21 Lug A few dos (school: single-gender vs
Performance
coeducational) ? dos (pupil gender: male versus. female) ANCOVAs was basically held on sex salience, percentage of most other-gender best friends, overall combined-sex nervousness while the around three anxiety subscales (pick Desk eight). All result details had skewness (anywhere between .0cuatro0 to just one.2step 35) and kurtosis (between .488 so you can .670) that were inside acceptable range . The fresh new estimated marginal function and you can important problems of benefit parameters receive for the Desk 8 (correlations among the many research details try showed when you look at the Dining table E inside the S1 Document). Brand new ANOVA efficiency in place of covariates have Desk F within the S1 File. Mediation analyses had been held to explore if or not college variations in blended-sex nervousness was basically mediated by mixed-sex relationships and/or sex salience. All analyses managed to possess adult earnings, adult training, level of brothers, amount of sisters, college banding, the new four size of intimate positioning, faculty, and you can student decades; the latest analyses towards blended-gender nervousness plus regulated for personal nervousness.
Intercourse 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.
Percentage of most 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-gender stress.
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 studies: Did university variations count on school 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.
I after that used a series of “College or university sorts of (single-gender against. coeducational) ? Scholar intercourse (male compared to. female) ? University 12 months (first 12 months compared to. non-first year)” ANCOVAs to your college dating senior match attempt (discover Dining table G for the secondary material) to test to possess possible school year effects. Show shown no fundamental effect of college season or one communication connected with college or university 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 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.