Table 3.3 shows summary statistics for main and interaction effects in a multiple regression on the correlates of economic preconditions of parenthood. In total 3.3% of variance in economic preconditions was accounted for by the control variables (Model 1) (adjusted R2 =.03, F(3,1457)=16.41, p<.001). Being female and older age was
significantly and positively related to rating economic preconditions as important. Years trying to conceive were significantly and negatively associated with rating economic preconditions as important in the parenthood decision-making process.
When the correlates (economic, social, relational and health variables) of the preconditions of parenthood were entered into the regression analysis (Table 3.3, Model 2) the total amount of explained variance in economic preconditions significantly increased (∆R2
=.15) to 17.9% (adjusted R2=.16, F(28, 1432)=11.15, p<.001). Longer
duration of relationship, university education, work salience, having paid work, high relationship happiness and family illness were all positively associated with rating economic preconditions as important. Wanting to comply with partners subjective norms was negatively associated with economic precondition importance.
The interaction step of the analysis (Table 3.3, Model 3) increased the total amount of variance accounted for to 20% (adjusted R2=.17, F(53, 1407) = 6.64, p<.001) but the increase in explained variance was not significant (∆R2
=.02). Because the block of interactions was not significant individual main effects are not presented.
Table 3.3 shows how the relationship between the correlates and the dependent variable economic preconditions changed with the introduction of new variables. The correlate ‘years trying to conceive’ was consistently negatively associated with economic preconditions in each step of the regression analysis. The strongest association between years trying to conceive and economic preconditions was in Model 2 whereas the weakest
113 association was in Model 3 as a result of the introduction of interaction variables. The association between gender and economic preconditions became slightly stronger with the introduction of the correlates of the preconditions (Model 2), but was no longer
significantly associated with economic preconditions with the introduction of gender interactions. Age was only significant in the first step (Model 1). Whereas university education, compliance with partner’s norms and work salience all remained significant with the introduction of interaction variables to the model, having paid work, relationship happiness and family illness become non significant. The strongest and most consistent relationships were between years trying to conceive, university education and economic preconditions.
114 Table 3.3
Summary of regression coefficients for the association between the correlates of economic preconditions with gender interactions
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variables B SE B β B SE B Β B SE B β
Control variables
Gender .59 .25 .06* .62 .26 .07* -1.02 1.28 -.11
Age .56 .12 .12*** .08 .13 .02 .12 .13 .03
Years trying to conceive -1.00 .17 -.16*** -1.04 .19 -.16*** -.99 .19 -.15***
Background Variables
Urban area of residence -.09 .26 -.01 .33 .54 .03
Years together .87 .18 .15*** .51 .31 .09
Perceived fertility -.17 .12 -.04 -.19 .24 -.04
Economic variables
University level education 1.08 .11 .25*** .99 .22 .23***
Work salience .66 .11 .15*** .49 .22 .12*
Economic hardship -.02 .12 -.00 .05 .25 .01
Have paid work 1.01 .28 .09*** .93 .65 .09
Partner has paid work -.42 .32 -.04 -.03 .47 -.00
Social variables
Friends/family have had children -.03 .11 -.01 -.43 .24 -.09
Know anyone decided not to have children -.04 .21 -.01 -.21 .43 -.03
115 Table 3.3
Summary of regression coefficients for the association between the correlates of economic preconditions with gender interactions
(continued)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variables B SE B β B SE B Β B SE B β
Comply partner norms -.29 .14 -.07* -.64 .32 -.15*
In-law/family subjective norms .11 .14 .03 -.15 .32 -.04
Comply family/in-law subjective norms -.05 .19 -.01 -.17 .39 -.04
Community subjective norms .06 .14 .01 -.11 .30 -.03
Comply with community norms -.25 .18 -.06 -.21 .35 -.05
Relational variables Life satisfaction .04 .11 .01 -.01 .23 -.00 Relationship happiness .29 .11 .07* .03 .23 .01 Health variables Personal illness -.06 .53 -.00 2.26 1.11 .11* Family illness 1.19 .40 .08** -.25 .94 -.02 Work stress .42 .33 .04 -.33 .70 -.04 Personal stress .57 .32 .06 .77 .67 .08
Other life events cannot cope with -.48 .33 -.04 -.20 .71 -.02
other physical, personal stress -.35 .39 -.04 -.22 .85 -.03
116 Table 3.3
Summary of regression coefficients for the association between the correlates of economic preconditions with gender interactions
(continued)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variables B SE B β B SE B Β B SE B β
Gender interactions
Personal illness*gender -3.03 1.26 -.13*
Friends have child*gender .58 .27 .11*
∆R2
.03*** .15*** .02
F 16.41 11.15 6.64
Note: Gender (1 = female), B = unstandardised beta. SE B = standardised error, β= standardised beta. ∆R2 = difference invariance accounted forin the dependent variable. Only significant interactions are shown.
117 Table 3.4 shows summary statistics for main and interaction effects in a multiple regression on correlates of personal and relational readiness. In total 7.3% of variance in personal and relational readiness was accounted for by the control variables (Model 1) (adjusted R2=.07, F(3,1456)=38.19, p<.001). Being female was positively associated with
the importance of personal and relational readiness whereas older age and years trying to conceive were negatively associated.
Introduction of economic, social, relational and health variables (Table 3.4, Model 2) significantly increased the total explained variance in personal and relational readiness (∆R2
=.09) to 16% (adjusted R2=.14, F(28, 1431)=9.71, p<.001). University education,
having paid work, having friends who had had children, partner’s subjective norms, communities subjective norms, higher life satisfaction and higher relationship happiness were all significantly associated with rating personal and relational readiness as important in the parenthood decisional process. Struggling to cope with other life events was
negatively associated with the importance placed on personal and relational readiness. The interaction step of the analysis (Table 3.4, Model 3) increased the total amount of variance accounted for to 17.8% (adjusted R2=.15, F (53, 1406)=5.76, p<.001) but this increase in variance was not significant (∆R2
=.02). Because the block of interactions was not significant, individual main effects are not presented.
Table 3.4 shows how the relationship between the variables and personal and relational readiness changed with the introduction of new variables. As with economic preconditions, the correlate ‘years trying to conceive’ was consistently negatively associated with personal and relational readiness in each step of the regression analysis, with its strongest association being in Model 1 and its weakest association being in Model 3. Age was also consistently negatively related to the dependent variable in all three models, the strongest association being in Model 2 and the weakest association being in
118 model 1. Agreement with partner’s subjective norms and having friends and/or family who have had children remained positively related to personal and relational readiness in Model 3 whereas university education, having paid work, life satisfaction, agreement with community subjective norms and experiencing difficulty in coping with other life events were only significant in Model 2. The strongest and most consistent relationships were for the correlates: gender, age and years trying to conceive.
119 Table 3.4
Summary of regression coefficients for the association between the correlates of personal and relational readiness with gender interactions
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variable B SE B β B SE B Β B SE B β
Control variables
Gender 1.49 .24 .16*** 1.21 .25 .13*** 2.17 1.26 .23
Age -.26 .11 -.06* -.34 .13 -.08** -.29 .13 -.07*
Years trying to conceive -1.11 .17 -.18*** -.98 .19 -.16*** -.97 .19 -.15***
Background variables
Urban area of residence .26 .26 .03 -.40 .53 -.04
Years together .22 .17 .04 .02 .30 .00
Perceived fertility -.19 .12 -.04 .31 .24 .07
Economic variables
University level education .27 .11 .07* .17 .22 .04
Work salience -.08 .11 -.02 .00 .22 .00
Economic hardship .14 .12 .03 .02 .25 .01
Have paid work .64 .27 .06* .96 .64 .10
Partner has paid work .50 .31 .04 1.35 .46 .11**
Social variables
Friends/family have had children .35 .11 .08** .47 .23 .11*
120 Table 3.4
Summary of regression coefficients for the association between the correlates of personal and relational readiness with gender interactions (continued)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variable B SE B β B SE B Β B SE B β
Partner subjective norms .47 .12 .11*** .72 .27 .17**
Comply partner norms -.00 .14 -.00 -.20 .32 -.05
In-law/family subjective norms -.11 .14 -.02 -.19 .31 -.05
Comply family/in-law subjective norms
-.33 .19 -.08 -.33 .39 -.08
Community subjective norms .29 .14 .07* .63 .30 .15
Comply with community norms -.32 .18 -.08 -.42 .35 -.10*
Relational variables Life satisfaction .24 .11 .06* .18 .23 .04 Relationship happiness .50 .11 .12*** .67 .23 .16** Health variables Personal illness .45 .52 .02 .14 1.09 .01 Family illness -.02 .39 -.00 .64 .92 .04 Work stress .00 .32 .00 -.18 .69 -.02 Personal stress .15 .32 .02 -.41 .66 -.05
121 Table 3.4
Summary of regression coefficients for the association between the correlates of personal and relational readiness with gender interactions (continued)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variable B SE B β B SE B Β B SE B β
other physical, personal stress -.06 .39 -.01 .61 .83 .07
Needing medical care in last 12 months .14 .24 .01 -.30 .46 -.03
Gender interactions
Perceived fertility*gender -.66 .27 -.12*
Partner paid work*gender -1.61 .64 -.18*
∆R2
.07*** .09*** .02
F 38.19 9.71 5.76
Note: Gender (1 = female), B = unstandardised beta. SE B = standardised error, β= standardised beta. ∆R2 = difference invariance accounted forin the dependent variable. Only significant interactions are shown.
122 Table 3.5 shows summary statistics for main and interaction effects in a multiple regression on correlates of health and child costs. In total only .2% of variance in health and child costs was accounted for by the control variables (Model 1) (adjusted R2=.00,
(F(3,1454)=.88, p>.05). None of the control variables were significantly associated with health and child cost preconditions.
Addition of economic, social, relational and health variables (Table 3.5, Model 2) significantly increased the total amount of variance accounted for in health and child costs (∆R2=.07) to 7.3% (adjusted R2=.055, F(28, 1429)=4.01, p<.001). Rating health and
child costs as important in the parenthood decisional process was significantly associated with area of residence (rural), work salience, community subjective norms, personal physical illness, personal stress and having needed medical care in the last 12 months.
The interaction step of the analysis (Table 3.5, Model 3) increased the total variance accounted for to 8.8% (adjusted R2=.053, F(53, 1404)=2.54, p<.001). The interaction block was however not significant (∆R2
=.02) and thus the main effects are not presented.
Table 3.5 shows how the relationship between the variables and the dependent variable health and child costs changed with the introduction of new variables. With the introduction of the correlates of parenthood preconditions (Model 2) age became
significantly negatively related to health and child costs and remained so in Model 3. Work salience and agreement with community subjective norms were significantly related to the dependent variable in model 2 and Model 3, with the association becoming stronger with the introduction of interaction variables. Area of residence (rural) was negatively associated with the dependent variable in Model 2 only and personal illness, personal stress, and having needed medical care in the last 12 months were all positively associated with health and child costs but again in Model 2 only. University education,
123 knowing someone who had decided not to have children and experiencing difficulty with coping with other life events became significant with the introduction of interaction variables in Model 3. The strongest and most consistent relationships were found for the correlates age and work salience.
124 Table 3.5
Summary of regression coefficients for the association between the correlates of health and child costs precondition with gender interactions
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variable B SE B β B SE Β B SE B β
Control variable
Gender -.02 .25 -.00 .36 .28 .04 1.75 1.38 .18
Age -.19 .13 -.04 -.30 .14 -.07* -.31 .14 -.07*
Years trying to conceive -.02 .18 -.00 -.11 .21 -.02 -.13 .21 -.02
Background characteristics
Years together .18 .19 .03 .38 .33 .06
Urban area of residence -.68 .28 -.06* -.31 .58 -.03
Perceived fertility .09 .13 .02 -.19 .26 -.04
Economic variables
University level education .225 .121 .052 .58 .24 .13*
Work salience .53 .12 .12*** .64 .24 .15**
Economic hardship .18 .13 .04 .45 .27 .10
Have paid work .37 .30 .04 1.13 .70 .11
Partner has paid work -.43 .34 -.04 -.55 .50 -.04
Social variables
125 Table 3.5
Summary of regression coefficients for the association between the correlates of health and child costs precondition with gender interactions (continued)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variable B SE B β B SE Β B SE B β
Know anyone decided not to have children
.11 .23 .01 .89 .46 .10*
Partner subjective norms -.03 .13 -.01 .17 .29 .04
Comply partner norms .16 .15 .04 -.00 .34 -.00
In-law/family subjective norms -.18 .15 -.00 -.50 .34 -.12
Comply family/in-law subjective norms .33 .20 .08 .67 .42 .16
Community subjective norms .35 .15 .08* .70 .33 .16*
Comply with community norms -.03 .20 -.01 -.72 .38 -.16
Relational variables Life satisfaction -.00 .12 -.00 -.11 .25 -.03 Relationship happiness .19 .12 .04 .05 .25 .01 Health variables Personal illness 1.48 .57 .07** 1.47 1.19 .07 Family illness .28 .43 .02 .92 1.01 .06 Work stress .47 .35 .05 -.24 .76 -.02 Personal stress .95 .35 .10** 1.00 .72 .11
126 Table 3.5
Summary of regression coefficients for the association between the correlates of health and child costs precondition with gender interactions (continued)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variable B SE B β B SE Β B SE B β
Other life events cannot cope with -.29 .35 -.03 -1.60 .77 -.14*
other physical, personal stress -.34 .42 -.04 .24 .91 .03
Needing medical care in last 12 months .81 .26 .08** .21 .50 .02
Gender interactions
Comply Community norms*gender .94 .44 -.18*
∆R2
.00 .07*** .02
F .87 4.01 2.54
Note: Gender (1 = female), B = unstandardised beta. SE B = standardised error, β= standardised beta. ∆R2 = difference invariance accounted forin the dependent variable. Only significant interactions are shown.
127