Table 3. Multilevel Model Results Predicting Young Adults' Depressive Symptoms From Favoritism, the Magnitude of Differential Treatment, and Gender Composition Variables Using Full Maximum Likelihood Estimation (n = 300).
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||||||
| Predictors & Control | γ | SE | γ | SE | γ | SE |
| Individual-level | ||||||
| Years of Education | -.06** | .02 | -.06** | .02 | -.06** | .02 |
| Marital Status | -.38** | .12 | -.36** | .12 | -.34** | .12 |
| Mothers' Favoritism (M-Fav) | -.26** | .09 | -.06 | .15 | -.01 | .07 |
| Fathers' Favoritism (F-Fav) | .26** | .09 | -.04 | .16 | .20 | .19 |
| Dyad-level | ||||||
| Gender Composition | .12 | .08 | .10 | .17 | .38 | .21 |
| Mothers' Magnitude of PDT (M-Mag) | .10* | .04 | .11 | .07 | .11 | .08 |
| Fathers' Magnitude of PDT (F-Mag) | -.07 | .04 | -.15* | .04 | -.06 | .09 |
| Interactions | ||||||
| M-Fav X M-Mag | -.07 | .08 | -.06 | .11 | ||
| F-Fav X F-Mag | .16* | .08 | -.03 | .12 | ||
| M-Fav X Gender Composition | -.33 | .18 | -.48 | .25 | ||
| F-Fav X Gender Composition | .24 | .18 | -.20 | .26 | ||
| M-Mag X Gender Composition | .04 | .08 | .02 | .11 | ||
| F-Mag X Gender Composition | .01 | .09 | -.16 | .12 | ||
| M-Fav X M-Mag X Gender Composition | .02 | .16 | ||||
| F-Fav X F-Mag X Gender Composition | .36* | .17 | ||||
| -2LL | 600.6 | 593.1 | 587.1* | |||
Note: Non-significant controls omitted from table: age, offspring gender, birth order, coresidence, sibling dyad age difference, parents' income.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.