Efficiency
coeducational) ? dos (beginner gender: men against. female) ANCOVAs was basically presented towards the intercourse salience, portion of other-intercourse close friends, total blended-sex stress while the about three stress subscales (pick Table 7). The benefit variables got skewness (anywhere between .040 to 1.235) and you will kurtosis (between .488 to help you .670) that have been within this acceptable range . New estimated marginal mode and fundamental mistakes of the outcome variables get into the Dining table 8 (correlations one of many analysis details are exhibited inside Table E inside the S1 Document). The fresh new ANOVA overall performance rather than covariates have been in Table F within the S1 File. Mediation analyses were used to understand more about whether university variations in blended-gender nervousness were mediated of the mixed-sex friendships and/otherwise sex salience. All of the analyses managed getting adult earnings, adult training, amount of brothers, number of siblings, university banding, new four proportions of sexual direction, faculty, and you will student years; the fresh new analyses into combined-sex anxiety and regulated to have social nervousness.
Sex salience.
In contrast to Study 1, there were no main effects of school type or student gender and no interaction effects on gender salience. Therefore, H1 was not supported.
Part of almost every other-intercourse best friends.
There was a main effect of school type, with coeducational school students reporting a larger percentage of other-gender close friends than single-sex school students, p < .001, d = .47, supporting H2. There was also a main effect of student gender, with male students reporting a larger percentage of other-gender close friends than female students (p = .005, d = .27). Consistent with H4, there was no interaction effect with student gender.
Mixed-sex nervousness.
Single-sex school students reported higher levels of total mixed-gender anxiety (p = .009, d = .25), Social Distress in Dating (p = .007, d = .26), and Social Distress in Mixed-gender Groups (p = .007, d = .26) than coeducational school students. There was no main effect of school in Fear of Negative Evaluation. Therefore, H3 was largely supported. Male students reported higher levels of total mixed-gender anxiety (p = .020, d = .22) and Fear of Negative Evaluation (p = .008, d = .25) than female students. There were no main effects of student gender in Social Distress in Dating and Social Distress in Mixed-gender Groups. Consistent with H4, there were no interaction effects with student gender in all forms of mixed-gender anxiety.
Supplementary analysis: Did school differences confidence school season?
Comparing across the two samples, the differences between single-sex school students and coeducational school students were more pronounced in the high school sample, supporting H5. For example, gender salience and fear of negative evaluation differed between single-sex and coeducational school students only in the high school sample.
We subsequent used some “School particular (single-sex vs. coeducational) ? College student intercourse (men against. female) ? School 12 months (first year against. non-first year)” ANCOVAs towards the college or university shot (find Table Grams when you look at the secondary information) to evaluate to own possible college or university 12 months effects. Efficiency demonstrated zero fundamental effectation of school season or one telecommunications associated with college season.
Mediations.
As in Study 1, mediation analyses were conducted using PROCESS with 10,000 bootstrap samples and the same mediation model, except that for Study 2, the covariates were parental income, parental education, number of brothers, number of sisters, school banding, the 
four dimensions of sexual orientation, faculty, student age, and social anxiety. Each form of mixed-gender anxiety was analyzed separately (see Table 9). Percentage of other-gender close friends mediated the school differences in total mixed-gender anxiety, Social Distress in Dating, and Social Distress in Mixed-gender Groups, but not Fear of Negative Evaluation. Thus, H7 was partially supported. As in Study 1, there were no significant indirect effects of gender salience on either total or any particular form of mixed-gender anxiety. Alternative mediation models were also conducted (see Figure A in S1 File for the generic alternative mediation model and Table H for the results). Results showed significant indirect effects of total mixed-gender anxiety, Social Distress in Dating and Social Distress in Mixed-gender Groups on the percentage of other-gender close friends.