Additional Results

SUPPLEMENT 4

ADDITIONAL RESULTS

Table of contents with links

1. NFHS-3 Multilevel Estimation Results

Table S10. Multilevel linear estimation of son preference models: NFHS-3

2. Discussion of Results on Ideal Number of Children and Its Square

3. Comparison of OLS, Logit and Ordered Logit: NFHS-2 and NFHS-3 Results

Table S11. Comparison of OLS, logit, and ordered logit specifications: NFHS-2

Table S12.Comparison of OLS, logit, and ordered logit specifications: NFHS-3

4. Random-Effect Logit with State Fixed Effects. NFHS-2 Results

Table S13.Son preference models: mixed effects logit estimation for NFHS-2

5. Educational Preference Model

Table S14. Raw distribution of answers on educational preferences

Table S15. Multilevel Linear Estimation of Stated Educational Bias: NFHS-2 Sample

1. NFHS-3 LINEAR MULTILEVEL ESTIMATION RESULTS

The article includes tables for NFHS-2 and pooled samples. Full estimation results for NFHS-3 are given below (Table S10)

Table S10.Multilevel linear estimation of son preference models: NFHS-3

Model
Independent variable / MW1 / MWR1 / MWR2 / MWR3
State level:
GSP/c / -0.00039* / -0.00039* / -0.00037* / -0.00036*
(0.068) / (0.069) / (0.085) / (0.088)
Household level:
W / -0.049*** / -0.050*** / -0.068*** / -0.064***
WR / 0.014** / 0.0039
(0.005) / (0.531)
WR× No land / 0.081
(0.152)
WR× Land / 0.016***
(0.001)
Land acres × Urban (×100) / -0.017 / -0.018 / -0.024
(0.323) / (0.293) / (0.168)
Land acres× Rural (×100) / 0.0096 / 0.0042 / 0.0018
(0.569) / (0.803) / (0.916)
Individual level
Illiterate / 0.0034 / 0.0035 / 0.0037 / 0.0038
(0.278) / (0.263) / (0.237) / (0.225)
Education, self / -0.0019*** / -0.0018*** / -0.0018*** / -0.0018***
Education, partner / -0.00035 / -0.00032 / -0.00035 / -0.00039
(0.148) / (0.185) / (0.152) / (0.114)
Paid work / -0.0055*** / -0.0055*** / -0.0052** / -0.0051**
(0.008) / (0.008) / (0.012) / (0.013)
Other work / 0.010*** / 0.0098*** / 0.0093*** / 0.0090**
(0.004) / (0.006) / (0.008) / (0.011)
Media exposure / -0.0069*** / -0.0068*** / -0.0069*** / -0.0070***
(0.003) / (0.001) / (0.003) / (0.003)
Religion: Ref. Hindu
Muslim / -0.0046 / -0.0044 / -0.0043 / -0.004
(0.148) / (0.164) / (0.175) / (0.207)
Sikh / 0.012 / 0.011 / 0.012 / 0.011
(0.144) / (0.154) / (0.151) / (0.172)
Christian / -0.030*** / -0.030*** / -0.030*** / -0.030***
Other / -0.0028 / -0.0028 / -0.0024 / -0.0023
(0.614) / (0.622) / (0.665) / (0.680)
Scheduled Caste / 0.0021 / 0.0021 / 0.0023 / 0.0026
(0.401) / (0.397) / (0.357) / (0.301)
Scheduled Tribe / -0.0082** / -0.0087** / -0.0091** / -0.0092**
(0.022) / (0.015) / (0.011) / (0.011)
Age (respondent) / 0.000069 / 0.000083 / 0.000088 / 0.000089
(0.594) / (0.521) / (0.497) / (0.491)
Sons / 0.025*** / 0.025*** / 0.025*** / 0.025***
Daughters / -0.014*** / -0.014*** / -0.014*** / -0.014***
Sons- dead / 0.0062*** / 0.0062*** / 0.0062*** / 0.0062***
(0.002) / (0.002) / (0.002) / (0.002)
Daughters- dead / -0.0021 / -0.0022 / -0.0022 / -0.0022
(0.336) / (0.309) / (0.308) / (0.309)
Ideal- total / 0.0026 / 0.0029 / 0.0027 / 0.0027
(0.416) / (0.367) / (0.386) / (0.391)
Ideal- total squared / -0.0011 / -0.0011 / -0.0011 / -0.0011
(0.015) / (0.012) / (0.012) / (0.013)
Odd ideal / 0.17*** / 0.17*** / 0.17*** / 0.17***
Fixed Effects
Region: Ref. East
North / 0.029*** / 0.029*** / 0.029*** / 0.029***
(0.004) / (0.004) / (0.004) / (0.004)
Central & West / 0.027** / 0.027** / 0.027** / 0.027**
(0.025) / (0.025) / (0.025) / (0.025)
South / -0.035*** / -0.035*** / -0.035*** / -0.034***
(0.004) / (0.003) / (0.003) / (0.004)
Urban Residence / -0.012*** / -0.012*** / -0.0097*** / -0.0087***
(0.001) / (0.002)
Constant / 0.073*** / 0.073*** / 0.072*** / 0.071***
Random components (standard deviations)
Level 1: State / 0.020*** / 0.020*** / 0.020*** / 0.018***
Level 2: PSU / 0.037*** / 0.037*** / 0.037*** / 0.037***
Level 3: Household / 0.022*** / 0.020*** / 0.020*** / 0.020***
Residual error / 0.25*** / 0.25*** / 0.25*** / 0.25***
Regression Statistics
Akaike Information Criterion / 2,966 / 2,937 / 2,931 / 2,929
Nested groups (unbalanced)
States
Local areas (PSUs)
Households / 29
3,722
75,343 / 29
3,722
75,343 / 29
3,722
75,343 / 29
3,722
75,343
N / 83,785 / 83785 / 83785 / 83785

note: p-values in parentheses (p>|z|), omitted when p<.001.

*p<0.10 ** p<0.05 ***p<0.01

2. COEFFICIENTS ON IDEAL CHILDREN AND ITS SQUARE: DISCUSSION

Coefficients on ideal-total are negative and significant in NFHS-2 and the pooled sample but insignificant when using NFHS-3 alone. Coefficients on the squared term are positive and significant in the reported results but significantly negative in the NFHS-3 results (reported above, Table S10). Alternative estimations with logit and ordered logit yielded significant results in line with B&Z (see section D3). However, B&Z’s continuous variable, also proportional to ideal family size yielded the same direction of effect with OLS as with logit. It appeared that results on ideal-total were very sensitive to the specification of the dependent variable and the data set used. This deserved further inquiry…

To understand the discrepancy, I estimated the model with alternative dependent variable. When the independent variable was calculated as ideal-boys divided by ideal-total, as in B&Z, signs were found to coincide with OLS, i.e. a positive sign on ideal-total and a negative sign on the squared term. A small modification to the variable, however, inverted the signs (although, importantly for this article, signs and significance levels on other variables were unchanged). The modification concerned the cases when women gave the same answer to the ideal number of either sex as the ideal number of children, for which the value of the dependent variable was 1/2 in B&Z, instead of zero here. Note that these responses are not less son-preferring or more girl-preferring than responses with equal ideal number of boys and girls in their ideal family so a score of zero makes sense.

3. COMPARISON OF OLS, LOGIT, AND ORDERED LOGIT

Two alternative dependant variables measuring son-preference are constructed resembling those used in the literature. The first one is a binary variable that takes the value of 1 when a woman indicated more sons than daughters in her ideal family composition. The second variable is an ordered categorical variable constructed by grouping the continuous variable into three categories according to the difference between ideal number of boys and ideal number of girls (): it takes the value of 0 if≤0, 1 if =1, and 2 when 2 . The estimation is done without taking account of the hierarchical structure of the data but standard errors do take account of the complex survey design with clustering at the PSU level, and strata coinciding with rural and urban areas of states. Results for the pooled sample are presented in the article. This supplement gives additional tables for the NFHS-2 (Table S11) and NFHS-3 (Table S12) separate results. Coefficient estimates for the logit and ordered logit regressions are reported in odd ratios. This is useful in that it gives a better idea of the relative magnitude of different effects; it is also easier to compare with B&Z’s logit results. To compare with OLS estimates, however, one must remember that values less than one correspond to negative signs in the linear regression. Results of the logit and ordered logit models give the same significance level and direction of effect for all the variables pertaining to the hypothesis of this paper.

Table S11.Comparison of OLS, logit, and ordered logit specifications: NFHS-2

Estimation methoda
Independent Variables / OLS / Logitb / Ordered logitb
GSP/c / -0.0016*** / 0.98*** / 0.98***
W / -0.047*** / 0.53*** / 0.65***
WR (PSU) / 0.00275 / 1.03 / 0.996
(0.718) / (0.799) / (0.955)
WR×Land / 0.015*** / 1.28*** / 1.19***
(0.006) / (0.001)
Land acres×urban (×100) / -0.00086 / 0.62 / 0.81
(0.943) / (0.163) / (0.249)
Land acres×rural
(×100) / 0.036*** / 1.58*** / 1.28***
(0.008) / (0.0008)
Illiterate / 0.0081* / 1.02 / 1.02
(0.058) / (0.717) / (0.722)
Education, self / -0.0028*** / 0.95*** / 0.97***
Education, partner / -0.00022 / 1.00 / 0.998
(0.456) / (0.611) / (0.518)
Paid work / -0.0073** / 1.005 / 1.01
(0.016) / (0.899) / (0.712)
Other work / 0.0057 / 1.07 / 1.05***
(0.115) / (0.127) / (0.161)
Media Exposure / -0.014*** / 0.87*** / 0.90***
Religion: Ref. Hindu
Muslim / -0.015*** / 0.74*** / 0.85***
Sikh / 0.034*** / 1.43*** / 1.31***
Christian / -0.0067 / 0.73*** / 0.78***
(0.334) / (0.003) / (0.002)
Other / -0.0170 / 0.85 / 0.88
(0.268) / (0.195) / (0.162)
Scheduled caste / 0.0034 / 1.03 / 1.02
(0.263) / (0.541) / (0.491)
Scheduled tribe / -0.022*** / 0.72*** / 0.80***
Age (respondent) / -0.00034** / 0.989*** / 0.995***
(0.034)
Sons / 0.025*** / 1.37*** / 1.26***
Daughters / -0.015*** / 0.84*** / 0.87***
Sons, dead / 0.010*** / 1.11*** / 1.08***
Daughters, dead / -0.0027 / 0.99 / 0.98
(0.214) / (0.716) / (0.364)
Ideal-total / -0.0015** / 2.91*** / 2.25***
(0.023)
Ideal-total squared / 0.0015** / 0.91*** / 0.95***
(0.057)
Odd ideal / 0.18*** / 37.89*** / 13.51***
Region: Ref. East
North / 0.047*** / 1.79*** / 1.49***
West / 0.030*** / 1.36*** / 1.25***
South / -0.034*** / 0.43*** / 0.56***
Urban Residence / -0.0066* / 0.95 / 0.98**
(0.081) / (0.333) / (0.546)
Constant / 0.142*** / 0.026***
Constant 0-1 / 28***
Constant 1-2 / 390***
Regression Statistics
N / 77,886 / 77.886 / 77.886
F / 554 / 406 / 375
R-Squared / 0.18 / -- / --

Note: p-values (p>|z|) in parentheses below the coefficient estimate, omitted when p<.001.

a All standard errors corrected for group heteroskedacticity caused by the NFHS complex survey design. Strata are rural/urban areas of each state in each NFHS-sample. Household effects are ignored.

b Odd ratios reported; numbers <1 indicate negative relationships.

* p<0.1; ** p<0.05; *** p<0.01

Table S12 Comparison of OLS, logit, and ordered logit specifications: NFHS-3

Estimation methoda
Independent Variables / OLS / Logitb / Ordered logitb
GSP/c / -0.00028*** / 0.99*** / 0.996***
(0.003)
W / -0.026** / 0.65** / 0.76**
(0.032) / (0.022) / (0.044)
WR (PSU) / 0.0013 / 1.06 / 1.003
(0.870) / (0.654) / (0.973)
WR×Land / 0.013** / 1.20** / 1.18***
(0.014) / (0.028) / (0.007)
Land acres×urban ×100 / -0.042 / 0.66 / 0.68
(0.114) / (0.389) / (0.260)
Land acres×rural×100 / 0.033 / 1.31 / 1.31
(0.167) / (0.513) / (0.293)
Illiterate / -0.0020 / 0.95 / 0.95
(0.618) / (0.367) / (0.206)
Education, self / -0.0031*** / 0.95*** / 0.96***
Education, partner / -0.00062** / 0.99 / 0.994**
(0.037) / (0.263) / (0.048)
Paid work / -0.0027 / 0.97 / 0.99
(0.334) / (0.496) / (0.692)
Other work / 0.016*** / 1.19** / 1.15***
(0.001) / (0.01) / (0.004)
Media exposure / -0.0095*** / 0.89*** / 0.92***
(0.003) / (0.003)
Religion: Ref. Hindu
Muslim / -0.010*** / 0.75*** / 0.86***
(0.004)
Sikh / 0.033*** / 1.43*** / 1.36***
(0.004) / (0.002)
Christian / -0.025*** / 0.57*** / 0.63***
Other / -0.024*** / 0.90 / 0.86
(0.006) / (0.440) / (0.142)
Scheduled caste / 0.0023 / 1.05 / 1.05
(0.447) / (0.283) / (0.165)
Scheduled tribe / -0.0050 / 0.88* / 0.93
(0.313) / (0.077) / (0.142)
Age (respondent) / -0.000067 / 0.996 / 0.998
(0.67) / (0.105) / (0.255)
Sons / 0.022*** / 1.35*** / 1.24***
Daughters / -0.012*** / 0.84*** / 0.87***
Sons, dead / 0.0041* / 1.05 / 1.04
(0.054) / (0.106) / (0.103)
Daughters, dead / -0.000034 / 0.998 / 0.998
(0.989) / (0.963) / (0.916)
Ideal-total / -0.00089 / 2.57*** / 2.35***
(0.905)
Ideal-total squared / 0.000022 / 0.89*** / 0.95***
(0.982)
Odd ideal / 0.19*** / 42.4*** / 21.52***
Region: Ref. East
North / 0.0078** / 1.14** / 1.07*
(0.043) / (0.022) / (0.077)
West / 0.011*** / 1.24*** / 1.16***
(0.009) / (0.001)
South / -0.044*** / 0.40*** / 0.48***
Urban Residence / -0.0074** / 0.86 / 0.90**
(0.032) / (0.006) / (0.012)
Constant / 0.082*** / 0.011***
Constant 0-1 / 51***
Constant 1-2 / 954***
Regression Statistics
N / 83,785 / 83,785 / 83,785
F / 421 / 344 / 300
R-Squared / 0.17 / -- / --

Note: p-values (p>|z|) are in parentheses below the coefficient estimate, they are omitted when p<.001.

a All standard errors corrected for group heteroskedacticity caused by the NFHS complex survey design. Strata are rural/urban areas of each state in each NFHS-sample. Household effects are ignored.

b Odd ratios reported; numbers <1 indicate negative relationships.

* p<0.1; ** p<0.05; *** p<0.01

4. RANDOM EFFECTS LOGIT ESTIMATION WITH STATE DUMMIES.

The estimation treats household effects as random and state effects as fixed. Standard errors are not corrected for clustering at the PSU level. This is not the ideal multilevel procedure (multilevel logit estimation was not feasible for such a large data set and complex structure of the model given our computer resources at the time), but it gives us a good idea whether the multilevel results in the text suffer from a less than ideal distribution of the dependent variable.

Here the dependent variable is dichotomous, either the women declared preferring more sons or not. Results of the analysis are reported in Table S13. As above, results are reported in odd ratios so that the magnitude of effects can be easily compared. An estimated odds ratio below 1 is equivalent to a negative relationship while an odds ratio above 1 indicates a positive relationship. For  <1, the lower  greater the effect; the opposite is true for  >1, although the relative probabilities cannot directly be compared.

All variables of interest (wealth-related) get the same direction of effect and higher significance level. In wealthier households (in absolute terms), the odds of being son-preferring are found to be less than one half the odds of expressing no son preference, on average. The impact of absolute wealth in reducing the odds of son-preference is found much larger at the household level than for state wealth. The strength of the relationship increases by 4% when only land ownership is controlled for, it increases by 22% when relative wealth and land ownership are both in the estimation. The Akaike information criteria reveal the same pattern as the multilevel linear estimation.

Table S13. Son preference models: mixed-effects logit estimation for NFHS-2

Model
Independent variable / MW-1 / MWR-1 / MWR-2 / MWR-3
GSP/c / 0.984*** / 0.984*** / 0.985*** / 0.986***
W / 0.464*** / 0.443*** / 0.345*** / 0.375***
WR / 1.22*** / 1.03
(0.003) / (0.681)
WR×Land / 1.23***
(0.001)
Land acres × Urban (×100) / 1.0002 / 1.0002 / 1.0001
(0.351) / (0.377) / (0.789)
Land acres × Rural (×100) / 1.0006*** / 1.0005*** / 1.0005***
Illiterate / 0.969 / 0.972 / 0.977 / 0.982
(0.533) / (0.568) / (0.646) / (0.713)
Education, self / 0.956*** / 0.957*** / 0.958*** / 0.959***
Education, partner / 0.996 / 0.996 / 0.995 / 0.994*
(0.267) / (0.220) / (0.163) / (0.098)
Paid work / 0.956 / 0.962 / 0.967 / 0.969
(0.174) / (0.23) / (0.307) / (0.337)
Other work / 1.09** / 1.07* / 1.07* / 1.06
(0.030) / (0.059) / (0.077) / (0.134)
Media exposure / 0.944* / 0.945* / 0.943* / 0.939*
(0.082) / (0.089) / (0.076) / (0.057)
Religion: Ref. Hindu
Muslim / 0.814*** / 0.820*** / 0.821*** / 0.829
Sikh / 1.35*** / 1.35*** / 1.35*** / 1.33***
(0.004) / (0.004) / (0.005) / (0.007)
Christian / 0.649*** / 0.649*** / 0.648*** / 0.647***
Other / 0.959 / 0.958 / 0.962 / 0.965
(0.646) / (0.641) / (0.675) / (0.697)
Scheduled caste / 0.979 / 0.987 / 0.992 / 1.0015
(0.557) / (0.715) / (0.822) / (0.966)
Scheduled tribe / 0.767*** / 0.770*** / 0.764*** / 0.766***
Age (respondent) / 0.990*** / 0.990*** / 0.990*** / 0.990***
Sons / 1.41*** / 1.41*** / 1.41*** / 1.41***
Daughters / 0.826*** / 0.825*** / 0.825*** / 0.825***
Sons, dead / 1.13*** / 1.13*** / 1.13*** / 1.13***
Daughters, dead / 0.973 / 0.973 / 0.973 / 0.973*
(0.279) / (0.281) / (0.280) / (0.276)
Ideal-total / 2.98*** / 2.98*** / 2.98*** / 2.97***
Ideal-total squared / 0.911*** / 0.911*** / 0.911*** / 0.912***
Odd ideal / 60.2*** / 60.3*** / 60.4*** / 60.2***
Fixed Effects
Urban Residence / 0.859*** / 0.883*** / 0.906** / 0.940
(0.011) / (0.121)
Constant / 0.039*** / 0.038*** / 0.037*** / 0.037***
State effects omitted (25)
Random Component (log variance)
Household effect / 0.594** / 0.595** / 0.595** / 0.590**
(0.011) / (0.011) / (0.011) / (0.010)
Regression Statistics
LL / -25,318 / -25,308 / -25,303 / -25,297
Akaike Information Criterion / 50,735 / 50,718 / 50,711 / 50,701
N / 77886 / 77886 / 77886 / 77886

Note: Coefficients reported as odds ratios; p-values in parentheses (p>|z|), omitted when p<0.001.

*p<.10 ** p<.05 ***p<.01

5. EDUCATIONAL PREFERENCE MODEL

Following the last question on ideal family size, the NFHS-2 questionnaire included the following questions:

“In your opinion, how much education should be given to girls these days?” followed by

“In your opinion, how much education should be given to boys these days?”

Answers to these questions were used to construct an alternative dependant variable measuring educational bias. Table S14 presents the raw distribution of answers

Table S14 Raw distribution of answers on educational preferences

Frequency / Percent
Answer / Girls / Boys / Girls / Boys
No education / 830 / 163 / 0.99 / 0.19
Less than primary / 660 / 123 / 0.78 / 0.15
Primary / 4,264 / 741 / 5.06 / 0.88
Middle / 6,461 / 1,983 / 7.67 / 2.35
High school / 15,626 / 8,069 / 18.55 / 9.58
Higher secondary / 7,320 / 7,564 / 8.69 / 8.98
Graduate and above / 6,930 / 9,245 / 8.23 / 10.97
Professional degree / 3,605 / 6,425 / 4.28 / 7.63
As much as he/she desires / 29,601 / 39,194 / 35.13 / 46.52
Depends / 7,269 / 9,366 / 8.63 / 11.12
Don't know / 1,686 / 1,379 / 2 / 1.64
Total / 84,252 / 84,252 / 100 / 100

Answers were converted in approximate years of education (Y) up to Y=12 for higher secondary; Y=14 was used for anything above secondary. Answers “as much as he/she desired” were also given a value of 14. All answers that were exactly the same for boys and girls (including don’t knows and depends) were coded as 0 bias, other “Don’t know” and depends were dropped. The educational bias variable was calculated as

,

where subscript b is for boys and g is for girls. The variable is highly skewed toward more education for boys with less than 1% of the responses indicating higher education for girls (Figure S3). Mean and standard deviations of EduBias are respectively 0.09 and 0.18, the median and mode are zero.

Figure S3 Distribution of the educational biasvariable (NFHS-2)

Although correlation between EduBias and SP is not as high as one would wish for an alternative dependent variable (=.12), it is likely to capture a large part of the gender bias expressed in son preference. The model is run using the same linear multilevel method as for the SP model. Elasticities for the variables of interest are compared to SP elasticities in the article. Table S15 reports full results on coefficients and regression statistics.

Table S15 Multilevel linear estimation of stated educational bias: NFHS-2 sample

Model
Level, variables, statistics / MW-1 / MWR-1 / MWR-2 / MWR-3
State level:
GSP/c / -0.00184 / -0.00184 / -0.00181 / -0.00184
(prob.<|z|) / (0.012) / (0.012) / (0.013) / (0.011)
Household level:
W / -0.109 / -0.109 / -0.12 / -0.124
WR / 0.00758
(0.063)
WR×No land (×100) / 0.0149
(0.002)
WR×Land (×100) / 0.00643
(0.117)
Land acres × Urban / 0.0135 / 0.0135 / 0.0185
(0.253) / (0.253) / (0.121)
Land acres× Rural / -0.0029 / -0.0043 / -0.0011
(0.682) / (0.542) / (0.877)
Individual level
Illiterate / 0.0163 / 0.0163 / 0.0164 / 0.0163
Education, self / -0.00088 / -0.000875 / -0.000849 / -0.000881
(0.002) / (0.002) / (0.003) / (0.002)
Education, partner / -0.00227 / -0.00228 / -0.00229 / -0.00226
Paid work / 0.0079 / 0.00789 / 0.00802 / 0.00793
Other work / 0.0130 / 0.0131 / 0.0129 / 0.0133
Media exposure / -0.00795 / -0.00794 / -0.00805 / -0.00791
Religion: Ref. Hindu
Muslim / 0.0102 / 0.0102 / 0.0103 / 0.00993
Sikh / -0.00186 / -0.00186 / -0.00195 / -0.0013
(0.734) / (0.735) / (0.722) / (0.812)
Christian / -0.00867 / -0.00866 / -0.00864 / -0.00865
(0.027) / (0.028) / (0.028) / (0.028)
Other / -0.0157 / -0.0156 / -0.0155 / -0.0156
(0.001) / (0.001) / (0.001) / (0.001)
Scheduled caste / 0.0062 / 0.00618 / 0.00634 / 0.00597
(0.001) / (0.001) / (0.001) / (0.001)
Scheduled tribe / 0.00836 / 0.00834 / 0.00818 / 0.00809
(0.002) / (0.002) / (0.002) / (0.002)
Age (respondent) / -0.00028 / -0.000276 / -0.000274 / -0.000276
(0.001) / (0.002) / (0.002) / (0.002)
Sons / 0.00348 / 0.00348 / 0.00346 / 0.00347
Daughters / 0.00625 / 0.00625 / 0.00624 / 0.00624
Fixed Effects
Region (Ref. East)
North / 0.0537 / 0.0538 / 0.0542 / 0.0545
(0.001) / (0.001) / (0.001) / (0.001)
Central & West / 0.0755 / 0.0755 / 0.0755 / 0.0756
South / 0.0192 / 0.0193 / 0.0194 / 0.0192
(0.275) / (0.275) / (0.270) / (0.270)
Urban Residence / -0.0169 / -0.0172 / -0.0158 / -0.0173
Constant / 0.14 / 0.14 / 0.14 / 0.141
Random Components (Standard Deviations)
Level 1: State / 0.029*** / 0.029*** / 0.029*** / 0.029***
Level 2: PSU / 0.043*** / 0.043*** / 0.043*** / 0.043***
Level 3: Household / 0.071*** / 0.071*** / 0.071*** / 0.071***
Residual error / 0.141*** / 0.141*** / 0.141*** / 0.141***
Regression Statistics
Akaike Information Criterion / -60443 / -60440 / -60642 / -60448
Nested groups (unbalanced)
States
Local areas (PSUs)
Households / 26
3,127
65,123 / 26
3,127
65,123 / 26
3,127
65,123 / 26
3,127
65,123
N / 74,168 / 74,168 / 74,168 / 74,168

note: p-values in parentheses (p>|z|), omitted when p<.001.

*p<.1 ** p<.05 ***p<.01