CHAPTER III
Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot
Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data
This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of data obtained through a survey using questionnaires designed to find out the levels and correlation of emotional intelligence and burnout, and their relationship to the profile of the police officers of Camp Crame, Quezon City.
Question No. 1.What is the profile of the respondents according to:
age
gender
civil status
years in service
Age
Table 1 shows the age profile of the police officers with a total number of 160 respondents with its equivalent percentage. As revealed in Table 1 the top 5 in the rank in descending order are the following: 1 with equivalent of 20 (13.3%) of the respondents belong to 25 years of age. The next is 2, 18 (11.3%) of the respondents were 30 years old and rank 3 with equivalent of 14 (8.8%) of the respondents were 28 years old. Next is 4 equals to 13 (8.1%) of the respondents were 29 years old and rank 5 with equivalent of 12 (7.5%) of the respondents were 27 and 33 years old. These indicate that the largest number of the sample respondents were in the 25 – 33 age bracket. The remaining 50 (31.3%) respondents is made up of officers between the ages 35 – 52. The age distribution reveals that most of SOCO police officers were in the start of their policing career.
Table 1
Profile of Police Officers According to Age
AGE
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
RANK
25
20
13.3
1
26
10
6.3
7
27
12
7.5
5
28
14
8.8
3
29
13
8.1
4
30
18
11.3
2
31
11
6.9
6
33
12
7.5
5
35
9
5.6
8
36
7
4.4
9
37
6
3.8
10
38
5
3.1
11
41
5
3.1
11
44
5
3.1
11
45
7
4.4
9
52
6
3.8
10
Total
160
100
Sex
Table 2 indicates that of the 160 respondent, 92 (57.5%) comprised of male and 68 (42.5%) are female respondents. It shows that male respondents are greater than female by 24 respondents. A probable reason could be is that more males than females are employed in the selected location.
Table 2
Profile of Police Officers According to Sex
SEX
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
RANK
Male
92
57.5
1
Female
68
42.5
2
Total
160
100
Civil Status
Table 3 reveals that 50 (31.3%) of the respondents indicated that they were single, 108 (67.5%) of the respondents indicated that they were married and 2 (1.3%) of the respondents were widowed. It shows that married respondents are greater than single respondents and widowed respondents.
Table 3
Profile of Police Officers According to Civil Status
CIVIL STATUS
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
RANK
Single
50
31.3
2
Married
108
67.5
1
Widowed
2
1.3
3
Total
150
100
Table 4
Profile of Police Officers According to Years in Service
YEARS IN SERVICE
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
RANK
1
7
4.4
9
2
8
5.0
8
3
22
13.8
2
4
10
6.3
6
5
35
21.9
1
6
16
10.0
4
8
12
7.5
5
10
19
11.9
3
12
7
4.4
9
15
9
5.6
7
18
6
3.8
10
20
5
3.1
11
25
4
2.5
12
Total
160
100
Years in Service
Table 4 states the years in service of the respondents as a police officer. As revealed in the table the top 5 in the rank of years in service in the ascending order is the following: rank 5 (7.5%) 12 of the respondents were already 8 years in service, rank 4 (10.0%) 16 of the respondents were 6 years in service, rank 3 (11.9%) 19 of the respondents were 10 years in service, rank 2 (13.8%) 22 of the respondents were 22 years in service and in rank 1 (21.9%) 35 of the respondents were already 5 years in service. The remaining 56 (34.9%) respondents were employed between 1 – 4 and 12 – 25 years in service. This also reveals that most of the police officers were in the start of their policing career.
Question No. 2.What is the emotional intelligence of the respondents as to the following subscales?
Perception of Emotion
Managing Own Emotions
Managing Others’ Emotions
Utilization of Emotion
Table 5 reveals a total average of 3.77 with a descriptive rating of High. 8 out of 10 indicators have a descriptive rating of High while the rest are Average. Furthermore, item number 6 has the highest weighted mean of 4.30 while item number 1 received the lowest weighted mean of 2.64. Based on the above result, the respondents were aware of their own emotional state and were able to discern one’s own and others emotions based on the situation (Schutte et. al., 1998). They were attentive and has awareness of the emotion that they were or others were experiencing.
In addition, this aspect is very essential in their task because the better the emotional read they have on the situation, the more appropriate they can respond (Caruso, 2005). The key of working with other people is being aware of other’s emotions (Caruso, 2005).
Table 5
Emotional Intelligence of the Respondents according to Perception of Emotion
INDICATORS
WM
VI
RANK
1. I find it hard to understand the non-verbal messages of other people.
2.64
A
2. I am aware of my emotions as I experience them.
4.16
H
3. I am aware of the non-verbal messages I send to others.
4.06
H
4. By looking at their facial expressions, I recognize the emotions people are experiencing.
4.05
H
5. I know why my emotions change.
4.21
H
6. I easily recognize my emotions as I experience them.
4.30
H
7. I am aware of the non-verbal messages other people send.
3.96
H
8. I know what other people are feeling just by looking at them.
3.51
H
9. I can tell how people are feeling by listening to the tone of their voice.
3.83
H
10. It is difficult for me to understand why people feel the way they do.
3.01
A
TOTAL
3.77
High
Table 6
Emotional Intelligence of the Respondents according to Managing Own Emotions
INDICATORS
WM
VI
RANK
1. When I am faced with obstacles, I remember times I faced similar obstacles and overcame them.
4.15
H
2. I expect that I will do well on most things I try.
4.16
H
3. I expect good things to happen.
4.29
H
4. When I experience a positive emotion, I know how to make it last.
4.18
H
5. I seek out activities that make me happy.
4.23
H
6. I have control over my emotions.
4.23
H
7. I motivate myself by imagining a good outcome to tasks I take on.
4.36
H
8. When I am faced with a challenge, I give up because I believe I will fail.
3.68
H
9. I use good moods to help myself keep trying in the face of obstacles.
4.32
H
TOTAL
4.18
H
Table 6 obtained a high descriptive rating with a total average of 4.07 which is the highest among other aspects of the emotional intelligence. All items in the aspect of managing own emotions received a high descriptive rating. The result manifested that the respondents has a strong ability in terms of managing their emotions. They have shown more positive mood, and these mood are better in generating new ideas and solutions to problems (Caruso, 2005). The manifestation of strong managing of emotions may have contributed to their team’s performance and made them adjust to traumatic events that they may encounter daily. This ability creates effective strategies that use their emotions to help them achieve their goals, rather than being influenced by their emotions in unpredictable ways. (Caruso, 2005).
In addition, knowing that despite of emotional pain of the police officers, they can do something to make themselves feel better, take responsibility for their feelings, and to cope up in unpredictable demands of the society. Such person is skilled at managing his or her emotions to make well-balanced emotional decisions (Caruso, 2005).
Table 7
Emotional Intelligence of the Respondents according to Managing Others’ Emotions
INDICATORS
WM
VI
RANK
1. I know when to speak about my personal problems to others.
4.26
H
2. Other people find it easy to confide in me.
3.93
H
3. I like to share my emotions with others.
3.76
H
4. I arrange events others enjoy.
4.05
H
5. I present myself in a way that makes a good impression on others.
4.07
H
6. I compliment others when they have done something well.
4.36
H
7. When another person tells me about an important event in his or her life, I almost feel as though I experienced this event myself.
3.85
H
8. I help other people feel better when they are down.
4.16
H
TOTAL
4.06
H
Table 7 presents a total average of weighted mean of 4.06 with a descriptive rating of High. All items received an high descriptive rating. The result reveals that the respondents have a strong interpersonal relationship and they are able to empathize with another’s feelings and have the ability to convey that understanding (Mayer et. al., 2002).
They also have the ability to encourage, inspire, and motivate one another. A person with a high score for Managing Emotion will make optimal decisions that integrate all elements of a problem, as well as recognizing and using the emotions of others (Mayer et. al., 2002).
Table 8
Emotional Intelligence of the Respondents according to Utilization of Emotion
INDICATORS
WM
VI
RANK
1. Some of the major events of my life have led me to re-evaluate what is important and not important.
4.13
H
2. When my mood changes, I see new possibilities.
3.81
H
3. Emotions are one of the things that make my life worth living.
3.89
H
4. When I am in a positive mood, solving problems is easy for me.
4.30
H
5. When I am in a positive mood, I am able to come up with new ideas.
4.40
H
6. When I feel a change in emotions, I tend to come up with new ideas.
3.91
H
TOTAL
4.08
H
Table 8 presents a total average of weighted mean of 4.07 with a descriptive rating of High. The table indicates that the respondents are creative thinkers and they can adapt themselves to diverse situations. Respondents who got high scores has the ability to generate emotions, and use emotions in their cognitive tasks as well as problem-solving (Mayer et. al., 2002).
The respondents were flexible in their unpredictable job demands and can manage to survive experiencing many concerns in family, job, and other personal matters. They also have a strong ability in using their emotion to focus attention and to think more rationally, logically and creatively (Bracket & Salovey, 2006).
Table 9
Summary on the subscales of Emotional Intelligence Test
Emotional Intelligence
WM
SD
VI
RANK
Perception of Emotions
3.77
.49
High
4
Managing Own Emotions
4.18
.55
High
1
Managing Others’ Emotions
4.06
.58
High
3
Utilization of Emotions
4.08
.69
High
2
Total
4.02
High
Table 9 reveals the summary result: Managing Own Emotions ranked first with a descriptive rating of high (4.18). It was followed by Utilization of Emotion (4.08) with a high descriptive rating, Managing Others’ Emotions (4.06) and Perception of Emotions with (3.77) high descriptive rating. The total average weighted mean is equals to 4.02 with a descriptive rating of High.
This summary also illustrates that police-respondents are highly intelligent in all aspects of Emotional Intelligence such as perception of emotion, managing own emotion, managing other’s emotion, and utilization of emotion. However, Managing Own Emotion received the highest weighted mean among the aspects of emotional intelligence. This aspect helps them to regulate their own emotions in the different situations in their duty. Such manifestation also helps them to cope up on the stressful events that they are currently facing.
Respondents with high levels of emotional intelligence are generally better able to perceive, identify and manage emotions in themselves and others, making them more effective at achieving goals when emotional based information is important (Mayer et. al., 2002).
Question No. 3. What is the burnout level of the police officers?
Table 11
Burnout of the Respondents
INDICATORS
WM
VI
1. Do you become more fatigued, tired or ‘worn out’ by the end of the day?
2.05
Low
3
2. Have you lost your interest in your present work?
1.73
Low
19
3. Have you lost your ambition in your overall career?
1.63
Low
20
4. Do you find yourself easily bored (spending long hours with nothing significant to do)?
2.23
Low
1
5. Do you find that you have become more pessimistic, critical, or cynical of yourself or others?
2.13
Low
2
6. Do you forget appointments, deadlines, or activities and don’t feel very concerned about it?
1.81
Low
17
7. Do you forget special occasions and don’t feel very concerned about it?
1.80
Low
18
8. Has any increase occurred in your general level of irritability, hostility, or aggressiveness?
1.93
Low
14
9. Has your sense of humor become less obvious to yourself or others?
2.09
Low
4
10. Do you become sick more easily (flu, colds, pain problems)?
2.00
Low
8
11. Do you experience headaches more than usual?
2.03
Low
5
12. Do you suffer from gastrointestinal problems (stomach pains, chronic diarrhea or colitis)?
1.94
Low
13
13. Do you wake up feeling extremely tired and exhausted most mornings?
1.98
Low
9
14. Do you find that you deliberately try to avoid people you previously did not mind being around?
2.01
Low
6
15. Has been there a lessening of your sexual drive?
2.01
Low
7
16. Do you find that you now tend to treat people as “impersonal objects” or with a fair degree of callousness?
1.95
Low
12
17. Do you feel that you are not accomplishing anything worthwhile in your work and that you are ineffective in making any changes?
1.96
Low
10
18. Do you feel that you are not accomplishing anything worthwhile in your personal life or that you have not lost spontaneity in your activities?
1.86
Low
16
19. Do you find that you spend much time each day thinking or worrying about your job, people, future or past?
1.95
Low
11
20. Do you feel that you are at the “end of your tether” – that you are at the point “breaking down” or “cracking up”?
1.87
Low
15
TOTAL
1.97
Low
Table 11 reveals a total average of 1.97 with a Low descriptive rating. All indicators were found to be low in rating. However, item number 4 has the highest weighted mean of 2.23 while item number 3 received the lowest weighted mean of 1.63. Based on the above result, the police-respondents have the capacity to cope up in their emotional exhaustion. Their training and post-traumatic psychological debriefing might had an effect on the scores of respondents on burnout.
In addition, low degrees of burnout are associated with constructive coping strategies (Maslach et. al., 2001).
Question No. 4. Is there a significant relationship in the respondents’ Emotional Intelligence when their profile is considered?
gender
age
civil status
years in service
Table 12
Relationship of Age of the Respondents to Emotional Intelligence
INDICATORS
PEARSON
SIGNIFICANCE
VI
Perception of Emotion
.001
.993
Negligible
Managing Own Emotion
.005
.953
Negligible
Managing Others’ Emotion
.099
.211
Negligible
Utilization of Emotion
.018
.822
Negligible
The table 10 illustrates the correlation of age and emotional intelligence of the respondents. Perception of emotion reveals a significant relationship of .001 and received a negligible correlation. All of the indicators show a negligible correlation because the calculated value is greater than the alpha level of .05. All aspects of Emotional Intelligence indicate a positive Pearson r. This means that as one variable increases in value, the second variable increase in value.
Table 13
Relationship of Sex of the Respondents to Emotional Intelligence
INDICATORS
PEARSON
VI
SIG.
VI
Perception of Emotion
-.059
Negligible
.456
Not Significant
Managing Own Emotion
-.141
Negligible
.075
Not Significant
Managing Others’ Emotion
-.139
Negligible
.079
Not Significant
Utilization of Emotion
-.089
Negligible
.261
Not Significant
The table 11 shows the relationship of sex of the respondents to emotional intelligence picture out statistically insignificant correlation because of the level of significance in all indicators are higher than the alpha level of .05. However, the Pearson r resulted from negligible correlation, four indicators have negative Pearson r which means that there are no relationship between variables.
Table 14
Relationship of Civil Status of the Respondents to Emotional Intelligence
INDICATORS
PEARSON
VI
SIG.
VI
Perception of Emotion
-.062
Negligible
.439
Not Significant
Managing Own Emotion
-.038
Negligible
.636
Not Significant
Managing Others’ Emotion
.012
Negligible
.884
Not Significant
Utilization of Emotion
-.010
Negligible
.902
Not Significant
Table 12 shows 3 indicators received a negative Pearson Correlation Coefficient (Pearson r) result. However, 1 indicator received a positive Pearson r, though with negligible interpretations, it indicates a correlation among variables. All four indicators have significance level that is greater than the alpha level of .05 with insignificant interpretation. The civil status of the respondents is not correlated with emotional intelligence.
Table 15
Relationship of Years in Service of the Respondents to Emotional Intelligence
INDICATORS
PEARSON
