Overcompensating, for Better or for Worse
Effects of Being Racially, Ethnically, & Socioeconomically Different from Peers
WORKING PAPER:
Preliminary and Incomplete
July 31, 2014
Nancy Haskell
University of Dayton
Dept. of Economics & Finance
300 College Park
Dayton, OH 45469
nhaskell1@udayton.edu
ABSTRACT: Similarity in characteristics plays an important role in friendship formation. This paper studies the effects of being racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically different from one’s peers on a variety of behaviors and health outcomes. A
simple model of friendship formation is introduced, which predicts that students who
are more different from their peers will engage in higher levels of ”cool” behaviors
to gain popularity. Reduced form regressions on Add Health data are used to test
the model. Identification of the effects of being different comes from exogenous variation in the demographic composition of grades within a school. Model predictions
are consistent with empirical evidence for substance use and other mildly delinquent
behaviors. However, the results are mixed for positive behaviors such as academic
achievement and participation in clubs and sports teams. Students who are more
racially and ethnically different from their peers are also less popular and more depressed. These negative effects are mitigated by greater racial diversity in the school.
This research uses data from Add Health, a program project designed by J. Richard
Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris, and funded by a grant P01HD31921 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development, with cooperative funding from 17 other agencies. Special acknowledgment is due Ronald R. Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in
the original design. Persons interested in obtaining Data Files from Add Health
should contact Add Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Carolina Population Center, 206 W. Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2524 (addhealth contracts@unc.edu). No direct support was received from grant P01-HD31921
for this analysis.
2
1
Introduction
Students who are more different from their peers in observable characteristics tend
to have fewer friends. This results from the fact that people prefer friends who are
more similar to themselves, commonly referred to as homophily, which has been
well documented in sociological and economic literature [Kandel (1978); Currarini,
Jackson, & Pin (2009)]. The loss in popularity due to differences in observable characteristics may result in students behaving differently, being less happy, and having
lower self-esteem. Behaviors such as substance use, academic achievement, and participation in extracurricular activities, as well as health status and depression are
generally correlated with earnings and outcomes later in life. As such, it is useful to
understand how students’ high school environments affect their behaviors and health.
This paper explores how students who are more racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically different from their peers alter their behaviors to gain social acceptance
and popularity. A simple model of friendship formation is introduced, which predicts
that students who are more different from their peers in observable characteristics
will be less popular and will engage in higher levels of “cool” behaviors. The model
remains neutral as to what will be considered “cool,” and the classification of the behaviors is determined by data. Reduced form regressions on data from the National
Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) are used to test the model.
The idea that students behave differently according to their demographic characteristics relative to their peers in order to gain social acceptance is not new to
this paper. Akerloff and Kranton (2000, 2002) offer a general theoretical model in
which people engage in behaviors that match the norms of whichever group they
most identify. However, their work does not address the determination of groups or
group-norms. By considering student characteristics relative to all others in their
school and grade, the model introduced in this paper avoids the empirical problem
of identifying subgroups of peers as required by the Akerloff/Kranton model.
Reduced form regressions on data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) are used to test model predictions for the effects of being
different on “cool” behaviors. Identification of the causal effects of being different
comes from exogenous variation in the demographic composition of grades within
a school.1 Two indexes are created, one to measure the extent of racial and eth1
Hoxby (2000) uses a similar identification strategy. The strategy is valid if parents do not select
specific grades within schools, even if they select into specific schools.
1
nic differences, and the second to measure socioeconomic differences from peers in
the same grade and school. The results are interpreted as the additional changes
in behavior caused by being racially/ethnically and socioeconomically different from
peers, conditional on the students’ race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and other
demographic characteristics.
The empirical findings indicate that racial and ethnic differences affect student
behaviors, popularity, and mental health. However, socioeconomic differences have
few noticeable effects. Model predictions are consistent with empirical evidence for
substance use and other mildly delinquent behaviors. Racial and ethnic differences
from one’s peers lead students to engage in more smoking, drinking, dangerous activities, lying, and acting out in class, all of which are considered “cool” behaviors
by high school students.2 The results are mixed for positive, “cool” behaviors. Students who are more different exhibit less studying and lower academic achievement,
but they participate on more school sports teams. Students who are more racially
and ethnically different from their peers are also less popular and less happy, and
students who are more socioeconomically different tend to have slightly higher body
weight.
These mixed findings for positive, “cool” behaviors may be a function of time
constraints, which force students to choose between different “cool” behaviors and
lead them to choose the behaviors that have relatively higher marginal returns to
popularity. Or, the findings may be explained by an alternative model of “acting
out” when students are more different from their peers. In this alternative model,
students who are more different on observable characteristics do not feel accepted
by their peers and thus are not influenced by social norms. As a result, they stop
trying to conform to their peers’ behaviors and instead “act out” by engaging in
higher levels of negative, perhaps even self-destructive behaviors because they are
unhappy. Under such a theory, one would expect students who are more different to
engage in more substance use, more mildly delinquent behaviors such as getting into
trouble with teachers, more anti-social behaviors such as fighting, and fewer positive
behaviors such as studying and extracurricular activities.
The alternative, “acting out” theory could be refuted in favor of the “coolness”
model introduced in this paper if students who are more different are found to engage
in higher levels of positive “cool” behaviors such as academic achievement, sports,
2
Behaviors are defined as “cool” if they have a positive marginal effect on popularity. The
determination of “cool” behaviors is discussed in more detail in the empirical section.
2
and music clubs. Conversely, the “coolness” model could be rejected in favor of
the “acting out” model if students who are more different engage in lower levels of
positive behaviors. However, empirical results for the effects of being different on
these positive, “cool” behaviors are inconclusive as to which model fits the data best.
The paper focuses on the “coolness” model because it does not require assumptions
about social norms, which are necessary in the “acting out” theory and the Akerloff/Kranton model.
Overall, being more racially and ethnically different from peers has, on net, a negative effect on students. This finding has implications for policymakers concerned
with integrating schools and improving student outcomes by busing students from
poorly performing to better schools. Positive peer effects may be outweighed by
being too different in observable characteristics from one’s classmates. However, the
empirical results also indicate that the negative effects of being racially and ethnically different from one’s peer are mitigated by greater racial diversity in the grade
and school. Individual differences are less noticeable and peers seem to be more
tolerant when the school is more diverse. Thus, policy initiatives such as Moving to
Opportunity,3 where a small number of students are introduced to better schools,
may be less successful than a larger scale integration of schools and students.
The next section discusses related literature, while the third section introduces
the theoretical model. Data are described in the fourth section, and the empirical
strategy and results are discussed in the fifth section. The sixth section provides
robustness checks for the results, while the seventh section concludes.
2
Related Literature
A number of studies have been concerned with the economic effects of heterogeneity in socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity. A more fragmented community
may lead to lower “social capital,” which can affect economic development (Putnam
1995). Greater heterogeneity may reduce trust, civic participation, and contributions
to public goods. Alesina and La Ferrara (2000) study participation rates for community activities such as sports clubs, religious groups, farmer’s and other professional
associations, unions, school and community service groups, literary and hobby clubs,
3
Katz, King, and Liebman (2001) provide an analysis of the Moving to Opportunity (MTO)
initiative.
3
and political associations. They find that overall participation in groups is lower
in areas with greater income inequality, greater racial diversity, and greater ethnic
fragmentation. The effect is strongest for racial heterogeneity.
The actions of adults in communities presumably reflect, to some extent, learned
behaviors as children in school. In order to understand participation rates at the
community level, it is useful to explore the effects of heterogeneity on individual behaviors including, but not limited to, participation in clubs among high school students. More importantly, this study looks beyond the average effects of heterogeneity
on individual behaviors. Rather, it identifies how the effects differ by individual, depending on how large a share of the population belongs to the same racial, ethnic,
or socioeconomic group. The results are broadly consistent with Alesina and La
Ferrara (2000), who find that minorities tend to engage in more civic participation,
but overall participation is lower in communities with larger minority populations,
meaning greater heterogeneity. Furthermore, both studies find that racial differences
tend to have stronger effects than socioeconomic differences.
This is not the first study to be concerned with racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic
differences in schools. Ethnographers, sociologists, psychologists, and economists
have been concerned with a phenomenon generally referred to as “acting white”
since the mid-1980’s. The central theme in this literature is that behaviors are used
as indicators of “group loyalty.” Black students who earn good grades and participate
in academic clubs are considered “disloyal” to blacks, or “acting white,” and are less
socially accepted among their black peers (Neal-Barnett 2001). However, empirical
evidence of this phenomenon is weak. Cook and Ludwig (1997) find that popularity
increases with academic achievement for both black and white students using NELS
data. In a recent study, Fryer and Torelli (2010) use Add Health data and find evidence of “acting white,” but only at extremely high levels of academic achievement.
While they show that popularity is positively associated with academic achievement
for both black and white students at low and moderate grade point averages, popularity decreases among black students who earn a GPA higher than 3.5. This differs
from white students who continue to experience a positive relation between good
grades and high social status at all levels of academic achievement. Fryer and Torelli
(2010) also find evidence of good grades decreasing popularity for Hispanics. Interestingly, the reduction in popularity for Hispanics is strongest at moderate levels of
academic achievement (a GPA of 3-3.5).
Rather than focusing on specific racial and ethnic groups, this study looks at the
4
overall effect of being more different from one’s peers on student behaviors.4 Specifically, it allows for the relationship between academic achievement and popularity to
differ based on the student’s race/ethnicity relative to the share of that race/ethnicity
in the grade and school. While it answers a slightly different question, the model in
this paper is consistent with the conventional theory and mixed evidence of “acting
white.” The repercussions of “acting white” for a black student are expected to depend on the share of black students in the school, the share of other minorities in
the school, and the willingness of white students to befriend black students. If there
are relatively few black students in the school, “acting white” in an attempt to gain
social acceptance among white peers may more than compensate for lost friendship
among other blacks, thereby increasing popularity. On the other hand, as the share
of black students increases, retaining black friendships may be more important for
total popularity than trying to gain white friendships. Consistent with prior literature, this study finds inconclusive empirical evidence for the effects of being different
from one’s peers on grade point averages and extracurricular activities.
Akerloff and Kranton (2000, 2002) also explore the more general relationship between observable characteristics, identity within a group of peers, and behaviors in
high schools and other environments. They offer a theoretical model in which individuals identify with the group that best fits their observable characteristics, and as
a result choose to behave in a manner consistent with their group norm even if it is
different from the level of behavior that would be individually optimal. For instance,
an individual who is poor may never feel like she truly belongs to or will be accepted
by the richer group, and so she has an incentive to remain poorer in order to continue
conforming to the norms of the group with which she identifies (Akerloff and Kranton 2000). The same model applies to a high school student who cares about how
her behaviors will be viewed by the peer group with which she identifies, and how
that will affect her popularity (Akerloff and Kranton 2002). When applied to behaviors like academic achievement and participation in clubs among black students,
this story is consistent with the theory of “acting white” discussed above. However,
Akerloff and Kranton’s model is much broader than merely considering academic
achievement among black and white students.
Akerloff and Kranton’s model requires the exogenous determination of fixed
groups with which individuals identify. This makes empirical identification difficult,
4
Robustness checks control for indicators of being a racial minority and find that the results,
although weaker, still hold. Thus the effect of being different from one’s peers is not merely driven
by being a racial minority.
5
and the authors do not directly test their model with data. An alternative model in
which students care about social status among the larger group of peers in their grade
and school is presented in this paper. The model and empirical work define groups
at the school-grade level specifically to avoid the issue of having to identify group
formation. Grades within a school offer an exogenous grouping of students, and they
are small enough entities that students may reasonably be expected to interact, or
at least be aware of, the majority of members in the group. The model shows that
students do not merely attempt to conform to group norms, but that students who
are more different on observable characteristics actually engage in higher levels of
“cool” behaviors than the group norm in order to gain popularity. The empirical
results are consistent with model predictions for a majority of behaviors. Furthermore, robustness checks offer evidence against pure conformity. Students who are
more different from their peers are generally less likely to be found in the middle
quintile of each behavior for their school and grade. As noted previously, the model
and empirical work do not attempt to separate out subgroups of peers, and thus
are not directly at odds with the Akerloff/Kranton model. Rather, this model offers
a plausible, empirically testable alternative that is consistent with data, in which
students care generally about social status among their classmates.5
3
Theoretical Model
This section offers a simple model of the supply and demand for friendship within
a group of peers. The model is applied to high school students, and yields clear,
empirically testable predictions for the effects of being different from one’s peers on
student outcomes. In reality, high school students both supply themselves as poten5
To the extent that students care about friends within a smaller circle than the school-grade,
identifying smaller subgroups may be important for future work. In particular, cross-group competition for social status may drive subgroups of students to search for novel dimensions on which to
differentiate themselves from others. This differentiation can lead to positive stereotypes (e.g. better at sports or performing arts), and it can lead to negative stereotypes such as feeling that others
expect your group to be worse at math, which may be self-fulfilling (Steele 1997). Claude Steele
suggests that the stronger the cross-group competition for social status, the more likely groups are
to attempt to differentiate along novel behavioral dimensions (1997). Controlling for racial diversity
in the school and grade serves as a proxy for the level of potential inter-group competition in the
current study. In future work, a deeper model could put different weights on within-group and
out-of-group friendships, which may be more realistic. However, as mentioned previously, such a
study would require overcoming the empirical challenge of exogenously identifying these subgroups
within each school and grade.
6
tial friends and demand the friendship of others. However, for simplicity, the model
abstracts from reality a bit and assumes the market is separated into two distinct
sides. On one side of the market are students who supply themselves as potential
friends. These students compete for popularity, meaning they compete to be chosen
(demanded) as friends by peers on the other side of the market. Individuals on the
demand-side of the market will be referred to throughout the model as nominators.
The nominators are choosing which students to befriend and how much time to spend
with each friend in order to maximize their utility.
Each student in the model is represented by a vector, ω = [x, y], where x represents innate characteristics such as race, gender, and age, while y represents the
student’s behavior. Students are distributed according to a probability distribution
f (ω). These students choose their behaviors, y, to maximize their popularity, less
some cost of engaging in the behavior.6 A student’s popularity, meaning the aggregate demand for her friendship, is represented by Q(ω). The student’s optimization
problem is represented by equation (1) below.
maxy Q(ω) − cy
(1)
The aggregate demand for a student’s friendship is the sum of the demand by each
nominator. The nominators choose the quantity of time they want to spend with each
student in order to maximize their utility. Nominators are represented by a vector
ω 0 = [x0 , y 0 ], where x0 represents innate characteristics and y 0 represents behaviors.
These nominators are distributed according to the probability distribution f (ω 0 ).
Each unit of time nominators spend with a student offers some utility-value to the
nominator, u(ω, ω 0 ), that is dependent on the student’s characteristics and behaviors
relative to the nominator’s. The model assumes that nominators have Dixit-Stiglitz
preferences over their friendship with students. When nominators choose the intensity of friendship (quantity of time) with each student to maximize their utility, they
are constrained by some limit, e, on the total amount of time and effort they can put
into socializing.7 A nominator thus chooses the quantity of each student’s friendship,
6
The empirical section considers a variety of different behaviors, so the cost may be thought of
as time for behaviors like studying or club participation, and monetary for behaviors like smoking
or drinking.
7
Lin and Weinberg (2013) find that slightly less than 50% of friendship nominations are reciprocated, and there is considerably less involvement (joint activities, talking, etc.) between the
nominator and the recipient when the friendship is unreciprocated. Based on these findings, the
model assumes that recipients of friendship nominations do not have to invest substantial time into
7
q(ω, ω 0 ), in order to maximize her utility according to the following set of equations.8
Z
0
maxq(w)
0
γ1
γ
(2)
[u(ω, ω )q(ω, ω )] f (ω)dω
ω
Z
s. t.
q(ω, ω 0 )f (ω)dω ≤ e
(3)
ω
u(ω, ω 0 ) > u = 0
1
0<γ<
2
Solving the utility maximization problem yields the following relationship between
the demand for any student j’s friendship relative to another student i.
0
q(ωj , ω ) =
where,
u(ωj , ω 0 )
u(ωi , ω 0 )
σ−1
q(ωi , ω 0 )
(4)
1
<2
1−γ
1<σ=
This relationship shows that nominators will have greater demand for friendship with
students who provide them with a higher utility-value. That is to say, for any two
students i and j, q(ωj , ω 0 ) > q(ωi , ω 0 ) if u(ωj , ω 0 ) > u(ωi , ω 0 ).
Solving further, the demand for a given student j’s friendship can be represented as
0
0 σ−1
q(ωj , ω ) = u(ωj , ω )
Z
0 1−σ
u(ω, ω )
e
f (ω)dω .
(5)
ω
This can be simplified to
q(ω, ω 0 ) = eu(ω, ω 0 )σ−1 U 1−σ ,
(6)
the relationship. Without time and effort costs on both sides of the market, there is no market
clearing condition to close the model.
8
Dixit-Stiglitz preferences are more commonly parameterized with 0 < γ < 1. The added
restriction of γ < 12 , forcing the elasiticity of substitution between friends to be less than 2, is
discussed in more depth later in the section.
8
R
1
where U is defined as U = ω u(ω, ω 0 )1−σ f (ω)dω 1−σ , some aggregate index of the
utility-value of friendship, for ease of notation. The relationship shows that the
quantity of student j’s friendship demanded by a nominator is increasing in the
utility-value of the friendship.
Student j faces aggregate demand (popularity) equal to the sum of the individual
demand of each nominator.
Z
q(ωj , ω 0 )f (ω 0 )dω 0
Q(ωj ) =
(7)
ω0
Given this demand function, students choose their behaviors (y) to maximize the
value of their popularity. Taking first order conditions from equation (1) with respect
to behaviors yields,
∂Q(ω)
−c=0
∂y
Z
∂q(ω, ω 0 )
=
f (ω 0 )dω 0 − c = 0
∂y
ω0
Z
1−σ
= eU (σ − 1)
u(ω, ω 0 )σ−2 f (ω 0 )dω 0 − c = 0
H(ω) =
(8)
ω0
Equation (8) offers an implicit solution for the optimal level of behavior for each
student, given her characteristics and the distribution of characteristics and behaviors of the nominators. As this paper is interested in understanding how the average
distance in characteristics between a student and her peers affects the student’s behavior, explicitly solving equation (8) is not a concern. Rather, invoking the Implicit
Function rule, the effect of distance in characteristics on student behaviors can be
∂y ∗
dx
= −H
, where dx is the average difference in characteristics berepresented as ∂dx
Hy
tween a student and a nominator, H is defined by equation (8), and y ∗ is the optimal
level of behavior that solves equation (8).
Before solving further, it is useful to be explicit about five key assumptions in the
model. These assumptions are sufficient but not necessary to derive a positive effect
of the distance in characteristics from peers on a student’s optimal level of “cool”
∂y ∗
behaviors, ∂dx
> 0. The intuition behind each assumption is the discussed below.
9
(1) The elasticity of substitution between the friendship of different
students is relatively low, σ < 2. This corresponds to restricting 0 < γ < 12
in the Dixit-Stiglitz preferences over friendship. The intuition behind this assumption is that nominators need to place enough value on spending time with
a variety of students rather than merely spending all of their time with the one
student who offers the highest utility-value.
(2) The utility-value of friendship with a given student is increasing in0 the student’s level of behavior for “cool” behaviors, such that
∂u(ω,ω )
> 0. This assumption stems from the idea that certain behaviors are
∂y
considered “cool” by the population of nominators, and thus these nominators
gain greater value from forming a friendship with students who engage in such
behaviors. This is a strong assumption. However, the model remains neutral
about the classification of behaviors, and “cool” behaviors are defined empirically.
(3) The utility-value of friendship is concave in the level of “cool”
0)
2
0)
< 0 when ∂u(ω,ω
> 0. This follows from the idea
behaviors. That is, ∂ u(ω,ω
∂y 2
∂y
that “cool” behaviors increase the value of the friendship, but at a decreasing
rate as the level of the student’s behavior becomes more excessive.9
(4) The value of the friendship is decreasing in the distance between
the student’s and
the nominator’s characteristics, which is repre∂u(ω,ω 0 )
sented by ∂dx < 0. This is based on the concept of homophily, which
asserts that people prefer friends who are more similar to themselves.10 Thus,
the value of the friendship is lower when the student and the peer are more
different in characteristics such as race or socioeconomic status.
(5) The value of friendship is additively separable or substitutable in
behaviors and characteristics. It is sufficient but not necessary to assume
that there is either no interaction between behaviors and characteristics in the
utility-value of a friendship, or that “cool” behaviors and similarity in characteristics substitute for each other in the utility-value of a friendship.11
Taking the partial derivative of H with respect to behaviors (y) and with respect
to the difference in characteristics (dx), respectively, yields:
9
The model also assumes that the utility-value of friendship is convex in “uncool” behaviors.
The concept of homphily is supported by a number of studies by sociologists and economists,
such as Kandel (1978) and Currarini, Jackson, & Pin (2009).
11
The model predictions still hold if “cool” behaviors and similarity in characteristics complement
each other in the utility-value of friendship, as long as the complementarity is not too strong.
10
10
Hy
Hdx
#
∂ 2 u(ω, ω 0 )
= eU (σ − 1)
u(ω, ω )
+
f (ω 0 )dω 0
2
∂y
ω0
Z
0
0
∂ 2 u(ω, ω 0 )
1−σ
0 σ−2 (σ − 2) ∂u(ω, ω ) ∂u(ω, ω )
= eU (σ − 1)
u(ω, ω )
+
f (ω 0 )dω 0 .
0)
u(ω,
ω
∂dx
∂y
∂y∂dx
0
ω
Z
1−σ
"
0 σ−2
(σ − 2)
u(ω, ω 0 )
Based on assumptions (1) and (3), Hy =
∂ 2 Q(ω)
∂y 2
∂u(ω, ω 0 )
∂y
2
< 0. From assumptions (1), (2), (4),
∂ 2 Q(ω)
∂y∂dx
and (5), Hdx =
> 0. Applying the Implicit Function rule yields the following
relationship between optimal behaviors and distance in characteristics.
−Hdx
∂y ∗
=
> 0.
∂dx
Hy
The optimal, popularity-maximizing behavior (y ∗ ) for a student is increasing in the
student’s distance from the characteristics of her peers. Thus, students who are more
different from their peers on average, can be expected to engage in higher levels of
“cool” behaviors. The intuition is that students who are at a disadvantage in characteristics are forced to compete for friendship more heavily through their behaviors.
These students compensate for losing friendship due to differences in characteristic
by acting more “cool.”
It is important to note that it is sufficient but not necessary for a behavior to be
∂y ∗
> 0. According to assumption (4), when behaviors are
“cool” in order to find ∂dx
“uncool” the utility-value of the friendship is decreasing and convex in the behavior.
This implies that Hy could be positive or negative, and thus being different from
one’s peers has an ambiguous effect on the level of “uncool” behaviors in the model.
Assumption (4) also implies that students who are more different from the nominators
in characteristics will face lower aggregate demand for their friendship, meaning they
will be less popular.
Z
Z
∂u(ω, ω 0 )
∂q(ω, ω 0 )
0
0
1−σ
f (ω )dω = eU
(σ − 1)
f (ω 0 )dω 0 < 0
∂dx
∂dx
ω0
ω0
The remainder of this paper empirically tests the implications of the model using
data on a nationally representative sample of high school students.
11
4
Data
Data come from the first wave of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent
Health (Add Health). This study uses the In-School portion of the survey, which
was administered to a nationally representative sample of more than 90,000 students
in grades 7-12 across 144 schools during the 1994-1995 academic year. In this paper, the sample is restricted to only include high school students, grades 9-12. After
cleaning the data and eliminating observations with missing values, approximately
44,000 students across 100 schools remain in the sample.12
The Add Health data set includes a wealth of information on student characteristics, behaviors, health outcomes, and interpersonal relationships. In this study,
the primary outcomes of interest include substance use and other mildly delinquent
behaviors, acting out in school, academic success, and participation in school clubs
and sports teams. The study also considers some anti-social behaviors such as fighting, having trouble getting along with other students, and skipping school. Besides
behaviors, students’ popularity, mental health, physical health, and body image are
also outcomes of interest.
Substance use is measured by self-reported frequency of smoking, drinking, and
getting drunk. Mildly delinquent behaviors include doing dangerous activities on
dares and lying. Acting out in school consists of getting in trouble with teachers,
being inattentive in class, and having trouble completing homework. The student’s
grade point average and self-reported effort put into studying measure academic
success, while the number of music, academic clubs, and sports teams measure a
student’s participation in extracurricular activities. Popularity, as measured by the
number of in-degree friendship nominations, indicates the extent to which students
are well received by their peers. Self-reported happiness and depression serve as
indicators of students’ mental health. Obesity, as measured by a body mass index
(BMI) greater than 30, and students’ classification of themselves as being overweight
or obese, serve as indicators of physical health and body image.
12
The regression sample differs slightly for each behavior tested in the empirical section. Summary
statistics are reported for the smoking regression sample, which includes 44,186 students across 101
schools.
12
4.1
Explanatory Variables
This paper focuses on two primary explanatory variables of interest. The first is an
index that measures a student’s racial and ethnic differences from other students in
her grade. The second is an index measuring a student’s socioeconomic differences
from other students in her grade. These measures are indicative of the student’s
likelihood of feeling accepted or rejected by her peers since 75% of friendships occur
within a grade, and homophily (similarity) in characteristics plays a strong role in
friendship formation. Separate indexes for socioeconomic and racial/ethnic differences are used to account for the possibility that students are more sensitive to one
type of difference than the other. In particular, socioeconomic differences may be
less important if they are less immediately visible than racial differences. Skin color
and facial features often indicate racial differences upon first meeting. Differences
in the education level or economic status of parents can be immediately apparent,
for instance through clothes or cars, but these socioeconomic differences may also be
easier to mask if a student wants to hide them.
The indexes are calculated as the sum of the student’s difference from the gradeaverage in each characteristic, scaled by the sample variance of the characteristic.
Specifically, the two indexes take the following functional forms:
R
Di,g,s
=
E
Di,g,s
=
Nr
X
r
N
e
X
e
1
(xr − xrg,s )2
var(xri,g,s ) i,g,s
(9)
1
(xei,g,s − xeg,s )2 .
e
var(xi,g,s )
(10)
In the above equations, Di,g,s refers to the difference index for student i in grade
g and school s. The superscript R denotes the racial and ethnic differences index,
while the superscript E denotes the socioeconomic differences index. Likewise, r
denotes a specific racial or ethnic category such as white, black, or Hispanic, and N r
represents the total number of racial and ethnic categories. In this data set, there
are 6 racial and ethnic categories: Hispanic, white, black, Asian, Indian, and “other”
race.13 A superscript e denotes a specific socioeconomic characteristics. The data
contain two measures of socioeconomic status (N e = 2), the mother’s education level
and whether the father is present in the home. The variable x denotes the individual
13
Results are robust to including or excluding Indian from the difference index, given that Native
American Indians represent such a small percentage of the total population.
13
student’s specific racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic trait, and xg,s denotes the schoolgrade average of that trait.
Given that families tend to sort into neighborhoods along observable and unobservable characteristics, students who are dissimilar from their peers along observable
characteristics may have very different unobservable characteristics (e.g. parental
traits) from the average student in the sample. Assuming families sort into neighborhoods and schools but not grades, the differences in unobservable characteristics
among these families will be uncorrelated with a student’s grade level.14 A second set
of indexes measuring the student’s racial, ethnic and socioeconomic differences from
students in other grades in the same school serve as controls for selection in the types
of students who are dissimilar from their peers.15 By controlling for both the withingrade and the out-of-grade indexes, identification comes from random, exogenous
variation in the demographic composition of grades within a school. Conditional on
other observable characteristics, differences in social acceptance, mental and physical health, and behaviors between two students from two grades in the same school
can be attributed to the students being in different racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic
environments, since sorting along unobservable characteristics is assumed to be the
same for all students in the same school.
A measure of racial diversity in each school is also an explanatory variable of
interest. The index used in this paper measures the probability that two randomly
drawn members of the population are of different races.16 Values range from zero to
one, with values closer to one indicating more diverse environments. The diversity
index takes the form,
DIVg,s = 1 −
J
X
pjg,s
2
.
(11)
j=1
Here, the pjg,s refers to the proportion of race j in grade g and school s. There are five
racial categories (J = 5): black, white, Asian, Indian, and “other” race. A feature
14
This assumption may not hold if specific types of students are more likely to drop out of school.
However, the results are robust to using only 9th and 10th grade students, which is a standard
approach in the literature for minimizing the effect of drop-outs.
PN r
1
r
15
R
r
2
E
These indexes take the form Di,−g,s
=
r
var(xri,−g,s ) (xi,−g,s − x−g,s ) and Di,−g,s =
PN e
1
e
e
2
e var(xe
) (xi,−g,s − x−g,s ) , where −g denotes all grades other than the student’s grade.
16
i,−g,s
This index is known as the Blau Index, and is also sometimes referred to as the Gibbs-Martin
or Gini-Simpson Index.
14
of the In-School sample from Add Health is that students are able to report multiple
races. Approximately 6% of the regression sample are multiracial. To deal with this
feature of the data, in calculating the diversity index, students reporting multiple
races are assumed to be equal parts each race and the data for these observations
are scaled appropriately (e.g. a student reporting both being black and white is
considered half-black and half-white).17
Summary statistics for the general demographic explanatory variables are reported in Table 1. The sample is evenly split between male and female students.
In the sample, 16% of students are Hispanic. Approximately 67% of the sample are
white, 16% are black, and 6% are Asian. As mentioned previously, the racial categories are not mutually exclusive, with approximately 6% of the regression sample
reporting multiple races. Fathers are present in the household for 80% of the students. The mother’s education is coded to correspond to the approximate number
of years she has spent in school. On average, the mothers’ of these students have
completed 13.5 years of schooling, meaning they graduated from high school but do
not have a college degree.
Table 2 provides summary statistics for the difference and diversity indexes. The
racial diversity index is 0.39 on average, meaning that there is approximately a 40%
chance of two randomly drawn students being of the same race. The sample average
for the racial and ethnic differences index is 2.37 with an interquartile range of 0.14
- 4.05, and a median of 0.91. To put these in perspective, consider a hypothetical
school with a demographic composition that exactly matches the sample averages
reported in Table 1. A white student attending this nationally representative school
would have a racial/ethnic difference index of 1.08, while the racial/ethnic difference
index would be 7.86 for a black student attending the same school. The socioeconomic differences index is 1.48 on average, and has an interquartile range of 0.43 2.29 and a median of 0.89. Many of these demographic characteristics vary substantially by school.
17
Results are robust to alternative methods of calculating the diversity index. Specifically, the
index has also been calculated by fully counting students as belonging to each race they report,
irrespective of whether they report multiple races.
15
4.2
Outcomes
Table 3 provides summary statistics for the behavioral outcomes of interest. The
behaviors include grade point averages, self-reported effort put into studying, participation in school music and academic clubs, playing on school sports teams, smoking,
drinking, getting drunk, lying, doing dangerous activities on dares, getting into trouble with teachers, being inattentive in class, having trouble completing homework,
fighting, skipping school, and having trouble getting along with other students.
The grade point average (GPA) consists of grades in mathematics, English, science, and history on a 4.0 scale.18 The average GPA is 2.83, indicating a C+ average.
The average level of study effort is 3.17 on a scale of 1-4, where a value of 3 corresponds to “trying hard enough, but not as hard as I could in school.”19 On average,
students participate in one school sport (e.g. soccer, football, or basketball), and
0.82 music or academic clubs (e.g. band, Spanish club, or the debate team). Participation in school activities, study effort, and academic grades are all considered
positive behaviors, as they tend to be correlated with higher earnings later in life.
The data on substance use, mildly delinquent behaviors, acting out in class, and
anti-social behaviors are based on the self-reported frequency of engaging in each
activity over the past month, with the exception of fighting, which is reported for
the past 12 months. Data on all of these behaviors are heavily left-skewed. A majority of students report never engaging in any of these activities. The medians for
almost all of these behavior range from 0 to 1, indicating that most students have
engaged in each activity no more than once in past month.20 However, the top 5-10%
of students report engaging in mildly delinquent behaviors such as doing dangerous
activities on dares or lying, having trouble with teachers, being inattentive in class,
smoking, drinking, and getting drunk more than once per week.
Summary statistics for other outcomes of interest, including popularity, mental
and physical health are found in Table 4. Popularity measures the demand for a
student’s friendship. The Add Health survey asks students to list their five closest
18
The GPA is calculated using fewer subjects for students who are not taking and/or do not
report grades in all four subjects.
19
In this paper, a value of 1 for studying denotes “never trying at all,” 2 indicates “not trying
very hard,” 3 denotes “trying hard enough, but not as as hard as I could,” and 4 corresponds with
“trying very hard.” These values are a reverse coding of the Add Health data.
20
The exceptions are getting in trouble with teachers and with other students, for which the
median is 2, indicating interpersonal trouble every other week.
16
male and five closest female friends. Popularity is defined as the number of in-degree
nominations a student receives, meaning the number of times a student is listed as
a friend by others.21 The distribution of popularity is left-skewed, with a long, thin
right tail. The average number of in-degree nominations is approximately 4. Only
10% of students receive more than 9 nominations. However, the most popular students in the sample receive as many as 30 nominations.
Students’ mental health is measured by self-reported levels of depression and feelings of happiness. Students are asked how often they felt “blue” or depressed in the
past year. Their answers are reported on a scale of 0 to 4, where 0 corresponds to
never feeling depressed, and 4 corresponds to feeling down every day.22 Happiness is
measured by students’ responses to the statement “I am happy to be at this school.”
Responses range from 0 for “strongly disagree” to 4 for students who “strongly agree”
with feeling happy at school.23 These measures of mental health are not a clinical
diagnosis of depression. Rather, they should be interpreted as indicators of a student’s emotional state and level of subjective satisfaction, or utility.
The final outcomes of interest are the students’ physical health and body image. The student’s body mass index (BMI),24 as well as an indicator for whether
the student is obese serve as a measures of physical health. Students are classified
as obese if they have a BMI in the 95th percentile of the distribution for their age
and gender in the data sample.25 In the regression sample, approximately 5% of
21
Since the survey questionnaire asks for only a student’s top five friends in each gender, the
number of in-degree nominations may be biased downward. A student could be considered a friend,
but she will not receive a nomination unless she is among the top five friends in that gender. While
this raises a concern that the measure of popularity could be biased downward, there is reason to
believe that the bias is relatively small. The majority of students list no more than three close
friends of each gender, indicating that the limit of five friends is rarely binding and so it does not
affect the results.The effort of reporting additional friends might still create some downward bias.
22
Data are coded such that 1 corresponds to an answer of “rarely”, 2 corresponds to “occasionally”, and 3 corresponds to “often” feeling depressed.
23
As with socially accepted, the original survey data have been reverse-coded for this paper. The
survey gives values 1-5, respectively, for “strongly agree,” “agree,” “neither agree nor disagree,”
“disagree,” and “strongly disagree” with
h the statementi of feeling happy to be at the school.
weight
Body mass index is calculated as, (height)
2 × 703 , where weight is measured in pounds and
height is measured in inches.
25
According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), obesity is defined as having a BMI in the
95th percentile for their age and gender among children in the United States. The calculation in
this paper uses the full sample of height and weight data, before removing observations with missing
information on other key variables, and assumes that the Add Health data sample is representative
24
17
students are obese, which is consistent with the definition of the obesity among children. In addition to actual obesity, this paper also considers students’ self-reported
body image. The In-Home portion of the Add Health survey asks students to report whether they view themselves as “very underweight,” “slightly underweight,”
“about the right weight,” “slightly overweight,” or “very overweight.” In this paper, an answer of “very overweight” is interpreted as a student viewing himself or
herself as obese.26 Approximately 4% of students in the data view themselves as
very overweight. The next section discusses the extent to which the behavioral,
emotional, and physical health outcomes vary with how different a student is from
her peers, and how the effects change with the extent of racial diversity in the school.
5
Empirical Methods and Results
The empirical strategy in this paper relies on reduced form regressions to test the
model predictions described in the previous section. This section discusses estimation results for the effects of being racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically different
from one’s peers on a variety of student behaviors and other outcomes. The model
predicts that being more different will cause a student to engage in higher levels of
“cool” behaviors, while the effects of being different are ambiguous for “uncool” behaviors. Before discussing the empirical findings in more detail, the next sub-section
will outline the method used to classify “cool” and “uncool” behaviors. The identification strategy for the primary regression specification will then be described before
presenting the results.
5.1
Defining “Cool” Behaviors
The value of friendship cannot be measured in this data, but some empirical evidence
exists to suggest which behaviors are “cool” among high school students. Specifically,
behaviors are defined as “cool” if they are positively correlated with popularity, controlling for observable characteristics and school-grade fixed effects. The regression
takes the form
of the national distribution of heights and weights. This definition of obesity for children differs
from the more familiar definition of obesity among adults. The CDC classifies adults as obese if
they have a BMI greater than 30.
26
Robustness checks show no substantial differences in regression results when answers of “slightly
overweight” and “very overweight” are grouped together.
18
2
pi,g,s = b0 + b1 yi,g,s + b2 yi,g,s
+ b3 Xi,g,s + ds,g + ξi,g,s .
(12)
In the above equation, yi,g,s represents the behavior of student i in grade g and school
s. Popularity is denoted by pi,g,s , while Xi,g,s is a vector of observable characteristics
such as race, gender, age, and socioeconomic status. School-grade fixed effects are
denoted ds,g , and ξi,g,s is a random error term.
The results from the above regression should in no way be interpreted as causal.
Rather, the coefficient estimates b1 and b2 represent the correlation between the behavior and popularity, conditional on observable characteristics. A positive total
effect of the behavior on popularity (accounting for the linear and quadratic terms
expressed as b1 +2b2 y), evaluated at the mean, classifies the behavior as being “cool,”
while a negative effect indicates that the behavior is “uncool.” The regression results
can be found in Tables 5-8, and almost all of the findings are consistent with general
intuition about which behaviors are “cool” among high school students. Thirteen
of the sixteen behaviors in the study are classified as “cool” by this definition. The
“cool” behaviors are: smoking, drinking, getting drunk, doing dangerous activities
on dares, lying, getting in trouble with teachers, having trouble completing homework, having trouble paying attention in class, having a high grade point average,
studying, participating in music or other academic clubs, and participating on school
sports teams. The remaining three behaviors, fighting, having trouble getting along
with other students, and skipping school, all of which are anti-social in nature, meet
the definition of being “uncool.” The regression results also show that popularity is
concave in all “cool” behaviors (b2 < 0 when b1 > 0), and convex in all “uncool”
behaviors (b2 > 0 when b1 < 0). This is consistent with assumption (3) in the theoretical model, which states that the value of a friendship is increasing and concave
in “cool” behaviors, while the value of the friendship is decreasing and convex in
“uncool” behaviors.27
5.2
Identification Strategy
This paper uses simple reduced form regressions to understand the effects of racial,
ethnic, and socioeconomic difference indexes on student outcomes. The regressions
27
The assumptions in the theoretical model imply that popularity will be increasing (decreasing)
and concave (convex) in behaviors when the value of the match has those properties.
19
are estimated using Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), while controlling for school-grade
fixed effects. A simple, naive specification would take the form
R
E
yi,g,s = α + θDi,g,s
+ ωDi,g,s
+ βXi,g,s + δg,s + i,g,s .
(13)
In the above equation, the subscripts i, g, and s refer to the individual student,
grade, and school, respectively. The outcome of interest is denoted by y, while X
represents a vector of student characteristics including race, ethnicity, socioeconomic
status, gender, and age. The difference indexes are represented by D, where a superscript R represents the racial/ethnic difference index, and a superscript E indicates
the socioeconomic difference index. The regression also controls for school-grade
fixed effects, marked by δg,s , and i,g,s is a random error term.
The main predictions of the theoretical model are tested by looking at whether
b
θ > 0 and ω
b > 0 for “cool” behaviors. These coefficient estimates are interpreted as
the effects of being racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically different from peers,
conditional on a student’s race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and other demographic characteristics.28 Positive effects of the difference indexes on outcomes, y,
that are considered “cool” behaviors are consistent with theoretical predictions. However, the possibility that parents select which schools to send their children to raises
some concern over the interpretation of the coefficient estimates for θ and ω in equation (13). In particular, unobservable parental characteristics may be correlated with
both student behaviors and the decision to send one’s child to a school with peers
who have very different demographic characteristics. This suggests the potential
presence of a selection bias in the regression results from equation (13). In order to
control for these potential selection effects, indexes of a student’s racial, ethnic, and
socioeconomic differences from peers in other grades of the same school are added to
the regression equations, as shown below. Equation (14) is the primary specification
in the paper.
E
R
E
R
+ βXi,g,s + δg,s + i,g,s
+ ωDi,g,s
+ λDi,−g,s
+ νDi,−g,s
yi,g,s = α + θDi,g,s
28
(14)
Including interactions between the differences indexes and a student’s race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status do not substantially change the empirical findings from the simpler specification
reported in equations 13 and 14, so only the results from these more parsimonious specifications
are reported in the paper. Furthermore, the interactions terms are mostly small in magnitude
and statistically insignificant. This suggests that the effects of being different reported in the next
section hold generally across different demographics and are not substantially stronger for specific
racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups.
20
The identification of θb and ω
b in equation (14) come only from differences in the
racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic composition of a student’s grade relative to her
school. Data indicate that over 75% of friendships are formed between students in
the same grade, which implies that the extent to which one is similar or different
from classmates in the same grade will be important for determining the demand for
a student’s friendship. This specification assumes that parents might select to live
in specific neighborhoods and have their children attend certain schools, but that
parents are not actively choosing to move their students into a different school each
time they advance a grade. Under this assumption that parents select into schools
but do not select into grades within schools, the identification strategy is valid.29
Any differences in the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic composition of a grade relative to the rest of the school is random. Thus the effects of the difference indexes
on student outcomes can be interpreted as causal.
A second specification also controls for possible interaction between the racial
diversity of the grade and each student’s racial/ethnic difference index. Diversity
(denoted DIV in equation (15) below) is measured using a Blau index, as discussed
in the data section.
R
R
E
yi,g,s = α + θDi,g,s
+ γ(DIVg,s ∗ Di,g,s
) + ωDi,g,s
R
S
+ λDi,−g,s
+ νDi,−g,s
+ βXi,g,s + δg,s + i,g,s
(15)
Tolerance for racial and ethnic differences are expected to be higher in more diverse
environments.30 Thus, being different is expected to reduce the demand for one’s
friendship by less, and have a smaller effect on student behaviors, popularity, and
health outcomes in grades with greater racial diversity.
29
This assumption may not hold if different types of students are more likely to drop out of school.
However, the results are robust to using only 9th and 10th grade students, a common method in
the literature to deal with school drop-outs.
30
Equation (15) does not include the diversity index separately because it is constant for each
grade, and thus absorbed by the school-grade fixed effects.
21
5.3
5.3.1
Empirical Results
Substance Use
The discussion focuses first on the behaviors that are classified as “cool”, for which
there are clear theoretical predictions. The results in Table 9 show that students
who are more racially and ethnically different from their peers tend to engage in
more substance use. Looking at column (1) in Table 9, a one standard deviation
increase in the racial/ethnic difference index increases the number of times a student
smokes per month by approximately 0.6, or 5% of a standard deviation. Considering
that the median student reports never smoking, while the 75th percentile of smokers
report only smoking once per month, increasing smoking by 0.6 times per month
represents a substantial change for the majority of students. To further put the result in perspective, increasing a mother’s education from a high school degree to a
college degree (4 additional years) would only decrease the students level of smoking
by 0.67 times per month, only slightly larger in magnitude than the negative effects
of one-standard deviation increase in the racial/ethnic difference index.
The effect of the racial/ethnic difference index is almost identical in column (2)
of the same table after also controlling for possible interaction effects between the
racial/ethnic difference index and a measure of racial diversity in the student’s grade
and school.31 However, greater racial diversity tends to mitigate the effects of being
racially and ethnically different from one’s peers. At the mean of the racial/ethnic
difference index, a one standard deviation increase in the racial diversity reduces a
student’s smoking by 0.25 times per month. Students who are more different socioeconomically from their peers are also much more likely to smoke. A one standard
deviation increase in the socioeconomic difference index increases smoking by almost
2 times per month, or one-fifth of a standard deviation. This is about 60% larger
than the increase in smoking among high school students associated with being a
year older.
The effects of the racial/ethnic difference index are similar, although much smaller
in magnitude for alcohol use. The marginal effect of a one standard deviation increase
in the racial/ethnic difference index increases drinking by 0.06 times per month, and
increases the instances of getting drunk by about 0.10 times per month. To put these
effects in perspective, the increase in drinking caused by a one-standard deviation
31
The marginal effect of the racial/ethnic difference index, calculated at the mean of the diversity
index, is 0.18 in the specification reported in column (2), as compared to a marginal effect of 0.197
from the specification in column (1).
22
increase in the racial/ethnic difference index is about one-tenth the magnitude of the
decrease in drinking associated with having a father present at home. Similarly, a
one-standard deviation increase in the racial/ethnic difference index increases the instance of getting drunk by about one-third as much as the decrease from with living
with one’s father. As with smoking, greater racial diversity mitigates the negative
effects of the difference index although the effects are fairly negligible. A one standard deviation increase in the racial diversity index, at the mean of the racial/ethnic
difference index, reduces the instances of drinking and getting drunk, respectively,
by 0.08 and 0.06 times per month. Unlike the results for smoking, the socioeconomic
difference index appears not to affect alcohol consumption.
5.3.2
Mildly Delinquent Behaviors and Acting Out
In addition to substance use, students who are racially and ethnically more different from their peers engage in higher levels of other irresponsible behaviors such
as doing dangerous activities on dares and lying. However, as with drinking, none
of these behaviors are affected by the the socioeconomic difference index. Students
who are racially and ethnically different also act out more in school by getting into
trouble with teachers, being inattentive in class, and having more trouble completing their homework. As shown in Table 10, a one standard deviation increase the
racial/ethnic difference index leads to a 0.28 increase in the number of times per
month a student does something dangerous on a dare, and a 0.14 increase in the
number of times per month a student lies.32 The effect of a one standard deviation
increase in the racial/ethnic difference index is the same magnitude for lying and five
times larger in magnitude for doing dangerous activities, respectively, than a 2.5 year
(one standard deviation) decrease in mother’s education. The effects of being racially
and ethnically different are again mitigated by being in a more racially diverse school.
Table 11 shows that students who are more racially and ethnically different from
their peers also act out more in school. A one standard deviation increase in the
racial/ethnic difference index leads to 0.4 times more trouble with teachers, being
0.3 times more inattentive in class, and having 0.33 times more trouble completing
homework. These are all similar in magnitude, although opposite in sign, to the
effect of a one standard deviation change in mother’s education on each behavior.
32
Note that the marginal effects of the racial/ethnic difference index are similar in magnitude
between both specifications, although the marginal effect is not statistically significant in the first
specification for lying.
23
Interestingly, unlike the other behaviors, the impact of being racially and ethnically
different on a student’s propensity to act out in school is unaffected by the extent of
racial diversity. If classrooms tend to be more racially segregated than overall grades
due to tracking or AP and honors classes, greater diversity in the grade may not
substantially increase the level of racial diversity in the classroom. Racial diversity
would then have a larger effect on behaviors that occur more frequently in hallways
and after school. And, “cool” behaviors that are mostly observed only within classrooms would be less affected by changes in the overall racial diversity of the grade.
One might naturally conclude at this point that being racially and ethnically different from one’s peers has a negative effect on student outcomes. However, this only
paints a partial picture of the effects of being different. The study also looks at the
effects of the difference indexes on “positive” behaviors such as academic achievement, studying, and participation in school clubs and sports.
5.3.3
Academic Achievement and Club Participation
In addition to substance use, mildly delinquent behaviors, and acting out in school,
some positive behaviors are also considered “cool” by high school students. Making
better grades, studying harder, and participating in school clubs and sports teams are
positively associated with popularity. In general, these behaviors are also positively
correlated with better outcomes later in life, such as higher educational attainment
and greater earnings.33
Looking at Table 12, a one standard deviation increase in the racial/ethnic difference index has a weak, not statistically significant, negative effect on a student’s
grade point average. It also decreases the effort put into studying by 4% of a standard
deviation. This is half of the magnitude of the decrease in studying associated with
a student’s mother having 2.5 fewer years of education. Being racially and ethnically
different from one’s peers appears to have a negative effect on academic outcomes,
although the effects are relatively small. A one standard deviation increase in the
socioeconomic difference index also reduces study effort by approximately the same
amount. Neither the effect on GPA nor study effort are altered by level of racial
diversity in the school.
33
Kuhn and Weinberger (2002) study the effect of participating in school clubs and sports teams
on earnings later in life.
24
Participation in school sports and clubs are also “cool” behaviors that have positive effects on students’ outcomes later in life.34 Table 13 reports results for club
and sports participation. A one standard deviation increase in the racial/ethnic difference index decreases the number of music and academic clubs in which a student
participates by 0.04, but increases participation in sports by 0.06 teams. These effects correspond to a change of 3% and 4% of a standard deviation, respectively,
and are similar in magnitude to the increase in sports, music, and academic club
participation associated with a one year increase in the mother’s education. As with
studying and GPA, the magnitude of the effects are not as substantial as were found
for delinquent behaviors. Neither of the effects are altered by the level of racial diversity in the school. Participation in clubs and sports are also not affected by a
student’s index of socioeconomic differences from her peers.
Overall, the effects of being different on positive, “cool” behaviors are mixed.
The theoretical model predicts that students who are more different from their peers
should engage in higher levels of all “cool” behaviors in order to maximize their popularity. While the empirical results show this to be true for substance use and other
mildly delinquent behaviors, the results are more mixed for the positive behaviors.
One explanation for the mixed findings regarding academic achievement and club
participation is the fact that students face time constraints when choosing behaviors
to maximize their popularity. Time spent partying or acting out is time not spent
on school work. Even conditional on each student choosing an optimal amount of
free time, they are still able to choose whether to smoke, drink, or do dangerous activities during that time, or whether to engage in safer social activities like watching
a movie, going to the mall, or listening to music with their friends. Students who
are more different will try harder to gain friends through their behaviors, thus using
their free time to engage in more mildly delinquent, “cool” activities.
With regard to choosing how to allocate time among positive activities, students
may also face a trade-off between academic/music clubs and sports teams. The
empirical results indicate that sports teams are relatively more “cool” than music/academic clubs. One additional sports team is associated with approximately
20% of a standard deviation increase in popularity, at the mean, while one additional music/academic club is associated with an increase in popularity of only half
that magnitude. If students are constrained in the amount of time they can spend on
such activities, then one would expect to find students who are more different from
34
Kuhn and Weinberger (2005) find that students who hold leadership positions in clubs and
sports teams in high school earn 4%-33% higher wages as adults.
25
their peers trading-off time spent in the relatively less “cool” music and academic
clubs for participation in more sports teams, which have a higher rate of return for
the students’ popularity.35
5.3.4
Anti-Social, “Uncool” Behaviors
So far, the empirical results have only considered the effects of being different on
“cool” behaviors for which there are clear theoretical predictions from the model
introduced earlier. However, three behaviors in the data set, getting in trouble with
other students, fighting, and skipping school are considered “uncool,” meaning that
they are negatively associated with popularity. For such behaviors, the theoretical
predictions for the effects of being different are technically ambiguous. However,
most parameterizations of the theoretical model predict that being more different
will cause students to decrease their “uncool” behaviors.36 Contrary to these predictions, the empirical results in Table 14 show that students who are more racially
and ethnically different from their peers fight more, get into more trouble with other
students, and skip school more frequently.
Increasing the racial/ethnic difference index by one standard deviation increases
the number of fights a student gets into per year by approximately 0.11, causes students to have 0.5 additional conflicts with other students per month, and increases
the instances of skipping school by 0.2 times per month.37 These effects are the
same order of magnitude as the decrease in each behavior associated with a one
standard deviation increase in the mother’s education. The increases in these behaviors associated with being more racially and ethnically different are mitigated by the
presence of greater racial diversity. And, as with the majority of other behaviors,
being more socioeconomically different from one’s peers has no significant effect on
how frequently a student fights, gets into trouble with other students, or skips schools.
There are a few plausible explanations for the empirical findings, all of which
suggest the model of popularity-maximization is not appropriate for these behaviors.
35
A limitation of the data is the absence of information on the quantity of time put into each
activity. Thus, such an interpretation of the findings cannot be tested more rigorously.
∂2u
36
If the cross-partial derivative of behaviors and differences in characteristics ( ∂y∂dx
) is zero or
∗
∂y
relatively small in magnitude, then ∂dx
< 0, which implies that more different students decrease
their levels of “uncool” behaviors.
37
These effects, fighting, trouble with students and skipping school, correspond to about 4% of a
standard deviation increase in each behavior.
26
The results could be interpreted as evidence of a different, “acting out” model in
which students who are very different from their peers engage in negative, mildly
destructive behaviors either because they are unhappy or to gain attention despite
being unable to gain friends. However, this “acting out” interpretation is inconsistent
with other empirical findings. An alternative and perhaps more plausible explanation is that students who engage in these types of behaviors are anti-social in nature.
As such, unlike the majority of their classmates, students who tend to engage in
anti-social behaviors derive disutility from extensive interpersonal interactions and
are actually not attempting to maximize their popularity.
Finally, the most compelling explanation is the fact that while other behaviors
are a choice, fighting and getting into trouble with other students may not be within
a student’s control. Fights require more than one participant and the data do not
specify whether a given student is the aggressor or a victim in the altercation. If
students who are more different tend to be the target of bullying, this would explain
the increased number of fights and interpersonal problems without being related to
the students’ “coolness” or desire for popularity. This explanation is also consistent
with the higher rates of skipping school if students who are more different from their
peers feel victimized at school and try to avoid the unpleasant environment as often
as possible.
5.3.5
Emotional and Physical Outcomes
The theoretical model made direct predictions about the effects of being different
on student behaviors. However, the model also implies that students who are more
different from their peers will be less popular, meaning their friendship will be in
lower demand. If most students derive utility or other benefit from being popular
among their peers, then one would expect to find students who are more different
suffering from the loss of friendship. The paper tests this by looking at the effects
of the racial/ethnic and socioeconomic difference indexes on students’ mental and
physical health, which are reported in Tables 15 and 16. On average, students who
are more different are less popular, less happy, and more depressed.
Looking at Table 15, a one standard deviation increase in the racial/ethnic difference index decreases a student’s popularity by 0.13 friendship nominations, and
corresponds with about 7% of a standard deviation decrease in feeling happy at
school, and 2% of a standard deviation increase in feeling depressed. These effects
27
are on the same order of magnitude as a 2.5 year decrease in mother’s education.
Being more socioeconomically different from one’s peers does not affect popularity or
a student’s mental health, which is consistent with the lack of any significant effects
on the majority if behaviors. As with many of the behaviors, the negative effects
of being racially and ethnically different are mitigated by greater diversity in the
student’s school and grade.
The study also looks at the effects of being different from one’s peers on body
weight and self-reported perception of body weight, which are reported in Table 16.
Conditional on measures of the student’s body mass index and actual obesity, neither the racial nor the socioeconomic difference index has a noticeable effect on the
likelihood that a student perceives herself to be obese. However, a one standard deviation increase in the socioeconomic difference index increases a student’s body mass
index by 0.54 points, or 12% of a standard deviation, and increases the likelihood of
being obese by 0.8 percentage points (approximately 4% of a standard deviation),
although the latter effect is not statistically significant. Taken together, this suggests
that students who are more socioeconomically different from their peers tend to be
more overweight, on average, but do not necessarily judge their body weight more
harshly. By contrast, racial and ethnic differences have a more noticeable effect on
behaviors and mental health but do not appear to affect physical health.
5.3.6
Summary of Findings
The results presented in this section are consistent with model predictions for the
majority of behaviors. Students who are more racially and ethnically different from
their peers tend to engage in more “cool,” negative behaviors such as smoking, drinking, doing dangerous activities on dares, lying, getting into trouble with teachers,
doing less homework, and paying less attention in class. Interestingly, being more
racially and ethnically different is not all bad. These students also report participating on more school sports teams. However, the effects of being different on negative
behaviors seem to outweigh the positives, as these students do not earn higher grades,
put less effort into their studies, and participate in fewer academic and music clubs.
This mixed finding with regard to positive behaviors may be attributed to time constraints on the part of the student – acting out in class detracts from understanding
the material and earning better grades, while participation on sports teams takes
time away from music or academic clubs. If time constraints force students to face a
trade-off between competing “cool” behaviors, and if students value being popular,
28
then they will choose to engage in the behaviors that have relatively higher returns
to popularity such as sports teams, mildly delinquent behaviors, and substance use.
To the extent that students derive some value from being popular (having their
friendship in high demand), students who have fewer friends due to being racially and
ethnically different suffer emotionally from feeling more depressed and less happy.
Socioeconomic differences also lead to slightly worse physical health in the form of
heavier body weight. For the majority of behaviors and emotional outcomes, however, the effects of being different are mitigated in schools with greater racial and
ethnic diversity. This suggests that the tolerance is higher among students in those
schools, and thus being different does not affect the demand for one’s friendship as
strongly.
Overall, socioeconomic differences have much less of an impact on student behaviors than racial and ethnic differences.38 This finding is likely due to the fact that
racial and ethnic differences are more immediately noticeable than socioeconomic
differences. Racial and ethnic differences are generally apparent through differences
in skin color, hair color, and facial features, which can be observed at first meeting.
Sometimes socioeconomic differences are also easily observed, for instance through a
student’s style of dress. However, differences in family income or the education level
of one’s parents are often not apparent upon first meeting, and may not even be clear
until students have already become friends and spent substantial time together (e.g.
visited each other’s houses).
The model introduced earlier offers clear predictions about the effects of being
different on student behaviors and health outcomes. The theoretical results are generally supported by data for negative behaviors, while the empirical results are mixed
for positive behaviors. However, a number of alternative explanations could exist for
these empirical findings. The next section discusses each of these alternative theories
and provides some tests of their validity.
6
Robustness
One concern with the identification strategy is that the effects of the difference indexes on student outcomes may still suffer from selection bias. Controlling for racial,
38
Smoking and studying are the only exceptions to this.
29
ethnic, and socioeconomic differences from students in other grades in the school
is still not sufficient to take care of the possible selection bias if parents choose to
place their children in specific grades within schools. In order to address this potential concern, the results are re-estimated for substance use with richer data from
the In-Home portion of the Add Health survey on the religiosity of the parents and
access to drugs and alcohol at home.39 If the difference indexes are correlated with
unobservable parental characteristics, controlling for relevant, additional parental
characteristics should reduce the effect of the difference index on student behaviors.
The results found in Table 17 show that the magnitude of the coefficient estimates
for the racial/ethnic difference index do not change noticeably, although the results
lose some statistical significance due to the smaller sample size.
A second concern with the findings is that the empirical results are inadvertently
identifying the effects of a student being a racial or ethnic minority, since those students will be the most racially and ethnically different from their peers. An indicator
for the student belonging to a racial or ethnic minority in their school and grade is
added to the regressions. Being a racial or ethnic minority in the school is distinct
from measures of individual race, and it is distinct from the difference index. For
example, a black and an Asian student will both be minorities in a predominantly
white school, but the difference index for each will depend on the share of other black
relative to other Asian students in the school and grade. However, by construction, a
student’s race, the indicator for being a racial minority, and the difference index are
highly correlated with each other. The effects of the racial/ethnic difference index are
slightly smaller but remain statistically significant in these specifications, as seen in
Tables 18-20. This suggests that the effects of being more different from one’s peers
on behaviors and health outcomes cannot merely be explained by being a racial or
ethnic minority.40
A third concern with the empirical results is that students who are more different
from their peers derive most of the demand for their friendship from sources outside
of the school, perhaps through local church groups or city-league sports teams. In
order to test for this, the regressions control for the number of friends each student
nominates outside of their current school. If a student believes that the majority
39
The In-Home portion of the Add Health survey includes more detailed follow-up questions
administered by an interviewer at the student’s house for about one-sixth of students interviewed
at school.
40
These results are also robust to including interactions between the difference index and the
indicator for being a racial or ethnic minority.
30
of her close friends are from outside of school, she may not care about whether her
classmates demand her friendship, and thus would not alter her behavior for them.
Students who are more racially and ethnically different from their peers nominate, on
average, more friends outside of school. However, Tables 21-23 show that the earlier
findings are generally robust to controlling for the number of out-of-school friends
that a student has, although the effects on drinking and getting drunk are no longer
statistically significant. This suggests that the findings cannot entirely be explained
by students who are more racially/ethnically different from their peers having a different set of out-of-school peers who engage in different types of behaviors. Furthermore, being more racially and ethnically different still reduces a student’s happiness
and increases her depression, even conditional on her number of out-of-school friends.
Finally, an alternative explanation to the entire model might be that students
who are more different try harder to conform to the behavior of their peers. Studies have shown that similarity in both behaviors and characteristics plays a role in
friendship formation. If this is the case, then students who are more different from
their peers on observable characteristics may try to be closer to a larger number
of their peers in behaviors. An alternative specification is used to estimate the effects of being racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically different from peers on the
probability that the student’s behavior falls in a middle quintile of behaviors for her
grade and school. For the majority of behaviors, there is no evidence that being
more racially and ethnically different increases the likelihood of being in the second,
third, or fourth quintiles of the behavior, as seen in Tables 24 and 25. Furthermore,
students who are racially/ethnically different are statistically significantly less likely
to fall in one of the three middle quintiles for doing dangerous activities on dares and
for academic performance (GPA).41 Students who are more racially and ethnically
different from their peers are statistically significantly more likely to engage in levels
of substance use, acting out in school, and other mildly delinquent behaviors, as well
as participate on a number of sports teams in the top quintile for their grade and
school, as shown in Tables 26 and 27. This suggests that students are not merely
trying to conform to their peers’ behavior, but rather they are actually engaging in
higher levels than the school-grade norm of negative behaviors and sports in order
to increase their “coolness” and thus the demand for their friendship.
41
The lack of conformity is even more apparent when the specification is confined to looking at
the probability of engaging in a level of behavior that falls only in the middle (3rd) quintile for the
grade and school, although the results are not reported here.
31
7
Conclusion
This paper offers a simple model of friendship formation. Students who are more different from their peers in observable characteristics have an incentive to compensate
for these differences by acting more “cool” in order to gain popularity. The empirical
findings show that racial and ethnic differences cause high school students to alter
their behaviors, while being less popular and less happy. The effects are strongest
for negative, “cool” behaviors such as smoking, drinking, acting out in class, and
other mildly delinquent activities. While students who are more racially and ethnically different also participate on more sports teams, they engage in less of other
positive behaviors such as academic clubs and studying. In contrast, socioeconomic
differences have no effect on most behaviors, popularity, or mental health, although
they have a small negative impact on physical health. This is likely due to the fact
that socioeconomic differences are less immediately observable than racial or ethnic
differences.
The empirical findings also show that the negative effects of being racially and
ethnically different are mitigated by greater overall racial diversity in the grade and
school. The results are robust to a variety of alternative specifications, including
controlling for being a racial minority, the number of out-of-school friends, and
more detailed parental characteristics such as religion and the presence of alcohol
or cigarettes in the home. Additional robustness checks provide evidence against an
alternative model where students who are more racially/ethnically different attempt
to conform to behavioral norms.
As a whole, the findings suggest that moving a small number of students into
“better performing schools” where they are very different from their peers can result
in more harm than benefit for the students’ behaviors and mental health, which are
correlated with outcomes later in life. Because homophily plays such a significant
role in friendship formation, students who are more different from their peers in
observable characteristics will tend to have more trouble gaining friends. To compensate, these students have an incentive to engage in more delinquent behaviors
such as acting out in class and substance use in order to gain friends by acting
“cool.” Furthermore, these students tend to suffer from feeling more depressed as a
result of being different. The findings, however, also indicate that being racially and
ethnically different will have a less negative effect on students if the school is made
overall more racially diverse, perhaps by integrating a larger number of students from
a larger number of schools.
32
Table 1: Demographic Summary Statistics
Variable
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Indian
Other Race
Age
Years at School
Grade
Male
Mom’s Education
Lives with Dad
Mean
0.16
0.67
0.16
0.06
0.04
0.08
15.8
2.6
10.42
0.48
13.6
0.80
(St. Dev.)
(0.36)
(0.47)
(0.36)
(0.24)
(0.20)
(0.27)
(1.22)
(1.4)
(1.11)
(0.50)
(2.51)
(0.40)
Percentile
25th 50th 75th
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
16
17
1
2
3
9
10
11
0
0
1
12
14
16
1
1
1
a) Summary statistics are reported for the regression sample for
smoking, with a sample size of 44,186 observations. The sample
size differs slightly for regressions using other outcomes, although
the effects on summary statistics are negligible.
Table 2: Difference and Diversity Indexes Summary Statistics
Variable
Racial Difference Index
Socioeconomic Difference Index
Within Grade Diversity Index
Mean
2.37
1.48
0.39
(St. Dev.)
(2.95)
(1.39)
(0.20)
Percentile
25th 50th 75th
0.14 0.91 4.05
0.43 0.89 2.29
0.21 0.36 0.60
a) Summary statistics are reported for the regression sample for smoking, with a
sample size of 44,186 observations. The sample size differs slightly for regressions
using other outcomes, although the effects on summary statistics are negligible.
33
Table 3: Behavioral Outcomes Summary Statistics
Variable
Smoke
Drink
Get Drunk
Do Dangerous Activities
Lie
Trouble with Teachers
Inattentive in Class
Trouble with Homework
GPA
Study Effort
Music/Academic Clubs
Sports Participation
Fight
Trouble with Students
Skip School
Mean
4.51
1.88
1.09
1.34
4.28
4.90
9.11
8.76
2.83
3.17
0.82
1.00
1.21
7.19
1.02
(St. Dev.)
(9.84)
(4.48)
(3.57)
(4.82)
(7.84)
(8.77)
(10.43)
(10.49)
(0.79)
(0.66)
(1.17)
(1.27)
(2.28)
(10.73)
(3.84)
Percentile
10th 50th 90th
0
0
30
0
0.5
6
0
0
2.5
0
0
2.5
0
1
16
0
2
20
0
2
30
0
2
30
1.75
3.0
4.0
2
3
4
0
0
2
0
1
3
0
0
4
0
2
30
0
0
2.5
N. Obs.
44,186
44,090
43,926
44,009
44,000
44,525
44,463
44,484
41,988
44,670
45,637
45,637
43,095
44,467
44,150
a) The number of observations vary considerably for each outcome variable. Summary
statistics are reported for the regression sample of each outcome variable.
b) The 10th and 90th percentiles for behaviors are reported because the distributions
are very left-skewed and these summary statistics provide a more useful representation
of the variables than the interquartile range used in earlier tables.
Table 4: Physical & Emotional Outcomes Summary Statistics
Variable
Happy at School
Depressed
Popularity
Body Mass Index (BMI)
Obese
Self-Evaluate Obese
Mean
2.52
1.30
4.06
22.89
0.05
0.04
(St. Dev.)
(1.19)
(1.18)
(3.69)
(4.39)
(0.22)
(0.19)
10th
1
0
0
18.55
0
0
Percentile
50th 90th
3
4
1
3
3
9
21.92 28.69
0
0
0
0
N. Obs.
42,864
43,829
45,637
8,087
8,087
8,209
a) The number of observations vary considerably for each outcome variable. Summary
statistics are reported for the regression sample of each outcome variable.
b) The 10th and 90th percentiles are reported for emotional and physical outcomes because
the distributions are very left-skewed and these summary statistics provide a more useful
representation of the variables than the interquartile range used in earlier tables.
34
Table 5: Relating Behaviors to Popularity – Substance Use
Dependent Var.: Popularity
Behavior:
Behavior
(Behavior)2
Age
Male
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Indian
Other Race
Yrs. at School
Mom’s Edu.
Lives with Dad
Diff. Index Race
Non-Grade Diff. Index Race
Diff. Index Socioecon.
Non-Grade Diff. Index Socioecon.
Constant
Observations
R-squared
N. of School-Grade Groups
(1)
Smoke
(2)
Drink
(3)
Get Drunk
0.053***
[0.014]
-0.002***
[0.000]
-0.319***
[0.036]
-0.360***
[0.050]
0.199**
[0.096]
0.217***
[0.069]
-0.178*
[0.094]
0.079
[0.147]
0.414
[0.432]
0.077
[0.088]
0.302***
[0.029]
0.120***
[0.013]
0.326***
[0.085]
-0.043**
[0.018]
-0.087
[0.102]
-0.006
[0.042]
0.011
[0.149]
6.636***
[0.635]
44,186
0.030
362
0.097***
[0.014]
-0.004***
[0.001]
-0.352***
[0.038]
-0.365***
[0.050]
0.217**
[0.093]
0.189***
[0.067]
-0.122
[0.095]
0.114
[0.143]
0.351
[0.406]
0.058
[0.083]
0.302***
[0.030]
0.124***
[0.013]
0.326***
[0.085]
-0.046**
[0.018]
-0.079
[0.096]
-0.023
[0.043]
0.072
[0.150]
7.000***
[0.641]
44,090
0.029
362
0.116***
[0.019]
-0.005***
[0.001]
-0.350***
[0.038]
-0.369***
[0.050]
0.218**
[0.092]
0.200***
[0.069]
-0.119
[0.093]
0.115
[0.140]
0.387
[0.412]
0.070
[0.085]
0.303***
[0.030]
0.124***
[0.013]
0.320***
[0.086]
-0.044**
[0.018]
-0.086
[0.098]
-0.030
[0.043]
0.110
[0.151]
6.996***
[0.650]
43,926
0.029
362
a) Standard errors are reported in parentheses below the coefficient estimate. All regressions include school-grade fixed effects, and standard
errors are clustered by school. One, two, and three asterisks indicate
statistical significance at the 10-, 5-, and 1-percent level, respectively.
35
Table 6: Relating Behaviors to Popularity – Mildly Delinquent & Acting Out
Dependent Var.: Popularity
Behavior:
(1)
Do
Dangerous
(2)
Lie
(3)
Trouble
Teachers
(4)
Trouble
Attention
(5)
Trouble
Homework
Behavior
0.059***
[0.014]
-0.002***
[0.000]
-0.339***
[0.037]
-0.379***
[0.051]
0.234**
[0.094]
0.197***
[0.069]
-0.130
[0.092]
0.095
[0.143]
0.407
[0.415]
0.080
[0.086]
0.305***
[0.030]
0.124***
[0.013]
0.331***
[0.085]
-0.046**
[0.018]
-0.089
[0.099]
-0.016
[0.043]
0.041
[0.150]
6.851***
[0.632]
44,009
0.028
361
0.037***
[0.008]
-0.001***
[0.000]
-0.333***
[0.037]
-0.350***
[0.050]
0.236**
[0.095]
0.199***
[0.069]
-0.139
[0.094]
0.091
[0.144]
0.406
[0.410]
0.074
[0.085]
0.304***
[0.030]
0.123***
[0.013]
0.311***
[0.086]
-0.046**
[0.018]
-0.085
[0.098]
-0.023
[0.043]
0.062
[0.150]
6.777***
[0.634]
44,000
0.028
362
0.031***
[0.009]
-0.001***
[0.000]
-0.332***
[0.037]
-0.351***
[0.048]
0.226**
[0.092]
0.200***
[0.068]
-0.131
[0.095]
0.093
[0.143]
0.456
[0.408]
0.076
[0.085]
0.303***
[0.030]
0.121***
[0.013]
0.337***
[0.085]
-0.042**
[0.018]
-0.099
[0.097]
-0.016
[0.042]
0.049
[0.147]
6.772***
[0.645]
44,525
0.028
360
0.049***
[0.007]
-0.002***
[0.000]
-0.337***
[0.037]
-0.345***
[0.049]
0.232**
[0.095]
0.207***
[0.068]
-0.114
[0.094]
0.093
[0.140]
0.405
[0.408]
0.065
[0.084]
0.307***
[0.030]
0.122***
[0.013]
0.348***
[0.086]
-0.043**
[0.018]
-0.087
[0.098]
-0.011
[0.042]
0.033
[0.148]
6.732***
[0.650]
44,463
0.029
360
0.022***
[0.006]
-0.001***
[0.000]
-0.333***
[0.037]
-0.347***
[0.050]
0.234**
[0.093]
0.200***
[0.068]
-0.131
[0.095]
0.094
[0.139]
0.402
[0.401]
0.058
[0.083]
0.306***
[0.030]
0.122***
[0.013]
0.336***
[0.086]
-0.044**
[0.018]
-0.083
[0.097]
-0.016
[0.042]
0.048
[0.149]
6.778***
[0.642]
44,484
0.028
361
(Behavior)2
Age
Male
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Indian
Other Race
Yrs. at School
Mom’s Edu.
Lives with Dad
Diff. Index Race
Non-Grade Diff. Index Race
Diff. Index Socioecon.
Non-Grade Diff. Index Socioecon.
Constant
Observations
R-squared
N. of School-Grade Groups
a) Standard errors are reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate. All regressions
include school-grade fixed effects, and standard errors are clustered by school. One, two, and
three asterisks indicate statistical significance at the 10-, 5-, and 1-percent level, respectively.
36
Table 7: Relating Behaviors to Popularity – Academics and Club Participation
Dependent Var.: Popularity
Behavior
Behavior
(Behavior)2
Age
Male
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Indian
Other Race
Yrs. at School
Mom’s Education
Lives with Dad
Diff. Index Race
Non-Grade Diff. Index Race
Diff. Index Socioecon.
Non-Grade Diff. Index Socioecon.
Constant
Observations
R-squared
N. School-Grade Groups
(1)
GPA
(2)
Study
(3)
Music/Academic Club
(4)
Sports
0.714***
[0.122]
-0.061***
[0.023]
-0.272***
[0.035]
-0.270***
[0.047]
0.265***
[0.096]
0.187***
[0.071]
-0.058
[0.102]
0.034
[0.152]
0.655
[0.461]
0.121
[0.094]
0.300***
[0.030]
0.103***
[0.013]
0.250***
[0.088]
-0.040**
[0.018]
-0.130
[0.109]
-0.020
[0.044]
0.062
[0.150]
4.633***
[0.667]
41,988
0.033
356
1.389***
[0.201]
-0.240***
[0.033]
-0.338***
[0.037]
-0.361***
[0.049]
0.241**
[0.093]
0.204***
[0.068]
-0.121
[0.094]
0.124
[0.143]
0.472
[0.406]
0.092
[0.084]
0.307***
[0.029]
0.124***
[0.013]
0.339***
[0.085]
-0.045**
[0.018]
-0.101
[0.097]
-0.015
[0.042]
0.061
[0.146]
4.939***
[0.743]
44,670
0.030
363
0.358***
[0.036]
-0.031***
[0.004]
-0.317***
[0.035]
-0.245***
[0.051]
0.208**
[0.092]
0.207***
[0.066]
-0.109
[0.096]
0.040
[0.149]
0.567
[0.433]
0.101
[0.087]
0.296***
[0.029]
0.109***
[0.012]
0.291***
[0.083]
-0.041**
[0.018]
-0.129
[0.103]
-0.024
[0.042]
0.045
[0.144]
6.480***
[0.605]
45,637
0.034
363
0.771***
[0.053]
-0.074***
[0.006]
-0.317***
[0.035]
-0.481***
[0.053]
0.192**
[0.087]
0.157**
[0.064]
-0.296***
[0.091]
0.088
[0.127]
0.322
[0.396]
0.064
[0.083]
0.299***
[0.029]
0.099***
[0.011]
0.275***
[0.082]
-0.053***
[0.017]
-0.058
[0.095]
-0.015
[0.041]
0.024
[0.143]
6.435***
[0.616]
45,637
0.058
363
a) Standard errors are reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate. All regressions
include school-grade fixed effects, and standard errors are clustered by school. One, two, and
three asterisks indicate statistical significance at the 10-, 5-, and 1-percent level, respectively.
37
Table 8: Relating Behaviors to Popularity – Anti-Social Behaviors
Dependent Var: Popularity
Behavior
Behavior
(Behavior)2
Age
Male
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Indian
Other Race
Yrs. at School
Mom’s Edu.
Lives with Dad
Diff. Index Race
Non-Grade Diff. Index Race
Diff. Index Socioecon.
Non-Grade Diff. Index Socioecon.
Constant
Observations
R-squared
N. of School-Grade Groups
(1)
Fight
(2)
Skip School
(3)
Tr. Students
-0.080***
[0.022]
0.004*
[0.002]
-0.324***
[0.038]
-0.311***
[0.052]
0.228**
[0.098]
0.176**
[0.070]
-0.149
[0.098]
0.066
[0.142]
0.433
[0.404]
0.079
[0.085]
0.305***
[0.030]
0.124***
[0.013]
0.331***
[0.088]
-0.044**
[0.019]
-0.090
[0.096]
-0.013
[0.043]
0.040
[0.152]
6.697***
[0.662]
43,095
0.028
361
-0.034*
[0.017]
0.000
[0.001]
-0.334***
[0.037]
-0.347***
[0.050]
0.246***
[0.094]
0.205***
[0.068]
-0.142
[0.093]
0.083
[0.144]
0.423
[0.408]
0.076
[0.086]
0.305***
[0.030]
0.122***
[0.013]
0.325***
[0.086]
-0.044**
[0.018]
-0.090
[0.097]
-0.015
[0.043]
0.051
[0.151]
6.829***
[0.628]
44,150
0.028
362
-0.028***
[0.007]
0.001**
[0.000]
-0.325***
[0.036]
-0.338***
[0.049]
0.231**
[0.094]
0.182***
[0.067]
-0.127
[0.095]
0.091
[0.145]
0.452
[0.408]
0.067
[0.085]
0.306***
[0.030]
0.119***
[0.013]
0.338***
[0.085]
-0.042**
[0.018]
-0.096
[0.098]
-0.011
[0.042]
0.029
[0.147]
6.802***
[0.628]
44,467
0.029
361
a) Standard errors are reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate. All regressions include school-grade fixed effects, and standard errors
are clustered by school. One, two, and three asterisks indicate statistical
significance at the 10-, 5-, and 1-percent level, respectively.
38
Table 9: Substance Use
VARIABLES
Diff. Index Race
Non-Grade Diff. Index Race
(1)
Smoke
(2)
Smoke
(3)
Drink
(4)
Drink
(5)
Get
Drunk
(6)
Get
Drunk
0.197***
[0.064]
-0.702**
[0.341]
0.026
[0.023]
-0.002
[0.132]
-0.046
[0.068]
0.293
[0.218]
0.402***
[0.099]
0.360***
[0.101]
-0.138
[0.133]
-0.176
[0.161]
0.485
[0.590]
0.129
[0.171]
0.044
[0.029]
0.367***
[0.049]
0.947***
[0.069]
-0.019*
[0.011]
-0.512***
[0.144]
-4.173***
[0.777]
0.090**
[0.039]
-0.015
[0.135]
-0.177**
[0.072]
-0.047
[0.068]
0.302
[0.217]
0.409***
[0.102]
0.405***
[0.105]
-0.069
[0.129]
-0.112
[0.156]
0.587
[0.588]
0.205
[0.174]
0.044
[0.029]
0.367***
[0.049]
0.948***
[0.069]
-0.020*
[0.011]
-0.512***
[0.144]
-4.160***
[0.785]
0.036
[0.023]
-0.061
[0.138]
0.666***
[0.175]
-2.338***
[0.597]
-0.907***
[0.274]
1.677***
[0.312]
-3.154***
[0.382]
-0.114
[0.418]
4.150***
[1.443]
0.799**
[0.340]
-0.063
[0.065]
1.282***
[0.152]
-0.322**
[0.136]
-0.169***
[0.035]
-0.323
[0.331]
-13.993***
[2.305]
0.393***
[0.094]
-0.742**
[0.335]
-0.544***
[0.169]
0.665***
[0.174]
-2.312***
[0.594]
-0.886***
[0.292]
1.818***
[0.329]
-2.940***
[0.365]
0.083
[0.388]
4.465***
[1.398]
1.032***
[0.350]
-0.061
[0.065]
1.282***
[0.152]
-0.321**
[0.136]
-0.172***
[0.034]
-0.321
[0.330]
-13.951***
[2.301]
-0.030
[0.073]
0.314
[0.231]
0.340***
[0.095]
0.453***
[0.092]
0.052
[0.112]
0.138
[0.147]
0.388
[0.603]
0.128
[0.151]
0.063**
[0.026]
0.294***
[0.047]
0.696***
[0.052]
-0.012
[0.008]
-0.372**
[0.145]
-4.077***
[0.774]
0.083**
[0.037]
-0.070
[0.140]
-0.130*
[0.066]
-0.031
[0.073]
0.320
[0.229]
0.345***
[0.097]
0.486***
[0.098]
0.103
[0.112]
0.185
[0.150]
0.462
[0.605]
0.183
[0.152]
0.063**
[0.026]
0.294***
[0.048]
0.696***
[0.052]
-0.012
[0.008]
-0.372**
[0.144]
-4.067***
[0.778]
0.029
44,186
362
0.030
44,186
362
0.020
44,090
362
0.020
44,090
362
0.018
43,926
362
0.018
43,926
362
(Diversity Index)*(Diff. Index Race)
Diff. Index Socioecon.
Non-Grade Diff. Index Socioecon.
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Indian
Other Race
Yrs. at School
Age
Male
Mom’s Edu.
Lives with Dad
Constant
R-squared
Observations
N. School-Grade Groups
a) Standard errors are reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate. All regressions include schoolgrade fixed effects, and standard errors are clustered by school. One, two, and three asterisks indicate statistical
significance at the 10-, 5-, and 1-percent level, respectively.
39
Table 10: Mildly Delinquent Behaviors
VARIABLES
Diff. Index Race
Non-Grade Diff. Index Race
(1)
Do Dangerous
(2)
Do Dangerous
(3)
Lie
(4)
Lie
0.097***
[0.031]
-0.462**
[0.180]
0.192***
[0.050]
-0.481**
[0.187]
-0.262***
[0.094]
0.066
[0.066]
-0.026
[0.222]
0.113
[0.131]
0.473***
[0.111]
-0.198
[0.167]
0.491**
[0.191]
2.994***
[0.837]
0.605***
[0.177]
0.051*
[0.030]
0.101**
[0.049]
1.467***
[0.067]
-0.023**
[0.011]
-0.111
[0.135]
-1.193
[0.831]
44,009
0.029
361
0.050
[0.035]
-0.293
[0.263]
0.134***
[0.047]
-0.310
[0.271]
-0.234**
[0.097]
-0.120
[0.148]
0.832*
[0.474]
0.485***
[0.183]
0.517***
[0.185]
0.839***
[0.192]
0.453
[0.290]
2.044*
[1.132]
0.686**
[0.328]
0.016
[0.037]
-0.059
[0.065]
0.424***
[0.095]
-0.066***
[0.019]
-0.573**
[0.275]
5.666***
[1.208]
44,000
0.003
362
(Diversity)*(Diff. Index Race)
Diff. Index Socioecon.
Non-Grade Diff. Index Socioecon.
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Indian
Other Race
Yrs. at School
Age
Male
Mom’s Education
Lives with Dad
Constant
Observations
R-squared
N. School-Grade Groups
0.066
[0.066]
-0.039
[0.224]
0.103
[0.117]
0.405***
[0.103]
-0.301*
[0.178]
0.396**
[0.198]
2.843***
[0.824]
0.492***
[0.181]
0.050
[0.030]
0.100**
[0.048]
1.466***
[0.067]
-0.022*
[0.011]
-0.112
[0.135]
-1.208
[0.825]
44,009
0.028
361
-0.119
[0.149]
0.820*
[0.478]
0.476***
[0.162]
0.456**
[0.181]
0.747***
[0.194]
0.369
[0.298]
1.905*
[1.104]
0.585*
[0.321]
0.015
[0.037]
-0.060
[0.065]
0.424***
[0.095]
-0.065***
[0.018]
-0.573**
[0.277]
5.649***
[1.211]
44,000
0.003
362
a) Standard errors are reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate. All regressions
include school-grade fixed effects, and standard errors are clustered by school. One, two, and
three asterisks indicate statistical significance at the 10-, 5-, and 1-percent level, respectively.
40
Table 11: Acting Out in School
VARIABLES
Diff. Index Race
Non-Grade Diff. Index Race
(1)
Trouble
Teacher
(2)
Trouble
Teacher
(3)
Trouble
Attention
(4)
Trouble
Attention
(5)
Trouble
Homework
(6)
Trouble
Homework
0.138***
[0.042]
-0.553
[0.438]
0.165***
[0.057]
-0.558
[0.435]
-0.073
[0.092]
0.064
[0.146]
0.046
[0.470]
0.139
[0.177]
-0.680***
[0.183]
0.837***
[0.250]
0.593
[0.562]
2.587
[1.952]
0.424
[0.554]
0.065
[0.052]
0.923***
[0.073]
1.042***
[0.098]
-0.122***
[0.018]
-0.098
[0.310]
-8.590***
[1.377]
44,525
0.016
360
0.100*
[0.057]
-0.085
[0.392]
0.109
[0.067]
-0.087
[0.392]
-0.024
[0.126]
0.221
[0.150]
-0.588
[0.510]
0.231
[0.242]
-0.309
[0.226]
0.790**
[0.315]
0.386
[0.483]
0.758
[1.725]
0.247
[0.520]
0.110
[0.067]
0.917***
[0.103]
1.137***
[0.108]
-0.116***
[0.025]
0.068
[0.313]
-5.032***
[1.864]
44,463
0.011
360
0.112**
[0.055]
-0.466
[0.390]
0.132**
[0.066]
-0.470
[0.389]
-0.055
[0.120]
0.225
[0.159]
-0.530
[0.506]
0.597***
[0.210]
-0.377*
[0.215]
1.118***
[0.266]
1.321***
[0.457]
2.477
[1.638]
0.451
[0.435]
0.100
[0.071]
1.054***
[0.087]
1.125***
[0.115]
-0.171***
[0.030]
-0.182
[0.329]
-6.612***
[1.585]
44,484
0.015
361
(Diversity)*(Diff. Index Race)
Diff. Index Socioecon.
Non-Grade Diff. Index Socioecon.
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Indian
Other Race
Yrs. at School
Age
Male
Mom’s Education
Lives with Dad
Constant
Observations
R-squared
N. School-Grade Groups
0.064
[0.146]
0.043
[0.471]
0.137
[0.178]
-0.699***
[0.186]
0.808***
[0.247]
0.566
[0.568]
2.544
[1.964]
0.392
[0.557]
0.065
[0.053]
0.923***
[0.074]
1.042***
[0.098]
-0.122***
[0.018]
-0.098
[0.310]
-8.594***
[1.380]
44,525
0.016
360
0.221
[0.150]
-0.590
[0.511]
0.230
[0.241]
-0.316
[0.237]
0.781**
[0.306]
0.378
[0.483]
0.744
[1.722]
0.237
[0.518]
0.110
[0.067]
0.917***
[0.103]
1.137***
[0.108]
-0.116***
[0.025]
0.068
[0.313]
-5.034***
[1.865]
44,463
0.011
360
0.226
[0.159]
-0.533
[0.507]
0.595***
[0.212]
-0.392*
[0.221]
1.096***
[0.248]
1.301***
[0.456]
2.444
[1.636]
0.428
[0.429]
0.100
[0.071]
1.054***
[0.087]
1.125***
[0.115]
-0.170***
[0.030]
-0.182
[0.329]
-6.616***
[1.586]
44,484
0.015
361
a) Standard errors are reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate. All regressions include schoolgrade fixed effects, and standard errors are clustered by school. One, two, and three asterisks indicate statistical
significance at the 10-, 5-, and 1-percent level, respectively.
41
Table 12: Academic Achievement
VARIABLES
Diff. Index Race
Non-Grade Diff. Index Race
(1)
GPA
(2)
GPA
(3)
Study
(4)
Study
-0.005
[0.006]
0.009
[0.036]
-0.005
[0.007]
0.009
[0.036]
-0.001
[0.012]
-0.009
[0.015]
0.070
[0.046]
-0.081***
[0.027]
0.059***
[0.016]
-0.160***
[0.030]
0.285***
[0.034]
-0.112
[0.150]
-0.016
[0.038]
0.009*
[0.005]
-0.146***
[0.012]
-0.143***
[0.011]
0.052***
[0.003]
0.124***
[0.030]
4.368***
41,988
0.087
356
-0.009***
[0.003]
0.024
[0.026]
-0.013**
[0.005]
0.025
[0.026]
0.011
[0.009]
-0.020**
[0.010]
0.087**
[0.034]
0.002
[0.017]
-0.080***
[0.018]
0.064***
[0.018]
0.076***
[0.025]
-0.152
[0.113]
-0.034
[0.031]
-0.011***
[0.004]
-0.003
[0.007]
-0.204***
[0.008]
0.006***
[0.001]
0.021
[0.021]
3.303***
44,670
0.030
363
(Diversity)*(Diff. Index Race)
Diff. Index Socioecon.
Non-Grade Diff. Index Socioecon.
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Indian
Other Race
Yrs. at School
Age
Male
Mom’s Education
Lives with Dad
Constant
Observations
R-squared
N. School-Grade Groups
-0.009
[0.015]
0.070
[0.046]
-0.081***
[0.028]
0.058***
[0.015]
-0.161***
[0.029]
0.284***
[0.034]
-0.113
[0.149]
-0.017
[0.037]
0.009*
[0.005]
-0.146***
[0.012]
-0.143***
[0.010]
0.052***
[0.003]
0.124***
[0.030]
4.368***
41,988
0.087
356
-0.020**
[0.010]
0.088**
[0.034]
0.003
[0.016]
-0.077***
[0.018]
0.068***
[0.019]
0.080***
[0.026]
-0.146
[0.113]
-0.029
[0.030]
-0.011***
[0.004]
-0.003
[0.007]
-0.204***
[0.008]
0.006***
[0.001]
0.021
[0.021]
3.304***
44,670
0.030
363
a) Standard errors are reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate. All
regressions include school-grade fixed effects, and standard errors are clustered by
school. One, two, and three asterisks indicate statistical significance at the 10-, 5-,
and 1-percent level, respectively.
42
Table 13: School Club Participation
VARIABLES
Diff. Index Race
Non-Grade Diff. Index Race
(1)
Music/Academic
Clubs
(2)
Music/Academic
Clubs
(3)
Sports
(4)
Sports
-0.012*
[0.006]
0.129***
[0.045]
-0.020*
[0.010]
0.130***
[0.044]
0.024
[0.020]
-0.021
[0.016]
0.192***
[0.052]
0.062**
[0.031]
0.038*
[0.022]
-0.027
[0.038]
0.294***
[0.068]
-0.427**
[0.184]
-0.079
[0.056]
0.048***
[0.008]
-0.100***
[0.014]
-0.334***
[0.021]
0.053***
[0.005]
0.070**
[0.033]
1.573***
[0.243]
45,637
0.048
363
0.019***
[0.007]
-0.045
[0.045]
0.014
[0.010]
-0.045
[0.046]
0.014
[0.018]
-0.022
[0.018]
0.145**
[0.057]
0.073*
[0.038]
0.133***
[0.028]
0.346***
[0.041]
0.054
[0.064]
0.154
[0.194]
0.004
[0.044]
0.024**
[0.009]
-0.034**
[0.013]
0.278***
[0.016]
0.041***
[0.004]
0.070**
[0.032]
0.527**
[0.228]
45,637
0.027
363
(Diversity)*(Diff. Index Race)
Diff. Index Socioecon.
Non-Grade Diff. Index Socioecon.
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Indian
Other Race
Yrs. at School
Age
Male
Mom’s Education
Lives with Dad
Constant
Observations
R-squared
N. School-Grade Groups
-0.021
[0.016]
0.194***
[0.052]
0.063**
[0.032]
0.044**
[0.021]
-0.018
[0.040]
0.302***
[0.069]
-0.415**
[0.187]
-0.069
[0.057]
0.048***
[0.008]
-0.100***
[0.014]
-0.334***
[0.021]
0.053***
[0.005]
0.070**
[0.032]
1.575***
[0.244]
45,637
0.048
363
-0.022
[0.018]
0.145**
[0.057]
0.073*
[0.038]
0.137***
[0.027]
0.351***
[0.039]
0.058
[0.061]
0.161
[0.190]
0.010
[0.042]
0.024**
[0.009]
-0.034**
[0.013]
0.278***
[0.016]
0.041***
[0.004]
0.070**
[0.032]
0.528**
[0.228]
45,637
0.027
363
a) Standard errors are reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate. All regressions
include school-grade fixed effects, and standard errors are clustered by school. One, two, and
three asterisks indicate statistical significance at the 10-, 5-, and 1-percent level, respectively.
43
Table 14: Anti-Social Behaviors
VARIABLES
Diff. Index Race
Non-Grade Diff. Index Race
(1)
Fight
(2)
Fight
(3)
Trouble
Student
(4)
Trouble
Student
(5)
Skip
School
(6)
Skip
School
0.036**
[0.015]
0.007
[0.123]
0.067***
[0.018]
-0.001
[0.124]
-0.086***
[0.031]
0.022
[0.027]
-0.008
[0.098]
0.091
[0.065]
-0.004
[0.051]
0.107*
[0.062]
-0.160
[0.100]
0.284
[0.523]
0.083
[0.121]
-0.016
[0.011]
0.180***
[0.024]
0.839***
[0.032]
-0.036***
[0.006]
-0.079
[0.054]
-1.554***
[0.369]
43,095
0.045
361
0.151***
[0.055]
-0.882*
[0.511]
0.138*
[0.072]
-0.879*
[0.513]
0.036
[0.110]
0.189
[0.212]
-0.422
[0.705]
0.577**
[0.243]
-1.437***
[0.275]
1.581***
[0.316]
1.010
[0.798]
3.693
[2.255]
0.698
[0.654]
0.020
[0.065]
1.508***
[0.095]
1.176***
[0.123]
-0.256***
[0.028]
0.032
[0.447]
-13.473***
[1.723]
44,467
0.028
361
0.063**
[0.024]
-0.184
[0.136]
0.082**
[0.036]
-0.188
[0.133]
-0.053
[0.070]
0.045
[0.059]
0.162
[0.195]
0.344***
[0.086]
0.159*
[0.092]
-0.194**
[0.088]
-0.016
[0.105]
0.911*
[0.538]
0.092
[0.147]
0.053**
[0.026]
0.258***
[0.044]
0.424***
[0.045]
-0.033***
[0.012]
-0.227**
[0.114]
-3.076***
[0.726]
44,150
0.011
362
(Diversity)*(Diff. Index Race)
Diff. Index Socioecon.
Non-Grade Diff. Index Socioecon.
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Indian
Other Race
Yrs. at School
Age
Male
Mom’s Education
Lives with Dad
Constant
Observations
R-squared
N. School-Grade Groups
0.023
[0.027]
-0.012
[0.098]
0.088
[0.060]
-0.026
[0.047]
0.073
[0.065]
-0.192*
[0.101]
0.229
[0.519]
0.045
[0.120]
-0.016
[0.011]
0.180***
[0.023]
0.838***
[0.032]
-0.035***
[0.006]
-0.080
[0.054]
-1.563***
[0.368]
43,095
0.045
361
0.189
[0.212]
-0.420
[0.706]
0.578**
[0.244]
-1.427***
[0.275]
1.595***
[0.309]
1.023
[0.787]
3.714*
[2.236]
0.713
[0.644]
0.020
[0.065]
1.508***
[0.095]
1.176***
[0.123]
-0.256***
[0.028]
0.033
[0.447]
-13.471***
[1.723]
44,467
0.028
361
0.045
[0.059]
0.159
[0.195]
0.342***
[0.085]
0.145
[0.092]
-0.215**
[0.092]
-0.035
[0.110]
0.880
[0.557]
0.069
[0.156]
0.053**
[0.026]
0.258***
[0.044]
0.424***
[0.045]
-0.033***
[0.011]
-0.227**
[0.114]
-3.079***
[0.726]
44,150
0.011
362
a) Standard errors are reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate. All regressions include schoolgrade fixed effects, and standard errors are clustered by school. One, two, and three asterisks indicate statistical
significance at the 10-, 5-, and 1-percent level, respectively.
44
Table 15: Friends & Emotional Outcomes
VARIABLES
Diff. Index Race
Non-Grade Diff. Index Race
(1)
Happy
(2)
Happy
(3)
Depressed
(4)
Depressed
(5)
Popularity
(6)
Popularity
-0.030***
[0.008]
-0.046
[0.056]
0.010**
[0.005]
0.048*
[0.025]
0.010
[0.016]
0.015
[0.056]
-0.007
[0.026]
0.130***
[0.023]
-0.132***
[0.037]
0.040
[0.037]
-0.037
[0.105]
-0.014
[0.036]
-0.002
[0.008]
0.023**
[0.011]
-0.582***
[0.015]
-0.005*
[0.003]
-0.106***
[0.036]
1.239***
[0.184]
0.019***
[0.006]
0.046*
[0.026]
-0.025*
[0.013]
0.010
[0.016]
0.016
[0.056]
-0.006
[0.026]
0.137***
[0.023]
-0.122***
[0.040]
0.048
[0.039]
-0.022
[0.110]
-0.003
[0.038]
-0.002
[0.008]
0.023**
[0.011]
-0.582***
[0.015]
-0.005*
[0.003]
-0.106***
[0.036]
1.241***
[0.185]
-0.045**
[0.018]
-0.100
[0.098]
-0.013
[0.018]
0.027
[0.057]
0.090***
[0.032]
0.047
[0.030]
-0.128***
[0.040]
0.130**
[0.055]
0.206
[0.242]
0.112**
[0.054]
0.030***
[0.010]
-0.060***
[0.013]
0.149***
[0.016]
0.019***
[0.004]
0.075*
[0.039]
3.057***
[0.219]
-0.045***
[0.009]
-0.042
[0.057]
0.042***
[0.014]
-0.013
[0.018]
0.025
[0.057]
0.088***
[0.033]
0.036
[0.031]
-0.145***
[0.042]
0.115**
[0.054]
0.179
[0.246]
0.093*
[0.055]
0.030***
[0.010]
-0.060***
[0.013]
0.148***
[0.016]
0.019***
[0.004]
0.075*
[0.039]
3.053***
[0.219]
-0.032
[0.042]
0.083
[0.146]
0.210**
[0.092]
0.208***
[0.066]
-0.129
[0.095]
0.100
[0.141]
0.474
[0.411]
0.095
[0.084]
0.306***
[0.029]
-0.346***
[0.036]
-0.350***
[0.049]
0.123***
[0.013]
0.301***
[0.084]
6.980***
[0.622]
-0.021
[0.025]
-0.103
[0.100]
-0.065
[0.047]
-0.032
[0.042]
0.086
[0.145]
0.212**
[0.092]
0.225***
[0.066]
-0.103
[0.089]
0.122
[0.141]
0.507
[0.422]
0.121
[0.089]
0.306***
[0.029]
-0.346***
[0.036]
-0.350***
[0.050]
0.123***
[0.013]
0.301***
[0.084]
6.986***
[0.621]
0.018
42,864
359
0.018
42,864
359
0.066
43,829
361
0.066
43,829
361
0.028
45,637
363
0.028
45,637
363
(Diversity Index)*(Diff. Index Race)
Diff. Index Socioecon.
Non-Grade Diff. Index Socioecon.
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Indian
Other Race
Yrs. at School
Age
Male
Mom’s Edu.
Lives with Dad
Constant
R-squared
Observations
N. School-Grade Groups
a) Standard errors are reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate. All regressions include school-grade
fixed effects, and standard errors are clustered by school. One, two, and three asterisks indicate statistical significance
at the 10-, 5-, and 1-percent level, respectively.
45
Table 16: Health Outcomes
VARIABLES
Diff. Index Race
Non-Grade Diff. Index Race
(1)
BMI
(2)
BMI
(3)
Obese
(4)
Obese
(5)
Self-Eval.
Obese
(6)
Self-Eval.
Obese
0.059
[0.050]
-1.147***
[0.388]
0.004
[0.002]
-0.059***
[0.016]
0.006
[0.007]
-0.020
[0.024]
0.004
[0.011]
0.011
[0.009]
0.036***
[0.010]
0.048***
[0.013]
0.267***
[0.064]
0.064***
[0.017]
0.002
[0.002]
0.000
[0.005]
-0.001
[0.005]
-0.003***
[0.001]
0.005
[0.015]
0.000
[0.003]
-0.059***
[0.016]
0.009**
[0.004]
0.006
[0.007]
-0.020
[0.024]
0.004
[0.012]
0.007
[0.010]
0.033***
[0.011]
0.046***
[0.014]
0.266***
[0.064]
0.060***
[0.017]
0.002
[0.002]
0.000
[0.005]
-0.001
[0.005]
-0.003**
[0.001]
0.005
[0.015]
-0.001
[0.001]
0.005
[0.009]
0.388***
[0.132]
-1.250***
[0.454]
0.482**
[0.235]
0.165
[0.165]
1.144***
[0.184]
0.399
[0.402]
5.559***
[1.642]
1.171***
[0.346]
0.072
[0.049]
0.315***
[0.094]
0.576***
[0.119]
-0.088***
[0.019]
0.517*
[0.281]
0.034
[0.057]
-1.146***
[0.387]
0.069
[0.079]
0.388***
[0.131]
-1.251***
[0.454]
0.483**
[0.238]
0.138
[0.170]
1.120***
[0.189]
0.387
[0.409]
5.545***
[1.635]
1.141***
[0.339]
0.072
[0.049]
0.316***
[0.095]
0.575***
[0.120]
-0.087***
[0.019]
0.516*
[0.281]
17.655***
[1.567]
8,087
0.021
316
17.628***
[1.569]
8,087
0.021
316
0.058
[0.081]
8,087
0.005
316
0.054
[0.082]
8,087
0.006
316
0.004*
[0.002]
0.005
[0.009]
-0.013***
[0.004]
0.003
[0.006]
0.002
[0.020]
0.008
[0.008]
0.003
[0.007]
-0.008
[0.008]
-0.006
[0.010]
-0.018
[0.039]
0.000
[0.015]
-0.000
[0.002]
0.000
[0.003]
-0.041***
[0.004]
-0.000
[0.001]
0.002
[0.014]
0.011***
[0.001]
0.210***
[0.030]
-0.201***
[0.068]
8,085
0.208
316
(Diversity Index)*(Diff. Index Race)
Diff. Index Socioecon.
Non-Grade Diff. Index Socioecon.
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Indian
Other Race
Yrs. at School
Age
Male
Mom’s Education
Lives with Dad
BMI
Obese
Constant
Observations
R-squared
N. School-Grade Groups
0.003
[0.006]
0.002
[0.020]
0.008
[0.007]
-0.002
[0.006]
-0.012
[0.008]
-0.008
[0.010]
-0.021
[0.039]
-0.005
[0.014]
-0.000
[0.002]
0.000
[0.003]
-0.042***
[0.004]
-0.000
[0.001]
0.002
[0.014]
0.011***
[0.001]
0.209***
[0.030]
-0.206***
[0.067]
8,085
0.207
316
a) Standard errors are reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate. All regressions include schoolgrade fixed effects, and standard errors are clustered by school. One, two, and three asterisks indicate statistical
significance at the 10-, 5-, and 1-percent level, respectively.
46
Table 17: Additional Parental Controls for Substance Use
VARIABLES
Diff. Index Race
Non-Grade Diff. Index Race
(1)
Smoke
(2)
Smoke
(3)
Drink
(4)
Drink
(5)
Get Drunk
(6)
Get Drunk
0.130
[0.101]
-0.848
[0.711]
0.321**
[0.142]
-0.881
[0.723]
-0.522*
[0.276]
0.581*
[0.317]
-1.872
[1.137]
2.491***
[0.336]
0.095*
[0.050]
-0.536
[0.438]
0.061
[0.052]
-0.299
[0.453]
-0.213
[0.143]
1.488**
[0.591]
0.151
[0.105]
-0.546
[0.449]
-0.152
[0.184]
-0.209
[0.143]
1.479**
[0.592]
-0.165
[0.121]
1.203**
[0.496]
0.127
[0.093]
-0.311
[0.461]
-0.179
[0.155]
-0.161
[0.121]
1.193**
[0.496]
0.349**
[0.135]
-0.196***
[0.037]
0.246
[0.313]
-0.155
[0.364]
0.144
[0.318]
0.328***
[0.116]
1.012***
[0.119]
0.589*
[0.320]
0.463*
[0.250]
0.113
[0.338]
1.009**
[0.397]
3.309*
[1.804]
0.417
[0.756]
0.182**
[0.079]
-0.014
[0.042]
-0.668**
[0.316]
-4.221**
[1.992]
5,933
0.038
298
0.347**
[0.135]
-0.196***
[0.037]
0.242
[0.313]
-0.163
[0.363]
0.138
[0.317]
0.324***
[0.117]
1.012***
[0.119]
0.594*
[0.319]
0.530*
[0.280]
0.179
[0.339]
1.034**
[0.408]
3.388*
[1.840]
0.496
[0.768]
0.182**
[0.079]
-0.015
[0.042]
-0.661**
[0.316]
-4.166**
[2.002]
5,933
0.039
298
-0.004
[0.098]
-0.129***
[0.031]
-0.052
[0.314]
-0.140
[0.381]
-0.050
[0.314]
0.363***
[0.115]
0.742***
[0.090]
0.574*
[0.289]
0.604***
[0.216]
0.306
[0.298]
0.845**
[0.389]
1.792
[1.886]
0.191
[0.603]
0.155**
[0.068]
-0.009
[0.032]
-0.344
[0.252]
-5.487***
[1.983]
5,928
0.032
298
-0.006
[0.098]
-0.130***
[0.031]
-0.057
[0.315]
-0.150
[0.380]
-0.057
[0.313]
0.358***
[0.116]
0.743***
[0.090]
0.579**
[0.290]
0.682***
[0.246]
0.382
[0.297]
0.874**
[0.402]
1.885
[1.903]
0.285
[0.600]
0.155**
[0.067]
-0.009
[0.032]
-0.336
[0.253]
-5.422***
[1.978]
5,928
0.032
298
(Diversity)*(Diff. Index Race)
Diff. Index Socioecon.
Non-Grade Diff. Index Socioecon.
Easy Access to Cigarettes
0.567*
[0.315]
-1.840
[1.134]
2.493***
[0.338]
Easy Access to Alcohol
Religious Participation
Parents Christian
Parents Jewish
Parents Other Religion
Age
Male
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Indian
Other Race
Yrs. at School
Mom’s Education
Lives with Dad
Constant
Observations
R-squared
N. School-Grade Groups
-0.575***
[0.071]
0.201
[0.725]
2.138*
[1.156]
0.776
[0.838]
1.556***
[0.255]
0.054
[0.262]
0.319
[0.526]
1.879***
[0.551]
-1.900***
[0.646]
1.488**
[0.679]
4.449
[2.833]
0.472
[0.994]
-0.026
[0.170]
-0.067
[0.063]
-0.012
[0.683]
-20.435***
[4.118]
5,934
0.064
298
-0.575***
[0.070]
0.184
[0.725]
2.110*
[1.156]
0.755
[0.839]
1.542***
[0.254]
0.056
[0.262]
0.338
[0.559]
2.109***
[0.594]
-1.673**
[0.657]
1.577**
[0.702]
4.715
[2.850]
0.748
[0.975]
-0.026
[0.170]
-0.068
[0.063]
0.013
[0.690]
-20.236***
[4.091]
5,934
0.065
298
a) Standard errors are reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate. All regressions include schoolgrade fixed effects, and standard errors are clustered by school. One, two, and three asterisks indicate statistical
significance at the 10-, 5-, and 1-percent level, respectively.
47
Table 18: Being a Racial Minority – Substance Use & Acting Out
(1)
Smoke
(2)
Drink
(3)
Get
Drunk
(4)
Do
Dangerous
(5)
Lie
(6)
Trouble
Teacher
(7)
Trouble
Attention
(8)
Trouble
Homework
Racial Minority
-1.176***
[0.277]
-0.330**
[0.145]
-0.448***
[0.121]
-0.235
[0.175]
-0.040
[0.229]
-0.228
[0.229]
-0.153
[0.281]
-0.220
[0.275]
Diff. Index Race
0.555***
[0.107]
0.135***
[0.045]
0.143***
[0.041]
0.224***
[0.057]
0.142**
[0.056]
0.199***
[0.072]
0.130*
[0.072]
0.160**
[0.068]
Non-Grade Diff.
Index Race
-0.996**
[0.387]
-0.088
[0.133]
-0.158
[0.138]
-0.536***
[0.195]
-0.329
[0.275]
-0.631
[0.450]
-0.130
[0.392]
-0.513
[0.383]
(Diversity)*(Diff.
Index Race)
-0.552***
[0.159]
-0.180**
[0.071]
-0.132**
[0.064]
-0.261***
[0.093]
-0.234**
[0.097]
-0.074
[0.093]
-0.023
[0.128]
-0.053
[0.123]
Diff. Index
Socioecon.
0.684***
[0.174]
-0.049
[0.069]
-0.030
[0.073]
0.065
[0.066]
-0.143
[0.147]
0.050
[0.148]
0.219
[0.151]
0.206
[0.160]
Non-Grade Diff.
Index Socio.
-2.363***
[0.598]
0.317
[0.220]
0.325
[0.232]
-0.017
[0.224]
0.910*
[0.474]
0.101
[0.478]
-0.576
[0.516]
-0.458
[0.511]
Age
1.286***
[0.151]
-0.317**
[0.136]
-0.731***
[0.273]
1.983***
[0.305]
-2.604***
[0.336]
0.472
[0.373]
4.869***
[1.567]
1.340***
[0.431]
-0.060
[0.065]
-0.175***
[0.034]
-0.283
[0.327]
-14.102***
[2.283]
44,109
0.031
328
0.369***
[0.049]
0.947***
[0.068]
0.449***
[0.113]
0.454***
[0.111]
0.026
[0.128]
-0.002
[0.161]
0.706
[0.585]
0.292
[0.192]
0.042
[0.029]
-0.021*
[0.011]
-0.516***
[0.144]
-4.197***
[0.783]
44,013
0.020
328
0.296***
[0.047]
0.697***
[0.052]
0.406***
[0.106]
0.551***
[0.104]
0.232*
[0.119]
0.332**
[0.167]
0.581
[0.603]
0.298*
[0.175]
0.062**
[0.026]
-0.014
[0.008]
-0.369**
[0.145]
-4.120***
[0.774]
43,849
0.019
328
0.099**
[0.048]
1.467***
[0.067]
0.143
[0.141]
0.506***
[0.115]
-0.126
[0.185]
0.571**
[0.222]
3.089***
[0.851]
0.672***
[0.204]
0.049
[0.030]
-0.024**
[0.011]
-0.109
[0.136]
-1.172
[0.827]
43,933
0.029
328
-0.059
[0.065]
0.426***
[0.095]
0.475**
[0.189]
0.522***
[0.191]
0.846***
[0.210]
0.465
[0.307]
2.096*
[1.138]
0.701**
[0.351]
0.015
[0.037]
-0.067***
[0.019]
-0.619**
[0.274]
5.720***
[1.207]
43,923
0.003
328
0.923***
[0.074]
1.040***
[0.099]
0.155
[0.176]
-0.646***
[0.191]
0.907***
[0.278]
0.676
[0.576]
2.763
[1.981]
0.494
[0.567]
0.062
[0.052]
-0.124***
[0.018]
-0.120
[0.315]
-8.554***
[1.383]
44,450
0.016
328
0.916***
[0.103]
1.135***
[0.108]
0.246
[0.252]
-0.288
[0.217]
0.839**
[0.336]
0.444
[0.497]
0.848
[1.734]
0.291
[0.528]
0.113*
[0.067]
-0.117***
[0.025]
0.068
[0.316]
-5.010***
[1.858]
44,388
0.011
328
1.052***
[0.087]
1.125***
[0.115]
0.630***
[0.226]
-0.347
[0.217]
1.186***
[0.307]
1.388***
[0.488]
2.537
[1.617]
0.509
[0.436]
0.100
[0.071]
-0.172***
[0.030]
-0.221
[0.330]
-6.543***
[1.582]
44,408
0.015
328
VARIABLES
Male
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Indian
Other Race
Yrs. at School
Mom’s Education
Lives with Dad
Constant
Observations
R-squared
N. School-Grade
Groups
a) Standard errors are reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate. All regressions include school-grade fixed
effects, and standard errors are clustered by school. One, two, and three asterisks indicate statistical significance at the
10-, 5-, and 1-percent level, respectively.
48
Table 19: Being a Racial Minority – Academics, Clubs, and Anti-Social Behavior
(1)
GPA
(2)
Study
(3)
Music/Academic
Club
(4)
Sports
(5)
Fight
(6)
Trouble
Student
(7)
Skip
School
Racial Minority
0.037
[0.027]
0.003
[0.019]
0.018
[0.037]
-0.074**
[0.029]
-0.080
[0.058]
0.182
[0.271]
-0.171
[0.171]
Diff. Index Race
-0.010
[0.007]
-0.013**
[0.006]
-0.023*
[0.012]
0.023**
[0.010]
0.078***
[0.022]
0.117
[0.086]
0.106**
[0.042]
Non-Grade Diff.
Index Race
0.017
[0.034]
0.024
[0.028]
0.137***
[0.044]
-0.057
[0.044]
-0.016
[0.128]
-0.862
[0.528]
-0.232*
[0.125]
(Diversity)*(Diff.
Index Race)
-0.001
[0.012]
0.011
[0.009]
0.024
[0.021]
0.013
[0.018]
-0.085***
[0.031]
0.037
[0.109]
-0.053
[0.069]
Diff. Index
Socioecon.
-0.010
[0.015]
-0.018*
[0.010]
-0.021
[0.016]
-0.023
[0.018]
0.015
[0.026]
0.157
[0.216]
0.042
[0.059]
Non-Grade Diff.
Index Socioecon.
0.071
[0.046]
0.082**
[0.034]
0.192***
[0.053]
0.151**
[0.058]
0.019
[0.097]
-0.311
[0.716]
0.176
[0.197]
-0.146***
[0.012]
-0.143***
[0.010]
-0.086***
[0.028]
0.053***
[0.016]
-0.171***
[0.031]
0.272***
[0.036]
-0.125
[0.145]
-0.026
[0.038]
0.009*
[0.005]
0.052***
[0.003]
0.123***
[0.030]
4.373***
[0.202]
41,924
0.087
328
-0.003
[0.007]
-0.204***
[0.008]
0.001
[0.017]
-0.080***
[0.018]
0.063***
[0.018]
0.076***
[0.027]
-0.149
[0.115]
-0.034
[0.033]
-0.011***
[0.004]
0.006***
[0.001]
0.024
[0.021]
3.298***
[0.107]
44,592
0.030
328
-0.100***
[0.014]
-0.334***
[0.021]
0.061*
[0.032]
0.036
[0.025]
-0.033
[0.044]
0.287***
[0.071]
-0.443**
[0.183]
-0.085
[0.057]
0.048***
[0.009]
0.053***
[0.005]
0.069**
[0.033]
1.571***
[0.244]
45,557
0.048
328
-0.033**
[0.013]
0.278***
[0.016]
0.083**
[0.037]
0.144***
[0.028]
0.367***
[0.040]
0.077
[0.063]
0.163
[0.192]
0.022
[0.044]
0.023**
[0.009]
0.041***
[0.004]
0.067**
[0.033]
0.512**
[0.228]
45,557
0.027
328
0.180***
[0.024]
0.838***
[0.032]
0.098
[0.065]
0.006
[0.052]
0.129**
[0.061]
-0.135
[0.101]
0.303
[0.539]
0.104
[0.125]
-0.016
[0.011]
-0.036***
[0.006]
-0.091*
[0.054]
-1.549***
[0.369]
43,022
0.045
328
1.506***
[0.095]
1.174***
[0.124]
0.545**
[0.239]
-1.465***
[0.272]
1.529***
[0.328]
0.950
[0.818]
3.723
[2.277]
0.653
[0.669]
0.017
[0.066]
-0.258***
[0.028]
-0.024
[0.455]
-13.341***
[1.731]
44,390
0.028
328
0.257***
[0.044]
0.424***
[0.045]
0.364***
[0.097]
0.183*
[0.102]
-0.142
[0.115]
0.044
[0.121]
0.998*
[0.513]
0.143
[0.151]
0.051*
[0.026]
-0.034***
[0.012]
-0.232**
[0.114]
-3.051***
[0.722]
44,073
0.011
328
VARIABLES
Age
Male
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Indian
Other Race
Yrs. at School
Mom’s Education
Lives with Dad
Constant
Observations
R-squared
N. School-Grade
Groups
a) Standard errors are reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate. All regressions include schoolgrade fixed effects, and standard errors are clustered by school. One, two, and three asterisks indicate statistical
significance at the 10-, 5-, and 1-percent level, respectively.
49
Table 20: Being a Racial Minority – Popularity and Health
(1)
Popularity
(2)
Happy at School
(3)
Depressed
(4)
BMI
(5)
Obese
(6)
Self-Eval. Obese
Racial Minority
-0.182**
[0.090]
-0.046
[0.033]
-0.013
[0.037]
-0.137
[0.200]
0.001
[0.009]
-0.019**
[0.009]
Diff. Index Race
0.003
[0.029]
-0.039***
[0.010]
0.021**
[0.008]
0.049
[0.063]
0.000
[0.003]
0.006***
[0.002]
Non-Grade Diff.
Index Race
-0.139
[0.103]
-0.050
[0.056]
0.042
[0.026]
-1.154***
[0.386]
-0.059***
[0.016]
0.003
[0.010]
Diff. Index
Socioecon.
-0.030
[0.042]
-0.011
[0.018]
0.009
[0.017]
0.384***
[0.132]
0.006
[0.007]
0.004
[0.006]
Non-Grade Diff.
Index Socioecon.
0.081
[0.147]
0.019
[0.058]
0.021
[0.057]
-1.236***
[0.455]
-0.022
[0.025]
0.000
[0.020]
(Diversity)*(Diff.
Index Race)
-0.067
[0.048]
0.042***
[0.014]
-0.025*
[0.013]
0.063
[0.079]
0.009**
[0.004]
-0.014***
[0.004]
-0.345***
[0.036]
-0.350***
[0.050]
0.238***
[0.087]
0.252***
[0.069]
-0.049
[0.090]
0.183
[0.135]
0.557
[0.436]
0.167*
[0.095]
0.304***
[0.029]
0.122***
[0.013]
0.307***
[0.085]
-0.060***
[0.013]
0.149***
[0.016]
0.095***
[0.033]
0.043
[0.033]
-0.131***
[0.044]
0.130**
[0.052]
0.188
[0.239]
0.105**
[0.052]
0.030***
[0.010]
0.019***
[0.004]
0.078*
[0.040]
0.023**
[0.011]
-0.583***
[0.015]
-0.005
[0.025]
0.139***
[0.024]
-0.118***
[0.044]
0.052
[0.042]
-0.012
[0.112]
0.001
[0.041]
-0.002
[0.008]
-0.005*
[0.003]
-0.107***
[0.036]
0.318***
[0.095]
0.584***
[0.119]
0.515**
[0.234]
0.156
[0.170]
1.174***
[0.195]
0.432
[0.412]
5.520***
[1.611]
1.163***
[0.338]
0.074
[0.049]
-0.089***
[0.019]
0.513*
[0.280]
0.001
[0.005]
-0.001
[0.005]
0.004
[0.012]
0.007
[0.010]
0.033***
[0.011]
0.046***
[0.014]
0.265***
[0.064]
0.060***
[0.017]
0.003
[0.002]
-0.003**
[0.001]
0.006
[0.015]
6.966***
[0.623]
45,557
0.028
328
3.042***
[0.220]
42,792
0.018
328
1.245***
[0.183]
43,754
0.066
328
17.612***
[1.561]
8,057
0.021
303
0.048
[0.082]
8,057
0.006
303
0.000
[0.003]
-0.041***
[0.004]
0.011
[0.008]
0.004
[0.006]
-0.003
[0.007]
-0.000
[0.010]
-0.018
[0.043]
0.003
[0.015]
-0.000
[0.002]
-0.000
[0.001]
0.003
[0.014]
0.011***
[0.001]
0.208***
[0.030]
-0.205***
[0.067]
8,055
0.208
303
VARIABLES
Age
Male
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Indian
Other Race
Yrs. at School
Mom’s Education
Lives with Dad
BMI
Obese
Constant
Observations
R-squared
N. School-Grade
Groups
a) Standard errors are reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate. All regressions include schoolgrade fixed effects, and standard errors are clustered by school. One, two, and three asterisks indicate statistical
significance at the 10-, 5-, and 1-percent level, respectively.
50
Table 21: Out-of-School Friends – Substance Use & Acting Out
(1)
Smoke
(2)
Drink
(3)
Get
Drunk
(4)
Do
Dangerous
(5)
Lie
(6)
Trouble
Teacher
(7)
Trouble
Attention
(8)
Trouble
Homework
N. Out-of-School
Friends
0.390***
[0.049]
0.078***
[0.011]
0.035***
[0.010]
0.046***
[0.012]
0.132***
[0.019]
-0.015
[0.028]
0.038
[0.029]
0.021
[0.028]
Diff. Index Race
0.308***
[0.083]
0.054
[0.034]
0.050
[0.032]
0.182***
[0.051]
0.114***
[0.042]
0.151**
[0.059]
0.104
[0.070]
0.116*
[0.069]
Non-Grade Diff.
Index Race
-0.655*
[0.368]
0.076
[0.158]
0.012
[0.168]
-0.546**
[0.208]
-0.299
[0.283]
-0.385
[0.435]
0.045
[0.398]
-0.218
[0.391]
(Diversity)*(Diff.
Index Race)
-0.476***
[0.158]
-0.153**
[0.065]
-0.108*
[0.056]
-0.261**
[0.099]
-0.161
[0.097]
-0.077
[0.099]
0.019
[0.123]
-0.041
[0.125]
Diff. Index
Socioecon.
0.481***
[0.161]
-0.099
[0.060]
-0.088
[0.058]
0.001
[0.062]
-0.249*
[0.134]
-0.055
[0.157]
0.138
[0.156]
0.112
[0.161]
Non-Grade Diff.
Index Socio.
-1.740***
[0.549]
0.422**
[0.193]
0.415**
[0.182]
0.114
[0.205]
1.249***
[0.432]
0.343
[0.515]
-0.395
[0.536]
-0.242
[0.517]
Age
1.280***
[0.154]
-0.144
[0.143]
-0.703**
[0.312]
1.772***
[0.340]
-2.824***
[0.363]
0.110
[0.394]
4.263***
[1.506]
1.066***
[0.380]
0.062
[0.071]
-0.165***
[0.034]
-0.448
[0.328]
-14.843***
[2.358]
38,854
0.037
301
0.388***
[0.048]
0.904***
[0.063]
0.427***
[0.117]
0.368***
[0.107]
-0.087
[0.125]
-0.126
[0.174]
0.275
[0.676]
0.136
[0.212]
0.061*
[0.031]
-0.019*
[0.011]
-0.590***
[0.135]
-4.570***
[0.758]
38,762
0.021
301
0.321***
[0.046]
0.635***
[0.044]
0.409***
[0.108]
0.448***
[0.092]
0.080
[0.110]
0.130
[0.158]
0.168
[0.716]
0.091
[0.186]
0.064**
[0.027]
-0.011
[0.008]
-0.462***
[0.128]
-4.423***
[0.754]
38,624
0.018
301
0.093*
[0.051]
1.436***
[0.066]
0.184
[0.143]
0.505***
[0.104]
-0.165
[0.155]
0.581***
[0.186]
3.331***
[0.929]
0.659***
[0.199]
0.059*
[0.032]
-0.026**
[0.012]
-0.235*
[0.124]
-1.003
[0.854]
38,703
0.029
301
-0.068
[0.060]
0.404***
[0.102]
0.397**
[0.196]
0.336*
[0.196]
0.691***
[0.208]
0.243
[0.298]
2.094*
[1.202]
0.548
[0.405]
0.027
[0.040]
-0.063***
[0.019]
-0.677**
[0.263]
5.756***
[1.051]
38,692
0.004
301
0.906***
[0.076]
1.035***
[0.108]
0.104
[0.187]
-0.703***
[0.202]
0.761***
[0.266]
0.438
[0.589]
1.763
[1.947]
0.257
[0.599]
0.038
[0.052]
-0.131***
[0.019]
-0.372
[0.349]
-7.771***
[1.423]
39,163
0.016
301
0.939***
[0.107]
1.090***
[0.111]
0.131
[0.242]
-0.344
[0.256]
0.699**
[0.329]
0.248
[0.457]
0.069
[1.746]
0.044
[0.560]
0.125*
[0.067]
-0.118***
[0.028]
-0.104
[0.349]
-5.226***
[1.956]
39,112
0.011
301
1.094***
[0.086]
1.088***
[0.123]
0.629***
[0.227]
-0.399*
[0.232]
1.045***
[0.275]
1.100**
[0.436]
1.396
[1.664]
0.003
[0.434]
0.110
[0.077]
-0.178***
[0.033]
-0.353
[0.352]
-6.993***
[1.557]
39,133
0.015
301
VARIABLES
Male
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Indian
Other Race
Yrs. at School
Mom’s Education
Lives with Dad
Constant
Observations
R-squared
N. School-Grade
Groups
a) Standard errors are reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate. All regressions include school-grade fixed
effects, and standard errors are clustered by school. One, two, and three asterisks indicate statistical significance at the
10-, 5-, and 1-percent level, respectively.
51
Table 22: Out-of-School Friends – Academics, Clubs, and Anti-Social Behavior
(1)
GPA
(2)
Study
(3)
Music/Academic
Club
(4)
Sports
(5)
Fight
(6)
Trouble
Student
(7)
Skip
School
N. Out-of-School
Friends
-0.009***
[0.002]
-0.016***
[0.002]
0.004
[0.003]
-0.020***
[0.005]
0.055***
[0.006]
-0.072**
[0.031]
0.056***
[0.011]
Diff. Index Race
-0.003
[0.007]
-0.012**
[0.005]
-0.021*
[0.011]
0.014
[0.010]
0.069***
[0.020]
0.134*
[0.074]
0.037
[0.027]
Non-Grade Diff.
Index Race
0.026
[0.039]
0.034
[0.028]
0.150***
[0.054]
-0.040
[0.050]
-0.028
[0.136]
-0.787
[0.501]
-0.059
[0.148]
(Diversity)*(Diff.
Index Race)
-0.006
[0.012]
0.008
[0.009]
0.025
[0.021]
0.006
[0.018]
-0.098***
[0.032]
0.068
[0.111]
0.002
[0.062]
Diff. Index
Socioecon.
0.003
[0.013]
-0.014
[0.011]
-0.013
[0.016]
-0.014
[0.019]
-0.007
[0.026]
0.152
[0.230]
-0.016
[0.049]
Non-Grade Diff.
Index Socioecon.
0.034
[0.042]
0.070*
[0.036]
0.167***
[0.053]
0.121*
[0.062]
0.060
[0.094]
-0.389
[0.774]
0.282
[0.170]
-0.148***
[0.013]
-0.148***
[0.012]
-0.075***
[0.028]
0.065***
[0.017]
-0.158***
[0.031]
0.283***
[0.036]
-0.190
[0.163]
-0.042
[0.045]
0.005
[0.006]
0.053***
[0.004]
0.137***
[0.029]
4.379***
[0.211]
36,744
0.089
301
-0.006
[0.007]
-0.209***
[0.008]
0.000
[0.017]
-0.075***
[0.018]
0.066***
[0.018]
0.074***
[0.028]
-0.192
[0.123]
-0.034
[0.035]
-0.013***
[0.004]
0.006***
[0.001]
0.026
[0.023]
3.375***
[0.108]
39,278
0.032
301
-0.114***
[0.013]
-0.346***
[0.023]
0.068**
[0.034]
0.056**
[0.024]
-0.026
[0.041]
0.305***
[0.074]
-0.513**
[0.228]
-0.089
[0.075]
0.046***
[0.009]
0.054***
[0.005]
0.083**
[0.031]
1.764***
[0.216]
40,029
0.052
301
-0.039***
[0.012]
0.271***
[0.017]
0.066
[0.040]
0.131***
[0.031]
0.350***
[0.045]
0.055
[0.073]
0.137
[0.212]
0.022
[0.050]
0.015
[0.009]
0.042***
[0.004]
0.081**
[0.032]
0.641***
[0.196]
40,029
0.029
301
0.183***
[0.023]
0.837***
[0.031]
0.117
[0.077]
0.023
[0.050]
0.128**
[0.057]
-0.105
[0.100]
0.365
[0.566]
0.139
[0.123]
-0.003
[0.012]
-0.033***
[0.007]
-0.124**
[0.053]
-1.743***
[0.363]
37,934
0.046
301
1.524***
[0.101]
1.060***
[0.137]
0.434*
[0.228]
-1.434***
[0.317]
1.517***
[0.331]
1.046
[0.789]
3.076
[2.196]
0.587
[0.701]
-0.003
[0.069]
-0.267***
[0.029]
-0.000
[0.492]
-13.335***
[1.785]
39,114
0.028
301
0.270***
[0.041]
0.375***
[0.038]
0.445***
[0.097]
0.162*
[0.088]
-0.150
[0.096]
-0.081
[0.123]
0.423
[0.624]
-0.071
[0.184]
0.055**
[0.026]
-0.024*
[0.012]
-0.259**
[0.104]
-3.472***
[0.698]
38,827
0.011
301
VARIABLES
Age
Male
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Indian
Other Race
Yrs. at School
Mom’s Education
Lives with Dad
Constant
Observations
R-squared
N. School-Grade
Groups
a) Standard errors are reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate. All regressions include schoolgrade fixed effects, and standard errors are clustered by school. One, two, and three asterisks indicate statistical
significance at the 10-, 5-, and 1-percent level, respectively.
52
Table 23: Out-of-School Friends – Popularity and Health
VARIABLES
(1)
Popularity
(2)
Happy at School
(3)
Depressed
(4)
BMI
(5)
Obese
(6)
Self-Eval. Obese
N. Out-of-School
Friends
-0.220***
[0.018]
-0.071***
[0.005]
0.025***
[0.004]
0.012
[0.025]
-0.001
[0.001]
-0.000
[0.001]
Diff. Index Race
-0.005
[0.026]
-0.037***
[0.010]
0.015**
[0.007]
0.025
[0.057]
-0.000
[0.003]
0.003
[0.002]
Non-Grade Diff.
Index Race
-0.164
[0.118]
-0.067
[0.057]
0.066**
[0.033]
-1.203***
[0.381]
-0.061***
[0.015]
0.009
[0.009]
(Diversity)*(Diff.
Index Race)
-0.097**
[0.048]
0.040***
[0.015]
-0.026*
[0.013]
0.081
[0.083]
0.011***
[0.004]
-0.010**
[0.004]
Diff. Index
Socioecon.
-0.025
[0.040]
-0.005
[0.019]
0.008
[0.017]
0.424***
[0.143]
0.008
[0.008]
0.003
[0.007]
Non-Grade Diff.
Index Socioecon.
0.092
[0.135]
0.018
[0.059]
0.018
[0.060]
-1.306***
[0.487]
-0.026
[0.026]
0.003
[0.021]
-0.360***
[0.037]
-0.457***
[0.054]
0.211**
[0.095]
0.280***
[0.077]
-0.055
[0.095]
0.198
[0.146]
0.778
[0.501]
0.231**
[0.102]
0.237***
[0.027]
0.131***
[0.012]
0.287***
[0.084]
-0.067***
[0.013]
0.117***
[0.016]
0.059*
[0.031]
0.060*
[0.031]
-0.140***
[0.046]
0.115**
[0.056]
0.271
[0.250]
0.103*
[0.059]
0.003
[0.008]
0.018***
[0.004]
0.080*
[0.041]
0.026**
[0.012]
-0.575***
[0.016]
0.025
[0.025]
0.121***
[0.025]
-0.132***
[0.044]
0.039
[0.046]
-0.085
[0.140]
-0.014
[0.047]
0.013
[0.008]
-0.004
[0.003]
-0.100***
[0.038]
0.300***
[0.093]
0.568***
[0.122]
0.637***
[0.233]
0.146
[0.178]
1.229***
[0.190]
0.541
[0.390]
5.863***
[1.602]
1.129***
[0.340]
0.072
[0.050]
-0.088***
[0.019]
0.620**
[0.303]
-0.000
[0.005]
-0.002
[0.005]
0.008
[0.011]
0.005
[0.011]
0.034***
[0.011]
0.048***
[0.014]
0.274***
[0.061]
0.055***
[0.016]
0.003
[0.002]
-0.003**
[0.001]
0.011
[0.016]
8.088***
[0.642]
40,029
0.044
301
3.361***
[0.218]
37,734
0.035
301
1.114***
[0.203]
38,555
0.069
301
17.731***
[1.544]
7,567
0.021
278
0.056
[0.085]
7,567
0.006
278
-0.000
[0.003]
-0.042***
[0.004]
0.007
[0.008]
-0.002
[0.007]
-0.013
[0.008]
-0.011
[0.009]
-0.035
[0.036]
-0.006
[0.015]
0.000
[0.002]
-0.000
[0.001]
0.002
[0.015]
0.011***
[0.001]
0.200***
[0.030]
-0.194***
[0.069]
7,565
0.208
278
Age
Male
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Indian
Other Race
Yrs. at School
Mom’s Education
Lives with Dad
BMI
Obese
Constant
Observations
R-squared
N. School-Grade
Groups
a) Standard errors are reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate. All regressions include schoolgrade fixed effects, and standard errors are clustered by school. One, two, and three asterisks indicate statistical
significance at the 10-, 5-, and 1-percent level, respectively.
53
Table 24: Probability of Being in 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Quintile – Substance Use & Acting Out
(1)
Smoke
(2)
Drink
(3)
Get
Drunk
(4)
Do
Dangerous
(5)
Lie
(6)
Trouble
Teacher
(7)
Trouble
Attention
(8)
Trouble
Homework
Diff. Index Race
0.001
[0.003]
0.001
[0.003]
0.002
[0.003]
-0.007***
[0.002]
-0.002
[0.003]
0.002
[0.003]
-0.003
[0.004]
0.003
[0.004]
Non-Grade Diff.
Index Race
0.001
[0.015]
-0.004
[0.022]
0.010
[0.016]
0.016
[0.010]
-0.003
[0.017]
-0.010
[0.016]
0.008
[0.015]
-0.011
[0.016]
(Diversity)*(Diff.
Index Race)
-0.004
[0.005]
-0.002
[0.006]
-0.009*
[0.005]
0.009**
[0.004]
0.007
[0.005]
-0.001
[0.006]
0.006
[0.007]
-0.002
[0.007]
Diff. Index
Socioecon.
0.004
[0.006]
0.012
[0.008]
0.009*
[0.005]
0.007
[0.005]
0.007
[0.007]
0.002
[0.006]
-0.004
[0.006]
0.002
[0.007]
Non-Grade Diff.
Index Socio.
-0.021
[0.019]
-0.063**
[0.026]
-0.043**
[0.017]
-0.034*
[0.019]
-0.027
[0.021]
-0.042**
[0.019]
-0.016
[0.019]
-0.028
[0.022]
-0.004
[0.003]
-0.013***
[0.005]
0.025**
[0.011]
0.013
[0.008]
-0.047***
[0.011]
-0.052***
[0.017]
0.031
[0.060]
-0.001
[0.014]
-0.000
[0.003]
-0.001
[0.001]
0.001
[0.010]
0.314***
[0.052]
45,557
0.004
328
-0.011**
[0.005]
-0.058***
[0.005]
0.004
[0.016]
0.038***
[0.014]
-0.029*
[0.015]
-0.067***
[0.022]
0.043
[0.094]
0.021
[0.022]
0.004
[0.003]
-0.003**
[0.001]
-0.006
[0.016]
0.680***
[0.080]
45,557
0.008
328
0.007**
[0.003]
-0.035***
[0.004]
0.003
[0.010]
0.020**
[0.009]
-0.042***
[0.011]
-0.076***
[0.018]
-0.021
[0.067]
-0.004
[0.014]
0.003
[0.002]
-0.003***
[0.001]
-0.014
[0.009]
0.163***
[0.056]
45,557
0.007
328
-0.016***
[0.003]
0.045***
[0.003]
-0.004
[0.007]
0.021**
[0.009]
-0.068***
[0.008]
-0.011
[0.012]
-0.043
[0.045]
-0.009
[0.010]
-0.003
[0.003]
0.002**
[0.001]
0.017
[0.011]
0.442***
[0.054]
45,557
0.008
328
-0.035***
[0.004]
-0.035***
[0.005]
-0.030**
[0.012]
0.022**
[0.009]
-0.027***
[0.010]
-0.013
[0.018]
0.014
[0.069]
-0.009
[0.016]
0.005*
[0.003]
0.005***
[0.001]
0.016
[0.014]
0.866***
[0.061]
45,557
0.006
328
-0.018***
[0.004]
0.048***
[0.005]
-0.025*
[0.014]
0.024*
[0.013]
-0.015
[0.014]
-0.011
[0.020]
0.093
[0.067]
0.019
[0.018]
0.012***
[0.002]
0.003**
[0.001]
-0.020
[0.013]
0.670***
[0.067]
45,557
0.006
328
-0.003
[0.005]
0.003
[0.004]
-0.008
[0.012]
0.006
[0.010]
-0.040***
[0.012]
-0.039**
[0.017]
-0.007
[0.062]
0.004
[0.016]
0.005*
[0.003]
0.000
[0.001]
-0.024*
[0.013]
0.524***
[0.083]
45,557
0.002
328
-0.007
[0.005]
0.027***
[0.005]
-0.017
[0.012]
0.016
[0.011]
-0.013
[0.012]
-0.045**
[0.020]
0.061
[0.068]
0.022
[0.015]
0.005*
[0.002]
-0.005***
[0.001]
-0.030**
[0.014]
0.661***
[0.074]
45,557
0.003
328
VARIABLES
Age
Male
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Indian
Other Race
Yrs. at School
Mom’s Education
Lives with Dad
Constant
Observations
R-squared
N. School-Grade
Groups
a) Standard errors are reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate. All regressions include school-grade fixed
effects, and standard errors are clustered by school. One, two, and three asterisks indicate statistical significance at the
10-, 5-, and 1-percent level, respectively.
54
Table 25: Probability of Being in 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Quintile – Academics, Clubs, and
Anti-Social Behaviors
(1)
GPA
(2)
Study
(3)
Music/Academic
Club
(4)
Sports
(5)
Fight
(6)
Trouble
Student
(7)
Skip
School
Diff. Index Race
-0.008**
[0.004]
-0.005
[0.003]
-0.000
[0.003]
-0.001
[0.004]
0.005
[0.003]
-0.003
[0.003]
-0.001
[0.003]
Non-Grade Diff.
Index Race
0.002
[0.014]
-0.001
[0.016]
-0.005
[0.015]
-0.020
[0.016]
-0.031*
[0.016]
0.010
[0.013]
0.020
[0.015]
(Diversity)*(Diff.
Index Race)
0.007
[0.007]
-0.001
[0.006]
-0.008
[0.005]
-0.001
[0.006]
0.000
[0.005]
0.001
[0.007]
0.002
[0.004]
Diff. Index
Socioecon.
-0.009
[0.007]
-0.007
[0.006]
-0.004
[0.005]
-0.012**
[0.005]
-0.002
[0.007]
-0.008
[0.008]
0.001
[0.006]
Non-Grade Diff.
Index Socioecon.
-0.008
[0.023]
0.041*
[0.021]
0.001
[0.018]
0.027
[0.018]
-0.018
[0.024]
-0.001
[0.025]
-0.019
[0.020]
-0.032***
[0.004]
-0.033***
[0.005]
0.011
[0.012]
0.021**
[0.009]
0.041***
[0.010]
-0.007
[0.015]
0.002
[0.055]
0.002
[0.016]
0.005*
[0.003]
0.003***
[0.001]
0.002
[0.014]
1.027***
[0.069]
45,557
0.006
328
0.005
[0.004]
-0.104***
[0.006]
0.019*
[0.011]
-0.045***
[0.012]
0.030**
[0.013]
0.079***
[0.019]
-0.005
[0.068]
-0.001
[0.019]
-0.006**
[0.002]
0.003***
[0.001]
0.020
[0.013]
0.280***
[0.072]
45,557
0.017
328
-0.023***
[0.004]
-0.109***
[0.005]
-0.010
[0.011]
0.003
[0.009]
-0.018
[0.011]
0.046***
[0.016]
0.034
[0.063]
0.033*
[0.018]
0.012***
[0.003]
0.009***
[0.001]
0.031***
[0.012]
0.601***
[0.068]
45,557
0.021
328
-0.031***
[0.005]
0.049***
[0.006]
0.003
[0.012]
-0.001
[0.009]
0.037***
[0.012]
-0.009
[0.020]
0.064
[0.069]
0.007
[0.020]
0.001
[0.003]
0.014***
[0.001]
0.006
[0.010]
0.688***
[0.075]
45,557
0.012
328
0.010***
[0.004]
0.116***
[0.006]
-0.006
[0.009]
0.002
[0.008]
0.028***
[0.010]
-0.005
[0.017]
0.136**
[0.066]
0.030*
[0.017]
-0.004
[0.003]
-0.004***
[0.001]
-0.027**
[0.014]
0.140**
[0.061]
45,557
0.020
328
-0.013***
[0.004]
0.003
[0.007]
-0.026*
[0.013]
0.034***
[0.013]
-0.006
[0.014]
-0.009
[0.025]
-0.033
[0.055]
0.016
[0.018]
0.009***
[0.003]
0.000
[0.001]
-0.032*
[0.017]
0.722***
[0.070]
45,557
0.002
328
0.007**
[0.003]
-0.016***
[0.004]
0.003
[0.010]
0.006
[0.008]
-0.062***
[0.012]
-0.050***
[0.018]
-0.086
[0.064]
-0.020
[0.015]
0.007***
[0.002]
-0.002*
[0.001]
-0.016
[0.013]
0.130***
[0.045]
45,557
0.004
328
VARIABLES
Age
Male
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Indian
Other Race
Yrs. at School
Mom’s Education
Lives with Dad
Constant
Observations
R-squared
N. School-Grade
Groups
a) Standard errors are reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate. All regressions include schoolgrade fixed effects, and standard errors are clustered by school. One, two, and three asterisks indicate statistical
significance at the 10-, 5-, and 1-percent level, respectively.
55
Table 26: Probability of Being in the Top Quintile – Substance Use & Acting Out
(1)
Smoke
(2)
Drink
(3)
Get
Drunk
(4)
Do
Dangerous
(5)
Lie
(6)
Trouble
Teacher
(7)
Trouble
Attention
(8)
Trouble
Homework
Diff. Index Race
0.013***
[0.003]
0.007***
[0.002]
0.009***
[0.003]
0.010***
[0.003]
0.004**
[0.002]
0.006***
[0.002]
0.004**
[0.002]
0.001
[0.002]
Non-Grade Diff.
Index Race
-0.026**
[0.013]
-0.004
[0.010]
-0.018
[0.013]
-0.019**
[0.009]
-0.013
[0.010]
-0.012
[0.015]
-0.002
[0.009]
0.001
[0.012]
(Diversity)*(Diff.
Index Race)
-0.015***
[0.005]
-0.010**
[0.004]
-0.010*
[0.005]
-0.013***
[0.005]
-0.006
[0.004]
-0.004
[0.003]
-0.003
[0.004]
0.001
[0.003]
0.011**
[0.005]
-0.002
[0.005]
0.001
[0.005]
-0.006
[0.005]
-0.004
[0.006]
0.005
[0.005]
0.003
[0.004]
0.004
[0.005]
Non-Grade Diff.
Index Socio.
-0.046***
[0.017]
0.012
[0.015]
-0.009
[0.017]
0.022
[0.017]
0.027
[0.019]
-0.004
[0.016]
0.001
[0.013]
-0.002
[0.016]
Age
0.036***
[0.005]
-0.006
[0.005]
-0.021**
[0.009]
0.072***
[0.013]
-0.100***
[0.011]
-0.002
[0.016]
0.141**
[0.055]
0.028*
[0.016]
-0.001
[0.002]
-0.005***
[0.001]
-0.023**
[0.010]
-0.373***
[0.074]
45,557
0.024
328
0.028***
[0.003]
0.056***
[0.004]
0.017***
[0.006]
0.025***
[0.007]
-0.038***
[0.010]
-0.039***
[0.014]
0.048
[0.044]
-0.001
[0.013]
0.001
[0.002]
-0.003***
[0.001]
-0.038***
[0.010]
-0.286***
[0.052]
45,557
0.017
328
0.033***
[0.004]
0.053***
[0.004]
0.009
[0.009]
0.060***
[0.010]
-0.040***
[0.011]
-0.027**
[0.013]
0.098*
[0.056]
0.017
[0.015]
0.003
[0.002]
-0.002*
[0.001]
-0.033***
[0.011]
-0.393***
[0.063]
45,557
0.019
328
-0.002
[0.003]
0.131***
[0.004]
-0.011
[0.010]
0.041***
[0.008]
-0.055***
[0.010]
-0.002
[0.011]
0.132***
[0.039]
0.020*
[0.011]
0.004*
[0.002]
0.000
[0.001]
-0.021*
[0.011]
0.097*
[0.051]
45,557
0.042
328
-0.004
[0.003]
0.012***
[0.004]
0.012
[0.008]
0.013
[0.008]
0.027***
[0.008]
0.013
[0.011]
0.077*
[0.043]
0.024**
[0.011]
0.001
[0.002]
-0.002**
[0.001]
-0.017
[0.012]
0.203***
[0.051]
45,557
0.002
328
0.029***
[0.003]
0.035***
[0.005]
0.002
[0.007]
-0.020***
[0.007]
0.019**
[0.009]
0.006
[0.017]
0.052
[0.066]
0.002
[0.016]
0.001
[0.002]
-0.004***
[0.001]
0.005
[0.010]
-0.300***
[0.047]
45,557
0.011
328
0.015***
[0.003]
0.019***
[0.003]
-0.001
[0.006]
-0.003
[0.006]
0.025***
[0.008]
0.019*
[0.010]
0.001
[0.036]
-0.002
[0.010]
0.001
[0.002]
-0.002***
[0.001]
0.010
[0.007]
-0.151***
[0.046]
45,557
0.005
328
0.017***
[0.002]
0.016***
[0.004]
0.008
[0.008]
-0.013*
[0.007]
0.013
[0.009]
0.037***
[0.012]
0.007
[0.051]
-0.003
[0.012]
0.002
[0.002]
-0.002**
[0.001]
0.005
[0.010]
-0.163***
[0.042]
45,557
0.005
328
VARIABLES
Diff. Index
Socioecon.
Male
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Indian
Other Race
Yrs. at School
Mom’s Education
Lives with Dad
Constant
Observations
R-squared
N. School-Grade
Groups
a) Standard errors are reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate. All regressions include school-grade fixed
effects, and standard errors are clustered by school. One, two, and three asterisks indicate statistical significance at the
10-, 5-, and 1-percent level, respectively.
56
Table 27: Probability of Being in the Top Quintile – Academics, Clubs, and AntiSocial Behaviors
(1)
GPA
(2)
Study
(3)
Music/Academic
Club
(4)
Sports
(5)
Fight
(6)
Trouble
Student
(7)
Skip
School
Diff. Index Race
0.002
[0.003]
0.000
[0.001]
-0.006***
[0.002]
0.004*
[0.002]
0.010***
[0.002]
0.006***
[0.002]
0.007***
[0.002]
Non-Grade Diff.
Index Race
0.007
[0.012]
0.004
[0.003]
0.037***
[0.014]
-0.009
[0.009]
-0.003
[0.015]
-0.021***
[0.008]
-0.011
[0.009]
(Diversity)*(Diff.
Index Race)
-0.007
[0.005]
-0.000
[0.001]
0.011**
[0.005]
0.003
[0.004]
-0.012***
[0.004]
-0.002
[0.003]
-0.005
[0.004]
Diff. Index
Socioecon.
-0.002
[0.006]
-0.001
[0.001]
-0.007
[0.005]
-0.003
[0.004]
0.002
[0.004]
0.006
[0.004]
0.016***
[0.005]
Non-Grade Diff.
Index Socioecon.
0.046**
[0.019]
0.006*
[0.003]
0.052***
[0.017]
0.024
[0.015]
-0.005
[0.015]
-0.010
[0.013]
-0.036**
[0.015]
-0.038***
[0.004]
-0.035***
[0.004]
-0.034***
[0.010]
0.015**
[0.007]
-0.076***
[0.012]
0.105***
[0.015]
-0.059
[0.050]
-0.012
[0.014]
0.001
[0.002]
0.018***
[0.001]
0.038***
[0.013]
0.489***
[0.070]
45,557
0.041
328
0.001
[0.001]
-0.005***
[0.002]
-0.002
[0.002]
-0.002
[0.001]
0.000
[0.001]
-0.002
[0.002]
-0.017
[0.010]
-0.004*
[0.002]
0.000
[0.000]
0.000
[0.000]
-0.000
[0.001]
0.000
[0.008]
45,557
0.001
328
-0.025***
[0.003]
-0.079***
[0.005]
0.010
[0.010]
0.005
[0.006]
-0.008
[0.009]
0.062***
[0.017]
-0.124**
[0.058]
-0.028*
[0.016]
0.008***
[0.002]
0.013***
[0.001]
0.002
[0.010]
0.336***
[0.044]
45,557
0.031
328
-0.001
[0.003]
0.057***
[0.004]
0.008
[0.008]
0.032***
[0.007]
0.085***
[0.010]
0.015
[0.015]
0.033
[0.040]
0.004
[0.010]
0.003
[0.002]
0.006***
[0.001]
0.015*
[0.008]
-0.045
[0.043]
45,557
0.015
328
0.018***
[0.003]
0.082***
[0.004]
0.002
[0.008]
0.001
[0.006]
0.000
[0.007]
-0.020*
[0.012]
0.043
[0.065]
0.006
[0.015]
-0.001
[0.002]
-0.003***
[0.001]
-0.007
[0.008]
-0.168***
[0.052]
45,557
0.023
328
0.026***
[0.003]
0.024***
[0.003]
0.002
[0.006]
-0.036***
[0.006]
0.016**
[0.008]
0.016*
[0.009]
0.079**
[0.032]
0.005
[0.008]
-0.001
[0.002]
-0.006***
[0.001]
0.010
[0.008]
-0.237***
[0.047]
45,557
0.013
328
0.028***
[0.004]
0.030***
[0.004]
0.008
[0.007]
0.018**
[0.008]
-0.038***
[0.007]
-0.017
[0.011]
0.066*
[0.036]
0.006
[0.012]
0.001
[0.002]
-0.004***
[0.001]
-0.012
[0.011]
-0.293***
[0.061]
45,557
0.012
328
VARIABLES
Age
Male
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Indian
Other Race
Yrs. at School
Mom’s Education
Lives with Dad
Constant
Observations
R-squared
N. School-Grade
Groups
a) Standard errors are reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate. All regressions include schoolgrade fixed effects, and standard errors are clustered by school. One, two, and three asterisks indicate statistical
significance at the 10-, 5-, and 1-percent level, respectively.
57
References
[1] Akerloff, George A. and Rachel E. Kranton. “Economics and Identity.” The
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, no. 4 (2000): 715-753.
[2] Akerloff, George A. and Rachel E. Kranton. “Identity and Schooling: Some
Lessons for the Economics of Education.” The Journal of Economic Literature,
40, no. 4 (2002): 117-1201.
[3] Alesina, Alberto and Eliana La Ferrara. “Participation in Heterogeneous Communities.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, no. 3 (2000): 847-904.
[4] Babcock, Philip. “From Ties to Gains? Evidence of Connectedness and Human
Capital Acquisition.” Journal of Human Capital, 4, no. 4 (2008): 379-409.
[5] Calvo-Armengol, Antoni, Eleonra Patacchini, and Yves Zenou. “Peer Effects
and Social Networks in Education.” The Review of Economic Studies, 79 (2009):
1239-1267.
[6] Conti, Gabriella, Andrea Galeotti, Gerrit Mueller, and Stephen Pudney. “Popularity.” Working Paper (2011): 1-28.
[7] Cook, Philip J. and Jens Ludwig. “Weighing the ”Burden of ‘Acting White’”:
Are There Race Differences in Attitudes Toward Education?” Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 16, no. 2 (1997): 256-278.
[8] Currarini, Sergio, Matthew O. Jackson, and Paolo Pin. “An Economic Model
of Friendship, Minorities, and Segregation.” Econometrica, 77, no. 4 (2009):
1003-1045.
[9] Foster, Gigi. “Making Friends: A nonexperimental analsysi fo social pair formation.” Human Relations, 58 (2005): 1443-1465.
[10] Foster, Gigi. “It’s not your peers, and it’s not your friends: Some progress
toward understanding the educaiton peer effect mechanims.” Journal of Public
Economics, 90 (2006): 1455-1475.
[11] Fryer, Roland G. and Paul Torelli. “An Empirical Analysis of ’Acting White.’”
Journal of Public Economics, 94 (2010): 380-396.
58
[12] Glaeser, Edward L., Bruce I. Sacerdote, Jose A. Scheinkman. “The Social Multiplier.” NBER Working Paper, No. 9153 (2002): 1-25.
[13] Haynie, Dana. “Delinquent Peers Revisited: Does Network Structure Matter?”
American Journal of Sociology, 106, no. 4 (2001): 1013-1057.
[14] Hersch, Joni. “Skin Tone Effects among African Americans: Perceptions and
Reality.” The American Economic Review, 96, no. 2 (2006): 251-255.
[15] Hoxby, Caroline. “Peer Effects in the Classroom: Learning from Gender and
Race Variation.” Working Paper (2000): 1-64.
[16] Kandel, Denise B. “Homophily, Selection, and Socialization in Adolescent
Friendships.” American Journal of Sociology, 84, no. 2 (1978): 427-436.
[17] Katz, Lawrence F., Jeffrey R. Kling, and Jeffrey B. Liebman. “Moving to Opportunity in Boston: Early Results of a Randomized Mobility Experiment.” The
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, no. 2 (2001): 607-654.
[18] Kiefer, Sarah M. and Allison M. Ryan. “Striving for Social Dominance Over
Peers: The Implications for Academic Adjustment During Early Adolescence.”
Journal of Educational Pyschology, 100, no. 2 (2008): 417-428.
[19] Kuhn, Peter and Catherine J. Weinberger. “Leadership Skills and Wages.”
Working Paper (2002): 1-54.
[20] Lin, Xu and Bruce Weinberg. “Unrequited Friendship? How Reciprocity Mediates Adolescent Peer Effects.” Working Paper (2013): 1-23.
[21] Manski, Charles. “Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection
Problem.” The Review of Economic Studies, 60, no. 3 (1993): 531-542.
[22] Massey, Douglas S. and Nancy A. Denton. “Hypersegregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas: Black and Hispanic Segregation along Five Dimensions.” Demography, 26, no. 3 (1989): 373-391.
[23] Mihaly, Kata. “Do More Friends Mean Better Grades?” Working Paper (2009):
1-29.
59
[24] Neal-Barnett, Angela M. “Being black: new thoughts on the old phenomenon of
acting white.” In: Neal-Barnett, Angela M., Josefina M. Contreras, and Katheryn A. Kerns, (Eds.), Forging Links: African American Children Clinical Developmental Perspectives. Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport, CT. (2001):
75-88.
[25] Pfeifer, Christian. “Physical Attractiveness, Employment, and Earnings.” Applied Economic Letters, 19, no. 6 (2012): 505-510.
[26] Putnam, Robert D. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital.” Journal of Democracy, 6, no. 1 (1995): 65-78.
[27] Sarcedote, Bruce. “Peer Effects with Random Assignment: Results for Dartmouth Roommates.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, no. 2 (2001):
681-704.
[28] Steele, Claude M. “A Threat in the Air: How Stereotypes Shape Intellectual
Identify and Performance.” American Psychologist, 52, no. 6 (1997): 613-629.
[29] Stinebrickner, Ralph and Todd R. Stinebrickner. “What can be learned about
peer effects using college roommates? Evidence from new survey data and
students from disadvantaged backgrounds.” Journal of Public Economics, 90
(2006): 1435-1454.
[30] Weinberg, Bruce. “Social Interactions and Endogenous Associations.” Working
Paper (2008): 1-53.
[31] Zimmerman, David. “Peer Effects in Academic Outcomes: Evidence from a
Natural Experiment.” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85, no. 1 (2003):
9-23.
60