Next Article in Journal
The Contribution of Linguistic Distance to L3 Learning Motivation: A Cross-L2 Comparison of University English as a Foreign Language Learners
Previous Article in Journal
Assessing the Effectiveness of Environmental Approach-Based Learning in Developing Science Process Skills and Cognitive Achievement in Young Children
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 11
10.3390/educsci14111270
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Students’ Assertiveness and Empathy Social Skills and Gender at the University of Seville

by
Alicia Claudel
* and
Alfonso Javier García González
Department of Social Psychology, Faculty of Education Science, University of Seville, 41013 Sevilla, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(11), 1270; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14111270
Submission received: 9 September 2024 / Revised: 15 November 2024 / Accepted: 19 November 2024 / Published: 20 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Education and Psychology)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The social skills of assertiveness and empathy are valuable and useful in our daily lives, influencing the quality of our interactions and relationships. This fact underscores the need for research that examines the various factors influencing these constructs. The present study addressed gender disparities in the social skills of assertiveness and empathy in a sample of students from the University of Seville. Its objectives were to identify the gender differences in the social skills of assertiveness and empathy in university students and identify the obstacles gender posed to assertiveness and empathy. For this purpose, an exploratory study was conducted with 116 students, 56% women and 44% men. A Google questionnaire was used to collect various sociodemographic variables, and the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (Ras, 1973), the Spanish adaptation of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1980), and a questionnaire concerning students’ beliefs (Colás-Bravo y Villaciervos-Moreno, 2007) were applied. The results yielded no gender differences in the development of students’ levels of assertiveness and empathy. However, when analyzing the external factors, “socioeconomic level” and “religion” stood out. The findings of this work have relevant implications for the promotion of gender equality and the formation of public policies. Studies in this field should be extended to different educational contexts.

1. Introduction

Social skills are critical in communicating effectively, building strong relationships, and resolving conflicts. The World Health Organization (WHO, 1999) [1] defines psychosocial skills as “a person’s ability to cope with the demands and challenges of daily life successfully”. On the other hand, Correa and Bote López (2023) [2] define them as behaviors that promote interaction with others effectively and satisfactorily. This is especially true in adolescents, because strong social skills facilitate their societal development [3]. In particular, assertiveness and empathy are essential to maintaining healthy and effective interpersonal relationships. Gender stereotypes also influence people’s behavior and perceptions, so recognizing them can contribute to a more equitable environment.
More specifically, in the academic field, these social skills are essential for teamwork, presentation of projects, and communication and relationships with teachers and classmates. Gerson and Bobadilla [4] conclude in their study that students’ social skills directly relate to academic performance, also helping them to request assistance, value their peers, and manage stress and planning. Social skills are linked to students’ well-being, allowing them to reinforce extrinsic motivation and other adaptive capacities such as empathy, cooperative work, performance, or impulse control, which are necessary to achieve successful interpersonal relationships among students. However, they are not essential, because they are not directly related to academic performance [5].
On the other hand, concerning gender, the study by Vásquez [6] found no statistically significant differences between men’s and women’s social skills in the university environment. The present research aims to go further and look for possible gender differences in social skills.

1.1. What Are Social Skills?

Defining the concept of social skills is a challenge due to their multidimensional nature and their relationship with other similar concepts. This is because each person has different cognitive, affective, and psychological levels, and the social context influences the individual perception of how to behave appropriately [7].
In their work, Huaraca et al. [8] define social skills as skills acquired through social interaction, which allow people to relate appropriately to other people and be respected and accepted, taking into account cultural and affective factors learned in childhood.
According to research by Contini [9], a person with social and emotional skills who knows how to control their emotions and interpret those of others will be able to improve their quality of life. In this way, experiencing positive emotions will strengthen a person’s mental well-being and ability to face adversity [10].
A study on adolescents and family functionality indicates that the skills of the former are basic and require effort, with assertiveness being the most developed skill [11]. Contrary to these results, another study shows that adolescents have low levels of assertiveness [12].
In the university environment, Sánchez-Teruel, Robles-Bello, and González-Cabrera [13] indicate that students tend to have below-average social skills, a finding supported by Hervas-Torres et al. [14]. On the contrary, the work by Sánchez-Bolívar, Escalante-González, and Martínez-Martínez [15] found that the university students in their study had a medium-high level of social skills.

1.1.1. Assertiveness

Authors such as Páez, Castellanos, and Neüman [16] conceive assertiveness as the “capacity, ability, manner or form of listening, observing, and communicating, in a respectful, controlled, positive or open way” (p. 49). For its part, the Royal Spanish Academy (RAE) [17] defines assertiveness as “the quality of being assertive”, indicating that “a person who expresses their opinion firmly and confidently, respecting the ideas of others” is assertive.
An assertive person listens actively, expresses their opinions and desires, and defends themselves in their relationships with confidence and spontaneity [18,19]. In this work, assertiveness is understood as a person’s ability to express feelings, thoughts, and desires freely and adequately while maintaining self-respect and respect for others.
Concerning gender, studies such as that by Sarmiento et al. [20] reveal the absence to date of definitive results. These authors studied assertiveness by dividing it into three dimensions: indirect assertiveness, non-assertiveness, and assertiveness. They found that, for indirect assertiveness, both genders scored similarly, whereas for non-assertiveness, men scored higher, and for assertiveness, it was the female gender that showed lower competence.

1.1.2. Empathy

According to Eisenberg et al. [21], Barnett and Mann [22], and Shi and Du [23], two types of empathy have been identified: cognitive empathy, which refers to a person’s ability to understand another’s point of view of their situation; and emotional empathy, which focuses on a person’s concern for other people’s feelings. These authors define empathy as an effective response that reflects understanding and respect for another person’s emotional state, recognizing their intrinsic value [21,22,23].
An effective solution to interpersonal conflicts can frequently be found more effectively when people take on the other’s perspective, express their needs, and position themselves on an equal footing. Ignoring the feelings of others can lead to resentment and misunderstandings that affect long-term relationships [24].
Thus, empathy is considered the ability to comprehend others’ points of view by understanding their feelings, granting value, comprehension, and respect to their feelings.
Regarding gender and the university environment, various studies show that women present higher scores in empathy [25,26].

1.2. What Is Gender?

From birth, different social agents assign us a gender identity, imposing roles and specific personality traits and behaviors. According to Jayme [27], gender identity develops in a restrictive context, but it also reflects individual subjectivity, as each person identifies—or does not identify—with these roles.
The gender identity assigned implies differential socialization by gender, where specific roles and values are transmitted that, when internalized, divide tasks and roles according to sex, facilitating discrimination against women [28]. These roles lead to gender mandates, which are stereotypes that suggest that women and men should behave according to female or male patterns, respectively. When someone deviates from this, they may suffer discrimination, defined in this case as sexism [17,29].
In the university sphere, referring to the 2021–2022 Statistical Yearbook of the University of Seville [30], we can observe gender disparity depending on the different university branches. Thus, we find that the female gender predominates in health sciences, social and legal sciences, and arts and humanities, whereas the male gender predominates in the pure sciences and engineering and architecture branches. Based on these data, as indicated in the study by Madolell-Orellana, Gallardo-Vigil, and Alemany-Arrebola [31], we can expect a higher rate of sexist and stereotyped beliefs in the male-dominated branches.
Thus, it is possible to differentiate between gender and sex. Gender refers to the roles, characteristics, and opportunities that society decides are appropriate for a person. Sex, on the other hand, refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that distinguish men and women [32,33]

1.3. What Is the Relationship Between Social Skills and Gender?

Different studies have indicated that women have a higher degree of prosocial behavior and more developed conventional oppositional and assertive communication skills and empathy. They express themselves through these skills more frequently than men. These results may be due to the expectations produced by gender [34,35,36].
In their study on social skills and academic performance, Oyarzún et al. [37] found that genders manifest different profiles of variables, indicating that positive social skills are associated with academic performance, particularly in the case of women. In turn, this revealed the potential impact of gender roles on academic adaptation. In contrast, other studies [38] have reported no gender differences in social skills. These results are supported by those of a previous study [39].
Finally, the study of Sánchez García et al. [40] reported that the presence of gender values and stereotypes decreases as people age and increase their educational level. In turn, they found that male students presented a greater number of gender stereotypes than females, with the latter maintaining more neutral and egalitarian positions.

1.4. Objectives

Considering the current theoretical differences and our ever-changing society, this work presents two general objectives, with their corresponding specific objectives and hypotheses:
  • Objective 1: To identify university women’s and men’s differences in the social skills of assertiveness and empathy.
    • To identify possible gender differences in the degree of assertiveness in women and men.
Hypothesis 1: 
People who identify as men are more assertive than those who identify as women.
  • 2.
    To identify possible gender differences in the degree of empathy in women and men.
Hypothesis 2: 
People who identify as women are more empathic than those who identify as men.
  • 3.
    To identify the relationship between assertiveness and different external factors (socioeconomic level, religion, and politics) based on the participants’ gender.
Hypothesis 3: 
Socioeconomic level influences people’s degree of assertiveness according to their gender identity.
Hypothesis 4: 
Religion influences people’s degree of assertiveness according to their gender identity.
Hypothesis 5: 
Political orientation influences people’s degree of assertiveness according to their gender identity.
  • 4.
    To identify the relationship between empathy and different external factors (socioeconomic level, religion, and politics) based on the participants’ gender.
Hypothesis 6: 
Socioeconomic status influences people’s degree of empathy according to their gender identity.
Hypothesis 7: 
Religion influences people’s degree of empathy according to their gender identity.
Hypothesis 8: 
Political orientation influences people’s degree of empathy according to their gender identity.
  • Objective 2: To identify the differences between university women’s and men’s obstacles to assertiveness and empathy.
    5.
    To identify the relationship between assertiveness and gender stereotypes based on the participants’ gender.
Hypothesis 9: 
Gender stereotypes influence people’s assertiveness according to their gender.
  • 6.
    To identify the relationship between empathy and gender stereotypes based on the participants’ gender.
Hypothesis 10: 
Gender stereotypes influence people’s empathy according to their gender.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

A sample of 116 first-year students of the University of Seville were recruited through accessibility sampling, of whom 56% were women and 44% were men. Regarding socioeconomic status, 77.6% of the surveyees were of medium socioeconomic status, and only 1.7% were of high socioeconomic status. Concerning religion, 43.1% of the sample were Christians, compared to 1.7% who were Buddhists. Finally, concerning political orientation, 59.5% of the sample indicated that they were left-wing, compared to 11.2% who indicated that they were right-wing.

2.2. Instruments

A Google questionnaire was used to measure sociodemographic variables to consider intersectionality at all times. These variables were as follows: sex assigned at birth (male, female, sex not specified, I prefer not to say), gender identity (man, woman, non-binary, gender identity not mentioned, I prefer not to say), socioeconomic level (high, medium, low), religion (Christian, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, religion not mentioned, I prefer not to say), and political orientation (right, center, left, I prefer not to say).
An adaptation of the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule was also applied [41,42]. This questionnaire comprises 30 items rated on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from “Very uncharacteristic of me, not at all descriptive” with a value of −3 to “Very characteristic of me, very descriptive” with a value of +3. Items are divided into 6 dimensions (interaction with commercial companies, expressing annoyance or displeasure, defending one’s opinion, interacting extrovertedly with others, openly expressing feelings, and rejecting requests). In terms of internal consistency, this questionnaire has a value of 0.82. Its scores range from −90 to +90; the higher the score, the more assertive the person is.
Next, the Spanish adaptation of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) [43,44] was applied. This version comprises 28 items rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “Does not describe me well” with a value of 1 to “Describes me very well” with a value of 5, and divided into 4 dimensions: Perspective-Taking (PT), Fantasy (F), Empathic Concern (EC), and Personal Distress (PD). In terms of internal consistency, the Pérez-Albéniz et al. instrument shows very similar reliability indices to those of the original questionnaire, with coefficients between 0.70 and 0.78 for each dimension. Its scores fluctuate between 28 and 140; the higher score, the more empathetic the person is.
Finally, the Student Beliefs Data Collection Instrument [45] on the internalization of gender stereotypes was applied, consisting of 22 items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” with a value of 1, to “strongly agree” with a value of 4. The instrument has 6 dimensions (Body, Social Behavior, Emotional Competencies and Capacities, Emotions, Affective Expression, and Social Responsibility). As for its internal consistency, the Colás-Bravo and Villaciervos Moreno instrument presents coefficients that fluctuate between 0.780 and 0.922 for the total number of items that make up the scale, depending on the number of subjects studied.
The questionnaires applied in this study are designed to provide a comprehensive view of the participants’ social skills and beliefs, interrelating in a manner that allows analysis of aspects such as assertiveness, empathy, and social values in the context of intersectionality.

2.3. Procedure

Data were collected during the first three weeks of February 2023. All participants gave their prior authorization, participated voluntarily, and were instructed on how to complete the questionnaire. The aim was to guarantee homogeneous application conditions, ensuring the procedure’s validity. Participants could resolve any doubts and could also decide not to complete the questionnaire. The procedure carried out in this study complies with all ethical and scientific requirements.

2.4. Data Analysis

For the analysis of the data collected in this research, assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity were first verified to determine the type of analysis to be applied. Next, the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test and the chi-square contingency tables were calculated. All analyses were performed with the SPSS statistical package, version 21.

3. Results

The data did not meet the normality and homocedasticity criteria, as the p-values were less than 0.05. Consequently, non-parametric tests were used as an alternative to the unmet assumptions.
Concerning the first general objective of this study, we analyzed the four specific objectives, with their corresponding hypotheses (Hypotheses 1 and 2), derived from this main purpose. We applied the Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric test to address the first two specific objectives. For this purpose, new variables were created by grouping the items according to the corresponding categories of assertiveness or empathy.
Table 1 reveals statistically significant gender differences in the degree of assertiveness in the variable of rejecting requests. This is reflected in a p-value of 0.000 for a Kruskal–Wallis value of H = 16.045 (df = 1). However, when analyzing the rest of the variables, no statistically significant gender differences in the degree of assertiveness were observed, as the p-value was >0.05 in all cases. Thus, we conclude that, for most variables, our first hypothesis, which stated that people who identify as men will be more assertive than those who identify as women, was not confirmed.
According to the data presented in Table 2, statistically significant gender differences were observed in the levels of empathy in the variables fantasy and empathic concern, with the Kruskal–Wallis statistic (df = 1) yielding a p-value < 0.05. However, in the case of the perspective-taking and personal distress variables, the p-value was >0.05. Thus, our second hypothesis (people who identify as women will be more empathetic than those who identify as men) is true only for half of the cases, whereas for the other half, the hypothesis would be rejected.
Chi-square contingency tables were used to study the following specific objectives. Initially, we examined the relationship between assertiveness and several external factors as a function of gender. These external factors include socioeconomic status, religion, and political orientation, each corresponding to Hypotheses 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Regarding the relationship between socioeconomic level, gender identity, and assertiveness, no statistically significant gender differences were observed, as all p-values were >0.05. Thus, our hypothesis (Hypothesis 3) stating that socioeconomic level influences people’s degree of assertiveness according to their gender identity was rejected. Regarding the relationship between religion, gender identity, and assertiveness, in all cases, the p-value was < 0.01, suggesting statistically significant gender differences concerning religion and assertiveness, as stated in the fourth hypothesis. Concerning the relationship between political orientation, gender identity, and assertiveness, we observed that the p-value was <0.05 in most cases, indicating statistically significant differences in the relationship between these variables. However, for the relationship between political orientation, gender identity, and the open expression of feelings (characteristic of assertiveness), the p-value was 0.274. Thus, our hypothesis (Hypothesis 5) that political orientation influences people’s degree of assertiveness according to gender was true for most cases, and it was not rejected for the relationship between the political orientation, gender identity, and open expression of feelings variables (Table 3).
Secondly, we examined the relationship between empathy and the aforementioned external factors as a function of gender, corresponding to Hypotheses 6, 7, and 8. Concerning the association between socioeconomic level, gender identity, and empathy, we found that the perspective-taking, fantasy, and personal distress variables had a p-value > 0.05. However, the empathic concern variable had a p-value of 0.04. In general, these results suggested that socioeconomic status does not influence people’s degree of empathy according to their gender, as no statistically significant differences were found, contrary to our hypothesis (Hypothesis 6). Regarding the relationship between religion, gender identity, and empathy, we observed that for the perspective, fantasy, and empathic concern variables, the p-value was <0.01. In the case of the personal distress variable, the p-value was 0.07. This indicates that, as Hypothesis 7 suggested, in general terms, religion influences people’s degree of empathy according to their gender. Finally, concerning the relationship between political orientation, gender identity, and empathy, we observed that for the perspective-taking and empathic concern variables, the p-value was <0.01, whereas for the fantasy and personal distress variables, the p-value was >0.05. This suggested that the influence of political orientation on people’s degree of empathy according to their gender (Hypothesis 8) was true for two of the variables of empathy and rejected for the remaining two variables (Table 4).
Finally, the last two specific objectives were studied, which are related to the second general objective: identify gender differences in the obstacles to assertiveness and empathy encountered by university women and men. Concerning these obstacles, the stereotypes analyzed included body, social behavior, competencies and capacities, emotions, affective expression, and social responsibility.
According to the results obtained for the specific objective of identifying the relationship between assertiveness and gender stereotypes as a function of the participant’s gender, we observed that, in general terms, the hypothesis (Hypothesis 9) stating that gender stereotypes influence people’s assertiveness according to their gender was not confirmed, as, for most cases, the p-value was >0.05. However, a p-value < 0.05 was found for the relationship between defending one’s opinion (assertiveness variable), social behavior (gender stereotypes variable), and gender identity, with a p-value of 0.039. Likewise, we observed that the relationship between rejecting requests (assertiveness variable), social behavior, and gender identity showed a p-value of 0.011, and the relationship between rejecting requests, emotions (gender stereotypes variable), and gender identity presented a p-value of 0.011 (Table 5).
Finally, when analyzing the results concerning the specific objective of identifying the relationship between empathy and gender stereotypes as a function of the participant’s gender, we observed that, in general, gender stereotypes did not significantly influence people’s empathy according to their gender, contrary to our hypothesis (Hypothesis 10), as, in most cases, the p-value was >0.05. However, p-values of <0.05 were found for the following relationships: empathic concern (empathy variable), body (gender stereotypes variable), and gender identity, with a p-value of 0.009; the relationship between empathic concern, social behavior (gender stereotypes variable), and gender identity, with a p-value of 0.008; and the relationship between empathic concern, social responsibility (gender stereotypes variable), and gender identity, with a p-value of 0.001 (Table 6).
In relation to the proposed objectives, in general, no statistically significant gender differences were found in assertiveness and empathy (general objective 1). The only disparity found was related to the degree of assertiveness and the external factor of religion. Regarding the obstacles to assertiveness and/or empathy faced by university students (general objective 2), no significant gender differences were found.

4. Discussion

The study’s objectives were to identify gender differences in the social skills of assertiveness and empathy among university students, as well as gender differences in the obstacles to assertiveness and empathy encountered by university women and men. Overall, no statistically significant gender differences were observed in any of these relationships.
This study makes significant contributions to the research on social skills and gender. Although no significant gender differences in assertiveness and empathy skills were found among university students, the study suggests that these differences may be more related to cultural factors than to intrinsic differences linked to gender. The study also provides a more nuanced understanding of the external factors influencing social skills.
More specifically, regarding the first objective, mixed results were found, observing statistically significant relationships for assertiveness or empathy depending on the factors that make up each of these skills, so these results continue to reflect the existing ambivalence of the studies presented in previous sections. However, regarding the assertiveness relationship, it was found that Hypothesis 3, related to the external factor of socioeconomic level, was entirely rejected. In contrast, Hypothesis 4, related to the external factor of religion, was completely accepted. Concerning socioeconomic level (Hypothesis 3), the results contradicted those obtained by Méndez and Sánchez [46], who emphasize that women are more assertive than men and that the population at the low socioeconomic level presents more assertive behaviors than the rest. Concerning religion (Hypothesis 4), the results align with those presented in Immanuel and Muo [47], which indicate that religion is a significant factor in assertiveness. However, our results contradict them regarding gender because the authors point out that religion is not a significant factor in this aspect. On the other hand, the results of other authors [48] contrast with those found in this study, as they report that a person’s religion has no significant relationship with their assertiveness.
However, concerning the second objective, we found that neither of the two hypotheses proposed (Hypotheses 9 and 10) was confirmed by the analyses. These results coincide with the conclusions of Poo and Vizcarra [49], who indicate that the concept of “man” is currently recognized as being in transition, which is perceived as an opportunity to overcome gender stereotypes. Likewise, the results of this study reveal men’s greater social disposition to express their emotions, especially those traditionally associated with weakness in the masculine gender.
From the above, it can be inferred that in the first-year university community of the University of Seville, there are no differences in the development of the social skills of assertiveness and empathy among students according to their gender. This finding could have significant implications both in the field of gender equality and in the educational context in general. It can be deduced that gender differences in social skills are more a reflection of culturally accepted stereotypes than of intrinsic gender-based skills. Likewise, the fact that both genders demonstrate a similar ability to develop the social skills of assertiveness and empathy suggests that the current educational environment provides an equitable environment for developing these skills. These results could also indicate that the University of Seville is managing to create an inclusive and equitable environment that favors the development of social skills in all its students regardless of gender, starting with those in the last stage of adolescence. In addition, these findings shows that it is possible to promote gender equality and social skills in the university environment. This could serve as a model for other educational institutions, allowing adolescents to develop these and other necessary skills for daily life from the beginning of this life cycle stage. It is, therefore, essential to continue researching and promoting these types of environment to ensure that all students have the opportunity to fully develop their social skills, regardless of their gender identity. Creating an educational environment that fosters gender equality and the development of social skills benefits students in their academic lives and provides them with essential tools for their personal and professional lives. Interacting assertively and empathetically is crucial for success in various life areas, including teamwork, conflict resolution, and building healthy interpersonal relationships. In addition, the results underline the importance of educational policies that promote gender equality and the development of social skills from an early age. Implementing programs and activities that foster these skills can contribute significantly to forming more competent and self-confident people capable of facing the challenges of a diverse and constantly changing society.
Concerning the limitations of this study, it is important to note that the limited number of participants makes it difficult to generalize the results obtained, which turns this work into an exploratory and preliminary investigation. Therefore, we recommend conducting research with a larger sample to obtain more generalizable and robust results. In addition, we note that some participants were uncertain about two of the items of the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule, implying that the results may have been affected to some extent. This occurred in particular because some items required reverse responses (where the value 6 is equivalent to the value 1, and vice versa), which caused some confusion in the participants when interpreting the meaning of these questions. These limitations highlight the need for future research to address these issues and provide a more complete and accurate understanding of the social skills studied.
Considering all that has been stated so far, it would be useful to carry out research that, in addition to expanding the sample, includes measurement of the factors that contribute to equality in developing the social skills of assertiveness and empathy in the adolescent university population. Likewise, future research could study whether the University of Seville is creating an inclusive and positive environment for its students, as suggested by the results obtained in this study. This research could also be extended to studying the remaining social skills, allowing a more complete view of the social skills panorama in this context. These studies may benefit the adolescent university population and allow the extrapolation of the results to other educational levels, both formal and non-formal. This would be of great benefit in promoting gender equality and improving social skills in various contexts and social groups.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.C. and A.J.G.G.; methodology, A.C. and A.J.G.G.; software, A.C.; validation, A.C.; formal analysis, A.C.; investigation, A.C. and A.J.G.G.; resources, A.J.G.G.; data curation, A.C.; writing—original draft preparation, A.C. and A.J.G.G.; writing—review and editing, A.C. and A.J.G.G.; visualization, A.C. and A.J.G.G.; supervision, A.J.G.G.; project administration, A.J.G.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The criteria established by the Ethics Committee of the University of Seville have been taken into account in order to guarantee respect for the dignity, integrity and identity of the people participating in the study. Thus, the aforementioned Committee indicates that research that does not involve the manipulation of people or animals does not require the explicit permission of the institution.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all the participants involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Regarding the availability of the data, it was noted that the data are available on request from the authors because they are not available in any repository. Please find below the link to the data (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HaTrbYK5gsKmq1DSgPwtUSYpyS39stEn/view (accessed on 1 November 2024)). This was discussed with her colleague, agreeing that it would be added in the declaration of data availability as: The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization WHO. Habilidades para la Vida o Competencias Psicosociales. 1999. Available online: https://www.unicef.org/venezuela/media/431/file/Habilidades (accessed on 14 November 2024).
  2. Correa, Y.E.; y Bote López, S. El dibujo infantil, como habilidad psicosocial, en los niños de preparatoria. Polo Conoc. 2023, 7, 1477–1497. [Google Scholar]
  3. Rojas Cuastumal, V.A.; Pilco Guadalupe, G.A. Autoestima y Habilidades Sociales en Adolescentes. LATAM 2023, 4, 3823–3833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gerson Cleofe, G.C.; Bobadilla Quispe, M. Habilidades sociales y rendimiento académico en estudiantes de educación Básica Regular. Rev. Investig. Intercult. 2021, 1, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cajas, C.; Paredes, M.A.; Pasquel, L.; Pasquel, A.F. Habilidades sociales en Engagement y desempeño académico en estudiantes universitarios. Comuni@cción 2020, 11, 77–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Vásquez López, R.A. Asertividad en Hombres y Mujeres Universitarios: Propuesta de un Programa de Intervención. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Toluca, Mexico, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  7. Lacunza, A.B.; De González, N.C. Las habilidades sociales en niños y adolescentes. Su importancia en la prevención de trastornos psicopatológicos. Fundam. Humanidades 2011, 12, 159–182. [Google Scholar]
  8. Huaraca-García, A.M.; Lavado-Puente, C.S.; Durán-Carhuamaca, A.; Patiño-Rivera, A.R. Habilidades sociales y actitud emprendedora en estudiantes de la Facultad de Ciencias Administrativas y Contables de la Universidad Peruana Los Andes Sede La Merced–Chanchamayo. Dominio Cienc. 2021, 7, 320–342. [Google Scholar]
  9. Contini, N. Las habilidades sociales en la adolescencia temprana: Perspectivas desde la Psicología Positiva. Psicodebate 2009, 9, 45–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fredrickson, B. The role of positive emotion in positive psychology: The broaden and build theory of positive emotion. Am. Psychol. 2001, 56, 218–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Esteves Villanueva, A.R.; Paredes Mamanim, R.P.; Calcina Condori, C.R.; Yapuchura Saico, C.R. Habilidades Sociales en adolescents y Funcionalidad Familiar. Comuni@cción 2020, 11, 16–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Llamazares García, A.; Urbano Contreras, A. Autoestima y habilidades sociales en adolescents; el papel de variables familiars y escolares. Pulso 2020, 43, 99–117. [Google Scholar]
  13. Sánchez-Teruel, D.; Robles-Bello, M.A.; González-Cabrera, M. Competencias sociales en estudiantes universitarios de Ciencias de la Salud (España). Educ. Médica 2015, 16, 126–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hervás Torres, M.; Fernández Martín, F.D.; Arco Tirado, J.L.; Miñaca Laprida, M.I. Efectos de un programa de Aprendizaje-Servicio en el alumnado universitario. Electron. J. Res. Educ. Psychol. 2017, 15, 126–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sánchez-Bolívar, L.; Escalante-González, S.; Martínez-Martínez, A. Motivation and Social Skills in Nursing Students Copared to Physical Education Students. Sport TK 2022, 11, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Páez, A.; Castellanos, J.; Neüman, M. Comunicación asertiva en carreras de ciencias y humanidades: Universidad de Boyacá. Colommbia. Negotium 2022, 18, 47–61. [Google Scholar]
  17. REAL ACADEMIA ESPAÑOLA: Diccionario de la Lengua Española, 23.a ed., [Versión 23.5 en Línea]. Available online: https://dle.rae.es (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  18. Ballesteros Regaña, A.; Herrera Sánchez, I.M.; León Rubio, J.M.; Barriga Jiménez, S.; Medina Anzano, S. Psicología de la Salud y de la Calidad de Vida; UOC: Barcelona, Spain, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  19. Calua Cueva, M.R.; Delgado Hernández, Y.L.; López Regalado, O. Comunicación asertiva en el contexto educativo: Revisión sistemátiva. Rev. Boletín Redipe 2021, 10, 315–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sarmiento Vega, S.E.; López González, J.; Uscanga Hermida, R.; Casellano Celiz, H.A.; Echazarreta Nieves, I. Asertividad: Diferencias de Género en estudiantes de nuevo ingreso en Psicología en una Universidad Pública. Rev. Electrónica Desarro. Hum. Innovación Soc. Guadalaj. Jalisco 2021, 8, 159. [Google Scholar]
  21. Eisenberg, N.; Fabes, R.A.; Spinrad, T.L. Prosocial development. In Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional and Personality Development; Eisenberg, N., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006; Volume 3, pp. 646–718. [Google Scholar]
  22. Barnett, G.; Mann, R.E. Empathy deficits and sexual offending: A model of obstacles to empathy. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2013, 18, 228–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Shi, M.; Du, T. Associations of emotional intelligence and gratitude with empathy in medical students. BMC Med. Educ. 2020, 20, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fajardo Corre, J.R. Relaciones Humanas y Autodesarrollo; Seguridad y Defensa: Mexico City, Mexico, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  25. Dávila- Pontón, Y.; Reyes-Reyes, A.; Calzadilla-Núñez, A.; Utsman, R.; Torres-Martínez, P.A.; Díaz-Narváez, V.P. Empathy and Personality Styles in Medical Students. Rev. Colomb. Psicol. 2019, 29, 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Suriá, R.; Navarro, J.C.; Samaniego, J.A. Dimensiones de empatía en estudiantes de Psicología. Eur. J. Dev. Educ. Psychop. 2021, 9, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  27. Jayme, M. La identidad de género. Rev. De Psicoter. 1999, 10, 5–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Unidad de Igualdad de Género, Instituto Andaluz de la Mujer, Consejería Para la Igualdad y el Bienestar Social. Available online: https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/institutodelamujer/ugen/modulos/Salud/socializacion.html (accessed on 14 November 2024).
  29. Gilberti, E. DELS. Available online: https://salud.gob.ar/dels/entradas/sexismo (accessed on 4 May 2023).
  30. Vicegerencia de Organización. Anuario Estadístico 2021–2022. Available online: http://servicio.us.es/splanestu/WS/Anuario2122/AESY21-22.html (accessed on 14 November 2024).
  31. Madolell Orellana, R.; Gallardo Vigil, M.A.; Alemany Arrebola, I. Los estereotipos de género y actitudes sexistas en los estudiantes universitarios en un contexto multicultural. Profesorado 2020, 24, 284–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. World Health Organization WHO. Género y Salud. 2018. Available online: https://www.who.int/es/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/gender (accessed on 14 November 2024).
  33. INE—Instituto Nacional de Estadística (s.f.). Glosario de Conceptos. Available online: https://www.ine.es/DEFIne/es/concepto.htm?c=4484#:~:text=Seg%C3%BAn%20la%20OMS%2C%20el%20%22sexo,apropiados%20para%20hombres%20y%20mujeres (accessed on 14 November 2024).
  34. Álvarez, P.; Carrasco, M.; Fustos, J. Relación de la empatía y género en la conducta prosocial y agresiva, en adolescentes de distintos tipo de establecimientos educacionales. Rev. Iberoam. Psicol. Cienc. Tecnol. 2010, 3, 27–36. [Google Scholar]
  35. García, M.; Cabanillas, G.; Morán, V.; Olaz, F.O. Diferencias de género en habilidades sociales en estudiantes universitarios de argentina. Anu. Electrónico Estud. Comun. Soc. Disert. 2014, 7, 114–135. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lachira, D.S.; Luján, P.E.; Mogollón, M.M.; Silva, R. La comunicación asertiva: Una estrategia para desarrollar las relaciones interpersonales. Rev. Latinoam. Difusión Científica 2020, 2, 71–82. [Google Scholar]
  37. Oyarzún, G.; Estrada, C.; Pino, E.; Jara, M. Habilidades sociales y rendimiento académico: Una mirada desde el género. Acta Colomb. Psicol. 2012, 15, 21–28. [Google Scholar]
  38. Salazar-Botello, M.; Mendoza-Llanos, R.; Muñoz-Jara, Y. Impacto diferenciado del tiempo de formación universitaria según institución de educación media en el desarrollo de habilidades sociales. Propósitos Represent. 2020, 8, 416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cáceres, M.P. El liderazgo Estudiantil en la Universidad de Granada Desde una Perspectiva de Género. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  40. Sánchez García, M.; Suárez Ortega, M.; Manzano Soto, N.; Oliveros Martín-Varés, L.; Lozano Santiago, S.; Fernández D’Andrea, B.; Malik Liévano, B. Estereotipos de género y valores sobre el trabajo entre los estudiantes españoles. Rev. Educ. 2011, 355, 331–354. [Google Scholar]
  41. Rathus, S.A. A 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behaviour. Behav. Ther. 1973, 4, 398–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. León Madrigal, M. Revisión de la escala de asertividad de Rathus adaptada por León y Vargas (2009). Rev. Reflex. 2014, 93, 157–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Davis, M.H. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. Cat. Sel. Doc. Psychol. 1980, 10, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  44. Pérez-Albéniz, A.; De Paúl, J.; Etxebarría, J.; Montes, M.P.; Torres, E. Adaptación del Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) al español. Psicothema 2003, 15, 267–272. [Google Scholar]
  45. Colás-Bravo, P.; Villaciervos-Moreno, P. La interiorización de los estereotipos de género en jóvenes y adolescentes. Rev. Investig. Educ. 2007, 25, 35–38. [Google Scholar]
  46. Méndez, M.C.; Sánchez, M.Y. Análisis Comparativo de la Agresividad y Asertividad de los Adolescentes en Instituciones Educativas en Niveles Socioeconómicos Diferentes. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Femenina del Sagrado Corazón, La Molina, Peru, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  47. Immanuel, E.U.; Muo, F.C. Marital status, Religion and Gender as factors in Assertiveness. J. Multidiscip. Res. 2022, 5, 19–30. [Google Scholar]
  48. Arigbabu, A.A.; Ekundayo, S.O.; Owolab-Gabriel, M.A. Gender, marital status, and religious affiliation as factors of assertiveness among Nigerian. Soc. Sci. 2010, 5, 467–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Poo, A.M.; Vizcarra, B. Cambios en los significados de la masculinidad en hombres del sur de Chile. Interdisciplinaria 2020, 37, 195–209. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Kruskal–Wallis Test for gender differences in assertiveness.
Table 1. Kruskal–Wallis Test for gender differences in assertiveness.
Kruskal–Wallis H (df = 1)Sig.
Interaction with companies2.8180.093
Expressing annoyance or displeasure2.7860.095
Defending one’s opinion0.0320.326
Interacting extrovertedly with others3.650.056
Openly express feelings0.0640.800
Rejecting requests16.0450.000
Note: Rathus Assertiveness Schedule variables.
Table 2. Kruskal–Wallis test for gender differences in empathy.
Table 2. Kruskal–Wallis test for gender differences in empathy.
Kruskal–Wallis Hdf = 1Sig.
Perspective-taking0.3660.545
Fantasy5.5800.018
Empathic concern18.5760.000
Personal distress1.8140.175
Note: Interpersonal Reactivity Index variables.
Table 3. Relationship between assertiveness, external factors, and gender.
Table 3. Relationship between assertiveness, external factors, and gender.
Socioeconomic LevelReligionPolitical Orientation
X2dfSig.X2dfSig.X2dfSig.
IC16.554100.08564.070200.00039.830150.000
EAD8.959100.53672.432200.00050.967150.000
DOO5.27540.26022.97280.00314.09460.029
Ext7.18680.51744.128160.00030.032120.003
OEF14.97180.06045.739160.00014.415120.275
RR16.053100.09855.389200.00039.929150.000
Note: Rathus Assertiveness Schedule variables: IC = Interaction with companies; EAD = Expressing annoyance or displeasure; DOO = Defending one’s opinion; Ext = Interacting extrovertedly with others; OEF = Openly expressing feelings; RR = Rejecting requests. External factors variables: Socioeconomic level; Religion; Gender.
Table 4. Relationship between empathic skills, external factors, and gender.
Table 4. Relationship between empathic skills, external factors, and gender.
Socioeconomic LevelReligionPolitical Orientation
X2dfSig.X2dfSig.X2dfSig.
PT8.38940.07836.23180.00012.75360.047
F6.93960.38123.149120.0267.49690.586
EC10.02840.04032.23480.00017.75760.007
PS4.87960.55919.831120.07016.83790.051
Note: Interpersonal Reactivity Index variables: PT = Perspective taking; F = Fantasy; EC= Empathic concern; PS = Personal stress. External factors: Socioeconomic level; Religion; Political Orientation.
Table 5. Relationship between assertiveness, external factors, and gender.
Table 5. Relationship between assertiveness, external factors, and gender.
BodySocial BehaviorCompetencies and CapacitiesEmotionsAffective ExpressionSocial Responsibility
X2dfSig.X2dfSig.X2dfSig.X2dfSig.X2dfSig.X2dfSig.
IC7.816100.64719.241160.2036.79950.2368.58050.1277.550100.6737.05950.216
EAD16.489100.08610.778150.7685.50450.3584.43550.4897.241100.702350.700
DOO0.93940.91913.26560.0390.44720.8004.20420.1222.09940.7180.23620.889
Ext7.25880.50914.189120.2892.16340.7067.76940.1002.78880.9472.91440.572
OEF4.79080.7809.560120.6541.52340.8236.40140.1717.83380.4503.13440.536
RR11.414100.32630.346150.0112.16550.82614.83850.0115.942100.8203.16750.674
Note: Rathus Reactivity Index variables: IC = Interaction with companies; EAD = Expressing annoyance or displeasure; DOO = Defending one’s own opinion; Ext = Interacting extrovertedly with others; OEF = Openly expressing feelings; RR = Rejecting requests. Student Beliefs Questionnaire variables: Body; Social Behavior; Competencies and capacities; Emotions; Affective expression; Social responsibility.
Table 6. Relationship between empathic skills, external factors, and gender.
Table 6. Relationship between empathic skills, external factors, and gender.
BodySocial BehaviorCompetencies and CapacitiesEmotionsAffective ExpressionSocial Responsibility
X2dfSig.X2dfSig.X2dfSig.X2dfSig.X2dfSig.X2dfSig.
PT2.05440.7263.64160.7252.81420.2451.54620.4625.79240.2151.11020.574
F3.41660.7559.88390.3601.46330.6912.50930.4743.54460.7385.35330.148
EC13.59940.00916.02160.0142.98020.2259.54220.0085.68340.22414.53220.001
PS9.00360.17315.93190.0680.13630.1365.49930.13910.50860.1050.92730.819
Note: Interpersonal Reactivity Index variables: PT = Perspective-taking; F = Fantasy; EC= Empathic concern; PS = Personal stress. Student Beliefs Questionnaire variables: Body; Social behavior; Competencies and capacities; Emotions; Affective expressions; Social responsibility.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Claudel, A.; García González, A.J. Students’ Assertiveness and Empathy Social Skills and Gender at the University of Seville. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1270. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14111270

AMA Style

Claudel A, García González AJ. Students’ Assertiveness and Empathy Social Skills and Gender at the University of Seville. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(11):1270. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14111270

Chicago/Turabian Style

Claudel, Alicia, and Alfonso Javier García González. 2024. "Students’ Assertiveness and Empathy Social Skills and Gender at the University of Seville" Education Sciences 14, no. 11: 1270. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14111270

APA Style

Claudel, A., & García González, A. J. (2024). Students’ Assertiveness and Empathy Social Skills and Gender at the University of Seville. Education Sciences, 14(11), 1270. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14111270

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop