1. Early Gender Differences in Emotion Socialization?
Under the direction of Claire Vallotton, Department of Human Development and Family Services
Ustina Shives
Background
Methods
Discussion
Previous research indicates that early emotion skills in infants
are socialized in home and school settings (Cassidy et. al.,
1992), and girls may be socialized earlier than boys. For
example, in early childhood, girls have more emotional
intensity than boys (Ahn & Stiffer, 2010; Casey, 1993).
However, most studies focus on school age children, whereas,
I ask whether this socialization, and gender differences
therein, begins in infancy. By examining the relationship
between features of parents’ and infant’s emotional
expressions, we can better understand how emotional
expressions are socialized from one generation to the next.
1)Is there a correlation between parents’
intensity and coherence of emotional
expression and infants‘ intensity of
emotional expression?
2)Is this relationship stronger for infant girls?
Questions
• Sample: 32 boys and 38 girls, 10 and 14 months old.
• Parent Emotional Expressions: To measure parents’ emotion
intensity and coherence, we told them six stories about things
that elicit certain emotions, and asked them to label and
express those emotions. We videotaped and coded their
expressions for intensity and degree of coherence with the
intended emotion.
• Infant Emotional Expressions: To measure the infants’ emotion
intensity, we gave infants four challenging tasks which include
two successful tasks and two unsuccessful tasks designed to
elicit pleasure and frustration. We videotaped and coded for
the intensity of infants’ frustration and pleasure expressions.
• Data Coding: The emotional expressions were coded using
ELAN software. The most intense moment of the expression is
marked, as well as a window from two seconds before to two
seconds after the expression.
• Excel was used to record each feature of the upper body and
face that was involved in the expression, including: forehead,
eyebrows, eyes, mouth, head position/movement, shoulder,
upper body, arms position/movement, and hand action. We
added involved features together for a total intensity score.
• Coherence was rated from 0 to 2, based on whether the
parents’ emotional expression clearly represented the intended
emotion.
• Coherence and intensity scores for parents were averaged
across the 6 different emotions.
• The intensities of children’s pleasure and frustration
expressions were kept distinct. References
Analysis and Results
Ahn, H., & Stifter, C. (2006). Child Care Teachers' Response to Children's Emotional Expression. Early Education & Development, 253-270.
Casey, R. (1993). Children's emotional experience: Relations among expression, self-report, and understanding. Developmental Psychology, 119-129.
Cassidy, J., Parke, R., Butkovsky, L., & Braungart, J. (1992). Family-Peer Connections: The Roles of Emotional Expressiveness within the Family and Children's Understanding of Emotions. Child Development, 63(3), 603-618.
•Parents’ intensity of expression is not associated with their infants’ intensity of
emotion expressed. This may indicate that the skills of expression and regulation begin
to develop after 12 months, or that parents’ talk has no effect on these skills at an
early age.
•It was parents’ coherence of expression, rather than intensity, that was related to
children’s intensity of expression. Coherence in this task, which asked parents to
represent emotions, may be an indicator of the clarity or intensity of their expressions
in everyday life, which influence their children’s expressions.
Boys’ positive correlation is not significant
where the correlation is positively related,
but not significant to the children’s intensity
of pleasure
• Parents’ coherence was related to children’s expressions, but parents’ intensity of
expression was not.
• Relationships were stronger for children’s expressions of pleasure than for expressions
of frustration.
• Relationships were stronger for girls than for boys.
The girls’ results is significance since
parents’ coherence is related to both
pleasure and discomfort intensity.
Table 1. Correlations between parents’ expressions
and children’s expressions for all children.
Parent
Coherence
Parent Intensity
Pleasure Intensity r = .205*
p = .048
n = 67
r =-.029
p = .409
n = 67
Frustration
Intensity
r = .185
p = .144
n = 35
r = .040
p = .410
n = 35
Table 2. Correlations between parents’ expressions
and children’s expressions for boys and for girls.
Parent
Coherence
Parent
Intensity
Boys’ Pleasure
Intensity
r = .186
p = .158
n = 31
r = -.113
p = .273
n = 31
Boys’ Frustration
Intensity
r = -.029
p = .459
n = 15
r = -.162
p = .282
n = 15
Girls’ Pleasure
Intensity
r = .222~
p =.096
n = 36
r = .012
p = .484
n = 36
Girls’ Frustration
Intensity
r = .366~
p = .056
n = 20
r = .124
p = .301
n = 20
Fig 1. Relationship between Parent and Child
Expression for Boys
Child’sTotalIntensityofEmotion
0
3
6
9
12
Parent Coherence
0 0.6 1.3 1.9 2.5
Pleasure
Discomfort
Fig 2. Relationship between Parent and Child
Expression for Girls
Child’sTotalIntensityofEmotion
0
3
6
9
12
Parent Coherence
0 0.6 1.3 1.9 2.5
Pleasure
Discomfort
Q1
We used Pearson correlations (1-tailed) to
test whether there was a relationship
between parents’ coherence and intensities
of expression, and children’s intensities of
pleasure and frustration expressions. See
Table 1
Q2 We split the sample into boys and girls and
used Pearson correlations (1-tailed) to test
whether there was a relationship between
parents’ coherence and intensities of
expression, and boys’ and girls’ intensities
of pleasure and frustration expressions.
We expected this relationship to be
stronger for girls.
BoysGirls
Summary
Pleasure R² Linear = 0.049
Discomfort R² Linear = 0.1341
Pleasure R² Linear = 0.035
Discomfort R² Linear =
0.0008