Effect of Individual-Level Clusters on the Preference for a Single Child’s Sex

Gender interaction was non-significant in the first model, a reduced model without these interaction effects was computed (see Table 43). This model yielded a better AIC than the previous model and showed a good fit to the data. All three main effects as well as the Individual-Level Cluster x Gender interaction effect were significant. The additional main effects model also showed a non-significant model fit but a worse AIC as compared to the reduced model. Therefore, the reduced model was selected as the final model. An additional model controlling for adolescents’ age yielded a non-significant effect of age with Wald χ² = 0.66 (df = 2, p = .72) and no differences resulted with regard to the other effects in the final model.

Table 43

Multinomial Logistic Regression for the Preference for a Single Child’s Sex

Model All 2-way interactions Reduced Main effects

Effects Wald Df p Wald Df p Wald df p

Culture 45.67 18 <.001 245.11 18 <.001 245.36 18 <.001 Individual-Level Cluster 2.50 4 .64 15.75 4 <.01 13.33 4 <.01 Gender 42.52 2 <.001 131.55 2 <.001 144.14 2 <.001 Culture x Gender 26.02 18 <.10

Ind.-L. Cluster x Gender 10.27 4 <.05 10.03 4 <.05 Culture x Ind.-L. Cluster 36.19 36 .46

Criteria Overall Model Test (LR) Model Fit (LR) Model AIC R² (U) Chi² Df p Chi² df p Intercept only 902.50

All 2-way 492.74 .300 573.76 82 <.001 20.59 34 .97

Reduced 461.33 .265 497.17 28 <.001 97.19 88 .24 Main Effects 463.84 .260 486.66 24 <.001 107.70 92 .13

Note. Ind.-L. Cluster = Individual-Level Cluster. AIC = Akaikes Information Criterion. R² (U) = Nagelkerke’s Pseudo R² (Reduction of Uncertainty). The bold printed model is selected as the best (and final) model according to the AIC. The factors Individual-Level Cluster, Culture, and Gender were used for the definition of

subpopulations.

The single contrast effects of the main effect of Individual-Level Cluster (in the main effects model) were partly significant (see Table 44). The individual-level cluster-contrast of (total) interdependence vs. emotional interdependence had a significant effect on the proportion of adolescents who preferred daughters as compared to those who indicated no preference; and the individual-level cluster-contrast of emotional interdependence vs.

independence had a significant effect 1) on the proportion of adolescents who preferred daughters as compared to those indicating no preference; and 2) on the proportion of adolescents who preferred sons as compared to daughters (see Table 44). The individual-level cluster-contrast of (total) interdependence vs. independence did not have any significant effects on any contrasts of the dependent variable.

Table 45 shows the distributions of the Preference for a Single Child’s Sex according to factors Culture and Individual-Level Cluster, as well as the distribution of the interaction of Gender and Individual-Level Cluster. The significant main effect of Individual-Level Cluster reflected that adolescents with a value profile characterized by the family model of (total interdependence) and the family model of emotional interdependence reported a higher son preference as compared to daughter preference while adolescents with a value profile characterized by the family model of independence reported no preference of sons over daughters. This effect of Individual-Level Cluster is only small compared with the Gender main effect, and it is also qualified by the significant Individual-Level Cluster x Gender interaction.

Table 44

Preference for a Single Child’s Sex: Contrasts for Individual-Level Cluster and Gender Son vs. Does Not Matter Daughter vs.

Does Not Matter Son vs. Daughter Individual-Level

Cluster B SE Wald B SE Wald B SE Wald Interdependence vs.

Emot. Interdependence 0.28 .16 3.24+ 0.48 .19 6.57* -0.20 .21 0.89 Interdependence vs.

Independence 0.27 .20 1.92 -0.06 .22 0.08 0.33 .25 1.78 Emot. Interdependence

vs. Independence -0.01 .17 0.00 -0.54 .19 7.87** 0.53 .23 5.49*

Note. Single contrast effects for the main effect of Individual-Level Cluster on the Preference for a Single Child’s Sex from the main effects model.

+ p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Table 45

Preference for a Single Child’s Sex: Culture and Individual-Level Cluster Differences

Individual-Level

Cluster Interdependence Emotional Interdependence Independence Son Does

Since the main effects of Culture and Gender were already dealt with in the analysis with Culture-Level Cluster, Figure 24 only portrays the interaction effect of Individual-Level Cluster x Gender. The pattern of this very weak interaction effect (see above) is difficult to interpret. Overall, adolescents’ gender specific preference for their own sex did override differences with respect to individual-level family model value profiles. However, with regard to Research Question 2.2.3 the results were somewhat in line with expectations based on the theory of family change in so far as adolescents with an independent family model value profile on average showed no preference of sons over daughters while adolescents with a (totally) interdependent family model value profile as well as those with an emotionally interdependent family model value profile did show such a preference. Thus, with respect to this variable, emotionally interdependent adolescents were more similar to the traditional interdependent adolescents than to the independent adolescents.

Figure 24. Preference for a Single Child’s Sex across Individual-Level Clusters and Gender.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Male Female Male Female Male Female

Interdependence Emotional Interdep. Independence

Daughter Does Not Matter Son

5. Discussion

In this study, adolescents’ general and family-related values and their interdependent self-construal were used to explore value profiles that can be related to the three ideal-typical family models suggested by Kagitcibasi (1996a, 2007). These values and self-construal included Individualism/Collectivism, Family Values, Interdependence, and Utilitarian/

Normative Value of Children (VOC) as well as Emotional VOC. A test of cross-cultural structural equivalence showed satisfactory results across all constructs. In a first step, the single value dimensions were compared across cultures. All value dimensions differed significantly across cultures. While the differences were substantial for Individualism, Collectivism, Family Values, and Interdependence, they were very strong for the Utilitarian/Normative VOC and rather weak for the Emotional VOC. Overall, as expected, adolescents from less affluent cultures reported a higher Utilitarian/Normative VOC, higher Family Values, higher Interdependence, (mostly) a higher importance of collectivistic values, and a lower importance of individualistic values than adolescents from affluent cultures.

Cluster analyses were employed to investigate adolescents’ family model value profiles at the cultural as well as at the individual level. Three value profiles were identified that could be theoretically related to the family models of (total) interdependence, emotional interdependence, and independence. On the one hand, the value profile representing the family model of emotional interdependence was similar to the value profile representing the family model of (total) interdependence with respect to Collectivism, Family Values, and Interdependence. This reflects a generally collectivistic outlook and strong emotional interdependencies among family members in the emotionally interdependent model. On the other hand, it was similar to the value profile representing the family model of independence with respect to high Individualism and a very low Utilitarian/Normative VOC. This reflects declining material interdependencies in the family (especially with regard to the low Utilitarian/Normative VOC) as well as a rising autonomy-orientation as seen in the rising importance of individualistic values.

While the value profiles found at the cultural and at the individual level of analysis were very similar, the individual-level value profiles were more distinct and provided clearer types of the three family models. An important finding was also that culture-level and individual-level cluster membership corresponded to each other: cultures displaying a specific family model value profile in the culture-level analysis were “populated” by a majority of

adolescents who displayed the same type of family model value profile in the individual-level analysis. Nevertheless, most cultures exhibited a sizeable proportion of all three individual-level value profiles, pointing to a substantial within-culture variation with respect to adolescents’ family model value profiles.

In a second step, adolescents’ family model value profiles were related to their readiness to help their parents and to their family future orientation. Both dependent variables reflect important components of the theory of family change. In contrast to the attitudinal and self-related constructs of values and self-construal, they reflect more behaviorally relevant elements of family models. The results with regard to adolescents’ readiness to help their parents showed that an overwhelming majority of adolescents with a value profile of (total) interdependence would help their parents instead of meeting their friends. About two thirds of adolescents with a value profile of emotional interdependence would do the same, while only about one third of independent adolescents would fulfill their parents’ request. The results with respect to the different levels of analysis were overall very similar.

With regard to the Plans for a Future Marriage/Relationship, results showed that adolescents with a (totally) interdependent family model value profile were most likely planning to get married; adolescents with an emotionally interdependent family model value profile were most likely to be undecided or insecure about a future marriage; and adolescents with an independent family model value profile were most likely not planning to get married in the future. The results were similar across levels of analysis. With regard to the Intention to Have Children, adolescents with a (totally) interdependent family model were most likely to report that they wanted to have children in the future while adolescents characterized by the other two family models were substantially lower in this respect. Adolescents with an emotionally interdependent value profile were most likely to be insecure and undecided about having children in the future. Again, culture-level and individual level analyses showed similar results. At both levels of analysis the family model of emotional interdependence and the family model of independence did not significantly differ with respect to adolescents’

Intentions to Have Children in the future. Overall, most adolescents from all cultures intended to have children in the future. Only a small minority – even within independent cultures – indicated that they did not want to have children in the future. Finally, family model value profiles were only weakly related to the Preference for a Single Child’s Sex. Rather, independent of cultural heritage, most adolescents exhibited no specific sex preference. If they did, however, boys were much more likely to prefer a son over a daughter, and girls were

much more likely to prefer a daughter over a son. Again, culture-level and individual-level analyses revealed similar results.

Cross-Cultural Equivalence of Values and Self-Construal

The present study acknowledged the significance of establishing cross-cultural construct equivalence for the instruments involved (van de Vijver, 2007; van de Vijver &

Leung, 1997a, 1997b). Including dimensions with similar meaning to participants across cultures is an important precondition for valid cross-cultural comparisons. Furthermore, by studying cross-cultural construct equivalence, the cross-cultural validity of the dimensionality of constructs as proposed in earlier (often mono-cultural) research is scrutinized. The results of the equivalence analysis in this study are overall very satisfying. In contrast to the study by Georgas et al. (2006), equivalence was established with regard to the original multidimensional instruments as suggested by van de Vijver and Leung (1997a, b), and not separately for the single dimensions of these instruments. This makes the results obtained more reliable and the instruments more suitable for cross-cultural comparisons. In the following the results of the dimensionality and equivalence analyses are summarized for each construct in the study.

The Individualism/Collectivism construct revealed a factor structure as it was suggested by Chan’s (1994) COLINDEX, with all items loading highest on the factor they were theoretically assigned to. Furthermore, the target rotations of the culture-specific factor solutions on the cross-cultural factor solution yielded high to very high congruence coefficients with the exception of South Africa.

For the construct of Family Values the results revealed only one dimension instead of the two dimensions suggested by Georgas (1989, 1991), with two of the seven items showing no sufficient loading on this dimension. The unidimensional nature of this instrument was also found in other studies in the framework of the Value-of-Children and Intergenerational Relations Project (e.g., Albert, 2007, Trommsdorff et al., 2004). The resulting scale focuses on traditional and obedience-oriented aspects of the family, but also on aspects emphasizing the emotional interdependence among family members. It showed strong cross-cultural equivalence. The reliabilities were rather low, though, pointing to substantial heterogeneity of the items even within this single factor.

For the Independence/Interdependence in self-construal the original instrument by Singelis (1994) was adapted and shortened for the present study. While Singelis (1994) includes no specific reference group to which the respondent should indicate his or her Independence or Interdependence (he refers to people in general), in the present study the focus was shifted to the family as a reference group for items where this was applicable (i.e., items including a reference to other people). All items referring to the interdependent self were reformulated in such a way, while only three of five items referring to the independent self were reformulated accordingly (the other two items deal only with the self). The cross-cultural equivalence analysis revealed that two items originally assigned to the independent self did cross-load and/or not load substantially on the independence factor. For at least one item it is very likely that the reformulation with reference to the family may have caused this.

While the target rotations showed a high similarity of the factor structure across cultures (with the exception of South Africa and Israel) the reliabilities of the remaining three items of the independent self-scale were too low in most cultures to include this dimension in the further analysis. While this is regretful, the reformulation with respect to family relationships renders an optimal measure of familial interdependencies for the purpose of the present study.

Finally, the analysis with respect to the dimensionality and cross-cultural equivalence of the value-of-children construct was the most interesting in this study, since this construct has not been tested widely with respect to its dimensionality and equivalence across cultures.

While the early VOC-studies mostly suggested a tripartite structure of the value of children – emotional, social, and economic utilitarian (e.g., Kagitcibasi, 1982) – recent empirical analyses in the new VOC-project indicate that social-normative and economic-utilitarian reasons for having children no longer form two separate factors (though they can still be differentiated according to their thematic content if necessary) (e.g., Albert et al., 2005;

Mayer et al., 2005; Mishra et al., 2005). A similar cross-cultural structure was recently reported by Klaus (2007). On the background of sociological theorizing this author summarizes the two dimensions as affect (Emotional VOC) and comfort/esteem (Utilitarian/Normative VOC). In the current study, the factor-analytic results strongly suggest that adolescents’ value of children is cross-culturally represented by two dimensions reflecting emotional and utilitarian/normative reasons for having children, respectively. Of the 18 items included in the scale, 15 clearly loaded on one of the two factors, and three showed relatively weak loadings on both factors, indicating partly overlapping item content. One of these cross-loading items is singled out here because it exemplifies the overlapping of emotional and material reasons in a special way. It refers to the proposition that “people with

children are less likely to be lonely in old age.” Old age security values of children have been traditionally subsumed under economic-utilitarian values (Kagitcibasi, 1982), but here the emotional factor of loneliness comes in, rendering this item a mixture of utilitarian and emotional reasons for having children. Of the ten cultures included in the study, eight revealed a high similarity of the culture-specific factor solution to the overall cross-cultural solution, indicating high cross-cultural equivalence. Again, South African and Israeli adolescents’ VOC-dimensionality was not equivalent with the cross-cultural solution. In South Africa, adolescents did not differentiate at all between different types of reasons for having children, yielding only one dimension. This may be related to a very high endorsement of all reasons for having children, because wanting children may be so natural that a differentiation of reasons for having children may make no sense. On the contrary, Israeli adolescents were the only group revealing a three-dimensional structure of the VOC – separating social-normative, utilitarian, and emotional VOCs. Social-normative reasons for having children may play a special role for the Israeli Jewish adolescents since having children is a high religious and political priority in this culture. For the purpose of the present study South African and Israeli adolescents’ VOCs were included on the basis of the cross-cultural two dimensional factor structure to make them comparable to the other cultures in the study. Though this is not optimal, the high reliabilities found for these two groups justify the inclusion beyond the interest of keeping the samples in the study.

Cross-Cultural Differences in Values and Self-Construal

The results with regard to cross-cultural similarities and differences of adolescents’

general and family-related values showed that adolescents substantially differed with respect to Individualism. Adolescents from economically developed Western European and East Asian cultures were most individualistic, and adolescents from cultures with a low level of economic development were least individualistic. Gender differences did not appear. With regard to Collectivism, adolescents also differed across cultures. Chinese and Indonesian adolescents were most collectivistic, and French and South African adolescents were least collectivistic. Gender differences were negligible. The cross-cultural differences in collectivism showed no clear pattern with respect to the level of economic development of a culture. Rather, adolescents from East Asian cultures seem to be especially collectivistic while European, South African and Indian adolescents seem to be somewhat less collectivistic.

The cross-cultural differences obtained for Individualism and Collectivism deserve a more thorough discussion in light of divergent theorizing and research with respect to these constructs. It has long been debated if Westerners and especially Americans are really that more individualistic and less collectivistic than members of other cultures, and if East Asians in particular are really that more collectivistic than Westerners. In a large meta-analysis of individualism/collectivism studies, Oyserman, Coon, and Kemmelmeier (2002) found that European Americans overall reported a higher individualism and a lower collectivism than most other samples. However, they were not more individualistic than African Americans or Latino Americans, and they were not less collectivistic than Japanese or Korean samples.

Furthermore, among the Asian samples in the studies reviewed, only the Chinese were both substantially less individualistic and more collectivistic than European Americans. In another review study related to Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) conceptualization of independent vs.

interdependent self-construal, Matsumoto (1999) argues that out of the 18 reviewed empirical studies including a comparison of Japanese and American samples’ collectivism, only Hofstede (1980) found that the Japanese were clearly more collectivistic than Americans. He adds that Hofstede’s study may be outdated because its data stem from the 1960ies.

Furthermore, he questions the validity of the IBM employees sample and the employed measure of work-related values (Matsumoto, 1999). Thus, though individualism and collectivism have been found to differ across cultures, a closer look reveals that a simple dichotomy of individualistic vs. collectivistic cultures is not valid (see also Allik & Realo, 1996; Matsumoto, Kudoh, & Takeuchi, 1996).

With respect to the results found in the current study, the most interesting detail is that Japanese adolescents score relatively high on both Individualism and Collectivism. This result is in line with Oyserman et al.’s (2002) and Matsumoto’s (1999) claims. That Chinese adolescents scored highest on Collectivism is also in line with Oyserman et al.’s (2002) findings. The measure of Collectivism used here (Chan, 1994) is one of hierarchical and in-group collectivism (e.g., obedience, social order) rather than relational collectivism.

Therefore, East Asian cultures with their Confucian heritage may be especially prone to these

Therefore, East Asian cultures with their Confucian heritage may be especially prone to these

Im Dokument Adolescents Family Models : A Cross-Cultural Study (Seite 165-0)