









































   ARESTY  RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE III 
 

 
 

 
 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. 

OBSERVING THE  
DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS  

OF PEER-NOMINATED 
LEADERS IN URBAN  
MIDDLE SCHOOLS 

SIMON DANIEL, ANGELA W. WANG 
MAURICE J. ELIAS (FACULTY ADVISOR) 

 

✵ ABSTRACT 
This study investigated the relationship be-

tween adolescent students' gender and racial/ethnic 
backgrounds and their likelihood of being identified 
by their peers as having leadership qualities. A sur-
vey designed to gauge peer perceptions of leader-
ship qualities was administered to 1003 middle 
school students from three diverse public middle 
schools in a Northeastern US city. The survey asked 
students to nominate as many students as possible 
who possess specific leadership characteristics. Fe-
male students consistently received more nomina-
tions across all survey items at two schools. This pat-
tern was observed for five out of the ten survey items 
at the third school. At a school with a Hispanic ma-
jority, Hispanic students received more nominations 
for most survey items than Asian, Black, and White 
students. Additionally, at a school with a Black ma-
jority, Asian students received more nominations for 
all survey items compared to Black and Hispanic stu-
dents and for nine survey items compared to White 
students. The results indicate that students' gender 
and schools' racial/ethnic composition may have 
some influence on peer perceptions of leadership. 
Furthermore, significant differences in how youths 
perceive leadership among peers of different back-
grounds may be indicative of bias. Educators and 
administrators can use this information to make sure 
that students from marginalized backgrounds have 
opportunities to grow as leaders. 

1 INTRODUCTION 
There is an abundance of programming in 

public schools that aims to help adolescents de-
velop "leadership" skills, whether through commu-
nity involvement or engaging with peers. Despite 
the number of programs, there is a considerable 
amount of uncertainty in scientific literature sur-
rounding adolescents' understanding of leadership 
and whom they identify as leaders amongst their 
peers. There is also a lack of literature that explores 
the demographic characteristics of adolescents 
identified as leaders by their peers. Demographic 
characteristics, such as racial/ethnic background or 
gender, have been observed in broader leadership 
studies and should be an area of interest when stud-
ying leadership in adolescents. Observable demo-
graphic patterns within the body of students identi-
fied as leaders can help educators offer more ample 
leadership opportunities to students of all back-
grounds. 

Whitehead (2009) proposes a definition for 
adolescent leadership with self-authenticity, empa-
thy, trust, and community at its core. This study draws 
from Whitehead's definition and, in addition, incor-
porates central tenets from social and emotional 
learning, which include responsible decision-mak-
ing, emotion regulation, and personal and collective 
goal-oriented behavior (CASEL). Thus, this paper 
proposes leadership among adolescents to be per-
ceived through strong interpersonal skills, effective 
emotion management, goal-oriented behavior, and 
community involvement. Using this definition, a 
classroom leader among peers could be an individ-
ual who is compassionate, helpful, communicative 
with peers, and involved in their school or commu-
nity. 

Given that this paper's definition of adoles-
cent leadership consists of multiple dimensions, one 
approach for investigating the construct is to base 
literature searches around the various facets defined 
rather than the construct itself. For example, Metzger 
and Ferris (2013) found that in a sample of primarily 
White adolescents, female students were more likely 
than male students to find community service and 
prosocial behaviors more socially desirable.[5] Addi- 



  ARESTY  RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE III 
 
 
 

 
 

tionally, a study of coping strategies among German 
children and adolescents found that girls were more 
likely to use problem-solving skills in a stressful envi-
ronment.[3] Though these studies do not explicitly ex-
plore the demographic differences of adolescent 
leadership, their implications are relevant given their 
areas of investigation. 

Certain demographic variables may be re-
lated to how students perceive their classmates, 
whether in terms of perceived leadership qualities or 
other favorable traits. For example, Jackson et al. 
(2006) identified the importance of the racial com-
position of the classroom when considering peer 
nominations of likability.[4] In their study, African 
American students received more favorable likability 
nominations as the African American representation 
in the classroom increased.[4] A school's racial com-
position of students can also have an impact on peer 
relationships. While students in the racial minority 
may receive more nominations given an increased 
representation in the classroom, interracial peer re-
lationships seem to be most prevalent in a racially 
balanced setting.[1] Barth et al. (2013) also discussed 
the importance of considering the nominator's race, 
as they discovered the presence of a positive in-
group bias for favorable traits and a negative out-
group bias for unfavorable traits.[1] In this case, an in-
group bias for favorable traits would present as nom-
inators assigning favorable traits to those of their 
race, whereas an out-group bias would present as 
nominators assigning unfavorable traits to those of 
other races. 

There is little dissent that opportunities for 
young students to develop leadership and social-
emotional skills should be maximized. In fact, re-
searchers suggest that developing leadership skills 
and engaging peer leaders may be an effective way 
to implement interventions that promote social-
emotional skills.[6] However, current literature fails to 
identify what qualities adolescent students consider 
to constitute a leader as well as any demographic 
trends among peers identified as possessing those 
qualities. This information could be used to develop 
programs that build on skills that students identify as 
leadership qualities and identify demographic grou-
ps that may benefit from leadership opportunities. 

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES 

The current study aimed to explore the demo-
graphic characteristics of adolescents nominated for 
peer leadership. The current study's hypotheses 
were formed using findings from previous literature 
on gender differences[3,5] and the influence of a 
school's racial/ethnic composition in peer nomina-
tion surveys.[1,4] 

RESEARCH QUESTION 1: How does gender relate to peer per-
ceptions of leadership facets? 

HYPOTHESIS 1-3: Female students are more likely to receive 
nominations for being community-service oriented (1), 
having problem-solving skills (2), and expressing for-
giveness (3) than male students. 

RESEARCH QUESTION 2: How does each school's racial/ethnic 
composition relate to the race/ethnicity of the students 
nominated for leadership? 

HYPOTHESIS 4: Students who have greater racial/ethnic rep-
resentation at their school are more likely to receive 
nominations than students whose racial/ethnic groups 
are less represented. 

 

2 METHODS  

PARTICIPANTS 

A total of 1003 6th-8th students from three public ur-
ban middle schools in a Northeastern US city made 
up the sample of this study. The three schools are 
referred to as School A, School B, and School C. Six 
cases were removed from the final dataset because 
they were recorded as having two different school 
IDs. Data were collected from Fall of 2015. 
 
MATERIALS 

The Youth Leadership Survey (YLS), developed by 
the Rutgers Social-Emotional and Character Devel-
opment Lab, is a nomination survey asking students 
to nominate as many peers as possible on ten facets 
identified in the literature as related to leadership[7]. 
Since the survey asks students to identify leadership 
in others, the YLS allows for speculation on peer per-
ceptions of leadership rather than self-ratings of 
leadership. The ten facets include peer perceptions 
of being a good leader, being a role model, follow-
ing through with commitments, making the commu-
nity better, being rarely upset, demonstrating com- 



  ARESTY  RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE III 
 
 
 

 
 

passion, having communication skills, having prob-
lem-solving skills, demonstrating forgiveness, and 
being inclusive of others (see TABLE 2). ITEMS 4, 8, & 9 on 
the YLS correspond to HYPOTHESES 1, 2, & 3, respec-
tively. The YLS demonstrated high internal con-
sistency (10 items; α =  .96), meaning that the items 
in the survey were found to be closely related to 
each other. 
 

PROCEDURE 

The study used data collected as part of a social-
emotional and character development curriculum 
implemented at schools selected for their diversity. 
The curriculum is designed to help build social-emo-
tional skills, promote youth voice, and develop a 
positive sense of purpose. 

Participants consented to the study through 
a passive consent process, in which the participants’ 
guardians indicated if they did not wish for their stu-
dent to participate in the study, approved by the 
school district and the university’s Institutional Re-
view Board. Students in participating schools were 
asked to complete nomination surveys. Students 
were asked to nominate as many peers as possible 
for each aspect of leadership covered in the survey. 

Independent t-tests and analyses of variance 
(ANOVAs) were conducted to test for significant dif-
ferences between gender and racial/ethnic back-
grounds, respectively, in relation to the number of 
peer nominations. Additionally, post hoc testing us-
ing Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test 
was used to determine which differences between 
racial/ethnic groups were significant. 

 

3 RESULTS 
TABLE 3 contains frequency data from the YLS. 

Overall, the dataset demonstrates a right-skewed 
distribution. Most students received zero nomina-
tions, and the frequency of students receiving more 
than one nomination decreases with the number of 
nominations received. 

The first research question asked about the 
relationship between gender and peer perceptions 
of leadership. Specifically, HYPOTHESES 1-3 proposed 
that female students were more likely than male stu- 

dents to receive nominations for making the com-
munity better, having problem-solving skills, and ex-
pressing forgiveness. Independent samples t-tests 
were performed for both the whole sample and for 
each of the three participating schools. In analyses 
within School B, within School C, and across the en-
tire sample, female students were more likely to re-
ceive nominations for each of the ten facets of lead-
ership proposed in the survey. In School A, female 
students were more likely to receive nominations for 
five of the survey items: being a good leader, being 
a role model, showing compassion, having problem-
solving skills, and including others. Analyses for the 
remaining five survey items for School A did not yield 
significant results (see TABLES 4-7 for means, standard 
deviations, and 𝑡𝑡-values). 

The second research question proposed in 
this study asked how each school's racial/ethnic 
composition related to peer nominations of leader-
ship. It was hypothesized that students who had 
greater racial/ethnic representation at their school 
were more likely to receive nominations than stu-
dents who were not as represented. ANOVA testing 
was performed to identify any significant differences 
between racial/ethnic groups for each of the survey 
items. The American Indian, Multiracial, and Pacific 
Islander categories were excluded from the analysis 
because of the small number of students within 
those groups. Analyses were conducted with the 
Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White groups for each of 
the three participating schools. 

Analyses for School A indicated a significant 
difference in the number of nominations students re-
ceived for being a good role model across the four 
racial/ethnic groups [𝐹𝐹(3,300) = 2.81, 𝑝𝑝 = 0.04].  
In School A (𝑛𝑛 = 310), Black students (𝑛𝑛 = 171) rep-
resented the majority, followed by Hispanic (𝑛𝑛 = 86) 
students. Post hoc comparisons using Tukey’s HSD 
test indicated that the average number of nomina-
tions for Hispanic students (𝑀𝑀 = 1.90, 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 2.40)  
was significantly different from that of Black students 
(𝑀𝑀 = 1.21, 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 1.64). The means for Asian  
(𝑀𝑀 = 1.67, 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 2.22) and White (𝑀𝑀 = 1.00,  
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 1.86) students were not found to be signifi-
cantly different (see TABLES 8A and 8B). 



  ARESTY  RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE III 
 
 
 

 
 

Analyses for Schools B and C found a signif-
icant difference in the number of nominations stu-
dents received across the four racial/ethnic groups 
for each of the ten survey items. Post hoc compari-
sons for School B (𝑛𝑛 = 311), where Hispanic students 
(𝑛𝑛 = 127) represented the majority, indicated that 
Hispanic students received more nominations than 
White students for all survey items except the survey 
item for being rarely upset. The comparisons also re-
vealed that Hispanic students received more nomi-
nations for being good leaders than Black students 
(see TABLES 9A and 9B). 

Post hoc comparisons for School C  
(𝑛𝑛 = 382), where Black students (𝑛𝑛 = 169) repre-
sented the majority, indicated that Asian students 
(𝑛𝑛 = 47) received more nominations for each survey 
item except the survey item for being rarely upset, 
compared to each racial/ethnic group. For the sur-
vey item that asked to nominate those who are rarely 
upset, the number of nominations Asian students re-
ceived was significantly different from Black and His-
panic students, but not from White students (see  
TABLES 10A and 10B). 

 

4 DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION 
This study seeks to identify key demo-

graphic characteristics of students nominated by 
peers for possessing leadership qualities. HYPOTHESES 

1-3 proposed that female students would be more 
likely than male students to receive nominations for 
making the community better (1), having problem-
solving skills (2), and expressing forgiveness (3). 
These hypotheses were supported by results from 
School B, School C, and the total sample, while re-
sults from School A indicated support for only  
HYPOTHESIS 2. Additionally, HYPOTHESIS 4 proposed that 
students whose racial/ethnic backgrounds are more 
represented in their schools would receive more 
nominations in general compared to other students. 
The results from comparisons of nominations be-
tween racial/ethnic groups indicated support for  
HYPOTHESIS 4 only in School B's analyses. 

Perhaps the most notable result pertaining 
to the gender-related hypotheses was the con-
sistency between Schools B and C: girls from both 
schools received more nominations for each survey 

item compared to boys. All three participating 
schools had about equal gender distributions, with 
slightly more male students at each school, which 
rules out the possibility that female students re-
ceived more nominations because they made up 
more of the student population. The results from 
both Schools B and C complement existing literature 
that reports a gender difference in perceptions of 
community service[5] and the use of problem-solving 
skills in stressful situations.[3] However, it is important 
to note that the current study utilizes nomination 
data, whereas most of the existing literature assess 
students individually. Nomination surveys allow for 
speculation on peer perceptions of leadership be-
cause they are asking students to nominate peers 
that possess certain characteristics rather than re-
flecting on their own traits. In addition, girls from 
Schools B and C appeared to receive more nomina-
tions than boys for every survey item. A potential ex-
planation for these nomination patterns is that stu-
dents from Schools B and C may attribute the lead-
ership facets represented in the survey more often 
towards female peers. In contrast, School A's results 
indicated that female students received more nomi-
nations than male students for only half the survey 
items. Leadership among peers may not be concep-
tualized the same way in School A as it is in Schools 
B and C, which could explain the difference in nom-
ination patterns. For example, students in School A 
may attribute some characteristics of leadership to 
one gender but not other characteristics. 

Existing peer-nomination literature seem to 
be consistent in their goal of identifying problem be-
haviors and indicators of aggression among adoles-
cents; however, some studies use nomination data 
to gauge favorable traits and positive peer relation-
ships. Findings from such studies include increased 
favorable nominations as a function of the student's 
racial representation in the classroom.[1,4] Results 
from the current study show partial support for what 
is mentioned in the literature. Analyses for School B, 
which had a Hispanic student majority, revealed that 
Hispanic students received more nominations for 
most survey items compared to White students and 
for a few survey items compared to Black students; 
however, significant differences were not found for 



  ARESTY  RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE III 
 
 
 

 
 

any survey item between Hispanic and Asian stu-
dents. In contrast, Asian students at School C con-
sistently received more nominations than other ra-
cial/ethnic groups for all but one survey item, even 
though Asian students represented the smallest of 
the four racial/ethnic groups used in the analyses. 
Racial/ethnic representation of the school did not 
appear to have as strong of an effect on peer per-
ceptions of leadership as was hypothesized, consid-
ering that Black students did not receive more nom-
inations in their favor at Schools A and C, where they 
experienced the most racial/ethnic representation. It 
is possible that the diverse makeup of these schools 
encouraged more relationships among peers from 
different racial/ethnic backgrounds, as mentioned 
by Barth et al. (2013).[1] In the presence of numerous 
relationships between racial/ethnic groups, perhaps 
classmates' background mattered less to students 
when making nominations. 
 
LIMITATIONS OF FINDINGS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS 
While demographic categories such as race and eth-
nicity provide insight into peer perceptions of lead-
ership, it is crucial to consider why such categories 
may fall short as predictors of youth leadership. Eth-
nic and racial groups are often composed of many 
subgroups, each of which may have its own view on 
leadership qualities. For example, there was a signif-
icant Arab population in School B in this study, but 
they were categorized as "White" in the school dis-
trict's system of ethnic identification. The Arab sub-
group, and subgroups within Asian and Hispanic 
categories, could not be identified separately for 
data analyses. Although they may be subtle, differ-
ing views within groups may influence a student's 
decision on which peers they nominate for display-
ing leadership traits. These differences may be of 
particular interest for future studies that explore the 
relationship between race/ethnicity and peer leader-
ship perceptions more narrowly. 

It is also important to mention that hypothe-
ses favoring male students for certain leadership 
characteristics could not be made given the sparse 
literature. Additionally, another limitation of the cur-
rent study is its use of survey data. As the data from 
this study was obtained through nomination surveys, 

it is possible that responses could differ based on 
how the survey was worded and presented. For ex-
ample, students may feel more inclined to list multi-
ple names for the first few items of the survey as op-
posed to the last few items. 

Investigators in future studies may wish to 
apply a correction or adjustment to the data when 
dealing with unequal ethnic group sizes for more 
precise results on ethnicity-related hypotheses. Fu-
ture studies may also benefit from running nonpara-
metric analyses, given the positive skew in nomina-
tions. Nonparametric tests allow for more accurate 
analyses to be performed on data that do not meet 
the assumptions for parametric tests (i.e., normally 
distributed, non-skewed data). However, it is worth 
noting that nonparametric approaches did not offer 
any differences in overall findings for the current 
study. 
 
IMPLICATIONS 
The current study has implications for educational 
practice considering the partial support for its hy-
potheses. Educators who seek to improve leader-
ship among adolescents should remain aware of any 
demographic patterns in perceptions of peer lead-
ership. If consistent patterns are present, educators 
can target more opportunities to develop leadership 
skills toward specific student groups. School profes-
sionals may also be able to pair groups of students 
who lack leadership skills with those who are consist-
ently viewed by their peers as leaders. 

Lastly, findings from the present study rein-
force the possibility that students' perceptions of 
leadership and its many facets can be biased to-
wards specific backgrounds. Biased perceptions of 
leadership may prohibit the development of youth 
leadership skills in marginalized populations. Know-
ing this, educators may help shape students' per-
ceptions of leadership by continuously emphasizing 
that the ability to lead is not exclusive to those from 
certain backgrounds; instead, it is fostered through 
empathy for, communication with, and commitment 
to others∎  

 
 

  



  ARESTY  RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE III 
 
 
 

 
 

5 REFERENCES  
[1] Barth, J. M., McDonald, K. L., Lochman, J. E., Boxmeyer, C., 

Powell, N., Dillon, C., & Sallee, M. (2013). Racially diverse 
classrooms: Effects of classroom racial composition on inter-
racial peer relationships. American Journal of Orthopsychia-
try, 83(2–3), 231–243. 

[2] CASEL. (n.d.). What is SEL? Collaborative for Academic, So-
cial, and Emotional Learning (CASEL).  

 HTTPS://CASEL.ORG/WHAT-IS-SEL/ 

[3] Eschenbeck, H., Kohlmann, C.-W., & Lohaus, A. (2007). Gen-
der Differences in Coping Strategies in Children and Adoles-
cents. Journal of Individual Differences, 28(1), 18–26. 

[4] Jackson, M. F., Barth, J. M., Powell, N., & Lochman, J. E. 
(2006). Classroom Contextual Effects of Race on Children's 
Peer Nominations. Child Development, 77(5), 1325–1337.  

 
[5] Metzger, A., & Ferris, K. (2013). Adolescents' domain-spe-

cific judgments about different forms of civic involvement: 
Variations by age and gender. Journal of Adolescence, 36(3), 
529–538.  

[6] Scharf, M., & Mayseless, O. (2009). Socioemotional Charac-
teristics of Elementary School Children Identified as Exhibit-
ing Social Leadership Qualities. The Journal of Genetic Psy-
chology, 170(1), 73–96.  

[7] Whitehead, G. (2009). Adolescent Leadership Development. 
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 
37(6), 847–872.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Simon Daniel is an undergraduate student at Rutgers University – New Brunswick, currently in his 
senior year, majoring in Psychology and Cognitive Science and pursuing an undergraduate certifi-
cate in Data Science. Simon is a senior and administrative research assistant at the Rutgers Social-
Emotional and Character Development (SECD) Lab, directed by Dr. Maurice Elias. During his time 
at the SECD Lab, he has been awarded the Cooper Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship 
and Interdisciplinary Research Team Fellowship awards for his research contributions. Simon is also 
a research assistant at the Youth Anxiety and Depression Clinic (YAD-C), housed within the Gradu-
ate School of Applied and Professional Psychology. 
 
Simon’s research interests include the social-emotional development of youth and the use of pre-
vention science to foster positive mental health outcomes. After graduating from Rutgers, Simon 
plans on applying to research-centered doctoral programs in clinical psychology. 
 
Simon can be contacted at: SIMON.DANIEL@RUTGERS.EDU 

 

https://casel.org/what-is-sel/


   ARESTY  RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE III 
 

 
 

 

6 TABLES  
 

 
 
 
 
   

CATEGORY 
TOTAL SAMPLE 

(N=1003) 
SCHOOL A 
(N=310) 

SCHOOL B 
(N=311) 

SCHOOL C 
(N=382) 

     

GENDER         

MALE (%) 532 (53) 160 (51.6) 167 (53.7) 205 (53.7) 
FEMALE (%) 471 (47) 150 (48.4) 144 (46.3) 177 (46.3) 

RACE/ETHNICITY     

AMERICAN INDIAN (%) 4 (0.4) 1 (0.3) 1 (0.3) 2 (0.5) 
ASIAN (%) 99 (9.9) 27 (8.7) 25 (8) 47 (12.3) 
BLACK (%) 413 (41.2) 171 (55.2) 73 (23.5) 169 (44.2) 
HISPANIC (%) 306 (30.5) 86 (27.7) 127 (40.8) 93 (24.3) 
MULTIRACIAL (%) 3 (0.3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (0.8) 
PACIFIC ISLANDER (%) 9 (0.9) 5 (1.6) 1 (0.3) 3 (0.8) 
WHITE (%) 169 (16.8) 20 (6.5) 84 (27) 65 (17) 

FREE OR REDUCED LUNCH     

FREE (%) 696 (69.4) 222 (71.6) 236 (75.9) 238 (62.3) 
REDUCED (%) 51 (5.1) 28 (9) 9 (2.9) 14 (3.7) 
PAID (%) 256 (25.5) 60 (19.4) 66 (21.2) 130 (34) 
     

VARIABLE NAME QUESTION 
  

1. GOOD LEADER WHO DO YOU THINK IS A GOOD LEADER? 

2. ROLE MODEL WHO ACTS LIKE A ROLE MODEL FOR OTHER STUDENTS? 

3. FOLLOW THROUGH WHO FOLLOWS THROUGH ON THINGS THEY START? 

4. COMMUNITY WHO WANTS TO MAKE YOUR SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY BETTER? 

5. RARELY UPSET WHO RARELY GETS UPSET OR ANGRY? 

6. COMPASSIONATE WHO IS COMPASSIONATE AND SHOWS CONCERN FOR OTHERS? 

7. COMMUNICATION WHO COMMUNICATES WELL WITH OTHERS? 

8. PROBLEM SOLVER WHO IS HELPFUL IN SOLVING A PROBLEM OR GETTING SOMETHING IMPORTANT DONE? 

9. FORGIVENESS WHO FORGIVES OTHERS EASILY AND DOES NOT HOLD GRUDGES? 

10. INCLUDES YOU WHO INCLUDES YOU IN WHAT THEY ARE DOING? 

TABLE 1: Demographic Data of Study Participants 

TABLE 2: Youth Leadership Survey Questions 



  ARESTY  RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE III 
 
 
 

 
 

SURVEY ITEM 
NUMBER OF STUDENTS RECEIVING NOMINATIONS  

0 1 2 3 4 5 6+ 
        

GOOD LEADER 412 162 105 77 57 44 146 

ROLE MODEL 438 169 120 68 59 42 107 

FOLLOW THROUGH 430 168 129 96 42 39 99 

COMMUNITY 496 178 115 70 40 28 76 

RARELY UPSET 401 168 141 104 75 29 85 

COMPASSIONATE 452 198 115 73 48 51 66 

COMMUNICATION 446 184 119 85 53 34 82 

PROBLEM SOLVER 479 180 119 59 56 34 76 

FORGIVENESS 461 188 131 73 50 29 71 

INCLUDES YOU 403 178 146 94 60 47 75 

 
 
 

 
 

SURVEY ITEM 
MALE STUDENTS (N=532) FEMALE STUDENTS (N=471) 

T-TEST 
M SD M SD 

      

GOOD LEADER 1.77 2.66 3.25 4.53 -6.22*** 

ROLE MODEL 1.40 2.10 2.74 3.77 -6.84*** 

FOLLOW THROUGH 1.42 2.05 2.43 3.28 -5.74*** 

COMMUNITY 1.16 1.95 2.09 3.47 -5.12*** 

RARELY UPSET 1.56 1.91 2.04 2.35 -3.54*** 

COMPASSIONATE 1.06 1.66 2.33 2.99 -8.17*** 

COMMUNICATION 1.26 1.77 2.18 2.84 -6.07*** 

PROBLEM SOLVER 1.09 1.66 2.17 3.06 -6.83*** 

FORGIVENESS 1.17 1.66 1.93 2.51 -5.58*** 

INCLUDES YOU 1.38 1.78 2.18 2.45 -5.82*** 

TABLE 3: Nomination Frequencies by Item for Total Sample (𝑛𝑛 = 1003) 

NOTE. The "6+" column represents the frequencies of students receiving six or more nominations. 

TABLE 4: Independent t-test Comparing Nominations Between Male and Female Students (Whole Sample) 

NOTE. ∗∗∗ 𝑝𝑝 <  .001. 



  ARESTY  RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE III 
 
 
 

 
 

SURVEY ITEM 
MALE STUDENTS (N=160) FEMALE STUDENTS (N=150) 

T-TEST 
M SD M SD 

      

GOOD LEADER 1.59 1.93 2.35 3.09 -2.58* 

ROLE MODEL 1.12 1.49 1.79 2.32 -2.99** 

FOLLOW THROUGH 1.10 1.28 1.43 1.94 -1.78 

COMMUNITY 0.91 1.37 1.05 1.68 -0.84 

RARELY UPSET 1.10 1.38 1.25 1.78 -0.85 

COMPASSIONATE 0.77 1.17 1.17 1.57 -2.56* 

COMMUNICATION 0.93 1.31 1.04 1.41 -0.74 

PROBLEM SOLVER 0.79 1.19 1.21 1.88 -2.29* 

FORGIVENESS 0.75 1.16 0.94 1.36 -1.32 

INCLUDES YOU 0.93 1.13 1.25 1.61 -2.07* 

 

 
 

 
 

SURVEY ITEM 
MALE STUDENTS (N=167) FEMALE STUDENTS (N=144) 

T-TEST 
M SD M SD 

      

GOOD LEADER 2.27 2.99 4.22 4.71 -4.29*** 

ROLE MODEL 1.88 2.31 3.58 3.90 -4.59*** 

FOLLOW THROUGH 2.03 2.37 3.15 3.17 -3.49** 

COMMUNITY 1.76 2.57 3.15 3.30 -4.11*** 

RARELY UPSET 2.09 2.13 2.67 2.28 -2.31* 

COMPASSIONATE 1.58 1.83 3.24 3.14 -5.60*** 

COMMUNICATION 1.86 2.04 3.16 3.06 -4.33*** 

PROBLEM SOLVER 1.63 2.08 3.00 3.05 -4.55*** 

FORGIVENESS 1.71 1.93 2.70 2.68 -3.71*** 

INCLUDES YOU 2.06 2.03 2.93 2.52 -3.32** 

TABLE 5: Independent t-test Comparing Nominations Between Male and Female Students (School A) 

NOTE. ∗ 𝑝𝑝 <  .05.  ∗∗ 𝑝𝑝 < .01. 

TABLE 6: Independent t-test Comparing Nominations Between Male and Female Students (School B) 

NOTE. ∗ 𝑝𝑝 <  .05.  ∗∗ 𝑝𝑝 < .01.  ∗∗∗ 𝑝𝑝 < .001  
 



  ARESTY  RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE III 
 
 
 

 
 

SURVEY ITEM 
MALE STUDENTS (N=205) FEMALE STUDENTS (N=177) 

T-TEST 
M SD M SD 

      

GOOD LEADER 1.51 2.83 3.24 5.23 -3.93*** 

ROLE MODEL 1.23 2.26 2.86 4.43 -4.44*** 

FOLLOW THROUGH 1.19 2.16 2.69 4.01 -4.46*** 

COMMUNITY 0.88 1.63 2.10 4.36 -3.53** 

RARELY UPSET 1.49 1.98 2.21 2.65 -2.95** 

COMPASSIONATE 0.87 1.75 2.58 3.45 -5.94*** 

COMMUNICATION 1.03 1.73 2.35 3.22 -4.89*** 

PROBLEM SOLVER 0.88 1.48 2.32 3.62 -4.94*** 

FORGIVENESS 1.07 1.64 2.15 2.83 -4.46*** 

INCLUDES YOU 1.19 1.83 2.35 2.71 -4.83*** 

 

 
  

TABLE 7: Independent t-test Comparing Nominations Between Male and Female Students (School C) 

NOTE. ∗∗ 𝑝𝑝 < .01.  ∗∗∗ 𝑝𝑝 < .001  
 



  ARESTY  RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE III 
 
 
 

 
 

SURVEY ITEM 
ASIAN BLACK HISPANIC WHITE 

F(3, 300) 
M SD M SD M SD M SD 

 

        

 

GOOD LEADER 2.22 3.22 1.71 2.07 2.43 3.17 1.60 2.74 1.70 

ROLE MODEL 1.67 2.22 1.21 1.64 1.90 2.40 1.00 1.86 2.81* 

FOLLOW THROUGH 1.15 1.63 1.11 1.41 1.64 1.98 0.90 1.37 2.49 

COMMUNITY 1.00 1.24 0.83 1.33 1.23 1.86 1.00 1.84 1.33 

RARELY UPSET 1.44 1.65 1.08 1.57 1.31 1.60 0.70 1.13 1.32 

COMPASSIONATE 0.89 1.12 0.87 1.26 1.29 1.71 0.50 1.19 2.61 

COMMUNICATION 1.00 1.27 0.92 1.30 1.16 1.56 0.55 0.95 1.30 

PROBLEM SOLVER 1.48 2.06 0.87 1.24 1.17 1.99 0.65 1.35 1.94 

FORGIVENESS 0.85 1.10 0.78 1.19 1.00 1.50 0.50 0.83 1.06 

INCLUDES YOU 0.93 1.24 1.01 1.37 1.23 1.47 1.05 1.36 0.62 

 

 
 
 
 
 

SURVEY ITEM (I) 
ETHNICITY (J) 

BLACK HISPANIC WHITE 
    

ROLE MODEL       

ASIAN 0.46 -0.23 0.67 

BLACK   -0.69* 0.21 

HISPANIC     0.90 
    

 
  

TABLE 8A: One-Way Analysis of Variance Comparing Nominations Between Ethnic Groups (School A) 

NOTE. ∗ 𝑝𝑝 <  .05.  

TABLE 8B: Post hoc Comparisons for Survey Items with Significant Mean Differences (School A) 

NOTE. Mean difference values were calculated as I-J.  ∗ 𝑝𝑝 <  .05.  



  ARESTY  RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE III 
 
 
 

 
 

SURVEY ITEM 
ASIAN BLACK HISPANIC WHITE 

F(3, 305) 
M SD M SD M SD M SD 

          

GOOD LEADER 4.64 4.86 2.47 3.48 4.06 4.23 2.07 3.39 6.37*** 

ROLE MODEL 4.96 4.46 2.22 2.86 3.30 3.21 1.46 2.70 10.91*** 

FOLLOW THROUGH 4.20 3.32 2.11 2.51 3.09 2.75 1.68 2.71 8.15*** 

COMMUNITY 3.44 3.78 2.12 2.97 2.90 3.04 1.64 2.54 4.25** 

RARELY UPSET 3.52 2.18 1.97 1.89 2.65 2.09 1.93 2.51 5.01** 

COMPASSIONATE 3.56 3.24 1.79 1.94 2.94 2.80 1.58 2.48 7.73*** 

COMMUNICATION 2.96 2.62 2.15 2.37 3.10 2.61 1.67 2.70 5.93** 

PROBLEM SOLVER 4.08 2.90 1.79 2.08 2.66 2.60 1.60 2.81 7.86*** 

FORGIVENESS 3.76 2.65 1.74 2.10 2.60 2.31 1.45 2.22 9.28*** 

INCLUDES YOU 3.40 1.98 2.53 2.09 2.94 2.48 1.39 1.95 9.96*** 

 
  

SURVEY ITEM (I) 
ETHNICITY (J) 

BLACK HISPANIC WHITE 
    

GOOD LEADER    

ASIAN 2.17 0.59 2.57* 

BLACK  -1.59* 0.39 

HISPANIC   1.98** 

ROLE MODEL    

ASIAN 2.74** 1.66 3.50*** 

BLACK  -1.08 0.76 

HISPANIC   1.84*** 

FOLLOW THROUGH    

ASIAN 2.09** 1.11 2.52*** 

BLACK  -0.98 0.43 

HISPANIC   1.41** 
    

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE 

TABLE 9A: One-Way Analysis of Variance Comparing Nominations Between Ethnic Groups (School B) 

NOTE. ∗∗ 𝑝𝑝 <  .01.  ∗∗∗ 𝑝𝑝 <  .001. 

TABLE 9B: Post hoc Comparisons for Survey Items with Significant Mean Differences (School B) 



  ARESTY  RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE III 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 
  

SURVEY ITEM (I) 
ETHNICITY (J) 

BLACK HISPANIC WHITE 
    

COMMUNITY    

ASIAN 1.32 0.54 1.80* 

BLACK  -0.77 0.48 

HISPANIC   1.26* 

RARELY UPSET    

ASIAN 1.55* 0.87 1.59** 

BLACK  -0.68 0.04 

HISPANIC   0.73 

COMPASSIONATE    

ASIAN 1.77* 0.62 1.98** 

BLACK  -1.15* 0.21 

HISPANIC   1.36** 

COMMUNICATION    

ASIAN 0.81 -0.14 1.29 

BLACK  -0.95 0.48 

HISPANIC   1.44** 

PROBLEM SOLVER    

ASIAN 2.29** 1.42 2.49*** 

BLACK  -0.87 0.20 

HISPANIC   1.07* 

FORGIVENESS    

ASIAN 2.02** 1.16 2.31*** 

BLACK  -0.86 0.29 

HISPANIC   1.15** 

INCLUDES YOU    

ASIAN 0.87 0.46 2.01** 

BLACK  -0.40 1.14** 

HISPANIC   1.54*** 
    

TABLE 9B CONTINUED 

NOTE. Mean difference values were calculated as I-J.  ∗ 𝑝𝑝 <  .05.  ∗∗ 𝑝𝑝 < .01 ∗∗∗ 𝑝𝑝 < .0001 



  ARESTY  RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE III 
 
 
 

 
 

SURVEY ITEM 
ASIAN BLACK HISPANIC WHITE 

F(3, 370) 
M SD M SD M SD M SD 

          

GOOD LEADER 5.70 6.91 1.42 2.43 1.83 2.78 2.80 5.60 14.86*** 

ROLE MODEL 5.26 5.89 1.24 2.02 1.54 2.45 2.20 4.33 18.93*** 

FOLLOW THROUGH 4.83 5.45 1.18 1.77 1.40 2.25 2.26 4.07 18.84*** 

COMMUNITY 4.09 5.17 0.75 1.40 0.95 1.67 2.00 5.18 15.78*** 

RARELY UPSET 3.02 2.82 1.49 2.05 1.55 2.02 2.18 2.70 6.55*** 

COMPASSIONATE 3.64 4.18 1.18 1.99 1.32 2.10 2.05 3.63 11.05*** 

COMMUNICATION 3.62 4.04 1.18 1.89 1.29 1.97 1.89 3.12 12.40*** 

PROBLEM SOLVER 3.36 4.31 0.94 1.54 1.37 2.31 2.02 3.74 10.95*** 

FORGIVENESS 3.19 3.06 1.09 1.71 1.38 1.95 1.98 3.02 11.80*** 

INCLUDES YOU 3.17 3.10 1.33 1.83 1.51 2.05 1.88 2.75 8.57*** 

 
  

SURVEY ITEM (I) 
ETHNICITY (J) 

BLACK HISPANIC WHITE 
    

GOOD LEADER 
      

ASIAN 4.28*** 3.87*** 2.90** 

BLACK   -0.41 -1.38 

HISPANIC     -0.97 

ROLE MODEL 
      

ASIAN 4.02*** 3.72*** 3.06*** 

BLACK   -0.30 -0.96 

HISPANIC     -0.66 

FOLLOW THROUGH 
      

ASIAN 3.65*** 3.43*** 2.57*** 

BLACK   -0.21 -1.08 

HISPANIC     -0.86 
    

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE 

TABLE 10A: One-Way Analysis of Variance Comparing Nominations Between Ethnic Groups (School C) 

NOTE. ∗∗∗ 𝑝𝑝 <  .001. 

TABLE 10B: Post hoc Comparisons for Survey Items with Significant Mean Differences (School C) 



  ARESTY  RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE III 
 
 
 

 
 

 

SURVEY ITEM (I) 
ETHNICITY (J) 

BLACK HISPANIC WHITE 
    

COMMUNITY    

ASIAN 3.33*** 3.14*** 2.09** 

BLACK   -0.20 -1.25* 

HISPANIC     -1.05 

RARELY UPSET 
      

ASIAN 1.53*** 1.47** 0.84 

BLACK   -0.06 -0.69 

HISPANIC     -0.64 

COMPASSIONATE    

ASIAN 2.46*** 2.32*** 1.59* 

BLACK   -0.15 -0.87 

HISPANIC     -0.72 

COMMUNICATION       

ASIAN 2.43*** 2.33*** 1.73** 

BLACK   -0.11 -0.71 

HISPANIC     -0.60 

PROBLEM SOLVER 
      

ASIAN 2.42*** 2.00*** 1.35* 

BLACK   -0.43 -1.08* 

HISPANIC     -0.65 

FORGIVENESS 
      

ASIAN 2.10*** 1.82*** 1.21* 

BLACK   -0.29 -0.90* 

HISPANIC     -0.61 

INCLUDES YOU 
      

ASIAN 1.84*** 1.67*** 1.29* 

BLACK   -0.17 -0.55 

HISPANIC     -0.37 
    

TABLE 10B CONTINUED 

NOTE. Mean difference values were calculated as I-J.  ∗ 𝑝𝑝 <  .05.  ∗∗ 𝑝𝑝 < .01 ∗∗∗ 𝑝𝑝 < .0001 


