Table 4.
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables | Has fictive kin | No. of fictive kin | Receipt of support from fictive kin | |||
β | SE | β | SE | β | SE | |
Age | −0.02 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Female (vs. male) | −0.14 | 0.16 | −0.14 | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.11 |
Family income | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | −0.01 | 0.01 |
Years of education | −0.05 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.01 | −0.02 | 0.02 |
Region (vs. South) | ||||||
Northeast | −0.06 | 0.31 | −0.07 | 0.12 | 0.14 | 0.07 |
North Central | 0.21 | 0.32 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.14 |
West | −0.08 | 0.31 | 0.12 | 0.06 | −0.16 | 0.15 |
Marital sttatus (vs. married) | ||||||
Remarried | −0.09 | 0.49 | −0.16 | 0.12 | −0.13 | 0.17 |
Cohabiting | 0.59 | 0.5 | 0.02 | 0.16 | 0.67*** | 0.12 |
Separated | −0.80* | 0.37 | −0.36 | 0.21 | −0.05 | 0.27 |
Divorced | −0.41 | 0.3 | −0.33** | 0.10 | −0.19 | 0.12 |
Widowed | −0.28 | 0.39 | −0.20 | 0.20 | −0.18 | 0.17 |
Never Married | 0.72 | 0.45 | 0.03 | 0.12 | 0.27 | 0.16 |
Is a parent | 0.41* | 0.19 | 0.25** | 0.07 | 0.23 | 0.14 |
Church member contact | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.07** | 0.02 | 0.06* | 0.02 |
Family contact | 0.07 | 0.1 | 0.03 | 0.03 | −0.04 | 0.04 |
Family closeness | 0.37* | 0.18 | 0.20* | 0.07 | 0.17** | 0.05 |
Friendship contact | 0.17* | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.04 |
Friendship closeness | 0.71*** | 0.19 | 0.34*** | 0.07 | 0.29** | 0.09 |
Constant | −2.47* | 1.08 | −0.88 | 0.36 | 1.14* | 0.39 |
F | 52.08*** | 181.00** | ||||
R2 | 0.37 | 0.21 | 0.17 | |||
N | 848 | 849 | 677 |
p < .05
p< .01
p < .001
Notes: Data are weighted to account for unequal probabilities of selection, non-response, and post-stratification. Logistic regression was employed in the analysis predicting whether respondents have fictive kin. Ordinary least squares regression analysis was used in the analysis identifying correlates of number of fictive kin and receipt of support from fictive kin. No.=number.