Table 3.
Results from multivariate logistic regression models of the odds of having given birth to at least three children among Jewish women
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-defined religiosity | ||||||||
| Ultra-Orthodox | 3.54** (0.36) | 2.61** (0.51) | 3.14** (0.40) | 3.46** (0.38) | 3.34** (0.38) | 2.28** (0.45) | 3.39** (0.37) | 1.39* (0.59) |
| Religious | 1.77** (0.27) | 0.56 (0.38) | 1.49** (0.29) | 1.62** (0.29) | 1.67** (0.28) | 0.69* (0.33) | 1.74** (0.27) | −0.37 (0.44) |
| Traditional/religious | 1.06** (0.24) | 0.89** (0.25) | 0.97** (0.24) | 1.04** (0.24) | 1.04** (0.24) | 0.66** (0.25) | 1.02** (0.24) | 0.49+ (0.27) |
| Traditional/less-religious | 0.23 (0.20) | 0.14 (0.20) | 0.20 (0.20) | 0.22 (0.20) | 0.21 (0.20) | −0.02 (0.21) | 0.21 (0.20) | −0.14 (0.22) |
| Secular | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Religious communitya | ||||||||
| Values living in residential area with persons with similar religiosity | 0.16 (0.22) | 0.12 (0.23) | ||||||
| Values living in residential area with persons with similar religiosity, among Ultra-Orthodox | 0.98 (0.61) | 1.08+ (0.65) | ||||||
| Sees herself affiliated with a movement/group within Judaism | 0.68** (0.23) | 0.65** (0.24) | ||||||
| Participates in organized setting of religious learning | −0.11 (0.29) | −0.21 (0.30) | ||||||
| Participates in organized setting of religious learning, among religious | 1.57** (0.55) | 1.51** (0.57) | ||||||
| Religion as a social institution | ||||||||
| Does not support option of civil marriage | 0.54* (0.23) | –b | ||||||
| Religio-nationalism | ||||||||
| Residence in West Bank | 0.78* (0.39) | –b | ||||||
| Strongly opposes separation of religion and state | 0.04 (0.19) | |||||||
| Gender and family norms | ||||||||
| Traditional gender role attitudes | 0.23 (0.20) | |||||||
| Traditional family attitudes | 0.14 (0.17) | |||||||
| Ideals regarding family building | ||||||||
| Woman should start family by age 24 | 0.92** (0.20) | 0.92** (0.21) | ||||||
| Ideal family size up to 2 | −0.88** (0.30) | −0.83** (0.30) | ||||||
| Ideal family size 3 | Ref. | Ref. | ||||||
| Ideal family size 4 | 0.77** (0.19) | 0.78** (0.19) | ||||||
| Ideal family size 5 or more | 1.06** (0.35) | 0.86** (0.36) | ||||||
| Non-numerical answer for ideal family size | 0.81+ (0.40) | 0.59 (0.42) | ||||||
| Labor market activity | ||||||||
| Out of labor force | 0.53* (0.22) | 0.53* (0.23) | ||||||
| Unemployed | 0.44 (0.33) | 0.49 (0.35) | ||||||
| Employed part-time | 0.57* (0.18) | 0.51** (0.19) | ||||||
| Employed full-time (reference) | Ref. | Ref. | ||||||
| N | 1309 | 1309 | 1309 | 1309 | 1309 | 1309 | 1309 | 1309 |
| McFadden’s Pseudo-R-squared | 0.34 | 0.36 | 0.34 | 0.34 | 0.34 | 0.38 | 0.35 | 0.40 |
Source: Israel Social Survey, 2009. Sample includes Jewish women, aged 25–49
Unexponentiated coefficients (standard errors in parentheses)
Models also include controls for age, marital history, ethnicity, education and car ownership. See text for details of variable definitions and online-only appendix for full results
aIn models which included community variables, interaction effects were included in estimated models if one or both of the following two conditions held: (1) the interaction effects were statistically significant at the 10% level or (2) the interaction effects led to total effects that were statistically significant at the 10% level. The total effect is defined as the sum of the main effect and the interaction effect
bIn model 8, a chi-square statistic indicated that in a comparison of −2 log likelihood of models including the variable and excluding the variable, the model excluding the variable fit the data better
** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; + p < 0.10