Some dos (school: single-sex vs
Results
coeducational) ? dos (college student gender: men against. female) ANCOVAs were conducted with the intercourse salience, percentage of almost every other-sex close friends, total mixed-sex stress and around three nervousness subscales (discover Table eight). All of the benefit parameters got skewness (ranging from .0cuatro0 to one.2step three5) and you will kurtosis (anywhere between .488 in order to .670) which were within this appropriate selections . The new projected limited mode and you may important errors of the benefit variables are offered when you look at the Desk 8 (correlations one of the analysis variables try showed when you look at the Table E during the S1 Document). Brand new ANOVA results without covariates have been in Desk F from inside the S1 File. Mediation analyses was in fact presented to explore whether or not college or university differences in mixed-intercourse anxiety was indeed mediated of the mixed-gender friendships and you will/or gender salience. All analyses controlled having parental earnings, parental degree, level of brothers, number of siblings, college banding, this new four size of intimate direction, professors, and you may beginner age; the fresh new analyses with the blended-sex anxiety along with regulated to possess social stress.
Sex salience.
In contrast to Study 1, there were no main effects of school type or student gender and no interaction effects on gender salience. Therefore, H1 was not supported.
Part of other-sex 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 nervousness.
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.
Additional study: Did college or university distinctions depend on college or university year?
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.
I after that used a series of “School particular (single-intercourse compared to. coeducational) ? Pupil sex (men versus. female) ? School seasons (first year versus. non-first year)” ANCOVAs to your university sample (come across Table Grams from inside the additional materials) to evaluate for possible school season outcomes. Show displayed no head effectation of college or university 12 months otherwise any communications of college seasons.
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 good grief 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.