# Individual Differences in Psychological Stress Associated with Data Breach Experiences
## 3 Results
### Comparisons between Men and Women  
Table 3 shows comparisons between the men (\(n=190\)) and women (\(n=335\)) in the sample. The men were slightly older than the women and had more years of education, but they did not differ in ethnicity. Women reported more daily smartphone use than men and more daily social media use. With respect to the psychological measures (Table 4), as expected, women had significantly higher PSWQ scores and GAD-7 scores, consistent with previous research [20, 25, 26, 27]. As predicted, women had higher IES-R scores, as well as higher scores on the intrusion, avoidance, and hyperarousal subscales. A larger percentage of women had IES-R scores greater than 24 (25.4% vs. 14.2% for men), \(\chi^{2}(1)=9.00\), \(p=0.003\), \(\Phi=0.13\). Men had significantly higher self-ratings for digital security practices, digital security expertise, and digital threat awareness. Men and women did not differ in their post-data breach security.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Total Sample** & **Student** & **Community** & & & \\ \hline
**Mean (SD)** & **Mean (SD)** & **Mean (SD)** & \(t\) & \(p\) & **ES** \\ \hline Digital threat awareness & 4.03 (0.84) & 3.83 (0.90) & 4.12 (0.79) & 3.76 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.35 \\ Post-DB security & 22.03 (7.03) & 21.78 (7.02) & 22.14 (7.04) & 0.55 & 0.584 & 0.05 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Negative emotionality** = negative emotionality scale of the Big Five Inventory-2; PSWQ = Penn State Worry Questionnaire; GAD-7 = Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7; DB = data breach; \(ES\) = Cohen’s \(d\). \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: _Cont._  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Total Sample** & **Men** & **Women** & & & \\ \hline
**Mean (SD)** & **Mean (SD)** & **Mean (SD)** & **\(t\)** & \(p\)** & **ES** \\ \hline
**Age** & 35.16 (13.61) & 37.61 (11.78) & 33.77 (14.38) & 3.31 & 0.001 & 0.29 \\
**Education (years)** & 14.94 (2.17) & 15.22 (2.17) & 14.79 (2.15) & 2.19 & 0.029 & 0.20 \\ \hline  & \(n\) (\%) & \(n\) (\%) & \(n\) (\%) & \(\chi^{2}\) & \(p\) & \\ \hline
**Ethnicity** & & & & 4.69 & 0.321 & 0.09 \\ White & 355 (67.6) & 137 (72.1) & 218 (65.1) & & & & \\ Asian & 96 (18.3) & 29 (15.3) & 67 (20.0) & & & & \\ Black or African American & 24 (4.6) & 8 (4.2) & 16 (4.8) & & & & \\ Hispanic or Latin & 21 (4.0) & 9 (4.7) & 12 (3.6) & & & & \\ American & 29 (5.5) & 7 (3.7) & 22 (6.6) & & & & \\
**Smartphone use (per day)** & & & & & 35.32 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.26 \\
12+ h & 10 (1.9) & 1 (0.5) & 9 (2.7) & & & & \\
6–12 h & 67 (12.8) & 17 (8.9) & 50 (14.9) & & & & \\
3–6 h & 170 (32.4) & 43 (22.6) & 127 (37.9) & & & & \\
1–3 h & 200 (38.1) & 84 (44.2) & 116 (34.6) & & & & \\
0–1 h & 72 (13.7) & 43 (22.6) & 29 (8.7) & & & & \\ No smartphone & 6 (1.1) & 2 (1.1) & 4 (1.2) & & & & \\
**Social media use (per day)** & & & & 20.63 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.20 \\
12+ h & 0 (0) & 0 (0) & 0 (0.0) & & & & \\
6–12 h & 13 (2.5) & 2 (1.1) & 11 (3.3) & & & & \\
3–6 h & 85 (16.2) & 15 (7.9) & 70 (20.9) & & & & \\
1–3 h & 264 (50.3) & 100 (52.6) & 164 (49.0) & & & & \\
0–1 h & 163 (31.0) & 73 (38.4) & 90 (26.9) & & & & \\
**Browse use (per day)** & & & & & 0.71 & 0.950 & 0.04 \\
12+ h & 37 (7.0) & 15 (7.9) & 22 (6.6) & & & & \\
6–12 h & 162 (30.9) & 56 (29.5) & 106 (31.6) & & & & \\
3–6 h & 195 (37.1) & 73 (38.4) & 122 (36.4) & & & & \\
1–3 h & 113 (21.5) & 40 (21.1) & 73 (21.8) & & & & \\
0–1 h & 18 (3.4) & 6 (3.2) & 12 (3.6) & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **\(ES\)** = effect size; Cohen’s \(d\) for \(t\)-tests and Phi coefficient for chi-square. \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Demographic characteristics of the sample and comparisons between men and women.