Table 3.
Hazard of marriage timing for 667 men and women aged 15–24 in 1996 in Chitwan, Nepal. Three-level hierarchical logistic regression models (neighborhood, household, person).
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parental Marriage | |||||
| Positive emotional bond/”love” (3=love very much, 2=love some, 1=love a little/not at all) | 0.78* | 0.78* | 0.81* | ||
| (−2.09) | (−2.06) | (−1.80) | |||
| Spousal violence (either parent reported being beaten by spouse) | 1.33* | 1.38** | 1.34* | ||
| (2.16) | (2.45) | (2.21) | |||
| Factors Known to Shape Children’s Marriage Timing | |||||
| Ethnicity (reference group: Chhetri-Bahun) | |||||
| Dalit | 1.04 | 1.01 | 1.01 | ||
| (0.21) | (0.05) | (0.05) | |||
| Newar | 0.86 | 0.84 | 0.85 | ||
| (−0.72) | (−0.87) | (−0.83) | |||
| Hill Janajati | 1.09 | 1.11 | 1.08 | ||
| (0.47) | (0.57) | (0.42) | |||
| Terai Janajatia | 0.72* | 0.71* | 0.71* | ||
| (−2.07) | (−2.21) | (−2.24) | |||
| Parents’ non-family experiences before marriage (2,1,no parents experienced before marriage) | |||||
| Went to school | 0.82** | 0.81** | 0.82** | ||
| (−2.40) | (−2.62) | (−2.48) | |||
| Non-family living | 0.83 | 0.82 | 0.82 | ||
| (−1.34) | (−1.49) | (−1.40) | |||
| Characteristics of parental marriage formation | |||||
| Parents’ had arranged marriage (1=parents, 5=self; mean of both parents’ responses) | 0.99 | 0.99 | 1.00 | ||
| (−0.11) | (−0.12) | (−0.10) | |||
| Parents’ age at marriage (mean of both parents’ responses) | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | ||
| (−0.46) | (−0.31) | (−0.38) | |||
| Year parents married | 1.01 | 1.01 | 1.01 | ||
| (0.77) | (1.03) | (0.92) | |||
| Household structure in 1996 | |||||
| Number of grandparents in the household | 0.97 | 0.95 | 0.97 | ||
| (−0.32) | (−0.51) | (−0.33) | |||
| Number of children in the household | 0.97 | 0.98 | 0.97 | ||
| (−0.84) | (−0.64) | (−0.79) | |||
| Number of siblings who died | 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.97 | ||
| (−0.29) | (−0.43) | (−0.39) | |||
| Household wealth in 1996 | |||||
| Household owns land house is on | 1.15 | 1.19 | 1.18 | ||
| (0.75) | (0.96) | (0.92) | |||
| Number of livestock owned | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| (−0.11) | (−0.01) | (0.04) | |||
| Number of consumer durables owned (e.g., radios, TVs, bicycles, plows, etc.) | 0.97 | 0.98 | 0.98 | ||
| (−0.65) | (−0.49) | (−0.44) | |||
| Current (1995) community context | |||||
| Proportion of teachers with degrees at each school (geoweighted logged) | 0.98** | 0.99** | 0.98** | ||
| (−2.88) | (−2.70) | (−2.88) | |||
| Female | 1.80*** | 1.81*** | 1.78*** | 1.79*** | 1.80*** |
| (5.34) | (5.32) | (5.32) | (5.26) | (5.30) | |
| Year respondent born | 0.91*** | 0.90*** | 0.91*** | 0.91*** | 0.91*** |
| (−4.04) | (−4.10) | (−4.01) | (−4.04) | (−3.94) | |
| Time in hazard | 1.02*** | 1.02*** | 1.02*** | 1.02*** | 1.02*** |
| (3.20) | (3.31) | (3.13) | (3.27) | (3.30) | |
| Time in hazard squared | 1.00* | 1.00* | 1.00* | 1.00* | 1.00* |
| (−1.75) | (−1.79) | (−1.75) | (−1.81) | (−1.82) | |
| Neighborhood-level random effect estimate | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| standard error | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| Household-level random effect | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.11 |
| standard error | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.11 |
Note: Table shows odds multipliers with asymptotic z-ratios in parentheses. All models also include a constant term. N=48144 person-months, 141 neighborhoods, 432 households.
a
Includes 7 respondents with other ethnic categorization in the models of marriage.
*
p<0.05
**
p<0.01
***
p<0.001 one-tailed tests