups were identified
for the present study: those students who withdrew from the university before the start of second
year (N= 213; 52 men and 161 women) and a matched sample of students who remained at the
university for a second year of study (randomly selected on the basis of age, gender and ethnicity).
There were no differences between students who withdrew versus the sample who persisted on
high school GPA, age, or course load at the start of the first year of study. The participants ranged
in age from 17 to 21 years with a mean of 19.09 years (SD = 0.57). Of the participants, 88.3%
identified themselves as White, 1.4% as Black, 4.2% as Asian, 0.9% as Hispanic, 1.4% as Native
American, 3.3% as Other, and 0.5% did not indicate their race.
2.2. Measures
All participants completed the short form of the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i:Short;
Bar-On, 2002). This 51-item self-report scale is designed to assess four broad dimensions associ-
ated with the EI construct: intrapersonal abilities (10-items), interpersonal abilities (10-items),
adaptability (7-items), and stress management abilities (10-items). For each item, participants
are to choose whether they agree or disagree with the statement based on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from ‘‘1’’ being ‘‘very seldom true of me’’ to ‘‘5’’ being ‘‘very often true of me’’. A high
score on any of the scales indicates a higher level of emotional and social competency in that area.
Bar-On (2002) presents preliminary construct validity data to suggest that the instrument assesses
four moderately inter-correlated EI dimensions, as well as dimensions that are relatively distinct
from basic personality dimensions.
2.3. Procedure
Participants were recruited during the first week of classes in their first year at the university to
participate in a study on ‘‘personality and academic success’’. Each participant completed the EQ-
i:Short and gave permission for the researchers to track their academic progress at the university
via records provided by the university’s registrar’s office. Students who withdrew from the univer-
sity during their first year of study were contacted, by phone, by the researchers to determine why
1332 J.D.A. Parker et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 1329–1336

they had left (i.e., transferred to another university, entered the work force, were unemployed, and
other). There were no differences on any of the EQ-i: Short scales when these four groups were
compared (p> .05).
3. Results
Table 1 presents mean-item scores (and standard deviations) for each group on the various EQ-
i:Short scales. To examine the relationship between EI and academic retention a series of group
(persisted versus withdrew) by gender ANOVAs were performed with each of the EQ-i:Short
scales presented in Table 1 as a dependent variable. As expected, students who persisted had sig-
nificantly higher levels of total EI [F(1, 422) = 22.75, p< .001; g
2
= .050] than students who with-
drew before the start of second year. In addition, students who persisted had significantly higher
levels of interpersonal [F(1,422) = 9.59, p< .01, g
2
= .021], intrapersonal [F(1,422) = 6.39,
p< .05, g
2
= .015], adaptability [F(1,422) = 10.52, p< .01, g
2
= .024], and stress management
[F(1,422) = 18.67, p< .001, g
2
= .042] abilities than students who withdrew.
The main effect for gender was also significant for the interpersonal scale [F(1, 422) = 18.49,
p< .001, g
2
= .041], with females scoring higher than males. The two-way interaction between
group and gender was significant for the interpersonal [F(1,422) = 6.19, p< .05, g
2
= .014], stress
management [F(1,422) = 4.65, p< .05, g
2
= .010] and total EI [F(1, 422) = 4.51, p< .05, g
2
= .010]
scales. Subsequent post-hoc analyses (Student Newman–Keuls) revealed that males who dropped
out scored significantly lower than all other participants on the interpersonal scale and total EI
scales. On the stress management scale, males who dropped out scored significantly lower than
both males and females who persisted, while females who dropped out scored significantly lower
than males who persisted.
Table 1
Means and standard deviations (SD) on the EQ-i:Short scales for students who withdrew versus those who persisted (by
gender)
Samples Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress M Total
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Student who withdrew
Males (n= 52) 3.49 0.70 3.95 0.64 3.33 0.63 3.54 0.67 3.58 0.42
Females (n= 161) 3.55 0.70 4.34 0.55 3.47 0.75 3.71 0.62 3.77 0.47
Total (n= 213) 3.53 0.70 4.24 0.60 3.44 0.72 3.67 0.63 3.72 0.47
Student who persisted
Males (n= 52) 3.72 0.59 4.27 0.42 3.68 0.75 3.98 0.56 3.91 0.38
Females (n= 161) 3.71 0.71 4.37 0.43 3.63 0.66 3.86 0.57 3.90 0.40
Total (n= 213) 3.72 0.68 4.35 0.43 3.65 0.68 3.89 0.57 3.90 0.39
Combined sample
Males (n= 104) 3.61 0.65 4.11 0.56 3.51 0.71 3.76 0.65 3.75 0.43
Females (n= 322) 3.63 0.71 4.35 0.49 3.55 0.71 3.79 0.60 3.83 0.44
Total (n= 426) 3.63 0.69 4.29 0.52 3.54 0.71 3.78 0.61 3.81 0.44
Note: Stress M = Stress management.
J.D.A. Parker et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 1329–1336 1333

4. Discussion
Results of the present study are consistent with those of Parker, Austin et al. (2005), Parker et al.
(2004), and Parker, Duffy et al. (2005), who found that various EI dimensions were significant pre-
dictors of academic success (operationalized as GPA for total first year performance). Also consis-
tent with these previous studies, the present work found that academic success was not associated
with graduating high school GPA, age or course load. Although all four studies are at odds with
some previously published research (e.g., Barchard, 2003; Newsome et al., 2000; and O’Connor &
Little, 2003), it needs to be emphasized that the four studies from our team focused on a very
homogeneous group of post-secondary students: full-time students in their 1st year of post-second-
ary study and within 24 months of graduating from high-school. The discrepancy with the other
work is likely due to important methodological differences; the other work did not differentiate be-
tween students attending university full-time or part-time, 1st-year students from individuals in
more advanced years of study, or young adults just out of high-school from older mature students.
The overall finding of a relationship between EI and academic retention is consistent with the range
of issues involved in a successful transition to a post-secondary environment. Moving from high school
to a post-secondary institution is a major life event that has been linked with a variety of emotional and
social variables (Brooks & DuBois, 1995; Cantor, Norem, Niedenthal, Langston, & Brower, 1987; Gall
et al., 2000; Kanoy & Bruhn, 1996; McLaughlin et al., 1998; Pancer et al., 2000; Perry et al., 2001).
Stress levels reported during the first year of study are typically higher than levels reported in subse-
quent years of study (Ross, Niebling, & Heckert, 1999); retention rates during first year of university
is also consistently found to be lower than rates associated with subsequent years of study (Dietsche,
1990; Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994; Tinto, 1993). Both of these trends can be linked to various per-
sonal and interpersonal challenges linked with the new educational environment. First year students
not only need to make new relationships, particularly if they attend an institution at a distance from
their hometown, but they often need to modify existing relationships with parents and friends (e.g.,
romantic partner back home). First year students are also adjusting to a new academic environment
that places far more importance on independent learning than typically experienced in high school.
One limitation of the present study is the fact that the link between EI and academic retention
was studied for only one academic year and in first year students only. Future research needs to
focus on the relationship between EI and retention of other years of study. It is unclear whether
EI would continue to predict academic retention in older students. Parker, Saklofske, Wood,
Eastabrook, and Taylor (2005) tracked EI scores in an undergraduate sample from the start of
the first term to the end of the third year of study (30 months). The overall positive pattern of
change in EI-levels was more than could be attributed to the increased age of the participants.
Another limitation of the present study is the fact that the sample was comprised predominately
of white females. Future research needs to encompass a wider range of ethnic backgrounds and
include an equal amount of males and females.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by research grants to the first author from the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), the Ontario Government’s Premier’s
1334 J.D.A. Parker et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 1329–1336

Research Excellence Award program, and the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI), as
well as Ontario Graduate Scholarships (OGS) to the second and fifth authors. The authors would
like to thank Barb Bond, Terri Collin, Cheryl Foster, and Sarah Majeski for their help with data
collection activities.
References
Barchard, B. (2003). Does emotional intelligence assist in the prediction of academic success? Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 63, 840–858.
Bar-On, R. (1997). BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory: Technical manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Bar-On, R. (2002). BarOn Emotional Quotient Short form (EQ-i:Short): Technical manual. Toronto: Multi-Health
Systems.
Bar-On, R., & Parker, J. D. A. (2000). The Bar-On EQ-i:YV: Technical manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Berger, J. B., & Milem, J. F. (1999). The role of student involvement and perceptions of integration in a causal model of
student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 40, 641–664.
Brooks, J. H., & DuBois, D. L. (1995). Individual and environmental predictors of adjustment during the first year of
college. Journal of College Student Development, 36, 347–360.
Cantor, N., Norem, J. K., Niedenthal, P. M., Langston, C. A., & Brower, A. M. (1987). Life tasks, self-concept ideals,
and cognitive strategies in a life transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1178–1191.
Dietsche, P. H. J. (1990). Freshman attrition in a college of applied arts and technology of Ontario. Canadian Journal of
Higher Education, 20, 65–84.
Gall, T. L., Evans, D. R., & Bellerose, S. (2000). Transition to first year university: patterns of change in adjustment
across life domains and time. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 544–567.
Gerdes, H., & Mallinckrodt, B. (1994). Emotional, social, and academic adjustment of college students: a longitudinal
study of retention. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72, 281–288.
Kanoy, K. W., & Bruhn, J. W. (1996). Effects of a first-year living and learning residence hall on retention and academic
performance. Journal of the First Year Experience and Students in Transition, 8, 7–23.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2000). Selecting a measure of emotional intelligence: The case for ability
scales. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 320–342). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer–Salovey–Caruso emotional intelligence test (MSCEIT) user’s
manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Mayo, D. T., Helms, M. M., & Codjoe, H. M. (2004). Reasons to remain in college: a comparison of high school and
college students. International Journal of Educational Management, 18, 360–367.
McLaughlin, G. W., Brozovsky, P. V., & McLaughlin, J. S. (1998). Changing perspectives on student retention: a role
for institutional research. Research in Higher Education, 39, 1–17.
Murtaugh, P. A., Burns, L. D., & Schuster, J. (1999). Predicting the retention of university students. Research in Higher
Education, 40, 355–371.
Newsome, S., Day, A. L., & Catano, V. M. (2000). Assessing the predictive validity of emotional intelligence.
Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1005–1016.
O’Connor, R. M., & Little, I. S. (2003). Revisiting the predictive validity of emotional intelligence: self-report versus
ability-based measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1893–1902.
Pancer, S. M., Hunsberger, B., Pratt, M. W., & Alisat, S. (2000). Cognitive complexity of expectations and adjustment
to university in the first year. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 38–57.
Parker, J. D. A., Austin, E. J., Hogan, M. J., Wood, L. M., & Bond, B. J. (2005). Alexithymia and academic success:
examining the transition from high school to university. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1257–1267.
Parker, J. D. A., Creque, R. E., Barnhart, D. L., Harris, J., Majeski, S. A., Wood, L. M., et al. (2004). Academic
achievement in high school: does emotional intelligence matter? Personality and Individual Differences, 37,
1321–1330.
J.D.A. Parker et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 1329–1336 1335

Parker, J. D. A., Duffy, J., Wood, L. M., Bond, B. J., & Hogan, M. J. (2005). Academic achievement and emotional
intelligence: predicting the successful transition from high school to university. Journal of First-Year Experience and
Students in Transition, 17, 67–78.
Parker, J. D. A., Saklofske, D. H., Wood, L. M., Eastabrook, J. M., & Taylor, R. N. (2005). Stability and change in
emotional intelligence: exploring the transition to young adulthood. Journal of Individual Differences, 26, 100–106.
Parker, J. D. A., Summerfeldt, L. J., Hogan, M. J., & Majeski, S. (2004). Emotional intelligence and academic success:
examining the transition from high school to university. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 163–172.
Perry, R. P., Hladkyj, S., Pekrun, R. H., & Pelletier, S. T. (2001). Academic control and action control in the
achievement of college students: a longitudinal field study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 776–789.
Petrides, K. V., Frederickson, N., & Furnham, A. (2004). The role of trait emotional intelligence in academic
performance and deviant behavior at school. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 277–293.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence. Personality and
Individual Differences, 29, 313–320.
Randsell, S. (2001). Predicting college success: the importance of ability and non-cognitive variables. International
Journal of Educational Research, 35, 357–364.
Ross, S. E., Niebling, B. C., & Heckert, T. M. (1999). Sources of stress among college students. College Student Journal,
32, 312–317.
Sandler, M. (2000). Career decision-making self-efficacy, perceived stress, and an integrated model of student
persistence: A structural model of finances, attitudes, behavior, and career development. Research in Higher
Education, 41, 537–580.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
1336 J.D.A. Parker et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 1329–1336