Exploring the synergy between emotional intelligence and self-esteem among university students in Ghana

Abstract

Background

The need for educational institutions to create a conducive learning environment for participation of all students in school activities is one of the pillars advocated under Goal 4 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. While there are structures institutionalized to promote students’ well-being, universities are faced with a myriad of challenges which can negatively impact mental health and disrupt the overall learning experiences of students. This study explored the relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Self-Esteem which have been found to influence the mental health of students.

Method

Informed by the cross-sectional design, one thousand and twenty (N = 1020) university students were recruited to self-report their Emotional Intelligence and Self-Esteem. The participants completed the Schutte Emotional Intelligence scale and the Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem scale. The data were validated using confirmatory factor analysis, means were computed, followed by multivariate analysis of variance and hierarchical multiple regression.

Results

The study showed that participants were ambivalent on both EI and self-esteem. The hypothesized relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Self-Esteem was supported by the study findings. More so, demographic variables such as gender, religion and programme of study provided further insight into Emotional Intelligence and Self-Esteem of participants.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the researchers of this study called on educators and university administrators to prioritize the Emotional Intelligence and Self-Esteem of students in mental health interventions. The need for partnership between administrators and religious leaders and other study implications, are discussed.

Introduction

The quality of school environment, especially, development of organizational structures has potential to impact positively on the academic trajectories, happiness and skillsets of students [1, 2]. Indeed, under goal 4 of United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, there is clarion call on governments to create an educational environment where all students would be safe, included and supported to develop their innate potentials [3, 4]. In view of this, it is incumbent on academic institutions, especially universities, to establish mechanisms to create a conducive learning environment for all students [5]. However, there exist diversity among students which is a result of differences in culture, language, religion, race and historical backgrounds [6, 7]. There is, thus, a greater need for experimentation of broad factors which could be incorporated in school reformation policies and practices [8]. In contemporary education discourses, there is growing discussions on mental health and well-being of students [9,10,11]. This study intends to contribute towards such discourse through the exploration of Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Self-Esteem (SE) of students.

In contemporary academic environment, it has been argued that positive mental health and well-being of students is fundamental to academic success [12]. The brain is the centre of human interactions, learning and general functioning in the society [13]. In schools, students require maximum concentration in classrooms so as to follow whatever is being taught by teachers. Any distraction could profoundly impact on the learning experiences of students. Without healthy brains, students will be consumed with problems without concentrating on the learning activities or tasks given to them [14]. This has the potential to derail the performance of students who might not be able to develop appropriate skills to participate in productive activities in the society. The combined mental problems and demand from academic activities could also result on adverse health effect or even suicides among students. It has been reported that suicides are prevalent among the youth who are aged between 18 and 34 years [15, 16]. It is essential that school environments be organized in such a way that the mental well-being of students are enhanced and protected to nurture their innate potentials. Evidently, there is potential benefits to the country in the event where the mental well-being of students is prioritized within educational environments.

EI and SE are critical constructs that influence mental health, social interactions, and overall well-being of individuals [17, 18]. To begin with, EI is defined as the ability to perceive, use, understand and manage emotions [19]. The significance of EI in various domains of life, including education, work, and personal relationships, is well-documented [20,21,22,23,24,25]. EI is instrumental in emotional regulation and interpersonal relationships, contributing significantly to the success of university students [19]. Furthermore, SE, defined as a general personality trait and personal judgment of worthiness, significantly influences psychological well-being, impacting factors such as depression, anxiety and stress [26]. The transition to life at the university can be stressful for students, impacting their SE and emotional well-being. In particular, academic expectations and social relationships are primary sources of stress [27]. These stressors influence students’ psychological adjustment and coping strategies [28]. In order to build a greater resilience to stress and better mental health outcomes such as lower levels of depression and social anxiety, higher SE is encouraged [29] as well as building capacity.

University education in Ghana originated under British colonial influence with the establishment of the University College of Gold Coast in 1948, currently known as the University of Ghana [30]. Following this, reforms by the University Rationalization Committee in 1991 aimed at expanding access and enhancing quality, led to significant policy changes such as upgrading polytechnics to university status and introducing cost-sharing funding models [31]. As a result, the number of universities grew from three in 1991 to nearly 70 by 2014 [32], with student enrollment rising from 9,609 in 1990/91 to over 160,000 in 2013/2014 [33], reaching 547,050 by 2022 [34]. In Ghana and most sub-Saharan African countries, university education is faced with numerous challenges [35, 36]. For instance, there are challenges related to inadequacy of facilities and learning resources [36]. Although the financial burden of acquiring university education is greatly subsidized by the government (particularly, tuition), universities in Ghana do not have the requisite teaching materials to discharge their day-to-day teaching obligations. Faculties are unable to provide appropriate learning experiences to students which has the potential to derail acquisition of skills to contribute towards national development [37]. Compounding the resource problem is unavailability of funding to universities to acquire requisite teaching materials and improved learning facilities [38]. Beside academic related challenges, there are also social barriers encountered by students who have inadequate learning spaces, accommodation as well as safety related issues [39, 40]. It is apparent that the environment within which university students are studying is quite challenging and lend support for development of systems and mechanism to address the mental well-being of students.

Studies on school mental health in Low-and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) is still in its embryonic stages [41, 42]. Indeed, corpus of literature have reported that Ghana and many other sub-Saharan African countries are yet to develop appropriate structures for the delivery of mental health services to the general citizenry. However, previous studies conducted in Ghana has explored the psychological distress [43, 44], help seeking behaviours [45] and prevalence of other mental health conditions among university students [46]. Although studies have reported that prevalence of mental disorders among students in Ghana [47,48,49,50,51], there are inadequate systems in place to alleviate the burden of mental health [51]. To better guide policymakers, it would be useful to develop empirical evidence on factors which could help mitigate the burden of mental health such as EI and SE. The purpose of this study was to understand the contribution of SE in the variance in EI among Ghanaian university students.

Emotional intelligence of university students

Research on Emotional Intelligence (EI) has significantly progressed over the years, with various theoretical perspectives emerging to conceptualize and measure EI [52]. Initially defined by Salovey and Mayer as the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ emotions and use this information to guide thinking and actions, EI has evolved into different models and measurement approaches [53]. The primary models of EI include the ability model, trait model and the tripartite model [54,55,56]. In the context of this study, the ability model of EI may be conceived as university students’ ability to accurately perceive, appraise and express emotions; access and generate feelings to facilitate thought; understand emotions and emotional knowledge; and regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth [56]. On the other hand, the trait model of EI could be viewed as university students’ set of emotional self-perceptions located at the lower levels of personality hierarchies [57]. The trait model further emphasizes traits like SE, assertiveness, and empathy. More importantly, the tripartite model combines knowledge, abilities, and traits, providing a comprehensive approach that encapsulates previous models [54]. Nonetheless, the current study builds on the ability model of EI as the intention was to understand university students’ experiences which could have positive or negative effect on their ability to experience their emotions.

Numerous renowned instruments have been identified for measuring several of the major facets common to EI measures such as perceiving emotions, regulating emotions and utilizing emotions among others [52]. These measures include Mayer-Salovey-Caruso EI Tests [58], Self-report EI Test [59], Trait EI Questionnaire [60], Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory [61, 62], Emotional and Social competence Inventory [63], the Situational Test of Emotional Management [64] and the Situational Test of Emotional Understanding [64]. These instruments have been adopted to measure EI in several settings including Ghana focusing on EI among the general population [65, 66], pre-service teachers [67, 68] and teachers [69]. In this study, the Schutte’s EI scale was used as it is in line with our conception, widely used and validated instrument for studying EI.

From the literature, it is evident that EI significantly influences the academic, professional and personal success of university students. It has been reported that emotionally intelligent students transition more successfully from high school to university and adapt better both socially and academically [20, 21]. Moreover, there is evidence to show that university students with higher EI tend to perform better academically due to their ability to manage stress, seek help and stay motivated [22, 23]. Particularly, the trait EI model suggests that emotional self-regulation and interpersonal skills may contribute to better academic outcomes for university students [24]. This indicates that EI can enhance university students’ academic achievement, complementing their cognitive abilities [25]. However, other studies have reported that fluidity of EI among especially university students [70, 71]. While some studies reported high EI within individualistic cultural settings [72], others reported low EI in collectivistic contexts such as India and China [73, 74].

In the Ghanaian context, a few notable studies have been conducted on the EI of University students [75]. For example, a study by Kugbey et al. [76] explored how students’ EI affects their psychological distress levels, both directly and indirectly via subjective happiness [76]. Adopting a cross-sectional design, Kugbey et al. [76] sampled the opinions of 260 undergraduate students from a public university in Ghana. EI had a significant relationship with depression, anxiety, and stress directly. Notably, EI recorded an indirect effect on depression through increased subjective happiness. The study highlights the importance of fostering EI in students to enhance their well-being and academic performance. Similarly, a cross-sectional study conducted by [77], involving 111 University of Ghana Medical School students with an average age of 24 years was carried out. The study found that 14.1% of students had a good EI score (> 120), with an overall mean EI of 105.49. There was no significant difference in EI scores between males (104.2) and females (106.2) or across the clinical years. A weak, non-significant positive correlation between EI and age was observed. The study concluded that students had low EI and suggested incorporating EI training into the curriculum, recommending further research in other medical schools in Ghana. Most of these studies conducted on EI among university students were limited to a single variable of EI, without credence to complementing variables such as SE among others. Therefore, the need to conduct the current survey to ascertain the synergy between EI and SE among university students in Ghana.

Furthermore, high EI is linked to success in professions, especially those requiring interpersonal intelligence, such as nursing, psychology and public relations [78]. For instance, in healthcare settings, it has been proven that EI is essential for effective patient care and team collaboration [79]. Again, effective leadership and teamwork at professional spaces, characterized by self-awareness, self-regulation, social skills, and empathy, are hallmarks of emotionally intelligent individuals [80]. Implying that EI is crucial for leadership and management. Beyond academic performance and professional success, EI impacts various aspects of university students’ personal social lives [81]. It improves interpersonal relationships by fostering an understanding of others’ desires, thoughts and moods [82]. This suggests that EI influences prosocial behaviors as university students with high EI are more empathetic and better at understanding and managing others’ emotions, leading to increased prosocial actions and reduced aggressive behavior [83, 84].

Other studies have reported difference between participants on demographics. However, available evidence has been mixed. For example, a number of studies have shown that females generally score higher on EI measures, particularly in emotional empathy and social skills, which are critical for roles like counseling and teaching [85]. This may account for the relatively greater population of female university students offering courses in counseling and teaching. On the other hand, other studies have also reported that males may excel in stress management and self-control aspects of EI measures [86, 87]. Nonetheless, it is worthy to note that these gender variations in EI have been observed with varying societal influences shaping emotional expression and empathy differently in men and women [85, 88]. Again, scholars’ choice of measurement instruments has also been highlighted as possible influence(s) to these differing gender EI outcomes [89]. Consequently, university students’ gender may and/or may not influence their EI. Comparably, the relationship between age and EI is also complex. Some studies indicate that EI increases with age, reflecting greater emotional maturity and experience [62]. However, other research suggests that EI remains stable or even decreases in certain age groups, underscoring the need for further investigation [90]. Suggesting that the age of university students may reflect in their IE or otherwise. Significantly, cultural factors influence university students’ EI. Research in diverse cultural contexts, such as Kuwait, China and Spain, highlights the need for culturally sensitive EI measurement tools and training programmes to ensure accurate assessment and development of EI skills [89, 91, 92]. This suggests the need for culturally specific instruments for evaluating IE.

The extensive body of literature on EI highlights its importance across various domains, including education, workplace performance and personal relationships. Despite differing conceptualizations and measurement approaches, the consensus is that EI plays a critical role in enhancing university students’ personal and collective outcomes. It is, therefore, crucial to explore the nuanced EI experiences among the varying demographics of Ghanaian university students, bearing in mind EI’s potential positive influences on academic learning environment.

Self-esteem of university students

Self-Esteem (SE) is an extensively researched construct within the field of psychology which encompasses an individual’s subjective evaluation of their worth [26, 93]. Initially conceived as a favorable or unfavorable self-attitude, SE has evolved to encompass broader evaluations of self-meaning, identity, image, and self-concept, integrating cognitive, behavioral, and affective dimensions [94]. The theoretical construct of SE gained prominence with Rosenberg’s seminal work in 1965. Since then, SE has evolved through various lenses, such as cognitive-behavioral and social-cognitive perspectives.

More importantly, the association of SE with psychosocial outcomes has been extensively investigated, highlighting its role in psychological well-being, performance, and social relationships [95, 96]. Cross-sectional studies indicate that SE gradually increases across adulthood, with lower levels observed during adolescence and young adulthood, likely due to identity formation and complex interpersonal relationships [96]. Moreover, research by Orth and Robins [97] highlights normative patterns in SE development, such as increases during adolescence and stabilization in adulthood. Transitions such as entering the workforce [98] or forming long-term relationships [99] significantly shape SE, albeit with mixed evidence regarding their impacts. For example, the transition to parenthood is frequently associated with reduced SE [100].

More so, extensive evidence links SE to academic outcomes, showing a positive correlation with better grades and higher motivation [101]. Studies indicate that SE, in conjunction with effort management and self-regulation, could positively predicts academic success [102]. However, discrepancies exist, with some findings suggesting no significant relationship between SE and academic performance [103], indicating the need for further research into potential mediating factors. Furthermore, SE is a crucial factor in mental health of university students, with low SE consistently associated with higher risks of depression, anxiety, and other mental health disorders [96, 104].

The inverse relationship between SE and social relationships is well-documented. High SE fosters better social interactions and relationships, which in turn reinforce SE [105]. Conversely, low SE can lead to social withdrawal and negative interactions [97, 106]. Meta-analytic findings further support the bidirectional influence between SE and social relationships across the lifespan [105].

Difference between demographic variables and SE have been explored in the literature. For instance, gender disparities in SE are notable, with women often reporting lower SE than men, particularly during adolescence and young adulthood [96]. Suggesting that female university students are relatively more likely to report lower SE. This gender gap narrows with age, potentially due to sociocultural factors and shifts in gender roles [107]. However, some studies indicate no significant gender differences, suggesting that SE might be more influenced by contextual factors than gender alone [108]. Furthermore, cultural context significantly influences university students’ SE. For instance, Chinese college students’ SE has steadily declined over recent decades, potentially due to increasing academic and social pressures [109]. Cross-cultural studies reveal that collectivist societies, which emphasize social harmony over individual achievement, often show different patterns of SE compared to individualist societies [110]. Other research indicates that socioeconomic status (SES) impacts SE, with higher SES associated with higher SE due to access to resources, stability, and opportunities [111]. Conversely, individuals from lower SES backgrounds may experience lower SE due to financial stress, limited resources, and heightened social challenges [112]. Suggesting that university students from relatively poor backgrounds are likely to experience lower SE. These disparities highlight the importance of context in understanding SE and the need for targeted interventions to support SE across different socioeconomic groups.

Relationship between emotional intelligence and self-esteem

Recent research consistently highlights a significant relationship between Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Self-Esteem (SE). Research indicates that individuals with high EI tend to exhibit higher levels of SE [113]. EI enhances one’s ability to manage emotions, which in turn positively influences SE. This relationship suggests that the ability to understand and regulate emotions can lead to a more positive self-view and greater resilience in the face of challenges [114, 115]. Moreover, EI and SE significantly impact academic performance. EI is a predictor of academic success, with studies indicating that students with high EI perform better academically [116, 117]. Similarly, SE has been linked to academic achievement, as students with higher SE tend to have better academic outcomes [118].

Meta-analytical studies emphasize EI’s strong association with subjective well-being [119]. Moreover, SE has been shown to correlate with and predict subjective well-being in university students [17, 120,121,122]. Both EI and SE have emerged as important predictors of subjective well-being, with studies such as those by Rey, Extrenera, and Pena [17] Guasp Coll et al. [18], underscoring their critical roles.

In the context of career adaptability, EI and SE play crucial roles. EI has been identified as a predictor of career adaptability, enabling individuals to manage the emotional demands of career transitions effectively [123, 124]. Similarly, SE contributes to career adaptability by fostering confidence and resilience, which are essential for navigating career challenges [125].

Various psychological factors influence EI and SE. EI enhances SE by improving emotional regulation and fostering a positive self-concept [126]. Additionally, self-efficacy, or the belief in one’s ability to succeed, is closely linked to both EI and SE, with higher self-efficacy leading to better emotional management and a stronger sense of self-worth [127, 128].

Current study

The synergy between EI and SE has the potential to impact on the psychological well-being, social interactions, and academic success [129, 130]. This study seeks to explore this relationship, examining the construct validity of EI and SE scales in Ghana and investigating the impact of demographic variables on these constructs.

It is evident that sub-Saharan Africa’s share of research in SE is quite limited [131, 132] and thus, the need to expand previous studies. Specifically, to the best of our knowledge, there has been little exploration of the SE in the Ghanaian context [133]. More importantly, understanding the interplay between EI and SE will enable educators and psychologists to develop targeted interventions to enhance students’ well-being and academic performance, ultimately contributing to a healthier academic environment. In this study, it was hypothesized that SE will make significant contribution in the variance in EI.

The study was guided by the following research questions:

• 1. What is the SE and EI of university students in Ghana?

• 2. What is the difference between university students on EI and SE in Ghana?

• 3. What is the contribution of SE in the variance in EI among university students in Ghana?

Method

Study participants and sampling

The study population were university students enrolled in a public university in Ghana. The selected university has diverse student population, encompassing local and international students with varying socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds [134]. Academic institutions in other contexts with such diverse student population usually have a high prevalence of mental health problems among students [9, 11, 47, 51]. This lends support to select the university for this study. Additionally, the proximity/accessibility of the research team to the public university influenced its selection. The selection of this strategic and diverse public university is crucial for such a study aiming to generalize findings across Sub-Saharan African contexts.

University students are important human resources who are expected to contribute to national development [135]. Consequently, they require conducive environment to learn to acquire useful skills and develop their innate potentials. In this study, consideration was given to undergraduate students who constituted 77% of the total students’ population of the University [136]. Undergraduate students enrolled for full time studies and resident on the University’s campus were recruited for this study.

Simple random sampling informed the recruitment of students, allowing every undergraduate student in the University an equal chance to be included, resulting in the recruitment of diverse participants. A sum of 1300 printed questionnaires were distributed among all colleges in the university. A total of 1020 questionnaires were returned, signifying a 78% return rate. While 52% of the participants were males, 48% were females. On age, 51% were between the ages of 17–21 years, 42% between the ages of 22–25 years and 7% who were at least 26 years. More so, 71% were enrolled in non-health programmes whiles 29% were studying health related programmes. In relation to religion, 78% were Christians with the remaining distributed as follows: 15% Muslims, 4% Traditionalists and 3% who indicated other religion.

Study design and instrument

The study was guided by a cross-sectional design which enabled the studying of the relationship between SE and EI at a given time. In cross sectional study, the goal is to capture the perspectives of a given population about a phenomenon at point in time. Such data would enable us have an idea about trends that exist in the society. Quantitative approach is suitable for cross sectional studies with large datasets collected to develop broad insight into the experiences of participants.

In this study, a three-part instrument was used for data collection. The first collected demographic information such as gender, age, programme of study and religious affiliation.

The second part of the instrument was the Schutte et al.’s [59] EI scale which is made up of four sub-scales: perception of emotions, managing own emotions, managing others’ emotions and utilization of emotion (see Table 1). The instrument was chosen as it is in line with our conception of EI and widely used to study EI globally. The instrument is made up of 33 items and anchored on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Table 1 Summary of means on EI

The third part of the instrument was the Rosenberg SE Scale (RSES) [93] which is a unidimensional scale with 10 items. This instrument uses a 4-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). The usage of the instrument elsewhere supports its reliability and structural validity for adaptation in a novel context such as Ghana.

The instruments were meticulously adapted to enhance cultural relevance, ensuring alignment with local norms and values for accurate and meaningful data collection. This adaptation involved contextualizing language, modifying phrasing, and incorporating culturally resonant examples, thereby improving participant comprehension and engagement while maintaining the instrument’s original validity and reliability.

Following this, face validation was conducted as the instrument was shared with four different experts in the field of psychology to comment on its appropriateness for data collection. Additionally, 50 students at a sister university were recruited for a pilot study to determine whether the items in the instruments were clear and appropriate for participants. Comments and outcomes from the experts and students who took part in the pilot study were considered in revising the instruments used for data collection.

Procedure

The study was approved by the College of Education Studies Ethical Review Board at the University of Cape Coast in Ghana (reference: CES/ERB/UCC/EDU/08–23/62), and relevant survey procedures were in line with the requirements of the Declaration of Helsinki. The data were collected between February 2024 and June 2024.

Information about the study were shared with the various heads of department at the university before trained research assistants made contact with prospective participants. The research assistants briefed participants about the study’s objective and its implication for creation of conducive learning environment in Ghana and similar sub-Saharan African context.

Following the study briefing, those who wished to participate were asked to complete an informed consent form before they could pick up a copy of the instrument to complete. Participants were given a week to return the completed questionnaire to the research assistants. There were no incentives given to participants. More so, the identity of students was not used in the reporting of the study. Additionally, the participants were assured that the data would be accessible to only the research team.

Data analysis

The data collected were entered into Microsoft Excel before it was transferred to SPSS to answer the research questions. Since both instruments have not been validated in the Ghanaian context, their underlying structures were validated using confirmation factor analysis. The following criteria was used to ascertain appropriateness of the CFA model: chi-square of less than 5, CFI and TLI of at most 0.90 and RMSEA, SRMR between 0.30 and 0.08 as well as regression weight of 0.50.

Following this, the research questions were answered. For research question 1, mean scores were computed to understand the level of EI and SE. For both instruments, a composite mean of at least 4 was interpreted as high SE and EI.

For research question 2, t-tests, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multivariate analysis of variances (MANOVA) were computed to understand difference between participants on the measures. Since SE is a unidimensional scale, t-test and ANOVA were computed to explore the differences between participants. Homogeneity of variance was observed.

With respect to EI, it is made up of four related sub-scales and thus, MANOVA was used to explore the difference between participants. To avoid risk of Type 1 error, Bonferroni’s adjusted alpha value of 0.01 was used to ascertain whether there is difference between participants on each of the dependent variables. The magnitude of weight of the difference was assessed using the following cut-offs: small (0.01-0.03), moderate (0.04 − 0.09) and large (at least 0.10) [137].

For research question 3, hierarchical multiple regression was computed to explore the contribution of SE in the variance in EI. While SE was operationalized as a predictor, EI was used as an outcome variable. In Step 1, SE was regressed directly on EI whereas demographic variables were added to the model in step 2. The following assumptions were observed to ensure that they were not violated: normality, homogeneity, homoscedascity and linearity.

Result

Construct validity of instrument

The 10-item Rosenburg’s SES was subjected to CFA to ascertain its structural validity. The initial computation yielded a poorly fit model: chi-square = 9.13 (CMIN = 319.68, Df = 35), CFI = 0.82, TLI = 0.77, RMSEA = 0.09 and SRMR = 0.07. Inspection of the regression weight of the individual items showed that six loaded below the 0.50 threshold and thus, their removal for re-specification of the model which yielded the following fit indices: chi-square = 4.35 (CMIN = 8.70, Df = 2), CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.06 and SRMR = 0.02. Four-items were deemed appropriate for reporting this study.

Also, construct validity of Schutte et al.’s [59] EI scale was subjected to CFA. The computation yielded the following indices: chi-square = 6.49 (CMIN = 3173.55, Df = 489), CFI = 0.74, TLI = 0.72, RMSEA = 0.07 and SRMR = 0.07. However, 11 items loaded below 0.50 and thus, their removal for re-specification, yielding the following poorly fit indices: chi-square = 5.80 (CMIN = 1061.43, Df = 183), CFI = 0.88, TLI = 0.87, RMSEA = 0.07 and SRMR = 0.05.

At least stage, erroneous covariances were observed which showed five items were have adverse effect on the model and as such, they were removed from the model. The re-calculation showed improved and 17-items with appropriate goodness of fit-indices: chi-square = 3.93 (CMIN = 443.66, Df = 113), CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.05 and SRMR = 0.04.

The reliability of the scales computed using Cronbach Alpha yielded the following scores: RSES = 0.74 and EI Scale = 0.88.

Level of self-esteem and emotional intelligence

Participants’ level of Self-Esteem (SE) was 3.30 (0.65) as well as Emotional Intelligence (EI) was 3.73 (0.60). In relation to the SE scale the mean scores on the remaining four items were: I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others (M = 3.20, SD = 0.95), I feel that I have a number of good qualities (M = 3.41, SD = 0.83), I am able to do things as well as most other people (M = 3.31, SD = 0.84) and I take a positive attitude toward myself (M = 3.28, SD = 0.87). The mean scores for the EI are summarize in the Table 1 below.

Difference between participants on self-esteem

Since the Rosenberg Self-Esteem (SE) Scale is a unidimensional scale, t-tests and ANOVAs were used to understand the difference between study participants (See Table 2). In terms of gender, difference was found between males and females on SE, t (1018) = -2.75, p = .006, with a small effect size, Cohen’s d = 0.17. The mean scores showed that females (M = 3.36, SD = 0.63) had higher SE compared to males (M = 3.25, SD = 0.67).

Table 2 Difference between participants on SE

Second, difference was found between participants on programme of study, t (1018) = 3.47, p = .001, with a small effect size, Cohen’s d = 0.24. The mean scores showed that those enrolled in health programmes (M = 3.41, SD = 0.63) had higher SE compared to those in non-health related programmes (M = 3.25, SD = 0.66).

Third, ANOVA computation (Table 2) showed difference between participants on age, F (2, 1017) = 5.14, p = .006, with a small effect size, partial eta squared = 0.01. Post-hoc comparison using Tukey HSD test showed difference between younger (17–25 years [M = 3.24, SD = 0.67]) and older participants, 22–25 years (M = 3.35, SD = 0.64) and at least 26 years (M = 3.45, SD = 0.52).

Moreover, difference was found between participants on religion, F (3, 1016) = 2.77, p = .04, with a small effect size, partial eta squared = 0.01. However, post-hoc comparison using Tukey HSD test showed no difference between participants: Christians (M = 3.33, SD = 0.64), Muslims (M = 3.23, SD = 0.68), Traditional religion (M = 3.19, SD = 0.11) and others (M = 3.087, SD = 0.12).

Difference between participants on emotional intelligence

Moreover, MANOVA was computed to explore the difference between participants on the combined sub-scales of Emotional Intelligence (EI). MANOVA was appropriate as the computation of CFA showed a small to large correlation between the dependent variables: perception of emotions, managing own emotions, managing others’ emotions and utilization of emotion.

Table 3 Difference between participants on EI

First, a difference was found between participants on gender on the combined dependent variables, F (4, 1015) = 5.97, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.98, p = .001, with a small effect size, partial eta squared = 0.02. Individually, difference was found between participants on managing own emotions (F (1, 1018) = 6.66, p = .01, partial eta squared = 0.006), managing others’ emotions (F (1, 1018) = 22.45, p = .001, partial eta squared = 0.02) and utilization of emotion (F (1, 1018) = 11.91, p = .001, partial eta squared = 0.01). The mean scores showed that females were high on EI compared to males: managing own emotions (male, M = 3.53, SD = 0.71; Female, M = 3.60, SD = 0.66), managing others’ emotion (male, M = 3.64, SD = 0.70; Female, M = 3.85, SD = 0.70) and utilization of emotion (male, M = 3.50, SD = 0.82; Female, M = 367, SD = 0.82).

Second, difference was found between participants on programme study on the combined demographic variables, F (4, 1015) = 7.44, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.97, p = .001, partial eta squared = 0.03. Individually, difference was found between participants on each of the dependent variables: perception of emotion (F (1, 1018) = 20.49, p = .001, partial eta squared = 0.02), managing own emotions (F (1, 1018) = 24.96, p = .001, partial eta squared = 0.02), managing others’ emotions (F (1, 1018) = 4.02, p = .005, partial eta squared = 0.008) and utilization of emotion (F (1, 1018) = 5.93, p = .003, partial eta squared = 0.008). The mean scores were as follows: perception of emotion (health programme, M = 3.71, SD = 0.69; non-health programme, M = 3.50, SD = 0.68), managing own emotions (health programme, M = 3.98, SD = 0.72; non-health programme, M = 3.73, SD = 0.71), managing others’ emotions (health programme, M = 3.84, SD = 0.76; non-health programme, M = 3.70, SD = 0.69), and utilization of emotion (health programme, M = 3.70, SD = 0.85; non-health programme, M = 3.53, SD = 0.81).

Additionally, difference was found between participants on religion on the combined dependent variables, F (4, 1013) = 3.91, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.96, with a small effect size partial eta squared = 0.02. Individually, difference was found between participants on perception of emotion (F (3, 1016) = 4.64, p = .001, with a small effect size, partial eta squared = 0.01), managing own emotions (F (3, 1016) = 12.66, p = .001, with a small effect size, partial eta squared = 0.04) and utilization of emotion (F (3, 1016) = 4.75, p = .003, with a small effect size, partial eta squared = 0.01).

Post hoc comparison using Tukey HSD test showed that on perception of emotion, difference was found between those who indicated they were Christians (M = 3.60, SD = 0.68) and Muslims (M = 3.39, SD = 0.73). However, both did not differ from the other groups, traditionalists (M = 3.44, SD = 0.51) and other religions (M = 3.51, SD = 0.57). Also, on managing own emotions, difference was found between participants who were Christians (M = 3.87, SD = 0.72) and two others, Muslims (M = 3.59, SD = 0.67) and traditionalists (M = 3.39, SD = 0.48). However, the three did not differ from those who indicated other religions (M = 3.67, SD = 0.73). Furthermore, on utilization of emotion, a difference was found between Christians (M = 3.63, SD = 0.84) and traditionalists (M = 3.27, SD = 0.64). The two did not differ from others: Muslims (M = 3.45, SD = 0.76) and other religions (M = 3.38, SD = 0.76).

Relationship between self-esteem and emotional intelligence

Computation of correlation co-efficient showed moderate relationship between Self-Esteem (SE) and Emotional Intelligence (EI), r = .37, p = .001.

Hierarchical multiple regression was computed to explore the contribution of SE in the variance in EI (see Table 4). In step 1, SE (beta = 0.37, p = .001) made 14% contribution in the variance in EI, F (1, 1018) = 159.83, p = .001.

Table 4 SE regressed on EI

In step 2, the four demographic variables made only 3% (R2 change = 0.03) contribution in the variance in EI, F (4, 1014) = 9.61, p = .001. However, the combined demographic variables and SE made 17% contribution in the variance in EI, F (5, 1014) = 40.73, p = .001. In step 2, SE (beta = 0.34, p = .001) made more contribution in the variance in EI compared to gender (beta = − 0.09, p = .002), programme of study (beta = − 0.11, p = .001) and religious affiliation (beta = − 0.10, p = .001).

Discussion

The aim of this study was to understand the relationship between Self-Esteem (SE) and Emotional Intelligence (EI) of university students in Ghana. The study was conducted against the backdrop of literature of mental health and implication of both phenomenon, SE and EI on well-being of individuals in the society.

A notable finding which emerged from this study was the mean scores showing ambivalence of participants on both constructs, SE and EI. This finding is unsurprising because previous studies in the Ghanaian contexts have reported lack of awareness of students with respect to mental health [138,139,140]. The finding is inconsistent with previous studies which reported either low or high levels of EI and SE among university students [113, 141]. As reported here, university students and school environments in Ghana presents enormous challenges which could affect the well-being of university students [36,37,38,39,40]. Amidst such environment, it is apparent that the need to develop the EI and SE of students is yet to be prioritized in the Ghanaian context. With both concepts correlated with academic performance, there is a possibility that students who took part in this study could be at risk of not achieving their innate potentials. A healthy academic environment is a place where structures are in place to prioritize or promote the well-being of all students. The findings have shown that more needs to be done on Ghanaian university campuses when it comes to training students in areas of EI and building their SE.

The hypothesized relationship between EI and SE was supported by the findings of the study. Although the intention is not assumed causation, correlation and hierarchical regression showed the importance of SE in enhancing the EI of study participants. This finding agrees with previous studies which reported the relationship between EI and SE [17, 113]. In this study, it could be inferred that for every increase in the SE of students, EI could appreciate in the same direction. This particularly important in the Ghanaian context where culturally, SE is discouraged at homes or society. For instance, in homes, children are trained not to talk back to the elderly or the elderly are seen as all knowing who makes no mistakes [142]. More so, over-assertiveness, especially among children is seen as prideful and not encouraged in societies [143]. In effect, students may convey such upbringing to school and may be unable to assert for or value themselves and judge themselves to be worthy. This could have implication for individuals’ ability to understand who they are as well as ability to handle demands of university life or work. The study has shown that developing the SE of students could be go a long way to enhance the EI of students within the Ghanaian context.

Demographic variables provided additional insight into the EI and SE of students who participated in this study. For instance, it emerged that participants differed on gender on both constructs with females demonstrated high EI and SE compared to males. First, the finding is consistent with previous studies which reported higher EI among females compared to males [85, 144]. Second, the study findings disagreed with previous studies which reported high SE among males compared to females [96]. Both trends identified on both constructs could be related to cultural practices and norms in Ghanaian societies. For instance, females are raised to be caring, showing empathy and sympathetic towards vulnerable people in the society [145, 146]. It is unsurprising that females are culturally assigned caregiving and domestic duties and thus, nurtured to demonstrate such qualities. More so, on SE, females are raised to value the beauty, dignity and carry themselves well in the society. While males are raised to be protective and not show any emotions, females are consistently reminded to hold themselves higher in the society [147]. However, the findings have shown that ignoring the EI and SE of males could have detrimental effects on efforts towards building a healthy academic environment where the needs of all are considered or included in mental health programmes. It is essential for educators and the university administration to consider developing tailored gender-based educational programmes to improve EI and SE of students.

Moreover, religion emerged as an important variable providing additional insight into SE and EI of university students. It is useful to note that culture have been reported to have impact on one’s EI and SE [89, 91, 92, 109]. In the Ghanaian context, religion is a cultural attribute which shapes the daily lives of individuals in the society [148]. Most importantly, important attributes such as morality, respect to the elderly and identity are taught based on religious affiliation of individuals [149, 150]. Although it is beyond the scope of the current study to explain the differences between participants on religion, the findings have shown the need for its consideration in policies and practices. Each of the religious groups have leaders in the society and even within the university where the study was conducted [151, 152]. Perhaps, activities to improve the well-being of their members are not prioritized in their annual programmes. Due to the influence of religion on the people in the society, it is essential that educators and religious partner to promote the EI and SE of members.

Study limitations

The present study has its limitations. In particular, the study was limited to a public university only and thus, impossible to generalize the findings to private institutions or universities outside the scope of study. However, there is free movement and universities are open to all persons interested in studying in the institution. The study participants are made up of people from heterogenous background and as such, the findings could mirror the experiences of people who were not considered in the current study. Second, the study drew on the self-report or ratings of participants. Nevertheless, the study and its instruments were explained to the participants and as such there is likelihood that they provided responses that reflect their experiences. Regardless, future studies could use qualitative method to develop in-depth insight into the EI and SE of students. Third, the findings reported here is limited to university students only excluding students enrolled in lower educational levels. Future studies may extend the current study to especially adolescents enrolled in secondary school settings. The study is very novel as this is the first-time attempts have been made to explore the synergy between EI and SE among university students in Ghana.

Conclusion and implication of study for practice

There are contemporary discussions on the need for educational institutions to be responsive towards the well-being of students [153]. This has informed recent interest in promoting the mental well-being of students [154]. It is useful to mention here that Ghanaian tertiary institutions are faced with myriad of challenges which could have implication for well-being of students [155, 156]. The current study aimed to contribute towards such discourse through the exploration of the relationship between Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Self-Esteem (SE) among university students. The study findings supported the hypothesized relationship between EI and SE. However, students are neutral regarding their levels on both constructs, suggesting a neutral or mixed stance on students perceived emotional intelligence and self-esteem. This ambivalence may reflect variability in students’ confidence in their emotional competencies and self-evaluation, highlighting a nuanced gap for further investigation in understanding how SE and EI could influence student well-being and performance. Additionally, demographic variables such as gender, age, programme of study and religious affiliation of participants provided additional insight into the EI and SE of university students in a novel context such as Ghana.

EI and SE are critical constructs that influence mental health, social interactions, and overall well-being of individuals. The findings of the current study could have implication of policy and school practices. First, university educators could prioritize both EI and SE in development of programmes aimed towards improving students’ well-being. This could be in the form of educational awareness and workshop where both constructs could feature in deliberations to help students improve their levels of EI and SE. Second, gender-based training programmes could be developed for students. Most importantly, awareness programmes aimed towards enhancing the EI and SE of especially male students could be developed. Additionally, university administrators and religious leaders could partner on ways through which they could promote the mental well-being of universities students. Specifically, educators could send mental health experts to religious meeting to discussion ways to improve EI as well as asserting for SE among students.