3. Method
4.3 Relating Family Model Value Profiles to Behavioral Intentions
4.3.2 Family Model Value Profiles and Marriage Plans
4.3.2.2 Effect of Individual-Level Clusters on Marriage Plans
The analysis started with a model including all main effects (Individual-Level Cluster, Culture, and Gender) and all 2-way interaction effects. This model fitted the data well. The Culture main effect and the interaction effects of Culture x Gender and of Culture x Individual-Level Cluster were significant. The Individual-Level Cluster and the Gender main effects were non-significant, as well as the Individual-Level Cluster x Gender interaction effect (see Table 32). A reduced model without the latter effect showed the lowest AIC. As expected, the additional main effects model showed a bad model fit as well as a substantially higher AIC than the model including the interaction effects. Therefore, the reduced model was selected as the final model. While the individual-level cluster main effect was non-significant in the reduced model it was significant in the main-effects-only-model. An additional model controlling for adolescents’ age yielded a non-significant effect of age with Wald χ2 = 1.41 (df
= 2, p = .42) and no differences resulted with regard to the other effects in the final model.
Table 32
Multinomial Logistic Regression for Marriage Plans
Model All 2-way Interactions Reduced Main effects
Effects Wald df p Wald df p Wald Df p
Culture 45.60 18 <.001 44.74 18 <.001 208.46 18 <.001 Individual-Level Cluster 0.06 4 1.0 0.06 4 1.0 13.85 4 <.01
Gender 1.00 2 .61 1.18 2 .55 8.00 2 <.05 Culture x Gender 55.13 18 <.001 61.80 18 <.001
Ind.-L. Cluster x Gender 5.21 4 .27
Culture x Ind.-L. Cluster 80.11 36 <.001 79.28 36 <.001 Criteria Overall Model Test (LR) Model Fit (LR) Model AIC R2 (U) Chi2 df p Chi2 df p Intercept only 885.67
All 2-way Interactions 530.80 .229 518.87 82 <.001 29.92 34 .67
Reduced 528.04 .227 513.63 78 <.001 35.16 36 .60 Main Effects 579.96 .164 359.71 24 <.001 180.07 92 <.001
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 comparisons within the main effect of Individual-Level Cluster (in the main effects model) were partly significant (see Table 33). The Individual-Level Cluster contrasts of (total) interdependence vs. emotional interdependence and of (total) interdependence vs.
independence had a significant effect on the proportion of adolescents who did not plan to get married as compared to those who did not know yet, as well as on the proportion of adolescents who planned to get married as compared to those who did not plan to get married, respectively. The contrast of emotional interdependence vs. independence did not have any significant effects on any contrasts of the dependent variable.
Table 33
Marriage Plans: Contrasts for Individual-Level Cluster
Marry vs. Don’t Know Not Marry vs. Don’t Know Marry vs. Not Marry Individual-Level Note. Single contrast effects for the main effects of Individual-Level Cluster on Marriage Plans from the main effects model.
+ p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Table 34
Marriage Plans: Culture and Individual-Level Cluster Differences
Individual-cluster Interdependence Emot. Interdependence Independence Marry Don’t
With regard to the main effect of Individual-Level Cluster (see the last row in Table 34) the highest approval of marriage plans was given by adolescents in the cluster representing the family model of (total) interdependence (76%), while adolescents from the clusters representing the family model of emotional interdependence and the family model of independence approved of marriage plans at a lower rate (61% and 63%, respectively). While adolescents in the cluster representing the family model of emotional interdependence reported the highest in insecurity with regard to getting married (26%), those in the cluster representing the family model of independence were highest in the disapproval of marriage plans (18%). The Individual-Level Cluster main effect has to be viewed with caution because of the significant interaction effects in the final model.
Since the Culture x Gender interaction was already described in the above analysis with culture-level clusters, only the Individual-Level Cluster x Culture interaction will be described in the following. For a clear picture of the Individual-Cluster x Culture interaction, Figure 18 depicts the distribution regarding Marriage Plans per individual-level cluster separately for each culture. For the evaluation of cluster differences within cultures (Individual-Level Cluster x Culture interaction) it is important to take into account the cluster sizes given in Table 34. In case of low cluster sizes (n < 30) this will be mentioned in the following. In China, the distribution was partly similar to the Individual-Level Cluster main effect: hardly any “no” responses in the cluster representing the family model of (total) interdependence, and a higher proportion of “no” responses in the clusters representing the family model of emotional interdependence and the family model of independence. Different from the main effect was the high rate of undetermined and the rather low rate of marriage-approving adolescents in the cluster representing the family model of (total) interdependence.
The distribution in France was very much in line with the theory of family models (actually more than the main effect): Adolescents in the cluster representing the family model of (total) interdependence (n = 28) were highly positive about marriage, followed by the two other clusters, with the lowest approval in the cluster representing the family model of independence. Adolescents in the cluster representing the family model of (total) interdependence had the highest rate of marriage-disapproval, followed by the clusters representing the family model of emotional interdependence and the family model of independence.
Figure 18. Marriage Plans across Individual-Level Clusters in ten cultures.
Figure 18 (cont.). Marriage Plans across Individual-Level Clusters in ten cultures.
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Interdependence Emot. Interdep. Independence
Japan
Marry Don’t know Not marry
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Interdependence Emot. Interdep. Independence
South Africa
Marry Don’t know Not marry
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Interdependence Emot. Interdep. Independence
Switzerland
Marry Don’t know Not marry
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Interdependence Emot. Interdep. Independence
Turkey
Marry Don’t know Not marry
In Germany, adolescents from different clusters did not differ very much with regard to their Marriage Plans. Results of the cluster representing the family model of (total) interdependence were not in line with the main effect but may be unreliable (n = 23). When comparing the results of the cluster representing the family model of emotional interdependence with those of the cluster representing the family model of independence, the former showed a slightly higher approval rate and a lower disapproval rate of marriage in line with the main effect of Individual-Level Clusters.
In India, results should be interpreted mostly for the first two clusters because of the low cluster size of the cluster representing the family model of independence (n = 10). In line with the main effect there was a lower disapproval rate in the cluster representing the family model of (total) interdependence as compared to the cluster representing the family model of emotional interdependence.
In Indonesia, there was only n = 1 adolescent in the cluster representing the family model of independence (who was in favour of marriage). Only slight differences occurred between the other two clusters.
In Israel, the highest approval rate was recorded for the cluster representing the family model of emotional interdependence, and the highest disapproval rate resulted for the cluster representing the family model of independence.
In Japan, none of the n = 15 adolescents in the cluster representing the family model of (total) interdependence planned not to get married. The other two clusters differed only slightly, with the cluster representing the family model of emotional interdependence being more anti-marriage than the cluster representing the family model of independence.
In South Africa, in the cluster representing the family model of (total) interdependence higher rates of marriage-approval and lower rates of marriage-disapproval were observed than in the cluster representing the family model of emotional interdependence.
The results of the cluster representing the family model of independence cluster should be taken with caution because of the low cluster size (n = 8).
In Switzerland, the n = 9 adolescents in the cluster representing the family model of (total) interdependence were mostly in favor of marriage. The approval rate of marriage was higher in the cluster representing the family model of emotional interdependence as compared
to the cluster representing the family model of independence, while it was the other way round for the disapproval rate.
Finally, in Turkey the results were least in line with the main effect of Individual-Level Clusters: here, adolescents in the cluster representing the family model of (total) interdependence cluster showed the lowest approval rate and the highest disapproval rate while adolescents in the cluster representing the family model of independence cluster were most eager to get married in the future.
As in the analysis concerning the effect of Culture-Level Clusters above, the results with regard to Research Question 2.2.1 were only partly in line with the expectations based on the theory of family change. As before, they were in line with respect to the category “not marry” which increased from adolescents with a value profile reflecting the family model of (total) interdependence over adolescents with a value profile reflecting the family model of emotional interdependence to adolescents with a value profile reflecting the family model of independence. As compared to the culture-level analysis, emotionally interdependent adolescents were somewhat less insecure about whether they should get married. Overall, emotionally interdependent adolescents and independent adolescents did not differ significantly with respect to Marriage Plans. The overall effect of Individual-Level Cluster did not hold within all cultures.