Table 3 continued Gender role Measure / Coping Stressful Scoring Measure Author Population Situation Statistical Analysis Key findings Statistics procedure (Dependent investigated (Independent Variable) Variable) Regression Femininity positively predicted = .18 β coping (2011) Masculinity positively predicted continued = .16 β coping Femininity positively predicted = .18 β coping Neither significantly predicted coping: Masculinity = .10 β Femininity = -.09 β Long (1989) Employed Work-related BSRI / WCCL, MANOVA No significant findings for and (masc. × 274) = 1.08, ns F(3, females stressor Median-split Preventative Occupation × fem. interaction) and coping scale Masculinity × Significant differences associated with 274) = 25.18, < .01 F(3, p masculinity Femininity masc. × femininity Significant differences associated with 274) = 3.10, < .05 F(3, p interaction fem. High mas, compared to low masc. Follow-up individuals used more: ANOVAs problem relative to emotion-focus coping 276) = 14.13, < .01 F(1, p d (for different = .44 coping scores) more preventative coping 276) = 22.24, < .01 F(1, p = .55 d High fem., compared to low fem. used 276) = 5.95, < .05 F(1, p more preventative strategies = .27 d * indicates full statistics not reported in the study. Andr. = Androgynous, Masc. = Masculine, Fem. = Feminine, Und. = Undifferentiated. Note.
Table 3 continued Author Population Stressful Situation investigated Gender role Measure / Scoring procedure (Independent Variable) Coping Measure (Dependent Variable) Statistical Analysis Key findings Statistics (2011) continued Regression Femininity positively predicted coping Masculinity positively predicted coping Femininity positively predicted coping Neither significantly predicted Masculinity Femininity β = .18 β = .16 β = .18 β = .10 β = -.09 Long (1989) Employed females Work-related stressor BSRI / Median-split and masculinity × femininity interaction WCCL, Preventative coping scale MANOVA Occupation × Masculinity × Femininity Follow-up ANOVAs (for different coping scores) No significant findings for and (masc. × fem. interaction) Significant differences associated with masc. Significant differences associated with fem. High mas, compared to low masc. individuals used more: problem relative to emotion-focus coping more preventative coping High fem., compared to low fem. used more preventative strategies F(3, 274) = 1.08, ns F(3, 274) = 25.18, p < .01 F(3, 274) = 3.10, p < .05 F(1, 276) = 14.13, p < .01 d = .44 F(1, 276) = 22.24, p < .01 d = .55 F(1, 276) = 5.95, p < .05 d = .27 Note. * indicates full statistics not reported in the study. Andr. = Androgynous, Masc. = Masculine, Fem. = Feminine, Und. = Undifferentiated. coping: