Gender differences

Table 3.2 presents the results of ANOVAs and MANOVAs testing for gender differences in the two Els. As can be seen from there, no such differences in ability El were found, neither in the global score, nor at branch level. Gender differences were non-significant for global trait El, too. However, a MANOVA with trait El factors as dependents pointed to significant gender differences in favor of men on Self-Control and Sociability, whereby only the effect on Self-Control was of substantial size (see Table 3.2 for details). In a series of additional analyses, testing for gender effects within the three age cohorts, the above described differences in trait El were found to appear in the middle group (32^44 years) specifically. Moreover, breaking down the sample according to age revealed significant gender differences in ability El in the youngest group (21-31 years), in which women turned out to score significantly higher than men (F(, 4I) = 5.31, p < .05).

SES-related differences

Finally, our analyses also addressed demographic group differences in the two Els with regard to three SES-related variables: educational attainment, job position, and income. The results of these analyses are presented in Tables 3.3 through 3.5.

Table 3.1 Descriptives by age cohorts with results for MANOVA (branch/factor scores) and ANOVA (global scores)

El

aspect

M (SD) by age cohorts

Multivariate Tests - (branch level)

Between-subjects

effects

Sign, differences in Post hoc tests (Tukey), Cohen’s d in parenthesis

21-31 years' N = 43

32-44 years2 N = 135

45-61 years3 N = 92

PE

.44 (.11)

.48 (.10)

.42 (.11)

Wilk’sk = .87,

Ff. 528) = 4.64,/) <.001

Ff41) = 8.65,/) <.001

2-3 (.57)

UsE

.42 (.08)

.45 (.07)

.41 (.09)

Ff ,67) = 8.31,p<.001

2-3 (.50)

UE

.45 (.09)

.44 (.07)

.42 (.08)

F2 w) = 3.99, p < .05

1-3 (.35)

ME

.32 (.07)

.31 (.07)

.28 (.07)

F(,,67) = 8.03,/><.001

1-3 (.57), 2-3 (.43)

AEI

.41 (.06)

.42 (.05)

.38 (.06)

F(:.267) = 12.1 1,/) <.001

1-3 (.50), 2-3 (.72)

21-31 years' N = 44

32-44 years2 N = 140

45-61 years3 N = 95

Multivariate Tests (factor level)

Between-subjects effects

Sign, differences in Post hoc tests (Tukey), Cohen’s d in parenthesis

WB

5.54 (.66)

5.64 (.71)

5.18 (.65)

Wilk’sk = .87,

FU,5A6) = 4.82,/) <.001

Ff ,76)= 12.67,/)< .001

1-3 (.55), 2-3 (.67)

SC

5.05 (.82)

4.89 (.81)

4.57 (.72)

Ff ,76) = 7.12,/) < .01

1-3 (.62), 2-3 (.42)

EM

5.40 (.68)

5.24 (.65)

4.91 (.66)

Ff ,76)= 10.54,/) < .001

1-3 (.73), 2-3 (.50)

Soc

5.03 (.68)

4.97 (.75)

4.52 (.68)

Ff ,76)= 13.27,/) < .001

1-3 (.75), 2-3 (.63)

TEI

5.28 (.57)

5.19 (.61)

5.08 (.61)

Ff ,76)= 14.80,/) < .001

1-3 (.34), 2-3 (.18)

Notes: PE - Perceiving Emotions, UsE - Using Emotions, UE - Understanding Emotions, ME - Managing Emotions, AEI Ability Emotional Intelligence, WB - Well-Being, SC - Self-Control, EM - Emotionality, Soc - Sociability, TEI - Trait Emotional Intelligence;1-3 group's number in Post hoc comparisons.

Research on ability and trait El in Serbia 71

Table 3.2 Descriptives by gender with results for MANOVA (branch/factor scores) and ANOVA (global scores)

El

aspect

M (SD) by gender

Multivariate Tests (branch level)

Between-subjects

effects

Cohen’s d

Male N = 148

Female N = 124

PE

.44 (.11)

.46(41)

Wilk 's 2 = .99, FU. 267) = -98, p = .419

ns

_

UsE

.42 (.08)

.44 (.09)

-

UE

.43 (.08)

.43 (.07)

-

ME

.30 (.07)

.30 (.07)

-

AEI

.40 (.06)

.41 (.06)

F( 1.270) = -57, p = .452

Male N = 156

Female N = 126

Multivariate Tests (factor level)

Between-subjects

effects

WB

5.49 (.72)

5.44 (.70)

Wilk’s 2= .87, FU 277) = Ю.64,

p < .001

ns

-

SC

4.96 (.85)

4.62 (.68)

Д,280)= 13.35,

p< .001

.44

EM

5.12 (.71)

5.19 (.65)

ns

-

Soc

4.91 (.77)

4.72 (.70)

F( ,.2») = 4.63, p < .05

.26

TEI

5.13 (.66)

5.01 (.61)

F( ..j*) = 2.82, p = .095

Notes: PE - Perceiving Emotions, UsE - Using Emotions, UE - Understanding Emotions, ME - Managing Emotions, AEI - Ability Emotional Intelligence, WB - Well-Being, SC - Self-Control, EM - Emotionality, Soc - Sociability, TEI - Trait Emotional Intelligence, ns - non-significant.

Source: Authors' own compilation.

Differences related to educational attainment

A comparison of the two educational attainment groups yielded statistically significant Fs for both global ability El and global trait El, favoring participants with a university degree. MANOVAs with ability El branches and trait El factors also yielded statistically significant results, with univariate F tests and Cohen’s d pointing to significant and substantial effects of education on Using and Managing Emotions, and on all four trait El factors (see Table 3.3 for details).

In addition, we tested whether educational attainment made any difference with regard to the above-presented age-related differences in the two Els. In the lower education group, we obtained practically the same pattern of results as for the overall sample, with the eldest (45+) group scoring significantly lower than either one or both of the younger groups on ability El, trait El, and all but one of their components (i.e., Understanding Emotions); however, most of these differences were non-significant in the higher education group, in which the eldest participants were found to score lower than the middle group only on Perceiving Emotions from the domain of ability El, and on global trait El and two of its factors (i.e., Well-Being and Sociability). The

72 Ana A haras Dimitrijevic et al.

El

aspect

M (SD) by education

Multivariate Tests (branch level)

Between-subjects

effects

Cohen's d

up to 12 N = 185

16+

N =82

PE

.44 (.11)

.46 (.11)

Wilk’sX = .90, F(A *,) = 7.08,

p< .001

ns

_

UsE

.42 (.09)

.45 (.07)

Д.,2и) = 13.35,

p < .001

.37

UE

.42 (.08)

.45 (.06)

ns

-

ME

.29 (.07)

.33 (.07)

F( ,.265) = 4.63, p< .05

.57

AEI

.39 (.06)

.42 (.05)

Fines) = 13.57,

p < .001

.54

up to 12 N=192

16+

N = 83

Multivariate Tests (factor level)

Between-subjects

effects

Cohen's d

WB

5.33 (.67)

5.79 (.70)

Wilk's X = .89, •f(4,27o) = 8.05,

p< .001

^Ti. 273) = 26.5 1,

p < .001

.64

SC

4.69 (.78)

5.13 (.77)

д,,27з)= 18.89,

p < .001

.57

EM

5.06 (.69)

5.41 (.60)

F(,.2„)= 16.20,

p < .001

.54

Soc

4.70 (.72)

5.16 (.70)

^Ti. 273) = 23.56,

p < .001

.65

TEI

4.97 (.60)

5.37 (.55)

F(.m) = 27.49,

p < .001

.69

Notes: PE - Perceiving Emotions, UsE - Using Emotions, UE - Understanding Emotions, ME - Managing Emotions, AEI - Ability Emotional Intelligence, WB - Well-Being, SC - Self-Control, EM - Emotionality, Soc - Sociability, TEI - Trait Emotional Intelligence, ns - non-significant.

Source: Authors’ own compilation.

respective results are presented in Figure 3.1. Incidentally, breaking up the sample by educational attainment also impacted gender differences in ability El, which turned out to be significant in the “university degree” (F(, 80) = 4.01, p < .05) but not in the “high-school degree” group (F(, l83) = .14,/; > .05).

Differences related to job position

Again, ANOVAs pointed to significant differences in global ability/trait El between groups based on job position. As evidenced by post hoc tests, these differences were in both cases due to significantly lower scores of the “semiskilled” group in comparison to the two groups occupying higher job positions, with effect sizes being medium for ability El and medium-to-large for trait El. MANOVAs with branch/factor scores as dependents mainly confirmed these results, additionally revealing that job position-related differences in ability El were in fact due to a supremacy of the higher occupational groups on the two strategic branches (Understanding and Managing Emotions), whereas for trait El, these differences consistently appeared on all four factors (see Table 3.4 for details).

Income differences

Employing ANOVA, no significant differences between groups based on income level were found in global ability El. However, the four groups differed significantly in their global trait El scores, which increased steadily from the lowest to the highest income group (no significant differences appeared in post hoc comparisons). MANOVAs involving ability El branches and trait El factors yielded non-significant results, yet with univariate F tests pointing to significant income-related advantages in Managing Emotions and Sociability (see Table 3.5 for details).

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >