Table 6.
Sensitivity analysis in the China family panel studies 2016, 2018,2020
| Panel A: Subjective wellbeing is measured by happiness | ||
| Variables | Happiness | |
| Informal caregiving | -0.168*** (0.029) | |
| Low frequency of care | -0.142*** (0.032) | |
| High frequency of care | -0.222*** (0.044) | |
| Observations | 19,264 | 19,264 |
| Panel B: Sample restricted to 25-50 years old | ||
| Variables | Subjective wellbeing | |
| Informal caregiving | 0.783** (0.097) | |
| Low frequency of care | 0.811** (0.094) | |
| High frequency of care | 0.768** (0.108) | |
| Observations | 3,258 | 3,258 |
| Panel C: Heckman selection method | ||
| Variables | Subjective wellbeing | |
| Informal caregiving | 0.857* (0.081) | |
| Low-frequency of care | 0.975* (0.015) | |
| High-frequency of care | 0.803** (0.088) | |
| Mill’s ratio | -6.257 (5.736) | -6.296 (5.751) |
| Observations | 19,264 | 19,264 |
Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1. Odds Ratio are reported and robust standard errors are in brackets. These models controlled for the dummy variables of year and province. The dummy variables of year and province and other variables shown in Table 3 are controlled in all regressions