Table 3.
Poisson Regressions Predicting Adolescent Desired Family Size in Mozambique
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4e | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AME (SE) | AME (SE) | AME (SE) | AME (SE) | |
| Child educational aspirations (vs. low, lower secondary or less) | ||||
| Medium (any upper secondary) | −0.23 | 0.02a | 0.02 | |
| (0.13) | (0.13) | (0.13) | ||
| High (any post-secondary) | −0.78*** | −0.24a | −0.30 | |
| (0.15) | (0.17) | (0.18) | ||
| Effect of educational aspirations on desired family size for boys and girls in interacted models | ||||
| Boys: Post-secondary degree | - | - | - | −0.22d |
| (0.18) | ||||
| Girls: Post-secondary degree | - | - | - | 0.32 |
| (0.18) | ||||
| Boys: Post-graduate or more | - | - | - | −0.69**d |
| (0.22) | ||||
| Girls: Post-graduate or more | - | - | - | 0.22 |
| (0.25) | ||||
| Girls (vs. Boys) | −1.21*** | −1.20*** | −1.22*** | |
| (0.10) | (0.09) | (0.09) | ||
| Age | −0.01 | −0.02 | −0.03 | −0.03 |
| (0.03) | (0.03) | (0.04) | (0.04) | |
| Number of siblings | 0.11* | 0.11* | 0.11* | |
| (0.04) | (0.05) | (0.04) | ||
| Primary caregiver education (vs. low, pre-school or less) | ||||
| Medium (primary or less) | −0.10 | −0.10 | −0.10 | |
| (0.12) | (0.12) | (0.12) | ||
| High (lower secondary or more) | −0.57** | −0.58** | −0.58** | |
| (0.17) | (0.17) | (0.17) | ||
| Weekly religious attendance | −0.40 | −0.41 | −0.41 | |
| (0.21) | (0.21) | (0.21) | ||
| Household SES | −0.10*** | −0.10*** | −0.10*** | |
| (0.02) | (0.03) | (0.02) | ||
| Husbands should make decisions | 0.03 | 0.02 | ||
| (0.05) | (0.05) | |||
| Ideal age at marriage | −0.01 | −0.01 | ||
| (0.01) | (0.01) | |||
| Desired education of future partner (vs. low, lower secondary or less) | ||||
| Medium (any upper secondary) | 0.02 | 0.04 | ||
| (0.12) | (0.12) | |||
| High (any post-secondary) | 0.16 | 0.15 | ||
| (0.24) | (0.24) | |||
| Observations | 1,253 | 1,253 | 1,253 | 1,253 |
Note: Results derived from imputed data. Average marginal effects (AMEs) presented, with standard errors in parentheses.
***
p<.001,
**
p<.01,
*
p<.05.
a
Coefficients significantly differ between Model 1 and 2 (p<.05).
b
Coefficients significantly differ between Model 2 and 3 (p<.05).
c
Coefficients significantly differ between Model 3 and 4 (p<.05).
d
The effect of education is significantly different for boys and girls.
e
Model 4 allows for the gender difference to vary according to educational aspirations. This variation is not theoretically central, so we report the averaged effect across all groups.