Table 2.

Determinants of social exclusion (German Ageing Survey, 2014)

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
	Social exclusion score – Total sample	Social exclusion score – Men	Social exclusion score - Women	Social exclusion score – Men; with interaction term (health comparisons x self-efficacy)
Potential confounders	✓	✓	✓	✓
Health comparison: much better (Ref.: The same)	−0.0394+	−0.0711*	−0.0153	−0.410*
	(0.0220)	(0.0307)	(0.0312)	(0.205)
Health comparison: somewhat better	−0.00447	−0.000603	−0.0118	−0.154
	(0.0162)	(0.0229)	(0.0228)	(0.177)
Health comparison: somewhat worse	0.0479+	0.0851*	0.0110	7.33e-06
	(0.0285)	(0.0393)	(0.0412)	(0.264)
Health comparison: much worse	0.138*	0.219**	0.0717	0.950**
	(0.0545)	(0.0833)	(0.0716)	(0.342)
Self-efficacy				−0.474***
				(0.0421)
Interaction term: Health comparison: much better x self-efficacy				0.124*
				(0.0625)
Interaction term: Health comparison: somewhat better x self-efficacy				0.0565
				(0.0560)
Interaction term: Health comparison: somewhat worse x self-efficacy				0.0224
				(0.0864)
Interaction term: Health comparison: much worse x self-efficacy				−0.264*
				(0.113)
Constant	2.643***	2.428***	2.829***	3.906***
	(0.0729)	(0.105)	(0.103)	(0.169)
Observations	6923	3472	3451	3467
R2	0.11	0.13	0.09	0.23

Comments: Potential confounders include age, employment status, family status, region, individual monthly net equivalent income, smoking status, body-mass-index, frequency of sports activities, alcohol consumption, self-rated health and number of chronic illnesses. Beta-Coefficients are reported; Cluster-robust standard errors in parentheses. *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, + p < 0.10. Observations with missing values were dropped (listwise deletion). According to Schwarzer and Jerusalem [24, 25], self-efficacy was measured. Social exclusion was quantified using a scale constructed by Bude and Lantermann [23]