Table 2.
Estimated regression coefficients for the effect of educational pairing on the transition to second birth (log-scale)
| AT | BE | BG | LT | PL | RO | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M1 | ||||||
| Educational pairing (Ref. Homogamous medium) | ||||||
| Homogamous highly |
0.20 (0.13) |
0.82*** (0.12) |
− 0.12 (0.09) |
0.17 (0.10) |
− 0.25*** (0.07) |
− 0.45** (0.17) |
| Hypergamous |
0.03 (0.11) |
0.38* (0.18) |
0.24 (0.14) |
0.00 (0.13) |
− 0.08 (0.11) |
0.05 (0.19) |
| Hypogamous |
− 0.21 (0.15) |
0.53*** (0.15) |
− 0.21* (0.09) |
− 0.22 (0.12) |
− 0.25** (0.08) |
− 0.52* (0.26) |
| ln-L | − 13,225 | − 10,016 | − 19,499 | − 13,137 | − 34,506 | − 13,395 |
| M2 | ||||||
| Educational pairing (Ref. Homogamous medium) | ||||||
| Homogamous highly |
0.28* (0.13) |
0.70*** (0.14) |
− 0.12 (0.09) |
0.11 (0.11) |
− 0.18* (0.08) |
− 0.41* (0.17) |
| Hypergamous |
0.00 (0.12) |
0.31 (0.18) |
0.23 (0.14) |
− 0.03 (0.13) |
− 0.03 (0.11) |
0.12 (0.19) |
| Hypogamous |
− 0.16 (0.16) |
0.38* (0.16) |
− 0.20* (0.10) |
− 0.26* (0.12) |
− 0.19* (0.08) |
− 0.45 (0.26) |
| Gender-composition partners’ field of study | ||||||
| % Women in her field |
0.00 (0.00) |
0.01* (0.00) |
0.00 (0.00) |
0.00 (0.00) |
0.00** (0.00) |
− 0.01** (0.00) |
| % Women in his field |
− 0.01*** (0.00) |
0.00 (0.00) |
0.00 (0.00) |
0.00 (0.00) |
0.00 (0.00) |
0.00 (0.00) |
| ln-L | − 13,216 | − 10,011 | − 19,497 | − 13,137 | − 34,498 | − 13,386 |
Robust standard errors in parentheses; significance: ‘*’ = 5%; ‘**’ = 1%; ‘***’ = 0.1%. All models include duration splines, unions’ cohort, woman’s age at first birth and its square, respondent enrolment status, sex of the respondent, age difference between partners, respondent’s union order, marital status of the couple