Display options
Cite
Fidalgo AM, Tenenbaum HR, Aznar A. Are There Gender Differences in Emotion Comprehension? Analysis of the Test of Emotion Comprehension. J Child Fam Stud. 2017;27(4):1065-1074doi: 10.1007/s10826-017-0956-5.
Fidalgo, A. M., Tenenbaum, H. R., & Aznar, A. (2018). Are There Gender Differences in Emotion Comprehension? Analysis of the Test of Emotion Comprehension. Journal of child and family studies, 27(4), 1065-1074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0956-5
Fidalgo, Angel M, et al. "Are There Gender Differences in Emotion Comprehension? Analysis of the Test of Emotion Comprehension." Journal of child and family studies vol. 27,4 (2018): 1065-1074. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0956-5
Fidalgo AM, Tenenbaum HR, Aznar A. Are There Gender Differences in Emotion Comprehension? Analysis of the Test of Emotion Comprehension. J Child Fam Stud. 2018;27(4):1065-1074. doi: 10.1007/s10826-017-0956-5. Epub 2017 Dec 11. PMID: 29576725; PMCID: PMC5854763.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Child Fam Stud. 2018;27(4):1065-1074. doi: 10.1007/s10826-017-0956-5. Epub 2017 Dec 11.

Are There Gender Differences in Emotion Comprehension? Analysis of the Test of Emotion Comprehension.

Journal of child and family studies

Angel M Fidalgo, Harriet R Tenenbaum, Ana Aznar

Affiliations

  1. 1University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain.
  2. 2University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
  3. 3University of Winchester, Winchester, UK.

PMID: 29576725 PMCID: PMC5854763 DOI: 10.1007/s10826-017-0956-5

Abstract

This article examines whether there are gender differences in understanding the emotions evaluated by the Test of Emotion Comprehension (TEC). The TEC provides a global index of emotion comprehension in children 3-11 years of age, which is the sum of the nine components that constitute emotion comprehension: (1) recognition of facial expressions, (2) understanding of external causes of emotions, (3) understanding of desire-based emotions, (4) understanding of belief-based emotions, (5) understanding of the influence of a reminder on present emotional states, (6) understanding of the possibility to regulate emotional states, (7) understanding of the possibility of hiding emotional states, (8) understanding of mixed emotions, and (9) understanding of moral emotions. We used the answers to the TEC given by 172 English girls and 181 boys from 3 to 8 years of age. First, the nine components into which the TEC is subdivided were analysed for differential item functioning (DIF), taking gender as the grouping variable. To evaluate DIF, the Mantel-Haenszel method and logistic regression analysis were used applying the Educational Testing Service DIF classification criteria. The results show that the TEC did not display gender DIF. Second, when absence of DIF had been corroborated, it was analysed for differences between boys and girls in the total TEC score and its components controlling for age. Our data are compatible with the hypothesis of independence between gender and level of comprehension in 8 of the 9 components of the TEC. Several hypotheses are discussed that could explain the differences found between boys and girls in the belief component. Given that the Belief component is basically a false belief task, the differences found seem to support findings in the literature indicating that girls perform better on this task.

Keywords: Differential item functionin; Emotion understanding; False belief task; Gender differences; Test of Emotion Comprehension

Conflict of interest statement

Compliance with Ethical StandardsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.The Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the University of Surrey granted ethical approval to the data c

References

  1. J Exp Child Psychol. 2011 Jan;108(1):96-112 - PubMed
  2. Child Care Health Dev. 2014 May;40(3):346-53 - PubMed
  3. Br J Dev Psychol. 2011 Nov;29(Pt 4):744-64 - PubMed
  4. Br J Dev Psychol. 2015 Sep;33(3):340-54 - PubMed
  5. Child Dev. 1990 Aug;61(4):1145-52 - PubMed
  6. Scand J Psychol. 2003 Sep;44(4):347-53 - PubMed
  7. J Genet Psychol. 2014 May-Aug;175(3-4):301-17 - PubMed
  8. Psychol Bull. 2013 Jul;139(4):735-65 - PubMed
  9. Br J Dev Psychol. 2011 Mar;29(Pt 1):86-109 - PubMed
  10. Br J Dev Psychol. 2005 Nov;23(4):569-86 - PubMed
  11. Cogn Emot. 2005 Apr;19(3):375-396 - PubMed
  12. Psychol Sci. 2001 Jan;12(1):18-23 - PubMed
  13. Span J Psychol. 2011 Nov;14(2):1018-22 - PubMed
  14. Child Dev. 2000 Sep-Oct;71(5):1424-40 - PubMed
  15. Child Dev. 1996 Jun;67(3):789-802 - PubMed
  16. Dev Psychol. 1998 Sep;34(5):1026-37 - PubMed
  17. Emot Rev. 2015 Jan;7(1):14-21 - PubMed
  18. J Soc Psychol. 2014 Nov-Dec;154(6):475-9 - PubMed
  19. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959 Apr;22(4):719-48 - PubMed
  20. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1992 Oct;33(7):1169-82 - PubMed
  21. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Jun 17;7:281 - PubMed
  22. Annu Rev Public Health. 1980;1:163-225 - PubMed
  23. Biometrics. 1996 Dec;52(4):1223-34 - PubMed
  24. Front Psychol. 2013 Sep 24;4:670 - PubMed
  25. Child Dev. 2013 May-Jun;84(3):989-1003 - PubMed
  26. Behav Res Methods. 2007 Feb;39(1):71-81 - PubMed
  27. Aggress Behav. 2010 Nov-Dec;36(6):371-89 - PubMed

Publication Types