Table 4 Distribution of N = 1 effect sizes among socially rich and socially poor adolescents.

Effect size patterns		All participants		Socially rich participants		Socially poor participants
Short-Term	Longer-Term	All participants		↑ FS n = 69	↓ LON n = 85	↓ FS n = 160	↑ LON n = 69
Short-Term	Longer-Term	n	%	%	%	%	%
Getting richer		63	17	12	12	24	28
	Getting Richer	15	4	1	5	4	6
	No Change	30	8	9	5	9	10
	Getting Poorer	18	5	1	2	12	12
Getting poorer		157	42	46	51	39	43
	Getting Poorer	29	8	4	10	7	7
	No Change	89	24	30	30	17	25
	Getting Richer	39	10	12	11	14	10
No effect		153	41	42	37	37	29
	No Change	82	22	22	20	20	13
	Getting Richer	40	11	12	10	10	7
	Getting Poorer	31	8	9	7	7	9
Total		373	100	100	100	100	100

↑FS = high on friendship support; ↓ LON = low on loneliness; ↓ FS = low on friendship support; ↑ LON = high on loneliness. Effects were considered as negative/positive based on the cut-off points β ≤ − .05 and β ≥ .05. Subgroups of socially rich and poor adolescents were created based on the Mean + /1 SD, with the exception of low loneliness for which we used the absolute minimum of 1.

Quick links

Search