Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Interaction terms of the life satisfaction model

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

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