Gender Differences in Psychological Strengths Among Rural Adolescents.
Angela J Preston, Jodi Bullard, Rachel Smith and 1 others
PMID 41395770WHAT IT FOUND
Rural Texas adolescents reported low optimism and resilience, with males scoring higher than females and non-binary peers on most strengths.
These differences were small and the study is cross-sectional, so it identifies a risk group but does not prove interventions work.
Key findings
01Only 9.2% of the sample reported high levels of optimism, the lowest proportion among the five psychological strengths measured.
02Males reported significantly higher hope and resilience scores than females, and significantly higher hope, self-efficacy, resilience, and gratitude than non-binary adolescents.
03The differences in psychological strengths between gender groups were small, accounting for 2% to 5% of the variance.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study is cross-sectional, so it cannot determine cause and effect or track changes over time. The sample was drawn from a single rural high school in Texas, limiting generalizability. Mental health outcomes like depression and anxiety were not measured. The number of non-binary participants was very small (n=15), making comparisons involving this group unstable. Benchmarks for 'high' and 'low' scores were based on previous literature, including adult norms, which may not be appropriate for adolescents. The effect sizes for gender differences were small.
Declared interests
The research was funded in part by a dissertation grant from Jonas Philanthropies and Sigma Theta Tau International Iota Nu Chapter. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the small gender differences in self-reported psychological strengths as clinically significant predictors of mental health outcomes. The study did not measure actual mental illness, the effect sizes were small, and the cross-sectional design cannot show that these strengths protect against future problems.