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	${sr}_{i}^{2}$	β	r²	${sr}_{i}^{2}$
Demographics	1		.01			.01
Gender^a		.01		.00	.01		.00
Race/ethnicity^b		−.06		.00	.08		.00
School		.05		.00	.17		.00
Peer regard	2		.24^***			.24^***
Positive peer regard^c		.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.