TABLE 3.

Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Two Dimensions of Positive Peer Regard: Race/ethnicity Comparisons Among Urban Students

		Perceived Admiration			Social Preference
	Step	β	r²	${\mathit{\text{sr}}}_i^2$	β	R²	${\mathit{\text{sr}}}_i^2$
Demographics	1		.05**			.01
Gendera		−.03		.00	−.04		.00
White/ethnic minorityb		−.17		.00	.04		.00
AA/Lationc		−.01		.00	.11		.00
Peer regard	2		.26***			.27***
Positive peer regardd		.14		.02***	.29		.02**
Student attributes	3		.44***			.22***
Grades		.04		.00	−.02		.00
Academic application		.29		.10***	−.09		.00
Academic disengagement		.05		.01	−.14		.01
Physical aggression		.22		.01*	−.29		.03***
Substance use		.04		.00	.04		.00
Delinquency		.01		.00	−.00		.00
Athletic ability		.16		.02*	.13		.00
Physical attractiveness		.41		.05***	.49		.08***
Two-way interactions	4		.01			.01
Three-way interactions	5		.03**			.01
AA/latino academic application		−.11		.02**
Substance Use		−.11		.01*
Athletic Ability
Physical Attractiveness
Total R²			.79***			.52***

^aGirl=1, boy=0.

^bWhite=1, ethnic minority=0.

^cAfrican American=1, Latino=0.

^dThis 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.