Gender and Accuracy in Decoding Affect Cues: A Meta-Analysis.

Judith A Hall, Sarah D Gunnery, Katja Schlegel
Author Information
  1. Judith A Hall: Department of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
  2. Sarah D Gunnery: Department of Psychology, New England College, Henniker, NH 03242, USA. ORCID
  3. Katja Schlegel: Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland. ORCID

Abstract

Gender differences in understanding the meanings of affect cues, often labeled emotion recognition, have been studied for over a century. Past reviews of the literature have concluded that girls and women score higher than boys and men on tests of accuracy in decoding affect cues, which are most often tested in the cue modalities of face, body, and content-free voice. The present meta-analysis updates knowledge on this topic by including many more studies (1188 effect sizes in 1011 studies; total = 837,637) and examining a wide range of moderators such as health status of sample, international location, cue channels of the test, and other sample and test characteristics. Indeed, the gender difference favoring girls and women still exists, and evidence for publication bias was weak. The difference is not large ( = 0.12, = 0.24), but it is extremely consistent across many moderators, which, even when significant, show minor differences. Health status was the only moderator to produce groups without a significant gender difference.

Keywords

References

  1. Psychol Assess. 2014 Jun;26(2):666-72 [PMID: 24295238]
  2. Front Psychol. 2024 Apr 25;15:1379652 [PMID: 38725946]
  3. PLoS One. 2015 Aug 27;10(8):e0136521 [PMID: 26313946]
  4. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71 [PMID: 33782057]
  5. Res Synth Methods. 2019 Mar;10(1):57-71 [PMID: 30506832]
  6. J Intell. 2021 May 17;9(2): [PMID: 34067669]
  7. J Soc Psychol. 2004 Apr;144(2):149-62 [PMID: 15074503]
  8. Emotion. 2022 Dec;22(8):1980-1988 [PMID: 35389737]
  9. Psychol Bull. 2000 May;126(3):424-53 [PMID: 10825784]
  10. Neuropsychology. 2012 Mar;26(2):251-265 [PMID: 22251308]
  11. J Appl Psychol. 2010 Jan;95(1):54-78 [PMID: 20085406]
  12. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2001 Feb;42(2):241-51 [PMID: 11280420]
  13. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2018 Jan;84:92-99 [PMID: 29175518]
  14. Am Psychol. 2015 Jan;70(1):10-20 [PMID: 25581005]
  15. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1968 Aug;9(4):301-8 [PMID: 5670823]
  16. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987 Oct;53(4):712-7 [PMID: 3681648]
  17. Dev Psychopathol. 2023 Apr 11;:1-12 [PMID: 37039136]
  18. Psychol Sci. 2008 Apr;19(4):399-404 [PMID: 18399894]
  19. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2022 Sep;17(5):1339-1358 [PMID: 35532752]
  20. Child Dev. 2011 May-Jun;82(3):766-79 [PMID: 21410915]
  21. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2021 Jun;125:26-32 [PMID: 33609571]
  22. Psychol Bull. 2002 Sep;128(5):699-727 [PMID: 12206191]
  23. Assessment. 2007 Dec;14(4):426-32 [PMID: 17986660]
  24. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000 Jan;78(1):81-91 [PMID: 10653507]
  25. J Appl Psychol. 2019 Apr;104(4):559-580 [PMID: 30346195]
  26. Neuropsychologia. 2012 Jun;50(7):1211-21 [PMID: 22245006]
  27. PLoS One. 2012;7(1):e29265 [PMID: 22238596]
  28. Prog Neurobiol. 2019 May;176:33-53 [PMID: 29890214]
  29. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2010 Nov;135(3):278-83 [PMID: 20728864]
  30. Cogn Emot. 2014;28(7):1164-95 [PMID: 24400860]
  31. Disabil Rehabil. 2006 Dec 30;28(24):1529-42 [PMID: 17178616]
  32. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023 Jan 3;120(1):e2022385119 [PMID: 36584298]
  33. Psychol Bull. 1990 Mar;107(2):139-55 [PMID: 2138794]
  34. Psychol Methods. 2020 Jul 16;: [PMID: 32673040]
  35. J Pers. 1986 Sep;54(3):528-50 [PMID: 3783401]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0affectcues=genderdifferenceGenderdifferencesoftenemotionrecognitiongirlswomendecodingcuemanystudiesmoderatorsstatussampletest0significantunderstandingmeaningslabeledstudiedcenturyPastreviewsliteratureconcludedscorehigherboysmentestsaccuracytestedmodalitiesfacebodycontent-freevoicepresentmeta-analysisupdatesknowledgetopicincluding1188effectsizes1011total837637examiningwiderangehealthinternationallocationchannelscharacteristicsIndeedfavoringstillexistsevidencepublicationbiasweaklarge1224extremelyconsistentacrossevenshowminorHealthmoderatorproducegroupswithoutAccuracyDecodingAffectCues:Meta-Analysis

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.