Table 6.

Sex disaggregated data for the perceived institutional support and resources of the
participants

PERCEIVED INTITUTIONAL SUPPORT AND RESOURCES

SEX PROFILE
Mean ± S.D. Interpretation
Male 3.45 ± 0.65 Moderate support
Female 3.25 ± 0.67 Weak support
All 3.28 ± 0.67 Weak support
Interpretation: 4.21 – 5.00 = very strong support; 3.41 – 4.20 = strong support; 2.61 – 3.40 = moderate support; 1.81
– 2.60 = weak support; 1.00 – 1.80 = very weak support

Figure 10. Sex disaggregated data for the perceived institutional support and resource of the
participants
Significant variations between male and female participants' perceptions of institutional
resources and support were found after the data were broken down by sex. The average
interpretation score for the male participants was higher (M = 3.45), indicating a moderate level
of support. The mean interpretation score for the female participants was lower (M = 3.25),
indicating weaker support. All participants' average overall interpretation scores were 3.28,
which showed a consistent pattern of underwhelming support.
These findings align with previous research that has shown gender disparities in
institutional support and resources (Eagly & Carli, 2018; Rudman & Glick, 2020). Factors such
as gender stereotypes, biased organizational practices, and differential access to opportunities
may contribute to the observed differences in perceived support levels (Eagly & Wood, 2019;
Williams & O'Reilly, 2021).
The study utilized sex-disaggregated data to explore perceived institutional support and
resources among participants. The sample consisted of both male and female participants, and
their responses were analyzed using mean interpretation scores. The male participants had a
mean interpretation score of 3.45, indicating moderate support. On the other hand, the female
participants reported a mean interpretation score of 3.25, indicating weak support. Combining
the responses of all participants yielded a mean interpretation score of 3.28, also indicating
weak support.

References:

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2018). Gender and leadership: Introduction to the special
issue. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(2), 95-97.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2019). The nature–nurture debates: 25 years of challenges in
understanding the psychology of gender. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(6), 1092-
1105.
Eby, L. T., Butts, M., & Lockwood, A. (2018). Predictors of success in the era of
boundaryless careers: Do career competencies matter? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 104,