TABLE 2.
Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Contextual Correlates of Two Dimensions of Positive Peer Regard Among Suburban and Urban Adolescents
Perceived Admiration |
Social Preference |
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Step | β | r² | β | r² | |||
Demographics | 1 | .01 | .01 | ||||
Gendera | .01 | .00 | .01 | .00 | |||
Race/ethnicityb | −.06 | .00 | .08 | .00 | |||
School | .05 | .00 | .17 | .00 | |||
Peer regard | 2 | .24*** | .24*** | ||||
Positive peer regardc | .16 | .02*** | .30 | .03*** | |||
Student attributes | 3 | .43*** | .18*** | ||||
Grades | .01 | .00 | −.05 | .00 | |||
Academic application | .17 | .02*** | .01 | .00 | |||
Academic disengagement | .06 | .00 | −.09 | .00 | |||
Aggression | .15 | .01** | −.37 | .06*** | |||
Substance use | −.01 | .00 | .04 | .00 | |||
Delinquency | .02 | .00 | .00 | .00 | |||
Athletic ability | .14 | .01** | .19 | .02*** | |||
Physical attractiveness | .59 | .18*** | .27 | .02*** | |||
Two-way interactions | 4 | .02 | .02 | ||||
Three-way interactions | 5 | .04*** | .02 | ||||
Gender × context × academic application | |||||||
Substance Use | .08 | .01* | |||||
Athletic Ability | −.42 | .02** | |||||
Physical Attractiveness | .10 | .02* | |||||
Total R² | .74*** | .48*** |
Girl=1, boy=0.
White=1, ethnic minority=0.
This variable is the dimension of positive peer regard not being considered as an outcome.
p<.05
p<.01
p<.001.
Note. As recommended by Aiken and West (1991), (a) interaction terms in these analyses involve centered variables, (b) β values for main effects are standardized, and (c) β values for interaction effects are unstandardized. Only those interactions that showed significant effects in one or both analyses are presented.