Next Article in Journal
Spatial Distribution of Global Cultivated Land and Its Variation between 2000 and 2010, from Both Agro-Ecological and Geopolitical Perspectives
Next Article in Special Issue
Burnout Precursors in Oncology Nurses: A Preliminary Cross-Sectional Study with a Systemic Organizational Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Assessing the Implementation of Best Productivity Practices in Maintenance Activities, Shutdowns, and Turnarounds of Petrochemical Plants
Previous Article in Special Issue
Decent Work as a Necessary Condition for Sustainable Well-Being. A Tale of Pi(i)gs and Farmers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 11
Issue 5
10.3390/su11051240
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Contributions of Personality Traits and Emotional Intelligence to Intrapreneurial Self-Capital: Key Resources for Sustainability and Sustainable Development

by
Annamaria Di Fabio
1,* and
Donald H. Saklofske
2
1
Department of Education, Languages, Interculture, Letters and Psychology (Psychology Section), University of Florence, 50135 Florence, Italy
2
Department of Psychology, University of Western University, London, ON N6A5C2, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2019, 11(5), 1240; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11051240
Submission received: 30 January 2019 / Revised: 19 February 2019 / Accepted: 19 February 2019 / Published: 26 February 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Psychology of Sustainability and Sustainable Development)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In the innovative research area of the psychology of sustainability and sustainable development, Intrapreneurial Self-Capital (ISC) constitutes a promising core of resources to face the challenges of the 21st century. This article presents two studies supporting the contribution of trait emotional intelligence to ISC beyond that explained by the three most quoted personality trait models. The Intrapreneurial Self-Capital Scale (ISCS), Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire Short Form (TEIQue-SF), Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ), Mini International Personality Item Pool Scale (Mini-IPIP), HEXACO-60, and Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised Short Form (EPQ-RS) were administered to 210 first and second year university students (Study 1) and 206 university students in the last three years of undergraduate university studies (Study 2). Hierarchical regression analyses demonstrated that Emotional Intelligence (EI) explained additional variance in ISC beyond that accounted for each of the three personality trait models for both samples. These results should encourage future research within a positive primary prevention perspective in the framework of the psychology of sustainability and sustainable development.

1. Introduction

The term intrapreneurial is a key concept along with entrepreneurial within the organizational psychology literature [1,2,3,4] that deserves particular attention [5]. Entrepreneurs have innovative ideas and are engaged in the realization of these ideas by means of their skills and passion to realize their own opportunities, often as a business [6,7,8]. In contrast, the intrapreneurial person develops their innovative ideas within his/her organization and is engaged in implementing these ideas within the boundaries of their organization, addressing both organizational change and possible organizational conflicts [9].
Building on this, the construct of Intrapreneurial Self-Capital (ISC) [5], developed within a positive primary prevention perspective [10,11], represents a set of resources intended to both promote personal success, and prevent failures in career and life management. Transferring these concepts to career management [12,13,14], ISC constitutes a resource to address adaptively the requests within a post-modern context and the current fluid world of work [5,15,16,17,18]. ISC research has already led to the development of a new scale to measure this construct [5], and specific training to develop and increase the foundations and impact of ISC [19].
ISC is a higher order construct containing seven sub-constructs: (1) Core self-evaluation as a positive judgment of oneself in terms of self-esteem, self-efficacy, locus of control, and absence of pessimism [20]; (2) hardiness as resistance with its three dimensions of commitment, control, and challenge [21]; (3) creative self-efficacy as one’s perception of one’s ability to solve problems creatively [22]; (4) resilience as the perceived ability to cope with adversity adaptively and to use adaptive strategies to deal with discomfort and adversity [23]; (5) goal mastery as the perceived ability to continuously develop one’s own skills [24]; (6) decisiveness as the perceived ability to make decisions in a timely manner and in any life context [25]; and (7) vigilance as the careful searching for relevant information [5,26]. ISC can therefore be considered as an important characteristic of persons with its core components, helping them to create innovative solutions when confronted with constraints imposed by the current and ever-changing challenging world of work [5].
ISC has further emerged in an association to both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being [27,28]. It could thus represent a foundational underpinning and pathway to addressing some of the challenges proposed in the seventeen UNESCO sustainable goals (United Nations) [29]; number three, which focuses on good health and well-being, and also number eight, relating to decent work and economic growth, considering also its contribution to innovative behaviors [30]. ISC is also considered a promising resource in the framework of the psychology of harmonization [31] that introduced the contribution of sustainability and sustainable development in a preventive perspective [10,11,32,33]. The composite construction of harmony from a psychological perspective includes three principal foci, with oneself, with others, and with nature/the natural world [31]. In this framework, ISC represents a strength that can be energized at an individual level for invigorating generative resources for sustainability regarding oneself, others, and nature/natural word to contribute to the realization of sustainable goals. ISC could thus contribute to the challenges of the psychology of sustainability and sustainable development [34,35,36] by coping in a creative and constructive manner with the continuous changes of current and future periods. Positive personal capital could then be put into action for the purpose of developing flourishing individuals and their larger communities.
Another major important individual resource is Emotional Intelligence (EI) [18,37,38] that can impact career decisions and success [39]. EI has been described according to two different theoretical frameworks [40]: Ability-based models [41] and trait models [42,43]. In contrast to ability-based models, the trait description has shown the greatest empirical relationship to career relevant factors such as self-evaluation of one’s own emotional and social skills [42,43]. In particular trait emotional intelligence (trait emotional self-efficacy) as described by Petrides and Furnham [43] is presented as a constellation of emotional perceptions assessed through questionnaires and rating scales [44] and can be increased through specific training [45,46]. In the research literature, trait emotional intelligence consistently explains incremental variance in criteria reflecting different areas of functioning beyond personality traits [47]. Nevertheless, there has not been empirical research to verify if trait emotional intelligence adds incremental variance beyond that explained by personality traits in relation to the construct of intrapreneurial self-capital. In contrast, the relationships between ISC and the Big Five personality traits has been demonstrated in studies by Di Fabio in which ISC was inversely associated with neuroticism [27,28,48] and positively associated with the other four personality traits, particularly extraversion [27,28]. However, this limited research should be expanded to examine the associations with other personality trait models such as the HEXACO model [49] and Eysenck’s [50] three factor model. Different personality trait models could detect different ‘shades’ of the same personality traits or a more complex constellation of personality traits such as in the case of the HEXACO-60 with the added honesty–humility factor.
In the present study we chose to use the trait EI model developed by Petrides and Furnham [43]. It is a comprehensive description of EI and includes aspects such as emotion expression, emotion regulation, and self-motivation, which are not emphasized in other measures such as the Bar-On [42] inventory.
The two studies presented here with samples of university students in the first two years (Study 1) and the last three years (Study 2) of study tested the hypothesis that trait EI adds incremental variance beyond that accounted for by different personality models in relation to ISC. Two groups of students at two different periods of their university program were chosen to examine the relationship between emotional intelligence and intrapreneurial characteristics.

2. Study 1

2.1. Material and Methods

2.1.1. Participants

Participants in study 1 were 210 university students in the first two years of their degree program (females: 60.48%; males: 39.52%; mean age 20.94, SD = 0.86).

2.1.2. Measures

Intrapreneurial Self-Capital Scale (ISCS) [5]. The ISCS consists of 28 items. Examples of items for each of the first order constructs include: “I am able to deal with most of my problems” (core self-evaluation), “Studying committed to the maximum really pays off in the end” (hardiness), “I am able to improve the ideas produced by others” (creative self-efficacy), “I’m able to achieve objectives despite obstacles” (resilience), “One of my goals in training is to learn as much as I can” (goal mastery), “It’s simple for me to decide” (decisiveness), “Before deciding I try to clear my mind about my goals” (vigilance). Items are rated to on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.84.
Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ) [51]. The BFQ includes 132 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = Absolutely false to 5 = Absolutely true. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.81 for Extraversion, 0.73 for Agreeableness, 0.81 for Conscientiousness, 0.90 for Emotional stability, and 0.75 for Openness.
Mini International Personality Item Pool Scale (Mini-IPIP) [52,53]. The Mini-IPIP is composed of 20 items with a response format ranging from 1 = Absolutely false to 5 = Absolutely true. It detects five personality factors according to Big Five model. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are: 0.71 for Extraversion, 0.73 for Agreeableness, 0.72 for Conscientiousness, 0.74 for Neuroticism, 0.72 for Intellect imagination.
HEXACO-60 [49,54]. The HEXACO-60 is composed of 60 items again responded to on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = Absolutely false to 5 = Absolutely true. Each of the six personality dimensions are assessed with 10 items. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are: 0.78 for Honesty/Humility, 0.79 for Emotionality, 0.78 for Extraversion, 0.76 for Agreeableness considered the opposite of anger, 0.77 for Conscientiousness, 0.78 for Openness.
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised Short Form (EPQ-RS) [50,55]. The EPQ-RS is comprised of 48 items with a “yes/no” response format. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were: 0.85 for the Neuroticism, 0.87 for the Extraversion, and 0.81 for the Psychoticism.
Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire Short Form (TEIQue-SF) [56,57]. The TEIQue-SF includes 30 items assessing 4 EI traits derived from the 153 item TEIQue and answered on a 7-point Likert scale (1= Completely disagree to 7 = Completely agree). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.82 for Well-being, 0.80 for Self-control; 0.81 for Emotionality, and 0.82 for Sociability.

2.1.3. Procedure

The questionnaires were administered in group settings by trained psychologists and in accordance with Italian Privacy Law. The order of scale administration was counterbalanced to control the effects of presentation.

2.1.4. Data analysis

Descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated for all measures. Hierarchical regressions were carried out for each of the four personality measures together with trait EI in relation to ISC.

2.2. Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations are presented in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4. Hierarchical regression models for each of the four personality trait scales (BFQ, MINI-IPIP, HEXACO-60, EPQ-RS) entered at the first step and trait EI dimensions entered at the second step are reported in Table 5, Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8. The four personality measures accounted for between 36 and 48% of the variance with EI adding another 19% to 29%, together accounting for 64% to 69% of the variance in ISC. Referring to Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4, the ISC is positively related with Extraversion assessed by both the BFQ and the HEXACO-60 and particularly inversely related with the Neuroticism scale of the MINI-IPIP and EPQ. The ISC is correlated with all the four dimensions of the TEIQue-SF, in particular with the Well-being dimension.
Table 5 reports hierarchical regression with the contributions of BFQ (first step; 48% of the variance) and TEIQue-SF dimensions (second step; 21% of the variance) to ISC. The total variance explained for this model is 69%.
Table 6 reports the hierarchical regression with the contributions of MINI-IPIP (first step; 37% of the variance) and TEIQue-SF dimensions (second step; 29% of the variance) together accounting for 66% of the variance in ISC.
Table 7 reports the hierarchical regression with the contributions of HEXACO-60 (first step; 47% of the variance) and TEIQue-SF dimensions (second step; 19% of the variance) to ISC. The total variance explained for this model is 66%.
Table 8 reports the hierarchical regression with the contributions of EPQ (first step; 36% of the variance) and TEIQue-SF dimensions (second step; 28% of the variance) to ISC, accounting for 64% of the variance.

3. Study 2

3.1. Material and Methods

3.1.1. Participants

Study 2 participants were 206 university students in the final three years of their degree program (females: 56.80%; males: 43.20%; mean age 24.29, SD = 1.38).

3.1.2. Measures

Participants completed the same measures described in the Study 1 and include the following scales: ISCS [5]; BFQ [51]; Mini-IPIP [52,53]; HEXACO-60 [49,54]; EPQ-RS [50,55]; TEIQue-SF [56,57].

3.1.3. Procedure

As in the previous study, the questionnaires were administered in groups by a trained psychologist and in accordance with Italian Privacy Law. The order of administration of the questionnaires was counterbalanced to control the effects of presentation.

3.1.4. Data analysis

Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for all measures. Hierarchical regressions were carried out for each of the four personality measures together with trait emotional intelligence dimensions to determine their relationship to ISC.

3.2. Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations are reported in Table 9, Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12. Hierarchical regression analyses entered each of the four personality trait scales (BFQ, MINI-IPIP, HEXACO-60, EPQ-RS) at the first step followed by trait EI dimensions at the second step and are presented in Table 13, Table 14, Table 15 and Table 16. The four personality measures accounted for between 30% and 49% of the variance with EI adding another 16% to 21% resulting in the overall personality—EI models accounting for 51% to 65% of the variance in ISC.
Table 9, Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12 show correlations of ISC with the four personality trait scales (BFQ, MINI-IPIP, HEXACO-60, EPQ-RS) and the TEIQue-SF dimensions. Among personality traits, the ISC is particularly correlated with Extraversion on both the BFQ and HEXACO scales and again inversely related with Neuroticism detected with MINI-IPIP and EPQ. The ISC is correlated with all the four dimensions of the TEIQue-SF, in particular with the Well-being dimension.
Table 13 reports the hierarchical regression with the contributions of BFQ (first step; 49% of the variance) and TEIQue-SF dimensions (second step; 16% of the variance) to ISC, explaining a total 65% of the variance.
Table 14 reports the hierarchical regression with the contributions of MINI-IPIP (first step; 32% of the variance) and TEIQue-SF dimensions (second step; 20% of the variance) to ISC. The total variance explained for this model is 52%.
Table 15 reports the hierarchical regression with the contributions of HEXACO-60 (first step; 40% of the variance) and TEIQue-SF dimensions (second step; 19% of the variance) to ISC. The total variance explained for this model is 59%.
Table 16 reports the hierarchical regression with the contributions of EPQ (first step; 30% of the variance) and TEIQue-SF dimensions (second step; 21% of the variance) to ISC. The total variance explained for this model is 51%.

4. Discussion

Both studies examined the contribution of the three most often used trait personality models, employing four of the more commonly used scales, together with trait EI to determine their relationship with ISC. All data were obtained from Italian university students in the first two years (Study 1) and last three years (Study 2) of their degree program. Results clearly showed that while personality traits from all three measures were the strongest predictors of ISC, trait EI added further significant incremental variance for both group of students.
As reported in previous research [27,48], the personality factors of all three models contributed significantly to ISC. The similarity of the contribution from each personality scale is not unexpected since the three measures share similar trait descriptions with the exception of the psychoticism scale of the EPQ-R and the Honesty–Humility scale of the HEXACO model. This is a robust finding as it should be recalled that the correlations between similarly named scales (e.g., Extraversion) are not ‘perfect’ while still capturing the overarching description shared by each personality trait. Further, the pattern of coefficients was mostly similar for the two university student samples. Neuroticism was generally associated with ISC suggesting that individuals with a higher ISC also appear to perceive themselves as more able to control emotions and impulses [27,28]. Extraversion and Conscientiousness were also related to ISC underscoring that intrapreneurial individuals seem to have more interest in their external world in terms of interactions and relationships with other people as well as appearing to present as more persevering and scrupulous.
Previous findings [37] have shown that EI contributes added variance to that accounted for by personality in individual differences research. A key finding of both studies reported here is that that trait EI added incremental variance beyond that accounted for by the major personality traits. Regarding the relationships between TEIQue and ISC, the well-being dimension of the TEIQue was associated with ISC in both groups, suggesting a generalized sense of well-being (extending from past achievements to future expectations) for those individuals who feel themselves as more positive, happy, and fulfilled. Furthermore, the relationship between the ISC and the sociability dimension of the TEIQue appears to reflect that individuals with higher ISC describe themselves as more confident and comfortable in social interaction, have good listening skills, and can communicate clearly and confidently with people. Furthermore, associations with the Self-control dimension of the TEIQue and ISC emerged in Italian university students in the last years of study, highlighting a healthy degree of control over urges and desires and external pressures and stress in relation to ISC. These results showed that personality traits assessed by the three, five, and six factor models together with trait EI are not redundant constructs in relation to ISC, highlighting the contribution of trait EI as a promising factor beyond the now well established personality traits [45,53,54,58].
Notwithstanding the findings from these two studies, the following limitations should be noted. The studies were conducted with two groups of Italian university students who were not necessarily representative of the Italian population. Future research should therefore include university students from different geographical areas in Italy but also carried out on different target groups (for example, high school students or workers) as well as conducted in other national contexts. Another limitation is that these results could be affected by common method bias due to the cross-sectional design of the studies and the use of self-report measures.
Notwithstanding these limitations, the findings add to the existing literature on ISC and its associations with both personality traits and trait EI. If the results of these two studies continue to be confirmed in future research, this would add further support to their importance in both selecting for and developing these characteristics in relation to particular jobs. There is evidence that EI can be enhanced through specific training [45,59] and from a primary prevention perspective [10,11,32,33], it would appear beneficial to foster trait EI as a means of further increasing ISC among young adults. Specific training to enhance the different dimensions of EI [45,59] and further develop different aspects of the construct (e.g., intrapersonal, interpersonal, managing of emotions, and adaptive use of emotions) are clearly linked to individual intrapreneurial characteristics.
Adding to the psychology of sustainability and sustainable development [34,35,36] and complementing the sustainable development goals described by the United Nations [29], the findings from this study would appear to have implications for enhancing the resources required by university students to adaptively face the challenges and transitions [60] that have become the essence of work in the 21st century and in human interaction. ISC thus represents a core of adaptive resources in the post-modern era, favoring sustainable development in contexts of common changes and transitions, and encouraging innovative solutions for a more sustainable construction of career and life paths.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.D.F. and D.H.S.; Data curation, A.D.F. and D.H.S.; Investigation, A.D.F.; Methodology, A.D.F. and D.H.S.; Supervision, D.H.S.; Writing—original draft, A.D.F. and D.H.S.; Writing—review & editing, A.D.F. and D.H.S.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bird, B. Entrepreneurial Behavior; Scott, Foresman: Glenview, IL, USA, 1989; ISBN 0673397912. [Google Scholar]
  2. Hisrich, R.D.; Peters, M.P. Entrepreneurship: Starting, Developing and Managing a New Enterprise; Irwin: Homewood, IL, USA, 1995; ISBN 0256141479. [Google Scholar]
  3. Oden, H. Managing Corporate, Culture, Innovation, and Intrapreneurship; Quorum Books: Westport, CT, USA, 1997; ISBN 1567200478. [Google Scholar]
  4. Pinchot, G., III. Intrapreneuring; Harper & Row: New York, NY, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  5. Di Fabio, A. Intrapreneurial Self-Capital: A new construct for the 21st century. J. Employ. Couns. 2014, 51, 98–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Antoncic, B. Risk taking in intrapreneurship: Translating the individual level risk aversion into the organizational risk taking. J. Enterp. Cul. 2003, 11, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Antoncic, B.; Hisrich, R.D. Privatization, corporate entrepreneurship and performance: Testing a normative model. J. Dev. Entrep. 2003, 8, 197–218. [Google Scholar]
  8. Honig, B. Learning strategies and resources for entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2001, 26, 21–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pinchot, G.; Pellman, R. Intrapreneuring in Action: A Handbook for Business Innovation; Berrett-Koehler: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  10. Di Fabio, A.; Kenny, E.M. From decent work to decent lives: Positive Self and Relational Management (PS&RM) in the twenty-first century. Front. Psychol. Sect. Org. Psychol. 2016, 7, 361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hage, S.M.; Romano, J.L.; Conyne, R.K.; Kenny, M.; Matthews, C.; Schwartz, J.P.; Waldo, M. Best practice guidelines on prevention practice, research, training, and social advocacy for psychologists. Couns. Psychol. 2007, 35, 493–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Blustein, D.L. A relational theory of working. J. Voc. Behav. 2011, 79, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Guichard, J. Career guidance, education, and dialogues for a fair and sustainable human development. In Inaugural Conference of the UNESCO Chair of Lifelong Guidance and Counseling; University of Wroclaw: Wroclaw, Poland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  14. Savickas, M.L. (Ed.) Career Counseling; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  15. Blustein, D.L.; Kenny, M.E.; Di Fabio, A.; Guichard, J. Expanding the impact of the psychology of working: Engaging psychology in the struggle for decent work and human rights. J. Career Assess. 2019, 7, 3–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Di Fabio, A.; Kenny, M.E. The contributions of emotional intelligence and social support for adaptive career progress among Italian youth. J. Career Dev. 2015, 42, 48–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Di Fabio, A.; Palazzeschi, L. Hedonic and eudaimonic well-being: The role of resilience beyond fluid intelligence and personality traits. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Di Fabio, A.; Saklofske, D.H. Comparing ability and self-report trait emotional intelligence, fluid intelligence, and personality traits in career decision. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2014, 64, 174–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Di Fabio, A.; Van Esbroeck, R. Intrapreneurial Self-Capital: A concept fitting a life-designing intervention. Couns. G. Ital. Ric. Appl. 2016, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Judge, T.A.; Erez, A.; Bono, J.E.; Thoresen, C.J. The Core Self-Evaluations Scale: Development of a measure. Pers. Psychol. 2003, 56, 303–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Maddi, S.R. Issues and interventions in stress mastery. In Personality and Disease; Friedman, H.S., Ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1990; pp. 121–154. [Google Scholar]
  22. Tierney, P.; Farmer, S.M. Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Acad. Manag. J. 2002, 45, 1137–1148. [Google Scholar]
  23. Tugade, M.M.; Fredrickson, B.L. Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 86, 320–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Midgley, C.; Maehr, M.L.; Hruda, L.Z.; Anderman, E.; Anderman, L.; Freeman, K.E.; Urdan, T. Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales; University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2000; Available online: http://www.umich.edu/~pals/PALS%202000_V13Word97.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2019).
  25. Frost, R.O.; Shows, D.L. The nature and measurement of compulsive indecisiveness. Behav. Res. Ther. 1993, 31, 683–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mann, L.; Burnett, P.; Radford, M.; Ford, S. The Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire: An instrument for measuring patterns for coping with decisional conflict. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 1997, 10, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Di Fabio, A.; Palazzeschi, L.; Bucci, O. In an unpredictable and changing environment: Intrapreneurial Self-Capital as a key resource for life satisfaction and flourishing. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Di Fabio, A.; Kenny, M.E. Intrapreneurial Self-Capital: A Key Resource for Promoting Well-Being in a Shifting Work Landscape. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. United Nations. About the Sustainable Development Goals. 2018. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed on 11 January 2019).
  30. Duradoni, M.; Di Fabio, A. Intrapreneurial self-capital and sustainable innovative behavior within organizations. Sustainability 2018, 11, 322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Di Fabio, A.; Tsuda, A. The psychology of harmony and harmonization: Advancing the perspectives for the psychology of sustainability and sustainable development. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Di Fabio, A.; Kenny, M.E. Promoting well-being: The contribution of emotional intelligence. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Kenny, M.E.; Hage, S.M. The next frontier: Prevention as an instrument of social justice. J. Prim. Prev. 2009, 30, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Di Fabio, A. Positive Healthy Organizations: Promoting well-being, meaningfulness, and sustainability in organizations. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Di Fabio, A. The psychology of sustainability and sustainable development for well-being in organizations. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Di Fabio, A.; Rosen, M.A. Opening the Black Box of Psychological Processes in the Science of Sustainable Development: A New Frontier. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. Res. 2018, 2, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Di Fabio, A.; Saklofske, D.H. The contributions of personality and emotional intelligence to resiliency. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2018, 123, 140–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Di Fabio, A.; Saklofske, D.H.; Tremblay, P.F. Psychometric Properties of the Italian Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (I-TEIQue). Pers. Individ. Differ. 2016, 96, 198–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Di Fabio, A.; Saklofske, D.H. Promoting individual resources: The challenge of trait emotional intelligence. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2014, 65, 19–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Stough, C.; Saklofske, D.H.; Parker, J.D. (Eds.) Assessing Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Research, and Applications; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  41. Mayer, J.D.; Salovey, P. What is emotional intelligence? In Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Educational Implications; Salovey, P., Sluyter, D., Eds.; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1997; pp. 3–31. [Google Scholar]
  42. Bar-On, R. The Emotional Intelligence Inventory (EQ-i): Technical Manual; Multi-Health Systems: Toronto, ON, Canada, 1997; ISBN 978-88-7466-497-9. [Google Scholar]
  43. Petrides, K.V.; Furnham, A. Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. Eur. J. Pers. 2001, 15, 425–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Petrides, K.V.; Pita, R.; Kokkinaki, F. The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. Br. J. Psychol. 2007, 98, 273–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Di Fabio, A.; Kenny, M.E. Promoting emotional intelligence and career decision making among Italian high school students. J. Career Assess. 2011, 19, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Vesely, A.; Saklofske, D.; Nordstokke, D. EI training and pre-service teacher wellbeing. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2014, 65, 81–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Andrei, F.; Siegling, A.B.; Aloe, A.M.; Baldaro, B.; Petrides, K.V. The incremental validity of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue): A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Pers. Assess. 2016, 98, 261–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Di Fabio, A.; Gori, A. Neuroticism and Flourishing in white collars workers: From Self-Esteem to Intrapreneurial Self-Capital for adaptive outcomes. In Neuroticism: Characteristics, Impact on Job Performance and Health Outcomes; Nova Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 129–146. ISBN -13 978-1634853231. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ashton, M.C.; Lee, K. The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major di- mensions of personality. J. Pers. Assess. 2009, 91, 340–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Eysenck, S.B.; Eysenck, H.J.; Barrett, P. A revised version of the psychoticism scale. Pers. Individ. Differ. 1985, 6, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Caprara, G.V.; Barbaranelli, C.; Borgogni, L. BFQ: Big Five Questionnaire, 2nd ed.; Giunti O.S.: Firenze, Italy, 1993; ISBN 9788809400672. [Google Scholar]
  52. Donnellan, M.B.; Oswald, F.L.; Baird, B.M.; Lucas, R.E. The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychol. Assess. 2006, 18, 192–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Di Fabio, A.; Saklofske, D. The Mini International Personality Item Pool Scale (Mini-IPIP): Primo contributo alla validazione della versione italiana [The Mini International Personality Item Pool Scale (Mini-IPIP): First contribution to the validation of the Italian version]. Couns. G. Ital. Ric. Appl. 2017, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Di Fabio, A.; Saklofske, D.H. EXACO-60: Primo contributo alla validazione della versione italiana [HEXACO-60: First contribution to the validation of the Italian version]. Couns. G. Ital. Ric. Appl. 2017, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Dazzi, C.; Pedrabissi, L.; Santinello, M. EPQ-R Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised; Giunti OS Organizzazioni Speciali: Florence, Italy, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  56. Petrides, K.V. Technical Manual for the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaires (TEIQue); London Psychometric Laboratory: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  57. Di Fabio, A.; Palazzeschi, L. Proprietà psicometriche del Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire Short Form (TEIQue-SF) nel contesto italiano [Psychometric properties of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire Short Form (TEIQue-SF) in the Italian context]. Couns. G. Ital. Ric. Appl. 2011, 4, 327–336. [Google Scholar]
  58. Saklofske, D.H.; Austin, E.J.; Minski, P.S. Factor structure and validity of a trait emotional intelligence measure. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2003, 34, 707–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Vesely, A.K.; Saklofske, D.H. Emotional intelligence and the next generation of teachers. In Emotional Intelligence in Education: Integrating Research into Practice; Keefer, K., Parker, J.D.A., Saklofske, D.H., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 377–402. [Google Scholar]
  60. Di Fabio, A.; Kenny, M.E. Decent work in Italy: Context, conceptualization, and assessment. J. Voc. Behav. 2019, 110, 131–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations between Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ), Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire Short Form (TEIQue-SF) dimensions, and Intrapreneurial Self-Capital (ISC).
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations between Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ), Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire Short Form (TEIQue-SF) dimensions, and Intrapreneurial Self-Capital (ISC).
MDS1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.
1. BFQ Extraversion77.7313.82-
2. BFQ Agreeableness78.5811.580.18 *-
3. BFQ Conscientiousness80.6016.180.15 *0.14 *-
4. BFQ Emotional stability72.6318.100.49 **0.39 **0.13-
5. BFQ Openness79.2413.860.27 **0.130.15 *0.33 **-
6. TEIQue Well-being30.026.610.42 **0.38 **0.34 **0.33 **0.14 *-
7. TEIQue Self-control25.905.400.28 **0.19 **0.22 **0.43 **0.090.53 **-
8. TEIQue Emotionality39.086.900.27 **0.51 **0.21 **0.27 **0.19 **0.57 **0.40 **-
9. TEIQue Sociability27.355.300.31 **0.130.35 **0.070.25 **0.49 **0.44 **0.42 **-
10. ISC97.9413.200.50 **0.32 **0.39 **0.32 **0.24 **0.70 **0.52 **0.54 **0.59 **-
Note: N = 210; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlations between Mini International Personality Item Pool (MINI-IPIP), TEIQue-SF dimensions, and ISC.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlations between Mini International Personality Item Pool (MINI-IPIP), TEIQue-SF dimensions, and ISC.
MDS1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.
1. MINI-IPIP Extraversion12.373.96-
2. MINI-IPIP Agreeableness15.053.410.12-
3. MINI-IPIP Conscientiousness12.953.960.21 **0.22 **-
4. MINI-IPIP Neuroticism11.383.79−0.11−0.08−0.17 *-
5. MINI-IPIP Intellect imagination14.453.890.120.29 **0.13−0.11-
6. TEIQue
Well-being		30.026.610.20 **0.29 **0.31 **−0.45 **0.14 *-
7. TEIQue
Self-control		25.905.400.130.120.22 **−0.52 **0.030.53 **-
8. TEIQue Emotionality39.086.900.16 *0.49 **0.24 **−0.35 **0.18 *0.57 **0.40 **-
9. TEIQue Sociability27.355.300.080.35 **0.22 **−0.28 **0.14 *0.49 **0.44 **0.42 **-
10. ISC97.9413.200.20 **0.38 **0.33 **−0.40 **0.18 *0.70 **0.52 **0.54 **0.59 **-
Note: N = 210; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations between HEXACO-60, TEIQue-SF dimensions, and ISC.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations between HEXACO-60, TEIQue-SF dimensions, and ISC.
MDS1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.
1. HEXACO Honesty–Humility33.448.16-
2. HEXACO Emotionality32.907.360.13-
3. HEXACO Extraversion32.546.380.13−0.21 **-
4. HEXACO Agreeableness30.627.210.27 **−0.24 **0.10-
5. HEXACO Conscientiousness34.086.520.16 *−0.110.35 **0.01-
6. HEXACO Openness to Experience34.566.350.21 **−0.110.23 **0.14 *0.21 **
7. TEIQue
Well-being		30.026.610.16 *−0.25 **0.60 **0.030.40 **0.18 **-
8. TEIQue
Self-control		25.905.400.11−0.34 **0.44 **0.110.36 **0.060.53 **-
9. TEIQue Emotionality39.086.900.26 **−0.060.42 **0.100.36 **0.31 **0.57 **0.40 **-
10. TEIQue
Sociability		27.355.300.10−0.18 **0.44 **0.120.36 **0.14 *0.49 **0.44 **0.42 **-
11. ISC97.9413.200.13−0.24 **0.60 **0.130.46 **0.28 **0.70 **0.52 **0.54 **0.59 **-
Note: N = 210; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 4. Descriptive statistics and correlations between Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ), TEIQue-SF dimensions, and ISC.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics and correlations between Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ), TEIQue-SF dimensions, and ISC.
MDS1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.
1. EPQ
Extraversion		7.882.91-
2. EPQ
Neuroticism 		5.203.09−0.30 **-
3. EPQ
Psychoticism		3.332.79−0.26 **0.12-
4. TEIQue
Well-being		30.026.610.43 **−0.55 **−0.24 **-
5. TEIQue
Self-control		25.905.400.26 **−0.49 **−0.100.53 **-
6. TEIQue
Emotionality		39.086.900.33 **−0.39 **−0.39 **0.57 **0.40 **-
7. TEIQue
Sociability		 27.355.300.41 **−0.34 **−0.120.49 **0.44 **0.42 **-
8. ISC97.9413.200.44 **−0.50−0.26 **0.70 **0.52 **0.54 **0.59 **-
Note: N = 210; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 5. Hierarchical regression: The contributions of BFQ (first step) and TEIQue-SF dimensions (second step) to ISC.
Table 5. Hierarchical regression: The contributions of BFQ (first step) and TEIQue-SF dimensions (second step) to ISC.
Study 1
n = 210
University Students
First Two Years
ISC
β
Step 1
BFQ Extraversion0.42 ***
BFQ Agreeableness0.14 *
BFQ Conscientiousness0.24 ***
BFQ Emotional stability0.16 *
BFQ Openness0.37 ***
Step 2
TEIQue Well-being0.42 ***
TEIQue Self-control0.07
TEIQue Emotionality0.05
TEIQue Sociability0.19 ***
R2 step 10.48 ***
∆R2 step 2 0.21 ***
R2 total0.69 ***
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. F(9, 200) = 49.65 (p < 0.001).
Table
Table 6. Hierarchical regression: The contributions of MINI-IPIP (first step) and TEIQue-SF dimensions (second step) to ISC.
Table 6. Hierarchical regression: The contributions of MINI-IPIP (first step) and TEIQue-SF dimensions (second step) to ISC.
Study 1
n = 210
University Students
First Two Years
ISC
β
Step 1
MINI-IPIP Extraversion0.13 *
MINI-IPIP Agreeableness0.27 ***
MINI-IPIP Conscientiousness0.18 **
MINI-IPIP Neuroticism−0.33 ***
MINI-IPIP Intellect imagination0.11
Step 2
TEIQue Well-being0.49 ***
TEIQue Self-control0.10
TEIQue Emotionality0.03
TEIQue Sociability0.23 ***
R2 step 10.37 ***
∆R2 step 2 0.29 ***
R2 total0.66 ***
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. F(9, 200) = 42.37 (p < 0.001).
Table
Table 7. Hierarchical regression: The contributions of HEXACO-60 (first step) and TEIQue-SF dimensions (second step) to ISC.
Table 7. Hierarchical regression: The contributions of HEXACO-60 (first step) and TEIQue-SF dimensions (second step) to ISC.
Study 1
n = 210
University Students
First Two Years
ISC
β
Step 1
HEXACO Honesty–Humility0.04
HEXACO Emotionality−0.19 **
HEXACO Extraversion0.44 ***
HEXACO Agreeableness0.02
HEXACO Conscientiousness0.24 ***
HEXACO Openness to Experience0.15 **
Step 2
TEIQue Well-being0.40 ***
TEIQue Self-control0.05
TEIQue Emotionality0.05
TEIQue Sociability0.23 ***
R2 step 10.47 ***
∆R2 step 2 0.19 ***
R2 total0.66 ***
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. TEIQue = Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire. F(10, 199) = 40.83 (p < 0.001).
Table
Table 8. Hierarchical regression: The contributions of EPQ (first step) and TEIQue-SF dimensions (second step) to ISC.
Table 8. Hierarchical regression: The contributions of EPQ (first step) and TEIQue-SF dimensions (second step) to ISC.
Study 1
n = 210
University Students
First Two Years
ISC
β
Step 1
EPQ Extraversion0.28 ***
EPQ Neuroticism −0.40 ***
EPQ Psychoticism−0.14 *
Step 2
TEIQue Well-being0.44 ***
TEIQue Self-control0.09
TEIQue Emotionality0.06
TEIQue Sociability0.26 ***
R2 step 10.36 ***
∆R2 step 2 0.28 ***
R2 total0.64 ***
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. F(7, 202) = 53.42 (p < 0.001).
Table
Table 9. Descriptive statistics and correlations between BFQ, TEIQue-SF dimensions, and ISC.
Table 9. Descriptive statistics and correlations between BFQ, TEIQue-SF dimensions, and ISC.
MDS1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.
1. BFQ Extraversion75.019.43-
2. BFQ Agreeableness79.018.730.15 *-
3. BFQ Conscientiousness80.409.860.27 **0.26 **-
4. BFQ
Emotional stability		68.4911.050.130.19 **0.07-
5. BFQ
Openness		81.9410.320.34 **0.53 **0.42 **0.18 **-
6. TEIQue
Well-being		29.516.060.40 **0.26 **0.080.21 **0.22 **-
7. TEIQue
Self-control		24.555.610.26 **0.110.110.55 **0.26 **0.43 **-
8. TEIQue Emotionality40.086.510.050.44 **0.21 **0.19 **0.24 **0.48 **0.27 **-
9. TEIQue Sociability26.985.460.46 **0.16 *0.120.130.29 **0.48 **0.30 **0.35 **-
10. ISC96.4412.810.55 **0.28 **0.38 **0.37 **0.48 **0.60 **0.55 **0.34 **0.43 **-
Note: N = 206; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 10. Descriptive statistics and correlations between MINI-IPIP, TEIQue-SF dimensions, and ISC.
Table 10. Descriptive statistics and correlations between MINI-IPIP, TEIQue-SF dimensions, and ISC.
MDS1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.
1. MINI-IPIP Extraversion11.652.85-
2. MINI-IPIP Agreeableness14.733.200.14-
3. MINI-IPIP Conscientiousness12.783.100.110.27 **-
4. MINI-IPIP Neuroticism11.933.15−0.10−0.29 **−030 **-
5. MINI-IPIP Intellect imagination14.772.820.100.30 **0.09−0.07-
6. TEIQue
Well-being		29.516.060.30 **0.38 **0.27 **−0.41**.0.12-
7. TEIQue
Self-control		24.555.610.17 *0.21 **0.32 **−0.53 **0.040.43 **-
8. TEIQue Emotionality40.086.510.090.48 **0.23 **−0.37 **0.21 **0.48 **0.27 **-
9. TEIQue Sociability26.985.460.28 **0.19 **0.08−0.18 *0.27 **0.48 **0.30 **0.35 **-
10. ISC96.4412.810.16 *0.33 **0.31 **−0.47 **0.20 **0.60 **0.55 **0.34 **0.43 **-
Note: N = 206; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 11. Descriptive statistics and correlations between HEXACO-60, TEIQue-SF dimensions, and ISC.
Table 11. Descriptive statistics and correlations between HEXACO-60, TEIQue-SF dimensions, and ISC.
MDS1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.
1. HEXACO Honesty–Humility34.267.18-
2. HEXACO Emotionality31.056.790.17 *-
3. HEXACO Extraversion32.155.680.32 **−0.16 *-
4. HEXACO Agreeableness30.406.090.25 **−0.070.39 **-
5. HEXACO Conscientiousness34.166.220.55 **−0.100.34 **0.27 **-
6. HEXACO Openness to Experience34.677.120.47 **−0.17 *0.42 **0.37 **0.38 **
7. TEIQue
Well-being		29.516.060.18 **−0.110.51 **0.130.24 **0.25 **-
8. TEIQue
Self-control		24.555.610.04−0.25 **0.35 **0.15 *0.120.14 *0.43 **-
9. TEIQue Emotionality40.086.510.23 **−0.110.28 **0.22 **0.24 **0.24 **0.48 **0.27 **-
10. TEIQue
Sociability		26.985.460.02−0.110.38 **0.020.130.21 **0.48 **0.30 **0.35 **-
11. ISC96.4412.810.18 *−0.24 **0.53 **0.22 **0.42 **0.26 **0.60 **0.55 **0.34 **0.43 **-
Note: N = 206; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 12. Descriptive statistics and correlations between EPQ, TEIQue-SF dimensions, and ISC.
Table 12. Descriptive statistics and correlations between EPQ, TEIQue-SF dimensions, and ISC.
MDS1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.
1. EPQ
Extraversion		7.963.07-
2. EPQ
Neuroticism 		5.983.12−0.27 **-
3. EPQ
Psychoticism		3.562.18−0.030.03-
4. TEIQue
Well-being		29.516.060.45 **−0.41 **−0.07-
5. TEIQue
Self-control		24.555.610.18 **−0.54 **−0.040.43 **-
6. TEIQue
Emotionality		40.086.510.19 **−0.37 **−0.22 **0.48 **0.43 **-
7. TEIQue
Sociability		26.985.460.33 **−0.36 **−0.010.48 **0.48 **0.27 **-
8. ISC96.4412.810.23 **−0.54 **−0.080.60 **0.48 **0.30 **0.35 **-
Note: N = 206; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 13. Hierarchical regression: The contributions of BFQ (first step) and TEIQue-SF dimensions (second step) to ISC.
Table 13. Hierarchical regression: The contributions of BFQ (first step) and TEIQue-SF dimensions (second step) to ISC.
Study 2
n = 206
University Students
Last Three Years
ISC
β
Step 1
BFQ Extraversion0.39 ***
BFQ Agreeableness0.01
BFQ Conscientiousness0.17 **
BFQ Emotional stability0.27 ***
BFQ Openness0.23 **
Step 2
TEIQue Well-being0.32 ***
TEIQue Self-control0.21 ***
TEIQue Emotionality0.04
TEIQue Sociability0.02
R2 step 10.49 ***
∆R2 step 2 0.16 ***
R2 total0.65 ***
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. F(9, 196) = 39.51 (p < 0.001).
Table
Table 14. Hierarchical regression: The contributions of MINI-IPIP (first step) and TEIQue-SF dimensions (second step) to ISC.
Table 14. Hierarchical regression: The contributions of MINI-IPIP (first step) and TEIQue-SF dimensions (second step) to ISC.
Study 2
n = 206
University Students
Last Three Years
ISC
β
Step 1
MINI-IPIP Extraversion0.13 *
MINI-IPIP Agreeableness0.12 *
MINI-IPIP Conscientiousness0.18 **
MINI-IPIP Neuroticism−0.37 ***
MINI-IPIP Intellect imagination0.13 *
Step 2
TEIQue Well-being0.33 ***
TEIQue Self-control0.25 ***
TEIQue Emotionality0.06
TEIQue Sociability0.16 **
R2 step 10.32 ***
∆R2 step 2 0.20 ***
R2 total0.52 ***
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. F(9, 196) = 23.05 (p < 0.001).
Table
Table 15. Hierarchical regression: The contributions of HEXACO-60 (first step) and TEIQue-SF dimensions (second step) to ISC.
Table 15. Hierarchical regression: The contributions of HEXACO-60 (first step) and TEIQue-SF dimensions (second step) to ISC.
Study 2
n = 206
University Students
Last Three Years
ISC
β
Step 1
HEXACO Honesty–Humility0.13
HEXACO Emotionality−0.20 **
HEXACO Extraversion0.40 ***
HEXACO Agreeableness0.00
HEXACO Conscientiousness0.36 ***
HEXACO Openness to Experience0.06
Step 2
TEIQue Well-being0.28 ***
TEIQue Self-control0.27 ***
TEIQue Emotionality0.01
TEIQue Sociability0.11 *
R2 step 10.40 ***
∆R2 step 2 0.19 ***
R2 total0.59 ***
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. F(10, 195) = 27.91 (p < 0.001).
Table
Table 16. Hierarchical regression: The contributions of EPQ (first step) and TEIQue-SF dimensions (second step) to ISC.
Table 16. Hierarchical regression: The contributions of EPQ (first step) and TEIQue-SF dimensions (second step) to ISC.
Study 2
n = 206
University Students
Last Three Years
ISC
β
Step 1
EPQ Extraversion0.09
EPQ Neuroticism −0.52 ***
EPQ Psychoticism−0.07
Step 2
TEIQue Well-being0.38 ***
TEIQue Self-control0.24 ***
TEIQue Emotionality0.04
TEIQue Sociability0.14 *
R2 step 10.30 ***
∆R2 step 2 0.21 ***
R2 total0.51 ***
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. F(7, 198) = 30.62 (p < 0.001).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Di Fabio, A.; Saklofske, D.H. The Contributions of Personality Traits and Emotional Intelligence to Intrapreneurial Self-Capital: Key Resources for Sustainability and Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1240. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11051240

AMA Style

Di Fabio A, Saklofske DH. The Contributions of Personality Traits and Emotional Intelligence to Intrapreneurial Self-Capital: Key Resources for Sustainability and Sustainable Development. Sustainability. 2019; 11(5):1240. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11051240

Chicago/Turabian Style

Di Fabio, Annamaria, and Donald H. Saklofske. 2019. "The Contributions of Personality Traits and Emotional Intelligence to Intrapreneurial Self-Capital: Key Resources for Sustainability and Sustainable Development" Sustainability 11, no. 5: 1240. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11051240

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop