Behind University Students’ Academic Success: Exploring the Role of Emotional Intelligence and Cognitive Test Anxiety

Abstract

University life can be a period of growth and development, but it is also a time of significant stress and challenge. Thus, the study aimed to explore factors with the potential to exert facilitative and debilitative influence on university students’ academic performance. A research project was designed by putting together emotional intelligence and test anxiety, as two pillars that can adequately explain performance in educational contexts. The sample consisted of 205 students from the Department of Primary Education at the University of Crete. Participants completed the Emotional Intelligence Scale and the Cognitive Test Anxiety Scale-Revised and agreed to have their responses paired with their Grade Point Average (GPA) of all passed courses as well. Analyses tested the effect of the identified variables on GPA. A series of correlational analyses was conducted to explore the relationships among the above-mentioned variables. Increased worry was associated with decreases in GPA, while increased emotional intelligence was associated with increases in GPA. Moreover, the mediating role of cognitive test anxiety between emotional intelligence and academic performance emerged, indicating that emotional intelligence relates to GPA primarily indirectly. The results shed light on the impact these factors have on students’ academic outcomes and highlight the importance of developing a multifaceted intervention model that supports emotional intelligence and reduces worry in higher education.

1. Introduction

In today’s rapidly changing academic and professional landscape, university students are increasingly challenged by technological advancements, multicultural environments, and evolving societal expectations—factors that directly impact their academic performance [1]. Given its pivotal role in enhancing students’ ability to manage stress, stay motivated, and adapt to academic challenges, emotional intelligence emerges as a critical determinant of university students’ academic success [2]. However, even students with high emotional intelligence may find their academic success compromised when test anxiety interferes with their ability to perform effectively under pressure.

1.1. Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence (EI) is constructed to have three major categories of adaptive abilities: the appraisal and expression of emotions in oneself and others, the regulation of emotions in oneself and others, and the adaptive utilization of emotions [3]. Recent meta-analytic study supports the positive relationship between EI and academic achievement [4].

The theoretical foundation of EI was solidified by Goleman [5], who emphasized its role as a predictor of success. EI is often conceptualized through ability models and trait/mixed models. The ability model, proposed by Salovey and Mayer [6] views EI as a cognitive capacity related to processing emotional information. Conversely, trait and mixed models, advanced by researchers such as Petrides et al. [7] and Bar-On [8], combine emotional skills with personality traits and competencies. Both approaches converge on the notion that EI integrates cognitive and emotional components, influencing decision-making and behavior [9].

The integration of EI into educational frameworks has demonstrated its value in aiding students to handle academic pressures, make informed decisions, and enhance their psychological well-being [10,11,12]. Empirical evidence shows a strong positive correlation between elevated EI and academic achievement. For instance, Parker et al. [13] identified that students with higher EI scores exhibited better academic performance and lower dropout rates. In professional settings, EI has proven vital in promoting job satisfaction, managing stress, and fostering productive interpersonal interactions [14]. It is particularly influential in leadership, where individuals with high EI can effectively inspire, empathize with, and motivate their teams [15].

EI also plays a critical role in stress management, equipping individuals with strategies to maintain harmony and adapt to external challenges [16,17]. Effective stress coping mechanisms often depend on aligning personal attributes with environmental demands, contributing to resilience. Shah and Thingujam [18] highlight that managing stress effectively is foundational to both mental and physical well-being. Marinaki et al. [19] further emphasize the role of trait EI in enabling academic staff to adopt diverse stress management strategies, underscoring its significance in high-pressure environments.

1.2. Cognitive Test Anxiety

Despite the benefits of EI, other psychological factors may negatively affect academic performance. For example, test anxiety, as a pervasive form of academic anxiety, has been conceptualized as a multidimensional construct consisting of two broad dimensions: emotionality or affective test anxiety (physiological reactions; e.g., headaches, dry mouth) and worry or cognitive dimension of test anxiety (beliefs and behaviors associated with evaluation events; e.g., avoidance, poor study skills, cognitive interference) [20]. Research in this domain illustrated a negative impact of worry on academic performance [21]. Cognitive processing differences are insufficient to capture the full range of variability observed in academic performance (e.g., [22,23]).

Specifically, Cognitive Test Anxiety (CTA), often referred to as the “worry” component of test anxiety, involves a complex interplay of beliefs and behaviors that adversely affect learning and test performance. It is characterized by heightened perceptions of threat during evaluative tasks, reduced cognitive efficiency, and reliance on suboptimal study strategies. Students with elevated CTA levels often experience cognitive interference, including distractibility and intrusive thoughts, during both preparation and assessment phases. This interference frequently results in avoidance behaviors, acceptance of failure, and disengaged coping mechanisms [21,24,25].

CTA has been strongly associated with performance impairments in evaluative contexts. The “anxiety blockage” model explains that test anxiety disrupts performance by inducing cognitive interference, such as test-irrelevant thinking and retrieval overload [26]. Importantly, this interference extends beyond the test environment, impeding effective information encoding during study phases [27]. Cognitive load theory adds that heightened CTA leads to increased extraneous cognitive load, diverting resources from task-relevant processes [28]. Empirical findings, including those related to “choking under pressure”, further highlight how evaluative stress exacerbates deficits in proficiency [29,30].

The attentional control theory provides a robust framework for understanding the cognitive disruptions associated with CTA. According to attentional control theory, anxiety undermines cognitive efficiency by increasing extraneous processing demands, thereby impairing goal-directed cognitive functions [31]. This impairment is attributed to difficulties in inhibiting distracting thoughts, such as fear of failure, which leads to cognitive overload [32]. A critical distinction made by attentional control theory is between processing efficiency, which is more affected, and overall performance efficacy.

CTA’s impact is multifaceted, and recent research emphasizes tailoring interventions to specific profiles of test-anxious individuals. Students with high levels of anxiety often exhibit both cognitive interference and perceived skill deficits, necessitating nuanced intervention strategies [20]. Emerging perspectives underscore the importance of interventions that address evaluative stress and skill development in tandem [33].

Theoretical models of emotion regulation and self-regulation offer further insights into managing CTA. For instance, the emotional information processing model [34] and the process model of emotion regulation [35] highlight iterative processes of encoding stressors, appraising contexts, and enacting coping strategies. Problem-focused coping, which aims at improving outcomes, and emotion-focused coping, which addresses emotional distress, are key mechanisms in these frameworks [29]. Although avoidance coping is generally maladaptive, certain studies have identified scenarios where it moderates anxiety’s effects [36,37].

Current trends in CTA research advocate for multidimensional approaches to intervention. Individualized strategies that incorporate students’ perceptions of threat, goal orientations, and coping mechanisms show the greatest potential for mitigating the adverse effects of CTA. Such approaches emphasize personalized support tailored to unique motivational and self-regulatory profiles [38,39]. This alignment with contemporary educational challenges underscores the importance of addressing diverse academic, emotional, and socioeconomic barriers to student success [21].

1.3. Current Study and Research Hypotheses

Drawing upon the frameworks of EI [3] and CTA [27], the current study investigates their relationships with undergraduate students’ academic success. Previous studies have already explored the relationships between EI, test anxiety, and related psychological constructs. For example, Ahmadpanah et al. [40] examined the association between EI and test anxiety, while Thomas et al. [21] incorporated coping strategies into their investigation of these variables. In addition, Trigueros et al. [41] focused on the role of EI in resilience, stress, and dietary habits, highlighting its broader relevance to student well-being.

Building upon this growing body of research, the current study introduces innovative elements both thematically and methodologically. Specifically, it aims to examine the mediating role of CTA in the relationship between distinct dimensions of EI and academic success, as measured by GPA. Employing a mediation model that distinguishes four components of EI (i.e., self-emotion appraisal, appraisal of others’ emotions, use of emotion, and regulation of emotion), it explores both their direct effects and indirect effects through CTA.

Notably, there is evidence that the CTA can function as mediator, influencing performance. A recent study [39], involving undergraduate students (N = 322), found that CTA fully mediated the relationship between academic procrastination and academic performance and partially mediated the relationship between procrastination and subjective wellbeing. Extending this line of research, the present study explores CTA’s mediating function within a different emotional domain (i.e., emotional intelligence) further examining its role as a critical process linking personal competencies and academic success.

Regarding EI, this study adopts ability-based conceptualization [42], which defines EI as a set of cognitive-emotional skills that have been extensively studied in educational environments (e.g., [43,44]). This approach not only supports exploring the theoretical links between EI and academic outcomes but also underscores their practical applications. For instance, intervention programs grounded in Mayer and Salovey’s model have shown significant positive effects. A recent study [45] with 250 university students showed that a seven-session emotional education program significantly increased emotional intelligence, empathy, positive mood, and subjective well-being immediately after the intervention. These findings suggest that implementing such programs in higher education settings could benefit students’ emotional competence and mental health, highlighting the practical value of fostering EI in academic contexts.

In addition, this study contributes to the literature by focusing on the Greek university context and by employing a multifactorial mediation analysis that emphasizes the cognitive dimension of test anxiety. Other studies have also investigated test-related emotions and anxiety among Greek students, highlighting the relevance of these constructs in the local educational context. For example, Dermitzaki et al. [46] adapted and validated the Test Emotions Questionnaire for use with Greek university students, shedding light on the emotional experiences associated with academic testing. Sakka et al. [47] assessed test anxiety and resilience among Greek adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic, offering insights into students’ emotional adjustment during a period of crisis. Similarly, Trikoilis [48] examined the factors influencing test anxiety in Greek adolescents, with an emphasis on the broader psychosocial context. In doing so, the present study offers a nuanced and contextually grounded perspective that expands the current understanding of emotional and academic functioning in higher education settings.

Based on the above, the aim of the study was twofold: (a) to examine whether students’ EI and CTA are related to their academic success and (b) to explore whether the relationship between students’ EI and academic success is mediated by CTA. Figure 1 shows the theoretical model of variables.

The study hypothesizes that higher levels of EI are positively associated with students’ academic success, while higher levels of CTA are negatively associated with academic performance. Furthermore, it is expected that CTA mediates the relationship between EI and grade point average (GPA), such that students with higher EI experience lower levels of CTA, which in turn contributes to improved academic outcomes. The mediating role of CTA is also examined in relation to the four specific dimensions of EI: self-emotion appraisal (SEA), appraisal of others’ emotions (AOE), use of emotion (UOE), and regulation of emotion (ROE), each of which is hypothesized to contribute differentially to the prediction of GPA through their impact on test-related worry.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants and Procedures

The study is a web-based survey conducted in Greece, during the spring semester of the 2022–2023 academic year, after the approval by the University of Crete research ethics committee. The study sample comprised 205 university students during class time through a process that aimed at approximate convenience sampling by covering a broad and diverse subset of the student population. Students were asked to voluntarily complete an online questionnaire forwarded by the first two authors to the prospective participants. The home page of the electronic questionnaire provided information on the purpose of the study. Participants gave their consent, after they were informed that the questionnaire was anonymous, and they had the opportunity to withdraw at any time.

Participation was contingent upon meeting certain inclusion criteria: (A) enrollment as a current student at a Greek university during the 2022–2023 academic year, (B) sufficient knowledge of the Greek language to complete the questionnaire, and (C) provision of informed consent to participate voluntarily in the study.

All participants were undergraduate students enrolled in the Department of Education (humanities programs). Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 51 years, with a mean age of 23.35 years (SD = 6.73) and a median age of 21 years. The sample’s gender composition was predominantly female (86%, n = 176), with males representing 13% (n = 27) and other gender identities accounting for 1% (n = 2). The distribution of academic year was as follows: 14% (n = 28) were first-year students, 1% (n = 2) were second-year students, 53% (n = 109) were third-year students, 23% (n = 48) were in their fourth year, and 9% (n = 18) were postgraduate students.

Statistical power and sample size calculations were performed using G*Power software (version 2.3.17; [49]). For the multiple linear regression analysis that was used, the required sample size was determined based on an anticipated effect size f² of 0.15, an alpha error probability of 0.05, and a power of 0.95. The analysis indicated that a minimum of 107 participants would be necessary (F(2, 98) = 3.089, noncentrality parameter λ = 16.05, actual power = 0.95). Additionally, for mediation analysis that was used, a sample size of 129 was required to achieve similar power levels and statistical confidence (F(4, 124) = 2.445, noncentrality parameter λ = 19.35, actual power = 0.95). These calculations confirm that the study was adequately powered to detect the hypothesized effects. Data analyses were conducted via Jamovi (version 2.6.44).

2.2. Instruments and Measures

2.2.1. Emotional Intelligence

To assess students’ EI, the self-report Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS; [50]; in Greek, [51]) was used. The scale includes 16 items, with a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). It has four subscales following the components of EI, proposed by Mayer and Salovey [42]. The Self-Emotion Appraisal (SEA) subscale measures people’s self-perceived ability to understand their own emotions (e.g., “I always know whether or not I am happy”). The Appraisal of Others’ Emotion (AOE) subscale measures a person’s ability to perceive other people’s emotions (e.g., “I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of others”). The Use of Emotion (UOE) subscale measures the self-perceived tendency to motivate oneself to enhance performance (e.g., “I always tell myself I am a competent person”). The Regulation of Emotion (ROE) subscale measures individuals’ ability to regulate their own emotions (e.g., “I am quite capable of controlling my own emotions”).

According to preliminary analyses conducted on the psychometric characteristics of the scale, satisfactory levels of reliability were revealed (α = 0.86, ω = 0.87). The subscale reliabilities were also robust, with SEA showing alpha of 0.79 and omega of 0.80; AOE with alpha of 0.68 and omega of 0.72; UOE recording alpha of 0.78 and omega of 0.82; and ROE indicating alpha of 0.76 and omega of 0.77. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) confirmed the correspondence of the obtained model to the experimental one (χ²/df = 2.08, CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.89, SRMR = 0.07, RMSEA = 0.06), affirming the construct validity of the scale for measuring EI in a Greek-speaking sample.

2.2.2. Cognitive Test Anxiety

Cognitive test anxiety levels were assessed using the Cognitive Test Anxiety Scale-Revised (CTAR; [34]). The CTAR is a 25-item revision to the original Cognitive Test Anxiety Scale (CTAS; [52]) and uses a four-point Likert-type scale common to several test anxiety measures (1 = not at all like me, 4 = very much like me; e.g., [53]). Revisions to the original scale were driven by measurement issues that indicated a problem with the reverse-coded items in the original CTAS [21]. Removal of the reverse-coded items resulted in a more parsimonious measure of CTA while maintaining the indicators of internal consistency and construct validity that were demonstrated with the original measure (Cronbach’s α = 0.96; [27]).

Reliability analysis for the CTAR revealed excellent internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega both at 0.95. This indicates that the scale is highly reliable for measuring CTA. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) further supported the unidimensional structure of the scale, albeit with significant model complexity as evidenced by the chi-square value (χ² = 560.73, df = 268, p < 0.001).

The model fit indices suggested a satisfactory fit to the data: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) at 0.90, Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) at 0.89, and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) at 0.06. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was 0.07 with a 90% confidence interval ranging from 0.06 to 0.08, further confirming the scale’s validity in assessing the cognitive aspects of test anxiety among the study participants.

2.2.3. Grade Point Average

Students agreed to have their responses paired with their Grade Point Average (GPA) of all passed courses via institutional data.

3. Results

The analysis began by constructing a correlation matrix to examine the preliminary relationships among the main variables of the study: Emotional Intelligence (WLEIS and its components SEA, AOE, UOE, ROE), Cognitive Test Anxiety (CTAR), alongside demographic variables such as age and GPA. The matrix revealed statistically significant correlations, which are detailed below (see

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations of the latent variables.

	WLEIS	SEA	AOE	UOE	ROE	CTAR	GPA	Age
WLEIS	—
SEA	0.82 *	—
AOE	0.62 *	0.42 *	—
UOE	0.77 *	0.49 *	0.31 *	—
ROE	0.77 *	0.55 *	0.23 *	0.47 *	—
CTAR	−0.35 *	−0.34 *	−0.04	−0.34 *	−0.30 *	—
GPA	0.07	0.07	0.06	0.12	−0.02	−0.20 **	—
Age	0.17 ***	0.20 **	0.06	0.17 ***	0.06	−0.16 ***	0.03	—
Mean	5.13	5.26	5.55	5.11	4.60	2.27	8.00	23.35
SD	0.71	0.91	0.82	1.01	1.04	0.69	0.74	6.73

Note. *** p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.001. WLEIS = Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale; SEA = Self-Emotion Appraisal; AOE = Appraisal of Others’ Emotions; UOE = Use of Emotion; ROE = Regulation of Emotion; CTAR = Cognitive Test Anxiety Revised Scale; GPA = Grade Point Average.

).

The correlation between EI and GPA was positive but not statistically significant, r(191) = 0.07, p = 0.324, 95% CI [−0.07, 0.21]. A similar pattern was observed for the subscales: SEA, r(191) = 0.07, p = 0.343, 95% CI [−0.07, 0.21], AOE, r(191) = 0.06, p = 0.433, 95% CI [−0.09, 0.20], UOE, r(191) = 0.12, p = 0.106, 95% CI [−0.02, 0.25], and ROE, r(191) = −0.02, p = 0.774, 95% CI [−0.16, 0.12]. In contrast, CTAR showed a statistically significant negative correlation with GPA, r(191) = −0.20, p = 0.004, 95% CI [−0.34, −0.06], indicating its detrimental effect on academic performance. Finally, age was positively and significantly correlated with overall EI, r(203) = 0.17, p = 0.017, 95% CI [0.03, 0.30], as well as with the subscales of SEA (r = 0.20, p = 0.003) and UOE (r = 0.17, p = 0.016), but showed no significant association with GPA, r(191) = 0.03, p = 0.647. A multiple mediation analysis was conducted to examine whether CTAR mediates the relationship between the four EI dimensions—SEA, AOE, UOE, and ROE—and students’ academic achievement, measured via GPA (see Figure 2).

The results revealed that UOE significantly predicted GPA indirectly through CTAR (β = 0.05, p = 0.036), indicating that students who more effectively use their emotions tend to experience lower test anxiety, which subsequently supports better academic performance. SEA also showed a marginally significant indirect effect through CTAR (β = 0.05, p = 0.052). Conversely, AOE had a statistically significant negative indirect effect on GPA via CTAR (β = −0.05, p = 0.043), suggesting that heightened sensitivity to others’ emotions may contribute to increased test anxiety and hinder academic achievement. ROE exhibited no significant indirect effect. Regarding direct effects, none of the EI dimensions predicted GPA directly (all p > 0.05). Notably, CTAR significantly predicted GPA negatively (β = −0.22, p = 0.005), confirming its role as a key psychological impediment to academic performance. The total effects were not statistically significant across all four EI dimensions, underscoring the central mediating function of CTAR. The full model is depicted in Figure 2, and all estimates are presented in

Table 2. Indirect, Direct, and Total Effects of EI Dimensions on GPA through CTA.

				95% C.I.
Type	Effect	Estimate	SE	LL	UL	β	z	p
Indirect	SEA ⇒ CTAR ⇒ GPA	0.04	0.02	0	0.08	0.05	1.94	0.052
	AOE ⇒ CTAR ⇒ GPA	−0.04	0.02	−0.08	0	−0.05	−2.02	0.043
	UOE ⇒ CTAR ⇒ GPA	0.04	0.02	0	0.08	0.05	2.10	0.036
	ROE ⇒ CTAR ⇒ GPA	0.02	0.01	−0.01	0.04	0.02	1.21	0.228
Component	SEA ⇒ CTAR	−0.17	0.06	−0.30	−0.05	−0.24	−2.72	0.007
	CTAR ⇒ GPA	−0.24	0.09	−0.41	−0.07	−0.22	−2.78	0.005
	AOE ⇒ CTAR	0.17	0.06	0.06	0.29	0.21	2.95	0.003
	UOE ⇒ CTAR	−0.17	0.05	−0.27	−0.07	−0.25	−3.21	0.001
	ROE ⇒ CTAR	−0.07	0.05	−0.18	0.03	−0.11	−1.34	0.181
Direct	SEA ⇒ GPA	0.01	0.08	−0.14	0.17	0.02	0.18	0.856
	AOE ⇒ GPA	0.05	0.07	−0.09	0.19	0.06	0.72	0.473
	UOE ⇒ GPA	0.07	0.06	−0.06	0.19	0.09	1.05	0.295
	ROE ⇒ GPA	−0.11	0.06	−0.24	0.01	−0.16	−1.78	0.075
Total	SEA ⇒ GPA	0.06	0.08	−0.10	0.21	0.07	0.71	0.476
	AOE ⇒ GPA	0.01	0.07	−0.13	0.15	0.01	0.14	0.889
	UOE ⇒ GPA	0.11	0.06	−0.02	0.23	0.15	1.68	0.093
	ROE ⇒ GPA	−0.10	0.06	−0.22	0.03	−0.14	−1.49	0.137

Note. SEA = Self-Emotion Appraisal; AOE = Appraisal of Others’ Emotions; UOE = Use of Emotion; ROE = Regulation of Emotion; CTAR = Cognitive Test Anxiety Revised Scale; GPA = Grade Point Average.

.

4. Discussion

This study examined how EI and CTA are associated with academic success, and whether CTA serves as a mediating mechanism in the relationship between EI and academic outcomes. A key contribution of this research is the specification of CTA as a mediating process that links EI to academic performance. This focus moves beyond prior studies that emphasize only direct associations between EI and achievement (e.g., [13]), thereby clarifying the pathways through which emotional competencies influence students’ academic outcomes. The findings indicate that CTA plays a significant role in academic performance. Specifically, higher levels of CTA are associated with lower academic achievement, suggesting that students who experience intrusive, worry-related thoughts during assessments may find it more difficult to perform to their full potential. Previous studies have also revealed that anxiety negatively affects concentration and procrastination (e.g., [54]), or memory and recall of information (e.g., [55]).

Furthermore, EI, while not directly predicting academic performance, has an indirect influence through its effect on CTA. Students with higher EI, particularly those who are more aware of their own emotional states and those who can effectively use emotions to facilitate performance, tend to experience lower levels of CTA. These emotional abilities may protect them against the negative cognitive effects of stress in evaluative contexts, thereby indirectly supporting better academic outcomes. These findings underscore the importance of integrating EI into institutions as a means of supporting students’ academic performance. Interventions that foster university students’ EI, such as emotional literacy programs [56], mindfulness training [57], or social-emotional learning strategies [58] may serve as effective tools to reduce CTA and promote academic success.

Interestingly, the ability to accurately perceive and understand the emotions of others was found to have an inverse relationship with academic performance. This dimension was associated with higher levels of CTA, which in turn undermined performance. One possible explanation is that students who are more sensitive to others’ emotions, such as perceived expectations or evaluations from peers or instructors, may feel more pressure during exams, thus increasing anxiety. This sensitivity can also make individuals more prone to engage in social comparison, potentially perceiving themselves as inadequate [59], which can undermine self-esteem and heighten stress levels. Furthermore, increased empathic sensitivity may foster a sense of responsibility for others’ emotional well-being, leading to emotional overinvolvement, difficulty setting boundaries, and eventual emotional exhaustion [60]. Without adequate coping strategies, such emotional demands can lead to cognitive and affective overload, making emotional awareness a potential source of psychological strain rather than resilience [61]. This suggests a need to create emotionally safe and supportive environments that promote interpersonal and intrapersonal connectedness in academic settings, potentially reducing the perceived social pressure during assessments. Academic staff can also benefit from relevant professional development training to recognize signs of test anxiety and apply strategies to help students cope, such as more personalized and flexible assessment methods [62].

Overall, EI appears as a protective factor, primarily through its capacity to reduce anxiety during evaluation. However, this protective effect is not consistent across all situations. CTA emerges as a moderating variable: when anxiety levels are low, EI facilitates academic success, but when anxiety levels are high, the beneficial impact of EI is significantly weakened or even reversed. In the case of highly anxious students, the cognitive load imposed by their anxiety may overshadow the adaptive functions of EI. Given the above, academic support strategies should be tailored to students’ individual emotional profiles. For students with high anxiety levels, simply enhancing EI (e.g., [45]) may not be sufficient; targeted anxiety-reduction interventions by academic advisors and mental health professionals, such as stress management workshops [63] or cognitive-behavioral techniques [64], could increase the benefits of EI on academic achievement.

Emphasis should also be placed on the development of interventions that draw on the arts as vehicles for expression, self-awareness, and relief from the pressure of evaluation [25]. When implemented in a psychopedagogical way, artistic practices have proven especially effective in reducing anxiety, enhancing emotional insight, and fostering a more positive relationship with the self and the learning process [65]. Finally, institutional policy makers are encouraged to incorporate these insights into broader strategies for student wellbeing, particularly during periods of heightened stress, such as examination sessions or public health emergencies. Embedding emotional and psychological support into higher education can not only enhance academic performance but also contribute meaningfully to students’ well-being and long-term resilience.

5. Limitations and Future Research

While the present study offers valuable insights into the interplay between EI, CTA, and academic success, several limitations should be taken into consideration. First, the cross-sectional design of the research restricts causal inferences. Future studies would benefit from longitudinal or experimental designs to better determine the observed relationships. Second, the use of self-report measures for assessing both EI and CTA may introduce bias due to social desirability or inaccurate self-perception. Although the instruments used demonstrated strong psychometric properties, future research could also integrate performance-based measures to assess EI (see also, Goldenberg et al. [9]) or both self-report and biological response scales to more accurately explore the complex structure of test anxiety, as proposed by recent studies [66,67]. Third, the sample consisted predominantly of female students (86%) from Greek universities, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings to more gender-balanced samples or culturally diverse populations. Further studies should strive for greater demographic diversity to examine whether these relationships exist across different cultural, socioeconomic and educational contexts. Differences in emotional expression, academic stressors, and culturally specific coping mechanisms may significantly influence both EI and CTA. By examining these constructs in different cultural settings—such as collectivist societies, under-resourced educational systems, or high-stakes testing environments—researchers can better determine the universality or contextual sensitivity of the model proposed in this study. Fourth, while GPA was used as an objective measure of academic performance, it may not fully capture university students’ academic competence or learning outcomes across different disciplines. Including additional academic indicators (e.g., standardized test scores, course-specific performance) would provide a more nuanced picture of academic success. Moreover, although GPA was treated as a general performance indicator within a homogeneous context of humanities programs, it may still vary by year of study due to differences in course demands and grading practices and their effect. Future research should consider within-program standardization or the use of additional performance indicators to improve comparability across cohorts. Fifth, the data collection was conducted during regular University lectures, which may compromise the voluntariness of participation and introduce biases due to perceived pressure to participate or socially desirable answer patterns. Finally, although the theoretical model explored the mediating role of CTA in relation to EI dimensions, future research could investigate additional mediators or moderators, such as academic self-efficacy, emotion regulation strategies, or support systems, that influence the pathway to academic outcomes [68,69,70]. Although the sample size was modest, power analysis indicated that the study was adequately powered to detect the hypothesized medium-sized effects. Nevertheless, larger and more diverse samples are needed in future research to enhance precision and generalizability.

6. Conclusions

The current study examined the relevance of EI and CTA in explaining university students’ academic success. The findings highlight the significant impact of CTA on academic performance, with higher levels of CTA linked to poorer outcomes due to intrusive, worry-related thoughts. EI does not directly predict academic success but indirectly supports it by reducing CTA. Interestingly, heightened sensitivity to others’ emotions was associated with increased CTA and lower academic performance, likely because of the added social pressure experienced during assessments.

EI acts as a protective factor primarily by mitigating anxiety during evaluations, yet its positive effects diminish when anxiety levels are high, as cognitive overload from anxiety can override EI’s benefits. Therefore, academic interventions should be tailored to students’ emotional profiles, combining EI training with targeted anxiety reduction techniques. Incorporating artistic and creative practices can also help alleviate anxiety and foster emotional insight. Finally, institutional policies should integrate emotional and psychological support to enhance students’ well-being and academic success.