Abstract:
Objective: To examine deviant behaviors among vocational students in Bangkok, and to investigate the relationship between the deviant behaviors and potential associated factors, including emotional intelligence. Materials and Method: The research design was cross-sectional, descriptive. The samples included a total of 1,051 vocational students (Vocational Certificate) in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd year, and high vocational students (High Vocational Diploma) in 1st and 2nd year from five different vocational colleges in Bangkok. The instruments consisted of three following parts; respondents demographic data, the Emotional Intelligence Test, and the Deviant Behavior Inventory. To analyze data, the descriptive statistics was used to describe the vocational students characteristics. Pearsons correlation coefficient was conducted to determine the relationship between deviant behavior and emotional intelligence. T-test and One-way ANOVA were used to delineate the difference. Result: The vocational students reported themselves as having deviant behaviors on average of 2.21 areas (range 0 12), while they were rated as having the deviant behaviors by teacher in 0.51 areas (range 0 9). Evaluation of deviant behaviors by students and teachers showed moderate agreement (r =.223, p = .01). Factors associated with the deviant behaviors included gender, program learnt, year rank and GPA. Regarding the assessment of emotional intelligence, 3.8% of vocational students in Bangkok were rated as of high level, 65.3% somewhat high, 30.2% moderate, and 0.7% somewhat poor. None of the participants were rated as of poor emotional intelligence. There was no relationship between emotional intelligence scores and number of deviant behaviors (r = .015, = .626). Conclusion: Despite several factors associated with deviant behaviors among the vocational students were found, there was no relationship with emotional intelligence. The assessment process of the vocational students behavioral problems should always be aware of the limitation and respondents bias.