TABLE 3.
FSW’s Demographic Correlates of Their Social Support Structure (Mean of Subscales)
| Informational support | Social support sources |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GK | SP | Cl | CW | FA | FR | |
| Age* | 0.87 | 0.98 | 0.17 | 2.35 | 1.21 | 2.00 |
| ≥20 | 0.78 | 0.76 | 0.07 | 1.84 | 1.02 | 1.86 |
| 21–29 | 0.41 | 0.70 | 0.07 | 1.64 | 0.78 | 1.52 |
| ≤30 | ||||||
| Ethnicity | ||||||
| Han | 0.71 | 0.85 | 0.10 | 1.90 | 1.03 | 1.81 |
| Non-Han | 0.86 | 0.62* | 0.09 | 2.16 | 1.06 | 1.97 |
| Residency | ||||||
| Urban | 0.77 | 0.91 | 0.09 | 1.83 | 1.08 | 1.85 |
| Rural | 0.71 | 0.73* | 0.11 | 2.04* | 1.00 | 1.81 |
| Education | ||||||
| <Middle school | 0.71 | 0.83 | 0.10 | 1.94 | 1.00 | 1.70 |
| ≥Middle school | 0.77 | 0.79 | 0.10 | 1.96 | 1.08 | 2.07*** |
| Marital status | ||||||
| Never | 0.79 | 0.77 | 0.11 | 2.10 | 1.08 | 1.99 |
| Ever | 0.59** | 0.89 | 0.07 | 1.58*** | 0.91* | 1.45*** |
| Living arrangement | ||||||
| Not with partner | 0.75 | 0.64 | 0.10 | 2.00 | 1.04 | 1.90 |
| With partner | 0.68 | 1.25*** | 0.09 | 1.80 | 1.01 | 1.65* |
| Income levels | ||||||
| Low | 0.59 | 0.76 | 0.08 | 1.70 | 0.98 | 1.61 |
| Middle | 0.74 | 0.90 | 0.09 | 1.85 | 1.07 | 1.98 |
| High | 0.82** | 0.79 | 0.12 | 2.20*** | 1.05 | 1.91** |
| Emotional support | ||||||
| Age* | ||||||
| ≤20 | 0.25 | 1.82 | 0.17 | 2.30 | 1.30 | 2.58 |
| 21–29 | 0.21 | 1.33 | 0.07 | 1.77 | 1.08 | 2.40 |
| ≥30 | 0.12 | 1.11 | 0.08 | 1.77 | 1.03 | 1.92 |
| Ethnicity | ||||||
| Han | 0.20 | 1.48 | 0.10 | 1.88 | 1.12 | 2.30 |
| Non-Han | 0.19 | 1.17* | 0.11 | 2.07 | 1.23 | 2.64* |
| Residency | ||||||
| Urban | 0.21 | 1.56 | 0.08 | 1.74 | 1.15 | 2.37 |
| Rural | 0.20 | 1.31* | 0.11 | 2.04* | 1.12 | 2.34 |
| Education | ||||||
| <Middle school | 0.20 | 1.44 | 0.09 | 1.98 | 1.12 | 2.22 |
| ≥Middle school | 0.21 | 1.40 | 0.10 | 1.80 | 1.16 | 2.60** |
| Marital status | ||||||
| Never | 0.22 | 1.44 | 0.11 | 2.00 | 1.18 | 2.56 |
| Ever | 0.15 | 1.37 | 0.08 | 1.72* | 1.05 | 1.88*** |
| Living arrangement | ||||||
| Not with partner | 0.23 | 1.18 | 0.11 | 1.95 | 1.17 | 2.42 |
| With partner | 0.12* | 2.09*** | 0.07 | 1.84 | 1.05 | 2.17* |
| Income levels | ||||||
| Low | 0.20 | 1.24 | 0.07 | 1.73 | 1.03 | 2.06 |
| Middle | 0.18 | 1.62 | 0.09 | 1.84 | 1.20 | 2.55 |
| High | 0.22 | 1.43* | 0.12 | 2.11* | 1.17 | 2.43** |
| Tangible support | ||||||
| Age* | ||||||
| ≤20 | 0.19 | 0.69 | 0.87 | 0.98 | 0.17 | 2.35 |
| 21–29 | 0.10 | 0.62 | 0.78 | 0.76 | 0.07 | 1.84 |
| ≥30 | 0.05 | 0.54 | 0.41 | 0.70 | 0.07 | 1.64 |
| Ethnicity | ||||||
| Han | 0.11 | 0.64 | 0.09 | 0.37 | 0.59 | 0.56 |
| Non-Han | 0.15 | 0.52 | 0.10 | 0.44 | 0.64 | 0.74 |
| Residency | ||||||
| Urban | 0.09 | 0.64 | 0.12 | 0.34 | 0.59 | 0.58 |
| Rural | 0.14 | 0.60 | 0.08 | 0.41 | 0.61 | 0.60 |
| Education | ||||||
| <Middle school | 0.12 | 0.64 | 0.07 | 0.36 | 0.57 | 0.57 |
| ≥Middle school | 0.10 | 0.60 | 0.14** | 0.41 | 0.64 | 0.63 |
| Marital status | ||||||
| Never | 0.14 | 0.64 | 0.10 | 0.42 | 0.62 | 0.64 |
| Ever | 0.07** | 0.58 | 0.08 | 0.29** | 0.56 | 0.46*** |
| Living arrangement | ||||||
| Not with partner | 0.13 | 0.53 | 0.09 | 0.41 | 0.60 | 0.64 |
| With partner | 0.09 | 0.86*** | 0.11 | 0.30* | 0.60 | 0.46** |
| Income levels | ||||||
| Low | 0.12 | 0.59 | 0.05 | 0.32 | 0.59 | 0.51 |
| Middle | 0.13 | 0.66 | 0.09 | 0.35 | 0.62 | 0.62 |
| High | 0.11 | 0.63 | 0.13* | 0.45* | 0.59 | 0.63 |
Note: GK = Gatekeepers, SP = Stable partners, CL = Clients, CW = Coworkers, FA = Family members, FR = Friends. Length of living in the city and monthly income were not included in this table since they were not significantly associated with social support. Age was significantly associated with all the variables of social support except emotional support from gatekeepers, tangible support from stable partners, and tangible support from clients.
*
F-test p < .05,
**
p < .01
***
p < .001.