published-pdf-1206-6-Ego Defensive Styles As Predictors of Emotional Intelligence and the Effects of Demographic Characteristics on Defensive Styles and Emotional Intelligence

Amirinia et al., Int. J. Rev. Life. Sci., 5(3), 2015, 829-836
©JK Welfare & Pharmascope Foundation | International Journal of Review in Life Sciences 829
Ego Defensive Styles As Predictors of Emotional Intelligence and the Effects of
Demographic Characteristics on Defensive Styles and Emotional Intelligence
*
Mahmood Amirinia1
, Parisa Aghazadeh2
, Reyhaneh Bassam3
1
Bank Mellat University of Applied Sciences (General Training) in Tehran, Iran
2
Bank Mellat University of Applied Sciences (General Training) in Tehran, Iran
3
IT Department of Bank Mellat (Expert System analyst) in Tehran, Iran
ABSTRACT
In this study, firstly, we investigated relationships of gender, age and academic educational level of Iranian em-
ployees to ego defense styles and emotional intelligence with multivariate analysis of variance. Secondly, we ex-
amined the hypothesis that, whether the ego defense styles (mature, neurotic, and immature) can predict the
components of Bar-On model of emotional intelligence with using multiple regression models? Results showed
that age and gender produced a significant effect on the ego defense styles and age is a facilitator of stress man-
agement. Employees with different grade point averages in ego defense styles questionnaire were significantly
different in relation to the five main components of the Bar-On model: intrapersonal, interpersonal, adaptability,
stress management, general mood and total emotional intelligence scores.
Keywords Emotional Intelligence; Ego Defensive Styles; Bank’s Employees; Bar-On Model.
INTRODUCTION
Emotional intelligence (EI) refers to the ability to per-
ceive, control and evaluate emotions. Bar-On focuses
on an array of emotional and social abilities, including
the ability to be aware of, understand, and express
oneself, the ability to be aware of, understand, and
relate to others, the ability to deal with strong emo-
tions, and the ability to adapt to change and solve
problems of a social or personal nature. Bar-On out-
lines 5 components of emotional intelligence such as
intrapersonal, interpersonal, adaptability, stress man-
agement, and general mood. Hypothesizes of Bar-On
that saw those individuals with higher than average
EQ’s are in general more successful in meeting envi-
ronmental demands and pressures. In general, Bar-On
considers emotional intelligence and cognitive intelli-
gence to contribute equally to a person’s general intel-
ligence, which then offers an indication of one’s poten-
tial to succeed in life (Bar-On, 2000, 2003; Mishar,
2014). Past studies indicated that individuals with high
levels of emotional intelligence attain more success in
the workplace, trust the work environment and are
more flexible in stressful situations (Nikolaou, 2002)
than those with low emotional intelligence. Therefore,
organizations seem to accept EI as one of the possible
management tools that can help them in gaining com-
petitive benefits. People with high emotional abilities
also have better social capabilities, longer relationships
and improved competency in solving conflicts (Rafati,
2004). The direct relationship between emotional intel-
ligence and a healthy life demonstrates that, using
emotional intelligence capabilities can bring success in
life (Todres, 2010). Bar-On focuses on social intelli-
gence that It appears, will influence interpretations
and defense mechanisms in individual as personal
traits (Mishar, 2014). Defense mechanisms, a concept
first introduced by Freud, have been defined as auto-
matic psychological processes that protect the individ-
ual from awareness of internal or external dangers
(Freud, 1966). Defense mechanisms, whose responsi-
bility is to protect the ego from different forms of anxi-
ety (Freud, 1923), may be functional or dysfunctional
according to how they are used in the environment
(Andrews et al, 1993) categorized three major defense
styles based on twenty different defense mechanisms
(Valliant, 1976). These three defense styles are named
‘‘mature’’, ‘‘neurotic’’ and ‘‘immature’’ according to
which kinds of defense mechanisms are used by the
individual (Andrews et al, 1993). The mature defense
style represents normal, adaptive and functional
method of coping whereas the immature and neurotic
styles may be considered to be a consequence of dys-
functional and maladaptive coping strategies (Da-
vanloo, 1990). The association between the compo-
nents of emotional intelligence including difﬁculty in
identifying and describing feelings and externally ori-
ented thinking with ego defense styles was investigat-
ed in past studies. Based on this studies in students of
universities, the adaptive defense styles were correlat-
* Corresponding Author
Mahmood Amirinia
Email: mahmood.amirinia@gmail.com
Contact +98 2144222995
Fax: +98 2133954749
www.ijrls.pharmascope.org
ISSN 2231-2935
Research Article

ed with overall emotional intelligence but not with the
emotional perception and regulation components.
Emotional knowledge was correlated with both adap-
tive and maladaptive defense styles (Pellitteri, 2002)
and also, emotional intelligence was positively associ-
ated with mature defense mechanisms and negatively
associated with immature defense mechanisms
(Besharat, 2007; Ghaedi, 2006). No significant correla-
tion was found between emotional intelligence and
neurotic defenses. The results of regression analysis
showed that both mature and immature defense
mechanisms could be predicted by emotional intelli-
gence and its component of emotional regulation
(Besharat, 2007). Whereas In other studies, the use of
neurotic defenses is found to be associated with emo-
tional intelligence. Moreover, neurotic defenses could
be predicted by emotional intelligence. Of course, it
was observed only in males but not in female students
(Ghaedi, 2006). In this study, in addition to investigate
of EQ modelling based on Bar-on model and psycholog-
ical defense mechanisms, we study demographic vari-
ables such as gender, age and educational level of par-
ticipants.
METHODS
PARTICIPANTS, PROCEDURE, AND MEASURES
Our sample consisted of 333 adult employees of 2000
employees of Bank Mellat in Tehran, randomly as-
signed (Men= 247 & Woman= 86) and (Bachelor’s De-
gree holders= 216 & Master’s Degree holders = 117)
that the youngest participants in our sample was 24
years old and the oldest 64 (range = 40). To illustrate
the interaction effects of age in this study, we were
divided the participants into two group and used the
median of age in the sample (40 years old). This cut-off
also captures empirically meaningful life-cycle phases
in a lifetime of an adult, such as the middle adulthood
(24–40 years old), on the one hand, and the late adult-
hood/preretirement (41–65), on the other hand (Brom-
ley, 1966). Firstly, participants were asked to complete
the Farsi version of Defense Styles Questionnaire (DSQ-
40) that is a 40 item questionnaire developed by An-
drews et al. (1993) measuring three categories of de-
fense mechanisms which may be used by respondents.
The Farsi version of this questionnaire was translated
by Besharat et al. (2001).The 40 items measure three
styles labeled mature, immature and neurotic. Re-
spondents respond to each item on a nine point Likert
scale ranging from ‘‘Completely Agree’’ to ‘‘Completely
Disagree’’. The Mature defense style includes defense
mechanisms of sublimation, humor, anticipation and
suppression. The Neurotic defense style includes de-
fense mechanisms of undoing, pseudo-altruism, ideali-
zation and reaction formation. The Immature defense
style includes the following defense mechanisms: pro-
jection, passive aggression, acting-out, isolation, deval-
uation, autistic fantasy, denial, displacement, dissocia-
tion, splitting, rationalization and somatization.
Cronbach’s alphas of 0.75, 0.73 and 0.72 were reported
for the three defense styles of mature, neurotic and
immature respectively. Furthermore, test retest relia-
bility of r = 0.81 was reported after a four week interval
in 30 subjects (Besharat et al., 2011), but in the present
study, Cronbach’s alphas of 0.82, 0.76 and 0.81 were
for the three defense styles of mature, neurotic and
immature respectively. Secondly, 130 participants
completed the Farsi version of Bar-On emotional intel-
ligence inventory according to Dehshiri (2003), and all
data were analyzed using PASW. Bar-On EQ-i is a 133-
item questionnaire with a 5-point Likert response
scale. This test and its subscales do have reliability and
validity in Iranian culture. With the adapted version in
Iran, the Cornbach's alpha coefficient was found to be
0.76 and the results of the factor analysis provided
some support for the inventory hypothesized struc-
ture. This Inventory is a 90-item and responses to each
item can range from; ‘1 = very seldom or not true of
me’ to ‘5 very often or true of me’ for positively or
negatively-keyed items respectively (Dehshiri, 2003).
The scales and subscales are; intrapersonal intelligence
(emotional self-awareness, assertiveness, self-regard,
self-actualization, independence), interpersonal intelli-
gence (empathy, interpersonal relationships, and social
responsibility), adaptability (problem solving, reality
testing, and flexibility), stress management (stress tol-
erance, impulse control), and general mood (happi-
ness, optimism). Higher scores indicate a higher level
of emotional intelligence. In this study, the question-
naire provides a total score and scores for ﬁve principal
dimensions. Cronbach’s alpha coefﬁcients were 0.91
for intrapersonal intelligence, 0.87 for interpersonal
intelligence, 0.88 for adaptability, 0.85 for stress man-
agement, 0.87 for general mood, and 0.96 for the emo-
tional Quotient (EQ).
RESULTS:
MANOVA results of demographic characteristics re-
vealed that the gender of employees explained signifi-
cant differences in the mature and neurotic defense
styles (Table 1) and the use of these mechanisms were
seen in men more than women (Table3).
Table 1: Multivariate analysis of variance summary for defense styles
MANOVA Univariate analysis of variance
Ind.variable Pillai’s
Trace
F P η2
Dep.variable F df P η2
Education 0.99 0.78 0.504 0.00
7
Mature Defense Style 0.17 1 0.681 0.002

Neurotic Defense Style 0.49 1 0.483 0.001
Immature Defense Style 0.71 1 0.401 0.002
Age 0.95 5.54 0.001
*
0.04
9
Mature Defense Style 10.95 1 0.001* 0.033
Gender 0.97 3.38 0.018 0.03
0
Mature Defense Style 7.69 1 0.006* 0.023
Neurotic Defense Style 6.73 1 0.010* 0.020
Educ×age 1.00 0.36 0.780 0.00
3
Educ×gender 0.998 1. 90 0.128 0.01
7
Age×gender 0.99 1.23 0.296 0.01
1
Educ×age× gender 0.99 0.63 0. 598 0.00
6
Notes. * The significant at the 0.017 level with hoc Bonferroni correction
Table 2: Multivariate analysis of variance summary for Bar-On EQ-i Score
MANOVA Univariate analysis of variance
Ind.variable Pillai’s
Trace
F P η2
Dep.variable F d
f
P η2
Educational level 0.97 0.58 0.748 0.029
Intrapersonal Intelligence 0.17 1 0.676 0.001
Interpersonal Intelligence 0.79 1 0.374 0.006
Adaptability 0.01 1 0.915 0.000
Stress Management 0.03 1 0.867 0.000
General Mood 0.37 1 0.545 0.003
EQ (total) 0.02 1 0.899 0.000
Age 0.92 1.71 0.125 0.081
Adaptability 2.05 1 0.155 0.016
Stress Management 8.73 1 0.004* 0.067
General Mood 2.08 1 0.152 0.017
EQ (total) 2.79 1 0.097 0.022
Gender 0.93 1.44 0.205 0.069

Adaptability 1.29 1 0.258 0.010
General Mood 3.07 1 0.082 0.025
EQ (total) 4.42 1 0.038 0.035
Educ×age 0.98 0.47 0.828 0.024
Adaptability 0.00 1 0.973 0.000
General Mood 0.04 1 0.835 0.000
EQ (total) 0.00 1 0.958 0.000
Educ×gender 0.95 1.02 0.419 0.050
Adaptability 0.57 1 0.452 0.005
General Mood 0.02 1 0.901 0.000
EQ (total) 0.53 1 0.470 0.004
Age×gender 0.96 0.72 0.634 0.036
Adaptability 1.29 1 0.259 0.010
General Mood 1.12 1 0.292 0.009
EQ (total) 1.33 1 0.251 0.011
Educ×age× gen-
der
0.98 0.46 0.838 0.023
Adaptability 0.14 1 0.707 0.001
General Mood 0.07 1 0.784 0.001
EQ (total) 0.02 1 0.878 0.000
Notes. * The significant at the 0.008 level with hoc Bonferroni correction
Table 3: Pairwise Comparisons of individual variables-employee’s age, gender, and education level for defense
styles
Scale Age in years Gender Educational level
(I) 24-40 (J) 40-56 (I) Men (J) Wom-
en
(I) Bache-
lor
(J) Maste
N=174 N=159 N=247 N=86 N=216 N=117
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
SE P Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
SE P Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
SE P
Mature -4.50 4.50 1.361 0.001*a
3.77 -3.77 1.361 0.006*b
0.56 -0.56 1.361 0.681
Neurotic 0.10 -0.10 1.297 0.937 3.36 -3.36 1.297 0.010*b
-0.91 0.91 1.297 0.483
Immature 3.83 -3.83 2.630 0.147 -0.03 0.03 2.630 0.906 2.21 -2.21 2.630 0.401
Notes. Based on estimated marginal means at the 98.3% Confidence Interval for Difference (significant at the
0.017 level with hoc Bonferroni correction)
*a
Denotes significant Mean difference between the middle adulthood (24–40 years old) and the late adulthood
(41–65).
*b
Denotes significant Mean difference between men and women.

Table 4: Pairwise Comparisons of individual variables-employee’s age, gender, and education level for Bar-On
EQ-i Score
Scale Age in years Gender Educational level
(I) 24-40 (J) 40-56 (I) Men (J) Wom-
en
(I)
Bachelor
(J) Mas-
ter
N=76 N=54 N=98 N=32 N=70 N=60
Mean
Differ-
ence (I-J)
Mean
Differ-
ence (I-J)
SE P Mean
Differ-
ence (I-
J)
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
SE P Mean
Differ-
ence (I-J)
Mean
Differ-
ence (I-J)
SE P
In-
trapersonal
-4.12 4.12 3.948 0.298 7.59 -7.59 3.948 0.05
7
-1.65 1.65 3.948 0.67
6
Interper-
sonal
-0.69 0.69 1.965 0.727 4.50 -4.50 1.965 0.02
4
1.75 -1.75 1.965 0.37
4
Adaptability -3.61 3.61 2.521 0.155 2.87 -2.87 2.521 0.25
8
0.27 -0.27 2.521 0.91
5
Stress Man-
agement
-5.94 5.94 2.011 0.004*
a
4.11 -4.11 2.011 0.04
3
-0.34 0.34 2.011 0.86
7
General
Mood
-2.53 2.53 1.754 0.152 3.07 -3.07 1.754 0.08
2
1.06 -1.06 1.754 0.54
5
EQ (total) -17.84 17.84 10.68
3
0.097 22.46 -22.46 10.68
3
0.03
8
1.35 -1.35 10.68
3
0.89
9
Notes. Based on estimated marginal means at the 99.2% Confidence Interval for Difference (significant at the
0.008 level with hoc Bonferroni correction)
*a
Denotes significant Mean difference between the middle adulthood (24–40 years old) and the late adulthood
(41–65).
Moreover, employee’s age was demonstrated signifi-
cant differences in the mature defense styles (Table 1)
and stress management for EQ-i score (Table 2) which
shows that employees in the late adulthood behave
maturely and have a better stress management (Table
3 & 4). Inter-partial correlations among of the EQ-i and
its subscale values and three defensive styles revealed
that the EI and all five components was positively asso-
ciated with mature and neurotic defenses and nega-
tively associated with immature defense mechanisms
except intrapersonal intelligence and general mood
(Table 5). The results of multiple regression analysis
showed that the Bar-On EQ-i and its subscale values
could be predicted by all three defense styles (Table 6).
Table 5: Inter-partial correlations among of the Bar-On EQ-i and three factor scores of the defense styles on
employees
Pearson Corre-
lation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Educt Age Gen-
der
1. IA 1 0.143 0.142 -
0.337*
2. IE 0.553
*
1 0.075 0.142 -
0.257*
3. AD 0.781
*
0.615* 1 0.112 0.151 -
0.233*
4. SM 0.630
*
0.499* 0.652* 1 0.090 0.309 -
0.368*
5. GM 0.838
*
0.640* 0.729* 0.638* 1 0.138 0.185
*
-
0.343*
6. EQ (total) 0922
*
0.738* 0.895* 0.790* 0.897
*
1 0.138 0.214
*
-
0.358*
7. Mature 0.451
*
0.363* 0.473* 0.488* 0.585
*
0.544* 1 0.131 0.270
*
-
0.305*
8. Neurotic 0.640
*
0.516* 0.629* 0.486* 0.593
*
0.676* 0.551
*
1 0.121 0.159 -
0.368*
9. Immature -
0.140
-
0.207*
-
0.270*
-
0.224*
-
0.117
-
0.223*
0.140 -
0.061
1 -
0.125
-
0.071
0.43
Notes. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 6: Multiple regression of the Bar-On EQ-i and three factor scores of the defense styles on employees
Dependent varia-
ble
R2
R2
Change F (3,123) P Ind.variable β t P
Intrapersonal 0.397 0.274 18.657 0.00
0
Mature Defense Style 0.242 2.88 0.005*
Neurotic Defense Style 0.371 4.33 0.000*
Immature Defense Style -0.186 -2.59 0.011*
Interpersonal 0.265 0.193 10.746 0.00
0
Adaptability 0.386 0.319 21.321 0.00
0
Stress Manage-
ment
0.404 0.220 15.120 0.00
0
General Mood 0.431 0.299 21.521 0.00
0
EQ (total) 0.491 0.343 27.580 0.00
0
Notes. * Multiple regression is significant at the 0.05 level.
DISCUSSION
We found that academic educational level did not af-
fect three defense styles and EI. Moreover we found
difference at the age-related change in the mature
defense style, with this difference indicated the em-
ployees in the preretirement more use of this mecha-
nism. These findings are consistent with some studies
(Singer, 2003; Diehl et al., 2014). Women and men dif-
fered in the use of the defensive styles of mature and
neurotic mechanisms across the adult life span, with
men reporting greater use of these mechanisms than
women which corresponded with the findings showing
that for men, positive changes during midlife often
involved the reevaluation of assertive and dominating
behaviors and the adoption of caring and self-reflective
behaviors (Haan, 1986). With regard to the relationship
between gender and emotional intelligence, in this
study, it was not observed the significant differences.
However, it was indicated that employees in the late
adulthood showed better stress management that of
course, some researches show depression, anxiety,
emotional overreaction and stress are more prevalent
in younger than in older adults (Carstensen et al., 2000;
Gross et al., 1997 and overall, older adults in general
possess a greater sense of control over their Emotions
(Gross et al., 1997; Lawton, 1992). Furthermore, older
adults are more inclined to view problems and chal-
lenges as being a transient and manageable part of life.
They are better prepared to manage different unpre-
dictable and difﬁcult life situations (Carstensen et al.,

2000; Wechtler, 2014). In summary, results of the pre-
sent study showed that signiﬁcant correlations exist
between the Bar-On EQ-i and its 5 major components
and ego defense styles. These results not only conﬁrms
results of previous researches in positively associated
the mature defense mechanisms and negatively asso-
ciated the immature defense mechanisms with emo-
tional intelligence (Pellitteri, 2002; Besharat, 2007;
Ghaedi, 2006), also indicated positively associated the
neurotic defense mechanisms with EI beside of demo-
graphic characteristics variables in employees. In addi-
tion to nature of neurotic defense mechanisms, the
reason that, probably, in previous researches were
conducted only on students and also, not using of Bar-
On’s model. As the Mishar in 2014 proposed an EQ
modelling instrument based on Goleman and Bar-On
models with psychological defense mechanisms, in the
present research, revealed with defense styles, particu-
larly with DSQ-40 questionnaire, would be predicted
Bar-On EQ-i and its components. Thus, this findings
could be have highly beneficial to emotional intelli-
gence training to employees in the workplace to con-
trol and reducing bad impact of negative defense
mechanisms and reduce the cost of selection and re-
cruitment in personnel interviews.
REFERENCES
[1] Andrews, G., Singh, M., & Bond, M. (1993). The
defense style questionnaire. Journal of Nervous
and Mental Diseases, 14, 246–256.
[2] Bar-On, R., & Parker, J.D.A. (2000). Bar-On Emo-
tional Quotient Inventory: Youth version (BarOn
EQ-i:YV). MHS.
[3] Bar-On, R. (2003). How important is it to educate
people to be emotionally and socially intelligent,
and can it be done? Perspectives in Education,
21(4), 3-13.
[4] Besharat, M, A. Hajiaqazadeh, M. & Ghorbani, N.
(2007). Analysis of the relationship between emo-
tional intelligence, defense mechanisms and gen-
eral intelligence. Contemporary Psychology, 2(1),
49-58.
[5] Besharat, M.A. & Shahidi, S. (2011). What is the
relationship between alexithymia and ego defense
styles? A correlational study with Iranian students.
Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 4,145–149. doi:
10.1016/j.ajp.2011.05.011
[6] Bromley, D. B. (1966). The psychology of human
ageing. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
[7] Carstensen, L. L., Pasupathi, M., Mayr, U., & Nes-
selroade, J. R. (2000). Emotional experience in eve-
ryday life across the adult life span. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 644–655.
[8] Davanloo, H. (1990).Unlocking the unconscious.
New York: Wiley.
[9] Diehl, M., Chui, H., & Hay, E. L. (2014). Change in
Coping and Defense Mechanisms across Adult-
hood: Longitudinal Findings in a European Ameri-
can Sample. Developmental Psychology, 50(2), 634
– 648. doi: 10.1037/a0033619
[10] Dehshiri, R. (2003). The reliability and validity of
EQ-I in Iranian context. Unpublished master's the-
sis, Allame Tabatabaee University, Tehran, Iran.
[11] Freud, A. (1966).The ego and the mechanisms of
defense. NY: International Universities Press;
196650-3.
[12] Freud, S. (1923). The Ego and the Id. In: Strachey,
J. (Ed.), Freud’s Complete Psychological Works
(Vol. 19). Norton Press, NY.
[13] Ghaedi, G.H., Sabeti, A., Rostami, R., & Shams, J.
(2008). The relationship between emotional intel-
ligence and defense mechanisms. Daneshvar Med-
ical Science Journal, 74, 41-50. [In Persian]
[14] Gross, J. J., Carstensen, L. L., Pasupathi, M., Tsai,
J., Skorpen, C. G., & Hsu, A. Y. C. (1997). Emotion
and aging: Experience, expression and control.
Psychology and Aging, 12, 590–599.
[15] Haan, N., Millsap, R., & Hartka, E. (1986). As time
goes by: Change and stability in personality over
fifty years. Psychology and Aging, 1,220 –232.
doi:10.1037/0882-7974.1.3.220
[16] Lawton, M. P., Kleban, M. H., Rajagopal, D., &
Dean, J. (1992). Dimensions of affective experience
in three age groups. Psychology and Aging, 7, 171–
184.
[17] Mishar, R. & Bangun, Y. R. (2014). Create the EQ
Modelling Instrument Based on Goleman and Bar-
On Models and Psychological Defense Mecha-
nisms. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
115, 394 – 406. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.446
[18] Nikolaou, I., & Tsaousis, I. (2002). Emotional intel-
ligence in the workplace: Exploring its effects on
occupational stress and organizational commit-
ment. The International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 10(4), 327-342.
[19] Pellitteri, J. (2002). The relationship between emo-
tional intelligence and ego defense mechanisms.
Journal of Psychology, 136(2), 182-194.
[20] Rafati, F. Sharif, F., & Zeighami, B. (2004). Correla-
tion between academic achievement and introver-
sion-extroversion and neuroticism of nursing stu-
dents in Shiraz. J Qazvin Univ Med Sci, 8(1), 24-31.
[21] Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003).Applied longitu-
dinal data analysis: Modeling change and event
occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press. doi:
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195152968.001.0001

[22] Todres, M., Tsimtsiou, Z., Stephenson, A., & Jones,
R. (2010). The emotional intelligence of medical
students: an exploratory cross-sectional study.
Med Teach, 32(1), e42-8.
[23] Valliant, G.E. (1976). Natural history of male psy-
chological health: The relation of ego defense
mechanisms to adult adjustment. Archives of Gen-
eral Psychiatry 33, 535–545.
[24] Wechtler, H., Koveshnikov, A. & Dejoux, C. (2014).
Just like a ﬁne wine? Age, emotional intelligence,
and cross-cultural adjustment. International Busi-
ness Review, 1144, 10.
doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.09.002

published-pdf-1206-6-Ego Defensive Styles As Predictors of Emotional Intelligence and the Effects of Demographic Characteristics on Defensive Styles and Emotional Intelligence

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to published-pdf-1206-6-Ego Defensive Styles As Predictors of Emotional Intelligence and the Effects of Demographic Characteristics on Defensive Styles and Emotional Intelligence

Similar to published-pdf-1206-6-Ego Defensive Styles As Predictors of Emotional Intelligence and the Effects of Demographic Characteristics on Defensive Styles and Emotional Intelligence (20)

More from Mahmood Amirinia

More from Mahmood Amirinia (6)

published-pdf-1206-6-Ego Defensive Styles As Predictors of Emotional Intelligence and the Effects of Demographic Characteristics on Defensive Styles and Emotional Intelligence