Resilience and Emotional Intelligence in Spanish Army Personnel: The Impact of Marital Status

Abstract

Background: The relationship between resilience and emotional intelligence and its influence on military personnel has become the object of research in recent years, since today’s combatant faces significant physical and psychological challenges. Therefore, the general objective of this study was to analyze the psychological variables of resilience and emotional intelligence in military personnel in the Spanish Army and their relationship as a function of civilian status. Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out. The sample consisted of 739 military personnel (officers, non-commissioned officers, and troops), with a mean age of 33.29 years (SD = 7.48) (87.7% were men and 12.3% were women) who filled in the ad hoc questionnaire on sociodemographic variables, the Resilience Scale (RS), and the Emotional Intelligence Inventory (EQ-i-M20). Results: The results showed a positive relationship between resilience and emotional intelligence, although no association was found with age. No significant differences were observed in the levels of resilience and emotional intelligence based on gender. However, differences were found according to marital status, with military personnel in the Spanish Army who were widowed showing lower levels of resilience and emotional intelligence compared to those who were single, married, or divorced. The regression model indicated a direct effect of resilience on emotional intelligence. Conclusions: The most relevant contributions of this work are related to the role of resilience and EI in military personnel in promoting health and well-being, in line with the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda Goals. In conclusion, it is considered necessary to design intervention programs aimed at strengthening resilience in widowed military personnel in order to improve their well-being and their ability to identify, understand, and manage both their own emotions and those of others. This could facilitate the achievement of institutional objectives and promote quality of life of personnel in the Spanish Army.

1. Introduction

Currently, the fundamental duty of military personnel is to preserve peace and protect their nation, even at the cost of their own life, when circumstances demand it (Willén & Williams, 2024). Among their virtues are readiness, obedience, and precision, driven by honor, a love for service, and the desire to face risky and demanding situations (The Secretary-General of the United Nations, 2009). These pressures can lead to psychological and social issues, affecting both intrapersonal and interpersonal competencies (Flood & Keegan, 2022) due to various stressors (Orak et al., 2021). Since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Armed Forces have implemented initiatives to enhance psychological resilience and prevent morbidity in over one million soldiers (Steenkamp et al., 2013). Members of the Armed Forces must possess a solid psychological foundation to manage adverse situations throughout their careers and maintain good mental health (McInerney et al., 2024).

In Spain, the Armed Forces (FAS), composed of the Army (ET), the Navy, and the Air Force, have an appropriate organization and structure for national defense and security (Calvo, 2022) as a result of the modernization process at the beginning of the 21st century, when Spain joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), aligning with the emerging Common Security and Defense Policy of the European Union (de la Villa, 2021). However, to provide an efficient response in military personnel, training in social skills and emotional competencies is required, to facilitate emotional management and proper coexistence (Vera et al., 2021). Therefore, it is crucial that military training centers promote ethical principles and standards and develop psychological variables such as resilience and emotional intelligence (EI) to improve the professional performance of their members (Hernández & García, 2021).

The influence of resilience in military personnel has become a subject of research in recent years, as the modern combatant faces significant physical and psychological challenges (Trachik et al., 2021). Resilience, traditionally linked to morale, is crucial in the military, as its success in operations depends on it (Naifeh et al., 2021). The term resilience can be defined as the ability to face adverse situations, grow from them, and prevent them from affecting one’s core (Gouweloos-Trines et al., 2019), and it can be measured by the absence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Sun et al., 2024). Military personnel with a resilient profile actively seek social support and maintain high self-esteem, which allows them to adapt to their environment in a positive way (Cox et al., 2022). Moreover, an adequate level of resilience is necessary in military personnel in order to cope with the various stressful situations that they encounter in their daily lives (Park et al., 2023). In fact, a high resilience score is negatively correlated with burnout syndrome (McBride et al., 2022). This syndrome, caused by high levels of stress and low perceived social support, leads to emotional exhaustion, sleep disorders, apathy, and depressive symptoms (feelings of hopelessness and lack of self-confidence), as revealed by Maddah et al. (2024). At the same time, resilience is also closely related to EI, as it has a direct effect on it (Sarrionandia et al., 2018) and predicts self-efficacy, influencing the relationship between stressors and their outcomes (Andrei et al., 2022; Vilca-Pareja et al., 2022). According to White et al. (2020), high levels of resilience and EI can protect against the symptoms of burnout.

Hobfoll (1989) Conservation of Resources (COR) theory suggests that individuals aim to protect valuable resources, like psychological well-being. In this context, resilience serves as a key resource that prevents emotional burnout and helps in managing stress. Resilience, therefore, aids in adapting to challenges and maintaining well-being. Meanwhile, Deci and Ryan’s (1985) Self-Determination Theory explains how intrinsic and extrinsic motivations influence EI development. Intrinsic motivations, such as the desire for growth, are linked to better well-being and emotional intelligence, while extrinsic motivations have a more limited impact. This theory highlights the importance of fulfilling psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness to promote emotional development. Together, these theories provide a framework for understanding how resilience protects against burnout and how intrinsic motivations foster emotional intelligence, contributing to well-being and adaptation.

EI can be understood as the combination of skills, competencies, abilities, and attitudes that determine an individual’s behavior, mental state, or reaction to various situations, in a way that favors the peaceful resolution of problems arising from emotions and promotes overall development, including the ability to recognize both one’s own feelings and those of others (Goleman, 1995). Authors such as Bar-On (2012) suggest that EI encompasses mental capacities related to the processing of emotions, as well as personality dimensions such as assertiveness, empathy, and optimism, along with cognitive and emotional abilities. Specifically, emotion, in conjunction with cognition and motivation, is considered an essential element in personal development and optimal performance (Hoffman et al., 2020). The concept of emotion has evolved beyond the traditional focus on anxiety and depression, highlighting the that it provides throughout an individual’s life, shaping their adaptive skills and overall well-being (Candeias et al., 2021).

According to Goleman (2012), the components that make up EI are (1) self-awareness (recognizing one’s own emotions); (2) self-regulation (managing one’s own emotions); (3) self-motivation (motivating oneself to achieve goals); (4) empathy (recognizing the emotions of others); and (5) social skills (building good relationships). These components are interrelated and facilitate the emotional process, representing a significant factor in life satisfaction, especially in married individuals (Madahi et al., 2013). Its importance lies in the fact that emotions drive human behavior, making EI a predictor of future success that should be fostered by institutions (Casino-García et al., 2021). EI is a learned ability that can be developed through education in self-perception, self-regulation, self-motivation, empathy, and social skills, contributing to personal, social, and professional well-being (Cortellazzo et al., 2021; Thompson, 2023). In particular, a high level of EI in service institutions is linked to better performance in these services (Srivastava et al., 2021). The emotional state of workers influences their behavior and professional performance, becoming increasingly relevant in organizations (Taylor et al., 2022). EI is negatively associated with stress, depression, and negative emotions (Cui et al., 2022) and positively associated with motivation (Rahman et al., 2024). The development of emotional competencies, such as empathy, promotes cooperative work (Liu et al., 2024). In turn, a high level of EI enhances psychological and social functioning, optimizing cognitive, social, emotional, and behavioral processes (Tsirigotis, 2021). Authors like Corzine et al. (2017) point out that overcoming emotional deprivation increases the capacity for recovery in difficult situations, allowing for the successful handling of adverse scenarios (Han et al., 2014). In addition, Umucu et al. (2022) report that a high level of resilience in military personnel is associated with greater optimism, as well as EI, conflict resolution skills, and higher self-esteem, which reduce anxiety, depression, and the risk of PTSD (Lee et al., 2023).

The Present Study

Currently, there is a need for military institutions to promote the development of resilience and EI in their members (Bekesiene et al., 2023; Nevins et al., 2023) to improve their coping capacity in adverse situations (Forouzan & Rawat, 2023) and enhance their well-being (Hasan et al., 2023). However, no previous study had analyzed the relationship between the marital status of military personnel and their level of resilience and EI. Therefore, the main objective of this study was to analyze the psychological variables of resilience and EI in Spanish Army personnel and their relationship based on marital status. Specifically, the study aimed to (a) establish the relationship between resilience and EI, as well as their relationship with age; (b) compare the levels of resilience and EI according to marital status; (c) analyze profiles or groups based on levels of resilience, EI, and marital status; and (d) identify the predictive role of resilience in EI.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants, Procedures, and Instruments

This quantitative study was based on a descriptive cross-sectional design and, therefore, followed the STROBE guidelines for cross-sectional studies (Vandenbroucke et al., 2014). The sample consisted of a total of n = 739 military personnel from the Spanish Army (officers n = 36; 4.9%; non-commissioned officers n = 143; 19.4%; enlisted personnel n = 560; 75.8%), stationed at the same barracks, including both operational units and support units [

Table 1. Sociodemographic variables of the study sample.

Gender		Women					Men
		n		%		n		%
		91		12.3		648		87.7
			n				%
Military scale
Officers			36				4.9
Non-Commissioned Officers			143				19.4
MPTM			560				75.8
Marital status
Single			294				39.8
Married			387				52.4
Separated/divorced			44				5.9
Widower			14				1.9

]. The average age was 33.29 years (SD = 7.48), with a range from 18 to 66 years.

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Central Defense Hospital (Approval Code: 51117) and authorized by the military authorities of the King Alfonso XIII Legion Brigade (Almería, Spain). Meetings were held with the unit leaders to inform them about the study’s objectives and ensure data confidentiality. Participants were informed about the voluntary nature of the study, anonymity, and data confidentiality, in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki (Rennie, 2004). Subsequently, they were given a questionnaire that they were required to return sealed after completing it, in a process that took between 25 and 30 min. The author also created an ad hoc questionnaire to collect sociodemographic data from the participants, along with the already-validated instruments.

To assess resilience, the Resilience Scale (RS) (Wagnild & Young, 1993) was used. It is one of the few psychometric scales currently available that reliably and validly measures levels of psychosocial adaptation to significant life events. The instrument consists of a total of 25 items with a Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Examples of the items that make up the scale include the following: (1) When I plan something, I do it; or (2) I usually manage one way or another. The scale is structured based on two factors: Factor 1, Personal Competence (17 items); and Factor 2, Acceptance of Oneself and of Life (8 items). Regarding the reliability of the scale, authors such as Wagnild and Young (1993), the original authors of the scale, report high reliability (α = 0.90). In the present study, the scale had a consistency of α = 0.86, with Factor 1 showing α = 0.64 and Factor 2 showing α = 0.90.

On the other hand, to measure EI, the Emotional Intelligence Inventory (EQ-i-M20) (Bar-On & Parker, 2000)was used. This is the Spanish adaptation of the Emotional Intelligence Inventory: Youth Version (EQi:YV) (Pérez-Fuentes et al., 2014). It consists of a total of 20 items with 4 response options on a Likert-type scale, where 1 = very rarely true for me and 4 = often true for me. The items in this instrument are grouped into five components: (1) Intrapersonal (4 items); (2) Interpersonal (4 items); (3) Stress Management (4 items); (4) Adaptability (4 items); (5) and General Mood, consisting of optimism and happiness (4 items). Regarding the reliability of each factor, Intrapersonal has a Cronbach’s alpha of α = 0.57, Interpersonal (α = 0.80), Stress Management (α = 0.68), Adaptability (α = 0.81), and General Mood (α = 0.83). The internal consistency of the scale in the present study was α = 0.75. For the dimensions, the internal consistency was as follows: Intrapersonal (α = 0.78), Interpersonal (α = 0.72), Stress Management (α = 0.65), Adaptability (α = 0.52), and General Mood (α = 0.80).

2.2. Data Analysis

First, Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951)was used to measure the internal consistency of the tests or the reliability of the scores (Tang et al., 2014), as it is one of the most commonly used estimators in classical psychometrics (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). Next, in order to explore the relationship between the variables, correlation analyses were performed (0.1 small, 0.3 medium, 0.5 large) (Cohen, 1992), and descriptive analyses were presented. To compare the means of groups based on the consumption or non-consumption of at least one alcoholic drink daily, a Student’s t-test was conducted, with Cohen’s d statistic (Cohen, 1998)used to estimate the effect size.

Third, a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed to examine the differences between psychological variables (resilience and EI) based on marital status, identifying significant groups. The classification levels for effect size are indicated in the Eta-squared values (η²), specifically, η² = 0.01 (small), η² = 0.06 (medium), and η² = 0.14 (large) (Yoo et al., 2017). Post hoc comparisons were performed using the Tukey test. Subsequently, using resilience, EI, and marital status as input variables to identify different profiles or groupings within the dataset, a two-step cluster analysis was carried out. In this case, the aim was to classify cases according to the mean scores in resilience and EI, presenting these results as a complementary analysis to the rest of the data. Furthermore, this technique allowed us to assess the quality of the clusters, silhouette cohesion, and cluster separation (Molero et al., 2020). In this case, a mean silhouette score of 0.6 was obtained, indicating that the quality of the clusters was “adequate”.

Finally, to understand how the predictor variable (resilience) related to the criterion variable (EI), a stepwise linear regression analysis was conducted. In addition to the statistical values of β, the R² statistic was used to measure the model fit, where a value of 1 indicates a perfect linear fit, as well as the Durbin–Watson statistic (D), where a value of D = 2 indicates no autocorrelation, D < 2 indicates positive serial correlation, and D > 2 means negative serial correlation. The processing and analysis of the data were carried out using SPSS statistical package version 24.0 for Windows (Armonk, NY, USA) (IBM Corp, 2016).

3. Results

First,

Table 2. Bivariate and descriptive correlation matrix (N = 739).

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Intrapersonal	1
Interpersonal	0.274 *	1
Stress Management	0.07 *	0.00	1
Adaptability	0.29 **	0.34 **	0.13 **	1
General Mood	0.29 **	0.32 **	0.33 **	0.40 **	1
EI (Global)	0.63 **	0.61 **	0.46 **	0.71 **	0.73 **	1
Factor 1 (Resilience)	0.19 **	0.31 **	0.21 **	0.30 **	0.43 **	0.45 **	1
Factor 2 (Resilience)	0.16 **	0.26 **	0.21 **	0.27 **	0.42 **	0.41 **	0.82 **	1
Resilience (Global)	0.13 **	0.28 **	0.18 **	0.27 **	0.39 **	0.39 **	0.91 **	0.85 **	1
M	10.54	11.06	12.31	11.52	12.75	58.19	89.65	42.32	132.15
SD	2.95	2.63	2.51	2.99	2.52	8.64	15.92	7.36	24.68

Note: EI, emotional intelligence. ** = significant correlation at the p < 0.05 level; ** = significant correlation at the p < 0.01 level. * p ≤ 0.05 ** p ≤ 0.01.

presents the correlations found between resilience and EI and the factors and components that make up EI. The results show statistically significant positive correlations (p < 0.05) or very significant correlations (p < 0.01) in most relationships.

Regarding the correlations between age, global resilience, and global EI, the results do not show statistically significant correlations (p > 0.05). In relation to the mean differences (

Table 3. Resilience and emotional intelligence. Descriptive and t-test by gender (N = 739).

		n	M	SD	t	p	d
Factor 1 (Resilience)	Man	648	89.79	15.69	0.67	0.501	0.07
	Woman	91	88.59	17.56
Factor 2 (Resilience)	Man	648	42.44	7.27	1.16	1.16	0.12
	Woman	91	41.48	7.98
Resilience (Global)	Man	648	132.31	24.45	0.46	0.642	0.05
	Woman	91	131.02	26.41
EI (Intrapersonal)	Man	648	10.48	2.99	−1.48	0.138	0.17
	Woman	91	10.97	2.59
EI (Interpersonal)	Man	648	11.03	2.39	−1.02	0.306	0.12
	Woman	91	11.33	3.94
EI (Stress Management)	Man	648	12.41	2.48	2.85 **	0.004	0.31
	Woman	91	11.61	2.63
IE (Adaptability)	Man	648	11.59	3.08	1.59	0.112	0.20
	Woman	91	11.05	2.22
EI (General Mood)	Man	648	12.89	2.49	2.78 **	0.005	0.32
	Woman	91	12.07	2.63
EI (Global)	Man	648	58.36	8.59	1.36	0.171	0.15
	Woman	91	57.03	8.89

Note: F1, Factor 1 (Personal Competence); F2, Factor 2 (Acceptance of Self and Life); EI, emotional intelligence. **, significant correlation at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

), the t-test results showed no statistically significant differences between men and women in terms of resilience (t = 0.46; p = 0.642; d = 0.05), nor in EI (t = 1.36; p = 0.171; d = 0.15). However, statistically significant mean differences were found based on gender in the Stress Management component (t = 2.85; p < 0.05; d = 0.31), with men showing a higher level (M = 12.41; SD = 2.48) compared to women (M = 11.61; SD = 2.63), as well as in General Mood (t = 2.78; p < 0.05; d = 0.32), where the male gender also showed a higher mean (M = 12.89; SD = 2.49) compared to the female gender (M = 12.07; SD = 2.63).

The results showed a significant effect according to the post hoc Tukey test regarding the overall resilience level (F = 7.73; p < 0.001; η² = 0.030) and overall EI (F = 4.17; p < 0.01; η² = 0.016) across the different groups: single, married, divorced/separated, and widowed. In all cases, it was the widowed military personnel who showed the lowest mean in both resilience factors and the five components of EI, as can be seen in

Table 4. Resilience and marital status. Results of the analysis of variance.

	Marital Status	n	M	SD	MANOVA			Post Hoc Contrasts
					F	p	η2
Factor 1 Resilience	g1	294	90.33	14.80	8.09	0.01	0.030	|g1 < g2||g1 < g3| |g1 < g4| *** |g2 < g3| |g2 > g4| *** |g3 > g4| ***
	g2	387	90.01	15.94
	g3	44	88.32	16.86
	g4	14	68.43	15.92
Factor 2 Resilience	g1	294	42.85	6.51	13.45	0.01	0.050	|g1 > g2||g1 > g3| |g1 > g4|***|g2 > g3| |g2 > g4|***|g3 > g4| ***
	g2	387	42.46	7.56
	g3	44	41.39	7.25
	g4	14	30.50	9.55
Resilience (Global)	g1	294	133.52	23.76	7.73	0.01	0.030	|g1 > g2||g1 > g3| |g1 > g4| *** |g2 > g3| |g2 > g4| *** |g3 > g4| ***
	g2	387	132.48	24.86
	g3	44	129.70	22.81
	g4	14	101.79	31.55
EI (Intrapersonal)	g1	294	10.47	3.12	0.33	0.800	0.001	|g1 < g2||g1 < g3| |g1 > g4||g2 < g3| |g2 > g4||g3 > g4|
	g2	387	10.58	2.89
	g3	44	10.80	2.28
	g4	14	10.00	2.85
EI (Interpersonal)	g1	294	11.01	2.09	2.00	0.112	0.008	|g1 < g2||g1 < g3| |g1 > g4||g2 > g3| |g2 > g4||g3 > g4|
	g2	387	11.18	3.00
	g3	44	10.91	1.89
	g4	14	9.50	3.50
EI (Stress Management)	g1	294	12.35	2.47	1.42	0.235	0.005	|g1 < g2||g1 > g3| |g1 > g4||g2 > g3| |g2 > g4||g3 < g4|
	g2	387	12.38	2.53
	g3	44	11.61	2.40
	g4	14	11.85	3.05
IE (Adaptability)	g1	294	11.43	3.39	3.21	0.022	0.012	|g1 < g2||g1 < g3| * |g1 < g4| * |g2 > g3| |g2 > g4| ** |g3 > g4|
	g2	387	11.67	2.72
	g3	44	11.52	2.02
	g4	14	9.21	3.33
EI (General Mood)	g1	294	12.67	2.37	5.41	0.001	0.021	|g1 < g2||g1 > g3| *** │g1 > g4||g2 > g3| |g2 > g4 | *** |g3 > g4|
	g2	387	12.94	2.52
	g3	44	12.39	2.38
	g4	14	10.36	4.37
EI (Global)	g1	294	57.94	8.62	4.17	0.006	0.016	|g1 < g2| ** |g1 > g3| |g1 > g4| ** |g2 > g3| |g2 > g4| *** |g3 > g4|
	g2	387	58.76	8.58
	g3	44	57.23	7.10
	g4	14	50.93	11.59

Note. (g1), single; (g2), married; (g3), divorced/separated; (g4), widowed; EI, emotional intelligence. * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001.

.

The summary of the model obtained in the two-step cluster analysis identified a total of four clusters, where the cases were classified based on their scores in resilience and EI. The first cluster (c1), with 39.6% of the cases (n = 59), was characterized as scoring below the sample mean in both resilience and EI. This was followed by cluster c2 (n = 153), with 31.7% of the cases, cluster c3 (n = 293), with 20.7% of the cases, and finally, cluster c4 (n = 234), with 8% of the cases, as shown in Figure 1.

The regression analyses resulted in a model where resilience explained 15% of the variance in EI (R² = 0.15). The results of the linear regression indicated that resilience has a positive impact on EI (B = 1.13; SE = 1.09). The coefficients for the predictor variable were greater than 0.05, and the p-values were less than 0.05 (

Table 5. Regression analysis: resilience on emotional intelligence..

	R	R2	Corrected R2	Statistical Changes					Durbin–Watson
				Standard Error of Estimate (SE)	Change in R2	Change in F	Sig. of Change in F
Model	0.39	0.15	0.15	7.94	0.15	136.65	0.00		1.98
	Unstandardized coefficients			Standardized coefficients		t	Sig.	Collinearity
	β		Standard error	Beta
								Tolerance	VIF
	0.13		0.01	0.39		3.32	0.000	0.78	1.26

). The standardized effects of resilience on EI were statistically significant and supported (β = 0.39; t = 11.69; p < 0.001). The Durbin–Watson statistic confirmed the validity of the model (D = 1.98).

Regarding the t-statistic, an association with an error probability lower than 0.05 was found for the variables in the model: resilience on EI. The absence of multicollinearity between the variables was confirmed by low tolerance values and high VIF values.

4. Discussion

The results obtained allowed the achievement of the general objective set out for this study, which was to analyze the psychological variables of resilience and EI in military personnel in the Spanish Army and their relationship based on marital status. Resilience was found to be positively related to the level of EI. Being widowed seems to negatively affect the presence of higher levels of resilience and EI in military personnel, which results in poorer coping with stressful situations (Bekesiene et al., 2023) and worse emotional regulation (Hasan et al., 2023). This could be associated with the presence of PTSD (Lee et al., 2023), lower optimism (Umucu et al., 2022), and a reduced ability to recognize, manage, and self-motivate emotions, as well as empathize and demonstrate prosocial behaviors (Goleman, 1995). These factors could negatively impact their professional performance (Liu et al., 2024; Srivastava et al., 2021; Taylor et al., 2022).In relation to the first specific objective, the results show a positive relationship between resilience and EI, consistent with other studies (Andrei et al., 2022). This suggests that increasing resilience levels positively influence EI. Consequently, higher levels of these psychological variables could prevent the onset of emotional burnout in military personnel (McBride et al., 2022; White et al., 2020), regardless of their age, and facilitate better adaptation to different contexts that they may face (Cox et al., 2022), promoting higher levels of perceived social support and lower levels of stress and depression (Cui et al., 2022; Maddah et al., 2024). On the other hand, no significant differences were found in the mean scores for gender and overall resilience or overall EI in the t-tests, nor in any of the factors that make up these instruments, in response to the second specific research objective. This suggests that the current Spanish Army should provide educational resources to support the development of psychological strategies to mitigate the underlying effects of stressors related to military service (Orak et al., 2021).

The third specific objective of this study was to analyze profiles or groups based on levels of resilience, EI, and marital status. Thus, the results obtained in the MANOVA analysis indicate that military personnel who are widowed show lower levels of resilience and EI compared to those who are single, married, or divorced. In this regard, although there is a lack of previous studies related to this line of research, Corzine et al. (2017) suggest that this could be a consequence of the absence of the spouse’s emotional support, which may negatively impact both the resilience and EI of military personnel (Forouzan & Rawat, 2023). In this direction, it could be inferred that military personnel who are widowed may exhibit lower self-confidence, independence, strength, resilience, wit, and perseverance and less flexible thinking compared to those with other marital statuses, as well as behavioral patterns of maladaptation (Wagnild & Young, 1993). Furthermore, effective problem-solving may be impaired, as they tend to have a less optimistic attitude (Pérez-Fuentes et al., 2014). Tsirigotis (2021) suggested that a good level of EI allowed military personnel to optimize their cognitive, social, emotional, and behavioral processes, not only improving their psychological functioning but also positively impacting their interpersonal relationships.

Through cluster analysis, four profiles were identified in relation to emotional resilience and resilience, addressing the second specific research objective. On the one hand, the first cluster is made up of military personnel who are widowed, showing lower scores for the psychological variables studied. The second cluster consists of military personnel who are separated or divorced, and in this case, they show higher levels than those who are widowed. The third cluster consists of those who are single, who report higher scores than the first two clusters. Finally, the fourth cluster, which consists of married military personnel, shows the highest scores in both resilience and EI. Regarding the fourth specific objective, the results found in the linear regression analyses suggest that resilience predicts the level of EI in military personnel. These results align with previous research, which also indicates that resilience mediates perceived stress (Sarrionandia et al., 2018) and life satisfaction (Vilca-Pareja et al., 2022).

All of the above highlights the importance of resilience and EI in the military context, especially considering that this is a professional trajectory that involves confronting multiple challenges. Therefore, designing intervention programs focused on resilient and emotional skills in the military would be an effective measure in assisting military personnel in dealing with the challenges that they face in their professional careers. This would promote the development of personal resilience to successfully cope with adverse situations and enhance personal and collective well-being (Kerry et al., 2016; Niederhauser et al., 2022).

4.1. Practical Implications of the Results

This study has significant implications for professional practice, emphasizing the strong relationship between resilience and EI, which is suggested to have the potential to improve quality of life for military personnel, enhancing their ability to cope with adversity and improving their emotional stability. This, in turn, would strengthen their well-being and professional competence by fostering proactive behaviors, which would facilitate the achievement of previously established institutional objectives. These findings are likely to contribute to the design of future intervention programs aimed at promoting resilience and EI among military personnel in evidence-based practices such as mindfulness training, cognitive–behavioral therapy, or emotional regulation strategies, with particular relevance to those with a widowed marital status, to enhance their quality of life.

4.2. Limitations of the Present Study

Among the limitations of this study, it should be noted that the evaluated sample is specific, being restricted to a single profession within the military context. This limits the generalizability of the results to other branches of the armed forces, such as the Navy or the Air Force, or to other professions. Additionally, the lack of longitudinal data, due to the cross-sectional design of the study, prevents the establishment of cause-and-effect relationships between the variables analyzed, which requires confirmation in future research with longitudinal designs. Another aspect to consider is that the small size of the widowed group may have influenced the results, which should therefore be interpreted with caution. Finally, although the overall internal consistency of the EI inventory is acceptable, some components showed low values, which may also have affected the findings.

4.3. Future Lines of Research

Regarding future research directions, a deeper study into the relationship between resilience and EI in this context would be beneficial. Consequently, it would be interesting to implement intervention programs that consider the variables analyzed in this study, allowing for pre and post-test comparisons to draw solid conclusions. Moreover, given the relevance of stress in the development of resilience and EI, future studies should include this variable, as well as other variables that promote proper development in military personnel, to enhance these psychological traits and increase their personal well-being. Thus, future studies should adopt longitudinal designs to capture the temporal dynamics of these variables and their interaction with external stressors.

5. Conclusions

The most relevant contributions of this work are related to the role of resilience and EI in military personnel to promote health and well-being, in line with the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda Goals. Resilience and EI are positively correlated, with resilience being considered a predictor of EI. In particular, resilience enables military personnel to cope with the various adverse situations that they may face. At the same time, a good level of EI helps military personnel perceive, understand, and properly manage their emotions, which enhances their personal and collective well-being. Therefore, it is essential that future intervention studies take into account the findings of this work in order to foster the successful achievement of institutional objectives and promote quality of life for personnel in the Spanish Army.