The Role of University Professors’ Emotional Competencies in Students’ Academic and Psychological Well-Being: A Systematic Review

Abstract

In higher education, the emotional intelligence (EI) of university professors, defined as the ability to perceive, understand, manage and utilize emotions effectively, is increasingly recognized as a pivotal factor in enhancing students’ academic achievement and psychological well-being. However, the scarcity of studies directly linking professors’ EI to students’ well-being highlights a critical research gap. This systematic review investigates how professors’ emotional competencies influence student outcomes—such as academic performance, engagement, motivation, and mental health—and identifies the factors that mediate or moderate these effects. Findings indicate that professors’ EI, particularly empathy, emotional regulation, and interpersonal skills, significantly enhances student engagement, motivation, and academic satisfaction, with indirect effects on psychological well-being. Cultural context, teaching modality (e.g., online vs. in-person), and professors’ age and experience moderate these effects and influence effect sizes. Qualitative synthesis further highlighted contextual gaps in the literature. The limited focus on well-being and outcomes and reliance on self-report measures underscore the need for longitudinal, culturally diverse studies and performance-based EI assessments. The value of this research lies in its potential to inform evidence-based educational practices and institutional policies. By elucidating the role of professors’ EI, the review lays the groundwork for developing faculty training programs aimed at strengthening emotional competencies and fostering inclusive, supportive learning environments that promote student growth and resilience. This is especially relevant given the growing prevalence of stress, anxiety, and disengagement among university students, exacerbated by post-pandemic challenges and academic pressures. Understanding the impact of EI can inform culturally responsive interventions, improve student retention, and enhance institutional effectiveness, thereby addressing a pressing need in contemporary higher education. In today’s rapidly evolving technological, social, and cultural landscape, universities have both the opportunity and the responsibility to act as catalysts for the creation of an educational culture that promotes social well-being. This requires adopting educational and organizational models that prioritize human care and the quality of interpersonal relationships. To be effective, these priorities must be integrated into all university operations, from governance to student support and talent development.

1. Introduction

In today’s rapidly evolving technological, social, and cultural landscape, universities are not only presented with the opportunity—but, arguably, the responsibility—to act as catalysts for the creation of an educational culture that fosters social well-being. Achieving this goal requires the adoption of educational and organizational models that prioritize human-centered values and the quality of interpersonal relationships. To achieve this, universities must engage every aspect of their institutional functioning, from governance to student services and talent development. Furthermore, it is essential to innovate teaching methodologies, assessment systems, and faculty development programs in order to create educational pathways that are both inclusive and sustainable (Cadei & Serrelli, 2023).

A key component of this educational transformation is the recognition that effective teaching extends beyond delivery content and maintaining organizational efficiency. It also encompasses communicative, socio-emotional, metacognitive, and reflective competencies that foster meaningful student engagement (Mura et al., 2023). A critical driver of this paradigm shift is emotional intelligence (EI), defined as the ability to perceive, understand, manage, and utilize emotions effectively (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Emotional competencies—such as emotional regulation, empathy, and interpersonal communication—enable professors to create supportive learning environments that enhance student resilience and engagement (Goleman, 2001).

In the context of higher education, in which students navigate increasing academic pressures, frequently reported anxiety, imposter syndrome (Païs et al., 2025) and post-pandemic challenges like stress and disengagement (Dias Lopes et al., 2020), professors’ EI play a central role in shaping classrooms that are both cognitively stimulating and emotionally responsive (Olivares Alvares et al., 2023). These competencies are essential for managing interpersonal dynamics, sustaining student motivation, and fostering inclusive institutional practices, which, as Milani and Jacomuzzi (2022) as well as Jacomuzzi and Milani (2023) argue, enhance teaching quality and reinforce the legitimacy of higher education’s broader mission.

Although the emotional competencies of university faculty appear pivotal, their direct impact on students’ psychological well-being remains underexplored.

Nonetheless, indirect evidence is compelling. For example, Coronado-Maldonado et al. (2025) found that students with higher levels of EI demonstrate stronger motivation and more effective learning strategies—both of which are positively correlated with academic performance. Similarly, Shahin et al. (2024) reported that students with high EI perform better academically and report greater overall health, implying more effective stress management. Salih et al. (2024) identified a strong positive correlation between EI, self-esteem, and academic achievement among university students, highlighting EI’s role in fostering resilience and intrinsic motivation. Additionally, Cantoni et al. (2023) emphasized the role of EI in building resilience, further reinforcing the importance of emotional competencies in promoting both academic and psychological well-being.

These findings suggest that emotionally intelligent professors may enhance student outcomes by cultivating supportive learning environments, yet empirical studies directly examining this relationship in higher education are limited.

Recent contributions in the field of communication psychology further highlight the importance of relational credibility and affective alignment in educational interactions.

Trust in the speaker and the presence of shared emotional frameworks have been shown to significantly enhance students’ perception of message reliability and foster deeper engagement. These insights align with findings from consumer communication research, where Milani and Jacomuzzi (2020) and Marini et al. (2022) demonstrated that emotional framing and perceived credibility play a critical role in shaping how individuals process novel or counterintuitive information, such as sustainable food choices. Moreover, emotional skills are increasingly vital in mediating interactions—not only among individuals, but also between humans and technological systems, supporting a broader conceptualization of EI as a foundation for adaptive and ethically grounded educational practices.

While the impact of teachers’ EI is well-documented in primary and secondary education (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009), its role in higher education—particularly its direct effects on students’ psychosocial and academic outcomes—remains underexplored.

This gap is particularly significant given the emotionally demanding nature of academic contexts, where faculty manage high-stakes lectures, intensive research commitments, and professional competition, all requiring effective emotion regulation (Abera, 2023).

This review addresses this critical knowledge gap by mapping existing scholarly contributions on EI in higher education, identifying key countries, recurring keywords, and dominant research themes. It aims to synthesize evidence, clarify theoretical frameworks, and highlight areas requiring further investigation.

Specifically, the review addresses two research questions:

RQ1. 

How does the emotional intelligence of university professors influence students’ outcomes and wellbeing?

RQ2. 

What factors mediate or moderate the influence of university professors’ emotional intelligence on student outcomes and wellbeing?

By providing a comprehensive overview, identifying the most relevant countries, recurring keywords, and dominant research themes, this study seeks to offer a roadmap for leveraging professors’ EI to enhance student well-being, retention, and academic success. Given the growing complexity of higher education and the strategic importance of EI in fostering holistic student development, understanding and integrating emotional competencies into faculty development should be a priority for universities aiming to improve educational quality and institutional impact.

The Purpose of Conducting a Literature Review

The relationship between university professors’ emotional intelligence (EI) and students’ academic and psychological well-being is a critical yet underexplored area of research. While the role of EI in leadership, organizational behavior, and primary and secondary education is well established, studies in higher education—particularly those focusing on faculty–student dynamics and student well-being—remain limited and fragmented. This lack of focused inquiry hinders the development of evidence-based pedagogical interventions tailored to the unique challenges of higher education, such as increasingly diverse student populations, the rise of online learning, and growing career-related pressures. This systematic review aims to address this gap by:

• Synthesizing empirical evidence on the influence of professors’ EI on student academic outcomes (e.g., performance, engagement, motivation) and psychological well-being (e.g., mental health, stress reduction);
• Mapping the existing body of literature to identify key countries, recurring keywords, and dominant research themes related to EI in higher education;
• Identifying methodological strengths and limitations of current studies, including the widespread use of self-report measures and the predominance of cross-sectional designs;
• Exploring mediating and moderating factors (e.g., cultural context, teaching modality) that influence the effectiveness of professors’ EI;
• Providing a foundation for faculty development programs and institutional policies aimed at promoting student well-being and academic success.

By integrating both quantitative and qualitative findings, this review seeks to clarify the role of professors’ emotional intelligence in higher education, highlight significant research gaps, and propose concrete directions for future studies. Particular emphasis is placed on the need for direct assessments of psychological well-being and for research conducted in culturally diverse educational contexts. Ultimately, this review aims to support the development of evidence-based strategies that can improve university teaching practices and foster environments conducive to both academic achievement and student mental health.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Historical Evolution of Emotional Intelligence

The concept of emotional intelligence (EI) has evolved over the past century through numerous theoretical contributions that have emphasized the role of emotions in human interaction, decision-making, and cognitive functioning. The foundations of EI can be traced back to 1920, when Edward Thorndike introduced the concept of social intelligence, defining it as the ability to understand and manage interpersonal relationships. This early notion recognized the importance of interpersonal skills and the capacity to navigate social contexts effectively. In the 1980s, two key developments further refined the conceptualization of emotional and social intelligence. In 1982, Bar-On began developing the Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI) model, which emphasized intrapersonal and interpersonal functioning, stress management, adaptability, and emotional regulation. Shortly thereafter, Gardner (1983) introduced his theory of multiple intelligences, arguing that intelligence is not a singular, general capacity, but rather a set of distinct domains—including interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences—crucial for social interaction and personal development.

The modern construct of EI emerged in 1990, when Peter Salovey and John D. Mayer formally defined emotional intelligence as the ability to perceive, understand, regulate, and use emotions in oneself and others. Their ability-based model outlined four core components (Salovey & Mayer, 1990): 1. Perceiving and expressing emotions—The capacity to identify emotions in oneself and others through verbal and non-verbal cues; 2. Facilitating thought using emotions—Employing emotions to guide attention and enhance cognitive processes; 3. Understanding emotions—Recognizing complex emotional transitions, patterns, and relationships; 4. Managing emotions—Effectively regulating emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth. In 1995, Daniel Goleman popularized the concept of emotional intelligence through his best-selling book Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. He shifted the focus from ability-based models to a competency-based approach, highlighting EI’s relevance in leadership and organizational contexts. Goleman categorized EI into key domains: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management (Goleman, 2001). These domains were further divided into specific skills, such as emotional self-control, intrinsic motivation, empathy, and social skills, all essential for effective communication and decision-making.

A significant alternative perspective as noted in

Table 1. Key milestones in the development of emotional intelligence.

Year	Author(s)	Ref	Concept
1920	Edward Thorndike	Thorndike (1920)	Social Intelligence
1983	Howard Gardner	Gardner (1983)	Theory of Multiple Intelligences
1990	Salovey & Mayer	Salovey and Mayer (1990)	Ability—Based Emotional Intelligence
1995	Daniel Goleman	Goleman (1995)	Emotional Intelligence Competencies
2001	Konstantinos V. Petrides	Petrides (2001)	Trait Emotional Intelligence (TEI)
2006	Reuven Bar-On	Bar-On (2006)	Emotional—Social Intelligence (ESI) Model

was introduced by Petrides (2001), who developed the trait emotional intelligence model. Unlike the ability-based framework, Petrides conceptualized EI as a constellation of emotional self-perceptions and behavioral tendencies, rooted in personality rather than cognitive ability. The trait EI framework includes dimensions such as emotional self-efficacy, well-being, self-control, and sociability, and is typically assessed through self-report instruments (Petrides, 2009). The evolution of emotional intelligence reflects a growing recognition of the critical role emotions play in cognition, behavior, and personal success. From its origins in social intelligence to its contemporary applications in education, leadership, and organizational psychology, EI has emerged as a central factor in both personal and professional development. Taken together, the ability-based, competency-based, and trait models offer a comprehensive framework for understanding how individuals perceive, process, and use emotions in everyday life.

2.2. Theoretical Frameworks and EI Models in Higher Education

In the context of higher education, various models of emotional intelligence (EI) have been applied to investigate faculty teaching effectiveness and student outcomes. Goleman’s model—focusing on practical competencies such as empathy and social skills—is widely used in studies linking professors’ EI to student motivation and engagement (Rahman et al., 2024). Salovey and Mayer’s ability-based model, which emphasizes cognitive–emotional processes, has been applied frequently in research on online learning and emotional regulation (Gunasekara et al., 2022). Bar-On’s model, which integrates stress management and adaptability, is utilized in studies exploring academic satisfaction (Tacca Huamán et al., 2020). Meanwhile, Petrides’ trait EI model and Gross’s emotion regulation framework have been adopted in research examining professors’ emotional self-efficacy and classroom dynamics (Sarwar et al., 2025). These models highlight different dimensions of emotional intelligence, yet their application in higher education predominantly focuses on academic outcomes—such as performance and engagement—rather than on psychological well-being. This reflects a significant research gap. The integration of social–emotional learning (SEL) principles further underscores the potential of EI to promote holistic student development, reinforcing the need for emotionally intelligent pedagogy.

3. Impact of Professors’ Emotional Competencies on Student Well-Being

Professors’ emotional competencies play a significant role in shaping both the academic and psychological outcomes of students. Faculty members who exhibit high emotional intelligence are better equipped to create emotionally supportive learning environments that foster student engagement, resilience, and adaptive coping strategies—ultimately contributing to improved mental health outcomes (Tacca Huamán et al., 2020). For example, empathetic professors help mitigate academic stressors by cultivating a sense of belonging and intrinsic motivation, as shown in qualitative findings by Gunasekara et al. (2022). Quantitative studies such as Maamari and Salloum (2023) further demonstrate that professors’ EI enhances teaching effectiveness, which in turn positively impacts student engagement and academic performance. Notably, personality traits such as agreeableness and conscientiousness have been identified as significant moderators in this relationship, offering insights into the individual factors that may amplify the effects of emotional competencies in higher education.

Qualitative research, including the work by Mamat and Ismail (2021), has highlighted how professors’ ability to regulate their own emotions contributes to student motivation and well-being by fostering empathetic pedagogy and positive classroom interactions.

However, direct measurements of student well-being remain rare. Studies such as Chen et al. (2024) suggest that professors’ emotional regulation enhances student engagement and may reduce stress, yet explicit mental health outcomes—such as anxiety or psychological distress—are often inferred rather than directly assessed. This contrasts sharply with primary education research, where the relationship between teachers’ EI and student mental health has been more robustly documented (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009).

The unique characteristics of higher education—including greater student autonomy, academic diversity, and increased reliance on digital learning—demand focused research on how professors’ emotional competencies affect student well-being in these settings.

Enhancing faculty EI benefits not only individual students but also the educational institution as a whole. In university contexts, where students often experience stress, anxiety, uncertainty, and transitional pressures (Thomas et al., 2023), emotionally intelligent professors can offer targeted emotional support, fostering resilience and psychological stability. For instance, by modeling empathy and effective emotional regulation, professors can help students manage academic stress, as demonstrated in Gunasekara et al.’s (2022) findings, where emotionally attuned interactions reduced student anxiety in online learning environments. This emotional scaffolding fosters classroom climates that promote both psychological well-being and academic success, aligning with the principles of holistic education (Cadei & Serrelli, 2023).

Incorporating SEL principles into faculty development programs may further amplify these benefits. SEL frameworks—focused on self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making (CASEL, 2023)—equip educators with strategies to navigate emotional dynamics in the classroom.

By embedding SEL into faculty preparation, universities can cultivate a new generation of emotionally attuned professors who are adept at recognizing and responding to students’ emotional needs. This approach not only enhances the educational environment but also empowers students to develop their own emotional competencies, contributing to long-term academic success and psychological health.

Furthermore, prioritizing emotional competency development allows professors to design learning experiences that nurture both personal and professional growth. Emotionally intelligent pedagogy—marked by empathetic communication, inclusive practices, and proactive stress management—directly addresses the psychological challenges commonly faced in higher education, such as feelings of isolation and academic overload (Tacca Huamán et al., 2020).

This approach aligns with institutional goals of improving student retention, engagement, and well-being. Emotionally supported students are more likely to persist, thrive, and succeed (Devis-Rozental & Farquharson, 2020). Accordingly, universities that invest in EI-based faculty training and institutional support systems stand to gain dual benefits: improved student outcomes and strengthened institutional effectiveness in promoting social and psychological well-being.

In conclusion, the relationship between professors’ emotional competencies and student mental health represents a foundational element of effective pedagogy in higher education. By fostering learning environments grounded in emotional support, universities can better meet the diverse needs of their student populations and graduate individuals who are not only academically accomplished but also emotionally resilient and prepared for lifelong success.

4. Methodology

4.1. Information Source

This systematic review employed a structured approach to identify, select, and analyze studies examining the influence of university professors’ emotional intelligence (EI) on students’ academic performance and psychological well-being. The review focused on studies relevant to the research questions (RQ1: How does the EI of university professors influence students’ outcome and well-being? What factors mediate or moderate this influence?).

Using a systematic search of Scopus and Web of Science databases (2005–2025), 67 articles were screened. After applying predefined exclusion criteria, 21 studies met all inclusion requirements.

4.2. Pathway of Analysis and Article Selection

The search was conducted on Scopus and Web of Science, chosen for their comprehensive coverage of peer-reviewed literature in education and psychology. These databases were queried using a redefined search string to balance specificity and comprehensiveness, targeting studies from 2000 to 2025 to capture recent and relevant research:

TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“emotional intelligence” OR “emotional regulation” OR “emotional competence”) AND (“university professor*” OR “lecturer*” OR “academic staff” OR “faculty”) AND (“student* well-being” OR “student* well-being” OR “academic performance” OR “student* achievement” OR “student* engagement” OR “student* motivation”)) AND PUBYEAR > 1999 AND PUBYEAR < 2026

A secondary query, adapted for Web of Science, expanded the search to include additional synonyms and relational terms:

TS = (“emotional intelligence” OR “social-emotional skills” OR “emotional competencies” OR “emotional skills” OR “emotional regulation”) AND TS = (“university professors” OR “higher education faculty” OR “college teachers” OR “academic staff” OR lecturers OR instructors OR “academic personnel” OR “university teachers”) AND TS = (predict* OR influenc* OR impact* OR affect*)

AND TS = (“student well-being” OR “psychological well-being” OR “mental health” OR “academic performance” OR “student engagement” OR motivation OR “emotion management” OR “emotional regulation”) AND TS = (student* OR “university student*” OR “college student*” OR “higher education student*”) NOT TS = (“non- academic staff” OR “professional services” OR “administrative staff” OR “support staff” OR “school teachers” OR “primary education” OR “secondary education” OR preschool OR “high school” OR “K-12”)

These queries were iteratively refined to optimize results. The initial Scopus search limited to core EI terms and professor-related keywords, yielded insufficient articles. Incorporating synonyms (e.g., “social-emotional skills”, “lectures”) and outcome terms increased the yield to 45 articles. The Web of Science query, with its focus on relational terms and exclusion of irrelevant contexts, added 22 articles, resulting in a total of 67 screened. Screening involved a three-stage process:

• Title and Abstract Review: articles were assessed for relevance to professors’ EI and student outcomes, excluding those focusing on non-university settings.
• Full-Text Review: full texts were evaluated against inclusion criteria, focusing on study design, EI model, and outcome measures.
• Final Selection: articles meeting all criteria were retained, resulting in 21 studies.

The process was conducted using Microsoft Excel to track article details, ensuring precision, without reliance on automated tools like VOSviewer 1.6.20.

The analysis was performed coding each article for key characteristics:

-

Study design (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods)

-

EI model (e.g., Goleman, Salovey-Mayer)

-

Outcomes (e.g., motivation, well-being)

-

Competencies measured (e.g., empathy, emotion regulation)

-

Country, journal and methodological quality

This approach allowed for a nuanced assessment of relevance, ensuring alignment with the research questions. Following that, the screened articles were categorized into five thematic groups based on their primary focus:

• Professors’ EI and Teaching Effectiveness: studies examining EI’s impact on classroom practices (e.g., Maamari & Salloum, 2023)
• Professors’ EI and Student Academic Performance: research on academic outcomes like GPA or achievement (e.g., Tobón & Lozano-Salmorán, 2024)
• Professors’ EI and Student Well-being: studies addressing psychological outcomes, often implicitly (e.g., Chen et al., 2024)
• Professors’ EI and Student Social Relationships: research on interpersonal dynamics (e.g., Gunasekara et al., 2022)
• Professors’ EI and Faculty Training: studies exploring EI development (e.g., Tacca Huamán et al., 2020). The dataset was then screened for duplicates, and a data-cleaning process was conducted.

4.3. Eligibility Criteria

To ensure a focused and rigorous synthesis for this review, inclusion and exclusion criteria (see

Table 2. Selection criteria for articles.

Criteria	Description
Purpose of the study	Identify the research design and key elements used to study emotional intelligence among faculty members and the correlation with students’ well-being and academic outcome
Search database	Data was collected by Scopus and Web of Science
Keywords	“Emotional intelligence” “students’ well-being” AND (“faculties” OR “University Professors”) extracted from titles and keywords across various disciplines.
Inclusion criteria	Studies from all subject areas were included. Articles published in peer-reviewed journals; Articles published during a specified period from 2000 to 2025; Outcome related to student well-being (e.g., psychological well-being, mental health) and/or academic performance (e.g., achievement, engagement, motivation); Professors’ IE as the independent variable
Exclusion criteria	Outcomes unrelated to student well-being or academic performance; Nonprofessor population (e.g., school teacher, nonacademic staff); Abstract, conference papers
Quality assessment	Duplicates were eliminated.

) were established based on revised standards following data extraction from the source. These criteria were designed to select studies relevant to the research questions, emphasizing the emotional intelligence of university professors and its impact on students’ outcomes.

• Inclusion criteria. Studies were included if they met the following criteria:

  A.

  Articles published in peer-reviewed journals

  B.

  Articles published between 2000 and 2025.

  C.

  Focused on outcomes related to student well-being (e.g., psychological well-being, mental health) and/or academic performance (e.g., achievement, engagement, motivation)

  D.

  Use of established EI models (Salovey-Mayer, Goleman, Petrides, Bar-On, Gross) to frame the investigation of professors’ EI.

• Exclusion criteria. Studies were excluded if they failed to meet the inclusion criteria or aligned with the following exclusion criteria:
  • Outcomes unrelated to student well-being or academic performance
  • Nonprofessor population (e.g., school teacher, nonacademic staff)
  • Abstract, conference papers.

Example of Excluded Studies

Several studies were excluded to their misalignment with the review’s focus on professors’ EI and direct student outcomes. For instance:

• “The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Educators’ Performance in Higher Education Sector” by Khassawneh et al. (2022) was excluded. Despite to its relevance to university professors’ EI, the study primarily investigates educators’ performance, measured through competencies such as knowledge, skills, attitude, and professional outcomes, rather than direct student outcomes such as well-being or academic performance. While it suggests and indirect influence on students through a “positive environment”, it lacks empirical data on student-specific metrics.
• “The effect of high emotionally intelligent teachers on their teaching effectiveness at universities: the moderating effect of personality traits” (Maamari & Salloum, 2023) was excluded because it focuses on professors’ teaching effectiveness, measured through student evaluations, rather than direct student outcomes. Although it mentions a “positive classroom climate” supporting student engagement, these effects are not empirically quantified.
• “Emotional Intelligence and Academic Anxieties: a literature review” (Jan et al., 2017) was excluded due to its focus on students’ EI and academic anxieties rather than the EI of university professors. It does not explore the impact of professors’ EI on student outcomes, making it irrelevant to the review’s objectives.

4.4. Structured Analysis of Articles for the Review

Each of the 21 studies was analyzed for:

• Study Design: quantitative (e.g., n:13), qualitative or mixed
• EI model: Goleman, Salovey Mayer, Bar-On, Petrides, Gross emotion’s regulation framework
• Outcomes: academic performance, well-being
• Competencies
• Mediators/Moderators: Cultural context, teaching modality, professor age, student EI, or institutional support
• Country and Context
• Methodological quality: sample size (>50 for quantitative studies), instrument reliability (Cronbach’s α > 0.70), and statistical robustness

This analysis enabled the identification of trends, gaps, and methodological strengths.

5. Analysis

A meta-analysis was feasible for a small subset of studies and limited by heterogeneity in designs, outcomes and reporting. Seven studies provided sufficient quantitative data for effect size calculation. The limited number of studies and variability in outcomes (e.g., motivation vs. engagement) posed challenges, but the meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the overall effect of professors’ EI on student outcomes. The moderate sample size and diversity of EI models necessitated a random effects model to account for heterogeneity.

As a complement to the meta-analysis, a narrative synthesis was conducted to explore contextual factors and thematic connections, particularly for studies not suitable for meta-analysis.

Meta-Analysis Methodology

The meta-analysis followed standard phases to quantify the effect of professors’ EI on student outcomes, addressing RQ1:

• Definition of the Research Question: To estimate the effect size of professors’ EI on student academic and psychological outcomes.
• Systematic Search: Conducted via Scopus and Web of Science, as described.
• Study Selection: Seven quantitative studies with sufficient data (effect sizes, correlations, or beta coefficients) were included.
• Quality Assessment: Studies were evaluated for methodological rigor using criteria such as sample size (>50), instrument reliability (Cronbach’s α > 0.70), and statistical robustness (e.g., p-values, confidence intervals). All studies met acceptable quality standards.
• Data Extraction: Extracted data included sample size, correlation coefficients (e.g., Pearson’s r), beta coefficients, outcome measures (e.g., motivation, engagement, satisfaction), and study characteristics (e.g., country, EI model).
• Statistical Synthesis: Effect sizes were converted to Hedges’ g for consistency, accounting for small sample bias. A random-effects model was used due to expected heterogeneity, implemented in R. Pooled effect sizes, 95% confidence intervals, and heterogeneity statistics (I², Q) were calculated.
• Interpretation and Heterogeneity Analysis: Heterogeneity was assessed to explore variations across studies, with subgroup analyses by outcome type (e.g., motivation vs. engagement) and region (e.g., Asia vs. Latin America). Publication bias was evaluated using Egger’s test.

6. Results

(a)

Overview of Included Studies:

The 21 studies spanned 14 countries, reflecting diverse geographical contexts:

• Asia: Bangladesh (n = 1), China (n = 2), India (n = 2), Malaysia (n = 1), Pakistan (n = 1).
• Latin America: Peru (n = 2), Ecuador (n = 1).
• Europe: Spain (n = 2), United Kingdom (n = 2).
• Other: Australia (n = 1), Lebanon (n = 1), Indonesia (n = 2), Russia (2), United States (n = 1).

Study designs were predominantly quantitative (n = 13), but also included qualitative studies and one mixed-methods study. EI models included:

• Goleman (n = 9): Emphasizing self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills.
• Salovey-Mayer (n = 7): Focusing on perceiving, using, understanding, and managing emotions.
• Bar-On (n = 2): Integrating intrapersonal, interpersonal, adaptability, stress management, and general mood.
• Petrides (n = 3): Trait-based, emphasizing emotional self-efficacy and sociability. Outcomes encompassed:
  • Motivation: e.g., academic motivation (Rahman et al., 2024).
  • Engagement: e.g., cognitive, affective, and behavioral engagement (Gunasekara et al., 2022).
  • Academic Performance: E.g., GPA, achievement (Tobón & Lozano-Salmorán, 2024).
  • Well-being: Often implicit, inferred through reduced stress or increased belonging (Devis-Rozental & Farquharson, 2020).

Competencies measured included empathy, emotion regulation, self-awareness, social skills, and stress management. Sample sizes ranged from 5 (Syafii et al., 2025, qualitative) to 800 students (Feklin et al., 2022, quantitative), with most studies involving over 100 participants.

(b)

Mapping of Contributions: Countries, Keywords, and Research Themes

The review mapped existing contributions to provide a comprehensive overview of EI research in higher education:

• Countries: The predominance of Asian and Latin American studies reflects a focus on collectivist cultures, where interpersonal skills may be particularly valued (Rahman et al., 2024; Tacca Huamán et al., 2020). European studies were fewer, with Spain and the UK leading, while no African studies were identified, indicating a geographic gap. Australia and Lebanon contributed one study each, adding cross-cultural perspectives.
• Research Themes: four dominant themes emerged:

  ○

  Teaching Effectiveness: Studies linked professors’ EI to improved classroom management and pedagogy (Maamari & Salloum, 2023; Laura-de-la-Cruz & Araujo-Castillo, 2024).

  ○

  Student Motivation and Engagement: EI was associated with increased student motivation and participation, particularly through empathy and social skills (Rahman et al., 2024; Gunasekara et al., 2022).

  ○

  Academic Performance: EI influenced student achievement, often mediated by pedagogical practices (Tobón & Lozano-Salmorán, 2024).

  ○

  Classroom Climate and Well-being: EI fostered supportive environments, indirectly enhancing well-being (Chen et al., 2024; Efimova et al., 2021).

These mappings highlight a robust research focus on academic outcomes but a critical gap in direct well-being studies, aligning with the review’s purpose to address this underexplored area.

(c)

RQ1: Influence of Professors’ EI on Student Outcomes and Well-being Academic Outcomes:

• Motivation: Rahman et al. (2024) reported that professors’ EI (Goleman model) explained 58.7% of variance in student motivation in Bangladesh (R² = 0.587), with empathy (β = 0.262, p < 0.001) and social skills (β = 0.235, p < 0.001) as the strongest predictors. This suggests that emotionally intelligent professors inspire students to engage actively with academic tasks.
• Engagement: Gunasekara et al. (2022) qualitatively demonstrated that professors’ empathy and emotion management enhanced engagement in online learning contexts in Australia and Malaysia, reducing anxiety and fostering trust. Quantitative support came from Peng et al. (2024), who found that professors’ support, linked to EI, mediated engagement (β = 0.054, p = 0.003).
• Academic Performance: Tobón and Lozano-Salmorán (2024) showed that professors’ socio-emotional skills mediated the impact of pedagogical practices on student performance in Ecuador, with significant effects on achievement (p < 0.05). Maamari and Salloum (2023) reported that EI predicted teaching effectiveness (β = 0.41, p < 0.01), indirectly boosting performance in Lebanon.
• Academic Satisfaction: Tacca Huamán et al. (2020) found a strong correlation (r = 0.80, p < 0.001) between professors’ EI (Bar-On model) and student academic satisfaction in Peru, with interpersonal skills (r = 0.73) and stress management (r = 0.72) as key drivers. This indicates that EI fosters positive perceptions of the learning environment.
• Psychological Well-being: Well-being was less directly measured but emerged implicitly in several studies. Chen et al. (2024) showed that professors’ emotion regulation predicted engagement (β = 0.728, p < 0.001), suggesting indirect benefits for well-being through supportive classrooms. Students reported reduced stress and increased comfort in emotionally intelligent settings.
• Devis-Rozental and Farquharson (2020) qualitatively linked professors’ EI to student well-being in the UK, noting reduced stress and enhanced sense of belonging. Efimova et al. (2021) suggested that professors’ EI fostered a positive classroom climate in Russia, reducing student stress through friendly interactions.
• Armitage-Chan (2020) proposed that professors’ EI competencies (e.g., empathy, compassionate communication) supported veterinary students’ well-being in the UK, though without direct measures. These findings highlight well-being as a secondary outcome, often inferred from engagement or satisfaction.

In sum, professors’ EI consistently enhances academic outcomes, with strong evidence for motivation, engagement, performance, and satisfaction. Well-being benefits are implied but rarely quantified, reflecting a critical research gap. Competencies like empathy and emotion regulation are pivotal, aligning with Goleman’s (1995) and Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) frameworks.

(d)

RQ2: Mediators and Moderators

Several factors mediated or moderated the influence of professors’ EI:

• Cultural Context: Gunasekara et al. (2022) found that cultural norms moderated EI effects in online settings, with Malaysian students’ reluctance to engage reducing EI’s impact compared to Australian students’ openness. Rahman et al. (2024) noted that collectivist values in Bangladesh amplified empathy’s role in motivation.
• Teaching Modality: Online learning increased the demand for emotion regulation, as professors needed to manage virtual interactions effectively (Gunasekara et al., 2022; Sarwar et al., 2025). Sarwar et al. (2025) found that professors’ motivation, mediated by student emotion regulation, reduced procrastination in online contexts (β =0.063, p = 0.042).
• Professor Characteristics: Age and experience were significant moderators. Tacca Huamán et al. (2020) reported that professors over 45 years showed higher EI and greater student satisfaction (p < 0.05). Efimova et al. (2021) noted that experienced professors leveraged EI to foster engagement. Gender effects were inconsistent, with Hulinaykar et al. (2021) reporting slight female advantages in empathy (p = 0.042).
• Student EI: Zhu et al. (2022) identified student EI as a moderator, with high-EI students responding better to emotionally intelligent teaching in China (p < 0.05), particularly in vocabulary learning tasks.
• Institutional Support: Peng et al. (2024) highlighted professors’ support (e.g., feedback, autonomy) as a mediator of student engagement in China (β = 0.054, p = 0.003). Tobón and Lozano-Salmorán (2024) identified continuous training as a mediator of socio-emotional skills’ effectiveness in Ecuador, enhancing pedagogical impact.

In sum cultural context, teaching modality, and professor characteristics moderate EI’s effectiveness, while institutional support and student EI mediate its impact. These findings underscore the need for context-specific interventions to maximize EI benefits.

(e)

Meta-Analysis Results

The meta-analysis included seven quantitative studies with sufficient data on student outcomes (motivation, engagement, satisfaction, performance). The pooled effect size was Hedges’ g = 0.54 (95% CI [0.39, 0.69], p < 0.001), indicating a moderate positive effect of professors’ EI. Heterogeneity was moderate (I² = 62%, Q = 15.84, p = 0.015), suggesting variability due to cultural context, outcome measures, and study design. Subgroup analyses revealed:

• Outcome Type: Stronger effects for motivation (g = 0.62, 95% CI [0.45, 0.79]) than engagement (g = 0.49, 95% CI [0.32, 0.66]) or satisfaction (g = 0.55, 95% CI [0.38, 0.72]).

Performance effects were moderate (g = 0.51, 95% CI [0.30, 0.72]).

• Region: Larger effects in Asia (g = 0.58, 95% CI [0.41, 0.75]) than Latin America (g = 0.50, 95% CI [0.30, 0.70]), possibly due to collectivist cultural norms emphasizing interpersonal skills.
• EI Model: Goleman-based studies showed slightly larger effects (g = 0.57) than Salovey- Mayer-based (g = 0.52), though differences were not significant (p = 0.21).

No publication bias was detected (Egger’s test, p = 0.28). Sensitivity analysis confirmed robustness, with no single study disproportionately influencing the pooled effect. The moderate effect size aligns with primary education findings (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009) but highlights the need for more well-being-focused studies in higher education.

(f)

Narrative synthesis

A narrative synthesis identified four key themes that capture the influence of professors’ EI on student outcomes and the mediating/moderating factors, addressing RQ1 and RQ2:

Theme 1.

Empathetic Pedagogy Enhances Student Engagement and Motivation.

Across studies, professors’ empathy was a central EI competency driving student engagement and motivation. Gunasekara et al. (2022) found that empathetic professors in online learning contexts (Australia and Malaysia) fostered trust and participation, reducing student anxiety and increasing engagement. Participants described professors who “listened actively” and “showed genuine care” as pivotal in motivating students to participate in virtual discussions. Similarly, Mamat and Ismail (2021) identified seven themes in Malaysia, including “empathetic pedagogy,” where professors’ ability to understand students’ emotional needs encouraged active learning. Devis-Rozental and Farquharson (2020) in the UK reported that students felt “valued and supported” by empathetic professors, boosting their motivation and sense of belonging. Syafii et al. (2025) in Indonesia noted that empathetic thesis supervisors created a “safe space” for students, enhancing engagement during supervision.

RQ1 Contribution: Empathy directly enhances student engagement and motivation, which are key academic outcomes, by creating supportive learning environments.

RQ2 Contribution: Cultural context moderates empathy’s impact, with collectivist cultures (e.g., Malaysia, Indonesia) emphasizing interpersonal bonds (Gunasekara et al., 2022).

Theme 2.

Emotion Regulation Fosters a Positive Classroom Climate.

Professors’ emotion regulation was critical in shaping classroom climate, indirectly supporting student well-being. Efimova et al. (2021) in Russia described “ideal teachers” as those who manage emotions effectively, creating a “friendly and open” classroom atmosphere that reduced student stress. Chen et al. (2024) in China, while primarily quantitative, included qualitative interviews highlighting professors’ emotion regulation (e.g., cognitive reappraisal) as fostering engagement, which participants linked to reduced anxiety. Tobón and Lozano-Salmorán (2024) in Ecuador reported that professors’ resilience and self-regulation during post-COVID transitions created a stable learning environment, with students noting “calm and supportive” interactions. Devis-Rozental and Farquharson (2020) emphasized that emotion regulation helped professors model resilience, encouraging students to manage their own stress.

RQ1 Contribution: Emotion regulation indirectly enhances well-being by fostering a positive classroom climate, though direct well-being measures are scarce.

RQ2 Contribution: Teaching modality (e.g., online vs. in-person) moderates emotion regulation’s impact, with online settings requiring greater emotional management (Gunasekara et al., 2022).

Theme 3.

Socio-Emotional Skills Support Professional Identity and Student Relationships.

Professors’ socio-emotional skills strengthened their professional identity and interpersonal relationships with students, enhancing academic and social outcomes. Armitage-Chan (2020) in the UK found that veterinary professors’ empathetic communication and compassion built trust, improving student engagement in professional training. Tobón and Lozano-Salmorán (2024) highlighted collaboration and social commitment as key socio-emotional skills, with qualitative data showing professors’ ability to “connect with students” as critical for academic performance. Mamat and Ismail (2021) noted that professors’ social skills facilitated “collaborative learning,” enhancing student motivation. Syafii et al. (2025) reported that supervisors’ socio-emotional skills (e.g., empathy, active listening) created a “collaborative supervision dynamic,” reducing student stress during thesis work.

RQ1 Contribution: Socio-emotional skills enhance engagement and motivation by strengthening student-professor relationships.

RQ2. Contribution: Professional context (e.g., veterinary education, thesis supervision) moderates EI’s impact, with specialized settings amplifying relational skills (Armitage-Chan, 2020; Syafii et al., 2025).

Theme 4.

Cultural and Institutional Factors Shape EI’s Effectiveness.

Cultural and institutional factors significantly moderated EI’s impact. Gunasekara et al. (2022) found that collectivist norms in Malaysia amplified empathy’s role compared to individualistic Australian contexts, where student autonomy moderated effects. Efimova et al. (2021) noted that Russian cultural expectations of “friendly” teachers enhanced EI’s impact on classroom climate. Tobón and Lozano-Salmorán (2024) emphasized institutional support (e.g., continuous training) as a mediator, with qualitative interviews highlighting training’s role in developing socio-emotional skills. Devis-Rozental and Farquharson (2020) identified institutional barriers (e.g., lack of EI training) as limiting EI’s effectiveness in the UK. Mamat and Ismail (2021) suggested that Malaysia’s emphasis on collaborative learning facilitated EI’s impact on motivation.

RQ2 Contribution: Cultural norms (collectivism vs. individualism) and institutional support (training, resources) are key moderators, shaping how EI influences student outcomes.

6.1. Evaluation Strengths

• Rich Contextual Insights: The qualitative studies provide nuanced, context-specific data, complementing the meta-analysis’s quantitative findings (g = 0.54). For example, Gunasekara et al. (2022) and Syafii et al. (2025) highlight online and supervisory contexts, respectively.
• Theoretical Diversity: Studies use varied EI frameworks (e.g., Goleman, Salovey- Mayer), enriching the synthesis’s theoretical depth.
• Cultural Breadth: Covering different countries (e.g., Australia, Malaysia, Russia, UK, Indonesia, Perù, China, etc.) the studies offer cross-cultural perspectives, supporting RQ2’s focus on moderators.
• Methodological Rigor: Most studies employed robust qualitative methods (e.g., thematic analysis, interviews), with clear reporting and ethical considerations.

6.2. Limitations

• Small Sample Sizes: Studies like Syafii et al. (2025, N = 5) have limited generalizability, reducing transferability.
• Lack of Well-being Focus: Only Devis-Rozental and Farquharson (2020) and Chen et al. (2024) explicitly address well-being; well-being is often inferred rather than measured, which aligns with the noted gap in this review.
• Context Specificity: Findings are tied to specific settings (e.g., veterinary education, thesis supervision), limiting broader applicability.

6.3. Alignment with Meta-Analysis

• The narrative synthesis complements the meta-analysis’s moderate effect (g = 0.54) by providing qualitative depth, particularly for engagement and motivation (Themes 1 and 3). The well-being gap (Theme 2) mirrors the meta-analysis’s limitation, reinforcing the need for direct measures.
• Cultural moderators (Theme 4) align with meta-analysis subgroup findings (e.g., larger effects in collectivist regions), supporting RQ2.

7. Discussion

This systematic review provides evidence that university professors’ emotional intelligence significantly enhances student academic outcomes—motivation, engagement, satisfaction, and performance—with indirect benefits for psychological well-being. The meta-analysis (g = 0.54) confirms a moderate effect, consistent with primary education research (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009) but tailored to higher education’s unique challenges, such as diverse student needs and online learning modalities. The review’s mapping of contributions highlights a research landscape dominated by studies from Asia and Latin America, with keywords like “student engagement” and “teaching effectiveness” reflecting a primary focus on academic outcomes rather than direct measures of psychological well-being.

RQ1: Influence on Student Outcomes and Well-being:

• Academic Outcomes: The review establishes a clear link between professors’ EI and key academic outcomes. For instance, Tacca Huamán et al. (2020) reported strong correlations (r = 0.80, p < 0.001) between professors’ EI, measured via the Bar-On model, and student academic satisfaction in Peru, with interpersonal skills (r = 0.73) and stress management (r = 0.72) as key drivers. Similarly, Rahman et al. (2024) found that professors’ EI, based on Goleman’s model, explained 58.7% of the variance in student motivation in Bangladesh (R² = 0.587), with empathy (β = 0.262, p < 0.001) and social skills (β = 0.235, p < 0.001) as significant predictors. These findings align with qualitative insights from Gunasekara et al. (2022), who demonstrated that empathetic pedagogy and emotion management by professors in online learning contexts in Australia and Malaysia fostered trust and reduced student anxiety, thereby enhancing engagement. Maamari and Salloum (2023) further showed that professors’ EI predicted teaching effectiveness (β = 0.41, p < 0.01) in Lebanon, indirectly boosting academic performance through improved pedagogical practices. These results collectively underscore the pivotal role of EI competencies, such as empathy and emotion regulation, in creating supportive learning environments that drive academic success.
• Well-being: The scarcity of direct well-being measures is a significant gap. While Chen et al. (2024) found that professors’ emotional regulation predicted engagement (β = 0.728, p < 0.001) in China, suggesting indirect benefits for well-being through supportive classroom climates, explicit mental health outcomes (e.g., anxiety, depression) were rarely quantified. Similarly, Devis-Rozental and Farquharson (2020) qualitatively linked professors’ EI to reduced student stress and enhanced sense of belonging in the UK, but without standardized measures. Efimova et al. (2021) and Armitage-Chan (2020) also implied well-being benefits through positive classroom climates in Russia and the UK, respectively, yet relied on inferred outcomes rather than direct assessments. This gap contrasts sharply with primary education research, where teacher EI is more robustly linked to student mental health (Schoeps et al., 2021), highlighting the need for higher education-specific studies that directly measure psychological well-being.

RQ2: Mediators and Moderators. Several factors mediate or moderate the influence of professors’ EI on student outcomes:

• Cultural Context: Cultural context significantly shapes EI’s effectiveness, with collectivist cultures like Bangladesh and China amplifying the impact of empathy and social skills due to strong interpersonal norms (Rahman et al., 2024; Peng et al., 2024). In contrast, individualistic settings like Australia show moderated effects due to greater student autonomy (Gunasekara et al., 2022).
• Teaching Modality: Teaching modality also plays a critical role, with online learning increasing the demand for emotion regulation, as professors must navigate virtual interactions effectively (Sarwar et al., 2025; Gunasekara et al., 2022). For example, Sarwar et al. (2025) found that professors’ motivation, mediated by student emotional regulation, reduced procrastination in online contexts in Pakistan (β = 0.063, p = 0.042).
• Professor Characteristics: Professor characteristics, such as age and experience, further moderate EI’s impact, with Tacca Huamán et al. (2020) reporting higher student satisfaction with professors over 45 years old (p < 0.05). Gender effects were inconsistent, with Hulinaykar et al. (2021) noting slight female advantages in empathy (p = 0.042).
• Student EI: Student EI also moderates outcomes, as Zhu et al. (2022) found that high-EI students responded better to emotionally intelligent teaching in China (p < 0.05).
• Institutional Support: Institutional support, such as continuous training, emerged as a key mediator, with Tobón and Lozano-Salmorán (2024) highlighting its role in enhancing socio-emotional skills’ effectiveness in Ecuador.

7.1. Methodological Considerations

Methodological limitations temper the findings. The reliance on self-report measures (e.g., WLEIS, EQ-i) in studies like Hulinaykar et al. (2021) and Royaei and Ghanizadeh (2016) raises concerns about ecological validity, supporting Jose and Kushwaha’s (2024) call for performance-based assessments like the MSCEIT to improve validity. Cross-sectional designs are predominant, limiting causal inferences. Qualitative studies provide contextual depth but lack generalizability. The meta-analysis’s moderate heterogeneity (I² = 62%) reflects variability in outcomes and contexts, necessitating cautious interpretation. Additionally, the scarcity of African studies and limited European representation (mainly Spain and the UK) further restrict global applicability.

7.2. Research Gaps and Future Directions

The review identifies several gaps requiring attention:

• Well-being Focus: A few studies directly measure well-being, often inferring it from engagement or satisfaction, underscoring the need for explicit mental health measures.
• Geographic Diversity: The absence of African studies and limited European representation limit global applicability.
• Longitudinal Designs: Cross-sectional studies dominate, hindering causal understanding.
• SEL Integration: The integration of social-emotional learning principles, remains underexplored in higher education.
• Performance-Based Measures: Self-report biases necessitate objective EI assessments, such as the MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2001).

7.3. Implications for Faculty Training and Educational Policy:

• Faculty Training: Universities should implement EI-focused training programs, integrating active learning methodologies and SEL principles to enhance empathy and emotion regulation.
• Institutional Policies: Supportive environments, including workshops and mentoring, can amplify EI effectiveness. Culturally tailored interventions are needed, particularly for online learning.
• Research Directions: Longitudinal studies, performance-based EI assessments, and well-being-focused research in diverse contexts are critical to advance the field.

To maximize the benefits of professors’ EI, universities must prioritize faculty training and institutional policies that foster emotional competencies. Tobón and Lozano-Salmorán (2024) demonstrated that continuous training mediated the effectiveness of socio-emotional skills in improving pedagogical practices and student academic performance in Ecuador. This suggests that structured EI training programs can enhance professors’ ability to create supportive learning environments. Similarly, Mamat and Ismail (2021) emphasized the integration of EI into teaching practices in Malaysia, identifying empathetic pedagogy and emotion regulation as critical for student engagement and well-being. These findings align with recommendations from Devis-Rozental and Farquharson (2020), who advocated for socio-emotional learning (SEL) frameworks in faculty development to equip professors with strategies for managing classroom dynamics and supporting student mental health. Despite these insights, the literature reveals a lack of institutionalized EI training programs in higher education. Anwar et al. (2025) noted that fostering EI among faculty in Pakistan reduced employee cynicism, suggesting that emotionally intelligent professors could enhance teaching effectiveness and indirectly support student well-being. However, institutional barriers, such as limited access to EI-focused workshops, were identified as constraints (Devis-Rozental & Farquharson, 2020). Educational policies should address these gaps by embedding SEL principles into faculty development, as proposed by CASEL (2023), and by offering resources like mentoring and peer support to cultivate emotionally intelligent pedagogy. Such policies could align with broader institutional goals of improving student retention and well-being, as emotionally supported students are more likely to persist and thrive (Devis-Rozental & Farquharson, 2020).

The findings have clear implications for higher education. Universities should implement EI-focused training programs that integrate active learning methodologies and SEL principles to enhance professors’ empathy and emotion regulation. For example, workshops based on Goleman’s (1995) or Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) frameworks could equip faculty to foster inclusive, supportive classrooms. Institutional policies should support these efforts through resources like mentoring and continuous professional development, as highlighted by Tobón and Lozano-Salmorán (2024). Culturally tailored interventions are also critical, particularly for online learning environments, where emotional cues are vital (Gunasekara et al., 2022). Future research should prioritize longitudinal studies to establish causal relationships between professors’ EI and student outcomes. Performance-based EI assessments and naturalistic observation methods could enhance validity, as recommended by Jose and Kushwaha (2024). Expanding research to underrepresented regions, such as Africa, and incorporating direct mental health measures will further strengthen the evidence base. Integrating SEL frameworks into higher education pedagogy, as suggested by CASEL (2023), could provide a robust foundation for fostering emotionally intelligent teaching practices that enhance both academic success and psychological well-being.

8. Conclusions

This review underscores the pivotal role of professors’ emotional intelligence in fostering students’ academic engagement and psychological well-being. While the evidence base is growing, it remains fragmented and methodologically limited. To address these issues, future research should prioritize the following directions:

• Conduct longitudinal studies to explore causal relationships between professors’ EI and student outcomes;
• Adopt performance-based measures to assess EI in ecologically valid classroom contexts;
• Expand research into underrepresented regions such as Africa and continental Europe to capture cultural variability;
• Explicitly evaluate psychological well-being using mental health indicators beyond academic proxies;
• Integrate socio-emotional learning (SEL) and active learning strategies into university pedagogy.

Emerging studies, such as Tobón and Lozano-Salmorán (2024), highlight the effectiveness of continuous faculty training in developing socio-emotional competencies. Universities should capitalize on these insights by investing in structured EI training programs supported by institutional resources. Such interventions can promote emotionally intelligent pedagogy that empowers both educators and students, enhancing engagement, resilience, and holistic development.

In conclusion, by addressing current research gaps and adopting more robust, context-sensitive methodologies, future studies can deepen our understanding of how professors’ emotional competencies impact student well-being. This review provides a foundation for evidence-based educational reform and affirms the strategic value of EI in shaping inclusive, supportive, and psychologically safe learning environments in higher education.

Limitations of the Review

This systematic review has some limitations. Most studies rely on self-report measures, which may introduce bias and limit ecological validity. The dominance of cross-sectional designs restricts the ability to establish causal relationships. Additionally, student psychological well-being is often inferred from academic outcomes rather than directly measured, limiting the depth of insights. The scarcity of studies from Africa and continental Europe reduces the global applicability of findings.