| Literature DB >> 35619808 |
Chuanlin Ning1, Jing Wu2, Yijie Ye3, Nan Yang3, Huacheng Pei3, Hao Gao4.
Abstract
Background: The low fertility level has become a serious social problem in China. Previous research has argued the significant influence of media use and social trust on fertility intentions, but the interaction between the two variables and how they influence fertility intentions remain further investigation. This study explored the influence mechanism of media use on Chinese women's fertility intentions from the perspective of social trust.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese reproductive-aged women; fertility intentions; media use; social media; social trust
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35619808 PMCID: PMC9127136 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.882009
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1Hypothesized model.
Sociodemographic information of the samples.
|
|
|
|---|---|
| Age (year) | 36.493 ± 8.657 |
|
| |
| Uneducated | 152 (5.74) |
| Primary school | 466 (17.59) |
| Middle school | 743 (28.05) |
| High school/technical secondary school | 467 (17.63) |
| Junior college | 326 (12.31) |
| Bachelor's degree | 429 (16.19) |
| Master's degree and above | 66 (2.49) |
|
| |
| Owner-occupied | 801 (30.2) |
| Non-owner-occupied | 1,848 (69.8) |
| Fertility intentions | 1.851 ± 0.732 |
| Family income | 97,500.178 ± 146,573.099 |
| Social trust | 3.328 ± 1.043 |
| Social status | 4.311 ± 1.623 |
| Traditional media use | 2.148 ± 0.632 |
| New media use | 2.897 ± 1.104 |
Descriptive analysis.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Traditional media use | 2.148 | 0.632 |
| New media use | 2.897 | 1.104 |
| Social trust | 3.328 | 1.043 |
| Fertility intentions | 1.851 | 0.732 |
Differences in fertility intentions of reproductive-aged women from the different variables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education levels | Low ( | 1.90 ± 0.72 | 23.968 | 0.000** |
| High ( | 1.75 ± 0.74 | |||
| Family income | Low ( | 1.89 ± 0.72 | 17.401 | 0.000** |
| High ( | 1.77 ± 0.74 | |||
| Media use preference | New media ( | 1.82 ± 0.75 | 8.591 | 0.000** |
| Traditional media ( | 1.96 ± 0.69 | |||
| Housing situation | No preference ( | 1.83 ± 0.59 | 1.639 | 0.201 |
| Non-owner-occupied ( | 1.84 ± 0.70 | |||
| Owner-occupied ( | 1.88 ± 0.80 | |||
| Social status | Low ( | 1.80 ± 0.71 | 2.679 | 0.069 |
| Middle ( | 1.87 ± 0.73 | |||
| High ( | 1.93 ± 0.85 | |||
| Social trust | Low ( | 1.82 ± 0.77 | 1.803 | 0.165 |
| Middle ( | 1.81 ± 0.72 | |||
| High ( | 1.87 ± 0.72 |
**p < 0.01.
Bivariate correlation between the variables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Fertility intentions | 1 | |||||||
| 2. Education levels | −0.140** | 1 | ||||||
| 3. Family income | −0.088** | 0.526** | 1 | |||||
| 4.Social status | 0.046* | 0.275** | 0.353** | 1 | ||||
| 5. Housing situation (owner-occupied) | 0.025 | −0.02 | 0.087** | 0.066** | 1 | |||
| 6. Traditional media use | −0.03 | 0.341** | 0.262** | 0.198** | 0.054** | 1 | ||
| 7. New media use | −0.107** | 0.522** | 0.408** | 0.205** | −0.038* | 0.350** | 1 | |
| 8. Social trust | 0.040* | 0.075** | 0.035 | 0.076** | 0.01 | 0.044* | 0.008 | 1 |
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.
Results of hierarchical multiple regression analysis (n = 2,649).
|
|
| |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Constants | 2.028** | 0.080 | 25.26 | 0.000 | - | 1.930** | 0.097 | 19.91 | 0.000 | - |
| Education levels | −0.066** | 0.011 | −6.19 | 0.000 | −0.14 | −0.061** | 0.012 | −5.17 | 0.000 | −0.13 |
| Housing situation (owner-occupied) | 0.033 | 0.031 | 1.063 | 0.288 | 0.021 | 0.027 | 0.031 | 0.864 | 0.388 | 0.017 |
| Social status | 0.046** | 0.009 | 4.921 | 0.000 | 0.102 | 0.044** | 0.009 | 4.739 | 0.000 | 0.098 |
| Annual family income | −0.009* | 0.004 | −2.20 | 0.028 | −0.05 | −0.010 | 0.004 | −1.82 | 0.069 | −0.04 |
| Traditional media use | 0.025 | 0.024 | 1.026 | 0.305 | 0.022 | |||||
| New media use | −0.033* | 0.015 | −2.11 | 0.035 | −0.05 | |||||
| Social trust | 0.030* | 0.014 | 2.221 | 0.026 | 0.043 | |||||
| R2 | 0.029 | 0.033 | ||||||||
| Adjusted R2 | 0.028 | 0.031 | ||||||||
| F value | F (4.2644) = 20.057, | F (7.2641) = 12.952, | ||||||||
| ΔR2 | 0.029 | 0.004 | ||||||||
| ΔF value | F (4.2644) = 20.057, | F (3.2641) = 3.406, | ||||||||
Dependent variable: fertility intentions.
*p < 0.05 .
Results of mediating effect analysis (n = 2,649).
|
|
| |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Constant | 2.024** | 0.087 | 23.213 | 0 | - | 3.145** | 0.126 | 25.055 | 0 | - |
| Education levels | −0.059** | 0.012 | −5.029 | 0 | −0.125 | 0.057** | 0.017 | 3.351 | 0.001 | 0.084 |
| Housing situation | 0.027 | 0.031 | 0.876 | 0.381 | 0.017 | 0.013 | 0.044 | 0.299 | 0.765 | 0.006 |
| Social status | 0.046** | 0.009 | 4.876 | 0 | 0.101 | 0.041** | 0.013 | 3.062 | 0.002 | 0.064 |
| Annual family income | −0.008 | 0.004 | −1.848 | 0.065 | −0.044 | −0.005 | 0.006 | −0.76 | 0.447 | −0.018 |
| Traditional media use | 0.026 | 0.024 | 1.076 | 0.282 | 0.023 | 0.041 | 0.035 | 1.161 | 0.246 | 0.025 |
| New media use | −0.034* | 0.015 | −2.204 | 0.028 | −0.052 | −0.047* | 0.022 | −2.112 | 0.035 | −0.05 |
| Dependent variable | Fertility intentions | Social trust | ||||||||
| R2 | 0.031 | 0.011 | ||||||||
| Adjusted R2 | 0.029 | 0.009 | ||||||||
| F | F (6.2642) = 14.267, | F (6.2642) = 5.015, | ||||||||
*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01.
Results of mediating effects.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| c | Total effect | 0.026 | −0.034* |
| a | 0.041 | −0.047* | |
| b | 0.030* | 0.030* | |
| a*b | Mediating effect value | 0.001 | −0.001 |
| a*b | (Boot SE) | 0 | 0 |
| a*b | (z value) | 80.413 | −63.99 |
| a*b | ( | 0 | 0 |
| a*b | (95% BootCI) | −0.001 ~ 0.003 | −0.004 ~ 0.001 |
| c' | Direct mediating effect | 0.025 | −0.033* |
| Test result | Not significant | Partially mediated | |
| Effect account | 0 | 4.14% |
*p < 0.05.
Model 3: traditional media use-social trust-fertility intentions.
Model 4: new media use-social trust-fertility intentions.
Figure 2Final model.