VARIABLES
In section 2.4.3 the relationships between EI and adjustment, TEI and adjustment and their associated implications were reported. In this section, the relationship between TEI and gender is considered first, followed by that between adjustment and gender. The rationale for focusing on the background variable of gender per se in this section of the review, in relation to TEI and adjustment is that one of the objectives of this study was to examine whether TEI and the adjustment score difference exists in terms of gender. Therefore, presenting reviews of literature in this section regarding the issue under consideration is appropriate; later in the discussion an attempt is made to compare the present study with the previous findings.
2.5.1 Gender and TEI
So far researchers have undertaken studies on demographic variables (such as age, sex, family income, education level of parents, and place of residence) of individuals in relation to EI. For instance, a study by Yelkikalan et al. (2012) revealed that EI scores differ according to sex, which is that men display higher averages in wellbeing, self-control and sociability factors and that this difference is statistically significant (*p <.01) in wellbeing and sociability factors. Women have higher averages than men in terms of emotionality factors: there is a significant (*p< .05) difference. Similarly, research by (Austin et al., 2005; Harrod & Scheer, 2005) revealed that EI scores were significantly different between females and males, with females
41
reporting higher EI levels, thereby, Austin et al. and Harrold’s and Scheers’s researches differ from those of Yelkikalan et al. (2012) in that theirs revealed that female students possess an overall higher level of EI in comparison to male ones.
Similarly, a study on TEI revealed gender differences, in which girls scored higher than boys (Downey et al., 2008; Mavroveli et al., 2008). A study by Mikolajczak, Luminet, Leroy, and Roy (2007) also reported that with the exception of the factor well-being, their findings revealed significant gender differences i.e. women scored significantly higher on emotionality, whereas men scored significantly higher on self-control and sociability. However, in the global TEI score, men had higher scores than women (Mikolajczak et al., 2007). Such a result was consistent with the one obtained using the English version of the TEIQue (Petrides & Furnham, 2000).
On the other hand, a study by Antoniou, Kaprara, and Drosos (2016) on the relationship between TEI and the vocational interests of Greek 10th and 11th grade students indicated that no demographic variables (gender, place of residence, family salary) were found to have an effect on the scores of their TEI; the only demographic variable that had significant effects on TEI levels was the fathers’ educational level. Similarly, irrespective of the measurement tool used, a result in a study by Poulou (2010) indicated that there were no significant differences between gender and TEI. To conclude, though the relationship between TEI and gender seems mixed, it is cautiously concluded that TEI seems influenced by gender.
2.5.2 Gender and students’ adjustment to university
In section 2.5.1 the relationship between gender and EI/TEI was noted, where most sources depicted that the relationship between TEI and gender is somehow mixed, implying that further consideration of the issue is necessary. In this section, the relationship between gender and adjustment is considered.
With regard to gender, there was no significant difference in the adjustment problems of male and female college students (Sharma & Kermane, 2015). Similarly, Salami (2011) indicated that gender did not predict adjustment to college (r = .09, p > .05). More importantly, Al- khatib et al. (2012) determined that adjustment to college life is not based on gender, study level, college or interaction between them; rather, it was related to other factors such as future
42
anxiety about jobs after finishing the university or emotional instability or other problems related to academic achievement.
A study by Clinciu (2013) also found that the difference between male and female students was not statistically significant for the total score on the SACQ, in the research. Nevertheless, when the adjustment of the specific dimensions was considered, the males were much better at adaptation for social and personal-emotional dimensions, whereas female students compensate for this gap with better scores at academic adjustment. A similar result revealed that women show poorer emotional and social adaptation, although they are better adjusted academically (Abdullah et al., 2009). However, a statistically significant gender difference was not discovered with respect to social and academic adjustment among undergraduate students at university (Kyalo, 2011).
Moreover, a study by Wang and Zhang (2015) indicated that there was no significant difference between male and female college students with regard to adaptability, but the males’ score was significantly higher than that of female students in terms of their physiological adaptability, learning adaptability and social adaptability factors; however, on the interpersonal adaptability factor, the score of the female students was higher than that of the male ones.
Even when taking the moderating effect of gender on the relationship between EI and social adjustment and EI and academic adjustment into account (Ishak, Jdaitawi, Ibrahim, & Mustafa, 2011) found that gender was not an important moderating factor in the relationship between these research variables.
On the other hand, the factor of gender difference supports the argument that male students adapted to the new university environment better than their female counterparts (Abdullah et al., 2009; Enochs & Roland, 2006; Winter & Yaffe, 2000) because separation anxiety seemed to affect females more than male students (Raj, 2012); thus, males tend to isolate themselves and escape, whereas females are more likely to seek emotional assistance (Enochs & Roland, 2006).
43