Lesbian matchmaking software and websites 2022 – ideal applications to have queer girls and you will low-digital people
- November 5, 2022
- West Palm Beach+FL+Florida review
Yeah, yeah, matchmaking applications are…Read More
Among the North American Sample, 26.0% of the men scored highest for Analytic/Tough-minded; while only 9.7% of women scored highest on this proposed temperament dimension (Table ? Table1 1 ; OR = 3.3 [3.1–3.5]; ? 2 = 1617, p = 1 ? 10 -200 ). In addition, 35.1% of the women scored highest for the Prosocial/Empathetic scale, while significantly fewer men scored highest on this proposed temperament dimension: 20.3% (OR = 2.1 [2.0–2.2] ? 2 = 918, p = 1 ? 10 -200 ). For the Curious/Energetic and Cautious/Social Norm Compliant scales, the odds ratios for the difference between men and women were close to 1.0 (Table ? Table1 1 ), showing very small differences.
In the International Sample, the results were similar. Odds ratios ranged from 2.6 to 4.1 for the difference between men and women in the Analytic/Tough-Minded and Prosocial/Empathetic scales; odds ratios ranged from 1.0 to 1.5 for the difference between men and women on the other scales (Table ? Table1 1 ).
In the Pacific University Sample, the results were again similar: 24.7% of men scored higher than women on the Analytic/Tough-Minded scale (OR = 5.5 [0.07–6.1] Table ? Table1 1 ) while on the Prosocial/Empathetic scale 36.7% of the women scored higher than men (OR = 2.5 [1.3–8.3]). The other two scale comparisons (Curious/Energetic and Cautious/Social Norm Compliant) showed odds ratios close to 1.0 (Table ? Table1 1 ) and were not statistically different.
The raw scores for the North American Sample show that the men’s mean scores were higher than those for women on the Analytical/Tough-minded scale (Men: 26.8 ± 5.0, SE = 0.038; Women: 23.6 ± 4.9, SE = 0.033; ? 2 = 0.093; t = , p -150 ; unequal variance: F = 5.00, p = 0.025; Figure ? Figure1 1 ). Women scored higher than men on the Prosocial/Empathetic scale (26.9 ± 5.0, SE = 0.033, vs. 25.6 ± 4.9, SE = 0.038; ? 2 = 0.017; t = , p = 1.37 ? 10 -149 ; Figure ? Figure1 1 ). In addition, North American men scored higher than women on the Curious/Energetic scale, but the effect size was very small (26.3 ± 4.8, SE = 0.037; vs. 25.7 ± 4.8, SE = 0.032; ? 2 = 0.004; t = , p = 1.24 ? 10 -40 ; Figure ? Figure1 1 ).
Mean scale scores by men and women in North America and other countries. Sex consistently played a role in the scores for the Analytical/Tough-minded and Prosocial/Empathetic scales across seven countries, and less so for the other two scales. Effect size and statistical significance were greater for the Analytical/Tough-minded and Prosocial/Empathetic scales than for the other scales. N = 384,831 for the United States sample. N = ?12,500 for each of the other countries. p 1 = p -100 ; p 2 = p ? 1.24 ? 10 -40 ; p 3 = p ? 6.0 ? 10 -9 ; p 4 : p = 0.0091. NS, not statistically significant. All effects are statistically significant using the FDR multiple comparison test at a 0.05 criterion. For SE (generally too small to see in the figure) and SD, see Results.
In the other six countries investigated, the same raw mean score differences between sexes were found for the Analytical/Tough-minded and Prosocial/Empathetic scales, with small to medium effect sizes (Figure ? Figure1 1 ; ? 2 : 0.048–0.095 for Analytic/Tough-minded; ? 2 : 0.016–0.075 for Prosocial/empathetic). For the Curious/Energetic scale response, sex differences were very small or non-existent ( ? Figure1 1 ). On the Cautious/Social Norm Compliant scale, sex differences also were small or not significant (0.0001–0.004; Figure ? Figure1 1 ). Thus, for the Analytic/Tough-minded and Prosocial/Empathetic scales the effect sizes were statistically significant and small to medium in all countries tested, while the other scales were not consistently different between the sexes, and any statistical effect sizes were extremely small.