Gender Differences in Social & Emotional Functioning and Peer Relationship in Taiwanese School Children 45th Annual mee6ng of SCCR, 20th Feb, 2016
First author/presenter: Ching-Yu Huang, PhD, California School of Professional Psychology, Alliant Interna6onal University
[email protected] Co-authors: April Chiung-Tao Shen, Hsi-Sheng Wei, Jui-Ying Feng, Yi-Ping Hsieh, Hsiao-Lin Hwa, Joyce Yen Feng
Presentation Outline • Background • Current study • Results • Discussions • Conclusions
Gender Gender-the cultural, social & psychological meaning that are associated with masculinity & Femininity (Wood & Eagly, 2002).
Gender difference in social & emotional functioning • 1. Temperament: Boys showed higher Surgency than girls, whereas girls showed higher EfforZul Control than boys (Else-Quest, Hyde, Goldsmith, & Van Hulle, 2006). • 2. Aggression: Boys exhibit higher rates of unprovoked physical aggression than girls, but no difference in provoked aggression (Hyde, 2005). • 3. Internalizing problems: Girls are more likely to be depressed and be unhappy with their bodies than boys a`er puberty(Brown & Jewell, 2016). • 4. Emo6onal Intelligence: Generally female scored higher than male (e.g. Brackea, Mayer & Warner, 2004).
Gender differences in Peer relationships • 1. Different paaerns in social interac6on (e.g. Fabes et al., 2003; Mar6n & Fabes, 2001).
• 2. Social network density: Boys have more integrated social networks than girls (e.g. Benenson, 1993). • 3. Content of peer interac6on: Girls are more prosocial than boys (e.g. Rose & Asher, 1999, 2004).
Peer-relations in Chinese culture • In Chinese culture, children are taught to consider others in their decisions and ac6ons, to be sensi6ve to others’ feelings, and to exert selfcontrol from a very early age (e.g., Chen, Rubin et al., 2003; Ho, 1986; Luo, 1996). • Chinese parents encourage children to form harmonious rela6onships with others (e.g. Ho , 1986; Wu et al., 2002).
Current Study • Research ques?ons: • 1. Did Taiwanese boys and girls show differences on their emo6onal intelligence, social intelligence, peerrela6onship, posi6ve school experience and bullying experience? • 2. Do Taiwanese boys and girls show different paaerns of associa6ons between the above variables?
Method • Par?cipants: • 699 Taiwanese 4th grade (10 years old on average) school children • 321(46%) boys • 378(54%) girls • self-report
Methods
• Measures: • 1. Brief Emo?onal Intelligence Scale (BEIS-10, Davies, Lane, Devonport, & Scoa, 2010) -10 items • 2. The Tromsø Social Intelligence Scale (TSIS, Silvera, Mar6nussen & Dahl, 2001) -10 items • 3. Peer rela?onship quality -3 items, feeling supported, loved/accepted by friends, and can share feelings with friends. • 4. Posi?ve School Experience- 6 items • Feeling safe, belong, happy, cared for, being praised and being heard at school.
Methods • 5. Bullying Perpetra?on & Vic?miza?on • The perpetra6on scale: 7 items • Areas of assessment: verbal insult, threatening, extor6ng, property damage, physical violence, and rela6onal aggression. • The peer vic6miza6on scale: 8 items • with an addi6onal item “I feel fearful of going to school because I am afraid of being bullied by other students”
Results • Sta?s?cal Analyses • 1. Mul6variate analysis of variance • Gender as IV, EI, SI, peer-rela?onship, school posi?ve experience, bully perpetra?on & vic?miza?on as DVs. • 2. Correla6on analysis
Gender differences in children’s EI, SI, peerrelation, bullying and school experiences 4.5 4
n.s.
3.5
F(1, 697) = 15.536***
n.s.
n.s.
Boys Girls
3 2.5 2 1.5
F(1, 697) = 11.056**
1
F(1, 697) = 8.015**
0.5 0 EI
SI
Bully Bully Peer Posi6ve Rela6onship School Perpetra6on Vic6miza6on Quality Experience
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Correlations between children’s EI, SI, peer relationship, school and bullying experiences for boys and girls Emotional Social Peer Positive Bullying Intelligence Intelligence relationship school Victimization quality experience boys
girls
Social Intelligence .349** .450**
boys
girls
boys
girls
boys
girls
boys
girls
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Peer rela?onship quality
.321** .399** .339** .403**
Posi?ve school experience
.350** .481** .346** .336** .474** .487**
Bullying Vic?miza?on
-.082 -.106* -.070 -.136** -.128* -.230** -.252** -.340**
Bullying Perpetra?on
-.113* -.040
* p < .05, ** p < .01, 2-tailed.
.058
-.056 -.030 -.133** -.161** -.182** .539** .459**
Discussions • 1. Contrary to current literature, NO gender differences in EI and SI (c.f. Brackea, et al., 2004; Mavroveli & Sanchez-Ruiz, 2011; Mayer, et al., 2002),
possibly because in Chinese socie6es, children are socialized to be sensi6ve to others’ judgments regardless of gender (Fung, 1999). • 2. Significant gender difference emerged in pupils’ reported peer rela?onship quality (G>B), bullying vic?miza?on (B>G) and bullying perpetra?on (B>G), consistent with past research findings (e.g. Romera, Del Rey & Ortega, 2011; Carbone-Lopez, Esbensen, & Brick, 2010).
Discussions • 3. Girls with higher EI & SI are less likely to be bully vic?ms, and girls repor6ng higher peer rela?onship quality are less likely to bully others. • 4. Boys with higher EI are less likely to bully others. • Different from past literature from Caucasian pupils, who showed gender difference in EI (Girls > Boys), but no gender difference in the associa6on between EI and bullying (higher trait EI scores related to lower self-reported bullying and bullying vic6miza6on, Kokkinos & Kipritsi, 2012; Mavroveli & SanchezRuiz, 2011).
Conclusions • Taiwanese children, unlike their West counterparts do not show gender differences in EI and SI, possibly reflec6ng different gender socializa6on processes in Chinese (Taiwan) and Western socie6es. • The different associa6ons between children’s EI & SI and their bully experience may shed light on the development of gender-targeted bully interven6on programs, which may help boys and girls more effec6vely in Chinese socie6es. • Findings from the current study provided an encouraging first step in understanding gender socializa6on processes in Chinese socie6es, future endeavors to further our understanding is s6ll needed.
Thank you very much! Ques6ons?
[email protected]
References
Benenson, J.F. (1993) Greater preference among females than males for dyadic interac6on in early childhood. Child Development,64, 544–555. Brackea, M. A., Mayer, J. D., & Warner, R. M. (2004). Emo6onal intelligence and its rela6on to everyday behaviour. Personality and Individual differences,36(6), 1387-1402. Brown, C.S. & Jewell, J.A. (2016) Gender. Retrived on hap://noba.to/ge5fdhba Carbone-Lopez K., Esbensen F.A., Brick B.T. (2010). Correlates and consequences of peer vic6miza6on: Gender differences in direct and indirect forms of bullying. Youth Violence Juvenile Jus6ce, 8, 332–350. Davies, K. A., Lane, A. M., Devonport, T. J., & Scoa, J. A. (2010). Validity and reliability of a brief emo6onal intelligence scale (BEIS-10). Journal of Individual Differences, 31(4), 198-208. Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., Goldsmith, H. H., & Van Hulle, C. A. (2006). Gender differences in temperament: a meta analysis. Psychological bulle?n,132(1), 33. Fabes, R. A., Mar6n, C.L., & Hanish, L. D. (2003) Young children’s play quali6es in same-, other-, and mixed-sex peer groups. Child Development, 74, 921–932. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similari6es hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592. Kokkinos & Kipritsi (2012) The rela6onship between bullying, vic6miza6on, trait emo6onal intelligence, self-efficacy and empathy among preadolescents. Social Psychology of Educa6on,15, 41-58. Mar6n, C.L. & Fabes, R.A. (2001) The stability and consequences of young children’s same-sex peer interac6ons.Developmental Psychology,37,431–446. Mavroveli, S., & Sánchez-Ruiz, M. J. (2011). Trait emo6onal intelligence influences on academic achievement and school behaviour. Bri6sh Journal Of Educa6onal Psychology, 81(1), 112-134 Rose, A.J.& Asher, S.R. (1999) Children’s goals and strategies in response to conflicts within a friendship. Developmental Psychology, 35, 69–79. Rose, A.J. & Asher, S.R. (2004) Children’s strategies and goals in response to help-giving and help-seeking tasks within a friendship. Child Development, 75, 749–763. Silvera, D. H., Mar6nussen, M., & Dahl, T. I. (2001). The Tromsø Social Intelligence Scale, a self-report measure of social intelligence. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42, 313–319. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implica6ons for the origins
