Table 4.
Boys’ cliques | Girls’ cliques | Mixed-gender cliquesa | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Emotional support | Instrumental support | Emotional support | Instrumental support | Emotional support | Instrumental support | |||||||
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 1 | Model 2 | |
b (SE) | b (SE) | b (SE) | b (SE) | b (SE) | b (SE) | b (SE) | b (SE) | b (SE) | b (SE) | b (SE) | b (SE) | |
Level 1 | ||||||||||||
Individual status (IS) | .20*** (.05) | .14 (.09) | .12* (.06) | .05 (.10) | .22*** (.06) | .18+ (.11) | .18*** (.05) | .18+ (.10) | .35*** (.06) | .33*** (.08) | .23*** (.06) | .20** (.08) |
Level 2 | ||||||||||||
Clique status | .19 (.11) | .19 (.11) | .07 (.12) | .05 (.10) | .25** (.10) | .25** (.10) | .10 (.10) | .10 (.10) | .07 (13) | .07 (13) | .21 (.14) | .21 (.14) |
Clique size | −.02** (.01) | −.02** (.01) | −.01+ (.01) | .01 (.00) | −.01 (.01) | −.01 (.01) | .−00 (.01) | .−00 (.01) | −.00 (.00) | −.00 (.00) | .00 (.00) | −.00 (.00) |
Clique hierarchization (CH) | .06 (.15) | .06 (.15) | .06 (.16) | −.01 (.16) | −.31* (.13) | −.31* (.13) | −.17 (.13) | −.17 (.13) | .34+ (.19) | .34+ (.19) | −.27 (.21) | −.27 (.21) |
Cross-level interaction | ||||||||||||
IS × CH | .81 (.85) | .81 (.92) | .36 (.75) | .00 (.68) | .27 (.64) | .45 (.62) | ||||||
df | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 |
χ2 Deviance differenceb | 29.66*** | .89 | 8.06+ | 0.76 | 26.48*** | .23 | 13.67** | .00 | 52.10*** | .18 | 18.94*** | .52 |
+ p < .1; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
aFor mixed-gender cliques we also included gender as control variable (girl = 0/boy = 1). The effect of gender was for all models −.15*** (.02)
bThe decrease in χ2 deviance for models 1 of boys’ and girls’ cliques is compared with the deviance of the empty model, and of mixed-gender cliques compared with the deviance of the model including only gender. Model 2 is compared with model 1