Table 3 Summary of relevant findings from studies included in this review Gender role Measure / Coping Stressful Scoring Measure Author Population Situation Statistical Analysis Key findings Statistics procedure (Dependent investigated (Independent Variable) Variable) Babladelis Undergraduate Hypothetical BSRI / FIRO - ANOVA No significant differences between gender * (1978) students situations of method role groups interpersonal anxiety Brems & College None BSRI / PSI, Regressions Masc. significantly predicted: * Johnson students specified Masculinity problem-solving confidence Partial = -.29 r (1989) × femininity approach coping strategies Partial = -.29 r interaction total coping abilities Partial r = -.34 Fem. significantly predicted turning Partial = .114 r against self Cheng First year 10 events BSRI / 1 SD Purpose MANOVA Andr. individuals coped more flexibly, < .001 p (2005a) university experienced in above or designed Group × Coping compared to other gender roles students relation to below mean measure flexibility university life. femininity similar to Participants and CFQ. MANOVA Three gender role groups used coping 504) = 10.69, < F(14, p rated the masculinity Participants Group × Event strategies differently across events or .001 controllability scores described controllability × varying controllability. of the event. how they Coping coped in Andr.: situation, main effect of coping found 168) = 11.60, < .001 F(7, p then ascribed a coping interaction effect found 168) = 22.41, < .001 F(7, p category (out * indicates full statistics not reported in the study. Andr. = Androgynous, Masc. = Masculine, Fem. = Feminine, Und. = Undifferentiated Note.
Table 3 Summary of relevant findings from studies included in this review Author Population Stressful Situation investigated Gender role Measure / Scoring procedure (Independent Variable) Coping Measure (Dependent Variable) Statistical Analysis Key findings Statistics Babladelis (1978) Undergraduate students Hypothetical situations of interpersonal anxiety BSRI / method FIRO - ANOVA No significant differences between gender role groups * Brems & Johnson (1989) College students None specified BSRI / Masculinity × femininity interaction PSI, Regressions Masc. significantly predicted: problem-solving confidence approach coping strategies total coping abilities Fem. significantly predicted turning against self * Partial r = -.29 Partial r = -.29 Partial r = -.34 Partial r = .114 Cheng (2005a) First year university students 10 events experienced in relation to university life. Participants rated the controllability of the event. BSRI / 1 SD above or below mean femininity and masculinity scores Purpose designed measure similar to CFQ. Participants described how they coped in situation, then ascribed a coping category (out MANOVA Group × Coping flexibility MANOVA Group × Event controllability × Coping Andr. individuals coped more flexibly, compared to other gender roles Three gender role groups used coping strategies differently across events or varying controllability. Andr.: main effect of coping found interaction effect found p < .001 F(14, 504) = 10.69, p < .001 F(7, 168) = 11.60, p < .001 F(7, 168) = 22.41, p < .001 Note. * indicates full statistics not reported in the study. Andr. = Androgynous, Masc. = Masculine, Fem. = Feminine, Und. = Undifferentiated