Printer Friendly

The Effect of Sex and Gender Role Orientation on Coping among Americans and Chinese: Does "Secure" Matter?

This study examines the possible relationships among sex, gender role orientation, secure attachment, and individuals' coping strategies. We developed an integrated model to examine the joint effects of biological sex, gender role orientation, and secure attachment style on individuals' stress coping strategies in two different cultures. A total of 478 respondents (243 Americans and 235 Chinese) participated in this study. We found (a) the effects of gender role orientation on individuals' stress coping strategies are contingent on one's secure attachment level, (b) femininity accounts for a larger portion of sex difference in coping as one's secure level increases, and (c) the joint effect of sex, gender role orientation, and attachment styles on coping strategies varies across the cultures of the U.S. and China. Our findings have implications about understanding variations in stress coping strategies both within sexes and between sexes, both within cultures and across cultures from the attachment theory perspective.

[Hairong Feng, Lin Xiu, & Yufei Ren. The Effect of Sex and Gender Role Orientation on Coping among Americans and Chinese: Does "Secure" Matter?. China Media Research, 15(3):18-32] 3

Keywords: secure attachment style, emotional coping, instrumental coping, sex, gender role orientation, culture

Introduction

More than 300 million people worldwide report that they have suffered from stress, with the estimated cost to the global economy at US$ one trillion per year (WHO, 2017). Top causes of stress include job pressure, financial situations, relationship, health, and political climate (APA, 2017). People often cope with stressful situations by using a variety of strategies, such as seeking and receiving emotional or instrumental support from relational others, using spiritual power, and/or avoiding the stressful situation (Burleson & Mortenson, 2003; Feng & Wilson, 2012). While there are a variety of approaches to study coping, individual differences in coping stability-variability have been recognized as important factors in coping effectiveness and adaptational outcomes in stressful encounters (Oreg & Berson, 2015; Ptacek & Gross, 1997; Shaheen, Jahan, & Shaheen, 2014).

The dispositional paradigm of coping primarily concerns coping as an individual difference variable. It highlights coping consistency: how people "typically" or "usually" deal with stressful events. Stability of coping may be best aligned with personality. There have been continuous attempts to link personality constructs to coping with the thought that personality reflects the broadest organizing axes of our behavioral adaptation systems (DeYoung, 2010; MacDonald, 2012). Research finds that personality and coping have an empirical relationship (Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010). Our study highlights two personality constructs--gender role orientation and secure attachment style. Gender role orientation, namely masculinity and femininity, impacts an individual's preferred way of stress coping in addition to an individual's biological sex (Burleson et al., 2009; Feng & Xiu, 2016), whereas attachment style that emphasizes the working model of self and others affects people's coping appraisals and actions (Collins & Feeney, 2000; Floyd & Denes, 2015). In this study, we examine how secure attachment style moderates the relationship among sex, gender role orientation, and coping.

Most often exemplified by masculinity and femininity, gender role orientation as a personality construct has derived research interests with regard to its influence on coping and support across disciplines (e.g., Burleson et al., 2009; High & Solomon, 2014). Gender role orientation has become a focal point partly because of its close relationship with the construct of sex. Research continues to find small but consistent differences in the tendency for women to be more expressive and emotion-focused when seeking or providing support compared with men and their tendency to be more instrumental and action-focused (e.g., Kunkel & Burleson, 1999; Roy, Tremblay, Robertson, & Houle, 2017). Regardless of sex, individuals who demonstrate masculine characteristics often display fewer emotion-focused coping strategies. In contrast, individuals who have feminine characteristics often show higher levels of emotion-focused coping (Dyson & Renk, 2006; Feng & Xiu, 2016). In addition, recent research reveals that gender role orientation, in particular, femininity, mediates the effect of sex on coping across the two cultures of the U.S. and China (Feng & Xiu, 2016).

However, the effect of gender role orientation on stress coping has only been approached from a general perspective without considering the contingency of such effects. In fact, the existence and the magnitude of the effect of gender role orientation on stress coping might depend on how individuals view themselves and their relationship with others. Not all women and individuals with high femininity ratings seek more emotion-based coping strategies, and likewise, not all men and individuals with low femininity ratings seek more instrumental coping. These observations suggest that the presence of other personality factors may moderate the relationship of sex/gender role orientation and coping. Recently, research has shown that attachment theory provides a rich account of coping development and coping consistency (for review, see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2009). The effect of sex and gender role orientation on stress coping may depend on individual differences in attachment. To this regard, attachment theory plays an important role in explaining individual differences in coping.

Attachment theory was developed by Bowlby (1969, 1980). Secure base and internal working models in attachment theory speak to the issue of coping development (Goldberg, 2014; Ptacek & Gross, 1997). A secure base means an individual may venture from the proximity of the caregiver to explore the environment with a sense of security. This is analogous to assessing the availability of support prior to attempting a task that may necessitate support from others (Goldberg, 2014). Working models refer to beliefs about relationships between self and others. Research with regard to adult attachment defines four prototypic attachment styles: secure, preoccupied, dismissive, and fearful (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). In this study, we focus on secure attachment because of its close relationship with coping and support. The secure attachment pattern reflects feelings of the self as worthy of love and acceptance by others, the view of others as supportive and available, and the willingness to seek help when needed (Bartholomew, 1990). Several earlier studies document that secure individuals are more likely to experience the availability of support and report receiving more and better social support (for review, see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2009). Whereas existing research shows that sex and gender role orientation independently and collaboratively influence individuals' stress coping choices (Feng & Xiu, 2016) and secure attachment affects people's coping appraisals and actions (Floyd & Denes, 2015) and evaluation of supportive messages (Bodie et al., 2011), little research has examined how secure attachment, sex, and gender role orientation collaboratively affect people's coping choices. Since attachment is considered fundamental in explaining consistent coping behaviors as contended in earlier research (e.g., Ptacek & Gross, 1997), the existence and magnitude of the effect of sex and gender role orientation on stress coping might be contingent on how individuals view themselves and their relationships with others.

Further, attachment style highlights the working model of self and others--the individuals' evaluation of self and other relationships affects how they would cope with stress, particularly when seeking support is used as a way of coping. Research indicates that self-other relations differ significantly across cultures so that the development of an individual's attachment styles may vary across cultures (e.g., Agishtein & Brumbaugh, 2013). Hence, it is a worthwhile endeavor to examine the effects of secure attachment style on coping strategies across cultures. Our focal cultures are the U.S. and China because self-other relationships in the two cultures are evidently different (Hofstede, 2001; Zhu, Wang & Chong., 2016).

In sum, our study primarily focuses on exploring (a) the moderating effect of secure attachment style on the influence of gender role orientations on coping, (b) the moderating effect of secure attachment style on the mediation model of sex, gender role orientation, and coping, and (c) the impact of national culture in the relationships among sex, gender role orientation, secure attachment, and coping. In the following sections, we first define coping, then review relevant literature on attachment theory and coping; sex, gender role orientation, and coping; and cultural variations in attachment style and coping. A set of hypotheses are generated accordingly.

Literature Review and Hypotheses

Defining Coping

We define coping as making a conscious effort to minimize stress generated from a problematic situation (Carver, 1997; Feng & Xiu, 2016). Coping primarily focuses on how the stressed person manages to reduce his/her own anxiety through various means of coping, such as emotional coping, instrumental coping, positive reframing, planning, denial, religion, and so forth. In this study, we focus on two types of coping: instrumental coping and emotional coping, given that they are frequently used coping strategies. Instrumental coping means asking for/receiving advice, assistance, and/or information to fix a problem or improve the problematic situation in the future. Emotional coping refers to asking for/obtaining emotional comfort, sympathy, or understanding when experiencing a stressful event (Burleson & Mortenson, 2003). Instrumental coping and emotional coping are, therefore, closely related to social support seeking.

Secure Attachment and Coping

How people deal with a given stressful event has been shown to relate to how they appraise themselves, their resources, and the situation (Bowlby, 1980; Dardas & Ahmad, 2015; Oreg & Berson, 2015). Security is associated with trusting and satisfying intimate relationships (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2012), balanced appraisals of potential stressors (Floyd & Denes, 2015), the ability to seek out support as one of a range of coping responses when threatened (e.g., Mikulincer & Shaver, 2012), and the tendency to make relatively positive attributions of the relationship partner's behaviors (Feeney & Thrush, 2010).

People who report a secure attachment history tend to have positive self-images and higher self-esteem, viewing themselves as outgoing, well-liked, and socially competent. And such people tend to view others as responsive, available, trustworthy, and well-meaning (e.g., Goldberg, 2014). Secure individuals are able to acknowledge distress and to turn to others for comfort and support, confident in the expectation that others will be responsive. At each step in the process, security of attachment is expected to facilitate the process of obtaining social support. Therefore, it is not surprising that security of attachment has been found to be predictive of perceived social support (e.g., Bartholomew, Cobb, & Poole, 1997; Stanton & Campbell, 2014). Secure individuals are also expected to draw on a range of coping strategies and show the greatest flexibility in response to stress, depending on the situation and availability of social support. Blain, Thompson, and Whiffen (1993) examined the interaction between working models of self and others in relation to perceptions of social support. They found that both a positive model of self and a positive model of others were required for high levels of perceived support from friends and family. Richards and Schat (2011) found that secure individuals were more likely to seek support at work when facing work-related challenges.

Gender, Secure Attachment, and Stress Coping

The effect of sex/gender role on coping and support has been studied extensively across disciplines. Studies show that men and women are different in seeking instrumental and emotional support. Men are believed to exhibit more problem-oriented coping behaviors, such as confronting the problems and trying to come up with solutions. Women, on the other hand, are believed to be more likely to seek emotional support by venting emotions, ruminating, or spending more time discussing the problem with friends or family (Eschenbeck, Kohlmann, & Lohaus, 2007; Tamres, Janicki, & Helgeson, 2002). In addition to the impact of biological sex, individuals' differences in gender role orientation also affect stress coping behaviors (Nezu & Nezu, 1987; Thoits, 2013). Gender role orientation is a personality trait that refers to individuals' perceptions of their own femininity and masculinity (Bem, 1974), which could be influenced by both biological factors, such as hormones (e.g., Callens et al., 2016) and the socialization process (e.g. Leszczynski, 2009). Several studies have shown that, regardless of their biological sex, individuals who are high on femininity are more likely to pursue emotion-focused coping while those who are more masculine tend to rely more on problem-focused coping (Dyson & Renk, 2006; Jones, Mendenhall, & Myer, 2016).

Recently, Feng and Xiu (2016) proposed a mediation model of sex, gender role orientation, and coping with the goal of examining how gender role orientation mediates the influence of sex on instrumental and emotional coping. Built on a sample of nearly five hundred participants from the two cultures of the U.S. and China, Feng and Xiu (2016) found that femininity mediated the influence of sex on both emotional and instrumental coping in both cultures, and the mediation effects were significantly different between American and Chinese respondents.

Given the important function that secure attachment plays in coping as contended earlier, we argue that, in addition to directly impacting on how people cope with stress, secure attachment may modify the influence of sex/gender role orientation on instrumental and emotional coping. Hence, in this study, we propose that the relationship between gender role orientation and coping may vary with levels of individuals' secure attachment. Even though females in general are more likely to have femininity characteristics and are more likely to use emotional coping, females or individuals with a feminine orientation who have a lower level of secure attachment may not be much different from their male counterparts or individuals of masculine orientation in the use of emotional and instrumental coping. However, females or individuals with a feminine orientation who have a higher level of secure attachment may use significantly more emotional coping and/or instrumental coping than males or individuals with masculine orientation. Therefore, we hypothesize the effects of gender role orientation on stress coping are contingent on an individual's level of secure attachment.

H1a. The effects of gender role orientation on instrumental coping strategies will be moderated by individuals' levels of secure attachment.

H1b. The effects of gender role orientations on emotional coping strategies will be moderated by individuals' levels of secure attachment.

Furthermore, Feng and Xiu (2016) found that the femininity dimension of gender role orientation appears to play a significant role in the relationship between sex and coping. Femininity mediates the influence of sex on both emotional and instrumental coping. Given our arguments above, we further hypothesize that an individual's level of secure attachment moderates the mediation role that femininity plays in the relationship between sex and coping.

H2a. Individuals' levels of secure attachment moderate the mediation model of the effect of sex on instrumental coping via femininity.

H2b. Individuals' levels of secure attachment moderate the mediation model of the effect of sex on emotional coping via femininity.

The hypothesized moderated mediation model is presented in Figure 1.

The Effect of Sex, Gender Role Orientation, and Secure Attachment on Coping Across Cultures

The attachment system is adaptable to environmental demands (Bowlby, 1969). The development of individuals' feelings of security varies across cultures depending on culture-specific ways of socialization (Agishtein & Brumbaugh, 2013; Ainsworth, 1967; Fiori, Consedine, & Magai, 2009). People in different cultures have strikingly different construals of self, other, and the relationship between self and other (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Individuals in collectivistic cultures tend to possess stronger desire to conform to the expectations of others (Zhu et al., 2016), and are inclined to judge the self in terms of interconnectedness and the value that they provide to others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Indeed, Schmitt et al. (2004) found that East Asia was distinctive in that it was the only region among the ten cultural regions in the world where the model of other scores were conspicuously higher than the model of self scores.

Cross-cultural studies have demonstrated that East Asian cultures tend to emphasize the fundamental relatedness of individuals to each other as well as the harmonious interdependence among individuals, while the American culture does not endorse such an overt connectedness among individuals (Vargas & Kemmelmeier, 2013; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). However, cultural differences could also be substantial within East Asian countries (Mesman, van IJzendoorn, & Sagi-Schwarz, 2016). For instance, cultures in Japan and South Korea have been viewed as closer to those of Western countries after World War II (Hoffman, 2016; Lewis, 2013), and individuals in China tend to give higher ratings for interpersonal harmony compared to other East Asian countries such as Japan and South-Korea (Zhang, Lin, Nonaka, & Beom, 2005). Furthermore, differences in demographics, ethnicity, religion, and language may also lead to cultural differences within East Asian cultures. For instance, the larger family size and its predominant religion belief in Muslim in Indonesia set its culture apart from countries such as China and South Korea (Mesman et al., 2016). Given the substantial cultural differences among countries within East Asia, in this study we pay particular attention to one of the East Asian cultures--China--and examine the impact of cultural difference between the U.S. and China on coping in particular.

The value placed on close connection and interdependence in China leads individuals to endorse more likely items that indicate high anxiety, which in turn leads to a lower level of secure attachment (Wang & Mallinckrodt, 2006). Empirical studies have found a relatively lower rate of secure styles in Chinese culture compared to that in Western countries (Mesman et al., 2016). However, scoring low on security attachment, such as being concerned about relationship issues that is typically viewed as inferior in Western cultures, may be culturally acceptable and even desirable in China (Wang & Scalise, 2010; Zhu et al., 2016). Furthermore, high reliance on interdependence might create a higher sense of perceived social support, resulting in less negative outcomes for attachment insecurities. Findings of a previous study conducted in the U.S. and China indicated that association between attachment insecurities and perceived social support is weaker in China than in the U.S. (Zhu et al., 2016).

Gender role orientation also varies across cultures. Hofstede (1980, 2001) reported that China ranked in the middle of an index measuring masculinity, whereas the United States scored above average. Cultures scoring high on masculinity have characteristics such as beliefs in individual decisions and maximum emotional and social role differentiation between the genders. Men are expected to be tough and take care of performance, and women should be tender and take care of relationships. Cultures scoring low on masculinity demonstrate features such as beliefs in group decisions and minimum emotional and social role differentiation between the genders. Men are expected to be tender and take care of both performance and relationships, and women should be the same.

In addition, individuals in different cultures are exposed to distinct social norms, and thus develop a different understanding of the social expectations and stress coping behavior that is acceptable and desired. Several studies have found that members of collectivist cultures, such as China, were less likely than members of individualist cultures to seek social support (Feng, 2015) or to actively elicit social support in times of stress (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2012).

Given the cultural variations in secure attachment, gender role orientation, and expectations of coping behavior, we hypothesize:

H3a. The joint effects of sex, gender role orientation, and secure attachment on instrumental coping differ in the U.S. and China.

H3b. The joint effects of sex, gender role orientation, and secure attachment on emotional coping differ in the U.S. and China.

Method

Participants

The participants were 243 American college students (127 women, 116 men; mean age = 21.3 years) recruited from a Midwest University in the United States, and 235 Chinese college students (170 women, 65 men; mean age = 20.4 years) recruited from two universities in Beijing, China. Among the American participants, 181 (74.5%) have part-time jobs. The self-reported ethnicities of the American participants included Caucasian (89.3%), African Americans (2.5%), Hispanic (1.2%), Asian American (2.5%), and others (5.4%).

Among the Chinese participants, 52 (22.1%) have part-time jobs. In term of ethnicity, 206 (87.7%) of them self-identified as Han ethnicity, and 29 (12.3%) self-identified as members of ethnic minorities.

Procedures

After receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the authors' university as well as from officials at the Chinese universities, we conducted surveys in both the U.S. and China. The Chinese students were recruited from English classes that were taken by undergraduate students of all majors in China. Students were told that their participation was voluntary and anonymous. After informed consent was acquired, participants voluntarily participated in the study during class periods. All materials were originally drafted in English. They were translated into Chinese and validated through a double-translation process when used in China. To ensure the accuracy of the translation, after the translation-back-translation procedure, two bilingual scholars compared the results to ensure each of the survey questions was phrased clearly and accurately. Undergraduate students of various majors enrolled in several communication and management courses composed the U.S. participant group. The survey took about 15 minutes, and students received extra credits for completing the survey.

Measures

Gender Role Orientation Scale. To measure gender role orientation, we used the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1974). This questionnaire consisted of 60 items on a 7-point scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Twenty of the items were stereotypically masculine (e.g. independent, aggressive, dominant), twenty were stereotypically feminine (e.g. affectionate, gentle, sympathetic), and twenty were gender-neutral (e.g. friendly, conscientious, conceited). According to Bem (1974), masculinity and femininity are two separate but related constructs. Although the scores for these two subscales can be used to derive four gender role orientation categories (i.e., feminine, masculine, androgynous, and undifferentiated), more recent studies have used the continuous features of the femininity/masculinity scales to optimize the BSRI's estimation power (e.g., Dyson & Renk, 2006; Feng & Xiu, 2016). In this study, we used masculinity and femininity as two continuous measures of gender role orientation. The internal reliability estimate was 0.85 for the masculinity scale and 0.74 for the femininity scale.

Stress Coping Scale. Even though coping could be contextual and may vary across situations (Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010), studies in both the communication and psychology fields have shown that people have preferred coping strategies that they use relatively consistently across a range of situations (Moos & Holahan, 2003) and over time (Powers et al., 2002). To measure participants' stress coping styles, we used the COPE inventory in its brief form (Carver, 1997). In this study, we focused on two coping strategies--instrumental coping vs. emotional coping. A sample item for instrumental coping was "I've been trying to get advice or help from other people about what to do," whereas, a sample item for emotional coping was "I've been getting comfort and understanding from someone." Following the original scale (Carver, 1997), a 4-point scale was used, ranging from "I haven't been doing this at all" to "I've been doing this a lot." The internal reliability was 0.72 for seeking instrumental coping and 0.79 for seeking emotional coping.

Attachment Style Scale. To measure participants' attachment styles, we used the security scale of attachment styles developed by Guerrero, Farinelli, & McEwan (2009) based on a series of items assessing attachment styles dimensions originally used in Feeney, Noller, and Hanrahan (1994) and Guerrero (1996). The original scale included items that measure four different types of attachment styles--secure, preoccupied, dismissive, and fearful. In this study, we paid particular attention to the level of security measurement and related it with the way individuals cope with stress. Security was measured with seven items (e.g., "I rarely worry that others might reject me") on a 7-point scale, ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Guerrero et al. (2009) showed that the continuous measure is closely related to the categorical measures in Bartholomew and Horowitz's (1991) original framework using paragraph descriptions but provided further estimation power given the variation in the dimension. The internal reliability estimate was 0.79 for the scale.

Results

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics, including the means and standard deviations calculated from the data. The participants were 243 American college students (127 women, 116 men; Mean age = 21.3years, SD = 1.4) and 235 Chinese college students (170 women, 65 men; Mean age = 20.4 years, SD = 2.4). We performed regression analysis and Hayes's (2013) conditional process analysis for testing the relationships in the hypothesized model shown in Figure 1.

The moderating role of one's secure attachment level on coping

We first examined whether the effect of gender role orientation on coping varies by attachment styles. We paid particular attention to the effect of an individual's secure attachment level in such a relationship by utilizing the continuous nature of the variable that measures how "secure" an individual is.

As shown in Table 2, the regression coefficient for the interaction term of one's secure level and femininity is positive and statistically significant, showing that the effect of femininity on instrumental coping increases with one's secure attachment level. Also significant is the conditional effect of femininity. In the category of people who score average in secure feelings (because secure is mean centered in the analysis) but are of the same sex, national culture, and age, two individuals who differ by one unit in their femininity (on a 7-point scale) are estimated to differ by 0.62 units (t = 5.17, p < 0.01) in their use of instrumental coping (on an 8-point scale). Process analysis confirms this finding. As shown in Figure 2-a, the slopes of the lines correspond to the conditional effects of femininity on the use of instrumental coping for values of secure level corresponding to the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles of the distribution. As can be seen, the effect of femininity on instrumental coping is steeper among those with a higher level of security. That is, the effect of femininity on instrumental coping is larger among the relatively more secure individuals than it is among the less secure individuals.

The effects of femininity on emotional coping follow the same pattern. The results are summarized in Table 3 and Figure 2-b. The effect of femininity on emotional coping (b = 0.22, p < 0.05) is stronger among more secure individuals than it is among less secure individuals. H1a and H1b are supported. In contrast, masculinity does not have a significant effect on either instrumental coping or emotional coping, as shown in Table 2 and Table 3.

The moderating role of secure attachment style on the mediation model

Earlier studies show that femininity serves as a mediator between sex and coping (Feng & Xiu, 2016). As contended earlier, secure attachment style may moderate the effect of femininity on coping, we examined the effects of an individual's level of secure attachment on the mediation model of sex, gender role orientation, and coping.

First, we conducted mediation analysis without considering one's secure attachment level. In Table 4, process analysis shows that femininity mediates the effect of sex on instrumental and emotional coping, as evidenced by the significant indirect effects (b = 0.19, p < 0.01) for both instrumental and emotional coping. Second, following the theoretical framework summarized in Figure 1, we estimated the moderated mediation model by introducing the moderator--secure attachment level. As shown in Table 5, the moderated mediation model is statistically significant (index = 0.08, p < 0.05). The effect of femininity is indeed contingent on an individual's secure level. To demonstrate the pattern, we show the direct effect and indirect effect at three secure attachment levels--"low" (a SD below the mean), "medium" (at the mean), and "high" (a SD above the mean). As the secure level increases, the total effect (i.e., the sum of the direct effect and the indirect effect) of being female on the use of instrumental coping increases from 0.66 (the sum of the direct effect, b = 0.53, p < 0.05, and the indirect effect, b = 0.13, p < 0.05) at low secure level to 0.80 (the sum of the direct effect, b = 0.52, p < 0.05, and the indirect effect, b = 0.28, p < 0.05) at the high secure level; the direct effect slightly decreases from 0.53 to 0.52, and the indirect effect through femininity increases from 0.13 to 0.28. The proportion of indirect effect in the overall sex difference in coping increases from 19.7% at the low secure level to 27.8% at the medium level and 35.0% at the high secure level. The moderated mediation test shows that the difference is statistically significant.

We followed the same procedure examining the model with emotional coping as the dependent variable. Results are shown in Table 6. The moderated mediation test is also significant (index = 0.08, p < 0.05), showing that the mediation model changes at different levels of an individual's secure attachment. One difference from the instrumental coping results is that both direct and indirect effects of being female on the use of emotional coping increase as one's secure level improves. The direct effects and indirect effects increase from 0.44 (p = 0.05) and 0.13 (p < 0.05) at the lower secure level to 0.71 (p < 0.01) and 0.28 (p < 0.05) at the high secure level, respectively.

Taken together, these results show that (1) women are more likely to seek both instrumental and emotional support; (2) gender difference in the use of seeking support is greater as one's secure level increases, which is mainly due to the fact that women's higher score on femininity leads to greater use of coping strategies as women possess a higher secure attachment level. H2a and H2b are supported.

The moderated mediation model across cultures

Further, we conducted the conditional process analysis on the U.S. and Chinese samples separately. Results are summarized in Table 7 (US sample) and Table 8 (Chinese sample). The general findings are consistent with results on the combined sample, that is, security level moderates the mediating role of femininity in the relationship between sex and coping. For both samples, the indirect effects through femininity are greater among those who are more secure.

Despite the similarity, there are several differences between the findings on the U.S. and Chinese samples that are worth noting. First, for individuals at low secure levels in China, femininity does not play a role as a mediator between sex and the use of instrumental and emotional coping strategies, as shown by the insignificant indirect effects (b = 0.10, p > 0.1 for instrumental coping; b = 0.10, p > 0.1 for emotional coping). In contrast, American women at low secure attachment levels still are more likely than men to use instrumental and emotional coping. Both direct effects (b = 0.66, p < 0.05 for instrumental coping; b = 0.77, p < 0.01 for emotional coping) and indirect effects (b = 0.26, p < 0.05 for instrumental coping; b = 0.26 for emotional coping) are significant. Also, women participants in the U.S. scored high on femininity, and femininity leads to more use of instrumental and emotional coping even though the mediation role played by femininity tends to be smaller than that among more secure individuals. Second, the moderated mediation models differ across cultures. Specifically, in the U.S. sample, femininity partially mediates the relationship between sex and instrumental coping across all secure levels even though the percentage of the indirect effect in the total effect increases from 28.3%, that is, 0.26/(0.66+0.26) for low secure individuals to 48.9%, that is, 0.48/(0.50+0.48) for high secure individuals. The role of femininity in the relationship between sex and emotional coping follows the same pattern. In contrast, in the Chinese sample, femininity fully mediates the relationship between sex and both coping strategies at medium and high secure levels.

Discussion

We developed an integrated model to examine the joint effects of biological sex, gender role orientation, and secure attachment style on individuals' stress coping strategies in the two cultures of the U.S. and China. In particular, it focused on examining the moderating role of secure attachment style in the relationships among sex, gender role orientation, and coping strategies, and how these relationships differ across the two cultures of the U.S. and China. We found (a) the effects of gender role orientation on individuals' stress coping strategies are contingent on an individual's secure attachment level; (b) femininity accounts for a larger portion of sex difference in coping as an individual's secure level increases; and (c) the joint effect of sex, gender role orientation, and secure attachment style on coping strategies varies across the two cultures of the U.S. and China. Our findings have implications about understanding variations in stress coping strategies both within sexes and between sexes and both within cultures and across cultures from the attachment theory perspective.

First, the current study extends the literature on the relationship between attachment styles and social support. Earlier studies document that "secure" individuals are more likely to experience the availability of the support and report receiving more and better social support (for a review, see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2009), and attachment styles may modify the effects of gender on the appraisal of social support (Burleson et al., 2011). Our findings extend these findings by showing that higher levels of security lead to use of instrumental coping more, and the level of security modifies men and women's different use of coping strategies.

Second, this study provides new insights into gender variations in stress coping. Previous studies have shown that men and women rely on different strategies in stress coping. The present research contributes to this line of literature by demonstrating that the existence and magnitude of gender role effects on coping are contingent upon an individual's secure attachment level. In contrast to earlier studies showing that women and men cope with stress differently through mechanisms such as cognitive complexity, self-efficacy, interactional goal orientation, expressivity-instrumentality, and gender role orientation (Davis, Burleson, & Kruszewski, 2011; Brougham, Zail, Mendoza, & Miller, 2009; Feng & Xiu, 2016), the findings of this study indicate that the role of these mechanisms may be modified by an individual's secure attachment level. For example, Feng and Xiu (2016) found that femininity, but not masculinity, plays a significant role in the relationship between sex and coping for both U.S. and Chinese samples. Yet, our findings show that this mediating effect by femininity is contingent on an individual's secure attachment level. Gender role orientation, specifically femininity, plays a greater role in coping as an individual's secure level increases. By examining how an individual's secure level shapes the effect of gender role orientation, we discover that the existence and direction of the gender role orientation effect could vary at different secure levels. Future studies should explore the influence of secure attachment style on other mechanisms between sex and coping strategies that have been established in the literature, such as cognitive complexity, self-efficacy, and interactional goal orientation.

Additionally, the current research provides evidence on how individual difference variables of gender role and secure attachment play an important role in predicting stress coping across cultures. Even though many studies have examined how individuals differ in their stress coping strategies within Western cultures (e.g., Davis, Burleson, & Kruszewski, 2011), association between individual difference variables and coping in the Chinese context remains relatively understudied, resulting in a lack of meaningful cross-cultural examination. Research has shown that the internal working model specified by attachment theory is valid in both Western (e.g. Burleson et al., 2011) and Chinese contexts (e.g., Chui & Leung, 2016), but it remains unclear whether and how the impact of attachment style on stress coping would be different in these cultures. Our study found, across the cultures of the U.S. and China, sex and gender role orientation have a different influence on how one copes with stress when secure attachment level is considered. These findings demonstrate how individual difference factors could interact with cultural factors and jointly impact one's coping strategies, which echoes Schmitt et al.'s (2004) findings that attachment styles could stimulate divergent influences on how individuals cope with stress under different social norms in different cultures.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

The present study shows that individual and personality differences such as gender role orientation and secure attachment are related to the use of stress coping strategies in a systematic way. We found that individuals with certain personality traits dispositionally prefer certain coping strategies. Given the nature of the research design, we are not able to discern whether these relationships are conditional on the stress contextual factors such as the nature of the stressors (Tamres et al., 2002). Thus, we encourage future research to explore whether the relationships between sex, gender role orientation, attachment styles, and coping strategies are contingent on the differences of stressors and the individuals' appraisal of the stressors.

More importantly, we suggest that the findings of this study be interpreted with cautions in terms of its generalizability. The Chinese sample was drawn from two universities in a northern city in mainland China, and the findings based on this sample may not be generalizable to all Chinese. First of all, cultural differences exist between mainland Chinese and Chinese from other places such as Singapore, Hong Kong, and overseas (e.g., Fung et al., 2017). Secondly, even within mainland China cultures could vary across regions (Kwon, 2012) and ethnicities (Gustafsson & Ding, 2009). For instance, Kwon (2012) compared the five cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 2001) between two big cities in mainland China and found that even under one single political and legal environment, economic development shows divergent effects on the cultures in different cities. Also, the U.S. sample was drawn from a Midwest university, which may not represent the culture in other regions of that country. In fact, both U.S. and China are culturally heterogeneous countries where cultures vary across regions, ethnicity, gender, religion, and race. Future research may further examine how the cultural differences within the country interact with gender and gender role orientation impacting the use of stress coping strategies.

Furthermore, given the correlational nature of the data, no causal inference could be drawn on the relationships among the variables. Future longitudinal research will further elucidate the relationships among the variables in the present study. Another limitation stems from the common research method. In the future, empirical studies could collect information on gender role orientation, attachment styles, and stress coping from different sources (self vs. other) and use a variety of methods such as survey and scenario-based experiments to understand better the effects of attachment styles on coping strategies. In addition, our study finds that secure attachment style, sex, and gender role orientation jointly explain more variance in coping in the U.S. sample than in the Chinese sample. Such a difference may be attributed to the fact that individuals in China are more likely to conform to the social norms of maintaining a harmonious relationship and not disturbing relational others. Existing research does reveal that compared with European Americans, East Asians and Asian Americans are less likely to seek emotional and instrumental support as a way of coping (e.g., Kim, Sherman, & Taylor, 2008). Therefore, individual differences such as sex, gender role orientation, and secure attachment style explain less of the variance in individuals' coping preferences among Chinese compared to their U.S. counterparts. Future research could provide more insight into this by examining how attachment styles and gender role orientation are associated with conformity to social norms and how such attitudinal and behavioral patterns are related to stress coping.

Correspondence to:

Hairong Feng, Ph.D.

Department of Communication College of Liberal Arts University of Minnesota Duluth Duluth, MN 55812, USA

Email: hfeng@d.umn.edu

References

Agishtein, P., & Brumbaugh, C. (2013). Cultural variation in adult attachment: The impact of ethnicity, collectivism, and country of origin. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 7(4), 384.

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1967). Infancy in Uganda: Infant Care and the Growth of Love. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

American Psychological Association. (2017). APA Stress in America[TM] Survey. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2017/11/lowest-point.aspx.

Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(2), 147-178.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226.

Bartholomew, K., Cobb, R. J., & Poole, J. A. (1997). Adult attachment patterns and social support processes. In Sourcebook of social support and personality (pp. 359-378). Springer, Boston, MA.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155-162.

Blain, M. D., Thompson, J. M., & Whiffen, V. E. (1993). Attachment and perceived social support in late adolescence: The interaction between working models of self and others. Journal of Adolescent Research, 8(2), 226-241.

Bodie, G. D., Burleson, B. R., Gill-Rosier, J., McCullough, J. D., Holmstrom, A. J., Rack, J. J., Hanasono, L., Mincy, J. (2011). Explaining the impact of attachment style on evaluations of supportive messages: A dual-process framework. Communication Research, 38(2), 228-247.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Spraration. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss, sadness and depression. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Brougham, R. R., Zail, C. M., Mendoza, C. M., & Miller, J. R. (2009). Stress, sex differences, and coping strategies among college students. Current Psychology, 28(2), 85-97.

Burleson, B. R., & Mortenson, S. R. (2003). Explaining cultural differences in evaluations of emotional support behaviors: Exploring the mediating influences of value systems and interaction goals. Communication Research, 30(2), 113-146.

Burleson, B. R., Hanasono, L. K., Bodie, G. D., Holmstrom, A. J., Rack, J. J., Rosier, J. G., McCullough, J. D. (2009). Explaining gender differences in responses to supportive messages: Two tests of a dual-process approach. Sex Roles, 61(3), 265-280.

Burleson, B. R., Hanasono, L. K., Bodie, G. D., Holmstrom, A. J., McCullough, J. D., Rack, J. J., & Rosier, J. G. (2011). Are gender differences in responses to supportive communication a matter of ability, motivation, or both? Reading patterns of situation effects through the lens of a dual-process theory. Communication Quarterly, 59(1), 37-60.

Callens, N., Van Kuyk, M., van Kuppenveld, J. H., Drop, S. L., Cohen-Kettenis, P. T., Dessens, A. B., & Dutch Study Group on DSD. (2016). Recalled and current gender role behavior, gender identity and sexual orientation in adults with disorders/differences of sex development. Hormones and Behavior, 86, 8-22.

Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol's too long: Consider the brief cope. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4(1), 92-100.

Carver. C. S., & Connor-Smith, J. (2010). Personality and coping. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 679-704.

Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (6), 1053-1073.

Chui, W., & Leung, M. (2016). Adult attachment internal working model of self and other in Chinese culture: Measured by the attachment style Questionnaire--Short form (ASQ-SF) by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and item response theory (IRT). Personality and Individual Differences, 96, 55-64.

Dardas, L. A., & Ahmad, M. M. (2015). Coping strategies as mediators and moderators between stress and quality of life among parents of children with autistic disorder. Stress and Health, 31(1), 5-12.

Davis, M. C., Burleson, M. H., & Kruszewski, D. M. (2011). Gender: Its relationship to stressor exposure, cognitive appraisal/coping processes, stress responses, and health outcomes. In A. Baum (Eds.), The Handbook of Stress Science: Biology, Psychology, and Health (pp.247-261). New York, NY: Springer.

DeYoung, C. G. (2010). Personality neurosciences and the biology of traits. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(12), 1165-1180.

Dyson, R., & Renk, K. (2006). Freshmen adaptation to university life: Depressive symptoms, stress, and coping. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(10), 1231-1244.

Eschenbeck, H., Kohlmann, C., & Lohaus, A. (2007). Gender differences in coping strategies in children and adolescents. Journal of Individual Differences, 28(1), 18-26.

Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Hanrahan, M. (1994). Assessing adult attachment. In M. B. Sperling & W. H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults: Clinical and developmental perspectives (pp. 128-152). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Feeney, B. C, & Thrush, R. L. (2010). Relationship influences on exploration in adulthood: The characteristics and function of a secure base. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(1), 57-76.

Feng, H., & Wilson, S. R. (2012). Cultural variations in the reasons people provide avoidance support. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 5(1), 64-87.

Feng, H. (2015). Embracing cultural similarities and bridging differences in supportive communication. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 25(1), 22-41.

Feng, H., & Xiu, L. (2016). The effects of sex and gender role orientation on approach-based coping strategies across cultures: A moderated mediation model. Communication Quarterly, 64(5), 596-622.

Fiori, K. L., Consedine, N. S., & Magai, C. (2009). Late life attachment in context: Patterns of relating among men and women from seven ethnic groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 24(2), 121.

Floyd, K., & Denes, A. (2015). Attachment security and oxytocin receptor gene polymorphism interact to influence affectionate communication. Communication Quarterly, 63(3), 272-285.

Fung, J., Kim, J. J., Jin, J., Wu, Q., Fang, C, & Lau, A. S. (2017). Perceived social change, parental control, and family relations: A comparison of Chinese families in Hong Kong, Mainland China, and the United States. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1-14.

Goldberg, S. (2014). Attachment and development, New York, NY: Routledge Press.

Guerrero, L. K. (1996). Attachment-style differences in intimacy and involvement: A test of the four-category model. Communications Monographs, 63(4), 269-292.

Guerrero, L. K., Farinelli, L., & McEwan, B. (2009). Attachment and relational satisfaction: The mediating effect of emotional communication. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 487-514.

Gustafsson, B., & Ding, S. (2009). Villages where China's ethnic minorities live. China Economic Review, 20(2), 193-207.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Chicago, IL: Guilford Press.

High, A. C, & Solomon, D. H. (2014). Communication channel, sex, and the immediate and longitudinal outcomes of verbal person-centered support. Communication Monographs, 81(4), 439-468.

Hoffman, M. (2016). Western culture and the end of Japanese "harmony". The Japan Times, Retrieved from https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/12/17/ national/media-national/western-culture-end-japanese-harmony/#.W3c0K5MzpTY

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jones, K., Mendenhall, S., & Myers, C. A. (2016). The effects of sex and gender role identity on perceived stress and coping among traditional and nontraditional students. Journal of American College Health, 64(3), 205-213.

Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., & Taylor, S. E. (2008). Culture and Social Support. American Psychologist, 63, 518-526.

Kunkel, A. W., & Burleson, B. R. (1999). Assessing explanations for sex differences in emotional support: A test of the different cultures and skill specialization accounts. Human Communication Research, 25(3), 307-340.

Kwon, J. W. (2012). Does China have more than one culture? Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(1), 79-102.

Leszczynski, J. P. (2009). A state conceptualization: Are individuals' masculine and feminine personality traits situationally influenced? Personality and Individual Differences, 47(3), 157-162.

Lewis, A. R. (2013). The American Culture of War: A history of US military force from World War II to Operation Enduring Freedom. New York, NY: Routledge.

MacDonald, K. (2012). Temperament and evolution. In M. Zentner & R. L. Shiner (Eds.), Handbook of temperament (pp. 273-296). Guilford Press, New York.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224.

Mesman, J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Sagi-Schwarz, A. (2016). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment. Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications, third ed. Guilford, New York, NY, 852-877.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2009). An attachment and behavioral systems perspective on social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(1), 7-19.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2012). Adult attachment orientations and relationship processes. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 4(4), 259-274.

Moos, R. H., & Holahan, C. J. (2003). Dispositional and contextual perspectives on coping: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59(12), 1387-1403.

Nezu, A. M., & Nezu, C. M. (1987). Psychological distress, problem solving, and coping reactions: Sex role differences. Sex Roles, 16(3-4), 205-214.

Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. (2015). Personality and charismatic leadership in context: The moderating role of situational stress. Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 49-77.

Powers, D. V., Gallagher-Thompson, D., & Kraemer, H. C. (2002). Coping and depression in Alzheimer's caregivers longitudinal evidence of stability. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57(3), 205-P211.

Ptacek, J. T., & Gross, S., (1997). Coping as an individual difference variable. In G. R. Pierce et al. (Eds.), Sourcebook of social support and personality, (pp.69-91). Springer, Boston, MA.

Richards, D. A., & Schat, A. C. (2011). Attachment at (not to) work: Applying attachment theory to explain individual behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 169.

Roy, P., Tremblay, G., Robertson, S., & Houle, J. (2017). "Do it all by myself": A salutogenic approach of masculine health practice among farming men coping with stress. American Journal of Men's Health, 11(5), 1536-1546.

Schmitt, D. P., Alcalay, L., Allensworth, M., Allik, J., Ault, L., Austers, I., & Cunen, M. A. B. (2004). Patterns and universals of adult romantic attachment across 62 cultural regions are models of self and of other pancultural constructs? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(4), 367-402.

Shaheen, F., Jahan, M., & Shaheen, S. (2014). Role of personality factors in experiencing psychological distress among adolescents. Journal of Education and Psychological Research, 3(1), 14-20.

Stanton, S. C., & Campbell, L. (2014). Perceived social support moderates the link between attachment anxiety and health outcomes. Plos One, 9(4), e95358.

Tamres, L. K., Janicki, D., & Helgeson, V. S. (2002). Sex differences in coping behavior: A meta-analytic review and an examination of relative coping. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(1), 2-30.

Thoits, P. A. (2013). Self, identity, stress, and mental health. In Aneshensel C.S., Phelan J.C., Bierman A. (Eds.). Handbook of the sociology of mental health (pp. 357-377). Boston, MA: Springer Press.

Vargas, J. H., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2013). Ethnicity and contemporary American culture: A meta-analytic investigation of horizontal-vertical individualism-collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(2), 195-222.

Wang, C. D., & Mallinckrodt, B. (2006). Acculturation, attachment, and psychosocial adjustment of Chinese/Taiwanese international students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(4), 422-433.

Wang, C. D., & Scalise, D. A. (2010). Adult attachment, culturally adjusted attachment, and interpersonal difficulties of Taiwanese adults. The Counseling Psychologist, 38(1), 6-31.

World Health Organization. (2017). Depression. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/depression.

Zhang, Y. B., Lin, M. C., Nonaka, A., & Beom, K. (2005). Harmony, hierarchy and conservatism: A cross-cultural comparison of Confucian values in China, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Communication Research Reports, 22(2), 107-115.

Zhu, W., Wang, C. D., & Chong, C. C. (2016). Adult attachment, perceived social support, cultural orientation, and depressive symptoms: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(6), 645-655.

07/01/2019

Hairong Feng, Lin Xiu, & Yufei Ren University of Minnesota Duluth, USA
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics

                   N    Minimum  Maximum  Mean   Std. Deviation

Age                478  1        49       20.88    3.29
Sex (1, Male; 2,   478  1         2        1.62     .49
Female)
Security           478  1.00      7.00     4.89     .93
Femininity Score   478  3.00      6.90     5.04     .60
Masculinity Score  478  2.65      7.00     5.02     .78
Culture (0 US; 1   478  0         1         .49     .50
China)
Instrumental       478  2.00      8.00     5.48    1.57
Emotional          478  2.00      8.00     5.33    1.66

Table 2. Regression Analysis Examining the Moderation of Gender Role
Orientation on Instrumental Coping by Secure level

                                Model 1
                   B            S.E.  Beta  t      B

Constant           4.79 (***)   .47         10.29  4.83 (***)
Sex                 .43 (***)   .15   .13    2.85   .41 (***)
F-Score             .62 (***)   .12   .24    5.17   .65 (***)
M-Score            -.01         .10  -.01    -.12   .00
Age                -.00         .02  -.00    -.08  -.00
Secure              .13 (*)     .08   .08    1.69   .12
Nation              .92 (***)   .15   .29    6.08   .91 (***)
F-score (*)Secure                                   .20 (**)
R-square                       0.16

                    Model 2
                    S.E.  Beta  t

Constant            .46        10.40
Sex                 .15   .13   2.73
F-Score             .12   .25   5.39
M-Score             .10   .00    .00
Age                 .02  -.01   -.15
Secure              .08   .07   1.52
Nation              .15   .29   6.06
F-score (*)Secure   .10   .09   2.10
R-square           0.17

Note: (***)0.01 (**)0.05 (*)0.1 significance levels. F-score, M-score
and Secure level are mean centered.

Table 3. Regression Analysis Examining the Moderation of Gender Role
Orientation on Emotional Coping by Secure level

                                 Model 1
                   B           S.E.  Beta  t     B

Constant           4.57 (***)   .50        9.13  4.61 (***)
Sex                 .52 (***)   .16   .15  3.18   .50 (***)
F-Score             .60 (***)   .13   .22  4.68   .63 (***)
M-Score            -.08         .11  -.04  -.73  -.07
Age                 .01         .02   .01   .20   .00
Secure              .07         .08   .04   .88   .06
Nation              .71 (***)   .16   .21  4.36   .70 (***)
F-score (*)Secure                                 .22 (**)
R-square                       0.13

                     Model 2
                   S.E.  Beta  t

Constant            .50        9.24
Sex                 .16   .15  3.05
F-Score             .13   .23  4.90
M-Score             .11  -.03  -.61
Age                 .02   .01   .13
Secure              .08   .03   .71
Nation              .16   .21  4.34
F-score (*)Secure   .10   .09  2.18
R-square           0.14

Note: (***) 0.01 (**) 0.05 (*) 0.1 significance levels.. F-score,
M-score and Secure level are mean centered.

Table 4. Mediation Model on Gender, Gender Role Orientation and Coping
Strategies

                                 Direct  Effect
               Effect      SE    t       p       LLCI  ULCI

The Effect of
Gender on
Instrumental
Coping         0.55 (***)  0.16  3.49    0.00    0.24  0.85
The Effect of
Gender on
Emotional
Coping         0.61 (***)  0.17  3.67    0.00    0.28  0.93

               Indirect Effect through             Total
                           Femininity              Effect
                           Boot        Boot  Boot
               Effect      SE          LLCI  ULCI

The Effect of
Gender on
Instrumental
Coping         0.19 (***)  0.05        0.11  0.31  0.74 (***)
The Effect of
Gender on
Emotional
Coping         0.19 (***)  0.05        0.11  0.32  0.80 (***)

Note: Variables entered in the analysis include gender, femininity
score, masculinity score, age and secure score.
(***) .01 (**) .05 (*) .1 significance levels.

Table 5. Conditional Direct and Indirect Effects of Sex on the Use of
Instrumental Coping Strategies

Conditional Direct Effect at values of the moderator:
           Secure Level  Effect  SE       t         p         LLCI  ULCI

Mean-S.D.  4.00          0.53    0.22     2.48      0.01      0.11  0.96
Mean       4.89          0.52    0.16     3.35      0.00      0.22  0.83
Mean+S.D.  5.82          0.52    0.21     2.44      0.02      0.10  0.93
Conditional Indirect Effects
           Secure Level  Effect  Boot SE  BootLLCI  BootULCI
Mean-S.D.  4.00          0.13    0.06     0.03      0.25

Mean       4.89          0.20    0.05     0.10      0.31
Mean+S.D.  5.82          0.28    0.07     0.15      0.42
Index of Moderated Mediation
           Mediator      Index   Boot SE  BootLLCI  BootULCI
           Femininity    0.08    0.04     0.00      0.15

Note: 1000 boostrap samples are used for bias corrected bootstrap
confidence intervals. Level of confidence for all confidence intervals
is 95%.

Table 6. Conditional Direct and Indirect Effects of Sex on the Use of
Emotional Coping Strategies

Conditional Direct Effect at values of the moderator:
           Secure Level  Effect  SE       t         p         LLCI  ULCI

Mean-S.D.  4.00          0.44    0.23     1.96      0.05      0.00  0.89
Mean       4.89          0.58    0.17     3.52      0.00      0.26  0.90
Mean+S.D.  5.82          0.71    0.22     3.22      0.00      0.28  1.15
Conditional Indirect Effects
           Secure Level  Effect  Boot SE  BootLLCI  BootULCI
Mean-S.D.  4.00          0.13    0.06     0.02      0.25
Mean       4.89          0.20    0.05     0.11      0.31
Mean+S.D.  5.82          0.28    0.07     0.15      0.43
Index of Moderated Mediation
           Mediator      Index   Boot SE  BootLLCI  BootULCI
           Femininity    0.08    0.04     0.01      0.17

Note: 1000 boostrap samples are used for bias corrected bootstrap
confidence intervals. Level of confidence for all confidence intervals
is 95%.

Table 7. Conditional Direct and Indirect Effects of Sex on the Use of
Instrumental and Emotional Coping Strategies

Conditional Direct Effect at values of the moderator:
                         Instrumental Coping  Emotional Coping
           Secure Level  Effect      SE       Effect      SE

Mean-S.D.  4.24          0.66 (**)   0.29     0.77 (***)  0.29
Mean       5.09          0.58 (***)  0.22     0.67 (***)  0.22
Mean+S.D.  5.94          0.50 (*)    0.30     0.58 (*)    0.30
Conditional Indirect Effects
           Secure Level  Effect      Boot SE  Effect      Boot SE
Mean-S.D.  4.24          0.26 (**)   0.11     0.26 (**)   0.11
Mean       5.09          0.37 (***)  0.09     0.35 (***)  0.10
Mean+S.D.  5.94          0.48 (***)  0.12     0.44 (***)  0.12

Note: (***)0.01 (**)0.05 (*)0.1 significance levels.

Table 8. Conditional Direct and Indirect Effects of Sex on the Use of
Instrumental and Emotional Coping Strategies (China)

Conditional Direct Effect at values of the moderator:
                         Instrumental Coping  Emotional Coping
           Secure Level  Effect      SE       Effect     SE

Mean-S.D.  3.71           0.38       0.31     0.00       0.36
Mean       4.68           0.18       0.22     0.28       0.25
Mean+S.D.  5.64          -0.03       0.31     0.55       0.35
Conditional Indirect Effects
           Secure Level  Effect      Boot SE  Effect     Boot SE
Mean-S.D.  3.71           0.10       0.06     0.10       0.07
Mean       4.68           0.14 (**)  0.07     0.15 (**)  0.07
Mean+S.D.  5.64           0.19 (**)  0.09     0.20 (**)  0.10

Note: (***) 0.01 (**) 0.05 (*) 0.1 significance levels.
COPYRIGHT 2019 Edmondson Intercultural Enterprises
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2019 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Feng, Hairong; Xiu, Lin; Ren, Yufei
Publication:China Media Research
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:1U2NY
Date:Jul 1, 2019
Words:9540
Previous Article:Using Social Media to Increase Psychological Well-Being of Chinese Immigrants: A Case Study of MySunnysky--an Online Counseling and Therapy Service.
Next Article:Differences in Condom Knowledge, Attitudes, and Use among Women from Asian and Western Countries: A Cross-cultural Analysis.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters