Gender and Culture Differences in Emotion.
Abstract
In this article, the authors report a secondary analysis on a cross-cultural dataset on gender differences in 6 emotions, collected in 37 countries all over the world. The aim was to test the universality of the gender-specific pattern found in studies with Western respondents, namely that men report more powerful emotions (e.g., anger), whereas women report more powerless emotions (e.g., sadness, fear). The authors expected the strength of these gender differences to depend on women's status and roles in their respective countries, as operationalized by the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM; United Nations Development Programme Human Development Report 2002). Overall, the gender-specific pattern of women reporting to experience and express more powerless emotions and men more powerful emotions was replicated, and only some interactions with the GEM were found.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some primary studies have found patterns similar to ours regarding gender differences and gender equity for outcomes such as self-construals and emotion.
“Yet, as noted in the introduction, some primary studies have found similar patterns to ours regarding gender differences and gender equity, for outcomes such as self-construals (Guimond et al., 2007) and emotion (Fischer, Rodriguez Mosquera, van Vianen, & Manstead, 2004).”
From Gender Differences in Depression in Representative National Samples: Meta-Analyses of Diagnoses and Symptoms (2017) · cites this paper as Fischer, Rodriguez Mosquera, van Vianen, & Manstead, 2004
There exist significant differences in how different individuals, in particular men and women, within one culture process emotions.
“There exist also significant differences in how different individuals, in particular men and women, within one culture process emotions (Fischer et al., 2004).”
From Bodily maps of emotions are culturally universal (2020) · cites this paper as Fischer et al., 2004
Males had higher levels of externalizing anger, antagonism, brow furrowing, and loneliness than females, with SMDs of 0.07-0.11.
“whereas males had higher levels of externalizing anger, antagonism, brow furrowing, and loneliness (SMDs = 0.07–0.11; Chaplin & Aldao, 2013; Fischer et al., 2004; Maes et al., 2019; McDuff et al., 2017)”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Fischer et al., 2004
Females reported higher levels of internalizing emotions such as guilt, shame, crying, and fear than males, with SMDs of 0.12-1.11.
“Regarding Negative emotions, females reported higher levels of internalizing emotions, such as guilt, shame, crying, and fear (SMDs = 0.12–1.11; Chaplin & Aldao, 2013; Else-Quest et al., 2010; Fischer et al., 2004; van Hemert et al., 2011)”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Fischer et al., 2004
Some studies indicated no sex differences in negative emotions such as self-reported anger, negative emotion, and powerful emotions.
“However, there were also studies that indicated no sex differences regarding Negative emotions (self-reported anger, negative emotion, powerful emotions; Archer, 2004; Chaplin & Aldao, 2013; Fischer et al., 2004).”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Fischer et al., 2004
For loneliness and antagonism, sex differences seem to be smaller in countries with higher living conditions.
“regarding loneliness and antagonism, sex differences seem to be smaller in countries with higher living conditions (Fischer et al., 2004; Maes et al., 2019).”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Fischer et al., 2004
For measures with no sex difference, no clear pattern can be seen with living conditions.
“Finally, no clear pattern can be seen for measures for which there is no sex difference (Archer, 2004; Chaplin & Aldao, 2013; Fischer et al., 2004).”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Fischer et al., 2004
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 37 · Cited by 521
- Authors
- Fischer, A. H., Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M., van Vianen, A. E. M., & Manstead, A. S. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Venue
- Emotion
- Published
- 2004-03
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 87-94
- ISSN
- 1528-3542 (ISSN-L)
- 1931-1516
- OpenAlex
- W2082744595
- Cited by
- 521
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 15.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Emotion (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Roles and Identity Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
- Keywords
- gender differences in emotion, cross-cultural comparison, anger, sadness, fear, women's status, Gender Empowerment Measure, cross-cultural psychology
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Cultural Characteristics, Emotions, Female, Gender Identity, Humans, Male
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review