Table 4.
Cox Regression Models of Remarriage (MDICP2, hazard ratios), and Logit Regression Model of Remarriage Between Survey Intervals (MDICP1–2, MDICP2–3, and MDICP3–4, odds ratios)
| Variable | Cox Models (retrospective) |
Logit Model (prospective): Women Model 1 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Women |
Men |
||||
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 1 | Model 2 | ||
| District (vs. south) | |||||
| Center | 0.75* (3.74) | 0.75* (3.74) | 0.92 (0.90) | 0.92 (0.85) | 1.27 (0.72) |
| North | 0.55* (6.65) | 0.55* (6.68) | 0.68* (2.89) | 0.67* (3.08) | 0.46* (2.35) |
| Agea | 1.06* (2.16) | 1.06* (2.07) | 0.991 (0.65) | 0.991 (0.66) | 0.954* (3.81) |
| Age, Squared | 0.998* (3.18) | 0.999* (3.01) | 1.00 (1.18) | 1.00 (1.18) | — |
| Marriage Order | 0.88† (1.83) | 0.87† (1.88) | 0.86* (1.97) | 0.86* (2.18) | 0.67* (2.40) |
| YEPM89 | 1.04* (3.92) | 1.05* (4.54) | 1.06* (5.12) | 1.08* (6.10) | — |
| Widowed (vs. divorced) | 0.75* (3.21) | 0.91 (0.84) | 0.93 (0.55) | 1.32† (1.78) | 0.38* (3.14) |
| YEPM89 × Widowed | 0.94* (2.41) | 0.91* (2.84) | — | ||
| N (df) | 817 (7) | 817 (8) | 460(7) | 460 (8) | 386 (5) |
| Log-Likelihood | −3,991.43 | −3,989.16 | −2,089.12 | −2,086.54 | −185.65 |
| Pseudo-R2 | .14 | ||||
| AIC | 7,996.86 | 7,994.32 | 4,192.24 | 4,189.08 | 381.30 |
Notes: Robust z statistics (adjusted for clustering on respondent) are in parentheses. The sample for the Cox model (retrospective) is all marriage intervals for men and women in MDICP2 with at least one terminated marriage; for men, the sample was restricted to those who were not polygynous at the end of the previous marriage because the definition of a marriage interval in that case is not straightforward. The logit model (prospective) includes all intervals between survey waves for women who were widowed or divorced at the beginning of the interval. Just as women can contribute more than one marriage interval in the Cox regressions, some women contribute more than one interval in the logit model. Standard errors accommodate the non independence of observations. The same model with inclusion of only one interval (first occurrence) per woman leads to the same conclusions. In the Cox models, age is measured at the end of the previous marriage; YEPM89 = the calendar year at the end of the previous marriage (≤ 1989 = 0, 1990 = 1, 1992 = 2, and so on); and marriage order is treated as a continuous variable. In the logit model, age is measured at the beginning of the interval; other variable definitions are the same as in the Cox models. Other effects that were tested and omitted because they were not significant are that of educational status and the interaction between district and widowed. The interaction term was included to test for the potentially differential effect of widow inheritance practices by district. In the logit model, additional controls for a curvilinear effect of age, an identifier for the survey interval, and YEPM89 (this last variable could be defined only for the last two survey intervals) were not significant and were omitted. The prospective analysis is carried out only for women because divorced men and widowers were not consistently followed across survey waves.
p ≤ .10;
p ≤ .05