Results
coeducational) ? 2 (student intercourse: men versus. female) ANCOVAs have been held on intercourse salience, portion of almost every other-intercourse best friends, complete mixed-intercourse anxiety and the around three stress subscales (get a hold of Dining table eight). The benefit parameters got skewness (ranging from .0cuatro0 to one.2step 35) and you can kurtosis (anywhere between .488 in order to .670) that have been contained in this appropriate selections . smore visitors The projected marginal setting and you may standard errors of the lead parameters get within the Dining table 8 (correlations among the many research details was demonstrated from inside the Desk Age from inside the S1 Document). The brand new ANOVA show instead of covariates come in Desk F into the S1 File. Mediation analyses was indeed held to explore if college differences in blended-sex nervousness was basically mediated by the blended-intercourse relationships and you will/otherwise intercourse salience. All of the analyses managed to possess adult income, parental education, quantity of brothers, amount of siblings, college banding, the latest five dimensions of intimate positioning, faculty, and you will scholar age; the fresh analyses with the combined-sex anxiety together with regulated for public nervousness.
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.
Percentage of most other-gender best 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.
Supplementary studies: Performed college variations trust 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.
We after that used a few “School style of (single-sex versus. coeducational) ? Beginner gender (men versus. female) ? College or university 12 months (first 12 months versus. non-first 12 months)” ANCOVAs into the college sample (see Desk Grams inside the additional materials) to evaluate to own possible university seasons effects. Efficiency presented zero head effectation of school seasons otherwise people correspondence of college 12 months.
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.
