Table 2 Demographic information from included studies Study N Gender Gender role Age Country/ Ethnicity Education Employment Female Male Babladelis (1978) 163 Did not report Did not report Did not report United States/ Did not report Undergraduate Psychology students Did not report Did not report Brems & Johnson (1989) 138 63 75 Not reported M = 23.1, SD = 3.6 United States/ Did not report Undergraduate (unspecified courses) 2% sophomore, 17% junior, 78% senior, 3% graduate Did not report Cheng (2001a) 75 43 32 25 and/ 25 masc./ 25 fem. M = 19.08, SD = 0.65 Hong Kong Undergraduate students (course unspecified) Did not report Cheng (2001b) 75 38 37 25 andr./ 25 mas. / 25 fem. M = 20.83, SD = 1.46 Hong Kong Undergraduate students (course unspecified) Did not report Chomczyńska -Rubacha & Rubacha (2012) 123 77 46 Did not report M = 32 Polish/ Did not report Undergraduates (course unreported) Did not report Dimitrovsky, Levy-Shiff & Perl (2000) 97 97 0 20 andr./ 21 masc./ 50 fem./ 6 und. M = 26.4 Israel/ Did not report Did not report Did not report
Table 2 Continued Study N Gender Gender role Age Country/ Ethnicity Education Employment Female Male Gianakos (2000) 176 130 46 Not reported M = 24.2, SD = 7.19 United States/ 161 White, 9 African American, 2 Native American, 1 Biracial/ 3 no response Psychology undergraduate students All part-time employed, mean hours per week = 29.36 Hirokawa, Yagi, Miyata (2004) 916 563 353 134 andr. (55 males/ 79 females)/ 275 masc. (105 males/ 170 females)/ 256 fem. (95 males/161 females)/ 157 und. (65 males/ 92 females)/ 94 mid. (33 males/ 61 females) M = 18.7, SD = 1.1 Japanese/ Did not report Undergraduates (course unclear) Did not report Huang, Zhu, Zheng, Zhang & Shiomi (2012) 432 209 223 152 andr. (85 male/ 67 female)/ 66 masc. ( 38 male/28 female) / 63 fem. (17 male/ 46 female) / 151 und. (83 male/ 68 female) Range = 17 - 24 Chinese/ Did not report Undergraduates (Liberal arts, and science/engineering) 28.2% freshmen, 19.9% sophomore, 28.2% juniors, 23.6% seniors Did not report Jones, Medenhall & Myers (2016) 197 153 44 68 andr./ 48 masc./ 37 fem./ 44 und. M = 22.96, SD = 7.37 United States/ Did not report Psychology undergraduates Did not report
Table 2 Continued Study N Gender Gender role Age Country/ Ethnicity Education Employment Female Male (2011) 308 123 185 115 andr. (69 male/46 female)/ 48 c-s (39 male/9 female)/ 66 s-t (12 male/54 female)/ 79 und. (65 male/14 female) Females: M= 43.11. Males: M = 46.52 Poland/ Did not report Women: Secondary 64.23% Higher 29.27% Men: Occupational 60% Secondary 24.32% City transport company. Mean years of employment for men = 19 years, women = 11 years Long (1989) 281 281 0 57 andr./ 64 fem. / 90 masc. / 70 und. M = 38.1 Canada/ Did not report 50% had college or university education All employed (details limited) Long (1990) 132 72 60 Did not report Females: M = 38.1, SD = 8.1 Males: M = 41.9, SD = 7.9 Canada / Did not report 78% females and 67% of men had college or university education All full-time managers May & Spangenberg (1997) 169 0 169 68 andr./ 48 masc./ 37 fem./ 44 undif M = 37 South African/ Did not report but first language = Afrikaans 111, English 54, German 3, Venda 1 MBA Business Masters students Did not report
Table 2 Continued Study N Gender Gender role Age Country/ Ethnicity Education Employment Female Male McCall & Struthers (1994) 214 107 107 Did not report Did not report United States/ Did not report College students (Business, Psychology and Communication) Did not report Nezu & Nezu (1987) 211 119 92 57 andr./(19 male/38 female)/ 43 masc. (27 male/16 female)/ 65 fem. (21 male/44 female)/ 46 und. (25 male/21 female) M = 25.3 United States/ Did not report Undergraduate and graduate students (course unclear) Did not report Patterson & McCubbin (1984) 82 82 0 23 and/ 59 M = 29 United States/ Did not report M= 13.5 years formal education Did not report Spangenberg & Lategan (1993) 301 245 56 71 andr./(61 female/10 male)/ 72 masc. (41 female/ 31 male)/ 68 fem. (67 female/ 1 male)/ 88 und. (76 female/ 12 male) M = 19.24 South Africa/ Did not report. But first language = Afrikaans 231, 60 English, 10 German First year Psychology undergraduates Did not report Note. Androg. = Androgynous, Masc. = Masculine, Fem. = Feminine, Und. = Undifferentiated, c-s = cross-sex typed, s-t = sex-typed, mid = non-
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 . of a choice of 8) to the strategy. They then rated the effectiveness of the strategy MANOVA Event controllability × Coping (independently for each group) Post-hoc t-tests MANOVA Group × Event controllability × Coping (for effectiveness ratings) MANOVA Event controllability × Coping (independently for each group) Post hoc t-tests Masc.: main effect of coping, more likely to use direct action regardless of controllability Fem.: main effect of coping, more acceptance, social support and religious support regardless of controllability Andr.: - More direct action coping during controllable events - More acceptance coping during uncontrollable events Andr., Masc. and Und. gave different effectiveness ratings to different coping strategies across situations of differing controllability Andr.: Main effect for coping coping × interaction effect Direct action perceived as more effective in controllable compared to uncontrollable situations F(7, 168) = 69.55, p < .001 F(7, 168) = 100.71, p < .001 t(24) = 2.68, p < .05 t(24) = -5.02, p < .001 F(14, 504) = 23.96, p < .00 F(7, 168) = 15.81, p < .001 F(7, 168) = 43.03, p < .001 t(24) = 8.43, p < .001 Note. * indicates full statistics not reported in the study. Andr. = Androgynous, Masc. = Masculine, Fem. = Feminine, Und. = Undifferentiated
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
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 (2005b) continued female role. Four-way interaction MANOVA Group × Gender role condition × Event controllability × Coping Post-hoc paired Significant interaction Andr.: Event controllability × Coping interaction Masc.: Gender role condition × coping interaction Fem.: Gender role condition × coping interaction Andr.: Used more perspective taking and direct action in controllable compared to uncontrollable situations. Used more diverting attention, catharsis, acceptance, social support, relaxation and religious support in uncontrollable compared to controllable situations Masc.: Used more diverting attention, perspective taking and direction action when playing male role. Used more catharsis, acceptance and social support when playing female role F(14, 504) = 5.77, p < .001 F(7, 168) = 20.56, p < .001 F(7,168) = 346.79, p< .001 F(7,168) = 541.71, p< .001 * ts > 4.16, ps < .001 * ts < -2.99, ps < .01 * ts >20.10, ps<.001 * ts > -15.03, ps<.001 Note. * indicates full statistics not reported in the study. Andr. = Androgynous, Masc. = Masculine, Fem. = Feminine, Und. = Undifferentiated tests
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 (2005b) continued Post-hoc paired continued Fem.: Used more diverting attention, perspective taking a direct action when playing male role. Used more catharsis, acceptance, social support and spiritual support when playing female role. * ts > 17.75, ps<.001 ts > -15.82, ps<.001 Rubacha (2012) University students None specified Gender Inventory / Unclear - groups CISS (Polish version) Regression Andr. significantly predicted: task-orientated emotion-orientated avoidance-orientated Cross-sex typed significantly predicted: avoidance-orientated Sex-typed significantly predicted: task-orientated emotion-orientated avoidance-orientated Und. significantly predicted: task-orientated emotion-orientated avoidance-orientated β = .22. β= -.49 β= -.63 β = .18 β = .16 β = .38 β = .40 β = .19 β = .55 β = .24 Note. * indicates full statistics not reported in the study. Andr. = Androgynous, Masc. = Masculine, Fem. = Feminine, Und. = Undifferentiated, tests
Table 3 continued Author Population Stressful Situation investigated Gender role Measure / Scoring procedure (Independent Variable) Coping Measure (Dependent Variable) Statistical Analysis Key findings Statistics Levy-Shiff & Perl (2000) New mothers (first child 3 – 5 months earlier) Demands of mothering BSRI / Median-split WCCL Univariate ANOVAs Group × Coping strategies Fem. (M= 4.25) women and andr. (M = 3.98) used support seeking more than masc. (M= 2.60). Masc. women (M = 4.39) used coping more than fem. (M = 3.85). Fem. women (M = 3.20) used more than masc. (M = 2.20) . F(2, 88) = 17.99, p < .0001 F(2, 88) = 5.23, p < .01 F(2, 88) = 9.62, p < .001 Gianakos (2000) Undergraduate students also employed None specified BSRI / Median-split Latack Coping Scales ANOVA Gender role group x Coping Post hoc Scheffe tests Significant main effect for: help-seeking positive thinking direct action Und. significantly less likely to seek help (p =.01), think positively (p = .01) or act directly (p = .031), compared to andr. Individuals. Und. individuals less likely to think positively (p = .30) or act directly (p = .01) compared to fem. individuals Und. individuals less likely to think positively (p = .20) compared to masc. individuals. F(3, 172) = 4.57, p = .004 F(3, 172) = 5.28, p = .002 F(3, 172) = 5.61, p = .001 * Note. * indicates full statistics not reported in the study. Andr. = Androgynous, Masc. = Masculine, Fem. = Feminine, Und. = Undifferentiated.
Table 3 continued Author Population Stressful Situation investigated Gender role Measure / Scoring procedure (Independent Variable) Coping Measure (Dependent Variable) Statistical Analysis Key findings Statistics Hirokawa, Yagi, Miyata (2004) Undergraduate students Participants asked to freely identify stressful event MHF scale / Tertile masculinity and femininity scores skills ANOVA Gender role groups differed in their active coping. Andr. females scored higher on active coping compared to the other gender role groups. Andr. males scored higher on active coping compared to fem. and und. gender role groups. F(*) = 5.82, (p < .05) F(*), 5.18, (p < .05) Huang, Zhu, Zheng, Zhang & Shiomi (2012) College and university students None specified BSRI / Median-split Trait Coping Style Questionnaire Chi-square test Andr. and masc. gender roles were related to more positive coping style use. X²(3) = 25.23 < .001 Jones, Mendenhall & Myers (2016) Undergraduate students None specified BSRI Short form / Median-split (Bem’s norms) COPE ANOVA Student type × Sex × Gender role Tukey’s HSD post hoc test There was a significant difference between gender roles with coping And. individuals used more approach coping strategies compared to und. F(3, 182) = 7.93, p < .001 * p < .001 (2011) City transport employees None specified BSRI, Polish adaptation / Median-split CISS ANOVA Groups differed significantly on the display of: Problem-orientated emotion-orientated social diversion F(3, 304) = 10.9, p < .001 F(3, 304) = 4.5, p < .01 F(3, 304) = 2.93, p < .05 Note. * indicates full statistics not reported in the study. Andr. = Androgynous, Masc. = Masculine, Fem. = Feminine, Und. = Undifferentiated,
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 RIR Tukey Post hoc tests continued ANOVA RIR Tukey Post hoc tests ANOVA RIR Tukey Post hoc Both males and females: andr. individuals displayed more coping compared to: sex-typed (M = 57.2) cross-sex-typed (M = 57.0) and und. (M = 53.5). Females: Gender role groups differed significantly on: problem-orientated coping emotion-orientated cooping Masc. women more often displayed problem-orientated coping (M = 64.7) Fem. women more often displayed emotion-orientated coping (M = 47.3) Males: Gender role groups differed significantly on problem-orientated coping Andr. men more often displayed coping (M = 58.1) compared to sex-typed (M = 57.2) cross-sex-typed (M = 57.0) and und. (M = 53.5). * F(3, 119) = 5.4, p < .001 F(3,119) = 4.8, p < .01 * F(3,181) = 6.2, p < .001 * Note. * indicates full statistics not reported in the study. Andr. = Androgynous, Masc. = Masculine, Fem. = Feminine, Und. = Undifferentiated,
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:
Table 3 continued Author Population Stressful Situation investigated Gender role Measure / Scoring procedure (Independent Variable) Coping Measure (Dependent Variable) Statistical Analysis Key findings Statistics Long (1990) Male and female managers Work-related stressor BSRI / Masculinity × femininity interaction WCCL Multiple regression No significant findings for androgyny Increases in masc. predicted: less use of avoidance 1) more use of problem-reappraisal 2) Increases in fem. predicted: more problem-reappraisal 3) active problem-solving 4) total coping 5) N/A 1) β = -.12. R² =.03, F(4, 125) = 3.58, p < .05 2) β = .17. . R² =.03, F(3, 126) = 3.85, p < .05 3) β = .29. R² = .06, F(3, 126) = 8.74, p < .01 4) β = .15. R² = .03, F(4, 126) = 3.75, p < .05 5) β = .16. R² = .03, F(3, 125) = 4.10, p < .05 May & Spangenberg (1997) Males on a Business Masters course None specified BSRI / Median-split CI ANOVAs Tukey’s post hoc Total Andr. (p < .01) and masc. (p < .01) individuals scored significantly higher on total coping compared to und. and fem. individuals Coping with the environment: Andr. individuals coped more flexibly with the environment compared to Masc., Fem. and Und.. Andr. and Masc. coped more actively compared to Fem. and Und.. Coping with self: Andr. coped more flexible then Fem. and Und. individuals. Masc. coped more actively compared to Fem. and Und.. * All scores p < .01 Note. * indicates full statistics not reported in the study. Andr. = Androgynous, Masc. = Masculine, Fem. = Feminine, Und. = Undifferentiated,
Table 3 continued Author Population Stressful Situation investigated Gender role Measure / Scoring procedure (Independent Variable) Coping Measure (Dependent Variable) Statistical Analysis Key findings Statistics McCall & Struthers (1994) To explore the predictive effects of sex-role orientation on emotion and coping College students Participants asked to imagine they are upset or sad BSRI short form / Median-split Purpose designed measure. Measures and categories MANOVA Sex × Gender role × Self-esteem, independently for each coping category Post hoc analysis Gender role differences found for: support-focus feelings-focus cognitive-focus Fem. (M = 4.56) and andr. (M = 4.79) used support more than masc. (M = 3.78) individuals Andr. (M = 4.71) used feeling-focused coping more than fem. (M = 4.17) and und. (M = 4.21), and Andr. (M = 4.23) used more cognitive-focused coping than fem. (M = 3.98) individuals F(3, 210) = 3.97, p<.009 F(3, 210) = 4.76, p<.003 F(3, 210) = 3.40, p<.02 F(3, 210) = 7.86, p<.0001 F(3, 210) = 3.75, p < .01 Note. * indicates full statistics not reported in the study. Andr. = Androgynous, Masc. = Masculine, Fem. = Feminine, Und. = Undifferentiated,
Table 3 continued Author Population Stressful Situation investigated Gender role Measure / Scoring procedure (Independent Variable) Coping Measure (Dependent Variable) Statistical Analysis Key findings Statistics Nezu & Nezu (1987) University students Five most stressful events in the last year. BSRI / Median-split (Bem’s norms) PSI, CRI MANOVA Sex × High-low masculinity × femininity with the measures of problem solving and coping Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc tests Only masculinity was associated with significant differences No significant differences as a consequence of interaction of masculinity and femininity (androgyny) High masc. individuals scored lower on problem-solving (indicating effective problem-solving), avoidance-coping and emotion-focused, compared to low masc.. High masc. individuals scored higher on active-behavioural and problem-focused coping, F(1, 196), = 15.85, p < .001 F(1, 196), = 0.73, ns * * Patterson & McCubbin (1984) Wives of Naval personnel Separation from husband PAQ / Median-split CSI Pearson correlations Andr. gender role was positively correlated with: Maintaining family integrity Developing interpersonal relationships and social support Managing psychological tension and strain Acceptance of lifestyle and optimism Developing self-reliance and self-esteem Balanced coping strategy r = .26, p = .025 r = .23, p = .05 r = .18. p =.05 r = .28, p = .01 r =.16, ns r = .26, p = .025 Note. * indicates full statistics not reported in the study. Andr. = Androgynous, Masc. = Masculine, Fem. = Feminine, Und. = Undifferentiated,
Table 2 Participant demographics Characteristic N Percentage (%) Mean (SD) Range Gender Male Female Prefer not to say 38 278 2 11.9 87.4 .6 - - - - - - Age 18 – 22 23 – 27 28 – 32 33 – 39 40 – 49 50 – 59 60+ - 160 70 48 16 12 10 2 - 50.3 22.0 15.1 5.0 3.8 3.1 .6 25.3 (8.9) - - - - - - - 18 – 66 - - - - - - - How long lived in the British Isles (years) - - 21.9 (11.6) 0 - 66 Ethnicity White British White Irish White European White Other Black or Black British African Black or Black British Caribbean Black or Black British Other Asian or Asian British Indian Asian or Asian British Pakistani Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi Asian or Asian British Chinese Mixed White and Black Caribbean Mixed White and Black African Mixed White and Asian Mixed Other Any other 224 3 28 10 4 4 1 7 3 2 9 3 2 8 4 6 70.4 .9 8.8 3.1 1.3 1.3 .3 2.2 .9 .6 2.8 .9 .6 2.5 1.3 1.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Education No formal qualifications GCSE’s/O-Levels/Equivalent A-Levels/Equivalent Undergraduate degree Postgraduate degree 1 13 152 82 70 .3 4.1 47.8 25.8 22.0 - - - - - - - - - - Employment Full-time employed Part-time employed Self-employed Student Homemaker Retired Unemployed Other 113 36 9 150 2 1 5 2 35.5 11.3 2.8 47.2 .9 .3 1.6 .6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Relationship Single Co-habiting/Common-law spouse Married Civil partnership Prefer not to say 187 61 58 4 8 58.8 19.2 18.2 1.3 2.5 - - - - - - - - - -
Table 6 Statistics from mediational analysis for all hypotheses with androgyny (IV) and coping flexibility (M), for all psychological distress variables (DV) DV Unstandardised Regression Coefficients Bootstrap results for Indirect Effects (95% CI) Effect of IV on M (Path a) Effect of M on DV (Path b) Effect of IV on DV (Path c) Direct effect (Path c’) Total indirect effect Lower Upper Psychological Distress (DASS Total) B 0.340 -1.243 -0.730 -0.307 -0.423 -.713 -.216 SE 0.058 0.285 0.300 0.307 t 5.896 -4.371 -2.433 -0.998 p .000 .000 .016 .319 Anxiety (DASS Anxiety) B 0.340 -0.303 -0.219 -0.116 -0.103 -0.189 -0.041 SE 0.058 0.099 .102 0.106 t 5.896 -3.071 -2.135 -1.087 p .000 .002 .034 .278 Depression (DASS Depression) B 0.340 -0.457 -0.308 -0.153 -0.155 -0.269 -0.074 SE 0.058 0.117 0.123 0.127 t 5.896 -3.895 -2.507 -1.206 p .000 .000 .013 .229 Stress (DASS Stress) B 0.340 -0.484 -0.203 -0.038 -0.165 -0.275 -0.084 SE 0.058 0.111 0.117 0.120 t 5.896 -4.373 -1.739 -0.321 p .000 .000 .083 .749
Choi, N., Fuqua, D. R., & Newman, J. L. (2008). The Bem sex-role inventory: Continuing theoretical problems. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 881-900. Chun, C., Moos, R. H., & Cronkite, R. C. (2006). Culture: a fundamental context for the stress and coping paradigm. In Wong, P. T. P., & Wong, L. C. J (Eds.), Handbook on multicultural perspectives on stress and coping, (pp. 29-53). New York: Springer. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Connolly, S., Aldrich, M., O’Brien, M., Speight, S., & Poole, E. (2016). Britain’s slow movement to a gender egalitarian equilibrium: parents and employment in the UK 2001-13. Work, Employment & Society, 30, 838-857. Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between personality and coping: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1080-1107. Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum?. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 389-407. Cook, E. (1985). Androgyny: A goal for counseling? Journal of Counseling and Development, 63, 567-571. Cook, R. D., & Weisberg, S. (1982). Residuals and influence in regression. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/ public/process2012.pdf Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Relation of agency and communion to well-being: Evidence and potential explanations. Psychological bulletin, 116, 412-428. Helms, J. E., Henze, K. T., Sass, T. L., & Mifsud, V. A. (2006). Treating Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients as data in counseling research. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 630-660. Henry, J. D., & Crawford, J. R. (2005). The 21-item version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS–21): Normative data and psychometric evaluation in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 227–239. Hoffman, R. M., & Borders, L. D. (2001). Twenty-five years after the Bem Sex-Role Inventory: A reassessment and new issues regarding classification variability. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 39-55. Huang, X., Zhu, X., Zheng, J., Zhang, L., & Shiomi, K. (2012). Relationships among androgyny, self-esteem, and trait coping style of chinese university students. Social Behavior and Personality, 40, 1005-1014.
Appendix L: Standardised regression coefficients Table 6 Statistics from mediational analysis for all hypotheses with androgyny (IV) and coping flexibility (M), for all psychological distress variables (DV) using standardised data DV Standardised Regression Coefficients Bootstrap results for Indirect Effects (95% CI) Effect of IV on M (Path a) Effect of M on DV (Path b) Effect of IV on DV (Path c) Direct effect (Path c’) Total indirect effect Lower Upper Psychological Distress (DASS Total) B 0.315 -0.250 -0.136 -0.057 -0.079 -.132 -.040 SE 0.053 0.057 0.056 0.057 t 5.896 -4.371 -2.433 -0.998 p 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.319 Anxiety (DASS Anxiety) B 0.315 -0.178 -0.119 -0.063 -0.056 -0.100 -0.022 SE 0.053 0.058 0.056 0.058 t 5.896 -3.071 -2.135 -1.087 p 0.000 0.002 0.034 0.278 Depression (DASS Depression) B 0.315 -0.224 -0.140 -0.069 -0.070 -0.123 -0.033 SE 0.053 0.057 0.056 0.057 t 5.896 -3.895 -2.507 -1.206 p 0.000 0.0001 0.013 0.229 Stress (DASS Stress) B 0.315 -0.251 -0.097 -0.018 -0.079 -0.135 -0.040 SE 0.053 0.057 0.056 0.057 t 5.896 -4.373 -1.739 -0.321 p 0.000 0.000 0.083 0.749