Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary of correlations and descriptive statistics among variables between students (N = 322)

From: When perceived similarity overrides demographic similarity: examining influences on STEM students’ developmental mentor networks

Variable

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1. Avg. Psychosocial Support

        

2. Avg. Career Support

.27***

       

3. Avg. Role Modeling Support

.35***

.32***

      

4. Avg. Relationship Satisfaction

.52***

.37***

.33***

     

5. Avg. Psychological Similarity

.47***

.25***

.52***

.49***

    

6. Mentee Hispanic/Latino(a) Statusa

.05**

.01

.06

.08

.04

   

7. Mentee Man Statusb

− .17***

− .01

− .03

.07

− .03

− .07

  

8. Mentee Other Gender Statusb

.04

− .03

.01

− .08

.01

− .003

− .07

 

9. Mentee First Gen. Statusc

.08*

− .03

− .03

.08

.05

.47***

− .03

− .08

10. Avg. Relationship Duration

.16***

− .09

.13**

.23***

.19***

− .15**

.16***

− .04

− .04

11. Avg. Contact Frequency

.16***

.06

.25***

.19***

.25***

.003

.08

− .07

.04

12. Proportion Mentor Manb

− .17***

.07

− .08

− .02

− .11*

− .07

.29***

− .11*

.02

13. Proportion Mentor Other Genderb

− .10***

− .10

− .04

− .11*

− .05

− .08

− .01

− .01

− .08

14. Proportion Mentor Hispanic/Latino(a)a

.02

− .18***

.07

.06

.17***

.46***

− .03

− .01

.26***

15. Proportion Mentor Other Racea

.05

.08

.002

.06

− .04

.06

− .05

− .05

.06

16. Proportion Mentor Postbacd

− .03

.06

.03

.05

.05

.01

.07

− .03

.09

17. Proportion Mentor Undergraduated

.01

− .03

− .07

.03

.10

− .10

− .05

− .04

− .02

18. Proportion Mentor Outside the Universityd

.02

− .12*

.17***

.13*

.15**

− .02

.14*

− .03

− .07

19. Densitye

.12

− .11

.08

.16*

.09

− .09

.04

− .06

.04

20. Effective Size

.02

.12*

.05

.0002

.08

.07

− .01

.03

− .05

M

6.20

6.17

5.53

6.28

5.87

.52

.46

.01

.49

SD

.96

1.14

1.34

.86

1.06

.50

.50

.08

.50

Skew

− 1.56

− 2.05

− 1.02

− 1.54

− .94

− .07

.14

12.57

.02

Kurtosis

5.65

8.01

4.03

5.89

4.08

1.01

1.02

159.01

1.00

Variable

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

10. Avg. Relationship Duration

          

11. Avg. Contact Frequency

.53***

         

12. Proportion Mentor Womanb

− .01

− .05

        

13. Proportion Mentor Other Genderb

− .04

− .04

.001

       

14. Proportion Mentor Hispanic/Latino(a)a

.18***

.14**

− .06

− .06

      

15. Proportion Mentor Other Racea

− .27***

− .13*

− .07

− .01

− .29***

     

16. Proportion Mentor Postbacd

.06

.08

.02

− .03

.02

.04

    

17. Proportion Mentor Undergraduated

− .02

.08

− .08

.06

.03

− .06

− .12*

   

18. Proportion Mentor Outside the Universityd

.48***

.36***

.003

− .06

.12*

− .11*

− .19***

− .29***

  

19. Densitye

.09

.11

.09

.04

− .01

− .01

.01

− .05

− .001

 

20. Effective Size

.05

.02

− .09

.03

.07

.05

.05

.11

.05

− .76***

M

3.98

8.88

.45

.004

.29

.67

.07

.13

.39

.53

1.82

SD

2.73

9.08

.38

.07

.37

.30

.19

.26

.40

.39

1.02

Skew

.76

1.49

.20

14.86

.89

− .11

3.21

2.16

.45

.002

1.06

Kurtosis

2.61

4.53

1.66

221.80

2.28

1.42

13.61

6.89

1.65

1.48

3.18

  1. aReference group is White
  2. bReference group is Men
  3. cReference group is students with at least one parent with a Bachelor’s degree
  4. dReference group is Faculty
  5. eSample size only includes those with at least 2 mentors (n = 230)
  6. *p ≤ .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001