Table 3.
Hierarchical Regression Analyses Testing Additive and Interactive Effects of Gender by Stress and Coping Resources
| Predictor Variables | b (SE) | R2 (%) & R2 Change |
|---|---|---|
| Sociodemographic (Step 1) | ||
| Age | -.032 (.013) * | |
| Marital status | -1.21 (.226) **** | |
| Black/African American (white = 0) | -.674 (.438) | |
| Asian, Pacific Islanders, American Indians (White = 0) | -.060 (.372) | |
| Household income | -1.29 (.148) | |
| R-square at this step | .060 **** | |
| Coping Resources (Step 2) | ||
| Social participation | -.222 (.042) **** | |
| Emotional support from spouse | -.227 (.030) **** | |
| Emotional support from family | -.061 (.067) | |
| Emotional support to family | -.288 (.075) **** | |
| Emotional support from friends | -.398 (.134) ** | |
| Increment of R-square at this step | .069 **** | |
| Health-Related Stressors (Step 3) | ||
| Cognitive status | -.111 (.041) ** | |
| ADL impairment | .264 (.060) **** | |
| IADL impairment | .230 (.046) **** | |
| Perceived lack of control in life | .062 (.035) | |
| Social Relationship Stressors | ||
| Family disharmony | .514 (.056) **** | |
| Poor friendship quality | .107 (.052) **** | |
| Community Stressors | ||
| Community harmony issue | .012 (.047) | |
| Community safety issue | .050 (.182) | |
| Increment of R2 at this step | .107 **** | |
| Gender (Step 4) | ||
| Female = 1 | .409 (.220) * | |
| Increment of R2 at this step | .001 **** | |
| Interaction terms (Step 5)a | ||
| Emotional support from spouse x Gender | .089 (.034) * | |
| Increment of R2 at this step | .002 **** | |
| R-square | .239 **** | |
| Adjusted R-square | .232 **** | |
This significant interaction term is shown on this Table
b is unstandardized regression coefficient, standard error is in parentheses
*p < .05; ** p < .01; ****p < .0001.
aAmong all the two-way interaction terms between gender and stressors; gender and coping resource factors, only “Gender by Emotional support from spouse” was significant (p = .036)