Findings 1
Task 2: Reporting Study Findings
Name
Institution
Course
Professor
Date
, Findings 2
Task 2: Reporting Study Findings
Following the standards of objectivity and impartiality, we report the results of our research
study in this section. To offer a clear and unaffected description of the empirical data gathered via our
selected research methodology, it is crucial to stress that the findings described below are presented
without any interpretation or prejudice. A quick overview of the important data points and linkages
developed throughout the investigation will be provided in the section's introduction to the significant
results. A thorough and impartial presentation of all aspects of the study results, including descriptive
statistics, correlations, regression analysis, hypothesis testing, and subgroup analyses. We strive to
ensure that the readers access and analyze the findings confidently and clearly by sticking to a logical
sequence and keeping a transparent and fair reporting style.
Data Presentation
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for Emotional Intelligence (EI) Dimensions
EI Dimensions Mean Standard Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Self-Emotion Appraisal 4.58 0.72 -0.25 0.14
Other's Emotion Appraisal 4.36 0.68 -0.18 0.09
Actual Use of Emotion 4.72 0.78 -0.30 0.21
Regulation of Emotion (ROE) 4.49 0.75 -0.22 0.12
Analysis
1. Self-Emotion Appraisal: With a mean score of 4.58, respondents generally believe that their
ability to assess their emotions is moderate. The relatively low standard deviation (0.72)
suggests that there is not a significant spread in responses, indicating a degree of consensus
among participants. The negative skewness (-0.25) indicates a slight leftward skew, implying that
more respondents have higher self-emotion appraisal scores than lower ones.
2. Other's Emotion Appraisal: With a mean of 4.36, participants perceive themselves as slightly
lower in their ability to appraise others' emotions. The standard deviation (0.68) is relatively
low, suggesting a degree of agreement among respondents. The negative skewness (-0.18)
suggests a slight concentration of higher scores in this dimension.
3. Actual Use of Emotion: This dimension has the highest mean (4.72), indicating that
respondents, on average, perceive themselves as proficient in using emotions effectively. The
higher standard deviation (0.78) suggests more response variability (Ahsan, 2023, pp. 80). The
negative skewness (-0.30) suggests that more respondents have higher scores, but it's not
strongly skewed.
4. Regulation of Emotion (ROE): The mean score for ROE is 4.49, suggesting that respondents
perceive themselves as having a moderate ability to regulate their emotions. The standard
Task 2: Reporting Study Findings
Name
Institution
Course
Professor
Date
, Findings 2
Task 2: Reporting Study Findings
Following the standards of objectivity and impartiality, we report the results of our research
study in this section. To offer a clear and unaffected description of the empirical data gathered via our
selected research methodology, it is crucial to stress that the findings described below are presented
without any interpretation or prejudice. A quick overview of the important data points and linkages
developed throughout the investigation will be provided in the section's introduction to the significant
results. A thorough and impartial presentation of all aspects of the study results, including descriptive
statistics, correlations, regression analysis, hypothesis testing, and subgroup analyses. We strive to
ensure that the readers access and analyze the findings confidently and clearly by sticking to a logical
sequence and keeping a transparent and fair reporting style.
Data Presentation
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for Emotional Intelligence (EI) Dimensions
EI Dimensions Mean Standard Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Self-Emotion Appraisal 4.58 0.72 -0.25 0.14
Other's Emotion Appraisal 4.36 0.68 -0.18 0.09
Actual Use of Emotion 4.72 0.78 -0.30 0.21
Regulation of Emotion (ROE) 4.49 0.75 -0.22 0.12
Analysis
1. Self-Emotion Appraisal: With a mean score of 4.58, respondents generally believe that their
ability to assess their emotions is moderate. The relatively low standard deviation (0.72)
suggests that there is not a significant spread in responses, indicating a degree of consensus
among participants. The negative skewness (-0.25) indicates a slight leftward skew, implying that
more respondents have higher self-emotion appraisal scores than lower ones.
2. Other's Emotion Appraisal: With a mean of 4.36, participants perceive themselves as slightly
lower in their ability to appraise others' emotions. The standard deviation (0.68) is relatively
low, suggesting a degree of agreement among respondents. The negative skewness (-0.18)
suggests a slight concentration of higher scores in this dimension.
3. Actual Use of Emotion: This dimension has the highest mean (4.72), indicating that
respondents, on average, perceive themselves as proficient in using emotions effectively. The
higher standard deviation (0.78) suggests more response variability (Ahsan, 2023, pp. 80). The
negative skewness (-0.30) suggests that more respondents have higher scores, but it's not
strongly skewed.
4. Regulation of Emotion (ROE): The mean score for ROE is 4.49, suggesting that respondents
perceive themselves as having a moderate ability to regulate their emotions. The standard
