The Impact of Emotional Intelligence on the Psychological Well-Being of Young Graduates in Portugal
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article presented on The Impact of Emotional Intelligence on the Psychological Well-Being of Young Graduates in Portugal addresses a potentially interesting topic for Higher Education and graduating students. Emotional intelligence is a very important driver for improving the motivation of higher education students and professionals, for this reason it has relevant consequences during the training period and for workers. However, this article would improve above all if it updated the state of the art and expanded the Results it presents, as well as finally providing some substantial conclusions.
Some of the aspects that could be completed or improved are the following:
- Section 1.4. Objectives and hypotheses, it would be preferable to place it independently. This would improve the clarity of the document structure.
- The statement included in section “2.1. Method and Measures”, about: “In the present empirical study, the quantitative methodology is used since it is the most appropriate method to find the relationships between the variables and PWB”, is questionable, so it should be supported by a quote.
- Section 3.1. Sample Characterization should be moved to the previous section as part of section “2. Materials and Methods”, as subheading 2.2.; while “2.2. Data Analysis” will become “2.3. Data Analysis”.
- In section “3. Results” the structure or clarity of the results may be improved if they are broken down with a subsection based on the hypotheses proposed. Furthermore, it would be interesting to complete the results with the application of other statistics or the incorporation of qualitative data from conducting some interviews. It is a little surprising that the Discussion section is broader than the Results section.
-The substantial contribution of the discussion can be improved by including broader results and a greater level of depth, which will facilitate new findings on the topic.
- The main conclusions derived from the study should be included in an independent section, as well as the limitations of this work.
- Most of the References are not current and few are from the last 3-5 years. This work would gain depth if it were completed with some updated citations, mainly in the Introduction section, to present the state of the scientific literature regarding the topic addressed.
Author Response
Comments 1: Section 1.4. Objectives and hypotheses, it would be preferable to place it independently. This would improve the clarity of the document structure.
Response 1: Thanks for the suggestion, section 2 has been introduced.
Comments 2: The statement included in section “2.1. Method and Measures”, about: “In the present empirical study, the quantitative methodology is used since it is the most appropriate method to find the relationships between the variables and PWB”, is questionable, so it should be supported by a quote.
Response 2: Thanks for the suggestion, a quote has been introduced.
Comments 3: Sample Characterization should be moved to the previous section as part of section “2. Materials and Methods”, as subheading 2.2.; while “2.2. Data Analysis” will become “2.3. Data Analysis”.
Response 3: Thanks for the suggestion, the change has been made.
Comments 4: In section “3. Results” the structure or clarity of the results may be improved if they are broken down with a subsection based on the hypotheses proposed. Furthermore, it would be interesting to complete the results with the application of other statistics or the incorporation of qualitative data from conducting some interviews. It is a little surprising that the Discussion section is broader than the Results section.
Response 4: Thanks for the observation. We considered as Results the results obtained by the statistical analysis. The discussion was carried out taking into account the literature review considered in establishing the hypotheses. The discussion of results has been changed.
Comments 5: The substantial contribution of the discussion can be improved by including broader results and a greater level of depth, which will facilitate new findings on the topic.
Response 5: Thanks for the observation. The discussion of results has been changed.
Comments 6: The main conclusions derived from the study should be included in an independent section, as well as the limitations of this work.
Response 6: Thanks for the suggestion, a new section has been introduced.
Comments 7: Most of the References are not current and few are from the last 3-5 years. This work would gain depth if it were completed with some updated citations, mainly in the Introduction section, to present the state of the scientific literature regarding the topic addressed.
Response 7: Thanks for the observation. More current references were introduced.
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript has the potential to be published. However, it has some issues that should be improved first, as I outline below:
- It presents a theoretical framework that is too outdated. At least 50% of the sources should be post 2019 at least, especially in reference to current concepts and research. Some references that could be used.
- The theoretical framework should also be expanded at the conceptual level, since concepts that have different interpretations according to different authors, paradigms and theoretical trends are defined in a deterministic way.
- In the method section it should be clearly specified that the causal relationship between the variables is not determined, that this is a correlational study.
- The ethical regulation of the study, or at least the legislation exempting this study from this requirement, is missing.
- The measuring instruments used must be duly described in the Method section, delimiting their authors, psychometric properties, reliability and validity, at least.
- The use of the measurement instruments used should also be justified over other options.
- I do not understand why parametric tests are used if the normality of the data is not met. The authors should explain this issue.
- At least one paragraph dedicated to the limitations of the research should be included at the end of the Discussion section.
This manuscript has the potential to be published. However, it has some issues that should be improved first, as I outline below:
- It presents a theoretical framework that is too outdated. At least 50% of the sources should be post 2019 at least, especially in reference to current concepts and research. Some new references that could be used.
- The theoretical framework should also be expanded at the conceptual level, since concepts that have different interpretations according to different authors, paradigms and theoretical trends are defined in a deterministic way.
- In the method section it should be clearly specified that the causal relationship between the variables is not determined, that this is a correlational study.
- The ethical regulation of the study, or at least the legislation exempting this study from this requirement, is missing.
- The measuring instruments used must be duly described in the Method section, delimiting their authors, psychometric properties, reliability and validity, at least.
- The use of the measurement instruments used should also be justified over other options.
- I do not understand why parametric tests are used if the normality of the data is not met. The authors should explain this issue.
- At least one paragraph dedicated to the limitations of the research should be included at the end of the Discussion section.
Author Response
Comments 1: It presents a theoretical framework that is too outdated. At least 50% of the sources should be post 2019 at least, especially in reference to current concepts and research. Some references that could be used.
Response 1: Thanks for the observation. More current references were introduced.
Comments 2: The theoretical framework should also be expanded at the conceptual level, since concepts that have different interpretations according to different authors, paradigms and theoretical trends are defined in a deterministic way.
Response 2: Thanks for the observation. The theoretical framework has been improved.
Comments 3: In the method section it should be clearly specified that the causal relationship between the variables is not determined, that this is a correlational study.
Response 3: Thanks for the observation, the section has been improved.
Comments 4: The ethical regulation of the study, or at least the legislation exempting this study from this requirement, is missing.
Response 4: Thanks for the observation, a new subsection has been considered.
Comments 5: The measuring instruments used must be duly described in the Method section, delimiting their authors, psychometric properties, reliability and validity, at least.
Response 5: Thanks for the observation. The section has been improved.
Comments 6: The use of the measurement instruments used should also be justified over other options.
Response 6: Thanks for the observation. The use of the measurement instruments used are validated in Portugal.
Comments 7: I do not understand why parametric tests are used if the normality of the data is not met. The authors should explain this issue.
Response 7: Parametric tests could be used, as the samples are independent, come from the same population and are considered large. However, taking into account your observation, we chose to use a non-parametric test.
Comments 8: At least one paragraph dedicated to the limitations of the research should be included at the end of the Discussion section.
Response 8: Thanks for the observation, a new subsection has been considered.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors need to focus on research gaps and then develop the hypotheses. Currently, the hypotheses are very superficial. The authors should use EI and PWB as latent variables. Using age as a factor is not appropriate.
The authors do not clearly emphasize the research gaps. They delve into the hypotheses in the introduction itself. The authors need to focus on the current status of research on this topic and why these research questions are important.
The topic of research is about young graduates. Including age as one factor can not be variable as the age among the sample will not vary much. If the sample is from different age groups, then it makes sense to use age as one factor to analyze. Emotional intelligence and psychological well-being are constructs that are measured using multi-item indicators; it's advisable to use them as a latent factor variable that makes more sense.
The factors that are used are not analyzed for their measurement properties, such as validity and reliability. Assessing the results without knowing their reliability and validity becomes difficult.
Author Response
Comments 1: The authors do not clearly emphasize the research gaps. They delve into the hypotheses in the introduction itself. The authors need to focus on the current status of research on this topic and why these research questions are important.
Response1: Thanks for the suggestion. We think that all the article has been improved. We tried to respond to this comment right in the Introduction.
Comments 2: The topic of research is about young graduates. Including age as one factor can not be variable as the age among the sample will not vary much. If the sample is from different age groups, then it makes sense to use age as one factor to analyze. Emotional intelligence and psychological well-being are constructs that are measured using multi-item indicators; it's advisable to use them as a latent factor variable that makes more sense.
Response 2: Thanks for the suggestion. In fact, we wanted to analyze whether there would be any significant difference in the 2 age classes under study. However, since ages do not vary much, the introduced variable did not prove to be significant. The EI and PWB variables were treated as latent variables.
Comments 3: The factors that are used are not analyzed for their measurement properties, such as validity and reliability. Assessing the results without knowing their reliability and validity becomes difficult.
Response 3: Thanks for the suggestion. The analysis was carried out.
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper explores the impact of emotional intelligence on the psychological well-being of young Portuguese graduates. By surveying 209 young Portuguese graduates, it examines the relationship between emotional intelligence and psychological well-being. The hypothesis was tested using a multiple linear regression model, and the results indicate that emotional intelligence has a significant effect on psychological well-being, whereas age and gender do not show statistical significance. There is a positive correlation between increased emotional intelligence and improved psychological well-being.
The introduction is overly brief. The authors should provide a more comprehensive background. The current background lacks sufficient detail to convey the importance of the study series. Additionally, the literature review is insufficient, failing to cover emotional intelligence and mental health among young graduates, particularly within the specific group of Portuguese young graduates.
The research methodology is too brief, with a small sample size of 209 young graduates. The study only employs simple correlation and regression analysis, which is inadequate for in-depth causal analysis and the formation of reliable conclusions.
The conclusion that age and gender have no effect is questionable, as existing research literature suggests these variables have significant impacts.
The data collection process is unclear. How did the researchers ensure the appropriateness and broad acceptance of the study's operations and definitions? How can others replicate the study in future research?
The paper studies different themes. What is the relationship between these themes? Are they simply listed under a broad topic, or do they have a progressively in-depth relationship?
The research implications could be more extensive. Are there additional conclusions or suggestions that could be drawn?
The paper lacks sections on research conclusions and limitations.
Author Response
Comments 1: The introduction is overly brief. The authors should provide a more comprehensive background. The current background lacks sufficient detail to convey the importance of the study series. Additionally, the literature review is insufficient, failing to cover emotional intelligence and mental health among young graduates, particularly within the specific group of Portuguese young graduates.
Response 1: Thanks for the suggestion. The entire article has been improved. We also tried to improve the literature review.
Comments 2: The research methodology is too brief, with a small sample size of 209 young graduates. The study only employs simple correlation and regression analysis, which is inadequate for in-depth causal analysis and the formation of reliable conclusions.
Response 2: Thanks for the observation. We tried to improve the methodology section. In fact, the sample size is a limitation of this study. Not supporting a PLS-SEM estimation, which in our point of view would be more appropriate.
Comments 3: The conclusion that age and gender have no effect is questionable, as existing research literature suggests these variables have significant impacts.
Response 3: Thanks for the observation. Most of the literature points in this direction, however we found and referred to some articles that corroborate our results.
Comments 4: The data collection process is unclear. How did the researchers ensure the appropriateness and broad acceptance of the study's operations and definitions? How can others replicate the study in future research?
Response 4: Thanks for the observation. In fact, the convinience sample and the sample size are limitations of this study. Unfortunately, this is what happens in many scientific studies where universities do not have the financial capacity to hire agencies specialized in data collection.
Comments 5: The paper studies different themes. What is the relationship between these themes? Are they simply listed under a broad topic, or do they have a progressively in-depth relationship?
Response 6: The main theme is the relationship between EI and PWB. Additionally, gender and age were also considered. We think that the introduction and literature review have been improved to answer your question.
Comments 7: The research implications could be more extensive. Are there additional conclusions or suggestions that could be drawn?
Response 7: Thanks for the suggestion. A new conclusions section has been introduced.
Comments 8: The paper lacks sections on research conclusions and limitations.
Response 8: Thanks for the suggestion. A new conclusions section with limitations has been introduced.
Reviewer 5 Report
Revise for sequence of tenses some sentences.
You should use past simple tense describing your sample in the section 3.1. Sample Characterization. This sub-section 3.1. Sample Characterization should be a part of the Method section, not the Results section.
You should specify that for regression analysis you coded sex as a dummy variable.
In the Discussion section you state "The study showed the highest correlation reported so far between EI and PWB, demonstrating a statistically significant, positive and moderate correlation (r = 0.54) between emotional management and eudaimonic well-being, related to personal growth and self-realization, as well as a relationship with hedonic well-being, associated with pleasure and happiness." The reader has the impression that you report the results from your study. However, in the Method section any sub-scales of the questionnaires are not mentioned. In the Results section, any such results are not reported. Please, revise your Method and Results section or quote the authors of the results in this sentence.
It is not clear which studies you refer to in the sentence "Both studies thus highlight that emotionally intelligent individuals are better able to face situations of adversity and stress."
Why did you specify young people as those up to 29 years old? Why did you specify two age sub-groups of 20 to 24 years old and 25 to 29 years old? Did you base this classification on any age periodization from the scientific literature?
Please, report the source for the sentence "Longitudinal analysis revealed small statistically significant variations in dimensions such as "environmental domain" and "personal growth", but the variation explained by age was minimal, representing less than 4% of the total variation."
A Conclusion section is missing in the Article.
The following information is not specified for this article: Supplementary Materials, Author Contributions, Funding, Institutional Review Board Statement, Informed Consent Statement, Data Availability Statement, Acknowledgments, and Conflicts of Interest.
Revise for sequence of tenses the sentence in the Abstract "In short, the present investigation confirmed that young people with a greater ability to manage their emotions and those of others (emotional intelligence) are more likely to have a higher psychological well-being."
You should use a gender-neutral language in the end of the sentence "In this model proposed by Ryff, the individual is the agent of his own development, in which he builds and realizes the potential of his self [14]."
Revise for sequence of tenses the sentence "In this research, the non-probabilistic sampling method was used, using convenience sampling, where the selected respondents are young graduates (up to 29 years old and 154 who have finished the course no more than 2 years ago); and Snowball sampling, where these young people send it to their peers."
You should use past simple tense describing your sample in the section 3.1. Sample Characterization. It is known when the study was conducted. This sub-section 3.1. Sample Characterization should be a part of the Method section, not the Results section.
You should specify that for regression analysis you coded sex as a dummy variable.
Revise for sequence of tenses the sentences "From the analysis of the results presented in Table 3, it can be seen that there were no statistically significant differences in EI for young males and females (p-value>0.05), however, and although it is not a statistically significant difference, young females have a higher EI than young males."; "The results obtained, based on a sample of 209 Portuguese young people, indicate that EI has a statistically significant influence on PWB, where young people with higher levels of EI had higher levels of PWB. "; "Concerning the positive association between EI and PWB in the context of recent graduates, the results obtained showed that young people with greater ability to manage their emotions and those of others (EI) are more likely to have a higher PWB"
In the Discussion section you state "The study showed the highest correlation reported so far between EI and PWB, demonstrating a statistically significant, positive and moderate correlation (r = 0.54) between emotional management and eudaimonic well-being, related to personal growth and self-realization, as well as a relationship with hedonic well-being, associated with pleasure and happiness." The reader has the impression that you report the results from your study. However, in the Method section any sub-scales of the questionnaires are not mentioned. In the Results section, any such results are not reported. Please, revise your Method and Results section or quote the authors of the results in this sentence.
It is not clear which studies you refer to in the sentence "Both studies thus highlight that emotionally intelligent individuals are better able to face situations of adversity and stress."
Why did you specify young people as those up to 29 years old? Why did you specify two age sub-groups of 20 to 24 years old and 25 to 29 years old? Did you base this classification on any age periodization from the scientific literature?
Pay attention to sequence of tenses in the sentence "These results are in line with the study by [33], which used a sample of 6,943 American participants and also showed that the association between age and PWB (in the Ryff model) is not very significant."
Please, report the source for the sentence "Longitudinal analysis revealed small statistically significant variations in dimensions such as "environmental domain" and "personal growth", but the variation explained by age was minimal, representing less than 4% of the total variation."
A Conclusion section is missing in the Article.
The following information is not specified for this article: Supplementary Materials, Author Contributions, Funding, Institutional Review Board Statement, Informed Consent Statement, Data Availability Statement, Acknowledgments, and Conflicts of Interest.
Author Response
Comments 1: Revise for sequence of tenses some sentences.
Response 1: Thanks for the suggestion. We think the entire article has been improved.
Comments 2: You should use past simple tense describing your sample in the section 3.1. Sample Characterization. This sub-section 3.1. Sample Characterization should be a part of the Method section, not the Results section.
Response 2: Thanks for the suggestion. The change has been made.
Comments 3: You should specify that for regression analysis you coded sex as a dummy variable.
Response 3: Thanks for the suggestion. The change has been made.
Comments 4: In the Discussion section you state "The study showed the highest correlation reported so far between EI and PWB, demonstrating a statistically significant, positive and moderate correlation (r = 0.54) between emotional management and eudaimonic well-being, related to personal growth and self-realization, as well as a relationship with hedonic well-being, associated with pleasure and happiness." The reader has the impression that you report the results from your study. However, in the Method section any sub-scales of the questionnaires are not mentioned. In the Results section, any such results are not reported. Please, revise your Method and Results section or quote the authors of the results in this sentence.
Response 4: Thanks for the observation. Some sentences were rewritten and the methodology section was improved.
Comments 5: It is not clear which studies you refer to in the sentence "Both studies thus highlight that emotionally intelligent individuals are better able to face situations of adversity and stress."
Response 5: You're absolutely right. To avoid confusion, the phrase was deleted.
Comments 6: Why did you specify young people as those up to 29 years old? Why did you specify two age sub-groups of 20 to 24 years old and 25 to 29 years old? Did you base this classification on any age periodization from the scientific literature?
Response 6: Thanks for the observation. The study intended to analyze young graduates who had recently been in the job market. It was our idea, without being based on literature, that we didn't find anything.
Comments 7: Please, report the source for the sentence "Longitudinal analysis revealed small statistically significant variations in dimensions such as "environmental domain" and "personal growth", but the variation explained by age was minimal, representing less than 4% of the total variation."
Response 7: After reviewing the article, this part of the discussion of the results no longer made sense and therefore the statement was deleted.
Comments 8: A Conclusion section is missing in the Article.
Response 8: Thanks for the observation. A new section has been introduced.
Comments 9: The following information is not specified for this article: Supplementary Materials, Author Contributions, Funding, Institutional Review Board Statement, Informed Consent Statement, Data Availability Statement, Acknowledgments, and Conflicts of Interest.
Response 9: This information is part of the journal template. It will be filled in later.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I believe that the authors have done a good job in improving their manuscript, so that it is now acceptable for publication.
The authors have adequately addressed all the suggestions I made in my first review, so I have no further specific suggestions to make.
The final layout of the manuscript seems to me to be adequate.
Author Response
Comments1: I believe that the authors have done a good job in improving their manuscript, so that it is now acceptable for publication.
Response 1: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comment.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for addressing some of my comments. However, you have not yet addressed my comment on validity testing. You need to test the discriminant and convergent validity of the factors, psychological well-being, and emotional intelligence. You can use either exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis. Then you need to test the hypotheses. You can use structural equation modeling to test the hypotheses.
Thank you for addressing some of my comments. However, you have not yet addressed my comment on validity testing. You need to test the discriminant and convergent validity of the factors, psychological well-being, and emotional intelligence. You can use either exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis. Then you need to test the hypotheses. You can use either covariance-based or partial least squares-based structural equations modeling to test the hypotheses.
Author Response
Comments 1: Thank you for addressing some of my comments. However, you have not yet addressed my comment on validity testing. You need to test the discriminant and convergent validity of the factors, psychological well-being, and emotional intelligence. You can use either exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis. Then you need to test the hypotheses. You can use either covariance-based or partial least squares-based structural equations modeling to test the hypotheses.
Response 1:
Thank you very much for your comment. Initially, we considered estimating a PLS-SEM model. We began by assessing the reliability of the measurement indicators, where several items had factor loadings well below the recommended threshold of 0.708. Next, we evaluated the internal consistency of the measurement model using Cronbach’s alpha (0.835 for PWB and 0.876 for EI) and composite reliability (0.787 for PWB and 0.930 for EI). These values have been added to the article in Section 4.1. Since the inclusion of items with lower factor weights did not severely affect internal consistency, they were retained.
Next, we evaluated convergent validity using the average variance extracted (AVE), where the minimum acceptable threshold is 0.5. The AVE values obtained were 0.271 for PWB and 0.421 for EI, both of which fall below the acceptable limit.
Finally, we moved on to the evaluation of discriminant validity. To do this, we used the HTMT criterion, whose result was 0.727, which is acceptable, since it is below the recommended limit of 0.85.
As there were some flaws in the validation of the measurement model, we chose to estimate a multiple linear regression model, since the dependent variable, PCB, verified the assumptions for its application.
Reviewer 4 Report
I have reviewed the authors' revised version and observed that they have implemented extensive modifications to address the inappropriate aspects identified in the previous review comments.
I am confident that the current version of the paper meets the publication standards and recommend it for publication
Author Response
Comments 1: I have reviewed the authors' revised version and observed that they have implemented extensive modifications to address the inappropriate aspects identified in the previous review comments. I am confident that the current version of the paper meets the publication standards and recommend it for publication
Response 1: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comment.
Reviewer 5 Report
There are some grammatical errors in formulation of hypotheses:
"H1a: EI impact positively the PWB 213
H1b: The Sex influence the PWB 214
H1c: The Age influence the PWB"
The Abstract starts with a sentence without its beginning part.
The section Introduction consists of paragraphs that are not related well logically to each other.
All sentences in the section 3.2. Sample Characterization should be in past simple tense.
Please, include in the text only your final version of the paper to be more comprehensible.
Author Response
Comments 1: There are some grammatical errors in formulation of hypotheses:
"H1a: EI impact positively the PWB 213
H1b: The Sex influence the PWB 214
H1c: The Age influence the PWB"
Response 1:
Thank you very much for your comment. The hypotheses were reformulated.
H1a: EI positively impacts the PWB
H1b: Sex influences the PWB
H1c: Age influences the PWB
Comments 2: The Abstract starts with a sentence without its beginning part.
Response 2: Thanks for the observation. The Absttract started in this way “The present research seeks to understand the impact of emotional intelligence on psychological well-being. Now we change it to “The present research seeks to understand the impact of emotional intelligence on psychological well-being of young graduates.”
Comments 3: The section Introduction consists of paragraphs that are not related well logically to each other.
Response 3: Dear Reviewer, thank you for your observation. In our view, the introduction begins with the key definitions of PWB and EI. Then, Section 1.1 provides a brief literature review on PWB, Section 1.2 presents a brief literature review on EI, and finally, Section 1.3 offers a brief review of the relationship between these two variables. We have tried to improve the introduction to make it clearer.
Comments 4: All sentences in the section 3.2. Sample Characterization should be in past simple tense.
Response 4: Thanks for the sugestion. We made the following changes:
The sample consisted of 209 young graduates, 134 females (64.1%) and 75 males (35.9%). There were no null or blank answers.
Most respondents were aged between 20 and 24 years old (51.2%).
Relating to the type of bachelor's degree, 96 young people (45.9%) finished a bachelor's degree with an integrated master's degree, and 113 young people (54.1%) finished a bachelor's degree without an integrated master's degree.
Regarding the undergraduate area, Business Sciences predominated with 28 young people (13.4%), Social and Behavioral Sciences with 26 young people (12.4%), and Health with 23 young people (11%).
Concerning professional status, 63 young people (30.1%) were students, 51 young people (24.4%) were full-time workers, 47 young people (22.5%) were working students, 30 young people (14.4%) were part-time workers, and 18 young people (8.6%) were unemployed.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for your honest response about your difficulties with PLS-SEM. You may need to drop some items that have very low factor loading to improve your AVE. Alternatively, you can try exploratory factor analysis using SPSS to first establish validity. Then use regression with the mean score of only the items found to be valid.
Thank you for your honest response about your difficulties with PLS-SEM. You may need to drop some items that have very low factor loading to improve your AVE. Alternatively, you can try exploratory factor analysis using SPSS to first establish validity. Then use regression with the mean score of only the items found to be valid.
Author Response
Comments 1: Thank you for your honest response about your difficulties with PLS-SEM. You may need to drop some items that have very low factor loading to improve your AVE. Alternatively, you can try exploratory factor analysis using SPSS to first establish validity. Then use regression with the mean score of only the items found to be valid.
Response 1: Dear reviewer, thank you for the suggestion. Section 4.1 has been rewritten.
Reviewer 5 Report
You should specify for the third hypothesis H3: EI does not differ with age
in the age of 20 - 29 years old
Revise for sequence of tenses the sentence "In short, the present investigation confirmed that young people with a greater ability to manage their emotions and those of others (emotional intelligence) are more likely to have a higher psychological well-being."
Author Response
Comments 1: You should specify for the third hypothesis H3: EI does not differ with age in the age of 20 - 29 years old
Response 1:Dear reviewer, thanks for your suggestion. We rewrote hypothesis H3 as follows:
H3: EI does not differ in the age of 20 - 29 years old
Comments 2: Revise for sequence of tenses the sentence "In short, the present investigation confirmed that young people with a greater ability to manage their emotions and those of others (emotional intelligence) are more likely to have a higher psychological well-being."
Response 2: Thank you very much for the recommendation. We rewrote the sentence deste modo: “In summary, this study confirmed that young people with greater ability to manage their own emotions are more likely to experience higher psychological well-being.”
