. 2023 Feb 23;39(1):3. doi: 10.1007/s10680-023-09654-7

Table 5.

The effect of parents’ family status and class on offspring’s family dissolution—controlling for socio-demographic and behavioural mediators. Linear probability model

	M1: no controls	M2: socio-demo	M3: life course	M4: all controls
Parents’ family status (ref: intact Family)
Non-intact	0.13***	0.13***	0.10***	0.09***
Non-intact	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)
One or both parents died	0.06***	0.06***	0.04***	0.04***
One or both parents died	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)
Dominant class (ref: low-skilled working class)
Skilled working class	− 0.01**	− 0.01**	− 0.00	− 0.00
Skilled working class	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)
Lower-middle class	− 0.01	− 0.01	0.02**	0.02***
Lower-middle class	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)
Upper-middle class	− 0.06***	− 0.05***	− 0.01*	− 0.00
Upper-middle class	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)
Parents’ family status # parents’ class
Non-intact # skilled working class	− 0.02	− 0.01	− 0.01	− 0.01
Non-intact # skilled working class	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)
Non-intact # lower-middle class	− 0.04	− 0.04	− 0.03	− 0.03
Non-intact # lower-middle class	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)
Non-intact # upper-middle class	0.01	− 0.00	− 0.00	− 0.00
Non-intact # upper-middle class	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)
Controls included:
Socio-demographics: gender, birth year, ethnicity		x	x	x
Union formation behaviour: age at union formation, married, previous unions, N° children			x	x
Own education				x
Observations	34,027	34,027	34,027	34,027
R-squared	0.01	0.03	0.12	0.12

Analytical samples only include individuals aged 40 and older

*p < .05

**p < .01

***p < .001