Esther Mertens

| 109 Classmate Influence in Intervention Supplementary material Table S1 Correlations Between Variables Assessed at Baseline and Post Intervention 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Classroom peer context T1 1. Comfort - 2. Cohesion .45** - 3. Conflict -.23** -.51**- 4. Victimization .15 -.42**-.15 - Mediators T1 5. Deviant modeling .26** -.15 -.27** -.03 - 6. Prosocial modeling -.21* .13 .22* -.14 -.46** - 7. Deviant reinforcement .13 -.06 -.08 -.01 .36** -.26** - 8. Prosocial reinforcement -.23** .03 .17 .02 -.49** .36** -.64**- Moderators T1 9. Dyadic mutuality -.22* .00 .07 -.12 .04 .02 .05 .02 - Classroom peer context T2 10. Comfort -.37** .30** .33** -.10 -.15 .20* -.15 .14 -.16 -.25** - 11. Cohesion -.38** .27** .37** -.09 -.14 .28** -.18 .10 .15 -.36** 73** - 12. Conflict -.23** -.07 .30** .11 -.02 -.05 -.17 .09 .14 -.25** -.36** 13. Victimization .01 -.15 -.11 .09 .19* -.18* -.02 -.23** .08 .25** -.12 -.07 - Mediators T2 14. Deviant modeling .27** -.03 -.14 .03 .48** -.40** .15 -.25** -.24** .14 -.11 -.18 .14 - 15. Prosocial modeling-.12 .19* .16 -.14 -.36** .51** -.21* .26** .03 -.09 .19* .18 -.26** -.54** - 16. Deviant reinforcement .10 .08 -.05 -.08 .13 -.15 .06 -.15 -.07 .14 -.05 -.11 .13 .39** -.20* - 17. Prosocial reinforcement -.15 .02 .08 .03 -.27** .20* -.14 .28** .10 -.15 .11 .13 -.22* -.43** .18* -.61** Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01. 5