Table 3 continued Gender role Measure / Coping Stressful Scoring Measure Author Population Situation Statistical Analysis Key findings Statistics procedure (Dependent investigated (Independent Variable) Variable) Cheng (2005a) Post hoc t-tests Perceived as less effective in controllable continued situations: diverting attention = -4.66, < .001 t(24) p acceptance = -12.73, < .001 t(24) p MANOVA Event Masc.: controllability × Main effect of coping 168) = 18.96, < .001 F(7, p Coping (for effectiveness ratings Fem.: 168) = 12.49, < .001 F(7, p independently for Main effect of coping each group) Cheng Hypothetical BSRI / 1 SD Purpose MANOVA The Andr., Masc. and Und. groups differed (2005b) controllable above or designed. Group × Sex × on use of: * and below mean Participants Coping strategies diverting attention > 7.39, < .001 Fs ps uncontrollable femininity chose direction action situations and whether they catharsis masculinity would 72) = 1.77, F(2, ns scores. deploy one ANOVA Variety of coping strategies used did not Also of eight Aggregated coping differ between gender role groups. required to coping strategy use score × imagine strategies Four situations (for they are a each group) male or * 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 Cheng (2005a) continued Post hoc t-tests MANOVA Event controllability × Coping (for effectiveness ratings independently for each group) Perceived as less effective in controllable situations: diverting attention acceptance Masc.: Main effect of coping Fem.: Main effect of coping t(24) = -4.66, p < .001 t(24) = -12.73, p < .001 F(7, 168) = 18.96, p < .001 F(7, 168) = 12.49, p < .001 Cheng (2005b) Hypothetical controllable and uncontrollable situations BSRI / 1 SD above or below mean femininity and masculinity scores. Also required to imagine they are a male or Purpose designed. Participants chose whether they would deploy one of eight coping strategies MANOVA Group × Sex × Coping strategies ANOVA Aggregated coping strategy use score × Four situations (for each group) The Andr., Masc. and Und. groups differed on use of: diverting attention direction action catharsis Variety of coping strategies used did not differ between gender role groups. * Fs > 7.39, ps < .001 F(2, 72) = 1.77, ns Note. * indicates full statistics not reported in the study. Andr. = Androgynous, Masc. = Masculine, Fem. = Feminine, Und. = Undifferentiated