IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Towards a Cross-Cultural Conceptual Framework for Researching Social andEmotional Education
Edurne Scott Loinaz
HAHA Academy, London

111

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Abstract
The central aim of this study was to investigate how different countries practice social andemotional education (SEE) using a comparative research design to create a cross-culturalconceptual framework. The study used a sequential quantitative-qualitative analysis with acomparative design that included 750 teachers. Cross-cultural differences were found in the
research sample regarding teachers’ self-perceived role in socialising emotion: specifically, theteachers’ openness to emotional expression in the classroom, and what social and emotional
aptitudes were more likely to be included as part of SEE provision. More variation was foundin these variables internationally compared to intranationally. A conceptual framework using
two dimensions was created in order to aid future cross-cultural research regarding SEE
provision and the study of emotional rules in the teaching profession: the Ideal Affect(likelihood of suppressing rather than expressing emotion) and the Ideal Self (likelihood ofdeveloping skills for independence versus interdependence).

Keywords: social and emotional education, comparative education, emotional wellbeing,social and emotional learning, emotional intelligence

112

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Social and emotional education (SEE) is the educational process that aims to develop socialand emotional competencies, both intrapersonal (e.g., developing feelings of self-worth, selfdiscipline and managing stress), and interpersonal (e.g., safeguarding and promoting thewellbeing of others, negotiating and resolving conflict and appreciating diverse perspectives).
Given past findings that culture influences the way adults socialise children’s emotions(Friedlmeier, Corapci, & Cole, 2011), it is unfortunate how scant the research dedicated tocross-cultural differences in SEE provision currently is. The necessity for research in this area
is made all the more obvious the more emotional wellbeing is researched: take, for instance,
the longitudinal study by Layard, Clark, Cornaglia, Powdthavee, and Vernoit (2014) whichfound that a person’s wellbeing as an adult is more dependent on their emotional health when
they were a child compared to their academic attainment in school and their level of wealth asan adult. How schools develop social and emotional competencies and promote emotional
wellbeing in children and young people is thus of great importance. This paper aims to fill the
gap in the research literature by conducting the first multiple-country study regarding teachers’
beliefs and practice of SEE in order to create a conceptual framework to compare SEE
provision from culture to culture for future research. This will hopefully aid in the crosscultural study of ‘emotional rules’ in the teaching profession, and how these impact otheraspects of learning and school life (Zembylas & Schutz, 2009).
Literature review
The available literature regarding SEE includes the evaluation of social and emotional learning
programmes in schools cross-culturally (Sklad, Diestra, De Ritter & Gravesteign, 2012;
Wigelsworth et al., 2016); a comparison of educational policy relating to social and emotional
skills (Domitrovich, Durlak, & Gullotta, 2015; OECD 2015; Emery, 2016); and a summary of
relevant SEE policy and best practice in various countries (Fundacion Botin, 2008, 2011, 2013,2015). This research, however, does not focus on teachers’ opinions and beliefs regarding SEE,
and tends to treat teachers as faceless variables in the testing of outcomes (i.e., whether
students’ social and emotional aptitudes improved after a SEE intervention using psychometrictesting). Research that does exist involving teachers’ opinions and practice of SEE have so far
been done as single-country studies: in Greece (Triliva and Poulou, 2006; Poulou, 2017), in
Australia (Djambazova-Popordanoska, 2016), and in Turkey (Esen-Aygun & Sahin-Taskin,2017).
In order to research multiple countries for the present study, the variables of culture were
explicitly defined as information (ideas, beliefs, values, skills, attitudes, and knowledge)
acquired from other individuals via social transmission mechanisms (e.g. teaching, imitation)(Mesoudi, 2011). The most common method to compare different cultures in past research has
been the use of cultural dimensions, and the first systematic review of studies of culturaldifference was completed by Inkeles and Levinson (1969). They proposed three ‘culturalissues’ that commonly differentiated groups: relation to authority; self-concept and thedefinition of gender roles; and conflict resolution, which primarily relied on the expression
versus inhibition of emotion. Inkeles and Levinson’s work greatly influenced the Dutch
comparative psychologist Geert Hofstede (1980) who used 100,000 standardised
questionnaires given to IBM workers in over 53 countries to identify the variables that would
predict the cultural differences in his dataset. Hofstede identified four cultural variables in total
and scored each country’s cumulative answers as a position from 0-100 on each dimension.
Taras, Kirkman and Steel’s (2010) ‘A Three-Decade, Multilevel, Meta-Analytic Review of
Hofstede's Cultural Value Dimensions’ found 598 studies that used Hofstede’s framework

113

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

representing over 200,000 participants and concluded that the dimensions remain theoretically
relevant to the study of cultural differences.
Hofstede’s 1986 paper, ‘Cultural Differences in Teaching and Learning,’ was used in thepresent research to create a series of hypotheses using two specific dimensions - theUncertainty Avoidance (UA) Index (the degree to which members of a society feel
uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity), and the Masculinity Index (MI) (the degree ofdifferentiation of gender and the division of emotional roles). Hofstede used these dimensions
to predict cultural differences in the teacher-student relationship - ‘the device par excellenceby which that culture itself is transferred from one generation to the next’ (Hofstede, 1986, p.
302) - and these predictions helped form the hypotheses for cultural difference in SEE
provision that were used in the present research (summarised in Table 1).
Table 1. Cultural differences in teacher/student relationships and predictions for social andemotional education provision.
Low UA
Students feel
comfortable in
unstructured
learning
situations.

Low MI
System rewards
students’ social
adaptation.

Minimum
emotional andsocial roledifferentiation
between thegenders.
Interdependence
ideal.

SEE hypotheses
SEE has vague
objectives, and is nottimetabled. Low
training in SEE.
Preference for implicit
SEE skills and relianceon modelling. Low
expression of emotion.
SEE hypotheses
SEE is believed to be
as important as
academic subjects.
Teachers feel
responsible forsocialising students.

High UAStudents feel
comfortable instructured learning
situations.

SEE hypotheses
SEE has precise objectives,and is timetabled. Hightraining in SEE. Preference
for explicit SEE skills andreliance on didactic teaching.
High expression of emotion.

High MI
System rewards
students’ academic
performance.

SEE hypotheses
SEE is believed to be lessimportant than academic
subjects. Teachers do not feel
responsible for socialising
students.

Similar replies to theimportance of SEE
from both male andfemale teachers.

Maximum
emotional andsocial roledifferentiation
between thegenders.
Independence
ideal.

Different replies to theimportance of SEE between
male and female teachers.

Interpersonal skills areprioritised(safeguarding andpromoting thewellbeing of others;social skills,
negotiating andresolving conflict;appreciating diverse
perspectives).

114

Intrapersonal skills areprioritised (self-discipline;
setting goals; developing
feelings of self-worth;recognising triggers of anger;
understanding, and labelling
emotion; relaxation
techniques).

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Methodology
The study used a sequential quantitative-qualitative analysis with a comparative design, with
750 teachers in an initial quantitative phase participating in a questionnaire, and 22 teachers in
the following qualitative phase participating in semi-structured interviews. The comparative
design used a contrast of contexts method which works best when the cases that it juxtaposes
are maximally different (Skocpol & Somers, 1980). Thus, the four case studies for this current
research project were chosen from Hofstede’s (1986) cultural groupings that were most likely
to socialise emotion differently, as well as other variables to differentiate the cases (morespecifically, whether the country had SEE policy, and whether the education system wascentralised or decentralised). The case studies chosen were:
1. United Kingdom: a highly decentralised education system with varying levels of
SEE provisions (High MI, Low UA)
2. Spain: a regionally-centralised education system with varying levels of SEE
provisions due to region-specific initiatives (Low MI, High UA)
3. Sweden: a highly decentralised education system, with no SEE provision (LowMI, Low UA)
4. Greece: a highly centralised education system, with no government-funded SEE
provision (High MI, High UA)
The questionnaire was also devised to compare both international variation, and intranationalvariation in ten Likert scale questions. Frequency distributions by item were examined for bothsignificance value (p) and magnitude of Cohen’s effect size (d). This was due to themethodological and theoretical significance of within-culture variation, discussed in more
depth by Au (1999), who warned that average levels of conformity in each culture cannot reveal
cross-cultural difference in variance, and what is needed is the standard deviations of measures
between each of the case studies.
For the quantitative data collection, surveys were used to collect original data using the Opinio
web-based survey software. In order to have as many teachers participate as possible, and to
be able to have a random sample, virtually every school in each of the four countries was sent
an invitation email to participate using the SwiftMailer software and University College
London (UCL)'s simple mail transfer protocol (SMTP) email server. A copy of thequestionnaire invitation was sent to every school or teacher email address collected fromeducation department websites and publicly available ‘freedom of information’ documents.
The self-selection bias is thus one of the biggest limitations of the study.
For the qualitative data collection, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 teachers
who were a sub-sample of the original quantitative sample (and included every teacher who
self-selected to take part in a 50-minute interview as part of the prior questionnaire). The
demographics for both the participants in the quantitative and qualitative section of the researchwere similar: 73% female and 26% male; 52% held an undergraduate degree, 46% a
postgraduate degree, and 2% a high school degree; 13% were preschool teachers, 52% primaryteachers, and 35% secondary teachers; 11.7% were 20-30 years old, 22.3% 31-40 years old,
32.7% 41-50 years old, 30% 51-60 years old, and 3.2% 60+ years old. Questionnaire responses
to open-ended questions and interview responses were analysed using Braun and Clarke’s(2006) six-phase model of thematic analysis, as well as quantified to ascertain their frequency.
Full information on the purposes of the research were provided to all participants in the initial115

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

email sent to teachers, plus an invitation to be included in the dissemination of the findings.
All participants had the right to withdraw from the research at any time.
Findings
Ideal affect
From the hypotheses created from Hofstede’s (1986) uncertainty avoidance index, it waspredicted that the Swedish and UK teachers (who rated low on the uncertainty avoidance index)
would model the suppression of emotion (the inhibition of affect) and favour the control andmanagement of emotion in their classrooms. The curriculum would have vague objectives - if
any at all - and SEE would be more likely to be infused into the curriculum as implicit skills
learnt via modelling, rather than taught as a separate subject. Furthermore, most teachers would
not receive specific SEE training. These predictions and the current study’s findings for thesetwo countries are summarised in Table 2.
Table 2: Results in cultural differences in teacher/student relationships and social andemotional education provision in Low Uncertainty Avoidance cultures.
Prediction

Were the predictions confirmed by the findings?
UK

SwedenSEE has vague
objectives, andis nottimetabled.

No. Out of the four countries, the UK was
the most likely to have SEE timetabled(61% of preschool and primary schools,
and 56% of secondary schools). However,this was partly due to the Labour
government’s SEAL* framework which
was discarded by the Coalition
government in 2010.

Yes. SEE did have vague objectives andno SEE framework had been created nor
implemented in Sweden. Only 26% of
Swedish primary teachers and 34% of
secondary teachers said they timetabled
SEE.

Teachers model
the suppressionof emotion.

Yes. Only 63% of UK teachers in thesample agreed that teachers should be
comfortable expressing their emotions inclass - the lowest percentage in thesample.

Low training in
SEE.

No. UK had the highest training in SEE
out of the four case studies (40% of UK
teachers said they had received training in
SEE).
No. 38% of primary school teachers, and
34% of secondary school teachers said
they taught SEE implicitly - the lowest
percentage in the sample. Developing
students’ social and emotional aptitudes
were more likely to be mentioned by UKteachers also.

Yes. Although 73% of Swedish teachers
agreed that teachers should be
comfortable expressing their emotions inclass, only 51% of teachers agreed thatnegative-evaluating emotion should be
displayed in the classroom.
Partly. Although 38% of Swedish teachers
said they had received training for SEE,
Sweden had the highest drop in SEE
training over the past two decades.
Yes. Teachers were much more likely toteach SEE implicitly (67% in primaryschool, and 56% in secondary school).
Swedish teachers discussed the quality of
their interactions with their students andmodelling more frequently, rather thandeveloping and assessing students’ socialand emotional skills explicitly.

Preference for
implicit SEE
skills andreliance onmodelling.

*The Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning’ (SEAL) programme (Department for Education and Skills,
2005) was the Labour government’s universal, whole-school social and emotional education programme createdas an ‘objective list model’: a series of skills as defined by a steering group (42 competencies in total in fiveskill groups: self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy and social skills), that could be measured andassessed by teachers. By 2010 SEAL was operational in 90% of primary schools and 70% of secondary schools(Humphrey, 2012).

116

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

On the other hand, Spanish and Greek teachers who rated high on the uncertainty avoidancescale would allow for more emotion to be displayed in the classroom (the expression of affect)
and prioritise how emotions should be communicated. The SEE provision in Greece and Spain
would have explicit objectives, would be more likely to be timetabled in the school day andtaught didactically as well as by modelling, and most teachers would receive training. These
predictions and the corresponding findings are summarised in Table 3.
Table 3. Results in cultural differences in teacher/student relationships and social andemotional education provision in High Uncertainty Avoidance cultures.
Prediction
SEE has precise
objectives, and istimetabled.

Teachers encourage
the expression ofemotion.

High training in SEE.

Preference for explicit
SEE skills and relianceon didactic teaching.

Were the predictions confirmed by the findings?
Spain
GreeceNo. Spanish primary school
No. Greece does not currently have ateachers were more likely to
SEE framework, and was the least
teach SEE using relational
likely to have the subject timetabled out
approaches and modellingof all the four case study countries: 32%(66%) rather than timetablingof Greek primary school teachers and
SEE with precise objectives
20% of secondary school teachers in the(29%). In comparison, 44% of sample timetabled SEE provision.
Spanish secondary school
teachers timetabled SEE
showing a significant
difference between SEE
provision in primary andsecondary school.
Yes. 83% of Spanish teachers
Partly. 67% of Greek teachers said theyin the sample agreed thatshould feel comfortable expressing theirteachers should be comfortable emotions in class - the second lowest in
expressing their emotions inthe sample. However, Greek maleclass - the highest in theteachers were found to be significantly
sample. 72% of teachers also
more comfortable expressing theiragreed that negative-evaluating emotions in class, including negative
emotion should be displayed in emotion, compared to female Greek
the classroom - again, theteachers (p < 0.05, d = .44 suggested ahighest in the sample.
small to moderate practicalsignificance).
Partly. The Spanish teachers
Yes. 34% of teachers trained in SEE,
were the least likely to havewith a large emphasis on teacher
received SEE training (23%),
training for SEE in the university - a
however, Spain had the largest percentage that was relatively highincrease in new teachers
compared to other countries.
training for SEE relative to theother countries.
Partly. A higher percentage of Yes. When SEE programmes were
Spanish teachers were found to implemented, these were more likely toteach SEE explicitly in
be taught explicitly focusing on
secondary rather than indeveloping and assessing students’
primary.
social and emotional skills.

Ideal self
The second Hofstede dimension that was used in the present research was the Masculinity
Index. For this dimension it is the UK and Greece that are rated high on the index, predictingthat the Greek and UK teachers would emphasise skills that help students be independent, for117

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

example: self-discipline, setting goals and developing feelings of self-worth. Other hypotheses
included that teachers of different genders would also hold different views in terms of their
responsibility to socialise students, and that there would be a greater tendency for teachers tobelieve that the role of education is solely academic achievement and not the socialisation of
pupils (which they would believe to be the responsibility of parents/guardians). The findings
for these two countries are summarised in Table 4.
Table 4. Results in cultural differences in teacher/student relationships and social andemotional education provision in High Masculinity Index countries.
Prediction
SEE emphasises
intrapersonal skills more

SEE believed to be lessimportant than academic
subjects.

Maximum differentiationin gender responses
regarding SEE.

Female teachers more
likely to feel responsible
for socialisation

Were the predictions confirmed by the findings?
UK
GreecePartly. 56% of UK teachers
Partly. 45% of Greek teacherstaught intrapersonal skills
taught intrapersonal skills (which
regularly (e.g., developing
was relatively higher compared tofeelings of self-worth, selfSwedish responses), but 52% of
discipline, managing stress) Greek teachers in the sample said
the highest in the sample.
they were more likely to regularly
However, UK teachers were just teach interpersonal skills (e.g.,
as likely to teach interpersonal
safeguarding and promoting theskills (65%).
wellbeing of others, negotiating
and resolving conflict, appreciating
diverse perspectives).
Partly. This was a subject that
Yes. SEE was largely defined byhugely divided the UK
Greek teachers as a means to an
participants with one groupend to improve academic
believing SEE was beyond their attainment.
remit, and the other believing
SEE was the keystone tolearning.
No. UK had the leastYes. Greece had a significant
differentiation between male and difference between male andfemale teachers in the present
female teachers in multiple
study.
responses compared to the othercountries: male teachers
felt more comfortable expressing
emotion, believed they had better
teacher-student relationships, andthat they had better relationships tostudents’parents compared to their female
colleagues.
No. Both male and female
No. Both male and female teachers
teachers believed themselvesbelieved themselves responsible
responsible for socialisation- no for socialisation - no significant
significant difference was found. difference was found.

In turn, Spain and Sweden which are rated low on the masculinity index by Hofstede, werehypothesised to be more likely to help students learn skills that let them live in harmony withothers, such as: safeguarding and promoting the wellbeing of others, social skills, negotiating
and resolving conflict and appreciating diverse perspectives (empathy). Both male and female
teachers would feel responsible in socialising students, and think this responsibility to be as

118

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

important as the academic achievement of their students. The predictions are summarised inTable 5.
Table 5. Results in cultural differences in teacher/student relationships and social andemotional education provision in Low Masculinity Index countries.
Prediction
SEE emphasised
intrapersonal skills
more.
SEE believed to be asimportant as academic
subjects.

Minimum
differentiation ingender responses
regarding SEE.

Both genders feel as
responsible forsocialising students.

Were the predictions confirmed by the findings?
Spain
SwedenYes. More interpersonal skills
Yes. More intrapersonal skills were
were regularly taught by Spanish
regularly taught by Swedish teachers
teachers (63%) compared to(53%) compared to intrapersonal
intrapersonal skills (49%).
skills (41%).
Yes. There was a large
Yes. Although SEE is treated ascommitment to SEE and theoutside of the teacher’s remit, it was
importance of emotion todefinitely within the school’s remit,
learning. Those teachers whoand school counsellors are available
believed school was simply about to all students in Sweden.
academic attainment made up asmall minority of the sample.
No. A significant difference was
No. Female teachers believed
found in multiple answers.
themselves more responsible forFemale Spanish teachers weresocialisation than male teachers (seefound to be more likely to believe below).
that emotion is fundamental tolearning, that children can betaught SEE skills, that they should
be responsible for socialising
students, and that their students
were offered enough opportunities
to verbalise their emotions.
No. Female teachers believed
No. Female teachers believed
themselves more responsible tothemselves more responsible forsocialise students than malesocialisation than male teachers inteachers in the sample
the sample (p < 0.05, d = .48(p < 0.05, d = .29 suggested asuggested a small to moderatesmall practical significance).
practical significance).

Intraregional versus international comparisons
A common objection in the literature regarding the comparative field is that international
comparisons tend not to take into account the differences within each country, what is referred
to in the literature as the intranational differences (Au, 1999). To address this issue, Likert
scales in the current study were also assessed at the regional level to analyse what intranational
differences did exist. Two items were chosen for this exercise, one with the most cross-culturaldifferentiation: ‘Not enough attention is devoted to social and emotional education in myschool’ representing a divergence in two groups (Greece and Spain versus Sweden and theUK), and one with the least cross-cultural differentiation: ‘My students have consistentbehaviour goals between home and school’ representing the least divergence (where Greece,
Sweden and the UK had similar responses compared to Spain). Four regions with the highest
number of respondents were chosen for each of the case study countries: Attica, Macedonia,
Peloponnese and Thessaloniki for Greece (n=83); Balearic islands, Canary islands, Castile
Leon and Navarra for Spain (n=166); North Middle, South Sweden, Stockholm and West

119

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Sweden for Sweden (n=75); and East Anglia, Midlands, Scotland and South East England for
the United Kingdom (n=152).
When looking at the Likert scale with the most cross-cultural divergence (‘Not enoughattention is devoted to social and emotional education in my school’), only one statisticallysignificant difference at p < 0.05 was found intranationally: this was in Spain between Navarra
and the Canary Islands (d = 0.45, which suggested a moderate practical significance), which,fittingly, are regions found almost 2,500 kilometres away from each other. Whereasinternationally the variance in effect sizes varied in effect from d = 0.18 to d = 0.92,
intranationally the variance in effect sizes varied from d = 0.007 to d = 0.47. International
differences were thus more statistically significant and of a larger practical significance thaninterregional differences within the same country for this Likert scale (see Table 6). As can beseen with each of the four regions in each country, Spain and Greece were far more likely tohave higher means than Sweden and the UK, suggesting that teachers from the former countries
were more likely to be dissatisfied with their school’s SEE provision compared to Sweden andthe UK- this corroborates the international differences of the entire sample.
Table 6. Average mean answer from four individual regions in each case study country ‘Not
enough attention is devoted to social and emotional education in my school’.
UK
Mean
SD
Number
ScotlandEast Anglia
Midlands
GreeceMeanSD
NumberAthens
Peloponnese
Thessaloniki
Spain
Mean
SD
NumberBalearic
islands
Castile Leon
Canary islands
SwedenMean

South East
2.63
1.2
62
0.08
0.15
0.19
Macedonia
3.3
1.1
23
0.17
0.21
0.33
Navarra

3.43
0.9
37
0.17 -

East Anglia
2.43
1.4
40
0.03
Peloponnese
3.06
1.2
16
0.1
Castile
Leon
3.27
2.96
1
1.1
60
25
-

0.47
0.45*

0.29 0.29

South

Scotland
2.53
1.2
19
0.08
0.11
Attica
3.11
1.2
27
0.04
0.15
Balearic Isl.

Stockholm
2.88

2.79

120

Midlands
2.39
1.3
31
Thessaloniki
2.94
1.1
17
Canary Isl.
2.95
1.2
44
-

0.01 -

North
middle

West
2.5

2.46

IAFOR Journal of EducationSD
Number
Stockholm
North middle
West

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

1.1
17
0.08 0.4
0.4

1.2
29

0.8
16

1
13

0.28 0.3

0.04 -

Note: The means of responses are presented in descending order. Higher means represent agreement that notenough attention is devoted to social and emotional education in the teacher’s school. The grid is organised topresent all pairwise comparisons and indicates the magnitude of Cohen’s effect size (d) where .2 is small, .5 ismoderate and .8 is large. * Significant at the (p) < 0.05 level ** Significant at the (p) < 0.01 level ***Significant at the (p) < 0.001 level

The questionnaire item with the least divergence (at least between Spain compared to Greece,
Sweden and the UK) was ‘My students have consistent behaviour goals between home andschool’. This item had no statistically significant differences intranationally, although theinternational variations were found to be very similar in terms of effect sizes, with the largest
effect size internationally being d = 0.59, and intranationally being d = 0.51. The regional
differences, nevertheless, mimicked the overall groupings of the international findings, with
Spanish regions being differentiated from the regions in the three other countries; that is to say,Spanish teachers were more likely to agree in every region that their students had consistentbehaviour goals between home and school, whereas teachers from UK, Greece and Sweden
were more likely to disagree (see Table 7).
Table 7. Average mean answer from four individual regions in each case study country ‘Mystudents have consistent behaviour goals between home and school’.
UK

East Anglia

South East

Midlands

Scotland

Mean

3.2

3

2.9

2.8

SD
NumberSouth East
Midlands
Scotland

1.2
39
0.17
0.24
0.38

1.1
50
- 0.08 0.2

1.3
33

0.9
19

GreeceMeanSD
Number
Thessaloniki
AthensMacedonia
Spain
Mean
SD
Number

0.09 -

Peloponnese Thessaloniki Attica
3.1

3.1

Macedonia
3

2.7

0.88
0.8
0.87
15
16
26
0 0.11
0.11 0.44
0.45
0.33
Balearic Isl. Castile Leon Canary Isl.
3.5
3.5
3.4
0.89
0.85
0.97
53
31
41

0.93
19

121

Navarra
3.2
0.91
30

IAFOR Journal of Education

Castile Leon
Canaryislands
NavarraSwedenMean
SD
NumberNorth
middleSouth
Stockholm

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

0 0.11

0.11 -

0.33

0.34

West

North
middleSouth0.21 Stockholm

3.1
1.1
12
0 -

3.1
0.73
14

2.9
0.74
15

2.6
0.86
29

-

-

0.21
0.51

0.27 0.62

0.37 -

Note: The means of responses are presented in descending order. Higher means represent agreement thatteacher’s students have consistent behaviour goals between home and school. The grid is organised to present all
pairwise comparisons and indicates the magnitude of Cohen’s effect size (d) where .2 is small, .5 is moderateand .8 is large. * Significant at the (p) < 0.05 level ** Significant at the (p) < 0.01 level *** Significant at the (p)< 0.001 level

Discussion
Uncertainty Avoidance Index
The only reliable prediction based on Hofstede’s (1986) cultural dimensions across the fourcase studies regarding the Low Uncertainty index was the expression rather than inhibition ofaffect. This dimension originally described by Inkeles and Levinson (1969) was created to
explain differences in conflict resolution by inhibiting or expressing emotion. Taras, Kirkman
and Steel (2010) also found that the predictive power of culture was higher than that of otherdemographic variables regarding emotion (or the ‘ideal affect’ of any given culture), and thepresent research corroborates this finding. Whereas Hofstede’s Uncertainty Avoidance
dimension was able to correctly identify the differences in treatment of emotion in theclassroom, it did not do so in the case of Greece on account of gender – Greek female teachers
felt more inclined to inhibit emotion rather than express it. The UK education system was foundto act more in line with high uncertainty avoidance countries like Spain and Greece (using
specific objectives regarding SEE and emphasis on teacher training), contrary to Hofstede’s
predictions as well. One correct prediction was Sweden’s SEE provision which was more inline with lower uncertainty avoidance countries with its vague objectives and reliance on
implicit approaches.
As they relate to SEE provision, the findings highlight that the inhibition as well as expressionof emotion are currently being socialised both implicitly via modelling and a focus on theteacher-student relationship (relational approach), as well as by explicitly developing andassessing students’ social skills, especially self-regulation and the management of emotion(competence-based approach). Hofstede’s dimensions were found to not predict culturaldifferences due to two reasons: (1) the socio-political context (for example, in the UK the Low
Uncertainty cultural dimension seemed more likely to predict the SEE policy of more
Conservative governments, rather than more Liberal policy, such as the SEAL framework);and (2) the age of the students the participants were teaching (dimensions were more likely to
predict teacher-student relationships in secondary school rather that primary school which

122

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

could imply that Hofstede’s dimensions are more applicable to teacher-student relationships ofolder rather than younger students).
Masculinity Index
The Masculinity Index was partly found to be a reliable predictor for what skills were more
likely to be taught in each culture: intrapersonal skills (e.g., developing feelings of self-worth,self-discipline, managing stress) versus interpersonal skills (e.g., safeguarding and promoting
the wellbeing of others, negotiating and resolving conflict, appreciating diverse perspectives).
This was especially true for the United Kingdom, although these results might just indicate thatthe emotional and social skills that were part of the questionnaire were more relevant to UK
teachers than to teachers in the other case study countries - especially since the framework ofskills used in the study was similar to the UK’s SEAL framework. As for the culturaldifferences regarding gender, this highlights a fundamental flaw in Hofstede’s Masculinity
Index: the cultural dimensions depend on cultural differences remaining the same, and culture
is treated as a relatively stable concept with ‘centuries-old roots’. The inability of thedimensions to predict gender differentiation in three out of the four cases begs to differ. Thechanges in gender relations over the 30 years since Hofstede wrote his dimensions (and almost
50 years since Inkeles and Levinson’s meta review) highlight how culture is not that stable a
concept.
The Masculinity Index, however, was found to be able to predict the difference in ‘selfconcept’. Barrett and McIntosh (1982) identified this as the differences between Right and Leftpolitical ideology. The Left represents the self as one dependent on other people, and theschooling environment is portrayed as a locus of affection that improves students’ social andemotional skills for these interdependent relationships. The Right represents the need for selfhelp, self-support, self-sufficiency and self-respect, and sees the family (and concomitantly,
the school system) as a means of instilling authority and a code of behaviour. Another correct
prediction was the similarities between Greece and the UK, both high on the masculinity index,
where teachers were found to not be as confident about teaching social and emotional skills tostudents as they were more traditional subjects, and where teachers were more likely to be
divided about the importance of academic attainment versus social and emotional education.
Intraregional versus international comparisons
The results show that in the case of teachers’ opinions regarding SEE, the more intranationalvariation there is, the less international variation, and vice versa. In other words, culturaldifferences regarding the socialisation of emotion do exist, along with differences in SEE
provision. This is an important finding for future comparative research. A limitation to thisanalysis was the size of the samples of the individual regions - especially in Sweden and Greece- and this intranational comparison would need to be recreated with a larger sample to assessthe differences more thoroughly.
Recommendations
Despite the weaknesses in Hofstede’s dimensions to predict cultural differences in SEE
provision, it was still an incredibly helpful starting point to begin to research a topic that hasreceived little attention in the past. As Feyerabend (1975) advised, ‘Theories become clear andreasonable only after incoherent parts of them have been used for a long time. Suchunreasonable, nonsensical, unmethodical foreplay thus turns out to be an unavoidable
precondition of clarity and of empirical success’ (p. 18). Precisely for this reason, more detailed
variables of cultural differences in SEE need to be identified, and for this reason the current

123

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

study recommends using an updated conceptual framework to study social and emotional
education in the future (see Figure 1). This conceptual framework combines all of the correct
predictions of Hofstede’s dimensions in the current study: the dimension of ideal affect(whether the teacher is more likely to feel comfortable expressing emotion in the classroom ornot), and ideal self (whether the teacher is more likely to focus on skills for interdependence or
independence). However, this conceptual framework could not incorporate the incorrect
predictions of Hofstede’s dimensions – such as the cross-cultural difference in emotional
expression according to teachers’ gender – and other conceptual frameworks are needed to
study these particular cross-cultural differences.
It is important for future cross-cultural SEE research to highlight the differences between SEE
provision in cultures that are more likely to suppress emotion compared to those that do not, as
well as research the outcomes of differing ‘ideal affect’ on mental wellbeing in general. That
teachers in some cultures are more likely to suppress emotion in the classroom is an important
finding considering that adults socialise children’s emotions by modelling (and thus students
are being taught to suppress their emotions). In this respect, it does not matter how extensive
and timetabled social and emotional education is if the aim of the provision is to more easily
suppress emotion; negative consequences to regularly suppressing emotion have been
extensively studied, particularly to the teacher’s mental health and the concomitant
desensitisation to other people’s emotions (Cameron & Payne, 2011; Taxer & Frenzel, 2015;
Lee et al., 2016). Without discounting the effects of income inequality and socio-politicalfactors on mental health (World Health Organisation, 2009), emotional wellbeing can be
influenced by many other variables that have not received as much attention in the research
literature, and it should be a subject of further study just how much culture and the socialisationof emotion in schools are factors in overall emotional wellbeing.

Figure 1. Plot graph of Ideal Affect (suppression versus expression of emotion) and Ideal Self
(interdependence versus independence skills).

124

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Conclusion
Cultural differences in teachers’ opinions regarding social and emotional education were found
to exist in the present study, along with differences in SEE provision from culture to culture.
Hofstede's dimensions were able to predict cross-cultural differences in two aspects: thesuppression versus expression of emotion, and the emphasis on intrapersonal skills versus
interpersonal skills. These correct predictions have been used to create a conceptual frameworkfor future research to identify how SEE seeks to develop ideal affect and the ideal self.
However, the correct predictions of Hofstede’s dimensions were vastly outnumbered by what
they failed to take into account, including: differences in teachers’ opinions according togender, the differentiation of the teacher-student relationship between primary and secondary
school, and what countries were more likely to teach SEE more implicitly (relational) rather
than explicitly (competence-based approach). The author’s hope is that the present study canserve to highlight the basic differences in SEE from culture to culture and serve as a foundation
on which future research can be built.

125

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

References
Au, K. U. (1999). Intra-cultural variation: Evidence and implications for international
business. Journal of International Business Studies, 30, 799–812.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490840
Barrett, M., & McIntosh, M. (1982). The anti-social family. London: Verso.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Researchin Psychology, 3 (2), 77–101. https://doi.org/ 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Department for Education and Skills. (2005). Social and emotional aspects of learning.
Retrieved from:http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https://www.education.g
ov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/SEAL%20Guidance%202005.pdf
Djambazova-Popordanoska, S. (2016). Teachers’ perspectives and practices on social andsmotional Learning: Multiple case study approach. PhD Thesis: Deakin University.
Retrieved from:http://dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:30085447/djambazovapopordanoska-teachers2016A.pdf
Domitrovich, C., Durlak, J. A. & Gullotta, T.P. (2015). Handbook of social and emotional
learning: Research and practice. New York: The Guilford Press.
Emery, C. (2016). The New Labour discourse of social and emotional learning (SEL) acrossschools in England and Wales as a universal intervention. PhD Thesis: Manchester
Institute of Education. Retrieved from:https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/files/54586486/FULL_TEXT.PDF
Esen-Aygun, H., & Sahin-Taskin, C. (2017). Teachers’ views of social-emotional skills andtheir perspectives on social-emotional learning programs. Journal of Education andPractice, 8(7), 205–215.
Friedlmeier, W., Corapci, F. & Cole, P. M. (2011). Emotion socialization in cross-cultural
perspective. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(7), 410–427.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00362.x
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method. London: Verso.
Fundacion Botin. (2008, 2011, 2013, 2015). Emotional and social education. International
analysis. Santander: Fundacion Botin. Retrieved from:https://www.fundacionbotin.org/internal-education-area/emotional-and-socialeducation-international-analysis.html?lan=en
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work related
values. London: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 10, 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(86)90015-5
Humphrey, N. (2012). The social and emotional aspects of learning (SEAL) programme. In
P. Adey, & J. Dillon (Eds.), Bad education: Debunking myths in education (pp. 143–
160). London: McGraw-Hill International.
Inkeles, A. & Levinson, D.J. (1969). National character: The study of modal personality andsociocultural systems. The handbook of social psychology, 4, 418–506.
Layard, R., Clark, A. E., Cornaglia, F., Powdthavee, N., & Vernoit, J. (2014). What predicts a
successful life? A life-course model of well-being. The Economic Journal, 124(580), 720–
738. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12170
Mesoudi, A. (2011). Cultural evolution: How Darwinian theory can explain human culture
and synthesize the social sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
OECD. (2015). The power of social and emotional skills. Retrieved from:http://www.oecd.org/edu/skills-for-social-progress-9789264226159-en.htm

126

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Poulou, M. S. (2017). Social and emotional learning and teacher–student relationships:
Preschool teachers’ and students’ perceptions. Early Childhood Education Journal,
45(3), 427–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0800-3
Sklad, M. Diekstra, R. De Ritter, M. & Gravesteign, J. (2012). Effectiveness of school-based
universal social, emotional and behavioral programs. Psychology in the Schools,
49(9), 892–909. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21641
Skocpol, T., & Somers, M. (1980). The uses of comparative history in macrosocial inquiry.
Comparative Studies in Society and History, 22(2), 174–197.
Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of culture's consequences:
three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede's cultural value
dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 405–39. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0018938
Triliva, S., Poulou, M. (2006). Greek teachers' understandings and constructions of what
constitutes social and emotional learning. School Psychology International, 27(3),315–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034306067303
Wigelsworth, M., Lendruma, A., Oldfield, J., Scotta, A., Ten Bokekel, I., Tatea, K., &Emerya, C. (2016). The impact of trial stage, developer involvement and internationaltransferability on universal social and emotional learning programme outcomes: ameta-analysis. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(3), 347–376.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2016.1195791
World Health Organisation. (2009). Mental health, resilience and inequalities. Retrieved
from: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/100821/E92227.pdf
Zembylas, M., & Schutz, P. (2009). Research on teachers’ emotions in education: Findings,
practical implications and future agenda. In P. Schutz & M. Zembylas (Eds.),
Advances in teacher emotion research: The impact on teachers’ lives (pp. 367–378).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Corresponding author: Edurne Scott Loinaz
Contact email: edurne@haha.academy

127