Esther Mertens

104 | Chapter 5 Table 3 Moderation of Dyadic Mutuality of the Relation Between Modeling or Reinforcement and Perceived Classroom Peer Context at the Dyad Level Modeling Reinforcement B ( SE ) 95% CI B ( SE ) 95% CI Model 1 Comfort Deviant x mutuality 1.28 (2.48) -3.58; 6.14 1.19 (.61) -.01; 2.39 Prosocial x mutuality 2.80 (3.71) -4.48; 10.07 -.31 (.57) -1.43; .81 Model 2 Cohesion Deviant x mutuality 1.26 (1.15) -.99; 3.50 .84 (.53) -.19; 1.87 Prosocial x mutuality 3.22 (2.04) -.79; 7.22 -.25 (.53) -1.28; .79 Model 3 Conflict Deviant x mutuality -2.43 (1.67) -5.69; .84 -.03 (.61) -1.23; 1.16 Prosocial x mutuality -2.37 (1.55) -5.40; .66 -.01 (.56) -1.10; 1.08 Model 4 Victimization Deviant x mutuality .06 (.54) -.99; 1.12 .24 (.30) -.35; .84 Prosocial x mutuality -1.61 (.57) ** -2.73; -.48 -.02 (.20) -.41; .37 Note. * p < .05 ** p < .01. Figure 1. Moderation of dyadic mutuality of the relation between prosocial modeling and victimization.