Table 4. Multilevel Model Results Predicting Young Adults' Sibling Intimacy From Favoritism, the Magnitude of Differential Treatment, and Gender Composition Variables Using Full Maximum Likelihood Estimation (n = 300).
| Model 1 | Model 2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||||
| Predictors & Control | γ | SE | γ | SE |
| Individual-level | ||||
| Years of Education | -.03 | .02 | -.02 | .02 |
| Marital Status | .01 | .12 | -.01 | .12 |
| Mothers' Favoritism (M-Fav) | -.03 | .07 | .09 | .11 |
| Fathers' Favoritism (F-Fav) | -.10 | .06 | -.06 | .11 |
| Dyad-level | ||||
| Gender Composition | -.03 | .14 | .16 | .26 |
| Mothers' Magnitude of PDT (M-Mag) | -.19** | .07 | -.08 | .11 |
| Fathers' Magnitude of PDT (F-Mag) | -.05 | .08 | .03 | .11 |
| Interactions | ||||
| M-Fav X M-Mag | -.05 | .06 | ||
| F-Fav X F-Mag | -.13* | .06 | ||
| M-Fav X Gender Composition | -.10 | .12 | ||
| F-Fav X Gender Composition | .26* | .12 | ||
| M-Mag X Gender Composition | -.18 | .14 | ||
| F-Mag X Gender Composition | -.03 | .15 | ||
| -2LL | 662.3 | 647.8* | ||
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.