Effect of Individual-Level Clusters on the Intention to Have Children

This analysis started with a model including all main effects and all 2-way interaction effects. The main effect of culture was significant while two other main effects were non-significant. The interaction of Culture x Gender as well as the interaction of Individual-Level Cluster x Gender were significant while the interaction of Culture x Individual-Level Cluster was non-significant (this effect was marginally significant; see Table 38). Therefore, a reduced model without the latter interaction was computed. In the reduced model the main effect of Individual-Level Cluster was significant. As expected, the additional main effects model showed a bad model fit as well as a substantially higher AIC than the reduced model (see Table 38). A further additional model controlling for adolescents’ age yielded a non-significant effect of age with Wald χ² = 1.22 (df = 2, p = .54) and no differences resulted with regard to the other effects in the final model.

The single comparison contrasts of the main effect of Individual-Level Cluster (in the main effects model) were partly significant (see Table 39). The individual-level cluster-contrast of (total) interdependence vs. emotional interdependence had a significant effect on all three contrasts of the dependent variable; the individual-level cluster-contrast of (total) interdependence vs. independence had a significant effect on the proportion of adolescents who planned to have children as compared to those who did not know yet and on the

proportion of adolescents who planned to have children as compared to those who did not plan to have children (see Table 39). The individual-level cluster-contrast of emotional interdependence vs. independence did not have any significant effects on any contrasts of the dependent variable.

Table 38

Multinomial Logistic Regression for the Intention to Have Children

Model All 2-way interactions Reduced Main effects

Effects Wald df p Wald df p Wald df p

Culture 53.89 18 <.001 239.39 18 <.001 232.79 18 <.001 Individual-Level Cluster 3.14 4 .53 47.64 4 <.001 46.89 4 <.001 Gender 3.53 2 .17 2.97 2 .23 3.34 2 .19 Culture x Gender 26.94 18 <.10

Ind.-L. Cluster x Gender 10.68 4 <.05 28.96 4 <.001 Culture x Ind.-L. Cluster 49.57 36 <.10

Criteria Overall Model Test (LR) Model Fit (LR) Model AIC R² (U) Chi² df p Chi² df p Intercept only 839.16

All 2-way 487.20 .247 515.96 82 <.001 35.00 34 .42

Reduced 482.43 .201 412.73 28 <.001 138.24 88 <.01 Main Effects 504.25 .188 382.91 24 <.001 168.05 92 <.001

Note. Ind.-L. Cluster = Individual-Level Cluster. AIC = Akaikes Information Criterion. R² (U) = Nagelkerke’s 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.

Table 39

Intention to Have Children: Contrasts for Individual-Level Cluster

Yes vs. Don’t Know No vs. Don’t Know Yes vs. No B SE Wald B SE Wald B SE Wald Individual-Level

Cluster

Interdependence vs.

Emot. Interdependence 0.51 .15 12.14*** -1.09 .28 15.53*** 1.60 .26 39.40***

Interdependence vs.

Independence 0.27 .19 1.98 -1.05 .34 9.60** 1.31 .31 18.28***

Emot. Interdependence

vs. Independence -0.25 .16 2.49 0.04 .24 0.03 -0.29 .21 1.82 Note. Single contrast effects for the main effect of Individual-Level Cluster on the Intention to Have Children from the main effects model.

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

Since the main effect of Culture was already dealt with in the analysis with regard to the effects of Culture-Level Clusters on adolescents’ Intention to Have Children (see section 4.3.3.1), only the main effect of Individual-Level Cluster and the significant interaction effect of Individual-Level Cluster x Gender will be described in the following. The main effect of Individual-Level Cluster showed that adolescents in the cluster representing the family model of (total) interdependence overall reported the highest approval rate and the lowest disapproval rate regarding the Intention to Have Children (see Table 40 and Figure 21).

Adolescents in the cluster representing the family model of emotional interdependence reported the lowest approval rate and were most insecure about their intentions (category:

“don’t know”). Adolescents in the cluster representing the family model independence were in between the other two clusters with regard to the approval rate and with regard to the insecurity rate, and were similarly high as adolescents in the cluster representing the family model of emotional interdependence with regard to the disapproval rate of the Intention to Have Children. Because of the non-significance of the Culture x Individual-Level Cluster interaction, the Individual-Level Cluster main effect is also valid within cultures. However, the main effect of Individual-Level Cluster was qualified by the significant Individual-Level Cluster x Gender interaction: in the cluster representing the family model of (total) interdependence, female adolescents were somewhat more insecure about having children than male adolescents while in the other two clusters male adolescents were somewhat more insecure than female adolescents.

With regard to Research Question 2.2.2, the results were again partly in line with the expectations based on the theory of family change. Adolescents with an individual-level value profile representing the family model of (total) interdependence reported a higher approval rate of having own children in the future while adolescents from the other two individual-level clusters were substantially lower in this respect. The reverse was true for the rate of adolescents reporting that they would not want children in the future. Also, adolescents with an individual-level value profile representing the family model of emotional interdependence reported the highest rate of insecurity with regard to their intention to have children. Again, no significant differences have been found between the individual-level clusters of emotional interdependence and of independence, while the effects of the other two individual-level cluster contrasts on the dependent variable were mostly significant (cf. Table 39). This indicates a high similarity of adolescents with value profiles representing the family models of emotional interdependence and of independence with respect to the Intention to Have Children.

Table 40

Intention to Have Children: Culture and Individual-Level Cluster Differences

Individual-Level Cluster

Interdependence Emotional Interdependence Independence

Yes Don’t

Figure 21. Intention to Have Children across Individual-Level Clusters and Gender.

0%

4.3.4 Family Model Value Profiles and the Preference for a Single Child’s Sex