O iginal A icle
The In luence o Emo ional
In elligence on Li e Sa is ac ion
in Adolescence
Pa ial Media ion o Resilience, Posi i e and Nega i e A ec
Lo ea Azpiazu
1
, A an zazu Rod íguez-Fe nández
2
, Eide Goñi
2
,
and A an za Fe nández-Zabala
2
1
Facul y o Educa ion, Philosophy and An h opology, E olu iona y and Educa ional Psychology,
Uni e si y o he Basque Coun y (UPV/EHU), Donos ia-San Sebas ian, Spain
2
Facul y o Educa ion and Spo , E olu iona y and Educa ional Psychology, Uni e si y o he Basque Coun y (UPV/EHU),
Vi o ia-Gas eiz, Spain
Abs ac : In oduc ion: Adolescence is a de elopmen al s age du ing which adolescen s o en epo lowe le els o well-being. Unde s anding
he ac o s ha enhance subjec i e well-being is essen ial o i s imp o emen . Howe e , he speci ic ela ionships be ween emo ional
in elligence, esilience, and subjec i e well-being emain unclea . Aim: This s udy compa es six heo e ical models based on p elimina y esea ch
explo ing he ela ionship dynamics among emo ional in elligence, esilience, and subjec i e well-being. Me hods: Pa icipan s included
1,397 schoolchild en aged 12 o 16 yea s (M= 13.88; SD = 1.27). Resul s: The indings suppo a sequen ial model in which emo ional in elligence
di ec ly p edic s bo h posi i e (emo ional cla i y and epai ) and nega i e (emo ional a en ion and cla i y) e ec s. Emo ional in elligence also
indi ec ly in luences hese a iables h ough esilience, while esilience di ec ly and indi ec ly p edic s li e sa is ac ion ia he a ec i e domain.
Discussion: The esul s e eal a s epwise ela ionship dynamic, highligh ing he media ional ole o esilience and a ec i e balance. Addi ionally,
he a ec i e componen s o subjec i e well-being play dis inc oles compa ed o li e sa is ac ion when analyzed alongside o he well-
being- ela ed a iables in a mul i a ia e amewo k. This s udy opens up new a enues o enhancing adolescen li e sa is ac ion.
Keywo ds: emo ional in elligence, esilience, posi i e a ec , nega i e a ec , li e sa is ac ion
T adi ionally, much psychological esea ch and p ac ice
has ocused on men al illness and human de ici s, igno ing
aspec s o well-being and he p omo ion o posi i e unc-
ioning (Chakhssi e al., 2018). This changed wi h he
ad en o Posi i e Psychology, because a shi occu ed
owa d explo ing he ac o s ha p omo e well-being and
op imal unc ioning.
Acco ding o his posi i e app oach, one key indica o o
men al heal h is subjec i e well-being (Magya & Keyes,
2019;Yıldı ım e al., 2022), which e e s o he hedonic na -
u e o well-being, de ined as an indi idual’s o e all e alua-
ion o hei li e and emo ional expe iences (Diene e al.,
2017). In concep ual e ms, i is a h ee-pa model wi h
h ee associa ed elemen s (Diene , 1984; Diene , 2009;
Pa o & Diene , 2013): li e sa is ac ion (global cogni i e
assessmen s o how sa is ied he esponden is wi h hei
li e), posi i e a ec ( equen posi i e eelings), and nega-
i e a ec (in equen nega i e eelings).
The e is a gene al consensus ega ding he need o
de e mine which ac o s acili a e subjec i e well-being in
adolescence (Magya & Keyes, 2019), since he neu obio-
logical and psychosocial changes expe ienced a he onse
o pube y appea o lead o a signi ican decline in his a ea
(González-Ca asco e al., 2017). Among hese ac o s,
emo ional in elligence and esilience s and ou . Resilience
is de ined as he abili y o cope wi h and e ec i ely adap
o s esso s (Sou hwick e al., 2014; Windle e al., 2011).
Bo h ac o s a e pa icula ly impo an because o hei
impac on subjec i e well-being (Noble & McG a h, 2012;
Ramos-Díaz e al., 2019; Sánchez-Ál a ez e al., 2016),
al hough his opichasbeenlesss udiedinadolescen s han
in adul s (Tian e al., 2015) and equi es u he scien i ic
esea ch (Jebb e al., 2020; Sánchez-Ál a ez e al., 2016).
Pe cei ed emo ional in elligence (PEI) is a pe son’s pe cep-
ion o hei own emo ional skills and is linked o emo ional
a en ion, emo ional cla i y, and emo ional epai (o emo-
ion egula ion) (Maye e al., 2000; Salo ey e al., 2002).
Consequen ly, in his pape , we concep ualize PEI in
acco dance wi h he co ela ed h ee- ac o model (emo-
ional a en ion, emo ional cla i y, and emo ional epai ),
Ó2025 The Au ho (s). Dis ibu ed as a Hog e e OpenMind a icle unde he Eu opean Jou nal o Psychology Open (2025)
unde he license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0) h ps://doi.o g/10.1024/2673-8627/a000084
h ps://econ en .hog e e.com/doi/pd /10.1024/2673-8627/a000084 - Wednesday, Oc obe 22, 2025 1:28:30 AM - IP Add ess:95.18.210.110
which is s ill accep ed and con inues o a ouse a g ea deal
o scien i ic in e es (Blasco-Belled e al., 2022; Cobos-
Sánchez e al., 2020; Ma ínez-Mon eagudo e al., 2021).
Al houghp e ious esea ch(Die al.,2020;P ado-Gascó
e al., 2018; Sánchez-Ál a ez e al., 2016) gene ally sup-
po ed he ela ionship be ween PEI and he h ee compo-
nen s o subjec i e well-being –sugges ing ha lowe
emo ional a en ion and highe emo ional cla i y and egu-
la ionenhanceli esa is ac ionanda ec i ebalance–some
s udies quali ied hese indings. Fo example, one me a-
analysis (Sánchez-Ál a ez e al., 2016) men ions he need
o u he esea ch o cla i y he unde lying mechanisms
ela ing PEI o subjec i e well-being, gi en ha ew s udies
o da e include he a ec i e componen s o subjec i e well-
being (Jebb e al., 2020; Zhao e al., 2020). Mo eo e , he
di e en componen s o PEI appea o ha e no di ec
impac on li e sa is ac ion when s udied inconjunc ion wi h
o he a iables (Es é ez e al., 2020; Ve ga a e al., 2015)
undamen al o subjec i e well-being, such as esilience
(Bajaj & Pande, 2016; Zhao e al., 2020).
Emo ion egula ion has been shown o di ec ly in luence
li e sa is ac ion h ough esilience (Azpiazu e al., 2021;
Ramos-Díaz e al., 2019). Howe e , he epo ed ela ion-
ship coe icien s a e ypically low and o en diminish when
hea ec i ecomponen so subjec i ewell-beinga einco -
po a ed in o he analysis (Zhao e al., 2020). In his con ex ,
Zeidne e al. (2012) p opose a Model o A ec i e Media-
ion, which posi s ha posi i e and nega i e a ec media e
he ela ionship be ween pe cei ed emo ional in elligence
(PEI) and li e sa is ac ion. Acco ding o his model, indi id-
uals wi h high emo ional in elligence expe ience g ea e
posi i e a ec and lowe nega i e a ec , leading o
enhanced li e sa is ac ion (Eid & La sen, 2008; Kong
e al., 2019; Xiang e al., 2021).
This pe spec i e con as s wi h Diene ’s well-being
model (Diene , 1984; Pa o & Diene , 2013; Rod íguez-
Fe nández & Goñi, 2011), in which li e sa is ac ion is
ea edasindependen oma ec i ecomponen s,empha-
sizing he au onomy o each well-being dimension.
Rega ding he speci ic componen s o PEI, Ve ga a e al.,
2015 demons a ed ha emo ional a en ion posi i ely
in luencesnega i ea ec ,whileemo ional epai enhances
posi i e a ec . Addi ionally, emo ional cla i y a ec s
bo h a ec i e componen s, wi h a posi i e impac on
posi i e a ec and a nega i e impac on nega i e a ec .
Howe e , i emains unclea whe he hese ela ionships
pe sis when esilience is ac o ed in o he model. E idence
sugges s ha esilience p omo es posi i e a ec and
educes nega i e a ec (Bajaj & Pande, 2016; Yang e al.,
2022).
Zhao e al. (2020) iden i ied ull media ion by esilience
in he link be ween PEI and bo h ypes o a ec . In con as ,
o he s udies ha e epo edonly pa ial media ion be ween
PEI and li e sa is ac ion (Bajaj & Pande, 2016; Ramos-Díaz
e al., 2019). No ably, hese s udies ocus solely on he cog-
ni i e componen o li e sa is ac ion, wi h some elying on
cons uc s ha app oxima e a he han di ec ly measu e
PEI. These disc epancies cas doub on whe he esilience
ully o pa ially media es his dynamic.
Gi en hise idence,as agge ed ela ionshipseemsplau-
sible (A ms ong e al., 2011; Liu e al., 2013), whe e esili-
ence media es he associa ion be ween PEI and subjec i e
well-being.Howe e , u he cla i ica ionisneeded.Speci -
ically, does esilience impac all h ee componen s o well-
being, consis en wi h Diene ’s independen componen
amewo k (Pa o & Diene , 2013)? O do he a ec i e
componen s media e he ela ionship be ween esilience
andli esa is ac ion,ass udiesinco po a ingaddi ionalpsy-
chological a iables sugges ed (Kong e al., 2019; Xiang
e al., 2021)? I he la e is ue, i emains o be de e mined
whe he his media ion is pa ial (Luque-Reca e al., 2022;
Yang e al., 2022) o ull (Liu e al., 2013).
I is also necessa y o explo e he ela ionship dynamic
i sel , aking in o accoun all componen s o PEI –such as
emo ionala en ion,emo ionalcla i y,andemo ional egu-
la ion (and well-being –posi i e a ec , nega i e a ec , and
li e sa is ac ion) since he ew s udies ha analyze hese
a iables in a mul i a ia e way include only global con-
s uc s measu es o analyze only a single componen
(Luque-Reca e al., 2022; Ramos-Díaz e al., 2019) a he
hanall hei speci ic componen s(Liue al.,2013).Al e na-
i ely, hey ail o analyze ela ionships be ween a iables
ha p e ious esea ch showed o be ele an (Bajaj &
Pande, 2016).
This s udy add esses hese gaps by p o iding a mo e
comp ehensi e analysis ha in eg a es no only cogni i e
bu also a ec i e componen s o well-being, he eby
o e ing a mo e nuanced unde s anding o he dynamics
o he ela ionships be ween PEI, esilience, and subjec i e
well-being.
Thep esen s udyhada wo oldaim:(1) oexplo e he ull
o pa ial in luence o esilience on he associa ion be ween
PEI and well-being (nega i e a ec , posi i e a ec , and li e
sa is ac ion);(2) oanalyze hepossiblemedia ing ole(pa -
ial o ull) played by he a ec i e componen s o subjec i e
well-being (nega i e a ec and posi i e a ec ) in he ela-
ionship be ween PEI and li e sa is ac ion. To his end,
and based on p e ious esea ch,we p oposed o es he ol-
lowing hypo heses h ough he six s uc u al models shown
in Figu e 1.
-Hypo hesis 1: Resilience ully media es he ela ionship
be ween PEI and he h ee componen s o subjec i e
well-being. M
1a.
Cons ained model o esilience.
-Hypo hesis 2: Resilience pa ially media es he ela ion-
ship be ween PEI and he h ee componen s o subjec-
i e well-being. M
1b.
Pa ial model o esilience.
Eu opean Jou nal o Psychology Open (2025) Ó2025 The Au ho (s). Dis ibu ed as a Hog e e OpenMind a icle unde he
unde he license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
2 L. Azpiazu e al., Facili a o s o Adolescen Well-Being
h ps://econ en .hog e e.com/doi/pd /10.1024/2673-8627/a000084 - Wednesday, Oc obe 22, 2025 1:28:30 AM - IP Add ess:95.18.210.110
-Hypo hesis 3: Resilience ully media es he ela ionship
be ween PEI and he wo a ec i e componen s o sub-
jec i e well-being, and, a he same ime, hese p edic
li e sa is ac ion. M2
.
Cons ained model.
-Hypo hesis 4: Resilience ully media es he ela ionship
be ween PEI and he h ee componen s o subjec i e
well-being, and, a he same ime, nega i e a ec and
posi i e a ec p edic li e sa is ac ion. M3
a.
Pa ially
es ic ed model 1.
-Hypo hesis 5: Resilience pa ially media es he associa-
ion be ween PEI and he wo a ec i e componen s o
subjec i e well-being, and, a he same ime, nega i e
a ec and posi i e a ec p edic li e sa is ac ion M3
b.
Pa ially es ic ed model 2.
-Hypo hesis 6: Resilience pa ially media es he associa-
ion be ween PEI and he h ee componen s o subjec-
i e well-being, and, a he same ime, nega i e a ec
and posi i e a ec p edic li e sa is ac ion. M4
.
Un es ic ed model.
Me hod
Pa icipan s
A o al o 1397 schoolchild en om 10 di e en schools in
compulso y seconda y educa ion, be ween 12 and 16 yea s,
pa icipa ed in he s udy (M=13.88;SD =1.27). O hese,
Figu e 1. Concep ual diag ams o p oposed heo e ical models. EA = emo ional a en ion, EC = emo ional cla i y, ER = emo ional epai , RS =
esilience, PA = posi i e a ec , NA = nega i e a ec , LS = li e sa is ac ion.
Ó2025 The Au ho (s). Dis ibu ed as a Hog e e OpenMind a icle unde he Eu opean Jou nal o Psychology Open (2025)
unde he license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
L. Azpiazu e al., Facili a o s o Adolescen Well-Being 3
h ps://econ en .hog e e.com/doi/pd /10.1024/2673-8627/a000084 - Wednesday, Oc obe 22, 2025 1:28:30 AM - IP Add ess:95.18.210.110
670 (48%) we e male and 727 (52.0%) emale (w
2
=2.33,
p=.127). All came om public (832 s uden s) and semip i-
a e schools (i.e., p i a e schools ha ecei e some s a e
unding) (565 s uden s) in he Au onomous Communi y o
he Basque Coun y. The amilies o he pa icipa ing s u-
den s p edominan ly belonged o a middle socioeconomic
and cul u al s a um (73.2%), wi h smalle p opo ions
classi ied as low (13.4%) and high (13.3%) socioeconomic
s a us. We employed a con enience sampling me hod.
P ocedu e
This esea ch was app o ed by he E hics Commi ee
o Resea ch on Human Subjec s o he Uni e si y o he
Basque Coun y (EHU/UPV) (M10_2018_261). We con-
ac ed he head eache s and depu y heads o di e en
schoolsby elephone.A e ag eeingonada e o amee ing,
hey we e in o med o he aims o he s udy and we e asked
o ake pa and o gi e hei au ho iza ion. A conside able
numbe o schoolsag eed opa icipa e,while ou declined
because o adminis a i e cons ain s, scheduling con lic s,
o ins i u ional p io i ies. Ul ima ely, a o al o 10 schools
pa icipa ed in he s udy. Since all pa icipa ing s uden s
we e mino s, we eques ed in o med consen om hei
pa en s o legal gua dians. Once he school managemen
had ag eed o pa icipa e, we sen a w i en no i ica ion o
he amilies,speci ying ha hei child enwouldpa icipa e
in he s udy and eques ing hei in o med consen h ough
he signa u e o a documen speci ying he objec i es o he
esea ch, he ques ionnai es o be applied, he olun a y
na u e o pa icipa ion, and he possibili y o accessing he
da a in he u u e o emo e he da a o hei son o daugh-
e . Only s uden s who had signed he in o med consen
o mcould olun a ilypa icipa ein he esea ch.Theques-
ionnai eswe ecomple edonpape in heclass oomdu ing
schoolhou s,inasessionlas ingapp oxima ely40 minu es.
To ensu e he igo o he da a collec ion p ocess, he
esea che s adminis e ing he ques ionnai es we e highly
expe ienced and knowledgeable in his ask, wi h solid
aining in e hical guidelines, da a con iden iali y, and he
s anda dized adminis a ion o he ques ionnai es. They
we e also esponsible o answe ing any ques ions om
he pa icipan s du ing da a comple ion in a consis en
and unbiased manne , ensu ing he eliabili y and uni o -
mi y o he da a collec ion p ocess ac oss all pa icipan s.
This s udy applied “single blinding,”meaning ha pa ici-
pan s we e unawa e o he speci ic objec i es o he
esea ch. The pu pose o his blinding was o ensu e
ha pa icipan s’ esponses we e no in luenced by p io
knowledge o he s udy’s aims, p e en ing hem om
consciously o unconsciously a emp ing o con i m o
ejec he s udy hypo heses. This app oach was c ucial o
main aining he in eg i y o he da a collec ion p ocess.
Response anonymi y and olun a y pa icipa ion we e also
assu ed.
Ins umen s
We assessed pe cei ed emo ional in elligence (PEI) using
he T ai Me a Mood Scale–23 (TMMS; Salo ey e al.,
1995), adap ed o Spanish and ab idged by Salgue o e al.
(2009). This 12-i em scale consis s o h ee co ela ed
dimensions: Emo ional A en ion, Emo ional Cla i y, and
Emo ional Repai . I ems a e a ed on a Like - ype scale
wi h i e esponse op ions anging om 1(s ongly disag ee)
o 5(s ongly ag ee). In his s udy, we ound accep able i
indexes o he ac o s uc u e o he ques ionnai e: CFI =
.935, IFI = .935, TLI = .914, RMSEA
[CI]
=.064
[.058–.071]
,
SRMR = .067 and χ
2
/d =6.74; and he ollowing eliabili y
indexes: emo ional a en ion: α=.812, H coe icien = .806;
emo ional cla i y: α=.777, H coe icien = .795; and emo-
ional epai : α=.696, H coe icien = .800.
To assess esilience, we used he Conno -Da idson
Resilience Scale-10 (CD-RISC10; Campbell-Sills & S ein,
2007), adap ed o Spanish by No a io-Pacheco e al.
(2014). The scale comp ises 10 i ems a ed on a Like - ype
scalewi h i e esponse op ions anging om1(s ongly dis-
ag ee) o5(s ongly ag ee). The con i ma o y ac o analysis
e ealed he ollowing i indexes o his unidimensional
scale: CFI = .959, IFI = .959, TLI = .939, RMSEA
[CI]
=
.052
[.039–.064]
, SRMR = .033 and w
2
/d = 4.7; and he ollow-
ing eliabili y indexes: α=.734, and H coe icien = .750.
We measu ed li e sa is ac ion using he Sa is ac ion
wi h Li e Scale (SWLS; Diene e al., 1985), alida ed in
Spanish by A ienza e al. (2000). This i e-i em unidimen-
sional scale has a Like - ype esponse o ma wi h se en
op ions anging om1=s onglydisag ee o7=s onglyag ee.
In his s udy, he esul s con i med he unidimensional
s uc u e o he scale: CFI = .983, IFI = .983, TLI = .966,
RMSEA
[CI]
=.059
[.040–.081]
, SRMR = .023,w
2
/d = 5.8; and
e ealed accep able eliabili y indexes: a=.826 and
H coe icien = .858.
We assessed posi i e and nega i e e ec s using he Pos-
i i e and Nega i e A ec -10 scale (PNA-10; B adbu n,
1969), e isedbyWa e al.(1983)and alida edinSpanish
by Yá noz-Yaben e al. (2014). This 10-i em wo-dimen-
sional ques ionnai e di ec ly measu es he expe ience o
bo h posi i e and nega i e e ec s. I has a Like - ype o -
ma wi h ou esponse op ions anging om 1=ne e o 4
=all he ime. Accep able i indexes esul ed in he con i -
ma o y ac o analysis o his wo- ac o co ela ed scale:
TLI = .935, CFI = .951, IFI = .930, RMSEA
[CI]
=.059
[.040–
.081]
, SRMR = .056,w
2
/d = 5.8. The eliabili y alues
ob ained o each subscale we e: posi i e a ec : α=.797,
H coe icien = .848; and nega i e a ec : α=.781,
H coe icien = .792.
Eu opean Jou nal o Psychology Open (2025) Ó2025 The Au ho (s). Dis ibu ed as a Hog e e OpenMind a icle unde he
unde he license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
4 L. Azpiazu e al., Facili a o s o Adolescen Well-Being
h ps://econ en .hog e e.com/doi/pd /10.1024/2673-8627/a000084 - Wednesday, Oc obe 22, 2025 1:28:30 AM - IP Add ess:95.18.210.110
Da a Analysis
We calcula ed he missing alues (2.1%) using he expec a-
ionmaximiza ion(EM)algo i hmandMa ko chainMon e
Ca lo (MCMC), bo h o e ed by he LISREL 8.8p og am.
We elimina ed a o al o 273 ou lie s using he SAS p og am,
so he inal base was 1,397 pa icipan s wi hou missing
alues. Pa icipan s had o be be ween 12 and 16 yea s o
age; we es ablished his inclusion c i e ion p io o analysis.
The K-S es e ealed a signi ican esul (p<.001),
indica ing ha he da a did no ollow a uni a ia e no mal
dis ibu ion. Simila ly, Ma dia’s es o mul i a ia e no -
mali y showed a signi ican alue (Ma dia = 179.32,Z=
67.75), wi h a c i ical h eshold o signi icance being Z>
5.0(Ma dia, 1970). These esul s con i med ha he
assump ion o no mali y was iola ed, leading us o ejec
his assump ion. Gi en he iola ion o no mali y, we
applied obus es ima o s o ensu e accu a e model es i-
ma ion despi e nonno mali y. Speci ically, we employed
obus goodness-o - i indices in EQS 6.3, which a e s a is-
ical measu es used o e alua e how well a model i s he
da a, e en when assump ions o no mali y a e iola ed
(By ne, 2006; Hu & Ben le , 1999). These obus es ima-
o s help o p o ide eliable pa ame e es ima es and
model i indices, e en in he p esence o skewed dis ibu-
ions o ou lie s (By ne, 2006; Hu & Ben le , 1999). This
app oach ensu es ha ou conclusions a e alid despi e
he nonno mali y obse ed in he da a. Pa ame ic p oce-
du es we e applied using he SPSS 22 p og am, since hey
emain obus in he e en o noncompliance wi h he no -
mali y assump ion (Mon illa & K om ey, 2010).
The esul s om Ha man’s explo a o y ac o analysis
indica ed ha he un o a ed solu ion explained 16.6%o
he o al a iance. In line wi h he c i e ia commonly
applied in his ype o analysis, a a iance explana ion o
less han 20% is gene ally conside ed low (Ha man,
1976), sugges ing ha a single unde lying ac o does no
domina e he da a. This low alue implies ha common
me hod bias is unlikely o be a signi ican issue in his
s udy. In addi ion, we applied he unmeasu ed la en con-
s uc echnique, which e ealed a common a iance o
7.3%. This alue is also conside ed ela i ely low (Pod-
sako e al., 2012), u he suppo ing he conclusion ha
common me hod bias has a minimal impac on he s udy’s
esul s. The low common a iance indica es ha he a i-
ance sha ed be ween he a iables is no subs an ial
enough o dis o he indings.
We used he SEM me hodology o es ima e he measu e-
men and s uc u al model, ollowing he c i e ia p oposed
by By ne (2006). We examined he esidual co a iance
ma ix and he mos common measu es o i (McDonald
& Ho, 2002). To de e mine whe he a model adequa ely
i he da a, we conside ed speci ic cu -o alues: We
deemed CFI, TLI, and IFI alues o .90 accep able, while
we conside ed alues o .95 op imal. Simila ly, we classi-
ied RMSEA and SRMR alues .06 as good and alues
.08 as accep able, while we ega ded a w
2
/d a io <3as
indica i e o a easonable i (Hu & Ben le , 1999; Ma sh
& Hoce a , 1985). Once we had iden i ied models mee ing
accep able i h esholds, we conduc ed model compa -
isons o de e mine whe he hey ep esen ed s a is ically
di e en s uc u es. We assessed his using he chi-squa e
di e ence es (B yan & Sa o a, 2012): A signi ican esul
indica ed ha he models we e dis inc , necessi a ing u -
he e alua ion based on i indices and model pa simony.
We also examined he compa a i e AIC (Akaike, 1987)
andCAIC(Bozdogan,1987)indices,gi en ha lowe alues
indica eabe e andmo e pa simonious model (Wes e al.,
2014).Th ough hisp ocess,weselec ed hemos app op i-
a e model by conside ing bo h he absolu e i o he model
and i s ela i e supe io i y o e al e na i e speci ica ions,
Finally, o es he ype o media ion, we ollowed he
s eps ou lined by Vande Weele and Vans eeland (2014)
and Vans eeland and Daniel (2017) o media ion analysis
in ol ing mul iple media o s in se ies wi h pa allel cha ac-
e is ics. We chose This app oach because o i s abili y o
p ope ly accoun o he complexi y o media ion models
ha include bo h pa allel and se ial media o s. I is pa icu-
la ly ad an ageous because i allows o he es ima ion o
bo h di ec and indi ec e ec s while con olling o po en-
ial con ounde s, making i mo e obus han simple medi-
a ion models. This me hod is especially well-sui ed o
s udies in ol ing mul iple media o s, whe e unde s anding
he ela ionships be ween hem is c ucial o explaining he
o e all p ocess. We adhe ed o he key assump ions o
Holmbeck’s(2002) amewo k o media ional analysis,
which include (1) he di ec nonin e en ional model: The
di ec ela ionship be ween he p edic o and he ou come
is e alua ed wi hou conside ing he media o ; (2) he
mul iple indi ec e ec s model: The media o is in oduced
o assess how he p edic o in luences he ou come h ough
i ; (3) he mul iple media o e ec s model: Bo h di ec and
indi ec e ec s a e join ly analyzed o ully unde s and he
ela ionships be ween he a iables.
Resul s
Desc ip i e S a is ics
Table 1shows he means, s anda d de ia ions, and co ela-
ions be ween he s udy a iables. We obse ed signi ican
posi i e associa ions be ween all a iables excep in he
case o emo ional a en ion and li e sa is ac ion ( =.003,
p=< .001), o which he associa ion was nega i e.
We also ound nega i e associa ions be ween nega i e
a ec and emo ional cla i y ( =.107,p=< .001),
Ó2025 The Au ho (s). Dis ibu ed as a Hog e e OpenMind a icle unde he Eu opean Jou nal o Psychology Open (2025)
unde he license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
L. Azpiazu e al., Facili a o s o Adolescen Well-Being 5
h ps://econ en .hog e e.com/doi/pd /10.1024/2673-8627/a000084 - Wednesday, Oc obe 22, 2025 1:28:30 AM - IP Add ess:95.18.210.110
emo ional epai ( =.150,p=<.001), esilience( =.229,
p=< .001), posi i e a ec ( =.105,p=< .001), and li e
sa is ac ion ( =.414,p=< .001).
P elimina y Analysis
Be o e es ing he s uc u al models shown in Figu e 1,
we de eloped a measu emen model. The esul s e ealed
accep able i indexes: w
2
[d ]
=1631.11
[505]
,w
2
/d = 3.23,
TLI=.903,CFI=.912,IFI=.913,SRMR=.055,RMSEA
[CI]
=
.040
[.038–.024]
.
We also examined he condi ions p oposed by Holm-
beck (2002). Fi s , we es ed he es ima ion and i o
he di ec nonin e en ional model o PEI as a p edic o
o li e sa is ac ion, posi i e a ec , and nega i e a ec as
a p e equisi e o es ing he M
1a
and M
1b
models. The
esul s e ealed ha his model did no e u n sa is ac o y
alues in all he i indexes: w
2
[d ]
=1431.43
[311]
,w
2
/d =4.6,
TLI = .884, CFI = .897, IFI = .897, SRMR = .073, RMSEA
[CI]
=.051
[.048–.053]
, indica ing ha M
1a
and M
1b
a e p obably
no plausible, and ha he pa hways ound in his model
should be in e p e ed wi h cau ion in he p esence o
accep able i indexes.
We also es ed hedi ec nonin e en ional model o PEI
as a p edic o o li e sa is ac ion as a p e equisi e o
analyzing he M
2
M
3a,
M
3b
, and M
4
s uc u al models
(Holmbeck, 2002). Indeed, he model hypo hesizing he
di ec in luence o emo ional a en ion (β
d
=.09,z=
2.362,p<.01), emo ional cla i y (β
d
=.23,z=5.395,p<
.01) and emo ional epai (β
d
=.36,z=9.046,p<.01) on li e
sa is ac ion had signi ican coe icien s and an accep able
i o he da a: w
2
[d ]
=594.04
[112]
,w
2
/d =5.30, TLI = .911,
CFI = .927, IFI = .927, SRMR = .063, RMSEA
[CI]
=
.055
[.051–.060]
. Nex , ollowing Vans eeland and Daniel
(2017)–and since models M
2
,M
3a
,M
3b
, and M
4
we e
mul iple media ions –we es ed he i and es ima ion o
he indi ec coe icien s o hose models in which: (1)
PEI p edic ed li e sa is ac ion h ough esilience (w
2
[d ]
=
934.41
[244]
,w
2
/d =3.83, TLI = .907, CFI = .917, IFI =
.918, SRMR = .058, RMSEA
[CI]
=.045
[.042–.048]
); and (2)
PEI p edic ed li e sa is ac ion h ough he a ec i e com-
ponen s o subjec i e well-being (w
2
[d ]
=1407.71
[312]
,
w
2
/d =4.51, TLI = .907, CFI = .917, IFI = .917, SRMR =
.053, RMSEA
[CI]
=.064
[.047–.053]
). This also se ed o
e i y Holmbeck (2002) second s ep (mul iple indi ec
e ec s model) and hi d s ep (mul iple media o e ec s
model). Bo h models had accep able i indexes, and he
indi ec e ec s we e signi ican a .01 (Table 2), which
made i possible o es he cons ained model (M
2
) as well
as i s espec i e pa ially cons ained a ian s (M
3a
and
M
3b
) and he uncons ained model (M
4
), all o which a e
shown in Figu e 1, and o in e p e he signi icance o
he pa hways ound wi h ela i e con idence.
S uc u al Models
Theanalysiso hegoodness-o - i indexesshowninTable3
e ealed ha onlymodelsM
3b
andM
4
ob ainedsa is ac o y
indexes. Al hough he TLI o M
3b
was below he cu -o
poin , he es o he indices we e conside ed accep able.
We he e o e decided o ejec he heo e ical models M
1a,
M
1b,
M
2
, and M
3a
. Consequen ly, we ejec ed Hypo heses
1,2, and 3and accep ed Hypo hesis 4.
Table 1.Co ela ions and desc ip i e s a is ics
Va iables 1234567
1. Emo ional a en ion –––––––
2. Emo ional cla i y .275
***
––– ––
3. Emo ional epai .187
***
.438
***
–––––
4. Resilience .074
**
.441
***
.502
***
––––
5. Posi i e a ec .113
***
.406
***
.425
***
.496
***
–––
6. Nega i e a ec .303
***
.107
***
.150
***
.229
***
.105
***
––
7. Li e sa is ac ion .003
***
.328
***
.383
***
.481
***
.504
***
.414
***
–
M(SD) 24.45 (7.11) 25.10 (6.66) 27.60 (6.72) 30.54 (4.33) 26.12 (4.72) 18.77 (4.72) 26.20 (5.63)
No e. *p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001.
Table 2.Indi ec e ec s
Model IV !(MV) !DV β
i
z
i
Resilience as a media ing a iable
EA!(RS) !LS .098
**
3.960
EC!(RS) !LS .215
**
6.014
ER!(RS) !LS .244
**
7.147
A ec i e balance as a media ing a iable
EA!(NA, PA) !LS .230
**
5.889
EC!(NA, PA) !LS .234
**
6.037
ER!(NA, PA) !LS .285
**
7.794
No e. *p < .05, **p< .01. EA = emo ional a en ion, EC = emo ional cla i y,
ER = emo ional epai , RS = esilience, PA = posi i e a ec , NA = nega i e
a ec , LS = li e sa is ac ion.
Eu opean Jou nal o Psychology Open (2025) Ó2025 The Au ho (s). Dis ibu ed as a Hog e e OpenMind a icle unde he
unde he license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
6 L. Azpiazu e al., Facili a o s o Adolescen Well-Being
h ps://econ en .hog e e.com/doi/pd /10.1024/2673-8627/a000084 - Wednesday, Oc obe 22, 2025 1:28:30 AM - IP Add ess:95.18.210.110
The analysis o he goodness-o - i indexes o he
emaining models (M
3b
and M
4
) e ealed o e all good
le els o i , al hough M
4
(w
2
[d ]
=1669.68
[511]
,w
2
/d =
3.26, TLI = .907, CFI = .910, IFI = .910, SRMR = .056,
RMSEA
[90% CI]
=040
[.038–.042]
) e u ned be e indexes
han M
3b
, which epo ed an unaccep able TLI (w
2
[d ]
=
1724.03
[512]
,w
2
/d =3.36, TLI = .897, CFI = .906, IFI =
.906, SRMR = .060, RMSEA
[90% CI]
=041
[.039–.043]
). The
chi-squa e es on he disc epancy be ween he wo models
(Δw
2
M3b-M4
=68.78,p<.001) was s a is ically signi ican .
The e o e,o hese womodels,weselec ed heone e lec -
ing a pa ial media ion by he a ec i e componen s o
subjec i e well-being (M
4
) as he mos plausible and he
one ha bes ep esen s he da a. The compa a i e indexes
suppo his choice, since M
4
was he model wi h he lowes
coe icien s (AIC = 647.68, CAIC = 2542.38). These da a,
oge he wi h he p elimina y analyses, allowed us o ejec
Hypo hesis 5and accep Hypo hesis 6.
In sho , aken oge he , he esul s indica e ha esili-
ence pa ially media es he ela ionship be ween PEI and
he a ec i e componen s o subjec i e well-being, and in
u n, posi i e and nega i e a ec pa ially media e he
in luence o esilience on li e sa is ac ion. Mo eo e , he
pa hways speci ied in he model we e s a is ically signi i-
can , and he LM es and Wald es modi ica ion indexes
do no indica e s uc u al links ha would sugges he addi-
ion o sub ac ion o pa ame e s. Figu e 2shows he inal
s uc u al model, wi h i s co esponding s anda dized
eg ession coe icien s and signi icance le els. The amoun
o a iance explained by esilience in he model is 42.4%,
nega i e a ec is explained by 30.8%, posi i e a ec by
31.8%, and li e sa is ac ion by 52.1%.
Di ec , Indi ec , and To al E ec s o he
Va iables S udied
The eg ession coe icien s o he mos plausible model
(M
4
) (Table 4) e ealed ha all he p oposed di ec pa h-
ways we e signi ican a p<.01.
The esul s e eal he ele anceo all h eedimensionso
PEI on esilience, wi h he e ec o emo ional epai (β
d
=
.47,p<.01) ha ing he s onges di ec in luence o all he
di ec and indi ec ela ionships analyzed.
Likewise, all h ee dimensions o PEI we e ound o
ha e a di ec and signi ican in luence on he a ec i e
componen s o subjec i e well-being, wi h e ec sizes o
be ween .14 and .21, wi h he excep ion o emo ional a en-
ion on nega i e a ec , in which he e ec size was almos
double (β
d
=.41,p<.01). Mo eo e , al hough i did no
exe a di ec in luence, emo ional a en ion indi ec ly
Table 3.Compa ison o nes ed models
w
2[d ]
w
2
/d TLI CFI IFI SRMR RMSEA
[90% CI]
AIC CAIC
M
1a
2006.01
[517]
3.88 .874 .884 .885 .072 .045
[.043–.047]
972.01 2255.51
M
1b
1838.35
[512]
3.59 .887 .896 .896 .072 .043
[.041–.045]
814.35 2381.96
M
2
1889.44
[516]
3.66 .884 .893 .894 .071 .044
[.042–.046]
857.44 2363.83
M
3a
1836.00
[515]
3.57 .888 .897 .898 .067 .043
[.041–.045]
806.00 2409.03
M
3b
1724.03
[512]
3.36 .897 .906 .906 .060 .041
[.039–.043]
700.04 2496.27
M
4
1669.68
[511]
3.26 .901 .910 .910 .056 .040
[.038–.042]
647.68 2542.38
Δw
2M3b–M4
68.78, p< .001
No e. CFI, TLI, IFI .90 (accep able), .95 (op imal); RMSEA, SRMR .06 (good), .08 (accep able); w
2
/d < 3 ( easonable i ) (Hu & Ben le , 1999; Ma sh &
Hoce a , 1985).
Figu e 2. S anda dized solu ion. *p< .05, **p< .01.
Ó2025 The Au ho (s). Dis ibu ed as a Hog e e OpenMind a icle unde he Eu opean Jou nal o Psychology Open (2025)
unde he license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
L. Azpiazu e al., Facili a o s o Adolescen Well-Being 7
h ps://econ en .hog e e.com/doi/pd /10.1024/2673-8627/a000084 - Wednesday, Oc obe 22, 2025 1:28:30 AM - IP Add ess:95.18.210.110
andnega i elyin luencedposi i ea ec (β
i
=.04,p<.01),
andemo ional epai in luencednega i e a ec (β
i
=.18,p
<.01),al houghinbo h cases hecoe icien swe e e ylow.
Theda a e ealed ha esilienceindi ec lyin luencesli e
sa is ac ion (β
i
=.22,p<.01) h ough he a ec i e compo-
nen s o well-being, indica ing a pa ial media ion o bo h
posi i e and nega i e a ec in his ela ionship dynamic.
Fu he mo e, he o al e ec o esilience on li e sa is ac-
ion (β
=.51,p<.01) had he highes eg ession coe icien
o all he ela ionships s udied. Also no ewo hy was
he indi ec e ec o emo ional epai on li e sa is ac ion
(β
i=
.31,p<.01).
Discussion
The e is a widesp ead consensus among esea che s abou
he need o explo e he ac o s ha os e subjec i e well-
being in adolescence (Magya & Keyes, 2019), gi en ha
he biological and psychosocial changes expe ienced a
he onse o pube y appea o esul in a signi ican
decline in his a iable (González-Ca asco e al., 2017).
S udies o da e ha e ound ha PEI and esilience a e
wo impo an a iables associa ed wi h subjec i e well-
being (P ado-Gascó e al., 2018; Ramos-Díaz e al.,
2019). Howe e , he speci ic means whe eby all hese
a iables in e ac wi h each o he is as ye unclea , as
some s udies included only a global measu e o PEI o
some o i s ace s (Bajaj & Pande, 2016; Liu e al., 2013;
Luque-Reca e al., 2022), while o he s ailed o analyze
he a ec i e componen s o well-being (Ramos-Díaz
e al., 2019) o ocused only on a ec i e balance (Liu
e al., 2013).
Consequen ly, his s udy, amed wi hin he Posi i e
Psychology app oach, sough o cla i y how hese a iables
in e ac wi h each o he a a de elopmen al s age ha has
been ela i ely neglec ed by esea ch compa ed o adul -
hood (Tian e al., 2015). Based on p e ious esea ch (Bajaj
& Pande, 2016; Liu e al., 2013; Ramos-Díaz e al., 2019),
we es ed six heo e ical models: i s , o e i y whe he
a ec i ecomponen s, oge he wi h esilience,playamedi-
a ing ole in he ela ionship be ween PEI and li e sa is ac-
ion; and second, o asce ain he ype o media ing ole
(pa ial o ull) played by esilience in he associa ions
be ween he di e en a iables s udied.
Ingene al,weobse edas agge ed ela ionshipdynamic
( his model e lec s a p ocess consis ing o ou psycholog-
ical componen s ha seek o explain how emo ional in elli-
gence, esilience and a ec i e componen s a ec li e
sa is ac ion), as indeed some p e ious s udies (A ms ong
e al., 2011; Liu e al., 2013) p edic ed. Speci ically, he
esul s e ealed ha he mos plausible model, wi h bo h
heo e ical and empi ical suppo , is one in which esilience
pa ially media es be ween PEI and he a ec i e compo-
nen s o subjec i e well-being, and he a ec i e compo-
nen s o well-being pa ially media e he in luence o
esilience on li e sa is ac ion. This inding co obo a es
heidea ha adolescen swhounde s andandmanage hei
emo ions be e and ha e a g ea e abili y o o e come di -
icul si ua ions also ha e a be e pe cep ion o hemsel es
in a ec i e e ms and epo g ea e li e sa is ac ion (Bajaj
& Pande, 2016; Di e al., 2020; Noble & McG a h, 2012;
Table 4.Di ec , indi ec , and o al e ec s
Hypo hesis β
d
z
d
β
i
z
i
β
z
EA!RS .148
**
3.759 ––.148
**
–
EC!RS .320
**
6.243 ––.320
**
–
ER!RS .472
**
9.753 ––.472
**
–
EA !(RS) !NA .413
**
8.891 .056
**
3.298 .469
**
9.565
EC !(RS)!NA .143
**
2.990 .120
**
4.658 .263
**
4.420
ER !(RS) !NA ––.178
**
6.091 .178
**
6.091
EA !(RS) !PA ––.043
**
3.108 .043
**
3.108
EC !(RS) !PA .177
**
4.119 .093
**
4.152 .270
**
5.209
ER !(RS) !PA .209
**
4.220 .138
**
4.713 .347
**
5.082
EA !(RS, NA, PA) !LS ––.218
**
6.720 .218
**
6.720
EC !(RS, NA, PA) !LS ––.270
**
6.648 .270
**
6.648
ER !(RS, NA, PA) !LS ––.308
**
7.719 .308
**
7.719
RS!NA .376
**
8.149 ––.376
**
8.149
RS!PA .291
**
5.726 ––.291
**
5.726
RS !(PA, NA) !LS .285
**
7.388 .224
**
7.652 .509
**
12.232
NA !LS .346
**
9.378 ––.346
**
9.378
PA !LS .323
**
8.573 ––.323
**
8.573
No e.*p< .05, **p< .01. EA = emo ional a en ion, EC = emo ional cla i y, ER = emo ional epai , RS = esilience, PA = posi i e a ec , NA = nega i e a ec ,
LS = li e sa is ac ion.
Eu opean Jou nal o Psychology Open (2025) Ó2025 The Au ho (s). Dis ibu ed as a Hog e e OpenMind a icle unde he
unde he license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
8 L. Azpiazu e al., Facili a o s o Adolescen Well-Being
h ps://econ en .hog e e.com/doi/pd /10.1024/2673-8627/a000084 - Wednesday, Oc obe 22, 2025 1:28:30 AM - IP Add ess:95.18.210.110
Ramos-Díaz e al., 2019; Sánchez-Ál a ez e al., 2016;
Ve ga a e al., 2015;Yıldı ım e al., 2022).
Acco ding o hese esul s, he speci ic componen s o
emo ional in elligence (PEI) in luence esilience and sub-
jec i e well-being in a di e en ia ed manne . Speci ically,
heabili y oin e p e andunde s and emo ions (emo ional
cla i y) and he abili y o egula e hem (emo ional epai )
seem oplayakey ole in heabili y o copewi had e sesi -
ua ions, a o ing adap i e esponses o hem and, conse-
quen ly, p omo ing g ea e emo ional well-being. On he
o he hand, emo ional a en ion, while acili a ing he
pe cep ion o one’s own emo ional s a es, could be ela ed
o g ea e nega i e a ec when no accompanied by app o-
p ia e egula ion s a egies. This inding is consis en wi h
p e ious li e a u e (Ve ga a e al., 2015; Ramos-Díaz
e al., 2019) and ein o ces he idea ha PEI con ibu es
o well-being no only di ec ly bu also h ough i s impac
on esilience and a ec i e componen s.
Ano he ele an inding o his s udy is ha , al hough
Diene ’s Subjec i e Well-Being Model (Diene , 1984;
Diene , 2009; Pa o & Diene , 2013) is concep ualized as
a h ee-pa model comp ising h ee independen ye
ela ed a iables (posi i e a ec , nega i e a ec , and li e
sa is ac ion) (Rod íguez-Fe nández & Goñi, 2011), when
i s componen s a e analyzed in a mul i a ia e manne
oge he wi h o he psychological a iables, a ec s play a
media ing and p edic i e ole in li e sa is ac ion, he eby
suppo ing he a ec i e media ion model posi ed by
Zeidne e al. (2012). This inding (Eid & La sen, 2008;
Kong e al., 2019; Xiang e al., 2021) is consis en wi h he
ac ha a ec i e expe ience is o g ea impo ance in judg-
ing li e sa is ac ion, since posi i e emo ions (and lack o
nega i e ones) s imula e indi iduals o hink mo e eely,
c ea i ely and hough ully, which in u n is conduci e o
inding posi i e meaning in one’s li e (F ed ickson, 2001).
Diene e al. (2017) a gue ha he inclusion o all he com-
ponen s o subjec i e well-being p o ides mo e accu a e
in o ma ion han ha o e ed by any one o hem alone.
The e o e, including and analyzing a ec i e componen s
oge he wi h o he psychological a iables o e s g ea e
insigh and expands on ha epo ed by p e ious s udies,
e ealing ha a ec i e componen s may make an indepen-
den con ibu ion o he associa ion be ween PEI and li e
sa is ac ion among adolescen s.
Howe e , he s eng h o his media ion may a y
depending on se e al con ex ual ac o s. Fo ins ance, cul-
u al in luences can shape how indi iduals expe ience and
egula eemo ions(Mae al.,2018),whichin u nmaya ec
he ex en o which a ec i e componen s media e he
impac o esilienceonli esa is ac ion.Consis en wi hp e-
ious esea ch (Yang e al., 2022), his s udy e eals ha
a ec i e componen s pa ially and signi ican ly media e
he in luence o esilience on li e sa is ac ion, a inding ha
sheds some ligh on he deba e as o whe he hey media e
ully o pa ially (Liu e al., 2013; Yang e al., 2022). I is also
clea ha bo h esilience (Liu e al., 2013) and a ec i e
expe ience (Eid & La sen, 2008; Kong e al., 2019; Xiang
e al., 2021) a e o pa icula impo ance in he assessmen s
people make o hei li es: Those who cope be e wi h di -
icul ies and who eel pleasu e equen ly and a ely expe i-
ence nega i e emo ions a e gene ally mo e sa is ied wi h
hei li es(Yange al.,2022).Whilesome esea chsugges s
ha socioeconomic s a us may play a ole –by p o iding
access o esou ces ha acili a e posi i e a ec i e expe i-
ences and emo ional coping s a egies (Rusu e al., 2018)–
he e idence ega ding i s speci ic in luence on a ec i e
media o s emains inconclusi e (S ep oe e al., 2008). Fu -
he s udies a e needed o cla i y his ela ionship.
Fu he , amilydynamics,includingpa en alsuppo and
communica ion pa e ns, may signi ican ly in luence he
esilience o indi iduals (S ep oe e al., 2008), u he mod-
e a ing his ela ionship. A ec i e expe iences may no be
uni o m ac oss di e en demog aphic g oups: Adolescen s
a a ious de elopmen al s ages may p ocess and exp ess
emo ions in dis inc ways (Abb uzzese e al., 2019), po en-
ially al e ing he media ion e ec s. Simila ly, gende di -
e ences in emo ional exp ession and egula ion could
lead o a ia ions in how a ec i e componen s in luence
he ela ionship be ween esilience and li e sa is ac ion
(Abb uzzese e al., 2019; Zimme mann & Iwanski, 2014).
A deepe explo a ion o hese ac o s may p o ide a mo e
nuanced unde s anding o he mechanisms unde lying his
media ion p ocess.
The p esen s udy also con i ms ha esilience pa ially
media es he associa ion be ween PEI and he a ec i e
componen s o subjec i e well-being (Bajaj & Pande,
2016; Ramos-Díaz e al., 2019). Al hough his indi ec
in luence is ela i ely weak, he da a indica e ha i is a
signi ican media ion, he eby p o iding empi ical e i-
dence ha helps cla i y p e ious inconclusi e esul s
(Ramos-Díaz e al., 2019; Zhao e al., 2020) and shows
ha PEI p omo es he use o emo ional esou ces ha lead
o adap i e esponses and good psychological ou comes
(Salo ey e al., 2000; Sánchez-Ál a ez e al., 2016; Wang
e al., 2017). In o he wo ds, emo ional and esilien skills
help people cope mo e success ully wi h s esso s and in
u n p omo e a ec i e bene i s ha gene a e g ea e pos-
i i e a ec and less nega i e a ec .
Mo eo e , esilienceis pa icula ly ele an in he associ-
a ion be ween PEI and a ec i e balance when he speci ic
componen s o PEI a e analyzed. In e es ingly, emo ional
a en ion has a ai ly s ong in luence on nega i e a ec ,
compa ed o ha exe ed by emo ional cla i y and
emo ional epai on posi i e a ec , whe eas he la e wo
emo ional skills ha e a mo e subs an ial impac on esili-
ence. Consequen ly, a he han con ibu ing di ec ly o
Ó2025 The Au ho (s). Dis ibu ed as a Hog e e OpenMind a icle unde he Eu opean Jou nal o Psychology Open (2025)
unde he license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
L. Azpiazu e al., Facili a o s o Adolescen Well-Being 9
h ps://econ en .hog e e.com/doi/pd /10.1024/2673-8627/a000084 - Wednesday, Oc obe 22, 2025 1:28:30 AM - IP Add ess:95.18.210.110
