Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Aug 5.
Published in final edited form as: J Res Crime Delinq. 2023 Apr 20;61(5):689–726. doi: 10.1177/00224278231167841

Table 3.

Meta-analysis results for SAOMs that consider changes in delinquency-related peer processes over time for transition versus non-transition districts

Model 1:
Alter
(Popularity)		 Model 2:
Ego
(Sociability)		 Model 3:
Similarity
(Selection)
Network process (baseline) 0.050
(0.006)		 *** 0.011
(0.005)		 * 0.634
(0.081)		 ***
  Network process (baseline) × transition district 0.009
(0.011)		 0.016
(0.009)		 −0.014
(0.145)
Network process (7th) 0.010
(0.013)		 0.028
(0.010)		 ** −0.059
(0.121)
  Network process (7th) × transition district −0.029
(0.024)		 −0.052
(0.017)		 ** 0.258
(0.239)
Network process (8th) −0.005
(0.014)		 0.031
(0.010)		 ** −0.174
(0.147)
  Network process (8th) × transition district −0.032
(0.025)		 −0.046
(0.016)		 ** 0.450
(0.278)
Network process (9th) −0.016
(0.013)		 0.021
(0.011)		 0.107
(0.127)
  Network process (9th) × transition district −0.037
(0.024)		 −0.048
(0.018)		 ** 0.159
(0.238)

Notes: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. All models include the structural and behavioral controls presented in Table 2. Model 1 includes 49 networks, Model 2 includes 51, and Model 3 includes 49.