Emotion-specific recognition biases and how they relate to emotion-specific recognition accuracy, family and child demographic factors, and social behaviour.

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognition & Emotion Pub Date : 2024-10-12 DOI:10.1080/02699931.2024.2408652
Anushay Mazhar, Craig S Bailey
{"title":"Emotion-specific recognition biases and how they relate to emotion-specific recognition accuracy, family and child demographic factors, and social behaviour.","authors":"Anushay Mazhar, Craig S Bailey","doi":"10.1080/02699931.2024.2408652","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The errors young children make when recognising others' emotions may be systematic over-identification biases and may partially explain the challenges some have socially. These biases and associations may be differential by emotion. In a sample of 871 ethnically and racially diverse preschool-aged children (i.e. 33-68 months; 49% Hispanic/Latine, 52% Children of Colour), emotion recognition was assessed, and scores for accuracy and bias were calculated by emotion (i.e. anger, sad, happy, calm, and fear). Child and family characteristics and teacher-reported social behaviour were also collected. Multilevel structural equation modelling revealed emotion-specific recognition accuracies varied between 36 and 65% whereas biases varied between 4 and 13%. Anger was the strongest bias followed by sad, happy, fear, and calm, in contrast to the pattern for accuracy - happy, sad, angry, fear, and calm. More variance was explained in emotion-specific recognition accuracies by child and family characteristics - 7-38% - than biases - 3-7%. Negatively-valanced emotion recognition biases associated with positively-valanced accuracies, and positively-valued emotion recognition biases associated with negatively-valued accuracies. Biases did not have meaningful associations with social behaviour. This study highlights that children's emotion recognition errors may partially be systematic, but future studies are needed to understand the underlying cognitive mechanisms.</p>","PeriodicalId":48412,"journal":{"name":"Cognition & Emotion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition & Emotion","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2024.2408652","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The errors young children make when recognising others' emotions may be systematic over-identification biases and may partially explain the challenges some have socially. These biases and associations may be differential by emotion. In a sample of 871 ethnically and racially diverse preschool-aged children (i.e. 33-68 months; 49% Hispanic/Latine, 52% Children of Colour), emotion recognition was assessed, and scores for accuracy and bias were calculated by emotion (i.e. anger, sad, happy, calm, and fear). Child and family characteristics and teacher-reported social behaviour were also collected. Multilevel structural equation modelling revealed emotion-specific recognition accuracies varied between 36 and 65% whereas biases varied between 4 and 13%. Anger was the strongest bias followed by sad, happy, fear, and calm, in contrast to the pattern for accuracy - happy, sad, angry, fear, and calm. More variance was explained in emotion-specific recognition accuracies by child and family characteristics - 7-38% - than biases - 3-7%. Negatively-valanced emotion recognition biases associated with positively-valanced accuracies, and positively-valued emotion recognition biases associated with negatively-valued accuracies. Biases did not have meaningful associations with social behaviour. This study highlights that children's emotion recognition errors may partially be systematic, but future studies are needed to understand the underlying cognitive mechanisms.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
情绪识别偏差及其与情绪识别准确性、家庭和儿童人口因素以及社会行为的关系。
幼儿在识别他人情绪时所犯的错误可能是系统性的过度识别偏差,也可以部分解释某些幼儿在社交方面所面临的挑战。这些偏差和联想可能因情绪而异。我们对 871 名不同民族和种族的学龄前儿童(即 33-68 个月;49% 西班牙裔/拉丁裔,52% 有色人种儿童)进行了情绪识别评估,并按情绪(即愤怒、悲伤、快乐、平静和恐惧)计算了准确性和偏差得分。此外,还收集了儿童和家庭特征以及教师报告的社会行为。多层次结构方程模型显示,特定情绪的识别准确率介于 36% 和 65% 之间,而偏差则介于 4% 和 13% 之间。愤怒是最大的偏差,其次是悲伤、快乐、恐惧和平静,这与准确度的模式--快乐、悲伤、愤怒、恐惧和平静--形成了鲜明对比。儿童和家庭特征对特定情绪识别准确率的解释差异(7%-38%)大于偏差(3%-7%)。消极平衡的情绪识别偏差与积极平衡的准确率相关,而积极估值的情绪识别偏差与消极估值的准确率相关。偏差与社会行为之间没有有意义的联系。这项研究强调,儿童的情绪识别错误可能部分是系统性的,但还需要未来的研究来了解其背后的认知机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cognition & Emotion
Cognition & Emotion PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
90
期刊介绍: Cognition & Emotion is devoted to the study of emotion, especially to those aspects of emotion related to cognitive processes. The journal aims to bring together work on emotion undertaken by researchers in cognitive, social, clinical, and developmental psychology, neuropsychology, and cognitive science. Examples of topics appropriate for the journal include the role of cognitive processes in emotion elicitation, regulation, and expression; the impact of emotion on attention, memory, learning, motivation, judgements, and decisions.
期刊最新文献
Affect and executive function dynamics in primary school classrooms: an intensive longitudinal study. Does enhanced memory of disgust vs. fear images extend to involuntary memory? Pupil size and iris brightness interact to affect prosocial behaviour and affective responses. Remembering the blues: negative emotion during encoding improve memory recall in major depressive Disorder. The empathic measure of true emotion (EMOTE): a novel set of stimuli for measuring emotional responding.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1