The role of community social capital in the relationship between socioeconomic status and adolescent life satisfaction: mediating or moderating? Evidence from Czech data

Table 3 Interaction terms of the life satisfaction model

	Model 5a		Model 5b		Model 5c		Model 5d
	B	(S.E.)	B	(S.E.)	B	(S.E.)	B	(S.E.)
Fixed effects
Family affluence x structural social capital	0.003	(0.011)	-		-		-
Family affluence x cognitive social capital			−0.017	(0.022)	-		-
Perceived wealth x structural social capital					0.037	(0.025)	-
Perceived wealth x cognitive social capital							−0.204	(0.045)**
Random effects
Individual-level variance	2.813	(0.064)	2.813	(0.064)	2.811	(0.064)	2.799	(0.063)***
Class-level variance	0.048	(0.024)	0.047	(0.024)	0.047	(0.024)	0.046	(0.024)^n.s
School-level variance	0.005	(0.015)	0.005	(0.015)	0.005	(0.015)	0.007	(0.015)^n.s
Log likelihood	16112.8		16112.3		16110.6		16092.1
Δ Log likelihood (Δ df)	0.1 (1)		0.6 (1)		2.3 (1)		20.8 (1)
p	0.751		0.438		0.219		<.001

Figures inn parentheses represent standard errors
Model 4 was the control and reference model for Δ Log likelihood (Δ df) calculations of Model 5a - d
n.s. not significant
**p < 0,01, ***p < 0,001