## 4 Results
### Comparison of Gender Differences in Social Capital
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline  & & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Overview Result**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\(t\)**-Test for Equality of Means**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Variable**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Male**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**St. Dev.**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Female**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**St. Dev.**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**t**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**df**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Sig. (2-Tailed)**} \\ \hline
1 & People try to trust you & 3.71 & 0.966 & 3.77 & 0.801 & 0.633 & 599.79 & 0.527 \\
2 & People try to take advantage of you & 3.71 & 0.782 & 3.64 & 0.779 & \(-\)0.873 & 593.91 & 0.383 \\
3 & People try to be fair to you & 3.54 & 0.840 & 3.53 & 0.791 & 1.035 & 600 & 0.301 \\
4 & People try to be helpful to you & 3.89 & 0.741 & 3.89 & 0.644 & 0.094 & 595 & 0.925 \\  & Result & 3.71 & 0.643 & 3.71 & 0.526 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} \\  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} \\  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} \\  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} \\  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} \\  & Gender & N & Mean & St. Dev. & & & & \\ Male & & 313 & 3.71 & 0.643 & \(-\)0.081 & 592,62 & 0.936 \\  & Female & & 291 & 3.71 & 0.526 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Gender comparison: Social trust. The results in Table 4 show no statistically significant difference was found in the mean scores of males (\(M=3.49\), \(SD=0.681\)) and females (\(M=3.50\), \(SD=0.672\); \(t(603)\) = -0.132, \(p=0.90\)). Slight differences were found for some items, with males agreeing they were slightly more satisfied with life (\(M=3.92\)) than females (\(M=3.78\)), and females agreeing they had achieved the important things they want in life (\(M=3.44\)) to a greater extent than males (\(M=3.20\)). Table 5 displays the very similar responses for males and females. An independent samples t-test indicated no statistically significant difference in the mean score for males (\(M=3.71\), \(SD=0.643\)) and females (\(M=3.71\), \(SD=0.526\); \(t(592,62)=-0.081\), \(p=0.94\)). Table 6 highlights a statistically significant difference in the mean scores of males (\(M=3.19\), \(SD=0.777\)) and females (\(M=3.02\), \(SD=0.761\); \(t(603)=2.742\), \(p=0.01\)). However, by calculating the effect size with the use of Eta-squared (n2), as proposed by [PERSON] [67], who interprets the value of 0.01 as a small effect, 0.06 as a moderate effect and 0.14 as a large effect, the result indicates a small effect size (\(n2=0.012\)). Overall, males used SNSAs for civic purposes more than their female counterparts. Notably, males rated using SNSAs for contributing to social development (\(M=3.02\)) more than females (\(M=2.81\)), whereas females used SNSAs for participating in improving the living conditions of others (\(M=3.85\)) more than males (\(M=2.96\)). Table 7 shows a statistically significant difference in the political engagement scale for males (M = 2.98, SD = 0.826) and females (M = 2.68, SD = 0.838; t (603) = 4.378, \(p=0.00\)), but with a small effect size (n\({}^{2}=0.030\)). This result indicates that males used SNSAs to participate in political issues more than females did. The differences were particularly noticeable with regard to expressing opinions about public issues and supporting the protection of integrity and anti-corruption.