Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2008 Dec 10.
Published in final edited form as: J Soc Clin Psychol. 2008 Feb;27(2):150–173. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2008.27.2.150

TABLE 1a.

Means and SDs for PEDQ Total, Subscales, Cynical Hostility and Trait Affect Across Demographic Variables

Full Score Means N = 362 Blacks N = 218 Latinos N = 144 Men N = 156 Women N = 206 Less than High School N = 92 High School N = 213 College N = 57 Working N = 182 Not Working N = 180 Poverty Group #1 N = 151 Poverty Group #2 N = 84 Poverty Group #3 N = 44 Poverty Group #4 N = 83
PEDQ 2.15 2.21* 2.06 2.23* 2.09 2.18 2.14 2.13 2.13 2.16 2.14 2.17 2.10 2.15
    Total (.67) (.66) (.67) (.65) (.68) (.74) (.67) (.56) (.64) (.70) (.72) (.73) (.57) (.56)
PEDQ— 2.53 2.61* 2.41 2.57 2.50 2.52 2.53 2.53 2.52 2.54 2.51 2.57 2.48 2.56
    Excl. (.78) (.76) (.79) (.77) (.79) (.85) (.77) (.68) (.73) (.82) (.83) (.83) (.72) (.67)
PEDQ— 2.19 2.26 2.09 2.19 2.19 2.07 2.22 2.28 2.29* 2.10 2.08 2.22 2.24 2.35
    Work (.81) (.79) (.82) (.76) (.84) (.74) (.84) (.78) (.84) (.77) (.79) (.84) (.69) (.84)
PEDQ— 1.96 2.01 1.88 2.10** 1.85 2.04 1.93 1.94 1.89 2.02 1.99 2.00 1.83 1.93
    Stigma (.83) (.83) (.82) (.87) (.78) (.90) (.79) (.82) (.78) (.87) (.88) (.86) (.57) (.81)
PEDQ— 1.68 1.71 1.62 1.75 1.62 1.91**a 1.64 1.45 1.59 1.77* 1.77*b 1.70 1.65 1.49
    Threat (.76) (.81) (.69) (.74) (.77) (.88) (.72) (.59) (.69) (.82) (.82) (.81) (.68) (.60)
CYN .53 .52 .54 .53 .52 .59***a .52 .46 .50 .55* .56*b .52 .51 .48
    HOST (.20) (.20) (.19) (.20) (.20) (.19) (.20) (.19) (.19) (.20) (.20) (.18) (.20) (.19)
PANAS 2.04 1.96 2.18* 2.00 2.07 2.26**a 1.97 1.94 1.95 2.13* 2.16 1.98 1.92 1.94
    NEG (.76) (.73) (.82) (.73) (.78) (.82) (.74) (.63) (.64) (.85) (.84) (.72) (.65) (.67)

Note.

a

The main effects of education were significant for PEDQ threat, cynical hostility and trait negative affect. Post hoc comparisons (with Tukey's adjustment) indicate significant differences between those with less than a high school education and those with a college education.

b

The main effects of Poverty Group on PEDQ threat and cynical hostility were significant (ps < .05). For both variables post hoc comparisons (with Tukey's adjustment) indicate marginally significant differences between those in poverty group 1 vs. 4.

*

p < .05

**

p < .01

***

p < .001.