Browse

Sample demographic characteristics table

Table 1
Sociodemographic Characteristics of Participants at Baseline




Baseline characteristic


Guided self-help


Unguided self-help


Wait-list control


Full sample



 
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%



Gender

 
 
 
 


  Female
25
50
20
40
23
46
68
45.3


  Male
25
50
30
60
27
54
82
54.7


Marital status
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


  Single
 13
26 
11 
 22
 17
34 
41 
 27.3


  Married/partnered
 35
 70
38 
 76
 28
56
101 
 67.3


  Divorced/widowed
 1
2 
1 
 2
 4
 8
 6
 4.0


  Other
 1
1 
 0
 0
 1
 2
 2
1.3 


Children a
 26
52
26 
 52
 22
 44
 74
49.3 


Cohabitating
 37
74 
 36
72 
 26
 52
 99
 66.0


 Highest educational    level
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


   Middle school
 0
 0
 1
 2
 1
 2
 2
 1.3


   High school/some     college
 22
 44
 17
 34
 13
 26
 52
34.7 


   University or     postgraduate degree
 27
 54
 30
 60
 32
 64
89 
 59.3


Employment
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


  Unemployed
 3
 6
5 
10 
 2
 4
 10
6.7 


  Student
 8
 16
 7
14 
 3
 6
 18
12.0 


  Employed
 30
 60
 29
 58
 40
 80
99 
 66.0


  Self-employed
 9
 18
 7
 14
 5
 10
 21
14.0 


  Retired
 0
0 
 2
4 
 0
 0
 2
1.3 


Previous psychological   treatment a
 17
 34
 18
36 
24 
 48
 59
 39.3


Previous psychotropic   medication a
6
12
13
26
11
22
30
20.0




Note. N = 150 (n = 50 for each condition). Participants were on average 39.5 years old (SD = 10.1), and participant age did not differ by condition.
a Reflects the number and percentage of participants answering “yes” to this question.



Sample results of several t tests table

Table 2
Results of Curve-Fitting Analysis Examining the Time Course of Fixations to the Target




Logistic parameter


9-year-olds


16-year-olds


t(40)


p

Cohen's d


 
M
SD
M
SD
 
 
 


Maximum asymptote, proportion
.843
.135
.877
.082
0.951
.347
0.302


Crossover, in ms
759
87
694
42
2.877
.006
0.840


Slope, as change in proportion per ms
.001
.0002
.002
.0002
2.635
.012
2.078




Note. For each subject, the logistic function was fit to target fixations separately. The maximum asymptote is the asymptotic degree of looking at the end of the time course of fixations. The crossover point is the point in time the function crosses the midway point between peak and baseline. The slope represents the rate of change in the function measured at the crossover. Mean parameter values for each of the analyses are shown for the 9-year-olds (n = 24) and 16-year-olds (n = 18), as well as the results of t tests (assuming unequal variance) comparing the parameter estimates between the two ages.



Sample correlation table

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables




Variable

n

M


SD


1

2
3
4
5
6
7


1. Internal–     external status a
3,697
0.43
0.49
—
 
 
 
 
 
 


2. Manager job     performance
2,134
3.14
0.62
−.08**
—
 
 
 
 
 


3. Starting salary b
3,697
1.01
0.27
.45**  
−.01
—
 
 
 
 


4. Subsequent promotion
3,697
0.33
0.47
.08**
.07**
.04*
—
 
 
 


5. Organizational tenure
3,697
6.45
6.62
−.29**
.09**
.01
.09**
—
 
 


6. Unit service     performance c
3,505
85.00
6.98
−.25**
−.39**
.24**
.08**
.01
—
 


7. Unit financial     performance c
  694
42.61  
5.86
.00
−.03
.12*
−.07
−.02
.16**
—



a 0 = internal hires and 1 = external hires.b A linear transformation was performed on the starting salary values to maintain pay practice confidentiality. The standard deviation (0.27) can be interpreted as 27% of the average starting salary for all managers. Thus, ±1 SD includes a range of starting salaries from 73% (i.e., 1.00 – 0.27) to 127% (i.e., 1.00 + 0.27) of the average starting salaries for all managers.c Values reflect the average across 3 years of data.*p < .05. **p < .01.


Sample analysis of variance (ANOVA) table

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and One-Way Analyses of Variance in Psychological and Social Resources and Cognitive Appraisals




Measure


Urban


Rural


F(1, 294)


η2



 
M
SD
M
SD
 
 



Self-esteem

2.91
0.49
3.35
0.35
68.87***
.19


Social support
4.22
1.50
5.56
1.20
62.60***
.17


Cognitive appraisals
 
 
 
 
 
 


  Threat
2.78
0.87
1.99
0.88
56.35***
.20


  Challenge
2.48
0.88
2.83
1.20
7.87***
.03


  Self-efficacy
2.65
0.79
3.53
0.92
56.35***
.16




***p < .001.



Sample factor analysis table

Table 1
Results From a Factor Analysis of the Parental Care and Tenderness (PCAT) Questionnaire




PCAT item


Factor loading



 
1
2
3



Factor 1: Tenderness—Positive

 
 
 


  20. You make a baby laugh over and over again by making silly faces.
.86
.04
.01


  22. A child blows you kisses to say goodbye.
.85
−.02
−.01


  16. A newborn baby curls its hand around your finger.
.84
−.06
.00


  19. You watch as a toddler takes their first step and tumbles gently back        down.
.77
.05
−.07


  25. You see a father tossing his giggling baby up into the air as a game.
.70
.10
−.03



Factor 2: Liking

 
 
 


  5. I think that kids are annoying (R)
−.01
.95
.06 


  8. I can’t stand how children whine all the time (R)
−.12
.83
−.03  


  2. When I hear a child crying, my first thought is “shut up!” (R)
.04
.72
  .01


  11. I don’t like to be around babies. (R)
.11
.70
−.01  


  14. If I could, I would hire a nanny to take care of my children. (R)
.08
.58
−.02  



Factor 3: Protection

 
 
 


  7. I would hurt anyone who was a threat to a child.
−.13
−.02
.95


  12. I would show no mercy to someone who was a danger to a child.
.00
−.05
.74


  15. I would use any means necessary to protect a child, even if I had to        hurt others.
.06
.08
.72


  4. I would feel compelled to punish anyone who tried to harm a child.
.07
.03
.68


  9. I would sooner go to bed hungry than let a child go without food.
.46
−.03
.36




Note. N = 307. The extraction method was principal axis factoring with an oblique (Promax with Kaiser Normalization) rotation. Factor loadings above .30 are in bold. Reverse-scored items are denoted with an (R). Adapted from “Individual Differences in Activation of the Parental Care Motivational System: Assessment, Prediction, and Implications,” by E. E. Buckels, A. T. Beall, M. K. Hofer, E. Y. Lin, Z. Zhou, and M. Schaller, 2015, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(3), p. 501 (https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000023). Copyright 2015 by the American Psychological Association.



Sample regression table

Table 3
Moderator Analysis: Types of Measurement and Study Year




Effect


Estimate


SE


95% CI

p


 
 
 
LL
UL
 



Fixed effects

 
 
 
 
 



  Intercept

.119
.040
.041
.198
.003


     Creativity measurement a
.097
.028
.042
.153
.001


     Academic achievement measurement b
−.039
.018
−.074
−.004
.03


     Study year c
.0002
.001
−.001
.002
.76


     Goal d
−.003
.029
−.060
.054
.91


     Published e
.054
.030
−.005
.114
.07



Random effects

 
 
 
 
 


    Within-study variance
.009
.001
.008
.011
<.001


    Between-study variance
.018
.003
.012
.023
<.001




Note. Number of studies = 120, number of effects = 782, total N = 52,578. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.
a 0 = self-report, 1 = test. b 0 = test, 1 = grade point average. c Study year was grand centered. d 0 = other, 1 = yes. e 0 = no, 1 = yes.


Sample qualitative table with variable descriptions

Table 2
Master Narrative Voices: Struggle and Success and Emancipation




Discourse and dimension

Example quote



Struggle and success a

 



  Self-actualization as member of a larger gay community is the end goal of healthy sexual identity development, or “coming out”


“My path of gayness ... going from denial to saying, well this is it, and then the process of coming out, and the process of just sort of, looking around and seeing, well where do I stand in the world, and sort of having, uh, political feelings.” (Carl, age 50)




  Maintaining healthy sexual identity entails vigilance against internalization of societal discrimination


“When I'm like thinking of criticisms of more mainstream gay culture, I try to ... make sure it's coming from an appropriate place and not like a place of self-loathing.” (Patrick, age 20)




Emancipation b

 



  Open exploration of an individually fluid sexual self is the goal of healthy sexual identity development


“[For heterosexuals] the man penetrates the female, whereas with gay people, I feel like there is this potential for really playing around with that model a lot, you know, and just experimenting and exploring.” (Orion, age 31)




  Questioning discrete, monolithic categories of sexual identity 


“LGBTQI, you know, and added on so many letters. Um, and it does start to raise the question about what the terms mean and whether ... any term can adequately be descriptive.” (Bill, age 50)  




a The struggle and success master narrative states that same-sex desire/behavior is a natural if relatively uncommon developmental variant distinguishable from heterosexuality. Healthy sexual development entails “coming out” as well as joining a larger gay community in a shared struggle to overcome societal discrimination and be socially recognized as normal.b The emancipation master narrative states that discrete, monolithic, and mutually exclusive categories of homosexuality and heterosexuality are social constructions, conceptually suspect in their ability to fully capture the idiosyncrasies of sexual subjectivities, desires, and behaviors. This circumscription of sexual self within culturally contingent and hegemonic sexual identity categories must be resisted.


Sample mixed methods table

Table 3
Integrated Results Matrix for the Effect of Topic Familiarity on Reliance on Author Expertise




Quantitative results

Qualitative results
Example quote



When the topic was more familiar (climate change) and cards were more relevant, participants placed less value on author expertise.


When an assertion was considered to be more familiar and considered to be general knowledge, participants perceived less need to rely on author expertise.


Participant 144: “I feel that I know more about climate and there are several things on the climate cards that are obvious, and that if I sort of know it already, then the source is not so critical ... whereas with nuclear energy, I don't know so much so then I'm maybe more interested in who says what.”




When the topic was less familiar (nuclear power) and cards were more relevant, participants placed more value on authors with higher expertise.


When an assertion was considered to be less familiar and not general knowledge, participants perceived more need to rely on author expertise.


Participant 3: “[Nuclear power], which I know much, much less about, I would back up my arguments more with what I trust from the professors.”





Note. We integrated quantitative data (whether students selected a card about nuclear power or about climate change) and qualitative data (interviews with students) to provide a more comprehensive description of students’ card selections between the two topics.

Manual & automation Testing

Eating a wide variety of nutritious foods, including fruit, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and lean protein can help support your overall health.