Table 3.

Summary of Ordinal Logistic Regression Analyses Predicting Embarrassment and Hypothetical Resource Provision

	General Help (N = 804)			Living at Home (N = 802)			Babysitting (N = 804)			Giving Moneya (N = 595)
Predictor	B	SE B	eB	B	SE B	eB	B	SE B	eB	B	SE B	eB
Embarrassed by pregnancyb	−.53**	.20	.59	−.50*	.20	.61	−.82***	.21	.44	−.65**	.24	.52
Teen hypothetical parent = 1 (adult = 0)	.16	.17	1.17	.68***	.17	1.98	.38*	.16	1.46	−.04	.20	.97
Female hypothetical parent = 1 (male = 0)	.51**	.16	1.67	1.26***	.17	3.54	.48**	.17	1.61	.83***	.19	2.29
Cut point 1	−5.72	.66		−3.95	.49		−4.64	.56		−2.11	.56
Cut point 2	−4.28	.58		−2.29	.45		−3.40	.49		−.96	.55
Cut point 3	−1.00	.50		−.68	.45		−.61	.47		.94	.55
Cut point 4	.32	.50		.52	.45		.85	.48
Wald χ2	48.53***			109.89***			48.01***			57.23***
df	19			19			19			19

Note: Source—National Pregnancy Norms Study (2005). Analyses are weighted to be representative of the U.S. population. Higher levels of dependent variables indicate greater willingness to provide resources. Range: 1 – 5 for all resource variables except giving money, which is 1 – 4. e^B = exponentiated B. Control variables included in models are identical to those in Table 2.

^aOmitted respondents who answered that they do not have money to give, but would give if possible

^b1 = yes, 0 = no. Reference categories:

^cLess than a high school degree

^dNon-Latino White

^eMidwest

^fMarried/widowed.

^*p < .05.

^**p < .01.

^***p < .001 (two-tailed tests).