step 1), fewer other-gender friends (Hdos), and higher anxiety in mixed-gender situations (Hstep three). Prior studies have not found any consistent moderating effect of student gender on the differences related to single-sex schooling, and we expected the school differences to be similar in boys and girls (Hcuatro). Nevertheless, we included student gender as a potential moderator as most prior studies did [4,13]. Across the two samples, we predicted that differences between single-sex and coeducational school students ple as the school differences may attenuate when all students were exposed to similar mixed-gender environments after graduation (H5). Also, we https://datingranking.net/hater-review/ hypothesized that the potential school difference in mixed-gender anxiety was mediated by gender salience (Hsix) and mixed-gender friendships (Height).
Participants.
Participants was in fact recruited from five regional highest colleges (you to definitely every-lady, that all-men as well as 2 coeducational) situated in demographically varied districts in Hong kong. Participants integrated Function step one to help you six (eight th so you’re able to several th values) people except for the new every-people school, where Function six children was basically excluded considering the school’s plan to own personal examination preparing. Questionnaires was basically given by the a category teacher in the for every single classification. Participants finished procedures for the mainly based variables and you can said the month-to-month family unit members income, parental knowledge and you may decades, quantities of sisters and you may brothers, and you can ethnicity. This research is carried out in accordance to your recommendations and you can recognition of the College or university of Hong-kong Person Browse Ethics Panel (HKU HREC). Students’ assent and you will inactive concur off moms and dads or guardians have been received in advance of analysis range. All of the victims offered created told consent in accordance with the Report of Helsinki.
A total of 2083 students participated in the study (participation rate: 84%). Twenty-four subjects were excluded from analyses due to missing or extreme data (11 coeducational school students did not indicate their gender and 13 students reported extremely unlikely values on demographic variables). The final sample (N = 2059, Mage = years, SD = 2.03) consisted of 589 boys and 376 girls from the two coeducational schools, 416 boys from the all-boys school, and 678 girls from the all-girls school. This sample size had over 99% a priori power to detect small differences (.20 < d < .30) at ? = .05, two-tailed . Participants were mainly Chinese (89%). Among the four participating schools, the all-boys school and one coeducational school were in Band 2, while the all-girls school and the other coeducational school were in Band 3. All participating schools used Chinese as the teaching language. Some schools used spoken Cantonese and some used spoken Mandarin in class, but they used the same written language in formal printed materials. Therefore, the questionnaires were printed in Chinese. Consistent with prior research [3,4,8], participants from single-sex schools had parents with higher education level, t(2042) = -7.157, p < .001, and attended more academically excellent schools, t(2023) = -, p < .001, unequal variances, than did participants from coeducational schools. The average parental education level of the sample (i.e., between junior secondary to senior secondary) was similar to a representative sample of over 9000 students from local high schools, one from each of the 19 districts in Hong Kong . Detailed participant characteristics are presented in Table 1.
Intercourse salience scale.
Intercourse salience is counted from the McGuire ainsi que al.’s method . Which level has been shown become on the or inspired by intercourse structure [27,53]. People was indeed questioned supply about three short responses every single regarding both of these concerns: “Let me know what you’re” and you will “Let me know what you’re maybe not”. They certainly were trained to write down whatever they could think of instantly. This new responses was basically following coded because “gender-related” or “non-gender-related”. Desk 2 reveals types of this coding design. Answers had been first coded by themselves of the several coders. Inter-rater precision is higher for everyone answers (all the ? > .93). Disagreements was in fact following fixed of the talks among them coders. The full number of sex-related responses along side one or two issues is summed to point gender salience.