Table 2.
Path Model Examining Linear and Curvilinear Effects of Time 1 Likeability and Popularity on Time 2 Socioevaluative Concern Outcomes
| Time 2 Socioevaluative Concern Variables |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rejection Sensitivity | Peer Importance | Sociometric Digital Status Seeking | Online Status Importance1 | |||||
|
|
||||||||
| Time 1 Variables | Std. β | SE | Std. β | SE | Std. β | SE | Std. β | SE |
|
| ||||||||
| Autoregressive Associations | ||||||||
|
| ||||||||
| Rejection Sensitivity | .26*** | .04 | ||||||
| Peer Importance | .31*** | .04 | ||||||
| Sociometric Digital Status Seeking | .47*** | .04 | ||||||
| Online Status Importance | .16*** | .04 | .23*** | .04 | .44*** | .03 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Peer Status Predictors | ||||||||
|
| ||||||||
| Likeability | .08b | .04 | −.01 | .03 | −.02 | .03 | −.004 | .04 |
| Quadratic Likeability | .07b | .04 | .12** | .04 | .05 | .04 | .06 | .04 |
| Popularity | −.02 | .04 | −.05 | .04 | .25*** | .04 | .10*1 | .04 |
| Quadratic Popularity | .01 | .08 | .02 | .04 | .12* | .03 | −.021 | .04 |
|
| ||||||||
| Gender | .10** | .04 | −.14*** | .04 | .11*** | .03 | .011 | .04 |
Note. Blank rows indicate the paths were not included in the model.
p < .05,
p < .01,
p < .001,
p <.06. Autoregressive paths between Time 1 and Time 2 socioevaluative concern variables were estimated, and the path from Time 1 online status importance to Time 2 peer importance and rejection sensitivity was included per the modification index.
The path between Time 1 Popularity and Time 2 Online Status Importance, as well as the path between Time 1 Quadratic Popularity and Time 2 Online Status Importance, was moderated by Gender (0 = girls, 1 = boys; see p. 12). Results revealed a negative significant association between quadratic popularity and online status importance for girls, but not boys.