Efficiency
coeducational) ? dos (college student intercourse: male versus. female) ANCOVAs was in fact held towards the sex salience, part of almost every other-gender best friends, complete blended-sex anxiety additionally the around three anxiety subscales (come across Dining table eight). Most of the lead details had skewness (ranging from .0cuatro0 to a single.235) and you will kurtosis (ranging from .488 so you can .670) that were in this appropriate selections . New projected marginal form and you may basic mistakes of your outcome details are shown within the Table 8 (correlations one of many studies variables was demonstrated during the Dining table Age inside S1 Document). The newest ANOVA abilities versus covariates can be found in Table F in S1 Document. Mediation analyses was in fact used to understand more about if college differences in mixed-gender nervousness were mediated by the blended-gender friendships and you can/or sex salience. The analyses controlled to own parental money, adult degree, amount of brothers, level of sisters, university banding, brand new four size of sexual direction, faculty, and you can student ages; new analyses with the sexsearch blended-sex nervousness in addition to regulated having 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.
Portion of 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-gender 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.
Second research: Performed university variations rely on 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 subsequent conducted a few “College type (single-sex versus. coeducational) ? Scholar sex (men versus. female) ? College or university seasons (first year compared to. non-first 12 months)” ANCOVAs to the university try (select Desk G within the additional information) to test to have potential school 12 months consequences. Overall performance presented zero fundamental aftereffect of college year or one telecommunications associated with college or university 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.
