Overall performance

coeducational) ? 2 (scholar gender: male versus. female) ANCOVAs was basically used into the gender salience, part of most other-intercourse best friends, overall combined-sex nervousness and also the three stress subscales (come across Table seven). Every result parameters had skewness (anywhere between .040 to at least one.235) and kurtosis (ranging from .488 so you can .670) that have been contained in this appropriate selections . Brand new estimated marginal function and you will standard errors of one’s outcome details get during the Desk 8 (correlations one of many research variables is presented inside the Desk E into the S1 File). The brand new ANOVA results rather than covariates have Desk F when you look at the S1 Document. Mediation analyses was basically conducted to explore whether college differences in combined-sex stress was in fact mediated of the combined-sex relationships and/or sex salience. All of the analyses managed to possess parental income, adult training, quantity of brothers, amount of sisters, university banding, new five dimensions of intimate direction, faculty, and you can pupil many years; the brand new analyses into the blended-gender nervousness also controlled having social anxiety.

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.

Portion of most other-sex 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-gender 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.

Additional analysis: Did university variations count 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 then presented a series of “College or university variety of (single-gender vs. coeducational) ? Student intercourse (men versus. female) ? University seasons (first year versus. non-first 12 months)” ANCOVAs into school sample (look for Dining table G into the hot or not free app secondary content) to check on to possess prospective college or university season effects. Overall performance demonstrated zero main effectation of school season otherwise one correspondence involving 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.