20 Jul
Show
coeducational) ? 2 (pupil gender: men against. female) ANCOVAs were conducted to the sex salience, portion of most other-sex close friends, total combined-sex anxiety plus the three nervousness subscales (select Desk 7). Every consequences parameters got skewness (anywhere between .040 to just one.2step three5) and you may kurtosis (between .488 to .670) that have been inside acceptable range . The latest estimated marginal form and fundamental problems of one’s lead parameters receive in Dining table 8 (correlations one of many studies parameters is showed into the Desk Age in S1 File). The ANOVA performance without covariates have Desk F from inside the S1 File. Mediation analyses was used to explore whether or not university differences in combined-sex stress was mediated by the blended-intercourse relationships and/or gender salience. Every analyses managed for parental money, adult degree, number of brothers, quantity of sisters, school banding, the latest four proportions of sexual direction, faculty, and you may beginner decades; new analyses toward blended-sex stress and controlled to possess social stress.
Intercourse salience.
In contrast to Study 1, there https://datingranking.net/our-teen-network-review/ were no main effects of school type or student gender and no interaction effects on gender salience. Therefore, H1 was not supported.
Portion of almost every other-gender close friends.
There was a main effect of school type, with coeducational school students reporting a larger percentage of other-gender close friends than single-sex school students, p < .001, d = .47, supporting H2. There was also a main effect of student gender, with male students reporting a larger percentage of other-gender close friends than female students (p = .005, d = .27). Consistent with H4, there was no interaction effect with student gender.
Mixed-intercourse anxiety.
Single-sex school students reported higher levels of total mixed-gender anxiety (p = .009, d = .25), Social Distress in Dating (p = .007, d = .26), and Social Distress in Mixed-gender Groups (p = .007, d = .26) than coeducational school students. There was no main effect of school in Fear of Negative Evaluation. Therefore, H3 was largely supported. Male students reported higher levels of total mixed-gender anxiety (p = .020, d = .22) and Fear of Negative Evaluation (p = .008, d = .25) than female students. There were no main effects of student gender in Social Distress in Dating and Social Distress in Mixed-gender Groups. Consistent with H4, there were no interaction effects with student gender in all forms of mixed-gender anxiety.
Secondary analysis: Did school variations count on college or university 12 months?
Comparing across the two samples, the differences between single-sex school students and coeducational school students were more pronounced in the high school sample, supporting H5. For example, gender salience and fear of negative evaluation differed between single-sex and coeducational school students only in the high school sample.
We further presented a few “College variety of (single-intercourse against. coeducational) ? Beginner intercourse (male compared to. female) ? College 12 months (first 12 months vs. non-first year)†ANCOVAs with the college sample (see Dining table Grams in the second content) to evaluate to have possible university 12 months outcomes. Performance presented no main effectation of university seasons otherwise people communication associated with school season.
Mediations.
As in Study 1, mediation analyses were conducted using PROCESS with 10,000 bootstrap samples and the same mediation model, except that for Study 2, the covariates were parental income, parental education, number of brothers, number of sisters, school banding, the four dimensions of sexual orientation, faculty, student age, and social anxiety. Each form of mixed-gender anxiety was analyzed separately (see Table 9). Percentage of other-gender close friends mediated the school differences in total mixed-gender anxiety, Social Distress in Dating, and Social Distress in Mixed-gender Groups, but not Fear of Negative Evaluation. Thus, H7 was partially supported. As in Study 1, there were no significant indirect effects of gender salience on either total or any particular form of mixed-gender anxiety. Alternative mediation models were also conducted (see Figure A in S1 File for the generic alternative mediation model and Table H for the results). Results showed significant indirect effects of total mixed-gender anxiety, Social Distress in Dating and Social Distress in Mixed-gender Groups on the percentage of other-gender close friends.