Review Reports - Exploring Emotional Intelligence, Attitudes Towards Disability, and Sexism Among Future Teachers in Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript, which focuses on the interplay of emotional intelligence, attitudes toward disability, and sexism. Despite the study is based on a representative and considerable sample, the rather simplistic data analysis and the writing style of the manuscript do not meet the reporting standards for empirical research.

In brief, some comments and suggestions for the revision:

Abstract

Please remove details regarding the institutions for the sampling procedure. These can be stated in greater detail in the methodological section,

Introduction

In the current version, the review of literature consists of brief paragraphs summarizing previous research regarding singular constructs of the empirical research. It is not stated, what kind of theoretical model is assumed for the interplay of these constructs. Please elaborate the introduction by including a definition of the terms used in the study.

I assume that the lines 51-59 on page 2 are (part of) a prompt for an AI-base tool. Was AI used according to the journal's guidelines? Is it necessary to mention the use of AI in the methodology or in another section of the paper?

Methods

Please, explain how and on what theoretical/psychometrical basis the ASI-scorse are divided into "high" "half" "low" (see Table 3).

Please, include a correct citation of SPSS (was developed by IBM not Windows).

Results

Ensure that all decimals are divided by a dot (not a comma) and that the number of decimals is consistent (always 2 or 3).

Why are lines 239-254 on pages 7-8 in Spanish?

Please include a full correlation table (Table 8) as other intercorrelations might be interesting to explore.

Based on the sample size, a more complex analysis (regression and/or mediation analysis) might increase the originality and quality of the study report.

Discussion

According to reporting standards, the discussion should not present new literature, rather use the previously reported literature to contextualize the findings.

Author Response

We are grateful to both reviewers for their constructive feedback. Below we respond point-by-point and indicate the corresponding revisions in the manuscript “Exploring Emotional Intelligence, Attitudes towards Disability, and Sexism among Future Teachers in Spain.” All changes have been implemented in the revised version (English throughout, APA style, uniform decimal conventions).

Response to Reviewer 1

Abstract—sampling details
Comment. Remove institutional details from the Abstract.
Response. Done. We removed institutional identifiers from the Abstract and relocated the sampling description to Methods → Participants/Procedure.
Introduction—definitions and integrative model
Comment. The literature review was fragmented; define key constructs and state the theoretical model for their interplay.
Response. We rewrote the Introduction to include concise definitions (EI as Attention/Clarity/Regulation; ambivalent sexism as HS/BS; attitudes toward disability as a unidimensional evaluative construct) and an integrative rationale (EI ↗ attitudes; EI ↘ HS/BS; HS/BS ↘ attitudes). See Introduction → Key constructs and Introduction → Integrative rationale.
AI usage disclosure
Comment. Lines appeared to be an AI prompt; clarify compliance.
Response. We removed those lines. We confirm compliance with journal policy: no generative AI was used for study design, analyses, or conclusions. Minor language editing assistance is disclosed in Acknowledgments/Author Notes.
Methods—basis for ASI “high/medium/low”
Comment. Explain how ASI groups were defined.
Response. We clarified that terciles were used only for descriptive profiling within this sample; all inferential tests used continuous ASI scores (Total, HS, BS). We added a table note in Table 3 and a sentence in Methods → Measures.
Methods—SPSS citation
Comment. Cite SPSS correctly (IBM).
Response. Corrected to IBM SPSS Statistics with version and publisher in Methods → Data analysis and in References.
Results—decimal and language consistency
Comment. Use dots for decimals and consistent precision; remove Spanish text.
Response. We standardized all numerics: dot as decimal separator; two decimals for means/SDs and r; three decimals for p (reporting p < .001 when appropriate). We also translated the remaining Spanish lines; the entire Results section is now in English.
Results—full correlation table (Table 8)
Comment. Provide the full correlation matrix.
Response. Added Table 8 with EI subdimensions, Attitudes–Total, ASI (HS/BS), and Bullying (Aggressor/Victim). Notes specify triangle format, significance flags, and abbreviations.
Results—more complex analysis
Comment. Consider regression and/or mediation given the sample size.
Response. Added hierarchical multiple regressions (Table 9) predicting Attitudes–Total:

Step 1: covariates (age, sex, prior contact, inclusive-education training, university dummies)
Step 2: EI subdimensions (Attention, Clarity, Regulation)
Step 3: ASI (HS, BS)
Findings: EI explained 9% of variance; adding HS/BS increased to 12% (ΔR² = .03). In the final model, Attention (β = .29) and Regulation (β = .10) were positive predictors; Hostile Sexism was negative (β = −.19), Benevolent Sexism ns.
We did not add mediation to avoid over-interpreting a cross-sectional design; this is acknowledged in Discussion → Limitations.

Discussion—no new literature
Comment. Do not introduce new literature; contextualize with previously cited sources.
Response. Rewrote Discussion to foreground regression results (R², ΔR², β), connect to the zero-order correlations, and discuss within the conceptual frameworks already cited, without adding new sources.
Formatting/labelling clean-up
Comment. Replace “Half” with “Mean”; uniform English headings.
Response. Corrected labels (e.g., Mean, SD/SEM) and harmonized terminology (EI–Regulation, HS/BS) across tables and text. Table notes specify decimal rules. We also replaced symbolic arrows (→, ↔) with verbal formulations (“predicted”, “associated with”).

Response to Reviewer 2

Overall assessment acknowledged. We thank the reviewer for recognizing the solid structure and alignment with methodological standards.

Introduction—add brief theoretical/social contextualization
Comment. Enrich the Introduction by (a) clarifying inclusion and its educational value; (b) highlighting the role/benefits of EI in teaching and inclusive climates; (c) stressing the influence of initial teacher education in preventing discriminatory attitudes.
Response. We inserted a new paragraph in the Introduction, placed immediately after the opening paragraph and before “Key constructs.” It reads:

Inclusive education is understood as the systematic removal of barriers to participation and learning for all learners and the creation of classroom climates that value diversity and equitable opportunities (UNESCO, 2020). Within this agenda, teachers’ socio-emotional competences—captured in the TMMS facets of emotional attention, clarity, and regulation—are theorized to support instructional responsiveness, classroom management, and the affective conditions for learning (Salovey et al., 1995; Fernández-Berrocal et al., 2004). Evidence across educational settings indicates that EI relates to beneficial outcomes such as academic performance and adaptive classroom functioning, and that emotion-regulation skills are associated with teacher well-being and positive emotional climates (Quílez-Robres et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2025). Because inclusive environments depend not only on resources but also on teachers’ beliefs, initial teacher education is a strategic lever for fostering dispositions aligned with inclusion and for preventing discriminatory attitudes. In particular, addressing prejudicial gender beliefs conceptualized by the ambivalent sexism framework—hostile and benevolent components—may reduce barriers to equitable participation and complement the development of EI competences (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Against this background, the present study examines how EI and ambivalent sexism jointly relate to attitudes toward disability in prospective teachers, providing evidence relevant to the design of initial-teacher-education curricula that promote inclusive school environments.

This addition defines inclusion, articulates why EI matters for teaching and classroom climate, and identifies initial teacher education as a strategic space to prevent discriminatory attitudes—exactly as requested. It dovetails with the constructs and analyses developed in the rest of the manuscript.

Global consistency and references

Language & style. English throughout; no Spanish fragments; arrow symbols replaced by verbal phrasing; consistent use of HS/BS and Regulation.
Numbers & reporting. Dot decimals; two decimals for means/SDs/r; three decimals for p; p < .001 reported when appropriate; table notes specify conventions.
Tables. Table 8 (full correlation matrix) and Table 9 (hierarchical regressions) added; Table 3 note clarifies terciles as descriptive only.
Software. Corrected to IBM SPSS Statistics with version and publisher.
References. We reconciled in-text citations and reference list, added missing core entries (e.g., UNESCO 2020; Salovey et al., 1995; Fernández-Berrocal et al., 2004; Glick & Fiske, 1996; Expósito et al., 1998; Arias et al., 2016) and supplied DOIs/URLs where available. Items not cited were removed or integrated, and formatting was normalized to APA 7 (journal titles/volumes in italics, sentence case titles, full DOI URLs).

New result

The Introduction now provides a concise contextual justification and clearer conceptual anchoring.
The Results include both the full correlation matrix and hierarchical regressions, addressing the request for a more complex analysis.
The Discussion emphasizes the regression findings and remains within previously cited literature.
The manuscript is fully standardized in language, formatting, and references.

We sincerely thank both reviewers for their valuable input, which has improved the clarity, methodological rigor, and relevance of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In general terms, the manuscript presents a solid and well-balanced structure, including the sections on methodological design, sample, instruments, results, and conclusions, all of which are aligned with the quality standards expected of a scientific study. The methodology is clearly described, the instruments are appropriately identified, the sample is consistent both in size and institutional distribution, and the results and conclusions demonstrate coherence and relevance in relation to the research objective.

However, the initial section corresponding to the introduction appears somewhat superficial and requires further elaboration. It is recommended to enrich this section by incorporating a brief theoretical or social contextualization that justifies the relevance of the study, highlighting, for example, the role of emotional intelligence in teaching practice, its benefits in different educational contexts, its relationship with the development of inclusive school environments, as well as the influence of initial teacher training in preventing discriminatory attitudes. It would also be valuable to clarify what inclusion entails and how environments that address diversity contribute positively to education. A more developed introduction would not only situate the research more clearly within its conceptual framework but would also strengthen its interest and relevance for the academic community.

Consequently, my recommendation is to accept the manuscript with modifications, specifically the elaboration of a more comprehensive introduction that incorporates the elements outlined above.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

Overall assessment acknowledged. We thank the reviewer for recognizing the solid structure and alignment with methodological standards.

Global consistency and references

Language & style. English throughout; no Spanish fragments; arrow symbols replaced by verbal phrasing; consistent use of HS/BS and Regulation.
Numbers & reporting. Dot decimals; two decimals for means/SDs/r; three decimals for p; p < .001 reported when appropriate; table notes specify conventions.
Tables. Table 8 (full correlation matrix) and Table 9 (hierarchical regressions) added; Table 3 note clarifies terciles as descriptive only.
Software. Corrected to IBM SPSS Statistics with version and publisher.
References. We reconciled in-text citations and reference list, added missing core entries (e.g., UNESCO 2020; Salovey et al., 1995; Fernández-Berrocal et al., 2004; Glick & Fiske, 1996; Expósito et al., 1998; Arias et al., 2016) and supplied DOIs/URLs where available. Items not cited were removed or integrated, and formatting was normalized to APA 7 (journal titles/volumes in italics, sentence case titles, full DOI URLs).

New result

The Introduction now provides a concise contextual justification and clearer conceptual anchoring.
The Results include both the full correlation matrix and hierarchical regressions, addressing the request for a more complex analysis.
The Discussion emphasizes the regression findings and remains within previously cited literature.
The manuscript is fully standardized in language, formatting, and references.

We sincerely thank both reviewers for their valuable input, which has improved the clarity, methodological rigor, and relevance of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I sincerely thank the authors for the attention and effort dedicated to incorporating the previously suggested revisions. The adjustments made have significantly strengthened the clarity and coherence of the manuscript, resulting in a better understanding of the findings and greater methodological rigor. The commitment demonstrated to improving the text is evident and reflects a high level of academic rigor. I am convinced that these modifications contribute substantially to the final quality of the work and to its potential impact in the field of science education.