Table 3.

Individual neighborhood main effects models predicting aggression trajectories

	Girls (N = 2565)		Boys (N = 2553)
	B	95% CI	B	95% CI
Model 1:
Intercept	0.253**	(0.086, 0.420)	0.350**	(0.170, 0.530)
Age	0.151**	(0.101, 0.201)	0.100**	(0.033, 0.168)
Age-squared	−0.021**	(−0.028, −0.014)	−0.017**	(−0.026, −0.008)
Socioeconomic disadvantage	0.005**	(0.003, 0.008)	0.003*	(0.000, 0.006)
Model 2:
Intercept	0.224**	(0.056, 0.392)	0.340**	(0.161, 0.520)
Age	0.151**	(0.101, 0.201)	0.101**	(0.033, 0.169)
Age-squared	−0.021**	(−0.028, −0.014)	−0.017**	(−0.026, −0.008)
Social bonding	−0.172	(−0.596, 0.253)	−0.321†	(−0.696, 0.055)
Model 3:
Intercept	0.226**	(0.058, 0.394)	0.338**	(0.158, 0.517)
Age	0.151**	(0.101, 0.201)	0.101**	(0.033, 0.169)
Age-squared	−0.021**	(−0.028, −0.014)	−0.017**	(−0.026, −0.008)
Social control	−0.038	(−0.155, 0.080)	−0.047	(−0.149, 0.055)

Note. CI = confidence interval. Interactions of each neighborhood predictor with age (to assess impact on linear slope) and with age-squared (to assess impact on quadratic slope) were dropped because they were not statistically significant at the .05 level. All analyses controlled for race/ethnicity, parent education, family structure, the number of times the student moved across the five waves of data collection, the type of address geocoded and the precision of the geocode.

^†p < .10.

^*p < .05.

^**p < .01.